O)
SCRIPTURE BAPTISM
DEFENDED,
AND
ANABAPTIST NOTIONS
PROVED TO BE
ANTI-SCRIPTURAL NOVELTIES.
BY
REV. JOHN LEVINGTON.
"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 xL t6.
"Suffer the little children to coine unto me, and forbid them not: for of such ix the Kingdom of
God."-Mark x. 14.
" Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to rondemnation, even so by
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.-Rom. v. 15.
"Where ain abounded grace did much more abound." —tom. v. 20.
$ a
SOLD BY T. K. ADAMS, DETROIT.
ALSO,
AT THE METHODIST BOOK DEPOSITORY; AND BY THE
AUTHOR, MONROE, MICH.
AND BY BOOKSELLERS GENERALLY.
!.;: 5~"
i;) )
.LUS 
Aa 
-" "-CONTENTS.
ec'  ~ 
s/5
...; @R...... 
CHAPTER I.
Position of Anabaptists Stated-The words Dip, Plunge, Immerse, Overwhelm,
not Sylionyisious-They give us the word Plunge as the Synonym ot
Baptize, and their practice is to Plunge, and Pluuge only-Their favorite
arguments drawn from the Baptism by John and that by Philip-John's
Baptism  not Christian Baptism-Christ's Baptism different from both   Their Arguments based up,,n a mere Assumption-Their Assumption is
shown to involve palpable Absurdities-It is disproved and shown to be
a umere begging of the question...... 1
CHAPTER II.
Direct Argument taken up-TlThat which God calls Baptismi shown to he ad   miniristered( by the baptismal element Falling upon the Subject-TThis is
cl.aimned to be a Fact-WlWhat God Asserts Baptists Deny-God  Baptizes
by Pourin,g-TiThis, too, is a Fact-His Precept and his Practice Against
Plunging.......        9
CHAPTER III.
The idlea that Christ's baptism and that of Christians are symnbolIical of Christ's
burial, has no countenance from  Scripture.  It is absurd. Romans vi. 3, 4,
fully examiined and rescued fironom their perversionis...       21
p.
pI 
.*  4          I    t,'         \S
e i            CONTENTS.
s  ~'        CHAPTER IV. 
The word Sprinkle is now taken ul-Iti use arndwle  hownrem Scrip 
ture-PIunging for the purpose t searinI is an utrage  n          lon
sense...      f......2
~' w.PTEt'....
The assumption that en, eis, and ek, always mean ill nto,  and out of,.is
refuted, and the argument built thereon, shown to     wnl    a
mere begging of the question...           
~.l ~. ~4~. ~1l
CHAPTER VI.
A fallacy and its terrible consequences exposed. If Philip and theEunuch
did go down into the water it would not follow that either was plunged
-The question, "Why did John baptize where there was much wa   ter?"  answered....37
CHAPTER VII.
The dogma that nothing but Plunging is Baptism is shown to involve what is
Unreasonable, Inhuman, and even Implossible....       44
CHAPTER VIII.
The appeal to antiquity is simply superstition, cruelty, and absurdity, appealing
to superstition, cruelty, and absurdity-Many superstitious and absurd
opinions and practices specified as having obtained in the nominally
Christian Church at a very early period-It is difficult to mention any one
religious dogma that is more clogged with difficulties than is the dogma of
plunging....... 47
CHAPTER IX.
Summing up-A great variety of Particulars are Specified-Plunging was, and
is, connected with Superstition and various Errors, and is doubtless the
Offspring of Superstition-Proselyting, causing Proselytes to Renounce
their Ba-ptsm is very serious-Unreasonableness  of the supposition that
the Gernlman Fanatics discovered whlat all the wise and the learned both
I  IN
#,W,,
Oa,
qr- I i..,.      " ,, 
CONTENTS.
ancient and modern have failed to discover —It is the duty of Zion's
Watchmen to Save their People from being Proselyted-Thc sincerity of
the Anabaptists in crying for UTnion under certain circumstances is very
questionable while they teach as they do-We are not at liberty to reject
a Divinely appointed Method and adopt another, especially when that
other is very objectionable in itself-Nor is the Church at Liberty to leave
to the choice and whims of Men to Decide where it is her duty to Teach
what God has already Decided-Taylor's Pictorial Representations showlDg the Ancient unode of Baptism.....       53
CHAPTER X.
Bitter opposition of Antipedobaptists to Infant Baptism-Grounds ot
their opposition examined and refuted...        65
CHIAPTER XI.
It is shown that Infant Baptism takes the place of Circumcision-Early Chris   tian Fathers are quoted-Testimony of Pelagius-The Antipedobaptist
dogma one of the most modern of religious errors-Baxter is quoted   Other Fathers are quoted....... 73
CHAPTER XII.
It is shown that Infant Baptism has been practised firom Apostolic times-Not
One clear case of Opposition to Infant Baptism till the Sixteenth Century
-Appealing to, and Reasoning with, the Antipedobaptists-Astounding
Facts Stated-They cannot tell us when the Practice of Baptizing Infants
Commenced-We can tell them When and by Whom Opposition thereto
Commenced-Infant Baptism the Uncontradicted Practice of the Church
from Apostolic till Modern Times....       85
CHAPTER XIIF.
The objection that Infant Baptism is incompatible with Man's Natural Rights
is shown to be ridiculous-It contains the very germ of Infidelity, and
even Atheism-Objection that Circumcision was a Civil Contract is
refuted-Many absurdities exposed... 91
v 
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XIV.
Direct Scripture proof-Infants have the necessary qualifications for Baptism Their claim more clear than that of any Adult-Romans v. 12, 18, 19, ex plained-Tile Infant has the samle qualifications for Baptism, that Abraham
hadl for Circurncision; the same that believing Adults have for Baptism-A
close connection between Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation on the one
hand, and between Antipedobaptism and infant damnation oil the other-Re marks on the moral nature of Infants.....             97
CHAPTER XV.
The Argument from Apostolic Practice-The Apostles Baptized the Believing
Father and his House-Remarks on the Greek words Oikos and  Oikia   Taylor is quoted-Some ftrther remarks with regard to the Origin and
History of the Anabaptists......115
vi 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
DuRItNG the past winter, the M. E. Church in this
city held a protracted meeting, and it pleased God to
give efficiency to his word, and to bless the labors of his
people and crown them with much success. The Presbyterians also held a protracted meeting at the same
time, and although each Church attended to its own
work, there was a free intercourse of both pastors and
members; each attending the meetings of their sister
Church when an opportunity offered.
Thus things went on pleasantly and prosperously till
the Anabaptists commenced to work in their usual way,
preaching and urging their peculiar views, publicly, and
from house to house. Their baptism was the only baptism; "there was no other mode practised for more than
fifteen hundred years."  Baptism was "neither more nor
less than to dip, plunge, dive, or immerse under the pressure of the minister's hand." And as their baptism was
the only baptism, their Church, of course, was the only
"t4 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
Church.   It was loudly demanded, "Where was  the
Methodist Church before John Wesley? Where was the
Presbyterian Church before John Calvin? "  Our economy was attacked and our " Class-book" pronounced "a
mere catchtrap." The members of my charge were visited in their own houses, and the Bible taken from the
shelf to prove that our baptism was no baptism, and that
plunging only was baptism; then they were kindly assured that the baptist door was open, and that if they
would come they would be accepted and receive scripture
baptism.
Thus the work of proselyting was pushed forward
with a zeal and a perseverance worthy of a better cause.
And those poor dupes who were caught in this way were
made to renounce their baptism, brought to the river,
and made "to plunge, dip, dive, or immerse, under pressure of the minister's hand."
Now they became exceeding bold, and even boasted
of their success in proselyting, so much so that a certain
lady very boastfully said to one of our people, "We will
have three or four more of your Methodist ladies." But
though matters were arranged in full confidence of leading them and several others to the river, they were deprived of that pleasure; a little instruction under the
blessing of God saved them from that snare! A young
lady, I think one of the expected four, and a young convert, afterward told me that "Mr. IHI. followed her till
viii 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
DURING the past winter, the M. E. Church in this
city held a protracted meeting, and it pleased God to
give efficiency to his word, and to bless the labors of his
people and crown them with much success. The Presbyterians also held a protracted meeting at the same
time, and although each Church attended to its own
work, there was a free intercourse of both pastors and
members; each attending the meetings of their sister
Church when an opportunity offered.
Thus things went on pleasantly and prosperously till
the Anabaptists commenced to work in their usual way,
preaching and urging their peculiar views, publicly, and
from house to house. Their baptism was the only baptism; "there was no other mode practised for more than
fifteen hundred years."  Baptism was "neither more nor
less than to dip, plunge, dive, or immerse under the pressure of the minister's hand." And as their baptism was
the only baptism, their Church, of course, was the only 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
she was almost distracted and so distressed that she
wept. And when she told him that she thought our baptism was proper baptism, he threateningly said, " How
dare you say so? " She says she actually trembled.
She having been converted in our meetings and received
into our Church some time before, I said, "Why  did
you not come and tell me? " She said, "I was so perplexed I did not know what to do." I think these were
her words.
Some young men who, like many others, became
filled with these ideas, and seemed to think that they
were now prepared to prove anything and everything,
came into my Bible Class and desired me to bring up
the subject of baptism there; but I told them, "No, it
is my custom when others are at it to let them blow off,
and then I will attend to it." Efforts were also made to
unsettle the minds of our Sabbath School children, and
means employed to that end similar to those already
mentioned; nor were they employed without effect.
Teachers came to me telling me that I must do something, for many of the children had become very uneasy;
one whole class I was requested to talk to, and did so,
and succeeded, I think, in restoring their quiet.
But time would fail to tell all, and some is really too
bad to be told; and I have concluded not to tell it.
Suffice it to say, that my pastoral abilities were heavily
taxed; but by diligence and the blessing of God I suc
ix 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
ceeded in saving most of the sheep; though I am well
convinced that much harm was done by the doings of
these proselyters; and I have had much sorrow and have
wept many tears in consequence. For while we labored
simply to lead sinners to Jesus for salvation, they labored
to bring them to the river for immersion; while we labored to convert them to God, they labored to convert
them to their peculiar notions!
Finally, I called the Church together, having previously called the attention of the official board to the matter, and having also conversed previously with some of
the leading brethren alone. I stated some of the facts
to the Church, saying as now, that there were other
things that I would forbear to tell, at least for the present.  Some of the older brethren, and others, expressed
their disapprobation of such doings and gave wise counsel. I also gave what I conceived to be good advice;
others told their experience, and appropriately referred
to what they had witnessed in days of Millerite and
Campbellite excitement, and prophesied that these efforts
would come to naught, as those did. And having thus
talked, and sung, and prayed, we departed, trusting in
the Lord.
Finally, on Sunday, the 23d of April, I announced
that I would preach on baptism on the following Sundav,
which I did twice, and so I did on each of the two following Sabbaths, six sermons in all; and from that time
x 
LNTRODUCTORY PEMfARKS.
till now none have been made " to plunge, dip, or dive,
under the pressure of the mninister's hand! " In the following pages you have the substance of these sermons,
for most of what I said was written before delivery. I
thought it necessary to state these facts, that the reader
might appreciate some of the remarks in the following
pages.  iMoreover, this is not the first time that I have
been annoyed in this way.
In referring to the denomination with whose teachinrgs I join issue, it was necessary, of course, to use some
distinctive appellation.  I did not think it proper to use
the appellation Baptist, for that term is calculated and
designed to convey the idea that the denomination to
which it is applied is the only denomination that baptizes
at all.  But so far is this from being true that it would
be more in harmony with truth to call them Antibaptists, seeing they are opposed to the baptism of children,
that is, to the baptism of the whole human race till a
given period is reached. I have, therefore, used the appellation Anabaptists, as they were originally and properly called, because they rebaptized. I have also used
the appellation Antipedobaptists, because they are opposed to the baptism of children. And, for the sake of
convenience, I have sometimes used the appellation Imrersionists, though, strictly speaking, that is not correct,
for they do not immerse, as we have shown, but they
plunge, and plunge only; but we did not like to use the
xi 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM-THE MODE.
CHAPTER I.
Position of Anabaptists Stated-The words Dip, Plunge, Immerse, Overwhelm,
not Synonymous-They give us the word Plunge as the Synonym of
Baptize, and their practice is to Plunge, and Plunge only-Their favorite
arguments drawn from the Baptism by John and that by Philip-Johln's
Baptism not Christian Baptlsm-Christ's Baptism different from both   Their Arguments based upon a mere Assumption-Their Assumption is
shown to involve palpable Absurdities-It is disproved and shown to be
a mere begging of the question.
THE position of the Anabaptists with regard to the
mode of baptism, is this.  They say, "Baptism is neither
more nor less than an immersion of the whole body in
water, solemnly performed in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Hioly Ghost."  Their arguments in favor of this position are usually commenced
thus, by their writers: " BAPTISM, from the Greek word
Baptizo, or Bapto, I dip or plunge."  "To dip, plunge
or immerse."' They also use the word overwhelm, and
sometimes other words which they consider synonymous
with these.  Baptize, dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm.
It is assumed that these five terms are synonymous, but
we deny that any one of them is synonymous with any
other one of the five terms. It is not necessary, how 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
ever, to refute this unwarrantable assumption, seeing it is
plunging and plunging only, that is practised by those
with whom we join issue, nor do I know any other word
in the English language  that expresses their practice
quite as well as this one does; submnerge is the next best.
Be this as it may, however, their practice is to plunge
under water, and this and this only, they assert, is baptism; and they say the Greek word baptizo means this,
"' neither more nor less."  It is necessary that this should
be distinctly noticed, as Baptists, so-called, seem to prefer the word immerse, though it is a somewhat ambiguous
word, and does not fairly express their practice. Inasmuch, then, as this word is that which best expresses
their practice, and as they claim it to be the synonym
of baptize, we will use it in these discussions, as appropriately expressing that for which they contend, and to
which we object.
The most favorite arguments of the Anabaptists in
favor of plunging aredrawn from the record of the baptism
by John, and from the record of the baptism by Philip,
and are all based vpon the assumption, that certain
words have the meaning which they attach to them, and
no other. Now we purpose to prove that the reverse of
this assumption is true, and will thus take away the very
foundation of their arguments, and render them worthless.
As John's baptism is so much relied upon by the
Anabaptists, it may be well, just here to call attention
to the fact that, his baptism was not Christian Baptism,
and, consequently, cannot properly be claimed as a pattern for Christians to go by. The following remarks
will suffice to show that John's baptism was not Chris
2 
POSITION OF ANABAPTISTS STATED.
tian baptism.  1. John's baptism was "unto  repentance," and the parties baptized professed faith in a
Saviour to come. 2. Christian baptism is the initiatory
right intfo the Christian Church; but when John Baptized, the Christian Church had no existence.  3. While
John's baptism was " unto repentance," Christian baptism is the seal of justification already received, as circuincision was. Hence when those who had been baptized by John, believed, and were justified in the Christian sense, the Apostles administered Christian baptism
to them, as we  learn from the following Scripture;
Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to
Ephesus; and finding certain disciples, he said unto
them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?  And they said unto him, We have not so much
as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he
said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And
they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John
verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying
unto the people, that they should believe on him which
should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  When
they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus. Acts xix. 1-5. See also Matt. iii. 5. It
is entirely unnecessary to say any more to prove that
John's baptism was not Christian baptism. And as the
baptism of our blessed Lord is constantly referred to by
the Anabaptists, who tell us that we must follow Jesus, it
may be well to remark that neither was that Christian baptism, nor was it the same as that which John administered
to his countrymen; it could not be unto repentance, for
Jesus had no sin to repent of, neither could it be the seal
of his justification, for he never was pardoned; nor was
3 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
it the right of initiation into the Christian Church, for
the Christian Church did not yet exist; but like the
Jewish high-priest, he was thus initiated into the priests'
office; it was also the sign of the baptism by the Hioly
Ghost, and that was administered by the Spirit "de scending upon him." Thus we might fairly reject all
the arguments drawn from John's baptism without say ing any more. We will not, however, rest our cause
here, but will now proceed to refute their assumption,
viz., that the words baptizo, en, eis, and ek have the
meaning which they say they have, and no other.
We  now take up the word bapiizo; and here let it
be distinctly noticed that the advocates of plunging as
the only mode of baptism, give us the word plunge  as
the synonym of the word baptize, and their practice is
plunging, and only plunging;  nor will they admit that
anything short of this is baptism.  We have nothing to
do, then, with the words, dip, immerse, overwhelm, or
any other; their use only tends to deceive; baptizo we
are told means to plunge the whole body under, and their
practice corresponds with the assertion; they do not dip,
they do not immerse, they plunge only!
The question, then, is simply this: does baptizo
mean to plunge, " neither more nor less? "  To refute
this assumption we have only to quote a few texts where
the word occurs, and substitute the word plunge for the
word baptize.
Luke xvi, 24. "Send Lazarus that he may plunge
the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue."
John xii. 20. "i He to whom I shall give a sop when I
have plunged it.?' Rev. xix. 13, he was clothed in a vesture
plunged in blood." Matt. xxvi. 23. Hie that plungeth his
4 
POSITION OF ANABAPTISTS STATED.
hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray me."
Mark xiv. 20.  "One of the twelve that plungeth with
me in the dish." John xiii. 26. "i He it is to whom I
shall give a sop when I have plunged it." Mark vii. 4, 8.
"And when they come from market, except they plunge
they eat not. And many other things there be, which
they have received to hold, as the plunging of cups, and
pots, and brazen vessels, and tables."  The word  linon,
here translated tables, means, more properly, couches, or
beds; more especially those couches or lounges upon
which the Jews reclined at their tables; these were, say,
fourteen feet long, more or less. Now what do you think
of plunging these lounges, or tables, under water before
eating?  The idea is so absurd that the mere mention of
it is sufficient.  But this is only one of the numerous
absurdities implied in the assumption to which we object.
It will be remembered, of course, that baptismos in this
passage, is rendered washing, by our translators, but the
assumption to which we object will have it plunging /
But we proceed. Ileb. ix. 10.  "Divers plungings, and
carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." HIeb. vi. 2. "Of the doctrine of plungings,
and of laying on of hands,and of resurrection of the dead,
and of eternal judgment." What think you of the doctrine of plungings? Matt. iii. 11. "Indeed plunge you
with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after
me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear.  Hie shall plunge you with the HIoly Ghost and
with fire." If the advocates of plunging insist on the substitution of in for with, then the reading will be "He
shall plunge you in the Holy Ghost and in fire!"  If
they prefer this rendering they are welcome to,    But
5 
CHRISTIAN:BAPTISM.
we think men of sober judgment will not hesitate to pro nounce both renderings absurd, and intolerable. Yet
this must be the rendering or the assumption which
we object must be given up.  "Then cometh Jesus from
Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be plunged of him. But
John forbade him, saying, I have need to be plunged of
thee, and cotnest thou to me?"  Acts. xi. 16.  " Then
remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said
John indeed plunged in water; but ye shall be plunged
in the Holy Ghost." Nothing prevents such language
from being blasphemy but the good intention of those
who use it. In Matt. xx. 22, 23 it is difficult to get the
word plunge in at all; but if we substitute the word
plunge for the word baptize, these verses will read thus:
"Are ye able to be plunged with the plunging that I am
plunged with?" "Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and
be plunged with theplunging that I am plunged with."
Mark i. 4. " John did plunge in the wilderness, and
preach the plunging of repentance for the remission of
sins."  John xii. 50.  "But I have a plunging to be
plunged with; and how am I straitened till it be accom.
plished."  Acts x. 37.  "That word, I say, ye know,
which was published throughout all Judea, and began
from Galilee, after the plunging which John preached."
Acts xiii. 24. " John preached the plunging of repentance to all the people of Israel." In Acts xix. 3, we
read, "And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye
baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism." The
word here rendered unto, is, in the original, eis, and the
advocates of plunging rest their arguments, as we shall
show by-and-by, upon the assumption that eis always
means int; now let us substitute into for unto, in thlis
6 
POSITION OF ANABAPTISTS STATED.
verse, and plunge for baptize, as they claim we should,
and the passage will read thus:  "And  he said unto
them, into what then were ye plunged?  And they said,
into John's plunging! " Now who but an ignorant fanatic would charge the inspired writers with talking such
consummate nonsense as this transaction indicates? And,
remember this is the correct translation if the assumption
here opposed be true; and it is to obtain such a translation as this that the Anabaptists have got up their new
Bible!  1 Cor. xii. 13.  "For by one Spirit are we all
plunged into one body." Once more, according to this
assumption, Rom. vi. 3 and 4 will read thus: " Know
ye not that so many of us as were plunged into Jesus
Christ, were plunged into his death?  Therefore we are
buried with him by p7unginy into death."
We think we have now given plunging enough to
satisfy the most ardent lover of plunging; nay, we
think enough has been given to make the most ardent
lover of plunging sick of it!  We  beg to assure the
reader, however, that much more of the same kind might
be given; what is here given is a mere tithe of the absurdities involved in the assumiption that baptizo always
means to plunge, "neither more nor less!"  We  are
aware that the better informed among the Anabaptists
admit that baptizo has other meaning;  but, notwithstanding this, their arguments are based upon the assumption that this is its only meaning; and they give us
the word plunge as its synonym; and they practice
plunging and plunging only! Moreover, we deny that
either the word dip or the word immerse, properly expresses their practice, nor does overwhelm, for you may
overwhelm a man by casting abundance of water, sand,
.7 
CHlRISTIAN BAPTISM.
or other substance upon him, but that is not plunging,
and, consequently, not baptism, if the assumption under
consideration be correct; and if it is not correct, not
true, as it evidently is not, all the arguments which assume its truthfulness, and depend  upon such assumption for their validity and conclusiveness, are worthless; till the point assumed is proved, all such arguments
are a mere begging of the question. In conclusion, we
beg to remind the reader that the word PLUNGE, in its
different forms, in the above remarks, represents the word
baptizo, in its corresponding forms in the original; and
if the substitution of the one word for the other involves us in absurdities, and even implies impossibilities,as it evidently does, then to baptize does not mean to
plunge, and the assumption that it does is not true, and all
the arguments built upon that assumption, are worthless,
are a mere begging of the question. This is what we
claim to have proved, and this is what we undertook to
prove, in this chapter.
8 
CHAPTER II.
Direct Argument taken up-That which God calls Baptism shown to be ad   ministered by the baptismal element Falling upon the Subject-This is
claimed to be a Fact-What God Asserts Baptists Deny-God  Baptizes
by Pouring,-This, too, is a Fact-Hlis Precept and his Practice Against
Plunging.
WE will now proceed to the direct evidence in the
case, and will show that what God calls baptism is administered by the baptismal element falling upon the party
baptized, not by the party being plunged in that element;
and will, consequently, prove that the mode contended
for and practised by the Anabaptists, is just the reverse
of God's mode.
In Daniel iv. 33, we read:  "The same hour was the
thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven
from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was
wet [ebaphe] with the dew of heaven."  Now, here is no
plunging; yet Nebuchadnezzar was baptized. How was
he baptized? The sacred writer tells you in these words:
"his body was baptized with the dew of heaven."  Now,
everybody knows that " the dew of heaven" fell upon his
body, and God calls this baptism. Nor can the Anabaptists force en, or eis, into their service in this case,
for neither of these prepositions is found here; the record
is, that "his body was baptized with the dew of heaven."
See Septuagint, Chap. iv. 30. It is worthy of remark, 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
too, that the descent and influences of the Spirit upon the
human soul arc compared to the descent and influences
of the rain, and of the dew upon vegetation; hence we
read thus in Ps. lxxii. 6: " He shall come down like rain
upon the mown grass; as showers that water the earth."
And in Hosea iv. 5, we read: "I will be as the dew
unto Israel, he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his
roots as Lebanon." This is what God calls the baptism
with the Spirit, and the falling of the dew upon Nebuchadnezzar is baptism with dew, or water. Yet this is
what the advocates of plunging despise, treat with contempt, andpronounce no ba2ptism. It is enough for us,
however, to know that God calls it baptism; and that
he calls it baptism is a fact, an indisputable fact; for
we give his words, and the chapter and verse where they
may be found. And, while the descent of the Spirit is
compared to the descent of water in the form of rain or
dew, we aver that it never is, and cannot be, compared
to plunging the body into the water, nor is it ever com
pared to a dash of water overwhelming the body: such
figures are of human invention, and, like all other errors,
flow from the carnal nature, which always seeks for a
great display, and loses the Spirit in the letter! To such
Jesus still has to say: "The flesh profiteth nothing, the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they
are life."   And to such Paul says:  "Are  ye not yet
carnal and walk as men?" We will now produce another
text to prove that what God calls baptism was administered by the baptismal element falling upon the parties
baptized. In I Cor. x. 1, 2, Paul says: " 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
lo! 
THE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT.    11
sea." Paul says, "all passed through the sea;" and
Moses says, "The children of Israel walked upon dry
land in the midst of the sea." Now, here was no plunging; the people were "under the cloud," and "upon
dry land in the midst of the sea;" consequently the
water with which they were baptized must have fallen
upon them, whether it came from the cloud, which was
suspended over them, or from the sea, which was "a wall
unto them on their right hand and on their left."  Here,
again, was no plunging; the Israelites were not plunged
in the cloud, for that was over them; nor in the sea,
for the waters were "a wall," on either hand, while they
"walked upon dry land." Their number was six hundred thousand men, beside women  and children.   To
talk about plunging all these either in the cloud or in the
sea is preposterous, yet they were all baptized, and they
were baptized by sprinkling, and this sprinkling God
calls baptism.  This, too, is afact, an indisputable fact!
Neither were the Egyptians plunged, they were overwhelmed with a vengeance; but, observe, God does not
call the overwhe&ming of the Egyptians baptism, but the
sprinkling of  the Israelites he does!  Yet Anabaptists
treat sprinkling with sovereign contempt, and are wont
to say of those who were baptized by sprinkling'" They
were sprinkled, not baptized."   In a word, that which
God calls baptism they say is no baptism; what  God
affirms, they deny; these are the facts in the case!
Having shown that sprinkling, or pouring, is baptism,
that God says it is, we now declare that we do not find
a single text in God's book where that mode of baptism
practised by the Anabaptists is enjoined, nor do I remember a single text wherein plunging is called bap 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
tismn; if there is, let the advocates of plunging produce
it; but, remember, if they should produce fifty such
texts, it will not affect our argument, for still the fact
claimed remains the same, viz: that, sprinkling, or pouring, is baptism-God says it is. Nor does God ever
plunge when he baptizes, He always baptizes by pouring,
sprinkling, shedding, falling, as we shall now show.
The baptism of the Spirit, and more especially that
peculiar baptism which belongs to the times of the Gospel, is thus spoken of and promised by the prophets.
Isaiah xliv. 3: "For I will pour water upon him that
is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour
my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine
offspring." iere the sign, water, and the thing signified,
the Spirit, are both spoken of, and the administration
of each is said to be by pouring: "I will pour water,"
"I will pour my Spirit."  It is quite evident that the
pouring of water mentioned in this text represents the
outpouring of the Spirit-the prophet, or rather the
LORD, explains the one by the other.  The same ba,ptismn is spoken of in the following prophetic promise:
" And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour
out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream
dreams, your young men shall see visions; and also upon
the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will
I pour out my Spirit."
In these and similar scriptures we have what our
Lord calls "The promise of the Father," and what he
and his apostles call the baptism of the Spirit. I do not
know that this statement will be questioned as to its
correctness, but if it should, the following texts will
12 
THE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT.   13
put it beyond question.  Luke xxiv. 49: "And behold I
send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye
in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with
power from on high." Acts i. 4, 5: " He commanded
them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but
wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye
have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water,
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many
days hence." In these prophetic promises there are two
particulars to which, more especially, we call attention.
First, the thing promised, baptism:  " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Second, that baptism was
to be administered by pouring: "I will pour out my
Spirit;'" and the same is said of the outward and visible
sign of this baptism, the baptism with water: "I will
pour water upon him that is thirsty."   It is evident,
according to these prophetic promises, that baptism, in
every sense of the word, was to be by pouring. This,
too, we claim to be a fact!
Let us now turn to the New Testament and see how
these prophetic promises were fulfilled. Acts ii. 1-4
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they
were all with one accord in one place; And suddenly
there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like
as of fire, and it sat upon each of them,  And  they
were all filled with the Holy Ghost." Observe, the parties baptized on this occasion were all in one room and
remained unmoved till baptized-there was no plunging.
Second, The sound "filled all the house where they were
sitting;" observe, they were sitting when baptized.
2 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Third, the Holy Ghost filled the parties baptized; and,
fourth, the symbol sat upon each of them; and, finally,
all came from above. Now, this is what God calls baptism; and it was administered by pouring, by falling,
as both the prophets and Jesus Christ said it would be.
There was no plunging!
Now, when Peter witnessed all this he  "Lifted up
his voice and said unto them: Ye men of Judea, and
all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you,
and hearken to my words:" "This is that which was
spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass
in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit
upon all flesh;" "And on my servants, and on myhandmaidens, I will pour out, in those days, of my Spirit."
Here the apostle Peter declares that the prophetic
promise, quoted above, the promise of the Father, was
fulfilled by this pentecostal baptism of the Spirit; and
this baptism was by pouring, as the foregoing prophecy
said it would be. -
Here let it be remembered that the Anabaptists assert, that baplizo means to plunge, and that it means
" neither more nor less;" hence they practice plunging,
and plunging only, and assert that pouring, sprinkling,
is no baptism!  But it is an indispensable fact that the
Spirit was poured out andfell upon the disciples, tpon
the day of Pentecost, while they were SITTIG!  And it
is a fact equally indisputable, that Jesus Christ and his
apostles, and the whole Christian Church from then till
now, call this baptism! Here, then, is baptism without
plunging; here is baptism by pouring; let Anabaptists
pronounce it no baptism if they dare!  If they do, they
contradict Jesus and His apostles, together with those 
THE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT.    15
who were eye and ear witnesses of the facts, as well as
the whole Christian Church from then till now! And
if they admit that this is baptism, they thereby admit
that baptism is administered by pouring —administered
by the baptismal element falling upon the parties baptized; and by this admission they concede all we claim,
and give up the controversy! Upon one of the horns of
this dilemma we suspend all the opposers of baptism by
pouring; they may choose which they please, for either
is fatal to their cause, and they must choose one or the
other! If they deny that this is baptism, they are infidels, for Jesus and His apostles say it is; and if they
admit that pouring is baptism, they admit all we claim,
and the controversy is at an end.
But knowing the obtuseness of those who will not
admit of anything short of plunging for baptism, we will
add fact to fact, and text to text, if by any means we
may convince them of their error, and lead them to an
acknowledgment of the truth.
In Acts xi. 15-17, the baptism at the house of Cornelius
is thus recorded by Peter: "And as I began to speak, the
Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he
said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be
baptized with  the Holy  Ghost.   Forasmuch then as
God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could
withstand God?'"
Here let the following particulars be noticed.   1.
God baptized on this occasion, at the house of Cornelius,
in the same way that he baptized at Jerusalem, on the
day of Pentecost;'the IToly Ghost fell on them as He 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
did on us at the beginning." In each case the baptismal
element fell upon them-they were not plunged in it.
2. The administration in each case is called baptism.
John baptized, and God baptized. 3. The latter reminded Peter of the former; therefore, as we know that
the latter was by pouring, we infer that the mode in the
former case was the same, for pouring could not remind
any one of plunging. If a Baptist should see one baptizing another by pouring, would he say that it reminded him of John baptizi'ng by plunging in Jordan? And
if such an association of ideas in the mind of a modern
Baptist would be considered absurd, and even impossible, let such admit that it would be equally absurd and
impossible in the mind of Peter. Thus we are forced to
admit that John's baptism with water was similar to
God's baptism with the Holy Ghost or charge Peter
with an association of ideas at once absurd and impossible! Moreover, we KNOW that God baptized by POURING,
and we defy any man to prove that John baptized by
PLUNGING! Seeing, then, that the latter is unknown, to
say the least, and the former confessedly KNOWN, common
sense says follow the known rather than the unknown;
follow what we KNOW to be God's mode of baptizing
rather than what we do not know to be Johln's mode!
It follows, then, it inevitably follows, that we have this
advantage over the immersionists; we follow what we
KNOW to be God's mode of baptizing, they follow what
they cannot prove to be John's mode. And even if they
could prove that John administered the rite by plunging, which they can not do, still they must concede to us
all we claim, namely: that pouring or sprinkling properly administered is baptism, FOR GOD SAYS IT IS. And
16 
THE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT.   17
even though they could prove that the Apostles administered baptism by plunging, which they can not, still the
fact remains, sprinkling or pouring properly administered is baptism, for God says it is, and by pouring He
Himself has invariably administered baptism.  At best,
the claim of the Anabaptists rests upon inference, conjecture, or assumption; ours upon the precept and practice of the Almighty. Nor would it avail if the Anabaptists could prove that John baptized by plunging, for
it would not follow that we should, seeing his was not
Christian baptism, as we have already shown. It follows, finally, that the Anabaptists must concede that we
are right, unless they can prove that God is wrong, for
both His teaching and His practice are in favor of
sprinkling and pouring.  This is fact, not conjecture,
not mere inference, not mere assumption!
It really does appear to us that it would be difficult,
very difficult, even to corceive of argument more complete than is our argument in favor of baptism by sprinkling or pouring.
We have shown on the testimony of God's own word,
that our mode of baptizing is God's mode, while the Anabaptists cannot show that plunging was John's mode;
we say they cannot; it is not possible for them to do so.
And even if they could, that would not prove that plunging is the right, much less the only mode of Christian
baptism; nor would it affect our position at all, for still
it would remain a fact, that our mode is God's mode,
and that pouring or sprinkling properly administered is
baptism, for God says it is; though Anabaptists are bold
enough to assert that it is not.
But immersionists even attempt to make it appear 
CHRnISTIAN BAPTISM.
that the baptism " with the Holy Ghost," on the day of
Pentecost, was by immersion.  They say the Holy Ghost
filled the place, therefore all the people in the place were
immersed in the Holy Ghost. The passage referred to
is Acts ii. 2, and reads thus: "And suddenly there came
a scund from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and
it (the sound, not the Holy Ghost) filled all the house
where they were sitting.   And  there appeared unto
them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each
of them.   And they were  all filled with  the  Holy
Ghost."  Here are four particulars to which we call attention. 1. The sound filled the house where they were
sitting.  2. The disciples were filled with the  Holy
Ghost. 3. The symbol sat uponi each of them. 4.
And all CAME FROM tIEAVEN, fell ipon, sat upon, was
shed forth, and filled them.   Here was no plunging,
nor anything like it.  The sound came from above and
filled the place; the spirit came from above and filled
the disciples; and the symbol ca,ne from above and sat
upon each of them; so that the mode here, also, is just
the reverse of that claimed by the immersionists: all
came from above and fell upon them; they were not
plunged into anytthing! And this is what God calls
baptism.  Defiant of all this, however, immersionists assert that pouring, sprinkling, falling, is no baptism.
God says it is, they say it is not. God affirms, they deny.
These are the facts in the case.
We will now group together those terms which God
uses in reference to, and in connection with, baptism,
and which, it will be seen, absolutely excludes the idea of
plunging in the administration of that ordinance.'
John i. 32:" And John bare record, saying, I saw
I 8 - 
THE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT.   19
the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it
abode upon him."  Luke xxiv. 49: "And behold I send
the promise of My Father upon you: but tarry ye in the
city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power f/oi
on high." When God baptized with the Holy Ghost on
the day of Pentecost, Peter said: " This is that which
was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to
pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out My
Spirit upon all flesh." See Acts ii. 16, 17. Also at
verse 33 we read: "Therefore being at the right hand
of God exalted, and having received of the Father the
promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed fjorth this which
ye now see and hear."  Acts x. 44:' "While Peter yet
spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on all them which
heard the word." Verse 45: " On the Gentiles also
was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts xi.
15: "The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." Titus iii. 5, 6: " But according to His mercy
He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us abundantly."  Acts i. 5: " For John truly baptized with
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."
Now it is an indisputable fact that the baptism here
spoken of was administered by descending, shedding,
falling, pouring; not by plunging!  And, observe, this
baptism which was administered by pouring, is spoken
of in connection with John's baptism: "For John truly
baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the
Holy Ghost."  To say that Christ plunged the people in
the Holy Ghost would be utterly intolerable, if not blasphemous. And we have no authority to use different
terms in each case; God does not; the terms which He 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
uses to express John's administration are the very same
that He uses to express His own.   John baptized with
water, He with the Holy Ghost. Therefore, as we know
that God baptized by pouring, we have no right to assume that John or the apostles baptized by plunging,
and no man living can prove that they did!  And, observe, the terms here quoted refer both to the outward
and the inward baptism; the outward and the inward
sealing. The symbol, as well as the thing signified, fell
upon them.   But the advocates of plunging will have
the party plunged in the symbol.  The idea is alike absurd and unscriptural, and therefore could never proceed
from God. It certainly is the offspring of ignorance
and superstition. Moreover, there is nothing in religion,
absolutely nothing, of which plunging is the symbol.
But pouring is most strikingly symbolical. Hence, as a
symbol of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, it has been
practiced from time immemorial.  Oil, it is well known,
was poured upon the heads of high functionaries, as symbolical of the Spirit's descent upon them. But who ever
thought of plunging them in the oil to signify that
thing!  The fact is, the more I investigate this subject,
the more I become convinced that plunging for the purpose of administering Christian baptism is of human invention; I verily believe that God never appointed it,
and I am sure no man can prove that he did; but a
child can  prove  that  he  appointed  pouring  and
sprinkling, just as soon as he is capable of reading
God's book, for there the fact is written so plainly that
he that runs may read. And. we may add, it is not
likely that God would appoint both pouring and plunging as symbolical of one and the same thing, for they
are entirely dissimilar.
20 
CIICHAPTER III.
The idea that Christ's baptism and that of Christians are symbolical of Christ's
burial, has no countenance from Scripture. It is absurd. Romans vi. 3, 4
fully examined and rescued from their perversions.
I AM_ aware immersionists would have us believe that
a plunge under water is an emblem of the burial of
Christ's body. This idea they attempt to express in the
following puerile lines:
"In Jordan's flood the prophet stands,
Immersing the returning Jews;
The Son of God the right demands,
Nor dare the Holy Man refuse;
But plunges him beneath the wave,
An emblem of his future grave;
Ye heavens behold the Saviour lie,
Beneath the flood from human eye."
In Matt. xxvii. 60, we are told that "Joseph took
the body of Jesus and laid it in his own new tomb, which
he had hewn out in the rock." And immersionists tell
us that John plunged the living Saviour in the river Jordan as an emblem of this transaction; and they will have
us all plunged under water for the same purpose! Truly
it requires a marvellous stretch of imagination to discover a resemblance between a dead body being "wrapped
in a clean linen cloth" and laid in the cavity of a rock,
and a living man walking into a river and being plunged
under the water and lifted up again! They certainly
2* 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
must be hard up for a case of resemblance who seek it
here; and that they seek it here is sufficient proof of the
truth of the statement just made, viz.: that there is
nothing in religion of which a sudden plunge under
water is the type; for, if there was anything of which it
is the most feeble type, they would never attempt to persuade us that it is an emblem of a dead body being laid
in the cavity of a rock! for between these two transactions there is simply no resemblance at all. Moreover,
we are nowhere taught in Scripture that the design of
baptism is to symbolize Christ's body being laid in the
tomb.
But immersionists think, or pretend to think, that
Paul favors this view, Rom. vi. 3, 4.  The whole passage
reads thus. " Know ye not that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into
death: That like as Christ was raised up from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life. For if we have been planted together
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man
is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
Immersionists say, that, to be baptized is to be
plunged, and that the word "means neither more nor less."
Hence they would read this passage thus: "Know ye not
that so many of us as were plunged into Jesus Christ,
were plunged into his death?" Such language is, of
course, utterably intolerable; hence it is evident that to
baptize does not mean to plunge: and it is equally evident that the Apostle in this passage has no reference at
22 
NOT SYMBOLICAL OF CHRIST'S BURIAL.
all to the mode of baptism.   Therefore, as immersionists
build their argument upon this assumption, the foundation being taken away the argument becomes worthless,
or rather is no argument at all. Of this difficulty they
evidently are conscious, for although the Apostle uses
three figures in the same connection, immersionists never
notice any but one of them, viz. that of butrying; whereas
the apostle speaks of our being biried, planted and crczified. Now why do they not insist upon a mode of baptism that will symbolize planting and crucfying as well as
burying? for it is quite evident that the passage countenances all three as much as it does either one. The
fact is, it is impossible to adopt a mode of baptism that
will symbolize either: Nor was it ever designed that
we should. This is evident from the fact that the outward and visible sign in a sacrament is always symbolical
of something spiritual; but if you make water baptism
the sign of the crucifixion and burial of Christ, you
make the literal to represent the literal, the symbol to
symbolize the symbol, which is absurd! Yet this is the
very thing that immersionists do by their unnatural and
forced interpretation of thiswhighly figurative passage.
Christ's dead body was laid in the cavity of a rock, and
they say baptism by plunging is symbolical of that
By this interpretation of the passage before us the
design of the Apostle is wholly lost sight of. The manifest design of the Apostle is to show that justification by
faith does not lead to licentiousness in the life of the believer.
Having established the doctrine of justification by
faith he proceeds to meet the objection of its opponents
thus.  "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
23 
CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.
God forbid: how shall we that are dead to sin, live any
longer therein." So far from continuing in sin the believcr is DEAD to sin. This isthe Apostle's answer to the
objection. And this death to sin, or crucifixion of the
old man, he represents as brought about by the death of
Christ, and the baptism of the HIoly Ghost, with faith on
our part; of which faith, water baptism is the appropriate outward expression; and, at the same time, the seal
of the righteousness thus procured, as well as the sign of
the baptism by the Spirit. " Then," says Mr. Watson,
(Institutes, vol. ii. p. 658,) " he immediately runs into a
favorite comparison, which, under various forms, occurs
in his writings, sometimes accompanied with the same
allusion to baptism, and sometimes referring only to faith
as the instrument, a comparison between the mystical
death, burial, and resurrection of believers and the literal
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This is the
comparison of the text; not a comparison between our
mystical death and baptism; nor between baptism and
the death and burial of Christ; either of which lay wide
of the Apostle's intention." Any one who will read from
the 6th to the 11th verse of this chapter, will see that
this is the comparison that the Apostle employs for the
purpose specified.  " Knowing this," says the Apostle,
"that our old man is crucified with him, that the body
of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not
serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now
if we be dead with Christ we believe that we shall also
live with him: Knowing that Christ, being raised from
the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion
over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once;
but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise
24 
NOT SYMBOLICAL OF CHRISTrS BURIAL.
reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but
alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."
The sublime and glorious sentiments of the Apostle here
expressed are briefly these: the believer is " dead to sin"'
and is "thus freed from sin;" and his former unholy connection with the world is thus as effectually dissolved, as
is our literal connection with the world by a literal death.
And the comparison is between this mystical death and
separation, and Christ's death; by which his literal connection with the world was dissolved, and our death to
sin and freedom from sin secured; and, in this way, our
unholy connection with the world is as effectually dissolved, as was Christ's literal connection with the world,
by his literal death.  Now having compared our mystical death and separation from the world, to Christ's
literal death and separation from the world, he continues
the train of thought and proceeds to compare our mystical resurrection to Christ's literal resurrection, thus:
"That like as Christ was raised from the dead by the
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in
the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness
of his resurrection.  Knowing this, that our old man is
crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he
that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with
Christ we believe that we shall also live with him. For
in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he
liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also
yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto
God through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Now to represent the Apostle in all these his sublime
25 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
and inspired conceptions, illustrations and arguments, as
simply attempting a comparison between plunging living
men and women under water, and laying Christ's dead
body in a tomb hewn out of a rock, is to degrade this
noble and inspired production into driveling nonsense,
and absolutely ignore the noble and glorious end or ends
which he had in view, namely, to show the nature and
extent of that change wrought in the sinner upon his believing in Jesus; together with the manner, or way, in
which it is wrought, and thus refute the slanderous objection raised against the doctrine of justification by
faith, viz., that it leads to a licentious life. And thus it
is that error always leads from the truth and becomes a
substitute for it; and in this case a very pernicious substitute!
26 
CHAPTER IV.
The word sprinkle is now taken up-Its use and design shown from Scripture
-Plunging for the purpose of sealing is an outrage upon conmmon sense.
HAVING rescued from the perversions of the Anabaptists the much abused words baptized, buried; we now
take up the word sprinkle.
This word occurs with great frequency, and in the
same connection, both in the Old and New Testament.
We will here quote a few of the passages in which it occurs.   Levit. xiv. 1, 2: "And the  LORD spake unto
Moses, saying, This shall be the law of the leper in the
day of his cleansing."-" And he shall sprinkle upon him
that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times,"' ver. 4.
At ver. 15-18 we read," And the priest shall take some of
the log of oil and pour it into the palm of his own left
hand: and the priest shall dip his right finger into the
oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil
with his finger seven times before the Lord."-" And the
remnant of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall
pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed." Now
the oil and blood here spoken of were used for the same
purpose that water is used for in the sacrament of baptism, viz., as a sign; and a little in the palm of the hand,
sprinkled with the tip of one finger, God considered
quite sufficient; but Anabaptists think it quite ridiculous 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
to use so small a quantity; instead of sprinkling the individual with the oil, blood, or water, they would have
him plunged in it! But we will quote a few more passages.  Levit. xvi. 14, "And he shall take of the blood
of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the
mercy-seat."  Numbers viii. 7, "And thus shalt thou do
unto them to cleanse them: sprinkle water of purifying
upon them!"  Numbers xix. 18, " 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."  Thus were they to do "for an
unclean person;" and everybody knows, or should know,
that baptism with water has reference to moral uncleanness, and to the same thing circumcision referred, and as
neither blood nor water could cleanse the soul, but was
applied to the body merely as a sign, a few drops sprinkled
with the finger answered the purpose.   The fact is, the
idea of virtue is attached to the outward application by
all those who object to small, and contend for large,
quantities of water; and in this way the ordinance is
perverted and vitiated, and the inward application, which
is the thing signified, and which alone possesses the
cleansing power, is wholly lost sight of: and this, in our
judgment, is a serious objection to the practice of plunging instead of sprinkling or pouring. But there really
is no excuse for thus losing the spirit in the letter, for
God has made the design of the outward application sufficiently plain, as the following quotations will show.
Isaiah lii. 15,  So shall he [Jesus] sprinkle many  nations."  Ezekiel xxxvi. 25-27, "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
28 
SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF SPRINKLING.
you. 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 an 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." Hieb. ix. 19, " For when Moses
had spoken every precept to all the people according to
the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both
the book and all the people."  Hieb. x. 22, "Let us draw
near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having
our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." lieb. xii.
24, " We are come to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel."
Thus all these sprinklings end in that which they
typify, namely, the sprinkling, the cleansing of the soul
by the blood of Jesus: and a few drops answered this
purpose as well as a river, or a sea, and much better;
but man, poor, ignorant, carnal man, must improve upon
God's way of it; instead of having the sign or seal- applied to the person, he, forsooth, must have the person
plunge in it: the idea is unnatural and absurd in the extreme!  Baptism is a sign and seal, as circumcision was;
and, of course, the seal should be applied to the party to
be sealed, not the party to the seal! It is thus that God
uses the seal, as the foregoing Scriptures do most incontestibly show. And the following text affords still more
striking evidence, if that be possible.   "After that ye
believed ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise."-Ep. i. 13. It is obvious that the Apostle here
speaks of the same baptism, the same sealing, which was
29 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the subject of promise in the texts quoted above. "I
will pour out my Spirit upon you," Ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost."  It is to this promise that the
Apostle refers when he says. " After that ye believed ye
were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." The symbol fell upon the body, the Spirit upon the soul.  So it
is in the administration of the sacrament of baptism: the
symbol, the seal, which is water, falls upon and seals the
body, the Spirit falls upon and seals the soul. This,
then, is another ground of objection to plunging. God's
method, or mode, of baptizing includes, and very strikingly expresses, the idea of sealing, while plunging utterly
excludes that idea; the idea of plunging for the purpose
of sealing is an outrage on common sense.
30 
CHAPTER V.
The assumption that en, eis, and eic, always mean in, into, and out of, is
refuted, and the argument built thereon, shown to be worthless, a
mere begging of the question.
WE now take up the argument which immersionists
ground upon the assumption that the Greek prepositions
en, eis, and ek, always mean in, into, and out of. On
this assumption it is confidently asserted that John baptized in Jordan, that Jesus came up out of the water,
and that Philip and the Eunuch went down into the
water, and came up out of the water, and, finally,
that they must all have been plunged under the water!
Hence this famous argument is made up of three assumrptions, viz., that these words mean what immersionists say
they mean, neither more nor less; second, that all the
parties mentioned went into the water and were baptized
in it; third, that, therefore, they must all have been
plunged under the water. Now in all this there is absolutely nothing but assumnption, which assumption we
now proceed to disprove.
We will first take up the preposition en. Now, observe, we do not deny that the Greek word en sometimes
means in; but we do deny that it always has this meaning.  BIr. Thorne says, " From an accurate investigation
of the subject," he finds that, " in our version of the New 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Testament, the translators have rendered en, at, on, or
with, three hundred and thirteen times. But lest the
immersionist should say that our translators should have
rendered en, in, in all these places, we will quote a few
passages, which will, we think, demonstrate that it would
be highly improper, in many instances to render en, in.
And here I beg to state that I have examined the original for myself, and am prepared to say that it reads as I
here state. Matt. iii. 11. "I indeed baptize you en
water eis repentance: but he that cometh after me is
mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:
he shall baptize you en the Holy Ghost, and fire." Now
let en, and eis, in this passage be rendered in, and into,
and then the passage will read thus, "I indeed baptize
you in water into repentance:"-" but he shall baptize
you in the Holy Ghost and fire."  And if we render
baptize, plumnge, in this text, as immersionists say we
should, the case will be still worse: then the text will
read, " I indeed plung3 you in water into repentance:""but he shall plunge you in the Holy Ghost and fire."
Now in addition to the absurdity, not to say blasphemy,
of this rendering, it leaves us without any baptism at all,
either literal or spiritual; nothing but plunging IN water
INTO repentance and IN the Holy Ghost!  By this exhibit any one can see the absurdity and the untruthfulness of the assumption here opposed. Take another instance.  In Romans viii. 34, we read, "Who is he that
condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God." The
word here rendered at is, in the original, in one of my
Greek Testaments en, in the other eis. Now according
to the assumption here opposed, this text would read, in
32 
GREEK PREPOSITIONS.
the one, "who is even in the right'hand of God," and in
the other, "who is even into the right hand of God!"
This presents the absurdity and untruthfulness of the assumption with similar clearness. We have examined
many other texts where this preposition means at, by,
near to. See, for instance, Luke xiii. 4, where our Lord
speaks of " the Tower en Siloam." Certainly the tower
was not in the pool, or well, but at or near it.  In one
of my Greek Testaments the words are, "Ho purgos eis
to Siloam;" "the tower into Siloam," according to the
assumption here opposed!  In Matt. ix. 35, we are told
Christ'" healed every sickness, and every disease among
the people." The word here rendered among, is in the
original en, and in one of my Greek Testaments eis,
hence according to the claims of immersionists this text
should read, "every sickness and every disease in, or i)to,
the people! Let these few out of many texts suffice to
show the untruthfulness and the absurdity of the assumption here objected to, and we think now fully refuted.
The preposition eis may now come under notice. The
arguments in favor of inmmersion are based on the assumption that this word always means into. In Matt. xxi. 1,
we read "And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and
were come to Bethphage, unto the Mount of Olives."
Here eis is rendered nigh, with regard to the one place,
and to with regard to the other, for it is evident Jesus
and his companions could not enter roth places at the
same time, they being distant from each other.  In Matt.
xvii. 27, Peter is commanded to "go eis the sea, and cast
an hook." It is evident that Peter is not here commanded to go into the sea to cast in thither his hook; to
cast a hook into the sea at Capernaum it was not neces
33 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
sary that he should go into the sea, probably not practicable; hence our translators have rendered eis, to, not
into, and they had as much authority so to translate in
the narrative of John's baptism, and that of Philip: and
immersionists have no more right to place John in Jordan, and Philip and the Eunuch in the water, than they
have to place Peter in the sea at Capernaum.
Acts xxiv. 15.  "And have hope toward God," not
into God.  Matt. xviii. 15.  "If thy brother shall trespass against thee," here eis is rendered against, for it
would not be proper to say trespassed into thee, any more
than it would have been proper to say in the former text,
hope into God.  Mark iii. 29.  "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost." Here again eis is rendered against, for it certainly would not be proper to
say "blaspheme into the Holy Ghost."  Acts xxii. 30.
"Brought Paul and set him  before them."  Here eis is
rendered before, for it would not be proper to say, set
him into them.  In Isaiah xxxvi. 2, we read, "And the
King of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem." In the Septuagint the reading is ek Lachish
eis Jerusalem. Here it is evident that ek and eis mean
from and to, not out of, and into, for Rabshakeh was
not sent into Jerusalem. And we have the same authority to translate to the water, andfrom the water, in the
narrative of the Eunuch's baptism by Philip. In short,
every scholar knows that both sacred and classic writers
use ek, and eis, to express the ideas from, and to. Apo
and eis are also used in the same connection: hence we
read, avo city eis city.  That is, from city to city.  Apo
Jerusalem, eis Jericho. Also, the way that goeth down
apo Jerusalem, eis Gaza.  That is, "the way that goeth
down from Jerusalem to Gaza."
34 
GREEK PREPOSITIONS.
With regard to ek, or ex, we will simply quote a few
texts to show the various meanings of that preposition.
Matt. xii. 33.  " The tree is known by its fruit."  Here'
ek is rendered by.  Matt. xx. 2.  "Agreed with the laborers ek denariou;" that is, for a penny. In Matt. xxi.
19, it is rendered on; in Rom. ix. 21, it is rendered of.
In short, Mr. Thorne, who has been at the trouble of
counting, tells us that in the New Testament ek is rendered from, 186 times, and eis to, or unto, 538 times.
And in Schleusner's Lexicon of the New Testament, we
are told that ek has 24 distinct meanings, or senses, en
96, and eis 26.  And yet the advocates of plungino, as
the only mode of baptism, build their arguments upon
the assvrmption that en, eis, and ek, always mean in, into,
and out of. It is true, they admit, at least those of them
who are scholars, that these words have! great variety
of meanings; but it is equally true that the arguments
which they deduce from the narratives of John's and Philip's baptism are all based upon this assumption. Indeed
they admit that the word baptizo has a great variety of
meanings, yet, strange as it may appear, their arguments
in favor of plunging are, for the most part, built upon
the assumption that it always means "to immerse, to dip,
to plunge, neither more nor less."  But that this assumption is without warrant or plausibility we believe we have
clearly shown.   Nor will the connection in which the
word baptizo is found in the Scriptures give any countenance to this assumption; for it is found connected with
the words fall, pour, shed, sprinkle, and other words of
similar import. And with regard to the prepositions
with which it sometimes stands connected, we trust we
have shown that they give no warrant for the assump
35 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISMf.
tion: therefore the assumption is utterly without foundation! And, let it be distinctly observed, that, at the
very most, there can be no more than assumption; for
no man in his senses can claim that we are anywhere in
the Scriptures commanded to plunge in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost! The
utmost that can be claimed, even with the slightest plausibility, by the advocates of plunging, is that the verb
baptizo sometimes means to plunge; but even if we admit
this claim, our admission will not affect our position, for
still it will remain a fact that sprinkling or pouring is
baptism, for God says it is, and in that way he always
administers baptism: nor would our admission afford the
advocates of plunging any help till they first prove that
the word has that meaning in Scripture where Christian
baptism is recorded and enjoined; and this we know they
cannot do, while we can prove, and have proved, that it
means to sprinkle, to pour, and that this is God's mode,
INVARIABLY SO. Once again I say, and I say it with all
confidence, that no man living can prove that God ever
taught plunging for baptism; hence those who undertake
to administe' baptism in that way do it upon their own
authority. And everybody knows, or may know, that
God never baptized by plunging! Here are the facts:
God's precept is pouring; his practice is pouring; while
in favor of plunging there is absolutely not one jot or
tittle! Let them disprove this conclusion who can.
,I 6 
CHAPTER VI.
A fallacy and its terrible consequences exposed. If Philip and the Eunuch
did go down into the water it would not follow that either was plunged The question, "why did John baptize where there was much water?"
answered.
JUST here it may be well to expose the fallacy and show
the terrible consequences, of taking that which is occasionally the meaning of a given word, and assuming that
such is its primary, its only meaning.
The prinmary meanling of the Greek word doulos is,
poor, exhausted, reduced to poverty.  HIence this word
was used to designate a servant, and finallya slave.  Now
take the latter as the primary, the only meaning of the
word doulos, and you may prove that all who are employed by their fellow men are slaves, yea, and that all
the people of God are slaves! It is in this way that
slaveholders, and the advocates of slavery, have attempted
to prove that slavery is of divine appointment, is scriptural, because in the scriptures certain directions are
given to regulate the mutual relations and obligations of
kurioi and douloi; that is, masters and servants. Again
the primary meaning of the word pistis, is faith, but it
sometimes meansfjdelity.  Now assume that the latter
is its only meaning and you may prove that salvation is
not by believing, but by fidelity, and in this way you
would overturn the whole Christian system! Again the
3 
CHIRISTIAN BAPTISM.
primary meaning of the Greek word pneuma, like the
Hebrew word ruach, is spirit, but it sometimes means,
wind, air. Now only assume that the latter is its only
meaning and you may prove from the Bible that God is
the wind, for our blessed Lord says Pneuma ho Theos,
that is according to this assumption, God is the wind!
In the same way you may prove that man's higher nature
is mere wind or air! Again psyche means the immortal
part of man as distinguished from the body; but it some
times means the breath, and even the blood, because these
are the essential of animal life, and the primary meaning
of psuche being life, it is applied thereto in a secondary
sense; but its primary application is to the immortal
part, that being life in the highest sense.   Now if you
take the accommodated meaning of this word and assume
that to be its only meaning, you will reach the conclusion
of the Adventists, or Nasoulites, viz., that man has no soul,
no spirit, that there is nothing of him but mere matter.
Again deipnon meansa supper, a common meal, afeast; assume this to be the only meaning of the word and like the
Corinthians you will reduce "the Lord's supper" to a common meal, a feast. Once more. The Hebrew word Sheol
and the Greek word Hades mean the hidden, the concealed, the lowest place, or condition; hence it is applied
to the grave. Now let it be assumed that the latter is
the only meaning of the word, and you will reach the
conclusion, with the universalist, that there is no hell, no
punishment or place of punishment, in the other world.
Now, this is precisely the fallacy which, to the ignorant, gives plausibility to what iminersionists say in favor
of their mode of baptizing. They say en means in, eis
means into, and ek means out of, and so they do; but,
38 
A FALLACY EXPOSED.
assuming that these are the only meanings of these words,
and finding them used sometimes, though not always, in
the narrative of John's baptism, and that by Philip,
they say they went down into the water and came up out
of it, ergo, they baptized by plunging! Now, in precisely the same way others conclude that man is a mere animal, and that there is no future punishment.  Such is
the nature of this fallacy, and such are the terrible consequences to which it leads, or may lead the ignorant
and unsuspecting.
Hlaving shown that the Greek prepositions, en, eis,
and ek, are employed both by the sacred and classic
writers to express the ideas near, to, and from, and many
others, as well as in, into, and out of, we have disproved
the assumption of the immersionists, viz., that they always mean in, into, and out of; and as many of their
arguments in favor of plunging rest upon this assumption, it follows that such arguments are worthless: hence
all their conclusions in favor of immersion, so far as they
depend upon the statements that John baptized in Jordan, and that Philip and the Eunuch went down into
the water and came up out of it, are illegitimate and
worthless; therefore, if they would prove plunging to be
the right mode they must derive their proof from a very
different source, for every scholar knows that the Greek
prepositions afford no such proof.
But even though they could prove that Philip and
the Eunuch went down into the water, that would not
prove that the latter was plunged under the water, for if
Philip baptized the Eunuch by sprinkling, they would
both have to go to or into the water to this end, for it is
not likely that they had a vessel with them to carry
39 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
water to a distance, and it is still less likely that the
water would come up to them in the chariot. Moreover,
if the text proves that the Eunuch was immersed, it also
proves that Philip was immersed; for there is nothing
said of the one, with regard to going down and coming
up, that is not said of the other. In short, the language
employed to rccord this evenfit, is just such as any one
would employ where immersion was not so much as
thought of. It should be observed, too, that if the
Eunuch was immersed he must have been immersed
naked, or with his clothes on, for it is not likely that he
had a change of garments with him, nor is it at all likely
that he would pursue his long journey in the garments
in which he was plunged in the water, and he did pursue his journey immediately after being baptized, for we
are told, "when they were come up out of," or from "the
water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that
the Eunuch saw him no more, and he went on his way
rejoicing." I should think he would feel more like
trembling than rejoicing, if he was sitting in the chariot
in the same clothes in which he had just before been
plunged under water; and there certainly is no intimation of his having undressed, and dressed again.   In
short, there is nothing in this narrative that would lead
any one to the belief that Philip plunged the Eunuch
under water, especially when it is remembered that the
divinely instituted method of pouring and sprinkling
had existed among Philip's ancestors for nearly two
thousand years! Indeed, the prophecy which Philip
was explaining to the Eunuch, and which led to the conversion and baptism of the latter, contains these remarkable words: " So shall he sprinkle many nations." See
40 
A FALLACY EXPOSED.
last verse of chap. 52 of Isaiah. Being now a believer
in him who should " sprinkle many nations," the Eunuch
at once desired to be baptized; agreeably to the prophetic
promise now before him, and which Philip was explaining to him. Now, as sprinkling, not plunging, was specified in the passage before them, and as that mode had
been practised by the Jews from the first until now, and
that by divine appointment, it is not likely that either
Philip or the Eunuch would think of plunging on this
occasion   The Eunuch said: "I pray thee, of whom
speaketh the prophet this? " Philip told him that it was
Jesus of whom the prophet spake, and the Eunuch belived.  The prophet said that this Jesus would "sprinkle
many nations; " and the Eunuch  said:  "See, here is
water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? " There
was nothing to hinder him-he was baptized, by sprinkling,
doubtless, agreeably to the scripture, upon which they
had just now been meditating.
It is only necessary to add, that all we have said
with regard to the baptism by Philip, will apply to
John's baptism, and is a sufficient answer to the arguments which the advocates of immersion employ to prove
that John plunged the people under water; for their
arguments in each case are derived from the same  assumption, viz.: that eis, en, and ek mean into, in, and out
of. Indeed it is not said in the original that Jesus came
up out of the water. In Matt. iii. 16, the original reads:
anebe  eiphlus apo tou hudatos, up straight FROM the
water.  Therefore, with regard to John's baptism it only
remains for us to answer the question, "If John did not
immnerse why did he baptize where there was much
water?"  We reply, if your mind were not unduly occu
41 
CHRlISTIAN BAPTISM.
pied with the dogma of immersion you would find a
satisfactory answer to your question in the sacred narrative. Just read the following: And he came into all
the country about Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Here follow specimens of his preaching and of his exhortations. Luke
iii. 3:  "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea,
and all the region round about Jordan." Matt. iii. 5:
" John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Observe,
it is not only said that he "baptized in Jordan," but
also that he "'baptized in the wilderness."  Hence, I
have as good a right to infer from these texts that John
plunged in the wilderness as others have to infer that he
plunged in Jordan, the same preposition being used in
each case. In one of my Greek Testaments the words
are eis ten erzmon, in the other en te erjmo.
But my special object in quoting these texts is to call
attention to the vast multitudes which came to John
from Jerusalem and the different regions here specified,
certainly not less than several millions, with their camels,
&c., to abide there for a length of time to be instructed
by the great preacher who was the forerunner of their
long expected Messiah) and who was now preparing them
for his immediate coming. It is quite evident that such
vast multitudes under such circumstances, required much
water for domestic and other purposes. In short, no man
in his senses would bring such multitudes of human beings and beasts of burden from a distance to abide for a
time where there was not much water; especially in a
hot season, and in a country where water generally was
scarce. Moreover, if he was to preach to and baptize
42 
A FALLACY EXPOSE3D.
the people dwelling in "all the region round about Jordan," it was obviously proper that he should have his
station at Jordan, that being a central position. For
similar reasons he had his station at another time at
Enon, where there was a suitable supply of water;
though there does not appear to have been the vast quantities that immersionists would have us believe there was;
for travellers find no evidence of there being in Enon any
more than certain fountains or springs. It is well known
that camp-meetings in this country are always held where
there is plenty of water, though I suppose a thousand
such congregations would not be equal to the vast multitudes who came to hear this great preacher in the wilderness, and to be baptized of him. From these considerations it is evident that John needed much water for
the millions to whom he preached in the wilderness,
without supposing that he plunged them all into it!
The idea is as gratuitous as it is extravagant.  Hiow
is it that we never hear of the apostles baptizing where
much  water was?    Evidently because  they labored
where the people were at or near their  homes, and,
therefore, had all the necessaries of domestic life; and,
there being no plunging, that was sufficient.
43 
CHAPTER VII.
The dcgma that nothing bilt Plunging is Baptismn is shliown to involve whlat is
Unreasonable, Inhuman, and even Impossible.
WE must not pass unnoticed the unreasonableness of
the assumptions here objected to. For instance, is it
reasonable to suppose that one man plunged millions of
people in a river, "in the wilderness," where  neither
himself nor the millions thus plunged had any home or
any of the conveniences of domestic life? Is it reason able to suppose that all these vast multitudes had changes
of raiment or gowns for the purpose? or that they were
plunged into the river having on them the only suit of
clothes they had? or that the countless multitudes
should live in the wilderness with their wet garments on
till they dried upon their persons? or is it reasonable
to suppose that these vast multitudes were exposed and
plunged into the river naked?  Is it reasonable to suppose that John himself was naked, or that he lived and
labored in his wet clothes, or had a sufficient number of
changes of raiment of "camel's hair?"  Is it reasonable
to suppose that any man could live in the wilderness, or,
rather, in the river, and plunge under water such vast
multitudes of people from Jerusalem, from Judea, and
from " all the region round about Jordan?"  When a
man baptizes a few in a river in these days he is glad 
B13APTISM BY PLUNGING UNREASONABLE.
to hasten to his comfortable home and change as quickly
as possible; and the poor trembling female must be
carried home in a carriage, or to the nearest house,
and stripped as quickly as possible; or if there are a
dozen or twenty to be baptized it will require several
Sabbaths to do this little work, because a sufficient
number of gowns cannot be procured! I wonder how
long it would have taken John to baptize several millions in this way! Is it reasonable to suppose that a
few apostles plunged three thousand men and women
on the day of Pentecost, not in Jordan or in Enon,
where much water was, but in Jerusalem, where little
water was, and all this in a few hours at most; for
most of the day was evidently occupied by preaching
and other religious exercises? Is it reasonable to suppose that God has made plunging so essential that there
can be no baptism, no admission to the sacrament of
the supper, no admission into the Christian church, yea,
no church at all, without it; although there are countries
where water cannot be had unless in very small quantities by melting the snow, for large bodies of water are
covered over with ice fifteen or twenty feet thick, while
multitudes of others live in dry and parched deserts
"where no water is?"   Is it reasonable to suppose
that an infinitely wise, kind, and merciful God would
exclude from the sacrament of baptism, from the
sacrament of the supper, and from the Church itself,
millions of the feeble, the sick and the wounded; simply
because they are in a state which renders it imprudent,
yea wicked, and even impossible, to plunge them under
water, when his own instituted method may be adopted
without risk to the feeblest of them? For instance,
3*
45 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
thousands of our wounded, sick and mangled soldiers,
are obtaining salvation by faith in our adorable Jesus.
Must they be deprived of the sacraments, of the seal of
the covenant of grace, and shut out from the Church of
God, simply because their poor mangled and sick bodies
cannot be plunged under water? I ask, is all this scriptural?   Is it reasonable?   Is it humane?    Is it not
rather cruel and absurd? Yet all this is implied, is
included, in the claims of the immnersionists!
46 
CHAPTER VIII.
The appeal to antiquity is simply superstition, cruelty, and absurdity, appealing
to superstition, cruelty, and absurd(lity-Many superstitious and absurd opin ions and practices specified as having obtained in the nominally Christian
Church at a very early period-It is difficult to mention any one religious
dogma that is more clogged with difficulties than is the dogma of plunging.
BUT, to support these unscriptural, unreasonable, inhuman and cruel claims, immersionists appeal to antiquity.
This is none other than superstition,cruelty, and absurdity,
appealing to superstition, cruelty, and absurdity for help!
What absurdity is there that may not claim kindred with
antiquity?  Not being satisfied with the simplicity of
the divine institutions-, men soon began to add to them to
make them more impressive. And this work commenced
even before the apostles were called away. But as early
as the latter end of the second, or the beginning of the
third century, the practice of washing before pouring was
adopted; then partially immersing followed by pouring;
then immersing three times, annointing with oil, signing
with the sign of the cross; imposition of hands, exorcism,
eating milk and honey, putting on white robes, and other
superstitious observances worthy of the dark ages.  As
early as the third century some, in receiving the sacrament of the supper mixed water with the wine; others
used water only; while others used bread and cheese.
The Ophites had a tamed serpent which they caused to 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
twine round the bread, then they kissed the serpent and
afterwards partook of the bread. The Zanzalians con tended that the scriptural baptism was a baptism with fire;
and their mode was to brand three times with a red hot iron.
The Jovinians taught that grace received in baptism
could never be lost. The Hieraxites taught that all in fants would be damned, for they held that the procuring
cause of salvation was knowledge; and this of course left
no chance for the poor infant! The Novatians taught
many absurdities, and being confident that they only
were right, they, of course, re-baptized all who joined
them, and who had been baptized before. The Yalentinians baptized in the name of the Father, his Son, and
the mother of the world! And as to the Donatists, they
taught that baptism administered by any but their own
party was invalid, and that they had authority to remove
all errors and corruptions from the Church! Now all
these and numerous other errors and absurdities, and
even blasphemies, were taught in the second, third, and
fourth centuries. Nor were these errors confined to the
vile sects such as those noticed above, but what was
called the orthodox church soon became deluged with
pernicious errors and superstitious rights and ceremonies;
and many of the leading ministers, such as Tertullian,
Origen, and Augustine, largely contributed thereto! Such
men were zealous, and swayed the masses with their eloquence, but they were miserable theologians. And why?
I answer, because they relied upon their own ability and
upon human philosophy to learn and teach what only can
be learned and taught from the word of God.  Moreover,
many of them still clung to errors which they had contracted before they embraced Christianity. Such was the
48 
PLUNGING BESET WITH DIFFICULTIES.
case, for instance, with Augustine,who had been a Man ichean before he embraced Christianity.   And such was
the case with many others who still retained some of their
former errors, and embraced others; all of which they
attempted to incorporate with the Christian system. But
it is useless to dwell upon this feature of antiquity. It
is well known that the nominally Christian Church became corrupt at a very early period. " The ancient
Christians," says Wall, "when they were baptized by
immersion. were all baptized naked, whether they were
men, women, or children.  They thought it better represented the putting off of the old man, and also the nakedness of Christ on the cross; moreover, as baptism is a
washing, they judged it should be the washing of the
body, notof the clothes." " There is no ancient historical
fact," says Robinson, "better authenticated than this."
Now when immersionists appeal to antiquity in favor of
immersion, why don't they faithfully follow antiquity,
and baptize men, women, and children NAKED?  But so
far are they from following antiquity that they do not
baptize either men or women naked, and as for children,
they do not baptize them at all, either naked or clothed;
and yet they boast of following antiquity, and loudly
complain that we do not copy after their example!
Well, while we regret that they follow antiquity in some
things, let us be thankful that they do not in others, for
we certainly do not wish them to follow antiquity as to
the naked mode! We, however, think it would be much
wiser for them to follow the Bible and let antiquity go,
or only follow it as far as it followed Christ!
Now if immersionists infer the practice of John the
Baptist, and that of the apostles, from the practice of the
49 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Christians of the third and fourth centuries, they must of
course reach the conclusion that John and the apostles
baytized men, women, and children naked!  And if so, a
marvellous scene must have been presented at Jordan,
and Enon, in the days of John; and a still more marvellous scene must have been presented in Jerusalem on the
day of Pentecost. We leave it to your imagination to
depict the scene! The following quotation from Wall,
however, will somewhat relieve the difficulty.  "They,
however, took great care for preserving the modesty of
any woman who was to be baptized. None but women
came near till her body was in the water; then the priest
came, and putting her head also under water, he departed
and left her to the women." If this was the method on
the day of Pentecost, when three thousand persons were
baptized, the good sisters in Jerusalem must have had a
busy time of it; for we may safely presume that sixteen
or eighteen hundred of them were females, for in a revival there are usually more females than males converted.
Before this day there were only a very few Christian women in Jerusalem, and we may presume that they were the
only women that would attend to this work; and these
few women, according to this showing, must have immersed the bodies of some sixteen hundred women, while
the apostles only popped their heads under the water,
and then left them to the women who put them in to
take them out again, and dress them.   There was no
body of water in Jerusalem in which three thousand
could be immersed, neither could they be immersed in
one, or even in fifty baths, in a few hours; therefore, if
they were immersed at all it must have been in very
many baths, in different and distant parts of the city;
50 
PLUNGING BESET WITH DIFFICULTIES.
then the question arises, how could a few apostles run all
over the city, from bath to bath, to immerse three thousand in a few hours? for they " were added to the church
the same day." Moreover, most of these baths or cisterns
were in the hands of Jews, who were the deadly enemies
of the Christians, and would not be likely to let the
Christians have their baths. But a still greater difficulty
presents itself just here. How could the few Christian females who were then in the city run from bath to bath,
all over the city, and put, say, sixteen hundred females
into them, and take them out again and dress them,
after the apostles had put their heads under? How
could they do all this in a few hours? Now it is evident that the advocates of immersion must account for
these, or for still greater difficulties. It should be observed, too, that the women baptized the bodies of the
women, while the apostles, on this hypothesis, only
baptized  their heads!   Here, too, another  question
arises, viz., which part of the performance was most
orthodox, that of the women, or that of the apostles?
One might say of them as Socrates said of living and
dying, "which is best the gods know," for I suppose
even immiersionists themselves cannot tell. And, by the
way, there is a similar difficulty connected with modern
immersion; for the priest only plunges about one half of
the body, while the individual immerses the other half by
walking into the water, so that there is only partial immersion by the priest after all; and still the question
remains to be decided, which part of the body received
scripture baptism? Or did either? The advocates of
plunging will please answer!
51
I 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
It is really difficult to mention any one religious
dogma that is more clogged with difficulties and absurdities than is this dogma of exclusive  immersion: nor
does it stop with difficulties and absurdities, for, as we
have seen, it includes positive impossibilities!
52 
CHAPTER IX.
Summing up-A great variety of Particulars are Specified-Plunging was, and
is, connected with Superstition and various Errors, and is doubtless the
Offspring of Superstition-Proselyting, causing Proselytes to  tenounce
their Baptism is very serious-Unreasonableness of the supposition that
the German Fanatics discovered what all the wise and the learned both
ancient and modern  have failed to discover —It is the duty of Zion's
Watchmen to Save their People from being Proselyted-The sincerity of
the Anabaptists in crying for Union under certain circumstances is very
questionable while they teach as they do-We are not at liberty to reject
a Divinely appointed Method and adopt another, especially when that
other is very objectionable in itself —Nor is the Church at Liberty to leave
to the choice and whims of Men to Decide where it is her duty to Teach
what God hlas lIread(ly Decide(d-Taylor's Pictorial RPepresentations show   ing the Ancient manode of Baptism.
AND now, having said this much, we may sum up the
evidence and rest our cause. The amount is briefly this:
God's mode of baptizing is by pouring, shedding, sprinkling. In a word, by the baptismal elementfalling upon
the party baptized, invariably so! this, with all who believe the word of God, is an indisputable fact. Second.
In the word of God that is called baptism where water
fell /7pon the Israelites, and upon Nebuchadnezzar, by
sprinkling or by pouring: this, too, is a fact!  Third.
There is not in all God's word so much as one clear text
in favor of pT7ugin,q, as being the divinely  appoinited
mode of baptism;  this, too, is a fact! Fourth. God
has appointed sprinkling or pouring, as the appropriate
sign of baptism by the Spirit, and as the appropriate 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
sign of cleansing by the blood of Jesus; this, also, is a
fact! To these facts we may add a fact mentioned by
Richard Watson together with the inference that he
draws from it: "The superstition of antiquity appears
to have gone most in favor of baptism by immersion; this
is a circumstance which affords a strong presumption
that it was one of those additions to the ancient rite
which superstition originated." To this judicious remark
may be added the fact that superstitious and grossly erroneous sects still go most in favor of plunging. As
instances, it is only necessary to refer to the Mormons,
Campbellites, and others, who, as is usual with the advocates of plunging, seem to make plunging the one thing
needful! And, by the way, this fact itself affords strong
reason to suspect that plunging is of superstitious origin,
for it has always been the characteristic of the superstitious
and grossly erroneous to make their own inventions of
more importance than the teachings of God's word. The
prominence which Baptists, so called, give to their peculiar dogma is well known. They are proverbial for their
proselyting proclivities.   And  the  inducement  which
they invariably hold out to those whom they would proselyte from other churches is, that they will plunge them,
or, as they prefer to express it, immerse them, taking care
to assure them that short of this there is no baptism, and,
consequently, no admission to the Christian Church, no
right to the Sacrament of the Supper, and, in short, that
they must remain, if not immersed, "aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants
of promise, hlaving no hope, and without God  in the
world." I have often wondered why there was such a
remarkable uniformity among Baptists with regard to
54 
SUMMING UP.
these two things, viz.: laying great stress upon being
plunged, and making mighty efforts to proselyte front
other churches; but I now see that the reason is obviously
this, viz.: Most of those who join that church are led
to do so by the teaching here specified, and, consequently,
believe that plunging, and plunging only, is baptism;
and for this reason they recognize all others, all who have
not been plunged, as being excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, as stated above. And now being in the
Church, and  constantly under the same  teaching, the
original impression becomes more and more deep, and
they, of course, become more and more bigoted and exclusive, and looking upon all outside of their Church as
being in the deplorable condition of unbaptized heathen,
they soon become zealously engaged in the work of proselyting, and to obtain proselytes they hold out the same
inducements that had been held out to themselves, and that
had proved successful. Hence it is that Anabaptists are
so unanimous in this particular, especially in connection
with a revival which may be progressing in a given
locality: then immersion is their alpha and their omega;
and consequently, those who join them do so, in most
intances, on this single consideration.   Thus  it is that
plunging and proselyting go together!  This attempt
to account for the proselyting proclivities of the Anabaptists, and for their zeal and unanimity in this regard, is
really the best apology we can make for them;  for if
they believe that those whom they proselyte, or attempt
to proselyte, from other churches, are really in the covenant of grace and in the fold of Christ, their proselyting
practices deserve much severe censure.
But, however we may apologize for the proselyting
55 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM[.
practice of the Anabaptists, it must still appear to be a
very serious matter when it is remembered that they cause
all whom they proselyte from other churches to renounce
their previous baptism, as being no baptism, and, consequently, to recognize and declare their plunging to be the
only baptism! Now, it is not possible, on calm reflection, to
view this as being a matter of little or no importance. Just
look at it again. Hiere are those who say that God, for
Christ's sake has pardoned their sins, that he hasgiven them
the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry "Abba, Father."
That Spirit now bears witness with their spirits that
they are the children of God; they were baptized, say,
by their spiritual father, who has grown old and grayheaded in the service of his Master, and whose labors
by the Divine blessing have been instrumental in the
salvation of multitudes; and by him these persons have
been received to the communion of saints, amongst
whom they have lived, we may suppose, for several years,
rejoicing in hope of the glory of God; and being fed
with the bread of life by that same spiritual father, and
being helped on their way by those with whom they
first united, they are still going on their way rejoicing.
Now let us suppose that one of these Anabaptists comes
along and artfully persuades some of these, perhaps inexperienced and unsuspecting, that they never received
Christian baptism, that they must follow Christ down into
the water, that they must be buried with him in baptism, that Philip and the Eunuch went down into the
water and came up out of the water. And after mixing up all these terms so as to convey the idea that
they all mean immersion, for he will not use the word
plunge, though he means it, he sums up by assuring
56 
SUMMING UP.
those unsuspecting and inexperienced ones that sprinkling
is a modern invention, an invention of popery, that immersion was the only mode practised for more than fifteen
hundred years! Finally, in short, he persuades them to
renounce their former baptism, as not being Christian bap
tism, and leads them down to the river and plunges them
under the water. The work is now complete; with their
former baptism they have been persuaded to renounce
their former Church as not being a Christian Church,
and those nitherto recognized and loved as Christian
brethren and sisters, are-recognized and loved as such no
longer; they will no longer with them surround the
Lord's table, as they had been wont to do, nor will they
allow them  to come  and  surround  the table that is
spread in their new home; nor will they sit at the
Sacramental table with the venerable man whom  they
long loved as their spiritual father, or if they would,
those who have proselyted them will not allow them.
nor will they allow him to come and partake with them;
already there is fixed between them a great gulph!
These are facts, and with such facts I could fill many
pages, and it was the repetition of such facts, of late,
that led me to preach and write as I have now done. I
say the repetition, for with such doings as these I have
often been pained and grieved for many years; and I am
sure that my experience in this particular is not much
different from that of other ministers who have labored
where the Anabaptists had a Church. It was thus that
their fathers commenced their operations in the days of
Martin Luther, as we shall by and by show, and their
children but too faithfully copy fater their example.
Now, whether we believe that the baptism thus rc
rl I 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS3M
nounced was, or was not, Christian baptism, the case is
a very serious one.  If it was not, then all ministers except those of the Anabaptist persuasion are leading the
people astray, and both themselves and their people are
unbaptized, as were the countless millions of ministers and
members who have lived and died in other than the Anabaptist denomination in past ages; and all this notwithstanding the great learning, great knowledge, thorough
investigations, marvellous researches, deep piety, and
unquestioned holiness, of multitudes of them; yes, notwithstanding all this, we must conclude, if these proselyte
ing Anabaptists be correct, that they all died ignorant
and destitute of Christian baptism!  And it was reserved
for such men as the ignorant and fanatical John Matthias,
a baker of Hiaerlem, and John Boccold, a journeyman
tailor of Leyden, in Germany, to obtain a knowledge of
Christian baptism, while the learned and studious Melanchthon, and the great reformer, Luther, were left to live
and die alike ignorant and destitute of it! But if all
this be too monstrous to be believed, then we are forced
to the startling conclusion that these proselyting rebaptizers renounce Christian baptism, declaring it to be
no baptism, and lead others, especially the inexperienced
and unsuspecting youth who have recently been both converted and baptized, to do the same, simply because they
were baptized by sprinkling or pouring; and this is done
in defiance of the facts, the indisputable facts, that God
instituted sprinkling and pouring, that he calls sprinkling
and pouring baptism, and that he himself has invariably
baptized by pouring, never by plunging; and, finally, that
no man living can refer us to a single text of scripture
to show that God ever appointed or practised plunging.
58 
SUMMING UP.
We have already specified the chapters and verses
where all these facts, except the last, are asserted by
some of the plainest and most unmistakable utterances
that have ever reached us from the lips of the Most
High! And the last is the fact that he has not appointed or practised plunging as the mode of baptism,
at least that no man can show us where he has done
so. If any can refer us to the chapter and verse, let
them do so, and if they do, we will give up this fact,
but even then all the other facts will remain! It is
evident, then, that the practice of the re-baptizers is
serious, awfully  serious.   God  pardons, regenerates,
adopts, and baptizes precious souls, and they pronounce
that baptism no baptism, and cause the parties thus baptized to do the same thing. God seals his children with
the seal of the Christian covenant, and they efface, or
attempt, to efface that seal and pronounce it no seal.
And for that baptism they substitute plunging, and for that
plunging, as the mode of baptism, they cannot produce
one clear text from God's word, while, at the same time,
it is a positive fact, if the Bible be true, that God both
teaches and practises baptism by sprinkling and pouring.
I say this is serious, awfully serious. And I give it as
my solemn conviction that when these re-baptizers approach any church to pronounce its members unbaptized
and to persuade them to renounce their baptism, leave
their church, be plunged and join the church of the
re-bapti.zers, they should be rebuked and repelled with
all diligence and by the use of every proper means.
I believe it is the bounden duty of God's watchmen to
do so; and they are recreant to their trust if they permit the re-baptizers or any others to come in and unsettle,
59 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
pervert, and lead away their young converts and others
who, in consequence of inexperience and limited knowledge in some things, are liable to be led astray by
designing men, whose object is to build up their own
organization, and thus, as Paul expresses it,'Imake a
yain of them;" or, as Jude expresses it, "having men's
persons in admiration because of advantage." This, we
are confident, is the object of many of these proselyting
teachers, while many of their members, it is hoped, are
simply guided by a mistaken zeal. But whatever may
be the motives of these proselyters, it is unquestionably
the duty of the Christian shepherd to watch over the
flock committed to his care, and not allow these proselyters to steal away his sheep. If, however, the Anabaptists honestly believe that there is no baptism, no
entrance to the Christian church but by plunging, and no
church but that which is composed of those who have
been baptized by plunging, let them go out into the world
and convert sinners, and then let them plunge, dip, or
immerse them; any way, so that they bring them to
heaven; but let them not undertake to pervert and steal
the members of other churches by telling them that such
churches are not Christian churches, and that their baptism is not Christian baptism-let them not do this.
Neither let them, as they often do, especially at the time
of a revival, cry out for union with us while they thus
believe and teach concerning us. We really believe that
union is an impossibility while they thus believe and
teach, nor can they blame us for questioning their sincerity when they cry for union under such circumstances.
And I here give due notice to all whom it may concern,
that I will, God being my helper, promptly drive from
60 
SUMMING UP.
the fold, of which I am the appointed shepherd, all who
may approach it for the purpose of stealing the sheep
under my care; nor will I, in future, allow the too-often
deceptive and hypocritical cry of union to prevent my
doing so. And I shall consider it my special duty to
look after those who may be converted by our own labors;
these are emphatically our children, and we may not allow
them to be stolen from us. I have in the past, for the
sake of peace, been more tolerant with proselyters than I
mean to be in the future. I feel a good deal like the
honest Quaker of whom it is said, that he held to his
principle of non-resistance till the pirates were boarding
his ship, then he seized his cutlass and began to chop off
their hands, exclaiming, "Keep thou thine and we'll keep
ours!"  That's my principle exactly.  And I wish all to
understand it. And I think that is the proper way to
have union.  And those who would not have their hand
cut off must give over their piratical practices and keep
on board their own ship!
Finally, I take it,t hat where full and explicit directions are not given in the New Testament with regard to
the observance of any ordinance clearly of Divine appointment, such directions are to be sought for in the Old
Testament; and if we there find clear and explicit directions given by the Almighty and practised by the Old
Testament church, these are obviously the directions to
be followed; and we are not at liberty to give directions
of our own invention as a substitute for them, simply because they were not formally repeated in the New Testament.  Now, it is a fact, as we have already shown, that
full and explicit directions are given in the Old Testament to use water by pouring or sprinkling as a sign of
4
61 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the baptism of the Spirit, and also as a sign of moral
cleansing by the blood of Jesus; and as we know that
baptism is a sign of both these, we are bound to follow
these Old Testament directions, especially as the prophets
had already apprized us that Jesus would "sprinkle many
nations,"' and as we know that he actually and invariably
baptizes by pouring, and also that he sprink!es the hearts
of his people from  ani eril conscience.  See Heb. x.
22. While furnished with such precept and example, so
full and clear, I really think that we are not at liberty to
invent a new method;  much less are we at liberty to
invent a method that is utterly without precedent and
that cannot be used either as a sign or as a seal; nor
do I think that we are at liberty to leave each one to
choose a method of his own, simply because the method
Divinely appointed and practised under the Old Testament dispensation is not formally re-enacted under the
New! To carry out this rule would be utterly disastrous
to the Christian system. Of the truth of this statement
any one will be convinced by a little reflection. For
instance, by this rule we would do away with the
Christian sabbath, we would exclude females fromn the
holy sacrament, we would do away with family worship,
and, in short, as we have already said, to carry out this
rule would be utterly ruinous to the Christian system;
but if we follow the common sense rule, to observe and
do all that the Lord our God has commanded, and never
abrogated, all will be well. But if I should do away
with God's method of applying the sign and seal, certainly plunging is the last method I should think of; for the
idea of plunging for sealing is absurd in the last degree,
62 
SUMMING UP.
nor is there anything in the Christian religion of which it
is a sign!
And, though I admit that many human inventions
were connected with Christian baptism, even at an early
period, I do not admit that baptism proper was utterly
done away with; on the contrary, it was retained, and,
like many other things of Divine appointment, it seemed
extremely difficult to get rid of it.  Like truth, it lived
in the very rubbish of error; for, after passing through
their various washings and other inventions, the finale was
baptism proper by effusion. Of the truth of this observation, Taylor, in his Facts and Evidences, gives us very
convincing proof. This scholarly and laborious investigator of this subject has presented us with twelve facsimiles of  pictorial representations of the mode of
baptism as administered by the ancients. In the course
of his investigations and researches he found them in
ancient churches and other places in the East. They are
the work of Grecian and Roman artists, and unmistakably
represent the practice of the times to which they belong;
and every one of them represents the final act, baptism
proper, as being administered by effusion. Some of them
profess to represent the baptism of our blessed Lord by
John; one professes to represent the baptism of the
Emperor, or Constantine, another represents the baptism
of a King and Queen, and others represent the baptism
of other persons, some named and others not; but in
every instance the water is represented as falling upon
the subject.  With these representations before us, we can
but say with Mr. Taylor: "They are vouchers for the
time in which they were executed; and, though we cannot hear the men of that generation viva voce, and we
63 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
dare not put words into their lips, yet we may see their
testimony and judge of its relevancy to the inquiry that
engages our attention!"
But all this avails nothing with certain men; they
still cry out as they plunge, "There was no other way
practised for-more than fifteen hundred years." But
they probably know nothing about the editor of Calmet's
Dictionary, or about his facts either; and, very likely,
they do not desire to know, for assertion answers their
purpose much better.
64 
INFANT BAPTISM.
CHAPTER X.
Bitter opposition of Antipedobaptists to Infant Baptism-Grounds of
their opposition examined and refuted.
BITTEr,LY as the Anabaptists are opposed to baptism by
sprinkling, or pouring, they are still more opposed to the
baptism of children by any mode.   To infant baptism
they seem to retain the same bitterness that characterized
the founders of their church, who, as D'Aubigne tells us,
said, " Baptism is the baptism of a dog; there is no more
use in baptizing an infant than in baptizing a cat."
While in other particulars they differ very much and
very honorably, from their ignorant and fanatical fathers,
in this, we must say, they but too nearly resemble them:
it is well known that they usually speak of the baptism
of infants with contempt and bitterness; indeed they do
not call it baptism at all, but "infant sprinkling." Though
the child is consecrated to the adorable Trinity in the
most solemn mannier, by God's minister, in the use of the
most appropriate and impressive ceremony, and accompanied by the most devout prayers of the whole church
as they bow before the Lord in his house; yet all this is
treated with contempt. And, although they do not use
the coarse language of their fathers, as quoted above, yet 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the best they can do is to pronounce it "infant sprinkling,"
that is all it amounts to!  Though the minister, the believing parents, and the church consecrated the child to
the adorable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, applying the seal of the covenant, and offering up the most
devout prayers, still these sapient ones can see no more
religion in it than they can see in the act of the servantmaid when she applies water to the child's face before
dressing it; in either case it is only infant sprinkling;
that is all!
But what reason do they assign for all this? What do
they offer in justification hereof?  Certainly nothing
short of very serious and weighty considerations will justify this, if anything will. L)o they claim that God has
positively forbidden the baptism of children? That he
has positively commanded, saying, " Thou shalt not baptize thy children at all?" No, they claim nothing of the
sort; no one, however extravagant, ever claimed that there
was any such command in God's book.  What  then?
Do they claim that this solemn consecration corrupts the
children, and makes them more wicked than the children
that are not baptized? No, I think no one claims this.
Why, then, are they so bitterly opposed to infant baptism? What reason or reasons do they offer as a justification of their bitter opposition and contempt of infant
baptismn? They shall speak for themselves. We believe
the sum of all their reasons are the following:
They say the command is to baptize those who believe;
but the child cannot believe, ergo, the child should not
be baptized! In support of this strange reasoning they
quote the following texts. Acts viii. 36, 37. The Eunuch said, " What doth hinder me to be baptized?" And
66 
GROUNDS OF OPPOSIT'ION EXAMINED.
Philip said, "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou
mayest."  3Mark xvi. 16.  "I He that believetli and is
baptized shall be saved, and he that believetl not shall
be damned." IHere it is assumed that what God says to, or
of an adult, applies equally to an infant! Really it is difficult to conceive of an assumption more absurd than this.
There are so many things wrong here, that one hardly
knows where to commence to point them out. It is as.
sumed that God makes no discrimination between an
infant and an adult; that the provisions of the atonement are offered to the adult and to the infant upon the
same terms; that all God says to the adult race of mankind, applies equally to infants; that you must not limit
one jot or tittle of all he says to the adult race of mankind
unless he distinctly tells you to do so! Can anything
exceed this in extravagance and unreasonableness? In
this way you would first starve to death, and then damn
all children, and prove conclusively that God had so appointed; for he says, " if any will not work neither should
he eat; " and he also says, " he that believeth not shall
be damned." But infants can neither work nor believe,
therefore they must first be starved to death and then
damned! Now this is precisely the reasoning by which
infants are excluded from the right of baptism: in each
case the conclusion is reached by assuming that infants
are included, where adults only are intended! In this
way precisely, it was, that the ancient sect of heretics
called Hieraxites, concluded that all children dying in
childhood would be damned, for they considered knowledge the procuring cause of salvation, and essential to it;
and as infants had not, and could not have knowledge,
they concluded they could not be saved! And they could
6'i 
CHRIISTIAN BAPTISM.
establish their position just as satisfactorily as the Anabaptists establish theirs, for Paul says, "Faith cometh
by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." But in fants are obviously incapable of hearing and knowing
the teachings of God's word, and consequently incapable
of faith; and Jesus says, He that believeth not shall be
damned. Hence the same conclusion is reached, children
cannot be saved.  Moreover Jesus has said, "this is life
eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent." But children cannot have this
knowledge, therefore they cannot have "life eternal!"
Thus the reasoning of the ancient Hieraxites, and that
of the modern Anabaptists, are exactly the same, and
the conclusion the same; only in the one case the damnation of children is asserted, in the other the reasoners do not assert it, though their reasoning being the same
implies it; for if the commission given to the disciples
proves that infants cannot be baptized, because they cannot believe, it as conclusively proves that they cannot be
saved, that they must be damned. Nay, there is more
reason for the latter than there is for the former conclusion, for Jesus does not say, he that believeth not shall
not be baptized, but he does say, he that believeth
not shall be damned. And even if he had said, he that believeth not shall not be baptized, even then it would not
follow that infants should not be baptized, for the objects
of the threat are obviously those to whom the Gospel
should be preached, but the Apostles were not sent out
into the world to preach the Gospel to infants, therefore
the threat had nothing to do with infants, it neither excluded them from baptism nor fronm heaven, any more than
it excluded from heaven those adults in heathen lands,
68 
GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION EXAMINED.
who never had the chance either to hear a preached gospel,
or to be baptized. The argument which Anabaptists deduce, or pretend to deduce from Philip's address to the
Eunuch is, of course, based upon the same ridiculous assumption; they assume that what Philip says to the Eunuch equally applies to infants; that all infants are to be
saved and baptized upon precisely the same conditions
that the Eunruch was; and they would have us address
all infants just as Philip addressed the "man of Ethiopia,
an Eunuch of great authority under Candae, Queen of
the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure,
and had coma to Jerusalem to worship."   Yes, the assumption is that all infants must be treated precisely as
was this great official, and saved and baptized on the very
same conditions! Is it not marvellous that any intelligent person should assume and reason in this way? And
yet, it is upon this assumption, principally, that the Anabal)tists base all their opposition to infant baptism; they
are ever and anon quoting these texts to prove that infants should not be baptized because they cannot believe.
And why? Because, forsooth, Philip said to the Eunuch,
"If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest be
baptized," therefore they would have all ministers of the
Gospel deal with infants just as Philip dealt with this
great official, the Ethiopian Eunuch, who came to Jerusalem to worship!
.Anabaptists say, there is no command ir the New
Testament to baptize infants, therefore they should not
be             baptized. This argument, if it may be called an argument,   is like all the preceding; it rests upon a mere
assumption, which is little, if anything, better than the
assumptions already exposed and refuted. The assump           4*
69 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS3M.
tion is this; that no command in the Old Testament is
binding, or to be observed, unless formally repeated in
the New. This assumption, if fully carried out, would
be little less disastrous than the preceding. Now, with
regard to the commands and teachings of the Old Testament, the question is not, are they repeated in the New?
but are they abrogated in the New? If not, of course
the obligation to obey, remains unchanged and unabated;
and must continue till the law in the given case is abrogated by Him who enacted it.   Now every Christian
knows, or should know, that the law with regard to children was enacted in the days of Abraham, and its observance made binding upon the Church, and it has been
observed by the church of God, without intermission,
from then until now; and that law is recorded in the Old
Testament, and it is not abrogated in the New! These
are the facts in the case, and such facts as defy successful contradiction.   Now the law is simply this; that
children should be circumcised, even as soon as they were
eight days old, and that circumcision was the rite of
initiation into the Church; it was also the seal of the
Covenant; nay, St. Paul tells us that it was the sign,
and seal, of righteousness had previous to the performance
of the rite. Now then, here is the fact, the indisputable
fact; that rite which included all that we have here
specified, was, by the command of God, extended to children, even as soon as they were eight days old!  But I
will be told that baptism does not take the place of circumcision; I answer, I care not a rush, I am not talking
about that just now, we will attend to that in due time.
What I claim just now is simply this; at the time that the
church was formally organized, the covenant between God and
7O 
GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION EXAMINED.
Iis people was ratted with Abrahamn, Who, with his children,
received the seal of that covenant, and this seal was at the
samne time the sign and seal of RIGIITEOUSNESS previously
had, and it was also the rite of initiation into the chuzrch
of God. And all this, by the conmmand of God, was secured
to the infant iag common with the parent, and this commiC?and
was never abrogated!  Now, we repeat the statement, and
we repeat it with increased emphasis, the question is not
whether this command is repeated iii the New Testament;
the question is, is it abrogated in the New Testament?
To this question there is but one answer, and that is NO!
We affirm that God has not cancelled this command, nor
has he cancelled one jot or tittle of the rights, privileges
and blessings which it secures to children; and if the
Anabaptists undertake to do so, they do it on their own
authority, and at their own risk. Instead, then, of the
Anabaptists asking us, where is this command in the New
Testament? we ask them where is it abrogated in the New
Testament? And till they can point to the positive annu'ment, or repeal of this law, they are bound to do as
we do; and if they still refuse to obey this confessedly
unrepealcd law of God', they do so at their own risk, and
we must recognize them as transgressors of that law; and
as attempting to deprive children of rights and blessings
secured to them by the blood of the covenant, and by
the promise and command of the Most Hligh. WVe say
the promise and the commnland: for when God made the
covenant with Abraham, and specified the rights and
blessihgs thus secured, he added, " thee and thy seed,"
and on the day of Pentecost this promise was repeated
in these words, " the promise is to you and to your children."  The practice of attempting to annul or eyade a
71 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Divine law that was enacted long ago, simply because it
has not been re-enacted, is as absurd as it is pernicious.
Suppose one should attempt to evade or annul some of
the laws of this State or nation, and plead in justification
the fact that they were not re-enacted at the last session
of the Legislature; would not the very children tell him
that re-enactment was not necessary, that every law remained in force, till repealed by the power that enacted
it? And this is specially true of the laws of God. Yet
the Anabaptists attempt to evade, or annul the law under
consideration, simply because it has not been formally
re-enacted or repeated in the New Testament! I sayfor.nally, for it has been repeated, though not with its original formality, for this was not necessary.
72 
CHAPTER XI.
It is shown that Infant Baptism takes the place of Circumcision-Early Chris   tian Fathers are quoted-Te,timnony of PelagiuTlie Antipeldobaptist
dogma one of thle m,st modern of religious errors-Baxter is quoted   Other Fathers are quoted.
THOUGH it is not at all necessary to the validity of
the position here taken to prove that baptism takes the
place of circumcision, yet being convinced that it does,
I will make a few remarks which I think will satisfy the
unprejudiced that it does.
Circumcision and the passover are unquestionably
done away with by Him who appointed them. And Baptism and the Lord's Supper are unquestionably appoint —-.
ed by the same authority.   The doing away of the
former, and the appointment of the latter, took place at
the same time, and the disuse of the former, and the use
of the latter, have continued in the Christian Church to
the present day; and it is not questioned that the supper takes the place of the passover; and, if baptism does
not take the place of circumcision, then we have nothing
in its place. But the truth is, this is neither more nor
less than saying and unsaying, and such saying and unsaying as leave the facts unaltered; for the facts that
circumcision was done away with, and baptism introduced
at the same time, and by the same authority, remain
facts, whatever we may say. And it is both folly and 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
contradiction to say that the one does not take the place
of the other: especially when it is remembered and ad mitted, as it must be, that baptism is what circumcision
was, viz.: a sign and seal, and also an initiatory rite.
The amount is this, to express it still more briefly:  He
who appointed circumcision for the purposes here speci fied, has appointed baptism for the same specified pur poses; and the annulment of the one, and the appoint ment of the other, took place at the same time.   Now
to admit all this, and yet deny that the one takes the
place of the other, is, I maintain, folly and self-contra diction. Folly, because nothing is gained by it, for the
facts remain, and they comprehend all we claim, viz.: the
rights of children under the present as under the former
dispensation. And it is self-contradiction, for that which
is denied is the very same that has been admitted by admiting, the facts, which must be admitted; and the facts
comprehend all we claim. Our claims, therefore, are established with all the certainty of fact, notwithstanding
the play upon the words take the place of, for the objection is really a play upon these words. It is admitted
that the one was removed, and the other appointed, and
that the latter answers the purposes of the former, and
yet it is denied that the latter takes the place of the
former!  Nonsense! the fact is, no man would ever have
said so had it not appeared to him that the admission
would militate against his system.
Water baptism is substituted for circumcision be.
cause, while it answers all the purposes of the former,
as specified above, it does more.   It is more congenial
with the more mild dispensation of the Gospel, which is
emphatically the dispensation of the spirit. And it is
74 
SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION.
a sign of the baptism of the spirit, as circumcision could
not be. iIence, under that dispensation there was divinely appointed sprinkling and pouring in connection
with it; while under this dispensation baptism answers
all the purposes.
It also does away with the distinction which necessarily existed between male and female while circumcision was in use. The doing away of this distinction,
by substituting baptism for circumcision, is very forcibly
and beautifully expressed by the apostle Paul in the following words: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.  There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus." (Gal. iii. 7, 8) To prove that baptism does
not take the place of circumcision, certain ignorant persons, and amongst them sometimes females, have urged
the fact that while circumcision was not, baptism is, administered to females. To such females we recommend
Paul's very sensible and appropriate advice: " Let them
ask their husbands at home."' And if their husbands
are as ignorant as themselves, which is very likely, we
can only sympathize with them. Meantime we claim
that the words quoted above prove just the reverse of
what the objector designs to prove by the fact stated.
That baptism takes the place of circumcision is evident
from the following Scripture also.   Speaking of our
completeness in Christ, the apostle says to the Colossians: " In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ,
buried with him in baptism," &c. (Col. ii. 11, 12.)
75 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Having quoted this text, Mr. Watson observes, having
specified other particulars in which baptism takes the
place of circumcision: "Here baptism is made the in itiatory rite of the new dispensation, that by which the
Colossians were joined to Christ in whom they are said
to be' complete;' and so certain is it that baptism has
the same office and import now as circumcision formerly,
-with this difference only, that the object of faith was
then future, and now it is Christ as come-that the
Apostle expressly calls baptism'the ci, cumcision of
Christ;' the circumcision instituted by him, which
phrase he puts out of the reach of frivolous criticism, by
adding exegetically,' buried with him in baptism.' For
unless the Apostle here calls baptism' the circumcision
of Christ,' he asserts that we'put off the body of the
sins of the flesh,' that is, become new creatures by virtue
of our Lord's own personal circumcision; but if this be
absurd, then the only reason for which he can call baptism' the circumcision of Christ,' or Christian circumcision, is, that it has taken the place of the Abrahamic
circumcision, and fulfils the same office of introducing
believing men into God's covenant, and entitling them
to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings." The phrase,
circumcision of Christ, so evidently means Christian
baptism, that this close and accurate reasoner does not
hesitate to say that Paul himself has " put it out of the
reach of frivolous criticism." Doddridge, too, in his
notes on the place, takes the same view. Having quoted
the words "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,"'
he adds, "renouncing all the deeds of it.  Your engagements to this you have expressed by that ordinance
which I may call the circumcision of Christ; it being
6 
SUBSTITUTED FOB CIRCUMCISION.
that by which he hath appointed that we should be initiated into His Church as the members of it."  Thus
he represents Paul as saying of baptism, " that ordinance which I may call the circumcision of Christ."
The propriety of all this will appear still more clear
when it is remembered that baptism and circumcision
symbolize the same thing, namely, the removal of moral
uncleanness; though they do it in different ways, yet
both are very significant of this thing. Hence Philo, as
quoted by Whitby, says that "circumcision imports the
cutting off our sinful pleasures and passions, and our impious opinions." What circumcision represents by cutting off, baptism still more forcibly represents by the
idea of washing away. And Peter, referring both to
circumcision and baptism, speaks of them as symbolizing
this moral cleansing by " the putting away of the filth of
the flesh." Moral impurity is often called filth, both in
the Old and New Testaments. See, for instance, Isaiah
iv. 4, Ezek. xxxii. 25, and Rev. xxii. 11.
After showing, at great length, and by most conclusive evidence, that Christian baptism takes the place of
circumcision, Mr. Watson adds: "This argument is sufficiently extended to show  that the  Antipadobaptist
writers have in vain endeavored to prove that baptism
has not been appointed in the room of circumcision; a
point on which, indeed, they were bound to employ all
their strength; for the substitution of baptism for circumcision being established, one of their main objections
to infant baptism, as we will just now show, is rendered
wholly nugatory."  Having adduced  the further  evidence here promised, he sums up thus: " If then we bring
all these considerations under one view, we shall find it
77 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
sufficiently established that baptism is the sign and seal
of the covenant of grace under its perfected dispensation;
-that it is the grand initiatory act by which we enter into
this covenant, in order to claim all its spiritual blessings,
and to take upon ourselves all its obligations:-that it
was appointed by Jesus Christ in a manner which
plainly put it in the place of circumlcision;-that it is
now the means by which men become Abraham's spiritual
children, and heirs with him of the promise, which was
the office of circumcision, until the seed, the Messiah,
should come;-and that baptism is therefore expressly
called by St. Paul,'the circumcision of Christ,' or
Christian circumcision, in a sense which can only import
that baptism has now taken the place of the Abrahamic
rite."  After refuting another objection of Antipedobaptist writers, stated by Mr. Booth, Mr. Watson concludes thus. "We may here add, that an early father,
Justin Martyr, takes the same view of the substitution
of circumcision by Christian baptism: " We Gentiles,"'
Justin observes, "have not received that circumcision
according to the flesh, but that which is spiritual-and
moreover, for indeed we were sinners, we have received
this in baptism, through God's miercy, and it is enjoined
on all to receive it in like manner." According to this
father, circumcision is received in baptisam, and it is enjoined
upon all!  But this same ancient father is still more
distinct in the following quotation, which is handed down
to us as containing his words verbatim: " We Gentile
Christians are circumcised by baptism with Christ's circumcision;" and in support of this view he quotes Col.
ii. 11, 12.  I-Ie also says, "we were  discipled in our
childhood." Now when it is remembered that this father
78 
SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION.
was born about A. D. 133, and that he is here defending
the practice of the whole Christian Church in opposition
to the Jews, who still contended for circumcision, it must
be admitted, we think, that this testimony is overwheltningly conclusive.  Not because his testimony or practice,
or that of any other man, or number of men, is a rule
for us when unsupported by Scripture, but because it is
quite sufficient to show what were the fiacts with regard
to the views and the practice of the early Christian
Church; so early, that some still living were familiar
with some of the apostles, at least with the apostle John,
and his teachings  and their views, according to the testimony of this father, were, that baptism took the place
of circumcision; and, accordingly, that they " discipled,"
that is, baptized in " childhood." Turning to Taylor's
"Facts and Evidences," I find that writer furnishes the
following quotation from this same Justin Miartyr:
"Why, if circumcision be a good thing, do we not use it
as well as the Jews did?  The answer is, because we
Gentile Christians are circumcised by baptism with
Christ's circumcision." Now this shows most conclusively what were the views and practice of the primitive
church with regard to baptism. Their views were that
Christ gave baptism in the place of circumcision, and that
they practised accordingly; for if these were not the
views and practice of the primitive church this pronlinent minister could not write and publish what every
Christian then living must have known to be a glaring
falsehood. It would not be possible, for instance, for a
prominent minister in the Anabaptist church of the present day to publish a treatise in defence of baptism by
Sprinkling, and especially in defence of the baptism of
79 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
infants, asserting that these were the views and practice
of the entire church of which he was a minister, and that
they did so upon the authority of Christ and his apostles,
and that they had always believed and practised thus; I
say no such minister could do so while in a sane state;
and if he should, of course the whole Anabaptist church
would contradict and reject his statement.  Let it be
acknowledged, then, as we think every intelligent and
honest man must acknowledge, that Justin Martyr and
other fathers could not write thus if these were not the
views and practice of the primitive church; and if these
were evidently the views and practice of the primitive
church, with what face can Anabaptist ministers tell the
masses of the people, who know no better, that the baptism of infants is a modern, a popish invention? The
best excuse we can possibly make for such ministers is
that they themselves are ignorant; "the blind lead the
blind."  Mr. Taylor also gives us the following quotation
from the writings of John Chrysostoni: "There was pain
and trouble in the practice of that Jewish circumcision;
but our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives
cure without pain; and this for infants as well as men."
Here, as late as the latter end of the fourth century, this
father still speaks of the "Jewish circumcision" and
"our circumcision," and by "our circumcision" he tells
us he means baptism; and, observe, he is not speaking
of his views and practice, but of those of the entire
Christian Church at that time, as Justin Martyr had
done more than two hundred years before.
The incident that is recorded as having occurred at
the Council of Carthage is well known.   The substance
of it is this. One Fedus, not being present at the Coun
80 
SUBSTITTED FOR CIRCUMCISION.
cil, wrote to the presiding bishop, Cyprian, to know
whether a child should be baptized before it was eight
days old; to this inquiry Cyprian and the whole Council, consisting of sixty-six bishops, replied that it was not
necessary to delay baptism till the eighth day. Now I
will simply ask, could an Antipedobaptist minister
write thus to a council of sixty-six of his brethren? and
could such a council reply as did that at Carthage? To
these questions there is, of course, but one answer, and
that is No; such a communication could not be sent to
such a body and receive such an answer; and, for the
same reason, it was not possible that such a communication could have been sent to the Council at Carthage
and receive the reply here recorded, if, as we are told by
the Antipedobaptists, the whole Christian Church then
believed and practised as they do now; nor could Fedus
have thus written, nor was it possible for the Council to
reply as it did, had not the baptism of children been the
belief and practice of the primitive church! What, then,
can we think of those who assert, as was publicly asserted
here of late, that the practice of the present Anabaptist
Church was the only practice " for more than fifteen
hundred years?" We certainly have but too much reason to conclude that such men have learned, and do understand the fact, that bold assertions will answer their
purpose better than argument with a certain class!
The fact is, though at a very early period there were
many departures from Apostolic teaching and practice,
it does not seem to have occurred to the most daring of
the inventors of error to deny children the right of baptism. Hence, when Pelagius was charged with this, he
seems to have been perfectly shocked, even as much as if
81 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
he had been charged with murder. Hence he complains
thus: "Men slander me as if I denied the Sacrament of
Baptism to infants," and having denied the slander with
horror, he says, he never heard even of the mo,t impious
heretic that was guilty of doing so! See Hibbard on
Infant Baptism, p. 217. The truth is, the exclusion of
infants from Christian Baptismi is amongst  the most
modern of human inventions, as a. religious dogma.
Hence Baxter says: " I am fully satisfied that you cannot show me any society, I think not one man, that ever
objected to infant baptism till about two hundred years
ago. I find Christ did once place little children in the
Church, and no man breathing can show me one word of
Scripture where ever Christ did put them out again."
"About two hundred years ago." He refers to the
origin of the Anabaptist views by John Matthias and
King John of Leyden, and other German fanatics in the
days of Luther. Before this time, we do not remember
to have read of a single individual who is even charged
with excluding infants from baptism, unless it be Pierre
de Bruis, in the 12th Century, and the record is very unreliable, for the charge is brought against him by the
Abbot Clugny, his deadly enemy. The charge which the
Abbot brings against him, is this. The Abbot says:
" He," Pierre de Bruis, "denies that children, before
they arrive at years of intelligence, can be saved by baptism, or that the faith of another person can be useful to
them, since, according to those of his opinion, it is not
the faith of another which saves, but the faith of the individual with baptism, according to our Lord's words:
'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not shall be damned!'"   From the
82 
SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION.
quotation itself I am  strongly inclined to believe that
the charge is not truthful; for the wording of the charge
conveys to me the idea that the opposition of Bruis was
not to the baptism of children, but to the Popish dogma
that children are saved by baptism and cannot be saved
without it; for the Abbot charges him with denying
that children " can be saved by baptism," and he no
doubt did deny that children are saved by baptism in
the Popish sense; but could we hear him speak for himself we would, no doubt, hear him deny the other part
of the charge as Pelagius did, for he was a good man, and
was burned for his adherence to the truth, in 1126. It
is probably to this man that Baxter refers when he says:
"I think not one man."' The case of Pierre de Bruis, as
here referred to, may be found in the History of the
Vaudois, by Antoine Monastier.
In addition to the quotations already given from the
fathers, we will add the following, which we find in our
memoranda but cannot say what we quoted from; they
are, however, faithful quotations, which we made in the
course of our reading. Ireneeus speaks of the baptism
of "infants, little ones, and children." HIe flourished
about A. D. 178, and was acquainted with Polycarp), who
was a disciple of the Apostle John. Origen refers to
infant baptism in proof of original sin, and says the
Church baptized infants "because the Apostles commanded it." He flourished in the third century. Ambrose, too, refers to the baptism of infants in proof of
original sin, and says "it was practised in the Apostles'
times." He wrote in the fourth century. Augustine, too,
makes a similar statement for the same purpose, and says
of infant baptism that "it was practised in the Apostles'
83 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
time." He wrote in the fifth century. In defence of
the same doctrine, Chrysostom says: " For this reason
we baptize infants also." iHe wrote in the fourth century. Tertullian, we are told, advised the delay of infant baptism, but this whim resulted from another error
which he had embraced, viz.: that they were saved by
baptism, and that, consequently, if any one died after
baptism, before committing sin, such an one was saved;
but errorist as he was, he was no Antipedobaptist. To
these testimonies we may add the fact that the Greek
Church does, and always did, baptize infants. Speaking
of Tertullian, Mr. Watson says, vol ii. p. 645: "So little, indeed, were Tertullian's absurdities regarded, that
he appears to have been quite forgotton by this time,
for Augustine says he never heard of any Christian,
Catholic or Sectary, who taught any other doctrine than
that infants are to be baptized."-De Pecc. Mor. Cap. 6.
84 
CHAPTER XII.
It is shown that Infant Baptism has been practised from Apostolic times-Not
One clear case of Opposition to Infant Baptism till the Sixteenth Century
-Appealing  to, and Reasoning with, the Antipedlobaptists-Astounding
Facts Stated-They cannot tell us when the Practice of Baptizing Infants
Commenced-We can tell them When and by Whom Opposition thereto
Connmmenced-Infant Baptism the Uncontradicted Practice of the Church
from Apostolic till Modern Times.
Now, in view of this overwhelming array of testimony, and we could add much more, we will indulge in
a few brief reflections to which we invite the serious
attention of all, whether Pedobaptist or Antipedobaptist. And, first, observe, we do not produce the teaching
and example of either the ancients or the moderns to
prove that children should be baptized; though teaching
and practice so uniform are not to be disregarded even as
proof, nevertheless, for our authority and proof we rely
upon the word of God. But we produce all this array
of testimony and practice to prove that infant baptissn
is no innovation, that it has been practisedfront Apostolic
tinmes to the present time, as circumcision was in all the
previous ages of the Church!  As late as the fifth century, Augustine and Pelagius, who were opposed in other
things, give their testimony to this fact, that they never
heard of one, no not the most impious heretic, who opposed infant baptism, or taught any other doctrine; and
Baxter asserts that he never heard of a society, he thinks
5 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
not a single individual, who opposed infant baptism till
about two hundred years befbre his time, that is, till the
sixteenth century!  What an astounding fact!  For a
period of some fifteen hundred years, dating from Apos tolic times, not a single clear case of opposition to in fant baptism in all Christendom; though during that
period the devil and errorists seem to have introduced
every imaginable error save that of the Antipedobaptists; for some reason they did not dare to introduce
this error till the sixteenth century from the Christian
era; surely this is one of the most wonderful facts of
history! We may safely say, I think, that during this
period every other doctrine of the Christian system
was assailed, in one way or other, but it remained for
the crazy, lawless, German fanatics of the sixteenth century to attack the doctrine, the Christian doctrine, of infant baptism, and found an Antipedobaptist Church!
To the Antipedobaptists we say, " Come now and
let us reason together;" do not get vexed with our
statement of facts, or with our reflections upon these
facts; we are honest, we are sincere, we believe what
we say, we are searching after the truth as well as
the facts in the case, and if we know ourselves we are
prepared to receive the truth wherever we find it. If,
as you say, infant baptism is an innovation, a novelty,
a human  invention, will you please tell us when  and
where this novelty, this human invention, was introduced,
and by whom? Or if you cannot tell us the time
when, and the persons by whom, it was introduced, will
you be good enough to point us to a period since the
Christian era, when it was not practised? We cannot
find such a period, Baxter could not find such a period,
86 
PRACTISED FROMI APOSTOLIC TIMES.
nor could he point to a single society that ever opposed
the doctrine till the period specified; nor could any of
the Christian Fathers point to such a party in their timne,
or "in the old time before them," nor could they point
us to a period since the Christian era when infant baptism was not practised. Many others; too, very many,
of the learned and wise have searched with great care
and perseverance, but they have all failed, utterly failed,
to discover a period since the Christian era when infant
baptism was  not practised in the Christian Church.
Now, if the Antipedobaptists have discovered what all
others have failed to discover, will they be good enough
to favor us with the discovery? Will they tell us at
what period since the Apostolic times infant baptism was
introduced into the Christian Church? As honest men
they are bound to do this, or never again call it a novelty,
an innovation. If it is an innovation, how is it that, unlike
all other innovations, its introduction called forth no opposition or discussion? It is a fact that children were
received into the Church by the divinely appointed
initiatory rite from the days of Abraham till the days of
the Apostles. Now, is it possible that a divine appointment of so long standing, of such vital importance, and
so wide in its application as to embrace all the children
of all the worshippers of the true God, could be abrogated
and no one know when the abrogation took place? Is
it possible that all the children of all the worshippers of
the true God could be at once excluded from the Church
of God without opposition or complaint from either Jew
or Gentile? Or, if there was complaint or opposition, is
it possible that all the facts in the case could have been
excluded from history, so completely excluded that we
87 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS[M.
do not find in any of the Church Councils the record of
one jot or tittle of complaint, opposition, or even discussion with regard to the exclusion of children from their
long and divinely-appointed place in the Church of God?
Is it possible that believing parents could be all at once
so divested of all natural and religious feeling that they
could submit to have their children excluded from the
Covenant and Church of God without offering any resistance, objection, or even complaint? Is it possible that
the Jews, whose children under the former dispensation
had been received into the Church, received into covenant relation to God, and had received the sign and seal
of the covenant, is it possible, I say, that these Jews could
all at once submit to the annulment, the reversion, of all
this without opposition or complaint, especially as no one
produced, or pretended to produce, a jot or tittle of
Divine authority for this serious change in the Divine
constitution? Is it possible that the unbelieving Jews,
the deadly enemies of the new dispensation, who sought
every occasion to object to, and depreciate the Christian
system, could fail to notice a change which afforded such
just ground for objection and opposition? Or if they
did object and oppose, is it possible that history could be
entirely silent with regard to these facts? Is it possible
that neither Jcw'nor Gentile, inspired or uninspired, believing or unbelieving, should ever record one jot or tittle
with regard to the change, or the opposition thereto,
if such change and opposition had taken place? Now,
in answer to all these questions we do not hesitate to
reply, No; such a change could not take place without
opposition, complaint, or discussion; much less could it
take place without any one knowing when, how, or by
88 
PRACTISED FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES.
whom it was made. We therefore conclude that the
change did not take place; we must so conclude, for the
contrary conclusion would be in favor of what we claim
to be impossible!
The Antipedobaptists have not to ask us when, how,
and by whom their dogma was introduced; we tell them
without being asked. We tell them the time when, the
place where, and the parties by whom their antiscriptural dogma was introduced. We tell them the opposition
that its introduction met with, and who they were who
made the opposition to it; even Luther, Melancthon,
Calvin, and, in short, the entire Christian world, with the
exception of the few lawless fanatics who introduced it,
and who were the cause of much disgrace and injury to
the great reformation. And we refer them to the pages
of history, where they may find the facts recorded! And
we challenge them to show us, to tell us when, where and
by whom their antiscriptural novelty was introduced
before this time: and we claim that their inability to do
so, makes our argument as complete as argument can
be!. Wall says that Peter Bruis, about 1130, was the
first Antipedobaptist teacher who had a regular congregation. (Hlist., part 2, c. 7.) Even if this were admitted
it would not help the matter, it only shows that Antipedobaptism is an innovation of comparatively modern introduction. But we have already shown that there is no
evidence that this man ever opposed infant baptism as
being unscriptural. Bishop Tomlin says that the Anabaptists of Germany took their rise in the beginning
of the 16th century; but it does not appear that there
was any congregation of Anabaptists in England till the
year 1640. This is without doubt the origin of the
89 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
present Antipedobaptist church, as we have already
shown. If they had an existence before then, let them
show us when and where!
Closing his arguments in favor of infant baptism, Mr.
Watson says: " That a practice which can be traced up
to the very first periods of the church, and has been till
within very modern times, its uncontradicted practice,
should have a lower authority than apostolic usage and
appointment, may be pronounced impossible. It is not
like one of those trifling, though somewhat superstitious,
additions which even in early times began to be made to
the sacraments; on the contrary, it involves a principle
so important as to alter the very nature of the sacrament itself."  Inst., vol. ii., p. 646.  Mark these two
statements in this quotation; till within very modern
times infant baptism was the uncontradicted practice of
the church. Second; the Antipedobaptist dogma involves a principle so important as to alter the very nature
of the sacrament itself! Let it be borne in mind, then,
that this Antipedobaptist dogma is not only a novelty,
but a very serious error, as we shall show more fully
pretty soon.
90 
CHAPTER XIII.
The objection that Infant Baptism is incompatible with Man's Natural Rights
is shown to be ridiculous-It contains the very germ of Infidelity, and
even Atheism-Objection that Circumcision was a Civil Contract is
refuted-Many absurdities exposed.
FINALLY, lest all the other objections to infant baptism
should prove insufficient, Antipedobaptists tell us that it
is incompatible with man's natural rights; that baptism
should be delayed till the child is capable of choosing
for itself! This objection is not only ridiculous, but it
contains the very germ of infidelity. The late Robert
Owen, the founder of that form of infidelity called Socialism, took the same ground, and insisted that all religious
instruction should be delayed till the child is at least
thirteen years old! Truly the devil spoke like himself
when he made this proposal!  I say this objection contains the very germ of infidelity, for it is in direct opposition to well-known Bible teaching; seeing that book
informs us that God commanded the child to be consecrated to himself, and the seal of the covenant applied
as early as eight days after the child is born. It is clear,
then, that the issue is joined, not with us, but with Bible
teaching, known, unmistakable Bible teaching! And, as
we before showed, it will not mend the matter to say that
baptism does not take the place of circumcision, for the 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
facts are not altered at all; if baptism is incompatible
with man's natural rights so was circumcision, seeing it
laid the child under as much obligation as does baptism.
Nor will it do for the Anabaptists to say, as they have
said, that circumcision was a civil contract, and that the
obligations and blessings involved were of a temporal
character; for surely it is not a greater interference with
the child's natural rights to lay it under obligation to
serve Almighty God than it is to lay it under obligations
of a civil or national character. But the fact is, this
objection of the Antipedobaptists only serves to show
the desperateness of their case; for the moral character
of the Abrahamic covenant, of which circumcision was the
seal, is unmistakably taught both in the Old and New Testaments, as the following texts do most clearly show. Jer.
iv. 4: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away
the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem."  Deut. xxx. 6:  "And the Lord
thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy
seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and
with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Deut. x. 15,
16: " Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love
them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above
all people, as it is this day. Circumcise, therefore, the
foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."
Romans ii. 28: " For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit,
and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of
God."  St. Paul says, "Abraham received the sign  of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had, yet being uncircumcised." A careful
92 
ABSURDITIES EXPOSED.
study of these and similar texts, which abound in the Old
and New Testaments, will satisfy any one that circumcision was the seal of the covenant of grace, and a seal
of righteousness, or justification, previously had, and that
it was also a sign of moral purity, or sanctification; this
was signified by  the removal, or "putting away" of
"the filth of the flesh;" it was also a sign or badge of
the peculiar relation which the circumcised party sustained to God. Now, with such teachings as these before
us, I think it is not saying too much to say that it must
be a bad cause which forces its advocates to say that
circumcision was merely a civil transaction, and that it
only involved temporal blessings and obligations. And
its badness becomes still more apparent, when it forces
its advocates to say that such a transaction is incompatible with man's natural rights! for that is a declared opposition to the teachings of God's word, and is,
therefore, infidel in its principle, as we before said.
This objection not only contains the germ of infidelity, but it contains the germ of atheism; for it assumes
it to be the natural right of the child to choose whether
he shall or shall not be consecrated to God Almighty;
whether he shall or shall not acknowledge his obligations to, and serve God Almighty. This objection assumes it to be an open question whether the God who
created and redeemed has a right to  put  forth such
claims, and that all these questions are to be left undecided till the child is of age to choose and decide
for itself; that its judgment and authqity in the case
are superior to those of the Almighty; and that the
Almighty has no right or authority to decide in the
case till he first consults the child after it is capable
93 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
of judging in the case and obtains its consent! It assumes, too, that revelation and man's natural rights are
at variance, that the former is subversive of the latter,
and, therefore, unjust and should not be submitted to!
It assumnes-what does it assume? In a word, everything that is wrong, and nothing that is right. And
yet we have listened to, and even countenanced, this
antipedo, this infidel, this atheistical objection, till both
parents and children in our very churches have learned
to utter it in justification of their opposition, their daring opposition, to the plain teachings of God's word!
But the absurd, as well as the infidel and atheistical,
character of this objection deserves specification.   If in
deference to the natural rights of children we may not
consecrate them to God, may not receive them into the
church, into the covenant of grace, and apply to them
the seal of that covenant; may not lay them under
obligation to serve God when they come to the years
of understanding, what  may  we do?   On  the same
principle I do not see why we should not leave them
to choose what teacher they shall have, what school they
shall go to, what kind of instruction they shall have,
or whether they shall have any instruction at all! And
if we do, I am strongly inclined to believe that they
will choose the latter; and if they should, I do not see
what right we have to oppose their choice  any more
than we had a right to choose for them before they were
capable of making a choice! Nor do I see what right
we have, on this principle, to choose anything for the
child, not even the kind of dress it shall wear, or whether
it shall wear any dress at all! And the probability is
that it woul(!. pot, if left to its own choice!  In  all
94 
ABSURDITIES EXPOSED.
likelihood, if left to itself, it would, if it should live,
be alike destitute of learning, clothing and religion!
Such, doubtless, would be the result of this Antipedobaptist objection if fully carried out.   And after experimentizing thus upon it for a few years, we would,
doubtless, have a better knowledge of it than we have
now; but the knowledge would be very dearly bought!
As it is never wise to experimentize upon error; let us
rather abide by the good old way, and experimentize
upon the truth, even the truth enjoined upon us in the
following scriptures: " Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes,
your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel,
your LITTLE ONES, your wives, and thy stranger that is
in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood, unto the
drawer of thy water: that thou shouldest ENTER INTO
COVEXANT with the LORD thy God, AND INTO THE OATH,
which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day."
And now that your little ones as well as yourselves sustain a covenant relation to God, see that you consult not
their choice, but the word of your covenant God, and
teach them to "observe and do all his commandments."
"And these words which I command thee this day shall
be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently
unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way,
and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up."
Thus, "train up a child in the way he should go, and
when he is old he will not depart from it."  HIere you
have God's command and God'spromise; keep them as
did Abraham, of whom the LORD hath said, "I know
him, that he will command his children and his household
95 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to
do justice and judgment." Rest assured of it, that it
will be much wiser to do this than to leave your children
"to choose for themselves."  If, in reply to all this, the
Anabaptist should say: " But we do teach our children;"
then, my reply is, never more tell us to leave our children "to choose for themselves."  Nor are you at liberty
to choose for yourself, even as to what you shall or shall
not teach; you are bound both "to teach and do all that
the LORD thy God hath commanded thee." And he hath
taught thee to consecrate thy children, as well as thyself,
to him in holy baptism; as we shall now show by proof
drawn more directly from his own word.
96 
CHAPTER XIV.
Direct Scripture proof-Infants have the necessary qualifications for baptism Their claim more clear than that of any adult-Romans,  v. 12, 18, 19, ex plained-The infant has the same qualifications for baptism, that  Abraham
had for circumcision; the same that believing adults have for baptism-A
close connection between Infant B3aptism and Infant Salvation on the one
hand, and between Antipedobaptism and infant damnation on the other-Re marks on the moral nature of infants.
WE will now defend infant baptism by a direct appeal
to the word of God. And in doing this we purpose to
show that the infant derives its right to baptism, not
from its parents or from the Church, but from Jesus
Christ, through whose atonement it has also a qua(lification for baptism, and that qualification is justifcation;
and both the right to, and qualification for, baptism, it
has unconditionally. And both the right to, and qualification, for, baptism being unconditional, it will follow, of
course, that, if any one infant has the right and the qualification, all infants have; unless it can be shown that
Jesus did not die for all; and this cannot be shown till
it is first shown that the following and similar declarations contain a falsehood.  " One died for all."  " He,
by the grace of God, tasted death for every man." Now,
we take the ground that what is thus secured to infants,
cannot be taken from them by the whims and fancies of
men, nor yet by the enactments of Synods and Councils,
True, men may deprive infants of baptism as they may 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
deprive them of food, but their right thereto remains unalienated and inalienable!
Having thus stated our position and purpose, we now
proceed to the proof.
The first Scripture we quote is from the fifth chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans. We quote verses 12, 18,
and 19 together, because they are evidently connected,
the intervening verses being parenthetical.  "Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned. Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment
came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many
be made righteous."
Let us now carefully notice what it is that Paul says
"came upon all men," and how it came. And, observe,
we have nothing to do just here with what came, or may
come, upon any individual by his own'individual acts;
we have only to do with what " came upon all," "by
one."
Here are the specifications; some of them are quoted
from the parenthetical verses, they being explanatory of
the verses which we have quoted above:
" By one man sin entered into the world.'"  "Judgment came upon all men." That is, the sentence of the
judge, or, as we sometimes say, the sentence of a broken
law; and that sentence is specifically declared to be "condemnation," "death."
We now enquire how was all this brought, or caused
by one?  The answer is, "by one that sinned;" " by
98 
QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM.
one mnan's offence; "  "by one man's disobedience;" by
Adam's transgression."
So much" came upon all men," in the way here specified. So far there can be no mistake, for we have Paul's
declaration for every particular.   Of course the judgment, or sentence, was not fully executed upon our first
parents, in consequence of the gracious interposition of our
Saviour. If it had been, it would have extended to their
unborn posterity, resulting in the non-existence thereof;
so that the entire posterity of the guilty pair owe their
very existence to Jesus!  But we are anticipating the
next question.
Having seen what it is that "came upon all by one,"
even by Adam; let us now see what it is that " came
upon all men" by one, even by Christ.
Here, too, let it be distinctly noticed, we have nothing
to do with what came, or may come, upon any individual
conditionally, for what is here specified "came " before
those to whom it " came?' were capable of performing a
condition: this is not only stated by the Apostle at different times, especially in this chapter, and more especially
in the verses quoted above, but it is implied in the very
specifications themselves. The specifications are these.
" The grace of God;" "the free gift;' "the gift of grace."
And all this "came upon all unto justification of life."
The "judgment" which "came upon all" was  "unto
condemnation," and the "free gift " which "came upon
all" was " unto justification of life."   In the one case
"condemnation" came, and life was forfeited; in the
other " justification" came, and life was restored; and
all this, in each case, so far as Adam's posterity was concerned, without their own personal act: the " condemna
99
I
. I-. 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM-.
tion," came through Adam, the "justification" through
Christ.
But how did this "grace of God," and this "gift of
grace," come "upon all?"  The Apostle tells us in the
following words: " By the righteousness of ONE; " "by
the obedience of ONE."'   The results of Adam's sin, to
his infant posterity, are removed by Christ's righteousness; the results of Adam's  "disobedience," to his
infant  posterity are removed by the  "obedience" of
Christ, who  "became obedient unto death, even  the
death of the cross."  Thus the great REDEEMER, the RESTORER, has fairly met the results of Adam's  "offence,"
so far as his unacting posterity are concerned, and it is
of them that we are now speaking.  The " condemnation"
that came upon Adam's posterity, by Adam's disobedience without their own act, is removed by the "justification " that came through Christ's righteousness, without their own act. So that every infant sustains a justified relation to God, through Christ's atonement, and this
is its qualifdication for baptism; and this same justification
is that which qualifies adult believers for baptism; and
it was justification that qualified Abraham for circumcision; and all this Paul asserts and proves in the Scripture before us. In the last verse of the fourth chapter,
he says Christ "was delivered for our offences, and was
raised again for our StKato)-Lv, justification; and in the
eighteenth verse of the following chapter, when speaking
of what " came upon all " through the sin of Adam, and
the righteousness of Christ, he says,  "by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto 8LKato(rtv
Ants, justification of life.   Now this very blessing he
tells us Abraham received, not by works, but by faith.
100
I 
QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM.
And in the eleventh verse of the fourth chapter we are
told "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." The word which in this verse is translated
righteousness is the same in the original as that translated justification in verse 25 of the same chapter, and
in verse 18 of the following chapter, as any one may see
by looking into his Greek Testament; and Dr. Adam
Clarke says it "is best renderedjmstofation, as expressing that pardon and salvation offered to us in the Gospel."
A righteous act, a righteous state, and the act and state of
pardon; all are expressed by words, all of which are derived from the same root and that root is AtKato, which
means just, or right.  Hence we have dikaiothentes, being
justified; dikaiosune, the state of being upright; dikaiosune justice, righteousness; and dikaiosin, justification.
This word has always reference to law, and is used to
express something in harmony with, or contrary to, law;
as righteousness and unrighteousness. Now, why such a
word should be used to express the act and state of pardon,
why the words justified, and pardoned, should be used in terchangeably and synonymously; why they should be used
to express one and the same thing, as they certainly are
by this Apostle in the Scriptures now under consideration,
seems at first sight unaccountable: for pardon has nothing
to do with law, unless to set it at defiance; at least this
is true of pardon as usually understood. For instance, if
one should take away my property by fraud, and I should
pardon him fully and sincerely, the law would take no
notice of my pardon, but would hold him guilty, and pro nounce sentence just as readily after I had pardoned as
before; and this is alike true both of human and divine
101 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS3M.
law. Why, then, is the guilty culprit said to be justified
when God pardons him? The fact is, God's pardon is
like no other pardon, because it is in harmony with law;
and it is in harmony with law, because, though the guilty
is pardoned, the claims of the law are satisfied, are fully
met, by the atonement. Though the sinner is pardoned
there is no compromise with justice, its claims are fully
met, it is satisfied; and the sinner now stands acquitted
in the eye of the law.  HIence the same Apostle says,
" There is, therefore, now, no condemnation to them that
are in Christ Jesus."  And again, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died,
yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." None
but God Almighty can pardon thus, no other being can
possibly do so; and there was only one way in which he
could do it, namely, by an atonement; "For," says the
same Apostle, " If there had been a law given which could
have given life, verily righteousness should have been by
the law." Gal. iii. 21. But there was no such law, it was
only by an atonement, according to the same authority,
that God could be "just " and at the same timejustfy
or pardon. Rom. iii 26.  And while this could be done
only by an atonement, that atonement could only be
made in the way it was made;  "there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sin," says the same authority.
Now, then, let us sum up, and we shall find the amount
to be this. The infant has the same qualification for baptism that Abraham had for circumcision, and that qualification is justification; and it receives baptism for the
same reason that Abraham received circumcision, namely,
102 
QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM.
because it is justied;  and it receives baptism for the
same purpose that Abraham received circumcision, namely, as the "sign" and " seal " of " righteousness," or
"justification," previously received: and this right to,
and qualification for, baptism, it has from the same source,
the very same source, from which Abraham received his
right to, and qualification for circumcision.   The only
difference in the case is this: Abraham received justification conditionally, viz., by faith, but the infant receives
justification unconditionally; Abraham's justification removed the condemnation brought upon him by his own
transgressions, as well as the condemnation brought upon
him by the original offence; while the infant's justification simply removes the condemnation brought upon it
by the original apostacy, it having no act of its own; but
the result of justification in each case is precisely the
same, viz., this, the justified party in each case, is placed
right with regard to the law; for, as we before observed,
justification, or pardon, is a relative change, by which
the relation of the justified party is changed with regard
to the law, and consequently, with regard to the Lawgiver. In a word, all who are justified stand accepted before God the judge, and in the eye of the law, so
that there is no condemnation for the past.  HIence
infants being thus justified through the atonement, or as
Paul expresses it in the text quoted above "' through the
righteousness of one," even Christ, they have the same
right to the seal of the covenant, that believing adults
have, the same right that Abraham had when he was justified, and received the seal accordingly. Now as this
qualification is received unconditionally, it follows, as we
said before, that if one infant has it all have it; and as
103 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
this qualification is from Christ, and unconditional, it follows, too, that the parents have nothing to do either with
qualifying or disqualifying them; as they have justification through Christ, and are thus qualified for baptism
despite the sin of their first parents, so they have this qualification and right, despite the disobedience of their second
parents; they are not qualified for baptism either by the
faith or the holiness of their parents but by the atonement of Christ; if the parents have faith enough to present their children for baptism, that answers all purposes,
so far as the children are concerned; and being thus presented, it is the duty of the minister of Christ to baptize
them, and to enjoin it upon the parents to teach them to
fear and worship that God to whom they have now consecrated them in holy baptism; and to remind them that
they are bound by the most sacred obligations, and now
by consistency itself, to consecrate themselves to that
God to whom they have consecrated their children.
I have utterly failed to discover where any minister finds
his authority for refusing baptism to any infant that
may be presented to him by its parents for that purpose.
Finally, from the Scriptures here quoted, I think we
are inevitably forced to the following conclusions. All
infants have, through the atonement, unconditionally a
right to, and a quailcation for, baptism; and that qualification is the very same qualification that Abraham had
for circumcision, the very same that believing adults
have for baptism, namely, justification;  and this justification, of course, does the very same thing for the infant
that it does for the believing adult, namely, this, it puts
it right with regard to the law, by removing the condemnatory sentence of the law, for this is the sole office
104 
QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM.
of justification, whether the party be an infant or an
adult.   Thus infants, through the atonement, sustain
precisely the same relation to the law, and to God the
judge of all, that believing adults do; the very same that
Abraham did when he was justified; and that is a justifled relation.  Hience we see why it is that infants, as
well as Abraham,  " received the sign of circumcision,"
which Paul says was "a seal of the righteousness," or
justicat'on previously had.   Now when we know, upon
Scripture authority, that God commanded Abraham and
infant children to be circumcised, and know, too, on the
same authority, that circumcision was a seal of justification previously had, we thereby know that infants as well
as Abraham were justified, or they would n6t have received the seal of justification, for that would be affixing
the seal of justification to those who were not justified;
wh  h would not only be an unmeaning act, but a delusive act.   Nay, it would be affixing the seal to an untruth!
The conclusion here reached secures the salvation of
all infants, dying as such. Those who reject this conclusion are shut up to one of two conclusions, viz., that all
infants are lost, or a certain part of them;  and if they
adopt the latter conclusion, they thereby represent God
as damning infants whom he might have saved, for if he
saved a part he certainly might have saved all, seeing all
were alike incapable of offering resistance to the means
employed for their salvation; and if they do not like
this or the preceding conclusion, then they must adopt
infant baptism; for if the infant is justified and fitted for
heaven without its own act, it certainly may be, and is
fitted for baptism without its own act. Thus we see that
105 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISfM.
there is a close connection between infant baptism and
infant salvation on the one hand; and na equally close
connection between Antipedobaptism, and infant damna tion on the other!
Again, Antipedobaptists  "will baptize  on profes sion," and on profession only. That is, they will baptize
one who "indulges a hope  that he has met with  a
change."  But what does this mean?  Why, it means
just this, if it means anything to the purpose; he indul ges a hope that he is justified, or pardoned. So that
they have not even his word for it, but merely his hope;
and upon this evidence they baptize him. But we have
God's word for it that the infant is "justified freely by
his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
And on this evidence we baptize it! This, then, is the
difference; by so much as God's testimony is better than
that man's professed hope, by so much is our authoity
for baptizing the infant better than their authority for
baptizing the adult! - And in the same way we reach
the conclusion, that no adult under heaven has as clear a
claim to the rite of baptism as has the -infant; because
we have God's testimony in favor of the justification of
the infant, while we have only man's testimony in favor
of the justification of the adult, and that the testimony of
the interested party, the party seeking baptism; and
the party judging in the case is also interested, being
under the influence of a desire to make accessions to his
church and party! Nor does the preponderance in our
favor stop here, for we not only have God's testimony in
favor of the infant's qualification for baptism, but we have
his command to apply to the infant the very same seal
that he commanded to be applied to the adult, viz., the
106 
QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM.
seal of the covenant, the seal of justification obtained
through the atonement; which justification is obtained
by the adult conditionally, and by the infant unconditionally.  It follows that he who will have better authority
for anything that he does, than we have for baptizing
the infant, must have better than the testimony and
command of the Almighty!  Truly they are seriously
defective in Bible knowledge who exclude infants from
Christian baptism: and I do not hesitate to say, that Antipedobaptism originated in an ignorance of, and is at
variance with, some of the first and most glorious principles of the Christian system; and upon that ignorance it
is that it depends principally for its propagation; and it
is high time that this error and the ignorance of which
it is the offspring should be driven out of Christendom!
Infants are redeemed. Jesus claims them all as the
purchase of his blood, and says " Suffer little children
to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the
kingdom of God." And every minister of Jesus should
unite with Jesus in rebuking those who forbid their being
brought to Jesus, and should iterate and reiterate the
words of Jesus, saying, "Forbid them not."  And they
should unite with Paul in uttering that glorious truth
upon which we have been commenting, and upon which
we delight to dwell; "Therefore, as by the offence of one,
judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men
unto justification of life." These truths should be uttered
by Zion's watchmen joyously and incessantly; and should
come pealing like thunder from every part of Zion's
walls. And they should be taken up by the inhabitants
of Zion and uttered with such rapturous joy that their
107 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.[
voices commingling should be as the sound of many
waters: then should the dolorous, owl-like voice of the
Antipedobaptist be heard no more!
If by the sin of our first parents their posterity were
excluded from the Kingdom of God without their own
act, and are not restored by the righteousness of Christ
without their own act, it will follow that Adam did more
to destroy than Christ did to save, and if so, Paul uttered an untruth when he said, " Where sin abounded
grace did much more abound." But as we cannot adopt
either of these conclusions, we are forced, in this way also,
to adopt the conclusion which we claim to have established, viz., that the condemnation which came by Adam's
sin, is removed by the justification which came by
Christ's righteousness; and the parties who by that condemnation were excluded from God's Kingdom, and,
consequently, from eternal life, by a non-existence, are by
this justification restored thereto. And if they are justified and restored to God's Kingdom through the atonement, we may well say in the language of Peter, " Can
any forbid water that these should not be baptized;" for
a justification received without faith qualifies for circumcision or for baptism just as much as a justification
received by faith; for justification is the same whether
received conditionally or unconditionally.
In the light of these teachings we are prepared, I
trust, to see more clearly, and to appreciate more fully,
the following blessed and altogether glorious words of
our Almighty Saviour!   "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 displeased, and said unto thenim,
108 
QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM.
" Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid
them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily 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 in his arms, put his hands upon them, and
blessed them."-Mark x. 13-17.
Now, with this passage before us, we will call attention to, and make a few remarks upon, the following particulars, which may be considered the more prominent
features of the passage. It will be remembered that
Anabaptists speak of "unconscious babes" as though
neither God nor man could do anything for them; but
the followingparticulars convey a very different idea.
The first particular to which we call attention is this;
infancts are susceetible of the divine blessing, for we are
told that "Jesus took them in his arms, put his hands
upon them, and blessed them." I say infants8, for Luke
calls these "little children" infants.
Now let us not look upon all this as mere form;
when "the Lord of life and glory" pronounces blessing
upon the infant that is brought to him by the parent's
hands, and by the parent's heart, his utterances are not
mere unmeaning words; his blessing means something!
Let it be remembered, too, that it is by his righteousness
that "the free gift came upon all men unto justification
of life," and that " the blessing of the LORD, it maketh
rich," and infants have that blessing. Yes, they have it,
for we have heard "the Lord of life and glory" pronounce
his blessing upon them, even upon the infants that
were brought unto him. Who, then, would refuse to
bring their infant children to this "Lord of life and
glory?" and when parents bring their infant children
6
109 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
unto him, Who will dare to "forbid them?"  We know
none in Christendom who would do so but Antipedobaptists! Let it be remembered, too7 that if one infant
is capable or susceptible of receiving the "blessing of
the LORD," all are; for all infants are alike incapable of
offering resistance to the divine will. 0 let not parents
or ministers resist that will, by doing what those did with
whom Jesus was "much displeased;" and remember, he
is as much displeased with that act now as he was then!
But rather than admit that Jesus is capable of blessing
the soul of an infant, Antipedobaptists have invented
the marvellous idea that the infants here spoken of were
brought to Jesus to have some bodily disease healed!
By this invention they represent the disciples as forbidding their being brought for this purpose, a thing they
never did, for it was customary to bring all manner of
sick persons to Jesus: and they represent Jesus as insisting that diseased infants should be brought to him
for the purpose of being healed, and as giving this reason, " for of such is the Kingdom of God." Certainly
this objection does not deserve further notice.
We next call attention to the phrase, "Of such is the
Kingdom of God."  Now if we understand this phrase,
" Kingdom of God," or as St. Matthew expresses it,
"Kingdom of heaven," to mean the future home of God's
people, then these words of Jesus assure us that infants
are heirs of that Kingdom with all those adults whose
names are written in heaven. But if we are to understand by this phrase, the Church of God upon the earth,
then we are taught to recognize infants as properly constituted members of that Church, which they certainly
were under both the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensa
110 
QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM.
tions; and surely the perfected Gospel dispensation
will not exclude from their place in the church those
infants whom the less perfect dispensations received
into that place!  And  if we  understand  Jesus  to
teach us, as we certainly must, that infants are, through
the atonement, members of the heavenly kingdom, then
certainly we cannot exclude them from the earthly kingdom. Hence, whatever way we understand the phrase
we must understand our blessed Lord as placing infants
in his Kingdom, which "is not of this world."   And if
we understand him as teaching that adults who constitute
his Kingdom must resemble little children, as some Antipedobaptists would interpret the words "of such," certainly their cause will gain nothing by it, for by this interpretation they make infants model Christians! And if
they are model Christians, we desire to know upon what
ground they refuse to baptize them!
"A more correct translation," says Mr. Watson, on
the place, "would be, For to such belongeth the Kinqdom
of God."
We may now glance at the words, " Verily I say
unto youen, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of
God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." Now
if we take the ground that infants do not receive, do not
share in the Kingdom of God, how could our blessed
Lord teach, as he here does, that we must all receive it
as they do? And unless we attribute this absurdity to
our Lord, we must understand him as teaching that infants do receive the kingdom, do belong to the kingdom
of God. But how do infants receive the Kingdom of
God? Like a pharisee, by fasting twice in the week and
paying tithe of all that they possess? Certainly not.
11]. 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
How then do they receive it? By works of righteous
ness which they have done? By no means; the helpless infant has neither tithe nor works of any kind.
How then do they receive it?  By merit of any kind?
No, not by merit of any kind. How then do they receive
it?  Paul tells us, in the words which we have quoted
several times already; they receive it as a "free gift; "
they were "justified freely by his grace;"'" the free
gift came upon all unto justification of life." And just
so every child of man must receive it, or not at all. Only
in the case of adults who are accountable for actions of
their own, and must now be treated as moral agents,
faith is required as a condition.  But still they receive
the Kingdom of God as a "free gift." Still it is by
grace they are saved through faith, and that not of themselves; "it is the gift of God."   Here  we are  again
taught that infants and believing adults receive the same
kingdom, and both receive it as a "'free gift," and for
precisely the same reason each is entitled to the seal of
the covenant, the seal of justification already received as
a " free gift," through the atonement. How then dare
any one rebuke those who bring their beloved infants to
Jesus in holy baptism, seeing they are his by redemption,
his by justification, as truly as are believing adults?
For those who did so before Jesus uttered the above
words, there might be some excuse; but for those who
do so in defiance of these teachings and reproofs of
Jesus it is difficult, very difficult, if at all possible, to
find any excuse. Let them remember, however, that
with such conduct "Jesus was much displeased," and let
all who are rebuked by them for bringing their children
to Jesus, treat their rebukes as Jesus did.
112 
QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISMf.
In speaking of the qualification of infants for baptism, it will be seen that we did not find that qualification in the goodness of their moral nature. Our teachings here are not Pelagian, nor are they in the least
tainted with Pelagianism. It is quite certain that infants
come into the world with a nature morally depraved.
The word of God is neither equivocal nor obscure on
that point.  Man is made to declare that fact with his
own lips, in these words: " I was shapen in iniquity; and
in sin did my mother conceive me."   "The wicked are
estranged from the womb." God has not told us when
or how he rectfes the moral nature of the infant. Hience
it were folly for man to undertake to tell what God has
not told. But he has told us that the condemnation
brought upon it by the apostacy of the first parents is
removed by  an unconditional justajfoation vouchsafed
through the atonement. And this relative change which
sets it right with regard to the law, is its qualification
for baptism. Although it is not for us to say, nor does
our argument require us to say, why God has not spoken
as clearly with regard to the positive, as he has with
regard to the relative change, we may observe, that -the
relative change could take place before the child had a
positive existence, but the positive change could not.
And it is proper to observe, too, that when adults are
justified their moral nature is very far from being perfectly pure; they are not then cleansed from all the
natural uncleanness, they are not sanctified wholly.
Why this is so, God has not told us; the fact, however,
we must submit to in each case. It is enough for us to
know that if God calls away that infant, or that newly
113 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISfM.
justified adult, he will make each mete for an inheritance among the saints in light, for " without holiness
no one shall see the Lord." But why, or to what extent
the further work is left conditional, we cannot tell. We
have gone as far as facts and revelation guide us,
114 
CHAPTER XV.
The Argument from Apostolic Practice-Thle Apostles Baptized the Believing
Father and his Mouse-Remarks on the Greek words Oikoe and  Oikia   Taylor is qtoted-Some further remarks with regard to the Origia and
History of the Anabaptists.
WE will now glance at the Apostolic practice as
recorded in the New Testament; from which we learn
that the Apostles not only baptized the head of the house,
when converted, but the family also. Hence, when the
Jailor believed, we are told that "He was baptized, he
and all his straightway." In like manner, we are told
when Lydia believed, "She was baptized, and her household."  And St. Paul says: "I baptized also the house
of Stephanus."
But in all these and many other families similarly
spoken of in the New Testament, the Antipedobaptists
can find no children; they will have it that all these
families were as childless as are their own churches!
Just as soon as the sacred writers tell us of a man that
was baptized, "he and all his," they are ready to say,
"write this man childless!"   But, as Mr. Watson says,
"The great difficulty with Baptists is to make a house
for Lydia without any children at all, young or old."
And I do not know but they think they have succeeded
admirably, when they tell us about certain journeymen 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
dyers, whom they conjecture were "employed in prepar ing the purple she sold!"  Of these journeymen, how ever, no mortal ever heard anything, but what the Bap tists tell us; and, what is still worse, the Baptists them selves never heard of such men; it is all made uv! And
it only tends, as Mr. Watson farther observes, "to mark
more strikingly the helplessness of the attempt to torture
this passage in favor of an opinion."
As the objections of the Antipedobaptists to what has
been said with regard to family baptisms by other
writers, have been frequently and fully answered; and
as it is, and has been, our purpose not to follow the
beaten track, we will simply say, just here, that it was
Lydia and her oikos that was baptized, not Lydia and
her journeymen dyers. And when she was baptized, and
her oikos, she besought the Apostles, saying, " If ye have
judged me tobe faithful to the Lord, come into my oikon."
It was not her oikia, but her oikos, that was baptized!
Our opponents will please look into their Greek Testaments and see if this is not so. We beg to remind
them, too, that no man speaking the Greek language,
especially if he were a scholar, as Luke was, would
tell us of the baptism of Lydia and her oikos, when he
meant Lydia and her journeymen  dyers!  Moreover,
while the sacred historian gives us a minute account of
Lydia's conversion, he does not say a word about the
conversion of her journeymen dyers! In short, all this
talk about Lydia's journeymen dyers is as ridiculous
as it is gratuitous. Nor does the sacred historian say a
word about the conversion of Lydia's oikos; he simply
tells us that, being converted, " she was baptized and
her oikos;" for, there being no Antipedobaptists in those
116 
APOSTOLIC PRACrICE.
days, it was entirely unnecessary to say more; seeing it
was the well known and divinely established usage to
extend the initiatory rite to the children of the initiated
parent. But no such privilege belonged to the employees
of the believer, simply because their employer was a believer; and if Lydia's hired men had been converted,
Luke would have told us of their conversion when he told
us of their baptism, just as hlie told us of the conversion
of Lydia when he told us of her baptism. But Luke
has simply told us of the conversion of Lydia and of her
baptism, and of the baptism of her oikos in consequence.
And every Christian in those days, when told of Lydia's
conversion and baptism, knew why her oilcos were  baptized, just as a Jew knew why the oikCos of a Jew
were circumcised. Every Jew knew that Ishnmael was
circumcised when his father Abraham was; though the
former was then "thirteen years old." And it was
equally well known that Isaac was circumcised when
"eight days old."  And this practice continued  among
all the worshippers of the true God from that time till
baptism took the place of circumcision. Here, then, we
have this fact, viz: that circumcision was, by divine
command, extended to the children of believing parents
from the age of eight days to that of thirteen years,
without any reference to their own act! Now, when
Lydia received the seal of the covenant, her children, her
oikos, also received it, just as did the oikos of Abraham
after their father received it.  Here is the record, Gen.
xvii. 26: "In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael, his son;" and if Abraham had had
other children, of course they, too, would have received
the seal of the covenant the self-same day that Abraham
6*
117 
CtIRISTIAN BAPTISM.
and Ishmael did. Now, in precisely the same way it was,
and for the same reason, that the oikos of Lydia received
the seal the self-same day that their mother did.  Agreeably to this exactly, are the teachings of Paul when he
says the children are holy, that is sanctified, or consecrated to God in baptism even where one of the parents
is a believer; so that we have both his teaching and
practice for baptizing children, even where only one of
the parents is a believer, and brings her children with
her. These are facts that bid defiance to all that can be
said by the advocates of mere novelty!
Although what is here said is, we believe, a sufficient
explanation and defence of all the family baptisms
referred to, we will, nevertheless, glance at the baptism
of the Jailor's family, as it is recorded in Acts xvi., because we think a more critical examination of the record
will elicit information not obtained without a reference to
the original.
If you will look into your Greek Testament, you will
find that the reading is as follows:   Verse 30: "Sirs,
what must I do to be saved?  And they said, Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and
thy oikos. And they spake unto him the word of the
Lord, and to all that were in his oikia. And he took
them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes;
and was baptized, he and all his," not all theoikia, but
"all his."  "And when  he had brought them into his
oikon, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in
God with all his oikon."
Now, having before us this brief and clear exhibit of
the sacred narrative, in which every one can see the words
as they are varied in the original, but not in the common
118 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
text, we call attention to the following particulars:
First, the promise and its condition read thus: " Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and
thy oikos." Second, "they spake unto him the word of
the Lord, and to all that were in his oikia," not oikos,
you will observe.  Third, he did believe, "and was baptized, he and all his." In Mark, it is not said that he and
all his oikia were baptized, but "he and all his."   The
promise was to him and his oikos, children; the word was
preached to him and to all that were in his oikia, not only
to him, but to all his household, all who were present.
But we are not told that any believed except the Jailor,
nor are we told that any were baptized save "he and all
his." His children were baptized with him, precisely as
Paul had promised; but the others present, and not believing, though the word was preached to them, had no
such privilege; they were not baptized, as were "he and
all his."  Now, he brought them into his oikon and "set
meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all
his oikon." Having obtained salvation, and he and his
family being baptized, he prepared this eucharistic feast,
and "rejoiced with all his house, believing in God."
Egalliasato panoiki pepisteukos to Theo.  Believing in
God as he did, or having believed, he rejoiced with
his house, or, as some express it, at the head of his house.
Panoiki is differently rendered, but the whole of the 34th
verse, taken together, is plain enough; the whole house
partook of his joy and he of theirs; but the believing is
peculiarly predicated of him.
But I desire more especially to call attention to the
words oikos and oikia. The promise was to the former,
the preaching to the latter, and the baptism was ad
119 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
ministered to himn and all his. These are the facts as
recorded.
MIr. Taylor, in his admirable work on Baptism, en titled "Facts and Evidences," says, p. 90: "When  the
Philippian Jailor enquired,'What must I do to be
saved?' the Apostle answered,'Believe on  the Lord
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house.'
The oikia, servants of the Jailor, heard the Word;  but
we do not read that one of the oikia was baptized, saved,
but this we do read of the Jailor, and of all his house;
which is exactly what the Apostle foretold." It will be
seen that Mr. Taylor marks the same distinction between
the words oikos and oikia that we have pointed out above.
Again, on p. 60, speaking of the baptism of Stephanus,
he says: "Scripture says his family was baptized; I,
therefore, believe that fact-Scripture says nothing of
the baptism of his household, I, therefore, do not believe
it.  But I will believe it whenever a passage of Scripture
shall be produced in which HOUSEHOLD, oik7ia, is connected
with baptism."  Here this ripe scholar, after the most
careful investigation, tells us that he has failed to find a
single instance on record where a man and his oikia,
household, are said to have been baptized; but he does
find it recorded that Lydia and her oikos were baptized,
and that the Jailor and his oikos were baptized; but
although we are told that the Apostle preached the Word
to the Jailor's oikia we are not told that his oikia were
baptized. The promise was to him and his children, oikos,
and when he believed he and his were baptized according
to promise!
Following the above remarks, Mr. Taylor proceeds
thus:" The mischance that our translators should have
120 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
used the terms house and household interchangeably,
though Scripture preserves the distinction, is glaring
respecting the family of Onesiphorus, 2 Timothy i. 16,
and iv. 19. The Greek word in one text is rendered
'house,' and in the other'household,'  notwithstanding
the same persons are intended. Our translators also
have used one word, household, to express both the
family and household of Stephanus, though Scripture
uses two words in order to make the distinction, and certainly does not mean the same persons. This has pros
duced confusion, and various weak and inconsistent
arguments." To this fact we have called attention in
the narrative of the Jailor's conversion and baptism,
where we have shown that the sacred historian has used
the words oikos and oikia, both of which are rendered
house, though the historian predicates of the one what he
does not of the other.
So convinced is Mr. Taylor of the truthfulness and
the importance of this distinction, and of the fixedness
of the meaning of the word oikos, both in the Old and
New Testaments, that he wholly rests his argument in
favor of Infant Baptism upon this single point.  Hence,
on page 14, he says: " The argument is brought to this
point: the Old Testament writers use the term llouse
in the sense of family, with a special reference to
INFANTS; the New Testament writers use the term House
exactly in the same sense as the Old Testament writers;
therefore, when the New Testament writers say that they
baptized houses, they mean to say that they baptized
INFANTS." After the most laborious investigation, and
after quoting numerous texts of scripture, both from the
Old and New Testaments, and after producing a great
121 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
variety of arguments, such as none but a scholar and
a thinker could produce, and all to establish the above
proposition, he reaches such conclusions as the follow ing, which I find upon page 89: "Being myself con vinced that the Apostles practised infant baptism, and
that the evangelist meant to tell us so, I affirm that the
natural import  of the  term  oikos, family, includes
children of all ages. In proof, I offer fifty examples;
if fifty are not sufficient, I offer a hundred; if a hun dred are not sufficient, two hundred; if two hundred are
not sufficient, four hundred. I affirm that oikos vERY
OFTEN expresses the presence of infants; of this I offer
fifty examples, and if we admit classical instances, fifty
more. Euripides alone affords half the number, though
he frequently uses domos instead of oikos. More than
three hundred instances have been examined which have
proved perfectly satisfactory." Ile now goes on to show
that when the sacred writers tell us of the baptism of a
man and his oikos, they thereby convey to us the idea of
infant baptism more undeniably than they could, perhaps,
in any other way. In proof of this he quotes the following facts, thus: "What terms could the evangelists have
used to satisfy us of the apostolic practice of infant baptism? Had they said,' We baptize infants;' Origen says
this, and Baptists immediately exclaim,'I etaphorical
infants! metaphorical infants!' Had they said,'We baptize children,' as the apostles Paul and John, and Clement
of Alexandria say, they answer,' Metaphorical children!"
Hence he concludes that when the sacred writers use the
word oikos as they'have done, they thereby put the fact
of infant baptism more effectually beyond the possibility
of evasion than they would have done if they had only
122 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
1
used the word infants; for the word family, or oikos,
must include infants and little ones; and we may more
plausibly talk about metaphorical infants, or children,
than we could about metaphorical families! So true it
is that the Bible is right not only as to the ideas, which
it conveys to us, but also as to the words which it employs for that purpose. The truth is, no words could be
used that would prevent certain people from rejecting the right and embracing the wrong. Some people
will be wrong anyhow!
After quoting many texts in the Old Testament, the
same author quotes  the following:  Ruth  iv. 11, 13:
"The LORD make the woman that is come into thine
house like Rachel and like Lea, which two did build the
house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah: and
be famous in Bethlehem: and let thine house be like the
house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the
seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young
woman." "It is not possible," continues our author,
"by any form of words whatever, to express INFANTS
more decidedly than by these applications of the term
IIOUSE: and if there were no other text in the Old Testament, this last alone is sufficient to establish the proposition that the term house in the Old Testament language
MUST mean an infant.  The building up of the house of
Israel is infant child-bearing.  Thy HOUSE-the'SEED
which the Lord SHALL GIVE THEE of this young woman'
MUST mean an infant. This is the national and acknowledged language used by' all the people that were in the
gate,' not by the vulgar only, but by those well instructed; by the elders." Thus it is that this writer establishes
the fact, viz: that this word oikos, house, conveys the 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS3f.
idea of infants, or children, both in the Old and New
Testaments.   The Spirit that inspired and guided the
writers of the Old Testament to use this word for the
purpose of conveying this idea, also inspired and guided
the New Testament writers to use it for the same purpose. Now, seeing this word had this fixed and universally understood meaning among that people for some two
thousand years, was it possible for them to misunderstand
one of their own writers when he told them that he baptized the Jailor and his oilkos, Lydia and her oikos,
Stephanus  and his oikos?  I say, was it possible for
them to understand him otherwise than that he baptized
the man and his children, or the woman and her children,
as the case might be? And, waiving the consideration
of inspiration, we ask, was it possible for a Jewish writer
to tell this people that he baptized a man and his house,
if he did not mean a man and his children, especially
infants? And the supposition becomes the more im-possible, when it is remembered not only that his oilos meant
his children, but that it was the divinely appointed usage
of that people, and had been so for some two thousand
years, to apply the seal to the children when it was
applied to the parent. The fact is, it seems impossible
for any one that is not shamefully ignorant of the Bible
and history, to doubt the meaning of the historic records
of the New Testament with regard to the baptism of certain individuals and their families.
After filling nearly one hundred pages with I' facts
and evidences" in favor of infant baptism, this writer
closes his admirable work with the following remarks,
which we think may be useful just here:
"I close these researches upon the SUBJECT OF
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM with two inferences.
124 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
" 1. The Christian Church in the North, in the
South, in the East, and in the West, NEVER DID REFUSE
BAPTISM TO INFANTS.  Are the Baptists, then, wiser than
all the world? than all the faithful men of apostolic
ages, and than all their contemporaries? Is it likely
that they alone, of all the millions of Christians of every
period and nation, in spite of these'FACTs and   vLrDENcEs,' should be the only persons who have elicited Scriptural truth?
"2. In all Christian Churches, baptism is a consecration to the Trinity! Not one uses any form of wordsthe Baptists themselves do not use any form of words,
in the administration of baptism, allusive to the burial
of the person baptized, as they say Christ was butried.
Had our Lord intended such allusion, He would have
said so.... I adhere to the initiatory words of Christ
as the best and greatest authority on the subject; for it
is very extraordinary that in a religion having but two
rites, they should both point at the same thing. The
death of the Saviour is clearly the primary and direct
purport of the Lord's Supper. Is it likely or credible
that the primary and direct purport of baptism should
also be the death of the Saviour? But if in the initiatory rite there be a commemoration of the interposing
-)eity, and in the Lord's Supper a commemoration of the
interposing humanity-if for this reason consecration to
the Deity is sufficient by one act, and ought not to be repeated, while devotedness to Jesus, as Lord of all, is
frequently renewed, and to be repeated continually, then
there is between the two rites that distinction which was
evidently intended, and which it well becomes all professors of our common faith to retain to the latest generation."
125 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
It is a remarkable, and a very telling fact, that those
scholars who have been most thorough in their investigations on the subject of baptism have, as the result of
their investigations, been most confident in their conclusions. hienee the editor of Calmet's Dictionary, like
Baxter and many others, has utterly failed to find anything clearly in favor of Anabaptist notions, while his
vast accumulation of FACTS and EVIDENCES are directly
and irreconcilably opposed to them. As an antiquarian
he searches aneient churches, catacombs, and other places,
and there finds monuments of the artistic skill, and of
the piety, sentiments, and practice of the ancient Chris
tians; monuments which have stood there from primitive
times, bearing their unchangeable and unmistakable testimony both as to the mode and subjeets of baptism during
the early and following ages of the Christian Church,
and in every instance they testify that Anabaptist notions are novelties! These ancient works of art represent baptism as being administered by pourinq; and the
ancient inscriptions testify to the baptism of children,
after this manner: "To Aristus who lived eight months:
NEWLY BAPTIZED, he went off the first of the nones of
June, A. D. 389: Timasius and Promotorus being Consuls." The original is in Latin, and this is the translation which our author gives us. This is only one out of the
many similar inscriptions which he furnishes. As a
philologist he searches with equal diligence, and discovers that the words which refer to the subject in hand
were fixed and unmistakable in their meaning, and that
they bear an equally decisive and unequivocal testimony
against the same novelties; and that their testimony in
favor of the views here contended for is not less decisive
126 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
and unequivocal. And, finally, as a student of history,
he discovers that " the Christian Churches in the North,
in the South, in the East, and in the West, NEVER DID REFUSE BAPTISM TO INFANTS!" And finding that neither he
norany other man, ancient or modern, could discover what
Antipedobaptists claim to have discovered, he asks: "Is
it likely that they alone, of all the millions of Christians
of every period and nation, in spite of these FACTS and
EVIDENCES, should be the only persons who have elicited
Scripture truth!"  But startling as is this question, it
will become still more startling if put in this form, which
is really the proper form: "Is it likely that the fanatics
of Germany, such as Thomas  Munzer, Conrad Grebel,
John Matthias, and John Boccold, should discover what
all the learned, the wise, and the good, both ancient and
modern, have failed to discover?" This is really the
question; for to the parties here mentioned we trace the
Antipedobaptist notions, and beyond these parties we
find them not. If the advocates of these notions can
find them prior to these fanatics, let them tell us when,
and where!
But lest any should impose upon their neighbors by
bold assertion instead of argument, which is not at all
an unfrequent occurrence, we will here furnish a few of
the facts of history.
To escape the storm which was now driving down
with terrible fury from the "seven mountains  upon
which the woman sitteth," Luther was carried to the
ancient Castle of Wartburg, where he remained for some
twelve months.  During his stay there the Reformation
progressed, but there arose a new set of reformers claim ing to be prophets, and like certain reformers in olden
12 7 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
times boasting great things. The good Elector of Sax ony being both alarmed and puzzled, wrote Luther.
The great Reformer soon comprehended the matter, and
replied thus: "Your Electoral grace has been accustomed for many years to seek for relics in every country.
God has granted your desires, and has sent you, without
expense or trouble, a complete cross, with nails, lances,
and scourges.... grace and prosperity to the new
relic!.... Let your Highness only without fear extend your arms, and allow the nails to pierce the flesh!
..... I have always expected that Satan would send
us this plague." This plague first appeared in the little
town of Zwickau. The following account of it is from
D)'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, 1846. W.
R. McPhun, Glasgow. Page 579:
" There dwelt in this town some men who, excited
by the manifestation of the great events which then agitated the public mind in Christendom, aspired to the
possession of direct revelations from the Divine Being,
instead of seeking with simplicity the sanctification of
the heart, and who pretended that they were called to
complete the Reformation of which Luther had weakly
sketched the design.'For what good purpose is it,' said
they,'to attach one's self so exclusively to the Bible?
The Bible! Always the Bible! Can the Bible speak
to us? Is it not insufficient for our instruction? If
God had wished to instruct us by means of a book,
would he not have sent us a Bible from heaven? It is
by the Spirit alone that we can be enlightened. God
Himself thus speaks to us. God Himself reveals to us
what we ought to do and what we ought to say.' A simple cloth manufacturer named Nicolas Stork, declared
128 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
that the Angel Gabriel had appeared to him during the
night, and that, after having communicated many things
which he could not yet reveal, the Angel had said:' Thou
thyself shalt sit upon my throne.' One of the former
students at Wittemberg, called Mark Stubner, united
himself to Stork, and immediately abandoned his studies;
because, as he said, he received directly from God the
gift of interpreting the Holy Scriptures.   Mark Thomas,
another cloth manufacturer, also joined the party; while
a new adept, Thomas MIunzer, a man of a fantastic disposition, imparted a regular organization to the body of
this new sect. Stork, wishing to follow the example of
Christ, chose from among his adherents twelve apostles
and seventy-two disciples." After telling us somewhat of
their prophesyings and of their doings, our historian thus
proceeds: "Nicolas  llaussman, to whom Luther bore
this elegant testimony-' That which we teach he does'
-was then the pastor of Zwickau. This worthy man
did not allow himself to be carried away by the assumptions of these false prophets. HIe opposed the innovations which Stork and his adherents were anxious to introduce, and the two deacons of the church acted in
unison with their pastor.... They formed regular
organizations, wherein destructive doctrines were acknowledged, and the minds of the people became highly
excited." The civil authorities interfering, these fanatics met with an opposition which checked their progress, and Nicolas Stork, Mark Thomas, and Mark
Stubner, started for Wittemberg.
"They arrived in this celebrated town," continues
our historian, "on the 27th of December, 1521.  Stork
marched first, imitating the step and bearing of a com
129 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISlf.
mon soldier, while Thomas and Stubner followed behind
him. The troubles which reigned in Wittemberg favored
the designs of these strangers. The youths of the academy, and the citizens, at the time in a state of much agitation, composed, as it were, a soil prepared. for the
operations of the new prophets. Hence, believing themselves sure of their support, they immediately waited
upon the professors of the university, in order to obtain
their concurrence.'We are,' said the strangers,' sent
from God to give instruction to the people. We hold
familiar conversation with the Lord, and we are acquainted with the events that are to come to pass: in a
word, we are apostles and prophets, and we appeal, in
this matter, to Doctor Luther. This singular language
amazed the doctors of the university.'Who has ordained you to preach?' enquired Melancthon of Stubner,
his former pupil, whom he received into his house:'Our
Lord God.''Have  you written any books?''Our
Lord God has forbidden me to do so.' Melancthon was
thunderstruck; equally amazed and alarmed.....
Stork, whose character was restless, very soon quitted
the town of Wittemberg, but Stubner remained there.
Animated with an ardent desire of proselytism, he visited every district of the town, speaking sometimes to one
person, sometimes to another (their children but too
closely adhere to the practice of their ancestors), and
several of his hearers acknowledged him as a prophet
sent from God. He addressed himself particularly to a
Swabian named Cel]arius, a friend of Melancthon, who
kept a school wherein he gave instructions in letters to a
great number of young people, and who very soon fully
recognized the mission of the new prophets.
130 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
"Melancthon became more and more uncertain and
disquieted in his mind. It was not so much the visions
of the prophets from Zwickau which disturbed his imagination, as the.new doctrine they professed upon the sacrament of baptism."  Mark, it was A NLW DOCTRINE!
What it was we shall see pretty soon.
"Circumstances became more and more serious at
Wittemberg. Carlstadt rejected several of the doctrines
professed by the new prophets, and in particular their
Anabaptism."   But things grew worse and worse, and
the friends of the Reformation' were now more afraid of
these fanatical Anabaptists than they were of Rome itself;
for the enemies of the truth were shrewd enough to
charge their fanatical doings and their wild insubordination to Luther and his followers, in a word, to the Reformation.
Meantime many communications reached Luther in
the Castle of Wartburg, and he was evidently well convinced both as to the nature and danger of the work
that was going on.   "I throw myself," he exclaimed,
" in the dust while creeping towards the grace of the Eternal, and I beseech him to allow his name to be still connected with this work, and that if something impure has
mingled in its operations, he will remember that I am a
weak and sinful man."  Finally,  "upon the third of
March, he rose with the resolution to quit the Castle of
Wartburg forever. Hle bade adieu to those ancient towers and dark forests; and issued forth beyond those walls
behind which neither the excommunications of Leo X.
nor the sword of Carles V. were able to restrain him."
As Luther went to Worms so he returned to Wittenmberg, determined to enter though there were in it as many
131 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
devils as there were tiles upon the housetops! He entered! and soon the announcement, "Luther  is come!"
"Luther is come!" flew through the place like flashes of
lightning, and were felt like the electric shock. All at
once, too, all the Anabaptist prophets were missing,
Cellarius only excepted. Eight sermons from Luther
produced wonderful effects. "At the command of
Luther," says D'Aubigne, p. 596, " objections vanished,
tumult was appeased, sedition ceased to vociferate her
clamor, and the citizens of Wittemberg resumed the
tranquil occupations of life.".... "Nevertheless, Stubuer,
having been informed that the sheep of his flock had
dispersed, returned speedily to his old haunts. Those
who had remained constant to' the celestial prediction,'
surrounded their master, recounted to him the substance
of Luther's discourses, and impatiently inquired of him
what course they ought in consequence to pursue."
Stubner and Cellarius were, or pretended to be, confident that they could defend their claims before Luther,
and demanded an interview. Their request was granted,
and the result was as might be expected. The following
is a brief sketch of the conference, as recorded by D'Aubigne on p. 597.  "Stubner was allowed to speak first.
He explained how he wished to renew the Church and to
change the world. Luther listened to this harangue with
great calmness. At last, with great gravity, he replied.
'Nothing of what you have said is founded upon the
Holy Scriptures, all your affirmations  are made up of
fables.' When these words were uttered, Cellarius was
unable longer to restrain his fury.   He commenced to
speak; he made violent gestures; stamped with his feet,
and struck with his hand the table that stood before him.
132 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
He worked himself into a passion, and exclaimed it was
shameful to dare in this manner to speak to a man of
God. Then Luther quietly added,'St. Paul declares
that the proofs of his apostleship have appeared through
the working of wonders, prove yours by the performance
of miracles.' We will do so,' responded the prophets.
' The God I adore,' said Luther,'shall well know how to
hold your gods in check.' Stubner, who had preserved a
larger portion of self-possession, fixing at this moment
his eyes upon the Reformer, said, with the air of one inspired,' Martin Luther, I am about to declare to you
the thoughts which are now passing in your soul!....
you begin to believe that my doctrine is true.' Luther,
having for a few moments remained silent, replied,' God
reprove thee, Satan.'.... At these words all the prophets
became furious.'The Spirit, the Spirit!' they bellowed
out. Luther, adopting, with a cold tone of disdain, the
cutting familiar language peculiar to himself, said,' I
have hit your Spirit on the snout.' The clamor now incrcased two-fold, and Ccllarius especially distinguished
himself by his ravings. He became frantic, he shook
and foamed at the mouth. No one could at this time be
heard in the chamber of the conference.   At last the
three prophets abandoned the place, and on the same day
quitted the city of Wittemberg." Thus it was that the
novelties of the fanatical Anabaptists were met by the
great Reformer, and thus it was that the new prophets
were routed, at least for the present. But though they
have fled from Wittemberg they have not abandoned
their errors or ceased to propagate them. We must, therefore, follow them a little further.
133
7 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
On p. 741, our historian gives us the following account of their further proceedings:
' The fanaticism of the Anabaptists, extinguished in
Germany at the time of Luther's return to Wittemberg,
reappeared with increased strength in Switzerland, and it
threatened to overthrow the edifice which Zwingle, Haller, and Ecolampade had reared upon the foundation of
the word of God. Thomas Munzer, when forced to leave
Saxony in the year 1521, had retreated to the very frontiers of Switzerland. Conrad Grebel, whose restless and
ardent disposition we have already had occasion to describe, was bound in ties of amity with Munzer as well
as Felix Mantz, the son of a canon, and some other citizens of the town of Zurich; while Grebel had likewise
endeavored to gain the support of Zwingle. In vain had
this Swiss reformer advanced in that direction further
than Luther; for he now beheld a party eager to outstrip
the progress he had made.' Let us form,' said Grebel
to Zwingle,'a company of true believers; because it is
to them alone the promise belongs; and let us establish a
Church wherein sin shall not be allowed to enter.'' It
is impossible,' replied Zwingle,'to form a heaven upon
earth; and Christ has taught us that we must allow the
tares to grow along with the wheat.' Grebel, being frustrated in his attempts with the reformer, longed to make
an appeal to the people.' The whole community of Zurich,' said he,' must, with sovereign power, decide upon
the affairs of faith.'  But Zwingle feared the influence
these radical enthusiasts might exercise upon the minds
of a numerous assembly."
Three things should be noticed, just here, in the doings
of these fanatics.   First, while by proselyting and in
134 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
other ways they are endeavoring to tear the church to
pieces, they nevertheless cry out loudly for union! Second,
they at the same time declare that the church is all wrong
they only are right, and are going to have a church
" wherein sin shall not be allowed to enter."  Third, they
flatter the people, cry out for their rights, and declare
that' the whole community must with sovereign power
decide upon the affairs of faith." We too have seen this
game played: union has been loudly called for, while at
the same time the work of proselyting has been carried
on, and our Church represented as no church, and our
baptism as no baptism; and, as of old, the people have
been appealed to and flattered! But this game did not
succeed with Luther and Zwingle; the German and Swiss
reformers were not to be taken in this way; for though
the "Swiss reformer advanced in that direction further
than Luther," he soon discovered his mistake, and it was
well he did, for the character and designs of the Anabaptist prophets soon became painfully apparent, as the following extracts from the same history will show.
"Repulsed by Zwingle, Grebel turned his attention
elsewhere. Rubli, the ancient pastor of Basil, Brodtlein
the pastor of Zollekon, and likewise Herzer, received his
advances with eagerness. They resolved to form an independent community in the centre of the grand community, a church in the middle of the church. A NEW BAPTISM was fixed upon as the means of gathering together
their congregation, composed exclusively of true believers.' The baptism of infants,' said they,' is a horrible
abomination, a manifest impiety, invented by the evil
spirit and Nicholas II. the pope of Rome.' The council
of Zurich, alarmed at the prospect of these proceedings,
135
: I I... 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
issued an order for the observance of a public discussion;
and the Anabaptists, still refusing to forsake their errors,
some people of Zurich belonging to their sect were cast
into prison, while a few strangers were banished from
the district.   But this persecution only served to augment the fervor of these enthusiasts."..... "Some of their
number, begirt with cords or willow wands, walked through
the streets, exclaiming,'in a few days Zurich shall be
destroyed.   Wo to you, Zurich! wo, wo!'  Many of
them gave vent to expressions of blasphemy.'Baptism,'
said they,'is the bathing of a dog, there is no more use
in baptizing an infant than in baptizing a cat.' Sinmple
people were thrown into a state of commotion and dread.
Fourteen men, and among their number Felix Mantz, in
company with seven women, were taken into custody, in
spite of the intercession of Zwingle, and condemned to
live upon bread and water in the tower of the heretics.
At the end of fifteen days' confinement, they succeeded
in raising some planks during the night, and, with the
assistance of each other, they effected their escape.'An
angel,' they said,'had opened the prison and procured
their deliverance.' A monk who had fled from his convent, George Jacobade Coire, surnamed Blaurock, because
he always wore, as it would appear, a blue habit, joined
the newly-formed sect, and was, on account of his natural eloquence, denominated the second St. Paul. This
bold Monk went about from place to place, obliging people to receive the token of his baptism by means of his
overheated appeals. On a certain Sunday, in Zollekon,
at the moment when the deacon was delivering his sermon,
the impetuous Anabaptist interrupted the speaker by ex claiming in a voice of thunder,'It is written my house is a
136
. I
II I 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves,'
then, raising a stick he carried in his hand, he struck
with it on the ground four violent blows, exclaiming,'I
am the door, he who will enter through me shall find
food. I am the good shepherd. My body I give up to
prison; my life I give up to the sword, to the funeral
pile, or to the wheel.   I am the commencement of baptism and of the bread of the Lord.'"
"But Zwingle offering a stern opposition to the torrent of Anabaptism in Zurich, St. Gaul was very soon
overrun with the same plague.   Grebel arrived in the
latter city, where he was received with acclamations by
his brethren; and on Palm Sunday, proceeding in company with an immense number of his adherents to the
banks of the Sitter, he administered baptism to the whole
multitude.
"After this, the spirit of fanaticism displayed itsel
in freaks of melancholy extravagance. Pretending that
our Lord exhorts us to become like little children, these
unhappy beings began to jump about in the streets, and
to clap their hands together, to dance round and round
in numerous circles, to sit down upon the ground, and to
roll one another about in the sand. Some of them threw
the New Testament into the fire, saying:' The letter
kills, but the Spirit gives life;' while many, falling into
convulsions, pretended they had received revelations of
the Spirit."
But the most melancholy of all that D'Aubigne records concerning the Anabaptists, is that which he records just here, p. 744: "In a lonely house situated in
the vicinity of St. Gaul, upon the Mullegg, there lived
an old husbandman, eighty years of age, named  John
7
137 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Shucker, who had five sons to bear him company. The
whole of this family, as well as their servants, received
the ordinance of the new baptism, and two of the sons,
Thomas and Leonard, particularly distinguished themselves by their extreme fanaticism. On the 6th February, 1526, the day being Shrove Tuesday, they invited
a large number of Anabaptists to meet in their house,
and the father killed a calf to provide for the feast. The
viands and the wine sufficed to heat the imaginations of
this numerous company, and they passed the whole night
in conversation, fantastic gesticulations, convulsions, visions, and revelations.
"In the morning, Thomas, still excited by the excesses of the past night, and having even, as it would
appear, lost the power of his reason, took up the bladder
of the calf and put into it the gall of the beast, desiring
thus to imitate the symbolical actions of the prophets;
and, going up to his brother Leonard, he said to him in
a sombre tone,' Equally bitter is the death which you
must die.'  Then added,' Brother Leonard, kneel down
upon your knees.' Leonard did as he was commanded.
In a little while he said,' Brother Leonard, arise;' and
Leonard again stood upon his feet. The father, the
brothers, and the rest of the Anabaptists, stared in
amazement, wondering what might be the will of God.
Very soon Thomas once more said,' Leonard, kneel down
again,' and the humble posture was resumed. The spectators, alarmed at the gloomy expression of the unhappy
actor, said, ~ Reflect upon what you are about to do, and
take care that no evil happens.''Do not fear,' replied
Thomas,'the will of the Father alone shall be fulfilled.'
.... At the same moment he hastily seized a sword
138 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
and aiming a blow with all his strength at the body of
his kneeling brother, like a criminal before the executioner, he cut off his head, arid exclaimed,'Now the will of the
Father is accomplished.'.... On the 16th of February, the wretched fratricide was beheaded by the hands
of the hangman, and fanaticism had been seen to expend
its last effort. The eyes of all were opened; and, as an
ancient historian has said,'the same blow served to decapitate alike the body of Thomas Shucker and that of
Anabaptismin in St. Gaul.' The sect, however, still lived
in Zurich; and on the 6th of November of the preceding year, a public dispute had there taken place, in order
to give satisfaction to the Anabaptists, who continued to
cry out,'The innocent are condemned without being
heard.' The three following theses were proposed by
Zwingle and his friends as the subject of conference, and
were victoriously maintained by them in the hall of the
Council." Here follow the theses:
"Children born of faithful parents are the children
of God, like those who were born under the Old Testament; and, consequently, they can receive baptism."
"Baptism is, under the New Testament, that which
circumcision was under the Old, consequently baptism
must so now be administered to children in the samne
way as circumcision was formerly administered.".I
"The usage of baptizing anew cannot be proved,
either by example, or by passages, or by arguments
drawn from the Scriptures; and those who submit to a
new baptism crucify Jesus Christ.";
Here is a faithful account of the origin of the people
called Anabaptists, and of some of their opinions and
doings   John Miatthias, the baker, and John Boccold,
139 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the tailor, have already been referred to as leaders of the
Anabaptists; they too, claimed to be prophets, and
Boccold finally proclaimed himself king by Divine appointment, and his fanatical followers obeyed him as
such. They took possession of Munster, an imperial
city of Westphalia. I think it was here that Matthias
was killed.
It will be seen from the historic records here given,
that these Anabaptists did not even claim to have obtained their teachings from the Bible; indeed they commenced by rejecting the Bible, as may be seen by reference to the above quotations; some of them actually
threw their Bible into the fire.  They claimed to have
received their teachings by direct revelation; they said
"We hold familiar conversation with the Lord."   Some
said they had a communication from the Angel Gabriel.
Another, a little more honest, said," I am the commencement of baptism," meaning, of course, baptism  as he
taught and practised. It will be seen, too, that Melancthon called their Antipedobaptist doctrine a "new doctrine." Nor does it appear that the prophets themselves
denied this. As for Luther, when he heard the prophets
state their own views, he said, and said truly, "All your
affirmations are made up of fables!" It is also worthy
of remark, that in the " Theses" quoted above, the reformers take the ground that "]Baptism is under the
New Testament that which circumcision was under the
Old." And with regard to re-baptizing, they not only
affirm that it has absolutely no countenance from the
word of God, but they look upon the act as involving
very serious consequences; and they not only censured
the re-baptizers, but they went as far as to say that
140 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
"Those who submit to a new baptism  crucify Jesus
Christ!"
Such were the men who introduced the Antipedobaptist novelty; such the time and node of its introduction: and such the oppositioz that it met with fromn the
great reformers of the sixteenth century.  "But it does not
appear, " says Bishop  Tomlin, " that there was any
congregation of Anabaptists in England till the year
1640."  And with regard to their commencement in this
country, we are informed that it was on this wise. In
Rhode Island, Ezekiel Holliman baptized Roger Williams, then Roger turned round and baptized Ezekiel
and ten others. Such was their beginning in this western world. Such is the Church that claims to be the
only Church, and such the baptism that is claimed to be
the only baptism.
Now, we have no sympathy with what is called "the
doctrine of succession," no sympathy with the cry, "We
have Abraham to our father;" if people are wrong now,
we censure them, whoever their father may have been;
and if they are right now, we ask no more. But when
the Anabaptists vainly, and loudly, talk about their antiquity and ancestry, and claim to be the Church, the
only Church. and represent all others as having gone out
of the way, it is highly proper, we think, to say to them,
"Look to the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole
of the pit whence ye are digged." So far as the Anabaptists are right now we are with them, and bid them
God speed; but they must not expect us to indorse the
inventions of Munzer, Grebel, Storek, Stubner, Boccold,
and other fanatics, as being the teachings of Jesus and his
Apostles.  So far as they hold the truth in common with
141 
CHRIISTIAN BAPTISIf.
evangelical Christians, we are with them, and give them
due credit, but when they reject what we know to be of
Divine appointment, and force upon us what we know to
be an unscriptural novelty, we may not submit, nor hold
our peace either! And when they are so bigoted and
exclusive that they will not sit down with God's people
at God's table, or allow any of God's people to sit down
with them at their table, let them not cry out for union
Only a few days since, I was told the following: A
lady who was a member of the AI. E. Church, feeling
that she was dying, sent for her pastor to administer to
her the sacrament of the supper, feeling, like her Master,
that she should not again drink of this fruit of the vine
until that day when she should drink it new in her father's
kingdom. The minister hastens to the dying room, the
table is spread, and a little group of friends gather
around to partake, with the dying woman, of the sacred
emblems of Christ's dying love.  The husband of the
dying woman is in the next room; he is invited to come
and receive the holy sacrament with his wife before she
dies; but no, he will not:  Why?   Simply because he
belongs to the Baptist Church, and his wife belongs to
the M. E. Church! As we said before, so we say again,
when such people cry out for union, which they do, under given circumstances, we must doubt their sincerity,
we cannot do otherwise! And we verily believe that,
till they are ashamed of, and abandon this unchristian
practice, they should be left to themselves! And let it
be remembered, that their claims to superiority are
based upon the novelties that they received from the
German fanatics of the sixteenth century! Once more,
let them take the Gospel, which they hold, and preach it
142 
APOSTOLIC PRACTICE.
to sinners, and save all they can, and we will, so far bid
them God speed. But let them not come into our
churches and dwellings to pervert and proselyte those
whom God has placed under our care, and who, we know,
have received Scripture baptism! Let them notrdo this
thing!
And now, ye people of Israel, Christian people of
every name, we say to you in conclusion, Consecrate
your children to God in holy Baptism; remember "the
promise is to you and to your children;" and Jesus says
to you, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God."
Bring, then, your children to Jesus, who is as ready now,
and as able, to bless themn, as He was when He first uttered those blessed words. Bring them, I say, to this
blessed Saviour, who in the days of His flesh" took the
little children up into His arms, put His hands upon
them and blessed them."  He claims them as the purchase of His blood, and "the free gift "has already "come
upon" them "unto justification of life." Bring them,
I say once more, to Him who died for them, and who
commands you to do so; and as you come, say:
" We bring them, Lord, in thankful hands,
And yield them up to Thee,
Joyful that we ourselves are Thine,
Thine let our offspring be."
And when you laptize "with water," see that you
baptize as He does, who baptizes "with the Holy Ghost;"
and you know he baptizes by POURING, SHEDDING, rFALLING;
nriot by plunging!
143 
I,