i: 1
;?i
O PRINCETON, N. J. ^>
Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa.
Agjiciv Coll. on Baptism, N'o.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library
http://www.archive.org/details/baptistsystemexaOOsei
THE
BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED,
THE CHURCH VINDICATED,
AND SECTARIANISM REBUKED.
A REVIEW OF DR. FULLER AND OTHERS
"^n^tism iUxH tht STirms of Conununioit."
EEY. J. Ai^^EISS, A.M.
PASTOR OF LOMBAED STREET LUTHERAN CHURCH, BALTIMORE, MD.
THIRD EDITION BEVISEU AND ENLAKGED.
BALTIMORE:
T. NEWTON KURTZ,
No. 151 TTEST PRATT STREET.
18 59.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 185S, by
T. NEWTON KURTZ,
in tne Clerk's OflBce of the District Court of Maryland.
STEREOTYPED BY I. JOHNSON AND CO.
rmtADELPHIA.
PREFACE.
This book has grown out of a series of articles pub-
lished in the Lutheran Observer during the winter and
spring of 1854, which, with a few emendations and
additions, soon after appeared in a small volume, which
has been for some time out of print. The constant
inquiry for it, and the urgent solicitations of the pub-
lisher, have induced the author to prepare it for a new
edition. It has been mostly rewritten, materially
enlarged, and is now meant to be a compact resume of
the whole controversy. The aim of the author has
been to produce something more than is to be found in
the ordinary and small treatises on the subject, and
something less elaborate and scholastic than the larger
works which are seldom found outside of the libraries
of the learned. The book is designed to give, in a
form adapted to the common reader, a full view of the
questions between us and Baptists, and thus to aid pas-
tors in ridding themselves of the annoyances to which
an insolent, fawning, and insidious sectarianism often
subjects them.
The author has endeavored to ''speak the truth in
love." If comment has occasionally assumed a tone of
severity, facts and fidelity not only excuse but demand
it. The wisdom that comes from above prefers purity
to peace. Truth will admit of no compromises with
I* 5
6 PREFACE.
error. It must be spoken; and to speak it without feel-
ing is to treat it with indifference. The malicious and
slanderous intentions which have been assigned, from
the pulpit and elsewhere, as the motives prompting the
former issues of this work, are firmly disclaimed. The
author does not beg for favors, but he insists upon
justice. The teachings of Baptists are full of the
grossest assaults upon the Church and its ordinances,
which, with our convictions, we are in duty bound to
meet and expose. "Earnestly contend for the faith
which was once delivered to the saints," is an inspired
injunction which the writer does not feel at liberty to
neglect. He believes that Baptists are in serious error,
and he would reclaim them if possible, at least check
their misdirected zeal, by showing that material modi-
fications of their system are essential to harmonize it
with the truth. And above all would he furnish to
sincere, unsuspecting, but uninformed people the means
of protection against the mischievous entanglements of
a sectarianism which holds in its very life the excom-
munication of all but its own abettors.
May God bless this attempt to defend the Church
from the imposition of a modal observance not required
in his word, and overrule its destiny to the restraint of
unwarranted proscriptiveness and to the praise of his
ever-adorable name !
Balumore, September 1st, 1868.
\:<
CONTENTS.
PART FIRST.
PAGE
Chap. I. — Introductory Obseryations — Question stated 9
II. — General Arguments 18
III.— Meaning of tlie Word Bapto 29
IV.— Tlie Addition of zo 43
V. — The Question of Divers Significations 51
VI. — Baptizo — The Lexicons 57
VII. — Baptizo — The Classics 67
VIIL— Baptizo— The Authorities 89
IX.— Baptizo— The Septuagint 105
X.— Baptizo— The Fathers 118
XI. — Baptizo in the New Testament — Preliminary
Question 137
XII. — Baptizo in the New Testament — Jewish Lus-
trations 150
XIII. — Baptizo in the New Testament — Its True
Meaning 164:
XIV. — Mode of Baptism — Scriptural Hints 185
XV. — Mode of Baptism — Baptist Arguments 203
XVI. — Mode of Baptism — Baptist Arguments con-
tinued 234
b CONTENTS.
PAGE
Chap. XVII. — History of Baptism as to Mode 248
XVIII. — Mode of Baptism practiced by the Greek
Church 260
XIX. — Developments and Tendencies of the Bap-
tist System 268
XX. — Analogy — An Independent Argument
against the Baptist Dogma 277
PART SECOND.
XXI.— Infant Baptism no Sin 286
XXII. — Infant Baptism not contrary to the Com-
mission 294
XXIII. — Relations of Infants to the Kingdom — An
Argument for their Baptism 817
XXIV. — Infant Baptism practiced by the Apostles 337
PART THIRD.
XXV.— The Terms of Communion 371
^<. '>(
THE
EAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED,
CHAPTEE I.
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS — THE QUESTION
PRESENTED.
Baptism is an appointment of God, — a sacra-
ment of our lioly religion. Tlie command of Jesus
is, "Go, teach [make disciples, or Christians, of]
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Pather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you.'^ It is not a matter of in-
difference whether we have been baptized or not.
The apostle classes baptism among "the principles
of the doctrine of Christ." It is vitally connected
Avith Christianity itself. Every Christian should
therefore know in what it consists, and who may
properly receive it. The disagreements which
have sprung up upon these points are much to be
regretted.
For the most part, those who hold to baptism
as an extei*nal ordinance maintain and teach, that
9
10 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
it is the religious application of water, according
to the formulary of Christ, by an authorized minis-
ter of the gospel, in any quantity, to any subject
that is at all in the condition of being made a
learner in Christ. It also seems remarkable that
any should dissent from this view of what the
Scriptures teach in the case. There is, however,
a large and varied class of religionists who differ
from this general understanding of the Church,
and insist, even to the excommunication of those
who do not think with them, that there is no true
and valid baptism whei'e the subject is not an adult
believer, and wholly immersed in water. Book
after book has been written, and circulated with
unfaltering industry'-, charging the Church with
apostasy from Christ's commands on this subject
for more than a thousand years.
One of the more recent productions on this con-
troversy, is a 12mo volume of 251 pages, entitled
^'Baptism and the Terms of Communion: an Argu-
ment, by Bichard Fuller." This book is published
by authority, has reached its third edition, and is
distributed and spoken of by Baptists as present-
ing the chief strength of their position. Its
author is known as a gentleman of fortune, an ex-
lawyer, a doctor of divinity, and a minister highly
esteemed and honored by the people Avith whom
he operates. He professes to write in a catholic
and fraternal spirit; and, with the exception of a
few of his fundamental positions, he evidently
presents some improvement upon the temper of
those whose exploded philology and logic he has
so diligently collected and reproduced. lie avows
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 11
himself "a Baptist on principle, and not in sectarian
ism nor bigotry;" that is, he claims to be an
exception to Baptists generall}^, Avho, if wo are to
take the implications of his own avowal, are both
sectarian and bigoted. IIow far he is entitled to
this exemption will appear more clearly in what
is to follow. We take np his book, and shall
assign it the jijrominent place in this treatise,
because it is one of the most recent on that side
of the question, and jn'esents all the latest phases
of the Baptist argument, and is considered by
some as unanswerable.
To which of the manj^ tribes of the Baptist de-
nomination Dr. Fuller belongs, he docs not tell us.
He rather insinuates that he does not exactlj^ coin-
cide with either class of that diversified household.
This is, perhaps, the most convenient waj^ to
excuse himself from responsibility for some of
the more disagreeable features connected with the
Baptist system. Indeed, whatever exceptions we
may be compelled to take to his doctrines or his
logic, we may readily accord to him much tact
and shrewdness as a dialectician. His "Argument,"
to those unacquainted with the subject, bears an
air of plausibilit}^ very well calculated to make
an impression. His dexterous evasions, his subtle
management to pass off for granted the very
things to be proven, his array of learned authori-
ties on ' points which nobody denies, and the
whining affectation with which he presents his
doctrines, to say nothing of his misrej^resentations
and unreliable quotations, give to his book a
certain factitious force, to which his cause is by
12 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
no means entitled, and "which, by divine help, we
propose to reduce to its real nothingness.
For Dr. Fuller personally we have none but the
kindest feelings. We trust that, with all his mis-
takes and false reasonings, he is conscientious and
sincere. The numerous unfortunate predicaments
in which he has placed himself in his book may
have resulted, in part, from habits bi'ought with
him from another profession, but much more from
the mistakes, to say nothing worse, of those whom
he has chosen as his guides. We will not say of
him, as the biographer of Carson has said of the
rejecters of the Baptist system, that ''ivant of re-
ligious honesty" has been the controlling secret. He
is a fellow-laborer in the gospel in the same city with
us. He is respected as a Christian. We award to
his intentions the character of uprightness. If
conscience did permit, Ave Avould rather agree than
dispute with him. We have no love for contro-
versy. It pains us as much to be driven into these
contentions about sacred things as it pains Dr.
Fuller and his friends to exclude us from the table
of the Lord. It is not that we love our Baptist
brethren less, but because we love truth more, that
we have been induced to take np the pen in this
connection.
This, however, is the fact, that Dr. Fuller, in
common with others, has ventured upon a move-
ment of aggression upon the cherished faith and
IH'actice of millions upon millions of Christian
believers. He has solemnly and emphatically
given out the charge, that about one hundred and
ninety-live out of every two hundred of the great
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 13
household of Christ are guilty of downright and
palpahle violation of one of the i:)lainest and most
positive commands of the Savior, that they arc quite
outside of the true visible Church, and that they
are occupying a position of risk and jeopardy
enough to alarm every serious mind. In this we
believe him to be altogether mistaken. But he has
pressed the matter with all his strength, and con-
tinues to press it, and hundreds more are devoting
their time and energies almost exclusively to the
same point; and there is no alternative left us but
to surrender our convictions and the liberty
"which we have in Christ Jesus, or to take up one
of the swords which have been defiantly crossed
before us. We have no fiault to find with our
Baptist friends for choosing to perform their bap-
tisms by immersion. This is a liberty of which
we have no wish to deprive them. But the arro-
gant assumptions Avith which it is sought to brand
our baptism as not only invalid but profane, and
the unwarranted exclusiveness of denying to us a
place in the visible Church or any good hope of
heaven, we cannot give place to by subjection, no,
not for an hour, lest the truth of the gospel be
Avrested from us. We stand entirel}^ on the de-
fensive. And, if Dr. Fuller is disposed to complain
that his teachings are controverted, let him not
forget the daring assault which he has made ujjon
the faith and hope of myriads of God's children.
If he should feel himself incommoded by the
resistance encountered, let him recollect that he
has "cast the glove.''
To those familiar with the Baptist controversy
14 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
it is hardly necessary to state the features of the
S3'stem which Dr. Fuller's "argument" is designed
to sustain. It is that maintained in common
by Campbellites, Christ-ians, Tunkers, Millerites,
and all other Baptists. We do not attribute to
him all the vagaries and heresies of the parties
named, but mean, simply, that the system which
he supports is that supported by all Baptists.
But, as he disclaims being a Baptist in the depart-
ments of "sectarianism and bigotr}^," and is very
solicitous that his reviewers should quote him
fairly, it may be as well, once for all, to show what
his position is. It may be summed up in the
following particulars : —
1. That baptism is immersion in water; and that
where there is not a total immersion there is no bap-
tism. He says, "Baptiso always denotes a total
immersion." "Jesus commands his disciples to be
immersed." "The very thing, the only act he
commands, is immersion." (Pp. 19, 50, 70.)
2. That all l)aj)tisms, — though performed by regu-
lar ministers with the solemn design to administer
Christ's ordinance, though the subjects be believers
devoutly intending to receive the baptismal sacra-
ment, though the holy name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost be reverently invoked, —
unless the whole body be immersed, are altogether vain
and nugatory, and the parties remain unbaptized.
He evinces a singular cautiousness and reserve as
to the plain and categorical avowal of this inevi-
table sequence of his first position; but the evi-
dence that this is his doctrine is so clear, as well
upon the face as in the very marrow of his "argu-
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 15
rnent," that be -will not dare to (UscUiim it. "No
cue can pai-take of the [Lord's] Supper/^ saj^s he,
"who is not a member in a visible Church."
"Baptism is a prerequisite to admission into a
visible Church propei'ly organized." " Bajytizo
signifies to immerse, and has no other meaning."
""\Ye cannot admit to the Supper those whom we
regai'd as uubaptized." ""We cannot recognize
church-membership in Pedobaptist Churches as
confeiTiug any sort of title to the Supper." "To
admit them would be to admit members without
baptism." It is plain, then, that he repudiates all
baptisms which have not been performed by the
total immersion of the subject.
3. That to refuse to be immersed is disobedience to a
positive command, involving a degree of criminality
making the prospect of final salvation exceedingly pirob-
lematical. This is another point on which he is a
little unsteady, — now half affirming, and then
half denj'iug, — at one time seeming to recognize
us as his dear brethren in Christ, and at another
time pointing with horror to our dreadful danger
by reason of our disobedience in the one thing
of going under the water. But why this mouth-
ing of a matter so solemn, and entering so vitally
into this controversy? Why not out boldly and
fairly? We are either Christians etititled to heaven,
or we are not. If we are Christians accepted of
God, then all this ado about baptizo and immersion
is sheer nonsense and sectarian chicaner}^, and
the unimmersed, if obedient in other respects, are
as good and as safe as the immersed, whether once
or thrice, backwards or forwards. If Dr. Fuller
16 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM KXAAilNKD.
admits this, he snrreiKlers his cause, and the con-
troversy is at an end; and, if he does not admit
it, then he maintains that the salvation of the
unimmersed is exceedingly doubtful, and he can
have no clear hope of meeting any of them in
heaven. But hear him : — " My dear reader, the
matter before j'ou is not an abstraction : it is a
plain duty which meets you at the very thresh-
old of the Christian course, and ^chich you may
not evade icnthout insult to the Savior and peril
TO YOUR SOUL." "I regard baptism just as I do
any other command; and I dare not trench upon
God's prerogative and decide what is to be the
consequejice in eternity of disobedience to any com-
mand." " Do not say we lay too much stress on
baptism [i.e. immersion]. Upon this point I
adjure jow not to upbraid us, but to obey Christ."
(Pp. 101, 104, 105.) In what light do these state-
ments place our author but in that of holding that
the absence of immersion disqualifies for heaven?
4, That to baptize an infant is not only useless, but
an infraction of the command of Christ, and a positive
sin. "Infant baptism," says he, "makes void the
commandment of God by a human tradition."
" It reflects ingloriously upon God and tarnishes
the glory of the atonement." lie even compares
the practice of it to the scenes of " Bedlam."
(Pp. 207, 209, 123.)
5. That the wisest and holiest men on earth have no
right whatever to the holy sacrament of the Lord's
Supper so long as they have not been immersed in
ivater. He saj's, " We cannot recognize cnuRCii-
MEMBERSHIPIN THESE BoinES^Pcdobapti.'^t (7ii//v7i<?s]
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 17
AS CONFERRING ANY SORT OF TITLE TO THE SUP-
PER," (p. 238.) These arc plain words.
"We do not sujDposc that Dr. Fuller will pro-
nounce these quotations unfair. If these particu-
lars do not present the doctrinal essence of his
book, it teaches nothing, and his "argument" is
a mere beating of the air. We have no wish to
ascribe to him what he has not avowed in some
tangible shape. We do not, therefore, misrepre-
sent him, or in the least pervert his meaning,
when we affirm that, according to him, Christ has
commanded men to be immersed; that all who
are not immersed are outside of the pale of the
visible Church, and in great danger of losing their
souls; that to administer ba^Dtism to an infant is
an evil and a wicked prostitution of a Christian
ordinance; and that the practice of infant bap-
tism, or refusal to be immersed, is disobedience to
Christ, involving and arguing unfitness to partake
of the Holy Supper, and furnishing ground to fear
exclusion from heaven.
All THIS WE emphatically deny. Here, then,
we join issue, and invite all to hear, and consider,
and decide for the truth, on whichever side it may-
be found.
2*
18 THE BArXlST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
CHAPTEE II.
GENERAL ARGUMENTS.
Before proceeding to analyze the Baptist argu-
ment as Dr. Fuller has presented it, we desire to
advert to a few general considerations which weigh
so stronglj' against his doctrine, as to be them-
selves conclusive unless confronted with the most
solid and inflexible proofs to the contrary.
I. The whole gospel system is a system of liberty
It was so predicted: Isa. xlii. 7, Ixi. 1. It was so
proclaimed by its first preachers : Eom. vii. 6, viii.
2; Gal. v. 1. It is specifically presented as a
system of freedom from the bondage of burden-
some ceremonies : Gal. iv. 3-7. Paul says ex-
pressly, "If yc be dead with Christ from the rudi-
ments of the world, why, as though living in the
world, are ye subject to ordinances?" (Col. ii. 20.)
"Why is my liberty judged of another man's con-
science?" (1 Cor. X. 29.) "Stand fast, therefore, in
the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,
and be not entangled again with the yoke of bond-
age." (Gal. V. 1.) And how dissonant with this
"perfect law of liberty," how subversive of the
free spirit of the gospel, how like the old bondage
to grievous ceremonies, and how unlikely to be
GENERAL AKCi (JJUCXTS. li)
a part of the glorious economy of grace^ to have
all its sublime blessings bound up in and made
dependent on the miserable little external accident
of being far enough in the waters of baptism to
have them close for an instant over our heads !
How utterly foreign to the whole strain and
spirit of ''the better covenant" that even the least
of its precious promises should be linked with
such a mere inincto of outward ceremony! The
thing is so grossly incongruous with all that re-
lates to the nature of a system pre-eminently
spiritual and gracious, that it cannot be soberly
entertained for a moment, except upon the clearest
and most unexceptionable proofs.
II. The vast and overwhelming majority of all
Christian people for many, many ages, including
multitudes whose names the Church wears upon
her heart as the jewelry of the cross, — men as
conscientious, holy, studious, learned, and gifted
by the Spirit as any that ever sunk beneath the
waters, — men who fought the battles of the Lord,
and won to themselves holy renown as wide as
Christendom and lasting as the world, — have
maintained that there is no law requiring Chris-
tians to be immersed, and were themselves never
immersed. And are we to believe that they were
all unba-ptized, all unqualified to commune in the
hoi}' Supj^er, all outside of the visible Church, all
fundamentally wrong in their views of the first
principles of Christianity, and that it is doubtful
whether any of them have reached heaven? How
dare we thus sunder the cords of sympathy which
20 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
bind us to our fathers, and extinguish the glowing
hope of meeting them in glory? How can we
thus asperse their fame and insult their memories
and their honored graves ? Well does Dr. Fuller
speak of this as " a matter which is iminful." But
the very painfulness of it is a powerful presump-
tion against the truth of his system, and a pre-
sumption which cannot be set aside except by the
resistless force of demonstration itself To talk
of " lodged and incurable jJi'^judices" does not
mend the matter, but only adds a deeper tinge
of sadness to our contemplations of the honored
dead. If our illustrious ancestors and predecessors
were all in error, if the world's great lights were
all so far from the truth, as the Baptist theory
teaches, let us not be taunted by the mockery of
consolation that theirs Avas a wilful blindness.
We are sorry to find our Baptist friends in such
hot haste to j)ass fi'om this point the very moment
it is touched. It is a great and interesting in-
quiry,— one which, next to that of our own per-
sonal salvation, is the most important and absorb-
ing involved in this debate. To declare it " im-
pertinent" does neither render it so nor meet the
question. And, if Dr. Fuller is an exception
among Baptists, he has shown upon this point
that he is not so far an excejDtion among men as
to be able to grasp a hot iron with a steady firm-
ness. The very thought seems to appall him, — as
well it may, — and he hastens to bury it out of
his own and his reader's sight. We here again
drag it forth to his view as a thing which he must
face or give up his theory. We press it upon
GENERAL ARGUMENTS, 21
every imniersionist, not as absolute proof of the
error of his system, but as presumptive evidence
against him which must be taken as decisive
unless set aside by testimony which will admit
of no escape.
III. Mere modes and ceremonial particulars are
never treated of in connection with other appoint-
ments of Christ; and we cannot conceive how bap-
tisn\ should be made an exception. Christ has
enjoined the celebration of the holy Supper; but
he has said nothing as to the outward manner in
which that sacrament is to bo observed. He
ordained the Christian ministry, but has said
nothing as to how we are to go to the nations, or
as to the mode in which we are to deliver the
gospel message. He has made it obligatoi^ upon
us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves to-
gether for public worship; but he has enjoined
nothing as to how these sacred convocations are
to be held, or as to the siDecific ritual by which
their exercises are to be regulated. He has made
it our duty to pray; but he has not designated the
times for it, nor told us whether it is to be done
kneeling, standing, sitting, extempore, or from a
written form. And. so in regard to all his great
commandments : it is the thing in its real sub-
stance which he enjoins, whilst the particular
mode of it is left free to be adapted to cii'cum-
stances. And, as specific forms or modes have no
essential connection with any other great require-
ments of God, the strong presumption is that it is
the same in the case of baptism. It is the spiritual
f
I
I'L THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
substance of the thing that the Scriptures are con-
cerned with, and little variable external accidents
are not taken into account. The spiritual essence
of baptism is induction or inauguration into the
faith of the Fathei*, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
It is upon this that the Scriptures continually fix,
without even so much as specifically prescribing
the element to be used, much less the mode in
which it is to be used. All analogy, therefore, is
against the Baptist tbeorj^, and must forever
overrule it, unless demonstration of the most
positive nature can be produced to the contrary.
IV. The scope and meaning of baptism itself is
against the doctrine of our Baptist brethren. It
is the sacrament of regeneration and remission of
sins. The command of Peter on the day of Pente-
cost was, '' Be baptized, every one of you, for the
remission of sins." (Acts ii. 38.) Ananias said to
Paul, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins." (Acts xxii. 16.) Jesus says, " Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God," (John iii. 8 ;) a passage
concerning w^hich Wall justly says, " There is not
any one Christian writer, of any antiquity, in any
language, but who understands it of baptism; and,
if it be not so understood, it is difficult to give an
account how a person is born of water anj- more
than born of wood." Paul speaks of Christians as
" saved by the washing of regeneration and renew-
ing of the Holy Ghost;" as having "put off the
body of the sins of the flesh hy the circumcision of
Christ." (Tit. iii. 5, 6; Col. ii. 11, 13.) Peter siiys,
^
GENERAL ARGUMENTS. L'o
"Baptism doth also now save us;" a sacrament
which he dcscrihcs to be, "not the putting away
of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God." (1 Peter iii. 21.) Christ
gave himself for the Church, "that he might sanc-
tify and cleanse it with the washing of water by
the word." (Eph. v. 25, 26.) Irenseus styles bap-
tism " our regeneration unto God." (Lib. i. cap.
18.) Tertullian calls it "the happy sacrament of
water, whereby we are washed from the sins of our
former blindness and recovered to eternal life."
(Mason's Selections, p. 111.) Origen says, "The
baptism of the Church is given for the remission
of sins." Augustine exclaims, " Behold ! persons
are baptized, then all their sins are forgiven."
(Sermon on Eom. viii. 30.) Upon the question,
"What are the benefits of baptism?" Luther
answers, " It works the forgiveness of sins."
(Small Cat., Part 4.) Calvin says, "Eemission
of sins is so dependent on baptism that it can-
not by any means be separated from it." (Inst.,
tom. iv. cap. 15, sec. 4. The Confession of Hel-
vetia says, " To be baptized in the name of Christ
is to be enrolled, entered, and received into cove-
nant and fiimily, and so into the inheritance of the
sons of God. Baptism, according to the institution
of the Lord, is the fount of regeneration." The
Bohemian Confession calls it " the sacrament of
the new' birth ; that is, of regeneration or Avashing
with water in the word of life." The Confession
of France says that in it "we are engrafted into
Christ's body, that, being washed in his blood, we
may also be renewed to holiness of life." Knapp,
r
2-4 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
whom Dr. Fuller quotes with so much approbation,
says, "Baptism represents purification from sins,
and is designed to promote this end in the one who
is baptized." (Theol., vol. ii. p. 510.) Flacius says,
"Baptism, and to be baptized, means an internal
washing, remission of sins, and an ever-continuing
renewal." (Clavis's Scrip. Sac, art. Bapt., p. 66.)
But to multiply authorities upon this point is
needless. All sound theologians admit and contend
that baptism, in its true acceptation, is not a
mere external ordinance, but a sacrament of deep
spiritual import, in which the soul is absolved
from guilt and savingly incorj^orated with Jesus
Christ.
Let us not be misunderstood. We do not teach
or hold the doctrine ordinarily called "Baptismal
Eegeneration ;" i.e. we do not believe that the
mere application of water to a human subject, in
any mode or quantity, can wash away sins or work
any subjective change in the heart. What wo
affirm, and what we understand to be affirmed in
these quotations, is, that baptism is a thing for the
soul as well as for the body j that it fails to become
true baptism unless attended or followed with
spiritual experience, conformity to the baptismal
vow, and that purity of heart which the water
typifies ; that this high spiritual conception of this
sacrament is the only true concejDtion of it ; and
that, in this respect, it carries with it the virtue and
efficacy which are here ascribed to it. It is a
thing which i-elates to the inner man and to the
relations and experiences of the spirit. It is " not
^
GENERAL ARGUMENTS. 25
the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience toward God."
What, we would then ask, has quantity of water
to do with these internal and spiritual things, with
giving a man a good conscience or inspiring him
with a new life? The whole office of the mere
tcater of baptism is to represent and typify an
inward purification, a renovation of the soul,
without which baptism fails to -be baptism, and
becomes a mere profitless, dead work. And surely
no man in his senses will pretend to deny that a
few handfuls of water from the crystal spring can
as well symbolize purity as tons of the contents of
the filth}- pools or stagnant cisterns to which Bap-
tists ordinarily invite their converts. " I admit,''
says Carson, "that sprinkling a little water on any
part of the body might be an emblem of purifi-
cation." (P. 164.) To those who can dispute so
plain a proposition we have no reply to make.
And the very fiict that baptism looks to the purifi-
cation of the spirit and the washing away of sins,
rendei's it almost impossible to believe for one
moment that the validity and force of so spiritual
a sacrament should dej)end upon the dejith of the
water used in its outward administration.
y. Looking at the foundation upon which Dr.
Fuller rests the whole fabric of his proscriptive
system, we are at once struck with the extraor-
dinary fact that his entire argument comprises
nothing but a mere j)hilological disquisition upon
the meaning of one little Greek icord. The entire
eleven chapters devoted to this part of the subject
3
26 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMlxNED.
are occupied with the one single point, What does
haptizo mean ? " The matter before us," says he,
"is a calm philological inquiry as to the meaning
of a Greek word. . . . The simple inquiry is, as to
the meaning of the Greek word baptizo." (P. 12.)
His interpretation of this simple word is the alpha
and omega, the beginning, middle, and end, the
body, soul, and spirit, of all he has to present to
prove that ninety-five hundredths of Christ's
people are in a state of downright disobedience to
their Lord, unfit for membership in " our churches,"
or to approach the Lord's Supj)er, and without any
sure or reliable hope of final salvation. This cer-
tainly is very remarkable, that the great law of
the gospel, and a jooint involving the eternal well-
being and affecting the hopes of millions of Chris-
tian people, should be made to turn upon one little
word. Is it not an astounding doctrine, that in
a divine revelation forming a library in itself a
merciful and condescending God should have sus-
pended the issues of his sublime scheme of grace
upon the doubtful import of one single Greek
word? According to the ancient prophets, the
way of salvation is an open ''highway," in which
"wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err," (Isa.
XXXV. 8,) — so " plain that he may run that readeth
it," (Hab. ii. 2,) — and laid down in divers forms,
" precept upon precept, precept ujjon precept, line
upon line, line upon line, hero a little and there a
little." (Isa. xxviii. 10.) But it seems, after all,
that we must take Dr. Fuller's say-so, or go to the
study of Greek, before we can learn it; that the
whole question lies in the interpretation of one
GENERAL ARUUMENTS. 27
Greek word; and that we must go back to the old
heathen writers to ascertain whether Ave are
Christians, and consult Orpheus, Heraclides Pon-
ticus, Polybius, the Greek scholiasts on Euripides
and Aratus, Alcibiades, Anacreon, ^Esop, and Dio-
dorus Si cuius, to find out whether or not we have
a good hope for heaven ! Let the reader but look
at it, and consider the real nature of the question,
and the real character of the testimony adduced to
decide it, and he Avill find that Dr. Fuller's " argu-
ment" bears absurdities upon its very fiace into
Avhich Ave would hardly think it possible for a sane
man to fall.
yi. It is also a very remarkable fact, and hard
to be accounted for, that, if the Baptist theory be
true, it was so long in being discovered. The
doctrine that " baptizo means to immerse and no-
thing else" is one of but recent development. It is
nowhere so taught in all the records of antiquity.
Until Avithin a few scores of years, it lay concealed
from all the learned men of all ages and nations.
We have histories of Greek literature from Homer,
a thousand years before Christ was born, to Con-
stantinus Harmenopulus, nearly fourteen hundred
yea^^s since Christ left this Avorld, including all the
Avritings of the poets, orators, historians, phy-
sicians, philosophers, mathematicians, geographers,
rhetoricians, and philologists of Greece, the Greek
fathers of the Chi-istian Church, and the Byzantine
writers of the Middle Ages; and yet Ave have no
account for all that time, nor up to a very recent
period, that any author ever assumed the position
28 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
by which it is now sought to excommunicate the
great majority of the most eminent, active, and
devout followers of Jesus on the face of the earth.
Is not this exceedingly wonderful? Who can
believe that a truth so essential to the very exist-
ence of the Church — assuming it to be a truth —
would have remained in such obscurity, so entirely
hidden from the most careful observations of all
men, until this eleventh hour of the world ? Why,
the allegations of the Mormon prophet with regard
to his new revelation ai*e hardly less credible.
Surely, the theory of our Baptist friends is neither'
in the Bible, nor in the Greek language, or else the
high place of the subject in the Christian system
would needs have secured for it the notice of
scholars aiid divines, or engaged some special pro-
vidence to bring it into view long ere this.
We submit, then, that these prima facie and a
priori considerations so embarrass, cripple, and
contradict the whole Baptist scheme, that they
must be conclusive of the question unless they
can be confronted with direct, positive, and un-
equivocal evidences to the coutrar}^.
What sort of evidences Dr. Fuller offers, will be
our next subject of inquiry.
THE MEANING OE TUE ^V01^D BAPTO. 29
CHAPTEE III.
THE MEANING OF THE WORD " BAPTO."
All must agree that the word haptizo, which is
the disputed word in this controversy, is a deriva-
tive of the word bapto. It is equally certain that
one of the ways of ascertaining the meaning of a
secondary word is to find out the signification of
its root or primitive. But, upon this law of inter-
pretation, Dr. Fuller, if we understand him aright,
has undertaken to difi'er from other people. We
say if we understand him rightly; for there is
a nebulosity about this part of his "argument"
which renders it difficult of comprehension.
Though he names his mental processes, as he has
here given them, "a calm philological inquiry,"
we defy any man to find an equal number of pages
under such a title so utterly barren of herme-
neutical reasoning and illustration, or so full of
confusion and absurdities. We shall endeavor,
however, to extract the component elements of
his " disquisition," and to classify its jumbled de-
partments, so as to reason upon them intelligently
and in order.
Dr. Fuller starts out by affirming that we have
nothing to do with ba2:)to in this controversy. This
is his first canon, to the paternity of which he is
30 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
exclusively entitled. No respectable writer, evei
of his school, so far as we know, has ever taker
such a position. JSTeither does he accompany it
with the least attempt at j)roof, — as though it were
a thing which nobody would dare to call in ques-
tion. His friend Mr. Carson, on whom he so con-
fidently relies, declares that the word baptizo is
formed from bajoto. Indeed, Dr. Fuller himself
subsequently loses sight of his own declaration,
and proceeds to found an argument on bapto to
prove that baptizo means immerse and nothing
else. " In the Greek language," says he, '' the
addition of zo rather enforces than diminishes the
primitive verb;" as, "bapto, to dip; baptizo, to
make one dip." We will therefore endeavor to
ascertain first the meaning of bapto, and then exa-
mine the value or force of the addition of zo, and
thus show that Dr. Fuller's doctrine concern-
ing the word baptizo is a sheer assumption and
forever untenable.
Now, we assert, and will prove to the reader's
satisfaction, that bapto, so far from meaning a
total submersion and nothing else, means also to
wash, to cleanse, to wet, to moisten, to bedew, to stain,
to tinge, and to dye, without regard to mode, and in
some cases even to sprinkle.
Our first appeal is to the lexicographers, whom
JSli\ Campbell, from whom Dr. Fuller has ex-
tensively drawn, pronounces " the most learned
and the most competent witnesses in this case in
the world." (Debate with Eiee, p. 58.)
We begin with the native Greeks, Avho, accord-
ing to high Baptist authority, arc unexceptionable
THE MEANING OF THE AVORD BAPTO. 31
guides in this matter, and must needs understand
their own language better than foreigners.
The first is Hcsychms, Avho lived in the fourth
century of the Christian era, and is the oldest
native Greek lexicographer with whom we are
acquainted. He defines the word bapto. He assigns
to it but one general meaning; and that meaning
he finds in the word antleo, which signifies to
draw or pump xcater, and has no reference what-
ever to mode or immersion.
2. Xext in order is Gases, also a native Greek,
who compiled a large and valuable lexicon of the
ancient Greek language, which is generally used
and held in high estimation by those who speak
the Greek. He defines bajjto by brecho, p>luno,
gemizo, buthizo, antleo; that is, to wet, moisten, or
bedew ; to icash, to Jill, to dip; to draw or pump
water.
3. Hedericus defines the word bopto by " mergo,
immergo, tingo, intingo, lavo ;" that is, to dip, to
plunge, to tinge, to dye, to wash.
4. Coulon defines bapto by "mergo, tingo, abluo ;"
that is, to dip, to dye, to cleanse.
5. Z7?-smws defines it by "abluo, aspergo ;" that
is, to ivash, to sprinkle.
6. Scapula defines it by "mergo, immergo, —
item tingo, inficere, imbruere, — item lavo;" that is,
to dip, to plunge, — also to stain or tinge, to dye,
imbrue, — also to wash.
7. Schrevelius defines it by "mergo, intingo,
lavo, Jiaurio ;" that is, to dip, dye, loash, draw
water.
8. Donnegan translates bapAo "to dip, to plunge
82 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
into water, to submerge, to wash, to dye, to color,
to icash, to draw out water."
9. Pickering renders it, to dip; to steep, dye,
color; to wash; to draw vp ; to fill by drawing vp;
to bathe 07ie's self.
10. Liddell and Scott render it, to dip ; to dip in
dye, color, steep; to dye the hair.
11. Dunbar renders it, to dip, plunge, immerse;
to wash; to wet, moisten, sprinkle; to dye, stain,
color.
Now, if these lexicographers are "the most
learned and the most competent witnesses in this
case in the world," as the most learned Baptists
have admitted, our position is already made out
and sustained. Every man acquainted with the
Latin knows that lavo means simjjly to wash,
without regard to mode; and that, when it occa-
sionally departs from its simple and direct mean-
ing, it signifies sprinkling as well as any other appli-
cation of water. Ainsworth, Andrews, Anthon,
and others give besprinkle and bedew as among its
significations. Hedericus, Scapula, Schrevelius,
give lavo as one of the fixed meanings of bapto.
Abluo certainly means simply to loash or cleanse;
and Coulon and Ursinus give abluo as the mean-
ing oi bapto. Brecho unquestionably means simply
to wet, moisten, or bedcAV, and so pluno means
simply to loash, or cleanse ; and these are the first
and prominent meanings which Gases applies to
bapto. And Donnegan, Pickering, and Dunbar, in
plain English, give tcash as a proper interpreta-
tion of bapjto. Washing and cleansing do not
necessarily imply immersion. Moistening, bedew-
THE MEANING OF THE WORD BM'TO. 33
ing, sprinkling, staining, and dyeing the hair^ pre-
clude immersion altogether. Bapto, therefore,
DOES NOT ALWAYS JMEAN TO IMMERSE AND NO-
THING ELSE.
To the lexicographers we add a few authorities.
One of particular value in this controversy is from
the distinguished Baptist critic, Alexander Carson,
of Tubbermore, Ireland. '^ Bapto," says he, ^^sig-
nifies TO DYE BY SPRINKLING, AS PROPERLY AS BY
DIPPING, though originally it was confined to the
latter." He refers to examples, in which, he says,
*' it could not be known even that bapto has the mean-
ing of dip." " The word," says he, " has come by
appropriation to denote dyeing, without reference to
mode." "ISTor are such applications of the word
to be accounted for by metaphor, as Dr. Gale
asserts. They are as literal as the primitive
MEANING." (Pp. 44, 45, 51, Carson on Baptism.)
According to this lauded scholar, then, bapto, so
far from always signifying immersion, is often
used in its literal sense where mode is altogether
excluded.
Another authority is Edwards, who was for
many years a respected Baptist minister. "I
will say thus much of the term bapto," says he:
" that it is a term of such latitude that he who
shall attempt to prove, from its use in various
authors, an absolute and total immersion, will find
he has undertaken that which he cannot per-
form."
Another is the Methodist theologian. Dr. "Wat-
son, who says, " The verb baj)to, with its deriva-
tives; signifies to dip the hand into a dish, to stain
34 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
a vesture with blood, to wet the body with dew,
to paint or smear the face with colors, to stain the
hand by pressing a substance, to be overwhelmed
in the waters as a sunken ship, to be drowned by
falling into the water, to sink in the neuter sense,
to immerse totally, to plunge up to the neck, to
be immersed up to the middle, to be drunk with
wine, to be dyed, tinged, or imbued, to icash by
affusion of icater, to pour water upon the hands or
any part of the body, to besprinMe."
Professor Wilson, of the Eoyal College, Belfast,
says, " That bapto denotes to dye, without regard to
mode, and even where immersion is in terms ex-
cluded, is beyond the pale of candid disputation."
All this ought to be enough to satisfy men on
this subject. It is competent, however, to go be-
yond lexicons and authorities to the passages in
which'the word bapto is used. We therefore make
an appeal to the Greek language itself We will
begin with the Septuagint, or Greek version of the
Old Testament and Apocrj-pha, as being the most
nearly related to the writings of the New Testa-
ment, the teachings of which on this subject it is
our wish to ascertain.
In Daniel iv. 33 (we give the reference as in
the English Bible) it is written, "And he [Nebu-
chadnezzar] was driven from men, and did eat
grass as oxen, and his body [ebaphael was wet with
\apo, frorti] the dew of heaven." Also in Daniel
V. 21 : " They fed him with grass like oxen, and
his body \ebapjhae'] was wet with the dew of
heaven." Here is bapto in two instances, in both
of which it signifies the gentle moistening of an
THE MEANING OF THE WORD IJAI'TO. 85
exposed body from the falling dew. Was it a case
of immersion? Mr. Carson says, "If all the water
in the ocean had thus follen on the monarch, it
would not have been a literal immersion. The
mode would still be wanting." (P. 36.) Neither
was it a figurative any more than a literal immer-
sion. It was simply a icetting ; and no man can
make any thing more out of it.
In Leviticus xiv. 4-6, we have these words,
"Then shall the priest command to take for him
that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean,
and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; and the
priest shall command that one of the birds be killed
in an earthen vessel, over running water. As for
the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar-wood,
and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall [bapsei]
dip them and the living bird in the blood of the
bird that was killed." Here is a case of the use
of bajyto where total immersion was an impossi-
bility. How can you totally immerse a living
bird, cedar-wood, scarlet, and hyssop in the blood
of a single bird? Dr. Fuller is evidently em-
barrassed with this passage, and disposes of it in
a way exceedingly reprehensible. He tells us that
he "trembles when he remembers the lano-uas-e of
God as to him who adds to or takes from the words
of the Bible." We are therefore surprised at the
liberty which he has taken with the verses we
have just quoted. On page 45, under express pre-
tensions to honesty, where he charges that others
have been dishonest, he records these words: — "If
my readers will refer to the chapter, they will see
that water was to be taken from a running; stream
36 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
in some vessel, and into this water the blood of the
bird was to fall, into this vessel the dij)ping was
to be performed." We believe that he has im-
ported this from Mr. Carson, who has led him
astray on more than one point. But, from what-
ever source he obtained it, it is simply untrue.
There is nothing of the sort in the record of the
case. His reference to verses 50, 51 will not
relieve the palpable misrepresentation which he
has put upon record. Those verses refer to the
cleansing of A house; the case in point refers to
the cleansing of A man. But neither are his
statements true in the case of the house. His
language is as follows: — "First, the blood is poured
into a vessel of running water." ("VVe have heard
of wooden, earthen, and brazen vessels; but we have
yet to learn what is meant by "vessels of running
water" !) But such is our author's version of this
prescription: — ''First, the blood is poured into a
vessel of running water. Then the things are dipped.
Lastly, the defiled objects are sprinkled." Now,
look at the passage of which this pretends to be
the luminous explanation. You will observe that
it contains nothing about the pouring of the blood,
and nothing about vessels of running water. Moses
knew nothing about such ceremonies or such
utensils for the cleansing of lepers. Here is the
passage to which Dr. Fuller specifically refers : —
"And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds,
and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; and ho
shall kill the one of the two birds in an earthen
vessel, OVER running water; and he shall take the
cedar-wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and
THE MEANINO OF THE WORD BAPTO. 37
the living bird, and [bajisei] shall dip them in the
BLOOD' OF the SLAIN BIRD." Tbus fill* tlicre was
BO mingling of watei' in the provision for cleansing
either a house or a man. The "earthen vessel,"
and the dying bird in it, were only to be held " over
running water." The living bird, and the cedar-
wood, and the scarlet, and the hj^ssop, were then
to be smeared in the blood of the one slain bird
unmingled. icith any thing else. And that smearing —
for it could not possibly have been any thing more —
is denoted by the word bapto. It follows, there-
fore, that bapto, as the Greeks used it, does not
always signify immersion. "We agree, with Dr.
Fuller, that "nothing can be more explicit than
this chapter ;" but we must also say that his
version of it is unauthorized by the word of God.
To use his own language, "that he designed any
perversion of God's word, we do not affirm. We
assail nobody's sincerity; but his entire ignorance
of the imjiort of the chapter is inexcusable." Yet
these are the sort of arguments by which he wovdd
justify himself and others in the excommunication
of nearlj^ all Christendom itself Will he note
this among bis "morsels from the Baltimore
Tracts" ?
In Joshua iii. 15, we have this record : — "And as
they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan,
and the feet of the priests that bare the ark
[ehaphaesan'] dipped in the brim of the water, . . .
the waters which came down from above stood
and rose up upon a heap, . . . and the priests that
bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord stood
firm on dry ground." Here the mere touching of
4
V
88 THE BAI'TIST SVSTEM EXA.MINED.
the j^riests' feet "in tJie brim" of Jordan's out-
spread waters, and from which touch those waters
instantly shrank away so as to leave ^'dry ground"
from shore to shore, is denoted by hapto. Not
even the shadow of immersion is contained in the
passage, much less a total immersion.
Here, then, are clear and decisive instances of
the use of hapto where the idea of submersion is
foreign and excluded by the nature of things, and
this in Greek the most closely related to that of
the New Testament. "VYe will give other instances
to the same effect from classic usage.
In Arrian's History of Alexander the Great, we
have this sentence: — '^Nearchus relates that the
Indians [bai)tontai~\ dye their beards." Certainly
no one will undertake to say that these Indians
immersed their beai'ds.
In ^lian it is said of an old coxcomb that "he
endeavored to conceal the hoariness of his hair
by \bapliac'] coloring it." Did the old gentleman
immerse his hair?
In ^schylus we have the sentence, "This
garment, stained by the sword of iEgisthus." A
sword certainly could not immerse a garment. A
sword is not a fluid.
In Hij)pocrates we read, "when it drops upon the
garments they \baptetai'\ are dyed." Dr. Fuller
says that hapto means to dye, because dyeing is
by immersion; but here we have the dyeing hy
dropping, and the Baptist labors in vain to get
immersion into the passage.
Marcus Antoninus : — "The soul [baptetai] is tine-
THE MEANING OF TUE WORD BAPTO. 30
txired by the thoughts." Is the mind immersed
by its thoughts?
Aristophanes speaks of Magnes as ''imitating the
Lydians, and -writing Psanes, and \haptomenos]
smearing himself with frog-colored paints." Did
he immerse himself in these washes or paints?
Aristotle has the phrase, "but, being pressed, it
\haptai'] stains and colors the hands." Are we to
understand that the juice of an article when
pressed in the fist immerses the fist ?
In a comic poem entitled " The Battle of the
Frogs and the ]\Iice," we have an account of the
slaughter of one of the combatants; and the effect
of his blood upon the lake, on the shore of which
he fell, is denoted by bapto. We give Pope's
translation : —
"Gasping he rolls: a purple stream of blood
Detains the surface of the silver flood."
Could a lake be immersed — totally immersed — in
the blood of a dying frog or mouse? Hear Mr.
Carson : — "To suppose there is here any extrava-
gant allusion to the literal immersion or dipping
of a lake is a monstrous perversion of taste." (So
we would think.) "The lake is said to be dyed, not
dipped. There is iti the word no reference to mode.
What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the
figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a
mouse I Xever was there such a figure. The
Jake is not said to be dipped in blood, but to be dyed
with blood." (P. 48.) Very well said, and very
much to our purpose. Here then, again, bap)to can-
40 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
not mean immersion, but signifies simply to tinge
or color slightly, without reference to mode.
There is also an instance in Hippocrates where
hapto is used with epi, upon. And, as it is sheer
nonsense to talk of immersing upon, bapto from
this must needs have in it a signification to
embrace the application of the element to the sub-
ject without immersion.
We give but one other instance from the classics.
Herodotus says, "The Egyptians consider the
swine so polluted a beast, that, if any one in pass-
ing touch a swine, he will go away and loasJi him-
self with his very garments." Here is bapto
employed to denote a religious washing for the
purpose of cleansing from a defiling touch. What
more can we need? All these instances present
bapto completely stripped of every vestige of that
mere modal signification which Dr. Fuller tells us
it alwaj-s has.
Add yet a quotation or two from the JSTew Tes-
tament itself.
In Matthew xxvi. 23, the Savior says, "He that
[embapsasl dippeth his hand with me in the dish,
the same shall betray me." Suppose that the
Savior and his discijiles had before them a large
vessel filled with liquid food, — for, if it was not
liquid, all possibility of immersion is excluded :
are we to be told that he and Judas both together,
in the ordinary course of taking a meal, totally
immersed their hands in it? The idea is prepos-
terous. Here, then, bapto does not mean to im-
merse J and Dr. Fuller's theory has another contra-
diction from the lips of Christ himself
THE MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTO. 41
In Ecvelation xix. 13, John says of Him who is
faithful and true, "And he was clothed with a
vesture [bebanwicnoti] dipped in hlood." The figure
is that of a conqueror from the field of battle, with
his clothing stained with the blood of his slain foes.
The allusion is plainly to Isa. Ixiii. 2, 3 : — "Where-
fore art thou 7'ed in thine aj^parel, and thy garments
like him that treadeth in the loine-fat? I have trodden
the wine-press alone ; and of the people there was
none with me ; for I will tread them in mine anger,
and trample them in my fury, and their hlood shall
be SPRINKLED UPON MY GARMENTS, and I IcHl STAIN
all my raiment." It is a remarkable and over-
whelming fact in this connection that the two
oldest and best translations of the Aj)Ocalypse —
the Syi'iac and Ethiopic versions — render this
hebammenon by terms denoting sprinkling. "Wick-
liflfe translates it spreynt, or sprinkled. The Eheims
version does the same. And so Origen, himself a
Greek, when citing this passage, gives errantis-
menon, which means sprinkled, as the equivalent
of bapto as here used. Does not this settle the
question ?
Now, wath this half a score of lexicographers,
and this list of authorities, with the most learned
of the Baptist critics at its head, and these nume-
rous instances, all testifjang that bapAo may be
used without respect to mode, who can resist the
conviction that it does not mean simply to immerse
and nothing else ?
According to Hedericus, Ursinus, Scapula,
Sehrevelius, Donnegan, Dunbar, Grove, Watson,
42 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED,
and Herodotus, it means to wash, — simply to
wash.
According to Hedericus, Coulon, TJrsinus, Sca-
pula, Schrevelius, Donnegan, Pickering, Liddell
and Scott, Dunbar, Grove, Carson, Watson, Wil-
son, and others whom we have quoted, it means
to stain and dye, even where the process is by
dropping, pressing, smearing, and even, as in the
case of the hair, by rubbing.
According to Gases, Grove, Watson, the Sep-
tuagint version of Daniel, and ^schylus, it means
to moisten, wet, or bedew, as by the distillation of the
dews of the night, or by the flowing of blood upon
the garments from wounds.
And, according to Ursinus, Grove, Watson,
Hippocrates, the Syriac and Ethiopic versions of
the Apocalypse, and even Origen, it means to
besprinkle; whilst Hedericus, Scapula, and
Schrevelius also render it by lavo, which includes
sprinkling and pouring, as well as any other appli-
cation of water.
He who can resist such evidence can resist
demonstration itself. Our case, therefore, as
respects bap)to, is made out. Our statement that
it means to wash, cleanse, wet, moisten, bedew,
stain, tinge, and dye, without regard to mode, and
even to besprinkle, stands verified, firm, and im-
movable.
Bapto does not mean mere mode, — to immerse
and nothing else.
THE ADDITION OF ZO. 43
CHAPTEE lY.
THE ADDITION OF " ZO."
The next step in our progress to ascertain the
meaning of ba2)ti::o will be to examine the force of
the termination of ^ro, or izo, when added to a primi-
tive word.
Upon this little particle there has been much
said, and contradictory theories have been
broached.
Mr. Campbell takes the ground that the addition
of ^0 does not alter the sense of the primitive word
to w:hich it is affixed, but " indicates the rapidity
with which the action is to be performed." If this
be a true position, haptizo (that is, bapto M'ith the
addition of zo') w^ould signify a more rapid, and,
consequently, only a more supei-ficial, washing,
cleansing, wetting, or sprinkling than that indi-
cated by bapto.
Others have thought that all verbs ending in zo
are to be taken as frequentative, indicating that the
action is to be successively repeated. But this
theory meets with but little favor even with Bap-
tist critics.
An extensively-received opinion is that verbs
ending in zo are precisely of the same power and
signification with the primitives from which they
4-1 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
are formed, and that zo or izo is added only for the
sake of euphony. Thus, 'pnigo and pnigizo both
mean to strangle or choke; euoreo and euoriazo,
both, to be careless or unconcerned ; biao and biazo,
both, to force or compel. Hence, Dr. Gale, one of
the most learned Baptist authors, takes bapto and
baptizo as " exactly the same as to signification,"
and holds it perfectly warrantable to argue "jn-o-
miscuously fi'om both." Mr. Carson says to this,
''As far as respects an increase or diminution of
the action of the verb, I perfectly agree with the
writer. That one is more or less than the other,
as to mode or freq^uency, is a perfectly groundless
conceit." (P. 19.) ' And Mr. Campbell, notwith-
standing his doctrine of rapidity, agrees that "a
change on the end of a word, when agreeable to
the ear, soon loses its meaning by being extended
to many words, for the sake of euphony. So of
the termination zo." If, then, we are to adopt this
theory, baptizo means simply to wash, cleanse, wet.
stain, sprinkle, &c., the same as bapto.
But all this does not avail for Dr. Fuller. He
must have a new theory; and a remarkable com-
pound it is. " In the Greek language," says he,
"the addition of zo rather enforces the primitive
verb. It imparts a peculiar significancy, and
seems generally to denote the transferring to
another, or performing upon another, the thing
designated. Thus, — bapto, to dip ; baptizo, to make
one dip; that is, to immerse" ! A clever bid, this,
for Mr. Carson's premium for nonsense. Zo en-
forces the primitive verb, and transfers it to
another ! and performs it upon another ! ! and
THE ADDITION OF ZO. 45
completes it in '• immersion and nothing else" !
Surely this co is a -wonderful particle in Dr. Fuller's
estimation. But see his illustrations. "Zo rather
enforces, transfers, performs upon another, the
primitive verb; thus, — sophos, wise; sophizo, to
make wise." Sophos a verb! enforced, transferred,
performed upon another, by the addition of zo ! !
What an interpreter to show the meaning of a
Greek word Avhich, as he teaches, involves the
Christian character and eternal hopes of all Chris-
tendom itself! Sophos is an adjective, which admits
of no performance, (at least in this instance it has
not been performed upon the doctor,) whilst bapto
and baptizo are both verbs. The analogy which he
is aiming at, to be complete, must therefore be
confined to verbs. But whether we take radical
verbs and their derivatives, or take nouns, ad-
jectives, or any other parts of speech, and the
verbs ending in zo derived from or related to them,
we shall find no foundation for the mysterious
force which the doctor is pleased to assign to the
afiix of zo, concerning which he modestly tells us
that great "authors only betray their innocence
of the Greek language" !
Let us look at a few cases : —
1. Nouns: — phos, light; photizo, to enlighten, or
put in process of becoming illuminated : eunouchos, a
eunuch ; eunouchizo, to make a eunuch, or to put in
process of becoming a eunuch : gunce, genitive
giinaikos, a woman; gunaikizo, to render womanish^
or to put in process 'of becoming like a woman :
doxa, glory; doxazo, to glorify, or j)ut in process
of becoming glorious: paraskeua, a state of pre-
46 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
parafion ; paraskeuazo, to make preparation, or to
put in process of becoming prepared.
2. Adjectives: — katharos, clean; katharizo, to
cleanse, or put in process of becoming clean or
pure : phoinios, red as blood ; phoinizo, to redden,
or put in process of becoming red.
3. Verbs, (and bere tbe cases are perfectly ana-
logous to bapto, baptizo:^ — melaneo, to be black;
7nelanizo, to be blackish, or in a condition verging
towards black: plouteo, to be rich; ploutizo, to
enrich, or put in process of becoming rich : deipneo,
to sup ; deipnizo, to make ready to sup : phluo, to
overflow, as boiling water escaping from a kettle ;
phluzo, to bubble up so as to tend towards an over-
flow.
From these examples, and many others that
might easily be given, it would appear that the
addition of zo or izo in Greek corresponds to our
English terminations ize and ish, which have most
likely taken their origin from it ; as, fertile, fer-
tilize; blue, bluish, &c. If so, then zo has only
a prejDarative relation to the primitive word to
which it is affixed, and indicates a diminution of
its force. That which is blackish is not yet black.
lie who is being enriched is not yet rich. The
preparation for a supper is not yet supping. The
water that bubbles up as if it would overflow is
not necessarily overflowing. He who is rendered
womanish is not j^et a woman. So then baptizo is
not quite a bapto, but only something apiDroxi-
mating to it. * . ^
But we must not forget Dr. Fuller's examples: — -"^^
" Oikco, to dwell ; oikizo, to make one dwell. So-
Tflf, AUDITION or /A.. 47
phos, wise; so^iizo, to make Avise. Sophroneo, to
be of a sound mind ; sophronizo, to make one of a
sound mind. And, just so, bapto, to dip ; baptizo,
to make one dip, — that is, to immerse."
It would be interesting to know how the phrase
^'to make one dip" can be taken here as synony-
mous with the word '' immerse.'" If Dr. Fuller's
thcorj- concerning zo means any thing, it assigns
it a causative force the stress of which falls upon
the actor and not upon the subject. "To make
one dip" is to cause one to do a dipping. It sets
one to the performance of the act, but it does not
intensifj' the dipping, or transmute it into an im-
mersion.
It is also a matter of reasonable curiosity where
Dr. Fuller obtained the significations Avhich he
assitrns to the words he cives as his illusti*ations.
If the reader will open some standard Greek lexi-
con, he will find that oikeo means to inhabit, and
oikizo, to render habitable, or to put in process
of becoming inhabited. Soplios means skilful;
sophizo, to render skilful, or to put in process of
becoming skilful. Sophroneo means to be of a
sound mind, prudent, or discreet ; sophronizo, to
render prudent, or to put in process (as by chas-
tisement and training) of becoming prudent or
discreet. Why, the doctor's own examples con-
fute him ! In every instance which he has pro-
duced the verb with zo affixed falls short of Avhat is
denoted by the primitive Avord, — at any rate, does
not exceed it.
But, says Dr. Fuller, ''Dr. Porson, the first Greek
scholar England has ever produced, regarded bap-
48 THE BArXIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
tizo as more eraphatical than bapto," (p. 13.) Now,
England had Greek scholars before she had Dr.
Porson, though she may never have had any-
superior to him in Greek learning. But how does
Dr. Fuller know that such was Porson's opinion?
Not from any thing which that noted scholar has
written; but from an obscui'e tradition that he
once said so, and that tradition given by an author
who mentions it only to question it ! The account
is, that a certain Mr. Newman accompanied an
acquaintance in a friendly call upon Dr. Porson
just a few months before his death; that some-
thing was said in that interview about Greek;
that Mr. Newman, after Dr. Porson's death, wrote
a letter to some unknown individual, which letter,
in some unknown way, was put into the hands
of Mr. Carson, who speaks of it in his book on
baptism, whence Dr. Fuller derived it; and that it is
said, in said letter,'*'that Dr. Porson said, "if there
be a difference [between baptizo and bapto'] he
should take the former to be the strongest."
This is the whole story. Of what account is it?
Not a judge in the land would admit it as evidence
.even in a cause involving no more than dollars
and cents; and shall it be admitted on a question
involving eternal consequences ? However, if
Dr. Fuller's case needs it, let him have it. It is
enough for us that Mr. Carson, from whom he gets
it, views it with suspicion, disputes the position
which it is now quoted to sustain, and lays down
the doctrine in its very face that ^'the derivative
cannot go beyond its primitive," (p. 23.) At best,
the alleged opinion of Porson is given hypotheti-
4
TIIK ADDITION OF ZO. 49
cally. He says, " If there be a diflferencc." The
very language intimates doubt as to whether bap-
tizo does not mean just the same as hapto. And, if
Dr. Porson could not satisfy himself of any " pecu-
liar significancy" in zo, we need fear nothing dis-
astrous to our argument from that quarter.
But if Dr. Fuller's theory concerning zo, as he
has defined it, were even true, it can pi'ove no-
thing to fix immersion upon baptizo as its exclusive
meaning. He says that it "enforces," "trans-
fers," "performs upon another," what the primi-
tive verb signifies. The meaning must therefore,
on his own showing, be in the primitive verb be-
fore in can be transferred or enforced; and it
must enforce and transfer at the same time the
whole meaning of the primitive verb. If the
primitive verb means to sprinkle as well as dip, to
wash, wet, moisten, and bedew as well as to immerse,
the addition of zo must perform 'M.q same office for
the one as for the other. AH this is plain and
clear, although Dr. Fuller does not seem to have
observed it.
Now, we have shown from the Septuagint ver-
sion of Daniel that there is a bapto which signifies
the gentle moistening of an exposed body by the
falling dew. We have shown from the same ver-
sion of Leviticus that there is a bapto which
denotes the smearing of a living bird, scarlet, and
hyssop in the blood of one bird. "We have shown
from AiTJan and ^Elian that there is a bapto which
designates the coloring of the hair. We have
shown from ^Eschylus and Hippocrates that there
is a bapto which expresses the staining of a gar-
5
50 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
ment by oozing blood or a dropping liquid. "Wo
have shown from the poem ascribed to Homer
that there is a hapto which signifies the slight
tinging of a lake by the blood of a frog or mouse;
and we have shown from the Apocalypse that
there is a hapto which denotes the blood-stains
uj)on the garments of a conquering warrior. We
have also j)roduced a half-score of the best lexicog-
raphers and the statements of other learned
men, and the admission of Carson himself, in
support of the fact that these are, and have been
for ages, among the accepted and acknowledged
significations of bapto. Let Dr. Fuller, then, apply
zos by the cart-load, and transfer, enforce, and
perform upon another what is exiwessed in the
primitive verb, until the day of doom, still baptizo
refuses to be tied down to "immersion and no-
thing else."
And when we eome to apjDly what is further in
evidence/ — that there are multitudes of Greek
verbs ending in zo which denote acts or conditions
only slightly tending or imperfectly approxi-
mating to the thing expressed in the primitive
word, — the case becomes inevitable and certain
that there is nothing in the mere addition of zo to
confine the import of baptizo exclusively to im-
mersion.
Let the reader now cast his thoughts back over
the ground which we have traversed, and ask
himself whether he can find room for the feeblest
probability that Christ's command to baptize is
" a command to immerse and nothing else"?
Having complied with this request, and answered
THE QUESTION OF DIVERS SIGNIFICATIONS. 51
this question, the "vvay is open to pursue our
doctor's " argument/' —
" tho rarest argument of wonder
That hath shut out in our later times."
CHAPTEK V.
THE QUESTION OF DIVERS SIGNIFICATIONS.
For all that we have thus far learned, the word
haptizo, which is the word in dispute in this con-
troversy, so far from meaning total immersion and
nothing else, means also to wash, cleanse, wet,
moisten, bedew, and even to sprinkle. We have
established all these meanings of bapto. We have
shown that there is nothing in the addition of zo
or izo to augment these meanings We have also
shown that there are many Greek verbs, of which
haptizo may be one, which are so modified, limited,
and diminished by the addition of zo as to indicate
an act or condition only approximating to that
signified in the primitive word. It hence follows
that haptizo means about the same as hapto ; that,
as hapto means to wash, cleanse, wet, moisten, and
bedew, so hapAizo means to wash, cleanse, wet,
moisten, and bedew, or something approximative
to what these words import.
But Dr. Fuller insists that haptizo certainly does
mean immersion, and that a word cannot have more
52 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
than one meaning. " The assertion," says he,
"that baptizo has three different meanings only
proves ho"W" strangely controversy can blind the
mind to the plainest things. To say that a word
means three distinct things is to say that it means
neither of them. And this is true of the most
general words. The puerilities of which men are
guilty on this plain matter are surprising." (P. 14.)
A ''plain mattei'" it certainly is; and how any
sane, fair man can thus contradict so plain a
matter as that a word may have more than one
signification, we cannot understand. Dr. Fuller
knows — he must know — he cannot read ten lines
in any dictionary in any language without having
the testimony'- before him — that there are words
every one of which has various shades of significa-
tion and very different meanings. He has told us
that "no one ought to substitute for proof his own
assertion." And yet we have here, as an essential
link in his "argument," nothing but assertion, —
assertion unaccompanied with the merest shadow
of proof, and as far from truth as heaven is from
earth. It seems like pedantry and puerility to
reply to an error so palpable and egregious as that
which he has here broached. But we are some-
times called on to prove that two and two make
four. We will therefore proceed to show by
abundant evidence that it is one of the commonest
things in language for a word to be used in dif-
ferent and even opposite meanings.
We have before us a book by Eoget, called
" Thesaurus of English Words," edited by Dr. Bar-
nas Sears, who commends it as "justly held in
^
THE QUESTION OF DIVERS SIGNIFICATIONS. 53
high estimation both in England and America."
In this book, Eogct says, "The most cursory-
glance over the pages of a dictionary will show
that a great number of words are used in various
se?ises, sometimes distinguished by slight shades of
difference^ but often diverging widely from their
primary signification, and even, in some cases,
bearing no perceptible relation. It may even
happen that the very same Avord has two signifi-
cations quite ojiposite to one another." (P. 23.)
This author refers for examples to such words as
iminign, which sometimes means to assail and
sometimes to defend; ravel, sometimes to entangle,
sometimes to disentangle; j^riceless, invaluable, or
of no value; nervous, strong, or at other times
weak or feeble. Professor Stuart's translation of
Ernesti says that "usage has gradually assigned
many meanings to the same word." And Professor
Curtis, a Ba2)tist, in his recent book in favor of
"Baptist principles," says, "Almost every word has
several signiJicatio)is," (p. 145.) And all this is true
of words in all languages.
In Hebrew, baj-a means to create, to fatten, and
to cut off, — three different significations; and harak
means both to bless and to curse.
In Greek, lego means to speak, to choose, to
reckon up, and to lie down to rest, — at least three
unrelated things; eirgo means both to inelude and
to exclude; and ballo, according to Schrevelius, has
seventeen meanings.
In Arabic, faraha means to separate, withdraw,
lay open, cast out, immerse, — not less than four
things.
5*
54 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
The Eussian word uherayu means to put in
order, mow, reap, and to dress the hair, — three or
more different significations.
The Chaldee word barak means to bless, salute,
bend the knee, dig, plow, and to set slips for pro-
pagation,— certainly very diverse operations.
The Italian word parare means to prepare, gar-
nish, parry, repair, and to stop a horse, — five
significations.
The Dutch word heeten means to heat, to name,
and to command, — certainly very difl:erent things.
The German word vermessen means to measure,
to measure wrong, to dare, to arrogate, to swear
or protest Avith solemn asseverations, and to profess
with high and boasting words. What diversity
of import !
The Spanish word parar means to prepare, to
stop, detain, prevent, to end, to treat or use ill,
and to stake at cards, — at least five diverse things.
The Latin euro means to take care of, to provide,
to refresh one's self with meat, to cook meat, to
bring to pass, to command, to pay homage to, to
cure, to expiate or atone. What variety !
In French, tirer means to draw, to free or rid
from, to reap, to deduce, to extract, to stretch,
and to shoot; and loucr means to hire, to lease, to
praise, to applaud, — all things very diff"erent.
And in English spring means a leap, a part of a
watch, one of the seasons, and a fountain of
water, — four wholly diflTerent things; cleave means
to adhere and to divide; and Webster assigns to
the word turn thirty transitive and twenty in-
transitive significations !
THE QUESTION OF DIVEKS SIGNIFICATIOXS. 55
Maltitadcs of other words, "vvith similai" diversity
of signitieatiou belonging to each, might be pro-
duced with the greatest ease. And yet, according
to Dr. Fuller, it is "puerility" and "folly" to assert
that a "woi'd. can have more than one meaning!
"Wondrous linguistic philosopher ! Is it not amazing
that any one should be so blind and reckless "in a
matter of so much moment as obedience to Jesus
Christ" ? No, no. Dr. Fuller; Avhatever may be
your a priori impressions, and however much your
cause may demand your extraordinary announce-
ment to the contrary-, words may and do have
various and even opposite meanings. By denying
this, you make war upon the plainest truth, con-
tradict the sternest facts, and put yourself in a
position before the world which calls for pity.
And, if it is on this that you rely to confine the
meaning of baj^tizo to total immersion, your cause
is gone bej'ond recovery.
But this is not the end of our doctor's trimming
up of all words to one signification. He had some
words before him, when he wrote this part of his
book, which so palpably mean different things,
that he must needs resort to some further and
equally extraordinary invention to meet the difii-
culty. "We are referred," says he, "to the word
spring, as meaning a leaj), and a part of a watch,
and one of the seasons, and a fountain of water.
A schoolboy, however, sees that these are different
words, though similarly spelt." (P. 14.) Hear, ye
sages, and learn wisdom! Words "similarly
RiDclt," composed of exactly the same lettei's, pro-
nounced the same, belonging to the same language,
5G THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAJMINED.
identical in every mark they bear, yet altogether
'^different/' and "a schoolboy sees it'M! Same-
ness, then, is no more sameness; and the four
words spring, spring, spring, and spring are hardly
to be recognized any more as members of the
same family, much less to be confounded as one,
if ever we would understand the commands of
Jesus, or be sure that we have obeyed them!
But, as our author remarks, it "only proves how
strangely controversy'' can blind the mind to the
plainest things."
Suppose, however, that it were true, that words
orthogT*aphically alike are different words: will
that fix immersion as the meaning of the haptizo
used in the Savior's command? Not at all. It
only places the question one remove further back.
Admit that Dr. Fuller is right in this particular,
it then devolves upon him to prove that this is the
baptizo which means to immerse, and not one of
those other haptizos which mean to wash, cleanse,
purify, wet, moisten, and bedew. Does he prove
this? No. Does he attempt to prove it? No.
All he has to say upon the subject is, "a school-
boy sees it;" when it is certain that no schoolboy
or schoolman, from the time of the institution of
schools, ever did or ever will see it.
Thus far, then, our position remains firm, that
haptizo, as hapto, so far from meaning immersion
only, means also to wash cleanse, ivet, 7noisten,
bedew.
BAPTIZO — THE LEXICONS. 57
CHAPTER yi.
BAPTIZO — THE LEXICONS.
"We come dow to the word haptizo itself. Mr.
Carson maintains that "it always signifies to dip, —
never expressing any thing but mode." Dr. Fuller
takes much the same ground. " Baptizo," says he,
''always denotes a total immersion. . . . The word,
I repeat it, means nothing but immerse. . . . The
word baptizo has but one meaning, and always
signifies immerse." (Pp. 19, 45.) This is the common
Baptist doctrine from Dan to Beersheba. If this
fails, one great branch of their system — the right
arm of their strength — is gone.
We have already done something towards ascer-
taining what is the real meaning of baptizo. It
has been shown that bapfo means loasMng, cleansing,
wetting, and moistening, as well as immersion; that
the addition of zo or izo cannot augment, but
rather diminishes, the import of the word to which
it is aflSxed; and hence that bapto with zo, or
baptizo, must also mean to wet, wash, cleanse, and
moisten, whether by the application of the object
to the element or by the application of the ele-
ment to the object. The reader is therefore in a
position to anticipate what we are about to brini^
forward in the sequel. We now engage to pr»-
58 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
duce proof upon proof, the clearest and the most
invincible, and to show and establish, against ]\Ir.
Carson, Dr. Fuller, Mr. Campbell, and the whole
tribe of Baptists, that such is the true scope and
meaning of the word baptizo.
Our first appeal is to the lexicographers.
It is a little surprising that Dr. Fuller has
wholly omitted and studiously avoided this source
of testimony. Campbell concedes that the lexi-
cographers are " the most learned and most compe-
tent witnesses in the case in the world." And it is
evident, ujjon the very first thought, that such is
the fact. The only reason we can see why Dr.
Fuller has so strangely passed by these "most com-
petent witnesses in the world" is, that he felt his
cause in peril and hopeless in case their testimony
should be taken. Though he has not said in words,
he has said in the manner in which he has con-
ducted his argument, as his great light of Tabber-
more said before him, "J have all the lexicogra-
phers and commentators against me."* (See Carson
on Baptism, p. 55.) And yet Carson admits "that
lexicons are an authority. Indeed," says he, "I
should consider it the most unreasonable skepti-
* Dr. Fuller says (p. 18) that people garble and misrepresent Car-
son's language when they so quote him. We therefore give the
entire passage, that our readers may judge for themselves. Carson
Bays, "My position is, that baptizo always signifies to dip, — never
expressing any thing but mode. Now, as I hai-e all the Ic.ricor/ra-
phers arid commentators ar/ainst me in this opinion, it will be necessary
to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons.
Many will be startled at the idea of refusing to submit to the unani-
mous authority of lexicons, as an instance of the basest skepticism."
BAPTIZO — THE LEXICONS. 59
cism to deny that a word has a meaning which
all lexicons give as a primary meaning/' (p. 56.)
But, if it is ''unreasonable skepticism" to rule out
the testimony of lexicographers on one meaning
of a word, how can it be less reprehensible to rule
out their testimony as to other meanings? We
must take their whole testimony or none; else we
contradict one of the plainest laws of evidence,
which Dr. Fuller can hardly be supposed to have
forgotten. We certainly do most strenuously pro-
test against this partial and unwarrantable dealing
with " the most competent witnesses in the world"
upon a matter so momentous as obedience to
Christ. We therefore proceed to take the testi-
mon}^ of the lexicographers.
The first Ave pi-oduce is Scapula, who published
his Greek Lexicon almost three hundred years
ago. He defines "baptizo, mergo, seu immergo;
item submergo, obruo aqua; item abluo, lavo,
(Mark vii., Luke xi. ;)" which, being interpreted,
means "to dip, or to immerse; also to submerge, to
overwhelm with water; also, to cleanse, to wash."
He also defines baptismos, mersio, lotio, ablutio, —
"dipping, icashing, cleansing."
2. Henry Stephens, (died 1598,) pronounced one
of the best Grecians of his time, defines " haptlzo,
mergo, seu immergo, submergo, obruo aqua; abluo,
lavo;" to dip, or immerse, submerge, overwhelm
with water; to cleanse, to icash.
3. Cornelius Schrevelius, a laborious critic, " (died
1667,) defines "baptizo, mergo, abluo, lavo;" to
dip, to cleanse, to ivash.
4. Robertson's Thesaurus, one of the most accu-
60 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
rate of dictionaries, printed 1676, defines baptizo
by only two words, 7nergo and lavo; to dip, to wash.
5. John G. Suicer, in his Thesaurus, published
1683, defines ^'baptizo, mergo, immergo, submerge,
aqua obruo; abluo, lavo;" to dip, immerse, sub-
merge, overwhelm with water; to cleanse, to ivash.
6. Hedericus, whose Lexicon was first published
in 1722, gives ^^ baptizo, mergo, immergo, aqua
obruo; abluo, lavo; baptizo, significatu sacro ;" to
dip, immerse, overwhelm with water ; to cleanse, to
wash; to baptize iri a sacred sense.
7. Schoetgen, in his Lexicon, 1765, gives '^baptizo,
mergo, immergo;" to dip, to immerse; "in Mark
and Luke, abluo, lavo; largiter profundo;" to
cleanse, to wash; to pour profusely upon.
8. Bretschneider, considered one of the most
thorough critics on the New Testament, defines
^^ baptizo, propri83, sepius intingo, sepius lavo;
deinde lavo, abluo simplicitur; medium, etc., lavo
me, abluo me ;" properly, often to dip into, often to
icash; then to ivash, simply to cleanse; in the middle
voice, I wash or cleanse myself.
9. The Greek Clavis of Stokius, published more
than one hundred j^ears ago, defines " baptizo, pro-
prie, est imraergere ac intingere in aquam; trojiiee,
per metalepsin, est lavire, abluere ;" properly, it is
to immerse or dip into w^ater; tropically, by meta-
lepsis, to wash, to cleanse. And, lest an improper
impression should here be made by the circum-
stance that Stokius classes loash and cleanse among
the tropical meanings of baptizo, Ave will simply
refer to the fact that Ernesti states it as one of the
commonest things in language for those meanings
UATTIZO — Tin: I, KX ICONS. 61
of Avords which -were originally only secondary
and tropical to become the proper and best-under-
stood meanings. And if Ave Avere to admit that,
strictly and technically, baptizo only secondarily
means to Avash and cleanse, ]\Ir. Carson is authority
that secondary meanings " are as literal as the
primary meaning," (p. 46,) and hence necessarily
as much a pai't of the pi-oper import of a word as
an}^ meaning can be.
10. Schleusner, a learned theologian and critic,
gi\'es ^'baptizo, proprie, immergo ac intingo, in
aquam mergo. In hoc autem significatione nun-
quam in Nov. Test., sed, abluo, lavo, aqua purgo;"
properly, to immerse as to dye, to dip into Avater.
In this sense, however, it is never used in the New
Testament, but in the sense to cleanse, to wash, to
purify with water.
11. Parkhurst enumerates dip and immerse among
his definitions of baptizo, but, Avith Schleusner,
holds that ''in the Ncav Testament it occurs not
strictly in this sense, unless so far as this is
included in washing." He defines it, " to immerse
or wash with water in token of purification."
12. Mobinson gives its classic use in the sense of
dip, immerse, sink, &c. ; but, as a Ncav Testament
Avord, he confines its meaning to washing, cleansing,
bathing, and the performance of ablution.
13. JEwing's Greek Lexicon thus classifies its
meanings : — "1. I plunge or sink completely under
Avater. 2. I cover partially Avith Avater. 3. I over-
A\'helm or cover Avith Avater by rushing, flowing, or
pouring upon. 4. I drench or impregnate with
liquor by affusion ; I jDOur abundantly upon, so as
G2 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
to wet thoroughly; I infuse. 5. I oppress or over-
whelm by bringing burdens, afflictions, or distress
upon. 6. / VMsh, in general. 7. I wash for the
special purpose of syynholical, ritual, or ceremonial
purification. 8. I administer the ordinance of
Christian baptism; I baptize."
14. Wahl defines it, ''eirst, to wash, to perform
ablution, to cleanse; secondly, to immerse," &c.
15. Greenfield defines its scriptural signification^
" to wash, to perform ablution, cleanse," &c.
16. Pickering renders it, "to dip, to immerse, to
sink, to overwhelm, to wet, to wash, to cleanse."
17. Dunbar, "to dip, to immerse, to sink, to
soak, to wash."
18. Liddell and Scott, " to dip repeatedly, to dip
under, to bathe, to wet, to pour upon, to drench, to
overwhelm."
19. Flacius, (Clavis Scripturse,.)"immergo, abluo,
lavo;" to immerse, to cleanse, to ivash.
20. Grove, " to dip, immerse, ivash, cleanse, purify,
depress, humble, overwhelm, to icash one's self, to
bathe."
It cannot be necessary to call any more wit-
nesses of this class. "We have others within reach;
but twenty of the great masters of Greek lexi-
cography, all unanimously testifying to precisely
the same things, must be sufficient to settle the
matter so far as respects the dictionaries.
Let us then endeavor to realize, digest, and
bring fully before our minds what these witnesses
have deposed.
In the first place, every man of them, from first
to last, without the least faltering, hesitation, or
BAPTIZO — THE LEXICONS. 63
equivocation, declares and records that the general
signification of wetting, moistening, or washing, no
matter how accomplished, is included in the loord
haptizo. This is one point -wliieli stands out against
the Baptist world like a continent against the sea.
They may rave and labor and dash upon it with
all their strength, but they can neither shako nor
surmount it. There it is. No floods can destroy
it. ISTo hand can blot it out.
In the second place, six or eight of these wit-
nesses clearly assert that, in the New Testament,
the general signification of wetting, moistening,
purifying, or washing, no matter how accom-
j)lished, is the most inhei'ent, original, and primary
meaning o^baptizo. Here, again, is a mountain of
strength for our cause.
In the third place, a number of these witnesses,
including Eobertson, Schrevelius, Bretschneider,
do not give the distinctive idea of a total immersion
as at all entering into the meaning of baptizo.
Either, then, these men missed the meaning of this
■word altogether, or it means something else than
a mere modal and entire immersion. There is no
escape fi-om this alternative.
In the fourth place, nearly one-half of those
■witnesses who give immersion as one of the signi-
fications of baptizo assign it only the second place,
and give dip as a more literal and inherent meaning
of this word. Dip may sometimes mean a total
immersion, but this is not the burden of its import.
"Webster gives " to baptize by immersion" as its
sixth and remotest signification. A sudden, quick,
partial touching to a fluid is its most direct -and
64 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
central meaning. A swallow sporting over a lake,
and now and then touching his soft breast to its
placid surface, dips, but is not immersed. A writer
dips his pen in the ink, but he does not totally
immerse it; he only touches the fluid with its
extreme points. Nay, dip sometimes means simply
to ivet or moisten. Johnson and Webster both give
these words as definitions of dip. Milton says,
" a cold shuddering dew
JOi/is me all over."
He meant, of course, nothing more than being
moistened or wetted by the dew. Mr. Carson also
agrees that it would be not only correct, but
beautiful and elegant, to say of a man w^ho had
been caught in a shower of rain, he got a dipping,
(p. 38.) And, if mergo and dip meant the same total
modal immersion signified by imniergo and immerse,
it would be difiicult to understand why these
learned men should give these words as significant
of a still further meaning. If dip, then, is the most
inherent and original sense of baptizo, and if the
main stress of the word dip runs on mere partial
submersions, gentle or quick contacts with a fluid,
wettings and moistenings as from dew or falling
rain, we here sj)ring a mine under the Baptist
theory which carries it into absolute ruin.
In the fifth place, all those witnesses who si)eak
of the specific New Testament or scriptural use of
the word baptizo to a man give to it the general
signification of wetting, washing, purilying, or
cleansing, without regard to mode. Scapula refers
to Mark and Luke, and gives it abluo, lavo, — to
cleanse, to wash. Stephens follows with the same.
BAPTIZO — THE LEXICONS. 65
Bretsclmcidcr gives it, ''often to dip, often to wash;
then simply to Avasli, cleanse/' Stokius gives the
sacred sense to "wash and cleanse." Schleusner
and Parkhurst say that it does not occur in the
New Testament strictly in the sense of immerse,
except so far as this is included in tcasliing. Robin-
son gives its scriptural meaning, "to wash, to
cleanse by washing." Flacius gives abluo, lavo, —
to cleanse, to wash. And Ewing, Schoetgen, Green-
field, and all, take the same ground and state the
same thing. Whatever, then, may be the meaning
of this word in the old classic Greek authors, these
men, with one accord, assert that in the Neio Testa-
ment, the only book we are concerned with in this
controversy, it means to wash, cleanse, purify, in
any icay, without regard to the particular mode
contended for by our Baptist friends.
We will yet call to the stand a few native Greek
lexicographers to testify on this subject. These
constitute a class of witnesses to whom Baptists
are very fond of referring. They tell us that
"the native Greeks must understand their own
language better than foreigners;" and that "in
this case the Greeks are wiexceptionable guides."
Dr. Fuller asks, "Is the Greek language now
spoken by any nation? If it be, why not refer
the point to them, since they must know what is the
meaning of the loord?" (P. 87.) Very well: we will
go to the native Greeks, and agree to bind our-
selves by the result. Will our Baj)tist friends be
honest, and bind themselves to the decision of their
"unexceptionable guides" ? If not, let them cease
i\\Q\Y j^jalaver about native Greeks.
06 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
1. The first of the native Greek lexicographers
is HesychhiS, who lived in the fourth century. He
gives only bapto, in which he includes baptizo; and
the word by w^hich he defines its meaning is antleo,
— to draw, or pump, or pour out water. This is his
whole definition of bapto and its derivatives. Alas !
what has become of '' total immersion and nothing
else" ?
2. Next in order comes Suidas, a man whose
mother-tongue was Greek, and who "must have
known what is the meaning of the word." He
lived in the ninth or tenth century. His definition
of baptizo is given in the word pluno, — in Latin,
madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, nmndo, — to wet, to lave,
to wash, to cleanse, to purify. Where is dip, plunge,
sink, immerse ?
3. But these are old writers : perhaps the present
Greeks understand their own language better than
their fathers. We descend, then, to the nineteenth
century, at the beginning of which we find a large
and complete lexicon, compiled with great labor
and pains by the learned Gases, a native Greek,
whose valuable work holds somewhat the same
relation to the Greek language which Webster's
Dictionary does to the language of the United
States. " It is generally used by native Greeks,"
says Chapin. We turn to baptizo, and read his
definition of it. It is in these words : brecho, louo,
antleo, — to tvet, moisten, or bedew; to icash, lave, or
bathe; to draiv, pump, or pour out ivater. This is the
whole of it. Not a word about dip, immerse,
PLUNGE, OR SINK IS TO BE FOUND IN THE DEFINITION.
BAPTIZO — TUE CLASSICS. 67
Our case, then, is made out. The native Greeks
have spoken, and their words are all for us.
With such results following an examination of
the lexicographers, we need not much wonder that
Dr. Fuller so carefully avoided them in his book,
or that Mr. Carson began to be troubled with fears
of being charged with startling and base skep-
ticism when he undertook to maintain that haptizo
means nothing but a modal and total immersion.
He did but utter the truth when he said, '^ I have
all the lexicographers and commentators against
me in this oijinion."
But we have other and equally interesting details
awaiting our attention.
CHAPTEE yil.
BAPTIZO — THE CLASSICS.
The overwhelming odds against the theory of
our Baptist friends, presented in our examinations
thus far, may render the reader a little curious to
know upon what they do rely in the much ado
they make about immersion as the only baptism.
The best of their critics admits that the best and
most competent witnesses on this subject in the
world — the lexicographers — are against them. But
he denies that the lexicons are '* an ultimate au-
thority," and appeals from them to quotations from
the Greek writers containing the word haptizo.
68 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Quite a number of such quotations have been col-
lected by the industry of writers on the subject,
from which Dr. Fuller has culled a parcel which
he presents as the foundation on which he rests for
his doctrine concerning the meaning of the word
in question. He says he takes them "f/i random."
Mr. Carson had said the same thing in presenting
the same passages before. How many moi'e have
expressed themselves in the same way, over the
same passages, we cannot say. But it is singular
to see these studied insinuations that no great
care has been exercised to bring out the utmost
strength of the case. It seems to say that, after
all their Greek explorations, these writers are by
no means satisfied that they have made good their
assertions. We shall see presently that their
citations are "random" enough, especially when
viewed as the last grand fortress upon which the
fate of the Baptist theory is staked.
The observations which we have to make upon
these cited passages are to this effect : — 1. That,
even as far as they go, they do not show haptizo in
the one sense of " immerse and nothing else." 2.
That, if they did, they would prove no more than
that this is one of the acceptations in which this
word has been used by certain writers. 3. That,
if they were even competent to settle the classic
Greek use of the word in question, they still
cannot prove its import in the New Testament,
which was not written in classic Greek; and, 4.
That there are instances even of classic usage in
which haptizo must be assigned a meaning at vari-
ance Avith the Baptist theory.
BAPTIZO — THE CLASSICS. 69
If we can make thcso points clear, we have
taken the citadel in which the Baptists have
lodged their strongest forces, and in which their
greatest confidence reposes. Let us see, then,
what is to be said.
I. Do the instances of the use of baptizo, to which
Dr. Fuller refers, give to that word the uniform
sense of total immersion ? Do they sustain the
idea that baptism is the application of the subject
to the water];' We say they do not.
In his fii'st quotation, baptizo is used to denote
the setting of the sun behind the western ocean.
Is this a case of immersion ? Then for the candi-
date to imss behind the cistern of baptismal water
is as much an immersion as to go into the cistern
and be covered up by the water in actual contact
with his jjerson. The sun surely never was in
contact with the waters of the sea.
The second we once thought a case of genuine
immersion, and so stated in the first edition of this
book; but, having since seen the original, we are
satisfied that the idea of immersion is not in the
passage. Dr. Fuller gives only a translation, the
same as that given by Carson, who borrowed it
from Gale. This current Baptist version reads
thus : — " When a piece of iron is taken red-hot
from the fire, and is dijyped (baptized) in loater, the
heat, being quenched by the peculiar nature of the
water, ceases." This, to say the least, is a forced
and incorrect translation; and that, too, in the very
point in question. We have the original before us,
and know what we are saying. The right trans-
70 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
lation is this : — " For a mass of iron, heated to
redness, being drawn out by the smiths, is baptized
WITH water, and that which was fiery by its own
nature, being quenched with water, ceases to be
so." "Hudati baptizetai" does not mean "dipped in
water," as our Baptist doctors tell us. Hudati here
is the dative of insti'ument, and can only be ren-
dered, ''with water." It is used twice in the
same form in the same sentence, and can have
no other translation. Dipped with water, plunged
WITH loater, is a syntax neither Greek nor English.
Besides, "amass of iron" which it required "smiths"
— 7nore than one man — to draw out of the fire, and
that "mass" "heated to redness," was not a thing
to be dipped, in the sense of the Baptists. It was
baptized (hudati) with water, not into water. It
was not p>ut in a vessel filled with water, but water
from a vessel was put on it. There was pouring,
throioing upon, but no dipping. The water was
applied to the red-hot mass, and not the red-hot mass
applied to the water. It was with water, not into
it. Baptizo here cannot be made to mean im-
mersion at all. Yet these are the strong and
decisive " instances" by which Baptists prove that
"baptizo means to immerse and nothing else."
"With such liberties a man could prove any thing.
The next four, eleventh, thirteenth, fourteenth,
fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, twentj^-fii'st,
twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, and thirtieth quota-
tions give baptizo to denote the loss of vessels and
men at sea by sinking to the bottom. There are
other instances of the same kind. But if this
is to be taken as the sense which Baptists attach
BArxiZO — THE CLASSICS. 71
to tbo word, and it can have but the one exact
meaning, then no man is baptized unless he is sunk
to the bottom of the sea and kept there. The
idea of emersion, or rising again, is here excluded,
from baptizo. Nay, Dr. Fuller boldly affirms in
one place that " baptizo has nothing to do with the
rising again." Then to baptize a man is simply
to take him under the water, to the bottom of it,
and. to leave him there ; and it is a violation of
divine command to bring him up again. Christ
commands only the baptizing, not the fishing up
of what has been sunk ; and, if baptizo has but one
meaning, and that meaning is given in these quo-
tations, Christ's command to baptize people is
simply a command to sink them to the bottom of
the sea, — to drown them !
In the sixth instance baptizo is employed to
denote the dipping of a vessel in a fountain to
take up water, or the filling of a vessel with water
in a fountain. It is not necessarily or even pro-
bably a case of total immersion. It is not common
in such an operation to submerge the entire vessel,
hand, handle, and all.
In the next instance a crow is said to "baptize
herself" by washing her head and breast upon the
margin of a lake or stream. Most persons have
seen this performance. It includes a slight dip-
ping and splashing, but nothing like " a total im-
mersion."
In the eighth, tenth, twenty-sixth, and forty-
third instances baptizo is used to signify the act
of drowning in the waves, or of causing one to
sink into the waters so as to be drowned. But,
I
72 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
unless Christ's command to baptize is a command
to sink beneath the surges so as to drown the
subject, baptizo here and baptizo in the New
Testament differ in signification.
In the ninth quotation bapAizo is used to denote
the dissolving of Cupid in wine in order to drink
him. Are we to baptize people by making a
drinkable solution of them?
In the twelfth instance baptizo denotes the sud-
den and furious pouring forth of the waters of the
overflowing Nile, by which cattle are desti'oyed.
Carson's version of the passage is, ''Many of the
land-animals, [baptizomena,'] immersed in the river,
perish." This rendering, as Wilson observes, "is
grossly incorrect, inasmuch as the Greek says not
one word about being immersed in the river or in
any portion of water whatever. Dr. Carson's
translation not only assumes quietly the point in
debate, but invents for the Greek participle a con-
struction which is not found in the original or
necessarily suggested by the connection." The ver-
sion given by Dr. Fuller is not quite so bad, but
still conceals an important element in the idea of
the author. The literal rendering is this : — "Many
of the land-animals, overtaken by the river, perish,
[baptizo7nena,'] being baptized." Here we have
clearly the river coming upon the animals, and not
the animals thrust into the river. Baptizo in this
passage will bear the sense of overwhelm, pouring
over, but not the sense of dipping or immersing.
It has in it here the idea of mode; and that mode
is dashing or pouring upon.
The eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth in-
BATTTZO — THE CLASSICS. l'6
stancos, "u-hicli are taken from Strabo, give baptizo
in the sense of sinking, or being sunk, very mucli
as in the case of vessels lost at sea.
The twenty-second is from Plutarch : — " Baptizo
yourself in the sea, and, sitting down on the
ground, remain all da}'." Dr. Fuller gives it,
"Plunge yourself in the sea." But, if a man were
to plunge himself into the sea, he would hardly
find ground to sit on all day. The sense of bap-
tizo in this passage plainly is to xcash. It contains
not a word about mode or immersion. Wash
meets all the wants of the case, and also of the
next respecting '' the lake Copais." It is simply
xcashing, with not the slightest reference to
'' plunging" or immersion.
The next case is a very remarkable one to be
quoted in proof that baptizo means only total im-
mersion. Speaking of a procession of marching
soldiers, Plutarch says, " In this whole company
there was not to be seen a buckler, a helmet, or
spear, but, instead of them, cups, flagons, and
goblets, baptizing from large vessels of wine, which
the soldiers drank to each other, some as they
marched along, and others seated at tables." Dr.
Fuller says, " baptizing here means dipj)ing."
Perhaps it does, in the sense in which a man
'touches a cup into a fluid to take up for dx-inking.
But, considering the circumstances under which
the thing was done, and the nature of the vessels
in which Ave would expect to find the wine carried
Avith a moving army, we would rather say it
means drawing in the sense o? pouring out into.
Pliny, describing a bathing establishment, speaks
74 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
of two large basins projecting from the wall,
which he says were "large enough [innare] to
float in." He calls these basins baptisteria, — from
which Dr. Fuller concludes that baptizo must mean
immerse. Let him consult Potter's Antiquities,
or Eschenburg's Manual, or Smith's Classical Dic-
tionary, and he will find that "the word baptiste-
rium is not a bath (Pliny does not so describe it)
large enough to immerse the whole body, but a
vessel or labrum containing cold water for pouring
over the head." If this quotation, therefore, proves
any thing on this point, it proves that baptizo
relates to the pouring of water or washing in
general.
We are referred to yet a few other examples, in
which baptizo is used to set forth the results of
overstimulation, the stupefaction of men by drunk-
enness or sleej:); as where it is said, "Bacchus
baptizes one with sleep like that of death." But
what can such instances prove as to mode? By a
lively figure, we may say a man is immersed in
wine; but it is equally rhetorical to speak of him
as drenched loith wine, overwhelmed with intoxica-
tion. There is simply the denotation of an effect.
That effect is the induction of a state of stupefac-
tion or insensibility. And the idea clearly involves,
the coming of the sleep upon the man more than
the dipping or plunging of the man into the
sleep.
These are the grand foundations upon which
Dr. Fuller and his friends rely to prove that ^'bap-
tizo means immerse and nothing else." Must
they not be exceedingly in want, to lean upon
BAPTIZO — THE CLASSICS. 75
such testimony? The sun passes behind the seas,
and it is said to he baptized. Water is thi'own
upon a mass of red-hot iron, and it is said to be
baptized. A vessel is overwhehned in the sea by
the raging storm and dashing waves, or sunk to
the bottom to rise no more, and it is said to bo
baptized. A man takes a vessel and dips up from
a fountain, and that vessel is said to be baptized.
A crow dips her head into the margin of a stream
or lake and splashes herself with her wings, and
she is said to baptize herself A man is held down
under the water until he drowns, and he is said to
be baptized. A fancied creature is dissolved in
wine, and it is called baptism. The Nile suddenly
overflows and pours its waters out over the land
and overwhelms certain animals, and they are
said to be baptized. An individual sinks into a
lake or into the mire of the sea, and he is said to
be baptized. He washes himself, and he is baptized
again. Marching soldiers draw or pour out wine
as they move along in i3rocession, and it is called
bapAizing. Pliny talks of large wash-basins pro-
jecting from the walls of a bath-house, and they
are bapjtizing-imp)lements. A drunkard is stupefied
with rum, overwhelmed with intoxication, and he
is baptized with the sleep of the debauchee. And
this is to prove to us that baptism is a mere modal
word, signifj^ing immersion and nothing else ! What
a mind must he have who can agree to excom-
municate— ^yea, and to damn — men upon such argu-
mentation as this!
II. But, if these citations were in themselves all
76 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMIKED.
that Baptists seem to think they are, they would
be inadequate to settle the point at issue. Admit,
for argument's sake, that in every instance ad-
duced haptizo certainly means total immersion and
nothing else : could that decide its meaning in the
ten thousand other cases in which it has been
used? Take a parallel case in the English Ian?
guage. The most ordinary thinker who reads at
all can produce ten times as many instances to
prove that the word " let" means simply to permit.
But will that prove that the word let never means
any thing but to ptermit? Certainly not ; for we can
demonstrate from Shakspeare and the English
classics generally that let means to hinder as well as
to permit. Again : we can give more instances than
Dr. Fuller alleges on haptizo to prove that in the
older English classics the word ^'prevent" was
used only in the sense of going before, preceding,
taking the advance of. But does that settle the
meaning of prevent in modern English writing?
Certainly not; for every one knows that prevent
now means to hinder, to stop, to intercept. Suppose,
then, that Di'. Fuller's quotations from the Greek
authors do give the sense of total immersion to
haptizo, — which we dispute: that proves only that
immersion Avas with them a common meaning of
this word. This no one denies; and it is tiseless —
a work of supererogation — for our Baptist friends
to be so voluminous in proof of a universally-
admitted point. But let it be never so well esta-
blished that in so and so many cases of classic
usage baptizo signifies immersion : that docs not
and cannot go one jot to prove that it nowhere —
BAPTIZO — THE CLASSICS. 77
and especially not in New Testament Greek —
means any thing but immersion.
ISTow, to prove that haptizo never has, anywhere,
more than this one meaning of total immersion,
is a much larger undertaking than our Baptist
friends have imagined it to be. It is an attemjjt
to prove a negative in a very wide field. It is
venturing to deny a fact that has a very ample
and unexplored range of probability in which to
be verified. It is like undertaking to prove that
there are no worlds in God's universe but those
which astronomers have seen, or that no member
of the human race bears the name of Beelzebub.
To do the one, there must first be a complete
exploration of creation up to where it joins upon
nothingness; and to do the other, there must first
be an actual ascertainment of what the name of
every member of the race is. And so, when Dr.
Fuller says, "I will prove the negative," and
undertakes to show that baptizo never means any
thing but immerse, he obligates himself to go
through with a demonstration which must forever
remain incomplete and unsatisfactory until he has
shown, by actual ascertainment, what its exact
signification is in every sentence in which it
occurs in the whole round Of Greek literature,
whether classic or otherwise. So long as any part
of the -field remains unexplored, so long must
there be a proportionate degree of doubt as to the
correctness of any theory which a few known
facts may seem to warrant. Has our friend, then,
made any thing like a general, impartial, or ade-
quate search into the tisus loquendi of this word 'I
7«
78 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Has he seen and examined all the various passages
in which it occurs? He certainly will make no
such pretensions. From indications which we will
not stop to point out, we are constrained to believe
that he has not examined in their connections even
the tenth part of the few passages which he has
transferred to his pages. How ridiculous, then, for
him to talk of having proven total immersion to
be the specific and exclusive meaning of boptizo!
And how utterly inadequate at best are a few
classic quo ations to show that the writers of the
New Testament, living in another age and country,
reared under other influences, and laboring to set
forth other ideas, must needs have used this word
in this particular and no other sense !
III. That the Greek of the New Testament is
not classic Greek is well known to every scholar.
There was once a time when some men thought
such an admission detracted from the character of
the Sacred Writings, and attempted to establish the
contrary. But all their efforts — some of which
were very learned — have proven only grand failures.
Let any one read Winer's Idioms of the Language
of the New Testament, or even Professor Stuart's
Grammar of the N^w Testament, or compare any
good lexicon of the New Testament with the
purely classic Greek lexicons, and he will be satis-
fied that the Greek of the New Testament has
many lexical as well as grammatical deflections
from the true Greek usage. To argue this point
would take us too far for this brief treatise. We
BAPTIZO — THE CLASSICS. 79
will only quote a few of the prominent authorities
on the subject.
Ernesti says, "We deny, without hesitation,
that the diction of the ISeyv Testament is pure
Greek. ... In many passages there atouM arise an
absurd and ridiculous meaning if they should be
interpreted according to a pure Greek idiom."
(Pp. 56, 57.)
Winer says, the Greek of the New Testament is
"a Jewish Gi'cek, which native Greeks generally
did not understand, and therefore despised;" that
"many Greek words are used by the New Testa-
ment writers with direct reference to the Chris-
tian sj-stem, as technical religious expressions; so
that from this arises an element of diction pecu-
liarly Christian;" and that "the New Testament
contains many words not known to the written
language of the Greeks, but introduced from the
popular language, and even some newly formed."
(Idioms, pp. 31, 36, 38.)
Dr. G. Campbell, a very high authority with
Baptists, sajs that "classical use, both in Greek
and in Latin, is not only in this study sometimes
unavailing, but may even mislead. The sacred
use and the classical are often very different." (On
the Gospels, vol. i. p. 58.)
Davidson says, "It is almost superfluous to re-
mark that the nature of the New Testament diction
differs from the classical language of Greece. . . .
When native IlebrcAvs Avere commissioned to write
about Christianity in the Greek tongue, they had
ideas for which that tongue furnished no appro-
priate terms. . . . Hence it became necessary cither
80 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
to employ words already existing in new senses,
or to make entirely new ones. Both expedients
were adopted." (Bibl. Crit. pp. 2, 5, 6.)
Diodati of Naples, who has written very learn-
edly and powerfully upon this subject, maintains
that the language of Christ and the New Testa-
ment is "a Hellenistic dialect combining Grreek
words with a Hebrew phraseology." He calls it
hybrida lingua, "a mongrel tongue, the main strain
of which was Greek, but so completely made up
of foreign admixtures, that, were all the contri-
butions from various quarters removed, little would
remain." {Exercitatio de Christo Greece Locpiente,
translated by Dobbin.)
Seller, in his Biblical Hermeneutics, says, " There
are many Greek words which among profane
writers are used in a signification which, if not
altogether different, is at least not precisely the
same with that attached to them by the writers
of the New Testament." (P. 379.) And it is just
for this reason that Professor Stuart has remarked
that '' classical usage can never be very certain in
respect to the meaning of a word in the New
Testament."
Many testimonies to the same effect might
be given from Heinsius, Vorst, Fisher, Leusden,
Sturtzius, Plank, Hug, Eobinson, and nearly all
the prominent New Testament critics, from the
days of Schleusner to the present. But it is use-
less to occupy space with authorities to prove what
is so plain and obvious to every scholar. The
reader may safely take it as settled forever that
neither lexically nor grammatically is the Greek of
BAPTIZO — THE CLASSICS. 81
the New Testament the same as that of the classic
Greek authors.
To w-honi, then, do our Baptist friends refer for
examples to settle the New Testament sense of
the word baptizo? Opening Dr. Fuller's book, Ave
find the names of his authors ranging as follows : —
Orpheus, Heraclides Pontieus, Polybius, the Greek
Scholiasts on Eui'ipides and Aratus, Alcibiades,
Anacreon, ^sop, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Pin-
dar, Strabo, Epictetus, Lucian, Josephus, Philo, —
all classic Grecians, not one of whom can be ranked
with that school of Greek writers to ichich the Greek
of the New Testajnent belongs. Though the' last
two were native Hebrews, they labored to write
in the pure Grecian style. ''As to the works of
Josephus and Philo," says Davidson, '' they afford
less aid in explaining the New Testament, because
they were able (and ambitious) to write in a style
nearer that of the later Greeks than what appears
in the New Testament." (Bibl. Grit. vol. ii. p. 7.)
"Flavins Josephus," says Seller, "labored to write
elegant Greek, and to imitate the Greek profane
authors." (Bibl. Herm. p. 373.) Without a single
exception, then, all these authors are to be re-
garded as classic Grecians; and how can their
manner of using a word settle the meaning of that
word in Hebraic Christian Greek, which, according
to Diodati, "differs from the pure Greek, both in
stj'le and phraseology, more than Bruttian from
Tuscan, Gascon from Parisian, and Portuguese
from Spanish" ? The proposition is absurd. The
idea is ridiculous. As well might we insist that
the mongrel English of some German settlement
82 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
of Pennsylvania is to be interpreted by the diction-
aries of Johnson, Webster, and Eichardson.
Who will dare to deny that the New Testament
employs terms which were familiar to the classics,
to convey thoughts which never were attached to
them by any writers anterior to the apostles or
outside of the Church? He who does must main-
tain that the New Testament contains no thought,
no meaning, which was unfamiliar to uninspired
sages. And who has ever proven that baptizo is not
one of those terms which have been brought over
and accommodated to a sense peculiarly religious,
and technically Christian? Scapula claims that it
is one of the terms so accommodated. Schoetgen
asserts the same. So also does Schleusner, and
Parkhurst, and Eobinson, and Ewing, and Winer,
and Stuart, and Beccher, and Wilson, and many
more who stand in the ranks of honored Biblical
critics. To insist, then, upon interj^reting baptizo
in the New Testament by the classic use of this
word, is to set up a principle most unreasonable in
its nature, mischievous in its application, and re-
pugnant to the deepest convictions of justice. But,
if we must meet this unrighteous demand, and are
compelled to go to the heathen Greeks to learn
the Christian use of baptizo, we accept the chal-
lenge, and are not left without resource.
IV. We will show that even the classic Gi'eeks
did not always use this word in the sense of " im-
merse and nothing else."
The passage from Heraclides Ponticus, which is
the second in Dr. Fuller's list, and upon which wo
BAPTTZO — THE CLASSICS. 83
have commented, furnishes one instance to our
purpose. The baptizing of a red-hot mass of iron
with water, in this case, certainly was not an im-
mersion. The phraseology, "icith neater," and the
weight of the heated mass baptized, demonstrate
that this baptism was performed by pouring and
applying the water to the subject, and, hence, that
haptizo here does not and cannot mean a total
immersion.
Another examj)le is in the Sibylline verse cited
by Plutarch, and also referred to by Dr. Fuller as
if it could be made to support his theory. The
words are these, — speaking of the city of Athens :
— "As a bladder thou mayest be baptized; but thou
art not destined to sink." The plain meaning of
this passage is, that the illustrious capital of Attica,
though it might undergo grievous calamities and
be repeatedly endangered in all its interests, was
destined to survive its disasters and to be pre-
served from utter destruction, — -just as a skin or
bladder filled with air, and thrown upon the water,
might be dashed by the waves, and often heavily
sprinkled with their spray, (baptized,') but cannot
be submerged by them. If baptizo means to sink,
to go under the water, to be totally immersed, then
this bladder could not be said to be baptized; for
it is explicitly stated that it (ou dunai esti) should
NOT GO UNDER, should not be submerged. But,
whilst this bladder was not to go under, the classic
author says that it might be baptized. In the sense
of this writer, then, bapAizo does not always mean
to immerse. It means here to sprinkle, or dash
upon; and that is all.
84 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
A third example is from Plutarch, where he says
of a dying general, ''He set up a trophy, on which,
having baptized his hand in blood, he wrote." Dr.
Puller asks, upon this passage, "Did the general
sprinkle or pour his hand V We answer, No : he
baptized his hand. But, as it now is our time to ask
questions, we demand, Did he totally immerse his
hand ? If he did, tell us where he got the blood.
He was dying of wounds; and it was doubtless his
own blood that he used. But had it been carefully
caught up in a basin in sufficient quantity to bury
his whole hand in it? There is nothing to indicate
such a thing; and to suppose it is absurd. How,
then, did he totally immerse his hand ? All the
circumstances of the case give but one answer,
and that is that he did not immerse his entire hand.
He only took of his blood upon his fingers and
wrote; and that taking of his blood upon liis
fingers is called baptizing his hand. According to
this passage, then, again, baptizo does not mean
total immersion and nothing else.
A fourth example is from the Life of Homer
attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In the
sixteenth book of the Iliad, the poet says of Ajax
slaying Cleobulus, "He struck him on the neck
with his hilted sword, and the whole sivord icas
icarmed ivith blood;" on which Dionysius remarks
of Homer, " In this he expresses greater emphasis,
as the sword being so baptized as to be even
warmed." Gale and Carson interpret this baptism
so as to make the sword "so dipped in blood as to
be heated by it." At such laxity of paraphrase
Dr. Halley is indignant, and says, " It is a false-
BAPTIZO — THE CLASSICS. 85
hood. To introduce the words 'dipped in blood'
is as scandalous a misrepresentation as I have ever
detected. There is not a word about dipping in
blood in the original." But what shall then be
said of Dr. Fuller's paraphrase, where he makes
the passage mean " that the dagger pierced the
throat, and there, being immersed in blood, became
warm"? The sword certainly was rather dipped
in blood than immersed in it. The plain meaning
of the passage is this : — that Ajax struck his sword
on the neck of Cleobulus, one of the results of which
was that the blood flowed so copiously as to warm
the whole sword. There was no dipping of the
sword in blood. There was no entire burial of it
in the neck of the sufferer and a leaving of it stick-
ing there. It was simply a warming of the sword
by the profuse gush of blood which attended the
stroke. And that flow of the blood upon the sword
of Ajax is called the baptism of it. We deny that
it could have been a total immersion. We deny
that it was a dipping; but Dionysius says it was a
baptism. Baptizo, therefore, does not always mean
a total immersion.
We have already submitted a few remarks upon
the classic use of baptizo as connected with intoxi-
cation. We have still an observation or two to
make upon that point. In all such cases the idea
is evidently connected \f\ih. pouring upon and^owr-
ing iyito, till mind and body are overwhelmed, im-
pregnated, intoxicated, drenched to stupefaction or
destruction. Thus, (Athen. Deipnos. lib. 5,) " to
have been baptized \too akratoo~\ with strong wmE,"
does not mean to be dipped; plunged, immersed iu
80 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
wine. The Greek has the dative of instrument,
and requires the construction " with wine." So
also in the passage, " having made Alexander
drunk [baptized hini] with wine," and in other in-
stances which we can give. Alexander was not
put into the wine, but the wine was p2it into him.
There was a drenching, a pouring into, a saturation
with, but no dipping, no immersion. In all such
passages, then, haptizo cannot mean total im-
mersion and nothing else. And to these passages
we may add the best of authorities.
Professor Wilson, of the Eoyal College, Belfast,
has this remark : — '' The assertion that baptizo
denotes to dip, and only to dip, we hold to be
utterly incapable of pi'oof, by a full induction of
the instances presented in the classical literature
of Greece. On the contrary, the usage of philo-
sophers, historians, and poets forces the admission
of considerable latitude as to mere mode, by apply-
ing the term indiscriminately to the immersion of
an object in the baptizing substance, and to the
bringing of the baptizing substance upon and
around an object." (P. 130.)
Greville Ewing, author of a Greek Grammar and
a Greek-and-English Scripture Lexicon, says, "I
distinctly deny that the Greeks have always under-
stood the word baptism to signify dipping. . . . We
are prepared to show that it signiHes the appli-
cation of water, or some other liquid, in any man-
ner, or for any purpose : by effusion, affusion,
perfusion, or infusion; by sprinkling, daubing,
friction, or immersion ; wholly or partially, per-
manently or for a moment; for purifying or
BAPTIZO — THE CLASSICS. 87
defiling, ornamenting or bespattering, washing
away what was found adhering, or covering with
what was not there before; for merely wetting the
surface, or causing the liquor to sink into the
inmost core."
Godwin says of fifty cases which he had col-
lected of the use of haptizo, " there are only three
where the construction is that requii^d by the
sense of dipping."
Dr. Beecher says of the classic use oibaptizo, "1
freely admit that in numerous cases it clearly
denotes to immerse, — in which case an agent sub-
merges partially or totally some person or thing.
It is also apjDlied to cases where a fluid without an
agent rolls over or floods and covers any thing.
It is also applied in cases where some person or
thing sinks passively into the flood. I am aware
that by some writers vigorous efforts are made to
reduce all these senses to the original idea to im-
merse or dip. But it seems to me that they are
rather led by their zeal to support a theory, than
by a careful induction from facts ; and that they
wrest facts to suit their princiiDles, rather than
derive their pi'inciples from facts."
Dr. John Gumming saj^s, "In profane writers,
hapto and haptizo are unquestionably used both in
the sense of dipping and pouring or sprinkling."
Now, what more can any reasonable man want ?
We have shown that the examples adduced and
relied on by Bajitists give haptizo in other senses
than that of simple dipping or immersion; that, if
they even proved immersion to be the clear import
of this word so far as respects these passages them-
88 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
selves, it would prove nothing as to its meaning
in other places and writers; that, at best, classic
Greek, from which these quotations are taken, is
an unsafe and dangerous guide for the interpreta-
tion of the Hebraic Christian Greek of the New
Testament; naj^, more: that, even in the classics,
haptizo is often used where the idea of dipping and
immersion is foreign, improbable, and impossible.
And if this is not enough to neutralize and demolish
the force of all that can be brought from the clas-
sics to decide the meaning of Christ's command,
there is no strength in logic and no power in truth.
What, then, does this part of Dr. Fuller's argu-
ment, upon Avhich he has staked so much, amount
to? It proves that in some cases the classic use
of haptizo denotes the act of dipping, submerging,
overflowing, sinking, drenching, overwhelming;
and this is all it proves. And, as to this, he might
have saved his pains, for we have never yet found
any one to deny it. We admit it without hesi-
tation. But we do most peremptorily deny that
the classics always use baptizo in this sense, or that
our admission is worth a farthing to prove that
this is its meaning in the New Testament.
Greville Ewing says, "I have not been able to
meet with an instance of immersion-baptism in the
Holy Scriptures." When we come to that depart-
ment of this inquiry, we shall show that no such
instance can be found. But we must first dispose
of some other points.
BAPTIZO — TUE AUTUORITIES. 89
CHAPTEE YIII.
BAPTIZO — THE AUTHORITIES.
To his citations from the classics Dr. Fuller
adds a number of authorities, about the same that
are found in nearly every Baptist publication on
this controversy. Alleged quotations are given
from Calvin, Luther, Beza, Yitringa, Hospinian,
Gutlerus, Buddeus, Salmasius, Venema, Fritzeche,
Augusti, Brenner, Bretschneider, Paulus, Ehein-
hard, Scholz, Lange, and Anthon, to prove — lohat?
what nobody denies — that baptizo does mean im-
merse. But what is the use of being so wonder-
fully erudite upon points where there is no dis-
pute? It seems to be a settled part of Baptist
logic to accumulate authorities upon things in
which we all agree, in order, by an adroit petitio
principii, to make it appear that they have tri-
umphantly proven what they have not yet begun
to prove. The point is not whether baptizo means
immerse, but whether this is its specific, uniform, and
only meaning. The one we admit; the other we
deny. Especially in classic Greek is baptizo used
to denote sinking, dipping, plunging, overwhelm-
ing, destroying by water; and we can give stronger
instances of this than the great mass of those
given by Dr. Fuller. But we would surrender
90 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMIiSED
some of our clearest convictions of truth, to admit
for one moment that it is never used in other
senses, or that immerse and nothing else is its
meaning in the New Testament. We also deny-
that these authors refen-ed to by Dr. Fuller ever
meant to say that immerse is the only meaning
of baptizo, or that this is at all its sense in the
Scriptures.
Calvin is quoted; but Calvin says, ''Whether
the person who is baptized be wholly immersed,
and whether thrice or once, or whether water be
only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no import-
ance." (Inst. lib. 4, ch. 15, sec. 19.)
Luther is quoted. We would ask, Was Luther
an honest man? Will any one charge him with
being too great a coward to declare his convic-
tions or to do what he believed to be right ? If
he then really believed that baj^tism in the New
Testament means immersion and nothing else,
what is the reason that he never immersed any
one, and that he never was immersed himself?
He agreed that immerse is a common meanins: of
baptizo; but he also claimed that its New Testa-
ment import was exhausted, or, at least, ade-
quately met, by the sprinkling, pouring, or apply-
ing "a mere handful of ivater" upon the candidate.
He speaks of *' dipping a child in water, or sprinkling
it with ivater," as " according with the command of
Christ." He refers to baptism as involving no
parade or disj)lay, and says that therein " God out-
wardly does no more than apply a handful of water."
Again, he says of baptism, '' God has commanded
that we use our hand and tongue in administering
BAPTIZO — THE AUTHORITIES. 91
it, hy sprinkling luater upon the subject in connection
with the woi'ds which he has prescribed." Again,
he says, "All that is essential to baptism is the use
of natural loater in connection with the xoords of the
institution." Nay, he has himself given us a ver-
sion of the New Testament, in whicli he translates
baptizo four times by the general word waschen, to
icash, and construes it elsewhere several times
with the preposition loith Ijnif], — "loith water,"
*'ivith the Holy Ghost." And where it is used
with reference to the baptismal sacrament he
renders it by the religious word taufen, which,
even in its etymological derivation, is a much
lighter, freer, and more general word than those
used in German to signify immersion, submersion,
and the like. And in Eev. xix. 13 he translates
baptO, BESPRENGET BESPRINKLED. With all this
before him, what honest man can ever again refer
to Luther as authority for the doctrine that " bap-
tizo means immerse and nothing else"?
Beza is quoted; but Beza affirms that baptizo
means "to wash" as well as to immerse, and that
it " differs from the word dunai, which signifies to
plunge in, to go under."
Bretschneider is quoted ; but in his formal defini-
tion of baptizo he says, it "properly means often
to dip, often to icash; then to wash, simply to
cleanse; in the middle voice, I wash or cleanse my-
self." This writer, says Dr. Fuller, "is confessedly
the most critical lexicographer of the New Testa-
ment."
Fritzeche is quoted; but on Mark vii. 4, 8 he
agrees with Grotius in giving baptizo the gene-
92 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
ral signification of ''wash," just as our English
translators have done, some of whom were im-
mersionists.
Eeinhard is quoted; but in looking over his
theology we find such passages as these: — "It
is known that the word baptizo means to wash
[_abwaschen'\, to cleanse; and in the New Testa-
ment, as well as in other authors, it embraces
various particular significations. Ba'ptismos in
the New Testament is used for a special or
general purification." "Eartbly or perceptible,
pure, natural water, in which a baptized person is
immersed, or with which he is partially sprinkled,
is the baptism instituted by Christ." "The form
or rite consists of an immersion or sprinkling in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which
is clear from the words of the institution itself
(Reinhard' s Dogmatik, pp. 567, 570, 572.)
Bloomfield is quoted; but on Mark vii. 4, 8
Bloomfield says, "Here we are not to suppose an
immersion implied, (that being never used, except
when some actual and not possible pollution had
been incurred,) but merely ordinary icashing, or
perhaps, on occasions of urgent haste, sprinkling.
Hence the gloss (for it is only a gloss) of some
manuscripts, — rantizontai."
Buddeus is quoted. We have not his theology
at hand to refer to; but, from our knowledge of
Buddeus, we are confident that he no more makes
immersion essential to Christian baptism than
does Eeinhai'd.
The Leipsic Free Inquiry on this subject is
cited; but the author agrees that under cer-
BAPTIZO — THE AUTHORITIES. 93
tain conditions " the ivord means cleansing or wash-
ing," (p. 7.)
From these specimens the reader will see the
Avay in -which Baptist controversialists deal with
authorities, and how they make learned men say
what they never meant to say, — nay, what they
have pointedly contradicted and denied. A man
says that baptizo means immerse, and his words
are caught up and printed in every Baptist hook,
and recited in every Baptist pulpit, in proof that
haptizo everywhere and always means immersion;
when that same man holds the contraiy, and has
so declared, sometimes on the same page and in
the same line from which the quotation is made. Is
this fair? Is it honest ? We have admitted that
baptlzo sometimes means immerse, especially in the
classics; but would it be a just version of our
sentiments to quote those admissions in proof that
baptlzo means only to immerse, or that it must be
so interpreted in the New Testament ? Certainly
not. It would be a base misrepresentation. We
hold, with Dr. Owen, that " no one instance can be
given in the Scriptures wherein baptizo doth neces-
sarily signify either to dip or to plunge." Dr. Owen,
says Rice, "is one of the greatest men who has
lived."
As to Professor Anthon's opinion, given to Dr.
Parmly, respecting the force of baptizo, and con-
cerning which our Baptist friends make so much
ado, we will merely quote the remarks of Dr. Eico
in his debate with Campbell : —
"Dr. Anthon, I presume, is a classical scholar;
but I have abundantly proved that an acquaint-
94 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
ance with classic Greek will not qualify a man to
expound the language of the New Testament,
which is written in Hebrew-Greek. The classic
usage, as Ernesti and Dr. Campbell and Professor
Stuart affirm, will, if followed, in many cases en-
tirely mislead the interpreter of the New Testa-
ment. I would attach very little importance, there-
fore, to the opinion of a classical scholar concern-
ing an important word in the New Testament,
unless I knew he had studied the idiom of the
Greek spoken by the Jews and inspired writers.
Dr. Anthon decided that Dr. Spring was in error
concerning this word. But I venture to say that
Dr. Spring is quite as well known as a scholar as
the gentleman who sat in judgment upon him.
Dr. Spring is one of the first men in our country;
and it will not do to attempt to put down the
views he may have expressed merely by the 2}j5e
dixit of Dr. Anthon. Dr. Clarke will, perhaps, be
admitted to have been equal as a classical scholar —
at least, so far as languages are concerned — to Dr.
Anthon; and he says it is certain that haptizo
means both to dip and to sprinkle. Perhaps Dr.
Dwight will be admitted to have been superior in
Biblical criticism to Dr. Anthon; and he, after a
thorough examination of the subject, came fully to
the conclusion that, in the Scriptures, bajjtizo does
not at all mean to immerse. Dr. Scott, the learned
commentator, was of a similar opinion. I will
put the authority of such men as these against
that of Anthon." (P. 176.)
It is also noticeable in these quotations that Dr.
Fuller gives them as "concessions from learned
I5APT1Z0 THE AIITITORITTKS. 95
men not Baptists." Alexander Campbell had so
presented them before. But a concession is the act
of granting or yielding, implying a demand or
claim from the party to whom it is made; and
many of the authors named lived anterior to the
rise of the Baptist controversy, or in countries
■where this subject was never mooted. What such
have said cannot therefore be made to pass for the
''concessions" of men who had the point in debate
distinctly before them, and yielded only to the
pressure of demand. They spoke these things,
if they are rightly quoted, not in the way of con-
cessions to the strength of Baptist argument, but
in the way of free etymological illustrations of
great spiritual truths, — just as Dr. Chalmers refers
to the practice of the Oriental Churches of ad-
ministering baptism by immersion. They did not
mean to admit that immersion enters into the
essence and validity of baptism as a Christian
sacrament. Else why did they not practice im-
mersion ? Or why were they content without
being immersed themselves? How could they say
that their own baptism was no baptism at all, and
yet not seek after any other? They were Chx'is-
tian men. They taught that baptism is neces-
sary. And yet we are to be told that they held
and believed there could be no baptism without
immersion, and thus regarded their own personal
and cherished Christianity as a mere farce!
"We feel particularly indignant, in this connection,
at Alexander Campbell, for the manner in which
he professes to quote Luther. In his Debate with
Eice, p. 152, he says, '' I place at the head of the
96 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
list the Eeformer and translator, Martin Luther.
In the fifth of the Smalcald Articles, drawn up by
Luther, he says, ' Baptism is nothing else than the
word of God with immersion in water.' " The
original words of Luther are these: — "_Die Taufe
ist nichts anders denn Gottes wort im ivasser ;" the
literal English of which is, "Baptism is nothing else
than the word of God in luater." Luther here is not
speaking of mode at all, but of the constitution and
nature of the baptismal sacrament. He quotes in
the same connection from Augustine: — "When the
word comes to be with the element, it becomes a
sacrament." It is the union of the word and water
to constitute this sacrament, of which he is treat-
ing, and not the connection of the candidate with
the water. "Baptism is the xvord of God in water:"
i.e. the word of God demands the use of water, and
in that water the word of God is reflected. As he
elsewhere expresses it, " The sacrament is the
visible word;" or, as he says again, ^'The word is
included in the water." There is no immersion
about it. The mode of administering the ardi-
nance is not at all in point. It has no place in the
passage. Yet this is the way " learned men not
Baptists" are quoted to prove that Baptists are
right, and nobody else !
But, if our Baptist friends think to settle this
question by authorities, we also have a few, to
which we now invite attention.
Dr. Dwight, one of the most distinguished theo-
logians and scholars this country has ever pro-
duced, says, *'I have examined almost one hundred
instances in which the word baptizo and its deriva-
11
BAPTIZO — THE AUTHORITIES. 97
tivcs are used in the New Testament, and four in
the Septuagint, — these, so fur as I have observed,
being all the instances contained in both. By this
examination it is to my aj)prehension evident that
the following things are true : — That the primary
meaning of these terms i^ cleansing, — the effect, not
the mode, of washing; and that these words, al-
though often capable of denoting any mode of
washing, whether by affusion, si)rinkling, or im-
mersion, (since cleansing was familiarly accom-
plished by the Jews in all these ways,) yet in
many instances cannot, without obvious impro-
priety, be made to signify immersion, and in others
cannot signify'- it at all." (Theol. vol. iv. j). 345.)
Dr. Henderson says, "With respect to the Greek
word baptlzo, after having read almost every work
that professes to throw any light upon it, and
carefully examined all the passages in which both
it and its derivatives occur in the sacred volume,
and a very considerable number of those in which
it is found in classic authors, we are free to confess
we have not yet fallen in with a single instance in
which it can be satisfactorily proved that it signifies
a submersion of the whole body, without at the
same time conveying the idea that the submersion
was permanent, i.e. that the body thus submerged
sunk to rise no moi*e. So far as has vet been ascer-
tained, the word is never used by any ancient
author in the sense of one person perforaiing an
act of submersion upon another." How evident,
therefore, that this word has a peculiar and specific
sense when employed by the Holy Ghost, and that,
9
98 THE BAPTIST KTSTEM EXAMINED.
when so employed^ mere immersion cannot be its
meaningo
Dr. Watson saj's, " The verb hapto, with its de-
rivatives, signifies to dij) the hand into a dish, to
stain a vesture with blood, to wet the body wuth
dew, to paint or smear the face with colors, to
stain the hand by pressing a substance, to be over-
whelmed in the waters as a sunken ship, to be
drowned by falling into the water, to sink, in the
neuter sense, to immerse totally, to plunge up to
the neck, to be immersed up to the middle, to be
drunk with wine, to be dyed, tinged, or imbued,
to wash by afl'usion of water, to pour water upon
the hands or any j)art of the body, to sprinkle. A
word then of such application affords as good proof
of sprinkling, or partial dipping, or washing with
water, as for immersion in it. The controversy on
this accommodating word has been carried on to
weariness; and if even the advocates of immersion
could prove — what they have not been able to do —
that plunging is the primary meaning of the term,
they would gain nothing, since in Scripture it is
notoriously used to exjiress other apj)lications of
water."
Dr. Owen says, '' Baptizo signifies to wash, as
instances out of all authors may be given, — Suidas,
Hesychius, Julius Pollux, Phavorinus, and Eus-
tachius. It is first used in the Scripture, Mark i.
8; John i. 33; and to the same purpose in Acts i. 5.
In every place it cither signifies to pour, or the
expression is equivocal :" Heb. ix. 9, 10. " Bap-
tisvios is an}^ kind of washing, whether by dipping
or sprinkling, putting the lliing to be washcil in
HAl'Tl/.o — ■rilK Al TlinlUTlKS. 00
the water, or appl^-ing the water to the thing itself
to be washed. ... As it [Ixxjitizo'] oxpressoth bap-
tism, it denotes to trash only, and not to dip at all :
for so it is expounded. Tit. iii. 5. ... As the word
is applied unto the ordinance, the sense of dipping
is utterl}' excluded."
The learned Calmet, in his Dictionary, defines
"baptisinos, from baptizo, to icash, to dip or ini-
merge."
Dr. Hill, of St. i\Iary'8 College, St. Andrews,
says, "Both sprinkling and immersion are implied
in the word baptizo: both were used in the religious
cei'emonies of the Jews, and both may be con-
sidered as significant of the purpose of baptism."
(Divinity, p. 470.)
Dr. Adam Clarke, admitted to have been an
eminent linguist, says, (Matt. iii. 6,) "Were the
people dipped, or sprinkled ? for it is certain bapto
and BAPTIZO 7nean both."
The theologian Dr. John Dick says, "Nothing
certain as to mode can be learned from the original
term baptizo, because it has different meanings,
signifying sometimes to immerse, and sometimes
to icash." (Theol. vol. ii. p. 377.)
The Westminster divines, in the Larger Cate-
chism, say, "Baptism is a sacrament of the New
Testament, where'in Christ hath ordained the wash-
ing xcith water."
Dr. Scott, in his Commentary on Matt, iii., says,
" Baptizo seems to be a word borrowed fi-om the
Greek authors, signifying to plunge in, or bedew"
with, water, Avithout any exact distinction ; and it
was adopted into the style of Scripture in a peculiar
100 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
sense, to signify the use of water in this ordinance,
and various spiritual matters which have a relation
to it. Some, indeed, contend zealously that bap-
tism always signifies immersion ; and learned men
who have regarded Jewish traditions more than
either the language of Scripture or the Greek
idiom are very decided in this respect; but the use
of the words baptize and baptism in the New Testa-
ment cannot accord with this exclusive interpreta-
tion." Such was the opinion of this distinguished
man, as he says, " after many years' consideration
and study."
The great and pious Sj)enor says, ''Mere pouring
upon is also to be called baptism." {Erklarung
Christ. Lelire, p. 410.)
The distinguished theologian David Hollaz,
whose early death, in 1713, has often been de-
plored, makes this statement : — " It is necessary
that an individual should be baptized with water, — ■
that is, washed in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost ; but it matters not whether this ab-
lution is performed by immersion into watei', or
by affusion or sprinkling with water," (^Exam.
Theolog. Acroamat.)
Haupt, in his Examin. Dogmat. pp. 365, 366,
says, " Baptism is the immersion or sprinkling of a
human being in or with water,' on the ground of
the command and clothed with the word of God.
. . . Baptismos in the New Testament denotes par-
ticular kinds of purifying."
The learned commentator Olshausen, on ]\[ark
vii. 1, 2, 8, says, "Baptismos is here, as at Heb. ix.
10, ablution, — washing generally."
BArTIZO — THE AUTIIOIIITIES. 101
Dr. Cumniiiig says, "In the New Testament
baptizo is used in the sense of pouring on, or sprink-
ling."
Dr. Wall, M'ho has searched very profoundly
into this whole subject, says, "The word baptizo,
in Scripture, signifies to icash in general, without
determining the sense to this or that sort of wash-
ing."
Even Dr. Gale, himself a strenuous Baptist,
writing upon this controversy, is constrained to
admit, that " the word baptizo perhaps does not so
necessarilj'" express the action of putting under
water, as, in general, a thing's being in that con-
dition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put
into the loater, or the icater comes over it." (Eefl. 122.)
Dr. Miller, of Princeton, says^ "This word [baj)-
tizo'] does not necessarily, nor even commonly,
signify to immerse, but also implies to wash, to
sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or dye with
any liquid, and, therefore, accords very well with
the mode of baptism by sprinkling or affusion. . . .
It does legitimately signify the application of water
in any way, as well as by immersion. Nay, I can
assure you, if the most mature and competent
Greek scholars that ever lived may be allowed to
decide in this case, that many examples of the use
of this word occur in Scripture in which it not only
may, but manifestly must, signify sprinkling, pex'-
fusion, or washing in any way."
Edwards says, " Baptizo has indeed been used for
all the modes of washing, — sprinkling, pouring,
and immersing; whereas it does not express the
one nor the other, but washing only; and this may
9*
]02 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
be done in either of the modes; and, therefore,
when we read of any person or thing being bap-
tized, we cannot conclude from the word itself
whether it was done by affusion, aspersion, or
immersion."
Dr. Beecher saj^s, "The word baptizo, as a re-
ligious term, means neither di]D nor sprinkle,
immerse nor pour, nor any other external action
in applying a fluid to the body or the body to a
fluid, nor any action that is limited to one mode
of jDcrformance; but, as a religious term, it means,
at all times, to purify or cleanse, — words of a
meaning so general as not to be confined to any
mode, or agent, or means, or object, whether
material or spiritual, but to leave the widest scope
for the question as to the mode. So that in this
usage it is in every respect a perfect synonym of
the word katharlzo."
Dr. Hunnius says, " Baptisin means to dip, to
wash. The imshmg of the Christian is called
baptism:' (Epit. Cred. § 632.)
Dr. Schmucker says, "It is evident that many
of the purifications termed baptisms in the New
Testament were certainly performed by sprink-
ling and pouring; whilst it is not certain that they
were performed by immersion in a single case.
Hence, there is much more Scripture authority for
sprinkling and pouring, than for immersion, in the
New Testament usage of the word baptism. . We
have the authority of Paul and Mark, that baptizo
signifies various applications of water practiced
by the Jews in their religious rites, which certainly
included sprinkling, pouring, washing, bathing,
B.VrTlZO — THE AUTHORITIES. 103
but in no case, ccrtainl}-, immersion." (Manual^ p.
143.)
AYeslej is sometimes referred to by Baptists in
support of their interpretation of haptizo. We
shall therefore give him a chance to speak for him-
self "The matter of this sacrament is "vvater,
Avhich, as it has a natural power of cleansing, is
the more fit for this sj'mbolical use. Baptism is
performed by icashing, dipping, or sprinkling the
person in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost; I say b}* icashing, sprinkling, or dipping;
because it is not determined in Scripture in which
of these ways it shall be done, neither b}^ any
express precept, nor by any such example as clearly
proves it, 7ior by the force or meaning of the word
baptism."
Dr. Eice says, '^I have now examined every
passage in the Bible and in the Apocryphal writings
of the Jews, where the word baptizo is used in a
literal sense, without reference to the ordinance of
Christian baptism; and my clear conviction is,
that there is not one instance in which it can be
proved to mean immerse; that in every instance,
except, perhaps, one which may be doubtful, it can
be, and has been, proved to express the application
of water to the person or thing by pouring or
sprinkling." (Debate Tvith Campbell, p. 158.)
Gerhard, according to Tholuck, ''the most
learned, and with the learned the most beloved,
among the heroes of Lutheran orthodoxy," says,
"Whether a man is baptized by immersion into
"water, or by sprinkling, pouring, or applying the
"water to him, it is the same." (Loci Theol. ix 137.)
1C4 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Dr. Schaff says, "The application of water is
necessary to this sacrament; but the quantity of
it, as also the quality, is certainly not essential.
Otherwise we should in fact bind the efficacy of
the Holy Ghost to what is material and acci-
dental." (History, p. 570.)
Dr. Tracy says, "The word baptism is derived
from the Greek baptisma and baptizo, and more re-
motel}^ from bapto, and properly signifies a washing,
whether the substance washed be partially or
wholly immersed in the liquid, or the liquid be
aj^plied to the substance, by running, pouring,
rubbing, dropping, or sprinkling." (Encycl. Eel.
Knowl. p. 23.)
Carpzov, in his Issagoge, says, " Bajytism is a
Greek word, and in itself means a washing, in
whatever way performed, whether by immersion in
water, or by aspersion," (p. 1085.) "It is called in
Scripture the washing of irater. ... It is not re-
stricted to immersion or aspersion : hence it has
been a matter of indifference from the beo;innino-
CD O
whether to administer baptism by immersion or
by the pouring of water." (P. 330.)
If, then, there is any weight in authority, here
is an arra}^ of names, representing learning, indus-
try, piety, and love for truth, enough, and suffi-
ciently directed to the point in dispute, to be an
adequate and complete offset to all the authors
that our Baptist friends can by any means produce.
We have shown that the most valuable of those
referred to by Dr. Fuller have been misquoted
and misrepresented, being made to speak what
they never meant, and what many of them ex-
1
BAPTIZO IN TUE SEPTUA(UNT. 105
plicitly deri}^. The same is probably true of others
to whose -svritings ^vc have not had access, or the
time to examine. And as to the few who have
said that immerse is a meaning which always
adheres to haptizo, all that we have to say is, that
they have said Avhat cannot be made good, and
that their opinions are worthless by the side of
what we have given as an offset to them.
So far, then, as authorities arc concerned, our
Baptist brethren are still as far from proving their
doctrine as ever. Every successive step but makes
it plainer that they have assumed grounds which
cannot be maintained; whilst our jjosition grows
firmer and firmer that haptizo means to icash,
cleanse, and purify, icithout reference to mode.
CHAPTEE IX.
BAPTIZO IN THE SEPTUAGINT.
We come now to examine a kind of Greek
which is naore closely allied to the Greek in which
the Xew Testament was written, — viz., the Greek
version of the sevent}'' translators of the Old
Testament and Apocrypha, made during the reign
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about two hundred and
fifty years before the commencement of the Chris-
tian era.
The first passage we note in which this Avord
occurs is Isaiah xxi. 4. Dr. Fuller thus gives it, —
lOG THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
that is to say, his version of it : — " The prophet, fore-
seeing the capture of Babylon and the subjugation
of the empire by the Medes and Persians, says,
'M}^ heart pants, and iniquity sinks (baptizes) me.'"
(P. 49.) Dr. Fuller is horrified at the evident slips
of the pen made by Mr. Lape in quoting from an
Apocryphal book, under the head of "Instances
from the classic Greek of the Old Testament," and
in miswriting a Greek word. He indeed exculpates
Mr. Lape from "designed perversion of God's
word," but holds him "inexcusable" for his
"entire ignorance." What then shall be said of
Dr. Fuller, when we open the Bible and find that
the passage reads, not "iniquity sinks ine," but
"fearfulness affrighted me" ? Has he designedly
or ignorantly put words in the prophet's lips which
the prophet never uttered ? Dr. Alexander rendei"S
the original Hebrew, ^^ Horror appalls me." (See
his commentary on this verse.) Scott says, "The
prophet here seems to personate Bclshazzar on the
night when Babylon Avas taken." (See his Com-
mentar}'^.) The passage evidently points to the
scene described by Daniel, v. 1-6 : — " Belshazzar the
king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords,
and drank wine before the thousand. . . . And they
brought the golden vessels that were taken out of
the temple of the house of God, which was at
Jerusalem, and the king and his princes, and his
wives and his concubines, drank in them. . . .
In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's
hand and wrote over against the candlestick upon
the plaster of the wall of the king's palace; and
the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.
1?A1'TJZU 1\ TIIK SEPTUAGINT. 107
Then the king's countenance was changed, and his
thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins
ivere loosed and his knees smote one against another."
Accordingly, Lowth paraphrases the passage as if
Belshazzar "were saving to himself, "When I
thought to be at ease and to have some respite
from trouble and anxietj', then the fearful appre-
hensions of God's judgments seized me." (See his
Commentary.) And all this fright, appalling horror,
trembling, and seizure of the soul "with fearful
apprehension of God's judgments is signified in
the version of the Seventy — which is honored and
dignified by being quoted by Christ himself and
his insj^ired apostles — by the one "word baptizei.
Did those translators mean that Belshazzar or the
prophet "u^as dipped in horror? Certainlj^ not.
The "whole case shows a sudden coming of something
upon him, which was the pouring out of the ven-
geance of God. It was the wrath of God breaking
up)on — an overiohelming, a bringing of something
upon the subject, and nothing more. The idea of
plunging, or putting the subject into, is entirely
excluded.
The next place in the Septuagint in which we find
this word is 2 Kings v. 14: — "Then he [ISTaaman]
went down and dipped \ebaptisato~\ himself seven
times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man
of God." Dr. Fuller lays great stress upon this
passage, and is amazed that any "candid man"
can any longer doubt with this instance before
him. He refers to it on all occasions, and evidently
regards it as his strongest point. Let us then look
at it with care.
108 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
It will be observed that the record says that
Naaman " baptized himself accordhig to the saying
of the man of God." We must, then, ascertain
what that saying was, and interpret the ebaptisato
according to the sense of the terms used in the
command of which the baptism was the fulfillment.
This is plain common sense : — that if Naaman bap-
tized himself according to the saying of the man of
God, that "saying of the man of God" must con-
tain the true sense in which the word baptizo is
used.
Going back, then, a few verses, we read that
"Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go
and WASH \lousai'\ in Jordan seven times, . . . and
thou shalt be clean \]iatharisthase7\. But ISTaaman
was wroth, and went away, and said. Behold, I
thought, he will surely come out to me, and stand,
and call on the name of the Lord, his God, and
strike his hand over the place. [It would seem that
Naaraan's leprosy was confined to one particular
location on his body.] Are not Abana and Phar-
par, rivers of Damascus, better than all the w^aters
of Israel? May I not wash llousomai'] in them and
BE CLEAN? So he turned, and went away in a
rage. And his servants came near, and spake
unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had
bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not
have done it? How much rather, then, when he
saith to thee, Wash llousai'] and be clean?"
The saying of the man of God, then, according
to which Naaman baptized himself, was not a com-
mand to immerse himself totally, but to icash and
cleanse himself The Greek words in the command
BAPTIZO IN THE SEPTUAGINT. 109
are not bapto and baptizo, but louo and hatharlzo.
And, according to Dr. Fuller's own argument, on
page 81, wo can demonstrate that the prophet's
bidding had no sort of reference to immersion.
What does Dr. Fuller say? how does he reason?
"Jesus could have been at no loss for a word
clearly to express his meaning. Did he intend
sprinkling? The Avord was m;if;'^o. Did he require
pouring? The word was /ceo. If icash, nipto,
[which, bj-the-way, according to Dr. Fuller's
own authority on page 21, means to wet or wash
onl}^ the hands.] If bathe, louo. If immerse or
dye, bapto. If immerse and nothing else, the word
was baptizo." We argue, then, upon Dr. Fuller's
ground, if Elisha intended Naaman to immerse
himself totally and nothing else, the word to ex-
press it was bapAizo. But the prophet, according
to the Seventy, did not use the word bapAizo, but
louo and katharizo. Therefore it inevitably follows,
from Dr. Fuller's own showing, that the prophet
did not intend that ISTaaman should immerse him-
self And if Elisha did not direct Naaman to
immerse himself, and ISTaaman's baptism was
according to Elisha's direction, the Seventy have
either used the word baptizo wrongly, or it does
not mean immersion and nothing else. We cannot
conceive how Dr. Fuller, Avith all his dexterity
and cunning, is to extricate himself from this
dilemma.
But we do not stop with this. We insist that
louo and katharizo in the prophet's command must
give the sense of baptizo, which describes the act
of Kaaman in complying with the command ; for
10
110 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
it is expressly declared that he " baptized himself
ACCORDING TO THE SAYING OF THE MAN OF GoD."
There can he no dispute ahout the fact that katha-
rizo means simply to cleanse, especially in the legal
sense of purifieatiou, which was for the most part
performed by sprinkling or pouring water over the
subject. And louo evidently means nearly the same
thing. It is used eight times in the New Testa-
ment, and in no one instance does it convey any
other meaning than that of cleanse or j^urify. In
Titus iii. 5 it denotes the work of God's Holy
Spirit in purifying and renewing the heart. In
Acts xvi. 33 it denotes the act of moistening and
cleansing wounds inflicted by stripes. In Eev. i.
5 it denotes the cleansing of the sinner's conscience
by the blood of Christ. Porphyry uses it to denote
the purification of maidens about to be married, by
sprinkling them with water brought in pitchers
for the purpose; and Basil uses it to denote the
purification of a sick man by sprinkling with
water, anointing with oil, and invoking upon him
the Holy Ghost. Galen's Lexicon to Hii^pocrates
explains it as meaning "not only to wash or bathe,
but also to moisten, foment, pour, or sprinkle."
If, then, the command was simply to wash, cleanse,
or purify in Jordan's waters, and \ihaptizo denotes
the fulfillment of that command, the point is settled
that baptizo in this case means nothing more (and
cannot be assigned any other sense) than simply
to icash, cleanse, or purify. We challenge Dr. Fuller
to confine himself to this instance and make any
thing else out of it.
How Naaman executed the prophet's command
BAPTIZO ]N THE SEriUAGINT. Ill
is of no importance. He may have gone into the
stream of Jordan and literally dipped the affected
parts Avhich he expected the man of God to touch,
or he may have sat down to perform the enjoined
ablution upon the shore; but, if ho even went in
and totally immersed himself seven times, it does
not alter the case. There are many ways of wash-
ing; and it was still a baptism, not because it was
an immersion, but because it was a washing ; that
having been the only idea in the prophet's mind,
and the onlj^ idea in the mind of the historian
when he said that jS"aaman did according to the
prophet's saying.
And we are also fullj^ borne out in this view by
other versions of the Bible. The old Latin version
of Jerome, made more than fourteen hundred years
ago, has lavo where the Seventy have haptizo, — a
word which means simply to ivash, without pre-
scribing the mode, and, where it takes in any
allusion to mode, that mode is to besprinkle, or
to apply the water to the thing laved. It also has
the judicial sense of expiate and clear. A total
immersion is quite outside of its common scope.
The German Bible, pronounced one of the best
translations that have ever been made, has taufen.
If Luther had thought that IS'aaman's baptism was
a total immersion, he certainly would have used
the word versenken, or untertauchen.
The Douay Bible says, ''He went down and
WASHED in the Jordan." And the Coverdale Bible,
the Geneva Bible, and Matthew's Bible, all have
"icashed" instead of dipped.
iS'ow, putting all these things together, are we
112 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
not fully authorized to say that, so far as baptizo
appHes to the cleansing of Naaman, it no more
means "a total immersion and nothing else" than it
means sprinkling and nothing else? The fact is, it
means neither, but simply a cleansing or purification.
This is all that the prophet told him to do; and
inspired authority tells us that he did "according
to the saying of the man of God."
A third passage in the Septuagint in which
baptizo occurs is Judith xii. 7, where it is said of
that heroic woman that ^' she went out in the night
into the valley of Bethulia and ivashed [^cbajjtizeto']
herself in a fountain l_paga, — spring'] of water by the
camp. And when she came out, [Douay version,
when she came up,] she besought the Lord God of
Israel to direct her way." What does this mean?
Dr. Fuller saj^s, " She is purifying herself for a
great and glorious deed." (P. 39.) Exactly so;
and that is precisely the meaning of the word in
this text. The Douay and King James versions
both render it wash. The German version has it
wusch sich, — ivashed herself. The ancient Sja-iac
renders it by a term signifying to wash. It means
nothing moi'e than a simple ceremonial cleansing
or purification. The heroine is contemplating the
deliverance of her countiy from a ruthless invader.
She wishes to secui-e the help of Israel's God. And
just as in the case of Telemaehus, with waters from
the hoary sea shed over his hands, —
" The royal suppliant to Minerva pray'd,'" —
SO she went fasting to the Bethulian spring to
purify herself with its untainted waters, fresh from
their source, the more acceptably to come before
BAPTIZO IN THE SEPTUAOIXT. 113
her God. All idea of immersion in the spring is
quite out of the question.
But, in order to make the case yield to his tot-
tering cause, Dr. Fuller sa^'S that this purification
was performed ''in a sequestered valley." Not so:
it was performed at a spring ''by the cam})," or, as
it is still stronger in the Greek, " in the camp," — en
ta paremhola. He says that it was done in the
privacy of the "night." So Curtis repeats: — "It
was by night, when she Avould not be observed."
But this cannot be proven. The word nux also
means evening. The German version has it abends;
that is, evening. And the account stating what
occurred after the jiurification had been performed
says exjDressl}^, in the ninth verse, 'SS'o she came in
clean, and remained in the tent until she did eat her
MEAT AT EVENING." And are we to be told that a
beautiful and chaste woman like Judith went out
among a vast army of rude and unoccupied soldiers
in the evening before supper-time, and completely
immersed herself in an open and public spring, and
that for three successive days ? Let the thinking
judge of the probability of such a story. Dr.
Arnald, in his commentary on this passage, ex-
presses the greatest astonishment that a woman
of such beauty could move at all among such a
camp without encountering insult and violence.
What, then, would her situation have been if we
add the bathing of her naked person by immersion
at nigntfall in a spring to which the soldiers doubt-
less came to quench their thirst ? The thing
cannot be : and so baptizo cannot here mean to
immerse and nothing else.
10»
114 THE BAPTIST SYSTE3I EXAMINED.
But Dr. Fuller can't give it up. The passage
must be made to give haptizo the meaning of im-
merse, even though he should have to interpolate
the record. And we here, publicly, boldly, and
with a full understanding of what we are about,
charge interpolation upon him. Whether he has
done it ignorantly or intentionally is not for us to
decide.
On page 40 of his book he positively asserts that,
''As if to leave no doubt, it is expressli) said that she
CAME OUT or THE WATER." He givcs quotation
marks and all, to have us believe that he has lit-
erally transferred these words from the record to
his pages. But we utterly, peremptorily, and
without qualification deny that there is any thing
anywhere in this account, either in Hebrew, in
Greek, in Latin, in German, or in English, that saj'S
aught about coming out of "the icater." The only
thing that affords even the remotest hint in that
direction lies in the English phrase "and when she
came out she besought the Lord." But a theory
which interprets this as referring to the loater, can-
not stand for a moment. It is nowhere said that
she ever went into the water; and it is unnatu-
rally violent and altogether gratuitous to say that
her coming out means a coming "out of the icater."
What she came out of was, of course, what she
went into; and it is expressly said that she
"ivent into the valley of Bethtdia." Her coming
out was therefore a coming out of "the valley
of Bethulia."
The Vulgate has et ut asccndehat, — and as she
ivent up, or, as soon as she went up, — she prayed.
BAPTIZO IN THE SEPTUAGINT. 115
The allusion cannot be to any thing but hcv going
up to her tent.
The Septuagint has l;al hos aneha, edecto. Aneha
is one form of the same Avord used by Xcnophon
to denote a military expedition, — certainly a very
difterent thing from an emersion, from a plunge in
the -water. It signifies a going up from one place
to another. It is used in the New Testament to
denote Christ's going up fo Jerusalem, going up into
the mountain to pray, going up into the temple,
the going up of the disciples to the feast, Peter's
going up upon the house-top, and so on. Homer
uses it again and again to denote the act of pene-
trating into the interior of a country and of ad-
vancing toward a cajDital. And we avow that
before any man can find emersion in it he Avill first
have to put it there. Its plainest and primary
meaning is, the going up from one place to another;
and, as used in the passage befoi-e us, it can mean
nothing more nor less than the going up of Judith
from the fountain where she purified herself to the
tent in Avhich she reposed in the camp of Holo-
fernes.
And the German version, if possible, is still more
conclusive. It cuts off even the last lingei'ing
shadow of possibility that the phrase might per-
haps refer to a coming out of the water. It ren-
ders it all by the adverb darnach, — afterwards.
Having purified herself at the fountain "by the
camp, afterwards," i.e. after her purification had
been completed, and she was again on her way to
her allotted place, " afterwards she prayed to the
116 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Lord." The thing is too plain to admit of further
illustration.
The fourth and only remaining passage from the
Septuagint to be examined, in which baptizo occurs,
is Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 25. '' He that loasheth [^bap-
tizomenos] himself after the touching of a dead body,
if he touch it again, what availeth his (loutro)
washing?"
Here we have two different words referring to
precisely the same thing, and which, so far as this
text is concerned, are necessarily exact synonj^ms
of each other. We have already proven that louo,
one of the words here used, denotes the general
idea of washing in the sense of purification. It is
therefore a sufiicient injunction upon Dr. Fullei-'s
theory of the meaning of baptizo to know that the
Seventy here use it as the exact synonj-m of louo.
For as louo is never used to denote " a total im-
mersion and nothing else," so baptizo cannot mean
''a total immersion and nothing else" where it is
used interchangeably with louo.
But we go further. The son of Sirach is talking
about purification from the contaminating touch
of a dead body. He calls that purification a bap-
tism. And we now assert that the vital, prominent,
and essential part of that purification was per-
formed by sprinkling, and by sprinkling alone. Does
any one doubt it, let him read the nineteenth
chapter of Numbers, where God himself lays down
the law in this case: — ''And whosoever toucheth
one that is slain with the sword in the open field,
or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave,
shall be unclean seven days. And for an unclean
BAl'TIZO IN THE SEPTUAGINT. 117
person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt
heifer of jiuriticatioii for sin, and running water
shall be put thereto in a vessel, and a clean person
shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and sprinkle
IT t(po7i him that toucheth a bone, or one slain, or one
dead, or a grave, and the clean person shall sprinkle
upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh
day." This is the statute of God for the purification
of a man defiled by touching the dead, and the ichole
of it. The succeeding verses quoted by Dr. Fuller,
about Avashing clothes and bathing, refer to the
clean person who does the spi-inkling, and not to
the one defiled for whom the sprinkling was
done. Let the reader compare the nineteenth
with the twenty-first verse, where this bathing is
expressly referred to the administrator and not
to the subject, and he will see the truth of our
statement. Josephus, in a professed and minute
description of this rite, (Ant. b. 4, c. 4, sec. 6,)
says nothing about washing or bathing as a part
of it. Philo, in a similar passage, speaks only of
sprinkling. Or, if any still doubt, we bring the
testimony of Paul, who says expressly that it
was the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean that
sanctified to the purification of the flesh: Heb. ix. 13.
Here, then, is a purification from which every
thing like immersion is utterly excluded, — na}^, in
which sprinlding is the mode explicitly commanded
by God himself, ''The question, then, comes to
this dilemma," says Mr. Hall: ''either the Jews
had abandoned the mode of purifying from a
dead body, as specifically and minutely pointed
out by God, or here w^as a baptism by sprinkling."
118 THE B^yilST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
The demonstration is therefore complete, that
baptizo, as used in the Sej)tuagint, does not denote
" a total immersion and nothing else," but has as-
signed to it that nobler and higher sense for which
it was chosen to designate the foundation ordi-
nance of Christianity, — the sense of imrification.
How remarkable that, at the very moment we
begin to touch upon ground even though but
remotely connected with Christianity, the word
that is always used to denote the ordinance of
baptism at once assumes a settled religious sense,
from which, when applied to this sacrament, as
we shall see, it never departs.
CHAPTEE X.
BAPTIZO IN THE FATHERS.
There is still another department of Greek
writing, outside of the New Testament, the ex-
amination of which is particularly pertinent to this
controversy. We refer to the Christian Greek
authors and the patristic literature. The Fathers
for the most part understood and spoke the Greek
language, and were fomiliar with the Christian
acceptation of Greek terms. If they used haptlzo
in a sense different from mere immersion, we may
be assured that immersion is not its Christian
meaning.
We are not now concernin<>; ourselves about
BAI'Tl/.O IN TIIK FATHERS. 119
tlicir frequent j)/"rte//a' of administering baptism by
immersion. Dr. Carson agrees that "the author-
ity of the Fathers on this question is not their
practice, but their use of the word. On their prac-
tice," says he, '^ I should not have the least reli-
ance on any question." (P. 472.) We agree that it
was very much the habit in their day to baptize
by immersion. Hence, if we can show from their
writings that they understood and used the word
baptism in a sense other than that of immersion,
that showing must be particularly strong against
our Baptist friends, for the reason that it is the
testimony, to some extent, of immersionists as
well as Grecians.
Dr. Carson saj'S of the Fathers that " they knew
the meaning of the language which they spoke.
... To suppose that persons who spoke the
Gi-reek language might understand their [the
apostles'] words in a sense different from that
in which they used them would be to charge the
Scripture as not being a revelation. Whatever
was the sense in which the aj)ostles used the
word must have been known to all who heard
them or read their writings." (P. 473.) To the
writings of these earlier and mostly Greek Chris-
tian authors, then, we carry our inquiry.
Dr. Cai'son maintains that ''there is not an
instance in all the Fathers in which baptizo or any
of its derivatives are used except to signify im-
merse;" that, "without exception, they used the
word always for immersion." This he asserts as
a scholar claiming to be "acquainted with the
Fathers." How far this scholarship and acquaint-
120 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
ance go iu this department, and what his sweep-
ing assertion is worth, we shall see presently.
Dr. Fuller waxes very bold, and defies us to pro-
duce a single instance in which baptizo means
aught but immerse. We accept his challenge. Ho
shall have the instance. He has it alread}^. But
we will multiply it for him by the production of
passages, not from the poets and philosophei'S of
heathendom, but from those who knew both the
Scriptures and the Greek language, in which it is
wholly impossible to assign to this word the
meanino; of "immerse and nothino; else."
The first passage we adduce is from Clemens
Alexandrinus, p. 387, Lugduni Batav., 1616. He
is here speaking on the subject of baptism. He
traces it even in the lustrative rites of the heathen
world. He says that there is *' eikoon bajytismatos,
— a picture, image, representation of baptism,
which has been handed down from Moses to the
poets; as, for example, 'Penelope, having [hu-
draino] moistened or washed herself, and having on
clean apparel, prays.' (Odyss. iv. 759.) ' Tele-
machus, having \_nipto'] ivashed his hands in the
hoary sea, prayed to Minerva.' (Odyss. ii. 2G1.)
This was the Jewish custom \Jioos baptizesthai] to
be baptized in this loay, even often upon the bed or
couch."
This is a passage of great strength, and has
given to the Baptist champions no little trouble
since it was first broached by President Beecher.
Let the reader scrutinize it well. Homer says
that Penelope moistened or washed herself The
word is hudraino, which conveys no idea of mode.
r.AI'TIZl) IN THE FATllLUS. 121
The Greek language abundantly sanctions its
application to pouring or affusion. And this wet-
ting or washing Clement pronounces eikoon bap-
tismatos, " the image of baptism." He must needs,
therefore, have considered bapiizo no more than
hudraino, — merely a religious washing, no matter
how performed.
Again : Homer says that Telemachus washed his
hands for prayer. Pope's version of it is this: —
"There, as the icatcrs o'tr his Jiands he shed,
The royal suppliant to Minerva pray'd."
The original word is nipto, M'hich expresses an act
limited to the hands or feet. Beza denies that it
ever applies to the whole body. The idea which it
conveys is simply that of cleansing the part by
the use of water, poured, sprinkled, or employed
in any other mode. Pope says that it here means
poured or shed upon. The hands arc specifically
named. And this religious lustration, which con-
sisted in the mere pouring of water upon the
hands, Clement calls eikoon haptismatos, " the image
of baptism." There Avas no immersion in this
case, and, beyond all question, no total immersion;
and yet, according to this Father's sense of the
word, it was a likeness of baptism. By authority
of Clement, then, baptism is a religious lustration,
but not necessarily an immei'sion.
But this is by no means the whole strength of
the passage. Clement says that it was the custom
of the Jews (Jioos) in like manner, in the same rcay,
TO BE BAPTIZED. The Jcwish lustrations, then,
which consisted in mere washings and hand-wash-
11
122 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
ingSj by affusion, sprinkling, circumfusion, as well
as any other mode, were real baptisms, and so
called by this Greek Father. Is it not puerile,
then, for any man to assert in the face of such
facts that baptizo in the Greek language "always
means immerse and has no other meaning" ?
Yet further: Clement declares that it was the
custom of the Jews to be baptized in this way,
(kai) and, or even, oftentimes upon their bed or
couch (epi koitae). The Jews were accustomed to
recline on couches during meals, the same being
often used to sleep on. These couches were ordi-
narily large enough to hold from three to five
persons. And it was perhaps when reclining
thus at meals that the custom was to undergo a
process of lustration, which Clement hero calls
eing baptized vpon their couch. And are we to be
told that four or five men, upon a couch at dinner,
were at times immersed while taking their meals?
Are we to imagine pulleys fixed over the various
couches in the dining-room, with ropes attached
to the corners, and a baptistery under the floor,
with trap-doors opening under the suspended
guests, to let couches, men, and all down under
the water as ihej proceeded to eat !
But Dr. Carson and Dr. Hague wish to know
where we learn that koitae is a dinner-couch. They
sa}^, "it is a bed for sleeping on." Very well:
only so much the worse for them. Clement says
they were baptized upon their koitae; and to be
immersed while lying on their bed for sleep is still
further out of the question than immersion while
eating dinner. A very comfortable night's rest
BAPTIZO IN THE FATHERS. 123
would they have after such a service! Perhaps
Dr. Fuller Avould also call this "delightfully re-
freshing" !
But, say our Baptist friends, cpi koitae does not
mean upon a bed, but ^'on account of a bed;" "bap-
tized on account of a bed" ! Ah, and now it is
our turn to ask, "Where did they learn that?
Hervetus, in commenting upon this passage in
Clement, says, "The Jews washed themselves, not
only at sacrifices, but also at feasts; and this is the
reason why Clement says that they were purified
or washed upon a couch , that is, a dlning-couch or
triclinium." And no one will dare to deny that
the original, primary, and pervading sense of epi
is upon, on, in. To translate it "on account of" is
far-fetched, quite bej^ond the ordinary range of ■
its meaning, and destructive of the sense of the
passage, except by supplying an idea the most
foreign to the whole drift of Clement's remarks.
In the corrected Latin Syllburg edition of Clemens,
Hervetus renders it "in lecta," — in or upon a
resting-place, couch, bed, or dining-sofa. And
Professor Wilson, of the Eoyal College, Belfast,
remarks that "epi koitae suggests so distinctly the
relation of p)lacc, that to prefer a different meaning
appears very like going out of one's way to serve
a purpose."
It was the custom of the Jews, then, to be bap-
tized on, in, upon, their dining-couches or beds.
Was this done by total immersion ? The thing is
impossible. How, then, was it done? We reply,
by sprinkling, circumfusion, or Jiand-ivashing; and
we say so by the authority of the Sci'iptures them-
124 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
selves. (See 2 Kings iii. 11; Matt. xv. 2; Mark vii
3; John ii. 6.) Immersion is absolutely excluded.
Yet Clement, who "knew the meaning of the lan-
guage which he spoke," calls it baptizing. If our
Baptist friends can bring a stronger passage in
proof of their understanding of haptizo than this
against them, it 3^et remains to be produced.
Our next quotation is from Cyril of Alexandria,
on Isaiah iv. 4, vol. ii., Paris, 1538. This Father
speaks of the Jewish rite of sprinkling an unclean
person with the ashes of a heifer as a baptism.
His words are, ''We have been baptized, not with
mere water, nor yet with the ashes of a heifer,
but with the Holy Spirit and fire." This passage
makes the baptism by the ashes of a heifer as
much a baptism as the baptism by Avater. What
then was the baptism with the ashes of a heifer?
Was it an immersion? We have the authority of
God that it was not. See Heb. ix. 13: "The ashes
of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to
the purifying of the flesh." The statute of God
on the subject was, ''They shall take of the ashes
of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and
running water shall be put thereto in a vessel ; and
a clean person shall take hyssop, and diji it in the
water, and sprinkle it xipon him that touched a
bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave." By
the highest possible authority, then, the purifica-
tion by the ashes of the heifer was a purification
by sprinkling. It was not an immersion. But
Cjanl says it was a baptism. Accoi'ding to this
Greek Father, then, immersion was not the mean-
ing of baptizo. Its import is met by a religious
BAPTIZO IN THE FATHERS. 125
cleansing in which the specific mode was sprinkling.
The same author has other passages to the same
effect.
Ambrose, vol. ii. p. 333, Paris, 1G09, furnishes
another instance of the use of baptizo to denote a
rehgious cleansing without immersion. ''For he
who is baptized, both according to the law and
according to the gospel, is made clean, — according
to the law, in that Moses, with a bunch of hyssop,
SPRINKLED the blood of a lamb." There was then a
baptism according to the Jewish law. Was it an
immersion? How would it read to say '^ immersed
according to the law, in that Moses, with a bunch
of hyssop, sprinkled the blood of a lamb" ? Is
si^i'inkling an immersion? By no means. But
Ambrose says it is a baptism. Hence we add his
authority to that of Clement and Cyril, that bap-
tism and immersion are not synonymous.
The same Father furnishes us with other like
instances. In vol. i. p. 356, he calls the application
of the benefits of Christ's crucifixion and death,
baptism; that is, a moral cleansing, forgiveness,
i:)ui'ification. His words are as follows : — " Unde sit
BAPTISM A 7iisi de cruce Christi, de morte Christi?"
""VThence is purgation except from the cross of
Christ, from the death of Christ?" Can baptism
mean immersion here? Is there any sense in
talking . about "immersion from the cross and
death of Christ" ? Bapjtisma here means cleansing,
to the utter exclusion of all idea of immersion.
Again, Ambrose says, (Apol. David, sec. 59.)
''He who desired to be purified with a typical bap-
tism was sprinkled with the blood of a lamb by
126 THE BAPTIST SYSTEAI EXAMINED.
means of a bunch of hyssop." Was sprinkling
immersion? Was sprinkhng a type of immersion?
Neither; but sprinkling was a baptism, and sprink-
ling the blood under the law w^as a type of bapAism
under the gospel. How ridiculous, then, to insist
that baptism is *' immersion and nothing else"!
In vol. ii. p. 355, the same Father, taking a gene-
ral survey of the Jewish and heathen absolutions,
thus sums up the whole matter. "There are
many kinds of purifications, [baptismatum,'] but
the apostle proclaims one baptism. Why? There
are heathen purifyings, \baptismata,'\ but they are
not purifications \baptismatci]. Washings they
are; purifications \baptismata\ they cannot be.
The body is washed, but sin is not washed away;
nay, in that washing sin is contracted. There
were also Jewish purifyings, [jmptismatai] some
superfluous, others typical." Why were these
Jewish and heathen baptisms no baptisms? Be-
cause "sin is not washed away" in them. But
wliether immersion washes away sin or not, is it
not still an immersion? Could Ambrose have
been guilty of saying, "Immersions they are, but
immersions they cannot be" ? Does not every one
see at a glance that here the word baptism, in the
very same sentence, has more than one meaning
and must be rendered xc ashing, purification?
Let us look next at some instances from Justin
Martyr. Dr. Carson sa3's, "Justin uses the woi'd
in the sense of immersion whenever he does use
it, — never in aii}^ other sense." Let us see, then,
what sort of reliance is to bo placed uj)on this
dogmatizcr of Tubbermore.
BAI'TIZO IN THE FATIIEUS. 127
See Justin's Dialogue -with Trj-pho, p. 164,
London, 1772. lie is speaiiing of tlie Jewish
ritea and ceremonies as inadequate to purify a man
from sin. He is holding up an inward "washing
of repentance," as opposed to any outward cere-
monial cleansings. He says, ''What is the use of
that baptism which purifies the flesh and body
alone? Be baptized as to your soul, from anger
and from coretousness, from envy and from hatred,
and, lo! your body is pure." Now, would he have
us figure to ourselves a man immersing his soul for
the purification of his body? Can avo conceive of
a man immersing //wn a thing? — frovi anger and
covetousness, fro7n envy and hatred? We can
easily understand how a man may eleanse his soul
to make his body clean, and how he may be
cleansed from vice; but immersion will in no way
fit to this passage. There is no possible room for
it. Cleansing or purification is here the certain,
fixed, and only sense of baptizo, and that as given
by a man who understood both the Scripture and
the Greek language.
In another passage, speaking of the purifications
copied by the heathen from the divine ordinances,
he says, "The demons, hearing of this washing
[loiitron, religious cleansing] proclaimed by the
prophet, caused those entering into their temples
to sprinkle themselves." Now, if the demons were
thus imitating God's washing, as Justin affirms,
and that divine pui-ifying was a washing by immer-
sion, how is it that they caused their worshipers
"fo sprinkle themselves" ? Is sprinkling a cojiy of
immersion? The demons once proclaimed the
128 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
divine authority of Jesus. They here proclaim
that sprinkling is God's cleansing rite.
Again: Dr. Carson admits that Justin "some-
times speaks of circumcision as a baptism." Was
circumcision an immersion? Who will dare to
affirm it? It was a bloody rite of purgation, — a
sign of divine acceptance, — a ceremonial cleansing;
and for this reason alone could it be called a bap-
tism. And when this Father calls it a baptism, it
is unanswerable proof that he attached to baptizo
the idea of a religious purification, to the exclusion
of immersion. Yet Mr. Carson can assert that
"Justin uses the word in the sense of immersion, —
never in any other sense" ! How long will Chris-
tian people continue to be led astray by such
guides ?
We turn next to Tertullian, to inquire what
meaning he attached to bap)tizo. De Baptismo, p.
257, Paris, 1634, he has this passage: — "At the
sacred rites of Isis, or Mithra, they are initiated
by a washing; they carry out their gods with
washings; they expiate villas, houses, temples,
and whole cities, by sprinkling with water carried
around. Certainly they are pui'ified in the Appo-
linarian and Eleusinian rites; and they say that
they do this to obtain regeneration and to escape
the punishment of their perjuries. Also, among
the ancients, whoever had stained himself with
murder expiated himself with purifying water.
In view of these things, we see the zeal of the
devil in rivalling the things of God, inasmuch as
he thus also practices baptism among his own
people." Here we have a description of the
BAI'TIZO IN THE FATHERS. 129
various lustrations and expiations performed by
the ilevil's peoi^le, not only upon their own bodies,
but also upon "villas, houses, temples, and lohole
cities," and that "6;/ sj^rinlding tvith irater carried
around." And yet Tertullian sums it all up as
the devil's "baiitism," \_baptismum.'] Will any
one have the effrontery to say that he meant
immersio7i?
Hear what President Beecher has said upon this
passage. "Tertullian here traces the purifier,
water, thx'ough all its uses in the heathen world in
purifying, whether by sprinkling, or in an}' other
way, for absolution, or for cleansing. And he
sums it all up as the devil's baptism. Words de-
noting sjH'inkling, or purification, or absolution,
pervade the whole jiassage, as lavacrura, lavatio,
aspergio, j^urgo, expio, abluo, era undo, absolvo,
diluo. But no word occurs denoting of necessity
immersion. Dr. Carson may refer to tingo. I
know that he has said, in his work on baptism,
(p. 55,) 'Tingo expresses appropriately dipping
and dyeing, and these only.' Dr. Carson says this
with his usual accuracy. Ovid was of a different
opinion. Speaking of the ocean in a storm, he
sa3'S, 'videtur aspergine tingere nubes,' (Met, xi.
497, 498.) Did Ovid mean that 'the ocean seems
to dye the clouds with spraj^,' or 'to immerse
them Avith spray' ? He means plainly 'to sprinkle
them with spray.' He also uses the expression,
'tingere corpus aqua sparsa.' (Fast. iv. 790. See
Gesner on tingo.) Does this mean 'to color or to
immerse the body by sprinkled water'? And what
mean the common expressions, tingi nardo, tingi
130 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Pallade, tingi oleo? Is oil a coloring substance?
or was it customary to be dipped in oil? "\Ye read
of anointing with oil, or of pouring oil on the
head. Who has recorded the custom of dipping
in oil? Hilarius too, on Acts xix. 4, speaking of
a spurious baptism, says, ' non tincti, sed sordidate
sunt.' Here the antithesis demands of us to
translate, 'They were not ^purified, but polluted'
Tingo, then, means to sprinkle, to wet or moisten,
to wash, to purify; and in reference to baptism
this last is its appropriate sense. No word, then,
occurs, denoting immersion. All kinds of purifi-
cation and expiation are spoken of, including pro-
minently those by sprinkling, and all are summed
up as the devil's baptism, i.e. the devil's purification
or absolution, and the closing contrast rests for all
its force on assigning to the word this sense."
(Baptism, its Import and Modes, pp. 165, 166.)
So again Tertullian (p. 357) says, speaking of
the water and the blood, " Mos duo baptismos de
vulnere perfossi lateris emisit," " these two baptisms
he poured forth from the wound of his pierced
side." Did he mean to say that Christ poured
forth two immersions from his wounded side, or
that he sent forth two purifications ?
We therefore set down Tertullian, along with
Clement, Cyril, Ambrose, and Justin Martyr, as a
clear and decisive witness that, in its scrijjtural
and Christian sense, baptizo does not mean mere
immersion, but a religious washing, cleansing, or
purification, even to the exclusion of immersion.
We turn next to Origen. In his Seventh Homily
on the 6th of Judges, he says, '' The outpouring of
BAPTIZO I\ THE FATIIKRS. 131
Lis [Christ's] blood is donominated a baptism."
Who ever denominated the outpouring of Christ's
blood an immersion? "Would ho not be denomi-
nated a fool who should apply to it such a terra?
It "was not an immersion. It neither immersed
Christ nor anybody else. Yet Origen approves
of its being called a baptism. It was an expiation,
a 2:)urgation of sin, a moral and judicial cleansing;
and this is what was here meant by the word
baptism.
The same Father, in his notes on Matt. xx. 21,
22, saj-s again, " Martyrdom is rightfully called a
baptism." But is martyrdom a fluid in Avhich one
can be dipped? Can we conceive of an immersion
in martyrdom? The ancients believed in a puri-
fication by martyrdom. They considered death
endured for Christ an entire purgation of any
defects or sins that may have attached to the
man before his death. They regarded it as a
cleansing, and hence called it a baptism. They
never di'camed of regarding it as an immersion.
Again: in John i. 25, the Jews ai'e represented
as asking the forerunner of our Lord, '' Why bap-
tizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor
Elias, neither that pro^Dhet?" And the question is
thus refei'red to by Origen in his comment: —
"What makes you think that Elias when he
comes will baptize, who, in Ahab's time, did not
[himself] baptize the Avood upon the altar, which
required Avashing in order to be burnt ujd, when
the Lord should reveal himself by fire? For he
ordered the priests to do that [i.e. baptize the
wood] not only oncG; for he says, 'Do it the
182 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
second time.'" Now, what was the transaction
here referred to? We have it in 1 Kings xviii. : —
"And Elijah took twelve stones, and with the
stones he built an altar; and he made a trench
about the altar. And he put the wood in order
[on the altar, of course], and cut the bullock in
pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill
four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt
saci'ifice, and on the wood. And he said, Do it
the second time. And they did it the second
time. And he said, Do it the third time. And
they did it the third time. And the water ran
round about the altar." This is the entire and
minute account. And what was it that Elijah
commanded the priests to do? The answer is
plain: — to pour out ivater upon the bullock, on the
wood, on the altar, which was built of twelve
stones and surrounded Avith a trench. The mode
prescribed was pouring upotij and the circumstances
demonstrate that the result could not have been
immersion. Yet Origen pronounces it a baptism.
"VYe add Prof Wilson's remarks upon this fact: —
"Let it be observed, we here come into contact
with the most learned Greek Father, and one of
the most accomplished Biblical scholars of the
ancient Church. To tax such a witness with igno-
rance of the circumstances embraced in his evi-
dence, or of the language in whose varied litera-
ture he stood so pre-eminent, would be extreme
and unaccountable fatuity. Origen knew, as Avell
as any modern Baptist knows, that Elijah com-
manded his attendants to fill the barrels with
water and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the
BAI'TIZO IN THE FATHERS. 133
wood. The author of the Hexapla had carefully-
studied his Bible, and entered profoundly and
minutely into its diftercnt peculiarities of thought
and forms of expression. How invaluable, then,
is the testimony when a writer of such undoubted
attainments identifies the command to pour water
upon the wood with a command to baptize! Elijah
did not himself baptize, for he ordered the priests
to do that. To do what? To pour water on the
wood upon the altar; and this, in the estimation
of the most distinguished Greek Father, was iaj)-
tis7n! Comment may succeed in diluting, but is
incompetent to strengthen, the force of a testimony
so decided and unexceptionable. That in regard
to the meaning of baptism it utterly breaks away
from the trammels of an exclusively modal appli-
cation is clear as the noonday sun.'^ (Infant Bap-
tism, pp. 331, 332.)
But Dr. Fuller cannot give up his precious and
refreshing dip. He asks, (p. 30,) " What was the
idea in Origen's mind? It was an immersion" !
Dr. Fuller says, " It was the complaint of a writer
that his opponent did not know when a thing was
proved." Will he just put a pin here and make
the proper application of his remark?
In Eouth's Eeliquiffi Sacras, vol. iii. p. 48, a
passage occurs from jSTicephorus, also one of the
Greek Fathers, in which he describes a baptism.
It is in these words: — "He [the man], expecting
to die, asked to receive the water; i.e. to be bap-
tized. And he hapAized him, even npon his couch
on which he lay." Did he immerse him lying on
his bed? Yes, say our Baptist friends; for ^^bap-
12
134 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
tizo always means immerse.'^ But in this they are
much wisei' than Nicephorus; for he says "he bap-
tized him" in a specific manner, {perichutheuta,')
^'by pouring upon, by affusion." There was no
immersion about it; but this Greek Father says it
was a baptism. Was he ignorant of what baptism
meant?
In a paper ascribed to Athanasiiis, found in the
works of John of Damascus, it is said that "John
was baptized [ebaptisthae] by placing his hand on
the divine head of his Master." Was he immersed
by putting his hand on the Savior's head? If not,
here is another baptism without immersion, — a
perfect " dry dip.'' The writer meant to say that
John was purijied, cleansed, by his contact with
Jesus; and that cleansing he expressed by the
word baptizo.
Anastasius {Biblo. Patrum, vol. v. p. 958) sj)eak8
of baptism as poured into water-pots, and of water-
pots as baptized by pouring bajitism into them.
Can immersion be poured? And he also speaks
of this very transaction as a type of the baptism
of the Gentiles. Did he mean that the Gentiles
were to be immersed by pouring immersion uj)on
them ? Anastasius meant to say that these water-
pots were cleansed, or purified, by pouring a puri-
fier— that is, water — into them; and baptizo is his
word for it. He used it to express purification
and cleansing.
Eusebius {Hist. Ecc. lib. 6,. caj). 4) says of a
female catechumen who was burned before re-
ceiving water-baiDtisni, "She received the baptism
which is by fire, and departed from this life." Did
BAPTIZO IN THE FATDERS. 135
she receive the immersion which is by fire? Where
do we read of any such patristic rite as tliat of im-
mersion by fire? Euscbius evidently intended to
say that sbe was cleansed or purified by her martyr-
dom; and, according to his understanding of the
Greek, haptizo adequately expressed this meaning.
In the fiftieth canon of the ApostoUc Constitu-
tions, as they are called, the phrase tria baptis-
inata occurs. On this Zonaras and Balsamon
thought themselves called on to make a note to in-
form the reader that in this case baptisma means
immersion. The words of Balsamon are, '* It
seems to me that baptismata is to be taken for
immersions here." Indeed! Why, if it always
means immerse and nothing else, both the note
and this modest expression of opinion are quite
out of place. Why stop to inform us that baptizo
here, as it seemed to him, was to be taken for
immersion if it never had any other meaning?
These notes are proof that immersion was not
its common meaning in Christian Greek, but a
sense so remote as not likely to be at all hit on
by a common Christian reader.
What shall we say, then, to these things? Is
not the point made out and proven beyond all
conti'oversy that immersion is not the sense of
haptizo in Christian Greek ? We have shown that
the religious washing of Penelope, and the wetting
of the hands of Telemachus, and the lustrations
of the Jews reclining on their couches, and the
sj^rinkling of the ashes of a burnt heifer, and the
sprinkling of a lamb's blood with a bunch of hyssop,
are called baptisms, and given as types of the Chris-
136 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
tian sacrament of baptism. We have shown that
the cleansing derived from the cross and death of
the Savior, the purifying of the soul fi-om anger,
covetousness, envy, and hatred, the sprinklings
of water in religious service by the heathen, the
purgation of circumcision, the pouring out of
Christ's blood, the supposed purification by mar-
tyrdom, the pouring out of water upon a sacrifice
on the altar, the baptism of a man on his bed by
aff'usion, the purification of John by touching
Christ's head, the cleansing of pots bj^ pouring
water into them, — cases in which all idea of im-
mersion is entirely excluded, — all are denoted by
baptizo in one or the other of its forms, and that
too by great Christian teachers in various periods
of the early Church, most of whom were native
Greeks, who must have known the meaning of the
language which they spoke. N'ay, we have shown
that certain ancient Greek scholai'S thought it
necessary to insert notes in a certain place to
keep the reader advised that there haptizo meant
immerse. And how any man can rise up in the
face of all this and say that this word always
means immersion, and never any thing else, is a
thing which we know not how to understand. It
is an awful stifling and suppression of the truth.
And, if that is being "a Baptist on principle," may
the Lord have mercy upon those who are Baptists
" in sectarianism and bigotry" !
BAniZO IN TUE NEW TESTAMENT. 137
CHAPTEE XI.
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — PRELIMINARY
QUESTION.
"We are now about to enter within the New
Testament, to see what it can teach us about
haptizo and its cognate words, and whether it
furnishes any thing to prove that its specific and
only meaning is immerse. But, before entering
directly upon this department of our investigation,
■we desire to raise and explain a preliminary ques-
tion, which enters into it very deeply, and by a
proj)er understanding of which we will so clear
our way as to be less subject to interruptions.
Most of the passages in the New Testament in
■which baptizo occurs, without reference to John's
baptism or to the Christian sacrament, refer to the
pui-ifications and lustrations enjoined in the law of
Moses. It therefore becomes exceedingly import-
ant to know exactly what those purifjung ordi-
nances of Moses were; for it is by the character
of those Jewish rites that we are to determine the
general signification of the words which the writers
of the New Testament employ to designate them.
If they were certainly and clearly nothing but
total immersions, then the word haptizo, when used
b}' the inspired penman to designate them, must
]2;;
188 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
mean a total immersion and nothing else; and so,
on the other hand, if they were simple expiations
or legal purifications, most of which were to be
performed by sprinkling, and the rest by simple
washing or bathing, without reference to mode,
then baptizo, when used to designate them, must
take the general scope of purification as its great
and leading idea, without being limited to sprink-
ling, perfusion, hand-washing, or immersing, but
comprehending all these modes.
What, then, is the flxct with reference to this
matter? Dr. Fuller nowhere fairly meets this
inquiry. He proceeds as if it were a thing entirely
settled and universally agreed, that all the purifi-
cations of the Mosaic law, designated in the Xew
Testament b}^ baptizo and baptlsmos, were total
immersions and nothing else. Hei*e and there, as
occasion seems to demand, and where nothing else
would save his cause, he throws in a quotation or
two from authors who had before them a very
different subject of inquiiy, and some of them
from books which we fear he never saw, all to
leave the impression upon his reader's mind that
all these legal baptisms were clearly, decidedly,
and on all hands admitted to be nothing but total
immersions !
We propose, then, to brush away these cobwebs
of a perverted erudition ; and, in doing so, we Avill
go at once to the high, pure, and infallible authority
of God's own word, leaving Dr. Fuller with Maimo-
nides and the Targums, groping his way amid the
traditions of the elders, for the sake of which he is
not the first to set aside the commandment of God.
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 139
We deny — and we challenge the production of
scriptural proof to the contrary — that there is any-
where in the Mosaic ritual any law enjoining upon
the Jews the necessity of totally immersing them-
selves. In all the five books of Moses, so far as we
have learned, the Hebrew word for immerse (thabal)
is not used in one single instance where the washing
and purification of persons is enjoined, nor any other
word of corresponding import. Dr. Carson is re-
luctantly compelled to admit this fact. " I admit,"
says he, " that the Hebrew modal verb is not used
with respect to persons." (P. 443.) It follows,
then, that no stronger word than the general terra
rahatz is used in the Jewish law for any of the
lustrations of men therein enjoined.
This word rahatz is rendered in our English
Bible by the word icash, sometimes bathe. Dr.
Fuller admits and contends that the command to
icash is not a command either to sprinkle, pour, or
dip; that "it is a command to wash and nothing
elsej" and that "washing is more than, and may be
performed without, either sprinkling, or piouring, or
dipiping." (P. 15.) We argue, then, as these Le-
vitical baptisms were mere washings and nothing
else, so far as God's injunction goes, they were not
immersions, any more than sprinklings or any
other special mode of purifying with water.
The word bathe, which occurs in a few cases in
the English version of these laws of Levitical puri-
fications, might at first seem to indicate that they
were to be performed by immersion. But in the
original the word is always rahatz, the same that
is rendered icash. Xeither does bathe necessarily
14:0 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
convey the idea of immersion. It is from the Saxon
bathian, which means simply to ivash. It contains
no indication of mode. We may bathe by sprink-
ling, rubbing, or suffusion, as well as by plunging.
We have many more shower-baths and sponge-
baths than plunge-baths. To be bathed in tears
certainly does not mean totally immersed in tears.
To bathe a wound is not to immerse it, but to
moisten it with lotion or to wash it.
Now, we assert that if any of these Levitical
lustrations were total immersions and nothing else,
that fact must be found in the Hebrew word rahatz;
for this is the only word by which they ai'e signi-
fied in all of those cases where the exjDress mode
of the purification is not given. This word is
usually rendered ivash in the English Bible. "How
much of an ablution is properly implied by the
term," Professor Bush remarks, "it is difficult to
say. That it does not indicate a complete ini-
mersion of the bod}^ in water would seem evident
from the fact that we read of no provision being
made for such a rite, either in the holy place or in
the court of the tabernacle." In the Septuagint it
is sometimes rendered by louo, which, as we have
seen, means simply to cleanse or wash, sometimes
by 7ii]}to, which means hand-washing, and some-
times hy pluno, which has only the general signifi-
cation of wash, rinse, or wet. None of these
words prescribe mode, and no more mean to im-
merse than they mean to pour upon, or to sprinkle,
or to apply water in an}^ other manner for the
purpose of cleansing.
To obtain a clear conception of the meaning and
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 141
scope of rahatz, and to see how far it is from de-
noting immersion and nothing else, let the reader
examine the following passages, in which it is
used : —
**Let a little water, I jjray you, be fetched, and
xcash [_rahatz] your feet." (Gen. xviii. 4.)
"And he entered into his chamber and wept
there; and he washed [rahatz] his face and went
out." (Gen. xliii. 30, 31.)
"And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces and
icash irahatz'] the inwards of him." — (Exodus
xxix. 17.)
"I will icash \_raJiatz'] my hands in innocency."
(Isa. xxvi. 6.)
"Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
icash [rahatz'] me, and I shall be whiter than snow."
(Ps. li. 7.)
"I have cleansed my heart in vain and washed
[raJiatz] my hands in innocency." (Ps. Ixxiii. 18.)
" Wash [_rahatz] ye; make you clean; put away
the evil." (Isa. i. 16.)
" When the Lord shall have loashed away [rahatz]
the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have
purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst
thereof by the spirit of judgment and burning."
(Isa. iv. 4.)
"O Jerusalem, wash [rahatz] thine heart from
wickedness, that thou mayest be saved." —
(Jer. iv. 14.)
" For though thou wash [rahatz] thee with nitre,
and take thee much soap, j'et thine iniquity is
marked before me, saith the Lord." (Jer. ii. 22.)
And, if any one is not satisfied with these quota-
142 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
tions, let him take a Hebrew Concordance and
trace this word through the whole of the Old
Testament, and he will find that it is used over
and over to denote the washing of any thing, — of
the feet, hands, face, body, and mind, — and that
without the remotest allusion to the mode in
which it was to be done. It is a word which has
in itself no reference to mode. It contemplates
only an effect to be reached by the use of a fluid,
without any regard to the manner of that use,
whether by friction, pouring, sprinkling, soaking,
or plunging.
We wish it, therefore, to be distinctly under-
stood, and thoroughly impressed upon the mind,
that this word rahatz, the meaning of which is
simply to wash or cleanse, no matter in what
mode, is the word used by the Spirit of God in all
those passages of the Mosaic law where bathing
and washing are enjoined, and upon which Dr.
Fuller relies so confidently as indicating immer-
sion and nothing else. We insist that they were
no more immersions than they were pourings, be-
cause the word which designates them means as
much to pour upon as to immerse, and is as com-
pletely fulfilled by the one as by the other.
Such, then, is the exact state of the ease with
regard to those Levitical lustrations in which
bathing is spoken of
But, in addition to this argument from the word.
rahatz, we remark further that, under all those
circumstances upon which Dr. Fuller dwells as
establishing that these bathings were performed
by immersion, we have positive proof that they
BATTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 143
were not performed by immersion. Take the case
of the young man spoken of in Tobit vi. 2. He
was out upon a journey; he had encamped by
the river-side; and (^katche) he ivent down to
wash himself. This word katebc — he went down —
is precisely the same, and used here under pre-
cisely the same circumstances, as in the case of
ISTaaman and Philip and the eunuch, "where Dr.
Fuller la^'s so much stress upon it. It is a word
in which he finds a world of force and argument
when spoken with reference to an approach to-
ward the water. Naaman (katebe) xoent down and
washed in Joi'dan. Philip and the eunuch (kate-
besan) icent down into the water. And this is to
prove to us that they were immersed. Well, just
so this young traveller (Jcatebe) went doion to wash
in the Tigris. Did he immerse himself? Was
the submersion of his body the mode in which his
ablution was performed? Upon Dr. Fuller's argu-
ment we would say, most unquestionably, yes.
But let us not be so hasty and confident in our
conclusions. The record says, katebe periklu-
SASTHAi, he w^ent down and washed himself all
around; just as a man would stand in a stream
and throw the water up on all sides of his body
and thoroughly rub himself clean.
Here, then, is a case to explain what the Jews
understood by those injunctions of the law pro-
viding that persons should ^'wash their flesh," or
'' bathe themselves in water," — a case where the
circumstances were such that, if immersion had
been contemplated, immersion certainly would
have been performed, — a case which at once
144 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
breaks the force of Dr. Fuller's argument on the
word katebe, and completely annihilates what he
has built upon the word bathe. We cai*e not
whether the story be true or false : Tobit is not
an inspired book; but its historical details may
still be true. Whether it be fact or fiction, it is
equally in point to illustrate the ideas, the man-
ners, and the customs of the age in which it was
written, and is of more value for such a purpose
than the sayings of a thousand Eabbis of com-
paratively modern times.
And, in order that there may bo no room for
doubt upon the meaning of 2^€,riJdusasthai, (from.
perikluzo,) we adduce the following instances: —
Aristotle applies it to the washing of children : —
to paicUon hudati perikluzein, "to wash the child all
around icith icater."
It is used by Euripides to denote the washing
of the body with water from the sea, where he
apjolies nipto to the same operation, — nipto, accord-
ing to Dr. Fuller's own authority, on page 21, de-
notes hand-xcashing, and not a total immersion.
In Lucian, V. H., 1, 31, it is applied to an
object wet or sprinkled on all sides with spray hy
rapid motion in water.
Plutarch uses kluzo to denote the cleansing of
the sj^stem from bile by the use of purgative
medicines; also, with the preposition (apd) from,
to express the washing off of blood from armor
that had been used in battle.
Pollux gives it as the synonym of plunein,
hruptein, and kathairein, and their compounds with
BAPTIZO IN TlIK NEW TESTAMKNT. 145
dia, apo, and el;, — all of which is quite inconsistent
with the idea of immersion.
And Stevens, Scapula, Ernesti, Hedericus, Pas-
sow, Donnegan, and, as fai- as we know, all the
lexicographers, give ^je;-//i:^i;~o as the washing around
the person or thing which is tlie subject, so as to
effect the most thorough cleansing.
This young man, then, even when he was at the
river-side, after (Jcatebe) he loent down as Naaman
and the eunuch {katebe) iccnt down, and that for the
express purpose of purifying himself, — when every
thing that Dr. Fuller relies on to prove an immer-
sion was there, — did not immerse himself, but (^-peri-
klusasthai) xcith his hands thoroughly icashed himself
all around.
So much for those Levitical purifications in
which washing and bathing are concerned. But
there were others, in which the mode is particu-
larly designated. It appertains to our j)urpose to
say a word or two about these.
And foremost and above all stands the great
catharism, or expiation, of which we have an ac-
count in the twelfth chapter of Exodus, and which
has been kept as an annual observance by the
children of Israel for the last three thousand years.
Ambrose, as we have seen, calls it a. baptism. It
was a holy ordinance of expiation, cleansing from
sin and exempting from death, as it pointed to the
great spiritual purgation effected by the blood-
shedding of that Lamb of God that taketh away
the sin of the world. It was ordained as a statute
forever among the generations of Israel. It jDointed
back to their redemption from Egypt and its
146 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
destruction, and forward to that still more glo-
rious expiation effected by Jesus on the cross. It
was among all the Jewish rites by eminence a
catharism, a cleansing, a covering up and washing
away of sin. A more striking case of absolution
is not contained in the ancient Scriptures. How,
then, was it to be performed? Will any one pre-
tend to say that there was any bathing, washing,
or immersion about it? A spotless lamb was to be
slain, and its blood was to be struck or sprinkled
upon the lintel and side-posts of the door. God
saw those stains of blood and was satisfied; and
the hand of destruction and death was restrained
as it passed.
One of the greatest uncleanncsses among tho
Jews was the dreadful disease of lejjrosy. God
also gave them special laws to be observed in
purifying themselves from it. This constituted
one of their most solemn purifications. And so
far as the official and social act of this purification,
as performed by an administrator, was concei*ned,
it was done solely by sjyrinlding upon the sub-
ject the blood of a turtle-dove or pigeon. (See
Lev. xiv.)
Another uncleanness under the Mosaic law was
contact with the dead. Tho mode of its purgation
is also clearly given : — " Thej^ shall take of the
ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin,
and running water shall be jiut thereto in a vessel;
and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it
in the water, and sprinJde it upon him that touched
a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave."
(Num. xix. 17, 18.)
BAPTIZO IN TUE NEW TESTAMENT. 147
Another of the Levitical purifications was that at
the ordination and induction of the Levites to the
office of priests. In Numbers viii. 3, 7 the mode
of doing it is explicitly given: — ''Take the Levites
and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto
them to cleanse them : Sprinkle water of purifying
upon them." Cjq^rian, in his sixty -ninth epistle,
also adduces this very passage in jn'oof of what
is the scriptural mode of baptism. (Oxford, 1844,
p. 228.)
As to the other and more familiar lustrations of
the Jews, a correct idea of the mode of their perform-
ance may be obtained from what is said in John ii.
6, in the account of the miracle at the marriage in
Cana : — " And there were set there six icater-pots
of stone, AFTER THE MANNER OF THE PURIFYING OF
THE Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece."
Surely, if "the manner of the purifying of the Jews"
was adequately provided for in a few water-jars,
the contents of Avhich could be entirely drunk up
by way of a suj^plement to a wedding-feast, those
purifications were, at any rate, not performed by
immersion. An allusion to the mode of these
ordinary ablutions is also found in 2 Kings iii. 11,
where Elisha is characterized as he '^ who poured
xoater on the hands of Elijah}" i.e. the servant who
assisted the prophet in his purifications.
We also deem it worthy of remark that, in that
Orient world where customs never change, we
still find some remains of these ceremonial puri-
fications and of the manner in which they were
performed. The Mussulman, seated on the edge of
his sofa, has a vessel placed before him on a large
148 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
red cloth. A servant on the right pours out the
water for his master's use, and another on the left
stands ready with the drying-towel. The devotee
begins the service by bareing his arms to the
elbows. He applies the water to his hands, mouth,
nostrils, and forehead, repeating his prayers. He
then rises up under the belief that he is pure.
May not this also throw light upon " the manner
of the purifying of the Jews," from whom Mahomet
and his people borrowed so many of their sacred
ceremonies?
Such, then, were the catharisms and lustrations
prescribed in the Levitical code and performed by
the Jews in the Savior's time. If there were any
others performed in any way different from those
which we have named, we should like to have
them pointed out to us, not from Maimonides, who
lived but 650 years ago, or from Vatablus, who
may still be giving Hebrew lessons to the students
of Paris, but from the laws of Moses or from
authentic records written by men cotemporaneous
with Christ and his apostles. We do not pretend
to deny, indeed, that many of these Levitical ablu-
tions, when every thing else was convenient and
favorable, were perhaps performed by immersion.
This may have been; and thus we Avould account
for the saj^ings of those men whom Dr. Fuller has
quoted in his book. But we do most positively
deny that a total immersion of the bodj^ was an
essential part of any of them, whilst many of them
were, by express injunction of God, to be performed
by sprinkling alone.
We have already detained the reader longer
KAPTIZO IN TllK NEW TESTAMENT. 149
upon this point than we designed; but the great
importance of it in determining the New Testa-
ment use of bapfizo and its derivative baptismos,
will readily bo seen. It is with reference to these
rites that these words are used. The nature of
these rites must therefore determine the meaning
of these words. And what shall be said of Dr.
Fuller's theory that " baptizo denotes a total im-
mersion and has no other meaning," when w^e
make it appear that Paul, by inspiration of God,
sums up all these ancient cathai-isms and lustra-
tions as so many different baptisms?
Let the reader turn, then, to the ninth chapter
of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The sacred writer
there sets out to give an account of the rites and
ceremonies of the Mosaic law. He is talking of these
rites and ceremonies, not as they applied to cups
and pots and other inanimate things, but as they
applied to the persons of the worshipers and of
their efficacy to "make pei^fect as pertaining to
the conscience." He mentions expressly the legal
abstinences and offerings, the sprinkling of the
blood of expiation by the priest, and the sprink-
ling of the ashes of a heifer upon the unclean.
And in verse 10 he takes them all up in one
mental grasp and finds them all comprehended
monon epi bromasi kai ponxasi, kai diaphorois bap-
TiSMOis; that is to say, ^^ only in meats, and drinks,
and DIVERS baptisms."
Here we have it, plain, unequivocal, staring
every man fuU in the face, that, with the excep-
tion of distinction^in meats and drinks, the Avhole
round of the Levitical piirifications, from the
13*
150 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
sprinkling of blood by the high-priest in the holy
of holies to the sprinkling of the ashes of the
burnt heifer on the bodies of the unclean, ^^ stood
only in," and by inspiration of the great God him-
self are called, baptisms — diaphorois baptismois.
What can be clearer than this? AVhat more
conclusive? Is it not demonstration itself?
CHAPTER XII.
BAPTIZO IN THE NEAV TESTAMENT JEWISH LUS-
TRATIONS.
We have now shown that the purifications and
expiations enjoined in the Jewish law were not
immersions, but either sprinklings or simple tcash-
ings, ordinaril}'' performed under circumstances
where immersion was quite out of the question.
We have also seen that the inspired writer in He-
brews sums up all these Levitical purifications in
the one word baptisms. We can conceive of no
stronger proof to show that this word does not and
cannot always mean immerse and nothing else.
The sprinkling of the blood of the j)aschal lamb on
the doors certainly was not an immersion; neither
was the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer
on the unclean an immersion. The sprinkling of
the blood of a young pigeon upon the recovering
leper was not an immersion. Xl;ie cleansing of the
Levites by sprinkling ''water of purifying upon
BAI'TIZO IN TIIK NEW TESTAMENT. 151
them" -svas not an immersion. Elisha's pouring
of water on the hands of Elijah was not an im-
mersion. "Tiie manner of the purifying of the
Jews," as indicated by the "six water-pots of
stone," in which the Savior's first miracle was
wrought, was not by immersion. And even those
more thorough washings of the flesh and bathings,
all of which are denoted by the word rahatz, were
not necessarily immersions any more than hand-
washings. It is a fact, which cannot be denied,
that there is not a personal immersion required in
all the ]\Iosaic law. There were, however, many
lustrations and cleansings enjoined; and in most
of these the mode also was given in the same law
that enjoined them. That mode was sprinkling.
And 3'et, in the JS'ew Testament, inspired authority
calls them all baptisms.
Besides, the very e^jithet which the apostle uses
to describe these baptisms shows that he did not
mean immersions. He denominates them diajyho-
7'ois, — different, diverse, distinguishable the one from
the other. An immersion is an immersion; and
one immeraion for purification is just like all other
immersions for purification. Such immersions were
not diverse or various, either in act, in circum-
stances, or in end. One is a perfect facsimile of
the other. There is no diversity about them. But
the baptisms of which the apostle is speaking he
characterizes expressly as diaphorois baptismois —
DIVERS BAPTISMS. If he meant divers immersions,
they that so understand him are bound to show
the diversity. They have never done it; and,
taking the word in that sense, they never can do
152 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
it. But, taking baptisms here in the wider and
more natural sense of katharizo, — to purify and
expiate, — the diversity spoken of is at once obvious.
Some were performed by the use of blood, some by
the use of ashes, and others by the use of water.
In some the performance was by sjorinkling, in
some by hand-washing, in others by jDOuring
water on the bands, and perchance in a few cases
by immersion. This forms the variety. And still
they were all baptisms. The sprinklings with
ashes were baptisms, expressly so called by Cyril
of Alexandria, who lived within a few hundred
years of the apostles; and the sprinklings with
blood were baptisms, so more than once declared
by Ambrose, who lived still nearer to the apos-
tolic age ; and the various lustrations, including
the washing of hands and other water-a2:)plications,
were baptisms, so pronounced by Clement of Alex-
andria, who lived within one hundred years of the
death of St. John ; and all of them together were
baptisms, so declared by authority which could not
err, even by the inspired writer of the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Is it not as plain then as language
can make it that they were baptisms, not because
they were immersions, for they were not im-
mersions, but baptisms in the only true religious
sense of the word, because ihQj 'svQve purifications?
In Mark vii. 4 wo have another instance of the
use of baptizo in which we must assign to it this
same signification. ''And when they come from
the market, except they xcash \baptisontai'\ they
eat not. And many other things there be which
they have received to hold, as the loashing [bap-
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 153
tismous] of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and
tables."
Dr. Fuller's position is, that " an entire immersion
beloni^s to the nature of baptism;" that '■' baptlzo
contains the idea of a complete immersion under
water ;" that "it ahcays denotes a total immersion."
(Pf). 19, 23.) Of course, then, if his position is
true, it must hold good in this case; and when it
is said that the Pharisees never eat after returning
from the market until they have baptized themselves,
it must mean that they totally immersed themselves.
Did thev, then, totally immerse themselves ? He
quotes fourteen authoi-ities on this point : quite a
formidable array, surely. But two of these very
authorities, in the very passages quoted, speak only
of icashings, without saying one word about the
mode in which they were to be done; and seven
more of these same authorities — Campbell, Bux-
torf, Wetstein, Eosenmuller, Kuinol, Spencer, and
Lightfoot — say most explicitly that these Pharisaic
purifications after return from market were only
washings of the hands! So that seven out of twelve
of his own witnesses, and those the most reliable,
positively declare that these Pharisaic baptisms
xoere not total immersions, but hand-washings.
Nor will it meet the case for Dr. Fuller to say
or to prove that these hand-washings were im-
mersions of the hands. The baptisms are predi-
cated of "the Pharisees and all the Jews," not of the
hands of the Pharisees and Jews. "And when they
come from the market, except they wash [bapti-
sontail they eat not." The baptism is the baptism
of the same that went to market, that returned
154 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
from market, and that ate. The same nominative
stands for all these verbs. Certainly it was not
the hands alone that went to market, nor the hands
alone that returned from market, nor the hands
alone that ate. "The Pharisees and all the Jews"
constitute the subject of whom these things are
alleged ; and Dr. Fuller can no more exempt all
but hands from the force of baptisontai than he can
exempt all but hands from the eating and returning
from market. It was the Pharisees that ate, and
the Pharisees that returned from market, and it
was the Pharisees that baptized themselves. And
so, if that baptism was performed by a simple
washing of the hands, no matter whether they
were steeped in water, or whether water was
poured, or sprinkled, or rubbed upon them, it was '
not a total immersion; and baptizo here must take
the sense of purify, and not that of entire immersion
under water.
But what is to be done with Dr. Fuller's five
remaining authorities, in which it is said that the
Pharisees totally immersed themselves before eat-
ing, after having been at the market';' Whether
he has quoted them fairly we have not attempted
to ascertain. All we have to say on that point is,
that a man who can take the liberties with the
Book of God — a book in every one's hand — which
we have proven upon Dr. Fuller, is not very much
to be relied on when he comes to give a line or two
here and there from rare books, which the most
intelligent men seldom see. But we will suppose
these quotations all accui-ate and just. What do
they amount to? Two of them — one from Mai mo-
BATTIZO r\ TTTF, NEW TKSTA:\IKXT. 155
nides and one from Vatablus — say not a Avord about
the market, and raay refer to a very different
department of Pharisaic lustrations from that
alhided to in the text. But we pass this also, and
permit them all to stand as going directly to the
point. And yet Ave can satisfactorily meet them
all Avithout travelling out of Dr. Fuller's own book.
Seven of his own authorities, and the very best out
of the tAvelve that he has quoted in this place, flatly
contradict, confound, and completely negative the
other five, and, in Avords as positive as can be
chosen, declare that these Pharisaic purifications
after attending market icere not total imviersions,
but hand-icashings. Are not seven an adequate
offset to five? Are not Buxtorf, Wetstein, Eosen-
miiller, Kuinol, Spencer, and Lightfoot names as
great and controlling asYatablus, Grotius, Maimo-
nides, and Macknight? According to one list, the
baptism before us Avas an immersion of the Avhole
body; — a total immersion; according to the other
list, it Avas a mere Avashing of the hands; according
to a third list, it Avas a simple Avashing, Avithout
specification of mode : and all the lists are Dr.
FuUei-'s own quotations ! Let bim harmonize his
authorities if he can, and then perhaps they may
be of some Aveight. If these purifications from the
contaminations of the market-place were mere
washings, they may have been immersions, or they
may bave been sprinklings or rubbings. If they
Avere mere hand-washings, they certainly were not
total immersions; and the great Aveight of his
authorities goes to establish that they were mere
band-Avashings and nothing else.
156 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Now, we do not intend to maintain that these
Pharisaic lustrations from the supposed detilement
of attending market were never performed by a
general bathing, or even by a total immei-sion.
The pi^obability is, that in the warm season, and
when circumstances made it convenient, they did
at times pei-form this particular purification in one
or the other of these ways. No sensible man will
deny that such instances may have occurred. And
this will sufficiently account for what has been said
by Maimonides, Grotius, and Macknight. But we
do maintain that this was not the only nor the
ordinaiy way of performing this pui"ification. The
seven authorities quoted by Dr. Fuller, which de-
clare that it was done by the mere washing of the
hands, is proof enough to our purpose. But we
will not stop with what they have said. Our
author seems to think that authorities are argu-
ments; and therefore we will not withhold them.
The commentator Henry remarks upon the cus-
toms of the Jews as related to this passage, ''They
particularly loashed before they ate bread. They
took special care, Avhen tho}^ came from the mar-
kets, to wash their hands. The rule of the Eabbins
was, that if they washed their hands well in the
morning it would serve for all day, provided they
kept alone; but if they w^eut into company they
must not eat or pray till they had washed their
hands."
Scott says, "It seems undeniable that by the
words baptize and baptism, a partial application
of water was intended in this as in several other
places."
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 157
Dr. Schaff, in his History of the Apostolic Church,
p. 569; says, "In support of this [that bapiizo has
the general sense to wash, to cleanse] a confident
appeal can assuredly be made to several passages,
— viz., Luke xi. 38, with Mark vii. 2, 4, where bap-
tizien is used of the loashing op hands before eating.
Mark has for this (v. 3) niptein, which, in the East,
was performed by pouring." The same author says
that in Mark vii. 4, 8, Heb. ix. 10, " Bajytismoi must
be taken to include all sorts of religloKS purifications
among the Jews, including sprinkling."
Bloomfield says that baptizo here does not denote
an immersion.
In Morri.s and Smith's Exposition of the Gospels
we have this note uj)on this jsassage: — "They [the
Jews] did not immerse themselves in water, but
used a small quantity, which was applied to the
hand and wrist, or, at most, to the arm as far as
the elbow. It cannot be proved that the Jews ivashed
the whole body ichen they returned from market. There
could have been no necessity for it, even in their
oj)inion. The most they did was to wash those
parts which were exposed to contamination."
Eosenmuller says, "The sense is, 'when they
come from the market (i.e. any public place') they
do not take their food except they ivash their
hands' "
Dr. Dick says, "The baptizing after return from
market probably signifies the same thing with
washing their hands, as it is very improbable that
on every such occasion they washed the whole
body." (Theol. vol. ii. p. 375.)
Albert Earnes says, ^'Baptize, in this place, does
14
158 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
not mean to immerse the whole body. There is no
evidence that the Jews immersed their whole
bodies every time they came from the marliet. It
is probable they washed as a mere ceremony, and
often, doubtless, with the use of a very small quan-
tity of water."
And in the notes to the Cottage Bible it is said
that some of the wealthier, who had the leisure and
all the necessary conveniences, may have immersed
themselves, but that the generality of the Jews did
no more than wash their hands.
It may be said that these are all modern authori-
ties. Be it so : we will give some more ancient.
The oldest given by Dr. Fuller carries us back to
the close of the twelfth century. Theophylact
lived more than a hundred years earlier, and is
pronounced by Mosheim and Neander the most dis-
tinguished exegetical writer of his age; and Theo-
phj'lact says that these Jewish purifications before
eating were performed by mere hand-ic ashing s. He
designates them by the word niptesthai,-- — a word
which, according to Beza, (as quoted by Dr. Fuller
himself,) has respect only to the hands.
But w^e go back six hundred years further still.
We point Dr. Fuller to the oldest but one, if not
the very oldest, existing copy of the Bible itself, —
to a manuscript of the New Testament which, for
its internal excellence and nearest approach to the
older Greek copies, was preferred by Michaelis to
all others, — to the Codex Vaticanus. We point him
also to eight other ancient copies, as also to Eu-
themius the Isaurian, — all of which have ranti-
SONTAI in the place of baptisontai. "When they
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 159
o.omo from the market, except they sprinkle them-
selves the}' eat not." And, surely, if the old Greek
transcribers thirteen hundred years ago considered
the -word baptism in this passage as the proper
equivalent oi' sprinkling, it ought to settle the case.
If Dr. Fuller really entertains the reverence for
authority which he professes, let him bow before
it and confess that haptizo does not here mean a
total immersion and nothing else.
But " the Pharisees and all the Jews" not only
baptized or purified themselves; they had also
received to hold many like things, such as "the
baptizing or purifying [baptisjuous'] of cups and pots,
brazen vessels, and of tables." As to these cups,
pots, and brazen vessels, they may have been im-
mersed or not, as circumstances rendered con-
venient. We suppose they ordinarily were im-
mersed, because this was the most convenient and
natural mode of purifying them. Anastasius, how-
ever, gives us instances in which such vessels were
purified simply by pouring water into them, and
calls such a purification baptism. (^Biblo. Patrum,
vol. V. p. 958.) According to the laws, the purifi-
cation of polluted vessels was performed in divers
ways, as may be seen from Levit. vi. 28, xv. 12,
xi. 32.
But what shall be said of the "tables" P Dr.
Puller tells us not to think of "our massive ma-
hogany furniture," and wishes to make his readers
believe that nothing more is meant than "a round
piece of leather"! (P. 60.) Professor Curtis of
Lewisburg, Pa., differs from him, and tells us it was
"a cotton quilt" ! (P. 194.) And, by the time our
160 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Baptist friends get through with their investi-
gations, tliere is no telling what it will not mean
But, if Dr. Fuller had given attention to the au
thority which he quotes in the very next para-
graph of his book, he would have found a hint
which would have saved him his "round piece of
leather."
Mainionides says, "Every vessel of wood which is
made for the use of man, as a table, receives defile-
ment." After all, it seems that a Jewish " table"
was made ^^of loood," and that it was a very differ-
ent thing from "a round piece of leather, spread
upon the floor, upon which is placed a sort of
stool, supporting nothing but a platter." How
^^ massive" Dr. Fuller's " mahogany furniture" may
be, we know not. He claims to be something out
of the ordinary line of Baptists, and advocates a
system very different from that held by the great
majority of Christians; and it may be that his
" mahogany furniture" is also something out of the
common order of things. But we do know that,
especially among the wealthier Pharisees, — the
very parties concerned in the passage before us, —
the '■'■ tables" in use were cumbersome wooden struc-
tures, from eight to twenty feet in length, about
four feet wide, and about three or four feet high.
(See Watson's Dictionary, art. "Banquet;" Home's
Introduction, vol. ii. part 4, ch. 1, sec. 4; and Com-
prehensive Commentary on John xiii. 23, 25.) And
whether such articles Avere ordinarily submerged
in water after every meal we ask the reflecting to
judge.
But the word klinon, here rendered tables, docs
BArXUO IN THE N£W TESTAMENT. IGl
not properly mean the tables on which food was
placed, but the couches, sofas, and cushions on which
the guests reclined whilst eating. Dr. Puller be-
comes veiy impatient under this fact, and says, ''I
don't care what it means. The Bible says they im-
mersed the aiiicles; and this is enough." (P. 61.)
Take it eas}', Doctor: the Bible says no such thing.
That awkward and equivocal Latin word immerse
is not in the Bible, and never will be there until
Baptists are allowed to carry into effect that
cherished wish of their hearts, — to wit, the adjust-
ment of the word of God to their miserable sec-
tarian sj'stem. The word klinon means couches or
beds, and the Bible says that the Jews baptized
them ; and we wish the reader to inquire into the
character of these articles, in order to make up
his mind as to whether that baptism was a total
immersion. What were these couches? The
learned Home thus refers to them: — ''The more
opulent had (as those in the East still have) fine
carpets, couches, or divans, and sofas, on which
thejsat, lay, and slept. In later times their couches
were splendid, and the frames inlaid with ivory,
and the coverlets rich and perfumed. On these
sofas, in the latter ages of the Jewish State, [the
very period to which this text relates,] they uni-
versally reclined when taking their meals, resting
on their side with their heads toward the table.''
(Int. vol. ii. p. 154.)
Smith, in his Dictionary of Antiquities, says,
"The klince is, properly speaking, only the bed-
stead, and seems to have consisted of posts fitted
into one another, resting upon four feet. It was
11*
162 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
generally made of wood, solid or veneered, and
sometimes had silver feet."
Watson thus describes them : — " Eound the
tables were placed beds or couches, one to each
table : each of these beds was called dinium. At
the end of each clinium was a footstool, for the con-
venience of mounting up to it. These beds were
formed of mattresses and supported on frames of
svood, often highly ornamented. The mattresses
were covered with cloth or tapestry, according to
the quality of the entertainer." (Theol. Diet. art.
"Banquet.") Even Mr. Carson, one of Dr. Fuller's
guides, freely concedes that such were the articles
denoted by klinon. Upon these couches, too, Cle-
ment tells us that it was the custom of the Jews
often to be baptized. And can any sober-minded
man suppose that such ^'splendid" articles were
subject to daily immersions, and, above all, with
men reclining on them ? If not, then haptizo here
signifies only to purify, and that in some mode less
troublesome and less destructive than that of quite
burying them in the water.
Lightfoot maintains that the baptism of the
couches was by sprinkling.
Another passage in Avhich haptizo occurs is Luke
xi. 38: — "A certain Pharisee besought Jesus to
dine with him ; and Jesus went in and sat down to
meat. And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled
that Jesus had not first icaslied [ebaptisthe] before
dinner." Here we have the same sort of purifi-
cation spoken of in the preceding passage. Smith,
in his Antiquities, in describing a Grecian dinner,
Bays, "After the guests had placed themselves on
I
BAI'TIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1G3
the /xlinai, the slaves brought in Avater to icas/i their
hands." The custom Avas doubtless the same in
Judea and in Greece. Nay, if the Jewish lustra-
tions were ordinarily performed by simply washing
their hands, even when returning from the market,
it certainly is not to be supposed in this case that
Christ Avas expected to immerse himself Kuinol
says that the existence of anj'- such custom as that
of regular immersion before all meals cannot be
proved. Henry, Burkitt, and Olshausen under-
stand mere hand-Avashing to be indicated. The
translators "Wickliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Cranmer,
the learned authors of King James's version, the
editors of the Geneva Bible, the Eheims A'^ersion,
and even the version given out by the distinguished
chamj^ion of immersionism, Alexander Campbell,
all render it in this place by the general Avord wash.
Scapula, Schoetgen, Hedericus, Schleusner, Park-
huijgt, Eobinson, and Ewing, all refer in their lexi-
cons to this, along Avith other passages, as an
instance in which the Avord can mean nothing
more than simply to ivash or cleanse. It denotes
no more than a common ceremonial purification,
Avhich Avas sufficientl}'' accomj)lished by a simple
AA'etting of the hands.
May Ave not say, then, in vieAV of these facts and
CA'idences, that it is proA^en that in the New Testa-
ment ba2)tizo has a different meaning from that of
mere immersion? Who can doubt?
We Avould ask the reader to consider also, in
this connection, that the proper Greek Avords for
immersion — kaiapontizo, katadumi, katabaptizo, and
dupto — are never once used by the sacred Avriters
164 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
in connection with the sacrament of baptism or
any religious cleansing. Why is this? They
everywhere and alwaj'S have the very "nnivocal
meaning" which immersionists assign to baptizo.
What, then, is the reason that the inspired pen-
men have never used one of them with reference
to baptism? Is not the omission significant? Has
not this divine particularity, in using only haptizo,
a lesson for us? Does it not teach us that there is
a peculiarity about the meaning of this word some-
thing different from the simple act of immersion?
CHAPTEE XIII.
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — ITS TRUE
MEANING. ••
Our doctrine is that baptizo, with its derivatives,
in the vocabulary of the New Testament, is a
religious loord, and, wherever literally used, is used
in the same distinct religious sense. Dr. Carson
concedes that ''its occurrence in profane writers
is very rare." (P. 20.) And they never used it in a
strictly religious sense. It is "one of those words
whose history it is peculiarly interesting to watch,
as they obtain a deeper meaning and receive a
new consecration in the Christian Church, which,
even while it did not invent, has assumed them
into its service and employed them in a far loftier
eense than any to which the world had ever put
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTA3IENT. 165
them before." (Trench's Synonyms, p. 17.) If it
meant to immerse and nothing else, it would un-
questionably have been somewhere interchanged
with other Greek words which have this specific
signification. It is never so interchanged. Dr.
Fuller agi-ees that "the Holy Spirit always, in
speaking of the ordinance [of baptism], uses one
single word: that word is baptizo." (P. 12.) This
fact is very significant. It shows conclusively
that this word is not the synonym of dupto, kata-
pontizo, katadumi, katabaptizo, or any other word
that has the specific signification of sinking under
water, but has a sense peculiarly and pre-emi-
nentlj' its own, — not one up to the time foreign and
unknown to this Avord, but one among its well-
known significations, now adopted, fixed, and ever
after adhered to as the specific sense in which the
Holy Ghost employs it.
Dr. Fuller affects to be filled with holy jealousy
at such a doctrine. Though its truth is so dis-
tinctly indicated by the acts of the Holy Spirit,
he does not condescend to pay it common re-
spect. He will not call it "amusing absurdity"
and "ridiculous sophistry:" the subject is "too
solemn" for that. It is presented as something
with horns and split hoofs; a black spirit from the
under-world, bearing the name of blasphemy;
"AN IMPIETY which ought to fill a pious mind with
horror"! (P. 32.) But harsh exclamations, and
the application of evil names, are not arguments.
With all Dr. Fuller's " hue and cry" about ab-
surdity, sophistry, and horrible impiety, we main-
tain that bapjtizo has a religious sense, — a peculiar,
166 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
settled, and specific religious signification. And
so have nearly all the translators believed, and
acted on that belief. Jerome, Beza, the author
of the old Italic version, Wickliflfe, Tindale, Cran-
mer, the Geneva Bible, and King James's trans-
lators, have all transferred the word without
translating it, excej)t in one or two instances in
which it applies to religious washings. Horri-
ble impietists these must have been, to agree
that haptizo in the Savior's lips was a word so
peculiar in its application as not to be capable
of an exact translation by any one vei"b either in
Latin, Italic, or English! Hedericus assigns it a
specific religious sense in his lexicon. Parkhurst,
Schleusner, Eobinson, and others do the same.
And an able critic, in the <' Congregational Maga-
zine," some years ago, gave an argument, which
Dr. Carson failed to set aside, proving " that the
context of the word in the New Testament is
never that which is used, both in the classics and
in the Scriptures, to connect verbs signifying to dip
with that into which any object is dipped; but; on
the contrar}^, the context is always of a kind
which proves that literally it means some eftect
produced by water. Where hapto and haptizo sig-
nify to dip, the context is eis, with that into which
the object is dipped, — as we should say, he dipped
into water, &c. But this construction does not once
occur in the use of haptizo in the Septuagint and the
New Testament." Even Carson himself admits
that immersion and baptism are not synonymous
W'Ords. He says that they "are any thing rather
than synonymous." (P. 383.) The testimony,
RArXIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1G7
therefore, is perfectly conclusive, that baptizo in
the New Testament is used in a somewhat peculiar
^fxj] that it is a religious word, with its own
distinct religious sense.
We have just argued that haptizo was not used
by the inspired writers to signify a total immer-
sion and nothing else, because they have never
used it interchangeably with other words which
have this specific signification. Upon the same
principle we argue that, if an instance can be
found in which the sacred penmen use it inter-
changeably with any other word, that word must
give its true scriptural, religious sense, its proper,
technical, New Testament signification. Have we
any such instance? We have.
Let the reader turn to John iii. 22 and read
from that on to John iv. 3. The apostle here
tells us that John the Baptist was baptizing at
Enon, and that Jesus was also engaged in bap-
tizing— at least, by his disciples — in the same
vicinity. John had been baptizing great multi-
tudes; but it seems that at this time the public
attention was somewhat diverted from John's bap-
tism to that of the Savior. A sort of jealousy
was engendered in some of John's disciples by this
turn in the current of popular favor, and they
began to speak of it. A disi^ute arose about the
relative merits of John's baptism and Christ's
baptism. And this dispute about baptism the
sacred writer terms ''a question peri katharis-
Mou," — about PURIFYING. Of course, it could not
have been a question about purification in general:
that is altogether foreign to the scope of the
168 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
passage. It was baptism that gave rise to the
dispute; and baptism was the subject with which
the disputants, on the one side at least, went to
John to complain. (John v. 26.) It necessarily fol-
lows, therefore, that the subject of their dispute
was baptism. Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and
Cyril of Alexandria, testify expressly, in comment-
ing upon this passage, that the question concern-
ing purification was simply and only a question
concerning baptism. Theophjdact says of John's
disciples and the Jews on this occasion that they
"disputed concerning purification; that is, bap-
tism." Olshausen says, "The dispute related to
baptism.^' Dr. Beecher saj^s, " The dispute in
question was plainly a specific dispute concerning
baptism as practiced by Jesus and John." Schleus-
ner, Wahl, Vater, Rosenmiiller, De Wette, Bret-
schneidcr, and Kuinol, all say that baptism was
the only subject of the question. Grotius, Beza,
Whitby, Doederline, Bui'kitt, Clarke, and Henry
take the same view. Rosenmiiller, Vater, Kuinol,
and Schleusner give baptism as the proper trans-
lation of katliarismou in this passage. Even Pro-
fessor Eipley himself, nay, all that have ven-
tured to comment upon this text, so far as we
know, Mr. Carson alone excepted, in some way or
other make katliarismou here mean bap)tism.. Bj
no just laws of interpretation can it be made to
mean any thing else. And, whether wc put bap-
tism in the place of the word purifying, or put
purify in the jilace of baptize, the sense remains
the same.
Here, then, is a divine key to unlock to us the
BATTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMFNT. 1G9
true religious sense of baptizo. By inspiration of
the Holy Ghost it has its equivalent and synonym
in katharizo, which means to 'purify. The dispute
of which the apostle speaks was not a dispute
about '' a total immersion and nothing else/' but a
dispute about purifying. That purif^nng was the
religious rite of baptism as practiced both by Christ
and his forerunner. It follows, therefore, with
inevitable certainty, — and that not from heathen
classics or modern Jewish paraphrasts, but from
the infallible word of God itself, — that the true
religious sense of baptizo is religious purification.
If this is "horrible impiety," let Dr. Fuller make the
most of it.
Another word given in the Scriptures as equiva-
lent to baptizo is dikaioo, to clear, justify, to de-
clare innocent, and hence also to purif3\ In
Hebrews ix. 10 the writer makes diapJiorois bap-
tismois (divers baptisms) the exact equivalent of
dikaiomasi sarkos (clearings of the flesh). He is
speaking of the external expiations and lustra-
tions prescribed in the Jewish law. He calls
them all baptisms; and these outward baptisms he
calls clearings ov purifyings of the flesh. It is true,
in the English Bible the word ^^ and" comes be-
tween these two expressions, as if the w^riter
designed to designate two distinct departments in
the legal services of which he is speaking. But Gries-
bach altogether rejects this "and" (kai), as not a
genuine reading. Professor Stuart takes the same
view, and renders the joassage "meats and drinks
and divers icashings [baptisms'], — ordinances peiiain-
ing to the ffrsli." The Syriac version, according to
15
170 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Murdock's translation of it, is very clear in this
view. After the reference to meats and drinks
and baptisms, it has this unequivocal phrase: —
"which WERE carnal ordinances." In a tract be-
fore us, from a doctor of divinity in the city of
Baltimore, the passage is rendered '^ meats and
drinks and divers baptisms, [even] justifications
[or purifications] of the flesh." Dr. Carson agrees
that kai " often signifies even." (P. 69.) And it is
evident to all who will examine that this must be
the true reading, because there are no justifica-
tions or purifyings of the flesh prescribed in all
the Jewish law which are not completely included
"in meats and drinks and divers baptisms." Bap-
tismois and dikaiomasi are therefore interchange-
able terms. At least the Holy Ghost employs the
one to explain the other. Dikaioma nowhere, to
our knowledge, means immersion or any thing
like it. It means a judicial clearing. In Eom. ii.
26, V. 18, viii. 4, and Kev. xix. 8, it is rendered
righteousness ; in many places, justify; in Eom. vi.
7, freed. All these are also meanings of katharizo.
And, if these Avords explain the meaning of bap-
tizo, a religious pui'ifying is certainly its sense.
There can be no escape from this argument.
Again: in 1 Cor. xii. 13 the Holy Ghost him-
self is presented as a haptizer: — "For by one Spirit
ice are all baptized [ebaptisthamen']." Is the Holy
Spii-it an immerser or plunger? No; the Holy
Spirit is a sanctifier, a purifier. (Ezek. xxxvii. 28;
Eom. XV. 16; 1 Pet. i. 2.) ''The baptism of the
Holy Ghost," says Brown, '^ denotes not only the
miraculous collation of the influences of the blessed
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 171
Si>irit, whereby the New Testament Church was
solemnly consecrated to the service of God, but
dneflij his gracious influences, which, like fire,
inirify, soften, and inflame our heart with love to
Jesus, and wash away our sin, and enable us to
join ourselves to him and his people." When,
therefore, the fulfillment of these ofiices of the
Holy Ghost upon the recovered sinner is called
baptism, are we not bound to interpret the word
according to the nature of the oflices and work
of the Holy Spirit? If the ofiico of the Holy
Ghost is to purify, and God calls that purification
baptism, is it not a clear and palpable demonstra-
tion that in God's mouth the terms are convertible,
and that baptizo in its proper religious sense means
purification ?
There is also a passage in the first chapter of
John, verses 19-28, which remains exceedingly
obscure until we give to baptizo its proper signifi-
cation of purify. The authorities of the Jewish
people sent a deputation to John the Baptist, to
ascertain from him his true official character and
position. They asked him whether he was Elijah,
mistaking as they did the true import of the pre-
diction in Malachi iv. 5, 6. John said he was not.
They asked him whether he was that j^rophet
foretold by Moses in Deuteronomy xviii. 15. He
answered- again he Avas not. They then asked
him, " Why baptizest [jxipAizeis] thou, then, if thou
be not the Christ nor Elijah, neither that pirojyhet?"
What does this mean? What had been said by
the ancient prophets concerning Christ and his
forerunner, that led the Jewish oflScials to suppose
172 THK BAI'TIST SYSTEM KXAMINKU.
that these predictions were verified in John's work
of baptizing? Had God's messenger been pre-
dicted as an immerser? No. Had Christ been
predicted as an iimnerser? No. In what peculiar
character, then, had they been pi'edicted, to give
rise to this singular question? One passage in
Malachi iii. 1-3 \vill solve the whole difficult3^ In
that passage the Savior is foretold as a purifier,
likened to "a refiner's fire and fuller's soap," who
should "sit as a refiner and purifier of silver,"
who should ''purify the sons of Levi and purge them
as gold and silver." See also Isa. i. 25, iv. 4; Zech.
xiii. 9; Matt-iii. 10, 12; and Lightfoot's large col-
lection of Eabbinical passages on this point. Ac-
cording to these prophecies, the Jews universally
expected both Elijah and Christ in the ofiicial
character of purifiers. And when they put the
question to John, why he baptized if he was
neither Christ nor Elijah, they doubtless used the
word in the sense of the prophecies which led
them to ask the question, and the nature of the
case requires us to assign it the only intelligible
sense of purification.
There are yet a couple of passages which at least
approach a definition of baptism, to which we
invite attention. The one is Eph. v. 2G, the other
is Titus iii. 5. That these texts refer directly to
baptism is agreed by the best interpreters, and
cannot be successfully denied. Mi*. Campbell admits
that they do; and, if we are not mistaken in our
recollection, so does Dr. Carson. But these pass-
ages not only refer to baptism; they describe and
define it. But do they speak of it as immersion?
BAPTIZO I\ THE NEW TESTAMENT. 173
No. Do they connect immersion with it as an
essential part of it? No. The first sa3's it is a
sa7ictification, a cleansing, a catharism (catharisios'),
"with the washing [loutro'\ of water in or by the
word." The other says it is "the icashing [Jou-
tro7i'] of regeneration." Who, but one bent upon
the sup2:)ort of a sectarian sj'steni right or Avrong,
woukl ever think of finding imnici'sion in these
texts? It is not in them. We have already given
the meaning of louo or loutron. (See Chapter V.,
on the ease of ISTaaman.) Immersion is no part of
its meaning. Galerius in his lexicon says it signi-
fies "not only to wash or bathe, but also to
moisten, foment, pour, or sprinkle." Basil applies
it to denote the baptism of Ariantheus the praetor,
who was converted on his death-bed, who was bap-
tized by sprinkling. (See his Letter 386.) Julius
Pollux, seq., 46, lib. 10, cap. 10, uses it to designate
basins used for washing the hands and face. Zo-
naras defines loutron to mean "any thing which
produces the removal of impurity." What, then,
is a religious loutron but a religious cleansing or
jjurifying?
Xow, what higher authority as to the scriptural
meaning of baptism is there upon this earth than
these passages? They may be called God's own
definition of the word and the sacrament of
which it is the name. And, gathering up what
they teach on the subject in dispute, we are shut
up and compelled to say that the Christian, Bibli-
cal, and divine sense of bajytizo is a religious catha
rism, cleansing, icashing, or purifying.
Apart from its religious application, this mean-
15»
174 TlIK BAPTIST .SVSTKM EXAMINKD.
iog was not first attached to this word by the Avri-
tors of the New Testament. We have sufficiently
set forth this fact in our preceding discussion. Dr.
Carson admits that in confining haptizo to the ex-
clusive modal sense of dip, he has ''all the lexi-
cographers and commentators against" him. Mr.
George Wilson, who styles himself "an exiled
minister of the Associate Eeformed Church," and
who has volunteered to furnish us with his lucu-
brations in support of immersion baptism, says,
"That baptizo is frequently used where the design
of the action was to ivash, we have no reason to
dispute." (P. 95.) We have shown that the word
hapto, from which bapAizo is derived, has the signi-
fications of \cash, cleanse, icef, moisten, and bedew.
We have shown that there is nothing in the addi-
tion of 20 or izo to exclude or augment this sense.
We have shown, by more than twenty lexicons,
and as many authorities additional, that wash,
cleanse, purify is one of the plain and common
significations of this disputed word. We have
demonstrated, from the Alexandrine or Hebraic
Greek of the Septuagint and patristic writers,
that icash, cleanse, and purify, especially in a re-
ligious sense, is one of the commonest and the
almost exclusive sense in which the word is
employed in that kind of Greek writing. It was
thci'efore neither far-fetched nor violent, but natu-
ral, easy, and very much demanded by the nature
of the case, for the Holy Ghost to take up and
employ this word always in the same specific
sense of a religious cleansing, washing, or purifi
cation.
liAI'TIZL IN TllK -NLW TK.STA>1 IJ.N'T. 175
But even if baptizo liad never been used in this
sense previous to its introduction into the New Testa-
ment, that it /.s so nscd by the Holy Ghost is a
fixed fact, which no ingenuity or eloquence on earth
can unsettle. "\Te have seen that it is used by the
inspired John as the synonym of katharizo, which
means only to cleanse, especially in a religious,
legal, or ceremonial sense. Paul employs it to de-
note the work of God's Spirit in the sinner's heart,
which is a j)urification, and not an immersion. John
is again and again called the baptizer, and was
supposed to be either Elias or the Christ simply
because he cleansed Israel by a religious purifying.
The writer of the Epistle to the HebrcAvs calls
all the various sprinklings, expiations, and lustra-
tions under the Jewish law, many of which
certainly were not immersions, divers baptisms,
only because they y^QYQ pxirifications. The Pharisaic
washing of hands before eating, the washing of
j^ots and cups and brazen vessels, and the sprink-
ling of beds and couches, are all called baptisms,
upon no other ground than that they were cere-
monial purifications. Christ himself is said to have
been bapitized (with water by John, and with blood
and agony in Gethsemane and on the cross) for
the expressed purpose, and only in this respect,
that he might fulfill all righteousness, (Matt. iii. 15,)
and be perfected through sufferings, (Heb. ii. 10,)
and have effected in himself the great purgation
thi'ough which those who are in him are justified
and purified forever. The Israelites are said to
have been bapAized unto Moses in the cloud and in
the sea, because, according to Vitringa, Wolf, Ben-
176 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
gel, Eosenmliller, Semler, Schleusner, and others,
they were thereby initiated into the rehgion
which Moses taught, ransomed from their degra-
dation and bondage in Egypt, absolved from their
old taskmasters, consecrated as God's peculiar
people, purified from their former associations with
the heathen, and, by a wonderful divine inter-
position, separated from the vile and blaspheming,
as a people henceforth and forever specially
ordained to hear God's messengers and to obey
God's law. That baptism was not an immersion;
the hosts of Pharaoh alone were immersed; but it
was a mysterious consecration, an absolution, an
induction into a new and holier state, a purification.
Augustine (Serm. de Catach., vol. ix. p. 320, Paris,
1586) speaks of it as a '^ salvation by water."
"One element," says he, ''by the command of the
Creator, judged both; for it separated the righteous
from the wicked. The former it washed, the latter
it overwhelmed; the former it purified, the latter
it destroyed." Hilarj' paraphrases the words
thus: — "Their past sins were not imputed to
them, but they were purified [_purificati'] by the
cloud and by the sea." In the same way, in Eom.
vi. 3-11, Christians are said to be baptized into
Je.sus Christ, because in him their old body of sin
is destroyed, their guilt absolved, their impurities
purged out, and a glorious renovation effected.
There can be no immersion in Christ, nor yet in
the death of Christ; but there is absolution in
Christ and his death, and p)urification; for his
blood cleanseth from all sin. And there is not a
single instance in the New Testament in Avhich
BAI'TIZO IN TUK NKW TESTAMENT. 177
baptizo is literally used, where it does not natu-
rally, if not necessarily, take the sense of religious
purification.
The testimony from the Fathers that hapflzo
has the sense of kaiharizo, and in Christian lan-
guage means a religious purifying, is almost
^vithout limit, as Dr. Eeechcr has satisfactorily
shown.
Take the lexicographers Zonaras and Phavorinus.
They were not among the early Fathers, hut they
give us dictionaries founded on the early Fathers,
Zonai'as was one of the four leading Byzantine
historians. He wrote annals from the beginning
of the world down to a.d. 1118, and various com-
mentai'ies on apostolic canons, decrees of councils,
&c. Tittman says of his lexicon, ^'I consider it,
after that of Hesychius, the most learned of all
others that survive, the most copious and most
accurate." And yet these great lexicographers
say not one word about immersion in connection
with baptism. They define ^^baptisma, — the remis-
sion of sins by water and the Spirit, the unsjjeak-
able forgiveness of sins, the loosing of the bond [of
sin] granted by the love of God toward men, the
voluntary arrangement of a new life toward God,
the releasing or recovery of the soul to that which
is better, — to holiness." All these are exact defi-
nitions of religious purif^'ing. They are all mean-
ings of katharizo. And surely those words must
be synonymous to which the same definitions are
given.
But these are not the mere opinions of Zonaras
and Phavorinus. They are taken almost literally
178 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
from the Fathers. Basil, on Isaiah iv. 4, sets him-
self to give a formal and compi-ehensive definition
of the whole import of baptisma. In this definition
he gives three significations or applications of the
word, in each of which the idea of purification is
the uppermost. He says that baptism means puri-
fication from filth, spiritual purification, Q^neuniatos
anagennesis,') and j)urgation or trial by the fire of
the judgment. Clement calls the washing of
Penelope and the wetting of the hands of Tele-
machus with sea-water, in Homer, and the lus-
trations of the Jews whilst reclining on (epi) their
couches, baptisms, certainly not because they were
immersions, — they were not immersions, — but be-
cause they were religious purifyings. Justin Martyr
calls deliverance from evil passions a baptism. Ori-
gen calls martyrdom a baptism. Ambrose calls
the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb
on the doors in Egypt a baptism. Cyril calls the
sjDrinkling of the ashes of the burnt heifer on the
unclean baptism. Tei'tullian calls the heathen cere-
monies of sprinkling themselves, their temples, kc,
baptisms. Athanasius calls the placing of John's
hand upon the Savior's head a baptism. Gregory
Nazianzen, in his thirty -ninth discourse, calls mar-
tyrdom, penance, and jDurgation in another life
baptisms. Some of these same Fathers call the
washing of the disciples' feet by Christ a baptism.
How can all this be explained unless we take the
word baptism in the sense of religious purification ?
Anastasius says he would not hesitate to call
mourning a baptism. He saj^s that ''affliction,
with humility and silence, is a baptism;" and the
TiATTI'/o IN TIIK NKW TKSTAMENT. 179
reason ho assigns is, that '* it j^^O'ijies a man." Tcr-
tuliian calls tlic water and blood that issued from
the side of Christ two baptisms, — of course not im-
mersions, but j;?/r(/fra?wns or 'purifiers. Maximus
(vol. ii. p. 450, Paris, 1075) says that "sons of
thunder" means sons oi! baptism. The explanation
he gives is, that thunder is composed of water and
air, an initiation into the mystery of purification.
His philosophy is faulty and his language involved;
but the passage is sufficient to show that he con-
sidered purification the proper sense of the word
baptism. Chrysostom uses it interchangeably Avith
remission and reconciliation, and Cyprian with the
words washing and cleansing; all of which requires
the sense of purification. Josephus, also, though
not a Christian, speaks of John's baptism as a 'piwi-
fication. (Ant. lib. xviii. cap. 5, sec. 2.) Chrysos-
tom, in his thirtj^-third Homily, says that Christ
"calls his cross and death a cup and baptism: a,
cup, because he readily drank itj baptism, because
by it lie purified the icorld." Theophylact, on Matt.
XX. 22, 23, says that Jesus ''calls his death a bap)-
tism, as making a purification or expiation \_katliar-
tikon'] for all of us." So also, on Mark x. 38, 39, he
says that Jesus ''calls his cross baptism., as about to
make a ^purification \_katharismon'\ for sin." Gregory
Nazianzen speaks of Christ's baptism in the Jordan
as his purification \_kathairomenon'] in the Jordan.
Several Fathers call the tears of penitence or prayer
baptism; certainly not because suppliants were
totally immersed in them, but because, as Nilus,
the disciple of Chrysostom, says, they are " good
wash-basins for the soul ;" or, as Gregory of Nyssa
180 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
says, "fountains, by means of which you can wash
off the spots and pollutions of your soul." In the
passage from Origen relative to the baptism of the
wood, altar, and hewn bullock in Elijah's sacrifice,
the sense of purify is expressly assigned to baptizo.
The passage is this: — "How came you [the Jews]
to think that Elias, when he should come, would
baptize, who did not himself baptize the wood upon
the altar in the days of Ahab, although it needed to
be PURIFIED, but commanded the priests to do it V
Baptism and purification ai'e here used interchange-
ably with each other; and the author only means
to affirm that the baptizing or purifying of the
wood on the altar was not performed by Elijah
himself, but by the priests.
But this is still not all. The command in Isaiah
i. 16 is a command to wash, make clean, and jjut
away evil. Justin Martyr, Cyril, and Hippolj'tus
call it a prophetic injunction of baptism. The
promise in Ezekiel xxvi. 25 is a promise to sprinkle
with clean water and to cleanse from filthiness and
idols. Cyprian, Jerome, and others pronounce it a
prediction concerning baptism. This application
of the promise is of frequent occurrence in the
writings of the Fathers. What modern Baptist
would not feel that he had surrendered his creed
and abandoned his denomination if he were to
make the same application ? The phrase in Isaiah
liii. 15, "He shall sprinkle many nations," Jerome
applies also to baptism. He thus states its mean-
ing:— "He shall sprinkle, &c., cleansing them in his
own blood, and by baptism consecrating them to the
service of God." The prophecy in Isaiah iv. 4
BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 181
relates to puritication by Avashing, judgment, and
the spirit of burning. Basil, Jerome, Origen, Eu-
sebius, and Theodoret call it baptism, which is
partly accomplished in the present life and partly
in the life to come. The declaration in Psalm Ixvi.
10 speaks only of the process by which metals are
freed from dross. One writing in the name of
Chrysostom calls it a baptism; "for," says he, "as
gold or silver is purified in the furnace by con-
suming the dross, so a man placed in the furnace
of affliction is purified." ^lalachi iii. 3 speaks only
of purifj-ing and purging. Theodoret and Cyril
of Alexandria speak of it as a prophecy of baptism,
and comment upon it as explaining why the Jews
demanded of John wh}^ he baptized, if he was neither
Elias nor the Christ. And Athanasius says, ex-
plicitly, "The expression, He shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost, means this, that lie shall
PURIFY you [liathariei hwnas']." Indeed, Cyprian has
this broad declaration, — that " as often as water
alone is mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, bap-
tism is alluded to;" "because," says Isidore Hispa-
lensis, "water is a, purifier, and is the only element
that purifies all things." Augustine, also, has this
passage: — "When we say that Christ baptizes, we
do not say that he holds and washes in water
the body of the believer, but that he invisibly
PURIFIES him, and not only him, but the whole
Church."
Fi"om all this is not the conclusion inevitable
that baptize, as a religious term, does not mean "a
total immersion and nothing else," nor yet to
sprinkle or pour, but to purify, without limitation
u
182 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
as to mode? Even Maimonides, upon whom Dr.
Fuller relies so much, applies the word baptism to
a general religious purification. '' There are three
things/' says he, '' by which the Israelites entered
into covenant with God, — circumcision, baptism,
and sacrifice. Baptism was practiced in the desert
before the giving of the law; for God said to Moses,
Sanctify them." (Issure Biah, Perek 13.) Did
Moses immerse the people? Certainly not. He
only commanded them to purify themselves by
taking care that no defilement was on them, by
abstaining from all fleshly indulgences, and by
washing their clothes, repenting of their sins, and
lifting their hearts to God. And this general puri-
fication is cited as an instance and an evidence of
Mosaic baptism. Indeed, so thoroughly were some
of the translators of the Bible convinced that to
baptize is to purify, that the Saxon Testament has
John le Fullvbtere, — literally, the Scourer; and the
Icelandic translates baptism sicira, — literally, to
scour; that is, to cleanse.
Indeed, all respectable versions of the ISTew Tes-
tament, from its first publication until now, are
against the Baptist interpretation of 6aj)^;>o. The
venerable Peshito-Syriac and the Philoxenian ren-
der it by amad, — the primary meaning of which,
according to Schaaf's Syriac Lexicon, is abluo, to
wash or cleanse. The Syriac word for immerse ia
tzeva; but it is never emploj-ed to translate baptizo.
The Arabic uses a term of the. same import as the
Syriac amad. The Persic version gives for baptizo
a word meaning to wash. The Ethiopic, the Sa-
hidic, the Basmuric, the Arniinian, the German,
BAPTIZO IX THE NEW TESTAMENT. 183
the Swedish, the Danish, the English in all its old
versions, the French, the Spanish, and, in one
place, even the CixmYiheWite-Baptist version, give
washing, cleansing, jmrifijing, or Avords to this effect,
as the proper equivalent of baptize in the New
Testament. They could not do otherwise and
remain faithful to the truth. And, indeed, as
remarked by Dr. Beecher, the idea of purification,
in the nature of things, is better adapted to be the
name of this rite than immersion. It has a fitness
and verisimilitude, in all its extensive variety of
usage, which cause the mind to feel the self-evi-
dencing power of truth, as producing harmony
and agreement in the most minute as well as in
the most important relations of the various parts
of this subject to each other. First, the idea of
purification is the fundamental idea in the whole
subject. Second, it is an idea complete and defi-
nite in itself in every sense, and needs no adjunct
to make it more so. Thiixl, it is the soul and
centre of a whole circle of delightful ideas and
words. It throws out before the mind a flood of
rich and glorious thoughts, and is adapted to ope-
rate upon the feelings like a perfect charm. To a
sinner desiring salvation, what two ideas so delight-
ful as forgiveness and purity? Both are condensed
in this one word. It involves in itself a deliverance
from the guilt of sin and from its pollution. It is
a purification from sin in every sense. It is puri-
fication by the atonement and purification by the
truth, — by water and by blood. And around these
ideas cluster others likewise, of holiness, salvation,
.eternal joy, eternal life. No other word can pro-
184 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
duce such delight in the heart and send such a
flood of light into all the relations of divine truth ;
for purity, in the broad Scripture sense, is the joy
and salvation of man and the crowning glory ot
God.
.Of iynmersion not one of these things is true. Iv
is not a fundamental idea in any subject or system.
By itself it does not convey any one fixed idea, but
depends on its adjuncts and varies with them.
Immersion! In what? clean water or filthy? in a
dye-fluid, or in wine? Until these questions are
answered the word is of no use. And with the
spiritual sense the case is still worse; for common
usage limits it in English, Latin, Greek, and, so
far as we know, in all languages, by its adjuncts,
of a kind denoting calamity or degradation, and
never purity. It has intimate and firmly-estab-
lished associations with such words as luxury,
ease, indolence, sloth, cai'es, anxieties, troubles,
distresses, sins, pollution, death. We familiarly
speak of immersion and sinking in all these ; but
with their opposites the idea of immersion refuses
alliance. Sinking and downward motion are
naturally allied with ideas which, in a moral sense,
are depressed and debased, and not with such as
are elevated and pure. And for what i-eason should
the God of order, purity, harmony, and taste select
an idea for the name of his own beloved rite so
alien from it, and reject one in every respect so
desirable and so fit ? Who does not feel that the
name of so delightful an idea as purification must
be the name of the rite ? And who does not rejoice
that there is proof so unanswerable that such is the.
SCRII'TLKAL lIINTis CONCERNlNa MODE. 185
signification of the Avord which the Hol}^ Ghost
everywhere uses to denote this hol}^ Christian
sacrament? (See Beecher on Bapt.'jjp. 81, 82.)
May we not now say we have ascertained tho
meaning of baptizo? It signifies a religious wash-
ing, cleansing, and purifying. At any rate, Dr.
Carson concedes that, ''whatever may be supposed
the meaning of the name of this rite, it is in its
NATURE a rite 0/ purification." (P. 471.)
CHAPTEE XIY.
SCRIPTURAL HINTS CONCERNINO MODE.
After what has now been said, it is impossible
for any man, open to receive the truth, not to be
convinced that the New Testament and Christian
use of baptizo is to signify a religious purifying,
without regard to mode. That the sacred and
Christian writers have used it in this sense, and
that with reference to purify ings performed in
every variety of mode, is settled, — may we not
say demonstrated? It is not a matter of analogy
or inference, but a matter of fact, which ten thou-
sand proofs that baptizo among the old heathen
Greeks originally meant to immerse, dip, sink, and
drown cannot at all affect or set aside ; a matter of
fact so fully proven and so firmly established that
a man might as well attempt to turn the course
of the Mississippi across the Eocky Mountains, or
16«
186 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
to overthrow the eternal hills, as to undertake to
strike it from among the fixed verities of things.
Nor should It be thought strange or remarkable
that a word which once so frequently meant to dip
and plunge has thus passed over to signify a re-
ligious purification, without regard to the manner
of its performance. Dr. Beecher has justly re-
marked that " no principle is more universally
admitted by all sound philologists than that to
establish the original and primitive meaning of a
word is not at all decisive as regards its subse-
quent usages;" that "it is too plain to be denied,
that words do often so far depart from their primi-
tive meaning as entirely to leave out the original
idea;" and that ''such transitions are particularly
common in words of the class of haptizo, denoting
action by or with reference to a fluid." We will
condense a few of his examples. Tingo certainly
once meant only to immerse and dip; then to dye
or color, as ordinarily performed by immersing the
articles to be colored ; then to color or stain, with-
out reference to mode ; and, lastly, it gave rise to
the English words tinge and tint, in which there is
not the least thought of immersion. The original
idea of wash was simply to cleanse by a purifying
fluid ; afterward it came to signify the application
of a superficial coloring, as to white wash, yellow-
wash, or to wash with silver or gold ; and finally
it has come into a use where the original idea of
purity is entirely lost, as when we speak of the
-washes of a cow-3'ard or from the streets. Ziet once
meant only to hinder; now it means only to permit.
And similar transitions may be traced in the words
SCRIPTURAL HINTS CONCERNING MODE. 187
conversation, charity, prevent, &c. Carson says,
"The word saucer, from signifying a small vessel
for holding sauce, now signifies one for cooling-
tea ;" and that "the foi'cigner who should allege
that the English word saucer cannot signify a
small vessel for tea, but must always denote one
for sauce, would reason as correctly as those who
attempt to force hapto, when signifying to dye,
always to look back to its origin." (P. 49.) Ex-
actly so ; and the wonder is that he could not be
made to see that the same law can apply to baptizo.
Indeed, this doctrine of transition in the meaning
of words is so clear and undeniable that terrible
havoc would be made with modern wa-iting to
persist in interpreting every word according to its
etymology. It is use, not derivation, that estab-
lishes the meaning of diction. Nor has anybody
expressed this better than Dr. Carson himself.
"AYere the origin of bapto to be traced," saj's he,
"even with the utmost certainty, to some other
word or words of the language, its meaning in the
language must be determined by its use in the
language, and not by its origin. Words often
depart widely in their use from the meaning of their
root. They may drop some idea that loas at first
essential, or they may embrace ideas not originally
applied." (P. 88.) Again: he says, "Nothing in
the history of words is more common than to
enlarge or diminish their signification. Ideas not
originally included are often affixed, while others drop
IDEAS ORIGINALLY ASSERTED. In this Way bapto,
(the very word from which baptizo comes,) from
signifying mere mode, came to be applied to a cer-
188 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
tain operation usually performed in that mode :
from signifying to dip, it came to signify to dye by
dipping, because this was the way in which things
were usually dyed; and afterwards, from dyeing by
dipping, it came to denote dyeing in any jmanner. A
like process may he shown in the history of a thousand
other words." (P. 44.)
Well, then, if this is a process so clear and fur-
nishes so many illustrations, and if bapto, " from
signifying mere mode," passed to the signification
only of an effect produced " in any manner," why
could not its derivative haptizo pass through a
similar transition, from signifying immersion to
the sense of cleansing by immersion, and from
cleansing by immersion to the sense of cleansing
" in any manner," to denote only the idea of puri-
fication ? Reasoning from analogy or from the
nature of the subject, there is nothing to prevent
such a transition. On the other hand, Dr. Bcecher
has shown that circumstances existed prior to the
time of Christ rendering such a transition exceed-
ingly probable. And that baptizo did pass through
some such transition, or from the beginning had
associated with it a meaning so as to be employed
by the inspired and the early Christian writers to
denote simply a purification without limitation as
to mode, is abundantly proven by the conclusive
arguments presented in the preceding chapters.
This one fact, then, effectually and forever dis-
poses of all Dr. Fuller's quotations from the old
heathen Greeks to prove that haptizo in the New
Testament "signifies a total immersion and no-
thing else." If it did originally mean to dip, it
SCRIPTURAL HINTS CONCERNING MODE. 189
had acquired the additional sense of ivash and
cleanse long before the Savior's time. Of this all
the lexicographers are witnesses. The Septuagint,
■which was written more than two hundred and
fifty years before Christ, uses it interchangeably
with louo, which means to icash, without reference
to mode. And so it is employed in the New Testa-
ment, in this one fixed and uniform sense of purifi-
cation, without limitation as to manner. We chal-
lenge all the Baptist learning in the world to pro-
duce from the New Testament one single instance
in which its signification is necessarily limited to
immersion. In all their multiplied books, tracts,
and arguments on this subject Baptists have never
produced such an instance. They cannot jjroduce
such an instance. There is none such in existence.
AVith characteristic regard for fairness, it is the
constant habit of Baptist writers to treat us and
our position as if we held that baptizo means to
sprinkle or pour. Dr. Fuller ascribes this to us as
our doctrine again and again. We deny it, and
hurl back the statement as unmanly sophistry.
We maintain no such thing. This would be limit-
ing the word to mode, just like himself We do
not say that it never means to sprinkle. Schreve-
lius and Scapula translate it by lava, which often
has the sense o{ spriiiJding ; but our doctrine is that
baptizo, in its New Testament and Christian sense,
means to purify, without Un\itation as to mode. We
do not read. In those days came John the sprinkler,
or John the pourer, or John the dipper, but John
the purifier } not I indeed p)Our you with water unto
repentance, nor I indeed dip you with ivater unto
190 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
repentance, but I indeed purify you with water j not
There standeth one among you who shall sprinkle
you with the Holy Ghost, or dip you with the Holy
Ghost and with fire, but one who shall purify you
with the Holy Ghost and with fire ; not He that
believeth and is sprinkled or dipped shall be saved,
but He that believeth and \^ purified shall be saved;
not Ye are sprinkled in Christ's death, or dipped in
Christ's death, but purified in Christ's death; not
that The fathers were poured unto Moses in the
cloud, or sprinkled unto Moses in the cloud, much
less dipped unto Moses in the cloud, but purified
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; not Go ye
and make disciples of all nations, pouring them, or
PLUNGING them, but purifying them, in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Only let our position be fairly stated, and the Baptist
theory will refute itself. Dr. Fuller sees this; and
hence his equivocation and sophistry.
We proceed now to inquire how far Dr. Fuller's
theory that the plunging of the subject into the
element is requisite to valid baptism is sustained
by those incidental expressions given by the Bible
in connection with this point. We do not expect
to jjrove that the Scrij^tures anywhere lay down
any one specific mode for the performance of this
baptismal purification, any more than to find
inspired direction as to any one specific mode of
receiving or administering the Lord's Supper. The
Scriptures noiohere prescribe specific modes for the
observance of either of these two great Christian sacra-
ments. And we call upon Dr. Fuller and all his
teachers to produce the passage which will confute
SCRIPTURAL HINTS CONCEUNIXO MODE. 191
this Statement. But still thei*e are some incidental
expressions bearing upon the subject of mode, to
which we desire to direct attention.
Let ns look for a moment at what is said about
the baptism by the Holy Ghost, and of the mode
of action by which this baptism is effected. John's
testimony concerning Jesus was, " He shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost and loith fire." Jesus
himself promised his disciples, "I send the promise
of my Father upon you: tarry ye in the city until
ye be endued icith power from on high." "Ye shall
be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days
hence." (Luke xxiv. 49; Acts-i. 5.) Here was a
sacred prophecy, the fulfillment of which has been
recorded by the pen of insjiiration. This baptism
was to occur "not many days" after Christ's as-
cension. All agree that it took place on the day
of Pentecost. There was, then, on the day of
Pentecost a. great divine baptism. How was it per-
formed ? The attempts of Baptists to answer this
question have produced some rich specimens of Bib-
lical interpretation, — "precious morsels," indeed.
Dr. Carson says, " The disciples were immersed
into the Holy Spirit : they were literally covered
with the appearance of wind and fire, — completely
covered with the emblems of the Spirit." (P. 107.)
Just to think of the disciples buried in the appear-
ance of wind! How sensible ! How easy of com-
prehension ! The "exiled minister of the Associate
Eeformed Church" tells us, from Ohio, that "they
were literally immersed in significant sound" !! and
that '' the word ekcheo [^poured outl^ is used to denote
the superabundance, and not to express the manner" !
192 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
(Pp. 169, 170.) "Bnt," says he, "we have no
desire to undermine and destroy the meaning of
ekcheo." (P. 150.) Oh, no, not at all! He only
desired to put it out of the way for this once, —
until he had dipped the disciples " in significant
sound" ! ! Pengilly, who with so much pretended
meekness undertakes to give a full exhibit of " the
various portions of Scripture relating to baptism,"
never alludes to this divine baptism of Pentecost.
It seems to have been too tough a case for him to
undertake. Dr. Fuller says that " there was a real
immersion." (P. 85.) We ask, in ivhat? He says,
"Jesus compares the Spirit to ivind;" and that "on
that day ' suddenly there came a sound from heaven
as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the
house where they were sitting.' " The italicizing
is his own ; the impression which he seeks to make
is plain. The disciples were immersed in wind!
But how was it with the '^fire" ? John said that
Christ would " baptize with fii-e ;" and this was the
literal fulfillment of it. Were the disciples im-
mersed in the cloven tongues of flame? The Bap-
tist world is silent. No answer has been attempted.
There stirs not even "the appearance of wind"!
But we turn to the inspired accounts of the trans-
action ; — "And when the day of Pentecost was
fully come, suddenly there came a sound from
heaven; . . . and there appeared unto them cloven
tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them,
and they were filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts
ii. 1, 2.) Peter says of Cornelius and his friends,
" The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the
BEGINNING." (Acts X. 44.) " God . . . gavc them
SCRirXURAL HINTS CONCDllXIXC MODE. 193
the Holy Ghost, even as he did xinto us." John says,
" I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a
dove, and it abode upon him." (John i. 32.) Peter
saj's of the baptism of Pentecost, "This is that
which was sjjoken by the i^rophet Joel, ... I will
POUR OUT m}^ Spirit. . . . Jesus, having received
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath
shed forth this which ye now see and hear."
(Acts ii. 16, 17, 33.) "Peter and John prayed for
the people of Samaria, that they might receive the
Holy Ghost J for as yet ho had fallen upon none
of them." (Acts viii. 15, 16.) "God anointed
Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." (Acts x.
38.) "While Peter yet spake, the Holy Ghost
FELL ON all them which heard the word. And
the}^ of the circumcision were astonished, . . .
because that on the Gentiles also was poured out
the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts x. 44, 45.) Paul
speaks of "the Hol}^ Ghost which he shed on us."
(Tit. iii. 6.) Peter speaks of the Jfirst minister as
having " preached the gospel, with the Holy Ghost
sent down from heaven." (1 Peter i. 12.) And in
Ephesians i. 13 we have the phrase "sealed with
the Holy Spirit."
Now, we are very gravely reminded that this
falling, descending, j^ouring out %ipon, shedding forth,
falling upon, d-c. denotes one thing, but the results
thereof another thing. We are told that it was
not the pouring that constituted the baptism, but
the consequence of the pouring. Very well : if
our Baptist friends can gain any thing by the dis-
tinction, we have no great objection to it. But
the pouring out or shedding forth unquestionably
17
194 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
gives THE MODE of that result. It gives the action
of the case, and the only action of the case. We
do not say that the pouring out was the baptism ;
but we do say that it was the mode of it, and that,
so far as mode enters into this baptism, that mode
was POURING OUT UPON. There it is. God's own
Spirit says it. And God's own Sjjirit knows how
it was done. Baptist critics tell us that the pour-
ing was a figure; but of what? It was not a figure
of the Spirit. It was not a figure of any quality
of the Spirit. If a figure of any thing, it must be
a figure of some action. It must figure motion.
And that motion is the coming down of the bap-
tizing element from above upon the subject. Make
that element sound, or make it wind, or make it
the appearance of wind, or make it fire and wind,
it is all the same : this baptism was by j)0uring
upon, by shedding forth : the mode was affusion.
But we deny that there was any "wind" in the
case, or that there was any "appearance of wind."
A "sound" there was; but we deny that the sound
was the Spirit. It was onl}' the indication of the
Spirit's approach. The sensible form of the Holy
Ghost, assumed on this occasion, was "cloven
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of
them." There was a shower of flamc-likc flakes
alighting upon the heads of the favored ones,
83'mbolizing the light, and purifying power, and
heavenly inspirations that were being poured upon
their waiting souls. And this was the baptism
with the Holy Ghost. Whether the copiousness
of the glorious gift was of a degree to deluge the
subject or not, it was by descent ujion him, — by
SCRIPTURAL HINTS CONCERNING MODE. 195
applying the clement to him, and not by thrusting
him into the element. Admit every thing that
the invention of immersionists has devised to
figure out immersion : the mode still remains the
same, and refuses to yield. "The Holy Ghost
FELL ON THEM." The Spirit Tvas "poured out."
Indeed, the Baptist annotator Hackett calls it an
"effusion," and says, ''the fire-lLke appearance pre-
sented itself at first, as it were, in a single body,
and then suddenly parted in this direction and
that, so that a portion of it rested upon each of
those present." (Acts ii. 3.) This wholly excludes
all idea of immersion.
And again: if haptizo includes mode, and that
mode is immersion, then the idea of immersion
must fit and harmonize with all these scriptural
allusions to mode in connection with the subject
of baptism. That it does not thus fit, the follow-
ing experimentum crucis will show : — " This is that
which was spoken : . . . I will immerse out my Spirit
upon all flesh." "I saw the Spirit immersing from
heaven like a dove." "Jesus hath immersed forth
this which ye now see and hear." "As yet the
Holy Ghost had immersed upon none of them."
"On the Gentiles also was immersed out the gift of
the Holy Ghost." "The Holy Ghost, which he
immersed on us." "The Holy Ghost immersed
down from heaven !" How ridiculous and shock-
ing would be such readings! And the whole
ground of the difficulty thus exhibited lies in this:
that the Scriptures contemplate the application of
the baptismal element to the subject, and frame
their language accordingly; but Dr. Fuller's theory
196 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
contemplates the aiypJication of the subject to the ele-
ment. And the language which describes the one
cijeration cannot possibly be construed with that
which describes the other.
So far, then, as concerns the baptism of the
Spirit, the doctrine that the subject must be
plunged into the baj)tismal element in order to be
baptized is not only without scriptural foundation,
but in absolute contradiction to every word which
the Spirit of God itself has employed to describe
the mode of one of its OAvn operations. The
whole description implies and relates to affusion.
There is not one single expression that will tole-
rate the idea of immersion.
And if the idea of affusion is thus divinely
appropriated as descriptive of the baptism by the
Holy Ghost, what is more natural than to infer
that the same mode holds good and is agreeable to
the divine mind with regard to the baptism by
water? There is necessarily a close resemblance
between them. In many passages the same ex-
pressions are applied to both. The record of
water-baptism presents exactly the same construc-
tion as the record of the baptism by the Spirit.
Indeed, one is the type of the other. And, in the
absence of direct proof to the contrary, are we not
bound to believe that the mode in one is corres-
pondent with the mode in the other? When
Peter saw the Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius and
his friends, his mind instantly recurred to the bap-
tism of John. ''Then remembered I, . . . John
indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be ba)*-
tizcd with the Holy Ghost." What laws of
SCRIPTIUAL HINTS CONCERNING MODi:. 107
mental association could tims cany him back
from the contemplation of the affusion of the
Spirit to a water-baptism, unless that water-bap-
tism was performed by a similar affusion?
We look next at the baptism of Christ spoken
of in Luke xiii. 50, Mark x. 38, Matt. xx. 22, 23.
This is nniforml}' xmderstood by Origen, Gregory
Nazianzcn, Augustine, and all the Fathers, as a
baptism of blood. But the Savior never was
totally immersed in blood. In the garden he was
only bedeived with drops oozing from his pores.
On the cross he was merely stained with what
trickled from his pierced hands, feet, and temples,
and flowed from his wounded side. If we under-
stand it of the wrath of God which he endured
for sinners, that wrath is always spoken of as
poured out: Ps. Ixix. 24, Ixxix. 6; Jer. x. 25; Ezek.
vii. 8, xxi. 31; 2 Chron. xii. 7; Isa. xlii. 25; Jer.
vii. 20; Lam. ii. 4; Ezek. xx. 33. If we under-
stand it of the stripes and iniquities which he
bore for the world's salvation, these things are
everywhere spoken of as laid on him: Isa. liii.4,
6, 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24. And it would be doing violence
to the ordinary construction of language to read
the Savior's words as if he had said, ''Are ye able
to be immersed vstcth the immersion I am immersed
with?" "I have an immersion to be immersed
WITH." "Can ye be immersed with the immer-
sion I am immersed icith?" How much more natu-
ral and consistent to understand the question,
"Can ye endure to have laid or poured upon you
what I have laid upon me?'' So that in regard to
this baptism, as in regard to the baptism by the
17»
198 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Spirit, the entire phraseology of the Bible con-
templates the application of the element to the
subject in a way answering to affusion, and to
affusion alone.
We look next at the relation of the ordinance of
Christian baptism to the old economy, to see what
light can be gathered as to the mode of its admin-
istration. Whatever Dr. Fuller may say to the
contrary, the New Testament is the development
of the Old Testament, — the flower of which that
was the stem, the harvest of which that was the
seed-time, the full-gi'own man of which that was
the swaddling infant. All great and sound theo-
logians, from Paul to the present moment, have
iiniformly so regarded it. Jesus, the great theme
and substance of the New Testament, is the same
of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did
write. And there is not one marked particular in
all the gospel that had not its dim beginning in
the Old Testament. If we take Faith, Abraham
was the very father of the faithful, and its most
illustrious examples are found in the olden time:
Eom. iv. 11, 16; Heb. xi. If we take the Atone-
vient, the Lamb of God, which taketh away sin,
was in the old sacrifices "slain from the foundation
of the world:" Eev. xiii. 8; Luke xxiv. 25, 27.
If Ave take the Lord's Supper, it was but an extri-
cation of the ancient Passover from its typical
connections with the old covenant, and its con-
tinuance under forms adapted to the transition
which has long since been effected from jiroiDhccy
to history: 1 Cor. v. 7. And so we arc driven to
infer that Baptism is also in some way developed
SCRIPTURAL HINTS CONCKUMNCi MODE. 199
from germs which were planted in the ancient dis-
pensation. Alexander Campbell says, "No person
ever has understood — indeed, no person can fully
understand — the Christian institution, without a
thorough knowledge of the five books of Moses,
as well as of the five historical books of the New
Testament." (Debate with Eicc, p. IGl.)
As there Avas a Mosaic atonement and a Mosaic
supper, 80 there were also Mosaic baptisms. Paul,
in summing up the various services of the Levitical
economy, says that they consisted of "meats,
and drinks, axd divers baptisms." (Heb. ix. 10.)
"What these various baptisms were, and how they
were performed, we have already shown. But
Paul speaks particularly of some of them, and
gives the mode of their administration. He tells
us of baptisms by " the blood of bulls and of goats,
and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean,"
which ^'sanctified to the ■purifying of the flesh." (Heb.
ix. 13.) He tells us also of baptisms by "the
blood of calves and of goats, water and scarlet icool,
and hyssop sprinkled njjon both the book and all
THE PEOPLE." (Heb. ix. 19.) And it is a fact that
all the Old Testament ablutions, the mode of
which was pi'cscribed, without a single exception,
w^ere required to be performed by sprinkling.
" There is not a washing of the Levitical law
having respect to persons, nor an important wash-
ing of any kind, the mode of Avhich, if there is
any mode commanded, is not sprinkling." (De-
bate, p. 206.)
Now, these ancient baptisms, along with all the
other particulars of the ceremonial law, the apostle
200 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
designates as "signs," "shadows/' ^'patterns,"
" FIGURES /or the times then present." (Heb. ix. 9, 23,
24.) In these typical baptisms the mode is speci-
fically given. That mode is the sprinkling of the
baptismal element upon the subject. If the pat-
terns, therefore, were true, (and, when we consider
that God himself made them, we are bound to
conclude that they were true,) it follows that, in
the administration of that higher and holier bap-
tism which these ancient services prefigured,
sprinkling is an appropriate mode, bearing upon it
the express sanction of God himself. Indeed, when
the ancient prophet came to speak of the greater
simplicity and power of the ordinances which
Messiah should appoint, these Mosaic baptisms
at once rose before his mind. The relation which
they bore to what was to follow he distinctly
foresaw. He notes the change which was to be
made in the element, — from blood and water
mingled with ashes to something more directly
symbolic of spiritual purity; but no alteration in
the manner or mode of its use. And in the name
of Him who was to come he announced to the
children of promise, " Then will I sprinkle clean
WATER UPON YOU, and ye shall he clean." (Ezek.
xxxvi. 25.) We have already remarked that the
Fathers interpreted this, as well as Ps. li. 7, Isa.
i. 16, iv. 4, Mai. iii. 3, as predictions concerning
the ordinance of the Christian baptism.
Again, as remarked by Professor Wilson: — "In
reading the New Testament, we are impressed
with the perfect facility of administering baptism
in all variety of circumstances. When residents
SCRIPTURAL UINTS CONCERNING MODE. 201
in Jerusalem believe, they arc instantly baptized.
When inhabitants of Samaria turn to the Lord,
they are at once received into Christian fellow-
ship by the same sacred rite. As the apostles go
from house to house and travel from city to city,
■wherever there are converts, baptism is admin-
istered prompt])^ and without any apparent in-
convenience. To the universality of this state-
ment, so far as we are aware, there exists no
exception. Let the character and bearing of this
general fact be candidly estimated. AVill truth
permit the assumption that the cities and houses
within the range of apostolic labor were more
copiously supplied with water than cities and
houses among ourselves at the present day? If,
then, the matter were put to the test of exjDeri-
ment, would not the administration of baptism by
dij^ping, in numerous places and houses, be at-
tended with difficulties almost insuperable? Would
it not in man}- instances be imjDracticable to im-
merse a convert instantly and on the spot?" The
author of this book knows of an instance in West-
ern Maryland in which three converts to immer-
sionism were required to wait four or five months
before the region could furnish accommodations
for them to be dipped. ''Yet, in New Testament
baptisms, the administration, in every variety of
circumstance, wears the appearance of the most
perfect ease and convenience. It must be remem-
bered, too, that during this early age there wore
no houses of worship, no baptisteries, and, in a
word, no ecclesiastical facilities for immersion."
(Inf Bapt. pp. 258, 259.)
202 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
And, in addition to all this, the very signification
of the word baptism, and of the sacrament of which
it is the name, lays the foundation for an infer-
ence that plunging is not a becoming mode for
the administration of this rite. We have seen that
it is uniformly employed by the Scriptures to
denote imrification. The whole meaning of the
ordinance itself points to an inward cleansing
wrought by the Holy Spirit of God. Immersion
is not a symbol of purity. Its leading import is
destruction. The sinking of a man always signi-
fies degradation. The Hebrew word for immerse
is expressly used in Job ix. 31 to denote the very
opposite of purity. But the application of clean
water to the subject is one of the liveliest images
of purification that can be presented to the human
mind. The Scriptures have again and again re-
ferred to it in this very connection. Sprinkling and
pouring water upon one is an ever-recurring image
of moral cleansing. What does God say in Ezekiel
xxxvi. 25? — " Then will I sprinkle clean icater upon
you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthincss
and from all your idols will I cleanse you." We
may say that the sprinkling or pouring of water
upon a subject is God's own chosen image of
sj)iritual purification.
With all these facts before us, how can it be
possible for any unprejudiced man to doubt
whether affusion is a proper and divinely author-
ized mode of administering the holy sacrament of
Christian baptism? Who can look at them and
in his heart believe that where there is no immer-
sion there is no baptism, and that the great com-
BArxrST ARGUMENTS COXCKRNINO MODE. 203
pany of Christ's disciples are apostate fi'om their
Lord because they have not submitted to sectarian
dictation as to the necessity of being plunged
under the water?
CHAPTER XV.
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCERNING MODE.
"What has now been elicited from the Scrip-
tures respecting the mode of baptism must of
itself be conclusive in favor of affusion, unless the
most positive and commanding reasons to the con-
trary are produced. Let us see, then, what Bap-
tists have said upon this point : —
Dr. Fuller says, " My first argument is founded
upon the force of the verb baptizo." But this is a
mere begging of the question. The force of the
word haptizo is the object of inquiry and the sub-
ject of disjiute. And for Dr. Fuller to argue that
the New Testament baptisms were immersions
because the word means immerse, and then to
conclude that the word means immerse because
the baptisms respecting which it is used were
immersions, is about as ridiculous a sjjecimen of
reasoning in a circle as could well be found. It
speaks badly for a grave doctor of divinity, and
still worse for the merits of his cause. We cer-
tainly have proven beyond confutation that the
word baptizo, in Christian language, denotes a
204 THE UAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
religious purifying, without limitation as to mode;
that it is applied to religious cleansings effected
in every variety of manner; and that there are
instances abundant in which it can by no possi-
bility mean immersion. We have also proven
that the intimations as to mode in the baptism
by the Holy Ghost, in the bloody baptism of
Christ, and in the typical baptisms of the law of
Moses, all favor aifusion, and for the most part
exclude immersion altogether. And for Dr. Fuller
to argue that the New Testament baptisms were
immersions because the woi*d means immerse,
when the meaning of the word is the point of
inquiry, is ridiculous and absurd.
"JVIy second argument," says he, ''is drawn
from the places chosen for baptism." That is to say,
the places at which the baptisms of the New
Testament were performed prove that they were
immersions. Well, let us see how this is.
One of the most remarkable baptisms recorded
in the Bible was the baptism of the three thou-
sand on the day of Pentecost. This was performed
in the city of Jerusalem. Would Dr. Fuller have us
believe that the city of Jerusalem was a lake, a
river, " a great conflux of water," a general
bathing-place for the nations of the earth? Jeru-
salem was a mountain-city, with no living stream
or natural sheet of standing water sufKeient to
immerse a man within fifteen miles of its location.
We even have Baptist authority for this. And
yet the places at which the New Testament bap-
tisms were performed are to prove to us that they
were immersions !
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCERNING MODE. 205
But Dr. Fuller talks IviwiiviWy of cisterns, jyools,
and reservoirs, and gravely tells us that there were
several such in the neighborhood of Jerusalem.
He mentions Bethcsda. But Wilde describes this as
"an immense, deep, oblong excavation.'' Eobinson
says it is seventy-five feet deep. How could three
thousand be immersed in such a place in one day?
Mr. Ewiug thinks it doubtful whether it was
possible for more than one or two persons to
descend into this pool at a time; and Mr. Carson
himself concedes, " If my cause obliged me to
prove that it admitted hco, 1 grant that 1
could not prove it." What is said of it in John
V. 1-4 can give us but little that is reliable, inas-
much as all critics consider that passage exceed-
ingly obscured and doubtful by spurious and
questionable readings. Bethesda was certainly a
receptacle for filth, surrounded by porches where
sheep were washed, and receiving all the drainage
of blood and oifal from the temple. Hammond,
Michaelis, Kuinol, and others attribute its medici-
nal pi'operties to the warm blood and animal
deposits which came into it in various ways from
the sacrifices. And when we consider that the
persons baptized were Jeics, purified to attend the
Pentecostal festival, and subject to a penalty of
seven days' defilement and exclusion if they should
but touch any lifeless animal matter, it is simply
prepostei'ous to suppose for one moment that the
three thousand, or any portion of them, were
plunged in such a pit of filth in order to be puri>
fied into Jesus Christ.
Besides Bethesda there was but one other open
18
206 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
pool, SO far as we know, within the ivalls of Jerusa-
lem,— the fish-pool by the fish-market. This evi-
dently was also a sort of drain for the water and
filth which would constantly be accumulating
where fish for the entire city were handled and
sold. There is not one word of testimony that it
ever was a bathing-place. Outside of the city,
and supplied with a feeble, irregular stream from
under the wall, was the pool of Siloam, described
by Lynch as " a deep, oblong pit." Its depth was
at least nineteen feet. It was a place about as
much adapted to immerse in as our ordinary
cisterns and wells. As to the upper and lower
pools of Grihon and the pool of Hezekiah, all of
which were some distance from the city, it is the
uniform testimony of travelers that t\\Qj are ever
dry except in seasons of rain. The celebrated
pools of Solomon, which supplied Avater to the
citizens of Jerusalem, were about twelve miles
from the city.
The statement of D'Arvieux is worth considering
in this connection. Of most of the houses in Jeru-
salemhesays, "They are only one story raised above
the ground-floor. Their roofs are of stone, and are
formed into terraces: they contain cisterns to pre-
serve the rain-water which is collected on the ter-
races,— an attention absolutely necessary in this
city, which includes neither wells, fountains, nor
streams." An officer who accompanied Sydney
Smith during the war says, "At Jerusalem, rain had
not fallen during nine months." And, what is very
unfortunate for the Baptist theoiy, the account of
the baptism of the three thousand says not a word
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCERNING MODE. 207
about cisterns, pools, reservoirs, baptisteries, or
any thing of the sort: no, nor one word from,
which to infer that the awakened multitudes ever
removed from the spot on which they received
their convictions until after their baptism had
been performed.
Our Baptist friends have fallen into a curious
way of arguing in this connection. They insist
that the only reason why John took '' all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem" out to the Jordan and
to Enon was that he might have an adequate
supply of water in which to immerse them. Now,
if this was the reason why he took them to the
river and to Enon, it must argue as strongly for
the Nox-immersion of the three thousand as for
the immersion of John's converts. If he had to
take his disciples out to Enon and the Jordan to
find conveniences for immersing them, it proves
that there were no such conveniences about
Jerusalem. Either, then, they must give up the
point which they claim, — that John selected
Enon's many waters for the sake of facilities
for immersion, — or they must admit that Jerusa-
lem did not furnish, such facilities. They may take
which side of the dilemma they choose, and it
makes sad inroads upon their theory that all bap-
tisms are immersions.
Seeing,, however, that his cause is so hopeless in
connection with the j^ools, our author directs atten-
tion to the little brook Kedron, as furnishing
" abundant icater." But, unfortunately again, nine
months in the year Kedron is djy! So says Vol-
taire. So says Kitto in his Natui'al History of
208 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Palestine. When Spencer visited it it was dry.
All the time Maundrell stayed at Jerusalem there
■was not a drop of water in it. So it was when
Wilde saw it. So also when Stevens saw it.
Indeed, Mr. Samson himself, a Baptist whose
wonderful personal observations about Jerusalem
are greatly relied on by the Lewisburg Professor
and the editor of "The True Union,'' remarks
that " the brook Kedron, as the original term indi-
cates, is nothing but the bed through which the
rains of winter drain off between the eastern wall
of the city and Mount Olivet; and its channel is
therefore dry in early spring, several weeks before
THE PERIOD in the month of June when the Feast
OF Pentecost occurred." (Bajjtismal Tracts for
the Times, p. 16.) Wells, in his Geographj^, or
his editor, says, " This brook answered the pur-
pose of a drain to the lands ai'ound the cit}" of
Jerusalem after rains, and possibly might answer
the same purpose to some of the suburbs of the
city and receive their underground discharges.
Hence, perhaps, its name, black." A gentleman
English traveller says, "I cannot recollect to have
seen any stream or pool near Jerusalem sufficient
to allow the immersion of an adult person. The
brook Kedron was so nearly dried up, that I do
not believe a boy or girl could in any point of its
channel, near Jerusalem, have found depth enough
for immersion. I believe I saw no water between
Jaffa and Jerusalem [thirty-eight miles] in which
a man or woman could have been immersed."
And Ewing remarks, " I cannot help mentioning
that in no history, sacred or prolane, have 1 read
EAl'TIST ARGUMENTS CONCERNING MODE. 209
of any persons swi)n7ni»g in or near the city of
Jerusalem, ^fany calamitous deaths have at dif-
ferent times belalleu its inhabitants: among all
these, do we ever meet with an instance of drotvn-
ing in that place or neighborhood? Herod the
Great, indeed, who was reigning in Jerusalem at
the time of our Savior's birth, caused his son
Aristobulus to be drowned; but wc are told that
for that purpose he sent him to Jericho." (See
Josephus, Antiq. liber i. cap. 22.) So that the
resort to Kedrou is even more desperate than
to the pools.
Dr. Fuller sees that it will not answer for him
to leave matters in such an unfavorable aspect.
He must needs give them a better gloss, though
he should have to resort to his old expedient of
altering the sense of the record itself. On page
77 he solemnly declares that *' it is noichere said
[of the three thousand] that they icere baptized in one
day." Let the reader, then, take his Bible and
examine the second chapter of Acts. A solemn
scene is there spread before us. Peter, just
filled with the Holy Ghost, stands forth as the
preacher of Jesus to listening thousands. His
hearers melt under his burning words and call
out to know what they must do. "Peter said
unto them, Eepent and be baptized, every one of
you." ^' Then" — not in the course of a few days,
as they could find places to immerse in, but
"then" {men oim) — in the course of the trans-
action then present, in immediate continuance
of what went before — " Then they that gladly re-
ceived his icord ivere baptized; and the same day
18*
210 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
there were added to them about three thousand souls."
Of course, none were added to the disciples but
those who gladly received Peter's word; and
baptism was the divinely appointed method by
means of which men were to be added to the list
of Christ's acknowledged disciples. And yet they
that gladly received his word were *' then" bap-
tized, " AND THE SAME DAY there wcrc added to
them about three thousand souls." If this does
not mean that they were all baptized in one day,
it is useless to rely upon language as a means of
communication.
So far, then, from proving that the baptism of
the three thousand was performed by immersion,
the place and circumstances lead us inevitably to
conclude that it was done in some much more
convenient and summarj- manner. The whole
occurrence was sudden, unexpected, and without
previous forethought or preparation for the exi-
gencies which must have arisen upon the supposi-
tion that the subjects were all to be immersed.
There was no water in or about Jerusalem for the
immediate immersion of such multitudes. There
were but eleven or twelve present who had re-
ceived the ministerial commission to baptize and
that were competent administrators of this sacra-
ment. It must have been late in the day when
the baptizing commenced. Peter began his dis-
com-se about nine o'clock, (Acts ii. 15.) It was
of long continuance, consisting of "many other
words" more than are on record, (ii. 40;) and the
confusion incident i;pon conducting such a multi-
tude to a place fit for immersion must have con-
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCERNING MODE. 211
sumcd much time and greatly hindered the speedy
execution of the Avork. So that, though Dr. Fuller
may make himself merry over Dr. Kurtz's arith-
metical process, he must remember that "figures
do not lie," and that it is mathematically demon-
strable that no twelve men under heaven could
have immersed three thousand in the limited time
and amid the embarrassing circumstances in which
that baptism certainly was performed. And, if
the thing was so plain and easy as he pretends,
if he is not himself overcome by the numei'ous
impossibilities Avhich hamper and cripple the im-
mersion theory, we ask him why he is so anxious
to make it appear, even at the expense of pervert-
ing the record, that the three thousand were not
baptized in one day. Why take to a resort so
extreme, unless conscious that his cause is lost
without it?
Yet Dr. Fuller would have his readers believe
"there would have been no sort of difficulty in
baptizing \_immersing'] more than three thousand in
a part of a day." And he quotes what he calls
"facts" as "the shortest argument to prove it."
He says that Chrj-sostom " did immerse about
three thousand on the 16th of Aj^ril, 404, though
twice interrupted"! that Bishop Eemigus "im-
mersed Clovis and three thousand of his subjects,
aided by his presbyters," — but whether in one day
or not is not stated; that he himself has immersed
"between one and two hundred" in "a very short
time." So Booth says, "Mr. John Fox informs us
that Austin the monk baptized and christened ten
thovsand Saxons, or Angles, in the west river, be-
212 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
side York, on a Christmas day!" that "a single
clergyman baptized in one day above five thousayid
Mexicans, and did not desist till he was so ex-
hausted by fatigue that he was unable to lift up
his hands"! and that Francis Xavier "baptized
fifteen thousand in one day" ! Alas that the race
of giants is extinct! Such instances of endurance
are not heard of nowadaj^s. The author of
"Scripture Directory for Baptism" says, "A
gentleman of veracity told the writer that he was
once present when forty-seven men were dipped in
one day in the usual way. The first operator began
and went through the ceremony until he had
dipped twenty five persons, when he was so fatigued
that he was compelled to give it up to the other,
who, with great ajDparent difficulty, dipped the
other twenty-two. Both appeared completely
EXHAUSTED." And, if the dipping of twenty was
hard work for one day for one man, hoAV could a
man go through with two hundred and seventy,
which would have been about the proportion fall-
ing to each apostle on the day of Pentecost? Sup-
posing that water and all the conveniences for
immersion were at hand, could the dipping of so
many have been performed by one man in so short
a time ? Well has Dr. Miller said, " To imagine
this would be among the most improbable, not to
say extravagant, imaginations that could be formed
on such a subject." The stories to which our
Baptist friends refer on this point, taken as they
give them, are simply ridiculous and incredible.
Professor Wilson justly says, " The man who re-
ceives them will require no prej^aration for swal-
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCERNING MODE. 213
lowing the absurd miracles performed by all the
saints in the Komish calendar." He has been
turned aside unto tables, given over to believe
a lie.
Look next at the case of the jailer and his family,
(Acts xvi.) They were baptized in a prison at Phi-
lippi. Dr. Fuller tells us that Philippi was a place
of springs. Perhaps he may yet discover that it
was a place of reservoirs and pools! But the
question is, were these '^ confluxes of water" in the
jail, where the baptism occurred, and was the jail
such a place as to beget the belief that said baj)tism
was performed by immersion ? He gives it as his
opinion, notwithstanding the springs, that Paul
took the jailer and his family out at midnight to
some river! He seems to foi'get Paul's exhaustion
from stripes, chains, fasting, vigils, and prayers,
and that Paul peremptorily refused to leave the
prison until he was publicly taken out by the
authorities that thrust him in, (v. 37,) and that
the account says the baptism took place during
the exciting scenes of the night, — parachrema, on
THE SPOT. " Indeed," says Dr. Clarke, " all the
circumstances of the case, the dead of the night,
the general agitation, the necessity of despatch,
and the words of the text, all dispjrove that there
was any immersion."
"L by.no means think it incredible," says Ewing,
'Hhat there should have been a bath in the jailer's
house at Philippi ; but there is not a hint in all the
Bible about the use of a bath lor the purpose of
baptizing, more than about the use of a basin.
Water was brought (I know not in what vessel) to
214 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
wash their stripes, and water was brought to bap-
tize the family. Every house-baptism supposes
water to be brought and the baptized to receive
the aifusion on his face from the hand of the bap-
tizer. The argument that * there was a bath in
the jail at Philippi, because there is a very fine tank
in the jail at Calcutta, and always is one to be
found in an Eastern jail,' maybe illustrated in this
manner: — There was a stove in the jail at Philippi,
because there is a very fine one in the jail at St.
Petersburg, and always is one to be found in a
Northern jail." (P. 172.)
Look at the baptism of Saul of Tarsus. This
was performed m the sick-chamher : at least, so the
Evangelist leaves us to infer. For three days this
smitten persecutor lay, a blind, exhausted, and
helpless invalid, upon his bed. By direction of God,
Ananias came to him and stated to him his mission,
and touched him, and he arose from his couch and
was baptized, and meat was given him, and he was
strengthened: Acts xix. 1-19. What room is here
to infer immersion ?
Our Baptist friends have shown some fine powers
of imagination in connection with this case to fill
out what the Holy Ghost has lacked, in making
things harmonize with the immersion theory. The
good Father Taj^lor breaks out, very poetically,
" See what a heavenly huriy Saul was in, though
weakened down by a distressing fast. Behold him,
with great weakness of body and load of his guilt,
staggering along to the icater! I almost fancy that
I see the dear little man (he was afterward called
Paul, which signifies little) hanging on the shoulders
BArXliST ARC.rMr.NTS COXCERMXfi MODE. 215
of Ananias, and hurrying him up, xoith his right arm
around him, [//] and, as they icaUccd on, saying, Be of
good cheer, brotlicx* Saul; when you are baptized,
your sins, or the guilt of them, shall be washed
away." ! ! ! Alexander Campbell also spcalis of Paul
and Ananias "on their icay to the water," and of Paul
"on his return from the water." (Debate with Eice,
p. 228.) But the mischief to all their poetry is
that the Bible sa3'S not one word about all this.
There is nothiufi: of o-oino; down to the water or
of coming up from the water. Nor are such expres-
sions ever used when baptism is said to have oc-
curred within-doors. " It is also observable," says
Ewing, " that, after a fast of three days, Paul was
baptized before he had received either meat or
sti'ength: (verses 18, 19.)" He "arose and was
baptized" on the spot ; and all beyond this is like
Father Xavier's immersion of fifteen thousand in
one day — all fiction.
Look at the case of the eunuch. He was bap-
tized on his journey through the desert. Is a desert
a place of ''confluxes of water"? Does the place
here argue immersion? The water at which it was
done is described, by Eusebius, Jerome, Eeland, and
even !Mr. Samson, as a fountain boiling up at the
foot of a hill and absorbed again by the soil
from which it springs. How absurd to talk of
immersion as argued from such a locality! Mr.
Samson, from personal observation of the place,
finds it impossible to get through with the im-
mersion theory without supposing some artificial
reservoir or other fixture. (Baptismal Tracts, p.
160.) What a mania for cistern-digging must have
21 G THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
possessed these Jews, that they should fill even tho
desert with pools !
Cornelius and his friends were most likely bap-
tized in his own house. The language of Peter —
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not
be baptized ?" — indicates with a good degree of
certainty that no more water was used than
could be conveniently conveyed to him. How can
this argue immersion ? All room for fancy to
figure out a walk to the river is here cut off. The
water was hrought to the candidates, not the subjects
led out to the water. And, as the bringing of the
water proves narrow limitations as to quantity, it
excludes all idea of immersion. Indeed, Mr. Munro
has hit exactly iipon the truth where he says,
''Among the myriads of baptisms of which we
read in the Acts of the Apostles, with the single
exception of that of the eunuch, there is not a hint
about going to or from any pool or river." The
places, then, cannot prove immersion as the mode
of baptism.
But John's baptism! Ay, John's baptism! But
John's baptism was not Christian baptism. All
theologians agree to this. Baptists themselves
have been forced to concede it. Eobert Hall was
a Baptist, a scholar, and a full-hearted man of
God. He gives a long and unanswerable argu-
ment, showing that John's baptism was a wholly
different thing from the ordinance instituted by
Jesus Christ. (See his Works, vol. i. p. 294.) The
distinguished Dr. J. H. Kurtz, of Dorjiat, in his
Manual of Sacred History, says, "The baptism of
John does not possess the rank and character of
BArXIST AllilLMKNTS CONCERNIXC! xMODE. 217
Christian baptism. The former was merely a
symbol; the latter is a sacrament : the former was.
according to the declaration of John himself, a
baptism with water unto repentance; the latter is
a baptism with water and the lloly Ghost, whereby
the great salvation is fully aijpropriated ; and, in
the case of the disciples of Jesus, it was a baptism
with fire and the Holy Ghost." (P. 278.) Mr.
Carson says the two were "essentially different."
Nevertheless, Dr. Fuller argues that John baptized
in {at) Jordan; that he must therefore have im-
mersed the people in the water; and that there-
fore all other baptisms were immersions and
nothing else! As well might he argue that, as
"John baptized in the wilderness," he immersed
the people in the sand, and that therefore all
baptisms are immersions in the sand ! John also
baptized "wj Bethabara, beyond Jordan." This is
the name of a toien. Where it Avas located is not
precisely known. Lightfoot says " it was situated
in the Scythopolitan country, whei'e the Jews
dwelt among the Syrophenicians." It certainly
was neither a lake, nor a pool, nor a river; and
how can it prove that John immersed ? John also
baptized ^^ in or at Enon, near to Scdim." JEnon
means the fountains of On. And if deep water,
convenient for immersion, was the object of the
baptizer in selecting this spot for his operations,
why did he leave the river for a few springs? Dr.
Fuller thinks it \qyj ridiculous to suppose that
Biills driven by water are built upon firm streams
merely to supply drink for the people who may
visit them with their horses and mules ! But, when
19
218 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
we see these same establishments performing their
offices with equal facility where there are no firm
streams, is it not equally ridiculous to insist that
they are water-mills at all ?
But we are told " John was baptizing in or at
Enon, because tliere Avere (Jiudata jyolhi) many icaters
there." It is indeed not a little amusing to see
how Baptist writers comment upon this phrase.
Dr. Fuller wishes to make it appear that hudata
jyolla means "a great conflux of water." He
quotes a number of passages, such as, "■ nis voice
was as the sound oi many waters ;" *' I heard a voice
from heaven, as the voice oi many waters ;" "The
Lord is mightier than the noise of many icaters, yea,
than the waves of the sea;" "The noise of their wings
was as the noise of many icaters, as the voice of the
Almighty." Dr. Eyland says that the phrase indi-
cates a body of water the sound of which resembles
mighty thunderings, the sound of a cataract, or
the roaring of the sea, and that it is a Hebraism
corresponding with mini rahim, which signifies
many waters, such as the waves of the sea. What
an aiTay ! If we were to listen to these Baptist
commentators, IS^iagara itself is but " a tinkling
rill" compared with these fountains of On between
Salim and the Jordan ! "Well may avc exclaim,
"Hapjjy £'/!o/i.' ennobled by such mighty associa-
tions, by such magnificent alliances!" But, after
all, the question narrows itself down to one of
simple geography. Was there ever a collection of
springs, or anj- body of water, in any district of
the land of .Tudea, in any locality accessible to John
the Baptist, b}' which these allusions to mighty
RAPTIST AIU'.UMK.NTS CONCERNING MODE. 219
tlumdors, cataracts, and seas can in the remotest
degree be justified? Such a cluster of springs
would have been the -wonder of Judea and of the
world. The memory of such waters could not have
perished. The traces of them would still be seen,
and some faint echoes of their thunders would cer-
tainly^ have reached our times. And yet Dr. Ful-
ler says, '^ I grieve to find several tcriters venturing to
assert that the location of Enon is known!" (P. 65.)
Alas that such a wonder in nature should have thus
perished without leaving a trace behind it ! Eu-
ropean and American travelers have explored the
Jordan from Tibei'ias to the Dead Sea; but none of
them have ever seen any thing of this wonderful
discharge of waters. In a whole day's journey
down the Jordan, from the region of Scythopolis,
(eight miles south of which Enon is said to have
been located,) Lieutenant Lynch found no streams
emptying into the Jordan except such as scarcely
rose in consequence above mere trickling rivulets.
In the time of Napoleon the French had a cor2)S of
horse at Scythopolis, and roamed the countiy down
the Jordan, particularly exploring it on the west;
but nothing did they find answering to the Baptist
Enon. All that history has preserved respecting
this wonderful fountain is what Jerome repeats
from Eusebius, that it was eight miles from
Scythopolis, south, between Salim and the Jordan.
Calmet knows nothing about it. And from the
time of Israel's exodus to the present hour such
a thundering fountain as Drs. Fuller and Eyland
speak of has remained unknown to our ablest
geographers, to our most adventurous and ob-
220 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
servant travelers, and to our most inquisitive
men. It is enough to say, there never was such
an Enon. Sandys, according to Hamilton, says
that '■^ Enon are little springs gushing out, whose
waters are soon absorbed by the sands." And,
until some Baptist writer produces some accurate
geographical description of the fountains of On, to
persist in comparing Enon with the Euphrates,
the Tigris, Niagara, and mighty thunderings is in-
deed " sinning by excess."
But does not John say "there was much water
there" ? So the English Bible reads. In the original,
however, the phi-ase is hiidata poUa, which Beza
and Professor Stuart render ''many streams or
rivulets." Dr. Fuller says that "hudor" never
means "streams." But Donnegan says it is from
the word Juio, — to loet, to asperse, to rain, — and that
it often signifies only the drops of falling rain ! De-
naosthenes against Callicles uses it in this sense.
And if Dr. Fuller will take the Septuagint and
turn to 2 Kings ii. 19, he will find " hudata". ap-
plied to waters which Maundrell describes in these
words : — " They are at present received in a basin
about nine or ten paces long and five or six broad,
and, thence issuing out in good plenty, divide them-
selves into several small streams, dispersing their
refreshment to all the field and rendering it exceed-
ingly fruitful." (Taylor's Facts and Evidences, p.
176.) And if he will refer to 2 Chron. xxxii. 4, he
will find the same phrase applied to a number of
small fountains. The record reads thus: — "So
there was gathered much people together, who
stopped all the fountains and the brook that ran
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCKRNINO lAlODE. 221
throug'h the midst of the land, saying, AVhy should
the King of Assj'riii come and find \_'poU(i hudafa^
many icaters" — supplies to satisfy the wants op
HIS ARMY ? We would therefore be fuU}^ authorized
to adopt the reading, "John was baptizing at the
fountains of On, because there were man!/ streams
there;" that is, not many streams to immerse in,
but many streamlets of fountain-water, better
suited than the Jordan to meet the wants of the
vast multitudes who came to hear the prophet's
preaching.
Professor Stuart says, '^A single bi'ook of very
small capacity, but a living stream, might, with
scooping out a small place in the sand, answer
most abundantly all the purposes of baptism by
immersion, and answer them just as well as many
icaters could. But, on the other hand, a single
brook would not suffice for the accommodation of
the great multitudes who flocked to John. The
sacred wi'iter tells us that ' there went out to him
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region of
Jordan,' and they were baptized by him. Of
course there must have been a great multitude of
people. iSTothing could be more natural than for
John to choose a place that was watered by many
streams, where all could be accommodated." (Mode
of Baptism, p. 38.)
But Dr. Eyland tells us that Imdata polla is a
Hebraism equivalent to mim rabim, and challenges
the production of proof that mim rabim is ever
used as synonymous with small streams. But
what is his challenge worth? In Numbers xxiv.
7, this phrase is used to denote water "poured out
19«
222 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
of buckets. In Ezekiel xix. 10, it is used to denote
the small streams which icater vineyards. What
thundering confluxes of water these must have
been!
As there is no testimony, therefore, that the
waters at Enon were at all adapted to immersion,
the great drift of proof going to show that it was
a jjlace of rivulets of spring-^cater and not of
thundering cataracts, we demand of the Baptists
to give a reason why John left the river, where
alone facilities for immersion were found? Does
not the fact of such a change, from the great river
to mere fountain-streamlets, prove that John's
baptisms were not by immersion?
It is useless, however, to pursue this point any
further. John's baptism was, at any rate, not our
Christian sacrament; and there is no proof under
heaven that Enon was any thing more than a
few springs, or that the "many waters there" were
an}^ thing more than small streams issuing from
contiguous sources. Indeed, if the Evangelist's
mind had been directed to the waters of Enon by
the idea of immersion, it is reasonable to suppose
that he would rather have spoken of the depth
and magnitude of one stream than thus have called
off the attention to many.
How John performed his baptisms cannot be
decided with positive certainty; but there are a
few facts bearing upon the subject, which, if
assigned their proper weight, present a strong and
commanding presumption that it was not by im-
mersion.
1. Although he for the most part performed his
BAITIST AR(iLAlENrS CONCKKMNd MODE. 21^3
ceremony of purification -where there Avas plenty
of -water, there is no proof that he ever went into the
icater to do it. The truth of this remark is so
clear that the great Baptist champion, Mr. Carson,
is compelled to concede it. "I think," saj-s he,
"there is no reason to believe that John the Baptist
usually Avent into the water in baptizing." And,
in order to make out immersion, he is driven to an
invention of fancy "which thiiiking people must
regard as a surrender of the cause. " The accounts
lead me to conclude," says he, ''that John chose
some place on the edge of the Jordan, that admitted
the immersion of the person baptized ichile the baptizer
remained on the margin," and that hence "there is
no ground for the jest that John the Ba];)tist was
an amphibious animal." But in trying to avoid
Scylla he has struck upon Charybdis. Who over
heard of a Baptist preacher administering his im-
mersions without going into the water with his
subjects? How can one man immerse another in
water the surface of which is beneath his feet?
And, if John could not have endured the amphi-
bious life of cpoino- into the water with each of his
multitudinous candidates, common sense will teach
every man that he could not possibly have held
out in the sort of operation assigned to him by the
boasted "perspicacity" of Mr. Carson. ''Jerusalem,
and all Judea, and all the region round about
Jordan" must needs denote a great many people.
Mr. Thorn estimates the number at two millions.
Mr. Godwin regards three hundred thousand as the
probable number baptized, — an estimate in no way
extravagant. Considering, then, tliat John's minis-
224 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
try lasted less than a year, we are forced to the
conclusion that to have immersed them all would
have been bej^ond the power of any man's en-
durance,— a physical impossibility.
2. In all that is said about John's baptizing, and
of the multitudes of all classes who were baptized
by him, there is not one even remote allusion to
those preparations which immersion would have
called for. Upon this point we prefer to exjH'ess
ourselves in the language of one who was himself
for 3^ears a Baptist minister: — "Every one who has
been accustomed to baptize by immersion must
certainly know that it is necessary, with respect
to decency and safet}', to change the dresses and
to have separate apartments for men and women.
This is evidently necessary, whether we baptize
in a river or in a baptistery. Now, it is certain that,
although we read of many baptizings, there is not
the least intimation given either of changing tlie
dress or of any suitable accommodation for the
different sexes. This is true with reference to all
the baptisms recorded in the New Testament.
When our Lord washed his disciples' feet, it is
said ho laid aside his garments. And Luke, sj)eak-
ing of those who stoned Stephen, says. They laid
down their clothes at a young man's feet Avhoso
name was Saul. Now, if the Scriptures take notice
of the putting off of garments for the purpose of
Avashing feet and stoning a man, how comes it to
pass that, as thousands, upon supposition they
were baptized by immersion, must entirely have
changed their garments, or have done worse, the
Scn})tures should not drop a single hint about iti"'
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCERNING lAIOUE. 2l'5
(Edwards on Baptism, p. 193.) And "if the aa
of baptizing," saj's Mr. Ewing, "had consisted of
immersing the subject in water, there would surely
have been some allusion to the lowering of his
body in that supine direction which is, I believe,
commonly observed for the purpose of bringing it
under the surface; some allusion also to that
stooping attitude which is at the same time neces-
sary on the part of the immerser," especially if
he stood on the shore. "But there is nothing of
this kind to be found in all the Scriptures, either in
the accompanj-ing phraseology or in the name of
the ordinance itself." Mr. Carson himself admits,
"I do not know a single reference of the kind."
Kow, upon the supposition that John immersed
in his baptisms^ this silence of the Scriptures on
these points is not a little surprising. Let the
reader consider the case. "A native of Judea re-
sorts to the ministry of John the baptizer, and,
conscience-stricken by the preaching of that faith-
ful man, is prompted to join the ranks of his dis-
ciples. When he left his home, he had no more
thought of baptism than of undertaking a voyage
round the world. It would be therefore jDre-
posterous to suppose that he had made any jjre-
paration for an observance which could not possi-
bly have entered into his previous calculations.
Curiosit}''' may have drawn him to the forerunner
of the Messiah; but, before returning, he feels it a
solemn duty to be baptized in the name of Him
that was to come. The description does not j)re-
sent the case of a solitary individual: like a gene-
ral term, it embraces its tens of thousands. Now,
226 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
on the hj'pothesis of immersion, we take leave to
ask, were siLch parties dressed or undressed in sub-
mitting to the ordinance? The question is a phiin
one, and should be met with a plain answer. It
suggests the only practical alternative, — of baptism
with their garments on, or baptism in a state of
nudity; for no one will imagine that the audience
of John came to his ministrations provided with
the bathing-dresses of modern Baptists. Let our
opponents bring to the rescue of their system
from this matter-of-fact dilemma a spirit of manly
candor and Christian moderation. Dogmatism
will not serve the purpose. Arising out of simple
practical details, the difficulty cannot be removed
by supercilious theorizing or the lofty announce-
ment of general principles and laws of j)hilology.
. . . From Lightfoot, on Matthew iii. 6, we learn
that when proselyte baptism was administered to
a female, the Eabbis who reheai'sed to her the pre-
cepts of the law, while she remained in the watei',
retired as she immersed her head, leaving her in
sole charge of attendants of her own sex. She
was not, in fact, baptized by the ministers of the
Jewish sanctuary; the hand of man was not per-
mitted to press even her head beneath the water;
and hence such proselj^tcs were said to have bap-
tized themselves. Can we reconcile Avith the
feelings of deUcacy which dictated this course
of extreme reserve the supposition of men and
w^omen publicly, not to say promiscuously, sub-
mitting to baptism by immersion in the Jordan?
Do we not instinctively recoil from the idea of
connecting a practice so indecent with the j^urest
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCERXINC. MODE. I'l t
and most refined system of moral conduct ever
promulgated to the -world? If the difficulties of
the case, as they "svill crowd on every i-eflective
mind, are not insuperable, we ask, with all sin-
ceritj', how are they to be overcome? Was im-
mersion the mode? Were the females dipped in
their ordinary garments? — or how? . . . Dipping
without divesting themselves of their garments
would have been equally uncomfortable, danger-
ous, and improbable." (Wilson on Infant Baptism,
pp. 259-261.)
3. The manner in which John, in Matt. iii. 11,
speaks of his baptism in comparison with the
Savior's baptism of the Spirit, is such as to dis-
countenance the idea of immersion: — "I indeed
baptize you with water: he shall baptize you
wiTU the Holy Ghost and with fire." He uses
precisely the same phraseology with regard to his
own baptism that he uses respecting the baptism
by the Holy Ghost. We have already seen that
the baptism by the Holy Ghost is uniformly
spoken of as being done by the pouring out, shed-
ding foHli, and falling of the baptismal element
upon the subject. The inference therefore is
legitimate and strong that the mode of action
was the same in John's baptism. The very word
with shows that he applied the water to the sub-
ject, and not the subject to the water.
But Dr. Fuller very learnedly tells us that in
the original of this passage the word translated
with is en, and means in, — '' in water," " in the
Holy Ghost," "m fire." But such a criticism is
simply ridiculous. All the lexicographers tell us
228 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
that en, with a substantive signifying the instru-
ment or cause, alwaj's means icith and nothing
else. Even Mr. Carson, whose authority Dr,
Puller cannot feel himself very free to set aside,
says, "<?n may be translated with. It signifies
with in classic Greek, as well as in the Septuagint
or New Testament. It is also as freely used with
this verb (baptizo) in the heathen authors as in
the Scriptures. To convince any one of this, it
is necessary only to look over the examples which
I have produced, both with respect to hapto and
haptizo." (Carson on Bapt. pp. 122, 132.) In Num-
bers XX. 20 w^e read, "Edom came out against
him [en ochlo kai en cheir'e ischura] with much
people and with a strong hand." Judges xi.
34: — ''And Jephtha's daughter came out to meet
him [en tumpanois'] with timbrels." 1 Sam. xvii.
43: — "Am I a dog, that thou comest to me [en
rabdo]vfiTii staves?" Verso 45 : — ''Thou comest
to me [en rompjhceia, en dorati, kai en aspidil with
a sword, with a shield, and avith a spear." So
Dr. Campbell saj^s, '' I should not la}^ much stress
on the preposition en, which, answering to the
Hebrew beth, may denote icith as well as in."
(Dissert, vol. iv. p. 128.) And if Dr. Fuller's
criticism is to stand, then we must read that the
servant in Matthew traded in his talents, not with
them; that Christ cast out devils in the finger of
God, not icith the finger of God; that Paul pro-
posed to visit Corinth in a rod, not witli a rod;
that the Lord shall descend from heaven in the
trump, not with the trump; and that the man-
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCKRNING MODE. 229
child in the Apocalypse is to rule all nations in
a rod of iron, not icith a rod of iron !
And if we are asked why we render en Jiudati
WITH water, and en to Jordane at the Jordan, our
answer is read}". In the first instance en is joined
with a substantive signifying means or cause, in
the other with one denoting place. We read^
"My servant licth at home sick/' not in home;
God set Jesus " at his own right hand in the
heavenly places," not in his own right hand;
Christ accomplished his decease " at Jerusalem,"
not in Jerusalem, for he " suffered without the
gate;" John leaned on the Savior's breast " ai
supper," not in supper; Paul, in his voyage, "ar-
rived at Samos and tarried at Trogyilium," cer-
tainly not in Trogyilium, for how could a vessel
anchor in a promontory? Indeed, Matthise ob-
serves that en is used with names of places when
proximity alone is implied.
But, if we even take Dr. Fuller's translation of
en, and say that John baptized in the Jordan, we
have the highest Baptist authority that it does
not necessarily mean in the water of Jordan's
stream. Dr. Carson saj^s that an armj^ may be
said to fight in Tro}', though never once entering
inside the walls of Troy. He says that an ambus-
cade may be said to lie in the river (en potamo')
when merely occupying the depressed grounds
between the water and the remote outer banks;
that Ulysses, after his shipwreck, spent the night
(en potamo) in the river, although he merely waited
between the water and the acclivity which lined
the valley through Avhich the river passed. His
20
230 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
words are, ''He might be in the river, jci not in
the ivater: all within the banks is the river." (P.
339.) So in 1 Samuel xv. 5 we read that Saul,
with an army of " two hundred thousand footmen,
and ten thousand men of Judah, came and laid in
wait EN TO CHEiMARRO," — literally, "in the brook."
This army only occupied the valley through
which the brook ran. Our English Bible says
they "laid wait in the valley." Yet to be in the
vale of a stream or river is said to be in the river,
though the water never once be entered or touched;
and Dr. Carson says, no violence is done to the
literal meaning of terms to speak of two hundred
and ten thousand men encamped in the valley of
a brook as being in the brook. Very Avell, then :
if John performed his ministrations in the valley of
the Jordan, anywhere between its extreme outer
acclivities, though never once coming in contact
with the stream of its waters, it fulfills all the
literal and natural meaning of en to Jordane, in the
Jordan. Take the preposition as at or as in, it can-
not bring the Baptizer or his disciples inside of the
water, much less under it. To this Dr. Carson is
witness; and so facts determine. Maundrell, in de-
scribing this river, says, "After having descended
the outermost bank, you go about a furlong upon a
level strand before you come to the immediate bank
of the river." Upon this strand of the Jordan valley
meets the import of en Jordane. We are therefore
fully authorized to say that John baptized with
ivatcr at the Jordan, — a phraseology which leaves
no room foi' the inference that he immersed.
4. It is an indisputable foct that the early Chris-
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCERNlNCi MODE. 231
tians have represented John as baptizing by af-
fusion.
Aurclius rriuleiUiu.s, -svho wrote a.d. 390, speak-
ing of John's baptism, says, " Perfundit Jiuvio," ho
poured icater on them in the river.
Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, a few years later,
says, "lie [John] washes away the sins of be-
lievers infusis Iijmphis," by the pouring of icatcr.
Bornhard, speaking of the baptism of our Lord
by John, says, " Infundit aquam capiti creatoris
creatura," the creature poured water on the head
of the creator.
And with these statements agree many ancient
pictures. AYe now have before us a copy of a
representation in Mosaic of the baptism of Christ,
preserved in the church in Cosmedin, at Eavenna,
which was erected in the year 401. It presents
the Savior standing in the margin of the Jordan,
jjartially in the water, and John on a rock, with a
shell in his hand, pouring Avater on the Eedeemer's
head. We have before us another, from the
church on the Via Ostiensis, at Eome. The
picture itself is on a plate of brass, partly en-
graved and partly in relief. The door to which it
is aiiixed bears date 1070; but the plate is much
older than the door, and, from the inscriptions in
Greek, is manifestly of Greek origin and agreed to
be of veiy ancient Avorkmanship. In this picture
Christ is not even in the water, but standing near
the stream, whilst John with a shell is pouring
water on his head. Forming the centre-piece of
the dome of a baptistery at Eavenna which was
built and decorated in the year 454, we have an-
232 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
other representation of the baptism of Christ. As
in the one first named, he is standing partially in
the water, and John, from a rock above, is pouring
out water on his head. Of the genuineness and
antiquity of these pictures there can be no reason-
able doubt. And if those who made them and
assigned them their places (though believed ordi-
narily to have performed their own baptisms by
immersion) entertained it as their fixed belief, at
this early period, that John baptized by affusion,
are we not justified in presuming that he really
did baptize something after the mode which they
have represented in his baptism of Christ?
But Dr. Fuller argues that this cannot be, be-
cause the record states that "Jesus, when he was
baptized, went up straightway out of l^pol the
water." How could he have come ^'out of the
water" unless he had been in it? But, even if he
had been in it, that does not prove that he was
under it. The young man in Tobit was in the
river, but not under the water. Dr. Fuller often
goes into the water and comes out of it without
being nnder it. This itself would be a sufficient
answer to the objection, though we are not necessi-
tated to rest upon it. Dr. Fuller certainly will
not contend that ajyo ordinarily means out of, much
less from nnder. His master of Tubbermore saj-s,
"The proper translation of apo is from, and not
out of. I deny that it ever signifies out of." (Carson
on Bapt. pp. 126, 137.) Jesus, therefore, only
went up /rom the water, not out of it. Is ay, more :
if ajyo NEVER means out of, the demonstration is
irresistible that John's baptism was by affusion
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONCERNING MODE. 233
and not by immersion; for if Jesus did not como
out of the water he Avas not even in it, much less
tuulcr it
Is it not utterly unwaiTantable, then, for any
man to assert that the baptisms of John were total
immersions? And if John's baptisms in the vicinity
of the river were not immersions, the Scriptures
speak of no other baptisms where it would be less
than insanity to pretend to argue immersion from
tlie places at which they were performed
Professor Wilson has a paragraph upon this
general point, which we are tempted to quote,
and which M'e transfer to our ])ages Avith the
more freedom because his able and lucid work on
this controversy has not met as yet with a pub-
lisher in this country. "The argument for im-
mersion founded on the places," says he, " has
alwaj's appeared to us to be feebleness personified.
Yet that Baptists do allege this consideration in
their own favor is unquestionable. How stand
the facts of Scripture history? Out of nine or ten
localities specified in the New Testament as the
scenes of the administration of baptism, only two
— Enon and the Jordan — possess a liberal supply
of water. This fact will be found to grow in im-
portance the more it is pondered, especiallj^ in con-
nection with the efforts of Baptist writers to turn
it to the account of immersion. Had the Scrip-
ture instances uniformly associated the ordinance
with 'much water,' or had this condition been
realized in the majority of cases, their argument
would have been plausible. But the divine record
presents the reverse of all this. Much water is
20*
234 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
the exception, little water the rule. The ordinance
could indeed be administered in the river Jordan
and at the many streams of Enon; but so simple
was the rite that its performance appears to have
been equally convenient in a private house, a
prison, or a desert. If, then, the volume of the
Jordan is requisite to pour vigor into the Baptist
argument for immersion, how sapless and feeble
must that argument become when its nutriment is
drawn from the stinted supply of a prison or the
thirsty soil of a wilderness ! The very stress laid
on the small minority of instances apparently
favorable to immersion certifies for the strength
of the opposing view, which claims for its basis
the decided and overwhelming majority." (Infant
Baptism, pp. 257, 258.)
CHAPTEE XVI.
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONTINUED,
"VVe come now to notice Dr. Fuller's third and
fifth arguments. The fourth we are at a loss to
comprehend. He says, ''It is based upon the act
performed in baptizing." What act? His theory
admits no act but immersion. And to assert
that immersion is immersion, and that therefore
baptism is immersion, is a method of argumentation
so far above our capacity that we leave it with the
quondam lawyer from whom it comes, to be ad-
mired by those of his friends who may be able to
liAlTlST ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 235
sound its inysterious depths. It far transcends
all our science. We take his third and fifth argu-
ments together, because, though introduced with
imposing pomp, they both turn upon the mean-
ing of two little Greek prepositions, eis and ek,
as contained in one single passage of Scripture.
He tells us that cis means into, and el>, out of;
that Philip and the eunuch ""went down both
(eis) into the water" and came up '' (e/i) out of tho
"water;" that therefore the eunuch must have been
immersed; and that therefore baptism must be
immersion and nothing else.
Now, if we were even to admit his premises, his
conclusion would not follow. We have often gone
into the water, and as often come out of the water,
without having been immersed. Indeed, the eis
and the ek apply here as well to Philip as to the
eunuch; and, if eis and ek are sufficient to prove
that tho eunuch, went under the Avater, they must
prove that Philip also went under the water, — which
would be a little more than agreeable either to Dr.
Fuller's theory or practice.
But this argument of our Baptist friends also
takes as its basis that eis and ek mean directly and
only into and out of. This we dispute. Scapula
gives ad as the first meaning of eis; ad means to,
toicard, at, close by. Bretschneider also gives ad as
the first meaning of eis, and Stuart agrees with
him. Buttman gives its leading signification to,
unto. Schrevelius gives its first meaning by ad.
Homer constantly uses es, eis, eiso in the sense of
being at, arriving at, going to. In telling the fate of
the Greeks, he says they came (eis) to Troy, but
236 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
never came into it, having been slain before it.
And if eis always means into, then we must read,
"The men of Nineveh repented into the preaching
of Jonas," not at the preaching; Jesus went through
the cities and villages "journeying in Jerusalem,"
not toicard Jerusalem; the healed demoniac of Ga-
dara was sent into his friends, not to his friends;
Mary Av'ent ^' into the grave to weep," not unto the
grave; the women, at the apparition of angels,
" bowed down their faces into the earth," not to the
earth; Mary "fell down into Jesus' feet," not at
his feet ; Jesus came into the grave of Lazarus, not
"to the grave;" Mary Magdalene came into the
sepulchre, not "unto the sepulchre;" Paul's journey
from Puteoli was into Eome, not "toward Eome;"
Abraham staggered not into the promises of God,
not "he staggered not at the promises of God;"
"Let us go into Jordan, and take thence every man a
beam, and let us make us a place there where we
may dwell," not let us go unto Jordan. In the same
way we would have to read in Isa. xxxvi. 2 that
"the king sent Eabshakeh from Lachish into Je-
rusalem," although it was only to the fullers' field
outside of the walls; and that Christ directed Peter
to go into the sea to throw his hook, not to the sea.
But why multiply examples ? The Campbellite-
Baptist version of the Bible, in various places,
translates eis — to, not into. Dr. Carson saj's, "I am
far from denying that eis sometimes signifies unto.
... It applies when the thing in motion enters
within the object to which it refers. There are
instances, however, in which the motion ends at
the object." (P. 131.) And the Lewisburg Pro-
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONTliNUKD. 237
fessor, Mr. Curtis, says, "That it may mean at is
not questioned, because all the prepositions are thus
indefinite." (P. 154.) It is utterly futile, therefore,
for Baptists to attempt to argue immersion from
this word.
But, though nothing can be made for immersion-
ism out of eis, Dr. Fuller seems to think that ek
settles the case. He says, ^^ El<, with a verb of motion,
alwaj'S signifies o)/fo/." Indeed ! But we have learned
ere this that this writer's imperious announce-
ments in connection with this subject are neither
wonderful for accuracy nor final in authority.
Let us to the Book. In John xiii. 4 it is said of
Jesus, "He riseth up/rowi supper." Does this mean
out 0/ supper? In John xx. 1, Mary saw "the stone
taken from the sepulchre." Does this mean out of
the sepulchre? How can Dr. Fuller take out of o,
thing what never was in it? See Matt, xxvii. 30,
and Mark xv. 46. In Luke xii. 36 the Savior
speaks of returning from the wedding. Did lie
mean out of the wedding ? The same ek is used in
the Sphasrics of Theodosius to signify the drawing
of a line from a mathematical point, as "froin the
pole of a circle." Will common sense tolerate the
idea of getting into or coming out of a mathematical
point ? The same word is used by Lycophron in
the sentence where the artist is said to "form men
from the extremity of the foot." Is there any such
thing as forming men out of the extremity of the
foot ? We also read of messengers sent ek — '■'■from
the chief priests ;" does it mean that they came out
o/thc chief i^riests ? In Acts xii. 7 it is said of the
imprisoned Peter, " His chains fell off from his
238 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXxVMINED.
hands." Did they fall out of his hands? Dr,
Carson answers yes: — "The chain must have heeu
fastened somewhere within the part of the body
WHICH the word hand DESIGNATES" ! ! ! The cause
of the immer-sionists is hard run. Dr. Carson is
caught in Peter's chain ! Behold him rage ! Ek
must mean out of, even though it should make the
shearing of sheep the cutting of their fleeces out
of them! (Pp. 340, 342.) But it is useless. In all
these instances ek is joined with verbs of motion,
and yet it will receive only the sense of flj;o, —
FROM. Where, then, is Dr. Fuller's assertion ? And
how can ek, in the account of the baptism of the
eunuch, prove that eis there means any thing more
than unto, or that Philip and the eunuch did not
merely come from the water, and not out of it?
Add now but two facts, and the necessity for
rendering eis and ek unto and from in this account,
or, at least, of so interpreting them as to exclude
the idea of immersion, will distinctly appear. First,
the passage which Philip expounded, the exposition
of which led the eunuch to ask to be baptized,
contains a Messianic prophecy which Jerome and
others understood of baptism, and which Philip
doubtless so interpreted at the time. Else how
could the eunuch have been made to understand
any thing about baptism ? And in that very pre-
diction mode is indicated. "So shall he [the Mes-
siah] SPRINKLE many nations." And w^ould it not
be unreasonably violent to suj^pose that the
preacher did conti*ary to the very text before
him ? But, secondly, if any reliance is to be placed
in the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome, sustained
I^APTIST AR(iUMENTS CONTINUED. 239
ns Uioy have been by modern rcscarclies and a
general tradition that reaches back to the apostles'
times, there was not -water enough there to im-
merse the eunuch in. It was not a river or a pool,
but a small spring in a desert region, the waters
of which Avere swallowed up again by the very soil
from which they proceeded. And to persist in
arguing for immersion on the precarious ground
of two indefinite little prepositions, where it is
almost certain that no immersion could by any
means have taken place, is to exalt the empire of
zeal over reason, truth, and common sense. And,
though Dr. Fuller may continue to denounce us as
" hopeless victims of hydrophobia," is it not better
to be rationally hydrophobic than insanely aquatic?
As Bloomfield is often quoted by our Baptist
friends in favor of immersion, we here insert his
note on the baptism of the eunuch. Speaking of
Philip, he says, '' He baptized him, no doubt, with
the use of the proper form ; but whether by im-
mersion or by sprinkling is not clear. Doddridge
maintains the former, but Lardner (ap. Newc.) the
latter view, and, I conceive, more rightl}". On
both having descended into the water, Philip seems
to have taken up icater icith his hands and poured it
COPIOUSLY ON THE EUNUCH's HEAD."
And let it further be noted that this case of the
baptism of the eunuch is the only instance in the
whole Xew Testament, the only case out of the
many thousands referred to in the Scriptures,
in which eis and ek are used to express the ap-
proach or withdrawal of the candidate to or from
the water of baptism. It stands alone among
24:0 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
myriads. And; though these are the strongest
words ever used hy the Holy Ghost in such con-
nection, they fail to prove that the eunuch even so
much as touched foot in the water when he was
baptized ; and much less that he was totally im-
mersed. Some have thought that he was immersed;
but there is nothing to prove it. We think the
circumstances imply that he was not. He hardly
would have stripped himself naked in the public
road; nor is it probable that he would have undei'-
taken to travel Avith his clothing dripping wet. It
is not likely that Philip went contrarj^ to the
Scripture-text before him, or that he immersed him
where the strong presumption is that there was
not water enough to do it. And, having dis250sed
of the case of the eunuch, we have forever disposed
of eis and ek.
Dr. Fuller's next resort is to what he calls
"allusions to baptism." Some of the passages
quoted under this head we have alread}^ disposed
of, and w^e deem it unimportant to dwell long on
the rest. The fix'st we notice is where Paul speaks
of the Fathers as " all baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea." We deny that there was
any immei-sion in this case. Indeed, if baptism is
immersion, then the Egj^ptians were baptized and
not the Israelites, and the sacred record stands
contradicted. The children of Israel passed through
the sea ''upon dry ground." They were neither
dipped in the cloud nor plunged in the water.
And if Paul had designed b}" this language to set
forth the outward mode of administering Christian
baptism, upon Dr. Fuller's theory, he certainly
BAT'TIST AU(!UMENTS CONTINUED. 241
selected the A\Tong parties for his examples; for
the hosts of Pharaoh really were immersed, which
is not true of the followers of Moses. They walked
on dry land. Thc}^ were not dijiped, unless one
can be dipped on dry land. If tbcy Avcrc wet at
all, it was by rain or spray, not b}^ being dipped in
the sea. jMorcorer, Christian baptism demands
an administrator; but there w^as none in the case
referred to. Christian baptism requires the ele-
ment to be brought in contact with the subject;
but the Israelites were not touched by wave or
qloud. And, so fkir as baptism consists of immersion,
we are forced to conclude that the passage of the
Eed Sea was no baptism. That passage was a
figure of Christian baptism in its import, — in its
moral, practical, and theological significance, and
not in the mode of its performance. Augustine
calls it a salvation by icater, and for that reason it
is called a baptism. It was a glorious deliverance
of the ancient Israelites from the hands of their
enemies, a solemn separation between them and
their heathen associations, a mysterious conse-
cration of God's own chosen to his exclusive
service, a miraculous regeneration, in which a new
and holy nation was born, an impi-essive seal of
God's presence and covenant with his people. All
these are things to be said of the holy sacrament
of Christian baptism now; and it is in these
respects, and in these alone, that the passage
through the Eed Sea is called a baptism. It no
more proves that avc must be immersed in order
to be baptized than it proves that we must be
sprinkled with mists of spi'ay, such as doubtless
2
242 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
might have been seen falling into that wonderful
jjathway from the boisterous surges above. The
Psalmist thus refers to the vy^onderful miracle : —
*'Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand
of Moses and Aaron. . . . The waters saw thee, O
God: the waters saw thee ; they were afraid: the
depths also were troubled : the clouds poured out
water." If there is any mode of baptism here, it is
a sprinkling, or such a pouring out of water as falls
in drops. The Israelites were baptized, but not
immersed; the Egyptians were immersed, but not
baptized. How is this, if baptism is immersion ?
But, says Mr. Carson, "Immersion does not neces-
sarily imply wetting j" that, though the people
were not wet, they were immersed; and that,
though this immersion was "different" from Chris-
tian baptism, it was yet " similar" to it ! The
doctor seems to be still entangled in Peter's chain.
He had hard work of it. (P. 120.)
Dr. Fuller's next reference is to 1 Peter iii. 20,
21, where the apostle speaks of "the ark . . .
wherein few — that is, eight souls — were saved bj'
water, the figure according to which baptism doth
now save us." But where is the immersion in this
case? Koah and those saved with him were not
immersed. By that flood they were purified from
the wicked, and consecrated as the new seed to re-
populate the earth; but they rode above it, un-
harmed by the shoreless waves which overwhelmed
and drowned all else of human kind. They alone
of all men were not immersed; and to make that
gracious exemption a figure of immersion is fi(juring
at a premium! The likeness Avhich Peter finds in
BArnST AlUiU.MKNTS CONTINUED. 243
the ark in which ^'oah was saved we interpret of
the spiritual signiticance of baptism, of the purifi-
cation of the soul by God's Spirit, and its salvation
from the judgments which shall overwhelm the
wicked. But, as Dr. Fuller has introduced it as
proof of mode, he is bound by the logical conse-
quences of his own premises. And who does not
see that, if the figure of Avhich the apostle speaks
refers to mode, the case of i^oah absolutel}^ excludes
immersion and establishes affusion as the only
legitimate way ? The rains fell upon the ai-k from
above, but the waves never overflowed it from
below.
Dr. Fuller refers us next to Eom. vi. 3, 5, and
Col. ii. 12. In these words we have a sublime
description of the wonderful efficacy of the gospel
upon the inner being of believers, and of a con-
dition of things resulting from their oneness with
Christ which amounts to an actual reproduction
of his crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection
in the experiences of their hearts. But, sublime
and spiritual as these Scriptures are, the attempt
has been made to harness them down as the mere
dray-horses to drag out of the mire a hopeless
sectarian cause. Dr. Fuller so robs them of their
literal force and meaning as to present them as the
offspring of a luxuriant poetic imagination em-
ployed upon remote resemblances of a point of
external ceremony, — as the mere intellectual play
of a fancy fond of tracing faint analogies and of
amusing itself with alliterations.
According to our estimate of the type of Paul's
mind and of the connection and import of these
244 THE BAPTIST SYSTExM EXAMINED.
passages, they are the words of a man of God
laboring to express some of the profouudest mys-
teries of the transforming power of the Savior's
grace. The baptism of which he sjieaks is neither
the bajitisra of immersion or aflusion, or of any
other mode of performing an external rite, but the
inner and miraculous purification of man's whole
moral nature by incorporation with Jesus Christ.
The crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection to
which he alludes, so far from being mere images
of immersion and emersion, are literal terms,
denoting realities, and pointing not to a figu-
rative but to an actual death of every believer to
his sins and his real resurrection to newness of life.
The cross here is not the cross of going under the
water, but the inward crucifixion of the old man
with the crucifixion of Christ. The parallel in the
apostle's mind is not between the outward mode
of external bajDtism and the death, burial, and
resurrection of the Savior, but between these par-
ticulars of his passion and the inward spiritual
experiences of those who truly are his. His object
is to show, not that Christians ought to walk in
newness of life because figuratively raised from a
watery grave in an outward ceremony, but that
justification by faith, so far from ministering to
licentiousness, carries with it and effects in the
soul an extinction of man's licentious and sinful
being, and sots \\]) in its place a new and holy
creature; that it actually transfers to the believer's
heart the whole history of the Savior's passion,
and continues it there as a thing now transpiring
in the hidden cxjperiences of every true disciple.
BAPTIST ARGUMENTS CONTINUED. 245
Dr. Fuller's interpretation takes in about as much
of the real sublimity of these passages as the stupid
traveler at Eome took in of the grandeur of the
Coliseum by examining a detached piece of mortar
from its "walls.
But if wo were even to admit the Baptist inter-
pretation, and agree that Paul is here tracing a
comparison between the mode of baptism and the
crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ,
then the apostle comes before us in the absurd
position of attempting to run an analogy between
things in no way analogous. There is no mode
of baptism of which we have ever heard which
takes in, even in remotest resemblance, the various
focts of this part of the Savior's history. Take the
most favorable particulars, — the burial and resur-
rection. What resemblance is there between water
— the softest and most yielding pf visible substances
— and a solid rock, the very image of durability?
"What likeness between dipping a man in a fluid
and depositing a dead body in a horizontal exca-
vation in the breast of a declivity? What simi-
larity between the wading of a living man into a
stream or cistern and the bearing of a corpse to its
final resting-place ? What analogy between the
hasty lifting up of a strangling subject from a
plunge in the water and the triumphant resur-
rection of the reanimated Jesus in the strength of
his own omnipotence? What similitude between
the glorified body of the rising Savior and the
drowned and dripping aspect of the Baptist sub-
ject coming up from his immersion ? Could any
thing be more unlike than Christ leaving his gi'ave-
21®
246 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
clothes in his sepulchre of rock and coming forth
unaided in his incorruptible body, and a man lifted
hastily from the water, the same clothing sticking
sadly to him and he looking a great deal worse
than before his immersion ? Is it not amazing
that any human mind could have imagined that
such a "sorry sight" bore any resemblance to the
majestic and glorious resurrection of our blessed
Lord? (See Dr. Webster's Water-Baptism Ex-
plained, pp. 19, 32.) No wonder that Dr. Fuller
himself is so embarrassed with these discrepancies
as to admit for once that ''The manner is no-
thing" ! (P. 74.) Had he made this admission
from the start, and kept himself to it, he would
have relieved his book of much false criticism
and unsound reasoning, and spared himself the
"j)ain" of pronouncing sentence of excommuni-
cation upon millions of God's own accepted sons
and daughters.
But, again : what the apostle in verses 3 and 4
calls baptism into Christ, and into his death and
burial, in verse 5 he calls jjlanting in the likeness of
Christ's death. But what resemblance is there be-
tween immersion and Christ's death, or between
immersion and planting in the lihencss of Christ's
death ? Was he put to death by drowning ? lie was
not thrust down in the water, but lifted up upon the
cross. He did not die by being gently sunk into a
yielding fluid, but by being violently nailed upon an
unyielding stake. Neither is immersion in water a
representation of the idea of planting. What simili-
tude is there between the dripping, soiled, uncom-
fortable-looking man, lifted by another from the
BAPTIST AKC.UMENTS CONTINUED. 247
troubled Avater, and the beautiful young plant,
painted by the rays and freshened by the showers
of heaven, rising imperceptibly and noiselessly by
the power of an inward life and vigor? If burial
into Christ's death by baptism, then, is the same as
planting in the likeness of Christ's death, — as the
Betting of the scion of the new spiritual man by
the crucifixion of the old, — is it not clear as lan-
guage can make it that the idea of immersion is
entirely excluded ?
Once more : the burial spoken of in these pass-
ages is not a burial in baptism, but a burial in
Christ's death. Will language tolerate the idea of
immersion in the death of another? Was Christ's
crucitixion a fluid ? There is purification in Christ's
death, and by that purification the old man with
his vestment of vices is buried with Christ, never to
be raised again. But immersion in Christ's death,
and that in the manner or " likeness" of that death,
— i.e. in a way resembling crucifixion, — is an asso-
ciation of incoherencies that may be comprehen-
sible to a Carolina lawyer, but surely not to
common sense.
Let us not be carried away, then, as too many
have been, by the mere sound of a word. The
burial of which the ajDOStle speaks is not a mere
figurative, but a literal and real, burial, — an actual
extinction .of the carnal mind, and an actual ab-
straction and concealment of it in the deep abyss
of eternal sepulture. There is not one of all these
allusions that sustains the Baptist theory; no just
laws of exegesis will permit them to be thus tied
doAvn to the signification of mere mode. They
248 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
prove that baptism is a sanctification, but they do
not prove that it is immersion, or that immersion
has any thing to do with it.
CHAPTEE XYII.
THE HISTORY OF BAPTISM.
We come now to notice our author's last argument.
It is drawn from what he calls the history of baptism.
The substance of it is to this eflfect: that from the
time of John and Christ to the third century bap-
tism Avas invariably administered by the total im-
mersion of the candidate, and that the present mode
of administering this ordinance is a sujDcrstitious
contrivance of a degenerate and corrupt theology.
Shades of our fathers! is this history? History is
fact; but these assertions are not fact. B}" taking
the exact reverse of them we will be much nearer
to the truth. We deny that immersion was the
common mode of baptism in the apostolic pei"iod
of the Church. The most patient and laborious
and impartial examination of everj^ legitimate
source of argument has left us without one par-
ticle of proof that the apostolic baptisms Avere
immersions. We deny that John's baptisms were
immersions. We denj^ that the three thousand at
Pentecost were immersed. Wo deny that Paul,
Cornelius, Lydia, or the Jailer were immersed.
We deny that there is any satisfactorj'- evidence
THE HISTORY OP BAPTISM, 249
that even the eunuch Avas baptized b}' immersion.
"We den}' that there is a particle of evidence that
the apostles ordinarily, if ever, baptized by total
immersion. For though the inspired writers speak
of baptism, directly or indirectly, on almost every
page of the New Testament, and under a great
variety of aspects, they have not employed n
single term, or stated a single fact, or used
a single figure of speech, Avhicli evinces that they
either preferred or practiced submersion in any
case; but, on the other hand, they have used lan-
guage and related occurrences vrhich can by no
possibility be reconciled with immersion. Indeed
Coleman most j^ositively asserts that ''the rite of
immersion is an unauthorized assumption, in direct
conflict loith the teachings, the spirit, and the example
of Christ and his apostles." (Ancient Christianity,
p. 367.)
"I will state/' says Dr. N. L. Eice, "an import-
ant fact, Avhich cannot be disproved, — viz. : No one
can find any account of the practice of immersion
before the third century; and then we find trine
immersion, accompanied with various superstitions
and indecencies."
Dr. Fuller's '^History,'' then, stands contradicted
in its most vital part. Its very life-blood is want-
ing. For if the inspired apostles baptized in any
manner without totally immersing the candidate,
no subsequent practice, however general or tena-
ciously contended for, can foist immei^sion upon us
as an injunction of God or as a thing of binding-
obligation.
Dr. Fuller cjuotes about thirty authorities to
250 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
prove that immersion was generally practiced at
an early period in the history of the Church. But
we are free to admit, and, so far as we know, none
of the writers on our side of this controversy have
ever refused to admit, that baptizing by immer-
sion was extensively prevalent during the third
and the fourth centuries. Dr. Fuller's authorities
go no further than this admission. Not one of
them says that immersion was specificall}^ ap-
pointed by the Lord, or that the Christians of the
periods referred to ever regarded imiiiersion as
the only mode of baptism authorized by Christ
and his apostles; and fourteen of these very authors,
and in the very passages quoted, tell us expressly that
THERE were ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL
PRACTICE, and that there never icas a time ichen
p>ersons were not otherwise baptized than by immersion.
Not one of them speaks of immersion as essential
to the validity of baptism, or saj's that those of
the third and fourth centuries who oi'dinarily
practiced immersion ever regarded it as indis-
pensable to the integrity of this sacrament. And
Dr. Pond (pp. 42-50) has proven, beyond the
power of successful contradiction, that immersion
was never considered as essential to baptism until
the rise of Dr. Howell's ^'Baptist Fathers" — the
Anabaptists of Germany — in the period imme-
diatel}^ following the Eeformation.
Coleman, who has made so many concessions to
Baptists, has justly said that the administration
of baptism hj immersion icas the first departure
from the teaching and example of the apostles on
this subject; that it is not in harmony with the
TIIK HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 251
Christian dispensation to give such importance to
merely an outward rite; and that it is altogether
a Jewish rather than a Christian idea, and indi-
cates an origin and a spirit foreign to that of the
ordinances of Christ and the apostles. (Ancient
Christianity Exemplified, p. 367.) Neither is it
difficult to account for this envly departure from
apostolic practice. Christianity began in the
warm regions of the East, and in the midst of a
people whose climate, habits, costume, and mode
of life were all adapted to bathing; and nothing
could have been more natural than the use of the
bath as a mode of religious purifying on occasions
otherwise convenient. This certainly was suflS-
cient to begin the practice of immersion in bap-
tism. This practice, once introduced, soon acquired
strength from one of the primitive heathen signi-
fications of the word haptizo, and from false inter-
pretations of Eom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12. In
addition to this, as Dr. Fuller himself remarks,
"even in the days of the apostles we find corrup-
tions insinuating themselves; and very soon after
the time of the apostles all manner of innovations
and abuses began to creep in." (P. 91.) Pre-eminent
among these abuses was that superstition from
which Papacy took its origin, the midue reverence
for ej:ternal forms. "In all ages, the spirit of will-
Avorship, the universal concomitant of human
nature, has busied itself in rendering more operose
and cumbersome the simple rites of our holy faith.
When Christ proposes to wash the feet, this sj^irit
is sure to exclaim, 'Lord, not my feet only, but
also m}' hands and my head.'" And amid those
252 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
deep-rooted tendencies to formalism and siipei'-
stition, what was there to avert from the Church
a surrender of herself to what fanaticism and
superstition would regard as the largest and most
efteetual mode of administering an ordinance in
which so much was supposed to be involved both
of emblematical import and of sanctifying power?
(8ee Beecher on Baptism, sec. 23.)
But, amid the prevailing departure from apos-
tolic example which characterized the Church in
the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, the validity
of baptism performed by affusion or sprinkling
alone was never denied by the Church. It was
admitted to be true baptism. It matters not
whether the instances of baptism by affusion were
many or few. One acknowledged instance is as
much and as really an admission of the fact as
ton. As remarked by Professor Wilson, the ques-
tion between us and our opponents in the appeal
to the Fathers is, Do these venerable witnesses
testify or not that there can be baptism where
there is no immersion? If we can produce from
their w^ritings one unexceptionable instance of a
rite acknowledged to be baptism, though admin-
istered without immersion, judgment on the
appeal must necessarily go in our favor. Let the
Fathers, in a solitary case, call him on whom the
symbolic water has been poured a baptized man,
and they stand committed irrevocably and forever
against the modern doctrine that ''baptism is
immersion and nothing else." Are there any evi-
dences, then, that the Fathei's baptized without
immersion? There are.
titt: iiistory of baptism. 253
Oypvinn, "who suffered mart^-rdom in a.d. 258,
has left us a formal discussion upon the propriety
of baptizing by affusion, in which he argues that
baptisms thus ■performed are valid, perfect, and
JUST as acceptable to god as any other. (See
his sixty-ninth epistle.)
St. Lawrence, the cotemporary of Cj'prian, baj)-
tized Eomanus, a soldier, with a pitcher of water,
and one Lucillus, by pouring water on his head.
At. a period still earlier, JS'ovatian, a converted
heathen philosopher, was baptized by affusion. The
writer quoted by Eusebius, from whom we have
the account of the transaction, does not hesitate
to call it baptism. (Eccles. Hist. vi. 43.)
Constautine the Great was baptized by affusion
in 337. Clodovius, King of the Franks^ was ba|>-
tized by affusion in 499. Argilufus, the King, and
Theolinda, the Queen of the Longobai'ds, were
baptized by atfusion in 591. Gennadius of Mar-
seilles in 490 said that the baptized person is
either sprinkled or immersed
Hilary on 1 Tim. iii. 12, 13, as quoted by Dr.
Beecher, says, "nan desunt qui prope quotidie bapti-
zentur mgri," — there are not wanting, almost daily,
sick persons icho are to be baptized. Sick persons
were baptized without immersion. It was done
mostly by aff"usion. Emperors were baptized in
this way; and yet formal histories in the Greek
tongue recorded it as baptism. Theodosius the
Great was thus baptized by Ambrose in his last
sickness. Basil sa^'s that people were often bap-
tized when they could neither speak, stand, nor
confess their sins, and that it was done without
254 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
immersing them. Gregory of ISTyssa speaks of
the baptism of the sick without immersion, and
calls it baptisma. "Did the Greeks proclaim a
falsehood in their own tongue? Did they declare
before heaven and earth that a man was immersed,
when every man, woman, and child knew that he
was not? Yea, did they declare it when out of
their own mouths they could be convicted of false-
hood? for they themselves declare that he was
not." Yet they assert that he was baptized. (See
Beecher on Baptism, sec. 57.)
Tertullian, born 150, speaks of the ^'aspersion of
water" in connection with penitence and baptism,
so as to leave us to infer that baptizing by
affusion was common in his day, and not other-
wise esteemed than as a valid mode of administer-
ing this ordinance. (De Penitent, cap. 6.) In the
catacomb of Pontianus, out of the gate Portese at
Home, an ancient baptistery, which antiquarians
upon clear and decisive gi'ounds have dated back
to the year 107, teaches the same doctrine. It is
older than any copy of the Gospels now in exist-
ence; but it speaks nothing of immersion. On the
left is a niche, in the rocky side, where the adminis-
trator stood, fronting a basin formed hy a slight
excavation in the floor. On the forthest wall is a
representation of the baptism of Christ, in which
the water is being poured on his head. Such a
j)icture, in such a place, could have been for no
other purpose than to instruct the baptizers and
their subjects that thus was the blessed Savior
baptized, and that thus baptism was legitimately
performed.
THE HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 255
The primitive praetice of administering baptism
by affusion has thus been engraven upon the rocks
forever. And Vencma, Salmasius, Eusebius, Baro-
nius, Bingham, Neander, Winer, Gieseler, Cole-
man, and all the best authorities tell us that in
the case of sickness, or when water was not easily
procured, or when the baptismal font was too
small, or when other considerations of convenience
or climate rendered immersion difficult or im-
proper, the patristic Church alwaj^s held affusion
to be a valid mode of baptism, and regarded it as
profanity and sin to rebaptize any who had re-
ceived this ordinance in that manner. Cyprian
says, "If any think that they have obtained no-
thing, but are still empty and void, in that they
have only been affused with sanctifying water, they
must not be deceived, and so, if they escape the
ills of their sickness and recover, be rebaptized;" as
that would be to "question the verity of faith and
to deny baptism its proper majesty and sanctity."
"Would to God that our Baptist friends were as
thoughtful and' reverent toward God's appoint-
ment in this respect as Cyprian! It would do
away with many a solemn farce and save un-
suspecting people from profane sacrilege. It is
true that it was held to be improper for such as
first applied for baptism in the extremity of sick-
ness afterward to be promoted to high official
positions; but not because the ordinary mode of
baptizing clinics Avas esteemed in any way im-
perfect, as the Baptists insinuate. We have the
express testimony of Cyprian and others that
" the sprinkling of water has like force with wash-
256 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
ing and holds good," and that it neither abridges
the ordinance itself nor curtails the spiiitual bene-
fits with which it is associated. The only reason
wh}^ those baptized in sickness were debarred from
official honors is that assigned by Eufinus, Bing-
ham, and others, — that the postponement of bap-
tism to such an hour argued a great want of
spiritual sensibility and showed an absence of
that Yoluntar}^, cheerful, and unconstrained sur-
render to Christ which ought to charactei'ize high
officers in the Church. This is fully set forth by
the Council of Neocesarea, which said, "Ho that
is baptized when he is sick ought not to be made
a priest (for his coming to the faith is not volun-
tarj^, but constrained) unless his diligence and faith
do prove commendable."
It is, therefore, a fact that the Fathers of
the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, though very
much given to administer baptism by immersion,
really did in many instances, and continually, ad-
minister this sacrament to certain classes without
immersion and by simple afi'usion, and that it was
uniformly and always held to be ti'ue and valid
baptism, which it was a sin to think of repudiating
or t.0 treat as not Christian baptism. Docs not
this prove and demonstrate forever tliat the Bap-
tists do but quote their own condemnation by
appealing to jiatristic practice? Though they com-
monly immersed, they found adequate Christian
baptism where there was no immersion: there-
fore, baptism with them was not sheer immersion
and nothing else.
And what is exceedingly remarkable in this
TUE HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 257
connection, though these ancient Christians gener-
a]\y baptized by immersion, we know of no in-
stance— and, with all the searching of our indus-
trious Baptist writers, there has not come to light
one single instance — in which any one of them
attempted to sustain or defend their practice by
reference to the meaning of the word or to the
practice of the apostles. Upon this point we will
give an extract from the learned Greville Ewing:
— " That, in the days when Churches in every
nation were running the race of superstitious
observance, and vj'iug with one another who
should be readiest to adopt every new clerical and
monkish device, the Greeks speedily embraced the
method of baptism by immersion, is matter of
undoubted notoriety. But that they either prac-
ticed this method from the beginning, or, even
when they embraced it, alleged as their reason
the meaning of the word Baptism, there is no
evidence which I have been able to discover. I
have looked in vain for it into all the earliest
Greek Fathers to which I have had access; and,
so far as my acquaintance with the Baptist writers
extends, I must say that they are on this point
remarkably barren. Mr. Robinson satisfies him-
self with making the bare assertion without giving
a single reference in support of it. Dr. Eyland,
■who has given so many quotations from Jewish
and heathen writers, confines himself to three
from the Greek Fathers. Two of these are
brought to prove what we have admitted, — that
baptizo signifies to sink and be droivned; but they
have no reference to the ordinance of baptism,
22*
258 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
and they are so vaguely quoted that it is impossible
to find the passages." (P. 141.) " The idea of im-
mersion in baptism seems to have arisen among
the Latin (not GreeJi) Fathers of Africa; and that
not from their opinion of the meaning of the
original words of the institution, but from their
unwarrantable zeal for improving on the simplicity
of that and of all the other institutions of Christi-
anity." (P. 84.)
It is also worthy of remark that there arose a
sect in the fourth century, called the Eunomians,
which embraced men as distinguished for learning
and penetration as any who lived in that period,
who denounced the custom of immersing candi-
dates for baptism as an unwarrantable departure
from the primitive mode of administering this
ordinance, and insisted that baptism was only
rightly performed by Avetting the head and
shoulders.
Nor is it to be forgotten that when the early
Christians immersed their subjects they immersed
them in perfect nakedness. Whether male or
female, old or young, immersion was never per-
formed unless the candidate had first been divested
of every particle of clothing. This is a fact,
established upon the very best authority and
admitted by Baptists themselves. It cannot be
successfully denied. And immersion for Christian
baptism has no records in history which are not
inseparably connected with the custom of bringing
people to baptism as naked as the}" came into the
world. This one fact, with its indeconcj'', ought
to be proof enough that immcrision did n(H origin-
THE HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 259
ate in the purity of scriptural ordinances, but in
the rudeness of growing superstition. It arose at
a time when a barbarous but ambitious clergy
presumed to enjoin submission to Avhatever their
Avild imaginations might suggest for introduction.
The fact is that this indecent undressing for bap-
tism had a foundation about as respectable, as
well as an antiquity as gi'eat, as the custom of
immersion itself. If immersion in water could set
forth the death and burial and resuiTcction of
Christ, the unclothing of the person baptized did
much better set forth the putting off of the body
of sin in order to put on the new man, which
is created in righteousness and true holiness. So
that, if the common practice of the Fathers is of
any value in proving what is essential to baptism,
it proves equally that this total divesture is just
as essential as the total immersion.
We here also mention the fact that there is a
Christian society now in existence which dates back
to the remotest Christian antiquity, and so far re-
moved from the common world as to have felt little
of the conflicts of opinion or of the operations of
ambition, which have made such sad havoc with
larger communities and interests, — to a community
of whom it is not too much to say that they have
retained the practices derived from their forefathers
much more punctiliously than the perturbed nations
of Christendom at large. We refer to the Syrian
Christians in India. Cosmos Indicopleustes found
them there in a.d. 540, a certain Theophilus in 356,
and mention is made of one of their bishops as
early as 180. Good authority says that they were
2(50 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
fii'st converted by the personal labors of some of
the apostles in the very region they still inhabit.
Mr. Newell, an American missionary, visited them
in 1814. He says, "I made particular inquiry
respecting the mode of baptism. I found it icas
AFFUSION. Respecting the subjects of baptism I
made no inquiry, as I supposed it was a matter
of notoriety that the Syrians are Pedobaptists.
Bro. Hall, who conversed with those same priests
when he was at Cochin, understood that children
were baptized."
" The HistOiy of Baptism" furnishes no support
for the cause of immersionist philology.
CHAPTEE XVIII.
THE PRACTICE OF TUE GREEK CHURCH.
Our Baptist friends are very fond of referring to
the practice of the so-called Greek Church upon
this subject. They also manage to present the
case so as to take advantage of the ignoi'ance of
many people and persuade them that such an
appeal is a complete and unanswerable settlement
of the whole controversy.
Mr. Eobinson, in his History of Baptism, chap-
ter second, thus presents the matter: — "The word
is confessedly Greek; and native Greeks must
understand their own language better than foreign-
ers; and they have always understood the word
THE PRACTICE OF THE GREEK CllUKCri. 2(jl
baptism to signify dipping; and, therefore, from
their tirst embracing Christianity to this day, they
have always baptized, and do yet baptize, by im-
mersion. This is an authority for the meaning of
the word baptize infinitely preferable to that of
European lexicographci-s ; so that a man who is
obliged to trust human testimony, and baptizes by
immersion because the Greeks do, understands a
Greek word exactly as the Greeks themselves
understand it : and in this case the Greeks are
unexceptionable guides."
All this appears exceedingly plausible. Mr.
Ewing says he has no doubt it has caused the
immersion of thousands. jN^ay, if it were true, it
would put other nations in the ridiculous attitude
of undertaking to dispute with the Gi'eeks the
meaning of their own language. We shall show
presently that the whole thing is ajjocryphal.
Dr. Fuller presents the case in these words : —
" In inquiring into the import of a Greek word,
the following questions must at once suggest them-
selves to the mind of every man : — Is the Greek
language now spoken by any nation? If it be,
why not I'efer the point to them, since they must
know what is the meaning of the word ? Now,
the Greek language is still essentially a living
language. The word baptizo is still used by the
Greeks, and they mock to utter scoi*n the absurdity
of sujipoSing that it means sprinkle or pour. They
cmplo}" terms of contempt for those practices, and
always immerse any members who join their
Churches from other Churches where they have
262 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
only received sprinkling or pouring. This point
is conceded by all." (Pp. 87, 88.)
To the illiterate and unsuspecting, this too would
seem like a just and final disposition of the whole
controversy. Many, no doubt, think that it is
quite enough to settle any one's mind in favor of
immersionism. But "thereby hangs a tale," which
remains to be told, and the Baptist logic on this
point vanishes forever. It is mere sophistry.
1. Modern Greek is not the ancient Greek, —
very little, if an}', more than Italian is like ancient
Latin. This is a flict which no scholar will deny,
2. The great body of the so-called Greek Church
does not speak Greek at all, and never has spoken
Greek, and is in no way connected with Greek
ANCESTRY. The head and trunk of the so-called
Greek Church is the Eussian Empire; and out of
a population of sixty-seven millions composing that
empire, not four millions are of Greek extraction ;
and not the one-tenth of those know any thing about
Greek !
3. It is not the fact that the Greek Christians
have "alwa3^s understood the word baptism to
signify dipping." Clemens Alexandrinus was a
Greek Christian; and he applies the word to denote
purifyings by wetting the body, by washing the
hands, and b}^ sprinkling around and over one on
a couch. Cj'ril was a Greek Christian; yet he calls
the j)urification by the sprinkling of the ashes of
the heifer under the Jewish law a baptism. Origen
was a Greek Christian; and he calls the shedding
of Christ's blood a baptism, and says that martyr-
dom is rightfully called a baptism, and that the
THE ITvACTICE OF TlIK OIJKKK CIIUUCFI. 2G3
pouring of the water on the wood and 'altar in
Ehjah's time was a baptizing of it. Nicephorus
was a Greek Christian; and he tells of a man who
received the ordinance of induction into Clirist by
affusion, while lying upon his bed, and calls the
transaction baptism. Athanasius was a Greek
Christian; and he says that "John was baptized by
placing his hand on the divine head of his Master."
Zonarus and Balzamon were Greek Christians; and
yet the occurrence of haptizo, in the sense of im-
mersion, in a canon of the Apostolic Constitutions,
as they are called, so arrested their attention that
they thought it necessary to insert notes to pre-
vent the reader from mistaking its meaning in that
place.
Besides these cases, the native Greek lexicog-
raphers, setting themselves to exj)lain the meaning
of Greek for the Greeks, and acknowledged and re-
ceived by the Greeks as competent interpreters of
their native tongue, have not given dip or immerse
as the meaning of baptizo. Hesychius gives the
stem-word, and defines it and all proceeding from
it by the one word antleo, — to draw, pump, or pour
xoater. Suidas defines baptizo by the one word
pluno, — to icet, xcasli, cleanse, or bathe in any manner.
And Gases defines it by brecho, louo, antleo, — to icet,
icash, draw, or pour out water.
To say, then, that the Greek Church has "always
understood the word baptism to signify dipping,"
is a mistake, a sheer assumption, a positive contra-
diction of the truth. It is not so.
4. The Greek Church adheres most tenaciously
to the baptism of infants, so much so that an adult
264 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
baptism -is a rare thing among them. And, if their
practice is authorit}^ to fix fAe mode, it is equal
authority to fix the subject, of baptism. It is just
as uniform and decisive in the one point as in the
other. Either, then, our Baptist friends must
repudiate the authority of the Greek Church prac-
tice altogether, or criminate themselves with de-
linquency in some im^^ortant parts of the baptismal
service, and of stinting and abrogating God's ordi-
nance as applied to children. This is an extremity
to which they reduce themselves by this mode of
argument; and truth and justice require that they
be sternly held to it.
5. Dr. Fuller sa^'s that the Greek Churches
always rebaptize any members who join them
from other Churches where they have received
sprinkling or pouring. Why did he not have the
manliness to state the true reason? Would they
admit Dr. Fuller, or any other Baptist, without
rebaptism? He does not say they would; and we
say, positively, they woidd not. Why? Simply
because they acknowledge no Churches but their
own, whether they be immersionist Churches or
not. The Greek Churches are episcopal, and admit
no succession, no authorized ministry, but their
own. They hold the whole Western Church as
apostate. They Avill allow no Christianity but
theirs. Hence, whoever comes to join them must
be baj^tized by their clergy and in their own forms,
no matter how or by whom he had been baptized
before. Dr. Fuller's immersions are no better in
their eyes than the sprinklings of the Papists.
They hold them all equally invalid. So that if
TIIK rUACTICE OF THE (iREF.K CIIUllCII. 205
Greek Church practice is to decide the matter,
thei-e is no true baptism under heaven but that
performed by themselves. Our Baptist brethren
must go to St. Petersburg for the genuine succes-
sion before the}' are competent to administer bap-
tism as understood by these so-called Greeks.
6. The mode of baptism in the Greek Churches is
not by total immersion. Baptists have with great
confidence asserted that it is; but, like many of
their assertions, it is "without pi'oof. It is only
upon loose, vague, and unsupported impressions
that their allegation rests. We will furnish testi-
mony which proves those impressions to be un-
founded. "Mere assertion is a proof only for
fools," says a certain writer : proof is what we
want, especially "in a matter of such moment as
obedience to Jesus Christ."
Mr. Joseph Huber, a ruling elder in the Danville
Presbyterian Church, and afterward a minister of
the Presbyterian Church, some forty years ago
resided among people of the Greek Church, and
furnishes the following statement : —
" I resided upwards of three years in the capital
of the Grand Seignior's dominions, in a Greek family
of the first respectability. During that time I loas
present at four baptisms, — two in the familj^and two
in the immediate neighborhood. It is the custom
among the Greeks either to have their children
baptized publicly in their churches, or else in their
houses; in which latter case the parents invite the
nearest relations and neighbors; and, after the
ceremony, while refreshments pass round, the
father gives to each person present a token of wit-
23
266 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
iiesshij), consisting of a small piece of Turkish
money through which a hole is pierced and a piece
of narrow ribbon inserted. I was thus invited to
attend the four above-mentioned baptisms: and I
still have in my possession two tokens ; the other
two may be seen in Mrs. McDowell's Museum in
Danville. The company were all seated on the
sofas around the room. A table stood in the middle
with a basin ofivatcr on it. The papa or priest was
then sent for, who upon entering the room was
received by the father of the infont and led to the
baptismal water, which he consecrated by a short
prayer and the sign of the cross; then the mother
presented to him her babe, which he laid on his left
arm, and, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, he thrice dipped his hand into the tcater and
DROPPED SOME OF IT ON THE CHILD's FOREHEAD,
giving it a name.
" I may remark here," he adds, " that I never
heard, during my stay in Constantinople, of adult
baptisms, nor of the ordinance being performed by
iinmersion in a single instance. Most generally
infants are baptized in the churches. Before tlie
altar stands a tripod holding a basin of consecrated
water for baptisms."
Here were native Greeks, members of the Greek
Church, "holding to the good old practice of the
ancient Church;" j'et they baptized infants, and
they did it by dropping water upon the subject.
"Can it be affirmed," says the Bajitist Eecorder,
"that the Greeks did not understand their own
language?" But this is not all.
Q'lie Eov. Pliny Fisk, missionary to Palestine
THE PRACTICK OP TIIK (iREEK CHURCH. 207
some years ago, says, " I went one morning to the
Syrian chiu'cli to witness a baptism. . . . When
ready for the baptism, the font was uncovered, and
a small quantity, first of warm Avatcr and then of
cold, was poured into it. The child, in a state of
perfect nudity, was then taken by the bishop, who
held it in one hand, while with the other he an-
ointed the whole body with oil. He then held the
child in the font, its feet and legs being in the icater,
and WITH HIS right hand he took up water and
POURED IT ON THE CHILD, in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." (Memoir of Fisk,
p. 357.)
These baptisms occurred in the East, where the
climate is favorable to immersion. We can hardly
sujipose that there is more to do with the water
when we come north and west to St. Petersburg.
Nay, Dr. B. Kurtz, in his first tour through Europe
in 1825, says, ^'TTe ourselves once witnessed the bap-
tism of an infant in the great cathedral of St. Peters-
burg, BY pouring." And so Deylingius, as quoted
in Booth's " Pedobaj)tism Examined," says, " T/ie
Greeks at this day practice a kind of affusion."
Some indeed tell us that the Greek Church
totally immerses the candidate before the ceremony
of affusing or sprinkling him; but we have seen no
accounts of this from eye-witnesses. ^Ye seriously
doubt it. If it is so, the fact might easily be ascer-
tained and the evidence of it produced. It has not
been forthcoming. The inference is that it does
not exist. And, if it does exist, it is no baptism in
the estimation of the Greek Church without being
followed by the public application of water to the
268 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
subject with the hand, in the name of the Holy
Trinity. Affusion cannot be separated from
Greek Church baptism.
We then hold our Baptist friends down to their
own argument, — that the practice of the Greeks
shows their understanding of the Greek word.
The practice of the Greeks at least includes affusion
or sprinkling : therefore the Greeks understood bap-
Tizo to include affusion and sprinkling.
So much for the practice of the so-called Greek
Church.
CHAPTER XIX.
DEVELOPMENTS AND TENDENCIES OF THE BAPTIST
DOGMA.
We have now examined every point in Dr.
Fuller's '' philological inquiry as to the meaning
of baptizo." The result is before the reader. We
do not deem it more than the naked truth to say
that we have found him contradicting plain facts,
interpolating historical records, giving for Scrip-
ture what is not in Scripture, perverting authori-
ties, wresting inspired language from its obvious
im])ort, charging the best and wisest men who have
ever lived with a spurious Christianit}', seeking to
bind down the glorious blessings of Christ's medi-
ation to a mere accident of external cerenaon}',
sending us back to the old heathen to learn
wiiether we are Christians or not, at every step
DEVELOPMENTS OF THE BAPTIST DOGMA. 269
using logic wliich is unsound and making assci-tions
which are untcnahle, denouncing the most solemn
sacraments of ninety-five hundredths of God's
people for more than a thousand years as super-
stition or profonity, and holding up a hetero-
geneous community of modern sectarians as the
only true Church of God on earth. A cause which
drives its advocate to such extremities can never
command the respect of candid thinkers.
In six general arguments we have shown that
all the presumptions and 'primd facie considerations
in the case lie so strong and heavy against the
Baptist theory of immersion that nothing short
of demonstrative proof is competent to set them
aside. Such proof has not been found in the Bap-
tist '^Argument." Indeed, Dr. Carson himself
comes to what is equivalent to an admission that
no such proof is to be found inside of the New
Testament. His process is, first, to establish im-
mersion as the meaning of baptizo from classic
Greek authors, and then to silence all objections
and counter-arguments drawn from the Scriptures
by alleging the possibility — the mere possibility —
that the baptisms of the New Testament may have
BEEN immersions. This is all that he pretends to
get from the New Testament on the subject.
Positive proof he does not once claim to find in the
inspired record. (See his work on Baptism, pp.
281, 282.) Either, then, the Scriptures are not
that sufficient guide which Paul (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17)
claims that they are, or the doctrine of immersion-
ists is not a doctrine of the New Testament. Many
may honestly entertain it and take it for the truth
23«
270 THE BAPTIST SYSTExM EXAMINED.
of God ; but it is nevertheless wholly unsupported
by the origin or use of the word relied on, at war
with the strongest scriptural intimations concern-
ing mode in baptizing, and incougruous with the
whole tone and spirit of the gospel. It is no part
of Christianity.
Nay, the nature and tendencies of the immersion-
ist dogma, when fully seen, present it in a light
which prove it to be of other than divine origin.
The spirit of Christ, of liberty, of charity, of good-
ness, is not in it. It has its life and power in what
is as unchristian as it is Pharisaic, superstitious,
and sectarian.
It excludes the repenting sick from the privilege
of confessing Christ in his own appointed mark of
discipleship and sacrament of forgiveness.
It does the same in the case of those membei's
of our race whom the gospel may reach in arid
deserts where it is difficult to find water enough
to sustain life, or in those polar realms where
unmitigated winter reigns for nearly all the year,
locking up every stream in perpetual ice, covering
the surface of the deep with solidity, and rendering
the immersion of a man in water the instantaneous
conversion of him into a statue of frozen flesh and
blood. God or his apostles would never have
instituted or made binding any particular mode
which could not be universally and at all times
practised.
It destroys the solemnity and disturbs the de-
votion which ought to attend the administration
of the baptismal sacrament, often converting an
ordinance of God into a mere shoiv for the amuse-
DEVELOPMENTS OF THE BAPTIST DOGMA. 271
mcnt of curious people, boj-s, and servants, giving
point to the jests of the vulgar and bringing pain
to the feelings of the devout. Dr. Fuller, with all
his studied sanctity of manner, the elegances of
music, the assistance of waiting friends, the con-
cealment of the rising subject's face, the consider-
ate interposition of his own robed person to cover
the sorry retreat of his candidates from the pool,
and all the shields and graces which his ingenuity
can throw around it, cannot deprive immersion of
its liability to the charge which we arc compelled,
from personal observation, to make upon it.
It also subverts the order of the gospel, exalting
the ritual above what is personal, placing the form
above the substance, making s])iritual qualifications
nothing unless accompanied by submission to a
mere puncto of external ceremony, and engrafting
Levitical bondage upon evangelical freedom. It
leads to the denunciation of the most solemn
official acts of the greatest and most pious minis-
ters that have ever lived as profanity and lies not
to be respected for a moment. It obscures the
vital doctrines of the Christian faith, by disjDlacing
and supplanting them in the pulpit and in the
common mind by mere questions of outward
formalities, which can profit nothing. It begets a
superstitious regard for the rite of baptism itself,
as though salvation were to be obtained in the
water. It was so in the fourth and fifth centuries.
It is so now in the case of the Campbellites and in
the cases of very many individual Baptists. Dr.
Fuller himself has not escaped this tendenc}' of his
system. "Saved or damned!" are the first words
272 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
in his book; and if salvation and damnation are
not associated in his mind with submission and
refusal to go under the water, or if he does not
in some way regard this momentous question as
involved in immersion, it is contemptible hypo-
crisy, if not downright profanity, to introduce au
argument on immersion with such words, amplified,
too, as if this were the question to be decided.
Meet a zealous Eaptist where you will, and im-
mersion is obtruded upon you as a theme para-
mount to all others. Nearly every Baptist preacher
who has learned to decline Ho, and many a Bap-
tist preacher who knows not what Ho is, must
needs wi'ite a book, tract, or something else on
immersion, just as though that embodied the
essence of Christianity, or as if it wei'c the ulti-
matum of ministerial effort to hold up above every
thing else this one matter of simple /orm. Stoutly
as it may be denied,
" Ho, every mother's son and daughter !
Here's salvation in the water !"
are lines which express what may be seen in the
spirit of Baptist literature, preaching, and conver-
sation,— the fruit of a deep~seated tendency in
their system to divert the mind from the vital
elements of saving religion to a superstitious and
fanatical regai-d for an insignificant mode of per-
forming an outward ceremony.
Out of thirteen of the publications of the "South-
ern Baptist Publication Society," including hymn-
books and rhymes and conversations for children,
four are on the subject of baptism. The editor of
the Baptist paper of Baltimore concedes that out
DEVELOrMENTS OF THE BAPTIST DOGMA. 273
of one hundred and seventy volumes, including
Sabbath-school books and biographies, publislied
by the "American Baptist Publication Society,"
nineteen arc strictly on "the baptismal question,"
and that, out of two hundred and seven Tracts,
twenty are exclusively "denominational"!
Professor Eaton, in a speech before the Baptist
American and Foreign Bible Society, April 28,
1840, says, "Xever, sir, -was there a chord struck
that vibrated simultaneously through so many
Baptist hearts from one extremity of the land to
the other, as when it was announced that the
heathen icorld must look to them alone for an unvailed
view of the glories of the Gospel of Christ. ... A
deep conviction seized the minds of almost the
Khole body, that they icere divinely and peculiarly
SET for the defence and dissemination of the gospel as
delivered to man by its heavenly Author."
It is the foster-mother of a spirit of proselj'tism
and sectarianism, which is ever on the look-out for a
convert to its party, creeping insidiously into houses,
and " leading captive silly women" of both sexes,
and which would glory in draining every church
and destroying every congregation in Christendom
which refuses to bow to its narrow dictation.
It has led to the public and formal denunciation
of the great Bible societies of Britain and America
— those two wungs of the Apocalyptic angel with
the everlasting gospel to preach to every kindred,
people, and tongue — as ^^combinations to obscure the
divine revelation."
It has led its adherents and supporters to arro-
gate to themselves the high distinction of being,
274 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
of all Christian people, the only ones sufficiently
honest and conscientious to translate intelligibly
those passages of Scripture which relate to the
baptismal sacrament. Witness the resolution of
the Baptist American and Foreign Bible Society,
passed on the 28th of April, 1840, which reads,
"Eesolved, That in the fact [!] that the nations of
the earth must now look to the Baptist denomination
ALONE for faithful translations of the word of God,
a responsibility is imposed upon them, demanding
for its full discharge an unwonted degree of union,
of devotion, and of strenuous, persevering effort
throughout the entire body." Might not the
spirit which dictated and sustained that resolve
take, for the motto of its devotions, "God, I thank
thee that I am not as other men"?
It leads to the intolerant proscription of all,
however devout of heart and meek in spirit and
munificent in charity, who do not embrace it.
It has engendered in its devotees a bigotry, in-
tolerance, and self-sufficiency which Eobert Hall,
though a Baptist, saw, lamented, and sought to
counteract, as being the same in essence and
equally reprehensible with the most arrogant and
antichristian assumptions of the Papacy itself
It has led, according to the testimony of that
eloquent man of God, to "glaring instances of
gross violation as well of the dictates of inspiration
as of the maxims of Christian antiquity, — both of
which," says he, " concur in inculcating the doc-
trine of the absolute unity of the Church, and of
the horrible incongruity — I might almost say im-
piety — of attempting to establish a system which
DEVELOPMENTS OF THE BAPTIST DOGMA. 275
represents a great majority of its members as
personally disqualified for communion."
It falsifies the words of Jesus that the gates of
hell should not prevail against his Church, by
assuming grounds which necessarily render that
Church extinct for hundreds of years, and which,
if true, make it extremely doubtful whether there
is now anywhere under the whole heaven any
such thing as a true, legitimate, historical Chris-
tian Church.
Can such a theory, with such tendencies, plead
scriptural warrant? Can the immaculate Son of
God be the author of such a system? Can Heaven
be the origin of such doctrine? Can Jehovah be
the parent of such confusion? To say so would
be to slander the great God, to obscure the atti'i-
butes of his love and mercy, to throw discredit
upon his word, to cast contempt upon his gospel,
and to divide his kingdom against itself. We
cannot believe it. It is too much for the most
fanatical credulity. It is an outrage upon com-
mon sense. It is Papal arrogance in the guise of
Protestant humility. We pity the people who
have suffered themselves to be imposed on and
infatuated by it. We honor and sympathize with
them as Christians, so far as they show a Chris-
tian temper and walk. Many of them are doubt-
less good men and true and accepted of God; but
they are giving their sanction to a system the
bearings of which are as contrary to the spirit of
the gospel and as antagonistic to some of its
clearest dictates as error is to truth or sin to holi-
ness; a system which leads them to call a man a
276 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
minister of Jesus whilst they denounce ull his
administrations as invalid and sinful and seek to
alienate the people from him as a deceiver and
apostate; a system which leads them to flatter a
man as a Christian friend with one breath and
with the next deny to him the hope of salvation
save as they extend it to the unbaptized heathen ;
a system which leads them at times to take a
man by the hand as a fellow-disciple of Jesus, and
then to turn him away from the Lord's table like
a dog.
And this, we are to be told, is Christianity ^ar
excellence, — the relig-ion of Christ direct from his
word and Spirit, — the pure, unadulterated gospel
of the blessed God, — the very flower and perfec-
tion of that economy of holiness, love, liberty, and
universal brotherhood of which the holy seers of
old did sing, and for which the heart of humanity
in all ages has been yearning, hoping, and pray-
ing! ''Oh, tell it not in Gath, publish it not in
the streets of Askelon; lest the Philistines rcy'oioe
and the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph!"
As w^e shall all answer at the great day of
judgment, Can such a system be the truth
OF God?
ANALOGY — AN INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT. 277
CHAPTEE XX.
ANALOGY — AN INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT.
Before closing our i-cmarks upon this part of
the Baptist controversy, we have another argu-
ment to present, — an argument from analogy, — ■
an argument quite independent of the preceding
discussion, and so direct, complete and conclusive
that no Baptist writer, so far as we are aware, has
ever so much as attempted to answer it.
"We think that we have demonstrated that no
reliance is to be placed upon the doctrine of our
Baptist friends that "bajyttzo means immerse and
nothing else." But we are now about to submit
a mode of reasoning which has no need of that
demonstration, which exempts us entirely from
the necessity of replying at all to the teachings
of immersionists as to the secular, classical, and
common meaning of the word in disjiute. We
may grant that the Greeks ordinarily used haptizo
to signify immersion, and that all its meanings are
properlj' resolvable into this. We may disj)ense
with entirely and wholly set aside the conclusions
which we have thus far educed; and yet there is
a mode of reasoning, to which no just exception
can possibly be taken, which entirely confounds
the Baptist claim, and establishes a bulwark of
24
278 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED,
strength around our mode of baptism which ren-
ders it forever invulnerable against all the immer-
sionist logic in the world.
It is agreed on all hands that, under the pres-
ent dispensation, Christ has established two corre-
sponding ordinances or sacraments: the one is
Baptism and the other The Lord's Supper, — the one
referring to the new birth, the other to the nur-
ture and nourishment of this new creature. All
the essentials of a positive ordinance or Christian
sacrament appertain alike to both. Both have
Christ's positive command; both require the use
of an external, material, and tangible element;
both are of binding and continual obligation; both
have the divine promise of grace to those who
attend properly upon them; both are meant to
exhibit and apply the gospel to the souls of men;
and both are equally solemn, sacred, and unaltei'-
able. The one is denoted by the word deipnon,
supper; the other by the word baptisma, baptism.
Baptisma does not more describe the nature or
essential constituents of the one than deipnon de-
scribes the other. It is no more allowable, then,
for us to depart from the strict meaning of deipnon
in our celebration of the Holy Supper than to
depart from the strict meaning of baptisma in
baptizing. The stringency or laxity that is requi-
site or allowable must be the same in both cases;
for they are exactly analogous. If it is not neces-
sary to keep to the literal meaning of the one, it
is not necessary to keep to the literal meaning of
the other. Liberty in the one case presupposes
and implies the existence of the right to exercise
ANALOGY — AN INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT. 279
the same liberty in the other case. This cannot
be successfully disputed.
Supposing, then, that the immersionists are
right in claiming that mode is implied in baj)tism,
if we can show that they, in common with the
Churches generall}', from the beginning \intil now,
consider themselves under no obligation to keep
to the plain, literal import of the word deipnon in
the Holy Supper, that fact alone, without any
other argument, is a satisfactory and unanswer-
able ground upon which to claim exemption from
rigid adherence to the litei'al meaning of baptisma
in baptizing. Sound authority in one case is
sound authorit}' in every jjarallel case.
"What, then, is the meaning of deipnon? There
is but little room for diversity as to the true
answer. It denotes a full meal, and that an
evening meal. All authorities agree that it stands
for the principal meal of the Greeks and liomans.
Three names of meals occur in the Homeric writ-
ings, in the following order, — ariston, deipnon, and
dorpjon. " The Greeks of a later age usually par-
took of three meals, called akratisma, ariston, and
deipnon. The last, which corresponds to the dor-
pon of the Homeric poems, was the evening meal, or
dinner ; the ariston was the luncheon; and the
akratisma, which answers to the ariston of Homer,
was the early meal, or breakfast. The akratisma
was taken immediately after rising in the morn-
ing. Next followed the ariston, or luncheon ; but
the time at which it was taken is uncertain.
Suidas says that it was taken about the third
hour; that is, about nine o'clock in the moi'ning;
280 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED,
but this account does not agree with the state-
ments of other ancient writers. We may con-
clude, from many circumstances, that this meal
was talceu about the middle of the day, and an-
swered to the Eonian prandium. The principal
MEAL, HOWEVER, WAS THE DEIPNON. It WHS USUOlly
taken rather late in the day, — frequently not before sun-
set." (Smith's Antiquities, pp. 303, 304.) Dr. Halley
says, "Long before the apostolic age, deipnon had
become regularly and constantly the evening meal."
Nitzch says that it denoted "^/le principal meal."
Trench does the same. Hence, all great enter-
tainments were called deipna, and alwaj^s came off
at the latter part of the day, or at night.
The scope and use of the word in the New Tes-
tament correspond exactly to these representations,
as may be seen from the following passages : —
Matt, xxiii. 6 : " They make broad their phylac-
teries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, [deipnois,
suppers.y
Mark vi. 21: "Herod on his birthday made a
supper \_dei2)non'] to his lords, high captains, and
chief estates of Galilee."
Mark xii. 39: "The scribes love the uppermost
rooms at feasts [deipnois, sup2)ers.']'"
Luke xiv. 12: "When thou makest a dinner
[ariston'] or a supper \_deipnon'\, call not thy friends;
, . . but when thou makest a feast," kc.
Luke xiv. 16: "A cei'tain man made a great
supper [deipnon'\ and bade many." (See also verses
17, 24, and chapter xx. 46.)
John xii. 2: "There they made him a supper
ANALOGY — AN INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT. 281
Ideipnon]', aud Martha served." (See also chapters
xiii. 2, 4, and xxi. 20, Avhero the word occurs in
the same sense.)
We might further illustrate this meaning from
the Septuagint, in such passages as Daniel v. 1 : —
" Belshazzar the king made a great feast [deipnon,
supper'} to a thousand of his lords;" but it is un-
necessary. Deipnon means a full meal, a banquet,
a plentiful supper, an ample repast, the principal
AND MOST ABUNDANT MEAL OF THE DAY, wllich
occurred in the evening, between mid-day and midnight.
Dr. Fuller himself says, that Deipnon "was, among
the ancients, the most social and convivial of all
their repasts," and that "the M'ord means A ban-
quet, A FEAST." (P. 226.)
It is also to be observed that the Lord's Supper,
or deipnon, "svas instituted and first celebrated at
night. ISTot only the meaning of the word which
was chosen to describe it, but the very hour of its
appointment and first observance, connect the
Lord's Supper with the evening and the close of
the day.
According to the plain, evident, and well-estab-
lished meaning of words, therefore, and sustained
by circumstances, two things would be essential to
the sacramental deipnon. First, it must be a full
and plenteous meal; and, second, it must be taken in
the evening. A fragment of bread a half-inch square,
and a sip of wine that would scarcely fill a tea-spoon,
is not a deipnon, as the Greeks used that word, any
more than sprinkling a few drops of water on a
man's face is an immersion of him. Neither do
we eat our suppers in the morning. It is as great
2-l«
282 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
a contradiction in terms and confusion of ideas to
speak of supping in the morning as to speak of
plunging a man by pouring water on him.
Suppose, then, that we were to set ourselves to
reason on the word deipnon as the immersionists
reason on the word baptisma : we might make out
a case to convict the Christian world in all ages
of disobedience to a plain command of Christ.
They say that baptisma means immersion and
nothing else; we say that still more certainly does
deipnon mean an evening repast. If the one denotes
mode, the other with more certainty denotes time.
They insist that baptisma includes in itself a total
covering up of the whole body in water; we say,
wnth far more reason and confidence, that deipnon
includes in itself the provision and participation
of the largest and fullest meal. If the one requires
water enough to cover a man, the other, with
greater certainty, requires food enough to fill a
man and as many as are to partake of it. The
words chosen in both are the words of God, and
he knew what he meant by them. And if the
common Greek usage of baptisma was to denote
immersion, and we are to get God's meaning in
that word from common Greek usage, the common
Greek usage of deipnon must also give us the idea
attached to it by the Holy Ghost.
What, then, has been the universal practice of
the Church Avith regard to the sacramental deipnon 't
Have there ever been any denominations of Chris-
tians who believed, or held it as necessary to a right
communion, that it should be celebrated in the even-
ing or that it should be made a full meal ? All pai'tics
ANALOGY — AN INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT. 283
— Baptists with all others — are continually cele-
brating the deipnon of the Savior in the morning ;
and none of them provide for it more than a bit of
bread and a sip of wine for each communicant. We
do not find fault -with this, "We believe that it
adequately fulfills the mind of the Spirit and of
Jesus on the subject. But, arguing as our modern
immersionists, Ave might say, v^ith holy indig-
nation, What right have men to trample upon and
ignore the time selected by the Savior in the insti-
tution of this sacrament and ingrained in the
name given to it by the Spirit of insj)iration ?
What authority have they to make a pitiable abor-
tion of a breakfast or dinner of what, according to
the plain common import of God's word, is to be
an abundant and plentiful supper? If we cannot
dispense with mode in baptism, we cannot dispense
with time in its corresponding sacrament. If we
cannot have baptism without immersion, for the
same alleged reason we cannot have a supper in
the morning or a deipnon for a hundred guests
without a large supply of wine and bread. If time
and quantity are nothing in the one sacrament, the
name and circumstances of which call for it, mode
and quantity are nothing in the other sacrament,
the name and circumstances of which demand it
still less.
Assuming, then, that mode is invariably and
essentially implied in the literal sense of baptisma,
which we have abundantly proven to be otherwise,
the sin of those who practice sprinkling, wetting,
or afi'usion in baptism consists simply in regarding
mode as one of the accidents or circumstantials iu
2S4 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
this ordinance. Tliis is all. And, if we are to
sutler for this, we have a right to demand, with the
Psalmist, "Let the righteous smite us; it shall he a
kindness: and let him reprove us; it shall be an
excellent oil, which shall not break our heads."
If our iniquity in this thing is to be punished with
death, then let our Baptist friends consider the
Savior's challenge : — "He that is without sin among
you, let him cast the first stone." If they will insist
that we distort and violate an ordinance of Christ
by declining to be immersed or to immerse, we
take the liberty of "holding the mirror up to
nature," that their flagrant inconsistency may be
seen. They have expunged the elements of time
and quantity from the ordinance of the Lord's
Supper as celebrated in their societies, and think
the}^ have done no violence to literal exposition
and the plain meaning of words which certainly
contain them ; and it will not answer for them now
to turn about and condemn and excommunicate us
for thinking it non-essential as to how the water
is applied in holy baptism. Let them ponder first
those searching words of Jesus : — " Why beholdest
thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye ?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother. Let me pull
out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam
is in thine own eye ? Thou hypocrite ! first cast out
the beam out of thine own eye, and then thou shalt
see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's
eye."
The immersionist attempts to defend the peculi-
arity of his procedure by asserting that mode is
ANALOGY — AN INDEPENDENT ARGUMENT. 285
inseparable from baptism and therefore belongs
essentially to the ordinance. "We say that his
argument criminates himself, and, by proving too
much, recoils upon his own head. Time and abun-
dance of provisions are as necessarily included in
deipnon as it is possible for mode to be in haptlsma ;
and when he gives us the warrant for his liberty
to eject time from the Lord's Supper, and for his
substitution of a little fragment of bread and a
little sip of wine for a full meal, we shall be pre-
pared to establish our right to dispense with his
tavorite mode in the administration of baptism.
Until he does this, all his philological reasonings
on the word baptism are completely nullified, and,
in all justice, forever silent.
We need no other argument. This in itself
sufficiently disposes of the question. It winds up
the whole controversy into a nutshell. It puts
the dispute in a light in which there is no room
for philological mystification and which may easily
be understood. It concedes the whole Baptist
assumption, and yet completely confutes the in-
ference founded upon it and leaves the cause of
immersionism in inextricable embarrassments. It
settles the case. It is an unanswered and un-
answerable ARGUMENT.
With these observations we close our discussion
upon mode.
286 TUE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
CHAPTEE XXI.
INFANT BAPTISM NO SIN.
We come now to the second point of difference
between immersionists and tlie Church general.
It relates to pedobaptism, or the baptism of in-
fants and little children.
This is an important department of this con-
troversy'", presenting a question which deserves to
be carefully and dispassionately considered. If
the position assumed by our immersionist friends
be correct, a very great revolution in the views
and practices of Christians generally is imperi-
ously demanded. Thei-e is serious error on the
one side or the other. And, as we have proposed
to ourselves the task of giving a resume of the
whole Baptist controversy, it remains for us to
enter somewhat upon this point also.
The first thing we notice in our opponents w^ith
reference to the baptism of infants is the whole-
sale and unqualified manner in which they con-
demn and denounce it. They show no hesitation
at all in declaring it one of the most dreadful and
reprehensible abominations that has ever afiiicted
the human race.
Mr. Kinghorn regards it as ''the very precursor
of Aritichrist, the inlet of almost every abomination."
INFANT BAPTISM NO SIN. 287
Dr. Car.son declares it to be " the fortress of the
man of sin, — the very spirit of Antichrist."
Dr. Ide execrates it as " that old upas-tree whieh
with its dcath-distiUing branches — popery, prelacy,
and skepticism — has for fourteen centuries shaded
and blasted the world."
Dr. Howell declaims against it as " an evil which
despoils the Church and subverts the doctrine of
infont salvation, — which is the grand foundation
of the union of Church and State, the source of
religious persecutions, a hindei-ance to the conver-
sion of the world, a sin against God, one of the
most calamitous evils with which the Church has
ever been visited, the 7nost melancholy of all evils,
a:nd more disastrous to the cause of truth
and salvation than any of the progeny of
superstition" !
"The Western Baptist Eecorder," printed at
Louisville, Kentuck}^, says, " Of all the damnable
heresies in the black catalogue which has befouled
the fame of Christianity, we consider infant baptism
the 7nost damnable. If other heresies have damned
their thousands, this has damned its tens op
THOUSANDS."
Dr. Fuller, with all his disavowals, chimes in
with the same general strain of his brethren, de-
nouncing infant baptism as "an antichristian
jDractice, introducing and perpetuating the most
glaring inconsistency and mischievous confusion,
tarnishing the glory of the atonement, and doing
vast injury to our children."
iSTow, all this is very expressive language. If
imraersionists are correct in what they say, there
288 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
never has been a curse moi-e dreadful, or a bliglit
more terrific, or a sin more heinous, than that in-
volved in the solemn dedication of little innocents
to the Savior who redeemed them, and the ad-
ministration to them of that ordinance which he
himself has ap2:)ointed as the sign of his love and
saving grace to those who are his. Tj-ranny and
war and pestilence bear no comparison with it in
evilness. Infanticide itself is a blessing by its
side; for the one touches only the body and places
the soul beyond the reach of pollution, whilst the
other murders and damns the immortal spirit.
We are sometimes in doubt to know whether we
are to take these men as sj^eaking in sober earnest,
or whether they are merely declaiming for the bene-
fit of a sectarian cause. But, in either case, they
put themselves into a very responsible position.
If they are not in sober earnest, they are trifling
with the consciences and souls of men and putting
forth lies in the name of God. And if they are
seriously convinced of what they say, they have
some very momentous settlements to make with
the Christian sense and common judgment of the
religious world.
1. If it is such a terrible sin, such a guilty
spoliation of all that is good, to baptize childi-en,
w^hat, then, are we to think of that long proces-
sion of good men who are acknowledged on all
hands to be the lights of the world and the salt
of the earth, and who have with great strenuous-
ness adhered all their lives long to this damning
heresy? Luther and Melanchthon, Knox and
Howe, Leighton and Baxter, Wesley and Dod
INFANT IIAPTISM NO SIN. 289
dridge, Frankc ami Anult, Bmiiicrd and Paysoii,
Dwiglit and Chalmers, and all the very flower of
Christendom for hundreds and hundreds of years,
have been strict Pedobaptists. They all stood up
for the baptism of infants. Their names and influ-
ence Tvere fully committed in its favor. And are
we now to regard them as the enemies of the
Church of Christ, the allies and abettors of Anti-
christ ? Are we at length to set them down as
the veriest sons of Belial ? Where, then, has the
Church of Jesus been for so many ages? What
becomes of the holy fiiith and lauded virtue of the
martyrs who cheerfully laid down their lives out of
love for Jesus? What hope could they have with
this sin of baptizing little children upon them,
unrepented of and unforgiven? Where, then,
shall we find the Joshuas and Elis and Ezi^as and
Davids and Jeremiahs and Daniels of the gospel
ages? Has the world all this time mistaken
them? Must we at length reverse the sentiments
of love and grateful praise which generations
have inscribed upon their tombs, and cast out
their names as the pests of time, and think of
them now as the tenants of etenial perdition?
God of our fathers, has it come to this? Yes, it
has, if the doctrines of modern Baptists on the
baptizing of infants be true. Alas ! who can set
limits to sectarian fanaticism?
2. If infant baptism is this "damnable heresy"
which immersionists declare it to be, — if it is such
a crj'ing abomination, such a scarlet dragon, drip-
ping from head to foot with the blood of souls, —
the Scriptures must certainly take some notice of
25
290 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
it or give some cautions against it. An apostasy
so fearful, a heresy so terrific, \vide-s]Dread, and
long-continued, could not have been overlooked in
Christ's word of warning to the Churches. Other-
wise, revelation would be an insufiicient guide,
and does not thoroughly furnish us for every good
work. But do the Scriptures refer to it ? Not a
writer against Pedobaptism has ever brought for-
ward one single word of inspiration cautioning
against it or in the least condemning it. With
all their enthusiasm, research, and sectarian zeal,
they have not even pretended that the Bible con-
tains such a passage. Against popery, schism,
and skepticism, against evil in all its Protean
shapes, and against abuses of divine ordinances
of all forms and grades, the Scriptures present the
fullest and most overwhelming array. But here
is a thing which we are told is the most mischiev-
ous of errors, — the most melancholy of all the
progeny of superstition, — a death-distilling upas,
blasting the earth for almost one-third of its age,
— the parent of popery, superstition, and unbelief,
spreading ruin and damnation over all the face of
Christendom from the beginning until now; and
yet not a word to bo found against it in the Bible,
not an allusion to it in the prophecies, and not a
precept in all God's revelation to protect the
devout parent from it! Can such a thing be
possible? Is not this very silence of the Uoly
Ghost proof enough that infant baptism is not
and cannot be that blasting curse and damning
sin described in Baptist writings on this subject?
3. And then again: if the baptizing of infants
INFANT KAITISM NO SIX. 201
be so sinful ami damning, Ave have a right to
know in what the strength or suhstance of tho
crime lies. AVhat is sin? Inspiration answers,
''Sin is the transgression of the law." ''Where
no law is, there is no transgression." But Avhat
law is transgressed in infant baptism? Can a
single precept of God be pointed out as violated
by it?
Take the law of parental obligation and duty.
Does the baptism of infants in any way trans-
gress it? No: it inculcates, enforces, and seeks
to fulfill it by a solemn and formal acknowledg-
ment.
Take the law of personal responsibility. Does
infont baptism violate this? No; for this too it
acknowledges in all its rightful amplitude, and
marks the child as the Lord's from its very
inflmcy and binds it over to be his follower and
servant. It may be said that such a covenant
has no binding force, because the child does not
voluntarily participate in making it. We answer,
if this law is to prevail, then there is no obligation,
either to God or man, except so far as an indi-
vidual voluntarily chooses to have it so. It. makes
our consent the essence of re.sponsibilitj', — which is
a doctrine we repudiate and abhor, as contrary to
all Scripture and common sense. God's laws are
the same upon saint and sinner. They are as
binding upon him who does not consent to them as
upon him who does. And as well might we say
that a child is not lawfully under parental control,
or not bound to obey the laws of the land in
which it was born and lives, because it was not
292 TUK BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
first consulted as to who should be its parents or
in what eountr}^ it was to be born and reared.
According to all constitutions of God and man,
the child follows the parent, lives the parent's
life, is affected by the parent's condition, and is
most intimately bound up in the j)arent's will.
God has made it so; and no man can alter it. And
when pious parents, with the aid of God's ordi-
nance, dedicate their child to God, there is a trans-
fer made of that child by those whom God has
made its representatives, which is owned and held
valid in heaven. So far, then, from repudiating,
infant baptism enforces and establishes, pei'sonal
responsibility. It brings vividly to view, and
thus tightens up, the bonds under which all men
stand to Him who made them.
Take the law of social privilege. Baptizing
infants does in no wa}' transgress it. It abridges
no rightful liberty of the child. Nay, it increases
the hopes and privileges of the little learner in
Christ, by bringing the proper persons under
expressed consent to see to its spiritual wants and
training.
Take even the law of baptism and Christian
discipleship itself, about which immersionists and
Anabaptists make so much ado. Infant bap-
tism in no way transgresses it. Does it specify
qualifications? Christ himself finds all those
qualifications in infants. ''Of such," says he, "«s
the kingdom of heaven." Nay, so perfect is every
thing in the little child which is required to qualify
an adult for baptism and discipleship, that he says
further, "Except ye be converted and become as
INFANT BAPTISM NO SIN. 293
LITTLE CHILDREN, ye shall HOt enter into the kingdom
of heaven." Evoiy thing required of tiic adult is
already in the little child. The child is the model,
so presented by the Maker of the law, and there-
fore morally and spirituall}'' as much entitled to
this sacramental acknowledgment of discipleship
as any one can possibl}' be. Upon that point,
then, there is no transgression. Docs instruction
enter into the case? There is nothing to require
that instruction to precede the discijileship. It is
the coming of one into the jiosition of a learner in
Christ that constitutes the discipleship; and if the
baptism of infants only serves as the introduction
of them to this position of learners in Christ, it
fulfills all the requirements of the law.
We therefore press and reiterate the question,
"Where, then, is the transgression ? No law is vio-
lated; and where are "we to get strength for the
life of this dreadful and damnable sin? No rig-ht
is invaded; no privilege is abridged; no principle
of morality is outraged; no precept of God is in-
fracted. Let the law be shown on which the great
world of saints is indicted; let us hear its pro-
visions and penalties; and if we have disobeyed
this consecration of our babes to God, we will re-
pent in dust and ashes. But, until that is done, we
will conclude and hold that our accusers must be
mistaken zealots, and that infant baptism is neither
mortal sin nor " damnable heresy."
25*
294 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
CHAPTEE XXII.
INFANT BAPTISM NOT CONTRARY TO THE COM-
MISSION.
Looking at the fierce and terrific accusations
which immersionists bring against infant baptism,
Ave would naturally supjDOse that they had some
strong and positive foundation upon which to
rest. We would at once exjiect to see an array of
Scripture and reason not easy to be met. But,
having examined about a dozen of the leading
Baptist books upon the subject, we have been more
than surprised — we have been amazed — at the
lameness and barrenness of their cause. With all
their parade and assurance, we have been able to
find but one single positive argument that has
been produced anywhere to make out their charge
of '' damnable heresy." It is that the commission
to baptize forbids the baptism of infants.
Jesus says to his ministers, "Go ye, therefore,
and make disciples of 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 : and, lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
This is the commission; and on this the whole case
INFANT BAPTISM — THE COMMISSION. 295
of the fierce assaults upon the baptizing of little
children is made to repose. Dr. Carson says, "I am
Avilling to hang the whole controversy upon this
passage. . . . Even if I found another command,
enjoining the baptism of the infants of believers, I
should not move an inch from my position. ... I
would gainsay an angel from heaven who should
say that this commission may extend to the baptism
of any but believers [adults]. . . . Ilere I stand
entrenched ; and I defy the ingenuity of earth and
hell to drive me from my position." (Pp. 1G9, 170.)
Howell says, ''Jnfant baptism is prohibited by the
apostolic commission; [i.e. the commission given
to the apostles.] This is the law of baptism, insti-
tuted by Christ himself, and the only law he ever
ordained on the subject." (P. 33.) Dr. Fuller
says ''the argument from the commission is dis-
tinct, conclusive, irrevocable. Even if infant bap-
tism could be established by other portions of the
Bible, it would not, could not, be baptism under
the commission." (P. 112.) And he further dis-
courses as if it were a waste of time, a casting of
pearls before swine, to attempt argument with a
man who does not perceive that this commission,
in spite of every thing, forever excludes and pro-
hibits the baptizing of little children.
Kow, it does apj^ear a little strange that these
men are unwilling here to allow the Scriptures
to explain themselves, or even "an angel from
heaven" to explain them, when, a little while ago,
they considered it proper to call in the old heathen
Greeks to tell us what Jesus meant, and by the
pains of excommunication hold us bound to abide
296 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED
by what these old heathen say. But it is useless
to think of fathoming all the depths of Baptist
logic. The question is, Does this coynmission exclude
infants from baptism? We say that it does not.
And in this we are sustained by the conviction
and constant practice of the great body of Chris-
tian people from the beginning until this present
moment. When Baptists assert that it does, they
take issue with the whole East and with nearly
the whole West. They take issue with Origen,
Firmilian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius, Cyp-
rian, Victorinus, Lucian, Lactantius, Eusebius,
Athanasius, Cja-il, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil,
Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysos-
tom, and Augustine. They take issue with Huss,
and Wickliflfe, and Luther, and Melanchthon, and
Zwingli, and the great mass of learned Christian
men in all nations and ages. Dr. Fuller quotes
from Grotius, Calvin, Barrow, Saurin, Vossius,
Doddridge, Limborch, Whitb}', Venema, and Bax-
ter, as if they were authorities in his favor; but
what are thej^, compared with the list which we
have given, and which might be swelled to twenty
times the extent? Nay, every one of these men
to whom he has referred approved, practiced, and
advocated the baptizing of infants, and therefore
could not have believed with him that this com-
mission excludes them. If the question, there-
fore, is to be decided by authorit}^, it is already
settled, by a perfect avalanche of the greatest
names that have ever been worn by flesh and
blood, including every one of those cited by Dr.
Fuller himself.
INFANT BAPTISM — THE COMMISSION. 297
We propose, however, to look at the commission
itself. The particuhn* part of it on which Baptists
rely as excluding infants is the word "teach
[innthctcusate,']" which thc}^ say must be fulfilled
before there can be any baptizing. Dr. Fuller
says, "It is as plain as the sun in the firmament
that before baptizing any one I am to teach him,
and therefore that infants are not to be baptized."
But Dr. Fuller's light on this point comes from
some other sun than ''the Sun of Eighteousness."
Mathetcusate is a word which here, and nearly
everywhere else in the Xew Testament, is used to
denote the entire work of evangelization, — the
whole ofiicc and end of the gospel in its practical
effects upon individuals or nations. It is one of
the largest and most comprehensive words used in
the ^STew Testament. It describes and includes
the entire commission of all the ministers and
Churches of Christ in this world. No preacher of
the gospel, and no Church, has any thing more to
do for Chi'ist, from the day of Pentecost ''to the
end of the world," than that which is expressed
in this one word matheteusate. And all the highest
attainments of the best Christians, in know-
ledge, faith, obedience, and conformity to Christ,
never once go bej'ond what is expressed in this
w^ord. The noblest and holiest of the apostles,
in all their high qualities as Christians, were
nothing tnore than mathetai. All that the aj^ostles
ever did in execution of the Savior's commands,
and all that the Church has ever done or can do in
these respects, is comprehended hy this one term
It is used more than two hundred and fifty times
298 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
in the New Testament; and, wherever it is used
with reference to the Savior's commission, it is
employed in tliis hirgc and comprehensive sense.
Hence, if the Baptist interpretation is correct, and
the meaning of matheteusate miist be fulfilled upon
a man before he is to be baptized, there is no
authority in the New Testament to baptize him at
all. The gospel has no commission ichich is not
included in matheteusate. This is a position which
no man can overthrow. If there is any thing
clear in the New Testament, it is this. And if
people must be mathetai before we can proceed to
baptize them, we have no right to baptize anybody;
for no one is a Christian mathetaes before he is bap-
tized.
This settles the point that there must be some-
thing wrong about the Baptist interpretation of
this commission. In their zeal to exclude infonts
they necessarily exclude everybody else.
Again : the Baptist interpretation of the com-
mand makes it consist of three several things to
be done, and that in a fixed order. First, that we
are to make a man a mathetaes, — a true and full
disciple of Christ ; second, that after he has been
made a discij^le we are to baptize him; and, third,
that after he has been made a disciple, and bap-
tized in addition to his discipleship, we are next
and finally to teach him Christ's commands. What
nonsense! Dr. Fuller speaks of "this document as
having been stretched on a Procustean bed, and, in
derision of Scripture, amid the outcries of truth
and grammar and common sense, violently man-
gled." Verily, it has been; and he is one of the
INFANT BAPTISM — THE COMMISSION. 299
priests who officiated at the interesting ceremony.
Let us examine the case.
1. Upon the point of Scripture. The Scriptures
everywhere teach that a Christian mathetaes — one
Avho has been made the subject of the command
matheteusate — is one who is in all respects a follower
of Christ, — one who is lacking in obedience to none
of the ordinances or requirements of Christianity;
not one who is only moved to become a Christian,
but one who has already been made a Christian.
(See the two hundred and fifty. texts upon the
subject.) It is, then, indeed a ''derision of Scrip-
tui*e" to claim that one must first undergo all that
is meant by matheteusate anterior to baptism. It
is a direct contradiction of every passage in which
the word mathetaes is found in the New Testament.
2. U2yo7i the "point of truth." We suppose that
Dr. Fuller holds his own formal propositions to be
the truth. In the latter part of his book he devotes
eight pages to show that "■baptism is a prerequisite
to Church-membership." It was not necessary for
him to be so learned upon this point, as no one
denies it or ever has denied it. We agree entirely
with it. But it is equall}' true that there is no
Christian discipleship and no mathetaes where there
is no Church-membership. Chi-ist has no disciples
but those who are in and constitute his Church,
which is his body. Not all in the Church visible
are really mathetai; but there are no mathetai out-
side of the Church. And if there is no Church-
membership where there is no baptism, it is indeed
" amid the outcries of truth" that men require us
to be mathetai before we are baptized.
300 THK KAI'Tl.ST SYSTKM EXAMINED.
3. Upon, the point of grammar. If Christ had
meant this commission to enjoin three distinct
items, each by itself standing in the same relation
to the command as the other, the laws of grammar
would require that each item should be enjoined in
the same form if contained in the same sentence.
Looking at the wording of the commission, we find
it delivered in one imperative verb (viatheteusate)
and two participles, (baptizontes and diJaskotites.)
Dr. Fuller takes these three words as alike impera-
tive, and as enjoining three distinct things. But
we have the authority of Mr. Campbell that " the
active participle always, when connected with the
imperative mood, expresses the manner in which
the thing commanded is to be performed. Cleanse
the room, — washing it; clean the floor, — sweeping
it; cultivate the field, — ploughing it; sustain the
hungry, — feeding them; furnish the soldiers, — arm-
ing them; convert the nations, — baptizing them,
are exactly the same forms of speech." (Christ.
Bapt. p. 630.) This is all correct. The thing to
be done is expressed by the imperative verb; and
it is only the manner of the doing that is described
in the connected participle. And so mathetcusaie —
"disciple the nations" — describes the whole work
to be done. This is the general imperative injunc-
tion, including all that follows; whilst tlie parti-
ciples— baptizontes and didaskontes — only describe
the mode or particular way in which the disciples
are to be made. Every Greek grammarian Avill
testif}^ that this is the only true construction of
the phraseology. Matheteusate presents the work
to be accomplished, and the participles baptizontes
INFANT liAl'TlSM — T!1R COMMISSrON. 801
and didaskontes describe the way in which the great
work enjoined is to be effected. In other words,
we are to make disciples of all nations by baptizing
them and instructing them in the commands of
Christ. This is the plain "grammar" of the case;
and its "outcries" are mighty against the tortures
inflicted by Baptist interpx-etation.
4. A word now on the point oi "common sense."
If the theory of our recusants be correct, then a
man must be a mathetaes — a disciple and follower
of Christ — not only previous to baptism, but even
before he is instructed in the commands of Christ. The
insti'uction here is the last thing named. Baptism
pi-ecedes it, and discipleship also. So that, to be
consistent with Baptist interpretation, we must
baptize the nations before we instruct them in
Christianity, and make disciples of them before
either teaching them or baptizing them ! ! Besides,
if Christ meant that we should make disciples of
people as a thing to be done before they are bap-
tized and taught, then what is discipleship? How
is it to be effected ? In what does it consist ? The
Scriptures are silent. Common sense has no reply.
Baptists are contending for a mere phantom of the
imagination. And if they are honest, and mean to
stick to their theory upon this "document," they
must transmute Christianity itself into a piece of
absurdity and nonsense. I know of nothing which
more outrages "common sense."
Well, then, if mathcteusate is not to be taken sepa-
rate from haptlzontes and didaskontes, and does not
set up a condition which is to precede both, — that
is, if there can be no discipleship anterior to and
26
302 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
apart from the baptizing and the teaching, — it ia
settled and demonstrated forever that there is
nothing in this commission to exclude infants from
baptism. The very first thing here enjoined, in
the way of executing the matheteusate, is to baptize
in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and,
along with, or following after, as the case may be,
to teach the baptized to observe whatsoever things
Jesus has commanded. This is the commission,
according to the 28th of Matthew: nothing more
and nothing less, as respects the point now under
consideration. There is nothing in it to hinder
the very first approach of Christianity to any child
born in Christendom from being in the shape of
the ordinance of baptism, to make it a learner in
the School of Christ. So far as any terms of the
command are concerned, our infant children have
as much a place in.it as in "all nations."
But Dr. Fuller, after all, does not appear to be
entirely satisfied with his argument on " the only
law Christ ever ordained on the subject." He
must needs connect with it another and different
j)assage, (Mark xvi. 15,) which contains not one
single word of command on the subject of baptism.
Mark tells us that, after the resurrection of the
Savior, he said unto his chosen apostles, "Go ye
into all the world and jDreach the gospel to every
creature." This is the commission, and the only
commission, according to Mark. How any one
should be able to extract from it a pi'ohibition of
the baptism of infants is a mystery. But Dr.
Fuller has attempted it. He says that the "go
preach" of Mark is the same as the matheteusate
INFANT BAPTISM — THE COMMISSION. 303
of Matthew, and that the one explains the other.
Very well: then the preaching of the gospel im-
plies every thing that the ministers of Jesus have
to do, in their otticial capacity, in this world; for
mathdeusate includes the entire Christian commis-
sion, as we have shown. To preach the gospel,
then, comprises also the administration of the
sacraments; and this preaching of the gospel is to
be "TO EVERY CREATURE." IIow, then, can infants
be excluded ?
Dr. Fuller says that preaching the gospel implies
teaching. Yery well : children may be taught, and
must be taught; but neither in this passage, nor in
all the Bible, is there anything requiring that they
must be taught before they dare be baptized. The
commission, in its own terms, applies to " all
nations" and "to ever}' creature." Its substance
is, the making of disci^jles, learners, followers, of
Christ. The specific way to do it is by baptizing
and teaching. The teaching may be before, along
with, or after the baptism. Christ leaves all that
open to the necessities of the case. In either event
the commission is adequately fulfilled. If any
stress is to be laid iipon the order in which Christ
has arranged the words of the command, baptism
comes first and the teaching (didaskontes) afterward,
as the subject is able to receive it. He who finds
any thing in all this to exclude the children of
believers must first interline the record. Christ's
words do not contain it.
3Iuch importance is sometimes laid upon the phrase
in Mark, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved." This, Dr. Fuller thinks, " plainly requires,
30-4 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
1st. Teaching or preaching the gospel; 2d. Faith;
3d. Baptism;" and that this is the established
divine order in every case. Now, if this be true,
then no man can ever afterward be saved if per-
chance he should be baptized before he has really
exercised true faith. Dr. Fuller places faith
second, baptism third; accordingly, if baptism by
any means comes before faith, the divine order is
vitiated, the terms of salvation are not complied
with, and heaven is lost. This is the natural and
necessary implication of his interpretation. But
the words of Christ specify no such order. Faith
may come to maturity before or after baptism, and
still be saving faith. ''He that beiieveth and is
baptized, — [whether before the exercise of personal
faith or afterward,] — he that beiieveth and is bap-
tized shall be saved." Who could ask any more
room for the case of people bajjtized in infancy
than is furnished in these very words ? It is not
said. He that beiieveth first, and afterward shall
be baptized, shall be saved, but He that beiieveth
and IS — ivhether already or hereafter — baptized, sliall
be saved. Christ's words prescribe no order of
essential antecedence or succession. Let the faith
come first or last, only so that there is faith and
baj)tism, there is salvation. This is God's cove-
nant; and woe be to him who undertakes to alter
or restrict it !
All expedients thus failing our immersionist
friends, they next fix upon the word '^beiieveth," as
it here occurs in Mark's account, and insist that
the commission limits baptism to such as do per-
sonally exercise faith prior to, or at the time of,
INFANT BAPTISM THE COMMISSION. 305
their baptism. Dr. Carson says, " I will risk the
credit of mj' understanding on m}' success in show-
ing tliat, according to this commission, believers only
are to be baptized." But better and greater men
than Dr. Carson have risked the credit of their
understandings upon the position that what Mark
here says about faith and baptism permits the
administration of ba^Dtism to infants as much as to
any other class. So far from being a command to
baptize only adult believers, these woi'ds are no
command at all. They contain a simple announce-
ment that all competent to receive the gospel with,
a pei'sonal faith must do so on pain of damnation.
This no one disputes. BajDtism by itself will save
no man. "He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned/'
no matter whether he has been baptized or not.
There must be personal faith in all capable of exer-
cising it, or there can be no salvation. All are
agreed upon this. But the question is, whether
this personal faith must necessarily precede one's
baptism. That question is not decided b}^ these
words, or by any other Scripture. Baptizing an
infant does not incapacitate it to grow up a believer
any more than leaving it uubaptized. And if it is
baptized, and ever comes to the exercise of faith, it
is saved as certainly and as effectually as any adult.
He who denies this denies the woi'd of the Lord
Jesus. The promise is to it as much as to any
other. How, then, is it excluded ?
But, again : the Baptist argument that the
gospel enjoins the baptism of believing converts,
and that therefore none but believers arc to be
26«
806 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
baptized, has a very subtle soj)histry underlying it,
which needs to be exposed. It proceeds upon the
assumption that infants are skeptics and infidels,
— which is untrue.
We will not now suffer ourselves to be drawn
into the metajDhysical sj)eculation as to whether a
child can or cannot have faith. We know that
faith has its degrees and phases, that salvation is
accommodated to the necessities of all classes of
mankind, that infancy and childhood are the
jDeriods of the highest bloom of a confiding dispo-
sition, that faith is the gift of God and not the
product of human thought, understanding, feeling,
or will, and that the administrations of the Holy
Ghost are bound to no age or degree of intelli-
gence, but extend as well to the infant just from
its mother's womb as to the preacher on Zion'a
walls or the apostle amid the scenes of Pentecost.
Dr. Fuller agrees that infimts are saved, and
refuses to have any thing to say to those who deny
it. And certainly, if they are saved, they must be
capable of receiving, and do receive, such experi-
ences of God's methods of sanctification as to meet
all the necessities of their tender age. It is also
one of the common laws of humanity that our
children are reckoned to follow their pai*ents. If
the parents are Jews, the children are Jews and
stand in general relations with their parents.
If the parents are citizens of the United States,
their children are citizens of the United States by
virtue of their connection with their parents.
Though incompetent to the duties of citizenship in
the full extent, still, constructively, they are citi-
INFANT 15APT1S.M THE COMMISSION. P)07
zens, not aliens, not foreigners, not enemies. And
this common law of nature holds in all our social
relations. God hath set man in families; and this
natural constitution is fully recognized in the
economy of grace. The gospel treats with adults ;
but the relation of adults to it also includes and
affects their infant children the same as in every
other case. The infants of pious parents are from
their very birth in the school of Christ and learners
of him. Kor is it in the power of man to form
an estimate as to the extent to which a devout and
believing spirit in parents may be made to infuse
itself into their children, or as to how far the dis-
cipleship of pious parents secures and includes
diseiplcship in their infont offspring. It is certain
that divine influences may be communicated and
holy emotions awakened even before the child has
learned the use of speech ; and that, where parents
will faithfully perform their part, their children
will needs gro^v up disciples, with a mould of piety
dating back in early infancy. By the necessities
of their age and the relations in which God has
placed them, their case must be construed with
that of their parents. They are not infidels, not
skeptics, not foreigners and strangers, but Chris-
tians,— constructive believers, — at least until they
have grown to years of discretion and by their
own deeds have placed themselves in a different
attitude.
"What an ideal" exclaims Mr. Carson. "Might
we not as well attempt to cure bedlam with syllo-
gisms as reason with persons who speak of be-
lieving, militant infants? If any general should
308 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
talk of raising an army of infants to oppose an
invading enemy, he would at once be deemed
insane, and his sovereign would not one moment
longer intrust him to command, — no, not though
he were the Duke of Wellington. But, when doc-
tors of divinit}^ speak like madmen, it is only the
depth of their theological learning; and they are
only the more admii-ed.'^ (P. 217.) Dr. Fuller re-
echoes his master iu this " storm of hard words."
Let us see, then, where this terrific charge of bed-
lamism, madness, lunatic ravings, falls, and with what
sort of logic it is sustained.
In Jeremiah i. 5, God says to the youthful pro-
phet, "Before thou camest forth out of the womb
I sanctified thee." In Hosea xi. 1, the Lord saith,
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him." In
Luke i. 15, an angel declares of John that he should
be "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his
mother's womb." Paul says to Timothy, (iii. 15,)
"From a child [apo brephous, — ifro7n an infant] thou
hast known the Holy Scriptures." And in Matt,
xxi. 16, the Savior himself siiys, "Out of the mouths
of babes and sucklings God has perfected praise,"
and, on another occasion, took little children in
his arms and declared, " Of such is the kingdom of
heaven." If these are to be taken as the utterances
of bedlam and the ravings of lunatics, we leave our
Baptist friends to settle the matter with Him "who
spake in time past unto the fathers by the pro-
phets." We prefer to see in them a divine interest
and spiritual susceptibility in little children, es-
pecially as related to believing parents, which
INFANT BAPTISM THE Ci^MMISSION. 309
forbid US to bold and treat tbcm as^ aliens and blas-
pbcmers.
Wc also arraign, as unsound, unl^criptural, and
vicious, tbat principle wbicb would exclude from a
community all sucli as, if wholly made up of them,
would not be competent to all its requisite func-
tions. If such a rule were to be put in force, the
Church, and the State, and humanity itself, would
speedily be svrcpt out of existence. It i:? contrary
to all nature and to all the principles that govern
in human things. Of course it would be insane to
"talk of i-aising an army of infants to oppose an
invading enem}'." But would it be le;!S insane
for a community at war to turn over into the
hands of the enemy all such as are incompetent to
take the places of soldiers in the field ? Because
infants cannot occupy the trenches, are they
therefore to be treated as aliens and enemies ?
What could be more absurd? And yet this,
accoixling to Mr. Carson's figure, is exactly what
our Baptist friends are doing in refusing to
admit our infants to be of the community of be-
lievers.
Let us compare the Baptist principle of argu-
mentation with certain facts. Suppose that some
statesman were to propose the organization of a
congress or parliament of infants. " He would at
once be deemed insane," says Mr. Carson. Why?
Because infants have not the knowledge and exjDe-
rience for legislation. And yet it was deemed
right and i:)ropcr for the Prince of Wales to be
acknowledged as a member of the British House
of Lords from infancy; and from his birth or bap-
310 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
tism his name occupied the first place on the roll
of that honorable house, without disadvantage to
British interests or to the ci-edit of the British
Constitution. In the book of jSf ambers, iii. 28, we
read of the family of the Kohathites, that to their
males '■'■from a month old and upward" was given
the charge of keeping the sanctuary. ''What!"
Dr. Carson may say 3 "infants a month old keep
God's sanctuary ! Might we not as well attempt
to cure bedlam with syllogisms as reason with
persons wdio talk of infants keeijing a charge ?"
Yet this was an arrangement of God himsellj and
recorded by the Holy Ghost for our learning. In
Deuteronomy xxix. 10, Moses says to Israel, "Ye
stand this day all of you before the Lord your God;
your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your
officers, with all the men of Israel, your little
ONES, your wives, and th}^ stranger that is in thy
camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer
of thy water; that thou shouldst enter into covenant
ivith the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the
Lord thy God maketh with thee this da}'." ^Yhat!
infants enter into covenant with God ! Infants
stand up to take an oath! Madness! madness!
exclaim our Baptist friends. But either Moses
was a lunatic, or the Holy Ghost a liar, or this
very thing was done. Little children, even of the
3'oungest age, were accounted j^arties to this great
spiritual transaction, and that by authority of
God. Let our recusants get ai'ound it if they can.
Again : in 2 Chron. xx. Ave read, that when Am-
nion, Moab, and the dwellers in Mount Seir
marched their combined forces ajrainst Jehosha-
INFANT BAPTISM — THE COMMISSION. 311
phut, "All Judah stood before the Lord, with
THEIR LITTLE ONES, their wivCS, AND THEIR CHIL-
DREN;" and their united supplication was, "O our
God, wilt thou not judge them? for we have no
might against this company: . . . but our eyes
are uj)on thee." Here are infants and children
reckoned as taking part in a great public suppli-
cation and engaged in the work of oiDposing an
enemy. How could this be said of babes ? Yet
God does say it of an entire community, in which
babes are specified as doing what their parents
did. They were reckoned Math the people with
whom thej^ w^ere domestically related ; and this
is the common custom of the inspired writers.
"We submit here the question put by Dr. Eice : —
" When did God ever enter into covenant with parents
icithout including their i7\fant children? Is there a
solitary example of the kind in the Bible?" Not
one. The covenant with Abraham included the
youngest children. The covenant of Moses did
the same. And when Peter, "full of the Holy
Ghost," came to expound the new covenant on
the day of Pentecost, he said to all who yielded to
his words, " The promise is to you and to your
CHILDREN." (Acts ii. 39.)
This ought to settle the point that children are
not to be viewed as aliens and infidels, but that
they follow, as infants, the condition and relations
of their parents; and that, if domestically related
to believers, they are to be reckoned as believers
and to be treated in some sense as such. All this
hue and cry, then, about baptizing unbelievers — as
if we were baptizing skeptics and infidels when
312 THE BAPTIST .SYSTF..M EXAMINED.
Ave baptize infants — is without foundation and con-
trary to the letter and the whole spirit of the
Scriptures.
Then again : the rigid interpretation insisted
on by Baptists, that the commission allows the
baptizing of none but such as actually, truly, and
personally believe, involves other embarrassments.
If we are to baptize believers only, how can
we baptize anybody? Do Baptists fulfill their
interpi'etation of the commission ? We aver that
they do not. They themselves must admit, and
have admitted, that they do not. Campbell sadly
tells us that not one-tenth part of those immersed
by him and his associates can enter the kingdom
of heaven. Why? Because their after-lives have
shown that they had no real faith. Then, in nine
cases out of ten, according to his own doctrine and
concessions, his baptisms are but violations of
Christ's commands and a profanation of God's
holy sacrament. Nine times out of ten his efforts
to keep his interpretation of the commission have
failed. And every one who attempts it must fail.
The apostles and inspired preachers at the begin-
ning of the Christian Church failed. They bap-
tized Simon Magus, and it afterward turned oat
that he had neither part nor lot in the matter.
They baptized Ananias and Sapphira, and others
who afterward showed that they had no faith.
Then, if Baptist interpretation is to stand, they
were mere violators of their Lord's command,
with all their inspiration! Man cannot see the
heart; he cannot know what is in his brother.
He may think he has credible evidence of faith
INFANT BAPTISM — TIIK COMMISSION. 313-
or of n hopeful approach to it; and on that ground
the Baptist proceeds to baptize. We do not say
that he is wrong in this. It is all that we can
ask. It is all that Christ meant that we should
require. But we declare and hold that we have
ever}' whit as much ground to believe and hope
that the children of believers will grow up pious
as that upon which the Baptist proceeds with his
'' bcUeuer' s baptism," as he, with a flourish, calls it.
Dr. Baker says, "Some j^ears since, the assertion
having been made that the children of the pious
were no better than others, an investigation was
made; and, the famihes within a certain district
having been divided into three classes, — those in
which both pai'cnts were professedly^ pious, those
in which only one parent w^as a professor, and
those in wdiich neither parent made any preten-
sions to religion, — it Avas ascertained that of the
children over ten years of age, in the first class,
two-thirds were hopefully pious; and, in the second
class, about one-third." (Sermons, 1st ser. p. 204.)
It is also asserted with confidence, of a Pedo-
baptist denomination famous for its spirituality
and missionary fervor, that "not one of ten of its
members can remember the period when he began
to be pious," — an indication most gratifying as to
the proportion of pious among the children of
their members. Nay, God himself says, "Train
up a child" in the way he should go, and when he is
old he will not depart from it." (Prov. xxii. 6.) All
that is necessary, then, for an infant to make it
the child of God is to train it right. If parents
will only "bring it up in the nurture and admoni-
27
314 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
tion of the Lord/' its spiritual character is vouched
for by God himself. And this they are required
to profess and promise before we can baptize their
children. Profession and promise is all that Bap-
tists deem necessary. So that, all taken together,
we have full as much ground to hope that we are
conferring baptism upon believers only when we
thus baptize our babes, as Baptists have for their
vaunted ''believer's baptism." Taking their own
view of the commission in this particular, we
challenge them to the proof that we come any
further short of it than they themselves.
But there is another and more serious aspect
of the Baptist argument on the commission, which
shows that they do most sadly wrest God's holy
word. If this quotation from Mark excludes in-
fants from baptism, it at the same time, and with
the same force, excludes them from salvation and
makes " another gosi^el" necessary to bring them
to heaven. If they dare not be baptized because
they do not exercise personal faith, then, accord-
ing to the same record, they must be damned for
the same reason. If this commission serves to
prohibit their baptism, it must serve also to damn
them if they should die before arriving at years
of discretion. The only way in which Baptists
can escape the monstrous conclusion to which
their logic on this passage drives them is to pro-
vide a different gospel for children than for men.
After what Paul has said upon the subject of
"another gospel," we would hardly suppose it
possible for any one to think seriously of such a
thing. " Though we, or an angel from heaven,"
INFANT BArXISM — THE COMMISSION. 315
says ho, "preach any other gospel unto you than
that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed." (Gal. i. 8, 9.) And yet the logic of our
Baptist friends has driven them to admit "another
gospel" as necessarj' to keep departed babes out
of hell ! Hear them.
Mr. Ewing, on Mark xvi. IG, says, " From this
text some infer that a pei'son must actually be-
lieve, else he cannot be baptized. With as much
reason they might infer that a person must
actually believe, else he cannot be saved." To
this the most learned Baptist critic replies, " Ger-
tainhj: if there loere no icay of saving children hut by
the gospel, this conclusion would be inevitable. The
gospel saves none but by faith. The gospel has no-
thing to do with infants. By the gospel no infant
CAN BE SAVED. Infants who enter heaven must
be regenerated, but not by the gospel. The man
who would preach infant salvation out of the
apostolic commission, or attempt to prove that the
commission may be explained so as to include
IT, I SHOULD GAINSAY, on the Same ground on
which I resist the attempts to include in it infant
baptism." (P. 173.) "Infants are not saved by
the new covenant, and therefore cannot be con-
nected with it in any view which represents them
as interested in it. It is a vulgar mistake of theo-
logians to consider that if infants are saved they
must be saved by the new covenant. . . . Were it
true that infants could not be saved but by this cove-
nant, none of them would he saved." (Pp. 215, 216.)
Dr. Fuller takes the same ground, — as all consistent
with the Baptist interpretation must, — that "J/i-
316 IHE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
fants are neither saved nor baptized under the com-
mission." (P. 116.) The adoption of the one
position carries with it the other. If infants can-
not be baj^tized under this commission, they can-
not be saved under it. Then how are they saved?
The answer from the Baptist champions is, '' By
another covenant, — by another gospel." There is
no other alternative. And, as there is no other
gospel, and cannot be another, the Baptist reason-
ing on this point at once cuts off salvation from
our dying babes, and writes upon every infant's
tomb, "Lost! — Lost! — Lost!" What, then, be-
comes of the Savior's precious words? — "Suffer
little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Alas!
alas! their meaning is gone, and our little ones
whom we committed to the ground "are perished."
One of three things, therefore, must be true.
Pirst, infants are reached by the commission, and
may and ought to be baptized, so far as they are
thereby being put into the position of learners in
Christ; or, second, there must be another and
different gospel for them than for adults; or, third,
all who die in infancy are forever lost. The reader
is to judge which is the most agreeable to reason,
Scripture, and common sense. We have no fears
as to the result of an unbiased judgment in the
case. The great and only argument which Bap-
tists have produced against the baj^tizing of in-
fants drops asunder like flax at the touch of flame.-
It quite dissolves before an intelligent examination
of the truth. The charge of " damnable heres}'"
rebounds upon the heads of those who make it.
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINGDOM. 317
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINGDOM — AN
ARGUMENT FOR THEIR BAPTISM.
"We think it has now been shown that there is
nothing in the commission which Christ has given
to his Church, which, by any tenable system of
interpretation, can be made to exclude the infants
of believers from baptism. And if the commission
does not exclude them it includes them; and it is
Christ's will that they should be baptized. This
ought to be enough to satisfy any one not hope-
lessly committed to a sectarian cause. It quite
disposes of the only show of argument which our
Baptist friends, in all their zeal, have been able to
present. But we propose now to present the
cause of infant baptism in much deeper relations
than those of the mere naked letter of Scripture,
and to show that it is seated in the very heart and
life of Christianity.
There is such a thing as a kingdom of grace, — a
plan or economy of divine operations by which
God has been moving since the foundation of the
world to redeem and renew poor fallen humanity.
This kingdom is the centre and controlling princi-
ple of all providence, all history, and all Scripture.
It began Avith the gracious purposes and promises
27»
.'^IS THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
of God, and is to reach its consummation in the
ultimate completion, glory, and rest of the Church
in the heavenl}^ state. It is a grand and "wonder-
ful administration, which centres in and goes out
from Christ in his character of Mediator between
God and an apostate world. It also comprehends
all of the human race, of every age and of every
class, who are recovered from the fall, made the
sons of God by adopting love, or in any way
brought from the ruins of sin to the joys and
honors of ultimate salvation. These are sublime
propositions, which compass the whole spirit, aim,
and meaning of Providence and revelation. They
present the sum of all God's merciful dealings with
our world. No man can deny them and be a
Christian.
Now, it is equally clear that this divine and
blessed economy has a visible, tangible, and out-
ward existence in our world. It stands connected
with external manifestations, signs, agencies, and
administrations, which, in the aggregate, we are
accustomed to call the Church. These external
signs and forms have not always been exactly the
same. God has varied them to suit the condition
of humanity in its different eras of growth and
spiritual development. Dispensations change, but
it is ever the same gracious kingdom and the
same glorious Church; just as a nation or empire
may modify its laws or change its administrations
and yet remain the same body-politic. God has
but one Church, one remedial kingdom, from the
beginning on forever.
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO TlIK KlNdDOM. 319
I. "VYc lay it down, then, as a plain and obvious
truth, that, if God has such a kingdom, and has
connected it with certain outward ritual signs, all
who are savingly reached by it or are members
of it, unless excluded by specific law, must be
equally entitled to those ritual signs, and no man
has any right to withhold thera. The man in all
respects a citizen of our country is entitled to
every thing in which citizenship is signified or
expressed, except Avhere there is specific law dis-
abling him as to some of the superior offices.
This is a clear principle, recognized and approved
in all society, and which must hold good in the
kingdom of God as well as in the states of earth.
To allow one to be altogether a child of grace and
a participant in the immunities of redemj)tion,
and yet to deny to it the signals and badges and
tokens of its accepted estate, is a piece of gross
injustice and absurdity. It is to afiirm and deny
at the same time. It is a proceeding which all
right reason and common sense must at once con-
demn.
II. "We furthermore afiirm, and hold ourselves
in readiness to prove, that our infants are as com-
pletely reached and embraced by the remedial
kingdom as any adults, so that if they should die
in infancy they are as trul}^ among the saved as
those who' leave the world after the longest lives
of saintship. We suppose that Baptists and Chris-
tians generally Avill readily admit this. Dr. Fuller
says, "Our Pedobaptist brethren and ourselves
have no controversy about the salvation of infants.
320 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
If any man believes that infants, with or without
water, will be damned, I have nothing to say to
that man." (P. 108.) Three evangelists have told
us that our Savior took up little, young, infant
children in his arms and said, ''Of such is the
KINGDOM OF HEAVEN;" that is, the kingdom of
God is made up of them and all like them. Some
have undertaken to say that this declaration of
the Lord does not include children, but refers only
to such as are like them. But, if this passage does
not include children, heaven does not include them.
There can be no salvation apart from the kingdom
of God and heaven. And if this saying does not
put our babes in the kingdom of God, it inevitably
puts them in hell. There is no other alternative.
Infants, therefore, are included in the remedial
kingdom, or they are not included in the hopes
and promises of heaven, and those of them "which
are fallen asleep are perished."
III. It is also a scriptural truth, not to be
disputed, that, under the dispensation now- in
force, baptism is the divinely appointed token and
sacrament of Christian discipleship, — the solemn
rite in which the remedial kingdom comes to men
and men come into visible relationship with the
kingdom of God. It is the great christening ordi-
nance, without which no one can be regarded as
ti'uly a Christian. Jesus has said, Make disciples
of the nations, '^baptizing them." There is, then, no
complete discipleship, no proper relation to the
divine kingdom, where there is no baptism. It is
by baptism that the Savior himself was Christed,
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINGDOM. o2l
anointed, and visiblj'' installed into the great office
of mcdiatorship. He performed not one single
function of his mediatorial ofliee until he was bap-
tized. It was by that service that he was officially
made the Christ; and it is by the same sort of
service that those who are his become officially
identified with his Christhood and particij^ants in
the saving benefits of his administrations. This
is God's laAv upon the subject. Whosoever, then,
is unfit for baptism, is unfit for salvation, unfit to
be a partaker of his renewing and sanctifying
mercies. Disqualification for baptism is disquali-
fication for the kingdom; for baptism is the sign
and sacrament of savino; relation to that kingdom.
Baptists greatly mistake the nature and design
of this ordinance when they present it as the
mere act of a believing man, by which he evinces
his obedience and joins himself to the visible
Church. Baptism is an act which goes out from
Christ, — a divine motion toward the sinner. Jesus
says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen
you." All faith has something underlying it
which is altogether of God. Salvation comes to
us first; and if any man is a believer it is because
God first came to him and enabled him to believe.
Faith is built upon something anterior to itself. It
is the mere yielding and bending of the soul to the
movings of divine grace toward it. The king-
dom must come to us before we can come to the
kingdom. And what baptism signifies is not so
much our yielding or believing, as God's saving
grace availing for our souls. It is the token of
divine favor and blessing, — the sign of what God
322 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
does, rather than what we do. Now, if no man
resisted the movings of divine grace which under-
lie all faith, no man would fail of salvation. So
long as there is not positive unbelief and dis-
obedience, grace savingly applies. It is in this
way that salvation comes to the infant world.
And, wherever redeeming grace avails, baptism is
the appointed token, and signal, and seal of the
fact. It is a sort of magna charta from God,
outwardly signifying, conferring, guaranteeing,
and sealing the rights, immunities, and blessings
of his remedial kingdom to all entitled to them.
This is a grant which must come anterior to faith.
It is upon this that faith is built. It is a grant
which looks to the awakening of faith and accept-
ance on our part. Unbelief and disobedience may
reject the grant and vitiate the covenant; but,
until there is positive unbelief and rejection of the
offered grace of the gospel, that grant or cove-
nant is effective and holds good unto salvation.
IV. Now, then, as children are reached by
God's saving grace and are real participants in
the blessings of the remedial kingdom, and as bap-
tism is at least the outward token of the motions
and applications of that saving grace, without a
specific warrant from God himself, to deny bap-
tism to children, is either to deny children a place
in the divine kingdom, or to disconnect baptism
from that from which alone it derives its signifi-
cance and life and to which God himself has
joined it. In either case we contradict plain
Scripture and fact. So that from the deepest
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINGDOM. 323
heart and life of Christianity we arc called upon
to baptize infants as well as adults.
AYe will endeavor to present this thought in
other forms. Baptism is the sacrament of re-
generation; that is, it is a visible rite which
God has connected with the saving operations of
his grace in Christ Jesus. It is an outward sign
coupled with an invisible grace. Where the in-
visible grace is, there this sign belongs. Infants
are partakers of this invisible grace: ''0/ sucJi is
the kingdom." They are among the saved by the
remedial scheme set forth in Christ Jesus. To
them, therefore, belongs also the sign which God
has instituted to accompany this invisible grace.
If they are incompetent to receive the outward
sign, they are still more incomjjetent to receive
the invisible and saving mercy signified; and so,
if they are not fit to be baptized, they are incapa-
ble of salvation, and, dying in childhood, must
be lost.
Baptists agree tnat infants must be regenerated
in order to enter heaven, — that they must become
subjects of the saving efficacy of the remedial
kingdom. Dr. Carson says, " Infants who enter
heaven must be regenerated. . . . Infants must
be sanctified." (P. 173.) Why, then, deny them
the sacrament of regeneration, — the token which
marks and indicates that sanctification ? If they
have the thing, we have no right to withhold
God's appointed sign or seal of that thing.
Every informed Christian will admit that the
mediatorial constitution is not to be bounded in
its capacity or force by any merely chronological
324 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
or geographical lines in the history of the race,
allowing it to be efficacious only for the people of
this or that country or this or that period. Such
a thought would be exceedingly repugnant to
every Christian sense and feeling. But it cer-
tainly is no less offensive and abhorrent to limit or
bound the force of this salvation by a line sunder-
ing infancy and childhood from riper age, and to
make it of real effect on one side of this line only
and not on the other. Humanity is not merely
our mature life, but all the stages through which
we reach maturity. It includes infancy and child-
hood as a necessary part of its constitution. A
large proportion of it exists always under this
form; and nearly one-half of it is cut off by death
before it reaches maturity. Now, the question is
not simply, Can such infants be saved if they should
happen to die? but, Is there no real room for them,
living or dying, in the concrete mystery of the
new creation, in the communion of Christ's media-
torial life, in the efficacy of God's remedial king-
dom, in the bosom of the one holy, catholic
Church? Does the nature of the second Adam
and of the regenerative scheme going out from
him take in and reach only one-half of humanity
while it wholly excludes the other? Such an
imagination is worse than foolish. It would take
from Christ his claim to be a universal Savior,
and from redem^Dtion its commensurateness Avith
the fall. Christ must be coextensive in his king-
dom with universal humanity from infancy to
old age as well as with its mere numerical expan-
sion. Paul teaches us that the second Adam, in
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINGDOM. 325
his saving power, is more than commensurato
with the ruin of the first. (Eom. v. 12-21.) And,
as infants were embraced by the law^ of sin and
death, it demands the most solid proofs to show
that they are shut out from the hxw of the spirit
of life in Christ Jesus. No one is prepared to
deny the capability of infants for salvation; and
no one is prejmred to show that inflxnts are not
partakers of the common corruption which has
resulted from the fall. Christianity, then, must
have a place for them. The remedial kingdom
must reach them. Saving grace must somehow
avail for them. And, as Christ and heaven stretch
out their arms to our babes and say, ^^ Let them
come: of such is the kingdom," nothing short of an
express and pointed "thus saith the Lord" will
warrant any man to rise up and say that the sign
and seal of such gracious relations does not be-
long to them.
Infants are a part of Christ's mystical body.
They are an integral portion of that humanity for
which his mediation avails. They are redeemed
by his blood. They are among the purchases of
his death. Until they, by unbelief and disobe-
dience, reject him, they are his. Redemption is
efficacious for them. The kingdom of God is
of them and othei'S like them. If this is not true,
there is no hope for them. Just as surely, then,
as God has linked baptism to the effectual appli-
cation of saving grace, to signify and seal it, and
just as certainly as it is Christ's appointed badge
for those who are partakers of his healing and
saving life-power, it is to be administered to
28
326 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
inftmts, and the deepest and most vital constitu-
tion of Christianity is touched and violated by
excluding them from it. Indeed, to us there
seems to be but this one alternative, — that infants
are entitled to baptism, or else they must perish;
— not that baptism alone can save them, but for
the reason that any thing Avhich incapacitates
them for baptism must at the same time incapaci-
tate them for salvation. As has been remarked
by an able Eeview, " If children may not be
baptized, they cannot in any way be gathered
into the bosom of the Church. Then it cannot be
said that Christ has room for them at present in
his arms. His grace may have regard to them jjros-
pectively; but where they are just now, by the
fearful disabilities of childhood, it cannot reach
them or touch them in the way of help. Their
only hope is in the uncovenanted mercies of God
and his power at jjleasure to save icithout Christ.
They are disqualified constitutionally for Christian
salvation. On Baptist premises we see no escape
from this conclusion."
It may be said, however, that this is too round-
about and inferential a way to find authority for
infant baptism. But Dr. Carson agrees that a
solid and legitimate inference following from clear
and expressed scriptural pi'inciples is just as
authoritative as the explicit Avords of inspiration.
Kay, this perpetual harping upon the mere letter
of the law, which insists that a case is not pro-
vided for unless set forth in express terras, as
remarked in the Review above quoted, " is a mon-
strous falsehood, as well as a miserable Jewish
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINGDOM. 327
pcchuitiy. Christianity has a life and constitution
of its own, in the liosom of which on\y, and by
the power of wliich alone, the true sense of the
Bible can be fairly understood; and in this view
it is that the practice of infant baptism by the
universal Church from the beginning comes to
its full significance and weight. AVe not only
infer it from the authority of express precept and
example going before, in the age of the apostles,
but we see in it also the very soul and spirit of
Christianity itself, actualizing and expounding in
a living way the sense of its own word. If it
could be clearly made out that the household
baptisms of the JS'ew Testament included no in-
fants,— nay, if it were certain that the Church had
no apostolical rule whatever in the case, but had
gradually settled here into her own rule, — we
should hold this still to be of truly divine author-
ity, and the baptism of infants of necessary Chris-
tian obligation, as the only proper sense and
meaning of the New Testament institution inter-
preted thus to its full depth by the Christian life
itself."
V. But we propose to bring the matter a step
nearer. We have argued, and, we think, conclu-
sively, that, as the remedial kingdom avails for
infants, and as baptism is the a2:)pointed token or
sign which is to accompany such effectual relation
to Christ and his saving grace, infants are to be
baptized. We will now undertake to show that
up to the Christian "reformation," by express
328 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
authority of God, the token or sign of his gracious
covenant was administered to infants.
Dr. Fuller says, " It is monstrous to go into the
Old Testament to see who are to be baptized."
But how does it happen that he saw nothing
monsti-ous in going back to the old heathen to find
out what baptism is? If Jewish ablutions and
heathen classics are to be consulted to ascertain
the mode of baptism, it certainly is quite legitimate
to consult the old divine law of Church-member-
shijD to find out the proper subjects. And why not
go back to the Old Testament ? Whatsoever
things were written aforetime were written for
our learning. The Old Testament was God's
kingdom just as really and truly as the New. It
is one and the same olive-tree, from which the
Jews were bi'oken off and the Gentiles grafted in.
(See Romans xi. 6-24.) Whatever ceremonial
changes and constitutional modifications may have
been made by the Christian "reformation," the
spiritual corporation was the same. The pro-
phets are the brethren of the apostles. The true
member of the Jewish or patriarchal Church is a
part of the same household in which the tri^e
Christian is found. The New is only a furtheV
completion of the Old. And if we can find an
ancient law of God ordaining infant membership,
it must be shown that that laAV has been authori-
tatively repealed or changed, or it still remains to
be observed, — at least, as to its spirit.
The first form of the kingdom of God among
men was the patriarchal, which extended from
Adam to Abraham. Under that system the family
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINGDOM. 329
was the Church and the father the priest. God
then had no visible kingdom but that which existed
in the domestic constitution. It was only in the
household cconomj', and in what appertained to its
healthful and vigorous condition, that men came
into visible relations to the divine kingdom in those
daj's. It was God's own arrangement. That it
included children is infallibly certain ; otherwise
the race itself must have ceased. Here, then, we
have children in the Church, and as much con-
nected with the kingdom of God as their grown
brothers or their fathers, /or more than hco thousand
years.
The next form of the divine kingdom Avas that
which held from the calling of Abraham to Moses.
This connected the visible Church with a particular
race of people, the outward mark of which was
circumcision. All Abraham's descendants in the
line of Isaac and Jacob, and all others who became
permanently identified with that race, having
received the rite of circumcision, constituted God's
visible kingdom, than which he had in that period
no other kingdom among; men. Did it include
infants? Eead Genesis xvii. : — "And God said
unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant, thou,
and thy seed after thee in their generations. This
is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me
and you, and thy seed after thee : every man-child
among you shall be circumcised ; and it shall be a
token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And
he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among
you."
Here, then, is a divine law, appointing the cir-
28*
330 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
cumcision of infants as parties to God's gracious
covenant and as members in his Church as it then
existed. This same law was continued through
the Mosaic economy down to the time of Christ
himself From the very beginning of the world,
therefore, God has admitted children to his visible
kingdom, and appointed that they should receive
the signs and tokens of the same. Let Baptists
show us when and where there has ever been an
abrogation of the spirit of these regulations, and
we will submit without another word. If this law
for the recognition of infant membership has ever
been annulled, the record of it can be found, and
may be produced. But, until that record is pro-
duced, we are bound to receive it as God's own
positive law that our infant children are not to be
denied the token of his covenant.
To escape the force of this argument, at once so
cleafAnd satisfactory, Dr. Fuller suggests that
"circumcision was no seal of spiritual blessings,"
and that it referred to mere temporal immunities.
In this he differs from the holy Apostle Paul. "We
would think "the righteousness which is of faith"
a sj)iritual blessing; and Paul says that Abraham
"received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH." (Eom. iii. 11.) We
would also think God's engagement to be a God to
him, and to his seed after him, involved something
of spiritual blessings; but in that very covenant
circumcision is explicitly appointed and ordained
as its token and seal. Dr. Carson is constrained
to admit that "circumcision and baptism corres-
pond in meaning," and that " both relate to the
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINGDOM. 831
removal of sin, the one by cutting, the other by
■washing." (P. 229.) Is the removal of sin no
spiritual blessing? Nay, if there was no spiritual
blessing connected with the covenant of which
circumcision was the token, there was nothing
spiritual in the Old Testament, or in the only king-
dom Avhich God had upon earth up to the time
when " the Word was made flesh." So extraordi-
nary and " monstrous" a doctrine cannot be enter-
tained for one moment. It is a desperate resort to
exclude children from the Church.
But our Baptist doctors argue that the circum-
cision of Jewish children could have had no refer-
ence to spiritual blessings, or to any relation to the
kingdom of God, because '' infants cannot have
faith." The}" must then assume that infants are
infidels, and that they dare not be reckoned with
the Church-community, — which we have shown
to be contrary to all reason and Scripture^facts.
Nay, to deny the capacitj^ of our infants to receive
spiritual blessings or to stand in full connection
Avith the divine kingdom, is not only to " gainsay
an angel from heaven," but to gainsay the Son of
God himself. "We read in the Gospels that "little
children," "young children," "b7rphce — new-born
babes" — were brought to him, that he should put
his hands on them and pray; and his disciples
rebuked them. Perhaps they thought with our
Baptist friends that "the gospel has nothing to do
with infants." But the Savior was ^'much dis-
pleased" at their conduct, and said, " Suffer little
children, and forbid them not, to come unto me :"
Why? Because '■^ of such is the kingdom of
OoJ, THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED,
HEAVEN." (Matt. xix. 13, 14.) Now, let men argue
as they please, and adopt what princij)les of inter-
pretation may suit them best, and sneer at the
incapacities of children as the necessities of their
creed may require : the Son of God here assigns to
infants an interest in his gospel and a relation to
his kingdom as real, close, and effective as can be
claimed for any adult, whether on earth or in
heaven. "Of such is the kingdom." There it
stands, written of God, clear as the light, firm as
the world, true as the heart of Jesus. With such
relations to the kingdom and covenant, circum-
cision in the case of infants must take a meaning
quite as deep and spiritual as that allowed to it in
the case of Abraham himself
We will not pursue our Baptist friends into their
labyrinthine disquisitions upon covenants. We will
simply remark, that if the covenant of which cir-
cumcision was the token was in no way a spiritual
covenant, and did not embrace the Church, we
challenge and defy our recusants to find and show
any visible Church on earth anterior to the Savior's
advent ; and that the formal renewal of that cove-
nant in the 29th of Deuteronomy demonstrates
its spiritual character, including Israel's "little
ones" along with their parents as parties to the
hio;h and solemn engao-ements.
Thus, then, from the foundation of the world
until the institution of Christianity, the uniform
and positive law of God was that infants stood in
the same relation to the kingdom and covenant of
God with their parents, and that the sign and
token of the same was to be given to them as early
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINGDOM. 333
as the eighth day after their birth. AVe have found
the law patting infants in the Cluirch and connect-
ing thena visibly and sacramentally with the divine
kingdom. It now devolves upon our opponents to
find the law which puts them out. If they cannot
produce such a law, we ai-e certainly bound in all
reason and conscience to consider them as sustain-
ing the same relations to the kingdom and its
visible token under the Christian economy which
God himself gave them in all the dispensations
preceding it.
YI. Kay, we go still further. We will produce
a passage from the lij)s of Jesus, which shows that,
under the gospel, there is such a thing as the re-
ception of the kingdom on the part of little chil-
dren. We read in Mark x. 18-15, " They brought
young children unto him, and his disciples rebuked
them that brought them. But when Jesus saw it
he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer
the little children to come nnto me, and forbid them
not : for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily 1
say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the king-
dom OF God as a little child, he shall not enter
therein.'"
We observe, then, that infants may come to
Christ. He himself says, let them come. It is
therefore possible for them to come.
It is useless for Baptists to suggest philosophical
objections. Christ says it; and his words are not
to be revised and amended by the philosojjhies of
ignorant and erring men. There is such a thing as
the coming of babes to Jesus. This is "a, nail in a
334 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
sure place," which must hold even to the day of
doom. "That children are capable of being
brought to Christ and blessed by him is clearly
established by this passage," says Mr. Carson him-
self. And so Alexander Campbell: — "Whatever
the character of these little children may have
been, they came to him." We will not press the
fact that the phrase coming to Christ signifies what-
ever is implied in becoming a Christian; and so
baptism also. If this is the meaning to be attached
to it in this place, our case is made out, — that
infants are capable of discipleship, and are there-
fore to be chinstened by baptism. But if this is
not to be taken as its import in this connection, it
must still express a relation to and an interest in
Christ which must needs identify them with the
Church, and so entitle them to the sign and seal
of such relationship.
But the point Avhich wc desire more particular!}'"
to present is in the latter part of this remarkable
text. Three things are here asserted: first, that
infants are receivers of the kingdom of God;
second, that they so completely receive the king-
dom of God as to be models for all receivers of it;
and, third, that adults must receive it just the
same as little children, or they never can enter
into it. "Whosoever shall not receive the king-
dom of God AS A LITTLE CHILD [rcccivcs it], hc shall
not enter therein. . . . Except j'e be converted and
become as little children, ye shall not enter into
the kingdom of heaven."
How, then, do little childi'cn receive the king-
dom of God? That they do receive it, the Son of
RELATIONS OF INFANTS TO THE KINC.DOM. S.S.'l
God is witness. How do they receive it? Can any
one be said to receive the kingdom of God under
the gospel without at the same time being a
proper subject for baptism ? Xay, further : can any
one receive the kingdom of God at all, in any
visible and tangible respect, without being bap-
tized? As the Church was constituted under the
old dispensation, the reception of the kingdom
and promise was linked to circumcision; and no
male infant could, in strict language, be said Ho
have received the kingdom until circumcision was
performed. The reception of the kingdom now
is just as intimately linked with baptism. "Ex-
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirity
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," are
Christ's own words. In the certain fact, then,
attested as it is by the Son of God, that infants
under the gospel are receivers of the kingdom,
and, as such, the models of all effectual re-
ceptions of the kingdom, their baptism is neces-
sarily implied.
VII. Xay, more : the presentations made in point-
ing to children in their reception of the kingdom
as the models according to which alone the king-
dom can be effectually received carry with them
this certain implication: — that, unless every bap-
tism IS essentially an INFANT BAPTISM, IT IS NO
AVAILING BAPTISM AT ALL. The kingdom must
be received as little children receive it; the man
must be converted and become as a little child, or
the kingdom of God is not for him. Dr. Carson
himself admits that ''every believer must be as a
336 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
little child." All unregenerated adults must undo
their whole lives, and return again to infancy to
start afresh on the same level with babes, to the
same absence of unbelief, unteachableness, and dis-
obedience with which an infant is brought to the
font, or there can be no availing baptism and no
salvation.
Let the reader weigh these thoughts; let him
consider how the Lord of the Church here requires
all baptisms to be essentially infant baptisms; let
him grasp what is implied in a right i"eception of
the kingdom of God, the model of which Christ
himself finds in little children; and how he can
rid himself of the conclusion that our infants are
proper subjects of Christian baptism we are at a
loss to see. Shall the lips of Infinite Wisdom pro-
nounce them possessed of all that is demanded in
a proper reception of the kingdom on the part of
adults, and yet we reject them as unfit to receive
the kingdom themselves? Shall Jesus press them
to his loving heart, declaring that "0/ such is the
kingdom of God," and we refuse to them his own
appointed sign of acceptance and token of his
saving mercy? Shall the Son of God bid them
welcome to his arras and blessing as his choicest
jewels, and the eternal heavens stand open to
admit them, and we undertake to sa}^ that they
are unfit to be rated even with his weakest and
frailest disciples? Before we will give consent to
a system so discordant with the words and heart
of the blessed Savior, let this right hand forget
her cunning, and this tongue cleave to the roof of
the mouth which contains it!
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 337
Xow, honcstl}' aud candidl}^ taking -togetlier
this -whole subject of the rehitiou of our babes to
the remedial kingdom, its signs and tokens under
former dispensations, and the positive declarations
of its King with children in his arms, we regard it
as impossible to doubt the divinity of infant bap-
tism, or to question the propriety of the common
Church-practice, from the beginning until now, of
administering this holy sacrament to all who can
justly be regarded as in the position of learners in
Jesus, including our babes as well as all who bj'-
repentance and conversion become like them.
CHAPTEE XXIV.
INFANT BAPTISM PRACTICED BY THE APOSTLES.
"We have now shown that infant baptism is no
sin; that it is not prohibited by the commission;
and that the relation of our children to the king-
dom of God implies and demands it. Certainly,
if infants are to be numbered with Christ's re-
deemed, and are so far the subjects of gospel
grace as to be saved, and are possessed of qualities
rendering . them in the Savior's eyes the very
models of what disciiDles of Christ must be, they
are to be rated among those who are to receive
the marks, signs, and acknowledgments of disciple-
ship, and are to be baptized. In all the length
and breadth of the insjMred volume there is not
29
838 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
one syllable, in the form of command, precept,
explanation, caution, or example, to j^revent the
solemn charge to make disciples of all nations,
from extending to little bahes as "well as to men in
the maturity of life. And when we consider that
this charge was given to Jeum, with whom it was
a divinely appointed thing in religious matters to
extend to children the same rites and ordinances
enjoyed by themselves, — that it was delivered to
those very men whom its Author rebuked in so
much displeasure when in a mistaken zeal they
sought to prevent children from being brought to
him, — and that he had in the most explicit and
impressive manner previously referred to little
children as model subjects of his kingdom, — the
evidence is perfectly conclusive that when he said
"aZZ nations" he meant what he said, and that it is
his will that all the constituents of a nation that
can by any means be made learners in him should
be regarded as rightful subjects of baptism. So
that it is not without solid foundation that the
distinguished Danish Dr. Martinsen has said, "-The
more infant baptism prevails in the world, the
more are the words of the Lord fulfilled, that the
nations should be made disciples by baptism and
instruction."
But, if all this does not satisfy" the reader that
infants are among the proper subjects of baptism,
we have another and more direct sort of argument,
which will admit of no evasion.
All must agree that the inspired apostles under-
stood the scope and nature of the great commis-
sion which the ascending Savior delivered to them.
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 339
and that their practice under that command must
be taken as a conclusive and final exi^lanation of
what the Savior meant. If they baptized child-
ren, we are bound to conclude that Christ meant
that children should be baptized, and that we also
ought to see to it that their baptism be not
neglected.
The question, then, arises, Did the apostles
BAPTIZE little CHILDREN? As WC CXpCCt tO bo
judged bj" the all-knowing God, we believe that
the}^ did, and Avill now proceed to give what we
regard as conclusive evidence of the fact.
I. There is not a single instance in all the New
Testament in which any one who had grown up
from childhood as a member of a Christian house-
hold was ever baptized in adult life. Upon this
point we will give the substance of Professor Wil-
son's acute observations. Baptists aflSrm that
there is no instance of infant baptism furnished in
Scripture. "We shall examine that matter more
at length presently. What we propose here to
insist on is, that no adult baptism, in the sense in
which it is repudiated by us and maintained as a
distinctive tenet by our recusants, can be shown in
the tcord of God.
Let us not be misunderstood. The terms adult
baptism are used with two different applications;
one denoting the ordinance as administered to a
Christian convert from another fjiith or a heathen
condition, the other embracing only the case of
children who have grown up under Christian
training but are denied baptism except in case of
340 THK BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
a personal profession of faith in Christ. Now, as
to the baptism of a convert from the Jewish re-
ligion, or from heathenism, or from the unin-
strueted and ungodly "world, there is no difference
between us and Baptists. We all contend that
such a one must be baptized. It ])resents no dis-
tinctive feature of the Baptist system any more
than of ours. It is therefore to be cancelled, as a
common quantity, arguing nothing on either side.
As to those scrijitural instances on which Baptists
lean so confidently for an exclusively adult baji-
tism, we are prepared to show that, without a
single exception, they were administered to con-
verts from Judaism or idolatry. They present
the common gi'ound which we hold alike with our
Baptist friends. What we affirm, then, is, that
apart from these there is not a solitary example
of adult baptism in the New Testament. If there
be such an instance, the industry of Baptists can
l^roduce it. We challenge them to do so. And until
they do so, they remain in the unenviable position
of making that a distinctive feature of Christianity
which puts the children of Christian parent-
age and training on a level with Pharisees, idola-
ters, and worldlings, and deals wnth them in a way
which has no pai-allel in the word of God, or in
all the transactions of his inspired servants.
Now, the utter silence of the Scriptures as to
any adult baptisms of such as liave grown up in
the Church under all the influences of Chris-
tianity from early childhood, is a matter of no
small importance. It is useless for Baptists to
say that the period of Scripture history is too
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE, 341
sliort to produce such instances. It extends over
from five to thirty years. If this was not time
enough to produce them, they must be of very
slow growth. If it was the custom of the apos-
tolic age to withhold baptism from the infant
children of the multitudes of converts, and to let
those children grow up sustaining the same rela-
tion to the Chux'ch as the heathen, it must be
regarded as very remarkable and unaccountable
that not one instance can be found of the baptism
of any of this large and interesting class in after-
life. Either there icere such adult baptisms or
there were not. If there were, then the mere
silence of Scripture is not to be held as disproving
their existence, any more than the mere silence
of Scripture could disprove the existence of infant
baptism. But if there were no such cases, then
the children in question must have been either
baptized in infancy or altogether exemj)ted from
submission to the ordinance. We are reluctant
in any case to rest an affirmative on the mere
silence of a document; and yet the Baptist can
show no better foundation for this distinctive
feature of his system. With respect to infants,
we do not undertake to stand upon such ground.
We claim that the Scriptures do speak upon the
subject, pointedly and clearly; but, as to the
adult baptism of the children of believers, there is
not a case of it in all the records of apostolic history.
Baptists themselves have been forced to acknowl-
edge this. "I admit," says Eev. Baptist Noel,
" that there are no instances recorded in the New
Testament where the persons baptized are said to
29-
342 THE BAPTIST SYriTEM EXAMINED.
be the children of believing parents." (On Bap-
tism, p. 232.) The absence, then, of any such
case must be taken as a strong presumption that
such children were baptized in infancy. (See
Wilson on Inf Bapt. chap, ix.)
II. We can trace infant baptism back to the
days of the aj)ostles, — which demands the conclu-
sion that it was performed with their sanction,
if not with their own hands.
It is certain; from their own testimony, that
the apostles were at great pains to establish
means of conveying their directions, injunctions, or
traditions to succeeding generations. Peter says,
"I will endeavor that after my decease you
make mention of these things," and thereby per-
petuate the remembrance of them. (2 Epistle i.
15.) Paul says, " The things which thou hast
heard of me [dia] for the purpose of instructing many
witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men,
who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. ii.
2.) With these facts before us, all must adjnit
that the testimony of the men who lived near the
apostolic age must be of very great weight in
helping to decide what was apostolic practice. It
is useless to argue a point so self-evident. Mr.
Alexander Campbell agrees that "the views and
practices of those who were the cotemporaries or
the pupils of the apostles and their immediate
successors maj^ be adduced as corroborating evi-
dence of the truths taught and the practices
enjoined by the apostles, and as such may bo
cited."
APOSTOLIC I'KACXICJb;. 343
It is also agreed, even by the most rabid railers
against infant baptism, that this has been an
established thing in all the great divisions of the
Church since the fourth century. Augustine
flourished at the conclusion of the fourth century,
and his testimony is direct to the point that the
baptizing of infants was then the common pi'ac-
tice, and that it was apostoUca traditio, — a thing
derived from the apostles. His woi'ds are, "If
an}' one do ask for divine authority in this mat-
ter, that which the whole Church practices, and
which has not been instituted by councils, but
was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be
no other than a thing delivered [or ordered] by
or from the apostles." (De Bapt. cont. Donat.)
Chrysostom lived at the same time and left a
similar testimony. A half-generation earlier lived
Gregory Nazianzen, who heartily shames the mo-
ther who hesitated to bring her child to be bap-
tized because of its tender age, urging that "Han-
nah conseci-ated Samuel to God before his birth
and devoted him to the priesthood as soon as he
was born," and that "so children should be baptized
in their tenderest age, though having yet no idea of
perdition or grace." About the year 250 there
lived a certain minister by the name of Fidus,
who was somewhat squeamish about baptizing
new-born babes, because he was expected to kiss
them after baptizing them. He therefore brought
it before a council of sixty-six bishops to decide
whether baptism, for the sake of decency, ought
not to be denied to infants until after they were
eight days old. The question shows at once that
344 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
infant baptism was then the common practice,
and the council, with the martyr Cyprian at its
head, at once imanimously declared that 'Hhe
mercj^ and grace of God are to be denied to none
from the moment he is born," and that, as bap-
tism is not denied to the greatest oifenders when
they come to believe, so it certainly is not to be
arbitrarily withheld from a new-born babe, which
has no crimes.
Origen w^as born in 185 and died in 254. He
was a distinguished man and possessed many un-
common advantages. His father, grandfather,
and great-grandfather all were Christians. At
the most moderate reckoning, his great-grand-
father lived within twelve years of the death of
Mark and about twenty years cotemporaneous
with the Apostle John. For nearly a hundred
years the Origen family had lived with the apos-
tles and their immediate successors and the other
"faithful men," some of whom must yet have been
alive in Origen's time. He also traveled ex-
tensively, visited various apostolic Churches, and
resided in many of them, in order the most fully
to inform himself respecting whatever accounts
of Christ and his apostles were still preserved.
And it is simply impossible, under such circum-
stances, that the practice of the Church, derived
from the apostles, in a matter of dail}- occurrence,
could have been forgotten, or have suffered such a
radical change, without his having been aware
of it. Mr. Alexander Campbell says, " Origen is
a competent witness in any question of fact."
"What, then, is his testimony? It is that "The
APOSTOLIC PRACTiCE. 345
Church RECEIVED FROM THE APOSTLES the injunction
\traditio'\ TO GIVE BAPTISM EVEN TO INFANTS, AC-
CORDING TO THE SAYING OF OUR LoRD CONCERNING
INFANTS." {Orig. in Rom. lib. 5, cap. 6, p. 543.)
Again: in his homily on Leviticus, he says,
" Whereas the baptism of the Church is given for
the forgiveness of sins, infants also are, by the
usage of the Church, baptized."
A little earlier than Origen lived Tertullian,
■who was the first opposer of inflmt baptism that
has ever been heard of. But his very opposition
proves that it was a common thing in his day. He
certainly would not have undertaken to wage war
against a mere phantom. !No sane man would
preach reform in a thing that never existed. And
yet, as early as the conclusion of the second
century, within eighty yeai'S of the time of the
apostles, we find him inveighing against the bap-
tizing of infants as the great defect of the age, and
therefore a custom as wide-spread as Christendom
itself. At that period men were still living who
were born before the apostles all were dead. And
how does it happen that in one lifetime from the
apostles a practice which Baptists tell us is such
a dreadful apostasy from the teachings of Jesus
and the example of his inspired servants, should
thus have established itself in every Church all
over the Christian world? If this was an innova-
tion; if it was so contrary to apostolic injunction
and example; if it was the introduction of such a
di'eadful scourge, at war with all the inculcations
of the Son of God, — whei'e were John the apostle,
and Timothy and Titus, and the "faithful men,"
340 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
able to teach others also? Where were Pol^^carp,
and Irenseus, and Barnabas, and Hernias, that
not one of them ever rose up to rebuke and ex-
pose the delusion of those who would thus for-
sake the commandment of God for an ordinance
of man? Indeed, the very arguments which Ter-
tullian emjjloyed against infant baptism show that
he himself considered it impossible to deny its
apostolic origin, and felt all the time that he was
laboring to inti'oduce a new practice. He believed
that baptism was the washing away of sins; a id
his great argument was that it should be delayed
until the periods of greater temptation had passed,
lest by sinning after baptism there would be found
no more remission. This was the foundation of
all his oj)position^ and led him to oppose the bap-
tism of unmarried grown people as well as little
children. But, if the baptizing of infants was an
antichristian innovation, there was another argu-
ment within his reach, and which he must needs
have hit upon, far more conclusive than this.
Why did he not brand the practice as a novelt}'"
and fiction of the day? Why did he not declare it
to be a thing unknown to the apostles and ajios-
tolic Churches? Why did he not say that it was
not so from the beginning? If it was an innova-
tion, there were men then living within whose
recollection it was introduced. Why, then, did
he not appeal to them and say, " The traditions of
the apostles were delivered to your grandfathers :
ask them; for they know and will tell you that
baptism was never designed for infants"? Such
an argument would have been conclusive. It
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 347
■would Lave ended the question and given triumph
to his oi^position. Why did he not use it? It is
evident that he could not. And the simple fact
that he passes it in silence, reasoning only from
his own principles, shows that anti-pedobaptism
was no stronger in its I'esources then than now,
and that the baptizing of infants is a practice as
certainly derived from the apostles as the Church
itself.
Polycarp was the pupil of the Apostle John,
and Irenajus was the discij^le of Polycarj). At an
advanced age Irena}us says of his teacher, "■ I
remember his discourses to the people concerning
the conversations he had with John the apostle
and others \cho had seen the Lord; how he re-
hearsed their discourses, and what he heard them
that were eye-witnesses of the Word of Life say
of our Lord and of his miracles and doctrine.'^
This shows that Polycarp had used his opportuni-
ties. He was himself master of whatever was to
be known. He had been careful to tell all that he
knew of our Lord or the apostles and of their
doctrine and practice. These discourses had made
a deep and unfading impression on the mind of
Irenteus. And Irena^us was yet a living teacher
when Tertullian broached his doctrine for the
delay of baptism xmtil the season of severest
temptation- was past. If infant baptism had not
been sanctioned by the example of the apostles,
Irena?us must have known it, and Tertullian
might have aj^pealed to him and settled the
question. Or, if Tertullian's doctrine had had
apostolic sanction, Irenseus certainly could not
348 Tin: baptist system examined.
have been ignorant of it, and would have sup-
ported the attempted reformation of his neighbor.
But the teachings of Tertullian were dead-born
and fell lifeless upon the ear of the Church.
Nay, Irenseus, so far from presenting infant
baptism as opposed to the practice of the apostles
and the doctrine of Christ, has left a passage on
record Avhich, though much debated, supports the
doctrine of infant baptism against all the ingenuity
and learning that have been marshaled to break
its force, and assigns it a place in the very
marrow of the gospel. " Christ," says he, "came
to save all, — all who by him are re-born of God,
INFANTS, LITTLE ONES, CHILDREN, youtJis, aud pev-
sons of mature age : therefore he passed through these
several ages." The relevancy of this passage rests
upon the phrase " /'e-ftorw of God," — renascuntur in
Deum. We maintain that it refers to baptism, and
that Irena>us here recognizes the baptism of "in-
fants, little ones, and children," as well as persons
of mature age. Baptists insist that it means
" spiritual regeneration," " conversion to God,"
"moral renewal in Christ." Dr. Fuller thinks
that "Professor Sears has settled forever this
matter by an elaborate investigation of the works
of Irenseus." What Mr. Sears has said we are
not informed; but we have before us Dr. Chase's
tract on the subject, which Dr. Fuller pronounces
^'7nost learned" and founded upon the "reading
and re-reading of every line of all the extant
works of Irenseus." And if Professor Sears has
done as much toward the settlement of the matter
as Dr. Chase, it is in a different direction from
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 349
that supposed by either of them. After all his
'^ elaborate investigation," Dr. Chase says, "I do
not hesitate to admit that Irenseus sometimes speaks
of regeneration as being connected icith baptism." We
also learn from this tract thatlrenseus calls the com-
mission to make disciples by baptism " the authority
0/ REGENERATION UNTO GoD," — not the powcr to re-
new men's spiritual nature, for no man can do that,
but the right to administer baptism. This too is
precisely the phrase used in our quotation. In the
same tract we also find that Irenreus calls "the
one healing remedy by Avhich our sins are re-
moved," " logiko bapttismata, — a discriminate or pro-
per baptism." The Gnostics, who taught a salva-
tion by mere internal illumination, he denounced
as "men sent by Satan to deiiy the baptism
of regeneration unto God." The baptismal applica-
tion of water to the body he calls the ^'regeneration
of the flesh." How, then, dare Dr. Fuller say that
when Irena3us speaks of infants being ''re-born unto
God" or " regenerated of God," he means spiritual
renovation to the entire exclusion of baptism?
Dr. Chase expressly testifies that, "in some degree,
AT LEAST, he [Irenceus'] confounded the sign icith the
thing signified, — confounded baptism with regenera-
tion;" and, if he confounded them at all, where is
the evidence that he viewed them distinct from
each other in this quotation? Our opponents
themselves being witness, Irenaeus over and over
again, in multiform profusion, calls baptism re-
generation, our renatus in Deum, our re-birth to God.
Alexander Campbell — perhaps the most competent
witness on that point in the Baptist world — says,
30
350 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
''All the apostolical Fathers, as they are called, all
the pupils of the apostles, and all the ecclesiastical
writers of note of the first four centuries, whose
writings have come down to us, allude to and
speak of Christian immersion [baptisni] as the
regeneration and remission of sins spoken of in the
New Testament. ... I am assured that they used
the term regenerated as equivalent to immersion
[baptism], and spake of the spiritual change under
other terms and modes of speech." (Debate with
Eice, pp. 416, 430.)
When Irenseus therefore comes to speak of
" infants, and little ones, and children, and youths,
and persons of mature age," all as regenerated, —
''re-born of God" to salvation in Jesus Christ, — it
is useless for Baptists or anybody else to tell us
that the passage has no allusion to baptism.
But suppose we take the Baptist theory, — that
the phi'ase means spiritual regeneration, conversion
to God, and moral renewal in Christ. Will that
take from the passage its testimony in favor of
infant baptism ? Can we put asunder what God
hath joined together? If " infants, and little ones,
and children" are spiritually regenerated, con-
verted to God, and renewed in Christ, — and
Irenaius looked upon them in this light, — would
or could he have consistently denied to them the
outward sign and sacrament of these sublime
spiritual transactions ? If infants are the subjects
of all these inwai'd experiences, and are *' re-born
of God," are they not disciples of Christ, and to be
marked as disciples according to the Savior's com-
mand ? So that whether Irenajus meant spiritual
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 351
regeneration oi* not, baptism is inevitably impli-
cated, and ti;oes aloni; ■with the ineanin<>; of the
phrase as certainly as the shadow follows the sub-
stance. Dr. Neander says that " in Irenseus bap-
tism and regeneration are intimately connected,"
and that "it is difficult to conceive how the term
regeneration can be employed, in reference to this
age, to denote any thing else than baptism." He
therefore regards this passage as presenting direct
and incontrovertible pi'oof of the existence of infant
baptism in the time of Irena>us. But if this regene-
ration Qrnascuntcr in Deum) does not denote bap-
tism, it certainly does denote every thing that can
entitle a man to baptism. In either case " infants
and little ones" are designated as proper subjects
of baptism ; and that by a man of God who received
the aj^ostolic traditions from a companion and
pupil of him who lay closest to the Savior's heart.
Can anyone doubt, then, as to the views and prac-
tices of the apostles on this subject?
Justin Martyr lived still nearer to the time of
the apostles. In one of his Apologies, written
about the year 148, he saj'S there were among
Christians in his time many persons of both sexes,
some sixty and some seventy years old, who had
been made disciples to Christ from their infancy and
continued undefiled all their lives. If these persons
"were made disciples in infancy, they were baptized
in infancy. If the}' were baptized but twenty
years before Justin was born, they were baptized
before all the apostles were dead; and we thus
have infant baptism carried up to the very lifetime
of the apostles. And if infant baptism was prac-
ODZ THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
ticecl whilst the apostles yd lived, who can say
that it was without apostolic sanction? Dr. Fuller
says that Justin in this passage does not allude to
baptism. But, as one assertion is as good in the
way of proof as another, we say he does refer to
baptism, and in the very words of the commission.
And Dr. JSTeander says that he here, "beyond ques-
tion, refers to baptism." How indeed can infants
be made discijDles to Christ, according to the com-
mission, but by baptism?
Dr. Fuller professes to quote assertions from
sundry modern authors to the effect that there
were no infant baptisms in the first two centuries.
We have already had some interesting specimens
of his way of quoting authorities; and the facts
here are of very much the same sort. The point
which he endeavors to sustain is, that infant bap-
tism is a mere human invention, corruptly intro-
duced into the Church long after the apostles were
in their graves. To this point he refers to several
neologians of Germany, as if they were competent
witnesses in the case, and to several other writers,
such as Baumgarten, Olshausen, and Neander, as
if thc}^ believed and taught that infant baptism is
a mere device of men, unauthorized by, and a mise-
rable perversion of, the gospel, when it is a notorious
fact that they defended and. practiced it themselves,
as a thing lying in the very soul and life of Chris-
tianity. Dr. Fuller's mode of quoting authorities
makes knaves and fools of some of the best and
most consistent men who have lived to adorn and
bless the Church by their piety and wisdom.
It must be admitted, however, that some writers
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 353
have uttered themselves as incredulous upon the
subject of the apostolicit}' of infant baptism, and
that their names stand upon the Baptist side of
this question. But it is also true that a fiir greater
number of men, as competent as they to tell us
where the truth on this question lies, including the
most patient and thorough investigators of the
original sources of evidence, take the ground that
infant bajitism is a thing -warranted by the Scrip-
tures of truth, practiced in the ajDOstolic times,
and handed down to us from those whom Christ
himself ordained to be the founders of his Church
and the expositors of his holy institutes. Among
these we may mention Yossius, Luther, Gerhard,
Chemnitz, Quenstedt, Baier, Forbes, Hammond,
Walker, Dupin, Bingham, and Wall, — names that
will stand on this subject against any in Christen-
dom who can be marshaled on the Baptist side.
Dr. Wall, whose lengthy and thorough examina-
tions have about exhausted the subject, concludes
with these words : —
''As these evidences are for the first four hundred
years, in which there appears one man, Tertullian,
that advises the delay of infant baptism in some
cases, and one Gregory" that did, perhaps, practice
such dela^' in the case of his children, but no
society of men so thinking or so practicing, nor no
one man saying it Avas unlawful to baptize infants,
so in the next seven hundred years there is not so
much as one man to be found that either sjjoke for
or practiced any such delay; but all the contrary.
And when, aboul the year 1130, one sect among
the Albigenses declared against the baptizing of
30»
354 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main
body of that people rejected their opinion; and
they of them that held that opinion quickly
dwindled away and disappeared, there being no
more heard of holding that tenet till the rising of
the German anti-Pedobaptists, anno 1552." (Wall
on Infant Baptism, vol. ii. ch. 10, p. 501.)
We have thus traced the baptizing of infants as
the common Church-practice back through history
into the very lifetime of the apostles. We find the
overwhelming majority of the best and most know-
ing Christian men in all ages and countries defend-
ing and practicing it as a true and proper use of
the baptismal sacrament. How, then, can it be
viewed as any thing other than a divine apjDoint-
ment, lying in the very bosom of Christianity from
the beginning? If it was not introduced by the
apostles, when was it introduced ? If it was not
begun by authority of the great Author of our
religion, by whose authority and by what process
was it begun ? To these inquiries all history is
silent; and the world-wide practice of infant bap-
tism stands forth a greater riddle than the pyra-
mids of Egypt or the wasting memorials of Yu-
catan. Christians are dumb as Fejees as to the
origin of some of their most cherished rites; and
the Chx'istian world in a day completely changed
one of its commonest services without having been
made conscious of it for fifteen hundred years !
III. But more than all this : we have clear scrip-
tural evidence that the apostles diTl practice inftint
baptism. Though they were all missionaries, sent
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 355
out among unbelieving Jews and heathens, sur-
rounded by circumstances different from those in
established Christian communities, and of course
not baptizing anybody until some of the adults —
"with whom alone they could begin — professed their
■willingness to become disciples, we yet have ex-
plicit information that they did baptize entire fami-
lies,— oiKOi, — Jiouses, — offspring of the same parents,
— CHILDREN, including any and every age. In Acts xvi.
14, 15, we read of" a certain woman named Lydia,
whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended to
the things that were spoken of Paul. Aiid she was
baptized, and her [oikos] household." In the
same chapter we also read of a terrified jailer,
whom Paul directed to " believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ," promising upon these conditions that he
should be saved, and his (oikos') house; whereupon
he ''was baptized, he and all his." In 1 Cor. i. 16,
Paul declares, "And I baptized also the [oikon]
household of Stephanus." In Acts x. 2, we read
of "a devout man, and one that feared God," whom
Peter baptized ''icith all his [oiko] house." In Acts
xviii. 8, we also read of " Crispus, the chief ruler
of the synagogue," who was baptized with "all his
[oiko'] house." In 2 Tim. i. 16 and iv. 19, we find
mention of "the [o?'Ao] house of Onesiphorus" in a
way which leads us to believe that all its members
had been baptized, and that mention, moreover,
made only for their father's sake. Nor is thei-e
any good reason why the families of Aristobulus
and ISTarcissus (Eom. xvi. 10, 11) should not also
be in the list of apostolic household baptisms.
Here, then, are eight oiko, — families, — four of
35G THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
them explicitly said to have been baptized b}' the
apostles, and all referred to as Christian families,
and therefore certainly not unbaptized. Have we
eight instances of the administration of the Lord's
Supper? Not half that number. Have we eight
cases of the change of the Jewish into the Christian
Sabbath ? Perhaps not one-fourth of that number.
Yet the communion and this change of day are
vindicated by apostolic practice as recorded in the
New Testament. How can we, then, deny that the
apostles baptized children with their parents, when
it is established by a series of instances more nu-
merous than can be found in support of any other
doctrine, principle, or practice handed down from
apostolic times ?
Dr. Fuller thinks that Lydia's '' household" con-
sisted only of servants and such as were associated
with her in conducting her business, and that the
"house" of the jailer was perhaps similarly consti-
tuted. But we deny that oikos, when used as in
these passages, ever signifies servants and attend-
ants in the New Testament. It primarily denotes
blood-lineage, progeny, children. " The house ^oikos']
of Israel" means the childi'en of Israel, 'Hhe house
of David" the lineal descendants of David, *' the
house of Judah" the progeny of Judah; and not the
servants and emploj^ees of Israel, David, and Judah.
"Oikos," says Aristotle, "is a companionship con
nected together according to the course of nature."
"The first social connection," says Cicero, "is the
conjugal, then that of children; and these consti
tute a domus, — a house or family." " I know Abra-
liam," saith the Lord, "that he will command his
ArOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 357
children, even his uouse \_oi/io'], after him." AVhen
Joseph Avas made ''governoi' over Egypt," he wiis
certainly made master of all Pharaoh's servants
and slaves; and when it is added that he was also
made "governor over all Pharaoh's house," (oikos,)
we are thereby assured that even the king's own
children were put in subjection to him. Indeed, we
know of not one single case in the New Testament,
in the Septuagint, or in all the Greek classics,
where the word oikos, when used as in these ac-
counts of household baptisms, does not specifically,
directly, and unequivocally refer to children, and for
the most part to children exclusively. Talk of oikos
meaning only attendants and slaves ! Why, every
Greek scholar would laugh to scorn such an idea
and utterly despise the man who should under-
take to maintain it. It has no such meaning.
Nor is it more certain that the word dog does not
mean a sheep or an ass than that oikos never means
only servants. Dr. Carson refers to the Septuagint
version of 1 Kings v. 9 in proof that it "includes
domestics;" but the word in that passage is not
oikos, but DOULOS, — the proper word for servants ;
and in iv. 7, where the word is oikos, it denotes
those whom the douloi serve, — the king's household,
for whom the servants were to bring victuals.
Useless is the effort of our Baptist friends to get
children out of oikos. It everywhere denotes
blood-lineage, the fruit of conjugal union; and if
Dr. Fuller can have this ivithout infants, we would
call the scientific world to come and behold the
greatest wonder that has been since the creation.
Surely we need not be surprised that a man should
358 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
not find infants included in a command to baptize
"all nations," when he fails to discover them
among the fruits of those methods of procreation
determined and established in our nature by the
Hand that made us !
We hold that oikos means the fruit of wedlock, —
progeny, — children; and that there can be no oikos
of persons without childi-en. The oikoi of Lydia,
the jailer, Cornelius, and Stephanus were therefore
the children of Lydia, the jailer, Cornelius, and
Stej^hanus. It is a fact that the earliest and per-
haj3s the best translation of the New Testament — •
the Syriac — says of Lydia that "she was baptized
AViTU HEE CHILDREN." And, as by children we
mean children, it remains for Dr. Fuller to show
that these wei'e adults before he can set aside the
conclusion that the apostles veinly baptized chil-
dren. But, although he has all the force of the
laws of language and all the conclusions of the
most every-day observation against him, he must
needs make the attempt. He tells us that Lj^dia's
children were grown men, because they " are ex-
pressly declared to have been brethren, whom the
apostles saw and comforted" when released from
prison. (P. 142.) Did ever any man see such con-
tumacy and such determination at all hazards to
carry a sectarian dogma? Let the reader but
examine the 16tli chapter of Acts, and he will see
that a more glaring perversion of God's Avord is
hardly to be found. Paul was at " Derbe and
Lystra." He there found " a certain disciple
named Timothy. . . . Him Paul would have to go
forth Avith him." And "when they [Paul and Silaa
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 859
and Timothy] bad gone throughout Phrygia and llio
region of Galatia, they passed by Mysia and came
down to Troas." A vision appeared to Paul ; and,
after he had seen the vision, Luke says, "We
[Paul, Silas, Timothj", and I, Luke] endeavored to
go into Macedonia. Therefore, loosing from Troas,
WE came to Samothracia, and the next day to
Keapolis, and fi"om thence to Philippi. . . . And on
the Sabbath "we went out to the Proseucha, and
WE sat down and spake to the women that resorted
thither. . . . Lj'dia . . . heard us, . . . and constrained
us to come into her house and abide there." Who,
then, were this we and rs, if not Paul, Silas, Timo-
thy, and Luke, the writer of the account ? This
was the company journeying together and which
lodged together at the house of Lydia. "And it
came to pass," says Luke, "as we went to prayer,
a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divina-
tion met us : the same followed us. . . . But Paul,
being grieved, cast out the spirit. And when her
masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone,
they caught Faul and Sdas [not Timothy and
Luke], . . . laid many stripes upon them, and cast
them into prison." Paul and Silas were now in
jail; but "the brethren" — Timothy and Luke, of
course — continued at their lodgings in the house
of Lydia. During the night God heard the prayers
of the prisoners and miraculously struck off their
chains. "And the}' went out of the prison, and
entered into the house of Lydia," and saw "the
brethren." What brethren ? A Sabbath-school child
would not miss the true answer. Certainly, not
Lydia's grown-up sons; for it is nowhere to bo
360 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
found that she ever bud sons, much less sons gro\vn
up at that period of her Ufe. Who, then, were the
parties abiding in Lydia's house entitled to be
noted down as so peculiarly ^^the brethren" of Paul
and Silas ? Unquestionably, their companions in"
travel and fellow-missionaries of the cross, Timo-
thy ami Luke.
There is no proof, then, that Lydia's children
were any thing but children. And if even the
youngest of them was only less than ten years of
age, the last refuge of the Baptists is swept away,
and the truth, rising to assert its rightful empire,
proclaims to the four winds that the apostles did
baptize children, and regarded themselves as au-
thorized and bound to do so under their commis-
sion. A single flict like this is invincible in our
favor against all abstract or analogical reasoning
that the human mind shall ever breed.
Dr. Fuller also insinuates that the jailer's chil-
dren were not children, because it is said that "he
rejoiced, believing in God, w^ith all his house." "See
there!" says he: *' after all, these babes are old
enough to know spiritual joy and to utter praises
to God!" Well, be it so, — though the record no-
where says it: we know that God has ''perfected
praise" out of the mouths of "babes and suck-
lings." Tender infancy presents no insuperable
impediment to it. Jeremiah was sanctified before
he was born. John was "filled with the Holy
Ghost even from his mother's womb." Baxter
loved God prior to his earliest recollection. And
if Dr. Fuller will visit some of the Sundaj'-schools
of Baltimore, he will find infant classes uttering
APOSTOLIC rUACTICE. 361
praises as perfect and from hearts as pure as ever
honored the earthly assemblies of God's worship-
era. And if the jailer's babes could know joy and
utter praise, they still may have been mere '^ babes
and sucklings," or else the testimony of God must
give place to the narrow conceits of man's phi-
losophy.
But, says Dr. Fuller, ''such inflxnts as these 1
shall be happy to baptize every day of my life."
Ah ! and where would he get the authority for it '/
From the commission? He says the commission
uttei'ly excludes infants. In apostolic practice?
He holds that the apostles never baptized any but
adults. By what right, then, would he baptize
"babes and sucklings"? The case admits of but
one alternative. It is either his duty or it is not
his duty to baptize all such infants as are to be
viewed as non-resistants of divine grace and learn-
ers in the school of Christ. II such is his duty,
then there is authority and obligation for baptizing
some babes at least, and infant baptism is no per-
version of Christianity after all. And if it is not
his duty to baptize any babes whatever, then we
must conclude that there is more authority for
baptizing an old conjurer, hardened in sin by the
confirmed habit of raanj- years, and actually "in
the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquit}',"
than there .is for baptizing holy ones like the infant
John, or for giving the sign of consecration to
Christ to those "babes and sucklings" out of whose
mouths God himself has perfected praise. Dr.
Fuller may take either side of the dilemma, and
one side he must take, and his refusal to baptize
31
862 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
the children of believers shows itself to be an utter
absurdity.
The record, however, says nothing about '•''spi-
ritual joy" or " praises to God" in connection with
the jailer's children. The words are explicit that
lie himself did the rejoicing, '^ believing in God."
This he did, not in the absence of his family, but
" with all his house," those old enough sympathizing
with him in the joy of his marvellous deliverance
from impending death, and the youngest not ex-
cluded from the scene of his festivity. Nay, if the
jailer's children were adults, how did it happen
that Paul promised salvation to them all on the
condition of their father's faith? The apostle said
to the jailer alone, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and thou shalt be saved, and thy [o^'A'os] childreji."
Upon the Baptist theory let Dr. Fuller explain this
if he can, and tell us whether, when he immerses
an aged father, he thereupon promises salvation to
all his grown-up sons and daughters.- No, no. Dr.
Fuller : your jocularity with Dr. Kurtz will not
relieve the stern difficulties of your forced inter-
pretation of this passage. Admit that the children
of believei's are entitled to baptism, and every thing
is explained; deny this, and the whole case is for-
ever inexplicable. The Bible says that the jailer's
children were baptized along with himself, and
that salvation was promised to them on the ground
of their father's faith; and the double inference is
therefore inevitable, that they were not of an age
to make a Christian profession for themselves, and
that the apostles did actually baptize children.
As to the children of Stephanus, Dr. Fuller
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 363
holds that they were till adults Avheu baptized : first,
because it is said that '' many of the Corinthians
believed and were baptized ;" though there is no
evidence that Stephanus was a Corinthian, he and
his house (oikos) being ''the first-fruits of Achaia;"
and, second, because it is said of them that they
had " addicted themselves to the ministry of the
saints." But great changes occur in gx-owing
families in the course of eight or ten years. The
boy in the year 51, when Stephanus and his house
were baptized, would naturally be a man in the
year 59, when this record was made. The eldest
of the children of Stephanus may have been ten or
fifteen years old when they were baptized, whilst
others may have been mere babes ; and yet it might
easily be said of them, ten years afterward, that
they had shown much kindness to their fellow-
Christians. David slew Goliath and put the Phi-
listine army to flight when but a ruddy youth.
Samuel served as a minister in the tabernacle when
but a little boy. Our Sabbath-schools contain many
a child entitled to be called an angel of mercy for
its good deeds toward the poor and suffering. And
why could not these children, especiallj' under a
pious father's guidance, some of whom were now
pretty well grown up, addict themselves to minis-
tering unto the saints, although ten years previous
some of them were no more than babes ? Does
Dr. Fuller hold that "once an infant always an
infant," and maintain that because this familj^ was
noted for its kindness in a.d. 60, not one of its
members could have been under ten or twelve
years old in a.d. 50? If not, then all the stress
364 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
which he lays upon the Christian activity of these
"first-fruits of Achaia," ten years after the}^ were
baptized, must pass for nothing; and we are left to
believe that the children of Stephanus, when bap-
tized by Paul, were no more than children. Indeed,
the very manner in which we come to know any
thing about this baptism is conclusive evidence
that even so long after the baptizing had been
performed these children were yet too young to be
of an}^ material force in the affairs of the Church.
Factions had sprung up at Corinth. One was for
Paul, another for Apollos, and a third for Peter.
A letter is written to rebuke these disorders. Paul,
the writer of it, sets himself to show the absurdity
of such a thing as a Paul party in that Church.
He tells them that he had been crucified for no-
body, and that with his own hand he had not even
baptized any but Crispus and Gains, who do not
seem to have taken the general infection. These
were the only men of influence who could so much
as claim him as their baptizer. And then, with a
certain tardiness, as if he were undecided as to
whether it would be worth while to mention it, he
remarks, ^^ However, I baptized also the household of
Stephanus," intimating that they were hardly to be
taken into account on this question, as they were
not of sufficient influence or age to be much sup-
port to any party. He first passes them alto-
gether : — " I thank God that I baptized none of you
hut Crispus and Gaius." "We demand of Dr. Fuller
the reason of this total omission. Had Paul for-
gotten ? Can an inspii*ed man, recording his own
official acts, forget ? There is no explanation, and
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 365
can be none, except upon the ground that these
children of Stephanus were yet 7ninors, even eight
or ten years after their baptism, and for that
reason quite out of the question which the ajjostle
had before him. If they had been adults, they
were just as likely to be Paulians, because Paul
had baptized them, as Crispus and Gains ; and it
could only be because the}^ were still too young to
have any thing to do Avith these party disputes
that Paul esteemed it hardly worth while to refer
to them in such a connection. If this does not
prove that children were among the subjects of
apostolic baptism, we know nothing about the force
of evidence.
The house of Stephanus " addicted themselves to
the ministry of the saints." To this Mr. Ewing
has a very just remark: — "Were this a proof,"
says he, "that they had among them no infants,
we might find a proof that the house of the Eechab-
ites had among them no infants, because in Jer.
XXXV. 2-11, they addicted themselves to perform
the commandment of their father. The general
terms are even stronger in the latter instance
than in the former; but in both the exceptions of
infancy may be equally understood." (On Baptism,
p. 190.)
We therefore hold Dr. Fuller to the plain and
direct meaning of the word oikos. It denotes chil-
dren. And when we have the unequivocal testi-
mony of the Scrij)tures that the apostles did bap-
tize oikoi, before the dogma of the Baptists can
stand they must prove that the members of these
oikoi were all adults. We have the word which, as
31*
366 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
certainly as any word in any language, compre-
hends infants; and we are therefore bound to hold
that infants are included and were baptized until
the most unmistakable proof to the contrary has
been produced. Such proof has never been pro-
duced. A book, written about thirty years ago, to
prove that inflxnts were included in the oikoi bap-
tized by the apostles, was submitted to the Baptists
of Britain, with a challenge for their refutation.
Years passed, but no refutation was attempted.
The book was even submitted to a Baptist associa-
tion, with the most respectful solicitation that
they would either admit the truth of its positions
or have them refuted; but the request was an-
swered with a formal resolution to disregard it!
And from that day to the present moment Taylor's
Facts and Evidences on the Subjects of Christian
Baptism REMAIN UNANSWERED, AND WITHOUT AN
ATTEMPT AT AN ANSWER, by any Baptist on either
side of the Atlantic Ocean.
If the baptizing of infants, then, is to be de-
nounced as such a horrible crime, let Baptists first
show us how they exempt God's inspired apostles
from the dreadful crimination by answering the
invincible positions of that learned advocate of
the truth whom Dr. Fuller mentions onl}^ to call
"f/ic silly editor of Cahnet."
Indeed, with the facts before us, that oi/cos means
family, and that the apostles baptized certainly
not less than eight such families, the jilaincst com-
mon sense will infer with the firmest confidence
tliat they must hav-e baptized infants. Take eight
J'amilies at a venture in any street, town, village,
APOSTOLIC PUACTICK. 367
01* neigliborhood, or eight jicws containing fami-
lies in 11 place of "worship, and in all of them
not to find one child under ten yeai'S of age
would be a circumstance sufficiently strange to
be heralded from sea to sea, as showing that the
•world is coming to an end, sure enough. Take the
average number of children in a familj^ to be six;
these eight families would include forty-eight chil-
dren; and 3'et, among forty-eight children of
parents not past the busy activities of middle life,
not to find one child under eight or ten years of
age would be trul}^ M'onderful. Who can believe
it ? Who, then, can doubt that the ajDOstlcs baptized
infants ?
There is another thought which we will yet
present.
The Greek words pistos and plstoi, a faithful and
faithfuls, when ajiplied to jiersons in the New
Testament, designate them as church-members, —
as persons belonging to the household of faith.
(See 1 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 9; 1 Pet. v.
12; Acts xvi. 1; 1 Tim. v. 16, vi. 2, iv. 12; Eph. i.
1; Col. i. 2.) The term implies all that is in^'
eluded in Christian discipleship; and in the case
of Lj-dia it is so strongly connected with baptism
as to be interchangeable with it. "When she was
baptized with her family, she besought us, saying,
If [6//!re] you have adjudged me to be a pistaen [a
faithfuT] to the Lord, come into my house and
abide there. '^ (Acts xvi. 15.) The sense in this
passage would be the same if we were to put the
term baptized in the place of faithful and faithful
for baptized. It is impossible to conceive how an
368 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
individual can be one and not the other, as the
Christian Church is constituted. And to call one
a faithful is equivalent to calling him a Christian
brother, a disciple of Christ. But Paul to Titus
(i. 6) explicitly applies this term to children.
Speaking of the qualities to be possessed by a
bishop, the apostle says, "He must be the husband
of one wife, having children \tekna'\ who are faith-
fuls." The word tekna. is used to denote the
children, "from two years old and under," that Herod
ordered to be slain in and about Bethlehem. A
certain Baptist writer admits that it means " all
minors from tiventy days old." The apostle makes
no distinction between the eldest and the youngest.
Of whatever age, he here makes it a part of a
bishop's business to have his children faithfuls.
We find also that John, in his Epistle, which is
written to faithfuls, (1 John v. 13,) distinguishes
between fathers, young men, and little children.
(ii. 12, 13.) Would the apostles have given these
significant Christian titles to little children Avhilst
they denied to them Christian Church-membership
and Christian baptism? It cannot be.
We think that we have now made out our case.
We have shown that, if the apostles did not bap-
tize the children of believers in infancy and child-
hood, there is no evidence in Scrijiture that they
ever baptized them at all. We have traced infant
baptism as the practice of the Church up to the
lifetime of some of the apostles. We have shown
that they baptized numerous oihoi, or families in
which there must have been children, and that
they applied names to children which must needs
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 369
bo out of place except upon the admission that
they ^yeYG baptized children. And ^^^o think the
conclusion inevitable, from these premises, that
infant baptism is a thing with authority as high as
that for Christianity itselfj that it is a thing
founded on apostolic sanction, and, therefore, of
divine appointment. We -would have much more
to say upon the general subject, but we can see no
occasion for it.
In winding up a very well conducted argument
on the subject of ^'Domestic Slavery," Dr. Fuller
finally settles down upon this as a sound princi^ile :
— "What God sanctioned in the Old Testament and
permitted in the New, cannot he a sin." We agree
with the logic of that argument and with the con-
clusion which it is designed to support. And if
the doctor will apply it to the subject of infant
Church-membership, he will find it vastly more
powerful against him on this question than it was
for him in the cause in which he called it to his
aid. God not only ^^ sanctioned" infant Church-
membership in the Old Testament, but positively
ordained and required it. And in the New Testa-
ment he not only permitted it, but so spoke and
acted with regard to children, and so moved his
in-spired servants to act and speak on the subject,
as inevitably to lead the mind of the Christian
world to believe that, so far from abridging the
former immunities of children, their position and
rights under the gospel are vastly elevated and
enlarged. And what God commanded in the
Old Testament, and by word and deed sanc-
tioned IN THE XeW, cannot BE A SIN.
870 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Gro, then, Christian parent, and, with a fervent
and confiding heart, otfer your children in solemn
consecration to Him who made them, in the holy
ordinance which he himself has appointed. Go;
let them be marked by Christ's commissioned am-
bassador as members beloved of the Savior's fold;
for he hath said, ^^ Of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Give them to your blessed Lord in the sacrament
of his love and mercy; for he hath promised,
"Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little
ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a
disciple, verily shall in no wise lose his reward."
Bring them; and in the name of Jesus we will
receive them into the bosom of the Church, which
is his body; for he hath declared, "Whoso shall
RECEIVE ONE SUCH LITTLE CHILD IN MY NAME RE-
CEIVETH ME."
It was the remark of a certain itinerant
preacher that there are but two places of which he
had ever heard in which there are no infants : the
one is hell, the other is the Baptist Church.
TERMS or COMMUNION. 371
CHAPTER XXV.
TERMS OF COMMUNION.
It only remains for us now to make a few com-
ments on Dr. Fuller's " Terms of Communion," and
"we have done.
It is a gratification to know that these "tenns"
are not endorsed by all Baptists. Some im-
mersionists — especially on the other side of the
Atlantic — rej)udiate them with deserved abhor-
rence. The reader shall hear from a few of them
before we close. But Baptists generally, and with
very few exceptions in this country, defend and prac-
tice just such "terms" as those presented by Dr.
Fuller, and which we feel called on to hold up to
the indignation of a right-feeling Christian public.
Dr. Fuller thinks that it is ''not right," that
it is "unkind," "unjust,'' "ungenerous," "mis-
chievous," "and deserves no better name than
croaking," " to speak against the Baptists for their
practice in communion." (P. 247.) He sees noth-
ing of this sort, however, in the everlasting railing
of Baptist champions against millions of God's
people for their practice in baptism. But if our
baptism is to be open to the harsh censures and
maledictions of Baptists, we should like to know
by what laws of right or principles of just reason
372 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
we are to be barred from forming and uttering our
opinions concerning their communion. We do not
advocate the return of railing for railing, or the
meeting of abuse with abuse. Being smitten on
the one cheek, we would rather turn the other
also. But when a brother is so bent upon remov-
ing a mote from our eye, we claim the privilege of
asking him to remove the beam from his own.
We do not complain that our practice in baptism
is canvassed, px'obed, and discussed. What we do
we do openly, and invite the closest scrutiny into
the righteousness of our proceedings. We have
nothing which we desire to be taken for granted
or which we are afraid to have investigated. If
we are the abettors of <' damnable heresy," we
will esteem it a great favor to have it shown us
and to be brought to the knowledge of the truth.
And if Dr. Fuller has one-half of the love for us
and for the truth which he professes, he ought not
to be so nervous on the subject of a little moral
cautery which his "dear brethren" may deem
necessary.
But we can easily see and understand why he
would prefer to have nothing said "against the
Baptists for their practice in communion." It
touches a very sore point. It comes too near
the quick and life of his system. It denudes a
feature of his cause which is too unlovely for the
public eye, and lays open its heart in a light in no
way very creditable or flattering to its advocates.
It discloses a posture of things in the framework
of Baptist principles with which it is not particu-
larly pleasant to face the common sense of the
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 373
community; a posture of things wliich reduces
our immersionist friends to the unenviable alterna-
tive of surrendering their sectarian dogmas on
baptism, or of excommunicating ninety-nine hun-
dredths of Christendom, including the great body
of the best and holiest saints. It presents
'•A strong dilemma in a desperate case: —
To act with iii/am>/, or quit tlic place."
This is a trj-ing strait. No wonder that it
should excite a wish to have nothing said. Dr.
Fuller thinks it very hard that Baptists are com-
pelled to occupy such a position. He mourns over
it bitterly. He sj)eaks of it as giving him more
pain than the pains of excommunication. (Pp. 239,
247.) lie languishes under it as if it would
"break his heax-t." (P. 2-14.) He complains of it
as a positive cruelty inflicted by those whom he so
dearly loves. (P. 247.) O ye saints of God and
"noble lights and oimaments of Christianity,"
why will ye thus torment the man? Why will ye
blame him for your being saints without submis-
sion to his opinions ? Poor, bleeding soul ! He
never meant that you should be the children of
God in this way! Oh, how "unkind'' and "un-
generous," ye sei'vants of Jesus, that you should
become the heirs of heaven without immersion,
when the dear lover of your souls who wrote a
book is under the deplorable necessity of excom-
municating you or sux'rendering his opinion on the
meaning of baptizo! !
In treating further on this subject, we propose,
first, to present the terms of communion which
Baptists set up; second, to notice the arguments
874 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
used to sustain them; and, third, to point out some
of their unchristian and disgraceful implications.
I. The TERMS THEMSELVES. — Thesc may be thus
summed up : That no man, and no tvoman, though
pious as the Apostle John or the Virgin Mary, has any
right or claim whatever to the commxmion of the Lord's
Supper without being first totally immersed in water.
Dr. Fuller says, "I I'cjoice to know that in Pedo-
haptist [that is, our'] Churches there are some of
the noblest lights and ornaments of Christianity."
(P. 238.) But he says of these same persons,
" We cannot admit them to the Supper." " Baptism,"
says he, ''is a pre-requisite to the Supper; and we
cannot admit to the Supper those whom we regard
as unbaptized, however much we may love them,
hoAvever deeply we may lament the necessity laid
upon us. To do this [that is, admit them to the
Supper] would be to declare such pex'sons qualified
for membership in our Churches; which would be
to admit members without baptism [^immersioii]',
which would be to abolish baptism [immersion]
altogether." (P. 237.) Professor Curtis, in the
name of the whole denomination Avith which he
co-operates, says, "There is to us a most obvious
inconsistency in admitting to our occasional com-
munion those whom we should be unwilling to
admit to our Church-fellowship," (p. 108;) that "if
the Lord's Supper is a Church-ordinance, and indi-
cates a Church-fellowship among all those who
partake together, it is a violation of truth in sym-
bols to invite to occasional communion those
whom our constitutional principles would forbid to
TERMS OF COMMUNIOX. 375
be members of our churches," (p. 142 ;) and that,
*<as it is taken for granted in this discussion tliat
Christian baptism essentially involves an immer-
sion of the bod}- in water, as a profession of per-
sonal faith in Christ, so it follows that this whole
discussion must be founded on the acknowledg-
ment that our Pedobaptist friends are xoithout valid
baptism. Xor can it make any abatement from,
this conclusion, or alteration in regard to our re-
ceiving them at the Lord's table, that they
do not perceive this." (P. 142.) Professor Cur-
tis's elaborate work "on Communion" embraces
over three hundred pages. It is devoted entirely
to the explanation and defence of "the Bap-
tist practice in communion." The quotations
we have given contain its sum and essence.
It is meant to vindicate the Baptists in their
enforcement of their opinions on baptism by
the pains of excommunication, and in exalting
the same into an essential condition of Church-
fellowship. " The Tennessee Baptist" sheet thus
discourses on the same point: — "I may err; but I
do most conscientiously believe that affiliation
WITH Pedobaptists ('-s the fruit, 7iot of the Holy
Spirit, but the spirit of indifferentism and pantheisin;
that it has done, and is still doing, more to impede
THE spread of THE GOSPEL THAN EoMANISM, Ma-
HOMEDANISM, HEATHENISM, AND INFIDELITY COM-
BINED; that not until it is cast out will Zion appear
in her robes of victory and the kingdoms of this xoorld
become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ."
According to this writer, not only Baptist con-
sistency and the integrity of the Baptist system
376 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
depend on refusal to commune or affiliate with
non-immersionists, but also the triumphs of Chris-
tendom, the evangelization of the nations, and the
conversion of the world!
We have been told that Baptists all over the land
are thrilling with the thought that on them exclu-
sively devolves the work of giving the word of God
to the nations. We here find them ''conscien-
tiously believing" that on their refusal to commune
with any but Baptists depends the world's redemp-
tion. Yet Professor Curtis thinks " a serious de-
ficiency of our [their'] modern Church-fellowship is
the want of more of what may be termed the esprit
du corps" ! (P. 58.) May we not hope to hear next
that the universe revolves on baptisteries, and that
with Baptists rests the regulation of planetary
motions and sidereal centres? We await the recu-
peration of the lacking " esprit" with large expecta-
tions !
Dr. Fuller speaks of the Baptists as a persecuted
people. He says " that upon the Baptist Churches
has descended in unmitigated entail the not very
enviable distinction noticed in this passage, — ' As
concerning this sect, ice know that everywhere it is
spoken against.'" (P. 213.) He also states that the
chief and only serious ground of this "accusation
against the Baptist Churches is that of illiberality
in what is called close communion," to which he
finds himself, as he says, "required to conform."
(P. 219.)
It is therefore a settled point, which we Avould
have distinctly understood and noted for continual
reference in connection with this controversy, that
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 377
it is the. rule — a cherished principle, a thing held
vitall}' essential to the Avhole Baptist system of
faith and practice — that none of their members are
ever to take the Lord's Supper with othci- denomi-
nations, or ever to allow any who are not Baptists
to receive the Lord's Supper from them, no matter
though the persons excluded be among " the no-
blest lights and ornaments of Christianit}'." As
remarked by the chosen champion of ''close com-
munion" and published by the "American Baptist
Publication Society," ''We [Baptists] take our
stand upon this : that if the Lord's Supper is a
Church-ordinance, if it is the appointed symbol of
Church-relations, it should only he celebrated together
with those loith lohoni ive can consistently sustain these
relations;" that is, exclusively with Baptists.
(Cui'tis on Communion, p. 108.) The italicizing is
from Mr. Curtis himself.
II. Having thus ascertained what are the Bap-
tist " terms of communion," we proceed to notice
THE ARGUMENTS put forth to sustaiu than. These
are not many. With all the large books and
labored disquisitions which Baptists have given to
the world on this subject, a few sentences contain
all that they have ever been able to produce in
defence of their practice. Indeed, their exclusive-
ness in this matter so contradicts the whole spirit
of the gospel that it will not admit of the merest
show of argument in its favor.
Professor Curtis, it is true, thinks he has found
in the very constitution of Christianity a principle
which sanctions and requires it; but it is mere
S2«
378 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
theorizing without the slightest foundation. He
conceives of Christians as consisting of two classes :
first, as simply Christians interiorly and invisibly
and individual!}^ related to Christ, separate and
apart from all ordinances or Church-organizations :
second, as Church-members associated together in
visible ordinances in particular societies. Ho
teaches that the Lord's Supper, as a Church-ordi-
nance, is not at all for Christians simj)ly as such,
but exclusively and only for Christians as they are
associated in particular Churches; that each mem-
ber of such a particular society is entitled to the
Lord's Supper, but only in his own particular
society or congregation ; and that, therefore, from
the very constitution of Christianity, there cannot
rightfully be any communion in the Supper but
close or exclusive communion. We j^ut the argu-
ment in its full strength ; and yet who is so poorly
instructed in the teachings of the Scriptures as for
one moment to believe that there is any force or
truth in it? To divorce Christianity and the
Church, and to separate acceptable saving piety
from attention to God's own sacramental means
of grace, is to put asunder what God has joined
together, to mutilate the whole mediatorial system,
to trample the visible economy of grace into insig-
nificance, and to set up "another gospel," which
the apostles have not taught. Christ has ordained
no two kinds of discipleship, no two armies of
saints, no two ways of secux-ing heaven. All men
in Christendom must be Christians in the same
way, and partake in the common experiences and
ordinances prescribed by the Savior, or they are
TKUMS OP COMMUNION. 379
no Christians at all. AVe Avill not undertake to
sa}^ what shall be the fate of those well-disposed
persons who have never had the light and oppor-
tunity to become identified with the confessing
licople of God ; but Ave do hold that he who can
find accepted Christian men and Avomen ovitside of
the community of the visible Church or Churches,
refusing to confess Christ before men in his own
appointed sacraments, finds Avhat does not exist.
There are no such Christians; or else the economy
of the A'isible Church or Churches is not at all essen-
tial to Christianity, and maybe cast aside, Avithout
detriment to our immortal hopes, whenever we may
see fit. JS'o, no ! "There is one body and one Spirit;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism." All the saints
have been " baptized by one Spirit into one body,
and have been all made to drink into one Spirit," —
the spirit of willing and hearty obedience to ''what-
soever Christ has commanded." "Except a man
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God." "Except ye eat the
flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye
have no life in you."
There is often also a A^ery dangerous error con-
cealed in the distinction Avbich some are so fond
of making betAveen the visible and the invisible
Church. It is true that many hold visible Church-
relations Avho are not living members of the Savior's
mystical body, and that it is a matter hidden
and invisible to us Avho are vital and effectual
members of the Church and Avho are not. We
may form a proximate judgment in the case; but
we cannot always knoAv the facts. But the visible
380 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Church is ahvays supposed to embrace the invisible.
Says Ursinus, '' The invisible Church lies concealed in
the visible." ''Whenever we think of the Church,
we bring before our minds the assemblage of those
who ai^e called, which is the visible Church/' says
Melanchthon ; ''nor do we dream that any of the
elect are elsewhere than in this visible Church;
for God may not be invoked nor acknowledged
otherwise than as he reveals himself; nor does he
reveal himself [for the salvation of men] except in the
visible Church, in which alone the voice of the
gospel sounds. We do not feign some other in-
visible Church." (Log. Com. vol. i. p. 283.) And,
especially as God alone can distinguish his own
true people from formalists and hypocrites, it is
impossible for us to conceive of them as a separate
society distinct fi'oni the external Church. Even
that part of the Church which has passed away
into the invisible world cannot be separated from
that visible society on earth in which all the saints
in heaven once had their places and in their time
helped to till out its external continuity. The
Church is not to be conceived of, on the one hand,
as consisting of a system of mere external rites and
observances. It has a soul as well as a body. It
involves inward faith and spiritual communion and
graces as well as outward ceremonies. But neither
is it to be conceived of, on the other hand, as having
an existence apart from the visible appointments
and signs \>y which alone we can come into saving
connection with it. The religion of Christ takes
into its essential texture a visible Church, — the
organization of its subjects into visible fellowship
TERMS OF COMMUiNION. 381
"With each other and sacramental unioii with our
ascended Lord. And where there is no such visible
Church there is no Christian and no Ciiristianity.
xVU sacx'timents, then, arc for Christians as such,
and not onl}- for Churchmen as distinguished from
mere Christians. Kay: if wo can be Chi'istians
entitled to heaven without communion in the ordi-
nances of fellowship and confession in the visible
Church, the visible Church is useless, and Baptists,
instead of vindicating ordinances and preserving
them from contempt, do really sink them down
into matters of indifference, and assume a ground
upon which we may refuse both baptism and the
Supper without damage to our prospects for eter-
nity. From such theology may the good Lord
preserve us and his professing people !
There is a very grave consideration urged by
Dr. Fuller in favor of close, exclusive communion,
which deserves to be noticed here. He begs " in
kindness and affection to submit it to the candor
of the brethren." It is, that any other practice
would compel him to " receive infants" ! and to
" admit them, though the very Churches in which
they are pronounced members would not" ! (P.
237.) Surely he has struck upon Gibraltar now,
and how can he be expected to go forward in the
admission of any but Baptists to the Lord's
Supper? Infants would come. Fearful thought!
Let Christendom pause and consider it. Infants
would come ; and therefore Baptists are compelled
to excommunicate all but Baptists, ^yllat igno-
rance has for centuries pervaded Christendom, iu
that the Churches have not excluded all but their
382 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
own from the Lord's table, lest infants might como
fi'om some sister Church, though they never come at
home ! Grave argument ! We leave it where Dr.
Fuller has so aftectionately and seriously put it, —
" to the candor of our brethren."
It is further urged in favor of the Baptist prac-
tice in communion that it is just what is done in
all other denominations, and that we ought not to
blame them for what we ourselves do. Mr. Booth
thinks that " the judgment and conduct of Baptists
relating to the necessity of baj)tism in order to
communion perfectly coincide with the sentiments
and practice of all Pedobaptist Churches." (P. 12.)
Now, this is parti}'' true and j)artly false. It is
true that we require baptism as a condition of
Church-membership and of communion-privileges;
but it is not true that we require a jjarticular mode
of baptism, or that our mere opinion concerning
baptism must be acceded to before admission to the
Lord's table. The Baptist differs with us as to the
nature, subject, and mode of baptism; and yet we
do not exclude him from the communion. We
hold his responsibility to be not to us, but to his
own conscience and to the Lord who instituted the
feast; and hence we admit him, if he means thereby
to perform an act of devotion to the Savior. But
is this the pi'actice of Baptists ? By no means.
It is not mere baptism which they make a pre-
requisite to communion, but a particular mode of
baptism, and that administered only after a certain
period of the individual's life has expired. They
require immersion, and that performed subsequent
to a personal profession of faith ; we demand only
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 383
a sincere faith in Christ, accompanied with obedi-
ence to Clirist's ordinances as the applicant in his
own conscience apprehends them. Tliey exclude
all except the avowed and active abettors of their
sectarian oj)inions ; Ave exclude none but those
excluded by all acknowledged Christians. There
is certainly a very wide difference here between
their practice and our own. AVe also carry into
our terms of communion those apostolic precepts,
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but
not to doubtful disputations;" "Eeceive ye one
another, as Christ also received us;" "Why tempt
ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the dis-
ciples, which neither our fathei"S nor we are able
to bear?" Baptists, however, deny that these
injunctions have any reference to this subject, and
refuse to admit or obey them in reference to sacra-
mental communion. In our opinion, Baptists are
as much in error as they suppose us to be ; yet we
are glad to meet them at the Lord's table, whilst
they despise our invitations and peremjDtorily
refuse to allow us to sit down with them. Now,
with these stubborn facts in view, to say that the
judgment and conduct of Baptists on this subject
are perfectly coincident with ours is a gross mis-
representation,— an egregious mistake, — if not
something a great deal worse. It may serve to
confuse and silence the ignorant; but it is not the
truth. If the Baptists proceed upon the same
principles with us, then let them invite to the
Lord's table all whom they regard as Christians,
and cease to excommunicate " some of the noblest
884 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
lights and ornaments of Christianity" because they
do not subscribe to Baptist sectarian opinions.
But none of these considerations reach the real
ground of the Baptist ''judgment and conduct"
upon this subject. All the arguments thus far
named are mere after-thoughts, vamped up in tlie
days of conti'oversy to cover the weak flanks of a
miserable sectarianism. The real reason of their
exclusiveness remains to be told. That reason is
that they are compelled to exclude all but Baptists
from the Lord's Supper, or compromise their doc-
trine on the meaning of the word baptizo. Slow as
they are to say it and cautious as they are in coming
to the point, this is the gist of the whole matter;
and they cannot deny it. In some shape or other
all their advocates have been forced to admit it.
Mr. Booth, after considerable circumlocution,
thus presents the case: — "We cannot admit them
[that is. Christians, not Baptists] to fellowship with
us at the Lord's table without contradicting our
PROFESSED SENTIMENTS. For it appears to us, on
the most deliberate inquiry, that immersion is not a
mere circumstance or a mode of baptism, but essen-
tial to the ordinance; so that, in our judgment, he
who is not immersed is not baptized. This is the
PRINCIPLE on ivhich tee proceed in refusing communion
to our Pedobaptist brethren." (Pp. 12, 18.) Mr. Cur-
tis's elaborate defence of close communion, Avith
all his adroitness in attempting to put the matter
on a different basis, goes out from this same centre.
In replying to Eobert Hall's remark that "no
Church has a right to establish terms of com-
munion which are not terms of salvation," he says,
TKRMS OF COMMUNION. 385
"If this were true, it would effectually destroy the
Baptists as a denomination." (P. 139.) Hence his
effort to sustain close communion. It is essential
to the sectarianism of the Baptist denomination.
The holy sacrament of Jesus must bo harnessed
down in this way, or the Baptist sect ceases !
Taking Dr. Fuller's argument all in all, it also
sums up in the same thing. ''"What, in effect,"
says he, "is the remonstrance we continually
address to our brethren? It is that they are unbap-
tized [iownmersed']. . . . Now, in not inviting them
to the Supper, our conduct only repeats this remon-
strance,— repeats it silently and kindly, but empha-
tically. To inrite them would really be a want of
love, for it would be an admission that they are bap-
tized \inimersed'\; and thus, in the strongest manner,
we icould contradict our declarations and confirm
them in error." (Pp. 239, 240.) Dr. Howell's
whole book upon this subject is but an elaboration
of the same idea, as the captions to his chapters
will show. We quote a few. "Chapter YIII. We
cannot unite Avith Pedobaptists in sacramental
communion without an actual abandonment or
practical falsification of all our principles. Chapter
IX. We cannot engage in communion Avith our
Pedobaptist brethren, because they are not bap-
tized, having received the rite in infancy. Chap-
ters X. and XI. We cannot commune with Pedo-
baptists, because, not having been immersed, they are
not baptized." Thus we have the true secret.
Baptists believe that baptizo means "immerse and
nothing else;" and, rather than allow that they
maybe mistaken in this interpretation, they take
33
386 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
the harsh alternative of excommunicating millions
upon millions of pious j)eople whom they call
" brethren" and expect, as they tell us, to meet in
heaven !
III. Having thus ascertained the Baptist terms
of communion and the ground uj)on which they
are urged and defended, we now come to offer a
few comments upon their unchristian and dis-
graceful implications.
Dr. Fuller mentions it as a distinction of Baptists
in all ages, that they " have asserted the glorious
right of liberty of conscience for every man, and
have sought only to persuade men to cast off
spiritual tyranny, whether of State, or creed, or
Church, or priest." (P. 215.) Professor Curtis
gives " freedom of conscience and religious liberty"
as among the chief of "Baptist Princii^les." We
tell these men, in view of what aj^pears above, that
Baptists of their sort, in all ages, have been the advo-
cates and defenders of religioiis proscription and intole-
rance hardly less arrogant than that which makes
Popery the loathing of the earth. They may call this
wholesale slander, base and unmitigated. But we
carry it up to the bar of public judgment and the
common Christian sense, satisfied that the decision
must be with us. Some BajDtists themselves have
been convinced of the truth of what we have here
said, and have not hesitated to declare it in lanj^uao-e
equally as strong as that which we have emploj^ed.
" I am fully persuaded," says the eloquent and
liberal Baptist preacher, Robert Hall, ''that few
of our brethren have duly reflected on the
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 387
strong resemblance which subsists between tho
pretensions of the Church of Rome and the prin-
ciples implied in strict communion, — both equally
intolerant; the one armed with pains and penal-
ties, the other, I trust, disdaining such aid; tho
one the intolerance of power, the other 0/ loeak-
ness." "The Eomisli Church," says he, "pretends
to an absolute infallibility; not, however, in such
a sense as implies an authority to introduce new
doctrine, but merely in the proposal of apostolic
traditions and in the interpretation of Scripture.
While she admits the Scripture to be the original
rule of faith, she requires, under pain of excom-
munication, that the sense she puts on its words
should be received with the same submission with
the inspired volume. In what respects, let me ask,
is the conduct of the strict Baptists different? . . . All
that infallibility which the Church of Rome pre-
tends to is the right of placing her interpretation
of Scripture on a level with the word of God. She
pi'ofesses to promulgate no new revelation, but
solely to render her sense of it imperative and
binding. And if we presume to treat oui' fellow-
Christians, merely because they difiFer from us in
their construction of a positive precept, as un-
worthy of being recognised as Christ's disciples and
disqualified for the communion of saints, we defy
ALL THE POWERS OF DISCRIMINATION TO ASCERTAIN
THE DIFFERENCE OP THE TWO CASES, OR TO ASSIGN A
REASON WHY WE MUST ASCRIBE THE CLAIM OF INFAL-
LIBILITY TO ONE AND NOT TO THE OTHER."
The same author says, further, "Why is the act
of debarring every other denomination from admis-
388 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMlxNED.
siou [to the SuiDper] iiot a jninisJimentP Solely
because Ba^^tist societies are too few and too insig-
nificant to enable them to realize the effects of their
system in its full extent. Their principle involves
an ABSOLUTE INTERDICT of Cliurch-privHeges to the
members of every other community ; but, being an
inconsiderable minority, there are not wanting
numerous and respectable societies who stand
ready to give a welcome reception to the outcasts
and to succor the exiles. That their rejection is
not followed by its natural consequence — a total
privation of the communion of saints — is not to be
ascribed in the smallest degree to the liberality or
forbearance of strict Baptists, hut solely to their
ifnbecility. The celebration of the Eucharist they
consider as null and void when attended to by a
Pedobaptist. His approach to the table is abso-
lutely prohibited Avithin the sphere of their juris-
diction ; and, should their principles ever obtain a
general prevalence, the commemoration of the love
of a crucified Savior would become impracticable,
excepjt to persons of their own persuasion. Instances
have often occurred where the illiberal practice
against which we are contending has been felt to be
a PUNISHMENT of 710 ordinary severity; where emi-
nently holy men have been so situated that the
only opportunity they possessed of celebrating the
passion of the Redeemer has been withheld, and
they have been compelled most reluctantly^ to forego
one of the most exalted privileges of the Church;
nor has it ever been known that compassion for the
peculiar hardships of the case was suftered to
suspend the unrelenting severity of the sentence. Let
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 389
me ask the advocates for the exclusive system
•whether they would be moved for a moment to
extend their indulgence to a solitary individual
who differed Avith them on the subject of baptism,
although he was so circumstanced as to render a
union with other classes of Christians impossible?"
(Hall's Works, vol. i. pp. 358, 450, 475.) And yet
this unrelenting proscription of men acknowledged
to be saints of God is to be called "asseHing the
glorious right of liberty of conscience!" — ^'opposition
to all spnritual tyranny" ! ! Alas! alas! for these
boasted apostles of freedom of conscience !
Eobert Hall says, further, '' The advocates of strict
communion are not engaged in preserving their own
liberty, but in an attack on the liberty of others;
their object is not to preserve the worship) in which
they join pure from contamination, hut to sit in
JUDGMENT ON THE CONSCIENCES OP THEIR BRETHREN,
and to deny them the privileges of the visible Church,
ON ACCOUNT OP A DIFFERENCE OP OPINION wMch IS
neither imposed on themselves nor deemed fundamental.
They propose to build a Church upon the principle
of an absolute exclusion of a multitude of societies,
which they must either acknowledge to be true
Churches, or bo convicted of the greatest absurdity;
while for conduct so monstrous and unnatural they
are precluded from the plea of necessity, because
no attempt is made by Pedobaptists to modify
their worship or to control the most enlarged
exercise of private judgment. . . . It is not a de-
fensive, but an offensive measure ; it is not an asser-
tion of Christian liberty by resisting encroachment, —
IT IS ITSELF A VIOLENT ENCROACHMENT ON THE
3a*
oOO THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
FREEDOM OF OTHERS, ati effoH TO ENFORCE (i Conform-
ity to Baptist views." (Hall, vol. i. pp. 334, 335.) These
are not our words. "VVe have given the language of
one of the most holy, observant, eloquent, and con-
scientious men the Baptist societies have ever pro-
duced. And if it does not fasten down on Dr.
Fuller, and all who think with him, the charge of
intolerant and even 'persecuting arrogance, it is
useless to rely uj)on the powers of reason and
common sense to apprehend truth.
As Protestants, we are accustomed to demand
of Eomanists Avhence they derive the right to de-
cide authoritatively against those who conscien-
tiously differ from them. And in the same manner,
we ask our Baptist friends where they get the
warrant to draw distinctions between God's saints
and to enforce their particular views of baptism
with ecclesiastical penalties? They pretend to
agree that we are Christians. Mr. Carson says,
" I gladly admit that many who differ from me
with respect to baptism are among the excellent of
the earth." Dr. Fuller takes up the same: — "I re-
joice to know that in Pedobaptist Churches there
are some of the noblest lights and ornaments of
Christianity." And Baptists generally jDrofess to
have no difficulty in classing many Pedobaptists
among the most eminent of the sons of God.
"What right, then, have they to reject those
whom God has adopted? Whence have they au-
thority to prefer the weakest and most incon-
sistent member of Dr. Fuller's congregation to
Brainerd, Doddridge, Baxter, and Arndt, and to
Bay to him, Come and partake of the feast Jesus
TERMt" OF COMMUNION. 391
has provided for his disciples, whilst they turn
away those whose lives exhibit the most varied
and elevated forms of moral grandeur, missionary
zeal, and even martyr constancy? This is exer-
cising a legislative poicer so high and awful that ho
who assumes it, in order to justif}'" such conduct,
"ought," says Eobert Hall, "to exhibit his creden-
tials with a force and splendor of evidence equal
at least to those which attested the divine legation
of Moses and the prophets/' or else be subject to
the scorn and condemnation of all right-thinking
people, as an usurper seeking to "lord it over
God's heritage." For, "by rej)elling and discoun-
tenancing those whom God accepts, to dispute the
validity of his seal, and to subject to our miserable
scrutiny pretensions that have passed the ordeal
and received the sanction of Him who under-
standeth the hearts, we should have just reason to
tremble for the consequences; and, with all our
esteem for the piety of many strict Baptists, Ave
conceive it no injury or insult to put up the prayer
of our Lord for them: — Father, forgive them; for
they know not what they do!" (Hall, vol. i. p. 495.)
Another member and minister of the Baptist
denomination, 3Ir. Noel, thus wi'ites: — "Accord-
ing to this doctrine [put forth by strict Baptists],
Pedobajitists are brethren, yet must not sit down
with their brothers at the table of their Elder
Brother. As brethren they are Christ's disciples,
and therefore commanded by him to eat and drink
in memory of him; but they must not eat and drink
with their fellow-servants. They are welcome
guests to their Lord, but are repelled by their
392 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
fellow-guests. Elsewhere they are owned to be
brethren, but the chief sign of brotherhood must
be withheld from them. They may lead the
prayers of their fellow-Christians, and they may
instruct the Churches as enlightened and holy
ministers of Christ; yet in that ordinance which
is specially appointed to be a sign of the com-
munion of saints and the unity of the body, they
must be put out, as though they were not members.
"What a spectacle is thus afforded to the world,
who see with contempt that the most earnest
followers of the Kedeemer cannot even commemo-
rate his death together! When the saints of Jesus
are thus excluded from the communion of any of
his Churches, are not those who put them out
treading in the steps of Diotrephes, though with a
different spirit? No : it is replied, * We are willing
to receive all who appear to have been received of
God to the ordinances of baj)tism and the Supper;
but we cannot divide the one from the other with-
out dispensing with an institution of Christ.' But
this is no reception of them. They can no more
force their convictions than you can; and there-
fore you say to them, in effect. Unless you will fore-
go what you believe to he a duty, the baptism of infants,
and accept us as authoritative expositors of Christ's
doctrine, we must expel you from our society when we
commemorate the dying love of our Lord and
meet as brethren in his name." (Pp. 291, 292.)
And yet they who take this ground have the
effrontery to say to us that it involves no breach
of charity, no want of "the highest and noblest
fellowship," and no entrenchment upon the freest
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 393
operations of the fondest affection. Yes ! they will
drive us away from the Lord's table as nothing
better than vile dogs, and yet tell las that they are
perfectly bound np with ns in love! Upon this
point hear again the distinguished Eobert Hall: —
"Were the children of the same parent, in conse-
quence of the different construction they put on a
disputed clause in their father's will, to refuse to
eat at the same table or to drink out of the same
cup, it would be ridiculous for them to pretend that
their attachment to each other remained undimin-
ished; nor is it less so for Christians to assert that
their withdrawing from communion with their
brethren is no interruption to their mutual har-
mony and affection. It is a serious and awful
interruption, and will ever be considered in that
light. ... It is to inflict a wound on the very heart
of charity; and if it is not being guilty of beating
our fellow-servant, we must despair of ascertaining
the meaning of terms. ... It is equally repugnant
to reason and offensive to charity. . . . It is the very
essence of schism." (Hall's Works, vol. i. pp. 323, 331,
333.)
Dr. Fuller agrees that the Lord's Supper is a
social ordinance. Among other offices, it is de-
signed to serve as a solemn mode of Christian
recognition, by which we show that we are ^^one
body" as we partake of "one bread.'' It is God's
own sacrament of Christian fellowship; and to say
that to disown us there is no disownment of our
Christianity, and no breach of brotherly affection,
is to try to persuade us that black is white or that
bitter is sweet. Nay : they that do it, says Eobert
394 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
Hall, to be consistent with themselves, must im-
pute to us a degree of delinquency equal to that
which attaches to the most flagrant breaches of
morality, and deem us equally guilty in the sight
of God with those unjust persons, idolaters,
revelers, and extortioners, who are declared inca-
pable of the kingdom of heaven. For if the guilt
imputed in this instance is acknowledged to be of
a totally different order from that which belongs
to the oj^enly vicious and profane, how come we to
be included in the same sentence? and where is
the equity of animadverting uiDon unequal faults
with equal severity? (Yol. i. p. 338.)
Mr. Noel has put the case in its true position
where he says, ''If the Pedobaptist be a disobe-
dient unbeliever, reject him from the Lord's table,
and also from every other function and privilege
exclusively appropriated to believers; if he be
an obedient believer, admit him to these func-
tions, but with them admit him also to the Lord's
table. But how can the godly Pedobaptist be ex-
cluded on these terms? He is no more a disobe-
dient unbeliever than the strictest of the Baptists
who would exclude him. The reason why he is a
Pedobaptist is, that he believes the baptism of
infants to be according to the will of Christ. What
person was ever excluded from the Lord's Supper
in the apostolic Churches for doing all that he
believed, after searching of the Scriptures and
listening to apostles, to be according to the will of
Christ? What earnest and upright believer was
ever in those days excluded? What member of
one Church was refused communion with the
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 395
members of another? In what apostolic Church
were such men as Baxter, Howe, Flavel, Dod-
dridge and Whiteficld, Edwards and Payson,
Fletcher, Martin, Brainerd, and Chalmei's, men full
of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, walking with God
and laboring for Christ, refused such communion?
It was reserved for worse days to see so strange a
spectacle." (P. 293.)
"Consider," continues this same author, "the
real character of this exclusion. Those only are
ordered in the word of God to be excluded who are
heretical in doctrine, vicious in their practice,
schismatical in temper, who injure their brethren,
or are openly disobedient to the commands of
Christ. But you exclude, in company with all
these, some of the most loj-al, the most active, the
bravest, and the most loving disciples of Christ.
They may, like Enoch, walk with God ; like Abra-
ham, sacrifice all that is dearest to them to serve
him; like Moses, trample under feet the world's
most alluring bribes; like Paul, consecrate the
noblest faculties with untiring ardor to the cause
of their Eedeemer; and yet, because they are not
Baptists, [SIMPLY AND ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
Baptists,] you ivill exclude them from the table of the
Lord. You do this because they will follow what
they believe to be the will of Christ, the meaning
of his command, and the practice of his apostles;
you do this because they do just what you do your-
selves,— since you will baptize believers alone,
because you think that Christ requires it, and they
will baptize infants, because they think that he
requires it. You do this, therefore, on a principle
396 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
which would justify their exclusion of you; which
j)roseribcs all communion among believers, and
would substitute submission to human authority
for entire, unlimited submission to the authority of
Christ. This cannot be right: a more brotherly
course is demanded by the plain precepts of Scrip-
ture, by the clear proofs of faith and love in Pedo-
baptist brethren, by the duty of independent
judgment inculcated on all." (Pp. 300, 301.)
We therefore hold the Baptist community to it,
that to disown us in the celebrations of the Supper
is a stab at the unity of Christ, a violent and
unchristian unbrotherliness, which is really a dis-
owning us altogether. There is no other alterna-
tive. He that is not fit for this communion is not
fit for any other communion of a Christian kind.
He that is not fit to eat and drink in memory of
the Savior, according to that Savior's command, is
not fit to die or prepared for the judgment. . The
terms of communion on earth cannot be stricter
than the terms of communion in heaven. If we
are not qualified to sit down with Dr. Fuller and
his Baptist friends in Baltimore, we are not quali-
fied to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
in the kingdom of God. If Baptists have the right
and are in duty bound to exclude us from the
Lord's Supi^er, it must be a divine right and a
command of God himself; and if such are God's
commands as to exclude Luther, Melanchthon,
Howe, Leighton, Brainerd, and others like them,
from the earthly communion, it is utter folly to
suppose God so inconsistent with himself as to
receive these men to the sublimer communion in
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 307
his own high abode. Dr. Fuller says that he can-
not admit such men to the Uol}'- Supper, because
this would be to pronounce them qualified for
membership in the Cliurch. His language of
course implies that they are not members of the
Churchy and that they are unfit to be recognised
as members. But to attack their qualification for
membership in the Church militant is at once to
impugn their hopes of admission into the Church
triumphant, or else to assume the absurd position
that men may be in all respects worthy to "walk
with Christ in white" illustrious among his ran-
somed saints, and yet not worthj^ to sit down and
partake of his earthly sacraments ! " Transub-
stantiation," says Eobert Hall, ^'presents nothing
more revolting to the dictates of common sense." (Vol. i.
p. 499.)
We do not hesitate, therefore, — for we owe it to
the truth and to the public, — to arraign these Bap-
tist terms of communion as savoring of Antichrist,
and presenting an unqualified outrage on all Chris-
tian unity and charity. The common Christian
sense and heart revolt at them. Baptists them-
selves must do violence to all the instincts and
feelings implanted by the gospel in the soul before
the}^ can adopt them. Dr. Dowling apologizes for
Mr. Noel's opposition to close communion on the
ground that he was weak enough to follow his
Christian impulses ! "We cannot but think," says
he, "that the amiable author has consulted the
promptings of his own kind and benevolent heart,
glowing with love to every disciple of Jesus." So,
then, according to ]\Ir. Dowling, close communion
34
398 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED
is a thing which cannot grow out of a kind, be-
nevolent heart, — out of a heai't glowing with love
to the disciples of Jesus. It must find origin some-
where else. Dr. Fuller makes a similar conces-
sion: — "I myself/' says he, "was once strongly
opposed to this practice [of close communion], and
verily thought, when I united with the Baptists,
that I ought to do many things against it, which
also I did. Soon, however, I was made to feel
that a Christian is to obey not his wishes and
feelings, and that principle required me to conform
to this custom. This conclusion I arrived at most
reluctantly and mutinously." (P. 219.) Thus,
while yet his first love was unsullied, — while yet
in the youthful tenderness and pristine purity of
his Christian experience, — it was offensive to his
heart and' conscience to think of excommunicating
so many myriads of God's saints. Baptists them-
selves, then, being judges, their practice in com-
munion is totally at war with all the generous
impulses which the Spirit of God plants in the
bosom of the new convert. No Christian man
who has his heart in the right place can adopt it
without violence to his own better feelings. Dr.
Fuller even now, though "sorry to find such a man
as Baptist Noel advocating open communion," declares
that if he Avere at liberty to give vent to the feel-
ings of his heart he would joj^fully break down the
fence and invite all. Why not, then, cherish and
follow these holy impulses? Why thus grieve and
mortifj^ the Spirit for the sake of the interests of a
sect or the support of a dogma which we have
shown to be so unfounded and so dangerous ? God
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 399
certainly has not written in his "living epistles"
what he contradicts in his word. And if, at the
expense of all their better impulses, at the risk
of grieving the Holy Spirit, and with a magisterial
arrogance akin to Popeiy itself. Baptists still per-
sist in disallowing to us the right to eat and drink
as Chi"ist commanded, in memory of him, let them
not think hard of it when we meet them as we
would meet any other railers at our faith or assail-
ants of our hope. "We cannot be at peace with
those who assume an attitude so lordly, and would
stab us in a place so vital. To call us saints of
God, and yet to assume authority to exclude us
from the communion-table, is a thing for which
outward kisses and professions of fraternity will
not atone. In point oi fact, Baptist societies are
too imbecile to make their principles effectually
inconvenient to us. It is only in point of principle
that we speak of their conduct as offensive and
reprehensible. We can eat the Lord's Supper with-
out seeking it from them. But for them to call us
sons whilst treating us as aliens, and to pronounce us
saints whilst rejecting us as pagans, we will hold
to be unchristian, inconsistent, and repugnant to
common sense; and we will not be kept by honeyed
verbal caresses from denouncing it as God and
reason require that it should be denounced. ''To
disown those whom Christ acknowledges," says
Mr. Carson, "is antichristian disobedience to Christ.
... To set at naught the weakest of Christ's little
ones," says he, "I call not illiberal, but unchristian."
(P. 5.) We hold the arbitrary exclusion of us from
the communion as a disowning of us and a setting
400 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMII^ED.
of US at naught. No ingenuity on earth can reduce
it to any thing less. Hall, and Carson, and Noel,
and all the best and most distinguished Baptists in
Europe, have seen this, and felt it, and acknow-
ledged it. We see it, and know it, and feel it, as
every candid Christian must. And if Baptists
here, to their excommunication of us, will continue
to add a mockery of our common sense, by urging
themselves upon our Christian regard by telling
us what a tender Christian affection they bear
toward us, let them not complain if we hold them
to be either blind fanatics deceiving themselves,
or sectarian hypocrites seeking to impose on our
credulity.
We know that our Baptist friends will pro-
nounce such sentiments, as they have already pro-
nounced them, unchristianly severe. But they are
not more severe or unchristian, their own men being
judges, than the sentence of excommunication
which they hold with relentless rigor over hosts
of acknowledged saints of God. We regret to be
driven to make such comments upon the conduct
and opinions of any "who profess and call them-
selves Christians.'' We would fain take them by
the hand and walk with them upon the highway
of a common Christianity. We would cheerfully
concede to them the utmost freedom of conscience
and liberty to administer their ba|Dtisms in any
mode they may see fit, and still esteem them
entitled to our Christian regard. But when they
claim infallibility for their interpretation of God's
word, as they do by seeking to enforce that inter-
pretation by the pains of excommunication, duty
TERMS OF COMMUNION. 401
to God, to ourselves, and to our children demands
of us to treat such pretensions in Baptists just as
"we treat similar pretensions in Papists. We can-
not have respect to persons in things which thus
touch the vitals of our Christianit}^. To tell us
that we are flagrant sinners and damnable here-
tics for baptizing our babes, and that we are
alarmingly disobedient to a positive command of
Christ because we refuse to disown our baptism as
profanity by coming to them to be immersed, and
''emphatically to repeat all this," as Dr. Fuller
says they do, amid the solemnities of the Holy
Supper, by sternly refusing to let us participate,
and then to seek to quiet indignation by outside
palaver about our being saints and the noblest
lights and ornaments of Christianity, is not simply
ridiculous: it is mockery, a disgrace to any man's
profession, an outrage upon common sense which
we cannot be expected to wink at, and which
we will never cease to stigmatize as it deserves.
In the name of God, we therefore charge all
Baptists, and all with sympathies for the Baj)tist
system, as they shall give account in the dreadful
judgment, to give to these things a careful and
honest consideration. We adjure them, in the
name of all that is good and holy, to show how
that system can be of God which drives to the
enormous extremities of uncharity and presump-
tion involved in their terms of communion. It
can be no advantage to them or us to cheat our-
selves with lies: therefore let them look for the
real truth, and decide before Heaven whether they
can any longer give their sanction and influence
Si*
402 THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED.
to inconsistencies and wrongs so utterly unfounded
both in reason and Scripture. We live in trying
times. The final battles between truth and error
are being fought. The powers of the heavens are
shaking and the foundations of the earth are being
turned up. "The time is come that judgment
must begin." Let men beware, then, how they
tamper with the fundamental laws of Christ's
kingdom, or legislate terms of communion for the
benefit of a sect, or imitate the errors and assump-
tions of the "Man of Sin." Above all, let no man,
at this eleventh hour of the world, presume to re-
move and re-arrange "the ancient landmarks"
which have been standing firm in their places for
nearly a score of centuries. "Thus saith the
Lord : Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for
the old paths, where is the good way, and walk
therein." "Stand fast therefore in the liberty
WITH WHICH Christ hath made us free, and be
not entangled again with the yoke of bond-
age."
Our review is finished. We have given our
testimony. May God bless it to the good of his
Church and people! The time will come when it
will be thought strange that such an essay should
ever have been called for. Truth must be
triumphant. The flimsy sophistry and the un-
blushing impudence by which men have un-
wittingly or otherwise sought to obscure it, and
the tedious processes of reasoning by which such
attempts are opposed, will soon be alike forgotten
amid the coming victories of a liberal and un-
stinted Christianity. Before the brightness of the
TERMS or COMMUNION. 403
Savior's appcariiii^ all these religious controversies
■ shall vanish. From Jerusalem round about to
Illyricum, and from the rivers to the ends of the
earth, there shall yet ^'be one fold and one Shep-
i . herd." And in joyful confidence we await the
■ comino- time, when from the dwellers in the
valleys, and caught up b}'' the inhabitants of the
hills, and echoed by the islands over all the seas,
shall be heard the apostolic chant of Chi-istian
unity: — "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one
God and Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in all."
THE END.
STEKEOTYPED BY 1. JOHNSON 4 CO.
PnlLADELPHU.
CATALOGUE
07
STANDARD LUTHERAN
AND
VALUABLE MISCELLAN"EOUS WORKS,
PCBlIsnED, AND OFFERED FOR SALB BT
T. NEWTON KURTZ,
PUBLISHER, BOOKSELLER AND STATIONER,
NO. 151 WEST PRATT STREET, BALTIMORE, Md.
Orders for any of the Books in the following Catalogue (which
can be sent per mail at the rate of one cent per oz. if pre-paid),
or for anything else in the Book and Stationery line, will be
promptly attended to if addressed to T. NEWTON KURTZ,
No. 151 Pratt Street, Baltimore, Md.
THE GENERAL SYNOD'S
STANDARD ENGLISH LITURGY,
for the use of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in the United States ;
two editions — 12mo. and octavo.
The new GERMAN LITURGY (prepared bj; the Pennsylvania
Synod), 12mo. and large 8vo. bound in the various styles, also for
sale at the publisher's prices.
1
48mo.
or
24mo.
a
12nio.
((
8vo.
a
ENGLISH LUTHERAN HYMN-BOOKS.
GENERAL SYNOD'S STANDARD EDITIONS— Of which there are
Jour editions published, viz .:
miniature edition,
medium "
large "
pulpit "
Each size is bound in various styles, and sold entirely for cash.
GERMAN LUTHERAN HYMN-BOOKS.
EVANG. LIEDER-SAMMLUNG— General Synod's standard edition.
DEUTCHES GESANGBUCH— Pennsylvania Synod's edition.
GEMEINSCHAFTLICHES GESANGBUCH— New York or Union
edition.
ENGLISH LUTHERAN SUNDAY-SCHOOL
HYMN-BOOK.
With a view to the more extensive use of this Hymn-Book in our
Sunday-Schools, the prices have been much reduced, and they are
now offered at a very small advance on the prime cost ; and as there
is no reason why it should not be used altogether in our Sunday-
Schools (for the book is as well adapted for the purpose as any pub-
lished in the country), we trust our Superintendents and Teachers
will make an effort to introduce it generally.
It is bound in various styles.
GERMAN LUTHERAN SUNDAY-SCHOOL
HYMN-BOOK.
Authorized to be published by the Penn. Synod — 32mo., half roan.
ENGLISH LUTHERAN CATECHISMS.
LUTHER'S SMALLER CATECHISM— Gen. Synod'ssfamZarrfedition.
LUTHER'S SHORTER CATECHISM— Illustrated by additional
Questions and Answers, by J. G. Morris, D.D., 18mo., half sheep.
THE SERIAL CATECHISM, or Progressive (Religious) Instructor
for Children, prepared with a Bpecial view to Infant and Sunday-
Schools, in two numbers. They can be had separately or bound
together.
A SHORT EXPLANATION OF LUTHER'S SMALLER GATE
CHISM, with Scripture Proofs and Illustrations, prepared by Rev.
Dr. Mann, and published by the authority of the Synod of Penn-
sylvania, for the use of Families, Catechumens, and Sunday-
Schools — 18mo., half morocco.
GERMAN LUTHERAN CATECHISMS.
DR. LUTHKRS KLEINER CATECHISMUS— West Pennsylvania
Synod's new and improved edition, containing the Formula of
Discipline, Augsburg Confession, &c. 18mo., half sheep.
KURZE ERKLARUXG DES KLEINEN KATECHISMUS. Dr.
]\lartin Ligher's, mit Beygefugten Bibelstellen Zum Gebrauche.
In Familien, fur Confirmanden-Unterricht, Katechisation, und
Sonntagsschulen. Herausgegeben mit Kirchlicher Genehmigung.
This is the Explanation of Luther's Smaller Catechism, by Rev. Dr.
Mann, in German, and authorized to be published by the Penn-
sylvania Synod. 18mo. half roan.
LUTHERAN PRAYER-BOOK.
For the use of Families and Individuals, with In-
troductory Remarks on Family Prayer, together
^Yith a selection of 176 hymns, with Music or
Tunes adapted to them. By B. Kurtz, D.D.
Second edition, revised, enlarged, and much im-
proved.
"This Prayer-Book has been prepared mainly for the English
portion of the Lutheran Church, yet it is believed nothing will be
found in it to prevent its free use in any Protestant Christian family.
In the German language we are abundantly supplied with such helps;
but in English, a general and complete Prayer Book, adapted to
daily devotion, to special occasions, and to every emergency, has
thus far remained a desideratum, which it has been our aim to
supply. It is, therefore, hoped that the Lutheran Church especially
will encourage this enterprise." — Extract from the Authors Preface.
The rapid sale of the first edition (nearly 4000 copies) of this work,
and the favor with which it has been received by the Church gene-
rally, has induced the publisher to have it thoroughly revised, en-
larged, and greatly improved, and it is now believed to be equal, and
in some respects superior to any similar work published in the
English language.
It is a large duodecimo volume, of nearly 600 pages, printed on
large, clear type, and bound in various styles. The following is a
synopsis of the contents ;
■ A Valuable Table to guide In reading the Holy Scriptures system-
atically; and also References to select portions of the same.
Introduction — Prayer in all its Forms.
Morning and Evening Prayers, with Scripture (reading) Lessons
for every day for eight weeks.
Prayers for Particular Days.
Occasional and Special Prayers and Thanksgivings.
Prayers before and after Meals.
Prayers for Children.
Prayers for Little Children, in prose and verse.
Form for opening Sunday- Schools, with Prayers annexed.
A selection of 176 HYMNS, with 61 popular TUNES adapted to
them.
WHY ARE YOU A LUTHERAN? or a Series of Dissertations,
explanatory of the Doctrines, Government, Discipline, Liturgical
Economy, Distinctive Traits, &c., of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in the United States. By B. Kurtz, D.D., with an Intro-
duction by John G. Morris, D.D. 12mo.
" We believe that the extensive circulation and perusal of this pub-
lication ( FfAi/ are You a JLu^Aera/i ?) among our people, will be the
means of rectifying many mistakes, and diffusing correct informa-
tion in regard to Lutheranism; and that its general distribution will
also tend to the prevention and removal of unfounded prejudices in
the case of many candid and serious persons of other denominations,
who are willing to investigate before they censure or condemn.'-
The above is an extract from a Recommendation signed by many
of our most eminent ministers, such as Dr. S. S. Schmueker, Dr.
Reynolds, Dr. Krauth, Dr. Bachman, Dr. Morris, Dr. H. N. Pohlman,
Dr. S. W. Harkey, the late Dr. E. Keller, Revs. P. Rizer, W. A.
Passavant, J. Z. Senderling, S. R. Boyer, F. R. Anspach, John Heck,
A. Babb, A. H. Lochman, &c. It is bound in various styles, and
sold at reduced prices.
AMERICAN LUTHERANISM VINDICATED! or an Impartial
Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on certain Disputed
Topics, including a Reply to Rev. VV. J. Mann's "Plea for the
Augsburg Confession," published by the " Lutheran Board of Pub-
lication." By S. S. Schmueker, D.D. — 12mo. cloth,
ELEMENTS OF POPULAR THEOLOGY— With special reference
to the Doctrines of the Eeformation, as avowed before the Diet at
Augsburg, in MDXXX, by S. S. Schmueker, D.D.— 8vo. sheep.
The same work — abridged, and adapted particularly to use in the
Lutheran Church. 12mo., cloth.
THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH— Historically, Doctri-
nally, and Practically delineated in several occasional Discourses,
by S. S. Schmueker, D.D. — 12mo.j cloth.
THE LUTHERAN MANUAL ON SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES;
or, The Augsburg Confession illustrated and sustained, chiefly by
Scripture proofs, and extracts from Standard Lutheran Theologians
of Europe and America: together with the Formula of Govern-
ment and Discipline adopted by the General Synod of the Evan-
gelical Lutheran Church in the United States, by S. S. Schmucker,
D.D.— 12mo., cloth.
SCHMUCKER ON THE REFORMATION— 18mo., cloth.
SCHMUCKER'S PORTRAITURE OF LUTHERANISM— 18mo.
DEFINITE PLATFORxM— Doctrinal and Disciplinarian, for Evan-
gelical Lutheran District Synods, constructed in accordance with
the Principles of the General Synod. — thin 12mo.
TO ROME AND BACK AGAIN, OR THE TWO PROSELYTES.
By J. G. Morris, D.D.— 12mo., cloth.
THE BLIND GIRL OF WITTENBERG; A Life-Picture of the
Times of Luther and the Reformation. From the German, by
J. G. Morris, D.D. 12mo., cloth.
THE LIFE OF JOHN ARNDT— Author of the Work on "True
Christianity." By John G. Morris, D.D. l8mo., cloth, with a
correct portrait of Arnut.
This work is a biography of one of the ablest men and most dis-
tinguished servants of God the world ever produced, and is now
offered for the first time in the English language. It should be read
by every Lutheran and Christian in the land,
THE CATECHUMEN'S AND COMMUNICANT'S COMPANION.
For the use of young persons of the Lutheran Church, receiving
instruction preparatory to Confirmation and the Lord's Supper,
with forms of Prayer for one week, and special cases and occa-
sions. By J. G. Morris, D.D. Third edition, revised and corrected,
ISmo., cloth.
EXPOSITION OF THE GO?>?ELS— Luke and John— Designed for
the use of Families, Bible Classes, and Sunday Schools. — By Rev.
J. G. Morris, D.D. and Rev. Charles A. Smith, D.D., 12mo. cloth.
THE CHARACTER AND VALUE OF AN EVANGELICAL
MINISTRY, and the Duty of the Church in Regard to it. By Rev.
Simeon W. Harkey, D.D., Professor of Theology in Illinois State
University — iSmo. cloth.
"The writer of this work believes that the greatest want, as well
as the greatest hope and the greatest blessing of this country and of
the world, is a faithful and vpell-qualified Evangelical Ministry. So
deeply is he convinced of this, that he has solemnly consecrated the
1*
6
remainder of his life, be it worth much or little, to the great work of
increasing the number of true ministers of Christ My
object lias been to do good — to stir up ' the pure minds of ministers
and people by way of remembrance,' and to come to the help of my
brethren who are bearing ' the burden and heat of the day' in the
Master's vineyard.
" I would commend the book to the attention of all Christians, and
especially to my beloved brethren in the ministry, and hope that they
may find great benefit by circulating it freely among the people of
their churches." — Extract from the Author's Preface.
LECTURES ON THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO
THE HEBREWS— By Rev. J. A. Seiss, A.M., 8vo. This is a
valuable work, highly recommended by several of our Synods and
most eminent clergymen. There are but few left.
THE BAPTIST SYSTEM EXAMINED, The Church Vindicated, and
Sectarianism Rebuked. A Review of " Fuller on Baptism and the
Terms of Communion." By Fedelis Scrutator — thick 18mo. cloth.
LIFE OF MARTIN LUTHER— Being a comprehensive, though con-
densed and correct History of the Life and stupendous achieve-
ments of the Great Reformer. By Rev. R. Weiser, 12mo. cloth —
new edition, revised and corrected. The same work, illustrated
■with fifteen engravings, representing the most important events in
Luther's life and history.
THE LIFE OF LUTHER— With Special Reference to its Earlier
Periods, and the opening Scenes of the Reformation. By Barnas
Sears, D.D, This is an original work ;. with three fine steel and
twenty-three wood engravings, all finished in the highest style of
the art — 12rao. cloth.
A DEFENCE OF LUTHER AND THE REFORMATION. By
John Bachman, D.D.,LL.D., against the Charges of John Bellinger,
M.D., and others; to which are appended various Communications
of other Protestant and Roman Catholic writers who engaged in
the controversy. Large 12mo. cloth.
REGINA, OR THE LITTLE GERMAN CAPTIVE. By Rev. R.
Weiser, Professor in Central College of Iowa, Fort Des Moines.
Thick 18mo., cloth.
This is an intensely interesting narrative of a little German girl, who
was stolen by the Indians, and retained in captivity ni7%e years, and
finally restored to her mother. It should be in the library of every
Christian family and Sunday School in the land. It is illustrated with
several beautiful and appropriate engravings.
MEMOIR OF REV. WALTER GUNN, late Missionary in India,
from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United Slates, by G,
A. Lintner, D.D., 18mo. cloth.
A MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM: INFANT BAPTISM,
AND THE MODE— By Rev. Thomas Lape, A.M. Sixth edition ;
corrected and enlarged — 18mo.
This is a brief, yet comprehensive work in favor of Infant Baptism,
and presents the wliole controversy in so simple a form and clear
a light, that all who read can understand it.
DISCIPLINE, ARTICLES OF FAITH, AND SYNODICAL CON-
STITUTION, AS ADOPTED BY THE EVANGELICAL LU-
THERAN SYNOD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, and adjacent Slates,
to which is added a Liturgy, and some forms of Prayer for families
and individuals — 12rao. cloth.
HISTORY OF THE SALZBURGERS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS.
By Rev. P. A. Strobel— 12mo. cloth.
MANUAL OF SACRED HISTORY— A guide to the understanding
of the Divine Plan of Salvation, according to its Historical Develop-
ment. By John Henry Kurtz, D.D., Professor of Church History in
the University of Dorpat. etc. Translated from the sixth German
edition, by Rev. Prof. Charles F. Schaeffer, D.D. — Large 12rao.
THE CHILDREN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By Rev. Dr. Stork.
THE SEPULCHRES OF OUR DEPARTED. By Rev. F. R. Au-
spach, A.M. — 12mo. cloth.
THE LIFE OF PHILIP MELANCTHON, the Friend and Companion
of Luther, according to his Inner and Outer Life. Translated from
the German of Charles Frederick Ledderhose, by the Rev. G. F.
Krotel, of Lancaster, Pa., with a portrait of Melanclhon — 12mo.
MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF HENRY MELCHOIR
MUHLENBERG, D.D., Patriarch of the Evang. Luth. Church in
America. By M. L. Stoever, A.M., Professor in Penn. College.
12mo., cloth.
LUTHER'S CHRISTMAS TREE, by Rev. Dr. Stork,— illustrated
with six large engravings, representing important events in the
life and times of Luther. Small 4to., paper.
STARCK'S PRAYER-BOOK— In German and English— 12mo.
SCH MUCKER'S (Dr. J. G.) EXPLANATION OF THE REVELA-
TION OF ST. JOHN— In English and German— 12mo., with a
portrait of the author. C^ There are hui few left of this work.
JOHANN ARNDT'S WAHRES CHRISTENTHUM— ARNDT'S
TRUE CHRISTIANITY— In German and English, large 8vo. shp.
THE CHRISTIAN BOOK OF CONCORD, or Symbolical Books of
the Evangelical Lutheran Church, comprising the Three Chief
8
Symbols, the unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the
Smalcald Articles, Luther's Smaller and Larger Catechisms, the
Formula of Concord, and an Appendix. To which is prefixed an
Historical Introduction. Second edition, carefully revised by Rev.
Drs. C. P. Krauth, W. M. Reynolds, J. G. Morris, C. F. Schaeffer,
and Rev. VV. F. Lehman. Translated from the German — large
8vo., sheep.
THE UNALTERED AUGSBURG CONFESSION, and the Three
Chief Symbols of the Christian Church, with Historical Intro-
ductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes. By Christian Hein-
rich Schott ; carefully translated from the German. 12rao., cloth.
THEOLOGICAL SKETCH BOOK, or Skeletons of Sermons— 2 vols.
8vo., half cloth.
HAZELIUS' CHURCH HISTORY— 12mo.
LUTHER'S COMMENTARY on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians,
to which is prefixed Tischer's Life of Luther: also a Sketch of the
Life of Zuingle, in English and German — large 8vo., sheep.
SELECT TREATISES OF MARTIN LUTHER, with the Original
German, by Rev. B. Sears. 12mo., cloth.
THE CANTICA SACRA; a Collection of Church Music, embracing,
besides some new pieces, a choice selection of German and English
Chorals, Set Pieces, Chants, &c., from the best European and
American authors, adapted to the various metres in use, with the
Text in German and English, by Rev. J. J. Fast.
ENGLISH LUTHERAN ALMANAC— Containingvaluable statistical
and general information of the Church; also a complete list of all
the Lutheran Ministers in the United States, with their Post-Office
address, carefully corrected — published annually.
BLANK CERTIFICATES of Ordination, Licensure, Confirmation
and Marriage. The form and style of these Certificates are entirely
new and very neat.
STAKDAKD THEOLOGICAL
VALUABLE MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS.
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF JAMES ARMINIUS, D.D., formerly
Professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden. Translated from
the Latin, with a Sketch of the Life of the Author.
It may not be generally known that only two of the three vols, of
the Works of Arminius have ever been published in the English
language, viz. : The edition published in 1825, by James Nichols,
London — the third volume either never having been translated, or if
it was, never republished; it remains for an American translator to
render the third volume into English, and for an American publishing
house to first ofTer, in the English tongue, the complete Works of the
Great Expounder of the Arminian System. The competency of the
American translator for his task is vouched for by those who know
him best, and who are well and favorably known by the literary and
religious public. The works of Arminius make three handsome
octavo vols, of about 600 pages each, well printed on fair type, bound
in cloth.
THE COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE—
Containing Scott's Marginal References; Malt. Henry's Com-
mentary; Practical Observations of Rev. Thomas Scott, D.D., with
extensive Explanatory, Critical, and Philological Notes, selected
from Scott, Doddridge, Gill, Adam Clark, Patrick, Poole, Lovvlh,
Burder, Harmer, Calinet, Stuart, Robinson, Bush, Rosenmueller,
Bloomfield, and many other writers on the Scriptures. The whole
designed to be a Digest and combination of the advantages of the
best Bible Commentaries, embracing all that is valuable in Henry,
Scott, Doddridge, &c. In six volumes, super royal octavo, bound
in full, strong sheep.
CLARKE'S COMPLETE COJ^IMENTARY ON THE OLD AND
NEW TESTAMENT — 4 vols, super royal 8vo., in full strong sheep.
10
CLARKE'S COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT— 2
vols, super royal 8vo., full sheep.
SIMMON'S SCRIPTURE MANUAL, Alphabetically and systema-
tically arranged, designed to facilitate the finding of proof-texts.
This is a truly valuable work.
MACKNIGHT ON THE EPISTLES, with a Commentary and Notes ;
to which is added a History of the Apostle Paul.
CHRIST'S SERMON ON THE MOUNT.— A beautiful little minia-
ture volume, printed on large type, intended as a pocket manual for
frequent perusal. It is a very appropriate present from a pastor
to a church member, or from one pious friend to another.
THE HISTORY, DOCTRINE, GOVERNMENT AND STATISTICS
OF THE RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES, with a preliminary sketch of Judaism, Paganism, and
Mohammedanism, by Joseph Belcher, D.D. Embellished with
nearly 200 fine engravings, large 8vo. roan, embossed.
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF REV. JOHN GUMMING, D.D., 25
vols. ]2mo.
BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, 11 vols. 12mo.
Do. Do. JOB, DANIEL, AND ISAIAH— 5 vols. 12mo.
LIVES AND TIMES of the Most Distinguished CHRISTIAN
FATHERS, to the close of the 3d century, 8vo. sheep.
GAILLARD'S CHURCH HISTORY— Svo. stifle paper.
GATHERED TREASURES FROM THE MINES OF LITERATURE ;
containing- Tales, Sketches, Anecdotes, and Gems of Thought;
Literary, Moral, Pleasing, and Instructive, Svo. roan embossed.
PILGRIM'S PROGRESS, with engravings, ISmo., cloth.— A good
edition of this excellent work.
LOOKING-GLASS; or. Intellectual Mirror— A Juvenile Book, with
64 engravings, 18mo., cloth.
DODDRIDGE'S RISE AND PROGRESS OF RELIGION IN THE
SOUL— 32mo., cloth.
KEMPIS' CHRISTIAN'S PATTERN— 32mo., cloth.
MASON ON SELF-KNOWLEDGE— 32mo., cloth.
MRS. ROWE'S DEVOTIONAL EXERCISES OF THE HEART.—
32mo., cloth.
YOUNG AMERICAN; or. Book of Government and Law, by Peter
Parley — 12mo., half morocco.
11
JESUS' WITNESSES, or the "Great Salvation Exemplifietl." 12mo.
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF THOINIAS DICK, LL.D. Illustrated
with numerous engravings, 2 vols., 8vo., sheep.
PLUTARCH'S LIVES— 8vo., sheep. A good editiou.
THE SPECTATOR— by Addison, 8vo., sheep.
ROLLIN'S ANCIENT HISTORY— 2 vols., Svo., sheep.
THE WRITINGS OF REV. LORENZO DOW, containing his Expe-
rience and Travels in Europe and America; also his Polemic
writings, Svo,
BOOK-KEEPING BY SINGLE AND DOUBLE ENTRY.
Simplified and arranged, according to the present Practice of well-
regulated Counting Houses in the United States. By John H. Shea,
Accountant.
This is a practical system, and is considered one of the best worJxS
on the subject of Book-keeping extant. It is now offered at a reduced
price.
This Treatise comprises FORMS of RECEIPTS, DRAFTS. BILLS
OF PARCELS, ACCOUNTS CURRENT, and such Accounts as
usually occur in actual business.
Also, USEFUL CALCULATIONS of Interest, Equations or Average
of Payments, and a Vocabulary of Commercial Terras, in Alpha-
betical Order.
It contains a Series of Lectures on Double Entry, peculiarly
adapted to extensive and complicated business.
The Lectures include a variety of Questions concerning Domestic
Business — Discounting and Renewing Bills — Importing and Export-
ing— the purchase and sale of Bills of Exchange — Commission and
Company Accounts, both Domestic and Foreign.
TO
SUPERmTEj^DENTS A^D TEACHERS
OF
SUNDAY SCHOOLS.
The undersigned respectfully announces that he is Agent for the
sale of the publications of the
MASSACHUSETTS SABBATH SCHOOL SOCIETY.
And is prepared to furnish thena at the lowest catalogue prices.
These publications are entirely different from those published by any-
other Sunday School Society, and are now so well and favorably
known throughout the country, that no special recommendation is
deemed necessary.
The whole number of bound volumes of this Society is about 700,
varying in price from 7 cents to $1. They publish 20 different
volumes of Scripture Question Books for Sabbath Schools, and a large
number of Catechisms for Infant Schools.
The Society has put up six Selected Libraries, viz. :
Little Boy's and Girl's Library,
The Infant's Library,
The Sabbath School Library,
The Family Library,
The Children's Library,
The Youth's Library,
The prices of these Sabbath School publications are fully as low,
if not lower, than any other similar Books published in the countr}',
and are regarded as unexceptionable on the score of sectarianism.
A full assortment will always be kept on hand and for sale by the
undersigned. Terms cash.
E^ Catalogues, with the price annexed to each book, will be fur-
nished gratis, when applied for.
Also, a large assortment of SCHOOL AND CLASSICAL
BOOKS, Pulpit and Family BIBLES, Books of Common (Epis-
copal) Prayer, Hymn Books of the various Denominations, Church
Music Books, PAPER, and STATIONERY generally, for sale
at WHOLESALE AND EETAIL by
T. NEWTOnr SVRTZ,
PUBLISHER, BOOKSELLER, AND STATIONER,
No. 151 West Pratt Street, Baltimore, Md.
25 vols
for . .
. $3 00
40 vols.
for . .
. 5 00
100 vols.
for . .
. 10 00
25 vols.
for . .
. 10 00
100 vols.
for . .
. 18 00
150 vols.
for . .
. 30 00
t
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11