Oi 
 0! 
 0^ 
 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 1 
 8 
 3
 
 ^
 
 (, 
 
 'ay^ 
 
 / 

 
 AN EXPOSITION 
 
 LAW OF BAPTISM, 
 
 AS IT RSQAJIDS 
 
 THE MODE AND THE SUBJECTS, 
 
 EDWIN HALL, A. M. 
 
 PASTOR OF THE FIRST CONQREQATIONAL CHCRCH, NORWALK, COKN. 
 
 SECOND EDITION — ^WITH AN APPENDIX. 
 
 NORWALK, CT. 
 
 PUBLISHED BT JOHN A. WEED. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 GOULD, NEWMAN, AND SAXTON 
 
 184.0,
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1840, by 
 
 EDWLV HALL, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for 
 
 the Southern District of New York. 
 
 8. W. BENEDICT, 128 FULTON ST.
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 The following Discourses were written for 
 the Defence of the truth in the author's own 
 congregation. They are printed as they 
 were preached ; save a few inconsiderable 
 corrections, and the addition of a few notes. 
 They are published at the. very general de- 
 sire of the people for whom they were writ- 
 ten. They contain some local allusions, and 
 some references to the present times : but as 
 they may be both local and ephemeral in 
 their circulation, the author chooses not to 
 alter them. 
 
 JVorwalk, August, 1840.
 
 LAW OF BAPTISM. 
 
 I. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 MATTHEW, XXVIII : 19. 
 
 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The disciples of Christ are to be baptized. 
 So all evangelical Christians agree : and 
 such is the law of Christ. But while there 
 is an entire agreement with regard to the 
 authority of the law, there has arisen a differ- 
 ence of opinion concerning its interpreta- 
 tion. All the leading denominations of Pro- 
 testant Christendom, save one, (and it is to 
 Protestant Christendom, if any where on 
 earth, that we are to look for intelligent 
 views of doctrine and of order, and for evan- 
 1*
 
 b MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 gelical obedience,) all the leadinor denomi- 
 iiations of Protestant Christendom, save one, 
 maintain that the mode of baptism is not es- 
 sential : and for this opinion they go, not to 
 the decrees of the Pope, nor to the traditions 
 of the Papal Church, as we have been slan- 
 derously reported, but to the Word of God. 
 Upon the most careful examination, and in 
 making- the best and most scrupulous appli- 
 cation of the acknowledged rules of inter- 
 pretation that we are able, we find that 
 sp7Hnkling nnd pouring are Scriptural modes 
 of baptism. Many think further, (and I pro- 
 fess myself of this number,) that these are 
 the only modes for which we have any clear 
 Scriptural example, or even clear Scriptural 
 authority, if any thing is to depend upon the 
 mode. But we think nothing depends on the 
 mode : — that the command to Baptize refers 
 to the thing done^ rather than to the mode of 
 doing it : viz., to a ritual purifying by some 
 manner of application of water : and in which 
 the mode of the application is a matter of en- 
 tire indifference ; provided it be done de- 
 cently and reverently, as becomes an ordi- 
 nance of God. Hence, we regard immersion 
 as valid baptism j and never refuse to admin-
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 7 
 
 ister it in that mode, when the candidate for 
 baptism cannot be satisfied in conscience 
 with any other. 
 
 But while we believe these things, another 
 large denomination of Christians deem it es- 
 sential to baptism, that the whole body he im- 
 mersed : and so essential, that they refuse to 
 be united in church membership, or to par- 
 take, even occasionally, of the Lord's sup- 
 per in company with others who hold the 
 same Gospel truth and order; who are of ac- 
 knowledged piety ; who, according to their 
 best understanding, and with the full convic- 
 tion of their conscience, have been baptized ; 
 who differ from themselves only in not hav- 
 ing been Avholly under water in the manner 
 of their baptism ; and who, were they to be 
 convinced that immersion is essential to 
 baptism, would as soon throw their bodies 
 into the fire as refuse to be immersed. Their 
 fault is not wilful disobedience : it is not neg. 
 led ; it is not any want of candor or diligence 
 in examining the question concerning the 
 mode of baptism ; it is solely this ; instead 
 of subjecting their judgment and conscience, 
 in this matter, to the authority of their Bap- 
 tist brethren, they have presumed to follow
 
 8 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 their own judgment and their oiv}i conscience 
 as enlightened by a careful study of the 
 word of God. 
 
 " To the law and to the testimony." That 
 word shall judge us in the last day, and by 
 that will we be determined now. 
 
 In our investigation of the mode of Bap- 
 tism, I shall first remark concerning the 
 principles of interprelalio/i to be applied or ad- 
 mitted in determining this question. 
 
 Then, I shall, upon the basis of these prin- 
 ciples, institute three inquiries : 
 
 1. What would the immediate disciples of 
 Christ understand from the simple face of the 
 command " Baptize.''^ 
 
 2. Is there satisfactory evidence, that they al. 
 ways administered the ordinance of baptism by 
 immersion. 
 
 3. On the supposition that our Lord was bap- 
 tized in a given mode, and that the apostles al- 
 ways practised that mode; — is there evidence 
 that they considered thai one mode essential. 
 
 The preliminary remarks concerning the 
 principles of interpretation ; together with an ap- 
 plication of those principles to the method of 
 arguing employed by our Baptist brethren, 
 will occupy this first discourse. I shall be
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 9 
 
 obliged to take up subjects rather foreign 
 from the common field of sermonizing ; and 
 such as are rather scholastic, and not very 
 interesting to a mixed assembly. I shall be 
 obliged to tax your patience somewhat : but 
 I will make the matter as clear and as inter- 
 esting as I can : and discuss no topic which 
 you will not perceive to have a weighty bear- 
 ing upon the argument before we get through. 
 In the next discourse I shall come at once 
 into the midst of the matter : and I entertain 
 little fear, that I shall be able to show you 
 the truth, on this subject, broadly and solidly 
 based on the word of God. 
 
 There cannot be much Gospel in such a 
 discussion as this ; as the whole genius of 
 the Gospel is averse to disputations about 
 the mere modes of rites and ordinances. I 
 will try, however, to discuss the matter in 
 the spirit of the Gospel ; and will endeavor 
 to bring in as much of the Gospel of salva- 
 tion as a disputation about the mere ceremo- 
 ny of an ordinance will admit. I proceed 
 
 I. TO THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION TO 
 BE APPLIED OR ADMITTED IN DETERMINING 
 THIS CASE. 
 
 Sir William Blackstone, in his " Commen-
 
 10 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 taries on the Laws of England," cites the 
 following example for the purpose of illus- 
 trating one of the principles on which laws 
 are to be interpreted.* 
 
 " A law of Edward III. forbids all ecclesi- 
 astical persons to purchase provisions at 
 Rome." Now the word " provisions^'' com- 
 monly means '' victuals ;" " things to eat ;" 
 and at first sight the law of Edward III. 
 seems to forbid the purchasing of victuals ; — 
 meat, — grain, — eatables, — at Rome. 
 
 Suppose now, on a debate concerning the 
 import of this law, one should say, " The 
 law is express: it says '•'' provisions ^^"^ and 
 provisions are " victuals.'^'' Granted : such 
 is the common acceptation of the word. 
 Suppose he should urge it ; and bring a hun- 
 dred dictionaries, in all of which the first 
 and most common meaning of the word 
 '"'■provisions^'' should be '•^ victuals,^'' Sup- 
 pose, when I question whether the law meant 
 victuals, and endeavor to give my reasons, 
 he should lift up his hand toward the sun, 
 and cry, " It is as plain as the sun in the 
 heavens, and the man who does not see it is 
 not worth arguing with : all the dictionaries 
 say so : it has been conceded a thousand times 
 * Blackstone, Introduction, § 2, 3.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 11 
 
 that ^provisions'' means ^victuals' " Suppose 
 he should go further 5 suppose he should 
 hunt up the word '"'"provisions'''' as used in all 
 the classic English authors from the days 
 of Chaucer and Spencer, and show in ten 
 thousand instances that the word provisions 
 means victuals : and that, even in its Jigura 
 tive uses, it still refers to something to support 
 and nourish : e. g. as when Mrs. Isabella 
 Graham selected a, multitude of texts of 
 Scripture calculated to give her comfort in 
 death, she called them " Provisions for pass, 
 ing over Jordan." " Here," says the stickler 
 for " victuals,^'' " Here I take my stand.'"* " If 
 I have not settled the meaning of the word 
 ''provisions^'' nothing can he settled^ And so 
 he stretches the law to his dictionaries and 
 classics. Provisions shall mean victuals : 
 and all further reasoning is barred away from 
 any concern in settling the question. 
 
 You have here, if I mistake not, and as I 
 think I shall be able to show, the sub- 
 stance of the Baptist principles of arguing 
 concerning the question at issue. 
 
 But no, says Blackstone ; see first for what 
 reason the law was made. Search out the 
 meaning of the word '■^ provisions'^ as used 
 in the " Canon law'' of those days.
 
 12 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " The law," saysBlackstone, *' might seem 
 to prohibit the buying of grain and other 
 victuals : but when we consider that the stat- 
 ute was made to repress the usurpations of 
 the Papal See, and that the nominations to 
 benefices by the Pope were called provisions^ 
 we shall see that the restraint is intended to 
 be laid on svch provisions only." 
 
 The word ^^ provisions'^ in this law of Ed- 
 ward III. does not mean grain or victuals, or 
 stores of any kind : but, " nominations to ec- 
 clesiastical benefices by the Pope'^ and for 
 this law, people may purchase as much meat 
 and grain and other victuals at Rome as they 
 please. The decision of Blackstone carries 
 all common sense with it. Away go the 
 hundred dictionaries and the ten thousand 
 quotations from the classics. No matter 
 how many times it might have been " con- 
 ceded" that the word provisions commonly 
 means something to eat : — Blackstone him- 
 self makes the same concession, and still 
 maintains his interpretation of the law. 
 Why do I introduce this ? 
 
 For the purpose of exposing a false prin- 
 ciple of interpretation, and of showing what 
 is the true one.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 13 
 
 If it should be proved indubitably, (which 
 it cannot be.) that the word Baptizo ( ^'aTn^'o;) 
 in classic Greek means only to immerse ; — 
 to immerse the subject w)Ao//?/y this would 
 not settle the question that the command to 
 Baptize in the New Testament means indis- 
 pensably to immerse. 
 
 Why would it noil 
 
 The Greek of Judea was not clasiic 
 Greek. The classic Greek writers lived in 
 other countries. They were familiar 
 with another set of ideas, — especially on 
 religious matters. The Greek language in 
 their hands was adapted to the religious 
 ideas of heathen : in the hands of Jews 
 it was adapted to the religious ideas of 
 those who were acquainted with the true 
 God. 
 
 More particularly : — The Greek was not 
 introduced into Judea till after the time 
 of Alexander, 300 years before Christ. 
 It prevailed very gradually ; its genius 
 received a mould from the genius of 
 the Hebrew ; Greek words were applied 
 to Jewish ideas; and to ideas which 
 2
 
 14 310DE OF BArXISM. 
 
 had never been compounded into an exist- 
 ence in tne land of classic Greeii. The 
 Hebrew continued to be spoken with the 
 Greek: and it is even contended with no 
 small force of argument that ]\Iatthew 
 wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, which appear- 
 ed to be the more common lancruao^e when 
 Paul spake to the people " in the Hebrew 
 tongue," Acts xxi. 40, and they " kept the 
 more silence" when they heard it. Acts 
 xxii. 2. 
 
 The pure Greek of the old Grecians is 
 called Classic Greek. The Greek of the 
 New Testament has been called the " Greek 
 of the Synagogue.^' And every man, who is 
 both a classical and a Biblical student, knows 
 full well that a good lexicon (or dictionary) 
 of the Greek of the synagogue must be a 
 peculiar lexicon of the New Testament 
 Greek. And such we have : elaborate aiid 
 excellent lexicons. But if we read the clas- 
 sic Greek by these, we shall make nonsense; 
 and if we read the New Testament altogeth- 
 er by the classic lexicons, we shall make 
 most arrant nonsense. 
 
 Let me give an illustration or two of the 
 effect of arguing the New Testament mean-
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 15 
 
 ing from the original and from the classic 
 use of a word. 
 
 Some years since, I met with a man, who 
 was liberally educated, a thorough scholar, 
 an able lawyer, and possessed of splendid 
 natural abilities, but sceptical in his views 
 of religion. 
 
 With this man I undertook to reason of 
 the necessity of being born of the Holy 
 Ghost. Now, the word in the Greek Testa- 
 ment for Ghost, or Spirit, is Pneuma^ (wer/io)^ 
 which originally, and in the classic Greek, 
 most commonly meant wind. This man would 
 have me argue by book. He turned me to 
 the Greek Testament (John iii. 5.) " See 
 here," says he, " It reads, and you know it 
 reads, ' Verily, Verily, I say unto thee, ex- 
 cept a man be born of water and of wind, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' 
 What right," said he, " have you to change 
 the original classic meaning of ' Pneuma, \ 
 (TTj/fUfxa)^ ' loind^^ here, any more than you 
 have of ' Hudatos' (voaros') ' water V And 
 see, further," said he, '' there is the same 
 word in the 8th verse, — letter for letter, — 
 and there you do not say, the ' Spirit blow-
 
 16 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 eth where it listeth ;' you say, ' the wind 
 bloweth where it listeth.' " 
 
 He was right in the original classic use of 
 the word. And if I had argued on the prin- 
 ciples, on which (I shall show) our Baptist 
 brethren have argued, I should have been 
 obliged to allow, that the renewing by the 
 " Spirit of God," or even the personal exist- 
 ence of such a Spirit, is not taught or refer- 
 red to in this passage. 
 
 With all due respect for our Baptist breth- 
 ren, I humbly conceive that in this matter, 
 they have fallen into an egregious error in 
 their attempted corrections of our common 
 translation. 
 
 I have seen copies of the New Testament, 
 published by the Bible Society of the Bap- 
 tist denomination, in which, on a page after 
 the title page they have printed the Greek of 
 such words as are adopted from the Greek 
 into our translation ; opposite to these words 
 theylprint the words as they are Anglicized, 
 or turned into an English shape by a change 
 of their termination : then, opposite to each, 
 a word which they maintain is the necessary 
 translation. Thus,
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 17 
 
 Meaning of the icords used intkis translation. 
 
 AyyjXo?, Angel, Messenger. 
 
 BaTTTi^w, Baptize, Immerse, 
 
 Ba-r(o-//of, - Baptism, Immersion, 
 
 It has been strenuously asserted that these 
 words were not translated in our authorized 
 version, because King James and the translat- 
 ors wished to shield certain Popish prac- 
 tices, and to keep the people in ignorance, 
 for the purpose of maintaining a union of 
 Church and State. 
 
 I shall not trouble myself to attempt a re- 
 futation of such a charge as this. The de« 
 scendants of the Pilgrims, who dwell amid 
 the graves of their lathers, may believe it if 
 they can. They may deem it no calumny 
 upon the virtue and understanding of their 
 Puritan fathers, if they can, when they hear it 
 alleged of those, whose ministers, in hundreds, 
 gave up their livings ; were turned out of the 
 ministry, and otherwise suffered persecution, 
 rather than wear the garments of popery ; 
 they may believe it if they can, of those who 
 left their homes and their all, and came to 
 cast their fortunes and the fortunes of their 
 posterity in this then howling wilderness, 
 rather than conform to what they deemed the 
 2*
 
 18 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Popish rites remaining in the Established 
 Church of England ; they may believe, if 
 they can, that these would have accepted a 
 Bib'ie which was dishonestly- translated, for 
 the very purpose of maintaining those relics 
 of popery and that ecclesiastical despotism^ 
 which from their very souls they abhorred. 
 You may believe it if you can, of your min- 
 isters and yourselves, that we all cling to a 
 dishonest translation, "To keep people in 
 ignorance" and to "maintain a union of 
 Church and State." I shall not trouble my. 
 self to answer such an allegation as this. 
 
 But to return:— it is maintained that these 
 words, and some others, are improperly, if 
 not dishonestly, left untranslated* and that 
 the words which are given in the third co- 
 lumn as the meaning ought to be substituted 
 for the words adopted in our translation. 
 Thus : where we read " CAwrcA,"f we ought 
 
 ♦ " The mass of readers do not understand the ori- 
 ginal, and translators of the Bible, by adop'ing, not 
 translating, have hidden the meaning from the multi- 
 tude." Jewett on Baptism, p. 31, 
 
 t The word tKKXnaia, (Church), with some other 
 words, they have set down at the beginning of the New
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 19 
 
 to read ^^jSssembly:^^ where we read ^^j^ngel" 
 in our version, we ought to read '' Messen- 
 ger ;" where we read " Baptize,'^ we ought to 
 read ^^ Immerse:^'' and where we read ^^ Bap- 
 iism^^ we ought to read " Immersion.^' 
 
 Now it appears to me that this is falling 
 into a worse error than that of the unbeliev- 
 ing scholar concerning the word Pneuma, 
 (jvEvua^ or spirit. Thus, '"''AngeV is a Greek 
 word, not translated, but adopted"^ into the 
 translation from the Greek {^yy^-'^'^i). Our 
 Baptist brethren insist that this adoption is 
 wrong : that the word ought to be translated 
 by the word " messenger ^ 
 
 Testament as improperly translated, and direct us to 
 consider the word " Assembly" as its meaning. 
 
 * Nothing is more common than such adoption of 
 words from the Greek. The process is going on to this 
 day ; particularly our terras of science and of art, are al- 
 most wholly adopted (and compounded) from the 
 Greek. Strike all such adopted words from our lan« 
 guage, and scarcely could two people, even in the or- 
 dinary walks of life, hold a conversation for a single hour. 
 
 " Et nova fictaque nvper habebunt verba fidera, si 
 Graeco fonte cadant, parce detorta." 
 
 " Licuit SEMPERQL'E LICEBIT" 
 
 Signatum prsesente nota producere nomen." 
 
 Q. Hurat. Ars Poetica.
 
 20 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Now it is certainly true, that in the clas- 
 sic Greek, the word Angel (ayycXos) means 
 messenger ; and means nothing like the idea 
 which we attribute to it : viz., of a spiritual 
 being of an order superior to man and infe- 
 rior to God. The Greeks even had another 
 word to signify such a spiritual being, " Be. 
 mon^^ {cainuiv^^ and Angelas (ayy^Xo?) meant no- 
 thing but " messenger.'^ But mark how the 
 classic Greek was modified when adapted to 
 Jewish ideas. The Jews used the word 
 "Z)e77i07i" (c'atpwi') to express only an evil 
 spirit ; ^. fallen angel :. and " angeP they ap- 
 propriated to the good spirits. And to trans- 
 late the word in all cases* as the Baptist Bi- 
 ble Society would teach us, instead o{ adopt, 
 ing it into English, untranslated, would make 
 the most arrant nonsense. 
 
 For example : take Acts xxiii. 8, and trans- 
 late it according to the instructions of the 
 Baptist Bible Society at the beginning of 
 their Testaments, and according to the view 
 of the doubting scholar, who would square 
 every thing by the original classic Greek 
 
 * The word is sometimes used in the New Testament 
 in the simple sense of messenger : as Pneuma i» some* 
 times in the simple sense of toind,
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 21 
 
 meaning, and make the Savior say that men 
 must be born of " water and of wind.'''' 
 
 In our common version the passage reads 
 thus : " For the Sadducees say, there' is no 
 resurrection^ neither angel nor spirit : hut the 
 Pharisees confess both." The word resii.r- 
 rectio/i here falls under the same rule, if you 
 take its meaning from the classic Greek. 
 The Greeks had no such idea as that of the 
 resurrection of the body : and of course no 
 word for it, but their avaffracns (^anastasis) was a 
 simple " rising up." In our translation the 
 passage reads thus : " For the Sadducees say 
 there is no resurrection^ neither angel nor 
 spirit ; but the Pharisees confess both." Ac- 
 cording to the principles on which our trans- 
 lation is branded as inadequate and unfaith- 
 ful, we must read it thus : For the Sadducees 
 say there is no rising up, neither messenger 
 nor WIND." But did they ever say sol Did 
 they ever deny the existence of a such a 
 thing as a messenger or of such a thing as 
 wind? To translate it so, is to make the 
 Bible speak not only nonsense but falsehood. 
 
 The same reason existed for converting 
 the Greek Baptizo into the English Baptize^ 
 as for converting Angdos into Angel. There
 
 22 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 was no word in English which would fill up 
 the idea. If baptism was to be performed 
 by sprinkling, it would not do to translate 
 Baptizo by the word sprinkle^ because all 
 sprinkling is not baptism. If baptism were 
 exclusively by immersion^ still the word im- 
 merse would not express the whole or the 
 essential idea : and all immersion is not bap- 
 tism. The word Baptize in the New Testa- 
 ment refers less to the manner of the appli- 
 cation of water, than to the design and import 
 of the application : it is a sacred application : 
 a ritual application : denoting a ritual ^wri/y- 
 ing, and referring to an important and essential 
 truth for its signification. The New Testa- 
 ment use of the word involved a reference 
 to these ideas,* just as the word Baptize does 
 now : and neither of the words sprinkle, pour, 
 immerse, has the essential quality of refer- 
 ring to these ideas. Thus : if I go and 
 throw myself off from one of the wharves at 
 high tide, I am immersed beyond question : 
 but am I baptized ? Our young men and 
 
 * See an able article in the Am. Biblical Repository 
 from the pen of Prest. Edward Bcechcr : where this 
 point is most thoroughly made out. Am. Bib. Rep. 
 Jan. 1840.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 23 
 
 boys immerse themselves many times every 
 summer, but are they baptized % I think all 
 would deem it improper to say so. The 
 fundamental idea of baptism is wanting. 
 
 It would therefore be an inadequate and 
 improper translation to substitute the word 
 immerse for the word baptize^ in every place 
 in the New Testament : as much as it would 
 to make that substitution which should make 
 the Sadducees deny the existence of such a 
 thing as a " messenger," or " wind." The 
 translators of our Bible as intelligent and 
 honest men, could not translate " Baptizo^^ 
 by " Immerse'^ on this ground alone : and I 
 shall show that they could not on another : 
 as in the New Testament the word denotes 
 often an application of water (or of some- 
 thing else,) by sprinkling or by pouring. It 
 is used often where the idea of immersion is 
 entirely excluded. 
 
 Indeed, if any fault is to be found with the 
 word Baptize, as though it were a Greek 
 word instead of a translation ; precisely the 
 same objection applies to the words "■ Im- 
 merse'^ and " Immersion.'''' These are as purely 
 Latin, as " Baptize" is Greek : and we might 
 with the same propriety turn round and say,
 
 24 BIODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Why do you not translate those Latin words \ 
 Do you mean to " keep people in ignorance," 
 and " promote a union of Church and State," 
 by talking to the people, like the Pope, in 
 Latin 1 
 
 But what words could they substitute for 
 these \ There is no one, word which fills up 
 the idea of immerse. " -Di/?," and "p/ww^e," 
 and " duck^'' are English words : but they 
 cannot be substituted for the word immerse ; 
 though they come nearer to it than any other 
 word in the language. Shall we translate 
 immerse by " Dip.^' I dip my pen in ink 
 when I write : I do not immerse it in ink. 
 Shall we say '''■plunge?^'' ^ui 2i\\0Yse plunges 
 often without being immersed ; and to 
 " Duck''^ is only to dip the head under water. 
 
 To my mind, the noise that is made about 
 the non-translation of the word Baptize, is 
 utterly without foundation. To adopt the 
 principles on which the noise is made, and 
 carry them out, would lead to gross absurd- 
 ity. To say that people would never have 
 made any question about the mode of bap- 
 tism if the word had only been translated 
 immerse^ is only to say that if the word had 
 been improperly translated, the people would
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 25 
 
 have been misled. There is no reason in 
 the world, that I know of, for thinking that 
 our translators were either ignorant or dis- 
 honest in this matter. Had they not turned 
 Bajptizo into an English word, they must 
 have expressed it by a circumlocution that 
 would have amounted to a gloss,* rather than 
 a translation, or they must have coined a 
 new word for the purpose. 
 
 Besides, while so large a part of the learn- 
 ed world fully believe that Baptism in the 
 New Testament often signified an applica- 
 tion of water which was performed by 
 sprinkling or by pouring ; how could we 
 have a Bible in w^hich all denominations 
 may agree, if we insist upon translating the 
 word Baptize either by " immerse^'' by 
 ''^four^'' or by " sprinkle V Were there no 
 other reason, this would be sufficient for 
 adopting the original word, instead of trans- 
 lating it by either. 
 
 And yet, our Baptist brethren have broken 
 off from the national Bible Society, for the 
 very reason that it will not be thus instru- 
 
 * E. g. How could the word TievrnKoarrji (Pentecost) 
 Acts. ii. 1, have been managed, save by adopting the 
 very word, or by making a gloss, rather than a trans' 
 lation ? 
 
 3
 
 26 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 mental in putting forth to the world a sec- 
 tarian Bible ! They have a denominational 
 Bible Society, entitled the " American and 
 Foreign Bible Society^''' which issues its for- 
 eign translations on the principle of substi- 
 tuting the word immerse for baptize : and by 
 their notes at the beginning of the New Tes- 
 tament they have, in effect, done the same 
 for the English translation : with how little 
 reason, I have shown. 
 
 I say not this out of disrespect or fault- 
 finding. The right of conscience and of 
 private judgment is theirs. Most freely, 
 with no disturbance or complaint on our 
 part, let them enjoy it. I only aim to point 
 out, what I consider the error of the princi- 
 ple. Whether I have succeeded, you will 
 judge. We impeach not their integrity in 
 the least. Would that our integrity in this 
 matter, and our rights of conscience and of 
 private judgment might be equally respected. 
 But it is with no less grief than astonishment, 
 that I read in the papers the last month, the 
 following " Resolution''' of the " American 
 and Foreign Bible Society" at their anniver- 
 sary on the 28th of April of the present year.* 
 
 * It was moved by Prof. Eaton, of Hamilton Insti- 
 tute, and eeconded by Rev. Mr. Malcolm.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 27 
 
 " Resolved^ that the/ac/, that the nations of 
 the earth must now look to the Baptist deno.m- 
 
 IXATION ALO^■E FOR FAITHFUL TRANSLATIONS 
 
 OF THE WORD OF GoD, a responsibility is im- 
 posed upon them, demanding for its full 
 discharge, an unwonted degree of union, of 
 devotion, and of strenuous and persevering 
 effort throughout the entire body." 
 
 That our Baptist brethren mean to be faith- 
 ful in translating the word of God, we doubt 
 not. But are w^e to believe that all the mis- 
 sionaries of Protestant Christendom through- 
 out the world, save " the Baptist denomination 
 alone," have given to the poor heathen un- 
 faithful translations of the Avord of God 1 
 Can no '"'' faithful translation' come from any 
 denomination on earth save one?* Are '" the 
 
 * In the report of the Am. and For. Bible Society, 
 for 1840, (p. 39), the translations made by all other 
 denominations are stigmatized as " Versions in whicli 
 the real meanings of . . . words, is purposely kept out 
 OF SIGHT :". . . so that " Baptists cannot circulate /aiM- 
 ful versions . . . unless they print them at their own ex. 
 pensc." They ask, (p. 40). " Shall we look on un- 
 concernedly while unfaithful versions (as we hold them) 
 are circulated." They assert, (p. 45) " It is known that 
 the British and For. Bible Society, and the American 
 Bible Society, have virtually combined to obscure at
 
 28 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 nations of the earth," according to the tenor 
 of this resolution, dependent on " the Baptist 
 denomination alone*^ for this '? 
 
 Having remarked so far upon the princi- 
 ples of interpretation, I come now to make 
 an application of those principles to the mode 
 of arguing adopted by our Baptist brethren. 
 
 least a part of Divine Revelation :" — and that " these 
 societies . . . continue to circulate versions of the Bible 
 unfaithful, at least so far as the subject of baptism is 
 concerned ; and that they are by this means propagat- 
 ing their j)eculiar sentiments under the auspices, and 
 at the expense of the millions of all denominations who 
 contribute to their funds ; and who are thus made the 
 unconscious instruments of diffusing the opinions of a 
 party, instead of the uncorrupted icord of Jehovah.'" 
 
 This last paragraph is not less remarkable for its de- 
 liberate charge of dishonesty upon all other denomina- 
 tions than for its singidar admission of that, which if it 
 be a fact, — it seems to me, — is fatal to the immersion 
 scheme. The allegation is, that to transfer haptizo 
 into BAPTIZE, instead of rendering it by the word Im- 
 merse, is to " propagate the peculiar sentiments'^ of Psedo- 
 baptists. That is, the word haptizo is so used in the 
 New Testament, as almost without fail, to lead those 
 who learn its meaning frdra the Bible alone to conclude 
 that it does not, in the Bible, mean immersion : and if 
 you leave people to learn its meaning from the context 
 for themselves, you '^propagate the pccidiar sentiments" 
 of Poedo-baptists among them ! Nay, that the same
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 29 
 
 It was first attempted to prove that Bap- 
 tize means exclusively to immerse, from the 
 etymology of the word. Baptize is truly a 
 derivative from Bapto : and the primitive 
 
 effect will be produced when such a Bible is given by 
 Baptist Juinds, aiXid accompanied by Baptist instructions! 
 If Baptists circulate such a version, they " arc thus 
 made the unconscious instruments of diffusing the opin- 
 ions" of the ^' party" — of Paedo-baptists ! 
 
 I believe it. It is even so. But the conclusion is, 
 — (and the objection of our Baptist brethren unwitting- 
 ly adopts this very conclusion as its basis,) that the 
 word baptize, as it is used in the New Testament, does 
 not mean immerse ; and will not be so understood by 
 those who judge of its meaning by its use in the sacred 
 writings. I believe, further, that to translate the word 
 baptizo by the word immerse throughout the New 
 Testament, would in many cases make the Bible speak 
 what is demonstrably not true. e. g. I fully believe, 
 (as in Acts ix. 18,) that " Paul arose (or stood up) and 
 was baptized." " That he arose and was immersed " I 
 do not believe. I am persuaded it is utterly untrue. 
 To transfer the word baptizo here, and leave people to 
 judge for themselves what was done, is certainly to 
 '' propagate the peculiar sentiments" of Psedo-baptists. 
 But to insinuate that Pae do-baptists mean to " corrupt 
 the word of Jehovah," or "to diffuse the opinions of a 
 party, instead of the " uncorrupted" word of God, by 
 so transferring the word, is, — methinks, — too gross a 
 calumny to gain credit. 
 
 *3
 
 30 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 meaning of Bapto is to " dip," or to " im- 
 merse." It was contended that it always 
 means to immerse. This appears to me to 
 be the turning point on which Dr. Judson 
 became a Baptist. He insisted that Bapto 
 means always to dip or to immerse, and 
 that Baptize means to " make immersed." 
 This was long urged and most strenuously- 
 insisted on as the foundation of the Baptist 
 argument — that Bapto means nething hut to 
 dip or immerse. 
 
 But upon examination it was found, that 
 the meaning of Bapto had undergone import- 
 ant changes j that it often meant only to 
 color^ from an allusion simply to the known 
 effect of dipping, and not to the act of dip- 
 ping : and so it is often used, in instances 
 where dipping is wholly out of the question. 
 Thus Hippocrates says of a certain liquid, 
 that when it drops upon the garments, they 
 are Bapto'd ;" or stained. They are Bapio^d, 
 by DROPPING the liquid upon them.* 
 
 So Homer, speaking of a battle of frogs 
 and mice on the borders of the lake, says, 
 ( cSaTTTero aifiari \iiivr]^ ) — " The lake was Bap- 
 to'd with blood." Says President Edward 
 
 ♦ Carson, p. GO.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 3l 
 
 Beecher,* " On this there was once a battle 
 royal to prove 1;hat it could be proper to 
 speak of dipping a lake into the blood of a 
 mouse : and all the powers of rhetoric were 
 put in requisition to justify the usage." f 
 Indeed, on the ground then taken by Dr. 
 Gale and by others, it was necessary to 
 fight for this ; for if they could not make it 
 out, their foundation was gone. But since 
 Carson showed the absurdity of the ground, 
 it has been generally abandoned. And yet 
 while the ground is given up ; the tracts 
 based on this ground are still in circulation j 
 and do their work in making proselytes, on 
 the strength of an argument which well in- 
 formed Baptists have in general given up as 
 thoroughly exploded. Such a change in 
 the meaning of a word is a very common 
 occurrence, and it is conceded on all hands 
 that the derivation of a word is no certain 
 index to its meaning. 
 
 * Am. Bib. Repos. 1840, p. 50. 
 
 t Carson says, " What a monstrous paradox in rhe- 
 toric is the figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood 
 of a mouse I Yet Dr. Gale' supposes the lake was 
 dipped by hyperbole. The literal sense, he says, is, the 
 lake was dipped in blood ! Never was there such a 
 figure." p, 67.
 
 32 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Thus the word " Tint^^'^ comes from a 
 Latin word (Tingo) which originally meant 
 to dip : then it meant to color or " tinge ^^^ and 
 now we speak of the " tints''' of the clouds 
 or of the flowers, without ever thinking, that 
 the flowers or the clouds have been dipped 
 to give them their coloring. So the word 
 " Spirit'^ comes unsiranslated from the Latin 
 " Spiritus,^' of which the original meaning 
 was " a breath.^^ But what mortal will now 
 contend that a spirit is nothing but breath ? 
 And yet there is the same reason for com- 
 plaining that the word spirit is an untrans- 
 lated Latin word, that there is for complain- 
 ing that Baptize is an untranslated Greek 
 word : and the reason from etymology for 
 making spirit mean breath, is just as strong 
 as for making Baptize mean immerse from 
 its derivation from Bapto. So the words 
 ♦' bind'"* and " hands" originally meant to tie 
 up, or manacle with cords or chains. But 
 who thinks now of putting cords or fetters 
 on a man when he is " bound'''' to keep the 
 peace or to appear in court : or when he is 
 put under " bonds'''' to fulfil the condition of 
 a bargain or agreement ? 
 
 The mode of making out immersion from
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 33 
 
 the derivation of Baptizo having been over- 
 thrown, and its very elements scattered to 
 the wind, the learned Carson has taken 
 another ground ; and this is the one now 
 universally relied on. I refer to Carson be- 
 cause his research has made this field his 
 own on the Baptist side of the question ; be- 
 cause he is undoubtedly a very learned and 
 able man,* the chief indeed on the Baptist 
 side in this part of the field of controversy : 
 because their writersf are fond of referring 
 to his arguments as something which can 
 never be overthrown : and because, indeed, 
 all the more recent works, to which I have 
 had access, are little else than Carson over 
 again. For these reasons I shall follow his 
 argument ; fully confident that if it does 
 not stand in him it will never stand in any 
 the strength of any man. 
 
 Mr. Carson has, with immense labor, hunt- 
 ed over the Greek classics, and found, as 
 
 * "Mr. Carson, inferior in learning and research to 
 none of the Baptists." [Edward Beecher, Am. Bib. 
 Repos. 1840. p. 51.] 
 
 t See the preface to Jewett on Baptism, where he 
 says, (p. 4), " The spirit exhibited in the treatise of 
 Carson is not to be commended ; his reasoning, how- 
 ever, is unanswerable. '
 
 34- MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 he thinks, that the word Baptize always 
 means, in classic Greek, to dip or immerse. 
 That this is its common meaning in classic 
 Greek is certain : though I think he has 
 failed to make it out to be its exclusive 
 meaning. 
 
 Having settled its classic meaning, he 
 then attempts to make the New Testament 
 meaning in every instance conform to it. 
 Here lies the tug. He cannot accomplish 
 this, unless we will allow him to take the 
 thing to be proved, for granted. The New 
 Testament use is, — as I think I shall show, — 
 most clearly and indefeasibly against him. 
 
 Here lies his error : and it is fundamen- 
 tal. He relies on the classic Greek to de- 
 termine the New Testament Greek : while 
 the facts in the case are as much at war 
 with his conclusions, as the facts in another 
 case would be with the conclusions which 
 should interpret '■^provisions''' in the law of 
 Edward III. to mean victuals : or with the 
 reasonings which would make our Lord say, 
 that men must be born of "water and of 
 wind;" or with those which would make the 
 Sadducees deny that there is any " messen- 
 ger''* or " wind.''''
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 35 
 
 Here is a point to be settled: What do 
 Matthew and I\Iark, and Luke, and John, and 
 Paul, mean by Baptize 1 To settle this point 
 Homer, and Pindar, and Xenophon are 
 brought up to testify as to the meaning of 
 the word in t/iHr country and in their day. 
 Does this settle the question 1 Is it certain 
 that the word when adapted to Jewish ideas 
 and Jewish rites, meant precisely what it did 
 in the days of Homer and Pindar 1 I hum- 
 bly conceive it might be as well to call the 
 Evangelists and Apostles themselves, and 
 ask them what they meant. But, says the 
 examiner, Pindar, and Homer, and the rest 
 of the Greek classics have seilled the question 
 what Evangelists and Apostles must mean; 
 and so, — (I shall show,) — he determines that 
 they shall mean, if he has to get this mean- 
 ing out of them by torture. But what is 
 the use of calling up Matthew and Mark, 
 and the Apostles, as witnesses at all, if the 
 question is settled before they come 1 
 
 Carson, having finished his appeal to the 
 classics, takes his position. He takes his 
 ^^ posiiion' before we are through with the 
 evidence, or even come to that part of the 
 evidence on which the question really turns-
 
 36 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Before coming to the New Testament he 
 says, (p. 79), ^^ My position is^ that it always 
 signifies to dip, never expressing any thing but 
 modey He admits that he has all the lexico- 
 graphers against him:* and I shall show that 
 
 •* Our Baptist brethren have the lexicographers 
 against them on the question of the exclusive sense of 
 immerse, more thoroughly than many of them seem 
 to be aware of. All the lexicographers give other 
 significations. And even the learned Cox is much 
 mistaken here. He defies us, (p. 83), " to point to a 
 single lexicon which does not give dipping, plunging, 
 or immersing, as the unquestionably settled, and uni* 
 versally primitive meaning of the word." 
 
 The defiance can be met, and that on authority 
 which our Baptist brethren are fond of quoting as the 
 very best — the native Greek. Mr. K. Robinson, (Hist. 
 of Bapt.), quoted in Pengilly, (p, 72), says — [and it is 
 often fondly repeated,] " The rative Greeks must un- 
 derstand their own language better than foreigners, 
 and they have always understood the word baptism to 
 signify dipping " — ''In this case, the Greeks are un. 
 
 EXCEPTIONABLE GUIDES." 
 
 Be it so. I turn then to native Greek lexicographers 
 to show that Mr. Cox's challenge can be triumphantly 
 met : and that if the Greek Church '' always practise 
 immersion," (which they do not — see " The Chronicle of 
 the Church," New Haven, No. 167) — they did it not be- 
 cause •' native Greeks" considered immersion essential 
 from the meaning of the word : — and in fine, to show — 
 from what our brethren claim as *' unexceptionable
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 37 
 
 if the lexicographers make any account of 
 the New Testament or of the Christian 
 fathers, they ought to be against him. His 
 mistake lies here : he has appealed to Pin- 
 dar, and Aristotle, and the rest of the 
 heathen classics ; while the proper appeal 
 lies not to these, but from these to Paul, and 
 Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, 
 and the fathers who wrote in Greek. He 
 
 guides," that to baptize, it is by no means necessary 
 
 TO niMERSE. 
 
 I copy the following from the " Chronicle of the 
 Church;' (N. Haven, May 25, 1838,) as fully establish- 
 ing these points. " The oldest native Greek lexico- 
 grapher is Hesychius, who lived in the fourth century 
 of the Christian era. He gives only the word (iavru, 
 [hapto'\, and the only meaning he gives the word is 
 ai/rAcw, [antleo.'] to draw ox pump water, 
 
 " Next \n order comes Suidas, a native Greek who 
 wrote in the 10th century. He gives only the deriva- 
 tive /?a-rj^w, [baptizo,] and defines it by ttAv^w, [pluno,\ 
 to wash." — *' We come dov/n to the present century, 
 at the beginning of which, we find Gases, a learned 
 Greek, who with great labor and pains compiled a 
 large and valuable lexicon of the ancient Greek lan- 
 guage. His book, in two volumes quarto, is a work 
 deservedly held in high estimation by all, and is gen- 
 erally USED BY NATIVE Greeks. It should also be 
 remarked that he is a member of the Greek Church, 
 which always baptizes by immersion, except in case? 
 4
 
 38 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 has taken his stand too soon, and decided 
 the question before coming to the most im- 
 portant testimony. 
 
 But having made his appeal and taken his 
 position, Paul and Mark must be stretched 
 
 of extreme urgency. The following arc his definitions 
 of bapto and baptizo. (Ed. Venice, 2 vols, 4to.") 
 BAHTfl [bapto] 
 
 — /?(5£Xw, [brecho] to wet, moisten, bedew. 
 
 — Tckvvoi, [pluno] to wash [viz. clothes.] 
 
 — yeixi^cx), [gemizo] to Jill. 
 
 — I3v6t^w, [bulhizo] to dip. 
 
 — avrXeu) [dinileo] to draw , to pump water. 
 BAIITIZQ [baptizo] 
 
 — PpeX^ (brecho) to wet, moisten, bedew. 
 
 — \ovcj [louo] to wash, to bathe. 
 
 — avrXeoj [anileo] to draw, to pump water. 
 ♦* These are the definitions of a native Greek, who, 
 the Baptists tell us, are " infinitely better autliority than 
 European lexicographers," — of one who not only does 
 not gWe dipping or immersion as the primitive signifi- 
 cation of baptizo, but who does not give it at all, except 
 inferentially ; as in all these definitions, the idea of im- 
 mersion can be made out only by inference." It is a 
 clear case, then, that the Greeks do not consider the 
 word as meaning, necessarily, an immersion. Their 
 baptizing, in some cases otherwise than by immer- 
 sion shows, also, that they do not consider immersion 
 essential to baptism, either from the meaning of the 
 word, or from any other reason.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 39 
 
 on this bed of the heathen classics : and I 
 shall show how unmercifully they are 
 stretched and racked in the process. 
 
 Thus, when in the Apocryphal book of 
 Ecclesiastic us, which was translated into 
 Greek for the use of the Alexandrian Jews, 
 about 170 years before Christ, it is said, 
 Eccl. xxxiv. 30, "He that washeth himself 
 because of a dead body and toucheth it 
 again, what availeth his washing.^'* " The 
 word washeth here is PaTrTi^oii£vo<; — "being 
 BAPTIZED." The allusion is to Numb. xix. 16. 
 
 "And whosoever toucheth one that is 
 slain with a sword in the open fields, or a 
 dead body, &c." — "A clean person shall 
 take the hyssop, and dip it in the water, and 
 sprinkle it upon the tent," &c. ..." and upon 
 him that toucheth a bone, or one slain, or a 
 grave." The conclusion should be, I think, 
 inevitably, that the baptizing here was done 
 by sprinklings and that here is a clear in- 
 stance in the Alexandrine Greek — (the 
 
 * While the word " washeth," here is ffa-Ti^ifievos 
 [baptized ;] the word '' washing" is Xouracj, *^ wash- 
 ing, showing conclusively that the writer held the two 
 words PaTTTt^o) [baptizo] and Xoww [louo" — to wash] as 
 SYNONYMOUS. Of coursc dipping, or immersing, is not 
 essential to baptizin£j.
 
 40 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 sort in common use among the Jews,) — 
 where the word baptize is used to denote a 
 purification by sprinklings with no reference 
 to dipping or immersing at all. 
 
 But Carson says, No. " When I have prov- 
 ed the meaning of a word by the authority 
 of the whole consent of Greek literature, 
 I will not surrender it to the supposition ofi 
 the strict adherence of the Jewish nation^ in 
 the time of writing the Apocrypha to 
 the Mosaic ritual:''' (p. 99.) 
 
 The question then comes to this dilemma : 
 either the Jews had abandoned this mode of 
 purifying from a dead body, as specifically 
 and minutely pointed out by God — or, here 
 
 was A BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING. CarsOU is 
 
 driven here to assume, and that without the 
 least shadow or pretence of authority, that 
 when God had commanded a purification by 
 sprinklings the Jewish nation had turned 
 about and made an immersion of it. If we 
 do not allow this assumption to pass with no 
 proof, and receive it as an established cer- 
 
 * It should be observed that my business at this 
 Btage of the discussion, is not to follow out all his 
 arguments in detail, but to point out his false princi- 
 ples of reasoning.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 41 
 
 iainty^ then Carson's " position" has been 
 overthrown, and here is a baptism by sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 But difficulties multiply upon him as he 
 proceeds. Thus, in Mark vii. 4 : " And 
 when they come from the market, except 
 they wash^ they eat not." The original is, 
 " Except they are baptized^ they eat not j" 
 which, I shall show hereafter, is, Except 
 they " wash their hands^"* i, e, perform a 
 ceremonial purification upon them, they eat 
 not. 
 
 The learned Campbell, who wished very 
 much to establish immersion as the proper 
 meaning of baptism,* could see no other 
 
 * " Nothing," says Mr. Ewing, <' but the celebrity 
 of Dr. Campbell and the satisfaction of obtaining a 
 concession from a man supposed to be an opponent, 
 can account for the eulogies pronounced on his Notes 
 on Matt. iii. 11, and Mark, vii. 3, 4. After all, what 
 has he done in them towards ascertaining the me^.Ti. 
 ing oi baptizo ? Has he illustrated its various accep- 
 tations ? Has he given any induction of examples, 
 scriptural or classical, for the translation he has pre- 
 ferred ? — He has done nothing of this kind, on this 
 subject, in any one passage in all his works. What 
 then has he done ? He has appealed to one of the 
 worst authorities among the Fathers of ecclesiastical 
 ♦4
 
 42 3I0DE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 mode of getting along here than by suppos- 
 ing that the hands were dipped, and so the 
 immersion, (or baptism,) predicated of the 
 hands. He knew very well that no history 
 of Jewish customs could furnish a scrap of 
 evidence to show that whenever Jews had 
 been in the market, they always immersed 
 their whole bodies. But unfortunately for 
 him the original language is so definite as 
 to show conclusively that the baptism here 
 spoken of is the baptism of the persons : 
 " Except Mey, (the persons), are baptized:" 
 not " Except their hands are baptized." 
 Carson reproves this fault of Campbell, 
 (p. 101,) and says, that Dr. Campbell's no- 
 tion that this baptism refers to the hands as 
 a washing by " dipping them^' he " does not 
 approve." He very properly calls it " j^n 
 ingenious conceit^ without any authority from 
 ihepracticeof the language." But how does 
 Carson himself dispose of the difficulty 1 In 
 avery summary way, indeed. He has shown 
 the meaning of baptizo from the heathen clas- 
 
 antiquity, and to one of the worst authorities among 
 commentators since the revival of letters ; and to these 
 he has added the account of his own assertion." 
 Ewing on Baptism, p. 108.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 43 
 
 sics : and he proves the universal custom 
 of the Jews, always to immerse themselves, 
 from the meaning of the word ! I beg his 
 pardon : the meaning of the word is the 
 very thing that is in question here. We 
 cannot allow him to prove a matter in ques- 
 tion by first assuming it as true. What is 
 the historical fact as to what the Jews did 
 before eating whenever they came from the 
 market '? Settle this and you settle the mean- 
 ing of the word baptize in this connection. 
 But no, Carson is determined that the his- 
 torical fact shall be settled by the meaning 
 of the w^ord, and the thing in dispute shall 
 be proved by itself; no matter though all 
 history is against it. He has proved the 
 meaning of the word from the heathen clas- 
 sics ; and no matter for any difficulties in 
 the w^ay ; the Evangelists shall mean im- 
 mersion by it. No matter though it is 
 proved that the Jews purified themselves 
 by pouring water on the hands ; and that 
 " The manner of the purifying of the Jews," 
 was from " water pots, holding about three 
 firkins" (at the largest computation about 
 two-thirds of a barrel,) " a-piece," from 
 which water might be poured, — or run on
 
 4f4 MODE Of BAPTISM. 
 
 the hands ; but in which no man could be 
 immersed. " / care not^'' says he, " that ten 
 thousand such examples were brought for- 
 ward ;" he insists that the word baptize 
 shall here mean to dip^ viz. to dip the whole 
 body ; because Greek literature so uses the 
 word baptize, (p. 99.) No matter how im- 
 probable it may be that the Jews, always 
 immersed their whole bodies as often as they 
 came from the market ; no matter though no 
 record or trace of such a custom is found 
 anywhere in the world, unless it be in this 
 assumed meaning of the word baptize ; — no 
 matter though no such custom has been 
 heard of the Jews, wherever they have been 
 dispersed throughout the world for so many 
 ages to this day ; — no matter that though 
 the purifying is still kept, it is still perform- 
 ed by pouring water on the hands ; or hold- 
 ing them in a stream of water running from 
 a vessel : — Carson maintains still and stout- 
 ly that, " We have here the authority of the 
 Holy Spirit fur the Jewish custom.^' " If," 
 says he, " I have established the acceptation 
 of this word by the consent of use, even an 
 inexplicable difficulty in this case, would not 
 affect the certainty of my conclusion."
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 45 
 
 (p. 100.) I humbly beg leave to differ from 
 him; and you may judge whether I have 
 alleged sufficient reason. The Holy Spirit 
 has indeed said that the Jews were baptized 
 as often as they came from the market ; 
 but the Holy Spirit has not said that the 
 word baptize here means to immerse. The 
 meaning is the thing in question. And, 
 it seems to me, that a reference to the plain 
 facts in the case authorizes us to consider 
 rather this, that the Holy Spirit regarded 
 that as a baptism of the person^ which was 
 performed by pouring water 07i the hands ; 
 as I shall show more particularly hereafter. 
 I am not now to follow arguments in partic- 
 ular, farther than to point out the fallacy in 
 the principle of arguing. If Carson has 
 failed here, he is overthrown, and entirely so. 
 1 do think that he is shown to have reasoned 
 from false principles, and to have failed. 
 And I know of few among the more intelli- 
 gent Baptists, who will not be ready to ad- 
 mit, that if the very basis of Carson's argu- 
 ment be overthrown, the whole fabric of 
 their peculiar system is broken up and falls 
 to the ground. 
 
 Carson argues in the same manner with
 
 46 31 ODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 regard to baptism of the tables (couches) in 
 Mark, vii. 4. He says, (p. 114,) "But with 
 respect to Mark, vii. 4, though it were prov- 
 ed that the couches could not be immersed, I 
 would not yield an inch of the ground I 
 have occupied." Now how shall we argue 
 with a man who will not admit an absolute 
 impossibility to be any obstacle in the way 
 of his theory; the couches were baptized, 
 and if it " be proved*^ that " the couches could not 
 be immersed" he will not yield an inch ; he 
 will maintain still that they were immersed, 
 " And! may add," says he, (p. 116,) " that 
 the couches might have been so construct- 
 ed, that they might be conveniently taken 
 to pieces." Indeed ! what shall we not allow 
 him to suppose ^'' viight have been," rather 
 than grant the possibility that the Jews 
 " might'^ have used this word baptize in a 
 sense different from that of the old heathen 
 Greeks % 
 
 Nor would it seem to make any matter to 
 Mr. Carson, how often people had been 
 " baptized" in other modes than immersion j 
 he would still maintain his ground. " I care 
 not," says he, — " I care not if there never 
 had been a human being immersed in water
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 47 
 
 since the creation of the world, if the word 
 denotes immersion, and if Christ enjoins it, 
 I will contend for it as confidently as if all 
 nations had been daily in the practice of bapti- 
 zing" — (immersing) " each other," (p. 155.) 
 True, IF the word means immerse and never 
 means anything else. But I humbly sup- 
 pose that the common practice of a people 
 who called a purifying by sprinkling or 
 pouring, a baptism, would have some little 
 weight upon the question what that people 
 did in fact understand by the words baptize 
 and baptism. 
 
 So when Carson comes to the baptism of 
 the Holy Ghost ; it is nothing to him that 
 the Scriptures represent this uniform- 
 ly under the mode of " pouring," " coming 
 down like rain," " and shedding forth." He 
 says, " It is a fixed point, that baptism means 
 immersion ;" " and in the examination of the 
 reference in the baptism of the Spirit, no- 
 thing CAN BE ADMITTED inconsistent with 
 this ;" and then adds, (p. 164), " The bap- 
 tism of the Spirit must have a reference to 
 immersion, because — baptism is immersion /" 
 I would reply, That, Mr. Carson, is the very 
 thing to be proved ; whether baptism is ex-
 
 48 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 clusively — immersion. But he insists upon 
 it directly in the same page, and puts his 
 words in italics ; " Pouring cannot be the 
 figurative baptism, because baptism never lite- 
 rail?/ denotes pouring.^' — " Pouring could not 
 represent the pouring of the Spirit, because 
 the Spirit is not literally poured." 
 
 1 would reply, — But, Mr. Carson, does not 
 God himself say, " I will pour out my Spirit 1" 
 But, replies he, " Believers are said to be im- 
 mersed into the Spirit, not because there is 
 any thing like immersion in the manner of 
 the reception of the Spirit, but from the re- 
 semblance between an object soaked in a 
 fluid, and the sanctification of all the mem- 
 bers of the body and faculties of the soul." 
 (pp. 167, 168.) 
 
 I say nothing about the resemblance be- 
 tween " soaking^'' and " sanctifying ;" but 
 he says truly, there is ''nothing like immer- 
 sion^'''' in the manner of receiving the Spirit ; 
 nor, of course, is there in the manner of con- 
 ferring it ; yet a baptism there is, Christ 
 being witness ; and the mode of that baptism 
 is represented by a ''^pouring out^'''' " shed- 
 ding forth^''^ " coming down^''^ '"' falling upon" 
 
 But immediately Mr. Carson responds, 
 
 I
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 49 
 
 (p. 168), " There was a real baptism (im- 
 mersion), in the emblems of the Spirit." 
 
 I answer, Christ did not say, ye shall be 
 '-''immersed'''' into the " emblems''' of the Spirit ; 
 he said " ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost ; with the Spirit itself, not with its 
 '• emblems.''^ 
 
 I would follow Mr. Carson farther here, 
 did I deem it necessary. But I think 1 have 
 gone far enough to show that he has failed, 
 most signally failed, in that which is the 
 very foundation and element of his argument. 
 He will prove every thing if we will let him 
 assume every thing. But we cannot. His 
 principles of reasoning are unsound ; and if 
 you allow him these unsound principles, he 
 still begs the question. You have seen how 
 the Evangelists are put to the torture when 
 they are stretched on this Procrustean bed 
 of the heathen Greeks. Even granting that 
 Carson has rightly settled the question with 
 regard to the heathen Greeks, I think I 
 have shown his argument to be as incon- 
 clusive as that which should make the word 
 " Provisions" in the statute of Edward III. 
 mean victuals ; or as that which would 
 make regeneration consist in being born of 
 5
 
 50 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " water and of wind ;" or as that which 
 would make the peculiar infidelity of the 
 Sadducees consist in denying that there is 
 any " rising wp^'' or " messenger^'' or " icind^'' 
 
 I might rest the debate here. But I think 
 Carson has even failed to make out his case 
 from the Greek classics. He is to prove 
 that baptism in these always means immer- 
 sion ; and such an immersion as to have the 
 whole body covered with water. But take 
 two or three of his examples j take them in 
 course and almost at random on pp. 83, 84, 
 of his work. 
 
 " Polyhius applies the word to soldiers 
 passing through water, baptized up to the 
 middle." Here surely, they were ivet with 
 the water ; but, it seems to me, not " im- 
 mersed''' in it ; not " buriecV in the waters, 
 according to the favorite figure of our Bap- 
 tist brethren. 
 
 Take his next example. " Plutarch^ 
 speaking of a Roman General dying of his 
 wounds, says that (^a-rtaas) having baptized 
 his hand in blood, he wrote the inscription 
 for a trophy." " Here," says Carson, " the 
 mode cannot be questioned." " The instru- 
 ment of writing is dipped in the coloring
 
 MODE OF BAI'TISM. 5 1 
 
 fluid." Suppose we grant it. ^ly pen is the 
 instrument of writing, and I dip it in the ink 
 when I write j surely I never immerse it in 
 ink when I write ! When will our Baptist 
 brethren cease this play upon the word dip- 
 ping when they are to prove a total immer- 
 sion ! 
 
 Again, says Carson, (p. 84), " The sinner 
 is represented by Porphyry as baptized up 
 to his head in Styx, a celebrated river in 
 heliy and adds, " Is there any question about 
 the mode of this baptism ?" I reply, No, 
 surely there is not. He is not immersed^ 
 he is not buried in the water. 
 
 Again, he says, (p. 83,) " Strabo applies 
 the word to Alexander's soldiers marching 
 a whole day through the tide between the 
 mountain Climax and the sea, baptized up 
 to the middle. Surely," says Carson, "this 
 was immersion." If it was, I reply, then 
 when our Baptist ministers icade out into the 
 river with their candidates, then both the 
 minister and the candidate are immersed 
 without being put under water at all ; and 
 a burijing in the water is not necessary to 
 baptism. Certainly, the classic Strabo being 
 witness, there may be a baptism without
 
 52 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 putting the body under water. Here is 
 not even di dippings ov2i plunging^ or an over- 
 whelming^ or a burying ; the soldiers wade 
 into the water and so are baptized ! And 
 yet, upon such a basis, Carson settles the 
 question, that baptism necessarily implies 
 putting the subject wholly under water ! 
 for no less a conclusion than this meets the 
 point which he is to establish. His ancient 
 classics fail him ; and we have seen that if 
 they did not, their entire agreement, in using 
 the word to denote only an immersion, 
 would by no means settle the question. 
 We must go to the New Testament. We 
 must learn the sacred use of the term. We 
 must learn what Evangelists and Apostles 
 deemed essential to baptism ; and if we 
 make any thing essential which they did 
 not, we are found guilty of adding to the 
 word of God.
 
 n. 
 
 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 SPRINKLING AND POURING, SCRIPTURAL MODES. 
 
 MATTHEW, xxviii.l9. 
 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 So far, we have been occupied in discuss- 
 ing the principles of interpretation to be 
 applied or admitted in determining what it 
 is to baptize ; and in making an application 
 of these principles to the mode of argumen- 
 tation adopted by our Baptist brethren. 
 
 I now proceed to the three inquiries laid 
 do^vn as the plan of my argument in the 
 preceding discourse. 
 
 1. What would the immediate disciples of 
 our Lord understand from the simple face of 
 the command " Baptize V
 
 54? MODE OF BAPTISM, 
 
 2. Is THERE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT 
 THEY ALWAYS ADMINISTERED THE ORDINANCE 
 BY IMMERSION % 
 
 3. On THE SUPPOSITION THAT THEY DID SO, 
 IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THEY CONSIDERED 
 THAT ONE MODE ESSENTIAL 1 
 
 1. What would the immediate disciples of 
 Christ understand from the simple face of the 
 command "■ Baptize ?" 
 
 In Heb. ix. 10, we read of a ritual service 
 " which stood only in meats and drinks, and 
 divers washings." In the original, it is 
 
 ^Siaipopois pa-rrriaixois^'^ " DiVERS BAPTISMS." 
 
 So, according to Paul, there were '"'' bap- 
 tisms''^ under the Old Testament dispensa- 
 tion ; and they are alike wrong, who say 
 that there was no baptism before John,* 
 
 * We are often quoted as though we held that John's 
 baptism was "/?-om men ;" and long arguments full of 
 emotion at such a flagrant contradiction of our Savior 
 are held, to prove that John's baptism was not from 
 men. We never doubted, that John's baptism 
 was not from men. And yet the word baptize, 
 and the thing baptize, so far as the outward act is 
 concerned, were in common use long before John ; as 
 Paul here witnesses. The authority for baptizing with 
 the " baptism unto repentance,''^ John had from heaven ; 
 the design and import of that baptism were from hea-
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 55 
 
 and they who cut the Bible in two, and 
 throw away the Old Testament, when they 
 go to learn what the word baptism means. 
 
 Paul contrasts this dispensation with that 
 of which Christ is High Priest. He has 
 told in what the first dispensation stood, and 
 he goes on to say in what the new dispen- 
 sation does not stand. "Neither by the 
 blood of goats and calves, but by his own 
 
 bloody " For if the blood of bulls and of 
 
 goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling 
 the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of 
 the flesh, how much more shall the blood of 
 Christ purge your conscience.'^ He spe- 
 cifies here what " washings'^ (baptisms,) or 
 purifyings, he speaks of ; and the only ones 
 which he specifies, are those performed with 
 " 6/ooc?," and with the " ashes of a heifer 
 SFRiisKLiNG the unclean." The persons and 
 things purified were never immersed in blood, 
 
 yen, neic and specially given to John. But the act was 
 not then first practiced. A neio use was made of an 
 old thing. The design, and import, and use, were the 
 substance of the baptism ; the mode was a trifle. The 
 mind of our Savior, as well as the minds of his hearers, 
 fastened upon these, — the design, meaning, and use of 
 the baptism, — when he asked, " The baptism of John, 
 was it from Heaven, or of men ?"
 
 56 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 they were sprinkled ; and these sprinklings 
 Paul here calls baptisms. It should be no- 
 ticed too that as the sprinkling of the blood 
 of bulls, and of the ashes of a heifer sancti- 
 fied to the purifying of the^esA," so the ap- 
 plication of the " blood of Christ ^^^ which 
 purgeth " the conscience" is repeatedly 
 called the " sprinkling" (never the immers. 
 ing) " of the blood of Christ.'^ 
 
 The " PURIFYING OF THE flesh" by the 
 ashes of a heifer, to which Paul here refers, 
 is prescribed in Numbers xix. 17, 18. 
 *' And for an unclean person, they shall take 
 of the ashes of a burnt heifer o( purification 
 for sin, and running water shall be put 
 thereto in a vessel, and a clean person shall 
 SPRINKLE it upon the tent, and upon all the 
 vessels, and upon the persons that were 
 there, and upon him that touched a bone, or 
 one slain, or one dead, or a grave." 
 
 It is added, that on the seventh day " he 
 shall bathe himself ;" and our Baptist bre- 
 thren are fond of saying that the " Baptism 
 refers to the bathing." I am glad of the 
 objection, because it distinctly recognizes 
 the fact that Paul refers to these purifyings 
 as among his " divers baptisms." But the
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 57 
 
 objection is idle ; as Paul does not specify 
 the bathing as any part of what he means ; 
 but he does specify the " sprinkli7ig." He 
 does not say that the bathing* " sanctifieth 
 to the purifying of the flesh," but he says it 
 is " The blood of bulls and goats, and the 
 ashes of the heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
 that sanctifieth." It is what is done by ano- 
 ther hand, (for a " clean person^' must sprin- 
 kle the unclean,) on which Paul's mind fas- 
 tens as the baptism ; and he does not deem 
 it necessary to specify any thing else. And 
 this application of blood, which was made 
 by sprinkling, and the ashes of a heifer 
 sprinkling the unclean, Paul calls a baptism. 
 The current of his discourse leads him on 
 to speak of another of the " divers bap- 
 tisms," in V. 15, and onward. Having made 
 a comparison between the ^^ purifying oj 
 theflesh,^' by the sprinkling of blood, and of 
 the ashes of a heifer, and the ^^ purging of 
 the conscience,^' by the " sprinkling of the 
 blood of Christ," he runs out the same pa- 
 rallel between the ritual of establishing the 
 
 * If he did, the word bathing would not necessarily 
 imply an immersion. Bathing here is synonymous 
 with leashing.
 
 58 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 first testament under Moses, and the ritual 
 of establisliing the second under Christ. It 
 is worthy of remark that the same form of 
 ritual is still kept up ; it is still a sprinkling, 
 and not an immersion. " For when Moses 
 had spoken every precept to all the people, 
 according to the law, he took of the blood 
 of calves and of goats, with water, and scar- 
 let wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled the book 
 and all the people. Moreover, he sprinkled 
 likewise with blood both the tabernacle and 
 all the vessels of the ministry." The argu- 
 ment is, that Christ, in ratifying the new 
 covenant, must ratify it with his own blood ; 
 and the only modal application of this blood 
 spoken of even in figure, is the " sprinkling 
 of the blood of Christ." The current of 
 his discourse, and the contrast which runs 
 throughout his argument, shows that the 
 *' divers baptisms'*^ are still referred to in 
 these purifyings so repeatedly described 
 under the mode of sprinkling. 
 
 He speaks of " divers baptisms." Ano- 
 ther of these is mentioned in Numb. viii. 7: 
 " And this shall thou do unto them to 
 cleanse them," (viz. the Levites, to prepare 
 them to enter upon the functions of their
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 59 
 
 office,) " sprinkle water of purifying upon 
 them, and let them shave all their flesh, and 
 let them wash their clothes, and so make 
 themselves clean." Note here, that no man 
 inducts himself into the priesthood, and all 
 that was done to the Levite by another'' s hand 
 Avas the sprinkling.^^ The Leper was in like 
 manner to be cleansed by sprinkling, Lev. 
 xiv. 7. And so pre-eminently is the sprink- 
 ling considered as the important element in 
 the cleansing, that this alone is the outward 
 part of the ritual pitched upon to designate 
 the purifying with which Christ washes 
 away the sins, and cleanses away the pol- 
 lution of the soul. Thus, Isaiah Hi. 15, " So 
 shall he sprinkle many nations." Heb. xii. 
 24, " And sprinkling of the blood of Christ." 
 L Pet. i. 2, " And sprinkling of the blood of 
 Christ." You never read of his " Immersing 
 many nations," nor of the " Immersion of 
 the blood of Christ j" no never, in the 
 word of God. 
 
 But the IMPORT of baptism by water is this 
 same cleansing away of sin by the blood of 
 Christ. The washing away of sin is effected 
 — not by the water — but by the blood of 
 Christ. Baptism by water signifies this 
 washing away of sins- Thus, " Arise and
 
 60 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 be baptized, and wash away thy sins.^^* Now 
 if the application of the sig?i is to resemble 
 the application of the thing which performs 
 the real cleansing, and to resemble it even 
 in figure : if the type is to resemble the a/iti- 
 type ; the shadow the substance ; then as it is 
 the sprinkling of the blood of Christ that does 
 the cleansing, surely it should be the sprink- 
 ling of the water in baptism that signifies 
 the cleansing ; immersion would spoil the 
 resemblance, and mar the significance of 
 the sign. 
 
 But not to come at the conclusion too 
 soon, let US hold here upon the testimony 
 of the facts so far considered. We have 
 here, then, " divers baptisms" performed by 
 
 SPRINKLING. 
 
 Turn now to Mark vii. 3, 4 — " For the 
 Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash 
 their hands oft, eat not ; holding the tradi- 
 tion of the elders. And when they come 
 
 * There is a curious mode of setting asido this argu- 
 ment, by considering baptism as designed to represent 
 the burial and resurrection of Christ ! The word of 
 God gives quite another view of the import of baptism ; 
 see Acts ii. 38, and xxii. IG.
 
 HODE OF BAPTISM. 61 
 
 from the market,* except they wash, they 
 eat not j and many other things there be 
 which they have received to hold, as the 
 WASHING of cups, and pots, and brazen ves- 
 sels, and tables." 
 
 The words " wash" and " loashing''^ are, 
 in the original (/Ja-rftrwirai,) except they have 
 
 BAPTIZED THEMSELVES ; and (^a-ncfiovs,"^ '' BAP- 
 TISMS." 
 
 See how this subject is introduced. 
 " And when they saw some of his disciples 
 eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with 
 umcashen) hands, they found fault." Then 
 follows the explanation : " For the Pharisees, 
 and all the Jews, except they wash their 
 hands oft, eat not ; and when they come from 
 the market, except they wash, they eat not." 
 " Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him, 
 Why walk not thy disciples according to 
 the tradition of the elders,! but eat bread 
 
 * Rosenmuller says, " The sense is, ' when they come 
 from the market, (i. e. any public place,) they do not 
 take their food except they wash tlieir liauds.' Ayopa 
 (the market) signifies not only a concourse of men, or 
 place of public resort, in which provisions arc sold, and 
 in which trials arc held, but all similar public places." 
 Ayopa — public places, opposed to private dwellings." 
 
 + *' The rule of the rabbins was, that if thev washed 
 6
 
 ♦)2 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 with unwashcn hands ?" Compare this with 
 Lulce xi. 38. A Pharisee marvelled that 
 llie Lord Jesus " had not first washed before 
 dinner," (original, eSa^mci),,) ; that " he had 
 not first been baptized before dinner." The 
 fault of the Lord Jesus and of the disciples, 
 in the eyes of the Jews was, that they had 
 not first been baptized (or baptized tkcmsclves) 
 before eating ; i. e., they had eaten with un. 
 wAsiiEN HANDS. The washing of the hands, 
 therefore, was a baptism ; and, — as the form 
 of the original language, as well as our 
 translation, shows, — a baptism of the persons, 
 not simply of the hands ; ?. e., they (the 
 persons) were baptized when their hands 
 had been washed for a ceremonial purify- 
 ing. 
 
 There is this further peculiarity about it ; 
 their hands were not commonly dipped or 
 immersed^ but washed in running water, as 
 
 tlicir hands well in tiic iuorniii<]f, the first thing tlicy 
 did, it would servo for all day, procidcd thcij kept alone ; 
 but ifthty went iiilo company, they must not, at their re- 
 turn, cither cat or pray, till they had washed their 
 hands." — Matthew Henry , on Mark vii. 4. 
 
 See also Maiinonules, cited in Scott's comment on 
 this place, to the same effect.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 63 
 
 streaming from a pitcher or from a watering 
 pot.* 
 
 1 am aware that attempts have been made 
 to set aside the force of these passages, in 
 Mark vii. and Luke xi. But these attempts 
 have done no more than to demonstrate the 
 strength of our position. There arc only- 
 two possible grounds of resisting the con- 
 clusion. One of which is, that the baptism 
 is predicated of the hands, as though the 
 hands were immersed ; and the other, that 
 while the Jews on many occasions washed 
 their hands^ yet as often as they came from 
 ike market^ they immersed their whole bodies. 
 
 * A very worthy minister of the Episcopal church, 
 who had traveled much, and tpent considerable time 
 in the East, (formerly Rector of St. Paul's Church in 
 this place,) assured me that the practice is continued 
 in the Eastern world to this day. Before meals, a ser- 
 vant comes round with a pitcher, and pours water on 
 the hands of those about to eat, or they are otherwise 
 cleansed with running or streaming water. He said, 
 as often as he saw it done, it brought to his mind the 
 passage in II. Kings iii. 11. " Here is Elisha, the son 
 of Shaphat, who poured icater on the hands of Elijah," 
 i. e. wlxo was servant to him : the very common duty 
 of a servant is used as an appellation to designate 
 the relation of servant.
 
 64 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 As was noticed in the previous discourse, 
 Dr. Campbell takes the first ground, and Mr. 
 Carson, the second ; and while these two 
 great men measure swords, and mutually 
 overthrow each other's position, the truth 
 comes out from between them unscathed. 
 Campbell, appearing to know full well the 
 absurdity of supposing that " all the Jews''' 
 always " immersed" themselves as often as 
 they came from the market before eating, 
 referred the baptism to the hands^ and main- 
 tained an immersion^ but an immersion of 
 the hands only. Carson, (p. 101,) replies, 
 that he considers Campbell's view of the 
 matter as ''nothing but an ingenious device, 
 without any authority from the practice of 
 the language." Such it most undoubtedly 
 is. No scholar could ever have been be- 
 trayed into such a " device," save from the 
 hard necessity of making out an " immersion'^ 
 in this case, by some means or other. Car. 
 son, on the other hand, maintains that we 
 are taught here, that " all the Jews," when- 
 ever they have been at the market, never 
 eat except they have immersed the whole body. 
 What does he bring to prove it 1 The 
 word baptize ! Baptize means immerse :
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 65 
 
 therefore they were immersed, the Holy- 
 Spirit being witness ! But the very ques- 
 tion is, whether baptize means immerse. 
 The Holy Spirit has said they were baptized^ 
 and has so explained it as to leave us to un- 
 derstand that they were baptized (ceremo- 
 nially purified,) by washing their hands. 
 The Holy Spirit has said that they were 
 baptized, but the Spirit has not told us that 
 by baptize^ he means immerse. What was 
 the fad ? Did the Jews always immerse 
 themselves as often as they came from the 
 market?* To me it appears clear that the 
 Holy Spirit has explained what the fact was ; 
 they washed their hands. And what does 
 Mr. Carson bring to show that they always 
 immersed their whole bodies as often as 
 they came from the market 1 Nothing but 
 this idle begging of the question concerning 
 the word baptize. There is not a scrap of 
 evidence in any thing else in the wide world 
 to show it.f The manners and customs of 
 
 ♦ Kuinoel declares it to be improbable, and maintains 
 that it cannot be proved by sufficient arguments that 
 they had such a custom. 
 
 t '' There is no evidence that the Jews washed their 
 whole bodies every time they came from the market." 
 — Barnes, 6*
 
 66 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the Jews were well known. They have 
 been well known since throughout the four 
 quarters of the globe, wherever their nation 
 has been scattered and peeled ; the washing 
 of the hands still exists ; but nothing — no no- 
 thing from all history has been adduced to 
 show that they observe, or ever have ob- 
 served the custom which Mr. Carson here 
 attributes to them. Nothing — no nothing, 
 but this idle begging of the question has 
 been alleged and substantiated, or can be. 
 But all this matters nothing to Mr. Carson ! 
 High, low, rich, poor ; at home and abroad ; 
 winter or summer ; all are conveniently 
 furnished, with haths^ or with something else, 
 where they may conveniently immerse them- 
 selves before eating, as often as they have 
 been at the market ! It matters nothing 
 that these things were never heard of; 
 " baptize means immerse," and therefore it 
 must be so. It matters not, that " Accord, 
 ing to the manner of purifying of the Jews,^^ 
 there were set, not " baths,^' but " water- 
 pots ;" and that those used at the marriage 
 supper in Cana, when they would seem to 
 need " much water" if ever, contained about 
 '•^two or three firkins a-piece^'^ (somewhat
 
 I^IODE OF BAPTISM. 67 
 
 over half a barrel, according to the largest 
 computation,) large enough, it should seem, 
 to purify a whole company of guests, but of 
 questionable capacity for a single immersion. 
 No ; no matter for difficulties. No, says 
 Carson, (p. 100,) " Even an inexplicable dif. 
 jiculty would not affect the certainty of my 
 conclusions." But enough ; I think you will 
 conclude with me, that here is sufficient 
 proof, that Mark, speaking as he was moved 
 by the Holy Ghost, teaches us that the word 
 " baptism''' was used to denote (among other 
 things) a ritual washing of the hands. Of 
 course, the immersion of the whole body is 
 in no way essential to a baptism. 
 
 To my mind, here is, so far, demonstration ; 
 — proof which puts it beyond my power to 
 doubt, — that sprinkling and pouring are 
 SCRIPTURAL MODES OF BAPTISM. Whether the 
 mode of immersion has a scriptural recogni- 
 tion is a matter that is yet to appear. It is 
 certain, without going farther, that i3DIEr- 
 
 SION CANNOT BE ESSENTIAL TO BAPTIS3I. 
 
 Let us come now to the use of the word 
 baptize with reference to the work of the 
 Holy Spirit. Jesus said. Acts i. 3, " John 
 truly baptized with water, but ye shall be
 
 68 MODE OF BAl'TISM. 
 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many 
 days hence." I will not stop to show how 
 grossly this would sound to alter it, accord- 
 ing to the proposal of our Baptist brethren, 
 so as to read " But ye shall be immersed with 
 (or in) the Holy Ghost." 
 
 This baptism was accomplished on the 
 day of Pentecost. Peter said of it, " This 
 is that which was spoken by the prophet 
 Joel ; And it shall come to pass in the last 
 days, — \ wiW pour out my Spirit upon dXl 
 flesh." — " He (Jesus) hath shed forth this 5" 
 so, Acts xi. 15, 16, "And as I began to 
 speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on 
 us at the beginning. Then remembered I 
 the word of the Lord, how that he said, John 
 indeed baptized with water^ but ye shall be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost." The mode 
 of the baptism here spoken of, is under the 
 figure of pouring and shedding forth. The 
 gift of the Spirit is never spoken of under 
 the figure of immersion, but as a pourings 
 shedding forth, sprinkling, coming down 
 like rain. Thus, Isaiah xliv. 3, " I will pour 
 out my Spirit upon thy seed." Ezek. xxxvi. 
 25, 26, " Then will I sprinkle clean water 
 "upon you, and ye shall be clean: a new
 
 3I0DE OF BAPTISM. 69 
 
 heart also will I give you." Compare Tit. 
 iii. 5, 6, " By the washing of regeneration, 
 the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is 
 shed on us abundantly ;" Ps. Ixii. 6, " He 
 shall come down upon the mown grass as 
 showers that water the earth ;" Isaiah Hi. 
 15, " So shall he sprinkle many nations." 
 
 It has been argued that the baptizing was 
 still by immersion, as the Spirit was shed 
 down ^^ abundanthj,'^ a.nd ^' filled the I'oom." 
 The Scripture says " the sound" filled the 
 room. It is not so gross as to speak of the 
 Holy Spirit tilling a room like a material 
 substance, and thus immersing people. Be- 
 sides, though you might cover people by 
 pouring water on them, provided they were 
 enclosed in a room or vessel, you could not 
 be said to " dip" or " plunge" them in so 
 doing 5 but immersion (and it is contended 
 that the baptism of the Holy Ghost shall be 
 called the " immersion'^ of the Holy Ghost j) 
 , immersion has the act of dipping entering 
 necessarily into its idea, as well as the act 
 of covering. Moreover, all converted per- 
 sons are baptized with the Holy Ghost. 
 Paul says, 1 Cor. xii. 13, "For by one Spirit 
 are we all baptized into one body, whether
 
 70 MODE OF BAfTlSM. 
 
 we be Jew or Gentile, bond or free." But 
 who will pretend that all c^onverted persons 
 are " immersed" into , the Holy Ghost, ac- 
 cording to the manner in which, (it is ar- 
 gued,) the apostles were immersed on the 
 day of Pentecost, by pouring the Spirit upon 
 them till it filled the room, and so immersed 
 them'? 
 
 But Carson insists still, that there was a 
 real immersion here ; not with the Spirit, 
 but with the emblems of the Spirit. The 
 answer has already been given. Christ did 
 not say ye shall be baptized with the em- 
 blems of the Spirit. He said, " Ye shall be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost j" with the 
 Spirit itself, not with the emblems. 
 
 Here I rest under this topic. The mode 
 of baptism in the baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
 as that mode is indicated by the uniform 
 figure, is pourings shedding forth, sprinkling, 
 coming down like rain, or like showers, fall- 
 ing upon. I cannot but wonder that those 
 who insist so much upon the words, " bu- 
 ried with him in baptism,^^ are not able to 
 see in these also an equal authority for pro- 
 per modes of baptism ; even granting (what 
 I do not grant) that their favorite phrase has 
 some reference to a mode of baptism.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 71 
 
 Having traced the meaning- of the word 
 "baptize," so far in the Scriptures, turn to 
 the early Christian Fathers, whose views of 
 what is essential to baptism were moulded 
 on the meaning of the term common among 
 Christians and Jews. The following exam- 
 ples, with several others, are adduced by 
 Dr. Pond* " Tertullian speaks of baptism 
 being administered by sprinkling. ' Who 
 will accommodate you, a man so little to be 
 trusted, (asperginem unam aquae) with one 
 sprinkling of water. ^ 
 
 " Origex represents the wood on the altar, 
 over which water was poured at the com- 
 mand of Elijah, (1 Kings xviii. 33,) as hav- 
 ing been baptized. 
 
 " Lactantius says that Christ received 
 baptism, ' that he might save the Gentiles 
 by baptism^ that is (purifici roris perfusione) 
 by the distilling of the purifying dew. 
 
 '' Cyprian, Jerome, and some others of 
 the Fathers, understood the prediction, *I 
 will sprinkle clean water upon you,' Ezek. 
 xxxvi. 25, as having reference to water 
 baptism. 
 
 * See p. 33, 34, of his excellent work on Baptism.
 
 72 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of a 
 backslider, whom John was the means of 
 reclaiming, says, ' He Avas baptized a se- 
 cond time with tears.'' 
 
 " Athanasius reckons up eight several 
 * baptisms,' and the sixth in his enumeration 
 is that ' of tears' 
 
 " Gregory Nazianzen says, ' I know of a 
 fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and 
 blood ; and I know of a'fifth, that of tears.'' 
 The baptism of tears and blood was a favor- 
 ite phraseology^with the early Christians." 
 
 Now in all these baptisms^ of the " wood 
 and the altar," of 'Hears'' and "■ blood," the 
 idea of " dipping," " plunging," " burying," 
 or " immersing," is excluded. " Wet," 
 "washed," "sprinkled," "poured upon," 
 those spoken of here as baptized might be ; 
 but whether men may be dipped or immersed 
 in their own tears or blood, admits of a 
 question. If it be said that these represen- 
 tations are figurative, certainly there is no 
 immersion about them, even in figure. 
 
 The conclusion is, that the early fathers 
 as well as the Apostles, understood the 
 word " baptize^' in quite another sense than 
 that of immerse. Their idea of baptism was
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 73 
 
 that of a purifying (or consecrating) by 
 sprinkling or pourings and these are the 
 modes under which is constantly represented 
 the purifying (the baptism) of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 I have now done with the argument under 
 the first head, and we are ready for the 
 question, What would the immediate disciples 
 of our Lord understand from the simple face 
 of the command baptize % Would they con- 
 sider immersion as essential % I think the 
 conclusion is inevitable ; it is impossible. 
 Sprinkling and pouring they would inevi- 
 tably consider lawful and proper modes ; 
 and so far, it has not appeared that they 
 have any notion of immersing at all : or any 
 authority for it, if direct authority be sought 
 for a specific mode. 
 
 I have done with the argument from the 
 meaning of the word ; and proceed to the 
 second inquiry. 
 
 2. " Is there satisfactory evidence that the 
 disciples of Christ always administered bap* 
 tism by immersion, I say always y for if 
 they did not always do so, immersion can- 
 not be essential, even though it could be 
 proved (which it cannot be,) that immersion 
 
 was the common mode. 
 7
 
 74 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 John was baptizing in Enon, " because 
 there was much water there.''^ It is contended 
 that the '■''much water-'''' could be needed only 
 for immersion, and that therefore John bap- 
 tized by immersion. 
 
 It is not' a little remarkable that they 
 who print this in capitals to prove that John 
 baptized by immersion, presently find water 
 enough in Jerusalem to baptize three thou- 
 sand in a small part of one day. They are 
 fond of asking, " Why did he go to the ri- 
 ver V They dwell much upon " Following 
 THE Savior down the banks of Jordan ;" 
 and upon *' Going to the river." But 
 though Jordan was at hand, we read no 
 more about the disciples going " to the ri- 
 ver." We hear nothing said by the Apostles 
 about following the Savior down the banks 
 of Jordan. They baptize wherever they 
 may happen to be ; and are never at a loss, 
 or compelled to remove to another place 
 for the purpose of finding " much water.''^ 
 It does not appear that they ever think it 
 needs much water for baptism. It seems 
 strange, therefore, that John went to Enon 
 to find much water for the mere purpose of 
 baptizing.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 75 
 
 John preached " in the wilderness^''^ (Matt, 
 iii.) It is said, Mark i. 4, " John did bap- 
 tize in the wilderness." It is said that 
 " Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the re- 
 Sfion round about went out to John." Such 
 multitudes would need " much water^^ for 
 other purposes than immersion ; and John 
 must needs resort to a place where much 
 water might be found to furnish those mul- 
 titudes in the wilderness with drink, unless 
 indeed he could work a miracle, and we 
 read that "John did no miracle." This 
 may seem, at first view, a little matter to us, 
 in this land of wells, and brooks, and springs ; 
 but all who are familiar with travels in the 
 East, know how important a considerable 
 caravan finds it to get near a good watering 
 place for an encampment, even for a single 
 night. 
 
 Now what was this " Wilderness of Ju- 
 dea 1" Take the map, and look eastward 
 from Jerusalem and Judea to Jordan, to the 
 region lying between these, and from the 
 Dead Sea up to what is supposed to be 
 Enon. You have embraced the location of 
 the wilderness of Judea. And what is this 
 wilderness ? An American lady, (Mrs.
 
 76 MODE OF BAPTISBI. 
 
 Haight,) who traveled up this region from 
 Jericho a short time since, thus describes 
 her journey in Vol. 2, p. 131 of her travels. 
 " Our course lay due north, up the valley 
 of the Jordan. We replenished our water- 
 bottles (bags), as we were warned that we 
 should find no more until afternoon. At 
 this spot we left all signs of cultivation ; the 
 plain was afterward one entire desert^ during 
 the whole day's ride of twenty-five miles. 
 The soil was a compact gravel or as geolo- 
 gists call it, a " hard pan," partially cov- 
 ered with a short dry grass, the result of the 
 winter rains, which withers up the moment 
 their influence is past. Not a single object 
 or incident occurred during this most te- 
 dious and painful day of all my life. This 
 was the first time since we left Beyroot that 
 we had suffered any length of time for want 
 of water. By nine o'clock the intense heat 
 of the sun made the water in the leather 
 bottles so warm that we could not drink it. 
 Extreme thirst obliged us merely to moisten 
 our parched tongues."* 
 
 Josephus bears the same testimony of this 
 wilderness.f " The whole plain," says he, 
 
 ♦ N. Y. Observer, April 11, 1840. t Ibid.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 77 
 
 " is destitute of water, except the Jordan." 
 In another place he says, that " The Jordan, 
 dividing the lake of Gennesareth in the 
 midst, passes through an extensive desert in 
 to the Dead Sea." Eusebius* speaks more 
 than once of the Desert of the Jordan. 
 
 In this wilderness John was preaching and 
 baptizing. There seems here reason enough 
 why, being in the wilderness, he should " go 
 TO THE river" even if it were not to im- 
 merse ; and reason enough why he should 
 resort to Enon for much water, even for 
 other purposes than immersion. The im- 
 mense multitudes would need water for 
 drink ; or if they had prudently brought a 
 supply in their leathern bags, John might 
 still have preferred the waters of the river 
 for the purpose of purifying ; and the tra- 
 veler "Sandysf says, that at Enon are little 
 SPRINGS gushing out, whose waters are soon 
 absorbed by the sands." Could not these 
 springs, with their streams, have been the 
 (:i-oXXa I'Jura,) " many waters,^' for the sake of 
 which John resorted to Enon ; for it cannot 
 be supposed but that there was as " muck 
 water" any where along the stream of Jor- 
 
 * Ibid. t Hamilton on Baptism, p. 92. 
 
 7*
 
 78 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 dan as opposite to Enon ; and to fiad much 
 water in Jordan could be no reason for go- 
 ing to Enon more than for " going to the 
 river" at anj'' other spot % We read no more 
 of " going to the river," or of going to any 
 spot to find much water for the purpose of 
 baptizing. I leave it, therefore, for you to 
 judge, whether the argument for immersion 
 from going " to the river," and from going 
 to Enon, because there was " much water 
 there," does not dissipate and scatter away 
 like the mists before the sun and wind. So 
 falls another pillar of the immersion scheme 
 at the slightest touch of investigation, and 
 before the slightest test of truth. 
 
 " But Jesus came up straightway out of 
 the water, ''^ The argument drawn from this 
 is distinct from that of going to the river, 
 and from the " much water" at Enon. It 
 therefore merits a distinct examination. 
 
 Did Jesus emerge from beneath the surface 
 of the water ; or did he simply go up out of 
 the water, or from the water ? The origi- 
 nal language here, is such as can have no 
 reference to emerging from under water. 
 The Greek is ^iva.(iaivwv ano ruv vSaros, — " going 
 tip out of (or from) the water," The verb
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 79 
 
 and the preposition both forbid the idea of 
 emeroring from under water. To express 
 this both should have been changed, and the 
 Greek is supplied with words to express the 
 idea exactly. And Carson, who is a pro- 
 found Greek scholar, and never admits 
 against his scheme any thing that he is not 
 compelled to admit, says, (p. 200), " I admit 
 the proper translation of a-zo (apo) is from^ 
 not out of. I perfectly agree with Mr. Ewing 
 Jiat «-" (the word here translated ' out of,^) 
 would have its meaning fully verified, if 
 they had only gone down to the edge of the 
 water.'''' But, says he, "My argument is 
 this. If baptism had not been by immersion, 
 there can be no adequate cause alleged /or 
 going to the river. Can sober judgment, 
 can candor suppose, that if a handful of wa- 
 ter would have sufficed for baptism, they 
 would have gone to the river ?" 
 
 I trust I have your judgment decisively 
 given on the subject of *' going to the river :" 
 and the other part, that of " coming out of 
 the water," Mr. Carson has formally given 
 up. So in neither case is there the shadow 
 of a proof, or of a presumption that the bap- 
 tism was performed by immersion. Going
 
 80 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 into the water ^ (even if we admit that the Sa- 
 vior went further than " the edge of the wa- 
 ter,") and coming up out of the water, does 
 not necessarily imply that one has been un- 
 der water, or that he has been in knee-deep. 
 How much less can a simple going u^ from 
 the water, when it is not certain that one 
 has been into the water at all, necessarily 
 imply that he has been under water % How 
 idle to rely upon this to prove it. 
 
 If the mode of John's baptism was by 
 sprinkling or pouring, then he could well 
 baptize in his short ministry the crowds of 
 people described as " Jerusalem and all Ju- 
 dea, and the region round about." If not, 
 calculations have been made on reasonable 
 data which seem to render their immersion 
 physically impossible. 
 
 But there is another reason for supposing 
 that Jesus was baptized in a mode other 
 than immersion ; and in the absence of all 
 good reason for supposing that he was im- 
 mersed, this reason is entitled to some 
 weight. Why was he baptized ] Not to 
 wash away sins, for he had none ; not unto 
 repentance, for he needed it not. John 
 therefore forbade him. He knew that the
 
 3I0DE OF BAPTISM. 81 
 
 ordinary design and import of his baptism 
 were inapplicable to that holy being Jesus 
 Christ. Why then was Jesus baptized 1 
 He answered himself: *'For so it becometh 
 us to fulfil all righteousness." But as this 
 could have no reference to repentance or 
 remission of sins, we look for the reference 
 in another quarter ,* to wit, the righteous- 
 ness required in the law. The law required 
 those who were about to enter upon the 
 priesthood to be purified ; thus, Ex. xxix. 
 4, " And Aaron and his sons thou shalt 
 bring to the door of the tabernacle of the 
 congregation, and shalt wash them with wa- 
 ter J^ Numbers viii. 7, shows how this wash- 
 ing was to performed j " And thus shalt 
 thou do unto them to cleanse them ; Sprin- 
 kle water of purifying upon them.'''' Jesus 
 therefore " began to be about thirty years 
 old," the age at which the Levites were to 
 enter upon the priesthood. He was of the 
 tribe of Judah, " of which tribe Moses spake 
 nothing concerning priesthood." Heb. vii. 
 14. " Yet he was to be a priest, on special 
 appointment of God."' Heb. vii. 17-28. — 
 '' Now no man taketh this honor to him- 
 self." Heb. V. 4. To fulfil therefore the
 
 S"2 MODE OF BArilS.M. 
 
 righteousness of the law, he went to John, 
 his ** messeng-er" sent "before his face," to 
 show him unto Israel. He went at thirty 
 years old, not before. He went to enter 
 upon his priesthood ; and was purified by 
 his special forerunner, to fulfil " all the 
 righteousness of the law.'' But this purifi- 
 cation for the priesthood according to the 
 law, was performed not by immersion, but 
 by sprinkling. I see little reason for a doubt 
 that Jesus Christ was baptized by sprinkling. 
 
 Take now the baptism of the Eunuch. 
 Acts viii. 38, 39. *" And they went dawn 
 both into the water, both Philip and the Eu- 
 nvchy and he baptized him. And when they 
 were come vp aid of the water , the Spirit of 
 the Lord caught away Philip." 
 
 On this Mr. Carson says, (p. '203,) " The 
 man who can read it, and not see immersion 
 in it, must have in his mind something un- 
 favorable to the investigation of truth. As 
 long as I fear God, I cannot, for all the king- 
 doms of the world, resist the evidence of 
 this single document. Xay, had I no con- 
 science, I could not as a scholar attempt to 
 expel immersion from this account. All the 
 ingenuity of all the critics in Europe cannot
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 83 
 
 expel immersion from this account. Amidst 
 the most violent perversion that it can sus_ 
 tain on the rack, it will still cry out immer- 
 sion^ nuLERSioN.'' The fact, that in a work 
 in which he goes over the whole field of de- 
 hate, and discusses the meaning of baptize 
 from old Homer to the end of Greek ; the 
 fact that io such a work, consisting of *274 
 pages, on the mode of baptism, he spends *24- 
 pages upon this single passage of Philip 
 and the Eunuch, shows of how much im- 
 portance he makes it ; and indeed we are 
 ready to suspect, from his spending so 
 much labor on so very plain a case, that he 
 found it not ver^- easy to make a clear im- 
 mersion out of it after all. 
 
 I profess I see no immersion in the ac- 
 count. Whence is the immersion inferred \ 
 From the fact that the Eunuch icent into the 
 water, and came up out of the water \ But 
 they went down '' both'' into the water, and 
 *' ihe-y' (both) came up out of the water. U 
 going into the water, and coming up out of 
 the water proves an immersion, it proves 
 that Philip was immersed as well as the Eu- 
 nuch : and what thus proves too much, 
 (proves what is not true.) proves nothing.
 
 84 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ft Is it proved from the fact that the Eunuch 
 was baptized ? What that baptizing was, 
 is the question. I have proved that people 
 and things were often baptized wlien they 
 were not immersed, but only sprinkled or 
 poured upon. The baptism proves no im 
 mersion. 
 
 Precisely the same words might have been 
 used in the narrative, had they come to a 
 stream not ankle-deep, and gone down both 
 into* the water ; and if Philip, having no 
 convenient basin or dish, had dipped his hand 
 in the water, and poured or sprinkled it 
 upon the Eunuch ; and if then they had both 
 come up out of the water. Who will prove 
 to me that this stream was a foot deep 1 
 Who will prove it a stream at all % Who 
 will prove the quantity of water there was 
 
 * It is not certain that they went further than to the 
 water. To make the Greek sis necessarily mean into, 
 would make Jesus come into Jerusalem, when he was 
 as far off as '' Bethphage and the Mount of Olives," 
 Matth. xxi. 1. It would make our Lord command 
 Peter go into the sea, when he was only to go to the 
 sea, Matth. xvii. 27, and Peter must needs have 
 thrown himself into the sea after the fish, instead of 
 casting his hook in. These arc but specimens of nu- 
 merous similar absurdities.
 
 3I0DE OF BAPTISM. 85 
 
 sufficient to render an immersion possible ? 
 If it was, who will prove that the Eunuch 
 was immersed 1 I see no proof of immer- 
 sion here. The only show of proof is by- 
 begging the question, and taking the very- 
 thing to he proved, for granted. 
 
 On the other hand, there is some proba- 
 bility, (aside from the fact that baptism was 
 commonly performed by sprinkling or 
 pouring), to suppose that the Eunuch was 
 baptized by sprinkling. He was reading the 
 passage in Isaiah liii. 7, which he did not 
 understand. Philip began " at the begin- 
 ning" — viz., at the beginning of that pro- 
 phecy concerning Christ (for the book was 
 not divided into chapters and verses,) and 
 that was at the 52d Chap. v. 13, — " Behold 
 my servant." Beginning here, Philip ex- 
 pounded the Scripture. He must needs have 
 read and expounded those remarkable words 
 in v. 15, " So shall he sprinkle many na- 
 tioTis,''' How sprinkle 1 By purifying : — an 
 inward purifying by his Spirit ; and a puri- 
 fying by his blood ; by the " sprinkling of 
 the blood of Christ ;" and by the Baptism of 
 the Holy Ghost. The outward sign of these 
 inward and spiritual things is the outward 
 8
 
 86 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 purification by sprinkling. Now the expla- 
 nation of this passage would most naturally- 
 lead to the conversation about baptism : the 
 outward baptism by water. Baptism is the 
 only ritual application of water under the 
 Christian dispensation ; and the only figure 
 chosen to represent the spiritual cleansing 
 by Christ is sprinkling. This is the only 
 use of water foretold by the prophets even 
 in figure. Is it improbable that the exposi- 
 tion of this passage led to the conversation 
 about baptism 1 And when they casually 
 came to water, the Eunuch said, " See, here is 
 water : what doth hinder me to be baptized 1" 
 In the absence of all proof to the contrary, 
 this incident goes to render it probable that 
 the Eunuch was baptized by sprinkling ; and 
 these two probabilities concerning the bap- 
 tism of the Savior and of the Eunuch, 
 strengthened by numerous probabilities of 
 the same kind, which are yet to be mention- 
 ed, go to corroborate each other. 
 
 Two other expressions are much relied 
 on as proof of the mode of baptism : those 
 in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12. In these, 
 believers are said to be baptized into the 
 " death" of Jesus Christ: and '^buried with
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 87 
 
 him by baptism into death." The lan^a.^e 
 is fio-urative. There is just as much reason 
 to argue from them that believers are lite- 
 rally put to death in baptism as that they are 
 literally buried under water in baptism : nay, 
 the dying is the thing more insisted on, and 
 indeed the principal idea j the one on which 
 the whole force of the passage turns. They 
 are buried with him by baptism " into 
 death.^^ They are " planted together, in the 
 likeness," — (not of his grave or burial) but 
 in the likeness of his death. They are 
 " crucified with him." They are " baptized' 
 — not into his grave or burial, but " into his 
 death.^' If we are to infer the mode of bap- 
 tism from these figures, the evidence is 
 strongest for drawing a resemblance for the 
 mode of baptism from hanging on the cross : 
 for that was the mode of his dying : and the 
 passage says we are " crucified with him." 
 But the reference here is not to the mode, 
 though the words furnish a happy sound for. 
 our Baptist brethren to play upon. The 
 argument is, — " We are dead with Christ, 
 and we must no more live to sin than a dead 
 body must live. We are dead ; and more — 
 we are buried ; as we often say to express
 
 88 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 strongly the fact that a person has ceased 
 from living, " He is dead and huried^ 
 The burying is the conclusive token of his 
 being dead : so the baptism is a token — not 
 of the burying — but of the death, — we are 
 buried " into death ;" we are *' Baptized 
 INTO HIS DEATH." It is not the mode of the 
 baptism that is referred to, but ihe effect of 
 the baptism : — " Our old man is crucified 
 with him, that the body of sin might be de- 
 stroyed :" " that henceforth we should not 
 serve sin :" " that henceforth we should be 
 dead to sin." I confess I see no manner of 
 force in the argument drawn from the pas- 
 sage in favor of immersion. The argument 
 being from the effect of baptism rather than 
 from its mode, both the language and the 
 argument are equally appropriate, whatever 
 the mode. 
 
 In 1 Cor. X. 2, the apostle says, " The Is- 
 raelites were all baptized unto Moses in the 
 cloud and in the sea." Apparently, from the 
 quantity of water in the vicinity, this passage 
 as well as that in 1 Pet. iii. 21, concerning 
 the " Eight souls saved by water : the like 
 figure whereunto even baptism doth now 
 save us," — has been claimed as proving im- 
 
 1
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 89 
 
 mersion. Surely there was water enough in 
 the Red Sea to immerse the Israelites ; and 
 water enough in the Deluge to immerse the 
 world, and literally to " bury it into death.^' 
 But it seems to be fororotten that the " eiorht 
 souls saved by water" were in the ark, and 
 neither drowned nor immersed at all : and 
 that the Israelites who were baptized unto 
 Moses walked on dry land. They suffered 
 no immersion, unless one may be immersed 
 on dry land. If they were wet at all, it was 
 by the spray of the sea, and by the rain that 
 dropped from the clouds : as in Ps. Ixxvii. — 
 " Thou leddest thy people like a flock by 
 the hand of Moses and Aaron :" — " The 
 waters saw thee, O God : the waters saw 
 thee ; they were afraid : the depths also 
 were troubled: the clouds ;70wrecf out water.'' 
 If there is any mode of baptism here, it is a 
 sprinklings or such a pouring out of water 
 as falls in drops. A baptism there was : an 
 immersion there was not. 
 
 The instances so far considered are the 
 ones relied on, to prove that immersion was 
 the mode of baptism, and the only one 
 practised by the immediate disciples of 
 Christ, I think 1 have shown that they 
 8*
 
 %0 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 prove no such thing ; that they afford 
 scarcely the faintest shadow of it : but that, 
 on the contrary, the probability is all in 
 favor of a baptism by pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 In the remaining instances the advocates 
 of immersion are compelled to take the 
 laboring oar, and render that certain or 
 probable, which on the face of it seems im- 
 possible. 
 
 On the day of Pentecost, (" the feast of 
 weeks, of the first fruits of wheat harvest.^* 
 Exod. XXXV. 22,) the season when the brook 
 Kidron was dry, and when, " save the pool 
 of Siloam, no living fountain gladdened the 
 city," three thousand were baptized in a 
 small part of one day. Now what do those 
 who make John take Jerusalem and Judea 
 out to Enon to immerse them because there 
 is much water there ? All at once, and very 
 conveniently, there are discovered a num- 
 ber of reservoirs and baths. But it is forgot- 
 ten that these can belong only to the rich ; 
 and not many rich or mighty were in the 
 habit of befriending the followers of Christ ; 
 and the great mass of the converts appear 
 to be strangers at Jerusalem. Not the least
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 91 
 
 intimation is found that such bathing places 
 were resorted to. And a simple mathemati- 
 cal calculation will show that the eleven 
 apostles could hardly have immersed three 
 thousand persons in so short a time. All 
 these circumstances show a high degree of 
 probability, that there was no immersion 
 here. 
 
 The Jailer (Acts xvi. 19-30) was baptized 
 in the night, and it should seem in prison. 
 But it is urged there might be a bath there : 
 and long arguments are held to show that 
 the prison might have been furnished with a 
 bath, in which the Jailer might have been 
 immersed. Surelj', surely, that is a happy 
 facility of discovery, which after making it 
 necessary for all Judea to go out to Jordan 
 to find water enough to be baptized ; and to 
 go to a particular point on Jordan, — to 
 Enon, because there is much water there j — 
 can presently find water enough any where 
 and every where. If a bath should per- 
 chance be wanted, there is no difficulty : a 
 stroke of the pen places it there ; and a cer- 
 tain immersion is performed without a scrap 
 of evidence in the history to show that an 
 immersion was possible !
 
 92 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 But this ground is now very generally 
 given up, and a way for immersion is found 
 out even without a bath in the prison. It is 
 now maintained that they went forth ; 
 because he was brought out of the prison, 
 and then brought into the house ; and it is 
 demanded, as an unanswerable argument, 
 why he was taken abroad in the night, ex- 
 cept for immersion ; or why taken abroad at 
 all, if he might be baptized by sprinkling 
 within. 
 
 Now this is to give up the baptism in a 
 bath within the prison \ for I take it as a 
 point not to be debated, that he was not 
 baptized both in th6 prison and out of it, in 
 one and the same baptism. But in letting 
 the strong hold go, as they in justice should 
 have they found another where they may 
 rest secure? I think not. The Jailer thrust 
 them into the inner prison : then he brought 
 them out of that into the more common 
 part of the prison 5 — not out of doors 
 abroad; for we see that he was ready to 
 kill himself when he supposed the prisoners 
 had 'escaped, even by means of an earth- 
 quake. In this prison proper the baptism 
 was performed : then the Jailer brought
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 93 
 
 them into his house ; i. e. into his dwelling 
 apartments, doubtless attached to the prison. 
 There was no going abroad at all. Paul would 
 not go out upon leave, till the magistrates 
 came and fetched him out. So, the bath is 
 given up, and the substitute fails ; and ac- 
 cording to the proper rules of argument we 
 sliould be entitled to have it granted, on 
 their own ground, — that here was no immer- 
 sion. Every expedient has failed, and we 
 have, in all reason, a simple common bap- 
 tism by sprinkling or pouring. 
 
 Paul's baptism is recorded in Acts ix. 
 17, 18. He was in his chamber, weak with 
 fasting three days. " He arose and was 
 baptized ; and when he had received meat 
 he was strengthened,''^ What pretence for 
 a bath in this inner chamber \ What is 
 there to show that he went abroad in his 
 weak state, before he had received meat 
 and was strengthened'? I am unable even 
 to conjecture what. It was, I think, be- 
 yond proper question, a baptism by sprink- 
 ling or pouring. 
 
 The baptism of Cornelius is recorded 
 Acts X. 44. Those who heard Peter were 
 first baptized with the Holy Ghost. '* And
 
 94 MODE OP BAPTISM. 
 
 as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on 
 them, as on us at the beginning*. Then re- 
 membered I the word of the Lord, how that 
 he said, John indeed baptized with w^'iter, 
 but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost J^ Acts xi. 15. He reasoned at the 
 time thus: These have received the Holy 
 Ghost ; can any man forbid water ? They 
 have received the greater baptism, can any 
 man forbid the less : they have the reality ? 
 can any man forbid the sign ? His idea 
 seems to be — not that they might be carried 
 and applied to the water ; but that water 
 might he brought and applied to them. The 
 Spirit's mode of baptizing was a falling upon, 
 and such it seems clearly, was the probable 
 application of the water here. 
 
 Here I rest under the second inquiry. 
 Not only is there no evidence that the 
 apostles always baptized by immersion, but 
 clear evidence to the contrary : and, 1 add, 
 no certain evidence that they immersed at 
 all. The probability even, so far as concerns 
 this, is on the other side. I do profess my- 
 self unable, and my belief that all other men 
 are unable, to make out a clear case of 
 baptism by immersion in the New Testa-
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 95 
 
 ment.* And yet if twenty might be made 
 out, it would not invalidate the argument, as 
 I shall show under the third inquiry. 
 
 Previously to entering upon this, however, 
 it seems desirable to say a word, in passing, 
 on the argument from history. It is not 
 indeed essential. I care not who gets the 
 argument from history, provided I get the 
 argument clear and decisive from the word 
 of God. 
 
 That immersion was early and extensively 
 practised is certain. That it was not con- 
 sidered essential is also certain.^ The 
 
 * Rev. Wm. T. Hamilton in his work on baptism 
 says, (p. 89), " And I hesitate not to assert that no man 
 can prove that cither John or the Apostles baptized by im- 
 mersion;^^ — " and for any to assume that one mode 
 only was employed, and then demand that all should 
 comply with that mode, while they can produce neither 
 express command nor an undeniable example of bap- 
 tism by immersion in the Bible, is rather a bold stand 
 to take ; especially for those who insist that in a posi- 
 tive ordinance, the law of the ordinance must be our 
 only guide." 
 
 t Justin is relied on to prove that immersion only 
 was practised in his day. But he uses such language 
 as renders it CERTAIN that he by no means considered 
 immersion essential ; and such as renders it doubtful 
 whether he meant immersion at all. Thus when he is
 
 96 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 practice was never invariable. The sick 
 and feeble were baptized by affusion or 
 sprinkling ; and baptism in such modes was 
 distinctly recognized as valid in other 
 cases.* Novatian was baptized by affusion 
 
 writing to the Emperor he invariably describes the 
 baptism, and does not use the word baptize at all. He 
 describes the baptism by the words Xoiw (louo) *' to 
 WASH," and Xovrpov, washing. But these words referred 
 to no particular mode of applying water ; least of all to 
 an indispensable immersion; and if bethought immer- 
 sion essential he wilfully misled the Emperor, who 
 would of necessity understand that they were washed 
 in any mode, and not necessarily immersed ; but if in 
 any specific mode, — by an application of water to the 
 subject, not of the subject to the water. 
 
 It is further remarkable that when Justin writes to 
 Jews, (in his Dialogue with Trypho,) he uses the 
 words PazTi^uj (Baptize,) and 'Xovco ilouo) indifferently, 
 as being synonymous. Clemens Alexandrinus does 
 the same, A. D. 190. 
 
 "When the early fathers speak of baptism as a regene- 
 ration, they often cite Titus iii. 5, Sia 'Xovrpov, (loutron) 
 the " WASHING of regeneration ;" thus showing that 
 they considered baptism as a washing (performed in 
 any mode indifferently) and not as necessarily an im- 
 mersing. (See this point ably discussed in the " Chro- 
 nicle OF THE Church," May 25, and June 29, 183S ; 
 from which I derive these facts.) 
 
 * Cyprian says, *' Sprinkling is of like value with
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 97 
 
 as he lay upon his bed in sickness. The 
 Emperor Constantine was baptized by Euse- 
 bius, ofNicomedia, lying on his bed, clothed 
 in white. ^ixty or seventy years after the 
 Apostles, a Jew while traveling with Chris- 
 tians fell sick and desired baptism. Not 
 having water, they sprinkled him thrice with 
 sand. " He recovered. His case was report- 
 ed to the bishop, who decided that the man 
 was baptized, if only he had water poured on 
 him again."* Laurentius is mentioned as 
 baptizing two persons, Romanus and Lu- 
 cilius, by affusion. " A little while before 
 he suffered, he baptized one of his execu- 
 tioners with a pitcher of water.^^'f Many 
 such cases are all along incidentally record- 
 ed. Upon the best search that I can make, 
 I am compelled to abide by the conclusion 
 of Dr. Pond; who says, (p. 43.) "I propose 
 it as an indubitable fact that immersion was 
 never considered essential to baptism till the 
 rise of the Anabaptists in Germany, in the 
 sixteenth century." 
 
 the salutary bath, and where these things are done in 
 the church, where the faith is sound of the giver and 
 receiver, all is valid" 
 
 * In Pond, p. 45. t Ibid. p. 48. 
 
 9
 
 98 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 History shows that Christians early laid 
 an improper stress upon baptism, attributing 
 to it an efficacy which by no means belongs 
 to it. To the simple rite of baptism by 
 sprinkling or affusion practised by the 
 apostles, they soon added a more thorough 
 washing with a greater quantity of water.* 
 And this is scarce to be wondered at when 
 we remember how Peter said, " Lord not my 
 feet only, but my hands and my head." And 
 yet our Savior did seem to caution his disci- 
 ples against this tendency to overdo and 
 overburden religious rites, when he replied, 
 '' He that is washed, needeth not, save to 
 wash his feet, but is clean every whit." The 
 tendency was never to throw off any part of 
 the ceremony but to add more. To immer- 
 sion they soon added a trine immersion 5 
 exorcisms, (or expelling the devil from the 
 candidate) 5 putting salt on the tongue ; 
 anointing the eyes, ears, and mouth, with 
 spittle ; marking with the sign of the cross, 
 clothing in a white robe, and anointing with 
 
 * Jerome speaks of a mode of baptism as common in 
 the ancient church, which was not to dip tiie whole 
 body, but a " thrice dipping of the head.' ' Augustine 
 mentions the same. (Pond, p. 46.)
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 99 
 
 oil. They went further. Not content with 
 being literally buried in the waters, they im- 
 bibed another notion from " putting off the 
 old man," and also from the nakedness of 
 Christ on the cross : — (for the same passage 
 which speaks of being buried with Christ 
 speaks of the old man being crucified ^yith 
 Christ :) and they baptized all naked : men, 
 women, youths, children, all alike actually 
 naked, divested of all clothing ! Truly, 
 " Baptisteries" were necessary at that pe- 
 riod : and he would not be wide from the 
 mark who should see here a reason for their 
 invention, to remedy the indecencies of the 
 scene ; but from the beorinninar it was not 
 so. For authority as to this fact I refer to 
 Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, and to 
 Dr. Miller on Baptism, p. 105. Wall says, 
 " The ancient Christians, when they were 
 baptized by immersion, were all baptized 
 naked, whether they were men, women, or 
 children." Dr. Miller adds, " We have the 
 same evidence (to wit, from history) in fa- 
 vor of immersing divested of all clothing, 
 that we have for immersion at all," and that 
 " so far as the history of the Church subse- 
 quent to the Apostolic age informs us, these 
 must stand or fall together."
 
 100 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The argument from history, therefore, 
 proves nothing pertinent to the determining 
 of the question, or it proves altogether too 
 much. It cannot weigh against the word 
 of God, and the suitable exposition of the 
 law of baptism as instituted by Christ. 
 
 But here justice requires that I go a little 
 further. A tract entitled " A Familiar Dia- 
 logue between Peter and Benjamin on the sub- 
 ject of communion,''^ has been extensively 
 circulated here, and all around in the region, 
 and, as appears, extensively through the 
 country. On the first page of this tract we 
 have the following sentence : " As late as 
 1643, in the Assembly of Divines at West- 
 minster, sprinkling was substituted for im- 
 mersion by a majority of one — 25 voted for 
 sprinkling, 24 for immersion. This small 
 majority was obtained by the earnest re- 
 quest of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired 
 great influence in that Assembly." 
 
 Now all this is told for truth. It is told 
 most circumstantially : — " in 1643" — " the 
 Assembly of Divines," — " majority of o?ie," — 
 " 24 for immersion," — " 25 for sprinkling," — 
 " by the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot." 
 
 Like other fictions, this fiction is founded
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 101 
 
 on fact, but it is not the truth. There was 
 no question at all in the Assembly of Divines 
 whether sprinkling was proper. That was 
 in customary use, and allowed on all hands 
 to be proper ; and the final vote of the As- 
 sembly in passing the "Directory for the 
 worship of God," was passed, " tvith great 
 unayiiinitij,'' and that Directory has these 
 words: "As he pronounceth these words 
 he is to baptize the child with water, which, 
 for the manner of doing it, is not only law- 
 ful^ but sufficient, and most expedient, to be 
 by pourmg or sprinkling of the water on 
 the face of the child, without adding any 
 other ceremony." 
 
 But what about the "majority of one?^'' 
 Dr. ^Tiller states the matter thus : " When 
 the committee who had been charged with 
 preparing a " Directory for the worship of 
 God," brought in their report^ they had spok- 
 en of baptism thus : " It is lawful and suffi- 
 cient to sprinkle the child.'''* To this, Dr. 
 Lightfoot, among, others, objected, not be- 
 cause he doubted the entire sufficiency of 
 sprinkling ; for he decidedly preferred 
 sprinkling to immersion, — but because he 
 thought there was an impropriety in pro- 
 9*
 
 102 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 nouncing that mode lawful only, when no 
 one present had any doubts of its being so. 
 Others seemed to think that by saying: no- 
 thing about dippings that mode was meant 
 to be excluded, as not a lawful mode. This 
 they did not wish to pronounce. When 
 therefore, the clause as originally reported 
 was put to vote there were 25 votes in 
 favor of it, and 24? against it."* 
 
 From this is vamped up the statement in 
 the tract j and the statement is made in 
 such a connection as to lead people to un- 
 derstand, that " immersion" had been the 
 common mode, and the Assembly substitut- 
 ed sprinkling for it. There was no such 
 substitution, either in fact, or even so much 
 as a substitution of the word sprinkling for 
 the word immersion in the Directory. Dr. 
 Miller appears to be amply justified when he 
 says, — " The common statement of this mat- 
 ter by our own Baptist brethren is an entire 
 misrepresentation." 
 
 That those who print and circulate this 
 tract know its statements to be false, I can- 
 
 * Miller on Baptism, p. 147. He refers to his author- 
 ities, " Lightfoot's Life by Strype," Ncal'sHist. of the 
 Puritans,!!, pp. 106, 107.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 103 
 
 not affirm. That its statements are grossly- 
 untrue, may be seen by a bare reference to 
 dates, which every school boy ought to 
 know. 
 
 The tivie when the sprinkling was said to 
 be substituted for immersion was the year 
 1643. Twenty three years before this, our 
 Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth ; and if 
 immersion had been the common practice in 
 England they would have brought it with 
 them. But the fact was so far from this, 
 that sixteen years after, Roger Williams, 
 removed from Massachusetts to Providence, 
 and continued a Peedo-baptist for three 
 years longer. When at length he turned 
 Baptist, as Mr. Hague, the present minister 
 of the original Roger Williams Church in Pro- 
 vidence, says, in his " Historical Discourse," 
 — (and as is narrated in the ' Life of Roger 
 Williams') — " The difficulty that arose was 
 the want of a proper administrator: for at that 
 time, no ordained minister could he found in 
 America who had been immersed on a profession 
 of faith.''''* And yet there were many aged 
 ministers in America, who had long been 
 ministers in Old England before they came 
 * Hague's Historical Discourse, 1S40, p. 27.
 
 104 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 across the waters ! A Mr. Ezekiel Hari- 
 man, a layman, first immersed Mr. Williams, 
 and then Mr. Williams immersed the rest. 
 This was the beginning of the Baptists in 
 America.* 
 
 So again, Richard Blount^ in the reign of 
 King Charles II. went from England to the 
 Netherlands to be immersed, because he 
 deemed it could not suitably be done in 
 England ; and when he returned, he immers- 
 ed the Rev. Samuel Blackstock, and these 
 two immersed the rest of a number who 
 wished to become a Baptist Church, on 
 what they deemed the proper foundation j 
 to wit, an authorized ministry and an 
 authorized baptism. Could this have hap- 
 pened had sprinkling been substituted for 
 immersion only a few years before, and 
 that by a majority of only one in an Assem- 
 bly of the leading Divines of England ?t 
 
 * Mr. Williams soon after left the Baptists and turn- 
 ed Seeker. 
 
 t There were at this time some few Baptists in Eng- 
 land, but it does not appear that any were in the As- 
 sembly of Divines. 
 
 Dr. Murdock (on Mosheim Vol. III.) says, " The first 
 regxdar congregation of English Baptists, appears to have 
 originated from certain English Puritans, who return-
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 105 
 
 From these facts alone any one may see 
 that it cannot possibly be true, that immer- 
 sion had been the common mode of baptism 
 in England up to IG^'S, and that sprinkling 
 was then substituted for it, on the authority 
 of the Assembly of Divines.* 
 ed from Holland after the death of their Pastor, Rev* 
 John Smith, who died in 1610." — " From this time on- 
 ward, churches of General Baptists were formed here 
 and there in different parts of England. But. in gener. 
 al, thay made no great figure, and do not appear to 
 have had much connection, or to have professed one 
 uniform faith." " The Particular Baptists' (Calvinis, 
 tic) trace their origin to a congregation of Independ. 
 entSy established ih London in 1616. This congre- 
 gation having become very large, and some of them 
 differing from the others on the subject of infant bap- 
 tism, they agreed to divide. Those who disbelieved 
 in infant baptism were regularly dismissed, in 1633, 
 and formed into a new church under Rev. John Spils' 
 bury. And in 1639 a new Baptist church was form- 
 ed. Churches of Particular Baptists now multiplied 
 rapidly." They published a confession of their faith 
 in 1643, (pubhshed by the seven churches of London,) 
 " which was reprinted in 1644, and l646, and which 
 was revised in 1689, by a convention of elders and 
 delegates from more than one hundred churches of 
 England and Wales." Murdock's Mosheim, Vol. IILpp. 
 540, 541. 
 
 * With about as much reason it is elsewhere asserted 
 that sprinkling was substituted for immersion by the 
 authority of the Pope, in 1311. J
 
 106 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 When this tract first fell into my hands, 
 I looked at it with astonishment ; and con- 
 cluded that it was some stray print, publish- 
 ed by some ignorant and irresponsible man, 
 a work which nobody would be willing to 
 acknowledge. But on turning to the title 
 page, I see it printed at the bottom in 
 staring capitals 5 — " Philadelphia : Baptist 
 General Tract Society. No. 21 South ith 
 Street:' 
 
 I need not pursue this matter further : nor 
 indeed was it essential to advert to it at all. 
 If we should grant every thing from eccle- 
 siastical history which any desire to assume, 
 it would bear nothing on the question. 
 Christianity in the hands of men may be- 
 come corrupt : — it did early become corrupt. 
 The word of God is the, pure fountain 
 What instructions may be gathered there ? 
 To the law, to the testimony. History shows 
 that immersion was not at any time consid- 
 ered by the ancient church as essential to 
 baptism : and if the ancient church had 
 thought it essential, still we have no author- 
 ity for making that essential which was not 
 deemed so by the apostles and the word of 
 God. I return to the argument.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 107 
 
 3. On ike supposition that the early " disci- 
 ples always baptized by immersion, is there 
 evidence that they considered that mode essen- 
 tial r 
 
 Suppose the command had been, "Lei 
 every believer go down from Jerusalem to 
 Jericho.^'' Suppose that the Savior and his 
 early disciples all went by one particular 
 way, and always rode on ass colts. Must we 
 always go in that road 1 Must we always 
 ride on ass colts ] — or is it essential wheth- 
 er we ride at all 1 Certainly not. We are 
 commanded to go down from Jerusalem to 
 Jericho, and this we must do. But to go 
 in any particular road ; or to ride ; or to 
 walk ; is no part of the command. The 
 thing is required, the mode is not a matter of 
 command.* He usurps the prerogative of 
 
 * Thus, we must celebrate the Lord's Supper with 
 bread and wine. But Christ and the apostles first 
 celebrated it under the following circumstances, in 
 which nobody deems it essential to follow them. 1. It 
 was at night. 2. In an tipper room. 3. They used 
 unleavened bread. 4. They partook in a reclining 
 posture. 5. After eating a meal. 6. With no female 
 desciples present. To my mind there appears just as 
 much reason for insisting on the rnode of baptism, as 
 for insisting on the observance of these six particulars 
 in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and no more.
 
 108 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Christ, who makes any particular road^ or 
 any particular mode of going, essential. 
 
 So here ; we are to be baptized, and 
 simply baptized. But I have shown that the 
 words " baptize" and '• baptism" were in 
 common use among the Jews at that time 
 to denote a ritual purification by sprinkling 
 or pouring : possibly also they were in use 
 to denote a ritual purification by immersion, 
 though this lacks proof; and were it indubita- 
 bly proved, still the only efl^ect would be to 
 show that there are three authorized modes 
 of baptizing instead of two ; and the argu- 
 ment would be the stronger that the mode 
 is not essential. In this state of the case, 
 suppose Christ and his disciples had all been 
 baptized by sprinkling. This does not bind 
 us to be baptized in that mode. Had they 
 all been baptized by immersion, it would 
 not bind us to an immersion. Here are 
 several modes of applymg water, all called 
 equally baptism. Our Lord commands us 
 to be baptized : the particular mode he does 
 not designate. How can we tell that he did 
 not, for the most consequential reasons, leave 
 it indeterminate 1 If we add the mode to 
 the command, we add to the law of Christ-
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 109 
 
 But here it may be replied, " Is there not 
 ONE faith, ONE Lord, one baptisivi V Indeed, 
 it is much insisted by our Baptist brethren 
 that the unity of baptism consists in unity of 
 mode; and that three modes, sprinkling", 
 pouring, immersing, — make three baptisms. 
 
 I might here be entitled to insist, that if 
 the unity of baptism consists in unity of 
 mode, then the mode of immersion is most 
 certainly excluded ; for sprinkling has been 
 proved a lawful mode ; and pourings by its 
 superior proof, comes in with a better title 
 than immersion, even if sprinkling were 
 given up. 
 
 But the unity of baptism does not consist 
 in the unity of mode ; but in the unity of de- 
 sign^ the unity of signification, unity with 
 regard to the great truths to which it refers ; 
 unity in the " one body into which we are 
 all baptized by the same Spirit." The Bible 
 unequivocally teaches us that the one hap- 
 tism does not consist in the one mode. Turn 
 to Acts xix. Certain disciples had been ig- 
 norantly baptized with John's baptism, in- 
 stead of the baptism which Christ enjoined, 
 and were baptized over again. I am aware 
 that many of our Baptist brethren think it 
 10
 
 110 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 necessary to insist that there was no re-bap- 
 tism : and it is scarce a wonder ; because 
 if there was here a re-baptism it effectually 
 shows that John's baptism and Christian 
 baptism are entirely distinct ; and spoils 
 many arguments founded on the notion that 
 the baptisms are the same. Thus, in the 
 Tract which has already been quoted, — the 
 " Familiar Dialogue between Peter and Ben- 
 jamin," published by the " Baptist General 
 Tract Society," (p. 5.) Peter is made to say 
 in the dialogue, — " I have been a little puz- 
 zled with the account given in Acts xix. 1-6, 
 respecting the disciples whom Paul found at 
 Ephesus. Do you think they were re-baptized V 
 Benjamin is made to answer : — " By no 
 mea?is,^^ and I think I can relieve your mind 
 in few words:" and then goes on to argue 
 that there was no re-baptism. I only won- 
 der that a cause, which requires so plain a 
 statement of Scripture to be denied, should 
 be thought worth defending. The words of 
 the Scripture are these : " And he said unto 
 them, unlo what were ye then baptized ? And 
 they saidy unto JohrHs baptism. Then said 
 Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism 
 of repentance, saying unto the people that
 
 MODE OF BAPTIS:\I. Ill 
 
 they should believe on him which should 
 come after hitn ; that is, on Christ Jesus. 
 When they heard this, they were baptized in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul 
 had laid his hands upon them, the Holy- 
 Ghost came on them." 
 
 Hard lot, indeed, to be driven to deny 
 that here was a re-baptism, and yet to hold 
 on to the scheme that requires such a denial ! 
 
 But mark : here were two baptisms, while 
 doubtless there was but one mode. Unity 
 of mode, therefore, does not make unity of bap- 
 tism ; AXD UNITY OF BAPTISM DOES NOT CON- 
 SIST IN THE MODE ; it lics in something else. 
 Here the mode was good enough ; but the 
 design, the intent, the truths on the faith of 
 which the baptism was based were different. 
 These made the two transactions in one 
 mode, two baptisms. The " one baptism," 
 therefore, consists in the one design, the one 
 signification, the unity of faith in the same 
 truths, which are represented by baptism ; 
 and ONENESS in these things would make one 
 BAPTISM, though the mere outward modes 
 should vary ever so much ; and the mode is 
 not essential. To make the unity of bap- 
 tism consist in the mode, is, as if we were to
 
 112 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 make a man's identity consist in his dress : 
 he is one man in a coat with broad skirts ; he is 
 quite another man and has lost all his legal 
 and social and personal identity in a coat 
 with narrow skirts. And mark still further 
 here : — in the main particulars, — the es- 
 sentials, — of the baptism with which Christ 
 was baptized, we are not to follow him ; and 
 so another set of arguments and of strong 
 appeals falls to the ground. 
 
 He was not baptized till thirty years oldj 
 and that for a special reason. We are not 
 to follow him here. 
 
 He was not baptized " unto repentance^ 
 John^s disciples could not follow him here. 
 
 He was not baptized to " wash away sins.'''' 
 No man can follow^ him bere. 
 
 He was not baptized in the " name of the 
 Son and of the Holy Ghost.'''' No man is to 
 follow him here. 
 
 He was baptized as an introduction to his 
 'perpetual priesthood. No man is to follow 
 him here. 
 
 In fine: according to the word of God, if 
 we had been baptized with John's baptism 
 ever so ceremoniously ; in order to Chris- 
 tian baptism we must needs be baptized over 
 again.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 113 
 
 I go on with the argument. Now our 
 Lord commanded us simply to be baptized : 
 and there being in common use two (or if 
 we grant our Baptist brethren what we do 
 not desire to deny, but what they cannot 
 prove, — three) modes of ritual purifying 
 called baptism ; our Lord left the mode in- 
 determinate. How can we tell that he 
 did not with deliberation and for the most 
 consequential reasons, leave it indetermi- 
 nate % 
 
 Suppose, you make the mode essential, 
 and insist that all shall be immersed, or 
 barred out of the church. How can you tell 
 that you are not presuming to require what 
 the Lord purposely left optional for the 
 most cogent and essential reasons ] And 
 if so, how will you answer it to God for at- 
 tempting thus to judge " another man's ser- 
 vant," and to " lord it over God's heritage"] 
 Suppose that Christ forbore to enjoin the 
 particular mode of immersion for this rea- 
 son : to wit — that his Gospel is designed 
 to fill the whole earth, and to be applicable 
 with all its ordinances to all men every 
 where in all conditions. But there are 
 
 deserts^ where men may travel for days 
 10*
 
 114 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and not find water enough for immersion. 
 There are frozen regions where immer- 
 sion is a large part of the year nearly or 
 quite impracticable. Many are sick ; many 
 are in such a state of health that they can- 
 not go abroad, — much less go and be im- 
 mersed, — especially in winter, without en- 
 dangering their lives. Must all these be 
 kept from Christ's ordinances, because some 
 think that what Christ saw fit, (perhaps for 
 these very reasons among others) not to 
 prescribe, should be made essential 1 Be- 
 cause these cannot be immersed, are they 
 therefore to linger and die without ever 
 partaking of the Lord's Supper, whatever 
 their desire for that and for baptism too ? 
 It has been well said, that " baptism was 
 made for man, not man for baptism ;" and 
 may not Christ have designedly left the 
 mode undetermined for such reasons as 
 these 1 Is there no presumption in adding 
 the mode to his command % Or, waiving 
 these considerations, and supposing that, in 
 Judea, immersion might always have been 
 readily practised on account of the com- 
 parative mildness of the climate ', and grant- 
 ing, moreover, that nobody was ever sick
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM^. 1 15 
 
 there ; can we be sure that it is entirely in 
 keeping with the simplicity of Christ, and 
 with the lightness and simplicity of his or- 
 dinances, to — cut a hole in the ice and im- 
 merse sixty men and women, while the 
 weather is so cold as to keep a number of 
 men employed in stirring the water with 
 poles to keep it from freezing over while 
 the immersion is going on 1 — as the papers 
 have informed us was done in the Delaware 
 river the last winter. Since Christ has not 
 commanded this, nor required baptism to be 
 done in the mode of immersion at all, how 
 can we dare to add such doings as these to 
 his gentle and easy commands? 
 
 We cannot. We dare not. And yet for 
 this we must be cut off from communion 
 with those whom we love as brethren. We 
 see no scriptural evidence for the peculiar 
 mode of immersion : but we leave our breth- 
 ren to decide for themselves according to 
 their conscience. We have conscientiously 
 intended to obey the command to be bap- 
 tized. We think we have obeyed it. But 
 our brethren judge over our consciences and 
 would thrust us from the church, unless we 
 will submit our judgment and our con-
 
 116 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 science to theirs. They often say to us, 
 " since you regard immersion as valid bap- 
 tism you ought to come to us since we can- 
 not in conscience come to you." We re- 
 ply, Brethren, can you not allow us liberty of 
 conscience too 1 Can you not receive us 
 without stripping us of our dearest rights 1 
 We are ready to allow and give immersion 
 to them ; but we demand liberty of con- 
 science too. We are required to come 
 under a yoke which we are confident Christ 
 never imposed. We are required to do that 
 which we consider as adding to Christ's com- 
 mands ; thrusting out many from his ordi- 
 nances ; and compelling many more to en- 
 joy them at the risk of their lives. Nay, 
 if we would yield our own consciences and 
 surrender our own liberty, they would then 
 compel us, in the same manner, to lord 
 it over the consciences of others ; or in de- 
 fault, cast us out of the church ; and so if 
 the Baptist were the only church, — all those 
 whose earnest research and whose honest 
 conscience should not lead them to see im- 
 mersion, and only immersion, in all the bap- 
 tisms of the New Testament, must be de- 
 barred from Christ's house on earth, and ex-
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 117 
 
 communicate from his table ! And every 
 one who will consent to join them is, per- 
 force, compelled to join in this unhallowed 
 proscription of the children of God and 
 heirs of salvation j and that under penalty 
 of discipline and censure even to excommu- 
 nication ! A man may not commune at 
 Christ's table, even with his own father, or 
 with the wife of his bosom, be they ever so 
 faithful to Christ ; if they are so unfortunate 
 as not to see immersion in baptism, and 
 have been baptized in any other mode ! No — 
 every thing must be squared to their under- 
 standing, and cut according to their opinion. 
 The wife shall be debarred from partaking 
 of the emblems of the body and blood of the 
 Savior in connection with her dying hus- 
 band, who desires once more, before he de- 
 parts, to commemorate a Savior's love ! We 
 feel not at liberty to countenance such a 
 ruthless despotism as this. Could we sur- 
 render our own liberty, we have yet some 
 conscience left, which forbids us to lend our 
 aid in tyrannizing over the consciences of 
 others. Had we personally no objection to 
 immersion, we should feel bound, for free- 
 dom's sake, for the truth's sake, and for
 
 118 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Christ's sake, to " stand fast in that liberty 
 wherewith Christ hath made us free." We 
 are not willing to be made the instruments 
 of destroying the liberty of others. As we 
 love Christ we dare not be brought under 
 such a " yoke of bondage to any man." As 
 we love God or regard the rights of men, 
 we dare not join in this unhallowed lording 
 it over the consciences of others. We re- 
 member that it is written, " Who art thou, 
 that judgest another man's servant ? To 
 his own master he standeth or falleth." We 
 leave it to every man's conscience to de- 
 cide whether he has been baptized, and 
 when satisfied that according to his own 
 understanding and his own conscience he 
 has obeyed the command to be baptized, we 
 dare not judge over him. On the customary 
 tokens of piety, and on the customary pro- 
 fession, — as that custom exists in churches 
 of any other evangelical denomination, we re- 
 ceive him, and with open arms, to our com- 
 munion, and to that table which is not ours 
 but the Lord's.* 
 
 But, when we have seen on what ground 
 
 * "There was at that time, (1689), several churches 
 
 of Calvinistic Baptists, who held to open communion.
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 11.9 
 
 exclusive immersion is required ; when, — 
 as we are required to prove all things, — 
 we prove it by the word of God ; — and in 
 our sober judgment, its very foundations 
 flit away " like the baseless fabric of a 
 vision j" how can we on such grounds join 
 in unchurching and cutting off from the com- 
 
 especiallyin Bedfordshire, where John Bunyan preach- 
 ed." (Murdock's Mosheim, Vol. III. p. 540.) 
 
 '' Before the erection of regular Baptist congrega- 
 tions, and indeed for some time after, it was very com- 
 mon for Baptists and others to belong to the same 
 church, and to worship and commune together." 
 (Ibid. p. 541.) 
 
 The celebrated Robert Hall was most strenuously 
 opposed to close communion. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren are fond of saying that they 
 hold to no more close communion than we do. Will 
 they put it to the test ? Will they receive to their com- 
 munion every person who has, on a credible profession 
 of piety, been received to some evangelical church of 
 another denomination, and who, " according to his 
 OWN understanding and his own conscience, has obey- 
 ed the command to be baptized ?" 
 
 We give the following invitation before the com- 
 munion : " Members of other churches present, of all 
 evangelical denominations, in regular standing in their 
 own churches, are invited to partake with us."' If our 
 Baptist brethren hold to no more close communion 
 than we, will they adopt this form ? If not, will they 
 give up their assertion as fallacious and untrue.
 
 120 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 munion of the saints so many others, who, 
 we cannot doubt, are received of God 1 No, 
 we have not so learned Christ. We have 
 gone to His word for our views of truth and 
 order. On that we rest. Leaving it to 
 others to answer their own conscience, and 
 to enjoy their belief without let or molesta- 
 tion from us, on the ground which we have 
 examined and proved we stand fast. If our 
 views of faith and order should be assailed, 
 we shall nevertheless remember, that we 
 have examined and proved them j — and, 
 with much prayer and with solemn and full 
 conviction, have found that they rest broadly 
 and solidly upon the eternal word of God.
 
 III. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY. 
 
 MATTHEW XXVIII 19. 
 
 Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 There are two questions with regard to 
 baptism, on which evangelical Christians 
 are divided ; one respecting the mode^ and 
 the other respecting the subjects. These 
 two questions are entirely distinct. There 
 is no reason why those who differ concern- 
 ing one might not agree concerning the 
 other. 
 
 Between us and our Baptist brethren there 
 is no difference of opinion concerning the 
 subjects of baptism, except concerning in- 
 fants. We agree that adzdts are not to be 
 
 n
 
 122 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 baptized, save on a creditable profession of 
 evangelical faith and repentance. The ques- 
 tion concerning the subjects is therefore 
 limited to this single inquiry : Are the infant 
 children of believing parents to he baptized ? 
 
 The law of the institution makes no ex- 
 press mention of infants. It is therefore 
 contended that this is conclusive aorainst 
 
 o 
 
 infant baptism \ as in a positive institution 
 we are to go by the letter of the law ; and 
 all beyond this, as well as every thing short 
 of this, is wrong. 
 
 1 humbly conceive, however, that Christ 
 has a right to make known his will, in this 
 or in any other matter, in just such a way 
 as he pleases ; — that the incidental recogni- 
 tion, by the apostles, of infants as properly 
 embraced in the intent of that law, or their 
 actual practice of baptizing infants, would be 
 an authoritative interpretation of the law, as 
 extending its provisions to infants. And we 
 deceive ourselves ; we undertake to correct 
 the widom of our Lord Jesus Christ ; we 
 are guilty of disobedience to his authority; 
 if, in such a case, we allow any notions or 
 arguments about a " positive institution" to 
 lead us to act in opposition to the will of
 
 I^'FANT BAPTISM. 123 
 
 Christ, no less truly made known than 
 if the warrant had expressed infants by- 
 name. The question is not, Jire infants ex- 
 jpressly named ? but, Has Christ any where, 
 and in any icay, instructed us whether they 
 are to he embraced or excluded ? 
 
 On this principle our Baptist brethren 
 themselves argue and practice in other mat- 
 ters ; and that, too, in matters pertaining to 
 ^^ positive institutions^ Indeed, any other 
 principle than this would shut out the Lord 
 Jesus Christ from being master and lawgiver 
 over his own house. Who are we, to pre- 
 scribe to hira how he is to make known his 
 will ; and that under penalty of having his 
 will rejected, if he does not make it known 
 in just the manner that we think he ought to 
 employ 1 
 
 The Sabbath is a positive institution j and 
 God has expressly designated the seventh 
 day, yet all Christians in the world, that keep 
 a Sabbath, — save a very diminutive fraction of 
 one sect, — keep the^rs^day. Where is the 
 express warrant for this change 1 There is 
 none. Our Baptist brethren, like ourselves, 
 make out a warrant by inference. We find the 
 will of Christ made known in the Scriptures,
 
 124 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 — not expressly but circumstantially. The 
 practice of the Apostles teaches the will of 
 Christ, — even though it be but incidentally- 
 mentioned. We admit the validity of this 
 warrant by inference. If truly made out, it 
 is as clearly the will of Christ as though we 
 had found an express warrant in so many 
 words, " Let the Sabbath be changed from 
 the seventh day to the first." 
 
 The " Seventh Day BapHsts^^ are the only 
 consistent ones here. They do with the 
 Sabbath as they do by infant baptism ; they 
 admit nothing but an express warrant, in so 
 many words, to bear upon either question. 
 " And," said one of their ministers to me, 
 * ' we feel that with our Baptist brethren our 
 arguments are unanswerable. They must either 
 keep the seventh day as the Sabbath, or else 
 reject the very principles on which they reject 
 infant baptism ; they must give up their argu- 
 ment, or keep the seventh day, or else determine 
 to act inconsistently and absurdly.'''' 
 
 His conclusion was manifestly sound. 
 And I could not help adding, Both they and 
 you must give w^ female communion too : for 
 when Christ instituted his Supper there were 
 no female disciples present, though he had
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 125 
 
 such at the time ; and he said not one word 
 about them in the law of the ordinance : 
 nor are they any where expressly mentioned 
 as partaking in the celebration of the ordi- 
 nance ; and yet the Lord's Supper is a pure 
 ''^positive institution^''^ and say our brethren, 
 You must go by the letter ; you must not go 
 beyond j you must not make out a warrant 
 by inference j you must have it express. 
 
 I know they prove the propriety of female 
 communion ; but they prove it by inference, 
 and not by any express command or precept. 
 I admit the proof to be valid : but neither 
 our Baptist brethren nor any body else can 
 make it out, without at the same time sweep- 
 ing away the very foundation of their argu- 
 ment against infant baptism. 
 
 I only insist that the same sort of proof h^ 
 considered equally valid to prove the autho- 
 rity for infant baptism. I am willing to have 
 it required that that proof be ample. I have 
 no fear for the issue, if the condition of re- 
 ceiving infant baptism be ten times the 
 amount of proof required to substantiate the 
 change of the Sabbath, or to make out the 
 Scriptural warrant for female communion. 
 11*
 
 126 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 You perceive that I have here made a 
 " concession ;" if it be proper to call that a 
 concession, which concerns a thing that we 
 never attempted to hold ; and which is a 
 simple statement of a truth that every Psedo- 
 baptist in the world was always free to 
 acknowledge. The " concession" is, that 
 the law of baptism makes no express men- 
 tion of infants. 
 
 But having made this concession, I must 
 be allowed to enter my protest against being 
 understood or reported to have conceded 
 that the Scriptures furnish no warrant for 
 infant baptism. I concede no such thing. I 
 maintain the contrary. Nor will it be deem- 
 ed a matter of wonder to those who know 
 what use is sometimes made of concessions, 
 that I should deem it necessary to enter 
 this protest. 
 
 Thus, a concession of Dr. Woods is some- 
 times quoted in such a way as to leave those, 
 who hear it, under the impression, that Dr. 
 Woods admits that the Scriptures furnish 
 no warrant for infant baptism.* So far 
 
 * The writer has himself heard Dr. Woods quoted 
 in this manner before a full congregation.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 127 
 
 as his words are quoted, they are quoted 
 correctly from p. 11, of his work on Infant 
 Baptism, " Whatever may have been the pre- 
 cepts of Christ or his apostles, to those who 
 enjoyed their personal instructions ; it is a 
 plain case, that there is no express precept 
 respecting infant baptism in our sacred writ- 
 ings." 
 
 Here the matter is left. The quotation 
 is truth as far as it goes : but what is essen- 
 tial to THE truth is omitted ; and the omission 
 causes Dr. Woods to be understood as giv- 
 ing up all claim of a Scriptural warrant for 
 infant baptism 5 whereas, in truth, Dr. Woods 
 gives his testimony directly to the contrary. 
 His " concession''^ refers only to an " express 
 precept." His work was written for the 
 very purpose of proving the Scriptural 
 WARRANT for infant baptism. He is very 
 explicit, (p. 42), to take his position in the 
 most formal words ; and he prints them in 
 italics that his position may be well noted 
 and understood ; and these are his words : 
 
 " But I shall now proceed to argue the 
 point from the inspired records just as they 
 are. My position is, that the Scriptures of 
 the J^ew Testament^ understood according to
 
 128 INFANT BAPTISM, 
 
 the just rules of interpretation^ imply that 
 
 THE CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS ARE TO BE BAP- 
 TIZED." 
 
 In the same manner, in a tract published 
 by the " General Baptist Tract Society^'' enti- 
 tled " The Scripture Guide to Baptism, by 
 Pengilly,'" and widely circulated both here 
 and elsewhere, Mr. Baxter is introduced as 
 speaking in the strongest terms against In- 
 fant Baptism. One long quotation from his 
 writings introduced for this purpose, ends 
 with these words : " I profess my conscience 
 is fully satisfied from this text, that it is one 
 sort of faith, even saving, that must go be- 
 fore BAPTISM." The last words are printed 
 in capitals. Jewett, in his work on Baptism, 
 has introduced the same quotation for the 
 same purpose ; to make Richard Baxter 
 bear his witness against infant baptism. 
 
 And again, " The Scripture Guide to Bap- 
 tism, by Pengilly,^^ (p. 44-), after asserting in 
 italics, " That we have nowhere found a single 
 place or passage that describes, records, or im. 
 plies the baptism of any infants j^^ says, 
 " The reader will not suppose this a hasty 
 conclusion when he hears the following P^edo- 
 baptists." Under this, he quotes again
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 129 
 
 Mr. Baxter, thus : " I conclude that all ex- 
 amples of baptism in Scripture do mention 
 only the administration of it to the profess- 
 ors of saving faith : and the precepts give 
 us no other direction. And I provoke Mr. 
 Blake as far as is seemly for me to do, to 
 name one precept or example for any other, 
 and make it good if he can." 
 
 Here is a point in question, and witnesses 
 are called. Richard Baxter is brought upon 
 the stand. Mr. Baxter^ Is Infant Baptism 
 right according to the word of God ? An 
 answer is put into his mouth, taken from his 
 works, in which he is reasoning — not con- 
 cerning infants, — but concerning adults ; and 
 showing that " it is one sort of faith, even 
 saving^^^ (and not simply the intellectual be- 
 lief of an unconverted man,) " that must 
 go before baptism." And so, Richard Bax- 
 ter is by this process made to bear witness 
 against Infant Baptism ! 
 
 But, Mr. Baxter, you were a Psedo-baptist : 
 did you not baptize children, and so teach 
 and exhort in the house of God \ yes : 
 and dearly prized the ordinance, and would 
 not have given it up sooner than I would 
 have given up my life. But, Mr. Baxter,
 
 130 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 what is this then they say of you ^ Your 
 name is spread abroad in tracts upon tracts, 
 and in books upon books, and goes out to the 
 four wiads of heaven ; and your own strong 
 language is printed in the boldest relief,'as 
 though the author of the " Saint's Rest," 
 and of the " Call to the Unconverted," had 
 borne his testimony most decidedly against 
 infant baptism ! Are you so opposed, Mr. 
 Baxter % Is this witness true of you 1 
 What say you of Infants^ Mr. Baxter 1 Do 
 you cut these off from the Church of God? 
 
 To be so quoted is well nigh enough to 
 call the dead " Saint" from his " Rest." He 
 answers on this point : and it is Baxter's 
 own strong emotion and burning words that 
 speak : " God," says Mr. Baxter, " God had 
 
 NEVER A CHURCH ON EARTH, OF WHICH INFANTS 
 
 WERE NOT INFANT MEMBERS, SINCE THERE WERE 
 
 INFANTS IN THE WORLD."* 
 
 ' * Baxter's Comment, on Matt. 28, 19, (in Gray on 
 
 the Authority for Infant Baptism, Halifax, 1837, p. 
 
 200) 
 
 The hottest controversy which Mr. Baxter ever 
 had was with the Baptists. A Mr. Tombes had written 
 a book against infant baptism, and thought that Bax- 
 ter was " the chief hinderer" of its success : '' Though," 
 says Mr. Baxter, " I never meddled witli that point."
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 131 
 
 But enough of these " concessions." 
 Enough of these clouds of quotations from 
 Psedo-baptist writers to make them say what, 
 quoted in such connections and for such 
 purposes, is heaven-wide from the faith in 
 which they lived and in which they died. 
 Vrhat is done to the living Woods and to the 
 dead Baxter, is done to Calvin, and to a 
 host of others. These men went to the 
 word of God for their doctrine. Whatever 
 would not stand by that rule they scrupu- 
 lously rejected, — with loathing and abhor- 
 
 '' He had," says Baxter, " so high a conceit of his 
 writings that he thought them unanswerable, and that 
 none could deal with them in that way." " At last, 
 somehow, he urged me to give ray judgment of them : 
 when I let him know they did not satisfy me to be of 
 his mind, but went no further with him." "But he 
 unavoidably contrived to bring me into the controver- 
 sy which I shunned." In the end Baxter agreed to 
 hold a public discussion in Mr. Tombes' church, Jan. 
 1, 1649. " This dispute," says Baxter, " satisfied all 
 my own people, and the country that came in, and Mr. 
 Tombes' own townsmen, except about twenty whom 
 he had perverted, who gathered into his church ; 
 which never increased to above twenty-two, that I 
 could learn." 
 
 Not long after, Baxter published his work entitled — 
 " Plain Scripture Proof of Infants' Church Mem-
 
 132 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 rence, — "hating even the garment spotted 
 by the flesh." They taught and practised 
 sprinkling and pouring for baptism : they 
 taught and practised the baptism of infants : 
 — for the warrant of both they went to the 
 word of God. And now, the influence of 
 their names and the weight of their piety is 
 attempted to be laid into the scale against 
 the doctrines which they practised and 
 taught, as the truth and the ordinances of 
 God. Is this dealing kindly and truly with 
 the dead ? Is this dealing kindly and right- 
 eously with the truth % 
 
 In the same manner, in this work by 
 "Pengilly," published by the Baptist Gen- 
 
 BERSHiP AND Baptism." This work passed through 
 several editions. '' The book," says Baxter, " God 
 blessed with unexpected success to stop abundance 
 from turning Anabaptists, and reclaiming many." 
 
 Nineteen years after, Baxter published another work, 
 entitled — More Proofs of Infant Church Member- 
 ship, AND consequently THEIR RiGHTS TO BaPTISM. 
 
 This book is divided into three parts, which contain, he 
 tells us, " The plain proof of God's statute or covenant 
 for Infants' church membership from the creation, and 
 the continuance of it till the institution of Baptism : 
 with the defence of that proof against the frivolous ex- 
 ceptions of Mr. Tombes." — (Orwes' Life and Times of 
 Baxter, Vol. II. p. 252.)
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 133 
 
 eral Tract Society, as the " Scripture Guide 
 to Baptism," the names of such men as 
 Doddridge^ Baxter^ Erskine, Matthew Henry, 
 Calvin, Saurin, Guyse, Charnock, are arrayed 
 as if against us in the particulars in which 
 we differ from our Baptist brethren. Take 
 the names from the book, and the quotations 
 annexed to them, and the book is left a mere 
 lifeless carcase. But hear them fully : hear 
 them ti'uly : and do they stand against us \ 
 Could they come up from the dead into the 
 midst of this community, to a man they would 
 wend their way to these walls for the truth 
 and order which they held as established by 
 the word of God. To a man they would 
 lift up their voice for the ordinances which 
 now their names are made to impugn. They 
 would cry out upon the injustice done to 
 their memories and to the truth, by these 
 attempts to cast the weight of their names 
 against what they taught and practised, as 
 the truth and the ordinances of God. And 
 others, whose names are quoted in this tract 
 by Pengilly, though they might not in all 
 respects agree with us ; would nevertheless 
 give us their united voice on the matter now 
 in question. The Methodists, Whitefield 
 12
 
 134 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 and Wesley ; the Episcopal Scott ; the Bish- 
 ops of the Church of England, Tillotson, 
 Burnet^ and Taylor, and Archbuhop Seeker, 
 would cry out upon the injustice done^to 
 their names in arraying them, as if witnesses, 
 ao-ainst the truth and the ordinances which 
 they held as most assuredly the truth and 
 the ordinances of God. 
 
 But turn from the authority of names, to 
 the FOUNDATIONS on which these men rested 
 their faith. " To the law ; and to the testi- 
 mony." 
 
 In our examination of the circumstances 
 which bear upon the interpretation of the 
 law of baptism, it will appear, 
 
 I. That the Abrahamic and the Chris- 
 tian Church are one and the same ; built 
 
 ON THE same covenant ; SAVED WITH THE 
 same faith ; AND CONSIDERED IN THE WORD OF 
 
 God as one and the sabie Church. 
 
 II. That Circumcision and Baptism are 
 
 ALIKE seals of THE SAME COVENANT, AND 
 SIGNS OF THE SAME THING. 
 
 III. That the children of believers, as 
 
 THEY WERE CONNECTED WITH THE AbRAHAMIC 
 
 Church, are recognized in the New Tes- 
 tament as sustaining the same relation to 
 THE Christian Church.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 135 
 
 If these things can be proved by the cer- 
 tain warrant of the word of God, it will fol- 
 low that the law of baptism in the Christian 
 church is to be interpreted as extending to 
 the children of believing parents. It would 
 seem useless to deny the sign to them who 
 have the thing ; and as the seal was once ex- 
 pressly extended to children, if they are to 
 be excepted afterwards, in the application of 
 another sign, of the same meanings intent 
 and wse, the exception must be specified, 
 otherwise (he sign follows with the thing. 
 God having given his charter and sealed it to 
 a specified class of persons ; afterwards while 
 he expressly continues the charter but chan- 
 ges the form of the seal, — the seal in that 
 changed form remains of course. Without 
 an express warrant from God, man may not 
 take away the charter, or refuse the seal. 
 
 If, in addition to this, we find, 
 
 IV. Grounds for concluding that apostles 
 APPLIED THE SIGN; and certain history io 
 show that THE whole Church received the 
 PRACTICE, as they believed, from the apostles; 
 and so practised, uniformly all over the world ^ 
 with not a man to raise his voice against the 
 divine authority of the practice for more than
 
 136 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 thirty generations after Christ ; I think we 
 may rest the question as settled. It is not 
 only lawful ; but a correct and authorized 
 interpretation of the law of the institution 
 requires believing parents to cause their in- 
 fant children to be baptized. 
 
 This is the outline of the argument which 
 I shall pursue. And now to the proof. 
 
 I. The Ahrahamic and the Christian church 
 are one and the same. 
 
 The Lord appeared to Abraham (Gen. 
 xii. 1 — 3,) and promised that in him should 
 *' All the families of the earth he blessed.''^ In 
 Gen. xvii. 1 — 14, God again promised that 
 Abraham should be " the father of many na- 
 tions ;" and that he would be " a God to him 
 and to his seed after himP At the same time 
 God gave him the ordinance of circumcision 
 for himself and for his seed. 
 
 Here was the commencement of the polity 
 of the peculiar people of God intended by 
 the term church y and distinguished (Rom. 
 iii. 2,) as having entrusted to them "The 
 oracles of God ;" and (Rom. ix. 5,) as those 
 to whom ''pertain the adoption, and the 
 covenants, and the service of God, and the 
 promises;" and declared (1 Tim. iii. 15,) to
 
 INFANT BAPTIS->1. 137 
 
 be " The house of God ;" " the church of 
 the living God," " the pillar and ground of 
 the truth." 
 
 On account of this covenant God is called 
 the " God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of 
 Jacob ;" rather than the God of Enoch, or 
 of Noah, or of Moses, or of David. He is 
 called THEIR God in relation to this coven- 
 ant ; as in numberless instances, so particu- 
 larly in 2 Cor. vi. 16, as God hath said, " I 
 will dwell in them and walk in them ; and 
 I will be their God and they shall be my 
 people ; i. e. " t/iHr God," as he is not the 
 God of other men ; and they his people, as. 
 other men ave jiot his people. So in Heb. 
 xi. 16, " Wherefore God is not ashamed to 
 be called their God." 
 
 This people of God, as an external visible 
 polity, is called " Israel," or the " Church :" 
 as in Acts vii. 38, the descendants of Jacob 
 are called " the Church in the wilderness ;" 
 just as the visible polity of Christ's people 
 are called "the Church ;" as in 1 Cor. xii. 
 28, " And God hath set some in the Church ; 
 first apostles 5 secondarily prophets ; thirdly 
 teachers," &c. Here the word Church does 
 
 not mean simply an " assembly ;" for it is 
 12*
 
 138 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 no particular assembly that is here spoken 
 of, but Christ's visible people every where ; 
 his Church in the widest sense. 
 
 But the visible Church is never made up 
 exclusively of those who shall be saved : and 
 so the terms "/^rae/," and "Church," are 
 used ordinarily to designate the body of those 
 who are apparently his, to wit, the visible 
 polity made up of good and bad. Again, 
 they are sometimes used to denote particu- 
 larly those only who shall be the heirs of 
 salvation. Thus, the first term is used in 
 both senses in the following passage : Rom. 
 ix. 6, " For they are not all Israel which are 
 OF Israel." And the ''kingdom of God" 
 (the visible Church) is represented Luke 
 xiii. 47, as a " Net cast into the sea, Avhich 
 gathered of every kind ;" though only cast 
 for the proper kinds. When full and drawn 
 to the shore, the good are gathered in ves- 
 sels ; the bad are thrown away. 
 
 Now the covenant on which the Abrahamic 
 Church was founded, was not a covenant of 
 works, but of grace : and its promise was 
 not simply of the land of Canaan — but of 
 Heaven. Thus Rom. iv. 13, " For the prom- 
 ise that he should be the heir of the world,
 
 INFANT BAPTISM 139 
 
 was not to Abraham or to his seed through 
 the law, but through the righteousness of 
 faith.^'^ And (v. 11,) " He received the sign 
 of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 
 OF FAITH which he had yet being uncircum- 
 cised." 
 
 It has been strenuously asserted that the 
 covenant was one of temporal promises 
 only; and circumcision given as a mere 
 national badge ; (and indeed it is necessary 
 for those who reject infant baptism to say 
 something of the kind.) But the word of 
 God teaches us otherwise. "Abraham was 
 justified by faith.'''' Rom. iv. " The pro- 
 mise was" " through the righteousness 
 
 of faith •'^ and circumcision was "a seal of 
 the righteousness of faith /" to wit, of the 
 faith by which men must be justified.''^ So 
 we are taught expressly (Heb. xi.) that 
 Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and Sara, and 
 " multitudes" of their descendants, — as the 
 sand which is by the sea shore innumerable, 
 " died in the faith ;" — not simply in faith of 
 the promise of Canaan, but of Heaven. 
 Thus, Heb. xi. 13, 15, "And confessed 
 that they were strangers and pilgrims on the 
 earth," — " but now they desire a better coun-
 
 HO INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 try, ^' THAT IS, a Heavenly :" wherefore God 
 is not ashamed to be called their God ; ''''for 
 he hath prepared for ihtm a city." What 
 " city," but Heaven ? 
 
 And since there is no other name than 
 Christ whereby man must be saved. Acts 
 iv. 12, since there is " One God and one 
 mediator between God vind man," 1 Tim. 
 ii. 5, these men believed on Christ. This 
 we are expressly taught. Thus, "Abraham 
 rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and 
 was glad." So of all the ancient Israelites 
 who were saved it is expressly said, 1 Cor. 
 X. 2 — 4, "And were all baptized unto Moses 
 in the cloud and in the sea; anl did all 
 eat OF THE SAME SPIRITUAL MEAT : and did all 
 drink of the same spiritual drink : for they 
 drank of that spiritual rock that followed 
 them ; and that rock was Christ." 
 
 Here pause a moment. Was not that the 
 TRUE Church 5 whose true members 
 
 Believed on Christ ; 
 
 Sought a Heavenly country ; 
 
 Were justified by faith J- 
 
 Of whom the world was not worthy ; 
 
 For whom God prepared a city ; 
 
 *dnd who are now set down in the kingdom 
 of God ? 
 
 I
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 141 
 
 In what respect does the Church of Christ 
 differ from this, in the articles which may- 
 well be judged the Articles of the true 
 Church of God ? What more than this 
 makes the true Church, that its true mem- 
 bers 
 
 Believe on Christ ; 
 
 Seek a heavenly country j 
 
 Are justified BY faith; of whom 
 
 God is not ashamed to be called their 
 God; and 
 
 Hath prepared for the3I a city ; and who 
 are now 
 
 Set down in the kingdom of God. 
 
 '' But the Jewish polity is passed away." 
 True. But the Abrahamic Church is quite 
 a different thing from the Jewish polity. 
 Thus, Gal. iii. 17, " And this I say, that the 
 covenant^ that was confirmed before of God, 
 in Christ, the law, which was four hundred 
 and thirty years after, cannot disannual, that 
 it should make the promise of none effect.'*' 
 And if the ffivrinor of the law did not annul 
 the covenant, certainly the covenant is not 
 annulled by the removing of the ceremonial 
 law. And this is the very thing for which 
 Paul is arguing ; and which the Holy Ghost,
 
 142 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 who inspired him, teaches through his argu- 
 ments: — that the covenant and its blessings 
 remain, and come upon the Gentiles, as 
 Paul^ says in express words, (v. 11) " That 
 the blessing of Abraham biigiit come on the 
 Gentiles through Jesus Christ.''^ 
 
 Now '• Circumcision was not of Moses but 
 of the fathers," John vii. 22. It was the 
 seal of a covenant which existed before the 
 law ; and neither the giving of the law nor 
 the removal of it affected either the coven- 
 ant or the seal. The covenant remaining, 
 the seal remained, of course, unless special- 
 ly abrogated. Another form of the seal Avas 
 indeed adopted under Christ, as another day 
 was adopted for the Sabbath, instead of the 
 seventh. 
 
 The seal being changed, circumcision was 
 interdicted, (Acts xv.) but this was espe- 
 cially on the ground that those who enjoined 
 circumcision, taught that it was needful to 
 circumcise them and to command them to 
 keep the law of Moses ;" and to circumcise 
 as well as baptize. The circumcision, under 
 these circumstances, was enjoined and re- 
 ceived under the notio?i of being justified by 
 the law ; and became in its practical effect
 
 INFAxNT BAPTISM. 143 
 
 a nig, I of justification by the law. Under 
 these circumstances, the apostles, divinely- 
 instructed, did with circumcision what Heze- 
 kiah did with "the brazen serpent that 
 Moses had made." 2 Kings xviii. 14. It 
 must no longer be tolerated when it became 
 the means of sin and ruin. Paul also (Gal. 
 V.) spoke against circumcision on the ground 
 that they who practised it, did it under the 
 notion of attaining justification by the works 
 of the law. To keep the seventh day under 
 the notion of being justified by the law, 
 would put one equally oif from the ground 
 of grace. He would be ^^ fallen from 
 grace ; ' and " Christ should profit him 
 nothing." It was on this ground that Paul 
 interdicted circumcision, and on this OfJy ; 
 for Paul himself, (Acts xvi. 3), when he would 
 have Timothy go forth with him, " took him 
 and circumcised him^ because of the Jews 
 which were in those quarters." 
 
 So far, then, the covenant with its seal re- 
 main unimpaired by the giving and the re- 
 moving of the law. 
 
 " Wherefore, then, serveth the lawl" It 
 was added, because of transgressions, till the 
 seed should come, to whom the promise was
 
 144 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 made. Gal. iii. 19. The inference is in- 
 evitable ; the law passes away when Christ 
 comes ; since it was only added to continue 
 ^'"iilV that time. The promise and the cov- 
 enant remain to be fulfilled : to wit, the pro- I 
 mise referred to in these words, Gal. iii. 8, 
 *' And the Scripture foreseeing that God 
 would justify the heathen through faith, 
 preached before the gospel to Abraham, 
 saying, " In thee shall all the families of 
 
 THE EARTH BE BLESSED." 
 
 If now we were to add to this, " So then 
 modern believers are built upon the founda- 
 tion of the Abrahamic covenant ;'• the rea- 
 soning might be questioned. But the word 
 of God has come to such a conclusion, and 
 it ought to seem to be no longer a matter 
 to be questioned. " So^ then^'' says the 
 apostle, " they which he of faith, are blessed 
 with faithful AhrahamP ^^ Know ye not, 
 that they which are of faith, the same are the 
 children of Abraham." Gal. iii. 7. Why 
 are they not called the children of Enoch, or 
 of Noah, or of Elijah, or of Moses ? These 
 men had faith ; and were justified by faith. 
 If simply to be justified by faith be the mat- 
 ter in which we are " Abraham's seed," can
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 145 
 
 any mortal tell why we might not as well be 
 called the seed of Enoch, or of Noah, or of 
 Moses, or of Elijah 1 Plainly the covenaat, 
 and its promises, are the reason why we are 
 Abraham'' s seed : and Paul accordingly rea- 
 sons on the ground of the covenant and the 
 promise. But hear his conclusion, Gal. iii. 
 29, " And if ye be Christ^s, then are ye 
 Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the 
 
 PROMISE." 
 
 I might rest the argument here ; but the 
 word of God is not content to leave the mat- 
 ter so. It would make it so plain, " that he 
 may run who readeth it." Thus, the pro- 
 phets uniformly represent the kingdom of 
 Zion, not as a new church, but as Israel en- 
 larged by the " bringing in'^ of the Gentiles. 
 To say all that might be said in proof of this 
 would be to repeat nearly all the passages in 
 the prophets which speak of the kingdom of 
 Christ. For your satisfaction I refer to the 
 Ixth of Isaiah, and onward through the Ixvth. 
 Here is no casting away of God's people, 
 and the erection of an entire new polity. It 
 is Zion ; it is Jerusalem that arises and 
 shines ; her light being come ; and the glory 
 
 of the Lord being risen upon her. The 
 13
 
 146 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Gentiles come to her light, and kings to the 
 brightness of her rising : all they gather 
 themselves and come to thee.''"' These pro- 
 phecies represent the Church of Jesus Christ 
 in her course to universal empire over the 
 earth: but it is still the ancient Z ion, and the 
 ancient Jerusalem. It is still the covenant 
 people of God ; at a period when the promise 
 is made sure to all the seed ; not to that 
 only which is of the law, but that which is 
 of faith ;" — to the Gentiles, upon whom the 
 blessing of Abraham comes in the latter 
 day. 
 
 The apostles are not less distinct in this 
 matter than the prophets. Thus Paul, Eom» 
 xi. 25, " Blindness in part is happened unto 
 Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come 
 in.'" (" In ?" Into what \ To a house that 
 is thrown down and cast away X) And more 
 expressly in Eph. ii. 12 — 22, " Wherefore 
 remember that ye, being in times past Gen- 
 tiles m the flesh," — "that at that time ye 
 were without Christ, being aliens from the 
 Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from 
 the covenant of promise, are made nigh by 
 the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, 
 who hath MADE both one, having broken down
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. l^T 
 
 the middle wall of partition^^ — " Now there- 
 fore ye are no move strangers and foreigners^ 
 h\it fellow citizens with the saints, and of the 
 HOUSEHOLD OF GoD J and are built upon the 
 foundation of the ?ipost\es and prophets, Jesus 
 Christ himself being the chief corner stone." 
 
 I know there are those to whose scheme 
 it is destruction, to consider the Abra- 
 hamic covenant as pertaining at all to us ; 
 or the Abrahamic and the Christian church 
 one and the same : and hence, when we 
 mention these things they profess that it is 
 all unintelligible. ; and throw them by con- 
 temptuously as an idle and pernicious fig- 
 ment. But it seems to me, that we cannot 
 throw these things away without throwing 
 away the word of God. But as if the 
 Scriptures had anticipated what objections 
 would be raised, they go on, as though de- 
 termined to put the matter beyond a ques- 
 tion, if the clearest representations of holy 
 writ can put any thing beyond question. 
 
 Thus, in Rom. xi. '• God hath Jiot cast 
 away his people'''' whom he foreknew, — 
 " there is a remnant,^'' — " the rest are blind- 
 ed." " jlnd if some of the branches be 
 broken off,^^ (mark ! is the trunk destroyed
 
 148 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 when some of the branches are broken oft"?) 
 
 " and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graff- 
 ed in among I hem, ^^ (grafted tWo nothing"? 
 and among nothing *?) *' and with them par- 
 
 TAKEST OF THE ROOT AND FATNESS of the oHvB 
 
 treeV^ (Tell me, ye who are familiar with 
 the process of engrafting : is the trunk torn 
 up and cast away, when the scion is grafted 
 in among its green branches, and with them 
 partakes of its 7'oot and fatness ?) "Boast 
 not against the branches : but if thou boast, 
 thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." 
 
 Can any thing more strikingly and cer- 
 tainly assert, that the old trunk, the Abra- 
 hamic church is not thrown aside ; but that 
 the Christian church draws its support and 
 sustenance from the original and still living 
 root, the covenant of promise ; — which se- 
 cures us Christ ; which secures us all the 
 mercy that God has covenanted, or which 
 comes to us through his Son ? Could a voice 
 from heaven, louder than seven thunders, 
 and distinct as that which shall call the world 
 to judgment, make this matter more plain 1 
 
 One more passage of holy writ, and I 
 have done on this point. The passage is in 
 Rom. iv. 16, 17. "Therefore it is oi faith
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 149 
 
 that it might be by grace, to the end that the 
 PROMISE might be siire to all the seed ; not 
 only to that which is of the law ; but to that 
 also which is of the faith of Abraham 5 who 
 is the father of us all j as it is written, I 
 have made thee a father o( many nations." 
 
 Here 1 rest under the first point ; believ- 
 ing the proof to be plain and incontroverti- 
 ble, — resting on the sure authority of the 
 word of God ; that the Abrahamic and the 
 Christian church are one and the same ; 
 built upon the same covenant ; saved with 
 the same faith ; considered in the word of 
 God as one and the same church. 
 I proceed to the second point. 
 II. Circumcision and baptism are alike the 
 seal of the same covenant, and the sign of the 
 same thing. 
 
 God appointed circumcision the seal of 
 his covenant with Abraham in these words, 
 Gen. xvii. 10. " This is my covenant, 
 which ye shall keep between me and you, 
 and thy seed after thee : Every man child 
 among you shall be circumcised." Here 
 circumcision is called the " covenant,'''' by a 
 common figure of placing the sig7i for the 
 thing. Every one understands that literally 
 13*
 
 150 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 circumcision is not the covenant^ but the 
 token, or sign, or seal of the covenant. That 
 it is such a " sign" and " seal," — and what 
 it signifies we are not left to conjecture. 
 Paul says, Rom. iv. 11, "He" (Abraham) 
 *' received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 
 the righteousness of the faith which he had yet 
 being uncircumcised." A "sign!" "a seal!" 
 
 of THE RIGHTEOrSNESS of — FAITH !" Is nOt 
 
 this " righteousness of faith'''' the very thing 
 which Paul is urging as the ground by 
 which the sinner is justified, and has peace 
 with God through our Lord Jesus Christ ; 
 of which justification" he cites Abraham as 
 an illustrious example % Of this ''''faith'''' 
 Abrahamreceivedcircumcisionasthe"seal." 
 And what was the import of the seal 1 The 
 renewal of the heart and of the spirit. This 
 was the true circumcision, of which the out- 
 ward circumcision was given as the sign. 
 Rom. ii. 29. '' Circumcision is that of the 
 heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." That 
 is, the real thing denoted by the sign, cir- 
 cumcision ; — the truly being what circum- 
 cision should be the sign of being, is to be 
 cleansed in heart. Of this it is the sign. Of 
 the remission of sin and of the acceptance of
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 151 
 
 the soul through the righteousness of faith 
 it is the " SEAL." 
 
 Now baptism is the seal and sign of the 
 same things. Thus, Acts xxii. 16, " Arise 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins^ 
 The baptism does not literally wash away 
 sins :" but it is the sign^ or token^ or seal^ 
 of the washing away of sins ; and of accept- 
 ance with God, in justification through the 
 righteousness of faith. The real washing 
 away of sins is accomplished with a bloody 
 baptism — by the sprinkling of the blood of 
 Christ ;" of this, baptism is the seal^ in pre- 
 cisely the same manner as circumcision was 
 the seal of the righteousness of faith ; and 
 the " sprinkling of blood is shadowed forth 
 by the sprinkling of water. 
 
 And what is the import oUhis seal 1 What 
 but the washing of the heart ; and of the in- 
 ward cleansing by the Holy Spirit, which is 
 called the '' Baptism of the Spirit j'' as the 
 circumcision of the heart was the work of 
 the Holy Spirit ; so here the baptism 
 (or cleansing) of the heart, which is the 
 work of the Holy Spirit, is called, " The 
 washing of regeneration^ and the renew- 
 ing of the Holy Ghost,'''' and this is 
 shadowed forth by the " washing of water,"
 
 152 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 or baptism : as it is said in Tit. iii. 5, " Christ 
 loved the church, and gave himself for it, 
 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with 
 the WASHING OF WATER by the word." 
 
 We have, then, baptism and circumcision ; 
 each a " sign,''^ each a " seal;^ and each as a 
 sign and as a seal signifying precisely the 
 same thing. 
 
 But the word of God goes further, and 
 expressly calls baptism^ the circumcision of 
 Christ : (or what is its precise equivalent — 
 Christian circumcision.) Thus, Col. ii. 11,12, 
 " In whom ye are circumcised^ with the cir- 
 cumcision made without hands f^ — (Here is 
 the real circumcision, the inward " circum- 
 cision of the heart and of the Spirit :" — " the 
 washing of regeneration, the renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost")—" in putting off the 
 body of the sins of the flesh, by the circum- 
 cision of Christ: buried with him in bap- 
 tism." Here is the outward circumcision 
 of Christ, — (the sign of ihe inward,) — bap- 
 tism. Again, Phil. iii. 3, Christians are 
 called " The circumcision ^^^ in allusion to 
 their having wrought in them the thing sig- 
 nified by circumcision, and of which bap- 
 tism under the dispensation of Christ is the 
 outward sign. " For we are the circumci'
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 153 
 
 sion, which worship God in the spirit, and 
 rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confi- 
 dence in the flesh." 
 
 The Abrahamic church had a " seaV of the 
 righteousness of faith. " The Christian 
 church is the same : has the Christian 
 church a seal of the righteousness of faith 1 
 If the Scriptures may be trusted, it has : — 
 baptism^ signifying the same thing as circum- 
 cision, and, in so many words, called the 
 circumcision of Christ." 
 
 It is manifest, therefore, that baptism is 
 substituted for circumcision : 
 
 It is a seal of the sa3ie covenant ; 
 
 Ordained for the same church j 
 
 It means the same thing ; 
 
 It is employed for the same use : 
 
 While circumcision is passed away. 
 
 Here is the reality of substitution. If any 
 dislike the word substitution, I care not to 
 dispute for the word : it is enough for me 
 that I have proved the reality. Baptism is 
 a sign, and but a sign ] used as a seal ; hold- 
 ing the same place ; having the same mean- 
 ing ; fulfilling the same use ; under the 
 same .covenant ; and in the same church ; 
 while circumcision is passed away. Here
 
 154 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 is the reality of substitution. If any dislike 
 the word, let the word be dropped : the 
 reality remains, based upon the word of 
 God. Baptism is now, what circumcision 
 was once, — a seal of the righteousness of 
 faith, and of God's promise to be the God of 
 such, and of their seed after them. Chris- 
 tianity has no other sign or seal of the right- 
 eousness of faith.* 
 
 Now what would those, who received the 
 command to apply this new seal, understand 
 with regard to the subjects to whom it was 
 to be applied 1 They well understood the 
 Abrahamic and the Christian church to be 
 one and the same : built on the same cove- 
 nant, saved with the same faith, and regard- 
 ed in the word of God as one and the same 
 church. Circumcision, the seal of the right- 
 eousness of faith, — was, by Divine command, 
 applied to children. When a Gentile was 
 
 * It has been objected that circumcision was applied 
 only to males. Might not this be among the reasons 
 for a change of the seal ? A distinction was made be 
 tween male and female under the Mosaic dispensation, 
 as between Jew and Greek, bond and free : but under 
 Christ this distinction was abolished, " There is neither 
 Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free ; there 
 is neither male nor female." Hence — the seal remain- 
 ing, — there was a necessity for changing its form.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 155 
 
 proselyted, the same seal was applied to 
 him and to his children. In every covenant 
 and promise of God, their children had been 
 included : and this fact must have deeply 
 impressed their minds, that every where 
 throughout the law and the prophets, God 
 was still accustomed to join in the same 
 polity the parents and the children. To ex- 
 clude the children — is a strange thing, es- 
 pecially from a seal of the same covenant, 
 which still retained in its promises the bless- 
 incrs promised to children. Here is a new 
 seal of the same covenant, — the same cove- 
 nant, only enlarged — extending the blessing 
 of Abraham to the Gentiles through faith. 
 Does the ratification and the enlargement 
 of the covenant — cut off the children, while 
 nothing is revoked and nothing changed 
 save the foj^m of the seal. Here is a new 
 form of the seal, but it has the same signifi- 
 cation. The command is — " Go teach" 
 (make disciples of) all nations, baptizing 
 them. Had the command been — go preach 
 to the Gentiles — the " Gospel" which was 
 before preached to Abraham, Gal. iii. 8 — 
 circumcising them ; " he that believeth" and 
 is circumcised ^' shall be saved ;" there could
 
 156 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 be no possibility of doubting that the infants 
 of believing parents are to be included. But 
 how is the case altered when they are to ap- 
 ply another sign of the same design and sig- 
 nification! Is the case altered at alH Will 
 they not understand it as referring to the 
 same subjects 1 So they must naturally un- 
 derstand it : such would be its inevitable in- 
 terpretation, unless there were an express 
 exception of such infants in the command. 
 Without some warrant, it is, methinks, im- 
 possible that the disciples would presume 
 to take away from parents and children the 
 privileges granted to them by the charter of 
 Jehovah. These of necessity stand till 
 Jehovah himself takes them away. The 
 chartered privileges remaining to them ; the 
 seal of that charter, as it was once theirs, 
 would remain, even though the form of the 
 seal be changed. . 
 
 This has been illustrated by a homely 
 similitude, and yet a similitude so much in 
 point that I will copy it.* 
 
 A man orders his servants to mark the 
 sheep of his flock with a bloody sign ; and 
 ts careful to add, See that you apply this sign 
 
 * See a valuable sermon on this subject by Rev. 
 ErdixTenny, of Lyme, N. H.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 157 
 
 to all the lambs also. Afterwards, he sees 
 fit to dispense with the bloody sign made 
 with a knife in the flesh ; and ordains that 
 his servants mark his sheep with paint : but 
 he says nothing about the lambs. Will those 
 servants, because the marking is a '' positive 
 institution," argue that the lambs are no 
 longer to be marked ? As they buy more 
 sheep with lambs, will they mark the sheep, 
 but say they have no warrant for marking 
 the lambs 1 The contrary. And so, from 
 the very circumstances of the case, the dis" 
 ciples of Christ, understanding the design 
 and import of baptism, and having been pre- 
 viously accustomed to extend another sign, 
 of the some import and use, to children, — 
 would naturally interpret the command to 
 baptize, as implying the baptism of infants. 
 Had it been objected, that men are to believe 
 and be baptized ; and that even " saving 
 faith" is to go before baptism in the case of 
 adults, they would still remember, that in- 
 fants could no more believe in Abraham's 
 day than they can now^ ; and yet at God's 
 command, they received " circumcision, a 
 seal of the righteousness of — faith ;" and that 
 the objection would have had precisely the 
 14
 
 158 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 same force against circumcision then, that 
 it has against baptism now. They would 
 have remembered, moreover, that if the 
 want of a capacity for " believing" should 
 hinder baptism, the same reasoning would 
 prove that they cannot be saved : since the 
 Gospel says, " He that believeth and is bap- 
 tized shall be saved ;" " He that believeth 
 not, shall be damned ;" and infants cannot 
 believe. But a reasoning which proves too 
 much, and proves what is false, proves no- 
 thing at all : and the objection falls to the 
 ground. 
 
 Another circumstance would have had 
 weight upon their minds in all questions 
 touching the relations of children under the 
 Gospel dispensation. Some parents once 
 brought little children (infants, says Luke, 
 xviii. 15) to Christ, that he should lay his 
 hands on them and bless them. His dispi- 
 ples forbade them. They understood that 
 Christ's kingdom was to rest upon faith in 
 the soul, and upon the intelligent obedience 
 of men to his precepts ; but how could 
 children have this faith or this knowledge 1 
 They appear to have come to the same con- 
 clusion concerning bringing little children
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 159 
 
 to Christ that he might touch them, that 
 many in these days arrive at concerning 
 the baptism of little children ; — " What 
 good can it do to an unconscious babe V 
 At all events, they forbade these parents to 
 bring their infants to Christ for this purpose. 
 But Christ rebuked them ; he called the little 
 children to him ; he took them in his arms ; 
 he blessed them ; he said, '' Suffer little chil- 
 dren to come unto me^ and forbid them not ; 
 for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.''^ He 
 meant by the kingdom of Heaven, either his 
 earthly church or his heavenly ; it matters 
 not which for the argument. If the heavenly 
 church is, in part, made up of such ; then 
 this was a sufficient reason for Christ why 
 he should take them in his arms and bless 
 them ; and rebuke those who would forbid 
 them to be brought to him. It is the very 
 reason that he alleged : and he himself drew 
 these conclusions from the reason. What 
 an argument for bringing little children to 
 Christ now — that he may seal them as his 
 own ; and that visibly as he did when he 
 took them in his arms ! But i^hy^'' King- 
 dom of heaven^^^ he meant his " earthly 
 church,^^ then the argument is at an end :
 
 16U INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 they are to be baptized on this express war- 
 rant. 
 
 Those who wish to prevent this passage 
 from bearing on the question at issue 
 say, that by the words " of such,^^ our Lord 
 meant — not of such infants, but of such 
 '^ simple hearted and humble persons" is 
 the kingdom of heaven. This would be a 
 good reason why " simple hearted and hum- 
 ble persons" should not be forbidden to 
 come to Christ ; — but the fact that " simple 
 hearted and humble" adults belong to the 
 kingdom of God, is no reason why Christ 
 should take infants in his arms and bless 
 them. 
 
 It is said, we forget that Jesus did not 
 baptize them. No we do not forget that 
 " Jesus himself baptized not, but his disci- 
 ples." It is not necessary for us to assert 
 or to suppose that these infants were bap- 
 tized at all. Christ's disciples were sent at 
 first to preach, not a Redemption completed, 
 but to preach, saying, " The kingdom of 
 heaven is at hand. ^' Their^/^a? commission 
 was after the resurrection of our Lord ; and 
 at that time he instituted his baptism ; which 
 appears to be essentially different from the 
 baptism practised before. The disciples of
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 161 
 
 Christ baptized newly made disciples before 
 this, but it seems to have been John's " bap- 
 tism of repentance," Acts. xix. 4, and not 
 the baptism instituted by Christ as the new- 
 seal of his covenant. Grant it, if our breth- 
 ren please, that these infants were not bap- 
 tized.* This conduct of Christ, and this re 
 buke which he administered to those who 
 would forbid infants, would at least teach 
 his disciples no more to reject infants from 
 the blessings of the Christian religfion, 
 under the notion that infants cannot believe. 
 It would teach them no more to forbid 
 parents to bring them to Christ for his bless- 
 ing. It would teach them to be cautious 
 how they forbade infants from the privi- 
 leges which God had chartered to them in his 
 covenant. It was designed to teach them 
 how Christ regarded infants ; and the re- 
 membrance of this would necessarily bear 
 upon the interpretation which they wo'-ild 
 give with regard to the application of the 
 * Though as much is said of their baptism as there is 
 of the baptism of any particular adults from this liuie 
 forward durinor the life of Christ, or indeed during the 
 previous part of his ministry. No particular cases are 
 mentioned. Silence in one case proves as much as in 
 another. 
 
 14*
 
 162 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 new seal, whether to apply it to infants or 
 not. 
 
 But how they did in fact interpret the law, 
 I come now to show under the third head. 
 
 III. " That the children of believers, as they 
 were connected loith the Ahrahamic church, are 
 recognised in the Jfew Testament as sustaining 
 the same relation to the Christian church. 
 
 " For the unbelieving' husband is sanctified 
 by the ivife, arid the unbelieving wife is sancti- 
 fied by the husband, else were your children un- 
 clean, but now are they holy.''^ 1. Cor. vii. 14. 
 Of course this cannot mean that the children 
 are spiritually holy, simply because one of 
 the parents is a believer. The word holy 
 here, is the opposite of unclean, with which 
 it is contrasted. And the word unclean, (the 
 same in the original language as well as 
 ours,) is used in Acts x. 14, 15, 28, and 
 Acts xi. 3, 8, 9, in a way which fully ex- 
 plains the use of it here. Peter was to be 
 prepared to go and instruct and baptize Cor- 
 nelius, a Gentile. A vision was given him, 
 of a great sheet, knit at the four corners, 
 wherein were all manner of four-footed 
 beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the 
 air. And there came a voice to him, saying, 
 Rise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter said,
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 163 
 
 Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten any 
 thing that is common or unclean. And the 
 voice spoke to him again : What God hath 
 cleansed that call not thou common. So 
 Peter answered the messenger of Cornelius, 
 God hath showed me, that I should not call 
 any man common or unclean. But for going 
 to Cornelius, a Gentile, they that were of 
 the circumcision contended with him, (as 
 Peter might have done with another man, 
 had he not been better instructed by the 
 vision) — saying, thou wentest in to men un- 
 circumcised, and didst eat iciih them. Then 
 Peter rehearsed the matter from the begin- 
 ning, and told how the voice answered from 
 heaven, saying, What God hath cleansed^ 
 that call not thou common. The point is 
 this : to the Israelites, the Gentiles had been 
 considered as unclean : out of the pale of 
 their society, and debarred from the cove- 
 nant and worship of the people of God : or 
 as Paul expresses it. Eph. ii. 12 — 22, " Gen- 
 tiles in the flesh, — strangers from the cove- 
 nant OF PROMISE. 
 
 With this explanation turn to the passage 
 under consideration ; — " Else were your 
 children unclean'^ — cut ofl[ from the com- 
 monwealth of Christ's visible church, and
 
 164 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 debarred from the seal of the covenant, as 
 Pagans ; or, as says Matthew Henry, '-'■They 
 would be heathen, out of the pale of the church 
 and covenant of God.''' The Apostle bases 
 his argument upon a fact which he assumes 
 as well known and universally recognised 
 in practice ; that the children of believing 
 parents are so far a " Holy seed," — and in 
 that sense " holy" — (as opposed to " un- 
 clean^'') — that they are entitled to the cove- 
 nant privileges belonging to the " house- 
 hold" of faith. Doddridge says, (and with 
 him agree, the great mass of the most dis- 
 tinguished commentators — as well as the 
 great mass of the Christian world) — " On 
 the maturest and the most impartial considera- 
 tion of this text, I must refer it to infard bap- 
 tisms'' Indeed, this is the natural interpreta- 
 tion of the passage, and the most rigid scru- 
 tiny of the use of the words in the original 
 language not only bears out this interpreta- 
 tion, but condemns every other that has 
 been advanced. And so surely does this 
 natural interpretation prove infant baptism 
 to be an ordinance of God that opposers of 
 the ordinance have felt that there is no re- 
 lief but to set aside the interpretation. I
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 165 
 
 have read many subtle and earnest com- 
 ments and essays, written with much talent 
 and pains, — to set aside this interpretation ; 
 but I have not yet found one which attempts 
 to reconcile it with a denial of the ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 The many ingenious, jarring, and mutual- 
 ly destructive glosses, which have been put 
 upon this passage to avoid the dreaded con- 
 clusion, show how sensibly they feel the dif- 
 ficulty ; and how hard they find it to hit 
 upon one which shall seem tenable or plau- 
 sible to all even among themselves. The 
 one most commonly received and relied on 
 is that of the famous Dr. Gill ; which sup- 
 poses the Apostle to mean, " Else were 
 your children illegitimate^ but now are they 
 legitirnate." The absurdities of this gloss 
 are manifold and palpable. It is sufiicient 
 to mention one or two. 1. The terms which 
 he renders " legitimate" and " illegitimate" 
 have no such meaning any where else in 
 any author, sacred or profane ', of course the 
 rendering is a sheer inventio?i, — the effort of 
 a subtle wit to extricate itself from an un- 
 pleasant difficulty. It is impossible that 
 those to whom the apostle wrote should un- 
 derstand him to mean so. It would be just
 
 166 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 as much to the point, and no grosser license, 
 to render the word, " Else were your chil- 
 dren cripples^ but now are they sound. 2. The 
 gloss proceeds upon the ineffable absurdity of 
 proving the lawfulness of the marriage by 
 the legitimacy of the children. A conclu- 
 sion, to avoid w^hich, such absurdities must 
 be encountered, is surely irresistible. 
 
 While the substance of this gloss is retain- 
 ed in the text of the " Scripture Guide to 
 Baptism,^' TpnhVishedhy "the Baptist General 
 Tract Society," another gloss is introduced 
 in a note (in some editions, in the appendix) 
 by the authority of the " Directors" of the 
 Society. Both glosses cannot, of course, 
 be true. By which they intend to abide, I 
 know not : whether by the text or note : or 
 which they wish us to receive and hold as 
 the truth ; or whether to plant a foot on 
 each, as doubting whether either is sound : 
 or whether to retain both, that one may meet 
 some minds that are not met by the other. 
 The note proposes to consider the passage, 
 not as referring to the lawfulness of the 
 marriage or to the legitimacy or illegiti- 
 macy of the children, but to consider it as 
 though the argument were, If a believer put
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 167 
 
 away a icife or a husband as an unbeliever, he 
 must put away his children also. But this is 
 not the argument. The argument of the 
 Apostle is the reverse of this. He assumes 
 that the children are holy or clean : and 
 from this fact assumed as admitted and well 
 known, he convinces the Corinthians that 
 the believing husband need not put away 
 his unbelieving wife, since, in that case, a 
 consequence would follow, which (he as- 
 sumes) TIIEY KNOW CANNOT FOLLOW. The 
 
 argument of the ritual holiness of the chil- 
 dren, is based upon the fact of such children's 
 having been treated as a '' Holy seed" con- 
 nected with the church of God. The refer- 
 ence in such case, can be to no other than 
 to infant baptism as notoriously practised in 
 the church. 
 
 I cannot but think, that had the Apostle 
 meant to say what the note represents him as 
 saying, that rather than leaving that meaning 
 to be inferred by a course of reasoning which 
 requires so many ages to produce one mind 
 even to guess it out, he would have said so 
 directly, instead of using the circuitous way 
 of talking about " unclean" and " holy," 
 w^ords which would naturally mislead his
 
 168 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 hearers, which actually mislead the ancient 
 church, as well as so many modern be- 
 lievers, and indeed the great mass of the 
 whole Christian world ; for in truth there 
 are as yet few even among the Baptists, that 
 have ever understood the passage according 
 to the tenor of the note in question. 
 
 The common interpretation, therefore, 
 stands : and I adduce this text as evidence 
 that as the children of believers had been 
 joined in covenant privileges with the Abra- 
 hamic church, they are recognised in the 
 New Testament as sustaining the same rela- 
 tion to the Christian church. 
 
 Turn now to another source of argument. 
 But first let me make some preliminary re- 
 marks to show the value of the evidence, 
 and to vindicate it from objections that have 
 been raised against it. 
 
 The Sabbath was instituted at the creation : 
 and though weeks are mentioned in the 
 sacred history, the Sabbath is not again 
 mentioned till Moses : yet how import- 
 ant the Sabbath was considered in the sight 
 of God is well known. Again it is not men- 
 tioned from the time of Joshua till the reign 
 of David, and yet, (as says Dr. Humphrey,) 
 " It will be admitted that, beyond all doubt.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 169 
 
 the pious Judges of Israel, remembered the 
 Sabbath day to keep it holy." Moreover, 
 the Bible says nothing of circumcision from 
 a little after Moses till the days of Jeremiah, 
 a period of eight hundred years ; yet doubt- 
 less circumcision was practised all the 
 while. 
 
 In like manner, our Missionary Herald, 
 each volume of which is twenty times as 
 large as the book of Acts, is now in the pro- 
 gress of the 36th volume. In the whole of 
 these, containing the journals of so many 
 Missionaries, narrating every important in- 
 cident with so much minuteness, and con- 
 tinued for so many years, there are very 
 few instances mentioned of infant baptism. I 
 have not the means at hand of ascertaining 
 how many, but though I have long been 
 familiar with them, and have long observed 
 the fact with some curiosity, and have spe- 
 cially examined not a little, I am not able to 
 find or to call to mind more than a very few 
 instances previously to the last two years. 
 But we know that the Missionaries of the 
 American Board are all Pcedo-baptists. The 
 paucity of these records of infant baptisms 
 in their letters does not prove that they do 
 15
 
 170 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 not baptize infants : we know they do ; and 
 once in a while the fact is mentioned, but it 
 is rare, though their converts amount to 
 many thousands. 
 
 Suppose now, that at the present time, 
 you find a pamphlet of some twenty or thir- 
 ty pages, like a single monthly number of 
 the Missionary Herald, only half as large, — 
 coveringthe groundof some fifty years, — and 
 giving an account of the doings of some 
 Missionaries of whom you have never heard 
 before. The question is asked are they 
 Baptist Missionaries ; or do they baptize 
 the infant children of believing parents % On 
 examining the pamphlet we find such re- 
 cords as these : at such a time " I baptized — 
 in the night — a Jailor and all his :" at such 
 a time " Lydia and her household :" at such 
 a time, '' I baptized also the household of 
 Stephanas." Nothing is said as to whether 
 they were all adults, or whether, as is more 
 common, there were children in these 
 households. Only this is certain, that if there 
 were children they were certainly baptized. 
 Suppose further, that at this crisis, we dis- 
 cover copious letters of these Missionaries, 
 written to their converts from heathenism ;
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 171 
 
 in which letters thej- use the term house- 
 hold just as we do the word family. Are 
 they Baptist Missionaries % The presump- 
 tion is that they are not. You find a diffi- 
 culty, which must be removed before you 
 can believe that they are Baptists. More- 
 aver, you take the journals of the Baptist 
 Missionaries of fifty or a hundred times the 
 size of this newly discovered pamphlet, and 
 a hundred times more full. You do not 
 learn that they ever give an account of 
 the baptism of a single household : though 
 you can understand how desirable it would 
 be to make such a record as frequent in 
 their journals as possible : and how readily 
 they would be brought forward in argument 
 as often as they might occur. 
 
 You now make another discovery : viz. — 
 that these unknown Missionaries consider 
 the Abrahamic and the Christian church 
 the same. Now let one passage be found 
 in a single letter of theirs to one of their 
 churches gathered from heathenism, to this 
 effect : " The unbelieving wife is sanctified 
 by the husband, and the unbelieving husband, 
 is sanctihed by the wife, else were your 
 children unclean, but now are they ^o/j/;" 
 let it be proved that they familiarly use
 
 172 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 these terms in the Jewish sense : — let but 
 one such passage as this be found, and 
 the question is settled : they baptize chil- 
 dren. Who could ask for more convinc- 
 ing proof, unless he is determined that noth- 
 ing shall prove it, save an express decla- 
 ration in so many words, or a miracle 1 I 
 might appeal to any man accustomed to 
 sifting and weighuig evidence in our courts 
 of justice, is not this valid proof of the fact ? 
 Were it a question of fact to be decided by 
 mere impartial jurors in our courts of law — 
 whether these Missionaries practised infant 
 baptism ; could there be a doubt how — on 
 this evidence — the question would be de- 
 cided 1 Could there be a doubt that the 
 virdict would be, These men believe in infant 
 baptism and practise it. 
 
 Make it known now", that these men are 
 the Apostles of our Lord, acting under the 
 guidance of the Holy Spirit ; and the inter- 
 pretation of the law of baptism, which ex- 
 tends baptism to the infants of believing 
 parents, has a Divine warrant : and Infant 
 baptism is an ordinance of God. 
 
 Strong as this evidence is, it is further 
 corroborated in the fact.
 
 INFANT BAPTIS."\r. 173 
 
 IV. That the whole church received infant 
 
 baptism as several of the early fathers 
 
 declare, and as the church at large be- 
 lieved, from the apostles , and that the 
 
 whole church, together with all sects of 
 heretics, practised it, with not a man to 
 raise his voice against its divine warrant 
 for more than thirty generations af1er 
 Christ. 
 
 Some of the apostles were spared to the 
 church a long time, and the interval between 
 the last of them and the earliest of the 
 Christian fathers is very brief. Thus, Peter 
 and Paul lived till about a. d. 63 ; Jude, 
 Thomas, and Luke, till about a. d. 74, and 
 John liv-ed till about a. d. 100. 
 
 Before this last date Justin Martyr was 
 born, in the midst of Christians at Neapolis 
 in Samaria. About 40 years after the death 
 of John, he published his first Apology for 
 the Christians, addressed to Antoninus Pius. 
 In that Apology he says, '' Many persons of 
 both sexes, some sixty, some seventy years 
 old, were made disciples to Christ from 
 childhood,'^ (« TraiScov"^ — the same word that 
 Luke uses where he says, Jesus took infants 
 
 in his arms). On this passage. President 
 ^ 15*
 
 174 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Dwight, justly remarks, that '• There never 
 was any other mode of making disciples 
 from infancy except by baptism.''^ Dr. Pond 
 also says, " They were doubtless made such 
 (disciples) by baptism :" for the same word 
 " made disciples" (tixadeT£vdr]<Tav^_^ is used by 
 Christ in the commission, " Go and disciple 
 all nations, baptizing them." 
 
 Irenaeus was born about the time of Jus- 
 tin. He was a pupil of Polycarp of Smyrna, 
 who had been a pupil of the Apostle John. 
 Irenaeus says, " I can describe the spot on 
 which Polycarp sat and expounded ; his 
 going in, and coming out ; the manner of 
 his life ; the figure of his body ; the ser- 
 mons he preached to the multitudes ; how 
 he related to us his converse with John, and 
 the rest of those who had seen the Lord J 
 how he mentioned their particular expres- 
 sions, and what things he had heard from 
 them of the Lord ; of his miracles and of 
 his doctrines."* Irenaeus says, " Christ 
 came to save all persons by himself ; all I 
 say, who by him are regenerated unto God ,• 
 infants^ and little ones, and youths, and elder 
 persons." He constantly employs the term 
 regenerated, for baptized ; and so means 
 * Grey, p. 57,
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 175 
 
 here : thus, when speaking of our Lord's 
 authorizing his apostles to baptize, he says,* 
 " When he gave his disciples the power of 
 regfiurating unto God, he said unto them, 
 Go teach all nations, baptizing them." 
 Justin uses' the term in the same sense ; 
 speaking of the baptism of the Christian 
 converts, he says, " They are conducted by 
 us to a place where there is water, and are 
 regenerated in the same manner in which 
 we were regenerated ; for they are then 
 icashed in the name of God the Father and 
 Lord of the universe, and of our Savior 
 Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.j 
 
 Whether these fathers meant by " regen- 
 erated^''^ what some later ones did mean, 
 that baptism confers an inward regeneration, 
 so that those who are baptized are simulta- 
 neously and inwardly regenerated by the 
 Holy Ghost, it is foreign to my purpose 
 now to inquire. Whatever were their views 
 of doctrine^ they are certainly good witness- 
 es with regard to a matter of /a cz"; viz., 
 whether infants were in their day baptized : 
 and such is the clear import of their testi- 
 mony. 
 
 * Gray, p. 58. t Ibid» p. 58,
 
 176 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Tertullian was born a little later than 
 Irenaeus, about a. d. 145. He ran into all 
 manner of vagaries of doctrine ; but this 
 invalidates not his testimony with regard to 
 a matter of fact, whether the church in his 
 day baptized infants. He advises the delay 
 of baptism not only in the case of children, 
 but of youths and unmarried people. In the 
 case of little children he says, " For what 
 need, except in case of 7iecessity^ that their 
 godfathers should be in danger 1 Because 
 they may " either fail of their promises 
 by death, or they may be deceived by 
 a child's proving of a wicked disposition." 
 He supposed that the act of baptism washed 
 away sins ; and therefore would have not 
 only infants but youth and unmarried per- 
 sons delay, till they should be less exposed 
 to temptations, that they might have the 
 greater benefit of the baptism and have a 
 smaller score of sins to answer for after- 
 wards.* He says of infants : " What need 
 their innocent age make such haste to the 
 forgiveness of sins," (viz. by baptism :) He 
 thus fully recognizes the practice of infant 
 
 * Among other strange notions that he fell into, 
 one was, that sin after baptism could never be pardon- 
 ed.— Hence he advised the delay of baptism.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 177 
 
 baptism as in common use. " And speaks 
 against it" say our Baptist brethren. — 
 True, he does : but he speaks against it 
 as against a thing in common use. The 
 question is not whether Tertullian is against 
 it or for it ; but whether it was in use in 
 his day. He does not pretend that baptism 
 is an innovation, or unlawful, or that it had 
 not been in use from the days of the apos- 
 tles. He pleads for delay, on the ground of 
 advantage, and on the same ground pleads 
 that youths and unmarried persons would 
 be gainers by delay. He places the rea- 
 son for delay in both instances, on the 
 same ground. But surely our Baptist 
 brethren will not receive his reasons for de- 
 lay in either case. His testimony to the 
 fact remains ; the more unquestionable for 
 its being incidental, and for his whimsical 
 bias against it. 
 
 Origen was born 85 years after Christ. 
 In his homily on Luke xiv. he says," Infants 
 are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." 
 Again in his homilv on Levit. viii. he says, 
 *' What is the reason why the baptism of the 
 church, which is given for the remission for 
 sins, is by the usage of the church given to
 
 178 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 infants also V* He is endeavoring to es- 
 tablish the doctrine of original sin, and ad- 
 duces the practice of infant baptism' as a 
 proof of it. Again, in his comment on 
 Eomans : " For this also it was, that the 
 church had from the Apostles a tradition to 
 give baptism to infants."* 
 
 Ambrose^ Chrysosiom, Cyprian^ and Greg- 
 ory J^azianzen speak expressly of the prac- 
 tice of infant baptism. 
 
 Augustine^ in reference to the Pelagians 
 says, " Since they grant that infants must be 
 baptized, as not being able to resist the 
 authority of the church, which was doubtless 
 delivered by our Lord and his apostles^ they 
 must consequently grant that they stand in 
 need of the benefit of the mediator."! 
 
 Again, Augustine against the Donatists, 
 speaking of the baptism of infants, says, 
 *' Which the whole body of the church holds, 
 as delivered to them^ in the case of little in- 
 fants baptized, — and yet no Christian man 
 will say they are baptized to no purpose. "{ 
 
 Augustine again : — " The custom of our 
 mother church in baptizing infants must not 
 be disregarded nor accounted needless, nor 
 
 * Gray, p. 64. t Ibid. t Dr. Miller, p. 36, 37.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 179 
 
 believed to be any thing else than an ordi- 
 nance delivered to us from the apostles,"* 
 
 Again, he declares that he ^^ never met 
 with any Christian, either of the general 
 church or of any of the sects, nor with any 
 writer who owned the authority of the Scrip- 
 tures, who taught any other doctrine than 
 that infants are to be baptized for the remis- 
 sion of sin." He declares that it was not 
 instituted by councils, but was always in use.lf 
 
 Now, in opposition to the testimony of 
 these witnesses, we have the Tract, — '-The 
 Scripture Guide to Baptism," published by 
 " The General Baptist Tract Society :" and 
 this Tract says, " Our principles are as old 
 as Christianity. Persons holding our dis- 
 tinctive principles, i. e. the baptism of be- 
 lievers o?Lly, have appeared in all ages of 
 the Christian era. From Christ to nearly 
 the end of the 2d century, there were no 
 others," (the word " no others" in capitals,) 
 " at least, if thete were any, their history is 
 a blank. After infant baptism was intro- 
 duced, many opposed it." So says this tract 
 by Pengilly. Round assertion ! But on what 
 proof 1 Not a scrap is offered ; and that for 
 the best of all reasons, there is no such evi- 
 
 • Miller on Baptism, p. 37. + Ibid.
 
 180 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 dence in the world. It has been sought ; 
 most ardently has it been longed for ; but 
 there is none : no — none even to hang a 
 pretence upon. It is asserted that none 
 practiced infant baptism till near the end of 
 the 2d century : but do they pretend to tell 
 how it was introduced then ; and that so 
 quietly as to be every where received in 
 Europe and Asia, and all along the coast of 
 Africa and throughout the Christian world ; 
 and nobody know but that they had always 
 practised it from the days of the Apostles ! 
 No — not one poor lisp ; — not a syllable to 
 show how or when it was introduced ! It 
 is asserted^ that " when it was introduced 
 many did not receive it, and many opposed 
 it." Who did not receive it 1 The fathers 
 declare they never heard of such a man ; 
 nor do our Baptist brethren attempt to say 
 who. Who opposed it 1 Echo answers, Who \ 
 Our Baptist brethren do not attempt to tell 
 wha. But the " General Tract Society" 
 of the denomination send out this Tract to 
 assert in round terms that " to nearly the 
 end of the 2d century, there were no others" 
 than Baptists on the question of baptizing 
 infants, and, that " after infant baptism was 
 introduced, many opposed it '"
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 181 
 
 But let US go on with the testimony. 
 Palagius, denied the doctrine of original sin, 
 and was pressed with the absurdity of in 
 fant baptism on his principles. Could he 
 have denied infant baptism, or shown it to 
 be a corruption, it would have relieved him 
 from his difficulties and given him a signal 
 triumph. He was a man of great abilities 
 and great learning, and had traveled the 
 Christian world over. He and his coadjutor, 
 Celestius, used every means to relieve them- 
 selves from the pressure of the question, 
 *' Why are infants baptized for the remission 
 of sins, if they have none 1" With this argu- 
 ment, says. Dr. Pond,* " Pelagius and his 
 abettors were much embarrassed, and had 
 recourse to a variety of evasions in order to 
 escape from it.'' But they never denied 
 infant baptism. They never pretended that 
 it was a corruption or innovation. On 
 the contrary, Pelagius says, '^ Baptism ought 
 to be administered to infants with the same 
 sacramental words which are used in the 
 case of adults." " Men slander me," said he, 
 " as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to 
 infants ;" and again, " I never heard of any, 
 
 * Dr. Pond on Baptism, p. 107. 
 16
 
 182 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 not even the most impious heretic, who de- 
 
 NIED BAPTISM TO INFANTS.* 
 
 It is easy to see, from these extracts, that 
 the Christian church early slid away from 
 purity in doctrine ; and that many of the old 
 Fathers were hot very sound theologians. I 
 adduce them not to prove a point in theology 
 by their opinion ; 1 adduce them, not to 
 build infant baptism on their authority ; I ad- 
 duce them as witnesses to a matter of fact : — 
 that from the time of the apostles, infant bap- 
 tism was every where practised, and under- 
 stood to have been received from the apos- 
 tles, with no man any where to lisp a breath 
 in favor of a contrary supposition ; but with 
 the unbroken and uniform belief that its 
 authority rested on a foundation none other 
 than the practice of apostles who were in- 
 spired of God. 
 
 If it had ever been a corrupt innovation, 
 would there not have been somewhere some 
 controversy about it % Would all, every 
 where, have so unanimously have agreed to 
 receive it ? Would every trace of such in- 
 ' novation or such controversy have perished 
 from history ; so that men living near the 
 * Dr. Pond on Baptism, p. 108
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 183 
 
 apostolic age, though under the strongest 
 inducement to seek out such history, had it 
 existed, could never be able to find the least 
 trace or fragment of it, or even to suspect 
 its existence ! Could these things be so ] 
 Can you believe them to be so 1 Can 
 you stretch your credulity to that point 
 with ever so great an effort ] But unless 
 what is so improbable and incredible be cer- 
 tainly true ; then infant baptism was prac- 
 tised by the apostles, and rests for its author- 
 ity upon the authority of God. Now we 
 know how to interpret the command, " Go 
 and teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing 
 them ;" — it means, " Baptize believers and 
 their infant children. It means, to observe 
 the order of the ancient covenant : which 
 made God the God of believers and of their 
 seed after them. A flood of light is thrown 
 upon the interpretation of such passages as 
 represent Christ as taking little children 
 in his arms, and saying, " of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven." It corroborates our 
 understanding of those narratives which 
 speak of the baptism of households. It corro- 
 borates the natural interpretation of that p a s- 
 sage which says, " The unbelieving husband
 
 184 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving 
 wife is sanctified by the husband, else were 
 your children unclean, but now are they 
 holy." One by one, we have taken up these 
 stones fitted by the chisel. They match 
 together. We build on. They grow into an 
 arch, as if formed by the Great Master 
 Builder with that design. Not a stone is 
 wanting. The key stone is driven. Each 
 stone lends its aid to strengthen the whole. 
 The work is complete. It stands. It will 
 stand eternally ; and round its circling 
 brow is graven as in letters sunk deep in the 
 enduring rock, and illumined by the rays of 
 heaven : — "The baptism of the infant chil- 
 dren OF BELIEVING PARENTS, RESTS FOR ITS 
 FOUNDATION, UPON NO LESS A BASIS THAN THE 
 AUTHORITY OF GoD."
 
 IV. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED : ITS UTILITY VINDICATED. 
 
 ROMANS III. 1 — 3. 
 
 What advantage then, hath the Jew ? or what 
 profit is there of circumcision ? Much every way : 
 chiefly because that unto thera were committed the 
 oracles of God. For what if some did not behove ? 
 shall their unbelief make the faith of God without 
 effect ? 
 
 The authority of infant baptism we have 
 already considered. I shall now proceed to 
 answer some objections which have been 
 urged against the practice j and to vindicate 
 its utility. 
 
 Before I proceed to these points, however, 
 
 I desire to say a little more with regard to 
 
 the History of infant baptism. I proved, I 
 
 trust to your satisfaction, that infant bap- 
 
 16*
 
 186 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 tism was practised from the times of the 
 Apostles, with not a man to lift up his voice 
 against the Divine authority of the prac- 
 dce, for the first four hundred years after 
 Christ. 
 
 But our Baptist brethren claim that the 
 Waldenses maintained their views and re- 
 jected infant baptism. 
 
 Now granting that they did 5 we cannot 
 trace the Waldenses up to the period of four 
 hundred years after Christ, and their testi- 
 mony cannot at all affect the matters already 
 in proof. 
 
 But the Waldenses are venerable wit- 
 nesses ; and though no testimony of theirs 
 can affect the truth which we have already 
 proved, and which rests upon ground to 
 which their testimony does not reach 5 still 
 we are willing and desirous to hear what 
 these venerable witnesses, the Waldenses, 
 say. 
 
 And here I quote from Dr. Miller.* He 
 says, " h is worthy of particular notice that 
 those far-famed witnesses for the truth, the 
 "Waldenses, did undoubtedly hold the doctrine 
 of infant baptism^ and practise accordingly.'^ 
 * On Baptism, p. 33 and 40,
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. l87 
 
 What proof does Dr. Miller bring for this 
 assertion 1 The best possible proof: their 
 own " confessions of faith," — and other of 
 their writings drawn up between the 12th 
 century and the period of the Eeformation. 
 " In which," says Dr. Miller, " they repre- 
 sent their creeds and usages as handed dawn 
 from father to son, for several hundred years 
 before the Reformatio u^ 
 
 " And for this cause," say the Waldenses, 
 '• it is, that we present our children in bap- 
 tism^ which ought to be done by those to 
 whom the children are most nearly related, 
 such as parents, ' &c. Again, " The things 
 which are not necessary in baptism are ex- 
 orcisms, the breathings, — the sign of the 
 cross upon the head or fori head of the in- 
 fant, — the salt put into the mouth, the spittle 
 into the ears, and nostrils," &c. 
 
 Understanding that their Popish neigh- 
 bors charged them with denying the baptism 
 of infants, they acquit themselves thus: 
 " yet notwithstanding, we bring our children 
 to be baptized.'''* 
 
 * Dr Murdoch (Xote on Moslieim, Vol. iii, p. 228, 
 229,) says, — " It is a well known historic fact, that in 
 the 16th century, the genuine descendants of the old
 
 188 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 I now proceed to answer objections; 
 
 AND TO VINDICATE THE UTILITY OF INFANT 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 It is asked, " Whai good can it do to 
 sprinkle an unconscious babe ?" 
 
 If this be asked with regard to the effect 
 of the bare act of sprinkling, I answer, no 
 good. Nor does the bare act of baptizing 
 an adult do any good, through any virtue in 
 the act ; sprinkle, — pour, — plunge^ — wash, 
 — scour ^ — do what you will. The bare act 
 
 Waldensians, Wickliffites, and Hussites, who were nu- 
 merous in France, England, &c., readily united with 
 the Lutheran and the Reformed communities, and at 
 length became absorbed in them ; and that very few 
 if ANY of them, ever manifested a preference for the 
 Mennonite or for any of the ANTi-PiEDo-BAPTisT sects of 
 that age" — " And if we endeavor to trace the history 
 of that grand peculiarity of all Mennonites, their con- 
 fining baptism to adult believers, and rejecting infant 
 baptism altogether, we shall find, that at the time 
 Menno first embraced it, it existed among the nume. 
 rous German Anabaptists, but not among the Wal- 
 DENSES of France or Bohemia, who were then univer- 
 sally believers in infant baptism." " These Wal- 
 densian Paedo-baptists, moreover, declared that they 
 held the same belief which their fathers had maintain- 
 ed for several centuries ; and they appealed to their 
 old books, to make good their assertions." " There 
 were, indeed, various mystical sects, tinctured more or
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 189 
 
 has no virtue in it ; and the bare water does 
 no good, whatever be the mode of applying 
 it ; and no matter whether the subject of it 
 be conscious or unconscious. 
 
 But if God has commanded it, as a token, 
 — as a seal of his covenant — as a means of 
 keeping parents and children and the world 
 in mind of the great truth that the sins need 
 to be washed away by " the sprinkling of 
 the blood of Christ ;" and that the polluted 
 soul, even of the infant, needs the " washing 
 of regeneration and the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost ;" — if God sees fit to appoint it 
 as a sign of his covenant, as he appointed the 
 bow in the cloud for the encouragement of 
 men in another respect; — if he sees fit to 
 
 less with Manichean views, in the 12th and following 
 centuries, who rejected all water baptism, on much the 
 same ground as the Quakers still do, and some of them 
 assailed infant baptism especially, as being peculiarly 
 unsuitable and absurd." Tiiere is also pretty good 
 evidence that early in tjie 12lh century, Peter Bruis, 
 and his successor Henry, with their followers, the Pe- 
 trobrussians and Heitricians, did at first reject infant 
 baptism, &c. «' But soon after, Peter Waldo arose, 
 and gave birth to the proper Waldensians ; and we 
 hear no more of the Petrobrussians and Henricians. 
 They probably gave up their opposition to infant 
 baptism."
 
 190 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 appoint it for its salutary influence upon the 
 parent's heart, to encourage his prayers and 
 his efforts for the spiritual good of his child ; 
 — or if he sees fit to appoint it as an encour- 
 agement to piety hy putting honor upon the 
 piety of parents ; — or if to make his claim to 
 the soul of that child ; and, by affixing his 
 seal, to challenge of him who has received 
 it, love and duty through all the remainder 
 of his life ; — or for whatever unknown and 
 secret reason other than these, God has seen 
 fit to appoint the sign, then it does good to 
 obey God, even if there is no good done by 
 the bare act of baptizing an unconscious 
 babe. Doubtless there are wise and im- 
 portant reasons. Some important uses we 
 can see and feel; and though the baptism be 
 not on the irifant's faith, yet how often did 
 the Savior grant healing to diseased child- 
 ren, on account of the faith and importu- 
 nity of the parents ; as in the case of the 
 Syrophenician woman, and of the Centurion, 
 whose faith brought healing even to his 
 afflicted servant % 
 
 The inquiry, then, " What good can it do 
 to the unconscious babe," in the first place, 
 proceeds upon a ground which none of us,
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 191 
 
 nor even the objector, holds otherwise than 
 as idle and false ; viz., that the bare act of 
 l^aptizing, of itself, does good to any body. 
 In the second place, it is an appeal not to 
 piety, but to infidelity. In the third place, 
 it proposes to men to inquire concerning 
 what they hold as an ordinance of Jehovah, 
 " What good can it do 1" And if the ques- 
 tion could carry its aim, and establish its 
 principle, it would lead men to reject what- 
 ever commands of God, the reasons of 
 which are not plain to their understanding. 
 On this ground Abraham would never have 
 left his father's house : he would never have 
 proceeded to offer up his son for a burnt 
 offering. 
 
 Surely, we shall not be driven from faith 
 and duty by this illogical and infidel objec 
 tion, how often soever our brethren may see 
 fit to sound it in our ears ! Surely, it is not 
 good to disobey God under the notion that 
 he has required what can do no good ! How 
 easy would it have been to ask the same 
 question with regard to circumcising in- 
 fants % How easy to pour out a torrent of 
 ribaldry upon " such'''' an ordinance, as 
 " doing good" to an unconscious babe ! How
 
 192 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 many worse things might have been said of 
 it than are said of the ordinance which we 
 sometimes hear ridiculed under the name of 
 *' baby sprinkling !" Should the Patriarchs 
 and their posterity therefore set it aside ; 
 and suffer themselves to be jeered out of 
 God's covenant promises for their children? 
 
 But again it is asked, " Do you believe that 
 infants are lost if they die unbaptized V No, 
 no, no ! We believe no such thing : we 
 fear no such thing. But shall we take it for 
 granted that our infants are to die in infancy, 
 and therefore disobey God, and exhibit our 
 contempt for his covenant % If, peradven- 
 ture, they should live^ can we be sure 
 that no effects of our disobedience and unbe- 
 lief may come down upon them ; either by 
 the natural influence of that unbelief, or by 
 the special displeasure of God upon those 
 who break his covenant 1 Or if we may be 
 sure of this, is it certainly best to disobey 
 Godl 
 
 But again, it is asked, " Do you think bap- 
 tism a regenerating and saving ordinoMce ? 
 Do you think it sure that the children whom 
 you baptize will ever be converted and saved; 
 at least i7i consequence of the baptism ? And
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 193 
 
 if not, i9 what profit is the baptism, if it 
 
 neither converts nor ensures future conversion ; 
 
 and if multitudes who are baptized are never 
 
 converted or saved V 
 
 If we could not answer particularly to 
 these inquiries, it would still be enough to 
 be able to give this answer : " God has so 
 instructed us:"" and it would be quite as good 
 an answer as Abraham could have given 
 when he was about to do a oreater thino- ; 
 and when much harder questions might have 
 been asked concerning the propriety of the 
 act ; to wit, when Abraham was about to 
 offer up his son Isaac, as a burnt offering. 
 
 But Paul shall answer these inquiries in 
 detail. Objectors argued of old as objectors 
 argue now ; and while they meant no such 
 thing, they have caused the Bible to be made 
 all the richer : just as all errors and here- 
 sies, and all the objections of infidels, sub- 
 sequent to the age of revelation, have only 
 served to bring out the truth more clear and 
 glorious than it ever would have appeared in 
 the eyes of the Avorld. Who knows but 
 these objections were made and answered 
 and recorded to meet just such emergencies 
 as these 1 Who knows but that God de. 
 17
 
 194 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 signs, through the spirited and persevering- 
 efforts by which our Baptist brethren shake 
 the minds of some, and overthrow the faith 
 of others, — to establish his truth and his or- 
 dinances the more firmly, and to let his 
 Church see more clearly than they ever 
 would have seen, the Divine warrant ; 
 and the large benefits of his covenant, and of 
 the application of its seal to their infant 
 children. 
 
 The objection is, " That the ordinance 
 does neither convert, nor ensure conversion : 
 that many who receive it are never converted in 
 their lives : and that it seems useless, if not a 
 mockery, to apply a seal significant of inward 
 cleansing, and implying a covenant of spiritual 
 blessings to those who have not, and may never 
 have, the reality y 
 
 I think I have stated the objection as fully 
 and as strongly as any can desire. 
 
 Paul shall answer it, and turn the tables 
 upon the objector, by more thoroughly es- 
 tablishing the point than if it had never 
 been questioned. 
 
 In Rom. ii, he has been showing the Jew, 
 that neither the law, nor the covenant, nor 
 its seal, nor its promises, can save him.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 195 
 
 without his own personal faith ; and by that 
 same faith, the Gentile may be saved as well 
 as the Jew. Nay, more, all the seals and 
 privileges are null to the Jew, if he be a 
 " breaker of the law j" andif the Gentile keep 
 the law, it shall be with him as though he 
 had been circumcised. Thus, verses 25, 26, 
 " But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy 
 circumcision is made uncircumcision ; there- 
 fore, if the uncircumcision keep the right 
 eousness of the law, shall not his uncircum- 
 cision be counted for circumcision :" — and 
 verses 28, 29, " For he is not a Jew, (i. e. a 
 child of God,) which is one outwardly : 
 neither is that circumcision which is out- 
 ward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which is 
 one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of 
 the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, 
 whose praise is not of man but of God." 
 
 Here, the conditions are as are supposed 
 in the objection against infant baptism. 
 Those ivith the seal shall not be saved with- 
 out their own personal qualifications ; and 
 those without the seal shall be saved with 
 those qualifications. It is one God who 
 shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the 
 uncircumcision through faith. Moreover,
 
 196 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the seal is applied to those who are not 
 converted by it ; and many of them are not 
 converted at all. Moreover, the seal is one 
 significant of inward cleansing-, " in the 
 heart and in the spirit:" and so connected 
 with a covenant which has salvation for its 
 end. 
 
 The conditions are precisely the same as 
 those supposed in the objections against in- 
 fant baptism. Why apply a seal of such a 
 signification, and of suck a covenant, to them 
 who are not inwardly cleansed by it, and 
 who may never be converted at all 1 Is it 
 not mockery 1 At least, is it not useless 1 
 
 Paul had either heard the objection made, 
 or his natural forecast taught him it would 
 be made ; or, rather — the Holy Ghost, to 
 answer all such objections then and forever, 
 caused the objection to be started in the 
 form of this inquiry : Rom. iii. 1-3, " What 
 advantage, then, hath the Jew? Or lohat 
 profit is there of circumcision ? (viz. if the cir- 
 cumcision does not convert him, nor ensure 
 that he shall be converted : and if the cir- 
 cumcised person cannot be saved on other 
 conditions than the uncircumcised 1) " Much 
 everyway" answers the Apostle. Chiefly
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 197 
 
 because that unto them were committed the 
 oracles of God. For ichat if some did not be- 
 lieve? (It was with the circumcised as 
 with the baptized, some did not believe ; and 
 the unbelievers were lost as much as though 
 they had been uncircumcised : just as unbe- 
 lievers will be lost, though they may have 
 been baptized.) " For what if some did not 
 believe ? shall their unbelief make the faith of 
 God of none effect ? God forbid ; yea, let God be 
 true^ but every man a liar J ^ 
 
 The unbelief of some, then, is no objection 
 against the covenant of God, or against his 
 faithfulness to that covenant : and notwith- 
 standing the objection, there is every way 
 3iuciij5rq/?^ of circumcision. It was still the 
 seal of God's covenant. A score of centuries 
 after Jehovah's promise to be the God of 
 Abraham and his seed, the seed of Abraham 
 " as touching the election," were " beloved 
 for the fathers' sake." " And because he 
 
 loved THY FATHERS, he chose THEIR SEED AFTER 
 
 THEM :" and, Deut. vii, — "Know, therefore, 
 that the Lord thy God he is God, the faithful 
 God, which keepeth covenant and mercy 
 with them that love him and keep his com- 
 mandments, to a thousand generations." 
 17*
 
 198 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 The blessings of this covenant, it was 
 foretold, should come upon the Gentiles. 
 Abraham was to be the " father of many na- 
 tions.^'' The promise was to be " sure to all 
 the seed, not only to that which is of the law, 
 but to that which is of faiths Nay, the 
 prophets who foretold the glory of Christ's 
 kingdom, when they spake in the most 
 glowing strains, made mention of this same 
 arrangement under the dispensation of 
 Christ. Thus, — Isa. Ixv. 17, and onward. — 
 " For behold I create new heavens and a 
 new earth ; and the former shall not be re- 
 membered, nor come into mind. But be ye 
 glad, and rejoice for ever in that which I 
 create : for behold I create Jerusalem a re- 
 joicing and her people a joy." — '' They 
 shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for 
 trouble, for they are the seed of the blessed of 
 the Lord^ and their offspring with them." 
 
 Well might the apostle Peter cry out, 
 " For the promise is to you and to your 
 children, and to all that are afar off, even as 
 many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 Well might Paul declare, " And if ye are 
 Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
 heirs according to the promise.^''
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 199 
 
 God appears to have desig-ned to make a 
 large use of the family influence in establish- 
 ing and perpetuating the Gospel of salva- 
 tion : in keeping alive on the earth Gospel 
 truth and Gospel ordinances. For this rea- 
 son he ordained that the marriage relation 
 should be limited to one husband and one 
 wife. Thus, Mai. ii. 14, 15, " Yet is she 
 thy companion and the wife of thy cove- 
 nant. And did He not make one ? Yet had 
 He the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore 
 one ? That he might seek a godly seed." 
 For the same end he established his cove- 
 nant in the household of Abraham. " For I 
 know him," said the Lord, " that he wilt 
 command his children and his household after 
 him ; and they shall keep the way of the 
 Lord, to do justice and judgment: that the 
 Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he 
 hath spoken of him.^^ On the same princi- 
 ple it is said, Ps. Ixxviii, 5-7, " For He estab- 
 lished a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a 
 law in Israel, which he commanded our fa. 
 thers that they should make them known to 
 their children ; that the generation to come 
 might know them, even the children which 
 should be born ; who should arise and teach
 
 200 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 them to their children : that they might set 
 their hope in God, and not forget the works 
 of God, but keep his commandments." 
 
 God was pleased to ordain that his bless- 
 ing and the fruits of pious labor and of 
 prayer should go together : and he gracious- 
 ly established and seahd this ordinance by 
 covenant. The reason for the covenant and 
 the seal remaining, they remain. They re- 
 main enlarged and ratified in Christ to the 
 end of time. Shall we be told that it does 
 no good to remember this covenant % — no 
 good, as we look on the seal^ to let the prom- 
 ise of the covenant encourage our hearts, 
 and quicken our prayers % Has the Lord 
 mistaken his appointment j and given an 
 unnecessary covenant and a useless seal ? 
 Shall we conclude so % Shall we so requite 
 the Lord? 
 
 We cannot: for when we look, we find 
 that in the line of the seed of the promise, 
 (that of Gentile believers as well as that of 
 the law,) — in this line of the promised seed, 
 have been found from age to age the mass of 
 those who have been saved. God bestows 
 his grace where he has given his covenant ; 
 where he has deposited his word j where his
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 201 
 
 ordinances are observed ; and where the voice 
 of prayer and of faith ascends. Pagan lands 
 bear not the fruits of Christendom. '1 hose pla- 
 ces in Christendom, where the oracles of God, 
 the preaching of the word, and the ordinan- 
 ces are not, are not visited with showers of 
 grace and blessed with a godly seed, like 
 those places where the ordinances and the 
 word are enjoyed. The fathers of an ungodly 
 community hand down ungodliness and per- 
 dition to their children ; and often, upon 
 their children's children to the fourth gene- 
 ration are the iniquities of the fathers' visit- 
 ed ; no less by the laws of nature, than by 
 the providence, and according to the word 
 of God. The true worshipers of God be- 
 queath their sanctuaries, their Sabbaths, and 
 their divine ordinances, to their posterity ; 
 who have been imbued with the principles of 
 Divine truth, and trained up in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord. There the 
 grace of God showers down the influence 
 of the Holy Spirit. From these are taken 
 those who are to be the sons and daughters 
 of the Lord Almighty. 
 
 Shall we be told that all this is natural., 
 and pertains not to the provision of the
 
 202 Ii\FANT BAPTISM. 
 
 covenant % Who made it natural % Do 
 not the arrangements which God has made 
 in the natural world show as well as any- 
 other, whai is his pleasure ? And do they 
 not show us here that it is his pleasure to be 
 THE God of believers and of their seed 
 AFTER THEM 1 Shall it be thought wonderful 
 that he has ratified by covenant what he has 
 appointed in nature 1 And if the covenant 
 were to pass away, would not the great 
 truth still remain true in nature, that God is 
 pleased to be the God of believers, and of 
 their seed after them 1 
 
 But, is it all natural 1 Is there no grace, 
 in determining who shall be the heirs 
 of salvation 1 Shall we be told that the 
 covenant is nothing, because God has ar- 
 ranged powerful means to secure the fulfil- 
 ment of its promises 1 Surely none can 
 make this objection, who do not at the same 
 time forget, that the grace of God which 
 brings renewing and salvation to an indivi- 
 dual soul, is quite beyond the effect of the 
 most powerful means, and depends upon the 
 sovereign act of a sovereign God. In giv- 
 ing his Spirit, he is sovereign ; and his sove- 
 reignty works in such a way as to fulfil the 
 promise of his covenant.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 203 
 
 But when we look at this point more fully, 
 the light breaks upon us in increasing splen- 
 dor. An attention to facts shows that God 
 does remember his covenant, and put honor 
 upon its seal. From the published and offi- 
 cial returns of the Congregational Churches 
 of Connecticut to the General Association 
 in 1834, it appears that two-thirds of all that 
 were received to these churches on profess- 
 ion of faith, the preceding year, had been 
 baptized in infancy. Struck with this fact 
 I was curious to add up the results for 
 several years, and found them very near- 
 ly the same. The results of an examina- 
 tion of like reports of Massachusetts, New 
 Hampshire, and of the General Association 
 of New York were not essentially different. 
 About two-thirds of all those received to 
 our Paedo-baptist Churches on confession of 
 faith, are such as were baptized in their in- 
 fancy.* But taking the whole field, the 
 baptized children constitute, probably, not 
 more than o/^e-third of the children attached 
 
 ^ Of more than one liundred so received by the 
 church in this place, during the eight years of the 
 writer's ministry, about three.fourths were baptized in 
 their infancy.
 
 204 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 to the congregations of these churches, or 
 falling properly to no other denomination. 
 The state of the case, then, is this ; out of 
 one-third of a given population, two are hope- 
 fully converted, and brought into the Church, 
 where there is one so converted out of the 
 remaining ^^it'o-thirds : a ratio of four to one ! 
 What will this amount to in the whole coun- 
 try 1 What, in the whole world 1 What 
 will it amount to, if you trace it down to 
 the end of time 1 To a '^ multitude which 
 is as the sand by the sea-shore, innumera- 
 ble !" But in the Western and Southern 
 parts of the country, the difference is more 
 striking than in New England ; because the 
 proportion of the members of the Church 
 of Christ to the whole population is far less. 
 And these results are witnessed, when so 
 much confident denunciation of infant bap- 
 tism has led so many members of the Church 
 to neglect it ; and led so many more to regard 
 it as a mere ritual rather than as the valua- 
 ble seal of God's covenant. Oh, what might 
 have been done, had parents taken hold of 
 that covenant with unwavering faith ; and, 
 pleading the covenant, had taken encourage- 
 ment from its promises, and from God's
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 205 
 
 faithfulness, to be more earnest in the dis- 
 charge of the duties which that covenant 
 implies on the part of parents ! Who is to 
 answer for all this loss and harm ! Who is 
 to be responsible for teaching the Church 
 of God to neglect and despise both the co- 
 venant and its seal. 
 
 But it is alleged that the children of Bap- 
 tist families are blessed also. We are glad 
 to believe it. We praise God for it. 
 This proves that God is faithful to his cove- 
 nant, even when his people have not the 
 grace to own it, and give God thanks for it. 
 It is the promise of the covenant that contin- 
 ues to them a godly seed. Is it not strange, 
 while the fruit remains, that the tree should 
 be accounted dead ] But are they sure that 
 the blessing follows in an equal degree that 
 it would, did they acknowledge and plead 
 the covenant 1 Are all these rich promises, 
 these numerous and ample declarations, by 
 which God engages to be the God of his 
 people, and of their seed after them, so poor 
 as to be thrown lightly away ; and that, for 
 the strange reason that God has arranged 
 the means of fulfilling them, and does ac- 
 tually fulfil them ? 
 18
 
 206 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 If our brethren choose to reject the cove- 
 nant and its seal, will they not, at least al- 
 low U8 and our children to enjoy it in peace 1 
 We have studied the matter as well as they. 
 We have a conscience to answer as well as 
 they. We have the Bible in our hands, and 
 we know fully all the objections of our bre- 
 thren. May we never enjoy in peace the 
 ordinances which we truly hold dear, as 
 granted us and enjoined upon us by the ora- 
 cles of God ? Are we never to have done 
 hearing it ridiculed as " Popery," " super- 
 stition," and " mockery V Is no respect 
 due to our understanding 1 — none to our re- 
 gard for the truth 1 — none to our religious 
 integrity, and to our fear of God 1 And 
 yet, what we are often compelled to hear, 
 and what is often and diligently thrown up- 
 on the members of our churches to deter 
 them from this holy ordinance, take the 
 following from " The New- York Baptist 
 Register^'' of May 1st as a specimen. 
 
 " If a parent is tempted to sprinkle his 
 babe, he should remember, 1st, That he has 
 no right to take advantage of the helpless 
 state of his babe, and enslave it to usurpers ; 
 2d, He has no right to countenance a mock-
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 207 
 
 ery of Christ's ordinances ; 3d, He has no 
 right to dedicate his child in connection 
 with a dekision ; it will make him feel as if 
 the matter were done up for life ; 4th, He 
 has no right to countenance a deluded and 
 crazed minister solemnly telling a falsehood, 
 however honest he may be in it, by saying, 
 "I baptize thee," when he does no such 
 thing ; and by saying he does it in the name 
 of the Trinity, when it is not so ; 5th, There 
 are so many false principles in the transac- 
 tion, he should stop and consider well ; he 
 that doubteth is condemned if he do it. 
 There is every reason to believe it to be a 
 deception. '"^ 
 
 Fathers and mothers in the Church of 
 God ; have you ever felt, when you have 
 claimed the privileges of the covenant for 
 your children, that the mere application of 
 the seal changed the hearts of these chil- 
 dren or ensured that it would ever be done ? 
 Have you ever felt, that, having done this, 
 the matter was " done up for life V Were 
 you so instructed in your childhood \ Did 
 you evei- feel so ? Fathers and mothers in 
 this Church of God ; ye whose memories 
 
 * See the New- York Evangelist of May 30, 1840,
 
 208 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 embrace the days of Benedict, Eaton, Swan, 
 and Burnet ; have you ever heard such 
 a doctrine taught from this pulpit ? Has 
 any thing that could countenance such a 
 notion ever fallen upon your ears in this 
 house of God 1 I look around and see 
 many youths from whom, it is not many 
 months since I heard the inquiry, What 
 shall we do to be saved. Dear youths, did 
 it ever enter into your minds, that because 
 you had been baptized, the business was 
 done up for life ; or that you v/ere relieved 
 at all from the necessity of being born of 
 the Spirit ; of repenting and turning to God, 
 if you would be saved 1 
 
 I too am a parent. I know the hallowed 
 and deep impressions of a parent in present- 
 ing his child to receive the seal of God's 
 covenant j I know how strong is the impres- 
 sion made upon a parent's soul, that his off- 
 spring are the degenerate plants of a strange 
 vine ; fallen, depraved beings, who must re- 
 ceive the inward washinsr of rea^eneration, 
 of which the outward baptism is but the 
 sign, or be lost. I know it comforts a pa- 
 rent's heart, as he looks forward to the fu- 
 ture life of that child, and forward to the
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 209 
 
 eternal world ; to be able to claim that 
 blessed promise, "I will be thy God, and 
 the God of thy seed after thee." I know 
 how solemn is the impression made upon 
 the parent's heart, of the covenant, which, 
 in this transaction, he takes upon his soul, 
 to train up this child in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord. 
 
 It is vain for the world to inquire of the 
 Christian, " What is the use of taking a mor- 
 sel of bread and a little wine at the commun- 
 ion 1 Is there any benefit in a mere cere- 
 mony V When the Christian has felt the 
 presence of the Savior at his table ; when 
 his soul has been kindled into near commun- 
 ion with Christ, as the simple emblems of 
 his Savior's body and blood have set forth 
 that Savior's love, and sufferings, and faith- 
 fulness in connection with the tenderness of 
 that dying charge — " This do in remembrance 
 of meP 0, it is vain then for the world to 
 ask him. What profit is there in a mere ce- 
 remony ! So with the parent who has felt 
 the influence of that solemn act — the bap- 
 'tism of his child, — upon his own heart ; and 
 when in after days, he feels how it encour- 
 ages his faith, and deepens his sense of 
 responsibility. Vain is all the language of 
 18*
 
 210 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 reproach and ridicule then. Men may de- 
 ride this faith, as well as reason against it. 
 What then 1 Is there an article of his faith 
 which has 7iot been impugned and derided ; 
 and that too by men bearing the Christian 
 name 1 The divinity of his Savior is denied ; 
 the atonement is denied : the renewinof of 
 the Holy Ghost, and even his personal ex- 
 istence is denied. The inspiration of the 
 Bible is denied ,' and now even the personal 
 existence of the Godhead is denied ; and all 
 these things by men who call themselves by 
 the name of Christ ! If he is to yield every 
 truth which is assailed, and abandon every 
 point that is vehemently impugned and ridi- 
 culed ; what has he left ? His faith, his 
 hope, his consolation, his Eedeemer, his 
 Sanctifier, his God, is gone. 
 
 " Prove all things : hold fast that which 
 is good." This ground we have proved. 
 We have listened to objections ; we have 
 weighed arguments. These have not moved 
 us; how much less shall railing and re- 
 proaches move us from that which we have 
 received to hold, as nothing less than an 
 ordinance of the Most High God ] 
 
 Let us believe. Let us obey. Let us
 
 INFANT Baptism. 211 
 
 not only be scrupulous to give our children 
 the seal ; but to teach them afterwards its 
 import ; to warn them how they slight its 
 obligations, or undervalue its privileges. 
 Let us make it the basis of our plea with 
 our children, that they will not forsake the 
 God of their fathers. Let us make it the 
 ground of our plea with God, that he will 
 give to our children the blessings of the co- 
 venant which are implied in the seal. Let 
 us ask these things of our covenant-keeping 
 and faithful God. Let our souls never cease 
 from the throes of earnest desire, till Christ 
 be formed in our children, the hope of glory. 
 Then, when households meet around the 
 throne of God, may the parents and the 
 children rejoice together with exceeding 
 joy ; and to the covenant mercy of God 
 shall redound eternal praise. 
 
 Are there believing parents who have been 
 misled concerning the truth ; or who through 
 the want of a proper understanding of the 
 ordinance ; or through unbelief concerning 
 its utility, have neglected to claim its bless- 
 ings, and to affix the seal of the covenant 
 upon their children ] Have they now seen 
 and understood the truth 1 Then seize the 
 privileges of the covenant, and claim the
 
 212 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 seal for your children, if it yet remains 
 within your power ; and pray God not to vi- 
 sit your past unbelief or negligence upon 
 you or upon your offspring. Cast not away 
 the privileges of that gracious covenant, 
 which the Lord has deemed worthy of Him 
 to offer to his children as a precious boon 
 from their Father and their God. 
 
 Let those who are parents, and not yet 
 savingly interested in the covenant of grace, 
 feel for their children as well as for them- 
 selves. Perhaps, the seal of the covenant 
 was given to you. Perhaps, to you it de- 
 scended from generation to generation, 
 through an unbroken line of pious ancestry. 
 It was a token that God, the God of your 
 fathers, was ready to be your God and the 
 God of your children, if you would not by 
 your own unbelief and guilt cast away the 
 blessings of the covenant. Shall the line be 
 broken in you \ Think how many genera- 
 tions of the descendants of them who dis- 
 owned the Messiah, and were broken off 
 and rejected from being the people of God, 
 have wandered away, and stumbled and pe- 
 rished on the dark mountains. Shall your 
 children, and perhaps your children's child- 
 ren be thrown aside among the branches
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 213 
 
 that are broken off? It is true, that no one 
 oi them will perish but for his own sin. 
 But how many a child, and how many child- 
 ren's children do perish through the occasion 
 and influence of an unbelieving and wicUed 
 father 1 I need only refer you to the influ- 
 ence of a Sabbath-breaker, an infidel, a scof- 
 fer, a profane, or lewd, or unprincipled man, 
 upon the destinies of his children and more 
 remote descendants. Can we be sure that 
 there may be nothing like this in the influ- 
 ence of him who is the occasion of breaking 
 away from the covenant and its seal ; and 
 of cutting his posterity ofl* from privileges 
 and means of grace which the piety of his 
 ancestors, from generation to generation, 
 handed down to him 1 Is there no such 
 natural tendency or influence in the exam- 
 ple of his unbelief? — none in his neglect of 
 household prayer 1 — none in the separation 
 of him and all his, from the sacraments of 
 the Church of God 1 Remember and fear 
 that solemn admonition of God to his cove- 
 nant people of old — "Because thou hast re- 
 jected knowledge, I will also reject thee, — 
 seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy 
 God, I will also forget thy children.^* The
 
 214 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 branch may be broken off j but it is not for 
 man to tell when it may ever please God to 
 graft it in again. Oh ! son — daughter — of 
 the covenant ! what consequences, — aside 
 from the condemnation and ruin of your 
 own soul — may arise from your unbelief, 
 and descend in fruits of wo to generations 
 that are yet unborn ! Let the seal of the 
 covenant which was impressed upon you 
 with the tender yearnings of parental faith, 
 remind you of the blessings that you cast 
 away in remaining alienated from God. Call 
 not down upon your own head this double 
 ruin. Break not away from the cords with 
 which God himself would draw you to sal- 
 vation. Defeat not the prayers of a father's 
 faith, and -of a mother's love. Compel not 
 the mercy, that waits to save you, to depart, 
 and to give you up to the hand of justice, 
 as one who, from the gates of heaven, would 
 thrust himself down to the despair of hell. 
 
 Children of the covenant ; ye who were 
 in your infancy dedicated to God ; your pa- 
 rents by their acts bind you in secular mat- 
 ters. God and the laws of society have 
 given them this prerogative, not for their 
 advantage, but for yours. It is, then, no
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 215 
 
 unprecedented thing, when you are by your 
 parents given up to God and sealed with 
 his seal. He claims this right in you ; the 
 neglect of your parents would not have al- 
 tered his claim. But would you, if you 
 could, — that when God had graciously given 
 his covenant for their advantage and for 
 yours, that they had thrown away the cove- 
 nant and denied you the seal % Choose you 
 then, to throw away proffered blessings, and 
 having thrown them away, to take your lot 
 with the world, with no portion but in the 
 uncovenanted mercies of God 1 Had a rich 
 friend, in your infancy, offered to leave you 
 an estate, if your parent ^vould in your be- 
 half undertake the trust and execute the 
 forms ; would you that your parent had re- 
 fused the gift ; and especially if the condi- 
 tion of the gift had obliged him carefully to 
 train you up in the nurture and admonition 
 of the Lord X Surely, you would not be so 
 unwise. Is the case altered when God him- 
 self is the giver, and proffers a richer por- 
 tion than all the kingdoms of this world ? 
 Is God a foe to offer this covenant X Is 
 your parent a foe to take and seal it \ That 
 seal is to you a token no less of privijeoe
 
 216 INFANT BAPTISM.. 
 
 than of obligation. Will you thro^v these 
 promises of God away 1 Will you deter- 
 mine to renounce your baptism, and render 
 it null 1 You may ; but not with ordinary 
 guilt ; especially if from infancy you have 
 been the child of prayers and tears to God 
 for your salvation. Oh how rich this boon 
 of the covenant and its seal, which thus 
 pleads with you, our children, to be the child- 
 ren of your fathers' God ! Will you disa- 
 vow the covenant and the seal % Will you 
 disown the obligation which they impose 
 on you to love and serve Jehovah, your fa- 
 thers' covenant God 1 You may be so in- 
 fatuated ; but God will not for this release 
 you from the obligation. You may sell 
 your birthright like Esau, but, like Esau, 
 you may find no place for repentance, though 
 you seek it carefully with tears. 
 
 O, God of our fathers ! our covenant God ! 
 Save our children from such a doom as this 1 
 Seal them thine own, by working in their 
 souls the reality of that which is signified 
 by the outward sign. Make them thine own 
 by the washing of regeneration and the re- 
 newing of the Holy Ghost ; and thy name 
 shall have all the praise, for ever. Amen.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The Assembly of Divines, (p. 100.) The follow- 
 ing are extracts from Lightfoot's " Journal of the 
 Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines." 
 
 " Thursday, July 11, 1644. — Thea began we the 
 work of the day, about the Directory- for Baptism." 
 
 " Wednesday, Aug. 7. — This proposition, ' It is 
 lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the child,' had 
 been canvassed before our adjourning, and was 
 now ready to vote : but I spake against it as being 
 very unfit to vote that it was lawful to sprinkle, 
 xchen every one grants it. Whereupon it Avas fal- 
 len upon, sprinkling being granted, whether dipping 
 should be tolerated with it.'' * * * " It was at last 
 put to the question, whether the Directory should 
 run thus, ' The minister shall take water and sprin- 
 kle or pour it with his hand upon the face or lore- 
 head of the child:' and it was voted so indifferent- 
 ly, that we were glad to count twice ; for so many 
 were unwilling to have dipping excluded, that the 
 votes came to an equality within one ; for the one 
 side was twenty-four, — the other twenty-five."* * * 
 " And when we had done all, we concluded nothing 
 in it ; hut the business was recommitted.'" 
 
 " Aug. 8. — Mr. Marshall began, and he said, 
 hat he doubted not that all the assemblv conclud-
 
 218 APPENDIX. 
 
 ed that dipping was lawful. I flatly answered, 
 that I held it UIlla^vful, but an cOeXoeprnKia^ (will 
 worship, worship invented by man, supereroga- 
 tion, Col. ii. 23) "and therefore desired that it 
 might be proved. But it was thought fit to go to 
 the business by degrees." The Assembly first de- 
 cided that " It is not only lawful, but also suffi- 
 cient," to pour or sprinkle water on the face of the 
 child. " But as for the dispute itself, about dip- 
 ping,^^ says Lightfoot, " it was thought fit and 
 most safe to let it alone.'''' To their vote concern- 
 ing the lawfulness and sufficiency of sprinkling, 
 they only added that it is also " most expedient," 
 From this it is evident, 
 
 1. That no point whatever was finally settled by 
 a majority of one. After that vole, the " business 
 was recommitted," and, " nothing concluded in it,'' 
 on that vote or at that time. 
 
 2. There was no " substitution" of sprinkling for 
 immersion. The assertion of the tract of the 
 Baptist General Tract Society, on both these 
 points, is wholly untrue. 
 
 A writer in the Baptist Advocate of Sept. 12,, 
 1840, says, of this action of the Assembly of Divines, 
 that "A single casting vote, after several successive 
 canvassings, determined for the Presbyterians of 
 England and Scotland, that sprinkling should be the 
 only mode. The only instance of definitive rejec- 
 tion," (viz. of dipping) " in the history of Christen- 
 dom." This statement also is incorrect. The As- 
 sembly of Divines did not determine that sprink-
 
 APPENDIX. 219 
 
 ling should be the only mode. They did not 
 "difinitively reject" dipping. They purposely 
 dropped all dispute about the lawfulness of dipping ; 
 and, as Lightfoot affirms, they thought fit and safe 
 to "let it alone." They did let it alone in. the 
 Directory ; and only declared sprinkling or pouring, 
 lawful and sufficient and most expedient ; thus pur- 
 posely, and with full understanding, leaving the 
 mode of dipping optional to them who should pre- 
 fer it. 
 
 Infant Baptism in Britain. — It is commonly as- 
 serted by the Baptists, (see Pengilly, p. 83), that 
 Infant Baptism was not practised in Great Britain, 
 " till Pope Gregory' sent over Austin to convert the 
 people to the Romish faith, A. D. 596." 
 
 Pelagius was a native of Britain (he was an old 
 man in 404) and a Briton bred. He declares that 
 he " never heard of any, not even the most impi- 
 ous heretic, who denied baptism to infants." 
 
 The practice which the Pilgrims brovght from 
 England, (see p. 103). — Gov. Winthrop in his Jour- 
 nal, Aug. 20, 1632, mentions that upon the baptism 
 of his child, " The Governor himself held the child 
 to baptize, as others in the congregation did." 
 
 He narrates also, that in 1640, the people of 
 " Plimouth" had intended to call " one Mr. Chan- 
 eye" to the office of teacher ; " but before fit time 
 came, he discovered his judgment about baptism, 
 that the children ought to be dipped and not
 
 220 APPENDIX. 
 
 sprinkled, and he being an active man and very ve- 
 hement, there arose much trouble about it." * * * 
 " Whereupon the church there wrote to all the 
 other churches both here, (Boston), and at Connecti- 
 cut for advice, and sent Mr. Chancy e's arguments. , 
 The churches took them into consideration and 
 wrote their several answers, wherein they showed 
 their dissent from him, and clearly refuted all his 
 arguments, discovering withal some great mis- 
 takes of his about the judgment and practice of 
 antiquity." * * * " He did maintain also that the 
 Lord's Supper ought to be administered in the 
 evening, and every Lord's day." — Winthrop's 
 Journal, p. 200. ,
 
 1
 
 
 ^ 
 
 \mo 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 IS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Jli3»7^?Cil
 
 pill III iiiii nil III III II flip 
 
 1205 00344 1266^ 
 
 j^ 
 
 DC SOUTHERN BPGONAL L-BO/ipv c*C",'^ 
 
 B 000 014 183 e 
 
 A
 
 
 '•fllSiSS 
 
 1