/7y O PRINCETON, N. J. 'v'' Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. AgJicw Coll. on Baptism, No. SCO 3r(XAA^w-«^^ 4 C-^ft-AA^JO-f- V ; Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2011 witii funding from Princeton Tlieological Seminary Library littp://www.arcliive.Qrg/details/scripturallawofbOOturn SOME NOTICES OP THE WORK. This work, before being published, was submitted for examination to some of our most able and judicious brethren in the denomination. Among the expressions of views respecting its character and the effect to be anticipated from its publication, are the following : Dr. Williams of New York testifies to " the clear and forcible char- acter of the work, to the originality which is given to a discussion, which, from the number and ability of those who have conducted it, might seem trite, — to the sustained spirit of Christian moderation and kindness which renders the management of the subject both more winning and more cogent." Dr. Dowling of New York, having examined several of the first sec- tions states, that, although he was a little incredulous at first respect- ing the necessity for another treatise on the subject of baptism, a little examination had convinced him that " there might be even a new work on Baptism, without treading in the well worn track so long and so often beaten by others," — and adds, " The fact that you have made the general and symbolic design of the ordinance the starting point in your argument, and have treated this part of the subject in a man- ner so thorough, so original, and so striking, has invested your work in my own mind with a degree of interest I could hardly have sup- posed I should feel in a new work on this subject. — I believe that your work when published cannot but prove an acceptable oflering to all the thinking and intelligent of our denomination, while its candor and fairness will, to say the least, secure it a respectful consideration from our brethren of other denominations." Prof. Raymond of Madison University, says, " I have no hesitation in saying that I believe it will prove (if published) a valuable contri- bution to the literature of tliis important subject." He considers " the general plan as equally original and striking " — " the question is considered in some points of light quite new " — " many familiar argu- ments are presented with new illustrations and enhanced force" — "the most recent phases of pedobaptism receive an appropriate share of attention " — '' and the style of reasoning," he adds, " adopted in the portions I have read, appears to me eminently adapted to meet diffi- culties in the minds of our Pedobaptist brethren, too generally over- looked by our writers, or not treated with the respect due, if not to the diflculties themselves, to the minds which are embarrassed by them. I sincerely hope that the book will be published, and find its way into the hands, not merely of Baptists, but of intelligent and candid men in other denominations ; who will see that the Baptist argument, so far from being exhausted, is only beginning to be developed." To omit particular reference to communications from several other brethren, who express themselves in language equally commendatory — who speak of " the candor, accuracy, and clearness of the discussion of the points embraced " — of " the novel and eminently scriptural character of the argument " — of the work as exhibiting " the entire harmony of the scriptures in regard to the design, form, and subjects of baptism" — of " its peculiarity in showing not only that the passages relied upon for the support of Pedobaptism fail of establishing it, but that they all may be urged in favor of the opposite position," — the following will suffice. " The undersigned have examined with a high degree of satisfaction a treatise on the subject of baptism prepared by Rev. Edmund Turney, pastor of the Baptist church in Granville, Ohio. During the short time it remained in our hands each of its parts could be read only by some one of our number : but in this way the whole [this refers to the first four chapters,] has been carefully examined. We hesitate not to say, that we know of no treatise on the same subject better adapted to be useful, and none which more clearly and happily illustrates the scriptural view of the design and nature of Christian baptism. The spirit of candor and impartiality in which it is written, is emi- nently adapted to commend its arguments to the candid consideration of all who are conscientiously desirous of obtaining correct views of the ordinances of the gospel. We think the work ought to be pub- lished, and that great good may be expected from its extensive circu- lation." J. S. Maginnis, T. J. CONANT, Hamilton, N. Y, July 22, 1846. Geo. W. Eaton. Rev. W. W. Everts, pastor of the Laight St. Baptist Church, New York, speaking of the work, says, " It developes the scripture doc- trine of Baptism, not merely by critical notices of particular passages, but by a learned, able, and exegetical examination of the entire har- mony of the Scriptures in regard to the design, form, and subjects of this ordinance. " Its allusions to classical and ecclesiastical writers evince the accu- racy and candor of the Christian scholar. But its primary, earnest, and constant appeal is to ' the law and the testimony ;' and it aims to exhibit, not the traditional or ecclesiastical, but the scriptural law of baptism. " The ability and candor with which it is written, as well as the somewhat novel, and eminently scriptural character of its arguments, will, we believe, secure to this treatise a permanent and growing reputation." Rev. Elisha Tucker, pastor of the Oliver St. Baptist Church, New York, says, "I have, as you suggested, examined with some care por- tions of your work on baptism ; and although I commenced with much of 'doubtful disputation,' as to the propriety of recommending for the press another work on a subject which has been already so often and so ably discussed ; yet I must say, that the plain, and yet forcible manner in which you have illustrated the design and nature of the ordinance, together with the Christian spirit in which you meet the objections of Pedobaptists, has overcome all my scruples ; and with great pleasure I recommend your work to the careful examination of the disciples of Christ." Rev. E. E. L. Taylor, pastor of the Pierpont St. Baptist Church, Brooklyn, says, "My examination of your work has convinced me that there indeed remains, even in this old and well cultivated field of con- troversy, ' much land to be possessed.' I was struck with the dexter- ity with which you have wrested from the Pedobaptist, every weap- on (except tradition,) on which he relies to defend his cause, and have applied the same in effecting his defeat. And you have done this, I am pleased to observe, not in the style and spirit of the controver- sialist eager for victory merely ,but of one candidly and prayerfully in- quiring after truth. I most heartily recommend your work as being eminently adapted to produce conviction on the subject of which it treats." Prof. A. C. Kendrick, of Madison University, referring to the sec- tion on "the meaning of the word," says, " The manuscript which you left with me I attentively perused, — and was much gratified with the candor, accuracy, and clearness of the discussion of the topics embraced." GENERAL PLAN OF THE WORK. The general plan and characteristics of the work may be learned from the Preface and Introduction in connexion with the table of con- tents. It will, however, be impossible to obtain a fully adequate idea of the manner in which the subject is treated, the light in which the several points embraced are presented, the nature and style of argumentation adopted in the different sections, the various respects in which pedobaptism is shown to be without foundation and contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, without a somewhat general and full examination of the work. The sections, in the first three chapters, which more particularly claim attention, are, perhaps, sec- tions 2, and 4 of chapter I — sections 1, 2, and 3 of chapter II — sec- tions 2, 5, 7, 8 and 11 of chapter III. Section 9, of chapter III, although brief, contains a refutation of the argument for pedobaptism drawn from tlie salvation of infants, which can hardly fail to be regarded as perfectly decisive by every candid mind. Section 12, of chapter III, is designed to meet an argument which in the opinion of the author, is far more effective witli pedobaptists, than tiic advocates of believers' baptism are usually aware, and which is indebted for its effect, not to its intrinsic force, but chiefly to the obscurity in which the point to which it relates, has been left. Section 14, which treats of" the evils of infant baptism," although not particularly alluded to in the preface, is, perhaps, as well adapted to leave on many minds an impression unfavorable to pedobaptism, as any other part of the work. In chapter IV, advantage is taken of the points established in the preceding sections, and an appeal made to the consciences of pedo- baptists and inquirers, designed to be if possible, effective. The argument of chapter V, is constructed with a design to meet, not only the objection of pedobaptists, but more especially the posi- tion assumed by the Free Will Baptists, and which the feeliiigs of some in our own churches would lead them to adopt. It is designed to show the folly and inconsistency of departing from our present practice. The peculiarity of the arguments by which Mr. Beecher's positions are refuted, is stated in the preface. Some points which could not well be introduced into the body of the work have been considered in note 2, of the appendix. It has been the design of the author, by arguments whose appositness and force would be generally perceived and felt, to show the utter fallacy of his entire theory. A refutation of pedobaptism has involved a refutation of the anti- christian dogma which may to a great extent be regarded as the found- ation of infant baptism, to wit, baptismal regeneration, and which is now defended under tlie name of Campbellism. The whole argu- ment in chapters I, III and IV is adapted to establish the position that no one can be properly baptised until he is regenerated. The argu- ments by which baptismal regeneration is usually defended, are direct- ly refuted in the exposition of the passages, John 3:5; Acts. 2: 38; 22: 16; 1 Peter, 3: 21; including three of the Notes in the Ap- pendix. It has been the aim of the author, so to present the various points discussed, as, if possible, to produce conviction — not merely to place his arguments on such a ground that they cannot be refuted, but so to arrange and exhibit them that their force will be perceived and Jelt. How far he has succeeded in this, or how far this feature in the work, may be regarded as a peculiar recommendation, others must judge. The author has endeavored to make it a work adapted for general circulation. Whether it will ever obtain an "extensive circulation" will depend much upon the manner in which it is received; or how " great good" may be experienced from such a circulation, is yet to be determined. A very few slight typographical errors (in the first four chapters) have escaped unnoticed, — none, however, that will afiect the sense, or that may not easily be corrected by the reader. ^-d^^A.'^^ ?V\P{1^ THE SCRIPTURAL LAW OF BAPTISM, DESIGN OF BAPTISM Presented and applied, LEADING TO AN EXAMINATION OF ITS FORM, ITS SUBJECTS, ITS AUTHORITY, AND ITS RELATIVE POSITION. J BY EDMUNIXTURNEY, PASTOR OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHCRCU, GRANVILLE, OHIO. HARTFORD : PUBLISHED BY ROBINS & SMITH, 1847. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by EDMUND TURNEY, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut. PREFACE. The general plan of the following treatise was suggested to the author by a series of discourses delivered by him in 1841, before the South Baptist Church in Hartford, Conn. It was at first his intention simply to prepare a small work on the Design of baptism, including an exhibition of its relation to proper views of the form, the subjects, the authority, and the relative position of the ordinance. The intimate connexion of the sub- ject with other points of interest and importance pertaining to the nature and relations of baptism, subsequently led to the determination to extend somewhat the original plan ; and the work was gradually expanded into its present form. It is now given to the public with the hope that it will not be deemed a work of supererogation. In its preparation the author has acted under the conviction, that, notwithstanding the numerous valua- ble works on baptism already published, there is in this field of Christian investigation, " much land yet to be possessed ;'' while in many cases, even the most familiar facts may be pre- sented with increased impressiveness and effect. He believes it will be found upon examination that a comparatively small por- tion of the work is a repetition of the arguments presented by other authors. He has endeavored, it is true, to introduce these arguments sufficiently to give completeness to the work, — to constitute it, in fact, a complete vianual on the subject of bap- tism. But this object being secured, he has confined his atten- tion chiefly to the presentation of new facts and illustrations, or the exhibition of former ones in new points of hght. In his mode of argumentation he has seldom assumed a de- fensive position. By appealing to facts not so much for the purpose of removing objections, as of proving the opposite po- sitions, he has aimed at accomplishing the twofold object, of showing that these facts when used in the defence of error, are actually misapplied, and of securing their full force in establislv- IV PREFACE. ing the truth. He has, — if the figure may be introduced with- out suggesting the existence of a warlike spirit, than which nothing, it is believed, is more at variance with the character and spirit of the work, — he has taken occasion in relation to most of the topics discussed, to seize the strong holds of the opponents, and to turn their chosen implements of defence or attack to the demolition of their own system, and the support of the opposite cause. For illustration of this remark relerence is made to the sections, in which the argument drawn from the design of baptism, is stated and applied ; in which the facts per- taining to the history of infant baptism are presented ; in which the passages relating to the case of little children, the baptism of households, the covenant of circumcision, or natural relation- ship to the people of God, or the privileges pertaining to the Jewish dispensation, are examined. This method of argument- ation has given occasion for showing that pedobaplism is not merely without scriptural foundation, but is actually refuted by the sacred writers. About one-iburth part of the entire work is devoted to the illustration of the specific point, that the New Testament expressly sets aside the only ground on which the baptism of infants is, or can be defended, and that consequently their right to be admitted to the ordinance is positively denied. The sections, likewise, in whicli the historical argument for infant baptism is considered, are introduced, not so much to show that there is no ground for believing the practice to be of apos- tolic origin, as to prove directly that it did not originate with the apostles, and to explain the causes which led to its introduction at a later period. Sections 6 and 7 of Chapter III. in which the arguments for pedobaptism drawn from the covenant of circumci.sion, and the supposed identity of the Christian church and the Jewish theo- cracy, is examined somewhat at length, are mainly expositions of Rom. 11: 11-32, and 4: 9-18, and were originally published as articles in the Christian Review; which will sufficiently ac- count for the particular form in which the points discussed, are presented. In Sect. 3, Chap. II. as in several sections pertaining to the eignificancy of baptism, will be found a refutation of the views advanced by President Beecher in his articles on Baptism in the Biblical Repository. The author, in addition to showing that PREFACE. V Mr. Beecher has placed the decision of the point under examin- ation on a false issue, has endeavored to meet his positions on his own ground, and to expose their fallacy by proof which he himself admits must be, in case it can be adduced, decisive. The Chapter on what is designated, for lack of a more appro" priateterm, the authority of baptism, is commended to the can- did attention of all Christians who have not been immersed on profession of their faith in Christ, especially the members of Pedobaptist churches. The Chapter on the relative position ofbaptisiu, consists chiefly in an exhibition of the scriptural terms of admission to the Lord's supper. The connexion of baptism and church mem_ bership with church privileges, is presented as fully as the limits of the work seemed to allow, or, perhaps, the nature of the case, really to demand. Several points claiming examination which could not Avell be introduced into the body of the work, have been discussed in the form of Notes in an Appendix. Attention is called particularly to the examination of the figure, " the baptism of the Holy Spirit." In his preparation of the work the author, while he has aimed at presenting his positions with force and earnestness, has en- deavored to treat the views of his opponents with courtesy and fairness, and to maintain throughout the discussion a proper degree of christian candor and kindness. With the hope that the same spirit will be cherished in its reception and perusal, it is now sent forth to the public. Should it be effectual in aiding to diffuse just views of Christian baptism in its various aspects and relations, and to extend a proper regard for its authority, the object contemplated in its preparation will be accomplished. Granville, Nov. 1846. Errata, — On page 154, tenth line from the top, for " temporal" read " temporary." CONTENTS. Introduction, • . . , 13 CHAPTER I. THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. Section I. Its general design, 19 Section II, Its symbolical import — Remarks on the nature of symbolical institutions, 24 Section III. Baptism a symbol of the washing away of sin, ... 25 Section IV. Baptism not a symbol specifically of purification, ... 28 Section V. Baptism a symbol of spiritual death and resurrection, . . 33 Section VI. The significancy of baptism as referring to the death and resur- rection of Christ, 37 CHAPTER II. THE FORM OF BAPTISM. • Section I. The design of baptism answered only by immersion. Its entire significancy must be preserved, 40 Section II. No part of the significancy of baptism preserved in sprinkling, 44 Vlll CONTENTS. Section III. Page The meaning of the word, >...',,. 53 Section IV. Immersion the practice of the apostles and primitive Christians, 66 CHAPTER III. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Section I. Believers shown to be the only proper subjects of baptism by its design, 72 Section II. Infant baptism opposed to the nature and design of the gospel dispensation, . 74 Section III. The same argument continued — An examination of passages in which the disciples of Christ are compared to little children, 76 Section IV. The direct teaching of Christ and his apostles respecting the qualifications necessary for baptism and church membership, 84 Section V. Pedobaptism directly refuted by the New Testament, . . 85 Section VI. The same argument continued — An examination of Rom. xi: 11-32, 92 Section VII. The same argument continued — An examination of Rom. iv : 9-lS — The covenant of circumcision not of force in the Christian church, 107 Section VIII. The same argument continued— Baptism itself appealed to in refutation of pedobaptism, 120 CONTENTS. IX Section IX. Page The irrelevancy of the argument for pedobaptism drawn from the salvation of infants, 127 Section X. The baptism of believers the exclusive practice of the apostles and primitive Christians — The testimony of the New Testa- mentj . • 130 Section XI. Infant baptism shown to be not of apostolic origin from the history of the church, 136 Section XII. The causes which led to the introduction of infant baptism explained, 147 Section XIII. A general and connected view of the arguments presented in the preceding sections, 150 Section XIV. The evils of infant baptism, 153 CHAPTER IV. THE AUTHORITY OF BAPTISM, or The duty of believers in Christ to be baptized on profession of their faith, 161 CHAPTER V. THE RELATIVE POSITION OF BAPTISM, • or The scriptural terms of admission to the Lord's supper, . 172 The proper form of government for the churches of Christ, . 180 j: CONTENTS. APPENDIX. Page Note A— Remarks on 1 Pet. 3: 21, 183 B— Remarks on Acts 2 : 38, 1S4 C— Import of the figure, " the baptism of the Holy Spirit," 185 D — Remarks on the meaning of /ffanrifo), . . . 1S8 E — Bonri^oj used by the Christian Fathers in the sense, to immerse, 19*^ F— Import of the phrase, " the kingdom of God," . 194 G — Remarks on John 3 : 5, 195 H— Exposition of 1 Cor. 7 : 14, 196 I — Examination of passages adduced in defence of infant baptism, 190 J— Remarks on Acts 19: 1-7, . . . ' . . 200 k INTRODUCTION. In an examination of the subject of Ciiristian Bap- tism our first inquiry naturally is, What do the Scrip- tures teach 1 As in all the positive institutions of re- ligion, our only reason for action is the revealed will of the Lawgiver. What does he require ? Of whom does he require it? For what purpose is it to be per- formed ? are questions for an answer to which we must apply directly to the wore! of God. And the order in which we have stated them is evidently the most natural in which they are suggested to our minds. First, what is the nature of the requirement? What is the act to be performed ? In determining this ques- tion, we are not to inquire, primarily, what seems to us the most reasonable — what accords best Avith our own views of fitness or propriety — what is, in our appre- hension, best adapted to answer the end intended] We believe, indeed, it will be found, upon examination, that the act required in Christian baptism, is not only reasonable, but peculiarly appropriate and expressive ; that it, in fact, strikingly illustrates the wisdom of the Master in selecting it. But it is not on this ground that we are to ascertain originally what is duty. Our only appropriate inquiry is. What has Christ enjoined? As with respect to the ordinance of the Supper, we learn his will from the terms of enactment, " Take, eat — drink ye all of it," and nothing is regarded as 2 14 INTRODUCTION. obedience but the performance of these acts; so in baptism, we arc to ascertain what is the act required by referring to the import of the terms in which it is enjoined. And finding that this act was actually ob- served as baptism, under the sanction of Christ and his apostles, we may feel doubly assured that we have not mistaken his will. Having thus learned what is the nature of the require- ment, our next appropriate inquiry is, On whom do the Scriptures teach us this requirement is binding? As in instituting the Supper, our Lord left it to be obser- ved by his church ; as among the prescribed requisites, the observants are supposed, for example, to be capa- ble of "discerning the Lord's body," and to be " parta- kers" of the thing represented, the Bread of life, see 1 Cor., 10: 16, 17,11; so in baptism, it might reasonably be inferred that its observance would devolve on those possessing certain qualifications: and to ascertain what these qualifications are, we must refer directly to the teachings of Christ and his apostles. These questions being decided, we are prepared to inquire. For what purpose is baptism enjoined ? What is its design 1 This, we say, is the most natural order of treating these several points. There are reasons, however, wh)^, in an extended examination of the subject, we should partly reverse this order, and begin with the inquiry, What is the design of baptism ? Among these reasons we notice particularly the position very generally as- sumed by Pedobaptists at the present day in respect to baptism, to wit — that in ascertaining the will of Christ we must rely, not so much upon the import of the terms employed in instituting the ordinance, and the prac- tice of the apostles in its observance, as upon a right conception of its design : and any thing, it is conten- INTRODUCTION. 15 ded,that will fulfill its design maybe regarded as obe- dience. While we utterly discard the principle invol- ved in this position, we may find an advantage in ac- comodating our course of argumentation to the posi- tion as actually assumed. It cannot be doubted that much of the error and confusion of sentiment preva- lent with respect to baptism in general, arises from erroneous views of its design. Let its design be fully understood and appreciated, and several points per- taining to its nature, its efficacy, and its importance, will, even without finther investigation, be decided. 1. It will lead to a satisfactory determination of the identical point alluded to in our foregoing remarks — what is baptism ? It will at least teach us what bap- tism is not ; and will thus enable us to decide which, among several transactions designated baptism, is to be adopted; and that too, on grounds, which, if sus- tained, are admitted, even by Pedobaptists, to be deci- sive. For whatever may be their views of the argu- ment drawn from the import of the terms of enact- ment, and the practice sanctioned by Christ and his apostles, they readily acknowledge that nothing can be valid baptism that fails of fulfilling its design. Hence should it appear that this design can be met only by the act enjoined, there will be twofold reason for adhering strictly to its observance. We may pursue the same process in an examination respecting the subjects, the authority, and the relative position of the ordinance, and having arrived, on this single ground, at a satisfactory conclusion on each of these points, we may introduce the other arguments pertaining to the subject, as corroborative of the same positions. By this plan, while the harmony between the design of baptism and the express teaching of the 16 INTRODUCTION. New Testament respecting its nature and claims, will become more fully apparent, the whole subject will, we trust, be presented in a more striking and impress- ive light. 2. A proper consideration of the design of baptism will tend to correct extravagant views of its efficacy or effects. The idea that baptism is essential to salvation, or is efficacious in procuring the forgiveness of sin, or is a means of regeneration and introduction into a state of grace, could have originated only in erroneous or defective views of its design. To the same cause must be ascribed chiefly its continued prevalence. A right conception of the object for which baptism was appointed, not only does not embrace, nor even sug- gest, the idea of baptismal regeneration or purification ; it absolutely precludes its indulgence. Let the relation between the profession made in baptism, and the facts professed, the sign and the thing signified, be viewed in its proper light, and all ground for the support of this anti-christian dogma, so fruitful of evil consequen- ces, is removed. 3. The design of baptism, duly considered, serves to show its importance, as a divine requirement, and an ordinance of the gospel. While, on the one hand, extravagant views of its efficacy have been, and are still, widely entertained, another error into which Christians at the present day are equally liable to fall, consists in a want of appreciating its importance, or properly regarding its authority. It is very generally viewed simply as an external rite, the observance of which is to be regulated mainly by the feelings or convenience of those on whom it is enjoined — a cere- mony which may be, at least, neglected by them with- out any serious dereliction of duty, or unhappy conse- INTRODUCTION. 17 quences either to themselves or the church. Hence the indifference manifested with regard to all questions relating to its right observance, and the difficulty expe- rienced in efforts to impress its claims upon the con- science. The remedy for this lies in a proper appre- ciation of its design. Its importance, aside from the fact that it is a divine requirement, depends on the importance of the end it was designed to accomplish. Let this be viewed in its true light, and baptism will cease to be regarded simply as a question about forms and external rites which are mere appendages to the Christian system. Let its connexion with a proper pro- fession of religion, its character as a standing memorial of the great facts which -lie at the foundation of the gospel scheme, the purpose it was designed to serve, and the influence it aciually exerts, in the promotion of personal piety, and in the preservation and exten- sion of an operative Christianity in the world, be prop- erly appreciated, and not only would its observance be effectually enforced, but the whole subject relating to its nature and position, would be invested with new and peculiar interest, and baptism would once more be restored to the place in the estimation of Christians* which it occupies in the New Testament. CHAPTER I. THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. SECTION I. ITS GENERAL DESIGN. The general design of baptism is a formal and PRACTICAL profession OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. When properly observed it is a declaration on the part of the subject that in the exercise of faith and submis- sion he has embraced the gospel ; that he has received Christ as his Saviour and Sovereign, and is determined to be henceforth identified with his cause. Baptism is accordingly represented as being admin- istered in the name of Christ. The inquiring multitude on the day of Pentecost were directed to " repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." The Sa- maritans believing '' were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 2 : 38 ; 8 : 16. See also Acts 10 : 48 ; 19 : 5. The import of this phraseology is suffi- ciently apparent from 1 Cor. 1 : 12-15. " Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided 1 was Paul crucified for you 1 or were ye bap- tized in the name of Paul 1 I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains; lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name.'''' The apostle could have been accused of baptizing in his own name in no other sense than that he baptized those who were converted under his ministry as his adherents or 20 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. disciples. To show his brethren the impropriety of professing to be the followers or adherents of himself or any other apostle, he reminds them that they had been baptized in the name of Christ, or as his disciples. In being baptized they had solemnly averred that they had chosen him for their Master; and hence for them to profess severally, " I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," was virtually renouncing their baptism. Of similar import is the kindred phrase, ^^ baptized into Christ" Gal. 3 : 27 ; Rom. 6:3. It expresses not so much the effect, as the nature or direction of bap- tism. The disciples of Christ having been brought into vital union with him by faith, are then baptized into him, as they subsequently become more fully in- structed into him, and thus '■'■grow up into him in all things." Eph. 4 : 15. They are baptized not into the principles of Judaism, or heathenism, or human philosophy, but into Christ — into an acknowledgement of his authority and character as exhibited in the gos- pel. The form of expression is the same as occurs in 1 Cor. 10 : 2. " Our fathers were all baptized unto or into (cis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea." No one infers, that the Israelites in being baptized, became the followers of Moses, that they then for the first time submitted to him as their leader. By\t beijig baptized they were baptized into him, or in such a manner that his authority was formally recognized and acknowl- edged. The design of baptism as a profession of submission to Christ, is still more clearly brought to view in Gal. 3: 27. "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ," or as believers in him, " have put on Christ," have assumed his character — have taken the appropri- ate badge of discipleship. The argument of the apos- ITS DESIGN. 21 tie leads him to speak of baptism as the appointed and all sufficient means of professing union with Christ. It indicates that all wlio have submitted to it, unless it shall appear that they have made an unworthy profes- sion, are, without distinction of nation, sex, or condi- tion, to be regarded as his followers. The Gentile christians, no less than the Jewish, are to be recognized as " the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," entitled to all the privileges of his most favored disci- ples. Verses 26, 28. We accordingly find that faith in Christ is uniformly represented in the New Testament as a prerequisite to baptism. " Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved." Mark 16 : 15, 16. It is neces- sary that faith should precede baptism, inasmuch as the thing professed must precede the profession. As there is " one Lord" in whom all christians believe, so there is *' one baptism" by which their faith is publicly avowed, Eph. 4: 5. See also Acts 8 : 37; 15: 4. Intimately connected with the idea of faith is that of evangelical repentance. Faith in Christ implies a reception of his gospel, and a submission to its require- ments, one of the most prominent of which is repent- ance — a renunciation of sin, and a consecration of the affections to God. This was made conspicuous in the preaching of John the Baptist. While he announced the approach of the kingdom of God, and taught the people that " they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus," he required them to "repent," and to " bring forth fruits worthy of repentance." On complying with these directions they were baptized, Hence it is said that he baptized them unto repentance ; or in profession that they had 22 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. renounced their sins, and were prepared to conform their lives to the principles of the kingdom of God. Mat. 3 : 11. See also Acts 2 : 38. Baptism is accordingly styled " the answer of a good conscience toward God." 1 Peter 3 : 21. It implies that the subject of it is actuated by a conscientious re- gard for the will of God, that his mind has become renewed and purified.* Baptism, while it is thus a profession of what has been experienced by the subject, contains a distinct recognition of the interposition of God in his behalf. It indicates that he has become changed, that he has been constituted a new creature ; and, of course, points directly to the cause of this change, the renewins; influ- ence of the Holy Spirit. It also indicates that he has complied with the conditions on which pardon is prom- ised ; that he possesses those feelings of penitence and faith which impart the consciou^iess of forgiveness and reconciliation with God. This is implied in the words, " baptism of repentance for or literally unto (eis) the remission of sins." Mark 1 : 4. Compare the form of expression with that used. Mat. 3 : 11, " I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repen- tance." This denotes, as has been shown, not that the people were brought into repentance by baptism ; but, that having repented they were baptized in profession of their repentance. In like manner they were direct- ed to " repent and be converted that their sins might be blotted out.^^ Compare Acts 2 : 38 ; 3 : 19. They were then to be baptized thereunto, or in token that they had forsaken their sins, and were thus in a con- dition to appropriate to themselves the promise of pardon. t * Note A. Appendix. f Note B. Appendix. ITS DESIGN. 23 The reason is tlnis obvions for adminis^tering baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An acknowledgement of the doctrine of the Trinity as holding a conspicuous place in the revelation of the gospel, is implied in a simple profession of faith in Christ; while in a confession of indebtedness to divine interposition for the remission of sin, and the renewal of the heart, the office and work and claims of each of the persons in the Trinity, are brought definitely and prominently to view. The subjects of baptism pro- fess their allegiance to the Father as their Creator and Sovereign, their reception of the Son as their Lord and Redeemer, and their submission to the Holy Spirit as their Guide and Helper and Sanctifier. Baptism being thus a profession of submission to the gospel was designed as a pre-reqitisite of admission into the Christian church. In this light it appears to have been regarded by the apostles from the first organiza- tion of the church at Jerusalem. Those who gladly received the word*vere baptized, and thereupon, as we are left to infer, were added to the church. Acts 2: 41,47. It is ol)vious, alike from the Acts of the Apos- tles and the Epistles, that none were admitted mem- bers of the apostolic churches, but such as had been baptized on profession of faith in Christ, 1 Cor. 1 : 13, 17; Col. 2: 12; Eph. 4 : 15 ; 1 Peter 3: 21. etc. The ordinance was thus constituted a visible line of demarkation between the church of Christ and the world. It was expected that those who became the disciples of Christ would " confess him before men" by being baptized ; that they would thus publicly identify them- selves with the company of his followers, and consent to place themselves under their watchcare and disci- pline. "Without some such visible line of distinction, 24 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. it is difficult to conceive how the church could have accomplished the object for which it was established. SECTION II. THE SYMBOLICAL IMPORT OF BAPTISM, — REMARKS ON THE NATURE OF SYMBOLICAL INSTITUTIONS. A general view of the design of baptism has been given in the preceding section. We now proceed to consider it as a symbolical ordinance. It is not merely a profession, but an emhle7natical profession of the change evinced in the character of its subjects. Like the ordinance of the Supper it shows forth, or exhibits in visible emblems, the facts for the commemo- ration of which it was instituted. Upon this point there is among Christians a universal agreement. It becomes then, an interesting and important inquiry, What was it designed to representff As an emblemati- cal rite, what does it signify ? It is generally assumed that its symbolical import is single, that it was designed to represent hut one thing. And the ingenuity of authors has been elicited to con- nect in one view tlie different representations of its significancy found in the New Testament. We see no occasion, however, for anxiety on this point. There is nothing in the nature and general design of the ordi- nance, nor in the analogy of other symbolical institu- tions, to forbid the supposition that it was designed to be the symbol of more than one thing. If the same transaction may represent two or more facts intimately connected with each other, or even the same fact in different emblematical lights, it is only thereby ren- dered the more expressive and significant. ITS DESIGN. 25 The primary design of the Jewish Passover as a symbohcal ordinance was to represent the deliverance of the Israelites, recorded Ex. 12. This, however, did not prevent it from being equally a type of the sacrifice of Christ, and of the deliverance thereby ef- fected. 1 Cor. 5:7; John 19 : 36. Its significancy was consequently twofold. Another illustration of this principle is found in the ordinance of the Lord's supper. In one view, it shows forth the death of Christ. It represents his body as broken for his people, his blood as shed for the re- mission of their sins. It exhibits him as a sacrifice offered on their behalf, to which they are to look for salvation. In another view it represents him as the source of spiritual tiourishment to his people, who are regarded as ''partakers of that one bread," the Bread of life, who signify their actual ^^ communion of the body and blood of Christ." And the ordinance is thus rendered doubly expressive. It will be no occasion for surprise, therefore, should something analogous to this be discovered with refer- ence to the ordinance of baptism. SECTION III. BAPTISM A SYMBOL, OF THE WASHING AWAY OF SIN. Baptism, as has already been considered, is the ap- pointed means of professing that spiritual change which is effected in the character of an individual upon his reception of the gospel. This is symbolically pre- sented in baptism as the washing away of sin. This was very probably, in a limited sense, the sig- nificancy ascribed by the Jews to baptism when intro- 3 26 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. duced by John the Baptist. Evidence of this, it is thought, is" found in John 3 : 25, 26 ; where allusion is evidently made to the Jewish ablutions or xoashivgs. This supposition receives additional support from IPet. 3: 21. The only passage, however, in which bap- tism is described by tlie sacred writers as a symbol of the washing away of sin, is Acts 22 : 16. " Arise and be baptized and loash avoaxj thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." That this language was not de- signed to represent baptism as a means of removing the guilt and condemnation of sin, is perfectly obvious. Saul had already become changed in his character and relations. His enmity to the gospel had been sub- dued. He had been constituted " a chosen vessel" to the Lord. And he is accordingly addressed by An- anias as a christian brother. There can be no room for doubt, therefore, that he had been forgiven and accepted of God. The passage, however, clearly teaches that baptism is in some sense actually indica- tive of the washing away of sin. The one is related to the other in the same sense that " the communion of the body and blood of Christ," is related to the ordi- nance of the Lord's supper, 1 Cor. 10 : 16, 17. The "communion" or participation is, of course, symbolicaly the external act being, by a common figure of speech, designated as that which it represents. So in baptism, that which distinguishes the transaction is its relation to the thing signified. It is not the external washing that constitutes it a gospel ordinance, but the fact that it is expressive of an internal and spiritual change ; and this is represented in Acts 22 : 16 as the washing away of sin. Saul was directed, not to perform a mere physical or ceremonial cleansing, not, in a literal sense, to " put away the filth of the flesh," but in an appro- ITS DESIGN. 27 priate emblem to wash away his sijis, to indicate that his moral character had become renewed in holiness. The mode of expression is, as we have before inti- mated, the same as occurs in passages which describe the symbolical import of the Lord's supper; as 1 Cor. 11 : 24, 25 ; Mat. 26 : 26-28, etc., where the commu- nicant is represented as partaking, that is, in emblem, of the body and blood of Christ.* The passage thus viewed is a brief description of the profession made in Christian baptism. The individual baptized professes that he has complied with the in- junction, " Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes." Isa. 1 : 16 ; Jer. 1 : 14. He declares his determination to "cleanse himself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 1 Cor. 7: 1. He expresses the hope that his sins have been pardoned or washed away through the merits of Christ ; that he has experienced " the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost;" and at the same time he acknowledges his obligation to live in accordance with the character thus acquired. He pro- fesses his hearty and entire acquiescence in the work which has been wrought in his behalf. * An additional reason for the language used Acts 22 ; 16, may, per- haps, be found in the fact that baptism was the only means of effectu- ally washing away the stain which had become attached to the public character of Saul, as an enemy to Christianity. For although he may have become in the sight of God a new man, he could stand before the world in a new character, as a friend and servant of Christ, only by publicly renouncinghis opposition to his cause, and taking upon himself the appointed badge of discipleship. The appropriateness of the lan- guage to express this idea, however, is owing entirely to the fact that baptism is, as we have explained, really symbolical of the washing away of sin. Otherwise we might as properly speak of sin as being washed away in the ordinance of the Supper. 28 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. SECTION IV. BAPTISM NOT A SYMBOL SPECIFICALLY OF PURIFICATION. Baptism being- represented Acts 22 : 16, as an em- blem of the washing- away of sin, it has commonly been assumed that it is significant of purification in general. These propositions, however, as will be evi- dent on reflection, are clearly distinguishable, and oug-ht not to be confounded. The former neither in- cludes nor implies the latter. Inattention to this fact is the cause of much of the confusion and error pre- valent with respect to the significancy of baptism. To present this point in its proper light it may be necessary to examine the use made of figures of speech, or metaphoiical modes of expression, in s3'mbolicaI ordinances. To exhibit a fact pertaining to the mind in an appropriate and expressive emblem, we must first select some natural figure or metaphor under which that fact is accustomed to be presented. It is difficult to conceive how a spiritual change can be vividly represented by a material emblem, unless that change is first compared to something analogous in the material world. The change experienced upon a re- ception of the gospel is described as coming to Christ, turning to him, looking to him, partaking ox tasting of his grace, drinking into his Spirit, putting on the new man, dying to sin, having sin covered, blotted out, cast aivay, &c. These are clearly distinctfigures of speech, and might become the foundation for so many sepa- rate symbolical transactions ; which, although they might represent essentially the same thing, could not be exchanged one for another without destroying their dis- tinctive character. An act emblematical of putting on ITS DESIGN. 29 the new man, for example, would not be symbolical of the blotting out of sin.* The same principle is appli- *In further illustration of this position, it may be observed that no one will, it is presumed, contend that the Lord's supper as a representa- tion of what is experienced by the observant, is of the same import with baptism. And yet it would be difficult to show in what essential point it differs, except in the different lights or aspects in which that experi- ence is presented. The former, we say, represents our " communion of the body and blood of Christ," our pariici(jalio7i in the blessings of his mediaiion, and this, as our Lord has expressly intimated, includes the remission of our sins, and the renewal of our nature, or the impartation of spiritual life. See Mat. 26: 28; John 5: 53, 54, 57. But these, it will be perceived, are precisely the facts indicated by baptism. The Lord's supper, again, represents our reception of Christ, and our depend- ence on his atonement for salvation; and this is essentially what is un- derstood by faith in Christ which is professed in baptism. John 1 : 12. Once more, the Lord's supper indicates that the observant has experienc- ed the efficacy of the blood of Christ in the removal of sin. Mat. 26 : 28 ; and in Rev. 1 : 5, this is associated with the washing away of sin — the identical figure connected with the significancy of baptism. In short, both ordinances represent an interest in the blessings and effects of Christ's mediation; one is accordingly to be administered "in his name ;" the other to be observed " in remembrance of him." They alike indicate, tliat, in consequence of his interposition, the relations and state and character of the observants, Jiave become changed, that they have, in a word, been redeemed from sin, and made partakers of spiritual life. But shall we, on the ground of this fact, assume the position that the two ordinances, as far as they refer to what has been experienced by the ob- servant, are of the same imjDort ■? Such would evidently be a most un- warrantable and unreasonable assumption. The different aspects or emblematical lights in which the general facts to which both ordinances relate are presented, are suflicient to constitute an essential difference in their nature and significancy. The great facts pertaining to the work of Christ, and to the experience of his people — to both of which each ordi- nance directly refers, com. Rom. 6: 4; 1 Cor. 11; 26; 10: 16, 17, — by being presented in different emblems, in accordance with different modes of conception and of representation adopted by the human mind, with different allusions, and for what are, in some respects, different pur- poses, are made more impressive, their various bearings and relations are more clearly perceived, and they become more fully incorporated with the habitual conceptions and feelings of christians. Thus, while baptism is placed at the threshhold of the Christian church to indicate to 3* 30 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. cable to the figure associated with the significancy of baptism, the rvashing away of sin. Purification, it should be borne in mind, is effected in various ways ; — by means of lire in refining, see Mai. 3 : 3 ; of wind in winnowing, Mat. 3 : 12 ; of water in washing, Eph. 5 : 26 ; or of a merely ritual observance, as in sprinJding, Heb. 9 : 13. The figures employed in these passages are as really distinct as those just adduced; and cannot in reference to a sym- bolical transaction be substituted one for another. A rite significant of refining, for example, however forci- bly it might represent pMr/^ca^?'on as presented in Mai. 3:3; Zech. 13: 9, etc., would entirely fail of expres- sing the significancy of baptism as explained in Acts 22 : 16. Baptism was never designed to represent the refining of the soul, its purification from the dross or alloy of sin ; nor the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience. These are ideas entirely foreign to the ordinance. It is associated with the general idea of purification in no other way than as it is an emblem specifically of " the washing away of sin." It is a fact worthy of notice, that the writers of the New Testament in alluding to spiritual purifica- tion or cleansing, commonly, whenever any specifica- the world an entrance on the enjoyment aiid pursuit of what is revealed in the gospel, a full and final separation to a life of faith on the Son of God, an actual assimilation in spirit and character to his death and res- urrection, the Lord's supper is a standing ordinance to indicate the con- tinuance of the exercises and facts embraced in this profession, and hence serves as a continual "remembrancer" of what the christian has received through Christ. The ordinances, however, differ, as we have shown, not only in the position they occupy, and the purposes they were designed to serve, but also in their nature and significancy; and this dif- ference, at least as far as the experience of the observants is concerned, consists, we repeat, mainly in the different aspects, or cmhlcmntical lights in v)hich the general facts to which they both equally relate, are rcpre- scnled. ITS DESIGN. 31 tion is made as to mode, represent it as a washing. This seems to have been the prevailing usage among the primitive Christians. In no instance in the New Testament, except in those portions addressed expressly to the Jews, — an exception, which, from the nature of the case, cannot affect our argument, — is spiritual pu- rification described by language borrowed from mere ritual observances.* Paul addressing the Corinthians, says " Such were some of you, but }^e are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified," 1 Cor. 6 : 11. So also Tit. 3 : 5, — " According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." Eph. 5 : 26,—" Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word." So settled does this usage appear to have been, that it was preserved where we should least have expected it. It was retained even at the hazard of introducing in- congruity into the description. Thus in Rev. 1:5; 7 : 14. " Unto him that hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his ownblood.''^ " These are they who came out of great tribulation, and have icashed their robes and jnade them white, in the blood of the Lamb." In the former of these passages the term employed is Aoiiu, (louo) which properly designates the act of bath- ing. In the latter the term used is rXivu, (pluno) which * ] Peter, 1 : 2, cannot be properly adduced as an exception. For, first, the epistle is addressed to, although, as appears from various ex- pressions contained in it, not exclusively designed for the Jews, desig- nated chap. 1 : 1, as the strangers of the dispersion, nagsirtSfinoi Siacr-rropSs. Compare James 1 : 1. Secondly, sprinkling under the law was associated with the idea simply of atonement or consecration, no less than of purification. See Ex. 29: 21,26, 29, 33; Lev. 1 ; 3 — 5; 4 : 2, 6, 13, 17, 20 ; 6 : 27, etc. The design of the apostle Peter evi- dently is to speak of the blood of Christ as the ground of atonement, which may, or may not, be associated with the figure of a purification. 32 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. is appropriated specifically to the washing' or rinsing of clothes, the effect of which is, of course, not a ceremo- nial purification, but, as here definitely stated, to " make them white." No doubt, therefore, can exist that the figure of washing is employed in these passa- ges.* A suflacient reason for the preference given to this figure, aside from its perfect naturalness to denote cleansing, is found in the fact that a great portion of those to whom the gospel was preached would not readily have appreciated the force of figures borrowed from the Jewish ritual. How mere sprinkling could be an appropriate emblem of cleansing, they would not easily apprehend. They would be able to dis- cover no natural correspondence between the sign and the thing signified. Hence it is not surprising that the apostles whenever they had occasion, while writing to the Gentile churches, to speak of spiritual cleansing, should uniformly, either leave the mode undefined, or introduce the figure of washing. This was a figure the force of which they could perceive without a spe- cial acquaintance with the sacrificial and ceremonial purifications of the Jews. It was simple and con- formed to nature ; and was consequently well adapted to be associated with the significancy of an external rite, as baptism. ♦ On the representation of these passages is founded the beautiful and expressive lines of Cowper — " There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Immanuel's veins ; And sinners plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains," as also the following from Watts — " And strangely washed their raiment white, In Jesus' dying blood." ITS DESIGN. 33 In an ordinance of the gospel it might be expected that its significancy would become apparent, not by tracing it through the intervention of other ceremo- nies^ but by simply comparing the sign with the thing signified. It might reasonably be anticipated that there would be a direct and obvious and natural, and not merely a remote and ceremonial^ correspondence between the external act, and the object to be repre- sented. And hence we could hardly have imagined that a ceremony conformed to the figure of sprinkling as expressive of purification, would in any extent, have been introduced. These considerations sufficiently account for the fact that in the New Testament, the washing away of sin, and this alone, as expressive of purification, is connected with the significancy of baptism. SECTION V. BAPTISM A SYMBOL OF SPIRITUAL, DEATH AND RESUURECTION. Baptism was further designed to be a symbolical profession of death and resurrection, — death to SIN, and resurrection to newness of life. These figures difier from that of washing in being more striking and expressive. The individual baptized professes that he is, not merely washed from his sins, but dead to sin. Not merely has his nature become freed from defilement ; he has entered upon a new life, a new state of existence. Such is the representation in Rom. 6 : 2-5. "How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as have 34 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. been baptized in Jesus Christ, have been baptized into his death?" or into a conformity to him with respect to death 1 As he denied himself and became obedient unto death on our behalf, so we in being baptized pro- fess to have denied ourselves in becoming dead to sin, dead to the gratification of our selfish and unholy pas- sions. " Therefore," or on account of this design of the ordinance, " we are hurled with him by baptism into dealh.''^ The same view is presented in Col. 2: 12, ^0 ; 3:. 1-3. " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God." '? If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world are ye subject to [carnal] ordinances ?" "If ye be risen with Christ seek those things which are above where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Set your affection on ihings above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." From these passages it appears that in baptism there is a profession of death, not only to sin as such, but to the world, its rudiments, its pleasures, its tempt- ations. The individual baptized declares that he is no longer influenced by the world, that he is free from the control of its maxims, the fear of its persecutions, and the desire of its sinful pleasures. With this death to sin and the world, is associated in the symbolical language of baptism, a 7T.swrrcc//on to a new and spiritual life. " We are buried with him in baptism, that.^ Hke as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Fatlier, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the like- ness of his resurrection.^' " Buried with him in bap- ITS DESIGN. 35 tism, wherein also ye are risen wilh him through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead." "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above." Rom. 6:4, 5; Col. 2: 12; 3: 1. In these passages we are taught that as there is in baptism a likeness or representation of death, so also of a resurrection, — that as there is a burial, so there is a rising again, and that this is expressive of an obliga- tion to walk in newness of life. As the christian has passed from death unto life, as he has emerged from a state of moral darkness and insensibility to the con- sciousness and enjoyment of spiritual things, as he has new views, new principles of action, new sources of happiness, new objects of pursuit, nothing could be more appropriate to express the change, than the figure of a resurrection, an emerging into a new state of being. The import of baptism as an emblematical profes- sion of death and resurrection, is thus presented in a clear and interesting light. The meaning of Rom. 6: 2-11; Col. 2: 12, 20; 3: 1-5, is too obvious to be easily misimderstood or obscured. Hence the frequency and explicitness with which the significancy of baptism as exhibited in these passages, is alluded to in the writings of the early Christian Fathers. Hermas, whose works are referred to the commence- ment of the second century, speaks of " men going down into the water bound to death, and coming up out of it appointed to life." The author of the Apostolic Constitutions, says, " Baptism relates to the death of Christ; the water an- swers to the grave ; the immersion represents our dying with him, the emersion our rising with him." 36 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Chrysostom represents " the symbol of baptism" as referring " at the same time to burial and death, and to resurrection and life. For our heads being immersed in the water, as in a sepulchre, the old man is buried, and sinking down, the whole is concealed at once; then as we emerge, the new man rises again. For as it is easy to be baptized (immersed), and to emerge, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to bring forth to the liglit the new." Basil. "We being baptized into death in symbol (of the death of Christ) , should die to sin ; and by the ascent from the baptism (the immersion) being raised as from the dead, we should live to God in Christ Jesus, and should die no more, that is, should sin no more." Cyril. " As Jesus, taking the sins of the whole world, died, that having put to death sin, he might raise thee up in righteousness; so thou also descending into the water, and being in a manner buried with him, as he was in the rock, art raised again, walking in newness of life." Strikingly similar is the representation given by the most distinguished Pedobaptist writers of modern times. The celebrated Turrettin admits that "as in former times, the persons to be baptized were immersed in the water, continued under the water, and emerged out of it, (Mat. 3 : 16 ; Acts 8: 38 ;) so the old man died in them and was buried, and the new man arose. (Rom. 6: 4; Col 2 : 12.)" Witsius. " Baptism represents those benefits both present and future, which believers obtain in Christ. Among the present benefits, the principal is, comnain- ion with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ ; and, which is consequent upon it, the mortification and ITS DESIGN. 37 burial of our old, and resurrection of the new man, in virtue of the blood and Spirit of Christ." Grotius. " There was in baptism as administered in former times, an image both of a burial and of a resur- rection ; which in respect to Christ, was external ; in regard to christians, internal. (Rom. 6 : 4.) " Archbishop Leighion. "Rom. 6: 4, — where the dipping into water is referred to, as representing our dying with Christ, the return thence, as expressive of our rising with him." Dr. Chalmers. " Jesus Christ by death underwent this sort of baptism, — even immersion under the sur- face of the ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection. We by being baptized into his death, are conceived to have made a similar translation ; in the act of descending under the water of baptism, to have resigned an old life, and in the act of ascending, to emerge into a second, or a new life." Remarks on Rom. 6 : 3-7. SECTION VI. THE SIGNIFICANCY OF BAPTISM AS REFERRING TO THE DEATH AND RESUR- RECTION OF CHRIST. We proceed to show that the symbolical language of baptism has also reference to the death and res- urrection or CHRIST. This fact is clearly brought to view in the passages already quoted. The subject of baptism is not merely buried, he professes to be buried with Christ, to be baptized into his death, or into con- formity to him with respect to death. He is planted in the likeness of his death. Rom. 6: 3-5. He rises with him. He declares his faith in the power that 4 38 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. raised him from the dead. Col. 2: 12. Baptism is to him the answer of a good conscience towards God, as it is connected with the resurrection of Christ. 1 Pet. 3: 21. He thus, in being baptized, distinctly recognizes the fact that Jesus has died, and risen again, and that on this account he has been enabled to die to sin, and to rise to newness of life. He professes his obligation to be spiritually conformed to the death and resurrection of his Lord. The great facts which lie at the foundation of Chris- tianity, and which are the only ground of our hope of salvation, are thus, whenever the ordinance is properly observed, distinctly presented to view. The symbol is such as to point us directly to tlie fact that Jesus has been delivered to death for our offences, and that he has risen again for our justification, and now lives to intercede for us, to reign in his church, and finally to judge the world in righteousness. Rom. 4: 25; Heb. 7: 25; Rev. 1: 18; Acts 17: 31. The design of baptism as thus exhibited was univer- sally understood by the early Christians. Ignatius, in an epistle to the church in Thallia, says, " Baptism was given to set forth the death of our Lord." Justin Martyr, A. D. 140. " We represent our Lord's sufferings and resurrection by baptism in a pool." Apostolic Constitutions, A. D. 300. "Baptism was given to represent the death of Christ." Basil. "There is but one death for the world, and one resurrection from the dead, of which baptism is a type." These passages are not adduced as authority in de- termining the significancy of baptism. They are chiefly interesting as indicating that the views of the Christians upon this point during the apostolic and sue- ITS DESIGN. 39 ceeding ages, were in accordance with the teaching of the the New Testament. The fact so clearly brought to view in Col. 2: 12; Rom. 6: 3-5, that in bap- tism there is an emblematical profession of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, appears to have been, in those early times, universally understood and acknowledged. In the preceding pages we have endeavored to pre- sent the design of baptism in its true scriptural light. Thus viewed the ordinance is peculiarly significant. The great moral change of which the christian is the subject, is represented by the most expressive emblems which could be selected ; and in such a manner as to recognize the great facts in the Christian system to which this change is attributable. Hence whenever the inquiry is made of the disciples of Christ, as was of the Jews in reference to the passover, "What mean ye by this service '?" their appropriate answer is, — Our Divine Master for our sakes submitted to death, entered the grave, and rose again from the dead, and we thus profess our conformity to him as his disciples. We signify not only that we have been washed from our sins, but that we have become dead to sin and the world, and have risen to the enjoyment and pursuit of a new and holy life. CHAPTER II. THE FORM OF BAPTISM. SECTION I. THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM ANSWERED ONLY BY IMMERSION. ITS ENTIRE SIGNIFICANCY MUST BE PRESERVED. In the preceding- chapter we have examined some- what fully the design and significancy of baptism, as exhibited in the New Testament. This examination, as before intimated, will assist us in arriving at a satis- factory conclusion respecting- the ybnw, the subjects, the authority, and the relative position of the ordinance. Let its design as a symbolical institution be fully per- ceived and appreciated, and the confusion and diver- sity of sentiment prevalent on these several points, will, for the most part, cease to exist. Whatever be the views entertained of the ordinance in other re- spects, it will be admitted, at least, that nothing can be a valid observance of it, that fails of fulfilling its design and preserving- its significancy. We accord- ingly proceed to inquire, in the first place, What does the design of baptism teach us Avitli respect to THE ACT ENJOINED ? In entering- upon an examination of this point, we observe at once, that ihe facts presented in the prece- ding sections, if duly considered, will directly and un- ITS FORM. 41 avoidably, we are constrained to believe, lead to the conclusion that nothing is valid baptism but immersion in water. As a symbolical ordinance cannot be rightly observed, cannot in fact exist, where its significancy is wanting ; so in nothing short of immersion does the significancy of baptism appear. Baptism we have shown was designed to be a symbol of death and resurrection. When the subject is laid beneath the water, there is a resemblance of submis- sion to death. He is hid from the view of the world. He is actually buried in a liquid grave. In emerging he enters a new element; he seems to come forth to a new state of existence ; and he thus signifies that like as Clirist rose from the dead, so he has risen to walk in newness of life. More appropriate and forcible emblems could not have been selected. In any appli- cation of water short of immersion this significancy is not preserved. No one pretends that in sprinkling, for example, there is a representation of death and resur- rection, in respect either to Christ, or his disciples. Whatever be the meaning attached to such a transac- tion, it fails most obviously in expressing the symbolical import of baptism. Is it said, that although sprinkling does not preserve the significancy of the ordinance in every respect, it nevertheless does in part? we reply, 1. The design of the ordinance cannot be met while any essential part of its significancy is omitted. This proposition can be presented in a light so clear and ob- vious, that its correctness, we think, must be perceived and admitted. The primary design of the Jewish pass- over was to commemorate the deliverance of the Israel- ites, recorded in the twelfth chapter of Exodus. There was also a secondary reference to the mediation of 4* 42 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Christ. Now had the Jews confined their observance of the rite to those parts whicli served especially to represent their own deliverance, omitting whatever referred more directly to the sacrifice of Christ, — com- pare Ex. 12: 5, 46; 1 Pet. 1: 19; John 19: 33, 36, — would the design of the rite have been answered? or the will of the Lawgiver obeyed ? Would they have been excused by alleging that the substance was preserved, that its primary design, and the only design specified in its institution, (see Ex. 12,) was met ? Such liberty with the ordinances of religion would an- ciently have been considered daring presumption. Take another illustration. The Lord's supper is de- signed to be a means of commemorating the suflerings of Christ, of showins^ forth his death as the ground of our redemption. This is the only point pertaining to its design specified at its institution. The language of Christ to his disciples is, "Do this in remembrance of TTie." " This is my body that is broken for you." "This is my blood that is shed for the remission of sins." The significancy of the ordinance in these respects would appear were simply the bread to be broken, the wine to be poured forth, and the worshippers by some act, such as the reception of the elemenls into their hands, to indicate their dependence on the thing repre- sented, for salvation. Christ would thus be set forth as the object of their faith, as one who has been cruci- fied and has shed his blood on their behalf. But would this fulfill the design of the ordinance? It might repre- sent an interest in Christ in one important light, the light in which he is presented to view in Mat. 26: 26-28; Luke 22: 19, 20; 1 Cor. 11: 24-28, 29; but it would fail of representing it in another light; as it is presented in 1 Cor. 10 : 16, 17 ; where ITS FORM. 43 christians are described as "pai'taJcers of that one bread." Now should it be contended that it is not necessary to eat the bread, and to drink of the cup, — as the Roman- ists actually do with respect to the latter, — that the significancy of the ordinance, as far as is indicated in its original institution, and as far as its essence is con- cerned, may be preserved without it, how could the correctness of the position be called in question, with- out at the same time admitting that the design of bap- tism cannot be met when one important part of its significancy is omitted? If the proper observance of the Lord's supper requires us to exhibit Christ, not merely as a sacrifice for sin to whom we look, or on whom we depend, for pardon and salvation, but also as the source of our spiritual nourish merit, as one of whose blessings we pai^take, no argument is requisite to show that the ordinance of baptism cannot properly be ob- served where all reference to dying to sin and rising to newness of life, all allusion to the death and resurrec- tion of Christ, is wanting in the symbol. If in one case the entire significancy of the ordinance is essential to its validity, the same is equally and obviously true in the other. But, 2. That part of the significancy of baptism which is confessedly omitted in any transaction short of immer- sion, is the most prominent and expressive, and judging from the representation of the New Testament, we might conclude, the most important. This alone is referred to by the apostles when speaking of baptism and its uses in their epistles. This alone is appealed to by the sacred writers in illustration of the obligation which baptism recognizes as resting on its subjectSt And except for the incidental allusion in Acts 22: 44 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 16, we might look in vain for scriptural testimony to refute the position, that in this is included the entire significancy of the ordinance. Now were any part of its symbolical import to be disregarded, this certainly should be preserved. Is it suggested, that sprinkling, however deficient in significancy, may, nevertheless, be observed as a means of professing death and resurrection ? The principle involved in such a position we shall have occasion to consider hereafter. We simply observe at present, that it entirely overlooks the design of baptism as a symbol- ical institution. We might with equal propriety adopt any otiier ceremony, Jewish, Pagan, or Papistical, and call it baptism, or the Lord's supper, and observe it for the purposes for which these institutions were established. This, however, would be, not observing, but setting aside, the ordinances of the gospel, and substituting the inventions of men in their stead. SECTION II. NO PART OF THE SIGNIFICANCY' OF BAPTISM PRESERVED IM SPRINKLING. Our argument in the preceding section was accom- modated to the assumption that the significancy of baptism may be preserved in part in sprinkling. We shall now endeavor to show that this assumption is groundless. Sprinkling sets aside the significancy of baptism entirely. It preserves no pa7't of its symboli- cal import. Baptism, we have shown, represents, in addition to death and resurrection, the ivashing away of sin. In sprinkling, however, no such representation appears. ITS FORM. 45 For although among the Jews sprinkling was etnploy- ed in rites of purification, it was not a mode of wash- ing. The terms in the original scriptures by which the two ideas are expressed, are as definite and distinct in their signification, as in the English language. This distinction is sufficiently apparent in Lev. 6 : 27. " When there is sprinhled of the blood thereof on any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprink- led in the holy place." See also Lev. 14: 7, 8. President Beecher, in his articles on baptism, in the Biblical Repository, has presented this point in a pecu- liarly clear and forcible light. Alluding to the descrip- tion which Josephus gives of certain Jewish rites in which sprinkling was required, he says, " He not only omits washing, bat he so describes the pui ification of the ■ people as to imply that wasliing was no part of the rite.^' "Now if it was necessary to icash also, then it is not true that after sprinkling nnly they were clean, for ivashing still remained.''^ Again he says, '• Paul also (Heb. 9 : 13,) says nothing of a washing, but speaks of sprinkling as the whole." Biblical Reposito- ry, No. 41, p. 43. It is admitted, therefore, that " sprinkling only," neither expresses nor implies the idea of washing. Hence it is not possible, in the nature of the case, that it should represent the loashing away of sin. Is it urged, that sprinkling though not a symbol of the washing away of sin, is nevertheless not without significancy 1 that it represents essentially the same thing under another figure 1 that it is significant of "the heart sprinkled from an evil conscience ?" that it is adapted to the figure by which the removal of sin is indicated in Ezek. 36 : 25 ? We reply, the same position in general might be assumed in favor of any 46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Other transaction adapted to represent a spiritual change. We might on the same ground select any other figure eu)ployed in the Scriptuies to describe repentance and forgiveness of sin; and adopting some ceremony corresponding thereto, we might designate it baptism, and observe it as such. Because it is said Isa. 43 : 25, " I am he that hlotteth out thy transgres- sions," and the injunction is given Acts 3 : 19, "Re- pent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out,^^ we might assume that the design of baptism is sufliciently met in some act expressive of blotting out. Nor would those who contend on the ground now under consideration, that sprinkling is baptism, be able to deny the soundness of the conclusion. It cannot be denied that such an act would be significant, that it would be conformed to the representation of various passages of scripture, that it would express, under another form, what is expressed in baptism. And its validity as baptism could be called in question, only by admitting that sprinkling has no claim on any such grounds to be considered a gospel ordinance. Agai-n, the communication of spiritual blessings is described in the Scriptures as an anointing ; and the *' baptism of the Spirit," is in reality nothing else than what is styled under another figure " the unction [the anointing] of the Holy One." What hinders, there- fore, that we adopt some ceremony of anointing., and observe it in the place of baptism? As many consid- erations certainly could be urged in its favor, as can be adduced to show that the design of baptism is met in sprinkling. If these are not parallel cases we are unable to per- ceive where the analogy fails. It is impossible to escape the conclusion, either that a ceremony of blot- ITS FORM. 47 ting out, or of anointing, or any other similarly signifi- cant act, would be valid baptism, or that the position that sprinkling is baptism because it is significant, and represents the change involved in conversion in accord- ance with scriptural figures of speech, is untenable, and ought to be abandoned. But sprinkling, it is urged, is significant of purifi- cation. This, however, it will be recollected, is not the point at issue. Baptism, as we have shown, is no where in the New Testament described as a symbol simply of purification. It represents specifically the washing away of sin. The position assumed is, that baptism denotes purifi- cation, and that any form of purification is adapted to answer its design. The fallacy of this position can easily be made apparent. Is it admitted that an act significant of refining, for example, would be valid as baptism ? Is it conceded that the practice ascribed to certain ancient heretical sects, of using^re for the pur- pose of baptizing, and in defence of which, it is said, they appealed to such passages as Mat. 3 : 11, " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with j^re," was obedience to the law of baptism ? Would a ceremony of anointing, like those employed in the Jewish purifications, — see Lev. 14: 28, 29, — be accepted as the initiatory rite of Christianity ? These, it cannot be denied, might be used as symbols of puri- fication ; and their sufficiency to fulfill the design of baptism must either be admitted, or the ground that any form of purification is adapted to answer that purpose, must be abandoned. It is impossible to avoid this con- clusion. But, it will be urged, perhaps, that the history of the institution recorded in the New Testament, indicates 48 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. that the use of water is essential to its validity. This we cannot but regard as an important admission. It is, as will be perceived, an actual abandonment of the position whose fallacy we are endeavoring to expose. To maintain that water is requisite in baptism, is to concede that any form of purification will not suffice.* Washing, it is true, in the ordinary conceptions of men, implies the use of water; but not piuification. It is as natural to associate purification with the action of fire, as of water. Among the Jews it was connect- ed with the offering of sacrifices, and the application of blood. See also Lev. 14 : 28, 29 ; Mat. 3 : 12. Now are the advocates of th*e position under consid- eration willing to admit that the use of fire, or of any other material by which purification might be indica- ted, would be valid as baptism ? Were a sect of Chris- tians to adopt some such practice in preference to the ceremonies now used for baptism, would they be ac- knowledged as persons regularly baptized ? Their submission to a rite significant of purification could not be disputed ; and nothing more on (he principle assumed in the position imdcr consideration, is re- quired. It will be impossible, we conceive, in the light of these suggestions to maintain, that baptism simply de- *It is also an admission on the part of Pedobaptists, that in ascer- taining the will of Christ with respect to haplism, we are to look, not to the design of the ordinance simply, but also to the history of its in- stitution, and the example of the apostles. If this be true with respect to the material to be vsed, may we not with equal, or still stronger reason believe it true with respect to the act to be performed 1 Is it not obviously the duty of christians in reference to both, to " keep the ordinances as they were delivered ?" ITS FORM. 49 notes purification, and that the mode by which it is signified, is of no importance ; that one form of purifi- cation is equally valid with another. The application of this principle in its full extent, as pointed out in our preceding remarks, must be acceded to, or the posi- tion must be abandoned. We repeat it, there is no other alternative. It has been shown that the New Testament no where speaks of baptism as indicative specifically of purifica- tion. But even were such the fa;t, it would by no means follow that any form of purification would suffice to meet its design. We should still be required, with- out some express intimation to the contrary, to consider baptism a symbol of purification only as it represents the washing away of sin. The principle involved in this statement, can be illustrated by examples in which its correctness will not, cannot be doubted. Baptism is usually described as "a sign of the re- mission of sin ;" in proof of which reference is made to . Mark 1:4; Acts 2: 38. But is it inferred on the ground of this fact, that any transaction by which remission may be represented, will suffice to answer the design of baptism ? Is the conclusion drawn, that, because sin is described in the Scriptmes as being blot- ted out, covered, cast away, &c., a ceremony adapted to represent its remission in accordance with any of these several figures of speech, may properly be ob- served as the initiatory ordinance of the gospel? Such a ceremony would certainly be a symbol of the remis- sion of sin. But we readily perceive that it is not in this light that the idea of remission is related to bap- tism. It is significant of remission only as it represents 5 50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. the washing away of sin. The same principle would obviously apply, on the supposition that baptism were described in the New Testament as a sign of purifica- tion. We might as well adopt any symbol of remission, as of purification. Take another iUustration. Baptism, it is said, repre- sents the conm)unication of the Hol}^ Spirit's influen- ces, commonly identified with what is styled " the baptism of tlie Spirit." But will it be admitted by those who take this position, that any act by which the impartation or reception of the Spirit might be repre- sented, would answer tlie purpose of baptism ? If so, they must admit that this would be true of ano->nting, 1 John 2 : 27 ; of an emission of the breath, John 20 : 22; and especially of the reception of voter internally. No figure is more frequently employed in the Nev/ Testament to describe the reception of the Spirit's influ- ences, than that of drinking ; and in one instance it is introduced in immediate connexion with baptism. " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor. 12: IS. See also John?: 37; 4: 14. And we might contend on the strength of this representation, that the use of water in drinking, to express the act of "drinking into one Spirit," or a ceremony of anointing, to represent the " imction of the Holy One," would be "scriptuial modes of bap- tism." The fallacy of this reasoning, would, in such a case, readily be discovered. It would at once be urged that while baptism is significant of the commu- nication of the Spirit's influences, it becomes so through the medium of some other emblem than those of drink- ITSFORM. 51 ing" or anointing.* And it would be equally fallacious, were baptism represented in the New Testament as significant of purification, to infer that any form of purification might be adopted at pleasure. Baptism would then, as now, be significant of purification only as a symbol of the washing away of sin. But there is another light in which this point may be presented. If baptism, as we have so fully shown in the preceding sections, is a symbol of the washing away of sin, it is not possible, in the nature of the case, that it should represent purification in any sense that does not include the idea of washing. It cannot leave out of view that which at the sa?ne time it represents. And hence as there is confessedly no representation of washing in sprinkling, or anointing, or an act signifi- cant of refining, it is impossible that these should represent the washing away of sin. They might, in- deed, represent the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience, the purging of the soul from the dross of sin, the consecration involved in the unction of the Spirit ; but these are ideas in no way connected with the significancy of baptism. Its symbolical import is simple and specific. It is emblematical of the washing away of sin ; and in no transaction indicative either of purification, or of remission, in which this specific em- blem does not appear, is the significancy of the ordi- nance preserved. To set aside the emblems selected by Christ, and adopt others in their stead, on pretence that the same *The same remark will apply to the figures oi pouring and shed- rfmg, used Ps. 72: 6, Isa. 44; 3, etc. These equally with those of drinking ^nd. anointing, &c., are entirely foreign to the significancy of baptism. For an explanation of the figure " the baptism of the Spirit," see note C, Appendix. 52 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. general facts may be represented, is to set aside the institutions of Christ, and substitute in their place other rites. It is not assumed that a ceremony expressive of the blotting out of sin, the covering of sin, the purging away the dross of sin, the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience, the unction of the Holy One, or the act of drinking into one Spirit, would be destitute of significancy. But it is obvious no such ceremony could represent the washing away of sin. It thus appears that in no ceremony commonly de- signated baptism, except immersion, is the significancy of the ordinance preserved I71 any respect. In sprink- ling, for example, not merely the most conspicuous part, but the whole of its symbolical import, is wanting. That such a transaction does not represent spiritual death and resurrection, conformity to the death and resurrection of Christ, is conceded. That it does not represent the washing of regeneration, or the washing away of sin, is equally apparent. This affords an in- teresting confirmation of the position established in the preceding section, that the design of baptism can be answered only by immersion in water. In this, the washing away of sin, and conformity to the death and resurrection of Christ, are both exhibited in striking emblems. In no other ceremony called baptism, is either represented. It will be impossible, we think, on a proper consideration of this fact, to mistake the nature of the ordinance. The will of the Lawgiver with respect to the act to be performed, appears con- spicuous in the very design of the institution. ITS FORM. SECTION III. THE MEANING OP THE WORD, 53 The correctness of the conclusion arrived at in the preceding- sections with respect to the act required in baptism, is, if possible, still more evident from the MEANING OF THE WORD. The lexicographers of the Greek language are united in declaring that to baptize is to immerse. Baptizo, the word uniformly employed by the sacred writers to de- note the act of Christian baptism, has but one distinct and general signification, expressed, it is true, in differ- ent connexions by different terms, as, to immerse, to submerge, to plunge, to dip, to overwhelm.* That this is its true and proper meaning is confirmed by the testimony of the most eminent and learned Pedo- haptist scholars and divines of the present and former ages. Martin Luther says, " The teim baptism is a Greek word; it may be rendered into Latin by Twersfo (immer- sion) ; as when we immerse any thing in water that it may be entirely covered with water." — " They ought to be wholly immersed, and immediately drawn out again, for the etymology of the word seems to require it." Calvin. "The word baptize signifies to immerse; and the right of immersion was observed in the ancient church." Beza. " Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified." Dr. George Campbell. " The word baptizein, both * Note D, Appendix. 54 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. in sacred authors and in clarsical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse. It is always construed suitably to this meaning." Augusti. "The word baplisni, according to ety- mology and usage, signifies, to immerse, tn submerge^ &c. ; and the choice of the word betrays an age in which the later custom of spi inkling, had not l^een introduced." Dr. Knapp. " Baptizein properly signifies to im- merse, to dip in, like the German taufen,to wash by im- 7nersion." Dr. Chalmers. "The original meaning of the word baptism is immersinn.^^ On these explicit declarations from men of the high- est distinction for learning and influence in the Pedo- baiptist ranks — and the list, were it necessary, might he greatly enlarged — comment is needless. Is it ob- jected to the use made of these quotations, that they are the language of Pedobaptists, who, of course, be- lieved that sprinkling would suffice for the purpose of baptism? This we have admitted. And it is this fact which gives our argument its peculiar force. For whatever their attempts to justify the practice of their own churches, their testimony with regard to the mean- ing of the word, is only thereby rendered the more valuable and decisive. To enable the reader, however, to judge for himself respecting its proper import, we shall introduce a few examples of its use as it occurs in ancient Greek au- thors. Pindar, a celebrated Greek ])oet, expresses himself thus, " As when a net is cast into the sea, the cork swims al)ove, sol am unhaptized,^' Strabo, a cotemporary of the apostles, speaking of a ITSFORM. 55 lake in Sicily, sa5's, " Things that elsewhere will not float, do not become baptized (do not sink) in the waters of tliis lake, but sunm like wood." Josephus, the Jewish historian, describing an en- gagement between the Jews and Romans, on the lake of Genesereth, says the former, " when they ventured to come near the Romans, were baptized (submerged) together with their ships ;" and adds, "If any of those who had been baptized^ raised their heads out of the water, they were either killed by the darts, or caught by the vessels." In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, baptizo is used in 2d Kings 5: 14, as a translation of the Hebrew tabal^ which, it is universally admitted, means to dip or immerse. "AndNaaman went down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan." The same usage appears in the Christian Fathers. A single example from Gregory Nazianzen must suffice. "Let us not load ourselves with a heavier bur- den than we can bear, lest we be baptized (submerged) with the ship and crew." Examples of this kind might be greatly multiplied. But these will suffice to show in what sense the word baptize was used by those who anciently employed the Greek language. They teach us, that not merely pagan Greeks, but Jewish and Christian writers, those familiar with all the rites of Judaism and Christianity, those even who practiced Christian baptism, regarded the word as having, like every other, a definite mean- ing, as designating a specific action ; and that action they have declared to be immersion. The import of the command, "Arise and be bapti- zed^^ may, therefore, be considered settled. It is, properly expressed, a command to be immersed. Had 56 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Christ or his apostles used the term baptize in some new, or even unusual sense, their meaning would not have been apprehended ; or rather, they would have enjoined, according to the established impoit of the word, one thing, while in reality they intended anoth- er, failing to employ the appropriate terms to express it. Words denoting external acts do not change their signification simply because they are applied to reli- gious transactions. When Moses is said to have sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices for the purpose of making atonement, the term employed denotes to sprinkle no less than if it had been used in any other connexion. When Christ commanded his disciples, in instituting the ordinance of the Supper, to eat and to drink, he obviously used these terms in their usual acceptation. And when he requires his followers to be baptized, that is, immersed, in water, on profession of faith in him, the import of the command is as defi- nite and as obvious as though immersion in water for any other purpose were required. It may not be amiss, however, to inquire, Is any additional light cast upon the meaning of the word, by its use as applied directly to the ordinance of Christian baptism? The answer to this inquiry, while it may serve to confirm the position already established, will also have the effect to meet an argument much relied on by certain Pedobaptist writers, founded on what they are pleased to style "the sacred use of the term." In our investigation of this point we must rely espe- cially on proof furnished by the New Testament, and by writers who were either cotemporary with the apos- tles, or their immediate successors. The word bap- tism after being appropiiated for centuries to the initia- tory ordinance of Christianity, would naturally come ITS FORM. 57 to be used cliit'ily as a technical term, — as a simple name of the rite ; and as such it would express, not the form of the rite only, but its object, its uses, and whatever else might be supposed to pertain to it. And it could hardly fail that it would frequently be used in connexions where its proper siijnification would be left entirely out of view. Especially might this be expect- ed after a variety of superstitious doctrines and rites became connected with the ordinance, and the cere- mony of affusion was in some special cases substituted for a proper baptism. For illustration we need simply refer to the customary use of taufen the word in the German language appropriated to Christian baptism, and properly signifying, accoiding to the testimony of the most distinguished German schohirs, to dip, to im- merse * Compare also the use of the Dutch doojjen, the Swedish dopa, and the Danish dobe. Examples in which the Cliristian Fathers may have used the word baptism in a manner inconsistent with the idea of immersion, are, consequently, of no author- ity in determining its meaning when it became appro- priated to the Christian ordinance, or as used by Christ and his apostles. Most, if not all the ins^tances in which such examples may be claimed, at least from the earlier Christian writers, are referable to what Mr. Beecher styles, the use of the term " as the appropria- ted name of the rite of Christian baptism." "In this case," says Mr. Beecher, "it approximates in its use, toward a proper name, or a technical term, i. e. the attention of the mind is abstracted from the meaning of the word, though it is in fact significant, and is fixed upon the rite for which it stands." Mr. Beecher even * Adelung's Dictionary, Luther's Sermon on Baptism, Knapp's The- ology, Vol. 2, p. 510. 58 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. admits that *'what would be incongruous uses, if re- ferred to the sense merely, are not so if referred to the rite." Attention to this admitted principle, — which is certainly expressed in as strong terms as could be de- sired, — is all that is necessary to show the groundless- ness of the assumption that the Christian Fathers used the term baptism with vaiious significations.* It will account for the fact that they sometimes compare bap- tism, that is, the rite designated by that name, with certain Jewish rites, which however unlike in form, were yet conceived to be in many respects of similar import. On the same principle they compare the ordi- nance of the Supper, with institutions enjoined in the Old Testament, as the passover; although in the man- ner of their observance, and in the signification of the terms by which they were usually designated, they were very dissimilar. Nor is there any difficulty in the fact that tliey familiarly designated baptism by a variety of appellations, as initiation, illumination, re- generation, remission, purification, etc. The rite on account of something pertaining to its nature or its effects, they conceived might properly be designated by each of these terms. But it would be idle to con- tend that they considered the word as having so many diverse and disconnected significations. This would involve a contradiction. It is certain, however, that they customarily employ- ed the word when applied to Christian baptism in the specific sense of immersion. Chrysostom, commenting on Mark 10: 59, says, "He calls his cross baptism, for as we are easily baptized (immersed) , and rise again, so he having died, easily rose again when he would." Again, after alluding to the supposed nature * Beecher's Articles on Baptism, § 63 and 64. ITS FORM. 59 or effect of baptism as a rite of purification, he says, "As he who is baptized (immersed) in water, rises with great ease, being nothing hindered by the nature of the waters, so he having descended into death rose again with ease ; for this reason he calls it [his sub- mission to deathj baptism." These passages, which are simply specimens of many that might be adduced,* are quoted by Mr. Beecher, and admitted by him to be examples of the use of the term baptize in the sense, to immerse. They may be regarded a sufficient index to its customary use among the Christian Fathers. If the phrase " baptized in water," as used by Chrysos- tom, means " immersed in water," as Mr. Beecher himself translates it, we may, even without further evidence, safely conclude that it is to be taken in the same sense, as used by his cotemporaries. They, be- yond all doubt, regarded the word as signifying prop- erly to immerse. And any examples that may be ad- duced as instances of inconsistent usage may easily be referred to the technical use of the term. If established as such they would no more avail in determining its use in the New Testament, than does the present usage with respect to the German taufen, and the * In a brief examination of the writings of the Christian Fathers, the author has noticed that examples of the use ofBa;rrifa) (baptizo)in the sense to immerse, equally interesting and decisive with those here adduced, are of frequent occurrence. Among these are the passages presented in Note C of the Appendix, as also the quotations from Basil and Chrysostom, on page 36. Indeed their customary use, when speaking of Christian baptism, of such expressions as, "we are bapti- zed into water," BairTi^oncda ds vSo^p, (Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, chap. 15"), or " in the water," Iv rw ■BJon, or " in the waters," iv tois iiiacnv, ought in itself to suffice for every purpose of conviction. To suppose they intended to say — sprinkled or purified into water, would be ab- surd. Immersed into water, or m the waters, is the only meaning that can possibly be attached to their language. 60 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Dutch doopen^ determine the sense in which these terms were used at the time thoy became appropriated to the ordinance of Clirisiian ba})tism.* In further confirmation of the position under consid- eration, we appeal to the manner in which the word baptizo was translated hy the primitive. Christians into other languages. Among" all the translations of the New Testament made previously to the eighth century, it is never rendered by any teim that does not express immersion. t In the Old Syriac version, executed as early as the beginning of the second century, baptism is expressed by a derivative of amad. The same term is also used in a sense connected with baptistery, and in John 5 : 2-7, is put for pool : — "I have no man to put me into the poof." The verb a?7zar/ employed as the translation of baptizo, is defined by Buxtorf in his Chaldee and Syriac Lexicon thus, to baptize, to dip, to bathe. Schind- ler gives as its meaning, to baptize, to immerse into water, to dip, to bathe. Beza also remarks that it prop- erly means to immerse^ and never to wash except as a consequence of immersion. It is used in the Syriac translation of the Old Testament in Num. 31 : 23, to express the act of putting into ivater. Com. Lev. 11 : 32. It is used by Ephraim Syrus of the fourth century to express the immersion of Christ in the Jordan. "How wonderful is it that thy footsteps were planted on the waters; that the great sea should subject itself to thy feet ; and that yet at a small river that same * Note E. Appendix. f For the facts here stated in reference to the early translations, the author is indebted chiefly to" a Critical Examination of the rendering of the word BaTrTifco in the ancient and many of the modern versions of the New Testament," by F. W. Gotch, of Trinity College, Dublin. ITS FORM. 61 head of thine should be subjected to be bowed down and baptized in it !" Here the head of the Redeemer is represented as being bowed down a.nd thus baptized in the river. This is contrasted with the sea being sub- jected to his feet. As the waters were beneath his feet, so his head was placed beneath the water : and this is expressed by the verb amad. Any sense but immersion is, of course, entirely precluded. This, let it be borne in mind, is the word which was selected, as early as the beginning of the second century, to express in the Jews' vernacular tongue the meaning of baptize as it occurs in the New Testament. In the ancient Egyptian or Coptic version of the New Testament, made during the third century, bap- tize is translated by a term which signifies, fo immerse^ to> submerge, to sink. It is used in many passages not relating to the ordinance of baptism, which will be to all a sufficient index to its meaning ; as Mat. 18 : 6, — *^ submerged in the depths of the sea;" Mat. 14: 30, — "and beginning to sink, he cried, saying. Lord save me." In the Gothic version, executed in the fourth centu- ry, the term employed as a translation of baptize, is daupjan, from which is derived our word dip, and which it is universally admitted means properly, to dip, to immerse. These examples are sufficient to illustrate the sense in which baptize was understood by the ancient trans- lators of the New Testament. In no instance for more than seven centuries was it translated by any term that did net involve the idea of immersion. The evidence furnished by this fact, we think, is irresistible. Here were men perfectly familiar with the Greek language as it was used by the apostles, some of them living 6 62 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. almost in the apostolic age ; they wish to express in the languages of the nations where the gospel had been introduced, the meaning of the word baptize ; and they invariably select terms denoting immersion. They thus declare in the most direct and explicit man- ner that this was its import as employed in the New Testament. They declare that Christ commanded his disciples to "go and disciple all nations, immersing' them ;" — that he requires those who hear the message of the gospel, to "repent and be immersed.^^ We can scarcely conceive of proof more direct or more decisive for establishing the meaning of the term baptism, as applied in the New Testament to the initiatory ordi- nance of the gospel. But it is unnecessary, in order to establish this point, that we go beyond the New Testament. The meaning of baptizo is sufficiently apparent from 1 Cor. 10 : 1, 2. "Moreover, bretiiren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.^^ The Israelites in descending into the bed of the sea, while the water surrounded them on all sides, and the cloud hung over their heads, were literally immersed. That this is what the apostle intended to express in saying tjiat they were baptized, is evident from the nature of his phraseology, as well as from his particular description of their condition. He is draw- ing an analogy between incidents connected with their history, and facts pertaining to the Christian church. And the only satisfactory reason that can be assigned for his noticing the fact that the Israelites were under the cloud, and passed through the sea, is, that he wished thus to prepare the way for the succeeding declaration. ITS FORM. ~ 63 by showing how they were baptized. It is in this re- spect alone that the circumstance can be compared directly with any thing relating to the experience of christians. And hence it is further stated, that " they were bajDtized in the cloud and in the sea.^^ This is precisely the phraseology to correspond with the idea of immersion ; and we cannot conceive why it should be employed for any other purpose. That which not merely passes throush, but is in and under watery elements, is necessarily immersed; and the very repre- sentation shows that immersion is the idea intended to be expressed. Examples still more decisive, if possible, are found in Mat. 20 : 22, 23 ; Mark 10 : 38, 39 ; Luke 12 : 50 J where the Saviour compares his sufferings and death to baptism. " Are ye able to be baptized with the bap- tism that I am baptized with ?" — "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished." That in these passages the term bap- tism is figuratively used in the sense of immersion or overwhelming is generally, if not universally, admit- ted. It describes, in accordance with a usage common to most languages, the depth or overwhelming nature of the Saviour's sufferings. See Ps. 69 : 2 ; 42 : 7. The meaning is expressed by Dr. Doddridge thus, — *'I shall be shortly bathed, as it were, in blood, and plunged in the most overwhelming distress." Dr. Bloomfield, commenting on Mat. 20 : 22, says, "This metaphor, of immersion in water, as expressive of b^ng overwhelmed by affliction, is frequent both in the Scriptural and Classical writers." Even President Beecher admits that the term is used in these instances "in the sense, to overwhelm with cares and agony of body and mind." 64 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. It only remains, tliorefore, in order to establish the point now under consideration, that we show that in these passages there is an allusion to Christian bap- tism, or that the sufferings of Christ are compared with the act required by that ordinance. And to decide this point we shall appeal directly to the nature of the phraseology. This can be accounted for only on the ground that the figure introduced is in some way iden- tified with Christian baptism. It implies that Christ compares his sufferings to some specific act with which his disciples were fatniliar, and concerning which sim- ilar phraseology ivas customarily employed. Otherwise, why should he speak of a baptism which he was to ex- perience ? — such a use of the noun baptisma, would obviously be unnatural, if not unprecedented. Why- does he represent his disciples as being baptized with this baptism? Why say, "I have a baptism?" and especially, " I hnve a baptism to be baptized with V Had he intended merely to convey the simple idea that he was about to be overwhelmed with sufferings or im- mersed in affliction, irrespectively of an}' allusion to Christian baptism, it is unaccountable that he should have said, "I ham an overwhelming to be overwhelmed with ;" or, " Are ye able to be immersed with the im- mersion that I am immersed with ?" Such phraseology would be without a parallel in any language ancient or modern. But on the admission that Christ com- pares his sufferings to the act required of his disciples in Christian baptism, all is natural and lucid ; the lan- guage is not only appropriate, but peculiarly forcible ; — as if he had said, 'Have you been the subjects of an immersion unto repentance? Have you been immer- sed on profession of your faith in me ? I, too, have an immersion to be immersed with, and how am I strait- ITS FORM. 65 ened till it he accomplished. Are ye able to be im- mersed with the immersion that I am immersed wilht an immersion in suffering, agony, and death V It is also worthy of notice, that inasmuch as the dis- ciples had been accustomed to hear the phraseology employed in these passages used with reference to the rite of baptism, — com. Luke 7 : 29 ; Acts 19 : 3, 4, — they would naturally conclude that it was used in the same sense in these instances. " To be baptized with the baptism of John," "to be baptized with the baptism of repentance," &c., were expressions with which they were familiar. And, withont some express intimation to the contrary, they would inevitably infer, in hearing their Master speak of having a baptism to be baptized with, that the language was used in the same general acceptation, as in other cases. This was the light in which it was uniformly understood by the Christian Fathers ; and this, we doubt not, is the first, and almost irresistible, impression made on the mind of every reader of the New Testament. In these passages, then, it is conceded the figure of an immersion or overwhelming is introduced : baptizo is figuratively used in the sense of immerse or over- whelm. This fact being admitted, (and without the admission it is not possible to explain the language,) the point under consideration will in most minds be decided. It will be impossible to convince the mass of reflecting minds that there is no allusion in these pas- sages to Christian baptism, or that the terms employed are not used in the same general acceptation as when applied to that ordinance. If, then, the principle laid down by Mr. Beecher, that where allusion is had to Christian baptism, the word baptize must uniformly be taken in the same sense, be correct, (and its correct- 6* 66 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ness is, Ave think, too obvious to be disputed,) these ex- amples are decisive with respect to iis meaning in the New Testament. It must either be denied that in Mat. 20 : 22 ; Luke 12 : 50, there is any aUusion to baptism as that term was commonly employed by those whom our Lord was addressing ; or it must be admitted on Mr. Beecher's own principles, that uni- formly in the language of Clirist and his apostles to baptize is to immerse. These examples, especially in connexion with 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2, and I may add, Rom. 6:4; Col. 2: 12; Mark 1:5; Mat. 3: 6, establish the point beyond all ground of dispute. SECTION IV. IMMERSION THE PRACTICE OF THE AP0STLE8 AND PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS. The truth of the position, that immersion in water is essential to Christian baptism, is further evident from THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES AND PRIMITIVE CHRIS- TIANS. That the notices of baptism recorded in the New Tes- tament are descriptive of immersion, is apparent on other grounds than the testimony of the word itself. It is not merely affirmed, in accordance with what we have so fully shown to be the true import of the term, — " and they that believed were immersed ;'^ but the circumstances connected with the administration of the ordinance are recorded with such particularity, as in themselves to show that immersion was practiced. It is said of John, that he baptized the people " in the river Jordan ;" — "that he baptized in Enon, because ITS FORM. 67 there was much water there." Mark 1 : 5 ; John 3 : 23. Of Philip and the Ethiopian it is recorded, that having come to a certain water, " they both went down into the water," and baptism having been performed, " they both came up out o/the water." Acts 8 : 36-39. In Rom. 6:4; Col. 2 : 12, christians in general are represented as buried by baptism, — a description which necessarily involves immersion, and which may be considered decisive with respect to the practice of the apostolic churches. Not less decisive is the testimony of the earliest Christian Fathers. Barnabas and Hermas, or the epistles ascribed to them, both represent baptism as being administered in connexion with " going down into the water" and "coming up out of it." Justin Martyr says that those who believed, were " led to a place where there was water," and "were then bathed in the water." He also speaks of baptism being performed in a pool. Tertullian. "There is no difference whether one is bathed in a sea, or in a pool, in a river, or in a foun- tain, in a lake, or in a bath. Nor is there any differ- ence between those whom John immersed in the Jor- dan, and those whom Peter immersed in the Tiber." Immersion is thus represented as being the uniform practice of the Christians in those early times. Nor is there any evidence or intimation of a departure from this practice until after the sentiment began to be en- tertained, that the efficacy of baptism was attributable in no small degree to some peculiar sanctifying power supposed to be contained in the water of baptism. As this sentiment prevailed the manner of bringing the 68 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. mysterious fluid into contact with the body, would naturally be considered of less iniportance. And, it might be anticipated, that in cases of supposed neces- sity, some other mode of applying it than immersion, would be resorted to.* The first notice of any such innovation, — which con- sisted in a copious affusion or pouring of water over the body, — occurs about the middle of the third century. Thi?, however, was not generally regarded as conferring the full benefits of baptism. Hence it was practiced only in cases of sickness and supposed necessity ; — a circumstance which in itself is a sufficient intimation that it was considered a substitute for the proper ob- servance of the rite. About the middle of the third century the query was proposed to Cyprian, the most distinguished African bishop of the age, whether those who had been the subjects of such a transaction, "could be regarded as legitimate Christians, inasmuch as they had not been bathed in the salutary water, but had received affu- sion." "Cyprian," says the Editor of the Christian Review, "is not prepared to give a decisive answer, but expresses his opinion, and says, each one must settle this question for himself. His own views are stated thus, 'When there is a pressing necessity with God's indulgence.) the holy ordinances, though out- wardly abridged, confer the entire blessing on those who believe.'" Cyprian thus directly admits that affusion, instead of being appointed or sanctioned by Christ, required a resort to the indulgence of God, and * Prof. Hahn remarks in reference to infant baptism, " It arose from false views of original sin, and of the magical power of consecrated water." The same remark, in part at least, is applicable to the origin of sprinkling. ITS FORM. 69 should be practiced only in cases of urgent necessity ; — that it was, in fact, " an abridgement" of tlie original institution : all this, notwithstanding his anxiety to find some ground on which to justify the innovation. In support of the position that immersion was the practice of the primitive Christians, we might appeal to the testimony of many of the most distinguished Pedobaptist historians and divines of different ages. A single quotation, from the Theological Works of the celebrated Dr. Knapp of Halle, must suffice. His lan- guage, as translated by Mr. Woods, is as follows, — '■'' Immersion is peculiarly agreeable to the institution of Christ, and to the practice of the apostolical church, and so even John baptized ; and immersion remained common for a long time after ; except that in the third century, and perhaps earlier, the baptism of the sick, (baptismaclinicorum) , was performed by sprinkling or affusion. Still some would not acknowledge this to be true baptism, and controversy arose concerning it, — so unheard of was it at that time to baptize by simple affusion. Cyprian first defended baptism by sprink- ling, when necessity called for it; but cautiously, and with much limitation. By degrees, however, this mode of baptism became more customary, probably because it was found more convenient ; especially was this the case after the seventh century, and in the Western Church; but it did not become universal until the commencement of the fourteenth century. Yet Thomas Aquinas had approved and promoted this in- novation, more than a hundred years before. In the Greek and Eastern Church they still held to immer- sion. It would have been better to have adhered gen- erally to the ancient practice, as even Luther and Cal- vin allowed." 70 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Wh?it more could any Baptist writer have said ? Dr. Knapp, although he attempts in the best manner he is able, to defend the practice of his own church, admits that it is an innovation ; — that immersion was the practice of John, and of the apostolic churches, and that there is no proof of any exception to this practice, even in case of the sick, until the third century ; — that previousl)'^ to this time affusion appears to have been unheard of; — that upon its introduction it met with resistance^ and was at first defended only with caution and m}ick limitation ; — and that even after it began to be allowed in cases of supposed necessity, immersion continued to be the common practice for many centu- ries. It will be particularly noted, that no proof is claimed for the introduction of affusion, even incase of the sick, previously to the third century. In the light of these facts the notices of affusion which occur in writers of the third and fourth centuries, 80 far from furnishing any ground for regarding the practice apostolic, present the strongest possible proof to the contrary. The evidence is far more conclusive, than if all allusion to such a practice had been omit- ted. We not only have it conceded that affusion was an innovation, but the liglit in which it was viewed upon its introduction, the cases to which it was restrict- ed, and the causes which led to it, are stated, and be- come constituent parts of the history. We thus, from a simple examination of the history of the church subsequent to the apostolic age, conclude with a confidence amounting almost to absolute cer- tainty, that immersion was the invariable practice of the first Christians. The same fact is established, while the practice is also shown to be of divine ap- pointment, by the testimony of the New Testament. ITS FORM. 71 In concluding our remarks in relation lo the act required in Christian baptism, we may be allowed briefly to revert to the several points that have come under examination, reversing the order in which they have been considered. We have shown from the early history of the church, that immersion was the practice of the primitive Christians ; and that there is no proof that affusion was resorted to in any case pre- viously to the third century. We have shown that immersion alone is sanctioned by the example of the apostles and their companions, as recorded in the New Testament. We have sliown that the very meaning of the word baptize is to immerse: and that the ex- press injunction of the Master is, consequently, — "Re- pent and he immersed.^'' And, in addition to all this, we have shown that nothing short of immersion can fulfill the design of the ordinance as a symbolical in- stitution. No other ceremony called baptism repre- sents the washing away of sin. No other, as is uni- versally admitted, is a symbol of spiritual conformity to the death and resurrection of Christ; and thus points directly to the great facts which lie at the foundation of the Christian scheme. In any thing but immersion, the significancy of the ordinance is entirely lost^ by being, either exchanged, or unconditionally set aside. From what other source could an argument possibly be deduced ? The evidence showing immersion to be the' will of Christ, is not merely decisive ; it is abso- lutely complete. The example of Christ and his apos- tles, his express injunction to be immersed, and even the very design of his ordinance as a symbolical insti- tution, all, must be disregarded and set aside, or im- mersion must be practiced. CHA.PTER III. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. SECTION I. BELIEVERS SHOWN TO BE THE ONLY PROPER SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM BY ITS DESIGN. The design of baptism properly considered, will de- cide the question, Who are the proper subjects of the ordinance ? It will show that they are such only as give evidence of having cordially embraced the gos- pel. The idea that the unconverted, and even infants, may be admitted to baptism, could have originated only in erroneous views of its design. Is the ordinance the appointed means of making a public profession of the Christian religion? Does the individual baptized declare his faith in Christ, his re- pentance of sin, his change of character? This he cannot do in truth, unless he is a believer, and has ac- tually become changed. Does he " put on Christ," or assume the badge of discipleship, and " answer a good conscience toward God?" This implies that he has chosen Christ for his Master, and is actuated by a conscientious regard for the will of God. Does he ex- press the hope that his sins have been washed away 1 The only ground on which such a hope can be avowed, is the evidence of an actual change of heart. Does he declare that inasmuch as Christ has been delivered to death for his offences, and raised again for his justifi- cation, he has become dead to sin, and has risen to new- ITS SUBJECTS. 73 ness of life? Such a state must be enjoyed before it can properly be professed. Baptism administered to in- fants, or to unconverted adults, utterly fails of meeting- the design of the ordinance in any of these respects. It is a remarkable fact that the practice of Pedobap- tist churches in applying baptism to infants, is palpably inconsistent with the design of the ordinance as ex- plained in their own Confessions of faiih. By the Presbyterian Church baptism is represented as being to the party baptized, " a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his engrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life." Now to say nothing of the idea expressed by the un- scriptural use of the term " seal," it is not a little dif- ficult to perceive how baptism can be to the subject, a sign of his regeneration, of his engrafting into Christ, and of the giving up of himself unto God to walk in newness of life, when the evidence that he has expe- rienced these things is entirely wanting. It is worthy of notice that not a single use for which baptism was instituted, specified in the New Testament, will apply in the case of infants. They make no pro- fession, acknowledge no . obligations, manifest no determination, assume no responsibility, exercise no religious feelings, perform no act whatever. They are merely the passive unaflected subjects of a ceremony which in respect to them can have no scriptural sig- nificancy. The design of baptism, in its adnu'nistra- tion to infants, is accordingly entirely disregarded. 7 74 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. SECTION II. INFANT BAPTISM OPPOSED TO THE NATL'RE AND DESIGN OF THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. The position established in the preceding section, is confirmed by the fact, that infant bopf.ism is opposed to the nature and design of the gospel dispensation. The Christian economy in contrast with the Jewish, is distinguished for its spirituality. 1. It is eminently spiritual and personal in its re- quirements. This is intimated in the declaration of Christ, John 4: 21-23. "Believe me, the hour com- eth, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. — The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seek- eth such to worship him." The gospel addresses its messages to men as individuals. It requires every one, without respect to his national or family connexions, to act for himself Personal faith, personal repent- ance, personal obedience, are the only conditions of enjoying its blessings. I scarcely need remark how inconsistent with all this, is the administration of an ordinance designed as a means of professing disciple- ship to Christ, to an individual on the ground that his parent is a disciple, or more properly, its observance by the parent in the place of the child. If this be re- quired, it is an anomaly in the Christian system. What other gospel requirement can be performed by one in behalf of another, so that it shall not be obliga- tory on the latter? Is it prayer? Is it attention to the Scriptures ? Is it the observance of the Sabbath, or the Lord's Supper? Is it faith, or repentance, or a godly ITS SUBJECTS. ih life 1 We may have been blessed with parents distin- guislied for their obedience to all these requirements. But are they on that account any the less personal duties? And why should it be otherwise in baptism? Or, if one act of obedience performed by our parents, can be imputed to us, why may not every other? And where is the necessity of personal religion at all ? This is the result to which the principle on which in- fant baptism is defended, will, if carried out, inevita- bly lead. 2, The gospel is equally spiritual and personal in what it prescribes as qualifications for membership in the kingdom of Christ. The design of Christ in intro- ducing the gospel dispensation, was to call out and bring together a peculiar people, separated from the world, and distinguished for their personal piety. He designed that his church, unlike the Jewish theocracy which included the whole nation, should consist of individuals, of whatever nation, condition, or natural relationship, who should become changed in their hearts, and voluntarily devote themselves to his ser- vice ; that it should be " a spiritual house, built up of spiritual stones, a royal priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. 2 : 5. He accordingly establisheql with its mem- bers "a new covenant," differing essentially from that which had existed under the Mosaic economy, and including those only who should evince that the law of God was written on their hearts. Heb. 8 : 6-13. Such being the character which he designed his church should possess, how could he, consistently with the carrying out of this design, provide that multitudes incapable of exemplifying this character, should be introduced into its precincts, or be recognized as its 76 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. members 1 The church, in the application of such a principle, instead of being kept a separate body, com- posed of g-odly, spiritual members, would soon be com- mingled with the world, and become a mixed cornmu- nity like the Jewish nation. And the longer the prin- ciple should continue in operation, the greater would be the proportion of ungodly members, until the line of demarkation between the church and the world would be destroyed, and the very object for which the former was established, defeated. Such has been the actual result in every instance where the principles of pedobaptism have been left unrestrained to work out their legitimate effects. Unless therefore we assume that our Lord intended to thwart the very design for which he established his churcli in the world, we must conclude that he made no provision for introducing into its pale multitudes of unregenerate individuals without their consent or agency. SECTION III. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE GOSPEL DISPEN- SATION CONTINUED. — AN EXAMINATION OF PASSAGES IN WHICH THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST ARE COMPARED TO LITTLE CHILDREN. That the baptism and church membership of in- fants are inconsistent with the design and genius of the gospel, is particularly apparent from those passages in the discourses of Christ in which he compares his disciples, or the members of his kingdom, to little children. The argument derived from this source is, as will appear upon examination, of a peculiarly in- teresting and decisive character. ITS SUBJECTS. 77 In Mat. 18: 1-4, it is recorded, " At the same time came the disciples of Jesus ; saying, Who is the great- est in the kingdom of heaven 1 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you. Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever there- fore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In this pass- age those who become members of Christ's kingdom, are represented as assuming the character and taking the position of little children. They are converted from a self-seeking, self-exalting, haughty disposition, to one characterized by docility, artlessness, and hu- mility. Such being their character, the appellation little children may, by an easy and natural metaphor, be very properly applied directly to them. Hence it is added, verse 5, " Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me." In the parallel passage, Mark 9 : 36, 37, it is said, " He took a child, and set him in the midst of them, and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, re- ceiveth me, and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me." That by the expressions, " one such little child," "one of such children," our Lord intended to desig- nate his disciples, will, perhaps, be considered too obvi- ous to admit of dispute. It may not be amiss, however, that some of the reasons for this conclusion should be stated. 1. The design of Christ in the passages in which these expressions occur, was to discourage in his disci- ples a spirit of selfish, unholy ambition. How this 78 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. could be done by his reminding them of the treatment due little children in age, it is difficult to conceive. Such an allusion would have been, as far as we can perceive, entirely irrelevant to his purpose. 2. In the preceding verses, (Mat. 18, vs. 3 and 4,) the disciples of Christ are compared to little children. They even are represented as so humbling themselves as to assume the character of the little child before them. The language of verse 5, occuring in such a connexion, naturally refers to the same subjects. 3. The expression, '■'■these little ones," in verse 6, is strikingly similar to those under consideration ; and, as the words, " which believe in me," are subjoined, its application is placed beyond all dispute. 4. Tlie contrast presented in verses 5 and 6, requires us to refer the language of both to the same subjects. '' Whoso shall j^eceive one such little child in my name receivetli me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it were belter for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea." 5. A comparison of Mark 9: 36, 41, with Mat. 10: 40, 42, will establish the same fact. The language addressed to the disciples in Mark, ver. 41, is in Mat- thew, ver. 42, appli.'d to " one of these iiltle ones;*' while, ou the other hand, the expression "one of such children," in ^lark, ver. 36, is exchangc^d in Matthew, ver. 40, for the personal pronoun designating the disci- ples, — "He tliat receiveth ?/0M, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." 6. It i:s difficult to conceive of any sense in which a little child simply as such, can be received in the name of Christ, and especially, in such a manner that it can be legarded a reception of Christ himself. It ITS SUBJECTS. 79 would be idle to suppose that in these passages our Lord intended to identify himself, and the interest of his cause, with every child that is born into the world. An individual to be received in the name and in the stead of Christ, must necessarily be his disciple. In the light of these suggestions it is placed beyond all doubt that the language used Mat. 18 : 5 ; Mark 9: 37, was intended to designate the disciples of Christ. The same considerations are equally applicable and decisive in determining the sense of the parallel pass- age, Luke 9, 46-48. The expression in verse 48, although slightly different in form, is obviously the same in import. Our Lord intimates, as in Mat. 18: 5 ; Mark 9 : 37, that the child before him is to be le- ceived as exemplified in the character of his disci- ples: — as if he had said, 'You see here my disciple ; not the proud, the self-important, the " exalted," but the humble, the unassuming, the despised by the world. Sucli is the character which I regard, and which is to be esteemed and loved for my sake. Whoso shall receive one exhibiting this character re- ceiveth me.' This mode of instruction in which, by a bold and striking metaphor, the object selected for illustration is mentioned in place of the thing to be illustrated, is of frequent occurrence in the discourses of Christ. See Mat. IS: 8, 9, compared with verses 5 and 6 ; John 2 : 19; Mat. 12 : 48-50; John 6 : 50-58; Mat. 26: 26-28. Compare also Mat. 5: 39, 40. An additional reason to those already adduced, for apply- ing the language in Luke 9: 48, to the disciples of Christ, is found in the declaration that is subjoined, — "/or he that is least among ijoii all, the same shall be great." This is the explanation which Christ himself has given of his language in the preceding clause. 80 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Its application, or import is, of course, on this ground alone, definitely determined. We have been, perhaps it may be thought, unne- cessarily parlicuhir in stating the reasons for a position, which doubtless would even without it have been con- sidered too obvious to admit of dispute, that we might prepare the way more fully for the satisfactory exami- nation of another class of kindred passages. If it be true that the little ones who believe in Christ, who are to be received in his name, and whose reception he acknowledges as a reception of himself, as men- tioned in Mat. 18 : 1-6, etc , are his disciples, the same interpretation is evidently to be given to the passages, Mat. 19 : 14 ; Mark 10 : 14, 15 ; Luke 18 : 16, 17. The account as given, Mark 10 : 13-16, is as follows, " And they brought young children unto him that he should touch them ; and his disciples rebuked those who brought them. But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto them. Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily, I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, and put his hands on them, and blessed them." The disciples in their interference were doubtless influenced by the same feelings as led them to administer a similar rel)uke to the blind man. of Jericho. Luke 18: 39. They wished to spare their Master the annoyance or trouble of attending to the application. But, — as when Peter would avert his approaching sufferings, see Mat. 16 : 22, 23, — he taught them that their kindness was misdirected. Ac- tuated by the same benevolent disposition which led ITS SUBJECTS. 81 him to listen to the cry of Baitimeus, and which never allowed him to disregard a sincere and reasonable ap- plication for his blessing, he accedes to the request in behalf of the little children, to wit, that he would " lay his hands on them and pray," see Mat. 19 : 13 ; and the more readily, we may suppose, as a peculiarly favorable opportunity was thus afforded for illustrating the character befitting the members of his kingdom. Hence in connexion with the words, " Suffer the* little chiklren to come unto me, and forbid them not," he observes, for the purpose of improving the incident to the instruction of his disciples, " for of such is the kingdom of God." That our Lord here speaks of those who "humble themselves as little children," and thus assume their character, that is, of his disciples, cannot, we think, admit of a rational doubt. If upon other occasions, after calling little children to him, and taking them in his arms, and holding them up as patterns for his disci- ples, he had used the expressions, " one such little child," "one of such children," thereby designating, as we have shown, the subjects of his gospel, we are certainly bound, without some direct intimation to the contrary, to give the words '' of such is the kingdom of heaven," the same natural exposition. Express- ions so strikingly similar, uttered under similar cir- cumstances, and obviously for a similar purpose, must, according to all correct rules of interpretation, have essentially the same import. There is no necessity, however, in establishing the point, that reference be had to parallel passages. The passage, Mark 10: 14, * The original expression for " the little children," is the same in Mat. 19: 14, Luke, 18 : IG, as in Mark 10: 14. In every instance the article is used. 82 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 15, Luke 18: 16, 17, presents its own explanation. Our Lord having uttered the words, " of such is the kinkdom of God," immediately adds, " Veiily, I say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein." The manner in which this declaration is introduced, clearly indicates that it is in amplification and confirm- ation of the preceding statement. It shows, more- over, that our Lord is speaking exclusively of those who are capable of receiving the kingdom of God. To assert in one sentence that the kingdom of heaven is composed of infants, and in the next to affirm that it includes none but such as by humbling themselves receive it, would be apparently a contradiction. From this examination of the several passages in the New Testament in which christians are compared to little children, the following facts are obvious. 1. The only qualifications for connexion with the kingdom which Christ has established on earth, ad- mit led by the gospel, are spiritual, and such as pertain to voluntary agents. Its members are exclusively such as receive it in sincerity, such as ''humble themselves," or become "converted." Infants, of course, cannot be included. And the argument derived from this source is the more interesting and conclusive, inas- much as the qualifications specified are presented in connexion with direct reference to little ones. The requisites for membersliip in the kingdom of Christ of which it is admitted infants are destitute, are stated in passages in which their case is prominently brought to view. It is certain therefore they cannot be reckon- ed in the number of those who are designated as members. 2. These passages render it evident that the terms, ITS SUBJECTS. 83 *' little ones," " little children," etc., are applicable to the members of Christ's kingdom only in one sense. They teach us who are the persons related to him, to whom these appellations are appropriate. As, when upon a certain occasion his attention was called to his mother and his brethren, he turned to his disciples, and said, "Behold my mother and my brethren," thus intimating that he recognized no other relation- ship in his kingdom than that of discipleship ; so whenever little children became the objects of his notice, he seems to have improved the opportunity in teaching that his disciples were the little ones related to him, and with whom the interests of his kingdom were identified. 3. Another fact particularly deserving of notice, is the perfectly free and unrestricted manner in wliich the terms, "little ones," "such children," etc., areera- ployed to designate disciples. We hear the Saviour, even after calling attention to little children, and de- claring that tlie members of his kingdom must possess similar traits of character, familiarly using these terms as appellations of his disciples, without the slightest intimation that his language was susceptible of being understood in any other sense. He introduces no re- mark apparently designed to guard against misappre- hension. He seems to have taken it for granted that when he spake of '"little ones" as connected with his kingdom, he should at once be understood as referring to the subjects of his gospel. So entirely foreign was it to all ideas suggested by his instructions to consider little ones in age as members of his kingdom.* * For an examination of the phrase, " the kingdom of God," see Note F. Appendix. 84 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. SECTION IV. THE DIRECT TEACHING OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES RESPECTING THE QUAL- IFICATIONS NECESSARY FOR BAPTISM AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. That believers are the only proper subjects of bap- tism, is further evident from the direct teaching of Christ and his apostles respecting the qualifications re- quisite for baptism and visible church membership. It is obvious he designed that none should be admitted as members of the church except on a credible profession of true discipleship. This appears from the model of a church given us in the New Testament.. The first churches are uniformly described both in the Acts and in tlie Epistles, as consisting of believers, saints, the regenerated, the sanctified, the faithful in Ciirist. This accords with what Christ had enjoined in his final commission. "Go ye therefore, and teach or make dis- ciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Mat. 28: 19. "He that 6«=//ew//?. and is baptized, shall be saved." Mark 16 : 16. This language clearly implies that faith or discipleship is necessary to the proper observance of baptism. The subjects of the ordinance are designated as those who believe or are converted. That this was the light in which the com- mission was regarded by those who received it directly from the lips of their Master, is evident from the fact that we nniformly find them inculcating the same doc- trine. " Repent and be baptized." Acts 2: 30. "Who can forbid water that these should be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we 7" Acts 10: 49. And even in case of direct application for baptism, the reply is, " If thou helievest with all ITS SUBJECTS. 85 thy heart, tlioii mayest." Acts 8 : 37. Faith in Christ is thus presented as an indispensable prerequisite to baptism. We arrive at the same conclusion by exam- ining" the several passages relating to baptism in the Epistles. They plainly teach that none were regard- ed as proper subjects for the ordinance, but such as were prepared to '-put on Christ," and to "walk in newness of life." See Rom. 6 : 2-11 ; Gal. 3: 28-30; Col. 2 : 12. There is nothing in the teaching either of Christ, or of his apostles, affording the slightest au- thority for the administration of baptism to any but such as give evidence of genuine discipleship. SECTION V. PEDOBAPTISM DIRECTLY REFUTED BY THE NEW TESTAMENT Notwithstanding the facts presented in the preced- ing sections, it is frequently urged, that, if infants are not mentioned in tlie New Testament as proper sub- jects for baptism and church membership, tbey are not expressly excluded ; if tbeir baptism is not enjoined, it is also not forbidden. To this it migbt be a sufficient reply, that the same is true of unconverted adults, and of all infants, as well as tbose of believing parents. To administer baptism on this ground, moreover, would be to disregard theauthority of Christ, and trifle with his institutions. In instituting the ordinance he has specified and described the subjects, and those who would meet his approbation must adhere to his instructions. To act without authority is in positive institutions equivalent to acting in opposition to au- thority. It is deviating from the requisitions of the Master. 8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. But, independently of these suggestions, we believe it can be made perfectly obvious from the New Testa- ment, that in the administration of baptism, and the admission of members to the cluuch, infants are ex- pressly excluded. The only right to baptism and church membership that is, or can be, claimed in their behalf, is that founded on relations or privileges ac- quired, or supposed to have been acquired, by natural birth. Under the former dispensation these relations were regarded. It was simply necessary that an indi- vidual should be born of HelDrew parents to entitle him to a participation in all the rites and privileges peculiar to the Jewish theocracy. But in the kingdom of Christ all relations resulting from natural birth are declared to be of no avail. No one is entitled to the peculiar privileges of the gospel in consequence of what he possesses by nature, or independently of personal re- generation. In this respect the Jewish and Christian dispensations are represented as being essentially dif- ferent. This doctrine is first distinctly brought to view in the preaching of John the Baptist. While he announced the approach of the kingdom of the Messiah, he ex- horted the people to repent, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, as the only condition on which they could claim membership in this kingdom, or en- joy its peculiar blessings. Mat. 3 : 2, S, 10, 12. "And think not to say within yourselves. We have Abra- ham to our father ; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," ver. 9. They were thus distinctly taught that their relation to Abraham as his natural descendants, how- ever much it might have benefited them under the Mosaic dispensation, would be of no avail in the king- ITS SUBJECTS. 87 dom of Christ. It is also intimated that a different relationship, and one in no respect the result of natural generation, would henceforth be recognized. It will be observed the Baptist is here speaking, not of Jews in distinction from Gentiles, nor of adults in distinction from infants, but of those who are related to Abraham by natural descent, in distinction from those who are his " children" on other grounds, (ver. 9,) and who become connected with the kingdom of God by repen- tance of sin, and a change of character. Comp. verses 2, 8, 9, 10. The Jews were considered the seed of Abraham without respect to age. They were such from their very birth. This relation, which was thus in the mind of the Jew associated with the period of infancy no less than of manhood, is here directly contrasted with the requisite qualifications for baptism and mem- bership in the kingdom of Christ; and as this is all that is claimed in behalf of the infant offspring of christian parents, the ground oy wiiich their right to baptism is predicated, is thus set aside in the first an- nunciation of the gospel dispensation. The same doctrine is presented with still greater clearness, if possible, in the instructions of Christ himself. In his conversation with Nicodemus, John 3, he declares, " Except a man be horn again he can- not see the kingdom of God," or experience that in which it consists, and by which it is distinguished, i. e. participate in its peculiar privileges. Compare John 3 : 36 ; 8 : 51 ; Acts 2 : 27, 31, etc. The phrase " the kingdom of God" is evidently used, as in Mark 1 : 15; 4 : 30 ; Luke 16 : 16 ; 17 : 20 ; Mat. 21 : 31, 32, and in most of the passages in which it occurs in the Evan- gelists, to denote the kingdom of the Messiah, intro- duced with the gospel dispensation, and including the OO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. blessedness of heaven. The sentiment of ver. 3 is repeated and more fully explained in verses 5 and 6. " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit," i. e., experience the washing of a regeneration by the Spirit, (comp. Tit. 3: 5,) "he cannotenterintothe king- dom of God.* That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Naliual generation is here directly contrasted with regenera- tion, and is declared to be insufBcienl to membership in the kingdom of the Messiah. This is the privelcge of none but such as are born again. Those who are merely "born of the flesh" are expressly excluded. Now had Christ commanded his disciples to baptize infants, and recognize them as members of his king- dom, as is generally assumed by Pedobaptists, the in- quiry would naturally have arisen in their minds. What is the ground of their right to these privileges 1 And had he replied, that although not regenerated, they were to be admitted on the ground of relations acquired by natural birth, we can easily imagine the surprise with which they would have exclaimed, But how is this possible ? Has it not been declared that in the kingdom of the Messiah, natural birth is of no avail ; — that no one can become connected with it ex- cept he be born again? To reconcile these opposite positions is, we believe, impossible. The declarations of Christ upon this point would nat- urally be borne in mind by his disciples when they received their final commission ; and even liad he omitted to designate the subjects of baptism as disci- ples or believers, they could not have understood him otherwise than as enjoining the baptism, not of those who should be born into the world, whetlier of believ- * Note G. Appendix. ITS SUBJECTS. 89 ing or unbelieving parents, but of those only who should give evidence that they were " born again." He had taught them that the terms of admission into his kingdom were peculiar; that those only could become its members, who, in addition to being " born of the flesh," should be " born of the Spirit;" and it would be folly for them to apply the rite of recogni- tion to such as were not entitled to membership. That this was the light in which the apostles viewed the instructions of their Lord, is abundantly evident from various passages in their writings in which the same doctrine is inculcated. We first notice the testimony of the apostle John. John 1: 11-13. "He came unto his own and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name; who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.^^ The Jews were considered " the children of the Lord" by virtue of their descent from Abraham, or their connexion with the nation whom he had chosen to be " his peculiar people above all the nations on ihe earth." Deut. 14: 1, 2, See also Ex. 4: 22 ; Jer. 31:9; Isa. 63 : 16, 17 ; Ps. 33 : 12. It was on the ground of this relationship that they, whether infants or adults, were entitled to the rites and privileges of the Jewish economy. It was for this reason that Christ regarded them as "bis own," even when they possessed the disposition which led them to reject him. Upon the introduction of the gospel, however, none were acknowledged the children of God, but such as believed in Christ, and were born from above. A mere 6/ooc? relationship was not recognized. 90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. It is certain, therefore, that the natural descendants of christians are not, as were the children of Jewish pa- rents, included among the children or people of God. The only ground on which their right to baptism and church membership can consistently be predicated, does not accordingly exist ; and the argument urged in its defence is reduced to this, — The Jewish infant, inasmuch as he was reckoned among the children or people of God, was entitled to circumcision, there- fore the infant oflspring of christians are entitled to baptism, although they sustain no such relationship^ although, in fact, the only claim that can be preferred in their behalf, or blood relationship, has been entirely discarded. This doctrine is presented and applied with still greater explicitness in the epistles of Paul. This will be evident from an examination of those passages in which he speaks of circumcision. He teaches that under the gospel the circumcised and the uncircnmci- sed stand precisely on the same ground. Rom. 2: 26-28. "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but a new creatine, — but faith that works by love." Gal. 5 : 6 ; 6 : 15. He admits that circumcision as practiced by the Jews was not without its benefits. Rom. 3 : 1, 2. It was an " advantage" to them in a variety of respects ; and that too, although many of them were destitute of saving faith. Rom. 3:3; and chap. 2 : 28, 29, com- pared with chap. 3 : 1, 2. It secured the enjoyment of blessings by which they were distinguislicd from other nations, particularly (hose resulting from their being favored with the oracles of God. Rom. 3 : 2. It thus appears that the apostle is speaking of circumci- sion in a sense in which it was really available to the ITS SUBJECTS. 91 Jewish nation. He refers not to its form or its mere external observance, but to its object, its advantages, the grounds on which it was practiced. He shows that it is of no avail under the gospel, not simply as an external transaction, but as a badge of distinction, as an indication of relationship to Abraham, as an actual privilege pertaining to the Jewish dispensation. His argument utterly forbids the supposition that the origi- nal institution is still in force, the external rite simply having been exchanged for another of similar import. Circumcision is unavailing, inasmuch as the only thing that is of any avail is faith, or a new creation, and the only circumcision that is recognized is spiritual. Rom. 2 : 28, 29. Did the apostle allude merely to the out- ward ceremony, his reasoning would be singularly in- conclusive. The possession of faith would be no rea- son for disregarding one external rite more than any other that might be introduced in its stead. It is made to appear that circumcision is of no avail on the ground that faith is possessed, only as its observance is predi- cated on certain relations and privileges with which faith is properly contrasted, and which are no longer regarded. The ground on which infant baptism is practiced is accordingly excluded from the Christian system. A natural relationship to Abraham, or to the people of God, which was indicated by circumcision, and which is all that can be claimed in behalf of in- fants, is declared to be of no avail in the kingdom of Christ. The only relation that is available is that ac- quired by faith, or a new creation. The ancient law of circumcision, so far from being continued in the Christian church with simply a change in the external rite, has been entirely done away; so that the only circumcision now recognized is " that of the heart in 92 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. the spirit," and "made without hands." Rom. 2: 28, 29; Col. 2: 11; Eph. 2: 11. SECTION VI. THE ARGUMENT SHOWING THAT PEDOBAPTISM IS DIKECTLY REFUTED BY THE NEW TESTAMENT, CONTINUED. AN EXAMINATION OF ROM. XI : 11-32. To the Biblical student it is an interesting fact, strik- ingly exemplifying the credibility of the sacred wri- tings, that passages adduced in the defence of error, are usually found, upon examination, not only to have been misinterpreted, but to contain some proof, more or less direct, of the opposite truth. Rom. 11: 11-32 may be presented as an example. No passage is ap- pealed to with more confidence in defence of the bap- tism and church membership of infants: and yet a careful examination of its import will render obvious, we trust, not only that it is entirely irrelevant for such a purpose, but that it meets the whole system of pedo- baptism with a direct and decisive refutation. Expositors have usually taken for granted that " the fall" of the Jews (vs. 11, 12, 15,) contributed 'to the benefit of the Gentiles, only as it became the occasion of the prevalence of the gospel among them. We are constrained, however, to regard this as an unwar- rantable assumption. First, the apostle is not speak- ing of the spread or prevalence of the gospel among the Gentiles, but the extension of its privileges to them. " Through their fall, salvation has come," or is ex- tended, "to the Gentiles," ver. 11. Secondly, the promulgation of the gospel among the Gentiles did not depend on the exclusion of the Jews from its privileges. ITS SUBJECTS. 93 It was in accordance with God's original plan that " repentance and remission of sins should be preached in the name of Christ among all nations." And had the Jews without exception embraced the gospel, the Gentiles would no less certainly have been made par- takers of its blessings. Thirdly, the apostle is appa- rently speaking of the fall of the Jews in a sense which implies that it was not the indirect occasion, but the necessary condition, of the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles ; an event without which the Gentiles, as such, could not have been introduced into the kingdom of Christ. Both the language employed, and, as will appear upon investigation, the nature of the argument, lead to this conclusion. Comp. vs. 12, 15, 17, 20. It has also been generally assumed that the relation indicated in the passage, particularly in vs. 16-25, is that of visible church membership. This supposition, however, cannot easily be reconciled with the fact that the relation is one, which, under the gospel, implies the salvation of the soul, and is inseparably connected with personal faith in Christ, vs. 11, 14,20,23, 26, 30. Both of these errors have originated in a misappre- hension of the design and nature of the apostle's argu- ment. Instead of proceeding, as is usually represent- ed, on the principle that the Christian church is virtu- ally the same with the Jewish theocracy, he takes a position not only dissimilar, but directly the reverse. He proceeds on the ground that the gospel economy is essentially different in its nature, its principles, and its requisitions, from that which had previously existed ; that while the general relation or privilege involved in being the peculiar people of God was continued^ the con- ditions of enjoying this privilege had become changed ; that the Jews, except as far as they had, by believing 94 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. in Christ, complied with the requisitions of the new dispensation, had been " broken ofl'" from this rela- tionship, and that the Gentiles, upon the exercise of faith, had been broiiaht in, and were now, together with the believing Jews, regarded as the only true people of God. Under the former dispensation, the Jews were considered the people of God by virtue of their descent from Abraham; but under the gospel, this relation is sustained by none, whether Jews or Gentiles, but such as become the subjects of saving faith. This fundamental principle in the apostle's reason- ing is distinctly and prominently brought to view in the preceding chapters. In chap. 9 : 1-8, he calls at- tention to " his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh." They are introduced as those who had sus- tained to God a peculiar and endearing relation, by virtue of which they had been blessed with special religious privileges. They were " Israelites, to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the cove- nants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; whose were the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever." Those advantages, however, the apostle teaches, are of no avail under the gospel dispensation. In the Christian church a different relation is established. The general idea ex- pressed by theterms "Israel, "and "the people of God," is indeed continued ; but not with tlie same applica- tion. Christians, it is true, sustain a connection with Abraham ; but it is not a natural connection. None are considered "the children of God," or " the seed of Abraham," because they are " the children of the ITS SUBJECTS. 95 flesh." None are acknowledged as such, but g-enu- ine disciples of Christ, vs. 6-8. In one sense, the apostle intimates, the Jews w^ere the seed of Abraham, and the Israel of God. So they had ever been regarded, and sotliey are here designa- ted, vs. 4, 7. But in t!ie gospel this relation is not re- cognized. In the kingdom of Christ, those only are " counted for the seed," who have personally embrac- ed the truth. In these, the word of God respecting the seed of Abraham has been fulfilled ; compare vs. 6 and 7. To these the promise of grace relates, and by them it has been realized, ver. 8. And they have become the people of God on entirely different princi- ples from those which operated under the former dis- pensation. They enjoy this relation, not from any advantages of birtji, but solely in consequence of a separate and special act of divine grace. God exer- cises discrimination in reference to the members of his kingdom, vs. 9 23. His people consist, notof those who are merely connected with Abraham by lineal descent, but of those whom he has personally called out from the rest of mankind, " not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles," ver. 24; of those who have become the subjects of personal faith, and are consequently justified before God, vs. 30, 32, 33. Personal piety, or faith, is the only and all sufficient condition of enjoy- ing the blessings of the gospel. " Whosoever belie v- eth on him shall not be ashamed ; for there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek," chap. 10: 11, 12. National distinctions, lineal descent, advan- tages of birth or natural relationship, all are entirely unknown, chap. 10 : 4-13. And this is confirmed by the testimony of the ancient prophets, vs. 19-21. In chap. 11, the apostle proceeds to show that, 96 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. although, as had been sliown, the Jewish nation were no longer regarded as the people of God, it did not follow that they had been unconditionally cast off as reprobates. TJiey might still, equally with all other nations, upon the exercise of faith, secure the bles- sings of the gospel, and become the people of God in a new and more important sense, ver. 1, seq. This was evident from the fact that a portion of the nation had actually been converted, and brought into the kingdom of Christ. A remnant according to the elec- tion of grace had been saved, vs. 1-5. The grace of God had been displayed in the salvation of individuals, althougli " Israel," or the nation in general, had not obtained that to which they professed to be aspiring, ver. 7. They had become blinded. Christ had be- come to them " a stone of stumbling and a rock of oflfence," vs. 7, 10, comp. chap. 9 : 32, 33. There was in the gospel so much that was new and peculiar, its terms of relationship to God were so entirely differ- ent from those of the former dispensation, that they were offended, and had " rejected the counsel of God against themselves," chap. 9 : 32, comp. John 8 : 39 ; Matt. 3:9; Luke 7 : 30. It was not, however, — as is intimated in ver. 1, — to be inferred that they had stumbled so as to fall abso- lutely, to be beyond the hope of salvation, ver. 11. The blessings of the gospel were still within their reach ; and the very change in the divine economy, by which tliey were deprived of tlieir national distinction, tended in its consequences to incite them to avail them- selves of those l)lessings. " Through their fall salva- tion has come to the Gentiles to provoke them to emu- lation," ver. 11. Their conversion, moreover, would be an advantage to the Gentile world. The introduc- ITS SUBJECTS. 97 tion of the gospel among the nations, instead of being thereby prevented, would be essentially promoted. * For if their fall from the high relation which they had sustained to God as his peculiar people, in distinction from all other nations, — if the annihilation of this dis- tinction, had opened tlie way for the Gentiles to be receiv^ed into the favor of God, how mnch more rapidly and widely would the gospel be extended in the world, were they themselves to admit its claims, and comply with itsrequisitions,'vcr. 12. Asitwould beobvious that nothing but a firm conviction of its truth and intrinsic importance could induce them to abandon opinions in which they had been educated, and which they had long fondly cherished, to renounce all dependence on privileges and relations which had been the pride of their ancestors, and by which they had ever been dis- tinguished from the rest of mankind, the impulse given to the truth would be irresistible. The apostle is here speaking, not of some predicted future event, but of the natural result of the state of things indicated. And he intimates that as far as the latter should at any time be realized, so far the former might be anticipated. He accordingly remarks that one object which he proposed to himself even in his capacity as " an apostle to the Gentiles," was the con- version of the Jews, — ^' if by any means he might save some of them," vs. 13, 14. "For if the rejec- tion of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the reception of them be, but life from the dead," ver. 15. In ver. 16 the apostle again introduces, and applies to his argument, the fact alluded to at the beginning of* the chapter. "For if the first fruits be holy, the mass is also holy." The term " holy" here used, it is 9 98 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. universally admitted, is not descriptive of moral holi- ness. Its import must be determined by reference to the Jewish custom to which allusion is had. As, in the law, the consecration and acceptance of the fiist fruits was proof that the mass was accepted, so the conversion of a portion of the Jewish nation leads to the conclusion that the remainder may be accepted on the same terms, — that they have not been consigned to hopeless reprobation. Or " if the root be holy, so are the branches." It will be observed that the only distinction here indicat- ed is between " the root" and "the branches." The root, according to the representation of vs. 17, 18, 19, is not only the source of nourishment to the branches, but that in which they inhere, by which they are up- held, into which they are grafted. The figure is that of a root shooting forth into a stem or stock with which the branches are connected. In this applica- tion of the word pi^a (riza), the apostle was justitied by the use of the Hebrew term, with which in the Septu- agint and in the New Testament it corresponds, and which not unfrequently includes in its signification the sprout or stem, no less than the root whence it springs. Isa. 53: 2; Isa. 11: 10, compared with Isa. 11: 1; Rom, 15: 12. The figure is here applied to that on which the Jews were dependent for whatever they enjoyed in distinc- tion from the rest of mankind, to wit, the state of spe- cial favor with God into which they had been intro- duced, — the relation which had been established be- tween them and God, by which they were constituted his peculiar people. If this relation were holy, — if it were not a mere pretext, a manifest reflection on tl^e sincerity and holiness of God (comp. ver. 29) ; in other words, if God had actually set apart the Jewish nation ITS SUBJECTS. d9 for himself and made them the objects of special favor under one dispensation, it might reasonably be ex- pected that he would regard them with interest upon the introduction of a new dispensation,— that they would not, certainly, be considered reprobates, or be absolutely and unconditionally cast away ; that they would be accepted on equal terms, to say the least, with those who had always and in every sense been in a state of alienation. And even though some of the branches, or a por- tion of the nation who had all along been regarded as the people of God, had, in consequence of not com- plying with the terms of the new dispensation, been " broken off" from that relationship, and the privilege of becoming his people conferred on the Gentiles, ver. 17; still it had been done on such a principle that it gave the Gentiles no real advantage over the Jews. The former had no ground for boasting, as if they had been made the objects of special or exclusive favor, ver. 18. Not only had they, by being constituted the people of God, been brought into a relation which the Jews in one sense had long held, and into the enjoy- ment of blessings, with the knowledge and anticipa- tion of which the Jews had long been favored ; but the conditions on which they held thisrelation, and enjoyed these blessings, were of universal application, vs. 18- 22. True, the Jews had been " broken off," or were no longer regarded in distinction from all other nations as the people of God, in order that this privilege might be extended on other conditions to the Gentiles, vs. 19, 20 : yet it was no less true that the same faith by which the Gentile held this relation, was equally available in the case of the Jew, vs. 20, 23, 24. Had the Jews, upon the proclamation of the gospel 100 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. to them by Christ and his disciples, embraced it, and become its subjects, they might have continued to be regarded as the people of God ; not on the same principles as had been previously recognized, not because they were the descendants of Abraham, but on the ground of their faith in Christ, and union with him. But as they declined retaining the relation on this condition, it became necessary, in order that the Gentiles might be admitted to equal privileges, that they should be broken off from it entirely. Their un- belief was consequently the real cause of their fall or alienation. The argument of the apostle has thus far proceeded on the principle that the Jews in all ages may, upon complying with the requisitions of the gospel, avail themselves of its blessings ; that there is nothing which excludes them from its benefits, that is not of universal application. He now (ver. 25, seq.) adduces, in sup- port of his position stated in vs. 1, 11, an additional consideration. It is the purpose of God eventually to convert the nation as a whole. This had been foretold by the prophets, vs. 26, 27. It might also be inferred from the promises of God to the patriarchs, vs. 27, 28. For although " as concerning the gospel," the unbe- lieving Jews were regarded as " enemies," " for the sake of the Gentiles," although as far as the princi- ples of the Christian dispensation were concerned, they were viewed in the same light as all other unbe- lievers,— all distinction arising from natural descent having been done away, — that thus the blessings of the gospel might be extended to all nations; it was never- theless true that God had a regard for the nation in view of his promises to their ancestors, and that these promises insured their ultimate general acceptance of ITS SUBJECTS. 101 the terms of the new covenant. This, however, did not, could not, affect their relation to the kingdom of Christ. The gospel regarded them as enemies, ex- cluded from the favor of God, and destined to remain so, until they should accept of mercy on terms which admit of no distinction of nation or natural character. Verses 30-32 are chiefly a repetition, m another form, of the sentiment illustrated in the preceding con- text, viz., the gospel, as it finds Jews and Gentiles in the same state of alienation from God, admits them td a participation in its blessings on the same conditions. The words translated " through their unbelief," (ver. 30,) " signify," says Dr. Bloomfield, " as the best commentators, ancient and modern, are agreed, ' of,' ^ on occasion o/",' their disobedience." The same re- mark is applicable to the phrase rendered " through your mercy," in the next verse, which should be con- nected in sense, as in the original scriptures it is in construction, with the former clause, — "Even so have these also now become unbelievers on the occasion of your experiencing mercyy Anuecia (unbelief) must not be confounded in sense with a7r.n set aside ; but its design, its use, its cfiect, have been superseded by the gospel. This the apostle, if his language be not destitute of meaning, distinctly asserts. Is it pretended that a portion of the human family are, from their birth, to be distinguished from the re- mainder 1 that they are to receive a rite of the same import as circumcision, and be numbered among the ITS SUBJECTS. 125 people of God 1 The apostle has established the posi- tion that all such walls of separation, all such distinc- tions, all such ordinances, have been done away. His argument to this effect is equally decisive, whether it be contended that the rite of circumcision has been continued in the Christian chinch with a change of name and form, or that anotlier ordinance of the same import, and lo be administered on the same principles, has been introduced in its stead. The reason for its observance has ceased to exist. All now stand on the same ground. All are entitled to the same privileges on the same terms. One is not a member of Christ's kingdom on the ground of faith, while another can claim membership without failh. One does not belong lo " the household of God" by virtue of regeneration, while another is connected therewith on the ground of natural generation. All become members, and enjoy the privileges of membership, on the same conditions. The apostle, having thus in chap. 2, established the position that christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, have been constituted owe /?pw man in Christ; that "both have been reconciled in one body" — the law of com- mandments contained in ordinances, by which peculiar privileges were enjoyed inconsequence of natural de- scent, having been abolished, — reverts, in chap. 4, to the same subject, and appeals in confirmotion of his position to the boptis?7i of christians. "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism" vs. 4,5. " There is one body." All christians are. with- out respect to nation or descent, united to Christ, and entitled to the same privileges. This is evident, inas- much as they are all endowed with one Spirit ; they have all been called in one hope ; they have all ac- 11* 126 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. knowledged one Lord; ihry have all embraced ooe faith ; they have all submitted lo one baptism. The fact that they have all been baptized by divine author- ity into the same profession, and on the same princi- ples, is proof that they all belong equally to "one body," and without distinction of nation or circum- stances, are entitled to equal privileges. Now on the supposition that baptism is to be admin- istered on the principles of pedobaptism, the facts and conclusions in the case would be directly the reverse. Baptism would then be proof that the distinctions which existed under the former dispensation, instead of being done a:way, were still preserved : — for although the subjects of them might be somewhat changed, the general principle would continue in all its force. In- stead of showing that the ordinances indicative of these distinctions have been abolished, it would be itself an instance of their perpetuation. Instead of teaching that all are now entitled to the same privileges, and received on the same teims, it would be proof that some by virtue of their natural descent were entitled to peculiar privileges, and that the terms of admission to the church in the case of some, were essentially different from what they were in the case of others. Instead of illustrating the fact that in the one body theie is but one Spirit, it would show that many of the members were avowedly destitute of the Spirit. In- stead of indicating that all have been called in one hope, it would prove that many had not been called at all, and were destitute of all hope. Instead of im- plying the acknowledgment of one Lord, it would be evidence that some had not yet become acquainted Avith the Lord Jesus. Instead of being the profession of one faith, it would denote that a portion of its sub- ITS SUBJECTS. 127 jects were entirely destitute of faith. Instead of being itself one baptism, it woukl be essentially and clearly two. Administered to different classes of subjects, upon different grounds, for different purposes, with different qualifications, and under different circumstan- ces in almost every particular, it could not certainly, without involving a contradiction, be considered ^^ one baptism." The a])ostle speaks of one baptism, not ni respect to its form and name merely, but in a sense which implies that the subjects of it are united in ac- knowledging the same Lord, and in professing the same faith, the same hope, the same holy calling. If baptism is one in these particulars, it is absurd to con- tend that it can be properly administered where all of these are wanting. Or if baptism is evidence, that, while its subjects are united on the same terms in one body, the distinctions arising from natural relationship have been done away, it is the height of inconsistency to administer it on the very ground that these distinc- tions still exist.* SECTION IX. THE lUr.ELEVANCV OF THE ARGUMENT FOR PEDOBAPTISM DRAWN FROM THE SALVATION OF INFANTS. It will be objected, perhaps, to the reasoning ad- vanced in proof that infants are not to be recognized as members of the kingdom of Christ, that it precludes the hope of their salvation. A little examination, however, will show that such an objection is utterly groundless. We trust we shall be able to make it per- * Note H, Appendix. 12S CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. fectly clear, that the salvation of those who die in infancy may be luaintained, without impairing, or in any way aift cling', the arguments adduced in refuta- tion of infant baptism and churcli membership. 1. The specific proposition established in the pre- ceding sections, is, that the kingdom of Christ requires in its members spiritual qualifications, in distinction from those acquired by natural birth. In this it differs from the Hebrew commonwealth, in which to be born of Hebrew parents, was a prescribed qualification for membership And as this was possessed in infancy, no less than in manhood, it was appropriate that the sign of recognition should be then applied. But with respect to the kingdom of Christ all mankind as born into the world, sustain precisely the same relations. By nature they are alike destitute of that character which is essential to membersliip. Nor will they, dying in infancy, be saved, inconsequence of any thing" that they possess by nature. They will never be ad- mitted to heaven by virtue of what they inherit from their parents. For, aside from the fact that their sal- vation will be effected purel}^ by grace, independently of considerations arising from their natural relation- ship, it is evident they can never be confirmed in the bliss of heaven, unless that predisposition, or bias, or tendency to evil, which leads those who grow up into life, invariably to pursue the ways of sin, is removed or eradicated ; and this is equivalent to their being born again or i egenerated. It is only on condition of this change that their salvation can be predicated. So that it is true, without limitation, that the prescribed qualifi- cations for membership in the kingdom of Christ, are, not natural, or those acquired by natural birth, but sjnritual, or those resulting from the special manifesta- ITS SUBJECTS. 129 tion of the grace of God, and the actual inipaitation of holiness. Hence it appears that the salvation of infants, while it is speciously urged in defence of their right to church membership, leads us, in reality, to a conclusion directly the opposite. The argument properly stated stands thus, — As natund telationship is of no aruil in 2)rocuiing Jor infants admittance to heaven, it gives them no title to membership in. Vie church on earth. 2. The fallacy of the objection under consideration will appear in a still stronger light, if we consider that in the salvation of infants God acts as a Sovereign; in the recognition of individuals as raenibers of his king- dom on earth, and in their introduction into the visible church, he recpiires his people to act in view of cer- tain specified evidences. As in the Jewish common- wealth it was necessary that there should be satisfac- tory evidence that an individual possessed the requisite qualifications for membership, before he could be re- cognized as a member; so in the kingdom of Christ. But in the latter this evidence is of such a nature, that it cannot possibly exist in the case of infants. It con- sists in the manifestation of a spiritual change in the character. The only criterion by which we can judge that an individual is regenerated, is that he " repents and believes the gospel." Faith and repentance are accordingly, on the part of those to whom this evidence pertains, indispensable conditions of salvation. 3. Many of the aigumenis advanced in the preced- ing sections, are entirely independent of any question pertaining to the salvation of infants ; as, for example, the proposition that the only circumcision known among christians is spiritual, or that which pertains to the heart; and that, consequently, the old Jewish cir- 130 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. cumcision is, alike in form and substance, abolished. The same is true of the argiunent drawn from Rom. 4 : 9-18, to wit, that the only relationship to Abraham recognized by the gospel, is acquired by faith, and is independent, of the law of circumcision; and that hence no authority can be derived from that law for the baptism of infants. But especially is this appa- rent in passages which appeal to baptism. If baptism is to be administered on principles which utterly dis- card all distinctions arising from birth or natural de- scent, the ground on wliich the baptism of infants is practiced, is surely precluded, even were we to admit that such distinctions will be regarded in their sal- vation. SECTION X. THE BAPTISM OP BKL1EVERS THE EXCLUSIVK PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES AND PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS. — THE TESTIMONY OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. That none but believers in Christ are entitled to Christian bajjtism, is further evident from the testimo- ny of the New Testament respecting the practice of the apostles and primitive Christians. It is clear that they unifortnly required satisfactory evidence of repent- ance and faith, as a prerequisite to baptism. The apostles, in writing to the churches which had been planted under their direction, invariably address them as consisting of those who had obtained like pre- cious faith with them.selves, who had been called to be saints, who were sanctified in Christ Jesus. 2 Pet. 1 : 1; 1 Cor. 1: 2. Such was the character which tliey had professed in their baptism. The Christians in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and ITS SUBJECTS, 131 Bithynia, addressed by the apostle Peter, had submit- ted to baptism as " the answer of a good conscience toward God." 1 Pet. 1 : 1 ; 3 : 21. The members of the chinch at Ephesus in becoming the subjects of one baptism, had, as we have previously noticed, acknowl- edged one Lord, and professed one faith. Eph. 4 : 5. The disciples at Collosse in being baptized, had signi- fied that they had risen with Christ through faith. Col. 2 : 12. Those who had received Christian bap- tism at Rome, had professed to be dead to sin, and alive to God through Jesus Christ. Rom 6: 3-11. In perfect accordance with this testimony, so explicit and decisive, are the occasional historical allusions to baptism in the Acts of the Apostles. "The Corinthi- ans, hearing, believed, and were baptized." The Sa- maritans " when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Clirist, were baptized both men and women." Chap. 18 : 8 ; 8 : 12. See also chap. 8 : 37, 38 ; 10 : 47 ; 2 : 41. These passages are sufficiently explicit in designating the only proper subjects of baptism. Had the apostles on the day of Pentecost, for example, baptized the families or infant children of those who were converted, it would hardly have been said simply, " Then they that gladly received the word ^ were bapti- zed ; and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls ; and they continued steadfast.'* Can any one read Acts 2: 37-42; 8: 12, and believe that there were infants among the number baptized? Is not such a supposition hctimWy precluded ? But the most interesting and decisive evidence upon this point, is derived from passages which speak of the baptism of households. It is perfectly clear that those belonging to the 132 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. households whose baptism is recorded in the New Tes- tament, were not infants, but persons who were capa- ble of acting for themselves, and who, as such, had given evidence of conversion.' We first notice the household of Lydia. Acts 16: 14, 15. Lydia is introduced as a woman of Thyalira, sojourning at Philippi for purposes of trade. She is represented as acting for berself, dependent on no one, amenable to no one. The natural inference, there- fore, is, that she had no husband. But, it being im- probable that a female would have left her home, and repaired to a distant city, and engaged in the sale of merchandise, unprotected and alone, we naturally conclude, upon meeting with the statement in verse 14, that she had with her assistants in her business. The allusion in verse 15 to her " household" is, there- fore, precisely what we had anticipated. We at once refer the term to those wbowe had previously inferred must have been engaged as her assistants. The idea of infant children is not even suggested to our minds. This, we believe, is the only natural and rational view of the case. And in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, we are bound, on all consistent princi- ples of interpretation, to conclude (hat such were the facts. Her household upon their conversion, would, of course, sympathize with her in her feelings of chris- tian affection and hospitality; and this would operate as a reason with the apostles for making her house their home. Ii is accordingly said, " When she was baptized and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me faithful to the Lord, covie into my house, and abide there.^^ Had her household con- tinued opposed to (he gospel, and addicted to their former practices, the invitation would not probably ITS SUBJECTS. 133 have been given, much less accepted. But when not only herself, but her household avowed themselves christians, by being' baptized, all objection in the minds of the apostles to accepting- the invitation, would be removed. We have, then, sufficient ground for the conclusion that the household of Lydia were capable of believing the gospel, and were baptized on profession of their faith, even without reference to the fact mentioned in a subsequent verse, to wit, that the apostles, upon being released from prison, entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren, comforted them. Concerning the household of the Jailor, there cer- tainly can be no ground for dispute, since it is express- ly recorded, " And he rejoiced believing in God with ell his house.'' ^ Acts 16 : 31-34. Of Crispus it is said, that " he believed on the Lord with all his house :^' and although their baptism is not expressly mentioned, it may safely be inferred; inas- much as they are associated with " many of the Corinthi- ans," who " hearing, believed, and were baptized." Acts 18 : 8. Respecting the household of Stephanas mentioned 1 Cor. 1 : 16, it may be observed, that they are intro- duced as those who were interested in the instructions of the apostle to the church at Corinth, and in chap. 16 : 15, 16, it is expressly stated that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and had addicted themselves to the min- istry of the saints.^' It thus appears that the households mentioned in the New Testament as having been baptized, consisted of those who were subjects of faith. The evidence derived from these examples is, therefore, entirely in favor of believers' baptism. 12 134 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. It is, moreover, a fact generally overlooked, that an interesting argument may be drawn from tliis source in opposition to the baptism of any except believers. 1. It is worthy of notice that as often as the baptism of households is mentioned in the New Testament, it is, — with one exception, where the fact is clearly indi- cated b}' the accompanying circumstances, — expressly stated, that they consisted only of believers. Had it simply been recorded that they were baptized, we should naturally have inferred, that, as in other cases, they had believed. But the inspired record has not left us to satisfy ourselves with an inference, however well grounded. It has directly informed us that in the case of households, no less than of isolated individuals, faith was required as a prerequisite to baptism. It thus appears from the express testimony of the sacred historian, that there was no exception to baptism on pro- fession of personal faith, even in the only cases in which an exception is claimed. 2. The members of these households are introduced in the character of individual agents, the subjects of a personal and independent responsibility. It is said, not merely that Crispus believed, but that all his house believed with him. The members of his family are mentioned, not as those who became connected with the church upon his conversion, but as so many addi- tional converts to Christianity. The same is true of the household of the jailor. Acts 16 : 34. Special notice is also taken of the fact, that when Paul and Silas were brought out of the prison by the jailor, " they spake the word of the Lord to him, and to all that were in his house,'' ver. 32. They looked upon the members of his household, whether servants or children, as occupying precisely the same position in ITS SUBJECTS. 135 respect to the claims and privileges of Christianity with himself. They were individual and accountable agents, whose state and relationship would be decided solely by their own acceptance or rejection of the gos- pel. It is incredible, in view of the statement made verse 32, that those connected with the jailor's house- hold, would, in case they had manifested no disposition to receive the word, have been baptized, and introduc- ed into the Christian church. 3. The simple fact that the baptism of these house- holds was deemed worthy of special record, is strong presumptive evidence that household baptism was not the common practice of the apostles. The natural inference is, that there was in these instances some- thing unusual ; that there was no custom, to say the least, prevalent among the primitive Christians, from which it might be inferred, that upon the conversion of the head of a family, the other members were baptized. The examples of the baptism of households record- ed in the New Testament, therefore, not only are in- stances of believers' baptism, but they afford an inter- esting proof against the baptism of infants. The evidence that infant baptism was unknown among the apostles, derived both from the Acts and the Epistles, we consider perfectly decisive. If as many as were baptized in connexion with the primi- tive churches, were supposed to put on Christ, were such as had gladly received his word, believed on his name, and risen with him to newness of life, infant baptism surely was not practiced. 136 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. SECTION XI. INFANT BAPTISM SHOWN TO BE NOT OF APOSTOLIC ORIGIN FROM THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. The position establisbed in the preceding section, is abundantly sustained by the history of baptism subse- quently to the apostolic age. The Christian writers of the first and second centuries, in alluding- to baptism, uniformly speak of it as administered on a voluntary profession of discipleship to Christ.* Justin Martyr, for example, describes those who were baptized in his day, A. D. 140, as persons who believed the truths of Christianity, and promised to live according to them. Clement of Alexandria, also, in his frequent allusions to baptism, invariably represents it as administered to those who were in possession of faith and divine illu- mination. The first writer who mentions infant bap- tism is Tertullian, about the beginning of the third century. From his treatise on Baptism, we learn that instances had begun to occur, in which "little children" were admitted to baptism before they had received a "knowledge of Christ." The practice being once introduced, its spread among the African churches, as may be inferred from the notices of it by Origen and Cyprian, was somewhat rapid ; although, as appears from passages in the writings of Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, and others, — to some of which we shall have occasion to refer hereafter, — it did not be- come general in the Eastern and Western churches, until toward the close of the fourth century. All attempts to trace back the origin of infant bap- tism beyond the close of the second century, have been * Note I. Appendix. ITS SUBJECTS. 137 unsuccessful. It stands, in a historical point of view, upon the same ground as a multitude of other supersti- tious customs, which originated in a departure from the primitive simplicity of the gospel, and which gradually prepared the way for the great apostasy. But, while there is nothing in the early history of the church to justify the opinion that infant baptism is of apostolic origin, there is much that proves con- clusively that it did not originate with the apostles. 1. We first notice the lateness of the period at which it makes its appearance, and especially, at which it became generally prevalent. On the supposition it had been introduced by Christ or his apostles, a great portion of those who belonged to the churches during the second century, as they were born of Christian parents, must have been baptized in infancy. How happens it, then, that the writers of this period, in speaking of those to whom baptism was administered, uniformly describe them as believers 1 Why do they speak of themselves and their fellow Christians, with- out exception or qualification, as having been baptized on profession of their conscious and voluntary accept- ance of the gospel 1 Why do they invariably assert of the whole, what, on the supposition, they knew to be true only of a part? Or, why do we find the first traces of infant baptism in Africa, while in the Eastern and Western churches it did not become general until moie than a hundred and fifty years later? Such are precisely the facts which might be expected if infant baptism be regarded an innovation; but they are utterly irreconcilable with the supposition that it originated with the apostles, and had all along been observed on their authority. 2. That infant baptism is not of apostolic origin is 12* 138 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. further evident from tlie light in which it was viewed after its appearance. Oiigen, wlio is the first writer that defend^ it, observes, that llie reason for it was matter of " frequent inquiries among the brethren." They evidently did not understand how the design of baptism could be met in its administration to infants. As late as the time of Cyprian, A. D. 250, it was un- decided, even in the African churches, whether it were proper to baptize a child before the eiglith day. Had infant baptism been instituted by the apostles, we see not how this point could have remained so long un- settled. In the Eastern churches, at a much later period, the propriety of baptizing infants was not generally under- stood. Gregory Nazianzen, in one of his discourses, supposes he may be asked to express his opinion on this point; and in reply, he advises that unconscious infants be baptized in cases of apparent danger ; " in- asmuch as it were better tliat they should be sanctified without their knowing it, than that they should die without being sealed and initiated." In other cases he advises that their baptism be deferred until they are of sufficient age to receive impressions from a recital of the mystical words. Now on the supposition that infant baptism had been practiced by the churches for more than three hundred years on the authority of the apostles, is it conceivable that the bishop of Constanti- nople, the metropolis of the Eastern Empire, could have regarded his audience as asking his opinion re- specting its propriety 1 Is it possible that he should have replied as he did ? About the beginning of the fifth century, Boniface, in a letter to Augustine, suggests a variety of objections to the practice of baptizing infants, and requests a ITS SUBJECTS. 139 statement of the grounds on which it may be justified. These objections are, that infants are incapable of evincing the feelings required of candidates for bap- tism ; — that neither the present state of their minds, nor tlieir future behavior, can be known ; — that a pro- fession of faith in their behalf is apparently unmeaning and inconsistent with facts. All this seems clearly to indicate that infant baptism was an innovation. Bap- tism had always been associated with a profession of submission to the gospel. And how it could be prop- erly administered where such submission was impossi-^ ble, needed explanation. 3. Another interesting proof of our position, is found in the testimony of Tertullian. Having occasion to allude to the baptism of little ones who had not yet acquired a knowledge of the gospel, he protests against it; which is in itself a strong indication that he looked upon it as an innovation. Had it been customary to regard it as an apostolic institution, " this father of tradition," as he is styled by Mr. Coleman in his Christian Antiquities, " would hardly have ventured," as Neander well observes, " to oppose it so warmly." His testimony, however, is chiefly valuable on account of his appeal to the New Testament. He defends the ground on which he opposes the practice, to wit, that the little ones had not yet learned Christ, and could not understand why they were baptized, by referring to the practice of the first teachers of Christianity, as re- corded in the Acts of the Apostles. He is dissuading from the hasty administration of baptism ; and he con- tends, in opposition to the arguments of his opponents, that in the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament, as in the case of Saul, and of the Ethiopi- an, the baptized had been instructed in the gospel, and 140 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. had believed, or, at least, had given satisfactory evi- dence of conversion. He endeavors to show that there is no warrant in the New Testament for administering the ordinance on any other conditions. " It is, there- fore," he adds, "more proper that baptism should be deferred according to the condition, the disposition, and the age of each individual, and especially in the case of little ones.^^ The reasoning of Tertullian is, that bap- tism ought not to be observed in any case, nntil there is satisfactory evidence that the candidate is a sincere and steadfast christian, and that hence there is a special impropriety in administering it to little children who cannot understand its meaning, who are unacquainted with Christ, and who, as they grow up into life, may become perverse and incorrigible. This he presents as the only position that can be maintained on the au- thority of the New Testament. Tertullian, then, not only opposes infant baptism as an impropriety, but he appeals to the New Testament and the practice of the first Christians, to establish the ground of his opposi- tion. And it is a remarkable fact that he makes use of precisely the same argument, as has been made most prominent by the opposers of pedobaptism in every succeeding age. 4. Decisive proof that infant baptism was unknown in the church in the second century, is found in the writings of Justin Martyr, and of Clement of Alexan- dria. They not only mention believers simply, as its subjects, but they employ language which clearly shows that infants were not baptized. The state of Christians at the time they received baptism, is directly contrasted with that of infants.* * The passages to which reference is here had, will be found quoted at length, and the argument deduced from them applied, in the Chris- tian Review, No. XXII. ITS SUBJECTS. 141 Justin, in a particular account of the manner in which Christians were baptized, alludes to the differ- ence in their state at the time of their birth, and of their baptism. Then they were involuntary and zin- conscious with respect to what they experienced. But in their baptism they had choice and knowledge and illumination. Now had they been baptized in. infancy, their state at the time, instead of being susceptible of contrast with what it was at their birth, would have been, in the particulars specified, precisely similar. They would have been as involuntary and unconscious with respect to tlieir baptism, as with respect to their birth. Justin is speaking- of what pertained to bap- tism as such ; of what was, in profession, at least, in- separably connected with the ordinance, as appointed by Christ, and observed by the Christian church. Had infants been baptized, they must, in the view of Justin, have received a baptism essentially different from that which he describes, and wliich he represents as Chris- tian baptism. Their involuntarinessand unconscious- ness in their baptism equally as in their birth, would have been viewed in direct contrast with the choice and knowledge which he represents himself, and his fellow Christians, as having enjoyed, when baptized. Ecpially explicit and decisive is the representation of Clement. In his work entitled Pa^dagogus, after explaining on what grounds christians might, in ac- cordance with the usage of the New Testament, be properly styled " children," he proceeds to prove in opposition to the insinuations of the Gnostics, that it was not on account of childishness and simplicity of knowledge. In proof of this he appeals to what was implied in their baptism. Their baptism was evi- dence, according to the representation of Clement, 142 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. that they had been " illuminated" and made "perfect in knowledge." They had received "catechetical in- struction" previously to their baptism, and this had led to -'faith ;" — faith had been by the Holy Spirit wrought in their hearts, and that illumination, by which they had received a clear insight into thvine things, " con- summated," at the time of theii baptism. They had thus been made "perfect christians, wanting nothing." Now on the supposition that a portion of those of whom Clement is speaking, had been baptized in infancy, the argument would have been directly the reverse. In- stead of being unlike children for the reasons given, they would have been children in reality, and children, too, of an age not to be capable of instruction, or illumi- nation, or faith, much less of maturity or perfection in Christian knowledge. Clement, then, may be regard- ed as affording positive testimony to the fact, that infant baptism did not prevail at that period. 5. Another interesting proof that infant baptism was unknown during the early ages of Christianity, is the fact, that those whose parents were Christians, were baptized, and admitted to the church, on the same con- ditions as tiiose converted from heathenism. It was necessary that they, equally with others, should be taus:ht, and give evidcmce o( faith, in order that they might become qualified for baptism. The Catechiunens of the second century were, we believe it is universally admitted, persons in a course of Christian instruction preparatory or prerequisite to baptism. They differed from the regular members of the church in not having been baptized ; and hence they were not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. In this class the children of Christians equally with those from the ranks of heathenism, were included. ITS SUBJECTS. ' 143 The Encyclopedia Britannica, after describing the catechumens, of the ancient church as those " who had some title to the common name of Christian, — though not consummated by baptism," adds, — " The children of believing parents were admitted catechumens as soon as ever they were capable of instruction, but at what age those born of heathen parents might be ad- mitted is not so clear." Clement, as we have already shown, in repelling the charge of the Gnostics that Christians were justly styled " children" on account of simplicity in knowledge, alludes to the fact that they had enjoyed catechetical instruction preparatory to their baptism. As the charge was directed against Christians as such, those born of Christian parents, no less than those converted from lieathenism, it is evi- dent from the language of Clement they had alike been instructed in the principles of Christianity, as a prerequisite to baptism. And even after infants began to be baptized, the usual profession of knowledge and faith, demanded of catechumens, was still requi- site, and was obtained in the case of those who were unable to answer for themselves, by sponsors testifying in their behalf; — a clear indication that the children of Christians, equally with others, had all along been re- garded as belonging to the order of catechumens. These facts prove conclusively that the earlier Chris- tians knew nothing of infant baptism and church mem- bership. It is evident they considered faith a necessa- ry preparation for baptism in the case of their own children, no less than of the heathen. They acted on the principle that the members of Christian families, must, equally with otherg, be instructed, and be prop- erly affected by the truths of the gospel, in order to become entitled to baptism. This fact is interesting, 144 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. not only as decisive proof that they did not consider their infant chihh-en qualified for baptism, but also as sliowing in what light they understood the instructions of Clirist and his apostles respecting the necessity of faith as a prerequisite to baptism. 6. Another decisive proof that infant baptism was introduced subsequently to the apostolic age, is found in the customs that were at first connected with it. Boniface in his letter to Augustine requests the reason, that, when infants are presented for baptism, their parents as sponsors for them, declare that " they do that of which their infant age is not able to think;" — when asked, for example, ' Does he believe in God V they answer, 'He does believe.' " And so," he adds, "an answer is returned to all the rest." This, as is evi- dent both from the language of Boniface, and the an- swer of Augustine, was the customary and prescribed usage in cases of infant baptism. Such a custom can be accounted for only on the admission, that it had always been considered an established principle that no one could be baptized except on profession of faith; that this principle had been settled by the apostles, and acted on by the church ; and, as it could not be disregarded or set aside, an attempt was made to main- tain it even in infant baptism. Had the baptism of in- fants as practiced at the present day, been introduced by Christ or his apostles, and established among the churches, it is unaccountable that it should ever have been imagined that the profession required of adults, was necessary in the case of infants. Another custom connected with infant baptism from its first appearance was infunt communion. Infants upon being baptized were fully constituted members ITS SUBJECTS. 145 of the church, and were admitted at once to the Lord's Supper. Gieseler, in his Ecclesiastical History, speaking of the period, A. D. 193-324, says, "All who had been bap- tized, even the children, partook of the Eucharist." Vol. I., p. 159. In Coleman's Christian Antiquities, compiled chiefly from the works of Augusti. p. 309, it is stated, " Agree- ably to all the laws and customs of the church, bap- tism constituted membership with the church. All baptized persons were legitimately numbered among the communicants, as members of the church. Ac- cordingly the sacrament immediately followed the ordinance of baptism, that the members thus received might come at once into the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of christian fellowship. But in all these instances the baptized person is of necessity supposed to have been of adult age, capable of exercising faith, according to the injunction, ' Believe and be baptized.' " After the general introduction of infant baptism, the sacrament continued to be administered to all who had been baptized, whether infants or adults. The reason assigned by Cyprian and others for this practice was, ' that age was no impediment ; that the grace of God bestowed on the subjects of baptism, was given without measure and without any limitation as to age.' Augustine strongly advocates this practice, and for authority appeals to John 6: 53, 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.' " The custom of infant communion continued for several centuries. It is mentioned in the third council of Tours, A. D. 813; and even the council of Trent, A. D. 1545, only decreed that it should not be consid- 13 146 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ered essential to salvation. It is still scrupulously ob- served by the Greek church." The sacrament continued to be administered to all who had been baptized, the same after as before the appearance of infant baptism. Not the slightest inti- mation of any change in this particular has been found in all the history of tlie ancient church. It was regard- ed as an established principle, that all who had been admitted to baptism, should be admitted to the other ordinance. We should find it impossible to account for this fact on tlie supposition that the baptism of in- fants had been instituted by the apostles, and the point that they were not to be admitted to the Lord's supper, definitely settled by their authority. It must, in that case, have been fully understood by the churches that there was a distinction to be made in the privileges of thebaptixed; that baptism did noi entitle infants to the communion. And it would be unaccountable, that, in such a state of things, the advocates of infant bap- tism from the time of its appearance in the history of the church, should take it for granted, that baptism did in aU cases give a right to the other ordinance. It being conceded that infants were not received to the Lord's Supper during the apostolic age, we believe it is impossible to account for the introduction of the prac- tice, on any other ground than that it was introduced in connexion with infant baptism ; and both, of course, at a later period. We ask the reader attentively and candidly to con- sider the facts which have here been presented, and decide whether the evidence is not decisive, nay over- whelming, that infant baptism was unknown in the apostolic age. There is not merely nothing in the history of the church to lead to the conclusion that it ITS SUBJECTS. 147 was then practiced ; there is conclusive proof, arising from a variety of independent sources, that it had not yet been introduced. SECTION XII. THE CAUSES WHICH LED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF INFANT BAP- TISM EXPLAINED. Notwithstanding the facts presented in the preced- ing section, the question is sometimes asked with an air of confidence. If infant baptism is not of apostolic origin, how could it be introduced into the church, and finally become prevalent 1 A sufficient answer to this query is contained in the fact, that a variety of other customs whose apostolic origin is rejected, were in- troduced within less than ahundred years after the apos- tles, and soon became general. And there certainly can be no more difficulty in accounting for the origin of infant baptism, than for the introduction of these other anti-scriptural customs. But, apart from any such consideration, we are, — so far from finding any difficulty in accounting for the in- troduction of infant baptism, — rather led to inquire, How could it have been prevented 1 If causes which it is admitted were in operation during the second cen- tury, had not led to it, we should, indeed, be unable to account for the failure. The only ground for surprise is, that no traces of the practice appear at an earlier period, and that it did not more rapidly become general. It is generally admitted that before the middle of the second century the opinion began to prevail, that 148 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. baptism was in some way efficacious in procuring a removal of the guilt and pollution of sin. It is also admitted that no age was specified at which children might be received into the number of cate- chumens. It is likewise an acknowledged fact that the custom of having sponsors at the baptism of catechumens, was introduced during the second century. The Edin- burgh Encyclopedia states, that " in the second centu- ry Christians began to be divided into believers, or such as were baptized, and catechumens, who were receiv- ing instruction to qualify them for baptism. To answer for these persons, sponsors or god fathers were first instituted." It was the province of the sponsor to testify that in his opinion the catechumen was quali- fied for baptism, and to become virtually responsible to the church for his future good behavior. Under these circumstances it could hardly fail that children of an early age would frequently be pre- sented as fit subjects for baptism. The fondness of parents, especially upon their imbibing the notion that some mysterious saving benefit was connected with baptism, would naturally lead them to conclude, that their children while very young, were sufliciently instructed in the gospel, and impressed with its truths, to be baptized : and as it was provided that they should be presented by sponsors, who testified to their fitness, and promised to watch over their future course, so that the church should not suffer from their misconduct, the administrator could have but little hesitation in bapti- zing them. These being admitted, the tendency would be to gradually extend the privilege to such as were still younger ; and no great length of time would elapse, before, in special cases at least, those just able to utter a few words of prayer, or answer a few simple ITS SUBJECTS. 14& interrogations, would be baptized. It would then soon become a query, how the case of such could differ in respect to any essential qualifications for baptism, from that of mere infants. And if it were allowable to promise that the former shoukl grow up worthy mem- bers of the church, no valid objection could be urged against a similar engagement with respect to the latter. We thus see how tlie practice of employing sponsors at the baptism of catechumens, might, by a process perfectly easy and natural, even in a single generation, lead to the baptism of infants. Especially would such be the result wherever the sentiment became prevalent, that baptism was admin- istered chiefly for purposes which would apply in the case of infants, no less than of adults. If it were to be observed, as Origen and many of the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries contended, not so much to profess a saving change, as to produce it ; — not so much to declare a determination to walk in newness of life, as to procure the remission of sins, and a title to heaven, it could hardly fail that infants would be regarded as proper subjects. As long as baptism continued to be observed for the purposes, and on the conditions, specified in the New Testament, — none being admitted except on their own profession of faith evinced by its proper fruits, — infant baptism was unknown ; nor could it, under such cir- cumstances, have been introduced. But when the custom began to prevail of baptizing catechumens chiefly on the testimony and responsibility of sponsors, and, in addition to this, it was conceived, that the de- sign and benefits of baptism were sucli, as to require no distinction to be made between infants and adults, infant baptism was the inevitable result. 13* 150 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. The introduction of infant baptism at a period sub- sequent to the apostolic age, is thus easily explained. Indeed, in view of the causes, which, it is admitted, actually existed, we see not how it could have been prevented. Perhaps it may be thought, that the consideration of this point is entirely gratuitous. It certainly was not demanded by any just principles of argumentation. It might have sufficed, for every purpose of rational con- viction, to have shown, that there is no satisfactory evi- dence in the history of the church, that infant baptism originated with the apostles. We supposed, however, it would place the subject in a still more interesting and convincing light, to present a few distinct and prominent facts directly disproving the apostolic origin of the practice. For the same reason we have ad- vanced a step further, and have shown how its intro- duction at a later period, may, as the natural and apparently unavoidable result of existing causes, be actually accounted for. We commend our sugges- tions on this point to the careful and candid considera- tion of the reader. SECTION XIII. A GENERAL AND CONNECTED VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS PRE- SENTED IN THE PRECEDING SECTIONS. Our examination of baptism with respect to its sub- jects, is now completed. The position that believers only are proper subjects, has been proved by an appeal to the design of baptism. Not a use of the ordinance specified in the New Testament, is met in its adminis- tration to unbelievers and infants. Indeed, its design ITS SUBJECTS. 151 is thus directly set aside and contravened. We have appealed to the nature and design of the kingdoin of Christ; and have shown that it is eminently personal and spiritual in its requirements, and qualifications for membership. It includes none but such as have be- lieved in Christ, and have been transformed by the renewing of their minds, and consequently leaves no place for the baptism and church membership of in- fants. We have appealed to the instructions of Christ and his apostles respecting tlie requisite qualifications for baptism and visible church membership; and have found that believers, and believers only, are specified as the proper subjects. We have even shown by re- ference to numerous passages in the New Testament, that those who are merely " born of the liesh," do not belong to the kingdom of Christ; thai relations acquired by natural birth, which is all that can be af- firmed of infants, are positively declared to be of no avail as qualifications for membership ; and that in this respect the Christian dispensation is directly contrasted with the Jewish. We have examined the testimony of the New Testament respecting the example of the apostles and of the churches enjoying their instruc- tions ; and we have found them uniformly administer- ing baptism to believers in Chiist only. Language is used which proves that all "who were baptized, were capable of " putting on Christ," and of " answering a good conscience toward God." We have also exam- ined the testimony of ecclesiastical history. We have found none but believers mentioned as subjects of bap- tism by the Christian writers for a hundred years sub- sequent to the apostolic age. We have discovered the first traces of infant baptism about the beginning of the third century, and have seen it gradually spread- 152 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ing-, until in tho limo of Augustine it became g-eneral. We Imve shown in what way its introduction may be readily and satisfactorily accounted for. And finally, we have adduced several distinct and decisive proofs from the history of the church, against its apostolic origin. We ask, what more can be demanded ? What stronger proof could, in the nature of tlie case, exist 1 Every source from which an argument bearing on the subject, can possibly be drawn, furnishes evidence leading invariably to the same result. There is no conflicting of testimony. There is no balancing of proof. There is scarcely an occasion for removing a difficulty. The evidence derived from whatever source, not only fails entirely of furnishing any thing in favor of the divine authority of infant baptism ; but is in every instance opposed to it. It would seem suf- ficient for every practical purpose, to show that, as is admitted by the advocates of infant baptism tliem- selves, there is not in the New Testament either direct precept or example to sanction it. We have shown, however, in addition to this, that ihc design of bap- tism, the nature of Christ's kingdom, the qualifications necessary for membership, tlie specified prerequisites for baptism, the example of the apostles, presented in the New Testament, and indicated by the subsequent history of the church, all these, actually forbid the practice of it. They not merely refuse to utter a syl- lable to indicate that it is required ; they combine their separate and independent testimony to declare that it is wrong. It will be perceived, therefore, that those who practice infant baptism, act, not only Avithout au- thority, but in direct opposition to the most express au- thority. They take upon themselves the responsibility ITS SUBJECTS. 153 of sustaining a practice which the Head of the church has signified, on a variety of independent grounds, is opposed to his will. We ask the reader if he is willing to bear that responsibility 1 If he is willing, either by preceptor example, by act or profession, directly or in- directly, to countenance a practice which is so clearly, not only unauthorized, hxxi prohibited, by the word of Godi SECTION XIV. THE EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM. It does not directly pertain to our present object to speak of the evils resulting from the practice of in- fant baptism. In consideration, however, of the po- sition assumed in its defence, a few remarks upon this point may be desirable. Many of its advocates, es- pecially the German authors, while they admit that it is destitute of scriptural authority, attempt to defend it on the ground that it is not without advantages. Such an argument, even were it founded in fact, ought to have no force with those who take the Bible as their only rule of religious faith and practice. In the posi- tive institutions of religion, especially in its symbolical ordinances, nothing can be a reason for action, but the revealed will of God. Were it otherwise, the door would be open for the introduction of every prac- tice which the zeal or superstition of men might deem advisable. Much less can any argument derived from the supposed effects of infant baptism, be of weight, against the accumulation of evidence adduced from the New Testament, showing that the practice is op- 154 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. posed to the will of Christ, and consequently forbidden. While, therefore, no consideration arising from such a source, could be a reason for practicing infant baptism, we may, however, should it appear that its tendency is evil, urge the fact as an additional reason for its dis- continuance. It would be adding sin to sin, to counte- nance a practice which, in addition to being opposed to the teaching of the New Testament, is clearly per- nicious in its influence. Whatever temporal purposes may be served by in- fant baptism, we believe it will be found that its ultimate effects are invariably " evil and only evil continually." To some of its evil effects we briefly advert. 1. It tends to exert an unfavorable influence on the minds of those who have been the subjects of it, as they grow up into life. Upon arriving to years of un- derstanding, they naturally inquire why they were baptized in infancy ? what object was thereby accom- plished ? They are told, perhaps, that by this means they were '^ regenerated,^^ "made members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven." In other cases they are taught tliat the blessings of the covenant of grace were thereby seated to them, and that they were recognized as members of the church of Christ. Now what is the legitimate effect of such in- struction upon their minds ? Does it lead them to feel the necessity of personal faith and regeneration? Does it impress upon them the solemn fact that their stale before God is determined solely by their own accept- ance or rejection of the gospel ? The tendency, it is obvious, is directly the reverse. They will conclude, either that their baptism was a useless ceremony, or that their condition is in some Avay more favorable than ITS SUBJECTS. 155 it otherwise would be, as it respects the salvation of their souls. Can they be easily persuaded that they have been <' made members of Christ and children of God," and are yet " the children of wrath, even as others;" — that they have been " regenerated," and have become "inheritors of the kingdom of heaven," and are yet without any title to a participation in its eter- nal blessing-s ? Or will they readily believe that an interest in the covenant of g-race is of no avail in en- suring tlieir salvation ? that the blessings of that cove- nant have been " sealed" to them, and that yet they have no personal interest in the enjoyment of them ? If the doctrine on which infant baptism is predicated is helieved, the effect must be what is here indicated. If it is 720^ to he believed, why is it taught 7 and why is the practice of which it is the foundation, continued 1 In many cases, we know, the effect indicated, is ac- tually produced. And although in communities where evangelical sentiments are predominant, this effect may to a great extent be prevented, still the tendency of the practice is invariably the same ; and when left unrestrained it seldom fails to work out its legitimate and disastrous consequences. It is not necessary that we appeal, in proof of this, to the state of things exist- ing in the national churches of Europe, both Roman- ist and Protestant; the mass of whose members can give no other reason for hoping that they shall be saved, than that they have received the seal of the covenant of grace, and have been made members of the kingdom of Christ, in infancy. It will suffice that we refer to certain Pedobaptist denominations in our own country who in doctrine are regarded as mainly evangelical, among w^iom it is common for those who were christened in infancy, upon arriving at a certain 156 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. affe, to be admitted after some little catechetical in- struction, to all the privileges of the church, as per- sons who have fully assumed the christian character. Such is the almost inevitable result, wheie the re- straint derived from the prevalence of evangelical religion, is removed. Is it said, that churches adher- ing to the doctrine of believers' baptism, may decline in spirituality, and be guilty of admitting unconverted members ? There is, however, in the two cases, this essential difference. Baptism, in the one case, occu- pies a position to counteract such a tendency ; it pre- sents a harrier to such admissions that must be over- come, and thus meets every attempt to commingle the church and the world, with its constant and pointed rebuke. In the other, it is itself the door for ad?nitting these evils. It legitimately tends to this result, and directly perpetuates it when produced. 2. Infant baptism tends to hinder those of its subjects who become converted, from being themselves baptiz- ed, and from thus professing their conversion in the ordinance appointed for that purpose. A large proportion of the members belonging to the Pedobaptist churches, live and die in utter disobedience of the command enjoined on every believer, to arise and be baptized in profession of his faith. In most cases, perhaps, the duty is scarcely realized. In others, although perceived and appreciated, it is left unper- formed. Many a young convert, as he has seen his companions professing tlieir faith in Christ in the ordi- nance of baptism, has felt that it was Jiard to be him- self debarred from the privilege, simply because, as he is informed, he was dedicated to God in his infancy. Many of those baptized were, perhaps, in the prayers and vows of their parents, as really and as effectually ITS SUBJECTS. 157 dedicated to God, as himself; but he, in consequence of his dedication, must through life be denied the privi- lege of putting on Christ by baptism. Can any prac- tice be innocent, which, however unjustifiably, is actu- ally the direct cause of such palpable and general disobedience to a requirement which in the New Testament is identified with a public profession of the gospel ? 3. Baptism administered in infancy entirely pre- cludes the salutary impression which the observance of the ordinance is designed to make on the mind of the subject. Let an individual in the exercise of faith and true devotion, go forward and publicly consecrate himself to the service of his Redeemer in the ordinance appointed for that purpose, and the impression made on his mind will be eminently salutary and abiding. He will frequently revert to the scene with pleasure and profit in future life. As often as he sees the ordi- nance administered, the feelings which he possessed at his own baptism, will be renewed and strengthened. But in the case of those baptized in infancy, all this benefit, these salutary impressions, these delightful recollections, are lost. This fact is forcibly expressed in a passage occurring in the devotional works of Arch- bishop Leighton. " Baptism being but once adminis- tered, and that in infancy, is very seldom and slightly considered by many, even real christians. And so we are at a loss in that profit and comfort, that increase in both holiness and faith, which the frequent recollecting of it after a spiritual manner, would no doubt advance in us." The only remedy of this evil is the abandon- ment of infant baptism, and the adoption of the scrip- tural practice of baptizing those only who give evi- dence that they are savingly interested in the gospel. 14 158 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 4. Infant baptism tendsto annihilate thelineofdemar- kation between the churcli and the world. The doctrine of pedobaptism is, either that infants are born members of the church and are to be baptized in recognition of that relationship, or tliat in baptism they are introduc- ed into the church. Their connection, of course, continues the same as they advance in life ; and con- sistency requires that they should be admitted to the privileges to which their mcmbeiship properly entitles them. In most Pedobaptist churches this is done without hesitation. In the Greek church, infants are admitted to the Eucharist immediately on their bap- tism. In most of the churches of Europe and some in America, this is deferred until they have received an amount of catechetical instruction, and have under- gone some process of confirmation. The ground on which they are admitted, is, however, in both cases essentially the same, — they are members of the church, and, consequently, ought not to be denied its privi- leges. The church is thus filled with worldly uncon- verted members, and the line of demarkation estab- lished by Christ is ultimately removed. And although in evangelical churches, as was observed with respect to a kindred evil, this influence may to a great extent be counteracted, its tendency is, nevertheless, in all cases the same ; and it only requires a change of cir- cumstances, as has been evinced in numerous instances both in Europe and America, for it actually to produce the same effects. We ask the reader to look at the state of most churches in Christendom where infant baptism prevails, and mark the process by which they have been brought into that state j and will it be denied that the legitimate influence of infant baptism is evil ? ITS SUBJECTS. 159 5. Another evil connected with infant baptism is the countenance it gives to other anti-scriptural practices. As it becomes necessary to rest its defence on other grounds than the express sanction of the word of God, the great Protestant principle that the Bible is the only- rule of religious faith and practice, is practically set aside, and the door is opened for the introduction and defence of every religious observance which the fancy or superstition of men may deem expedient. The ar- guments which Protestants are accustomed to urge against the church of Rome are thus deprived of half their force. We verily believe that one of the great- est obstacles to success in the efforts made to arrest the progress, and counteract the influence of Romanism in this country, lies in the adherence to pedobaptism on the part of Protestant churches. We leave these facts for the candid consideration of the reader. We have adduced them, partly to refute the position that infant baptism, if not sanctioned by scriptural authority, is, at least, a useful institution, and, partly, as additional reasons for the immediate discontinuance of a practice, which we had before proved by an overwhelming amount of evidence, to be unauthorized, and even forbidden, by the word of God. To admit to baptism, and introduce into the church, those who are, as the Master himself has expressly taught us, unfit subjects, is daring presumption. But to do it at the hazard of encouraging the unre- generate to believe that they are interested in the covenant of grace, of causing christians to neglect a prominent injunction of the New Testament, and to fail of securing the benefits connected. with obedience, of annihilating the line of demarkation which Christ has established between his church and the world, and 160 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. of preparing the way for the more rapid spread of anti- scriptural and superstitious views and practices, is a fearful aggravation of the offence. Did evangelical Pedobaptists generally view this subject in its true light, they would, we are satisfied, shrink from the re- sponsibility of countenancing a custom which in addi- tion to being opposed to the teaching of Christ and his apostles, is attended with so many serious and far reaching evils. CHAPTER IV. THE AUTHORITY OF BAPTISM, THE DUTY OF BELIEVERS IN CHRIST TO BE BAPTIZED ON PROFESSION OF THEIR FAITH. The design of baptism indicates that it is the duty of all who believe in Christ to be baptized on profession of their faith. Is a public profession of discipleship required of all who would follow Christ ? and is bap- tism, as we have shown, the means which he has ap- pointed for making this profession ? The former re- quisition, of course, implies the latter. Was baptism instituted as a visible line of demarkation between the people of God and the world ? and is it the duty of the former to come out from the world and be separate ? Their duty to be baptized is necessarily involved. Are they under obligation to identify themselves with the church of Christ 1 This can properly be done only by observing the appointed rite of initiation. Is baptism a symbolical ordinance 1 It is certainly befitting that it be observed by all who have experienced the thing signified. Such was obviously the intention of its Divine Author in its institution. The appeals which are made in the New Testament to the design and significancy of baptism clearly indi- cate that the ordinance is one of which every christian should be the subject. He should appear before the world as one who is " dead with Christ," having been 14* 162 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. in baptism " buried with him ;" as one who has enter- ed upon a new life, having been emblematically raised up in the likeness of his resurrection." Christ has de- signated his people " the light of the world:" and he designs that the great truths by which the world is especially to be benefited, shall appear conspicuous in their very profession, in the character which they assume, and by which they are known, as his disciples. Hence their obligation to identify with their character the significancy of the appointed ordinance of christian profession, in which these trutbs are emblematically exhibited. The duty of christians to be baptized in profession of their faith, is further evident from the express injunc- tions of Christ and his apostles. His final commission to his disciples was, "Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the luorld" Mat. 28 : 19, 20. This language implies that to the end of time it will be obligatory on those who become disciples, to submit to baptism. Otherwise, the commission cannot be fulfilled. It is accordingly added, " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved," Mark 16 : 16 ; the duty of baptism being thus represented as co-extensive with the exercise of faith. Hence we find Peter enjoining on the mul- titudes at Pentecost, "Repent, and be baptized every oneofyouin the name of Jesus Christ." As it was the duly of all to repent, so upon their repentance it would be incumbent on them, "every one," to be baptized. The same thing is taken. for granted in the address of Ananias to Saul, "And now, why tarriest thou? ITS AUTHORITY. 163 Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." We arrive at the same conclusion by considering the examples of baptism recorded in the New Testament. The apostles appear to have uniformly acted on the principle that it was the duty of those who believed to be baptized. Those who at Pentecost " gladly receiv- ed the word," did not consider it optional with them whether they should observe or neglect the ordinance. They had been taught to regard it as a duty ; and they submitted to it as such without hesitation. The Sa- maritans, " when they believed, — were baptized both men and women." The Corinthians, hearing, believ- ed, and were baptized." See also Acts 8 : 35-39 ; 10 : 48 ; 16 : 14, 15, 30-34 ; 19 : 1-5. We believe no one can attentively read the Acts of the Apostles, without receiving the settled conviction that the prim- itive teachers of Christionity, considered the ordinance of baptism obligatory on all who embraced the gospel. The repeated allusions to baptism in the Epistles, like- wise, clearly imply that the members of the apostolic churches had, in being baptized, complied with a gos- pel requirement. 1 Cor. 1 : 13-16 ; Gal. 3 : 27 ; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2 : 12 ; etc. In the light of these facts we see the propriety of the description of baptism given by the apostle Peter, as " the answer of a good conscience toward God ;" — an express implication that obedience to the dictates of a conscience purified by faith, and enlightened by the word of God, will lead to the observance of the ordi- nance. Let such a conscience exert its proper author- ity among all the disciples of Christ, and they would be impelled with one accord to " arise and be bapti- zed." It becomes, then, an important inquiry, Why 164 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. are they so generally found neglecting the duty? To a consideration of some of the reasons assigned for this neglect, we now invite the reader's candid attention. 1. It is frequently urged that baptism is not essential to salvation, and that if the thing signified is secured, all else is of little account. Our first remark respecting this excuse will relate to its extreme selfishness. The individual supposed hopes that his sins have been for- given, that his heart has been renewed, that he has obtained a title to heaven ; and he is required to pro- fess the change which he has experienced, and his obligation to its gracious Author, by being baptized. But he replies, " This surely is not necessary. I am in possession, I trust, of the ' one thing needful.' I have a comfortable evidence that my name is written in heaven. And why should I be further concerned about the requisitions of the gospel "?" Such surely are not the dictates of piety. Indulgence in such a spirit would soon lead to a neglect of all the external duties of religion. The fact that baptism is not in itself essential to sal- vation, does not set aside the necessity of a disposition to obey Christ. A " good conscience," or a conscien- tious regard for the will of God, such as was anciently " answered" in baptism, cannot be too scrupulously preserved. Hazardous, indeed, is the inchilgence of an impression that the spirit of obedience implied in the declaration, "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved," and the wilful neglect of a plain scriptural command, will aflfect alike our spiritual interests. 2. Another excuse for refusing to profess faith in Christ in the ordinance which he has appointed for that purpose, is, that the requisite profession has been made by the observance of another rite of somewhat sim- ITS AUTHORITY. 165 liar import. This excuse, if not presented in the pre- cise form in which it is here slated, is, nevertheless, in fact, the ground on which multitudes in Pedobaptist churches, attempt to justify their neglect of baptism. That they have been immersed in the name of the Trinity, in accordance with the simple meaning of the word baptize, and theinvariablepracticeof the primitive Christians, they do not pretend. That they have sym- bolically declared their spiritual conformity to the death and resurrection of Christ by being "buried with him in baptism," they do not claim. That they have signified the washing away of their sins by being bathed in the cleansing element, they cannot affirm. But they have observed a rite which bears a resem- blance to certain ceremonies, which under the Mosaic law were significant of purification. In the use of this they have professed faith in Christ; and they endeavor to persuade themselves that this will suffice. Show them that this is not submission to the ordinance ap- pointed by Christ ; and they reply, that it will, at least, answer the same purpose. This excuse involves the principle that those to whom the positive institutions of the gospel are given, are at liberty to change them at pleasure, or to set them aside in favor of the inventions of men. The recklessness and inconsistency of such a position have been fully illustrated in the preceding sections. It provides that any ceremony whatever, in case it be in some way significant of the facts represented by a gos- pel ordinance, may be substituted in its place. Let us, — applying to the present case the illustration introduced in a former section, — let us suppose that the members of a church assemble professedly to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The bread and wine are exhibited 166 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. to their view. The one is broken, and distributed among them ; and they are invited to look through the emblem to tlie sacrifice of Christ, as the ground of their salvation. The other is poured forth, as a sym- bol of that on which they depend for the remission of their sins. They call this " the breaking of bread," " the communion," " the Lord's Supper ;" and claim to have answered the design of the ordinance, so called, appointed by Christ. Can any one persuade himself that the injunctions, " Take eaf," — '^ Drink ye all of it," would be obeyed in such a transaction? The case is similar with respect to baptism ; — with this important difference, however, that the ordinance in- stead of being simply abridged, is entirely set aside, and another lite observed in its stead. The injunction is, as the word employed properly and incontrovertibly signifies. Be immersed. As in the Lord's Supper, a de- finite act is enjoined, and nothing but the performance of that act, is obedience. Nor is it to be forgotten, that the significancy of the ordinance is, in the one case, no less than in the other, inseparable from the act re- quired. 3. Another excuse urged by multitudes for neglecting to obey the requirement to be baptized, is the fact that the rite, or one called hy the same name, has been observed by others in their behalf. In infancy they were the passive subjects of a ceremony of religious dedication. The transaction, as far as it was, not merely a moral, or voluntary, or conscious act, but an act at all, was not their own, but that of their parents or sponsors. This act, for which others alone were responsible, of which others alone were the agents, they consider a sufficient reason for neglecting themselves to obey the com- mand which Christ has enjoined on all his followers, ITS AUTHORITY. 167 and in obeying which they are to make a profession of their discipleship. A simple statement of the case, is sufficient to expose the utter weakness and folly of the excuse. Even were it conceded that it is the privilege of parents to observe baptism in behalf of their children, the obligation of the latter to be baptized upon embra- cing the gospel, would not he in the least diminished. The command is addressed to them as individual and responsible agents : and if they are conscious that they have never obeyed it, it is folly to imagine that any act of their parents will excuse their disobedience. We are aware that an attempt is made to defend the principle involved in the practice of infant baptism, by appealing to the regulations respecting circumcision. It is to be observed, however, that the command re- quiring the observance of this rite on the eighth day, was given, not to the children, but to the parents. It was their duty to see that it was properly performed. Gen. 17 : 10-14 ; Lev. 12 : 3 ; John 7 : 22, 23. There was a sufficient reason for this in the nature of the Jewish economy. In a dispensation which had respect to a nation as such, it was important that the members of that nation should, even from their earliest infancy, be kept distinct from the rest of mankind. The per- formance of circumcision the appointed badge of na- tionality, was like placing the name of the child on the public records. But in the kingdom of Christ where a title to membership is evinced, not by natural descent, but solely by a change of character, a disposi- tion to walk in newness of life, not only is there a man- ifest impropriety in applying the rite of recognition to infants, in whom the evidence of possessing these qual- ifications is entirely wanting, but it is appropriate that this change, this voluntary entrance upon a new life. 168 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. should be signified by those by whom it is experienced. Baptism partakes of the nature of an oath of allegi- ance, and, as in civil law, is required of those to whom it is intended to apply. It is, as we have fully shown, uniformly represented in the New Testament as the individual duty of those who become the subjects of it. It cannot, of course, in the nature of the case, be per- formed by others in their stead. We can no more be released from our obligation to obedience in respect to baptism, in consequence of what others may have done for us, than in respect to any other religious duty. With the word of God be- fore us, we feel that it is our duty to pray, however numerous may have been the prayers offered in our behalf; that it is incumbent on us to consecrate our- selves to God, although we may have been the sub- jects of a dedication by our parents; that we are under obligation to renounce the world and the sinful lusts of the flesh, notwithstanding this renunciation may have been made by others in our stead and name. All this, we feel, does not, cannot affect our duty in these re- spects. And why should it be otherwise in respect to baptism 1 But the fallacy of the excuse under consideration, will appear in a still more convincing light, if it be remembered that baptism is the appointed means of making a public profession of the gospel. That a command addressed to those who believe in Christ, to be baptized in his name or as his disciples, should be obeyed by acts performed without their concurrence, or even knowledge, is in itself sufficiently incredible. But it is, if possible, still more incredible that any such act should be obedience, while the very design of the ordinance entirely fails of being thereby fulfilled. If ITS AUTHORITY. 169 baptism is what it is, even in Pedobaptist confessions of faith, admitted to be, a sig-nto the party baptized, of *' his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life ;" it is obvious the evidence of this change must appear, before the rite can be properly- observed. Its validity depends on its being performed for the purpose for which it was instituted. There must be on the part of the subject a profession that he has repented of his sins, and embraced the gospel, or there is no obedience. An example strikingly illustrative of this position is furnished in the case of the twelve men mentioned Acts 19 : 1-7. They had been baptized unto what was called " John's baptism." This had been done, as is evident from several circumstances, subsequently to the descent of the Holy Spirit at the season of Pentecost;* and probably while Apollos was at Ephesus. Comp. chap. 18: 24,25; 19: 1. They had not, therefore, been baptized into the faith of Jesus as the Messiah, either as yet to come, or as having already appeared. And hence upon being instructed in the truth respecting his character and claims, and embracing it, they were baptized in his name. They had no scruples about being rebaptized. Their former baptism had not ful- filled the design of the ordinance appointed by Christ, and they considered it null. They had made no pro- fession of faith in Him on whom John taught " the people, that they should believe ;" and hence by the direction of the apostle they were rebaptized. With how much greater force do the same reasons for baptism in the name of Christ, apply in the case of those who may have been baptized in infancy. They were ignorant, not merely of the import of the trans- * Note J. Appendix. 15 170 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. action, but of its performance. They not only did not profess faith in the true Messiah ; they made no pro- fession whatever. They were not only not baptized as the disciples of the Lord Jesus ; they were incapa- ble of becoming- disciples. If then the twelve men at Ephesus were, for the reasons suggested, rebaptized, the subjects of infant baptism ought not, surely, to hesitate to follow their example. This we say on the assumption that, like the former, they have once sub- mitted to baptism. Such, however, as we have shown, is not the fact. Their baptism, as far as personal ac- countability or agency is involved, would be in no sense rebaptism. In some Pedobaptist denominations at the baptism of infants, a renunciation of the world and of the sinful desires of the flesh, is publicly pro- fessed in their behalf, and in their name, by those who stand as their sponsors. This, however, does not ex- pose them to the liability of making a formal profes- sion of religion the second time. They ordinarily, upon arriving to years of discretion, have no fears on this point. They know that they have never made any such profession. For the same reason they know that they have never performed any act that can be called baptism ; and hence it is not possible that as responsible agents they should be rebaptized. The command to be baptized in the name of Christ, cannot, in the nature of the case, be obeyed by a transaction in which there is, not merely no profession, but no re- sponsibility, no agency, no knowledge, on the part of the subject. And yet on the ground that such a trans- action will suffice, multitudes in Christian lands who give evidence of piety, attempt to justify themselves in neglecting to obey that command, and even in en- couraging the same neglect on the part of others. We ITS AUTHORITY. 171 believe, however, the time is approaching when such an excuse will cease to be urged ; when the acts of others will no longer be plead in justification of per- sonal disobedience ; when the spontaneous inquiry of the converted will individually be, " What doth hinder me to be baptized ?" and they will esteem it alike a duty and a privilege to be immersed in imitation of the example of their Lord, and in the likeness of his death and resurrection, and thus to take upon themselves the appropriate, the appointed badge of discipleship. CHAPTER V. '^ THE RELATIVE POSrTION OF BAPTISM, oa THE SCRIPTURAL TERMS OF ADMISSION TO THE LORd's SUPPER. We proceed to inquire, What is the relative posi- tion OF baptism, particularly with reference to the Lord's supper 1 That the former is properly a pre- requisite to the latter, is obvious from their design. Baptism being the instituted means of professing an interest in the gospel, is naturally the Jirst definite public act requiied of those who become christians. And while living in the neglect of this, on what ground can they consistently seek admission to the Lord's sup- per ? Are they, in wishing to observe the latter ordi- nance, influenced by a spirit of obedience to Christ 1 Why should not the same spirit lead them to the per- formance of the previous duty, equally plain, equally imperative, equally important'? An unwillingness to obey Christ in one of his requirements, and especially one occupying the place of baptism, is certainly not the most suitable spirit for engaging in the discharge of some subsequent duty ; and least of all, for celebra- ting an ordinance in which the observants are supposed expressly to signify their indebtedness to him for sal- vation, and their consequent obligation to yield him their unreserved obedience. The inconsistency of de- siring a seat at the communion table, while the ordin- ance of baptism is overlooked or disregarded, would ITS RELATIVE POSITION. 173 seem to be too obvious, not to be generally felt and ac- knowledged. Tiiese suggestions naturally lead to the inquiry, To whom shall the invitation to unite in celebrating the Lord's supper be extended ? It will doubtless be gen- erally conceded that the nature and design of the or- dinance are such, that one thing demanded of those who are invited, should be that they have made some profession of Christianity. What then shall churches in applying this general principle, acknowledge as a suitable or sufficient profession ? Shall they take the ground that the manner of professing an interest in the gospel is immaterial ; that any mode of profession, public or private, formal or informal, ritual or verbal, orthodox or heretical, will suffice '? Or shall they adopt certain restrictions or requisitions of their own devising, suggested by a reference to their own feelings or con- venience ? Or shall they, as the only alternative, in their acts as churches, require the profession appointed in the New Testament, and uniformly observed by the primitive christians as the answer of a good conscience toward God ? Their duty in this case must, we think, be too obvious to be easily mistaken. But it was the design of Christ that the profession made in baptism should be conjoined with the act of becoming identified with the interests of his church. It is on this condition alone that the ordinance can fully answer the end for which it was instituted, as a visible line of demarkation between the people of God and the world. Hence baptism may be regarded a prerequisite to the Lord's supper, especially, as being the appointed rite of initiation into the visible church ; or that which, although it does not in itself constitute any one a church member, is the only door by which the 15* 174 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. church can properly receive individuals to membership* The Lord's supper, as is apparent from the whole tenor of the apostolic teachings, especially from 1 Cor. 11 : 20-34 ; 10 : 16, 17, is strictly a church ordinance. In primitive times those ^who were baptized, were *' added to the church." They thus became subject to all the regulations of the church, and entitled to all its privileges, among which the observance of the Lord's supi^er was prominent. Acts 2 : 41, 42, 47 : 1 Cor. 1 : 13; 11 : 20-34. Wliile baptism, therefore, is a prerequisite to church membership, church membership is a prerequisite to the Lordh supper. We have no warrant from the New Testament for receiving to the Lord's table any who have not been baptized, and ad- mitted to membership in the church. Such being the principle of action with reference to the observance of the Lord's supper, established by the apostles, and recognized in the New Testament, we find that it was tenaciously adhered to by the Chris- tians in succeeding ages. As, on the one hand, none were baptized but such as became members of the church, so, on the other, none were received to mem- bership in the church, or admitted to its peculiar priv- ileges, without being baptized. Justin Martyr, speak- ing of the Supper, says, "This food is called by us the Eucharist ; of which it is not lawful for any to partake, but such as believe the things taught by us to be true, and have been baptized." "It is certain," says Dr. Doddridge, " that Christians in general, have always been spoken of, by the most ancient Fathers, as bapti- zed persons. And it is also certain that, as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity extends, no unbapti- zed person received the Lord's Supper." Dr. Dick in his Lectures on Theology, p. 494, says, ITS RELATIVE POSITION. 175 that baptism, " the initiating ordinance of the Christian dispensation," is "requisite to entitle a person to a seat at the table of the Lord;" and adds, "I do not know that this was ever called in question till lately, that a controversy has arisen among- the English Bap- tists, whether persons of other Christian denominations may not be occasionally admitted to the holy commun- ion with them ; and it became necessary for those who adopted the affirmative, to maintain that baptism is not a previous condition. This assertion arose out of their peculiar system, which denies the validity of infant baptism ;" — a direct admission that the piactice of the regular Baptist churches in their observance of the Lord's Supper, is conformed to primitive usage ; and that their " peculiarity," or the point in which they differ from other denominations, consists in their views of baptism, not of the communion. And until they abandon their present position, and actually introduce the practice of mixed communion, they will never be justly liable to the charge brought by Dr. Dick against some of the English Baptists, of departing or deviating from what even Pedobaptist churches maintain to be the only consistent and scriptural principle of action. The principle of extending the invitation to unite in the observance of the Lord's supper to such only as have been baptized on a credible profession of faith, and become connected with the church, is evidently, aside from the fact that it is established by the New Testament, the only rational and consistent principle. An effective motive with those who embrace the gos- pel for seeking membership in the church, and thus assuming its responsibilities, is the hope of enjoying its privileges, among which is a participation in the Lord's supper. Now were the principles of mixed commun- 176 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ion to be generally adopted, this motive would in a great measure be removed. Many who might esteem it a privilege to commune with the church, would not, even should they be baptized, choose, for a variety of reasons, to place themselves under its watchcare and discipline, or enter into a formal engagement to sustain its interests. Their influence in the cause of Christ would thus be mostly lost ; and the church would so far fail of accomplishing the object for which it was established. Mixed communion, moreover, teaches practically that baptism and church membership are of little im- portance, and may be disregarded with impunity. If those who have never been received into the fellowship of the church, nor even baptized, are to be placed on the same ground with church members, the inference drawn by most minds will be, tliat there is no necessity for assuming the badge of membership at all ; that an act which does not affect the rights or privileges of christians, nor practically their relationship, is more a matter of choice and convenience, than of obligation, and hence may be observed or neglected at pleasure. In mixed communion, moreover, it is found necessary to adopt certain rules, which, while they are really restrictive, are alike arbitrary and unscriptural. While in theory the general principle is assumed that all christians should be admitted to the Lord's table, it is almost universallij abandoned in jyractice. The church- es professedly acting upon this principle are obliged in attempting to apply it, to institute certain regulations as really restrictive as the terms of communion pre- sented in the New Testament ; while they have the disadvantage of being avowedly without scriptural au- thority. They are accommodated merely to the wishes ITS RELATIVE POSITION. 177 or convenience of those adopting' them, and are con- sequently for the most part entirely arbitrary. On what principle of obligation, for example, does a church extend the invitation of communion to those who are connected with some church usually denom- inated evangelical, whether consisting of baptized or of unbaptized members, of professed christians, or in fact of such as are merely seeking an interest in Chris- tianity ; while all, however pious, who do not come under this designation, are, if not rejected, at least not invited ? On what ground is this, and similar dis- tinctions made among those who it is admitted are real christians 1 Why is not the invitation extended to christians who may be connected with churches not termed evangelical ? and even to those who, from whatever cause, have never made any public profes- sion of religion whatever '? In fine, why is not the door opened indiscriminatel)'^ to all who either in their own estimation, or in that of others, have been con- verted, whatever be their character or conduct or rela- tions in other respects 1 We presume there is not an evangelical church practicing mixed communion, in Christendom, who act upon this unrestricted principle. And why, we ask, is it not applied ? Why are certain restrictions, which are discarded in theory, invariably adopted in practice 1 Evidently because the theory is false, and consequently impracticable. It thus becomes apparent that the adherents of mix- ed communion occupy a position of singular inconsist- ency. Under pretence that all christians should indis- criminately be admitted to the Lord's table, they reject the terms of admission established by Christ and his apostles; and then, finding it impossible to apply the principle in practice, they assume without au- 178 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. thoiity, or any claim to authority, the prerogative of instituting- certain restrictions of their own devising. The inconsistencies and difficulties in which their the- ory inevitably involves them, are a sufficient indication of its utter fallacy. i The only rational and consistent course is the one marked out in the New Testament. The scriptural terms of communion are alike simple and easy of ap- plication. As the Lord's supper is a church ordinance, and none can properly be invited to unite in celebra- ting it, but such as have been received into the fellow- ship of tlie church, it follows that whatever is a bar to church membership, is a bar to church communion. If it be the duty of a church to withdraw from every brother who walketh disoi'derly, — from such, for ex- ample, as are attached to a system of error which sets aside the ordinances, or fundamental doctrines of the gospel, — if it would be improper to receive such to membership in the church, there is obviously, for the same reason, an impropriety in inviting them to the Lord's table. To deny the correctness of this position, is to reject the first principles of gospel order, and to strike at the very root of ail visible church organiza- tion. If a visible church exist, there must of necessity- be some distinction between those who are, and those who are not its members ; and in nothing does this dis- tinction more appropriately appear than in the observ- ance of its special ordinances. Inthe light of these suggestions, it is scarcely necessary to remark that the rejection of mixed communion is no barrier to the exercise of christian charity. It indicates simply a conscientious regard for the will of Christ, and a disposition to preserve the order of his church. If the fact that all christians are not indiscriminately invited ITS RELATIVE POSITION. 179 to the Lord's table, imply a deficiency of the true christian spirit, it is a cliarge which lies equally against every evangelical denomination in Christendom. It is a fact deserving special attention, that the objections urged on this ground by Pedobaptist denominations against the usage of Baptist churches, are, — as the reader's own observation will doubtless furnish abun- dant proof, — of equal weight against their own practice. A single example will sufficiently illustrate our mean- ing. In the spring of 1841, during an interesting revival of religion with the Congregational church in the vil- lage of R., near Hartford, Conn., occurred the regular communion season of the church. The converts in number from fifty to sixty were invited to repair to the gallery, and with devout feelings to "look on" and witness the celebration of the ordinance. Now we ask. Why was this ? Why were they not admitted at once to the communion table ? Had this inquiry been proposed to the pastor of the church, he would doubt- less have replied, 'It is not that we have not fellow- ship for them as christians. It is not that we wish to make unnecessary distinctions among those who love Christ. It is not that we cannot commune with them in heaven. It is simply because their relationship to the church is not in our estimation such as will, upon principles of gospel order, entitle them to the privilege.' The reason we admit to be sufficient. We only ask that it be acknowledged to be of equal weight when urged in vindication of the practice of Baptist churches. If it be valid in the one case, it certainly is no less so in the other. And this single fact properly appreciated is sufficient to effectually silence the objections com- monly urged against the usage of Baptist churches in 180 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. their observance of the Lord's supper. We repeat it, these objections are equally applicable alike to the principles and the practice of other Christian denom- inations. But even were it otherwise, a desire to remove a groundless objection could never be a sui!icient reason for disregarding the scriptural terms of communion, and inviting to the table of the Lord those who have never been received into the fellowship of the church. The members of a Christian church, while cherishing an unfeigned love for all who evince an attachment to Christ, are at the same time, sacredly bound to keep the ordinances as they were originally delivered. Before closing our remarks respecting the design and position of baptism, we call attention very briefly to the bearing of the subject upon the decision of the question, What is the proper form of government for the churches of Christ 1 What form might we expect he would establish among them, the character and privileges and responsibility of the members being such as are indicated by their baptism 1 Not surely one which should involve an arbitrary distinction in their rights and privileges ; which should prevent them from act- ing authoritatively and decisively as members of the body, in preserving its discipline and purity, or in select- ing and applying appropriate means for its prosperity ; which should place the responsibility and the right of ITS RELATIVE POSITION. 181 deciding who may be admitted or retained as its mem- bers, of appointing its officers, in fine, of controlling its affairs in general, in the hands of a single individual, or even of a few in distinction from the many. Such a government would be repugnant to the character and spirit of Christ's kingdom, and the object to be accom- plished by a church oiganization among its members. That it is at variance with the model of a church given us in the New Testament, will be sufficiently obvious by reference to the following passages : — 1 Cor. 5 ; 2-13 ; 6 : 1-5 ; 16 : 3 ; 2 Cor. 2 : 6 ; 8 : 19 ; Acts 6 : 3-5 ; Mat. 18 : 17. The primitive churches were strictly independent bodies, possessing and exercising the power of self government ; — " they elected," says Dr. Mosheim, " their own rulers and teachers ;" "they excluded profligate and lapsed brethren, and restored them ;" "in a word, they did every thing that is proper for those in whom the supreme power of the community is vested." A company of baptized believers thus organized on terms which are adapted to bring into requisition the wisdom and energies of the whole body, exemplify the scriptural idea of a Christian church ; and under the influence of an enlightened and consistent piety they possess all the elements of true and permanent pros- perity. 16 APPENDIX. ] Pet. 3 : 21 is an interesting exposition of the manner in which baptism is connected witli salvation. Instead of teaching that it pos- sesses any intrinsic efficacy to save, it was evidently intended to guard against such an impression. The object for which it was instituted is altogether different from that of the Jewish ablutions. It affects our spiritual interests only as being "the answer of a good conscience toward God." It saves in the same general sense that every other act of obedience saves ; although from the position which it occupies, it has a prominence which most other duties have not. The apostle in the preceding context is speaking of the sufferings to which christians were subjected by their profession of the gospel. The mass of mankind were their enemies and persecutors. In this, however, there was no cause for discouragement on their part. They rather had reason, while enjoying the protection and favor of God, to consider themselves " happy," ver. 14. Noah and his family once stood alone in the world. But by obeying God they were " saved," while the rest of the human race, " being disobedient," were destroyed. The case was similar with the disciples of Christ. By being baptized in his name, and thus identifying themselves with the company of his followers, they had, while subjecting themselves to the reproach and persecution of the world, " answered a good conscience toward God;" they had obeyed their convictions of duty ; they had publicly renounced the world and its pleasures, and had signified their preference for Christ and his cause ; and it was in the exercise of the spirit that had prompted this course of action, that they hoped to be " saved." Christ had said, " If any man will come after me, let him deny him- self, and take up his cross, and follow me. Whosoever will save his life shall lose it ; but whosoever will lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." — " Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels." — " Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men. him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven." Mark 8 : 34, 35, 38 ; Mat. 10 : 32, 33. These declarations of Christ were intimately associated in the minds of the primitive Christians with submission to baptism. A willingness to be baptized was in their circumstances, for the most part, an evi- dence of sincere attachment to Christ, and therefore a " token of sal- vation ;" while an unwillingness to assume the badge of discipleship, was equivalent to being " ashamed of him before men," and hence a "token of perdition." Christ is " the author of eternal salvation to 184 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. all them that obey him ;" and acceptable obedience always supposes or implies the existence of the corresponding spirit. In this light is evi- dently to be understood the declaration, — " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." A settled unwillingness to be baptized, where the duty is clearly perceived, is in its nature inconsistent with the exercise of true and living faith. The ordinance of baptism, and the duties and reponsibilities which its proper observance involves, have presented to the mind of many an awakened sinner, an effectual barrier to his entering the kingdom of heaven. Others, — perhaps after a severe and protracted struggle with their convictions, — have, upon being brought to a full and hearty consent or willingness to take upon them- selves the appointed badge of discipleship, obtained in the exercise of this feeling, evidence of forgiveness. Such cases are sufficient to illus- trate the connexion of salvation with baptism as the answer of a good conscience toward God. And were the ordinance at the present day, generally viewed in the same light as it was in primitive times, a wil- lingness to be baptized, and the evidence of faith, would doubtless in most cases, be inseparable. B. Acts 2 : 38 evidently imports that repentance and baptism alike have reference to, or more specifically, a direction toward " the re- mission of sins;" but not necessarily in the same sense. The remis- sion of sins is the reason or the occasion that both are required ; but in what particular aspects it is so with respect to each, must be deter- mined by reference to the distinctive nature and province of each. Thus in Rom. 6: 10, 11, Christ and the believer are represented as alike dying unto sin ; i. e., sin was the occasion of death on the part of both ; — it was on account of sin that both died ; but it will not surely be contended that both died to sin in the same sense. According to the representation of Acts 2 : 38, repentance may be considered the condition on which remission is actually conferred ; baptism, the means by which it is manifested and professed. Baptism attaches in a manner to the public character what had by repentance become identified with the private experience. The penitent is for- given in the sight of God ; the baptized person is forgiven in the esti- mation of his fellows ; he stands before the world in a new character, as one divested of that which formerly excluded him from the divine favor. (Compare the note on page 27.) In the light of these suggestions we see the reason that baptism is presented as a condition of '' receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit." The miraculous effusion of the Spirit was designed as a public proof of the divine origin of Christianity, and of the divine presence in the Christian church. To serve this purpose most effectually it was ne- cessary that it should ordinarily be restricted to such as by being bap- tized had acknowledged themselves Christians, and who, of course, were so regarded by the world. In being baptized they professed that as Christians their sins were forgiven, i. e., that they were reconciled to God, were in friendship with him, were the objects of his favor. And the descent of the Spirit was a divine attestation of the truth of this profession. It was proof to the world that the privileges and effects which in baptism were ascribed to Christianity, were real; that as Christ had sent forth his disciples to *' preach repentance and re- APPENDIX. 185 mission of sins in his name among all nations," it was indeed by be- lieving in his name that " the remission of sins" was to be obtained. Hence the declaration, " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, unto the remission of sins; and ye shall re- ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost." c. The meaning of the phrase, " the baptism of the Holy Sjnril"- is evidently to be determined by the same process that we ascertain the import of other figures used in the Scriptures with reference to the impartation and enjoyment of the Spirit's influences. In determining the force of the figure employed Acts 2: 4, for example, we do not compare it with other figures, as that of drinking, or of anointing, or of pouring, see 1 Cor. 12 : 1.3 ; 1 John 2 : 20, 27 ; Isa. 44 : 3, and gra- tuitously infer that they are synonymous, simply because they relate to the same general facts. But we inquire, What does the term used literally signify ? and translating the passage, " And they were all filled v^'ith the Holy Spirit," we at once perceive that the figure em- ployed is that oi filling. By a process precisely similar we may arrive at a knowledge of the import of the figure employed Acts 1 : 5. We naturally inquire, not how many passages represent the impartation or reception of the Spirit, as a filling, or an anointing, or a drinking, or a shedding, or an out- pouring : — such an examination is as inappropriate and as useless here, as in the case just presented. But we in([uire. What is the literal meaning of the word baptize ; and ascertaining that it properly signi- fies to immerse, we translate the passage, " Ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit." This is decisive in showing that the figure employ- ed is that of an immersion; especially as the construction is such as to correspond only with the idea of immersion. " The word BaTrri^en (baptizein)" siys Dr. Campbell, " is always construed suitably to this meaning (immersion) ; thus it is, in vda-n, (in water), h ru 'lopdavri, (in the Jordan) ; and we may addii' Ylvev^aTi ayioy, (in the Holy Spirit). Were the expression, however, ' tcith the Holy Spirit,' it would not conflict with the idea of immersion. It v/ould simply indicate that the Spirit is, in distinction from other things, .brought into requisition in effecting the immersion. The only objection, we believe, that is urged directly against the conclusion at which we have thus arrived, is that arising from the assumption that the figure of an immersion in relation to the influences of the Holy Spirit, is unnatural. This objection, however, were it founded in fact, would by no means be a sufficient reason for rejecting the figure, and substituting one which the simple import of the lan- guage employed will not warrant. Nor should we forget that what may seem to us unnatural, may possibly not be so in reality. The sacred writei's may have had reasons for the use of certain figures and phrases, which do not occur to our minds ; or which from our peculiar habits of thought and expression, we may not be in a condition fully to appreciate. But, independently of these suggestions, there is not in the nature of the case, the slightest ground for the objection. It arises, we ima- gine, chiefly from a failure to apprehend or appreciate the exact na- ture and force of the figure employed. The precise representation we 16* 186 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. regard to be this, — The Holy Spirit is conceived of as coming upon the subject in such measure that he is immersed, overwhelmed, en- compassed. The word baptize in this case expresses the simple fact of an immersion. The manner in which it is efTected is supplied by the mind, and corresponds, of course, with its ordinary conceptions respecting the nature and operation of the Spirit's influences.* Thus understood the figure is not merely not unnatural ; it is pecu- liarly expressive and forcible. It is exactly adapted to the purpose for which it was obviously introduced, viz., to express the abundance or cojnotis7iess with which the Spirit should be bestowed on the disci- ples subsequently to the ascension of Christ. They had already been made partakei's of the Spirit. His influence had been enjoyed in the renovation of their hearts. But they had the promise that in time to come, they should be baptized with it. This promise was fulfilled, as appears from Acts 1 : 5 ; 2 : 1-4 ; 11 : 15, IG, at the season of Pen- tecost, when " there came suddenly a sound from heaven, as of a rush- ing mighty wind ; and it filled all the house where they were sitting." " And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." An extraor- dinary and invisible influence, like a mighty wind, seemed to rush in upon them, and pervade the entire atmosphere ; so that they became as if completely immersed in it. The Spirit resting upon them, appeared to encircle them with his influence. The figure of an immersion in the passages Acts 1:5; Mat. 3: 11 ; etc., was evidently suggested by the use of immersion in water as the initiatory rite of the gospel. And it is this fact in part that gives it its peculiar interest and lorce. John immersed the people in water: this, in one view, affected simply the body; it was, at most, merely a pro- fession of an interest in spiritual things. But an immersion in the in- fluences of the Holy Spirit shed upon them, would extend in its effects to the soul ; it would not be a mere symbol ; but, involving a real effi- cacious agency, it would be an actual realization of the blessings of the kingdom of God. * The use of ffaTrH^w, as thus stated, corresponds, it will be perceiv- ed, precisely with that of the English term, to immerse. Had the command instituting the rite of baptism, been given in the English language, in the use of the word " immerse," it w^ould have been uni- versally understood as enjoining the sjiecific act of putting beneath the surface of the water. And yet with a slight variation, not so much in the meaning of the term, as in the application that is made of it, we speak familiarly, and with perfect propriety, of an object that is inun- dated or covered with a fluid, as being immersed. The usage with respect to the Greek term PanTi^o} appears to have been in these partic- ulars precisely similar. Even President Beecher admits that an object may be properly baptized, in accordance to what he represents as " the original and primitive meaning of the word," that is, it may be brought into a state where it is " enveloped or surrounded by a fluid," by the process of '^pouring the fluid copiously over" it, as well as by other methods. No one surely adopting this position, will contend that there is any thing either unnatural or inappropriate in the use of the figure of a baptism, — i. e,, a being "surrounded," "enveloped," immersed, — to express the result of the copious outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the time of Pentecost. APPENDIX. 187 The position assumed, — inconsiderately, we are constrained to be- lieve, — by Mr. Beecher and others, that the figure of an immersion in relation to spiritual influences and exercises, does not accord with the ordinary conceptions of the human mind, finds a sufficient refutation in the familiar use of expressions like the following ; — " absorbed in communion with God ;" — " sinking into his will ;" — " swallowed up in his love ;" — " overwhelmed with a sense of divine things." Exam- ples more exactly in point, however, are found in a class of expressions much in use among certain denominations of Christians, in whose viev?s of religious experience the baptism of the Spirit, holds a con- . spicuous place. How often in listening to their peiitions do we hear language like this, — " Let thy Holy Spirit descend upon us in copious effusions ; shed it upon us abundantly ; yea, baptize us with his sacred influences." — " Let thy sensible prcsence_/i// all the place, per- vade the entire assembly ; may we feel it within us and around us; may the very atmosphere be that of heaven." — " Let thy salvation roll in upon us like a flood; let it come like a mighty torrent ; may wave after wave roll over us ; deluge the entire assembly with thy glory; may we be inundated with the influences of thy Holy Spirit." These expressions, whatever may be thought of them in other respects, are de- cisive in showing hnw naturally the mind in expressing a desire for a large measure of divine influence, resorts to the figure of an immersion or overwhelming. But it may be interesting to inquire, in what light the baptism of the Spirit was understood by the ancient Fathers of the Christian church. They variously represent its object as being to enlighten, to purify, to furnish with spiritual gifts, &c. But the baptism itself they describe as an immersion or overwhelming in the influences of the Spirit. This appears in the very construction which they adopt. In contrast with being baptized in water, or in the waters, (see notes, p. 59), they customarily speak of being baptized m the Holy Spirit. Origen, for example, speaking of Christians, and alluding to 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2, says, " We would not have you ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers have passed through Jordan, and have all been baptized into Jesus, in the Spirit and in the river." Any translation of this passage which should not express immersion, or the idea of being baptized in the Spirit, would carry with it its own refutation.* But passages are not infrequent in the writings of the Fathers in which they directly explain the baptism of the Spirit as being an im- mersion in the Spirit. Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the descent of the Spirit at the sea- son of Pentecost, says, " He descended that he might invest with his influence — that he might baptize the apostles. For the Lord says, ' But ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence .' The grace was not in part; the influence was in full perfection. For as he who goes into the water and is baptized (immersed), is encom- passed on all sides by the waters ; so were they completely baptized (immersed) by the Spirit. The water envelops externally ; but the Spirit baptizes (immerses, envelops) also, and that perfectly, the soul within." — " But that the plenitude of so great grace descending might not escape unnoticed, there came a sound as a signal from heaven. * The passage, moreover, is decisive in showing that immersion was the uniform practice of the primitive Christians. 188 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ' And suddenly there was a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,' indicating the presence (of the Spirit)." — '' ' And it filled all the house where they were sitting.' The house became the reservoir of the spiritual water ; the disciples were sitting within, and the whole house was filled. They were therefore completely baptized (immersed), according to the promise." Cat. 17, § 8. Chrysostom, in his commentary on Mat. 3: 11, represents the phrase, " He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit," as expressing the fact that Christians should be '' furnished abwidantly" with the gifts of the Spirit. And after giving an extended list of the spiritual bless- ings connected with the gospel dispensation, he adds, " He enigmati- cally expresses all of these in saying, ' He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit,' showing by this figure of speech, the abundance of the grace conferred. For he does not say, ' He shall grant you the Holy Spirit,' but, ' He shall bajytize (immerse) you in the Holy Spirit ;' and by the additional mention of fire, he indicates the vehemence and irre- sistibility of the grace." Accordingto the representation of Basil, (De Baptismo, Lib. 1, Cap. 2), one who is " baptized (immersed) in the Holy Spirit," and in that fire which is the source of spiritual light, the word of God, is in a con- dition to be fully subjected to their influence, and to become trans- formed to their nature, that is, to become enlightened and purified ; '\just as wool baptized (immersed) in dye is changed in respect to its color;" or " as iron baptized (immcTsei) in fire excited by blowing, is rendered more susceptible of purification, and becomes not only lumin- ous, but soft and flexible, and can more easily be wrought under the hand of the artificer. Theophylact, commenting on Mat. 3 : 11, says " ' He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit,' that is, he shall inundate yon abundantly with the gifts of the Spirit." These examples will surely suffice to explain in what sense " the figure of speech," the baptism of the Holy Spirit, was understood by the early Christians. They show clearly why it is that in the ancient versions of the New Testament, we have in such passages as Acts 1 ; 5 ; Mat. 3: 11, the translation, " Ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit." " I indeed immerse you in water, — but — he shall immerse you in the Holy Spirit." They are, moi-eover, equally interesting aa establishing beyond all ground of dispute the fact, that the ancient Greek Fathers customarily used the word /?a7rr(fco (baptize), when alluding to Christian baptism, in the specific sense to immerse. We see not how it is possible in the light of these examples to hesitate as to the meaning attached to it by the Christian writers of the first cen- turies, D. Some of the lexicons after giving the simple, proper definition of /Sairrt'^tj, viz., to immerse, to dip, to submerge, &c., append, as a remote sense, " to wash," or more specifically, "to bathe," to wash by bathing or immersion. Were it conceded, hoAvever, that this definition is cor- rect, it would by no means warrant the conclusion, that the simple termused absolutely is adapted to express this idea. Tlie occurrence of a single example in which in some peculiar connexion, it was in the opinion of a lexicographer, used to denote washing, would be deemed APPENDIX. 189 by him a sufficient reason for giving the sense, to wash, in the list of its definitions. We presume no one familiar with the principles on which lexicons are usually constructed, will dispute the correctness of this remark.* In many of the lexicons, however, the definition, to wash, is entirely omitted; and evidently, on the ground that washing is in reality only an effect of the act designated, and merely implied, — i. e., under certain circumstances, — in its performance. A careful ex- amination of the very few passages in which the sense, to wash, has been assigned to the term, has fully shown that the idea of washing is deducible, rather from attending circumstances, than from the word itself; and that there is no reason, even in these special instances, for departing from its original, proper signification, to immerse or dip. The Jews, for example, were required by the Mosaic law, in certain cases, — and the requisition was subsequently extended by the Jewish "elders," to cases not originally specified, — to "bathe themselves in water,'' and to " jnit into loater,'' their utensils, whether they were vessels of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, or any other vessel where- in work was done." Lev. 11: 32; 17: 15; etc. From Maimonides, the celebrated Jewish Rabbi of the twelfth century, who prepared with great care a compendium of the written traditions of the Jews, we learn, that these regulations were understood by them, — and very nat- urally indeed, — as referring specifically to immersion, in distinction from a simple washing. Hence it is said, " Wherever in the law, washing of the flesh, or of clothes, is mentioned, it means nothing else than the imtnersion of the whole body in a bath." "In a bath," it is further stated, " containing forty seahs of water, — every defiled man," except in certain special cases, — "■immerses himself; and in it they immerse all unclean vessels." The requisition to immerse vessels be- fore using them, extended not only to those "bought of the Gentiles," but also to those manufactured by Jews — "care is to be taken about them, lo ! these must be immersed.'' Particular directions are given respecting the immersion of cups, pots, kettles, glass and molten ves- sels, couches, &.C. " A bed that is wholly defiled, if one immerses it, part by part, it is pure." Their utensils or persons were thus, as occasion required, baptized, i. e., immersed. As an effect of this, they were washed or cleansed. The former is related to the latter, as means to a result ; and although in certain connexions allusion may be made to the means for the sake of indicating the result, it is surely as unnecessary, as it is inconsistent witir correct principles of interpretation, to confound the two, and contend that the terms by which they are expressed, are synonymous. " The bath," says Jahn, in his Biblical Archaeology, " was always * An apposite illustration is furnished in the case of the English word dip. Among the definitions given in Webster's Dictionary, we find, " to moisten, to wet.'' And yet no one acquainted with the Eng- lish language will pretend, that to dip an object, is simply to moisten or wet it. "Nor would it follow, could examples be adduced in which in certain connexions language expressive of baptizing or immersing one's self in water, were used to denote washing, that to be baptized or immersed, is simply to be washed ; or that a command to baptize or immerse an object, could be fulfilled by simply washing it irrespect- ively of mode. 190 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. very agreeable to the inhabitants of the East ; and it is not surprising that it should have been so, since it is not only cooling and refreshing, but is absolutely necessary to secure a decent degree ofcleanliness in a climate where there is so much exposure to dust." Bathing was also a common practice among the Greeiis and Romans. For this purpose, ia addition to their numerous public baths, which were " furnished with various accommodations for convenience and pleasure," and which " commonly contained several separate rooms," families provided themselves, — as is the case in many oriental countries at the present day, — with private baths. The bath in use among the Jews is de- scribed as containing "forty seahs of water," or about a hundred gal- lons ; somewhat larger than the portable bath commonly used in this country. The cases in which the use of the bath was required by the Jewish traditions, were exceedingly numerous. Indeed, frequent bathing was unavoidable in a compliance simply with the requisitions of the law, "This part of the law," says Dr. Scott, "the Jews might observe at present : but it is said, that they do not think themselves bound by it; [as is also the case with respect to the oli'ering of sacrifi- ces, and other rites,] now they have no temple, and live in other lands ; as it had reference to the sanctuary of God, and the holy land." In many cases, however, ceremonies of ablution for purposes of ceremo- nial purification, are still scrupulously observed. A numerous Jewish sect living in Abyssinia, are reported as performing a complete ablu- tion whenever they "come from market, or any public place, where they may have touched any one of a sect different from their own, es- teeming all such unclean." How strikingly does this accord with what we know of the spirit and practice of the ancient Jews who " held the traditions of the elders." See Mark T : 1-S ; Luke 11 : 37—1-2. Indeed, it is related of the Pharisees, that " if they but touched the garments of the common people, they were defiled, and needed immersion."* It will be particularly noticed that what their traditions represent as necessary in such cases, was immersion. This was the thing required; not simply a washing, but in distinction from this, an immersion, expressed by an appropriate term, tavul. We should ac- cordingly naturally anticipate that whenever occasion might occur for expressing this term, or the transaction designated by it, in Greek, some word would be selected which would also denote immersion. Any exam|)les, therefore, in which /JoTrn'^w may be so used, are direct proof that it means to immerse, immersion is not only in such cases,"^ in all respects a suitable meaning; it is, for reasons independent of the ' customary, established import of the term, the most natural and proba- -^ ble sense. Why should a ceremony be designated exj)ressly and famil- iarly "immersion," in one language, and not a term of similar import • be employed to express it in another ? / E. The word baptism is not unfrequently in its technical acceptation, applied by the Christian Fathers to various things which they con- ceived miL':ht answer the same purpose with baptism ; which were in design am! effect baptism. The same usage is also extended to other terms descriptive of religious ceremonies. The application of Christ's * See Maimonides quoted by Dr. Giil on Mark vii. APPENDIX. 191 atonement, for example, is styled the "sprmMn^o/ Wood,-" his blood is designated " the blood of sjirinkling ;" not as being such in form, or in reality, but merely as answering a similar purpose. As it would be idle to assume that the word ^pavna-iiSg (rantismos) does not properly mean sprinkling, because there is in these instances allusion to the object, rather than to the act of sprinkling ; it is obviously no less so, to contend that the term baptism was not regarded by the Fathers as signifying immersion, because they frequently used it in a technical manner to indicate the object, rather than the act of Christian baptism. The fallacy of the arguments by which Mr. Beecher attempts to prove that the Fathers used the word Panrl^o) in the sense to jnirify, rather than to immerse, is sufficiently evident from the simple fact, that the same proof might be adduced to show that, they regarded it as meaning to regenerate, or to illuminate, or to initiate, or to remit sins. These terms are applied by them as directly and as familiarly, and with as great a variety of construction to baptism, as any term de- noting purification. They were each, as occasion recjuired, employed to express what baptism, that is, the rite so called, was conceived to be in its nature and effects. The use thus made of them, however, is no proof, — it does not even create a presumption, that they express what was considered to be the proper meanitig of the word fiawTi^io: and it is, in the nature of the case, impossible that precisely the same kind of facts should prove that it was used in the sense, to purify. The usage to which allusion is here had, exhibits in a striking light the folly of applying to the Fathers to ascertain the nature and import of baptism as an ordinance of the gospel. The fact that they speak of it as regeneration, or illumination, or remission, or salvation, does not prove that these terms are in this case appropriately applied. Nor does the fact that they represent it as a purification, show that it is such in reality, or was so regarded by Christ and his apostles. The truth is none of these terms are adapted to designate a gospel ordinance. One who is baptized is not " regenerated.'^ Nor for the same reason is he purified. Baptism is not " the putting away the filth of the flesh." It is not a purification even in a ceremonial respect ; much less in any sense recognized by the gospel. Words meaning to purify as applied to the rites of religion, had always been understood to indicate what they properly signified. The Jewish rites did not, it is true, " take away sin as pertaining to the con- science." But they were universally regarded as being, in a ceremo- nial or legal sense, actual purifications ; and it toas only as they were so regarded, that they were so desig7iated. This fact is one which Mr. Beecher seems to have entirely overlooked. And it is alone suffi- cient, when duly considered, to show the fallacy of his whole theory. Had Christ employed for the ordinance of baptism, not in some con- nexion where special reference was made to its symbolical import, but in instituting it, and as its very enacting term, a word meaning to pu- rify, he would thereby have designated it as a rite of purification. The requisition would have been that those who embraced the gospel, should, upon entering the church, he purified. And as this could not well refer simply to a ceremonial purification, a very natural inference would have been, that the reference was to a purification affecting the moral state or character. And the doctrine of baptismal purification would, at least with most minds, have found a sufficient support in the very name of the ordinance, — in the simple term of enactment — be purified. 192 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. That this would have been the unavoidable result, is sufficiently manifest in the conclusions to which Mr. Beecher's theory has con- ducted himself. He assumes that to baptize is to purify. This leads at once to the position that " baptism," and " the remission of sins," are " synonymous" and " interchangable" expressions. And it is on this identical assumption that a great portion of his argument drawn from the Fathers for determining the meaning of /JoTrri^o), is founded. Nor does he conline this usage to the Fathers, He represents it as extending equally to the New Testament. Referring to Acts 22: IG, he says, " Arise, and he purified or expiated is the import of the com- mand," Mat. 2S : 19, he expresses thus, "Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, purifying them (that is, remitting, to them that repent and believe, their sins), into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In the same connexion he observes, " I will con- clude this general view by noticing its bearings on a question relating to the commission to baptize. It is this. Wliy was there a commis- sion given to baptize in Matthew and Mark, and none in Luke and John ? This is a question for those to answer who deny the correct- ness of the view that I have given — for on this view it presents no difficulty at all. The reply is, that a commission to baptize is in fact a' commission to purify, that is, a commission to remit sins ; and in Luke and John, the disciples do receive a commission to remit sins. Luke 24 : 47, 4S — ' That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, — and ye are witnesses of these things,' that is, that repentance and baptism should be preached in his name among all nations — for according to Zonarus and the Fathers, baptism is the forgiveness of sins by water and the Spirit." Here we see, at a glance, the tendency of Mr. Beecher's theory, and the nature of the proof on which he relies to support it. It is in vain that he subsequently remarks, that remission of sins is "through the death of Clirist," and that baptism is the rite by which it is " shadowed forth and commemorated." '' Baptism," and "remission of sins," are with him synonymous and interchangable expressions. The command to baptize, in the commission, is a command to " remit si7is." The preaching of repentance and remission of sins in the name of Christ, is the preaching of repentance and baptism in his name ; "/br baptism is according to Zonarus and the Fathers, the forgiveness of sins by water and the Spirit." No one surely holding evangelical sentiments could ever have been tempted to employ such language, except in defence of a false and tinscriptural theory. Does any evangelical Christian believe that bap- tism, as the term is used in the New Testament, means what Zonarus, alluding to its technical use, represents as having been in his time, (the twelfth century,) — not, as Mr. Beecher would have us believe, the meaning of the ivord, but, as the reader will readily perceive, — tlie na- ture or province of the rite which it designated, to wit, " the forgive- ness of sins by water and the Spirit .'"* Does lie believe that ChriJt in * That Zonarus is simply giving a description of the rite of baptism, or explaining what, in the estimation of his cotemporaries, who ascribed to it a saving efficacy, it was in its nature and uses, would seem to be placed beyond all dispute by the fact, that he goes on to describe it still further, as " the loosing of the bond granted from love to man," " tlie voluntary arrangement of a second life toward God," " the re- APPENDIX. 193 his final commission commanded his disciples to go and leach all na- tions, purifying them, that is, remitting their sins ? Can he persuade himself that he is commanded to '' arise and be purified or expiated" (in baptism) "? So far is this from being true, there is nothing like purification in any way involved in baptism. Baptism, it is true, is a symbol of the washing away of sin. But any thing like an actual puri- fication, expressed or implied, is altogether foreign to the ordinance. It accordingly follows that a term expressive of purification would not have been, in the nature of the case, adapted to express the command. Where there is no purification in fact, none can be expressed, none can be required. We do not, of course, refer to language which may be used in a figurative sense to indicate the symbolical import of the rite, but to the use of terms in their plain, literal acceptation, to ex- press the thi7ig required, or to be performed. In such a case, we repeat, where there is no purification in fact, none can be expressed or required. But not only is there nothing like purification connected with the import of the word baptism as used in the New Testament; this was not, as we have before stated, the meaning attached to it by the Fa- thers. While, on the one hand, believing that baptism was efficacious in changing the moral state and character of its subjects, they have applied to it, — that is, to the rite, — a variety of appellations indicative ofthisfact; as regeneration, remission, purification, salvation, etc. ; it is equally clear, on the other hand, that they regarded the word bap- tize as meaning specifically to immerse. This Mr. Beecher, adhering to his own principles of interpretation, would be obliged to admit. He maintains (§ 1,) that the meaning of the word as used with refer- ence to Christian baptism, cannot in the nature of the case, be at the same time " botli generic and specific ;" and that consequently "whichever way we decide as it regards its import, we ought to be uniform in its use as applied to the rite of baptism ;" that " as applied to a given rite it has not two or many meanings, but one, and to that one we should in all cases adhere." Now let it be borne in mind, that Mr. Beecher himself acknowledges that in some instances, ffairri^ia is actually and " plainly" used by the Fathers in the specific sense to immerse. It might easily be shown by a direct appeal to examples equally decisive with those which he has adduced, that they habitu- ally used it in this sense. Indeed, we think no one can candidly ex- amine even the few examples given in the preceding pages, without being convinced that they regarded this as the meaning, the specific meaning of the word. We have then, and that too, on Mr. Beecher's leasing of the soul for that which is better," &c. A much more ap- propriate reference on the part of Mr. Beecher, would have been to 1 Pet. 3: 21, where baptism is described as " the answer of a good con- science toward God." This would have been in truth a scriptural statement of the nature and design of the ordinance. The language of Zonarus is not even this. Much less can it be regarded as a simple definition of the word. No mere word in any language, ancient or modern, could possibly, without involving a contradiction, be thus de- fined. And yet this may be regarded as a fair specimen of the kind of proof on which Mr. Beecher mainly relies to establish the meaning of the word /?ajrrif a>, as used by the Fathers. 17 194 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. own principles, decisive proof, that the Fathers did not consider the meaning of /JaTTTifu as being to purify, but, on the contrary, /o immerse. A single passage in Gregory Nazianzen could hardly fail in itself to lead to this conclusion. He gives (Oratio -10) a formal statement of what was regarded as the mystical import or significancy of various names or appellations by which the initiatory rite of Christianity was then designated. One appellation, for example, indicated that it was a source of divine illumination ; another, that it was a means o( washing away sin, &c. ; while the name baptism (immersion) was indicative of burial — it indicated that as the subject was buried in the water, there was at the same time a burial of his sins ; or, in the language of Chrysostom, that " the old man was buried," (see page 3G) ; in a word, that there was a mystical burial to answer to the burial or immersion of the body in the water ; just as there was a mystical washing, or the washing away of sin, to answer to the external washing or bathing (Xourpdi/), (see page 07). This is direct proof that while the Fathers designated the rite by different appellations, as illumination, regenera- tion, purification, etc., they did not imagine that these expressed the meaning of the word baptism ; this was in fact a distinct appellation, having its own appropriate and specific meaning ; which was not puri- fication, but as distinguished from this, a meaning identified with the idea oi burial or immersion in the water. Indeed, the idea of purifi- cation, implied in the washing away of sin, is, like that of illumina- tion, etc., represented by Gregory as being associated with the rite through the medium of an entirely different term. F. The phrase " the kingdom of God," or "the kingdom of heaven," as employed by the sacred writers, usually denotes the kingdom of the promised Messiah. This in its realization is the kingdom of Christ, extending alike to heaven and earth, and embracing as its members all who are united to him in the covenant of grace. Mat. 28 : 18 ; Phil. 2: 9, 10; Eph. 1 ; 10; 3: 1-5. The phrase, however, as it frequently refers expressly to the king- dom of Christ in its future or heavenly state, see Mark 9 : 47 ; 2 Thess. 1 : 5, is, in many, perhaps in most of the passages in which it occurs in the New Testament, applied specifically to his kingdom as established on earth ; which the apostle describes as being '' not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Rom. 14: 17. See also Mat. 12: 28; 13: 33; Mark 12: 34; etc. With this application the phrase is evidently to be taken in Mat. 18 : 1-4 ; Mark 10 : 14, l."). The disciples had been disputing among themselves as to who should have the pre-eminence ; comp. Mark 8 : 33-37 ; Mat. 18 ; 1-6 ; and they came to Jesus with the inquiry, " Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven .'" The reference is obvi- ously, not to the heavenly state, but to the distinctions and orivileges which they conceived were to be enjoyed in the kingdom of their Master on earth. Our Lord accordingly, referring to the subjects of his reign, replies, " Whosoever shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven;" that is, shall be regarded as my most honored and favored servant. He then proceeds to speak of the light in which the members of his kingdom should be APPENDIX. 195 viewed, the manner in which they should be treated, and the feelings which they should cherish toward each other. Mat. 18 : 5, 6 ; Mark 9: 3G, 37 ; Luke 9 ; 48. Compare also Mat. 20 : 2-5-27. In ver. She presents the qualifications necessary for membership in his kingdom. Compare the language with that of Luke 16 : 16 ; — "The law and the prophets were until John ; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every ra^npresseth into it. Mat. 23 : 13, — " Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men ; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." See also Mark 12: 34; Col. 1 : 13. That which prevented the scribes and Pharisees from " entering" the kingdom, was their pride, their self- exaltation, their unbelief, comp. Mat. 23: 5-14; Jonn 5: 49 ; while those who in childlike submission and humility, "■' believed" the gos- pel, " entered it before them," Mat. 21 : 31, 32 ; — a striking illustration of the truth of the declaration, " Except ye be co7iverted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven :" that is, it is only on these conditions that membership in it can be attain- ed; that its peculiar privileges can be enjoyed. G. From various passages in the New Testament it appears that in the minds of the primitive Christians spiritual cleansing and regeneration were intimately associated. Both were involved in a likeness to God, 1 John 2: 29; 3: 3, 9; 5: 18. Both were effected under the influ- ence of the truth, 1 Pet. 1 : 22, 23. And in Tit. 3 : .5, the change which they indicate is represented as being in reality " the washing of regeneration." This is further described in Eph. 5: 26, as ''the washing of water f not an external washing; but a washing, which, like regeneration, is " by the word," through the agency of God. Comp. Jas. 1 : 18 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 23. In accordance with this same mode of representation our Lord, speaking of his disciples as united to him, says, " Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken to you." John 15 : 3. " Ye are clean, hut not all." " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me." John 13: 8, 10. It thus appears that in the style of the New Testament one who is unregenerated'ism a state oi movaX pollution ; and it is this pollution that renders regeneration necessary. Hence our Lord, (John 3 : 5), in showing Nicodemus that it is requisite that all who enter the kingdom of God should be born again, very naturally uses language which is adapted to suggest the reason or occasion for this requisition. He in- timates that it is no arbitrary requirement, like a second physical birth : that which gives occasion for it is man's inherent depravity or pollution: he must consequently be born, not " of the flesh," but of that by which his pollution may be washed away, in metaphorical lan- guage " of water ;" and, for the purpose of indicating still more clearly that the reference is< exclusively to the mind, it is added, " and of the Spirit ;" or briefly, " of water and Spirit," i^ vSaroi ^ai nvevjiaros ; of that by which the soul, not the body, may be changed, that is, washed from its sins, and assimilated to the character of God. Hence it is added, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit;" and, " Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor 196 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. whither it goeth ; so is every one that is born of the Spirit" i. e., " born again." The phrase " born again" in ver. 7 is evidently used to denote what is meant in ver. .'), by being "born of water and Spirit;" and yet in ver. 8 it is exchanged for the simple expression, " born of the Spirit ;" — as if it had been said, 'To be '' born again" is to be born, not indeed of the flesh, but "of water and Spirit," i. e,, it is to be " born of the Spirit," through whose agency the soul is freed from its pollution, and renewed in holiness ;' — a change which is described in Tit. 3:5, as the " washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit.'' Examples in which terms or phrases are used with a figurative ap- plication, which except for the circumstances under which they were uttered, or the nature of the subject to which they relate, would natu- rally be taken in their literal acceptation, are of frequent occurrence in the discourses of Christ ; and we know that not unfrequently the literal sense was the one actually attached to them by those whom he addressed. See John 4: 10, 11 ; 13: S, 9, where the identical term or figure under examination, is employed. See also John 7: 37-39; 6: 51-60; 2: 9-11 ; 11: 11-13; Mat. 16: 6-12; Eph. 5 : 26 ; etc. The position that there is in John 3 : 5, allusion to Christian bap- tism, is, we think, liable to insuperable objections, which, however, our limits will not allow us particularly to notice. Suffice it to say, that the circumstances under which the language is introduced, the object for which it is apparently used, the nature of the subject under discussion, the form of the expression, its relation to the context, a comparison of verses 3, 5, 7 and 8, as well as the analogy of parallel passages, as Mat. 5: 19,20; 18: 3, 4; Mark 10: 15; etc."^ all, seem to forbid the supposition. But even were we to admit that the reference is to baptism, and that the phrase " the kingdom of God," is to be taken in such a sense as to include specifically the visible church, the admission would not affect the argument which we have derived from the passage in refutation of the principles of pedobaptism. It would still be obvious that no one can properly be recognized as a member of Christ's kingdom until he gives evidence that he is " born again," and that, too, " of the Spirit." The position that natural generation, or being " born of the flesh," is insufficient to membership, would be unaffected. And to introduce into the visible church of Christ, those who have never been born of the Spirit, and who lo not, consequently, belong to his kingdom, to apply the rite of public recognition to those who are not by virtue of a new and spiritual birth, in reality entitled to membership, would be equally inconsistent and presumptuous, as in case it were admitted that the being born of water denotes, not baptism, but " the washing of re- generation," — the passage being regarded as parallel with Tit. 3 : 5. H. It may be expected, perhaps, that in an examination of the passages in the New Testament which relate to the principles of pedobaptism, allusion should be made to 1 Cor. 7: 14; — "For the unbelieving hus- band is sanctified in(ti/) the wife ; and the unbelieving wife is sancti- fied in the husband: otherwise your children were unclean; but now they are holy." Before proceeding to state what we consider to be the true sense of this passage, we observe, that if the interpretation usually APPENDIX. 197 claimed for it by Pedobaptists, be correct, it is in more respects than one a direct refutation of the fundamental principles of their system. 1. The passage expressly teaches that the christian is not authorized by virtue of his relation to Abraham or to the Christian church, to con- sider his children "holy." Their holiness, as here stated, depends, not on the faith or privileges or relationship of the believing parent; but upon the " sanctification" of the unbelieving. Without this they would be " unclean," — " cut off," adds Mr. Hall, "from the common- wealth of Christ's church, and debarred from the seal of the covenant." But is this the position that Pedobaptists really intend to assume ? Do they wish to be understood as maintaining that both of the parents must be in a sense Christians, or in some undefinable manner " sanctifi- ed," as the only condition on which the children can be entitled to the privileges of the covenant of circumcision ? that, in other words, the simple fact of relationship to Abraham by faith on the part of a chris- tian parent, does not in itself give his oflspring a right to baptism and church membership. If so, the ground on which pedobaptism is mainly defended, is, of course, abandoned. If not, their claim to this passage as furnishing an argument for its support, must be relinquish- ed. We call attention particularly to the fact that according to the representation of this passage, the holiness ofthe children depends no<, as pedobaptism assumes, on the character or relations of the believing parent, but on the circumstance that the unbelieving parent is sancti- fied. But 2. On the admission that this '' holiness" or " sanctification," pos- sessed on the condition stated, involves a right to certain special reli- gious privileges, it is perfectly obvious that baptism is not included among the privileges involved ; that, in fact, the requisite title to them is enjoyed in cases where baptism would be manifestly improper. Pedo- baptism assumes that the children of Christians, although unbelievers, are in a jieculiar sense " holy," and therefore, in distinction from other unbelievers, entitled to baptism. The apostle, however, — that is, on the supposition that the Pedobaptist exposition of the passage be correct, — takes a position directly the opposite ; he teaches that this "holiness" or "sanctification" is not peculiar to them; that it extends equally to a relation of life where it is admitted it has no con- nexion with qualifications for baptism. It is, of course, involved, that if the children of christians are baptized, it must be for some other reason than simply that they are " holy" or "sanctified;" in a word, that the assumption on which theii right to baptism is predicated, is without foundation. If a mere assumption in matters affecting the ordinances of the gospel, might, under any circumstances, be excused, there certainly can be no ground for an excuse in cases in which, like the present, there is direct scriptural proof that the assumption is utterly groundless. The true interpretation of this passage depends mainly, we imagine, on a right decision of the question, whether the apostle intends to assert, that upon the conversion of one of the parties in a marriage connexion, some influence is exerted on the one yet unconverted, by which the latter becomes sanctified ; and that on this ground it is suit- able that they should continue together ; while without this, not only might a separation properly take place, but their children would be 17* 198 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. uncleaii. Against this position we think there are insuperable objec- tions. 1. It seems not to accord with the doctrine of the gospel respect- ing the sacredness and perpetuity of the marriage connexion. It can hardly be supposed that the apostle, after referring expressly to the teaching of Christ upon this point, in verses 10 and 11, should repre- sent the propriety of the parties continuing together, as depending, not on the essential nature of the relation existing between them ; not on the ground, that the connexion having once been formed, they should continue in the enjoyment of it, but on the mere circuinstance that the unbelieving partner becomes sanctified ; on the condition that a change is effected in his or her state or character. 2. It is difficult to conceive of any sense in which one continuing an unbeliever can be said to be properly sanctified by a believing partner, and especially, in such a manner that for that reason their children shall not be unclean. 3. The form lyyiao-rai, perf. pass., while it does notrequire the trans- lation,' Aasfieen sanctified,' seems, nevertheless, more naturally to in- dicate a state which the subject already enjoys, than an influence by which he becomes sanctified. It is also worthy of notice that the be- lieving partner is not designated as a believer : — it is simply, "the wife," " the husband." It will be observed, that what constitutes the children " holy," or more strictly, that by virtue of which they are not " unclean," is the same as that which renders it proper for the parents to continue to- gether. And we ask. Is not this in reality the sacredness or sanctity of their matrimonial relation? A little examination will, we believe, render it obvious, that this is the identical reason assigned by the apos- tle for the continuance of the union. His position is evidently this: — ' Let there be no separation ; for the husband, although an unbeliever, is sanctified, is in a condition of sanctity, (I'/yiajrai), not, indeed, in his individual character, not in his relations to God, or to the Christian church, but inthewife, i. e., as viewed in her, in his connexion with her, as a husband, (Comp. Philem. 10 ; 2 Cor. G : 12 ; etc.) ; the rela- tion which exists between them is a sanctified relation, one which ex- ists in accordance with the appointment of God ; — let it, therefore, be continued. And so the wife, although an unbeliever, is in a condition of sanctity with respect to the husband. Were it otherwise, were the connexion an unsanctifiedor sinful one, it would follow that your chil- dren, the fruit of such, and of all similar connexions, would be un- clean, the offspring of impurity ; but as it is {vvv), they are holy, i. e., not unclean ; they are the offspring of a pure and lawful intercourse.' The use of the terms " unclean" and " holy" or " pure," implies that the purity or impurity attributable to the parents would naturally be attached to the character of the children, or rather to their reputation, to the estimation in which they would generally be regarded. It is not improbable, moreover, that there may be allusion to the regulation of the Mosaic law, according to which an illegitimate chihl was cere- monially \mclean. In using the expression, "-^ your chiklrcn," the apostle may have in- tended to intimate that the connexion of which he was speaking, was in reahty the same as existed on the part of most parents in the church, a connexion which had been formed before they became Christians. The argument of the apostle is constructed on the general principle APPENDIX. 199 stated in verses 10 and 11, that the marriage connexion is in its very nature perpetual ; that once formed it is formed for life. He well knew that the Corinthian Christians would shrink from the admission that all marriage connexions among them formed previously to their conversion to Christianity, were of no account, were unlawful, were not sanctioned by God ; and that consequently they were living in im- purity, and their children were illegitimate. But, urges the apostle, if this be not the case, if such connexions are really marriage connex- ions, not only is there no impropriety in their continuance, but it is the duty of those concerned, to avoid a disruption. Comp. verses 13 and 14. I. There is a passage in the writings of Irenseus, A. D. 178, which has been claimed as alluding to the baptism of infants. Speaking of Christ, he says, " He came to save all by himself, — all, I say, who through him are regenerated unto God, infants, and little children, and lads, and youth, and the more aged." It has, however, been shown on the most satisfactory grounds, that there is in the passage no allusion what- ever to baptism.* " The phrase ' regenerated through Christ unto God,'" says the editor of the Christian Review, "if it mean, 'the general recovery of man through Christ's incarnation and redemption,' has numerous parallels in the writings of IrenEeus ; if it mean, ' bapti- zed through Christ unto God,' it has tio pzrsillel, absolutely none ." Respecting the testimony of Origen, A. D. 230, who speaks of the baptism of " little ones," — if, indeed, the Latin translation or para- phrase of his works may be trusted, — as being an apostolic " tradi- tion," it might suffice that we refer to the following remarks of Nean- der, — "His words in that age cannot have much weight, for whatever was regarded as important, was alleged to be from the apostles. Be- sides, many walls of partition intervened between this age and that of the apostles, to intercept the view." It is worthy of notice, however, that Origen, although he evidently refers to infants who had not arrived to years of understanding, does not designate them as such. He simply speaks of the baptism of little ones, little children, " parvuli," a. term including in its signification children sufficiently advanced in age to receive instruction, and become the subjects of religious impressions. Irenaeus, in the passage just quoted, expressly distinguishes between " little children" (parvuli), and " infants" (infantes). It had doubtless been a practice among the churches to admit to baptism all who were supposed to be savingly ac- quainted with the gospel, without respect to age. In this number it could hardly fail that children of tender years would frequently be included. Such were the views of Origen, however, respecting the design of baptism, that he would naturally associate these with uncon- scious infants. He believed there was " in all, the natural pollution of sin, which must be done away by water and the Spirit." It was on this account that "little children" were to be baptized. This was, in a general view, the reason for their baptism, even though they were capable of understanding and embracing the gospel ; and the same, * See Christian Review, Vol. III., p. 213. 200 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. though they might yet be in early infancy. In his conception they all belonged, — and especially in as far as any reason for their baptism was concerned, — to the same class. And hence he would naturally con- sider the practice of the church in baptizing any of the class, as au- thority for applying the rite to all without distinction. The allusion of Origen to the baptism of "little children," as being an apostolic " tradition," is consequently, even should we allow his testimony all the force that is sometimes claimed for it; no proof of the antiquity of the baptism of unconscious infants. It is proof, however, clear and decisive, of the connexion between the practice of infant baptism and the prevalence of the sentiment that baptism is efficacious in " remo- ving the pollution of sin." It shows that the practice is the legitimate fruit of the doctrine, — a doctrine which Origen, for the sake of giving it authority, presumed to ascribe to " the apostles." As his testimony, however, is considered by evangelical Christians to be of no weight in proving the doctrine apostolic, it is, in any view, of as little avail in showing that the practice originated in apostolic tradition. " As to the simple inquiry," says Prof. Ripley, " whether these men, (Acts 19 : 1-7,) were baptized anew, an affirmative answer seems un- avoidable, if we follow the most obvious and natural meaning of the passage, as conveyed both in our translation and in the original Greek." It may also be added, that we should hardly expect that the phraseology " they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" would be used with reference to those who were baptized previously to the manifest- ation of Jesus as the Messiah. Comp. John 1 : 31, 33. The passage, in any view of the case, is of no avail in proving that John's baptism was not Christian baptism. There is satisfactory evi- dence that these twelve " disciples" had been baptized subsequently to the death of John, and consequently after John's baptism as such had become a nullity. 1. Their baptism is sufficiently accounted for in the preceding chap- ter. Apollos had been at Ephcsus preaching " the baptism of John." And as he doubtless presented it as a duty, those who became converted to his doctrine would naturally be baptized. After Apollos had left the city, Paul, upon arriving thither, finds certain men who had re- ceived " John's baptism." The natural, the almost unavoidable con- clusion, in the absence of all proof to the contrary, is, that they had been baptized under the preaching of Apollos. Why should we sup- pose that they were baptized in a distant country some thirty years previously, when the circumstances which fully account for their bap- tism at the place of their residence, are particularly stated in the im- mediate context in a continuous narrative of passing events ? 2. There seems to be a direct intimation in verses 1-3, that they had been baptized in connection with the preaching of Apollos. It is said that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples who had been baptized unto John's bapti.'un. The reason for this allusion to Apollos, and to the fact tliat he had left Ephesus, is evidently to be found in the nature of the facts about to be narrated. 3. The interrogation of Paul, " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ?" obviously implies that in his apprehension their ERRATA. A few typographical errors have been noticed since the sheets were through the press. The reader will please to make the fol- lowing corrections. On page 4, 13th line, for " or" read a. " " 2'Jth ' " arguments" read argument « 31, 2Gth ' " TrXtiuQj" read TrXivco. " 51, 1st ' " or," read and. " 53, 24th ' "right" read rite. " 177, 8th ' " fact" read part. 197, 9th line, before " church" read visible. APPENDIX. 201 conversion was of recent date, at least subsequent to the effusion of the Holy Spirit at the season of Pentecost; and his impression is most readily accounted for on the supposition that he had been informed that they had been recently baptized. 4. The remarks of Paul in ver. 4, respecting what John taught " the people," are most naturally understood as addressed to those who had never enjoyed John's personal instructions. 5. The ignorance of these men respecting the gift of the Holy Spirit, does not accord with the supposition that they had been baptized and instructed by John, in whose preaching the bestowment of this gift by the Messiah held a prominent place. Comp. Mat. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Johnl: 33. OV t/ki rc-iCfS.lv.Xt — Cli