HE subject of this sketch was born near Liberty, Kentucky, September 4, 1832. His father, G. E. SWEENEY, was of Irish descent, and a Baptist in his younger days, but, "when he became a man, he put away childish things" and has since been an earnest advocate for the primitive order of things. His mother, whose maiden name was CAMPBELL, was of Scotch-Irish extraction, and was brought up under Methodist influence, but, for more than thirty years, has been a member of the Christian Church.

      His parents were poor, and lived in a country not very well supplied with good schools; consequently, his early education was greatly neglected. After he was fully grown, however, he acquired a respectable education.

      Having begun the study of the law, he left Kentucky, in 1854, and went to Illinois, where he continued to prepare himself for his chosen profession, and, just as the most flattering prospects were opening up to him as a lawyer, he became convinced that it was his duty to preach the Gospel. Acting under this conviction, in 1856, he entered actively upon the work of the ministry, and has been constantly engaged in this calling ever since. His labors have been chiefly confined to Illinois, though he has preached considerable in Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky. During this time, he was located two years in Chicago, and a little over one, in Cincinnati. Most of his labor has been in the general field, and his success there has been all that could be desired, having received into the Church, by immersion, about two thousand two hundred persons.

      With Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Universalists, and Soul-sleepers, he has held twenty-five public discussions, two or three of which have been published. For one so young, this is a rather pugnacious record; but when the fact is stated that he has declined equally as many discussions as accepted, and that he never challenged nor sought debate but once in his life, we may be inclined to alter our opinion somewhat. He is not afraid of discussion, but does not seek it. He thinks that honest investigation is the most certain way to elicit truth; hence, he has generally [253] accepted all fair propositions that would be of public interest. His debates have always been largely attended, and have never failed to gain new trophies for the cause of Christ. His home at present is at Winchester, Illinois.

      Brother SWEENEY has, in some respects, a peculiar mind. He can not be called a hard student of books; in fact, if you were with him awhile, you would think he never studies them at all. And yet his brain is never idle. He does not read much, but he thinks. He is forever working at some problem in theological polemics, or arranging Davis and arguments for use in preaching the Gospel; hence, his sermons abound in apt and forcible illustrations. His style of preaching is well adapted to the masses. Every argument is brought out with the utmost clearness, and, however we may be disposed to differ from him, there is never any excuse for misunderstanding him.

      While his mind is eminently logical, he has, nevertheless, fine descriptive powers, and is capable of producing superior word paintings. He has seen much of the world, not that he has traveled so extensively--though he has traveled considerable--but he has actually experienced about what is the aggregate of human life, and this experience enables him to form very correct judgments of men and things.

      He is six feet high, has dark hair, light hazel eyes, and weighs about one hundred and seventy pounds. He has, naturally, a powerful physical constitution, though it is somewhat impaired by ill-usage. He is social and fraternal in his intercourse with men, but somewhat reticent as to his plans of life. [254]

      "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."--MATT. XXVIII: 19.

PROPOSE, in this discourse, to examine briefly three questions relating to baptism: 1. What is it? 2. Who may Scripturally be baptized? and, 3. What is it for?

      I. WHAT IS BAPTISM?

      An elaborate argument of this question is not proposed; a fair statement of it, of the positions of parties to it, and of what is claimed and what is conceded by these parties, being deemed all-sufficient for the purpose sought to be accomplished.

      The word "baptize" is not strictly English, but an Anglicised Greek word. What is the meaning of this word when expressed in English? Immersionists answer: It means simply immerse. Hence they claim that baptism is immersion; no more, no less. On the other hand, Pedobaptists, so-called, give the question no definite answer at all, but claim that immersion, pouring, and sprinkling are all equally valid "modes of baptism," and practice accordingly. They hence do not, at the present day, define the word "baptize" at all. And how can they do so, while [255] holding and practicing as they do? Suppose they were to say it means immerse, what authority would remain for pouring or sprinkling? And if they were to say it means "pour," then what authority would they have for immersing and sprinkling? And were they to define it "sprinkle," then they would be left without any authority for immersing and pouring. If, therefore, they define the word "baptize" at all, they must give it a definition broad enough to cover their entire practice; and if they define it to mean immerse, pour, and sprinkle--and nothing short of this will cover their whole practice--then they would have to immerse, pour, and sprinkle a person before they could claim to have him fully baptized. Thus we see why it is they never define this word. This is deemed a fair statement of the positions of the parties to the question.

      I will next notice what is claimed and what conceded in the controversy. It is claimed by immersionists, that, in classic Greek literature, the word is invariably used in the sense of immerse; that, in every instance of its occurrence in Greek literature, it must be translated into immerse, or some of its equivalents, to make sense of the passage in which it stands. "BAPTISM; ITS MEANING AND USE," a small volume, published by the American Bible Union, contains, it is claimed by the learned author (Dr. CONANT), all the instances of the occurrence of this word in classic Greek literature, by an examination of which the English reader even may satisfy himself as to its uniform meaning. On the other hand, it is very generally conceded by Pedobaptist scholars that the word does usually have this sense in classic Greek. They claim, however, that it sometimes signifies "wash," "dye," "stain," etc. But in classic Greek they never translate it "pour" or "sprinkle." They claim that in the New Testament it is not used in [256] its classic sense. This is deemed a fair statement of what is claimed, and what conceded, as to the use of the word.

      The Greek lexicons define the word, very generally, in accordance with its use, to mean "immerse," or what is equivalent to it, and very generally give this as its primary meaning, not one of them ever defining it to mean "pour" or "sprinkle." They do, however, it is freely admitted, give "wash," "dye," "stain," as meanings of the word, but generally as secondary meanings, some of them being so careful as to say it has such meanings only by consequence. For example, BAILEY says: "Baptism, in strictness of speech, is that kind of washing which consists in dipping, and when applied to the Christian institution, so-called, it was used by the primitive Christians in no other sense than that of dipping."^{1} ALSTEDIUS says: "Baptism, to baptize, signifies only to immerse, not to wash, except by consequence."^{2}

      These lexicographers were Pedobaptists, and would be inclined, of course, to favor their own practice as far as they could, and preserve their honor and reputation as scholars; yet, when they give wash as a meaning of baptize, they are careful to say it does not have this meaning, "except by consequence." Baptism can only mean "that kind of washing which consists in dipping." And only in this sense can dye, stain, soil, etc., be given as meanings of the word. Any thing immersed may be washed, dyed, or stained, as a consequence of the immersion. Whether dyed, or washed, or stained, depends upon the character of the element in which the immersion is performed. By metonymy, such consequences of an action may be put for the action itself. In this way we often [257] put wash, dye, stain, soil, etc., for the English word dip. For example: when the dyer dips an article into the dye, we say he dyes it, when, in strictness of speech, he dips it, and, as a consequence, it is dyed When, then, the washer dips the same article into water, we say he washes it, when, in fact, the article washed is only a consequence of the dipping in water. But shall we, therefore, conclude that wash is the meaning of dip? Certainly not. So it is of baptize, exactly. Wash, dye, stain, etc., are only consequential significations of the word. It would be a wonderful word, indeed, to mean primarily to wash, and, at the same time, to mean primarily to dye, which is precisely the opposite. These opposite ideas can only be attached to the word by metonymy. But are we to take the word baptize in the New Testament in this secondary and consequential sense exclusively? Or, shall we not rather take it in its primary, usual, and most known signification? We have no special rule given for the interpretation of words in the Bible, nor have we any intimation that this word baptize is therein used in any other than its usual and known signification; and hence, if it is not subject to the known and ordinary rules of interpretation, the Bible is more a deception than a revelation. But we must avoid this conclusion; and how shall we do it? Simply by interpreting this word in the ordinary way. Let us, therefore, read an acknowledged rule of interpretation of words: Sir William Blackstone says: "Words of a law are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar as their general and popular use."^{3} Common sense floats upon the very surface of this rule. It is one by which all [258] translators, as well as interpreters, must be governed, the only exception to the rule being where the circumstances of its use imperiously demand for any word a secondary signification, to preserve the sense and congruity of the passage in which the word occurs. As, therefore, the word baptize stands in the New Testament without any express qualification, we must accept it in its current, usual, and most known signification--which, confessedly, is immerse--unless the sense and congruity of the Scripture language are made to suffer.

      Let us next notice the New Testament use of the word, and see whether or not the sense, propriety, or congruity of the Scripture language will suffer from a literal translation of it. In the record of John's administration of the rite, we have the following passages:

      "And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan." (Mark 1: 5.) "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan." (Matt. iii: 10.) "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water." "And John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there." (John iii: 23.)

      To read, "were immersed of him in the river," makes good sense. Between this rendering of the word, and the fact that the baptizing was done "in the river," there is no incongruity; while to substitute either pour or sprinkle for baptize will destroy the sense and congruity of the passage. "Poured in the river, of him"--that is, the people were poured in the river, of John--is rather an awkward, not to say absurd, reading. Again: to say Jesus "was immersed in Jordan, of John," conveys sense to the reader; and between this reading and the fact that Jesus, "when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water," [259] there is no such palpable incongruity as is created by the substitution of either pour or sprinkle. And, why was John " baptizing in Enon?" "Because there was much water there." For immersing, "much water" is a necessity; while, for pouring or sprinkling, a very little will suffice. This circumstance, then, to say the least of it, rather favors immersion. To evade this argument, it is sometimes said by the advocates of pouring and sprinkling that, doubtless, the "much water" was needed for other purposes than that of baptizing, and, therefore, it was that John was preaching there. But, evidently, no such notion was in the mind of the Spirit. The fact that "there was much water there," is given as the reason why "John was baptizing in Enon, near Salim."

      In the record of the Acts of the Apostles we have this remarkably circumstantial case given: "And as they [Philip and the eunuch] went on their way, they came to a certain water, and the eunuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? . . . . . And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him, and when they had come up out of the water," etc. (Acts viii: 36-39.)

      Here, it is said, that in order to baptize, they went down into the water, and when the baptizing was performed, they came up out of the water. Do these circumstances of the use of "baptize" demand for it a secondary rather than its usual signification? Certainly not. The word "baptize" means immerse, and the circumstances here recorded strongly indicate it. So strongly and plainly does this language indicate immersion, that we see persons now-a-days frequently go down into the water merely to sprinkle a few drops on the face of a candidate. And why should they go down into the water for such purpose? Who can tell? [260] In Paul's epistles we have the following allusions to baptism, which imply immersion as clearly as any language can: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death." (Rom. vi: 4.) "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him." (Col. 11: 12.) "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. x: 22.) No honest person, though unlearned, need be in doubt as to what baptism is with these passages before him. To substitute pouring or sprinkling for baptism in any one of these passages, would make the passage perfectly absurd. And can persons, who have only had a few drops of water sprinkled on their faces, say, we have had our bodies washed with pure water? Will pouring or sprinkling answer the demands of this passage in Hebrews? Certainly not. Then, we find that the use of the word in the New Testament, the circumstances recorded as to the performance of the rite, the references to it in the Epistles, as well as the explanations of its significance, require its primary sense, and will not admit of a secondary one.

      "I indeed baptize you with water" is sometimes cited as indicating an application of water to the subject, rather than an immersion of the subject in water; but it is exceedingly difficult to see how any scholar can rely on this passage as favoring pouring and sprinkling. The word "with," in the passage, is not a correct rendering of the Greek word en, for it can not be denied that en most usually signifies in. And would it not be much easier to give it its primary meaning in the passage, and read, "I indeed baptize you in water," than to harmonize all the other passages noticed with the idea of pouring and sprinkling? And, then, if this does prove an application of the water to the subject, we can not translate baptize, pour, or sprinkle, for [261] neither of these is even a secondary meaning of the word. It is never so translated or defined.

      Down to the middle of the last century, it was admitted by Pedobaptists very generally, that baptize means immerse; that our Lord instituted immersion; that the apostles practiced it exclusively; and that the Church knew nothing else for baptism till the middle of the third century; and that affusion of water for baptism was, substituted by the Church, in favor of clinics, and for convenience, where the climate was cold and water scarce. To all this only eminent Pedobaptists shall testify. And in the first place, we will hear one whose ecclesiastical history is a standard among Protestants, and who was himself a Lutheran.

      Dr. MOSHEIM: "The sacrament of baptism was administered in this [the first] century without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font."^{4} Also, speaking of baptism in the second century, the same author says: "The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water." So much for primitive practice.

      Dr. WALL, author of the "History of Infant Baptism," says: "In cases of sickness, weakness, haste, want of quantity of water, or such like extraordinary occasions, baptism by affusion of water on the face was by the ancients counted sufficient baptism." The doctor then proceeds to give a few of the "most ancient cases" of such baptism, and gives, as the most ancient case, that of Novatian, who had water poured upon him, on a sick bed, [262] A. D. 251. And this was counted sufficient baptism only by the Church at that day.^{5}

      RICHARD BAXTER: "We grant that baptism, then, [in primitive times] was by washing the whole body, and did not the difference of our cold country as to that hot one teach us to remember 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,' it should be so here."^{6}

      GROTIUS: "The custom of sprinkling or pouring seems to have prevailed in favor of those who were dangerously ill, and were desirous of giving up themselves to the Lord, whom others called clinics. See the Epistle of Cyprian to Magnus."^{7}

      PERKINS: "The ancient custom of baptizing was to dip, and, as it were, to dive all the body of the baptized under the water, as may appear in Paul, Rom. vi, and the councils of Laodicea and Neocesarea; but now, specially in cold countries, the Church useth only to sprinkle the baptized, by reason of children's weakness--for very few of ripe years are nowadays baptized. We need not much to marvel at this alteration, seeing charity and necessity may dispense with ceremonies and mitigate in equity the sharpness of them."^{8}

      WESLEY explains Rom. vi: 3, "Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion."^{9}

      Next, that we may have the matter still more clearly before us, we will hear from a distinguished Romanist. Speaking of "the foundation of continuing the communion under one kind," as he styled the subject, BOSSUET says: "Baptism, by immersion, which is as clearly [263] established in Scripture as communion under the two kinds can possibly be, has, nevertheless, been changed into pouring, with as much ease and as little dispute, as communion under one kind has been established. It is a fact most firmly believed by the Reformed (though some of them at this day wrangle about it) that baptism was instituted to be administered by plunging the body entirely; that Jesus Christ received it in this manner; that it was thus performed by his apostles; that the Scriptures are acquainted with no other baptism; that antiquity understood and practiced it in this manner; and that to baptize is to plunge--these facts, I say, are unanimously acknowledged by all the Reformed teachers; by the Reformers themselves; by those who best understood the Greek language and the ancient customs of both Jews and Christians; by Luther, by Melancthon, by Calvin, by Casaubon, by Grotius, with all the rest; and since their time, by Jurieu, the most ready to contradict of all their ministers. Luther has even remarked that this sacrament is called Tauf, in German, on account of the depth; because they plunged deeply in the water those whom they baptized. If there be in the world a fact absolutely certain, it is this. Yet it is no less certain, that, with all these authors, baptism, without immersion, is counted as lawful; and that the Church properly retains the custom of pouring."^{10}

      What is here so boldly and so frankly said by this Romanist has been often repeated in the faces of Protestant Pedobaptists, and it remains for one of them to make a respectable attempt at refutation. It is not strange that they do not attempt it. The entire history of the Church is against them. Their brethren, men of learning, such [264] as those named by this Romanist, have conceded every thing in the controversy.

      Lastly, we will hear the testimony of English Episcopalians. Only two of them shall testify.

      Bishop BURNET: "We know that the first ritual of baptism was by going into the waters, and being laid as dead all along in them; and then the persons baptized were raised up again, and so they came out of them. This is not only mentioned by St. Paul, but in two different places he gives a mystical signification of the rite; that it signified our being buried with Christ in baptism, and our being raised up with him to a new life: so that the phrases of rising with Christ, and of putting on Christ, as oft as they occur, do plainly relate to this; and yet, partly out of modesty, partly in regard to the tenderness of infants, and the coldness of these climates, since such a manner might endanger their lives, and we know that God loves mercy better than sacrifice, this form of baptizing is as little used by those [Pedobaptists] who separate from us, as by ourselves . . . . . From all these things, this inference seems just: That according to the practice of those who divide from us, the Church must be supposed to have authority to adjust the forms of our religion, in those parts of them that are merely ritual, to the taste, to the exigencies and conveniences of the several ages and climates."^{11}

      This right reverend prelate speaks forth boldly and unmistakably. He believes the Church has power to decree and change ceremonies. It was hence little trouble for him to defend pouring and sprinkling for baptism. But Church authority was his sole ground of defense. He believed not only that the Church had the right to make it, [265] but that the change from immersion to pouring and sprinkling was a wise and prudent one, having respect, as it did, to "modesty," "the tenderness of infants," "coldness of climates," the "danger to life," and to the fact that "God loves mercy better than sacrifice."

      Mr. EVANS: "There is a confessed variation allowed of and practiced by the generality of Dissenters, both Presbyterians and Independents, from the institution and practice of Christ and his apostles, in the sacrament of baptism; for they have changed immersion, or dipping, into aspersion, or sprinkling, and pouring water on the face. Baptism by immersion, or dipping, is suitable to the institution of our Lord, and the practice of the apostles, and was by them ordained and used to represent our burial with Christ, a death to sin and a new birth into righteousness, as St. Paul explains that rite."^{12}

      This testimony--and it might be tediously accumulated--shows that, in the last century even, there was no controversy about the institution of our Lord, or the practice of the apostles. Then pouring and sprinkling rested confessedly upon no higher authority than that of a fallible and corrupt Church. Since such authority has fallen into disrepute, men have begun to claim Scripture authority for the practice of pouring and sprinkling. Some have made such astonishing progress as to deny flatly that the Savior himself was immersed, or that the apostles ever immersed any body; and all this in the face of what we have read from their own authorities, as well as from the Scriptures.

      To conclude this question, we have seen that, confessedly, the word baptize was used by the Greeks in the sense [266] of immerse, and never in that of pour or sprinkle; that it is, accordingly, defined by the lexicons to mean immerse, not one of them defining it to mean pour or sprinkle; that, when it is defined to mean wash, dye, stain, etc., it is explained that it has these meanings only by consequence; that its use in the New Testament not only justifies, but demands for it the sense of immersion there; and, lastly, that, down to the middle of the last century, it was admitted by Pedobaptists themselves that the word baptize means immerse; that our Lord instituted and his apostles practiced only immersion; that pouring and sprinkling were substituted by the Church in favor of clinics, and, in consideration of "modesty," the "tenderness of infants" and "coldness of climates," quoting only for Divine authority that "God will have mercy, and not sacrifice." How far the argument, so briefly drawn, falls short of demonstration, let candid people for themselves decide.

      II. WHO MAY SCRIPTURALLY BE BAPTIZED?

      That believers may properly be baptized, no one denies. All parties that practice baptizing at all are agreed that believers may properly be admitted to baptism. But here those called Antipedobaptists stop, this being the extent of their affirmation. Pedobaptists go farther, and affirm that infants also may scripturally be baptized. Some of them say all infants, and some say only infants of believing parents, may properly be admitted to baptism. This subdivision, however, is one with which we have nothing to do. We deny that any infant can be scripturally baptized. To the extent of the difference on this question, it will be readily seen that Pedobaptists are properly in the affirmative, and, of course, the burden of proof falls due to them. How, then, can they prove that infants of [267] any kind may scripturally be baptized? They do not claim that they can prove it by express precept or example of the Scriptures. On this point, we will hear what the affirmants themselves say.

      Bishop BURNET: "There is no express precept or rule given in the Scriptures for the baptism of infants."^{13}

      Dr. WALL, speaking of John's baptism, says: "There is no express mention of any children baptized by him." Again, he says: "Among all the persons recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infants.^{14}

      FULLER: "We do freely confess that there is neither express precept, nor precedent, in the New Testament for the baptizing of infants." And the very best this learned divine could say as to Divine authority for his practice stands in these words: "There were many things which Jesus did which are not written, among which, for aught appears to the contrary, the baptizing of these infants (mentioned Luke xviii: 15-17) might be one of them."^{15}

      MARTIN LUTHER: "It can not be proved by the sacred Scripture that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles;"^{16} and scores of such concessions of eminent men who lived in Luther's time, before and after, might be quoted; but these sufficiently show that, whatever authority was then claimed for the practice of infant baptism, it was conceded that the Scriptures are silent upon the subject. This is still conceded by the advocates of the practice. In proof of this, let us read, from an article on baptism prepared by a committee [268] appointed by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1860, to take the place of Mr. WESLEY'S treatise on that subject, in the Doctrinal Tracts, which article is now published with the indorsement of Conference: "That there is no such express warrant for the baptism of infants [as for the baptism of believers] is freely acknowledged."^{17} And again, (p. 255,) this Tract says: "We do not pretend to found the right of infant baptism on any supposed precept or example of the Scriptures which expressly declares that infants were, or that they should be baptized." Since, then, the advocates "do not pretend to found the right of infant baptism on any supposed precept or example of the Scriptures," upon what is it founded? What are the grounds of it? This question they may answer in their own words. But they are far, very far, from agreement in their answers. They agree that the baptism of infants should be retained. They agree very generally as to the profound silence of the Bible on the subject; but when they come to the reasons for the practice, they go apart widely. We will hear a few of them:

      Mr. WESLEY: As to the grounds of it, if infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary way, they can not be saved unless this be washed away by baptism."^{18} So the Methodist Church believed and taught, up to the year 1860, when they refused any longer to publish and indorse Mr. WESLEY'S treatise. The learned

      Mr. WALKER said: "Where authority from the Scripture falls, there the custom of the Church is to be held as a law."^{19} [269]

      HENRY WARD BEECHER admits frankly that there is nothing whatever said about the practice of infant baptism in the Bible; and also that no legitimate deductions can be drawn thence in its favor; and, for authority, falls back on what he calls "Christian liberty claiming that Christians have a right to practice whatever experience has shown to be "a good thing;" as, for example, we put a yoke upon oxen, because experience has shown it to be a good institution. Now, when we consider that the Bible is confessedly silent upon the subject of infant baptism (it being only claimed that possibly among the unwritten savings of our Lord some authority might be found, for aught we know to the contrary), and that some found the right of it upon the guilt of infants; others upon "the custom of the Church;" and still others, upon "Christian liberty;" are we not warranted in calling it simply a human tradition? May we not safely say that it had its origin in no higher authority than that of the Church, and in a very dark period of its history at that? Nevertheless, we must confess it is of great antiquity, having been practiced by a majority of professing Christians for perhaps fifteen centuries; and, in consideration of this fact, it is certainly entitled to respect, so far as Christians are at liberty to respect a human tradition of this kind. Is it an innocent tradition? If so, its innocence should go far to shield it from attack. We will not require our Pedobaptist friends to prove that it is "a good thing," but only to establish its innocence. But this even remains to be done to our satisfaction. We know that our Lord ordained, and his apostles commanded, in his name, that believers should be baptized. But infant baptism, so- called, stands in the way of this command. To the extent of its prevalence, it makes void the command of the Lord, to believers, to [270] be baptized. This should sink it forever in the estimation of every Christian. The Lord said: "Go teach all nations, baptizing them;" "Go preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believes and is baptized shall be saved." And so his apostles did, baptizing none others than believers, as has been conceded by the advocates of infant baptism. To our Lord's command, and to the precept and precedent of his apostles, we must be true. Therefore we are bound to require believers to be baptized; and as the tradition in question comes in the way of this, we must oppose it. We say to its advocates, in the language of the Savior, "Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition," and we dare not hold our peace. It will not do to tell us "infants are guilty of original sin, and must therefore be baptized. In the first place, infants are not guilty of original sin. But if they were, and baptism were necessary to their cleansing, the Lord would have ordained it (and it would have been found among his written sayings), and his apostles would have practiced it. Nor will any supposed authority, among the "unwritten" sayings of the Savior satisfy us. Why was it not written? Nor is Christian liberty sufficient ground for it. While we gladly agree that Christians have great liberty, we do not believe that even they have liberty to make void the commandments of God, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. Nor yet will it silence us to say that "where authority from Scripture fails, there the custom of the Church is to be held as a law." We respect antiquity, but have not sufficient respect for all the mere customs of the Church to receive them as laws.

      Baptism is "the answer of a good conscience toward God." (1 Pet. ill: 21.) But infants can have no conscience in baptism. Therefore infants can not properly [271] be baptized. Whatever else may not be, it is clear that some conscience is essential to baptism. It may be said, "But an infant could properly be circumcised, and why not as properly be baptized?" The cases are not parallel. In the former case, parents were commanded to have their children circumcised; in the latter, the obligation rests upon each individual person to be baptized. Circumcision was a mark in the flesh for the natural seed of Abraham, and hence infants could receive it; while baptism is an act of faith, having nothing to do with the flesh, but with the conscience; and hence infants can not properly receive it. Paul, speaking to the Romans (sixth chapter) of their baptism, says: "Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." But infants can have no heart in baptism, nor can they obey in any sense. Therefore infants can not scripturally be baptized. "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest" be baptized, is a rule by which Christians must be governed in admitting persons to baptism.

      III. WHAT IS BAPTISM FOR?

      The Disciples teach that it is for the remission of sins. They are the only religious people among Protestants who, at the present day, hold this position. True, the same is taught in almost all the creeds and standard books of the popular parties, though disavowed by their press and living pulpits. A few definitive remarks, therefore, are deemed necessary in entering upon the discussion of this question.

      1. We interpret the Scripture phrase, "for the remission of sins," to mean in order to the remission of sins; and, hence, make baptism antecedent to remission. We do not believe, as has often been said of us, that baptism, in [272] any sense, procures remission. It is simply a condition--a condition precedent to remission; a condition because the Lord has made it so, by positive law. This is the extent and fullness of our affirmation on this question.

      2. We make a distinction between conversion, or what is very generally called regeneration, and remission of sins. Conversion, as it is popularly understood, is internal, and pertains to the mind and heart; and, so far as this is true, it precedes baptism. And conversion certainly does pertain to the mind and heart of the converted, though not wholly. But what is popularly called conversion and regeneration is an internal work to the converted, and precedes baptism. One is not properly a subject of baptism till, in the popular sense, he is converted, or regenerated. Hence, the charge of "baptismal regeneration" sometimes preferred against us, is entirely without foundation in truth, growing out of a popular confounding of conversion and remission of sins, which, with us, are two very distinct things. And that this distinction is scriptural, is made obvious by these passages: "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." (Acts iii: 19.) "Lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Matt. xii: 15.) The blotting out of sins is remission, and comes after conversion. So, in the other passage, healing is remission, and comes after conversion. The popular error of confounding conversion and remission of sins together as one thing, has caused much injustice to be done us as a people. We simply teach that baptism is in order to, and, hence, a condition precedent to, the remission of sins, remission being something the Lord does for the converted person. [273]

      We teach that this is so now, in the Gospel dispensation. We hold that the law of pardon, under the Gospel, went forth from Jerusalem after the ascension of the Savior and the descent of the Holy Spirit; that it was promulgated for the first time by the Holy Spirit, through Peter, at Jerusalem, on the first Pentecost after our Lord's ascension, as is recorded in the second chapter of the Acts of Apostles. This is in accordance with prophecy, and the teaching of our Lord and his apostles: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." (Isaiah ii: 2, 3.) That this prophecy relates to the founding of the kingdom or Church of Christ, few, if any, will for a moment question. It teaches that the Church was to be established "in the last days;" that "all nations" were to flow unto it, and that the "law was to go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." And our Savior says (Luke xxiv: 46, 47): "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Hence, he said to his apostles, whom he had commissioned to preach remission of sins to all nations: "But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high." Therefore, when the apostles were endued with power from on high at Jerusalem, they began first to preach "repentance [274] and remission of sins," which was for "all nations." Then and thence went forth the law of the Lord--the law of the New Institution--from Jerusalem. Then and there, "at Jerusalem," the place of "the beginning," in the "last days," Peter, directed by power from on high, propounded the law of the New Institution. To heart-pierced believers he said: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." This was the first promulgation of this law, which, be it remembered, was for all nations. Now, the question to be determined is: Does this language of Peter make baptism a condition precedent to remission of sins? We say it does, and here we will stand or fall. The controversy hinges on the meaning of the word "for." We say it here means in order to, while it is contended by our opponents that its sense is because of. It will be granted that it sometimes has the meaning we give it in this case; and we are ready to admit that it sometimes means because of. And what is here said of "for" may be truly said of the Greek word it represents. Then, can we ascertain what the word means in this passage? Happily for the truth, there is a circumstance in the case which enables us to determine this question. It is this: The relation which "for" expresses here between baptism and remission, is the same that repentance sustains to remission, the relation of both to remission being expressed at once by the same word; therefore, that relation is one. The law to the believer is, "Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins." Will any one say that we may read, "Repent, and be baptized because of the remission of sins?" Does any one believe in repentance because of the remission of sins? No one so believes. No one so preaches. The relation of repentance to remission is that of a precedent to a [275] subsequent. But the relation of baptism must be the same, for it is expressed by the same word, and at the same time; therefore, the relation of baptism to remission of sins is that of a precedent to a subsequent. This argument has never been met. We feel perfectly confident it never can be. Thus far, our opponents have only attempted to evade it, by claiming that, if we allow that for remission means in order to remission, it makes Peter's teaching on this occasion conflict with his teaching at other times and places, as well as with the teaching of Scripture generally, on this subject. But this has never been shown to be true.

      Time will only allow reference to be made to some other Scriptures which teach the same as the one just examined.

      In the commission, our Savior makes baptism for the remission of sins in the same sense, in these words: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." By "saved" here, it is very generally agreed that remission of sins is meant, to which the Savior's language evidently makes baptism a condition precedent.

      "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts xxii: 16.)

      If baptism be not a condition going before remission of sins, this passage becomes a puzzle, and who can tell what it means?

      "Baptism doth also now save us." (1 Pet. ill: 2 1.) If baptism is not for the remission of sins, in what sense does it "now save us?"

      Many other passages of Scripture might be cited that teach the same thing; but these will suffice the candid, and others can not be reached. [276]

      ^{1} Dict. Dr. Scott's ed., 1772.
      ^{2} Lex. Theolog., p. 221.
      ^{3} Commentaries, vol. 1, Introd., sec. ii.
      ^{4} Eccl. Hist., vol. 1, p. 46.
      ^{5} See Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap., part ii, chap. ix, p. 463.
      ^{6} Paraphrase of the New Testament, at Matt. iii: 6.
      ^{7} Apud Poli. Synopsin, and Matt. iii: 6.
      ^{8} Works, vol. i, p. 74, edit. 1608.
      ^{9} Notes on New Testament.
      ^{10} Hist. des Egleses Protest., tom. ii, pp. 469, 470.
      ^{11} Discourses to the Clergy, pp. 281, 282.
      ^{12} Cases to Recover Dissenters, vol. iii, pp. 105, 106, 3d edit.
      ^{13} Expos. of the Thirty-nine Articles, art. xxvii.
      ^{14} Introd. Hist. Infant Baptism, pp. 1-55.
      ^{15} Infant's Adv., PP . 71, 150.
      ^{16} A. R.'s Vanity of Infant Baptism, part ii, p. 8.
      ^{17} Doctrinal Tracts, p. 250.
      ^{18} Doctrinal Tracts, 1832 edit., P. 251.
      ^{19} Modern Plea for Infant Baptism, p. 221.

[TLP 253-276]