Wright American Fiction

Search Options

Theophilus Walton, or, The majesty of truth

page: 0 (TitlePage) [View Page 0 (TitlePage) ]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 0 (TitlePage) THEOPHILUS WALTON; ou, A REPLY TO THEODOSIA ERNEST. BY A MEMBER OF THE ALABAMA CONFERENCE. "Prove all thinag; hold fast that. which is good,"-PAi PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR BY STEVENSON & OWEN. 1858. page: 0 (Table of Contents) [View Page 0 (Table of Contents) ]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 0 (Table of Contents) Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by WILLIAM P. HARRISON, In the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee. t i STEREOTYED AND PRINTED BY A. A. TITT, SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHNG HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN. /ATR -LvaenMtarg CHAPTER I.--Loveand Marriage.*...... .......... .... *............... CHAPTER II.-The Great Secret.......................... ............ 8 ,CHAPTER III.-The Lovers............................. ........... ..... 18 CHAPTER IV.-The Affliction of Joseph,....... ..,........... ..., 16 CHAPTER V.-The Revival and its Fruits ........................... 22 CHAPTER VI.-Consistency is a Jewel............................ 27 CHAPTER VII.-The Doubt removed . ................... 84 tirE t ree tittl- The word 4' immerse" not in the Bible-The reasons given by Baptists contradicted by Baptist writers-The Babel of Baptist Bible revi- sion overthrown by its own builders ................................ - 43 CHAPTER VIII.--Job and his Comforters........&.................. 70 CHAPTER IX.-Carrie Mason's Review of "Theodosia Ernest", 79 Trial of the Baptist canons of criticism, as laid down by Dr. Gale, Dr. Carson, Dr. Richard Fuller, and, other eminent Baptists: the result, a reduction to absurdity of Baptist theory, by proving them all to be enemies of Christ.,........................................... 93 CHAPTER X.--The Day of Trfial,..................................... 120 CHAPTE3R X..--New Troubles in the Cabinet..,,*., ..... .*...*..,*.. 129 CHA-PTER XII.--The Interview and its Result ........... ......... 135 CHAPTER XIII.--Carrie Mason's Review, continued ,........* 140 page: iv (Table of Contents) -5[View Page iv (Table of Contents) -5]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page iv (Table of Contents) -5 CONTENTS. k words Bapto and Baptidzo examined-their classical and ral use-More Baptist testimony: Dr. Fuller, Dr. Carson, e, and Dr. Cox ................... .......................... 149 R XIV.-A Test Question . ..................................... 181 R XV.-Carrie Mason's Review, continued ................ 186 =ment baptisms examined-Why was Christ bkaptized?-How rist baptized?-More light-Mr. Battle in the field...... 197 R XVI.-Events of the Following Day................ 229 R XVII.--A Struggle and a Victory ....................... 235 R XVIII.--Carrie Mason's Review, concluded....., ...O... 239 ament baptisms, continued--No proof of immersion in any ............................................................ 247 f the ordinance-its early corruptions-Value of the Fathers' ny-Origin of Baptist immersion ............................. 283 rsy on the mode of baptism-The evidence from the classics her sources examined-Mr. Battle and Mr. Mason--"When meets Greek, then comes the tug of war"-Trial of Mrs. Wil- !or the crime of partaking of the Lord's Sup!er with the people-Alexander Battle and others for the Vlosecution; d Barbour for the defence8........................8.. ....2 R XIX.-The Trial . ..................... ...... 847 baptism of God or of men?-"To the law and to the testi- ................... . i................. , ... -865 IR X -The Retrospect... ... ..................... ........... 407 OR, THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. CHAPTER I. "OVE AND MARRIAGE; THE human heart can never be happy in itself. To love, with all the ardor of our nature, some object, whom we suppose worthy of affection, is as necessary to our healthful being as the light of heaven to the plant, or water to the fishes of the sea. Inertia is not a natural property of the heart's emotions; they are active from the first hours of childhood, when the vast world bf goodness and greatness is found in a mother's eye, to the last moments when the trembling pilgrim halts at the entrance of the dark valley, and embraces for the last time the loved ones to be left behind him. Whether the warm, generous heart of friend- ship, or the trusting heart of a life-long companionship, be the attracting centre of our affections, each day that passes brings with it proofs of friendship, or evidences of holy love, which, as fuel to the fire, keep the flame ever burning on the altar of the heart. page: 6-7[View Page 6-7]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 6-7 6 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, Next in importance, then, to the settlement of religious principle, and the cultivation of the moral powers, is the selec- tion of a companion for life-a mirror of our own soul, into which we may always look, and see a true and faithful like- ness there; a heart which will be ever ready to defend us, when the world shall persecute; ready to sympathize with and comfort us, when others avoid or neglect; which, like the vine, shall encircle us, and cling the closer to our for- tunes, when the rude storm shall threaten to overthrow and destroy. Selected in wisdom, nurtured with care, this young 'heart becomes a part of our existence, and in the genial sunshine of affection grows up to maturity, seeking no higher joy than that which springs from' mutual happiness and contentment; and when, at last, the travel through this wilderness is passed, longs to be reunited on the other shore, in the Eden of the blessed./' Sustaining the relation of arbiter, and, to a considerable extent, disposer of human fortu/nes in time and eternity, we need not wonder at the inteaest everywhere excited by the subject of marriage. Te Gold and the young feel a deep --eem '"ihe ry pai ieoh j oins the married ranks. The gayety of the festival which celebrates this union of hearts, removes not the anxious thoughts of the wise and prudent. They feel that a momentous question has been decided; one upon which depend the welfare of the couple themselves, and the peace of society at large. The young, who seldom look upon the gloomy side of the padt of life, find in their own hearts a response to the motive8 which actuate the newly-married couple; and thus all are interested in the choice. Perverted-by sensual passion, or rendered the agent of grovelling avarice, the institution ordained and blessed of God in the time of man's innocency, is changed from a general good into a hideous curse. The union of kindred -hearts is recorded in heaven; and the dews of Hermon shall, THE MAJESTY OF TRUTNH. 7 descend, together with the early and the latter rain, to refresh and invigorate the fruitful soil. But the sordid bar- ter- in which wealth, beauty, and passion are the commodi- ties exchanged, is an outrage perpetrated against the::laws of God and the interests of-the human race. It is our purpose, courteous reader, to present you with a few pages from the book of real life. We would speak then with the earnestness of the historian, and the confidence of a friend. We would fasten a buoy over the breakers which have perilled the happiness of trusting voyagers, and erect a lighthouss on the shore, to protect others from danger. The voice of warning comes ever too late to the wrecked; but a word fitly spoken shall be, to the prudent, as apples of gold, set in pictures of silver. page: 8-9[View Page 8-9]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 8-9 8 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, CHAPTER II., THE GREAT SECRET. c I HAVE been seeking a convenient opportunity for ti imej Daast to relieve my mind from yniet andcl-see- no reason wy maiO o-so-t e present moment. Pardon my frankness, Miss Mary, but the interest I feel in the subject is my excuse for theliberty I take. Will you promise to give me a candid answer to my question?" "Most assuredly, Mr. Walton. If I can be the means of relieving you from anxiety of any sort, I will not hesitate to do so." "Your kindness emboldens me, Miss Mary, and yet I feel some embarrassment in approaching the subject. You have no doubt noticed my attention to you for some time, and the pleasure which I have derived from your society. Permit me to ask what construction you have placed upon my conduct?" "Indeed! and that is the question which embarrasses you so much?" "Only in part, Miss Mary. It leads to another of still greater importance. Will you not gratify me with an answer?" "I have promised to do all I can to relieve your anxiety, but yet I am only under obligation to answer one question." "Very good, Miss Mary; answer the one I have just THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 9 asked, and I will throw myself upon your generosity for further information." "That will be taking rather an advantage of me;- but as I have promised to be just, we will settle the question of generosity afterward. Well, then, Mr. Walton, I have attributed your attention to me only to sincere friendship." "Is that all, Mary? Have you seen nothing to convince you that I entertain something more than mere friendship for you?" "I have seen nothing inconsistent with true friendship, Mr. Walton." "That may be very true, Mary, and yet--" "You may not possess that friendship." O no! I meant to say, that I might have manifested a higher and dearer feeling, Mary-- " "Without designing to do so, Mr. Walton. I understand you." "No, Mary; you wish to tease me. Don't you believe that I love you?" "Now, Mr. Walton, that is not a fair question. I cannot answer it." "Let me answer it for you then. I know that you have too much perception not to see it, for I do ardently, passion- ately love you. Mary, answer me: is your heart still free, unengaged?" "No, Mr. Walton, it is not. I am in love." "You are! with whom? where does he live? Who and what is my rival?" "Do not be excited, Mr. Walton. Your questions multi- ply too fast. Shall I describe him?" "By all means. Tell me who he is, as well as what he is. Is there'no chance to displace him?" "None. But I cannot promise to tell you who he is. But I will describe him. He is a young man-" 1* page: 10-11[View Page 10-11]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 10-11 10 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "Of course." "Handsome, intelligent, and moral. If he has faults, they are unknown to me." "A fine commencement for a nonpareil picture, Miss Mary. Is it not flattered?" "Not in the least, I think. His features are regular; black hair; a quick, dark eye; matchless mouth; and a commanding appearance, together with a winning address. He is an educated man, promises to be known in the world, and is quite a general favorite." "And he has told you that he loves you F" "He has." ' Recently?" "Not very long since." "And you are engaged to him?'9 "Not exactly; but I love him." "O, Mary! why did you not tell me this before?" "Because you did not ask me." "It would have pained my heart, but still, by this time, I might -have learned to repress my rising hopes. I might have learned to yield to your wishes, and consult your good in rejecting me. But now, Mary, I shall hate that hand- some rival, and the remembrance of his happiness will imbitter my days. Mine has been a pleasant dream-a dream of many years of joy in your society. Alas, Mary I why did you not awake me before this? Why have you suffered me to drink so deeply the cup of delusion?" "If I have offended you, Mr. Walton, I am sorry. Nothing was farther from my intention, I assure you. I do esteem you as a friend-I cannot say how highly. It would give me infinite pleasure to see you happy. But you know, Mr. Walton, the first love is the only love of woman." "So the poets say, Mary." "And so you have said, Mr. Walton. Have you forgotten THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. " those fanciful legends you used to relate to me, and your opinions expressed about them? You used to think that lovers ought to grow up together, and study each other's disposition, that they might learn how to promote each other's happiness. Have you changed your views, Mr. Walton?" "No, Mary; and for that very reason I am bold to urge my suit. We have known each other from the time we were little children, and you know I used to tell you years ago that I never could love any one but you." "I remember that. But you have been away at college for months at a time, and I have scarcely heard from you. How could you expect me to think of you in your absence, when you hardly ever wrote me a line? Attention, it is said, is the key to woman's affection." ,' True, Mary. But recollect that when I was at college we were not allowed to correspond with young ladies, unless they were very near relatives. You would not have me to violate the rules of -the college, would you?" "Well, I think they have no business to make such rules. It does not concern the teachers; and I don't think you would have been very culpable if you had slipped a letter to me occasionally." "I grant it, Mary. And I ask a- thousand pardons for my negligence. But are you going to cast me off now for some one who loves you no better than I do, and one that has not perhaps known you so long?" "The young man I speak of has known me all his life nearly, Mr. Walton." "Well, who is he? Tell me his name, and I shall ask you no further questions." "Will you promise not to get angry with him, Mr. Walton?" "Yes, foryour sake, I will treat him kindly. Who is he?" page: 12-13[View Page 12-13]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 12-13 12 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "I must not tell you. Indeed, I cannot tell you." "Then you not only reject me, Mary, but refuse to put any confidence whatever in me. Can you treat me so?" "Mr. Walton! I declare you understand how to tease one to perfection I I've a great mind to tell you now, just out of spite!" "Well, Mary, let me hear it. I am all attention." "If you must know, then, Mr. Walton, the young gen- tleman who has told me that he loves me; who has known me so long; who has so often been in my company; and to whom I am indebted for some of the happiest hours I have ever spent; whom I can't help liking, in spite of every thing, is-yourseZf! Are you satisfied now?" "MaSy! Mary!" exclaimed Mr. Walton, "why have you been teasing me so long? But I won't quarrel with you. You have made me happy!" THE MAJESTY OF TRUT-H. 18 CHAPTER III. THE LOVERS. MARY ELLIS was the daughter of the Rev. Mr. Ellis, the pastor of the Baptist church in Maryville. Amiable in disposition and beautiful in person, she was'admired and beloved by all who knew her. Her manners were polished, yet she affected not the possession of those so-called accom- plishments,' which frequently render ignorance conspicuous. Her education was thorough, if not extensive; and her strong common sense rendered her society instructive and profitable. Theophilus Walton was the son of a wealthy farmer. His 'father's opportunities to acquire education in early life being exceedingly limited, he had learned to value the pos- session of knowledge by his own deficiencies. No pains were spared to afford every facility in behalf of his son. Theophilus was placed at an early day in a private academy of considerable reputation, where he was prepared for col- lege, and in due time graduated in the literary department of the State University with honor. The parents of Theophilus and Mary were originally from one of the older States, and the friendship formed in their youth continued uninterrupted to the period of which we write. It-was very natural that their children should be attached to .each other, and the growing fondness existing between the young couple was noticed with as much pride page: 14-15[View Page 14-15]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 14-15 " . THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, upon the one side as satisfaction on the other. Mr. Ellis though in theory professing to disdain the pomp and show of wealth, did nevertheless feel no little pride at the pros- pect of a family connection with the Waltons. For this exhibition of human nature, however, he felt fully justified, because of the known worth of the young gentleman. On the other hand, although the alliance gave no promise of increased fortune to the family, the Waltons were sincerely attached to Mary Ellis. Her quiet, unobtrusive manner and her affectionate spirit had taken deep hold upon them, and they felt it to be scarcely a condescension for Theophilus to marry the daughter of a widely-known and esteemed minister. Thus every thing gave promise of a speedy consummation of happiness to the young couple. They looked forward to the flowery paths of life, inviting them to partake of its rosy pleasures; no cloud upon the sky, no suspected worm in the bud of promise-no anticipated barrier to the full enjoyment of domestic bliss. But, alas! if we could lift the veil that hides the future from our eyes, the pleasant dreams of sanguine youth, as well as the vagaries of more matured age, would be dispelled. It is well. A kind Providence has shut out from our view the contemplations of events, which would enhance our wisdom only at the expense of our peace. Unknown trials await this now happy pair-trials which will purge the dross from the fine gold, and temper the steel for future usefulness. We know not the utmost of our strength, until some unexpected emergency has called it forth. And so the heart knows not the depth of its affec- tion, until some formidable evil attempts to overcome it. THE MAJESTY O0P TRUTH. 15 CHAPTER IV. THE AFFLIOTION OP JOSEP-H. "I WAs pleased with your sermon on yesterday, Brother Mason," said Mr. Thomson, the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Maryville, to the Methodist minister. "I was too unwell, from this painful disease of the throat, to occupy my own pulpit, and embraced the opportunity to hear you preach. I thought your text peculiarly appropriate to the times.' "I felt it to be so," replied Mr. Mason; " for many of us are obnoxious to the reproofs of the prophet Amos. We 'trust in the mountain of Samaria,' and live too much 'at ease in Zion.' Although none of us may be found stretched upon 'beds of ivory,' yet we 'eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; chant to the sound of the viol, and tinvent to ourselves instruments 4 of music like David, and are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.' It is too true." ' Yes, indeed, we love to { put far away the evil day,: and many cause the seat of violence to come near.' Men of business are absorbed with debit and credit; men of leisure with idle and sinful amusement; and really the fashionable world seems to have reached the height of human folly. Grotesque styles of d ress are { the rage' of the day; the more singular and absurd the fashion, the more acceptable to the tastes of the many, it appears Zion languishes, for page: 16-17[View Page 16-17]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 16-17 16 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, it is 'the fashion' to complain of coldness and barrenness in religion." "And I am not sure, Brother Thomson," replied Mr. Mason, "that we are altogether innocent of responsibility in these matters. We have not delivered as faithfully as we might have done, the 'whole counsel of God.' We have too often labored to please the fancy of our hearers, instead of striving to arouse their consciences." "That is true," said Mr. Thomson; " and I am also con- vinced that the want of a scriptural catholicity among us has tended to produce alienation among the churches, and infidelity among the people of the world. It is true, we may not be required to unite in all the forms of doctrine; but still, were we to exhibit more sensibly our unanimity in regard to the essentials of religion, the combined influence of Christianity would be much more potent." "I am not aware of any alienation of feeling as regards your Church and mine," said Mr. Mason; "you know that our Baptist friends are usually a barrier to denominational harmony and Christian intercourse. Their peculiar tenets require a system of exclusiveness which, if fully adhered to, would present the maximum of bigotry. By a 'happy inconsistency,' however, they frequently restrain their anathemas, and confine their denunciations of Pedobaptists to the baptismal service and the sacrament of the Supper." "Very true. But you remarked a moment ago, that we, as ministers, were at fault for not delivering the 'whole counsel of God,' instead of striving to entertain and please our congregations. I am not prepared to admit that we do this designedly, that is, with the intention of shirking responsibilities-still, I confess your remark is true. There is still another fault, however, in the ministry of our day, in all the churches." "And what is that, Brother Thomson?" THE MAJESTY O1 TRUTH. 17 "The want of plainness in our sermons. We incline too much to theory and general disquisitions upon the gospel whilst practical preaching is neglected." "I admit the fact; but still, is not the reason fou in the fact that practical preaching is not only unpalatable to offenders, but has a tendency to" place the ministry in the office of public censors " "The very offie which they ought to fill under the com- mission of ambassadors for Christ." ," Yet you know how dependent every preacher of the gospel is upon the sympathy of his congregation, and when we are, in a great measure, cut off from the warm, earnest prayers of spiritual-minded Christians, our own souls are not adequately fed with the word we preach. And certainly it is unpleasant to be continually rebuking the sins of the peo- ple,- unless we see some signs of amendment, and feel that the hearts of the people acknowledge their guilt, whilst their tongues may refuse the confession. If we prepare our ser- mons ever so -well, and have them so fully matured as to leave no room for improvement, yet, without that earnest, responsive flow of feeling in our hearers which is the life of preaching, our hearts become almost as cold as those to whom our message is delivered." "All that is true," replied Mr. Thomson; "but still I am persuaded that a greater'degree of 2plainness in our pulpits would be an improvement. A preacher that sup- poses his congregation to know too much, will be in as great an error as he who gives them credit for too little knowledge of spiritual things. The latter will be tedious and prolix in defining that whhich is plain to every one; but the former will attempt to erect his building before the foundation has been laid: he will place- himself beyond the sympathy of his peo- ple. I know that it requires a great deal of caution, and much knowledge of the mental habits of our people, to page: 18-19[View Page 18-19]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 18-19 strike the middle way; but still I think we might come nearer to it than we often do." "You admit, then, that one cause of the dearth in reli. gion is the estrangement of the pulpit from the people? But you account for this estrangement by laying the blame, in a great measure, at the door of the ministry?" "Precisely so. We miss the sympathy of the people, because, in preaching, we are apt to pursue modes of thought to which the people are not accustomed in every-day life. I am very free to confess that I have often felt myself guilty of this very thing. We forget that our people are not all students of theology--that many of them do not spend one hour in the week in any sort of religious investigation. We address them as if they were companions in our labor-as if they had marked every step of the mental process by which we arrive at the conclusions of an argument. By this method we tax their minds at the expense of their hearts. They have little time to feel, whilst they are striving to understand a sermon." "Indeed, Brother Thomson, I believe you are right. I have always noticed, in my pulpit efforts, a vast difference between preaching to the blacks and preaching to the whites. But I have always thought the reason was in the fact that I felt more at ease, more removed from invidious criticism when preaching to negroes." "And that was the reason, undoubtedly, Brother Mason. No man can preach with energy who is in dread of violating rule in grammar, or propriety in rhetoric. The mind nust be at liberty, if the heart follows with it. This is my ,xperience. When we have a congregation of educated }eople to address; we are afraid to use a commonplace ex. ression, but strive for more elevated terms of thought: hese are as little adapted to arouse the emotional natures of ur hearers, as they are to express the outgushings of out own feelings; and the consequence is, neither party is bene- fited. Or, in other words, we cramp our own emotions, that we may reach the understanding of the educated-but only succeed in missing both their heads and their hearts." "I have no doubt that you are correct. The boast of wisdom and education in the nineteenth century has led us astray. But still it is not to be questioned that the people themselves are devoted to the follies of the world and the acquisition of money." "Just as they have been in all ages. Men are stimulated to activity by a desire to acquire; activity is the means of progress, and thus our wealth of mind and matter is de- veloped. Without such a desire holding its proper place in our economy, we should relapse into barbarism, or at least return to the dark ages of superstition and ignorance. It is the province of religion to keep this principle in check--to use it for great and benevolent ends. But this can only be done by weaning the heart from the love of the world to the gospel of Christ. We can accomplish this by bringing Christian truth to bear upon the heart, and the more simple the means we use, the more success will attend us. I have observed that' the unction of the Holy One' seldom attends the preaching of one who is not natural in his manner, and simple in his illustrations of Divine truth. The heart of a philosopher will be -reached as soon as that of an unlettered African, by the pathos of a little ehild's prayer. If, then, simplicity gives us power with men, it is God's will that we should thus present his truth to our fellow-creatures. These are my views of preaching. Alas! I wish I could say that I have always practiced upon my own theory." "Your views are forcibly illustrated in the sermons of Daniel Baker, of your Church, Mr. Spurgeon, in the Eng- lish 'Baptist, and Mr. Caughey, in the American Methodist Church. Their sermons are plain, forcible, and practical, page: 20-21[View Page 20-21]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 20-21 20 THEOPHLUS WALTONj OR, appealing directly to the conscience, and moving the heart to sympathy and feeling." "Yes, and so we must preach, if we desire to be useful laborers in the vineyard. But we have not reached the subject which I desired to mention. What can we do to promote a revival of religion among us?" "I have been thinking of a union meeting of the three churches here, for the purpose of enlisting all the praying Christians in the place. What do you think of it?" "I have but one objection. So far as I am concerned it has ever been a pleasure to me to unite in such services with my Methodist brethren, but I have found by experience that these 'union' meetings seldom turn out well." "In what respect? You do not mean to say that you have had cause of complaint against the Methodists?" "O no! the utmost harmony and good-fellowship have always characterized our intercourse. But you remember there are three parties to the union you propose." "I understand you. Have you any reason to apprehend difficulty on the part of Brother Ellis?" "Not as to his consenting to unite with us. He will do that, without a question. But-you know his darling idea must have prominence. If he cannot introduce it during the meeting, he only requires one subject at the close, to give a text and a sermon in which we shall all be read out of the Church who have not gone under the water. I am sorry to say so, but I have my reasons." "Do not be uncharitable. He is not an' Old Landmark' man."v "I am not so sure of that. I confess I have my fears. However, if we do our duty, we can leave the consequences to God. Our purpose is good: if he sees fit to become the Dccasion of offence to his brethren, we will not be to blame." "I am sorry that you have any grounds to suspect THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 21 Brother Ellis. I have long sought for one liberal Baptist minister, and I thought I had found him. If he fails me, I shall look for the character no longer." "Well, we ought not to forego an attempt to do good, because some evil may probably grow out of it. We had better risk an excitement on the subject of baptism, than remain as we are." "So I think. If our Baptist brother violates due deco- rum, we can let the world see whose is the fault, and if he becomes pugnacious, why, all that is in it is we can fight it out." "And we need fear nothing. I dislike controversy, but if forced to it, I regard it a Christian duty. When shall we begin?" aNext Sabbath evening. We will hold special services in our church next week, and I shall expect you to preach on Monday night." i Very well. You can call and see Brother Ellis on your way home, and I have no doubt he will agree to it." Mr. Mason took leave of Mr. Thomson, and called upon Mr. Ellis. That gentleman was highly pleased with the proposition, and promised his cordial cooperation. Mr. Ma: son returned home, pondering the subject of the conversa. tion in his mind. page: 22-23[View Page 22-23]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 22-23 22 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, CHAPTER V. THE REVIVAL AND ITS FRUITS. THE three ministers had been engaged several days in zealous and laborious efforts, before any visible effects were produced. At last, however, the union of earnest hearts, and the supplication of faithful Christians, under the influ- ences of the gracious Spirit, began to tell upon the hearts of the unconverted. The altar was crowded with weeping penitents, and many embraced the faith that sweetly works by love and purifies the heart. In the preaching, praying, and exhorting, one could scarcely distinguish the fact that bhe three ministers belonged to different branches of the Dhurch of Christ. There was so much of harmony and )rotherly love, that skeptical persons were forced to exclaim, 'How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell ogether in unity!"No zeal for denominational distinc. ions, no thirst for pulling down the tabernacles of their rethren, found a place in these hearts so wholly filled with he essence of religion--love. No word of offence was ut- Ered-not a sentiment advanced that could have given pain any child of Jesus. It was the golden age of religion in [aryville. The oldest inhabitants had, never known such sneral interest and inquiry among the people. Many men Md been brought under gospel influences who had been :ominently known hitherto as unbelievers or skeptics. Mr. Ellis, the Baptist minister, was unusually liberal THE MA3ESTY Of TRUTH. 23' in his expressions of love and esteem for his dear breth- ren of the sister Churches. He deplored the unfortunate coolness which sometimes seemed to exist between their respective denominations. But now that God had visited them with such abundant measures of grace, he rejoiced in the fact that they were all become children of one Father, and were sitting meekly at the feet of Jesus. The, meeting continued nearly two weeks, and when brought to a close on Wednesday evening, the- announce- ment was made by Mr. Mason, that those persons who had made a profession of religion during the revival ought to feel perfectly free in uniting with that branch of the Church in which they conscientiously believed they could best ad- vance the glory of God. In this matter, however, as they had laid aside all right of interference, or rather did not believe they possessed any, the ministers felt perfectly satis- fied of the competency of each to determine for himself. On Friday, after the close of the meeting, Mr4 Thomson called on the -Methodist minister. "Well, Brother Mason, have you heard the newsY" "No, sir; to what do you refer?" "You know that three young men joined your Church, and two young ladies joined mine, who have been brought up in Baptist families?" "Yes, Mr. Smith's sons and the brother of Dr. Walton have united with us, but what of that?" "Why, nothing more than that we have been publicly charged on the streets with having proselyted them!" "Indeed.! I never uttered a syllable to one of the young men about joining the Methodist Church." "Nor did I mention the subject of joining the Church to the Misses Brown; but nevertheless otur names' are bandied about this very day as if we were hypocrites and deceivers." "Indeed! who has said it?". page: 24-25[View Page 24-25]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 24-25 24 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "Members of the Baptist Church, and I am not sure if Brother Ellis is not at the bottom of it." ("Surely not. Have you conversed with him on the sub. ject?" "Yes, I have just left him. He seems to give credit to the report, notwithstanding I assured him in the most posi- tive manner I could that the story -was untrue." "That is very strange, indeed. Did he give any reasons for his belief?" "None-only that some influence must have been exer- cised over the minds of these persons, else, they would not have repudiated their old associations. He also said, that under such circumstances we need not be surprised to find him defending his Church against such encroachments." "Defending his Church! Is the man deranged? Who has attacked his Church?" "No one. It is another illustration of the fable of the wolf and the lamb. He would gladly have a cause to agi- tate the question of baptism, and as we have given none, he will assume an attack, and plunge into an ostensible defence. You remember what I told you before this meeting began. I had reasons for believing that he would take this course. He deceived me once before. You may not be aware of the fact, but my oldest daughter is a member of his Church. Several years ago, whilst a revival was in progress here, and all were in harmony and peace, my daughter Mary requested to spend the evening with the children of a Baptist neigh- bor. At first I objected, but when Brother Ellis assured me that no subject of Church disputes should be introduced there, I suffered her to go. She was then quite young, and unable to judge for herself in a matter of controversy, and when the subject of baptism was introduced, and their argu. ments presented to her, the child knew no reply to make. I have undoubted evidence from the child herself, that THLE MAJESTY OF TliUTH. 25 Brother Ellis spent two whole hours in showing her the evi- ? dence in favor of baptism by immersion. I know not what other influences they brought to, bear upon her, but they suc- ceeded by these secret intrigues in winning my child from me, and bringing her into their Church. Now, Brother Mason, if she had chosen to do so, without proselyting efforts; I could not have objected to her becoming a Baptist. But to see her forced from me, and enticed into a communion where she cannot approach the table of the Lord with her own parents, is indeed a sore affliction to me." "And have you made no effort to reclaim her??" "' What can I do? I have no doubt that she would gladly return to her proper place, but you know that the Baptists inflict the severest penalty known to the Church upon those who leave them. A public trial and formal excommunica- tion Await any one who withdraws to another Church. Nor is this all:- she must forfeit the friendship of those who were instrumental in proselyting her, and the innumerable an- noyances to which she would be exposed have hitherto pre- vented her from uiniting with us." "And yet these same Baptist preachers tell us that they are advocates of religious liberty! O shame! shame t!" "It is indeed humiliating to make the acknowledgment to the enemies of Christianity, but nevertheless it is palpa- bly true. We have among us a people who, whilst they profess to yield to every one the right of judgment in reli- gious matters, perpetuate the same system in retaining their members that is practiced by the Church of Rome. Their anathemas may not be dreaded as are the -decrees of the Vatican, but it is not their fault that they are not. The compulsion is as absolute, in a moral sense, as if- they had the power to inflict physical pains and penalties. Whatever else it may be, certainly the Baptist Church is not a volun- tary association. The power of choice is for ever alienated 2 page: 26-27[View Page 26-27]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 26-27 26 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, the moment the immersion takes place. Beyond that point, the believer is debarred the right of thinking for himself." "Well, I suppose Brother Ellis will give us a sermon on Baptism next Sabbath." "Of course he will, and handle us without gloves, I have no doubt." "Can we not make it convenient to attend?" C I would do so, but he would claim that we are attempt- ing to intimidate him, and prevent the free expression of his views." "That would be certainly without foundation." "And yet he would make capital of it. He would appeal to the sympathies of the people, and become eloquent over the sufferings of Baptist martyrs, who were the victims of persecution." "Well, let us bide the time, and take our usual course. If he misrepresents us, we shall not fail to hear it." "I think that the better course. In the meantime I must ' endeavor to get at the root of the charges which are being preferred against me. I must meet our session this after- noon, and, as the hour is approaching, I will bid you good day." With these words, Mr. Thomson left the house. THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH.- 2T7 CHAPTER VI. CONSISTENCY IS A JEWEL. BEFORE the Sabbath arrived, it became generally circulated through the community that' the Rev. Mr. Ellis would demonstrate the truth of "believers' baptism" on that day. No little excitement was manifested in various quarters. On the part of the Baptists there was a great anxiety to have the number of subjects swelled as far as possible, until they were led almost to the extremes which they condemned: several young children, not far removed, if at all, from a state of infancy, were among the candidates.. The congregation was very large. The candidates for baptism were placed in a conspicuous position, dressed in white, and seemed to feel that they were the- objects of gene- ral interest. Mr. Ellis, after the usual services, introduced his text, which consisted of two words only: "Follow me." They were the words of Christ to Philip, recorded in the 43d verse of the first chapter of the Gospel by St. John. The necessity of following the commandments of Christ was dwelt upon with considerable emphasis, but with espe- cial reference to the ordinance of baptism. In this case, Christ had given not only a command, but had left us his example. In following one, we followed the other. If we could determine in what manner Christ was baptized, in that manner we ought to be baptized. If we had. the right to alter one of Christ's commandments, we could alter them all. page: 28-29[View Page 28-29]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 28-29 28 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, But Christ was evidently baptized in a river, and it would be utterly absurd to suppose that he was baptized otherwise than by immersion. All lexicographlers agreed that the meaning of baptidzo was to immerse. Indeed, no Pedo- baptist who had any claim to respectability had denied it. The Pedobaptists had acknowledged that it was the ancient mode; and the churches in the first centuries certainly un- derstood what particular act Christ denominated baptism. From all this he argued that, as Christ was baptized by im- mersion, as he commanded immersion, there was no possible way of keeping Christ's commandment without being im- mersed. It was indeed a cross, but a cross which Christ himself had borne; and if men would persecute the be- liever, he had certain evidence therein that he was doing the will of God in submitting to his ordinance. In conclusion, he could not hesitate to affirm, nay, the wrath of God was threatened against him if he did not affirm, that those who resisted the light of reason and revela- tion on this subject, were in positive rebellion against the King of heaven. They impiously resisted a command of God, and could not consequently be innocent. Although he regretted to say so, yet the vindication of the truth required it: the Pedobaptists had laid sacrilegious hands upon the ark of God. They had substituted the commandments of men for those of God, and in so doing revealed the charac- teristics of that Antichrist, who should obstruct the progress of the truth, and afflict the true Church of God. That. there were pious individuals among Pedobaptist societies, he had no doubt; but they were such because they were kept in ignorance of their duty. He had no doubt the day would eome when priestly domination would be overthrown, and the true Church would come forth, '" clear as the sun, -fair as the moon, and terrible as an army with banners." For the ignorant he had the warmest sympathy; but for those who THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 29 kept them hoodwinked, and forced them to rebellion against God, he could not restrain his righteous indignation. Such was the substance of the sermon. Many quotations from Pedobaptist authors were produced, as found in Baptist books, mnd their testimony was represented as decisive, inas- much as it was all against themselves. He would not quote from his own brethren, as they were interested witnesses; but when Pedobaptist writers gave up their cause, it must indeed be hopeless. There could be no mistake as to the impression which this sermon produced. Some, who were members of Pedobaptist churches, were, of course, mortified and insulted. But the Baptists were in ecstasies. The thing was made as clear as the noonday light, and they wondered that any human being who had common sense could resist the truth. With the immersion of the candidates in the church pool, the exer- cises closed, and the people departed to. their homes, some grieving over the capital which had been that day given to the accuser. To deny that Mr. Ellis had shown up his own inconsistency before the world, was impossible. The plain- est mind, not biased by prejudice, could see that he had placed himself in a ridiculous dilemma. He had but a few days since claimed fraternity with those Pedobaptist teach- ers, whom to-day he stigmatized as rebels against God. He had called them brethren, children of the same Father, sitting at the feet of Jesus, in the revival. But at the baptism they were rebels against God, impious mutilators of his word, wilfully blinding the eyes of the people, and thus leading them into grievous sin against God. There were not wanting those who said he had played his part well--having gulled the Methodists and the Presbyterians with pleasant words until he gathered his utmost of the profits, and then ex- hibiting his true character in the native deformity of bigotry. As the reader has seen, the attack was not wholly unex- page: 30-31[View Page 30-31]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 30-31 30 THEOPHLUS WALTON} OR, pected. The two other ministers were prepared to hear the worst news from the advocate of immersion. On the follow- ing day, Mr. Thomson waited upon Mr. Ellis, and asked him, in a friendly way, if he was prepared to establish the wholesale charges he had made on Sabbath. To this, Mr. Ellis replied that he saw no necessity for further proof than that he had already given. A month's controversy, he said, would not set the matter in a clearer light than it was at that moment. If, however, the Pedobaptists desired a contro- versy, he would find a man who would be willing to in- vestigate the subject with any one of them. It must be understood, however, that they, the Pedobaptists, would be held responsible for any excitement on the subject! Mr. Thomson saw the utter impossibility of obtaining justice in this way, and, after informing Mr. Ellis that he would consult with Mr. Mason, he went to the house of the Methodist minister. There he found several persons who united in requesting one or both of the ministers to reply to the sermon of Mr. Ellis. Among this number was Theophilus Walton. Having joined the Methodist Church as the Church of his choice, against the known wishes of his parents, he desired to be baptized by immersion, not only to soften the opposition of his father, who was very rigid in his doctrinal opinions, but also because he believed that mode to be truly scriptural and proper. Inasmuch, however, as he had never heard a Pedobaptist discourse on the subject of baptism, he readily joined with the rest of the company in requesting a reply to Mr. Ellis. "I would not hesitate to preach upon the subject," said Mr. Mason, "but it will require a series of sermons to examine the entire question. My sermons would unques- tionably call out Brother Ellis, and so there might be no end to the replies from the pulpit. I would much prefer to meet him in a regular, public discussion."' THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 31 "But that you will never do," said Mr. Thomson, "for I have just seen him, and he declines entering into a con- troversy. He thinks enough has been said upon the sub- ject!" "Indeed!"' replied Mr. Mason. "Enough has been said' on one side, doubtless; but it is nothing but fair to hear the other." "He states, however, that- if we are anxious to have a de- bate, and will consider ourselves responsible for any excite- ment which may grow out of it, he will find a man who will meet either of us." "Well, well! If that is not the most absurd thing that I ever heard! We responsible for the excitement, when the whole community is already in a ferment, and neither of us has uttered a word about the matter in public! Can this be the man who was so recently full of love and charity toward his dear Christian brethren of all denominations? Truly, the enemies of Christ are sometimes those of his own professed household!" "I cannot see," said Mr. Thomson, "in this state of affairs, any better method to pursue, than a calm exposition of the subject from our pulpits, together with an exposure of the garbled extracts taken from our authors., If we do not notice him, he will claim the victory: if we do, he will cry persecution! Either way, we have to deal with an unfair opponent, upon his own ground." "Let us not be too hasty," said Theophilus. "Perhaps a more charitable construction will be safer in the end." "I beg your pardon, Theophilus," replied Mr. Thomson, "I ought to recall my remark for'Miss Mary's sake." "Not at all," said Theophilus, with embarrassment, "I appreciate your motives, but perhaps you may misunderstand Mr. Ellis. At all events, if you will permit me to do so, I think I can suggest a plan by which the matter may be dis- page: 32-33[View Page 32-33]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 32-33 82 THEOPHLUS WALTON;- OR, posed of, at least to the satisfaction of some of us, who feel deeply interested." "Very well," replied Mr. Thomson, "we shall be glad to hear it." "I propose, then, that you preach a sermon on the subject, and thus reply to the discourse of last Sabbath. In the next place, if it suits Mr. Mason's convenience, I would be glad if he will consent to examine the whole subject, and permit those who desire to do so to attend, and suggest any difficulty which may present itself to their minds. I have many doubts on my own mind, both in regard to the mode and subjects of baptism; and, as I have united with the Methodist Church, I desire to know all that can be said in favor of Pedobaptist views. My reasons for joining the Methodist Church are wholly irrelevant to this subject, it is true, yet I desire to embrace all the doctrines of the Church, if I can do so conscientiously." "I am pleased with your proposition," remarked Mr. Thomson. "It would be unnecessary for both of us to preach a sermon in reply, and as your pastor is in duty bound to give you any light he may have upon the subject, we shall wisely, and I think profitably, divide the labor. You can hear my sermon, and I will propose to my young members who may have any scruples about baptism, to attend your meetings here. If this arrangement meets the concurrence of Brother Mason, we shall have the matter understood." "I shall agree with all my heart to the plan," said Mr. Mason, wand on Thursday evening we can meet at this place. You can say, Theophilus, to any of your friends who desire to do so, that we would be glad to have them join us in this investigation." "1 Before we separate, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, "I desire to place in your hands a work which is being circu- lated among us, and if you will allow me to suggest a THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 88 particular method, I would recommend you to examine its arguments. It is called '^Theodosia Ernest; or, The Hero- ine of Faith.' The spirit of the work seems to be fair, and I regard its positions as very strong, if not impregnable." "Very well. I have never seen the book before, nor have I- heard of it. I will look over it, however, between this and Thursday evening." The company then separated, and left Mr. Mason alone with his books. 2* page: 34-35[View Page 34-35]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 34-35 34 TIIEOPHLUS WALTON;j OR, CHAPTER VII. THE DOUBT REMOVED. THE interview which resulted in so happy an understand- lng between Theophilus Walton and Mary Ellis, as related in Chapter Second, occurred but a short time previous to the events which we have just described. In the quiet confidence of trusting hearts, the young couple were waiting the appointed time for the consumma- tion of their domestic happiness, when the " union meeting" commenced. Theophilus had received at an early age many of the prejudices in favor of his father's Church, particularly a belief in immersion as the only valid mode of Christian bap- tism. But, although he possessed much of the zeal in behalf of this doctrine which distinguishes its adherents, he was nevertheless actuated by noble and generous principles in according all honesty and sincerity to those who differed with him. It did indeed seem ungenerous, not to say un- christian, to him, to exclude those who were acknowledged to be pious people from the table of the Lord; yet he was taught to believe it a fundamental duty, required for the preservation of a pure gospel. Under the tuition of Dr. Thomas, in the State University, he of course attended upon the Baptist ministry. Occasion- ally, however, he visited the Pedobaptist churches, and could not fail to see a marked difference between the preaching of his own and that of other pastors. In his own Church-or THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 8 rather that which he called his own, for he was not then a member of it--there was a continual presentation of the sub- ject of baptism. Scarcely a sermon was preached that did not contain some allusion to the ordinance. He heard many in which Christ was scarcely named; but the favorite theme of baptism was always provided with a passport to the atten- tion of the congregation. In other churches, however, he seldom, if ever, heard it named. Under these circumstances, he could not fail to ask himself the cause of this difference. If our preachers are so certain that immersion is right, thoughlt he, why do they keep continually trying to prove it? Wliydo they keep this subject for ever before the people, if they are not in doubt about it, and fear that the people may be also? Why is there so little effort to enforce the duties of repentance and faith, without which no one can be saved? Surely they are fearful of their position, else, having once established it, they would let it stand upon its own basis. On one occasion he proposed his doubts to Dr. Thomas in a pri- vate conversation. The Doctor, however, quieted his appre- hensions by telling him, that as the greater part of the world was wrong on that subject, they could not have too much light. A' L Line upon line, and precept upon precept,'" said he; "here a little, and there a little.' When men are convinced of their duty in this regard, we can turn our attention with- out distraction to other things." Theophilus was not quite satisfied with this reply; but, as the Doctor was a good man, and the pastor a good man, he would not permit himself to question the propriety of their course. After he returned from college, however, and observed the same course in Mr. Ellis, the pastor in Maryville, he became quite tired of it,- and, for the sake of variety, frequently visited the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches. Satisfied himself as to the correctness of immersion as the mode of baptism, he found it necessary, if he would be entertained page: 36-37[View Page 36-37]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 36-37 86 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, and profited, to visit other churches. Mr. 'Walton, his father, had frequently observed this, and several times gave him to understand that he did not approve of it; and, to keep peace at home, Theophilus for a season desisted. When the "union meeting" commenced, and all parties for the time being were sitting under the same ministry, he felt relieved. Now he could hear the gospel, without a perora- tion about the "river Jordan," the "yielding wave," and {'being buried with Christ in baptism." Now he found the ideal which he had in his mind, of Christian fellowship, fully exhibited. And there, too, on the first evening, he felt a new and lively interest in the subject of religion. .Tho word came to his heart in power: the Spirit of God, by that eloquence which is beyond human excellence, persuaded him to confess his sins and come to Christ. He hesitated long, but finally ventured to the altar for prayer. His ex- ample was followed by many others, and the prayers of the people were answered in their behalf. Mr. Mason was kneel- ing by his side, pressing home to him the great doctrine of justification by simple faith in Jesus, and persuading him to make the venture--to throw himself, sinful as he was, into the arms of redeeming love-when Theophilus felt that strange warming of his heart which was hitherto unknown to him. Hefelt the truth-he believed, he embraced it-- and God's Spirit, in a signal manner, gave him the witness of his acceptance. In the inexpressible rapture of a new- born soul, he clasped Mr. Mason in his arms, and for some moments they rejoiced together. From that hour, Theophi- lus felt a singular attachment for Mr: Mason. He had always respected him, now he loved him. He could not refrain from saying, "Thy God shall be my God;'" and* at another time, after a fearful struggle between his conscience and the known wishes of his parents, he declared, "Thy peo- ple shall be my people." He could not bear the thought of THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH;. 37 excluding him who, under God, was the means of his conver- sion, from the fold of Christ, and he felt that the, privilege of meeting around the table of the Lord, to commemorate his death and sufferings, was the highest known to Christians on earth. Constrained by a sense of duty, he joined the Methodist Church; and although his father met him with a frown, and his mother seemed to treat him coldly, he prayed that God would soften their hearts, and restore him to their confi- dence. Since the hour in which he gave his hand to the minister,. in token of his desire to unite with the people of God, he had had no opportunity to converse with Mary upon the subject. lHe knew that she would have preferred his union with the Baptists, but how far her prejudices might bias her judgment, and what effect his recent course might have upon her affection for him, he could not tell. Once he was re- solved to make known his intention to her, and ascertain her feelings with regard to it. Then, again, he searched his own heart thoroughly, and felt that whatever others might do, there was but one course open to him. His spiritual welfare could only be provided for by obeying the dictates of that conscience which he firmly believed to be enlightened by the Spirit of God. To ask her advice, then, with a previous determination to reject it if it did not coincide with his determination, he felt to be not only useless, but really a mockery. He had never seen any reason to regret his engagement. Mary's affection he could not doubt. He was once possessor of her heart. But now that he had, to some extent at least, changed his religious opinions; now that he felt constrained to oppose his parents, and brook their displeasure, in order to maintain a clear conscience-must he pay the price of her affection too? If his own father could treat him with indif- page: 38-39[View Page 38-39]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 38-39 38 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, ference; if his own mother--sustaining the dearest of all earthly relationships--if she could yield a mother's love, at the command of a rigid sectarianism, what must he expect from Mary? The young, artless child, so full of filial respect, so pliable to a mother's mandates-would she de- sert him too? And if she did, could he make the sacri- fice-silence the inward monitor, and yield his conscience to secure his bride? And if thus secured, purchased at the expense of his religious peace, could he lay his hand upon his heart, and tell his Heavenly Father that he had done-all for his glory? These and similar questions gave Theophilus no little per- plexity. Several timies he determined to have the matter set at rest. He would see Mary, and frankly tell her all. But as often as the possibility of realizing his fears came over his spirit as a dark shadow, he sank down again, nerveless and irresolute. At last, however, resolved to know the worst of his pros- pects, and hastily threading the streets of the village, he called at the house of Mr. Ellis. Mary received him with her usual cordiality, but Theophi- !us fancied that there was something formal and ceremoni- ous in her salutation. "Well now, Mr. Methodist," said Mary, ' I think it was too bad in you to desert your old friends, and join another Church." "I have deserted no one, Mary; I have simply tried to do my duty. Are you going to quarrel with me about that?" "Unless you can prove that it was your duty to join the Methodists. You can't imagine, Theophilus, how father takes it to heart. He says that you are the last man he would have selected as a deserter." ' You pain me, Mary, by talking about deserting the Bap- tists; I never was a member of the Baptist Church. I have O , THE MAJESTY OF TRU/TH. 89 not altered my views upon the subject without earnestly praying to God for direction." "Well, The., I don't mean to reproach you. I said father called you a deserter. I did not-at least, not in earnest. But look here, The., I think Ican convince you that immer- sion is the right way." "No doubt of it, my love: your arguments will always prove strong ones with me." "Come, now, Theophilus, I don't intend that you shall rally me in that manner. I mean to show you how Christ was baptized in the river Jordan--IN the river, don't you see?" "Stop, my little controversialist, I have not disputed that." r Well, then, -that is the way we are to be baptized-we must follow Christ.'" "What! must we go to the river Jordan? Few of us will get that privilege, I think." " Well, no; not in the Jordan, but in a river." Were you baptized in a river, Mary?" "No; that's a fact-I was immersed in the pool in our church; but, then, it's all the same." "Not altogether the same, Mary. If we follow Christ, we must follow him in all particulars-if not in all, why in any?" c' Why, you don't mean to say that baptism is of no im- portance, do you?" "I will tell you what I will say, my love, and that is, that I will not dispute about baptism with you." "And why not with me?" "Because I should not like to be beaten in argument, and I should dislike still more to vanquish you." u"O!O well, since - that is the case, we can have a drawn battle, and save honor on both sides. But mind, The., you must be immersed!" page: 40-41[View Page 40-41]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 40-41 40 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "That I expect to be. But tell me, Mary, do you blame me for joining the Methodist Church?" "Well, not if you felt it to be your duty. I would rather see you a Baptist." "That I expected, of course. You can't tell, Mary, how I have suffered on your account." "On my account! how?" "Why, my love, I was afraid you-might turn against me too." "What, Theophilus! could you doubt me?" "Not if you were left to yourself. But I was afraid that other influences might be brought- to bear upon you, and you might---" "Well, what? what influences, The.?" "Your father, my love. I was afraid he would try to influence you against me." "No, no, Theophilus, my affection for you would remain the same, no matter what Church you may join. I am not such a sectarian as all that." "Then you will be true to me?" "Certainly I will!" "If-your father should oppose you?" "t Yes." "But if he forbids your marriage?" "That would not change me!" "And if my parents turn against me?" "I will be true!" "Heaven bless you, Mary! Though all others forsake me, I shall be happy, if you remain steadfast!" "Never fear, Theophilus; nothing on earth could alienate me from you-no, not even your unkindness and desertion. Affliction, misfortune, persecution, would add sympathy to love, and I should. feel it to be my highest happiness on earth to share your sorrows with you. 'Naught but death, shall part thee and me!" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 41 "That was spoken like a true woman, Mary. And now I feel satisfied. I know not what trials may await me, but I feel that the promise is mine, 'As thy days, so shall thy strength be.' It is enough for me to'have a good conscience toward God, and feel that my best earthly friend will abide with me the day of trial. I am afraid you will encounter your father's opposition. Treat him kindly; honor him as a parent, but---" "Be true to Theophilus! You need not have any doubts: I am yours, now and for ever!" "Farewell, then, Mary, for a season: I will trust you." \ page: 42-43[View Page 42-43]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 42-43 I C- THE WORD "IMMERSE" NOT IN THE BIBLE. THE REASONS GIVEN BY BAPTIST WRITERS CONTRADICTED BY BAPTIST WRITERS. THE BABEL OF BAPTIST BIBLE REVISION OVERTHROWN BY ITS OWN BUILDERS. page: 44-45[View Page 44-45]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 44-45 Y - I O I I O THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 45 FIRST EVENING. ON Thursday evening, Mr. Thomson and quite a number of his members, together with many of the Methodists in Maryville, met at the parsonage. It was soon found that, notwithstanding it Jaad been intended as a private meeting only, the interest manifested in the community would com- pel the party to repair to the church, near by. This they did; and after an earnest prayer to the Giver of light and Source of truth, Mr. Mason informed the assembly that the proposed investigation would proceed in conversational style. It was not, he said, designed to be a public affair, but inasmuch as many were anxious to attend, he was perfectly willing-that all should do so. H have read the book you gave me, Theophilus," said Mr. Mason, "and really I am tempted to smile at your opinion of its merits. That the book is designed to operate upon the minds of the young is very evident, for there are ; methods of argumentation in it which can never satisfy a matured mind. No doubt many a young lady will sympa- ; thize deeply with Theodosia Ernest, and feel that her cross ! was very heavy; and perhaps some will be inclined to follow her example, in breaking off from her own people, and joining the Baptist Church, under the overwhelming a arguments of a schoolmaster, who had no one to oppose him. If this result attends the book, the author will rejoice over :t page: 46-47[View Page 46-47]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 46-47 " THEOPHLLUS WALTON; OR, the hosts of the Pedobaptists. It is a pity, however, that such an earnest seeker of truth as Theodosia should have a man for her guide who does not seem to be very fond of telling the truth. I shall, I think, before we have gone through the subject, give you irrefragable proof of the fact that the Pedobaptist speakers in this Baptist drama tre badly posted up, and Pedobaptist writers generally are grossly misre- presented. "There is one remark I desire to make just here, by way of introduction. It seems to be a favorite point with the Baptists to make the 'eminent Pedobaptist writers' destroy their own system. This is done over and over again. We hear of I concessions of Pedobaptist divines,' 'admissions of learned Pedobaptists,' etc., and out of .these partial, frag- mentary quotations, the party-colored coat of the Baptist Joseph is made. Now I intend, in a great measure, to weigh the arguments of our opponents; but nevertheless I shall show you that the Baptist system can be more readily destroyed by Baptist writers themselves, than perhaps you may at this moment- imagine. If, then, differences of opinion among Pedobaptists on some points considered unimportant are to be gathered up, and passed through a Baptist course of synthesis, let us serve them the same way. They afford us abundant materials. "You have doubtless noticed, Theophilus, that the word immerse is not in the English Bible. Have you ever inquired for the reason?" "Yes, sir. President Thomas, of the State University, who is a Baptist minister, told me that it was excluded by special order of King James, who was the originator of our present translation." "Indeed! President Thomas showed you the order of the king, by which baptidzo was forbidden to be trans- lated?" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 47 "No, sir; I did not say that. I asked him if there was such an order, and he- said the word baptidzo was not men- tioned, but that it was included under the Third Rule, which required the translators to retain the old ecclesiastical words, such as church, which they were forbidden to render congregation." "'But President Thomas certainly showed you his authority for saying that the word baptidzo was then called an old ecclesiastical word; did he not?" "No, sir, he did not." "And did he give you no authority for saying that King James restricted the translators with reference to this word?" "None but that which I mentioned." aBut that surely was no authority at all. Before he can make it a restriction, he must prove that baptidzo was regarded as an ecclesiastical word in the time of King James. If -he does that, he justifies both the king and the translators in retaining it; if he does not prove it, he cannot prove the restriction. That is very clear." "I never took that view of it before; but I confess that one of the two things ought to be done: either prove that two hundred and fifty years ago'baptidzo was believed to be an ecclesiastical word-that is, a word used in a peculiar sense in the New Testament; a sense in some way or other differing from its ordinary use-or else give up the charge against King James." i"Precisely so. And now to show you how Baptists argue about this ordinance, let me read you a remark or two from Richard Fuller, a Baptist minister in Baltimore, in his book on Baptism, page 12: 'We have nothing to do with bapto. The Holy Spirit always, in speaking of the ordi- nance,- uses one single word. That word is baptidzo.' Now is it not clear as day that the Holy Spirit designed to make page: 48-49[View Page 48-49]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 48-49 48 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, a distinction between bapto and baptidzo, if the first is never used to express the ordinance, and the latter is inva- riably used? And if baptidzo was set apart for a peculiar use in the New Testament, how would it be possible to designate that peculiar use if both words were translated immerse?" "I suppose," said Theophilus, "it might be said'in reply, that the sense of the passage would inform the reader where the ordinance was meant, and where it was not." "But that is no answer,' replied Mr. Mason; "for if immerse should be used indiscriminately, sometimes for the ordinance, sometimes to express a secular action, why was not laptidzo used thus in the Greek? Is it not a signifi- cant fact that baptidzo is never used in the New Testament to express an ordinary, secular action? And is this a mere chance, if, as some say, the verbs are identical in meaning? Now I think you will see in a moment, that to translate baptidzo by the same word which is used to render bapto would be positively contrary to the mind of the Spirit, and a profanation of the term. Unless we had an English word which could be appropriated to this ordinance, and to nothing else, there would be a moral necessity for transfer- ring it, to preserve the distinction which was made by God himself! I wish you to bear this distinctly in mind, for we shall have a use for the fact in another part of this investi- gation. But now let me show you the harmony that prevails among Baptist writers themselves on this subject. I will follow Theodosia's advisers, and upset Baptist doctrines by their own doctors. Here is an extract from the Report of the Board of Managers of the 'American and Foreign Bible Society,' a Baptist institution which was formed by some Baptist members of the 'American Bible Society.' They seceded from this latter institution, because it would THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 49 not consent to publish a Baptist Bible in India. Hear these Baptist Managers: 'The evils which have accrued from the introduction of a single word, (viz., baptize,) imposed by foreign influence and the bigotry of an earthly prince, no human mind can compute. Nearly all the Euro- pean versions subsequently made have been conformed to the principles adopted by King James's translators; and thus a word has been perpetuated from generation to gene- ration, the precise meaning of which none but the learned could with certainty ascertain.' " "That is very strong language," said Theophilus; "but stop; let me get a clear view of your argument. What is it you -propose to do now with this quotation?" "I design showing you," said Mr. Mason, "that the assertion that King James required, or advised, the transfer instead of the translation of baptidzo into -English, is posi- tively- untrue, and this I will do by the testimony of a learned Baptist writer. In the second place, I will show you that the word was never translated otherwise than it is now, before the time of King James; this I will do by the versions themselves. In the next place I will show you, by Baptists themselves, that baptize is an English and not a Greek word, and therefore can be understood by others besides the learned,' " "Very well; proceed, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, "I am impatient to see these writers helping the Pedobaptist cause. I have always thought that the Baptists were united on the subject of baptism at least." "And there I will convince you of your mistake. Now, I promised to produce Baptist testimony to prove that King James did not place the word baptize in the Bible: that he did not require the translators to exclude immerse. ' Here is a book entitled 'The Annals of the English Bible,' written by Christopher Anderson, a Baptist in Scotland. That you 8 ! page: 50-51[View Page 50-51]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 50-51 50 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, may read for yourself, take the book, and turn to page 400, section 4." "Shall I begin with the chapter?" asked Theophilus. "Yes, read it distinctly, that we may all hear it." "'Up to the present moment, (the accession of King James,) the history of the English Bible had maintained a character peculiar to itself. Originating with no mere patron, whether royal or noble, the undertaking had never yet been promoted at the personal expense of any such party. But now, in regard to that version of the Sacred Volume which for two hundred and thirty years has been read with delight from generation to generation, and proved the effect- ual means of knowledge, holiness, and joy to millions, it may be imagined by some, as there was now another and a final change, that our history must at last change, or, in other words, forfeit its character. If because that a dedication to James the First of England has been prefixed to many copies, though not to many others; and if because not only historians at their desks, but lawyers at the bar, and even judges on the bench, have made most singular mistakes, it has therefore beqn imagined by any or many that the present version of our Bible was either suggested by this monarch, or that he was at any personal expense in the undertaking, or that he ever issued a single line of author- ity by way of proclamation with respect to it, it is more than time that the delusion should come to an end.'" "Now, what do you think of that, Theophilus?" "I confess, sir, that I am astonished. I have been told repeatedly by President Thomas and various other Baptist preachers, that King James not only originated the present version, but absolutely forbade the translators to render baptidzo in English." "Now turn to page 403, and you will find that he says the translation originated with Dr. John Rainolds, according to the THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 5t account which the king himself gives of the matter. On the same page he says that the fifty-four translators were selected for the king, and not by him. On page 410, he says that the translation was not an affair of government, not a royal undertaking; andthat he has searched in vain to find any evidence that the king paid the translators for their labor. On page 411, he says, quoting Dr. Symonds, that (the present version appears to have made its way, without the interposi- tion of any authority whatsoever.' Now, what do you think of these facts?" a I see no other conclusion, sir, than that King James has been wantonly slandered by no less a body than the Ameri- can Baptist Bible Society-a fact which I see here proved by a Baptist witness." "Let us rather say, Theophilus, that they were grievously mistaken." "I can see no excuse for them,' replied Theophilus. "If they know the facts of the case, as they profess to do, it is slander; if they do not know them, their ignorance is un- pardonable." "Now, having proved that the charge of suppressing the meaning of baptidzo is untrue, so far as King James is con- cerned, let us proceed to examine whether the words immerse and immersion have ever been in the English Bible. There is an English translation, made at Rheims, in 1582, twenty- nine years before King James's. Look at the third chapter of Matthew, and tell us how the word baptidzo is translated." "It reads, in the sixth verse, 'and were baptized of him in Jordan.'" "Very well. It is not immerse there. Now, take this book. It is the English Bible translated at Geneva in 1557, fifty-four years before King James's. Read the bame passage." "And were baptized of him in Jordan.' " page: 52-53[View Page 52-53]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 52-53 t2 THEOPHLTUS WALTON; OR, "We have not got immerse yet. Try again. There is Cranmer's Bible, translated into English in 1539, seventy-two years before King James's. Read the same verse." "It is exactly like the last-' and were baptized of him in Jordan.' " "Let us try again. Here is Tyndale's Bible, translated into English in 1534, seventy-seven years before King James's. Read Matt. iii. 6." "It is exactly like the rest-' and were baptized of him in Jordan.' " "Well, we have four translations, then, agreeing with ours. Now, let us go back to the first complete translation of the Bible into English. It was made by Wiclif, in the year 1380, two hundred and thirty years before King James's. Read the same verse, just as it stands there." "Wait a moment, Mr. Mason, I am not so certain that I can make it out. The spelling is so odd that I can hardly tell what the words are." "Well, spell them, and I will help you to unravel the words." "Well, here is a figure that looks like a new moon." "That is a character used for and.' " "'And thei werun waischen of hym in iordan. " ' 'And they were washed of him in Jordan.' So you see baptidzo is here translated to wash. But, if you read the eleventh verse, you will find both wash and baptize." "The eleventh verse says: 'I wash you in water, into penance; but he that shall come after me is stronger than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.'" "So much for Wiclif, then. Now here is an extract from a MS. in English, made %thout 1340, more -than two hundred and seventy years before King James's. The ex- tract is given verbatim from the first chapter of Mark;- it THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 53 reads as follows: 'John was in ye deserte, baptysande pchande ye baptyme of penaunce in remyssyon of synes.' John was in the desert baptizing, and preaching the baptism of penance in remission of sins." "That's enough, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus. "If the word baptism has been in our language upwards of five hun- dred years, I should think it a positive sin to exclude it now." "But that is not all. I have the evidence here, that until a few Baptists in New York published their Bible, not twenty years ago, if we except Alexander Campbell's New Testa- ment, no version of the Scriptures in English has ever had im- merse substituted for baptize. Do you want any more proof?", "Not a line. The thing is as clear as noonday. But let me ask you whether the English translators have had any precedents for transferring baptidzo into their language?" "Most certainly they had. The Spanish translation, made in 1556, has bautizar. The French, in 1535, has baptiser. The Italian, in 1562, Ihas battezzare. Beza's Latin Testa- ment, in 1556, has baptizo. The Latin Vulgate, in the fourth century, has baptizo. The Basmuric, in the third century, has baptizo. And the Sahidic, in the second cen- tury, has baptizo. Now, then, we have six English and seven foreign versions, all made before the time of King James, in all of which the Greek word baptidzo has been adopted to express the idea of baptism. Now, let me ask you, if the translators of our present version, with thirteen examples before them, some of them reaching back fifteen hundred years before their time, could have done otherwise than use the same word which had, by the concurrence of all ages, expressed the ordinance of baptism?" "I am compelled to admit that they were bound to do as they did. I am satisfied on this point. But you promised to refute the position that the word baptize can only be un- derstood by the learned. I want to hear your evidence." page: 54-55[View Page 54-55]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 54-55 54 THEOPHLUS WALTON; ORB "I have plenty of it. I shall bring Baptist evidence to prove that it is an English word, and therefore can be un- derstood by Englishmen. The Rev. Dr. Dowling, a distin- guished Baptist, says: 'The word baptize is itself, to all intents and purposes, an English word.' The Rev. Dr. Ide, Baptist, says: 'I suppose that baptize is the only English word by which you can translate baptidzo.' The Rev. Dr. Williams, Baptist, says: IOn the score of age, the word baptize is probably some six centuries older, as an English word, than the term immerse, proposed to replace it.' Dr. Ide says, ' It is eight hundred years older, as a native English citizen, than immerse.' Here are three Baptist Doctors of Divinity who affirm that baptize is an English word, and that it has been in the language many years longer than immerse. If they are right, the Managers of the Baptist Bible Society are wrong." At this stage of the proceedings, Mr. Ellis, who was in the audience, arose and addressed Mr. Mason, in a tremulous voice, exhibiting marks of strong excitement: ' Have you quoted those remarks of Baptist ministers from their own writngs, Mr. Mason?" "I have given them, Mr. Ellis, just as I find them in a work written by the Rev. N. H. Lee, of Kentucky. The work is styled, ' Immersionists against the Bible.' " "Is Mr. Lee a Baptist or a Pedobaptist, Mr. Mason?" "He is a Methodist minister, sir." "Ah, I thought so! Pedobaptist testimony!" "Do you doubt the correctness of the extracts, Mr. Ellis?" "It is enough, Mr. Mason, that they are from a Pedobap- fist source." Indeed! and cannot Pedobaptists tell the truth, Mr. Ellis?" "I only wished to know, sir," replied Mr. Ellis, " whether you were using your own books or ours. I am satisfied." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 55 "If you will deny that these extracts are genuine, I will produce the original documents, as I have them here. I was only reading from this little volume because I found it more convenient. Will you step this way, Mr. Ellis, and verify these extracts for your own satisfaction?" "I have told you, Mr. Mason," said:-Mr. Ellis, "that I am satisfied. Why do you trouble me further with it?" "Because you seem desirous of making the impression that the passages I have quoted are not genuine. You must either admit them to be correct, or else compare them with the originals." To this- Mr. Ellis made no reply. For some moments a profound silence prevailed. At last Mr. Mason said: "I take it for granted that you admit the quotations to be correct. Now, Mr. Ellis, will you permit me to ask you a question?" Mr. Ellis was evidently confused. He did not know how to refuse, and yet feared to consent, not knowing the purport of the question. Presently, however, he replied: A I am not here to take part in your discussion, nor yet to be questioned-still, if it is reasonable, I will answer your inquiry." "Certainly, Mr. -Ellis, you have a right to, ask any ques- tion you please, and so has anyother individual present; and as you endeavored to cast suspicion upon my authorities, it is only just and fair that you should acknowledge your mis- take. This I understand you as having done, by waiving the comparison. And now, Mr. Ellis, as you quoted and read several extracts from Pedobaptist writers on Sabbathl last, in your sermon, did you read them out of Pedobaptist or Baptist books?" "What is your object in asking that question?" asked Mr. Ellis. "Simply for'my own information; as I have been in- page: 56-57[View Page 56-57]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 56-57 56 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, formed that several important discrepancies have been dis- covered by several of your hearers." "Then, if other persons are to be brought in to implicate me, I do not feel bound to answer." "Indeed, Mr. Ellis, you owe it to your own reputation to reply. If those quotations were made from your books, their compilers are responsible, but you are convicted of doing the thing which you objected to me just now. If you used the original works, then you are certainly responsible for various omissions, and phrases interpolated, in the quota- tions." This was a disagreeable dilemma for Mr. Ellis. He be- came agitated, and finally withdrew from the church, fol- lowed by several of his friends, without making any reply to the question of Mr. Mason. "Now, my friends," said the Methodist minister, "I feel constrained to say that I deeply regret what has just occurred. I could not feel it in my heart to rejoice over the mortifica- tion of a minister of the gospel. But you will bear me witness that I am justified in all I have said or done on this occasion." "And now, Theophilus, let us return to the matter in hand. We have seen that three Baptist ministers of high position unite in declaring that baptize is an English, and not a Greek word. Now, to find the meaning of an English word, where shall we look?" "In the English dictionary, of course," said Theophilus. "Well, then, examine Webster's definition of the word." {' I remember that very distinctly. He says it means to administer the sacrament of baptism, to christen and then he proceeds to say that this is done by sprinkling and ira- mersion. But was not Webster a Pedobaptist?" "And .what if he was? Do you suppose the best lexico- grapher of our language would risk his fame by falsely defin- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 57 ing a word? But, if you desire it, I will give you some other testimony in proof of the fact that baptize, as an English word, does not mean immersion. Dr. Lynd, a dis- tinguished Baptist minister, says: ' There can be no doubt that this word, (baptize,) in English religious literature, has become generic. It would be time lost, on this occasion, to argue this point with any one whp may be bold enough to deny it. The word is currently used for sprinkling by the largest part of the Christian world.' So says Dr. Lynd. Now let us hear Dr. John L. Waller, one of the greatest men the Baptists ever had in this country. 'It is vain to reason,' says he, I with the individual who seriously insists that baptize means to immerse; or that it has any modal meaning whatever, since the Elizabethan age. We might as well attempt to teach logic to an orangoutang as to impart the laws of language to the man who would gravely dispute a position so self-evident. Such an individual is surely de- livered over to believe a lie." "' Well, well!" exclaimed Theophilus, ("you are getting the Doctors into a difficity, sure enough!" "Yes," replied Mr. Mason, " and I shall get them into worse difficulties still. To complete this testimony, let us hear the Rev. Dr. Cone, President of the Bible Union: Ad Since the English word baptize, according to our standard lexico- graphers, means to sprinkle, pour, asperse, christen, etc., the American Bible Union must come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty.' Here, then, we have three Baptist Doctors who assert that the word baptize does unquestionably mean something else besides immerse. But this is not all. One of the most distinguished Baptist divines declares that it is wrong to preach immersion! Hear Dr. Cone again: 4 He (Dr. Cone) has dared to say from this pulpit again and again, that Christian baptism is immersion only; and that if it is right to preach it, it is 3* page: 58-59[View Page 58-59]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 58-59 58 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, right to print it, to print it in the Bible; for, if it is not in the Bible, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO PREACH IT or print it as a part of God's revealed will to man.' Immersion is not in the Bible, and, therefore, according to Baptist testimony, every minister who preaches it,% as God's revealed will to man, is positively doing wrong!" "You are making a strong case of it, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus. "Let me have those quotations again. I wish to place them side 'by side, that I may look at them at my leisure." Here they are in a TABULAR VIEW." ("I suppose that baptize is the "There can be no doubt that only English word by which you this word, (baptize,) in English can translate baptidzo." "It (bap- literature, has become generic."- tize) is eight hundred years older, Rev. Dr. Lynd. as a native English citizen, than "It is in vain to reason with immerse."-Rev. Dr. Ide. the individual who seriously in- 4' On the score of age, the word sists that baptize means to immerse. baptize is probably some six cen- . . Such an individual is turies older, as an English word, surely delivered over to believe a lie." than the term immerse, proposed --Rev. Dr. John L. Waller. to replace it."-Rev. Dr. Williams. "The English word baptize, ac- "The word baptize is itself, to all cording to our standard lexicogra- intents and purposes, an English phers, means to sprinkle, pour, word."-Rev. Dr. Dowling. asperse, christen, etc."-Rev. Dr. Cone. "IF IT (IMMERSE) IS NOT IN THE BIBLE, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO PREACH IT."-Rev. Dr. Cone. "There you have a record, outside of Pedobaptist autho- rity, proving beyond a question that sprinkling and pouring are valid modes of baptism! The word baptize is positively said to be an English word, and several hundred years older than inmmerse; if this is true, which no sane man, acquainted with the facts, can deny, it is self-evident that English lexi- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTI. 59 cographcrs are the men to give its definition; and we have just seen that Baptist Doctors and standard dictionaries unite in declaring that it is a generic word, having no modal signification whatever, but means to sprinkle and pour water upon the subject, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." "Indeed, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, "I see no escape from such a conclusion. How is it possible that these Bap- tist teachers should war with their own authorities in per- sisting to declare that baptize means only to immerse? I acknowledge that I thought the Pedobaptist writers quoted in 'Theodosia' condemned their own practice, but I find here that Baptist writers exonerate them completely, so that, after all, Pedobaptist ministers are not hypocritical deceivers! What they have yielded to the Baptists is repaid to them with compound interest! But I am satisfied on this branch of the argument. You have mentioned the American and Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Union; now I have contributed several times to both Societies, but I am not certain that I understand precisely their object in setting up an independent organization. Will you give us some light on that subject?" "I have the records here before me-the genuine original records of the Baptists themselves. If any one desires to see them, I will place them in his hands. I am going to give a brief statement of this matter, every particular of which I am ready to prove. Well, then, prior to 1835, all the Protestant denomihations were united in printing and publishing the Bible, in English and in foreign languages. The association was called the 'American Bible Society.' The authorized version, as it is commonly called-that is, King James's translation-was published without note or comment. By this union of Christians in spreading the page: 60-61[View Page 60-61]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 60-61 60 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, word of God, hundreds of thousands of copies were given to the poor and indigent, and numerous translations were made on the basis of our own. This noble institution, which has deserved and still deserves the aid and the benedictions of every Christian in the world, and has been blessed of God in a remarkable manner, had contributed several thousand dollars to the publication of a Bible in the Burmese language. This translation was made by the Rev. Dr. Judson, a Baptist minister, and missionary in Burmah. In 1835, a Mr. Pearce, an English Baptist missionary in India, had pre- pared a translation in the Bengalee tongue, but was refused assistance in printing it by the Calcutta Bible Society, on the ground that he had rendered baptize by a Bengalee word meaning only to immerse. Mr. Pearce thereupon wrote to the American Bible Society, giving a statement of the facts, and desired aid, inasmuch as the Society had patronized Dr. Judson's version, which had rendered the word precisely as he had done!" "Stop, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus; "is this the Dr. Judson who turned Baptist after he had started on his journey to India?" "The very same man," replied Mr. Mason. "And he printed a Baptist Bible in Burmese with the funds of Pedobaptist denominations?" "He certainly did in part, as the Baptists were not very large contributors to the Society." "And did he give no information of the fact to the American Bible Society?" "Not a word." "You astonish me, Mr. Mason," replied Theophilus. "Why, sir, this was downright dishonesty!" Softly, Theophilus; Dr. Judson was regarded as a pious man." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 61 So was Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits; and I have never read any thing about him worse than this pious fraud of the Baptist missionary." "Come, come, Theophilus, let us call it inconsistency. Dr. Judson is highly esteemed among the Baptists of this country." "I cannot help that, Mr. Mason. Truth is truth, and if your statements are correct, Dr. Judson was certainly guilty of something worse than an error of judgment. He knew that the society, as such, was opposed to immersionist translations; and yet, knowing this, he used their money to make one, at the same time concealing the fact from them. If I were a lawyer, and had a client charged with obtaining goods under false pretences, and such evidence was produced in court against him, I should abandon his cause." "I will not pretend to say what I think about Dr. Jud- son's conduct in this matter. It is between him and his God. But here are the facts. But to return. The Ameri- can Bible Society immediately disavowed all connection with the Burmese version, and then some of the Baptist mem- bers, not all of them, immediately withdrew, and formed the American and Foreign Bible Society. Dr. S. H. Cone was elected President. Now let us hear his testimony as to the object of this society. He says: 'The American and Foreign Bible Society was organized to vindicate a principle; and in accordance with this Principle, baptidzo and its cog- nates should be rendered by words signifying immerse, immersion,' etc. This was to be done not only in foreign tongues, but also in English. But, after several years' effort, Dr. Cone and his party pressing the question of printing IMMERSE in the English Bible, the society shrank from their original purpose, and -Dr. Cone seceded again, and, with his followers, formed the 'American Bible Union.' 'The Baptists,' says he, 'twill not allow immerse, immersion, page: 62-63[View Page 62-63]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 62-63 62 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, etc., to have a place in the New Testament.' Therefore he sounded the trumpet, to marshal the Baptist host who were of his opinion, in order to put it there-to PRINT IMMER- SION IN THE BIBLE-to do thatwwhich he charges the Baptist Bible Society with being either ashamed or afraid to do." "Do you mean to say, Mr. Mason, that the Bible Union was formed in order to get immerse in the Bible?" I' I certainly do, Theophilus; and I have here a score of witnesses, all Baptists, to prove the fact." "i Why, Mr. Mason, Mr. Ellis says that there are several denominations-some of them and the majority of them Pedobaptists-engaged in that work." "Mr. Ellis cannot prove that the Bible Union is approved by one Pedobaptist denomination. There may have been individuals concerned in translating and revising, but the whole thing is condemned by Pedobaptists everywhere. Do not misunderstand me. I distinctly assert that-they have never offered to place any liook in the New Testament in the hands of Pedobaptist translators, if the word baptidzo occurs in such book. The whole assertion that Pedobaptists have the liberty to render the word as they please, is absolutely untrue." "Why, Mr. *Mason, I heard Mr. Ellis say the other day that the whole matter was so fairly arranged that he would not be surprised if baptidzo were translated pour or sprinkle, so great was the preponderant of Pedobaptists over Baptists in that society." "Alas! Theophilus, I am at a loss what to say. If Mr. Ellis knows the true condition of the ' Bible Union,' he is without excuse; if he does not, he has been grossly deceived. At all events, it is impossible to prove that with the whole version the Pedobaptists have any thing whatever to do. It is a Baptist society; framed for the purpose of putting immnnerse in the Bible; and has at last been virtually ,i THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 63 dissolved, without having the face to accomplish its designs." "Indeed! Is it abandoned? I gave five dollars toward it not three weeks ago." "You know that Dr. McClay, the most efficient man in the society, who was elected President after Dr. Cone's death, has resigned, confessing that he was disgusted with the Union?" "No, I did not know it." "Well, here is his letter, in a Baptist paper. He charges the society with waste, extravagance, ignorance, and positive dishonesty, or, to say the least, want of candor. He declares that after all their professions of learning and competency for the work, the persons who are engaged in it, with two exceptions only, are positively unqualified for the task of revision." "And this too after being seven years engaged in it? having upwards of forty men in employ?" "That is disputed, Theophilus. Dr. McClay says that there have never been more than twenty-two engaged in revision; and only two of these properly qualified. Finally, a few weets since the whole concern was placed in the hands of two men, where the Bible will doubtless undergo a very harmless inspection. Read this article, pub- lished in the 'Christian Chronicle,' a Baptist paper in Philadelphia." "'Bible Unionism is a failure, and nothing else. Its best friends have deserted it, having no confidence in it. Its translations are simply ludicrous. It has now come to a stand for want of funds, of friends, and confidence in car- rying out its own principles. It has come square up to the word baptidzo, and knows not whether to translate it or not; but death follows in either case. All this is a good reason for placing the work in the hands of Professors Hackett page: 64-65[View Page 64-65]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 64-65 " THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, and Conant, where all will be safe for the next twenty years.' "So you see, Theophilus, that the Baptists themselves dale not print immerse in the English Bible, and conse- quently, as Dr. Cone says, they ought not to preach immer- sion as a part of God's revealed will to man, unless it is in the Bible; every Baptist preacher who does preach it is positively guilty, Baptists themselves being judges." "That is certainly a just conclusion, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus. "Now, I have one word more to ask you about the matter of translating. They tell me that King 'James would not allow any Baptsts to be placed among the translators of our present version. Is that true?" "Not a word of it. We have already seen that the trans- lators, so far from being selected by, were really independent of, the king's authority. With all his pedantry, James was too much addicted to hunting, and similar sports, to occupy his mind with any thing appertaining to the Bible. He had, besides, something else to do than to look after the trans- lators. His kingdom was not in the most peaceful condition, and when he met the Hampdon Court Conference, where the revision was determined upon, he had not been legally recog: nized as King of England. That conference could not be, therefore, an official body. But, as we have seen all that established by Baptist testimony, we need not repeat it. Now, as to the question whether there were any Baptists among the translators, let me first ask you what you mean .by a Baptist 2" "Well, let me see; I suppose a man who has been baptized on profession of his faith by immersion is a Baptist." "Is that all that it takes to make a Baptist? If so, Mr. Sims, who is- a member of the Methodist Church, in Mary- ville, is a Baptist; for he was baptized precisely in the man. ner you describe." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 65 , Well, no; I suppose he must reject infant baptism, also." "Would he then be a Baptist? Would Mr. Ellis call Mr. Sims a Baptist if he should avow opposition to infant baptism? Would he commune with him at-the Lord's Table?" {' No, sir, I suppose not." "Well, then, to be a Baptist, is to belong to a Baptist church, is it not?" "Yes, sir; that strikes at the root of the matter." "Well, then, with that definition of the word Baptist, I acknowledge that there was not a single one among the translators, and for the best of reasons., Thre was not a Baptist in England when our version of the Bible was made. Of course, if they were not there, they could not be ap- pointed!" {' You surprise me, Mr. Mason! No Baptists in England when our translation was made? Why, sir, Mr. Ellis has wept in the pulpit over the martyrdom of Baptists in the time of Queen Elizabeth!" 'So he may have done. Tears have frequently been spent about imaginary evils. Mr. Ellis is not- the first to weep over fictions." "But where do you get the proof to support your decla- ration?" ' Where do I get the proof? Where should I get it, if not from the Baptists themselves? Their historians cer- tainly ought to tell the truth in their own defence. I could show you proofs from Dr. Wall, and other Pedobaptists; but I prefer to use their own histories. Here is Crosby's History of the English Baptists. Turn to pages 148, 149, vol. i*, and read the place I have marked." "'Their (the Baptists') first distinct-church in our na. tion was formed out of the Independent Church in London, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob was pastor from 1616 to 1624, page: 66-67[View Page 66-67]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 66-67 " THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, when he went to Virginia, and Mr. John Lathrop was chosen in his room. But nine years after, several persons in the society, finding that the congregation kept not to their first principles of separation; and being also convinced that bap- tism was nlot to be administered to infants, but such only as professed faith in Christ, desired and obtained liberty, and formed themselves into a distinct church, September 12, 1633, having Mr. John Spisbury for their minister. " "' Then, it is very clear, Theophilus, that if the first Baptist church in England was formed in 1633, and a man must be- long to the Baptist Church, otherwise he is not a Baptist, King James* could not appoint men from a Church that had no existence in his realm! This is a final answer to all complaints on that score." "I give it up, Mr. Mason. The case is made out from their own witnesses." "Nor is that all, Theophilus. Here is a curious little book, published in the year 1689, in London. It is the Baptist 'Confession of Faith.' "A Baptist 'Confession of Faith!' Why, Mr. Mason, I thought the Bible was their Confession of Faith!"-- ' There you have been misled again. This is the genuine book itself, published by order of a Baptist Assembly of Messengers and Elders from One Hundred Churches in Eng- land and Wales. It is quite an old book, and as the authors of it were living in the times of which-they write, they can- not be in error. Look on page 3 of the preface to 'The Judicious Reader,' and you will find, that after ten years' existence in England, they had gathered only seven congre- gations in London; and being, as they say, misrepresented in their doctrines, these seven congregations put forth, in the year 1643, a Confession of Faith, in which they tell us they have conformed as far as possible to the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly. This original Confes- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 67 sion was reconsidered, and put forth again in 1689, in the form you see it -there. Now, the fact I wish to call your attention to is this: In 1643, they had but seven congrega- tions in England, ten years after their origin, and forty years after the Bible was translated by King James's translators. Suppose that these seven congregations had been in exist- ence when the version was made: do you suppose that there was one man among them sufficiently learned in Greek and Hebrew to become a translator? If now, in the nineteenth century, when they have colleges, ana universities, and scholars by the thousand, they can only gather, with all their zeal and money, TWO MEN who are considered by themselves qualified for the task, is it not preposterous to suppose that they had such men then, when there was not a Baptist col- lege in the world?" "It cannot be denied, Mr. Mason. All the talk about Baptists being shut out, and having no hand in the matter, is mere gammon. I am convinced of that." "Well, then, let us, as the lawyers say, susn up our argu- ment. It is growing late, and perhaps some of the audience are weary. We have proved, 1st. That there was no Bap- tist church in England until the year 1633. Therefore, no matter how the version of 1611 rendered the word baptidwzo the translators could not possibly have anyweference to Bap- tist views on the subject, inasmuch as they could not wish to oppose the opinion of a Church which had no existence. 2d. We have proved, by examining six different transla- tions, reaching back to 1340, that the word never had been translated immerse prior to the time of King James. Therefore, from first to last, during a period of more than five hundred years, the word baptize has alone been consid- ered the equivalent of baptidzo. 3d. We have proved by Baptist testimony that baptize is the only word in the Eng- lish language that will express the meaning of baptidzo; page: 68-69[View Page 68-69]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 68-69 68 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, that it is six or eight hundred years older than immerse; and that, in English, it is a generic word, meaning to sprinkle, pours and christen. 4th. We have proved, by the same testimony, that the Baptists have attempted to make a new version of the Bible in the nineteenth century for the purpose of putting immersion in it; that they have signally failed, having lost the confidence of their own friends, and finally yielded the whole matter to individual action. There- fore, having acknowledged that the Bible does not prove or require immersion as it is, and failing to make it what they want it, they have, to all intents and purposes, abandoned their ground, and given up the question at issue. Thus the builders of the modern Babel, in attempting to wrest the word of God from the hands of their fellow-Christians, have destroyed themselves instead of injuring the Pedobap- tist world. "Here I might be content to leave the subject. But, inas- much as we have set out with the purpose of examining the whole ground, we shall proceed to other branches of the in- quiry, and see that in the field of classical criticism they have committed logical suicide. We shall continue our meetings for several evenings more; and I wish it to be distinctly under- stood, that all persons are desired to propound any question, or state any difficulty which may arise in their minds. We are seeking the truth, to know what the will of God is con- cerning us, and in such important matters candor and frank- ness should always characterize our movements." The audience was then dismissed. Many of them had heard that which brought confusion and dismay into their hearts. Honestly persuaded of the rectitude of their prin- ciples, they found that they had heard but one side of a question, which had determined their Christian character and position. Among the audience there were doubtless those who had determined to reject any amount and any TEHE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 69 kind of evidence, however distinct and truthful it might be, if that evidence made against their established prejudices. For these persons argument is useless, logic is vain. But there were others, who, while mortified at the conduct of their pastor, Mr. Ellis, and humbled in their denominational pride, were still willing to hear the investigation through, even if they should be called upon to abandon some of their present opinions. , *i * page: 70-71[View Page 70-71]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 70-71 70 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, CHAPTER VIII. JOB AND HS COMF ORTERS. EARLY on Friday morning, after the conversation which we have just detailed, quite a number of persons assembled at the study of the Baptist pastor. An air of anxiety and perplexity was perceptible on everycountenance. Mr. Ellis seemed to be in deep distress, and every effort to rally him- self, in order to throw off the effects of the last night's dis- comfiture, only resulted in deeper dejection. "I will tell you, brethren," said Mr. Ellis, "it is vain to reason with that Methodist circuit-rider; he must know that he is perverting the truth, and persecuting our people. I am heartily sorry that I put my foot inside of that mise- rable meeting-house." "Didn't I tell you how it would be?" exclaimed Deacon Smith-a small man, with a low forehead, heavy eyebrows, and, withal, a very unprepossessing countenance. "T That's what you get for abandoning the Old Landmark doctrine. If you acknowledge these rantizers to be Christian ministers, you may expect to get paid in just such a way as this. You might as welr give up our cause at once'if you preach with them, or suffer them to enter your pulpit." "I did all for the best, Brother Smith," replied Mr. Ellis; "I could not well refuse to preach among them, without injuring our cause, but I never dreamed that things would come to this pass. I had not the least idea that they would THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 71 take any of our people from us. Alas! have I been laboring in vain to indoctrinate my people for the last ten years? Five lost at one sweep, and none gained from them in return." "It is too bad," said Deacon Smith; but I knew it-I told you how it would be. It's turned out exactly as I said ;" and the deacon shrugged his shoulders, and looked as if it did him good to know that he could prophesy, even if the fulfilment resulted in his own injury. "I am in favor of holding a meeting, Brother Ellis, and instructing our pastor not to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as ministers of Christ; we ought to shut them out of every gospel Church in the land. The time has come, sir, for us to take high ground on that subject. I say high ground, sir-I mean gospel ground, Scripture ground on the subject. We ought to let the world know that we are not the poor, despised people they represent us to be; we ought to make them feel that we are the Churches of Christ, and that they have no right to expect any fellowship with us, whilst they hold to such monstrous errors as rantizing infants, and sprinkling water for baptism." Mr. Ellis did not seem to hear the deacon's suggestion. He sat in his easy-chair, with his hand supporting his head, and seemed almost lost in deep but painful thought. For some moments there was an unbroken silence in the room. Deacon Smith took down a well-worn copy of the "Iron Wheel," his favorite text-book, and appeared to be searching for a passage in proof of the propriety, of the course he proposed. "I'll tell you, brethren," said he, "here's the document. This is the book for the times. If we would only follow Brother Graves, we would soon see the vineyard of the Lord flourishing." "I think we have followed 'Brother Graves' alreadyto the very brink of ruin!" exclaimed Mr. Barbour, a young $** page: 72-73[View Page 72-73]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 72-73 72 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, man, whose intelligent eye kindled to unwonted indignation at the deacon's proposition. "I think we have followed 'Brother Graves' in his attempts to overthrow Pedobaptist Churches, until our efforts are likely to recoil upon us in destructive force." "Well, Brother Barbour, I could hardly expect any thing more of you," said the deacon; "I always knew that you were a soft-shell." "And I knew your shell was very hard, Deacon," replied Mr. Barbour, "but I did not expect you to counsel us to do ourselves more harm, when everybody sees that we have brought our troubles on ourselves." "How is that?" said Mr. Ellis, starting up from his revery. "I didn't understand that remark of yours." "I said, Brother Ellis," continued Mr. Barbour, " that we had brought our present troubles upon ourselves." "How so, brother?" "Why, sir, by disturbing the peace of the community on the subject of baptism, when there was no occasion for it. We have wantonly provoked the Pedobaptists into retalia- tion, and I firmly believe we are accountable for whatever injury we may suffer." "That is, you mean I am accountable for these difficul- ties?" "Not altogether, Brother Ellis. I blame you for preach- ing that sermon; but I blame others for advising and encouraging you to do it. There was no necessity for it; no good could have been done by it; and we see much harm has been done by such an imprudent course." "Ought we not to preach the doctrines we believe, Bro- ther Barbour?" "Yes, when occasion requires; but in this case you must have known that it was impossible to accomplish any thing." $* THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 73 "Well, mine is a hard case," said Mr. Ellis; "to be rebuked by my own members for doing what I supposed to be my duty, is too hard." "Not worse than to have the feelings of your members mortified by such blunders as you made last night, Brother Ellis." 'And what blunder did Hmake last night, Brother Bar- bour?" "Why, you interrupted Mr. Mason, in order to prove that he was misrepresenting Baptist writers; and then when he told you he had the original documents, you refused to compare them." O, never mind! I will show up his dishonesty at the proper time." "But of all times in the world, Brother Ellis, that was the one. If you could have exposed him there, our triumph would have been complete. But you let the occasion slip, and now I believe no one thinks you can set the matter right." "No, indeed," said Mr. Newton, an elderly gentleman, who had been quietly listening to the conversation. "You will never set that matter right; for the very good reason that he read the quotations correctly. Drs. Ide, Williams, and others have said precisely what he read. There is no use to deny that." "That alters the case," said Mr. Barbour; " but it makes Brother Ellis's blunder more fatal. If Mr. Mason was doing us no injustice, Brother Ellis's attempt to make the people believe that he was doing so, adds unfairness to error. But that is not all. Why did you refuse to answer his question, Brother Ellis-?" "What-about the quotations I read in my sermon?" "Yes, sir." "Why, the fact is, because I did read my extracts out of 4 page: 74-75[View Page 74-75]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 74-75 74 THEOPHLUS WALTON; ORK a Baptist book; but I honestly thought they were cor- rect." "Why didn't you say so, then? A frank acknowledg- ment would have done you no harm." "But then I would have acknowledged that I had done the very thing I was trying to prove against him." "Suppose you had. Even that would be better than the present situation of the matter. As it is now, the people think you have done something very bad, they scarcely know what. You may rest assured that all but your personal friends will put the worst construction upon it, and charge you with wilful dishonesty." "I am very sorry," said Mr. Ellis. ' O0, how I wish I had not preached that sermon!" -"And well you may be," remarked Mr. Newton; " for if it has not got us into a hornet's nest, I am no judge." C"Well, have you done tormenting me, gentlemen? Have I made any more blunders?" inquired Mr. Ellis, with an air of assumed indifference. "Really, I have a set of Job's comforters to-day." "I wish that you may make as good an end of it as Job did," said Mr. Newton. "I have a little matter I wish to have explained, Brother Ellis," said Mr. Lewis, a young man who had been a mem- ber of the Church but a few months, and had been proselyted from the Presbyterians. "You know, Brother Ellis," he continued, "that the agent of the Bible Union was along here a few weeks ago T" Yesj sir, I know that-Elder D.,: of New York. Well--" a He preached on the subject of revising the Bible, and took up a collection to aid the Union." "{ So he did.. Proceed." And H gave -him ten dollars." t Very well. What of it?" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH* 75 "Why, there is this about it. I work hard for my money, -Brother Ellis, and I don't like to be swindled out of it." i - "Who talks about swindling you out of your money, Brother Lewis?" -4 Why, sir, if this article in the paper is true, that agent swindled me out of my money. Mr. Mason said last night that the Union was 'blown up,' and- that Dr. Maclay had abandoned it. After the meeting adjourned, I went to him, and asked him where he got that information. .He showed me a pamphlet from Dr. Maclay, and lent me this paper containing several extracts from the pamphlet." "That's the very thing I showed you in- the Enquirer, Brother Ellis," said Deacon Smith; i' you recollect it, don't you?" "You showed Dr. Maclay's publication to Brother Ellis, BrotherSmith, when?" "Well, it has been some time ago-directly after it came out." "And was it before the agent was here?" "O, yes; two or three weeks before." "And you knew all these facts stated by Dr. Maclay, Brother Ellis, without'letting the people understand what they were doing when they paid their money to the so- ciety?" "I don't see that Dr. Maclay has said any thing very bad about the Bible Union. He simply differed- with them about some of their arrangements." "Well, Brother Ellis, let us see whether it was only a mere matter of= difference or not. After stating that ho began to make investigations into the state of the Uni4np Dr. Maclay says: ' I then for the first time uascertained who the revisers were; and found, to my astonishment,- that instead of there havinp been about forty individuals actually, page: 76-77[View Page 76-77]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 76-77 76 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, engaged in translating the New Testament, as I had under. stood from the Secretary, and often stated, there had not been more than twenty-three or twenty-four. Instead of all these being competent scholars, as I had supposed, and as the plan of the Union required, and as is often reiterated in the official documents of the Union, some of them unques- tionably lacked the essential qualifications of a translator.' "Now, Brother Ellis, you know that Elder D., the agent, said there were over forty of the first scholars of the age, selected from all denominations, engaged in the work. But Dr. Maclay goes farther, and accuses the society of szquan- dering the money of their patrons. He says: "C But I found myself unable to remedy the existing grow- ing evils. My best endeavors, in the whole affair, instead of being met with candor and frankness, have been captiously and obstinately thwarted. "' Being thus compelled to relinquish all hope of reform, I was constrained some time ago to withdraw from the meet- ings of the Board. It only remains for me, therefore, to take care that I be not a party to wrongs which I have in vain sought to remedy. "'Being fully satisfied, from personal examination, that the funds which I have done so much to collect, and which I know have been most sacredly devoted, by the rich and poor, to one of the holiest purposes of Christian charity, are being squandered; that a vast amount is expended for operations remote from the one great object of the institu- tion; that men are employed to translate the word of God who are not qualified for the work; that unwarrantable translations have been made, which, if published, must bring into discredit the most precious doctrines of my faith, sap the fundamental truths of Christianity, as indubitably revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and shake the confidence of the people in the canon of the sacred writings . THE MAJESTY OF, TRUTH. " 'And having now, after half a century spent in the ministry of the gospel, devoted all my strength and influence, for the last six years, to inspire the public mind with confi- dence in what seemed to me the greatest enterprise of the age-having induced thousands throughout the United States, in the British Provinces and Europe, to become self- sacrificing supporters of the American Bible Union-'and being myself at last compelled, by the hopeless mismanage- ment of that institution, which is barely outlined in this letter, to abandon the enterprise, I feel bound, as an honest man and a Christian, to answer the inquiries which, are coming to me from every quarter, by frankly stating, once for all, the reasons of my action.'" "Now, Brother Ellis, what do you think of that?" "Well, I think Dr. Maclay is mistaken, that's all." "But I differ with you, Mr. Ellis; for if you can possess such information as that and permit the money of your people to be taken from them under false pretences, all I have to say is----" "Is what?" asked Mr. Ellis. "Well, sir, all that I will say is, that you will not get me into a like difficulty again; for if this is the way you Bap- tists manage your affairs, I give you notice that I mean to withdraw from you." "Well, if it comes to that, Mr. Lewis," said the pastor, "I must inform you that we don't allow our members to withdraw." "Then, sir, I will withdraw whether you allow it or not." a Come, brethren,"'. said Mr. Newton, "don't indulge in hasty speeches. Think calmly about the matter, Brother Lewis ;' perhaps you will not blame Brother Ellis." "I am not excited, Brother Newton, but I have resolved to leave the Church," said MrLewis, and return to my old home, where I shall receive better treatment." - ( page: 78-79[View Page 78-79]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 78-79 78 THEOPHLUS. WALTON; OR, "If you do, we will expel you,' Said Mr. Ellis. "Very well, Mr. Ellis, expel as much as you please; my mind is made up, sir. Good morning." - ", There now!" exclaimed Mr. Barbour, " "we have lost a member, and one of the best we had!" "We may set that down to the account of the Bible Union!" said Mr. Newton. "I wonder that you didn't say to my account," said Mr. Ellis. "He would have been more than half right if he had," replied Mr. Barbour. "Well, it don't matter much," said the pastor, taking his hat, and approaching the door. {'Lewis never was much of a Baptist any way!" "He was good enough as long as he stayed with us," whispered Mr. Barbour to Mr. Newton. "But now that he is gone, he is good for nothing So we go. Good day, Brother Newton." Mr. Ellis disappeared around the next corner, and the company separated. THE -MK-AJESTY 0V TRUJT1. 79 X, -CHAPTER IX.' CARRIE MASON'S REVIEW OF "ITHEODOSIA ERNEST.! ON Friday afternoon Theophilus called on Mary -Ellis, and asked if she would like to attend a little meeting to be held at the house of a neighbor. "I am authorized to invite any young gentleman or lady who may be disposed to go," said Theophilus, 'and I thought perhaps you would like to be there. You are acquainted with Carrie Mason, I believe, are you not, Miss Mary?" a Very well, Theophilus; she is an old friend of mine; that is, she has been quite intimate with me since her father was first stationed here. You know lie has been appointed to this place twice. I have a high opinion of Carrie; she is quite a pretty girl, and very intelligent. But what has she to do with the meeting, Theophilus?' "Why, you-know the young people partake of the feeling extant among the older persons in the community, and we are to -have a sort of religious discussion this afternoon." "Indeed! And who are the parties? -- "Why,. Carrie Mason and 'Theodosia Ernest I Carrie has offered to review Theodosia, and we are going to have as many of the young converts there as wish to attend." "'Then you are going, to-set Carrie to proselyting, are you? I don't think I can attend." '"No, Mary, there will be no ' proselyting' done; our object t page: 80-81[View Page 80-81]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 80-81 80 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, is to inquire after the truth, and we want all the help we can get. Besides, the Misses Parker will be there, and other Baptist ladies, to see that every thing is fairly transacted." "Well, well, I think the Methodists and Presbyterians are engaging in a fine business now. - When young girls turn to be controversialists, I think it is time for the preachers to stop." "You forget, Mary, how readily you proposed to convince me that immersion was right, the other day. You have set the girls an example in the practice of disputation."- "O, but I was only in sport, The.; besides, there was no one present but you." "Well, Mary, I think it very proper when a young lady's experience is published to the world, and her argu- ments made the vehicle of proselyting efforts, that those arguments should be answered by another lady--that is, if Carrie can do so. But come, can't you go? There is no impropriety in it. Nobody will be there but young persons." "' I believe I will go, The., if only to oblige you. But I tell you now, I think Carrie will have the hardest task she ever attempted." "Well, let us go and see." As they were on their way to the house of Mr. Riley, where the party was to assemble, Mary endeavored to per- suade Theophilus to have no more to do with these meetings at the church. She thought that he could satisfy himself about the subject of baptism without making so much dis- play. He replied that the meetings were not intended for his benefit alone, and that inasmuch as he had commenced the investigation with Mr. Mason, it would not be proper, even if he desired to do so, to abandon it.' "Besides, he added, " truth can never suffer by being canvassed, particu- larly where any unfairness could be at once detected- and exposed." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 81 Arrived at the house, they found about a dozen persons assembled, who' seemed to represent the three Churches very fairly. The most pleasing feature connected with the meeting was, that all present, (with the exception of Miss Mason, had been brought up in the same community, and were on the most agreeable terms. The utmost friendship exist- ing between them, was a pledge of harmony and good feel- ing, so that they were not likely to abuse an opportunity for seeking truth, by making it an occasion of contention and strife. "I understand that you have promised to review Theo- dosia for us, Miss Mason," said Theophilus,-"and we hope that you are prepared to fulfil your promise." "I did promise to look over the book with a friend or two, Mr. Walton," replied Carrie, " but I did not expect to have so large an audience. I am hardly qualified to enter- tain you, I am afraid. But if you insist, I will give some of my objections to the book, upon two or three conditions." "We shall be ready to grant any conditions you require," replied Theophilus. "Well, in the first place," said Carrie, "I wish all present to assure me that they will take no offence at any thing I may say; with this explanation, that I do not intend to say any thing with a design to wound the feelings of any one. Will you agree to this?i' "Of course we will," was the reply. In the- next place, then," continued Carrie, a if I should be tempted to use a harsh- expression, I wish you to stop me right there, and I will take it back." "-I will answer for all," said Theophilus; ( we will agree to that, too" "In the last place, then," continued Carrie, SKI wish every one to understand that the objections I am going to 4* -- - page: 82-83[View Page 82-83]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 82-83 82 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, offer are to this book, Theodosia Ernest, and not to the Baptist Church, here or elsewhere." "We understand that, Miss Masons replied Theophilus, "and I do not Jhesitate to say that we shall all part as good friends as when we met together." "Very well," said Carrie. "The first objection which I have to urge against Theodosia is, that it is not a candid book. The author's apparent design is to set forth the strong arguments of his Church, and show their superiority over those of the Pedobaptist Churches. To do this as it ought to be done, he should have placed the strongest argu- ments of the Pedobaptists in the mouths of their advocates. Instead of this, however, he makes a grave Presbyterian minister utter language which, to say the least of it, is alto- gether out of character. The minister's ignorance of the subject which he attempts to argue, if it is not intended as a reproach to the denomination, is nevertheless a blemish in the book. "Another objection to the book is the singular character given to Theodosia. She appears to have grown up to be quite a woman before she ever saw anybody immersed. And, as a matter of course, she had the benefit of Presbyte- rian instruction on the subject of baptism, as well as other points of doctrine. Yet, the very first time that she sees a person immersed, she expresses herself precisely in the lan- guage of a full-grown Baptist. Though she had been taught that pouring, sprinkling, and immersion were all modes of baptism, no sooner does she see immersion performed than she comes to the conclusion that, if immersion is baptism, pouring or sprinkling is not." '.I noticed that when I first read the book," remarked Alice Brown; "and I thought it was rather strange lan- guage for a Presbyterian." . "Indeed it is, Alice," replied Carrie; "for if I under- THE MA-TESTY OF TRUTH. 83 stand anything about the subject, the author assumes that to be true which is the main point of the controversy, that is, that there is but one mode of Christian baptism. To make Theodosia entertain this opinion is, in a word, to deny that she ever was a Presbyterian. And yet, if there was no conversion from the Presbyterian to the Baptist Church, the- book is altogether without point. To make this a little plainer, let us suppose that Theodosia, whilst a member of the Presbyterian Church, believed that there could be but one mode of baptism: that mode, as generally practiced among Presbyterians, must be sprinkling. Now, if she thought sprinkling was the only mode of baptism, of course she unchurched all the Baptists. But this we know the Presbyterians do not, but grant that they are baptized validly. "We find Theodosia, then, a Baptist to all intents and purposes at the very commencement of the book, and her subsequent history is only an effort to build her up in her Baptist faith. If the author had said this, no matter how much we might regret her meeting with such poor advocates of Pedobaptism, we could expect nothing more of Theo- dosia than to see her a confirmed Baptist at the end of the volume. "But this author, I contend, shows a want of candor, in making Theodosia surrender the main question in dispute without argument, without' help, without reasoning of any kind, as if the mere seeing a person immersed was enough to settle the controversy, and decide a contest of ages, by the light of nature." "But let me ask you, Carrie," said Alie' Parker, " if it is not reasonable to suppose that seeinig two things performed so entirely distinct as sprinkling and immersion, would not be sufficient to convince the 'common sense of Theoddsia that they could not both be true baptism?" page: 84-85[View Page 84-85]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 84-85 84 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR', "No doubt it would be enough to convince the common sense of a Baptist, Alice," replied Carrie; "but there would not be the slightest necessity for such an impression upon a Presbyterian or Pedobaptist mind. That thing which you call common sense is very difficult to define. Your com- mon sense teaches you that exclusive immersion is right; and therefore nothing else is baptism. At the same time, however, my common sense teaches me that exclusive immer- sion is wrong, and that the belief of it is productive of much harm to the cause of God. So you see common sense, that vague, indefinite thing, will not settle the ques- tion. "But there are other points of importance in the work to which I would call your attention, in illustration of the fact that it is not a candid book. If the author had intended to deal fairly with Presbyterians, he would have selected at least fair specimens of piety and intelligence to represent them. I have said that Mr. Johnson, the Presby- terian minister, is exhibited as an utterly ignorant advocate of the Pedobaptist cause, whilst the Baptist schoolmaster manages his side with skill and ability. Now, my friends, I think it not impossible by any means to find a Baptist schoolmaster who is a better scholar than a Presbyterian minister, but I think such a case would be allowed by all to be the exception, not the rule. To make his triumph worthy of the name,- a disputant will always select 'a foeman worthy of his steel.' "In regard to the question of piety, too, Theodosia's mother is not a fair specimen of Presbyterians. She is represented as an unconverted woman, who was brought up in the Church, and had nothing further to do-in order to make her a good Presbyterian than: to go to the Lord's table. So far as I am able to judge, Baptists have no advantage over Presbyterians on the score of piety. It is unfair, thei, to THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH . 85 select a person as a representative of a particular virtue who is wholly or partially destitute of that virtue. "The same remark will apply to Mr. Percy, the friend and lover of Theodosia. He, too, is an unconverted man, although regarded as a 'most excellent member' of the CPresbyterian Society' by his brethren: as if we are to acknowledge that piety is less necessary to constitute a good Presbyterian than a good Baptist. Now I object to this way of treating our neighbors, and I must -be permitted to say that it comes very near violating, if it does not absolutely violate, the Ninth Commandment-- Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.' "Edwin Ernest, the brother of Theodosia, is another character that speaks either unlike one of his years, or else one who had been subjected to a different course of training. After asking his mother whether he had ever been bap- tized, Edwin speaks as follows: 'One minister takes a per- son down into the water, and dips her under it; another stands on the dry floor of the church, before the pulpit, and sprinkles a few drops into, her face; another pours a little stream upon her head. Now, anybody can see that they do three different things; and if each of them is baptism, then there must be three baptisms.' "Now this sort of reasoning bears the Baptist stamp, and I want to show you here how fallacious it is. If Edwin had observed matters in the schoolhouse, he would-have seen very frequently illustrated that there are, many modes of doing the same thing. For instance, one of the scholars reads his lesson to his teacher-in that case he uses his eyes, his mouth, and his brain or mind: this is evidently reading. But at the same time another boy, in a different part of the room, reads his lesson ; but reads it, as we -say, to himself, that is, he only uses his brain and his eyes. No one will deny that this is as proper a method of reading as the page: 86-87[View Page 86-87]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 86-87 86 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, other. But there is still another way, for the blind boy in Mr. Barbour's school has learned to read with his fingers, without the use of his eyes. Now, we see one uses the mind, eyes, and mouth in one method of reading; the mind and the eyes only in another; and the mind and the fingers in the third. Yet certainly these are all different processes, or, as Edwin says, different things, yet all three were doing substantially the same thing." "Very good, Miss Carrie!"'exclaimed Theophilus. "I think we'll have to engage you to help your father out of the hard places; for certainly this illustration of yours upsets the position that there can be but one way to do any given thing." "I shan't have any thing to do with your matters and father's. I am going to leave all the Latin, Greek, and He- brew for you and him: I only want to take a plain and sim- ple view of this controversy." "But stop, Carrie," said Miss Parker. "I am not quite satisfied yet. When we are speaking of these several sorts: of reading, we call them reading aloud, reading to oneself, reading with the fingers, do we not?" "Certainly we do," replied Carrie, "just as we say such a one was baptized by immersion, another was baptized by sprinkling, and a third baptized by pouring. All these actions are called baptism, just as all the others are called reading." "But stop, Carrie," replied Alice; " is there as much difference between these modes of reading as there is in your modes of baptism?" "Equally as much, Alice," answered Carrie. "There is as much difference between reading with the fingers, and reading with the eyes, as there is between covering a person up with water, and only pouring a little water on him.," "Well, don't you think that in baptism there is some par- ticular act-a specific action performed?" THE MAJESTY OF TAUTT 87 "Yes, I think there is. - "Well, what would you call that specific act, Carrie? asked Alice. {"I should call it-the act of bringing the body of a scrip- tural subject, and water, in-contact." "Then you must admit that the body must be carried to the water, must you not?"- "Why, of course not, Alice. Suppose I wish to bring my right hand in contact with this book, I may place the hand on the book, without moving the book, or else I may with my left hand bring the book to my right, without moving the right hand. So we contend that the substance of the baptismal act is the application of water to a proper subject, no matter how the water is applied: whether it is poured on the person, or the person is put into it, we think a matter of no moment." I' B ut it seems to me, Carrie," continued Alice, " that ac- cording to your doctrine, we could never tell what particular act was performed when we-hear that a certain person was baptized. If you were to tell- me that you have been bap- tized, how could I know whether you were immersed, or had the water poured on -you, or were only sprinkled with it? Now, we Baptists know, when we say a person was baptized, precisely how the thing was done." "Let me answer your question by asking you one," re- plied Carrie. " ' If I were to tell you that Thomas Smith read a chapter in the Bible at school to-day, how could you tell what particular act was performed? How could you know whether he read the chapter aloud to his teacher, or read to himself; and how could you tell whether he read with his eyes, or with his fingers?" "Well, -Carrie," answered Alice, "iin this particular case I would know that Thomas Smith read with his fingers, be- cause I know that he is blind."' page: 88-89[View Page 88-89]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 88-89 88 THEOPHLTUS WALTON; OR, "Exactly so," said Carrie; " then the condition or vicuws of the person baptized being known to us, we 'can know what mode was used: just as the blindness of Thomas Smitlz must be known in order for you to ascertain how he reads. So, Alice, there is no more difficulty in the one case than in the other, and therefore it follows that pouring, sprinkling, and immersion, though different modes, constitute one bap- tism." "I shall have to yield the point, Carrie," replied Alice, "not because your argument is conclusive, but because I cannot meet it. You have the advantage of me in being better posted in controversy." -"I don't claim to be a controversialist, Alice; but I think every one is obliged to see this matter in the light I have placed it in; and if it were not for your education, Alice, your previous prejudices, you know, I think you must frankly acknowledge the justness of my argument. How- ever that may be, let us proceed in our review. "I think the author of Theodosia has committed quite a blunder in making Edwin offer to find a word in the Bible which is not there." "How is that?" asked Theophilus. "I will read his words," replied Carrie, "and then you will see the point. 'But, mother,' says Edwin, 'they all agree that there is only one baptism, do they not? And if there is only one, why don't they just look into the Testa- ment and see what it is? If the Testament -says sprinkle, then it is sprinkling: if it says pour, then it is pouring: if it says dip, then it is dipping. I mean to read the Testa- ment, and see if I cannot decide which it is for myself.' "You see, then,/ continued Carrie, ' that Edwin deter- mines to search the Testament to find out whether the Tes- tament says sprinkle, pour, or dip. Now, if he were going to examine the :Baptist Testament, which the {Bible Union' A THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH.' 89 has published orisgoing to publish, he would certainly find dip there, or immerse, which they consider the same. But if he were to search the Bible, our old Bible, the non-sectarian Bible, he would hunt for ever without finding dip in it, as a command of Christ. Is it not strange, then, that the child should attempt such a task as this; or rather, is it not strange that a Baptist writer should set him to work in this way, knowing that the boy never would succeed?" "That was a-blunder, I confess," replied Theophilus, ' for you remember that your father showed us last night that the Baptists themselves had well-nigh abandoned- the idea of putting immerse in the Bible.- By the way, Miss Carrie, speaking of the Bible Union, and its efforts to revise the Scriptures, reminds me of some of the translations of the society which I saw this morning." "Indeed!" said Carrie, "I would like to see them." "Here they are," said Theophilus, "and if I am any judge, either of English or Greek, they are quite ludicrous. They reider John iii. 12 thus: ' If I said to you the earth- lies, and you did not believe, now if I say to you the heavenles, will you believe?" "Why, Theophilus, that is perfect nonsense." "Indeed it is; but there are other passages, even worse rendered than this." "Well, let me take the Bible, and read it as it now stands, and you read the -revised translation, Theophilus. We shall be better able to see the contrast." "Very good, Miss -Carrie. We will commence with the passage I have just read: *THE WORD OF GOD. THE BAPTIST BIBLE. "If- I have told you earthly "If I said to you the earthes, things, -and ye believe not, how and you did- not believe, now if 1 shall ye believe if I tell you of say to you the heavenlies, will you heavenly things?"John iii. 12. believe?"John iii. 12. page: 90-91[View Page 90-91]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 90-91 90 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, THE WORD OF GOD. THE BAPTIST BIBLE. "That at the name of Jesus "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things every knee should bend of heaven- in heaven, and things in earth, lies, and of earthes, and of infer- and things under the earth." nals." Phil. ii. 10. Phil. ii. 10. "For we wrestle not against "Struggle not against blood and flesh and blood, but against prin- flesh, but with the principalities, cipalities, against powers, against with the powers, with the worldly the rulers of the darkness of this forces of the darkness of this age, world, against spiritual wicked- with the spirituals of the badness nessin high places." Eph. vi. 12. in the heavenlies!" Eph. vi. 12. "Ye call me Master and Lord; "You title me the Teacher, and and ye say well, for so I am." the Lord, and you designate well, John xiii. 13. for I am." John xiii. 13. "Ye have put on the new man." "You have put on the young Col. iii. 10. man," Col. iii. 10. "Unto me, who am less than the "To me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace least of all the consecrated, was given, that I should preach among this very kindness granted to pub- the Gentiles the unsearchable lish among the nations the incom- riches of Christ." Eph. iii. 8. prehensible wealth of the Anointed." Eph. iii. 8. "Repent ye, therefore, and be "Repent, therefore, and return, converted, that your sins may be in order to the obliterating of your blotted out." Acts iii. 19. sins." Acts iii. 19. "Preach the word: be instant "Announce the word: be on in season, out of season." 2 hand conveniently and inconvenient- Tim. iv. 2. ly." 2 Tim. iv. 2. ,' The communion of the Holy "'The partnership of the Holy Ghost be with you all." 2 Cor. Spirit be with you all." 2 Cor. xiii. 14. xiii. 14 "Well, well!" exclaimed Carrie, "wouldn't they make a glorious English Bible I And these are the men who are to 'come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty!' Verily, they ought to be ashamed of themselves! "But I see that we have spent most of the afternoon without examining the merits of Theodosia's arguments, and THE MAJESTY OF TRSTHS. 91 -if you consent we will meet to-morrow afternoon, and look into the book again." As no one objected to the proposal of Miss Mason, it was agreed that they would assemble again on Saturday. Theophilus walked home with Mary, and as she reached home, he ventured to whisper to her- that he thought Carrie Mason would prove a very good match for Theodosia Ernest. Mary made no reply, for just at that moment she caught the eye of her father, who was sitting near the parlor-window There was something in that glance which boded no good, and her young heart was in a moment filled with gloomy apprehensions. page: 92-93[View Page 92-93]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 92-93 TRIAL OF THE BAPTIST CANONS OF CRITICISM, AS LAID DOWN BY DR. GALE, DR. CARSON, DR. RICHARD FULLER, AND OTHER EMINENT BAPTISTS. THE RESULT, A REDUCTION TO ABSURDITY OF BAPTIST THEORY, BY PROVING THEM ALL TO BE ENEMIES OF CHRIST. page: 94-95[View Page 94-95]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 94-95 THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 95 SECOND EVENING I THE interest excited by the investigations of Mr. Mason and Theophilus was evidently increasing. The probable results of these meetings were very freely canvassed, and the course of Mr. Ellis was made the subject of conjecture. It was plainly impossible for him to enter upon a discussion M with either the Methodist or Presbyterian minister, and yet . there seemed to be a necessity for defence of some sort. The people generally felt that the Baptist pastor had unne- cessarily agitated the question in dispute, and, whatever might be the issue, he could blame no one but himself. The boldness with which Mr. Ellis ventured upon classical ground, would have induced a stranger to suppose that he was at home in the language of Greece. So far from this being the fact, however, he could not read a sentence in Greek. His positions, and dogmatic assertions, were coins circulated- in his books, and as he could not determine for himself whether they were true or false, he took them for granted, and hesitated not to affirm them as his own views, in the most solemn manner! While in the very act of adopting the opinions of others as his own, without exami- nation, he Belabored with zeal the Pedobaptists, for " pin- ning their faith to the skirts of men,' and giving up their ! consciences to scholars and divines! This inconsistency page: 96-97[View Page 96-97]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 96-97 96 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, was not observed by all, but many intelligent minds saw it, and rejoiced in an opportunity of lowering his crest a little. As for the Baptists, they were in trouble.- Professedlly fond of controversy, they only relished it whilst there was a disposition-on the other side to avoid it. When the Pedo- baptists were willing to meet them, they were very solicitous indeed for the peace of the community. They were then firmly persuaded that -controversy was an evil in itself: it pronmted divisions in families, excited the worst feelings of our natures, and was, upon the whole, an evil of incalculable magnitude. While they were thus engaged in depicting the consequences to be feared, and, indeed, inseparable from controversy, the report reached them from an authentic source, that Mr. Ellis had posted off a messenger for Elder Alexander Battle, the Magnus Apollo of their faith in'that region. This intelligence seemed to modify, to a very con- siderable extent, the evils of controversy. They were now of opinion that it was highly probable a courteous, Christian- like discussion might be even productive of good! This ] sudden change in their views was received, as it deserved to be, with quiet forbearance by their opponents, and at the appointed hour all parties, with the exception of a feweof the more bigoted sort of Baptists, repaired to the Methodist church. After opening the meeting with prayer, Mr. Mason began : "IJow, Theophilus, we are going to bring our Baptist friends into judgment upon themselves, and as they can feel it in their hearts to exclude us from the celebration of the Lord's Supper, we ought not to hesitate in giving their arguments a little wider range, even if they are, in turn, thereby expelled from the Church of Christ. If they are allowed to use a certain method of argument to get us out of the Church, I see no reason why we may not show them that the same course of argument puts them out too. The, THE MAJESTY OF TroUTH. 97 canons of criticism, which I am now going to examine, are adhered to with great tenacity by their writers. Rules for criticism must be general, not special, arbitrary, or excep- tional accommodations of verbal criticism, invented to sustain a preconceived -opinion. If we find, then, that the canons we examine, when applied to other commandments beside baptism, render salvation impossible, it follows that the canons are false. "As I have hitherto followed the example of the Baptists in making their opponents prove their doctrine, I shall con- sI tinue this course on the present occasion. -My first autho- rity, then, will be drawn from this pleasant little book, 'Theodosia,' and as she is the 'heroine of faith' I will let her state the case fully. When she, for the first time it seems, witnesses the immersion of some candidates in the river, she falls into doubt whether she has ever been lbap' tized, and, to solve her difficulties, calls to her aid sundry " Pedobaptist friends, who, instead of relieving her, confirm her doubts. They in vain endeavored to make her believe' that mode was not essential to the ordinance. She desired to know what particular act Christ performed when he was baptized; that act, she says, Christ commanded, and on page 18 you find her uttering these words--very good words they are, too, worthy of Theodpsia, and very much to our present purpose--'My Saviour died upon the cross for my salvation. I trust in HM to save me. But he says, If ye love me, keep my commandments. Not this one, or that one, but all his commandments. How can I pretend to love, if I do not obey him? If he commands me to be baptized, and I have not done it, I must do it yet. And if that which we saw at the river was baptism, then I have never been baptized.' These are Theodosia's words, and whilst I have nothing to do with her premise and conclusion as to ' ** .1 page: 98-99[View Page 98-99]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 98-99 98 T HEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, baptism, I admit that she speaks truth when she says we must obey all the commandments of Christ. I am now to show that by the same means Theodosia arrived at the conclusion that she was not baptized, we necessarily con- clude that she is not a Christian. This, I think, will be obvious to any one who can understand a plain argument, although I will not say with Dr. Waller that his people are orangoutangs if they cannot appreciate the facts. "We start out with' the principle just stated, that we are to keep all the commandments of Christ, and to keep them we must know what they are. Thus far, we are all agreed. Now, however, we must introduce Dr. Richard Fuller, of Baltimore. You will find the place in his book on Bap- tism, pages 13 and 14. Read it aloud for us." "' Indeed, if a word have not a precise meaning, how can language be the vehicle of our thoughts? The assertion that baptidzo has three different meanings, only proves how strangely controversy can blind the mind to the plainest things. Suppose the word saw meant a saw, and an axe, and a nail, how could a carpenter know what I mean when I ask for a saw? To say that a-word means three distinct things, is to say that it means neither of them.'" "Now, Theophilus, I need not tell you that Dr. Fuller is high authority among the Baptists, nor need I tell you that the assertion made by Dr. Fuller is founded upon a total misapprehension of language. As I have reserved this view of the meaning of words for another examination, I will just here show you that facts are against the Doctor. You have studied the Spanish language, I believe, have you not?" "Not a great deal," replied Theophilus, " but I can read a little of it." "Well, don't you think the Spaniards have a vehicle for their thoughts?" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 99 "Certainly, sir." "Well, do you remember what the word nail is in Spanish?" "Yes, sir, it is una." "That is one of the words used in Spanish to correspond with the English word nail, but there are several others. Clavo means an iron nail, una afinger-nail, pesunia the nail or hoof of an animal, arra the nail or talon of a bird. Here, then, are four words, all of which are equivalent to the English word nail. Now, is it not manifest that this very word selected as an example by Dr. Fuller has several meanings in the English language? Is there no difference between the nail of my finger and the nail in this bench? And yet Dr. Fuller says that if a word has more than one meaning, it has none! "It is true, that if I were to ask a carpenter for a few nails, he would understand me to mean iron nails, and if I were to tell you that your nails were too long, you would understand me to mean your finger-nails. But I would use the same word in reference to two distinct classes of things, the meaning of which word you could only ascertain by the connection in which it was used. This is a universal law of language; a law which is no less binding in our own than in foreign tongues. "But suppose we take another of these three words of Dr. Fuller, and try his rule in the German language. Look in Adler's Dictionary, under the word beil." "It means ' hatchet, axe.'" "Very well, how can the Germans tell the difference between a hatchet and an axe, for certainly they are not the same things .2" ' Not from the word by itself," said Theophilus, that is very clear.'" "Well, you know that this same word axe is, in Spanish, page: 100-101[View Page 100-101]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 100-101 100 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, segir; and the word means a sickle, also. Does it follow, then, that the Spaniards cannot tell the difference between an axe and a sickle r" c"O no, Mr. Mason," replied Theophilus, " it is very evident that Dr. Fuller's position is absurd." "And yet, upon the truthfulness of this position the whole doctrine of exclusive immersion is based! And if Dr. Fuller produces three words which cannot mean the same articles, and no one of them can be understood as including the others, he only proves that in the English language what he asserts is true, in these particular cases. But there are words, even in English, that do not mean the same things in all places. This, perhaps, is too obvious for us to spend time in proving it. All the use we have now for this passage is to try the Baptists by the same rules which they use to try us, and to prove that wherein they succeed to their own satisfaction, in proving us at fault in the matter of baptism, we shall make them condemn themselves in a matter of infinitely greater importance. "'We have seen that Theodosia desired to keep all the commandments of Christ. We allow the position that we cannot keep commandments which we do not know. Now, then, Christ used words in giving his commandments, and Dr. Fuller says a word can mean but one thing-a plain, literal definition only can be allowed. He does not allow even an exception in favor of metaphorical usage of words, but we will grant him that out of the abundance of our charity, for his case will need all the help it can get. Now, Theophilus, you will oblige me by taking down the Bible from the desk, and turning to Luke xiv. 27." ," 'And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. " "Do you consider that a command of Christ, Theophi- lus?" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH'. 101 "Certainly, sir. And the most important of all, inas- much as if itiasnot obeyed no man can be his disciple." a Is it a positive command, Theophilus?" "None can be more so. Salvation is staked upon it." ' Then it is highly important for us to know what it is that we are to do. Unless this is clearly defined, we shall err in an essential point. Now, what is the thing com- manded, Theophilus?" ITo bear our cross." "Can you tell us what particular act the Saviour would have us to perform?" "I can't say that I am prepared to explain the passage.". "Now, suppose I affirm that no man can be saved who does not bear a cross of wood on his shoulders, would you agree with me?" "No, sir, I would not."' "Well, we shall see that the Baptist canons of criticism sustain that view of the passage. Is the word cross an Eng- lish word, Theophilus?" "Yes, sir, I suppose so." ' Well, be pleased to tell me its English root." ".Let me see. I am not prepared now, sir." "No amount of research would help you, Theophilus. It has no English root. We get the word from the French, croix. But it came into the French from the Latin, crux, and hence we get the word crucify, by transferring (as the Baptists say) a Latin compound. Now, before we proceed, we must hear a little more from our authorities. There is Dr. Carson on Baptism. Read the passage marked at the foot of page 23." "'The just and most obvious method of ascertaining the meaning of a word, is to examine its origin and use in the language.' " '"This is allowed to be the method by which our Baptist page: 102-103[View Page 102-103]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 102-103 102 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, friends get their doctrine of immersion. If the rule suits them, let us see how it suits us. Examine Ainsworth's Dictionary, and let us have the meaning of crux." "He says it means a cross, gibbet, or gallows, and, by metonymy, any thing or person that troubles, vexes, or tor- ments us-affliction." "And so also does Andrews give the meaning of the word. Well, we have gotten to the fountain of the word, so far as the Latin term is concerned. But Christ did not use the word crux: we must ascend a little higher, to the Greek. Do you remember the word?" "Yes, sir, stauros." "And what does it mean? Examine Liddell and Scott's Lexicon." "It means an upright pale or stake, and is used by Herodotus for piles." "Well, here is the passage from Herodotus. It is the 5th Book, called Terpsichore, chapter xvi.: 'Yet he endea- vored to subdue those who live upon the lake, in dwellings contrived after this manner: planks fittedi on lofty piles are placed in the middle of the lake,' etc. Homer uses the same word in the sense of a stake or post. A transverse beam fitted to this stake formed the cross. Such was the meaning of the word stauros in our Saviour's time. Now, then, we have arrived at the command--we are to take up a beam of wood, with a stake or pales attached to it as an upright support, and bear it daily, otherwise we cannot be the disciples of Christ. For, be it remembered, it is a posi- tive command of Christ: our salvation is made to depend on our doing or not doing this thing. But we have more than a command, we. have -the example of Christ. Now, if we can ascertain how Christ bore his cross, in like manner we ought to bear ours. Read the 17th and 18th verses of the nineteenth chapter of John." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 108. ' 'And he, bearing his cross, went -forth-into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha, where they crucified him, and two others with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the -midst.' " "Now, then, lthes Saviour bore his cross upon his shoulders up the mountain. Then the lovely 'Theodosia' if she would follow Christ, and keep this commandment, upon which her everlasting happiness depends, must follow his example. It is useless to say that something else will do. No, verily, the Lord's commandment must not be altered. It is plain and positive-his example cannot be * misunderstood. He bore the stauros, the cross, and stauros has no other meaning in the Greek language. In all classi- cal antiquity it was understood to mean a beam of wood-- nothing but wood-not an example can be cited where the plain, literal meaning of the word is not a stake or beam of wood. Who then will dare pervert the word of God? who will dare assert that the daily carrying of a wooden cross is not absolutely essential to salvation? Who will lay his hands upon the ark of Christ's positive commandments, and alter, change, or modify them according to his own views?" "But, Mr. Mason, may it not be said that it is used here in a metaphorical sense?" "No. -Did Christ's commandments, his positive com- mandments, consist of metaphors? Is it a metaphorical cross that we are to bear? v No. The canons we, follow require the plain, literal meaning.. A word can have but one meaning, says Dr. Fuller; we must find out that mean- ing by the origin and use of the word in the Greek lan- guage, says Dr., Carson. It is never used figuratively in the Greek language, and therefore we cannot allow it 0to be a figure of speech. Now, what becomes .of our Baptist friends?" "'Why, they are not bearing their cross, that is evident," replied Theophilus. page: 104-105[View Page 104-105]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 104-105 104 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "And consequently cannot be saved, as they are not and cannot be the disciples of Christ." "Verily, that argument reduces obedience to Christ to an impossibility," remarked Theophilus. "So it does," remarked Mr. Mason. u But is the argu- ment illogical? I have taken the very ground occupied by the Baptists to prove the necessity of immersion. Let us reduce it to a narrower compass. 1. Obedience to Christ is necessary to salvation. 2. Christ commands us to bear our cross. 3. iHe, therefore, who does not bear his cross cannot be saved. 1. No word can have more than one meaning. 2. The original, common, current usage determines that meaning. 3. But the word stauros (or cross) was invaria- bly used to designate a beam of wood. Therefore Christ commanded the bearing of a cross of wood as an absolute prerequisite to salvation. Now, where is the fallacy?" "Not in the conclusion, that is evident,' replied Theo- philus. "Then it must be in the premises," said Mr. Mason. "But which of them is wrong?" "The first, undoubtedly. Words can and do have more than one meaning." "Yes, for this we have just demonstrated. Now, if the Baptist rule, stated by Gale, Carson, and Fuller, establishes an absurdity, it cannot be correct. So far from establishing the necessity of recurring to original meanings for our words, the very contrary is, the case by the operation of this canon. Applied to the words faith, righteousness, justifica- tion, law, regeneration, conversion, and indeed the whole vocabulary of Christian terms, the same result will follow; and for obvious reasons: if words are signs of ideas, the latter must, in point of time, precede the former--ideas must exist before words. But no man can believe that the ideas incorporated in the Christian system existed before - THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 105 they were revealed. It would be impossible for a heathen Greek, by the mere ordinary use of words in his native tongue, to have any conception of Christianity. Upon any other supposition revelation becomes superfluous. Any Greek moralist could combine the principles of the system without the aid of Christ or his apostles. All the miracu- lous endowments of the apostolic age were designed, not to frame a system out of existing words, but to give new ideas through existing words. Therefore the dawn of Christianity was the inauguration of a new language among men. The appropriation of certain terms which, whatever may have been the existing usage, would best serve- to convey the mind of the Spirit, was a necessity in the nature of the case. Inspired with a new meaning, these terms, whether uttered by the lips of Christ or his chosen messengers, could not possibly convey the sense of the Divine Spirit without am direct, immediate influence upon the minds and hearts of the hearers. Hence we derive the explanation of the remark- able ignorance of the apostles with regard to fundamental truths before the death of Christ. He told them repeat- edly and explicitly that he was come to suffer and die for them, yet they understood not what he said. And why? Simply because the cross and crime were inseparably con- nected in their minds. They could not believe that he was going to commit crime ' and therefore they could not believe that he ,would die on the cross. lThey mourned him as one dead and for ever lost, when he was placed in the grave: they thought he was to redeem Israel, and yet were disap- pointed when he died, not knowing that the redemption was secured by his death. But when the Spirit descended on the day of Pentecost, their eyes were opened. They saw the beauty of. God's truth as they-had not seen it before. They were endued with power from on high, and then the same words which had been used before, which had appeared 5* page: 106-107[View Page 106-107]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 106-107 106 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, to them inscrutable, were filled with light, life, and power. They carried this power with them, and wherever they went their words were attended by miraculous influence --the Spirit opening'the spiritual sight and hearing of those to whom they preached, at the same time that outward miracles appealed to the bodily senses. "So far as the ordinance of baptism is concerned, it is positively certain that the apostles, during the life of our Saviour, knew very little about it. If we were to grant the position of the Baptists, that John's baptism is identical either in its mode or object with the Christian, and that the design of both is to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, we have positive evidence from the inspired writings that the apostles did not so understand it. Peter rebuked Christ because he foretold his death, and yet we are required to believe that Peter had repeatedly seen that death represented in baptism. "If it be true, then, that we are not to look for the ideas of Christianity in heathen words, we must go to another source. The whole argument based upon classical usage is of no value. If that usage in every case required immer- sion as the -sense of baptidzo, the mode would not be settled. It could not therefore be inferred that immersion was the practice of the apostles, or that it is now obligatory upon Christians. To the record of Divinely-inspired men must be the ultimate appeal. If that record does not posi- tively fix the mode, ten thousand examples from Homer, or Hesiod, or Lycophron, or any other or all of the poets and historians in the Greek language, could never render immersion the duty of Christians and the command of Christ. The examples I have given in trying the Baptist canons of criticism, are but specimens of a class of words which form the dividing line between heathenism and Christianity. o THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 107 If we apply the same- test to other commandments of Christ, we reach the same result. Our Saviour distinctly says that a man must hate his father, and mother, and even his own life, for the sake of Christ, else he cannot be his dis. ciple. No man will dispute that the Greek word (miseo) translated to hate, refers originally, generally, nay, univer- sally in heathen usage, to the worst passion that can deform the nature of man. If we follow the rule that a word must be rendered by its original, ordinary sense, and that it can have but one meaning, we make the Prince of peace com- mand, as essential to his service, the transformation of our nature into that almost if not quite diabolical. Yet we cannot suppose our Baptist friends have calculated these legitimate consequences of their theory. After they have framed their- methods of criticism to establish their point, they are quite willing to abandon them when other doctrines are at stake. "Suppose we apply their reasoning to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Christ spoke of it, when it was insti- tuted, as his own body and -blood that were divided to the disciples. No language can be plainer than that which he uses. ' This is my body,' he says; this-is the New Testa- ment in my blood.' He had previously said, c Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of MSan, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.' You know very well, Theophilus, what blasphemous teachings the Church of Rome has on this subject. aid their strong position is, that the words of Christ are to -be taken in their plain, obvious, ordinary sense. This, they affirm, is shown distinctly by the fact that they are repeated, andynever otherwise explained by Christ. In this interpretation Dr. Fuller's and Dr. Carson's rules fully sustain them. If words have only one meaning, and that the one in common use, the case is made out. So by the same premises used to establish immersion, we have page: 108-109[View Page 108-109]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 108-109 108 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, . transubstantiation also. Nor can any exception be argued in this case, for if one ordinance requires an exception from such. a rule to vindicate it, the other may also, and so the authors of the canon fail of their design. "And now, Theophilus, let us examine some of those words which are used by our Baptist friends to express their views of baptism. You have often heard their objection to baptize, that it is a Greek word, changed only in one or two letters. What words do they use in its place?" u Immerse, dip, and plunge." "Yes, these are all, I believe. Do you consider these words synonymous in meaning?" "Not exactly, I should think, but sufficiently so for the purpose." "Sufficiently so for their purpose, undoubtedly. But are these words all native English?" a No, sir; one of them is from the Latin, and, the other two from the Greek, I should think." "Well, which is from the Latin?" "Immerse, from the verb immergo." "Have you ever met-with this verb immergo in Latin writers?" "Very frequently." "Have you ever met with it above two hundred years before Christ?" "Only in the comedies of Plautus, but not quite that far back." ' It is usually found in writers of the Augustan age, as it is called, is it not?" "Yes, sir; in Ovid, Cicero, Virgil, and, later, in Pliny." "Suppose we try our Baptist rule with this word immergo; perhaps we may get some light on the subject of common utsage. Will you examine the Fourth Book of Ovid's THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 109 Metamorphoses, line 423, and tell us how the poet uses immergo? There is the book on the table." "It seems that he is representing Juno lamenting the destruction of the Maeonian sailors, and says they were over- whelmed in the sea." "Very well, Theophilus; were these sailors only dipped in the sea? I should think that- a slight, cause of sorrow." "No, sir; I suppose they went to the bottom. They evi- dently were drowned." ' True enough. Now examine the thirteenth book, and tell us how Hecuba pulled out the eyes of the Odrysian king." "Ovid says she plunged her hands into his eyes." "Well, do you think she dipped her hands into the sockets of his eyes?' "No, sir; I suppose she pulled out his eyeballs, and tore the flesh with her fingers." "You would not call this act a dipping, then, I suppose?" "No, sir; it cannot be so called, even by a poetic license." "Very good. Now, if you will examine the sixth book of the AEneid, you will find the word again." "The poet tells us that Triton had inveigled Misenus be- tween two rocks, and overwhelmed him in the foaming bil- lows.' "And Misenus, then, was drowned, was he not?" "Yes, sir, undoubtedly." "He was, then, more than merely dipped in the foaming billows. Now, Theophilus, would you have, any reason to believe that the body of Misenus was found afterwards on the beach, if the poet had not explicitly said so in another part of the story?" "Of course I would not. It would be most reasonable to suppose that he was devoured by the monsters of the deep," "Very well. We might examine a number of passages, page: 110-111[View Page 110-111]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 110-111 "O THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, all bearing the same testimony. Pliny tells us of a river that was immersed, or immersed itself into the sea; or, as Andrews properly renders it, 'poured itself into the sea.' Certainly the river did not dip itself into the sea. We conclude, then, that the Latins ordinarily used the word immergo to express the sinking or overwhelming of a person, usually for the purpose of drowning. .Now, if a word can have but one meaning, and that the current one, in the lan- guage to which it belongs, why do our Baptist friends adhere to immerse? Is it not a Latin word, as truly as baptize is a Greek one? And if its current meaning, when applied to persons, was that of drowning, why do they reject it now, and force another idea into the word?' "Drs. Fuller and Carson will certainly compel them to take the word in this sense of drowning; but will it not be said that you do not allow the Latins to have the idea of dipping?" "No, there is no need of that. Read this passage in Ovid, book vii., v. 260:" "'Medea, with dishevelled hair, goes round the blazing altars, like a worshipper-of Bacchus, and dips her torches, split into many parts, in the trench, black with blood, and lights them, thus dipt, at the two altars."' "There is a case of dipping, beyond a doubt. But is the word immergo 2" "No, sir; it is intingo." "Very well. We have a word, then, which means to dip; but you see very plainly that the action mentioned here is very different from either of those we examined before, The drowning of sailors, and. of a hero, is called an immmer- sion, by Ovid and Virgil; and also the plunging of a woman's fingers into the eyes of a man, in all of which the act of dipping is not and cannot be understood. Here, how- ever, we have a woman taking a torch, and dipping it in a THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 1" trench full of blood; and the action, so evidently similar to the action of the baptism of our Baptist friends, is not called an immersion, but is expressed by a very different word, intingo." "They ought to call baptize intinge, then, I suppose?' "Yes, according to their principles, if they will adhere to -dipping. But we have spent time enough on the Latin word: suppose we examine briefly the others. What is the root of dip ." 'Dupto, I suppose." "Yes, that is the Greek word, from which we get the English word dip. Have you ever seen this word in the Greek Testament, Theophilus?" " No, sir; I have never noticed it there." "Nor have I. How do you account for this?" "I suppose it was not needed, as the idea of dipping could be expressed by other words." "Are you confident that the idea of dipping is in the New Testament, Theophilus?" "I am not sure that I understand you." "Well, I will explain. Do you think that the idea of submerging a body, or thing, and immediately bringing it out of the fluid, is anywhere found in the New Testament?" "I have always thought so, inasmuch as we -are told that certain persons were baptized in a river." "But we shall see that the idea of dcipping is not a neces- sity in that case. When we come to examine the Scripture baptisms, I think I shall show you that dipping is not a necessary inference in any instance, and that it is not abso-- lutely expressed. For the present, however, I assume that the action denominated baptism by our Baptist friends is not expressed by the legitimate and proper word (dupto) in the Greek Testament. I affirm, moreover, that, according to Baptist rules of criticism, no other word in English page: 112-113[View Page 112-113]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 112-113 "2 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, besides dip does express the acon which they use as essen- tial to baptism. Webster gives, as the primary meaning of dip, 'to put into a fluid and withdraw:' this is their baptism, and nothing else is. Let us follow Dr. Fuller's rule, that a word has only one meaning, and Dr. Carson's, that the meaning must be the ordinary, usual one, and we limit the word at once. This will be in agreement with the Greek dupto. But immerse means to sink, to go to the bottom, to be drowned as a consequence. Remember that I am now abiding by the Baptist rule, not by my own. Whether im- merse does not now signify to dip, is not a question. We want the original common usage in Latin. The Baptists, as we have seen, admit that baptize is now a generic word; but they say it was once a word of mode, and its original meaning they define -to be dip. Now, we admit that immerse has, in modern usage, become equivalent to dip; but as sinking and dipping are two actions, just as distinct as pouring and sprinkling, or pouring and dipping, we must limit immersion to sinking. It is true, that in the action of dipping, the body sinks in the water, but it must rise again out of it, or the body is not dipped. Now, this act of rising out of a flood is not included in the idea of sinking, but is positively opposed to it. This last idea of rising up or out of, is ex- pressed in Latin by the word emergo, which is the opposite of immergo, as you see from the prefixes, im and e. Now, inasmuch as Mr. Courtney, the Baptist schoolmaster who merits the honor of leading the fair Theodosia into the path of duty, gives us a specimen of logical reasoning from mathematical axioms, let us follow his example. It is ad- mitted that immergo takes one into the water, but the assist- ance of emergo is required to bring him out; then the action of dipping is compound. Now, it is an axiom in mathe- matics, that the whole is equal to all its parts. This is evi- dent. It is equally evident that one part is not equal to the THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 113 whole. If, then, dipping is the putting of a body in, and the taking of a body out of a fluid, and immergo expresses one action, and emergo the other, neither emergo nor immergo alone can be equivalent to dip, inasmuch as the half is not equal to the whole of an action. We conclude, therefore, inasmuch as the action required is dipping, it can never be done by immersion; not by immersion alone: this no one can dispute. Now, let me ask you what authority the Bap- tists have for making the meaning of two Latin words, which were originally directly opposed to each other, to be ex- pressed by only one of them? What authority have they for combining two contrary actions into a word expressing only one of the two? Can they make a part equal to the whole? And as the Latins required two words to express the action which they call baptism, how does it happen that they can do without one half of the idea? I care nothing for their plea that the emersion is a necessity: it is not such in the word which they call baptism;, and, by their own rules, they have no right to use a word for an ordinance which only expresses one half of the action. If Christ com- manded immersion, then they have no right to add emersion to his ordinance. The words are positively opposed to each other: they can only form a compound action, and no part of a compound is equal to the whole." "Verily, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, "you are getting our friends into difficulty. These are nice points of criti- cism." : "I am following their example, Theophilus. Whilst they resort to a nice verbal criticism, in order to unchurch us, we are certainly justified in using their own method to show how they fail in the attempt. "Water and oil are opposites in chemistry; an alkali unites them into one substance, which we call soap. Nei- ther water, oil, nor alkali alone will make soap, nor will any page: 114-115[View Page 114-115]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 114-115 "4 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, two of the three parts form the compound. It is just as proper to say that oil is soap, as immersion is dipping, for as the compound substance is formed of three ingredients just so is the compound action of dipping formed of two opposite, simple actions. "Nor is this all. Dipping a part of a body is not dip- ping the whole of it. That is self-evident. If, then, our Baptist friends do not dip the whole body of their candi- dates, they do not baptize by dipping. Did you ever see a man dipped, Theophilus?" "Yes, sir, I have seen many covered up in the water, and brought out again." "Were they covered up all at once, or gradually?" "Well, their heads and shoulders were covered up in a moment." "Yes, their heads and shoulders were covered up, but the head and shoulders do not constitute the whole body. Did the baptizer dip only their heads and shoulders?" "That was all, sir; they were standing in the water when he took hold of them." "Very well; then he only dipped their heads and shoul- ders; the remainder of the body he did not dip; and as the dipping of the whole body is required to constitute a valid baptism, then those persons were not baptized." "Indeed!" said Theophilus; "I never thought of that before. The Baptists do not dip?" "I will let you answer the question for yourself. Would the Baptists allow you to baptize yourself?" "No, sir, of course not." "Well, would they allow you to perform any part of the ordinance; such, for instance, as dipping your head under water, while the preacher repeated the formula?" I suppose they do not permit the subject to perform any part of the ordinance." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 115 "Well, is going into the water up to your breast apart of the ordinance, or only a preparation for it?" "I should think it was only a preparation-certainly not a part of the ordinance." "Very well; when you have gone into the water breast- deep, are you baptized?" "Certainly not." "Neither altogether nor partly baptized?" "No, sir, neither." "Well, then, you see at once that the mere act of dipping the head and shoulders of the subject constitutes their baptism. The rest of the body being, submerged by his own act, the subject only receives from the administrator the baptism of the upper portion of his body. If the baptism is the. act of the administrator, this is evident; if it is a conjoint action, and the subject performs one-half of it, then he may per- form the other, and baptize himself altogether. If, then, dipping a part is not dipping the whole, and dipping the whole body is essential, it follows that Baptist preachers do not dip their subjects, and therefore they do not use their own theory of baptism." "Why, -Mr. Mason, I had no idea that you were such a dialectician. Really, you will unsettle some of our Baptist friends if you persist with this method of reasoning." "I only wish to show the consequences of their own theory; and as they take certain positions to prove that I am not baptized, I take their own ground, and prove that they are not either; so, admitting certain premises, we are all in a quandary; and in such circumstances they have no right to glory." "You consider, then, Mr. Mason, that the act of dipping must be done wholly by the-administrator?" "Certainly. No Church recognizes the right of a man to baptize himself.' page: 116-117[View Page 116-117]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 116-117 "6 THEOPHLUS WALTON ; OR, "But, Mr. Mason, no one could be dipped as you describe." "Why not, Theophilus?" "For many reasons. It would be impossible to dip, literally, a full-grown man into a river or pool of water." "Not impossible, Theophilus. I grant that it is not con- venient; but, then, if Christ commanded us to dip the whole body, we ought to do it, cost what it may; otherwise we disobey the great Head of the Church. But are you not aware that the very sort of dipping which I have described was practiced in the Church for several ages?" c No, sir, I did not know it. I supposed the baptism which I have been told was current until the age of Eliza. beth in England was exactly like our own." "Then you are mistaken. You remember that 'Theo- dosia' finds the often-told and worn-out story of Mr. Wesley's refusing to baptize an infant in Savannah, because the parents would not have it dipped. Now the baptism of infants by submersion is clearly a case of dipping. The minister takes the child in his hands, and literally dips it in the water of the font. This is the true and proper action of baptism, according to Baptist teachings, and nothing else is, and as they do not practice any thing resembling it, they condemn themselves. "Just here let me mention another thing in connection with the version of the Bible made in the time of King James. 'Theodosia's' brother Edwin says, as recorded on page 27, that ' the Baptist preacher told Mr. Anxious, the other day, that baptize and baptism were not English words at all, but the Greek words baptidzo and baptismos trans- ferred into the English Bible, and not translated. -He said that King James would not permit the translators to trans- late all the words, for fear of disturbing the faith and prac- tice of the Church of England, and so they just kept the THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 117 Greek word; but if they had translated it at all, it must have read dip or immerse, instead of baptize.' You have already seen that this I Baptist preacher' hdd no authority for saying the king laid any restrictions upon the translators, for he is exculpated by a Baptist writer who has examined the'whole history of the transaction. That he, the 'Baptist preacher,' was simply deceiving both Edwin and Mr. Anxious about the king's fear that the practice and faith of the Church of England would be disturbed if baptidzo were translated to dip or immerse, I will now show you. It is indeed strange that Edwin's v Baptist preacher' and Theodosia's schoolmaster should be brought into collision in the same book, but so it is. The 'preacher' says, that if the word baptidzo had been rendered to dip, the practice of the Church of England would have been disturbed. Mr. Courtney, quoting Dr. Wall, says, on page 177: 'As for sprinkling, properly so called, it was at 1645 just, then beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times 'after forty-one.' Well, pray what was the practice of the Church of England prior to 1645? If it was neither sprinlling nor dipping, it must have been pouring. But the contrary is the fact. Dr. Wall's authority, Mr. Blake, who wrote in 1645, says that he had seen many infants dipped. , The Prayer Book, published in 1549, required the infant to be dipped three times. And Dr. Wall says that the dipping of infants was the practice of the Church in the first part of the reign of King James. The English Bible was published, then, when the rubric of ' the Church of England required the infant to be dipuped, and if this was the practice of the Church, how could the translating of baptidzo to dip alter it?" "I am surprised, Mr. Mason, at that information, for I thought the very reverse was true: that baptize was placed in the English version to support an innovation." page: 118-119[View Page 118-119]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 118-119 "8. THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, cNo, Theophilus, it is a very great mistake. Dipping was the practice of the Church; the rubric of the Church of England required it in 1611, and the king was the head of the Church. How, then, could he exclude dipping from the Bible, in order to sustain his Church? Is it not mani- fest that if- he had interfered with it at all, he would have placed it -in the Bible, and thus sustained his.:Church by it? If the transZators had desired to sustain the Church, certainly they would have made the Bible just what the Baptists want it, favorable to immersion. But they did not, and thus we turn their assertion against them. The present version of the Bible was made by a Church which practiced baptism by dipping, and, if there is any unfairness in it, Pedobaptists have a right to complain, but the Baptists are bound over to silence." "I have been frequently astonished, Mr. Mason, at the facts which you have developed, and really you have ex- posed so many of the Baptist authorities, that I shall be compelled to handle them with suspicion." "I am sorry to say it, Theophilus, but it is nevertheless true. This very writer, who gives Dr. Wall's language in 'Theodosia,' has perverted his meaning, and misrepresented him grossly. This I will show you when we come too the history of baptism, For the present, however, what I have said will suffice. The evening is far spent, and I will not detain you much longer. Let us sum up. We have granted the position of the Baptists, that a word can have but one meaning; that the common usage of the language must determine that meaning. From these premises we have examined that commandment of Christ, which requires us to bear our cross ; we have found the meaning of the word cross to be a beam of wood, and as no one can be a disciple of Christ who does not bear his cross, so no one can be saved who does not bear about with him a beam of wood. THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 119 "Thus we have reduced to absurdity the logic which establishes immersion as the only mode of baptism, simply because classical usage may be in its favor. Without these- arbitrary assumptions of Drs. Carson and Fuller, the Baptists bannot make immersion essential to baptism; with these assumptions, and tested by them, their claims to Christianity are destroyed. It follows, then, that the premises are false, and therefore the argument built upon them is worthless. We have seen, also, that the proper act of dipping, which Baptists declare to be the only valid mode of Christian. baptism, was practiced in the English Church during the reign of King James, when our present version of the Bible was made. Therefore, inasmuch as dipping the whole body is essential to baptism, and they only dip apart of it, Baptists do not baptize validly, themselves being judges, inasmuch as a part is notequal to the whole. "On Monday-evening we shall exalmine the classical argu- ment, and we shall then see how far immersion can be sus- tained by an appeal to the Greeks. Although it is not material whether bapto and baptidzo are words of mode or not in Greek literature, yet, lest we should seem to omit an i argument considered weighty by our opponents, I will con- sider it. I hope to show, too, that an appeal to Caesar will not issue in a decision to ostracize the largest part of the Christian world, and to exclude them from the Church of God." The audience was then dismissed. , . : page: 120-121[View Page 120-121]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 120-121 120 THEOPHLUS WALTON; ORs CHAPTER X. THE DAY OF TRIAL. IMR. ELLIS had met with so little success in his first attempt to break the force of Mr. Mason's argument, that he could not summon courage enough to attend on Friday evening. It was evidently with reluctance that he permitted lIary to go. He remained at home, and consulted his wife as to the course he should pursue. "It is a matter of no consequence how we got into this affair," said he to Mrs. Ellis; " the question now is, how shall we get out of it? Some of the brethren blame me for the whole, and say that my sermon last Sabbath has brought the trouble upon us. To-day, Mr. Lewis gave us notice that we might expel him if we liked, but that he was going back to the Presbyterians. If Brother Battle comes, he will be able to hold his hand with Mason, but I am afraid he will not be able to set some things right. Unfortunately, some hot-headed, misguided Baptists have given this circuit- rider a chance to use some admissions against us, and I see no way to take them out of his hands." "But perhaps, husband," suggested Mrs. Ellis, " you can show that the apparent difference between these Baptist writers originates in the fact that they have different ways of proving the same thing." So I can," replied Mr. Ellis, "' but that will do me no good, for the Pedobaptists will show that their admissions in THE MAJESTY ,OP TRUTH. 1tl our favor originate in the same way. I can see but one way to avoid the consequences of this debate." "And what is that?" asked Mrs. Ellis. "Why, if we can control Thcophilus, and after all get him back to the Baptist Church, it will do us more good than any thing else, and will show at once that Mason's logic is not worth a fig." "But how will you accomplish that, Mr. Ellis?" My chief hope is in Mary's influence over him," replied Mr. Ellis. , If she will let him understand that he must come back to our Church, before she consents to marry him, I think the business will be fixed." I am afraid that Mary will not do that, Mr. Ellis. She is so much attached to Theophilus that I doubt whether she can be persuaded to make such conditions." "Don't talk about persuasion" said Mr. Ellis; "I should like to know if we have not the right to dictate to her, and, if necessary, to com2el her to obey us?" "I am fearful that will never do," replied Mrs. Ellis. "You know that opposition rather confirms than checks a young girl's love, and if we were to try-to force measures i upon Mary, I firmly believe we should fail." "Do you think that she has no eye to young Walton's money?" asked ir.- Ellis, -after a'few moments of silent thought. "No, husband, I believe her love is pure as love can be," answered Mrs. Ellis. "But suppose Theophilus should be cut off without a dollar-what then?"' ' "Who talks of doing that, Mr. Ellis?" a Never do you mind. What think you: would Mary be willing to marry him without a cent in the world?" "Yes, I firmly believe she would." : Against our wishes?" page: 122-123[View Page 122-123]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 122-123 122 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR) a Yes, and against the wishes of the whole world, at that. I don't think there is any chance to bring her over to such measures as those." "Well, we can but try. I shall give her orders to-night when she comes home, and I want you to talk with her, and r see if you cannot influence her to do right about it. I will use severity, and you may try kindness; perhaps between the two we can bring her to terms. And if she will try, there is no doubt of her success with Theophilus." "Well, husband, I will do any thing I can to assist you. But did I understand you to say that Brother Walton intended to disinherit Theophilus, if he persisted in staying among the Methodists?" "Did I say that?" inquired Mr. Ellis.. "You didn't say it, but you hinted it very strongly," replied his wife. "Well, suppose he should do so: would you blame him?" (' Certainly I would; and with very good reason too; and the world would blame him for such an act--- " Just at that moment the merry laugh of Mary was heard as she closed the gate, and bade Theophilus good-night. "Well, no matter, wife," said Mr. Ellis, rising from his seat. "We'll talk that over another time. I must go and hear what the circuit-rider has been doing to-night." uWhat news to-night, Mary?" asked Mr. Ellis, as they sat down in the parlor. "Worse than ever, father. Mr. Mason has proved that we are not baptized according to our own doctrine." "Indeed! well, that was marvellous logic, which proved so strange a thing as that. How did he make it appear?" "Why, father, he says we contend for dipping, which you know is true." A So we do, what then?" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 123 "And he says a thing, to be dipped, must be dipped all over-which I have heard you affirm." "Very well; what next?" "He says our preachers only dip the head and shoulders of their subjects, and therefore, according to our teaching, do not baptize them." "A- pretty argument, truly! Fie, fie daughter! he did not say that, did he?" "Yes, sir, he did, and I must confess that his argument looked very plausible to me. He proved that the dipping, which we consider essential, is not practiced by us; but that it was practiced under King James when the Bible was translated." "Oho! he admitted that, did he?" "Yes, father; but so far from the admission doing us good, I think it made against us." "How so, Mary?" "Because he showed that infants were truly and properly dipped in the font, whilst we are not properly dipped in the pool, and cannot be easily." "Well, what of that? we are immersed; that is enough." "But then, father, he showed also that immerse is a Latin word, and that it originally meant to sink, to cover up in the water; and he said that the Latins had another word to signify coming up or out of the water-I think he said it was the verb emnergo." "And what does he prove from that, Mary?" "That it 'is wrong to call an act which is plainly an immersion and an emersion combined, by one word, expressing only half of the act, which we do when we call dipping immersion." ' Well, well, what trifling with words! How these Pedo. baptist rantizers will ridicule the ordinance of Christ!' "I do not think he ridiculed it,.father; he was only fol- page: 124-125[View Page 124-125]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 124-125 124 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, lowing our own authors, Dr. Carson, Dr. Fuller, and others. You know we rely on these writers when they are on our side; why should we not listen to them when they turn against us? Besides, father, you know that we use their books in the same way, and we cannot expect any thing else than that they will retaliate." "Mary," said Mr. Ellis-and his brow was darkened by a frown, which brought a shudder over her delicate frame- "your intimacy with that graceless fellow, Theophilus, has made you lend an ear to this pestilent teacher of heresy. Hark you! as you love me, and value your own peace, do you forbid him to see you any more." "O, father! do not say that!" exclaimed Mary. "What has he done? Do, father, recall that cruel sentence." "Mary, I am not to be trifled with," replied Mr. -Ellis, sternly; "I have given you your orders : I must be obeyed." Mr. Ellis was in the act of retiring, but Mary seized his hand and detained him. "Father, stop, stay one moment. Theophilus is an honorable man. We are engaged. You have given your consent-it isknown. If you now forbid our marriage, you must expect--" The young girl's utterance was checked by her father's departure. He thrust her away from him, and retired to his room. She sank down upon the sofa, and indulged in the sad relief of tears. For some time her mind was tossed hither and thither by conflicting thoughts. Disobedience to her parents had never been a sin of hers; but now obe- dience was a sin against herself. Never before had she met the angry frown of a parent; and although she had reason to fear that all was not right, from the significant look he gave her in the afternoon, as she was returning with Theophilus from Mr. Riley's, she did not anticipate such treatment as this at her father's hands. It was true, Theophilus had THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 125 forewarned her of an attempt to thwart her wishes, but she attributed the warning to needless anxiety. But now the storm had burst upon her in all its fury. What had she done to deserve such treatment? If her parents had regarded Theophilus as an unworthy suitor, why had they encouraged him? Why had they uniformly spoken of him in the strongest terms of approbation? Why had they already given their consent to the marriage? When her affection Was in the bud, a single word from father or mother would have destroyed it for ever. But no, they had coun- tenanced his addresses, and her love had become the source of joy and comfort to her heart. To oppose it now would be to blight her prospect of earthly happiness. She lifted her heart to the throne of the great God, and endeavored to learn his will, and she felt that there was no frown there-her conscience felt no check: she had done no wrong, and yet must suffer. She must submit to have her love become an article of merchandise; for surely she thought her father had seen or hoped to see some more eligible match-one that promised more of honor or wealth. She could not believe that the mere fact of joining the Methodist Church could, of itself, excite such uncompro- mising opposition from her father. And perhaps Theo- philus had done something else; perhaps he had-but no, she could believe no evil of her heart's beloved. " , is it not cruel!" she exclaimed, "'that I should be driven to this sad alternative: to disobey my own father, or sacrifice my own peace?" "No, no, my child, you shall do neither," said a soft, low i voice by her side. "Mother, is it you?" asked Mary. "O, mother! I am in trouble. Are you, too, against me, mother?" "I know all, Mary. I have heard your conversation with , i your father. Dry your tears, my child; there is still hope; s! page: 126-127[View Page 126-127]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 126-127 126 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, all may yet be well. Promise me that you will do as I direct, and you will yet be happy." (" mother, I will do any thing that is proper, to soften my father, and cause him to relent. But what can I do?" "It is an easy thing I ask of you, Mary. I know that Theophilus loves you ardently. Your influence over him is unbounded. You can reclaim him, and all will be well." "Do I understand you to say that I must use my in- fluence with him to bring him to our Church?" "Yes, my child; then you will secure your father's appro- bation, and at the same time confer upon" him a great favor." "I do not quite understand you, mother. Confer a great favor on whom?" "On your father, my child. But for your own sake, Mary, you ought not to hesitate a moment." "But, mother, how can I do it?" "Make it the condition of your marriage." "What! refuse to have him unless he will become a Bap- tist?" "Yes, that will settle the difficulty." "But, mother, I have already told him I cannot do that!" "Have you committed yourself already, Mary?" "Why, mother, you know that we are now engaged, and there is no such condition in the engagement." "That does not matter, Mary. You can tell him that when you engaged yourself to him, you did not expect him to change his religious opinions. Tell him that your do- mestic happiness will be marred by his belonging to one Church and you to another. He will hear you--he will yield to you, depend upon it." "But I have told him already, mother, that his views of religious duty could not possibly make any change in my af- fection for him." "And why did you do that, Mary?" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 127 "I am a woman, mother: how could I do otherwise? I cannot cease to love him because he hasceased to be a Bap- tist. I can no more control my affections at pleasure, than he can believe every thing required of him." "But, Mary, you can tell him that you had expressed yourself hastily: that, upon a more deliberate examination of the subject, you are firmly convinced that you can only be happy in the same Church." But mother, I have no such conviction: must I tell him an untruth?" - "Mary! Mary! remember what a debt of gratitude you owe to your father: remember how he has cared for you from infancy-- ." "I know it, I know it all, mother : spare me the recital of the debt, lest this poor heart of mine be'tempted to do Theophilus a wrong!" "My child, it is important to your father's interests as well as your own, for Theophilus to return to us. Your father's position requires it, your happiness requires it. Mary, Mary, listen to the voice of reason, and obey." "Any thing else, mother, I can do. I am willing to lay the whole subject before him, but I cannot threaten to dis- card him, if he does not grant my request. I never can do that." "Do not be too hasty in your conclusion, Mary: promise me to try it. You need not be very positive at first. Ex- press yourself gently: show him how little he must yield to satisfy you. Convince him that his sacrifice will be small, whilst yours must be immense. Appeal to his magnanimity': he will yield to your wishes, and all injuries will be atoned or. Remember, too, that you will be laboring to promote e purity of Christ's Church, and for the glory of God!" Mary made no reply, but the words, "for the glory of t i!!1- page: 128-129[View Page 128-129]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 128-129 128 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, God," rang in her ears. She could not believe that God's service required such a sacrifice at her hands. Mrs. Ellis followed her daughter to her room, and ceased not her importunities until she had extorted a half-audible promise of compliance. Poor Mary ' in the dark, still watches of that night, her eyes were sleepless. In vain she strove to reconcile her past professions to Theophilus with the part she was now forced to perform. Would he yield to her? Would he consent to join her Church rather than forfeit her love? - No, her heart answered for the absent one : he ought not, and therefore he wotuld not do so. She could not feel it in her heart to respect him if he did violate his conscience. But he would not. Yet she had promised her mother to make the experiment, and just before the early dawn she committed her cause into the hands of her Hea- venly Father, and snatched a few uneasy moments of slumber. She rose from her troubled couch, and by the pale morn- ing light addressed a note to Theophilus. She requested him to visit her that morning, as she had a subject of im- portance to communicate. The note was dispatched, and Mary strove to be cheerful as usual. 'Mr. Ellis was apprised of his daughter's compliance, and was therefore kind and affable, as he generally was, at the breakfast-table. But notwithstanding all this, her own efforts to be cheerful, and the kindness of her parents, there was a dark cloud over Mary's heart. She had learned to distrust her parents, and to regard their conduct as illiberal and unjust. Her faith in the sincerity of their love was shaken. She felt that they were willing to sacrifice her hap- piness in order to gain some worldly end. A fervent prayer to the Unchanging One went up from her closet that morn- ing, and the Spirit of grace failed not to strengthen her for the approaching trial. THE- MAJESTY OF TRUTH.- 129 CHAPTER XI. NEW TROUBLES IN THE 'CABINET. MR. ELLIS was summoned from breakfast to the study. Thither we shall follow him, and find fresh sources of trouble and perplexity. "You were not out last night, Brother Ellis," said Mr.- Barbour, who stood waiting at the door of the study. "No, not I," said Mr. Ellis; "I have no taste for such a miserable course of investigation, falsely so called. The truth of God was never yet ascertained by such a partial,- unright- eous garbling as that Methodist circuit-rider practices. I shall have nothing more to do with him." "But look here, Brother Ellis; is he not using our authors precisely as we have used his? What unfairness is there in that?" "But doesn't the man know that these-men he is bring- ing against us are Baptists: that they believed in and practiced immersion?" "Very true," replied Mr. Barbour; "and do not we know that the Pedobaptists whom we quote to prove our point, believed in and practiced affusion?"; ' Suppose they did: the truth was so apparent to their minds as to the meaning of the word, and the ancient cus- tomn of the Church, that they were compelled- to make ad- missions in our favor. These adm"issions we quote because they establish our doctrine by the testimony of our enemies. Further than that, we have no use for them." 6* *!' ii page: 130-131[View Page 130-131]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 130-131 130 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, iPrecisely so, Brother Ellis; and Mr. Mason simply uses our writers in the same way. He grants that they were im- mersionists, but shows that, by taking different methods to establish it, our writers, when brought into collision, mutu- ally destroy each other; and therefore if, in your hands, his authors are proof against him, in his hands your authors are proof against you. There the matter ends. He does not rest upon such testimony for valid proof; but it seems to me has simply pursued this course to offset our ad captandum arguments. I see nothing wrong in his course, so far as this 'is concerned. We are bound to admit that he has the same right to pursue any given method that we have." "And are you beginning to doubt, too, Brother Barbour?" "To doubt what, Brother Ellis?" "The validity of your baptism." "Not at all. But I do doubt whether many of our preachers take-the proper means to prove it. I have exam- ined my lexicon, and those places which have occurred in my reading in Greek books, and I am firmly persuaded that baptidzo means to immerse, primarily; but I question very much if it has not a secondary signification, to wash, without indicating the mode. Still I believe immersion to be the proper mode: I have no doubt of that. But I am not so clear in my mind that we are authorized to unchurch the whole Christian world outside of our denomination, upon such a slender basis. Whether or not the word was used by our Saviour in the primary or secondary sense, I am not pre- pared to say. At all events, it seems illiberal as well as illogical to assert our opinions in a dogmatic form, and then to bring scraps from the writings of our opponents to estab- lish it. We must know that they will turn our own argu- ments against us, and thus make our position, which as a mere opinion may be strong, appear positively absurd when it assumes to be a demonstration." 4 THE, MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 13 "I am surprised at you, Brother Barbour; our enemies want no greater concessions than those which you have just made." "I cannot help it, Brother Ellis, I must speak the truth. I seek to know the truth, and if I become convinced that I have acted hastily in any case, without a due knowledge of the facts, I would be unworthy the name of a candid man if I did not retrace my steps and -acknowledge my error. We, as a Church, exclude Pedobaptists from communion at the Lord's table. Why? Because we say they are not baptized-not because we find fault with them on the score of their piety: we acknowledge them to be true Christians. Now, how do we know that they are not baptized 2 Because we think the word means only to immerse? That is a slender basis. We may be wrong; and if so, the displeasure : of God must be due us for excluding from our fellowship those whom Jesus has received. Are we better than Christ? Can we reject, innocently, those whom he receives--whom we acknowledge him to have received? How can we reconcile this inconsistency? If we could prove to a demonstration that immersion only is baptism, then we are secure. But see the predicament into which we fall. If we demonstrate our doctrine, why do not all candid, pious men see it, and embrace it? That they do not is evident. The inference is, then, compelled to be one of three things: either our Pedobaptist friends are too dishonest to admit our position, which they see to be true; or they have not sense enough to see a demonstration; or else we do not demonstrate it. Now, which of these can we safely take? Shall we say that they are too dishonest to admit the truth'? Then our ac- knowledgment that they are as good Christians as ourselves refutes us at once. Shall we say that they have not sense, enough to see it? Then we go contrary to our own judg- ment, for we know that they have, to say the least, as much - 3l page: 132-133[View Page 132-133]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 132-133 132 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, talent as we. Or shall we 'not rather say, we have not demonstrated the truth of our position? And if we have not, the doctrine of immersion is a mere opinion, which, however correct we may think it, does not warrant us in excluding people from the Church of Christ, on the strength of it." I -shall give you up for lost, Mr. Barbour. The Pedo- baptists need not wAt a better advocate than you are.. I cannot argue with my own people on this subject." "Say, rather, Brother Ellis, that you cannot sustain your position on untenable ground. If your position were defens- ible, you could argue with me, and that you know full well. But we are wrong, my-dear brother; we are in a grievous error, and ought to get out of it." "Ought to get out of what?" asked Mr. Fleming,-who just at that moment entered. "Why, out of the practice of close communion," replied Mr. Barbour. "I have been saying that it is the height of. inconsistency to say that people who are good Christians- whom Christ has received and blessed-ought to be expelled from the Lord's table, because they have not done that which we cannot prove to be their duty. At least we can only prove we think it their duty, but cannot demonstrate that it is." "Precisely my doctrine, Brother Barbour," said Mr. Fleming,. ' I have been trying for many years to moderate the views of some of our brethren, but they meet me with such epithets -as 'Arminian,' ' half-Methodist,' 'dough-face,' and the like, without attempting to answer my arguments. I think we have got, for once, an evidence that moderation is the greatest wisdom. If we had gone on, content to take our-share of the revival, all would have been well. But in our sorrow at the loss of a little Baptist influence, we are now running the hazard of losing still more, even some THE R, AJESTY OER TRUTH. 183 of our old members. Sister Williams, who has a son in the j Methodist Church, who is a local preacher, has been up ; several times before this Church for communing with the l Methodists. I am told that this son of hers is now on a visit here, and that he will be likely to preach to-morrow, and that they will have the. communion service. If so, the old lady avows her intention of communing with them. If she does, our C old landmark" men will arraign and expel her. For one, I say boldly, that we have no right to reject any : servant of the Lord from, his 'table, -and wherever it- is spread, all the Lord's children are entitled to partake of the symbols of our common Saviour's suffering and death." "Perhaps you will go and commune with the Methodists, j too, Brother Fleming, as you say there is no harm in it," said Mr. Ellis. ' -1 "No, Brother Ellis, I will be governed by the decision of the majority. ' If meat cause my brother to offend, then will I fi eat no more meat while the world standeth.' But mind you, I don't think there is a particle of harm in the meat itself!" We are always thankful for small favors," replied Mr. Ellis, "and if we cannot convince you that strict commu- i nion is right in theory, we are glad that you consent to practice it. 'Half a loaf is better than no bread.' " "I refuse to commune with others, Brother Ellis," con- tinued Mr. Fleming, "only because the Church condemns it. I think the Church is wrong, and I would be glad to see her get right on the subject." "Then you assist the Church in committing a wrong upon the Christian world," rejoined Mr. Barbour. "I am not prepared to take that position. I must review the ground which we occupy on that doctrine, and if I am not better persuaded' than I now am of our scriptural correctness, I do not hesitate to say that I will follow the example of Sister Williams." 1:i page: 134-135[View Page 134-135]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 134-135 134 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "Spare me, brethren, spare me!" groaned Mr. Ellis, "I am in too much trouble to hear you talk thus. Here I am, involved in controversy, unable to meet my antagonists suc- cessfully. Brother Lewis has notified us of his intention to return to the Presbyterians; Brother Fleming falls out with strict communion; Sister Williams is going to violate the long-established rule of the Church; and Brother Barbour declares he is getting ready to do the same! Take pity on me, brethren, and let me alone! It is enough to contend with enemies from without-foes within are too hard for me! Mr. Barbour and Mr. Fleming understood this remark, as it was undoubtedly designed, to be an invitation to retire. So without adding more they bade the pastor adieu. THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 135 CHAPTER XII. THE INTERVIEW AND ITS RXESULT. THEOPHLUS was somewhat surprised when he received Mary's note. It was evidently written hurriedly, and seemed to indicate a disturbed mind. He observed, more- over, at the breakfast-table that morning, that trouble was brewing for him at home. Although there was nothing said which could give him a distinct idea of the nature of the opposition he was going to encounter, yet there were many innuendoes and insinuations, coupled with manifest coldness towards himself, which required no special acumen to inter- pret unfavorably. He- had once been the pride and joy of the family, but now his opinions were treated with con- tempt, and he seemed suddenly to become a stranger in the home of his youth. But he had embarked on an inviting sea, and he determined, whatever consequences might attend it, to pursue his voyage. Mary's note, however, caused him to waver for a moment. Perhaps she had been persuaded to turn against him; if so, he was to be left alone to the friendship of his God, and a clear conscience. Could: he be firm, and resist her entreat- ies? Could he boldly dare to do what his heart approved, and God had not condemned? He knew not. The hour of trial was yet to come-how he should abide it he knew not. He found Mary awaiting his arrival. She endeavored to i \ *' 1; page: 136-137[View Page 136-137]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 136-137 136 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, appear cheerful as usual, but there was a cloud upon her brow, an expression of anxiety which no effort of hers could remove. She was in doubt how to approach the unwelcome theme-how to force her lips to utter words which came not from the pure fountain of her heart. She talked of many things, the ordinary staple of conversation, and several times was on the eve of broaching the subject, but she timidly shrank from the execution of her promise. Theophilus knew Mary too well to be in doubt as to the cause of her embarrassment. He saw that she was but half won to the purpose, and that she would not be offended by his refusal to comply. At last he said: Mary, I perceive that you have something of import- ance to tell me. I suspect the nature of it. You have been persuaded by your father to turn against me." "O, Theophilus! he has commanded me to see you no more!" exclaimed she. "Indeed!" answered Theophilus; " and you are going to comply?" "What shall I say, The.? I cannot comply, and yet I dare not refuse. What shall I do?" "Be calm, my dear: what reason does he give for this course?" "None, The.; he only peremptorily bade me to discard you; but mother-- " Well, and what did your mother say?" 'She told me all. You must cene back, The.; my dearest friend, you must come back, and every thing will be right again!" "Aha!" exclaimed Theophilus. "I expected it, Mary, I warned you of it but a few days since. Now, my love, tell me honestly, are you going to insist upon my joining the Baptist Church?" "Yes, The., by all means in the world; it will be con- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH 137 ferring the greatest favor imaginable upon father, and it will smooth our pathway for the future. See what you can do, and how easily you can do it-so little sacrifice, so little self-denial, and what a world of happiness it will purchase for us. O, my dear Theophilus! think of it; yield to me this once, and I am yours. Peace at home--your home and mine-good accomplished, it may be, for God and his Church. How can you refuse?" "Myy, be calm; you are becoming excited. I would do i nothing to displease you. In a moment of frenzy, when my affection for you is dominant over my reason, I may con- sent to forfeit my religious peace, and confirm myself in misery for life. Mary, do you wish to see me an unhappy man? do you wish to make me so?" "No, no, my love," she replied, "not for the world." "Well, then, if I assure you that to do as you require will cause me to sin against my conscience, will you still insist?" : No, I cannot do that, Theophilus." "Well, my dear, suppose I were to yield this point to you-suppose I should agree to join the Baptist Church- do you suppose I could face the throne of my Father in heaven, and feel guiltless, when I had trampled his word under foot; when I had professed doctrines I did not believe; when I had wilfully consented to sin against his people, and to thrust them out of his kingdom? No, no, Mary, I cannot do it." "But will you be committing this great sin by yielding to me?" "Yes, Mary. -I feel that I could never look upon the light of day again without meeting the condemnation of God. I should feel that nature condemned me : every flower that blooms upon the highway, or wastes its odors in the arid desert; every star that twinkles in the clear, blue sky; : page: 138-139[View Page 138-139]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 138-139 138 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, every grain of sand and drop of water, are unconscious, unintelligent doers of God's will; but I, blessed above his humbler creatures with the gift of reason, would dare to sin against myself and him--to sin against light and know- ledge-all for your sake, Mary!" "Then I will not ask you again, The.; if these are your feelings, right or wrong, I cannot, will not ask you to com- mit so great a crime for my sake. But, Theophilus, others have done so: others have given up their peculiar views for the sake of family quiet: do you charge thenz with all these crimes?" "I speak only for myself, Mary. What others may have done or may yet do, can be of no weight in settling a case of conscience with me. If any one has been influenced by worldly ambition, parental influence, or other improper motive, to join any Church against his or her convictions of religious duty, I hesitate not to say that every such person has committed a great sin. It may have been done-the Lord knows-but he also knows that I cannot do it; I should forfeit his favor, and incur his righteous displeasure." "That settles the question, then, Theophilus." "Not altogether, Mary; I wish to know now, if, with this frank avowal of my feelings, you are willing to adhere to our engagement?" "I will not conceal from you, Theophilus, the truth. I have been forced to try your integrity-in the event of success I know not how I should have felt. I hoped you would yield; yet I feared that you had gone too far to retrace your steps; and if your sacrifice involved any moral principle, I would not have you to yield. And yet, if you do not, I am sure that we shall not' get father's consent to our marriage. It has been a fearful issue with me, Theo- philus; I must resign all hopes of you, or incur my father's displeasure: the two strongest ties of nature have struggled THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 139 within me for the mastery. But the question is settled. ?ainful as it is to me to rebel against my parents, I cannot iesitate; I am yours, come what may! "I sympathize with you, Mary, in your painful position; nd yet I can but rejoice in your decision. But let us do nothing to provoke further opposition. Let your father Know your resolution, but do nothing to aggravate him. Perhaps he may yet see and honor your integrity and virtue. [n the meanwhile we may not be so intimate as formerly, lest we unnecessarily foment and increase the strife." "No, Theophilus; I will be firm in my refusal, but respectful in its terms. Thus far I consent to take your advice. But, my dear The., I will not consent to even an apparent alienation between us. That might give reason- able ground to hope for ultimate success upon the part of my father. No; I have decided between you, and I will cleave to you now; and more than ever I desire to lean upon your strong arm for support. Forsake me not now. My love for you must support my -resolution; your presence, your conversation, your words of kindness must sustain my love. I could not betray you; but I must not be separated - from you." ( But what if your father forbids me his house?"' "Then he must forbid it to me, too," replied Mary. "I will not consent to stay where you are not permitted to come. But I hardly think he will go so far as that. - If he does, leave the rest to me. I will know what to do." "Very well, Mary; God bless you and preserve you. Your love is wealth and honor enough for me. Farewell!" The young couple took an affectionate leave, and Mary's clear, dark eyes glistened with bright tears as she saw her lover disappear. The end is not yet. , page: 140-141[View Page 140-141]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 140-141 "O THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, CHAPTER XIII. CARRIE MASON'S REVIEW-CONTINUED. CARRIE MASON'S audience was a little larger on Saturday afternoon than the day before. Several young ladies and two or three young gentlemen were present who did not attend on Friday, but Mary Ellis and the Misses Parker were not there. "We did not get beyond some general objections on yesterday," commenced Carrie; "we must begin now to answer the arguments of Theodosia. "Mr. Percy, the intended husband of Theodosia, volun- teers to prove to her that she had been baptized, notwith- standing the immersion at the river. He calls upon her after supper, and desires to begin by calling up the wit- nesses. His style is assumed to be lawyer-like, but I should say that if Mr. Percy never managed his causes in court more clearly than he did this before Judge Theodosia, I think his clients had a poor advocate, if indeed a client would intrust an important case into his hands. "Theodosia smiles at the proposal, and we are told that it was the first smile that illumined her face since she stood by the water. What a pleasant thing- that baptismal water must be! She agrees to the proposition to call up the wit- nesses, and examine them. First, however, i1r. Percy must state his case-what the witnesses are to prove. He states the case in these words, with the New Testament in hisk THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 141 a hands: 'Is the sprinkling of infants, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghosts the baptism which is required in this book ?' " Now, you see at a glance that this is not the question, and one would think the author saw it, too, for he makes Mr. Percy say on the very next page that sprinkling, pour- ing, and immersion are all modes of baptism. Yet Mr. Percy, the lawyer, and the Presbyteriaan at that, sets out to prove that 'sprinkling of infants' is the only baptism re- quired in the New Testament !" " That was a clumsy statement of the case for a lawyer to make,/ said Theophilus; { the author of the book certainly intended to make him look ridiculous." a No, Mr. Walton," replied- Carrie, "Mr. Percy is only a man of straw, whom the author intends to vanquish. But although the author does not intend, just here, to make him appear ridiculous, yet he does do it to a certainty. He is going to prove that infant baptism only is required; and yet we are told elsewhere that Theodosia was six years old when she was baptized, and she tells her mother, on page 388 that she remembers it. If Mr. Percy had proved his case by his witnesses, Theodosia-might have said that she was not an infant when she was baptized, and so she had not received New Testament baptism at last ! " We will let that pass, however, and hear some of the wit- nesses. Mr. Percy calls up Webster's Dictionary, as witness number 1. Little Edwin, Tlheodosia's brother, a boy about thirteen years of age, objects to the witness-challenges him, I believe the lawyers call it--on the ground that Webster's Dictionary is in English, and that baptize is a Greek word. Edwin heard the Baptist preacher tell Mr. Anxious that King James would not let the translators translate baptidzo, but made them transfer it into English. Now you remem- ber that father showed you the testimony, night before last) page: 142-143[View Page 142-143]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 142-143 "2 THEOPEILUS WALTON; OR, disproving this assertion-the testimony of a Baptist writer, proving that the king 'did not hinder them from translating the word." "I remember that very distinctly," said Theophilus, "and I remember, too, that the Rev. Dr. Ide, an eminent Baptist preacher, says: 'I suppose that baptize is the only English word by which you can translate baptidzo.' Dr. Williams, another distinguished Baptist, in:New York, says: 'On the score of age, the word baptize is probably some six centuries older, as an English word, than the term immerse.' "Thank you for those quotations, Mr. Walton; they are precisely in point," said Carrie; "and now, Mr. Price, as you are a lawyer, we'll let you decide a point for us. How do you act in court when witnesses do not agree? How do you decide the matter?" "By the preponderance of testimony, of course, Miss Mason," replied Mr. Price. "Very well, then," continued Carrie, we have an anony- mous Baptist preacher testifying that baptize is a Greek word. He is the only witness on that side. On the other we have Dr. Ide and Dr. Williams testifying that it is an English word." "And you may add, Miss Carrie," said Theophilus, " the testimony of Dr. Dowling, Dr. Lynd, and Dr. Cone. I will read their testimony: "'The word baptize is to all intents and purposes an English word.'-Dr. Dowling. "'There can be no doubt that the word baptize in English literature has become generic.'-Dr. Lynd. "'The English word baptize, according to our standard lexicographers, means to sprinkle, etc.-Dr. Cone. "There they are," said Theophilus, "plain, and to the point." THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 143 Well, I submit the question to the jury: is baptize an English word? One Baptist preacher, nobody knows who he is, says not; five distinguished Baptists say that it is. Then we carry the, case, Edwin's objection is overruled, and Webster's English Dictionary is admitted as evidence. Now, we are told that Webster says that baptism is the application of water as a religious ordinance.- Then his tes- timony is on our side-lhe testifies that no particular mode is essential. "This is the only witness called up by Mr. Percy, on the first night. He agrees to leave the matter to the decision of the lexicons of the Greek language, and I suppose we must follow him there." "Stop, Carrie," said one of the ladies, "you promised yesterday to leave the Latin and Greek to your father and Theophilus." "So I will," replied Carrie. "I am only going to follow up the testimony, not to make a criticism. Mr. Percy was not a Greek scholar, and yet he determines to search the lexicons, to see what they say about the word. Edwin pro- duces Donnegan's Lexicon on the Baptist side, as a witness. Donnegan's testimony is thus given: 'Baptidzo, to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to sub- merge, to soak thoroughly, to saturate.' "Now I have examined father's library, and I found three lexicons, Grove, Liddell and Scott, and Robinson. I will read their definitions just as I copied them from the books: "' Baptidzo, to dip, immerse, immerge, plunge; to wash, cleanse, purify; to baptize.'--Grove. "' Baptidzo, to dip repeatedly, dip under; to pour upon, drench; in New Testament, to baptize.'-Liddell and Scott. "' Baptidzo, to dip in, to sink, to immerse; in New Tes- tament, to qwash, to lave, to cleanse by washing, to baptize.' --Robinson page: 144-145[View Page 144-145]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 144-145 "4 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, (' Now it appears that one witness testifies that the Greek word baptidzo means to immerse, and uses only equivalent words in defining it. We introduce three other witnesses, however, who say that the word does mean more than im- merse, and therefore define it by such terms as to wash, cleanse, etc. Now, on the principle that preponderance of testimony settles the question, we have gained this point, too. We have all the witnesses in English, and three to one in the Greek, on the Pedobaptist side." "But your witnesses all agree that immerse was the primary meaning, Miss Carrie," said Mr. Price. "What do you mean byprimary, Mr. Price? I do not understand you," said Carrie. ' Why, the most common meaning: it is placed first among the definitions." ' I know nothing about that, Mr. Price," she answered; { I am not sufficiently acquainted with the languagre to tell whether the first meaning in the dictionary is the ordinary one or not. I leave that matter to Theophilus and other Greek scholars. All the use I have for the lexicons is to show that they are three to one against the Baptist position that baptidzo only means to immerse. One witness says it has but one, and three witnesses say it has more than one meaning. The testimony is, then, on my side; is it not, Mr. Price?" ' It certainly is," replied Mr. Price, cc if you take the simple question whether the word has more meanings than one." "That is the only question at issue, Mr. Price. Whether this word is used in the New Testament in this or that sense, we are not now endeavoring to determine. We are only seeking to know whether the word was used in more senses than one." "Then I admit that you have gained your case, Miss THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 145 Carrie," said Mr. Price: " the evidence is clearly on your side." "Very well," replied Carrie, " we proceed now with the second night's study. Mr. Percy goes home resolving to ex- amine the various lexicons, and on the next evening we hear him complaining that the lexicons have 'Billed' him. -He submits the case, and therefore we dismiss him, as an ineffi- cient advocate. He suffered one witness to be ruled out without making an effort to save him; and before the astound- ing fact that one lexicon is against him, loses heart, and gives up the case. We can have no further use for so poor a lawyer. "Mr. Johnson, the Presbyterian pastor, comes in to aid Mr. Percy's cause. Mr. Johnson sets out by telling us that he never studied these controversies much,' and I think we shall have- good reason to agree with him in his confession of ignorance. He is puzzled at the very first onset of The- odosia, and, finally becomes frightened at the announcement that the Baptist schoolmaster is coming: takes up his hat, and bows himself out. Mr. Johnson, however, before he takes leave, requests Theodosia to examine some of the standard writers on the subject. Theodosia says there, are no books on the subject in the house except the Bible; but after awhile she discovers that they have got Barnes's Notes on the Gos- pels, and Macknight on the Epistles." "Of course they must have Macknight," said Mr. Price: "he is a fine author to teach Presbyterians the proper mode of baptism!" " Yes, indeed, Theodosia has no other -books but those that may be turned against her, and to these the -appeal is made; and henceforth Mr. Percy helps to get his own cause into difficulty. Mr. Johnson gives a full endorsement - to Mr. Barnes, and thereupon- they turn to Barnes's notes on Matthew iii. 6. After some comments on the language of 7 page: 146-147[View Page 146-147]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 146-147 "6 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR} Mr. Barnes which I do not regard as worth our while to notice, Mr. Percy comes to the following language: 'The Hebrew word (tabaD which is rendered by the word baptize, occurs in the Old Testament in the following places :' then follow fifteen texts from the Old Testament. "I have read this passage as Mr. Barnes wrote it; but Mr. Percy slipped in the word 'Greek' before the word 'baptize/ in order to make it appear that Mr. Barnes ad- mitted that baptize was a Greek word." It seems to me," remarked Theophilus, "that Mr. Barnes speaks very loosely-in reference to the matter, any way. In what language does he mean to say that tabal is rendered by baptize?. If he means the English, we know he is wrong; for baptize is not in the Old Testament. If he means the Greek, then he should have said that tabal in Hebrew was rendered by bapto or baptidzo. I am sur- prised that a man of Mr. Barnes's ability should make such a mistake as that." "But you see, Mr. Walton," replied Carrie, " it is for this very reason that such a mistake was made by Mr. Barnes, that his Notes were found in Theodosia's library. And now, Mr. Walton, we must get your assistance. There is a Greek version of the Old Testament, is there not?" "Yes, Miss Carrie," replied Theophilus; "I was looking at it when you came in this afternoon. It is called the Septuagint, and is thought to have been made about two or three hundred years before our Saviour's time." "It must be of some authority, then. Is that the book you have in your hand?" "Yes, this is the best edition extant." "Well, now, these fifteen places in which the Hebrew word occurs are all set down in I Theodosia,' and I want you to see whether or not the Hebrew word tabal is always rendered by the word baptize." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 147 "By the word bapto, you mean, Miss Carrie." "Well, the word bapto, then. We will take the first place in which it occurs in the Bible, Genesis xxxvii. 31." "Let me see," said Mr. Walton; " bapto is not in -this verse at all! Tabal is translated here by the Greek verb mtoluno, which means to dye, to stain." "Indeed! and is that Greek word moluno a word of mode, Mr. Walton?" asked Carrie. a Not at all," replied Theophilus, {" it means to dye, tinge, or stain, without expressing the manner in which it is done." "Very well, Mr. Walton; now look at Leviticus ix. 9, and tell us what word answers to tabal there." a The word is bapto here," replied Theophilus, after a few moments' examination. "Now, then, let us try the Baptist schoolmaster's ' axiom.' He says that things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. This we admit. Then he says further, if dip in English, and bapto in Greek, are equivalent to tabal in Hebrew, then dip and bapto are equivalent to each other. If this be good logic, it will bear expression in : another form. If moluno in Greek and bapto in Greek are both equivalent to tabal in Hebrew, then bapto and moluna are equivalent to each other. And further: if tabal in He- brew and bapto in Greek are equal to moluno in Greek, and if, as you say, moluno does not mean to dip, then neither tabal nor bapto means to dip, for things which are equal toa the same thing must be equal to each other!" "You are getting beyond your depth, now," exclaimed one of the young ladies. Not she!" answered Mr. Price; { if the Baptist school master made a ' demonstration she has made one, too. Her logic is as good as his." "To be sure it is/' said Theophilus, " and her demonstra- page: 148-149[View Page 148-149]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 148-149 "8 THEOPHLUS WALTON. tion takes the point off the 'axiom' of the schoolmaster. *Shall we proceed with the texts, Miss Carrie?" "Not this afternoon, Mr. Walton. Indeed, I think we may dismiss Mr. Barnes altogether. You have discovered two important blunders in his Notes, and I am willing now to leave him in the custody of Theodosia." "We can afford to spare him, on this subject at least." "I perceive that it is getting late," remarked Carrie: "perhaps we had better desist for the present. Shall we as- semble again?" "By all means," replied Mr. Price; "I am very much in- terested in your inquiries, no less so than in those of your father; and I think your efforts will result in good to some of us." "When shall we meet?" asked Carrie. "On Tuesday afternoon," replied Theophilus, "if it meets your convenience." Miss Mason consented, and the party separated. O THE GREEK WORDS BAPTO AND BAPTIDZO EXAMINED. THEIR CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE. MORE BAMIST TESTIMONY.-DR. FULLER, DR. CARSON, DR. GALE, AND DR. COX. page: 150-151[View Page 150-151]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 150-151 TSE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 151 THIRD EVENING. ON Monday evening there was a larger audience in attendance than on the two previous occasions. It had been noised abroad that Mr. Battle, the champion of the Baptists, had been sent for, and that he was expected to arrive before night. As his warlike spirit was well known, curiosity drew out many who did not feel otherwise an interest in the matter, to see the issue of the contest. Mr. Mason began at the usual hour, addressing himself to Theophilus as before: "On Friday evening, you remember, I stated that if it could be proved that the Greek words fTirow (bapto) and (amri-rG (baptidzo) invariably meant to dip, in Greek classi- cal literature, it would by no means follow that they were used in the same sense by the New Testament writers. This I proved by the word auravpbg, (stauros,) which origi- nally meant a stake 'of wood, and in later times a stake of wood with a transverse beam. But by our Saviour them bearing of the cross (or stauros) is commanded under the penalty of being rejected from discipleship.- If, then, we can take only the original meaning of the word cross, the terms of salvation become well-nigh impossible of-perform- ance, as well as unreasonable in their character. All the lexicons in the world would never help us to the meaning of the word; it does not depend on the heathen usage, nor page: 152-153[View Page 152-153]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 152-153 152 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, yet on the Jewish usage, for its definition. In the New Testament it has a meaning which it never possessed before." "By the way, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, " that this commandment may have something to do with the Roman Catholic uses of the cross appears very plain to me. You know it is a universal symbol among them. They wear it around their necks, many of them, and thus seem to fulfil the commandment as the Baptists require it to be under- stood." "Yes," replied Mr. Mason, "many of them wear a diminutive cross about their necks, especially the females; but I do not think that they regard the practice, either in part or in whole, as a keeping of this commandment. "However that may be, we are now to turn our attention to those words whose interpretation has so long divided the educated world. But before we proceed to examine their classical usage, we must again see how much of harmony prevails among Baptist writers on this subject. Dr. Fuller, whom I have already quoted, says, on the 14th page of his work: 'To say that baptizo has three different meanings, only proves how strangely controversy can blind the mind to the plainest things ... To say that a word means three distinct things is to say that it means neither of them.' Now let us hear Dr. Alexander Carson, the great champion of immersion in Ireland, and see how he agrees with his *American brother. On the 44th page of his work Dr.*Sar- son says: 'Having established the meaning of this word (bapto) as significant of mode, I shall now show that it sig- nifies also to dye. . . . Now, while I contend that dyeing is the secondary meaning of this word, I also contend that it is a real, LITERAL meaning, independent of consequence. Although this meaning arose from the mode of dyeing by dipping, yet the word has come by appropriation to denote dyeing WITHOUT REFERENCE TO MODE. " THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 153 "And there you have the doctors by the ears again!" exclaimed Theophilus. "Dr. Fuller says a word cannot have three distinct meanings, whilst Dr. Carson says it can." "Yes, Theophilus," answered Mr, Mason, "and Dr. Car- son goes on to cite examples from Greek writers in proof that bapto sometimes means dyeing by dropping the fluid, by applying the fluid to the beard, to the hair of the head, and by the fluid running down over the garment. Now here are several distinct acts, all of which are contained in one word; and if dipping a thing, dropping something on it, applying a fluid to it, and suffering a fluid to run down over it, are all contained in 4apto, as Dr. Carson says, then it fol- lows, from Dr. Fuller's position, that bapto has no meaning at all! Dr. Carson has been 'strangely blinded,' Dr. Fuller would have us believe, 'to the plainest things!' Yet Dr. Carson says dip is in the word bapto in some places, and in some places it is not. , And this fact, he says, 'I will put beyond question.' "We have this question settled for us, then, by a distin- guished Baptist writer, that the Greek root from which we get the English word baptize, does not always mean one mode; but includes any mode by which dyeing may be done. In order, then, to fortify our views by strong Baptist testimony, we have\ only to turn to Dr. Gale's Reflections on Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, and find, on page 97, that Dr. Gale says the words bapto and baptidzo 'are synonymous.' Dr. Carson says one of these words does not always mean to dip, and Dr. Gale says that the two words are synonymous in meaning. Then it follows if one of these words does not always mean to dip, that the other does not always mean to dip. Otherwise -they cannot be equivalent to each other." "That is a plain case," said Theophilus, "and if Baptist 7* page: 154-155[View Page 154-155]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 154-155 154 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, testimony is to be credited, we must grant that the point is established." "I might go on," resumed Mr. Mason, "and show you that Pedobaptists need nothing more to defend them from the attacks of the Baptists than the 'admissions' of ' learned Baptist divines.' I will give you more of these concessions in their proper place. "I could cite you to many passages in which these words (bapto and baptidzo) are taken in a generic sense-passages in which dipping is not and cannot be meant. One or two examples, however, of each word will suffice."' "Permit me to ask you," said Theophilus, a what is your opinion as to the original meaning of bapto? Dr. Carson says its secondary, though literal meaning, is to dye; do you think he is correct?" "I think: not, Theophilus; and I will give you my reasons directly. In all languages, words have, more or less, in different ages, changed their meanings. The Greek is no exception to this rule, as Dr. Carson proves. What changes it may have undergone during the nine hundred or one thousand years from Homer to St. Matthew, no man can tell. We know that the Greek language was in its infancy in Homer's time; that it arrived at its highest degree of excellence and purity in the days of Xenophon, Thucydides, and Plato*; and that under the Macedonian and Roman dominion it rapidly declined-becoming corrupted by foreign words, and possessing few writers of taste and excellence. It is also evident that the Jews did not come in contact with the Greeks until at and after the Macedonian conquests. They were only introduced to the language, then, when the process of corruption had commenced. This fact must be of great importance ii studying the New Testament, for, as you well know, the evangelists dsed what is called Hellenistic Greek. THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 155 "Now, in reference to the question in hand. It is admitted that a change passed upon the word bapto. This Dr. Carson affirms. No matter when it occurred, the change is admitted. The issue between us is, then, what was that change? ras it from a modal to a generic sense? So Dr. Carson affirms. I take the opposite ground, and affirm that it was from a generic to a modal sense; and that after it was used to signify dipping, the old idea of dyeing was still retained. Therefore we need not be surprised to find the word used in both senses by the same author. "If, as Dr. Carson thinks, the dipping expressed by bapto was the cause of attaching the secondary meaning of dyeing to it, what is the reason that the Greek verb dupto (d5Vr7ro) does not signify to dye? That it means to dip is plain, and it means nothing else but mode. , But we need not be left to conjecture on this subject. The first Greek writer who uses the word bapto gives the meaning of dyeing to it. This is a remarkable fact, and is acknowledged to be a fact by our opponents. In the Batle of the Frogs and Mice, a burlesque poem, Homer, who lived nine hundred years before Christ, describing the death of the frog Cram- bophagus, says: 'He fell and breathed no more, and the lake was tinged or dyed ([tarsreo) with blood.' On this passage Dr. Carson says : To suppose that there is here any extravagant allusion to the literal immersion or dipping of a lake is a monstrous perversion of taste. The lake is said to be dyed-not to be dipped', nor poured, nor sprinkled. There is in the word no reference to mode. . . . What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the figure of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse!' So I think. Please remember that our Baptist witness says there is NO REFER- ENCE TO MODE in this case. Now, how many writers have we older than Homer?" "None that I know of" page: 156-157[View Page 156-157]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 156-157 156 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "And how shall we determine the original use of a word?" ' By examining the oldest writers, of course." "If Homer uses ja'7rr'o without reference to mode, what authority -has any man to say that it was originally a word of mode?" "Why, Mr. Mason, I can see none. If the first writer on record uses the word as a generic term, it is primd facie evi- dence that such was its original sense." "That is certainly true. Dr. Carson infers that dyeing is the secondary meaning, because it was generally done by dipping. He makes to dip the primary, and to dye the secondary meaning. But where is his authority? He infers it. But in a case where demonstrative evidence can- not be procured, one inference is no better than another. We, on our side, can infer that 3dwTrrw originally meant to dye; and inasmuch as the most common method of dyeing was by dipping the article into the coloring fluid, so in pro- cess of time the word began to mean to dip. Thus we have the primary signification to dye, the secondary to dip. This, as a mere inference, is as good as Dr. Carson's theory; and if Pedobaptists were accustomed to deal in dogmatism, we might defy the learned world to refute our position. We know that it cannot be done, for there are no data that can be used. The word occurs in the first Greek writer in both a generic and a modal sense-both to dye and to dip: which of these is the primary meaning no living man can positively tell. As I have already said, I believe the proba- bilities are in favor-of the generic sense, to dye. I come to this conclusion from the following facts: There seems to be no other word used by the early Greek writers to express the idea of dyeing. The word eYXypGfoX (egchrodzo) signifies to rub in, to anoint, and poXwo (molouno) means to stain; but neither of these expresses fully the idea of dyeing. - If the Greeks had the idea before the days of Homer, they cer- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 157 tainly had the word--if 3ai7r'o was not, what was the word? We know that they had a word which meant to dip, which they formed from dvvo, to enter or drive in. Is it probable that two words existed which expressed the mode of dyeing, whilst there was no word to express, te thing itself? The idea of changing the color of a garment, for instance, would enter into a language in its very infancy-- this is obvious. If, then, it cannot be -shown that any other root in the Greek language expressed this idea, and we find 1a3rlrd' so used by the very earliest writers in Greek, the conclusion, I think, is irresistible that its original mean- ing was to dye.- When we find later Greek writers using the word to express the dyeing of the hair, beard, garments, swords, and other articles, whicHl is frequently the case, we understand them as giving it its primary and not its secondary meaning. "From this primary idea of changing the color of a thing, the general idea--of changing its condition by the application of any fluid is natural and easy. Originally confined to a fluid used in dyeing, the word was soon applied to water-expressing'not necessarily a change in the color of the thing to which the water was applied, but expressing the change in the condition of the thing. This change may be accomplished either by applying the article to the fluid or the fluid to the article. All the examples produced from the, classics to prove the dipping of things into water, honey, wax, and other fluids, will not overthrow my position. As a generic word, expressing simply a change in the condition of a thing, any mode, whether it be dipping, smearing, pouring, rubbing, or any other, is per- fectly consonant with the original sense of the term. "No matter how many examples are produced in the Old Testament Scriptures to prove that pdntro signifies todip, if there is a single one in which this mode cannot be under. * page: 158-159[View Page 158-159]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 158-159 158 THEOPHLUS WALTON;- OR, stood, my position is distinctly proved by the Scriptures themselves. Such a passage there is, and it is indeed amusing to see the efforts that have been made to avoid it. Please urn to the fourth chapter of Daniel, and read the 33d vele." "'The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchad- nezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.'" "The word in the Septuagint which is translated wet is 3aqsi7. The idea of dipping a man in the dew of heaven is absurd. Seeing the force of -this passage, Dr. Cox, a distin- guished Baptist, says: 'It does not imply the manner in which the effect was produced, but the effect itself; not the mode by which the body of the king was wetted, but its condition, as resulting from exposure to the dews of hea- ven.' This is Baptist testimony, and comes very near the truth. Dr. Carson, however, takes his brother Baptist by the ears, and says: 'Without doubt the verb expresses mode here as well as anywhere else. To suppose the con- trary gives up the point at issue as far as mode is concerned. This, in fact, makes bapto signify simply to wet, without reference to mode.'--Page 37. Unfortunately for Dr. Car- son, he must change the whole sentence in the Septuagint, if he gets his mode out of it. He would have it read, 'immersed or dipped in dew.' The Greek expression is E3Bda7q drrb rh- 6p6aov, ebaphe apo tes drosou. The preposi- tion v, in, is not there. 'What a monstrous perversion of taste' it would be to say the body of the king was dipped with (apo) dew! ' Theodosia' thinks it is 'a most beautiful though hyperbolical expression!' Dr. Carson thinks poets are allowed to use such 'animated expressions.' Alas! what will not sectarian zeal attempt in defence of its favorite G THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 159 dogmas! Daniel must become a poet; the sacred writer must- use hyperbolical expressions in describing a literal matter of fact, in order to save the doctrine of immersion. But it will not do. There is no poetry about it-no heavy dews, no hyperbole-the whole thing is a plainfact. The body of the king was wetted by the dew descending upon him. It does not matter whether it was a Syrian, an Ara- bian, or an Egyptian dew-he was not dipped in it; that is beyond doubt. If there was dew enough to immerse Nebuchadnezzar, he would never have passed another night in it alive. Dr. Coi, we have seen, as Carson says, gives up the point in dispute. Dr. Carson, it is true, endeavors to rescue the cause from this sad predicament by ever so many quotations from Virgil,. tQ show how the poets use words of this sort; but his labor is in vain. Every step he takes makes the matter worse. The Book of Daniel is not a book of poetry; it is not an epic poem; it claims nothing at our hands in the shape of poetic license. To illustrate his mon- strous interpretation of the baptism of dew by quotations from poetical writers is simply absurd. If it were allowable, the artifice would recoil against himself. We could show that the dipping which Edwin's schoolmate got by pouring a bucket of water over himself, would take the literal dip out of the Bible. A few examples will suffice to show how easily poetry will subserve our interests as well as theirs. In common language, we say that a thing has been dipped if it is as wet as if it had been immersed in water. This is the principle brought into requisition. Well, Joseph's coat was not literally dipped in the kid's blood, (Gen. xxxvii. 31;) it was only stained as much as if it had been dipped. The priest did not literally dip his finger in the blood of the bul-' lock; he poured the blood on his finger, and made it as wet as if it had been dipped. Hazael (2 Kings viii. 15) did not dip the thick cloth in the water; he only made it as wet * page: 160-161[View Page 160-161]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 160-161 160 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, as if it had been dipped. So we might turn 'the mode' out of the Bible altogether. There is just as much poetry, just as much hyperbole, in these cases as in that of Nebu- chadnezzar. If these are literal accounts of literal dip- pings in blood and water, so the last is a wetting with, and not an immersion in, the dew of heaven." That is perfectly clear to my mind," said Theophilus; "I see no reason why such a man as Dr. Carson should deny it." "He had the strongest reason that could possibly influ- ence a sectarian, Theophilus. He admitted that ft3irro means to dye, without reference to mode, but if he admitted that it means to wet, without reference to mode, his cause was lost! Away goes the whole superstructure of Baptist churches, if such an acknowledgment be made! Therefore, he will quote Milton, Shakspeare, Virgil, and ever so many poets, to lend hirp a helping hand. In this manner the account of the fall of man is made a beautiful fable-the talking of the serpent to Eve is a 'most beautiful but hyper- bolical expression;' the life of Christ is worked up by the German Strauss into a beautiful myth-a sacred allegory, descriptive of man's moral nature-but Jesus Christ, was not a real character. In defence of their positions, the Neologists will give any quantity of poetry; they will quote the Koran, the Zendavesta of the Persians, the Theogony of Hesiod, and other compositions innumerable. Upon Dr. Carson's principles of interpretation, the Bible becomes a fable, sure enough. We know not what is literal, and what poeti- cal. "Dr. Fuller avoids this text by saying we have nothing to 'do with bapto, ' a word which means to dye.' He says: 'If the Septuagint had employed baptizo in the case from Daniel, it would only have been an intensive metaphor, like this in Milton: THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH 161 "A cold shuddering dew, Dips me all o'er." But the term used is not baptizo, it is bapto.' This is an easy way to dispose of the matter. It is another word, he argues, and makes nothing, either for or against immersion. Dr. Carson, however, thinks the cause is lost, if Nebuchad- nezzar could not be immersed in the dew of heaven! "Before I leave the Old Testament Scriptures, I wish to point out an oft-repeated perversion of Scripture, which has been made by Dr. Gale, Dr. Carson, Dr. Fuller, and lastly by 'Theodosia Ernest.' You will please read the 6th verse of the fourteenth chapter of Leviticus." "'As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shd. dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. " "Here you see, Theophilus, the immersion of a living bird, cedar wood, scarlet, and a bunch of hyssop, in the blood of one bird was impossible. Now read the 5th verse, and it will tell you how and where the blood was to be caught." "'And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water." "Very well. The blood was to be*caught in an earthen vessel OVER running water. Now hear how 'Theodosia' gets out of this difficulty: "' If you will turn to Leviticus xiv. 6, you will see that the blood of the slain bird was to be caught over running water; and as it rested on or mixed with the water, these things could all be entirely immersed, if need be.' Now, Theophilus, do you see any thing of the blood of the slain bird being mixed with the water in the text?" "Not a word, sir. It says all these things shall be dipped in blood, not in blood and water." page: 162-163[View Page 162-163]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 162-163 162 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "Exactly. But 'Theodosia' did not get the 'cue' from her authorities. Dr. Gale and others explain it by connecting the 51st verse of the same chapter with the 6th. The living bird, the wood, the scarlet, and the bunch of hyssop, are there said to be dipped in the blood, and also in the running water. It is inferred, therefore, that the blood and water were mixed. This, however, does not follow, for it says in the 50th, as in the 5th verse, that the bird must be killed in an earthen vessel over the running water. It is evident that there are two dippings described in the 51st verse, while there is but one in the 6th. ' Dip them in the blood,' says the 6th; 'dip them in the blood and in the running water,' says the 51st; that is, dip them first in the blood, then in th water, and sprinkle upon the house. This is shown by the fact that two commands are given, and if the blood and water were mixed, there would have been but one. But this is not all; for if we grant that in this last case there was a mixture of the blood and water, it does not help the matter in the least. These are separate ceremonies-one was for the cleansing of a man, the other for the cleansing of a house-and the difference between them was, that while the wood, scarlet, bird, and hyssop Were, for the cleansing of the man, to be dipped in blood only, for the cleansing of a house they were to bg dipped, first in the blood, then in the water. "'Theodosia' does not feel easy, after perverting the Bible in this passage. 'You will remember,' says the author, ' that in common language the whole of a thing is often mentioned, when a part only is meant. I say, for instance, that I dipped my pen in ink, and wrote a line,' etc. Then follows Dr. Gale's old illustration about the pen being dipped, when only the nib is immersed. Here we have ' common language' to help them out of the difficulty. As if the legal statutes of Moses, which were exact in every THE MAJESTY OF - TUTH. 163 particular, were written in common language? As much as to say that God commanded total immersion, but he only meant partial immersion! The word must mean dip, in spite of common sense and the plain word of God. Poetry, figures, metaphors, hyperboles, loose expressionsa common language, any thing must be made of Holy Writ to save the infallible dip! "Dr. Gale, however, sensible that he had failed in getting immersion out of the passage, winds up with these words: 'The utmost, I say, that can be inferred from this passage, is only that the word does not always necessarily imply a total-immersion, or d2pping the whole thing spoken of ALL OVER, which I readily allow.' He then proceeds to give us a rule which saves him in this particular case, but over- throws his argument when applied to others: 'What is true of any one part, may be said of the whole complexly, though not of every part of the whole taken separately.' The English of this rule is, that if you dip your hand in a basin of water, you may be said to dip yourself in water. It is indeed strange that Moses should use words so inaccurately, seeing that he was then prescribing the law to the children of Israel, giving them for the first time a knowledge of God's requirements, and, from the very nature of the case, he must have been exact in describing their ceremonies. But let us admit that Moses intended no total immersion in this case, and, as Dr. Gale says, that neither bto, tabal, in Hebrew, nor P3dnr- in Greek, necessarily implies a total im- mersion. Let us try the strongest passage in favor of im- mersion which is found in the Old Testament. I allude to the account given of the cleansing of the leper, Naaman the Syrian. The passage is in the fifth chapter of the second book of Kings. Elisha commands him to go and wash (Hebrew Ty, rahats) in Jordan. ' He goes to the river, and, as our English Bible renders it, dips himself (Hebrew Al page: 164-165[View Page 164-165]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 164-165 164 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, Greek parr7To, baptidzo) in Jordan. Now what did Naaman do? Did he immerse his whole body, or only part of it? We will let Naaman and Dr. Gale determine this question for us. Naaman said, verse 11th, 'I thought he will surWq come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over THE PLACE, and recover the leper.' Well, then, there was a particular place in which the leprosy appeared, and that place he was commanded to wash in Jordan. He goes down to the river, and, according to the saying of the man of God,' baptizes THE PLACE seven times. He was not commanded to dip his whole body, neither was he commanded to dip the place in Jordan, but to wash it. Now, admitting that the Hebrew word does not necessarily mean total immersion, what proof is there that Naaman did wholly immerse himself--that he dipped himself all over? Dr. Gale says that what may be said of a part may be said of the whole complexly;' and therefore, if he only dipped the leprous place, he is said to have dipped himself, and nothing like total immersion of his body is necessarily meant by the Hebrew and Greek words. So, then, we have two points yielded to us. 1. That the Hebrew word tabal does not always mean total immersion. 2. That Naaman having dipped the place affected with leprosy, is properly said to have dipped himself. Nothing like immersion in blood can be found, then, in the ceremo- monial law, and nothing like total immersion in this case of Naaman. So we have our position fortified by the best Baptist testimony, which I will give you in a few proposi- tions: 1. The Greek word Pd7rro among classical writers frequently means to dye, without reference to mode: so Dr. Carson testifies. 2. The Hebrew word S, tabal, does not always mean to immerse, or dip ALL OVER. So Dr. Gale. 8. The baptism of dew, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, does not express the mode by which it was performed, but the THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 165 condition of being wet. So Dr. Cox. It follows, then, from these concessions, that total immersion can neither be found' in the. Hebrew word tabal, nor in .the Greek bapto, in their scriptural use. "Having settled this point, we now turn our attention to the second word, farriIw'), for that word alone has been selected by the Holy Spirit to designate the ordinance of baptism. Here the whole controversy must at last be decided, and here, too, we find a wonderful diversity of opinion among the Baptists. They all agree in making im- mersion essential to baptism, but how to prove it they know not. Some will have the Greek word to be afrequentative, that is, implying a repetition of the act several times; others assert that it is a diminutive, that is, meaning less than the root; and others again that it augments, or means more than the root. The first opinion is older than the second and third. Dr. Carson embraces the view that the meaning of bapto is diminished in baptidzo. Dr. Fuller believes that it is increased. "Let us try Dr. Fuller's rule. He says that the termi- nation zo enforces rather than diminishes the meaning of a word, and 'seems generally to denote the transferring to another, or performing upon another, the thing designated.' Very well; let us try the rule. On page 44, he says: 'Bapto means to- dye' Then, of course, baptidzo means to make one dye. This is his rule, and sufficiently absurd it is. "Dr. Gale takes the ground that the two words are exactly the same in signification. Therefore, when we prove by Dr. Carson that bapto means to dye, and does not mean mode, we add Dr. Gale's testimony, and prove that baptidzo does not mean mode. Thus the Baptist doctors destroy : themselves." I page: 166-167[View Page 166-167]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 166-167 166 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "Stop, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus; " is it possible that such differences of opinion exist among the Baptists?" "Indeed it is, Theophilus. Here are the books. You can examine for yourself." "I am astonished, sir, at the audacity of these teachers of immersion. They assert over and over again that their sys- tem is as clearly established as. the truth of the Bible, and yet I see that they are compelled to destroy it, whilst they are laboring to prove it!" "It is just. so, Theophilus. Their often-repeated boasts of destroying Pedobaptist doctrines by the testimony of their own advocates is retorted upon them with tenfold power. "But we return to the subject in hand. Dr. Gale gives up the mode of dipping in the following language: 'The word baptize, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a thing be- ing in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes over it.' This view he labors to establish, and, as far as the classics go, he is very near the truth. With a little modification I am willing to receive it. "My position is this: that bapto being used originally to express the act of dyeing without indicating the mode, baptidzo was used to express the overwhelming of a person or thing either with or in water: it being indifferent in the first case whether the dyeing fluid was applied to the thing dyed, or whether the thing dyed was applied to the fluid; so in the last case it was indifferent whether the water was applied to the object, or the object to the water: the result is the same. That the derivative in this case must mean either less or more than the primitive verb, is an opinion which seems to me wholly without evidence. The termination zo neither adds any thing to nor does it THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 167 take any thing from the root, by virtue of any rule known in the Greek language. The primitive verb raing, for instance, means to sprinkle, rain upon, tot bedew, wet, etc.; and its derivative, rantidzo, means also to wet, sprinkle, bedew. So also, the primitive verb kathairo means to cleanse, purify, etc., and the derivative, katharidzo, means the same. These are to some extent analogous words, and prove conclusively that baptidzo neither gains nor loses any thing by virtue of its final syllable. That there may be particular instances in which derivatives increase or diminish the meaning of their roots, I do not doubt; but that there is any rule for such changes, I do not believe. The use of the word is the only method known to us in any language by which we can as- certain its meaning. The use of baptidzo, as we have already seen by Dr. Gale's testimony, in the classic writers does not limit it to the expression of mode, but condition, the general sense being that of overwhelminig. "Dr. Carson, however, comes in collision with his Baptist brother, and does not hesitate in setting up his opinion against the whole learned world. Hear his language: 'My position is, that it (baptidzo) always signifies to dip: never expressing any thing but mode. Now, as I have ALL THE LEXICOGRAPHERS AND COMMENTATORS AGAINST ME in' this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons.'-Page 55. A modest 'position,' truly!" "Does Dr. Carson say that? Why, sir, I have heard Baptists appeaTto lexicons as ultimate authority, and declare that they are unanimous in their favor!" "Yes, I suppose you have, often. But here are the words of the Rev. Dr. Alexander Carson, flying in the face of all the lexicons, dictionaries, and commentators who have lived for sixteen hundred years past. And why does he do it? Simply because they will not prove his position! He $ page: 168-169[View Page 168-169]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 168-169 168 THEOPHLUS WALTON; Ot, appeals to the classics, and if he meets a hard case, he gets over it by the help of poetry and hyperbole, or calmly sits down, and says, Well, I don't know where it is, but dip is here somewhere: it must be here, for I have said so! "An accurate scholar would be at a loss to affix any modal meaning to this word baptidzo in the classics. The Baptists bring up a long array of names, from Homer down, to sus- tain their favorite idea dip. Nearly -all the passages they quote, however, only establish the fact that plunging, not dipping, is the sense in which the word is sometimes used. Josephus tells us of a certain vessel which was baptized, and the crew swam to the shore. The vessel was sunk, not dip- ped: it was overwhelmed by the waves. Aristotle speaks of a certain coast which was baptized by the water coming over it. This was certainly not dipping the land in the water, but the overwhelming of the land by the water. Here we have two examples, expressing the same general sense, but still requiring two opposite modes of performance. In the first case the ship sank in the water: in the last the water overflowed the land. c I might quote a number of passages in proof of my position, but I think it unnecessary. Whatever idea or ideas heathen Greeks may have attached to the word, it is plain they knew nothing of the Christian idea which belongs to it. To say that it means nothing but mode is to say that Aristotle, Plato, and Theocritus knew as much about baptism as Matthew, and Mark, and John. Unless the word has some sacred mean- ing, unless there is a peculiar sense in which it is to be un- derstood, it is impossible that it should convey to our minds a distinct ordinance or command of Christ. Nothing can be plainer than this fact; and yet upon this feature of the sub- ject Baptist writers not only contradict each other, but they pointedly contradict themselves. Let me give you an ex- ample. I will quote from the thirty-second page of Dr. Fuller's * THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 169 book on Baptism. He says: 'Another plea, sometimes urged, would be amusing if the subject were not .too solemn. It is that baptidzo has a sacred meaning; that is to say, it meant immerse until Jesus used it, and then all at once it got to mean something else. .If this absurdity were admitted, it would make the Scriptures utterly worthless, since nobody could know what Jesus meant.' Here, you will notice, he says that this idea of attaching a sacred sense to the word would be amusing, if it were not for the solemnity of the subject. The Doctor, however, while he does not feel will- ing to laugh at what he is pleased to term 'ridiculous sophistry,' does not hesitate to brand it as an 'impiety, which ought to fill a pious mind with horror!' To what extent ignorance ought to shield a man of great pretensions from rebuke, I am not able to say, but I think it ought not to be considered a just excuse for condemning his own words. Let us hear this Doctor on page 209: ' Properly administered, baptism is a most speaking ordinance. It is beautifully em- blematical of Christ's death and resurrection, and of our own dying unto sin, and rising to a new life!' Did baptidzo represent the death and burial of Christ a thousand years be- fore he was born? Did it typify our death and rising again, when it was used by heathen writers? If not, then it has certainly acquired this meaning, and it must, therefore, be sacred, inasmuch as the facts which it represents are sacred. The word ' signifies to immerse, and it has no other mean- ing.' So says Dr. Fuller. Yet at the same time it is a beautiful emblem of Christ's death and resurrection! So says Dr. Fuller. At the same time, too, it has no sacred meaning! So, also, says Dr. Fuller. Now, this emblemati- cal sense-was either always in the word, before it became the name of an ordinance, or else it has acquired it since. If it has acquired it, what is this but a new and sacred meaning to a heathen word? Dr. Fuller admits that this word alone 8 page: 170-171[View Page 170-171]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 170-171 170 THEOPHLUS WALTON;. OR) is used in the New Testament to designate baptism, but still, at one moment, he affirms that it means no more in Matthew than it does in Homer, while at another he gives it a meaning that no heathen ever dreamed of. Such is the consistency of this assuming writer. One other of his numerous absurdities I will notice. fEndeavoring to prove that words have no New Testament meaning, other than the classical sense, he says that mlvepa, (pneuma,) which every Greek scholar knows originally meant wind, 'meant spirit when Christ used it.' You will recollect that he contends a word cannot mean-more than one thing: how, then, could the word pneuma mean spirit when Christ used it? It is folly to deny that it was or- dinarily used and understood to mean wind in the days of our Saviour. But Dr. Fuller says it meant spirit. , Christ said to Nicodemus, 'The wind (rrvev'ia) bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth; so is- every one that is born of the Spirit,' (Ilvevpa.) Dr. Fuller would have it read, ' The Spirit bloweth where it listeth,' or, 'so is every one that is born of the wind!' He must reject one of the two meanings: he must make nonsense of the passage, or else admit that a word may have two meanings. Yet he tells us that it is impiety, sophistry, and folly to affirm such a thing! What marvellous critics these Baptists make!" "This Dr. Fuller stands high among the Baptists, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus; " but really I would be ashamed of such blunders as he appears to make. Is he a scholar?" "I do not know, Theophilus. Every Baptist preacher as- serts that he understands the word baptidzo, and although he cannot'put a dozen sentences together without violating the rules of grammar, he becomes, ex officio, a critic in the Greek language. As for Dr. Fuller, I am inclined to the be- lief, expressed by himself, that 'incurable prejudices are often found in men of erudition, whose piety we see and ad- THE MAJESTY O'F TRUTH. 171 mire in many things.' This is the answer which he gives to the question, 'Why do Pedobaptists adhere to their opin- ions on the subject of baptism?' It is the most charitable solution of his own extravagant assertions and unproved positions. "But enough of Dr. Fuller and his errors. I have said, and it is admitted by Dr. Carson, that the use of a word, which may be then current, is the only standard by which we can arrive at its meaning. What would you think of a man who would call you a candid villain, Theophilus?" "Why, that he either did not understand English, or else intended to insult me." "That would be a fair inference, either way, provided you mean modern English, Theophilus. But you must recollect that villain originally meant a tenant, one who held land by a servile tenure. The two classes of English villeins are clearly described; and their rights and duties pointed out, in Blackstone's Commentaries. As for the word candid, you know it is from the Latin candidus, and primarily meant white, so that a candid villain was only a white tenant a few hun- dred years ago. So, also, if you were called a frank man, you would not now understand, that you were considered a Frenchman. Yet the word frank was once only used in this sense. The word scruple, from the Latin, once meant a little pebble, which crept into the sandals of the soldiers and caused them to limp: now i't means a doubt or hesitation. The word boor originally mea nt a farmer; a varlet was a servant, only; a churl-was a strog man; but now, all these terms are opprobrious epithets. So, also,; the English word let, originally meant to hinder: Bow it means to permit. Prevent once meant to go before, for-t rpose of assisting: now it means to go before for the purpose of hindering. This last word has changed its meaning within three cen- turies past, as also has the word let, for wef both of bothe of . page: 172-173[View Page 172-173]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 172-173 172 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, them used in the English Bible in their primary sense, and many writers of the last century used prevent in its original sense." "I remember reading a valuable little work by Mr. Trench, on the study of words, which mentions some of these terms. But do you think the word baptize has changed its meaning, Mr. Mason?" "No, Theophilus, I was only adducing these examples to show you how unreasonably Baptist critics argue upon the subject of baptism. The ordinance of Christ, in its funda- mental character, has not changed, of course. Still, in different ages, the modes of its administration have changed. In accordance with the views of Christian teachers, in different ages, certain modes, more or less significant of a particular theory, have been customary. This diversity of practice, as to the mode, reaches back to the very first ages of the Church, after the apostolic times. Yet there is not a shadow of proof that the mode in use was considered essen- tial to the ordinance, disallowing and repudiating all others, as do our Baptist friends. When we come to examine the history of the ordinance, I shall show you where their theory originated, and who was the author of it." O, you mean to trace it to Munzer and Buccold, do you? . The Baptists deny their German origin." "No matter what they deny, Theophilus, I will bring the authorities, which cannot be controverted. I will show you, however, their theory in existence before the time of the German Anabaptists, although they were the modern re- vivers of it. "But we must keep to the matter in hand now. The only way in which we can arrive af a definite idea of the meaning of (aw'ririr in the New Testament, is to ascertain- the design of the ordinance. Upon this point an error will mislead us. I believe the Baptists generally agree tlthat THE MAJESTY OR TRUTH. 178 baptism is the door into the Church, and that it is an em- blem of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, sym- bolizing our death to sin, and rising again to a life of holi- ness. This is, I believe, their idea of the design which Christ had in view when he gave the commandment. They do not, however, pretend that there is any positive explana- tion of this symbol in the Bible. The nearest approach to it is a remark made by Paul, in his letter to the Romansl where he speaks of a burial with Christ in baptism, and a rising again to a new life. This is a famous text with immersionists, and I shall examine it in detail at the proper time. We will now turn our attention to the account given by the Evangelists of the baptism which John administered -its design and' mode. You may take the Bible, and look over the third chapter of l-Matthew, whilst I look over the Greek Testament." "That suits my views exactly," said Theophilus, afor I am confident that this question ought to be settled alone by Bible testimony." "The first thing that strikes our attention is the name which was given to John, that is 6 pamrrir -, the Baptist. In those days came John the Baptist.' The Greek word, as defined by the lexicons, means a dyer, or one that dips. This was its classical meaning, but it is very evident that he was not a dyer; therefore our Baptist friends say he was a dipper, and if the word had been translated, it would read Johp the Dipper. But -it is still a difficult matter to make sense of the passage with this definition. Mark says, ac- cording to this view, 'John did dip in the wi'lderness, and preach:the dipping of repentance for the remission of sins.' If we understand the words literally, the wilderness was the element into which he dipped. But this is absurd. If there had been any baptizers before John, why was he dis- tinguished by thatppeculiar name? Why was he Selected page: 174-175[View Page 174-175]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 174-175 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, as the only man to whom the title was given? It is very evident, then, that whatever may have been the mode of the baptism which he administered, there was something new, and hitherto unexplained, in the design of his baptism. Now the question occurs, Did John establish a Church? If so, who were' the members of it? Where is it stated in the Bible that such a Church was established by him ? If there is no proof that there was such a Church, his baptism could not be a door.' Another remarkable fact in connection with this part of our inquiry is, that there is no reason to believe, from the sacred text, that any one received the remission of his sins in consequence of this baptism. Though it is called a baptism of repentance unto remission of sins, and the people are plainly said to have confessed their sins, it is not said that any one of them was pardoned, that there was any change of heart or spiritual work wrought in the hearts of his disciples, beyond a conviction of sin, and personal necessity of a Saviour. This seems to have been the extent of John's dispensation. It was a pre- paratory work, for which he was divinely commissioned, and at the proper time he entered upon the discharge of his duties. John was himself the subject of prophecy, for in the third chapter of Malachi we read: 'Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple.' Accordingly John opens his message with these words: 'Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' .The Pharisees sent to him and inquired if he was the Christ, and upon his declaring that he was not, they asked: 'Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?' From this text' it is plain that the Jews expected Christ would baptize when he came; where, then, did they receive this idea? Did they not receive it from such passages as the thirty-sixth of Ezekiel, 'Then will I sprinkle clean'water upon you, and ye shall be clean ? Here the cleansing of the people is distinctly declared to be one of the blessings of Christ's kingdom. But in the chap. ter which I have quoted from Malachi it is said that the Lord 'shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver.' In the third chapter of John we read the following statement 'Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews, about purifying, and they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come unto him.' Here, a question about purifying is stated to be a question about baptizing, showing very forcibly that a purification of the subject was synonymous in their minds with the baptizing of him. "From these scriptural facts, I think we may draw the following conclusions: 1. Water was used among the Jews, as the emblem of purification. 2. They expected the Messiah to purify the hearts of the people, and that this work would be accomplished through an outward, visible ordinance. 8. Therefore they expected Christ to baptize. Consequently they supposed John to be the Christ, until he denied it. But John, to show them that the ceremonial law, in which they rested, and by which they expected to be justified, was not competent to the cleansing of their hearts from sin, declared to them that he baptized with water, but that the one who should follow him would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. As if he had said, This baptism which I administer is an outward work only, and is simply typical of that work which the Messiah shall perform, in your hearts by the operation of the Holy Spirit. "Notwithstanding the Jews had practiced a sort of bap- tism, by which, in conjunction with circumcision, proselytes page: 176-177[View Page 176-177]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 176-177 176 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, were brought under the covenant of Israel, this baptism of John was wholly new to them, in the manner of its admin- istration, the subjects of it, and the design of it. It was new to them in its manner, because it was performed upon the subjects by an administrator. No priest had ever bap- tized a proselyte; on the contrary, the proselyte in every case baptized himself. Hence we have the reason why John was called the baptizer-simply because he baptized his subjects. In the next place, the subjects of this baptism were not proselytes, they were native Jews; they did not make any change in their faith-they had always believed that the Messiah was to come, and John declared to them that he was at that time among them, and would be made manifest. Confessing their sins, therefore, they received baptism as a sign .of regeneration, and a seal of their faith in the refiner and purifier of the heart, the Messiah, who was shortly to be revealed. In the last place, it was new to them, in that it was declared to be only a symbol, a type, not the substance, not the cleansing agent, but only repre- sentative of the truly purifying power. They had lost sight of the spiritual meaning of nearly all their ceremonial ob- servances, and, as a people, looked for justification in the law: John's ministry, therefore, was designed to bring them back to the true design of the Mosaic law, and in the ordi- nance which he administered he distinctly showed them that all mere physical acts do not purify the heart. "John tells us himself why he baptized: 'And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel} THEREFORE am I come baptizing with water.' This was the grand object of John's ministry, to make Christ manifest to Israel. This was done in two ways. 1. By showing the abolition of the ceremonial law. By the confession of their sins, the people acknowledged that their sacrifices and offerings had not cleansed their hearts. In baptizing them, THE 'MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 1" John positively affirmed that water could- not cleanse them from sin; and thus the insufficiency of Moses' law being con- fessed by the people, and the inadequacy of any mere cere- mony being asserted by John,- the abrogation of all ceremo- nial rites as the means of salvation was clearly indicated. 2. Christ was made manifest personally, by his own baptism at the hands of John. He was thus declared to be the Anointed, the Baptizer, who, by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, would purify -the people effectually from their sins. Thus he was set apart to be for ever the High Priest, who, after his ministrations on earth, should enter the Holy of Holies, and for ever remain as the intercessor and advocate of all who come to God through him, ' ever living to make intercession.' "Here, then, we have a reasonable, consistent explana- tion of the design of the baptism of John, and I think a candid examination of all the passages in the Bible relating to the subject will confirm all that I have said." "I am truly glad, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, " that you have explained this subject so satisfactorily. I have always been in doubt about the object of John's baptism; but now I think the whole matter is perfectly plain. I see now why there was a difference between this and the Christian baptism; I see why it is called a baptism of repentance: because their acknowledgment of sin was equivalent to an acknowledgment that their Jewish types were only representative, and after the strictest performance left them still in sin. I see why the baptism was performed, both to show the inadequacy of their rites, and to point out the perfect competency of the healing agent. I see also why Jesus was baptized, which I never could learn before. I am indeed thankful that you have taken the trouble to give me this information. Still, however, there is one more diffi- culty to be solved-the mode of John's baptism; what was it?" 8* page: 178-179[View Page 178-179]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 178-179 178 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "Well, Theophilus, I will try to throw some light upon that subject, too. You know that the Baptists contend, and they quote Pedobaptist writers to support them, that the Jewish proselyte baptism was immersion, and therefore that was the mode which John practiced. The Jewish proselyte baptism was an outward act, indicative of a change of state or allegiance from the worship of false gods, heathen deities, to the worship of the only true God. It is true that the act was immersion in water; but it was not dipping in water. In the case of the adult proselyte there was no administrator-the man immersed himself. Here, then, were two points of difference. The Jews were not heathen idolaters: their allegiance or religious accountability was not affected by their baptism. They did not change one object of worship for another-they only acknowledged the unfit- ness of certain means of obtaining the favor of God, by embracing the substance which had been constantly sha- dowed forth in their law. And they were baptized by John; not by themselves. These differences are obvious. It :as, indeed, impossible that a Jew should receive prose- lyte baptism. If, then, heathens who embraced the true religion immersed themselves, does it follow that John immersed the Jews? Certainly not. The mode of his baptism has nothing whatever to do with the mode of initiat- ing a proselyte. Another matter must determine the particular act which John performed in baptizing. This act must be determined by considering the mode of the spiritual baptism, for there must always be a resemblance between the sign and the thing signified. Now, I have said that John's ordinance was a sign of regeneration, and a seal of faith in a Christ to come. The emblematical uses of water in the purifications of the law, all distinctly pointed out the cleans- ing agency of the Holy Spirit; and there is not a solitary instance in the Bible in which the baptism of the Holy THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 179 Spirit is said to be an immersion. We read in Joel, that the Spirit shall be poured out; webhear Peter declaring that the prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost; and we hear Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, talking of their having their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience; but in no one instance are we told that our hearts are immersed in the Holy Spirit. No such form of speech is used; no such mode alluded to, in reference to the cleansing of the heart from the defilements of sin. If, then, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is never said to be an immersion, water bap- tism, to represent the spiritual work, must not be mmnersion. This follows, as a matter of course, and the only ground of exception must be as to the thing signified in baptism. This, our Baptist friends say, is not the work of the Holy Spirit, but the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. At the same time, some of them stoutly contend that the baptism of John and the Christian ordinance are identical. If this be true, John was doubtless ignorant of it, as were all the apostles, for they give us not a remote hint of such identity, nor of the death, burial, and resurrection, which are said to be plainly represented in the ordinance. Indeed, it is absurd to say that John immersed persons in token of the death of Christ before John himself knew who the Christ was. Add to this the absurdity of immersing Christ, in representation of his own death, and thus admitting him through the door into his own Church, and we have absurdities enough to destroy any proposition in logic. !. Unless baptism is allowed to be something beside and even different from the door of the Church, these difficulties can- not be avoided. "We cannot admit that John's baptism was typical of Christ's death for many other reasons, the strongest of which is that the Holy Scriptures do not say so; and nothing can be found from which any such inference can be drawn; ' - ^ '- page: 180-181[View Page 180-181]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 180-181 180 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, W on the contrary, Paul makes, in the nineteenth of Acts, the same distinction which John made himself; and our Lord, a short time previous to his ascension, confirmed the lan- guage of John, and authorized the act of Paul. Against such testimony no man can place his vague fancies. "But I perceive, Theophilus, that it is time for us to dis- miss. We shall meet here again to-morrow night, and con- tinue this branch of the subject." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 181 ' )'"i CHAPTER XIV. A TEST QUESTION. THE Sabbath was a calm, beautiful day, and the worship- pers at the sanctuary of God were many. The Rev. Mr. Williams, the local preacher, to whom allusion has before been made, occupied the pulpit of the Methodist church, and preached in demonstration of the Spirit and in power. He was in the home of his youth; the spot to which his heart had often turned when in a distant land; and the well-remembered forms of those with whom he united at the throne of grace had often visited him in his moments of gloom and dejection. Once more he was with- them, look- ing upon the bright faces of the happy children, and gazing upon the countenances of friends who had loved and cherished him in his old home. The many touching allusions to the beloved dead who once worshipped there, and the glorious prospect of reiinion in that land where death can never come, and where separa- tion will be known no more, produced a deep sensation in the congregation. At the close of the sermon, Mr. Williams stated that he had been requested by the pastor to lead in the administration of the Lord's supper. In doing so he had but one remark to make, The- table which was spread before them was the Lord's table; it belonged to no denomi- nation. In approaching it with humble hearts, he invited all the children of God, all the redeemed of Jesus, by , -/ page: 182-183[View Page 182-183]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 182-183 J82 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, whatever name they might be called, to unite with him. And whilst they ate the bread and drank the wine, in token of a common Saviour's sufferings and death, he exhorted them to look forward, with an eye of faith, to that perpetual feast in which they should be allowed to drink the new wine in the kingdom of heaven. It was a solemn season. That sorrow, mingled with joy, which the humble Christian ever feels when contemplating the tragedy of the crucifixion, thrilled every heart that re- ceived in the meekness of faith the solemn testimonials of a Saviour's love. The audible thanksgivings of the commnu- nicants, mingled with the acknowledgments of unworthiness, ascended to the heavenly hills, and clouds of mercy de- scended in refreshing showers to many souls. Among those who -knelt at the altar was the mother of Mr. Williams, a lady advanced in years, with trembling limbs and feeble voice, yet possessing a heart upon whose altar burned the fire of devotion. She received the em- blems of the broken body and shed blood, and lifting up her face towards heaven, thanked the Lord of life and' glory for his condescending mercy. From her own son's hands she received the symbols, and she felt that the privilege was a source of joy to her widowed heart. Mr. Williams preached again at night, and the services of the day closed with undoubted evidences of usefulness and profit. Early on Monday morning, however, the study of Mr. Ellis was filled with an apparently busy company. We shall conduct the reader thither. "I told you how it would be," said Deacon Smith, ( this upstart of a Methodist preacher has enticed his mother up to commune with the Methodists. I was there. I saw it all." "It is unfortunately true, brethren," said Mr. Ellis; "Sis- ter Williams has been guilty of a gross violation of church order." o THE XAJESTY OF TRUTH. 183 "She has done precisely as she said she would do," re- joined Mr, Fleming, "'and I say that I cannot find it in my heart to blame her for it." "Nor I, either," added Mr. Barbour: " had I been in her place, no power on earth should have prevented me from communing with my own child." "Perhaps you will try the experiment," said Mr. Ellis; "and if so, you will see what will become of you." "If I never commit a greater'sin than that, Brother Ellis," 1 replied the young man, I will never go down sorrowing to my grave!" "But you will go out of the Baptist Church!" -ex- claimed Mr. Ellis. "Perhaps so; and peradventure those who would put me out might eventually find themselves excluded from a better Church, where all the children of the kingdom sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." "Come, brethren," said Mr. Newton, " there is no place for such retorts hlere. We have a grave and important fact before us. One of our most worthy, respected Church- members has publicly violated the established rules of our Church. What are we to do with- her? That is the question." * "What can we do with her, but bring her up before the Church for trial?" asked Deacon Smith. u If we allow this case to pass, others will occur, and no one knows what the end might be." ' "It might end in cutting us loose from those manacles of bigotry which have. subjected us to the opposition of the Christian world," said Mr. Barbour. "There is no Christian world outside of ,the Baptist Church!" exclaimed Deacon Smith; "and whoever says there is, is not a true Baptist!", The Deacon's, voice be- trayed greatexcitement. page: 184-185[View Page 184-185]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 184-185 184 THEOPHLLUS WALTON; OR, "Verily, 'ye are the people, and wisdom will die with you,'" replied Mr. Barbour. "Brethren," said Mr. Newton, {'I beg of you, for my sake, for Chrises sake, to stop. You pain me by such con- versation. It is evident that Sister Williams has done wrong: if she will not publicly acknowledge that wrong, much as it grieves me, I feel that our duty requires her expulsion." "You are right, brother Newton," said the Deacon: "there is no use to mince the matter. The case must come up. It must be tried." "Do you charge her with the offence?" asked Mr. Ellis. "To be sure I do, for I saw her commit it with my own eyes," replied the Deacon. "We can hardly let you be accuser' and witness both, Brother Smith," remarked Mr. Ellis. "Did any one else see her?" "Yes; there were two other members of our Church there." "Will they testify?" "Of course they will. How can they help it? They told me to bring up the case, and they would be ready." "Then we must attend to it," said the pastor. "Next Saturday is our monthly meeting. Shall we have the trial then?" "The sooner the better," replied the Deacon. "Well, let it be so understood, then. But see here, breth- ren," continued Mr. Ellis, " this is a family affair: be careful not to speak of it outside. I would not have that Method- ist circuit-rider to witness the trial, for--a year's salary!" The party continued in conversation a considerable time, after which they dispersed. T1HE MAJESTY oF TtRUTH. 185 CHAPTER XV. CARRIAI MASON'S REVIEW---CONTINUED. ON Tuesday afternoon, the place of meeting at Mr. Riley's was very nearly filled, as it was understood that Miss Mason intended to continue her examination of Theodosia Ernest's witnesses, according to appointment. Several per- sons were present this afternoon for the first time. "We are anxious that you should begin, Miss Carrie," said Mr. Price. "I think you have a difficult task before you, and the sooner you commence it, the more time you will have to accomplish it." "Indeed! Mr. Price," said Carrie; and you think I have a difficult task before me, do you? In what respect is it so difficult?" "Why, Miss Carrie," replied Mr. Price, "I have been looking over the book myself, and I do not see how you are to avoid the testimony of such men as Dr. Chalmers, Martin Luther, and John Wesley. They give pretty strong evi- dence in favor of immersion." "Well, Mr. Price," responded Carrie, "we shall see di- rectly what the testimony is worth. I believe it is a rule in courts of justice that a witness can give his testimony first, in the main examination, and then the opposing counsel has the right to cross-examine him. Am I correct?" "Certainly, Miss Mason," replied Mr. Price; " we must receive all of a witness's testimony, or none. ^Both sides have the right to cross-examine." page: 186-187[View Page 186-187]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 186-187 186 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, ("Very well, then. We have seen Mr. Barnes's testimony set aside, whatever it may amount to. We have detected two blunders in his criticisms, and therefore wish to use the witness no further. The next one brought forward by Mr. Percy is Dr. Macknight. The testimony of this witness is that Paul, the apostle, in the sixth chapter of Romans, when he speaks of being 'buried with Christ in baptism,' alludes to baptism by immersion. This is the amount of Dr. Macknight's testimony; and so far, we admit, the testimony is in favor of the Baptists. But this is no more than many others have done, who did not therefore abandon baptism by affusion. Now, suppose we interrogate the witness by way of cross-examination. You believe that the word baptilzo in Greek means to immerse, do you? I certainly do, says the Doctor in his Notes on the Epistles. Well, do you be- lieve that it means nothing else, Doctor? that's the question. And here we are answered by the facts of the case. Mac- knight was a Scotch Presbyterian, belonged to a Church which practiced baptism by affusion, and Dr. Macknight practiced it himself. Now, then, could a good man, a pious man, practice a mode of baptism which he did not believe to be baptism? Is the answer not evident? Dr. Macknight believed that immersion was alluded to in certain places of the New Testament; but at the same time he believed that it was not the only mode of baptism." "But then, the Baptists say that his inconsistency is not chargeable to them. If he believed one thing and practiced another, it is his fault, not theirs." "Very true, Mr. Price; but what is it that this witness believes?" "That baptism is immersion in water, if we are to credit his language." "No, Mr. Price, he does not say that; but he admits that immersion is baptism." THE MAJESTY OrF TRUTE. 187 { Well, Miss Carrie, begging your pardon for my plain- ness} I cannot see any difference. If immersion is baptism, then baptism is immersion!" ' I see your mistake, Mr, Price," replied Carrie; " you take the two words as precisely equal in their signification, and of course, if such be-the case, whatever one means, the other means also: this is the Baptist view of the subject. But observe, there is this difference between the two parties,: one contends that immersion is all that baptidzo means, whilst the other admits that it is a part of the mean- ing of the word. That is all that has ever been granted to Baptists by Pedobaptists. And what can they make of it? Just nothing at all. "Suppose, for instance, I tell you that Mr. Lawrence travelled from Maryville to Kingston in a day: would you understand by that expression the particular mode which Mr. Lawrence used?" "Certainly not, Miss Carrie; he might have travelled on horseback, on foot, in a buggy, or in a carriage." "Very well, Mr. Price; is the action the same when a man travels on foot as when he travels in a buggy?" "Of course not, Miss Carrie/' said Mr. Price; ";in the first case he is active, and moves forward himself; in the second he is passive, and is drawn forward by the horse." "Exactly so, Mr. Price. And yet you call both of these modes, thy active and the passive, by the generic term travel?" a Yes." "Well, now, what would you think of the man who should contend that there was but one way to travel, and that wayon foot?" "I should think that he was simply trifling." "But suppose he should bring forward some authorities page: 188-189[View Page 188-189]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 188-189 188 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, on his side; say, for instance, the great traveller, Bayard Taylor. Suppose he takes Mr. Taylor's book, 'Views Afoot,' and proves that Mr. Taylor travelled over several countries in Europe on foot, and then argues that because Bayard Taylor travelled over England on foot, that he travelled over Egypt, Palestine, India, China, and Japan in the very same way?" "I should say that his argument would be very absurd." "But what if he should go farther still, and give Mr. Taylor as testimony that travelling on foot is the only mode in existence?" "That is hardly a possible supposition, Miss Carrie," replied Mr. Price; "no one could attempt such a foolish argument as that." "You are mistaken, Mr. Price; the Baptists do this very thing in reference to baptism. They first set out with the assumption that the Greek word baytidzo is a specific word, meaning mode, and nothing else; in which position they are opposed by the great mass of learned men of all ages. Every English dictionary in existence is against them as to the meaning of the English word baptize; every Greek lexicon that has been published is against them as to the meaning of the Greek word baptidzo; and yet they quote these lexicons, as far as suits them, but no farther; and then bring up those passages in Pedobaptist authors which speak of immersion, omitting every thing on the other side, and endeavor to make it appear that both lexicons and authors are on their side. "If' because Dr. Macknight admits that immersion is baptism, and if he thinks immersion *as the ordinary prac- tice of the ancient Church, we are to conclude that the doc- tor denies that any thing else is baptism, then, because Bayard Taylor says he travelled on foot in certain countries, we are to conclude that he thus travelled everywhere-he THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 189 went, and it follows that Mr. Taylor allows no other mode of travelling." ' But stop, Miss Carrie," said Mr. Price; "is it certain that all the lexicons are against the Baptists as to the mean- ing-of baptidzo?' "She is certainly right," answered Theophilus; 1' for the Baptists have admitted the fact. Were you not out last night, Mr. Price?" "No," replied Mr. Price; "I was too unwell to attend. And you say that the Baptists admit that the lexicons are against them?" "Let me read you Dr. Carson's testimony. You know he stands highest among their writers on this subject." a Very well, let us hear his admission." "Here it is," answered Theophilus; "I copied it from the 55th page of his v4ork on Baptism, edition of 1855: 'My position is, that it (baptidzo) always signifies to dip ; never expressing any thing but mode. Now, as I have ALL THE LEXICOGRAPHERS and COMMENTATORS AGAINST ME in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons.' Now, what do you think of that, Mr. Price?" "I should say that was giving up the ship," he replied; u an unconditional surrender -of the whole question in dis- pute. I am astonished, sir, at that admission." - And now, Mr. Price," continued Carrie, "what do you think of the argument as it now stands? All the English dictionaries, all the Greek lexicons, all-the commentators on the Greek classics, against the Baptist position that baptize and baptidzo mean only to immerse. What think you of the preponderance of testimony now?" (,Well, well!" exclaimed Mr. Price, "I should think a,. : jury could decide such a case as this without a moment's deliberation. When the other side admits that all the testi- page: 190-191[View Page 190-191]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 190-191 190 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, mony is against the prisoner at the bar, I should say that his best chance would be to plead guilty, and throw himself upon the mercy of the court!" "You see, then, Mr. Price, that the testimony of Dr. Macknight, Dr. Chalmers, Luther, and others, that immer- sion is a mode of baptism, does not affect the question in the least. All the Greek lexicographers and commentators, and nearly every writer upon the subject, from the days of the apostles to the present time, the Baptists excepted-that is, most of the Baptists excepted-regard the Greek word baptidzo as a generic term-expressing, generally, the appli- cation of water, but not specifying the mode by which it shall be applied." "There is another fact, too, connected with this subject," said Theophilus. "I notice that the Baptists are very fond of old Pedobaptist writers. They love to quote Calvin, and Luther, and Wesley, instead of the eminent Pedobaptist critics of the present day. Now, everybody knows that very little was said or written about the mode of baptism in their lifetime. The subject, when introduced at all, was chiefly introduced in connection with the design and uses of the ordinance. Of course, their examination of the word must have been quite superficial, and consequently their testi- mony is not to be relied upon when it comes in contact with that of able'modern critics, who have spent the most of their lives in the examination of this and kindred subjects." "I was just about to make the same or a similar remark," continued Carrie; " for a critic must be familiar with his subject to be of value. For instance, if we want good authority to prove the corruptions of the Roman Catholic Church in the sixteenth century, Luther and Calvin are the authors to whom we go. And why? Simply because these men spent their lives in endeavoring to purge the Church THE-MAJESTY OF TRUT I. 191 from these errors.' They were qualified to judge of them because they were the subjects of study and close examina- tion. But when we introduce these writers as good testi- mony in a controversy which was almost or quite unknown in that century-when such a thing as a Baptist book-in defence of exclusive immersion was not extant-the folly of such a course is apparent to every mind. If Dr. Carson had written his book in Luther's lifetime, or if it had been answered by Calvin, any admission from these reformers would have been of value to the Baptist cause. "The simple fact, however, that these men considered immersion to be a mode of baptism, whilst they practiced at the same time baptism by sprinkling and pouring, is not a ' concession' to Baptist theory." "KI examined the German Bible to-day, Miss Carrie, in order to see how Luther had translated baptidzo.'" "* ell, how does he render it?" "By the German word taufen," replied Theophilus. "And does that mean to immerse?" inquired Carrie. "No, Miss Carrie; the word tauchen means to immerse. TauffenL in German 'is- precisely equivalent to baptize:in Engn. lish." ' : - e " "Very well, then, Luther does not testify that baptidzo means only to immerse, or else he would have rendered it so in his translation of the Scriptures. We' have,/lthen, Dr. Macknight against the Baptists instead of in their favor, which we prove by his practicing pouring and 'sprinkling, which he could not have done with honesty if he believed it wrong. If he was a dishonest man, his; testimony is useless on either side. If he knew or believedo immersion to be the only mode, and yet would not practice it, he was a bad man -wilfully disobeying what he believed to be the command of Christ. If he was a bad man, his testimony is not worth any thing. So the Baptists, to make any thing of such page: 192-193[View Page 192-193]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 192-193 192 TilEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, witnesses as these, must prove that they are unworthy of belief. There is no way to avoid this conclusion. "Luther's testimony, upon cross-examination, turns out to be against the Baptists, because he does not render the word into his own language by a term signifying only to immerse. Dr. Chalmers and Calvin are precisely upon the same footing as Dr. 5Macknight. If they were good men, and believed immersion to be the only mode, then they would have practiced it. But we know they did not prac- tice it, and they are universally admitted to be good men; therefore it follows that they did not believe the Baptist doctrine. "I now come to Mr. Wesley's testimony. This witness is handled very roughly by Theodosia. She takes one half of his testimony, and of course omits all that is against her. She first introduces Mr. Wesley's comment on Romans vi. 4, where he says: 'The allusion is to the ancient mannler of baptizing by immersion.' Now, if you examine this book, (Theodosia,) you will see that there is a comma between the words 'baptizing' and 'by immersion.' In Mr. Wesley's Notes, however, there is none. Theodosia's object is to show that Mr. Wesley believed that immersion was the ONLY ancient manner of baptizing. If it is paraphrased thus: I This passage alludes to the ancient manner of baptizing'- which manner was by immersion--it is clear that Mr. Wesley means that there was only one mode known to the an'cient Church, and that mode was immersion. If we read it as Mr. Wesley wrote it, however, we would understand it thus: This passage alludes to the ancient manner of baptiz- ing by immersion-that is, the manner or mode of immers- ing is here alluded to, at the same time leaving it to be understood that there were other ancient modes, not alluded to here, and therefore not mentioned here." "A comma is a very important thing sometimes," ob- THE MAJESTYOF TRUTII. 193 served Theophilus; "I remember a very important law-case which all turned upon the position of the comma in a sentence of a will. I recollect, too, an amusing instance of the value of proper punctuation. It is said that it was once customary in England to request publicly the prayers of the Church for those who had embarked for a long and perilous voyage. In accordance with this custom, the wife of a man who had just left the harbor in a vessel, sent a note to the minister which ought to have read as follows : John Brown having gone to sea, his wife requests the prayers of the Church.' The comma, however, was placed after the word 'wife, and the minister read it thus: 'John Brown having gone to see his wife, requests the prayers of the Church V!' "I should think the gravity of that congregation was upset for that day," said Mr. Price. "Your anecdote shows the necessity of correctly punctu- ating a sentence in order to give its proper meaning," con- tinued Carrie, " and whether this perversion of Mr. Wesley's meaning is' a mistake only, or is designed to do him injustice, the author of Theodosia Ernest only can positively tell. But to show you that Mr. Wesley did not believe immer- sion to be the only mode practiced by the ancient Church, I will read his note on Colossians ii. 12. He says: 'The ancient manner of baptizing by immersion is as evidently alluded to here, as the OTHER MANNER of baptizing by SPRINKLING or POURING of water is, Hebrews x. 22; but no stress is laid on the age of the baptized, or the manner of performing it, in one or the other.' "Theodosia brings forward a passage from Mr. Wesley's Journal," continued Carrie, in which he says that ' Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first Church and the rule of the Church of 9 page: 194-195[View Page 194-195]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 194-195 194 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, England, by immersion.' So Theodosia gives the quotation, and I charge this punctuation with the same unfairness practiced in the other. However, if it is granted that Mr. Wesley thought then that immersion was the only ' custom of the first Church,' we have seen that he did not think so twenty-five years afterwards, when he wrote his Notes on the New Testament. "One more allusion to Mr. Wesley I will notice. I will read Mr. Courtney's language, in Theodosia, page 62: 'Moreover, it seems from his (Mr. Wesley's) conduct after- wards, that he felt as much liberty himself to change the ordinance of Christ, as the makers of the Rubric had done; for when he organized his societies, and gave them ' the Discipline' as their organic law, he directed baptism to be performed by sprinkling or pouring, if the parties preferred it.'" "Now," continued Carrie, " the mildest language which this passage deserves is a direct charge of misrepresentation. And I notice three palpable misrepresentations of Mr. Wesley. In the first place, it is untrue that Mr. Wesley 'felt himself at liberty to change the ordinance of Christ.' The charge is wholly gratuitous. In the next place, it is untrue that Mr. Wesley gave or enjoined the Discipline upon the Methodist Episcopal Church, as their organic law. Mr. Wesley did not draw up the Discipline; it was done by the preachers assembled at the Conference in 1784, which organized the Methodist Church. In the third place, Mr. Wesley had nothing whatever to do with inserting the passage which this author alludes to, in the Discipline. It was the work of the Methodist ministry before men- tioned. The proof of these statements, as regards the provision of the Discipline, will be found in Emory's History of the Discipline, pages 25, 45. THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 195 "But I think we have pretty well consumed the time allotted to our meeting this afternoon. With your con- sent, we will resume the subject to-morrow afternoon." With this understanding the company separated. . 2 . page: 196-197[View Page 196-197]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 196-197 t I? I r thrth Qntsing. NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS EXAMNED. WHY WAS CHRIST BAPTIZED? HOW WAS CHRIST BAPTIZED? MORE LIGHT--MR. BATTLE IN THE FIELD. " - ,^ .*y page: 198-199[View Page 198-199]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 198-199 I THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 199 FOURTH EVENING. "VELL, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, as soon as the people had assembled on Tuesday evening, '"I am ready to admit that John's baptism was typical of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, for this I see stated by John himself. I admit, also, that there is no place which I have seen in the Bible, where spiritual baptism is said to be an immersion. Still, however, I find it stated that John baptized in Jordan, and that Jesus came up out of the water; now, unless he was immersed, how can we understand these statements?" "I purposely delayed giving you all the facts about the mode last evening, because it was growing late, and I was fearful of wearying you. There are several questions to be answered before we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Why did John preach in the wilderness, rather than in the city of Jerusalem? Why did he not follow the example of Jonah, and go to the very heart of the city, preaching repentance? Why was the place of his ministry a desert, instead of a large city, like Nineveh, or Jerusalem?" "Because it was prophesied of him that he should be the voice of one crying in the wilderness." "True, but why was such a prophecy recorded? There must have been a reasou for it, some object in it, otherwise it would seem to be a mere novelty, ,designed simply to page: 200-201[View Page 200-201]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 200-201 200 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, attract the attention of the people, and excite their curi- osity." "I suppose that was the reason," replied Theophilus. "But we have no authority for saying so. No statement of the kind is made in the Bible. It may be said by the Baptists that John went into the wilderness in order to be convenient to the river--but this does not appear probable. AWhy should John require the river Jordan to immerse his subjects, if three thousand persons could be immersed in the city on the day of Pentecost? This the Baptists say was the case; and, therefore, if we grant their assertion about the Pentecostal converts, we take away the argument for John's resorting to the river. There was water enough in the city; therefore this reason cannot hold good. The same necessity of much water for immersion existed in both cases. If John resorted to the river on this account, the apostles must have done so, too. But of this there is not the slightest intimation in the New Testament. We are compelled to conclude that this was not the reason, because other particulars are given which do not',allow such an inference. It is said that John, whilst in the wilderness, had locusts and wild honey for his meat, and his dress was of camel's hair, having a leathern girdle about his loins. These facts-his dwelling in a desert, his preaching there, his baptizing there, his coarse raiment, his simple food--are all to be taken together; they are all characteristics of the man, and there was something designed in all these particu- lars. What was it? "When we remember that John's manner of life was a near return to the habits of the patriarchal ages; when we consider that the pride and effeminacy of the Jewish priests were never greater than at this very period, we shall see at once the object of his seclusion from the multitude.- He was appointed to be the forerunner of a new dispensation; TtfE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 201 a dispensation whose simplicity was placed in contrast with the burdensome rites and imposing ceremonies of the Mosaic ritual. He was appointed to exhibit in his life, as well as by his preaching, these great truths. The induction of the people into his preparatory institutions was designed to enforce upon them a separation from the ceremonial laws and the concentration of their faith and hopes in a purely spiritual worship. Hence he used no synagogue; he preached not in the temple, nor in the cities; they sought him, leaving behind them all the insignia of Judaism, and embracing a new mode of worship. It is well known that the Roman Catholics urge the -conduct of John as an example which authorizes them to build monasteries, con- vents, and nunneries, for the purpose of secluding them- selves from the world. However they may err as to the nature of the warrant, it is clear that the great idea of meek- ness and humility, as opposed to worldly-mindedness and pride, was distinctly exhibited in John's temporary dispen- sation. "This being the reason for John's preaching in the desert, it becomes also the reason for his baptizing there; and con- sequently he resorted to the river as the most convenient, perhaps the only place for obtaining water. It is inferred, because he is said to have baptized in the river, that the people were plunged under the water; but this inference is by no means just. He used the water of the river, and is therefore said to have baptized in it. The force of a pre- position, even in our own language, ought not to overcome the stronger reasoning of analogy, based upon the resemblance between the emblem and the thing signified. There are ^ :' '4? thirteen prepositions, besides ey, in the Greek Testament, which are rendered properly in. This very preposition gv is used in the New Testament forty-seven different:way$s ex- pressing various shades of meaning. To reduc#^i']he-' Greek- 9 * * J , page: 202-203[View Page 202-203]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 202-203 202 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, ev to the invariable meaning of in, would destroy the sense of very many passages of Scripture. For instance, our Saviour says, in the twenty-third of Matthew, 'Woe unto you, ye blind guides! which say, whosoever shall swear by (&v) the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by (ev) the gold of the temple, he is a debtor.' Surely the Pharisees did not allow men to swear in the temple! Again he says, 'Whoso, therefore, shall swear by (bv) the altar, sweareth by (ev) it, and by (ev) all things thereon.' Did he say, whoso sweareth in the altar, sweareth in it, and in all things thereon?" "Allow me to ask, Mr. Mason,' said Theophilus, "if that view of the matter does not render it difficult to understand the Greek language, and make it doubtful what is required of us in the Scriptures?" "Not at all, Theophilus. The very fact which I state here about the Greek preposition, is also true of the English in. Dr. Webster, our standard lexicographer, after giving various definitions of the preposition, says, 'The uses of in, however, cannot in all cases be defined by equivalent words, except by explaining the phrase in which it is used.' This is true, to a greater or less extent, of all prepositions, in whatever lan- guage they may exist. As they are expressive of real or imaginary relations between substantives, it is impossible to confine any one of them to a single idea, or to provide a dis- tinct word for every such relation. This you know, for it requires but little observation to notice it. "The peculiarities of our language are as difficult to foreigners as theirs are to us. And yet we are never at a loss to understand each other. There is no necessity for Greek to be unintelligible, simply because prepositions are used interchangeably. It must be evident to your mind that no argument can be formed upon such a basis. But if it is granted that the baptism was administered literally in THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 203 the river Jordan-if we admit that John stood in the waters and the subjects walked into it, where is the proof that they went under the water?- There is none. The symbolical sense of the ordinance rejects the propriety of immersion, and indicates a different mode. I have given the preposi- tion ev the force of into, rather than in, in this argument, because the Baptists claim it as the general sense of the word. It is fair, then, to apply the aame rule to the bap- tism of Christ by John, in the account of which Baptists are very willing to repudiate their rule, because it is against them in that case. You know it is said that Jesus, after he was baptized, 'came up out of the water.' Hence it is affirmed he was immersed. The critics forget, however, that d7rb, which is rendered out of, ordinarily means from, and that if. it is so rendered it destroys their theory. I will not give you my word, however, but better testimony from the Baptist Dr. Carson: he says, page 337: 'I deny that it (drb) ever signifies out of.' There you have the testimony of the Corrector-General of Lexicons and Dictionaries. He affirms that the word means from. We are not informed that Jesus went into the water, and we are only told that he came from it: all that supports the idea of immersion is the fact that he was baptized in Jordan. This is indeed a slender thread by which the doctrine of immersion hangs, and when we admit all that can be said of it, the positive proof of im- mersion is not to be found. Suppose I were to tell you that your health depended upon your bathing in the river: would you necessarily understand me to require you to immerse your whole body in the water?" "No, sir: I have frequently bathed and swum in deep water, without at any time being submerged." "Then it is possible that one may stand in a river without being wholly immersed: it is possible for one to plunge into page: 204-205[View Page 204-205]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 204-205 204 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, a river on horseback and never get his feet wet. These things are possible, to say the least." "Certainly they are, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, "and I have known many boys who, though they were fond of swimming, could not dive, or even hold their heads under water a moment." "Yet these boys swam in the creek or river, did they not?" "Certainly, sir." "Well, then, the preposition in does not prove that Christ went under water. We must now learn why he was baptized, and then we shall probably see how the action was performed. The Baptists are hard pressed for a reason in this case. Why was our Lord Jesus Christ baptized? Some say that he was baptized in order to encourage the people to honor John's min- istry. Luke, however, contradicts this statement in the third chapter: 'Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,' etc. If the people were baptized before Christ, certainly he could not set them an example. So far from this, such an example would have misled the people. If Christ had submitted to baptism to honor John, he would have acknow- ledged himself a sinner, for the ordinance was designed for sinners only. Just men, if there had been any, would not need repentance, and therefore needed not the baptism of repentance. Unless there was a difference in the act which John performed in reference to Jesus, or some other method of distinguishing his true character, Christ, by being bap- tized, would have been considered by the Jews a sinner like themselves. But there is another difficulty in the way. In whose name was Christ baptized, and upon what profession of faith? These are essential points in the baptism of im- mersionists-the absence of the faith annuls it, they say. So also does the absence of the Christian formula. Now it THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 205 is evident Christ did not profess faith in himself: that would be absurd. Nor could he be baptized in his own name: that would be equally absurd. If then he was baptized in the name of the Father only, his example would lead to his own rejection! This is plain. And if he had been baptized in his own name, he would have acknowledged thereby that he was his own Saviour! Our Lord could not, then, without denying his own mission,'receive the same baptism which was administered to others. No formula could have been used, no repentance required, no faith, or profession of it, necessary, and the only point of similarity between the cere- mony performed on our Saviour, and that performed on the sinful-Jews, was the mode of administration. In this alone can it be said to be a baptism at all. "We must permit Christ and John to solve the difficulty in this case. When Christ came to be baptized, John ob- jected, on the ground that he was not worthy to baptize Jesus, but needed rather to be baptized by him. Christ replied: ' Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' That is, it was John's duty to bap- tize him. Why? Because he was the herald of Christ, and for this very purpose, to make the Saviour manifest, he was sent to baptize. The act then was simply a formal recogni- tion of Jesus as the Christ, the Anointed One, and hence- forth the only High-Priest, who, by his intercession, could make atonement for sin. In that very hour the imperfect priesthood of the Jewish system was abolished by the special mandate of the King of heaven. Christ was saluted by John in these words: 'Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world!' Keeping in mind the fact that the Jews whom John had baptized had renounced the ceremonial law, and that John's ministry was intended to connect the Jewish to the Christian dispensation, we at once see the propriety of this public recognition of the Messiah page: 206-207[View Page 206-207]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 206-207 206 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, He was indeed in their midst before, but until the moment of his recognition he had gathered no disciples, and had not publicly announced his mission. The baptism of Christ was then the recognition of his official character, whereby he was declared to be, as St. Paul in his letter to the Hebrews in- forms us, the High-Priest of our profession, the only true and proper Intercessor for the children of men. In order to ascertain the manner of consecrating a high-priest, we must examine the eighth chapter of Leviticus. Here we read that ' Moses brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with water. And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle, and all that was therein, and sanctified them. And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them. And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.' - In like manner was our great High-Priest consecrated to his holy office. He was first washed by the water of baptism, and then anointed with the Holy Ghost, of whose influences the anointing oil, poured upon the head of Aaron, was sym- bolical. Thus Peter says, ' That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached: How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were op- pressed of the devil; for God was with him.' Inasmuch, then, as the first high-priest was consecrated by washing with water and by the pouring of oil upon his head, so the last High-Priest was consecrated by the washing with water and by the anointing of the Holy Ghost: Moses, the instrument in the hand of God in delivering his people from the bondage of Egypt, being the first consecrator, and John, the greatest among those born of women under the Jewish dispensation, and the instrument in God's hand in turning the minds of the people THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 207 fromn the law, which was only the shadow, to the great Sub- stance himself, being the second consecrator. a We may continue this parallel to any reasonable extent, and at every step our view is confirmed. Moses received his commission in the wilderness, and Aaron was consecrated in the wilderness. John was a voice crying in the wilderness, and there he consecrated Christ to the office of High-Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. Moses was not a priest, but a divinely-appointed administrator, receiving his commission directly from the Lord. So also John was not a priest, but received his commission directly from the Lord, his especial work being to prepare the way for, and to intro- duce to the Jews, their Prophet,' Priest, and King. "Immediately after his consecration by John, as Christ was praying, the heavens opened, and the Holy Spirit, under the emblem of a dove, alighted upon his head. Here, then, was his recognition by the Father, whose voice was heard, saying, f This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Here Christ was made manifest to Israel: first, by John baptizing him or consecrating him with water; then by the Holy Spirit descending upon him, plainly point- ing out that he would indeed fulfil the prediction of John, and baptize the people- with the Holy Spirit. The emblem of purification, water, and the agent, the Spirit, followed each other in quick succession. The sign and the thing sig- nified were thus plainly exhibited, and from that hour Jesus was THE CHRIST. - SI have never heard that- view expressed before, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, "but I must say that it solves all the difficulties in my mind upon this subject. I recollect reading some time ago an author who ridiculed the idea that Jesus was made a priest by his'baptism, but the writer directed his remarks against the word ' Jewish.? You have not said that he was a Jewish priest, but the High-Priest, page: 208-209[View Page 208-209]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 208-209 208 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, the anointed Christ, the Sacrifice and Mediator. I shall never be able to thank you sufficiently for the information you have given me." "I know, Theophilus," replied Mr. Mason, "that some Baptist writers have attempted to treat this argument with levity; but they are not the first men who have labored to ridicule that which they cannot answer. The Apostle Paul does positively say that Christ is our High-Priest; that he was called of God, as was Aaron, and we have already seen how Aaron was sanctified and consecrated by Moses; and also that Christ was consecrated by John. Indeed, Paul says, in Hebrews vii. 21: ' For those priests (Aaron and,his successors) were made without an oath; but this (Christ) with an oath, by him that said unto him, The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek.' Our Saviour, then, was recognized as High-Priest by the baptism of consecration; ministered at the altar for nearly three years afterward, doing works of mercy and teaching the people; then offered up himself on the cross as a sacrifice for sinners; entered within the vail into the holy of holies, and there liveth to make interces- sion for us. "Unless we receive this view of the subject, we are beset by innumerable difficulties. The baptism of our Saviour becomes not only an unmeaning ceremony, but it is made absolutely inconsistent with his character and mission. To baptize him as a proselyte to the teachings of John is to make him a sinner, in no respect differing from others. To baptize him upon a profession of faith in his own death, burial, and resurrection, is absurd. To baptize him as an example for others, is to place him upon the same moral platform--to make him a partaker in the symbols of purifi- cation, when he was himself the dispenser of the grace which was signified. But when we regard the act as John's THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 209 official recognition of the Messiah, all these difficulties vanish. We at once see the harmony and beauty of that providential dispensation which first brought the people to look for the Anointed One, their true High-Priest, and then, by anointing him before the assembled multitude, pointed out the person who was spoken of by the patriarchs; and prophesied of by the prophets. "The same difficulties attend any attempt to blend the baptism of John with the Christian ordinance. In proof of my position, I will give you a brief sketch of the unanswer- able arguments of the Rev. Robert Hall, than whom the Baptists have never had either a greater or a better man. 'John uniformly ascribes his commission,' says Hall, ' not to Christ, but to the Father; so that to assert his baptism to be a Christian institute, is not to interpret, but to contradict him.' 'All he demanded of such as repaired to him was to declare their conviction that the Messiah was shortly to appear, to repent of their sins, and resolve to frame their lives in a manner agreeable to such an expectation, without requiring a belief in any existing individual as the Messiah.' 'Christian baptism was invariably administered in the name of Jesus; while there is sufficient evidence that John's was not performed in that name.' 'The baptism instituted by our Lord is in Scripture distinguished from that of the forerunner by the superior effects with which it was accompanied; so that, instead of being confounded, they are contrasted in the sacred historians.'-Terms of Comm u- 'nion, Sec. 1. "This is the testimony of a Baptist, a great and a good man; one who has accomplished more for the Redeemer's kingdom than a thousand Carsons, Gales,. Fullers, and Booths. You will not fail to see that his candid view of the subject makes it impossible that Christ should receive either John's or- the Christian baptism. He could not page: 210-211[View Page 210-211]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 210-211 210 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, receive John's, because that was connected with repentance for the past, and hope in the Messiah to be revealed; and that he could not receive Christian baptism at the hands of John, needs no argument in proof. "Now let us recapitulate the points which we have deter- mined. 1. The proselyte baptism or washing of the Jews could not-be the model for John's, as the first had no administrator, and involved a change in the object of faith, from idolatry to the only true worship. 2. John preached in the wilderness in order to prepare the way for a dispen- sation whose coming would abrogate the ceremonial law; requiring those who resorted to him to leave their present mode of worship, which consisted in types and shadows, in order that they might embrace that truth which was the spiritual substance of their religion. 3. Inasmuch, there- fore, as he preached in the wilderness, he baptized there. The Jews being accustomed to 'the use of water as an emblem of purification, it was now used, and they were directed to look to one who should soon come, who should cleanse their hearts by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 4. John expressly representing the mode which he prac- ticed, as a type of the Spirit's baptism, distinctly settled the nature of that mode. 5. The baptism of the Holy Spirit being uniformly represented as an effusion or pouring out, John could only use water in the same way, as the sign and the thing signified must in some particulars agree. 6. Our Lord Jesus was baptized by John, in order to anoint him before the people, to be 'a High-Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek.' 7. The high-priests were anointed by washing and by pouring oil upon their heads. 8. Christ was anointed by the pouring of water, and the descent of the Spirit in bodily shape upon his head, thus giving the double testimony of God and man that- this was indeed the Mes- siah. Thus I think we have settled the question as to the THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 2" mode of John's baptism, and also answered the question why and how our Saviour was baptized." Whilst Mr. Mason was stating these propositions, a gentle- man arose near the, middle of the audience, and when Mr. Mason concluded he advanced a few steps, and said: "I would like to ask you a few questions, Mr. Mason, if you will permit me to do so." '"Certainly, sir," replied Mr. Mason. "I will take plea- sure in answering any inquiry, if I am able." The gentleman advanced toward the altar, and was recog- nized by Theophilus and introduced to the pastor as the Rev. Mr. Battle, of whose coming we have already notified the reader. His manner was exceedingly courteous and confident, as he seated himself opposite to the Methodist minister, and prepared to interrogate him. "I have heard your remarks this evening, Mr. Mason, having arrived in your village a few moments before your meeting began. I would like to ask you a few questions, as you are seeking the truth as it is in Jesus. You have said that Christ was not baptized to set us an example, because by his baptism in his own name he would necessarily lead the peo- ple to believe that he was his own Saviour. Now, sir, will you tell me whether Christ did not partake of the Lord's supper, which he declared to be his body and blood? And if he partook of that, according to your theory, he owned that by the shedding of his blood and the death of his body he was himself saved!" This question was followed by a very perceptible air of triumph on the countenances of the Baptist people present. They could scarcely repress an audible expression of their satisfaction. Mr. Mason, however, immediately replied : "You must first tell me, Mr. Battle. whether you believe that Christ did partake of the supper; and if this is your page: 212-213[View Page 212-213]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 212-213 212 THEOPHLUS WALTON; ORB, opinion, I desire you to give me the passage of Scripture upon which it is founded." "Very well, sir," replied Mr. Battle, "I am prepared with a'Thus saith the Lord.' Our Saviour sent his dis- ciples to make provision for the supper, and when they were assembled, he addressed them, as Luke tells us in the twenty-second chapter: 'And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover (or supper) with you, before I suffer.' Here, then, he did eat with his apostles the supper which he instituted in the Church. If Christ, then, ate of the sacrament of the supper, you must either admit that this act was chargeable with the absurdities which you have laid at the door of his baptism, or abandon your position." "Do not draw your conclusions- before you have proved your premises, Mr. Battle," replied Mr. Mason. "You say that Christ ate the passover, and that the institutions are the same. There lies your error: Christ ate the Passover, not the supper which he instituted." "But you have forgotten, Mr. Mason, that the Paschal Supper was the thing which he appointed, and that he changed it from the Passover to the Christian sacrament." "Very true, Mr. Battle, he did appoint the Passover, and after he and his disciples had eaten it, then he instituted the Christian sacrament." "Where do you find that the Lord's Supper was appointed after the Paschal feast?" "In the very passage you have quoted, Mr. Battle, for the Evangelist says in the following verses: 'And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves, for I say unto you, I will not drink of the firuit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come."' "But still he drank of the wine, whilst he stated that he THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 213 would do so no more, until he drank it in the kingdom of God." "Your statement is flatly contradicted by the Scriptures, Mr. Battle, for -a few verses below those already quoted, the Evangelist says he took the cup after supper, and distributed it to the twelve. There is not a shadow of proof that Christ ate the bread or drank the wine, any part of either, which he blessed in the institution of the supper. He ate the Passover with his apostles, and after they had eaten of the lamb, then the sacrament of the supper was instituted, of which the apostles alone partook, so that the difficulty which you imagined to exist is not there. And since you have called attention to it, I would like to know why Christ, ^ having, as you say, set us the example, and commanded us to follow it, in baptism, did not set us the example in par- taking of the other institution-the Lord's supper." "I say he did do so, Mr. Mason." "But the Scriptures say he did not, Mr. Battle, and I cannot take your word when the Bible contradicts you." "It is no use to argue with you, Mr. Mason, if you have determined not to be convinced." "Surely I will not take your opinion when it is plainly contrary to the Bible. Show me the place where it says - Christ ate of the bread and drank of the wine which he had blessed, after the Passover supper, and I will acknowledge my error." "I think I have already shown you enough to convince , any one, but I will not insist upon this opinion. You have quoted Robert Hall: do you not know that he was a General Baptist, and practiced mixed communion? His arguments about John's baptism are of no weight whatever with us." "The more's the pity, Mr. Battle, for he was the greatest man you ever had. You ought, however, to answer his arguments before you reject them. I have quoted Gale, : --+ page: 214-215[View Page 214-215]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 214-215 214 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, Carson, Fuller, and Hall, in the same way that you quote Pedobaptist writers. It is your custom to represent Pedo- baptists as good witnesses against themselves, and on the same principle I bring the Baptists into collision with each other." "Very well, Mr. Mason, you have the right to do so, but at the same time you must remember that we call no man master except Christ; his commandments we follow, his teachings we abide by; but no man, no number of men, however great and good, can bind our consciences with man-made creeds and human ordinances, appointed of men, not of God. The Bible is our creed, and our Book of Dis- cipline. We accept no other." "You have accepted others, Mr. Battle, as I am prepared to prove; for it so happens that I have a Baptist Discipline in my pocket, which has been adopted by your churches in this country. But you are drawing me away from the sub- ject which I am investigating. At the proper time, I will show you something about the creeds, disciplines, and books of 'human appointment' which are as much standards in your churches as in ours." "You will never prove that, Mr. Mason," replied Mr. Battle. "We shall see at the proper time and place," said Mr. Mason. "And now, Theophilus," he continued, "if Mr. Battle has no further questions to ask, I shall proceed to show more fully the agreement between the mode of water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In order to bring the subject clearly before us, however, we must collect those passages in which the mode of spiritual baptism is expressed, and placed in the relation to water baptism of the thing signified, while water baptism is the sign. I shall read these passages as they occur, beginning with the pro. phecy of Joel: 'And it shall come to pass afterward, that I THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 215 willpour 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. And it shall come to pass, that whoso- ever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.' Joel ii. 28, 29, 32. 'I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, .and with fire.' Matthew iii. 11. 'I indeed have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.' Mark i. 8. 'John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.' Luke iii. 16. 'And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.' John i. 32, 33. Jesus 'being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait/or 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. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.' Acts i. 4, 5, 8. 'And when the day of Pen- tecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one page: 216-217[View Page 216-217]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 216-217 216 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, 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, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Peter, standing up with the eleven, 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; for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass, saith God, I will POUR OUT OF MY SPIRIT upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams, and on pay servants and on my handmaidens I will- PoU OUT in those days of my Spirit. Therefore, he (Jesus) being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath SHED FORTH this which ye now see and hear.' Acts ii. 1, 5, 14, 18, 33. 'While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost FELL on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was POURED OUT the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?' Acts x. 44, 47. Peter, relating this to the Jews, says: 'And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on 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 THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 217 believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God?' Acts xi. 15, 17. "Here we have prophecy and history united, both agreeing in testimony to the mode of Scripture baptism. The pro- phet Joel tells us that God would, in the latter days, pour out his Spirit. John the Baptist tells us that Jesus would baptize with the Hol/y Spirit, in token of which he baptized with water. Christ tells his disciples to wait for the promise of the Father, for that like as John baptized with water, they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended from heavenz and filled the disciples. Peter says on that- occasion that the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled; that the Spirit was poured out upon them. At the house of Cornelius, the Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word, as on the day of Pentecost, and Peter remembers the words of Christ, who promised that they should be baptized with the -Holy Spirit. Now, can any thing be: rendered plainer? Does not our Saviour, John the Baptist, and the Apostle Peter say that the pouring out of the Holy Ghost is the baptism of the Holy Ghost? And do they not all three say that the bapt'sm of John was typical of this pouring out of the Holy Spirit'? That the two baptisms were placed .in contrast, no one can deny. But wherein did the difference consist? Was it in the mode? Then there are two modes of baptism, for the mode of the Spirit's baptism is indisputable. Was it in the elements of baptism? Then the mode must be one, and as that mode is determined beyond a shadow of doubt, the word of God has settled the question. If the Baptists admit that there are two modes, their cause is lost. If they affirm that the mode of- spiritual baptism is the mode of water baptism,- then they acknowledge pouring to be the proper mode. There is no escape -from this argument.; God never promised to immerse any one in his Spirit; he 10 page: 218-219[View Page 218-219]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 218-219 218 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, promised to pour out his Spirit upon the people. This pouring out of the Spirit is called by John, Peter, and our Saviour himself, BAPTISM. There arefour things essential to the ordinance of baptism-an administrator, a subject, an element, and a mode. On the day of Pentecost, God was the administrator, the disciples the subjects, the Holy Spirit the element, and pouring the mode. This is called baptism by the inspired writers, and our blessed Lord himself. John's ordinance was contrasted with this, but in what par- ticulars? Certainly he was the administrator-he had sub- jects, an element, and a mode. Was the point of contrast only in the administrator? Then the other three particu- lars agreed. Was it in the subjects? This John denies, for he says, I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost; the subjects then were the same. Was it in the mode? Then there are two valid modes of baptism. But who can doubt where the points of contrast are? I, John, and he, Christ--here are the administrators; I with water, he with the Holy Spirit-here are the elements. In the other two respects the two baptisms were the same. v Here, then, the sincere inquirer may have all his doubts solved. He need not wander in the mazes of heathen poetry; he is independent of Homer and Lycophron, of Strabo and Aristotle: Jesus Christ has fixed the sense in which his commandment is to be understood, and no man need err in the interpretation of his will." "Permit me to ask you if John did not say he baptized in water, and that Christ would baptize in the Holy Spirit?" said Mr. Battle. "Ah! you are returning to prepositions, Mr. Battle," re- plied Mr. Mason. "Before I answer your question, let me ask you one. Suppose the sacred writers had intended to tell us that John baptized WITH water: pray tell ne what Greek preposition they could have used to express it?" THE MAJESTY QF TRUTH. 219 a"Well, I suppose they might have used drb instead of v," said Mr. B . { But the usual sense of drb is from, Mr. Battle." "Or they might have used oav; that always means with." u Well, -then, Mr. Battle, show me a place in the Greek Testament where the preposition a&v is used to express the application of a fluid to a person or thing." "The word means with, Mr. Mason, and it would express the meaning of our English word." '"But you forget, sir, that the English word with has various meanings. For instance: Thomas is walking with James. Surely James is not a fluid applied to Thomas!" a Well, there are several other words which might express the same sense: dea, t7rb, and several others. "Yes, sir, and v9rb generally means under, whilst d&A is rarely rendered with, and never in the sense of applying a fluid to a person or thing. But why do you object to the, use of ev?" a I object to translating it with, because it means in," re- plied Mr. Battle. 'And yet, sir, you have given us nothing to take its place -no word you have mentioned, or can mentions is free from your objection. Therefore, according to your teaching, it was impossible for the Evangelists to tell us that John bap- tized with water! Thus you must expel an idea from the Greek language in order to save immersion!- No, Mr. Bat- tle, I will not charge you with ignorance of the language, but I will say that-a little attention to this subject will -con- vince you that ElC and ev are the only prepositions that could have been used in the passage in question, and unless you assert that neither of these can express the application of water to a person, you must abandon the argument. I make no issue upon such- a narrow foundation as a preposition--no man can do so who is earnestly seeking the truth, and knows page: 220-221[View Page 220-221]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 220-221 220 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, in what a logical argument consists. If I' mention the pre- positions at all, it is because immersionists make them pro- minent proofs- of their positions."' - But I am not satisfied with your explanation of the bap- tism of the Holy Ghost on the day of the Pentecost. The Spirit filled the house, and they were immersed in the Spirit: so I understand it." "And in so understanding it, Mr. Battle, you not only con- tradict the word of God, but you make the murderous Jews to be -equally baptized with the disciples. The sacred writer does not say that the Spirit filled the house, but the sound filled the house, and the Spirit filled the apostles, sitting upon them in the shape of cloven tongues, like as of fire. The murderers of Christ were in the. house, and Peter charges them with the crime: if the Spirit filled the house, and by that means the disciples were immersed, then these Jews were immersed in the Spirit also! Such is the absurd- ity of this attempt at evasion. It would be far better to call upon Homer and Milton, for by their aid poetical ex- pressions might be found to warrant you in overthrowing the narrative of the inspired penman. "It is indeed strange that pouring and sprinkling should be such figurative, poetical subjects. The author of I Theo- dosia' says it was not a literal baptism which occurred on the day of Pentecost, but only a swallowing up or over- whelming of the apostles in the influences of the Holy Spirit! It is a metaphor!' Here is the escape from the unanswerable argument. Every thing that looks like im- mersion must be construed literally-every thing that favors pouring is a metaphor, a beautiful hyperbole, a figure of speech! To reason with such unscrupulous dialecticians is a loss of time and labor. They are determined to upset all rules of interpretation, to cut down, enlarge, or destroy the sense of God's word in order to save their cause. Poetry is THE MAJESTY QF TRUXTH. 221 the last resort-when every thing else fails, metaphors- and tropes come to their relief. They will make Christ and his apostles use the language of fiction if they do not support immersion. They will make distinctions where there are lno differences} and say that one- can be baptized with the in. ftuences of the Spirit, but not with the Spirit himself! And if you bring them to the language of the plain word of God, they will not hesitate to draw upon the resources of infidel- ity-deriding the prominent truths of our religion, and ren- dering the Bible an absurd and incomprehensible mass of fables! Such is the course of the author of (Theodosia,' who unites in his characters all the elements of a miserable logic and an extravagant skepticism. If one could be im- mersed in the Spirit of God, they would have the narrative in Acts to be literal-; but as it is said to be a pouring out of the Spirit, therefore it is not a literal baptism! 'The Spirit of God,' says the author of this book, 'is everywhere pre- sent; therefore the -literal pouring out of the Spirit is im- possible.' And yet there was something poured out-what was it? Why, the influences of the Spirit! And are not the influences of the Spirit as evidently omnipresent as the Spirit himself? How then could they be poured out? Mysterious indeed is ,the nature of the Allwise -God--his ways are past finding out, and his wisdom unsearchable-but when we enter the territory of the infidel, and demand, how can the Spirit of God be poured upon his -people? we need but take one step more, and ask, how does God exist? and if we refuse to believe until we comprehend the Divine exist- ence, the lowest caverns of atheistical despair are open for our reception." "Do I understand you to say that ' Theodosia' denies the literal baptism of the Holy Spirit?" asked Theophilus. "Yes, the denial is made in the plainest terms." "' Well;' replied Theophilus, " if- that is the only argu- page: 222-223[View Page 222-223]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 222-223 222 THEOPHLUS WALTON"ORB, ment to be offered against your views, I am free to say that the question between you is not the mode of baptism, but the truth of the Christian religion. If there is no literal bap- tism of the Spirit, there is no Christianity. If there is no literal conversion, no real change, no direct operation of the Spirit upon the hearts of men, then it is folly to talk of Christ being the Saviour of men. But I beg of you, Mr. Mason, do not spend time in answering such profane cavils. Whenever a man is willing to sacrifice the very groundwork of Christianity, in order to establish a sectarian opinion, I would no sooner think of reasoning with him than with a block of stone. His heart cannot be influenced by the truth, who betrays the fundamental doctrines of religion to accomplish a selfish purpose. I am exceedingly pleased with your explanation of the ministry of John the Baptist, and the reason of our Saviour's baptism. Thus far I feel con- vinced that the mode of water baptism which was practiced by John was the type of the Spirit's baptism to which he constantly alluded.- I would like to hear your views about the design of water baptism as a Christian ordinance." "In order to do so, Theophilus," replied Mr. Mason, "I must pursue the same course already taken, and present you a connection between the prophecy of the Old Testament and the history of the New. Although I shall have another use for these scriptural evidences, when I come to speak of the subjects of the ordinance, it will be necessary, first, to give them as illustrative of the general meaning and design of baptism. I shall give these quotations in the order in which they occur in Scripture, beginning with the prophecy. ' Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand- to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 223 they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith. the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and-write it, in their hearts , and will be their God, and they shall be mppeople.' Jeremiah xxxi. 31-33. 'And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you :f this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is- the NEW TESTAMENT (or COVENANT) in my blood, which is shed for you.' Luke xxii. 19, 20. 'And for this cause he is the mediator of the NEW TESTAMENT, (or COVENANT,) that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, (or covenan-t) they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inher- itance.' Hebrews ix. 15. "You must remember, Theophilus, that when Christ is said to be the Mediator of a new covenant, the law, or Sina- itic covenant, is the object of contrast. The blessings pro- mised to Abraham are secured by the blood of Christ. This I hope to prove when we examine the subject of infant bap- tism. For the present, then, keep the fact in view, that when St. Paul speaks of the new covenant, the contrast is with the Sinaitic covenant only. To avoid confusion of terms, I shall use the words old and new dispensation. St. Paul, in the third chapter of the letter to the Gala. tians, says: 'And this I say, that the COVENANT which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of God of none effect. For if the inheritance be of ttie law, -it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise.', We learn, then, that the covenant was first made with Abraham. Now, by turning to the twelfth chapter of Genesis we find page: 224-225[View Page 224-225]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 224-225 224 THEOPHLUS WALTON' ORB, the promise which the Lord made to Abraham. In the fif- teenth chapter the promise is renewed; and in the seven- teenth chapter the covenant is made, and the seal affixed to it. 'This is my covenant that ye shall keep between me and yourand thy seed after thee: Every man-child among you shall be circumcised.' St. Paul, in Romans, fourth chapter, declares, 'And he (Abraham) received the SIGN of circ'umcision, A SEALi of the righteousness of the faith which he then had, being uncircumcised.' Then we learn that cir- cumcision was the sign and seal under the old dispensation. Now we turn to Galatians again, and Paul tells us: ' For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED into Christy haveput 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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, - and heirs according to the promise.' Galatians iii. 26, 29. Now the facts are before us. Under the old dispensation, circumcision was the sign and the seal. Under the new dispensation, baptism is the sign and the seal. The old dispensation had respect to Abraham and his seed. The new dispensation has respect to all the children of Abra- ham and their seed-not his natural posterity alone, but all those who are by faith his seed. The seal of the old dispen- sation was a partial one, being delivered only to the male children of Abraham; but under the new dispensatioti the seal is given to all alike; for 'there is neither male nor female,' says the apostle-- all are one in Christ Jesus.' The putting on of Christ,' or the initiation under the new dispen- sation, he tells us is done by being c baptized into Christ.' "Here, then, Theophilus, we have the answer 'to your question: Baptism is now the sign and seal of. the covenant made in the blood of Jesus Christ, our Mediator with God. It is the sign of that baptism by the Holy Spirit, by which TEE -MAJESTY OF TRUTH, 225 the law of God is written in our hearts; it is a seal of the promise by which we are encouraged to trust in the Lord for the acc6mplishment of this work. Now let us return to the passage in Acts which we have been considering. After the sermon which Peter delivered, many of the Jews were deeply convicted of their sins, and said, Men and brethren what shall we do?' Peter replied: Repent, and be bap- tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' It would seem that he indicated a special order in which the commandment was to be obeyed. You know, Theophilus, that one division of the Baptist Church strenu- ously labor to establish this advice of Peter, as the universal law of the gospel. They say we have, 1st, Repentance, or reformation. 2d, Baptism. 3d, Remission of sins. The fourth item, the gift of the Holy Ghost, they omit, assum- ing that it was a consequence which was only temporary, not needed in succeeding ages. I do not grant their posi- tion, of course, that this -is the gospel law; yet I am prepared to admit that this was the order in this particular case. But there was a reason for it. There was a cause which rendered this exhortation necessary. I am willing to admit that if these conscience-smitten and awakened Jews had not been -baptized, they would not have received remis- sion of sins. - But let us ascertain the reason why this was so. We must remember that Peter: was addressing the Jews alone; at that time he did not know that the Gentiles were to be partakers of this gospel. Indeed, so firmly was he convinced that the gospel was restricted to the Jews, that it was necessary to convince him of the contrary by the vision of the sheet let down from'heaven. This account we find in the tenth chapter 'of the Acts. Peter, then, was speaking to the Jews: 4ye men of Israel/ he says-and after declaring that Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved 10j page: 226-227[View Page 226-227]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 226-227 226 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, of God among them, he continues-him 'ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.' He charges them with being the murderers of Christ. They had per- petrated a heinous crime-crucified the Lord of glory- denying that he was the Christ, and branding him as an impostor and a malefactor. They were not only under the old covenant, but they had stained their hands in the blood of the Mediator of the new. They had then a double work to perform: they had to-repent of their sins which they had committed in common with others, and they had to make public atonement for the murder of Christ. Having denied that he was the Messiah publicly at the bar of Pilate, they must now as publicly acknowledge him to be the true Christ, by being baptized in his name. This was all the atonement they could make, and therefore it was required of them. By this renunciation of their error, they would not only prove that they were sincerely penitent, but would secure the same gift of the Spirit which had been bestowed upon the disciples. This I believe to be the true explanation of the passage; and they are as greatly in error who deny that baptism preceded remission of sins in this case, as are those who contend that it must always go before or happen in conjunction with remission. It was a special case, and required a special law. "This view of the case would render immersion as the mode of their baptism well-nigh impossible. If we grant that there was water enough in the city, in the pools or in the baths, to immerse three thousand persons; if we admit that twelve apostles could possibly immerse such a vast num- ber of persons; still, the circumstances which surrounded them rendered it almost morally impossible that they could have been immersed in water. They had assembled out of curiosity, and must have heard the sermon of Peter before they could have been candidates for baptism. Then they THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 227 must return home for the necessary clothing, assemble again at some designated place, and adjourn to the pools: all these things were necessary if immersion was the mode used. And yet we have not a word of all this in the narrative. We are told that the multitude came to see and hear, when the wonderful phenomenon was known in the city; but we have not a word of testimony that they went out from the place to the pool of Bethesda, or Siloam, or anywhere else, in order to be baptized. Such an extraordinary spectacle as three thousand persons marching out to the pools, in order to be baptized, attended by thousands of others who would be attracted by the novelty of a scene never before witnessed in Jerusalem, certainly was worthy of notice by the sacred historian. But he does not give us one word of information about it; not an expression that will allow such a procedure to be inferred. I am aware of the fact that it is impossible to prove that there was any place or places suitable for immersion in the city; or that it was possible for so small a number of men to immerse so many in one day. But if these difficulties could be satisfactorily settled, the omission of any expression which could be construed into proof of the immersion of the converts, is positively inexplicable. Surely there was a necessity for such a statement if the fact occurred. This was the first case of baptism performed under the gospel dispensation, and there was a far greater necessity to say that it was done in Siloam or Bethesda, than to state that John baptied in Jordan. It will not do to say that it was known that John baptized in the river Jor- dan; and therefore these were necessarily immersed. For if the comparison is worth any thing at all, it will prove that John went to Jordan because there was no suitable place in Jerusalem. Nor will it do to say that the citizens of Jerusalem needed not to be informed that there were places suitable. for immersion there. Luke was not writing page: 228-229[View Page 228-229]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 228-229 228 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, for the citizens of Jerusalem, but for the world at large, who could not be acquainted with the facts. Nor can it be said that it was sufficient to state that they were baptized, without giving the place and other circumstances. We may as well say that it was not necessary even to state that they were baptized at all, as that by the same process could be inferred also. "u If we give the Baptist rendering to the sentence which the historian has left us chronicling this important announce- ment, we shall see how absurd the account appears. 'Then they that gladly received his word were baptized;' so reads the passage. The Baptists would have it; ' Then they that gladly received his word were dipped; and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls.' They were 'dipped.' Where? in what? not in Jordan, nor Siloam, nor Bethesda, nor anywhere else; for they were not dipped at all. This is the only reasonable conclusion. And there is another remarkable fact, that there is not a word said in the New Testament of a Christian convert being bap- tized in a river, a pool, a 'tank,' or any thing of the sort; not the slightest hint that any congregation adjourned to such a place to witness a baptism by immersion. If our Saviour had required such a thing at the hands of his believing children, it is absolutely unaccountable that we have no evidence that any one of them ever obeyed him. "We have consumed the greater part of the evening, Theophilus, as I am reminded by my watch. We shall meet to-morrow night, and continue our examination of the New Testament baptism. I shall be pleased to see you also, Mr. Battle, and to listen to any thing you may have to say.". The Baptist minister bowed to Mr. Mason, and, without making any reply, withdrew with the audience. THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 229 CHAPTER XVI. EVENTS OF THE FOLLOWING DAY. AFTER returning home on Tuesday night, Mr. Battle and Mr. Ellis repaired to the study at the church, where, with Mr. Walton, the father of Theophilus, they continued in consultation until a late hour. The result of the interview, whatever it may have been, did not seem satisfactory to the parties concerned. Mr. Battle had been driven from the field as effectually as Mr. Ellis had been, and it seemed use- less to endeavor to interrupt the proceedings any further. It was evident that Mr. Mason had the vantage-ground; it was fruitless to attempt-to counteract his argument- by cap- tious objections. The only course open to Mr. Battle was, then, to challenge Mr. Mason to meet him on Baptist pre- mises-; to bring him into the classical authorities, and rest the question of mode upon the testimony of the Greek writers. In pursuance of this design, Mr. Battle prepared a note, challenging Mr. Mason to an examination of classical au- thorities at large. He proposed Friday evening as a proper time for this meeting. The note was written late on Tues- day night, and was dispatched to Mr. Mason on Wednesday morning. Mr. Ellis, however, did not seem confident of success in this effort, although he interposed -no objection to it. There was -evidently, to his mind, a better plan. If Theophilus could be brought back, he was well aware that with the mass page: 230-231[View Page 230-231]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 230-231 230 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, of the people all would be restored. He felt that there were important results pending the decision of this young man. If, after all, Theophilus should declare that he was yet in favor of immersion; if he could be by any means forced or per- suaded to, unite with the Baptist Church, the evil would be averted. He did not question that the affair of Mrs. Wil- liams could -be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He had determined, in his own mind, to shape the decision in reference to her case in the forthcoming trial. She was old, and therefore claimed forbearance at their hands. She had been led off by peculiar circumstances, such as were not likely to occur again. In this view of the case, then, he was determined to plead for her forgiveness by the- church. He had no doubt that this could be obtained, for he had sel- dom calculated upon his influence upon his brethren without success. Mr. Walton, too, had his difficulties. He had paid much attention to the education of Theophilus. Nothing that money could procure had been denied him. He hoped to see his son occupy a proud position at the bar, and he had placed in his hands all the required helps. But with all his affection for his -son, there was much of real selfishness in his conduct toward him. He felt that the honor gained would be reflected upon himself and the family. He con- sulted his own pride, rather than the wishes of his son. But now that Theophilus had united himself to the Method- ist Church, against his declared wishes, his sectarian bigotry had triumphed over his natural affection. He had determined to use all moderate means to reclaim him; but in the'?event of failure, Mr. Walton had resolved to use an argument which he knew would be successful in his own case, whether it would move his son or not. The. last resort of his wounded pride was a threat to disinherit his child; and after the interview with Mr. Ellis and Mr. Battle, Mr. THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 231 Walton determined to communicate his resolution to The- ophilus. On Wednesday morning, Mr. Ellis summoned his daugh- ter to the sitting-room. Mary answered the summons in a few moments. As she entered the room, she saw from the expression of her father's countenance that she would need all the courage she could command. But she had prepared herself for the worst, and whatever that might be, she deter- mined to adhere unfalteringly to the interests .of her be- trothed. C"Mary, my daughter," commenced Mr. Ellis, - I have learned from your mother that you have had an interview with that boy, Theophilus, within a day or two past. Do you remember my command, Mary?" ' I remember it very well, father," replied Mary, calmly; "I know that you commanded me to see him no more." "And you have disobeyed me, Mary?' "I have disobeyed you, father," "And what excuse have you to render for such conduct?" "I have no excuzse, father, but I have the best of rea- sons.' "And what is it, Mary?" "I have the best reason a woman can give for seeing The- ophilus-I love him. You have given me no reason why I should discard him, and therefore I have not done so." "Then you thke the liberty of doing as you please, I sup- pose, disobeying your parents at pleasure?" "Only in this instance, father." c Do you intend to persist in this course, Mary?" "Unless you convince me that I am doing wrong, father. You have not done so yet. Although I regret the necessity which compels me to this step, I am nevertheless firm in my decision." "And you intend to marry this young man, Mary?" page: 232-233[View Page 232-233]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 232-233 232 THEOPHLUS WALTON; ORB "That is my purpose, father, unless you can give me some reason why I should not." "I can give you reasons enough, my child, if you will heed them. Theophilus is young. He has never, perhaps, worked a day in his life." "Very well, father, I suppose that is no very good reason why I should discard him." "But if he should be left without a cent from his father, what then?" "I should love him still." "-But would you marry him, then?" "You mistake me, father. I have not fallen in love with his estate, but with himself. I should regard his being dis- inherited as a misfortune, but I must have proof that it is his fault." "He has offended his father--that is enough. He con- siders him no longer worthy his countenance." "And for the very reason that you wish me to treat him unkindly. Theophilus is no longer a Baptist-that is the secret of your opposition." "It is enough, Mary. He has been the means of injuring our Church. His sin is a grievous one, and does not deserve to be forgiven." "I see nothing wrong in his course, father. ' He has only obeyed the dictates of his conscience." "Then you persist in your disobedience, Mary?" "I am firm, father. Convince me that Theophilus is no longer worthy of my affection, and I will obey you. But until you give a better cause for discarding him than you have done so far, I shall remain true to him." "Then, Mary, you renounce your father and your home for ever." "Be it so, father," replied Mary, a bright tear-drop roll- ing down her cheeks. "You have said the word. I cannot THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 288 be to blame. If I am to forsake father and mother, it is for his sake who has been the subject of my thoughts, and is to be the sharer of my joys and sorrows. If you say so, I must leave you. I will not stay where he is not allowed to come." "Foolish child!" exclaimed Mr. Ellis, "where will you go?" "I shall trust in God," replied Mary. "He will provide for us." a But how will you live?" asked Mr. Ellis. "I am not too good to work, father. Thcophilus is not dependent. While God blesses us with health- we shall never want bread. A cottage will be enough for me; if my husband can only find occupation, we shall not crave his father's riches."' - Go, then!" exclaimed Mr. Ellis, " and try it. 'But he shall never set foot in- my house again-never." Mr. Ellis: left the room, and Mary soon followed. She had put on her bonnet and shawl, when her mother met her at the door of her room. "Where are you going, Mary?" asked Mrs. Ellis. "I am goin, to Aunt Riley's," replied Mary. "You are not going to leave us, Mary?" "I am not prepared to say now, mother," replied Mary; SI shall spend the day there, however." "You will be back to supper?" "I cannot tell, mother-I may not." "But you must, Mary." "Not without father's permission. Good-morning, mo- ther." Mary was :gone in a moment. She seemed not to be angry. Her countenance was calm, and her voice, as sweet and musical as ever. Mrs. Ellis had overheard the conver- sation in the sitting-room, and she determined to persuade her husband to deal more gently with their-daughter. page: 234-235[View Page 234-235]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 234-235 284 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, Mr. Ellis was inexorable. In vain did his wife represent to him the injury he was inflicting upon himself and his "Church by such a heartless course. The world would judge him harshly, and say that he had acted cruelly. Theophi- lus was beloved by all, and to the impartial, Mr. Ellis was without excuse. His wife assured him that Mary's firmness was not to be overruled by unkindness. Indeed, the mother's heart was more than half-inclined to defend her daughter, although she had done every thing in her power to prevent the present issue. Mrs. Ellis remembered that when she was even younger than Mary, she had married Mr. Ellis against her parents' wishes. She felt that, after all, Mary might be in the right. But Mr. Ellis spoke very abruptly to his wife, and left the house, and she did not see him again until the dinner-hour. She did not venture to renew the subject then, for Mr. Ellis seemed to be in much distress, and, after hastily dispatching his meal, went out again. ' THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 235 OHAPTEIt XVII. A STRIUGGLE 'AND AVIOTORY. 1 ON her way to Mr. Riley's Mary met Theophilus. He ) had started to her father's house to see her. He accompa- nied her to the house of Mr. Riley, where Mary informed him of the conversation with her father that morning. "I am sorry that you have been treated thus for my- sake, Mary," said Theophilus; 'but be of good courage, my love, the Lord has not forsaken us. I received from my father this morning the intelligence that he has determined to cast me off for ever." ', Just as I expected, Theophilus," said Mary; "and how did you receive it?' "I thought of the words of the Psalmist, CWhen my father and my mother forsake -me, then the Lordswill take me up.' I was so conscious of my rectitude, and that I had i done nothing to deserve condemnation, that I received his orders without a murmur. I am to look to him. for nothing : so long as I persist in being a Methodist. c I replied to him calmly, and told him -that' I had taken up my cross, and however heavy that might be, by the help of God's grace, I was resolved to bear it, I have nothing now, Mary, to raUs- tain me but your fidelity and the grace of God. ' -'And we shall be happy, Theophilus ," exclaimed Mary; "happier than the tenants of royal mansions, and those who boast themselves of riches. We can work, and the good - page: 236-237[View Page 236-237]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 236-237 236 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, Lord, who feeds the birds without barn or storehouse, will not permit us to lack for bread." "I believe that firmly, Mary," answered Theophilus; "but still there is a subject which gives me great anxiety. I have not informed you of it yet, and I must beg your par- don for my remissness. Perhaps, after all, it may be the greatest hindrance in the way of our union." "Well, what is it, The.? I am prepared for any thing now. I have left father and mother for you. There is no other sacrifice which I can make that shall not be freely made. Tell me, what more am I to do?" "Bear with me, Mary," replied Theophilus, "I am going to relate to you a strange story. Do not charge me with superstition, but hear me out before you judge. When I was a little boy, hardly more than four years of age, I had a singular dream, which impressed my mind so vividly that it is now almost as distinctly before me as the night when it first transpired. I thought I was in a vast field, which extended, in slightly undulating plains, as far as the eye could reach. The surface of the ground seemed to be per- fectly bare; and whilst I was walking alone in this field I felt the earth shake beneath my feet, and a singular noise, resembling the striking of heavy timbers against the ground, underneath. I was greatly alarmed, and remembering that my mother had taught me to pray, I knelt down, and asked the Lord to protect me. Whilst I was kneeling there I dreamed that a voice fell from the sky overhead, and I heard these words, 'This is my prophet, harm him not.' In a moment I felt perfectly assured that I was safe, and rising to my feet, I looked out again upon the field. The noise had ceased, and the whole earth was covered with grain resembling wheat, just ripe and ready for the sickle The golden heads were waving to and fro under a gentle breeze, and, in the clear sunlight, looked like a sea of gold, rolling TIfE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 287 on wave after wave. In a moment more an innumerable company of rdapers appeared, all dressed in white, and began to harvest the grain. I awoke soon after, and the impression left upon my mind has not been effaced to this day. That dream has followed me, Mary, when I have been surrounded by gay and dissipated companions. I have never been tempted to ridicule sacred things, or to speak lightly of religiof, without thinking of it, and I am sure it has pre- served me from committing a thousand sins." "And what did you make of it, Theophilus?" inquired Mary. "I thought that it was from God, and warned me of the fact that I should live to be a minister of the gospel-a mes- senger of the Lord. I cannot say now that this was the, proper interpretation, or that it was more than a childish fancy, but certainly it has been of great service to me. Whether from this source alone I cannot tell, but I have always felt that I should be called to minister in holy things. When at the altar for prayer, recently, I found it necessary to give myself wholly up to the Lord, and if he saw fit to prepare me for this work, I resolved to take up the cross. Now, Mary, I have told you all. You are the only human being to whom I have confided this secret of my heart. I feel that I must preach the gospel, or forfeit the favor of my God. It was this impression that made me so decided in the choice of my Church relations. Some of the doctrines of the Baptist Church I caninot believe, and therefore I cannot preach them. Now I have told you all, Mary, tell me, my dear, do you object to my resolution:?" "What, Theophilus!" said Mary, to preach the gospel Y No, my love, if the Lord has called you to this work, go; he will qualify you for it. I have but one objection to your entering the ministry. I feel that new duties would be imposed upon me, new responsibilities placed upon me- . % page: 238-239[View Page 238-239]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 238-239 238 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, my example and influence must be of such a character as to aid you in your labors. The grace of God alone can fit me for such a station. I will try it-I will go anywhere that the Lord may call you to labor. Not a straw will I place in your way. I honor you for your integrity, love you for yourself alone; and whatever may be your lot, as I said to you before, 'naught but death shall part thee and me.' " "But weigh well the difficulties, Mary. I may be ap- pointed to difficult fields of labor. You will have to suffer many privations, and to bear many hardships. You must live for the most part among strangers, and meet many of the trials of itinerant life." ' I am ready, Theophilus," replied Mary, "to share any hardship with you. Let me know and see that you are happy, and I could live in a desert, as happily as if in a sumptuous mansion. . Fear nothing from me, my dear; I shall not hesitate a moment." "Then, Mary!" exclaimed Theophilus, "let our ambition be to do good, and the Lord will bless us. You are a trea- sure, more costly than rubies, more precious than diamonds. With you to comfort and cheer me, and the favor of my Heavenly Father, I can suffer the loss of all things else." The morning passed pleasantly away, and soon the hour arrived for the afternoon meeting of Carrie Mason and her friends. THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 289 CHAPTER XVIII. CARRIE MASON'S REVIEW--CONCLUDED. "I BELIEVE you have gone through the cross-examination of Theodosia's witnesses, Miss Carrie," said Mr. Priee, "'and I admit that your view of the subject takes the witnesses out of the hands of the Baptists. You have gone, I believe, to the close of the Second Night." "I have examined the testimony of Mr. Barnes,- Dr. Macknight, Dr. Chalmers, Luther, and Mr. Wesley," said, Carrie, " and we have seen that they all agree in rejecting the doctrine of exclusive immersion. Not one of these men believed that 'exclusive immersion was practiced by the an- cient Church, that it is enjoined in the Scriptures, or'that it is to be understood from the meaning -of the -Greek word. And yet these men are- brought forward to prove a doctrine which they did not believe, and the minds of professed Pedobaptists are represented as being convinced by -esti- nony which does not reach the case. Let me ask you, Mr. ?rice, if with such witnesses as these you could gain a case n court " ' ' "' Not unless they proved the point in dispute, Miss Carrie," eplied Mr. Price ; "if the testimony does not reach the tatements set forth in the indictment, we'are compelled to nter a nonle prosebuz, and dismiss the case." "Exactly so," replied Carrie.- We, as Pedobaptists, are barged with disloyalty to the King of heaven-nothing less page: 240-241[View Page 240-241]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 240-241 240 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, than treason against our heavenly Master. The specification is that we have wilfully substituted a mode of baptism for that-which our Lawgiver has commanded. Witnesses are summoned from our own ranks to testify against themselves as well as against us. But we find, upon examining the tes- timony, that they do not prove the indictment, ,that they have never spoken a word which can possibly prove it, and therefore, unless the other side-the prosecutors in this case -can prove it by other means, the case is determined, and the prosecution fails. You will perceive, then, my friends," continued Carrie, "how far you are to credit the statements of this book. Whenever by chance a Pedobaptist has been found who mentions immersion favorably, or allows that it is a mode of baptism, his words are seized upon as valid proof that im- mersion is the only mode, and we are required to believe that these men testify against themselves. The most of you have seen already with what force this sort of argument may be turned against immersionists. If our Baptist friends prefer immersion, let them practice it. If they believe Christ commanded it, let them remember that we are as conscientious in keeping Christ's commandments as they are, and if we do not practice immersion, it is simply because we do not believe that our Saviour requires it at our hands. If we cannot agree, then, as to the precise nature of the com- mand, let us at all events agree to live in peace, and grant to each other a reasonable liberty of conscience." "That is a Christianlike view of the controversy, Miss Carrie," said Mr. Price; "but are you not going to examine some of the proofs in Theodosia on the Baptist side?" "I have looked over the Third Night's study," replied Carrie, " and I see nothing there worthy of special notice. Mr. Johnson, the Presbyterian pastor, commences a sort of argument-we will call it argument for the-sake of courtesy, THE MAJESTY OPFTRUTH. 241 but it is nothing more than mere assertions, from which a very few Baptist strokes make the Presbyterian minister to recede, and leave his cause in the hands of his opponents. It would be a waste of time to notice the trivial attempts at proof which the minister makes. Of course, to meet the wants of Theodosia's cause, he must make confident asser- tions, and then give them up without hardly a struggle. "Mr. Percy suggests that John the Baptist 'might have provided himself with a large-sized syringe or sguirt-gun, and, filling it from the river, have turned its stream along the ranks,' and thus, probably, he baptized the Jews! Of course this suggestion makes merriment for the author, but he gravely tells us that the Presbyterian minister accepts the suggestion as 'an amendment to his supposition, and good proof for his cause I "This is but a sample of this minister's argument. And after giving up post after post, he finally makes a stand on 'with'-John baptized with water, therefore he did not im- merse. Edwin, however, upsets the grave Presbyterian's argument, by saying that 'Aunt Chloe, the cook,' told him how she ' would get the feathers off the chicken for dinner. The cook said she would scald it with hot water, and then dipped the chicken into the water. Moreover, 'big Joe; the butcher,' loosened the hair of the hogs he killed, with hot water, by dipping the hogs into the water, and therefore John baptized by immersion! Mr. Percy gives it up, Edwin gains the day, and the learned Presbyterian minister is silenced! Now, my friends," continued Carrie, "when such argu- ments as these silence all opposition, we may despair of any attempt to answer them. So absurd in themselves are the efforts of the Pedobaptist advocates in this book, that they will not bear a grave attempt to refute them. -Yet they are said to be the best, the strongest arguments on our side, and " page: 242-243[View Page 242-243]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 242-243 242 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, ' Theodosia Ernest' is held up to us by the Baptists as, be- yond comparison, the most impartial of books! "In the Fourth Night's study, the pastor comes to the rescue again. He brings up the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, which is said to be a baptism by pouring out the Holy Spirit. Theodosia takes Mr. John- son in hand, and makes him admit that there was no literal baptism of the Holy Spirit, that there was no pouring out of the Spirit-that it is all a figure of speech! Now I am not very well acquainted with the writings of Presbyterians, it is true, but if any one of distinction among orthodox Presbyterians has ever made such an admission, I have never heard of it. This point I will not pretend to argue, as it has been already noticed at length in father's conversations with Mr. Walton. I will only remark, however, that it ap- pears evident to me that the baptism of the Spirit is as truly literal as the baptism with water. If one is a figure, the other is also-John the Baptist is a figure, Jordan is a figure, and the Jews were all figures! "After admitting, however, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only a figurative baptism, Mr. Johnson declares that there was not water enough in Jerusalem to immerse three thousand persons. After delivering this declaration, he makes it convenient to take up his hat and leave, and the Baptist schoolmaster comes in, of course, to find proof that there was the greatest*quantity of water imaginable in Jerusalem. Uncle Jones, however, saves the schoolmaster the trouble, by coming in first, and giving his niece, Theo- dosia, the information, that Robinson, in his Researches in Palestine, found pools over 300 feet long and 200 feet wide, but he does not say how deep. The depth of these pools was decidedly a matter of importance, as it would be about. as difficult to immerse in a pool forty feet deep as in one only a foot in depth." ;, THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 243 "I was reading the other day," remarked Theophilus, " a letter from a correspondent who is now living in Jerusalem. The letter was published in the National Intelligencer. The writer says that the three pools of Solomon are from 25 to 50 feet in depth, and that the pools within the city are of immense extent, designed for reservoirs to contain water for the use of the people. I should think, however, that these pools, being the only source from which the people could obtain water for drinking and cooking purposes, would hardly be used to immerse the bodies of the Christian con- verts." "True," replied Carrie, " and when I looked into Robin- son's Lexicon the other day, (and this is the same Robinson quoted by Theodosia,) I copied these remarks: 'In Acts ii. ", three thousand persons are said to have been baptized at Jerusalem, apparently in one day, at the season of Pentecost, in June; and in Acts iv. 4, the same rite is necessarily im- plied in respect to five thousand more. Against the idea of full immersion in these cases, there lies a difficulty appar- ently insuperable, in the scarcity of water. There is in summer no running stream in the vicinity of Jerusalem, except the mere rill of Siloam, a few rods in length; and the city is and was supplied with water from its cisterns and public reservoirs: From neither of these sources could a supply have been well obtained for the immersion of eight thousand persons. The same scarcity of water forbade the use of private baths as a general custom . The baptismal fonts still found among the ruins of the most ancient Greek churches in Palestine, as at Tekoa and Gophna, and going back apparently to very early times, are not large enough to admit of the 'baptism of adult persons by immersion; and were obviously never intended for that use.' So says Dr. Robinson. "After 'Uncle Jones' finds the pools, with plenty of water page: 244-245[View Page 244-245]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 244-245 244 'THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, in them, he has a scruple in his mind whether or not the Jews, who had control of them, would permit the disciples to baptize their converts in them by immersion. Theodosia gets this difficulty out of the way, however, by telling him how wonderfully popular the apostles were on the day of Pentecost. {Fear came upon every soul,' and they had favor with all the people. Moreover, adds Theodosia, they gave them the Temple to preach in, and it is not likely they would refuse the pools to baptize .in.' Now, I confess this is new to me. I never heard before that the apostles turned the Temple of the Jews into a meeting-house. According to this statement, the Jews were a great deal more generous than the Baptists of the Graves -stamp, the Iron Wheelites, for they will not suffer Pedobaptist Christians to preach in their temples." "But where does Theodosia learn that the apostles had the Temple to preach in?" asked Theophilus. "Ah, that's the question!" exclaimed Carrie "perhaps Mr. Courtney, the Baptist schoolmaster, discovered it some- where. I have never seen the statement in the Bible. We are told that 'when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place,' but that that place was the Temple, is not only omitted by Luke, but we know that it could not have been so. The idea of the high- priest and the elders consenting to let Peter have the Temple to preach in is supremely ludicrous. And that these pools or cisterns, from which the Jews obtained their daily supplies of water, were tendered to the apostles for the purpose of immersing their converts, is absolutely preposter- ous. Such, at least, is my opinion." "And you are undoubtedly correct," remarked Theophi- lus, "for notwithstanding the favor of the people, which Theodosia mentions, we are informed in the fourth chapter of Acts, that the priests, the captain of the Temple, and THE MAJ]STT OF TRUTH. 245 the Sadducees, came upon Peter and John in Solomon's porch, outside of the Temple, and took them to prison for preaching the gospel." i( You see, Miss Theodosia had been long enough under Baptist tuition to improve her fancy," said Carrie; "she was nearly ready to see dressing-rooms erected at the pools by those clever Jews, who had such a high opinion of the disciples that they put the first. martyr, Stephen, to death a short time afterward, and drove the Christians from their midst! "The next point to be disposed of between 'Uncle Jones' and Theodosia is, as to the amount of time required to immerse three thousand persons. 'Uncle Jones' makes the disciples meet at 9 'clock in the morning; Peter preaches two hours, and it takes them one hour to get tp the water, Then they begin the plunging at twelve o'clock, and Itave just six hours to go upon to wind up by night. 'Uncle Jones,' however, has taken notice that- a Baptist preacher can immerse twenty persons in fifteen minutes, and as there were twelve baptizers, he says they could do the work without any appearance of haste, and with the coolest de- liberation.' I should think the deliberation would be rather cool, if the apostles had to stand in the water ive or six hours, even in the month of June! So the matter of time is disposed of. The Jews tender the Temple for the apostles to preach in; lend them their pools and cisterns to immerse in, and the apostles dip more than a man a minute for several hours together: such are the dreams of Theo- dosia's fourth night. "I have now given you some of my objections to the book," continued Carrie, " and you will see, by examining it, that the remaining portion is just as full of contradictions, and, to use a strong word, of absurdities, as that already noticed. Upon the whole, I consider it not only uncandid, page: 246-247[View Page 246-247]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 246-247 246 THEOPHLUS WALTON. but unfair in its argument and reasonings. Theodosia's journey to her ' liquid grave' was a very short one. She commenced a Baptist, and ends a Baptist. Her Pedobaptist friends are all Baptists in disguise, and it is by no means -difficult to detect the wolf in the sheep's clothing. How- ever, as we promised to part as good friends as we were 'when we met, I shall not say any more. If I have said any thing harshly, pardon me, I did not mean it." "I admire your coolness and charity, Miss Carrie," said Mr. Price. "I must say, also, that you have directed my mind to several important points, which I will examine when I have leisure. I am sure we are all pleased with your conversations, and will be glad to hear you again soon." BOn . A TISMS CON NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS CONTINUED. NO PROOF OF IMMERSION IN ANY CASE. page: 248-249[View Page 248-249]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 248-249 - T'UE MAJESTY 01 TRBUTH. 249 FIFTH EVENING. THEiaiudience assembled at the usual hour on Wednesday evening, and Mr. Mason began as follows: On last evening, you remember, Theophilus, we closed our investigation with the baptism of the converts on the day of Pentecost. By a plain, reasonable interpretation of 1H the Scripture account, we ascertained that they were not baptized by immersion. To this conclusion we were brought by two important facts, plainly stated in the text. 1. Wher- ever they assembled together, there they were baptized, because the sacred historian does not intimate that there was an adjournment of the meeting for the purpose of im- mersing the candidates. 2. The water of baptism, and the act by which it was administered, were typical of spiritual baptism, the great result which they were seeking. This baptism of the Spirit is expressly said to be by pouring. "We shall follow the various narratives in the Acts of the Apostles, this evening, and see the uniform character of those passages which describe the baptism of Christian con- verts. WIf it shall appear that the testimony is alike in all cases, we shall not be at a loss to know how the persons were baptized. It is necessary to remark, however, before we proceed, that the writer of this book uses the phrases, the 'gift' of the Holy Gh ost, and the ' Holy Ghost' as the con- "* page: 250-251[View Page 250-251]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 250-251 250 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, verting power, as interchangeable terms. Sometimes, per- haps usually, in the first conversions in those days, a large number of persons obtained miraculous powers, such as speaking in various languages, hitherto unknown to them. But it is not said that this was true in every instance, or that every person was so gifted at any one time. It was enough that these remarkable gifts were sufficiently numer- ous to attest the Divine presence and manifestation in the work. We do not suppose that three thousand Jews became thus endowed on the day of Pentecost. It is probable that some of them were, but there could be no necessity that all should be thus exercised. The great design of the baptism of the Spirit was to cleanse the heart from the defilements of sin, and this design is perpetually characteristic, and essen- tially necessary, as the result of conversion to God. When- ever we read of the gift of the Holy Spirit being bestowed, we have no right to infer more from the expression than the pardon of sins and regeneration of the heart, unless the miraculous gifts are expressly stated in connection with the conversion. "The next passage in the Acts, in which the subject of baptism is mentioned, is the eighth chapter. In the first part of this chapter we have the account of the conversion of many of the inhabitants of Samaria, and in the latter part the introduction of the gospel into Ethiopia through the treasurer of Queen Candace. We will first examine the case of the people of Samaria. Philip, (whose ordination as one of the seven deacons is mentioned in the sixth chap- ter,) during the persecution of the Church, which was chiefly carried on through the instrumentality of Saul of ,fTarsus, ' went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.' This city was about forty miles distant from Jeru- salem, and occupied a middle position between Judea and Galilee. The people, seeing the miracles performed by Philip, THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 251- gave heed. to his doctrines, and many, both men and women, were baptized. The language of the historian is as follows: 'But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.' It is a question of serious importance, whether these Samaritans were truly converted persons previous to their baptism. If they were not, why were they baptized? And if they were converted, why did Peter and John go down and pray for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost? Here are two difficulties to be settled, and, as usual, there are two theoris among the teachers of immersion, to explain the matter. One party contends that their faith in the preach- ing of Philip was followed by a genuine change of heart, qualifying them for the ordinance, whilst the subsequent gift of the Holy Ghost had reference alone to miraculous , powers. The other party contends that their faith only con- sisted in the acceptance of Jesus as their Messiah, and that in the action of baptism their sins were remitted. Neither of these opinions is wholly true. These Samaritans were inhabitants of a city which was once the capital of the king- dom of Israel. They claimed to be the children of Abra- ham, and practiced -the rite of circumcision; and when- they believed the fact which Philip declared unto them, that Jesus was their Christ, they were immediately received into the new dispensation by the ordinance of baptism. This faith which they had then may be called, perhaps pro- perly, historical. They were expecting the Messiah-Philip preached the intelligence of his actual coming, and his word was sealed to their acceptance by the testimony of miracles. After their baptism, however, notwithstanding they had thus put on Christ, it is expressly said, 'As yet the Holy Ghost was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the LorAd Jesus.' I understand by this, that page: 252-253[View Page 252-253]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 252-253 252 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, although they had been baptized in the name of Christ, and consequently were brought under the new dispensation, still they were unconverted men and women. They had under- gone no spiritual change; they were converts from-Judaism to Christianity, but not from sin to holiness. This view is confirmed by the fact that Simon, the sorcerer, believed and was baptized, and yet Peter afterward- tells him he is in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity. It will hardly be said by any one that Simon was a backslider; that having been truly converted, he fell from that state before the apostles arrived. Nor can it be said that Simon was a hypocrite, that he pretended to be a converted man, whilst he was not. It is said positively that Simon believed also, and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and wondered at the things which were done. Now what did Simon believe? Certainly it was the same truth which the i) rest of the Samaritans believed-that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the Mediator of the New Covenant. This belief of his was founded upon the same evidence, and was- certainly as genuine as that of the other Samaritans. Not- withstanding this, he was not a true penitent; he was no more a converted man than he who believes the truths of the Bible without being a religious man. When the apostles came, prayed with the people, and laid their hands on them, they received the Holy Ghost; they were then spiritually changed, and doubtless some of them were endowed with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. When Simon saw this result, he attributed it to the ceremony of imposition of hands, and desired to buy the power to impart the Holy Ghost. His avarice was excited, for he knew that he, could turn such power to good account among the people, and make a traffic of it. Therefore he was rebuked. 'Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter,' said Peter, 'for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.' He had made a THE MAJESTY O0 TRUTH. 253 grievous mistake; -he had felt no concern about the salva- tion of his soul, but only desired to make merchandise of the- truth. And yet the great truth which Philip had preached, Simon as certainly believed as did any one else. i If we do not receive this view of the subject, the diffi- culties of this passage are absolutely insurmountable. We must admit that men can be converted without the Holy Ghost. We must acknowledge that Simon, a converted man, desired to by4 the power to impart the Holy Ghost. But * these things cannot be true. "As to the mode of baptism, not a word is said. No creek, river, pool, or tank' is mentioned from which we are allowed to infer that there was an immersion. The burden of proof rests on the side of immersionists; unless they can show that there was such a stream or pool suitable for the purpose, the silence of the historian is an argument against a, them. If the baptism was by pouring, nothing is needed to ,9 make the text plain and easy. Any house, public or pri- vate, would be provided with the necessary means. But if there was an immersion, the case is altered. There could have been few places, if, indeed, any, in Samaria, suited to the necessities of immersion. This is obviously true in our own country; and Eastern countries, so far from being bet- ter, were really worse provided with places suitable for the Baptist ordinance. Although they had baths, public and private, they were not accustomed to immerse themselves in them, and nothing but an extravagant fancy can- manufac- ture an ' Eastern bath' into a bona fide liquid grave.' The scarcity of streams of suffioient'depth is very evident, when we remember that a large number of streams flowed into the Jordan-the waters of Lebanon, Merom, the sea of Galilee; the Jabbok river, and others-and yet the Jordan is but a small river, even at its mouth. But Samaria uas not on the Jordan river, but was built upon the hill-side, where al quan- page: 254-255[View Page 254-255]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 254-255 254 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, tity of water required for immersion could not probably be found. But, as I before remarked, it is not our duty to prove immersion was impossible; but it is the duty of the Baptists to prove that it was even probable-that there could have been readily such obedience to our Saviour's command as they require. If they fail in this, the conclusion is against them. "Before I proceed to the baptism of the eunuch, I desire to show the opinion of Dr. Belcher, a Baptist minister, on this last passage. I do this in order to show you, as Rich- ard Fuller says, how good men can be led astray by preju- dice. Of Simon, the magician, he says: 'This man had heard Philip preach, and had witnessed the number and character of his miracles; he had seen the extensive recep- tion of the gospel in the city, and, either deceived himself by supposing Philip to be a magician, though of a higher * order than himself, or wishing to deceive others, and make them his dupes again hereafter, Simon also professed to believe the gospel, and on that profession of faith was bap- tized, and added to the number of the faithful. Thus do we see that we can never expect the Church, while in a wicked world, will be entirely free from hypocrites.'--New Testament Baptisms, pp. 71, .72. Now where does the sacred writer say that Simon professed to believe the gospel? He uses precisely the same expression about Simon that he does about the other Samaritans-they all believed and were baptized, and Simon also believed. Why do men make this magician a worse man than he really was? His faith in the facts which Philip preached was as genuine as any other's; and upon this faith he was baptized. That he had not the faith that works by love and purites the heart,' is very plain; nor has any other unconverted believer in the Scrip- tures. The reason which actuates Dr. Belcher in giving this character to Simon in the face of the text is evident. -THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 255 He will have all these Samaritans to be true and proper Christians-converted men -before they" were baptized-and all this work was done before the Holy Spirit had been given to any of them. Surely, theny they were converted .by Philip's words, and were re-converted by the Holy Spirit. It is not enough that Simon mistakes the nature of the gos- pel-that he errs about the gift of the Spirit which is bestowed upon sincere penitents-that he desires to make merchandise Of GGod's gifts; he must be a hypocrite throughout---rofessing to believe what Philip said, whilst he did not believe. The sacred writer must be contradicted,; a man must be made an unbeliever who is called a believer, and the Samaritans must become converted Christians with- out the Holy Spirit's aid; and why all this? Because the Baptist dogma requires conversion before baptism. "But we will now turn our attention to the -case of , Philip and the eunuch--the standing text for every Bap- tist preacher--one that is pointed to with an air of triumph, as furnishing demonstrative evidence of immersion. Dr. Belcher thinks- the name of the eunuch was Indich, and gives Kuinoel and Townsend as his authorities-In dich let us call lim, then. He had been to Jerusalem to worship, and was returning home by way of Gaza. While he was on his way, the Spirit of the Lord directed Philip to overtake him, and join himself to his chariot., Fhen Philip found him, Indich was reading the fifty-third chapter of the pro- i phecy of Isaiah, which describes the humiliation and death of Christ. The entire passage begins with the 13th verse of the fifty-second chapter, and includes the fifty-third. Philip asked him if he understood what he read?- Indich replied, (How. can I, except some man should guide me?' And he desired Philip that he would- come up and sit with him. Philip did so, and from the passage in Isaiah he preached unto him Jesus. After a time they came to a cer-s page: 256-257[View Page 256-257]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 256-257 256 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, tain water, when the eunuch exclaimed, 'See! here is water: what doth hinder me to be baptized?' If immersion had been the practice of Philip, he might have replied with great propriety: 'If thou believest with all thy heart-and the water is deep enough--thou mayest.' It was by no means likely that they came to a river, for the simple reason that the sacred writer does not say so. If it had been the Sorek river, the river of Egypt, or the brook of Eshcol, why is it not so stated? But no mention is mgde of a river, brook, or fountain, whilst it is expressly said that the way was desert. It was not probable that a considerable stream of running water could be found on the road, and a pond or pool deep enough for immersion was out of the question in a sandy desert. The terms in which the eunuch addresses Philip are positive proofs against immersion. 'See water!' exclaims the eunuch, as the stream appears in sight, as if they had unexpectedly fallen upon it. A stream three or four feet deep, (and nothing less will serve the purpose of 'dipping,') at this time, the dry season, would certainly overflow its banks in the rainy season, and require the estab- lishment of fords, similar to those of the Jordan. But the geography of the country absolutely forbids such a conclu- sion; no mention is anywhere made of such a water-course or of any ford between Jerusalem and Gaza. Let us illus- trate this point. YYou know, Theophilus, that there are seven water-courses between Maryville and Greenville, a dis- tance of fifty miles; yet no one of these streams is knee- deep at any time, unless when swollen by rains. Now, sup- pose Philip and the eunuch had set out from this point, and after Philip's sermon the chariot came suddenly upon Sandy Creek, about twenty miles from this, and the eunuch exclaims, ' See! here is water: what doth hinder me to be baptized?' Philip answers, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest;' the chariot is stopped; they descend, THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 257 go into the stream, both Philip and the eunuch, and Philip baptizes him; then coming up out of the water, Philip returns by another route across the couinry, whilst the cha- riot crosses the creek, and Indich goes on his way rejoicing: would you say that the eunuch had been immersed in Sandy Creek?" "I would say," replied Theophilus, "that there was some doubt about it, for I recollect being at Sandy Creek Baptist Church not long ago, when an unlucky accident happened there. The church had scooped out a neat little pool in the creek, and run a dam across a little above the ford. On Saturday night, however, after the appointment for baptiz- ing on Sabbath, a heavy rain fell, and washed away the dam, and the bed of the pool was filled up, so that the water was not knee-deep. By Sabbath noon the creek had run down, and when the people started for the water it was discovered that the baptizing must be postponed, or else the creek must be dammed up again. But Elder Carson did not feel willing to put it off; so he led the way, and by the assistance of a dozen negro fellows the piles were put down again, and a trough dug out. After two or three hours' hard work in the hot sun, on the Sabbath day, the place was prepared, and a young lady and two young men were Cburied' in the 'yielding wave,' whilst Elder C. was 'buried' up to the knees in ' yielding' Bmud." That was an 'imposing spectacle' indeed, Theophilus," said Mr. Mason, "well calculated to illustrate the beauty of such an ordinance. If the commandment of Christ can be thwarted by a heavy rain, and the sanctity of the Sabbath laid aside to remedy the breach, no wonder that our Baptist friends complain of the 'heavy cross' of immersion! "Now the illustration I have offered is precisely in point. There is more water between Maryville and Greenville than between Jerusalem and Gaza, yet no place upon the roadside a ..ia.. ;;i,p ' page: 258-259[View Page 258-259]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 258-259 258 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, has been found suitable for immersion. Yet the Baptists assert that there was such a pool in the desert, and there the eunuch was iiersed; but the historian says no such thing. He says c they came unto a certain water,' (0Oov 7rnl 1r vdOp,) or came upon a certain water, one of the many little rills which formed the head-waters of the larger brooks to the westward, and Indich seized upon the first oppor- tunity to profess his faith in Christ, to be initiated into the new covenant, as he had already been in the old. Philip did not go into the stream with a stick, feeling his way, (as Baptists are now wont to do,) and testing its depth. He does not express the least fear that the servants will have to throw a dam across, or hunt up and down the banks for a hole deep enough-no such difficulty was in the way. Wherever the chariot crossed the stream, there he baptized him, and whether they both waded into the water for the purpose, or only went to the water, is a matter of little con- sequence. The preposition Etl, into, does not render it an immersion. All that can be brought out of it is their stepping into the water, which, so far from rendering immer- sion a necessary consequence, does not require six inches depth of water to perform it literally. When Christ spat on the eyes of the blind man, do we understand that he immersed them in spittle? Yet Mark tells us, chapter viii. 23, that Jesus spat into., elG, his eyes. When Christ and his disciples (Luke xxiv. 28) drew nigh unto, se!, the village, did they come into the village whilst they were only near it? When the Jews were commanded (Luke xxi. 21) to flee to, elf, the mountains, were they to be immersed into the mountains? When we are told that John, chapter i. 7, came for, Ela a witness, do we understand that he came into a witness? These examples are taken from various places, and illustrate the folly of tying down a preposition to one meaning. And if the preposition into does not prove THE MABESTY O0 TRUTH. , 269 immersion, neither does D&, out of, require2it. This prepo- sition (fk) is rendered /from about one hundred and eight times, and only one hundred and fiftykimes out of. I there be any force in usage, then, as it is oftener rendered from than out of, such ought to be its meaning here. But,' as I have already said";, no argument can be based upon "a preposition. If we apply Baptist logic to our'own preposi- tions, we destroy the language---such a mass. of absurdities as an English book would present if judged by their rules; can hardly be found anywhere. We must have something more than going down 'into' and coming up 'out of' the water to prove immersion. Philip went down to, Etl, the city of Samaria, as stated in the 15th verse of this chapter, yet he was not immersed into the city. Jesus came down from, 1i, the mountain, yet he had not been immersed into it. "A plain statement of the eunuch's baptism is against his immersion. An extravagant fancy, one that can dip a lake in the blood of a mouse; that can dip a man in a heavy dew, that can dip the apostles in a rushing wind, or the * sound that filled the house, or in the influences of the Holy Spirit, can do almost any thing recorded by Baron Mun- chausen. To such a fancy the Arabian Nights is a record of facts, Gulliver's Travels in Lilliput and Brobdignag are historical truths. But plain men, who are not acquainted with the wonderful properties of metaphors, hyperboles, and rhapsodies, are apt to take a common-sense view of the case. If there are among us-in a country abounding with streams, from a mountain rill to the great Father of Waters-if there ^ are here only a few places, and in some large sections none at all, which nature has provided as a convenient 'liquid grave' for the believer, it requires no fancy to suppose such conveniences to be very rare in a desert. We must suppose that Philip carried an extra suit of clothes with him, or else page: 260-261[View Page 260-261]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 260-261 260 THEOPHLUS WA-iTON; OR, he went tqoAzotts in wet garments-or imagine that they were miraculously dried. We must suppose that they Happened to finsd pool deep enough for immersion, that both Philip and the eunuch knew it was deep enough, with out measuring it. We must suppose all these things, to get ready for an immersion; and then, to complete it,/we must. assume that Oamrrlrt' means to dip, and nothing else. These things are not in the text, and therefore immersion is not there. "I will illustrate this by an incident which happened a few years since. A young man came to unite with a Pres- byterian church, and requested the minister to immerse him. The minister had never baptized any one in this way, and endeavored to reason the young man out of his position. It was in vain, however, for he persisted in being baptized precisely as Philip baptized the eunuch. 'And how was that?' asked the minister. ' Why,' said the young man, I read that they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. Then it is said, they came * up out of the water. I want to be baptized in that way.' Very well,' says the minister, - will you be satisfied with that?' ' Yes,' replied the young man. 'I agree to it,' said the minister, and the time and place were appointed. A large crowd assembled to witness the novel scene. The minister took the young man by the hand, and as they waded into the water, he repeated these words: 'And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch.1 When they stopped, the minister took a handful of water $ and poured it on his head, saying: cAnd he baptized him.' Then leading the young man out, he concluded, 'And they came up out of the water.' Thus the conditions of the text were fulfilled to the letter, and yet the young man was not immersed. "You see from this incident that the whole controversy THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 261 must turn again upon the word baptidzo. And that the minister was right in his understanding .q it, we have already seen in the classical argument. "Sowthat, after all this great ' shibboleth>' this 'mathematical demonstration' of immersion, as Nome have called it, is no demonstration at all. Fancy and possibilities must come to the relief of the inter- preter if he find immersion here. As a plain record of a fact, there is nothing of it in the text. " We will dispose of this passage by giving a fact which illustrates the subject.- Dr. Belcher, the Baptist minister quoted a while ago, says, on the .authority of Dr. Kitto, that this eunuch preached the gospel in Abyssinia, his native country, on his return. The queen, Candace, was the first to be baptized, and the province -of Tigre, nearest to Meroe, the capital, was the first to embrace Christianity. This country is so remote from all other nations that we may sup- pose they have kept up' the original customs. Now let us hear the testimony of a distinguished traveller, as to the mode of Abyssinian baptism. "'Mr. Salt, a British traveller, gives us the whole cere- mony of baptizing a Mussulman boy: ' The attendant priests stood round in the form of a semicircle, the boy being placed in the centre, and our party ranged in front. After a few minutes interval employed in singing psalms, some of the priests took the boy, and washed him all over very care- fully in a large basin of water. While this was passing, a smaller font, called me-te-mak, which is always kept outside of the churches, owing to an unbaptized person not being allowed to enter the church, was placed in thie middle of the area, filled with water, which the priest consecrated by prayer, waving the incense repeatedly over it, and dropping into it a portion of the meiron in the shape of a cross.; The boy was then brought back, dripping from head to foot, and again placed naked and upright in the centre, and- was re- page: 262-263[View Page 262-263]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 262-263 262 THEOPHLUS WALTON;. OR, quired to renounce the devil and all his works, which was performed byis repeating a given formula four separate as times, turnings each time toward a different point of the compass. I named the child George, when I was requested to say the Belief, and the Lord's Prayer, and'to make much the same promises as those required by the Established Church of England. The head priest afterward laid hold of the boy, dipping his own hand into the water, and crossed him over the forehead, pronouncing, at the same moment, "George, I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' The whole company then kaelt down, and joined in reciting the Lord's Prayer.' "Such, then," continued Mr. Mason, " is Abyssinian bap- tism at the present time. And, as you perceive, the washing of the whole body was only preparatory to the act of bap- tism. A distinction is made between the preparation for and the administration of the rite. These spiritual descend- ants of the eunuch do not baptize by immersion, and it is impossible to conceive how they should change the entire ordinance, without any motive whatever for so doing. We may well imagine that the sign of the cross, the anointing with oil, and similar additions, could be made to the act of plunging, if that was originally the practice, but we cannot see how one act should be substituted for another, if they received from their first preachers the Baptist doctrine of immersion. "The next example of scriptural baptism is the case of Saul of Tarsus, afterward Paul the Apostle. On his way to Damascus, persecuting the Church of Christ, he was con- vinced of his error, and directed to go to Damascus, where he would receive instruction from one Ananias, a Christian teacher. When Ananias found him blind, he laid his hands upon: Saul, who received sight forthwith, ' and arose, and was baptized.' This was in the house of Judas, in Damascus. We- are not informed of a visit to a pool or a river; we are s;i,.b A THE MAJESTY OF TR'UTH. 263 not told of a tank or bath, in which Saul was immersed. He received his sight in a house, and wasbaptized in a house. If this baptism was performed by pouring, there is , no difficulty in the case-the narrative is plain and easy to be understood. If it was an immersion, the necessities of the case require a fuller statement. There might have been a pool in the house-but does the historian say so? The house may have been on the bank of a river-but where is the proof that it was? It is possible that the act was immer- sion, instead of scriptural baptism, but the Bible does not assert it. If we take the Bible account, divested of Baptist additions and qualifications, the baptism of Saul was not an immersion in water. "The baptism of the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius is exactly similar to that of Paul. The preaching of Peter was heard in a house, the Gentiles believed there, and there they were baptized, first by the Holy Ghost and then with water. No adjournment to a stream or a-pool is indicated. No mention is made of a ' tank' or bath.' Not a word is said of the 'yielding wave' and the 'liquid grave.' It is a plain narrative, and informs us of the time, place, and cir- cumstances of the baptism, without mentioning a solitary fact which- could lead us to believe 'that immersion was the mode employed. "The case of Lydia and her household is the next in order. She was a seller of purple, living in Thyatira, and at the time of Paul's visit was staying at Philippi. Paul first met Lydia on the Sabbath day by the river-side, where the people were in the habit of resorting for prayer. Paul improved the occasion, and preached to the assembly, where- upon Lydia believed and was baptized. Where? In the river? The historian does not say so. It was possible that she was immersed in the river, but if the writer of Acts does not say so, we have no right to assert it. We have no page: 264-265[View Page 264-265]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 264-265 264 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, right to add any thing to the word of God-we are a on- strained to revive all its statements without subtraction or addition. If Lydia was immersed in the stream, certainly we would have been so informed. The absence of such in- formation is the strongest proof that can be offered against her immersion. "Not long after Paul was put in prison in Philippi, and after the doors were miraculously opened, the jailer was con- victed, professed faith in Christ, and was baptized. This was in a jail, from which Paul refused to escape. It ispos- sible that there was a large pool in the middle of the jail- yard, which was both large enough and deep enough, and that the jailer was immersed there with all his house-but is it probable?. Who will assert that there was such a pool in the jail? The sacred penman says nothing about it, and we may just as readily assert that a river ran through the jail-yard-this was possible, but was it true? Is it not strange that no mention should be made of these tanks and pools? When Christ would have a blind man to do a certain thing, he commands him to wash in the pool of Siloam-not his whole body, but his eyes-the evangelist tells us he did wash in the pool of Siloam. And yet in the whole New Testament we have not a single example of baptism in a pool. 'Tanks' are very beautiful things, the products of immersionist logic; it is a pity that they are not nmeitioned at all in the New Testament! We cannot get their assist- ance to help out the cause of immersion without getting out of the Bible. We must give lively exercise to our fancy, we must place in the text statements that are not there, we must have a 'tank' or a 'pool' in every house, holding at least one hundred gallons of water, in order to make out a case of immersion. These tanks or pools are not mentioned in the text, nor were they in existence. It is very easy to sayj that the baths used in the East are every way suitable for THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 265 immersion, but we require proof of the fact. D'Ohsson, speaking of the baths of the women of the East, says: They scarcely ever immerse their bodies in water. The large marble urns which are in the form of bathing-tubs are for invalids.' Denon, describing a bath in Egypt, says: 'The bather is inundated with water, which the attendants take out with a small basin, and pour over his body.' These quotations show that at the public baths immersion is not practiced, and these would be necessarily larger and more commodious than the private ones. "Having gone through all the examples of New Testa- ment baptism, except those which are mentioned in the eighteenth and nineteenth chapters of Acts, which have no peculiarity about them-the first stating .that some of the Corinthians were baptized, and the latter relating to the bap- tism of twelve men who had been baptized first by John the Baptist-I shall now proceed to show, from the New Testa- ment itself, that the Jews kept no 'tanks,' or ' pools,' suita- ble for immersion. "We are informed in the seventh chapter of Mark that the Jews were very scrupulous in their adherence to certain traditions of the elders. I will read the whole passage: 'Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the Scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say with unwashen (dvinrrotS) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash (vitovTrat) their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, (0alr'ia6wrat,) they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (a7rrTfapoV*S) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the 12 page: 266-267[View Page 266-267]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 266-267 266 TIIEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, elders, but eat bread 'with unwashen (avitrrrot) hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with- their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howheit in vain do they worship 'me, teaching for doctrines the com- mandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye -hold the tradition of men, as the washing (fOarrutafJovg) of pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do.' Our Saviour then proceeds to show them how they have corrupted the commandments of God, and after 'he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of -him, those are they that defile the man.' "The Pharisees, and all the Jews, held these traditions about the baptisms of the hands, the cups, pots, brazen ves- sels, and tables. The question then arises, How were these baptisms performed? Were the pots, tables, and brazen vessels of the Jews immersed? They'mKight have been, it is true. It was possible that every Jew might possess a pool in his yard, supplied by an artesian well, and that his fam- ily might occupy one-half of their time in taking these things out of the house in order to immerse them in the pool. I say that these things might have been true-if artesian wells had been in use, and the quantity of water employed by the Jews had been as great as the Baptists require for their ordinance. If the Jews had nothing else to do but to practice the dipping of their domestic utensils, tables, or couches, every time they contracted ceremonial im- purity, they were surely in easy circumstances. Every time any one visited the market, he must immerse himself on his return-this he must do if it happened twenty times a day. If a visitor fresh from the market happened to touch a- table THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 267 or couch, that must be dipped also. A different 'tank' must be used if more than one article was dipped, or else the water must be changed, because the water becomes de- filed after -it is once used. Thus it would require several hundred gallons of water, in all probability, to cleanse the furniture of a Jewish house and kitchen. Such are the re- quirements which the Baptists make of the Jews; but the best reason for their non-performance of immersion' in these cases is that it was altogether unnecessary. The strictest Pharisee could have desired nothing more than the- sprink- ling of water upon his furniture in order to purify it. This was the method pursued under the Mosaic law, in the case of persons defiled by leprosy, or by touching a dead body. "We are not left to grope our way altogether in the dark, however, on this subject. There is a passage in the New Testament which informs us about the size of the vessels used by the Jews in their purifications. This passage occurs in the second chapter of John, in the account of our Saviour's attendance upon the marriage in Cana of Galilee. During the feast the wine was exhausted, and Jesus was in- formed of the fact by his mother. 'And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the nmanner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.' Now,-why were these water-pots set there? Because the Jews would not eat of the feast until their hands were washed. How were their hands washed? It is not likely that the people dipped their hands into them, because we are informed that they were entpty when Jesus used them. The weater had been dipped out and poured upon the hands of the guests by'the servants in attendance. Jesus ordered them to be filled again, and the water was changed into good wine. The Greek word bidplat hudriai, means water-pots, orpitch- ers, and is used in the fourth chapter of the same- Gospel, where it is said the Samaritan woman left her water-pot, or ' ^ .. page: 268-269[View Page 268-269]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 268-269 268 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, pitcher, which she had brought to the well for water. We are told that these water-pots contained two or three firkins apiece. The firkin (Greek pe-rprq-f) contained about seven gallons and a half-the largest of the water-pots held about twenty-two gallons and a half, according to this measure- ment. "These vessels were used for the purpose of purifying, not the hands alone, for they contained more water than was necessary for that, and yet it was impossible to immerse either a man or a couch in any one of them. This is a suf- ficient argument against the dipping of the domestic uten- sils. But a stronger argument may be derived from the fact that the Jews invariably required a purifying element to be kept in apure vessel: this is obviously true. Suppose an impure vessel should be dipped into one of these water- pots-not only would the water become impure, but the ves- sel containing it must also be dipped to remove its defile- ment. This larger vessel becomes defiled in turn, and thus we proceed indefinitely. At each step the dipping of the thing to be cleansed into the water-pot becomes more absurd. The truth is, a clean person took a clean bunch of hyssop, dipped it into the water, and then sprinkled the defiled gar- ment, pot, cup, table, or couch. Thus the same vessel would answer for the purification of any number of articles. The Jews themselves washed or purified their hands, not by dip- ping them into the water-pot, but by having the water poured on them. Thus the Pharisee mentioned in Luke, eleventh chapter, wondered that our Saviour did not wash before din- ner; that is, baptize his hands before dinner-the baptism of the hands being customary before eating. This baptism was administered by, and was often used as the badge of, a servant. 'Here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah.' 2 Kings iii. 11. That is, Here is Elisha, the servant of Elijah. The usual manner of THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 269 * . purifying the hands, face, etc., we have thus described by D'Ohssoh: 'A copper vessel is placed before the person, sit- ting on a piece of red cloth, to prevent the carpet or mat from being wet; a servant kneeling on the ground pours out water for his master, another holds a cloth destined for those purifications. The person begins by baring the arm as far as the elbow, then washes his hands, mouth, nostrils, face, arms,' etc. This account is undoubtedly true, and fully illustrates the passage we are examining." "If I remember rightly," said Theophilus, "Theo- dosia tells us that the Jewish Rabbi Maimonides says the beds, tables, and couches were literally immersed, and that *the Jews were very careful to cover them all over in water. Have you examined into the truth of these quotations, Mr. Mason?" "Sufficiently to be convinced that ' Theodosia' is neither capable nor desirous of doing Maimonides justice. I say incapable, because I doubt whether the author ever saw the Rabbi's commentary from which he quotes, whilst the fre- quent misrepresentations of more common-works incline me to the belief that, since he serves his purpose, it makes little difference with him how it is done. Here, Theophilus, take 'Theodosia,' and let us examine the author's statements. Read the words which are put into the imouth of the Pedo- baptist Jones." 'Now, so far as the cups, and pots, and vessels are con- cerned, the matter is made entirely plain by turning to Leviticus xi. 32: "Whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into the water, and it shall be unclean until the evening, and so it shall be cleansed." " "Stop a moment, Theophilus; this is a quotation from the Mosaic law-does Christ upbraid the Jews for keeping that law?" page: 270-271[View Page 270-271]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 270-271 270 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, cNo, sir; he charges these baptisms of cups, pots, and tables to the traditions of the elders." "So he does, indeed; but 'Theodosia' condemns Christ by justifying the Jews from their own law. Here is the first .Jfaw. John the Evangelist says these baptisms were traditions of the elders; they were not, then, the command- ments of God. This quotation from the Levitical law is not in point. The author only takes enough of the verse to suit his purpose, the remainder he leaves out. Now, Theophilus, if you have not looked at the passage in Leviticus, I hap no doubt this author has produced a false impression upon your mind. How do you understand it?" "That any vessel of wood, or in which any work is done, was to be niut into water whenever in any manner defiled." "Yes, such seems to be the impression 'Theodosia' designs to make; and yet it is untrue. The law, having specified certain animals and reptiles as unclean, such as the weasel, the mouse, the tortoise, and others, prescribes the manner of cleansing the vessels of the house in certain cases. I will read the whole verse. 'And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed.' So you see this extraor- dinary immersion of the articles was in consequence of an unclean animal falling on them when it was dead. Christ would not chide them for such an act as that, because he had given them that very law. It was the baptism of the cups, pots, and brazen vessels which he condemned, not their immersion to purify them from the contact with a dead body. Read on, Theophilus, and see how 'Uncle Jones' gets converted from the error of his ways." {"From this it is evident that the cups and other vessels THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 271 were immersed, or "put into the water;" but the word translated table may mean also a couch or bed; and how the beds and tables could be immersed I do not so easily under- stand.' 'The difficulty will all vanish,' said Mr. Courtney, I if you will remember that the little stool to hold his plate, which stood at the head of each guest as he reclined upon the floor, was called a table, and the mat or cloth which he lay upon was called a couch or bed; and either of these could be immersed as readily as the cups. They had no massive mahogany tables, or beds containing sixty pounds of feathers, as we have.' " "So the Jews had nothing but little stools for tables, and cloths or mats for beds. Truly this was a primitive style of livinrg; but, unfortunately, the inspired writers flatly con- tradict our friend Theodosia. The prophet Amos, in the sixth chapter, condemns the Jews for their luxurious living: 'Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; that lie upon1 BEDS of IVOBY, and stretch themselves upon their couches.' Yet they had no ' massive mahogany tables,' or ' beds containing sixty pounds of feathers!' Mahogany they had not, perhaps; but they had both a more (massive' and more costly material, for they used ivory beds. (This silly assertion about the little stools, mats, and cloths is unworthy of further notice. One quotation, how- ever, from the best authority extant will be of service: ' The more opulent had (as those in the East still have) fine carpets, couches, or divans and sofas, on which they sat, lay, and slept. 2 Kings iv. 10. In later times their couches were splendid, and the frames inlaid with ivory, (Amos vi. 4,) and the coverlids rich and perfumed. Proverbs vii. 16, 17. On these sofas, in the latter ages of the Jewish state, they universally reclined when taking their meals; resting on their side, with their heads toward the table, so that their page: 272-273[View Page 272-273]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 272-273 272 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, feet were accessible to one who came behind the couch.'-- Horne's Introduction, vol. ii., p. 154. Some of the Jews, perhaps, had but few articles of furniture; but they were not the Pharisees; that proud and haughty sect lived in the most luxurious manner, notwithstanding their boasts of supe- rior sanctity. It would not be impossible to find Americans without even a rude table in their houses; but this does not prove that there are no such articles in general use among us. But read on: let us get to the testimony of Mai- monides." a C But we have other testimony besides that of Mark on this subject. What if I show you from the writings of a learned Hebrew, that the beds and tables not only could be immersed, but that their immersion was habitually practiced by the superstitious Pharisees?' " "That will help us very much indeed," said Mr. Mason; "if Theodosia will do that, we shall be much obliged. Habitually immersed, she says, by the superstitious Phari- sees. The warrant which our fair friend gives them is from the word of God, and yet they are superstitious because they obey it. This is another flaw in the vaso. Read on." "'This learned and eminent Rabbi, commonly called Rabbi Maimonides, says, in his Commentary: "Every vessel of wood, as a table or bed, receives defilement, and these were washed by covering in water; and very nice and par- ticular they were," he adds, " that they might be covered all over." ' " "Now, Theophilus, see how I Theodosia' entraps herself. A moment ago the author says the mat or cloth was the bed; now Maimonides is brought in, and he testifies that it was a vessel of wood. The learned Rabbi' destroys the mat and cloth argument at a blow. The bed was made of wood, and often inlaid with ivory. But the Rabbi says, 'in his Commentary ;' where?" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 278 "The book does not say," replied Theophilus. "No, and the author does not know where the quotation is-he could not affirm that there is such a passage in Mai- monides. The ' Commentary' was originally written in Arabic, and has only been translated into Hebrew and Latin. Where Theodosia got the quotation I know not, but of one thing I am certain, it was not taken directly from the work of the Rabbi. It is impossible to find a quotation, given without chapter or page, where the work is extensive -but the internal evidence is conclusive that it is a spurious quotation. The style is not that of Maimonides; he is made to speak of past, not present customs; there is nothing in the sentence which would identify it as the language of a Jew. Doubtless some English writer has read the Rabbi on the purifications from the dead required by the law; he gives his own words instead of those of the Rabbi, and Theodosia follows suit, giving the Jew the credit for the Englishman's words. This is certainly a mark of a candid mind. But the rule in controversy requires us to ignore an authority which is not located; it is not enough to quote from a large volume; the chapter at least must be given, or else the evidence is thrown out. Let Theodosia tell us where Maimonides says tAl/ tables and beds were immersed, and we will then ascertain why it was done, and show that it had no reference to this passage in Mark. Until this is done, I shall take the privilege of debate, and deny that the Jewish Rabbi says any such thing. "We have examined all the historical passages in the New Testament. We shall now turn our attention to the figurative allusions of the inspired writers to the ordinance of baptism. The first in order is that in the sixth chapter of the letter to the Romans. I call this a figurative allusion to baptism, only in courtesy to the views of others. I think I will show you that this passage is not understood by 12* page: 274-275[View Page 274-275]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 274-275 274 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, many who profess to expound it. Paul's letter to the Romans is a masterly argument. It commences with the proof of universal depravity; then convicts, first the Gentiles, then the Jews, proving that the Jew is not a whit better than his Gentile brother, whom he despises. Having shown that the Gentile does not profess even to know the true God, he shows that the Jew has not obtained the favor of the God whom he professes to worship. He then shows that the sign of circumcision, being an outward ordinance, in the flesh, cannot unite the heart to God. He then declares that all men, both Gentiles and Jews, are to be justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the law. The grace by which men are regenerated and saved, is the free gift of God; is not obtained by works, or merited by human actions. Then the apostle asks: ' What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?' He replies : God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?' Here we have the logical proposition, of which the following verses are the arguments in proof. The proposition is: We who have been regenerated by the free gift of God's grace, ought no longer to live in sin, because we are dead to sin. 'Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into*his death?' Now, what does the apostle mean by being baptized into Jesus Christ? Does he mean that we are baptized into Christ, and made free from sin by water baptism? If so, the text proves the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We are not dead to sin until we are baptized; we are dead to sin after we are bap- tized: therefore we die to sin, or are made holy in the act of baptism! This is certainly true, if the apostle alludes only to water baptism; indeed, it is impossible for any man to be dead to sin who has not been baptized. This conse- quence is repudiated by the Baptists generally, although a large number of them receive it. But yet the language of HSE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 275 the apostle is explicit: We are dead to sin, because we have been baptized into Christ. This cannot be predicated of water baptism-the ordinance often follows instead of preceding conversion. This order the Baptist system re- quires. It is true Paul says in the fifth chapter of Gala- tians that ' every man that is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law,' and in this sense every man that receives water baptism is bound to obey the whole gospel. But cir- cumcision was not the means of receiving the power to obey in the one case; neither is baptism in the other. When a death to sin is the inseparable result of baptism, or baptism is the cause, instrumentally, of a holy life, we can only understand the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a work in the heart, and not in the flesh, to be designated. This is the efficient means, and the "only efficient means by which such a result can be attained. The apostle says, then, that we who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit have had our hearts renewed by the Spirit, have been- baptized into the death of Christ. That is to say: Christ having diedfor us, we by this baptism die to the world, and live-for Christ. He suffered in the body-our old man of sin is likewise crucified- 'our old man is crucified with him,' says the apostle, 'that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.' Therefore we are 'dead with Christ,' and 'are buried with him by baptism into death.' Our sinful nature dies and is buried with Christ the. very moment the Spirit's baptism brings us into the light and liberty of the children of God. To say that we are buried with Christ in water baptism is to teach bap- tismal regeneration; there is no escape from it. To say that we must be immersed in order to express this burial, may give us some idea of Baptist poetry, but nothing of the apostle's meaning. He intends to show that death to sin is not consistent with a life in sin. To do this he shows that page: 276-277[View Page 276-277]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 276-277 276 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, we have as certainly been buried with Christ, as we have been baptized into him. Our baptism was the means of our death, for it is by baptism that we are buried. Inasmuch, then, as we have died to sin, and have had the old man, our sinful nature, buried, planted, and crucified with Christ, we ought to 'reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord;' that we may 'have our fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.' Now is water baptism a type of our burial? So the Bap- tists say. Certainly it cannot be the burial itself, unless re- generation takes place only in baptism. If it is the type of our burial, it must resemble the action by which we are really buried. If that action is the Spirit's baptism, then water baptism to represent it must be performed by pouring, for this is the mode and the only mode of spiritual baptism. Our Baptist friends quote this text frequently, but still they do not seem to understand it. They make the apostle teach regeneration in baptism, and at the same time they repudiate it. They harp upon being 'buried with Christ in baptism,' but they do not give a satisfactory explanation of their meaning. What do they bury with Christ, when they immerse a man? His spirit? Then the Baptist preacher regenerates the soul instead of the Spirit of God. Do they bury the man's body? Then the burial of the apostle and theirs are two things-his is spiritual, theirs is physical. "You will see .then, Theophilus, that Paul is speaking of a spiritual work. He is exhorting the Romans to holiness of life, not by reminding them of their baptismal vows, but by unfolding more distinctly to their understandings the nature of the work wrought in their hearts. He shows them that the grace which is able to destroy the old man of sin, is able to keep alive the new man created unto good works in Christ Jesus. He had fully informed them about the means of their salvation in the two preceding chapters; in this he THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 2" describes the nature of that salvation. It is an important part of the apostle's argument, but when it is wrested from its connection, and brought in to prove the mode of water baptism, the beauty of the passage is destroyed, and sundry errors of grave importance are the necessary results. "Further, to enforce my view of this passage, I will briefly consider the parallel in Colossians, second chapter. 'And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power. In whom also ye are circumcised with the cir- cumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;. buried with him in baptism, wherein, also, ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.' Here the apostle speaks of a circum- cision made without hands-that is, a spiritual circumcision -and a burial in baptism wherein we rise 'by faith of the * operation of God.' The expressions indicate not a similarity of two works, but the absolute identity of the circumcision and the baptism. The form of speech is altered, but still the same idea is expressed. The converting and sanctifying grace of God is likened to a circumcision without hands, which puts off the sins of our flesh, and conforms us to the image of Christ; and also to a burial in baptism, wherein we rise by faith in the operation of God's love. The apostle no more refers to the water baptism of the Colossians, than he does to their circumcision in the flesh. There is a literal baptism of the Holy Spirit, and there is a real circumcision of the heart. But the mode of water baptism is no more to be inferred from the word ' buried' than the mode of circum- cision of the heart. The apostle was not illustrating his subject by referring to any mode whatever. The same Divine operation had circumcised the hearts of the Colos- sians, and buried them in baptism. If immersion represents the burial, then it represents the circumcision also, and a page: 278-279[View Page 278-279]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 278-279 378 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, Jew at this day would have his initiation into the .Jewish Church forcibly brought to mind whilst seeing a Baptist preacher immersing a subject in water! It is a ' speaking ordinance' indeed, if it unites in one representation oppo- site actions. "But how does immersion represent a burial? In what particulars is the figure appropriately applied to immersion? We only bury the dead, or those whom we believe to be so- the Baptists will bury none but the living, both in body and spirit: there can be no agreement, then, in the state of the person buried, and that of the one immersed. We excavate the ground, prepare a grave, let the dead body down, and throw the earth upon the coffin: the Baptist burial is a dip- ping of a living person into water, into the 'yielding wave,' and the man is raised up, not ' by faith of the operation of God,' but by the strength of the preacher's arm! There is no likeness between the manner of a burial, and that of immer-. sion in water. The covering of the person from the view of the spectators is the only possible ground of analogy. Yet the corpse is always removed from sight before burial, being covered up in the coffin. The covering up of thy body in water is a momentary action, whilst the other is permanent. The earth is never allowed to touch either the body or the garments of the dead, yet the water comes in direct contact with the body in immersion. The coffin containing the body is lowered into the grave, but the'living body is forced into the water by the preacher's hands. Surely there is no agreement in these things. Nothing but an extravagant fancy can see any an- alogy between the burial of our dead, and immersion in water. "The truth is, the apostle does not refer to the manner of burying the dead either among the Jews, Romans, or Greeks. He simply speaks of that operation of God's grace whereby the body of sin is destroyed, which is often called, and ap- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 279 propriately called, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. To endeavor to represent this grace in the mode of its operation, is to act without a warrant from the apostle, or a just ground of analogy in the texts quoted. We have already seen the Spirit's operations represented by a flowing out or pouring- thus far we have Divine testimony. We are authorized to represent them thus by the explicit language of Scripture. But when we seek to determine another mode founded upon the word ' burial,' we are not only driven to' far-fetched and loose comparisons, but we are absolutely contradicting the evidence of God's word. "I shall only notice now one more allusion to baptism in the Epistles, as several expressions, such as, 'baptism doth now save us,' 'the laver of. regeneratiof,/' the washing with water,' etc., will be examined on a subsequent evening? In the first letter to the Corinthians, tenth chapter, Paul says: 'Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were-all baptized unto Mo- ses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ.' This passage evidently refers to the crossing of the Red Sea. Paul says the children of Israel were baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea; they were under the cloud, and passed through the sea. Our Bap- tist friends endeavor to make a dry dip out of this baptism. They affirm that the water being above and around the peo- ple, they were covered up by it, and therefore dipped in it, without becoming wet. By-the same process a man is dipped in water every time it rains, even though he hmay be in a house; for the rain is above him, around him, and beneath ': him A dry baptism with water, is one of the beautiful page: 280-281[View Page 280-281]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 280-281 280 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, creations of Baptist fancy. To charge the apostle with such trifling, is to turn sacred writ into fables at once. "The Israelites passed under the cloud, and the fine drops of mist fell upon them from it; they passed through the sea, and the spray from either side of their path fell on them-- this is called a baptism unto Moses, because through faith in their leader, as the appointed instrument in the hand of God, they were delivered from their Egyptian enemies. This is the plain explanation of Paul's language. He pro- duces the example of the baptized Israelites to show the Corinthians that a mere formal recognition of Christian obli- gations does not secure the favor of God, as many of the Jews offended God, even after as well as before their bap- tism. Christ, the spiritual Rock of which they drank, fol- lowed them, and inasmuch as they, while blessed with singu- lar privileges, murmured and rejected God, so we, under a dispensation of greater blessings, need not expect God to be pleased with us unless we obey his commandments. This is the evident meaning of the text. "I shall briefly recapitulate the points already examined, and then close the argument on the baptisms mentioned in the Scriptures. John the Baptist, being the appointed her- ald of Christ, formally declared him to be the Messiah, by anointing him with water, in the presence of the assembled multitude. Christ promised to bestow upon his disciples the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which had been represented by the water baptism of John. This baptism of the Spirit was prophesied of by Joel, and declared by Peter to be, a pouring out of the Spirit. Water, the type of the spiritual cleansing, was administered to the Pentecostal converts, as a stgn, seal, and pledge of God's redeeming grace and for- giving love. The water baptism was followed by the Spirit's baptism-the sign by the thing signified-the pouring out of water, by the pouring out of the Spirit upon the penitent THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 281 Jews. Baptism under the new covenant, has taken the place of circumcision under the old; in the first, the distinction of subjects was abolished, together with the requirement to embrace a particular system of national government. The subjects of the new covenant are bound to obey the gospel law, as the subjects of the old were to obey the Mosaic law. The Samaritans, in the same manner as the Jews at Je- rusalem, received first the type, water baptism, then the Spirit's baptism. The mode was the same used on the day of Pentecost. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in the desert by Philip, under circumstances precluding the idea of immersion. As he had belonged to the old covenant, being a proselyte, he received the s'gn first, and the thing signified afterward. His meeting with water was not pre- arranged, but accidental, and the text by no means conveys the idea of a deviation in this case from the rule of apostolic baptism. Cornelius, a Gentile, received the baptism of the Spirit first, and water baptism afterward. Lydia and her household were baptized on the Sabbath, by the river's side, in the place 'where prayer was wont to be made.' The jailer was baptized in the jail, at night, precisely as the others had been, by receiving the sign of the grace which he sought. ' In all these cases we have no mention made of a search after proper places to baptize. The Pentecostal converts did not go either to Jordan or to Siloam; the Samaritans did not go to a river, a pool, or a 'tank ;' the Ethiopian went to the water, because he was travelling, and the same thing would be done by any Pedobaptist minister to-day, under the same circumstances; Cornelius was baptized at home; Lydia in the place of prayer, and the jailer in the dungeon. It is absolutely beyond belief that these baptisms could have been immersions, without one word of proof in the sacred narra- tive. page: 282-283[View Page 282-283]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 282-283 282 THEOPHLUS WALTON. "The consistency of revelation is vindicated by this view. The cleansing power of the Holy Ghost, which is signified by the first sacrament in the Christian Church, is the only means by which our hearts are prepared for the worship of God on earth, or fitted for companionship with the saved in heaven. This spiritual cleansing is beautifully pictured before us in the pouring out of water upon the head of the subject, thus initiating him .into the new covenant which has been perfected in the blood of Christ. The seal of God's covbnant, thus attached to him, becomes a pledge of God's grace, without which all ordinances are shadows, all human ministrations are but as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. By this baptism of the Spirit the body of sin is buried with Christ, our atoning Saviour, who purchased our freedom from sin by his sacrifice upon the cross; and as he has been raised up from the dead, so we have been born again, and live a new life in obedience to his commandments, look- ing for the fulness of the blessing of the glorious gospel of the Son of God; resting in hope, awaiting the redemption of our body, and our final salvation in the land of everlast- ing peace and joy. Let us beware that we neglect not the substance in our zeal for the shadow; that we presume not: upon the grace of our God, erecting barriers against those whom he has. blessed, pronouncing our anathemas against the chosen of the Lord of hosts. "We will meet again to-morrow evening." The audience were then dismissed. - xth ^ttuN-G HSTORY OF THE ORDINANCE--ITS EARLY CORRUPTIONS. VALUE OF THE FATHERS' TESTIMONY. ORIGIN OF BAPTIST IMMERSION. page: 284-285[View Page 284-285]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 284-285 I r . * * TRHE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 285 SIXTH EVENING. AT an early hour on Thursday evening the church was filled to overflowing. Mr. Battle and Mr. Ellis were both present, and a number of Baptist members occupied the front seats. Their ministers were furnished with pencil and paper, ready to take notes for future use. Mr. Mason occu- pied his usual place within the altar and in front of the pul. pit. "We are called upon this evening," said Mr. Mason, "to review a sad feature in the history of the human race. No sooner does the merciful God reveal himself to the children of men, than they introduce into his worship the objects of carnal gratification, reducing the symbols of religion to the substance of grace-rejecting the immediate influence of the Holy One of Israel, and binding to the ceremonies of the Church the grace which God alone can bestow. "The Jew, listening to the thunder, and beholding the vivid glare of the lightnings upon Mount Sinai, grows weary with the display of the Divine power, and seeks at the hands of his priest a god of gold, that he may behold the object of his adoration. The types which strike his senses, and are designed to lead him to the possession of the substance which is adumbrated, are converted by his gross sensualism into the end of his worship, and the sum of his religious obligations. He sees not the blood of the Lamb of. Calvary, page: 286-287[View Page 286-287]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 286-287 286 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, when he offers the Sacrificial beast; he rests in the perform- ance of the required ceremony, and looks upon the blood of bulls and of goats as the essential instrument of intercession with God in his behalf. The soul, the living reality of his religion, is neglected and forgotten. He pays the tithes of mint, of anise, and cummin, but neglects the weightier matters of the law. He changes the predictions of his Mes- siah into prophecies of temporal dominion and political advancement. He dreams of superior sanctity and holiness, because he has been zealous for the rites and ordinances of his law, whilst his heart is a receptacle of impure thoughts, and the fount of pernicious desires. He will not defile him- self by the touch of the --common people, yet he will grow rich by grinding the faces of the poor. He will build the sepulchres of the prophets, and murder every new messen- ger of the Lord of hosts. He will reject the evidences of his Messiah's advent, although they bring all possible con- viction, in miracles and supernatural visitations, because his own preconceived views of his kingdom have wrought out the. grandeur of a'n earthly monarch as the livery of the Anointed One. He needs no Saviour whilst there is a priest in the temple, and purple blood flowing upon the altar. This is the Jew; the gross, sensual, depraved Jew. He is but one of a thousand; the progenitor of myriads, who are, unhappily, to-day clinging about the wheels of Zlon, and retarding the progress of the gospel. They claim to be the children of Abraham; yet they have not Abra- ham's faith. They avow themselves to be the peculiar, the only people of God, the joint-heirs with Christ; yet they neither have the love of God in their hearts, nor the humility of Christ in their lives. These are the wells with- out water; the dry springs in the desert, which allure only to deceive; they are clouds without moisture, driven by the winds of passion, promising refreshing showers, and yielding THE 1IAJESTY OF TRUTH. 287 none; they are wandering stars, that keep no regular orbits, but wander about their own self-appointed centres. They engraft the sensualism of the Jew and the pride of the Pharisee upon the gospel of Christ. They make a brother an enemy for a word-a rebel because he does not receive their views of Christian obligation and duty. They cast the children of the fold to the mercies of the wolf, and cry ' The Temple of the Lord are we! the Temple of the Lord are we!' ' We are the Church, and there is none beside us; we have the sacraments and the blessings of the king- dom; they that follow not us are Anathema, Maranatha!' 4'Alas! such is the case, even in the Christian Church. This spirit began to manifest itself very early in the days of the apostles. A contention arose about circumcision before twenty -years had passed away from thedeath of Christ. 'Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved'. -Thus taught certain men of Judea at Antioch. Paul and Barnabas must needs go up to Jerusa- lem to have the question settled. The elders and the apostles consult about it, and the conclusion is, that the yoke of circumcision is not to be placed upon the people. It was a step backward, obligating them to do without grace that which no man had done. It was the leaven of the Pharisees in the Christian lump, making the salvation of the people dependent upon an outward ordinance. But the apostles determined that we are saved by grace, not by ordinances. A few years pass by, and grievous' disturb- ances arise at Corinth. One party asserts: We are of Paul, the learned apostle. Another says: We are of the eloquent Apollos. Another says: We are of Cephas, the corner- stone, the. keeper of the keys. And still another says: But we are of Christ. They are rent by divisions:. The spirit of heathen rivalry creeps in, and they convert the Church into the schools of the academists and the porches of the page: 288-289[View Page 288-289]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 288-289 288 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR) philosophers. While they are engaging in these boasts of superiority, they are tolerating in their midst the most hein- ous crimes. Thus does God justly abandon to its folly the pride of the human heart. "Is it any wonder, then, that the sacraments of Christ. ianity should be corrupted? Is it any wonder that the type should be substituted for the grace which is signified? Scarcely does the last of the apostles wander in exile on the island of Patmos, before the work of sacramental corruption begins. Sinful human nature is elevated by becoming the instrument of regeneration, on the one hand, and by receiv- ing it in a visible form on the other. A religion whose essence can be touched with the hands, and seen with the eyes, accords with the conceptions of fallen man. Hence professedly Christian teachers, in expounding the word of God, blend the sign and the grace in one. They read that when Peter's feet were washed by the Saviour, Peter exclaimed: Lord, not my feet on1ly, but also my hands and my head.' They find in this a necessity for washing the whole body of the convert. They read in Christ's conver- sation with Nicodemus that men must be born of water, and of the Spirit. They find here another birth of the body, in the water, and they connect it with the spiritual birth; and as the spirit and body, naturally, come into the world at the same moment, so the birth of water is the birth of the spirit. They hear Paul speak of being cleansed with the washing of water by the word. They hear Peter say, we are saved by baptism. These proofs are enough for them. The whole body must be washed-must be born of water- and the spirit is thus saved by baptism. They see not that these expressions are symbolical; they will have them to be literal; they must mean baptismal regeneration, because it is an easy doctrine, and pleases the sinful heart. "Barnabas, the fellow-laborer of Paul, is said to be the THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 289 author of a General Epistle. Those who receive it say it is older than the Epistle of Jude, and others suppose that it was written in the first century, and composed for the Ebionite Christians, a sect who rejected the Divinity of Christ. Let us hear Barnabas. ' Consider,' says he, I how he has joined both the cross and the water together. For this he saith: Dtessed are they who put their trust in the cross, and descend into the water, for they shall have their reward in due time: then, saith the, I will give it to them. . . And there was a river running on the right hand, and beautiful trees grew up by it; and he that shall eat of them shall live for ever. The signification of which is this: that we go down into the water full of sins and pollutions, but come up again bringing forth fruit, having in our hearts the fear and hope which is in Jesus by the Spirit.' Epistle of [Barnabas, c. 10. Let not the Baptists rejoice at this ancient authority for going down into the water, for the fact is significant that the first intimation of such a proceeding in ancient history was coupled with the doctrine of bap- tismal regeneration: forgiveness of sins and conversion in water. Ad Ignatius, who is supposed to have written about the end of the first or beginning of the second century, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, speaking of Christ, says : ' He was born and baptized, that through his passage he mightpurifyr water, to the washing away of sin.' Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter iv. ' In the Shepherd of Hermas, who is believed by some to have written about the same time as Ignatius, we find the following words: I asked her, Lady, why is the tower built upon the water? She replied, I said before to thee that thou wert very wise, to inquire diligently concerning tho building, therefore thou shalt find the truth. Hear, there- fore, why the tower is built upon the water: because your life 13 page: 290-291[View Page 290-291]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 290-291 290 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, is and shall be saved by water. For it is founded by the word of the almighty and honorable name, and is supported by the invisible power and virtue of God.' Hermas, Vis. 38. Again, this author speaks more distinctly to the purpose: 'It was necessary, said he, for them to ascend by water, that they might be at rest. For they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, but by laying aide the mortality of their former life, (that is, by being baptized.) They, therefore, being dead, were nevertheless sealed with the seal of the Son of God, and so entered into the kingdom of God. Now that seal is the water of baptism, into which men go down under the obigation unto death, but come up appointed unto Zife.' Similitudes of Itermas, 9, c. 16. "It is a little remarkable, Theophilus, that this last author not only makes baptism the means of saving the living, but he declares that the dead must be baptized before they can be saved! One quotation more I will give you. Justin Martyr, who lived about A. D. 140, speaking of the method of baptizing, says: 4 Then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are regenerated by the same way of regeneration by which we are regenerated, for they are wrashed ibith water in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all things, and of'our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.' "I have quoted these passages to show you at what an early period the grace of God was attached to baptism, and the ordinance made the means of conversion. It does not matter whether these. letters were written by the men to whom they were ascribed, or not. They are certainly not inspired writings-that we know. But the evidence is very clear that they were all extant about the commencement of the third century: that is, the letters ofBarnabas and Ignatius, and the Shepherd of Ifermas. {'It is evident. that they went down into the water, and THE MAJESTY OF TRUTIt 291 immersed their candidates. But do Hot misunderstand that expression. It was not Baptist immersion, but trine immer- sion: that is, they were dipped three times, once in the name of the Father, once in the name of the Son, and once in the name of the Holy Spirit. If the baptism of the first cen- turies consisted of three dips, our Baptist friends have certainly lost two-thirds of the ordinance, for they have but one dip. Let me call attention to the dishonesty of the, author of ' Theodosia Ernest.' On page 166 he says: cThe first historians, and earliest writers on the customs and practices of -the apostolic churches, were Baptists. . . It was near three hundred years before there were any pro- fessed Christians who were not Baptists. . . I say the Christian Fathers, for the first three centuries, were Baptists, for they say so themselves.' The author then gives the quo- tation from Justin Martyr wiich I have just read. Now this is the language of a mere braggart, who knows nothing of what he says, or else he wilfully perverts the truth. Do Baptists baptize infants? Yet these same ' Fathers' taught and practiced infant baptism. Do Baptists believe that we are regenerated, born anew of the Spirit, in the act of bap- tism? So these 'Fathers' taught. Do Baptists immerse their subjects three times in water? So these, ' Fathers' practiced. Do Baptists baptize their subjects naked? These ' Fathers' certainly did. Do Baptists anoint their subjects with oil, make the sign of the cross, exorcise or drive out the devil? So did these Fathers. And yet ' the Fathers for the first three centuries were Baptists!' But this is not all. The author gives a quotation from Tertullian, and leaves out two very important words. He makes Tertullian say- 'When we are ready to enter into the, water, (and even before,) we make our protestations before the minister, and in the church, that we renounce the devil and all his pomps and vanities; afterwards we are plunged in the water.' I4 page: 292-293[View Page 292-293]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 292-293 292 THEOPHEILUS WALTON; OR, Now, hear what Tertullian does say, and learn what credit you are to give to Baptist statements. I When we come to the water, we do there, (and we do the same also, a little before, in the congregation,) under the hand of the pastor, make a profession that we do renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Then we are three times plunged into the water; and we answer some few words more than our Saviour in the Gospel has enjoined. When we are taken out of the water, we taste a mixture of milk and honey.' De Corona Militis, c. 1. {Theodosia' makes it con- venient to leave out the ' three times,' because the work was pledged to make Tertullian a Baptist! Do the Baptists taste the milk and honey now, when they are taken up out of the water? But let us hear a little more about that old- time Baptist Church, in the days of Tertullian: ' The sacra- ment of the eucharist,' says he, 'which our Lord celebrated at meal-time, and ordered all to take, we receive in our assemblies before day, and never but from the hands of the pastor.' Do modern Baptists follow this rule? What authority have they for laying it aside? , Their deacons dis- tribute the sacrament: so did not the Church receive it of which Tertullian writes. But let us hear more of this ' Baptist' Father : ' We count it an unfitting thing to keep any fasts on the Lord's day, or to kneel at our prayers on that day. The same liberty Iwe take all the time from Easter to Pentecost.' Do the Baptists have any conscien- tious scruples about kneeling at prayer on the Lord's day? Do they keep the feast of Easter? But again, Tertullian says: 'We are troubled at it, if any of our bread or wine fall to the ground. At every setting out, or entry on busi- ness, whenever we come in or go out from any place, when we dress for a journey, when we go into a bath, when we go - to meat, when the candles are brought in, when we lie down, or sit down, ard whatever business we have, we make on our TEE MAJESTY 8F TRUTH. 298 foreheads the sign of the cross.' Here is a fine list of cere- monies, worthy of any believer in the Pope, and yet we' are / told that Tertullian was a good Baptist! In his debate with Praxeas, Tertullian is even more explicit than before in regard to trine immersion. He says our Saviour commanded the apostles that they should bap- tize unto the Father, and unto the Son; and unto the Holy Spirit; 'not unto one person,' says he, 'for we are not plunged ONCE, but THREE TIMES; once at the naming of each name.' And yet the author of this attempt at prose- lyting the young; suppresses 'the truth, so as to make it I appear that the ' Fathers' practiced the single dip' of the Baptists! "In the Canons of the Holy Apostles, as they are called, the single immersion is positively prohibited. This I will show you directly. Another 'misrepresentation follows on the same page in C Theodosia.' I will read the sentence . 'But it is needless to multiply authorities. It is the united . i testimony of all the Fathers who speak of the subject at all, that baptism was in the early ages performed only by immer- sionb except of necessity, in the near prospect of death ; and , those who, under such circumstances, received pouring as a substitutee were never said to be baptized, but to have been poured upon, as a substitute for baptism!' A more positive misstatement cannot be found in this budget of errors. Those who were baptized when they were sick were never said to be baptized, but to be poured uCpon! "Now let us see how the record stands on this point. Novatian, in the third century, was ' poured upon' in his bed in -time of sickness, and after he recovered was chosen by one party Bishop of Rome.: Cornelius, his opponent, writing to Fablus, Bishop of Antioch, says : 'It was not lawful for any one that had been baptized in his bed in time of --sick- ness, as he (Novatian) had been, to be admitted to any office page: 294-295[View Page 294-295]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 294-295 294 THEOPHLO'S WALTON; OR, of the clergy.' Why? Because they regarded the man as having been forced to a profession of Christianity. The Council of Neocaesarea, some time after this period, passed a canon, stating that 'He that is baptized when he is sick, ought not to be made a priest, (for his coming to the faith is not voluntary, but from necessity,) unless his diligence and faith do afterward prove commendable, or the scarcity of men fit for the office do require it.' We see then that the fault is not that the man has not been validly baptized, but his repentance is not considered voluntary, but com- pelled by the near view of death. In reference to this very case, whether a man baptized in bed when sick must be baptized again if he recovered, Cyprian writes: c If any one think that they obtain no benefit, as having only an affusion of the water of salvation, do not let him mistake so far as that the parties, if they recover of their sickness, should be baptized again. And if they must not be baptized again, that have already been sanctified with the baptism of the Church, why should they have cause of scandal given them concerning their religion, and the pardon of our Lord?' These words were written about A. D. 260, and completely overthrow the assertion that persons baptized in sickness were said to be poured upon, instead of being baptized. They were baptized validly, and no one of them was baptized again, so far as the writings of the Fathers show. I might give many other proofs, but it is needless. "I have shown you that after the death of the apostles, three immersions, milk, honey, the sign of the cross, and bap- tismal regeneration, composed the ordinance of baptism in the first three centuries; and also that affusion was prac- ticed in the cases of the sick. I am now to show that im- mersion, as practiced by the Baptists, was unknown until the latter part of the fourth century, and that it was then introduced by a heretical sect for the purpose of opposing the ,* THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 295 doctrine of the Trinity. I shall do this, not by quoting a modern, but one of the oldest ecclesiastical historians. Sozo. men, a writer of the fifth century, in his Ecclesiastical His- tory, B. vi., c. 26, says: 'About this time, (A. D. 375,) Eunomius, who had succeeded Eleusius in the bishopric of Cyzicus, and who presided over the Arians, devised another heresy, which some have called by his name, but which is sometimes denominated the Anomoean heresy. Some assert that Eunomius was the first who ventured to maintain that baptismn ought to be performed by immersion, and to corrupt, in this manner, the apostolical tradition which has been handed down to the present day. He introduced, it is said, a node of discipline contrary to that of the Church, and en- deavored to disguise the innovation under the cloak of a grave and severe deportment. He was very eloquent, and delighted in disputations and conferences. The generality of those who entertain his sentiments have the same predi- lections. [What a full-length portrait of mo'dern Baptists!] They do not applaud a virtuous course of life and conduct, or charity toward the needy, unless exhibited by persons of their own sect, so much as skill in disputation, and the power of triumphing in debates over the arguments of an opponent. Persons possessed of these accomplishments are accounted religious and virtuous. .But whether it was Eunomius, or any other person, who first introduced heretical opinions concerning baptism, it seems to me that such innovators, whoever they may have been, were alone in danger, according to their own representation, of quitting this life without having received the rite of holy baptism: for if, after having received baptism after the ancient mode of the Church, they found it impossible to re-confer it on themselves, it must be admitted that they introduced a prac- tice to which they had not themselves submitted, and thus' undertook to, administer to others what had never been ad- page: 296-297[View Page 296-297]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 296-297 296 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, ministered to themselves. [The very difficulty which was settled by Roger Williams and Ezekiel Holliman, when they mutually immersed each other, without either having the right to do so, on their own principles.] Thus, after having laid down certain principles, according to their own fancy, without any data, they proceeded to bestow upon others what they had not themselves received. The absurdity of this assumption is manifest from their own confession; for they admit that those who have not received the rite of bap- tism have not the power of administering it. Now, accord- ing to their opinion, those who have not received the rite of baptism, in conformity with their mode of administration, are unbaptized; and they confirm this opinion by their prac- tice, inasmuch as they re-baptize all those who join their sect, although previously baptized by the Catholic Church.' Such is the testimony of 'one of the oldest and most reliable of Church historians. It is a very important passage,' as it distinctly shows us that baptism by immersion was unknown in the first centuries of the Christian era. It is important in another respect, inasmuch as it shows us that the doctrine of immersion originated with the enemies of the doctrine of the Trinity, and was used openly for the purpose of exhibit- ing their faith on that subject. This is, indeed, a severe charge to bring against. Baptist immersion, but I will show you presently that the revival of Baptist sentiments in modern times was attended by the same union between im- mersion and Unitarianism--that the early Baptists denied the Divinity of Christ, as many of them do at the present day." a I am surprised to hear you say that, Mr. Mason,'" said Theophilus; "I have been taught to believe the Baptist Church as old as the apostles, handing down the faith to us through the brave Waldenses." "History furnishes no proof of such arrogant assump- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 297 tions. The Waldenses were not Baptists, neither was there a Baptist Church in existence for a thousand years after the days of -the apostles." 'But have you not fixed the beginning of the Baptist Church upon Eunomius, in the fourth century?" '-No, not at all; it certainly takes something more to make a Baptist than immersion. On the mode of baptism the Eunomian heretics agreed with modern Baptists, but they disagreed as to the subjects of baptism. The Euno- mians were Pedobaptists, as were all orthodox Christians in those times-and I mean, by ' Pedobaptists,' simply believers in infant baptism." "I understand you now,-Mr. Mason. Eunomius and his followers immersed their subjects as the Baptists do, but they designed to show thereby that there was but one person in the Godhead." a Exactly so. And the early Christians used trine immer- sion, ordinarily, to show that there were three persons in the Godhead. Whenever they baptized the sick, they poured i the water, or sprinkled it, three tielks upon the person for the same purpose." 'You have mentioned the Apostolical Constitutions as condemning immersion," said Theophilus; 'will you please give us some information about -the time when they were composed? Of course they were not the works of the apostles?" "No," replied Mr. Mason, , but they were written during the, second, third, and fourth centuries, compiled and attri- buted to the apostles, about the commencement of the fifth century. The canon to which I allude is the fiftieth, and reads as follows: "' If any bishop or presbyter do not perform three immer- sions of one initiation, but one immersion which is given into the death of lChiist, let him be deposed; for the Lord 13* page: 298-299[View Page 298-299]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 298-299 298 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, did not say, Baptize into my death; but, Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Do ye, therefore, O bishops, baptize thrice into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ and our constitution by the Spirit.'-Ap. Con., can. 50. "So reads the canon. It is very clear, then, that just as long as dipping was practiced in the early Church, it con- sisted of three dips, not of one. Now, if this was aposto- lic baptism, the Baptists are as far wrong as we. But if the practice was a corruption of the ordinance, we must trace that corruption to its source. - This we have seen was the idea of conversion in baptism--the unscriptural dogma of the cleansing of the spirit in water. As the whole spirit was to be cleansed, the whole body was to be washed. And inasmuch as this could not be done when the body was clothed, their practice was to baptize naked." "Is that fact well established, Mr. Mason?" "As clearly as any other. Let me give you the testimony of a Baptist historian; ertainly he will not misrepresent it. Mr. Robinson, a Baptist writer, says: ' The primitive Chris- tians baptized naked. Nothing is easier than to give proof of this by quotations from the authentic writings of the men who administered baptism, and who certainly knew in what way they themselves performed it. There is no ancient his- torical fact better authenticated than this. The evidence doth not go on the meaning of the single word naked, for then a reader'might suspect allegory, but on many facts reported, and many reasons assigned for the practice.'--Res., c. 15. I will not recite the facts which he enumerates, but if you desire to see them, I will refer you to the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates and Sozomen. The ancients assigned various reasons for this practice, affirming that it was the manner of the apostolic baptism. It was, they said, the THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 299 putting off the old man, and the putting on the new, Christ Jesus. "Now, when we consider these facts, that baptized persons were naked, immersed three times, anointed with oil, had milk and honey given them to eat, and were universally con- sidered to be born again in the water, do, you not see at a glance that all these corruptions of the ordinance-the im- mersions, the disrobing of the body, the anointing with oil, the sanctifying of the water-all originated out of the idea of baptismal regeneration?" I think it is proved to a demonstration," replied Theo- philus. "And I am compelled to express my astonishment that Baptists cling to a third of the mode, and reject all the others! This ancient 'baptism' is certainly shallow proof for any Christian denomination." "Ipd yet, Theophilus, our immersionist friends cling to this sandy foundation, and while they conceal the corrup- tions of the ordinance, claim the 'Fathers' as simon-pure Baptists. I say they conceal these facts from their readers, for every one of their books claims the immersions of the ancients as proofs of their own correctness. This they do whilst pretending to receive the Bible as the rule of their faith and practice! "The fact is, that a spurious Christianity obtained, before the commencement of the second century, in the Church. Baptism was exalted into regeneration, and the. bread and wine of the Lord's Supper into the real body and blood of Christ. Justin Martyr was a Catholic, essentially a Roman Catholic; so were the 'Fathers' of the subsequent ages, almost without exception, for the peculiarities of Romanism sprang up in the very days of the apostles. This I am prepared to prove, if it is denied. I know that Protestant historians, in controverting the errors of the Romanists, endeavor to. give a later date to them; but the works of these page: 300-301[View Page 300-301]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 300-301 300 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, I Fathers' are extant: they answer for themselves. From the time of Justin Martyr, and even before, to the time of Augustin, in the fifth century, the whole list of Fathers is but a succession of Romanizing teachers. That which we call Roman Catholicism existed in substance long before the Pope pretended to occupy St. Peter's chair, or claimed pos- session of the keys of heaven, and hell. The basis of the ' Great Italian Apostasy' was the corruption of the ordi- nances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. All other evils flowed from these, as I would prove to you if I had time. "It is enough for our present purpose, then, that we have' arrived at the root of the matter. We fiqd water, the sign of the Spirit's baptism, joined to and inseparably mingled with the operations of the Spirit of God. The new birth then becomes a bodily birth, as well as a spiritual one. The body is then disrobed and covered three times in wate* once in the name of each person of the Trinity, to exhibit that doctrine. And then follow the oil, honey, milk, and various other superstitious additions. Let us cut off these accumu- lations upon the ordinance of Christ, and we shall have little left. The Spirit's baptism is the thing to be exhibited--it is said to be a baptism by pouring. The Baptists strike off two of the immersions; we will finish the work, strike off the other, and return to the simplicity of the emblem and the practice of the apostles--pouring water upon the head of Ahe person to be baptized, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." "I think you have made out your case, Mr. Mason, beyond doubt. I am firmly convinced; that pouring is the uncor- rupted, scriptural mode of baptism. Upon that subject no further argument is required. I see now the danger to which I have been exposed in following Baptist writers. You have promised, however, to expose a quotation made in 'Theodosia' from Dr. Wall. I have never seen his work, THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 301 and would like for you to show the dishonesty of this Bap- tist production." - Very well, Theophilus," replied Mr. Mason, " do you take 'Theodosia Ernest,' and I will use Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism. By the way, if I remember rightly, this 'Theodosia' makes a ridiculous blunder about the name of Dr. Wall's book. Look at page 178, and see what name the quotation is credited to." "The 'History of JOHN THE BAPTIST!' " "So I thought! Here is verily a learned writer in the nineteenth century! Dr. Wall's 'LHistory of John the Bap- tist' is an apocryphal book, which no mortal ever laid his eyes on, save and except the wonderful genius who spent his days in perverting a simple female from the communion of her fathers. Such absurd impostures were never yet called to the aid of a good cause. But let us proceed. Where is the passage?" "The book says it is in part ii., chapter ix., of, the History of John the Baptist." "Well, we will leave ' John the Baptist' out, and read 'History of Infant Baptism,' Oxford edition, 1844. Read out of Theodosia, page 177." "'France seems to have been the first country in .the world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to per- sons in health, and in the public way of administering it. It being allowed to weak children (in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) to be baptized by aspersion----'" '"Stop, stop, Theophilus," said Mr. Mason, " that last sen- tence is not here. Does the quotation mark end with the first period?" "No, sir, it goes on, as giving a continuous statement of Dr. Wall." "Now mark the dishonesty, Theophilus. The first sen- tence is on page 393 the second, on-page 399 Si iapages page: 302-303[View Page 302-303]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 302-303 802 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, between them! Dr. Wall goes on, after the words ' public way of administering it,' to say that 'Gennadius of Mar. seilles, whose words I gave before, is the first author that mentions it as indifferent.' Now this Gennadius of Mar- seilles wrote in the fifth century, and this Baptist writer was afraid to admit that baptism was administered by affu- sion in the fifth century; therefore he leaves out Dr. Wall's statement, and weaves a Baptist coat out of garbled extracts 1 And these are the men who presume to impose upon a read- ing people in this age of the world! But let us follow 'Theodosia,' and afterward we will release Dr. Wall from such unholy hands. The sentence you commenced is on page 399 of Wall." "'It being allowed to weac children (in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) to be baptized by aspersion---' " "Dr. Wall says, (by affusion.' Go on." "'Many fond ladies-and gentlemen -- -" "Dr. Wall says, gentle-women.' Read on." "I First, and then by degrees the common people, would obtain the favor of the priest to have their children pass for weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the water. As for sprinkling----' " a Stop, Theophilus, that is all Dr. Wall says on this page. The next scrap is taken from page 403, four pages beyond. I have found it. Read on." "'As for sprinkling, properly so called, it was at 1645 just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times after forty-one-- " "Dr. Wall says, ' 1641.' Go on." They (the Assembly of divines in Westminster) re- formed the font into a basin -- '" "'Stop; that sentence begins twelve lines below the other. Read on." "' This learned assembly could not remember that-fonts THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 30()3 to baptize in had always been used by the primitive Chris- tians long before the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling for the purpose of baptizing'--- , "Stop, Theophilus; another flaw. Wall says, for the COMMON purpose of baptizing.' Read on." "I'Was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times of Popery, and that, accord- ingly, all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is or has formerly been owned, have left off dipping of children in the fonts, but that all other countries in the world, which had never regarded his authority, do still use it; and that basins (to sprinkle out of) except in cases of necessity, were never used- by Papists, or any other Chris- tians whosoever, till by themselves.'--Eistor y of JOHN THE BAPTIST." "Now, Theophilus," said Mr. Mason, ' this pretended statement of Dr. Wall is taken from- four different places, extending over eleven pages of- Dr. Wall's work. What do you think of such a writer as ' Theodosia?" a Well, Mr. Mason, all that I can say is, if he ever saw Dr. Wall's book, he has used it dishonestly; if he never did see it, but followed some one else, he has used it ignorantly; either way, he is at a fit person to teach the people." "A very reasona le conclusion, Theophilus. Yet he has the impudence to charge Pedobaptist divines with falsehood! He asks this question, which would well apply to himself, if he had divinity enough in his head to make him a doctor: ' Can it be possible that doctors of divinity will impose such falsehoods on their people in order to sustain the practice of the Church 2' 'And I would ask, Mr. Mason, with your leave, Can Bap- tist immersion only be sustained by imposing upon the igno- rant with misrepresentations of the 4Fathcrs/' and garbling page: 304-305[View Page 304-305]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 304-305 304 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, the writings of Pedobaptists? If so, I have nothing to do with it. A doctrine which needs such assistance was never taught of God, and cannot be required to be believed by any thinking, reasoning man. I am disgusted with the whole batch of agitators, who strive to keep the world in commotion about the quantity of water one ought to use in baptism. The more I see of unfairness in these Baptist writers, the more I am led to question whether they believe immersion to be the commandment of Christ. An honest opinion, maintained honestly, is commendable; but when frauds are resorted to in order to prove it, I am compelled to reject both the truth of the opinion and the honesty of its advocate." "' Hold, hold, Theophilus. Do not go too far. It is hard to think that these men do not believe what they say ; let us give them the benefit of a good intention, whilst we give them our pity for having a bad cause. "But let us return to Dr. Wall. Read the next extract which ' Theodosia' makes from him." ' Now look at page 403 of this other volume, by the same author, (Wall,) and read the passage I have marked. "The way that is ordinarily used, we cannot deny to be a novelty, brought into this Church (the English) by those that had learned it at Germany, or at Geneva. ind they, not con- tented to follow the example of pouring a quantity of water, (which had there been introduced instead of immersion,) but improved it (if I may so abuse that word) from pouring to sprinkling, that it might have as little resemblance to the ancient way of baptizing as. possible."--Def. of Hist. of JOHN THE BAPTIST.'(!!) This is all he has here, I believe, Mr. klason." "Well, now, Theophilus,you will not be surprised to hear that there is no such passage in Dr. Wall's IDefence.' There is not a word of it on page 403, nor is it anywhere THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 805 else in the book. I have looked in vain for even the detached sentences, thinking they may have been thrown. together, as the ladies sew patches in a quilt. But I cannot find one sentence in Dr. Wall agreeing with this quotation in ' Theodosia.' " , Very well, Mr. Mason, the rule is, if the reference is wrong, and the passage is not found by it, to throw it out of the argument. Let it go. But let us have a word about Dr. Wall. He was a member of the Church of England, I believe." "Yes, but at the same time he was a strong advocate of immersion. Indeed, when he wrote, and long before, immer- sion was practiced in the English Church. In his day, however, it was on the decline, and Dr. Wall labored to restore it. As you see, the Doctor is, to that extent, only a Baptist witness at last, although he is made to testify as if he were against them on the mode of baptism. Dr. Wall thought dipping was the proper mode, although pouring he regarded as sufficient. In his History, vol. ii., p. 393, he says: 'I will here endeavor to trace the times when it (dip- ping) began to be left off in the several countries of the West-meaning still in the case of infants that were in health, and in the public baptism; for in the case of sickly or weakly infants, there was ALWAYS, in ALL COUNTRIES, an allowance of afusion or sprinkling to be given in haste, and in the house, or any other place.' Now this sentence comes immediately before the first extract in ' Theodosia,' yet the author could not see it. If, as Dr. Wall, says, sickly and weakly infants have always been baptized by affusion, then affusion has always been practiced in the Church, for it is evident that there has been no age of Christendom in which there were no weakly or sickly infants." . "I am ashamed to acknowledge, Mr. Mason,'" said Theo- page: 306-307[View Page 306-307]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 306-307 306 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR; philus, " that my mind was favorably impressed after reading that book, ' Theodosia Ernest.' But, to tell you the truth, I had never heard so much as one sermon from a Pedobap- tist on the ordinance. A Pedobaptist book I never read. Indeed, I was of the opinion that you had no defence to make; that your silence, under the repeated challenges, and unceasing efforts of Baptist teachers to convert the world to their views, was dictated by a sense of the weakness of your cause, rather than a desire for peace. And now that I have heard your arguments, I am surprised that Pedobaptists generally use so little effort to enlighten the people. I honestly believe, sir, that very many persons would have united with your Churches, who have gone to the Baptists, if you had taken one-half the pains to show them the true view of the subject, that have been expended in proselyting them." "I have no doubt of it, Theophilus," replied Mr. Mason; "but we have always considered the mode of baptism as being non-essential to the validity of the ordinance, and hence our want of diligence in our defence. Yet I confess that many of us have been to blame. We have kept quiet under the most severe and oftentimes the most unchristian- like attacks, not because we feared controversy, but because our time has been more actively, and, as we thought, more profitably employed, in endeavoring to convert men from sin to Christ." "Yes, sir; and whilst you have been the means, in God's hands, of converting them, the Baptists were busy in catch- ing them, by their numerous agents, and securing them to their Church. Thus you have been often laboring to build up a rival interest that would destroy every one of your Churches to-morrow, if it could be done." "The Lord must be the judge, Theophilus. We have / THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 307 acted in all good conscience, and if we have erred, it has been in charity for the souls of men, rather than out of a desire to place their names upon our Church books. "But let us return to Dr. Wall, and let him speak for himself about the rise of baptism by affusion. On page 385, vol. ii., he says: 'On the other side, the Antipedobaptists will be as unfair in their turn, if they do not grant that in the case of sickness, weakliness, haste, waont of quantity of water, or such like extraordinary occasions, baptism by affu- sion of water on the face was by the ancients counted suffi- cient baptism.' He then mentions the case of Novatian, to which I have already alluded, and gives Cyprian's opinion about the validity of the ordinance thus performed. Cyprian says: 'And no man need therefore think otherwise, because these sick people, when they receive the grace of our Lord, (baptism,) have nothing but an affusiqn or sprinkling: whereas the Holy Scripture, by the prophet Ezekiel, says: Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,' etc. And, a little after, Cyprian says: 'We see this proved by the experience of the thing: that such as are baptized and do obtain the grace in their sickness" when need so requires, are freed from the unclean spirit with which they were before possessed; and do live commendably and approved in the Church, and do every day proceed by the increase of their faith to an increase of the heavenly grace,' etc. This was the opinion of a Christian bishop in the third century. "Dr. Wall then proceeds to give us the case of a soldier who was baptized about the same time. His words are: 'The acts also of St. Laurence, who suffered martyrdom about the same time as Cyprian, do tell how one of the soldiers that were to be his executioners, being converted, brought a pitcker of water for Laurence to baptize him with.' He then states that 'Eusebius also mentions Basilides baptized in prison by some brethren.' Dr. Wall thinks this case a * page: 308-309[View Page 308-309]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 308-309 308 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, parallel to that of the Philippian jailer, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and that they were both baptized 'by affusion only of some small quantity of water.' The testi- mony of Gennadius, of Marseilles, is next brought forth, in which he states that both immersion and affusion were prac- ticed in the fifth century. ThomasAquinas, in the thir- teenth century, says: 'Baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by affusion or sprinkling with water.' Bonaventure says, that the way of affusion was probably used by the apostles, and was in his time (A. D. 1260) used in the churches of France, and some others. Erasmus, A. D. 1500, speaking of the baptism of infants, says: 'With us (the Dutch) they have the water poured on them: in England they are dipped.' Now, to sum up Dr. Wall's argument in a few words: immersion, or dipping, he believes to be the common practice of antiquity, but pouring and sprink- ling, or baptism by affusion, he declares was always and everywhere considered valid, wherever it was inconvenient or unsafe to baptize otherwise. In proof of this he gives several cases. Novatian (A. D. 251) was baptized in bed by affusion. Bishop Cyprian (A. D. 255) declares the baptism to be valid which is performed in sickness by affusion. Laurence, the martyr, (about A. D. 258,) baptized a soldier with water which was brought to him in a pitcher. A. D. "5, Gennadius testifies that immersion and affusion were both used in the French and other Churches. A. D. 1255, Thomas Aquinas gives the same testimony. A. D. 1260, Bonaventure gives it as his opinion that the apostles baptized by affusion, and says it is used in the Church in his time. A. D. 1500, or 1525, Erasmus declares that pouring is prac- ticed in Holland. "These facts are cited by a strong believer in immersion; one who recommended its restoration in the English Church. Although a Pedobaptist, he was an immersionist; but the $ THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 309 proofs of the validity of affusion, under certain circum- tances, were so strong, that he does not hesitate to produce them as evidence that baptism in those cases has always been administered by affusion from the beginning. Not- withstanding this, however, Dr. Wall is quoted by 'Theo- dosia' as tracing pouring and sprinkling back only about a hundred years before his own times! He is made to say that affusion began under Queen Elizabeth in England; and sprinkling only commenced about A. D. 1641. According to this, their own testimony, as our English Bible was pub- lished in 1611- thirtyyears before sprinkling was practiced, and whilst pouring was a deviation from the practice of the Church of England-it is impossible that our Bible translators could have done injustice to Baptist views by the translation! "We have found the first case of Baptist immersion in the hands of Eunomius, in the year 375, practiced by believers in infant baptism. It is very clear, then, that Eunomius was not a Baptist, unless we admit that a Baptist can be a Pedobaptist. Now, let us examine the first case of a true genuine Baptist recorded in history. There have existed in parts of France, Switzerland, and Italy, for many years, seve- ral sects of Christians, who have been called Albigenses, Waldenses, and Vaudois. Berengarus, who lived about A. D. 1035, has been charged with denying infant baptism, together with the lawfulness of marriages, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. Whether he baptized by immersion is not stated. It is probable, however, that he did not deny baptism to infants, as he was admitted to the Lord's supper by the Catholics after he recanted his views about the eucharist. When the Lutherans sent, in 1530, a deputation to the Waldenses to know theirs state and doc- trine, they affirmed that they practiced infant baptism, and that their fathers had always done so. The first well- page: 310-311[View Page 310-311]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 310-311 * 310 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, defined case of agreement with modern Baptist views on the subject of infant baptism was that of Peter Bruis and his followers. I say'the first agreement with modern Baptist views as to the practice, not the reasons for it. Peter Bruis denied the use of infant baptism, because all infants, whe- ther they were baptized or not, inasmuch as they could not believe, could not be saved. If the Petrobrussians used Baptist immersion, (which is not proved,) and denied infant baptism, they cannot still be called Baptists, because they taught that no infant dying in infancy could be saved; whereas our Baptist friends agree with us that all such infants aresaved, whether baptized or not. We must come still nearer to our own times, then, to find a Baptist Church. 'In the year 1522, during the Reformation of which Luther was the principal champion, three men in Germany, Storick, Buccold, and Munzer, declared that there were other things to be reformed besides those attacked by Luther. Infant baptism they declared to be unscriptural; 'that in the kingdom of Christ it was not to bb endured that some men should be so rich, and others so poor; or that the boors should be held to such burdensome services. Abundance of people flocked to them; and the more, for that there had been before discontents and some insurrec- tions, and of those poorer sort of people, because of their foresaid hardships.',They defied the magistrates, preached up rebellion, and soon set the nation in a flame. They plun- dered the rich; set up a 'kingdom' in the city of Munster; and were with difficulty subdued by the civil power. These men were genuine Baptists, so far as the mode and subjects of baptism were concerned. Yet it would be unfair to call the 'kingdom' of Munster a Baptist Church. They were in the sixteenth century precisely what the Mormons are in our own day. The multitude cared nothing for baptism- THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 3U1 whether it was by immersion or pouring, or whether infants were baptized or not. They Sere allured into the support 4 of the Anabaptist leaders by a thirst for a change of poli- tical condition. Buccold, their king, held the same position toward them that Brigham Young holds to the Mormons of Utah. They practiced polygamy, and committed the same outrages in Germany which have distinguished the followers of Joe Smith. -We will not attribute the origin of the Bap- tist Church to the ' Mad Men of Munster,' but, coming still nearer to our own times, we find a Pelagian Baptist Church formed by one Menno, of Friesland. "This Menno rejected infant baptism; denied original sin; denied that Christ had his flesh of the Virgin? Mary; and asserted that souls sleep until the resur- rection. Some of the followers of Menno baptized only by immersion; but the majority of .them baptized by affu. ' sion. If, then, we reject these last, and take the immer- sionists, we have a Baptist Church; but certainly not an orthodox one. The denial of original sin ought not to be charged against all our modern Baptists, nor any error in reference either to the humanity or the Divinity of Christ. "We have not yet found a genuine Baptist Church, and we slhall search the pages of history in vain for one before the beginning of the seventeenth century. Eunomius bap- tized by immersion, but held to infant baptism. Peter Bruis would not baptize infants, because he believed they were all lost if they died in infancy. Menno denied infant baptism, but he practiced affusion,.and so do his followers at this day in Holland. So that to find an orthodox Baptist Church, one that baptizes only by immersion, rejects infant baptisms believes in the Divinity of Christ, and the deprav- ity of the heart, we can ascend no higher up the stream of time than the seventeenth century." "The Baptists claim the Waldenses, Mr. Mason' said ;: * '- X *I 1 y page: 312-313[View Page 312-313]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 312-313 312 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, Theophilus, " and say that they can establish a succession of r() true gospel Churches up to the days of the apostles." "Let them do so, then, and prove their descent from these gospel Churches, and we are ready to admit their claims. Intelligent Baptists, however, know the absurdity of such pretensions, and regard their advocates *as servile copyists of the High Church Episcopalians in their efforts to establish a personal succession of ministers, transmitting the ministerial authority from the hands of the apostles. A succession of immersed administrators will be found just as easily as the fabled stone which changes into gold every metal it touches. History furnishes no proofs to sustain their position; High Church Baptists may call in that often- needed faculty, fancy, and fabricate an imaginary chain of Baptist ministers to the days of the apostles; they may become intoxicated with the pride of bigotry, and cry out, 'We only are the Church!' but sensible men will place their assumptions side by side with the ravings of the lunatic and the dreams of the frenzied mind. "I have said that the Mennonites baptized bypouring as well as by immersion. The present Mennonites declare that Menno himself did the same, and consequently they plead his authority. The author of 4Theodosia Ernest' quotes a work written by Drs. Ypeig and Durmont, of the Dutch Reformed Church, to prove that the Mennonites were descended from the Waldenses, and these from the apostles. He also affirms that the Welsh Baptists can trace their descent up to the sixth or seventh century. Suppose we admit the interpretation given to the words of these doctors, does not the fact that the Mennonites do now and have always baptized by pouring, destroy the 'succession' of immersers? As to the antiquity of the Welsh Baptists, it is mere assertion, without a shadow of proof. Here is the 'Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy,' in four ' i THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 313 volumes, written by Ordericus Vitalis, in the eleventh ceno tury. It is one of the most extensive Church histories ever written. But it mentions not one word about Welsh Bap- tists, whilst a great number of schismatics, and those whom the author, being a Catholic, regarded as heretics, come in for a share of condemnation and rebuke. Here is the 'Ecclesiastical History' of the 'Venerable Bede,' an Eng- lish monk, written in the eighth century. He says not a word about Welsh Baptists, or anybody that can possibly be mistaken for them. Now, is it possible that such people existed in Wales without these men knowing the fact? Is it probable that, knowing their existence, they concealed it? No intelligent mind can be at a loss for an answer. But we are not without Baptist testimony on this sub- ject also. Here is a ' Memoir of Roger Williams,' written by Rev. James D. Knowles, a Baptist minister, and 'Professor e of Pastoral Duties in Newton Theological Seminary.' Speak- ing of the first Baptist church in America, he says: 'Mr. Ezekiel Holliman was selected to baptize Mr. Williams, who then baptized the administrator and ten others.. This event occurred in March, 1638-9. Thus was founded the first Baptist church in America, aand the SECOND, as it is stated, in the BRITISH EMPIRE.' The church at Providence wast then, the second Baptist church in the British' empire. i The first, as we have already seen, was the London church, i established, as the Baptist historian, Crosby, informs us, in the year 1633, six years before the baptism of Roger - Williams. Now where did these English Baptists get their I baptism Did they get it from the old Welsh Baptists No. They originated -it, just as Roger--Williams did I Hear Crosby again. After stating that some few English h! Baptists went to Holland to be baptized, (Query: Why did i they go to Holland, if there wereBaptists in Wales) he says, vol. i., p., 103: ,But the greatest number of the " d *' 'f1 * v page: 314-315[View Page 314-315]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 314-315 814 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, English Baptists, and the more judicious, regarded all this as needless trouble, and what proceeded from the old Popish doctrine of right to administer sacraments by an uninter- rupted succession, which neither the Church of Rome, nor the Church of England, much less the MODERN DISSENTERS, could prove to be with them. They affirmed, therefore, and practiced accordingly, that after a general corruption of baptism, an unbaptized person might warrantably baptize, and so begin a reformation.' So the English Baptists made their baptism, and the Hollanders practiced pouring as well as immersion! Here, then, we have the ' Baptist sucqes- sion' destroyed at a blow. "Whether American Baptists get their immersion from Roger Williams or not, is a question altogether trifling. If it is proved that the church in Providence did not give their immersion to others, the Baptists are not relieved from their difficulty. They must get their immersion either from Williams, from England, or from Holland. If they get it from Roger Williams, it dates no higher than 1638-9. If from England, it goes back only to 1633. If they get it from the Mennonites, they get it from those who held POURING to be as valid as immersion. Thus their high-sounding claims have no more solid foundationsthan the 'baseless fabric of a vision.' Their high assumptions are mere silly pratings, unworthy of belief. "I think I have given you sufficient evidence to show the Baptist claims to an uninterrupted succession of immersers to be wholly destitute of foundation. But as Theodosia Ernest labors diligently to establish such claims, I will give you some more Baptist evidence on the subject. Let me read you from page 188 of Theodosia: ' It seems probable, however, from recent historical researches, that the oldest Baptist church in the United States is that at Newport, in Rhode Island, founded by John Clark, against the regularity THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH 815 of whose baptism there has, so far as I know, been nothing alleged.' "Now, observe the' point which I wish to make. Recent historical researches have. convinced the author that tha- Newport church is the oldest in the U-nited States. Now let us hear from one of these men who has been making these researches. I allude to Mr. Tustin, the editor of the Southern Baptist, published in Charleston, S. C. In a recent article in his paper, Mr. Tustin says: 'It is also said that the first regular Baptist church in America was formed in New port in 1638, and that this church, having an un- broken succession till the present, is the only proper repre- sentative of the first Baptists in this country. To correct these and -many other loose statements, would require more space than we could give in this paper; and we now take up the matter, because on two occasions we have promised to set this matter right.' " "So we are getting the Baptist Doctors' into trouble again!" exclaimed. Theophilus. "Yes," replied Mr. Mason, "but let us hear Mr. Tustin further. 'In our leading article in this paper, of August 4th of this year, we Acknowledged that we owed a little debt of amendment to some of our Baptist writers, for an error which we ourselves gave currency to, about ten years ago, by virtue of certain personal and official relations we then held to the parties in the Providence and Newport churches. The editor'of this paper, with one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, and a pastor in Providence, drew up a report on the historical merits of this case, - which became widely circulated, and it was to the effect that the Newport church was the older of the two. No Baptist writer had ever broached such a- theory before, and we can only say now, that the materials for the report of that committee were entirely inadequate, and reviews of page: 316-317[View Page 316-317]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 316-317 810 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, the report, by more competent authorities since, have shown that we and the parties acting with us in that arbitration were greatly misled, and the judgment rendered was-entirely untenable.' " c' So Mr. Tustin was the author of - Theodosia's c historical researches,'" remarked Theophilus, " and now he makes the 'amende honorable,' and confesses that he was wrong."' "Yes, Theophilus; Mr. Tustin started the theory that the Newport church was older than the Roger Williams church in Providence, and now he takes it back. So with his recantation we establish the fact that the church in Provi- dence was the first Baptist church in America." -"But then," continued Theophilus, "I notice that Theo- dosia says, on page 187, 'The truth is, the society estab- lished by Roger Williams, Holliman, and others, soon died out.' Is there any truth in that?" "Let Mr. Tustin answer for me. He says: -But the original Roger Williams church, as it is sometimes called, has been so often cited, and so often misrepresented by Baptists, especially at a distance from the field, that it will be useful to correct some of these errors. It is said, for example, that the first religious society formed by Roger Williams and his friends in 1639 was no church at all, and that it crumbled into pieces in a few months.' Here, then, Mr. Tustin says that the assertion that the Roger Williams church died out, is a misrepresentation of the facts. More- over, he-proves that this same Newport church was estab- lished exactly in the same way with the Providence society. He says that Roger Williams, once a clergyman of the Church of England, was immersed by Mr. Holliman, a lay- man, and Mr. Williams then immersed the rest of the company. ' The line of historical baptism fails at this point.' So writes Mr.- Tustin. 'Dr. John Clark was the first preacher in Newport, though by whom ordained, and THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 817 whether originally a Congregationalist or an Episcopalian minister, does not appear. The persons baptized by him in the Newport church could only have received. baptism by him in the first instance as a minister of another persuasion, or in the capacity of a lay baptism. Any attempt to trace a line of successional baptizers in this country, through any other course, deserves our commiseration, and should seek for arguments at Rome or Oxford.' Pretty strong language for a Baptist!" {"That settles the question," said Theophilus; "but there is still another matter to be examined. You have so clearly refuted Theodosia's arguments, by her own Baptist brother, that I have no doubt you can give us light upon this subject too. I find it stated in Theodosia, p. 187: 'Of all the thou- sands of Baptist churches in America, there are none whose pastors or members have had any manner of dependence on the church founded by Roger Williams.! Again, on the same page': 'But none of them received baptism from Roger Williams, or the church said to have been established by him at Providence.' And again: 'It cannot be proved that any Baptist who received baptism in that body and by their authority, was ever concerned in baptizing any founder of other churches.' How stands the record in this case, Mr. Mason?" "Well, I will show you. I have here in my hand," said Mr. Mason, "Benedict's History ofrthe Baptists. It is quite a large volume, you see, and is the standard History of the Baptist Church. 'This edition, was printed in 1855. On, page 459, the author says: " BRANCHES o, THE OLD PROVIDENCE CHUROH.-It would be difficult, at this day, to make a complete list of all the Baptist COMMUNITIES wohich have sprung from this ANCIENT and PROLIFIC mother. From it, probably, orginated in page: 318-319[View Page 318-319]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 318-319 318 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OlR early times all which arose in the northern part of the State.' " "Enough! enough!" exclaimed Theophilus. "We have found these statements of Theodosia to be a tissue of false- hoods and misrepresentations, without going outside of the Baptist Church." "But let us take another view of the matter," continued Mr.- Mason. "We see from the Baptist historian, Benedict, that the baptism of Roger Williams was propagated by numer- ous Baptist communities. But still, they contend, all the Baptists in the United States did not get their baptism from the Providence church. This we admit, of course. The ques- tion then occurs, whence did they get it? We are told, from England and Holland. But we have already seen that the English Baptists, according to their'own historian, Crosby, originated their baptism just as Roger Williams did his. Only a feuw English Baptists went over to Holland to be immersed. Now, then, if it appears that the Baptists in Holland were in as bad a predicament as those of England, we hedge up the path, and stop the mouths of these pre- tenders to ' succession.' "I shall hold on to the Baptist histories, as they furnish ample materials for the demolition of 'High Church' or 'Old Landmark' claims. On page 329 of Benedict's His- tory, we have some important developments. Benedict quotes Taylor, an English Baptist historian, in his account of the first Baptist church in .Holland. Mark my words, for this is important testimony. One John Smyth separated from the church of England, and went to Holland. There he became convinced that infant baptism was wrong, and' that baptism was to be performed by immersion only. But now the question was, where, in all Holland, was there a Baptist church from which immersion could be obtained' THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 819 I I will read Taylor's account, as given by Benedict: 'It seems that Mr. Smyth and his friends were put to some difi: - j culty in reviving the practice of immersion. He and all his disciples had been sprinkled in their infancy, and therefore, % according to their views, were unbaptized. There were, indeed, many churches in Holland who practiced immersion, but as they differed widely in sentimnents frontm hMi he did A not choose to receive baptism from them. This completely refutes Dr. Mosheim's supposition that the English Baptists derived their origin from the German and Dutch- Mennon- ; ites, and that, in former times, they adopted their doctrine in all its points. On the contrary, we see that the first English Baptists of which we have any regular account after the Reformation, although living in the midst of the Dutch Mennonites, declined receiving baptism from them, on account of their difference of opinions in many important points. The foreign Anabaptists, says Crosby, (Baptist,) were such as denied Christ's having taken flesh of the Virgin Mary, the lawfulness of magistracy, and such like, which Mr. Smyth and his followers looked upon as great errors,:so that they could not be thought by him proper administrators of baptism. This obliged Mr. Smyth to consider of some other means of reviving the ordinance. What method he took is not very clearly stated. It is most probable that those who were convinced of the duty of believers' baptism first formed themselves into a church, and then appointed two of their number (perhaps Mr. Smyth and Mr. Helwisse) to aptize each other, and afterwards to baptize the rest. This subject caused considerable uneasiness and reproach to the first Bap- tists after the Reformation, both General and Particular. A similar difficulty occurred at the formation of the original Baptist Church in America, by Mr. Roger Williams, who had recourse to the same expedient; and we shall find in the sequel of this history, that the good nmen in Leicestershire in page: 320-321[View Page 320-321]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 320-321 320 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, the middle of the last century, when placed in similar cir. cumstances, adopted the same method.' Benedict, pp. 329, 330." "Well, well!" exclaimed Theophilus; " the Baptist ship 'Succession' has run aground now, to a moral certainty!" {C Yes, indeed," replied Mr. Mason, " the vessel is foun- dered. There are but three lines by which American Bap- tists can get back to the Waldenses, of whom they boast so much, but without reason, for they were not, and are not now, Baptists. Roger Williams breaks one of these lines short off, and stops that 'succession' at Providence, Rhode Island. The London Baptist Church, formed in 1633, breaks the English line by originating their immersion in London. And Mr. John Smyth breaks the Holland line, in 1608, by setting Roger Williams an example in the manu- facture of immersion. We come, then, to a stand-still, at the head of Salt River,' with a gap of more than fifteen hundred years between the Baptist succession and the times of the apostles i" "But perhaps, after all, Mr. Mason," observed Theophi- lus, " the Baptists may contend that some of these Mennon- ites emigrated to America and gave them ' the succession/ and that the Baptists in this country were not so particular as Mr. John Smyth and his friends." "Well, Theophilus," replied Mr. Mason, " we can answer that argument, too. There is the Religious Encyclopedia, a Baptist work. If you turn to the article. I Mennonites/ you will find it stated that the Mennonites practice immer- sion and pouring both, and that they plead the authority and example of Menno, their founder, for the practice. Dr. Wall says, in the second volume of his History of Infant Baptism, that the Mennonites of his day (about a hundred years after Mr. John Smyth refused to be baptized by them) baptized by pouring as well as immersion. Now, we know * THE MA'ES-TY OF TRUTH. 321 that when the Mennonites come from Holland to this coun- try, they do not join the Baptists, but organize churches of their own. And I venture to affirm that Baptists will not commune with the Mennonites, because they regard them as being quite as heretical on the mode of baptism as any of the Pedobaptists." "Then the cause is lost, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus; "we must give up the ship 'Succession.' " "O! as to that, Theophilus, if we were Baptists, all that we would have to do would be to practice our imagination a little. Baptist fancy makes up for the deficiency of histori- calfacts. But we are after the truth now, not fiction. A Suffer me to bring the whole argument before you. We have seen, this evening, that the corruption of the ordinance of baptism commenced about the end of the first or begin- ning of the second century. This corruption was first in the design, then in the mode. Baptism, from being a sign of the Spirit's operation upon the heart, was changed into the instrument by which the work of the Holy Spirit was ione. Then, the birth of the Spirit required the birth of the body in water--the whole body by submersion three times, to indicate the equality and cooperation of the three persons of the Trinity in regeneration. We have seen these two ideas of baptismal regeneration and trine immer- sion progressing together until Eunomius, in thefourth cen- tury, letves off two dips, for the purpose of rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, and equality of Persons in the Godhead. But inasmuch as this Arian teacher was a Pedo- baptist, we had to descend to Peter Bruis, for a better example of Baptist teaching. We found him to be a heterodox Baptist, and therefore we came down to Menno; and cast him aside because of his Pelagianism. We found, at last, the first Baptist church, according to Crosby, in the British empire, founded in- 1633; the first foreign Baptist "*, page: 322-323[View Page 322-323]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 322-323 322 THEOPHLUS WALTON. e church in the world in Holland, in 1608; and the first American Baptist church in 1638-9; in all three cases, however, these original Baptist churches, according to their own historians, originated their baptism, and thus palpably demonstrate that there were no other churches of ' the same faith and order' in existence. So we see that the boasts of modern 'Landmark' men are all empty dreams, and Ibap- tismal succession' is, as Mr. Tustin, the Baptist editor, says, worthy of support from the advocates of Rome and Oxford. "Before we are dismissed," remarked Mr. Mason, rising to his feet, "I would remark to the audience that I have been requested to meet the Rev. Mr. Battle here to-morrow night, on the Mode of Baptism. It will be understood, then, that to-morrow evening Mr. Battle and I will examine the subject." The audience were then dismissed. CONTROVERSY ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE CLASSICS AND OTHER- SOURCES REVIEWED. MR. BATTLE AND MR. MASON. "WIIEN GREEK MEETS GREEK, THEN COMES THE TUG OF WAR." page: 324-325[View Page 324-325]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 324-325 I I I I THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 325 SEVENTH EVENING. IT had been circulated through the village and a great portion of the surrounding country, since Wednesday morn- ing, that Mr. Battle had invited Mr. Mason to a regular disputation on Friday evening, and that the invitation had been accepted. In consequence of this intelligence, a large number of persons, friends of both parties, came to hear the discussion. At an early hour the Methodist church was crowded to its utmost capacity; and when Mr.' Battle entered, with a large armful of books, accompanied by Mr. Ellis, who was well-nigh weighed down with a similar load, it was with difficulty that they could make their way through the aisle to the altar. The ponderous volumes were at last deposited upon the table, and Mr. Battle seated himself in the altar, with a self-satisfied air, as if he felt sure of a speedy and complete triumph. When Mr. Mason entered the -room, he had nothing in the shape of a book in his hands; but he did not seem to be at all disconcerted by the formidable collection of Mr. Battle. "It seems that you are going to bring in ^ the authorities' this evening,"' Mr. Mason whispered to his opponent. O, as to that, these are not a -tenth of the number I might bring," replied Mr. Battle; 44I can furnish you with a hundred volumes if you require them." page: 326-327[View Page 326-327]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 326-327 326 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "Very well," said Mr. Mason; " if they are pertinent to the matter in hand, it is all right." Beckoning to Theophi. lus to assist him, Mr. Mason went to the pulpit, and removed a case of books, which seemed to be a section of a library, and apparently contained some forty or fifty volumes. Whilst they were placing it in a convenient position, the Baptist minister eyed the bookcase with evident interest. When the hour arrived for the debate to commence, Mr. Battle arose, and with great deliberation remarked: "We are entering upon a discussion of manifest import- ance to all classes of men. The performance of a duty com- manded by our Lord Jesus Christ is not a question for debate. My friend, Mr. Mason, will not for a moment ven- ture a doubt as to the binding force of all our Lord's com- mandments. The point at issue between us is, what has Jesus Christ commanded when he bids us to be baptized. My position is, that if the word used by our Saviour, and written by the evangelists, means to pour, then pouring is what is commanded; if it means to sprinkle, then sprink- ling is commanded; and if it means to dip, then dipping is commanded. I presume that Mr. Mason will not risk his reputation for scholarship by saying that the word means all three of these contradictory and entirely different actions. But it is not my purpose to alter the method which he has been pursuing for several evenings here; I intend to con- duct this discussion in pretty much the same form. I will give a passage from the Greek classics, and allow him to admit or deny its bearing upon the subject. If he admits that it defines the word as an act of dipping, then the pas- sage is mine. And if I bring up an overwhelming number of these passages, proving that this was the general, primary, and common meaning of the word baptidzo, then I establish the fact that Jesus Christ, in commanding us to be bap- tized, commands us to be dipped; for it is folly to suppose AHE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 327 that the word was used in any other than its common, gene. ral sense." "Allow me to ask," said Mr. Mason, interrupting him, if you are going to confine yourself to the Greek word baptidzo? Are you going to include bapto in your quota- tions from Greek writers?" "Only so far as to show that the derivative, baptidzo, is used by the Greeks in the same sense that bapto is." "Then I understnd you to say that the two words are identical in meaning?" "Not exactly identical, Mr. Mason, but very nearly so." "Well, if they have not'the very same meaning, be so good as to tell us in what the difference consists." "I am not prepared to say precisely, Mr. Mason; but as a general rule we may say that bapto means to dye, and bap- tidzo to dip." , * "But I desire you to use precision, Mr. Battle," replied Mr. Mason; "I want to know if bapto always means to dye ." "I suppose not, Mr. Mason, but generally it does." "And you say that baptidzo always means to dip?" "Yes, either literally, or in a figurative sense." "Well, then, upon the supposition that a derivative always partakes of the nature of the word from which it is derived, how does it happen that a word gets to mean invariably to dip, from a word that only generally means to dye?" "Because dyeing was usually done by dipping," replied Mr. Battle, "and when the root, bapto, does not mean to dye, it means to dip. ' "Then the root word means more then the derived word, does it? Bapto has two meanings, to dye and to dip. Are these actions always the same, Mr. Batle?" ' No, sir, I suppose a thing may be dyed without being dipped."' "Very good. Remember what you told us a few moments 1 , page: 328-329[View Page 328-329]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 328-329 328 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, ago, that I would not risk my reputation as a scholar by affirming that a word means three different things. You have just admitted that one of these words means two differ- ent things, and really, sir, your reputation as a scholar is being placed in jeopardy at the very outset. As you are so well posted up with authorities, I would turn your attention to your own Dr. Fuller, and show you that he charges men with being blinded by controversy who assert that a word can mean more than one thing." "I care not what Dr. Fuller has said," replied Mr. Battle, tartly, "lam here to oppose you-Alexander Battle, not Dr. Fuller. I'pin my faith to no man's skirts." "Well, then, Mr. Battle," replied Mr. Mason, smiling, "all I want to do is to show that Dr. Fuller and Dr. Alex- ander Battle are not agreed upon the most material part of. this discussion. But I hope, sir, as you say that you ' pin your faith to no man's skirts,' that you will oblige us this evening by reading your quotations from Greek out of Greek books, not out of your own writers. It might happen that some of the extracts may not be quoted correctly." "If I do not read them out of the original books," re- plied Mr. Battle, "I shall at all events read them out of Pedobaptist writers; I suppose that will satisfy you, Mr. Mason." "No, sir, I want the original Greek books; and where this word occurs, I want the whole connection: what the writer was speaking about, to whom he was speaking, and the circumstances by which he was surrounded, or that of right belong to the case under consideration." "I see you are going to be hard to satisfy," replied Mr. Battle; ". I have not the Greek originals, and I doubt whether they can all be found in the country. I t is unfair, Mr. Ma- son. to make such a demand as that." "No, sir, it is not unfair. You are mistaken in supposing TfHE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. * 329 that the books are not to be found. I believe I have every volume in Greek that has been quoted on either side of this controversy. The majority of them are in this bookcase, comprising writers from Homer down to Diogenes Laertius, and also several volumes of the Greek fathers. I insist, then, Mr. Battle, upon your quoting directly from the books." "I was not aware that you had so many of these authors," replied Mr. Battle, and if I had known it this morning, I could have arranged my notes so as to refer directly to the Greek. However, Mr. Mason, I will make the request of you, and rely upon your courtesy to grant-it, that for this evening I may be allowed to use Dr. Carson's collection. I apprehend that no objection will be found to them, and if any discrepancy should be discovered, we can then refer to the originals." "Very well," replied Mr. Mason, "I like to go to the fountain-head when I have to rely upon testimony, and therefore I would prefer the course I have indicated; but as you have not prepared yourself for it, I will not insist." "I have already stated," Mr. Battle resumed, "that I can prove that the plain, literal sense of baptidzo is to dip, or immerse, and that if I can establish that fact, then I prove that Jesus Christ commanded immersion. The first writer which I shall bring forward is Polybius, as quoted by Dr. Carson. He says that 'certain soldiers, passing through water, were immersed up to the breast.' That is, they were baptized up to the breast. What have you to say to that passage, Mr. Mason?" "I say, sir," replied Mr. Mason, "that those soldiers were not dipped in the water, but that they waded through it, and they were surrounded by the water. There is a partial immersion, but no dipping in the passage. I will, however, for the present, give you a passage from an older writer- by more than two hundred years. I have in my hand the Eu- page: 330-331[View Page 330-331]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 330-331 330 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, thydemus of Plato. It is a dialogue between several per. sons, among them a youth, who has been entrapped by a number of shrewd questions into many inconsistencies. So- crates, who relates the dialogue, says: 'After this Euthy- demus rushed to the third, as it were wrestler-fall, being about to throw down the youth. But I, seeing the boy over- whelmed, (or baptized,) and wishing to give him a respite, lest he should exhibit cowardice before us, said, in order to console him, Do not wonder, Clinias, if these discourses ap- pear to you to be unusual.' Now, Mr. Battle, would you say that this boy was dipped or immersed in the questions?'. "I should say," replied Mr. Battle slowly, " that he might be said figuratively to be immersed in questions." a But you forget, Mr. Battle, that the questions were asked him one at a time. Is it not as proper to say that the ques- tions were poured out upon him one after the other, until he was overwhelmed? Is not this the fact? And if he may be said to sink under the questions, yet they were applied to him, not he to them. But Socrates does not use the word figuratively; he says that the boy was really, literally over- whelmed with questions." "I have not examined that passage closely," said Mr. Battle; "s for the present I will let it pass, and go on to give my Proofs. 'Plutarch, speaking of a Roman general dying of his wounds, says, that having dipped his hand in blood, he wrote the inscription for a trophy.' Now we know that the instrument with which we write is literally dipped in the ink. This Roman general dipped his hand in blood, and wrote: here is evidently a case of immersion." "I am not disposed to cavil," replied Mr. Mason, "and therefore I will allow that the hand was truly dipped in the blood, although I think, from all the circumstances, it is very doubtful. As you have brought your testimony down to Plutarch, I think you are getting out of the path. You are THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 331 aware that Plutarch lived a hundred years after Christ, and therefore his testimony is worth nothing as to the meaning of the word when used by our Saviour. We ought to seek evidence from before, not after the time of Christ. How- ever, I will give you a passage from another--old writer, more than three hundred years before Christ. Aristotle, in this work, De Mirabilibus, saysp: They say that the Phoeni- cians, who inhabit the parts called Gadeira, (Cadiz,) sailing beyond the Pillars of Hercules, with an east wind, reached in four days certain uninhabited coasts full of sea-weed, which were not baptized at ebb, but at full tide were de- luged.' Now here is a case in which the thing baptized is not put into the water, but the water comes over it. Every one knows how the tide rises and overflows the beach: the water comes to the land, and flows over it." "But yet, Mr. Mason," said Mr. Battle, "although the land was not -literally dipped into the water, yet when the tide was high it was said to be baptized, or immersed. I' think the passage clearly in my favor." "And I think it as clearly in mine," replied Mr. Mason; "for the question is not whether the land was covered with water, but how was it covered-by dipping the land into the water, or by the water rising and flowing upon the land? It is the action in the word baptidzo which you contend for, the mode by which the thing is done. If you abandon this position, you place yourself in direct antagonism with Dr. Carson, who says the word always and everywhere means mode, either literally or figuratively." ",I think it must be used figuratively in this passage," said Mr. Battle; "the gradual disappearing of the land from sight would resemble the dipping or sinking of it in the water, and I regard the figure as a very beautiful one." "No doubt you do," said Mr. Mason, " for all figures are beautiful that will come to your aid in a moment of distress, page: 332-333[View Page 332-333]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 332-333 832 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, and help you out of trouble. But, unfortunately for you, there is no figure in the case. It was a literal coast, there were literal waves, and a literal covering of the coasts by the water, and yet you tell us that the mode by which the coasts were baptized was figurative! Do, sir, if you wish to pre- serve your ( reputation as a scholar,' abandon such an inter- pretation, and admit, candidly, that the water was applied to or flowed over the land, and that this application of water to the coasts, or flowing of the waves over them, constituted the mode by which they were baptized. A figurative mode of doing a literal act is too great an imposition upon the laws of language." ' , "Well, Mr. Mason," replied Mr. Battle, 'we will not dispute about that passage. Here is one from Diodorus Siculus. Speaking of the sinking of animals in water, he says that when the water overflows, ' many of the land ani- mals, immersed in the river, perish.' Here, then, we have the plunging or immersing of animals into a river, and, sinking into the water, they perish. If this is not a clear case, then argument will not convince you." *' Stop, Mr. Battle; you are getting three hundred years after the time of Christ, whereas we were to prove what the meaning of the word was when our Saviour used it. But let that pass. Now, Mr. Battle," continued Mr. Mason, ' I have in my hand the History of Diodorus Siculus, from which your extract is taken, and here, sir, you will see that there is not one word about the immersion of these animals in the river! Your author, Dr. Carson, has mistranslated the passage. The proper rendering is: ' The greater num- ber of the land animals, overtaken by the river, perish, being baptized.' Now, sir, you see that the water of the river overtook or flowed upon the animals, and they, being baptized by this sudden rush of the water upon them, perished. So we have here another example of the water being applied to- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 8 338 the thing baptized. You must hand this passage over to me, sir. You cannot get dip out of it; no, not even by the help of a figure!" * "Are you positive that your translation is right, Mr. Mason?" asked Mr. Battle. '"I have never heard the cor- rectness of Carson's rendering questioned before." ' Perhaps you have not, Mr. Battle, but I will agree to leave it to any Greek scholar in the house. Will you refer it?" "I will not question your translation, fMr. Mason," replied Mr. Battle, "if you are positive that you are right." ' I am certainly positive, sir, and to show you that this same writer Diodorus uses the word baptidzo in the sense of water applied to a person or thing, I will give you another example. In the second volume of his History, he says: ' The river, fl owing down with a more violent current, bap- tized many, and destroyed them swimming across in their armor.' Now these soldiers had already been forced into the river by their conquerors, and the violent current, flowing over them, baptized or overwhelmed them. The conquerors dipped the soldiers, but the current baptized them. This is a highly important passa'ge, as it clearly distinguishes the act of forcing or driving into the river, from the act of baptiz- ing after they were in the water. No figure of speech can be introduced here to break the force of the language. It was the flowing of the water over the soldiers that baptized them, not the plunging into the water." "I am not prepared to examine that passage now," ob- served Mr. Battle, " as I have never seen it, or heard it pro- duced before this evening. I will go on, and produce an example which will not be questioned. 'Heraclides Ponti- cus,' says Dr. Gale, 'a disciple of Aristotle, moralizing the fable of Mars being taken by Vulcan, says: Neptune is ingeniously supposed to deliver Mars from Vulcan, to signify page: 334-335[View Page 334-335]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 334-335 334 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, that when a piece of iron is taken red-hot outeof the fire, and put into the water, (baptized,) the heat is repelled and extinguishedby the contrary nature of water.' Now, Mr. Mason, we know how hot iron is taken from the forge and put into water--it is dipped, and this dipping is called by this writer a baptizing. What do you say to that?" "I have several things to say to it," replied Mr. Mason, "for I have the original Greek here, and I must charge that translation of Dr. Gale with great inaccuracy. The proper rendering is as follows: ' For a mass of iron, heated to red- ness, being drawn out by the smiths, is baptized with water, and that which was fiery by its own nature, being quenched with water, ceases to be so.' Now, if this writer uSed bal2- tidzo to express the plunging into water of the iron, why did he not say it was baptized eis to hudor, (el9 rb Vidwp,) instead of using the dative of instrument? The Greek is vdSarZt 3arrir'eraL, hudati baptidzetai, baptized with water, just as vdar-t icara(peaOev, hudati katasbesthen, quenched with water. Now the conclusion of the Baptists, that because small pieces of iron, when heated in a forge, are plunged in water to cool them, therefore there is no other mode by which- heated iron can be cooled, is perfectly absurd. The pouring of water upon the 'mass of iron' would have been just as effectual as dipping, and the fact that the construction of the Greek text requires us to render it baptized with water, indi- cates the application of the water to the iron, as the instru- ment by which it was cooled. You cannot rely upon this passage, Mr. Battle." "Well, sir," replied the Baptist minister, rather haughtily, "I will try again, Perhaps I may at last find a case that will baffle your skill in petty criticism." "I have made no ' petty criticism,' Mr. Battle," said the Methodist minister; "I am willing to submit every excep- tion I have taken to your proofs, and every criticism I have THE MAJESTY Or TRUTH. 335 made, to a committee of competent Greek scholars, and I will abide by their decision." "We will determine that by and by,", replied Mr. Battle. "Now, sir, let us see what you will do with this passage: Two Greek critics are quoted by, Dr. Gale as applying the word in exhibiting the beauty of Homer's representation of the death of one of his heroes: -' He struck him across the neck with his heavy sword, and the whole sword became warm with blood.' On this Pseudo Didymus says, that the sword is represented as dipped in blood. And Dionysius says: 'In that phrase Homer expresses himself with the greatest energy, signifying that the sword was so dipped in blood thatit was even heated by it.' Now, Mr. Mason, what objection have you got to this passage?" "I have more than one objection," replied Mr. Mason. "In the first place, you can neither dip nor immerse a heavy sword in a man's neck. In the next place, if this could be done, your translator says it was dipped in blood, not in the neck of the hero. But my principal objection to this passage of yours is, that there is not a word about dipping in blood in the original. Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the author alluded to, who in his Life of Homer comments on that passage in the sixteenth, book of the Iliad) which describes the death of Cleobulus. Homer says:, 'He (Ajax) struck him on the neck with his hilted sword, and the whole- sword was warmed with blood.' On this last clause Diony- sius remarks: 'In this he expresses greater emphasis, as, the sword being so baptized as to be even warmed.' Not a word is here about dipping in blood, for the sword was baptized by the blood running out upon it. We have another bap- tism, then, without an immersion!" "It seems, then," said Mr. Battle, " that I am only fur- nishing you passages to be explained away. As you seem to like the amusement, I will give you a few more. Josephus, page: 336-337[View Page 336-337]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 336-337 33&6 THEOPHLUS WALTON; Ot, describing the death of one Simon by his own hand, says: He baptized or plunged his sword up to the hilt into his own bowels.' Now, my learned friend, what will you do with that?" "I will prove that Josephus says no such thing," replied Mr. Mason. "The passage is in the Wars of the J ews, book second, section 4 of the eighteenth chapter. After stating that Simon destroyed his mother and friends, he adds: 'He baptized his sword to his own slaughter.' Dr. Carson mistook a6ayvv, sphagen, slaughter, for arndyyva, bowels. But admitting that the baptism here was put- ting the sword into his body, it is not a case of dipping or immersion. It is a case of plunging, in which a few inches only of the sword entered the body." "I am at a loss to proceed any farther," said Mr. Battle. a I cannot adduce a passage which, by a system of critical torture, you do not destroy. If I had been forewarned of this course, I would not have met you here to-night." Why, my friend," said Mr. Mason, ai if I have done any violence to your quotations from the classics, why do you not show it? Here we are, ready to hear any thing you have to say upon the subject. Here are the books, the Greek books; the places are all marked and ready for easy reference; and, as you remarked to me in your note last Wednesday morn- ing, ' when Greek meets Greek, then comes the tug of war!' If I have misrepresented any thing, show me wherein I have done so, and I am ready to retrieve my error."' "You have taken advantage of me," replied Mr. Battle, harshly; " you have been preparing to torture my proof-texts, knowing that I could not, at this hour, set them right. Your course, sir, is highly discreditable." , "I am surprised at you, Mr. Battle," said Mr. Mason. "I again say, that if I have misrepresented any one of these passages, show me where the misrepresentation is, and I will THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 337 correct it. And more than that, sir, I am willing to let you select any three men in the house, regardless of denomina- tional tiesj tcawhom the criticisms offered this evening 'shall be referred, and if they decide that I have no ground for them, or that my criticisms are false, I will throw them out." Mr. Battle made no answer for several moments. He was evidently perplexed, and seemed to be in doubt whether he should go on, or endeavor to retreat under cover of an excuse which would save him from disgrace. Mr. Ellis, who, dur- ing the progress of the discussion, had manifested consider- able uneasiness, advanced to the altar, and commenced whispering to Mr. Battle. After a few moments spent in consultation, Mr. Battle remarked: "I cannot consent, ladies and gentlemen, to permit- Mr, Mason to handle my proofs in the way he has been doing to-night. He has violated the rules of the Greek language and every principle of construction. In order to show this to be true, however, I must have several books which are not here, and as they are in my library at home, it is not likely that I shall be able to command them before the mid- dle of next week. I beg you to suspend your judgment in this matter until I shall receive the necessary authorities. I will then prove how recklessly we have heard the Greek language tortured to-night. I did not suspect my antagonist of this artifice, and therefore have not guarded against it. At another time, I pledge myself to set every thing right." At the conclusion of this speech, Mr. Battle and Mr. Ellis gathered up their books and prepared to depart. Mr. Mason rose and endeavored to obtain a hearing, but there was so much confusion in the house, that the two Baptist ministers had left the church, together with a number of their friends, before order could be restored. When the noise and uproar subsided, however, it appeared that nine-tenths of the audience remained, and when Mr. Mason commenced speak- 15 page: 338-339[View Page 338-339]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 338-339 338 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, ing, there was an audible indication of applause throughout the building. "It is to be regretted," said Mr. Mason, "that when Christian ministers become parties to a controversy, they should forget the courtesy due to each other, and display a spirit wholly at war with the teachings of the gospel. Now, I call you to witness that I have not uttered a word this evening that was either uncourteous or unkind toward Mr. Battle. On the contrary, having some apprehension of his hasty temper, I have been quite calm and respectful. Now wherein have I offended? If it be a crime to bring up a number of Greek books, as authorities, when I am challenged to a controversy in Greek, then I am wrong. If it be wrong to point out the errors of those who oppose me, then I have com- mitted an offence. But I have offered to submit to the judg- ment of competent scholars every point at issue to-night, and my opponent would not condescend even to notice my proposal!" "It is very clear," observed Theophilus, "that you have taken Mr. Battle by surprise. He did not expect to have his translations questioned, that is, the translations of his Baptist doctors; for, to tell you the truth, I think the gen- tleman saw some of those books for the first time to-night. His Greek, I imagine, was never very extensive, and it has grown rusty." "If he is not prepared to conduct a Greek argument, he ought not to invite others to meet him, especially when he heads his note with the significant phrase, ' When Greek meets Greek, then comes the tug of war!' " "That was an empty boast, Mr. Mason. He only designed to read his proofs from his Baptist authors, and found the argument upon them. Whether Dr. Gale and Dr. Carson are reliable as translators, has never for a moment been a question in his mind. But why do we spend words THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH.- '839 upon him? He is gone, and I warrant you that he will never find those books which are at home in his library. That was only a get-off. He is a retired controversialist, in this region at least, from this time forth. But I am inter- ested in these quotations from the classics, and, if you will permit me to do so, I would like to call your attention to several which are quoted by the Baptists." "I shall take pleasure in giving you all the assistance in my power," replied Mr. Mason; "select any passage you please, and let us examine it." "I notice a very singular criticism, it seems to me, in Dr. Carson's work on Baptism. Remarking upon the sybilline verse, which he translates, 'Thou mayest be dipped, 0 bladder, but are not fated to sink,' he says: 'The expres- sion in this verse is allegorical, literally referring to a blad- der or leathern bottle, which, when empty, swims on the surface; if sufficiently filled, will dip, but will not sink. In this view it asserts that the Athenian state, though it might be occasionally overwhelmed with calamities, yet would never perish.' Now, it seems to me," continued Theophilus, " that there is something wrong in this expla- nation, and I would be glad if. you would set it right." "This passage offers a good opportunity to remark, Theophilus, that Baptist critics always put the disputed word into the translation, and then argue as if they were defending the Greek writer for using it. Dr. Carson says the bladder would be dipped; but the oracle says it would be baptized, but should not sink. You will remember, Theophilus, that this verse was understood by the ancient Greeks to apply to the city of Athens, and it was considered to be a prophecy in regard to her future destiny. The oracle, as quoted by Plutarch, says: 'As a bladder, thou mayest be baptized, but art not fated to sink.' Now the words placed in opposition here are fpairr-i, baptidze, and dvat, dunai, page: 340-341[View Page 340-341]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 340-341 i1 in Greek; baptize and sink in English. The image is a very striking one. The bladder or empty ' leathern bottle' is thrown into the sea, and swims upon the surface. Now, says Dr. Carson, IF sufficiently filled, it will dip. But there is an I if' in the way. Where does Dr. Carson find that this bladder was to be ' sufficiently filled' before it was thrown into the water? And if it began to fill after it got into the water. who does not see that it would infallibly sink, and thus destroy the prophecy? The same means which filled it 'sufficiently' for Dr. Carson's purpose, would fill it too full, and send it to the bottom, in spite of all the Baptist rhetoric in Christendom. Baptist writers seem never to hesitate in extorting their favorite dip by any process, be it plausible or monstrous. Now, Theophilus, you know that 6dvvo, duno, in Greek, is the root of VXrrT-, dupto, to dip. If dip is not in the root, it cannot be in the derivative-so Baptist writers tell us-and Dr. Fuller says a word has but one meaning; then duno means to dip. We have, then, in this verse the following nonsense, according to the conjoint opinions of Carson and Fuller: "Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder, but art not fated to dip!' "But the beauty of the passage is destroyed by the van- dalism of these Baptist critics. The oracle intends simply to say, that as a bladder or sealed bottle will ride upon the water, and be baptized by the waves breaking over it, yet without sinking below the surface, so the city of Athens should outride those political storms whose waves should break over her, and baptize her for a season with troubles, yet without sinking or destroying her institutions. The same specific gravity which would dip a bladder would sink it; and, as we are told that it will not sink, it follows that it will not dip; and hence we find another case of baptism" without either dipping or immersion." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 341 it That removes my difficulty," said Theophilus; ( I could not see the force of the image as the Baptists explain it; but you have rendered it plain and intelligible." "There is another fact connected with Dr. Carson's argu- ment which is frequently overlooked," continued Mr. Mason. "You know he sets out with the assertion that baptidzo means I to dip, and nothing but dip;' yet, strange to tell, when he introduces upwards of thirty examples from the Greek classics, he does not translate the word to dip in but four instances out of thirty! He has baptize thirteen times, plunge three times, immerse four times, and sink six times; here are twenty-six cases in which Dr. Carson him- self leaves out the dip, and substitutes other words, and that, too, whilst constantly affirming that; dip was- its only meaning. Nothing can be plainer, thefgs, -an that this Bap- tist doctor, in his Quixotic expedition, in which he avows his purpose to set the lexicons and commentators right, has had a terrible fight with the windmills and wine-bags of the Spanish knight.- He sees an army in a flock of sheep, raises his lance, and cries out 'Dip!' but when he finds himself unhorsed, his dip has vanished, and his beloved Rosinante is in a pitiable plight. "It has been wisely omitted, too, by the Baptist critics, that Hippocrates, the father of medicine, uses the word PdrrTo, bapto, in the sense of dipping, nearly one hundred and fifty times; whilst he never uses ja7rr'ito, baptidzo, in the sense of mode-but once, and that passage is disputed as spurious by able critics. How can we account for this fact, if, as Dr. Gale says, the two words are identical in meaning? And how can -we account for the use of bapto, to dip, if, as Dr. Fuller says, it only means to dye? Verily, the more we look after those Baptist doctors, and follow them through their learned lucubrations, the more their 'confusion becomes worse confounded ;' and yet we are told, with strong page: 342-343[View Page 342-343]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 342-343 342 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 843 emphasis and great confidence, that the classic writers sus- tain the Baptists." "Now that we are upon the subject of classic usage, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, "I would like to know something about the ancient mode of bathing. The Baptists insist that it was always an immersion of the body in water. I feel considerable interest in ascertaining whether this be true or not; because, if so, the Greek word aovmo, louo, which is rendered equivalent to baptize in some places in the Bible, (as, for instance, in the case of Naaman, in 2 Kings,) would seem to indicate immersion." "' I am happy to tell you, Theophilus, that there is a Greek passage which will gives you perfect satisfaction upon this subject. By turning to the tenth book of the Odyssey, you will find a descrifAioi of the bath administered to Ulysses in the palace of Circe. Let me read a paragraph for you: ('And four handmaidens, who are her servants in the house, were busy in the palace. But they indeed were sprung from the fountains and from the groves, and from the, sacred rivers which flow forth into the sea. One of them threw beautiful blankets upon the thrones, purple above, but under she put beautiful linen; another extended silver tables before the thrones, and set upon them golden dishes; a third mixed sweet honeyed wine in a silver bowl, and distributed golden cups; but the fourth carried water, and lighted a great fire under a large tripod; and the water was warmed. But when the water boiled in the shining brass, having put me in a bath, she washed me from the large tripod, POURING water pleasantly over my head and shoulders, until she took away from my limbs mind-destroy- ing labor.' Odyssey, b. 10. "Here is an ancient bath, Theophilus, described by Homer, and it was administered by pouring the water over the head and shoulders of the person bathed. Do you still doubt if immersion was necessary to a bath?" "No, sir; I 'want no further testimony. This is plain enough. One such description of a bath, where the mode is stated, is enough to settle the principle. I see now that the ancients, like ourselves, frequently used the shower-bath, and therefore the term may include any mode of bathing. I shall never be able to express my thanks, Mr. Mason, for the aid you have rendered me, and the further I avail myself of your services, the less foundation appears for the doctrine of exclusive immersion. I am convinced, sir, that the ancients never used the word baptize in the sense of dipping, and the evidences you have brought from the New Testament are conclusive." "There are many other places which we might examine among the Greek writers; but, as you say, Theophilus, they will all go to prove that the idea of dipping, even as the common meaning of baptidzo, has no foundation whatever. But, as we have met every evening this week, and perhaps the audience may not feel much more interest in this branch of our, studies, I will give a brief review of this evening's investigation, and then dismiss. "Mr. Battle, you remember, offered to prove that baptidzo in the Greek meant only to dip, and therbfore our Lord Jesus Christ, in commanding us to be baptized, commanded us to be dipped. When he brought out his proofs, however, not one of them clearly established his position, and as I proved some of his quotations to be grossly incorrect, he became alarmed and abandoned his task. On the other hand, I showed distinctly that the application- of water to persons or things, and the breaking of waves over a bottle, were called baptisms by the Greeks. If at any future time any one present should desire further testimony upon this subject, I will be happy to furnish it. page: 344-345[View Page 344-345]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 344-345 "On Monday evening we shall discuss the subject of Infant Baptism, and see-whether or not we can sustain our practice by the Scriptures, for by the rule of God's word we stand or fall." TRIAL OF MRS. WILLIAMS FOR THE CRIME OF PARTAKING OF THE LORD'S SUPPER WITH THE LORD'S PEOPLE. ALEXANDER BATTLE, AND OTHERS, FOR THE PROSECUTION-RICHARD BARBOUR FOR THE DEFENCE. page: 346-347[View Page 346-347]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 346-347 THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 347 CHAPTER XIX. THE TRIAL. To describe the irritation and mortification which resulted from the defeat of Mr. Battle on Friday evening, would be impossible. His friends were confident of success, having seen him, at other times, do valiant service for their cause. 'But when they witnessed his unwillingness to cope with Mr. Mason in the field of classical criticism, they were sadly disappointed. There were very few, however, of the more decided Baptists who were disposed to compromise the cause by acknowledging themselves vanquished. They indulged in hopes of future success, when Mr. Battle would not only repair the damages of the past, but level a telling blow at Pedobaptism in that country. Strange to say, too, although the fact of present defeat was too plain to be denied, yet there were many who not only maintained the certainty of ultimate success, but made it the occasion of no little boasting, assuring their opponents that Mr. Mason would prove, in the end, by no means a match for Mr. Battle! Numbers of these partisan spirits employed the early portion of the following day in efforts to create a public opinion in their favor. When the hour arrived for the usual services on Saturday, as it was the monthly meeting, a sermon was delivered by Mr. Ellis on the purity of the Church, and the necessity of building our hopes upon a scriptural foundation. In this page: 348-349[View Page 348-349]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 348-349 348 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR) sermon, although there was a studious effort to avoid giving a hint publicly that there was likely to be a division among his members on important questions, there was, nevertheless, to an observing eye, a manifest anxiety telling upon the mind of the preacher. The exhortation to avoid all occa- sions of strife by which the name of the Lord might be blasphemed, had a particular bearing, but with what success he labored we shall presently see. The congregation was dismissed without any intimation that business of unusual importance would claim the atten- tion of the church. The Presbyterian and Methodist minis- ters were both present, and were about to retire, when they were informed by Theophilus that an interesting trial was about to commence, and that, in accordance with their usual custom, he presumed the Baptists would not object to the presence of spectators. They returned to their seats, in con- sequence of this information, and awaited the proceedings. Mr. Ellis seemed not a little perplexed at this movement of the Pedobaptist pastors, and for some moments he employed himself seemingly in taking the advice of his brethren. When he returned to his seat, and the usual preliminaries were gone through, it was announced that the time had come for the trial of disorderly members. A case or two of minor consequence having been disposed of, by requiring confes- sion of penitence to be made to the church, the case of Mrs. Williams was called. The old lady was present, and in her own artless manner gave a full statement of the reasons which had induced her to commune with the Methodist peo- ple. It was because she loved them, believed that they were Christian people, and as such she could not refuse to sit with them at the Lord's Table. "Do you feel, Sister Williams," asked Mr. Ellis, c that in breaking the standing order of your Church you are obeying the Lord Jesus Christ?" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 349 {c I do not believe that I have broken any commandment of the Lord Jesus," replied Mrs. Williams. "I know that I have violated a custom of our Church, but I do not acknowledge the right of the Church to control my con- science." "Then you take the liberty of judging for yourself, I suppose, in defiance of all advice and authority of your brethren in the Church?" "I have heard you declare in your sermons, Brother Ellis," said Mrs. Williams, "that every Christian had the right to judge for himself in all matters pertaining to the Scriptures. I have done nothing more than this. I have searched the Bible, and I see nothing there forbidding me to commune with true Christians, and therefore I have taken the liberty to do so." "And will you promise us, for the future, if we look over this offence, to abstain from communing with Pedobaptist societies?" "I cannot make such a promise," replied Mrs. Williams; "under the same circumstances, I shall in all probability do just as I did last Sabbath." "Brethren," said Mr. Ellis, the case is now fairly before you. We are ready to hear any suggestion or remark from any brother present." "I rise to move that Mrs. Williams be expelled," said Deacon Smith; " we cannot forgive the offence without con- fession of repentance, and this she, refuses to make." '"And I rise to inquire by what authority a pious member of the Church is to be expelled, who has not committed a sin against God?" said Mr. Barbour. "A sin against God's Church is a sin against Him," re- plied Deacon Smith. "I demand- the proof, then," continued Mr. Barbour, ! page: 350-351[View Page 350-351]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 350-351 350 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, "that this sister has committed a sin against the Church of God." ' I see that we are likely to have a discussion which in- volves the very existence of the Church," said Mr. Ellis, c' and I think that we are not prepared at this time to enter upon it. It would be best, brethren, to postpone this case until we are in a better condition to examine it." "I am opposed to that," said Deacon Smith; 6"we are joust as well prepared to meet this issue now as we ever shall be. Let it come, and let us see who the false brethren are, who are willing to sacrifice the cause of Christ." "Let the case be tried," said Mr. Barbour; "I am ready to defend this sister, and I stand here as her representative, and demand a trial in her behalf," "Very well," said Mr. Ellis, " it shall be done. Brother Battle, as you have a great deal of experience in these matters, we will look to you to defend the practice of our Church." "It is with some embarrassment," said Mr. Battle, rising, "that I venture to interfere with the private concerns of your church. But as your pastor has called upon me, and the subject is of vital importance to the whole denomination, I trust I shall be excased. We contend that no one has a right to partake of the Lord's Supper who has not been baptized, and in this position we are sustained by the prac- tice of Pedobaptists themselves. We are all agreed upon that point. It follows, then, that as those who are unbap- tized have no right to partake of the Lord's Supper, those who are unbaptized have no right to administer it, and of course, if a baptized person partakes with those who are not baptized, and receives the bread and wine from the hands of unbaptized persons, he violates the rule and ordinance of God's house. In other words, he sins against God, by vio- lating the ordinances of the Lord's house." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 351 "I understand that position;" said Mr. Barbour; "I know it is the doctrine of this Church. What I want now is the scriptural authority for such a doctrine." "What do you mean?" asked Mr. Battle; " do you want me to prove that Pedobaptists are not baptized?" "No, sir," replied Mr. Barbour, "I want light upon seve- ral points. I will state them one at a time, to prevent con- fusion. In the first place, then, I want you to show me the place in the New Testament where an unbaptized person is forbidden to receive the Lord's Supper. Let us have chap- ter and verse." "I will not attempt to show any such passage," replied Mr. Battle; " such a case never occurred in the New Testa- ment Church. No man ever applied at' the Lord's Table who had never been baptized." "Well, Brother Battle," replied Mr. Barbour, "I want you to show me the place where your statement is made. I want to see the evidence that no one did apply to the Church then who had not received baptism. Let us have a ' Thus saith the Lord.'" "You require too much," said Mr. Battle; "because the New Testament mentions nothing of such a case, I conclude that no such a case occurred." "Exactly so; it is your conclusion, not the language of Scripture, upon which you rely. And inasmuch as the Scrip- ture never mentions such a case, you not only infer that there was no such case, but, in addition, you infer that such a person would have been excluded. Now, sir, when you defend your strict communion on such grounds, how can you oppose infant baptism, which relies upon testimony of this very kind-testimony stronger than yours, because there are more probabilities in its favor. You demand positive pre- cept for infant baptism, and at the same time defend strict communion upon inferences alone." page: 352-353[View Page 352-353]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 352-353 IUB 352 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, 'Not so fast, Brother Barbour," said Mr. Battle; " we oppose infant baptism because it is forbidden by the very commands which necessitate strict communion." "Well, then, Brother Battle, let us have the commands. I want the plain testimony of Scripture, and when you give it, I will yield." We find -in the Scriptures, that baptism was first insti- tuted, and then followed the supper. In this order, then, it is plain our Lord intended that they should be administered. This you cannot deny." "But I do deny this very assumption. I demand the proof that Christian baptism was instituted before the sup- per." "Why, Brother Barbour! do you deny that John the Baptist administered baptism before Christ instituted the supper?" "No, sir, but t deny that John's was Christian baptism, for the very reason that the Bible does not say so. One was the baptism of repentance, in whose name administered we know not, and the other was a baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." "The formula may not have been the same, but the sub- stance was. If you deny this, you must take the ground that Christ was not baptized." "I do take the position that Christ never did receive Christian baptism, Brother Battle. Christian baptism was never administered, so far as I can judge, by any persons but the disciples of Christ. John was not a disciple of Christ, but his forerunner, or herald to announce his ap- proach." "I must say that you entertain very singular opinions, Brother Barbour. You are in direct conflict with Baptist doctrine on this subject." I am not concerned to know whether I am in conflict THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 353 with Baptist doctrine or not. What I want to know is, whether I am opposed to the Scripture-that is my rule of faith, not the opinions of Baptists. Moreover, sir, there have been distinguished Baptists who have lived and died in the belief of the very positions which I hold. I have been reading recently Robert Hall on the Terms of Com- munion, and I find my views not only ably sustained, but, in my judgment, unanswerably established." 'Robert Hall, indeed! Why, sir, if you do not know that his opinions on this subject are not worth a rush with American Baptists, I must say that you are very far behind the times." "Well, Brother Battle, if his opinions are so lightly esteemed, you can certainly overturn his arguments without *difficulty. I have the book in my hand, and as he gives my views better than I can myself, I will read some extracts. After stating this position of yours, that baptism was insti- tuted before the supper, and therefore, in point of time, must precede it, together with the assumption that John's was Christian baptism, he proceeds to overturn both asser- tions by a mass of Scripture evidence, to which I invite your respectful attention. Mr. Hall says: 'The commission to baptize all nations, which was executed by the apostles after our Saviour's resurrection, originated in his express command. John's baptism, it is evident, had no such origin. John had baptized for some time before he knew him; it is certain, then, that he did not receive his commis- sion from him. "And I knew him not" esaith he "but that he should be made manifest unto Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water." If the manifesting of Christ to Israel was the end and design of John's mission, he must have been in a previous state of obscurity; not in a situa- tion to act the part of a legislator, by enacting laws or estab- lishing rites. John uniformly ascribes his commission not page: 354-355[View Page 354-355]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 354-355 Ijt g 354 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, to Christ, but to the Father; so that to assert his baptism to be a Christian institute, is not to interpret but to contra- dict him.' Now, Brother Battle, what have you to say to that?" "Go on, brother; when you get tired reading, I may get a chance to speak." "I will give way to you, Brother Battle, if you wish it. Iwant these argzuments answered: if you can do it, I shall be obliged to you; for I do not hesitate to say that they not only appear plausible, but they are undoubtedly forcible. I have read in connection with Mr. Hall's work 'Booth's Apology for the Baptists,' Mr. Kinghorn's treatise on the same subject, besides several minor publications, such as Howell and Fuller on Communion. I am astonished at the fact, that although all these writers, Kinghorn, Booth, Howell, and Fuller, are in favor of strict communion, they do not advocate it upon similar grounds, but differ very widely from each other." "I see you are becoming skeptical, Brother Barbour." "If I am, it has been under the influence of Baptist productions, for I have never read a line that I remember from a Pedobaptist upon the subject. But that has nothing to do with the matter. Here are Robert Hall's arguments, in lucid language, conveying an amount of solid reasoning which must produce effect upon the sincere inquirer. He proves conclusively, to my mind, that so far from Christian baptism preceding the Lord's supper, in point of time, the supper was first instituted, in the lifetime of Christ, and baptism was not appointed until after his resurrection. Under this view of the case, then, it is plain that the apos- tles, who were the first communicants at the Lord's Table, were unbaptized when theyr partook of the supper, and con- sequently they were, in this respect, in the very same situa- tion with our Pedobaptist brethren. Mr. Hall's argument THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 855 upon this subject is so strong that I cannot refrain from reading it: 'Since it is manifest that the baptism of John did not supersede the Christian ordinance, they being per- fectly distinct, it is natural to inquire who baptized the apostls, and the hundred and twenty disciples assembled with them on the day of Pentecost? My deliberate opinion is, that, in the Christian sense of the termt they were not bap- tized at all. From the total silence of Scripture, and from other circumstances which might be adduced, it is difficult to suppose they submitted to that rite after our Saviour's resurrection; and previous to it, it has been sufficiently proved that it was not in force. It is almost certain that some, probably most of them, had been baptized by John; but, for reasons which have been already amply assigned, this will not account for their not submitting to the Christ- ian ordinance.' Again, after considering the argument for strict communion, from the order of words in the apostolic commission, he asks: ' But where, let me ask, is it asserted in the New Testament that no unbaptized person shall par- take of the eucharist? So far from this, it has been, I trust, satisfactorily shown that, of the original communi- cants at its institution, not one was thus qualified.' " "What's the use of reading all that?" asked Mr. Ellis; r we all know that Robert Hall was in favor of mixed com- reunion." "Because I want you to show the fallacy of his argu- ments if you can; if you cannot, you will never get my vote to expel a member from the Church who has violated no rule of God's word. The practice of strict communion is either founded upon the law of God,- or it is not. If it is, show me the law, and I say no more. If it is not, it is a human invention, intolerant in itself, and onily consistent with a bigoted exclusiveness, which we ought, in the name of Christian charity, to abandon." page: 356-357[View Page 356-357]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 356-357 igi 356 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, It seems to me," said Mr. Battle, " that you are losing sight of the subject. The question is not whether a Pedo- baptist, being unbaptized, ought to be admitted to the Lord's supper; but whether a Baptist member should receive the supper from those who are not authorized to administer it. Speak to the point, Mr. Barbour." "With due deference to your superior wisdom, I submit that the two cases rest upon the same foundation. If, as Mr. Hall proves, the apostles were not baptized when they received the supper, they were unbaptized when they admin- istered it; so that the being unbaptized is no greater obstacle to administering than to receiving it. So, then, our Pedo- baptist friends, even if we could demonstrate that they have not been truly baptized, are not in a worse condition than the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. I say, if we could demonstrate that they are not baptized; for, to my own mor- tification, I have seen more than one attempt of late to do that thing, which in every case ended in humiliating fail- ure. I speak boldly, because I have nothing to disguise- nothing to cover up; if I have hitherto been in error, I should be unworthy the name of a disciple of Christ if I did not retrace my steps, and confess that error to the world." "And you require proof that immersion is baptism, Bro- ther Barbour?" asked Mr. Ellis. "No, sir; I require a demonstration that immersion alone is baptism; and that those who do not and cannot believe our exclusive doctrine, are, by that alone, rendered unquali- fied for the ordinances of God's house, and for salvationin heaven. For, turn it as you may, brethren, twist it as you please, the great fact stares us in the face that, as we con- tend for a Baptist supper, we practically assert that none but Baptists do the will of Christ, and, consequently, none but Baptists can get to heaven. I know you will not assert THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 857 a doctrine so abhorrent to every feeling of Christian charity; but it follows as a necessary consequence of your theory. If Pedobaptists are not baptized, according -to our doctrine, they have not put on Christ; and yet we acknowledge that some of the holiest men that ever lived were Pedobaptists. A strange inconsistency-to admit at one time that certain persons love the Lord Jesus, that they are in daily fellow- ship and communion with him, and yet they refuse to keep his commandments, and reject the proper administration of his ordinances." "Then you would have us throw open our doors to Roman Catholics, UJnitarians, Universalists, and everybody else who might be pleased to come. A fine Church of Christ you would build for us!" exclaimed Mr. Ellis. "No, sir," replied Mr. Barbour; "I would have you to receive all true children of God who give evidence of love to Christ, whose piety is undoubted. It is all a fallacy about Roman Catholics, Unitarians, and Universalists intrud- ing upon you. If there should happen to come a true disci- ple of Jesus, who held singular, and, to us, ridiculous views of papal supremacy, if that man is a true Christian, you have no more right to exclude him from the Lord's Table than you have to shut the gates of heaven against him. His errors are his own; to God he is accountable for them, not to you. His piety is a proof of God's mercy to him, notwithstanding his erroneous notions; and if God will open to him the gates 'of heaven, it is more than you dare do to close the doors of Christian communion against him. I warn you, brethren, that there is a fearful meaning in that text which says: {It were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea,' who presumes to offend one of these little ones that believe in me.' Yet you do not hesitate to shut out true Christians from the Lord's Table, and declare page: 358-359[View Page 358-359]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 358-359 I 2l8 358 THEOPHIUS WALTON; Ol, l1i that some of the greatest and best of men are regularly in the habit of profaning a sacred ordinance, the solemn, awful institution of the supper! You hurl your anathemas at them, and if they are not- received generally as the severest punishment known to the Christian Church, it is simply because these good men smile at our imbecility, and feel that our intolerance is that of weakness. In this alone is it distinguished from the intolerance of the Church of Rome--it is the intolerance of pride, without power to make it formidable. I challenge you to produce one solitary pas- sage of Scripture which will justify your position. I defy you to show me one solitary instance where a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, living in tha enjoyment of true vital religion, was ever shut out from the Lord's Table by the apostles. If you can find neither precept nor example for it, I beseech you to abandon the practice. Abandon it noe, and let us cease to nourish that despotic pride of opinion, which is as manifestly opposed to the spirit of the gospel as it is destructive of the peace and unity of the Church of God. I care not for your appeals to the examples of Pedo- baptists; if they unanimously agree that baptism does come before communion, it would not affect the question at all. The true issue is, Does any other Church exclude from the Lord's supper those whom it acknowledges to be true Christians and enjoying the favor of God? I venture to say that no other society or community of Christian men has dared to commit such an atrocious act in the kingdom of Christ. Roman Catholics may exclude Protestants from their communion, but they do it because the gloomy theory which they advocate places the keys of heaven in the hands of a man, and dooms all outside of their pale to destruction. The bigoted Churchman may exclude others from the Lord's Table who have not submitted to the imposition of hands by a regular descendant and successor of the apostles, as he THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH.- 359 fancies his own ministry to be; but the grounds of his rejection are the absence of pietyin the dissenter, as the grace of God flows only through episcopal hands. Gloomy and revolting as these theories are, it remains for us to imi- tate the exclusiveness of both, without a particle of the foundation which supports the system of Papists and High- Churchmen. We have all the intolerance of both, but not a shadow of the reasons of either. We alone, of all exclusive sects, presume to curse those whom we acknowledge God has blessed; we alone reject from the Lord's Table those whom we confess to be on their way to heaven; to be constantly quitting these low grounds of sorrow, to take their places in the ranks of the sacramental hosts. And how shall we i defend ourselves when the God of charity shall demand of I us why we fed not the hungry who sat in our courts. I and were pushed aside when the emblems of our Master's broken body and shed blood were distributed? Shall we tell him that he left us such a command? No, for we dare not assert that there is such a command on record. Shall we tell. him that we did it to preserve his Church pure and uncontaminated? And will not the presence of those happy spirits there, whom we presumed to thrust out of Christ's visible kingdom, will not they condemn us? And will not the same voice which rebuked the selfishness of Peter by the vision of the sheet and the command to slay and eat-will not that voice proclaim, That which God hath cleansed call not thou common or unclean?" "Stop, stop, Brother Barbour; you are becoming ex- cited," said Mr. Ellis; ('I admire your eloquence, and wish it were expended in a better cause." "If the possession of a good cause can make one elo- quent," said Mr. Barbour, " then I ought to be so to-day. I am pleading in behalf of the greater portion of God's children, the great majority of God's people; I am pleading page: 360-361[View Page 360-361]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 360-361 860 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, for their rights-rights which God has granted them, of which you are determined to deprive them. I am striving to open your eyes, my brethren, to let you see what a fearful responsibility you are incurring. If, after all that has been said upon the subject, it should appear that the Pedobaptists are 2right and we are wrong, in what a position do we place ourselves! Practicing an intolerant custom, founded upon an opinion which we cannot demonstrate, we establish the principle that infallibility alone can secure our own salva- tion; and, as we assume that we are right, we lay claim to infallible correctness in interpreting the word of God." "Brother Barbour," interposed Mr.- Battle, " we are doing the very thing which is practiced universally among Pedobaptists; how, then, do you dream of making us guilty of these heinous offences which you enumerate? Presbyte- rians will not suffer any to commune with them who are not baptized; Methodists take the same ground; and because we take it, and exclude them because we believe their sprinkling of infants to be invalid, you charge us with inconsistency." "I know that you have offered the usual plea for strict communion, that others who are excluded practice upon the same theory; but I deny the fact. I deny that the cases are at all similar. If Presbyterians were to assert that sprinkling only is baptism, and therefore none should com- mune with them who are not sprinkled, then, sir, I would charge them with intolerance. If they were to refuse every person who had not been sprinkled in infancy, then their practice would be intolerant. .But you know, sir, that there is a great fallacy in this appeal to the example of others. If it were in all points exactly like your own, it would not justify you, as no amount of proof that others do wrong can convert that error into right. But you cannot prove that Presbyterians would refuse to administer the supper to THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 861 a man who was truly -pious, and yet, for sufficient ctuse, remained unbaptized. Such cases may be rare, but there is nothing in their theory or practice which forbids his approach to the Lord's Table. Indeed, I have heard a dis- tinguished Presbyterian say that he would not hesitate to suffer a pious Quaker to commune with him, if he conscien- tiously believed that baptism was not of perpetual force in the Church. Upon such a subject there must be a diversity of opinion, of course. But when you appeal to the practice of Pedobaptist Churches, as I said before, you give us alto- gether irrelevant examples. According to their system, infants and adults are so readily baptized, so easily is the ordinance administered, that a neglect of it amounts to a wilful disregard of the command, and therefore becomes a very proper hindrance to communion. But they raise no barriers in the way constructed of differences of opinion; they exclude none because they are not baptized in this or that -manner; and this is the very offence which we commit. If we could charge Pedobaptists with wilful disobedience to the command, then, indeed, we would be justified in repel- ling them. But we cannot do this, for we admit that many of them are as pious as ourselves. And I assert again, that we are the only people in Christendom who reject confessedly PiOins Christians from the Lord's Table. The inconsistency is ours, and ours alone; no other Church can shield us from ignominy upon this score by sharing the blame with us. "Robert Hall places this argument in a strong light. He says: 'The argument from authority, however, when fairly stated, is entirely in our favor; nor would it be easy to assign an example of bolder deviation from the universal practice of the Christian Church than the conduct of our opponents (close-communion Baptists) supplies T1 'ey ae the onbl Persons in the world, of whom we have either heard or read, who contend for the exclusion of genuine Christians fron 16 page: 362-363[View Page 362-363]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 362-363 362 THEOPHLUS WALTON; .OR, the Lord's Table; who ever attempted to distinguish them into two classes, such as are entitled to commemorate their Saviour's death, and such as are excluded from that privi- lege. In what page of the voluminous records of the Church is such a distinction to be traced? Or what intima- tion shall we find in Scripture of an intention to create such an invidious disparity among the members of the same body? Did it ever enter the conception of any but Baptists that a right to the sign should be separated from the thing sig- nified; or that there could be a description of persons inter- ested in all the blessilgs of the Christian covenant, yet not entitled to partake of its sacraments and seals ' Terms of Communion, p. 60. i"But there is a graver charge still," continued Mr. Bar- bour, " with which we are justly arraigned. , There is a spe- cies of insincerity practiced among us in defending strict communion. We tell the world that baptism is the only barrier to communion. We know this to be untrue. If a member of our Church, who has been regularly baptized, goes and joins another Church, we refuse to admit him to the Lord's Supper. Our defence is that he has acted disor- derly, and therefore must be expelled-and expelled mem- bers must confess their errors and reform before we receive them to the Table. The expulsion is an excuse, nothing more; and I hesitate not to say that such an excuse is not only prevarication of a gross character, but it is a crime. By expelling one from our Church, we say that he has com- mitted such an offence as would exclude him from the king- dom of grace, although he may not say one word against us; he may speak kindly of us, and be at that moment, in our own judgment, as good a Christian as any of us. And yet we excommunicate him, and declare him unworthy of the fellowship of God's people! Nor is this all. It has been the practice of this church, and is our practice everywhere, THE. MAJESTY OP TRUTTH. 86 I believe, to refuse to commune with those Pedobaptists who have been immersed precisely as we require. Some of us pretend that the immersion is invalid, because the adminis- trator was not immersed; or if he happened to be immersed, then we fall back upon the man who immersed him, and so we hatch up the doctrine of baptismal succession-a fancy of our own, more ludicrous than the pretensions of the Pope, or the claimq of High-Churchmen. Then, again, it happens, as in the case. of Elder Stanley's wife, for the sake of gaining a member, we take a persons of influence, who has been immersed by a Methodist, without rebaptizing, while at the same time we would refuse the communion to him so long as he remains out of our Church. Now these are facts. You know them to be such. And yet we affirm that baptism is the only bar to free communion!" "It is time for this harangue to stop!" exclaimed Mr. Ellis. '"We cannot listen to your charges any longer, Mr. Barbour. If you proceed any farther, we must resort to an effectual method of imposing silence." "I understand you," replied Mr. Barbour; "I have ex- amined my position carefully and prayerfully. I am pre- pared for any issue that may be made. For the present, however, in behalf of the sister on trial, I demand the law by which she is to be tried. Give us the scriptural author- ity for the course you are taking." "Brethren," said Mr. Ellis, seeming to take no notice whatever of Mr. Barbour's remark, " what is your pleasure in this case? The motion before you is to expel Sister Wil- liams for disorderly conduct. Are you ready for the ques- tion?" "Question! question!" shouted Deacon Smith. Where- upon the vote was taken, and a large majority found in favor of expulsion. As soon as the vote was taken and announced, Mr. Barbour rose and declared his intention of withdrawing ; * page: 364-365[View Page 364-365]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 364-365 364 THEOPHLUS WALTON. from the church. He was preparing to leave the house, when Mr. Fleming overtook him and endeavored to dissuade him from his course. It was in vain, however, for the young man had permitted his feelings to become so entirely absorbed in the case he was pleading, that he felt it would be useless to remain in a church any longer where he was forced to acquiesce in such flagrant acts of injustice, with a remote prospect of reconciliation. While Mr. Fleming was pleading with him to return, as they were standing on the steps of the church, he heard his name called within, and, returning to his seat, he ascertained that he was called upon to apologize for the vote he had just given. Mr. Fleming had voted against the majority, and as submission to that majority, right or wrong, was inevitable, he was called upon to give his consent to the action of the church. This he could not do. Here a new difficulty arose. Mr. Fleming was inflexible, and the majority was equally so. The affair at last terminated in a motion to postpone the cases of the refractory members to the next monthly meeting. Thus ended the session of a memorable Baptist Confer- ence in Maryville. An old lady was expelled for recognize ing Pedobaptists as fellow-Christians, and for receiving the sacred emblems from the hands of her own son, and several members forced to apologize for their votes in her favor, on pain of being arraigned as 'disorderly,' and suffering the penalty of exclusion. As for Mr. Barbour, as the reader has seen, he was too far committed in favor of free commu- nion to recede; there was no other alternative for him but to notify them of his withdrawal, and let them expel him- which they did not fail to do, after all efforts to reclaim him were unava'ling. (eighth Qmtung. IS INFANT BAPTISM OF GOD OR OE1 MEN? 1"TO'THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY." page: 366-367[View Page 366-367]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 366-367 Zi THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 367 EIGHTH EVENING. ON Monday evening, at the appointed hour, the audience assembled at the Methodist church. It was ascertained, early in the afternoon, that Mr. Battle had received a letter from home requiring his immediate presence there, and Mr. Ellis found some important business which called him some distance into the country. Mr. Mason and Theophilus were consequently left in quiet possession of the field, from which the two Baptist ministers had gathered so few laurels. Of course, there were but few Baptist members present. Those who were there, however, were seeking to know the truth, and having seen their advocates fail them in the hour of trial, were almost ready to abandon the exclusive system to which they formerly clung with great tenacity. If Mr. Mason should be as successful in his defence of infant bap- tism as he had been in the topics already discussed, more than one of them resolved to acknowledge the fact, and seek fellowship in a more liberal and congenial system than their own. "We are now entering upon a portion of the Baptist con- troversy," remarked Mr. Mason, which affords such a vast field for investigation, that we must necessarily condense our observations, in order not to. trespass on the patience of our auditors. page: 368-369[View Page 368-369]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 368-369 368 THEOPITILUS WALTON; OR, "The first branch of the subject is the history of Infant Baptism. We find the practice of it in almost all the Churches of modern times, and the question naturally arises, Has infant baptism always prevailed in the Christian Church, or is it an innovation upon the apostolic usage? If it be an innovation, it is apparent to every man's mind that it must leave been introduced by degrees, gaiining more or less favor in different ages,'until it became the universal practice of the Church. There must have been a time, then, when the innovation began, and it is very natural to suppose that coincident with its introduction would be the remonstrances and resistance of those who desired to preserve the customs of the Church in an uncorrupted form. "As in regard to the mode of baptism, so also in reference to infant baptism, our opponents are very much divided. Some of them affirm that infant baptism was the offspring of the papacy, and that it only became general when the edicts of the popes compelled the Catholic Church to receive it, some time in the tenth or eleventh century. Others, again, admit its existence as early as the commencement of the third century. We shall begin, then, by searching the history of the ordinance, and see how far the testimony of the Church supports the charge of innovation. Let it be remembered, however, that in quoting the testimony of the so-called ' Fathers' of the Church, we have nothing whatever to do with the doctrines which they taught. I have already stated that the ordinances of the Church became corrupted at a very early period, and that baptismal regeneration ppears as early as the commencement of the second cen- tury. Our opponents are very willing to admit this fact, when an opportunity occurs to turn the strength of the argument ,.gainst infant baptism, but when they feel that their pecu- liar mode is in danger, they postpone the period of corrup- tion to a later age, and deny the existence of Pedobaptism THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH- 869 in the first centuries. But we are willing to take the facts as they stand, without embellishment or suppression, and we shall see what their testimony is worth. "Our object is now to ascertain whether or not the apos- tles, and those who followed them in the Christian ministry, practiced infant baptism. To do this, we must search those records which are extant, reaching to the times of the apos- tles, if there are any such; and if we cannot find in them any evidence of the introduction of a radical change in the subjects of the ordinance, the presumption is very strong that no such change took place. We do not rely upon this testimony, however, as conclusive proof--we must go to the Bible as our ultimate appeal. "It is admitted by-Mr. Tombs, a Baptist writer of distinc- tion, that, after the commencement of the fifth century, infant baptism was prevalent in the Church. We must ascend a step higher, and see whether or not it existed in the fourth century. Pelagius, who denied the doctrine of original sin, lived in the latter part of this century. In the confession of faith which he submitted to the Bishop of Rome, we find the following article: ' We hold one baptism, which we affirm must be administered with the same sacra- mental words to INFANTS with which it is to elder persons.' Augustin, his great opponent in the controversy which agi- tated the whole Church at that time, quotes Pelagius as say- ing: -He never heard even of any impious heretic who would avow such a thing in regard to little children for who is there so ignorant of gospel reading, that he would, not to say venture to affirm this, but even in a heedless way say or indeed think such a thing? In a word, who can be so impious as to wish little children not to be sharers in the kingdom of heaven, and so forbid them to be baptized and regenerated in Christ?' So you see, Theophilus, the Bap- tists must have been very scarce in the fourth century, or 16* page: 370-371[View Page 370-371]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 370-371 370 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, Pelagius, a man of extensive learning, would certainly have X heard of them: He tells us that the most impious heretics ! do not deny that infants ought to be baptized. Where, : then, were the Baptists? Do you suppose that a man who had travelled nearly or quite over the whole Christian world, would never come in contact with a Baptist teacher, or even hear of such a one in his travels? Moreover, when we consider that he lived but three hundred years after the times of the apostles, in a period when the writings of the first Christians were abundant, if any writer or minister of note had ever condemned infant baptism, is it possible that Pelagius would not have known it? The case of Tertullian is no objection to this view, for, as I shall show directly, he did not condemn the baptism of infants upon the ground that it did them no good, which is the position of the Bap- tists, but because, according to his mistaken views, baptism was the instrument through which sins were pardoned, and ought to be delayed as long, as possible, inasmuch as sins committed afterward were left without pardon. "John Chrysostom, a native of Antioch, and called the 'golden-mouthed,' on account of his surpassing eloquence, writes as follows, in one of his sermons:' But our circum- cision, the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and procures for us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit. And it has no determinate time, as that had, but it is lawful to any one in the very beginning of his age, or in the middle of it, or in old age, to receive this cir- cumcision made without hands.' Here you will perceive that the fathers regarded baptism as sustaining the same relation to the Christian that circumcision did to the Jewish dispensation; and the essential difference which he notices in the time of administering the rite, is the fact that cir- cumcision was by special enactment confined to the eighth day, whereas baptism might be performed in the very begin- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 371 nirng of age, in the first hour of existence. There can be no doubt that infant baptism was in use in Chrysostom's time. If it were necessaryto give further evidence, I could quote a passage from another sermon, where he rebukes a supersti- tious practice of putting mud on the forehead of an infant, to keep it from becoming bewitched, and then asks how they can bring their children to be baptized, when they have thus besmeared them with mud. "I might quote Jerome, Optatus, Gregory Nazianzen, and Basil, if it were necessary; and if I relied upon this sort of testimony I would do so. All that I wish to do is to show that the practice of infant baptism was recognized in the early Church. To prove whether or not that practice was according to the mind of Christ, of course we must go to the Bible. "Let us, for the present, inquire if there is any testi- mony in the third century to the custom of the Church in this regard. In a council of sixty-six bishops, held in or about the year A. D. 250, a question was proposed by one Fidus, by letter, whether or not infants might be baptized as soon as they are born. In reply these bishops say: I We read your letter, most dear brother, in which you write of one Victor, a priest, etc. But as to the case of infants: whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, so that none should be bap- tized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is born; Nwe were all in our assembly of the contrary opinion. For as for what you thought fitting to be done, there was not one that-was of your mind; but all of us, on the contrary, judged that the grace and mercy of God is to be denied to no person that is born.' Now we have nothing in the world to do with the object for which these men baptized infants; for it is plain that they believed that all infants who died page: 372-373[View Page 372-373]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 372-373 372 THEOPHLUS WALTON; ORB, without baptism were lost. It does not \weigh a feather in s the balance against my opinion, that their doctrine was wrong, so far'as the design and effects of baptism were con- corned. Their evidence is only valuable as it proves the faict that infants were baptized. It is no more an argument :,gainst the baptism of infants that these men believed that they were saved by baptism, than it is against the baptism ;f adults, for they too, according to these fathers, were con- verted, sealed,' ' sanctified,' regenerated' in baptism, and dying without it were lost. The design of the ordinance was corrupted in both cases, and baptismal regeneration is Io more the parent of infant than of adult baptism. "It is amusing to see how these descendants of Roger YWilliams and John Smyth, of Holland, twist and turn about when they get into the first centuries of the Christian era. Wffhen the mode of baptism is in dispute, they appropriate certain allusions to trine immersion, and cry out, The :athers were Baptists! But when we draw them up to the record, and show them that these ' fathers' practiced infant baptism, they cry out, Heretics! heretics! corruptors of God's word and of his ordinance! Our friend Theodosia, on page 167, asserts: 'Isay the Christian fathers for the first three centuries were Baptists, because these fathers say so themselves.' But on page 334 we find this same author asserting, It. is evident, therefore, that at this time, the beginning of the third century, the baptism of children had just begun to be spoken of.' How it happens that Baptist ' fathers' in the third century could practice infant baptism is indeed a mystery, if the term 'Baptist' is not large enough to take contrary doctrines and every sort of heresy into fellowship. The author is consistent in one thing, however, in making these contradictory statements : there is not one word of truth in either of them. "' Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John were Bap- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 373 tfists,' says Theodosia; and why? because other-wise 'they might never have told us about those iap:isms in the river!' Sublime logic, is it not? Then the author of the Acts of the Apostles was not a Baptist; fop. although he speaks of numerous baptisms, he never onA,+ Mentions that one of them was in a river. 'Baptists tcll about such things now.' Yes, indeed they do; and they tell it over and over again, just as often as a case of imm rsion trans- pires-' buried in the yielding wave,' in such a river, creek, or pool-but in all the Holy Scriptures there is but one solitary case of baptism in a river, creek, tacki or pool men- tioned, although scores of baptisms are recorded. And yet conduct and speech so unlike, prove the conflicting parties the same. 'Paul was a Baptist!' cries Theodosia. 'Yet he says to the Corinthians, ' Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.' Imagine a Baptist preacher making such a declaration in these days. Why, he would have 'the Churches' down upon him from the most northern limits of Dan to the extremity of Beersheba! But enough of Theodosia's nonsense. It may have weight with the igno- rant, and, with such, solid argument is ' a jew,:l of gold in a swine's snout.' "We come now to examine for a short time the testimony of the first opponent of infant baptism on record. Accord- ing to Theodosia he was a Baptist, for he lived in the com- mencement of the third century. I allude to Tertullian. He is the first writer in the Christian Church, orthodox or otherwise, who opposed the baptism of infants. And, be- cause he has left us his protest against the doctrine, it is inferred by the Baptists that infant baptisma was just then gaining a foothold in the Church. The fallacy of such an argument is plain. Now this Tertullian, ton,"gh in many re- spects an able and a learned man, was, nevertheless, visionary and speculative above all the rest of the so-called 'fathers.' page: 374-375[View Page 374-375]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 374-375 374 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, lHe believed that one Montanus was the Paraclete, or Corn- forter, which Christ promised to send to his disciples, main- : taining that the Holy Ghost was come in the person of this I: vile impostor. Tertullian joined the Montanists, and after- ward set up for himself, and raised a sect, called after him Tertullianists. If you will read the history of the Church at this period, and for ages following, you will find that this man was of about as much weight and force in matters of opinion with the Christian world, as Brigham Young is to-day with the Protestant denominations in this country. Indeed, I could show you, if I had time, that he was just about as much of a Christian as the present leader of the Mormon Church. Brigham Young had his Joe Smith, who was prophet, priest, and king; and Tertullian had his Mon- tanus, to whom he attributed the possession of the Holy Ghost, the incarnation of the Spirit. His opinion is of no force; let us see if he declares any fact which militates against infant baptism as if it were an innovation, or not hitherto, before his time, practiced in the Church. In his treatise on Baptism he says: Whereas it is an acknow- ledged rule that none can be saved without baptism- grounded especially on that sentence of our Lord, Unless one be born of water he cannot be saved-some scruples do arise, and even rash discourses of some men, how, according to that rule, the apostles could be saved, whom we do not find to have been baptized with our Lord's baptism, except Paul.' "I should think those sentiments would be enough to expel one from the Baptist Church now," observed Theophi- lus. "He contends that it is an acknowledged rule that none can be saved who are not baptized-that is rather too strong for modern Baptists. Then, again, he declares that the apostles did not receive Christian baptism-that's an- other crime. They would hurl Tertullian out of the Bap- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 375 tist Church now as readily as they excommunicate Robert Hall for holding the same opinion." Yet we are told, Theophilus, that Tertullian was a Bap- tist. And yet Robinson, the Baptist historian, tells us that infant baptism originated among the Montanists, among whom this good Baptist brother, Tertullian, held his mem- 'bership a considerable time. Such is the harmony of our aspiring Baptist authors. "You will remember, Theophilus, that I took occasion a few evenings since to expose a quotation garbled from Dr. Wall, and patched together by the author of Theodosla. It becomes my duty to make a similar exposure of the igno- uance if not the inigquity of that writer. I know it sounds harshly to charge a writer on sacred subjects with dishon- esty; but when a statement is made withlconfidence, and with the air of learning, the exposure of the imposture be- comes a duty; and no terms can be too severe which are employed in the operation of removing the sheep's clothing from the body of a wolf. For the sake of convenience, you will oblige me by taking ' Theodosia Ernest,' and reading the passage I have marked on page 332." "'By this time salvation and baptism had begun to be regarded as inseparable, and loving parents began to inquire anxiously, What will become of our children if they die unbaptized? To this the answer commonly given was that they must be lost. Why not, then, baptize, and. so secure their salvation? It seems that a certain wealthy lady, named Quz'ntilla, who was probably a mother, and felt this very natural anxiety about her little ones, had come to the conclusion that if they ASKEDfor baptism they ought to have it, whether they gave evidence of conversion or not; and she wrote a letter to Tertullian, the bishop of the Church at Car- thage, to get his sanction to this novel doctrine. The answer of Tertullian to this letter has been preserved, and contains page: 376-377[View Page 376-377]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 376-377 376 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, the FIRST undoubted allusion to the baptism of children which is recorded in the annals of Church history.' " "Now, Theophilus, it will not surprise you to learn that the whole of that story is a sheer fabrication. I say it will not surprise you to hear this, from the simple fact that this author's conscience seems to be utterly incapable of prevent- ing his acts of literary piracy. This story of Quintilla and her letter to Tertullian must have occurred to the writer in a dream, a vision of the night, after he had worked himself up to frenzy over Orchard's History of Foreign Baptists.' You see what a clumsy story he makes of it. Quintilla, be- lieving that her children might perish without baptism, writes to the ' bishop' of Carthage, to know whether they might be baptized, if they asked for it, without being con- verted. This was, indeed, a novel doctrine; it would have been to Tertullian, for he believed that all the sins, actual and original, of a person were pardoned in the act of bap- tism. Tertullian did not believe in conversion preceding baptism, and therefore the want of it could be no bar to the ordinance. But why do I weary your patience by showing the internal evidence that this story is fabricated for Theo- dosia's purpose? The fact is plain enough. The garbled extracts which the writer proceeds to give, are originally from Tertullian's treatise on Baptism, the very same from which I quoted just now. ' Quintilla,' the ' wealthy lady,' has nothing whatever to do with it. The passage is not a 'reply' to anybody's letter, but a distinct and labored trea- tise on Baptism. "I suspect that this author, who, for wise reasons, gives us no clue to his whereabouts, has seen in the ' Religious Ency- clopedia' a reference to one Quintilla, who flourished about A. D. 190 as a prophetess in Asia Minor, and the thought occurred to him that he would get up a correspondence between this female impostor in Phrygia and Tertullian in THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 8" Africa. His object is to show that the baptism of unconverted or infant children was a novel one in Tertullian's time; and he frames the story accordingly. If this history is not original with him, I know not who else could be bold enough to manufacture it. Certainly Orchard, with all his hardihood, never thought of it. "But as I have undertaken to show the imposition prac- ticed by Theodosia, let us compare the two passages toge- ther. I have Tertullian's treatise, De Baptismo, in my hand. Do you read out of Theodosia, Theophilus, and I will read out of Tertullian." "I will commence with the quotation marls,:" said Theo- philus. "'Those who administer baptism, says he, know very well that it is not to be rashly given.' So says Theo- dosia." "And Tertullian says, 'But they whose duty it is to administer baptism are to know that it. must not be given rashly.' Proceed, Theophilus." "' The good lady evidently thought that it was enough if the children could ask for it, and had quoted the scripture, Give to him that asketh. To this Tertullia- s ys: What! give to him that asketh! Every one hath a ;fig:t to it as a thing of alms. Nay! say rather, Give not that which is holy to the dogs; cast not your pearls before swine; lay hands suddenly on no man; be not partaker of ot7her men's sins.' --Tertullian, as quoted in Theodosia Ernest. "Now let us hear the genuine quotation: 6 Give to every one that asketh thee, has its proper subject, and relates to alms-giving; but that command rather is here to be consi- dered, Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine; and that, Lay hand s suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's faults.' "- Tertullianus De Baptismo, c. 18. "I see how it is, Mr. Mason," observed Theophilus, "the page: 378-379[View Page 378-379]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 378-379 378 THEOPHLUS WALTON; O, language of Tertullian is so distorted as to make it look like ; a reply to this imaginary letter." I "Precisely so, Theophilus. But read on." "' It would seem that she had referred to the cases of the eunuch and of Paul, as having received the ordinance as soon as they asked for it. And to this Tertullian replies: If Philip baptized the eunuch on the spot, let us remember that it was done under the immediate direction of the Lord. The eunuch was a believer of the Scripture; the instruction given by Philip was seasonable; the one preached, the other perceived the Lord Jesus, and believed on him. Water was at hand, and the apostle having finished the affair, was caught away. But you say Paul was baptized instantly. True, because Judas, at whose house he was, instantly knew that he was a vessel of mercy. The conde- scension of God may confer his favors as he pleases, but our wishes may mislead ourselves and others.' "-Tertullian, quoted in Theodosia. "Read on, Theophilus." "'This lady seems to have referred, as you do, to the words of Jesus, "Suffer little children," etc. And to this Tertullian says, as Baptists do now, The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me; and let them com'e while they are growing up; let them come and learn, and let them be instructed when they come, and when they ,understand Christianity let them profess themselves Chris- tians.' "-Tertullian, quoted in Theodosia. "Now let us hear Tertullian: ' Our Lord says, indeed, Do not forbid them to come to me. Therefore let them come when they are grown up; let them come when they under- stand; when they are instructed whither it is that they come; let them be made Christians when they can know Christ.'- Now, Theophilus, don't you see the difference be- tween these two passages? Theodosia makes Tertullian THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 379 say that they must profess themselves Christians when they can understand Christianity; whereas Tertullian says they should be made- Christians (by baptism) when they can know Christ. You see our unscrupulous author has su2p- pressed Tertullian's belief in baptismal regeneration. 'But' I will read on. Theodosia stopped too soon. 'What need their guiltless age make such haste to the for- giveness of sins . Men will proceed more warily in worldly things; and he that should not have earthly goods commit- ted to him, yet shall have heavenly. Let them know how to desire this salvation, that you may appear to have given to one that asketh. For no less reason unmarried persons ought to be kept off, who are likely to come into temptation, as well those that never were married, upon account of their coming to ripeness, as those in widowhood for the miss of their partner: until they either marry or be confirmed in continence. 'They that understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving it than -the delaying of it. An entire faith is secure of salvation.'-Tertul.. De Bap- tismo, c. 18. "Of course, our fair friend Theodosia never dreamed that her venerable Baptist brother, Tertullian, would have refused to baptize her, if she had applied. to him! This important information the ingenious inventor of the ' Quintilla' story kept out of view! And such is the moral honesty of the opponents of infant baptism! A certain . father' says infants ought not to be baptized, because they would be making haste to have their sins forgiven; and therefore, say the Baptists, as this is a clear case of prohibition and oppo- sition to infant baptism, infants were not baptized before the time of Tertullian. This is the argument. There is no logic or good sense in it, but let us admit for a moment that it is a good argument; then we extend it a step farther This same ' father,' for this very reason, forbids the bap- page: 380-381[View Page 380-381]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 380-381 380 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, tism of utnmarried persons; his opposition to it is, there- i fore, proof that no unmarried persons were baptized before his time! Will our Baptist friends follow the advice of their eccentric brother, or will they only take half of it? If so, why should they blame us if we refuse to take any of it, and regard him as visionary in the first case as in the last?" "But has Theodosia no authority for this story about Quintilla and Tertullian, Mr. Mason? Surely the author must have seen something to warrant him in making the statement." "I have seen nothing which resembles a correspondence between the parties, Theophilus. There was a Quintilla, a female preacher and a prophetess of some note in Tertul- lian's time, but as to her writing a letter to Tertullian, and his making the reply given by Theodosia, I do not believe a word of it. She was not a ' wealthy lady,' who had become concerned about her children, as Theodosia states, but' an impostor connected with the sect of the Montanists. It is said that this Quintilla preached against baptism, as wholly unnecessary, and against this doctrine the book of Tertullian was written. The effort of Theodosia is designed to create the impression that this ' wealthy lady' became alarmed at the idea of her children being in danger of dying without baptism, and to secure their salvation she proposes to have them baptized, contrary to the established usage of the Church. Her application to Tertullian, and his reply, are manufactured to order, as the first proposal to baptize infants. "But let us leave Quintilla and Tertullian. We must advance a little nearer to the apostolic age. A peculiarity in the few writings which we possess of the second century is, that the terms baptize and regenerate are used inter- changeably. I say that this is a peculiarity, not because the THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 381 cfathers' generally are free from the error of baptismal regeneration, but because they usually distinguished between the ordinance and its supposed effect-the first was baptism, the last was regeneration. But as early as the second cen- tury, the doctrine of the new birth of the soul in water had obtained such a firm footing that the word regeneration sig- nified baptism, as there could be no new birth without it. It is needless to prove this, which I might do by quotations from Clemens Alexandrinus and Justin Martyr, but the fact is admitted by all honest and competent judges. It is true, the author of Theodosia sneers at it, but this is rather a proof that the fact asserted is beyond cavil, as that author gene- rally manufactures his own history, and when he can find no accommodating Quintilla to help him out of difficulty, he scoffs at the passage, and makes Theodosia laugh at it, and so the matter is disposed of. "Keeping this fact in mind, let us hear the testimony of Irenaeus, who lived A. D. 167: ' Therefore as he was a Mas. ter, he had also the age of a Master. Not disdaining nor going in a way above human nature, nadr breaking in his own person the law which he had set for mankind, but sanctifying every several age by the likeness that it has to him. For he came to save all persons by himself: all, I mean, who are by him regenerated (or baptized) unto God, infants and little ones, and children and youths, and elder persons: (infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores.) Therefore he went through the several ages: for infants being made an infant, sanctifying infants; to little ones he was made a little one, sanctifying those of that age, and also giving them an example of godliness, justice, and dutifulness; to youths he was a youth' etc."-Irenaeus adv. Haereses. "That appears to be very strong," said Theophilus. "If Irenveus used 'regenerate' for baptize, which he must have page: 382-383[View Page 382-383]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 382-383 382 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, done or the passage has no sense in it, then it is clear infants were baptized in his days, because he says they were regene- rated to God." "And in what other sense could Irenaeus use the word 'regenerate' here? Infants could not be regenerated by faith, it is clear, so that whatever he means to be understood by regeneration, he could refer it only to baptism. But to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, a quotation from Jus- tin Martyr, who lived about the same time, or a little earlier, will be sufficient. Speaking of the manner of baptizing their converts, he says: 'Then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are regenerated by the same way of regeneration by which we are regenerated; for they are washed with water in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.' Now, Theophilus, can any one deny that Justin Martyr called baptism 'regeneration? Is it not as plain as language can make it? "This very passage is quoted by 'Theodosia Ernest' on pages 167, 168, as you will see by turning to the book, and the author does not scruple to say that Justin speaks of per- sons baptized as persons regenerated; but when he meets the testimony of Irenaeus, proving that infants were 'regene- rated' in those days, he ridicules the idea! Hear him, on page 331; after quoting the ' father,' he says: ' Now this is the only allusion which it is pretended that Irenaus makes to infant baptism; and some have had the temerity, not to say the dishonesty-since they themselves consider baptism and regeneration as the same thing, and because Irenaus, in some other place, uses regenerate in the sense of baptize- to strike out regenerated here and put in baptized, and then refer to Irenaeus as having recognized infant baptism.' "There is a twofold deception in these words. In the first place, the writer would have us believe that only once THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 883 the word 'regenerate' is put for 'baptize' in Irenmus, whereas there are manyc instances in his writings of such interchangeable use. In the next place, he asserts that those who thus understand the passage do themselves regard baptism and regeneration as the same thing. If this be so, the author of Theodosia believes that they are one and the same, for he quotes the words of Justin Martyr, who uses them precisely as Irenaeus does. But, as we say, 'circum- stances alter cases:' Justin's words were in 'Theodosia's' favor-so the author supposed at least-and therefore it is all right. But Irenaus, by the same method of interpretation, proves infant baptism to be the practice of the Church in the second century, and therefore the interpretation is wrong. Thus does this candid (!) writer blow hot and cold with the same breath. "Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, calls bap- tism the Christian circumcision, as follows: 'We also who by him have access to God, have not received this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it by baptism, by the mercy of God, because we were sinners; and it is allowed to all persons to receive it by the same way. "I might give you many other quotations out of Clement and Hermas, but the testimony of Justin Martyr brings us within forty years of the times of the apostles. Is it rea- sonable to suppose that infant baptism sprang up in the Church within the lifetime of one man, and that it was then regarded as an innovation, without one word on record to prove such a thing? Is it possible to adduce testimony more explicit, when the first opponent of infant baptism in the third century does not deny that it was the custom of the Church, or charge upon the practice that it is an inno- vation, if such had been the fact?" page: 384-385[View Page 384-385]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 384-385 384 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, {( But .L beieeve you have charged all of these writers with I corrupting the ordinance of baptism, Mr. Mason," remarked Theophilu,^. ' If they corrupted the design and the mode, may they hn t have enlarged the subjects also?" a I do nofc think it so probable, Theophilus; but remem- ber, I told yc-l at the commencement that I do not rely upon the i,"::ony of these I fathers' alone; if they are not sustained t : : Scriptures, their testimony is worth nothing. To the wo - God we must now appeal, and by that word settle the qu-c4ion. I would no sooner practice infant bap- tism upon the faith of these fathers, than I would receive their views of baptismal regeneration. Their authority, in either case,?::supported by the New Testament, must be rejected. (' Let us esxamine the Bible, then, and if we find there no sufficient p"o tf that infant children are suitable subjects for baptism, we must abandon the practice. I would be pleased, Theophilus, if you would state to me, in regular order, all the objections which you have against infant baptism, that I may be able, to give you at once the proofs upon which we rely. Before you do so, however, allow me to ask a ques- tion. Do you believe that God has established more than one divine Church?" "I should think he had established but one gospel Church" - I p. -d Theophilus. Very : ; the reason I ask you this question is, that some Baptise -w,iters attempt to prove that the Mosaic law was a collection of carnal ordinances, and they speak of the whole dispen:sation which we commonly call Jewish, as if it were the vork of man, and not of God. They speak of Pedobaptists -as engrafting Judaism upon Christianity, for- getting that eovr Saviour himself, according to the flesh, was a Jew, bo;:,} ,:, literal descendant of Abraham. More than one of tho,:, writers attempts to throw ridicule upon the THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 385 ceremonial law, and the enactments under the legal dispen- sation, as if they were only instituted by a nation of super- stitious men. I need not tell you, however, that Moses was only the servant of God, and delivered the law as the Divine command, and whatever is contained in that law- must be fulfilled, or else the word of God must fail. BYou have said, Theophilus, that there was but one gospel Church: when was that Church organized?" "On the day of Pentecost, I suppose," replied Theophilus. dWell, let us see," said Mr. Mason. "In the seventh chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we have the address of St. Stephen, which was delivered just before his martyrdom. In that address, or sermon, if you please, Stephen says: 'This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he that was in the CHURCH in the wilderness, with the angel that spake to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; who received the lively oracles to give unto us.' Here, then, St. Stephen says, there was a Church in the wilderness, in which Moses was the leader of God's Israel." "That is true, Mr. Mason; but is not the word here rendered church also rendered congregation in other places, as well as church?" "Very well, Theophilus. All I want to prove is that this church, or congregation if you will, had the gospel preached to them, and that some believed, whilst others believed not. Now let us hear what Paul says about the preaching of the gospel to the Israelites in the wilderness. I will quote from the latter part of the third and the begin- ning of the fourth chapter of the letter to the Hebrews. 'But with whom was he grieved forty years? Was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not ]7 page: 386-387[View Page 386-387]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 386-387 386 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see theyv could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the GOSPEL preached, as well as unto THEM; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.' Here Paul tells us that the gospel was preached to the Israelites in the wilderness, and, because of their unbelief, they entered not into the promised rest." {"But was not this rest only a deliverance from their enemies in Egypt, Mr. Mason?" "I will let Paul answer that question. He says a little farther on: ' Let us labor, therefore, to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."' "But may it not be said still," continued Theophilus, that Paul only compares the escape of the Israelites from Egypt with the entrance into the rest of the Chris- tian?" a I think we can determine that, too. If we can ascertain whether or not those who believed in the wilderness obtained a truly spiritual rest, then we shall know whether those who persisted in unbelief forfeited any spiritual blessing. By turning to the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, we have this question also settled, as plainly as words can do it. Paul says: - By faith, Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sit for a season; esteeming THE REPROACH OF CHRIST greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.' Now, then, Moses, we are told, preferred the vreproach of Christ' to the treasures of Egypt. Do you doubt whether Moses was a true Christian?" THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 387 "I am surprised, Mr. Mason. Why have I not seen that passage before?" "You have seen it, often enough, Theophilus. But your preachers have taken more pains to show what Paul meant by being buried in baptism/' than they have to exhibit Paul's view of faith and the gospel of Christ. In exact agreement with this language of the apostle is the language of our Saviour himself, as recorded in John v. 39: 'Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.' Christ alluded to the Old Testament Scriptures, of course, because not a single book of the New Testament was then written. We have, then, a Church in the wilderness, to which Moses belonged, as St. Stephen tells us. And Moses preferred the reproach of Christ in this Church, to whom the gospel was preached, according to St. Paul. Now, then, do you doubt whether Moses belonged to the Church of God?" "I confess that it seems to be plainly stated, Mr. Mason. Of course, I cannot dispute the word of God." "Well, then, we must ascertain when, where, and how that Church was organized. Paul must assist us in this inquiry. In his letter to the Galatians, third chapter, he says: 'And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the GOSPEL unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.' Here, then, the apostle declares that the gospel was preached to Abraham, and he tells us precisely what that gospel was--it was the spiritual promise included in the Abrahamic cove- nant. We must go to the covenant made with Abraham, then, in order to find the time when this Church was organized ' "But did not the dispensation of Moses do away with this Abrahamic covenant, Mr. Mason?" "The apostle answers your question, Theophilus, in these words: 'And this I say, that the covenant which was con- page: 388-389[View Page 388-389]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 388-389 388 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, firmed before of God IN CHRIST, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of God of none effect.' Now let us ascertain what that covenant was, for Paul tells us it was the gospel preached to Abraham. In the seventeenth chap- ter of Genesis we have the whole account of this covenant, how it was made, and who were the parties to it. It was made between God and Abraham. God promised, upon his part, to be a God to Abraham and his seed, and they should receive him as their God. In token of this covenant, a cer- tain sign was instituted called circumcision, which was the visible recognition of their covenant relation to God." "But did not this covenant include only temporal bless- ings, such as the possession of Canaan, and a numerous posterity?" "I have just shown you that Paul says it was the gospel preached to Abraham, in the words: 'In thee shall all nations be blessed.' That it included temporal blessings, I admit, but that it was confined to them is flatly contradicted by the apostle. The case of Moses is directly in point. He is said to have preferred the reproach of Christ to the trea-- sures of Egypt. He was a child of Abraham, then, for Paul says: 'If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.' But what did Moses inherit? Not the land of Canaan, for he never set his foot there, dying just before the Israelites entered it. He saw the land, but he did not ' go up and possess it.' If he did not obtain the spiritual blessing of the Abrahamic covenant, he obtained nothing, for he certainly did not receive the temporal benefits. "But we are not left without testimony from the Apostle Paul on this point: hehas clearly stated that the blessings of the gospel were made known to Abraham, and 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteous- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 889 ness.' In Romans iv. 11, the apostle informs us that 'he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe.' 'For the pro- mise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.' 'Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.' And in Galatians, third chapter, he says: 'Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.' Our Lord himself tells the wicked Jews: ' Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.' And in the first chapter of Luke we have the language of Zacharias, bearing the same testimony: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to per- form the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham.' The advent of Christ was, then, according to this prophecy, in fulfilment of the covenant made with Abraham. "We have here, then, the strongest possible representa- tion of the fact that the essential part of the covenant with Abraham was spiritual in its nature: the promise giving assurance of spiritual blessings, and Abraham believing the promise, his faith was counted as righteousness, and he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteous- ness of faith. We have then the gospel covenant, the visi- page: 390-391[View Page 390-391]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 390-391 390 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, ble sign of that covenant, and the persons to whom this sign shall be given, in the family of Abraham." a But was there not another covenant made with the children of Israel which supersedes this covenant with Abraham?" "No Jeremiah tells us, chapter xxxi.: 'Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and -will be their God, and they shall be my people.' Here you see the very promise made to Abra- ham is made again; and this covenant, which is called a new one, is not placed in contrast with the Abrahamic, but with the covenant made when the Israelites departed from Egypt. We have seen already that the apostle directs us to Abraham, as the father of the faithful, and declares that the promise made to him belongs to all who become his child- ren by faith. I think that I have clearly established these facts: that the promise, of which the mediation of Jesus Christ is the fulfilment, was distinctly made to Abraham; that he believed it, became thereby a servant of God, and. in token of the promise received circumcision as the sign of the grace and the seal of the promise made to him. The Lord distinctly declared that it should be an everlasting covenant, and commanded that all the male children of his family should receive the sign instituted, and specified the age at which they should be circumcised. "We have found the Church established in the house of Abraham, and children of eight days old are declared to be fit subjects for membership in it. We have seen the apos- THE MAJESTY OF TItUTH. / 391 tie pointinting to this very organization as having the promise of the gospel, and indeed having the gospel preached in it, and to the members of it. From this period, then, through all the changes of the Jewish state, whether in royal splen- dor, enjoying the favor of God and possessing all its privi- leges, or for a season obscured, because of their wickedness, through -a long array of seers, prophets, and teachers, the one great idea of redemption through Jesus Christ, in accordance with the promise to Abraham, becomes the absorbing theme of inspiration. In the sublime poetry of Job we hear the voice of faith exclaiming: PI know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.' We hear the sweet singer of Israel supplicating for mercy:. Create in me a clean heart, 0 God! and renew a right spirit Within me. Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with thy free Spirit.' We hear Isaiah proclaiming the offers of pardon and salvation: 'Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.' And as we approach the last of the prophets, the light becomes brighter, and the glory of the coming king- dom of Jesus is still more distinctly portrayed. Then a long night of captivity and disasters comes: the pen of inspiration is motionless: the voice of the prophet is heard no more in the land: the last favored son of Heaven has ascended the mount of inspiration,.and, catching a view of the more excellent glory soon to dawn upon the seed of Abraham, sinks again into the vale and goes to his reward; when suddenly the Lord whom they sought returns to his temple, the star of Bethlehem announces his birthplace, page: 392-393[View Page 392-393]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 392-393 392 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, and angel visitors proclaim his advent. Then the prophet's tongue is loosed: now, says the father of the forerunner, The Lord God of Israel will perform his covenant made to our father Abraham. And when the Holy Ghost is poured out upon the waiting disciples in Jerusalem, Peter declares to the Jews': 'The promise is unto you, and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.' Thus prophecy becomes history-the pro- mise is fulfilled; the nations are to be blessed through Christ, and the everlasting covenant confirmed." "Do you apply the words of Peter, when he tells the peo- ple on the day of Pentecost that the promise is to them and to their children, to the promise contained in the Abrahamic covenant, Mr. Mason?" "I certainly do, Theophilus; for if you examine the pas- sage closely, you will find that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, quoted by Peter from the prophecy of Joel, is itself a fulfilment of the spiritual promise made to Abraham. In proof of the fact that Peter so understood it, we find him declaring to the Jews, as a reason for their repenting of their sins, ' Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.' " Acts iii. 25. "I am constrained to acknowledge," said Theophilus, "that there is a plain connection between the Abrahamic covenant and the gospel dispensation, yet I cannot distinctly see what that connection is. If I understand your position correctly, the Abrahamic Church, so to speak, was the gos- pel Church in embryo. Am I right?" "Not quite, Theophilus. My position is, that the Church established in the house of Abraham was as truly and really a gospel Church as that which existed in the house of Philemon, to which Paul refers, Philemon 2. I THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 393 contend that Abraham was a genuine Christian, as I have proved Moses was, by the words of the Apostle Paul. Now I want to prove this proposition so clearly that you can have no doubt upon the subject. Let us take these two char- acters, Philemon and Abraham, for the sake of illustration. 'u How was Philemon justified in the sight of God? The apostle says we are justified by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. How was Abraham justified? The apostle says, 'He believed God, and it was counted to him for righteous- ness.' But did Abraham believe in our Lord Jesus Christ? The apostle tells us the gospel was preached' to him, and he believed it. Whether all the particulars were made known to Abraham, we cannot tell; but it is very likely they we;e. The prophets, we know, described the manner of Christ's death, and even declared the minute details of his cruci- fixion and burial. These you will find in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. It is reasonable to suppose that the great truths of redemption were made known to Abraham; otherwise it is folly to call that which was preached to him the gospel. Now, what was required of Philemon in order to prepare him for heaven? Holiness of life; for in this one sentence we have all the gospel requirements which are of a spiritual nature. And what was required of Abraham? We are told in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis: 'I am the Almighty God:' wallk before me and be thouperfect,' or holy. Now where is the difference? They are both justi- fied by faith; both have the gospel preached to them; both believe it; and both are required to lead a new life of holi- ness and devotion to the service of God. The only possible difference that can be found is, that Abraham believed in a Redeemer yet to come, and Philemon believed in a Redeemer already come. The object of faith is the same: they were both servants of God, and redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ." 17* page: 394-395[View Page 394-395]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 394-395 394 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, c I must admit the fact, Mr. Mason, in its essential char. acter: the Church in Abraham's house is as really a gospel Church as the other." "Very well; now we are expressly told that infants of eight days old were initiated into the Abrahamic Church. We are told by the apostle that the law of Moses did not annul the covenant with Abraham; and he informs us that the Christian dispensation is simply a development of the spiritual nature of that covenant: does it not follow, then, that those who were, of Divine right, parties to the covenant, and partakers of its benefits, are still recognized as such if there are no changes in the conditions of membership?" " I think so, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, "but the Baptists tell us that the conditions are changed." Let them show it, then, in the New Testament, and I submit." "Does not the great commission specify the character of those who are entitled to membership in the Church?" "Let us examine it, and we shall see that there is a strik- ing likeness existing between the covenant with Abraham and the commission to the apostles. Our Lord Jesus says to his disciples, 'Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' All nations are to be favored with the teaching and blessings of Christ; and the gospel which was taught to Abraham was, 'In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' You see, then, that the recipients of grace under the gospel commission are precisely those of the covenant of grace made with Abraham; and the disciples and their successors are charged with the duty of proclaiming the gospel to all the families and kindreds of the earth. Now, if infant children are recognized as being in covenant relation to God in that dispensation in THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 395 which the promise is made that all nations shall be blessed, why should infants be excluded from covenant relation to God in that dispensation in which all nations are being blessed by the truths of the gospel? It is positively certain that they were parties to the covenant before our Saviour came; how does it happen that our blessed Lord expels these little ones from his Church, and refuses to give them any part or lot in it?" "The Baptists say, that only those wlo can be taught ought to be admitted to the Church, Mr. Mason, and they understand the commission as excluding infants because they cannot be taught." "By examining your Greek Testament, you will see, The-, ophilus, that there are two words which are rendered teach in our translation. The command is to disciple all nations, and then to teach them. This no one can deny who under- stands the import of the Greek terms. Now, howo long after they are made disciples before they must be taught, is not stated. But I will show you an analogous passage which has reference to Abraham and his house. In the eighteenth chapter of Genesis you will find an account of the conversa- tion between the angel of the Lord and Abraham. After they had left his tent the Lord said, 'Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will comman d his children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.' Abraham was under obliga- tion to teach his children, and so soon as they were able to understand, doubtless he did do so. He explained to them the nature of that covenant into which they had been initi ated by circumcision in their infancy. He enforced upon A, page: 396-397[View Page 396-397]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 396-397 396 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, them the necessity of perfect obedience to GCod, that they milght 'keep the way of the Lord.' Now this is the very position which the Christian father occupies under the gos- pel dispensation. His children are recognized as the sub- jects of grace by baptism in infancy, and when they become large enough to understand spiritual things, every truly pious parent will ' command his children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord.' " "C But the Baptists say, Mr. Mason, that by baptism we are brought under obligation to obey the whole gospel i and as infants cannot, take this obligation, they ought not to be baptized." "I know they do, Theophilus, and their dogmatism in this respect is as shallow as we have found it in others. The Apostle Paul says in the fifth chapter of his letter to the Galatians, vI testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole laiw.' Now, when did they assume this debt? In their infancy, at eight days old; and this they did by God's command; who will affirm, then, that all the obligations which can be implied in baptism may not be taken at the same age?" "The cases are parallel, Mr. Mason. There is nothing in that objection. But they say, that if circumcision has given place to baptism, you ought to baptize male children only, as those alone were circumcised, or else show your authority for. baptizing both sexes." "Very well, Theophilus, I can do that very thing. I have already quoted the apostle's remark upon this point; but I will repeat it. '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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the pro- mise.' Gal. iii. 28, 29. Here the apostle declares that there are to be no distinctions hereafter, nopeculiar privi- THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 397 leges to the Jew denied to the Greek; the free occupy the same position spiritually, and in Church privileges, with the bond; and the male shall have none which are denied to the female; but all shall be one in Christ, and thereby become heirs of Abraham alike. Would you require stronger proof?" ' No, sir, the passage meets the case, and gives the law, plainly enough. Still, the Baptists argue further, that the apostles did not baptize infants, because we have no mention made of such baptisms in the New Testament. How do you answer that objection, Mr. Mason?" c I answer it by affirming that the New Testament does inform us of various baptisms in which infants were in- cluded among the subjects. There is a very general fallacy in Baptist books upon this subject. They argue that because a number of adults are mentioned as receiving baptism, and no case of an infant baptized alone and mentioned by name is to be found, therefore no infants were baptized! This sort of logic would make a strange bundle of contradictions in the Bible. For instance, on the day of Pentecost it is said that three thousand believed and were baptized. Were these all men? It is not said that there wasa single woman among them. Again, in the fourth chapter of Acts we are told that the I number of the men was about five thousand' who believed. Were there no women among them? If I remember correctly, the first case of the baptism of a woman, which is explicitly declared, is that of the Samaritan women in the eighth of Acts. Are we to conclude, therefore, that no women embraced the gospel and were baptized before Philip preached in Samaria? Or are we to understand that the men outnumbered the women in the Apostolic Church, simply because they are mentioned more frequently, and their conversions specified oftener? Nob one will contend for such a consequence of an incorrect theory, as wearing the shadow of truth. page: 398-399[View Page 398-399]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 398-399 398 THEOPHPLTS WALTON; OR, "The reason why the baptism of adults is mentioned so frequently in the New Testament is very readily given. If the apostles could have singled out from the families around them a hundred thousand infants, and baptized them, there would have been no immediate gain to the Church of con- verted persons; and it is the design of the inspired writer to show us what progress the gospel made in those days. Because infants are not mentioned by name, we are no more authorized to say that there were none baptized, than we are warranted in affirming that there were no women in the Church at Jerusalem, because none are said to have been baptized there. But when we find it stated .that the fami- lies of certain persons were baptized, what right has any one to say that there were no infants in those families? "Let us take the case of the jailer at Philippi. We are told that he was baptized and all his family. Now, we are not informed how many there were, nor whether any of his children were infants, nor indeed are we informed whether this jailer's wife was living or not. She is not mentioned; she may have been dead, or. she may have been living, with a babe in her arms-who can tell? We are told that he believed with all his house, and therefore the Baptists contend that all the family must have been large enough to profess faith themselves. But this is by no means a conse- quenlce. If a man has two children who are converted mem- bers of a Church, and another who is but a month old, if he and his wife are pious Christians, is not his a Christian fam- ily? Does the presence of that unoffending babe heathenize his household? And if such a family as this were con- verted at or about the same time, would not even our Bap- tist friends say that the whole family had embraced religion? If we are to take Baptist assumptions, we mlust believe that there were no children in the family of the Philippianl jailer, none in that of Lydia, none in that of Philemon,o THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 399 none in that of Stephanas, none in the families of Priscilla, and Aquila, and Nymphas, for all these families were bapl tized, and some of them are said to have churches in their households. Now this requires too much at our hands. Doubtless you might select half a dozen families in Mary- ville in which there are no infant children; but does any one believe that if you commence at any given point, and take the first six families as they come, that you will not find a solitary infant among them all? "But let us take a closer view of this point. Who were these apostles,-and what were their constructions of the gos- pel commission? They were Jews by birth, and we have positive testimony that at least one of them, and he the most prominent of the twelve, restricted the gospel commission to the Jews only, and practiced accordingly, until convinced of his error by a revelation from heaven. This is an import- ant fact. Peter alludes inn his sermons to the Abrahamic covenant, speaks of the Abrahamic promise, declares it is for the Jews and their children, commands them to be bap- tiz'ed in the name of Jesus, and they obey. Remember that the Jews were accustomed to bring their infant children with them to the solemn assemblies of the Lord, that they circumcised these infants, and thus placed them in covenant with God; and when the blessings of this covenant of grace are to be realized, can any one doubt whether they would have brought their children with them to be baptized? "Let us examine the words of Peter again for a short time. 'Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for (this is the rea- son why they may be baptized) the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off.' Now, whatever promise it was, it is certain the children were interested in it, and this interest in the promise is given as the reason page: 400-401[View Page 400-401]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 400-401 400 THEOPHLUS WAIALTON; OR, why they should repent and be -baptized. If we suppose Peter to allude to the passage which he had before quoted from Joel, which declared that the Spirit should be poured out upon all flesh, as we have already seen, this prophecy itself is a part of the promise in the Abrahamic covenant: 'I will be a God to thee and thy seed.' But let us turn to this second chapter of Joel, and ascertain who the parties were of whom the prophet spoke. (Blow the trumpet in Zion, says Joel, ' sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly; gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the. elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts; let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet; let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: wherefore should the heathen say among the people, Where is their God?' Here the infants who suck the breasts are declared to be a part of the heritage of God, and they are required to be brought to this solemn assembly. A Baptist objector would say, What is the use of bringing unconscious babes into the Lord's house on such an occasion? they cannot fast, they can- not be sanctified, they cannot pray and supplicate God; let them be left at home, and let the grown people come. But the mind of God is different from theirs: those young babes were deeply interested in this solemn assembly, although they could know nothing of it then; their temporal as well as spiritual welfare in the future was involved in these trans- actions, and therefore their presence was required. On a memorable occasion, Moses assembled all Israel, and ad- dressed them as follows: ' 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 TIE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 401 camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: that he may establish thee to-day for a people unto hinzself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fath- ers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.' Deut. xxix. 10- 13. The Baptists will say these ' little ones' had nothing to do with that covenant. How could those unconscious babes profess faith in the Lord of hosts? How could they enter into covenant with God? Yet the Bible says they were there, and it includes them among the covenant-people of the Lord. isI might cite you many other proofs, but these are enough. I have proved that infants were interested in the spiritual promises of the Abrahamic covenant, and that they were parties to those solemn engagements in which the peo- ple of Israel made public profession of faith in the Lord their God. Knowing these facts, then, being accustomed to see infants of eight days old receive the sign and seal of the first covenant, is it not reasonable to suppose that the apos- tles of our Lord would naturally expect that the infants of Christian parents would be included among the subjects of ,baptism, and thus receive the sign and seal of the new cove- nant? In other words, as infants were known to be heirs of the promise under the old dispensation, and received the seal in evidence thereof, would they not regard them as heirs of the promise still, and entitled to the newly-instituted seal? We know that those Jews who became Christians held on to circumcision for some time, until a conference of elders and apostles decided against them, as we find it stated in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. They practiced circumcision I after the manner of Moses ;' that is, at eight days old; and at the same time they were members page: 402-403[View Page 402-403]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 402-403 402 THEOPnIILUS WALTON; OR, of the Christian Church, and were baptized. Now, do you suppose that they gave the seal of the old covenant to their infant children, and omitted the seal of the new? Did they make their children Jews, whilst they themselves were Christians? No such charge is preferred against them. They baptized the very persons whom they circumcised, and as they contended for the circumcision as Moses commanded it, the conclusion is unavoidable that they administered the Christian ordinance at the same age. The apostles and elders decided against circumcision, as imposing a yoke too heavy for the Gentiles to bear, but they did not Jorbid the baptism of those infants to whom circumcision was adminis- tered. This was the time for the clear, unmistakable con- demnation of Pedobaptism, if there had been a command to ex- clude infants from the Christian Church. But we find nothing of it; not a word against giving baptism to all those whom these Jewish Christians would have circumcised; and I con- tend that, without such an explicit command, the practice of baptizing infants would have been a necessary conse- quence. We see plainly that the subjects of the old dispen- sation were considered the subjects of the new; the circum- cision of these persons is forbidden, their baptism is not. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the repeal of the old rite, as a sign and seal, does not alter or render invalid the claim of infant children to the new rite, as a sign, seal, and pledge of God's redeeming grace. "When we read, then, of household baptisms, we are un- der no necessity to prove that infants were included in them. The presumption is that they were. The few instances men- tioned of such baptisms are, doubtless, but a tithe of the whole-we know not how many hundreds of families were baptized; and unless the Baptists are willing to affirm that there were no infants alive in those days, we are constrained to believe that the 'little ones' were as certainly placed in THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 403 covenant relation to God, as they were in the days of Moses and of Joel. They were just as competent in the times of the apostles to become parties to a public profession of the covenant of grace, as they were to assume the duties and incur the obligations resulting from circumcision. "But let us see if the New Testament baptisms uphold the practice of Baptists in these days. The question is not whether a Jew or a heathen, being converted to Christianity -the former from his mistaken views of the plan of redemp- tion, the latter from the service of idol-gods-should be baptized on profession of his faith in Christ. This is admit- ted by all parties. Yet the Baptists cite these cases in the New Testament as demonstrative evidence in their favor! But the evidence which they require to sustain their prac- tice and theory is of a very different character. The ques- tion is, Did the New Testament Christians delay the baptism of their children until they were old enough to profess the reli- gion of Jesus Christ? No one will deny that this is the practice of the Baptist Church. Now let them find one soli- tary example of such a baptism in the Scriptures, and we will give them credit for it, and admit that it is against us. But where is such a baptism recorded? Where do we hear of a daughter of the Christian Chloe, or Philemon, or Ste- phanas, being baptized at fifteen or sixteen years of age? Where do we ever hear of a household baptism, in which one part of the household is baptized at one time, and the remain- der at another.2 Where do we hear a Christian parent ex- horted to use his efforts to convert his children from the state of heathendom, that they may be admitted by baptism into the Christian Church? Not one of these examples can be found. No delay of baptism is once intimated as exist- ing in Christian families; not a solitary case of adult bap- tism is mentioned, where the party baptized was of Christian parents! What answer can Baptists make to this argument? page: 404-405[View Page 404-405]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 404-405 404 THEOPHLU S WALTON; OR Will they say that there was not time for these baptisms to occur? We answer that the book called Acts of the Apos- tles contains historical events reaching from A. D. 33 to A. D. 63, a period of thirty years at least. Infant children who were born after the day of Pentecost, or ten or fifteen years subsequent, would have grown to manhood and womanhood before that book was written. If any such, the adult chil- dren of Christian parents, were baptized, why have we no record of it? Baptists call loudly upon us to produce an example of our baptism in the Scriptures; we now call for an example of theirs; not the baptism of an adult whose parents were Jews or heathens, but the baptism of an adult whose parents were Christians. As I have said, the New Testament adult baptisms sustain our practice as well as theirs. Any Pedobaptist missionary in a foreign land would baptize a Lydia, a Philippian jailer, a Saul of Tarsus, and he would baptize, as did Paul, the whole household of a Ste- phanas. But we require them to show that children were permitted to grow up to adult age, surrounded by Christian parents and attendants upon the Christian ministry, without being baptized. If they cannot do this, they cannot sustain their practice, and they utter their own condemnation when they require scriptural examples, in which the character of the subjects is distinctly delineated. The apostles baptized adult converts who had been Jews or heathens; the Baptists have few opportunities to make converts from either class. Their rule is to baptize the adult children of Christians; let them show that this was the apostolic rule, or abandon the practice. If they are allowed to make inferences, without a shadow of testimony to sustain them, they must allow us to make a plain argument, founded upon the word of God, from which no reasonable inference can thrust the claims of infant chil- dren to be recognized as parties to that covenant, in pursu- ance of which we have been redeemed from the penalty of THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 405 the law, and are made candidates for the election of grace unto eternal life. If they tell us that adults only were bap- tized on the day of Pentecost, when the new dispensation was opened in its fulness and grandeur, we may admit the fact, but, in reply, we point them to the first records of cir-, cumcision, and show them that although the required age of the circumcised person was only eight days, yet the first per- son who received it was ninety/-nine years old, and the sec- ond thirteen years old. Moreover, we require them to show that there were i6nfants in the family of Abraham at this time. If this cannot be done, it follows, according to the views of the Baptists, that the rite was not properly administered. ' But to sum up the whole matter in a few words. Par- ents must become Christians before their children could be baptized. Therefore the first records of the Church describe adult baptisms. For the same reason, the first records of the Abrahamic covenant inform us of adult circumcision. But as infant Church-membership was recognized in the Abrahamic Church, we contend that it was recognized in the Christian Church, because the apostles and the prophets are the foundation of which Christ is the corner-stone; and be- cause these very apostles claimed to be the children of Abra- ham, and point to the covenant made with him, as the gra- cious source of all those blessings which spring from the manifestation of God in the flesh. Our infant children, then, are not cast out of the fold of Christ to lie at the mercy of the wolf, or to hang upon the uncovenanted mercy cf God. Dying in infancy, that gracious Spirit whose puri- -fying power is so beautifully symbolized in water baptism, fits them for the heavenly inheritance. And here let me ask, in the words of the Rev. Robert Hall, whose testi- mony against his Baptist brethren you heard quoted with so much effect last Saturday: C Did it ever enter the conception of any but Baptists that a right to the sign could be sepa- page: 406-407[View Page 406-407]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 406-407 "O6 THEOPHLUS WALTON; OR, rated from the thing signified .' I answer, No, honest sir, no other class of people will contend that certain persons may be and are truly sanctified by God's Spirit, and yet they are not entitled to receive the sign of that grace. The Baptists alone are inconsistent enough to acknowledge that an infant child may be sanctified by the Spirit of God, while at the same time they deny to that child any place, part, or lot in the Church of Christ. But we say, if they actually receive the grace signified in baptism-as in the case of those dying in infancy none will question-they are entitled to the sign of that grace, and thus will we do if God permit, until the Father in heaven shall tell us plainly that little children must not be consecrated to him. Until Christ shall tell us, Forbid them to come unto me, we shall hold on to his an- cient command, and forbid them not. "It will be impossible to examine all the arguments upon this subject, Theophilus, in one short evening. If you have any scruples still against the baptism of infants, I will take pleasure in affording you further assistance if it is in my power." "I acknowledge, Mr. Mason," replied Theophilus, " that I have been at fault hitherto in the formation of my reli- gious opinions. I examined too superficially the grounds of the doctrines to which I adhered. I again tender to you my thanks for your valuable aid during these meetings. I began at heart an immersionist. I am now convinced not only of the propriety of effusion or pouring as the scrip- tural mode, but that infants have a right, by special warrant from God, to membership in the Church. If others have been as greatly blessed by the arguments which you have offered, I feel persuaded that we shall henceforth be wiser and better men." THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 407 CHAPTER XX. THE RETROSPECT. THE period through which we have passed has been an eventful one. The firmness of our hero has been severely tried; and the affection of the fair being to whom he was betrothed, through all his trials has supported him in his resolution to think and act for himself. Now that this por- tion of our narrative draws to a close, we need give only a brief summary of the events which immediately followed the discussion which we have given in the preceding pages. Mr. Mason, with his usual diligence and zeal, devoted himself to his pqlpit and pastoral labors. .He seemed to have no desire to rejoice over a fallen foe. To those who differed with him he was kind and courteous; and to the numerous petty annoyances which bigotry prompted as an offset to his arguments, he paid little or no attention. Be- loved by his congregation, and respected by the intelligent and good of all parties, his subsequent labors were eminently blessed of God. Mr. Ellis did not recover his wonted animation and cheerfulness, yet he seldom indulged in a remark concerning the recent debate in a promiscuous assemblage. He had learned to be cautious, and hereafter he kept his own coun- sel. Far from desiring to abandon the contest, however, he was diligently engaged in assisting Mr. Battle in preparing for another and more desperate encounter. They deter- page: 408-409[View Page 408-409]Switch to Image ModeCLOSE Page 408-409 408 THEOPHLUS WALTON. mined to " carry the war into Africa;" and if a vulnerable spot could be found in the body of Methodism, they were resolved to find it. Mary Ellis, after experiencing the displeasure of her father, and finding that the peace of the family depended upon her removal from the parental roof, was kindly received by her uncle, Mr. Riley, at whose house she enjoyed the hospitality denied to her at home. There, too, Theophilus spent many pleasant hours in forming plans for their future comfort. On the following Sabbath Theophilus was baptized by Mr. Mason, according to the primitive, apostolical mode; and as the crystal stream descended upon his head, he conse- crated himself anew to the service of God. He had renounced the "vain pomp and glory of the world," and henceforth he determined to apply himself with renewed diligence to learn the will of the gracious Redeemer. We must here, for a season, take leave of him. If we should again claim the indulgence of a generous public, we shall devote our attention to the subject of Church Govern- ment. A defence of our fathers and a vindication of the policy of Methodism are due to ourselves. Although these have been given to the world by able pens, our opponents seek to gain an advantage by changing the manner of attack. To repel each new assault is at once a duty and a pleasure THE END.