A DEFENCE OF THE PEDOBAPTISTS
BEING
THE SUBSTANCE OF A SERMON,
PREACHED IN CLINTON, GEORGIA,
ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
BV813
.1375
BY THE REV. GEORGE BRIGHT,
OF THE GEORGIA CONFERENCE.
CHARLESTON, S. C.
PRINTED BY B. JENKINS, 100 HAYNE-STREET.
1840.
Library of
Emory University
A DEFENCE OF THE PEDOBAPTISTS:
BEING
THE SUBSTANCE OF A SERMON,
PREACHED IN CLINTON, GEORGIA,
ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
BY THE REV. GEORGE BRIGHT,
OF THE GEORGIA CONFERENCE.
CHARLESTON, S. C.
PRINTED B. JENKINS, 100 HAYNR-STREET.
1846.
ADDRESS TO THE READER.
No personal allusions whatever will be found in the following-
discourse. The arguments here presented are such as bear upott
the questions at issue between the Baptist and Pedobaptist branches
of the christian church, without any reference whatever to the
local circumstances which gave rise to the discussion, of which
the following discourse was a part.
I have endeavoured to meet the arguments of my Baptist bre¬
thren with fairness and honesty ; but, at the same time, with
great plainness of speech. I have endeavoured to weigh then®
by the word of truth, to examine them by the teachings of the
Book divine, from which there can be no appeal.
I have honestly inquired and sought for truth. I have made
it my chief concern to know the truth. I have sought for it as
for hid treasures. I have read for it. I have searched the bible,
and the writings of men. I have weighed the arguments for and
against. I have searched diligently and prayerfully. And the
result of my inquiries is, an unshaken confidence in the validity
of my own baptism and that of my children. The arguments I
have embodied in this little volume. Examine it. Read, mark
learn, and inwardly digest it. Now, I entreat you, not to read
a page or two, and then throw it down in anger, but read it,—
read it all. If it does not meet your views, perhaps yont are
wrong,—perhaps you may be convinced of your wrong. Be not,
then, of that class of learners who are never able to come to a
6
church. The first, is that which our baptist friends give to the
text. It is thus, by paraphrasing the text. 1st. Go teach, (in¬
struct) all nations by teaching them., &c. 2d. Then baptize them,
&c. It is contended, by the defenders of this explanation of our
text, that none are lawful subjects of Christian baptism, but such
as are capable of being fully instructed in the commandments
of the Saviour; and therefore, infants are not proper subjects of
baptism.
This theory is not satisfactory. It savours strongly of a bias
towards those doctrines of exclusiveness that have ever charac¬
terised a respectable branch of the christian church. I would
not contend for the exact order of every text. But at the same
time, I would be less willing to violate the plain order of a text
of such moment as this, when the theory to be sustained, by such
violation, is but uncertain at best.
The explanation given to the text by the Pedobaptist churches,
including the Methodists, Presbyterians, &c., and that which seems
best to agree with the order of the text, is as follows. 1st. " Go
teach (disciple) all nations by baptizing, &c., thus bringing them
into the school of Christ. 2d. Teach them to observe, &c.
The difference between these explanations is apparent. 1st, with
regard to the import of the first word "teach." The word MaOsrsutfars
(matheteusate,) we are told means to disciple, to make disciples.
This is something more than merely to instruct. It is to bring
them as pupils, into the school of Christ, the proper place to receive
the instruction contemplated. Second, with regard to the manner
of discipling. The plain order of the text sustains the argument
that it is by " baptising," &c., that is, by baptising into the faith
of &c. Now that an adult heathen needed instruction preparatory
to baptism, is not to be denied. But what was the character of
this preparatory teaching ? We should ever distinguish between
those teachings, those arguments which prove the truth of the christian
religion, and the fallacy of all other systems; and those that enforce
the claims which it levies on those who are convinced of its truth.
The nature of this preparatory teaching constitutes a third dif¬
ference between our explanations. Now, according to the theory
of our baptist friends, none are to be baptised until they are
Jirst taught in all the law of Christ, that is, until they are converted.
But this does not accord with the idea of a school as suggested in
the text. Although adults are entitled to the privileges of this
school instruction, yet it is according to usage, to disciple our
young and uninstructed children in order that they may be taught.
These honest differences between the baptist and the pedobaptist
churches, involve well nigh the whole ground of controversy
between the several denominations, on the ordinance of baptism.
I shall, therefore, in the farther prosecution of my subject, en¬
deavour to answer the following questions:
I. What was the nature of John's baptism?
II. What was the nature of the baptism of the Saviour ?
1
III. What is the true and apostolic mode of Christian baptism ?
IV. Who are the proper subjects of Christian baptism ?
Then, I. We inquire, what was the nature of John's baptism ?
Lest I should be charged with " misrepresenting the views" of my
baptist friends on this subject, I shall set them forth in the
language of their own writers. Thus, Mr. Frey, "He (John,) was
the first administrator of it." " It excited much attention among
the Jews." " It was called the counsel of God." " He baptised
by a special command of God." " There was a striking similarity
between John's baptism, and that of the apostles." The inference
is, that John's baptism was the christian baptism. He proceeds,
" did he, (John,) require repentance and faith ? so did the apostles.1'
Admit it, and what then ? It does not prove that the faith of John
was the same in its extent with that required under the gospel. A
mere inference, in matters of such importance, is not admissible.
Let all be admitted that is fairly proven by the train of argument
used by the writer in question, and it does not prove that John's
baptism was identical with the christian baptism either by "positive
precept," or by cumulative argument. The argument proves too
much, and therefore nothing to the point, for by Mr. Frey's argu¬
ment we could prove as conclusively that Noah belonged to the chris¬
tian dispensation as that John did. Did the apostles preach righteous¬
ness ? So did Noah. Ergo—Noah belonged to the same dispensa¬
tion. But this writer answers his own argument satisfactorily,
when in attempting to prove that the church of God did not
embrace the Mosaic dispensation, and that no argument could
be drawn from that dispensation in proof of any custom or ordinance
in the christian dispensation, he " fixes the day of pentecost, for
its (the christian church's) commencement." He proceeds to
say "our Saviour, first speaking of it (the church,) mentions it as
that which then was not, but afterwards was to he." Now, that
the christian dispensation did not commence until after the cruci¬
fixion, I will most cheerfully agree and contend. But if it be
so, that the christian dispensation did not commence until the day
of pentecost, when Peter first preached in the name of Christ,
which was some years after the death of John the Baptist,how is it that
with the same breath John is included in the christian dispensation ?
And how is it, that John, who even after he was imprisoned knew
not certainly whether Jesus Christ was " he that should come,"
or whether "he should look for another," is yet said to have
instituted ordinances in the christian church, and in commemoration
as our baptist friends say,—of the burial and resurrection of Christ 1
Mr. Hinton in his " history of baptism" attempts, also, by a
course of reasoning which falls very far short of demonstration
to prove that John's baptism was the christian baptism. He calls
it " the brief hour of dawn, preceding the light of day." " But,"
says our author, " is not the dawn a part of the day ?" Is that
which precedes the light of day a part of the day? Does the
darkness of night extend into the day ? Did the " dense mist" of
8
Jewish types and shadows lower over the morning of the day of
Christianity. Let another baptist author answer, "our Saviour,
first speaking of it, (the commencement of the christian church,)
mentions it as that which then was not—but afterwards was to be."
Then, John's "brief hour" was not a part of the day.
It is not for me to reconcile the manifest contradictions, and
remove the absurdities of the many writers in favour of the
•baptist views of the ordinance of baptism. But I feel perfectly at
liberty to avail myself of the advantages which they afford me.
I would remark upon the foregoing, that it is as safe to incorporate
the seal of a covenant, an ordinance received from God to Abraham,
changed from circumcision to baptism—into the christian church,
as to incorporate the baptism of John; both the one and the other
having been included in the Mosaic dispensation—as plainly
shown in the above quotations, from baptist authors.
I shall now proceed, under this head of my discourse, to show,
First, what John's Baptism was not,—that it was not the christian,
baptism. And, in proof of this, I remark,
1st. That John's baptism was prior to the institution of christian
baptism. John was the voice of one crying in the wilderness, pre¬
pare ye the way of the Lord. Matt. iii. 3. This voice was
heard,—the preaching of John commenced some six months prior
to the appearing of our Lord to receive baptism ; and about nine
or ten months before his being beheaded. At the time that John
was put to death, the Mosaic dispensation was in force, and it did
not terminate until some three years after that event. For, three
years after the death of John, the Saviour kept the Passover with
his disciples. The rites, ceremonies, &c., typed our Saviour,
and the prophecies related to him. As, therefore, he was the
end of that dispensation, he alone could officially announce the
fulfilment of the prophecies concerning him, and abolition of those
rites which pointed to him. But this official announcement was
not made until the Saviour hung upon the cross. Those, there¬
fore, who contend that John administered christian baptism, in¬
volve themselves in the absurdity of believing that christian bap¬
tism was administered six months previous to the time that our
blessed Saviour entered upon his official duties, and four years
previous to the termination of the Levitical dispensation; and
that John, and not Christ, was the true founder of the christian
church. The "handwriting" of Levitical ordinances was blotted
out only by the blood of Christ, and " nailed to his cross" long
after the days of John the baptist. See Colossians ii. 14.
2nd. John's baptism is plainly distinguished from christian bap¬
tism in the holy Scriptures. In name it was distinguished and known
by the name of John's baptism, whereas the baptisms administered
by the apostles, Peter, Paul, Philip,&c., were, in general terms called
christian baptism. Why so? Why were not the baptisms of
each of the Apostles distinguished by the name of the adminis¬
trator, as in the case of John ? The reason is manifest. Theirs
9
was the christian baptism,—John's was not the christian baptism.
In faith. The object of John's faith was a Messiah to come. It
was prospective. John said, " One cometh after me." Paul said
"John verily baptized, &c., saying unto the people, that they
should believe on him that should come after him," &c.
The christian baptism is distinguished from this, in that "it
requires faith in a crucified, risen, and ascended Saviour." See
Rom. vi. 3. Indeed, one, in this our day, who should profess a
faith which extended no further than the faith of John, could not
be regarded as any thing more than a modern Jew, and could not
obtain christian baptism at all,—not even from those who profess
to belong to John's church. In ceremony. The ceremony of
christian baptism is contained in my text, which records the
institution of it,—after the Saviour's resurrection. It is " in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." We
are not informed that John used any ceremony ; if he did, it must
be that which we have quoted from Paul, "saying unto the people,
&c." But this differs fundamentally from the ceremony of chris¬
tian baptism. The one was in the name of the Trinity ; the other
did not so much as require faith in the Trinity. How, then, could
they be the same ?
3rd. John himself denied that he belonged to the christian dis¬
pensation. John iii. 30. Said he, " He (Christ—the christian
dispensation) must increase but I (the dispensation in which I live)
must decrease," (terminate.) This is very conclusive.
4th. Christ denied that John belonged to the christian dispensa¬
tion. Luke vii. 28. The Saviour said, " He that is least in the
kingdom of heaven (the christian church) is greater than he"
{John), that is, better understands in the plan of salvation,—knows
what John does not know.
5th. Paul rebaptised some of the subjects of John's baptism, as
recorded in the 19th chapter of Acts. The passage we will quote
at length. "And finding certain disciples, he said unto them,
have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And they
said, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy
Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what, then, were ye bap¬
tised ? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul,
John, verily, baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying unto
the people, that they should believe on him, which should follow
him, that is, on Christ. When they heard this, they were baptised
in the name of the Lord Jesus." This text, unvarnished with
sophistry, is entirely conclusive. From it we learn that these
disciples were ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity, which could
not have been the case had they been baptised in the name of the
Trinity. From it we learn the insufficiency of John's baptism for
a christian ordinance. And from it we learn that an Apostle
administered christian baptism to some who had been baptised by
John. But sophistry has invented a mode of explanation, by
which this text is made to speak a very different language. This
10
new mode of explaining makes the fifth verse to be a continuation
of Paul's speech, instead of being a part of Luke's narrative ; and
the pronoun "they," in this verse, to refer to the noun, "people
in the fourth verse, and not to disciples in the fifth verse. This
mode of explaining gives to the whole passage a meaning directly
contrary to its plain literal import. But it involves an absurdity
which I cannot pass without notice. If the collective noun " peo¬
ple," in the fourth verse is the proper antecedent to the pronoun,
" they" in the fifth verse, it must also be the antecedent to the
pronoun " them" in the sixth verse. And this would make it to
say that Paul laid his hands, not on the twelve disciples at Ephesus,
but on the people—the multitudes that John baptised. The absur¬
dity of this a sufficient reply to it.
I have seen another explanation of this text by a baptist author,
which makes " people understood," to be the true antecedent to
the pronoun " they'' of the fifth verse. This would set Paul to
baptising the multitudes who were listening to his discourse to the
disciples. Now, although there is not one word of ground for
believing that there were any persons present—yet it is as feasible
as the previous explanation. Mr. Hinton in his " history of bap¬
tism," which work is published by the American Baptist Tract
Society, and whose sentiments are therefore endorsed by the
baptist church, is willing to yield the argument. He says, " The
solution of this difficulty depends wholly on the question whether
the fifth verse is part of Paul's speech, or Luke's narration. The
scope and construction of the passage appears to me somewhat to
favour the latter hypothesis." So far, very well. But the con¬
sequence of this admission Mr. Hinton will not yield. He pro¬
ceeds, " Whatever be the decision of this question, it has no
bearing on the subject before us." It has just this bearing—Paul
could not think of acting so sacrilegiously, as to trifle with an
ordinance so solemn as that of christian baptism. When so much is
yielded in the argument, it is but trifling on the part of our author,
to contend farther.
6. If John administered christian baptism on a confession of faith,
then were his disciples christians. But it is excedingly difficult to
account for the wonderful apostaby—especially in consistence with
the notion of final perseverance entertained by our baptist friends.
But it is more difficult to account for the silence of the Saviour.
He charged the Jews with almost every other crime but that of
apostacy. But of this, he never once charged them ; which would,
not have been the case had the Jews been guilty of this base crime.
Again, the utter silence of the New Testament, is evidence that
there never was so universal a change of opinion and conduct
as this.
Secondly, I proceed to show what John's baptism was: that it
was a Jewish rite, and as such, terminated with the Mosaic dispen¬
sation. This will abundantly appear from the following consider¬
ations. 1st. His mission was exclusively to the Jews, " John preach-
11
<ed in the wilderness of Judea" &c. " Then went out to him Jerusa¬
lem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan."
Mat. iii. 1, 6. In fact the ministry of the Saviour and of his
disciples, until his death, was confined to the Jews. He £*sid to
the disciples, Mat. xviii. 5, 6, " Go not into the way of the Gentiles,
•and into any city of the Samaritans, enter ye not. But go rather
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The promise was to the
Jews and to their children. And had they embraced the Saviour,
no doubt the promised land would have continued in their posses¬
sion. The kingdom of heaven, which was at hand, must first be
offered to the Jews. And it was not until they had rejected the
prince of life, that the Gentiles were brought in. But the com¬
mission which was given to the apostles after the Saviour's resur¬
rection, said " Go teach all nations." " Go preach the gospel to
every creature." The christian dispensation embraces not only
the Jews, but also the Gentiles.
2nd. The levitical dispensation continued until the death of
Christ, and terminated with that event. The Jewish offerings were
types of the death of Christ, which was the substance and anti-type.
These typical offerings could but be done away by the offering up
■of the " Lamb of God," the anti-type of Jewish offerings. With
this agrees John xix, 28. After this, Jesus knowing that all
things were now accomplished, verse 30th, he said, " it is finished."
It was then, and not until then, that Jacob was rejected, and the
mighty fabric of Judaism tumbled. It was then that God forsook
the holy place ; and the veil of the sanctuary was rent asunder, to
the gaze of the unciroumcised.
3d. The design of John's mission was to revive the Jewish
religion, and impart life and spirituality to its dead forms. Says
the Lord by the mouth of his prophet Malachi,—" Behold I will
send Elijah the prophet, before the great and terrible day of the
Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children,
and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come
and smite the earth with a curse." Our Saviour assorted Jsk/t
■to be his promised reviver of the Jew's religion.
II. What was the nature of the baptism of the Saviour? This
claims our attention in the second place. It would seem unn- ges-
sary to say any thing at all on this head, after saying so much on
the previous head, but that this circumstance is powerfully
appealed to, as "an example which we should follow." This
argument addressed to a soul, in its first love, is omnipotent.
When such soul is challenged to "follow the Saviour dorm i,.to
the liquid grave," as a test of its love, verily it would follow, 'are
it a natural grave, as readily as a nun of the Romish ehurtl rill
submit to torture for his sake. Now, as such test of love h not
required either of a religious devotee or of a soul in itsfrsi I b, it
will be my endeavour on this occasion to instruct, at least, the one,
more perfectly in the way of the Lord. I am inclined to t 4. this
false reasoning has done more harm, in confusing the mLH, and
12
unsettling the faith of our people, than all the sound argument that
has been produced. It therefore becomes my indispensable duty
to meet the argument, and disabuse the minds of our people.
And first, I shall show that the Saviour did not receive John's
baptism, although baptised by John. This will abundantly appear
from the following facts and reasonings.
1st. John's baptism was unto repentance. See the following
scriptures, Mat. iii, 8, " Bring forth therefore fruits meet for re¬
pentance." Acts xix, 4, " John verily baptised with the baptism
of repentance." Repentance consists partly in forsaking sin.
But it is evident the Saviour was not a proper subject of such a
baptism, for he was not a sinner. " He did no sin, neither was
guile found in his mouth." " He knew no sin." "He was with¬
out sin." He even challenged his accusers to find him guilty of
ain. " Which of you convinceth me of sin."
From the Scriptures which we have quoted, it is plain that the
Saviour was incapable of repenting in compliance with the con-,
ditions of John's baptism, and as such, he could not receive such
baptism. But, says an objector, "Does it not say, he became sin
for us ?" Not that he became a sinner for us. He became a sin-
ofering, a sacrifice for our sins. Had Christ become a sinner for
us, I apprehend that he would have been as illy qualified to atone
for sin, as any of his sinful brethren would have been. This is
an idea so shocking to reason, that I wonder any person can enter¬
tain it for a moment.
2d. John required faith in a Messiah to come. Acts xix. 4,
" Saying to the people, that they should believe on him which
should follow after him. Mark i. 7, " There cometh one mightier
than I after! me." Mat. iii, 11. "He that cometh after me."
John i, 27. " He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me."
Now the argument is this. Had the Saviour received the baptism
of John, he would have denied himself; and taught the people to
look for another. This he could not do.
3d. John's baptism was a work of preparation. Luke iii, 4,
"Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." This
preparation was to be made, not on the part of the Lord, but on
the part of those who were in expectation of the Lord; those who
needed such preparation. This is the character given to John's
mission, in the prophets. " Behold I send my messenger before thy
face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." Therefore, Christ
did not receive John's baptism.
Second, Christ did not receive christian baptism from John.
This is sufficiently shown in what has gone before. But it will
more fully appear from the following considerations.
1st.; John was not authorised to administer the christian baptism.
He was not authorised either to use the formula, or require the faith
of christian baptism. In fact, it is very probable that he was as
little acquainted with the great doctrine of the Trinity of the god¬
head, as he was with the fact of the resurrection of Christ. The
18
imperfectness of John's knowledge of the true character of the
Saviour is proven from the fact, that after he had given the people
all the instruction of which he was capable, with regard to the
character of Christ, some said of him that he was John the baptist
who is risen again, some said Elias, and others, one of the prophets.
See Mat. xvi, 13, 14. Nothing farther than this is necessary to
show the imperfect knowledge which John and his disciples had of
Christ.
2d. Christ was baptised about three years and six months pre¬
vious to the institution of christian baptism. We have no account,
not the least intimation that christian baptism was administered
until after the resurrection of Christ. It was on a mountain in
Galilee, a few days before his ascension, that the Saviour said to his
disciples, " All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Go
ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Here is the
first authority ever given to baptise in the name of the Trinity;
and of necessity, was the institution of christian baptism. For no
baptism can be the christian baptism, unless it be administered in
the name of the Trinity. That which was administered three years
and six months before this grand event, cannot possibly be identical
with this institution.
3d. The import of christian baptism is altogether inapplicable to
the person and character of Christ. Christian baptism is a sign of
an inward washing by the Holy Ghost; which necessarily presup¬
poses the defilement of sin. As such it is applicable to such only
as are spiritually defiled. An unfallen being, a soul possessed of
pristine purity, is not a proper subject of christian baptism. We
have shown that the Saviour neither possessed the guilt nor the
defilement of sin. He was more than innocent, he was pure and
undefiled. As such, he could not without committing sin, receive a
sign of purification from guilt.
Christian baptism is also a seal. As such it is a pledge of our
fidelity to God ; and an assurance of the divine faithfulness in be¬
stowing on us the promised blessings of the gospel.
Now, who can suppose for a moment, that christian baptism
either as a sign or as a seal, can be at all applicable either to the
person or the character of him that was God as well as man. And
as baptism in its true import was inapplicable to the character of
the Saviour, we are even farther from supposing that the mere out¬
ward form was used, whilst the spirituality of it was mocked. This
were very sacrilege.
4th. I might with much propriety urge as an objection against
the doctrine that Christ received christian baptism, the unseemli¬
ness of administering baptism in the name of the Trinity to one of
the persons of the Trinity. But its absurdity is so apparent to an
unprejudiced mind, that I need not urge it farther.
Thirdly, I remark that the Saviour was not baptised as an
example for his disciples, and for christians to tollow. This is the
14
strong-hold of our baptist friends. Says Mr. Hinton, "I must
have better arguments before I part with the idea that I have been
baptised Avith the same baptism, as well as partaken of the same
commupion, as that which my Great Master and Teacher not only
instituted and enjoined, but of which he personally partook. This is
the assertion. But where is the proof: verily it is not found, that either
the Saviour partook of christian baptism, or of the eucharist.
Dogmatism is not to settle a question of such vast importance, as
the one under consideration. We must have proof, irrefragable
proof, before we venture our hopes. An appeal to the sympathies
is not to be substituted for an enlightened appeal to reason.
That the Saviour's baptism was not for an example for his
church, will abundantly appear from the following considerations.
1st. If example be necessary to the validity of the ordinances
of the christian church, it is reasonable to expect, nay, it is
absolutely necessary that an example be given in both as well
as one of the ordinances of the church. It is very evident, not
withstanding Mr. Hinton's dogmatical assertion to the contrary,,
that the Saviour did not partake of the communion of "the supper."
Said the Saviour on that occasion, " I say unto you I will not drink
henceforth," &c. The partiality of such a procedure on the part
of the Saviour, is a sufficient argument against the fact of such
partiality. The plain reason why the Saviour neither received
the one nor the other of the sacraments of the christian church, is
that the very nature of these ordinances precluded such participa¬
tions. Both reason and analogy stand against it.
2d. As an example for His church, the Saviour's baptism should
have jreen first, and prior to others. When a soldier of Col.
Washington's army was about to commence a work of defence
against the French and Indians, the Colonel caught his arm, saying,
" stop, friend, Col. Washington must strike the first lick in defence
of his country !" This was worthy of a Washington. Something
like this might be expected on the occasion of John's baptising,
from the "great exemplar of christian baptism." We might have
expected something like the following language from the Saviour
on that occasion. " It becomes me to receive baptism at your
hands, the first one, as an example for the multitudes, and for my
church to follow. Therefore, John, hold until you have baptised
me." Not one word of it! Six months of active labour, in which
John baptises more than a million of people, are suffered to pass
before the Saviour of men appears for baptism. How is this? If
example be necessary, whose example was followed by the multi¬
tudes whose baptism preceded that of the Saviour ? It is all easily
accounted for, all plain as noonday sun. No such fatal delay can
be charged to the Saviour. He was not, in his baptism, the "great
exemplar" of his church.
3d. Viewing the Saviour's baptism in the light of an example, we
discover a procrastination of time, that comes in contact with the
plain commands of Scripture, " Remember thy Creator in the days
15
of thy youth." " What thou doest, do quickly." It were an ex¬
ample, rather of procrastination, than of duty. The Saviour
"began to be about thirty years of age" when he was baptised.
Now if the Saviour's baptism was an example in duty, and in mode,
it must have been an example also in age. But if he was not an
example in age, then was his example exceedingly imperfect. Then
too, infant baptism is justifiable, there being no example against it.
Or if He was an example in age, then all who are baptised under that
age are unlawfally baptised, and their baptism is invalid. Now, our
baptist friends are at perfect liberty to hang on either horn of this
dilemma.
4th. In the absence of all testimony in the premises, we have the
same right to regard any other part of the Saviour's life as an
example, that we have to regard his baptism in that light. If he
was baptised as an example to his church, was he not also circum*
cised for the same purpose ? Our baptist friends say that it is our
duty to follow the Saviour. Now let us try the strength of this
argument.
" Whatsoever Christ did was for our example.
To follow Christ is to do as he did.
But Christ was baptised for our example."
Very nice indeed. Let us try it again.
" Whatsoever Christ did was for our example.
But Christ was circumcised for our example.
Therefore we ought to be circumcised."
The argument is as sound as the previous. This kind of argument
is extremely convenient. By it we might prove with equal clearness,
that the Saviour kept the passover, walked on the sea, healed the sick,
cast out devils, 6fC. fyc., for our example. The fallacy of this
reasoning is sufficiently apparent.
Once more.
In his complex character, the Saviour was not the exemplar of his
church.
But his baptism, his casting out devils, &c. were connected with
his complex character.
Therefore, they were not for our example. This is conclusive.
5th. To contend that Christ in his baptism was the exemplar
of his church, is to destroy christian baptism. We have'already
shown that he was not baptised in the name of the Trinity. And
surely, he was not baptised in his own name. Let us put the ar¬
gument into a syllogistic form :
"Christ was the great exemplar of his church.
Whatsoever Christ, as our exemplar did not do, it is unlawful for
his church to do.
But Christ was not baptised in the name oL the Trinity, nor in
his own name.
Therefore we should not be baptised in the name of the Trinity
or in the name of Christ."
It is entirely unnecessary to expose the absurdity of such logic
16
as this. I must confess, that I cannot see how we can make any"
thing an example for the imitation of others, when between the
example and the imitation, there is so wide a difference as there
is in the cases above mentioned.
6th. And lastly, I will remark,—and I appeal to this congrega¬
tion for the correctness of the rule which I now lay down to the
church, that our obligation to receive christian baptism, as well as
to partake of the supper, rests not on the example of Christ, but
on the command of the Saviour. " If ye continue in my word
then are ye my disciples indeed," John viii. 31. "Ye are my
friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you," John xv. 14. " If
ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love," verse 10th.
Said the Jewish law-giver to Israel, prophecying of the coming
Messiah. " Him shall ye hear in all things;" Proceed we now,
Fourthly, To show what was the true character of the Saviour's
baptism. The account is as follows, Mat. iii. 13, 14, 15, " Then
Cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, be baptised of
him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptised
of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto
him, suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness. Then he suffered him." Now, in order to under¬
stand the nature of the Saviour's baptism, we must understand
the import of the Saviour's reply to John. " Thus it becometh us
to fulfil all righteousness." There are two meanings that may
be attached to the term righteousness, either one of which will
serve our present purpose. It may be understood in a legal sense,
as the fulfilment of law. In this sense it is used in 1st Timothy
i. 9, " The law, (penalties of the law) is not made for a righteous
man," (one that keeps the law.) See also, 1st Peter, ii. 23.
Titus ii. 12. Ephesians iv. 24. In this sense it necessarily im¬
plies a law, a rule of righteousness, the fulfilment of which consti¬
tutes righteousness; and the violation of which constitutes un¬
righteousness. The second meaning of righteousness is the faithful
observance of ordinances. It is used in this sense, Luke i. 6,
" And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." In this
passage the word seems to be used in both senses. Whether the
one or the other of these senses is to be attached to the word
righteousness, in the text under consideration, the result is the
same.
The question then, very naturally arises, what law or ordi¬
nance of God required that Christ should be baptised ? It could
not have been a requirement of the gospel dispensation; for the
gospel was not then made known, as I have already shown very
conclusively. It could not have been any appurtenance to the
christian dispensation at all. We must seek for it somewhere else
than there.
The priestly character of the Saviour's mission is abundantly
sustained by the Scriptures, and the prophecies of the Old Testa-
17
ment. In the fourth verse of the 110th Psalm, we read "The
Lord hath sworn, and will not repent. Thou art a priest for ever,
after the order of Melchesidec."
Also, in Hebrews, " this man, because he continueth ever hath
an unchanging priesthood." Now, " every high priest is ordained
to offer gifts and sacrifices." "For every high priest, taken from
among men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God."
But where may we find the manner of ordaining a high priest ?
In the eighth chapter of Leviticus, we have the ordination service,
verse 6. "And Moses brought Aaron, and his sons, and washed
them with water.'''1 Verse 12th, "And he poured the anointing oil
on Aaron's head and anointed him to sanctify him" (to the high
priest's office.) This service was appointed of God. Exodus
29th chapter, commencing at the 4th verse. " And Aaron, and
his sons, thou shalt wash with water." Verse 7, " Then thou shalt
take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him,"
(to the office of high priest.)
Here then, we have the requirement of ordination to the high
priest's office; and the manner of consecration to office, that the
candidate be washed with water, and anointed with oil. And as
Jesus Christ was the " Great High Priest" of his church, " it thus
becometh him to fulfil all righteousness" to be regularly initiated
into office by the consecration service of God's own appointing.
If therefore,, we understand our Saviour's explanations to John,
the text may very properly be paraphrased thus—"Thus it be¬
cometh us, (in attending to this priestly washing) to fulfil all (the)
righteousness (of the law of ordinances ; that 1 may enter legally
on my priestly office, for every high priest must be ordained.)
But he was " God's High Priestas such, God must have
somewhat to do in His consecration. He was to " pass into the
heavens" to officiate in the true sanctuary. A.s such, God chooses
to "anoint him with the oil of gladness above his fellows."
" And 1q, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God
descending like a dove and lighting on him." " And lo, a voice
from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased." What solemn scenes were these, in which the Great
High Priest of our profession, was inaugurated into his priestly
office. Who can read of those solemn scenes without realising
the sublimity of the occasion. How much more worthy this of
the Saviour of men, than that solemn trifling which some theolo¬
gians seem to charge upon Him.
Thus have we " weighed" the arguments of our opponents,
"and found them wanting." We have seen that the arguments
drawn from John's baptism, and the baptism of the Saviour, are
entirely irrelevant to christian baptism. The mode of John's
baptism properly belongs to another part of my discourse, I shall
notice it in its place.
III. I 45ome, in the third place, to enquire what is the proper
mode of ehristian baptism ?
2
18
We are not to inquire whether baptism should be retained in
the church. On this, we are agreed. But in what way, by what
mode, should christian baptism be administered? is a question of
very great moment, on which the christian church is divided.
Our baptist friends tell us that God has enacted the mode by
" explicit law ;" and that immersion is the mode. They tell us
that the terms in which the law of baptism is expressed, are so
specific as to exclude the possibility of any other mode than that of
immersion. They tell us that this explicit law, however, is con¬
tained in the import of the word "baptise," which they say is a
specific term, and means "immerse," and nothing else but
immerse.
It will immediately appear, that if these high claims are well
founded, the greater portion of the christian church is in error and
gross darkness. But we are very far from admitting these claims.
We regard them as unauthorised assumptions.
It is therefore, replied by opposers of exclusive immersion that
had the mode been pointed out explicitly in the Scriptures, there
would have been no difficulty in determining the question,—that
Christ has not specified the mode, that the Scriptures do not
explicitly inform us of the mode, that so far from settling this
momentous question by " explicit warrant," it must be determined
by a cumulative argument, drawn from the import of the Greek
verbs, the use of the Greek prepositions—the circumstances under
which apostolic baptism was performed—and the Scriptures where
the subject is incidentally spoken off. So that to talk of " explicit
law" on the question of mode, is a mere play of words, in which
none will indulge, but such as give a noisy torrent of confident
assertions, and who are more characterized for warmth of zeal
than depth of understanding.
For the philological argument, I feel perfectly at liberty to draw
freely from the labours of those men who have given us in their
researches into the original tongues, an invaluable treasure of
argument. Wesley, Watson, Beecher, Hibbard, McLeod, Mathis,
Sandford, &c.
I propose to examine the merits of the arguments on either side
of the question of mode. And,
First, I shall notice the Greek verb Ba<xro (bapto.) This is not
the word used in the New Testament for christian baptism.
The word used is Ba<r<n£o, (baptizo,) of which bapto is the
root. I only introduce the term to show the utter baselessness
of the argument in favour of immersion, as drawn from this
word. Our baptist friends tell us that this word has one in¬
variable meaning, and that is immersion. But we appeal from
their ipse dixit to the Scripture use of the word. One very
strong argument used in favour of the "specific" meaning of
bapto, is, that it is a dyer's word, and therefore it must
mean immerse invariably. This falls far short of " express war¬
rant," " explicit law." Dyers perhaps use immersion occasionally,
19
though not universally. But to say that because dyer's occasion¬
ally immerse, therefore, bapto invariably means immerse, is about
as logical as to say that because dyers occasionally dye red, there¬
fore to dye means invariably to colour red. In -fact, in the dyersT
language, to colour red, is as good a meaning to bapto, as to immerse
is. To dye, means not to immerse, but to colour. Now, the
difference between colour and immerse, in a dyer's language is this,
that the one expresses a cause, and the other an effect. Then they
differ materially. In fact, so materially do they differ, that the
one can be effected without the other, and independent of it.
Bapto then, does not invariably mean to immerse. So we see that
this argument, which is the ground-work of the structure of
exclusive immersion, is unsound, and if the foundation be laid in
sand, the fabric must tumble.
The importance of the argument will justify a more full inves¬
tigation of this subject. Learned men tell us that bapto is used in
three different meanings in the Scriptures.
1st. It is used in the sense of moisten or smear over. Thus
Leviticus, xiv, 16, And the priest shall dip his finger Bcerffa
(bapsei;) literally smear in (or with) the oil that is in his left hand."
The quantity excludes the idea of immersion.' Neither will the
verb bear that sense, it simply means smear or wet. The inten¬
tion of these ceremonies did not require an /immersion. It was
simply to take up of the matter a quantity sufficient to " sprinkle"
on hjm that was to be cleansed. Also, Mat. xxvi, 23, "He that dippeth
with me in the dish, Ep-gaTrtfa^embapsas,) literally, smears his sop
with the oil or liquid, see also, John xiii, 24. In this passage
smear makes a very good sense, and it agrees better with the cus¬
toms of that age, and with the customs of the East even in this
age. In these passages there is a stronger leaning toward immer¬
sion, than it has in any other sense in which it is used. And even
here, as we have seen, the meaning is exceedingly doubtful, and
falls very far short of " explicit warrant."
2d. It is used to mean stain, under circumstances which show
conclusively that the effect was produced by sprinkling. Psalm
lxviii. 23, " That thy foot may be dipped in (€acpe, baphe) stained
with the blood of," &c. Isaiah lxiii. 1, 3, "Who is this that
cometh from Edom with dyed (stained) garments from Bozrah ?
Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel; and thy garments like
him that treadeth the wine-press ? I will tread them in my anger,
and trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled
upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." Revelation
xix. 13, " And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in (i/xanov
gsSayyevov alpars, himation bebammenon haimate,) a vesture stained
with blood." In these passages we have described a mighty victor
with garments bespattered with blood of the slain. Matter of
fact teaches us that this baptism was by sprinkling. We have
also, in these passages the idea of a vintager treading the wine¬
press, with garments sprinkled or bespattered with the juice of
the bursting grape.
20
3d. It is used to bedew, wet, moisten with dew. Daniel iv. 30,
** His body was (gSoc^/g, ebapse,) wet, moistened with the dew
<of heaven." I need not prove that the body of Nebechadnezzar
was not immersed in a creek or river of dew. The fact excludes
the possibility of this being a baptism by immersion.
This then, is one of the words on the meaning of which, our
baptist friends rely for their " specific law" of immersion; with
flow much propriety we have seen. So much for bapto.
Secondly. The Greek word baptizo claims attention as being
the word used in the New Testament for christian baptism. We
have shown that Scwrro (bapto,) the root of baptizo, does not mean
exclusive immersion. And baptizo, as a branch of this root, neces¬
sarily looses some of the stiffness of the original word, and be¬
comes less definite and strict in its import. We may therefore cal¬
culate on finding much less probability of making out exclusive im¬
mersion from baptizo.
Our baptist friends tell us that^ " as the word baptizo is a
•Greek word, it ought to be best understood by a native Greek."
But before we receive the testimony of the "native Greek," we
would know who is he ? and whether he speaks the true New
Testament, Hellenistic, Hebraistic Greek ? For, unless he un¬
derstands the Greek of the New Testament, though he were
JPMlo, or even Josephus, his testimony is invalid, and consequently
inadmissible. The question to be determined is, what is the New
Testament use of baptizo ? Now it is a fact, well known to the
scholar, that the modern Greeks, to whom the appeal is made by
*0ur baptist friends, speak a corrupt language, which is entirely the
growth of latter times. The testimony of a German or a Swiss
Is as valid in this .controversy as a Modern Greek, for the import
ofgatfn^o, baptizo. But what then ? Do the Modern Greeks say
that baptizo means, invariably to immerse. I confess that I have
not learned it after this fashion. " No, but they use immersion,
and it is therefore to be plainly inferred that they regard it so."
Inferred did you say ? What " explicit warrant" this. But then
we may carry the inference farther ; and I hope the testimony will
be as valid in the one case as in the other. For the Modern Greeks
use trim immersion, anoint with chrism or holy oil, and make the
sign of the cross; " and it Is therefore plainly to be infered," ac¬
cording to the above mode of reasoning, that trim immersion,
chrism, and the sign of the cross, are necessary to the validity of
the ordinance. But what is still worse for the cause of exclusive
Immersion, they baptise their children, and it is therefore "inferred"
ithat infant baptism is valid.
But, the explicit warrant % " Had he (Christ) designed to leave
if. In the choice of his" ministers to administer the ordinance by
Ix&mersion, by pouring, or by sprinkling, he would have employed
same general term, as Hagiazo, or Katharizo. But by employing
Ske word baptizo, a specific term, he has explicitly inform¬
ed sis how fiie would have us symbolically sanctify the subjects
©ff jgrace." This is a begging of the question, taking for granted,
21
without ptoof, the very thing which we deny, that baptim
means to immerse. That the word baptizo is not a specific
term, in the sense in which it is used above, that is, that it always
expresses the same idea, to immerse—is a fact so notorious to the
Greek scholar, that he who tries to palm such absurdity on the
people, betrays either a great inattention to the subject, or a wast
of that degree of fair dealing which distinguishes an honorable
debatist from a bigoted sectarian. The assertion above quoted Is
contradicted in the 4.1th chapter of Luke, as we shall have occa¬
sion to/-notice more, a length in an other part. In this chapter the
Saviour uses katharizo, which is called a generic term, a®
synonymous with baptizo, which is called a specific term. From
this then, there can be no appeal.
Before I proceed farther in the discussion, I will state what is
regarded by all Pedobaptist divines, to be the true import of baptize»
Our baptist friends tell us that it is a specific term, that is, that it
has one invariable meaning, that it expresses but one idea, and that
is immerse. Pedobaptists contend that it is a generic term, mess¬
ing to purify or cleanse, without reference to the manner of effecting-
it. Now, if on examination, we find that baptizo means specifically,
either to immerse, pour, or sprinkle, we must adhere to that specific-
meaning invariably. But if on the other hand we adopt the generic
sense of the term, that is, that it means to express an effect without
specifying the manner of producing it, then we must adhere to
that, for we cannot, consistently with fair argument pass from
one to the other. I wish this perfectly understood. If in any
passage in the Scriptures' the word in any of its conjugation^
he found to express an effect as well as a cause, then it is found Jiat
to be specific, then the argument for exclusive immersion, as
drawn from it, fails. If on the other hand, immersion and nothing"
but immersion, be the sense, then exclusive immersion is establishedL
I feel safe in resting the argument on this result. To decide tiffs
question is to determine the controversy about mode. I shall take
the ground that when used in the New Testament, this word
means purify or cleanse. The following considerations I deem
sufficient to sustain this meaning.
1. It is the name of a rite in the christian church. One fact fe
observable by all Bible readers, that the names given to persons*
places, objects, periods, church rites, &c., were expressive of thg-
most prominent feature in their character; or in other words*
things are called by their proper names. I will give a few instances.
Of persons; Abraham, " father of a great multitudeSarah*
"princess of the multitude;" of places, Bozrah, "in tribula¬
tion;" Jerusalem, possession of peace;" of times and periods*
Sabbath, " rest." So also, of Jubilee, Millennium, &c. Of the
rites of the church. Passover suggested the design of that rite.
Circumcision meant cutting off, and expressed the most important
characteristic of that rite. If now, we are correct, we have but to
inquire what is the most important consideration of baptism. It isr
2 2
that it is an emblematical purifying, or cleansing, as we shall
abundantly show. And this is the true import of baptizo, the
cognomen of this rite. I am aware that many have contended
that baptism has no other characteristic than that of the mode of its
administration. But that would make it*to be a senseless rite. It
has some emblematical signification that is imported by the name
of the rite, and that emblematical signification is to purify. So
said the Saviour, " unless ye are born of water and of the Holy
•Ghost," &c.
2d. The Messiah was prophecied of as a "purifier," a " refiner,"
Malachi iii. 2, 3, "For he is like a refiner's fire, and like' fuller's
soap, and he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he
shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver."
.Zeehariah xiii. 9, " And I will refine them as silver is refined;
and will try them as gold is tried." Malachi iv. 1, " For behold
the day cometh which shall burn as an oven ; and all the proud,
yea and all that do wickedly shall be stubble; and the day that
cometh shall burn them up saith the Lord," &e. This purification
the Jews understood to be by baptism. That they understood the
purifier of Israel to be a baptiser is plain, from the fact, that they
questioned-the right of John to baptise, because he was not "that
Christ," that purfer that should come. [Now, that Christ should
be an immerser, is nowhere prophecied in the Scriptures. But
that he should be a purifier is abundantly predicted. The idea,
therefore of " John the immerser" is baseless.
3d. John, the harbinger of Christ, pointed him out as one that
was to purify the people by baptism. Mat. iii. 11, " He shall
baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Hence the con¬
trast which John makes between his own baptism, and that of
Christ. Mark L8, "I indeed baptise you with water, but he shall
baptise you with the Holy Ghost." As if he had said, 111 indeed
purify you with water symbolically, but he shall purify you with the
Holy Ghost, actually." This certainly makes a better sense than
immerse. The force of this reasoning has been felt by my baptist
friends. But what then? Says one, baptism in the Holy Ghost, is
immersioninto the pure waters of the Holy Ghost." Perhaps it would
be, if we could conceive of such a thing at all. But baptism into
the Holy Ghost, is an unheard of thing. Again. " He on whom
the Holy Ghost is poured out, is as it were, immersed into him."
This is quite new. That "to pour out" is synonymous with "to
immerse" is a logic well worthy of the cause in which it is em¬
ployed. Again, "So that they who sat in the house (the temple)
were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Gho^t, which is the pro¬
per-notion of baptism." How this differs from the plain word of
God. The plain account, as recorded in the second chapter of
Acts, is as follows. " And suddenly there came a sound from
heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house
where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven
tongues like as of fire, and it sat on each of them. And they were
23
all filled with the Holy Ghost." There is no immersion here ,
save into the wind and sound. It is thus that " explicit warrant"
is made out by my baptist friends.
4th. Baptism is an emblem of the blessing of the gospel. 1st
Peter iii. 21, " The \\k%*figure whereof even baptism doth now
save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience toward Qod) by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ." Titus iii. 5, " According to his mercy he saved us
by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost."
Mark xvi. 15, " He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved."
John iii. 5, " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." In these passages, water
is represented as bestowing gospel blessing. We understand these
blessings to be emblematically represented by water baptism. This
view is favoured by many exclusive immersionists. Mr. Booth
calls baptism a "purification." Maclean calls it "the washing
away of sin, and the filth and pollution of sin." S. Stennet calls
it " the type, or emblem of the internal washing of regeneration."
Hinton quotes Mat. iii. 11, and says, that "the abounding and
overwhelming character of these influences (of the Spirit on the
day of Pentecost) is evidently the idea of John," &c. From these
views I presume, no enlightened immersionist will appeal. We
have, therefore, but to enquire how, and by what mode of applica¬
tion these.gospe? blessings' that are emblematically represented by
water baptism, are applied. And for this, " to the law and to
testimony." If our baptist friends speak not according to these, it
is because they do not abide the truth.
(1.) These blessings ar§ applied by sprinkling. Isaiah lxii. 15,
" So shall he sprinkle many nations." Now, this passage either
refers to gospel blessings, or to literal baptism. If the former ;
then these important blessings are spoken of, under the idea of
sprinkling, and the water which emblematically represents these
blessings should be applied accordingly. If the latter ; then water
baptism is to be administered by sprinkling. Ezekiel xxxvi. 25,
" 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." In this passage, which is a promise of gospel blessing, the
prophet doubtless refers to the application of the element of baptism
to the outward person, and to the purifying influence of divine
grace on the heart. Hebrews x. 22, " Let us draw near with a
true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled
from an evil consience, and our bodies washed with pure water."
In this passage, Paul no doubt refers to the passage quoted from
Ezekiel. John xiii. 9, 10, " He that is washed needeth not, save
to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." That is, to apply water
to a part of the body is sufficient for an emblematical washing.
(2.) The Spirit is represented in the Scriptures, as descending,
falling, being poured out, shed forth. Proverbs i. 23, " Behold I
will pour out my Spirit upon you." Isaiah xliv. 3, " I will
24
pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off¬
spring." Joel ii. 28, 29, " I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ;
also upon my servants and upon my handmaids, in those days will
I pour out my Spirit." Psalms lxxii. 6, " He shall come down like
rain upon the mown grass, as showers that water the earth."
John i. 32, 33, "I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a
dove, and it abode on him. Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit
descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptiseth
with the Holy Ghost." Acts x. 44, 45, "The Holy Ghost fell on
them which heard the word. On the gentiles also, was poured out
the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts xi. 15,16, "And as I began to
speak the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said John
indeed baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy
Ghost." Acts ii. 33, "Therefore being by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the
Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."
(3.) The "blood" is represented in its cleansing influences in
the Scriptures under the idea of " sprinkling." Hebrews xii. 22,
24, "Ye are come—to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh bet¬
ter things than that of Abel." 1st Peter i. 2, " Elect, according
to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of
the Spirit, and sprinkling of the blood of Christ." 1st John i. 7,
" The blood of Jesus Christ his Son, cleanseth us from all sin,"
5th. The element of baptism is always represented as the active
principle, and as being applied to the subject, and never as
passive, to which the subject is applied.
(1.) The application of the water. Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, "Then
will I sprinkle clean water on you." Hebrew x. 22, " Having our
bodies washed with pure water."
(2.) The application of the Spirit. Proverbs i. 23, " Behold I
will pour out my Spirit." Joel ii. 28, " I will pour out my Spirit."
John i. 32, "I saw the Spirit descending," &c. Actsx. 44, "The
Holy Ghost fell on them."
(3.) The application of the blood. Hebrews xii. 22, " The
blood of sprinkling." 1st Peter i. 2, " Sprinkling of the blood."
Now, mark that there is not a passage in the Bible that represents
the element of baptism as being passive, and the subject being
immersed into it. It does not say, " I will dip you into the water,"
" I will dip you into the Spirit," " I will dip you into the blood.''"
Nothing like it. But it says, "I will sprinkle you with water,"
"I will pour my Spirit on you," "I will sprinkle the blood upon
you."
This does seem to me to be an unanswerable argument.
6th. John, whose mode of baptism our baptist friends profess to-
emulate, certainly understood baptism in the light of purification, as
will appear from a careful perusal of John iii. 25, &c. This dis¬
pute arose between John's disciples and the Jews, about purifying,
because that the disciples of Jesus "made and baptised more dis-
25
ciples than John (see 4th chapter.) " And they came unto
John and said unto him, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond
Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same baptisethr
and all men come to him." Now, how an explanation of John's
baptism could throw any light on purifying, or how the people
could require such explanation in order to settle a question about
purifying, is difficult to understand in any other light than that
baptism was understood by all parties, to be a purifying.
7th. An appeal to the common use of the word baptizo, when
used in a religious sense will show that it bears the sense of
purify or cleanse. I shall confine my examinations to a few
passages. Mark vii. 4, " And when they come from the market,
they eat not, except they wash (garfrtgovrui, baptizontai,) purify,
they eat not."
Luke xi. 38, " And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that
he had not first washed, (sSatfrufde, ebaptisthe) purified, before
dinner-"
Mark vii. 4, " And many other things there be which they
have received to hold, as the washing, (§a7rrirfp,ou?, baptismous,)
purifying of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables."
Luke xi. 39, "Now do ye Pharisees make clean (xadapi^sre,
katharizete) purify the outside of the cup and platter."
A few general remarks on these passages will show that im¬
mersion is entirely out of the question.
(1.) In the passage Liike xi. 38, "The Pharisee "marvelled"
that the Saviour "had not first washed his hands before dinner."
We cannot for one moment conclude that the Pharisee could detect
in the Saviour any want of personal cleanliness. In the 7th
chapter of Mark's gospel, the Saviour defends his disciples against
the Jews on an occasion similar to the one recorded in the passage
under consideration. In that defence, in his reply to the Jews,
he says, " Laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the
tradition of men as the washing of pots, cups," &c. From this
we may understand the washings spoken of in the passages just
quoted, to be superstitious ceremonial washings, enjoined by tradition,
beyond what God had enjoined on the Jews; and not a cleansing
from bodily filth.
(2.) In the passage under consideration (Luke xi. 38,) " The
Pharisee marvelled that he had not (sSaifrufSri, ebaptisthe) bap¬
tised, washed," &c. The Saviour replied, (verse 39,) "Now ye
Pharisees make clean, (katharizete, purify) the outside of the'
cup and platter." Our baptist friends tell us, as I have quoted,
that katharizo is a generic term. Now in the above passages
the Saviour uses katharizo, a generic term, as synonymous with
baptizo, the word under consideration ; from which we may learn
that the Saviour himself understood baptizo to mean purify, synony¬
mously with katharizo. Therefore, our baptist friends being
witnesses, baptizo means to cleanse or purify. From this there
can be no appeal at all. The Saviour has decided the meaning of
the term baptizo.
26
(3.) These ceremonial purifications were performed by sprink¬
ling. Numbers viii. 7; "And thus shalt thou do unto them, to
cleanse them, sprinkle ('u£wp xudupufpov, hudor katharismou) wa¬
ters of purification upon therm" Now mark that in this pas¬
sage, an inflection of the word which our baptist friends tell us is
a generic term, is used to express purification.
Numbers xix. 9, " And it, (the ashes of the red heifer) shall be
kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of
separation, it is a purification from sin." Verse 18, " And a
clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it, (smear or moisten it) in
the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels,
and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that
touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave." Verse
19, " And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on
the third clay, and on the seventh day."
(4.) "The washing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and
tables," or rather couches or beds, we may very safely conclude
was by sprinkling. If this was a ceremonial washing as we have
very safely inferred from the rebuke which the Saviour administered,
we have' shown how the waters of ceremonial purifying were
applied. It would be exceedingly inconvenient to immerse their beds
or couches on which they both sat and laid, on every occasion of
their touching them. It is so absurd that it need not be replied to.
As to their immersing their cups and other vessels, the Saviour
tells them that they only cleansed the outside, which would not
have been, had they immersed those vessels. The idea of the
Scribes and Pharisees immersing themselves with their clothes,
is unreasonable. The market place was the place of resort for
business men, for idlers, for men of learning, and for those praise-
seeking Scribes and Pharisees. On return from this place of
promiscuous collection, they applied the water of cleansing. The
Scribes and Pharisees resorted thither the more frequently that
they might receive the salutations of the people ; and to be called
of men, "Rabbi, Rabbi." We therefore cannot suppose that their
cleansing, on each return from the market place was by immersion.
(5.) The Saviour charges the Scribes and Pharisees with
hpyocrisy, in thus scrupulously observing the traditions of the
Elders, and prescribes a more spiritual way of baptising or puri¬
fying. Luke xi. 41, " But rather give alms of such things as ye
have ; and behold all things are clean unto you." Can we suppose
that the Saviour intended to say that to give alms constituted im¬
mersion ? Not for a moment. He intended to say that to give
alms was more acceptable to God, and more effectually removed
defilement than a ceremonial purifying.
8th. I have but one more argument to present in proof that
baptizo does not mean to immerse. But that I regard as being a
conclusive one, one in fact which embraces all the arguments
which I have advanced. King James appointed forty-two of the
most learned men that England could produce ; who after a
deliberation of some three years gave us the Greek word untrans-
27
lated, simply clothing it with an English dress. Why this ? Be¬
cause there Were no words in the English language whose mean¬
ing was so comprehensive a? the word employed in the Greek.
The early Latin Fathers simply gave the word a Latin termina¬
tion, and left it untranslated. Drs. Luther and Melancthon, trans¬
lated baptizo by a word which, like the Greek word, does not specify
the mode. This I am aware has been contradicted. I will give
an extract from'Mr. Slicer, on baptism. " A friend of mine, who
understands, and speaks the German, informs me, the English of
* Johannbs der Taufer' is, Johji the Baptist, and that the German
of dipper or immerser is not Tiufer, but Tunker, hence, the name
of that sect of Christians called Tunkers, or vulgarly Dunkards,
who baptise candidates by dipping them three times."
I cannot leave this part of my discourse without disapprobating
a course pursued by many baptist writers, of making garbled
extracts from Pedobaptist writers, making them to say what they
never intended to say. A celebrated baptist writer quotes from Dr.
Owen, and makes him to say, " that no honest man who understands
the Greek tongue can deny the word to signify dip," whereas the
assertion is as follows. " No honest man who undertands the
Greek tongue can deny the word to signify to wash as well as to
dip." In like manner, Mr. Wesley, Dr. Clarke, Martin Luther,
&c., have all been lugged in to prove exclusive immersion. Such
unfairness deserves the severe rebuke of an enlightened people.
Thirdly. A critical examination of the Greek prepositions used
in connection with christian baptism, will show that exclusive
immersion is untenable, if indeed immersion can be sustained at
all from the Scriptures.
There are four Greek prepositions which will claim our atten¬
tion, via., apo, and ek, which are translated out of; eis, translated
mto ; en translated in.
Mat. iii. 5, 6, "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Juda,
and all the region round about Jordan, were baptised of him in (sv,
en,) Jordan confessing their sins."
Mat. iii. 16, "And Jesus, when he baptised went up straitway
owro, apo, out of the water."
Acts viii. 38, 39, " And they went down both into, (sig, eis,) the
water, both Philip and eunuch, and he baptised him. And when
they were come up out of, (sx, ek,)the water." &c.
It is evident that the fact of going down into the water, and
coming up out of the water do not constitute the act of immersing.
Our baptist friends have, therefore, gained nothing when they have
gotten " both down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch."
They have not yet gained their point, and therefore, their boast is
vain. Where there are multitudes to baptise, it would be con¬
venient to be at or even in a body of water without immersing one
of the subjects. We are told that there is at this time a sect
of christians in Mesopotamia who call themselves the followers of
John the Baptist, who baptise their children at the river's brink by
sprinkling.
28
But the Greek prepositions are not invariably translated in the
Scriptures as they are in the passages above quoted. Bible
students tell us, that these prepositions are translated by various
English words. " They have, says Thorn, translated apo by
twenty-four vernacular terms; eis by thirty-six, ek by twenty-three,
and en by thirty-two. " Apo has twenty distinct senses ; eis, twenty-
six, ek twenty-four, and en, thirty-six." We find from a careful
investigation of the point in dispute, that in our version of the New
Testament, the translators have rendered apo from,three hundred
and seventy-four times; eis, to, or unto, five hundred and ffairty-eight
times ; ek, from one hundred and eighty-six time ; and en, at, on, or
with, three hundred and thirteen times." Of the correctness of
these statements, we have the greatest assurance. These state¬
ments have gone forth to the world ; our baptist friends know them,
and yet I do not recollect to have heard of their having been dis¬
puted by any defender of exclusive immersion. Now the question
arises, from these considerations, might not these prepositions
have been translated to, from, at, with, in these tests with as much,
if not more, propriety than in, into, out of? Will any one say
nay ? We may safely say therefore, and I shall endeavour to make
the saying good; that all that can possibly be made out with cer¬
tainty, is that John baptised at Jordan, or in the locality of Jordan,
or with the waters of the river Jordan, and that Philip and the
eunuch went to the water, or baptised with the water.
A question of vital importance to the point at issue suggests itself
to the mind, which claims our first attention. " Had the Greeks
no rule, did not the Apostles have some rule of language, by which
they distinguished between one meaning and another, of these
accommodating prepositions?" Certainly they had a rule, and if
we can acquaint ourselves with that rule, we will be enabled to
determine the question.
The rule then, is this, which on examination, you will find to
hold good. " When motion into a place was intended, they placed
the preposition both before the noun into which the motion was
directed, and before the verb expressing that motion. But if mo¬
tion to a place merely was intended, they placed the preposition
before the noun only."
A few examples of the use of the preposition eis, will show the
correctness of this rule. Acts viii. 26, (xaragouvoutfav aifo 'Isp-
ovrfaXrifj. sis Fa^av, Katabainousan apo Jerusalem eis Gazan,) " That
goeth from Jerusalem to Gaza." In this text, motion to a place
being intended, the preposition eis, is placed only before the noun
Gazan. We dicover from this text also, that motion from Jerusalem
is expressed, by placing the preposition apo, before the noun only.
Mat. viii. 5, sisiXQovri 6s uvro sig Kanspvaovfj., eiselthonti de auto
eis Kapernaoum, " Entered into Capernaum." In this text, motion
into Capernaum, being intended, the preposition eis, is placed both
before the noun and the verb. Take another text. John xx. 4,
rjhAs Kporog sig 70 fj.vYjfj.siov, elihe protos eis to mnemeion, " Came
first to the sepulchre." There, motion to the sepulchre, being in-
29
tended, the preposition is placed before the noun only. But in the
6th verse of the chapter, motion into the sepulchre, being intended,
the preposition is placed both before the noun and the verb, sigs\-
Aev sig jxvjfuev, eiselthen eis mnemeion, ''Went into the sepul¬
chre." For the benefit of any person who may wish to test the
correctness of this rule more fully, will add the following list of
Scriptures : a great many more Scriptures might be given.
Mat. v. 20, vi. 13, vii. 21, xv. 11, 17, xvii. 25, xviii. 3, 8, 9,
xix. 17, 23, 24. Mark vii. 17 to 19, 24, ix. 25, 28, 43, 45, x. 23,
24, 25. Acts xix. 8 to 17, xix. 1, 20. The same rule applies to
the preposition apo, when motion from, and motion out of a plan is
intended. See Mat. xv. 11,18, 19, viii. 28. Mark i. 26, vi. 54,
vii. 34.
We are now prepared to apply these rules to the passages under
consideration. Take the passage, Acts viii. 38, 39, which reads
in our translation "Went down into the water;" but in the
Greek, xureGyo'av sig to 'ucJwp, katebesan eis to hudor, went down
to the water. The preposition eis being placed before the noun
only, it cannot mean into, unless the Apostles violated the rules of
the Greek language, which we dare not suppose for a moment.
The latter part of the text reads, " borne up out of, ek, the water."
This preposition, as we have seen, has no less than twenty-six dis¬
tinct senses. Mat. xii. 33, " For the tree is known ek, by, his fruit."
Mat. xx. 2, "He agreed with the labourers ek, for, a penny."
Mat. xxi. 25, "The baptism of John, ek,from, heaven or ek, of men."
John xiii. 4, "Herisethup, ek, from, supper." Revelation ix. 21,
"Neither repented they, ek, of, their murders, nor ek, of, their sor¬
ceries, nor ek, of, their fornications, nor ek, of, their thefts." The fol¬
lowing passages also are in point, " howbeit there came other
boats ek, from, Tiberias." " Get thee ek,from, thy kindred." " Who
shall deliver me ek, from, the body of this death." John vi. 23,
Acts vii. 3, Romans vii. 24. Now supply all these passages with
out of, and you will discover the impropriety of contending that
Philip and the Eunuch came out oj the water. The most that
we can say therefore, is that they both went down (out of the
chariot, no doubt) to the water, and came up (into the chariot)
from the water.
If any person is still dissatisfied at the result, we will add a few
passages in which the preposition eis is used, in which, to read into,
would make them nonsensical altogether. Mat. xii. 18, " Behold
my servant m, ?'«, whom 1 am well pleased." Mat. xii. 41, " Be¬
cause they repented eis, at, the preaching of Jonas." Chap. xv. 24,
" 1 am not sent but eis, unto, the lost sheep." Chap, xviii. 29, " And
his fellow servant fell down eis, at, his feet." Acts ix. 1, " Threat-
enings and slaughter eis, against, the disciples of the Lord." Verse
21, " And came hither eis, with, that intent."
The view which we have taken is sustained by the fact, that
the going down, and the coming up, is affirmed of Philip as well as
the Eunuch. That the Eunuch went under, or went any deeper
30
than Philip, is only inferred, and that too without any just ground of
inference. But further, the circumstances which surrounded
Philip and and the Eunuch, utterly exclude the possibility of im¬
mersion. It was desert, a barren waste, evidently in this passage.
For although the word sometimes means rural or country place as ~
distinct from a city, yet in this passage the word is made emphati-
cal, which were highly improper if rural, simply, were intended.
And such a body of water as our baptist friends would make of
this, would be a strange thing in a desert waste.
The expression seems to imply that the quantity of water was
small, "behold here is water," some water, a little water. The
fact of finding any water in the desert seemed .to be matter of
surprise to the Eunuch.
Great stress has been laid on the passage, Mat. iii. 6, " And were
baptised of him in, en, Jordan," &c., as supporting the doctrine of
exclusive immersion, with how mu^h propriety, I propose now to
show. We have already seen, that even if the fact could be
established, that John stood in Jordan to baptise, nothing is gained
by it. One remark however, is due to the stress laid on this
passage by our baptist friends. " Explicit warrant" is the boast
of exclusive immersionists. Now, no amount of inference, or of'
fair conclusions, can possibly amount to a " thus saith the Lord."
If then, our baptist friends endeavour, as in the text, under consi¬
deration, to sustain immersion by inferences, and conclusions, it
is at the expense of " explicit*-warrant." Let us then, hear no
more about explicit warrant. Let us try the strength of argument.
Or if "explicit law" is yet contended for, let us have "the law,"
and lay inference aside. ' Here is, evidently, a dilemma. The
question must either be decided by "thus saith the Lord," or by
the strength of argument, not by both, for against " thus saith the
Lord," there is no argument. Which then, do our baptist friends
choose? If the former, then let us have the " divine warrant,"
and we have done. If the latter, then we will meet their argu¬
ments. But to the text.
The preposition en, translated " in," in the text, has in the
New Testament, as we have seen, twenty-six distinct senses. It
is translated, at, on, or with, no less than three hundred and thir¬
teen times, in the New Testament. In one these three senses
it may be understood when used in connection with christian bap¬
tism. In the text under consideration, it is synonymous with at,
and in this sense, it simply fixes John's general position as being
in the vicinity of the river Jordan. Nothing more than this can
be made out, with certainty. That it does not necessarily mean
under, is manifest from the use made of it in other texts of Scrip¬
ture in which it is also translated in. Mark i. 4, " John baptised
en, in, the desert." This will not do for immersion, for it was done
not "in Jordan," but "in the desert" beyond Jordan. There is
not the least intimation that there was a "Jordan" rolling through
this desert. Neither can we conclude for a moment, that " in the
31
desert" means "under the desert." This really seems to be "a
stumper" against immersion. Luke iii. 3, " And he came (m) into
all the country about Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance."
That is, preaching repentance and baptising. In this text, the
preposition sustains the same relation to "all the country about
Jordan," that it does to "Jordan" in the text under considera¬
tion, and yet it does not prove very clearly, that John baptised
under "all the country about Jordan." John i. 28, "These
things were done (en) in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John
was baptising." In this passage John is represented as baptising
in a house in Bethabara. Does this mean that he baptised into, or
under the house? In the 40th verse of the 10th chapter, it is said
that Jesus went into the place where John at first baptised, and
there he abodes Not certainly under water, for that would make
him to be amphibious : but in Bethabara,. in a house or some room.
For Bethabara means a hpuse.
These texts will show, that to understand en to mean into or
under, would involve much of the Scriptures in absurdity. The
only safe conclusion is the one which we have come to, that the
preposition, in the passage under consideration, merely fixes John's
position as being in the region of, or in the valley of, or at the
bank <jf Jordan.
This conclusion is strengthened by the following considerations.
There was an extended fiat land, or bottom, lying between the
river Jordan and the up lands. It was in this flat land, near to a
body of water, that John fixed his position no doubt. Such a situ¬
ation both suited for the assembling of the people, and for their
accommodation with abundance of water, which is an indispensa¬
ble consideration. The prepositions down and up refer simply to
the bank which must be descended in order to reach the bottom.
By applying the rule laid down in the commencement of this
article, we will find that into, was not the idea intended in the texts
which speak of John's baptisms. The preposition en, which we
now have under consideration, is connected with the preposition
apo, from, both in Matthew and in Luke. Now, had "out of the
water," Mat. v. 16, been the idea which the evangelist intended
to convey, the preposition ek, out of, would have been used, as
more correctly expressing the idea. The preposition apo cannot
mean out of, unless repeated before the verb expressing the motion.
But in the case of the Saviour's baptism this is not the case. It is
only placed before the noun ! " Went up straitway, apo, from
the water."
The multitudes who received baptism of John are a comment on
the meaning of the Greek verbs and prepositions employed in the
passages placed at the head of this article j as I shall show in
another part of my discourse.
The preposition en, when used in connection with christian
baptism, is sometimes synonymous with the English preposition
with. It is used in this sense when pointing to the element of
32
christian baptism. Mat. iii. 11, " I indeed baptise you en, with
water, unto'repentance; but he shall baptise you en, with the
Holy Ghost." Luke iii. 16, "I indeed baptise you with en, wa¬
ter, but he shall baptise you en, with the Holy Ghost." Acts i. 5,
"For John truly baptised en, with water; but ye shall be baptis¬
ed en, with the Holy Ghost." And when used in this sense,
as it invariably is when the element of baptism is pointed out, it
invariably represents the element of baptism as the active princi¬
ple, and as being applied to the subject of baptism, who is represent¬
ed as being passive. To make the water to be passive in baptism
then, is to pervert the order which the preposition en establishes,
between the element and the subjects of christian baptism. If
any person is yet unconvinced, and obstinately determined to be¬
lieve that this preposition invariably means into, under, in, I pro¬
pose that in the following texts, they supply these prepositions, that
they may discover the absurdity of their notions.
Mat. v. 34, 36, " Swear not at all, neither en, by, heaven nor
en, by, thy head." Chap. xxii. 40, " On en, these two command¬
ments hang all the law and the prophets." Chap. xxvi. 52, "They
that take the sword shall perish en by, the sword." Mark i. 23,
"There was in the synagogue a man en, with an unclean spirit."
Hebrews ix. 25, " The high priest entered -into the holy place en,
with blood." In these passages, if the preposition en were trans¬
lated under, not only would it pervert the text itself, but it would
make nonsense of them.
The preposition apo, from, we have briefly noticed already.
One or two considerations however, will not be amiss. A writer
in the Christian Advocate and Journal, writing on the Greek pre¬
positions, states that the preposition apo is translated in the New
Testament, from four hundred and five times ; and out of, sixty-five
times ; and that of these sixty-five times ; many of these passages
should have been translated from.
The following passages will show that in many instances, to
translate this word, out of, would be to make foolishness of the
Scriptures. Mat. vii. 23, "Depart (apo) from me ye .cursed."
Chap, v iii. 1, "When he was come down (apo) from the moun¬
tain." Chap, xxvii. 42, " Let him come down (apo,) from the
Cross." " Luke i. 28, " And the angel departed (apo,) from her."
Chap. ix. 5, " Shake off the very dust (apo,) from your feet."
Now from these criticisms on the Greek prepositions, we may
discover how utterly vain is the boast of exclusive immersionists.
I have dwelt the longer on this part of the argument because of
the importance of it in settling the controversy. " If therefore,"
says Mr. Hibbard, " according to the general analogy of Scripture,
water be used ceremonially, as an emblem of the purifying, and
regenerating operations of the Holy Spirit, and if God has uniform¬
ly spoken of the latter as being poured out upon men, as falling
upon, as sitting upon them, &c., and has also signified it symboli-
•cally, by the falling of dew, by the descent of rain, by the pouring out
33
of water, by the sprinkling of water, by Christ's breathing upon his
disciples, by the laying on of hands; and if to this general emblemati¬
cal sense of ceremonial ablution accord the particular teachings of
the New Testament in regard to baptism, it follows that by the
sanction of all the Jewish usage, by the analogy of water and
spiritual baptism, and by common law of interpretation of all
symbolical rites, the water of baptism should be applied by sprink¬
ling or pouring."
Here then is reason, analogy, New Testament teachings, Jewish
usages and rites, the philology of the terms,—all, to sustain the pedo-
baptist views of christian baptism. Where, now is ''explicit law,"
" demonstration," the " command in so many words" for " exclu¬
sive immersion." Verily, itjs not, found in all the Bible. And
the lack is supplied by dogmatical assertions, and confident boast¬
ings.
Fourthly. I now proceed to examine the evidence from Scrip¬
ture examples of christian baptism. The baptism of the Eunuch
by Philip, has already been examined and found to afford no proof
for exclusive immersion, nor indeed for immersion at all. .
1st. The baptism of Paul. Acts ix. 17, .18, "And Ananias
entered into the house ; and said, brother Saul, the Lord hath sent
me that thou mightest receive thy sight. And he received sight
forthwith, and arose and was baptised." There are three circum-*
stances in this baptism, which render it improbable that Paul wa&
baptised by immersion. (1) It was done in the house wher«
Paul had been confined for three days. This is manifest from the
reading of the passage. (2) It was done while standing. The
verb has the participial form in the original, "standing he was
baptised." Immersion cannot be'administered to a person Nstand-
ing. (3) Paul had been sick for days, and " neither did eat nor
drink," and of course was not in a condition of health to justify
immersion. These considerations are sufficient in the absence of
" express warrant," to disprove the certainty, nay the probability
of immersion in the case of Paul.
2d. The baptism of Cornelius and his friends. Acts x. 47, 48.
From this circumstance nothing can be learned, very definite, yet
even these subjects of baptism were not immersed, as may be
learned from the remark jffi Peter on the occasion, " can any
man forbid water ?" Now, any, or all of the domestics might
have " forbid water" to be brought, but the use of a creek, or
stream of water none could forbid. From the fact, therefore, that
Peter recognised the right of the domestics to withhold, we are
forced to believe that Peter applied the water to Cornelius and his
friends. What light this passage affords, is decidedly opposed to
immersion. The application that i§ made of Peter's speech, by
our baptist friends is, certainly, ~very wrong.
3d. The baptism of the Jailor of Philippi, Acts xvi. 33. This
is more immediately in point. Many efforts have been made to com¬
pel this baptism to bear testimony to immersion, but all in vain.
3
34
In the 23d verse we have an account of the imprisonment of
Paul and Silas, " They cast them into prison, charging the jailor
to keep them safely." In the 24th verse, we have an account of
their being thrust into the dungeon, or " inner prison," " thrust
them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks."
In the 30th verse we have an account of their liberation from the
stocks and the inner prison. " And brought them out." Out of
what ? Out of the " inner prison" of course, into the common prison,
or debtor's room. This makes the whole passage read with good
sense. " The jailor sprang in, (into the inner prison which was
for criminals.) and brought them out" (into the common prison or
debtor's room.) In this apartment the stripes of the apostles were
washed, and the jailor was baptised with his family. " And he
brought them into his own house," (the jailor's room of the
prison.)
There is nothing like immersion in all this. Yet our immer-
sionist friends must have immersion out of it, and therefore, have
imagined the jailor with Paul and Silas wandering about in search
of a stream of water. But the idea is manifestly wrong, as may
be seen from the following considerations. There was a penalty
of death consequent on liberating the prisoners. It was the fear
of this disgraceful death which caused jailor to think of self destruc¬
tion. The city of Philippi was badly watered, notwithstanding our
baptist friends have supposed some two or more majestic rivers to
roll along close to the city. These majesic water-cources are not
found.
The time specified will not admit of the delay consequent on
seeking a water sufficient, and selecting a proper place. For, in
that " same house" the jailor washed their stripes, set meat be¬
fore them, and received baptism. But to obviate all this delay,
some of our baptist friends have imagined that there were large
tanks, or bathing pools in the jail at Philippi. Such accomoda¬
tions are not very common in prisons, though I was never in the
jail at Philippi. Yet I rather think this notion of fonts is far
fetched. (4.) Nay, so far from wandering in quest some young
Jordan, Paul refused to leave the prison walls until legally released.
4th. The baptism of Lydia and her household, Acts xvi. 15.
This has been pressed into the service of exclusive immersionists,
from the fact that it was "by a river side with what propriety
we may readily determine. A baptism " by a river side," is not
a baptism "in," or "under" the waters of " a river." Look at it,
"by a river side" is made to mean "in a river," and this is pre¬
sented as an "express warrant" for immersion. There is not
the least, the most distant intimation in the whole history of the
event, that Lydia was " immersed in a river." The circumstance
of the event taking place "by a river side," was altogether ac¬
cidental, that is, it was not necessarily connected with the baptism.
The position near a water was' chosen as a suitable place, " where
prayer was wont to be made," partly on account of the water ac-
35
commodations, which are necessary to large collections of people,
and partly on account of the convenience, or suitable furnishing;
of the place. I have attended many camp-meetings by "river
side," or " creek side," not for the purpose of baptising the mul¬
titudes, but furishing them a supply of fresh water. The testi¬
mony that Lydia's baptism bears to immersion is unwilling and
forced. I would ask, wherefore the necessity of such strained
conclusions, if "explicit law" has settled the mode of christian
baptism ?
5th. The baptism of the 3000 in Jerusalem on the day of pen-
tecost, Acts ii. 41. This was the first christian bcCptism. Peter
preached the Lord Jesus to the multitudes. " Then they that
gladly received the word were baptised, and the same day were
added unto them about three thousand souls." It should be re¬
membered that the feast of pentecost took place in the midst of
summer, when Jerusalem was very scantily supplied with water,
even for domestic uses, in consequence of which, great economy
was used, in preserving water in and about Jerusalem. The
feast of pentecost was a national feast, and the whole Jewish na¬
tion was, at this feast, assembled at Jerusalem. In consequence
of this increase of numbers in the city, and of the necessarily
increasing demand for water, not only for domestic purposes, but
also in their temple worship, it is altogether improbable that there
was water enough at the command of the apostles to immerse so
great a multitude of people. In Jerusalem itself there were no
large collections of water. And if John took his" positions in Jor¬
dan, and at Enon, for purposes of immersion, then it is evident he
considered Jerusalem as an improper place for immersion. If im
Jerusalem there had been " much water," John would have been
found immersing within the precincts of the holy city; and thus-
saved the inhabitants the toil and fatigue of a journey of twenty?
miles or more to Jordan Or Enon. Many immersionists speak as-
confidently on this subject, as if the river Jordan ran by the walls
of the holy city. Those who are acquainted with the geography
of the country, in and about Jerusalem, tell us that, "there was
no fountain to form a brook in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem
except that of Siloam. And as for the fountain of Siloam which
was near, sometimes it had no water, and sometimes when it
had, it was not agreeable to drink. Mr. Buckingham, who visited
Jerusalem in January, 1816, says, "The pool of Siloam is now
a dirty little brook with scarcely any water in it; and even in the
rainy seasons is said to be an insignificant and muddy stream.
In the rainy season this narrow bed is filled with a torrent which
is still called the brook Kedron, but it was, at the period of our
visit perfectly dry." Says Mr. Brown, "The brook Kedrou*
though it receives all the rivulets about Jerusalem, is generally
but small and sometimes dry, but amidst sudden and heavy rains*
it swells exceedingly, and runs with great violence, and on such
occasions carries off the filth of the city, which, by the common
36
sewers is carried into it." In the city itself, there is no natural
spring at all, and as we have seen only one in the neighbourhood,
and that small and sometimes dry, consequently we are inform¬
ed that pure or fair water, and such as people might drink was
exceedingly scarce and precious in Jerusalem and its vicinity,
what the inhabitants procured for use, being preserved with the
utmost care, in domestic reservoirs, made at great expense, and
filled chiefly by the rains and snows which fell in the wet, and
winter seasons." In proof of this, compare 2d* Kings, xviii, 31,
Proverbs v. 15, Ecclesiastes xii. 6, Isaiah xxxvi.. 16, Jeremiah
ii. 13. These facts show the difficulty, if not impossibility of
procuring water for purposes of immersion.
Another consideration that I will here notice has a determining
Influence. Only a few days before the event under consideration,
the Jews had crucified the Saviour, in whose name Christian bap¬
tism is administered. The Pharises and the Jews generally, were
bitterly opposed to the apostles. The pools attached to the temple
were exclusively devoted to the temple worship; and could not
therefore be profaned. The priests and officers of the temple were
the chief prosecutors of the Saviour. The domestic reservoirs
were reserved for culinary purposes. Now, is it to be supposed
that the Jews would favour that cause which 'they had opposed
\vith such bloody zeal, by lending the apostles the use of the pools
or of the domestic reservoirs, in which to dip men and women over
head and ears, in order to initiate them into the christian church ?
Is it probable that the priests would lend the use of the brazen sea
in the temple tor such purposes ? It is not at all probable.
The shortness of the time renders their being immersed, not only
impracticable, but actually impossible, though water had been
plenty for the purpose. Peter began his discourse " at the third
hour of the day," which is the hour of nine. The discourse of which
we have an epitome, was continued at considerable length ; for
the apostle " testified and exhorted with many other words.!'' "Three
thousand were awakened, convinced, converted, professed their
faith in Christ, and concluded to be baptised. All those trans¬
actions could not possibly have passed in less than four hours.
Five hours now remained, and three thousand were to be baptised
with twelve men." It would require a time to repair to the place
of baptism, and to make the necessary preparations for adminis¬
tering the ordinance. But twelve different places of baptism must
be selected, which, as we have seen, were not easily procured- by
the apostles who were despised, and whose converts were mostly
visitors and strangers in the city. Our baptist friends have found
out that the seventy disciples assisted in the administration—how,
I know not,—certainly not from the bible. And I have not seen
any history of the event that mentions this circumstance. It is
very certain they were not authorized to assist. But if this even
be the case, instead of twelve suitable places for immersion, eighty-
two places must be procured'. This only increases the difficulty
37
under the inauspicious circumstances in which the apostles were
placed.
But the whole argument for immersion is set aside by the
fact, that there is not the least, intimation that they left the spot in
which they were .assembled in order to baptism. They did not, so
far as we can learn, seek for water, or go to water. And if, as
we think we are safe in concluding, they were baptised in the place
where they were converted, they could not have been immersed,
but were baptised by sprinkling or pouring.
6th. John's baptism. I have already shown that John did not
administer the christian baptism. Yet, as it is supposed that the
mode of John's baptism will determine the mode of christian bap¬
tism, I shall briefly notice it. I have proven, however, in the
philological argument that the prepositions used in connection with
John's baptism, cannot be understood to favour immersion. But
the circumstances of John's baptism forbid immersion. John's
ministry continued through the space of some nine months, or at
most, ten months ; during which time he baptised Jerusalem, and
all Judea, and all the regions roundabout Jordan;" which em¬
braced the great body of the Jewish nation. 'The population of
these regions amounted ,to more than six millions, according to
Josephus and others. Mr. Slicer supposes that John baptised one
million or more; but Mr. Hibbard supposes three millions.
Whether one million or three millions is nearest correct, it is very
plain that an immense multitude is intended by—" Jerusalem and'
all Judea, and all the regions round about Jordan." The very
language proves that the number was immense. And no one who
is not blindly, devoted to a party, would dream at all that this
language applies to " about four or five hundred persons.." But
our baptist friends have contradicted their own arguments when
they tell us that "it was for-purposes of immersion, that John left
Jordan, and went to Enon in search'of more water." Four or five
' hundred persons could have been immersed in Jordan without in¬
convenience—for it was a considerable river. But if the multi¬
tudes to be immersed were so immense as to require a greater
quantity of water than Jordan afforded, there must have been more
than " four or five hundred persons." The question is then, could
John, in ten months, awaken and immerse three millions of per¬
son's ? The answer is in the negative. In fact, some may even
doubt the possibility of John's accomplishing the baptism of so great
a multitude, hi.so short a time, by any mode. But we have some
li'j-ht on this subject. We have in the law the manner of applying
the waters of purification. " A clean person shall take hyssop and
dip in the water, and sprinkle it," &c. Now if John had administer¬
ed a baptism that symbolically represented purification in any other
way than that pointed out in the law, he would, no doubt, have been
complained of, as infringing upon the manners and customs of the
Jews. Not a word of murmur is heard ! Wherefore, we conclude
that John sprinkled the multitudes with the water ofthe river Jordan.
38
But our baptist friends tell us that John left Jordan and jwent to
Enon" for purposes of immersion. This they suppose from the
fact that it is said " there was much water there,"—taking it for
granted that " much water" could not be necessary for any other
purpose than that of immersion. But if John's ministry was at¬
tended by the immense multitudes that the history of the event
plainly intimates, then must there have been a necessity of much
water, for other purposes than that of immersion. Both the people
and their animals must be supplied with water, to prevent famish¬
ing. It became John to provide against suffering of this kind.
Our Saviour supplied the wants of the people who followed him.
Moses supplied the people with water by smiting the rock. John
was not possessed of miraculous powers—and must, consequently,
take a position which would afford the multitudes a plentiful sup¬
ply of fresh water. The plains of Jordan did not afford this plenti¬
ful supply. The river Jordan afforded waters that were turbid, and
not fit for use until permitted to settle for some hours. But the waters
of Enon were pure, and better fitted to supply the people with
using water.
Our baptist friends tell us that Enon was a large collection of-
water. The original, however, signifies many waters, rather than
much water, conveying the idea of water-springs, or fountains of
water. Enon was not a plaee of much water in the modern sense
of that term. " When we hear our opponents talking of Enon
with its much water, or many streams, as necessarily being little
less than the confluence of the Tigris or Euphrates, the swelling of
the Nile, or as echoing to the voice of many thunderings, the sounds
of a cataract, and the roaring of the sea, astonishment overwhelms
us. Let our opponents tell us where these mighty floods are to be
found ; let them point out some ancient geographer who has de¬
scribed this celebrated sister of the Nile, the Euphrates and the
Amazon. All that modern travellers have been able to discover
as a vestige of its former magnificence, is only a well whither the
virgins go forth to draw water for their flocks and their father's
family."
Under ,all these circumstances, immersion cannot be made out at
all without first assuming, what never can be proven, that nothing i«
baptism but immersion. The point in dispute must be taken for
granted before immersion can be made out.
7th. The baptism of the children of Israel at the Red Sea, 1st.
Cor. x., 1, 2, though not a christian baptism, has been appealed to,
with a great deal of confidence in support of the views of immer-
sionists. l am far from believing that it \vas by immersion. It is ^
contradicted by the history of the passage of the Israelites through
the Red Sea, in which it is said that " Israel went into the midst
of the sea upon dry ground," Genesis xiv. 22, not coming into
contact at all with the waters of sea. Now, dry ground is not
found in the midst of a river, lake, or water, suited for purposes of
immersion. We must therefore seek for some other mode of
39
baptism, at least in this case, besides immersion. And for this we
are not at a loss. In the lxxvii. Psalm, we find an allusion to the
event, in which the mode of their baptism is distinctly stated.
Verse, 17, " The clouds poured out water." Also, in the cxiv.
Psalm we are told that when Israel went out of Egypt, "the sea
saw it and fled."
This certainly, does not favour immersion. We may safely
conclude, from the description of the scene, as given in the lxxvii.
Psalm, that "when the voice of thunder was in the heavens,"
when " the lightnings lightened the worl^l," when "the earth trem¬
bled and shook," when "the clouds 'poured out waters;" the,
children of Israel were drenched with the falling showers, which
according to the Psalmist, took place at the time of their passage
through the midst of the sea.
Fifthly. The doctrine that baptism is a burial, and that it emble¬
matically represents the Saviour's burial, is not only erroneous, but
fraught with mischief, as it changes the, very nature and design of
christian baptism. It would be doing injustice to my argument and
to the cause of truth, to pass it in silence on this occasion. We
frequently hear people exhorted to follow the Saviour into the liquid
grave, "to be buried with the Saviour," &c. And many have
been led into Jordan by these appeals. If this is wrong it should
be rebuked.
The passages in which this doctrine is supposed to be taught are
Romans vi. 4, " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism,
into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
life." Colossians ii. 12, "Buried with him by baptism, wherein
also ye are raised raised with him through the faith of the opera¬
tion of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The object of the
apostle was the same in both passages, no doubt. But that in
Romans is treated more at length and affords a key to his true
meaning. It is dangerous to attach a meaning to a passage of
Scripture, detached from its connection with the paragraph from
which its taken, and differing from the meaning which it is intend¬
ed to have as a part of that paragraph, or of that train of argu¬
ment. In order therefore to know the true import of the passage
from Romans, let us endeavor to find out the subject of discussion.
From the scope of the chapter we may gather the following
points, which the apostle urges with great force.
That those who have put on Christ are " dead unto sin," verse
11. " They are dead with Christ," Verse 8. "They are buried
with him," Verse 4. " They are baptised into his death," Verse
3. This is also called a crucifying of the old man, verse 6. The
same doctrine is taught, Galatians ii. 20, " I am crucified with
Christ." Also chap. v. 24, " They that have put on Christ have
crucified the flesh with its affections and its lusts." Also chap. vi.
14, " By whom (Christ) the world is crucified to me, and I to the
world."
40
That this death, though not literal, is real, not emblematical, the
real death of the old man of sin. " How shall we that are dead
to sin live any longer therein" verse 2. "We are buried with
him" verse 4. " The body of sin is destroyed, that henceforth we
should not serve sin," verse 6. " He that is dead, is freed from,
sin," verse 7. " Reckon ye yourselves dead indeed unto sin,"
verse 11.
That this death to sin is incompatible, and at. universal rupture
with an indulgence in sin. We are "buried," shutout, cutoff,
hid away from sin. And how can we, " who' are dead to sin,"
" live longer" in sinful indulgences. We have died to sin once."
That those who are dead to sin are raised from dekth, to a spirit¬
ual, holy, obedient life, in Christ Jesus. " That like as Christ was
raised from the dead, even so we should walk in newness of life,"
verse 4. " We shall be, also (planted) in the likeness of his resur¬
rection" verse 5. " We believe that we shall also live with him"
verse 8. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves, alive unto God,
through Jesus Christ our Lord."
That this death and resurrection is effected " by baptism," as
a cause, of which a death and a resurrection are the effects. Not
emblematically but really, verily. Here is a baptism which as a
real cause, produces a real effect, death and resurrection.
But. in order to come at the nature of this effect; death and
resurrection, that we may know the cause of it, let us examine a
little more minutely the apostle's reasonings in this important chap¬
ter. The apostle argues that ' .
Those who are dead with Christ, are as really and effectually
dead spiritually, as Christ was dead, naturally. "We are buried
with him by baptism into death." That is, as Christ was really
buried in a natural grave, so we are buried in a spiritual grave.
As Christ was really raised out of his natural grave, so we have
been raised from the death of sin to a spiritual life in Christ.
As by a baptism of sufferings, (see Mat. xx. 23, Luke xii. 50.)
Christ was brought to a natural death, so by a baptism of the
Spirit's saving influences we 'are brought to a death of sin. (See
Mat. iii. 12, Mark i. 8, Luke iii. 16.)
The apostle applies his -subject in one of the most powerful and
soul-stirring exhortations that ever fell from the pen of inspiration-,
into which he breathes the whole strength of the argument-that he
had accumulated in the previous verses.
But our baptist friends tell us that this is a literal water baptism,
and a literal burial which symbolizes the death and burial of
Christ. Now I would ask how it is possible to prove, from the
passages under consideration, that christian baptism ig an emblem
of the death and burial of Christ, and that immersion is the only
mode ? What does " baptism into Christ," and " baptism into his
death" mean? Can it possibly mean " dipped". or " immersed"
into his death, or into him? Does it mean "sprinkled" into him?
It cannot possibly mean either. For how could our natural bodies
41
be "immersed" or "dipped" literally into Christ, or into Christ's
death ? Now if " baptism into death" does not mean baptism into
a river of water, or has no allusion at all' to such a baptism, and I
cannot for my life see that it does, then also, " burial into death"
has no such allusion. There is an absurdity in the thing which
renders.it almost ridiculous.
The whole passage may be paraphrased thus. " So many of us,
as were baptised into the christian faith of Jesus Christ, were bap-
tised into the faith of the reality of his death. Therefore we are
spiritually dead and buried, by the baptism of the Holy Ghost
upon our souls. That like as Christ was raised from his natural
death, by the glory of the Father, even so, we also should be raised
to a new life in Christ Jesus, that we may walk in the newness of
spiritual life.'''' The reasoning of the apostle is simply this. As
Christ rgally died, so we being baptised into him are dead in him,
dead to sin. And as Christ really arose from death, so ought we
to live in newness of life. The phrase, " buried into death," is a
mode of expression denoting entire deadness.
Now, as there is but one death spoken of, and one resurrection, a
spiritual, it cannot also include a symbolical death and resurrec¬
tion. But if there is one doubt remaining on the mind, it is re¬
moved by the passage itself, which says, that this baptism is perform¬
ed " by the operation of God."
But, if it still be contended that water baptism is referred to, then
be it so. It can avail nothing. It can only be referred to, as
emblematical of Spiritual baptism, and should be administered by
the same mode, thht is, by sprinkling or pouring. So that from
this very passage, according to the baptist shoioimg, we have an
argument in favour of the Pedobaptist view.
The absurdity of the notion that christian baptism is an emblem
of the death of Christ, I will here endeavour to expose, as it deserves
a more particular notice than we have as yet given it. As the
supper was instituted in commemoration of the death of Christ,
another sacrament to ^commemorate the same event would be a
nuisance in the church. Therefore, baptism does not commemorate
the death and burial of Christ. There are two great events, in
which man is deeply interested, and which have been pointed to,
and emblematically exhibited in every period of the church. The
death of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. By the former,
atonement was made for sin, by the latter, spiritual defilement was
washed' away. The former was represented under the Jewish
dispensation, by the sacrament of the passover, and under the
christian dispensation by the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
The latter was represented under the Jewish dispensation, by the
sacrament of circumcision; and under the christian dispensation
by water baptism.
Now, as the sacrament of the supper commemorates the act of
atonement, and as baptism commemorates the Spirit's influences,
we enquire, What constituted the' atonement proper ? and what
42
acts and circumstances connected with the death of Christ were
essential parts of the atonement ? In examining the Scriptures
we will find that nothing but the voluntary sufferings of Christ con¬
stituted the atonement. No man took his life, He laid it down of
himself. And this voluntary laying down of his life, the agonies of
the garden, the pouring out of his life, this, this alone constituted
the great atonement. The death of Christ was the sacrificing of the
Lamb of God, by him who was God's High Priest. As such, none
could officiate in this matter but the Saviour himself. All other
circumstances connected with the Saviour's death, were unessential.
His apprehension, trial, condemnation, crucifixion, burial, all
were merely accidental; that is, not necessary to the great atonement.
So far as the atonement was concerned, it would have been accom¬
plished in the garden a? validly as on the cross. Yet the pro¬
phecies were fulfilled, that such and such circumstances would
transpire in connection with the Saviour's death, by which our faith
in the truth of revelation is greatly strengthened. Now, if these
things be so, where is the propriety, where is the lawfulness of
administering a sacrament in commemoration of what is not neces¬
sarily connected with man's salvation. The atonement would
have been as valid, as effectual, had the Saviour remained on the
cross. A sacrament in commemoration of the Saviour's mock
worship, were as valid, and as orthodox as one in commemoration
of his burial.
I beg to be indulged yet farther. Taking this view of the
burial of Christ, it becomes a matter of small concern to me
whether the manner of the final , disposition of the corpse of the
Saviour was a literal burial or not. The fact of his death I am
most concerned in. But let me ask. Has it been clearly made
out, that the thing which our baptist friends profess to commem¬
orate in their baptism, is not a chimera ? I confess that I have
not been taught to regard the Saviour's burial as a literal burial, a
burial proper, after the modern notion of burying the dead, such a
hurial as is commemorated by our baptist friends. To bury literally
is to cover up below the surface, and closely embrace with earth.
The sepulture of the Saviour has rather the character of a deposit¬
ing in a vault than of a literal burial. The sepulchre was most
assuredly a vault proper. In Mark, chap. xvi. it is said of the two
first visitants to the sepulchre, that " entering into the sepulchre
(the vault) they saw a young man sitting on the right side," (with¬
in the vault) " and they went out" (of the vault.) Luke xxiv. 2,
3, " And they found the stone rolled away from (the door or mouth
of) the sepulchre." Mat. xxvii. 60, And they entered in (to the
vault) and found not the body of the Lord Jesus (in the vault.)
" And behold two men stood by them" (in the sepulchre.) John
xx. 5, 6, "And he stooping, and looking in (into the sepulchre) saw
the linen clothes lying, yet went he not in (into the sepulchre.)
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepul¬
chre" &c. Yerse 8, " Then went in that other disciple also."
43
Verses 11 and 12, " But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weep¬
ing, and she stooped down and looked into the sepulchre, and she
saw two angels in white (in the sepulchre) sitting, the one at the
head, and the other at the foot, where the body of Jesus had lain."
What is to be inferred from such language, used with respect to
the place and manner of the Saviour's burial. It is manifest
that the Saviour was vaulted rather than buried. And if we will
examine Luke xxiii. 53, we will find that this vaulted sepulchre
was " hewn in stone." And if we will examine Mat. xxvii. 60,
, we will find that instead of pouringin dirt in order to his burial,
a great stone was rolled to the door or entrance of the sepulchre or
vault wherein the Saviour's body was laid. There is nothing in all
this, which resembles a literal burial. No grave, no going down
into the grave, no coming up out of the grave. Consequently, to talk
of " following the Saviour down into the liquid grave" is perfect
nonsense, and the thing represented thereby is a chimera, and never
had a real existence.
But admit it all, admit that the Saviour was literally buried,
and that baptism is an emblem of his burial. And what then?
Does that prove immersion ? Is a burial performed by immersion,
or by pouring ? It is not the laying down of the corpse, but the
pouring in of the earth which constitutes the burial proper.
And how then is it properly represented by immersion ? Verily it
should be by pouring or sprinkling from this very showing.
I have dwelt the longer on this argument, that I might the more
effectually expose the absurdity of the doctrine of immersion, as
drawn from these premises, and break down this strong pillar of
immersion. I do not wish to be understood as invalidating the ordi¬
nance of baptism as administered by our ministering brethren of
the baptist church, far from it. The wrong views of these brethren
do not invalidate the ordinance itself, if legally administered.
Sixthly. I now proceed to propose, and press some objections
which lie heavily against immersion. And
1st. Immersion is frequently impracticable, from several causes.
As (1) Climate. Even in our climate extreme cold is a great in¬
convenience to immersion, not to say an actual prevention. Yet in
more Northerly climates it is utterly impossible from intense
cold and " thick ribbed ice," to immerse for a considerable part of
the year, without a sacrifice of life. How very imprudent, even
supposing that a proper place could be procured " to plunge
beneath the freezing tide," a shivering form. True, immersions
have been performed in high Northern regions, but either the
element was warmed over fire, or it has been at the risk and sacri¬
fice of life.
(2) Feebleness of health. I regard this as a most formidable
objection against immerson. Indeed, so strong was this objection
in the mind of Richard Baxter, that he considered immersion as a
violation of the sixth commandment. He enumerates a number of
diseases which immersion is likely to produce or excite in a feeble
44
constitution. .Richard Watson says in his remarks on baptism,
that "it is unlikely that in a religion of mercy, there should be no
consideration of health and life, in the administration of an
ordinance of salvation, since it is certain that in countries where
cold bathing is little practised, great risk of both is often incurred
especially in the case of women and delicate persons of either
sex, and fatal effects do sometimes occur." Mr. Hibbard dis¬
courses thus on this point, " can it be credited that the compas¬
sionate Author of Christianity has instituted an external ordinance
of religion, of universal obligation, so irrespective of the frailties
of his creatures as that thousands, by the irrevocable necessity of
circumstances, are for ever debarred all participation therein." -
" How large a portion of our race are actually labouring'under
chronic diseases which for months and even years together, deprive
them of the power of being immersed !" "Is it becoming to ex¬
hort a frail being to an act which a little knowledge of physiology
would condemn as rash and hazardous, and then appeal to Scripture
to sanctify the temerity." " It is saying to a frail dependant mortal
' cast thyself down, for he shall give his angels charge concern¬
ing thee, and in their hands they shall hold thee up.' " "Nay,
my friends, think not that God has ever established an ordinance in
his church, which in so many instances is at war with the very
health and existence of his creatures."
(3) Scarcity of water. It is owing to the fact of the scarcity of
water, that tanks, or baptismal pools, have been invented. Why
this 1 The Saviour was not baptised in a tank, pool, tub or box.
And, "to follow the Saviour down into the water tank," is just
not to follow him at all. In the greater part of Arabia and Africa,
immersion is utterly inconvenient for want of water. And even in
many parts of our own country, it is very difficult.'
2d Objection. The properties of baptism are opposed to im¬
mersion. The manner of water baptism should agree with the
manner of spiritual baptism. (1) The water should be applied
to the subject, and not the subject to the water. (2) It should be
applied gently and in small quantities. Sprinkling and pouring
denote the influence of the Spirit on individuals. Flowing denotes
the spreading of the gospel. To immerse, submerge, overwhelm,
is not an emblem of mercy, but. of ivrath. Paraoh's host was im¬
mersed, submerged, overwhelmed in the waters of the Red Sea. The
Antediluvians were immersed in the waters of the flood. The
cities of the Plain were immersed in fire.
3d -Objection. As baptism is a putting on of Christ; it is well
calculated to inspire devotion and excite spirituality in the subject,
whereas, immersion agitates the mimf disturbs the spirit and hin¬
ders the devotional feelings. In fact, the want of delicacy neces¬
sarily attending immersion, must necessarily disturb the mind of
the delicate. The thought of being exposed in so unsightly a con¬
dition, with garments imbued with the liquid, and dripping, to the
sneer of the unbelieving, and the scoff" of the infidel, will, must neces-
45
sarily, disturb the mind and hinder devotion. I say this with all
possible respect for the feelings of those who practise immersion.
But it is not until urged to " follow the example of the Saviour"
that the individual gets the better of his more delicate jeelings,
and consents to be immersed.
4th Objection. Immersion is clumsy, burdensome, ceremonial,
too much so for a christian ordinance. Simplicity and plainness
should characterize the ordinances of the christian church.
5th Objection. The ordinances of the church should be ad¬
ministered in the sanctuary, where souls are converted, where the
word comes with power, where the church of God assembles,
rather than in the swamps, in the muddy marshes of water-courses,
on the filthy banks of streams, about turbid, polluted waters.
6th Objection. Immersion, though it may be ancient, is not
apostolic. The Roman Catholic Church can claim as high an
antiquity for many of her fooleries, as can be claimed for the mode
of immersion by its advocates.
Seventhly, and lastly. I shall answer some objections proposed
by immersionists against sprinkling and pouring.
1st Objection. "John baptised in Enon because there was
much water there." . Answer. Not'in the River Enon. Enon
was not a river or stream of water, but a place supplied with fresh¬
water springs; of which John availed himself for the benefit of
the famishing multitudes. I have already answered this objection
in my remarks on the passage referred to.
2d Objection. " Baptism is a burial." Answer. Not at all,
as I have abundantly shown already, in my remarks on the pas¬
sages in Romans and Colossians. See argument fifth, page 35.
3d Objection. " Sprinkling is insufficent for the notion of
cleansing or purifying. It is not possible to cleanse the body with
half a dozen drops of water." Answer. This is a specious objec¬
tion, which, on examination, we will find to be groundless. (1)
This objection lies with equal weight against immersion; for neither
immersion nor sprinkling is sufficient to cleanse the body. (2) It
is not a " cleansing of the filth of the flesh," not a literal washing
for which we contend. Baptism is the sign of a spiritual cleansing,
as says St. Peter, 1st Peter iii. 21, The like figure whereunto
even baptism doth now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of
the flesh, hut the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the
resurrection of Christ." It is to the parenthetical qualification, in
this passage that I would call attention, as fixing the symbolical
signification of baptism, not the " putting a way of the filth of
the flesh," but the purifying of the conscience " by the res¬
urrection of Christ." (3) The baptising of a part of the body is
sufficient to signify spiritual purity. So thought David, Psalm
xxvi. 6, " I will wash my hands in (token of) innocency." He did
not think it necessary to plunge into a river in token of his inno¬
cency ! So taught the Saviour to his apostle Peter, John xiii. 10,
"Jesus saith unto him, he that is washed needeth not, save to wash
46
his feet, but is clean every whit. So taught Pontius Pilate, Mat.
xxvii. 24, " He took water and washed his hands before the multi¬
tude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person." So
we see that the application of water in small quantities and to only
a part of the body is sufficient to express spiritual purity.
4th Objection. " You are afraid of the cross." Answer. (1)
"We have not yet learned that christians should bear the cross of
being immersed. That is begging the question, assuming the very
point in controversy, and before the objection is pressed, the point
must be settled. (2) Let our suffering, toiling, cross-bearing, self-
denying itinerants tell, let the swamps and rice-fields of the South¬
east; the pine barrens of the cow-driver; the wilds of the West;
the savage Indian, tell; let our missionaries at the very ends of the
earth tell whether we are afraid of the cross ! (3) The objection
is ill-timed. Give us first an example abundantly of self-denial,
toil, labour more abundant, of journeyings oft, of perils of waters,
perils of robbers, perils by the heathen, of weariness and painful-
ness, of watching, hunger, thirst, fasting, in spreading the gospel of
the Son of God. And when, like Paul, you can glory in the things
concerning your infirmities, your sufferings &c., then charge
your delinquent brethren with cowardice. Then say to us " you
are afraid of the cross."
IV. Who are the proper subjects of christian baptism ? This
is a question of great importance, and must be answered from the
word of God. I shall vindicate the claims of adult converted persons,
adult believing penitents, and the children of christian parents,
to the ordinance of christian baptism.
1st. Adult converted persons are entitled to the ordinance of
baptism, provided they have never been legally baptised. On
this point all are agreed. I need not therefore labour this point.
" But suppose they have been baptised and are dissatisfied with
their baptism." If their baptism is a legal one, I cannot conceive
that their impressions can possibly invalidate it. And to repeat it,
therefore, is little less than sacrilege. To say the least of it, the
administering of christian baptism twice or thrice to the same per¬
son, is a guilty trifling with a solemn ordinance of the church of
God. This may be done ignorantly in unbelief; and no doubt is,
on the part of our proselyting baptist friends. But that unbelief
becomes unpardonable when it opposes the light of truth. There¬
fore, before such a system of proselytism as has afflicted the
churches for these scores of years, be carried on any farther, the
matter should be fully and fairly investigated. Without such in¬
vestigation, to continue to afflict the church thus, is to sin against
God.
2d. Adult believing penitents are entitled to christian baptism.
This we prove,
1st, From the commandments enjoining baptism as a condition
of salvation. Acts ii. 38, " Repent and be baptised for the remis¬
sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
47
Mat. xxviii. 19, " Go teach all nations, baptising them," &c.
2d. The promises of salvation on condition of baptism. Mark
xvi. 16, " He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved."
3d. The historic accounts of apostolic baptisms. Acts viii. 12 to
17, " They were baptised, both men and women, then Simon him¬
self believed also, and when he was baptised &c., Peter and John,
who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might
receive the Holy Ghost. For as yet he was fallen upon none of
them, only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. But
Peter said unto him (to Simon,) " Thou hast neither part nor lot
in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God."
Acts xix. 5, 6, " When they heard this, they were baptised in
the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands
upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with
tongues and prophesied."
From these Scriptures we may learn the Scripture order of
baptism, repent, be baptised, be converted. We have here the
apostolic usage for baptising the penitent individual.
3d. The children of christian parents, that is, of those who
believe the Scriptures. The arguments we shall use in defence
of the rights of infants are found,
First. In the nature of baptism itself. It is both a sign and
a seal.
1st. As a sign, baptism denotes a spiritual washing, and presup¬
poses defilement, and a need of washing. But children possess
the defilements of natural impurity. Psalm li. 5, " Behold I was
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm
lviii. 3, " They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
Job xiv. 4, " Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean."
Isaiah xlviii. 8, " And wast called a transgressor from the womb."
Now, if children need the cleansing influences of the Spirit, it is
right that the means of this grace should be used, therefore, chil¬
dren are proper subjects of christian baptism. I am aware that
it is replied, that the subject of baptism must have arrived at ac¬
countable years, that his consent be given. This I shall notice in
due time, and in its proper place.
2d. Baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace. As such it is
a pledge, both of the divine faithfulness, and of our obedience to
God. Of this I shall treat more at large in another part of my
discourse. But infants are capable of covenant relations. They
are so considered in our civil relations. The foreigner who adopts
our country, and would enjoy the privileges of citizenship, must
first take an oath of allegiance to the constitution of our states.
This transaction partakes of the nature of a solemn covenant, the
obligations and the benefits of which come upon his children. But
he, who by birthright, inherits the blessings of our laws, stands
likewise, by birthright, in a covenant relation to the laws. Again.
The parent or guardian of a minor brings, by virtue of the law,
covenant obligations upon the child, that may not be thrown off in
48
riper years. The rights to an immense amount of property are
secured to its owners by virtue of covenant transactions, of which
minors, even infants, constitute a party. -To invalidate such cov¬
enant engagements would be well nigh to uproot civil Society.
Children were capable of covenant relations even under the
Jewish dispensation. Genesis xvii. 7, " And I will establish my
. covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their
generations, for an everlasting covenant." From this passage
we learn that the covenant, made with Abraham, as stated in the
. second verse, embraced his children throughout their generations.
And this embracement was not only in its blessings, but also in
• its obligations. • The conditions of this covenant were, that they
cleave unto the Lord, and the blessings were, that he should be their
inheritance. Understand, the obligations of this covenant came
upon the children, or descendants of Abraham, not by voluntary
contract, but by birthright, yet those obligations were not the
less binding. 1st Kings i. II, "And she vowed a vow and said, 0
. Lord of Hosts, if thou wilt give unto thy handmaid a man child,
then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life." Here is
a solemn covenant involving the destiny of an unborn child. And
yet this covenant was the rule of the life of the future Samuel.
Deuteronomy xxix. 10 to 12, "Ye stand this day all of you before
the Lord, your captains with all the men of Israel, your little
ones, your wives and the stranger, that thou shouldst enter into
covenant with the Lord thy God." God would not, have made
a covenant with little ones unless they had been capable of it. Now
.mark, that it is not said children only, but little ones, that is infants
as the word properly signifies. And as then, so now, those children
are obliged to perform in after life what they are not capable of
performing at the time o"f their entering into such obligation.
And, as children are< capable of covenant relations, and as God
has graciously entered into a covenant of grace and mercy with
man ; and as infants are embraced in that covenant, they have an
indisputable right to. the seal of that covenant, which is christian
baptism. The whole argument must stand or fall with these two
arguments. In order to sustain these views, I proceed to show,
2dly. That the church of God is one and the same, under chang¬
ing dispensations: that the Jewish and the Christian Church are
one and the same church.
1st. The covenants on which these churches are founded is the
same, as may be seen by reference to the Scriptures in which
these covenants are set forth. The Arahamic covenant, Genesis
xxii. 16, 17,18, "By myself have I sworn saith-the Lord, for
because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy Son,
thine only Son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying
I will multiply thy seed as .the stars of heaven, and as the sand
which is on the sea shore." Chap. xvii. 7, " And I will establish
my covenant with thee and thy seed after thee, in their generations,
fdr an everlasting covenant." The gospel covenant, Jeremiah
49
xxxi. 33, " But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel." Verse 32, "Not according to the covenant
which I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the
hand to bring them out of the land ol Egypt, which covenant they
brake." Hebrews viii. 8, " Behold the days come saith the Lord
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and
with the house of Juda." The identity of these two covenants.
Galatians iii. 17, " And this I say, that the covenant which was
confirmed before in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and
thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise
of none effect." Verse 18, " But God gave it (the inheritance) to
Abraham by promise." Verse 19, "The law, it was added, be¬
cause of transgression till the seed should come to whom the
promise (of the Abrahamic covenant) was made." But, who is the
seed of the covenant ? See verse 16th, " Now to Abraham and to
his seed were the promises made. And to thy seed, which is
Christ." That is, the gospel covenant was made with Abraham
and Christ. This is most conclusive.
The conditions of the Abrahamic and of the gospel covenant, are
the same, faith being the only condition of salvation. Genesis,
xv. 6. " And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord ; and he counted
it for righteousness." Romans, iv. 22, " And therefore it (faith)
was imputed unto him for righteousness." Verses 23, 24, "Now
it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed unto him ;
but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him
that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead." Galatians iii. 9,
" So then they which believe are blessed with faithful Abraham."
Romans xv. 4, For whatsoever things were written aforetime
were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort
of the Scriptures, might have hope." A
The Mediator, or the seed of the. Abrahamic, and of the Gospel
covenant, is the'same person. Genesis xxii. 18, " And in thy
seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Acts iii. 25,
"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which
God made with our father Abraham, saying, And in thy seed shall
all the nations of the earth be blessed." Verse 26, " Unto you
first, God having raised up his son Jesus Christ," &c. Galatians
iii. 16. "Now, to Abraham and his seed was the promise made.
He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to
thy seed, which is Christ.". Verse 19, " It (the law) was added
because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the
promise was made." Hebrews xii. 24, "But ye are come to
Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprink¬
ling." ' Hebrews viii. 6, "He is the Mediator of a better covenant
which was established on better principles," (than the covenant
made in Horeb.)
The blessings and promises are the same in the Abrahamic and
the Gospel covenants. Genesis xvii. 7, " And I will be a God
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Verse 8, " And I will be
4
50
their God." Exodus vi. 7, " And I will take you to me for a
people, and I will be to you a God." Acts ii. 39, " For the
promise is to you. and to your children, and to all that are afar off;
even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." Chapter iii.
25, Ye are the children of the covenant which God made with our
Fathers." Romans ix. 8, 26, 30, " They which are the children
of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of
promise are counted for the seed. And it shall come to pass that
in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people ;
there shall they be called the children of God. What shall we say
then ? That the Gentiles who followed not after righteousness,
have attained to righteousness, even to the righteousness which is
by faith." Ephesians ii. 19, 20, " Now, therefore ye are no more
strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of
the household of God: and are built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner
stone."
The Abrahamie covenant was called " the new covenant;"
"the everlasting covenant;" "the covenant of promise ;" and was,
as such, confirmed in Christ. The character of the covenant.
Genesis xvii. 7, 13, "And I will establish my covenant between
me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant.
And my covenant shall be for an everlasting covenant. And I
will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant,
and with his seed after him." Isaiah lv. 3, " And I will make
an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David."
Jermiah xxxi. 31, "Behold the days come saith the Lord when I
will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the
house of Juda." Chap. 1. 5, "Saying, come let us join ourselves
to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall nqt be forgotten."
Chap, xxxii. 40, "And I will make an everlasting covenant with
them." Hebrews viii. 8, " Behold the days come saith the Lord
when I will make a new covenant," &c. Chap. xii. 24, " And
to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant." Ezekiel xxxiv. 25,
" And I will make with them a covenant of peace." Chap, xxxvii.
26, " And I will make with them a covenant of peace, it shall be
an everlasting covenant." Ephesians ii. 12, " The covenants of
promise." Genesis xvii. 7, " And I will establish my covenant
between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God unto
thee and to thy seed after thee."
The confirmation of this new and everlasting covenant. Gala-
tians iii. 17, "The covenant which was confirmed before of God
in Christ Jesus." Verse 15, "Though it be but a man's cove¬
nant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulled! or addeth there¬
to." Romans xv. 8, " Jesus Christ was the minister of the cir¬
cumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promise made unto
the fathers." Hebrews vi. 13, 16, 17, 18, "For when God made
promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he
sware by himself. For men verily swear by the greater, and an
51
oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein
God willing, more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise
the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two
immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, we
might have strong-consolation." Luke i. 72, 73, "To perform
the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy cov¬
enant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham," &c.
The seal of the covenant was the blood of Christ. Mat. xxvi.
28, " For this is my blood of the New Testament/' Hebrews xii.
24, " The blood of sprinkling." 1st Peter i. 2, " Unto sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ." Colossians i. 20, "And having
made peace through the blood of his cross." Hebrews xiii. 20,
"Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our
Lord Jesus Christ, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the
blood of the everlasting covenant." Chap. x. 22, 23, "And al¬
most all things are by the law purified with blood, and without shed¬
ding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the
patterns &c., should be purified with these (animal sacrifices,) but
the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices," (with the
sacrifice of the Lamb of God.) Zachariah ix. 11, " As for thee
also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners
' out of the pit."
Thus have we proven the identity of the Abrahamic and gospel
covenants, not by reasoning, but by the Scriptures, from which we
may not appeal. From a confounding of the Abrahamic with the
Horeb covenant, the " everlasting covenant" with "that which
waxeth old, and is ready to vanish away," the covenant of
grace with the covenant of works, have arisen many fatal errors..
The adjectives, new and old, are applied to these covenants, not
to denote prior and subsequent existence, so much as to denote
the durable, permanent existence of the one, and the vanishing
nature of the other. But now, if the new covenant of subsequent
date be the everlasting covenant, the covenant of electing grace,
the covenant which existed before the world began, as our baptist
friends say, I would ask, when did the old covenant begin, and
when did it vanish ? I anticipate the answer. It is very apparent
to an impartial person that such views do not harmonize, and they
argue a want of a correct understanding of both the one and the
other of these covenants. We have seen that the conditions, the
mediator or the seed, the blessings and promises, the character,,
the confirmation, the blood of the Abrahamic covenant, and the
gospel covenant, are the same. Nay, that the covenants are the
same.
2d. The Hebrew Church was built upon the Abrahamic cove¬
nant, the new and everlasting covenant, as shown in the following
classes of Scriptures.
The Hebrew Cliuich was the church of God, and more than a
mere political association. Acts vii. 38, " This is he that was. in
the church, in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him ia
52
mount Sinai with our fathers, who received the lively oracles to
give unto us." Hebrews iii. 2, 3, "Who was faithful to him
that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inas¬
much as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the
house." 2d Chronicles v. 13, 14, " That then the house was filled
with a cloud, even the house of the Lord ; so that the priests could,
not stand to minister by reason of the cloud, for the glory of the
Lord had filled the house of God."
From these Scriptures we learn that Christ built the Hebrew
Church, that the glory of the Lord dwelt in his church, that Moses
Was a member of the church of God in the wilderness.
The Hebrew Church was a holy church, a church of holy peo¬
ple. Genesis xvii. 1, "I am the Lord thy God, walk before me
and be thou perfect." Exodus xx. lto 17, "Thou shalt have no
other Gods before me," &c. Deuteronomy vii. 6, "The Lord thy
God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all
people that are upon the face of the earth." Verse 11, " Thou
shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the
judgments, which I command thee this day to do them." Psalm
xxxvii. 37, " Mark the perfect man and behold the upright." Joel
ii. 1, "Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my
holy mountain," (the church.) Hebrews xi. 13, 16, " These all
died in the faith, and confessed that they were strangers and pil¬
grims on the earth. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called
their God, for he hath prepared for them a city."
The Hebrew Church was founded upon the covenant of grace,
the new and everlasting covenant. I have abundantly shown that
the covenant made with Abraham was the covenant of grace.
Genesis xvii. 9, " And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep
my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their genera¬
tions." Chap. xxvi. 3, 5, " And I will perform the oath which I
sware unto Abraham thy father." Psalms cv. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
" He is the Lord our God ; his judgments are in all the earth. He
hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he com¬
manded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made
with Abraham, and his oath to Isaac ; and confirmed the same Unto
Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."
Verse 45, "That they might observe his statutes and keep his laws."
From these Scriptures we learn, that the covenant made with
Abraham was everlasting. That the Lord redeemed Israel in
remembrance of this covenant. That the Israelites were planted
in the holy land that they might observe the statutes of the Lord
and keep his covenant.
3d. But the christian church is founded on the same new and
everlasting covenant. Ephesians ii. 20, 21, " And are built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner-stone." Galatians iii. 7, "Know ye there,
fore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of
53
Abraham." Verse 14, " That the blessing of Abraham might
come upon the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ." Verse 19, "And
if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according
to the promise," (made to Abraham.)
4th. The unity of the church is farther proven from the many
comparisons used in the Scriptures which suppose the church to
be one and the same.
The church of God is compared to a vineyard. Mat. xxi. 33 to
44, " There was a certain house-holder which planted a vineyard
(the church,) and let it out to husbandmen (the Jews.) Therefore
say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you
(Jews,) and given to a nation (the Gentiles.) bringing forth the
fruits thereof."
The church is compared to an olive tree. Romans xi. 17, 18,
23, 24, " And if some of the branches (of the tame olive tree, the
Hebrew Church,) be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree,
(a Gentile,) wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest
of the root and fatness of the olive tree (the Hebrew church,) boast
not thyself against the branches. But if thou boastest, thou bearest
not the root, but the root thee." " For if God spared not the natural
branches, take heed lest he spare not thee." " For God is able to
graft them in again." " How much more shall these which be
natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree ?"
The church is compared to a sheep-fold. John x. 16, 17, " And
•other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must
bring (into this fold) and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall
be one fold and one shepherd."
In this passage, the Hebrew church is called a fold, into which
the Gentiles shall be brought, and the Jews and Gentiles should
unite in one and the same church, under one and the same head.
The church is called a kingdom, "the kingdom of God." Mat.
xxi. 43, " Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be
taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits
thereof." Mark, on this passage, that the "kingdom of God," the
visible church belonged to the Jews. God threatened to take it
from them and give it to the Gentile nations.
The church is compared to a marriage feast. Mat. xxii. 2, &c.,
and Luke xiv. 16, &c., " The kingdom of Fleaven is like unto a
certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his
servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding, and they
would not come." " Go ye therefore into the high ways, and as
many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage." Mark, on this pas¬
sage that the provisions of this feast are the rich gospel blessings,
offered first to the Jews. The Jews refused to partake of those
blessings. And therefore they are bestowed on the Gentiles.
Now, from all that we have seen, either the church of God is
one under changing dispensations, or the Scriptures very unguard¬
ed on the subject. There can be but one everlasting covenant of
grace, which we have shown to be the Abrahamic covenant, but
54
one true church, built on this covenant, but one Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, but one1 true and saving faith, but one spirit of grace.
Thirdly. Infants are embraced in the covenant of grace, and
are rightful members of the visible church, and as such are proper
subjects of christian baptism, as the seal of the covenant. This
will be abundantly proven from the following considerations.
1st. The covenant made with Abraham and his seed, included
infants. Genesis xvii. 4, " As for me, my covenant is with thee,
and thou shalt be a father of many nations." Verse 6, " And I
will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee."
Verse 7, "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee,
and thy seed after thee in their generations." Verse 14, "And
the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not cir¬
cumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken
my covenant." Verse 16, "And I will bless her, and give thee a
son also of her, yea I will bless her and she shall be a mother of
many nations." Verse 17, " Shall a child be born unto him that
is a hundred years old." Verse 19, "And God said, Sarah thy
wife shall bear thee a son indeed, and I will establish my covenant
with him."
2d. Circumcision, which was the seal of the covenant, and the
initiatory rite, or door into the visible church, was administered to
children, whereby they became members of the visible church. As
this is a very important proposition in its bearing on the question at
issue, I shall endeavour to prove it demonstratively.
Circumcision was the seal of the covenant of promise. Genesis
xvii. 11, 13, "And ye shall circumcise the flesh Qf your foreskin,
and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and thee." Acts
vii. 8, "And he gave him the covenant of circumcision." Ro¬
mans iv. 11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of
the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcis¬
ed." These Scriptures are plain to the point.
Circumcision was the initiatory rite, or door into the visible
church. Genesis xvii. 14, " Whose flesh of his foreskin is not
circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people," (deprived
of membership in the visible church.) Verse 23, "And Abraham
circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the self-same day as God
Lad said unto him." Exodus xii. 48, "For no uncircumcised
person shall eat thereof," (that is, of the sacrament of the pass-
over.) Isaiah lii. 1, " Awake, awake, O Zion, O Jerusalem, (the
church,) the holy city, for henceforth there shall no more come unto
thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.''''
Circumcision, the seal of the covenant, and the initiating rite
into the visible church, was administered to children by the express
command of God. Genesis xvii. 10, " This is my covenant which
ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every
man-child among you shall be circumcised." Verses 12, 13,
" And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you,
every man-child in your generations, must needs be circumcised."
55
Leviticus xii. 3, " And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin
shall be circumcised." Genesis xxi. 4, " And Abraham circum¬
cised his son Issiac, being eight days old, as God had( commanded
him. John vii. 22, 23, " Moses therefore gave you circumcision,,
not because it was of Moses but of the fathers. If a man (child,)
on the Sabbath receive circumcision that the law of Moses should
not be broken," &c.
Circumcision conferred spiritual blessings as well as temporal
privileges. Romans iii. 1, 2, 3, " What advantage then hath the
Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision. Much everyway,
(both temporally and spiritually,) chiefly (spiritually) because that
unto them was committed the oracles of God. For, what if some
did not believe ? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without
effect."^ Chap. iic. 4, 5, (The circumcision,) " Who are Israelites
to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory and the covenants
and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises,
whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh, Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed forever." Deuteronomy vii. 8,
" And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judg¬
ments, so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day."
Colossians ii. 11, " In whom also ye are circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the
sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." Deuteronomy x.
16, " Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart and be no
more stiff-necked." Chap. xxx. 6, " And the Lord thy God
will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed to love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou
mayest live." From all that has thus been proven from the word
of God, with regard to the nature and design of the Abrahamic
covenant and the Hebrew church, I must be permitted to say that
the notions that my baptist friends entertain of the character of
that covenant as being "solely of a temporal character," are
entirely irreconcilable with the word of God. Mr. Hinton whose
work I have already noticed, seems to be aware that he occupies
disputed and dangerous ground, in denying that the Abrahamic
covenant, on which the Hebrew church was built, conveyed spirit¬
ual blessings. He therefore takes care to qualify his assertions.
" That it was a part of this covenant," says he "though very in¬
directly expressed, that Christ should descend from Abraham, I
willingly admit, as also that the ultimate conversion of the Jews
is indirectly included." Now, if the gift of a Saviour, and the
conversion of the Jews were included among the blessings of the
covenant, it is utterly inconceivable how Mr. Hinton, or any
of his baptist brethren can in the face of such admission, contend
so dogmatically that the covenant made with Abraham and con¬
firmed to Israel, secured temporal blessings solely. But there is
another and a more glaring inconsistency on the part of my bap¬
tist friends, if our author be permitted to speak for them, which I
will but briefly refer to. " Although, St. Paul," continues Mr.
56
Hinton, " seems to intimate that this (this spiritual blessing just
referred to) may be regarded as the result of a new, rather than
the old covenant." Again, " the position I maintain is that the
Abrahamic covenant has never been abrogated." " Neither the
covenant, nor circumcision, its seal, have gone out." And yet only
securing temporal blessings ! In the first of these assertions it is
intended to say, in the very face of Paul's teachings to the con¬
trary, as found in the third chapter of Galatians, that the Abra¬
hamic covenant is " the old covenant" that vanished away. And
yet he tells us that that covenant is yet in full force, securing to
the'Jews their final restoration to the-favour of God. Now, when
it is proven to be that white and hlack are the same colour, then
will I agree that these assertions are reconcilable. Such reason¬
ing is a " continent of mud," " without form and void."
Fourthly. Baptism is the seal of the same covenant, the initia¬
tory rite into the same visible church; and should be administered
to the same persons. Therefore, infants being included in the cove¬
nant of grace, and entitled to the seal of thai covenant, and having
a divine right to membership in the visible church, are proper sub¬
jects of christian baptism. This is in fact the necessary result of
the arguments we have already advanced. But in further proof
of the right of infants to christian baptism, we remark that,
1st. The gospel is the covenant of grace renewed to man with
privileges enlarged and extended.
The covenant character of the gospel is established by the im¬
port of the Greek word 6iadexe diatheke, translated Testament,.
which properly signifies covenant. "The Greek word" says Mr.
Watson, " according to its etymology and according to its classical
use, may denote a testament, a disposition as well as a covenant,
and the gospel may be called a testament, because it is a significa¬
tion of the will of our Saviour ratified by his death, and because it
conveys blessings to be enjoyed after his death," " yet the train of
argument where diatheke occurs, generally appears to proceed upon
its meaning a covenant, and therefore although when we delineate
• the nature of the gospel, the beautiful idea of its being a testament
is not to be lost sight of, yet we are to remember that the word testa¬
ment which we read in the gospels and the epistles is the translation
of a word which the sense requires to be rendered covenant."
The gospel contains all the characteristics of the covenant of
grace, without which it could not be a covenant. As for instance,
There are two parties concerned, God and man. ' The gospel is
a transaction between God and man. Therefore is he, who is the
mediator between these parties, " the God man."
There are blessings secured, " I will be to them a God and they
shall be my people saith the Lord Almighty." " Though your sins
be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow, though they be red
like crimson they shall be as wool."
There are terms, something required as well as promised or
given, duties to be performed as well as blessings to be received.
57
These duties are, to yield the heart to God, believe in the Lord
Jesus Christ, and receive the seal of the covenant. He that be-
lieveth and is baptised shall be saved."
There is a confirmation of the covenant "by two immutable
things in which it is impossible for God to lie," " that we may have
strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the
hope set before us."
2d. Baptism is now the seal of the Abrahamic covenant, as is
plainly indicated by the following Scriptures. Galatians iii. 26, 27,
28, 29, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ,
have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra¬
ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," (made to Abra¬
ham.) Chap. iv. 28, "Now we, brethren (who are baptised into
Christ, iii. 27,) as Isaac was (a child of promise,) are children of
(the covenant of) promise." Ephesians iii. 6, "That the Gen¬
tiles should be fellow-heirs (with the Jews) and (members) of the
same (church) body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the
gospel."
Acts ii. 38, 39, " Repent and be baptised every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ. For the promise is unto you, and to
cyour children," (the promise of the Abrahamic covenant.)
3d. Baptism is the door, or initiatory rite, into the same church.
See passages above quoted Galatians iii. 27, 28, 29, " For as many
of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ, there
is neither Jew nor Greek, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs
according to the promise." Ephesians iii. 6, "That the Gentiles
(who have been baptised into Christ) should be fellow-heirs, and
members of the same body. Chap. ii. 19, 20, "Now therefore,
ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with
the saints and of the household of God, and are built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets," &c. Romans xi. 17, 18,
" And thou wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest
of the root, and fatness of the olive tree, (the church) thou bearest
not the root, but the root thee." 1st Corinthians xii. 13, "For by
one spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to
drink into one spirit." Colossians iii.il, " Where there is neither
Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian,
Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all, and in all." Romans x.
12, " For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek,
for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him."
From these Scriptures we learn that " baptism into Christ" con¬
stitutes us " Abraham's seed," " heirs according to the promise,"
"fellow heirs" with the Jews, "members of the same body" with
the Jews, "no more strangers and foreigners," "fellow citizens with
the saints," "of the household of God," "built upon the founda-
58
tion of the apostles and prophets," " grafted in among the Jews
and with them partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree,"
"baptised by one spirit into one body" with the Jews, " made to
drink into one spirit" with them, so that "whether Jew or Greek,
Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free," " all are one in Christ," " one
body in Christ."
4th. Baptism came in the room of circumcision, as will appear
from the foil jwing considerations :
Circumcision was under the Hebrew dispensation, the door into
the visible church. Genesis xvii. 14, " And the uncircumcised
man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul
shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my covenant." John
vii. 23, "If a man be circumcised that the law of God be net broken."
Circumcision is not under the gospel dispensation, the door into
the visible church, but is abolished. Acts xv. 24, "Forasmuch
as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled
you with words subverting your souls, saying, ye must be circum¬
cised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment."
Galatians v. 2, " Behold I Paul say unto you, that if ye be cir¬
cumcised Christ shall profit you nothing." Chap. v. 6, "For in
Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncir-
cumcision."
But baptism is under the gospel dispensation the door into the
visible church. Acts ii. 41, " Then they that gladly received his
word were baptised, and the same day were added unto them about
three thousand souls." Mat. xxviii. 19, " Go ye therefore and
teach f 11 nations, baptising them," &c. Acts xxii. 16, " Arise and
be br ptisrd, and wash away thy sins." Mark xvi. 16, " He that
believeth and is baptised shall be saved."
Baptism excludes the necessity of circumcision. Colossians
ii. 11 to 15.." In whom also ye are circumcised with the circum¬
cision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of
the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism
wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the opera¬
tion of God who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being
dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he
quickened together with him, having forgiven you all your tres¬
passes ; blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,
nailing it to the cross; and having spoiled principalities and
powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in
it." In this passage we have "circumcision made without hands,"
effected by " being buried with Christ in baptism," wherein
-" having forgiven all transgression," " he blotted out the hand¬
writing of ordinances that was against us in the uncircumcision of
our flesh," that is, in few words, he abolished circumcision.
5. Baptism is under the gospel dispensation the seal of the cir¬
cumcision of the heart, of which the circumcision of the flesh was,
under the Hebrew dispensation, the seal.
59
Circumcision in the flesh was a seal of the circumcision of the
heart. Deuteronomy x. 16. " Circumcise therefore the fore-skin of
your heart." Chapter xxx. 6, "And the Lord thy God will cir¬
cumcise thy heart." Romans ii. 25, " For circumcision verily
profiteth if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the
law, thy circumcision shall be accounted for uncircumcision."
The circumcision of the heart remains in full bloom. Colossians
ii. 11, In whom we are circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," &c.
Romans ii. 28, 29, " For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he
is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the
heart, in spirit and not in the letter." Philippians iii. 3, " For
we are the circumcision which worship God in spirit, and rejoice
in Jesus Christ, and have no confidence in the flesh."
The circumcision of the heart, and spiritual baptism mean the
same thing, a change of heart. Mat. iii. 11, " He shall baptise
you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Acts ii. 4, "And they
were all filled with the Holy Ghost." 1st Corinthians xii. 13,
" For by one spirit are we all baptised into one body." John i. 33,
" The same is he which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost." Isaiah iv.
4, " When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the
daughters of Zion." Chap. xliv. 3, " I will pour out my Spirit upon
thy seed, and my blessing upon thy offspring." Malachi iii. 3, " And
he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver.
1st Peter i. 22, "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the
truth through the Spirit," &c. Acts xv. 9, " Purifyingjdieir hearts
by faith."
Baptism, instead of circumcision, is, under the gospel dispensa¬
tion, the seal of this spiritual purifying called " the circumcision
of the heart," " the baptism of the Holy Ghost," " purification of
the heart," &c. John iii. 5, "Jesus answered, verily, verily, I
say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Holy
Ghost," &p. Mark xvi. 16, "He that believeth and is baptised
shall be saved." Acts ii. 38, "Repent and be baptised every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and
ye shall receive the Holy Ghost." Acts x. 47, "Can any man
forbid water that these should not be baptised, which have received
the Holy Ghost as well as we."
Fifthly. If God had thought fit to make any alterations in any
circumstance of his gracious covenant with man, it seems not only
reasonable but necessary that he should give notice of it in the
gospel. Accordingly we have notice of some important changes
in the gospel.
1st. As the Lord saw fit to change the old sign of circumcision
for baptism, he has expressly warranted us of it. Acts. xv. 24,
" For as much as we have heard that certain which went out from
us have troubled you with words subverting your souls, saying, ye
must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no
60
such commandment." Acts xxi. 21,25, "And they are inform¬
ed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the
Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circum¬
cise their children, neither to walk after their customs. As touching
the Gentiles which believe we have written and concluded that
they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves
from things offered unto idols, and from blood, and from strangled,
and from fornication." Galatians v. 2, 3, "Behold I Paul say
unto you that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised'that he is a
debtor to do the whole law."
2d. As the Lord chose to make an alteration with regard to the
persons to whom the seal of the covenant should be applied, and to
ordain that females, as well as males, should be baptised, so he
has expressly told of such alteration in the gospel. Acts viii. 12,
" But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning
the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were bap¬
tised both men and women." Acts xvi. 14, 15, " And a certain
woman named Lydia, which worshipped God, heard us, whose
heart the Lord opened, that she attended upon the things which
were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptised," &c. Gala¬
tians iii. 27, 28, "For as many of yau as have been baptised into
Christ, have put on Christ, there is neither male nor female, for ye
are all one in Christ."
3. The Lord saw fit to institute the supper instead of the pass-
over, and has notified us of the change in the gospel. 1st Corin¬
thians v. 7, 8, " For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,
therefore let us keep the feast," &c. 1st Corinthians xi. 24, " And
when he had given thanks he brake it and said, take, eat, this is
my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of
me." Mat. xxvi. 26, "Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake
it, and gaye it to the disciples, and said, take, eat, this is ray body."
4th. Now, as infants were included in the covenant, and consti¬
tuted members of the visible church, and received the seal of the
covenant, if God had made an alteration in the covenant to reject
them, if infants of believing parents, that were formerly to par¬
take of the seal of this covenant, were, upon the coming of Christ
to partake of it no more, undoubtedly He would have given us
express warning of it, and have told us in the gospel that infants,
who before Christ came, were in the covenant, were under the
gospel dispensation excluded from the covenant. But we have no
account in the gospel of any such alteration as the rejection of
infants. Their rights are left untouched, undisturbed in the gospel.
Therefore, as God has constituted infants members of his church,
and as he has never expelled them from the visible church, and as.
he has commanded that they should receive the seal of His cove¬
nant, and has never changed his command, until such express
enactment can be produced and shown, by which infants have
been disfranchised, the church has no authority to reject infants.
61
And such disfranchisement cannot meet with the approbation of
God. The task, then, devolves upon our baptist brethren, who
oppose infant baptism, who sport with it as " baby sprinkling,"
if they would make their point good, positively to prove with ex¬
press texts of Scripture, that Christ has cast infants out of the
covenant of mercy and grace, though before, they were in it. The
very thought of such rejection is fearful in the extreme. That we
must live awhile at least in the service of the devil and range
upon his commons, before we can hold covenant relations to God,
and before covenant obligations can be brought to bear upon us in
restraining us from sin, is a doctrine most shocking to me. It rolls
upon the warm affections of the parental heart an influence chil¬
ling and freezing as icebergs from the frozen regions.
"If a Jewish prophet," says Mr. Wesley, "had been inviting a
■set of heathens to Judaism, and circumcision, he would have been
forced to talk in such a manner as this, viz : ' Believe in the one
true God, and ye shall be circumcised. He that believelh and is
circumcised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damn¬
ed. Repent of your idolatry and other sins and be circumcised.
Circumcision now saveth us, not the putting away a bit of flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience towards the true God, arise
then, and be circumcised and put away your sins.' And yet I sup¬
pose that no one would, from1 this kind of language infer that infants
were not to be circumcised. As this will be allowed by every
one, it must be acknowledged also by a parity of reason, that the
very same expressions, when in the same circumstances, applied to
baptism, cannot imply that infants are not to be baptised. All I
now contend for is, that they do not even seem to imply that infants
are not to be baptised, for this they cannot do, unless in the case
above represented they did also imply that infants were not hereto¬
fore to be circumcised."
Sixthly. So far from any intimation being given that infants were
disfranchised of church membership, it is more than intimated in
direct passages of Scripture, it is asserted that children are under
the christian dispensation, rightful membei's of the visible church.
1. The Saviour declares children to be entitled to church mem¬
bership. Mat. xix. 14, " But Jesus said suffer little children and
forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of
heaven." The kingdom of heaven means either the kingdom of
glory, the church above, or the kingdom of grace, the church on
earth. Our baptist friends are at liberty to attach either meaning
to the passage, and the testimony which it bears to the right of in¬
fants is the same. It is a dilemma, on one or the other horn of
which they must hang.
If it mean the church above, then infants are fit members of the
church above ; then surely they are fit members of the church below.
For it is from the church below that souls are transferred to the
church above, unless it be contended that the church above is less
pure than the church below, and that one may be fit for church
62
membership above, and yet not fit for church membership below*
But the Saviour evidently meant, by the " kingdom of heaven,"
the church below. In this sense he uses the term, kingdom of
heaven, in several places in the Scriptures. Mat. xi. 11, "Not¬
withstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven (the gos¬
pel church) is greater than he." Mat. xiii. 11, 24, 31, 52, "Be¬
cause it is given you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven (the gospel dispensation,) but to them it is not given. The
kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed
in his field. The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard
which a man took and sowed in his field. Therefore every scribe
which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man
that is an householder." Now, that the kingdom of heaven in these
verses means the church below, is . evident from the 38th verse,
which says, that " the field is the world," " this world," in which
the seed is sown. Mat. xxv. 14, "For the kingdom of heaven is
as a man travelling into a far country," &c.
Mr. Watson discourses thus on the kingdom of heaven as spoken
of in the gospels. " His kingdom primarily imports the gospel
church, which is the subject of his laws, the seat of his govern¬
ment, and the object of his care, and being surrounded with power¬
ful opposers, he is represented as ruling in the midst of his enemies.
This kingdom is not of worldly origin or nature, nor has it the
world for its end or object. It can neither be promoted nor defend¬
ed by worldly power, influence, or carnal weapons, but by bear-
ing witness to the truth, or by preaching the gospel with the Holy
Ghost sent down." It is of this kingdom that the Saviour said of
children "of such is the kingdom of heaven." And he says of
them "suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
me," the King and Governor of this kingdom. He, therefore that
would forbid children to come to Christ as the Governor of this
kingdom, must do it at his own responsibility. And that church
or denomination which shall disfranchise "little children" of their
rights in violation of our Saviour's express command, must
shoulder the responsibilities of so important a measure.
The Saviour's command respected the future, as well as the
present time. Therefore it is still the indispensable duty of min¬
isters of the gospel to " suffer little children to come" to the
Saviour. But the Saviour is now gone to heaven, and therefore
parents cannot bring their children literally to the Saviour's em¬
brace. But his mystical body the church, " the kingdom of
heaven" is yet on earth, and will continue arhong men, into the
embraces of which, it is our privilege and duty to present our
" little children," and which like her Lord and king, should open
her bosom for their reception, by baptism in the name of the Lord
Jesus.
2d. The apostles recognize, and assert the right of children to
church membership.
St. Peter declares them heirs of the promise of the gospel cove-
63
nant, and consequently members of the gospel church built on
that covenant. Acts ii. 38, 39, "Repent and be baptised every
one of you for the remission of sins, for the promise is to you and
to your children." The promise here referred to, is, no doubt, that
which God made to Abraham, " I will be a God to thee and to thy
seed," (thy children as is said in the passage under consideration.)
Now, if a Jew on the day of pentecost could have had any doubt
or uncertainty with respect to the privilege of children to members-
ship under the new dispensation, the words of Peter would certainly
have removed such doubts, and he would have been seen bringing
up his children for baptism, for Peter said, " the promise is to you
and to your children." We are to remember that the apostle was
a Jew who had been admitted into the church in his infancy, and
that it was the universal practice of the Hebrew church, according
to the command of God, to initiate children into the visible church,
and that this was clone on the authority of that very place of
Scripture where God made promise to Abraham, " to be a God
unto him and unto his seed." And we are to remember that the
apostle was addressing Jews who had been accustomed to bring
their children into the visible church by circumcision, that they
might inherit the promise of Abraham's God. What else, then
could have been their understanding of the apostle, than that their
children's rights to the Abrahamic promise was guaranteed to
them under the gospel, and that they wore, therefore, to be baptised
according to the apostle's exhortation.
The only reply to all this is that " children means adults pos¬
terity." I cannot reply to this more aptly, than in the language of
R^v. Mr. Edwards, who was himself a baptist minister. " How
idle a thing is it" says he, " in a baptist to come with a lexicon in
his hand to inform us that rsxva tekna, children means posterity."
Certainly it does, and so includes the youngest infants.
But the baptist will have it that tekna, children, in this place
means only adult posterity. And if so, the Jews to whom he
spoke, unless they understood St. Peter in a way in which it was
morally impossible they should, would infallibly have understood
him wrong. Certainly, all men when acting freely, will under¬
stand words in that way which is most familiar to them, and
nothing could be more so to the Jews than to understand such a
speech as St. Peter's to mean adults and infants.
We should more certainly come at the truth, if instead of idly
criticising, we could fancy ourselves Jews, and in the habit of
circumcising infants and receiving them into the church, and then
could we imagine one of our own nation and religion, to address
us in the very language of Peter in the text, ' the promise is to
you, and to your children,' let us ask ourselves whether we
could ever suppose him to mean adult posterity only.
St. Paul declares the children of believers to be holy, separated
to God, and standing therefore, in a peculiar relation to him. 1st
Corinthians vii. 14 " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by
64
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband;
else, were your children unclean, but now are they holy." On
this text Mr. Sandford remarks, " That the apostle does not mean
real, but relative holiness in this passage must be obvious to every
one, as no mere relationship to our fellow creatures, or natural
t descent from pious parents, can possibly constitute any human be¬
ing really holy. Relative holiness, therefore is alone intended in
this text. But what is relative holiness, but a visible relation to
God, or consecration to his service? The priests under the law,
the tabernacle and the temple, with the vessels used in the ser¬
vice of God, &c., were all called *holy, because they were conse¬
crated to the service of God. So also, the whole nation of Israel
were said to be a holy people, because they were visibly taken into
covenant with God, and consecrated to his service. The whole
christian church is also said to be holy for the same reason, and
no person is ever called holy in the Scriptures, except he be thus
visibly consecrated to God. This will enable us at once to deter¬
mine the sense in which the apostle calls these children holy.
They were holy because they had been taken into a visible cove¬
nant relation to God, and consecrated-to his service, on the faith of
a believing father or mother, and how could this be done under
the christian dispensation, but by baptism. Here then is proof,
that infants were not excluded from membership in the church
of Christ, and very strong presumptive evidence, at least, that
they were baptised." Any thing farther on this text is entirely
unnecessary.
3d. We have very strong presumtive evidence that the apostles
in the case of household baptisms practiced infant baptism. Now
to put the argument in as favourable a light as possible, and to
suppose it not only possible but probable that a household of be¬
lievers may have been baptised upon their individual faith, yet in
the instances of the Philippian jailor, of Lydia, and of Stephanus,
whether they were households of adults, or of adults and infants,
they were comprehended in the whole, houses which were baptised
upon the faith of the respective heads of those houses, rather than
on a profession of individual faith, as will be manifest to any
impartial person, on a careful- perusal of the passages in which
the historic account is given.
Although the argument drawn from household baptisms is only
an auxiliary, and of no vital importance if lost to us, yet
the evidence which they afford is decidedly for infant baptism, as
I shall proceed to show.
The baptism of the Philippian jailor and his household. Acts
x. 33, " And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed
their stripes, and he was baptised, he and all his straitway." In
this household baptism, opponents of infant baptism think that
they can prove that all the persons included, were adults. The
only proof is a taking for granted what is denied, which is just
no proof at all. For if all the persons who were baptised, were
65
adults, then there were no infants in the house, for all were baptis¬
ed. But learned men tell us that the Greek word cravoixi panoiki
in the 34th verse, translated house, and the phrase '01 aurou
muvtss oi autou parties, translated all his, but perhaps more
correctly all who were of him, imply and. include children. The
word panoiki is used in other parts of Scripture to include infants
or little ones, and is so translated. Genesis xlvi. 5, " And the
sons of Israel carried their (panoiki) little ones and their wives
in the wagons." If then Scripture is allowed to interpret Scrip¬
ture, the jailor's family, all who were under his control, all his
little ones, were baptised by Paul and Silas.
Our baptist friends have taken advantage of the grammatical
order of the 34th v. c. xvi. which reads, "And he rejoiced, believing
in God with all his house," to say that "all his house rejoiced
with him and that consequently there could not have been infants
in the house." But the import of the passage will not allow of
such transposition. The order of the text in our English transla¬
tion is somewhat broken, and the sense thereby somewhat obscured
if not destroyed. True. But we have the original Greek, by which
a learned person may satisfy himself on this point. It reads thus,
xou syaXktaCaro rfuvom rfetfi&rsuxug to ©sgoi, kai egalliasato panoikipe-
pisteukos to theoi, literally, uand he rejoiced in all his house, believing
in God," or to make the better syntax, uand he, believing in God, re¬
joiced with, or in, all his house." It will be seen that the particle
with, or in, is not found in the original, but left to be supplied by
the sense with, in, over, either of these will answer.
So much then, for the Philippian jailor and his house. And yet
we are to be told that the means of showing from these household
baptisms that no infants were included " is an instance of the care
of Providence watching over the sacred cause of adult baptism."
Verily, all such rejoicing is vain.
The baptism of Lydia and her household. Acts xvi. 15, "And
when she was baptised and her house." Our baptist friends have
undertaken, though with exceeding difficulty, and poor success, to
make out a household for Lydia, independent of children either
large or small. This cannot possibly be, since, as I have already
shown, the word used is that commonly used in the Scripture to
include children residing at home, households. In this sense the
very same word is used in 1st Timothy iii. 5, to include children,
household children, that is used for Lydia's house. " One that
ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection."
However, the case must be made out, and therefore Lydia's house¬
hold is made to consist of " journeymen dyers" employed in pre¬
paring the purple " which she sold," and Lydia is made to come
away from Thyatira to Philippi to set up her shop of purple and
fine linen which she is made to transport from Thyatira to
Philippi, and yet which she had at the same time manufactured in
Philippi. This only marks the hopelessness of the cause it is in¬
tended to support. Now if my baptist friends will make so free
5
66
with a plain simple statement of facts, can they with any degree
of consistency, demand a " thus saith the Lord," from their op¬
ponents ? Surely not.
There is yet an absurdity in the baptist exposition of this pas¬
sage which I will briefly notice before I leave the house of Lydia.
To complete the argument against infant baptism as drawn from
•the baptism of Lydia's house, these "journeymen dyers," al¬
though not one word is said about their conversion or even of their
existence, in the whole history, are raised by our baptist friends
" into the brethren" (a term which manifestly denotes the member¬
ship of the Phifippian church) whom Paul and Silas are said to
have seen and comforted in the house of Lydia before they departed
from Philippi!
The whole statement amounts to this, that the Lord opened
Lydia's heart to receive the truth, in consequence of which she
and her house were baptised. All beside this is perfectly gratu¬
itous on the part of our opposing brethren.
The household of Stephanas, mentioned 1st Corinthians i. 16,
"And I also baptised the household of Stephanas." It is urged
against infant baptism as proven from this household baptism, that
they must have been all adults because they are said, in the xvi. chap,
of the same epistle, to have " addicted themselves to the minister¬
ing of the saints." This argument looses half if not all its force
when it is said in the same sentence in which the house of Stephanas
are said to " have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,"
that " it is the first fruits of Achaia," the first converts to Christi¬
anity in Achaia. Paul began to preach in Achaia not later than
A. D. 51, where no doubt, Stephanas and his household were
brought into the christian church "the first fruits" of Paul's la¬
bours in Achaia, while the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians could not
have been written earlier than A. D. 57, and very probably some
years later. This baptism then was administered six, or more years
previous to the time of writing this epistle, which would carry the
oldest of the family of children back to childhood, and the younger
members of the family back to infancy proper. This then is strong
presumptive proof of infant baptism.
And is it a wonder that this family or house should be given to
the ministry of the saints, communicating to the poor saints—enter¬
taining christian strangers—and receiving the ministers of Christ
having been brought up from infancy in the church, and under
the instructions of such a parent as Stephanas ? And is it a won¬
der that Paul should exhort the Corinthian church to submit them¬
selves to such—to range themselves under ('iva xai 'vfisig 'urforcMf-
rfijtfde <roi£ toioutoij, hina kai humeis hupopotasseslhe tois toioutois,) and
co-operate with them and with " every one also who helpeth with
us and laboureth ?" " These families" says Mr. Watson, "were
the oldest christians in Corinth, and as they were foremost in every
good word and work, they were not only to be commended, but
the rest were to be exhorted to serve under them as leaders in these
works of charity."
67
We have in the case of Stephanas' house, or family, a very
striking example of the happy consequences of dedicating children
to the Lord in baptism, and raising them up under church in¬
fluences and church restraints. Here is a family baptised in in¬
fancy, and brought up for the Lord, whom Paul points to as
patterns of piety and christian charity. There is a loveliness—a
sublimity in the religion of Stephanas' household that is delight¬
ful to contemplate.
" The familiarity" says Mr. Hibbard, " and as we may say,
matter of course, manner of mentioning these cases of family
baptisms, clearly indicates that it was in perfect harmony with
the universal custom of the apostles. Had it been any unusual
thing—had infant baptism been as unknown to the apostolic
church, and as abhorrent to God as it is to our baptist brethren,
it is not at all probable that these cases would have been thus
registered by the direction of the Holy Spirit, without unequivo¬
cal intimations that no infant children were included in the num¬
ber of the baptised. As it is, however, it leaves upon the mind of
the unbiased reader the impression of a strong probability, not only
that infants were included in these baptised households which are
mentioned, but that hundreds, perhaps thousands of families were
baptised in the same way, which is an advance of the argument
that falls little short of the highest Scriptural authority." Such a
record of baptisms certainly never would occur in the same easy,
unrestricted, familiar style of history as that adopted by the
author of the acts of the apostles, under an anti-pedobaptist minis¬
tration."
It has been urged that " the paucity of instances in which men¬
tion is made of household baptism, is a powerful presump¬
tion against the supposition that the apostles baptised infants." No
doubt it is matter of some considerable wonder to the patrons of
almost every dogma that their hobby is not mentioned on every
page of holy writ, so important is it 1 And accordingly, measuring
others by themselves, they make a demand of proof on every page
of Scripture. Now, this would be fair enough if the amount of
proof which so easily satisfies them of the truth of their own,
were sufficient to satisfy them of the truth of that of others. But
unfortunately, those who are most easily satisfied of the truth of
their own favourite opinions, are the most perseveringly obstinate
in contending against the opinions of others.
But admitting the objections urged against the household bap¬
tisms that we have mentioned, the work is not half finished, for
there was the nobleman of Capernaum, who is said to have be¬
lieved " and all his house," John iv. 53, whose sick son was " an
only child," the diminutive term paidion being used, and there was
Cornelius, who was "one that feared God, and all his house,"
and there was Crispus who " believed on the Lord with all his
house," and whose house appears from what immediately follows, to
have been baptised. From all these houses, infants must be ex-
68
pelled before the objections can stand against household infant
baptisms. Now I ask, is it probable that among six whole house¬
holds, who axe said to have " believed," " feared the Lord,"
" been baptised," &c., not one of them contained infants?
The thing is unreasonable. The paucity of these instances,
then is no valid objection. The Sabbath was a divine institution,
and yet it is seldom mentioned in the Scriptures, and at great inter¬
vals of years. Circumcision also, which was a divine institution, is
not mentioned in the Scriptures for a period of eight hundred years.
The objection pressed against household baptisms, then stands
with equal force against the christian Sabbath, and against cir¬
cumcision. And yet these were divine institutions.
"In like manner" says Rev. E. Hall, "the Missionary Herald,
each volume of which is twenty times as large as the book of
Acts, is now in progress of the thirty-sixth volume.. In the whole
of these, containing the journals of so many missionaries, narrat¬
ing every important incident with so much minuteness, and con¬
tinued for so many years, there are very few instances mentioned
of infant baptism. But we know the missionaries of the Ameri¬
can Board are all Pedobaptists. The paucity of these records of
infant baptisms in their letters does not prove that they do not bap¬
tise infants, we know they do, and once in a while the fact is
mentioned, but it is rare, though their converts amount to many
thousands." The demand therefore is unreasonable, the objection
is light and invalid, that infant baptism must, in order to its vali¬
dity be subject of frequent allusion in the history of the apostolic
churches.
Seventhly. The antiquity of infant baptism, as abudantly sup-.
ported by church history, is a strong presumtive argument for its
apostolic institution.
If infant baptism be what our baptist friends tell us it is,—"an
innovation upon the essential principles of a christian sacrament,"
" an intermingling of judaistic peculiarities into which they had
no right to intrude, with the strictly spiritual dispensation of the
gospel,"—" a following in the footsteps of their illustrious prede¬
cessors of Rome, at which pedobaptist divines are destined to blush
with shame,"—"a departure from the order of God's house, having
an injurious effect upon the faith of the household,"—" an utter
fallacy" &c. We ask when did this encroachment—this falla¬
cious—judaizing—romanizing—departure from the order of the
house of God begin ? and when was it introduced into the church
of God ? And why slept our brethren, the professed followers of
" the dipper" of old, that they did not sooner wake up to the pro¬
tection of the church from the introduction of this monstrous error?
Alas for the church that the baptist denomination did not wake up
to something more than an imaginary existence sooner in life!
Let us search the records of the church for the date of infant
baptism in the christian church.
1st. Justin Martyr, a learned Samaritan, who was born before
69
the death of the apostle John, and who wrote about forty years
after the apostle's death, plainly speaks of baptism, as being to
the christians in the stead of circumcision. He says, " we are
circumcised by baptism with Christ's circumcision." " Many
persons among us of sixty and seventy years of old, of both sexes,
who were discipled, (s[Mt0ersu&erfa,v, ematheteuthesan,) made disci¬
ples to Christ in their childhood," (ek urai^ov, paidon, the same word
that is used in the case of the Philippian jailor's house, and that
ofLydia's,) "do continue uncorrupted." The word gfxadsrsussrav,
ematheteusetan, were discipled or made disciples, is the very
same word used by the Saviour in his command to his apostles in
my text, " disciple, or make disciples of (fxadsrevrfsrav, matheteuse-
tan) pll nations." Now mark that this discipling was done in their
childhood (ek paidon,) and seventy years reckoned back
from the time when Justin wrote will reach into the midst of the
apostles' times, twenty years before the death of St. John.
2d. Ireneus, Bisflop of Lyons, born about the time of the death
of St. John, who was contemporary with Policarp the disciple of
John, and who was raised and educated in Asia, where John lived
and died, wrote about the year 178. He says of Christ, " Not
disdaining, nor going in a way above human nature, nor breaking
in his own person the law which he had set for mankind, but
sanctifying every several age by the likeness it has to him. For
he came to save all persons by himself, all I mean who by him are
regenerated unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and
youths, and elderly persons. Therefore he went through the
several ages, for infants being made an infant, sanctifying in¬
fants," &c.
Dr. Wall has largely shown that the word regenerating, in the
writings of Ireneus, and in the phrase of his time means baptis¬
ing. He mentions some places which expressly declare that
Christ was regenerated by John, meaning that he was baptised by
him. In proof of this, we have the testimony of Clemens Alex-
andrinus, who wrote his Pedagogue about the time of Ireneus. He
expressly says, "The word regeneration is the name of baptism."
This very much confirms the argument taken from Ireneus.
Ireneus flourished about seventy years after the death of St.
John. He himself says that the revelation made to St. John was
but a little before his time, and that was six years before the
death of the apostle. Under such circumstances it is hardly pro¬
bable that this father was mistaken.
3d. Origen, who was born A. D. 185, descended from a long line
of christian ancestry, and his father suffered martyrdom A. D. 202,
when Origen was but 17 years old. He was a learned man, and
called in early life into the service of the church. He says, " Be¬
sides all this (evidence of original sin) let it be considered what
is the reason that whereas the baptism of the church is given for
the forgiveness of sins, infants also, according to the usage of the
church are baptised, when if there were nothing in infants that
70
wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be
superfluous to them." Again, "infants are baptised for the remis¬
sion of sins." Again, " and because by the sacrament of baptism
our native pollution is taken away, therefore infants may be bap.
tised." Again, " For this, the church received from the apostles
a tradition even to give baptism to infants."
4th. Cyprian was made Bishop of Carthage A. D. 250, and
martyred A. D. 258. In the year 253, three years after he was
raised to the bishopric of Carthage, a council of sixty-six bishops
was held in that city. To this council one Fidus a country bishop,
sent a letter inquiring among other matters, whether in case of
necessity an infant might be baptised before it was eight days old.
To this an answer was returned of which the following is an
extract.
" Cyprian, and the rest of the bishops who were present at the
council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus our brother. Greeting
—Whereas you judge that they must not be baptised within
two or three days after they are born, and that the rule of circum¬
cision is to be observed, so that none should be baptisrd and sanctf-
fied before the eighth day after he is born, we were all in our as¬
sembly of a contrary opinion.—This therefore, dear brother,
was our opinion in the assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any
person from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful, and
benign, and affectionate to all, which rule as it holds for all, so
we think it is more especially to be observed in reference to infants
newly born, to whom our help and the divine mercy is rather to be
granted," &c.
This council was held about 150 years from the death of St.
John. And, as many of these bishops no doubt were old, they
had seen persons who had lived in the apostles' days, and that pro¬
bably were baptised by the apostles. And let it be remembered
too that among so many bishops representing almost every part of
Christendom, if any new innovation had crept into the church they
must have known it, whereas infant baptism is spoken of here as
of universal practice in the church.
5th. Ambrose, who was elected Bishop of Milan A. D. 374r
commenting on Luke i. 17, says " But perhaps this may seem to
be fulfilled in our time and in the apostles' time. For that re¬
turning of the river waters backward toward the spring head,
which was caused by Elias, when the river was divided (as the
Scripture says, ' Jordan was driven back') signified the sacrament
of the laver of salvation, which was afterwards to be instituted, b7
which those infants that are baptised, are reformed back again
from wickedness, or a corrupt state, to the primitive state of their
nature."
This is not to be misunderstood. The argument is that as Elija
rolled Jordan back toward its young fountain heads, so John re¬
sembled him in baptising young children.
6th. Austin, or Augustine lived three hundred years after the
71
apostles. He says u So that many persons increasing in knowl¬
edge after their baptism, and especially those wfyo have been bap¬
tised when they were infants, or when they were youths," &c.
Again, "which being handed down to them, the universal church
holds with respect to infants who are baptised." Again, "By
their crying and noise while the sacrament is being administered
they disturb the holy mysteries, and yet no christian will say they
are baptised to no purpose." Again, " and if any one do ask for
divine authority in this matter, though that which the universal
church practices, which has not been instituted by the councils,
but has always been observed, is most justly believed to be nothing
else than a thing delivered by the authority of the apostles," &c.
Austin here declares infant baptism to be beyond the memory of
any man or any record, that they took it to be a thing that had not
been enacted by any council, but had been in use from the begin¬
ning of Christianity. And this was only at a remove of three
centuries fr ">m the apostolic age.
Now, upon the supposition that infant baptism was not handed
down by the apostles, that it had been a recent invention of the
church, we ask again, when and where did it originate ? Why
have we no account of the first person who introduced it? or of
some sect who still held to adult baptism during these first
four hundred years ? How came the church to glide into this
practice so imperceptibly as not to know the time of its origin ? or
the time when it did not exist? Can our opponents tell? But
these unwelcome questions have never yet been answered. There
is a torrent of historical evidence in favour of infant baptism,
which cannot be breasted without a sacrifice of truth.
7th. Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen. These are the only
fathers who express even an opinion against infant baptism.
And they mention it as existing in their time. As great capitaL
has been of these fathers by the opposers of infant baptism, I shall
give those passages from their writings on which so much confi¬
dence is placed.
Tertullian flourished about one hundred years after the apostles..
He was made presbyter of the church at Corinth A. D. 192. He
imbibed an error which prevailed in his time, that baptism washed
out previously acquired guilt, on account of which notion, baptism
was delayed as long as possible and sometimes until death. Ter¬
tullian was a strenuous advocate of such delay, which gave a
peculiar turn to his notions on baptism.
He says, " Therefore according to every one's condition and dis¬
position, and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profta-
ble, especially in the case of little children. For what need is there
that the godfathers should be brought into danger ? because they
may either fail of their promise by death, or they may be mistaken
by a child's proving of a toicked disposition."
Gregory flourished in the middle of the fourth century. He
says, " What say you of those that are as yet infants and are
72
not in capacity to be sensible either of the grace or of the want of
it ? Shall we baptise them too? Yes, by all means if any dan¬
ger make it requisite. For it is better that they be sanctified with¬
out their own sense of it than that they should be unsealed and un¬
initiated. And our reason for this is circumcision which was per¬
formed on the eighth day, and was a typical seal, and was prac¬
tised on these who had no use of reason. As for others I give
my opinion that they should stay three years, or there abouts,
when they are able to hear and answer some of the holy words,
and though they do not perfectly understand them, yet they form
them, and that you then sanctify them in soul and body with the
great sacrament of consecration. For though they are not liable
to give account of their life before their reason become to matur¬
ity, yet by reason of those sudden an unexpected assaults of dan¬
ger that are by no effort to be prevented, it is by all means advisa¬
ble that they be secured by laver," (of baptism.)
With regard to these fathers I will remark, that the simple fact
of their speaking of infant baptism so familiarly is proof that it ex¬
isted before their time; the best proof in the world short of inspir¬
ed. But if Tertullian recognises infant baptism as being a church
ordinance in his day, that is within less than one hundred years
from the apostles' days, when we ask again, did it come in.
Thus we have seen that for the first four centuries of the chris¬
tian era, not one individual opposed infant baptism as being invalid
or hn innovation, and only two that advised its delay under cer¬
tain circumstances. Tertullian's absurdities seem to have been
entirely forgotten in a century or two. Augustine says " I do
not remember that I ever read otherwise (than that baptised in¬
fants do obtain remission of original sin) in any writer that I
could ever find treating of these matters," &c. And Pelagius in
reply to his opponents, says "men do slander me as if I denied the
sacrament of baptism to infants." He also declares that he
" never heard even an impious heritic who would affirm this con¬
cerning infants."
For the next seven hundred years, which brings us to the com¬
mencement of the twelfth century, we do not find one single
opponent of infant baptism. About this .time one Peter Bruis, a
Frenchman flourished, the first Anti-pedobaptist teacher of whom
we have any account in church history. His followers who were
called Pedrobrussians, declared against infant baptism, but the
main body of the Waldenses, who in number were about as thirty
to one, rejected their opinions, and they soon dwindled away and
disappeared. And we hear nothing more of any holding their
tenets, until the rise o' the German anti-pedobaptists in the year
1522.
All the national churches in the world, and all denominations
of christians save the different sects of the baptists, hold to infant
baptism, who hold to baptism at all, so far as I am acquainted with
church history. The Roman, the Greek, the Russian, and the
73
English, national churches, the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Con¬
gregational, Lutheran, Moravian and Methodist Churches, with all
their influence and weight of learning, the church militant and
the church triumphant, all embrace infants, save the baptist.
Our baptist friends lay claim to Waldensian ancestry. But either
their record is incorrect or they have greatly degenerated from
the purity of their ancesters, especially so far as relates to infant
baptism. Mr. Wall says of them, " The modern Waldenses in
Piedmont and Provence, who are the descendents of those ancient
ones, practise infant baptism. And they were also found in the
practise of it when the Protestants of Luther's Reformation, sent
to know their state, and doctrine, and to confer with them. And
they themselves say that their fathers never practised otherwise ;
and they give proof of it, from an old book of theirs, called the
Spiritual Almanack, where infant baptism is owned. Pepin, their
historian, gives the reason of the report that had been to the con¬
trary. ?He says, 'their ancestors being constrained, for some
hundred years, to suffer their children to be baptised by the priests
of the church of Rome, they deferred the doing thereof, as long as
they could, because they had in detestation those human inventions
that were added to the sacrament, which they held to be the pollu¬
tion thereof. And for as much as their own pastors were many
times abroad employed in the service of their churches, they could
not have baptism administered to their infants by their own minis¬
ters. For this cause they kept them long from baptism, which the
priests perceiving, and taking notice of, charged them with this
slander.'"
There is on the part of my baptist brethren an inconcistency
which I will here notice before I leave the argument from history.
We have shown, by a connected train of church history that infant
baptism existed uninterruptedly in the church for the first 1100
years, and that but forty years from the death of St. John it was
spoken of as the common practice of the church. And yet all
this is insufficient in the eyes of the opposers of infant baptism, to
establish the antiquity of the ordinance. But when the opposite is to
be made out from church history, it is deemed all-sufficent, to prove
that in the twelfth century there existed in the south of Italy and
in the north of France a sect of the Waldenses. (the Pedrobrus-
sians) which they suppose to have existed there from the apostles'
days. Now here is a supposition unsupported by a line of history,
that is deemed sufficient to breast the current of church history
which flows uninterruptedly from the very days of the apostles in
favour of infant baptism.
Eighthly. It only remains that I answer some of the "unan¬
swerable objections," that are pressed against infant baptism.
1st. It is objected against infant baptism that " as faith is re¬
quired as the condition of baptism, and as infants cannot comply
with this condition, therefore they are not subjects of christian
baptism." To this objection I will reply,
74
That faith was also made the condition of circumcision, Romans
iv. 11, " And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a
seal of the righteousness of raith. That he might be the father of
all them that believe." No adult person, I suppose was circum¬
cised in a state of professed unbelief. And yet a want of capacity
to believe did not exclude infants from the rite of circumcision.
On the other hand, to neglect it was a sin, almost unpardonable.
Faith is a condition of salvation, for " without faith it is impossi¬
ble to please God," and " he that believeth not shall be damned."
Hebrews xi. 6; Mark xvi. 16. And yet infants, certainly are
not objects of God's displeasure, or in a damnable state. Surely
"of such is the kingdom of heaven," and "their angels do always
behold the face of my father which is in heaven."
Faith is the condition of baptism. And yet infants are no more
to be deprived of baptism for want of capacity to believe than they
were deprived of circumcision, or than they will be deprived of
heavenly felicity. To press this objection then, would be to jeo¬
pardize the salvation of infants.
It would be exceedingly difficult to prove that a mere want of
capacity to' believe, amounts to an actual state of unbelief. Such
a monstrous doctrine as this would run us into a whirlpool of error.
Look at the objection. " Because an infant has not the capao-
ity either to believe or to disbelieve, therefore it is in a state of
actual disbelief that renders it unfit to receive christian baptism.*'
There is a monstrosity in this that is a sufficient answer to itself.
So then because infants have not capacity to understand and be¬
lieve, therefore they must be damned for unbelief!!! But enough
of it.
2d. It is objected against infant baptism that "there is no ihtt*
saith the Lord, for the ordinance." To this I reply that there are
some ordinances held very dear by our baptist brethren, for a
Scripture authority for which they are as far, and even farther
from having " thus saith the Lord," and vet of the validity of
which they have not the least doubt. And all we ask is that they
measure us by the same rule, by which they measure themselves.
There is no "thus saith the Lord" for female communion.
Nay farther, there is no evidence that they communed in the
apostles' days, not one bit of "positive proof." And yet, who doubts
the lawfulness of female communion ? certainly, not the baptists!
The fitness of female communion is evidence enough in its favour.
There is no " thus saith the Lord" for immersion. The word used
in the Scriptures where the idea of dipping is conveyed, is not
baptizo, the word for christian baptism, but a word compounded of
the preposition eis, and the verb bapto, embapto. For the truth of
this, examine the following Scriptures, with others. Mat. xxvi. 23,
" He that embapsas, dippeth his hand with me." Mark xiv. 20>,
" It is one of the twelve that embaptomenos, dippeth with me in the
dish." John xiii. 26, "And when he had embapsas, dipped the
sop." In the first part of the verse last quoted, the word
79
hapse is used. The reason is, that in the Greek, when a compound
word is used, and repeated immediately, the compound is expressed
in the last word, and understood in the first. I will not say that in
these passages the idea of immerse is given, but simply the idea of
dipping or applying the subject to the fluid, and when the preposi¬
tion is not found blended with the verb, it will we found coming be¬
tween the verb and the accusative case. And if neither of these
be the fact, even bapto cannot be made to dip, much less can it mean
immerse. Those who dwell in houses of glass should not be found
throwing stones.
But if it be meant that infant baptism is not a divine ordinance,
then an abundant and unanswerable defence of the rights of infants
is found in the arguments which I have been advancing.
3d. It is objected that infant baptism deprives the child of its na¬
tural right of self-choice."
This perhaps is a dangerous, though a weak objection ; dan¬
gerous, because it is an appeal to passion—weak, because it is a
violation of all reason. II is sufficient to reply that
Man is, not by voluntary consent, or compact, but by divine
appointment, a subject of law, both human and divine. He comes
into the world a subject of law. And his natural rights are re¬
strained within the control of law. Or in other words, man sus¬
tains a natural relation to law, that is paramount to natural rights.
The first business of him who has the charge of children, if he
would make them Christians, rather than duelists or infidels, is to
teach them their relation to the divine law, and the duties which
those relations involve.
Man has no rights but those which the divine law guarantees to
him. Before this objection is pressed therefore, it should be known
whether the divine law guarantees to man the right to reject a di¬
vine ordinance. For we have abundantly shown infant baptism to
be a divine ordinance.
But this objection resolves itself into this—" that children may
become dissatisfied with their baptism ; therefore infant baptism it
not a divine ordinance : that is, in plain English—because an op-
poser of infant baptism can by sophistry, and appeals to passion,
render an unenlightened conscience dissatisfied with its early
baptism, therefore, infant baptism is not a divine ordinance. This
is to bring the divine law down to the rule of man's caprice. Is
this safe ? Does not the deist, the infidel, bring the same charge
against Christianity, that it brings him under laws and restraints
that he has no voice in enacting ? What a flood-tide of ruin
would roll in upon the church at this breach.
4th. Objection. " But infant baptism can do no good-"
11 Nay, but who art thou that repliest against God ?" Does it
become man to pass sentence upon the ordinances of God ? Is not
this presumption ? And will man be held guiltless for this pre¬
sumption ?
But to answer the objection more fully, I will remark that it has
76
never been the doctrine of the Methodist Church, that baptism
effects regeneration : although Mr. Hinton in his history of bap¬
tism more than insinuates the illiberal charge. Yet baptism is a
blessing, and a very great blessing, otherwise God would never
have ordained it in the church.
Baptism introduces the subject into the church of Christ—the
catholic or general church, and brings him into visible covenant
relation to God. I may not be understood to say that baptism
alone constitutes him a member of any particular branch of the
; general church. This is a mistake. And the charge that is re¬
iterated against the pedobaptist churches, to this effect, is unfound¬
ed. A minister—I mean a minister of a pedobaptist church—a
Presbyterian or a Methodist minister, does not baptize by virtue of
his relation to the particular church of which he is a minister;
neither do his administrations constitute the subjects thereof mem¬
bers of such a particular church. But he does by virtue of his
office, as a minister of the church of Christ, introduce him by bap¬
tism into the general church of Christ. And permit me to say that
no minister has the right, simply as the officer of some sect or de¬
nomination, to administer the ordinances of the church of Chyst—
the opinions, and even the practice of our baptist friends to the con¬
trary, notwithstanding.
A grand design of baptism is to impress man with a sense of his
guilty, polluted condition by nature ; and of his need of that spiritual
washing of which baptism is an emblem.
Baptism as the seal of the covenant of grace, brings upon the sub¬
ject the duties and obligations of that covenant, which exert a re¬
straining and saving influence upon him.
Baptism brings the subject under gracious influences, when con¬
nected with a suitable religious training.
Baptism is a pledge of God's faithfulness in fulfilling his promises.
The influence upon the pious parents who dedicate their children
to God in baptism with a firm reliance on the faithfulness of the
promises, is no inconsiderable part of the benefits of infant baptism.
5th. Objection. " Infant baptism is calculated to bring about a
union of the pedobaptist denominations that might result in a na¬
tional establishment—ifthe baptists did not prevent it." At least, so
Mr. Hinton thinks. See " Hinton's History of Baptism," page
869.
" It should be borne in mind," says Mr. Hinton, "that
Wesley an Methodism in England has always evinced strong
tendencies towards nationality, and still exhibits a decided sym¬
pathy with the national clergy in opposition to liberal measures in
church and state. On the continent of Europe, national establish¬
ments and pedobaptism are synonymous ; baptists alone refuse al¬
liance with the state." However, " the dissentions among pedo-
baptists themselves, happily render it (a national establishment on
the ruins of our our republic) impracticable. Fortunate for the
world that pedobaptist denominations are at loggerheads." These
77
expressions are not only illiberal, but antichristian. The only
reply that we can now condescend to make to these slanderous
charges is that—and yet we are sorry that we are driven to
the extremity—and yet St. Paul once was driven to the same
extremity :—The orthodoxy and vital godliness exhibited in pedo-
baptist churches will at least bear a respectable comparison with
the antipedobaptists—especially if Mr. Hinton is to be the specimen.
Our opponents are at liberty to harp on this, if they are disposed,
and can find listeners. It is a matter of small concern to such aa
act under a sense of the divine approbation, and labour for the
welfare of the church of God.