s^fV.
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
1.0
I.I
1.25
2.2
I ^
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.6
^j^"
^l
> >
'/
S
sm
^9>
L
I appear before this audience with mingled feelings of hesitation
and confidence. The present is no ordinary occasion. While it is
always a pleasing and satisfactory employment to point our fellow-
mcE to the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, in
order to their present salvation and eternal happiness, it becomes
comparatively painful to occupy a position in which is arrayed against
us those who profess to be devoted to the same work of leading souls
to Jesus. When I consider how difficult it is to treat each other as
our better instincts would suggest, when, from the prejudice of edu-
cation, or from other causes, we feel ourselves at issue on points
which, to say the least, are very important, it is not without some
misgivings that I undertake the present labor, lest I might aid by
any means in stirring up feelings in this community which would tend
rather to retard than promote the reign of peace and good-will
among men.
On the other hand I am cheered with the hope that I may aid, in
.some small measure, the cause of Him who came to save our race,
but not without a determined opposition from those who were offend-
ed at his teaching.
We are fallible creatures, liable to err, and if on the subject of
religion we happen to be mistaken, it is our highest interest to dis-
cover and abandon the mistake. To hold, and propagate, and defend
error is to fight against God, and what satisfaction can any man have
in such a course ?
I most solemnly declare before this audience, and before all men,
that I have no system to hold or defend, but Christianity, as it
came from the Lord Jesus and his inspired followers. And if any
man, woman or child, shall show me from the Bible that I am wrong
in anything I hold, I shall count that person a benefaut in a
positive institution wc must do everything according to the pattern
given us. Positive law was given to our first parents. God did not
explain to man why he should not eat of the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. It was enough that he said, "Thou
ehalt not eat." This was npositirc command of God. If we ask,
♦'What was the harm of eating an apple," let all the misery of the
human race answer — God forbade it, hence the sin and rebellion of
the act.
God commanded Abraham to offer up his beloved son, Isaac, on
Mount Moriah. He gave him no reason for this strange coiiraand.
All the reason that was necessary was the fact that he commanded it.
Circumcision was a positive institution. God commanded Abra-
ham to be circumcised, and also to circumcise all his male children,
and the male children born in his house or bought with his money.
Why was this law right ? Because God said, "Thou, shalt do it,"
• ' and he on whom it was neglected died.
When the Israelites for their sins were bitten by fiery flying
serpents, God told Moses to make a serpent of brass and raise it on a
pole, and command the people to look at it. Here was positive law.
When they looked they lived. When they did anything else, how-
ever sincere, they died. The virtue that healed them was in God.
Their disobedience brought this punishment upon them. God gra-
ciously removed it through obeying him in this Positive Institution.
Building the Tabernacle in the wilderness was a Positive Insti-
tution. Every hook, and knob, and curtain must bo made according
ON BAPTISM.
S
to tlic pattern shown to Mosot on the Mount. If he made anything
j • ', ;I>i'^
Dr. De Witt, that celebrated Theologian, says : ■ : . '-•''•;
"They were baptized, immersed, submerged. This is the proper mean-
ing of the frequentative, from baj)(o to immerac."
Dr. GROTiussays: -■. - " '•■"' -' ■•'•■'
"But that this customary rite was performed h^ immersing, and not by
pouring, is indicated both by the proper signification of the woi*d, and the
places chosen for that. rite. John iii., 23 — Acts viii., 38; and many allu-
sions of the Apostles which canuot be referred to sprinkling. Rom. vi., 3-4;
Col. ii., 12."
John Feitii says : • ■.".'";'■.■ '. , ,,;;.,
"The sign in baptism is the plunging down in the material water, and
the lifting up again. The signification of baptism is described by Paul
in the 6th of Romans," &c., &c.
^ Luther says : • -j ...... .- -u. .. .^......ji.-.
Lnd so baptism signifies two things — death and resurrection. That
is, a lull and perfect justification. For in that the minister immerses the
child into water, signifying death, but in that he brings it out again, signi-
fying life. For so Paul sets forth, Rom. vi. For we are buried with
Christ by baptism into deathr'^x^
Dr. Chalmers says :■•'•• '*M^' '*-■•*"•■'•'■•'■ ^•■•^ '-' ■••-■•■■'- *>-;iiii-i-; »>"«
/"The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion." ) ".'/ ;-^.i.
^ John Calvin says :
/•'It is certain both that the word itself of baptizing signifies to immerse,
and that the rite of immersing was observed by the ancient church." A
George Whitefield says : ;;;'r, ■„; ..:.!, ',,"f''
"It is certain that in our text there is an allusion to the manner of
baptism, which was by immersion, which our own church allows, and in-
sists upon it that children should be immersed in water, unless they that
bring the children to bv. baptized assure the minister that they cannot bear
the plunging."
Jeremy Taylor says :
"The custom of the ancient churches was rot sprinkling, but immersion,
in pursuance of the sense of the word (baptize) in the commandment and
the example of our blessed Saviour."
John Weplby says :
"Mary Welsh, ^ed eleven days, was baptized according to the custom
of the first church, and the rule of the Church of England, l)y immersion."
ON BAPTISM.
a
^ ■■&
. J
fiiitip Melanctiion says :
"Baptism is immersion into water, wliieh is made with admirable bene-
diction : '1 baptize,' &c. The immersion signilies that our sias are washuJ
away and merged into the death of Christ."
Von Collin says :
"Immersion in water wns general until the 13th ccntnry, when among
the Latins it was displa>jed by sprinkling, but was retained by the Greeks."
Salmasius says :
"'J'he clinics, only because they were confined to their beds, were bap-
tized in a manner of which they were capable, not in the entire lavev as
those who plunge the head under wafer, but the whole body had water
poured upon it. Thus Novatius, when sick, received baptism, being
{perichutheis) besprinkled, not (^baptislheis) baptized."
Parmelius says :
"Whereas the sick, by reason of their illness, could not be immersed or
plunged, (whicji properly s})e;ikiMg is to be baptized) they had the saving
water poured upon them, or were sprinkled with ii. For the same reason,
I think, the custom of sprinkling now used first began to be observed by
the Western Churth, namely, on account of the tenderness of infants,
seeing the baptism of adults was now very seldom practiced "
Grotius says :
"The custom of pouring or sprinkling seems to have prevailed in favor
of those that were dangerously ill, and were desirous of giving themselves
up to Christ, whom others called clinics."
Von Collin says :
"Baptism was by immersion ; only in cases of the sick was it administered
by sprinkling. It was held necessary to salvation, except in cases of
martyrdom."
Geiseler says :
"For the sake of the sick the rite of sprinkling v/as introduced." .
EusKBius says: .. ,
"Baptism was administered to those on hech of sickness by sprinkling and
pouring ; in other cases it was, at that time, by immersion."
Dr. TowERSON says: ^ ^
"The first mention we find of aspersion, in the baptism of the elder sort,
was in the case of the clinici, or men who received baptism upon sick bels,
and that baptism is represented by St. Cyprian as legitimate upon account
of necebsity that compelled it, and the presumption there was o( God's
gracious acceptation thereof because of it. By which means the lawful-
ness of any any other baptism than immersion will be found to be the
nece&sily there may be sometimes of another manner of administering it."
To this we could add a long list of Pcdobaptist Divines, bearing
witness to the same facts. But from those already adduced, we may
learn how pouring and sprinkling water upon persons began to be
used, instead of Christian immersion. Soon after the days of the
Apostles, they began to think there was a virtue in water to take
away sin. In the commission Jesus says : "He that believeth and ia
baptized shall bo saved," meaning, of course, that all this salvation
was in Him, and not in water, and that he would save by virtue of
his death all that trusted in him, and did exactly what he com-
manded them. Now, the ancient Christians, after the Apostles'
death, from not understanding the nature of Positive Divine lusti-
12
ADDRESS
tutiotia, fell into the error of attaching a saving virtue to the element
of water, even as the Israelites attached a healing virtue to the brazen
serpent many years after their fathers had been healed in the wilder-
ness, by the appointment of God, in looking to it. The grand mis-
take was the same in both cases. God told the Israelites, on that oc-
casion, to look to the berpent, and they should live. They did look
on that occasion, and were healed. God did not tell them on any
other occasion to look at the serpent, and if they did it on any other
occasion it was not obeying him ; nor would they receive any bene-
fit from it, as there was no virtue in brass to heal any one. God had
virtue to heal, and would do it when they did exactly what he told
them. But he would not when they did something as a substitute
for his commands.
These christian?, because Jesus had promised to save those that
believed in him with all their heart, and turned from their sins, and
were immersed in water in his name, thought that when others were
too sick to be immersed God would accept of something else, and they
poured what they called the saving element all over the dying person.
Thus were sprinkling and pouring introduced instead of immersion.
Some are carried away with the idea that we believe that water has
virtue "> take away sin. This is a great and grave mistiake. Wo
believe that there is efficacy in Jesus' death, and in nothing else, to
take away sin. The following questions may be asked : Why, then,
do you baptize ? For this sole reason, that Jesus has most positively
commanded it, and promised that he that believeth and is baptized
flhall be saved. AVell, what virtue do you believe there is in Christ-
ian Baptism ? Whatever virtue the Lord Jesus it, .ed to attach
to it, neither more nor less. Our duty is to believe and obey Jesus
Christ, and our high privilege to enjoy the great salvation which he
is pleased to bestow on his own appointed terms, without any merit
on our part. But it is not our duty nor privilege to sit in judgement,
or speculate on how much or how little virtue he may attach to his
own positive institutions.
Do you hold, then, that believing penitents receive a benefit in
being baptized in the name of the Lord ? I do. What difference,
then, is there between your belief and that of those who poured
water on the sick who were thought to be believing penitents, in order
that they might receive a benefit ? It is this : We believe there is a
benefit in obeying Jesus Christ in a positive institution, that is, in
doing exactly what he has commanded. But if we do anything else
instead of what he has commanded, we believe there is no virtue
whatever in it.
Now, these persons acknowledged that pouring or sprinkling water
was not the very thing that Jesus had commanded, but as
these were sick, and could not, as they thought, be immersed in
water, they concluded that God would accept of pouring or sprinkling
instead of what Jesus had commanded, calling it "saving water."
We believe that a positive institution is intended for those who
can obey it, and not for those who cannot. That Jesus Christ does
not require any man to do what is out of his power. When he com-
manded persons to be immersed, it was those who had the power to
do it, and only those will be responsible. Those that cannot be im-
tnc
of
dot
CI
sal
thi
To
tlic
clu
be
un
Jc
tl
0\ B.vf'TISM.
1^
uicrsctl. he is able to .save witliout it, and that there is no necessity
of substituting anytliing else in its place. Nay, wc hold it to be
decidedly wrong to substitute anything for his command. Jesus
Chriht positively requires men to believe in him in order to their
salvation, and says: "He that belicvcth not shall be damned." But
this command is addressed to those who are capable of believing.
To infants and idiots this command is not addressed. God can save
them without believing, and wc have the very best reasons to con-
elude that he will save them. It is only those that arc able to
believe, and refuse to do it, that will be condemned on the ground of
unbelief. They believe not and will perish. Every command of
Jesus Christ is intended for those who are capable of obeying it, and
those who are able and will not are guilty.
1 know that the impression has gone abroad that all WG require of
sinners is to be baptized, and that this will save them without their
hearts being changed by the Spirit of God. But 1 wish this audi-
ence to understand distinctly that such a docfci'ine is most abhorrent
to our souls. We firmly believe and teach that no sinner is converted
to God without the influence of the Holy Spirit of the eternal God
convincing him of his sins, and changing his heart so tJioroughly as
to cause him to hate his sins, and turn from them with all his heart
— to love Jesus Christ, and by the help of God serve hira in newness
of life. Now, I wish you to know that this is the doctrine that all
our preachers preach, that all our writers defend, and every intcUi-
gcjit member fully believes, and that tl >se who give a different re-
port about us circulate slander. When the sinner's mind is thus
enlightened by the Spirit of God, through the gospel of Jesus, and
his heart truly changed to love God, and he is determined to walk in
his ways, he is a fit subject to be baptized, and not before. But we
believe that the man who thus loves Jesus, and obeys his commands,
will have and enjoy whatever blessings the Lord has promised to
such. We neither hold nor propagate any other doctrine. If a man
refuses to obey Jesus Christ in anything he has commanded, we
cannot — we dare not — hold out any encouragement to him in that
course.
But to return to our subject. We have the most abundant proofs
on hand to show that pouring water on sick persons, who could not
be immersed, was the way in which the practice of pouring and
sprinkling began. I am not aware that any writer mentions any-
thing about pouring or sprinkling, for baptism, in the first 200 years
of the Christian era. Another thing is worthy of notice : Thoso
sick persons who received this sprinkling, in case of recovery could
never after hold office in the church.
Sprinkling or pouring was so much easier that it naturally began
to take the place of immersion. Still, it was not till the 13th
century that it came into general use in the Western Churches ; and
in the Eastern or Greek Churches has never been introduced.
The most general plea for sprinkling is not that it is the action
which Jesus has commanded, but that it is so immaterial whether his
appointed action or some other is observed, that we are at liberty to
choose the easier way. I will adduce a few examples on this
head :
2 . '
ilttiMi
■■MMMi
14
ADDRC^S
John Calvin (commenting on John iii., T), "Except a man T)c born
of water and the Spirit he cannot cuter into the Kingdom of God,")
says:
"From these words it is lawful to conclude tliat baptism was celebrated
by John and Christ by the salimeision of the wholo body.
'•Here we see plainly wliat the rite ttpti»u> was among the ancienb*,
for they immersed the whole body into watei-. Now the practice ha-^ come
ii'to vogne that the minister shall only sprinkle the body or head. Mut
80 fi'vll a diffeicnce di ceremmy ought not to be of so great iHijx)rtann sprinkle sand, or grain, or water, or
blood ; but cannot sprinkle men, and women in a river. We may
sprinkle something upon a man ; but it is simply impossible for one
man to sprinkle another in a rivjr. The same is true of pour. This
verb is also followed by the substance poured. It was impossible for
John to pour the Jews in the Jordan, or any where else. They must
be pulverized before John could either pour or sprinkle them in the
river Jordan.
We will now try the word immerse b} the same rule, (and it will
be found to make good sense when used in place of baptize) — This
verb, too, is followed by the substance to be immersed. A man can
bi immersed in water, in oil, in grief, in debt, or in spirit ; but he
cannot be sprinkled in any one of these.
Let it be carefully noted that three words are to be tested by the
same laws : 1st, The material is alwaj'^s to follow next tc the verb.
2d, The place, or thing, or action, to be performed is to follow the
material. Now, the material that follows immerse is the man or
substance immersed, and next the place or thing into which he is im-
mersed — as the river, in debt, &c. But the material that follows
pour, or sprinkle, is not the man, but wicr, or blood, or something
else capable of being sprinkled or poured. Jo/m cannot pour the
material James; neither can he sprinkle him in a river ; but he can
immerse him in a river, or in grief, &c. it is highly ungrammatical
and improper to speak of baptizing water, baptizing blood, or bap-
tizing the Holy Spirit ; but quite proper to speak of sprinkling
water, sprinkling blood, or pouring out the Holy Spirit ; therefore,
these words cannot stand for the original. They are not convertible
terms, and cannot be a true translation. But in every case where
baptize occurs, it makes good sense to substitute immerse. Thus —
Wo baptize men and women — we immerse them. W'e don't baptize
water ; we sprinkle it.
We sometimes speak of sprinkling or pouring a man ; but never
without an ellipsis. We have the idea of something else supplied in
our mind. When we speak of sprinkling a man, in strict propriety
we mean that wc sprinkle something on him, instead of sprinkling
him. :■, ■.':,:■■■■" v .', ■ >" ' •.•.•' .■ ■'■• '<■
;'■..■■•'■ * ■ . ■ ■ '" '
.'. '■'■•'-'>.'-■''■■ ' . " ' ■ ■ ' ,
■ , , . ' I'.i '" '•,*
,ir:\:
.■I
III
18 ADI)Ui:S3
SIGNIFICATION OF CIIIJISTIAN BArTISAT.
Wo now ask what is the signification of Christian Raptisra? That
it is a positive institution of Jesus Christ is certain ; but what docs
it signify ? Some of the creeds say tliat it is "An outward and
visible sign of an inward and s})irituul grace." But the Bible says
no such thing. That it points to something very important is ob-
vious. But instead of pointing to anything done in a man, it points
to something done J'oj' man by the man Christ Jesus. It emphati-
cally points to Christ. No one has a right to it who does not see it
pointing to Jesus. The whole history of Jesus is a marvellous mani-
festation of divine power, wisdom ani/ him in
is' death.
To be
but the
said that
esus was
ON n.Vl'TISM.
lU
iu after the agonies of crucifixion were over. The gospel facts are —
Jesus' death, his burial, his rcsiincction. 'i'he believer dies to sin, id
buried, rises — as Jesus did. Therefore, those that say that a man
must be crucified in order to be planted in the likeness of Jcsui*'
death, neither know what they say nor whereof they affirm. Some,
in their zeal against immersion, deny that Jesus was buried at all.
It is extremely painful to refer to such things. How any man, pro-
fessing godliness, can hold or propagate such sentiments 1 stop not
to inquire. If Jesus was not buried'the gospel is a fable, and all
the christian's hope is vaiu. He is yet in his sins, and of all men
most miserable.
But what arc the groumls for denying the burial of Jesus'? Why,
lie was not buried in the same way that we bury our dead in Prineo
Edward Island ; hence, he was not buried at all. If the Jews'
manner of burying was not exactly the same as ours, does it follow
that the Jews did not bury at all ? Jesus' body was covered up in
the earth as truly as the body of Jonah was covered in the fish, or
the Saviour's statement is not true.
But, says the objector, "I'eople go down into the water when they
are immersed." They generally do ; not always. Sometimes it is
found more convenient to step up into a place prepared for immer-
sion, and the person who is thus immersed is as much buried as if he
went down into the limpid stream. What point then can there be
in the profane quibble that the Saviour was not buried ? In being
thus buried in the likeness of Jesus' death, the believer is pointed to
that great transaction. But substitute sprinkling, and the beautiful
resemblance is gone. To the believer, 1 say, — for it is only those
who believe with all their heart in the death of Jesus for their sins,
and truly turn from all their sins to the service of God, who are fit
subjects for baptism — to such it beautifully points to the death,
burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
Here I am reminded of a transaction that occurred in the United
States a few years ago. The celebrated Henry Ward Beecher,
though a l*edobaptist minister, often immerses believers. On this
occasion he stood on the water's edge, about to go down into the water
with several candidates, as Philip did with the eunuch, to baptize
them. In the midst of a large crowd he spoke in heart-melting
strains of the beauty and significancy of that ordinance, that so
strikingly pointed to the burial and resurrection of the Saviour of
the world. He then led the candidates, one by one, into the water,
laid their bodies beneath its surface, and gently raised them up
again. The whole scene was represented as uncommonly solemn
and impressive.
After this was over, Mr. Beecher repaired to the church, and then
sprinkled water on a number more. The same person who witnessed
the immersion was present at the sprinkling ; but was rather sur-
prised to see him perform the latter without an allusion to anything.
I would just appeal to you, who have often seen ministers sprinkle
water upon children, and who have also been at the water's side and
heard persons confess that Jesus was the Son of God, and saw them
buried in the water, and rise again out of it, — which of the two was
the more solemn and the more like Christian Baptism ? I ask you to
answer thia question to yourselves and to God.
20
.AUUUKHS
THE nAl'T[^']\^ OF JKSIJS.
Our Lonl wus baittizcd by John in Jordan, .lulm was iinwillinj;
to baptize tlie Saviour, on tlic ground of his own vast inferiority.
He had already bajitizcd a groat many for rcn»is»ion of sins, Jcsiis
liad no lin to remit, and Joliii.said, "I iiavc need to he baptizetl of
thco." J5ut when he reijiiested .lulin to do it, because it became iiim
to fuliill all righteousness, lie baptized him. Ask a child, who is
unprejudiced, what John did to the Saviour, and the narrative is so
jdain that as soon as he reads the jtassagc he will tell you that .luhn
dip{)cd the Saviour in the Jiiver Jordan. Yet attcniptd have been
niudc to deny that Jesus was immersed in the Jordan. And although
they cannot say positively what John did to him, they argue that
he cither sprinkled or jioured water upon him. What are their
reasons for so thinking? I will state some of them: Ist, It is
said that water was sprinkled on Jesus to make him a Jewish priest,
after the order of Aaron.
Let U3 now consider this doctrine — Jesus made a Jewish priest.
Paul says, (Heb. viii., 4) "If he were on earth he should not bo a
priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts acc(jrtling to the
law." So Jesus eould not be a priest on earth ; yet Joliu sprinkled
water upon him to make him one !
Again, (chap, vii., 11) "Jf therefore perfection were b" the Lcvi-
tical priesthood — for under it the people received the law — what
further need was there that another priest should rise after the order
of Mclchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron V Tor
the priesthood being changed, there is made, of necessity, a change
also in the law. I'or he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth
to another tribe, of which no man gave attention at the altar. I'or
it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda, of which tribe Moses
spake nothing concerning priesthood."
l{ead those chapters, and hear the apostle enlarging on the vast
difference between the priesthood of Jesus and that of Aaron ;
showing that if Christ were on earth bo could not be a priest ; that
he did not belong to the same tribe as the Jewish priests ; that he
was a priest after the order of Mclchisedec, and not after the order of
Aaron ; that he did not go into the holy place, with the blood of
bulls or of goats, as did the Jewish priests, but that he entered into
heaven itself with his own blood, there to appear in the presence of
God, for us. I say, read the Epistle to the Hebrews, and take the
entire scope of revelation on the heavenly character and undying
glory of the priesthood of the Son of God, and put that in contrast
with the weak endeavors of special pleaders for a sinking cause, who
maintain that Jesus was a priest after the order cf Aaron ; that he
was a priest on earth, and that John sprinkled water on him to make
him a priest, — and then choose whom you will follow. Will you
believe the Word of God on the heavenly priesthood of Jesus Christ,
or believe those who bring him down to the level of a Jewish priest ?
Another objection to our Lord's immersion in the Jordan is the
Greek prcpositiou rendered out of. This is said to be a mistrausla-
OiN RAPTIBM.
ii
lis iiinvilliiiij
L iiitcnoiity.
liiis, Jcsiis
'■ baptized of
l»c'caiiic liim
liiltl, wliu is
rrativo is so
lu that .luliii
;;* have bocii
U(I altllOllirit
^ ar<,Mic that
t arc their
: Ut, It is
wish priest,
ivish priest,
li not he a
iling to the
u sprinkled
■' the Levi-
law — wliat
!r the order
.rou ? For
f, a change
pcrtaincth
iltar. I'or
ibe Moses
n the vast
of Aaron ;
iest; that
s ; that he
ic order of
e blood of
itered into
ireseuce of
d take the
1 undying
n contrast
ause, who
that he
Q to make
Will you
js Christ,
h priest ?
Ian is the
istraasla<
tion of tlic original preposition apo, and it ia alleged that it should
in tliis place be rendered from, instead of ovt of; and that tho
passage should read thus — "And Jesus when ho was baptized went
straightway up/ro/u the water," instead of "oui of tho water."
Now, suppose the common version was ot fault here in giving us
oiit of the water instead of from the water, would that go to prove
that Jesus was not immersed? After persons arc baptized at Sum-
mcrside, they go up straightway from the water. Does this prove that
theso persons were not immersed? Certainly not. How, then,
could going up from the water prove that Jesus was not immersed.
But I maintain that this version is not at fault in giving us ont of
instead of from tlie water in this j)lace. From is the primary mean-
ing of «yw, and ont of is one of its meanings. A very important
rule that governs a translation is this : "When you translate an ori-
ginal word give it its primary meaning, unless the sense of tho
passage reipur«3 another. But when the context requires another
word, give another word that expresses its meaning." Now, from is
the primary meaning of the original, hut the sense of the passage re-
quires another word. All that John baptized were baptized in tho
river, and as soon as it was over tlicy went straightway up out of the
water, and so did our Saviour. Hcuc^ the version is correct in
giving us that translation.
This leads to some remarks on another proposition: We read
that the people were baptized in the river Jordan. O, says tho
objector, this means at the river. Let us see. The Greek preposi-
tion en occurs in the original gospel of Matthew two hundred and
ninety-two times. In the common vei'sion it is translated, out of
these two hundred and ninety-two times, two hundred and eleven
times by our English word t»t^ It is translated at. eight times ;
with, thirteen times ; uinoiuj, twelve times. In it' the primary
meaning of the original en, and no good reason can \japtism of Johr." How could this be when they were all
baptized by him ?
od. All these people were baptized before John baptized the
Saviour, and yet the pharisees had heard that Jesus made and bap-
tized more disciples than John (John iv.) Again, (chap, iii.), John's
disciples said unto him: — "Eabbi, he that was with thee beyond
Jordan the same baptizeth, and all men come unto him."
Now, I ask, if John had baptized all the people in these countries,
whci'c did Jesus find persons to baptize ? And yet all men come
unto him According to the definition of all, we have Jesus baptiz-
ing all that John had previously baptized. Not only so, bat the
entire population of the globe came unto him : "All men corac to him."
Will they still insist that John baptized the entire population of
these places, in or at Jordan ? If so, we will refer them to another
case : "John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim," &c.
Who did he get to baptize in "^^'non, if he had already baptized
them all in Jordan ? Is it not remarkable into what strange absurd-
ities men will run in support of error !
Our opponents are not particularly fond of Baptists, and this great
Baptist confronts them wherever they turn. They had tried to
satisfy themselves and others that this same John had some time
before, with bush in hand, baptized all the people at Jordan, and that
he could not immerse them all, and did not immerse any one — which
was beautifully clear. But no sooner have they this little fabric
finished, and turn round to see what men think of it, than they meet
their Baptist friend in Enon, working away at the same annoying
business. Nor is that the worst of it. The reason why he baptized
is stated in plain words, "Because there was much water there."
They begin to enquire what they are to do with the much vmter.
"It is not the quantity I belieVe in." "A few drops are as good as
an ocean." "Much Water I" "Let us see." "0, yes." The
original can be rendered "jWany Waters." "Yes; and by a little
squeezing, we can get it into 'Many Springs.' " But here comes up
another difficulty : — Those that sprinkle do not need many springs
any more than much water. If John sprinkled water on the people,
why need he go to Enon to do it ? "Well, we must try and fix that
up, too." "How can we manage it?" "0, see! this is just the
among tLem-
j seem to uu-
iocked at the
nough to im-
j the decayed
agreed about
J watei' with a
took it at the
e, who forth-
they imagine
in this case
itcd them by
at all. But
IS ; but they
sing baptized
hey were all
japtized the
idc and bap-
iii.), John's
thse beyond
unto him."
se countries,
II men come
esus baptiz-
so, bat the
»meto him."
opulation of
a to another
'&c.
dy baptized
-nge absurd-
d this great
ad tried to
I some time
m, and that
Dne — which
ittle fabric
1 they meet
3 annoying
le baptized
ter there."
luch vmter.
as good as
res." The
by a little
e comes up
ny springs
the people,
ud fix that
B just the
ON BAPTISM.
23
thing," "It is as clear as noon ! John preached, of course, wherever
he baptized, and great crowds came to hear him preach ; and it is
more than probable they would have many camels. These camels
would want water, and a great deal of it, too, in a hot country like
that Now, see how many springs would be required to supply all
these multitudes with water, and also to water the camels. There's
the idea ! That is why John went to Enon. The many springs
were to supply the people and water the camels. A man's head must
be very thick if he can't see the idea at a glance !" Good friends,
stop a little. How is it, if Vae many springs were to water the
camels, that there is nothing said about it ? It does not even say
that John preached in Euon, because there was much water there ;
but that "John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there
was much water there." Now, I appeal to every candid man in the
audience, what reason does the scripture give for John choosing a
place where there was much water ? Was it to accommodate the
crowd and water camels ? or was it to baptize ? There is not a hint
of the former. The latter is most positively stated.
As to the quibbling about many springs, &:c., I can assure this
audience that the same original phrase rendered "much water," is
used in other places to denote large rivers — such as tho river Eu-
phrates, and the "many waters" mentioned in Revelation. The
plural number is used in tho original, because a river is made
up of many fountains or springs. Many waters and much water are
convertible terms, when applied to a river, the same as many people
and much people are convertible terms when applied to congregations.
Both terms arc so used in scripture. Hence, the translation is cor-
rect that says there was much water in Enon. That there is a river
deep enough for immersion near the ruins of the ancient Salim, and
thought to be the very one in which John baptized, is certified by a
living wituess who has in person explored the spot
There is an objection brought against the iraracrsiop of the three
thousand on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii.) It is alleged tliat Peter
could not immerse so many in one day. There is not the least diffi-
culty in the case. If Peter were the only christian on the spot
before the baptizing commenced, it could be done in an hour. He
could immerse ten or twenty, and authorize them to immerse others,
and so on, till the wholo was accomplished. But there were twelve
apostles, and more than one hundred disciples, henoe the objection
vanishes. It is further alleged that a sufficient supply of water
could not be obtained in Jerusalem, in which to immerse. But this
objection has no force whatever with those who are acquainted with
Jerusalem. This city was well watered by a great number of public
and private pools. The brook Kidron, also, was near it U is a
sulj ^t of remark that in all the sieges of Jerusalem its inhabitants
were Mldom, if ever, known to suffer from want of water, though
they often did for want of food. There was no scarcity of water in
Jerusalem for the purposes of immersion, as all can testify who know
that city, "beautiful for situatioc, the joy of the whole earth."
The same objection is brought to the immersion of the Ethiopian
eunuch (Acts viii.) "It was a desert" say they, "where the eunuch
was baptized, and there was not enough water for immersion." Dr.
Barclay, who traversed that whole region, in May, 1854, testifies
24 ADDRESS
that a part of that country, from Jerusalem to Gaza, is most fertile, I fl
and that there is a river four or five hours' ride from Gaza, on the
road leading to Jerusalem. This river, he says, is twelve feet wide,
and from a span to six feet deep. He says, moreover, that this is
the very plaee where Dr. Robinson locates the immersion of the
eunuch. The best maps of that country describe "a certain water,"
rising a few miles south of Jerusalem, winding among the mountains,
making its course towards Gaza, till within a few miles of it, and
then running a north-westerly course to the Mediterranean Sea at
Askelon.
It is further objected that Philip and the eunuch only went down
to the water. But a critical examinat m of the passage proves that
the common version is correct when it says. "They went down both
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch." So they were in the
water when the eunuch was baptized. But as we arc particularly
fond of the testimony of I'cdobaptists on these points, we will hear
what two very distinguished ones say on this passage.
D». Doddridge says : '
"It would bo. very unnaturid to suppose that tluy went down to the
river, merely that Philip mi^iht take a little water in his hand to ])0ur on
the eunuch. A person of his dignity had no doubt man}' vessels in his
baggage — by which water might be brought into the chariot — a precaution
absolutely necessary lor travelling, and never omitted by them." See Dr.
Shaw's Travels, p. 4.
Hear, also, John Calvin. He says :
"Here we perceive how baptism was administered by the ancients, for
they immersed the whole body iu water." (Commentary on Acts viii., 38.)
Time will not allow me to notice all the objections urged against
immersion. I wish I could refer to them, for 1 have never seen one
that is not easily overthrown.
There are two passages in the Old Testament that speak of sprink-
ling. In Isaiah, 52d chap., Imv., we read — "So shall he sprinkle
many nations. The kings shall shut their mouths at him," &c.
Now, let it be remembered, that this was affirmed of Christ. What-
ever this sprinkling meant, Jesus, and not his disciples, was the ad-
ministrator. But Jesus baptized not, but his disciples. They did it
by Jesus' direction. Hence Jesus' sprinkling many nations, and his
disciples baptizing proper subjects, are entirely different actions.
Let any one carefully read this passage, and its connexion, and he
will plainly see that it does not refer to baptism.
Again, in Ezekiel, 3Gth chap., 25v., — "Then will I sprinkle clean
water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and
from all your idols will I cleanse you," &c.
Now, who can see anything respecting baptism in this passage,
except it is that the word sprinkle occurs in it. Commentators say
that this is a prophecy respecting the return of the Jews to their
own land, which has not yet been lulfillcd.
In both these cases Jesus would not employ others to sprinkle, but
would perform it himself; but in baptism he rf/(/ employ others. In
the 10th of Hebrews we have both sprinkling and baptism alluded
to in the words following; "And having an High Priest over the
house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of
lLkl\..a
ON BAPTISM.
25
is most fertile,
11 Gaza, on the
reive feet wide,
or, that this is
aersion of the
jertain water,"
the mountains,
liles of it, and
rranean Sea at
tily went down
-go proves that
ent down both
y were in the
e particularly
, we will hear
it down to the
iiid to pour on
)■ vosscils in his
— a precaution
t!m." See Dr.
>! ancients, for
Acts viii., .'58.)
n-gcd against
ver seen one
ak of sprink-
he sprinkle
tt hira," &c.
ist. What-
was the ad-
Thcy did it
ons, and his
ent actions.
s^ion, and he
rinkle clean
thiness, and
lis passage,
nitators say
!W8 to their
priuklc, but
others. In
sm alluded
st over the
ssurance of
faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our
bodies washed with pure water." Here Jesus sprinkled the hearts
and consciences of his people with his own blood, not with water.
This is what no disciple could do to another. Jesus himself ad-
ministered this sprinkling. His own blood was thus applied to
cleanse the conscience. But baptism was another thing. It was
performed on the body by the disciples. Under the law, when the
priests and others were commanded to wash, the parts of the body
were distinctly specified. If they washed any other part of the body
it was a sin. Sometimes they were to wash the hands ; at other
times the feet, &c., &o. ; but they must positively wash the parts
mentioned. Under the gospel, however, no part of the body is
mentioned. Neither the hands, nor feet, nor head, nor face, arc to
be washed in baptism, but the bodies. AVater mixed with blood and
ashes was sometimes used under the law; but under the gospel
believers' bodies arc to be washed with water, unmixed by any of
these, namely, "with jt?«re water." That this was done by immer-
sion in water seems to be utterly beyond a doubt.
We will next refer to what Paul says of being buried with Christ
in baptism. Scores of the most eminent and learned Pcdobaptists
frankly acknowledge two things, which some in our day deny. 1st.
That this burial with Christ refers to water baptism. 2d. That the
ancient practice was immersion. Our time will only permit us to
hear the testimony of a few ; for did we adduce the testimony of all
we have on hand, our meeting would be prolonged beyond the hours
of midnight.
We will first hear the divines of the Lutheran Church :
Dr. J. B. KorPE says of Rom. vi., 4:
"This reasoning depends on a certain peculiar usage which men used to
practice, namely : the rite of immersion in the water of baptism."
John C. WalfiuSj a learned critic of Germany, says :
"Formerly immersion in water furnished a sign of burial in baptism."
Dr. Philip Sciiaff says :
"The New Testament comparisons of baptism with tlie passage tlirough
the lied Sea (1 Cor. x., 12), with the deluge (1 Pet., iii., 21), with a batli
(^ph. v. ; 26 Titus, iii., 5), with a burial and resurrection (Horn, vi., 4 ;
Col. ii., 12), finally it was the universal usage of the churches of antiquity
to baptize by immersion (as the oriental churches and also the Russian*
Greek do to this day), and wetting or sprinkling was only allowed incases
of urgent necessity, as with the sick and the dying."
Dr. DbWitt, speaking of baptism, says :
"And so was the rite according to Rom. vi., 4."
John D. Miciiaetjs says :
"Also the explanation which Paul gives of baptism (Rom. vi., .'3—4) sets
clearly before us inmiersion, and cannot be applied to sprinkling with
water,"
Dr. Tuoluck, Professor of Theology in the University of Halle,
says of buried by baptism (Rom. vi., 4) : —
"For this explanation of the figurative description of the baptismal rite,
it is necessary to call tiie attention to the well-known cireumstance that '
the early days of the church poisons when baptized were fii-st plun- l
below and then risen above tlie water — to which practice, according to ..
direction of the A])Ostle8, the early christians gave a symbolical import."
26
ADDRESS
John G. Rosemuller — This celebrated German scholar says on
IJom. vi., 4 : —
"To baptize is to iinmorse, to dl[) ; the body or part of the body which
is to be baptized going under tlie water.
"Immersion in the water of baptism, and the coming out of tiie same,
was a sign that the old life had boen abandoned, and that the new one in
the opposite direction established. Hence it was customary for those baji-
tized to be spoken of on the one liand as dead and buried ; on the other
as re.su scita ted again into a new life. The learned rightly admonish us
that on account of this mystical sense of baptism the rite of immeision
ought to liave been retaineil in the christian church."
Luther and many others of that church furnish similar testimony.
We will next hear the divines of the Episcopal Church on being
buried with Christ in baptism : . •
Archbishop Tillotson says :
"Anciently those who were baptized wore iinmcsrsed and buried in tlie
water to represent their d;jath to sin, and then did riso up out of the water
to signify their entrance upon a new life. And to these customs the
apostle alludes in Horn, vi,, 2-5." ;,
Dr. Samuel Clarke says :
"We are buried with Christ in baptism, etc." In the primitive times the
manner, of baptizing was by immewion or dipping the whole; body under
water. And this manner of doing it was a very significant emblem of the
dying and rising again referred to by St. Paul in the above-mentioned
similitude."
Dr. Daniel Whitby says, on Rom. vi., 4 :
"It being so expressly declared here, and in Col. ii, 12, that we arc
buried with Christ in baptism by being buried under water, and the ar-
gument to oblige us to conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being
taken hence, and this immersion being rehgiously observed by christians
for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church ; and the chnnge of it
to sprinkling, even without any allowance from the author of this institu-
tion ... it were to be wished that the custom miglit be again in general
o o o
use."
Dr. Thomas Sherlock says :
"Baptism or immersion in water, according to the ancient rite of admin-
istering it, is a figure of our burial and of our conformity to his death, and
so signifies our dying to sin and walking in newness of life." ; '
Wm. Burkitt, on Rom. vi., 4, says: >
"The apostle, no doubt, alludes to the ancient way and manner of bap-
tizing persons in those hot countries, which was by immersion, or puttin*
them under water for a time, and then raising them up again out of the
water, which rite had also a mystical signification representing the burial
of our old man, sin, in us, and our resurrection to newness of Iffe."
Dr. Wall, after quoting several passages as "undeniable proofs
that the baptized persons went ordinarly into the water," says :
"We should not know from these accounts whether the whole body was
put under water, head and all, were it not for two later proofs which seem
to me to put it out of question : one that St. Paul does twice in an allusive
wajr ot speaking call baptism a burial ; the other the customs of the
christians in the near succeeding times, which being more largely and par-
ticularly delivered in books, is known to have been generally or ordinarly
a total immersion. "
We will next hear Presbyterian divines on the subject of burial :
Bll
nJ
01
CI
hi
!i(
til
scholar says on
f the body which
out of the same,
it the new one in
iry for those bail-
ed ; on the otlmr
itly admonish us
ite of immersion
lilar testimony,
hurch on being
id buried in the
)ut of the water
ise customs the
mitive times the
loh; body under
; emblem of the
30ve-meutioned
ON BAPTISM.
27
ei
1 2, that we arc
and the ar-
to sin, being
by christians
le chnnpe of it
of this institu-
jain in general
rite of admin-
his death, and
anner of bap-
3n, or putting
lin out of the
ng the burial
life."
liable proofs
" says:
lole body waa
I which seem
n an allusive
stoma of the
?elyandpar-
or ordinarly
of burial :
Dr. GEORaE Hill says :
"The apostle Paul (Rom. vi , 4-G) illustrates this connexion by an allu-
sion drawn from th(f ancient method of adminisfcenuL; bapiisni. The im-
mersion in water of the bodies of those who were biptizjd is an emblem
of that death unto sin by which the conversion of ihristiaiia is generally
expressed; the rising out of the wafer, the breathing in tlieaira^ain after
having been for some time in another element, is an emblem of that new
life which christians by their profession arc bound, and by the power of
their religion are enabled to lead."
Dr. James McKnigiit, in his note on Rom. vi., 4, says : • ""
"Christ submitted to be baptiz -d, that is, to be buried under the water
by John, and to be raised out of itagnin, as aneniblem of his future re-
suri'ection. In like manner the baptisn. of believei's is emblemelical of
their own death, burial and resurrection."
Albhut Barnes, in his ?iotc on Rom. vi., 1, says :
"It is altogether probable that the apostle in this place had allusion to
the custom of bt?t)tizing by immereion."
Likewise Beza, Calvin, George Campbell, Chalmers, and a host of
the most eminent Presbytirians, bear united and uncciuivocal testi-
mony to the same truth.
We, too, have the loading men of the Congregational Church : —
Dr. Doddridge, in his comment on Eom. vi., 4, says :
"It seems but the part of candor to confess that here is all allusion to
•baptizing by immersion, as most used in those early times."
Moses Stewart, on Rom. vi., 4, says:
"Most commentators have maintained that the original word has here a
necessary reference to the mode of literal baptism, which they .say was by
immersion, and this they think affoi'ds ground for using the image em-
ployed by the Apostle, because a burial under water may bo compared to
a burial under the earth."
Let us next hear the leading men in the Wesleyan church: — •
John Wesley, in his note on Rom. vi., 4, says: , '
"Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." , .
Adam Clarke, on Rom. vi., 4, says:
''It is probable that the apostio here alludes to the mo le of administering
baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under water."
Joseph Benson, in his note on Rom. vi., 4, says : :... ., ,
"Therefore we are buried with Christ. Alluding to the ancient manner
of baptizing by Immersion."
To the above we might add the testimony of learned and eminent
men in different ages, and in different communions, since the
apostles' days.
John Frith, a learned divine, the companion of Tindal, and who
suffered martyrdom at Smithfield, July 4th, 1533, says :
"The signification of baptism is described of Paul in the 6th of Romans ;
that as we are plunged bodily in, the water, even so we are dead and
buried with Christ from sin ; and as we arc again lifled out of the water,
even so we are risen with Christ from our sins, that we might hereafter
walk in a new conversation of life. So that these two things — that is, to
be plunged in the water and lifted up again — do signify and represent the
whole pith and effect of baptism, that is, the mortification of our old Adam,
and the rising up of our new man."
28
ADDRESS
Wc will close our list of witnesses with the testimony of —
A liODV OF J/KARNBD Di VINES, in "Annotations on the Bible,"
who give the following on Rom. vi., 4, and Col. ii., 12 :
"In the phrase the AposLlo scemeth to allude to the ancient manner of
baptism which was to dip the parties baptized, and as it was to bury them
under watci'."
So much time has been occupied in the consideration of the first
question iu this address that very little is left for the second,
namely :
II. -WHO
ARE THE riiorER
OF BAPTISM?
SaiiJECTS
To say that a person who believes with all his heart that Jesus
Chist is the Sou of the living God, and that he died to save him from
his sins, and who sincerely repents of his sins and turns with a true
heart to the service and love of God, is a fit subject of baptism, is to
assert what no person, I presume, will deny. All that believe in
baptism at all believe this. But the point at issue at the present
day is this : "Are the infants of christian parents scriptural subjects
of baptism ?" This I deny. I most positively deny that the
scriptr.res say anything about the baptism of infants of any kind.
Now, any man may assert a negative, but no one is bound to prove a
negr.tive. The burthen of proof rests on him to take the affirma-
tive ; hence in this part of our subject 1 have an easy task. Until
one passage of the Bible is brought forward mentioning infant bap-
tism, those that deny that there is such a passage hold their ground
with the utmost safety. That passage has never yet appeared. But
as there are some who do not claim that what is called infant baptism
is commanded in so many words in the Bible, but still conclude that
it is an institution of God from many things in the scriptures that
seem to allude to it, it may be proper to glance at some of these. In
the meantime it is well to observe that Faith is very difi^erent from
Opinion. Faith in God is a belief in what God is, and in what he
has testified. If I really believe a thing to be commanded in the
scripture, I most certainly can state the words in which it is com-
manded in scriptural language. But if I think a certain thing may
be inferred from passages iu the Bible, though not commanded in so
many words, it is no longer a matter of faith, but a matter of opinion.
Now, there are some who have an opinion that infant baptism is
scriptural, although they cannot tell what part of the Bible com-
mands it. For myself I can see no grounds for either thinking or
believing it to be scriptural. But we will look at some of the reasons
that others give :
Ist. It is said that it came in the room of circumcision.
Now, it would be just as easy to prove that God positively com-
manded to baptize infants, as to prove that baptism came in the room
of circumcisiou ; for uo one ever saw a passage of scripture which
ny of —
on the Bible,"
2:
icleut mannorof
ran to buiy tlicm
ion of the first
)T tlic second,
UBJECTS
art that Jesus
save him from
ns with a true
baptism, is to
hat believe in
at the present
•tural subjects
eny that the
of any kind.
md to prove a
c the affirma-
task. Until
g infant bap-
their ground
leared. But
ifant baptism
ionclude that
iptures that
of these. In
fFcrent from
d in what he
anded in the
ih it is com-
n thing may
landed in so
r of opinion.
baptism is
Bible com-
thinking or
the reasons
tivoly com-
in the room
)ture which
ON BAPTISM.
29
said that baptism came in the room of oircumcision. Baptism did
not come in the room of any thing, much less in the room of circum-
cision. If any one can show that baptism came in the room of any
thing, we are ready to hear the proof.
Now, I can easily prove a negative, — ^viz : baptism did not come in
the room of circumcision, — by showing that both baptism and circum-
cision held their places at one and the same time. One could not
come into the room of another until the first had gone out. But I
am ready, when called upon, to show that circumcision had not gone
out, but was practiced by inspired men long after baptism was insti-
tuted and observed ; and thus I prove, to a demonstration, that bap-
tism did not take the place of circumcision.
Season 2d. Our Lord took little children in his arms, and said :
"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of
such is the kingdom of heaven."
This is takem to support infant baptism. Some think that these
little children were baptized — others think not. While others can
scarcely tell whether they were or not. I see nothing to lead us to
think they were baptized ; but there is abundant proof that they were
not. Whatever was done to these children Jesus did it himself.
The disciples did nothing but forbid those that brought them. Now,
Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. They did all the bap-
tizing. Hence these children were not baptized.
Reason 3rd. The promise is to you, and to your children, and to
all that are afar off, &o. Acts ii.
This passage is taken to suppose infant baptism. It is alleged
that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, offered salvation to those that
were pricked in their hearts, and asked "what shall we do?" if thoj'
would repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins. That it was the duty of these penitents to be
baptized, and as the promise was also to their children, they should
have their children baptized upon the parents' faith.
This, however, is a perversion of the passage. Peter was preach-
ing to the very persons who had fifty days before cried out against
Jesus, "Crucify him, crucify him. Let his blood rest on us and on
our children." They now saw themselves the betrayers and murder-
ers of the Lord of glory. They said, what shall we do. They were
told to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the re-
mission of sins, and they should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
"Per," adds the apostle, "the promise is to you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall
call." Here was the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost made to
these enquirers, but it was on condition that they repented, and were
baptized in the name of Jesus, &c. If these persons did Uiese
things, they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If their
children did the same, they, too, would receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit, and so would all that were afar off, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call. This gift was a conditional promise. If the
conditions were fulfilled, the parties mentioned would receive it.
Whatever party failed to fulfill the conditions, that party would lose
the promise, whether it were the party addressed, their children, or
those that were afar off. There is, therefore, nothing in the passage
to favor infr ^t baptism. Peter neither commanded it, nor did Luke
4
80
A.t)DRi:SS
record the baptism of one infant. He tolls who they were that were
baptized — "They that gladly received the word were baptized."
Ecason 4th. It is said that households were baptized. From this
it is inferred that infants were baptized, because many households
have infants in them. I see no reason to conclude that there wore in-
fants in these households, but the very best reasons for thinkini;!;
there were not. Many households arc composed of persons who are
capable of hearing and believing the gospel, and the history of these
households that were baptized, shows that they were capable of be-
lieving as well as of being baptized.
We have such notable Pcdobaptists, as Whitby, Limborch, Lawson,
Doddridge, Matthew Henry, Calvin, and Assembly of Divines, giving
very forcible reasons for the conclusion that these households were
composed of those who believed and repented before they were bap-
tized, and consequently that there were no infants in them.
Eeason 5 th. "Else were your children unclean, but now arc they
holy." 1 Cor., vii., 14.
This passage is brought up to favor infant baptism. It is argued
that the apostle decides that children are holy in a spiritual sense.
If they are thus holy, what need is there for them being baptized.
We never read of the baptism of a holy person but one. Those that
were baptized confessed their sins, not their holiness. Rut does the
passage mean spiritual holiness ? I think not. Carefully read the
context, and the point is settled. The question in hand was, whether
it was lawful for a believer to live with an unbelieving partner.
Paul says it was lawful. If the parties bad been married when they
were both unbelievers, and one of them had been converted to Christ,
it was not living in uncleanness for them to continue together, for
the unbelieving party was sanctified by, or to the believer. He
shows further that there was a cheering prospect of the believing
party saving the other, and that their p)'olongcd union was not un-
clean. "Else were your children unclean, but now arc they holy." The
general impression of those who treat this passage is <^hat the children
here mentioned are the children of these parties, that i , .'f the believing
husband and unbelieving wife ; but tliis is not the ease. Paul is
writing to the whole church at Corinth, giving them instruction
respecting some of their members, of whom he speaks in the third
person. He does not say, else were thcU' children unclean, &c.,but else
were your children unclean, thus showing that the unconverted child-
ren of all the members of the church held the same relationship to
their christian parents that the unbelieving party — husband or wife —
held to his or her christian partner. This shows that unconverted
children were not in the church, had not been baptized, nor had any
more christian privileges than an unconverted husband or wife.
Hence it is an argument to disprove infant baptism, or holiness, in a
spiritual point of view ? Would any man argue that because an un-
believing man was married to a christian wife, he was a christian ?
or that that accident made him holy in a moral and spiritual point of
view. But this position must be taken before we can maintain that
the children mentioned here arc holy in a moral and spiritual sense.
All that the apostle maintains in the case, is — That an unbeliev-
ing man can be the lawful husband of a christian wife, and that the
children of church members arc their lawful children.
cy were that were
•c baptized."
tized. IVom this
many households
liat there were in-
lons for thinking
persons who are
) liistory of these
;rc capable of be-
mborch, Lawson,
f Divines, giving
houscliolds were
3 tlicy were bap-
n them,
but now arc tlicy
Q. It is argued
b spiritual sense.
. being baptized,
ne. Those that
. But does the
Tcfully read the
nd was, whether
licving partner,
rried when they
'crted to Christ,
ue together, for
believer. He
f the believing
n was not un-
bcyholy." The
lat the children
.'f the believing
case. Paul is
)m. instruction
a in the third
in, &c., but else
inverted child-
relationship to
band or wife —
at unconverted
1, nor had any
band or wife.
' holiness, in a
)ccau3e an un-
s a christian ?
ritual point of
maintain that
piritual sense.
an unbeliev-
, and that the
ON liAl'TISM.
81
Ladies and Gentlemen, — You have respectfully libtened to the
foregoing reasons, arguments and conclusiona. If I am wrong, it is
a fearful consideration: — Going astray and leading otlicrs astray, and
exerting whatcv'er abilities I possess infighting against God. Again,
I say, if I am wrong, I will regard him as a benefactor who convinces
mc of the mistake. I beseech you to look at these matters, not for
the sake of dispute and victory, but remembering that very soon wo
bhall stand at the bar of God, there to answer for what wc believe
and practice.
If there is any argument that I have omitted, cither against im-
mersion, or in favor of infant baptism, I shall be most happy to hear
it from any person who will present it in a christian spirit. And
my hoarts's desire and prayer to God is, that you and I may be guided
by his Holy Spirit, and finally gain his blissful presence, through
the merits of our Lord and Saviour Tcsus Chriiit.
.....^
APPENDIX
v^
......m
A V r i: N 1) I X .
A.
In the preceding address we have a cloud of eminent Pcdobaptists
bearing witness to the three following truths: 1st, That the iinmor-
sion of believers in water is the action Jesus Christ commanded his
apostles to perform. 2d, That this was the action primitive Christ-
ians did perform. 3d, That Paul alluded to this baptism when he
spoke in the sixth of Komans, and the second of Colossians, of being
buried with Christ in baptism.
AVhile our opponents are unable to deny this, they attempt to
charge us with inconsistency for not following the example, as well
as receiving the testimony of these men. "These men practiced
sprinkling," say they, "and why not do the same since you so highly
value their testimony for immersion?"
This question might have some force if these men were our guides ;
but this is not the case. It is not on their testimony we found our
belief in immersion. Wc have this faith independent of their tes-
timony. It rests on the testimony of the word of God. We, and
a great part of the so-called christian world, believe in and practice
immersion. We hear the testimony of those who practice sprinkling.
Their leading men declare that immersion is what Christ commanded,
although this testimony condemns their practice and justifies ours.
It is often much easier to sai/ what is right than to do it. Now, if
these men did a thing for which they had not ^e authority of God,
hoping that God would accept of it, instead of the thing which he
had commanded, we are under no obligation to follow them, when we
can do the very thing which they themselves acknowledge to be the
command of God. An honest man may sometimes do wrong, but he
will tell the truth, although it may condemn his actions. Such a man
may regard an action that is not exactly right in a diflferent light
from what others regard it ; but when he gives testimony on a matter
of fact, he will speak the truth whatever may be the consequence
This, we believe, many eminent Pcdobaptists have done. They have
testified truly on the subject. Wo bting them forward, therefore,
believing that no sane man will come io the monstrous conclusion
86
APPENDIX.
that they have given their united testimony against the truth, when
it could answer no purpose but to condemn their own practice, and [
justify those who practiced differently.
B.
Perhaps there is no subject in the scriptures more generally mis-
understood than that of Positive Divine Institutions. In the Old
Testament the transgressors of positive law were, for the most part,
summarily punished ; and because men who now violate positive law
arc not visited with sudden judgment, it is deemed a trifling offence,
and finally considered no offence at all. Those who contend for a
strict observance of God's positive commands are represented as
placing their dependence for salvation on the materials used in these
observances, instead of placing it in Christ.
It is also contended that positive laws belong rather to the Jewish
than to the christian dispensation, as these laws are more congenial
to the Jewish dispensation. Those, therefore, who require strict
obedience to Christ, in certain actions, are accused of binding the
yoke of Moses on the necks of the disciples of Christ. Hence the
following questions are asked: "If you insist on men doing the very
action that primitive christians did in baptism, why not require them
to follow these christians in other respects ? "Why not take the
Lord's supper in an upper room, as did Jesus with his disciples ?
Why not recline while eating, as they did ?" &c. "The ancient
fathers testify that near the apostles' days, they gave the persons
who were baptized milk and honey on their coming out of the water.
Why do you not follow them in these and sundry particulars, as
strictly as in the act of immersion ?" In reply, I would submit the
following observations :
First. Positive institutions resemble the Jewish more than the
Christian dispensation. The former "stood in meats and drinks, and
divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them till the time
of reformation." Its worshippers walked more by sight than by
faith. Their altars, sacrifices and priests were seen by mortal eye.
Not so with the christian dispensation. Its worshippers walk by
faith, not by sight. The sacrifice and priest, &c., "place made with-
out hands," are all unseen, only by faith. Hence positive commands,
requiring tangible acts of obedience, bear a stronger resemblance to
the Jewish than to the Christian dispensation. But while this fact
is abundantly evident, and it is also true that positive institutions
were more numerous in the old dispensation, it is equally certain
that the ITew Testament had its positive institutious. There are at
least two — Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Second. There are some things in these commands that are posi-
tively binding on us, and some things that are not. For example :
We are not commanded to eat the Lord's Supper in an upper room,
although Jesus did ej with his disciples. As he has not specified
what kind of room we meet in for the purpose, wo are at liberty to
choose the most convenient one. We are not commanded to eat it in
a reclining position, although the primitive disciples did so. But we
are oommandcd to tnke bread and eat it after the example of Jesus,
st the truth, when
own practice, and
Al'PExVDIX.
37
re generally mis-
ions. In the Old
or the most part,
ilate positive law
a trifling ofience,
^0 contend for a
i represented as
als used in these
ler to the Jewish
! more congenial
) require strict
of binding the
ist Hence the |
I doing the very
ot require them
ij not take the
his disciples?
"The ancient
TO the persons
t of the water,
particulars, as
u!d submit the
more than the
id drinks, and
n till the time
iight than by
)y mortal eye.
>per8 walk by
ce made with-
ve commands,
Jsemblance to
hile this fact
c institutions
ually certain
There are at
hat are posi-
or example :
upper room,
not specified
at liberty to
to eat it in
30. But we
le of Jesus,
and in rciucmbrancc of lain. In like manner, wc are to dri7ik of the
cup after his example, and thus "^liow his death until he come. We
do insist on eati/if/ bread, because Jesus has positively commanded it.
He did not command merely the use of bread, but this use — to eat it
in remembrance of him. We cannot treat a mere accident as a posi-
tivi command, but as a matter of expediency.
Third. In regard to giving persons milk and honey after baptism :
Inasmuch as Jesus did not command this, and the scriptures say
nothing about it, wc caiiiaiford to let it pass for what it is worth. It
is a mere matter of expediency. The same is true of much that is
said about baptizing in salt water and fi'csh, kc, &c. All these
things arc mere accidents to be treated as matters of convcniency.
There is nothing binding in them, provided a suitable subject is
buried in water.
But it is vastly different when we depart from the action which
Jesus has positively commanded, and substitute another which he has
not commanded. Jesus did Uvjt command his disciples to use water
in his name, but to perforni a certain action in water, or make a
positively prescribed use of voter, in his name. Now, if the positive
action which he commanded was to sprinkle icater upon a person,
then the man who dips another in water has not obeyed Jesus Christ,
nor has the one so dipped obeyed him. So if the action Jesus has
commanded is to dip a person in water, he who has sprinkled water
upon a person has not obeyed him, nor has he on whom the water
was sprinkled.
a
The baptism of the Israelites in the cloud and in the sea. — This is
brought by objectors as an argument against immersion. "How
could they be immersed on dry land," they ask. All that is neces-
sary to understand this is a careful reading of the history of the
baptism of the Israelites, as recorded by Moses, and referred to by
Paul in the tenth of 1st Corinthians — "Moreover, brethren, I would
not that yc should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under
the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto
Moses in the cloud and in the sea." They were not baptized by the
cloud alone, or by the sea alone, but the sea made a wall on each side
of them, and the cloud passed over them, and thus by the two they
were completely covered in, or buried. When they came up out of
the sea, they had passed through that baptism. They were not bap-
tized into Christ, but into Moses, that is, they were completely en-
rolled under his leadership. They had such a glorious manifesta-
tion of God's power in delivering them from their Egyptian enemies,
and such positive proof that Moses was the man whom he had chosen
for the purpose, that they were solemnly bound to regard him as the
ambassador of God, and their leader and deliverer. The sea that
proved a temporal salvation to them dcstrovcd their qncmies, and
they saw them no more. Only their dead bodies were seen floating
on the shore. God, by this action, solemnly bound them to himself,
and to his servant, and they were thus ligurativcly b tized into
Moses.
5
38
Al'I'ENDIX.
Somo, to make it appear that sprinkling and baptism arc the same,
allege that spray from the sea sprinkled the Israelites, and that they
were thus baptized. But to affirm this is to manufacture scripture,
as the Bible says nothing about spray coming from the sea, but says
the very reverse — "And the children of Israel went into the midst of
the sea upon the dry ground, and the waters were a wall unto them
on their right hand and on their left." — Ex. xiv., 22. Had spray
from the sea been sprinkled on them, the land on which they passed
would not be dry. Had this been the case, and, if baptism and
sprinkling were the same, it would be the sjyray and not the Israelites
that was baptized ; for.say they, "it was the spray that was sprinkled."
It is also asserted that the cloud poured out water upon them, and
that they were thus baptized in the cloud and in the sea. The 77th
Psalm is quoted — where David says : "The clouds poured out water" —
to sustain this view of the subject. But it is quite evident that the
clouds mentioned in this F&alm, and the cloud which passed over the
Israelites, are quite different. David does not refer in this passage
to the baptism of the Israelites in the Bed Sea. Their cloud was a
dry cloud — a pillar of cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night.
If the cloud had poured water upon them, it would have been a very
different thing from their being baptized in the cloud and in the sea.
They went over on dry gi-ound, showing plainly that there was neither
water poured from the cloud, nor spray sprinkled from the sea.
B.
In Mark i., 8, John says: "I, indeed, have baptized yon with
water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spii-it." And ir
Acts i., 5, Jesus, when commanding his apostles to wait at Jerusalem
for the promise of the Father, says: "For John truly baptized with
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days
hence." These passages are very justly understood to refer to the
day of Penttcost, when the Apostles were "endued with power from
on high," or "filled with the Holy Ghost."
The opponents of immersion take these words of John, "he shall
baptize you," and of Jesus, " ye shall be baptized," as literal, and
giving the exact meaning of Christian Baptism. They argue, from
the passage, that baptism is poiiring, and not immersion, because the
Holy Spirit was poured and not immersed, on the day of Pentecost.
Spiritual baptism was pouring, and not immersion, therefore water
baptism should be pouring, and not immersion. This, at first sight,
seems a powerful argument for the identity of pouring and baptism,
but when the passages are duly examined that identity is com-
pletely destroyed.
Granting that John and the Saviour spoke literally, when they pre-
dicted an important event of the day of Pentecost — "He shall baptize
you," and "Ye shall be baptized;" and, also, that Joel spoke
literally, when he foretold an event of the same day — "I will pour
out of my Spirit," &o., <^at is, that baptized and pouring om< was
each a plain literal term -to denote an action of the day of Pentecost,
will it follow that these terms both meant the same thing, and stood
fov the same action ? By no means. Poured out was an action
-■fr-.-^-i ' r"( "(p^frTy'^"w(j«rrr.
APPENDIX.
39
the same,
1 that they
scripture,
i, but says
le midst of
uuto them
Had spray
bey passed
ptism and
) Israelites
prinklcd."
them, and
The 77th
t\Tater" —
at that the
;d over the
lis passage
loud was a
! by night,
iccn a very
in the sea.
?as neither
3 sea.
you with
And ir
Jerusalem
tizcd with
nany days
3fer to the
ower from
he shall
teral, and
gue, from
)cause the
Pentecost,
'ore water
rst sight,
baptism,
' is com-
they prc-
1 baptize
el spoke
will pour
1 out was
entecost,
ind stood
m action
affirmed of the Holy Spirit, but it was not affirmed of the apostles.
Baptized was au action affirmed of the apostles, but not affirmed of
the Holy Ghost The apostles were baptized — the Holy Spirit was
not But tho Holy Spirit was poured out, while the Apostles were
not poured out Hence pouring out and baptiaing are not the same.
Thus, while granting to our opponents that Joel, John and the
Saviour used literal language, when they foretold the pouring out of
the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the apostles with the Holy
Spirit, it is distinctly seen that they are different actions, affirmed
of different persons. What then becomes of their identity ?
But we cannot grant that John and the Saviour used literal terms,
when they foretold the baptism of the apostles. Figurative language
is peculiar to the prophets. They sometimes used literal language,
but this is the exception and not the rule. Figurative language is
the language of prophecy. But literal language is the language of
narrative or history. Historians sometimes use figurative language,
but this is the exception and not the rule. Plain literal language is
the language of narrative. If the historian used figurative language,
without apprizing us of tlic fact, he would defeat his object in writing,
which is to give the uninformed a true account of past events.
When John told the people that he had baptized them, with or in
water, he referred them to the greater work of Jesus, and called that
a baptism with or in the Holy Spirit When Jesus mentioned
John's baptism, he promised them the gift of the Spirit, and called
that gift baptism. But that gift was never called baptism, only
when spoken of in connexion with John's baptism. Jesus had often
promised his disciples that gift, but never called it baptism, only oa
one occasion. When Luke records the fulfilment of John's prophecy,
he does not use the word baptize. He tells us that the apostles were
all filled with the Holy Ghost But no one, I presume, will contend
tYi^i filled is the proper and literal meaning of baptized. Neither
Luke nor any inspired historian tells us that the apostles were bap-
tized with the Holy Spirit and yet John and the Saviour said they
would be baptized. How arc wo to reconcile the words of John and
Jesus, when they declared that the disciples would be baptized with
the Holy Spirit, with the words of Luke, who faithfully recorded
their fulfilment, without mentioning baptism or its equivalent?
Simply, by remembering that John and the Saviour prophesied and
w&Qdi figurative language, while Luke wrote narrative and used literal
language. What they figuratively described as baptism, he explain-
ed to be filled with the Holy Spirit
We can never prove a positive action from figurative language.
For example : When Jesus speaks, in the 7th of John, of eating his
flesh and drinkiiig his blood, we cannot prove a positive action from
the word eating, because it is there used figuratively. The same is
true of drinking. Both eat and drink are positive actions, when used
literally, but when used figuratively, we cannot decide what they
mean positively, without some further explanation. The same is
true of the word walk. When used literally, it means positive
action, but no one would contend that Paul meant some positive
action, when he exhorted christians to walk worthy of the vocatiou
wherewith they were called, for this reason that he used walk
figuratively.
m-
APPENDIX.
So I maintain that we cannot ascertain the meaning of baptize by
its figurative use. Literally it means positive action, but as it was
used figuratively respecting the apostles on the day of Pentecost, we
cannot prove its meaning from its fulfillment on that occasion.
"When an inspired historian tells us, in i)lain language, that baptism
was performed on a certain occasion, and we find out what was done,
we know what the action is.
There are difi'erent baptisms mentioned in the New Testament:
such as the baptism of the Spirit, the baptism of suffering, kc, &c.
But the inspired historians, in recording events, call nothing but the
baptism of water by that name. Paul could say, in his day, there
is *'one baptism." To find out what that one baptism is, we have
only to ascertain what the historians of the New Testament call
baptism. They call water baptism, and nothing else baptism, there-
fore that is the one baptism.
"When the advocates of infant baptism are pressed for a scriptural
command for it, and can produce none, they resort to the best cir-
cumstantial evidence within their reach. God has commanded infant
circumcision, and they infer that baptism came in the room of cir-
cumcision, and argue that children should now be baptized, because
God had commanded infants to be circumcised. One passage is
quoted to make it appear that baptism is "the circumcision of
Christ," viz: Col. ii., 11 — 12. Now, it is ti-ue that in that passage
both baptism and the circumcision of Christ arc mentioned, but it is
not true that they are mentioned as synonymous. It is there stated
that the circumcision of Christ is made without hands. But baptism
is not made without hands, therefore they are not the same. We
will quote the pessage — "In whom also ye are circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, inputting 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 we
see that the circumcision of Christ is a work on the human heart
made without hands by the invisible energy of the Holy Spirit, by
which the love of sin is destroyed, the old man with his affections
and lust crucified and put off, and the individual prepared to be
buried with Christ in baptism, and to rise with him through the
faith of the operation of God, who raised Christ from the dead.
Nothing is plainer than that baptism is not the circumcision'of Christ.
I have offered to show that both baptism and circumcision were
practiced by inspired men at the same time — that they were both in
together, and the consequent impossibility of one coming in the room
of the other.
First. In Acts xv., 1 — 2, is the following: — "And certain men
which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said — Except
ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissention and
disputation with them, thoy determined that Paul and Barnabas, and
certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and
APPENDIX.
•11
elders about this question." Verso G : — "And the apostles and
elders came together to consider this matter."
Unless the believing Jews continued to circumcise their chihiren,
there could be no grounds for imposing it upon believing Gentiles.
We have not the least hint in scripture of the discontinuance of cir-
cumcision among believing Jews, but in this case the strongest
circumstantial evidence that they still observed it. The apostles and
elders did not meet to consider whether believing Jews should con-
tinue to circumcise their children. So far as we are informed, this
point was never in dispute. Their object was to consider the pro-
priety of believing Gentiles circumcising their children. If the
Jews did not circumcise their children, no reason could arise for
these men to teach the Gentiles that they must do it, nor for Paul
and Barnabas to go up to the apostles and elders about it, nor for
them to meet to consider the matter. We thus judge that it was
continued. ^
Second. When Paul came up to Jerusalem, with the offerings of
the Gentiles, (Acts xxi..) the brethren received him gladly. After
hearing of his great success in preaching among the Gentiles, they
informed him of certain slanders that were in circulation, greatly to
his injury. One of these was, that he taught the Jews that were
among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that ihcy ought not to
circumcise their children, iS:c., Sec. If circumcision had been abolished
at the death of Christ, as it is contended. Paul would be solemnly
bound to teach believing Jews, not to ciicumeise their children. This
would be an essential part of his ministry. Instead of this, however,
both Paul and the apostles at Jerusalem treated this as a slander.
We know that Paul taught no such thing, but that he taught the
opposite dsctrine, as we find in 1st Cor., vii., IS — "Is any man called
being circumcised ? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called
in uncircumcision ? let him not be circumcised," &c." Here Paul
instead of teaching believing Jews to discontinue circumcision,
taught them not to become uneircumeised, or give it up.
I'hird. That circumcision was continued in the Apostles' day is
further evident from the fact that Paul circumcised a christian who
was afterwards an eminent minister of the gospel. Wc are told in
Acts xvi., that Paul circumcised Timothcus who was a son of a cer-
tain woman who was a Jewess, and believed ; but his father was a Greek.
Would an inspired apostle so dishonor the religion of the Lord and
Saviour as to perform a ceremony that had been abolished to give
place to christian baptism, and that, too, on a christian who had
doubtless been already baptized ? We think not. The conclusion
that thin inconsistent conduct was practiced by an inspired apostle,
and recorded by an inspired historian without a hint of disapproval,
seems too glaring to be entertained for a moment.
Circumcisior. was not abolished in the Apostles' day. It held the
place then which it hud ever held. And it was perfectly right for
Paul to circumcise the son of a Jewess, and to tell believing Jews
to abide in circumcision after they were called into the liberty of
Christ. There is, therefore, the strongest evidence that circumcision
was not done away, but continued with the apostles, long after bap-
tism was instituted and practiced by them. Hence it is certain that
baptism did not come in its room.
42
APPENDIX.
Here como up some important questions, viz : Did not Jcsua
abolish in bis flcsli the law of comraandmcnts contained in ordinances,
or in other words the religious ceremonies of the Jews ? He did.
How then can it be said that he did not abolish circumcision ?
Circumcision is not a religious ceremony of the Jews. It is a na-
tional institution separating the family of Abraham from the rest of
mankind. A careful and a candid examination of its treatment in
the scriptures will make this abundani.^,- evident. The death of
Jesus did not aboliiih the national institutions of the Jews. Paul
circumcised one christian, and tells other christians that if they were
circumcised Christ would profit them nothing. We may well wonder
why he would do to one christian what ho declares would eternally
ruin other christians. The mystery is explained when we romember
that circumcision belonged to Abraham's family as a national mark,
Timothy was a son of Abraham, through his mother, and it was
lawful for him to receive it as a national mark. The Galatian
christians were not of the family of Abraham, and could not receive
circumcision as a family mark. If they received it at all, it must be
on religious grounds, and, in sn doing, they would relinquish the re-
ligion of Christ and ruin themselves. It was lawful for Abraham's
family, but not for others, to be circumcised. ■ • ^
Again, in 1st Cor., vii., 10, after Paul had directed every man tore-
main in the same state he was in when he embraced Christianity, he
adds: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcisiou is nothing but
the keeping of the commandments of God." Now, I submit that
what is here affirmed of circumcision cannot be affirmed of any re-
ligious institution, whether it belong to a true, a typical, or a false
religion. For example : Any institution or rite in the Jewish reli-
gion that is abolished is something to be abandoned. Any thing in
that religion that is to be perpetuated is something to be retained.
Every rite or command in the pagan religion that is wrong is some-
thing to be given up. Every institution or rite in the christian re-
ligion is something to be firmly held in its proper place. But here
Paul declares that circumcision, so far as religion is concerned, is
nothing, and also that its opposite is nothing. That circumcision
and uncircumcisiou are matters of no account whatever. See also
Gal v., 6: — "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth
anything, nor uncircumcisiou, but faith which worketh by love."
Also, chap, vi., 15 : — "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcisiou but a new creature." What
is here predicted of circumcision cannot be predicted of any religious
institution, therefore circumcision is not a religious institution.
But is this predicate true of a national institution ? It is. So
far as religion is concerned one national institution or its opposite is
a matter of no consequence. For example : Being an Englishman
or an American is of no account in Christianity. Being a British
subject is nothing, and being an American citizen is nothing, but
keeping the commandments of God. For in Christ Jesus neither
being a British subject availeth anything, nor an American citizen,
but a new creature. Thus Paul would say to such as thought that a
national peculiarity would interfere with their religion or their ac-
ceptance with God, "Is any called to God under the British govern-
ment let him not (on that account) relinquish that government
So
is
lan
bish
Ibut
Iher
lext,
Ua
ax!-
Irn-
AI'I'ENDIX.
43
ecp that nation separate from
la any called uudcr the American government let him not (on that
account) give up that government. British is notliing. and American
is nothing," &c.. «&c. In the matter of religion and justification
before God there is neither Jew nor G-reck, bond nor free, British or
American, but all are one in Christ Jesus.
Believing Jews to this day circumcise their male children. In so
doing they break no command of (lOil, but in this they obey the
apostles' injunction — "Is any man called in circumcision let him not
become uncircumcised." This national mark is still perpetuated,
and the nation still kept separate from other nations. God's in-
tentions and promises are still carried out : "I will make a full end
of all the nations whither 1 have driven thee, but I will not make a
full end of thee." — Jer. xlvi., 2M. J\Ioscs gave the Jews their re-
ligious institutions, but this national institution was given hundreds
of years before the birth of Moses, even at the commencement of the
nation, and so long as God intends to keep that
other nations, it will be perpetuated.
But as objections are offered to this view of the subject, it is right
to hear them.
Objection 1st. Circumcision is called a seal of the righteousness
which Abraham had before he was circumcised. From this it is
argued that it was intended to be a seal to others that they were
righteous, or a sign of an inward and spiritual grace. Hence it is
held to be a religious institution.
Now, it is granted that circumcision was to Abraham a seal of his
previous righteousness, but it is denied that it was intended to be the
same to others. All male children born in Abraham's house — his
own children and the children of his servants — were to be circum-
cised at eight days old. The same was true of those bought with his
money. Every male child was to be circumcised at eight days old.
Those who will argue that circumcision was intended to be a seal to
all those of the righteousness which they had before they were circum-
cised, will please excuse us if wc decline entering into a controversy
on the subject. Abraham "received the sign of circumcision as a
seal of the rightousness of the faith which he had yet being uncir-
cumcised." — liom. iv., 11. His offspring and slaves did not re-
ceive the sign of circumcision as Abraham did, therefore this ob-
jection to its being a national institution vanishes.
Objection 2d. Paul says, in Gal. v., 3: — "I testify to every man
that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law." From
this it is argued that circumcision is a religious rite, because it binds
every one that receives it to keep the ceremonies of the Jewish law.
Now, in ascertaining the apostles' meaning in this passage, wo
must understand his terms. He uses the term law in different
senses in these letters. It sometimes stands for the historical books
of the Old Testament, and sometimes for the ceremonial law of the
Jews. Again, it represents that universal law that binds intelligent
creatures to love God with all the heart, and mind and soul, and
their neighbor as themselves. Which of these laws does Paul mean
when he testifies that the circumcised man is a debtor to do it ? Does
he mean the ceremonial law of the Jews ? I cannot admit it, for the
following reasons : Paul writes to believing Gentiles, and assures
them that they cannot be circumcised without rejecting Christ.
^TviT(iP'
44
AriM'NDIX.
Rejecting Christ does not bind any man to keep the Jewish cere-
monies. It is not true that the man wlio turns away from Jesus is
bound to offer the blood of bull-^ and of goats, i^c. ; but it is true that
for such there rcmaincth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fear-
ful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall de-
vour the adversary. — Hcb. x., LM — 27. Again, when Paul wrote
these things the ceremonial law of the Jews was abolished, and no
man under any circumstances could be a debtor to keep it.
I have no doubt that Paul here refers to that law which binds all
men to love God supremely, and their neighbor as themselves.
These two commandments, like pillars of eternal justice, are repre-
sented by our Saviour as holding up all the law and the prophets.
This law has been broken by all men — Jew and Gentile — and all by
nature and practice are under its curse. Paul could say of himself,
and all christians, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law having become a curse for us, for it is written, cursed is every
one that hangeth on a tree." — Gal. iii., i;!.
Here were Gentiles whom Christ had freed from the curse of the
law. While they trusted in him, and obeyed his voice, the law would
not condemn them. They stood justified by his grace. But if they
renounced Jesus, they would fall from his grace, and he would profit
them nothing. They would have to assume all the responsibilities
of that violated law. Paul assured these Galatians that this would,
be their history if they were circumcised. They would fall from
grace and be debtors to obey all the law of God, or feel its dreadful
curse. Circumcision was a national rite belonging to the family of
Abraham, and if Gentiles who were not of his family used it re-
ligiously, as a ground of acceptance with God, they would renounce
Christ and be debtors to that law that condemns all transgressors.
F.
A plea for infant baptism is founded on the words of the apostle
Peter, Acts ii., ;J9 : — "The promise is to you and to your children,"
&c. This promise is said to be the promise which God made to
Abraham — "To be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee." —
Gen. xvii., 7. It is alleged that Peter told these convicted and en-
quiring Jews to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for remission of sin, and they would obtain pardon, for God had pro-
mised to bo a God to Abraham and to his seed after him, and inas-
much as they were the seed of Abraham, they would now obtain
pardon in the name of Jesus if they thus obeyed his voice. Their
little children, too, were the seed of Abraham, and shared in the
same promise. And although they were too young to repent or
believe they should be taken in with their parents by baptism, as
Abraham's children were circumcised with himself, although they
might be too young to believe. This sophism seems the more plausi-
ble when it is understood that circumcision was now done away, and
that baptism had taken its place.
It has been fully proved that circumcision was not done away,
and that baptism did not take its place, but that it still held its
own place. So this part of the argument is demolished.
AIM'ENDIX.
45
Agaiu. Abraham's uamc iij not mentioned, either in the passage or
in the whole chapter. David's name occurs there, and Joel's name
is used. What they both did and said are mentioned. But nothing
is said of Abraham in any way ; therefore we deny that "the
promise" was the promise made to Abraham. There are many pro-
mises made to good men throughout tlie liiblo. What liberty have
we to pass all others and arbitrarily select Abrahn;u. aiid assert that
"the promise" is the promise made to him? Will not every candid
man see at a glance, that if we assume the liberty to select men and
promises when it suits our purpose, we can thereby manufacture
scripture, and can easily prove any assertion ever made by saint or
sinner?
But there is not the least difficulty in ascertaining what the pro-
mise was which Peter declared was to these Jews and their children.
The antecedent to that promise occurs in the passage so fully and so
plainly, that it seems hext to impossible to be mistaken in it. These
persons had cried out against Jesus, "Let his blood be on us and on
our children." Now, they were convinced of their error. They
saw themselves condemned and guilty of his death. They believed
that he whom they had crucified was the Son of God. What would
now become of them and their children ? Peter assured them of a
full and free pardon in the name of Jesus, and required them only
to repent and come to that name in the way he had himself ap-
pointed. He said 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. Thus, instead of Peter threatening
them with punishment for their crimes, he promised them.in the name
of Jesus, the Gift of tfie Holy Spirit. This was the promise made to
those Jews, which they would receive on the specified conditions.
Their children had the same promise. On the same conditions. Every
one that was afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call,
have the same promise made on the same conditions.
The promise was made to three classes : 1st, Those whom the
apostle addressed. Their hearts were pierced by the Spirit of God,
through a belief of the gospel. If they then repented and were
baptized in the name of Jesus, &c., they would receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit 2d, Their children. If they were in the same
state of mind, that is, if their hearts were thus pierced, and they re-
pented and were baptized in the name of Jesus, &c., they would re-
ceive the same gift. 3d, If all that were afar off were in the same
state, viz : called by the Lord, through his gospel, pierced in their
hearts, repented and were baptized in the name of Jesus, &c., they
would receive the same blessed gift.
I ask the reader, who is anxious to know the truth, to examine the
passage and say if this is not a fair and faithful exhibition of it. No
baptism is mentioned or alluded to in any way without a previous
repentance, and.consequently, there is in it no baptism of unconscious
infants.
As regards the seed of Abraham : — Those Jews that crucified the
Lord were Abraham's seed, according to the flesh. Their children,
also, were the seed of Abraham. But Gentiles are not the seed of
Abraham in the same way, as they have not the flesh of Abraham.
Gentiles can be related to him only by having the faith and works of
6
46
Al'l'KNIMX.
AbraliaiT). Believing Gentiles aro roiatcil to liiia liy laith. lint tlio
infant oflFspving ot" Gentilos nrc not roliitod to Aliraliani. and novor
can until tlicy have the fnitli nnd do tlio works of Al»raliani. They
are related to their parents liy flesh. TlieKe ]iarents may be related
to Abraham by faitii, but this can never cstaltlisli a relationship
between the children and A1>rahain. This is so perfectly obvious to
every intelligent mind, that it socms unneeeHsary to dwell upon it.
a.
Because wc deny that infants arc scriptural subjects of baptism,
we are charged with a want of aflection for the little ones. It is in
timated, if not broadly asserted, that we do not believe that children
dying in infancy will be saved. This charge is so utterly without
foundation, that it seems superfluous to expose it as a slander.
Nevertheless, since such a charge is circulated about us, and perhaps
believed by some honest persons to be true, justice to them, as well as
to ourselves, calls for a public refutation. It is not the want
of friendship for children that leads us to rojuuliate infant baptism,
or any other error. Neither is it because wc believe that children
dying in infancy are lost. We would shun the sight of the loath-
some monster that could cherish such a belief. We take a rejoicing
interest in everything ve tind in the word of God that leads ns to
the opposite conclusion. We see nothing in the scripture to teach or
hint that dying infants will be lost, but quite enough to satisfy us
that they will be saved. One of the characteristics that endears the
Kedecraer to our hearts is his treatment of children while he was
manifest in the flesh.
But how can the denial of infant baptism imply or lead to tho be-
lief of infant damnation ? Will baptizing a child save it from
everlasting punishment? Many who practice infant sprinkling will
not acknowledge that it saves the child. Yet, because wc deny that
cither infant spriidvling or infant immersion is scriptural, they charge
us with denying the salvation of dying infants ! ! We ask those
who believe that baptism secures the salvation of dying infants calmly
to reflect on their belief. Here is an infant, its salvation does not
depend on anything it does itself, nor on the death of Jesus, but upon
the caprice of another. Although Jesus died to save that child, yet
because its parents or guardians, through accident, neglect or preju-
dice, ommitted its baptism, it will be eternally punished. Tho child
had no part in the matter himself, but because another did not per-
form what God has never commanded any one to perform, he must be
punished forever ! ! Let them not refuse to look at the matter. If
God has commanded infant baptism let that command be read aloud
to the people. But no one has ever read such a command in all the
revelation of God.
We are also charged with refusing children church privileges.
But we pause, and ask what church privilege do we deny to infants ?
Is sprinkling water upon a child, and using the J^ord's name without
his authority, a church privilege V We cannot regard it as a churcb
privilege, or any other privilege. Wc see it to be a deception, leading
the child, when he comes to years, to believe that he has been baptized.
.,
APPENDIX.
47
and tlms positively to refuse to submit to Christ in liis appointed
institution. But it is no privilege. The Chuch in an institution for
christians to meet together, to keep up their worship of (Jod — to hear
the word of God, pray to him, to praise him. To show the Lord's
death till he come, and to build each other up in their most holy faith.
Do infants participate in all or any of these things ? If not, what
church privilege is denied them ?
There is not one privilege enjoyed by the children of our opponents
that is denied to ours. Arc their unconverted children in any better
state than our unconverted children ? He must be far gone in
bigotry that will so affirm. Wc deny our children no religious
privilege whatever. We are as solemnly bound by our love to them,
our interest in their eternal happiness, and our allegiance to our God
and King.to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,
as any can be. We are bound to do anything and everything we can
for our children thdt is lawful, to lead them to the Saviour, that they
may love and obey him ; but wc dare not stand up before heaven and
earth, and declare tha* ^e do a certain thing in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which neither the Father, nor
the Son, nor the Holy Spirit ever told any one to do. We would
think it awful to do a public action in tho name of an earthly gov-
ernment without one word of authority from that government But
would consider it infinitely more awful to baptize an infant in the
name of the Godhead, without one word of divine authority. Will
men consider these things ?
We arc sometimes accused of holding narrow and sectarian views
on the subject of baptism. This, however, is not the case. Our belief
on the subject is not narrow or sectarian. We hold Common ground.
For example: On the Action of baptism wc hold Common ground.
We believe that Immersion is proper baptism. This has been be-
lieved from the beginning, and by the leading men of all denomin-
ations. It has never been a matter in disput^e by any man, or body
of men, who are worthy of notice. No church will require a man
who has been immersed to be sprinkled because they think immer-
sion wrong. That immersion is baptism wc firmly believe. Not
only so, we maintain that this is a general and not a sectarian belief.
We do not believe that SprinUing is baptism. Others do. But
is it a general belief, or a Common ground ? No. Ever since its in-
troduction it has been in dispute. Some believe that it is baptism —
others believe that it will do in place of baptism. Others again
deny it altogether. It has always been in dispute since its intro-
duction, and must ever remain in dispute till it is abandoned. It
never was, it is not now — ^it never can become common ground. It
is too sandy. We hold the common ground of immersion, and prac-
tice it. We do not hold nor practice the sectarian ground of
sprinkling.
Again, on the proper Subjects of baptism we bold common ground.
We believe that a true penitent believer is a proper subject of bap-
tism. Who denies this ? No one who believes in baptism at all. It
w« ,r i|p^^pi.N
4H Ai'ri:NM)ix.
never was denied, but Iicldby all dcnoniinatiuuH. We firmly believe
this, and also practice it. We maintain that it in rommon, and not
disputed nor sectarian, ground.
Some hold that Infants arc proper subjects of baptism. This wc
do not believe. Is this common ground ? No. It is disputed ground.
Infant baptism has been in dispute ever since its introduction.
Some contend for baptizing the children of christian parents — others
for baptizing all kinds of children ; others deny it altogether. It is
now, has ever been, and necessarily must ever remain, a subject of
dispute until it is abandoned. Thinking men will not agree to be
bound by what they cannot find in the Bible.
Thus, on the proper Subjects of baptism, we hold common ground,
and reject sectarian and disputed ground.
It is evident that there is Common grounds on the subject of bap-
tism, as well as on all other matters connected with the Christian
Religion. Jesus most earnestly prayed for the union of his dis-
ciples, and every intelligent child of God would greatly rejoice to
sec this union prevail. That there is common ground on which the
people of God can be united without sacrificing any spiritual
blessing, or giving up any truth in Christianity, I have no doubt. I
hope the day is not far distant when these things will be understood
and appreciated.
^l>^i'f■^v^