Full text of "The Baptists examined, or, Common sense on baptism, close communion, and the Baptists : a dialogue between a Presbyterian and a Methodist"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

Princeton Theological Seminary Library

http://www.archive.org/details/baptistsexaminedOOpeat

THE

BAPTISTS EXAMINED;

OR,

Common Sense on Baptism, Close Communion,
and the Baptists.

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN

A PRESBYTERIAN AND A METHODIST.

J. B. PEAT.

' Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded." — Jesus.

FOURTH EDITION.

CHIC A GO :
KENNEY & SUMNER,

SUCCESSORS TO

CHURCH AND GOODMAN, PUBLISHERS.
1869.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S6S, by

J. B. PEAT,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Northern

District of Illinois.

TO THE READER.

"T?OR a proper understanding of the following Conversations,
it is necessary to state that they are a common sense inves-
tigation of Baptism, Close Communion, and the Baptists, by two
individuals, one of whom was formerly a Presbyterian, and the
other a Methodist. They are not myths. The Conversations
are nothing more nor less than a relation of the opinions and
experience of each, in a dialogue form. With three or four excep-
tions, every anecdote and incident in the book has been furnished
by those personally acquainted therewith.

Having learned the truth, our Presbyterian becomes its earnest
defender. To some, he may occasionally appear severe ; but he
is conscientious and sincere in his views. And as our Pedobap-
tist friends admit these to be a sufficient justification for an indi
vidual adopting what manner of baptism he sees proper, surely
they will judge the Presbyterian by the same rule, and allow him
the privilege of giving expression to his opinions in the way he
thinks best. We know he has a warm and charitable heart, let
his lips say what they may.

There are some peculiarities in modes of expression, and some
repetiiions of ideas and language, as is common in discussions of
this kind ; which the good sense of the candid reader will no
doubt make allowance for.

■

CONTENTS.

FIRST CONVERSATION.

Introductory.

How the Conversations commenced — Doubts on baptism —
How solved — The Conversations proposed 11

SECOND CONVERSATION.

In which the meaning of the word baptize, and the practice of the
Primitive Church are examined.

The investigation commenced — Common sense on the word
baptism — How the word was used — By the Greeks — By the
Apostles — By Jesus — A word in common use among the peo-
ple— No modes of baptism known — The lexicons — Pedobap-
tist testimony — The usage of the Primitive Church — Peter's
reply to the Pedobaptists — Different word used to designate
sprinkling — Passages of Scripture in contrast — Uniformity of
practice— King James's Bible — A Methodist's illustration —
The will of Jesus governs the mode of baptism 23

THIRD CONVERSATION.

The same subject continued.

What the lexicons, encyclopedias and scholars say — The
Greek Church — Reason given for changing the ordinance <A
baptism 36

FOURTH CONVERSATION.

John's Baptism.

The mode — Common sense — "What learned authors say of
it — The prepositions with and in — To, into, and out of— Pedo-
baptist invention — Illustrations — Quantity versus quality of
the water — A Presbyterian and Methodist's view — The asses

vi Contents.

and camels — A wag's illustration — Baptizing six millions —
John's Presbyterian canoe — John's commission — John's bap-
tism same as Christ's — Testimony — Who instituted bap-
tism?— The commission — Three dispensations and baptisms —
John's baptism Christian baptism— 'Nine reasons in proof. . . 48

FIFTH CONVERSATION.

The Baptism of Christ.

Scripture account of— In, and not at Jordan — A Presbyte-
rian's view — Illustration — Might have been — Purification —
The Priesthood — Paul's account — Law of Consecration — For
what Jesus was baptized — As the Head of His Church —
Our example — Emblematical of His Burial and Resurrec-
tion— Testimony of the Supper and Baptism — Paul's view —
The learned 65

SIXTH CONVERSATION.

The Baptism of Paul.

Bibie account — Conceded to be immersion — Authorities —
How far a Methodist sees — The fathers — Not water enough —
Who believe? — Why Paul baptized so few — Sprinkling
proved from Solomon's Songs — Paul's practice — How under-
stood by Pedobaptists — His reply to a Pedobaptist Church —
Eminent Pedobaptist testimony 77

SEVENTH CONVERSATION.

The Baptism of the Eunuch.

A plain case — Cries out immersion — Twisting the Scrip-
tures— Common sense on — Pedobaptists making Infidels —
Anecdote — The Eunuch's Presbyterian flowing robes — Pedo-
baptist inventions — Opinions of the learned — Queer mean-
ings— Summary of the ground examined 92

THE BAPTISMAL SCENE 103

BAPTISM A SYMBOL 107

EIGHTH CONVERSATION.

Infant Baptism.

Invented to save the children — First mode dipping — Bap-
tismal regeneration — Invention of Popery — The Methodists
on — The Congregationalists and Presbyterians — Baptizing

Contents, vii.

dying children — Anecdotes — Christ takes care of the child-
ren— A Presbj'terian comforter — Sealing the children — No
warrant for it in the Bible — Pedobaptist testimony Ill

NINTH CONVERSATION.

Irtfam Baptism — Concluded.

The Methodist's search after infant baptism in the Bible-
Example of Jesus — Baptists give all the children to Christ,
but Pedobaptists the baptized — Abuse of the Baptists — Bible
examples of household baptism — Circumcision — Seal of the
Covenant — What advantages have the baptized children over
the unbaptized ? — Diversity of opinions on — Seed corn — Dops
no good — A fearful evil — Sponsors — A frolicking Godfather—
What are its results— Persecutions — A Baptist light — Corrup-
tion of the Church by— A comparison— Its charm destroyed. . 127

TENTH CONVERSATION

SJiowing 'now Hie Ordinance of Baptism was changed and who

changed it.

Pedobaptists have changed it — Their admissions — Exam-
ples— Pedobaptists condemn themselves — Roman Catholic
admissions — First law authorizing sprinkling — When intro-
duced into the Church — Important Pedobaptist admissions —
Changed for expedience, and as a salvation — First example of
infant baptism — Novation — Cyprian — Changed for the sick —
Common sense — Pedobaptists first disturbers of the harmony
of the Church 14tf

ELEVENTH CONVERSATION.

On the right of changing the Ordinances.

Obedience the test of love — Algernon Sydney — Roman
Catholic assumptions — The right assumed — Mr. Beecher's
position — Bible teaching — Teachings of Anti-Christ — A
Roman Catholic reply — Experience — Agreement of Catholics
and Pedobaptists — Disposition to improve on God's plan —
The result of changing Christ's Ordinances 166

TWELFTH CONVERSATION.

Pedobaptists Opposition to Immersion.

The opposition— A combination— Declaration of opposition
to the Baptists — Co-workers — Great success of immersion -

vi Contents.

FIFTH CONVERSATION.

The Baptism of Christ.

SIXTH CONVERSATION.

The Baptism of Paul.

SEVENTH CONVERSATION.

The Baptism of the Eunuch.

THE BAPTISMAL SCENE 103

BAPTISM A SYMBOL 107

EIGHTH CONVERSATION.

Infant Baptism.

Invented to save the children — First mode dipping — Bap-
tismal regeneration — Invention of Popery — The Methodists
on — The Congregationalists and Presbyterians — Baptizing

Contents, vii.

dying children — Anecdotes — Christ takes care of the child-
ren— A Presbyterian comforter — Sealing the children — No
warrant for it in the Bible — Pedobaptist testimony Ill

NINTH CONVERSATION.

Infant Baptism — Concluded.

The Methodist's search after infant baptism in the Bible-
Example of Jesus — Baptists give all the children to Christ,
but Pedobaptists the baptized — Abuse of the Baptists — Bible
examples of household baptism — Circumcision — Seal of the
Covenant — What advantages have the baptized children over
the unbaptized? — Diversity of opinions on — Seed corn — Does
no good — A fearful evil — Sponsors — A frolicking Godfather—
What are its results— Persecutions— A Baptist light — Corrup-
tion of the Church by— A comparison— Its charm destroyed. . 127

TENTH CONVERSATION

Showing how tlie Ordinance of Baptism was changed and who

changed it.

ELEVENTH CONVERSATION.

On the right of changing the Ordinances.

TWELFTH CONVERSATION.

Pedobaptists Opposition to Immersion.

The opposition — A combination — Declaration of opposition
to the Baptists — Co-workers — Great success of immersion -

viii. Contents.

Prejudicing the public mind — Tricks of Pedobaptists — We've
got to go to the water — Examples of opposition — Presbyterian
logic equal to the Roman Catholic's — Divisions in families —
An outrage — Presbyterian intolerance — One cause of the
opposition — Lofty tumbling — The sliding scale 183

THIRTEENTH CONVERSATION.

The Baptists Examined.

Baptists of England — Who are Baptists — Methodist disci-
pline on baptism — Harping on baptism — Pedobaptists preach
more on baptism than the Baptists — Common cause of Pedo-
baptists against the Baptists — Pedobaptists cause of contro-
versy on baptism — The comparison — Dr. Fairchild's hon-
esty— A Baptist's reply — Preaching a full Gospel — Close
communion — The Lord's Supper in Heaven — A Pedobaptist's
dream — For what the Lord's Supper was instituted — Bap-
tized believers — Communion with Christ — Instituted for the
Church — A symbol — Judas — The example of Jesus — Subject
of communion turns on baptism, etc. — Pedobaptist testi-
mony— Pedobaptist belief — Regeneration and baptism before
communion — An incident — Close baptism — Methodist seekers
at the Lord's table — Methodists make it close communion —
Open communion worst kind of close communion — Loose
communion — Unchristianizing others — Rev. A. Barnes —
Feeling versus principle — Church independency — Baptist
Churches sovereign Democracies — Lord's Supper a Church
Ordinance — Presbyterian and Congregational views — Open
communion subverts Church order and discipline — Who the
judges of right to communion — Sincerity — Let a man exam-
ine himself— Eating and drinking unworthily 202

FOURTEENTH CONVERSATION.

The Baptists Examined — Continued.

What Pedobaptists ask of the Baptists— The Free Will— A
master stroke of policy — Pedobaptists' courtesy — A liberal
Christian gentleman — A liberal Christian Presbyterian —
Another specimen of liberal Christianity — A Congregational
Deacon communes in a Baptist Church — The table is the
Lord's — Pedobaptists think more of human institutions
than the Lord's Ordinance — Close communion separates dear
friends 239

Contents, ix.

FIFTEENTH CONVERSATION.

The Baptists Examined — Continued.

Christian union — Lord's Supper not a test of Christian
union — The cry for union — American Sunday School Union- —
The Cross and the sea-shell — Deacon Smith's girls — Two Bap-
tist Deacons — Union meetings — Slapping the Baptists — A
slap returned with interest — Rather lose his soul than join the
B.aptists — Feelings of a Pedobaptist and Methodist alike — The
Platform — Pedobaptists communing with each other — A. and
B., or following the Saviour — Inconsistency of Pedobaptists —
Feeding the children with a spoon — No such tiling as open
coniinv nion among Pedobaptists — Examples — A Presbyterian
law against Herefics — Congregationalists' love for the Bap-
tists— Examples — Anecdotes 251

SIXTEENTH CONVERSATION.

Tlie Baptists Examined — Continued.

The Presbyterian Church examined — Who compose the
Church — Young Christians and the ignorant to be kept from
the Lord's table — The Methodists — Rule of communion — A
Close Communion Church — Disseminating erroneous doc-
trines— Inveighing against the discipline — Neglect of duties —
Hedding on communion — Sticking to the rules — Love-feasts
and class- meetings —Mode of receiving members— General and
Annual Conferences — Who formed the Methodist E. Church —
A Church without constituents — Stationing Preachers — The
power of Preachers 267

SEVENTEENTH CONVERSATION.

Tlie Baptists Examined — Concluded.

Baptist principles — Baptist history — Baptist toleration —
Persecutions of the Baptists — Bancroft's testimony — Baptists
of ancient origin — Refuse support from the State — Persecu-
tion of in England — In New England — In Virginia — Baptists
of Sweden— What Baptists are doing — Baptist Colleges —
Home Mission Society — A frank confession 290

THE BAPTISM 311

x. Contents.

AN INDEPENDENT CHAPTER.

Searching for the Truth — A Practical Illustration — The
Mother anil Daughter — A New and Valuable Work — A
Vain Effort — Afraid of Hurting His Feelings — One Drop

— Take Down the Bar — A Fruitless Search — Non-essential

— Foot-prints — Father's all right on Baptism — What For —
That's Sufficient for Me — No Difference — How Can I — I
am Satisfied — Take Up Thy Cross — A Contrast — The Di-
vine Pattern — I Settled My Doubts — Obedience to God —
Follow Thou Me — Baptist Testimony — More than Thee —
To and Into — One Thing at a Time — We Think So — " Full
Disciples" — I Won't — A Baptist Bible — Only One Pas-
sage — I'll take the Genuine Coin — Another Fact — Impos-
ing on Common Sense — Show It in the Book 318

Fireside Conversations on JBaptism.

Fii\st Conversation.

Introductory*

ETH0DIST. "Good evening, brother

E * * *," was the friendly salutation of

Mr. C * * *, a neighbor, and a member of

the Methodist Episcopal Church, to Mr.

E., a member of the Presbyterian Church.

Presbyterian. Why, good evening, brother C,

I'm glad to see you. Walk in and take a seat.

Hope you have come to spend the evening with us.

M. I shall be glad to do so ; nay, I may say I

have come for that very purpose.

And then, taking seats, the two neighbors com-
menced a conversation on miscellaneous matters, in
which Mr. C. contrived to introduce the subject of
baptism. It was evident that he had been thinking
very seriously about it; and frankly acknowledged
that of late he had been troubled somewhat in his
mind on account of it. To which his Presbyterian
friend reolied :

12 Conversations on Baptism.

P. Well, brother C, you are not alone in that
matter. I find there are a great many troubled in
the same way. I have been myself.

M. I understand you have been examining the
subject ; and I should like to hear your opinions in
regard to it. So I have come to have a friendly
conversation with you, if it is agreeable.

P. Certainly it is agreeable, and I shall be happy
to give you my experience. Truth courts investi-
gation, but error shrinks from the light. What
is the cause of your difficulty ? j

M. Why, to come at once to the point, it puzzles
me sorely to know how immersion, pouring, and
sprinkling, can all be baptism. I have always ad-
mitted that immersion is baptism, because I found
it in the Bible. But how pouring and sprinkling
can be baptism, also, although I have been so taught
to believe, is what I can not understand.

P. Neither did I at one time understand how
immersion could be baptism. I heard so much from
our ministers in favor of sprinkling, and so very lit-
tle in favor of immersion, but much to condemn it,
that I concluded that sprinkling was baptism beyond
all doubt. But, as for immersion being baptism, it
seemed to me very questionable at best.

M. Well, that is strange. For my part, I never
could see how any one could doubt the truth of
immersion, who was willing to take the plain state-
ments of the Bible without the strange and curious
interpretations of men.

First Conversation, 13

P. To be frank, I took the teachings of men
for the Word of God. When I read the Bible, it
was more for the purpose of finding something to
sustain sprinkling and oppose immersion, than to
ascertain the truth.

M. That is too much the case with us all. We
form opinions independent of the Word of God,
and then try to make it sustain them. And thus we
make our opinions the test of the truth of the Scrip-
tures, instead of making the Bible the standard of
our faith and practice.

P. Yes, I frankly confess it. We talk, as Pro-
testants, of the Bible being our only rule of faith
and practice, and yet, some of us, governed by our
feelings, human wisdom, and expediency, allow these
to control our judgment, and condemn or approve
what they make wrong or right, without carefully
examining whether they accord with the Scriptures.
And yet a u Thus saith the Lord " is infinitely better
than all the theories and contrivances of human wis-
dom, however ingeniously devised and plausible in
appearance.

M. May I ask how you were led to investigate
more thoroughly the subject of baptism ? I have
always believed you firmly established in your views,
and not given to change; as one of the steady kind,
not tossed about by every wind of doctrine.

P. Thank you for your kind opinion. I always
prided myself on my stability of doctrine, and was
not disposed to look with a favorable eye on those

14 Conversations on Baptism,

who left our church, especially when they left on
account of baptism. Somehow I could not help
thinking " turn coat, turn coat;" if I did not say it.
I was particularly fond of quoting some of our favor-
ite expressions on such occasions, such as " indiffer-
ency," " non-essential," " baptism the answer of a
good conscience," etc.; although, I must acknow-
ledge, I was not very willing to let those satisfy their
consciences who thought it their duty to be im-
mersed ! But now to answer your question. You
know, as Methodists and Presbyterians, we hold that
sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, are all baptism,
and that these different and opposing modes were all
instituted by Christ, and practiced by the Apostles."

M. Stop a while, brother E. ; let me reflect.
"All instituted by Christ, and practiced by the Apos-
tles !" I'd like to see the proof. I've been looking
for it some time, but yet I can't find it ; though our
friends say it is so. It must be hard to find, or we
should have had it before now !

P. So would others like to see the proof. And
then we declare that that mode of baptism which
satisfies the conscience of the candidate is to him
baptism !

M. Yes, I know we do. There was Mr. Dusty,
a Congregationalist minister, who said it was no dif-
ference whether an individual were baptized with
water, sand, or mud; and one of the strangest
things of all was, a large portion of the audience
did not see he was imposing on their credulity.

First Conversation. 15

But, really, I have been at a loss to know how it
could be so, though believing it. Paul thought he
was doing God's service when he persecuted the
Christians, yet he was condemned by Him for doing
it. I may believe white is black, but that does not
make it so. Simply believing a thing never made
it a truth; neither can it make it right for us to
practice it.

P. Nor can our honesty or sincerity of belief
make a wrong right, or justify us in believing and
practicing an untruth. And it often occurred to me,
that as God instituted baptism, he must certainly
have instituted the mode. How could he institute
three modes so widely different as pouring, sprink-
ling, and immersion ? Christ, as the head of the
body, must have given his church an example of
baptism, requiring of all obedience to the same. It
was his exclusive prerogative to give doctrines and
ordinances to his church ; and no one has the right
to substitute new things for, or refuse to obey, what
he has commanded, or to repudiate his example.
To do this, is to impugn the Divine wisdom, and
make the opinions and notions of men superior to
the wisdom of God.

M. " Repudiators of Christ's example!" Are
you not a little severe, brother E. ?

P. Probably I am. But is it not the truth?
If Christ has given us an example of baptism, and
we will not follow it, what is it less than repu-
diation ?

1 6 Conversations on Baptism.

Again. It occurred to me that as Christ had
practiced and commanded, and as his disciples had
baptized, so would they baptize others. It appeared
strange and unnatural to suppose that after all this
the disciples would go and practice something else.

M. Your conclusions are very reasonable. No
■wonder your mind was disturbed in looking at the
subject in this common sense light. Strange I did
not think of that myself.

P. Thus was I led on, step by step, from Christ
and his disciples, unto the Apostle Paul. Here I
asked myself, "Was not his practice the same ? Was
there not uniformity of doctrine and practice among
all ? He taught the same things every where, in every
church. Certainly there must have been uniformity
among all the disciples, and in the primitive church,
on baptism. The Apostles would not be likely to
set aside the example and commandment of Christ,
and repudiate their own example, and introduce and
practice a variety of baptisms in the church.

M. How do you know, brother E., that the
Apostle Paul taught and practiced the same things
every where in every church?

P. Here is what he says : " I have sent unto you
Timotheus, who shall bring you into remembrance
of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every
where in every church." — 1 Cor. iv. 17. " Now I
praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all
things, and keep the ordinances a3 I delivered them
to you." — 1 Cor. xi. 2. See, also, Rom. vi. 17.

First Conversation. 17

Thus, you see, the Apostle was uniform in his teach-
ing and practice.

M. These passages are conclusive, and have
relieved my mind of a great difficulty.

P. To proceed. The question was then sug-
gested to my mind, why should John and the disci-
ples go to the trouble of going to a river, and select
a place for baptism, " because there was much water
there," and then take the candidates down into the
water, when, as we are taught, a few drops would
have answered the same purpose, and could have
been obtained anywhere? "Why should Philip take
the Eunuch down into the water, and Paul and the
Romans and Colossians be buried in baptism? To
sprinkle was certainly the easiest method ; and to
go away to Jordan and to Enon, and into the water,
to find water enough for that object, seemed alto-
gether unnecessary and uncalled for. There was in
it an apparent inconsistency — something that I could
not understand; and the morel looked at it, the
more I was surprised and confused. I tried to
account for it in the fanciful ways so common among
us, but still my mind was not satisfied.

M. For my part, I do not see how they can
satisfy any reasonable mind. Why, the idea of
going away to a river, and to a place because there is
much water there, and into the water, to get a few drops
to sprinkle on the head, is enough to make one
laugh outright !

P. It did seem very strange to me : and I soon

1 8 Conversations on Baptism,

discovered my ignorance on the subject of baptisrr.
I understood but very little about it. My know-
ledge was superficial, my opinions preconceived,
and based upon the teachings of others; and my
feelings were sectarian, and bitterly opposed to
immersion and immersionists. I had prejudged
and condemned the case, without examining the
testimony of the witnesses. As I have stated, I
talked loudly about non-essentials, the inconvenience
and even indelicacy of immersion, overlooking the
commandments of God, and the practice of the
Saviour and his Apostles.

M. That's the way with many of us. We charge
the Saviour with establishing a non-essential cere-
mon}r, and both him and his disciples, and the primi-
tive church with practicing an indelicate rite ! What
but an impure mind would ever think of indelicacy
in seeing the burial of a believer in baptism with
Christ?

[Here brother E. blushed, which, being noticed
by brother C, he apologized by saying: "Excuse
me, brother E., I meant no offence to you."]

P. ~No apology is needed, brother C. There is
too much truth in what you say ; and I can not but
feel ashamed when I think of my presumption in
calling that a non-essential and indelicate ordinance
which Jesus practiced and commanded; and which
the disciples, and so many eminently wise and pious
Christians did, " both men and women." But, I
must hasten. I had allowed John and the disciples

First Conversation. 19

to go to Jordan, and others to the water, but would
not let them go into the water, though the Bible
said they did. Why they should all seek the rivers
and the streams for baptism, never occurred to me.
The grand symbolical meaning of baptism, as seen
in the burial of a believer with Christ in the liquid
grave, never entered my mind.

M. I am astonished. Why, that is one of the
most impressive and beautiful features of immersion;
and though a believer in sprinkling, yet I must
admit that sprinkling, compared to immersion, in
this sense, is a meaningless ceremony!

P. Yes, I see it now. I found the same state
of things among my brethren. Their arguments,
if they are worthy of being called arguments, were,
like my own, all based on assumptions. But some
were more inconsistent than myself; for while they
admitted immersion to be baptism, they opposed it
with a bitterness that was surprising.

31. That is surprising. I can not understand
why some believers in immersion oppose it with so
much earnestness. They must admit it to be of
God, or they ought not to believe and practice it.
If it is not of God, it is of man ; and can not possi-
bly be baptism ; and thus they have no right to
immerse. Admitting immersion to be of God, their
opposition is really arrayed against him. One of
our ministers labored three hours to convince an
individual that immersion was not baptism, and then
went directly and immersed a candidate !

20 Conversations on Baptism.

P. What you have said is very true. And hence
baptism is not an indifferent matter. It was not as
indifferent a thing to be baptized as I had supposed.
There must have been a specific mode of baptism.
What that mode was, I resolved to ascertain as far
as I could, by giving the subject a thorough investi-
gation. My plan was this : — first, I took the Bible
and read carefully all that it said on baptism, and
then I got all the books I could find treating there-
on, noting down all I deemed important on the
subject, and deducing my own conclusions as I went
along. My mind had received such a Pedobaptist
bias, that I had not yet learned to trust the Word of
God alone. My prejudices were all against immer-
sion. Thus I went to work, digging, I may say,
after the truth: and no California miner was ever
more anxious and intent on finding gold, than I was
to discover the true meaning of baptism.

M. That was a very fair and impartial way of
investigation.

P. Not so very impartial after all ; for while I
only read one Baptist book, I examined a great
many Pedobaptist authorities.

M. [Laughing heartily.] Then, of course, you
came out of the investigation a thorough Pedo-
baptist.

P. You will see. But this much, however, I
will say now : all the authors I read, who wrote
previous to the present century, admitted immer-
sion to have been the primitive baptism. They all

First Conversation, 21

admitted that the ordinance had been changed ; and
that they only defended the change on the ground
of indifferency and expediency.

M. That is all new to me. I was not aware
that our friends have condemned themselves by
admitting that the ordinance of baptism has been
changed. How can they reconcile the practice of
sprinkling with the admission that immersion was
the primitive baptism ? How can they reconcile
the apparent contradiction between sprinkling,
pouring and immersion, and contend that they are
all baptism, and ordained of God ? This, as I told
you before, is what puzzles me.

P. Yes, and puzzles thousands more. I have
found in my investigation that there is nothing too
inconsistent for those to believe who cut loose from
the anchorage provided by God, and drift into the
open sea of human wisdom, policy, and expediency.
For instance, since that time I have seen the Arti-
cles of Faith of a Congregational Church, which
state that they " receive and apply the ordinance of
baptism as instituted by Christ, and practiced by the
Apostles" and then sprinkle, pour, and immerse:
thus telling the world, as plainly as language can
tell, that Christ instituted for baptism all these
opposing modes, and that the Apostles practiced
them. And to this absurdity they solemnly sub-
scribe.

M. Well, brother E., it is time for me to return
home. And now, suppose we devote a few evenings

Conversations on Baptism,

to a friendly investigation of the subject. I should
like very much to do so. The fact is, I want to be
satisfied in my own mind. If immersion is exclu-
sively baptism, I want to know it ; for as it now
appears to me, I can not see how sprinkling, pour-
ing, and immersion can all be baptism. There
must have been one mode established by God, and
practiced by Christ and his Apostles ; and what that
was, I want to know : for that, and that alone, must
be the rule for the government of the church.

P. I shall be glad to join with you. Let us,
like the Bereans, search the Scriptures, and see
what they teach first; and then we can examine
other authorities. So, if you will come on Monday
evening, we will commence our investigations. Let
us be as frank with each other as we have been to-
night; for frankness and sincerity become those
who are searching for the truth.

M. I shall be glad to do so. Say seven o'clock.

[So it was determined, and the two friends parted
for the night]

Second Conyei\sation.

In which the Meaning of the Word " Baptize" and the Practice
of the Primitive Church are examined.

ETHODIST. Good evening, brother E.
Presbyterian. Good evening, brother
C, [shaking him cordially by the hand.]
I am glad to see you punctual to the time
of meeting.

M. Really, I was so anxious to begin our inves-
tigation that I hardly knew how to wait till the hour
came. So, if you have no objection, let us com-
mence at once.

P. Well, let us do so. I would suggest, how-
ever, that we first see if we can determine the mean-
ing of the word baptize before we enter upon an
examination of the leading examples of baptism
mentioned in the Scriptures.

M. Yes, let us examine that first.

P. I suppose you are aware that the New Testa-
ment was written in Greek, which was the language
most generally understood in Judea, and the adja-
cent countries first visited by the Gospel. It was
the language of the common people, as well as the

24 Conversations on Baptism.

learned, and the sacred writers employed such words
as the people well understood. Baptize, a Greek
word, with an English termination, was a word
commonly used among the Greeks, as the word dip
is among the English now; and they knew its
precise meaning. When the Apostles wrote and
preached about baptism, the people knew what they
meant. When they told them to be baptized, they
knew they had to be immersed, for that alone was
the meaning of the word in common use among
them. It was a particular word, with a definite mean-
ing: just as the words immerse and dip are used now.
When we say, " Arise and be immersed" the people
know distinctly what we mean.

M. Yes, that seems reasonable. If the speakers
and writers knew the language of the people they
were addressing, they would certainly employ such
words as would convey their own meaning, and
which the people understood. An Englishman
would laugh at you if you were to talk of dipping by
sprinkling or pouring.

P. And so would the Greeks have laughed at
the Apostles if they had talked about baptizing by
sprinkling or pouring. When we say, " Mr. A. was
immersed," the people are at no loss to understand
the act performed. And so, when the Apostles said
" be baptized," and when Paul wrote to the Romans
and Colossians, "we are buried with him in bap-
tism," the people were at no loss to understand
their meaning. The Apostles knew no modes of

Second Conversation, 25

baptism: they never talk about modes. We do, to
accommodate our arguments to the people, because
different modes have been introduced into the
churches since their day ; but they knew and prac-
ticed nothing but immersion. And hence, says Paul,
there is " one baptism."

In all that is said of baptism in the Scriptures,
you find no reference to modes. The Apostles and
the whole church were a unit on this point. Be-
sides, in all church history, you never see a doubt
expressed about the validity of immersion. There
is no controversy about its being baptism : but to
sprinkling there has ever been a decided opposition.
While we have to admit that there are clear and
undoubted cases of immersion found in the New
Testament, not one case of sprinkling can we find
there, only by far-fetched inferences. Besides, as I
will show, it is agreed by all our writers, that
immersion was the general, if not the universal
practice of the primitive church ; as one has
expressed it, it was the general rule, and if there was
any sprinkling it was the exception.

M. But what of infant baptism ? Do you say
they did not sprinkle the children ?

P. Let infant baptism rest for the present. "We
will reach it before we finish our investigations.
So to return : the Greeks, who surely ought to under-
stand their own language the best, uniformly say
that baptize means to immerse, and never to sprinkle
or pour. The Greek Church has always practiced

26 Conversations on Baptism. m

immersion, and does so to this day. A learned
Greek, who wrote a book on the " Doctrine and
Spirit of the Greek Church," says:

"The distinguishing feature of the institution of
baptism is immersion, ' baptisma,' which can not be
omitted without destroying the spiritual meaning of
the sacrament; and without, at the same time,
contradicting the etymological sense of the word by
which it is designated.

" The Western Church has, therefore, gone astray
from the imitation of Jesus Christ ; she has frittered
away all the sublimity of the outward sign ; in fine,
she has perpetrated an abuse, both of words and of
ideas, in practicing baptism by sprinkling, the very
mention of which is a ridiculous contradiction. In
fact, the verb ' baptizo,' ' immergo,' has but one
meaning. It signifies literally and perpetually to plunge.
Baptism and immersion are therefore identical;
and to speak of baptism by sprinkling, is the same as
to speak of immersion by sprinkling, or any other like
contradiction in terms."

M. Well, I sffould like to hear some of our
scholars reply to this Greek writer. I suppose they
would tell us that he did not understand his own
language. It would be so much like them.

P. Now, if the Apostles were to write to our
churches, stating they had been baptized, how could
the churches understand their meaning? Would it
not puzzle them to find out whether the Apostles
were sprinkled, poured, or immersed? If Peter

Second Conversation, 27

were to call on Pedobaptists now to be baptized,
would there not be quite an anxiety to know what
he meant? "Which am I to do, Peter?" asks a
troubled inquirer. " Your language is so very
indefinite, I know not what you mean. Must I be
sprinkled, poured, or immersed ? As the case now
stands, I do not know which to do."

Then, if Peter should condescend to reply, would
he not say, " How can you suppose I would use a
word with no definite meaning ! I use one well
understood by all the people. It has one meaning,
and one meaning only, and that is immersion.
Arise, and be baptized !"

M. It does seem strange that the Apostles would,
use a word meaning every thing in general and
nothing in particular, as our friends say they have.

P. Very true. But how very different the case
would be with a Baptist congregation. They would
have no hesitation about Peter's language. Obedi-
ent to his call, the believing child of God would
arise and be immersed.

M. I have no doubt of that. They are always
ready to jump into the water.

P. Yes, more willing to go into the water than
some of us are to follow the Saviour. Again : If
baptize means to sprinkle, why did the Apostles use
a different word to express sprinkling ?

M. I was not aware that they employed a differ-
ent word. "What is it ?

P. When they talk and write about syrinkliny,

28 Conversations on Baptism,

they use a word (rantizo) conveying that particular
idea. They do not use the word baptizo. There is
no misunderstanding or controversy about it. It
means sprinkling alone. Why use (as we say they
have) the word baptize for sprinkling, a word with a
contrary meaning, when the}7 had a word that parti-
cularly and exclusively meant sprinkling? When
they tell us the people were baptized, if they were
sprinkled, why not employ the same word which
they use when talking about sprinkling at other
times ?

"Immerse, sprinkle, and pour, are three distinct
ideas, expressed by different words in all languages. No
man in his right mind would think of immersing an
object, and saying he sprinkled it; or of sprinkling
an object, and saying he immersed it. This remark
is as applicable to the Greek as to the English."

In the light of common sense we are logically
forced to the conclusion that the Apostles meant
nothing but immersion by baptize, or they would
have used a different word to express it.

M. There is certainly great force in what you
say.

P. To make it still more clear, I will here give
you a few passages of Scripture where baptize and
sprinkle occur. You can see at a glance the differ-
ence between them.

Second Conversation.

PASSAGES WHERE BAPTIZE AND
BAPTIZED OCCUR.

John did baptize (egeneto bap-
tizon) in the wilderness. — Mark
i.4.

Baptize (baptizo) you with
water. — Matt. iii. 11.

He that sent me to baptize
(baptizein). — John i. 33.

And were all baptized (ebap-
tizonto) of him in the river of
Jordan. — Mark i. 5.

Jesus was baptized (ebaptisthe)
of John in Jordan. — Mark i. 9.

He that believeth and is bap-
tized (baptistlieis) shall be saved.
— Mark xvi. 16.

And was baptized (ebaptistlie)
himself and all his. — Acts xvi. 33.

And he baptized (ebaptisen)
him. — Acts viii. 38.

And were all baptized (ebap-
tisanto) unto Moses in the cloud
and in the sea. — 1 Cor. x. 2.

Buried with him in baptism
(baptismati). — Col. ii. 12.

Baptizing (baptizontes) them
in the name of the Father, etc.
— Matt, xxviii. 19.

PASSAGES WHERE SPRINKLE,
SPRINKLED, AND SPRINKLING
OCCUR.

So shall he sprinkle (yazze)
many nations. — Is. Iii. 15.

Then will I sprinkle (zarakti)
clean water upon you. — Ezek.
xxxvi. 25.

Let Moses sprinkle it (zerako).
—Ex. ix. 8.

Having had our hearts sprink-
led (errantismenoi) from an evil
conscience, and our body washed
(leloumenoi) with pure water. —
Heb. x. 22.

And sprinkled (errantise) both
the book itself and all the people.
—Heb. ix. 19.

Sprinkled (errantise) likewise
with blood botli the tabernacle,
etc. — Heb. ix. 21.

Blood of bulls, etc., sprinkling
(rantizousa) the unclean. — Heb.
ix. 13.

To the blood of sprinkling
(rantismon). — Heb. xii. 24.

Sprinkling (rantismon) of the
blood of Jesus Christ. — 1 Pet. L 2.

30 Conversations on Baptism,

M. Why don't you give more illustrations of
sprinkling? You don't mean to say that these are
all you can find in the New Testament ?

P. That is just the question asked of a Baptist,
when preaching on baptism, by a Methodist. And
as the Baptist replied, so I say, "If you will furnish
the passages I will read them !"

These passages refer to sprinkling of blood alone.
The idea of sprinkling clear water upon persons or
things is not found within the lids of the Bible.
Neither is there any case in the New Testament in
which water was poured upon any person. Sprink-
ling is never used in allusion to the rite of baptism,
neither is the word that means to pour. Sprinkling
(rantismori) occurs but twice, Heb. xii. 24, and 1 Pet.
i. 2; both refer to sprinkling of blood; so does Heb.
x. 22.

Another word, procheusis (pouring), translated
sprinkling, occurs but once, and then refers to blood.
—Heb. xi. 28.

Sprinkling the blood of Christ, to take away " an
evil conscience," is the only sprinkling referred to
in the New Testament, after which the body is to
be washed in pure water. — Heb. x. 22.

Now let us see what meaning Jesus gives to the
word baptize, for he has, by his own baptism,
defined its meaning. Suppose baptize meant several
distinct modes, which I deny, would not Jesus have
been baptized in the way he intended that others
should be, and thus convey his meaning of baptism ?

Second Conversation, 31

M. Certainly he would. It is unreasonable to
suppose he would perform an act which was entirely
opposed to his intention.

P. Just so. And thus being himself immersed,
immersion was the expression of his understanding of
baptism. He had a divine meaning to show by
baptism, and that meaning found an infallible voice
in immersion. As pouring and sprinkling could
not convey it, he was neither sprinkled nor poured.

Thus has Jesus defined his own meaning of bap-
tism, by being himself immersed. That is the law
which he has given his church, and pouring and
sprinkling are violations of that law.

Can common sense believe that the Saviour would
be immersed, submit to a specific thing, and then
use a word to describe it that implied something
else ? Can common sense believe that he would
command his disciples to go and do that which he
had himself submitted to, and which they had done
under his own eye in the Jordan, in such words as
might imply something else? He knew what he
said, and he meant what he said. He had been
immersed, and he commanded immersion.

M. That is all very true; and so the Apostles
must have understood him.

P. Of course they did; and hence, it is not
reasonable to suppose that after Christ had given
them an example of baptism by being immersed, and
commanded them to go and baptize, in language
they all understood, that they would go and disre-

32 Conversations on Baptism.

gard his example, and violate his commands. Nor
is it reasonable to suppose, that after being im
mersed themselves, they would turn round, some to
immersing, some to pouring, some to sprinkling,
and still others to denouncing baptism as an unne-
cessary ordinance, according to the whims of the
people, as we do. No, my dear friend, we do them
great injustice by all such weak and vain supposi-
tions. I tell my servant to go and plow my field.
He knows what plowing means, for he has seen me
use the instrument. Can common sense suppose
that he would pass by the plow and take the harrow,
and then call it plowing?

M. No; common sense would prevent him from
doing such a foolish thing. But why did not King
James' translators translate the Greek word baptize
into English? If it means to sprinkle, or to pour,
why not thus translate it ? If I believed it meant to
sprinkle, I should have no hesitancy in saying so.
If I were to ask to be sprinkled, I certainly should
not use a word that misrht mean something else. It
appears very strange and suspicious.

P. Because they were prohibited by the King.
That is one of the words he would not allow them
to translate, for fear of disturbing the faith and
practice of the Church of England. And it is to be
feared that many, in order to keep their churches
from being disturbed now, oppose the translation of
the word.

Second Conversation, 33

M. Well, I wonder if that is not one reason why
they won't have a new translation of the Bible now!

One of our ministers, brother E., told his congre-
gation that baptize was & generic term, as ride. Now,
said he, a man may ride on horseback, in a wagon,
or in a carriage.

P. Yes, and on a rail, too ; yet you would rather
not see your son ride in that way. But suppose you
had but one way of riding, and you were to tell him
to ride to the village, what would he understand ?

M. Why, of course, that he should ride that
way.

P. Apply the illustration to baptism. The
Saviour had but one way of baptizing; and, as I
have said, when he commanded his disciples to go
and baptize, they knew what he meant.

I once heard a minister say that baptize was like
the verb to reap. " Why, brethren," said he, " we
can reap with a sickle, scythe, or reaper !"

M. As to that matter, he might have added a
jack-knife!

P. And very appropriately. But his illustration,
as applied to baptism, is all nonsense ; and his con-
clusion drawn from a wrong premise. Baptize is
not a generic, but a specific word. It means nothing
but immersion. But suppose you had but one way
of reaping, and knew but one way, and that was
sickling, you would not be likely to tell your son to
go and use a reaper. Such ministers assume for
granted what they ought first to prove. Let them

34 Conversations on Baptism.

first prove that Christ had and commanded several
modes of baptism, and that the Apostles practiced them
— let them prove that baptize is a generic and not a
specific word. Until they do this, they only show-
to the world their own ignorance, and common
sense rejects their illustrations as erroneous and
foolish.

Thus the word baptize means immersion, and
nothing else; and when the Bible speaks of baptism
it is in that sense. When the Saviour commanded
his disciples to " go into all the world," and preach
the Gospel and baptize, and to teach the people to
observe all things whatsoever he had commanded,
he knew what the word meant, and they went forth
with a definite understanding of what was required
of them, and uniformly taught and practiced in
obedience thereto.

Says a writer : " Positive precepts are always
definite, and enjoin the observance of certain out-
ward acts and ceremonies : under the Law, circum-
cision, the passover, and the numerous injunctions
of the Levitical code : under the Gospel, Baptism
and the Lord's Supper. Positive precepts prescribe
the mode of action, and any deviation from that
mode is an act of disobedience, and may nullify the
procedure. If in the purifying ceremony of the law,
wherein a bunch of hyssop was to be dipped in the
water, in order to sprinkle the unclean person, an-
other kind of shrub or tree had been used; and if,
instead of dipping it in the water they had poured

Second Conversation, 35

water upon it — the ceremony would have been null
and void, and the person would have remained
unclean. God had ordered hyssop to be used, and
he had ordered hyssop dipped in the water. Any
departure from this command vitiated the whole.

" So of baptism. If the Lord Jesus commanded
believers to be baptized, then the baptizing of
unbelievers, or of persons unable to believe, is not
Christian baptism. If baptism be immersion, then
sprinkling or pouring is not baptism. If baptism
be sprinkling or pouring, then immersion is not
baptism.

" The will of Jesus governs the matter. If he
said ' immersion,' then sprinkling is wrong, and
sprinkled persons are un baptized. If he said
* sprinkle,' then immersion is wrong, and immersed
persons are unbaptized."

But I see it will be impossible to finish this
subject to-night, so let us defer it for another con-
versation.

[To which the Methodist consented, and they
parted to renew the subject the next evening.]

Thip^d 1 ::;versation,

Same Subject Continued.

'HIS evening brother C. was early in attend-
ance, when Mr. E. soon commenced the
- :::>n by saying: ;* Well, brother
C, let us now resume the subject com-
menced last evening. "

ML Yes. let us do so. You have excited my
curiosity, and I am anxious to hear more about the
meaning of the word baptize ; and to see how you
can prove that immersion was the practice of the
primitive church.

P. To begin, then, I will now furnish you
lence from learned autho:

In the first place, thirty-two Greek lexicons and
lexicographers unite in saying that baptize means
to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and not one of them
to sprinkle.

-mne standard lexicons and encyclopaedias,
made by learned scholars of different denominations
in different countries and in different ages, and
covering the whole field of biblical literature, agree

Third Conversation. 37

in the testimony that baptize means to immerse, and
none of them pretend that it means to sprinkle or
pour.

Fifty-three eminent Pedobaptist scholars and
divines eive ^ ^he same meaning.

Everv one of the fourteen translations of the
Bible into the different lan^ua^es, made during I
first ei^ht centuries after Christ, either eive the
word baptize itself, or translate it by a word which
means to immerse, and never by one meaning to
sprinkle or to pour.*

M. That is undoubtedly very striking proof.

P. It is : and in the next place, the Oriental or
Greek Church, which now embraces Greece, B s-
sia, and other larsre regions of countrv, has alw.
held that immersion is the only perfect and Scrip-
tural baptism, and still holds it. They call the
Western Churches " sprinkled Christians."* The
Roman Catholic Church admits that immersion was
the primitive baptism; and only justifies the sub-
stitution of sprinkling on her assumed right to
change the ordinances, and make new ones for the
church.

Says Cardinal 'Wiseman, u We retain the name
of baptism, which means immersion. We cling to
names that have their rise in the fervor and glory
of the past : we are not easily driven from the
recollections which hang eveu upon syllable 3

* See Manual of Baptism, by Rev. G. 5. Bailey. P.P.. containing: more rich and
valuable material on the - I baptism, than any other work of so small a

lUe. The reader will do well to procure it.

38 Conversations on Baptism.

" The chief points of practice," says Archbishop
Kenrick, " on which changes have taken place in
the course of ages, are the manner of administering
baptism and the eucharist, as also penitential disci-
pline. The solemn mode of baptism was originally
by immersion. The church claims the right to
regulate, at her just discretion, whatever regards
the manner of administering the sacraments." —
Appleton's N. A. Cyclopaedia, article Roman Catholic
Church, p. 143.

Immersion is the rule of the Church of England.
Says the rubric : " And then naming it [the child]
after them [the sponsors], (if they chall certify him
that the child may well endure it,) he shall dip it in
the water warily and discreetl}7." It is then added:
"But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall
suffice to pour on it."

M. That reminds me of what John Wesley says
in his Journal, published by our Book Concern,
under dates of February 21 and May 5, 1736:

" Mary Welch," says he, " aged eleven days, was
baptized according to the custom of the first church,
and the rule of the Church of England, by im?ner-
sion. The child was ill then, but recovered from
that hour." " I was asked to baptize a child of
Mr. Parker's, second bailiff of Savannah; but Mrs.
Parker told me, 'Neither Mr. P. nor I will consent
to its being dipped.' I answered, ' If you certify-
that your child is weak, it will suffice (the rubric
says) to pour water upon it.' She replied, ' Nay,

Third Conversation, 39

the child is not weak, but I am resolved it shall not
be dipped.' This argument I could not confute;
so I went home, and the child was baptized by
another person !"

And not lon^ afterwards one Causton made a
complaint against Mr. Wesley, before the grand
jury of Savannah, Ga., charging him with having
" broken the laws of the realm^ contrary to the
peace of our sovereign lord the king, his crown and
dignity, by refusing to baptize Mr. Parker's child,
otherwise than by dipping, except the parents would
certify it was weak, and not able to bear it;" on
which charge Mr. Wesley was presented to the court
for trial, though twelve of the jury opposed the
presentment, considering him 'justified by the
rubric.'" — Wesley's Works, vol. iii., pp. 20, 24, 42.
New York: 1840.

P. Mr. Wesley was right according to the
rubric. And until the Reformation, both in Eng-
land and Scotland, infants were immersed.

Again : More than sixty celebrated Pedobaptists
declare immersion to have been the primitive bap-
tism. I will give you extracts from a few of the
most distinguished :

Luther, — " Baptism is a sign of death and resurrection. Being
moved by this reason, I would have those that are to be baptized,
to be wholly dipped into the water, as tlie word imports and the
mystery does signify."*

Speaking of baptism as a symbol of death and the resurrection

*lTom. II., p. 19.

40 Conversations on Baptism.

Luther says : " On this account I could wish that such as are to
be baptized, should be completely immersed into the water, according
to the meaning of the word and the signification of the ordinance,
as also, without doubt, it was instituted by Christ."

Calvin. — " The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse;
and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient
church."*

Again, on John iii. 23, and comments on Acts viii. 38 : " From
these words it may be inferred, that baptism was administered by
John and Christ, by plunging the whole body under water. Here
we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients ;
for they immersed the whole body in water."

Mosheim. — " Jesus himself established but two rites, which it is
not lawful either to change or to abrogate : viz., Baptism and the
Lord's Supper."!

" In this century (the first), baptism was administered in conve-
nient places, without the public assemblies; and by immersing the
candidates wholly in water. "\

In the second century " the candidates for it were immersed
wholly in water, with invocation of the sacred Trinity, according
to the Saviour's precept. "§

Neander. — " Baptism was originally administered by immer-
sion, and many of the comparisons of St. Paul allude to this form
of its administration. The immersion is a symbol of death, of
being buried with Christ ; the coming forth from the water is a
symbol of a resurrection with Christ, and both taken together
represent the second birth — the death of the old man and a resur-
rection to a new life."||

" In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with
the original institution, and the original symbol, performed, by

* Institutes of the Christian Eeligion. By John Calvin, vol. II., p. 491. Phil-
adelphia : Presbyterian Board of Publication.

t Institutes of Ecclesiastical History. By John Lawrence Von Mosheim, D.D.,
vol. I., p. 84, sec. 1. New York: Harper & Brothers.
% Ibid, p. 8T, sec. 8.
§ Ibid, p. 3T, sec. 13.

\ The History of the Christian Religion and Church. By Dr. Augustus Nean-
der; p. 197. Philadelphia: James Campbell & Co.

Third Conversation* 41

immersion, as a sign of entire immersion into the Holy Spirit, and
of being entirely penetrated by the same. — Gh. History, vol. i.,p. 110.
" On the original rite of baptism there can be no doubt what-
ever that in the primitive times the ceremony was performed by
immersion. * * * The practice of immersion, in the first
centuries, was, beyond all doubt, prevalent in the whole church.1''*

Knapp. — " Immersion is peculiarly agreeable to the institution
of Christ, and to the practice of the Apostolic Church, and so even
John baptized, and immersion remained common for a long time
after. It would have been better to have adhered generally to the
ancient practice, as even Luther and Calvin allowed."!

Storr and Flatt. — " The disciples of our Lord could under-
stand his command in no other manner than as enjoining immer-
sion; for the baptism of John, to which Jesus himself submitted,
and also the earlier baptism (John iv. 1) of the disciples of Jesus,
were performed by dipping the subject into cold water, as is evident
from the following passages : Matt. iii. 6 — ' Were baptized in Jor-
dan ;' v. 16 — ' Jesus ascended out of the water ;' John iii. 23 —
'Because there was much water there.' And that they actually
did understand it so, is proved partly by those passages of the New
Testament which evidently allude to immersion : Acts viii. 36, 39 ;
xvi. 12-15 ; Rom. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 12. * * * It is certainly to
be lamented that Luther was not able to accomplish his wish with
regard to the introduction of immersion in baptism. "^

Winer, Tholuck, Hahn, Augusti, and Jacobi say, " The
whole body was immersed in water."

Beza, the learned associate and colleague of Calvin, at Geneva,
says, " Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is
certain immersion is signified." * * * "To be baptized in
water signifies no other than to be immersed in water, which is
the external ceremony of baptism."

* See Neander's Letter to Rev. Wm. Judd. Judd's Review of Prof. Stuart, p. 194.

t Lectures on Christian Theology. By George Christian Knapp, D.D., Prof, of
Theology in the University of Halle. Translated by Leonard Woods, Jr., D. D.,
Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.

% Biblical Theology, translated from the works of Profs. Storr and Flatt. By S.
8. Schmucker, D. D., Prof, of Theology in the Theol. Seminary of the General
Synod of the Ev. Lutheran Church, Gettysburg, Penn., pp. 513-516.

42 Conversations on Baptism.

Melancthon, the companion of Luther — " Baptism is an entire
action, to wit : a dipping," etc.

Sherlock. — " Baptism, or our immersion into water, accord-
ing to the ancient rite of administering it, is a figure of our burial
with Christ, and of our conformity to his death, and so signifies
our dying to sin, and walking in newness of life."

Waddington. — " The ceremony of immersion, the oldest form
of baptism."

Dr. Rees. — "Baptism, in theology; formed from the Greek
baptizo, of bapto, I dip or plungv, ** rite or ceremony. * * *
In the primitive times this ceremony was performed by im-
mersion"

Greenfield, who declared that he was " not a Baptist, nor the
son of a Baptist," but who was a remarkable linguist, says : "The
term immerse, or what is equivalent to it, appears the only term
which can be properly employed as a translation of the Greek
word baptizo."

Jeremy Taylor. — " The custom of the ancient churches was
not sprinkling but immersion ; in pursuance of the sense of the
word (baptize) in the commandment, and the example of our
blessed Saviour."

Dr. DeWette, a learned author, and translator of the Bible
into German. — " They were baptized, immersed, submerged,. This
is the proper meaning of the frequentative from bapto, to immerse,
(John xiii. 26.) And so was the rite according to Romans vi. 3."

Dr. M. G. Bucener. — "In the first times persons to be
baptized were immersed, while at the present day they are only
sprinkled with water."

Dr. Bengel. — On " much water," John iii. 23 : " So the rite
of immersion demanded."

John D. Michaelis, Chancellor of the University of Gottingen.
" The external action which Christ commanded in baptism, was
immersion under water. This the word baptizo signifies; as every
one who knows the Greek will answer for. The baptism of the

Third Conversation. 43

Jews was performed by immersion; so also was the baptism of
John (John iii. 23 ;) and there is no doubt whatever that the first
Christians baptized in the same manner."

Says Curcellaeus, an eminent minister and a renowned
scholar, Professor of Divinity at Amsterdam, in the seventeenth
century : " Baptism was by ■plunging the whole body into water,
and not by sprinkling a few drops, as is now the practice. Nor
did t?ie disciples, that were sent out by Christ, administer baptism
afterward in any other way."

Dr. Anthon, the most extensive editor of classical literature in
America, and Professor of Greek in Columbia College, New York,
says : " The primary meaning of the word is to dip or immerse,
and its secondary meanings, if it ever had any, all refer in some
way or other to the same leading idea. Sprinkling, etc., are
entirely out of the question."

Dr. Chalmers, Presbyterian, on Rom. vi. 4: "The original
meaning of the word baptism is immersion ; and though we regard
it is as a point of indifterency whether the ordinance so named be
performed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that
the prevalent style of administration in the Apostles' days was by
an actual submerging of the whole body under water."

M. Stop, brother E., I can't help but interrupt
you here. I see you are quoting from Presbyterian
authors. Why, I heard the other day a Presbyte-
rian declare we couldn't find immersion in the Bible.

P. He must certainly have been very much in
the dark, for some of the ablest scholars among the
Presbyterians unequivocally declare immersion to
have been the primitive baptism. To proceed :

Dr. George Campbell, a celebrated Presbyterian divine of
Scotland, and President of Marischal College — " The word bapti-
zein, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to
plunge, to immerse. It is always construed suitably to this mean-
ing."— Notes on New Testament, Andover, vol. ii., p. 20.

44 Conversations on Baptism.

Dr. Macknight, twenty years Moderator of the Presbyterian
General Assembly of Scotland. — " In baptism the baptized person
is buried under water," etc. — On Epistles, vol. i., p. 259.

Rev. John Wesley, in a note on Romans vi. 4, " We are buried
with him," says, " Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing
by immersion."

Rev. Joseph Benson, in his commentary, adopts Mr. Wesley's
language as his own, and says : " ' Therefore, we are buried with
him.' Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immer-
sion."

Chambers' Cyclopgsdia. — " In the primitive times this cere-
mony (baptism) was performed by immersion, as it is to this day
in the Oriental churches, according to the original signification of
the word."

Baxter. — " It is commonly confessed by us of the Anabaptists,
as our commentators declare, that in the Apostolic times the bap-
tized were dipped over head in water."

Westminister Assembly op DrviNES, consisting of fifty
eminent ministers, in Annotations on Rom. vi. 4, " ' Buried with
him in baptism.' In this phrase the Apostle seemeth to allude to
the ancient manner of baptism, which was to dip the parties
baptized, and, as it were, bury them under water."

Prof. Stuart, of Andover Theological Seminary, " Bapto and
laptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into any thing liquid.
All lexicographers of any note are agreed on this." Again : " The
passages which refer to immersion are so numerous in the Fathers,
that it would take a little volume merely to recite them." * *
* "But enough. 'It is,' says Augusti, 'a thing made out,' viz.,
the ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers who
have thoroughly investigated the subject conclude. I know of no
one usage of ancient times which seems to me more clearly made
out. I can not see how it is possible for any candid man, who
examines the subject, to deny this." — Stuart on Baptism, pp. 51,
147, 149.

Third Conversation. 45

P. It is enough. The evidence is full and com-
plete. These are all Pedobaptist authors. Are you
satisfied ? I

M. You have presented a most formidable array
of authors, and they generally testify in a frank,
unequivocal manner. But are not some of these
learned men advocates of infant sprinkling? I had
supposed that Calvin at least was strongly in favor
of the sprinkling of infants. I can not understand
all this. If I had heard a Baptist talk as you do, I
should have thought he had garbled the statements
of these eminent divines, and done as some very
" liberal " Christians do when they quote the Scrip-
tures.

P. I think you will hardly suspect me of unfairly
representing these justly celebrated men; some of
whom the Christian world has just reason to be
proud.

M. No; I believe I should do you an injustice
if I entertained any such opinion. But I am bound
to believe that these men had some reasons for
adopting sprinkling, and practicing it in their public
ministrations.

P. The only reason they have ever given for
changing the primitive baptism, for they admit the
change, is, that it is a point of " indifferency " how
a person is baptized. Two learned Episcopalians
have the candor to say, " It must be a subject of
regret, that the general discontinuance of this original
form of baptism [immersion] — though perhaps neces-

46 Conversations on Baptism,

sary in our northern climates — has rendered obscure
to popular apprehension some very important pas-
sages of Scripture."

31. "Well, but Christ knew as much about our
"northern climates" as we'do now, when he com-
manded his disciples to go and baptize. That's no
reason for changing his ordinance.

P. Certainly not. If it is impossible, which I
deny, to immerse in northern climates, God requires
no impossibilities. Baptism is not essential to
salvation. But he does require that nothing else
shall be substituted for it.

Thus you see from the best authority that baptize
means to immerse, and that immersion was the
universal practice of the primitive church for nearly
three centuries; and, with the exception of clinic
baptisms, the uniform practice for over thirteen
hundred years.

M. The proof you have given is certainly com-
plete and overwhelming, and ought to convince
every unprejudiced mind of the truth of immersion.

P. It has certainly convinced me. Why, Mr.
Coleman himself, strong Pedobaptist as he is, has
to confess in his Ancient Christianity Exemplified,
"in the primitive Church, immediately subsequent to
the age of the Apostles, this [immersion] was unde-
niably the common mode of baptism. The utmost
that can be said of sprinkling in that early period is, that
it was, in case of necessity, permitted as an exception to a

Third Conversation, 47

general ride. This fact is so well established, that it
were needless to adduce authorities in proof of it."

31. "Well, if immersion was the general rule, or
common mode of baptism in the primitive church,
and if it is the utmost that can be said of sprinkling
in that early period, that in cases of necessity it was
permitted only as an exception; why should we be
required to abandon a certainty for an uncertainty?
to give up a general rule for an exception ?

P. A Pedobaptist's reply to your question would
be, because it is more convenient, not right! Thus
was immersion the practice of the primitive church.

[And thus concluded the Third Evening's Con-
versation.]

OURTH

ONYERSATION

John's Baptism.

ROMPTLY at the hour agreed upon, after
the usual friendly greetings, the two
neighbors entered upon the evening's
examination.
P. To follow the plan adopted in my investiga-
tion, brother C, let us now look at the leading
examples of baptism given in the New Testament.

M. That is the way I should like to proceed.
These great governing examples will be sufficient
for me, and must decide the question.

P. Let us first, then, examine John's baptism.
And now let us see what the Scriptures say about
the

mode of j-ohn's baptism.

This we learn was immersion, for he baptized in
the river of Jordan and in Enon. Read the pas-
sages :

" And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing
their sins." — Matt. iii. 6

Fourth Conversation. 49

" And were all baptized of him in the river of
Jordan, confessing their sins." — Mark i. 5.

"Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan." — Mark
i. 9.

" And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to
Salim, because there was much water there." — John
iii. 23.

Thus, you see, John baptized in Jordan, and in
Enon, " because there was much water there."
Much water is the specified object for baptizing in
Enon, and we may also say in the river of Jordan.
Says a learned author, at one time a Presbyterian,
" The use of the water is not left to conjecture. It
is specifically mentioned: it was for the very pur-
pose of baptism. If baptism had not been by
immersion, there can be no adequate cause alleged
for going to the river. Can sober judgment, can
candor, can common sense suppose, that if a hand-
ful of water would have sufficed for baptism, they
would have gone to the river? Many evasions have
been alleged to get rid of this argument, but it never
can be fairly answered." Says John Calvin, in
his comments on John iii. 23, and Acts viii. 38 :
" From these words it is lawful to conclude that
baptism was celebrated by John and Christ by the
submersion of the whole body" Says the learned
Michaelis, the " baptism of John was by immersion."

31. So I believe. The idea of going to a river
and to a place because there is much water , simply to

50 Conversations on Baptism.

get enough water to sprinkle, is inconsistent and
absurd.

P. It does seem strange and inconsistent that
John, Jesus, and his disciples, should seek a river
and a place of much water, merely to sprinkle.
And that they should go into the river, simply for the
same purpose, seems equally as strange. What Dr.
Doddridge says of the baptism of the Eunuch, is very
applicable here :. " It would be very unnatural to
suppose that they went down to the water merely
that Philip might take up a little water in his hand
to pour on the Eunuch."

Of Enon, say two learned expositors, one a Con-
gregationalist and the other a Lutheran (Dr. Dod-
dridge and Prof. Olshausen), " He [John] particu-
larly chose that place because there was a great
quantity of water there." " John baptized at Enon
because there was deep water there, convenient for
immersing."

M. Dr. Adam Clarke says, " That the baptism
of John was by plunging the body * * * seems
to appear from those things which are related of
him," * * * "to which that seems to be par-
allel, Acts viii. 38 — Philip and the Eunuch went
down into the water," etc.

P. Mr. Coleman, in his " Ancient Christianity
Exemplified," who has labored very hard to show
that sprinkling is right, makes the following admis-
sions, among others : " John and the .disciples of

Fourth Conversation. 51

Jesus baptized in Jordan." " The baptism of John
was by immersion."

M. But many of our friends contend that the
Greek word en means with.

P. I know they do. Let us look at it. There
is no doubt that the words with water ought to be
translated in water. With is a mistranslation of the
Greek preposition en. " This word means in and
not with, and is rendered by the preposition in, in
almost every case in which it occurs in the New
Testament. The instances in which this word
occurs suffice to prove what I say. The Greek
word en occurs nine times in this third chapter of
Matthew, and it is rendered in the English version
by the preposition in seven times, and the two
exceptions relate to baptism, and then it is rendered
'with.' Now either it is rendered wrongly seven
times or twice. A citation of the passages will
enable you to determine whether it is proper to
render them in each case by the term with or in.
' In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in
the wilderness/ v. 1 ; ' the voice of one crying in the
wilderness, v. 3; ' baptized of him in Jordan,' v. 5;
* think not to say within yourselves/ v. 9; 'whose
fan is in his hand,' v. 12; 'in whom I am well
pleased,' v. 17.

" Now I think it would certainly create a smile
were I to insist that the Greek word en should be
rendered with in each of the above passages, for, in
that case we should read, ' with those days,' ' with the

52 Conversations on Baptism,

wilderness,' 'baptized of him with Jordan,' etc. ;
and yet, I ask, why is it not just as proper to say,
' baptized with Jordan, as ' I baptize you with water,'
t he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,' when
the Greek proposition is en in each passage?
Evidently the proper translation is, ' I indeed bap-
tize you in water — he shall baptize you in the Holy
Ghost.' "

In Matthew's Gospel the word en occurs two
hundred and ninety times. Of these, it is translated
two hundred and twenty-two times by in, and ten
times by with.

Dr. George Campbell translated it " baptize in
water."

William Tyndale, the martyr, translated it, " I
baptize you in water, in token of repentance."

Dr. Lange, the celebrated Lutheran scholar of
Germany, whose notes have been recently translated
into English bv the distinguished Dr. Schaff, also
a Lutheran, makes the following comments on Mat-
thew, third chapter: "v. 6, 'And were baptized,
immersed, in the Jordan confessing their sins.'
Immersion was the usual mode of baptism and
symbol of repentance." " V. 11, ' I indeed baptize
you in (en) water (immersing you in the element of
water) unto repentance,' ' He shall baptize or
immerse you in the Holy Ghost and in fire.' He
will entirely immerse you in the Holy Ghost as
penitents, or if impenitent, he will overwhelm you
with the fire of judgment."

Fourth Conversation. 53

P. Suppose I were to tell you that some of the
citizens of Cincinnati had gone to the Ohio river to
be baptized, what would you naturally infer?

M. That they had gone to be immersed, of
course; for if they had wanted to be sprinkled, they
could have found any quantity of water in the city
for that purpose without going to the river.

P. They might have gone to the river, however,
without going into it, although the supposition would
be unfair. But if I were to tell you that the citi-
zens of Cincinnati went to the Ohio river to be
baptized, and were baptized in the river, you could
have no reasonable doubt of their immersion.

M. Certainly not. That would be a common
sense conclusion.

P. Equally plain is the account of John's bap-
tism. They went to be baptized in the river Jor-
dan. Baptize means to immerse, and that only.
So they went to be immersed : that was their object.
Then we are told they were baptized in the river.
Thus they went to the river, with the intention of
being immersed, and they were immersed according to
their intention. Yet some of our friends will have it
that they went to, and then into the river to be
sprinkled ! And a few will not allow them to go
into the river at all.

M. Yes, and invent a hyssop branch for John to
sprinkle them with. Why don't they use the branch
of hyssop for sprinkling now ?

P. Again : if I were to tell you that the Eev.

54 Conversations on Baptism.

Mr. A. was baptizing in, or at, a certain place, "be-
cause there was much water there," what would you
suppose governed his action in going there?

M. The " much water" of course. That is the
reason assigned. As much water is necessary for
immersion, and not for sprinkling, he went there to
immerse ; and as he was baptizing " because there
was much water there," common sense tells me he
was immersing.

P. Some of the opposers of immersion, how-
ever, have very fertile and fanciful imaginations.
They have " the inventive faculties strongly devel-
oped ;" and are " great" on curious contrivances
and denying the Scriptures. One of them says,
" Enon was not a place of much water." Another
says, " It was the quality and not the quantity [of
water] that determined John."

31. They both contradict the Bible. It says there
was much water there. It is the quantity, and not the
quality of the water, the text mentions. Why did
not the quality influence the disciples? The waters
of Jordan were good enough in quality for them. If
John preferred Enon to Jordan on account of the
quality of the water; how is it that Jesus, who
" made and baptized more disciples than John,"
should continue baptizing in Jordan f Did not Christ
and the disciples have as great a liking for pure
water as John ?

P. Certainly they had. And " if it were said
that a man had erected a ' merchant mill ' on a cer-

Fourth Conversation, 55

tain stream because there was much water there, most
persons would say that he wanted much water for
purposes of grinding." But some of our ministers
would say, " You totally misconceive the man's
object. He has built his mill on that stream, not
because he needs the water to turn his machinery;
but that those who ' encamp ' at the mill may have
water to drink, and perform their ' daily ablutions,'
and that their ' beasts ' may drink also !"

A Congregational writer says : " The water was
not necessary for baptizing, but for drinking, ordi-
nary washings, cooking — necessary not only for
men, but asses and camels."

M. [Indignantly.] That is enough of such non-
sense. They are determined to have it every way
but the way the Bible teaches. And then to think
of the " asses and camels!" He could not let the
text alone as it reads, without thrusting them in !
As if John had no other object in baptizing than to
select a place for the accommodation of the asses
and camels! It is astonishing how little common
sense some doctors of divinity have ! And they
think we know no better than that !

P. " I can prove to you," said a wag one day to
me, " that a man may baptize in a river, and not
baptize in water." " How so ?" I inquired. " Does
not the Bible say John baptized in the river Jordan V*
" Certainly." " Well, the Presbyterian author of
* Bible Baptism ' says, * The Bible never speaks of

56 Conversations on Baptism.

baptizing in water !' [P. 5.] So John must have
baptized in a river without water !"

I once thought the Baptists paraded the poorest
arguments and illustrations they could find in the
writings of our authors against us. But I find they
can do no better. They use the best we can furnish
them, and we have no reason to complain. I know,
says one, of a distinguished Presbyterian divine who
maintains that John sat in a canoe in the middle of
the river Jordan, and that, as the people waded in
from either bank, he scooped up a little water, and
poured it on their heads. I once heard a minister
preaching on John's baptism. He said that Pales-
tine contained six millions of inhabitants, and that
over three millions went to the Jordan to be bap-
tized ! And as it was impossible for John to immerse
them, he had them arrayed along the river bank, and
sent him along the front, dipping a branch of hys-
sop in the water, and then sprinkling the multitude^
Nicely done, was it not ? A fine theory, woven in
the loom of his imagination ; and it is almost a pity
to spoil it. But yet I could not help wondering
where he found the three millions, and the sprink-
ling in the Bible ; and how it could be said of Jesus
that " he made and baptized more disciples than
John !"

John baptized over three millions, says the Metho-
dist, and Jesus more than John, says the Bible; so
between them both, they baptized more disciples

Fourth Conversation. 57

than there were inhabitants in all the land of Pales-
tine, men, women, and children counted in !

31. How ridiculous : and yet it seems to be a
favorite illustration with some of our preachers.
But it is certain that all the inhabitants of Judea
were not baptized by John.

P. Yes ; the evident meaning of Matt. iii. 5, 6,
is, that people from all classes, and all places around,
came to John to be baptized.

That John's baptism was by immersion there can
be no doubt : that is evident from the meaning of
the word baptize. And when God sent John to
baptize, he sent him to immerse. " God gave him,"
says Matthew Henry, " both his mission and his
message, his credentials and his instructions." He
did not leave the mode discretionary with John. He
sent him to do a specific act, and employed a word
with a definite meaning. Can we suppose that God
would use a word with a varietv of meanings, leav-
ing it to John to conjecture how he was to baptize?
No ; and thus what God intended we see clearly
from the word he used, which Luther, Calvin, Beza,
and a host of learned men, say means to immerse.

Thus John, in obedience to the command of God,
and with a definite idea of the language employed,
baptized in the river of Jordan.

Now let me show you that John's baptism was the
same as that practiced by the disciples in the presence
of Christ, both in mode and object.

58 Conversations on Baptism,

M. I have no objection, though you have a hard
task before you.

P. Let us see. Tertullian, one of the Christian
fathers, who wrote in the Christian era 204, says:
"Neither is there any difference between them who
John dipped in Jordan, and those whom Peter dip-
ped in the Tiber." As Christ was baptized by John
in Jordan, it is not reasonable to suppose that he
would be immersed, and then authorize or counten-
ance sprinkling by his disciples. And then, as John
was baptizing in Enon, u because there was much
water there," and the disciples in Jordan at the same
time, under the authority of Jesus, it is not possible
that one party would be immersing, and the other
sprinkling. What one did, so did the other.

M. Are you certain that John and the disciples
were both baptizing at the same time? For if they
wTere, it is reasonable to suppose that the mode of
one must have been the mode of the other ; nay,
may I not say, that the object of one must have been
the object of the other. I should like to see the
proof.

P. I see you anticipate; but here is the proof :
" After these things came Jesus and his disciples into
the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them,
and baptized. And John was also baptizing in
Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water
there." John iii. 23.

M. I remember the passage now; but I never
saw it in the light you apply it before.

Fotirth Conversation. 59

P. Now what kind of baptism was this by Christ ?
If Christian baptism, as some say, was only institu-
ted after the resurrection, what can we call this bap-
tism? Was Christ under the legal dispensation?
If you say he baptized under the Christian dispen-
sation, so did John. If under the legal, you deny
the Scriptures. Both baptized at the same time.
"Was John baptizing in opposition to Christ, in a
different way, and with a different object? You
can not say that, or Christ would have condemned
instead of approved John : certainly he would have
done this, if John's practice and object had been in
opposition to his. How could there be two different
baptisms practiced at the same time? Or if you say
that the Saviour baptized in the same wa}> that John
did, and then instituted a different mode with a dif-
ferent object afterward, then were the mode and
object of John's baptism and his own alike wrong.
So in denying the mode and object of John's bap-
tism, you deny the mode and object of Christ's bap-
tism ; and have two opposing parties baptizing at
the same time in two different ways, and with dif-
ferent objects.

Mr. Coleman says : " The truth seems to be that
our Lord, on entering upon his ministry, permitted
the continuance of John's baptism as harmonizing
with his own designs. The import of the rite was
the same, whether administered by John himself or
the disciples of Jesus." And yet he affirms, with-

60 Conversations on Baptism.

out proof, that Christian baptism, so called, was not
instituted until after the resurrection !

31. I see no way of answering your arguments,
or avoiding your conclusions. John's and Christ's
baptism must have been the same in mode and object.
But how comes it, that some of our writers say that
Christian baptism was not instituted until after the
resurrection ?

P. On the same principle that they make other
curious and contradictory statements — without au-
thority from the Bible. Says one : " The legal
dispensation, * * * came to its close only in the
death and resurrection of the Saviour, after which
Christian baptism was instituted." Now see how
he contradicts Jesus, who says: " The law and the
prophets were until John; since that time the king-
dom of God is preached, and every man. presseth
into it." — Luke xvi. 16.

Christ never instituted baptism in the proper mean-
ing of that word. If he did, I should like to have
it pointed out in the Bible; for I can not find it
there. His baptism was the same as John's, at least
in mode. He commanded his disciples to go and bap-
tize, and to teach the people to observe all things
whatsoever he had commanded ; but there is not the
shadow of a warrant for saying that he then instituted
baptism. Instituted means established, appointed,
founded, enacted. These meanings are not found
in the commission. Baptism was instituted and
practiced by John and his disciples, before Christ

Fourth Conversation, 61

commanded the Apostles to go and baptize. When
he commanded them to go and baptize, he simply
ordered and directed them to continue doing what
had been done by Him — not to do a new thing, but
to do it more extensively. They were commanded
to go and baptize all nations, the Gentiles as well as
the Jews. He had baptized, and they must con-
tinue baptizing.

Dr. Theophilus C. Storr, Lutheran Professor of
Theology, in the University of Tubingen, says:
"When the Lord commanded that disciples should
be baptized (Alatt. xxviii. 19), the Apostles, through
those things which had gone before, could have
understood nothing else than that men should be
immersed in water ; nor did they, in truth, under-
stand any thing else but immersion, as is evident
from the testimony of the sacred writings."

M. Let me read the commission, brother E.
[Reads :]

" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz-
ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you." —
Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.

It must be as you say. I see no authority for a
new ordinance in that.

P. Certainly not; and if Christ had instituted a
new ordinance, with a different meaning, after his
resurrection, we should certainly have had some
record of it. Can common sense believe that our

62 Conversations on Baptism.

Lord would institute another ordinance, and the
sacred writers say nothing about it — that they
would have remained silent about such an important
fact ? Thus it is self-evident that he did not insti-
tute a new ordinance : and when he commanded his
disciples to go and baptize, it was simply that they
were to go and continue doing that which they had
been doing before under his authority. They knew
what he meant by baptizing. He had defined his
meaning of baptism, by being himself immersed.

Again : If Christ instituted a new ordinance, the
old one must have been imperfect. Thus you
charge him with using an imperfect ordinance. The
baptism by Christ's disciples, you must say, was
either right or wrong, lawful or unlawful. If right,
why institute another ? If wrong, you charge the
Saviour with unlawful things.

According to our friends, the Pedobaptists, there
were three different dispensations and kinds of
baptisms.

1. John's, sanctioned by Christ.

2. The disciples', under the authority of Christ.

3. That instituted by Christ after his resurrection.
Thus you see how ridiculous we make ourselves

in order to destroy the force of John's baptism, and
to foist pouring and sprinkling on the people, con-
trary to the common sense teachings of the Scrip-
tures. Why, John Calvin was compelled to say :
" It is very certain that the ministry of John was
precisely the same as committed to the Apostles.

Fourth Conversation, 63

For their baptism was not different, though it was
administered by different hands; but the sameness
of their doctrine shows their baptism to have been
the same."

M. I must concede this point also. I see no
authority for saving that Christian baptism was
instituted by our Lord after his resurrection.
Strange how we get notions into our heads without
having a " Thus saith the Lord" for them !

P. Yes, very strange. Surely, if Jesus did insti-
tute a new ordinance of baptism after his resurrec-
tion, it would be easy to prove it. Let our friends
give us the proof, and not depend on bare asser-
tions. They say he was immersed, and authorized
immersion by his disciples; now let them show us
that he instituted a new ordinance with a different
mode of administration. Give us the proof.

I will now, in conclusion, give you a brief sum-
mary of proof from the Scriptures, that John's bap-
tism was Christian baptism.

1. John's baptism was ordained by God. John
i. 33.

2. God sent John to baptize. John i. 6, 33.

3. The ministry of John was the beginning of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mark i. 1.

4. The law and the prophets, or the old dispensa-
tion, ended at the coming of John. Then the kin£-
dom of God, the new dispensation, was preached.
Luke xvi. 16; Matt. xi. 13.

64 Conversations on JBaptism.

5. Christ approved and sanctioned John's bap-
tism, and was baptized of him in Jordan. Matt,
xi. 11.

6. John and Christ baptized at the same time.
John iii. 23.

7. John preached repentance, warned the people
to flee from the wrath to come, and taught them to
believe on Christ. Acts xix. 4.

8. The Gospel kingdom commenced with the
preaching of John. Luke xvi. 16 ; Matt. xi. 12, 13.

9. John was filled with the Holy Ghost. Luke
i. 15.

Can any testimony be clearer and more conclu-
sive ? If John's baptism was not Christian baptism,
what is it ? If he did not preach the Gospel, pray
who does?

M. It is certainly a strong and formidable array
of proof, incontrovertible and conclusive to my
mind. For as John was sent by God, being filled
with the Holy Ghost; and as his ministry was the
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and as he
baptized Jesus, and preached repentance and faith
in him ; — it must have been a strange kind of bap-
tism if it was not Gospel baptism !

Fifth Conyef^sation.

The Baptism of Christ

'EING the subject for this evening's Con-
versation, Mr. E. commenced by saying :
" Let us now look, brother C, at the his-
tory o'f the baptism of Christ. Having
proved that the mode of John's baptism was immer-
sion, of course Jesus was immersed."

Methodist. Yes; but there are some things
connected with Christ's baptism that I do not fully
understand. So I had rather you would examine
the whole narrative, if you have to introduce the
mode of his baptism.

P. It will afford me pleasure; for there is some-
thing beautiful and impressive in the narrative as
recorded by the Evangelists. Let us read the Scrip-
tures. " Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
unto John to be baptized of him. But John forbade
him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and
comest thou to me ? And Jesus, answering, said
unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it be-

66 Conversations on Baptism,

cometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he
suffered him. — Matt. iii. 13. [Thus] Jesus came
from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John
in Jordan. — Mark i. 9. And Jesus, when he was
baptized, went up straightway out of the water. — Matt,
iii. 16. And, straightway coming up out of the water
[Mark i. 10], and praying, the heaven was opened,
and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like
a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven,
which said, Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee I
am well pleased. And Jesus himself began to be
about thirty years of age." — Luke iii. 21-23.

Here you will observe, 1. That Matthew says
Jesus went from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized
by John : and Mark says, he was baptized in Jor-
dan. 2. Matthew says that Jesus when he was
baptized went up straightway out of the water : and
Mark, straightway coming up out of the water, etc.

Can language be plainer? Can the narrative be
made more simple, clear, or more readily under-
stood ? Can an action be more definitely expressed ?
Need there be any reasonable doubts on the subject?
Jesus first goes to Jordan, then goes into Jordan
and is baptized, and then straightway comes up out of
the water: or, as Dr. Doddridge, the Congregational
expositor, says : " ascended out of the water to the
banks of Jordan."

M. But, you know, some of our friends say that
it means at, and not in, Jordan.

P. Yes; and for many a year they misled me

Fifth Conversation. 67

with this worse than a quibble, for it contradicts the
Scriptures. Suppose a neighbor of ours, knowing
the object you had in coming to my house this
evening, was to say to another neighbor: "Mr. C.
went to the house of Mr. E. last night to investigate
the subject of baptism;" would not common sense
infer justly that you came into the house? Your
object governed your action. You came to investi-
gate, and you came into my house. But you might
not have come in after all. You might have stood
hour after hour conversing with me at the gate;
and I might have carried out the lamp and the many
books we have been examining ! But there is no
such probability about Christ's example. He went
to be baptized, which means immersion. He went
to Jordan, went into Jordan, and came up out of the
waters of Jordan. His object was immersion, or he
would not have gone to Jordan ; and his action was
immersion, or he would not have gone into Jordan.
His object determined his action.

M. Yes, that is clear. These "might have
beens" are great arguments with the opposers of
immersion. They seem to prefer them to a " Thus
saith the Lord." It appears strange that some will
apply common sense to every thing else but to this,
a scriptural and common sense view of the baptism
of Christ. Thus far we agree on the mode of Christ's
baptism. But was not his baptism purification and
consecration for the priesthood ? Did he not come

68 Conversations on Baptism,

to fulfill all righteousness; and was not this required
of a priest ?

P. Certainly not. " Purify," says Webster, " is
to cleanse from pollution ceremonially." What
pollution had Christ to be cleansed of by John?
He was free from sin, pure and holy. To say that
he was purified, is to declare he was polluted — a
sinner. And to say that the office of John was a
purifier, is to say that he cleansed from sin. Again:
if baptism was purification, then you make baptism
a saving ordinance. So that insuperable objections
stand in the way of the notion that Jesus was puri-
fied, and that John's baptism was purification.

Again : if you say that baptism was only figura-
tive or emblematical of the purification of the soul
Dy the blood of Christ, from sin, then, I ask you,
how could the emblem apply to Christ ? He was
not guilty of the thing signified — he had no sins to
wash away.

M. Yes, I believe all that. Christ had no sins
to be purified from — he was not a sinner. But
could not purification refer literally to the body ?

P. No, not in this case. If John's baptism was
the purification of the body, why did he require
repentance and faith ? These have to do with the
mind. Again : if it was spiritual or emblematical
purification, how could it, as seen above, apply to
Christ? And, lastly, if to purify is to cleanse from
pollution, then was the baptism of John a purifica-
tion from moral defilement, a saving ordinance. If

Fifth Conversation. 69

you say it was "legal or ceremonial mi cleanness,
which disqualified a person for sacred services or
for common intercourse with the people," then, I
ask you, how it could apply to Christ, for be was
without spot or blemish?

But, you ask, was not Christ consecrated for a
priest, and at baptism inducted into the priesthood?
To this again I answer no.

M. You are very positive. Where is your proof?
I hear our preachers talk so much about it, surely
there must be something in it?

P. Well, have you not heard them talk as much
about sprinkling being baptism ? and you see how
much truth there is in that. But here is the proof.
Are you not aware that the priesthood was confined
to the tribe of Levi; and that the laws of Moses
concerning the priesthood had exclusive reference
to that tribe?

M. No ; I was not aware of that.

P. But so it is: and Christ not being of the tribe
of Levi, forever settles the fact that he was not bap-
tized into the priesthood. Paul says : " It is evident
that our Lord sprang* out of Judah ; of which tribe
Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood." —
Heb. vii. 14.

31. That settles the fact. I can't go behind these
emphatic words.

P. Again: the order of the priesthood was
changed. Christ was a priest after the order of Mel-
chizedek, and not after the order of Levi, which you

70 Conversations on Baptism.

can see by reading Hebrews vii. 11. Now if you can
point out in the Bible that Melchizedek was a Levit-
ical priest, and was purified by baptism into the
priestly office, you will do more than all Biblical
scholars have ever done!

The law of consecration for the priesthood you
will find in Exodus, 29th chapter, and Leviticus, 8th
chapter, as given by Moses. Please turn and read.
[Reads.] Thus, you see, there is not a shadow of evi-
dence that Christ complied with this law of conse-
cration at baptism. If it had been applicable to him,
he would certainly have fulfilled it, for he came to
fulfill the law. Besides, he never claimed to be, and
never pretended to exercise the functions of a priest.

The baptism of the Saviour did not take place
under the law. There was no command of the kind
in the law. It was an institution founded b}7 John
the Baptist, or rather by him who " sent him to bap-
tize," and had nothing in common with the ordinan-
ces enjoined by Moses. The state of things then
existing was altogether peculiar, in a religious point
of view. John was acting under the authority of a
special commission. He was the "messenger" of
Jehovah, the "prophet" of the Highest, sent "in
the spirit and power of Elias." Mai. iii. 1; iv. 5;
Luke i. 17. Our Lord recognized and honored his
mission, and in yielding to be baptized by him,
though he had no sins to confess, exemplified that
perfect holiness which was necessary to the comple-
tion of his own work. Obedience to John's baptism

Fifth Conversation. 71

was at that time a test of character ; had the Saviour
neglected it, he could not have affirmed that he " did
always the things which pleased " his Heavenly
Father. He obeyed — "and lo, the heavens were
opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God
descending like a dove, saying, ' This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased.' " Matt. iii. 16, 17.

M. From reading the law of consecration, and
the narrative of Christ's baptism, I see no way of
avoiding your conclusion,

P. Nor can any one who fairly examines the
Scriptures. But if Christ had been desirous of offi-
ciating as a priest, he would not have chosen John
to induct him into the priest's office. We have not
the slightest proof that John was ever consecrated himself
to that work. So you see all Scripture is against you.

M. So I see. And here I have been misled by
the teachings of our preachers again. I have heard
them talk so much about Jesus being consecrated
for the priesthood, that I have taken their word for
it, without examining the Scriptures. After this I
will try and read the Word of God more; and
depend less on the teachings of men.

P. That's a good resolution ; one that I wish I
had practiced more myself.

M. But what do you say Christ was baptized
for? It was certainly not for the priesthood, nor for
repentance; for "being free from sin, he could not
repent ; and he needed no forgiveness, regeneration,
or newness of life."

72 Conversations on Baptism.

P. There are various opinions with regard to it;
but I will answer your question for myself, as far as
I can. After the most thorough investigation of the
subject I have been able to make, I have arrived at
the following conclusions:

1. Christ's baptism was, as he tells us, " to fulfill
all righteousness," or a righteous obligation and
requirement. Baptism was an ordinance appoii.ted
by God for the new, or Christian, dispensation.
Hence the ministry of John, who " was filled with
the Holy Ghost," was " the beginning of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Mark i. 1. John
had a divine and special warrant from heaven to bap-
tize, for he was sent by God. Christ knowing all
this, he, to show his obedience to the divine require-
ment, came to John to be baptized of him in Jordan.
John felt his inferiority to Christ, and that he needed
to be baptized by him, instead of baptizing the
Master, and hesitated to comply. Then Jesus replied :
" Suffer it to be so now ; for thus it beoometh us to
fulfill all righteousness." And he baptized Him.
Thus was the law of baptism fulfilled by Christ.

2. Baptism, we have stated, was instituted for the
church of Christ — a new ordinance for a new dis-
pensation. Now, as baptism was required of the
Head, so it is of the body, the church. And as
Jesus, the Head, was baptized, so must the church,
his body, be baptized. And thus the Head and the
body are alike buried in baptism.

3. Christ was baptized as our example, or as an

Fifth Conversation. 73

example of obedience to the command of God; and
thus has become our pattern in baptism. Thus, says
an eminent Presbyterian commentator, (Dr. Scott,)
" We never find that Jesus spake of himself in the
plural number; and it must therefore be allowed
that he meant John also, and all the servants of God
in a subordinate sense. It became Christ as our
surety and example to perfectly fulfill all righteous-
ness; it becomes us to walk in all the command-
ments and ordinances of God, without exception,
and to attend on every divine institution, as long as
it continues in force. Thus far Christ's example is
obligatory."

" The pattern of Christ and his Apostles," says
Mr. Polhill, " is more to me than all the human
wisdom in the world."

M. So it should be to every Christian. If we
love Ilim, we shall keep his commandments.

P. Yes; and thus it becometh us to fulfill all
that our Saviour requires of us. He has said, " fol-
low me." Why follow the devices of men ? He is
our great Captain and Leader — our divine Exemp-
lar: and here he has given us an impressive and
beautiful example to follow — an example of bap-
tism. He was immersed, and that is what he meant
by baptism ; and he requires that we be immersed.
The act which he performed is the same that he
demands of us. We need not hesitate about mode,
for we see what that was by his example. And then,
it is a distinguished privilege, and a great honor, to

74 Conversations on Baptism.

be "buried with him in baptism ;" and should prompt
us to gratitude and obedience. Certainly no such
consolation and approval of conscience can arise
from being sprinkled. No wonder the Baptists can
rejoice at their baptism, and sing,

" "With willing hearts we tread
The path the Saviour trod ;
"We love the example of our Head,
The glorious Lamb of God !"

It is for you and me, my brother, to be obedient
to his commandment, and follow Him as our exam-
ple of baptism.

" Thou hast said, exalted Jesus,
Take thy cross and follow me :
Shall the word with terror seize us ?
Shall we from the burden flee ?

Lord, 111 take it,
And rejoicing follow thee !"

4. The baptism of our Lord was, also, emblemati-
cal of his burial and resurrection. So the Apostle
Paul understood it. To the Romans he says :
" 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. For if we have
been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.'*

Fifth Conversation, 75

— Rom. vi. 3-5. "Buried with him in baptism." —
Col. ii. 12.

Thus, says Dr. Macknight, "Jesus submitted to
be baptized, that is, buried under the water by John,
and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his
future death and resurrection."

The Lord's Supper shows us in emblem the broken
body and shed blood of Christ ; but leaves the church
only in possession of his dead, unburied body. Im-
mersion shows us his burial, resurrection, and ascen-
sion. Thus in the two ordinances we have united
and manifested the great and solemn facts in the
life of Christ our atonement.

The ordinances of the Lord's Supper and Baptism
stand out as two grand pillars of truth, enduring as
long as time shall last, erected by the infinite wisdom,
power, and goodness of God, appealing to all ages
to come as witnesses of the fundamental doctrine of
the Christian religion — Christ crucified. The Lord's
Supper shows forth his crucifixion and death until
his coming again — his shed blood and broken body;
and Baptism his burial and resurrection from the
grave. And whenever the Supper is partaken of
there comes through it to the ear of faith the voice
of Jesus, saying, " This do ye in remembrance of me."
And then at baptism, faith not only sees Christ going
down into, and coming up out of, the river of Jordan,
but also going down into the grave, and coming out
as a Conqueror, rising in majesty and glory, the
Lord our Righteousness, triumphant over the power

j6 Conversations on Baptism.

of death. Thus, when the Christian partakes of the
Supper, and follows Christ in baptism, he presents
to the world two great and incontrovertible argu-
ments in proof of a crucified and risen Saviour.

M. What is the opinion of the learned on the
mode of Christ's baptism?

P. The Apostle Paul says it was a burial —
" Therefore we are buried with him by baptism" —
"buried with him in baptism." — Rom. vi. 3, 5; Col.
ii. 12. The learned have almost universally conceded
it to have been an immersion. We might fill a small
volume with the proof. Thus

" Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan."

Sixth C

CONVERSATION.

The Baptism of Paul.

HE example of Paul being set apart for
this evening's investigation, Mr. C. com-
menced by reading Romans vi. 3, 5:
" 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 bap-
tism 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. For if we
have been planted together in the likeness of his
death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur-
rection." Also, Colossians ii. 12 : " Buried with him
in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God," etc.

P. Thus Paul speaks for himself, and tells us
that he was buried with Christ in baptism, as were
also the Romans and Colossians, no doubt a goodly
number. "This passage," [Rom. vi. 4.] say two
eminent Episcopalian writers, " can not be under-
stood unless it is borne in mind, that the primitive

78 Conversations on Baptism,

baptism was by immersion." John "Wesley has to
admit that there is an allusion here to the ancient
manner of baptizing by immersion. And Neander,
the celebrated church historian, says : " When St.
Paul says that through baptism we are buried with
Christ, and rise again with him, he unquestionably
alludes to the symbol of dipping into, and rising
again out of the water."

Says Dr. Chalmers, in his Lectures on Romans,
p. 152 : " The original meaning of the word bap-
tism is immersion, and though we regard it as a
point of indifferency, whether the ordinance so
named be performed in this way or by sprinkling —
yet we doubt not that the prevalent style of the
administration in the Apostles' days, was by an
actual submerging of the whole body under water.
We advert to this, for the purpose of throwing light
on the analogy that is instituted in these verses.
Jesus Christ by death underwent this sort of bap-
tism— even immersion under the surface of the
ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resur-
rection. We, by being baptized into his death, are
conceived to have made a similar translation. In
the act of descending under the water of baptism to
have resigned an old life, and in the act of ascending
to emerge into a second or new life," etc.

" The evident design of the Apostle in these pas-
sages, is to enforce the duty of a holy life and con-
versation. c Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead

Sixth Conversation. 79

to sin live therein V Our very baptism teaches us
to live no longer to sin. We have died to sin, there-
fore we are buried with Christ by baptism into death ;
that like as Christ was raised from the dead, even
so we also should walk in newness of life. When
one has died, he is afterward buried. Our conver-
sion was our death to sin. Our baptism was our
burial, to testify in the most solemn and impressive
manner that we had renounced the world and sin,
and henceforth we were to live a new life of holiness.
Our immersion is a solemn burial, showing to the
world that we have died to sin. Our emersion is a
resurrection, showing by a beautiful and impressive
emblem that we are to walk in newness of life."
And thus immersion, and immersion alone, can truly
S}'mbolize a death unto sin, and a resurrection to a
life of righteousness; and is the only true interpret-
ation of the language of the Apostle.- And hence,
say Messrs. Conybeare and Howson, " It is needless
to add that baptism was (unless in exceptional
cases), administered by immersion, the convert being
plunged beneath the surface of the water to repre-
sent his death to the life of sin, and then raised from
this momentary burial, to represent his resurrection
to the life of righteousness."

M. Yes, in immersion we have a beautiful sym-
bol that sprinkling knows nothing about. What do
learned authors say of Paul's baptism ?

P. Perhaps there never was a greater unanimity
of opinion among eminent Christian scholars and

So Conversations on Baptism,

divines, on any subject, than there is on these pas-
sages. I have read over eighty learned authorities,
and they unanimously concede them to mean immer-
sion ; among whom I may mention Calvin, Luther,
Chalmers, Adam Clarke, Tyndale,Burkitt,White-
field, Olshausen, Neander, Mosheim, Doddridge,
Macknight, Wesley, Benson, Conbyeare, and How-
son — Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists,
Methodists, and Episcopalians.

M. That is certainly a great array of authorities.
I remember it is true of Wesley, Benson, and
Clarke. Mr. Wesley says, " buried with him" allud-
ing to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.
And Mr. Benson adopts Mr. Wesley's words. While
Dr. Clarke says : " They receive baptism as an
emblem of death, in voluntarily going under the
water, so they receive it as an emblem of resurrec-
tion unto eternal life, in coming up out of the
water."

P. And yet your Tract Society has published a
tract, whose title is " Twenty-four Facts on Bap-
tism," in which the writer unblushingly affirms that
" it is a fact that ' being buried with him by baptism
into death/ refers only to the baptism of death. Our
Baptist friends think they see water in it; but I see
nothing but death."

M. How strangely contradictory some of our
preachers are ! Here this wise man of ours has the
boldness to contradict his fathers in the Gospel. I
see immersion in water in the passage, say Wesley,

Sixth Conversation 81

Whitefield, Benson, and Clarke. But, says he,
"I see nothing but death" in it!

P. It is very strange if all these celebrated writ-
ers were mistaken. If they were Baptists, some
might have a little doubt of the correctness of the
interpretation. But as they were all members of
Pedobaptist churches, they would not be likely to
testify against themselves, unless the text abso-
lutely required it.

M. I hardly think that's fair, brother E. I do
not see why a Baptist can not be as impartial in his
testimony as a Pedobaptist. He certainly has no
ease, nor any less cross-bearing to gain, by advocating
immersion.

P. I don't know but what I did our Baptist
friends injustice. A little of the old leaven of
antipathy to them will yet sometimes manifest itself
when I do not think of it.

M. It is strange, as you say, if all these witnesses
are mistaken.

P. And it is equally strange that the Apostle,
and all the Romans and Colossians, should go to
the trouble of being immersed, if sprinkling would
have done as well. Common sense can not believe
it. It would be just as reasonable to expect a Con-
gregation alist of Chicago, who believes a few drops
of water or sand sprinkled on the head is baptism,
to leave his church, where he can have an abund-
ance for such a ceremony, and go to Lake Michigan
4*

82 Conversations on Baptism.

to bury a believer [by sprinkling] with Christ in
baptism.

The early fathers of the church write much about
the symbolical meaning of baptism. I will give you
extracts from two. Gregory writes in the year 350,
" we are buried with Christ by baptism that we may
also rise again with him ; we descend with him,
that we may be also lifted up with him." And
Chrysostom says, " To be baptized and pi mged,
and then to emerge, or rise again, is a symbol of
our descent into the grave, and our ascent out of it:
and therefore Paul calls baptism a burial, when he
says, ' we are therefore buried with him by baptism
iuto death/ "

M. There certainly can be no doubt, if we can
rely on what Paul himself says, and on which so
many eminent scholars agree, that he was immersed ;
but are you not aware that a few of late days deny
it ? They say there was not enough water at
Damascus to immerse Paul.

P. Yes, I am aware of it; and they are but few,
with more presumption than sound knowledge.
But they have never been able to prove it. In their
overhaste to destroy Paul's immersion they have
flatly contradicted the Scriptures. They say there
was not enough water at Damascus to immerse Paul.
The Bible says, " Are not the rivers of Abana and
Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the
waters of Israel ?" How easily a plain passage of
Scripture can sweep away the inventions of error.

Sixth Conversation. 83

" The Barada, according to Stanley and Robin-
son, rises on a high table-land of the Anti-Libanus,
is a deep, broad, rushing mountain stream, with
limpid water, and skirted with beautiful scenery.
It is the source of fertility to Damascus, in the
numerous canals which have been taken from it for
purposes of irrigation." — Appleton's New American
Cyclopaedia, p. 601, article Barada.

" The streams from the adjacent high range of
Anti-Libanus, the Barada or Chrysorrhoas, and the
Awadj, are supposed to be coincident with the
Abana and Pharpar of Scripture. (2 Kings v. 12.)
For many miles, the city [Damascus] is surrounded
by fertile fields and gardens, which are watered by
rivulets and sparkling streams, giving to the vegeta-
tion a charming freshness and sweetness." — Ibid.,
Damascus, p. 225.

Says the American Tract Society's Bible
Dictionary, "Abana was undoubtedly the present
Barada, * * * a perennial river, and so copious
that, though no less than nine or ten branches, or
canals, are drawn off from it, to irrigate the plain,
and supply the city and villages around it, the stream
is a large one to the end."

And yet it was a dry country, say these wise,
modern Pedobaptists — not enough water to baptize
Paul. Why will men build so much on the sand,
when there is solid rock furnished free by the Bible
for an enduring foundation ? Pity they will persist

84 Conversations on Baptism,

in their foolish notions at the expense of truth and
common sense.

M. That's so. But men with a poor cause to
defend, have to resort to strange things.

P. Of the manner in which the Apostles bap-
tized, Hermas, mentioned by Paul (Rom. xvi. 14),
says ; " The Apostles and teachers preached to them
that before were dead, and gave this seal [baptism] ;
for they went down with them into the water and
came up again." And Barnabas, the companion of
Paul, in one of his epistles, says, " Blessed are they
who, fixing their hope on the cross, have gone down
into the water." In the other epistle he says, " We
descend into the water," etc.

Now who are we to believe ? Paul and his fellow-
laborers in the Gospel, who tell us plainly that they
were immersed, and that they immersed others?
or those superficial writers and declaimers against
immersion, who, though they may be honest and
sincere, only prove to us the more that honesty and
sincerity may be employed in the propagation of
error, and can never make that right which is
wrong ?

M. Paul and the Bible of course. I was not
aware that proof so full and complete could be found
outside of the Bible testimony to sustain immersion.
You have strengthened my faith by the collateral
evidence you have given. I have heard it said, that
Paul thought so little of the importance of baptism,
that he thanked God he had only baptized a few.

Sixth Conversation, 85

It was by one of that class who are continually
talking about a "good conscience," " non-essentials, "
etc., and who can prove sprinkling to be right from
Solomon's Song. Will you explain that passage
before we separate ?

P. If he can prove sprinkling to be baptism from
Solomon's Song, any argument that you or I can
make, though clearly sustained from the New
Testament, will not reach the disease under which
he is laboring. He must be incurable. I will leave
a Presbyterian commentator to answer the objection.
"Contention had crept into the church," says he;
"some cried up Paul and some Apollos; some
Cephas, and some were for neither, but Christ only.
Paul expostulates with them on their discords and
quarrels. ' Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified
for you?' Was he your sacrifice and atonement?
Did I ever pretend to be your Saviour ? Or ' were
ye baptized into the name of Paul ?' Were ye
devoted to my service, or engaged to be my disci-
ples by this rite ? No : ' I thank God I baptized
none of you,' etc. In this sense it was a matter of
thankfulness he had baptized so few. It could not
now be said that he had baptized in his own name —
made disciples for himself — set himself up as the
head of a sect."

M. That is a common sense view of it — sound
and clear. But what do you make of Paul's state-
ment that God sent him not to baptize, but to
preach ?

86 Conversations on Baptism.

P. Just what our writers make of it. The sim-
ple meaning is — the primary object of my mission
is to preach. " Not so much to baptize as to preach."
This is evident, for he did baptize some. He had
assistants, and left it to them to baptize, while he
set himself to the more important work of preach-
ing. But we have paid more attention to the simple
objection than it is worth.

Now let us sum up briefly the points established.
Paul tells us himself that he was immersed — buried
with Christ in baptism. Hermas and Barnabas tell
us the Apostles immersed. Then we have the tes-
timony of the Fathers, and nearly all the most emi-
nent scholars and divines since the times of Christ
until now, that Paul positively refers to immersion
when he says to the Romans and Colossians, " we
are buried with him by baptism," etc.

Now let me ask you, in conclusion, can common
sense believe that St. Paul, and all the Christians at
Pome and Colosse, would have been immersed, as it
is fully evident they were, if sprinkling would have
answered the same purpose? No. And therefore
as they were immersed and not sprinkled, the evidence
is complete and conclusive, that they did not believe
sprinkling baptism. They knew nothing about sprinkling
for baptism. They neither talked about it, nor practiced
it. Thus Paul speaks out clearly and distinctly for
immersion, and tells us as there is but one Lord and
one faith, so there is but one baptism.

M. And the Apostle could never write to our

Sixth Conversation, 87

churches in the language he addressed the Romans
and Colossians. His are unmeaning, dead words to
every sprinkled Christian., and every Pedobaptist church.
I pity the man who takes upon himself to prove that
a burial in water is a sprinkling on land.

P. That is very true, brother C. Suppose the
Apostle were to address an epistle to one of our
churches, commencing :

" Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized
into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ; there-
fore we are buried with him by baptism into death
* * planted together in the likeness of his death * *
wherein also ye are risen with him" —

Would not the reply be :

"No, we know nothing about it, Paul. 'Tis all a
mystery to us. 'Buried with him — planted toge-
ther— risen with him !' What do you mean, Paul?
ISTo, no; we have neither been buried nor planted
with Christ in baptism — in the likeness of his death
— nor raised up with him to walk in newness of life;
unless you call our sprinkling a burial, and planting,
and a rising from the grave ! In that case, we've
been buried, and planted, by sprinkling into Jesus
Christ — planted by sprinkling into the likeness of his
death ! and in our imagination we rose from the
grave when we were buried by sprinkling standing up
in the church !"

" Tut, tut ! That's all jargon and nonsense !"
would not Paul indignantly reply. "You make
horrible work of my language. How can you mis-

88 Conversations on Baptism.

understand me, or pervert my words? Have I not
told you that there is but * one baptism ?' and that I
was 'planted,' ' buried,' and 'raised' with Christ in
baptism ? Have I not told you that I delivered but
one form of doctrine and ordinances to the church,
and taught the same things every where in every
church ? And yet you would make me speak such
nonsense as that ! Ye have taken for doctrine and
practice the traditions of men ; and thus have ye des-
tro}^ed the symbol of the believer's death to sin, and
resurrection to a new life, and the Master's burial
and resurrection. If ye can not believe the plain
words I have written to the Romans and Colossians,
neither will ye be persuaded though one rose from
the dead. I say unto you as I wrote unto them :

* 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, even so we also should walk in newness of
life. For if we have been planted together in the
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness
of his resurrection." *

Here let us end our investigation for to-night.
To-morrow evening we will devote to the Eunuch's
baptism.

Sixth Conversation. 89

Eminent Pedobaptists who affirm that the Apostle
Paul refers to Immersion in Komans vi. 4, and
Colossians 11. 12.

The list might be greatly extended ; but it is large
enough to show the truth of what our Presbyterian
friend asserts.

Tertullian, a Christian father, who nourished at
the close of the second century.

Origen, an illustrious father of the church (begin-
ning of third century).

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (third century).

Chrysostom, Bishop and Patriarch of Constanti-
nople (fourth century).

Est, Catholic Chancellor of the University of
Douay.

Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (eighth
century).

St. Ephrem, the Syrian, a learned writer of fourth
century.

Bede, surnamed the Venerable, an historian in the
ancient church of Britain.

John Frith, a distinguished reformer and martyr.

Wm. Tyndal, translator of the Bible, and martyr.

John Calvin.4

Martin Luther.2

Zuingli, a distinguished annotator.

Augustus Neander, D.D., church historian.

Hugo Grotius, LL.D., one of the most profound
scholars of the seventeenth century.

90 Conversations on Baptism,

John D. Michaelis, Chancellor of the University
of Gottingen, a man of vast erudition.

John C. Wolfius, a learned critic of Germany.

W. M. L. De Wette, D.D., one of the most emi-
nent scholars of Germany.1

F. A. G. Tholuck, D.D., commentator, Professor
of Theology in the University of Halle.1

Wm. Burkitt, D.D., a celebrated commentator.3

Daniel Whitby, D.D., a commentator of dis-
tinguished learning.3

John G. Rosenmuller, a learned critic.2

Archbishop Tillotson, a learned author.8

J. B. Koppe, D.D., an eminent scholar.2

James Macknight, D.D., distinguished as a minis-
ter and commentator.4

Philip Doddridge, D.D., a learned commentator.

J. T. Bloomfield, D.D., an eminent scholar and
author.

John Wesley.5

Joseph Benson, D.D., celebrated as a commenta-
tor.5

Adam Clarke, D.D., a learned author and com-
mentator.5

H. Olshausen, D.D., Professor of Theology in
the University of Ertangen, and a commentator.

Philip Scahff, D.D., Professor of Theology in the
Mercersburg Seminary, and an able scholar.1

Conybeare and Howson, distinguished as authors
of the Life and Epistles of St. Paul.3

Sixth Conversation. 91

J. A. Turretin, a learned scholar, Professor of
Theology at Geneva.4

Albert Barnes, D.D., author of Commentary on
New Testament.4

George Hill, D.D., President of St. Mary's Col-
lege, St. Andrews.4

Eobert Haldane, Esq., a distinguished writer.4

If we add to these all the learned writers who
declare immersion to be the correct rendering of the
word baptize, and those who say that immersion was
the practice of the primitive church; we have an
array of testimony in favor of the Baptists truly
imposing.

In comparison with the foregoing testimony how
pitiful is the assertion of the writer of the tract,
" Bible Baptism," published by the Presbyterians.
Immersion is a " sectarian baptism," says he : " this
[pouring] gives you the form, and only form of Bible
baptism."

1. German Reformed. 2. Lutheran. 8. Episcopalian, or Church of England.
4. Presbyterian. 5. Methodist.

Seventh Conversation,

The Baptism of the Eunuch*

RESBYTERIAE". Well, brother E., we
have a plain case before us to-night. It
is really a one-sided question, and the
Baptist^ have it all their own way.
Methodist. Yes, the Baptists are "great" on
the Eunuch's baptism. And here I agree with them
heartily. I have always believed that the Eunuch
was immersed, from the narrative given in the Bible.
Yet I shall be glad to listen to what you have to say
about it. I will read the example:

" Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the
same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And
as they went on their way, they came unto a certain
water: and. the Eunuch said, See, here is water;
what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip
said, If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the
chariot to stand still, and they went down both into

Seventh Conversation, 93

the water; both Philip and the Eunuch; and he
baptized him. And when they were come up out
of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away
Philip, that the Eunuch saw him no more; and he
went on his way rejoicing" — Acts viii. 35 — 89.

P. The Eunuch, a man in authority, was travel-
ing in state. Philip joined him, and preached unto
him Christ, and no doubt baptism ; for on arriving
at certain water, the Eunuch said : " See, here is
water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?" when,
on the profession of his faith, Philip baptized him.
An eminent scholar and writer, once a Presbyterian
minister, says : " This is as correct and as literal a
translation of the words, as can possibly be made;
and surely it is so plain that the most illiterate man
can be at no loss to discover from it the mind of the
Lord on the subject. The man who can read it, and
not see immersion in it, must have something in his
mind unfavorable to the investigation of truth. As
long as I fear God, I can not, for all the kingdoms
in the world, resist the evidence of this simple docu-
ment. Nay, had I no more conscience than Satan
himself, I could not, as a scholar, attempt to expel
immersion from this account. All the ingenuity of
all the critics of Europe [and America, too], could
not silence the evidence of this passage. Amidst
the most violent perversions it can sustain on the
rack, it will still cry out immersion! immersion /"

M. I know it has been awfully tortured by some
of our ministers, and the more they have tried to

94 Conversations on Baptism,

extort from it an admission in favor of sprinkling, it
has always cried to me the louder in favor of im-
mersion.

P. And so it does to all impartial seekers after
the truth. But let us look at the order of the nar-
rative. It is stated first that Philip and the Eunuch
came unto a " certain water," then " they went down
both into the water." Why should they go down
to the water, and into the water, if not for immersion f
And then, as if the Holy Spirit intended to make
the immersion so plain that no one need misunder-
stand it, it is added, " both Philip and the Eunuch."
Why should Philip go into the water, if not to im-
merse the Eunuch ? He could have stood by the
side of the water and sprinkled him. And lastly,
after their baptism, they both came up out of the toater.
How could they come out of the water if they had
not been in it?

Thus, to repeat what I have said, coming unto the
water, they went down to the water, went into the water,
and came up out of the water. What can be a clearer
case of immersion than this ? Can there be words
found in the English language to express more dis-
tinctly and emphatic the immersion of a believer?
Is it not vain to deny it ?

M. It certainly is. And when I have heard our
ministers, who knew no more about Greek than
myself, talk so boastingly that going down into and
coming up out of the water only meant to and from
the water, I could not help thinking of the Scotch

Seventh Conversation, 95

woman's reply to the Universalist : " Ye twist tne
Scriptures I" Kay more, they contradict the Scrip-
tures. The Bible says one thing, they say another.
I never could see why it is stated so positively that
they both went down into the water, both Philip and
the Eunuch, if they only went to the water's edge.
If it meant so, why is it not thus stated ? If that is
the right meaning, why did not the translators use
the very words to express it? Why let the narra-
tive say in so many different ways it was an immersion,
if it was a sprinkling f Is it credible that the Holy
Spirit would use language so calculated to mislead,
if sprinkling or pouring were here meant?

P. That is a just and common sense view of it.
Besides, there were words in the Greek language to
express distinctly the act of sprinkling and pouring.
Why did not the sacred writers employ them? And
if they did use them, why have our translators
employed words that entirely destroy their meaning?
The conclusion, to my mind, is inevitable — the
narrative means what it says, or different words
would have been used.

" The Bible was written for plain men, in a plain
style, that they might at a glance get its meaning.
When men read about baptism in the New Testa-
ment, of being baptized in Jordan, all baptized of
him in the river of Jordan, going down into the
water, coming up out of the water, buried in bap-
tism, etc., they get the idea of immersion — just
what all the lexicons say what the word means.

96 Conversations on Baptism.

And if it were not for the continued efforts of oui
ministers to make the Bible oppose itself, all contro-
versy on the subject of baptism would soon end.

M. I have thought the way some of our friends
try to prove that the Bible does not teach immer-
sion, in such a clear case as the Eunuch's baptism,
has led many to doubt the inspiration of God's
Word. Now, says the skeptic, how can you blame
us for not believing the Bible ? Here it clearlv and
distinctly states that Philip and the Eunuch went
into the water and came up out of the water, and
yet you tell us it does not mean any such thing.
If in such a plain statement of facts it deceives us
here, how can we believe it to be a revelation from
God?

P. And his conclusion is just. No wonder the
infidel went to the minister who had been trying
hard to prove that going into and coming up out of
the water did not mean so. He complimented him
on his sermon — it had relieved his mind of a great
difficulty. "For," said he, "I could never believe
that Daniel was cast into a lion's den and came out
safe ; nor that Shadrach, Meshac, and Abednego
were cast into the fiery furnace, and came out un-
burnt. But your argument to-day makes it all easy.
There was no miracle about it. Daniel was cast at
or near the lion's den, and the three worthies went
to or near the furnace, but not into it. No wonder
they all escaped safely !"

But one of the smartest things of modern

Seventh Conversation, 97

inventions is to be found in a little tract printed and
circulated widely by the Presbyterians. The writer
says : " In Bible baptism the person is never put
into water, but water is put upon the person. So
when Philip baptized the Eunuch : wearing no
stockings it was very easy to remove the sandals,
and then, gathering up the flowing robes, to step
into the margin of the stream. And then Philip took
water into his hands, and caused it to fall upon the
Eunuch, and thus baptized him."

M. The foolish writer ! Why did he go to the
trouble of removing the Eunuch's sandals, tucking
up his flowing robes, and taking him into the mar-
gin of the stream to sprinkle or pour water on him?
He could have done this, and made much easier
work of it. But he seems to know all about it: he
talks as if he had been there. But where does he
find these things in the Bible? If he had had com-
mon sense enough to have told us how broad the
margin was, how deep Philip had to take the
Eunuch into the water to find sufficient to sprinkle
him, and how he " caused" the water to fall on the
Eunuch — if he had given us but one passage of
Scripture as proof — he would have settled the ques-
tion forever. Inventing so much, why didn't he
settle the matter by adding a little more.

P. Here is what Matthew Henry, the commen-
tator, says: "It was the best baiting place the
Eunuch ever met writh in any of his journeys, so he
ordered his coachman to stop,' commanding his

q8 Conversations on Baptism,

chariot to stand still. They had no convenient
vessels with them, being on a journey, wherewith
to take up water, and must therefore go down into
it, going barefoot, according to the custom. They
went perhaps up to the ankles into the water, and
Philip sprinkled water upon him."

M. But he has forgotten the sandals.

P. Yes, but he is sure it was a good baiting place.

Mr. Wesley says : " That going down may relate
to the chariot, and implies no determinate depth of
water. It might be up to their knees, it might not
be above their ankles I" I give you these examples
to show how good some of our friends are at inven-
tion.

M. And yet they all have to take the Eunuch
into the water to sprinkle him. If Mr. Wesley
had left the chariot out of the water in charge
of Matthew Henry's coachman, and tucked the
Eunuch's Presbyterian flowing robes up, it would
have agreed better with the other writers.

P. Some of our ministers have to labor lon^ and
hard to try and prove that the narrative does not
mean what it teaches. It takes a great deal of their
time and learning to try and prove that the Bible is
not true. But Dr. Doddridge, a celebrated Congre-
gational expositor, has the candor to say, " It would
be very unnatural to suppose that they went down
to the water merely that Philip might take up a
little water to pour on the Eunuch." And John
Calvin says : " Here we may perceive how baptism

Seventh Conversation. 99

was administered among the ancients, for thev
immersed the whole body in water."

M. And Dr. Clarke admits it to have been an
immersion. What do learned authors say about it?

P. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there
is nearly a united voice from all learned authors
that the Eunuch was immersed. Of late I have
noticed there is great silence on the subject. The
Bible and the Baptists are the victors. Our friends
who have questioned it have given the text so many
" queer meanings," that it has led many to doubt
the truth of the cause that requires so much absurd-
ity for its defence, and to commence investigating
for themselves; and investigation, as with myself,
will bring them into the light. Investigation will
reveal the truth.

31. What you say about " queer meanings,"
reminds me of the anecdote of the negro. When
asked why so many of them believed in immersion,
he said, " We niggers have to work all de time,
and when we read the Bible we have to take it just
as it reads ; for we have no time to hunt up queer
meanings."

P. In looking over this narrative, I have asked
myself the following question : If sprinkling was
lawful, and practiced by the Apostles, why should
Philip take the Eunuch down into the water? It
was not necessary for that object — it was not cer-
tainly the easiest way of baptizing him, if sprinkling
is baptism. And then the conclusion was inevitably

ioo Conversations on Baptism.

forced upon my mind, that Philip took the Eunuch
down into the water to immerse him. Thus with
that intention

" They went down both into the water."

A Bf^ief Summary of the Ground Examined.

P. I will now enumerate briefly the points proved
in our Conversations.

1. I have proved conclusively that baptize means
to immerse, and that only. I have proved it by
common sense, by the testimony of lexicons, ency-
clopaedias, eminent scholars of Pedobaptist denomi-
nations, and, above all, by the Scriptures. Among
our writers who affirm it, are Luther, Calvin,
Mosheim, Meander, Guericke, Chalmers, Knapp,
Campbell, Macknight, Storrs, Flatt, Baxter, Stuart,
and a host of others. "With these agree the Greek
Church, composing nearly half of Christendom, and
over two million Baptists.

2. That the sacred writers used the word baptize
as commonly understood by the people, and with a
specific meaning — immersion.

3. That John's baptism was immersion.

4. That Christ and his disciples were immersed.

A Brief Summary, 101

5. That the disciples, under the authority of
Christ, immersed.

6. That the baptism of John and Christ were the
same.

7. That Christ, in the great commission, com-
manded his disciples to go teach and immerse.

8. That Paul and the Romans and Colossians
were immersed.

9. That the Eunuch was immersed by Philip.

10. That immersion was the practice of the primi
tive church.

M. With such an array of facts as you have
given, I don't see where sprinkling can get a peg to
hang a hope on.

P. It has one " peg," and that is " indifferency."
Now, can common sense believe that sprinkling
is scriptural, when we declare that John, Jesus, the
disciples of Jesus, Philip, Paul, the Christian
Romans and Colossians, nay, the whole primitive
church, baptized and were baptized by immersion ?
"Would all these have been immersed had they
believed sprinkling of divine origin, or could have
answered the same purpose as immersion? If
immersion had not been exclusively baptism, would
the primitive church have quietly submitted to it
without remonstrance or protest ? We read of bit-
ter opposition to sprinkling when it was introduced.
We see it denounced as a human invention, and
popes, councils, etc., called upon to sanction and
defend it; but not so of immersion. Why all this,

102 Conversations on Baptism.

if taught in the Scriptures, or believed an apostolical
institution? Why so much preference for immer-
sion and opposition to sprinkling, if sprinkling is a
divine institution, and so much easier to submit to ?

Bringing it nearer home, can common sense
believe that the Greek Church, with its millions,
and the two million Baptists in America, would
refuse at this day, and at once, to accept of sprink-
ling, if they could believe it to be of God, and
answer the same purpose as immersion ?

And mark you, my friend, the primitive church
practiced immersion when it was yet pure, before
the dark days of degeneracy and corruption came
upon it. But not so with sprinkling. It rose in
the times of darkness and superstition, and abides
in darkness even to this day. Human expediency
gave it birth, and expediency alone now keeps it
from a speedy death.

Here let us end our evening's conversation.

[Before parting Mr. E. said :

" The ordinance of baptism is to be administered
to-morrow by a Pedobaptist and Baptist. One is to
succeed the other. Suppose we go? We shall
there see a practical illustration of the topics we
have been discussing."

To which Mr. C. assented, and so our two friends
parted for the night with this understanding.]

The Baptismal Scene.

N" the Sabbath Mr. E. called at the house
of his friend, when they started together
for the place of baptism. It was a beau-
tiful day, and a large congregation had
gathered to witness the scene. The Pedobaptist
ceremony was to take place first. To get a clear
view, our friends drew as near as they conveniently
could. After singing and a brief prayer, seven or
eight candidates for baptism stepped forward, and
now was exhibited almost to perfection the opposing
modes of Pedobaptism. Some stood up and others
knelt down on the shore, and were sprinkled and
poured. Some stood up in the water and were
sprinkled, and one lady knelt down in the water
and had a pailfull of water poured on her; while
others were immersed. Five or six different ways
was the ordinance administered — nearly as many
modes as there were candidates.

After singing the doxology, the congregation was
dismissed with the benediction.

Our two friends, with a far greater number of the

104 Conversations on Baptism.

people, then went a little further up the river,
where the Baptists were going to baptize. On their
way, Mr. E., turning to his companion, said:

" Well, brother C, what do you think of that
scene?

M. I must say that it looked strangely inconsist-
ent. How can all these things be baptism ? How
could the Saviour institute, and his Apostles prac-
tice, such contradictory modes as these ? They are
certainly at variance with both Scripture and com-
mon sense. All harmony and uniformity of prac-
tice, mentioned by the Apostle Paul, are completely
destroyed. And yet we are told by our teachers
that Christ did institute them. Of course they must
believe it, or how would they dare to practice them ?
But it's very queer any how !"

P. If there had been one sprinkled with sand and
a babe with water, there would have been a complete
illustration of the teachings of our friends; then the
example would have been perfect. "What kind of
" consciences" must the administrator and the bap-
tized have ? How can they reconcile these things
with the Scriptures? It is beyond my comprehen-
sion ; so I will turn it over to the doctors.

They now approached the large congregation
that lined the banks of the beautiful river, and lis-
tened to the singing of that impressive hymn :

The Baptismal Scene. 105

Thou hast said, exalted Jesus,

" Take thy cross and follow me ;"
Shall the word with terror seize us ?

Shall we from the burden flee ?
Lord, I'll take it,

And, rejoicing, follow thee.

While this liquid tomb surveying,

Emblem of my Saviour's grave,
Shall I shun its brink, betraying

Feelings worthy of a slave ?
No! I'll enter:

Jesus entered Jordan's wave.

Blest the sign which thus reminds me,

Saviour, of thy love for me ;
But more blest the love that binds me

In its deathless bonds to thee :
O, what pleasure,

Buried with my Lord to be !

After singing and prayer the administrator quoted
the following passages of Scripture: "Jesus came
from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized of John
in Jordan." — Mark i. 10. "And they went down
both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch,
and he baptized him." — Acts viii. 38.

Then the candidates, some fifteen in number,
were passed by the deacons to the minister, the
people singing:

Through floods and flames, if Jesus lead,
I'll follow where he goes,
" Hinder me not," shall be my cry,
Though earth and hell oppose.

106 Conversations on Baptism.

After singing, they were baptized, the minister
quoting Paul's words: "Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism." Then, taking the hand of
the last baptized, straightway came up out of the water,
like Philip and the Eunuch. After which the dox-
ology was sung, and the benediction pronounced.
There was no haste nor confusion ; and the whole
ceremony not exceeding twenty minutes — less than
half the time used on the former occasion. It was
a deeply solemn time. Some were bathed in tears,
while the faces of others were radiant with joy;
while still others were convinced of sin, and retired
from the baptismal waters to seek the Saviour, and
in like manner were subsequently baptized.

On their way home, the two friends seemed little
inclined to converse, so deeply were they impressed
with the solemnity of the occasion. At length Mr.
C. abruptly broke the silence, by exclaiming:

" That looks like baptism, brother E. How sol-
emn and impressive ! What order and uniformity !
How joyful the baptized ! Did you not see it all V

"Yes; and I can truly say, it was good to be
there. How appropriate the Scripture quoted !
What a beautiful illustration of the scriptural ex-
amples of baptism we have been examining!"

Then each turned his steps homeward, with a
friendly "good-by."

Baptism a Symbol.

HE example of the apostle Paul decides
conclusively his opinion of baptism, and
" sets clearly before us," says the learned
Michaelis, " immersion, and can not be
applied to sprinkling with water." And not only
is his own action specified, but the immersion of
the Romans and Colossians, nay, all who had then
been baptized ; for let it be kept in mind, that he
taught the same things " every where, in every church ;"
and delivered unto the people the same " doctrines "
and " ordinances." How emphatically and joyfully
he gives utterance to the blessed truth of his immer-
sion in its symbolical significance, when writing to
his brethren of the same like experience : " Know
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death : that like
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory
of the Father, even so we also should walk in new-
ness of life. For if we have been planted together in
the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection." — Rom. vi : 3, 4.

Says Rosenmuller, a learned critic of the
Lutheran church : " To baptize is to immerse, to dip ;

io8 Conversations on Baptism.

the body, or the part of the body which is to be
baptized, going under the water." " Immersion in
the water of baptism, and the coming out of the
same, was a sign that the old life had been aban-
doned, and a new one, in the opposite direction,
established. Hence it was customary for those bap-
tized to be spoken of on the one hand as dead and
buried ; on the other, as resuscitated again into a new
afe. The learned rightly admonish us, that on
amount of this mystical sense of baptism, the rite
of immersion ought to have been retained in the
Christian church."

u The rite of baptism," says Robert Haldane, a
Presbyterian, " exhibits Christians as dying, as
ouried, and as risen with Christ." Nay, it is a
more comprehensive symbol than this. Well and.
beautifully aoes Di. Boardman say :

" Would thou symbolize thy death in sin and thy
resurrection to hoKnes3 ? Then be buried by bap-
tism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so
thou also mayst walk in newness of life.* Wouldst
thou symbolize thy total deulement and thy desire
for total purification ? Then arise and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins.f Wouldst thou symbolize
fhy beiief in a buried and risen Mediator, and thy
participation in his death and resurrection ? Then
be buried with him in baptism, wherein also arise

* Rom. vi : 4. t Acts xxii : 16.

^Baptism a Symbol. 109

with him.* Wouldst thou symbolize thy confident
expectation that thou shalt share in his blissful
immortality? Then submit thyself to baptism —
descending into the liquid tomb and emerging: for
if thou art planted together with him in the likeness
of his death, thou shalt be also in the likeness of his
resurrection. f Oh, glorious symbol this of the
Christian's creed ! He may tell me in words all
that he believes about himself and about his Lord.
He may tell me of his sins and his hopes — his tears
for the past and his resolves for the future. He
may tell me all that Jesus has done for him, and all
that he intends to do for Jesus. But when I see
him silently submitting himself to holy baptism, I
read a more eloquent story, told in a language which
all peoples of the earth can understand — which
changes not with the flight of years — which no ora-
tory can rival — which carries the head because it
has first carried the heart — which is the truth of
God expressed in the act of man. Not that there is
any thing in the ordinance which savors of regen-
erating or sanctifying tendency. For baptism is a
symbol, not a power ; a shadow, not the substance.
And it shadows forth at the same instant the most
momentous events in the history of Christ and in
the history of the Christian ; all that Christ has suf-
fered and done for us ; all that we mean to suffer
and do for Christ ; all that we are by nature ; all

* Col. ii. 12. t Rom. vi. 5.

no Conversations on Baptism.

that we hope to be by grace. Verily, none but a
God infinite in counsel could have devised a rite so
simple and yet so dense with meaning and glory !
To him be all the praise !"

Eighth Conversation.

Infant Baptism.

ETHODIST. Suppose we devote this
evening, brother E., to the investigation
of Infant Baptism ? That is a doctrine in
which I have ever believed, and which
appears to me to be plainly taught in the Scriptures.
Yet, from some things you have said, you have
raised a doubt in my mind.

Presbyterian. I have no objection. I once
thought the same as you do on this subject. But
an examination of it has led me to a different con-
clusion.

M. It is a precious doctrine to me, and has a
strong hold on my sympathy.

P. Well, let us examine it fairly and impar-
tially. It was to me also a favorite and precious
doctrine, and had firmly woven itself in nry heart.
But when I commenced my investigations, and
found that at first, when infant baptism was invented,
they dipped the babies, and afterward changed the
mode to sprinkling, I was naturally led to distrust

ii2 Conversations on Baptism.

the whole thing. This was the first invented mode
for saving the children. The Episcopalians did it.
RTow if that was right then, why not dip the babes
now? If they are, as some of our writers say, to
be washed from original sin by baptism, certainly
dipping looks more like washing than sprinkling —
or than moistening the head of the child with a
finger dipped in a bowl of water.

Are you aware that infant baptism was introduced
into the church on the same ground as sprinkling —
as a means of salvation ?

M. Certainly not; for, as I have said, it is found
in the Scriptures.

P. But so it was. Men began to call the waters
of baptism the sacred waters, and to look upon
baptism as a saving ordinance. They taught that
infants rested under the penalty of Adam's trans-
gression, being guilty of original sin and liable to its
consequences, being exposed to punishment. And
thus, to save them from this, they must be baptized.
The inventors of infant baptism wanted to save the
children from endless perdition.

M. Why, that is* what we call infant damnation.

P. Precisely so. And I repeat, to save them
from being lost, the device of infant baptism was
invented. And pardon me, if }^ou think I am too
severe, when I say, that it is the invention of priests,
the child of Popery, and unfortunately has come by
adoption into the Protestant family. Here is the
decision of a church council [Carthage] of which

Eighth Conversation, 113

Augustine was president, affirmed and sanctioned
by the Pope, 417 : " We will that whosoever denies that
little children by baptism are freed from perdition and
eternally saved, let him be accurst3'

" The law of baptism, as established by our Lord,
extends to all, insomuch that unless they are regen-
erated through the grace of baptism, be their parents
Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal
misery and everlasting destruction." — Catechism of
the Council of Trent, translated, by Donovan, p. 171.

Even John Wesley says, after endeavoring to
prove that infants are in a state of condemnation,
inheriting sin from Adam : " The free gift came
upon all men unto justification of life; and the
virtue of that free gift — the merits of Christ's
life and death — are applied to us in baptism."
Again he says: "If infants are guilty of original
sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing,
in the ordiyiary way, they can not be saved unless this be
washed away in baptism." — Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 246,
251.

M. But a majority of our church do not esteem
Mr. Wesley sound on baptism. From what you
have quoted, I know I do not.

P. Then why do you still publish his writings ?
This is one of your standard works, and prescribed
for the study of young preachers. But let us see
what your Discipline says: turn to pages 131 and
132, " The ministration of baptism to infants."
There the administrator tells the people to call upon

H4 Conversations on Baptism,

God, " that having redeemed this child by the blood
of his Son, he will grant that he, being baptized with
water, may also be baptized with the Holy Ghost,
be received into Christ's holy church, and become a
lively member of the same."

" We beseech thee that of thine infinite mercy
thou wilt look upon this child : wash him and sanc-
tify him ; that he, being saved by thy grace, may
be received into Christ's holy church."

" Sanctify this water for this holy sacrament, and
grant that this child * * may receive the full-
ness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number
of thy faithful and elect children." — 133.

Then you say, page 23, " Baptism is also a sign
of regeneration or the new birth," and that you
" regard all children who have been baptized as
placed in a visible covenant relation to God." — 39.

What do you think of it ?

M. I don't believe any such doctrine, though
our Discipline does teach it. Now as you have been
so plain with the Methodists, pray tell me what your
church teaches about infant baptism ? You know,
as Methodists, we are very free in charging you as
believing in infant damnation.

P. I know you are. Here is what we say :

"Baptism is the entrance into Christ's family." —
Thomas Hooker.

" The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that
moment of time wherein it is administered, yet not-
withstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the

Eighth Conversation. 115

grace promised is not only offered, but really exhib-
ited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such
(whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth
unto, according to the counsel of God's own will in
his appointed time." — Cambridge Platform, p. 25.
[The same as Presbyterian Conf. of Faith, p. 123.]

M. Well, that is surely strong enough. Grace
" not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred
by the Holy Ghost."

P. "To such as that grace belongeth unto."

M. " Whether of age or infants."

P. The words " such as that grace belongeth
unto," are illustrated by the following: " Elect
infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved
by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when,
and where, and how he pleaseth." — Chap. x. 3.

Again : the Confession of Faith says :

" The visible church consists of all those throughout
the world that profess the true religion, together with
their children, and in the kingdom of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the house and family of God, out of which
there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." Again it
says : " Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testa-
ment, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the
solemn admission of the party baptized into the
visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and
seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into
Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of
his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to

n6 Conversations on Baptism.

walk in newness of life." — Confession of Faith, p. 44,
and Cambridge [Congregational] Platform, chap. 29.
Here, you see, we say baptism was ordained by
Christ, which, of course, includes infant baptism.
And yet we call sprinkling, pouring, and immersion
all baptism, and thus we make Christ the institutor
of all. Again, we baptize children into the church,
"out of which there is no ordinary possibility of
salvation." Does not this look like what I have
affirmed ?

M. It certainly does. I was not aware that your
church held such views.

P. Now, if there is no " ordinary possibility of
salvation" out of the visible church, there must be
some extraordinary possibility of salvation, or else
the unbaptized children must be lost. If the
baptized children are of the house and family of
God, by baptism, the unbaptized children are
certainly not of the house and family of God.
What is to become of them? "What is the extraor-
dinary possibility of salvation whereby they may be
saved ?

M. I am sure I can not tell. I never heard of
but one way of salvation — what Paul calls a " com-
mon salvation."

P. Thus, as Presbyterians, we make baptism a
saving ordinance.

M. It certainly seems so. But I have never
thus viewed it. We can baptize infants without
believing in baptismal regeneration.

Eighth Conversation, 117

P. That may be. But yet, I repeat, that bap-
tismal regeneration was the design of those who
invented infant baptism; and that the same object
is still maintained by a far greater proportion of its
advocates. Some say it washes away original sin,
and cleanses from defilement ; and thus original sin
attaches to all unbaptized children. How are they
to be saved without baptism f Others say infant
baptism is purification: hence it must cleanse from
moral impurity. How are they to be made clean
for heaven if they are not purified ? And still others,
that the children of believing parents only are to be
baptized ; then what is to become of the children of
the unbelieving? Thus, turn which way you will,
you make infant baptism save the child. Even
those who do not pretend to believe in infant
baptism in a saving sense, can give no reasonable
argument for the practice. Besides, their action
condemns their declaration. Why should they
baptize dying children ? Why, when a child is
taken dangerously ill, send with all haste for a
minister to baptize it? "You charge us with
believing in baptism being a saving ordinance,"
said a Baptisi, who had formerly been a Lutheran
minister, to a Lutheran; "and yet, when one of
your unbaptized children is taken sick, you'll run
your horse down in going after a minister to baptize
it !" Does not that look a little like it ? Was not
the child as sure of heaven without as with the
ceremony ?

n8 Conversations on Baptism.

The following conversation lately occurred be-
tween a Baptist lady and a Lutheran, and was
related to me by the lad}^ herself. It shows how
some people are led to believe in infant sprinkling
by the false teachings of others :

" When are you going to have your baby bap-
tized ?" inquired the Lutheran of the Baptist.

" Not till it is old enough to answer for itself,''
was the reply.

" Were the children you lost baptized Vs continued
the Lutheran.

"No."

" Why !" responded the Lutneran, with apparent
horror ; " I wouldn't stand in your place for any
thing!"

" Why so ?" said the Baptist.

" Because you will have to go to hell for not hav-
ing them baptized."

"Does your father believe that?" inquired the
Baptist.

"Yes, he does."

" Well, I'm astonished that such a sensible man
as he appears should believe such nonsense."

One day a Methodist woman called at the house
of a Baptist minister in the State of New York, who
lived next door to a Presbyterian minister, mistak-
ing the house. Tears were streaming down her
cheeks, and she was in great distress. She wished
him to go and baptize her little child, which she
thought was dying. He pitied her most deeply and

Eighth Conversation. 119

sincerely, and inquired why she wished the child
baptized.

" I am afraid it will not be saved without it;" she
replied.

He told her to dismiss her fears on that point, for
the child would be saved just as well without as
with baptism. "But," said he, "I will gladly do
any thing I can consistently for your child. If you
can think of any thing in the Bible which will
authorize me to baptize it, I will go right off and
do it."

She looked surprised, and replied that she thought
the Bible plainly taught infant baptism.

"Well," said he, "if you can think of one
passage, I will ask no more."

She paused to think. She thought of Christ's
blessing little children. "But," said she, "that
does not say he baptized them, does it?"

"Eo," he replied, "Jesus blessed them. If you
desire it, I will go and pray for your child, and ask
God's blessing upon it."

She wished he would; so he went to the house
and prayed for the child, which recovered in a few
days. This poor woman had suffered great distress
from the false doctrine that her infant could not be
saved unless baptized.

M. I am aware that circumstances are against
us — that man}- baptize dying children. I knew of
one case where the child was baptized after it had
apparently ceased to breathe. And one of our

120 Conversations on Baptism,

ministers had his child baptized when nearly at the
point of death. But such instances are not very
common.

P. Thus you virtually confirm what I have
stated. And, instead of such occurrences being very
rare, there are tens of thousands of cases of baptiz-
ing dying children. ^Why, I heard the other day of
a Congregational minister who called in a Methodist
minister to baptize his dying child.

31. But yet, infant baptism has always been a
delightful doctrine to me. There is something
satisfactory and soothing to the mind in dedicating
our children to God in baptism.

P. And did not this satisfactory and soothing
feeling arise from the belief, that the salvation of
your child was surer after it was baptized than it
was before ?

M. To be candid, I do not know but what such
a thought may have produced the .satisfaction and
pleasure I felt.

P. Just so. It is the way with all, when you get
at the cause of their action. And yet you tell us you
do not believe in infant baptism being a saving
ordinance. There was a man very fervent in charg-
ing the Baptists with making baptism necessary to
salvation, and who talked loudly of non-essentials,
who called upon a friend of his, who had lost a
lovely but un sprinkled child. " Wouldn't you have
felt better," said he, "if your child had been bap-
tized before it died ?" " Better !" replied his friend;

Eighth Conversation. 121

"no, thank God, Christ takes care of the children:
he saves them, and not baptism. But how would you
have felt if your child had died before it was sprinkled I
If, as you say, baptism comes in the place of circum-
cision, how would you have felt if death had enforced
his claim when your child was but three days' old?"

M. Certainly he must have felt, if he did not look,
very foolish after such a forcible rejoinder as that.

P. Similar to the foregoing, is a circumstance
related to me by a gentleman. Directly across the
street from his residence, in a town on the Hudson,
lived a family who regularly attended the Presbyte-
rian, though they were not members of any, church.
They had two sweet little daughters, of three and
five years of age. Both were taken sick, and died
within a few hours of each other. The neighbors
came in to render their kind offices and console the
afflicted parents. The Presbyterian minister's wife
was there. Some one said to the weeping mother,
"Your children are better off now than they could
be in this world." The minister's wife added :
" Well, if they had been baptized I should have no
doubt of their welfare; but as it is, I don't know."

31. That was very consoling to a bereaved
mother.

P. Take care you do not condemn yourself. If I
understand you, you say you dedicate your children
to God in baptism. What more virtue is there in
dedicating them in baptism, than in consecrating
them to him on the altar of prayer?
6

122 Conversations on Baftism,

M. I can not say that there is any more virtue in
one than in the other. Bat baptism has this advan-
tage — it puts the seal upon the child.

P. There it is again. The same idea of baptism
being a saving ordinance in a new dress. So your
child had not a valid and perfect document to entitle
it to a participation in the blessings of the Gospel,
without the seal of baptism. You had to perfect
the instrument which, in the event of its death, gave
it a clear title to heaven ! But you are not alone in
your opinion. Matthew Henry, the Presbyterian
commentator, says: " This, then, is the efficacy of
baptism : it is putting the child' *s name into the Gospel
grant. We are baptized into Christ's death ; that is,
God doth in that ordinance seal, confirm, and make
over to as all the benefits of the death of Christ.79 Now,
let me ask you, what is to become of those children
whose parents do not put their names in the " Gospel
grant ?" And if all the benefits of Christ's death
are made over to us by God in baptism, what is to
become of the unbapiized children ? How are they to
receive any of the benefits of Christ's death, when
they are all made over to the baptized ? Thus again
you make infant baptism necessary to salvation.

M. [Blushing with confusion.] Well, brother
E., it does seem a little like what you say. You
present the case in a new light to me. But do you
say there is no warrant for infant baptism in the
Bible?

P. I can not find one, and I have searched care-

Eighth Conversation, 123

fully for it. Children are never mentioned in Bible
instances of baptism. It is said [see Matt. xiv. 21]
" they were baptized, both men and women." [Acts
viii. 12.] But in no case of baptism are children
named. You can neither find a command nor an
example that authorizes you to baptize children.
"He that will find it in the New Testament must
first put it in there." The point is conceded. Here
is what a few learned authors say :

Luther. — " It can not be proved by the sacred
Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by
Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the
Apostles."

Calvin. — " It is no where expressly mentioned by
the evangelists that any child was by the Apostles
baptized."

JSTeander. — "It is certain that Christ did not
ordain infant baptism." Again he says: "We can
not prove that the Apostles ordained infant baptism
in those places where the baptism of a whole family
is mentioned, as in Acts xvi. 33 ; 1 Cor. i. 16. For
my part, I feel inadequate to the task." And again :
" We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism
from Apostolic institution."

Chevalier Bunsen. — It " was utterly unknown to
the early church, not only down to the end of the
second, but, indeed, to the middle of the third
centuries."

Dr. Merle D'Aubigne — the historian of the Refor-
mation. " However decided I may be for the baptism

124 Conversations on Baptism.

of infants, I must nevertheless acknowledge that the
express order, ' Baptize infants,' is found in no part
of the Gospel." — On the authority of God, p. 152.

North British Review — Presbyterian. "The
baptismal service is founded on Scripture : but its
application to an unconscious infant is destitute of
any express scriptural warrant. There is absolutely
not a single trace of it to be found in the New Tes-
tament * * * there is not one word which asserts
its existence."— July, 1852, pp. 209—12.

Bishop Burnet. — " There is no express precept
or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism
of infants." — Exposition of Articles, Art. xxvii.

Dr. Woods — Presbyterian. "It is a plain case,
that there is no express precept respecting infant
baptism in our sacred writings. The proof, then,
that infant baptism is a divine institution, must be
made out in another way." — Lectures on Infant Bap-
tism, p. 11.

Professor Stuart — Congregational. " Commands,
or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament,
relative to it [infant baptism] I do not find." — Bib.
Hep. 1833, p. 385.

New American Encyclopedia. — " Though bap-
tism, as the symbol of an inward change, was con-
ferred at first only upon converts to the Christian
faith, according to the prevailing modern opinion of
biblical writers, yet at an early period the practice
was introduced of baptizing infants, the church re-
quiring security through certain sponsors that the

Eighth Conversation. 125

children should be brought up to lead a godly and
Christian life." — Infant Baptism, p. 595.

Guebjcke. — " That this rite [infant baptism] was
actually practiced by the Apostles themselves, is not,
indeed, capable of a strict and absolute demonstra-
frora New Testament data." — Manual of Church
History, p. 140.

Coleman. — " Though no instance of baptism by
sprinkling is mentioned in the New Testament, yet
there are several cases in which it is hardly possible
that it would have been administered by immersion."
— Ancient Christianity Exemplified, 377.

Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. — " I concede and
assert first, that infant baptism is no where com-
manded in the New Testament. It is not brought
down as a substitute for circumcision."

" It is true," says the writer of a tract on " Chris-
tian Baptism," published by the Presbyterians, " that
we have no direct Scripture declaration, saying in
so many words, that children should be baptized."

Thus, from the testimony of Lutherans, Presby-
terians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists, the
idea of Infant Baptism being ordained by Christ
and his Apostles, or commanded in the Bible, is
expressly denied. Mr. Beecher contends for it on
the ground of expediency alone. He abandons and
runs away from the field in which Pedobaptists have
been contending so long and earnestly.

M. All that may be so with Mr. Beecher, but I
know Congregational churches, nevertheless, who

126 Conversations on Baptism.

contend that infant baptism is an Apostolical ordi-
nance.

P. Yes, and the one I have referred to says that
they " receive and apply the ordinance of baptism
and the Lord's Supper as instituted by Christ, and
'practiced by the Apostles;" and they immerse, pour,
and sprinkle. Thus emphatically proclaiming to the
world that Christ instituted all these methods, and
infant baptism, and that the Apostles practiced them.

M. Surely, brother E., you are jesting. How
can a church take such a contradictory position ?
How can they solemnly subscribe to such nonsense
as that ?

P. ISTo, I am not jesting. It is the truth, how-
ever absurd their article of religion may be. But
where they find it, is beyond my comprehension.
Let them furnish the proof. Here is a fine chance
for showing Mr. Beecher he is wrong, and triumph-
antly "settling" all the opposers of infant baptism.
After this, I hope they will not be satisfied with a
simple declaration, but clinch it with Scripture — if
they can !

But as it is now late, and as I understand you have
something to say in favor of infant baptism, let us
adjourn till to-morrow evening.

DP^SEl

^^^^^^

||g:-*>WiWM

^^^^mM

KMfffflffiJmh^iiffrfr ■*^^iiitfi)K»iTi i inrn&nmgi

Ninth

ONYERSATION.

Infant Baptism — Concluded.

|F1

ikJ^li

jF%

i&S>

pS" continuing the subject of infant baptism
Mr. E. said :

"Well, brother C, what do you think
of the concessions of our friends on infant
baptism ?"

Methodist. I admit they are very striking; but
sometimes great men say and do ridiculous things;
and though you may charge me with presumption,
let me try if I can not find some clear cases of infant
baptism in the Scriptures.

.Presbyterian. That is right. And instead of
charging you with presumption, I commend you for
your independence. Truth is for all. And your
opinion, simply as an opinion, is entitled to as much
consideration and respect as that of the wisest of
men, not based upon the Bible. I shall be glad to
look at your examples. "Which is your first clear
case of infant baptism ?

128 Conversations on Baptism,

31. Turn to Matthew xix. 13, 14: "Then were
there brought unto him little children, that he
should put his hands on them and pray; aud the
disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, suffer little
children, and forbid them not, to come unto me ; for
of such is the kingdom of heaven." " And he took
them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and
blessed them." — Mark x. 16.

Now, when a minister takes little children in his
arms and baptizes them, it looks like following the
example of the Saviour. I never could see why any
one should be opposed to bringing the children to
Christ.

P. Why really, brother C, it is my turn to be
astonished now. The verses you have quoted say
expressly that Christ took the children into his arms
to bless, and not to baptize them. Yet why should I
be astonished at you more than others? I know
there are a great many Christians who believe
that Christ's blessing little children is authority for
infant baptism. I once believed it. Even many
ministers, when baptizing the precious children,
quote the Saviour's words with such frequency and
fervency, as to justify us in concluding that they
consider his example as authority for baptizing
them.

M. Of course they do.

P. But Christ's blessing the children was not
baptism. He taught a lesson altogether different to
what Pedobaptists teach. He says, " Of such is the

Ninth Conversation,

129

kingdom of heaven," whether baptized or not; and
we say, many of us at least, " of such is the king-
dom of heaven," if they are baptized.

THE BIBLE AND THE BAPTISTS

say:
" Jesus took little children in
his arms and blessed them."

PEDOBAPTISTS SAY :

Jesus took little children in
his arms and sprinkled them !

Those who are opposed to infant baptism are more
liberal than we. They say all the children go to
heaven at death; but we only open the door to the
baptized. They give them all to Christ; but we only
give him the baptized children. Who loves the
children the most? Some of our ministers have
said that " there are only two places where there are
no children — a Baptist church and hell!" What
do you think of that? Talk about the Baptists
being severe on us ! why some of our friends can
out-Herod Herod in their scurrilous abuse of the
Baptists. Now if I had been a Baptist, I could have
retorted that they had forgotten a part of their creed;
that since they had shut out the unbaptized children from
heaven, I should like to know what they had done
with them ! I could also have told them that there
is still another place where there are no children —
a Pedobaptist communion table : that after the}' have
baptized them into the church, calling them young
Christians, well-pleasing to God, they fence them
from the Lord's table !

M. Well, I must admit that baptism is not men-
tioned in the example of Christ, and I do not see
6*

130 Conversations on Baptism,.

but what I shall have to abandon it as proof of
infant baptism.

P. What is your next clear case?

M. The jailor's family. [Reads the narrative,
Acts xvi. 25-34.] Thus, you see, the jailor " was
baptized, he and all his, straightway." There must
certainly have been children there.

P. Where do you find them ? It is for you to
prove it. The burden of proof rests on you. But
let us look at the particulars : 1. The " Word of
the Lord" was preached unto the jailor, "and to all
that were in his house." 2. Then they were bap-
tized. 3. Then it is said, " he rejoiced, believing in
God^ with all his house." Did the jailor u believe in
God" for " all his house," or did " all that were in
his house" believe in God ?

M. The latter, of course. That is plain.

P. You concede all I ask. Now, if you contend
that the words " all his house," and " all that were
in his house," imply children, then, as you say,
they were large enough to "believe in God;" and,
of course, proper subjects for baptism. And I
suppose our Baptist friends would be quite willing
to baptize such believing children, to whom the
"Word of God had been preached. But then, again,
I say it is for you to prove it. But where are the
babes? How could they " believe in God?" Did
Paul and Silas preach to them? Did they believe?
When my attention was particularly drawn to this
fact, I was sorely puzzled; but I would not yield.

Ninth Conversation, 131

t0ur friends had thrust the babes so forcibly irrto the
jailor's family, that I believed it all true. True, I
could not find them in the narrative, but that made
no difference ; there they must be, and there I would
have them. But the words, " believing in God with
all his house," kept so ringing in my ears, that I was
compelled at last to admit there were no babes there.
A short time ago I heard a Baptist minister declare
that he baptized a jailor and all his house, compris-
ing six persons. I have heard of one church where
there are four baptized households, and not a baby
in any of them. It is quite common to find baptized
households; and I see no reason for making the
scriptural examples any more a cause of wonder
than the examples of our day.

M. Well, brother E., you certainly put the case
in a strange and novel manner. I never saw it thus
before. They must have been curious "babes" to
do all this. But what do you say of Lydia's house-
hold. " She was baptized, and her household." —
Acts xvi. 15.

P. What I have said of the jailor's family in
part applies to Lydia. Lydia was from Thyatira, a
city of Lydia, a province in Asia Minor. She is
probably called Lydia from being a citizen of the
province of that name. I do not say positively, for
there is no proof of the fact. She was at Philippi,
which was " the chief city of that part of Macedonia,"
a country in the northeast of Europe. Her business
there was to sell purple, no doubt doing business

132 Conversations on Baptism.

at Philippi transiently as a merchant, as was the
custom at the east. The art of dyeing purple was
particularly cultivated at Thyatira, and was in great
demand in other countries. E~ow, if you will get
your map, you will see that Lydia was a great way
from home, having to cross the ^Egean sea to get
from Thyatira to Philippi.

M. You are correct in your geographical account,
but what has that to do with her baptism ? Are
you not condemning yourself by indulging in suppo-
sitions? How do you know she was a merchant and
a transient visitor at Philippi ?

P. From what the Bible says: "She was of the
city of Thyatira," and a " seller of purple." ISTow,
is it likely to suppose that she would be so far from
home on business, with helpless babes, as you
assume ?

M. Well, it does seem rather improbable.

P. Certainly it is improbable. But let us look
at her baptism. The baptism took place at the
river. " And on the Sabbath we went out of the
city, by a river side, where prayer was wont to be
made, and we sat down, and spake unto the women
which resorted thither." — Acts xvi. 13. A very
convenient place for immersion, was it not? " And
a certain woman, named I/ydia, a seller of purple,
of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God,
heard us : whose heart the Lord opened, that she
attended to the things which were spoken of Paul."
— 14. "And when she wyas baptized, and her

Ninth Conversation. 133

household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged
me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house,
and abide there." — 15. So you see that Lydia and
her household Were baptized in the river, and that
the Apostles were not in her house until after the
baptism. In the fortieth verse, Lydia's household
are counted among " the brethren." The jailor's and
Lydia's household were the only disciples in the
city.

M. I have always supposed that Lydia was bap-
tized in her house. Our preachers never tell us
about the prayer-meeting, and the baptism at the
river. I have heard much about Lydia's household
being an example of infant baptism, but somehow
they forgot to mention that they were baptized in
the river.

P. Again : you will see that it was to the women
that " resorted " to the river, " where prayer was
wont to be made," that the Apostles preached.
There were no babes there. Now, your next case.

M. The household of Stephanus. "And I bap-
tized also the household of Stephanus." — 1 Cor. i. 16.

P. I need not dwell on that. "Ye know the
house of Stephanus," says Paul (1 Cor. xvi. 15.),
" that they have addicted themselves to the ministry
of the saints." There were no babes there.

M. Well, let that pass. Now for the household
of Cornelius. [See Acts x.]

P. Of Cornelius it is said he was " a devout man,
and one that feared God with all his house." — 2.

134 Conversations on Baptism.

The angel told him to send for Peter, " who shall tell
thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."
— xi. 14. When Peter came and "began to speak,
the Holy Ghost fell on them." — 15. Do babes
receive the Holy Ghost? Cornelius and his house-
hold received the Holy Ghost. Could babes receive
the words whereby all the house were to be saved?

M. But what do you make of the baptism of
Crispus ? "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the syna-
gogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and
many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were
baptized." — Acts xviii. 8.

P. I make of this case, what I made of the
jailor's. " Crispus believed on the Lord with all his
house." Now, it is for you, if you will have babes
there, to show me how they could " believe in the
Lord." Have you any more "clear examples" of
infant baptism ?

31. No, I think not. And I must confess that I
have made out a very poor case.

P. You have the sympathy of all who have
tried it. It never can be proved that there were
baptized babes in these families. It is all based on
the suppositions of fanciful imaginations.

M. I do not see why our ministers should persist
in quoting these examples in proof of infant baptism,
when we can not find the babes there.

P. Find them ! no ; hunt for them as we may.
And yet they will have them there, in spite of what

Ninth Conversation. 135

the Bible teaches. We take the responsibility, and
thrust imaginary babes into babeless families.

M. I have always looked upon infant baptism as
coming in the room of circumcision. Circumcision
was the seal of the covenant with Abraham. And
as the children were circumcised then, so the child-
ren are to be baptized now. Baptism is a seal of
the covenant.

P. That infant baptism does not come in the
place of circumcision is clearly evident from the
following facts :

1. Abraham when he was circumcised was ninety-
nine years old (Gen. xvii. 24.), and twenty-four years
before he believed in God, when it was accounted
to him for righteousness.

2. God commanded the Jews to be circumcised.
He has not commanded infants to be baptized.

3. The male children of the Jews were circum-
cised, and not the females.

4. They were circumcised when eight days old.

5. All the male servants, both young and old,
were required to be circumcised.

6. The children were to be circumcised by the
parents, and not by the priests.

7. Circumcision was a literal, outward act, and
was to distinguish the Jews as a people or nation.
It conferred no spiritual grace, nor made the Israel-
ites the spiritual children of God. If circumcision
introduced the circumcised into a spiritual relation,
then was the entire Jewish nation a spiritual people,

136 Conversations on Baptism.

which we know was not the fact. The Ishmaelites
practiced circumcision. They did not enjoy a spirit-
ual relation to God. If circumcision introduced the
Jews into a spiritual relation to God, and as you say
baptism takes the place of circumcision, then bap-
tism introduces the baptized into a spiritual relation
too, and, consequently, makes them the children of
God. Thus, again, you make baptism a saving
ordinance!

M. But was not circumcision a seal of the cove-
nant, whereby the children were sealed over to God ?
Does it not bring them into a covenant relation to
him ?

P. The covenant, of which circumcision was the
seal, was a literal covenant, wherein God promised
to give to Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan.
It was the mark of identity of Abraham's seed, as
well as the sign of God's promise to give him and
his seed the goodly land. How can baptism bring
a child into covenant relation to God? • A covenant
can not be entered into by a child ; neither has any
one the right at baptism to covenant for the child.
A parent or sponsor may agree to do something of
themselves for the child; but the child has no voice
in it. Baptism is a different thing. It is a voluntary
act of obedience on the part of the individual bap-
tized. It is an act of intelligence — something to be
understood — all of which the child is ignorant of.
Again: how can baptism come in the place of

Ninth Conversation. 137

circumcision, when circumcision has never been
abolished?

M. Well, brother E., you overturn all my
theories.

P. Your theories are but the opinions of others ;
aud because theories, are so easily overturned by
facts. Now let me ask you, into what kind of a
relation does infant baptism bring the children?
What does it do for them ? As infant baptism con-
veys no spiritual benefit to the child, of what advan-
tage is it ? What advantage have the baptized above
the unbaptized children?

M. I am at a loss to reply to your question.

P. I am not surprised at your answer. I have
never found a Pedobaptist who could answer it with-
out affirming infant baptism to be essential to salva-
tion. There is a vast amount of contradiction among
the advocates of infant baptism themselves. Some
say it is necessary for salvation. " Wall, Ham-
mond, and others, predicate it on Jewish proselyte
baptism. Owen, Jennings, and many others, reject
Jewish proselyte baptism, and predicate it on circum-
cision. Bishop Jeremy Taylor, and many others,
reject circumcision. Beza, Doddridge, and others,
teach that children are holy, and are therefore to be
baptized. Wesley and his disciples teach that they
are unholy, and must be baptized to cleanse them
from their defilement. Burder, Dwight, and others,
baptize no infants but those of Christian parents, all
of whom they say are born in the church, and are

138 Conversations on Baptism.

therefore entitled to its ordinances; on the other
hand, Baxter, Henry, and others, baptized infants
to bring them into the church/' Here you see a
perfect babel of opinions on the subject. How can
we believe that an institution that causes so many
contradictory and absurd notions is of God?

A Baptist minister traveling in Iowa, stopped at a
Methodist camp meeting, and on Saturday was re-
quested to preach. He did so, his subject being
"the duty of Christian parents to their children, in
view of future results." Iu one of his illustrations
he showed the great care some farmers took in pre-
serving their seed corn, above that which they mani-
fested in the spiritual welfare of their children. On
Sabbath morning the Methodist preached, the Bap-
tist being in the stand. At the close of his sermon,
the Methodist called on parents to bring their child-
ren for baptism, at the same time saying, " As our
Baptist brother spoke of children being the seed-
corn of the church, we will now attend to preserving
it." To which the Baptist promptly replied : uJt
is not customary to put seed-corn to soak ten or
twenty years before using it." The effect was instan-
taneous and ludicrous on the congregation ; and the
Methodist laughingly replied : "Brother, you have
got me this time !" The result was, not as many
infants were sprinkled as had been expected.

M, But you can not say that infant baptism does
no good. Does it not exert over the baptized a
restraining influence? Does it not throw around

Ninth Conversation* 139

them a charm? and are they not eventually more
likely to be converted ?

P. Certainly I say it does no good. It is a posi-
tive evil. It has destroyed the spirituality and power
of churches, by filling them with an unconverted
membership, producing formality, and culminating
in the denial of the truth of the Christian religion.
The infidelity of France and Germany has its root
in infant baptism. It is the great feeder of all State
religions, and essentially necessary to the union of
Church and State. It purports to be of God, when
it is the invention of men. It assumes power to save
the children. It is a charm that lulls the soul to
sleep, causing men to believe that their salvation is
secure because they have been baptized in infancy,
and united with the church. It tries to supplant,
and would, if universal, believer's baptism. " It con-
flicts with a fundamental principle of Christianity —
soul liberty, or the undisturbed and undisputed right
of every person to serve and worship his Creator in
the form and manner he may choose : but if bap-
tized in infancy, his baptism and his church relation
are chosen for him; and he is taught that to reject
his baptism is very sinful." " It does by proxy
what would give very great joy to believers, if they
were left to act for themselves." It assumes to be
sustained by the Scriptures, when there is neither a
command nor an example for it. It places a yoke
upon our children which weighs them down in all
time to come.

140 Conversations on Baptism.

Well has it been said, that " the right of choice in
baptism and church membership is wrested away
forever from children. Will you claim for the man
a l perfect freedom in attaching himself to such de-
nomination as he shall choose,' but virtually annul
the privilege, by joining him to a church when a
child ? Will you claim for the man a choice in bap-
tism, but forestal him in the choice while he is yet a
babe? Shutting him up to the opinions of others
unless he will join in an 'affront to the Christian
world,' by submitting to be ' re-baptized.' Shall
childhood, in its innocence and helplessness, be
despoiled of its freedom ? Will you wring from the
tender hand of infancy what you dare not ask of
manhood ? Oh ! at every point this practice infringes
Christian principle. As the truth advances it must
die."

What right have sponsors — godfathers and god-
mothers— to step in the place of the child, and
assume what they do in baptism, and that, too, when
they are unconverted?

M. There is great weight in what you say. I
have been at a loss myself to understand why uncon-
verted men and women should stand sponsors for
children at baptism; and why the children of un-
godly parents should be baptized. But by some it
is viewed only as a form.

P. Yes, I know it is so looked upon by some ;
but that does not make it the less wrons;. It is a
piece of the same cloth from the loom of human

Ninth Conversation, 141

inventions. On a certain occasion a wedding occurred
in an Episcopal family, the minister being called
from a neighboring town. There being an unbap-
tized infant in the family, the parents thought it a
favorable time to have the baby baptized; and after
the wedding presented it for baptism. But the trou-
ble was to find a "godfather" who would stand
sponsor for the child. There being no other pre-
sent who was willing to take this position, a clever,
but wild harum-scarum chap, the ringleader of all
the fun and frolic of the town, offered his services,
which were promptly accepted. The ceremony pro-
ceeded until the minister required the godfather, in
behalf of the child, to renounce the world, the flesh,
and the devil, and to live a prayerful, holy, and godly
life ; when he, thinking this was too much for him
to promise in so solemn a manner, cried out:

" Hold on ! hold on ! I don't know about that."

Bat the minister soothingly replied : " Oh, it's
only a form — only a form."

" Well," said the godfather, " if it's only a form,
you may go ahead !"

Thus showing, with all his frolic and fun, he had
more conscience, in reference to sacred things, than
this pretended successor of the Apostles.

It is just as right for wicked people to stand
sponsors, and for the children of ungodly parents to
be baptized, as it is for a minister to sprinkle them.
The whole thing is a fabrication, and has, to a fear-
ful extent, been the curse of the world. Look at

142 Conversations on Baptism.

the tens of thousands who are now counted church
members by infant baptism, who have never been
regenerated, and you will see enough to make you
shudder. Look at the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian,
and Lutheran churches in Europe, and see what an
alarming state of things it has produced. Infidelity,
Sabbath-breaking, drunkenness, profanity, etc., are
unblushingly advocated and practiced by those who
are church members by infant baptism. It is all a
natural result. Like begets like. A spiritual church
is not to be expected from an unconverted church
membership.

M. That is certainly a very dark and gloomy
picture.

P. But not as deeply colored as the original.
First, usurping the place of God's ordinance, Infant
Baptism has marched on in strife, persecuting,
fining, imprisoning, and martyring those who would
not bow down to it, and submit to its ungodly
assumptions. Many a poor victim has been offered
to appease the persecuting spirit it created, and the
unjust and cruel laws it enacted.

"Late as 1611, the very year in which James
published the common English Bible, he carefully
burnt the body of that sturdy old Baptist, Edward
"Wightman, in the streets ot Lichfield, that English-
men might have a good light to read its Baptist
truths by. Wightman's crime consisted in saying,
' that the baptizing of infants is an abominable
custom : that the Lord's Supper and Baptism are

Ninth Conversation, 143

not to be celebrated as they are now practiced in
the Church of England.' "

Look, again, at the consequences of baptizing
infants into the church :

" Infants, on being baptized, become members of
the church. They are necessarily at that time desti-
tute of faith in Christ. How large a proportion of
them grow up, live, and die, without that faith.
Yet all the time they are members of the church,
and entitled to take part in the management of its
affairs. What kind of society has it become ? What
kind of society must it become, under such a process?
It must mainly consist of the unregenerate — of
persons who have no sympathy whatever with
spiritual truth and spiritual worship — and who will
therefore be prepared to patronize any arrangements
which will gratify the gay, the sensual, ambitious
tendencies of human nature. As there is nothing
apostolic in the elements of such a church, we may
expect a wide departure from apostolic rule and
practice. A society so constituted will determine
to have its own way, and will care but little for the
will of its Divine Master. Christianity, placed in
such hands, will inevitably suffer loss and corruption.

" So it has proved. All ecclesiastical history
confirms it.

" The downward progress began in the second
century. It was fearfully rapid in the fourth and
two following centuries. What was then called the
Christian church had become a great worldly corpo-

144 Conversations on Baptism.

ration, polluted with worldly lusts, and prepared for
any further amount of worldliness which the devil
might induce its members to receive.

"If the Christians of the second century had not
given up the sufficiency and sole authority of the
Word of God — and if, as one of the results of that
surrender, in the next and succeeding centuries,
infant baptism had not been introduced, flooding
the church with the ungodly — apostolic Christi-
anity would have been preserved — Popery would
have been an impossibility, and national churches
could not have existed. Then, instead of being
compelled to accord the title of ' Christian' to men
of no religion, because they happen to be members
of churches which have so awfully backslidden from
primitive purity, we should have seen the line
of separation between the church and the world
broadly marked, and membership granted to those
only who afforded satisfactory evidence of union
with Christ. Incalculable mischiefs and miseries
have flowed from the evils above mentioned.
Christianity will not be restored to its first lustre
till these wrongs are redressed. Bartholomew
Hubmeyer's words (lie was a Baptist martyr, who
suffered at the stake in 1528,) are very significant,
and deserve to be seriously considered by all the
friends of Christian reformation. 'I believe and
know,' he said, ' that Christendom shall not receive
its rising aright, unless Baptism and the Lord's
Supper are brought to their original purity.' "

Ninth Conversation, 145

The infidels of Europe are not so much to blame,
after all we have said against them. They saw the
open wickedness in our churches, which were filled
with unconverted members by infant baptism, but
instead of tracing all this to the corrupt fountain,
infant baptism, they wrongfully attributed it to
Christianity itself; and thus, instead of attacking
the dogma of baptismal regeneration as the cause,
they aimed their blows at the divinity of the Chris-
tian religion.

Thus our inventions turn upon us to torment us. The
means we have invented to save the children and increase
the membership of our churches, are corrupting and
destroying us — eating the very life out of us.

In the face of all these facts, how can you say that
infant baptism does good? Now, in answer to your
question, are not those baptized in infancy more
likely to become converted than those who are not?
I emphatically say, No! In one church, with a
membership of sixty, and some of these immersed,
only about fifteen of those sprinkled in infancy
profess conversion. In a neighboring church of
about ninety members, where immersion is exclu-
sively practiced, they have thirty-six young Chris-
tians !

I have seen a well authenticated statement similar

to mine. The following report was made by " The

Baltimore Sabbath School Superintendents' and

Teachers' Association," and published in the True

Union, 1851 :

146

Conversations on Bafttism.

SCHOOLS.

Protestant Episcopal. .

Presbyterian(01d Sch'l)

(New School)

English Lutheran

Methodist Episcopal. . .
Baptist

NO. ATTEND-
ING.

1,161

726
300
553
4,556
761

PROF. OF
RELIGION.

28
8

220

143

PROPORTION.

41H

90%

((

20^:

It will be seen by this table that the Baptists
have nearly three times as many professors of religion
in their schools, in proportion to the number attend-
ing, as any other denomination ; and seventeen times
as many as are in the Old School Presbyterian
Church, one of the strongest advocates of infant
baptism.

" In the part of the State of New York," says a
minister of the Gospel, " where I resided during the
great revival of 1831 and 1832, the proportion in
favor of the Baptists was still greater. Hence it
appears that infant baptism, so far from being a
help, is a real hindrance to early conversion."

M. The facts are again against me.

P. Yes, and they ought to convince every candid
mind that the tree which has been planted in the
churches by human power, and which we have
guarded and cherished so tenderly, does not produce
the right kind of fruit.

M. Surely it seems so from this, and the sooner
it is cut down the better.

Ninth Conversation,

147

P. And cut down it will be. The charm of infant
baptism, as you have called it, is broken. In some
churches very little is said about it in comparison
with the past. The practice is going gradually out
of use; and the time is coming when good men will
be astonished and ashamed to find that it was ever
tolerated in the churches. God wTill complete its
destruction in his own good time.

" Infant Baptism, linked inseparably in its origin
to the dogma of Baptismal Regeneration, and accus-
tomed so long to its companionship, can you wonder
that it grieves for it now, and like Rachel, weeping
for her children, refuses to be comforted? It is
cruel to part them. The recent decline of the one
is owing in no small degree to its partial separation
from the other. Born at one birth, were these two
children of superstition — one was the older by so
little that the other grasped his heel — the elder
should have had preeminence, but the younger stole
his birthright; yet ever, as he speaks, one thinks
with the grand old patriarch, that ' the voice is the
voice of Jacob, but the hand is the hand of Esau/

Tenth C

ENTH LONYERSATION.

Showing how the Ordinance of Baptism was Changed, and who

Changed it.

FTER the usual friendly greetings, Mr. C,
whose countenance indicated that he was
anxious to commence the Conversation
for the evening, said :
Methodist. Well, brother E., I am clearly con-
vinced that immersion was practiced by John,
Christ's disciples, and the Apostles, and that it was
also the practice of the primitive church; and that
being the case, both pouring and sprinkling must
be human contrivances.

Presbyterian. Yes, it is self-evident, that as
immersion was the practice of the Apostles and the
primitive church, pouring and sprinkling are inno-
vations. " The custom of the ancient churches,"
as Bishop Taylor says, " was not sprinkling, but
immersion; in pursuance of the sense of the word
(baptize) in the commandment, and the example of
our blessed Saviour." But there is another kind

Tenth Conversation, 149

of testimony I wish to introduce here, and which I
have referred to in our previous Conversations.

It is admitted by Pedobaptists themselves that
they have changed the ordinance of baptism, or,
rather, that they have introduced sprinkling and pouring
into the church in violation of the commandments of Christ.
Of course the admission proves the truth of immersion
as the primitive baptism.

Says Matthies, a distinguished scholar of Ger-
many, " In the apostolical church, in order that a
communion with the death of Christ misfit be si^ni-
fied, the whole body of the person to be baptized
was immersed in the water or river, and then, in
order that a connection with the resurrection of
Christ might be indicated, the body again emerged,
or was raised out of the water. That this rite has
been changed is, indeed, to be lamented; for it placed
before the eyes most aptly, the symbolical meaning of bap-
tism."— Bib. Hist. Dogmat. Expos. Bap., p. 116.

" The learned rightly admonish us," says Rosen-
muller, a learned Lutheran, "that on account of
[the] mystical sense of baptism, the right of immer-
sion ou°;ht to have been retained in the Christian
church." " And," says Dr. Bloomfield, an eminent
Episcopalian, "I agree with Koppe and Eosen-
muller that there is reason to regret it [immersion]
should have been abandoned in most Christian
churches."

Hugo Grotius, LL.D., one of the most profound
bcholars of the seventeenth century says : " But that

150 Conversations on Baptism,

this customary rite was performed by immersion, riot
by pouring, is indicated both by the proper significa-
tion of the word, and the places chosen for that rite,
John iii. 23; Acts viii. 38 ; and many allusions of the
Apostles, which can not be referred to sprinkling,
Rom. vi. 3-4; Col. ii. 12. Considerably later, the
custom of pouring or sprinkling seems to have come
into use, for the sake of those who, lying in virulent
disease, sought a name with Christ, whom the rest
call clinics."

M. If that is the fact, we condemn ourselves:
we must give up the ground to the Baptists. If our
friends have given evidence against us, the verdict
must be rendered according to the testimony. Are
you sure that toe first divided the church on the mode of
baptism ? Must there not be some mistake about it ?
How can we be so blind as to admit that we have
changed the ordinance of baptism, and then contend
for the inventions of men? Why should we con-
demn others for adhering to the divine example?
Who had the right to set aside the Saviour's pre-
cept, as Dr. Mosheim, a Lutheran, calls it?

P. No, I am not mistaken. The ordinance of
Christ has been changed, or superseded, and new
ones introduced into the church by the authority of
men. It is a fact, admitted by eminent biblical
scholars and ministers. Pedobaptists have done it.
The evidence is clear and conclusive. Now, as we
admit that we have changed the ordinance of Christ
and his Apostles, we must, as you say, give up the

Tenth Conversation. 151

ground to the Baptists ; for it is clearly evident that
no one has the right to change what God has
ordained. But let us hear the witnesses, who are
Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Preshyterians,
etc.

The Roman Catholics unblu shingly declare it.
Here is a note found in a Rhenish Testament,
published in 1562, on Matt. iii. 6 — "baptized in
Jordan," etc. " The word baptism signifies a wash-
ing: particularly when it is done by immersion, or
by dipping, or plunging a thing under water, which
was formerly the ordinary way of administering the ordi-
nance of baptism.

" But the church, which can not change the least
article of the Christian faith, is not so tied up to
matters of discipline and ceremonies. Not only the
Catholic church, but also the pretended reformed

CHURCHES HAVE ALTERED THIS PRIMITIVE CUSTOM, ill

giving the sacrament of baptism. They now allow
of baptism by pouring or sprinkling on the person
baptized. Nay, many of their ministers do it now-
a-days, by filipping a wet finger and thumb over the
child's head, or by shaking a wet finger or two over
the child, which it is hard enough to call baptism in any
sense."

" The Holy Scriptures speak only of baptism by
immersion. The dogma of the church is to sprinkle,
and we should in this, as in eveiw thing else, follow
the church." — Roman Catholic Catechism.

Thus the Roman Catholics tell us that the primi-

152 Conversations on Baptism.

tive baptism was immersion, and that sprinkling was
substituted by them, by the authority their church
has in itself to change the ordinances of Christ.
" The church claims the right to regulate, at her
just discretion, whatever regards the manner of
administering the sacraments," says Archbishop
Kenrick.

On this ground they have taken away the cup
from the laity, instituted the mass, and introduced
the dogmas of indulgences, image worship, immac-
ulate conception, etc.

The first law authorizing sprinkling in extreme
cases of sickness, was made by a Catholic Pope,
Stephen II., 753; immersion, with these exceptions,
being the universal practice. The reason why Pope
Stephen authorized sprinkling for the sick was the
following: The doctrine of baptism being necessary
to salvation prevailed to a great extent, and to main-
tain that immersion alone was baptism, would be
the eternal loss of many infants and others. In the
eighth century, many of the French clergy, finding
it impracticable or very difficult to immerse, began
to pour and sprinkle. This practice not having the
sanction of any ecclesiastical authority, they appealed
to the Pope, who had fled to France to claim the
protection of King Pepin. The Lombards had
driven him from Rome. The question proposed by
the clergy to the Pope was, " whether it is lawful, in
case of necessity, to pour water with a ladle, or with
the hands, upon an infant lying sick, and so to

Tenth Conversation, 153

baptize." Stephen, well inclined to accommodate
the French clergy, by the promise of their royal
master to take up his cause, and to expel the Lom-
bards from his dominions, gave such a reply as they
desired : " This baptism, if it shall have been per-
formed in the name of the sacred Trinity, shall
remain firmly ; especially when necessity also demands
that he, who has been kept back by sickness, being
in the manner regenerated, maybe made a partaker
of the kingdom of God." " This is accounted the
first law against immersion" says Basnage. " The
pontiff', however, did not dispense with immersion,
except in case of extreme necessity." Pope Stephen's
answer is the first public authority for private
baptism and for sprinkling.

M. From this testimony, pouring and sprinkling
are the children of the Roman Catholic Church.

P. Yes, and only come by adoption into the
Protestant churches.

M. It appears strange to me why the French
clergy should ask for the opinion of the Pope, if
pouring and sprinkling were apostolical institutions,
or the uniform practice of the church. And if apos-
tolical institutions, why should the Pope only author-
ize the practice in cases of necessity f ; If the clergy
were right, they needed no authority from the Pope
to ladle the children.

P. That is very true ; and hence the evidence is
conclusively against us. " It is a singular fact, that
sprinkling was not substituted for immersion, either
7*

154 Conversations on Baptism.

in England or Scotland (however it might have been
resorted to in eases of danger), till after the Refor-
mation. Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth were
both immersed, as the records of royalty testify.
The successor of Elizabeth (James I.), was from
Scotland, and had been initiated into sprinkling by
the Scotch divines, who had imported it from Geneva,
and he favored its practice in England." In Scot-
land, too, says the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, a learned
work of undoubted authority, " sprinkling was never
used in ordinary cases till after the Reformation.''9
"During the persecution of Mary, many persons,
most of whom were Scotsmen, fled from England
to Geneva. In 1856 a book of the ' Forms of Prayer
and Ministration of the Sacraments, approved by
the famous and godly learned man, John Calvin/
was published, in which the administrator is enjoined
to ' take water in his hand and lay it upon his fore-
head.' These Scottish exiles, who had renounced
the authority of the Pope, implicitly acknowledged
the authority of Calvin; and, returning to their
own country, with Knox at their head, established
sprinkling in Scotland." Such, also, is the testi-
mony of the Encyclopaedia Americana, and other
valuable authorities.

M. Have you any other testimony ?

P. Yes, plenty of it. The following eminent
Pedobaptist writers admit that sprinkling and pouring
have been substituted for immersion:

Calvin, on Acts viii. 38 — " ' They went dowr.

Tenth Conversation. 155

both into the water.' Here we see the rite used
among men in olden time in baptism; for the}^ put
all the body into the water: now, the use is this —
the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the
head. * * * It is certain that we want nothing
that makes to the substance of baptism. Where-
fore the church did grant liberty to herself since the
beginning to change the rite somewhat."

Dr. George C. Knapp. — " It would have been
better to have adhered generally to the ancient
practice (immersion), as even Calvin and Luther
allowed.''

Dr. Storr. — " The change of the ancient custom
of immersion ought not to have been made."

Dr. Whitby, a learned Episcopalian, in his notes
on Rom. vi. 4, says : " It being so expressl}- declared
here, and in Col. ii. 12, that we are buried with Christ
in baptism, by being buried under water, and the argu-
ment to oblige us to conformity to his death by dying
to sin, being taken hence, and this immersion being
religiously observed by Christians for thirteen centuries,
and approved by our church, and the change of it into
sprinkling, even without any allowance from the
author of the institution * * * it were to be
wished that the custom might be again in general
use."

Bishop Stillingfleet. — " Rites and customs apos-
tolical are altered, as dipping in baptism."

Grotius. — " The ordinance has been changed
from immersion to sprinkling."

156 Conversations on Baptism.

Bishop Smith. — "The bowl and sprinkling are
strictly Genevan in their origin; that is, they were
introduced by Calvin at Geneva."

Deylingius, a Lutheran, in a learned work, writ-
ten about 1708, say s : " For as long as the Apostles
lived, as many believe, immersion alone was in use ;
to which a certain affusion was afterwards perhaps
adjoined; such as the Greeks are at this day, trine
immersion being performed, accustomed to use. At
length, after the decease of the Apostles, the bap-
tism of clinics became known, when, disease and
other extreme necessity prohibiting immersion,
aspersion and affusion began to be introduced,
which, in the lapse of time, were retained, immer-
sion being neglected. For in a later age, when
adults were very seldom baptized, infants were initi-
ated into the sacred rites of Christians by affusion
and aspersion."

Dr. Samuel Johnson, speaking of the Popish
practice of withholding the cup from the laity, says:
" I think they are as well warranted to make this
alteration in that ordinance as we are to substitute
sprinkling in the room of the ancient baptism."

Gieseler, Ch. Hist. Ger. Eel., Yol. III., p. 274,—
" For the sake of the sick the rite of sprinkling was
introduced."

Sir John Floyer. — " The church of Rome hath
drawn short compendiums of both sacraments : in
the eucharist they use only the wafer, and instead
of immersion they introduced aspersion." In King

Tenth Conversation. 157

James' days, he says : " The people grew peevish
with all ancient ceremonies, and, through the love
of novelty, and the niceness of parents, and the pre-
tence of modesty, they laid aside immersion."

Prof. Stuart. — " Aspersion and affusion were
gradually introduced."

Conybeare and Howson. — " It must be a subject
of regret, that the general discontinuance of this
original form of baptism [immersion] (though perhaps
necessary in our northern climates), has rendered
obscure to popular apprehension some very import
ant passages of Scripture." — Life and Epistles oj
St. Paul, Vol. I., p. 439.

" The form of baptism at first was, according to
most historians, by immersion ; but as Christianity
advanced into colder climates, the more convenient
mode of sprinkling was introduced." — New Am.
Cyclopaedia, Vol. II., p. 595, article Baptism.

" Baptism was originally performed by immersion,
in the name of the Trinity. In case of the adminis-
tration of the rite to the sick, sprinkling was sub-
stituted for immersion." — Guericke's Church History.

" The chief points of practice," says Archbishop
Ejenrick, " on which changes have taken place in
the course of ages, are the manner of administering
baptism and the eucharist, as also penitential disci-
pline. The solemn mode of baptism was originally
by immersion. The church claims the right to regu-
late, at her just discretion, whatever regards the
manner of administering the sacraments." — Apple-

158 Conversations on Baptism.

torts N. A. Cyclopoedia, article Roman Catholic Church,
page 143.

" Though baptism, as the symbol of an inward
change, was conferred at first only upon converts to
the Christian faith, according to the prevailing
modern opinion of biblical critics, yet at an early
period the practice was introduced of baptizing
infants, the church requiring security, through cer-
tain sponsors, that the children should be brought
up to lead a godly and Christian life." — Ibid, p. 595.

Coleman. — "After the lapse of several centuries,
this form of baptism [sprinkling] gradually took the
place of immersion."

P. Are you satisfied with the proof? It is all
from eminent Pedobaptists. If not, I will proceed
and give you more.

M. Yes; it is clear, from the authors you have
quoted, that we have substituted pouring and sprink-
ling for immersion. I wonder what our Presbyterian
friends can say in defence of Calvin?

P. I do not know ; but there is one thing certain,
as Dr. Wall, an Episcopalian, and others, say : that
the first "Forms of Prayer and Ministration of the
Sacraments," wherein the administrator is enjoined
to " take water in his hand and lay it upon the child's
forehead" was published by the Presbyterians, and
" approved by that godly and learned man, John
Calvin."

M. From the quotations you have given, it seems
that, next to the Catholics, the Presbyterians are

Tenth Conversation. 159

chargeable with imposing sprinkling on the church.

P. Yes; next to the Catholics, they have done
more to cause disturbance in the church, on the
subject of baptism, than any other Protestant de-
nomination.

M. But what reasons do the Pedobaptists assign
for the change?

P. They give no reasons for the change, but
expediency, indifferency, non-essentialism, and de-
cency ! As if the Infinitely Wise God would ordain,
practice, and command, and the Apostles practice
and command, a non-essential and indecent ordi-
nance for his church !

M. There is one thing about which I should like
more information. I see it stated that Cyprian was
the first to defend a change in the ordinance. How
is it?

P. As it is the first example cited by Pedobap-
tists that sprinkling was practiced in the primitive
church, I will give you a literal account of it, as well
as I can. In the third century there was a sick man,
called Novatian, who, not being able to leave his
couch, and thinking himself near to death, wanted
to be baptized. The question arose, whether pour-
ing would not answer; and by some, viewing bap-
tism a saving ordinance, it was deemed sufficient.
So water was poured on him and around him in his
bed, to make it as near a case of immersion as could
be under the circumstances ; which ceremony has
been called clinic baptism, or baptism for the sick: and

160 Conversations on Baptism,.

hence those who were afterwards baptized on their
beds were called clinics, and half Christians. It was
never called baptism, but always looked upon as a
substitute, or something tbat might answer under
the circumstances. Novatian himself was never
looked upon as baptized ; for when afterwards he
endeavored to gain a higher position in the church,
he was objected to as not being baptized.

M. Do you say that this is the first example
quoted in favor of sprinkling and pouring?

P. It is. No other has been produced. It is the
first case we can find in all church history which we
cite as an example. It was a perversion of the
divine command and example of baptism ; and was
only allowed through the erroneous idea of its
friends, that baptism was a saving ordinance ; that
Novatian, to be saved, must be baptized; and that
as it was impossible to immerse him, therefore he
must have the water poured on him. Thus, you
see, that the change of the ordinance was invented
by human expediency as a means of salvation. What
do you think of that ?

M. I am surprised, nay, confounded.

P. It is enough to confound any sensible man,
and to make the friends of sprinkling blush. But
to proceed : this case of Novatian caused a violent
controversy and disruption in the church.

M. Stop, brother E., I must interrupt you here.
You say that the case of Novatian caused a bitter
controversy in the church. How could that be, if

Tenth Conversation, 161

pouring and sprinkling had been the practice of the
church ? Why oppose the pouring of Novatian, if
affusion had been in use before ? Truly it must have
been a strange and unknown thing, or they would
not have opposed it. As it was the mode that caused
the opposition, the mode of Novatian's baptism must
have been an imposition on the church.

P. It certainly was. And if pouring and sprink-
ling were of apostolic origin, why confine them to
the sick? Why not likewise baptize those in health?
But let us return to Cyprian. During the contro-
versy, Magnus appealed to Cyprian, an African
bishop, for his opinion. Here is Cyprian's reply:

"You ask, dear son, what I think of those who
in sickness receive the sacred ordinance (baptism),
whether, since the}' are not washed in the saving
water, but have it poured on them, they are to be
esteemed right Christians? In the saving sacra-
ments, when necessity obliges, and God grants his
indulgence, abridgment of divine things will confer
the whole on believers."

M. For my part I can not see any authority in
that for pouring or sprinkling. Cyprian acknow-
ledges immersion to be the practice of the church,
and tells us "when necessity obliges, and God grants
his indulgence, abridgment of divine things" may be
made.

P. Yes : and from this we see, that both pouring
and sprinkling are abridgment of divine things, if

1 62 Conversations on Baptism,

you can call two things an abridgment of a third,
which has no resemblance at all to the other two.

M. I agree with you about the abridgment.
Why, I see no resemblance at all between immer-
sion and sprinkling, or immersion and pouring.
And I should like to know when God ever gave
authority to any one to abridge divine things — to
change his ordinances.

P. He never did.

3L It seems to me, if I had no better proof than
that for sprinkling, I should be ashamed to own it.
If Novatian was poured, why don't they pour water
for baptism now? If it was for a sick man then,
why don't they confine it to the sick now ? If it
was a means of salvation then, why not a means of
salvation now? If the example is worth any thing,
it must certainly be worth following! The next I
see sprinkled, I shall be very likely to think of the
sick man, and ask myself if they are not sick, too!
Why sprinkling, according to our own authors, is
nothing but an innovation on an innovation — a substi-
tute for a substitute !

P. Just so. Thus the first instance on record,
where the ordinance of baptism was changed, is
that of a sick man in the third century, who, not
being able to be baptized, had water poured on him
and around him on his bed as a means of salvation.
The first law authorizing pouring and sprinkling,
but only in extreme cases of sickness, was made by
h Catholic Pope, Stephen II., 754. In 1311 the

Tenth Conversation. 163

legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, called by
the Pope, declared immersion to be immaterial.
Then sprinkling was introduced into Scotland and
England by Presbyterians from Geneva. The first
formula acknowledging sprinkling was published
by the authority of John Calvin, in 1556. Then, in
1643, the Presbyterian Assembly of England, by a
vote of twenty-five to twenty- four, voted that
sprinkling should be the uniform practice.

M. Why all these human appliances to foist
sprinkling upon the people if it was a divine insti-
tution, commanded by Christ, practiced by the
Apostles and the primitive church, and taught in
God's Word? What man in his senses would
require the sanction of popes and councils for
sprinkling in preference to immersion, if sprinkling
was the divine mode of baptism ?

P. Very true. And if there was no difference
between immersion, pouring and sprinkling — if
all these modes were in use then — why should there
be so much opposition to Novatian's baptism ? The
fact is, it was looked upon as a substitute for Chris-
tian baptism. This was the reason ; and that inter-
ference with divine things was the curse of the
church. And so it will ever be. As the introduc-
tion of error produced strife and animosities in the
church at that time, so has sprinkling ever since
been a source of contention and blight, and has had
to be sustained by popes, councils, and kings. Its
history is traced in angry disputations for its defence,

164 Conversations on Baptism.

fines, imprisonments, confiscations and blood. It
has a fearful record of outrage standing against it.

In conclusion of our evening's investigations, let
me now sum up the result.

M. Do so, if you please.

P. From the incontrovertible proof adduced it is
admitted by our friends themselves :

1. That immersion was the exclusive practice of
the church for at least two hundred and fifty years,
and the general practice for thirteen centuries.
They claim no exception but for the sick (clinics),
which was regarded and admitted to be an innova-
tion or substitute for the divine institution, and
devised as a means of salvation.

2. That pouring and sprinkling have been sub-
stituted for the ancient baptism, and that we have
made the change — 1st, on the ground of its being
a saving ordinance ; 2nd, on the assumed right to
change Christ's ordinances, and introduce new ones
into the church ; and 3rd, on the ground of expedi-
ency, delicacy, modesty, and as Dr. Chalmers, a
Presb}'terian, calls it, a point of indifferency.

3. That sprinkling did not come into general use
until many centuries after the Apostles' times, and
then had to be sanctioned by a Catholic Pope, thus
having a Popish origin.

Thus we condemn ourselves, and show conclu-
sively that pouring and sprinkling are the inven-
tions of men, and not baptism ; and that we have
assumed the right to change Christ's ordinance.

Tenth Conversation, 165

We acknowledge it. To us attaches the guilt — on us
rests the fearful responsibility. Try as much as we
may to shift the responsibility on others, the blame
must ever rest upon us. And to us, also, is charge-
able all the strife, bitterness, dissensions and persecu-
tions that have taken place in the world on account
thereof. Pedobaptists, I repeat, are the. first disturb-
ers of the harmony of the church on the mode of baptism.
And I have been surprised that the Baptists do not
charge home upon us more earnestly this fact — that
they do not hold up the Pedobaptists as the first disturb-
ers of the harmony of the Church of Christ on the sub-
ject of Baptism. Let them show where the respon-
sibility rests, and prove to the world, as they can
beyond all successful contradiction, that while they
are contending for obedience to the command and
example of Christ, and to apostolic example and
teaching, we are advocating and practicing the
inventions of men.

M. So they ought, in justice to the truth and
themselves. As the case now stands, we charge
them as disturbers of the peace of the church, by
advocating what we are pleased to call their pecu-
liar views on baptism.

P. Yes, and unjustly. For Pedobaptists admit

THAT THEY HAVE SUBSTITUTED SPRINKLING AND POUR-
ING FOR IMMERSION.

Eleventh Conversation

On the Right of Changing the Ordinances, or introducing New
ones into the Church.

RESBYTERIAK In connection with our
last evening's subject, let me ask you,
brother C, had the Pedobaptists the right
to put in the plea of "expediency" or
" indifferencj " as a warrant for changing the ordi-
nance of Christ, or rather, for introducing new
ordinances into the church?

Methodist. Certainly not. That is self-evident.
"No one has the right to change the Saviour's com-
mandments. " If ye love me, keep my command-
ments."

P. This is the test of our love to Jesus — obedi-
ence to his commandments. These commandments
are an outflowing of eternal wisdom, goodness, and
justice. True obedience springs out of love for
Jesus. Not simply because they are commandments,
but because they are the commandments of Jesus,

Eleventh Conversation, 167

the just and holy One. In obedience, there isloj-alty;
in disobedience, there is rebellion. " Lord, I will
follow thee now," says true love for Jesus; but
accommodation says, " let me first bury my dead."
"Lord, I will obey and follow thee whithersoever
thou hast commanded," says iove ; but, says rebel-
lion, " I will follow thee wherever and however it is
convenient."

If we have the right to pour or sprinkle for bap-
tism, we have the right to do any thing else that we
may fancy to call baptism. " It is not," says a
writer, in defence of the Baptists, " that we ascribe
any mysterious efficacy to baptism ; it is not with
the spirit of a Pharisee we cling to its outward form;
nor yet that we rely unduly on its spiritual meaning:
but it is, that the right to alter this ordinance in-
volves the right to make other and momentous
changes. Said Algernon Sydney, in the prison,
the night before his execution : ' Nephew, I value
not mine own life a chip; but what concerns me is,
that the law which takes my life may hang every
one of you, whenever it is thought convenient.' It
was a noble utterance, and embodies the substance
of our honest opposition to the claim Pedobaptists
urge." If we presume to open the door of human
expediency, we shall let into the church a flood of
error that will eventually prove its destruction. Is
it any wonder that so many of the Congregational-
ists of New England, after denying the law of Jesus
on baptism, should now deny his Divinity, and go

1 68 Conversations on Baptism.

over to TTnitarianism ? Why should we condemn
the Roman Catholics for withholding the cup from
the laity, etc. ? They do it on the same principle
that governs all Pedohaptist churches in substituting
sprinkling for baptism. And when we charge them
with making void the laws of Christ by their tradi-
tions and assumed rights, they retort, and charge us
with doing the same thing in sprinkling.

The Roman Catholics tell us frankly that immer-
sion was the primitive baptism, but that they have
changed it b}7 the right inherent in their church.
"But what authority have you to change the ordi-
nance?" say they to the Protestants, " when you
acknowledge no such right. You say that the Bible
alone is your rule : why do you not abide by what
it teaches, and not change the ordinances according
to your views of expediency? You condemn in us
what you claim as right for yourselves. Why, your
own great scholar, Dr. Johnson, has the justice to
say that we are as well warranted in withholding the
cup from the laity as you are in substituting sprink-
ling in the room of the ancient baptism."

M. The Roman Catholic has the advantage. But
he is wrong in his assumption of right. If the
church has the right to change such a solemn ordi-
nance as baptism — to violate Christ's example and
commandment, and the practice of the Apostles and
primitive church — what has she not the right to
do? Of what force are any of the commandments
of Christ? Where is to end this fearful responsi-

Eleventh Conversation, 169

bility which the church assumes? But, thank God!
no church has any such right. " Christ has given
to his churches no dispensing power to set aside his
laws; no legislative power to make new ones; but
has enjoined on them to observe all things wltatsoever
he has commanded." — (Matt, xxviii. 20.)

P. Let us wash our hands of all participation in
every such assumption of power. As the Pedobap-
tists have taken the responsibility of substituting the
ordinances of men for those of Christ, let them bear
the fearful guilt alone. They have no right to com
demn those who are contending for the primitive
baptism ; for they are only unfurling before the peo-
ple the flag which we have so ingloriously trampled
upon, and contending for principles in which the
purity, safety, and perpetuity of the church is alone
to be found.

31. If I remember correctly, Mr. Beecher has
affirmed that the church has the right to make such
ordinances as it may think best for its advantage.
If so, of what use is the TTord of God?

P. Mr. Beecher's position will be best under-
stood from his own words. He says, in a sermon
preached in Brooklyn, X. Y., May, 1864: u Show
me a thing that experience shows to be good, and 1
fall back on the liberty which is vouchsafed to every
Christian, and which is set forth in the Xew Testa-
ment, and say, by this liberty I do it. There is my
warrant and authority. And if experience shows a
certain ordinance to be good, it is your right to

170 Conversations on Baptism.

adopt that, whether Scripture points it out or not.
It is your privilege to do so, because you are Chris-
tians, and are free, being bound to no ceremonies
and usages."

On this ground alone Mr. Beecher justifies infant
sprinkling. Here you will perceive that the right
to adopt new ordinances is based on the wisdom and
experience of men, independent of the authority of
the Bible. Let us look at the assumption. Sectarian
wisdom invents " things " and " ordinances " for the
church, for the accomplishment of the designs of
men, and of course proves them to be "good," and
successful for that purpose; and then they turn upon
us triumphantly, and say: "Show me a thing" or
" ordinance to be good, whether Scripture points it
out or not, and I fall back on the liberty vouchsafed
to every Christian, and which is set forth in the New
Testament, and say by this liberty I do it, being
bound to no ceremonies or usages."

M. This is certainly the strangest of all strange
ideas, emanating as it does from Mr. Beecher. It
is nothing but a revival of the old Catholic doctrine,
that the end justifies the means. I am very thankful
that our preachers do not defend the practice of
infant baptism with any such arguments.

P. Now, if these "things" and "ordinances"
are wrong, clearly opposed to the commands of
Christ, who has the right to adopt them ? How can
the wisdom and experience of men make that right
which is wrong ? A " thing " and " ordinance " may

Eleventh Conversation, 171

be " good " in the estimation and experience of an
individual and sect, and perfect for the accomplish-
ment of the end proposed, but opposed and repug-
nant to every sense of right as revealed in the Bible.
Mohammedan and Catholic theories and ordinances
are "good" in the wisdom and experience of a
Moslem and Catholic, but they are not right ; and no
amount of experience can make them right Both the
wisdom that invented and the practice that proves
them good, are scripturally and fundamentally wrong.

M. But you can not suppose Mr. Beecher to
believe the baptism of infants to be opposed and
repugnant to scriptural teaching.

P. Of course not. But while he concedes and
admits that infant baptism is no where commanded
in the Scriptures, he yet justifies it on the ground
of experience, and the right of introducing new
" things " and " ordinances " into the church, because,
forsooth, some people may think they have been or
maybe productive of "good." Such assumptions
evidently teach that Christ and his Apostles did not
give the world all that was requisite for doctrine and
practice in the church ; that, for its perfection in
these, the theories and contrivances of men are
essentially necessary; or, that Christ and his Apostles
gave the church partially and imperfectly developed
doctrines and ordinances, suitable only for the exi-
gencies of that period, and then left to human wis-
dom and ingenuity to change, modify, and perfect,
in succeeding ages, that which they had thus left
unfinished.

172 Conversations on Baptism.

M. Yes, and nicely finished they would be, if
left to the wisdom of men to complete !

P. But Mr. Beecher's whole argument is an
unjustifiable assumption of right. He says that
these " things " are done " by the liberty which is
vouchsafed to every Christian, and which is set forth
in the New Testament." If that is the case, then
the whole thing topples over, for the New Testament
grants no liberty to make new doctrines or ordinan-
ces for the church, and to continue in their advocacy
and use, because the wisdom and experience of error-
ists prove them to be " good." If such a right was
ever conferred, I should like to know where to find
it. The New Testament unequivocally condemns
such practices. Here is what it says : "Whatsoever
thing I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt
not add thereto, nor diminish from it." — Deut. xii.
32. " Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so,
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of hea-
ven : but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
— Matt. v. 19. " If ye love me, keep my command-
ments."— John xiv. 15. " If any man shall take
away from the words of the book of this prophecy,
God shall take away his part out of the book of
life," etc. — Rev. xxii. 19. Again : it is entirely at
variance with the practice of the Apostle. He says :
" Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me
in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered. Own

Eleventh Conversation. 173

to you."— 1 Cor. xi. 2. " But God be thanked, that
ye were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from
the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you ."
— Rom. vi. 17. "For this cause I have sent unto
you Timotheus, * * who shall bring you into
remembrance of my ways, which be in Christ, as I
teach every where in every church" — 1 Cor. iv. 17.

31. It is certainly a fearful thing to interfere with
God's Word. And how any one can doubt the uni-
formity of practice by the Apostle, after reading
these passages, is beyond my comprehension.

P. The assumptions of Mr. Beecher are the
teachings of Antichrist. If 1 did not know to the
contrary, I should take him to be a Roman Catholic ;
for by the same kind of reasoning the Catholic jus-
titles all the errors of his church. ]STay, he is far
more consistent, for to all that Mr. Beecher has said,
he might reply as follows :

" The right to introduce new ordinances into the
church, or to change Christ's ordinances, is clearly
evident; and the only difference between us, Mr.
Beecher, is, that while you say the liberty to intro-
duce new 'things and ordinances is vouchsafed to
every Christian,' we maintain that that right belongs
only to the Church. The church is ' bound by no
ceremonies or usages.' 'Experience' teaches us that
image worship is 'good' — we are image worshipers.
It is our right. We fall back on the ' liberty vouch-
safed' to the church, and have instituted image
worship. * Experience ' has taught us that transub-

174 Conversations on Baptism.

stantiation, indulgences, and infant sprinkling are
'good,' and by the right given the church, we say,
i by this liberty' we command and practice them.
You admit the right of introducing new ordinances,
but that right belongs to and is inherent in us.
Christ gave it to his church — we are the church.
And we have the right to do whatever the church
thinks will promote her interests. We have done
so. We have introduced other things and made
other changes in the church on precisely the same
ground, and our experience has proved them to be ' good.'
Why condemn us ? We are carrying out to its full
and legitimate extent the principle for which }7ou
contend, and that governs you in sprinkling children,
aud what you now declare is your only authority
for sprinkling infants."

M. I wonder how Mr. Beecher's friends like his
admissions ? He gives up the whole foundation for
infant baptism.

P. He can not help it. And so the Catholic
continues : " I will condemn you by your own wit-
ness, Mr. Beecher. You say that the Bible is the
Protestant's only rule of faith and practice. That
clearly teaches immersion — there is no sprinkling
in it. We admit it, and that immersion was the
exclusive practice of the primitive church. At one
time it was our universal custom. We introduced
sprinkling, and only contend for it on the right of
the church to change the ordinances, and on the
ground of expediency, ' being bound by no ceremo-

Eleventh Conversation. 175

nies and usages established in the New Testament.' "

31. I was not aware that this was the ground
occupied by the Roman Catholics in relation to the
rite of baptism.

P. It is; and I have not added one iota to their
arguments. But the Roman Catholic could continue
further :

" Mr. Beecher, you violate your only rule of faith
and practice — the clear, express letter of your own
constitution of right — your Protestant Bible.
You say, again : ' I concede, and I assert, first,
that infant baptism is no where commanded in the
New Testament : no man can find a passage that
commands it.' And yet 3-ou advocate and practice
it, and some of vour churches command it. Thus
you introduce a new ordinance into your church,
and contend for it only on the ground that ' expe-
rience ' has proved it good, and talk loudly of liberty,
and expediency, and right, i being bound to no
ceremonies or usages,' and yet you condemn us for
the same tiling. Pray what kind of a standard of
right is your Bible ? Where can you find in it your
liberty to introduce new ordinances into the church?
God has given you no such right, and where there
is no right conferred there can be no ground of
expediency assumed. Mr. Beecher, you ought to be
a Catholic."

If. This reminds me of what I once heard a
Baptist minister say. He was riding one day in the
stage with a Catholic priest, who, upon learning that

176 Conversations on Baptism.

he was a Baptist, exclaimed, holding up his hands
in holy horror : " My God ! a Baptist ! Why you
hold nothing in common with the mother church.
All other denominations have only our authority
for much of their faith and practice; but you are
entirely out of the pale of the church." " Thank
God for that !" replied the Baptist.

P. Thus, you see, on one point both Mr. Beecher
and the Roman Catholic agree; -while, on the other
hand, the Catholic has a decided advantage. But
both advocate the doctrine of Antichrist, set aside
the authority of the Head of the Church and the
Bible, and for the " doctrines of Christ teach the
traditions of men."

But Mr. Beecher's position is totally unfounded,
from another point of view. If infant sprinkling
is to be judged by his own standard, it must be
condemned. A few churches may say that it is
* good/ but the experience of the world proves it to
be a great and ruinous evil.*

M. Why, any body of common understanding
can see the fallacy of such reasoning as Mr. Beech-
er's. He says, " we are bound to no ceremonies or
usages." The Bible says we are. Are not the
Lord's Supper and Baptism ceremonies and usages ?
To these the Saviour has bound us by positive
commands. Who gave any one the right to change
or refuse obedience to what he has ordained and
commanded ? He certainly knew what was better

* See Ninth Conversation.

Eleventh Conversation. 177

for his church than our modern teachers, however
wise the}r may be. And where is to be the end?
If we have the right to introduce new things and
ordinances into the church, and to substitute our
inventions for Christ's ordinances, and thus allow
the fanciful speculations and innovations of men to
take the place of the clearly expressed will of Christ,
of what use is the Bible ? It does appear to me that
some men have a continual itching to improve on
the infinite wisdom of Christ; as if he had estab-
lished laws and institutions for the government of
his church to-day, not knowing whether they would
be applicable for it to-morrow.

P. And yet that is the very position assumed by
many of your ministers. They contend that the
church was left in an unfinished state, adapted only
for that particular period, leaving it for us to adopt
at our pleasure, as the exigencies require, and the
progressive state of society demands, just such
improvements as we think necessary or expedient
for the times.

M. It can't be possible that some of our minis-
ters have got so far along towards Rome ! I sup-
pose they take the ground that our church is an
improvement on the apostolic plan. It is strange,
certainly.

P. Your Discipline says: "It is not necessary
that rites and ceremonies should in all places be the
same, or exactly alike ; for they have been always
different, and may be changed according to the

178 Conversations on Baptism.

diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so
that nothing be ordained against God's Word. *
* * Every particular church may ordain, change,
or abolish rites and ceremonies, so that all things
may be done to edification." — P. 25.

M. Well, we can't blame our preachers Tor
sticking to the Discipline.

P. Of course not. All that I ask of your
preachers is, that they will faithfully carry out the
requirements of your Discipline, in every place, and
at all times.

The attempt to improve on the laws of Christ has
been the cause of endless mischief to the church.
When we begin to theorize, innovate, and improve
on God's plans, and take things for granted, simply
because we desire them to be so, bending the Scrip-
tures to our own vain notions, we set up our wisdom
in opposition to the wisdom of God, arraign the
Bible before the tribunal of human intelligence, and
appeal to the prejudices of carnal minds for their
justification.

M. The best, safest, and wisest way for us all is
to keep as near as we possibly know how to the
simple, literal doctrines and usages taught in the
Scriptures. We ought to guard against the least
innovation.

P. Yes, so wisdom teaches. The exhortation
of the Apostle Paul to the Colossians applies with
equal force to us : " Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradi-

Eleventh Conversation. 179

tion of men, after the rudiments of the world, and
not after Christ." — Col. ii. 8. The rebuke of Jesus
is very applicable to our liberal Christians: "Thus
have ye made the commandment of God of none
effect by your tradition." — Matt. xv. 6. The intro-
duction of error is like making a small outlet for
the water in an embankment of a river. The
continued action of the current wears the opening
wider, and wider, until at length the obstruction
gives way, and the angry waters sweep over the
country, producing devastation, sickness, and death.
The assumption of power by the priesthood, the
introduction of long, mystifying articles of faith in
the churches, the use of obscure theological terms,
that require almost a life time to understand, and
the invention and use of complicated church ma-
chinery for the purpose of grinding the people —
have ever been a source of contention and strife, and
the blight and curse of the church.

When the church was first established, it was
pure, simple, and uniform in its doctrines and prac-
tice; for the Apostles taught " the same things
every where in every church" — "one Lord, one
faith, and one baptism." Then did the people keep
from the heart that form of doctrine and ordinances
as delivered unto them. But soon, too soon, alas"!
glided the serpent into the Christian Eden, and hid
among the flowers, breathing poison, and causing
blight and desolation. Then began men to teach
traditions for the commandments of God, and to

180 Conversations on Baptism.

claim authority to rule in the church. Then came
the union of Church and State — theu came the
struggle for supremacy between the bishops of
Carthage and Rome — then came the man of sin,
claiming to have the keys of heaven and hell, to be
God's vicegerent on earth, with his blasphemous
title of " our Lord God the Pope," and with bloody
persecutions for those who would not hold him as
supreme head of the church, with his legates, cardi-
nals, archbishops, bishops, and an almost endless
list of conjured officers and titles, and conspicuous
in whose train were imposture, traditions, dogmati-
cal assumptions, among which may be mentioned
purgatory, the mass, sprinkling for baptism, image
worship, indulgences, immaculate conception, etc.

Then, again, look at the Peclobaptists after the
Reformation; not having yet learned the fearful
results of departure from God's Word, but retaining
some of the errors of Popeiy, persecuting for opin-
ion's sake with fines, imprisonment and the stake —
advocating and maintaining the union of Church
and State, with ungodly rulers as the head ; com-
pelling men to submit and to pay for the preaching
of doctrines they could not conscientiously believe,
and to support ministers in whom they had no faith
— ministers wThose mouths had to be stopped with
fat benefices, and who thought it their right to farm
out God's heritage.

Thus the tide of error swept over the earth,
beginning at first in what Pedobaptists call " indif-

Eleventh Conversation. 181

ferency," " non-essentials," " little things," and
"liberty;" culminating in a flood of desolation,
deep, dark and ruinous to the liberty and spirituality
of the church and the souls of men. Surely the
church has suffered enough from the ungodly whims,
foolish notions, assumptions, and traditions of men,
to warn us against the first encroachments of error,
and to "earnestly contend for the faith which was
once delivered unto the saints." What if men do
call us narrow-minded, bigoted, and intolerant.
" We ought to obey God rather than man." What
if .they do cry out, " Liberty, liberty ! non-essential,
non-essential !" We see what licentiousness and
ruin their liberty and non-essentials have brought into
the church. Let us set our faces as a flint against
it. When the Ephesians cried out, in wild enthu-
siasm, " Great is Diana of the Ephesians !" the
Apostles rolled on the more vigorously the " stone"
that " was cut out of the mountains without hands,"
until at last, by its divine power, Diana herself came
tumbling down in ruins to the ground.

There can be no compromise with error. Ours
is an aggressive as well as a defensive warfare.
While we are set for the defence of the truth, we
are also called to " wrestle against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness
of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places." Let us abide by, therefore, defend, and
contend earnestly for the truths of " the glorious
Gospel of the blessed God." "Moral victories are

1 82 Conversations on Baptism.

gained in passes — passes narrow as that between
Mount ^Etna aud the sea. No great calamity can
come to virtue but through the undefended gateway
of some small neglect; no final peace triumphs, till
you have stopped each crevice in the outer wall."

[Thus closed the evening's investigation.]

Twelfth Conversation.

Pedobaptist Opposition to Immersion.

PPOSITION to immersion being the sub-
ject for investigation this evening, brother
C. began the Conversation by saying :
" Can you inform me, brother E., what
is the cause of the opposition to immersion by so
many of our ministers, when they admit it to be
baptism?"

Presbyterian. I can not account for it on any
reasonable ground. There is, however, one thing
certain, that from the time of the substitution of
sprinkling and pouring by Pedobaptists for the
primitive baptism, and more especially since the
time the clergy, finding it much more comfortable
to sprinkle than immerse, assumed the responsibility,
and declared the mode immaterial, they have brought
all their influence to bear on the public mind in favor
of sprinkling. Many of them will not immerse;
and others, holding that conscience is the judge of
the mode of baptism, yet labor, with all the sophis-

184 Conversations on Baptism,

try they are able, to persuade those who believe it
to be their duty to have their consciences satisfied
by immersion, that any thing else will answer the
same purpose! — nay, will prevent them from being
immersed if they possibly can ! Why are they so
much opposed to immersion, when they declare it is
baptism, and an ordinance of God? Why will they
not allow candidates to have their consciences satis-
fied by immersion, after having asserted so loudly
that it is the " answer of a good conscience ?" Bap-
tists oppose sprinkling, because they believe it to be
an institution of man; but our ministers ridicule and
oppose immersion, while believing it to be an ordi-
nance of God ?

Methodist. Yes ; and it is shameful and wicked.

_P. Have you not noticed of late a disposition
and effort on the part of some to form a combination
in which loyalty to Christ and the Bible is to be
repudiated, and all distinctive denominational doc-
trines and usages are to be ignored, or kept in the
back ground : a grand union of all creeds and parties,
of spirits of all colors, and to join which a man is
only required to sink his individuality — his inde-
pendence— his manhood; and turn his conscience
over for safe-keeping to humanitarian and liberal
Christian teachers? That is all. Very accommo-
dating, is it not ?

M. Well, well, that is something new.

P. New! no, not new, but old — only dressed
up in a new garb. If you look at the leading spirits

Twelfth Conversation. 185

in the movement, and a little below the surface, you
will see the old leaven of evil under a new name,
working for the accomplishment of the old end —
the destruction of the doctrines and ordinances of
the Bible, that have so long stood as a breakwater
against the encroachments of the pride of human
wisdom and philosophy, and the inventions and
expedients of theological doctors. But on none do
the blows fall so thick and heartily as upon the Bap-
tists, seemingly the particular object of a united
attack. Here is a declaration of war to the end
against the Baptists, which I cut to-day from a
liberal paper.

" We, the undersigned, * * * do hereby pledge
ourselves to secure, under God, an open communion,
and the recognition of one evangelical ministry. *
* * And we furthermore solemnly pledge our-
selves to stand by each other in securing these ends."

There we have it — a set of men boasting of liber-
alism, and freedom of thought and action, pledged
to destroy the restricted communion churches, and
especially the Baptist churches, against which they
seem to have a particular spite, and array their chief
opposition. What a nice time they will have before
they accomplish their undertaking !

M. But why this coalition against the Baptists?

P. I know no reason, unless it be that the Bap-
tists resist alike the efforts of infidels and the inno-
vations of liberal Christians : for one would sweep
away the Bible, and the other substitute the devices

1 86 Conversations on Baptism.

of men for the ordinances of Christ. One cry,
almost splitting their lungs in the effort, "Down
with the inspiration of the Bible, and the divinity
of Christ, and up with human reason! Down with
sectarianism, and up with the free church and liberal
Christianity!" And the other, with a glad voice,
shout, "Down with immersion and close commu-
nion, and up with sprinkling and open communion!"
But behind the curtains, the wire-workers rub their
hands in glee, and laugh heartily at such Congre-
gationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans,
etc., who are doing their ignoble work, only in a
different way.

M. I never thought it possible that we could
come to this — to be co-workers with Unitarians,
Spiritualists, Universalists, Infidels, and liberal Chris-
tians ! True, I am opposed to close communion
myself, but I was not aware it placed me in such
company before !

P. But let us return to the opposition to immer-
sion. Considering the great opposition it has had
to meet, it is surprising how its friends have become
so numerous.

M. I thought the friends of immersion were a
small and insignificant body.

P. Not so. Nearly all Pedobaptists believe in
immersion, and thousands in our churches have
been immersed ; and then there are over two mil-
lions of Baptists in North America; besides, there
are the Greek and Oriental churches, with a popula-

Twelfth Conversation, 187

tion of 100,000,000, " though adopting the baptism
of children, yet retain immersion to this day, as
essential to the validity of the rite, and, as Bunsen
remarks, ' deny that there is any efficacy in the
"Western form of baptism.' "

M. Why, you astonish me ! But why the oppo-
sition to immersion ?

P. There is no just cause for it. We've departed
from the practice of the Apostles and the primitive
church: that is clearly evident from the admissions
of the prominent authors I have given you. And
because the Baptists will not sanction rebellion
against Christ's ordinance, we declare war against
them from the pulpit and the press, flooding the
country with our books and pamphlets, charging
them with " exclusiveism," illiberality, bigotry, and
ignorance; at the same time boasting of our own
liberality, and superiority in culture, refinement and
taste. And if they reply to our abuse, we cry out:
"Why don't you let us alone?" but continue our
warfare, endeavoring to throw the blame on them.

Various are the ways our ministers have tried to
throw contempt on the ordinance of baptism — to
prejudice the public mind against it. They have
blunderingly performed the rite, half immersing
some, and baptizing others face downwards. They
have pronounced it unscriptural and indelicate, and
then immersed both sexes. A minister in Minne-
sota labored three hours to prove immersion not
baptism, and then went and immersed a candidate.

1 88 Conversations on Baptism.

Another preached a sermon against immersion, and
then invited candidates for baptism forward, when
two gentlemen stepped up and requested to be
immersed. He did not like that kind of a finish to
his masterly argument, and snappingly spoke out,
"We've got to go to the water!" hurried to the
place of baptism, and before half of the congregation
could get there, had the ceremony over. He seemed
angry and ashamed of the task.

M. That minister should never baptize me. A
man must have a queer kind of conscience that will
do that. And a candidate that will submit to, and
the people that tolerate such mockery, must be very
short-sighted, too. I have seen such like cases
myself. There was Mr. Pleaseall, and Mr. Strange,
who often said immersion was an indelicate ordi-
nance, and yet did, according to their say so, indeli-
cate things, by immersing. Then there was Mr.
Twister, and Mr. Commode, who were " great" in
quoting " baptism is the answer of a good con-
science," and who said all that a person had to do
was to believe any thing baptism, and it would
answer; and yet if any one wanted to satisfy his
conscience by being immersed, they would not
baptize him if they could help it. It did seem as if
their consciences had to govern all the rest; and
that they wanted to impose on our common sense.

P. I have listened, time and again, to sermons
on baptism, by ministers who believed in immer-
sion, from which you would naturally conclude

Twelfth Conversation. 189

there was nothing but sprinkling mentioned in the
Bible. To knowingly suppress a truth, is to preach
an imperfect Gospel, and mutilate God's Word.

M. And every one that adds to, or takes from
God's Word, incurs a fearful responsibility.

P. Then look, also, at the opposition manifested
by the friends of infant baptism. To doubt its
validity, or to speak against it, makes many of its
advocates oppose you bitterly, and frequently with
anger. They manifest a strange sensitiveness about
it. Why this, if they are satisfied it is of divine
origin ? And then, to what strange means they will
resort to prevent their sprinkled children from being
baptized. They not only choose the baptism and
church for the child, but when, in after years, it
discovers the great injustice done it, and requires
immersion, they use that very wrong as an argu-
ment to prevent it from doing right. " Why do
you wish to be immersed?" asks the minister.
" You have been baptized. Do you want to censure
those who baptized you ? Do you wish to say you
are wiser and better than the church, your minister
and parents? It is sacrilege to be rebaptized."

M. Are you not over-coloring the matter,
brother E. ?

P. I am speaking what I know to be the truth.
Here is a little book, printed by the Presbyterian
Board of Publication, entitled " Bible Baptism," in
which the author says, " To reject their present
baptism is very sinful. They cast an insult on their

I90 Conversations on Baptism,.

pastor, on their church, on the whole denomination,
and on the great mass of Christians in all the world.
They also bring divisions and unhappiness into their
families." "Besides, in so doing, they change a
true Bible baptism for a sectarian baptism." — P. 4.
All of which justifies what I have heretofore said,
and is sheer pettifogging, an appeal to sympathy
and prejudice, and not to principle. There never
would have been a Christian in the world if all had
been governed by this Presbyterian's logic. "If
you join the Christians," says a Pharasaic Jewish
Pabbi, " you will do averj sinful thing, cast an insult
on your priest and on your church, and bring divi-
sions and unhappiness into your families." And,
says the Roman Catholic priest, " Why do you wish
to become a Presb3'terian, my son ? Do you wish
to say our church is wrong — that you are wiser and
better than all the great men who have been Cath-
olics? Your father and mother are Catholics: the
church is good enough for them, and so it is for
you. We are satisfied with our church relation,
and so should you be. Take care, or you will fall
into the snare of the devil — you will commit sacri-
lege !"

M. The reasoning of the Catholic is just as good
as the Presbyterian's; and as logical in conclusion
as the man who thought it was right to carry the
grist to the mill in one end of the bag and a stone
in the other, because his father had done so before him.

P. The truth is, such men want to make con-

Twelfth Conversation. 191

sciences for their people; they seem to think that
none have the right to reject what they imposed
npon them in infancy. " This work [sprinkling]
is done," says the same Presbyterian author, " and
can not be undone." " True," he might have
said, "we have no authority in the Bible for doing
it, but we have taken the responsibility; and you
need not trouble yourselves about a thing of which
you were unconscious at the time. If you reject
what we have done for you, you will insult us, and
commit a very great sin /"

M. I don't know but what he speaks the truth,
when he says that Presbyterians who join the Bap-
tists bring divisions and unhappiness into their
families; for Presbyterians are bitterly opposed to
their children becoming Baptists, and have used
very harsh measures to prevent it. There was one
who took an orphan to raise, and because she wanted
to be immersed, threatened to turn her out penni-
less on the world. It does seem that the author
knew what he was writing about.

P. And here is another case, related to me by a
prominent actor in the scene: In the town of L.,
in the State of Illinois, during a protracted meeting
in the Baptist church, the only daughter of a
Congregationalist deacon attending the meetings,
became interested for her soul's salvation, and was
converted to Christ. Led to the examination of the
Scriptures on the subject of baptism, she felt she
had never been baptized, and wanted to unite with

192 Conversations on Baptism.

the Baptist church, the Congregationalist minister
refusing to immerse her. She experienced much
opposition at home, mingled with persecution, her
father threatening to disinherit her if she persisted
in her course. At the meeting on Friday evening
she felt that she must be baptized, and signified her
intention of being present at the covenant meeting
next day to relate her experience, with the view of
being baptized, with others, on the following Sabbath.
Believing it to be her duty to inform her parents of
her decision, she accordingly revealed to them her
purpose, when sorer trials than ever experienced
burst upon her. A council of war was held, to
which the pastor, deacons, and principal brethren
were summoned. After much consultation about
what was to be done, it was decided that she should
be taken from town and kept over Sabbath to pre-
vent her being baptized. On Saturday morning,
the day she expected to attend covenant meeting,
she was informed that she must leave town. Her
pleadings and remonstrances were of no avail ; and,
amid tears and sobs, she was taken by force and
conveyed in a carriage to the town of O., twenty
miles distant, and kept over the Sabbath. Then
she was sent to a Congregational school in the town
of R., where the principal received a charge, which
was under all circumstances to be strictly enforced,
that she should never be allowed to attend p, Baptist
church while in the institution. But all this could
not prevent her from becoming a Baptist. While

Twelfth Conversation. 193

at the institution, she wrote to the pastor of the
Baptist church for counsel; and I have the pleasure
of reading you his letter in reply :

F , June 27, .

My dear Sister M. : Permit me to say that I am highly grati-
fied to hear from you, and more especially that you are still hold-
ing on your way, resolutely determined to serve the Lord, and
follow the blessed Jesus in all his ways. I often think of the trials
you endured at L., and my prayer is that you may persevere unto
the end, and then out of all these troubles the Lord will deliver
you. As soon as that time of life arrives in which you are in one
sense your own, I would by all means obey the Lord Jesus in the
ordinance of baptism. This will not only augment your comfort
and happiness, but you will honor Christ by thus making a public
profession of your faith in him. He being our Saviour and
Redeemer, and having commanded us thus to show our love for
him ("If ye love me, keep my commandments"), we surely owe
him, above all others, the most perfect and absolute obedience.
Thus we show to others our love for Jesus. And then, obedience
to Christ is never inconsistent with true love to parents; neither
is it disrespectful to legitimate parental authority. The authority
of the parent becomes unlawful whenever it undertakes to super-
sede the authority of Jesus Christ. He must stand first in our
homage, first in our affections, and first in our obedience. Hence,
obedience to parental government, when it annuls the commands
of God, is disobedience to the laws of Christ, and ill treatment of
him who died for us, and to whom we owe every thing, both in
this life and that which is to come. Thousands have died, rather
than disobey Christ ; and believe me, my dear sister, it is infinitely
better to die in the path of obedience, than five in the way of
disobedience, from any cause whatever.

May the Lord be with you and bless you, is the prayer of
your affectionate friend and pastor. R .

On arriving at age she obeyed the Lord Jesus,
and united with a Baptist church.
9

194 Conversations on Baptism.

M. That was cruel. For my part, I say, if onr
children want to be baptized when they grow up,
let them. And yet, I have heard of many of our
friends opposing their children. There was a Pres-
byterian who compelled his son to leave home
because he joined the Baptists. And I knew a
young lady, formerly a Congregationalist, who was
much opposed for the same reason. And there is a
Lutheran minister, who is so much afraid of immer-
sion, that he makes it a special point to tell his
people to beware of the Baptists. Then there was
one of our ministers, who, notwithstanding he
immersed, said that immersion would do for gulls,
but not for sheep.

P. That is decidedly rich. "What a nice com-
pliment he paid some of your members, and what a
nice position he occupied.

M. What other reason can you give for the
opposition to immersion ?

P. That immersion is always protesting against
the right of men to resort to expedients in divine
things — against our ri^ht to change the ordinances
of God. And, again, immersion ever speaks of
cross-bearing, self-denial, following Christ. But
what cross-bearing and self-denial is there in sprink-
ling? Does it not show a preference for ease and
comfort ?

31. It surely looks like it. There is one thing
that inclines me to believe it true. When some
ministers preach against immersion, they are very

Twelfth Conversation. 195

fond of trying to prove that 'pouring is baptism. And
yet they will not pour if they can help it.

P. Another reason is, immersion always condemns
our sprinkling.

M. Yes, that is clear.

P. It is my firm belief, from what I have seen
of our opposition to the Baptists, that that opposi-
tion does not arise so much from our disbelief of
the truth of, and our aversion to, immersion and
restricted communion, as it does from the consid-
eration that, as held and practiced by the Baptists,
they are ever proclaiming against our theories of
baptism and communion as unscriptural — ever
charging us with the fact of changing the ordinances
of Christ — ever denying our right to interfere with
the Gospel plan — ever speaking against human
expediency in divine things — ever denying the
invention of baptismal regeneration. That is what
makes us feel so sensitive, and oppose them so
much. We make no objection to immersion and
restricted communion when practiced by any of our
churches; but how bitterly we condemn the usages
of the Baptists. Why so, if not for the reasons I
have stated ?

M. I must agree with }tou about the opposition
to immersion, but close communion I oppose myself.

P. We will look at that hereafter. So, to resume.
I have, with you, seen many curious things among
our ministers. There was Mr. C.,who, rather than
immerse, got a Baptist minister to do it for him;

196 Conversations on JB apt ism.

but the candidate had the good sense to declare
that he wouldn't belong to any church whose minis-
ter preached that baptism was the answer of a good
conscience, and then refused baptism because the
conscience of the candidate required immersion.
So he joined the Baptists.

M. I admire his good sense.

P. The following incident was given me by an
eye-witness. The Rev. Mr. Stageman was called
upon by a wealthy gentleman to immerse him.
After exhausting the usual arguments and persua-
sions customary on such occasions, Mr. Stageman
flatly refused to grant the request. The gentleman
told him it was his conviction of duty from reading
the Bible, and he could not violate it, and said he
would apply to the Baptist minister. Here was a
dilemma. The Presbyterians would lose a wealthy
member, and to immerse him would place the Rev.
gentleman in a strange position before society, for
it was well known he was opposed to immersion.
But there was no alternative; so he consented.
.Now, how to do it, was the next thing. He had
never immersed any one; nor had he seen any
immersed. He would have a platform built over
the water, and then, with a small effort, he could dip
him. I do not know whether he chuckled over
this original expedient or not, but I have no doubt
there was chuckling some where. Accordingly the
arrangements were all perfected, and Mr. S. led the
candidate to a proper depth, said a few words by

Twelfth Conversation, 197

way of ceremony, and proceeded to dip him. But,

ah!

" The best laid schemes of mice and men,
Gang aft agley :"

In the very act the Rev. Stageman lost his balance,
and gave the audience a fine- specimen of lofty
tumbling by plunging head first into the water, on
the candidate, and came up blowing like aporpoise;
when, leaving the benediction to take care of itself,
he took a bee-line for home. That was his first and
last effort. I suppose he did not like the finishing
stroke to his wonderful invention.

M. Ah, ha! What a fall was there. I can't
help but laugh — though it is a solemn thing to
trifle with God's ordinance. Served him right.
Ah, ha!

P. Trifling, yes, mockery. I should have taken
that as a just punishment for my wickedness.

M. It is shameful for ministers to act so. It
would not appear so bad if they did not acknow-
ledge immersion as an ordinance of God. I can not
comprehend it.

P. I have been at a loss to understand it myself.
I have looked at their conduct in the most favorable
and charitable light I know how; and, after all, I
am forced to the conclusion — it is a greater cross
to immerse than sprinkle. It is more inconvenient
and unpleasant for them to go down into the water
and bury a believer with Christ in baptism, like
Philip, than to stand in a comfortable church and

198 Conversations on Baftism,

put a few drops of water on the head from a bowl !
They lack the self-denying spirit which their Master
and the Apostles had.

M. But the servant should not be greater than
his Lord. He has commanded and requires it.

P. But they will not, if they can prevent it; but
try every art to induce the people to be sprinkled.
Why this, if not afraid of the cross ? Why refuse
to immerse and be immersed, when they acknow-
ledge it baptism? What keeps them out of the
water, if it is not their own ease and comfort, and
the odium they fear will be heaped upon them?
They can not say that sprinkling will do as well,
for in doing so they charge the Saviour and the
Apostles with folly.

Many, it is to be feared, first consult their pride,
that looks in dread at the water. Then they begin
to look for an easier way, which is not hard for one
to find who is bent on securing it; and try and
persuade themselves that sprinkling will do as well
as immersion. And then, persisting in the wrong,
they begin to think they are right, and end in argu-
ing for its defence. The next step, to save them-
selves from going into the water, shaking in their
shoes at the very idea, is to use their efforts to keep
others from following the Saviour, by appealing to
their prejudices and whims, and by ridiculing, in
almost eveiy possible way, the divine ordinance,
appealing to and arraj-ing against it some of the
worst passions of the unregenerate heart. Thus do

Twelfth Conversation, 199

they reach the bottom of the sliding scale. Strange
that the people can not see that ease and self-interest
are the foundation of the earnest efforts of many
ministers in advocating sprinkling for baptism.

M. That seems a little severe, but I believe it
to be the truth. Many of our ministers, though
believers in immersion, will not immerse if they can
possibly avoid it. It does seem from this that
the}7 sprinkle because it is the easiest way — not as
great a cross. But yet we should not be too severe
on them ; for it does look a little hard, to be sure, to
go down into the water, sometimes cold and icy-like,
as our Baptist friends do, when they can stand in a
nice warm house, take a bowl of comfortable water,
dip the tips of their fingers in it, and place them on
the heads of the candidates, as I have seen some of
them do.

P. Yes, and they call that sprinkling — they
call it baptism; and presume to give the Bible as
authority for it. I tell you, my brother, pride, with
many, is at the bottom of this opposition to immer-
sion. We are too proud to follow our Saviour, by
being buried- with him in baptism. AVe want a
less mortifying and self-denying method, and we
invent it.

31. It must be as you say, though it is lament-
able to have to acknowledge it. There are hundreds
who stand connected with Pedobaptist churches, who
believe that immersion is exclusively Christian
baptism, yet who have never been baptized. Why

200 Conversations on Baptism.

is it so, if they are not, as you say, afraid of the cross
— of the finger of scorn being pointed at them? I
can account for it in no other way.

P. How can you, when many of us look upon
immersionists as a poor, bigoted, and deluded peo-
ple; and smile, in our fancied superiority, that we
are more enlightened, decent, and refined. We
contend that we have a more excellent way than
that in which the Saviour and the Apostles walked.
We look on with pity and contempt when we see a
candidate immersed, and thauk God we are above
that!

M. And yet going down into the water in the
coldest days of winter never seems to hurt the Bap-
tists. Why they love it, and they love it because
they have a consciousness of obedience to the
Saviour's command, and go into the water cheerful
and happy, singing with glad voices —

" Through floods and flames, if Jesus leads,
I'll follow where he goes."

P. We talk of immersion endangering the health,
and all that kind of nonsense ; but I have yet to see
and hear of the first one who has suffered any disa-
bility therefrom; and I have seen young and delicate
ladies go into the water and come out with the ice
on their garments, but with faces all radiant with
love to Jesus. And yet one Presbyterian author
says : " There is no doubt that individuals are every

Twelfth Conversation.

201

year laid in untimely graves on account of their
extravagant views in this matter."

M. I know all about that kind of nonsense. It
is the same old tune I have heard played by many
of our friends for the want of argument. I am
inclined to think he is more afraid of the water
himself than he is of the death of the baptized.

P. I see by the clock it is now late, so, if you
please, we will close our evening's Conversation.
In our next Conversation let us examine the Bap-
tists ; but as I am not fully prepared to enter upon
the investigation now, I propose that we postpone
our meetings for some time, so that I can enter
more understanding^ on the subject.

[This being satisfactory to brother C, they
adjourned to meet some time in the future.]

Thirteenth Conversation,

The Baptists Examined.

AVING concluded his private investiga-
tions, Mr. E. called on his Methodist
friend and invited him to his house to
resume the Conversations. Mr. C. was
very anxious to examine the Baptists, and, soon after
entering, commenced the conversation.

Methodist. Well, brother E., I am glad you are
ready to resume our Conversations. I am convinced
that the Baptists have the best of the argument on
baptism, and I should like to know more about
them.

Presbyterian. I should prefer listening to a
Baptist: I may do them injustice. I have hereto-
fore had no very friendly feelings for them, and
certainly no love for their peculiar views.

M. The more likely you will be to speak nothing
in their favor but the truth. You will be an impar-
tial witness. I confess that I have been very much

Thirteenth Conversation. 203

prejudiced against them. They are always harping
on baptism, and, as I have been told, think it neces-
sary to salvation, and consider themselves better
than other Christians. After all, I am inclined to
believe they are a good sort of people, though rather
ignorant and bigoted.

P. Ah, ha ! To think that you, and myself, and
our friends, should talk about the Baptists being
ignorant and bigoted, and speak so patronizingly of
them ! In what denomination can you find more
eminent scholars and devoted Christians? Listen
to what Dr. Chalmers, the celebrated Presbyterian
of Scotland, had to say of the Baptists of England:

"Let it never be forgotten of the particular Bap-
tists of England that they form the denomination of
Fuller, and Carey, and Ryland, and Hall, and Foster;
that they have originated one among the greatest
of all missionary enterprises ; that they have enriched
the Christian literature of our country with author-
ship of the most exalted piety, as well as of the first
talent and the first eloquence ; that they have waged
a very noble and successful war with the hydra of
Antinomianism. ; that, perhaps, there is not a more
intellectual community of ministers in our island, or
wrho have put forth, in proportion to their number,
a greater amount of mental power and mental
activity in the defence of our common faith; and
what is better than all the triumphs of genius or
understanding, who, by their zeal and fidelity, and
pastoral labor among the congregations which they

204 Conversations on Baptism.

have reared, have clone more to swell the lists of
genuine discipleship in the walks of private society,
and thus both to uphold and to extend the living
Christianity of our nation." — Close of a discourse on
Romans, iv. 9-15.

M. That speaks well for his heart, an}^ how.

P. Yes, and for his head, too. But let us look
at the Baptists. The " Baptists, then, properly
defined, are those who hold that the baptism of
Christian believers is of universal obligation, and
practice accordingly. And they acknowledge this
because they acknowledge no master but Christ ;
no rule of faith but his Word; no baptism but that
which is preceded and hallowed by personal piety ;
no church but that which is the body of Christ,
pervaded, governed, and animated by his Spirit."
As to your insinuation, that they believe in baptis-
mal regeneration, it is groundless. It is Pedobap-
tists who believe in baptismal regeneration, not the
Baptists. And such a charge comes with a poor
grace from you, considering what your Discipline
says.

M. I should like to know what our Discipline
has to do with baptismal regeneration.

P. Let me read you a few extracts from it :

"Dearly beloved, forasmuch as * * * our
Saviour Christ saith, Except a man be born of water,
and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom
of God : — I beseech you to call upon God the Father,
through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous

Thirteenth Conversation. 205

goodness he will grant to these persons that which
by nature they can not have; that they, being
baptized with water, may also be baptized with the
Holy Ghost, and being received into Christ's holy
church, may continue lively members of the same."
—P. 138.

M. Stop, brother E., does our Discipline say
that ? Let me see. [Reads.] It is as you say.

P. Yes, and it says more: "We call upon thee
for these persons, that they, coming to thy holy
baptism, may also be filled with thy Holy Spirit.
Receive them, 0 Lord," etc.— 139. " Well beloved,
who have come hither, desiring to receive holy
baptism, you have heard how the congregation hath
prayed, that our Lord Jesus Christ would vouchsafe
to receive you, to bless you," etc. — 140. " Grant
that the persons now to be baptized may receive
the fullness of thy grace, and ever remain in the
number of thy faithful and elect children." — 143.

M. Well, I have nothing more to say. Our
Discipline certainly teaches baptismal regeneration,
whether we believe it as Methodists or not.

P. You charge the Baptists with always harping
on baptism. Did it ever occur to you that we preach
more on baptism than they do ?

31. No ; that can not be.

P. It is so. The fact is, when they preach about
it, we always raise a hubbub. They strike such
hard blows with the Bible, that they make us sore,
restive, and kick. " The Baptists have the advan-

206 Conversations on Baptism,

tage of us," said Prof. Porson : when they preach
immersion, it is what we believe; but in preaching
immersion they overthrow our sprinkling. And
then we, to set it up all right again before the peo-
ple, have to change the issue, and charge our guns
with " non-essential" shot, and pepper them for what
we call their exclusiveness and illiberality. There's
where the trouble is.

M. Your illustration is a novel one, and it may
be as you say. It certainly accounts for the fact,
that when a Baptist minister preaches a series of
sermons on baptism, our preachers open their bat-
teries all around.

P. Yes, then we make common cause. The
Presbyterian and Congregationalist will denounce
the Methodists for their Episcopacy, ministerial
aristocracy, and closed class-meetings and love-feasts,
and the Methodists will denounce them for their
particular doctrines; but once let a Baptist appear
in the field, and we cease hostilities, form a coalition,
and present a united front against him. We are
lovingly united then. It is a wonder how the Bap-
tists have made such progress against so much
opposition.

M. What you say is too true. I once listened
to a debate on baptism by a Presbyterian and Bap-
tist, when one of our celebrated controversialists
preached a sermon on the evening of the day when
the debate closed, over two hours in length, against
the Baptist.

Thirteenth Conversation. 207

P. The truth is, ice are the cause of all this contro-
versy on the mode of baptism. There would have been
no trouble about it, if we had not changed the ordi-
nance— if we had not substituted pouring and
sprinkling for immersion. That of itself is sufficient
justification for the course of the Baptists. When
they preach immersion, and deny our right to sub-
stitute our whims therefor, we have no reason to
complain. All the discussion, contention, and strife
there has been in the church on this subject is justly
attributable to us.

Talk about the Baptists preaching too much on
baptism! Why, you can hardly open the New
Testament without your eye resting on some thing
connected with it. Did Jesus think and talk too
much of baptism wThen, in his grand charge to his
disciples, after his resurrection, he said: " Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you ?" — Matt, xxviii.
19, 20. That is what the Baptists are doing —
teaching and baptizing. Jesus has put " baptize"
in their commission, and they dare not suppress it,
nor erase it. If the Pedobaptists will complain of
this, let them ; but for the Baptists they must still
go on and teach the people to observe all things
whatsoever the Master hath commanded. To be
silent, would be criminal. Guilty of such a breach
of trust, how could we expect them to be faithful in
other things ?

208 Conversations on Baptism,

Eloquently has one of their writers said : " Can
the Baptists compromise their principles for any
reason ? They certainly can not. Truth is a unit
— must be a unit, or cease to be truth; and it can
not be mutilated in any part without peril to its
existence as a whole. There is no neutrality here.
Gospel truth, as Baptists hold it, is a sacred legacy
that has been handed down to them from sword-
point to sword-point. Every item of it has fluttered
over the gibbet. The will that bequeathed it has
been read in the lurid flames of Baptist martyrs
from the days that bonfires were kindled to torture
them in the streets of pagan Rome, to the days of
James the First, in the streets of Christian London.
Almost every hill and valley of Europe has glowed
wTith these fires. The standard lamps by which men
read our principles all through the dark ages, were
the writhing bodies of Baptist Lollards, and Wal-
denses, and Petrobrussians. Bold men, like Jerome
of Prague, Leonard Keyser, and George Wagner ;
delicate women, such as Elizabeth Gaunt, Joan
Boucher, and Ann Askew, have tracked down the
illustrious train of burning ones from the days of
Peter and Paul. Late as 1611, the very year in
which James published the common English Bible,
he carefully burnt the body of that sturdy old Bap-
tist, Edward Wightman, in the streets of Lichfield,
that Englishmen might have a good light to read its
Baptist truths by. "Wightman's crime consisted in
saying, ' That the baptizing of infants is an abomin-

Thirteenth Conversation. 209

able custom : that the Lord's Supper and Baptism
are not to be celebrated as they are now practiced
in the Church of England.'"

Have you ever noticed how morbidly sensitive
some of us are on baptism ?

M. No ; how is it ?

P. Our ministers may advocate sprinkling and
denounce immersion, as much as they please; it is
all right and commendable, and our people largely
enjoy it. But when a Baptist preaches on baptism,
how our quills start up. How we commence play-
ing on the old string " non-essential." How we
cry out, " indifferency" — "the answer of a good
conscience," etc. And yet we won't allow a Baptist
minister to satisfy his conscience by preaching
immersion if we can prevent it. The truth is, we
are wrong on sprinkling, and they are right on
immersion. They preach what the Bible teaches,
while we labor to prove that it does not mean what
it says. Our ministers are ever rolling the stone up
the hill, but never reach the top.

M. How can they, when the Saviour's baptism,
and the Eunuch's, and Paul's, are right in the way ?
" Common sense" wouldn't undertake it.

P. The objection you have made against the
Baptists has been urged strongly by the Presbyte-
rians. Dr. Fairchild, in his work on Baptism,
published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication,
says: " They [the Baptists] lay very great stress
on immersion, and seek every way to magnify its

210 Conversations on Baptism,

importance. Immersion is the most prominent
topic in their discourses." " Among the many
thousands who listen to their instructions may there
not be multitudes who receive the impression that
immersion is the great essential to salvation — the
safest passport to heaven." — Pp. 12, 13.

What shall I say of this? — shall I call it slander?
Every Baptist minister knows it is not true. Every
Baptist minister knows, and so would our Doctor
of Divinity have known it also if he had opened his
eyes to the truth, that the Baptists preach always
that regeneration comes before baptism — that they
never baptize a person until they believe he is
converted.

In reply to these charges of our Presbyterian
Doctor, a Baptist minister, eminent for his attain-
ments, and abundant in labors, says :

" Is ' immersion the most prominent topic in their
public discourses?' I have never discovered it. I
have attended Baptist meetings from my childhood.
I can not recollect ever to have heard a sermon on
baptism from a Baptist minister during the period
of my youth. I had been an ordained Baptist min-
ister half-a-dozen years when, for the first time in
my life, I heard a Baptist minister preach on bap-
tism. And within the field of my observation
during the sixteen years of my ministry, it is indis-
putably true, that Peclobaptists have preached on
baptism twice as often as Baptists. I would com-
mend to Dr. Fairchild, and to the Board which

Thirteenth Conversation. 211

endorses and publishes such statements, the com-
mandment— ' Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor.' "

Here is what another Baptist writes:
"We hear very little, comparatively, of the old-
fashioned kind of preaching. We seem to forget
that a new generation is rising up, and that the old
truths are as essential for them to hear as the gen-
eration past. Our distinctive features are now
handled so delicately by some, that their keen edge
is blunted. On baptism and communion we have
been denounced so much, that we have become
sensitive, through fear of offending delicate ears,
and seem to have lost our manliness. And hence
we seldom hear a sermon on the great, distinguish-
ing truths that made our fathers so successful, and
gave us our prominence as a church. The doctrines
of grace are so tenderly handled, and dressed up
so fashionably — like sugar coated pills, lest they
offend delicate stomachs — that, as an Episcopalian
once said of sprinkling, it is hard enough to call
them the Gospel any way ! Thus, for fear of giving
offence to men of liberal views, who have really no
love for the Gospel at heart, we are afraid to speak
out our opinions boldly, and keep in the back-
ground the doctrines which have told so wonder-
fully for good on the world."

M. I don't want any man to cloak his sentiments
or sacrifice his independence for me. I want him
to be frank and outspoken ; and if he does give

212 Conversations on Baptism.

rough and hard blows, I can respect him for his
manliness, far more than the man who is afraid to
speak his honest sentiments for fear of giving offence.
I have little confidence in men who profess to ride
neutral hobbies : their time is too much occupied in
looking how to steer clear of the truth, or in leaning
over to one side. Neutrality is a sorry nag to ride at
best.

P. And yet most people generally like to hear
a good gospel sermon — to hear an outspoken, fear-
less advocate; and the " trimmers" — like the minis-
ter who had one sermon that could be used either
for a funeral or thanksgiving occasion, by merely
changing a word here and there — sooner or later
come to grief.

The secret of all this opposition, in addition to
what I have said before, is — the Pedobaptists want
the Baptists to preach less on baptism, because
it troubles them very much to hear a full Gospel
preached. If Peter were to stand up in some of our
churches, and thunder out, " Repent and be bap-
tized, every one of you," they would cry out, " there,
that Baptist is harping on baptism again !" Every
time immersion is preached it rises up like an accus-
ing spirit before a Pedobaptist, nor can he bid it
" down !" It will be an unfortunate day in the
world's history, when the Baptists cease preaching a
full Gospel.

Another thing, I suppose, you have against the
Baptists, is their

Thirteenth Conversation. 213

CLOSE COMMUNION.

M. Yes; and right heartily do I oppose them
for that. I admit you have had the best of the
argument on baptism, but you will find it harder
work to prove close communion right.

P. It is not strange that those who boast of
changing Christ's ordinance of baptism, and disre-
gard his example, should also seek to destroy the
Bible rule on the Lord's Supper, and advocate open
communion. The change of one necessarily de-
mands the change of the other; so that consistency
requires that, having substituted their own inven-
tions for the divine rule of baptism, they should
now change the apostolic example of communion.

M. It may appear strange to you, brother E.,
but why can not all Christians commune together here, if
they expect to commune together in heaven? as our minis-
ters say.

P. You forget that there is no Lord's Supper in
heaven. From the way some of your preachers
"thank God, there is no close communion in heaven,"
I suppose they expect to partake of the Supper
there.

M. [Looking confused and ashamed.] You
have me there again, I must confess.

P. I have been ashamed, time and time again,
to hear Christians talk in this way — of communion
in heaven. They are certainly very ignorant, or
very unfair. Ignorant, in saying they expect to

214 Conversations on Baptism.

partake of the Lord's Supper in heaven ; or unfair,
in representing the Baptists as sellish and bigoted.
Some of our members, whenever the subject of
close communion is mentioned, raise their eyes in
devout thankfulness, and with a fervent voice ex-
claim: "Thank God, there is no close communion
in heaven!" Just as if they meant: " Thank God, we,
will all eat the Lord's Supper together in heaven /"

One Sabbath day a Pedobaptist minister told his
delighted brethren the following dream : " Brethren,
I thought I was in heaven, and wanted to see some
of our Baptist friends, and I walked — and I walked
— to find them, until I came to one corner fenced
off, when, looking over, I spied them around the
Lord's table."

" Thank God !" said a Baptist, on hearing of it;
" they were there anyhow! But I am afraid our
liberal Christian friend, unless he teaches the people
more truth than that, will awake to find himself
* fenced ' out altos-ether !"

And this kind of currency is passed by and among
our friends, without detecting its counterfeit charac-
ter. It is the kind of logic we meet the Baptists with.

31. Well, brother E., can you tell me what the
Lord's Supper w^as instituted for?

P. The Lord's Supper was instituted for the remem-
brance of Jesus. Let us see what the Bible saya
about it. Turn to Matt. xxvi. 26-28: "Jesus took
bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to
the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.

Thirteenth Conversation, 215

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it
to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my
blood of the new testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins." Now turn to 1st
Cor. xi. 23-27, and see what Paul says : " Take, eat;
this is my body, which is broken for you. This do
in remembrance of me. This cup is the new testa-
ment in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink
it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this
bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's
death till he come." Thus, you see, beyond the
shadow of a doubt, that the Supper was "instituted
by Christ for a memorial of his death.

Again : If you will examine the apostolical exam-
ple, you will see that the Lord's Supper was insti-
tuted for the church, partaken of only in a church
capacity, and by baptized believers in union of doc-
trine and fellowship. Turn to the following pas-
sages: Acts ii. 41, 42 — "Then they that gladly
received his word were baptized ; and the same day
there were added unto them about three thousand
souls. And they continued steadfastly in the Apos-
tles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers." Acts iv. 32 — "And the
multitude of them that believed were of one heart
and of one soul." Acts xx. 7 — " And upon the first
day of the week, when the disciples came together
to break bread," etc. Here you have union of faith,
doctrine and practice. They believed the Gospel,
participated in its saving power and joyful experi-

216 Conversations on Baptism.

ence, obeyed its requirements by being baptized,
and then, in the church, commemorated the death
of their divine Master. Thus, the Lord's Supper was
exclusively administered to baptized believers.

The New Testament churches consisted wholly
of baptized believers. As the Hon. Baptist W.
Noel says, in his "Essay on Christian Baptism," p.
8, " The converts were baptized at Philippi, (Acts
xvi. 15, 33;) at Corinth, (Acts xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 13;
xv. 29;) at Ephesus, (Acts xix. 5; Eph. iv. 5;) at
Colosse, (Col. ii. 12;) and throughout Asia Minor,
(1 Pet. iii. 21 ;) the disciples were also baptized at
Rome, (Rom. vi. 3 ;) and since there is no reason to
suppose that the discipline of these churches differed from
that of the other apostolic churches, we may infer that all
the converts in those churches were similarly baptized"
Peter said to believers on the day of Pentecost,
"Be baptized eve^ one of you," and they "were
baptized." Acts ii. 38, 41; see also x. 48. So that
the Baptist churches are, in this respect, " followers
of the churches of God," as first founded by Christ
and his Apostles. 1 Thess. ii. 14.

M. Well, grant all you say, was not the Lord's
Supper instituted, also, for communion with each
other, no difference to what church we belong?

P. No. The Lord's Supper, in addition to the
foregoing, is for communion with Christ, and not to
show our love for one another. Thus the Apostle
says : " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread

Thirteenth Conversation, 217

which we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ?" — 1 Corinthians x. 16. And
hence, in communion it is required that we spiritu-
ally discern the Lord's body, " for he that eateth
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh dam-
nation [condemnation] to himself, not discerning the
Lord's body." — 1 Cor. xi. 29. " For we being many
are one bread, and one body ; for we are all partak-
ers of that one bread." — 1 Cor. x. 17. " He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in
me, and I in him." — John vi : 56.

And again. The Lord's Supper symbolizes the
blood of Christ as a seal of the new covenant, (Mark
xiv. 24; Heb. viii. 9; ix. 16;) and is a pledge and
a prophecy of eternal joys in heaven. Matt. xxvi.
29; 1 Cor. xi. 26.

The idea of assembling around the Lord's table
in order to commune with, and to show our love for
each other, is not the object for which the Lord's
Supper was instituted. It is communion with Christ,
and not communion with Christians. The Christian
comes to the table as a child born of God; and only
as a child he is entitled to eat. Thus the regenerated
alone are privileged to commune. How can the
unconverted eat this spiritual bread and drink this
spiritual drink ? A saving knowledge of Christ is
not only a pre-requisite to baptism, but essentially
necessary to communion.

"When our Lord's Supper was instituted, he
intended it either for certain persons only, or for all
10

218 Conversations on Baftism.

persons without distinction. If it was designed only
for certain persons, of a particular qualification,
then Christ, in the outset, established the practice
of restricted communion. That he did this is cer-
tain, as may be seen in Paul's first epistle to the
Corinthians, eleventh chapter, where he says that
Christ, on the night of his betrayal, set apart the
bread and wine as a standing memorial of himself.
And who were to be the participants of these sym-
bols? Christ's true followers, and none others.
Listen to his own words, in his matchless sermon of
love, addressed to those to whom he administered
the supper. He said, on the night of instituting the
supper — 'I go to prepare a place for you;' 'My
peace I give unto you ;' 'I have chosen you out of
the world, therefore the world hateth you.' (John
xiv, 2; and xv. 15.) These sayings can be applied
only to his true, believing followers, and they indi-
cate the wide difference between those for whom the
supper was intended, and those not qualified to be
its participants. To the former Christ restricted his
commemorative ordinance.

" When he said, ' This do in remembrance of me'
— (1 Cor. xi. 24) — he desired this precept to be
obeyed only by those who have faith to discern his
body as the sacrifice for sinners, and have love for
him as their Saviour. None others could properly
partake of his supper, for ' He that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damna-
tion to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.'

Thirteenth Conversation. 219

The partaking of these emblems is a profession
of faith in Christ as having died and risen for
the communicant's salvation, and of union with
him, and of life from him. !Now, to profess all
of this falsely, ' not discerning the Lord's body,'
without true, Christian faith, is to incur condemna-
tion, for to eat and drink thus is to practice a mon-
strous falsehood, which Christ never enjoined upon
any individual. 'Do this in remembrance of me,'
he required of only certain persons who could do it
worthily; and, therefore, by restricting the supper
to these, he instituted the practice of restricted
communion."

M. But did not the Saviour admit Judas to
communion.

P. Judas is a great favorite of open communion-
ists. I don't know what we should do without him.
But " If Judas partook of the Lord's Supper, he did
it in the character of a true disciple, the omniscient
Saviour alone perceiving his hypocrisy. But it is
probable, if not certain, that he went out to accom-
plish the betrayal of Christ before the supper was
instituted."

But if it is so very important, as you say, to invite
all to commune together, why did not the Saviour
invite all the disciples to partake with him at the
supper? Only twelve, if we include Judas, were
wTith him then.

M. That does look a little restricted, I must
confess. I can't answer your question.

220 Conversations on Baptism.

P. Are you aware that the whole subject of
communion turns on regeneration and baptism ?

31. I suppose it must; but I am not positive.
"What say you ?

P. That it is an admitted fact ; and it is really
only necessary to determine what is scriptural con-
version and baptism. All other issues are foreign
to the subject. Let me furnish you a few extracts
from leading Pedobaptist writers touching this
point :

Mosheim. — In speaking of the faithful and cate-
chumens in the first century, Mosheim says : " The
former were such as had been solemnly admitted
into the church by baptism ; and who might be pre-
sent at all the parts of religious worship. The latter,
not yet having received baptism, were not admitted
to the sacred supper." — Eccl. Hist, vol. i. p. 69.
Of the third century he says : " Neither those doing
penance, nor those not yet baptized, were allowed to
be present at the celebration of this ordinance." —
Vol. L, p. 189.

Neander, speaking of the first three centuries,
says: "At this celebration [the supper], as may be
easily concluded, no one could be present who was
not a member of the Christian Church, and incor-
porated into it by the rite of baptism." — Vol. i., p.
327.

Dr. Wall, in his History of Infant Baptism, says :
" No church ever gave the communion to any per-
sons before they were baptized. Among all the

Thirteenth Conversation, 221

absurdities that ever were held, none ever main-
tained that any person should partake of the com-
munion before they were baptized."

Peter King, Lord High Chancellor of England,
in his Primitive Church, p. 196, a work published
by your [Methodist Episcopal] church, says: "Bap-
tism was always precedent to the Lord's Supper,
and none were admitted to receive the eucharist till
they were baptized. This is so obvious to every
man that it needs no proof: if any one doubts it, he
may find it clearly asserted in the Second Apology
of Justin Martyr, p. 97."

Dr. Doddridge, in his Miscellaneous Works, p.
510, says : " It is certain that Christians in general
have always been spoken of, by the most ancient
fathers, as baptized persons. And it is also certain
that, as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity
extends, no unbaptized person received the Lord's
Supper."

Dr. Dwight says: "It is an indispensable qualifi-
cation for this ordinance that the candidate for
communion be a member of the visible church of
Christ, in full standing. By this I intend that he
should have made a public profession of religion,
and that he should have been baptized."

The American Tract Society, in a tract entitled,
"Shall I come to the Lord's Supper," thus lays
down the duty of the pious inquirer: "Let him
repent and believe, and come to the table of the
Lord. All these are alike duties, and to neglect

222 Conversations on JBafttis?n,

either is to violate a divine command. But they
are to be done in Gospel order. Repent and believe,
and being baptized, commemorate the dying love
of the Redeemer. — P. 12. It says again, (p. 3):
" We have then arrived at the conclusion that all,
without exception or limitation, all who repent and
believe, and are baptized, and only tJiey, are fit sub-
jects for the Lord's Supper."

In a tract published by the Congregational Board
of Publication, entitled, " Scriptural Platform of
Church Government," when discussing " the mate-
rials of which a church is formed," it is said, (p. 2) :
" As to' the Gospel church, it is plain that it was
composed of none but visible saints. No other but
baptized persons were admitted to communion ; and
no adult persons but such as professed repentance
and faith were admitted to baptism, which shows
that they were visible saints."

Dr. Dick {Presbyterian) says: "An unbaptized per-
son should not be permitted to partake of the
eucharist."

Thus, from Bible and Pedobaptist testimony,
regeneration and baptism are essentially pre-requi-
sites to communion.

M. But the Pedobaptists believe they have been
baptized.

P. But the Baptists deny it, and can not substi-
tute the Pedobaptists belief for their own, nor give
up principles to please men. " They might as well
take Quakers to their fellowship, who reject both

Thirteenth Conversation, 223

ordinances. This would be assuming a dispensing
power, and claiming authority which does not be-
long to them. Would the Apostles have received
them? Would they have authorized the churches
to receive unbaptized believers to fellowship? If
not, what right have the Baptists to do that which
the Apostles would have disallowed?"

M. You say, then, that the Baptists believe that
conversion and baptism must precede communion,
and that baptism only is immersion ?

P. Certainly, if I understand them. They main-
tain that regeneration and baptism must precede
communion. " All Christendom admits that bap-
tism precedes communion. The admission of an
unbaptized person to the Lord's Supper is contrary
to the uniform practice of Christian churches.
Justin Martyr, in the second century, declared its
lawfulness. The same opinion has been held and
maintained down to the present time." But now
comes the difference between us. We believe in
baptismal regeneration, and that pouring and sprink-
ling are baptism; and hence, we invite all to com-
munion ; and some of us do not even require these.
The Baptists require spiritual regeneration, and
maintain that immersion alone is baptism : and
hence their invitation to the Lord's table is confined
to such characters. They are governed exclusively
by the apostolical example. Here is the gist of the
whole matter — the cause of our difference.

Where is their illiberality and injustice? They

224 Conversations on Baptism,

have the same right to believe that immersion is
baptism as we have that sprinkling is baptism.
They invite the baptized, and we invite those whom
we call baptized. How can the Baptists do other-
wise and be consistent? Thus, if we are resolved
to oppose their close communion, we must attack
them on baptism ; for it is really close baptism, and
not close communion.

Said a prominent and intelligent man, who had
been converted in a Baptist meeting :

"I would join the Baptist church to-day, Elder,
if I could believe in your close communion."

"Well," replied the minister, "here is a little
book on communion, won't you take and read the
Bible references in it?"

" I have no objection."

So he took the book, read it, and examined the
Bible carefully. A few days afterwards he went to
see the minister again, his face beaming, and his
heart so full that he at once exclaimed :

"Elder, I'm all right now. I see it's close bap-
tism, and not close communion. Now I am ready
to be baptized and join the church, if you will only
receive me."

M. Close baptism ! That's something new to
me, brother C. And yet it looks like it. It does
seem, from what you have said, that only those who
are born again and baptized have the right to come
to the Lord's table.

P. There is no doubt of it. And if we allow the

Thirteenth Conversation. 225

un regenerate and 11 n baptized to commune, we ought
not to expect the Baptists to commune with us.
They have as much right to say who are baptized,
and to regulate their own affairs, as we have.

Besides, there are thousands in our churches who
have neither been regenerated nor baptized. And,
again, there are churches that believe in baptismal
regeneration, deny the divinity and expiatory sacri-
fice of Christ, the new birth, and baptism, besides
holding other unscriptural doctrines. With such
views, how can, they be invited to the Lord's table,
notwithstanding their profession and relation ?

M. I do not see how they can, with any degree
of consistency.

P. In your church, I believe, " seekers" are
invited to the Lord's Supper.

M. Yes ; we invite them to the Lord's table as
a means of grace. Our Discipline says : — " There is
only one condition previously required of those who
desire admission into these societies, ' a desire to flee
from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins.'
It is expected of all who continue in these societies,
that they should continue to evidence their desire of sal-
vation, by attending to all the ordinances of God :
such are the public worship of God, the ministry of
the Word, * * * and the Supper of the Lord." —
P. 31 and 32.

P. Thus, you admit the unregenerate and un-
baptized to communion. Now, if there were no
other reason, the practice of your church absolutely
10*

226 C 07iv ers at ions on Baptism,

excludes from your table all those who believe that
none but the regenerate and baptized have the right
to commune. You make it close communion. You
exclude the Baptists. "What does the boasting liber-
ality of your ministers amount to? If I invite my
neighbor to communion on terms which I know he
can not comply with, I not only virtually close the
door against him, but my invitation is a solemn
mockery. Thus, you see, we are the inventors of close
communion. We put up bars to the Lord's table.
And yet we try to make the people believe we are
very liberal.

M. We the inventors of close communion !
[Scratching his head in apparent confusion.] We
exclude the Baptists, and invite them to commune
with the unregenerate and unbaptized ! Unpleasant
as it is, I must admit it. And yet we censure the
Baptists because they wont invite the unconverted
and unbaptized members of our societies to com-
munion ! How inconsistent we are.

P. There is no doubt of that. The idea of
" close communion," as we apply it to the Baptists,
would never have been thought of, if " open com-
munion " had not been invented by Pedobaptists.
Instead of being close communion, it is free to all
who obey the divine requirement: it is the only
communion authorized by the Bible. " Open com-
munion," as practiced by us, is the worst kind of
close communion; for, while it opens the door to
the unconverted, and unbaptized, etc., it virtually

Thirteenth Conversation* 227

closes it against those who have obeyed the Scriptu-
ral requisition ! Why can not people be more con-
sistent, and call things by their right names! And
yet, I don't know but what "open communion" is
an appropriate name after all; for it is certainly
open to fundamental objections, and so loose, that it well
deserves the name of loose communion.

What is your next objection to the Baptists?

31. That they do not recognize members of other
churches as Christians.

P. That is a common objection with us, and
never was there one more unjust and unchristian.
It is a charge made by Rev. A. Barnes, and sung
in varying changes by Presbyterians, Congregational-
ists, and Methodists. Before I reply to it, let me
relate an incident :

Some years ago the Rev. Albert Barnes, the
founder of the New School Presbyterians, visited
Peoria, TIL, before there was any New School Pres-
byterian church organized there. Some of the Old
School Presbyterian members were very anxious to
hear Mr. Barnes preach; but they could not con-
sistently ask him to preach in their church, because
the Old School body disfellowshiped or excommu-
nicated the New School on account of false doctrines.
So these Old School Presbyterians in Peoria went
to the pastor of the Baptist church, and asked him
to invite Mr. Barnes to preach in his church, so
that thev could come and hear him. The Baptist
pastor, being anxious to hear Mr. Barnes, was very

228 Conversations on Baptism.

glad to do so; so the invitation was given, and
accepted.

M. The Baptists showed a more liberal and
Christian spirit than the Old School Presbyterians.

P. Yes; and a kinder spirit than Mr. Barnes
has since manifested, for he has published a very
hitter and bigoted pamphlet against the Baptists,
entitled " Exclusivism ;" in answer to which a Bap-
tist minister, Rev. J. Wheaton Smith, D.D., of
Philadelphia, has printed an eloquent reply, which
has come into my hands since our investigations
commenced. I will let the Baptist answer Mr.
Barnes and yourself.

" But do we thus cast out our brethren ?" [uncbris-
tianize them], says he. " Our denominational liter-
ature is before you ; in which of our writings do you
find it? Our churches abound in this community
and around it — which of them holds it? Our minis-
ters mingle freely with your own — which of them
teaches or believes it ? Our laymen are associated
with j-ours, they live in the same streets, worship
often at the same altars, strike hands in the same
works of love — which of them treats his brother
of a different denomination as an outcast from
Christ ? If such a man can be found, I would almost
consent to give another Baptist to the whipping-
post. If Ave have such a minister, let him hear the
words which were rung in the ears of our first
preacher at Haverhill, warning him i off of God's
earth!' If we have one such church, nail up the

Thirteenth Conversation, 229

doors of its meeting-house, as the Pedobaptist
authorities of New England nailed up the doors of
our first meeting-house in Boston. But, sir, on this
score at least, we should be safe from persecution.
Born and bred among Baptists, I never met with
one who entertained such views, or knew before
that we were suspected of holding them."

M. Well, the Baptists ought to know best what
they believe, and I am willing to give them the
benefit of their denial. But, somehow, I don't feel
yet altogether right about it.

P. I know it is hard to get the old leaven of
opposition to the Baptists cast out of our hearts ;
but what has feeling to do with a question of princi-
ple? But let us hear the Baptists still further in
their denial of unchristianiziug other denominations.
Says another :

" The charge is groundless and wicked. We
have already shown why the Baptists do not com-
mune with open commuuionists. We admit them
to be Christians, but not a Christian church in Gos-
pel order. We may extend to them the hand of
Christian fellowship, but not the hand of church
fellowship. This practice, if rightly understood, is
not uncharitable. Some Pedobaptists will not com-
mune with unbaptized persons, though they believe
them Christians. In this we perfectly agree. We
are even more liberal than the}', because we will
commune with all we baptize into the fellowship of
the church, but they will not — they baptize multi-

230 Conversations on Baptism.

tudes whom they never admit to the Lord's table.
Tliey are, therefore, closer than Baptists."

M. "Well, I declare, brother E., that is com-
pletely turning the table on us. If you keep on
this way, I rather think we shall find that it is our
ox that has been goring the Baptists !

P. Yes, and that alters the case materially. But,
" the Baptists, in declining to extend an invitation
to the Lord's table, do not cast an imputation upon
the Christian character of their brethren. Chris-
tian character is not the only pre-requisite to the
Supper: the divine rule requires also scriptural bap-
tism, and consistent church membership. The laws
of this country, for example, do not admit the
foreigner to the right of citizenship until he has
passed through the legal process of naturalization,
however pure may be his intentions, or eminent his
virtues. This restriction, however, does not im-
peach his character; for the rights of the citizen
are freely offered him, if he will pass through the
preliminary process. Was the Jew uncharitable
when, in accordance with the divine law, he invited
none but the circumcised to the Passover? Even
Enoch, Melchisedec, and Job, had they been present,
could not have partaken, unless first circumcised.
Was it a want of charity in Christ, when, at the
institution of the Supper, he did not invite the4 above
-Q.VQ hundred brethren,' nor Lazarus, nor the Marys,
nor even his own mother? Certainly this was not
an impeachment of their Christian character, but an

Thirteenth Conversation, 231

exact observance of the law of the ordinance; for
they were not then, like the Apostles, united with
Christ in the peculiar fellowship of a church."

Are you aware that "no member of a Baptist
church can claim it as a right to commune with any
other Baptist church?"

M. No. It is altogether new to me.

P. But so it is. They contend that " every
church is an independent body; which fact forever
settles the question, that intercommunion between
the members of Baptist churches is based on courtesy v
and not on right. If a church is independent, how
can the members of another church interfere with its
action? How can they claim any thing of it on the
ground of right? A church would exemplify a rare
independence, if those not belonging to it could
rightfully demand seats in it at the table of the
Lord. Every church, being independent, must act
for itself; and is, therefore, as evidently bound to
maintain the ordinances of Christ in their purity, as
if there were no other church under heaven. Every
Baptist feels that he is a sovereign citizen of the
kingdom of Jesus Christ. Every Baptist church is
a sovereign democracy, on which devolves the duty
of executing the laws of Christ, and of preserving
in their primitive purity and integrity the ordinances
of the Gospel."

31. That is a high claim you are putting in for
the Baptists. A democracy is well enough for the
state, but for the church — I don't know about that.

232 Conversations on Baptism,

P. Is not that because vou have been trained to
another way of thinking by your preachers? But
to proceed. The Lord's Supper is a church ordi-
nance. A church of Jesus Christ has within itself
the right to guard and maintain the purity of the
ordinances; to require conformity to the Saviour's
requisition and apostolical example. The latter is
already seen from Acts ii. 41, 42. After preaching
to the multitude, Peter cried out, "Repent and be
converted," etc. "Then they that gladly received
his word were baptized. * * * And they con-
tinued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, and in
breaking of bread, and in prayer." Thus repent-
ance and conversion preceded baptism, and baptism
communion. This example completely condemns
all contrary practices. The church has the right to
say who have or have not obeyed the divine require-
ment. All churches say who shall or shall not com-
mune. " When Christians are associated together
in a church state, under a definite creed, communion
in the sacraments involves an approbation of the
principles of that creed; and that, as the church is
invested with authority, which she is bound to exer-
cise, to keep the ordinances pure and entire, sacra-
mental communion is not to be extended to those
who do not approve the principles of the particular
church, or submit themselves to her authority."
Such is the testimony of a Pedobaptist.

Here are two more extracts from Pedobaptists :
" The ruling officers of a particular congregation

Thirteejtth Conversation, 233

Lave power authoritatively to suspend from the
Lord's table a person not yet cast out of the church :

" First Because those who have authority to j udge
of, and admit, such as are fit to receive the sacra-
ment, have authority to keep back such as shall be
found unworthy.

" Second. Because it is an ecclesiastical business of
ordinary practice belonging to that congregation."
— Presbyterian Form of Church Government, West-
minster Assembly.

"By the constitution of the Congregational
churches, no persons are admitted to the Lord's
Supper, but such as have previously assented to the
covenant of a particular church, and have assumed
the responsibilities of such covenant. Without doubt
every sincere follower of Christ has a right to par-
ticipate in the Lord's Supper, nor can that right be
justly overlooked. But, on the other hand, the
right of judging of the marks of that sincerity rests
with the particular church, and its members are
bound to exercise it with caution and faithfulness,"
etc. — Upharn on Constitution of Congregational Churches,

233.

That the Apostle Paul exercised the right of

directing the church in regard to the celebration of
the Lord's Supper is evident from 1 Cor. v. 11 ;
Phil. iii. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 6, 9. This authority the
Apostle derives from his inspiration ; and hence,
apostolic example has the same binding force as a
positive precept: thus churches are obligated to

234 Conversations on Baptism.

keep the ordinances as received. 1 Cor. xi. 2 ; 23,
24: 2 Thess. ii. 15: 1 Cor. iv. 1 and 17; xiv. 37;
xvi. 1 : 2 Cor. xiii. 10.

Churches are called to exercise disciplinary powers
over their members. Matt, xviii. 17 : 1 Cor. v. 1-7;
and vi. 4 : 2 Cor. ii. 6 — 10. A church is superior
to an individual, and has the right to enforce the
Gospel ordinances as it understands them. And
thus, churches are the guardians of order and ordi-
nances of the Gospel.

Besides, ministers have a personal responsibility.
Matt, xviii. 19 : Acts viii. 37 ; x. 47, 48. A minis-
ter violates his commission by administering ordi-
nances to those he thinks unqualified. He must be
the judge of qualification; and require baptism
before the Lord's Supper.

Xo one has the right to demand communion of
any church in violation of its doctrines and rules of
church order. It is manifestly unjust for an indivi-
dual holding doctrines and practices opposed to a
church, to ask for communion in that church. Is
he to override its rules and order, and demand of
those who believe baptism a pre-requisite to commu-
nion, to admit the unbaptized to the Lord's table?
Has not the church and administrator a conscience in
this matter as well as the applicant? If a church
has not the right to guard the Lord's table, then all,
indiscriminately, have the right to communion,
whether Catholic or Presbyterian, Congregationalist
or Unitarian, Methodist or Universalist, Baptist or

Thirteenth Co?iversation. 235

Quaker. If a church has the rigid to reject one, it
has the right to reject more. And if it rejects hut
one, it is a close communion church.

There is oue thins: more I wish to mention in con-
nection here. Open communion subverts all church
order, and destroys the effect of church discipline. For
instance, you disfellowship a member of your church
for heresy, or disobedience to the order of your
church polity: afterwards, he joins another church,
yet still retaining the same opinions and practices
for which he was excommunicated. Then, at your
communion season, on an invitation given to mem-
bers in good standing in your sister churches, he
comes and partakes with you at the Lord's Supper;
and you can not help yourselves. I have heard of
such cases. I need not ask, how much love and
Christian fellowship there is in that? nor what your
feelings would be, were you to kneel by his side?

M. That may all be true; but still I should like
to know why, as individuals, we have not the right
to judge of the terms of communion ourselves? If
I am sincere, and satisfied in my own mind that I
ought to go to the Lord's table in any church, who
has the right to prevent me? If an individual has
not the right to determine the terms of communion,
pray who has? Does not the Baptist's argument
destroy a man's liberty of conscience?

P. You forget yourself, my friend. Did you not
say in the opening of our Conversations that sincerity

236 Conversations on Baptism,

never made a truth, nor justified a man in believing
an error?

M. Yes; but that referred to baptism.

P. Can sincerity make a wrong right in commu-
nion, and not in baptism ? " The apology offered for
those in error, ' that they are sincere,' is a flimsy
concern. If I pass spurious money to you, both of
us thinking sincerely that it is genuine, does our
sincerity make it genuine? If we know it to be
spurious, shall we pass it to others, and encourage
them to keep it in circulation, because they are sin-
cere in their estimate of it? To trifle with — to
abuse thus the sincerity of others, would not make
the coin good, but would bring upon ourselves a
merited penalty. Are you willing to apologize for
the bloody crimes of Saul, because he was sincere
in murdering Christians? "Will not the sincerity
that justifies an error in baptism also justify the
errors of Roman Catholics and Mahommedans ?
Away with this substitution of sincerity for right,
for Scripture ! If it is good for any thing — if it
can make wrong right, then the sincere Pagans are
rivals of Christians. It is worse than folly to say
that because one who has been sprinkled or signed
with the cross thinks he is baptized, therefore he is
baptized. Apply such reasoning as this to the com-
mon affairs of life, and error, assuming the dignity
of truth, would produce the most disastrous results.
To avoid such a state of things, we are strictly
taught to adhere solely to the Scriptures, and not to

Thirteenth Conversation, 237

receive for doctrines the teachings of mere men.
' To the law and to the testimony.' "

M. "Well, then, to the law and to the testimony.
Does not the Bible say, " Let a man examine
himself?"

P. ~No man has the liberty of changing the Bible
law governing the Lord's Supper. But you do not
quote the passage fairly, and give its connection. It
is a garbled extract. But let us look at it. Why is
a man to examine himself? Certainly not to deter-
mine the law or the terms of the Supper; that
belongs to Christ, and those terms he has revealed
in his Word, clearly and explicitly. Here is the
apostolic precedent and example : " Then they that
gladly received His word were baptized ; and the same
day there were added unto them about three thou-
sand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the
Ajiostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking op
bread, and in prayers.9' — Acts ii. 41, 42. It is the
duty of a man to examine his own heart — to see
whether he is a child of God, and to be satisfied
that he " discerns the Lord's body " in the elements
of the Supper, having conformed to the require-
ments of the Bible as a Christian, so that he eat and
drink not "unworthily;" for " whosoever shall eat
this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, un-
worthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord."— 1 Cor. xi. 27.

And thus, to avoid this fearful result, the Apostle
gives this serious caution : " But let a man examine

238 Conversations on Baptism,

himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink
of that cup; for he that eateth and drinketh un-
worthily, eateth and drinketh damnation [condem-
nation] to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.''' —
1 Cor. xi. 28, 29 : — This condemnation being exclu-
sively the result of the individual failing to discern
the body and blood of Christ in the Supper.

This, therefore, we repeat, is what a man has to
do before coming to the Lord's table : to see whether
he has conformed to the requirements of God's
word as a Christian, and thus, in eating, be enabled
spiritually to discern the Lord's body, and not to make
for himself terms of admission to the Lord's Supper.

Those drink unworthily who have not complied
with the scriptural requisition; who, not being born
again, can not discern the Lord's body, and enter
into communion with the body and blood of Christ;
for " he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood," says Jesus, " dwelleth in me, and I in him."

And now, as it is late, let us defer further investi-
gation until to-morrow evening, for there is much
yet to be said in our examination of the Baptists.

M. Such being the case, we had better do so;
but I hardly know how to wait with patience.

■ p ii in i a 11 it n ii 11 ii 11 m 11

ft n «r n t i it -1 r "it t— j i i f yK °^q-

r OURTEENTH

ONYERSATION,

Z>fce Baptists Examined — {Continued.}

Si^i

["^/Sis

N" introducing the evening's Conversation
Mr. E. said :

"Are you aware, brother C, what we
require of the Baptists in demanding open
communion ?"

Methodist. I am not aware that we ask of them
more than we do of others.

Presbyterian. Yes, far more. Said a Baptist
to an open communionist : " You ask me to do
what you would not do yourself if you were in my
place."

" How so ?" inquired the Free Will.
"You believe that the baptized only have the
right to commune."
" Certainly I do."

" So do I. And yet you ask me to invite the
unbaptized to the Lord's table, which I should do,

240 Conversations on Baptism.

according to your own definition of baptism, if I
were to give a general invitation to communion.
Thus you are offended at me because I will not ask
you to do that which I would not do if I were in
your place, and which you would not do if you were
in my place."

31. Can any one, believing that baptism is neces-
sary to communion, and that nothing is baptism but
immersion, be so inconsistent as that ?

P. Yes, some are just so inconsistent. Holding
that baptism is a pre-requisite to the Lord's Supper,
and that nothing is baptism but immersion, yet they
invite what the Greek Church calls sprinkled Chris-
tians to the Lord's table ; thus saying to the world
that the unbaptized have the right to partake of the
Supper, and that baptism is not essential to com-
munion.

What we Pedobaptists ask of the Baptists is, to
admit unregenerate and unbaptized persons to the
Lord's table, and to acknowledge as scriptural our
sprinkling. The fact is, and we may as well own it,
their restricted communion always denies and proclaims
against the validity of our sprinkling.

M. I see it now. And that may be one reason
why some of our ministers seem so anxious to
destroy it.

P. I have no doubt of it. If we can induce the
Baptists to admit us to the Lord's table, we carry our
point ; and get them to acknowledge our sprinkling
as baptism, even infant sprinkling, which they

Fourteenth Conversation, 241

believe to be a pernicious institution; and thus to
abandon the doctrine that immersion is exclusively
baptism.

M. And if they come and commune with us it
amounts to the same thins;. It is a master-stroke
of policy. But now, I can not see how a Baptist
can be consistent and commune with us. We ou^ht
not to expect it.

P. Of course not. It is an insult to ask them to
do that to which they are conscientiously opposed.
We should be very indignant if a Baptist were to
ask us to violate our articles of faith and belief of
the truth. And yet we ask all this of the Baptists,
when we invite them to commune with Pedobap-
tists. We may be sincere, but we are very incon-
sistent. We persist in our endeavors to thrust our-
selves into the family, regardless of all family
regulations. We try to excite the public prejudice
against them by our repeated invitations, when we
know that their principles will not allow them to
commune with us. I will not say that there was
any intention of wrong, but I have known cases
where Baptists attending Pedobaptist meetings have
been particularly invited to the Lord's Supper as
" our Baptist brethren." Where is our Christian
courtesy? We denounce them in terms which
ought to make us blush : " You're bigoted and
intolerant," cries one : " You're ignorant and sel-
fish," says another : " You think yourselves better
than other Christians," cries the third : " You are

242 Conversations on Baptism.

an nnbaptized people, and yet think more of baptism
than Christ and his Apostles did," writes a fourth:
and, " You're an impolite and uncourteous sect,"
cries a fifth. And then, after all this abuse, we say:
" Come, dear Baptist brethren, this close com-
munion is all wrong: please admit us to your
table."

I saw a printed letter from one who professes to
be a liberal Christian, in which he boasted that he
communed without invitation in a Baptist church,
knowing at the same time that he was an intruder.
There is Christian courtesy and union! There's a
fine specimen of a high-toned Christian gentleman
of liberal views, who boasts of his superiority to the
Baptists !

M. That is equal to the man you mentioned who
published a pamphlet on Christian Unity, in which
he declared the Baptists to be the greatest bigots in
Christendom.

P. Here is another specimen of liberal Christi-
anity by a Presbyterian, taken from that gem of a
little book published by the Presbyterians, " Bible
Baptism." In answer to the question, "If persons
that have been immersed are not baptized with a
Bible baptism [Baptists], ought we to allow them
to come with us to the communion table ?" he
replies, "By all means, * * * for they really
think that they have been baptized. It would be
very uncharitable and cruel to treat them as unbap-
tized. * * * They by no means intend to reject

Fourteenth Conversation, 243

baptism. Indeed, they think a great deal too much
of it, a great deal more than Christ and the Apostles
did. * * * As they are honest in their views,
no doubt Christ accepts their baptism as real, and
we ought to do the same." In another place he
tells us that immersion is a " sectarian baptism,"
and here he tells us that the Baptists are not bap-
tized with a Bible baptism, although they think they
are — poor, deluded people, thinking more of bap-
tism than Christ and the Apostles did ; but because
they are honest and sincere in their ignorance, not
knowing any better, having not yet been brought
into Presbyterian light and liberty, therefore he
would invite them to the Presbyterian table. He
insults them, and then condescendingly invites them
to commune w7ith him, a liberal minded, Bible
baptized Presbyterian. And then he tells us that
" no doubt Christ accepts their baptism as real."

31. If it's not Bible baptism, it is no baptism.
Who gave him authority to speak for Jesus in this
matter? — to say that he accepts a fiction as a truth?

P. It is an assumption of his own. It is an
insult to the Saviour to say that he accepts a secta-
rian and unscriptural baptism as the thing which he
required — as real. But not satisfied with this, the
writer gives another " fling " at the Baptists. He
says: "Rejoice, my young friend, in the thought
that you belong to a church, which, in spreading the
table of the Lord, can invite to it all professing

244 Conversations on Baptism.

Christians, whatever may be the form of their bap-
tism. "

M. He can't be serious. "All professing Chris-
tians." Why, the Presbyterians don't invite "all
professing Christians." Besides, they won't allow
their own "young Christians" to come to their table
until the ruling elders see proper. He can not be
posted up in his own Confession of Faith. But I
will give him credit for a larger charity for the
ignorant Baptists than for his own young Christians.

P. Here is another specimen of " liberal Chris-
tianity," which I cut from a union paper:

" The rite of baptism needs to be understood in
Episcopal and in Baptist branches of the church.
He who makes it a saving ordinance, yea, a regen-
erative one, must go to Rome, where such things
are believed, and not stay in Protestantism, that
counts every man a member of Christ who has put
on Christ. This ordinance needs no degradation,
but it must be taught that he who builds up a
Baptist church over against the Church of Christ,
belongs to Rome. Close communion must yield,
and the exclusive titleship to favoritism with Jesus
must give way. These things will lead to schism.
Already we hear of a large number of leading Bap-
tist divines that are convinced that the time has
come to move. The best method is the only thing
to fix upon."

In this extract the writer makes three distinct
charges against the Baptists, every one of which is

Fourteenth Conversation. 245

an unmitigated slander : 1st. He charges the Bap-
tists with making baptism a saving ordinance. 2nd.
He charges them with building up a Baptist church
over against the Church of Christ, and that they
belong to Borne. 3rd. He charges them with claim-
ing exclusive titleship to favoritism with Jesus.
And yet the author boasts of liberal views, and
professes to be governed by an enlarged charity —
the advocate of a theory far higher and broader
than the Baptists. And " these things will lead to
schism,''' says he ; no doubt rejoicing at the prospect
while his pen was writing about Christian union!

31. I suppose the " wish was father to the
thought." I pity the "leading Baptist divines"
who can not see through that flimsy web.

P. I will give you another incident, related to
me by a Baptist minister :

" In a certain town in Blinois a Congregational
deacon had an only daughter, who had been con-
verted in the Baptist meeting, and desired to unite
with the Baptist church. Her father so strongly
opposed her wishes that he told her he would rather
follow her to her grave, than see her unite with the
Baptists. He told one of the Baptist members also
that he had said this to his daughter, and the Bap-
tist had informed me of it. In less than a month
after this the deacon was present at our communion
season. When I was about to commence the
administration of the ordinance, he arose and

246 Conversations on Baptism,

announced his intention of communing with us that
day, if there was no objection.

" I remarked to the congregation that it was well
known that this was the Lord's ordinance and the
Lord's table, and not ours. If it were ours we could
make such regulations as we chose ; but as it was
the Lord's, and not ours, we felt bound to follow his
directions, and we could invite only those whom
Jesus had authorized us to invite. The Bible made
three things prerequisite to a proper participation
in the Lords' Supper :

"1st. The communicant should be converted,
regenerated, else he could not spiritually discern
the Lord's body.

" 2nd. He should be baptized, by which, of course,
we meant immersed ; as we did not regard sprink-
iDg or pouring to be baptism at all.

" 3rd. He should be in fellowship with the church,
where he communes ; for if he has been converted
and we baptize him ourselves, yet, if from miscon-
duct or false doctrine the church lias disfellowshiped
or excommunicated him, or if he holds doctrines
for which we should disfellowship him, he is not a
proper communicant, and we can not invite him.

" We can extend the invitation only to those who
possess these three pre-requisites : conversion, bap-
tism, and church fellowship in this church, or one
of like faith and order. If any one choose to partake
without an invitation, he can take the responsibility — we
.shall not hinder him.

Fourteenth Conversation. 247

"The Congregational deacon communed with us,
seemingly intensely mortified that he had been
caught in his own trap. Instead of provoking us to
forbid his participation, he found we did not hinder
him at all; but let him take the responsibility, after
a clear exhibition of the fact that we regarded him
as violating the law of Christ. How much love did
he wish to show to the Baptists by communing with
them ?

" I baptized his daughter soon after."

M. There is another objection, brother E., that
our friends urge very much against the Baptists,
which I should like you to answer. The table is the
Lord's, say they, and why should not all the Lord's
people be permitted to come to it ?

P. Yes, that is a common objection, but a very
poor one at best. I know it is the Lord's table : he
is the proprietor of it, for he instituted the Supper.
That is the reason why the Baptists guard it. If it
were their table, they might, like us, invite the un-
regenerate and unbaptized to communion. But
they can not do this.

The Lord's table was instituted for baptized
believers. No others have the riffht to come to it.
It must be approached in the Gospel way. " Over
it the Baptists have no discretionary authority; and
they place no obstructions in the way of approach.
The Lord of the table himself has fenced it round.
He has set it in the church, and to get into the
church to partake of the Supper, we must be re-

248 Conversations on Baptism.

generated and baptized." So that the objection,
instead of applying, to Baptists, is virtually made
against the Saviour. The fact is, we think more
highly of, and guard more carefully, our human
institutions, than we do the ordinances of Christ.

31. That's a sweeping declaration, brother E.
How so ? Surely you must be mistaken.

P. No, I am not. We say, you must believe
and do certain things, before you can join our
churches, and then we say, virtually, you may
believe and practice what you please, it is no differ-
ence, come to the Lord's table. Your church says,
or did say, you may come to our love-feasts and
class-meetings twice or thrice, but if you will not
join us then, you can come no more : yet, say your
ministers, you may come to the Lord's table as often
as you please. Thus virtually saying you esteem
the institutions of men of more importance than the
ordinance of Christ. Thus we depreciate the ordi-
nances of Jesus, and elevate above them the inven-
tions of men !

31. Well, but our class-meetings and love-feasts
are only 'prudential means of grace.

P. Prudential ! Does it require less prudence
in guarding the Lord's table ? But let us return to
the first objection. " We have no record of any per-
son ' breaking bread ' in the Pentecostal church who
had not i gladly received ' the Word, and been bap-
tized. And this is all that Baptist churches require
now. They have raised no bar to communion ; they

Fourteenth Conversation. 249

can throw none down. They do not refuse to receive
any disciple who is willing to enter on the same-
footing as those already incorporated in the body
of Christ."

Eestricted communion guards the Lord's table
against all unlawful approaches, proclaiming the
absolute necessity of regeneration and baptism ; but
open communion breaks down all barriers, and vir-
tually repudiates the necessity both of regeneration
and baptism as requisites for the Lord's table !

M. I begin to feel ashamed of myself for not
knowing better. And yet it seems unfriendly-like
not to commune with each other. " Close commu-
nion" said a minister, "separates dear friends.1"

P. Who shows the greatest friendship for the
Saviour? He who keeps, or he who breaks his
commandments ? On the same process of reason-
ing, we may demand the destruction of the Pedo-
baptist churches, because by them families are
divided. Suppose a Baptist should contend that the
Presbyterian church ought to be destroyed, because
his family has been divided by some of his children
becoming Presbyterians! Would not his demand
be as pertinent — as wise — as the reason urged
above against restricted communion? "I am come
to set a man at variance against his father," are the
words of the Saviour. Why not demand the des-
truction of the religion of Christ? It separates
dear friends !

" Ye are my friends," said Jesus, " If ye do what-
11*

250 Conversations on Baptism.

soever I command you." To violate a command-
ment of his, for the sake of relationship or friendship,
is to prove ourselves not worthy of him. " He that
loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy
of me, and he that loveth son or daughter more than
me is not worthy of me ; and he that taketh not his
cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me.
Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I
also deny before my Father which is in heaven." —
Matt. x. 33 — 38. Thus has the claim of Christ pre-
cedence of every other claim; and he who wilfully
disobeys his Lord's holy requirements to p^ove how
devotedly he loves another, exhibits his friendship
in no desirable light and beauty.

Fifteenth Conversation,

The Baptists Examined — {Continued?)

S not communion at the Lord's table, as

some say, a test of Christian Union?

And is not close communion a barrier

to it? inquired brother C.

P. I will let a distinguished Baptist reply to this.

It is an extract taken from Dr. Armitage's speech

on " Christian Union, Real and Unreal :"

" Our Saviour did not intend it to be a test of
Christian union, so far as we find any thing in the
Bible. No Christian denomination so holds it, so
far as they set forth their views upon the matter in
their best expositors or authorized standards. It is
never so used in their articles of faith, catechisms,
or creeds. Intelligent and honest men never so use
it in defining the import of the Supper. All Pedo-
baptists, when in controversy with Romanists, put
a different interpretation from this upon the design
of the Lord's Supper, but when it becomes desirable
to dress down the Baptists by stigmatizing them as
Exclusive,' and 'bigots,' they call the Supper a

252 Conversations on Baptism.

test of union. Is this honorable among gentlemen,
to say nothing of Christians and ambassadors of
Christ? Wh}T give an interpretation to the Lord's
Supper, when an appeal can be based upon the
ignorance or prejudices of men, to the injury of
Baptists, which is never put upon it under any other
circumstance? The fact is, the Bible defines the
object of the Supper to be specific. It was instituted
for one thing, and for one thing only. What was
that? To ' show forth ' your love for one another?
Did Christ say that? No, sirs. To ' show forth'
your Christian union ? No, sirs. Neither did Christ
say that. To ' show forth' Christ himself, as the
Son of God — born in the manger — healing in the
Temple — agonizing in the Garden? No, sirs; not
even that. To ' show forth' Christ, truly, but only
in one act of his mediation, as Paul expresses it:
1 To show forth his death.' This, and only this.
No more and no less. And our Pedobaptist
brethren never give it any other interpretation,
except when, in an unhappy moment, they stand
behind the cross of Christ to make their Baptist
brethren appear unmitigated bigots. Is not this
true ? I appeal to my candid and honorable breth-
ren of various denominations now present to say if
this is not true.

" Now, then, take another view of the matter.
Take the facts of the Last Supper as Jesus himself
administered it. Let me ask you, did John show
his Christian union with Judas Iscariot when they

Fifteenth Conversation, 253

took the sop together from the same divine hand?
Certainly, if ever, that should have been the time.
Did the male portion of the discipleship siiow their
Christian unity with the mother of Jesus, and with
his other female followers, when they celebrated the
supper alone ? Did Jesus intend that they should ?
But if the Supper is a mark of Christian union, Why
were those holy women not present to celebrate it,
seeing that the discipleship was emphatically one?
Our Lord's prayer for union was offered after the
Supper was administered. Therefore he prayed for
a oneness among his disciples that the Supper did
not, and could not, supply. The fact is, that the
Lord's Supper is practically made of more importance
in these days than other institutions of our Lord.
Our Lord evidently intended that in Gospel churches
the Lord's Supper should be of no more importance
than the Lord's baptism. If one is a naked form,
the other is a naked form : if one is a saving vitality,
the other is a saving vitality; if one is a means
of divine grace, the other is a means of divine
grace ; and if one is but a symbolical act, the other
is but a sy-nibolical act. If one is a putting on of
Christ, the other is a showing forth of his death
when he is put on. Then what end for the truth,
or the glory of God, can be secured by the foisting
in of some mystical sense in the interpretation of
the one, which you exclude from the other ? Why
do you treat the one as if it were of the most solemn
import imaginable, and the other as if it were the

254 Conversations on Baptism,

emptiest form possible? Both of them are Christ's
ordinances, enjoined upon his people; they are
equally hallowed and binding, and neither of them
is intended as a test of Christian union. And it
seems to me that our Pedobaptist brethren are well
satisfied of this themselves. Hence, none of them
are really open communion."

M. Are you not aware, brother E., that there is
now a great cry for " union" in certain quarters?

P. Yes, I am aware of it; and I have watched,
with considerable interest, some of the union move-
ments ; and seen some very strange things connected
with them. The American Sunday School Union
publishes and sells books in which Pedobaptist views
are distinctly set forth.

M. I thought the American Sunday School
Union was strictly neutral, on the subject of bap-
tism.

P. That is what it purports to be. But let me
give you some extracts from a work, entitled, " The
Way of Life," written by Dr. Hodge, a Presbyterian,
of Princeton, and published by the Union: "The
Bible teaches us that the sacraments are the signs
of spiritual blessings." — P. 259. " We should
greatly err, however, if we supposed they were
merely signs. We are taught that they are seals;
that they were appointed by Christ to certify to
believers their interest in the blessings of the coven-
ant of grace. Among men a seal is used for the
purpose of authentication and confirmation." —

Fifteenth Conversation, 255

P. 262. " The Gospel is represented under the
form of a covenant. It is so called by Christ him-
self. * * The sacraments are the seals of this
covenant." — Pp. 263-4. " Again, as the sacraments
are the seals of the covenant of grace, to reject these
seals is to reject the covenant itself." — P. 278.

Here jou have Pedobaptism condensed into a
small compass — assertions which every Baptist
denies.

Here is a quotation from another book, " Isa
Greame's World," p. 21 : " If there is hope for any
one, he was sure there must be for him ; for was he
not of the seed of the faithful, the child of innu-
merable prayers? Had he not sat, a very Timothy,
at the feet of his pious mother and grandmother?
And the seal of the covenant, if there was any thing in
that, had it not rested upon every Greame from
generation to generation ?"

M. I see, the same idea of sealing the children,
by baptism, over to Christ.

P. Here is another specimen, quoted from
"Proverbs Illustrated," a work purchased at the
Union's rooms in Philadelphia: "And so, just as
daylight was breaking over the eastern sky, the
little wailing infant was baptized into the Church of
Christy

M. "Baptized into the Church of Christ;" out
of which the Presbyterian Confession of Faith says
there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Really,
I must ask the same question you asked me : "What

i$6 Conversations on Baptism.

is to become of the unbaptized, unsealed children,
who are out of the Church of Christ?"

P. You must answer that. Besides the above,
the Sunday School Union sells pictures representing
Jesus standing in the water of the Jordan, nearly up
to his knees, while John is standing on the shore
pouring water on his head from a sea-shell in his
right hand, while in his left he holds a cross. Let
me get you the picture. I bought a package from
which it is taken for our Sunday school. Here it is
— look at it.

M. That is equal to the one where Philip is
pouring water on the Eunuch from a clam-shell !

P. I could give you several more illustrations
from the Union's works, but these are sufficient to
prove what I have stated, that the American Sun-
day School Union, purporting to be an unsectarian
publishing house, deriving its support from Baptists
as well as Pedobaptists, is employed in circulating
works advocating Pedobaptist principles : and yet,
it " only proposes to disseminate those truths in
which all evangelical Christians can unite !"

31. I am surprised that a Society professedly
union should publish such things.

P. And I am more surprised that Baptists
should give aid and support to their enemies by
patronizing such an institution.

This cry of "union! union!" always reminds me
of an anecdote I once heard :

A certain Pedobaptist minister, preaching on the

Fifteenth Conversation, 257

observance of the Sabbath, said it was very wrong
for young people to keep company on Sabbath
evenings. After meeting, mounting his horse, he
turned to a young man by his side, and said :

" Come, John, let us go down to Deacon Smith's
and see the girls."

" Why," replied John, in surprise, " did you not
tell us it was wrong to keep company with the girls
on Sunday evenings !"

"Psha!" replied the preacher : "I only said that
that we might have a better chance !"

Whenever you hear a man blowing hard for union,
be sure he is doing it that he may have a better
chance at Deacon Smith's !

M. And so with those who are always charging
others with proselyting.

P. Such union is like that which the Baptist
deacon wanted. Two old Baptist deacons had
quarelled. One relented and said to the other:
" Brother, this is all wrong ; we ought to be recon-
ciled; therefore, I do insist upon it, that you shall
be reconciled, for I can not!"

Christian union, so called, is a union in which
men agree to disagree; and to give the go-by to
certain truths, however vital those truths may be.

M. There is a great deal of truth in what you
Bay about union. I remember a union meeting in
which the Baptists participated. At the close, our
friends lesolved to have a union communion; and,

258 Conversations on Baptism.

beeause the Baptists could not join with them, they
were denounced as bigots.

P. That was unkind, ungenerous, and cruel,
They knew the Baptists could not join with them
before they resolved on their communion. The
Baptists are almost sure to get a slap in the face in
these union meetings.

31. Some of our friends seem to enjoy " slap-
ping" the Baptists. It was a luxury to me once.

P. But here is a good thing, where the " slap"
was returned with interest :

One day a Baptist of Minnesota was in the com-
pany of some Methodist ministers, when close
communion was introduced. One of the company
said to the Baptist: "I should like you Baptists
pretty well, if it were not for your close com-
munion." To which the Baptist, turning to the
others, replied, by relating the following incident:
" A Baptist missionary was riding over our North-
ern prairies, and it was so excessively cold and
stormy that he had to drive up to a house and ask
to stay over night. The owner, well known to the
missionary, listened to the request, and then, with-
out a word, went in and closed the door in his face,
leaving him out in the storm. The missionary was
so completely chilled that he had to go under a
shed, and jump and walk about to warm himself.
All of which must have been known to the inhospit-
able owner." " Shame ! shame !" cried all the
listeners but one. " Well, gentlemen," that mis-

Fifteenth Conversation. 259

sionary was your speaker; and the man who closed
the door in his face was the one who has just
denounced our close communion."

M. I should have felt like crawling into some
very small place, if I'd been him.

P. Here is another incident that shows how will-
ing some of us are for union. A backslider, who
had joined the church two or three times previously
to this, had a wife, a devoted Christian, and a mem-
ber of a Baptist church. He wanted to join the
church again, and asked her to unite with him.
She hesitated. "Well," said he at last, "if I lose
my soul, I shall have to blame you for it !"

M. That was shameful, if he did want to join
our church. I have no faith in such union. And
when a husband asks his wife to sacrifice her prin-
ciples, and leave the church of her choice, merely
for his own accommodation, he shows himself not
much of a man after all, and pays her a poor com-
pliment, and the church she joins does not gain
much by it. Let a man join a church on principle,
and then he is likely to be firm, useful and respected.
If he conscientiously wants to change his church
relationship, let him — it's his privilege; and I
won't throw a stick in his way, nor club him after-
wards, as some do !

[Brother C. was certainly at the effervescing
point.]

P. The truth is, we make the subject of com-
munion a matter of feeling, instead of principle.

260 Conversations on Baptism*

To accommodate our feelings, we require the Bap-
tist to sacrifice his principles — to join our churches.
A. and B. were members of Pedobaptist churches,
and had never communed together. A. had been
brought to see his error, and told B. of his resolu-
tion to join the Baptists. B. remonstrated, cried
bitterly about it ; and, as a last resort, said : " Well,
if you join the Baptists you will prevent me com-
muning with you ; and if you can't commune with
me here, how can you expect to commune with me
in heaven !" To which A. replied : " I love you, and
am sorry to grieve }7ou. But shall I disobey a clear
conviction of duty, and not follow my Saviour ?
Much as I esteem you, I can not do it. He has said,
* He that loveth father or mother more than me, is
not worthy of me.' He tells me to be baptized;
and I believe that immersion only is baptism. For
me to join your church is to say that sprinkling is
baptism ; and to commune with your church, is to
acknowledge that you have all been baptized. Thus
you ask me to deny my Saviour, and violate my
convictions of the truth. But the way to com-
munion is much easier for you."

" How so V inquired B.

" Follow your Saviour and the apostolic example.
You say it is indifferent how a person is baptized.
Why not then give up what is a matter of indiffer-
ence? You have no conscience to compromise —
be immersed; you believe it baptism. The advan-
tage is on your side."

Fifteenth Conversation. 261

We are just like the Universalist on this matter
of feeling. "I can't /^ that future punishment is
true," says he. "I can't feel like letting my friends
be punished hereafter; and I won't have it." And
the Universalist is as consistent as the Congrega-
tionalist.

Thus you see we require the Baptist to sacrifice
all for our accommodation ; but we, though boast-
ing of liberality and union, wont yield a jot to
accommodate him. If we are so anxious to have
union of communion, here is the Apostolic platform
on which we can all unite :

" One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism."

M. That is a very good platform, I must confess.
Only three planks in it.

P. And broad enough and strong enough to
accommodate the whole world; divinely fitted
together, with no slabs of man's invention between.
But you say close communion separates dear friends.
Let us look at it in another way. How many times
have you communed with the Presbyterians and
Congregationalists ?

M. Let me see. [Thinks awhile.] Eot once.
Somehow it was never convenient for me to do so.
How many times have you communed with us?

P. Just as often as you have with us, and for the
same reason. There are many of us who never
find it convenient to commune with the Methodists.

262 Conversations on Baptism.

[Here the two friends could not help smiling at
their position.]

AVell [continued Mr. E.] if it is such a "precious
privilege" to commune with others, why don't you
improve it? I shrewdly guess if the Baptists had
unrestricted communion, we should be found as
often communing with them as we do with each
other — that we make the objection for other rea-
sons.

Thus, you see, all your talk about its being such
a " dear privilege," and the illiberality of the Bap-
tists, amounts to nothing. We do not commune
with each other. Besides, we exclude many of the
members of our own churches from the Lord's
table. Some of us baptize them into the church,
and " teach that baptism is necessary, and that grace
is thereby offered, and that children are to be bap-
tized, who are by such baptism dedicated to God,
and made 'pleasing to him." [Augsburg Confession,
art. ix.] Others call the baptized "young Chris-
tians;" and some say baptism is putting the child's
name into the Gospel grant; others say the children of
Christian parents are born into the church; while
still others say baptism washes away original sin,
and makes the children holy ! And yet they are not
allowed to commune until these churches see proper.
The Baptists commune with all they baptize into
their fellowship; but we baptize them into our
churches, and then bar them from the Lord's table,
after making them the Lord's children ! Does it not

Fifteenth Conversation. 263

require as much intelligence to comprehend the
nature of baptism as it does the Lord's Supper?

31. That argument, brother E., destroys infant
baptism ! Certainly, if they can not comprehend
the one, they can not the other. And if they are
kept from the Lord's table because they can not
understand it, they ought not to be baptized for the
same reason.

P. Your reasoning is unanswerable. Certainly
they ought not. And if the children are to be
baptized, why should they not come to the Lord's
table? They saw the necessity of this who first
invented infant baptism; and hence the baptized
children partook of the Supper, though some had to
be fed with a spoon. Why don't our friends follow
this example? and after baptizing the children to
wash away their sins, bring them to the Lord's
table — even if they have to be fed with a spoon!

But to continue. "It is a singular fact," says a
writer, " that after all that has been said and written
by Pedobaptists in favor of open communion ;
though it has been referred to as the great desidera-
tum of Christendom, there is to-day no such thing
as open communion among Pedobaptist themselves.
Presbyterians and Methodists will commune to-
gether, and denounce each other's Calvinism and
Arniinianism the next day, if not the next hour.
Not many years have passed away since the Old
School General Assembly of Presbyterians declined
an invitation to commune with the New School

264 Conversations on Baptism.

General Assembly, both being in session at the same
time.

The Old School Presbyterian Synod of Missouri
met at Booneville, and after several days of angry
disputation, it was rent asunder, and on Sabbath the
two separate organizations met at the same hour in
different places to partake of the Lord's Supper.
Episcopalians will not go and commune with the
Methodists and Presbyterians. The United General
Presbyterian Church, composed of the Associate
Reformed and Seceders, and the Reformed Presby-
terian Church, have close communion. The posi-
tion of the latter is thus stated by one of its minis-
ters :

" As the church is invested with authority which
she is bound to exercise, to keep the ordinances
pure and entire, sacramental communion is not to
be extended to those who do not approve the prin-
ciples of the particular church, or submit themselves
to her authority. * * * She does not feel at
liberty to allow every man to be the judge of his
own qualifications for sealing ordinances, to dispense
these ordinances to such as do not assent to her
religious principles, or whom she could not subject
to her discipline were they found violating their
Christian obligations."

Why do you denounce the Baptists so much, and
not these ?

31. I was not aware that close communion was
practiced so extensively by Pedobaptist churches.

Fifteenth Conversation, 265

P. !No, I suppose not. And why should there
be such a united opposition to the restricted com-
munion of the Baptists, and nothing said about the
close communion of Pedobaptist churches? Both
believe baptism necessary to communion. Here is a
key to unlock the mystery : the restricted commu-
nion of the Baptists, as previously stated, protests
against the validity of 'pouring and sprinkling, and
charges the Pedo baptists with substituting these for
the primitive baptism. It applies the ax to the root
of the tree planted in the soil of human expediency.
This appears to me the rock of offence.

Let us look a little farther. On May 2nd, 1648,
the Presbyterians, having the ascendancy in the
British Parliament, "passed a law against heretics,
which is hardly to be paralleled among Protestants.
One of the errors specified was the holding that the
baptism of infants is unlawful and void, and that
such person ought to be baptized again. The per-
son implicated was, on confession, to ' renounce it in
the public congregation ;' or, ' in case of refusal, be
committed to prison till he find sureties that he
shall not publish the said error or errors anymore.' "
— NeaVs Hist, of the Puritans, part iii. ch. 10.

M. That certainly was a very intolerant law. I
wonder what our Presbyterian friends think of it
now?

P. There was close communion for the poor
Baptist in prison with his God, but a poor chance
for open communion with his Presbyterian brethren,
12

266 Conversations on Baftism.

TsTor was there, on the part of Congregational-
ists, in New England, a desire to commune with
Baptists, when, in the early settlement of the
country, they fined, scourged, imprisoned, and
banished them. The Brain tree church debarred
their sister, Hannah Linfield, from communion,
for being re-baptized, which implied that infant
baptism was a nullity, and that so the church were
unbaptized. And Solomon Paine, a Congregation-
alist minister, wrote an article, the sum of which
was, " That if any godly people, who do not hold
infant baptism, confessed that it might be their
darkness that they did not hold it, he would com-
mune with them; but he could not commune with
those who said it was their light, and not their dark-
ness, which made them reject infant baptism."

M. Why, that beats any thing I have heard on
our side of the question. Why are the Congrega-
tion alists so anxious to commune with the Baptists
now ?

P. I can not tell : the Baptists hold the same
principles they ever did. Thus, you see, "open
communion, falsely so called, is a recent thing. It
has not sufficient age on its side to make it respect-
able."

I will now prove that we — Presbyterians and
Methodists — are close communionists of a strange
type. But as it is late, suppose I defer it until to-
morrow evening.

M. So be it.

Sixteenth Conversation.

The Baptists Examined — (Continued?)

AST evening I promised to prove that the
Presbyterians and Methodists are more
close in their communion, and less liberal,
than the Baptists, said Mr. E., in com-
mencing the Conversation this evening.

Methodist. Yes ; and if you can do that, it is
more than I now believe.

Presbyterian. "Well, let us examine the testi-
mony. The Presbyterians say, in the Westminister
Confession of Faith, ch. 25, sec. 2:

" The visible church consists of all those through-
out the world that profess the true religion, with
their children, and in the kingdom of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the house and family of God, out of -which
there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

This doctrine, if true, a writer has remarked, is
most melancholy and heart-rending; for, taking all
the world, probably not one child out of ten thou-

268 Conversations on Baptism,

sand is born of parents " that prof ess the true religion"
Therefore, they are not of " the house and family of
God; and for them " there is no ordinary possibility
of salvation." What the extraordinary possibility is
we are left to conjecture.

M. That is a very strange article of faith. I
suppose our Presbyterian friends believe that they
"profess the true religion." As Methodists our
Arminianism is directly opposed to their Calvinism.
"What is to become of us ?

P. That is not for me to say. Again: "A
particular church," says the constitution of the
Presbyterian church, " consists of a number of
professing Christians, with their offspring." They
become members, by baptism, for " baptism is the
act whereby the parties baptized are solemnly
admitted into the visible church."— P. 337. "All
baptized persons are members of the church, are
under its care, and subject to its government and
discipline. And when they have arrived at the
years of discretion, they are bound to perform all
the duties of church members." — 456. Here you
see all baptized children are members of the church.

M. Of course, then, you allow them to come to
the Lord's table.

P. ISTot at all. As a church we deny them that
privilege. We say, "when they come to years of
discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober
and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to
discern the Lord's body, they ought to be informed

Sixteenth Conversation. 269

it is their duty and privilege to come to the Lord's
Supper."— P. 504.

M. Do you allow these baptized church mem-
bers to say when they have come to years of discre-
tion ?

P. "No. " The years of discretion in young
Christians can not be fixed. This must be left to
the prudence of the eldership. The officers of the
church are the judges of the qualifications of those
to be admitted to sealing ordinances [Lord's Supper
and Baptism], and of the time it is proper to admit
young Christians to them." — P. 205.

M. Well, I declare, that beats the Baptists.
That's close communion within close communion.
You baptize them into the church — put the seal on
them — make them a part of the church — call them
young Christians, and then will not allow them to
come to the Lord's table until your elders see fit !
You will not allow them to judge of their own
qualifications, nor of the time they should com-
mune. I must say that it looks very queer.

P. I acknowledge it. Our conduct as a church
is very inconsistent. We fence them from the
Lord's table after pronouncing them baptized mem-
bers of the church and young Christians. " Those
who have no claim on the children's bread, can have
no claim to the children's baptism."

31. But you allow all Christians of other denom-
inations to commune with }Tou?

P. There you catch me again. Our constitution

270 Conversations on Baptism,

says, in answer to the question, " May any who
profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's
Sapper, be kept from it? Such as are found to be^
ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their pro-
fession of faith and desire to come to the Lord's
Supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacra-
ment by the power which Christ hath left in his
church."

M. How much intelligence must we Methodists
have before you will allow ws to commune with you?
I suppose you call us " ignorant."

P. I can not determine that. " The officers of
the church are the judges of the qualifications of
those to be admitted to sealing ordinances." But
one of our synods has said : " For Presbyterians to
hold communion in sealing ordinances with those
who deny the doctrines of grace [Arminians]
through the blood of Christ, etc., is highly prejudi-
cial to. the truth as it is in Jesus. Nor can such
intercommunion answer any valuable purpose to
those who practice it, as two can not walk together
except they be agreed." " The practice of inviting
to the communion all who are of good standing in
their own churches, is calculated to do much evil,
and should not be continued."

M. Brother E. that pinches a little too hard.
You say that to hold communion with Methodists
[Arminians] "is highly prejudicial to the truth,"
and that it answers no valuable purpose. I hope I
shall never after this hear a Presbyterian talk about

Sixteenth Conversation, 271

Christian liberality, nor prate against close commu-
nion. To think of them inviting us to communion
whan they say we " deny the doctrines of grace !"

P. Don't get excited, brother C. You see it is
one thing to preach, and another to practice. We
preach against the restricted communion of the
Baptists because it condemns our sprinkling; and
then practice close communion because it is prejudi-
cial to the truth, and calculated to do much evil to
commune with the Arminians, the ignorant, and all
who are even in good standing in other churches.

M. So far as }-our church is concerned you have
made your assertion good. You are close com-
munionists. But you can't prove ours a closer
church than the Baptist.

P. Well, let us look at your church. It is hard,
however, to get at what you do permanently believe.
Bishop Emory, in his History of the Disci pline,
says: "The Discipline, as revised at each general
conference, being in itself complete, supplants all
that has gone before it, and the previous editions
are cast aside as of no further use. The Discipline
has undergone about twenty distinct revisions."
Since then there have been other revisions. At one
time rules were adopted by the general conference
requiring the liberation of slaves- under certain
restrictions. The general conference said: "In
consideration that these rules form a new basis of
communion, every person concerned who will not
comply with them, shall have the liberty quietly to

272 Conversations on Baptism,

withdraw himself from our society ;" or else he waa
to he excluded from the society. "But no person
voluntarily withdrawn or excl tided, " said the con-
ference, " shall ever ever partake of the Supper of the
Lord with the Methodists, till he complies with the
above requisitions" — the rules referred to.

Then you had the following rule: "Let no per-
son, who is not a member of our church, be admitted
to the communion without examination, and some
token given by an elder or deacon."

31. Those rules have been abolished.

P. But they prove that your general conference
makes terms of communion for the Lord's table.
Let us see what your Discipline says now: "No
person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper
among us who is guilty of an}7 practice for which
we would exclude a member of our church." — P.
35. What do you " exclude " members for?

M. We exclude them for improper tempers,
words, or actions, Discipline, p. 117; holding and
disseminating, publicly or privately, doctrines con-
trary to our articles of religion, p. 114; neglect of
the means of grace, such as the public worship of
God, the Supper of the Lord, family and private
prayer, searching the Scriptures, class-meetings, and
prayer-meetings, p. 119; neglect of duties of any
kind, imprudent conduct, and indulging sinful
tempers or words, or disobedience to the order and
discipline of the church, p. 120; and endeavoring

Sixteenth Conversation. 273

to sow dissensions in our societies, by inveighing
against our doctrines or discipline, p. 121.

P. And then you say, of all tne foregoing cases,
"After such forms of trial and expulsion, such

PERSONS SHALL HAVE NO PRIVILEGES OF SOCIETY OR OF
SACRAMENTS IN OUR CHURCH." — P. 124.

Suppose any of these excluded persons join the
Presbyterian, or any other church: for instance,
" those who hold and disseminate, publicly or
privately, doctrines contrary to your articles of
religion," whom you say, shalt be dealt with " as in
case of gross immorality " 114 ; or who have neglected
class-meetings ; or who have been " disobedient to
the order and discipline of your church;" or have
talked against your doctrines or discipline, will you
allow them to commune with you ?

31. Of course we can not, according to our rules.
The Discipline is positive : they can " have no privi-
leges of society or of sacraments in our church. No
person shall be admitted to the Lord's table among us,
who is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude
a member of our church."

P. Thus you see you are a close communion church
of the worst type; for you simply exclude these mem-
bers for neglecting an institution of men, disobedi-
ence to the order and discipline of your church, a
breach of your rules, and not for immoral conduct.
And not satisfied with this, you follow them with
the rod, and say, they " shall not be admitted to the
Lord's table among you."

12*

274 Conversations on Baptism.

31. But the rule says nothing about class-meet-
ings.

P. Grant it. But it includes them. The rule
Bays, if he is guilty of "any practice" for which
you would exclude a member. No difference what
the practice is* for which they are excluded, you can
not let them commune.

31. But the rule applies only to excluded
members.

P. Well, grant that, also, though I deny it; for
the rule does not say, let no person among us, etc., but

" LET NO PERSON BE ADMITTED TO THE LORD'S TABLE

among us." There are hundreds in other churches
who have been excluded from your church. You
can not let them commune. If you have the right
to exclude one from the Lord's table, you have the
right to exclude more. And as you do exclude them,
you are a close communion church, according to
your Discipline.

Your Discipline (page 114) says, " Those ministers
or preachers who hold and disseminate, publicly or
privately, doctrines which are contrary to your
articles of religion," shall be dealt with "as in cases
of gross immorality!" And that, "after such form
of trial and expulsion, the person so expelled shall
have no privilege of society or of sacraments in our
church" etc.

Thus, if a minister holds or preaches in your
church the doctrine of final perseverance, or any
thing that is contrary to your articles of religion,

Sixteenth Conversation. 275

he is to be dealt with as in cases of "gross immor-
ality" and is to have no privilege of society or of sacra-
ments in your church.

31. Yes, I can not help admitting it, with the
Discipline before me.

P. Is not that a pretty, queer, close kind of close
communion? Your Discipline again says, page 121,
" If a member of our church shall be clearly con-
victed of endeavoring to sow dissensions in any of
our societies, by inveighing against either our doc-
trines or discipline, such person so offending; * *
if he persist in such pernicious practices, he shall be
expelled from the church ;" and "such persons
shall have no privileges of society or of sacraments in our
church" etc. — P. 124. Have you not expelled a
great many under that rule? Did you not expel
hundreds of Methodist Protestants for talking
against your Discipline?

M. It is too true, what you say. We did expel
them under that rule. It is a painful part of our
history.

P. "Will you allow them to commune ?

M. Of course we can not, and abide by our
Discipline.

P. Then, again, you exclude them for "neglect
of duties of any kind," and "disobedience to the
order and discipline of [your] church." Here you
have so many causes for exclusion that it is almost
impossible to enumerate them, so I will not at-
tempt it.

276 Conversations on Baptism,

Now, I contend that your rule virtually excludes
from your communion every member of every other
church. Your ministers have no authority for
giving a general invitation to the Lord's table. The
form of invitation, as given in your Discipline, is
only to be given to the members of }rour church, as
one of your bishops says. (See Hedding on Disci-
pline.) It reads thus : " Ye that do truly and earn-
estly repent of your sins, and are in love and charity
with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life,
following the commandments of God, and walking
from henceforth in his holy ways ; draw near with
faith, and take this holy sacrament to your comfort:
and, devoutly kneeling, make your humble confes-
sion to Almighty God." — P. 153. If you know of
any authority for giving an invitation to members
of any other churches, I should like to know it.

M. I can not find any thing more than what you
have given.

P. The only authority you had for inviting
members of other churches to commune with yon,
you have abolished. That was very restricting, and
read, " Let no person, who is not a member of our
church, be admitted to communion without exam-
ination, and some token given by an elder or dea-
con." In abolishing that rule, you have destroyed
every thing in your Discipline that allowed you to
admit any members of other churches to your com-
munion. And now the rule is:

" Let no person be admitted to the Lord's table

Sixteenth Conversation, 277'

among us, who is guilty of any practice for which we
would exclude a member of our church" — P. 35.

I have shown for what you do exclude them — for
the very " practices " of which every Presbyterian,
Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Free
Methodist, and Baptist is guilty. Now, how can
you, with any show of consistency, ask them to
commune with you ?

M. I don't see how we can ; for they are all
" disobedient to the order and discipline of our
church," and such, the Discipline says, " shall have
no privilege of society or of sacraments " in our
church.

P. Now read this extract, and you will see that
Bishop Hedding unsparingly condemns open com-
munion :

" Is it proper for a preacher to give out a general
invitation in the congregation to members in good
standing in other churches to come to the Lord's
Supper?" ii'No: for the most unworthy persons
are apt to think themselves in good standing, and
sometimes persons who are not members of any
church, will take the liberty from such an invitation
to come. And again ; there are some communities
called churches which, from heretical doctrines or
immoral practices, have no claim to the privileges
of Christians, and ought not to be admitted to the
communion of any Christian people. The rule in
that case is as follows, and it ought to be strictly
adhered to : ' Let no person who is not a member

278 Conversations on Baptism.

of our church be admitted to the communion with-
out examination, and some token given, by an elder
or deacon. E"o person shall be admitted to the
Lord's Supper among us who is guilty of any prac-
tice for which we would exclude a member of our
church.' " — Hedding on Discipline, p. 72.

Thus, you see, whenever your ministers give a
general invitation to the Lord's table, they violate
their discipline and ordination votes.

M. You have clearly condemned me out of our
own books. I was not aware of the teachings of
our Discipline, or I should have been more careful
of my charges against the Baptists. I shall take
care in future, and remember the old proverb, and
not throw stones at my neighbors, whom I begin to
see are more consistent than we are.

P. But I have not done yet. I will now prove
that the Baptists are more liberal as a church than
you are. You are well aware that many of your
ministers and members have been very severe in
your denunciations of them.

31. I know we have not been very tender of
their feelings; and have endeavored to place them
in no enviable light before the people, especially on
communion, calling them narrow-minded, selfish,
and bigoted.

P. Yes, that's a one-stringed instrument some
of you have played with delight. Whenever the
Baptists would preach on baptism, against the usur-
pation of power by the ministry, or the right of a

Sixteenth Conversation, 279

church to govern itself, contending earnestly for the
rights of the people, you have commenced fiddling
away on " com-mu-ni-on, clos-e com-mu-ni-on !"
thus diverting the attention of the people from the
true issue between you. It would have been wiser
to have kept silent on a point where you are so very
vulnerable. But to prove what I said. You have
what you call love-feasts and class-meetings. Will
you allow me to come to these meetings ? What is
your rule? We can only determine the right of
your practice by the rule governing it.

M. That is fair and right. As a Methodist, I
believe in sticking to our rules: we can only tell
what a church believes by its articles of faith, and
rules of practice. Hence, we tell our ministers :
" You are not to mend our rules, but to keep them;" and,
" remember, a Methodist preacher is to mind every point,
great and small, in the Methodist Discipline" — P. 62.
Thus, you see, we are clear on that point.

We have no rule now, that I can find, that allows
any person to come to our class-meetings and love-
feasts but our members. At one time we did admit
strangers to our love-feasts twice or thrice, with the
utmost caution, and no more, unless they became
members. And as to our class-meetings, at every
other meeting we also admitted strangers, but these
only twice or thrice. But now we have abolished
these rules, and of course no stranger is allowed to
enter either our love-feasts or class-meetings. As
to our love-feasts, our own members are required by

280 Conversations on Baptism.

the Discipline to "have quarterly tickets of admission.
— P. 96. But in many places our preachers don't
carry out the rules, and hold open-door class-
meetings.

P. Now, how do you receive members?

M. "Let none be admitted on trial, except they
are well recommended by one you know, or until
they have met twice or thrice in class." — Discipline,
p. 38. Again : " Let none be received into the
church until they are recommended by a leader
with whom they have met at least six months on
trial, and have been baptized; and shall on exam-
ination by the minister in charge, before the church,
give satisfactory assurances both of the, correctness
of their faith, and their willingness to observe and
keep the rules of the church. Nevertheless, if a
member in good standiug in any other orthodox
church shall desire to unite with us, such applicant
may, by giving satisfactory answers to the usual
inquiries, be received at once into full fellowship."
—P. 37.

P. Thus, you have to try them six months, to see
whether they will do for church members. Your
very probation implies a doubt. They may be
good Christians, and yet you will not admit them
into full connexion. When you have a " revival,"
some of your ministers will pass round with a slip
of paper among the anxious to get them to unite on
trial. They don't wait until they are converted and
baptized ; no ! they must first get them committed

Sixteenth Conversation. 281

to the Methodist church, as if that was the one thing
needful. That is one reason why some churches
object to joining with you in union meetings. They
have to wait for conversion and baptism before
church membership; but you can pop an individual's
name down at once as a probationer, without being
particular about his conversion. Should he not suit
you, all that you have to do, according to your
Discipline, is to " drop" him, even without a trial.
The civil law never " drops" any one thus.

M. Are we not all probationers? Our proba-
tionary relation is only a trial. The individual may
not like our church, and we may not like him; in
such cases the copartnership can be dissolved by
either party. You forget that our probationers are
not in the church. They only occupy a vestibule
relation, though they have nearly all the privileges
of full members — even the Lord's Supper. — Disci-
pline, p. 32. How is it with the Baptists?

P. In the Baptist churches all who have been
obedient to the heavenly calling, are looked upon as
good enough to be admitted at once into full fellow-
ship, and are entitled to all the privileges of a citizen
of the kingdom, without suspicion, or fear of the
result. Which is the most liberal and just?

M. I must confess the Baptists, in this particular,
are the most consistent. If a man is truly converted
and baptized, he is certainly entitled to church
membership. I have, to be frank, been at a loss to

282 Conversations on Baptism.

understand the justice of our probationary system.
But I have not troubled myself much about it.

P. Am I unjust or uncharitable when I say, it
appears to me that you think more highly of your
church, and guard more carefully your love-feasts
and class-meetings, -than you do the Lord's table!
You will not admit members into your church with-
out six months' trial — that is, those who have never
been members of any church — and none to your
class-meetings and love-feasts; and yet you^ invite
all to the Lord's Supper. Do you not thus place
the inventions of men above the institutions of
Christ?

M. It does look like it ; but it's all according to our
Discipline.

P. Now let us look at your general conference.
Who compose it? Head, if }-ou please.

M. The preachers. " The general conference
shall be composed of one member for every thirty
members of each annual conference," etc., says our
Discipline, p. 45.

P. And who compose your annual conferences ?

M. " All the traveling preachers." — P. 48.

P. Thus, you see, your general and annual con-
ferences are composed exclusively of preachers.
Your laymen, however intelligent, have no voice
there. Your general conference has " full powers
to make rules and regulations " for your church. —
P. 46.

M. But there are limitations and restrictions.

Sixteenth Conversation* 283

P. Certainly; but every limitation and restric-
tion, except changing your articles of religion, can
be swept away by a recommendation of three-
fourths of all the members [preachers] of the several
annual conferences, who shall be present and vote,
and by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the
general conference. — P. 48.

One of your members writes to The Methodist as
follows : " Our laity have no representation in the
legislative assemblies of the Methodist Episcopal
Church. Delegates to the general conference are
the clergy — they represent the clergy of the annual
conferences. A Christian church should be strictly a
government of principle in relation to the governed.
The right to be represented where law is made
to govern, is not only essential to civil freedom, but
is equally the basis of religious liberty. Is there
any reason why any class of men should assume the
right to disfranchise another class of men, and claim
to be their legislators, administrators and judges of
all the laws, and every possible application of them ?
In withholding from our laity a right of voice in
their government, it deprives them of the stronger
motives for activity and liberality."

Thus, your preachers have " full power to make
rules and regulations for [your] church. " And
why not, when they formed the church — sixty
preachers, who met at Baltimore, Md., 1784. The
minutes of that conference have this remarkable
admission — " At this conference it was unanimously

284 Conversations on Baptism.

agreed, that our circumstances made it expedient
for us to become a separate body, under the denom-
ination of the Methodist Episcopal Church. * *
* We formed ourselves into an independent
church." Look at it : we [sixty preachers] formed

OURSELVES INTO THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH !

"What are the preachers but the Methodist Episcopal
Church ?

M. Our preachers the church ! Certainly not.

P. I will give }-ou a few facts to ponder over.
In 1844 the Methodist Episcopal Church was divided
by geographical lines, and two churches formed,
the church North and the church South. The
ministers divided the church by mutual agreement.
Besides the churches, schools, colleges, etc., etc.,
the Methodist Episcopal Church South was entitled
to some $400,000 from the " Book Concern." The
Northern church refused to pay it over. The church
South instituted suit to recover it. The best legal
talent was employed on both sides. The church
South took the position that the general conference,
composed of bishops and traveling preachers, only
was the church, and hence had the right to divide
it, and that the agreement entered into was binding
in law. I have not time to give you the pleas of
the counsel for the church South; besides, they are
substantially embodied in the decision of the Court,
as rendered by Justice Nelson, which is as follows :
" The Methodist Episcopal church of the United
States was established, in its government, doctrine

Sixteenth Conversation, 285

and discipline, by a general conference of the travel-
ing preachers in this communion, in 1784. Down
to that time, the Methodist societies in America had
been governed by John Wesley, the founder of this
denomination of Christians, through the agency of
his assistants. During this year, the entire govern-
ment was taken into the hands of the traveling
preachers, with his approbation and assent. They
organized it, established its doctrines and discipline,
appointed the several authorities — superintendents
or bishops, ministers and preachers — to administer
its polity, and promulgate its doctrines and teach-
ings throughout the land. From that time to this,
the source and fountain of all its temporal power
are the traveling preachers in this connection in
general conference assembled. The lay members of
the church have no part or connection with its govern-
mental organization, and never had. The traveling
preachers comprise the embodiment of its power,
ecclesiastical and temporal ; and when assembled
in general conference, according to the usages and
discipline of the church, represent themselves, and
have no constituents." — Appendix to Property Case,
pp. 10, 11.

Both parties submitted to this decision. ~No bill of 4
exceptions was filed. Have I not sustained my
assertion, that the general conference is the Metho-
dist Episcopal church ?

M. I was aware that our ministers made our
laws, and it has caused a great deal of disaffection

286 Conversations on Baptism.

and disturbance in our church; but really, the idea
that they are the Methodist Episcopal Church, is
new to me. Yet I can not see how I can deny it,
when they have put in the claim themselves, and it
has been sustained by the law. How is it with the
Baptists ?

P. " Every Baptist church is a sovereign demo-
cracy, on which devolves the duty of executing the
laws of Christ; and every Baptist feels that he is a
sovereign citizen of the kingdom of Jesus Christ."
Every Baptist church is complete in itself. All
Baptist associations, conventions, etc., are repre-
sentative bodies.

" Baptist associations are made up of delegates
from churches, consisting of the pastor, and two or
more laymen chosen for the purpose. Pastors,
however, are not essential to associations, but are
always sent as a part of the delegation, if the church
has one at the time. Associations, like committees
and councils, have no authority over the churches.
Meetings of State conventions, missionary, Bible,
publication societies, etc., are of similar character,
originating in the church, and deriving all their
consequence from her. Any society or convention
for church purposes, not dependent upon the church,
is a departure from the Divine plan for promoting
Christianity upon earth."

There is one thing more : Have you the right to
call and settle your own pastor ?

M. JSTo. Our Discipline gives the bishops the

Sixteenth Conversation. 287

power of sending the preachers where they please.
(P. 86.) But sometimes we petition.

P. But what right have you to petition ? It is
not in your Discipline. You are hound to receive
the minister sent, or rebel.

31. I know we have no right to petition, and
that it is optionary with the bishop to grant or
refuse our request. Ministers have been sent back
against the remonstrance of the people.

P. Every Baptist church calls and settles its own
pastor, each member having a vote in the question;
and no minister becomes a member of that church
without being received by a vote of the church.

Did you ever receive a minister in that way?
No; he comes and takes charge of your society or
church, presides at your meetings, appoints or
removes your class leaders at pleasure, and performs
other things, without ever being received by vote
among you. His position as a minister entitles him
to that.

Now, in face of all the foregoing facts, are not the
Baptists more liberal than you are ? Do not they
possess more of the elements of Christian liberty
and liberality than your church?

M. From the evidence before me, I must admit
the truth of what you say. You have shown me
things in our Discipline that unequivocally condemn
all our claims to a liberal church. The fact is, I
was not aware of their existence until now.

P. There, again, you are not alone. I once heard

288 Conversations on Baptism.

one of your ministers proclaim a copy of your Disci-
pline a forgery, because there were things quoted
from it by an opponent in debate that he could not
possibly believe were there ! But I have shown you
no more than what you say your Discipline main-
tains, and what your own members have charged
-against your church, and who have left it on account
thereof.

Kay, at this day a strong effort is being made by
many of your leading members to get a change in
your government. Whether it will fail, as preced-
ing ones have done, remains to be seen.

It is amusing to hear some of your ministers try
to prove that you have a liberal church, when

1. All laws governing your church are made by
your preachers. — Dis., p. 46.

2. Your general conference is composed exclu-
sively of preachers. — P. 45.

3. Your annual conferences are composed
exclusively of preachers. — 48.

4. Your bishops are elected to office by preachers.
—86.

5. Your presiding elders appointed by preachers
— the bishops. — 90.

6. Your missionary and tract societies, and your
printing and bookselling departments, controlled
by your preachers. — 236-248.

7. Your candidates for the itinerancy received by
the preachers. — 49-50.

8. Your preachers appointed to the stations and

Sixteenth Conversation. 289

circuits by your preachers (bishops), without any
right on your part to reject. You must do it by
rebellion. — 86.

9. Your quarterly meetings presided over by
preachers. — 53.

10. Your class leaders appointed and removed at
pleasure by your preachers. — 96.

11. Your stewards and trustees nominated for
office by your preachers. — 55, 262.

12. Your probationers received on trial by your
preachers. — 96.

13. Your members tried by a committee appointed
and presided over by preachers. — 118.

14. Your preachers tried by preachers. — 110-118.
Now, in face of all these facts of your Discipline,

how can you say the Methodist Episcopal is a free
and liberal church, and denounce the Baptists as
illiberal and intolerant? No wonder that so many
of your preachers are such earnest defenders of your
polity, and so bitterly opposed to all change in your
government. Strange it is that so many of you
believe it, and quietly submit to it, and let the
preachers have it all their own way.

But I see we shall not be able to finish our
examination of the Baptists to-night ; so suppose
we devote another evening to the subject.

M. It will be very agreeable to me ; and you
may expect me early, for I am deeply interested in
the result. Good night.
13

Seventeenth Conversation.

The Baptists Examined — {Concluded?)

[HIS evening brother C. was earlier in his

visit than usual ; and had hardly taken

his seat before he introduced the subject

under investigation, by saying:

M. "Well, brother E., this evening brings us to

the close of our examinations; and I am anxious to

hear your concluding remarks on the Baptists. Let

me have all you can say in their favor.

P. That is impossible now ; so I will give you a
few facts touching some of the leading and distin-
guishing features or characteristics of the Baptists;
but these will be briefly stated.

31. Don't be too brief; for I am more than ever
anxious to hear and learn.

P. In the first place, then, let me give you the
following statement of Baptist principles, from the
able pen of Br. Armitage :

" The Divine truths which have maintained the

Seventeenth Conversation. 291

integrity of the Baptist churches, as distinct from
all other religionists, are these, namely:

" 1. That the Word of God, as found in the
inspired manuscripts, is the only rule hy which the
church is to be governed, edified, and built up in its
doctrines, ordinances and discipline; and that no
creed, liturgy, rubric, catechism, decree, law, or
tradition, is to be set up as of any authority what-
ever, in any department connected with the up-
building, defence, and perpetuity of Christ's ran-
somed church.

" 2. That his church is composed only of regen-
erate persons, and that, therefore, all interference
in its affairs on the part of the state, or of civil
rulers, is an unwarranted dictation, oppression, and
tyranny, that must not be brooked, but is to be
resisted, broken, and shaken off by all true lovers
of soul liberty, on the ground that Christ, and Christ
only, is the " head over all things to the church."

" 3. That the immersion of the body in water is
the only baptism whereby men can be admitted into
fellowship with Christ's church : therefore, that all
other symbols of the mystic union are spurious, and
deviations from Christ's appointed badge of disciple-
ship ; and are to be rebuked as human innovations
upon the simplicity of primitive Christianity.

" 4. That only those persons in whom the Spirit
of God has wrought a radical renovation of the soul,
by faith in Jesus, are, or can be entitled, under any
pretext whatever, to a place is a gospel church as

292 Conversations on Baptism.

members thereof; and that the introduction of any-
other class, by virtue of parentage, or ecclesiastical
decretal, is a direct prostitution of the purposes for
which the Founder of the Church established it in
the earth.

"5. That regenerated persons thus buried with
Christ in the first ordfc^nce of the Gospel, are the
only persons who do 1$k can possess the requisite
qualifications which entitle Christ's people to the
benefits of communion, watchcare, and discipline in
his church; so that any reversal of this order, is to
dispute, nullify and supersede his authority in his
own house. And —

" 6. That the church of Christ is a simple brother-
hood of renewed spirits, walking in the paths of
gospel obedience; that they all stand upon a perfect
parity in the household of faith, under the legislation
and leadership of their Elder Brother; and that,
therefore, he disallows among them all orders and
distinctions that savor of a human hierarchy, and all
ecclesiastical domination whatever, as inconsistent
with the freedom and right of self-government, which
inheres in each individual congregation of his elect,
as composing the church of God in any given place.

" These truths are broad and fundamental and
plain, as " Christ taught them," and yet, with the
exception of one or two points, they are held by
none but Baptists in all their bearings practically.
They ramify through all the ground-work and life
of Christianity. And so far from being considered

Seventeenth Conversation. 293

hy the Christian world as small point-:, external and
non-essential, they have drawn a broad belt acr<
tin; bounds of Christendom, and divided the Christian
world into two. There is not another doctrine of

Christianity of which this can be said. The one
question as to what material constitutes the church,
and by what law it is to be built Up into the living
temple, has agitated the church for fifteen hundred
years, and troubles its waters more to-day than ever
before. It has consumed the best Learning and
talent of* Christianity. Millions of the best minds
are devoted to the theme to-day. Every pulpit and
press in the British empire is handling the subject,
with its embarrassments and responsibilities, and it
is engendering nearly as much discussion and pro-
found feeling in the Republic itself. The man who
tells you that the only thing involved here is a mere
external rite, is as blind as he well can he to the
times in which he lives. The truths involved are
precisely those, and those only, which necessitate
the existence of the Baptist world on one side, as
distinct from all other Christians, and the Pedobap-
tist world on the other side, as distinct from ns."

M. Those are certainly grand fundamental prin-
ciples. Xo wonder the Baptists contend so earnestly
for their su Really, if I were a Baptist, I

should feel proud of them.

1\ They are the great truths of Christianity.
But let us go a little hack in history, and learn
something more of the Baptists:

294 Conversations on Baptism,

" A departure from the Scriptures, in respect to
baptism, was hardly sanctioned in the church, when,
with the conscious weakness of error, it summoned
persecution to its aid. In 413, A.D., re-baptism, as
it was termed, was forbidden throughout the Roman
Empire, under penalty of death. In the following
year the Council of Carthage, of which Augustine
was the president, decided: 'We will that whoso-
ever denies that little children, by baptism, are
freed from perdition and eternally saved, that they
be accursed.' At an earlier clay than this, the same
spirit had prevailed, but it was not until the church
received protection of the emperors, that it could
display itself in force.

" Thus early in the school of persecution, and at
the point of their ' new conception/ did Baptists
learn the great principle of soul liberty. That les-
son they have never forgotten. Under varying names
— in widely distant lands — through long and weary
centuries — they have toiled and suffered in its
defence. Denied a freedom for themselves, they
have answered to the wrong by giving freedom to
all mankind. Theirs is a history stained with no
blood but their own ; lighted by no martyring
flames, save those in which their faithful perished.
Others have contended as stoutly for their own
chosen creed, but none so firmly for the creeds of
all. In this they stand alone.

" Can you point me to a creed of the Reformation
which does not confer upon the magistrate a power

Sixteenth Conversation. 295

in religion ? Luther says of false teachers : ' I am
very averse to the shedding of blood. 'Tis sufficient
they should be banished, or put under restraint as
madmen.' Neither Melancthon, Bucer, or Beza
can be acquitted of sentiments either similar or
worse. And Calvin — would to God the great
man's memory were free from the wrongs of Ser-
vetus — Cranmer could suffer unto death with heroic
firmness for his own faith, but could wring from the
tender youth of the reluctant Edward, a warrant for
the death of those who differed; a warrant signed
with tears, and coupled with a clause like Pilate's.*
We 'honor the Scotch churches,' and dwell with
sadness on the story of their wrongs; but the suffer-
ings they euclured were only such as they com-
mended unsparingly to others. John Knox would
have burned an adversary of 'God's eternal pre-
destination' as coolly as you would drown a kitten.
Hear him, in answer to one of those Baptist pleas
for soul-liberty which, early in the reign of Eliza-
beth, was published in Great Britain. Alluding to
persecuting Christians, the Baptist writes: 'Be
these, I pray you, the sheep whom God lias set forth
in the midst of wolves. Can the sheep persecute
the wolf?' And Knox replies: ' I will not now so
much labor to confute by my pen, as my full pur-
pose is to lay the same to thy charge, if I shall
apprehend thee in any commonwealth where justice

* Hume, vol. iii., p. 853.

296 Conversations on Baptism.

against blasphemers may be ministered as God's
Word requireth.'

" Nearly a hundred years later, when the Baptists
of London had published their sentiments to the
world, and when Roger Williams was battling for
religious freedom with the Puritans of Massachusetts,
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church
in Scotland, forbade ' all printers in the kingdom from
printing or re-printing any confession of faith, or
protestation, or reason pro or contra, without war-
rant, subscribed by the clerk of the assembly."
Four years later, Roman Catholics were ordered to
renounce their ' obstinacy/ under penalty of banish-
ment or imprisonment.

" Nor was it different in this western world.
Puritans, Churchmen and Catholics alike joined in
persecution. The best example of toleration was fur-
nished by the Catholics of Maryland ; but soul liberty
was defended by Baptists alone. In due time they
won some converts; but in Rhode Island, in Massa-
chusetts, in Pennsylvania, in Virginia, and through-
out the land, the work was mainly their own. The
first Continental Congress had not been ten days in
session, when an agent of the Baptists knocked at.
the door of the old Carpenters' Hall, to ask that
freedom of conscience might be given, not to them-
selves alone, but to all the dwellers in the land.

" Well does George Bancroft declare, with a
candor which does credit to his mind and heart,
' freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind,

Seventeenth Conversation* 297

was, from first, the trophy of the Baptists.'* And
again; 'The party was trodden under foot with
foul reproaches and most arrogant scorn ; and its
history is written in the blood of myriads of the
German peasantry; but its principles, safe in their
immortality, escaped with Roger Williams to Provi-
dence; and his colony is the witness that naturally
the paths of the Baptists are paths of freedom,
pleasantness, and peace.'f

" The fact is indubitable, but its connection with
our peculiar views of baptism is often overlooked.
Our peculiarities here awakened persecution, and
persecution taught us the value of soul liberty.

"A similar argument might be urged in relation
to other truths. One hundred years ago, Baptists
stood alone in the defence of a converted church
membership. Infant sprinkling admitted members
into the church without even a profession of godli-
ness. Our views of Baptism forbade it. Hence,
baptism became the gate in which men stood to
battle for a spiritual church. "J

" That Baptists are of ancient origin, maybe seen,
not only in the Scriptures, but also in ecclesiastical
history, imperfectly and partially as it has yet been
written," as it may be seen in the works of Lim-
borch, Mosheim, Meander, and a host of other Pedo-
baptist writers. Within the present century the
King of Holland selected his chaplain, Dr. J. J.

* Bancroft, vol. ii., p. 66. t Ibid, p. 459.

X " Baptists Not Exclusive," pp. 44-48.

13*

298 Conversations on Baptism,

Dermont, and Dr. TJpejj, Professor of Theology at
the University of Groningen, both of the Dutch Re-
formed Church, to draw up a history of the Dutch
Baptists. In the authentic volume which they
prepared and published at Breda, in 1819, they
arrive at the following deliberate conclusion :

" We have now seen that the Baptists, who were
formerly called Anabaptists, and, in later times,
Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who
loner in the history of the church received the honor
of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be
considered as the only Christian community which has
stood since the days of the Apostles, and as a Cliristian
society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the
Gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct exter-
nal and internal economy of the Baptist denomina-
tion tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the
Romish church, that the reformation brought about
in the sixteenth century, was in the highest degree
necessary, and, at the same time, goes to refute the
erroneous notion of the Catholics that their communion is
the most ancient."

Let it be remembered that these learned men
were not Baptists ; that they proclaimed the result
of their diligent research in the ear of a king, who
listened unwillingly to their conclusions. Let it
also be remembered, that as a result of their investi-
gation, the government of Holland offered to the Baptist
churches in the kingdom the support of the State ; but,
true to their principles, they declined it.*

* " Eaptists not Exclusive."

Seventeenth Conversation. 299

M. That is certainly a noble tribute to their
independence and loyalty to their principles.

P. The Baptists have ever been uuflinching
defenders of civil and religious liberty. In the
times of Constantine the Donatists asked, "What
has the emperor to do with the church ? "What
have Christians to do with kings ? What have
bishops to do at court ?" For this they have been
fined, whipped, imprisoned, banished, and martyred.
Pedobaptists have been their bitterest persecutors.

As I have already shown you, on May 2nd, 1648,
the Presbyterians, having the ascendancy in the
British Parliament, " passed a law against heretics,
which is hardly to be paralleled among Protestants.
One of the errors specified was, the holding that the
baptism of infants is unlawful and void, and that
such person ought to be baptized again. The per-
son implicated was, on confession, to * renounce it
in the public congregation,' or, 'in case of refusal,
be committed to prison till he find sureties that he
shall not publish the said error or errors any more.' "
— NeaVs History of the Puritans, part iii., ch. 10.

M. That law is almost equal to perpetual
imprisonment, at least to the poor.

P. True. And now let us look at Pedobaptist
intolerance in this country. As early as November,
1664, in Boston, Mass., a law was passed for the
suppression of anti-church and state sects, the
penalty of which is as follows: "It is ordered and
agreed, that if any person or persons within this

300 Conversatio7is on Baptism.

jurisdiction shall either openly oppose or condemn
the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to
seduce others from the approbation or use thereof;
or shall purposely depart from the congregation at
the ministration of the ordinance, * * every
such person or persons shall be sentenced to banish-
ment."

Another law was passed prohibiting all conversa-
tion of the common people with an}7 of those here-
tics, such as Quakers and Baptists ; and persons
giving them entertainment were to be fined five
pounds. They were debarred from citizenship, and
not allowed to make use of a house of public wor-
ship, without license from the authorities, under
penalty of forfeiture of house and land whereon it
stood.

One poor man, for refusing to have his child bap-
tized, and who gave it as his opinion that infant
baptism was an anti-Christian ordinance, was tied
up and whipped.

On the 8th of March, 1680, the doors of the First
Baptist Church of Boston were nailed up by the
marshal, and a notice posted thereon, warning all
persons against holding any meetings, or opening
the doors, " as the}7 will answer the contrary at their
peril.

Messrs. Clarke, Holmes, and Crandall were
apprehended by a constable, near Lynn, on Lord's
day, while Mr. Clarke was preaching. The court
fined Mr. Clarke £25, Mr. Holmes £30, and Mr.

Seventeenth Conversation. 301

Crandall £5, or be publicly whipped. Mr. Holmes
was whipped thirty stripes, and in such an unmer-
ciful manner, that for a great many days he could
not rest but upon his knees and elbows.

In Virginia three ministers were tried for "preach-
ing the Gospel of the Son of God, contrary to the
statute in that case provided, and consequently
disturbers of the peace."

Rev. Mr. Marshall, a traveling Baptist preacher,
was put in the stocks on a warm summer's day for
his heresy and aggression on parish lines, and was
afterwards imprisoned in "Windham jail, Conn.,
where, it is said, the strange record of his indict-
ment remains : " for preaching the Gospel contrary to
law r

These are but a few instances of cruelty that
might be enumerated, transacted in boasted New
England, and by our Presbyterian and Congrega-
tional friends.

Let me refer you now to the persecutions in
Sweden within the last fifteen years. In Stock-
holm, Sweden, where Lutheranism is the state
religion, the court preacher, Wenshom, accom-
panied by police officers, entered the house of Mr.
Forsell and baptized by force his little child,
six months old. At another time the authorities
came down on two poor families, seized from each
their only cow, and sold them at public auction,
to pay the district sergeant for carrying off their
children to be sprinkled, and to pay the priest his

302 Conversations on Baptism.

fee. In many oases Baptist parents have had their
children taken from them by the policeman, carried
to the priest, and forcibly baptized. Baptist minis-
ters have been imprisoned and fined for preaching
the Gospel not according to law. Fifteen brethren
and sisters were imprisoned on bread and water as
a punishment for taking the Lord's Supper out of
the state church.

Trials and persecutions of various kinds followed
those who thus dare to obey God rather than man.
They were summoned before tribunals, civil and
ecclesiastical, fined, imprisoned on bread and water,
and often the rites of marriage were denied to those
Baptists who were unable to pay a fee sufficiently
large to overcome the scruples of the priests. The
Lutheran priests refused to perform the marriage
ceremony for those who were not communicants in
the state church; and ministers of any other church
are forbidden to perform this ceremony under
penalty of three years' imprisonment in a fortress, at
hard labor.

Dr. Steane, an Englishman, who visited Swe-
den, writes: "Their baptisms have to be stealthily
administered on some lone sea-shore, or in a hidden
nook of some inland lake, where no hostile eye may
see them, and no lurking policeman spring upon
them. Some have been baptized since we have
been here, but the blessed deed, as though it had
been the perpetration of a great crime, was done at
midnight, and so secretly that even we heard noth-
ing of it till afterward."

Seventeenth Conversation, 303

At one place Mr. Wiberg was sitting quietly one
morning, explaining the Word of God to some
friends, when soon the house was filled with enemies
of God and all righteousness. They pushed him
oft* the chair on which he sat, giving him repeated
blows on the head and pulling out his hair by the
roots. They then dragged him out of the house to
another place, where they recommenced striking
and kicking him. They then took him to the dis-
trict sergeant, who had him placed in the county
prison. It was soon noised abroad that he was in
prison, and the yard was soon filled with people,
who came to see the infamous " baptizcr." So
clamorous was the mob to see him, that the sergeant
had him brought out before them, when he was
made the butt of their scoffs, jeers, and ridicule.
Some swore and cursed him, while others laughed
at him. One old gentleman spat in his face, and
said he ought to be destroyed. But so great was
his joy that he had been counted worthy to suffer
reproach for the cause of his Master, that he could
not refrain from singing songs of praise and speak-
ing the word to others within the prison. When
his enemies heard this, they begged the sergeant to
have him sent to the provincial penitentiary that
same evening. They arrived there with him about
midnight. Here he was met by the jail-keeper with
curses. They then proceeded to clip his hair close
to his head, stripped him of his clothes, and drench-
ed him with cold water ; after which, they put on

304 Conversations on Baptism,

Lira a prisoner's dress, of very coarse, thin, gray
material, and threw him into a dark cell, where, as
the weather was very cold, he was seized with a
violent chill. From this place he was removed to
a cell where he could see, where he remained three
days, after which he was driven on a prisoner's car
to his native place to be set at liberty. After this,
several times was he pursued with loaded guns, and
when going out to preach with others they were
often obliged to lie concealed during the day, and
hold their meetings at the midnight hour.*

This is but one scene of the sufferings the Bap-
tists of Sweden have had to pass through : and all
the result of Pedobaptist intolerance, the Lutheran
priests being the chief instigators. But God has
wonderfully blessed them. On September 21st,
1848, the first Baptist church, consisting of six mem-
bers, was organized in Sweden. There are now ten
associations, one hundred and eighty-three churches,
and about twelve thousand members. Last year,
one minister baptized seven hundred.

And the glorious work which God has done in
Sweden, has had a reflex influence on the Baptists
of the United States ; for several hundred converted
Swedes have come to this country, and are among
the very best of our foreign population, standing up
nobly for the truth.

M. Certainly that is a frightful record of intoler-
ance and injustice.

* Baptists in Sweden,

Seventeenth Conversation. 305

P. It surely is. And yet the Baptists, in spite
of it all, have gone on preaching against church and
state, advocating religious liberty, and unflinchingly
maintaining their views of Bible doctrine. They
have kept free from all entangling alliauces. While
Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Con-
gregationalists have courted and been supported by
the civil power, the Baptists have relied alone upon
the Word of God for their success. Their watch-
fires have ever blazed in liberty. It is to the praise
of the Baptists, that while they have been bitterly
persecuted, they have not persecuted others.

In the face of the foregoing facts, how does it look
to hear those Pedobaptist churches now talk about
the bigotry of the Baptists, who persecuted Poger
Williams for advocating religious toleration — soul
liberty — and made him flee in mid-winter to the
forests, inhabited only by wild beasts and Indians,
where, as he tells us, he had to live fourteen weeks,
" not knowing what bread or bed did mean ?" How
does it look to hear those charge the Baptists with
illiberal ity and narrow-mindedness, who have been
advocates and supporters of church and state, and
who have passed some of the most intolerant laws
against civil and religious liberty? — who have
nailed up Baptist meeting houses, fined, imprisoned,
whipped and banished Baptists for denouncing
infant baptism, and preaching, contrary to law, the
Gospel of the Son of God !

M. It certainly is not very consistent : and the

306 Conversations on Baptism.

Presbyterians, especially, would do well to look
back in history before they denounce the Baptists.

P. Now, let me ask you, are not the Baptists as
willing and ready to engage in all great public
enterprizes and charities as we are? Are they not
as willing to meet with us on an equally liheral
basis on all matters pertaining to the public weal ?
Have they not a purely democratic form of church
government, in which every member has a voice,
each church complete in itself, and doing all that a
church of Jesus Christ has the rio-ht to do? Have
they not as an intelligent and public spirited minis-
try and membership as we have? Where can you
find a denomination having more illustrious names
connected with it, than you find among the Baptists?
Where can }'Ou find a denomination doing more for
education ? Where can you find a church that is
doing more in proportion for the great religious and
benevolent objects of the age?

The following condensation of facts, by Rev. J. H.
Gilmore, Rochester, N". Y., show what the Baptists
are doing :

" Ignoring altogether those brethren who have
fallen out by the way, we may estimate the baptized
believers of the United States at two millions. But
it is not in point of numbers alone that we are
entitled to respect ourselves. During the fifty years
ending in 1860 the contributions of the Baptist
denomination in the United States for the diffusion
of Christianity amounted to $15,579,220. The

SevetzteentJi Conversation. 307

contributions of the Baptists of the Northern States
alone during the past year, to our great denomina-
tional societies, amounted to $521,932. A moderate
estimate of the amount received by Baptist State
Conventions, feeble churches and educational socie-
ties, will swell this sum to three-quarters of a mil-
lion. Then the contributions of our Southern
brethren, and the contributions of Baptist churches
to union societies and purely benevolent organiza-
tions, are still to be added; and, as the result, we
can not doubt that the Baptists of the United States
are contributing one million dollars, year by year, for
the religious reformation of the world. These are
my estimates. Since I have committed them to
paper the Home Mission Society has asserted, after
careful examination and extended correspondence,
that the Baptists of this country are expending half
a million per annum on home missions alone. In
addition to all this, 692,286 scholars are instructed
in the Sunday school, at an estimated yearly expense
of $346,143; and $4,653,857 per annum would be a
low estimate for the support of Baptist preaching,
and the maintenance of Baptist church property
throughout our land. Adopting these estimates,
the Baptists of the United States expend six millions
of dollars, year by year, for the support and diffusion
of Christianity. Surely, we are neither a poor nor
a penurious people."

The Baptists have now thirty colleges and four-
teen theological institutious, in the United States,

308 Conversations on Baptism.

besides a great many institutions of learning of a
lesser grade, and thirty-eight religious periodicals.
The American Baptist Home Mission Society alone,
during the past year, employed three hundred and
sixty-seven missionaries. During the last sixty-seven
years, Baptist churches have been organized at the
rate of one church each week, and Baptist ministers
ordained at about the same rate. In the United
States there are over eight thousand Regular Bap-
tist ministers, and eleven hundred thousand mem-
bers.

Taking all these facts into consideration, you
must surely, with me, answer all the foregoing
questions in the affirmative. Then why oppose the
Baptists in the way many of our ministers and
members do ? "Why appeal to the false sympathies
of the people, and try to array prejudice and bigotry
in opposition against them? If they are vulnerable,
they are vulnerable in principle. On principle,
then, if they are to be assailed, on principle let the
attack be made. To this they will not object; and
from a candid investigation they will not shrink.
Let the opposition be manly and Christianly. I
have been ashamed at the low and vulgar way they
have been denounced by Pedobaptists. I have been
mortified in seeing the pitiful expedients resorted to
by our ministers in their denunciations of the Bap-
tists.

And now, have I not made out my case fairly and
clearly, from the testimony of our own witnesses ?

Seventeenth Conversation. 309

Must you not admit that the Baptist churches are
founded, to say the very least, on as liberal princi-
ples as any of the Pedobaptist churches, and infi-
nitely more so than many of them?

M. Really, I never thought you could turn the
argument so overwhelmingly against us. To think
of charging the Baptists with selfishness, bigotry,
and intolerance, as we have done, and then to find
that they are less so than we are — to discover the
truth is on their side ! I blush to think of ni}7 igno-
rance. I see no possible way of avoiding your con-
clusions; they are reasonable and just. And in the
future I shall be under the necessity of shaping my
conduct according to the light I have now received.
I know well what I shall have to meet. Scoffs and
jeers await me. By many I shall be charged with
being a turn-coat and backslider, and my character
may be assailed. But trusting in my Saviour,
assisted by his grace, I will follow him, and leave
the result in his hand. He knows the truthfulness
of my intention. May God help me !

P. " Amen," my dear brother, as you Methodists
love to say, and he will help you. " As thy day is,
so shall thy strength be." Let us bear in mind, that
obedience to our Saviour is our first duty — that
"it is better to obey God than man." Jesus is our
great pattern — we must follow him. He has said,
" If ye love me, keep my commandments." To him
we must give account. His word is our only rule
of conduct, and obedience to it brings its own

310 Conversations on Baptism.

reward. Never mind whether men smile or frown
— whether they commend or denounce — whether
they speak the truth or slanderous words. Do right
and fear not. God will take care of you. "He
that loveth father or mother more than me, is not
worthy of me." " Whosoever, therefore, shall con-
fess me before men, him will I confess also before
my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall
deny me before men, him will I also deny before
my Father which is in heaven." If we are saved,
it will be as by fire. The pure gold can only stand
that test. Let us be satisfied with God's order, for
all attempts to improve upon his plan, will at last
end in shame, confusion, and ruin.

[Here the two neighbors closed their Conversa-
tions, and, after a brief consultation and prayer for
divine strength, determined their future course of
action. Then clasping each other's hand fervently,
with a cordial "good night" they separated. From
the cheerful face and lively step of brother C., as he
wended his way homeward, it was clearly evident
that a great burden had been lifted from his heart,
and that his soul was filled with heavenly peace and
a noble resolution — the cause of which will be seen
in what follows.]

Hdwa*oC3§**N gfrRP~a^4^"m^^]

p^^^®_^^p o "CSia

The Baptism.

,HE village of Riverton was in a state of
great excitement ; more so than if a thun-
derbolt had dropped from a clear sky.
In the stores, shops, and by the firesides,
there was but one subject of conversation — every
thing else for the time being seemingly forgotten.
Never had such a thing been known in the history
of that quiet and pleasant village, so unexpected
and astonishing.

"Just to think of it," said old Mrs. Testy, "that
two such pillars in the churches, and influential men

in society, should go and" but here the old lady

was interrupted by a knocking at the door, and we
will leave the reader to imagine the conclusion of
the sentence.

A few days after our two friends had closed their
investigations on baptism, you might have seen two
plain looking men, in earnest conversation, on their
way to Riverton. They were prominent members
of the Methodist and Presbyterian churches.

312 Conversations on Baptism.

""Well, what do you think of the news, brother
J.?" asked the Presbyterian of the Methodisl friend.

"Think! why I don't believe a word of it," was
the reply, in a rather excited voice. " Our two
neighbors are too sensible to go over to the Bap-
tists."

"But it is really so. Brother E. told me himself
that lie was going to join the Baptists. Though I
expected it, yet I felt considerably shocked when
he mentioned it. There is never any good comes
out of these discussions on baptism. Some how, the
Baptists always get the best of it, unless our minis-
ters are there to explain the Scriptures. We can't
get the people to believe that going doion into thewater
and coming up out of the water, mentioned in the
Bible, means any thing else, unless we can get our
preachers to show that it does not mean what it
says; but, I must confess, it's a pretty hard job to
undertake."

" I do wish the people would stop talking on
baptism."

" The only way to stop them is, to strike it out of
the Bible; while that is so full of it, the people will
talk about it."

"Why, you are not going to turn Baptist, too?"

Another thunderbolt seemed ready to fall.

"I can't tell what may take place in the future.
But this I do kuow; I am not yet in love with the
Baptists, though sorely troubled on the subject of
baptism. I'll tell you what it is, there must be more
in this subject than we've been taught to believe."

The Baptism. 313

"There must have been something else besides

baptism, to make them take, the step the}- have: of
late I have thought that brother 0. was backsliding, "
"Now, brother M., that's not fair," said the Pres-
byterian bluntly. "There is too much of that spirit

manifested by all of us. Why attack an individual
thus, because he changes his views on baptism and
church relationship? Why not meet tin; issue fairly
and manly? If our practices as churches won'1 bear
investigation, the sooner we give them up the better.
It's a pretty pass that we've come to, if a man can'-t
change his opinions without being assailed by inu-
endoes and open charges of backsliding, etc. It
shows a weak cause, and a bad spirit, when we
resort to such tilings."

The Methodist winced under this home-thrust,
and looked as if he felt ashamed of what he hud
Baid, when the Presbyterian continued :

"For my part, I thought that brother 0. was one
of your best members. He always took a prominent
part in your meetings, and seemed very popular
among you, and ever ready to defend your church."

"Well, I must admit that our members did seem
to think a good deal of him. But brother E. was
always so straight and sound on baptism, and ever
ready with a word against immersion. That heats
me: I should think you would feel rather bad to
lose him !"

"I suppose that brother C. will be as great a loss
to you as brother E. to us. They are both of them
14

314 Conversations on Baptism.

men of influence, and the Baptists must have worked
hard to get them, though they deny that they knew
anything about it until our friends decided to unite
with them."

True enough, the Baptists were taken very much,
by surprise when informed that Mr. E. and Mr. C.
were intending to present themselves for baptism
and church membership. As we have seen, the
astonishment and excitement of the whole commu-
nity was intense. A few scoffed, some were angry,
and almost, if not quite, abusive; while others
smiled knowingly. But nearly the entire commu-
nity had a firm conviction of the integrity of pur-
pose of the two candidates for baptism; believing
that nothing could induce them to be baptized but
love for the truth. Their sincerity was beyond
question.

At length came the day of the Baptist monthly
meeting. The church was crowded, and many,
who had never been in such a place before, were
now there. It must be confessed, however, that
there were very few of the ultra oppositionists pre-
sent. They manifested their displeasure by a
studied avoidance of the offending brethren. The
exercises of the meeting were unusually interesting
— the deep, earnest devotions of the hour clearly
manifesting the presence of the Master.

And now our two friends were invited to relate
their experience. Mr. E. arose first, and with a
trembling voice and tearful eye told how his mind

The Baft ism. 315

had been drawn to the investigation of baptism;
how thoroughly he had been opposed to immersion
and the Baptists. But God had opened his eyes, and
brought him in a strange way to see his error. Deep
and pungent were the feelings he had experienced;
and not until he had resolved on his knees before
God to humble his pride and confess his Saviour
before men, had he found peace of mind. " I know,
brethren," said he, "I have ridiculed and despised
you; but now, if you will receive me into your fold,
your people shall be my people, and your God my
God." Overcome with emotion he again took his
seat. But his were not the only tears seen in that
assembly. The whole audience seemed profoundly
moved. By a unanimous vote of the church he was
joyfully received.

"We need not relate the experience of Brother C.
It was also deeply interesting, given in a frank
and honest manner, and with a depth of feeling that
convinced the audience of his sincerity and manli-
ness. Obedience to God, and love for the Saviour,
were clearly manifested in the account he gave of
his change of views. He was also unanimously
received.

It is now the Sabbath day — a daylong to be
remembered by the Baptist church of Riverton — a
calm and lovely clay. A large concourse of people
are gathered on the banks of the river that flows
not far from the meeting house. All around are to
be seen carriages and wagons, while horses are tied

3 16 Conversations on Baptism,

to every post, and tree, and fence, convenient for
hitching. Such a crowd, on such an occasion, that
quiet place had never before seen. It is a baptismal
scene — the very spot where our two friends had
witnessed the impressive ceremony a few wTeeks
before ; but little did they then think, that the next
time they visited the baptismal waters it would be
together for their own burial with Christ in bap-
tism ; that the same minister would lead them down
into the water, and that the same sweet melody
would float over the river at their baptism.

Now the pastor's voice is raised in earnest suppli-
cation for the blessing of the Master on the candi-
dates and the assembled multitude. Then was sung

the beautiful hymn :

•
" Must Jesus bear the cross alone,
And all the world go free ?
No ; there's a cross for every one,
And there's a cross for me.

" The consecrated cross I'll bear,
Till death shall set me free,
And then go home, my crown to wear,
For there's a crown for me."

After which, Mr. E. was led down into the water,
a solemn, breathless stillness pervading the assem-
bly. With a firm step, and calm and serene aspect,
the result of a consciousness of doing right, and the
support of divine grace, he went into the river, and
was buried with Christ in baptism ; and as he came

The Baptism. 317

up out of the water, his face was radiant with peace
and joy.

Mr. C. then followed his example, the people

singing :

" Am I a soldier of the cross,
A follower of the Lamb ;
And shall I fear to own his cause,
Or blush to speak his name ?"

As he came up out of the water, he gave utter-
ance to his feelings in a burst of praise ; and " Glory-
to God !" struck upon the ear of the listening multi-
tude.

No pen can describe the solemnity of that scene ;
no language can portray the power of God mani-
fested on that occasion. Christ's own seal was set
in approval on that baptismal ceremony. And when
the people of God, in conclusion, sent up a hymn
of thanksgiving to his throne, it was with such a
hearty voice, that every ear heard the joyful strain.
After singing, the two brethren were welcomed
with unmistakable marks of Christian friendship in
their new relation to the Saviour and to the church.

The benediction was now pronounced, and the
large congregation dispersed ; many to treasure up
in their hearts the lessons of the day, and the influ-
ence of the scene, to return again to the baptismal
waters, not as spectators, but willing followers in
the footsteos of the Saviour. ■

Ax IxDEFZXDEXT ChAPTEF^
Nci in the Original Programmed)
SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH.

4i Wi JE s, not be wished to

1 1 ■ I ■ " ; S ' . "

Soch are the memorable words of that noble and
d woman, Mrs. Auk Judsox. Many a Pedo-

■

baptist, in searching for proof to sustain sprinkling,
" - been compellc Li ge his views on baptism,

and to say the same thing. A volume might be
filled with such examples. TTe give a few in-
B : . iicea :

1. The ease of Dr. and Mrs. Axx Judsox. The
following is Mrs. Jndson'a account :

•• When Mr. Judsori was continuing the transla-
tion of the New Testament, which he began in
America, he had many doubts respecting the mean-
ing of the word baptize. This, with the idea of
meeting the Baj stfl at Serampore, when he would
id his own sentiments, induced a more
thorough examination of the foundation of the
Pedobaptist system. The more he examined, the

Se a rch i?ig for the Trie th. 319

more his doubts increased, and, unwilling as he v
to admit it, be was afraid tbe 1 - were right,

and be wrong. After we arrived at Calcutta, bis
attention was turned from thfc - ject I felt afraid
he would become a Baptist, and frequently ur_
the unhappy consequences if be should. I tried
have him give it up, and be satisfied in bis own sen-
timents, and frequently told him if he became a Bap-
tist, I would not. But he said his duty compel
him to satisfy his own mind, and embri. ^n-

timents which appeared most concordant with Scrip-
ture. I always took the Pedobaptist side in res - -
ing with him, even after I was as doubtful
system as be. TTe left Berampore to reside in C -
cutta, a week or two before the arrival of our br- -
ren ; and as we had nothing in particular to occ
our attention, we confined it exclusively to this sub-
ject We procured the best authors on both -
compared them with the Scriptures, examined t
re-examined the sentiments of I - and Pedo-

ba^ find were finally compelled, from a convic-

tion of truth, to embrace those of the former. T -
we are confirmed Baptists, : to

be, but ; -

2. The case of Professor Jewett.

Dr. Jewett, Professor in Marietta College, was
requested by the church over which he w s ] stor,
to preach on baptism, to silence the immersion:- ts,
and settle the wavering minds of some of his breth-

320 Conversations on Baptism.

ren. This is the result of looking after passages to
\ stain 8] :'inklii;r :

*• Thas compelled to write. I determined to go
into an original inv - _ :ion of the whole matter.
_ n by reading Professor Stuart on baptizo, the
ablest philological work on the subject. I was soon
Bstonisl 3 to rind in > si - dgation, proof so

- :ng. that the word in its literal sense means to
. . dip. It looked as if, with this fact

him, the learned Professor ought to have
Baptist. I entered on an investigation of
the _'...'. Scriptures. I examined Josephus and
the elassi 9. The further I prosecuted my inqui-
ries, the e a sr was the evidence in favor of Bap-
tist

" I continued to apply myself to it, till I was com-
pelled to admit, as a philologist and interpreter of
hires, that m t, and that only, is the

aptisni which Christ enjoins. I conversed with
lobaptist friends : I prayed, and wept, and
groaned. I would lay down the subject for weeks,
then resume it again, until I was obliged, in the
: . -. .to conclude, that none but believers in

Jesus, have a risrht to the ordii a ia oi Jesus. I
am so. after a most laborious search after truth. I
hav 1. also, in opposition to all the prejudices

ss al, and theological study; preju-
dice- 2 ofirmed by twelve years" connection with a
_ Church, during six of which I acted as

a minister of Christ. And not only my church rela-

Searching for the Truth. 321

tions, but all my literary associations, my family
connections, aud my temporal interests, have com-
bined to hold me from the result to which I have
come. Those I cheerfully sacrifice to my convic-
tions of truth and duty." Then was he immersed,
a:,d joined a Baptist church.

3. A Presbyterian minister was requested by
his elder to go and see his daughter, an accom-
plished young lady and devoted Christian, who had
become unsettled in her views on baptism. So the
good minister went on his errand of mercy, rejoic-
■ng in prospect of an easy conquest. To his sur-
prise, he found her more than a match for his argu-
ments. After requesting and obtaining another
opportunity to continue the subject, he returned
home, and began posting himself up. He went
again, and again was foiled ; his theology being
somehow sadly out of joint. Studying closely her
arguments, and examining her references, he con-
cluded he had a more difficult task than he had
expected, and resolved to apply himself more thor-
oughly to his object, and give the subject of bap-
tism a careful and faithful investigation. The result
was, his conversion to the Baptist faith. Since that
time, he has been a prominent Baptist minister,
walking down the path of life by the side of the
estimable lady who was the first to lead him to the
truth.

322 Conversations on Baptism,

4. The case of Rev. E. R, Coon. The following
instance was furnished us by a Baptist minister :

" When I was pastor of the Baptist church at
Pekiu, Illinois, Rev. R. R. Coon was pastor of the
United Presbyterian church at Smithville, across
the river, some ten miles distant. The Presbytery
to which he belonged appointed him to preach their
next annual sermon, and requested him to preach
on baptism.

"Mr. C. was not only a deeply pious and consci-
entious man, but also a very fine scholar, especially
in the Greek and Hebrew languages. He com-
menced preparation for his sermon on baptism, and
wishing to make it as thorough as possible, he care-
fully studied the Bible in reference to it, and was
greatly surprised that the Scripture gave him no
such proofs of his doctrines as he was searching for,
but much of it was in direct conflict with the views
of his church. He became troubled on the subject,
and could not prepare the sermon to his satisfaction.
The year passed away, and he went to the Presby-
tery and begged to be excused from preaching, as
he was not prepared. His brethren excused him,
but appointed him to the same service the next
year. He then determined to take his Bible, and
whatever light he could gain on both sides of the
question, ascertain the truth, and follow it, what-
ever might be the consequences. Long before the
year closed he was a thorough Baptist ; but being a
man of remarkably kind feelings and gentle spirit,

A Practical Illustration. ^23

he decided to continue with his flock until the meet-
ing of the Presbytery, but avoided sprinkling any
children. He prepared a sermon, and preached it
to the Presbytery, not on the mode or subjects of
baptism, but against the doctrine of sacramental
efficacy as held by Catholics and Campbellites. He
then asked for his letter of dismission from the
Presbytery, and came and united with my church.
Subsequently he became pastor at Alton, and has
filled several other important positions — a faithful,
learned, devoted man and minister of Christ."

A PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION.

I object to the Baptists, said Mr. C, one evening,
because they will not allow a person to be the judge
of his own baptism. We have said a good deal
about baptism being " the answer of a good con-
science;" but I should like to know why I have not
the right to determine the manner of my baptism.
The Baptists take away this right.

P. Christ has determined the mode of baptism.
It is not for us to interfere with his ordinances.
But I can best answer your question by supposing
a case, by way of illustration :

Once on a time, Mr. Conscience Quietener,
descanting on this subject with great vehemence, and
to the apparent delight of his audience, exclaimed:
" Yes, my dear hearers, what's the use of all this
noise on baptism ? it is only ' the answer of a good

324 Conversations on JBaptism.

conscience.' What you believe and do, to you it is
baptism, whether you are sprinkled, poured, or
immersed ; whether you are baptized with water,
sand, or mud. Nay, if you can only bring your
imagination, or your conscience, up to the sticking
point, and believe that you have been baptized,
what's the use of giving yourselves any more trou-
ble about it? Furthermore, my dear hearers, you
can't decide any thing definitely from the meaning
of the word baptize. It had no particular meaning
in the times of the apostles, and just so they
employed it, and let the people do as they pleased
on baptism. The apostles had no ' say ' about it —
they didn't know what it meant themselves ; the
consciences of the people settled that. So if you
want to be baptized, come along, and I will accom-
modate you all."

At this liberal invitation, several candidates came
forward for baptism.

" Well, sir," said Mr. C. Q. to Mr. A., " what is
your pleasure ?"

A. I want you to wash my feet. Baptize me,
you know.

C. Q. Impossible ! Why, that is not baptism,
my friend.

A. Yes it is. Didn't you tell us in your sermon
that what a man believes in is baptism ? and I
believe in washing feet. And then you said that
baptize means to dip, pour, wash, sprinkle, d}-e,
tinge, and I don't know how many more things

A Practical Illustration. 325

beside ; and as I read about feet washing in the
Bible, my conscience requires you to wash my feet.

Mr. B.'s conscience required his body washed.

Again Mr. C. Q. objected; to which Mr. B. re-
plied :

" Well, brother C. Q., my conscience requires it,
and baptism is the answer of a good conscience.
You say that baptism is a washing, and the Bible
says something about the body being washed in
water, so I want to have my body washed. No, no ;
you need not object. If the people, as you say, dic-
tated to the apostles how to baptize, surely when we
both agree that baptism is a washing, there need be
no objection by you."

And yet Mr. C. Q. hesitated, as if he did not
like to undertake that job !

Then Mr. C. said :

" Well, brother C. Q., I know you can't have any
objections to my request. I want to be baptized by
pouring."

C. Q. I am glad to accommodate you, my bro-
ther.

C. Well, but — I want the water poured on my
hands. That's the way I want to be baptized.

C. Q. [In blank amazement.] Ah! — why —
that's another thin^.

C. Why, of course, it's not altogether according
to custom, but my conscience requires it ; besides, it
is convenient. Water will do more good on my
hands (extending them) than on my head.

326 Conversations on Baptism.

Here Mr. C. Q. looked at his hands, and heartily
coincided with the applicant for once.

Mr. D. wanted his body sprinkled, and Mr. E. his
head, for if he had a conscience, surely it was in his
head. Mr. F. wanted to be baptized kneeling in
the river ; and Mr. G. wanted to stand up in the
river, but he must have the water poured on him
from a mussel shell, for he had a picture which
described that thing beautifully. Mr. H. was not
particular how it was done ; his conscience was
easily satisfied. Besides, he had heard his minister
declare it was immaterial whether a person were
baptized in water, sand, or mud. And as baptism,
as held by Pedobaptists, was rather a muddy ques-
tion any how, he didn't know but what a little mud
would be the most applicable to him. As for Mrs.
I., she had the easiest conscience of all. She didn't
care where or how the water was applied to her ;
the Bible left that an open question. It might be
on the head, the nice, the hands, the feet, or the
body. She defied any one to show how the water
wTas to be applied. " Yes, brother C. Q.," she con-
tinued warmly, " You're right, sir; the conscience
must decide that. As you say, baptism is a pour-
ing, a sprinkling, a wetting, a moistening, a — a —
no matter, that's enough ; what's the use of being
over fastidious about it ? But stop, let me see !
as I am rather delicate, you may as well dip that
branch of hyssop in the bowl, and sprinkle a few
light drops in my face, or you may dip your fingers

The Mother and Daughter. 327

in the bowl, and moisten ni}r forehead. I'm not par-
ticular which ; as I said, my conscience is easily sat-
isfied !"

After all had made known their preference, Mr.
Conscience Quietener said :

" Well, my friends, as your consciences require
that I baptize you in the several ways mentioned,
and believing that baptism is only the answer of a
good conscience, I suppose I must gratify you ;
though it is rather a novel position for me to be
placed in. I could manage you all nicely but for
Messrs. A., B., and D. So, Mr. A., get the water
for your feet, and Mr. B., get water to wash your
body in ; and be sure you both get enough. And
you, Mr. H., prepare the mud for plastering; but,
my friend, for convenience sake, let me tell you that
a little sand will do just as well !"

M. Brother E., you have drawn a laughable pic-
ture, but a little too much like a caricature ; after
all, I guess it's pretty much the truth. Any how,
my conscience is satisfied to let it pass !

THE MOTHER AND DAUGHTER.

SCENE FIRST.

" I want to follow my Saviour and be baptized,"
said a young lady to her mother. "I feel it to be
my duty to make a public profession of my attach-

328 Conversations on Baptism.

ruent to him, and to be numbered with his disciples
in church relation."

"I have no objection to your being baptized, my
daughter. Nay, I am glad to hear you express a
desire for baptism. But do you understand your-
self, when you talk about following Jesus? I have
heard a great many talk that wa}T ; but they seem
to forget that they can not follow him in all things."

"I think I do understand myself, mother. I
know I can not follow Jesus in all things : that is
not required. But I can follow him where he has
commanded. That is what I want to do. To be
a true disciple of Jesus Christ I must follow him,
" and confess him before men."

" Where has he commanded you to be immersed?
I find no such word in the Bible."

" True, the word immerse is not used, but baptize
is, which means immersion. Neither is the word
sprinkle used in the Scriptures for baptism, and
you know you could not find it, though you
searched a good deal for it. But Jesus was im-
mersed; and it does seem to me that he meant
immersion when he told his disciples to go and
baptize, or he would not have been immersed. So
I want to follow Jesus, if it is agreeable to you : I
want to be buried with him in baptism."

" I have no disposition to discuss the meaning of
the word now, my daughter. I see why you have
been poring over those books so closely the past few

The Mother and Daughter. 329

days. But to be immersed will put you to a great

inconvenience."

" ~No more inconvenience than it did all the good
women mentioned in the Scriptures who were im-
mersed. "Was it not very inconvenient for the early
disciples to be Christians ? but that did not prevent
them following Jesus. And then that grand old
Christian hero, the Apostle Paul, tells us he was
buried with Christ in baptism."

"But it will certainly be more pleasant for you
to be sprinkled in the church."

" What is not in obedience to Jesus can not be as
pleasant to me as that which he has commanded.
And then, I am called to deny myself."

"But the cross will be much easier for you to
bear, if you are sprinkled. And there is no use
making the cross heavier than it is."
, " But, dear mother, Jesus has said, ' He that
taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not
worthy of me : he that will come after me, let him
deny himself and take up his cross and follow me :
whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after
me, can not be my disciple.' No cross, no crown.
I want to take up the cross. I have no doubt grace
will be given me for the time of need. As my day
is, so will my strength be. So the Bible assures

me."

"But you know, my daughter, that you are a
delicate «child; and I am afraid you will not be able
to undergo all the rough usage of immersion."

330 Conversations on Baptism.

"Why, I feel now I would rather die in obedi-
ence to Jesus, than live in disobedience to his com-
mandments. I didn't feel so once. Never fear,
mother: I have never heard of immersion hurting
any one yet, and I know a great many young and
delicate ladies who have been immersed. Don't
you know what a frail looking creature Miss Lilly
is? Well, she was immersed; and, 0, her face was
so beautiful when she came up out of the water !
Bat I'm sure Jesus knew it wouldn't hurt us, or he
never would have commanded it."

"But many of your friends will be ashamed of
you, if you are immersed."

" Well, mother, I would rather all the world
would be ashamed of me than Jesus. And I had
rather lose every friend I have than be ashamed of
him. Has he not said : ' For whosoever shall be
ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the
Son of Man be ashamed, when he shall come in his
own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy
angels.' — Luke ix. 26.

"But you know, my child, that your father and
myself were sprinkled, and should not that be suffi-
cient for you ?"

" Why, ma, did you not .tell me that dear old
grandpa was a member of a different church from
yours, and a good Christian ? But you did not think
that a sufficient reason why you should join the
same church. So you both belong to different
churches."

The Mother and Daughter. 331

" Who has put such things into your head, my
daughter ?"

" No one. I have been thinking about it myself.
I have heard so man}^ parents say that their children
ought to be satisfied with what they believed, I
thought I would just look at it. And then I asked
myself, if that is good reasoning, why did Luther
and the Reformers leave the Catholic church ?
And why did the Presbyterians and Methodists
become such?

"You can do as you please, my daughter; but it
would be more agreeable to my feelings to see you
sprinkled. "

" But has not Jesus said, ' If ye love me, keep
my commandments : ye are my friends, if ye do
whatsoever I command you V You know I love
you, mother ; but how could I say I loved you truly,
if I were disobedient to your commands V

" I know you love me, and you have always been
an obedient daughter. I do not command you in
this case ; I only ask you to do it to gratify my
feelings."

" But Jesus has said : ' He that loveth father or
mother more than me, is not worthy of me.' If
obedience is the test of love, how can I say I love
him more than you, if I disobey his commandments ?
Should I be his friend, and be worthy of him then ?"

" Well, my daughter, you -must decide this case
for yourself. If you want to be immersed, I shall
interpose no objections."

S32 Conversations on Baptism.

" 0, thank you. I am sure my obedience to Jesus
will not lessen my love for my mother"

SCENE SECOND.

[ The mother alone.']

0, my Saviour, have mercy on me, a poor, proud,
rebellious creature ! What have I been doino- ? To
think that I, a Christian mother, should talk the
way I did to that dear child ! that I, instead of being
rejoiced over her resolution to follow her Saviour,
and cheering her on in the way of obedience, should
try and throw obstacles in her way by talking about
ease, and comfort, and convenience, and the accom-
modation of my feelings — as if it were not all to
accommodate my pride of heart. And that, too,
with a knowledge of the Bible before me. How her
words cut me to the very quick. And yet I would
not submit — no, though the example and command
of nry Saviour are so clearly revealed! I know she
is right — I know I have not followed the example
of Jesus. And yet I put in that weak objection —
that we could not follow him in all things — as if
that were reason sufficient for not following him
where he has commanded. I am ashamed of myself.
O, my stubborn will. Shall I still rebel ? or shall I
now submit? 0, the cross! the Cross! how can I
bear it! Lord, help me. I will submit — 1, too, vrill
follow thee, blessed Jesus. And now, here upon my

A New and Valuable Work. 333

knees, I offer thee, 0 my Saviour, a full and a com-
plete sacrifice — thine to be forever — wholly thine.

" Thou hast said, exalted Jesus,
4 Take thy cross and follow me :'

Lord I'll take it,
And, rejoicing, follow thee."

A NEW AND VALUABLE WORK.

" The Constitution of the New Testament Church,
Revised and Amended. With Embellishments from
the Designs of Celebrated Modern Theological
Artists, in accordance with Liberal Sentiments, Past
Experience, Expediency, and Refinement of Taste.
Printed on superb rose-colored Paper, expressly
manufactured for the work, and beautifully bound,
in the highest style of art. By the Rev. Didymus
Decent, M.A., Professor of Liberal Christianity in
the Institute of Modern Inventions for the Success
of the Church. New York : Published by Twister
& Co., 1868."

(From the Christian Liberal.}

" We have glanced over the contents of this
admirable work, and are highly pleased with its lib-
eral views, and beautifully polished style of address.
It is free from the imperfections found in the prim-
itive constitution, which stood so much in the way
of liberal sentiments and refined culture. The

334 Conversations on Baptism.

amendments are in elegant taste, well adapted to
liberal minds, and the delicate sensibilities and ten-
der physical organizations of those who have here-
tofore been opposed to the harsh and indelicate
usages of the Apostles. The embellishments are
superb, among which we may mention, first, the
Baptism of the Eunuch, where Philip, standing in
the water up to his knees, in the gently flowing
stream, is sprinkling water on him from a clam-shell
— the eunuch's flowing robes tucked up gracefully
around him.

" The second, is the baptismal scene at the river
Jordan. The Jordan, in the distance, like a small
silver thread, is seen winding through the wilder-
ness ; while here its banks are studded with innu-
merable tents; with asses, camels, and dromedaries,
standing out prominently. See how life-like that
camel drinking the cooling beverage ; and how
natural that ass, whisking off the flies with his tail !
How large and true to life the humps on that drom-
edary, stretching his long neck over the water, and
cropping the herbage on the other shore ! And
then, see how beautifully that smoke ascends in
fantastic wreaths from the thousand fires where
cook the provisions for the vast multitude, the savor
of which fills the hungry man with an ardent desire
for dinner. But where is John ? you ask. Ah !
that's the secret beauty of this grand picture — this
master-piece of Pedobaptistic art. Where John is,
and what he is doing, the painter has left for the

A Vain Effort, 335

imagination to conjecture. Here he is lost among
the tents, the camels, and the asses.

" We predict a ready sale for this invaluable
work."

A VAIIST EFFORT.

A Pedobaptist minister, engaged in teaching at
a certain institution of learning, once attended Epis-
copal services, there being no other meeting that
day in the village. The sermon was in favor of
infant baptism. On returning to his place of board-
ing, he was questioned about the discourse. To the
surprise of all, he spoke of the arguments given by
the Episcopalian as very unsatisfactory : in fact, he
could do better himself. To this assertion there
was some dissent. That touched him a little in the
quick; so he determined to show his friends that
he could prove infant baptism from the Scriptures.
They requested him to do so, and a time was set for
him to furnish the proof. He then set earnestly to
work, first exploring the Scriptures for favorable
examples, and then hunting up arguments in Pedo-
baptist works. Somehow, the scriptural examples
could not be found, and the Episcopalian had
exhausted the store of Pedobaptist arguments.
Soon he gave up the task as useless ; but found the
truth where he had least expected it. He is now a
Baptist minister.

32>6 Conversations on Baptism.

AFRAID OF HURTING HIS FEELINGS.

One Sabbath evening a young lady was accom-
panied by a Presbyterian minister to a Baptist
church. It so happened that the Baptist minister,
who had commenced a series of sermons on the
Epistle to the Romans, had prepared a discourse on
the sixth chapter, and delivered a very able sermon
on the subject of- baptism. The lady, like some
other Baptists, was very sensitive, kept moving
uneasily on her seat, and wished in her mind the
subject had been any thing else but the one of the
evening : being very much afraid it would hurt the
feelings of her attendant, and that he would think
the Baptists had nothing else to preach about but
baptism. But he listened very attentively, seem-
ingly deeply interested in the subject, which was
presented to him in a different light to that in which
he had been accustomed to look at it. He was
astonished, and left the meeting house resolved to
examine the subject to the best of his ability. He
did so, discovered his error, and united with the
Baptists, and is no*v the pastor of a Baptist church.
So much for being afraid of hurting the feelings by
preaching the whole truth.

ONE DROP.

" One drop will answer as well as an ocean. "
Precisely so, if one drop were only commanded,

One Drop, 337

and would signify the thing intended. But why did
not one drop answer the Saviour's purpose? and the
disciples' ? and Paul's ? If one drop, or one handful,
had been sufficient, they would not have been
immersed; neither would the Saviour have com-
manded immersion. They knew better what was
requisite than you do. It is too late in the day for
you to censure them.

But you talk, my friend, as if you wanted to see
how little you can do and meet the requirement of
Jesus. You do not talk from a full heart of love
for, and obedience to him and his commandments.
He has said, " If ye love me, keep nvy command-
ments;" but you seemingly talk from a desire to do
as little as you can to satisfy the demand of the
Scriptures and your own conscience. It is not,
" Lord, what wilt thou have me to do ?" that
prompts you; but how little can I do and secure the
promised blessing ? And if you could dispense with
baptism, you would gladly refuse to be baptized.

"How much must I repent?" asks the sinner:
" how much religion must I have to be a Christian ?
"Won't one tear do — one act of obedience an-
swer ?" How much love and obedience is there in
this? Does not the same reason prompt you both?
The truly obedient heart stops not to inquire how
little, or how much; but seeks to know the will of
the Lord. Love to Jesus prompts it. Look down
into your heart, and see if there is not a lurking
desire there to shun the cross. " Whatsoever thing I

33% Conversations on Baptism.

command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto,
nor diminish from it.,, — Deut. xii. 32.

TAKE DOWN THE BAR.

M. Close communion prevents us from enjoying
one of the dear privileges of Christians.

P. What privilege does restricted communion
take away from us ? Have we not the privilege of
partaking of the Lord's Supper in our own churches ?
Why demand, as a test of friendship and union, that
which requires of the Baptist all the sacrifice ? We
have no principle to sacrifice, but we know he has.
Where is the fairness, the love, the liberality, the
union, in this?

Suppose a Baptist were to come to one of our
churches and say: "Brethren, I want to show my
love for you by communing with you; but you
have put the bar of sprinkling up against me, for your
learned writers tell me you have introduced sprink-
ling into the church for baptism. Take it clown.
It seems tome you are very illiberal — preventing
me from enjoying a dear privilege, and showing my
love for you. As you say baptism is air indifferent
tiling, surely you can gratify me this much."
Would we accommodate him? Not a bit. We
should tell him he was a narrow-minded bigot; and
if he could not step in over that bar, he might stay
out. But the next Sabbath would hear us thunder-

A Fruitless Search. 339

ing away at a Baptist church, and shouting, " Take
down your bar, you bigoted people ! take down your
bar! it deprives us of a dear privilege, and we want
to show you how much we love you !"

A FRUITLESS SEARCH.

Mrs. H., in P., 111., was a very devoted Christian
woman, and a member of the Dutch Reformed
Church. When her twin boys were a few months
old, her pastor, Rev. Mr. W., called on her, and
asked when she would have her infants baptized.

She said she had not thought on the subject, but
would do so, and inform him the next time he
should call. She opened her Bible to refresh her
mind with the account of infant baptism in the !STew
Testament. But, to her surprise, she found nothing
in reference to it, but every where read of the bap-
tism of believers, and the whole account looked like
immersion as the mode.

When her pastor called again, she anxiously
inquired where she could find the Scripture passages
which spoke of the baptism of infants. He replied
that he would bring her a book that would instruct
her on the subject. The book was brought, and
carefully read — the anxious mother comparing its
statements and arguments with the Bible. She soon
saw very clearly that the author was attempting to
teach a doctrine not taught in the Word of God.

34° Conversations on Baptism.

Ere she had finished, she was a decided Baptist:
and her pastor, calling to inquire when she would
have her twins baptized, she told him she thought
she should have to be baptized herself before they
were.

Soon after this, amid much opposition from those
whom she had previously counted her friends, she
presented herself to the Baptist church, and was
baptized.

"NON-ESSENTIAL."

"What is non-essential, my friend? Do you know
what you say ? I am afraid not. What did Jesus
say to John when he was baptized? — "Suffer it to
be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all
righteousness." And thus it becometh us to fulfill
all the Saviour's requirements. Are you better and
wiser than Jesus? Did not he and his Apostles
know what was as essential to the profession of a
full Christian faith as you do ? Did they not know
how much water was necessary for baptism better
than you ? Do you wish to say that Jesus com-
manded a non-essential mode ? This is really what
you do say. That baptism is not essential to salva-
tion we admit; but that immersion is not necessary
to a profession of a full Christian faith, we deny, or
else we say Jesus and his Apostles knew less than
we do. " See that ye add not thereto, nor diminish
from it"

Fathers All Right on Baptism. 341
FOOT-PRINTS.

" I can 7 find any of the foot-prints of Jesus around the
howl of sprinkling"

Of course you can not; and it is all in vain for
you to look for them there. The Saviour has not
left his foot-prints by the bowl. If you are desirous
of finding his foot-prints, go down to the water, and
there you will see them. He has left them there
for your example; and they call aloud unto you —
"Follow me." Blessed foot-prints! enduring
through all time. In vain have been the efforts of
infidels and liberal Christians to obliterate them.
Waves of opposition have swept over them, and
human expediency has tried to bury them beneath
the sand; but there they still remain, clear and
distinct, as when Jesus was baptized by John in the
river of Jordan.

FATHER'S ALL RIGHT ON BAPTISM.

" Father's all right on baptism."
" Is that so ? What does he believe in ?"
"He believes in sprinkling."
"Did you ever examine the subject of baptism for
yourself?"

" No ; I have always taken father's word for it."
" Do you believe with your father in politics ?"
" No ; we differ on politics."

342 Conversations on Baptism.

" Well, according to your logic, you ought to be

on the same side in politics with your father."

" But I have examined political issues for myself."

"Ah ! Probably if you were to examine the issue

between immersion and sprinkling, you would not

be so ready to say, — Father's all right on baptism."

WHAT FOR?

A near neighbor of mine, at Springfield, 111.,
writes a friend, had three children, who had the
scarlet fever, and who died within a few days of
each other.

When the first was about to die, the minister was
called to baptize it. Then the second was given up
as incurable, and the minister was called to baptize
it. And so with the third. Three times was the
minister called in to baptize the dying children.
What for ? Why did he not baptize them all at
once, without waiting to hear first the footsteps of
death ? Let those answer who believe in baptizing
dying children.

THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR ME.

" So many wise and good men believe in sprink-
ling: that's sufficient for me."

"Indeed! Do you believe in Roman Catholi-

"No Difference" 343

cism? There are many wise and good Roman
Catholics."

"No, I can't believe in Roman Catholicism. "

" Do you believe in feet washing ? Many good
people do."

"No, I can't go feet washing."

" Do you believe in Apostolic succession ?"

" Of course not."

" Many good people do."

" Do you believe in Calvinism ?"

"No, I abhor it."

"Well, a great many wise and good people are
Calvinists."

" Do you believe in Arminianism ?"

"Yes, I love it."

"But a great many wise and good people do not."

"A great many wise and good people have perse-
cuted others for conscience sake. Do you believe
in that?"

" Certainly not."

" Do you believe in immersion ? A host of good,
wise, and great men believe it."

" Why, bless you, no. There's so many wise and
good people who don't believe in it ; that's sufficient
for me!"

"NO DIFFERENCE."

"It is no difference how a person is baptized,
whether in sand, mud, or water." So saFd a Peclo-

344 Conversations on Baptism.

baptist preacher. "Well, my friend, if you prefer the
mud you may have it; but don't, I beg of you, call
it baptism. For my part, I prefer following the
Saviour, and being "buried with him in baptism."
I believe Paul and his brethren had the same prefer-
ence. You say sand was abundant in Judea, and
water rather scarce — why didn't John, Jesus, and
the disciples use sand, instead of going into the
water? It seems they made a difference. But
there is a difference, and it is here : Jesus has com-
manded immersion, and nothing else. However, if
you are satisfied with the sand, or with having your
brow moistened by a priest, or a few drops sprinkled
on you, it's your privilege; but, as I said before,
don't call it baptism — an institution of the Gospel.
But I may be mistaken about your meaning. Pro-
bably you meant sprinkling with water. If I am
correct, you are right; for there is no difference
between sprinkling with sand or water — they are
both the inventions of men, and one is as good as
the other.

HOW CAN I?

Here I have lived to an advanced life, and now,
how can I be immersed? And yet, the conviction
of my duty presses still upon me. Many a year
have I been trying to stifle that voice, and ward off
conviction. But it is all useless. And then, what

" I am Satisfied" 345

will my friends think of me ! — that I, a man whom
they have thought immovable, and one of the
strictest sort — should now be immersed? Can't I
get along without doing it? How should I feel and
look now to go down into the water! But these
convictions must be stifled, or I shall have no peace.
And yet, shall I violate my convictions of duty and
deny my Saviour ? What shall I do ? Hark ! that
voice again: "If ye love me, keep my command-
ments. " "He that knoweth his Master's will, and
doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes."
O, I deserve them all — I have denied my Lord.
Shall I, then, still resist that voice ? No, I will yield,
come what may. I will arise and be baptized, and
confess my Saviour. Peace, peace at last! 0 joy,
joy! I have obtained the victory!

"I AM SATISFIED."

" Do you know you have been baptized ?"
"Yes, my father told me so."
"Then you have no personal knowledge of it?"
" No ; I was an unconscious babe when it was
done."

" You could not believe, then ?"

" No ; my parents believed for me."

" And you had no choice, of course?"

" No, I couldn't help it. They acted for me.J

" Are you a member of any church ?"

15*

346 Conversations on Baptism,

" Yes."

" When did you join ?"

" When I was an infant."

"How?"

" My parents baptized me into the church."

" Of course, it was not on the profession of your
faith ?"

" No, I had no faith about it. My parents be-
lieved, and chose my church relationship for me."4

" Have you ever had any change of heart ?"

" What do you mean ?"

" Have you ever been converted ?"

" Converted ! Yes, I was converted when I wa3
baptized. That is all the conversion I know about."

" Are you satisfied ?"

"I ought to be; my parents and the minister
have told me it was all right."

" Have you examined the Scriptures for yourself?"

" No ; what's the use of troubling my mind about
a matter that satisfied my parents and the preacher?"

" Will you look at a few passages if I give them
to you ?"

" Why, I don't know that I have time to attend
to it. The minister and my parents searched the
Scriptures for me. They knew all about the Scrip-
tures, I suppose."

" Will you take this tract and read it ?"

"What is it about?"

" Regeneration and Baptism."

" Much obliged to you, but I don't care about

Tahe ufi thy Cross. 347

investigating the subject now. My conscience is
satisfied."

TAKE UP THY CROSS.

" The disciple is not above his Master." " True,
Lord, and why should I be above Thee — above
following Thee ? Why should I allow ray pride to
prevent me from taking up my cross, and confessing
Thee before men ? 0 my rebellious heart ! 0 my
self-will! Lord help me to conquer — to be Thy
true disciple! I will deny myself — I will take up
the cross. But 0, the cross is so heavy to bear; I
am afraid I shall sink beneath the load."

Never fear, 0 trembling one ! grace will be given
thee; God will be thy strength — He will keep
thee. And then look at the promised reward :
" Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before
men, him will I confess also before my Father which
is in heaven."

" Jesus, I my cross have taken,

All to leave and follow Thee ;
Naked, poor, despised, forsaken,

Thou, from hence., my all shalt be.
Man may trouble and distress me ;

'Twill but drive me to Thy breast :
Life with troubles hard may press me ;

Heaven will bring me sweeter rest."

348" Conversations on Baptism,
A CONTRAST.

One year ago, if the reader had looked into the
First Baptist Church of Chicago, he would have
seen an immense hody of delegates, from nearly
every part of the Union, ministers and laymen,
mutually engaged in promoting the interests of the
Baptist churches, in the home aud foreign mission-
ary work, the bible cause, the publication of religious
literature, etc. ; all working together harmoniously
for the promotion of the general good.

And then, if he had looked into the Methodist
Episcopal Church of Chicago, one year later, he
would have seen a large body of Methodist preachers,
called the General Conference, making laws and
regulations for the government of Methodists, with
not one solitary layman participating. And then,
again, if he had looked into the same building, one
evening during the session of said General Confer-
ence, he would have seen a large convention of
delegates, clamorous for lay representation, and
denouncing the government of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church as an aristocracy.

THE DIVINE PATTERN.

" Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from
it."

How exact! How strict the injunction! It is

Obedience to God. 349

the pattern of infinite wisdom, and skill, and good-
ness. It can not be improved by man's ingenuity.
It's for all nations and all time. See ye touch not
the ark.

"I SETTLED MY DOUBTS."

"I had been long troubled in my mind about
having been baptized. To be sure I had been
sprinkled; but that did not satisfy me. So I settled
my doubts by being immersed."

That's the way. No trouble about the mode of
baptism in the minds of those who have followed
Jesus. That settles the question forever.

OBEDIENCE TO GOD.

"It is better to obey God than man." Such is
the manly and noble declaration of Peter. Men
may require, have required, things harsh, cruel, and
unjust; but God never. Men have failed in their
promises ; but God's Word is sure and abiding. Men
may forsake us in times of great distress, when the
billows go over our soul ; but he has said, " I will
never leave thee, nor forsake thee." " God is our
refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble."
It is better to obey God, because he is our Judge,
not only once right, but always right, true, merciful

35° Conversations on Baptism.

and just, and in keeping his commandments there
is great reward. Here is good anchorage — let us
anchor. " My sheep know my voice and they fol
low me," says Jesus, " and I will give unto thenj
eternal life, and none shall pluck them out of mj
hands."

"FOLLOW THOU ME."

" How far, Lord ?"

" Observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you."

" I will try and be obedient, blessed Jesus."
" If ye love me, keep my commandments."

BAPTIST TESTIMONY.

Our Presbyterian seems more inclined to quote
Pedobaptist than Baptist testimony. Some of the
ablest scholars in the world have been Baptists —
certainly not excelled by Pedobaptists. On baptism
their voice is a united testimony. Dr. T. J. Conant,
who stands the highest in the rank of modern
biblical writers, has investigated the use of the word
baptize in all known cases of Greek literature, and
given to the public, both in the original and trans-
lation, the fruit of his vast labors. He says: "These
examples are drawn from almost every department

To and Into. 351

of literature and science. * * * From the
earliest age of Greek literature, down to its close
(a period of about two thousand years), not an
example has been found in which the word has any
other meaning [than its ground meaning]. There
is no instance in which it signifies to make a partial
application of water by affusion, or sprinkling, or to
cleanse, to purify, apart from the literal act of immer-
sion as the means of cleansing or purifying. It
expressed this act alone either literally or in a meta-
phorical sense."

MORE THAN THEE.

" If a man love father or mother more than me,
he is not worthy of me."

More than Thee, blessed Jesus ! No ; though I
do love father and mother dearly, yet Thou art the
fairest among ten thousand — the one altogether
lovely. Thou shalt have the first place in my heart,
and happy shall I be if at last I am counted worthy
to enter in through the gates into the city, and to
hear Thee say, "Well done."

TO AND INTO.

" Hallo, Sambo, you come here ! Did I not tell
you not to go into the river to swim, or the aligators
would snap you up ?"

352 Conversations on Baptism.

" La, Massa, I hain't bin into the riber at all."
"How's that? Chuffee told me you'd been a

swimming."

" Won't you b'lieve the Bible 'fore Chuffee,

massa ?"

" Of course ; but what has the Bible to do with it ?"
" Didn't massa Presbyterian say last Sunday dat

goin' into de riber means to de riber ? Ob course

dis darkey couldn't swim on dry land !"

ONE THING AT A TIME.

" Had you not better join our church, it will help
you?"

" No, sir, I can not. The first thing I must attend
to is the salvation of my soul."

" But you can try us, and we will try you ; and
if you do not like us, you can withdraw."

"I am unworthy church-membership — I am an
unconverted man. And then, such a course would
be contrary to my views of the Scriptures. They
talk of believing in Jesus first — of conversion —
before church membership. Is it not said that the
Jailor, and Cornelius, and Lydia, and Paul, and
those on the day of Pentecost, believed, were con-
verted and baptized before uniting with the church?
* They that gladly received his Word were baptized,
and the same day there were added unto them about
three thousand souls.' Thus, if I understand the

We Think So. 353

Scriptures, conversion and baptism come before
church membership."

" Some Baptist has been talking with you."
" No, sir, these are my serious convictions from
reading the Bible. I know I want to be a Christian ;
but I have not yet gladly received his Word. I must
have the question of my acceptance with Jesus
settled first. Baptism and church membership are
nothing to me now compared with this. I want to
commence right. I want first the pearl of great
price. One thing at a time, and my soul's salvation
first. But you ask me to reverse the Bible order —
to commence at the wrong end. If Jesus in mercy
should accept of me, then, I trust, I shall be willing
to be baptized and unite with some Christian church
that carries out the divine plan !"

WE THINK SO.

An anxious Presbyterian inquirer after the truth,
after searching the Bible in vain for a passage to
prove sprinkling, went to her pastor for assistance.
She pressed him for one passage, to which he
replied: " There is none you would understand so
without a great education. It requires extensive
learning to understand sprinkling for baptism."
"We think so too.

354 Conversations on Baptism.

"FULL DISCIPLES."

" I want to be a full disciple" said a Burmese
convert, when she asked to be immersed. That's
it ; it has the right ring in it. Let us try and be
" full disciples," and follow our blessed Master
wherever he requires. Let our song be :

" Through floods and flames, if Jesus leads,
I'll follow where he goes ! "

I WON'T.

I won't go to the Jordan, said Naaman the Syrian,
and went away from the prophet in a rage. " Are
not the rivers of Abana and Pharpar, waters of
Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel ? "
"Why couldn't the prophet have brought out a little
water and sprinkled it on me, instead of sending
me all the way to the Jordan? What's the use, I
should like to know ? And then, to be dipped seven
times if I do go! Why won't once dipping do?
nay, why will not a little of the Jordan sprinkled on
me answer just as well ? But Naaman had to go to
the Jordan, and to be dipped seven times. Why?
Because God had commanded it, and nothing else
would answer; and in obedience to God's command
came the desired blessing.

" I won't be immersed — I won't go to the river,"

Only One Passage. 355

says another ; " is not the water in the bowl just as
good as the water in the river ? " But, says Jesus,
" If ye love me keep my commandments." He
commands immersion, not sprinkling. And that is
just the difference between the water in the river,
and the water in the bowl !

A BAPTIST BIBLE.

The daughter of a Presbyterian elder, on opening
her father's new Bible, and reading, " went down
into the water," " came up out of the water," etc.;
suddenly brokeuout in astonishment : " Why, this is
a Baptist Bible, pa ! did you not know it ? "

ONLY ONE PASSAGE.

Said a young lady to her mother : " Ma, I find
many places in the Bible which tells of their baptiz-
ing as the Baptists do; won't you take the Bible
and show me a passage that tells of their baptizing
as the Presbyterians do ? " The mother searched
the Scriptures, but could not find the place exactly;
so she applied to an elder. The elder was equally
puzzled. Then she applied to her pastor. He
seemed also at a loss to find one, and told her to try
and stop the inquisitiveness of her daughter. She
was not much satisfied with this, and continued

356 Conversations on Baptism.

searching for the proof of sprinkling, but — came
out of the investigation a Baptist.

I'LL TAKE THE GENUINE COIN.

" Here, my son, are two pieces of coin, said by
some to be of equal value. You can have one :
take your choice. "

"I'll take this one; it looks smooth and nice, and
I like the design better. The other is rough and
unpolished."

" But what you call the rough one, I know to be
the genuine coin. The other I am not so certain
about."

" I will risk it ; it is certainly more attractive in
appearance than the other."

So he took it; but it was base metal, notwith-
standing its polished surface.

And thus it is with many who favor sprinkling.
They submit to it, and risk its being a counterfeit,
because they think it more pleasant to the eye.

"I admit," says another Pedobaptist, " that there
are several clear and undoubted cases of immersion
recorded in the Scriptures. The cases I claim as
examples of sprinkling, are, to say the most, doubt-
ful ; but sprinkling is more agreeable to my feelings
and pleasant to look at. I will risk the genuineness
of the coin, although it may be a counterfeit."

" But," says the Baptist, " I will take the coin

AnotJier Fact. 357

you are pleased to call rough looking. One genuine
piece is worth more to me than ten million counter-
feits. I know that coin — it is from the divine
mint. Listen; it's got the right ring in it; and see,
there's the Master's likeness on it. There is no
doubt of that coin's genuineness."

ANOTHER FACT.

THE BIBLE AGAINST THE METHODIST.

A writer, in a tract printed by the Methodist
Tract Society, entitled " Twenty-four Facts on Bap-
tism," gives the following as one of his facts :

" It is a fact, that our Saviour was praying when
he was baptized, (a fact often overlooked,) most
likely on his knees; and as the water fell from the
hands of the administrator, the Spirit, of which it
was emblematical, descended upon him. ( Luke iii.
21.)"

A little curious to examine this Methodist fact,
we took our Bible and read his reference. " Now
when all the people were baptized, it came to pass,
that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the
heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended
in a bodily shape like a dove upon him." Luke iii.
21, 22.

Then we turned to Matthew and Mark, and read :
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up

35 8 Conversations on Baptism.

straightway out of the water ; and, lo, the heavens
were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of
God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.
Matt. iii. 16. "Jesus came from Nazareth of
Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And
straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the
heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descend-
on him." Mark i. 10.

After reading the above, we concluded on

ANOTHER FACT.

" It is a fact" that the writer of the above knew
nothing about what he was writing, or he would not
so glaringly have contradicted the Scriptures.

IMPOSING ON COMMON SENSE.

" Speaking of imposing on common sense," said
Mr. C. one evening, when in* conversation with his
Methodist friend, " reminds me of the following
incident :

" ' You want to impose on my common sense,' said
a friend to a zealous Pedobaptist, who was trying to
win him over to his peculiar views.

" ' How so V inquired the Pedobaptist.

" ' Why, you would have me believe that sprinkling
is baptism, when you admit that John baptized by
immersion, and that Jesus, Paul, and the Eunuch

Imposing on Common Sense. 359

were immersed. You would have me believe that
they all went to the trouble of going down into the
water, when you say sprinkling would have done as
well.

" ' You ask me to believe that the Saviour and his
Apostles used language that the people, then and
now, can not understand, when they talked about
baptism.

" ' Your writers [Pedobaptist] tell me that immer-
sion was the primitive baptism, and that pouring
and sprinkling are human inventions, and yet you
ask me to deny the ordinance of God, and subscribe
to the institutions of men !

" ' You want me to subscribe to an article of faith
in your church which says Christ instituted immersion,
pouring, sprinkling, and infant baptism; and that these
conflicting modes were practiced by the Apostles.

" ' You tell me you don't believe in Baptism being
a saving ordinance, and yet you baptize dying
children.

" ' You want me to believe that you are less bigoted
than the Baptists, when you have fined and impris-
oned them, and nailed up their meeting-houses,
because they could not believe that sprinkling babes
was baptism ; and if possible you wont let your
children hear a sermon on immersion, attend a bap-
tismal scene, nor go to any other church.

" ' I hear you denounce the close communion of
the Baptists, and yet how often do jou commune
with open communion churches ? Don't, I pray
you, try to impose on my common sense any more.' "

THE CHICAGO BAPTIST BOOK HOUSE,

No. no Dearborn Street, Chicago, III.

KENNEY & SUMNER,

(Successors to Church & Goodman)

BOOKSELLERS, STATIONERS,

AND DEALERS IN

Theological^ Standard, Sunday-School and Miscellaneous Books,
MAPS, MUSIC, CHARTS, CARDS, ETC.j

A Large Choice Supply of both the Old and the New Issues of

the Leading Publishing Houses will always be found

in the Chicago Baptist Headquarters of

KENNEY & SUMNER.

AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETT.— Kenney &
Sumner deal largely in the publications of this Society.

AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETT, with Kenney & Sumner, is the
Chicago Depository of this Society's most excellent works.

KENNET & SUMNER have constantly in store the publications of
Sheldon & Co.; Charles Scribner & Co.; Potter & Co.; Lee & Shepard; Fields,
Osgood & Co.; Gould & Lincoln; Henry Hoyt; Graves, Young & Co.; Nelson
& Son; Church & Goodman; Clarke & Co. ; and all the principal Publishing
Houses East and West.

SABBATH SCHOOL MUSIC BOOR'S, of all kinds and styles.
" The Fresh Laurels," " Bright Jewels," " Golden Censer," and every thing in
this line published this side the great waters.

SUNDAT SCHOOL PAPERS. — "The Young Reaper," "The Child
at Home," " The Child's Paper," " The Child's World," etc., etc.

SERMON PAPER and Stationery of all kinds.

Great Advantages I Large Variety to Select Erom!

The Highest Discounts offered in any Western house. Liberal patronage
is most respectfully solicited. Address

KENNEY & SUMNER.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Baptists examined, or, Common sense on baptism, close communion, and the Baptists : a dialogue between a Presbyterian and a Methodist"

See other formats