^
^
c2
.^
CO
i?
-9*
<^
a»
^^^
IE
1
^
^
Q.
I
x^
"A
o
;
^
$
^
(U
c^
c
«^
O
^
rv
o
<
13
3
^
^"^
|Zi
E
.«0
<<>
M
(<j
•vi
j^
rt
CO
1^
-*-*'
^
PM
^
^
Ct
2^
5i
%
s
^
2i
1
V>
CL
1=
.
1
Digitized by tine Internet Arcinive
in 2011 with funding from
Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library
http://www.arcliive.org/details/es9aysonbaptistc00rene
ESSAYS
♦ . /V
OR, AN
EXAMINATION OF THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF
BAPTISM:
TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OP ALL DENOMINATIONS TO
THE PRIVILEGE OF
/
By RUSSELL REXEAU.
PHILADELPHIA:
HIGGIXS k PERKIXPIXE, 40 N. FOURTH ST.
1856.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by
RUSSELL RENEAU,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON Ic CO.
PHILADELPHIA.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The following Essays were first published in 1846.
They were written to meet a local necessity, and the
idea that a reprint would ever be called for was not in
the mind of the author at all. Although the work has
been out of print for nine years, it is still called for.
It is now revised, and sent out once more.
The sentiment expressed near the close of the work —
that the existence of sects in the church is no evil — is
to be received in a qualified sense. For sixteen cen-
turies the church has been governed too much, espe-
cially igi matters of conscience, of which God alone is
the rightful arbiter. Separate sects have been organ-
ized by minorities solely on account of the oppres-
sions and usurpations of majorities. These evils, in
the providence of God, do good by counteracting each
other, just as one poison is an antidote for another. In
a few months the author expects to have ready for the
press a new work, to be entitled ^'The Reign of Satan,"
in which many of the evils of the church and the
state will be discussed with the greatest freedom, —
3
4 PREFACE.
among which sectarianism will receive the attention
its merits demand.
The author has no desire to believe any thing but the
truth himself, and surely does not desire to inculcate
any thing which is untrue. It was his aim to write
these Essays in conformity with this sentiment, and he
hopes he has succeeded in showing that such was his
intention throughout the entire work. He prays the
blessing of God upon the work and upon its readers.
Russell Reneau.
March, 1856.
ESSAYS
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY.
ESSAY I.
ON CONTROVERSIAL DISCUSSIONS.
^' It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you
that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was
once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3.
As no man can know every thing, and as the
wisest and best of us are but erring, fallible
creatures, ever liable to be mistaken, so is it
unavoidable that men, from ignorance, weak-
ness, and surrounding circumstances, should
reach conclusions, even on plain subjects, to-
tally different from each other. However diffi-
cult the acquiring of truth may be, it is never-
theless a treasure that enriches the mind and
elevates the affections; while error and false
doctrine can only deceive, impoverish, and ruin
all who trust in them.
Wlien a doctrine claims admittance into our
creed, we should patiently examine the argu*
1* 9
6 ESSAYS ON THE
ments used by its friends in its favor; and also
those used by its enemies for its refutation.
We are tben to decide upon which side the
weight of testimony lies, and whether the doc-
trine be true. Those who investigate in this
way will not often be deceived, unless the sub-
ject be too great for them, or they suffer their
prejudices to blind their understandings.
This being the only safe way of arriving at
a kniowledge of the truth, it, of necessity, must
be the surest method of imparting it to others.
Hence, controversy is unavoidable, whether the
world will have it so or not. Controversy pre-
supposes the existence of opposing parties, both
of which cannot be right. If there be any virtue
in maintaining religious truth and opposing
error, there is the greatest propriety in contro-
versial preaching. Concerning this, however,
there is a great variety of opinion. Some men
seem to be so fond of peace that they wish all
controversy banished from the church. Some
others will barely allow a little controversy in
self-defence, provided a direct assault is made
upon us; and provided we only bring argu-
ments to support our own doctrines, without
saying any thing against the doctrines of our
assailants. The war must be defensive alto-
gether. This is a popular form of controversy ;
or it is, at least, much less offensive than that
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 7
which assails the doctrine of our opponents.
If, however, it be our duty to maintain what we
believe to be true, it is equally our duty to dis-
jplace, as far as we can by fair means, what we
believe to be error. Hence it is our duty to
defend our own doctrines, and we have the
right to assail the doctrines of our opponents.
"WHiile it is our undoubted right to refute, as
far as we can, every doctrine we honestly be-
lieve to be false, yet we have no right to assail
the feelings of those who hold such doctrines.
Their doctrines and arguments should be fairly
stated and fairly met. Xo caricatures should
be resorted to. These are \qtj offensive, and
do not advance the cause of truth ; but, rather,
they do gender strife. Severity of animadver-
sion is no just cause of offence, where there is
no misrepresentation. It is impossible, how-
ever, to avoid giving offence in controversial
discussions, though they may be so conducted
as to avoid 2i\iy just cause. This giving offence
is surely an evil, the avoiding of which is very
desirable. But it would be a much greater evil
to abandon all discussion, which would be to
place truth and falsehood upon equal footing.
Since, then, controversy must exist, let every
controversialist state the question honestly,
argue it fairly, and do all in the spirit of Chris-
tian kindness, and much good will be the result.
O ESSAYS ON THE
A man who believes a doctrine to be true,
not because he has scriptural reasons for it, but
because his party or denomination believes it,
or because he was taught it by his parents, will
be apt to be displeased at your attacking his
doctrine, whether you do it kindly or othenvise.
Having made up his opinion regardless of proof,
he dislikes to hear any thing against such
opinion.
He that thinks it is sufficient to know that
respectable writers have advocated his doctrine,
will be oft'ended at controversy, because he
thinks those writers have settled and have the
right to settle all such differences, and every-
body ought to embrace their opinion and join
their party.
He that thinks it is better to embrace a ready-
made opinion, though it be false, than to in-
vestigate the subject and form one of his own,
will be offended at controversy, because, being
too lazy to search out the reason of things, he
dislikes to be disturbed in the enjoyment of his
borrowed creed.
He that believes that a falsehood, advocated
by respectable men, and honestly believed by
their dupes, is as good as the truth, without
such auxiliary, will be displeased, because he
likes to be quiet in good company.
He that thinks it is better to hold doctrines in
BAPTIST COInTROVERSY. 9
concealmeut, because of their real or supposed
want of popularity, will be displeased, because
he dislikes exposure. It may, he fears, prevent
the accomplishment of his by-ends. He wants
to have a popular creed.
The prejudiced man is unwilling to submit
his opinions to investigation, because he would
rather support them, true or false, than to learn
the truth from the opinions of others. It is not
strange, therefore, that he should be opposed to
controversy, and displeased with the man who
preaches it.
The man who prefers the truth to his own
opinions, or to the opinions of any, or of all
others, is pleased to see his doctrines put to the
test. He knows truth will always bear exa-
mination ; and however unpopular it may be,
it is, nevertheless, worth more than the most
reputable falsehood by whomsoever advocated.
He will not shun controversy, because some
silly ones may, perchance, be offended at it.
To controversy it is objected, that it destroys
the peace and harmony of the different denomi-
nations. To which we may answer, a peace
that can be maintained only by the abandon-
ment of truth, is not worth having; and har-
mony in error is the harmony of perdition.
The true state of the case, conceal it who may,
teaches us that men are not agreed in their
10 ESSAYS ON THE
religious belief; and to pretend they are, is to
act more like knaves than Christians. Peace
men would have us throw aivay our doctrines,
for peace' sake, or cease to advocate them, which
is the same thing in the sight of God, and in
its practical results. Suppose, for example, an
Arminian brother proposes to a Calvinist as
follows: ""Well, brother, on the subject of final
apostasy, we have never been able to agree;
but have, sometimes, felt warm when talking
about it, and more especially when our preach-
ers have been arguing on the subject; and as
peace is worth more than every thing else, if
you will abandon yours, I will ihroiu away my
opinion, for peace' sake. ' ' To this the brother Cal-
vinist answers, " I am decidedly of your opinion,
I will make any sacrifice for peace' sake. I am
opposed to controversy any how. I will dis-
countenance, if you say so, all controversial
preachers, for peace' sake. ' ' "Will any be so hardy
as to suppose these brethren would not gain
peace by such a bargain ? But what do such
peace men propose to do with their doctrines?
Why, just throw them away for peace' sake.
That is all. They think so much of their no-
tions, that the spirit of war rises, and they get
mad whenever they hear arguments urged
against them. But then again, they love peace
so well, that they will, each, give up this pre-
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 11
cious prize, rather than fight for it. But is
this the peace of God ?
Though the view we have just taken of such
peace measures makes the whole look ridicu-
lous enough, yet, ridiculous as it is, the public
conduct of many in the present day is equally
ridiculous. I do not say or believe as much of
their private conduct. For really, while they
jpuhlicly declaim against controversy, they jpri-
vately advocate their own doctrines, and assail
other people's, taking care icho is ]present for
peace' sake. Then, even among peace men, we
have the real war ; privately^ it is true, for peace'
sake. They really assail each other's doctrines
in private. The great difference between such
peace men and public controversialists is, the
peace men give each other no opportunity of
defence, it all h^mg private for peace' sake. They
stab each other in the dark /or peace' sake. They
pretend peace while war is in their habitations.
The whole plan is deceptive ; and the man who
practises it is a hypocrite. Dare any one say
we misrepresent facts ? Or do we draw erro-
neous conclusions? He who can only love me
because I think as he does, or be at peace with
me while I either pretend so to think, or hold
the diflerence in concealment, does not intend
to esteem me as a Christian at all. He who is
himself a sincere Christian, and regards me as
12 ESSAYS ON THK
such, loves me on that account ; our agreement
or non-agreement being of but little import-
ance. He will neither require me to conceal
nor abandon my opinions for the sake of his
friendship. Should he do so, I assure him he
requires of me a much greater sacrifice than I
am willing to make, and a much higher price
for his friendship than I ask for mine.
To controversy it is objected again, that it
prevents the union of the different denomina-
tions in their efforts to promote the glory of the
kingdom of Christ. If by union be intended
amalgamation, it is entirely illusive. I have
been acquainted with many of these union
men. They are of all denominations. They
wish all others to adopt their peace measures,
and unite with them, i. e. join them. This is
all a chimera. Men will be able to think alike
when their faces are made to look alike. All
this parade about union and amalgamation is
more the evidence of hypocrisy than of Chris-
tian charity. Since men have the right to think
for themselves, and to advocate their opinions,
we should all love one another regardless of
our sectarian peculiarities. There would be
about as much wisdom in withholding my
Christian res^ard from a brother because he was
unable to think as I did, as there would be in
withholding it because his nose was not made
BAPTIST CONTROVERgT. 13
like mine. If a man sincerely believes himself
to be in the right, while he as honestly believes
me to be wrong, I would think more of him,
while he honestly tried to convince me of my
error, than I would of a thousand peace men,
^who are equally opposed to me in sentiment;
but for reasons best known to themselves, were
always controverting, in my absence, the pro-
priety of controversy. I hold all such in utter
detestation.
The author of these essays preaches contro-
versy for conscience' sake, believing that his
heavenly Father has called him to this work.
In doing this, he takes no greater liberty with
the doctrines of other men than he allows them
to take with his. He would, however, thank
those gentlemen who have no doctrines of
their own that they think worth defending,
and have found no error in this naughty world
large enough to be worth opposing, and are so
very much opposed to all controversy that they
cannot do any of it publicly, to cease contro-
verting so privately his controversial preaching.
If controvert you must, do it a little more pub-
licly, that the assailed may defend his own
course, while he "contends earnestly for the
faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
14 ESSAYS ON THE
ESSAY n.
ON THE PREROGATIVES OF CHRIST.
**2%e Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord
is our King; he will save us." — Isa. xxxiii. 22.
The three component parts of government
are the Legislative, the Executive, and Judi-
cial. These are clearly set forth in the above
text. Of Jesus it is said, "The government
shall be upon his shoulder." Isa. ix. 6. Jesus
says of himself, "All poiver is given unto me
in heaven and in earth." Matt, xxviii. 18. This
government is called the kingdom of God — the
kingdom of heaven. All the power there is in
this kingdom, whether in heaven or in earth,
is given to Jesus. The whole weight of it rests
■upon his shoulder : — a weight, this, too heavy
for any other than the " mighty God, the ever-
lasting Father." True allegiance to Christ re-
quires that we acknowledge his prerogatives as
herein set forth.
Seeing all power is primarily in the Lord
Jesus Christ, our King, it will chiefly concern
us, at present, to ascertain what powers he has
delegated to men. It is a question of very
great importance, whether the church possesses
any legislative authority or not. We advocate
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 15
the negative. Power has indeed been dele-
gated. But this power is executive only. The
power of discipling the nations has been dele-
gated to God's ministers ; but they are, in doing
this, to teach them to observe all things what-
soever Christ has commanded them. They are
not allowed to exact obedience to human laws.
"We may add that the church not only has no
legislative authority, but she is absolutely for-
bidden to exercise it. "If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book : And if
any man shall take away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take aicay his
part out of the book of life, and out of the holy
city, and from the things which are written in
this book." Eev. xxii. 18, 19.
Thus, it is plain that no human being has
the authority to enact any law for church ob-
servance; nor has any the power to repeal,
modify, or change, any law of the kingdom
whatever. There is one lawgiver. James iv. 12.
.The holy Bible contains the laws of Christ's
kingdom. An attempt to add to this or take
from it is nothing short of high treason against
the government of the King, our blessed Lord.
God will punish this treason with the severest
penalties. He will take the traitor's part out
of the book of life, and add to him the plagues
16 ESSAYS ON THE
written in the book. Members are to be ad-
mitted into the church in the observance of
Christ's laws alone. They are to be admitted
to all church privileges in the same way; and
in obedience to the same authority they are to
be expelled, when that thing is done.
What, then, will we say of those who expel
their members for joining temperance societies ?
What of those who expel their members for
taking the sacrament with other denominations?
Are not these things, with some others of the
same or similar character, done in obedience to
human laws ? It does not do away the error
of introducing the commandments of men, to
urge the goodness of the motives which prompted
their introduction. For men have no more
power to enact good laws for the church than
bad ones. They have not the authority to
enact any, of any sort. "By every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth
men live." Deut. viii. 3; Matt. iv. 4. We are
not, then, to live by obeying men. Obedience
to men is vain and hateful in the sight of God.
*'But in vain they do worship me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men.'' Matt. xv. 9.
When, from thirst of power, doctrines and
practices which are contrary to God's word
are introduced into the church, its faith is sub-
verted and its practice corrupted in exact pro-
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 17
poi-tion to tlie triumph of human tradition over
the commandments of God. For this crime
the Jews have been driven to the four winds
for near two thousand years.
The hatefuhiess of this high treason against
the kingdom of Christ cannot be more clearly
set forth than in his own words. He says : —
" Thus have ye made the commandment of
God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypo-
crites ! well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their
mouth, and honoureth me with their lips ; but
their heart is far from me. But in vain they
do worship me, teaching for doctrines the com-
mandments of men. And he called the multi-
tude, and said unto them, Hear and understand :
IS'ot that which goeth into the mouth defileth a
man ; but that which cometh out of the mouth,
this defileth a man. Then came his disciples,
and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pha-
risees were offended, after they heard this say-
ing ? But he answered and said, Every plant
which my heavenly Father hath not planted
shall be rooted up. Let them alone : they be
blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind
lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
Matt. XV. 6-14.
In this passage our Lord alludes to Isa. xxix.
13, where the prophet represents the Lord a«
B 2*
18 ESSAYS ON THE
complaining that the Jews taught " their fear
towards him by the precepts of men.'' K it be
possible to condemn the introduction of human
laws and tests into the church, here that con-
demnation is set forth in language we cannot
misunderstand. Those who blindly lead a de-
luded multitude into the observance of human
tradition, instead of the commandments of
Christ, shall, with their followers, fall into the
ditch. God shall add to them the plagues
written in the book. This making void the
law of God by human laws is the sin of Rome.
Sooner or later, God will overthrow her by the
sword of his mouth. Let every Protestant ad-
here to the Bible, which, we once heard Bishop
Janes say, ^'was older than the fathers, — wiser
than councils, — truer than tradition, — more ortho-
dox than creeds, — more infallible than popes, —
more authoritative than priests, — more saving than
ceremonies." It is the infallible word of God.
It is the religion of the Protestants. Let all
follow its teaching and believe in its Christ.
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 19
ESSAY ni.
ON THE TERMS OP DISCIPLESHIP.
The term ''Disciple," so frequently used in
the IN'ew Testament, is simply tlie appellation
of a learner. The twelve were called his dis-
ciples because they learned of Christ the doc-
trines he taught. For the same reason those
who learned of John were called his disciples.
Students in the ancient schools were called dis-
ciples. Thus, the church is a religious school,
instituted by the great Teacher for the purpose
of teaching and making disciples of all nations.
The ministers are subordinate teachers, sent
out to teach all nations the importance of ob-
serving all things whatsoever Christ had com-
manded them. In this school men are to be
taught, or schooled, till they become wise unto
salvation, — till they come fully to the know-
ledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. This school
is a labor school. AYhile students learn, they
labor in connection with others, like oxen in a
yoke, and bear a burden, like travellers far from
home who carry their own equipage.
All who desire admission into this school
will naturally enough wish to know what cha-
racters the great Master admits, and also the
20 ESSAYS ON THE
terms upon wliicli he admits them. These we
shall examine carefully. "We will quote from
the laws of the school, as laid down by the
Master.
"If any man wdll come after me, let him
deny himself^ and take up his cross daily, and
follow me." Luke ix. 23.
Here we have, lirst, the character pointed out.
He desires "to come after Christ," — to flee from
the wrath to come: plainly, he desires to be a
Christian. Two things are to be done : —
1. He must deny himself.
2. He must take up his cross daily.
The only thing mentioned in the character
of this applicant for admission is simply that
he wills to come after Christ. He is therefore
a seeker. When a man denies himself and
takes up his cross, he must, of course, join the
church.
Therefore, it is plain, according to this law,
that seekers may join the church. We will
quote from the law again : —
"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take 7ny
yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek
and lowly in heart : and ye shall find rest unto
your souls. For 7ny yoke is easy, and my burden
is light.'' Matt. xi. 28, 30.
Here again we have the character of a seeker
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 21
plainly laid down. Of him it is said, lie labors
and is heavy laden, and that he has no re-s^ to
Ms soul. He labors. He struggles hard with
sin This labor was rendered doubly hard with
those that wore the Jewish yoke. This yoke
was hard. The Jewish burden was heavy. This
added greatly to that heavy load of guilt under
which the penitent groaned, bewailing the days
of his folly. He could find no rest in that hard
yoke which gendereth to bondage, (Gal. iv. 24,)
because it could not relieve him of his burden,
seeing it had no commandment that could give
life. Such in modern times would be denomi-
nated seekers, mourners, or anxious persons.
Jesus c^iiiiands these seekers to take upon them
his easy yoke, or join the church.
Lest, however, a remaining doubt may linger
in the mind of any of my readers, I will remark
further upon the command," Take my yoke," &c.
Every one knows that a yoke, literally, is
that which unites two oxen in the same labor.
It is used in the above text to represent that
w^hich unites men in the labor of religion.
Thus circumcision was the yoke of the Mosaic
dispensation. All who took upon them this
yoke were debtors to do the whole law. Gal.
V. 3. It was a yoke of bondage. Gal. v. 1.
Peter calls it a "yoke which neither our fathers
nor we were able to bear." Acts xv. 10. The
22 ESSAYS ON THE
Jews were obliged to conform to this law, per-
form its labors, and bear its burdens ; all which
required united efforts, and, as such, that insti-
tution which united them together was pro-
perly called a yoke. This was circumcision.
From this yoke Christ has made us free. We
should, therefore, stand fast in that liberty. Cir-
cumcision is the hard yoke to which Jesus doubt-
less alludes when he says, "My yoke is easy.''
It now remains to be seen what his easy yoke is.
That something was in use called a yoke, in
the days of the apostles, is evident. Paul calls
a brother a "true yoke-fellow." Phil. iv. 3.
The great end of the gospel was to get men to
forsake their sins and to live in obedience to
the law of Christ. Baptism obliges its subjects
to walk in newness of life. In this ordinance
the vows of the gospel are taken upon us.
This ordinance has taken the place of circum-
cision, and must, therefore, be the easy yoke
of the gospel dispensation. "Take my yoke
upon you," is then, plainly, a command to be
baptized, or join the church. That baptism
was Christ's easy 3^oke is the more probable,
if not certain, from the connection between
wearing the yoke and becoming a learner.
" Take mjyoke upon you and learn of we" is equal
to saying, " Submit to my baptism and become
my disciple." If we have not misapprehended
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 23
these passages it is plainly the law of Christ
that seekers are to be received into the church ;
that it is their duty to join ; and that ministers
are bound to teach them to observe this plain
command of our great Lawgiver.
It may not be amiss to make a remark or two
upon the obligation of taking up the cross daily.
The death of the cross, though too scandalous
to be inflicted on a citizen, be his crime what
it might, was so common among the Eomans
that affliction and trouble of every sort came to
be called crosses. To this use of the term our
Lord undoubtedly alludes when he says, "Let
him take up his cross daily and follow me."
The cross to be borne is a quiet submission to
persecution, and a patient endurance of the sor-
rows and afflictions which come upon men on
account of their allegiance to Christ. Baptism
pledges us to the endurance of such things ; for
by it we are planted into even the likeness of
his death. Rom. vi. 5.
From what has been said, we think one who
labors, is heavy laden, has no rest to his soul,
and TVills or desires to come after Christ, must
be a seeker of religion : it also appears that when
such a seeker is commanded to come to Christ,
to submit to his easy yoke, to learn of him, to
deny himself, to take up his cross daily, and to
follow Jesus, he must be commanded to join
'24 ESSAYS OX THE
the church, unless we suppose that all these
can be done as well out of the church as in it,
which would be to deny that the church rela-
tion w^as worth any thing at all.
Seeing, then, that seekers are commanded to
join the church, to forbid them to do so is to
make void the commandments of God by the
doctrines and commandments of men. If the
master himself has indeed guaranteed to the
humble but sincere seeker the right to join the
church, such a one has, by necessary conse-
quence, the right to all the ordinances secured
by that relation. Many, very honestly, I allow,
feel strong opposition to this view of the sub-
ject, and oppose it with a zeal worthy of the
best of causes. Such opposition, however
honestly and zealously made, no more proves
it to be wrong than the indignation of the
Jews proves that it was wrong for the Lord to
eat and drink with publicans and sinners.
An examination of a few examples left us by
our Lord and his apostles will, we think, esta-
blish the view we have taken of the law of
Christ. Let it be remembered that many sects
in the present day contend that none but truly
regenerated persons have any right to join the
church. These have introduced the practice of
hearing the experiences of those who wish to
join the church, in order that they may be able
BAPTIST CONTKOVERSY. 25
to determine whether such applicants have the
right to join or not. ]^ow, for this practice
there is either the law of Christ or it is from
man only. If there he a law of Christ author-
izing the church to receive members by making
a decision upon their religious experience, that
law can be found in the Xew Testament, or, at
least, what I admit would be equal to it, the
evidence that Christ or his apostles received
members in that way. But, if neither Christ
nor his apostles received members by expe-
rience, and left no command for us to receive
in that way, it is manifest the law requiring it
is a human law, by the observance of which
men make void those commandments of Christ
which we have already brought to view, by the
traditions of men. Unless this law^, or the evi-
dence of its observance, can be found in the
"New Testament, it is in itself a nullity, and
those who exact obedience to it act without
law, above law, and contrary to law, having no
other than human authority. If Christ be the
only lawgiver in his own kingdom, as we most
strenuously contend he is, those who enacted
this man-made law usurped the divine preroga-
tive by assuming the law^-making power.
Let us now see what we can learn from Scrip-
ture example. Yf e will first see how the Lord
received his twelve disciples.
26 ESSAYS ON THE
"From that time Jesus began to preach, alid
to say, Repent : for the kingdom of heaven is
at Kand. And Jesus, walking by the sea of
Galilee, saw two brethren ; Simon called Peter,
and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the
sea : for they were fishers. And he saith unto
them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers
of men. And they straightway left their nets,
and followed him. And going on from thence,
he saw other two brethren, James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship Tvith
Zebedee their father, mending their nets ; and
he called them. And they immediately left
the ship and their father, and followed him."
Matt. iv. 17-22.
"And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son
of Alpheus sitting at the receipt of custom, and
said unto him. Follow me. And he arose and
followed him." Mark ii. 14.
All the Evangelists have given us the account
of the call of these disciples, l^one but Luke
records any fact omitted in the account given
by Matthew as quoted above. Here is the fact
alluded to. It is in regard to Peter. He said,
"I am a sinful man, 0 Lord." Luke v. 8. We
conclude that we have all the material facts be-
fore us, — at least a sufliciency to enable us to
determine whether Christ received these disci-
ples by experience or in some other way. There
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 27
is uo mention made of any of tliem relating
their experience, the reason of which, doubt-
less, is, no such thing took place. If not, it is
because Christ did not receive disciples in that
way.
"We would ask the advocates of this modern
usage whether Simon Peter could have given
in, as it is called, a Christian experience? He
said he was a sinful man. If he told the truth,
he had no experience to relate ; if not, he was
guilty of falsehood, for which he should have
been expelled, if he had been in previously.
So far, the law we have examined in the former
part of this essay, and the examples now before
us, correspond exactly. Let us see how the
apostles practised under their view of the di-
vine law.
Every one would expect to find something
explicit from the apostles as to their mode of
receiving members. It will be interesting to
follow the accounts of their revivals. The
most interesting account is the first one. On
the day of Pentecost three thousand were re-
ceived into the church. In the reception of
these we may learn the apostolic mode of re-
ceiving members.
"l!^ow, when they heard this, they were
pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and
to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren,
28 ESSAYS OX THE
what shall we do ? Then Peter said unto them,
Repent, and he baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost." Acts ii. 37, 38.
1^0 regular comment on this passage is neces-
sary. The multitude must have been under
great excitement, many of them truly awakened.
From these the general cry was, "What shall
we do?" At the time this solemn inquiry was
made, no experience of grace could have been
related; and, at the same time, Peter directed
them to be baptized for the remission of sins. It
seems that baptism was to precede remission ;
consequently, there was no place for this new
method. If the apostles ever intended to in-
troduce this law, the day of Pentecost was a
favorable time for it. I cannot think the
account of this would have been omitted if it
had taken place. There were too many to be
received by experience in one day. " The same
day there were added unto them about three
thousand soids." Acts ii. 41. Who can believe
that the apostles heard an account of conviction
and conversion from three thousand, and then
baptized the same number, in one day? No
man living, we imagine, either does or can be-
lieve any such thing, let his prepossessions be
what they may. We insist these three thou-
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 29
sand did not join by experience, not only be-
cause the thing appears to be impossible, but
because not one word is said about their join-
ing in that way: the reason of which most
obviously is, no such thing took place. If not,
it was because the apostles did not receive in
that wa}^ They understood the law of Christ
differently and better.
It is supposed the case of the Ethiopian
eunuch is an example in favor of the new law.
Mr. Howell, a leading Baptist writer, has the
following reckless assertions on the subject: —
"So scrupulous was this evangelist in his
determination to conform to the commission
by baptizing believers, and believers only, that,
on another memorable occasion, although pre-
viously divinely instructed as to his character,
when the treasurer of Candace, Queen of the
Ethiopians, had been taught by him, had avowed
himself a convert, and had made application
for baptism, he paused to question him on his re-
ligious experience^ and replied to his request,
Acts viii. 38, by saying, <If thou believest
with all thy heart thou mayest' be baptized."
— Sacramental Communion^ 2'- 1^4.
How Mr. Howell could find it in his con-
science to pen the above is truly astonishing.
It only shows what fanaticism will drive great
3*
30 ESSAYS ON THE
men to. All that St. Luke lias said on that
point is the following: —
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all
thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and
said, I believe thai Jesus Christ is the Son of God,'*
Acts viii. 37.
So far as the proof goes, Philip did not ques-
tion him on his "religious experience;" nor did
he relate any. Instead of any such, he tells the
applicant for admission into the church that, if
he believed, he might. Upon a profession, not
of conversion, Mr. Howell, but of faith, he bap-
tized him. But what did the eunuch believe ?
Did he believe himself regenerated ? He doubt-
less did, if such were the fact. But was he
baptized upon a profession of this faith? Or
was he baptized upon a profession of his faith
in the Messiahship of Christ? These inquiries
are easily answered.
But to this it will be objected that such faith
as Philip required and the eunuch professed
implies a regenerate heart. If this be so, it
will upset all we have said about it. Let the
Bible answer this objection. "Then Simon
himself believed also." Acts viii. 13. IS"ow,
what did Simon the sorcerer believe ? Did he
believe himself regenerated? K he did, he be-
lieved a lie, unless he fell from grace before
Peter arrived; for Peter said to him, "I per-
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 31
ceive tliou art in the gall of bitterness, and in
the bond of iniquity." Acts viii. 23. It is not
said what Simon believed ; but we may suppose
that he "believed that Jesus Christ was the
Son of God." I am aware that some consider
Simon Magus as a pretended believer; but of
this there is not the least evidence. If he had
the required faith when he was baptized, — and
this we cannot deny without flatly contradict-
ing the Bible, — then is it certain that either the
apostles did not require those they baptized to
believe themselves regenerated, or that Simon
was truly regenerated when Philip baptized
him, but apostatized before Peter arrived. But
this latter cannot be, for he had never received
the Holy Ghost. The conclusion is inevitable.
Here then is believers' baptism without any ex-
perience to tell. This is the case with all these
Samaritans baptized by Philip ; they believed
his preaching, but the Holy Ghost had fallen
on none of them till Peter and John came
down and laid their hands upon them.
Let us not be told that these Samaritans de-
ceived Philip ; for of this there is no proof. I
cannot receive conjecture. I must learn what
apostolic usage was by what the Bible says,
not by what interested sectarians say. The
truth must be that Simon gave in no experience
when he received baptism; not any more
32 ESSAYS ON THE
than Judas. J^ow, Mr. Howell, as you know
so much about Philip, and the eunuch, it may
be that you could tell us something about Judas.
If you can, I would be glad the next book you
write on Sacramental Communion, you would
answer the following questions: — When Christ
received the twelve, did he "question them on
their religious experience?" If Judas was
"questioned on his religious experience," and
gave satisfaction, did he profess a lie, or the
truth? If the truth, did he retain his grace,
and die in the divine favor? If a lie, did he
deceive Christ ? Or did Christ receive him with
a lie in his mouth, knowing such to be the fact ?
If you can answer these questions satisfactorily,
many would be obliged to you.
Saul of Tarsus, (Acts ix. 18,) and the com-
pany at the house of Cornelius, (Acts x. 44-48,)
could have given a true gospel experience if it
had been required ; but there is not the least
evidence that they did it, or that they were re-
quired to do it. Far from it.
On the supposition that the apostles received
by experience, is it not strange that the whole
New Testament furnishes no example of any
one relating an experience as evidence of fit-
ness for baptism? Experiences are recorded,
which shows they were considered of great im-
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 66
portance, but neither law nor precedent for the
relation of them preparatory to baptism.
The conclusion to which our examination
has brought us in regard to the practice of the
apostles is that they baptized all who pro-
fessed to believe that Jesus Christ was the true
Messiah, and, by consequence, the Sa\iour of
the world. It is altogether probable that the
receiving by experience is quite a modern
practice, having no other than the authority
of human tradition. Where this usage has
obtained, we insist a change in the terms of
discipleship has taken place. We are not
alone in this.
Dr. Mosheim may be considered against us
as to the 'propriety of the change in the order
of recei\'ing members into the church ; but he
amply sustains our position as to the reality of
such change. See his Ecclesiastical History,
book i. part ii. century i. chapter iii. section v.
He says: —
" In the earliest times of the church, all who
professed firmly to believe that Jesus was the only
jRedeemer of the world, and who, in consequence
of this profession, promised to live in a manner
conformable to the purity of his holy religion,
were immediately received among the disciples of
Christ. This icas all the preparation for bap-
tism THEN required; ar^d a more accurate in-
c
M ESSAYS U^• THK
struetion in the doctrines of Christianity wasi
to be administered to them after their receiving
that sacrament. But when Christianity had
acquired more consistence, and churches rose to
God and his eternal Son almost in every na-
tion, THIS CUSTOM WAS CHANGED, for the wisest and
most solid reasons. Then none were admitted to
baptism but such as had been previously in-
structed in the principal points of Christianity,
and had also giveji satisfactory proofs of pious dis-
positions and upright intentions.''
I^ow, according to the doctor, "from the
earliest times," during the first century, or
"times" of the apostles, members were re-
ceived into the church ^'immediately,'' without
examining into the "satisfactory proofs of
pious dispositions and upright intentions." Ko
such thing as receiving by experience was then
known. This improvement was left for the
wisdom of after times, when men had leisure
to become wise above what was written.
I agree that in the "times" of the apostles,
which were "the earliest times" to which the
learned doctor alludes, "a firm belief that
Jesus was the only Redeemer of the world,"
and a promise to conform to the purity of his
religion, was all the preparation required for
baptism; and I also agree that this scriptural
^* custom was changed:" but when the doctoy
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 85
says this change was for "the wisest and most
solid reasons," I disagree with him altogether.
These reasons, be they what they may, can
neither be wise nor solid, since they make void
the law of Christ. The reality of this change
is further confirmed by Dr. Ruter in his Church
History, Century I. chapter iii. p. 27. He
says : —
" The initiatory rite of baptism was permitted
to all who acknowledged the truths of the
gospel and promised conformity to its laws.
The introduction of unworthy and disorderly
persons into the church, from this easiness of
admission, naturally narrowed the terms of com-
munion ; and baptism was afterward confined to
those who had been 2^'f^ei'iousli/ instructed in reli-
gious knowledge and py-oved the sincerity of
their profession by the regularity of their lives.
The probationers for admission into the society
of Christians took the humble name of cate-
chumens, while those who were already conse-
crated by baptism were distinguished by the
superior title of believers,''''
Very little comment on this passage is ne-
cessary. Dr. Ruter, instead of giving his opinion
of either the wisdom or the solidity of the
reasons for this change, gives the reasons them-
selves. These were the "introduction of un-
worthy and disorderly persons into the church,'*
86 ESSAYS ON THE
which, as he says, '^naturally narrowed the
terms of communion," &c. This "narrowing"
may, fo^r what I know, have been '* natural,"
but it surely was unscriptural; it set aside the
apostolic "easiness of admission," and made
void the law of Christ by the commandments
of men. ^N'arrowing the terms of communion
has not cured the evil: disorderly persons are
still received into the church. By such de-
partures the church has wandered very far
from the laws of the kingdom. May she
speedily return !
According to the quotation from Dr. Enter,
"those who were already consecrated by bap-
tism were distinguished by the superior title
of believers." Thus, it is plain, they were
called believers on account of their submitting
to baptism, without any reference to the state
of the heart. This explains the case of Simon
the sorcerer, concerning whom we have else-
where spoken. The term believer did not in
those times imply, necessarily, a regenerate
heart, as it has been made to do in modern
times. It is more than probable that they
were so called, not because they believed them-
selves regenerated, but because they believed
that Jesus was the Son of God. All who be-
lieved this were entitled to baptism, whether
they believed themselves regenerated or not.
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 37
In the profession of this faith and the recep-
tion of baptism, the pagan Gentiles renounced
their idols, as did the Jews their Judaism. It
is, therefore, natural that even a seeker who
has been baptized should be called a believer.
Two classes of believers seem to have received
baptism in the days of the apostles : — 1. Regene-
rated believers, such as Saul and the converts
at the house of Cornelius ; and, 2. Those who
w^ere seekers only, such as the three thousand
on the day of Pentecost and those whom Philip
baptized in Samaria. Acts viii. 12, 13. Of
these Samaritans, we are expressly told that
they had not received the Holy Ghost, only
they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus. Acts viii. 15, 16. It may not be amiss
to remark that there are two general classes of
unbelievers who are not entitled to baptism: —
1. Such as have examined Christianit}^, more or
less, and have rejected the evidence which con-
vinces others that Jesus w^as the true Messiah,
and have settled down in unbelief; 2. Such as
have cared nothing about it,. consequently ex-
amined nothing concerning it; whose god is
their bell}", and their end destruction.
Having, as we believe, proved from the Bible
itself that the law of Christ authorizes seekers
to join the church, and that the apostles re-
ceived them without their relating any experi-
4
38 ESSAYS ON THE
ence of grace whatever, we shall now proceed
to show, if we can, that the professed object of
receivmg by experience is not, nor can it ever
be, realized.
The avowed object of receiving members in
this way is, that the church may be composed
entirely of regenerate persons. To show that
this object is not attained, it is only necessary
to mention it. There is not a sect in all the
land that thinks that it has accomplished any
such thing. We know of no denomination
that has come any nearer the attainment of
this object than the Methodists, who receive
seekers, and who examine the experience of
none, as preparatory to baptism. If we are
right in this, those who practise upon this man-
made law accomplish nothing at all by such
practice. This complete and entire failure is
no mean comment upon the wisdom of the
measure. This failure is not only complete
now, but it must continue to be a failure until
man can look upon the heart "Man looketh on
the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on
the heart.'' 1 Samuel xvi. 7. Now, who can de-
termine the state of the heart without looking
into it? If you say, No one, then you acknow-
ledge that tha relation of an experience is use-
less so far as that matter is concerned. If you
wiy, The church, then I ask how a church made
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 39
up of those who do not know whether their
own hearts are regenerated could decide upon
a brother's experience? For let it be remem-
bered, that most of those who advocate this
mode of receiving members hold that a man
may have religion without knowing it; and
some of them hold that no one can know it.
One would suppose that such a set would be
poor judges of such matters. How often the
church hears and decides, gives the right hand
of fellowship, and then shortly confesses that
she was deceived ! Yes, brethren, you know the
church is often deceived in that matter ; and I
would afiectionately remind you that candidates
for admission can be, and, in my opinion, often
are, deceived. The church cannot decide,
understandingly, such a matter. If not, she
should not attempt it. She should not, because
there is danger of an inexperienced man's be-
lieving himself converted, without any other
reason for it than the decision of the church
on his case. K so, no decision of the church
can ever make his conversion real. If not, no
such decision ought to be made, or any step
taken to delude him, to confirm him in his de-
lusion. This is rather a serious business. A
man thus deluded may consider himself safe
when he has never felt the power of God's con-
verting grace. This delusion is the more
40 ESSAYS ON THE
hazardous, seeing that those denominations
which make such decisions teach their people
that they can never fall from grace, and also that
they may have religion and not know it. To
settle men down in this way is dangerous in
the extreme.
This is a painful part of the subject, but I
dare not pass it. If the evidences of a rege-
nerate heart be so superficial that a man may
experience that great work and not know it,
must they not be too superficial to enable those
who do not know their own hearts to be right
to make up a correct judgment upon the work?
"We object not to the relation of experiences
for the purpose of edifying and comforting one
another. What we object to is the requiring
a relation of them as a prerequisite to baptism.
Wliere this is the case, there are frequently
many temptations to receive upon very super-
ficial experiences, — so superficial, indeed, that
frequently they are heard privately. Some de-
nominations have what they call church ses-
sions, who always receive privately. The
object of receiving thus privately is very ob-
vious. The Baptists usually hear these dreams
and the like publicly. It is only when they
have a special case that they hear it privately,
and then get some one, that is better up to it,
to tell it to the church. Very good people
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 41
sometimes allow themselves to become very
anxious for those to join the church about
whom they feel special concern. In such case,
there is great danger of deceiving and being
deceived. Thus men are persuaded that they
are converted when they are not. "We should
never persuade a man that he has religion.
We may persuade him to join the church as a
means of conversion, without running the risk
of deceiving him. When a man realizes that
great work, he needs no persuasion of it. He
knows it himself. "Every one that loveth is
born of God, and hioweth God,'' 1 John iv. 7.
"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the
witness in himself.'' 1 John v. 10. Let no man
consider this matter settled till the "Spirit
itself bear witness with his spirit that he is a
child of God." Kom. viii. 16. Such a one will
need no persuasion to induce him to believe
himself converted. Our inability to judge cor-
rectly is a sufficient reason why we should not
judge at all. By this hearing, guessing, and
judging, we can only deceive ourselves, and
settle down irreligious men under the most
fearful delusion. An economy that so con-
stantly exposes us to this great evil cannot be
the economy of the lN"ew Testament. The Lord
alone can look upon the heart.
Our views are now before the reader. Let
42 ESSAYS ON THE
the whole be examined in the fear of God.
Let nothing but the truth be received. Let
the Bible be followed. I ask no more.
ESSAY IV.
ON THE RIGHT OF INFANTS TO CHURCH MEM-
BERSHIP.
The Abrahamic covenant secured the right
of infants to church membership ; and that right
must of necessity remain as long as that cove-
nant remains in full force. Hence the great
question to be settled is, whether that covenant
is done away or yet remains. "We contend
that the Abrahamic covenant is not done away,
1. Because it is the promise of salvation through
the Messiah,
This we prove by the following passages : —
"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men;
though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be
confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
!N"ow to Abraham and his seed were the pro7nises
made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ;
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ,
And this I say. That the covenant that was con-
firmed before of God in Christy the law, which
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 43
was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot
disannul, that it should make the promise of none
effecV Gal. iii. 15, 17. In this quotation the
word "covenant" is used twice, the word "pro-
mise" twice. They are used interchangeably,
the one for the other, and, therefore, mean the
same thing. But w^hat was the "promise" here
called a "covenant"? "And in thy seed (thy
Christ) shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed." Gen. xxii. 18. We insist that this
covenant is not abrogated,
2. Because Christians are called the children
of it.
"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of
the covenant which God made with our fathers,
saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed (thy
Christ) shall all th£ kindreds of the earth be
blessed.'* Acts iii. 25. Here the promise of
Christ is called the covenant which God made
with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, &c.
How dare any one to say this covenant is done
away ? It is not done away,
3. Because Abraham is called the father of be-
lieving Christians.
"The father of all them that believe." Rom.
iv. 11. It is not done away,
4. Because Christians are called the children of
Abraham.
"Know ye, therefore, that they which are of
44 ESSAYS ON THE
faith, the same are the children of Abraham.**
Gal. iii. 7. It is not done away,
5. Because the proclamation of it is called
preaching the gospel.
"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God
would justify the heathen through isiith, preached
before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee
shall all nations be blessed.'' Gal. iii. 8.
From this passage we learn that Abraham
was fully instructed in the nature of the bless-
ing promised through Christ. How else could
the gospel be preached to him? When this
gospel was preached to Abraham, he "believed
God, and it was counted to him for righteous-
ness." Rom. iv. 3.
If the promise of a Messiah be indeed the
covenant of the Lord, established with Abra-
ham, then are the privileges and blessings of
the church such as flow from such promise.
Salvation was the chief blessing promised
through Christ. It was justification through
faith, (Gal. iii. 8;) the "righteousness of faith."
Kom. iv. 11. There were two ways of repre-
senting these blessings : — The offering of sacri-
fices, typifying the blood of Christ shed for our
pardon ; Circumcision, a seal of the righteous-
ness of faith, secured by the application of the
merit of that blood by the Spirit. All who
were interested in this promised atonement
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 45
were required to be circumcised. It being in
the mind of God to save children, he made the
promise of it to them, and enjoined their cir-
cumcision, which secured religious training.
**For I know him, that he will command his
children and his household after him," &c. Gen.
xviii. 19. If infants were fit subjects to be
made partakers of eternal life, it was suitable
to give them the outward sign of the Spirit's
work. Infants were circumcised because they
were interested in the Saviour. Their right to
the church was founded on their right to salva-
tion. It will be hard to prove that they have
lost the one while the other is retained. While
their right to salvation through the Saviour re-
mains, their right to the church, in which they
are to be trained for bliss, must remain ; they
should, therefore, be inducted into the church
by its distinguishing ceremony, baptism.
The essentials of religion have never changed ;
nor can they change. They are the same they
have always been. "We have seen that the
covenant which secured the right of church-
membership to infants contained those essen-
tials, and that infants are interested in them,
on which account, no doubt, the right was se-
cured. If religion be ever the same, and the
covenant an everlasting covenant in which
God has promised to be a God to us and our
46 ESSAYS ON THE
children, (Gen. xvii. 7,) then should we keep the
covenant, we and our children, in our genera-
tions: Gen. xvii. 9.
The true state of the case seems to he this: —
Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of
faith, i. e. a seal of the plan of salvation. The
plan is unchangeably, from first to last, salva-
tion by faith in Christ, and is not done away.
Nor is it without a seal. The seal has been
changed by our great Law^giver from circum-
cision to baptism: for "he that believeth," i. e,
obtains the righteousness of faith, " and is bap-
tized," ^. e. takes on him this easy seal, ^' shall
be saved.'' The changing of the seal, or sign,
by no means argues a change in the religion
of the Lord.
Let us see if circumcision under the old dis-
pensation, and baptism under the new^, are not
used for the same purpose.
1. Circumcision represents *the work of the
Holy Ghost in the heart.
"And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy
heart, and the heart of thi/ seed, to love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
*hy soul, that thou mayest live." Deut. xxx. 6.
But " the love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us."
Rom. V. 5. Therefore, circumcision represents
hAFXIST CONTKOVEKSY. 47
the baptismal influence of the Holy Ghost.
Again : —
"He is not a Jew which is one outwardly;
neither is that circumcision which is outward
in the flesh : but he is a Jew which is one in-
loardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the
spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not
of men, but of God." Rom. ii. 28, 29. This
heart-work must be the work of the Holy
Ghost. The apostle calls it the work of the
heart, in the spirit He also calls it the circum-
cision of the heart. Outward circumcision avail-
eth nothing, if it be without the inward cir-
cumcision, by which a man becomes a new
creature. The circumcision of the heart must
be what our Lord calls the new birth.
A Baptist brother once said, in my hearing,
that the baptism of the Spirit came in the room
of circumcision. That brother, and all of his
faith, would do well to remember that the bap-
tism of the Spirit has always stood in its own
place.
Having shown that circumcision represented
the baptismal influence of the Holy Ghost, we
shall now proceed to see whether baptism does
not represent the same influence.
2. Baptism represents the work of the Holy
Ghost in the heart.
^^I indeed baptize you with water, but he
48 ESSAYS ON THE
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Matt,
ill. 11. *' John truly baptized with water, but
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not
many days hence." Acts i. 5 ; Acts xi. 16. Paul
calls baptism "the washing of regeneration,"
(Titus iii. 5,) " the washing of water." " Wash
away thy sins." This washing of regeneration
has taken the place of circumcision.
Circumcision was the seal of the righteous-
ness of Abraham's faith. Rom. iv. 11. So
Paul's baptism represented the washing away
of his sins. Acts xxii. 16. The righteousness
of faith was the same in the patriarch and the
apostle. In one it was represented by circum-
cision; in the other, by baptism. The right-
eousness of faith never has changed, and never
will change. Seals have changed, but the
righteousness of that faith which takes hold
of the great atonement has not changed, and
never can change till the government of God
changes. The church of God yet stands un-
changed. The good olive-tree yet remains.
Some of its branches — the Jews and their chil-
dren— have been broken oft'; and branches from
the wild olive-tree — the Gentiles and their chil-
dren— have been grafted into it. The Lord's
vineyard has not been turned out to the wild
beasts ; but it has been taken from the Jews
and given to the Gentiles. Infants have a
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 49
divine right to church privileges, clearly, under
the Old Testament times. The church being
the same under all dispensations, that right
remains unimpaired, unless their Christ has
deprived them of it. If he has not done so, no
other has the power to do it, nor can it be done
without making void the commandments of
God by the traditions of men.
We are sometimes told that circumcision was
simply intended to distinguish the Israelites
from all other people. This it did not do.
The Ishmaelites, the Edomites, the descendants
of the sons Abraham had by Keturah, the ser-
vants born in his house, and the Egyptians,
were all circumcised. We are also told that it
was a sort of political pledge that God would
give to Abraham's posterity the land of Ca-
naan. This could not be. The Ishmaelites,
the sons of Keturah, and the Edomites, were
all the posterity of Abraham, but never did re-
ceive any part of that land. These were, there-
fore, circumcised for something else. Similar
difficulties occur in making it a pledge that the
Messiah should descend from them. This it
could not be to any but his immediate pro-
genitors. Put the pledge of this promise upon
Ishmael, and you put the pledge of a falsehood
upon him. We must look, therefore, for some-
thing in which the Ishmaelites, the Edomites,
50 ESSAYS ON THK
the children of K^eturah, and Abraham's ser-
vants, were all interested. ^N'ow, what was
that? "In thy seed (in thy Christ) shall all
the nations of the earth he blessed." Gen. xxii.
18. This makes it all plain. Christ has come
and ordered the blessing to be proclaimed to
all nations. Abraham believed in Christ, and
God counted it to him for righteousness. He
then received circumcision as a seal of that
righteousness. Faith in nothing but the atone-
ment of Christ could make Abraham or any
one else righteous. If not, the whole is plain.
Children were circumcised because the promise
was made to them. For the same reason they
should be baptized: for the apostle says, "The
promise is unto you and your children," &c.
Having shown that infants were admitted to
a place in the only church God ever instituted,
upon the authority of God himself, and that no
other than Christ can have any authority to de-
prive them of that right, we shall now j)roceed
to show that Christ not only has not deprived
our children of a place in his kingdom, but
that he has confirmed their right to it, and
sanctioned, if not commanded, their reception.
Take the following : —
"At the same time came the disciples unto
Jesus, saying, Wlio is the greatest in the king-
dom of heaven f And Jesus called a liiile child
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 51
unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
and said, Verily, I say unto you, Except ye be
converted, and become as little childrc7i, ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Who-
soever, therefore, shall humble himself as this
Utile childy the same is greatest in the kingdom
of heaven. And whoso shall receifx one such
little child in my mime receiveth me." Matt,
xviii. 1-5.
1. This "little child" was literally an infant.
"We are aware that some believe that a young
convert is meant by the expression ^'' little child.''
That even old converts are sometimes called
"little children" we do not deny; but that
any sort of an adult is called by that appella-
tion in the text now under consideration is
what no man, living or dead, ever did or ever
will prove. When we consult the parallel pas-
sage in Mark's account, the whole is plain: —
"And he took a child, and set him in the midst
of them : and when he Jiad talcen him in his arms,
he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one
of such little children in my name receiveth me :
and whosoever shall receive me receiveth not
me, but him that sent me." Mark ix. 36, 37.
Here we are informed explicitly that this "little
child" was "taken in his arms," which proves
beyond successful contradiction that it was a
little infant, and not a young convert. N'othing
52 ESSAYS ON THE
further, it is presumed, need be said on this
head.
2. The kingdom of heaven, in this passage,
means the church on earth. This we argue as
follows : —
The disciples had so far misunderstood the
nature of the kingdom of heaven, then near at
hand, that they supposed it to be secular, and
so fell into a dispute about which of themselves
should be the greatest man in it. This gave
Christ an opportunity of informing them that
none of them were entitled to be in it, much
less to be the greatest of all that were in it,
except they should be converted from these
notions of worldly power and greatness, and
become as little children, to feel their weakness
and helplessness.
3. Infants, or little children, are to be re-
ceived into this kingdom of heaven. This the
text itself declares : — "And whoso shall receive
one such little child [into the kingdom of hea-
ven] in my name receiveth me."
4. Infants are not only to be received into
the church, but the Saviour has there made
them the models to the likeness of which
adults are to be converted before they are en-
titled to enter into this kingdom. This the
text also declares: — "Except ye be converted,
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 53
and become as little children, ye shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven."
If that conversion which causes an adult to
resemble a little child makes him a proper sub-
ject to be received into the church or to enter
into the kingdom of heaven, must not the little
child himself be a fit subject to enter into that
kingdom ? On the supposition that infants are
not proper subjects to be received, how could
an adult that had become as a little child be
properly received ?
It was a severe reproof to tell his worldly-
minded disciples, who were proudly looking
forward to their future greatness when their
Master should sit upon the throne of an earthly
monarch, making all nations tributary to them,
that, to become the greatest in his coming
kingdom, they must humble themselves as the
little child he had in his arms; and that they
were not only to be humble like a child in order
that they might enter into it, but that the chil-
dren were also to be received in his name, and
be as great as any adult could be. Upon the
whole, we think it clear enough that by the
kingdom of heaven, in this text, is meant the
Christian church, and that infants are to be re-
ceived into it in the name of Christ. We pro-
ceed then to examine his declaration on another
occasion : —
5»
54 ESSAYS ON THE
"And they brought young children to him,
that he should touch them; and his disciples
rebuked those that brought them. But when
Jesus saw it he was much disjdeased, and said
unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto
me, and forbid them not : for of such is the king-
dom of God. Yerily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little
child, he shall not enter therein. And he took
them up in his arms, put his hands upon them^
and blessed them." Mark x. 13, 16.
Here we have : —
1. Infants, "young children," presented to
the Master for his blessing.
2. Those who brought these infants to Christ
were rebuked.
3. At this rebuke, Christ, the lawgiver,
was displeased, and revoked it with his own
authority.
4. He ordered the disciples to allow them to
come to him, and never forbid them any more.
5. He declares that of such children was the
kingdom of God.
6. He declares them to be the model after
which adults were to be received. They were
to receive the kingdom just as little children
receive it.
7. He ordained them, by the imposition of
tiis own hands, and prayer, (Matt. xix. 13, 15,)
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 55
to the rights, privileges, and "blessings" of that
kingdom of which he declared them the sub-
jects.
By "the kingdom of God" in this passage is
certainly meant the Christian church. This is
the only kingdom the keys of which (Matt,
xvi. 19) were ever given to the apostles who
had now shut the door against these little chil-
dren. Into this kingdom we are commanded
to suffer the little children to come, and to for-
bid them not. This command is given for the
best of reasons : — " Of such is the kingdom of
God." But how are they to receive the king-
dom of God ? Just as an adult does : — by bap-
tism, without giving in any experience. If we
have rightly interpreted these passages of God's
word, we have the sanction of the Saviour for
infant baptism most clearly set forth and esta-
blished.
Will our opponents give us the true expo-
sition of these texts if we have not done it?
"Will they show that the phrases "kingdom of
God" and "kingdom of heaven" do not mean
the Christian church, as we have set forth?
K they mean any thing else, what is that other
thing ? "Will they show that the apostles could
"receive little children in the name of Christ,"
and that little children could receive the king-
dom of God -without baptism ? These questions
56 HSSAVS Ox\ THE
they will never answer. Tliey, as usual, will
give tliem the go by.
"He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.'' John
xxi. 15.
1. These lambs are little children. We argue
this from adult Christians being called sheep in
the 16th and 17th verses of the chapter.
2. These children are called Christ's lambs.
They must therefore have been " received in his
name" into his kingdom ; and they must also
have received his mark in their foreheads.
Ezek. ix. 4; Kev. vii. 3.
3. These lambs are to be fed. This explains
the pastoral labors spoken of by the prophet : —
" Gather the children, and those that suck the
breasts." Joel ii. 16. But why would the pro-
phet have these lambs gathered into the fold
of Christ? We answer, that they might be
fed ; that they might be trained up in the way
they should go, or in the church.
We must now proceed to notice the view the
apostles took of the law of Christ. The first
clue we get to this part of our subject is found
in Acts ii. 38, 39. ''Repent and be baptized,
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise
is unto you, and to your children, and to all that
are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God
BAPTIST COJsTKOVERSV. 57
shall call." The promise which is here said to
be made to them and their children is, doubt-
less, the one made at the first institution of
circumcision: — "And I will establish my cove-
nant between me and thee, and thy seed after
thee, in their generations, for an everlasting
covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy
seed after thee." Gen. xvii. 7. For the mean-
ing of this " everlasting covenant," see Acts iii.
25, Gen. xii. 3, where it is proven to be the
promise of a Saviour, — the right promise to
renew with children at the inauguration of the
apostles, unless they have lost their interest in
the Messiah. See Acts xvi. 31, where the pro-
mise is made to the jailer and to all his house.
We must look further to the practice of the
apostles for their faith in the validity of infant
baptism. They baptized the household of
Lydia, (Acts xvi. 14, 15,) of the jailer, (33,) of
Stephanas, (1 Cor. i. 16.) I am aware that it is
said there were no infants in any of these
households. But this is asserted without any
evidence or probability to sustain it. We pur-
pose no regular comment upon these household
baptisms. It must be owned on both sides
that the Bible does not say whether there were
any infants in any of them. We are only
informed that whole families were baptized.
There is one circumstance which throws light
58 ESSAYS ON THE
upon the subject, connected with the case of
both Ljdia and the jailer : — that is, the account
proves the conversion of the head of the family
only. Their famihes seem to have been bap-
tized on account of the faith of the parent.
The presumption is therefore strong, that
there were infants among them. And what
increases the probability in the case of the
jailer is, the apostolic answer to his question,
" What must I do to he saved r To this Paul
and Silas answ^ered, " Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.''
Acts xvi. 31. Here is a positive promise that
his house should partake of the privileges and
benefits of his faith. The similarity in this
promise to the one on the day of Pentecost
must appear to all.
The reader may judge whether these texts
throw light on this subject or not. They
teach, to our mind, a very interesting lesson.
Whether there were infants in these house-
holds, or not, is of no consequence, if we feel
satisfied that children were baptized on the
faith of their parents, just as they were circum-
cised on such faith.
The case in the 7th chapter of 1st Corinthians
throws some light on the subject. They seem
to have gotten into numerous difliculties, which
induced them to w^rite to the apostle for advice,
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 59
(ver. 1.) They were perplexed to know whether
the Christian husband should continue to live
with an unconverted wife ; to which Paul an-
swered, '''Let not the husband put away his ivife,''
(ver. 11.) To a Christian wife having a heathen
husband, he says, "Let not the wife depart
from her husband," (ver. 10 ;) "let her not leave
him," (ver. 13.) There seems likewise to have
been a doubt whether the promise was made
to children, unless both father and mother
were Christians; to which the apostle an-
swers, " The unbelieving husband is sanctified
by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sancti-
fied by the husband: else were your children
unclean; but now are they holy," (ver. 14.)
jSTow, everybody knows that the Jews considered
all other nations unclean; and there is little
doubt that there was enough of Jewish influ-
ence at Corinth to produce all this difficulty
about the uncleanness of children who had but
one Christian parent. The very existence of
the difficulty proves much. How could there
be any seiious difficulty about the children
unless there had been objections to their being
baptized on account of one of their parents
being in unbelief? This accounts for the whole
difficulty ; while on any other supposition it is
wholly unaccountable. This view is further
strengthened from Paul's calling the children
60 ESSAYS ON Tilt:
^^holyy He must have intended to teach that
they were ceremonially holy, and so there was
nothing in the way of their receiving baptism.
He could not have meant they were personally
holy; for such a state is noway connected with
the moral character of the parent. It could be
of no consequence whether the parents believed
or not; they were by nature the children of
wrath. But when we consider them holy, in
reference to their parents, it must be considered
in view of the promise which is made to the
children of pious parents : Acts ii. 39, xvi. 31 ;
Gal. iii. 16, 17 ; Gen. xvii. 7. If they were thus
holy, they had a right to be partakers of the
promise in the ordinance of baptism : Acts xvi.
33. Once more : —
"Moreover, brethren, I would not have you
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under
the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and
were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and
in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual
meat; and did all drink the same spiritual
drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock
that followed them: and that rock was Christ."
1 Cor. X. 1-4.
"Now these things were our examples,'*
(ver. 6.) But who were they that w^ere baptized
for "our examples" ? " Six hundred thousand
on foot that were men, besides children,'* Ex.
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 61
xii. 37. This army of Israelites who were "all
baptized unto Moses for an example" to the
Christian church had many "children." Here
we not only have the proof that the children
were baptized, but, likewise, that it was done
as an example to us.
We have seen that baptism came in the stead
of circumcision, and that God's church had
children in it from the days of Abraham, upon
divine authoriti/, and that, instead of depriving
them of this divine right, our blessed Lord ex-
pressly declares them to be the subjects of his
kingdom, and also sanctions the reception of
them in his name. We have likewise seen,
that when the Christian church was fully organ-
ized under the new dispensation, the pro-
mise to children was distinctly renewed. We
have also seen that whole families were bap-
tized without any evidence that any but the
parents were converted or consulted. How
can we escape the conclusion that infants were
baptized by the apostles in the name of Christ
and upon his authority ?
As we flatter ourselves that we have esta-
blished our point, we shall close this part of our
subject with this remark: — God never has had
a church since the days of Abraham, in heaven
above or on earth below, that had no infants
in it; nor do we believe he ever will. When
6
62 ESSAYS ON THE
we sjDeak of God's church, we do not mean a
sect. We are aware that several sects not only
exclude children from their pale and from the
churchy but also make a great deal of sectarian
noise because others suffer the little children to
come.
ESSAY V.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
We propose in this Essay to state and answer
some of the objections most commonly urged
against infant baptism.
1. Infants cannot believe; therefore, they should
not he baptized.
Let us put this in the form of a syllogism,
thus : —
Baptism has reference to faith ;
But infants cannot exercise faith ;
Therefore, infants should not be baptized.
This argument takes for granted what is not
true ; — that is, that baptism can be of no benefit
till the subject can act faith. It is an ad-
vantage to a child to be raised up under church
discipline, and should be esteemed a very high
privilege. We therefore answer: —
J
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 63
Baptism entitles us to church privileges ;
Infants need such privileges ;
Therefore, they should be baptized.
But let us try this objection on a kindred
subject.
Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness
of faith ;
Infants cannot believe ;
Therefore, they should not be circumcised.
But if we do not take care, we will make void
the commandments of God by our reasoning.
Again : —
He that believeth shall be saved ;
Infants cannot believe ;
Therefore, they cannot be saved.
Again : —
He that will not work should not eat;
But infants cannot work ;
Therefore, they should not eat.
This shows the force of all such objections,
and need not be pursued.
2. It is objected that infant baptism deprives
our children of the right of choosing what de-
nomination they will join.
To this we reply, that those who have been
baptized can make as judicious and as free a
choice as those who have not. Baptism does
not take away their understanding, nor does
it deprive them of Christian liberty. It is very
64 ESSAYS ON THE
easy to run away with the idea of the supposed
right of choosing. Will any one contend that
our children have a right to choose before they
are cajmble of judging between truth and error?
Do any take more pains to prepossess their
children in favor of their own sectarian dog-
mas than the Baptists do ? Everybody knows
that, when parents wish to proselyte their chil-
dren to their own sectarian views, they never
think of relying upon their baptism, but upon
a different thing. Moreover, the child is not
by its baptism constituted a member of any
sect. It does connect him with the catholic or
general church, but not with any particular
sect. But suppose it did ; does it follow, there-
fore, that children should be taught to consider
themselves as having nothing to do vnth the
religion of the gospel. Are they to think only?
Or are they to act P
We are required to "^^ train up our children
iri the way they shoidd go : and when they are old
they will not depart from it.'' Prov. xxii. 6. By
this we learn that parents and guardians are to
choose the loay in which children are to go, and
train them up in it. But if we train up our
children in any way, w^e must first put them in
thai 'way before we can so train them. The
church is the school of Christ, in which our
minds are to be disciplined to the service of
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 65
the Lord. If we would train our children to
serve God, w^here could we train them better
than in his church? Where can they labor
better than in the Lord's vineyard ? If early
habits have an almost omnipotent control over
us in after-life, is it not of great importance
that we should endeavor to have as many reli-
gious habits formed in childhood as possible ?
But where can children learn this sort of habit
so readily as in the church ? We might as well
argue against the teaching of children indus-
trious habits that they may get along in the
world, as to argue against teaching them reli-
gious habits that they may be prepared for the
world to come. To train up a child in idle-
ness in regard to domestic affairs is to prepare
him to be a vagabond in human society. If a
child be trained in a total neglect of religion,
he is apt to live a wicked life and die in his
sins.
3. It is objected that it does a child no good
to baptize it ; therefore, it should not be bap-
tized.
To which we might reply that it does them
as much good as it does an adult; but this
would be to answer one assertion with another.
Let us, therefore, examine the case carefully
and in the light of God's word. To object to
infant baptism is to object to infant religion^ as
66 ESSAYS ON THE
I understand it, unless we intend our children
to be Quakers. I understand the objections
of our Baptist brethren to be against infant
religion as much or more than against infant
baptism. They object, as we understand them,
to the Quakers as much as to us. The Quakers
connect their children with religious duty
^vithout baptism, and we by baptism. Then,
if we mistake not, the objections are not so
much to their being baptized as to their being
religious. All must admit, who admit baptism
at all, that, if children may be religious, they,
by necessary consequence, may be baptized.
If one child has ever been religious, that one
demonstrates that the thing is possible. John
THE Baptist ivas ''filled ivith the Holy Ghost from
his birth,'' Luke i. 15. "And the hand of the
Lord was with him," (verse 66.) "And the
child grew, and w^axed strong in spirit," (verse
80.) Thus, it appears that the only baptism ever
received by John the Baptist was received in
infancy. Strange, that a sect who claim to be
descended from this same John should deny
infant baptism altogether! John would be
everyway disqualilied to take the sacrament
with modern Baptists : for he was never bap-
tized, only in his infancy, w^iich they say is no
baptism at all ; and even then he was not im-
mersed. How could they give him the sacra-
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 67
ment of the Supper? If John were to come
down from heaven, everybody knows where he
would have to go for the holy communion.
They know where, too, he could not get it.
If it can be proven that a child ever did serve
God, then is it proven that the service of God
is suitable for children. "And the child did
minister unto the Lord before Eli the priest."
1 Sam. ii. 11. "And the child was young."
1 Sam. i. 24. The age of Samuel is supposed
to have been three years when he commenced
the service of God. At any rate, it was when
his mother weaned him. Of this child his
mother said, " I will give him unto the Lord
all the days of his life." 1 Sam. i. 11. " Then I
will bring him, that he may appear before the
Lord, and there abide forever." 1 Sam. i. 22.
The lesson to be learned from the history of
Samuel is, that his mother dedicated him to
God even before his birth, and God made him
one of the most eminent of all the prophets.
Our faith in the promise made to our children
(Acts ii. 39) should be greatly strengthened from
the success of Hannah with her little Samuel.
If God blessed her son on account of her piety
in giving him to the Lord, so will he bless
mine, and yours, and all who may be thus
piously given to him.
We might enumerate many such objections;
68 ESSAYS ON THE
but, really, it is a small business. But one
more will be noticed : —
4. Baptism entitles those who are baptized,
infants as Avell as adults, to the sacrament of
the Lord's Supper. Mr. Howell, a late Baptist
writer, thus reproaches us on this subject: —
" We most cheerfully sit down at the table
of the Lord with all those, if they have not
forfeited their claims by heresy or immorality,
whom we believe to be baptized. Do our
pedobaptist brethren act with the same libe-
rality? Yeiy far from it. Their public pro-
fessions would lead us to conclude that this is
their practice, but when brought to the point
they positively refuse ! Is proof of this state-
ment needed ? I ask, then, do they not believe
their infants are baptized? Most certainly.
Are they either heretical or immoral ? i^either
is pretended. Do they commune with them ?
Ko, never. Thus they at once exclude two-thirds
of the members of their own churches from
the Lord's table!" (Sacramental Communion,
page 265.)
All this depends on the assumption that all
who have been baptized are entitled to the
sacrament of the Supper. Although Mr. H.
works this assumption on our infant mem-
bers, yet he furnishes in almost the same
breath the proof that he himself holds that
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 69
Bometliing else is necessary. According to
the above extract, he can commune with bap-
tized persons "?/ they have not forfeited their
claim by heresy or immorality.''' Then Mr.
Howell would exclude baptized adults, under
certain circumstances, from the holy commu-
nion. IN'ow, we exclude baptized infants from
the communion because they are not capable
of doing it in remembrance of Christ. In
this we follow the example the Lord set us in
regard to the Passover. He was circumcised
the eighth day, which entitled him to that
feast, as much as baptism can to the Supper,
yet he attended no such feast until he was
twelve years old. Luke ii. 41, 42. Though we
were to admit that all wdio approach the holy
communion must be baptized, it does not fol-
low that all who are baptized should commune.
There is nothing in this, therefore, against in-
fant baptism.
ESSAY VI.
ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE PRIMITIVE FATHERS
IN FAVOR OF INFANT BAPTISM.
Our argument, thus far, has sought no other
evidence of infant baptism, as a Christian in-
stitution, than the Holy Scriptures. In this
70 ESSAYS ON THE
Essay we shalf attempt to show that it was in
universal use during the second, third, and
fourth centuries, no one objecting. We may
remark that no serious opposition was ever
made, so far as we can learn, to the validity
of infant baptism, until the twelfth century.
If there was, who made it ? Will our oppo-
nents answer ? We do not quote the fathers
for any other purpose than to show what was
the practice of the church in their day. If the
practice was universal in the second and third
centuries, it is worthy of our consideration.
Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years
after the death of St. John, says : —
"We also, who by him have had access to
God, have not received this carnal circum-
cision, but the spiritual circumcision which
Enoch, and those like him, observed. And we
have received it by baptism, by the mercy of
God, because we were sinners : and it is en-
joined upon all persons to receive it in the
same way." Again: —
"We are circumcised by baptism with
Christ's circumcision." (Dialogue with Try-
pho, a Jew.) Again : —
"Many persons among us, of sixtu and seventy
years old, of both sexes, who were discipled to
Christ in their childhood, do continue uncor-
rupted." (Apologia Prima.)
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 71
It is quite clear that this father believed bap-
tism had taken the place of circumcision, and
that, like circumcision, it was to be used in
childhood^ with the exception, it was to be ap-
plied to ''both sexes."
Let it be remembered that we do not intro-
duce Justin to prove the validity of infant bap-
tism, but to show the antiquity of the custom,
that our readers may consider for themselves
where and from whom the practice was de-
rived. A few things we will notice : —
Justin wrote within forty 3'ears of St. John,
and was converted some eight or ten years
previous to the time of his writing. He was
so near the apostolic times as to make it diffi-
cult to see how he could speak in truth of
'''many persons sixty and seventy years old, of both
sexes, who were discipled to Christ in their child-
hood,'' without making it certain that these old
disciples were baptized from twenty to thirty
years before the death of St. John ; and tJiai in
their childhood. It is likewise difficult to ac-
count for his calling baptism Christ's circum-
cision, at that early period, without believing
that the apostles had taught them that baptism
had taken the place of that ordinance ; in
which case, infant baptism must follow as mat-
ter of course. Well might Origen, who was
born A. D. 185, about eighty-five years after the
72 ESSAYS ON THE
death of St. John, say " the church received from
the aioostles a tradition even to give baptism to in-
fants.'' (Comment on the Epistle to the Ro-
mans.)
That infant baptism was in use at the time
Justin wrote there is not, we think, a reason-
able doubt. It was done either in obedience
to the teaching of the inspired apostles, or
was a human invention, introduced at that
early period, by which that teaching was made
void. But if it be a human invention, as mo-
dern Baptists constantly insist, this invention
was introduced from twenty to thirty years
before the death of the beloved disciple, John.
"VVhy is it then that we have nothing against it
from any writer of those times ? Justin ^vi'ote
about the year 140. He spake of some, seventy
years old, who had been baptized in infancy or
childhood. Then, in this historical fact, we
are compelled to date infant baptism as early
as A. D. 70, — twenty-six years before John ^Tote
the book of Revelation ; twenty years before
the writing of his three Epistles ; four years
after the writing of the Epistles of Jude, 2 Pe-
ter, and 2 Timothy ; ^yq years after 1 Timothy,
and the Epistle to Titus ; six years after the
Epistle to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colos-
sians, Philemon, and the Hebrews ; and only
ten years after the Epistle to Romans, 2 Corin-
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 73
thians, as well as the Epistle of James and
1 Peter. We may also remark, as John wrote
the Gospel about a. d. 97 or 98, that infant
baptism must have been in practice twenty-
seven or twenty-eight years before that period.
If so, is it unnatural to believe it had apostolic
sanction ? We may rest assured, if the apostles
were as zealous against infant baptism as mo-
dern Baptists are, they would have made the
stoutest opposition to it. 'Naj, we would have
heard this, in the book of Revelation, ranked
with the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which
thing the Lord hates. Is it probable that John
would have made no mention of this innova-
tion, even in his Gospel, when it had been in
existence twenty-eight years, if he had been
as hostile to it as some of the moderns are ?
Now, according to Justin, the church baptized
children thirty years before the death of St.
John. Why did that holy apostle never op-
pose it ? This is a question the Baptists will
not answer. There may be some who question
the veracity of Justin, as he was not a Baptist,
and, therefore, incapable of giving testimony
against Mr. Howell's old church, which, he
says, is 1800 years old. This Justin must have
been a sincere man, as he proved his sincerity
by his martyrdom. If Justin told the truth,
here is pedobaptism in the days of the
74 ESSAYS ON THE
apostles without opposition. We shall pro-
ceed to show that shortly after we have others
bearing important testimony.
Irenaeus was born about the time of the death
of John, in the same country where the Evan-
gelist died. He was well acquainted with the
sainted Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna in Asia,
according to Eusebius ; and the same that St.
John calls the Angel of the church in Smyrna.
Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, book iv. chap.
14) represents Irenseus as giving the following
account of Polycarp : —
"And Polycarp, a man who had been in-
structed by the apostles, and had familiar inter-
course with many that had seen Christ, and
also been appointed bishop by the apostles in
Asia, in the church at Smyrna, whom we also
have seen in our youth, for he lived a long
time and to a very advanced age, when, after
a glorious and most distinguished martyrdom,
he departed this life. He always taught what
he had learned from the apostles, what the
church had handed down, and what is the only
tnie doctrine."
This is the Polycarp who, at his martyrdom,
when the governor urged him to revile Christ,
replied, ''Eighty and six years have I served
him, and he never did me wrong ; and how can
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 75
I now blaspheme my King that has saved me?"
(Eusebius, book iv. chap. 15.)
Eusebius (book v. chap, xx) records a letter
Irenseus addressed to Florinus, in which Ire-
naeus thus speaks of Poly carp and himself: —
"For I saw thee, when I was yet a boy, in the
Lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in great
splendor at court, and endeavoring by all
means to gain his esteem. I remember the
events of those times much better than those
of more recent occurrence. As the studies of
our youth growing with our minds unite with
it so firmly that I can tell also the very place
w^here the blessed Polycai-p was accustomed to
sit and discourse ; and also his entrances, his
w^alks, the complexion of his life and the form
of his body, and his conversations with the
people, and his familiar intercourse with John,
as he was accustomed to tell, as also his fami-
liarity with those that had seen the Lord.
How also he used to relate their discourses,
and what things he had heard from them con-
cerning the Lord. Also, concerning his mira-
cles, his doctrine ; all these were told by Poly-
carp, in consistency with the Holy Scriptures,
as he had received them from the eye-witnesses
of the doctrine of salvation. These things, by
the mercy of God, and the opportunity then
afforded me, I atteMtively heard^ noting down, not
76 ESSAYS ON THE
on paper, but in my heart; and these same facts
I am always in the habit, by the grace of God,
to recall faithfully to mind.''
The reader knows now enough of Irenasus,
the Bishop of Lyons, to appreciate the follow-
ing declaration in favor of infant baptism : —
" For he came to save all persons by himself:
all, I say, who by him are regenerated to God;
infants and little ones, and children, and youth,
and elder persons." (Second book against
heresies.)
Where this father speaks of infants, little
ones, and children being regenerated to God,
he means they were baptized to God. A mul-
titude of quotations might be brought forward
to prove that the fathers were accustomed to
use baptism and regeneration as meaning the
same thing. We shall introduce but one.
Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, has the
following : —
"We bring them to some place where there
is water, and they are regenerated by the same
way of regeneration by which we were regene-
rated; for they are ivashed with writer in the
name of God the Father and Lord of all things,
and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the
Holy Sjnrit.''
What Irenseus says does not prove that in-
fant baptism is right, for he was not inspired :
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 77
but it does prove that it was in use in his day ;
and, although he wrote against heresy, he did
not write against infant baptism ; nor did any
other in those times write against it, which
they most assuredly would if they had been
opposed to it. "What the reader will please
remember is that Polycarp was the disciple of
St. John, and Irenseus the disciple of Polycarp.
As to the probability of his being in error, every
one will form his own opinion.
Origen, w^ho was born a. d. 185, about eighty-
five years after the apostle John, says : —
"Besides all this, let it be considered what
is the reason that, whereas the baptism of the
church is given for forgiveness of sins, infants
also, according to the usage of the church, are
ha])tized; when, if there were nothing in in-
fants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the
grace of baptism would be superfluous to
them." (Eighth homily on Leviticus.)
'^Infants are baptized for the remission of
sins. Of what sins? Or when have they
sinned ? Or how can any reason of the laver
in their case hold good but according to that
sense we mentioned even now: — ^None is free
from pollution, though his life be but the
length of a single day upon the earth' ?" (Ho-
mily on Luke.)
" For this the church received from the apostles
7*
78 ESSAYS ON THE
a tradition even to give baptism to infants. For
they to whom the divine mysteries were com-
mitted knew that there is in all persons the
natural pollution of sin, which ynitst he done away
hy water ayid the Spirit.'' (Comment on Ep. to
the Eomans.)
Eusebius, who WTote in the fourth century,
informs us that Origen was '•' conversant with
the Holy Scriptures even when a child. He
had been considerably trained in them by his
father, who, besides the study of the liberal
sciences, had also carefully stored his mind
Avith these." (Book vi. chap. 2.)
The same author informs us of the martyr-
dom of his father when he was about seven-
teen years old. Some have alleged that his
grandfather and great-grandfather were Chris-
tians. How this may be we pretend not to
know. It is, however, well established that he
was raised a Christian. He is considered on
man}^ accounts among the most eminent of the
fathers. When he tells us that "^Ae church
received from the aj^ostles a tradition to give bap-
tism to infants,'' although we admit that this
does not necessarily prove that it did so receive
it, yet it must prove that Origen thought so. As
to the probability of his being mistaken, every
one has a right to his own opinion. The
reader will bear in mind that Origen never
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 79
bad any controversy on the subject of infant
baptism, nor did any one in his day; his
declaration is therefore to be understood as
voluntary, and also as being the general opi-
nion of the church in his day. Is it probable
that the whole church was deceived on this
point within two hundred years from the death
of Christ?
Origen tells us with whom infant baptism
originated. K he does not tell the truth about it,
will the Baptists give us the true account ? Mr.
Howell, can you tell us how the eighteen-hun-
dred-years' old Baptist church came to have
pedobaptism in it from the times of the apostles,
nem con., to the days of Peter de Bruis? But
Mr. Howell has said one truth, (Sac. Com. p.
202 :) "Testimonies proving that "^ * the church
considered baptism essential to salvation
abound everywhere." But there is doubt
about the following, (pp. 202, 203 :) " This error
originated two others equally egregious. The
former was the administration of haiotism to in-
fants in cases of danger of death." "The
latter error was substitution of a more agree-
able form than immersion."
IS'ow, that the error of which Mr. Howell
speaks — namely, the considering of baptism
necessary to salvation— did exist in the second
and third centuries, no one doubts, ^or is
80 ESSAYS ON THE
there any reason to doubt that such error would
lead to superstition in various ways. But that
this error ''originated'' the administration of
baptism to infants in or out of the danger of
death, is what no living man can prove. Mr.
H. does not — he dare not — try to prove it other-
wise than by broad assertion, at which he is
good — very good. Mr. H. evidently intends to
produce the impression that infant baptism at
first was only administered to such as were
sick, though he does not directly say so.
Reckless as he frequently is, he dare not say so.
As to whether this error "originated" "a
more agreeable form than immersion," we
shall consider in a future essay.
We will now lay before the public the an-
swer of the Council at Carthage to a letter
addressed to that body by Fidus. This coun-
cil was composed of sixty-six bishops, and con-
vened A. D. 253, a little more than two hun-
dred years from the crucifixion, and about one
hundred and fifty years from the death of St.
John.
The following is the answer : —
" Cyprian, and the rest of the bishops who
are present at the council, in number sixty-six,
to Fidus, our brother, greeting :
" We read your letter, most esteemed brother,
in which you write of one Victor, a priest, &c.
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 81
But to the case of infants : — Wliereas you judge
* that they must not be baptized within two or
three days after they are born, and that the
rule of circumcision is to be observed, so that
none should be baptized and sanctified before
the eighth day after he is born,' we were all in
our assembly of a contrary opinion. For, as for
what you thought fitting to be done, there was
not one that was of your mind ; but all of us, on
the contrary, judged that the grace and mercii of
God is to he denied to no person that is horn. For
whereas our Lord, in his gospel, says, 'The
Son of man came not to destroy men's souls,
but to save them,' as far as lies in us, no soul,
if possible, is to be lost. So that we judge that
no person is to be hindered from obtaining the
grace by the law that is now appointed, and
that the spiritual circumcision ought not to be
impeded by the circumcision that was accord-
ing to the flesh, but that all are to be admitted
to the grace of Christ ; since Peter, speaking in
the Acts of the Apostles, says, ' The Lord has
shown me that no person is to be called com-
mon or unclean.'
"K any thing could be an obstacle to per-
sons against their obtaining the grace, the
adult, and grown, and aged would be rather
hindered by their more grievous sins. K,
then, the greatest offenders, and those that
82 ESSAYS ON THE
have grievously sinned against God before,
have, when they afterward come to beheve,
forgiveness of their sins, and no person is pro-
hibited from baptism and grace, how much less
reason is there to refuse an infant, who, being
newly born, has no sin save that, being de-
scended from Adam according to the flesh, he
has from his very birth contracted the contagion
of the death anciently threatened, who comes
for this reason more easily to receive the for-
giveness of sins, because they are not his own,
but others' sins that are forgiven him !
" This, therefore, most esteemed brother, was
our opinion in the assembly : — that it is not for
us to hinder any person from baptism and the
grace of God who is merciful and kind and
affectionate to all. Which rule, as it is to
govern universally, so we think it more espe-
cially to be observed in reference to infants and
persons newly born ; to whom our help and
the divine mercy is rather to be granted, because,
by their weeping and wailing at their first en-
terance into the world, they do intimate nothing
so much as that they implore compassion.
"Dearest brother, we wish you always good
health." (Cyprian's epistle to Fidus.)
If we had introduced this epistle to settle
matters of opinion, it would settle several, so
far as such a General Conference of Arminians,
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 83
as they undoubtedly were, could settle them.
But in it we have the unanimous consent of
sixty-six bishops to infant baptism. This is the
fact we wish to establish, — namely, that in two
hundred years after Christ the practice was
universal, no one disputing its validity. Fidus
had nothing to say against its validity. He
only wished to prohibit them till they were
eight days old. l!^ot an hour longer. Another
fact in the case is this : — this council founded
their argument in favor of the right of infants
to baptism from their birth upon their right to
salvation in the Redeemer. In whatever else
they were wrong, they were right in this. " The
promise is unto you and to your children. ' ' " For
of such is theTvingdom of God."
"We would hazard nothing in asserting that
not the first scrape of the pen can be found
against the validity of infant baptism while the
doctrine of a general atonement was the doctrine
of the whole church, which was the case until
after the above council, ^ay, the doctrine of
a partial atonement was taught centuries before
much opposition was made to infant baptism.
One followed the other in process of time.
Men will have their own opinion as to the con-
nection between the two. If I believed there
were non-elect infants, I would join the Baptists
at once. At any rate, I would reject infant bap-
84 ESSAYS ON THE
tism. Not being of this faith, I shall not only
consider our children fit subjects for the king-
dom of heaven, — i. e. the church, — but also a
proper model after which to fashion adults.
Passing many of the primitive fathers, all to
the same purpose with those already noticed,
we will make some extracts from St. Austin,
or St. Augustin, (as he is called by both names,)
with but little comment. He lived about three
hundred years after the apostles, and no doubt
sets forth the universal practice in his day. He
says: — ^'So that many persons, increasing in
knowledge after their baptism, and especially
those who have been baptized either lohen they
were infants, or when they were youths," &c.
Again: —
"And as the thief, who, by necessity, went
without baptism, was saved, because by his
piety he had it spiritually ; so, where baptism is
had, though the party by necessity go without
that which the thief had, yet he is saved;
which, being handed down to them, the uni-
versal church holds with respect to infants who are
baptized, who certainly cannot yet believe with
the heart to righteousness or confess with the
mouth to salvation, as the thief could ; nay, by
their crying and noise, while the sacrament is
being administered, they disturb the holy
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 85
mysteries ; and yet no Christian loill say they are
baptized to no purpose."
Had there been any such Baptists as we have
in these times, they would have said these ciy-
ing children were baptized to no purpose.
There being "?zo Christian'' that would say so
proves there were none such in being. But
we continue our quotations.
"And if any one do ask for divine authority
in this matter, though that which the universal
church practises, which has not been instituted
by councils, but has always been observed, is
most justly believed to be nothing else than a
thing delivered by the authority of the apostles,
yet we may, besides, take a true estimate how
much the sacrament of baptism does avail in-
fants, by the circumcision which God's former
people received." (Fourth book against the
Donatists; Baptism.)
Here he declares the authority to baptize in-
fants was from the apostles. "We cannot ques-
tion the sincerity of this declaration. The
apostles either did deliver such authority, or
St. Austin was mistaken. Concerning this we
wdll think our own thoughts. Again : —
"The whole church has of old constantly
held baptized infants do obtain remission of
original sin by the baptism of Christ." "For
my part, I do not remember that I ever heard any
86 ESSAYS ON THE
other thing from any Christians that received
the Old and New Testaments, neither /romswc A
as were in the Catholic church, nor yet from
such as belonged to any sect or schism. I do
not remember that / ever read otherwise in ayiy
writer J treating of these matters, that followed
the canonical Scriptures or did mean or pretend
80 to do.''
Kow, if St. Austin never heard of any Chris-
tian, Catholic, sectarian, schismatic, nor any
writer that followed or pretended to follow the
Scriptures, denying infant baptism, there must
have been an entire new class of all these come
into being since his day. For no writer could
say such things in the present day without
being guilty of the most glaring falsehood.
!N'or is St. Austin the only one who bears this
sort of testimony. Hear Pelagius, in a letter to
the Bishop of Rome, not far from the time St.
Austin wrote : —
He says, "Men do slander me, as if I de-
nied the sacrament of baptism to infants," &c.
Again, "He never heard even an impious heretic
who would affirm this concerning infants."
He asks —
"For who is so ignorant of the reading of
the evangelists as to attempt (not to say to
establish this, but) to speak of it heedlessly, or
even have such a thought ? In fine, who can
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 87
be so impious as to hinder infants from being
baptized, and born again in Christ, and thus
cause them to miss the kingdom of heaven?
since our Saviour has said that none can enter
into the kingdom of heaven that is not born
again of water and the Holy Spirit. Who is
there so impious as to refuse to an infant, of
what age soever, the common redemption of
mankind, and to hinder him that is born to an
uncertain life from being born again to an
everlasting and certain one ?" (Letter to Inno-
cent, A. D. 417.)
We might have added many more quotations
from the fathers, all going to show what the
usage of the church during the first four hun-
dred years was; but it is thought these are
sufficient. If infant baptism was in universal
use up to the commencement of the fifth cen-
tury, it is fair to conclude that the usage com-
menced in apostolic times. This presumption
is much stronger when we consider that Irenseus,
Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Austin, and Theo-
doret, all wrote historical accounts of the difierent
sects and heresies which had made their appear-
ance in those times, and not one of them men-
tions a single sect or heretic that denied it,
with the exception of an impious sect that de-
nied baptism altogether.
It may not be amiss to make a remark or
88 ESSAYS ON THE
two about Tertullian — the only one that even
seems to write against it. He did not, how-
ever, write against infant baptism any more
than against adult baptism. He thought it
best to delay baptism till old age, so that there
would be less danger of contracting pollution
after baptism. He never said one word against
the validity of infant baptism.
Before we close this essay we w^ill call atten-
tion to what we believe to be the first rejection
of infant baptism. This took place about a. d.
1128, under the teaching of Peter Bruis. The
ground on which the Petrobruisians rejected
infant baptism w^as, that all infants dying in
that state luere lost, and should not therefore be
baptized. It is not very strange that the whole
Christian world considered it an entire new
doctrine. We quote the following from Mr.
Hibbard, on infant baptism, p. 323, which he
quotes from Wall's History, partii. c. vii. sec. 5.
" Christ sending his disciples to preach," say
the Petrobruisians, ''says in the gospel, 'Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature. He that believeth, and is bap-
tized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not
shall be damned." From these words of our
Saviour it is plain that none can be saved un-
less he believe and be baptized : — that is, have
both Christian faith and baptism. For not one
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 89
of these, but both together, doth save. So that
infants, though they be by you baptized, yet,
since by reason of their age they cannot be-
lieve, are not saved. It is, therefore, an idle and
vain thing for you to wash persons with water,
at such a time when you may indeed cleanse
their skin from dirt in a carnal manner, but
not purge their souls from sin. But we do
stay till the proper time of faith ; and when a
person is capable to know his God and believe
in him, then we do (not, as you charge us,
rebaptize him, but) baptize him. For he is to
be accounted as not yet baptized who is not
washed with that baptism by which sins are
done away."
The Petrobruisians give a very effectual argu-
ment against infant baptism, if it were true ;
— that is, the impossibility of infant salvation.
K they could not be saved, then, and then only,
they should not be baptized. But since the
promise is made to children as well as adults,
and since the promise is to be realized by the
use of means, we cannot commence the use of
those means too soon.
This Petrobruisian heresy, which contains
the first opposition to the validity of infant
baptism left upon record that we have been
able to find, lasted about thirty years, and
perished under the authority of his holiness.
8*
90 ESSAYS ON THE
Nothing more was beard of anti-pedobaptism
till about the year 1522, the time the Anabap-
tists rose in Germany. Since that date we
have had boasting, wind, and rant. "We have
opposition sufficient to satisfy all who desire
such things.
We have now gone through our remarks
upon infant baptism. With the hope of having
convinced some one who has hitherto wavered,
we dismiss the subject.
ESSAY vn.
ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTISM, AND
THE MODE.
The word baptism has been so variously de-
fined by theological writers that the Christian
public is literally bewildered. Lexicographers,
being uninspired, are wholly unable to settle
the controversy that continually harasses the
church in the present day. It has, therefore,
been left to the critics, who have found as
much as they could do to keep up with one
another, without trying much to find out the
real truth about the matter. One great ob-
stacle in the way of settling this controversy is,
that most of those who engage in it make up
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 91
no particular issue upon the subject itself, but
upon the whether baj^UzOy the Greek word for
baptism, means immersion and nothing else.
"Now, these criticisms may be useful to some
men, but we object to making them the main
proof We object to it more, because nine out
of ten of those who surfeit the country with
their Greek know really very little about that
language. In the present day there are many
who spit Greek on their congregations that do
not know the alphabet of that language. It is
to be feared that, even among those critics
w^ho can read the Greek Testament, there is a
greater desire to make a show of their learning
than to exhibit the truth.
The author of these sheets makes no great
pretensions to learning. But learned men
will allow that the true definition of any word
is to be learned by ascertaining the use writers
and speakers have made of it. For example,
to know the use John the Baptist made of the
word baptism, you have to examine his dis-
courses, allusions, kc. in which he has used
the word; and so of any other writer or
speaker. It is believed that such investiga-
tion can be more easily made in the English
translation, if not more correctly. This mil be
apparent when we consider that the word bap-
tism in the English means precisely the same
92 ESSAYS ON THE
that baptizo in Greek does. If baptizo means
to immerse, baptize means tlie same thing.
The very same argument that will prove the
Greek word to mean immersion will prove
the English to mean the same mode. Why-
then carry this controversy out of our own
language ? The Bible must furnish the means
of ascertaining the sense in which its terms
are used. This, then, being God's own lexi-
con, we shall consult this and no other. Our
Greek lexicons, some of them made by infidels
and wicked men, furnish every sort of defini-
tion of baptism. Some of these definitions
favor our views, and, as such, following the ex-
ample of others, w^e might use them. But we
desire none of their man-made assistance. If
we cannot ascertain from the Bible the mean-
ing of the word baptism, it must be a failure : —
that's all.
When the Bible uses different words one
for another, those different words mean the
same thing and mutually explain each other.
Allowing this, it will be easy to show that bap-
tism is a generic word, and means purification.
This we proceed to prove. "After these
things came Jesus and his disciples into the
land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them,
and baptized. And John also was baptizing in
-^non, near to Salim, because there was much
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 93
water there ; and they came and were baptized.
For John was not yet cast into prison. Then
there arose a question between some of John's
disciples and the Jews about purifying. And
they came unto John, and said unto him, Eabbi,
he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom
thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeih^
and all men come to him." John iii. 22-26.
"Wlien, therefore, the Lord knew how the
Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized
more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself
baptized not, but his disciples,) he left Judea,
and departed again into Galilee." John iv. 1-3.
This dispute between " the Jeivs arid some of
John's disciples about purifying'' was a dispute
about John and Christ's baptizing. The fol-
lowing seems to be the correct view of the
subject: —
The Jews had looked at the doings of John
with admiration, ''musing in their hearts whe-
ther he were the Christ," Luke iii. 15 ; and, as
was natural, when Jesus and his disciples came
into the same country, baptizing and making
disciples, some of the Jews, inclining to prefer
Jesus for a leader, raised a dispute with the
disciples of John about their master continu-
ing to baptize after a superior personage had
commenced making disciples. These disciples
knew that John himself had told them that
94 ESSAYS OX THE
Jesus was entitled to the pre-eminence, that he
was scarce worthy to loose his shoes as a ser-
vant ; and, consequently, they knew not what
to say to the Jews, and so they came and told
their master that Jesus was making and bap-
tizing disciples, and all the people are going
to him, and the Jews had disputed with them,
and gotten them into a difficulty about it.
John heard of the success of Jesus with joy;
he informed his disciples that his joy was now
full, &c. To prevent his popularity from in-
juring the ministry of John, Jesus retired into
Galilee. Manifestly, then, the dispute was about
these extraordinary personages each one bap-
tizing. K so, the words purifying and baptiz-
ing are used interchangeably, the one for the
other, and therefore mean the same thing.
Of Jesus it is said: — "And he shall sit as a
refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall
purify the sons of Levi," &c. Mai. iii. 3. In
the preceding verse the prophet says, "He is
like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap."
John the Baptist says, "He shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost, and with /re." Matt. iii. 11. Paul
says, " That he might redeem us from all in-
iquity, and purify unto himsdf a peculiar
people," &c. Tit. ii. 14. There is no doubt what
Malachi and Paul call purify John calls baptize:
these words, therefore, mean the same thing.
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 95
Baptism being a purification, it is also called
a washing ; which is a kindred word in mean-
ing. " That he might sanctify and cleanse it
with the washing of ivaier by the word." Eph.
V. 26. "Be baptized, and icash away thy sins."
Acts xxii. 16.
Wherever the word baptism is used in re-
gard to the work of the Spirit or to the wash-
ing of water, the word purification can be sub-
stituted for it without at all changing the
meaning of the passage where it is used.
Take the following, for example : — " I indeed
jpurify you with water; he shall purify you with
the Holy Ghost." "Teach all nations, purify-
ing them," &c. "He that believeth and is
purified,'" &c. "Eepent, and be purified every
one of you," &c. "Jesus made and purified
more disciples than John," &c. "They were
purified, both men and women." This mode
of illustration might be carried to a great ex-
tent. The reader can get his Bible and try it
till he is perfectly satisfied. The very word
purification carries a charm with it, it agrees
so well with the whole gospel scheme. To be
purified with water and the Spirit is to be born
again — to be baptized Tvdth water and the Holy
Ghost.
Two purifications pervade the teachings of
the Old and New Testaments. The great work
96 ESSAYS ON THB
in the heart performed by the energy of the
divine Spirit is the principal one, the other is
ceremonial and representative. It consists in
the external application of water. We have
seen that the word baptism, in the IN'ew Testa-
ment, is mostly nsed in reference to both these
purifications. We shall now proceed to ex-
amine the modes of purification or baptism,
both of the Holy Ghost and of water. Before
entering upon this investigation, however, it
will be proper to remind the reader that our
Baptist brethren insist that baptism always
means immersion and nothing else. Indeed, this
view governs their whole system. Mr. Howell,
a standard writer among them, says, "In the
whole history of the Greek language it has but
one meaning ; it not only means to dip or im-
merse, but it never has any other meaning."
"If, therefore, any respect is due to the mean-
ing of words used to describe actions, Christian
baptism is confined to immersion." (Sac. Com.
p. 172.) Their ministers, writers, and people
generally, say the same thing.
If baptism, in Greek, alwaj^s means immer-
sion and nothing else, it always means the
same thing in English and nothing else. "We
propose, therefore, no issue about Greek or any
other language ; we wish no foreign issue. We
join issue on the mode. We care not what word
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 97
is used, provided it be consistent with the Bible.
I now advertise my readers that I do not eon-
cede to the Baptists that no mode is pointed
out in the Bible, as pedobaptist writers usually
do. Although I believe a change of mode
would not invalidate the ordinance, yet I do
not believe the Scriptures have left us in the
dark on the subject.
The baptism of the Holy Ghost being the
principal one, we will examine its mode first.
John the Baptist says of Jesus, " He shall bap-
tize you with the Holy Ghost." Matt. iii. 11.
Jesus said, in regard to this same baptism,
" John truly baptized with water, but ye shall
be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days
hence." Acts i. 5. No one will deny that
^'not many days hence' alluded to the day of
Pentecost. When they were baptized with the
Holy Ghost on that day, Peter, under its in-
fluence, preached a sermon, taking for his text
a prediction of this baptism from the prophet
Joel. In this text he gives us the mode by
which this baptism was performed, in these
words: — ^' I will pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh.'" Acts ii. 17. Here, what Jesus and John
the Baptist call "baptize" Peter and Joel call
''pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh."
To pour upon, then, is to baptize ivith.
At the house of Cornelius we have this bap-
98 ISSAYS ON THK
tism of the Holy Ghost repeated. " While Peter
yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all
them which heard the word. And they of the
circumcision which believed were astonished,
as many as came with Peter, because that on
the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the
Holy Ghost." Acts x. 44, 45. Peter commanded
these Gentiles to be baptized, (verse 48,) for
which the apostles and brethren at Jerusalem
contended with him, (xi. 1, 2.) Peter, in his
defence, related the providential occurrences
which brought him to the place, and then re-
hearsed the effect of his preaching in the fol-
lowing words : — ''And as I began to speak, the
Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the begin-
ning. Then remembered I the word of the
Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized
with water, but ye shall be baptized with the
Holy Ghost." Acts xi. 15, 16. Mark the ex-
pressions— " jTAe Holy Grhost fell on all them which
heard," ^'Poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost,'*
'•'The Holy Ghost fell on them as on us," &c., on
the day of Pentecost, when all agree the '^ Spi-
rit was poured out.'' How^ could these pourings
and fallings upon cause Peter to remember the
word of the Lord in regard to baptism, if he did
not understand baptism and pouring to mean
the same thing ?
Now, Mr, Howell, you say "baptism, in
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 99
GreeJc, not only means to dip or immerse, but
it never has any other meaning." Here we
have seen John and Christ speaking of a work
they call baptism ; Joel, Peter, and Luke, call
the very same v^ov^i pouring. This is the way
it is in English. IN'ow, Mr. Howell, if the Greek
word always means immersion and nothing
else, immersion must always be meant when
the baptism of the Spirit is spoken of. Let us
see how that is : if it always means immersion,
it will not change the meaning to use that word
in every instance. We will then have it thus : —
" The Holy Ghost immersed all them which
heard the word." '' The Holy Ghost immersed
them as it did us at the beginning." I give it
over to your Greek. The English Bible won't
answer the purpose at all.
My reader will please bear in mind that, to
sustain the Baptists, baptism must always mean
immersion and nothing else. The proof that it
ever means to pour, even in one solitary in-
stance, overturns the whole Baptist system of
exclusiveness. Though it might be proven
that immersion was sometimes the meaning,
yet they would be defeated. If we have proven
that the word, in several places, means to pour,
— as we think we have done most clearly, yea,
to POUR and nothing else, so far as mode or action
is concerned, — then must the doctrine of exclu-
100 ESSAYS ON THE
sive immersion be false, as well as restricted
communion, without any thing to support it.
"We now hazard the assertion that the word
baptism, in every place in the ITew Testament
where the baptism of the Spirit is intended,
means to poiLv and nothing else, so far as mode
or action is concerned. The whole Baptist
world cannot refute it. They dare not try.
I^ow we proceed to examine the subject of
water baptism. Does Paul mean immersion
when he says they "were all baptized unto
Moses in the cloud and in the sea" ? 1 Cor. x. 2.
The place where this baptism occurred forbids
that it should have been by immersion. " The
children of Israel walked upon diy land in the
midst of the sea ; and the w^aters were a wall
unto them on their right hand and on their
left." Ex. xiv. 29. The Baptists try to get clear
of this by making it a figure. But what evi-
dence is there that baptism in this text was a
figurative baptism more than any other? Was
eating the same spiritual meat a figure also ?
Was drinking of that spiritual rock that fol-
lowed them a figure too ? As well might we
say the baptism of our Lord was a figure. But
what was the mode of this baptism in the cloud
and in the sea? ''The clouds j^oured out water.*'
Ps. Ixxvii. 17. About the xQvy same affair,
Paul says "they were baptized;" Moses says it
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 101
was "on dry ground;'' and David says "the
clouds poured out rain." Then, what Paul
calls baptism David calls ^^ pouring out rain.'*
You must try your Greek again, my Baptist
friends. You perceive the English Bible makes
baptism, in this place, mean to pour and no-
thing else.
Let us next hear from Isaiah. " I will pour
tuater upon him that is thirsty^ and floods upon
the dry ground: I WiM pour my spirit upon thy
seed," &;c. Isa. xliv. 3. Here we have a pro-
phet writing about the Christian dispensation,
representing our Lord as saying, " I will pour
water;" "I will pour out my spirit." How
much this resembles the language of another
prophet: — "I indeed baptize you with water,
{pour it on you;) he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost, {pour it upon you.'') But
when did the Lord pour out his spirit? On the
day of Pentecost, we answer. When did he
pour water on him that was thirsty ? On the
day of Pentecost. Three thousand were thirsty ;
and there is no reason to doubt that water was
poured upon them at that time, according to
the prediction of the prophet. And we may
add that water was poured by John, for he
says, "I indeed baptize you with water;" and
there is no reason to doubt his doing it in the
same way the baptism of the spirit was per-
102 ESSAYS ON THE
formed, which, we have seen, was by pouring,
certainly.
Il^ow, whether we are right in making this
pouring of water refer to baptism, as set forth
in the l^ew Testament, men will and ought to
think for themselves. We may challenge the
whole Baptist world to produce such a pre-
diction from any of the prophets in favor of
immersion. K we are not right in our inter-
pretation, will the Baptists set us right ? We
have now given reasons from the Bible itself
for believing that baptism sometimes means to
pour, and that the apostles so understood and
practised. We believe no reasons equally
strong can be brought from the same source in
favor of immersion; much less can it be shown
that it always means to immerse and nothing
else.
That baptism was administered by sprinkling
there is yet more abundant proof. Let us first
hear the prophets.
"Behold, my servant shall deal prudently;
he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very
high. As many were astonished at thee, his
visage was so marred more than any man, and
his form more than the sons of men : so shall
he sprinkle many nations ; the kings shall shut
their mouths at him : for that which had not
been told them shall they see, and that which
BAPTIST GOKTROVERSY. 108
they bad not heard shall they consider." Isa.
lii. 13-15.
No one will deny that this passage is spoken
of the Messiah. It may be paraphrased thus : —
My servant, the Lord Jesus Christ, shall deal
prudently, or prosper, (as in the margin ;) among
the nations, he shall be exalted and extolled on
account of his divine prudence. Many people
were astonished at thee on account of the
cruelty of thy treatment, under which his
visage was so marred more than any man,
even those guilty of sedition and murder, and
his form more than the sons of men, or more
than can happen to any citizen : as the nations
were astonished at thee, on account of th}'
cruelty to him, so, to thy astonishment, shall
he sprinkle many nations, bringing them into
the church by baptism, and granting them
equal privileges with you : for this he will be
opposed b}' principalities and powers ; but the
kings shall shut their mouths at him, when
they see for themselves the exercise of that
divine authority of which they had never
heard, but which they will then consider.
Let any one read this whole chapter atten-
tively, with the following two, and he must see
that our paraphrase is just and in accordance
with the whole. The baptizing of the nations
agrees well with the declaration, " All the ends
104 ESSAYS ON THE
of the earth shall see the salvation of our O^od."
Isa. Ixii. 10.
But is it water or blood that was to be
sprinkled upon the Gentile nations? Upon
this inquiry we may observe : —
1. The sprinkling of blood (Heb. ix. 13) re-
presents the blood of Christ, (Heb. ix. 14,) with-
out which there is no remission, (Heb. ix. 22,)
and by virtue of which their consciences were
•purged. By virtue of this blood we have our
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, by the
power of the Holy Ghost, in token of which
inward cleansing we have our bodies washed
with pure water (Heb. x. 22) or baptized with
pure water.
2. The sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer
(Heb. ix. 13) was connected with the cleansing
of' those typical atonements by which the un-
clean was sanctified or cleansed. But how
was this done ? The following Scripture will
show : —
"And for an unclean person 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 dip it in the water, and sprinkle it
upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and
upon the persons that were there, and upon
him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 105
dead, or a grave: and the clean person shall
sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and
on the seventh day: and on the seventh day
he shall purify himself and wash his clothes,
and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean
at even." Lev. xix. 17-19.
The ashes of a burnt heifer, mixed with run-
ring water, made the water of purification, to
the sprinkling of which the apostle undoubt-
edly alludes in Heb. x. 32, which we paraphrase
thus : —
Let us draw near to Jesus, having our hearts
sprinkled from an e\^l conscience through the
merits of his blood and by the power of the
Holy Ghost, and our bodies washed in bap-
tism with pure or clean water, which is
sprinkled upon them as the antetype of the
water of purification.
Thus we have before us the sprinkling of
both blood and water. To one of these Isaiah
certainly alludes when he informs us that "-lie
shall sprinkle many nations.'' "We believe he
speaks of the sprinkling of water,. for the fol-
lowing reasons : —
The prediction is concerning the times of the
gospel, under which the sprinkling of blood
was to cease. When he speaks of sprinkling
the Gentiles, therefore, he could not mean that
they were to be sprinkled with blood. Again : —
106 ESSAYS ON THE
We have a very circumstantial prediction of
the return of the Jews to their own land, and
of their conversion to Christianity, and also
their being baptized by sprinkling clean water
upon them. If, then, the "many nations"
were to be sprinkled in the same way the Jews
were upon their return to their own land, the
whole is plain enough. Let us see how that is.
" For I will take you from among the heathen,
and gather you out of all countries, and will
bring you into your own land. Then will I
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
clean: from all your filthiness, and from all
your idols, will I cleanse 3^ou. A new heart
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put
within you : and I will take away the stony
heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a
heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within
you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and
ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to
your fathers ; and ye shall be my people, and
I will be your God." Ezek. xxxvi. 24-28.
We hope the time is near at hand when the
house pf Israel will all return to. their own land,
and again be grafted into the good olive-tree
by God's giving them a new heart and baptiz-
ing them by sprinkling clean water upon them ;
so that they may become his people again, and
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 107
he be their God. This event must happen as
sure as there is any truth in prophecy. Let
the Gentiles be baptized as they may, it is
certain the Jews will be sprinkled when they
are converted. Since Tsaiah says many na-
tions shall be sprinkled, it is not unreasonable
to believe that it is to be done with clean water.
If so, the Scriptures require the ordinance to
be administered in that way. This is the con-
clusion to which God's lexicon, the Bible, con-
ducts us. Where is the proof that baptism
always means to immerse and nothing else ?
Having now shown clearly, as we believe,
that the Scriptures do point out the mode or
modes of baptism, and that those modes are
sprinkling and pouring, and that there is no
evidence that the word baptize " means to im-
merse and nothing else," as the Baptists con-
stantly affirm, we shall attempt to illustrate
the whole from examples recorded in the j^ew
Testament. In doing this, we shall keep a
Baptist antagonist constantly before us, making
his objections. We will commence with the
baptism of our Lord.
" Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
unto John, to be baptized of him. But John
forbade Jwn, saying, I have need to be baptized
of thee, and comest thou to me ? And Jesus,
answering, said unto him, Suffer it to he so now.
108 ESSAYS ON THE
for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteous-
ness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when
he was baptized, went straightway out of the
water : and, lo, the heavens were opened unto
him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending
Hke a dove, and lighting upon him : and, lo, a
voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt. iii. 13
-17.
In this account there is supposed to be very
strong evidence of immersion. But, after a
very careful examination of the subject, we
must confess, if there be any proof of it, we are
wholly unable to perceive it. The passage
certainly says not one word about immersion,
nor does it give the remotest hint of any such
thing. We are simply told that " when he was
baptized he came straightway out of the water,"
&c. This proves no more in favor of one mode
than another ; for it says not one word about
mode. If the mode is ascertained, it must be
found somewhere else. ISTow, brother, where
will you find the proof that the Saviour was
immersed? Oh, say you, I think John must
have immersed him when he had him in Jor-
dan. But stop, brother, you do not offer your
thoughts as Scripture proof, do you ? You ask,
What did he go into Jordan for ? If I were to
answer, I do not know, would you dare to say
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 109
that you do know ? The only probability of
such a thing deducible from the history of the
transaction is that he went into Jordan to be
baptized. But as to the mode not one syllable
is uttered anyway.
But then, you say, there is proof that he was
baptized, and the word, in Greek, means im-
mersion. Brother, that is the very thing we
dispute about. I fear you have had sand
thrown in your eyes about Greek. You may
rest assured, if the word means immersion in
Greek, it means the same thing in English.
But who told you that it means that and no-
thing else in Greek ? Did the Bible tell you
so ? K not, I cannot admit your testimony.
"We must look to the Bible, and to the Bible
alone, for proof; and neither you nor I have
any right to believe any thing on the subject
that is not taught in the Bible. But you say
you cannot see what he was in the water for
unless it was to be immersed. That may be.
A thousand others may be unable to see why
he was there ; but neither will their ignorance
nor your inability to see ever prove that he
was immersed.
But now, brother, I will give you my reasons
for thinking he was sprinkled and not im-
mersed. He informs us it was done to "fulfil
all righteousness." Then it must have been
10
110 ESSAYS ON THE
required by that law which he came not to
destroy but to "fulfil." That law does not re-
quire immersion ; but it does require sprink-
ling expressly; and that frequently. It is not
hazardous to believe that he was sprinkled ac-
cording to the law.
Let us now inquire more particularly what
the Bible does teach on the subject. It proves —
1. That Christ was a priest : — " Thou art a
priest forever, after the order of Melchisedec."
Heb.vii. 17-21; Psa. ex. 4; Heb. v. 6, 10.
2. That he was a high-priest: — "Consider
the Apostle and High-Priest of our profession,
Christ Jesus." Heb. iii. 1, iv. 14, 15.
He is a coyisecrated priest: — "Who is conse-
crated for evermore." Heb. vii. 28. He was
made a priest "like unto his brethren." Heb.
ii. 17. It was done in accordance with the law.
"And no man taketh this honor unto himself
but he that was called of God ; as was Aaron.''
Heb. V. 4.
Let us next see how Aaron was consecrated
to the office of high-priest. In this we will
probably learn the meaning of the words,
" thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness^'
" But Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring
unto the door of the tabernacle of the con-
gregation, and shalt wash them with water J"
Ex. xxix. 4.
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. Ill
" And Moses brought Aaron and his sons,
and washed them with water.'' Lev. ^aii. 6.
2. " Then shalt thou take the anointing oil,
and pour it upon his head, and anoint him."
Ex. xxix. 7.
"And he poured of the anointing oil upon
Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify
him." Lev. viii. 12.
3. The third thing in the consecration of
Aaron and his sons is the offering for an
atonement. The description of this part of the
ceremony is too lengthy for insertion here.
Those who wish to examine it vAW find the
account in the 29th chapter of Exodus and the
8th chapter of Leviticus.
The Aaronic priesthood was only typical of
a better. It was but the shadow of good things
to come. If so, its consecration is only typi-
cal ; the law requiring it must be fulfilled and
have its end in the high-priesthood of the
Lord Jesus Christ. The ivashing of Aaron,
then, typifies the washing or baptizing of
Christ ; the anointing of Aaron points to the
descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Saviour ;
the offering of sacrifices looks to the great
offering of himself for sin. The sprinkling of
blood points to the shedding of that blood by
which he entered into the holiest of all.
112 ESSAYS ON THE
"We, however, at present, are chiefly con-
cerned with the washing with water.
The mode by which Aaron was washed is
now to be considered. It could not be by im-
mersion, seeing it was done at the door of the
tabernacle. The term "wash" is not determi-
nate as to mode : we must therefore examine
other passages to determine what the mode
was. The reader will please remember, the
whole tribe of Levi was set apart to the ser-
vice of the tabernacle, though not to the high-
priesthood. In their consecration what we
believe to be a similar washing was used.
"And thus shalt thou do unto them, to
cleanse them : sprinkle water of purifying
upon them," &c. I^umbers viii. 7.
From all this it appears that Aaron was
sprinkled. The law required it. If neither
"jot nor tittle" (Matt. v. 18) can "in anywise
pass from the law till all be fulfilled," then
is it apparent that Jesus must have been
sprinkled at some time. And when we con-
sider that his baptism was to "^o fulfil all
righteousness," even the righteousness of the
law, and especially as the law nowhere re-
quires immersion, it must be clear that Jesus
was sprinkled, and not immersed, in his bap-
tism. If our opponents cannot show that the
law required immersion, they can hardly tell
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 113
what righteousness the Saviour's baptism ful-
filled. Consequently, they usually evade the
discussion of this point. The only account I
have either seen or heard from them on this
point is the unsupported and insupportable
assertion that he was baptized as an example
for our imitation. Hence they make much
noise about following the Saviour into his
watery grave. They know how to make capital
among the ignorant with such things. Let
them first prove that Jesus was ever in a
watery grave, by the Bible ; and then from the
Bible let them prove that Christ designed his
baptism as an example for us to follow. In
this they will find enough to do.
Although I am not willing to make Greek
criticisms of my own, yet I could have quoted
from various authors of ability, such as the Bap-
tists have never answered, showing that it is at
least doubtful whether Christ was ever in
Jordan or not. This I have chosen not to do ;
not, indeed, because I thought them of no use,
but because I do not wish the reader's attention
led ofi' upon foreign issues. The main issue
is not whether Jesus was in Jordan or out of
Jordan, but whether he was immersed. If it
were proven by the Bible that the Jordan was
a mile wide, and that the Saviour was baptized
in the middle of it, still it would not be proved
H 10*
114 ESSAYS ON THE
thereby that he waa immersed. Any man that
will take the trouble to think about it will be
compelled to see that the Bible does not say
any thing about his being immersed. That our
Baptist brethren believe he was I do not ques-
tion; but do they believe it upon conjecture or
upon Scripture testimony ? If proving that he
was baptized and conjecturing that it was done
by their mode proves immersion, then have
the Baptists proven that Christ was immersed.
Let the reader carefully weigh what has been
said. If he still believes he can see evidence of
his immersion, I shall not complain. Let him
reflect, however, there are many who cannot.
The next circumstance relied on by our op-
ponents is the following : —
"And John also was baptizing in ^non,
near to Salim ; because there was much water
there.'* John iii. 23.
Although I do not believe John's baptism to
have been the Christian, yet I do believe them
to have been the same in one respect, — that is,
the mode. Since, then, the mode is what we
are now considering, the above passage merits
our consideration. The Baptists usually take
for granted — 1. That Mwon was a river; 2. That
the "much water" was wanted for the adminis-
tration of baptism ; and 3. That immersion took
place at JEnon. But this is taking for granted
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 115
what ought to be proven. According to the
maps of that country, ^non was not a river,
but a town. That it was a well-watered place
there is not any doubt ; but, whether the " muck
water' ' was in a river, creek, spring, or even in
wells, we are not told.
Much water would be necessary for the ac-
commodation of such multitudes, whether bap-
tism was administered at all or not. I would
not hesitate to guess that the mucli ivater Avas
needed to cook their provision, to drink, and
to wash themselves, as well as for the adminis-
tration of the ordinance. This would be to
adopt the mode of argumentation used by our
opponents : — i. e. prove what I could, and guess
at the balance.
As to the guess that immersion took place at
^non, we admit that it is possible. If the
reader will reflect that, though we were to
prove that ^non was a river, and that John
baptized in the middle of it, still immersion
would remain to be proved. But neither of
these have been proven. All the proof there
is in this world that John immersed in ^non
is, the Baptists say so. The Bible says nothing
of the sort.
K my- Baptist brother ask me what John
wanted with much water, if not to immerse,
I answer promptly, I do not know. Dare you,
116 ESSAYS ON THE
brother, say that you know? But perhaps you
say you cannot see what he wanted with much
water, unless it were to immerse in. That all
may be. But your seeing or not seeing is no
proof either way, unless your powers of percep-
tion were inspired. You must bring Scripture
proof or give up your exclusiveness. This way
of proving people out of the church by con-
jecture will not do. Take another Scripture : —
"And they both went down into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized
him. And when they were come up out of
the water," &c. Acts viii. 38, 39.
This passage certainly proves that the eunuch
was baptized, and that they went into the
water to do it, according to our version. But
as to the mode, all is conjecture; for not one
word is said about it. Some ignorant, super-
stitious people prove by this very passage that
they ought to wade into the water, and there
be sprinkled. I admit the passage does not
certainly sustain them. But I must say it
proves as much for them as it does for the
Baptists.
^t^ow, brother, you cfuess they went into the
water for the purpose of immersion; I guess
they went into the water because they 'had no-
thing to get it in. But this is all guess-work.
I frankly confess I do not know. You must
BAPTIST CONTKOVERSY. 117
likewise acknowledge that you do not know.
If you do not know, you ought not to require
me to ahide by your guess.
" Therefore we are buried with him by bap-
tism into death," &c. Eom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12.
It does seem to me that any one who had
no sectarian purpose to answer would under-
stand these passages to refer to the baptism of
the spirit, and not water-baptism at all. To
make this manifest, we will examine the pas-
sage from Colossians.
"And ye are complete in him which is the
head of all principality and power: in whom
also ye are circumcised with the circumcision
made without hands, in putting ofl' the body of
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ :
buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
risen with him through the faith of the opera-
tion of God, who hath raised him from the
dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened
together with him, having forgiven you all
trespasses," &c. Col. ii. 10-13.
Xo one is at a loss to understand the ex-
pressions, "being dead in sin;" "the uncir-
cumcision of the flesh ;" "the body of the sins
of the flesh." All understand these expressions
to refer to their moral state, and not to their
church relation or their connection with ex-
118 ESSAYS ON THE
ternal ceremonies. Why not understand the
following to refer to their moral state also?
"You hath he quickened;" " circumcised with-
out hands;" "buried with him in baptism;"
which is "Christ's circumcision." This bap-
tism which quickens, circumcises, buries our
old man with all his deeds, and forgives all
trespasses, must be the baptism of the Spirit.
But, if we adopt Mr. Howell's exposition of
the Greek word, as contained in the following
quotation, we will have some difficulty in mak-
ing immersion out of this burial in baptism.
"It has also been said that it is a generic
word, and, without respect to mode or exclu-
sion of all modes, denotes any application of
water. This idea is wholly fanciful. Except
w^hen the word signifies to die, it denotes mode
and nothing else." (Sac. Com. p. 171.)
"If, therefore, any respect is due to the
meaning of words used to describe actions,
Christian baptism is confined exclusively to
immersion." (Sac. Com. p. 172.)
JSTow, according to this rule of interpretation,
the word baptism "-denotes mode and nothing
else:" — mode of action. Well, what is the
mode of action in a burial ? It is the sprinkling
and pouring of the earth upon the dead body.
Then, if in a burial " it denotes mode and no-
thing else," it denotes sprinkling and pouring.
BAPTIST COTfTTROVERSY. 119
Now, I have no special confidence in this ap-
plication of Mr. Howell's rule. I should not
have noticed it at all, but we are frequently
told that baptism does not consist in the thing
done, but in the action, mode, or manner of
doing it. I guess, likewise, the Baptists will
not soon abandon this position. K so, it is fair
to work their own doctrines upon them.
"We have now gone through a hasty, but, it is
hoped, a sufficient, examination of the mode of
baptism. If we have taken a correct view of
the subject, immersion cannot be defended
from the inspired record. And, in fact, the
advocates of that mode, in the present day,
seem to be aware that the English Bible does
not prove it : they therefore rely upon learned
and unlearned appeals to the Greek. They
find fault with the commonly-received version
of the Bible. They censure without mercy the
translators. They even inform us that King
James prohibited them from translating the
word bapiizo.
Even Mr. Howell does not hesitate to cen-
sure the bishops and the king after the follow-
ing manner : —
"The bishops, with the consent of King
James, prohibited, therefore, the translation of
all the old ecclesiastical words, among which,
with others, baptism was found. The}^ re-
120 ESSJiYS ON THK
quired that the original Greek words should be
transferred, only changing them so much as to
give them an English termination. Thus the
term baptism obtained admission into the ver-
sion, and immersion, the true rendering, w^as
excluded from our Bible.*' (Sac. Com. p. 181.)
The reader will be surprised to learn that
neither the bishops nor the king could have
any motive to prompt them to this great wicked-
ness, seeing the established church baptized by
immersion as well as by pouring. I copy the
following from the book of Common Prayer.
In the baptism of infants, the minister is re-
quired to "say to the godfathers and god-
mothers,
^^Name (his child;
**And then, naming it after them, he shall
dip it in the water discreetly, or shall pour
water upon it, saying,
"N., I baptize thee, in the name," &c.
The same occurs in the baptism of adults : —
*' Then shall the minister take each person
to be baptized by the right hand, and, placing
him conveniently by the font, according to his
discretion, shall ask the godfathers and the
godmothers the name ; and then shall dip him
in the water, or pour water upon him, saying,
''K, I baptize thee," &c.
Here it will be observed that ''dip'' comes
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 121
first, in both instances. It must, therefore,
stand on equal footing with '"''^pour,'' if it have
not the preference. !N"ow, vAiy should Mr. H.
talk so piteously about the injustice of the king
and bishops ?
Mr. Howell, after garbling and much insinua-
tion, although he was unable to bring the first
extract to prove this war by king and bishops
upon immersion, breaks out in the following
very pious exclamation : —
"But when the temporal interests of men
come in conflict with any portion of divine
truth, how prone is poor human nature to sacri-
fice the latter to advance the former !" (p. 182.)
All the crime of which the translators were
guilty was giving us the word baptism instead
of immersion. He pretends to quote authority
to show corruption on the part of the translators.
His quotations, however, prove no such thing.
The truth is, Mr. H. is greatly dissatisfied with
our present Bible, and wishes to have one that
will 'prove immersion. I must say, however,
this is rather a convenient mode of establishing
a doctrine : — that is, when the Bible does not
prove it, alter it till it will.
Perfectly fanatical on this subject, Mr. H.
pounces on the British and Foreign and the
American Bible Societies, (p. 183,) for '*engraft>
11
122 ESSAYS ON THE
ing on their Foreign Translation these pedo-
baptist corruptions."
The Baptists, since the formation of their
Bible Society, in 1837, have been very free in
their censures of King James ; who, they say,
would not let the translators translate the
word bapiizo. A great portion of this country
is, at this moment, of opinion that, had the
king allowed it, we should have had the word
baptism left out of the Bible, and the word im-
mersion in its place. It happens that the direc-
tions given by the king to the translators are
printed and preserved. Here they are : —
"1. The ordinary Bible read in the church,
commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be fol-
lowed, and as little altered as the original will
permit.
" 2. The names of the prophets and the holy
writers, with the other names in the text, to be
retained as near as may be, according as they
are vulgarly used.
" 3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept,
as the word church not to be translated con-
gregations.
" 4. When any word hath divers significations,
that to be kept which hath been most com-
monly used by the most eminent fathers, being
agreeable to the propriety of the place and the
analogy of faith.
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 123
" 5. The division of the chapters to be
altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if
necessity so require.
" 6. 1^0 marginal notes at all to be affixed,
but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or
Greek words, which cannot, without some cir-
cumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed
in the text.
" 7. Such quotations of places to be margin-
ally set down as shall serve for the fit refer-
ences of one Scripture to another.
" 8. Every particular man of each company
to take the same chapter or chapters; and
having translated, amended them severally by
himself, where he thinks good ; all to meet to-
gether, to confer what they have done, and
agree for their part what shall stand.
"9. As any one company hath despatched
any one book in this manner, they shall send
it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and
judiciously, for his majesty is very careful in
this point.
" 10. If any company, upon the review of
the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon
any places, to send them word thereof, to note
the places, and therewithal to send their rea-
sons ; to which if they consent not, the differ-
ence to be compounded at the general meet-
124 ESSAYS ON THE
ing, which is to be of the chief persons of each
company, at the end of the work.
" 11. When any place of special obscurity
is doubted of, letters to be directed by author-
ity, to send to any learned in the land for his
judgment in such a place.
"12. Letters to be sent from every bishop
to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of
this translation in hand, and to move and
charge as many as, being skilful in the
tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to
send their particular observations to the com-
pany, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or
Oxford, according as it was directed before in
the King's letter to the archbishop.
"13. The directors in each company to be
the Deans of Westminster and Chester for
Westminster, and the King's Professors in
Hebrew and Greek in the two Universities.
"14. These translations to be used, when
they agree better with the text than the
Bishop's Bible, viz.: — Tindal's, Coverdale's,
Matthew's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.
"15. Besides the said directors before men-
tioned, three or four of the most ancient and
grave divines in either of the Universities, not
employed in translating, to be assigned by the
vice-chancellor, upon conference with the rest
of the heads, to be overseers of the translation,
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 125
as well Hebrew as Greek, for tlie better obser-
vation of the 4th rule above specified."
I have copied the whole of the king's direc-
tions to the translators, from Home's Intro-
duction, vol. ii., for the purpose of disabusing
the public mind on the subject. My readers,
I am sure, will say with me that the instruc-
tions not only do not prohibit the translation
of bapiizo or any other zo, but are as clear of
any thing to be complained of as human na-
ture is capable of producing.
I wish I could cover with the mantle of
charity these palpable misrepresentations of
matters of fact. This I can easily do with the
ignorant ; but some of them are not of this class.
If the king and bishops did prevent the trans-
lation of haptizo, the proof can be produced.
Let them produce it. This they will never do.
I challenge them to produce it. Let them
cease this endless whining about a correct
translation, or show their authority.
In the year 1837 the Baptists, with some few
honorable exceptions, withdrew their patron-
age from the American Bible Society, and
formed one of their own, assigning as the rea-
son for that step the incorrectness of the Bible
published by the American Bible Society.
Their great concern to furnish the world with
a correct Bible seems, however, so far, to ex-
11*
126 ESSAYS ON THE
haust itself on their foreign missions. The
people of our own country are left to struggle
with the common version, with all its '' pedobap-
tist corruptions. ' ' Let that Society publish such
a version of the Kew Testament in English, as it
has in some other languages, if it dare. There
is little doubt they will work the heathen, to
whom they send their translations, into the
water. This course may all be correct. Many,
however, doubt it.
I had intended to introduce many extracts
from documents in my possession, showing the
history, doings, &c. of their Society. But
these essays are already becoming tedious.
In the next we will examine a different subject,
— viz. : Eestricted Communion,
ESSAY vin.
ON RESTRICTED COMMUNION.
Are the Baptists justifiable in restricting Sacra^
mental Communion to their own sect ?
In maintaining the negative of this question,
we shall endeavor to establish a free com-
munion by considering —
1. The unity and identity of the church.
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 127
That there is but one church is clearly set
forth in the Holy Scriptures. It is equally
clear that there never has been but one, nor can
there ever be. To support our position, we
rely upon the following, with many other pas-
sages of God's word : —
^^Now ye are the body of Christ, and members
in particular." 1 Cor. xii. 27.
"For, as the body is one, and hath many mem-
bers, and all the members of that one body,
being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
For by one spirit are we all baptized into one
body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether
we be bond or free, and have been all made to
drink into one spirit. For the body is not one
member, but many." 1 Cor. xii. 12-14.
"But now are they many members, yet but
07ie body.'' 1 Cor. xii. 20.
" For, as we have many members in one body,
and all members have not the same office, so
we, being many, are one body in Christ, and
every one members one of another." Rom.
xii. 4, 5.
From these plain quotations it is manifest
that the church is one body, and that it must
remain one as long as Christ is one. It is also
clear that we are constituted members of that
one body, not by water-baptism, but by the bap-
tism of one spirit. Hence we argue that the
128 ESSAYS ON THB
whole church, gathered together under one ad-
ministration or scattered abroad under divers
administrations, must recognise in each of its
members the right to commune. That every
member of this one body has the right to com-
mune we are not left to inference alone.
The apostle says, "I speak as to wise men;
judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the
blood of Christ? The bread which we break,
is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we, being many, are one bread and one
body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread.
1 Cor. X. 15-17.
In this quotation the apostle argues that the
church is 07ie body, from the fact that they had
all been partakers of that one bread. We design
by this passage to prove that the right to com-
mune at the Lord's table belongs to every
member of that one body. If it establish this
right, then does it follow that a restricted com-
munion cannot be maintained without a viola-
tion of the children's rights, where such chil-
dren are acknowledged to exist. As long,
therefore, as our Baptist brethren acknowledge
there are Christians among other denomina-
tions, so long do they deprive such Christians
of their acknowledged right; so long are the
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 129
heirs of God disinherited in their Father's
house.
To get clear of this reasoning, the advocates
of restricted communion must contend either
that other denominations constitute no part of
the body of Christ, or that the church has been
divided and its unity destroyed. And it is
possible that they suppose that each fragment
has become a church itself, and has in itself
its own peculiar unity and identity. There has
been lamenting, therefore, about the division of
the church. It is an interesting question,
whether, indeed, the church has been divided.
K it be divided, it can, and will, I fear, be
destroyed: but if, on the other hand, she has
maintained her identity and remained united
in one body for near six thousand years, we
need not now feel any alarm at all at the hate
of Satan and the malice of wicked men. She
will present one hroad front to the armies of the
prince of darkness.
We deny most strenuously that any division
has ever taken place. As reasons against this
division of the church, we submit the follow-
ing:—
1. Christ pledges himself that no such thing
shall take place.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church;
I
180 ESSAYS ON THl
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it." Matt. xvi. 18. We say of this founda-
tion, after the apostle, 'Hhat Rock was ChrisC*
1 Cor. X. 4. If there ever was a church huilt
upon any other foundation, it was not a true
church. On this foundation there can be built
but one church. There has, therefore, never
been any but one church since the world began.
2. Christ took his church from the Jews and
gave it to the Gentiles.
" Hear another parable : There was a certain
householder, which planted a vineyard, and
hedged it round about, and digged a winepress
in it, and built a tower, and let it out to hus-
bandmen, and went into a far country. And
when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent
his servants to the husbandmen, that they
might receive the fruits of it. And the hus-
bandmen took his servants, and beat one, and
killed another, and stoned another. Again he
sent other serv^ants more than the first; and
they did unto them likewise. But last of all
he sent unto them his son, saying, They vrill
reverence my son. But when the husbandmen
saw the son, they said among themselves, This
is the heir; come, let us Idll him, and let us
seize on his inheritance. And they caught
him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and
slew him. When the lord therefore of the
BAPTIST eONTROVERST. 131
vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those hus-
bandmen P They say 111110 him, He will miser-
ably destroy those wicked men, and will let out
his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which
shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the
Scriptures, The stone which the builders reject-
ed, the same is become the head of the corner :
this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in
our eyes ? Therefore say I unto you, the king-
dom of God shall be taken from you, and given to
a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof Matt,
xxi. 33-43.
In this parable, the wicked husbandmen were
doubtless the Jews; the vineyard, the church,
or "the kingdom of God." Those other hus-
bandmen, " a nation bringing forth the fruits
thereof," were the Gentiles, who are now the
people of God. Then the veiy same vinegar dy
let out to the wicked Jews, is now among the
Gentiles. The Lord did not destroy the old
vineyard and plant another. He only built a
new fence around the old one. Seeing a new
fence, many have supposed it was a new vine-
yard. They forget that it stands upon the one
only foundation w^hich has been laid in Zion.
In the lltli chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans, Paul represents the church under the
figure of a good olive-tree. The Jews he call*
13*2 ESSAYS ON THE
the natural branches, which, he says, were
broken off. The Gentiles he styles branches,
taken from a wild olive-tree and grafted into
the good one, — the same one off of which the
Jews were broken. No digging up the old
olive-tree and planting a new one.
If, then, the vineyard was the same under
the old covenant that it continued to be under
the new, and it could pass through a change
of dispensations from one nation to another
without change or division, are we to suppose
that it has been divided since that period ? Im-
possible ! It is still one body. All should,
therefore, be allowed to commune.
3. Christ prayed for the unity of the church.
"Holy Father, keejp through thine own name
those whom thou hast given me, that they may
he one, as we are." John xvii. 11. " Neither pray
I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on me through their word: that they
all may he one; as thou. Father, art in me, and
I in thee, that they also may he one in us : that
the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have
given them; that they may he one, even as we
are one — I in them, and thou in me ; that they
may he made perfect in one, and that the world
may know that thou hast sent me, and hast
loved them as thou hast loved me." John xvii.
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. ISS
20-23. Jesus never trusted the unity of the
church to men, but to the Father. This unity
is not found in water-baptism, by any mode,
but in that of the Spirit.
Mr. Howell (p. 287) asks, " How is this union,
for the blessed consummation of which all
hearts must glow with anxious desire, to be
produced?" "It must be a union in the truth^
otherwise it would not deserve the name." Mr.
H. can always solve a difficulty of this sort.
He says, (p. 288,) " It can be attained only by
a return to original gospel principles." The
plain English of this is. We can all join the
Baptists, whether we believe their doctrines
and usages or not. There are many of us who
would think we were leaving " original gospel
principles." What then ? Mr. H. can fix all
this. " This they can easily do without violat-
ing their consciences in any particular," (page
288.) He goes on, (same page,) "A believer as
the candidate, and immersion as baptism, all
confess to be legitimate." To this intelligent
pedobaptists can, with as good conscience, con-
fine themselves. Beyond this we cannot — wo
dare not — go. Our conscience will not permit
us. Thus far all perfectly harmonize. Here
let us pause, meet, and unite, and the results will
gloriously accelerate that concord to which
prophecy has taught us to look forward, when
134 ESSAYS ON THB
" every one shall see eye to eye and speak the
same thing."
In what does Mr. Howell suppose that all
would see eye to eye if they were to join the
Baptists? Evidently in adult baptism. He
does not pretend they would see eye to eye in
any thing else more than they now do. It is
evidently set forth in our quotations from Mr.
H. that he thinks Christ's prayer for the union
of his people has not been answered, nor will
it be until all join the Baptists. But why, Mr.
IL, has this prayer never been answered ? Have
" the pedobaptists brought in and kept up the
impediment?" 'Now, I call in question this
whole scheme. "When it is said that the Chris-
tians are not one, those who say it do nothing
less than contradict the apostle flatly. What
would one naturally think to sit down and read
the Saviour's prayer that all that should believe
on his name should be one, and then, some
thirty or forty years after the prayer was
uttered, hear the apostle say, Ye are the " body
of Christ," ^'ye are all baptized into one body
by one spirit," &c.? Could he conclude that the
prayer was not answered ? To suit Mr. Howell's
view, the apostle should have said, We are all
baptized into one body by one mode of baptism.
I^ow Mr. H. does not pretend that we are not
baptized by the Spirit ; yet we cannot see eye
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 18$
to eye ; we cannot be one at all. But, if we
just let a Baptist preacher immerse us, (all
which he says we could do without injuring
our conscience,) we would then "gloriously
accelerate that concord to which prophecy has
taught us to look forward, when every one shall
see eye to eye," &c. Thus, if Mr. H. has
clearly set forth his own principles, he believes
that immersion has more virtue than the baptism
of the Hol}^ Ghost, — that is, when it is done by
a Baptist : it would be no better than sprink-
ling if it were performed by a Methodist or
Presbyterian. To make the brethren " see eye
to eye," a Baptist administrator is indispensable.
With this, all would be perfect harmony — all
baptized into one body — the Saviour's prayer
would be answered — we would all get into the
old church, "which is neither Catholic nor
Protestant, but apostolic."
It is little less than impious to suppose that
our Lord's prayer for union did not prevail.
If it did prevail, then the church is one, and
should therefore commune together.
4. I argue for a free communion on the
ground that we all come in at the right door.
"I am the door of the sheep." John x. 7. "I
am the door. By me if any man enter in, he
shall be saved," &c. John x. 9. How does Je-
BUS bring disciples into the fold? "He shall
136 ESSAYS ON THE
baptize you with the Holy GhosV Matt. iii. 11.
"-By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.'*
1 Cor. xii. 13. If the baptism of the Holy
Ghost, administered by Jesus, will not entitle
us to commune at the Lord's Table, will im-
mersion, administered by a Baptist, give such
right? Or which of the two has the most
virtue ?
Having gone through the argument as far as
we intended in favor of a free communion, it
• now remains for us to attempt the refutation
of our opponents.
The Baptists defend their restricted com-
munion by asserting that baptism must go be-
fore communion, and that nothing is baptism
but immersion. From these premises they
conclude that no one has a right to commune
who is not immersed. If these could both be
proven, then they would be correct. But where
is the proof of either? In what chapter and
verse is the passage requiring baptism by any
mode, as being an indispensable prerequisite
to the Lord's Supper, to be found? Or is that
a human tradition ?
If the law of Christ require baptism before
the Lord's Supper, the command can be found
in the Kew Testament. Mr. Howell devotes
two chapters to this subject. The first one is
his Scriptural argument. I call it Scriptural only
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 137
because he quotes many passages. He says
these passages prove that baptism must go be-
fore communion. But I confess, if there be the
least proof in any of them I am too dull to
perceive it. For example, he tries to prove it
by the commission Christ gave the disciples.
Everybody knows that the commission says
not one word about it. The whole chapter is
a perfect failure. It would be quite an easy
task to answer every thing in it. He succeeds,
however, much better in his second chapter on
the subject.
I shall content myself with giving a list of
his witnesses, introduced in his last effort.
Here is the list : — Justin Martyr, Jerome, Aus-
tin, Bede, Theophylact, Bonaventure, Fried.
Spanheim, Lord- Chancellor King, Wall, Dod-
dridge, Manton, Dwight, all the catechisms and
confessions of faith, and Robert Hall. If he
had added l^Ir. Benedict, or himself, then the
list would have been complete. Is it not a
little strange that a man who professes to go
by the Bible alone, constantly insinuating that
all other denominations go by some other au-
thority, would resort to the opinions of men so
frequently? All the refutation necessaiy in
regard to such proof is to state that it is unin-
spired men giving testimony. K Mr. Howell
thinks he can prove us all out of the true
12*
138 ESSAYS ON THB
church in this way, he will find himself mis-
taken.
Since Mr. Howell cannot get proof from the
Bible to sustain the affirmative, we will try if
we cannot prove something on the other side.
The first Supper was administered to the
twelve by the Master himself. Ten of these,
we insist, never were baptized in any way ex-
cept by the Holy Ghost. Two of them had
been the disciples of John previously, (John i.
35, 37,) and it is fair to conclude that they had
been baptized by him. These two are the only
ones of the twelve that we have the least evi-
dence of their baptism. The mentioning of
these two as being John's disciples proves that
the others were not. If so, John never bap-
tized them. If he did not, who did? The
only inducting ceremony to which the ten had
submitted was that of circumcision. If their
circumcision did not supply their want of bap-
tism, then is it certain that nothing of that sort
is necessary, since the ten were not baptized.
That baptism seems to have usually gone be-
fore the Supper I freely admit, but, so far as the
proof goes, the ten form an exception. Were
it not for this exception, I would be ready to
conclude the general observance of that order
was evidence of a law from the Master, although
the law is not recorded. I need not concede
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 139
this ground, which is good against them, unless
our Baptist friends will agree that baptism
came in the place of circumcision. The very
moment that is done, I must abandon it. Will
they concede it ?
It must, however, be admitted on all hands
that the Bible does not require by any plain
command that baptism should always precede
the Supper.
As to the other part of their assumption, —
that nothing is baptism but immersion, — we
have elsewhere remarked, and need not repeat
it here.
In this discussion the church has been con-
sidered one and indivisible under all dispensa-
tions and circumstances. What, then, we will
be asked, about the different denominations?
Is there no schism in their case ? !N'one at all.
They are but so many captains' companies in
the same great army. The division among
them is sectarian, which is not inconsistent
with the unity of the church. This will appear
as soon as we examine what is necessary to
constitute a sect. The church is composed of
those who are united to Christ. Those who
are mystically united to him by the baptism of
the Spirit, which, and which alone, can do it,
are members of the Catholic invisible church
under all dispensations.
140 ESSAYS ON THE
Those who are baptized with water are
thereby made members of the Catholic church
visible under the Christian dispensation. The
same was accomplished by circumcision under
the old covenant.
A sect, though in the church, is a very dif-
ferent thing from it. While the church is
united in the essentials of religion^ a sect, as such,
is only united in matters of opiyiion.
Hence, a man may be a member of a sect
and not be a member of the body of Christ: so
may he be a member of the church without
being united to a sect.
It will be asked whether the author of these
essays considers sectarian division an evil in
the church? To which he replies promptly,
he does not. By the existence of different
sects, intrigues with the church becomes much
more difficult than it would otherwise. Men
need watching. The existence of a party out
of power, to watch those that are in, prevents
much corruption in civil government. If all
sectarian division were done away, it would
not be so specially the interest of any one to
prevent corrupt political intrigues, — such in-
trigues as politicians are usually ready to make.
As it is, as soon as one denomination could get
rightly under way, others would sound the
alarm. Let there be but one denomination in
BAPTIST CONTROVERSY. 141
the United States, and very soon the people
will find themselves jpaying tithes.
Christ manages the affairs of his own king-
dom. I am no convert to the idea that our
blessed Lord planted a church in the world
and then abandoned it to its own management.
"Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
the world."
CONCLUSIOK
In the preceding pages we have seen that,
according to the Bible, Jesus alone has a right
to give laws to his people. Hence, all human
laws are null and void, and of no force. Under
this head we have marked as human laws the
requiring of members to join the church by
experience. We have seen that it is of very
mischievous tendency and without any counte-
nance in God's word. We have endeavored
to show the nature and use of circumcision,
the right of infant baptism, and of a free com-
munion at the Lord's Supper. With all these
we have endeavored to disprove the necessity
of immersion in the ordinance of the baptism.
I have now to request that my readers receive
142 E5SAY5 ON THE BAPTIST CONTROVERSl.
no more of these essays than shall be found in
accordance with God's word.
Believing the doctrines herein set forth, the
author rejoices in the prospect of the final
triumph of the truth. He rejoices in the belief
that the Bible will finally be followed by all.
June 11, 1846.
THE END.
BTKB£OTTPKt> BT L. JOBMBON AND CO.
PBau>HLPHlA.
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