|or tojpt is Christian gujjtism jjpmpH A NEW DISSERTATION J'< AN OLD CONTROVERSY", WITH AN ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE REASONING CONTAINED M HALLEY'S SEVENTH LECTURE THE SACBAMENTSj TO WHICH li AbDEU A BRIEF INQUIRY INTO THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING. THE ORDINANCE. BY JO A P THOMAS ^EORELL. MJ&4 1 I85-5T Co PYJ EDINBURGH: JOHNSTONE AND HUNTER. M.DCCC.LV. PRICE 3s. 10 iff * <, ***«»»***: sc8 FOR WHOM IS CHRISTIAN.JffAPTISJI DESI&NED? - Although circumstances, altogether unavoidable, have hitherto retarded the publication of this little volume, and several works have successively appeared on the subject, the author still feels induced to offer it to the public. It was just about to be put into the printer's hands when Dr Halley's " Reply " to Mr Stovel and Dr Wardlaw was an- nounced as being in the press. As, however, that work does not appear to occupy any new ground, and the learned writer continually appeals to his former arguments, which he considers as still remaining unanswered, the author of this dissertation feels himself justified in sending his work unaltered to the press. In doing so he derives much satis- faction and encouragement from the fact, that Dr Halley has so explained some of the opinions expressed in his for- mer work, as not only to approach nearer to the views herein advocated than he appeared to have done before, but even, on the whole, to corroborate them. Afoot-note has been added, here and there, in those parts of the treatise where the reasoning might seem to be somewhat affected by Dr Halley's views and arguments contained in the " Reply." May, 1848. CONTENTS PREFACE .... INTRODUCTION CHAP. I. THE COMMISSION . CHAP. II. — THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES CHAP. Ill THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT CHAP. IV. — PARTICULAR TEXTS CHAP. V THE MODE 9 14 62 111 148 165 PREFACE. It is now about ten years since a change took place in my views on the subject of Christian baptism, at which time I contemplated making public my reasons for renouncing the Pagdo-baptist faith, and penned some of the thoughts contained in the following pages. But my design of publishing had long been over- ruled, and, as I thought, finally relinquished, when the appearance of Dr Halley's Lectures on Baptism gave me a new impulse to return to the subject which, formerly, had so much exercised my mind. I began writing, and soon found myself almost necessitated to mould my thoughts into the shape of an answer to Dr Halley's reasonings, which was anything but what, on resuming my manuscript, I intended. And, though I now oifer this little treatise to the public, it is not without extreme reluctance that, in doing so, I place myself in the unenviable and adventurous posi- VI PREFACE. tion of an antagonist to the author of " The Sacra- ments/' I have, moreover, a personal feeling of delicacy in appearing in this matter, the nature of which it is quite unnecessary to explain to my readers, but which Dr Halley will understand, and for which his generosity will, I trust, give me credit. I beg to assure the Doctor that every line of this work has been written with sentiments of deep respecft for him personally, and deference to his superior learning and scholarship. I feel a full confidence, I own, in the strength of the arguments I have employed; at the same time I have much pleasure in submitting them to Dr Halley's acute powers of analysis, not doubting that, if any error lurks in them, his keen perception will detect it, and that he, if any one, can convince me of the fallacy of my reasonings. Perhaps some apology may be expected from me for writing at all on this subject, inasmuch as a for- mal answer to Dr Halley's Lectures was furnished soon after their publication by Mr Stovel. However, it appears to me that different minds may contribute in different ways towards the same object, and, did I not think that the views advanced in this dissertation have some advantage over any that have hitherto appeared, it would, I am aware, only be to offer a gra- PREFACE. Vll tuitous insult to the public, to expect them to give any attention to another work, however small, on the baptismal controversy. I, further, beg leave to say that this work was ready for the press ere Dr Wardlaw's " Strictures " upon Dr Halley's views (published as an Appendix to a new edition of his former work on Baptism) came under my notice. On reading those " Stric- tures," I was led carefully to review my own compo- sition ; and finding many similar views and arguments, I discovered very little that needed modification. With the line of reasoning that Dr Wardlaw adopts in the " Strictures," as it regards adults, I cordially agree. In the other, respecting the infant children of believers — which is argued at length in the original work, and defended in the " Strictures" — he appears to me quite at fault. But, if I do not see with Dr Wardlaw on this point, neither do I look in the same line of vision with Dr Halley. My third chapter is, therefore, at war with both these learned Doctors, and must stand or fall by its own merits. I hope the following pages have been written throughout in the spirit of Christian love; for sure am I, it were better (on this vexed question at least) that nothing were written to instruct the mind, than rill PREFACE. that un-christian feelings should, through the asperi- ties of disputation, be excited in the heart. I dedicate my work to the Baptist and Paedo- baptist Churches of England and Scotland, hoping that, instead of tending to widen the breach between the denominations, it may have the happy effect of promoting mutual confidence, fellowship, and love. THOMAS MORELL. Danbury, February, 1847. FOE WHOM IS CHKISTIAN BAPTISM DESIGNED? INTRODUCTION. On instituting a brief inquiry into the much agitated question of baptism, it seems necessary to make a few preliminary remarks on the mode of conducting the argument. Correct principles of interpretation are of the utmost importance in all discussions upon Scripture truths; and the design of these introduc- tory observations is to point out the respective pro- vinces of analogy and philology, with the view, more especially, of vindicating the use of analogical reasonings, which have been objected to, in turn, by disputants on either side of the baptismal controversy. There appears to be no good reason why, in the discussion of this subject, analogy should be proscribed. If, originating merely in the caprice of imagination, it despised the high authority of 1 INTRODUCTION. Scripture, there might he some ground to take excep- tion against it. But when it is considered that ana- logical reasonings pay the very highest deference to revelation — that it is the truth of the Bible alone about which they concern themselves, and for which they contend — evidently there can be no reason for representing them as irrelevant or inapplicable. Truth must be consistent with itself; all its several parts must harmonize with each other; and it is the object of analogy to vindicate the consistency of truth, to demonstrate that there is no one part of the beautiful fabric that is ill-proportioned — nothing that mars or destroys the perfect order and unity of the whole. We readily admit that, in all cases where it is possible, philology should take the precedence, and that no plausible reasonings from analogy should be allowed to stand against the plain and unequivocal meaning of the words of Scripture, fairly interpreted hy the rules of sound criticism. At the same time, it cannot be pretended that analogy is to be excluded from the province of Biblical interpretation. It is as essential in some cases as verbal criticism itself, to aid us in discovering the true sense of a passage, The results of these two different kinds of argumenta- tion, in truth, cannot by any possibility be at vari- ance with each other. If such could be the case, the harmony of truth would be broken. Dr Davidson, in his " Biblical Hermeneutics," has w r ell explained the meaning of the phrase, " Analogy of faith," and has made some very judicious and dis- INTRODUCTION. 1 1 criminating observations on the use to be made of it in Biblical interpretation. He says: " The phrase in question means the general tenor of Scripture doctrine, or the clear and unambiguous consent of many passages brought to bear upon such as appear to be dark, difficult, or contradictory. "When an interpreter carefully examines the fundamental clearly revealed doctrines of Scripture, and, with complete conviction of their truth, combines them into an harmonious system, he should not put such a con- struction upon a particular place as would clash with their testimony." Again he remarks: "The analogy of faith does not lead to the discovery of the meaning of a passage which is ambiguous or obscure. If we are at a loss to know the precise meaning of a passage, it will not be opened up by means of this rule. It will prevent us from imposing such a sense as would contradict other places, of whose meaning we are assured; but it cannot furnish more valuable assistance. It is negative in its operation, not posi- tive. It constrains the expositor to adhere to the consistency of Scripture with itself, and to self-con- sistency of interpretation ; but where a passage ad- mits of various senses, it cannot point out the one which is true and proper." The meaning of the last clause of these quotations is not quite apparent; otherwise we take the whole of these remarks to be highly important, as defining so distinctly the pro- per province of analogy. " Its operation is nega- tive," it shows what a passage cannot mean; and thus, ] 2 INTRODUCTION. we may add clearly indicates, in those cases in which the original words of Scripture may support two or more interpretations, which is the right one. For example, suppose the Greek in some particular text to admit (as sometimes happens) of two different renderings. In such a case it is evident that philology will not serve us. It cannot teach us which of the two senses to take. Analogy, however, in such a case, may enable us to decide without hesitation. One of the two significations may be found uncon- genial with the general tenor of Scripture, and we at once reject it ; the other may be every way con- sistent with Scripture, and we unhesitatingly adopt it. Cases of difficulty may, however, sometimes occur, in which we may find ourselves thrown back upon the doctrine of probabilities, and in the absence of any perfectly satisfactory sense, shall find ourselves necessitated to adopt that which, from a consideration of the connection and a comprehensive view of the whole subject, seems best to accord with reason and with Scripture. We may, indeed, lay it down as a sound principle of interpretation, applicable to cases of this kind, that when a passage admits of two or more different ways of explanation, both of which may be equally accordant with grammatical rules and philological accuracy, the preference must un- questionably be given to that which appears most consonant with right reason, and most agreeable to the whole analogy of the faith. In the following investigation into some of the INTRODUCTION. 13 principal points of the baptismal controversy, we shall use just any kind of reasoning that the occasion may seem to require. If the arguments adduced are not founded upon the solid basis of inspired truth, we shall expect to see them hurled to the ground; nor indeed, in that case, could we wish them to stand. If not fairly deduced from Scripture, let them by all means be rejected; for they will be worthless. " To the law and to the testimony; if we speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in us." If our arguments are illegitimate or illogical, let their irrelevancy and inconclusiveness be made manifest. If unsound, let the flaw be de- tected. If nothing is proved, we hope to hare our own mind convinced that our argument is nugatory. We wish, of all things, to be preserved from error ; and no charge of inconsistency, or fickle- ness should intimidate us from changing sides a hun- dred times, if, by doing so, we could get nearer to the real sentiments of Scripture. Honesty, candour, truth, are, we hope, infinitely dearer to us than victory. 14 THE COMMISSION. CHAPTER I. THE COMMISSION. The evangelists Matthew and Mark, as is well known, record our Lord's commission to his disciples relative to the ordinance of baptism in somewhat dif- ferent language. Dr Halley refers chiefly to the statement as given by the former of these two evan- gelists, viz., " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." His views of the nature and extent of this commission will be best understood by quoting his own words. " The question," he says, " concerning the subjects of baptism is here resolved into one of grammar and criticism. It is simply, what is the antecedent to the word them, or for what noun is that pronoun substituted ? Going forth, disciple all the nations (<*•«»*-« r« £4v55), baptizing them («t«r«ys) — all the nations — into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them — all the nations — to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. So far as the grammatical THE COMMISSION. 15 construction is concerned, the meaning of the terms is precisely the same as it would be if the words of the commission were, Baptize all the nations. Ad- hering, therefore, to the grammar of the words, we say the commission, which no man has a right to alter, is, Baptize all the nations." * Again, we read: " When he (Christ) says, Teach all the nations, what right have I to exclude any who can be taught? And when he says, Baptize all the nations, what right have I to exclude any who can be baptized? " t In another place, we have these words: "We feel bound by its terms to maintain that it is the duty of the Christian Church both to baptize and to teach, to the utmost extent within its power, ' all the nations,' " &c; % and once more: " To any part of the commission, the discipling, the baptizing, or the teaching, I know only one limitation, and that is the want of ability to execute it." § With these quotations before us, there can be no mistake as to Dr Halley's ideas of the extent of this commission. He openly argues that it is not to be in any way limited; that men, women, and children, are to be indiscriminately baptized; that, in a word, none are to be excluded who can be baptized or taught. The case is put very boldly. We shall see how far Dr Halley adheres to his own principle, and how far that principle is defensible. We propose to meet these views of Dr Halley, * The Sacraments, pp. 488, 489. f P. 491. % P. 493. § P. 494. 16 THE COMMISSION. first, in a course of analogical reasoning ; and, after this, we will proceed to examine the question of grammar and syntax. From the very nature of our reasonings from analogy, this part of our discussion will necessarily have a more especial bearing upon the case of adults. But if our argument be good against the indiscriminate application of baptism to them, it will carry the case of infants along with it. All that applies in the one case, will apply, a for- tiori, in the other. Dr Halley says : " "We are to baptize all we can" We beg leave then, first of all, to ask, How is this commission, which is to be limited only by an impos- sibility of executing it, to be carried into effect ? It will, we presume, be admitted that neither fraud nor force are to be employed; that the administra- tion of any religious ceremony, under such circum- stances, and by such means, would be manifestly uncongenial with the spirit and genius of Christianity, which, disallowing of all physical force or artifice, makes use only of moral means and appliances. But, if Dr Halley will not justify the use of fraud or force (and of course he will not), then, at the very outset, he surrenders the principle of literal interpretation, and no-limitation. We refer him to his own illustration respecting the Canaanites,* in which he intimates, truly enough, that it was the duty of Israel to expel them, vi et armis, from the land. If he stand up for literality, for no limita- * The Sacraments, p, 491. THE COMMISSION. 17 tion, except what impossibility imposes, then, to be consistent, he ought to advocate the application of physical force or stratagem. Not doing this, he him- self puts the first limitation upon the words of the commission, and that, too, despite of grammar and syntax. Setting aside fraud and force, what then, we ask, is to be done in order to carry out this commission to the widest possible extent ? We learn Dr Halley's opinion upon this point from the manner in which he meets an anticipated objection at page 491: — " Should it be said, that it is impossible to obey the command without some limitation, because great multitudes will not submit to Christian baptism, the reply is obvious, as the command certainly imposes upon us no more than we are able to perform." That is, we are not to baptize those who are not willing to be baptized; and, though Dr. Halley does not say it in so many words, it is plain that the principle on which he would administer the ordi- nance, is that of obtaining the consent of the parties baptized — that willingness is regarded by him as a necessary qualification. But is not this putting a limitation upon the words of the commission ? Is it not running away from his own literal sense ? We, of course, object not to this limitation. We would only have it noted, that even the great advocate of the no-limitation-scheme cannot himself carry it out. But letting that pass, we will now understand that willingness is the supposed pre-requisite for baptism. 18 THE COMMISSION. And, here, we must be especially careful lestf our subject should become mystified by any ambiguity that may be found lurking in a word, where perhaps no ambiguity would be suspected. Is this willing- ness to be an ignorant passive compliance with the proposal of the administrator? or is it to be a willing- ness founded on a certain degree of knowledge ? First, we will suppose it to be the former; we will suppose that a simple expression of willingness, without any previous knowledge of Christianity, is sufficient to authorize the administration of the ordinance of bap- tism. To prove that this notion is untenable, will not require much force of argumentation. There is no evidence deducible from the Scriptures that baptism was ever performed on this principle. Paedo- baptists cannot produce one single passage that necessarily implies it. Cases, we are aware, may be instanced, which seem, in some points, to furnish an apparent probability that the apostles were in the habit of baptizing indiscriminately any who offered themselves, without regard to character. But if it should appear that such a practice is inconsis- tent with the fundamental principles of the religion of Jesus Christ, a mere probability, in the absence of positive proof, must be set down at nought. Now, nothing appears to us plainer, than that the theory of baptizing indiscriminately, and irrespective of cha- racter, is totally uncongenial with the nature and genius of Christianity. Our argument lies in a very small space. It just amounts to this, that the prac^ THE COMMISSION. 19 tice of indiscriminate baptism can in no way be made to accord with the fact (for fact it unquestionably is), that the Bible everywhere treats man as a rational creature, a moral agent, an accountable being. That man is dealt with in this character in the Word of God; that all its appeals are made to him as such; that Christianity, in a word, is adapted to the intel- lectual and moral constitution of man, will, we sup- pose, without hesitation be admitted. Here, then, we take our stand, and, with this cardinal principle as our lever, we imagine it to be a very easy thing to move a world of probabilities. This theory of our Lord's commission, which re- gards it as enjoining the universal administration of baptism, on the ground of no other qualification than that of an avowal of ignorant willingness, over- looking entirely the moral accountability of man, which necessarily pre-supposes knowledge, does not treat him even as though he were endowed with rea- son. If any one does but say he is willing to be baptized, no matter how ignorant he may be, no matter though he have no intelligible idea of what he wishes to do, he is a proper subject for baptism ! Why, such a theory makes Christianity the most unreasonable thing in the world ! It represents the Bible dealing with men, in this particular case of baptism, unlike its uniform practice, as if he had no rational or moral capacities ! It brings mature age down to infancy, and treats men as if they were babes, imposing upon them an initiatory rite, and 20 THE COMMISSION. thus formally constituting them disciples, though at the time they are entirely in the dark as to the nature of the whole transaction; and while consenting to a religious act, are, for want of knowledge, incapable of exercising any moral judgments about it ! Can it be, that the very first step in religion should be taken thus blindly? Can Christianity sanction any- thing of the kind? Is it so, that the very act by which we are supposed to become discipled to Christ, has no moral character belonging to it — as must be the case, if baptism, though acceded to willingly, is received ignorantly? The whole tenor of Scripture condemns the supposition — the whole analogy of the faith condemns it. To produce specific pas- sages of Scripture, in opposition to this view of the commission, we take to be altogether a work of supererogation. The whole Bible is against it. The method of proselytizing or making disciples, which such an exposition proposes, reminds us forci- bly of thejpractice of certain secret societies, which allow not even the slightest idea of their rules or principles to be known by candidates for admission, until, by the regular forms of initiation, they become bond fide members. It makes Christianity a kind of religious free-masonry, a system of fraud after all — something very different from what, irrespective of this controversy, we have been accustomed to re- gard it. We cannot, therefore, yield our assent to such an explanation of the commission; but we find ourselves honestly and inevitably led to the conclu- THE COMMISSION. 21 sion, that whatever the language, "Teach all nations, baptizing," may mean, it certainly does not, and cannot import, that all who avow a mere ignorant willingness are suitable subjects for baptism. And now, if we endeavour to imagine, just for a moment, how the commission, as above explained, would have to be carried into execution, we shall see that what we have shown to be unreasonable is also absurd, and even ridiculous. In our own en- lightened land, but very few opportunities could, in the nature of things, occur of administering bap- tism to persons entirely ignorant of the Christian re- ligion. But, if the commission was intended to be performed on the principle we are now examining, doubtless many instances of this kind must have been contemplated. The disciples were to go with the commission in their hands to all nations — to heathen nations — to people entirely unacquainted with Chris- tianity. Amongst these nations, they were to induce all they possibly could to be baptized — not to teach them first, but to baptize them in order to make them learners. How, then, would a missionary going out to a heathen land proceed to carry out the commission thus understood? We may suppose that he would collect the natives around him, and open the business somewhat in this way : Good people, I have come to teach you a new religion, and if you are willing to learn it, the first thing necessary is, that you should be baptized with water, that you may be made learners. Are you willing to be baptized, 22 THE COMMISSION. and learn this new religion? Some, we may sup- pose, would, either from curiosity or regard for the teacher, or without any ascertainable motive, accede to the proposal, and would forthwith be baptized with water, in some form, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and thus be discipled to Christ. Others, we may suppose, more shrewd than their simpler brethren, would think within themselves, that they would, at least, like to know a little about this new religion before they con- sented to submit to baptism; and, therefore, of course, the baptizer would have to wait their pleasure before he could baptize them. But this would be no part of his plan. If a simple avowal of willingness, with- out any previous knowledge, is all that is requisite for baptism, his duty evidently would be, not to teach first, but to act just as we have supposed; that is, he would inquire, first, who were willing to be baptized, and without any further preliminaries, would proceed at once to baptize all who offered them- selves for that purpose. The mere statement of this hypothetical case is quite enough to condemn it. Does it not strike us as a most absurd supposition? And yet, if baptism is to be performed on a mere avowal of ignorant willingness, this would be the only natural way of proceeding. Now, on the other hand, in what way should we naturally expect Christianity to make its first ad- vances, and win its way amongst the nations? We should expect that, having first of all summoned THE COMMISSION. 23 men to an audience, it would begin, ab initio, to make them acquainted with its leading truths and doctrines; that it would make teaching the very first thing to be done, leaving every one at liberty to form his own judgments concerning the truths made known ; that, instead of making men learners by a formal act of initiation before they have begun to learn, it would, from the very first, make them learners de facto, by conveying instruction to their minds; that instead of immediately setting about the work of proselytizing, which implies, as it re- spects the proselyte, not having the means or oppor- tunity of judging" intelligently and honestly for him- self, it would first of all afford those who might be disposed to receive instruction every facility for under- standing what Christianity is, and would then leave them, as free agents, perfectly at liberty, either to discontinue learning, or to go on in a course of Christian instruction till, from enlightened conviction, they should avow themselves sincere and genuine disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Never should we expect Christianity to make its first appearance in the administration of a formal religious ceremony. Performed on a mere avowal of willingness, without any previous instruction or knowledge — performed as preparatory to instruction, to put people in a capacity to learn, to make them learners — baptism really ap- pears to us a perfect anomaly, a total subversion of the natural order of things. Obviously, the natural, common-sense way is, to begin with teaching ; and 24 THE COMMISSION. if so, then, what do we want with baptism as a mere rite of initiation ? " Cui bono ? " What intelligible end can it answer? It cannot be supposed to confer any advantages in the mere matter of learning; for the commencement and progress of the act of instruc- tion itself, whether baptism be resorted to or not, must, in either case, be precisely the same. So far from aiding instruction, initiatory baptism interrupts the natural process of imparting it, being obtruded at a most unseasonable time, and altogether wearing the aspect of a very unmeaning and impertinent cere- mony. Thus, then, we find that reason conspires with Scripture to pronounce an unhesitating verdict against the notion, that a mere ignorant compliance with the proposal of the administrator is a sufficient qualification for baptism ; and we shall hope to make it appear evident before we have done, that there is nothing in the phraseology of the commission, as related by Matthew, which compels us to so unnatural an opinion. Whatever the language of Matthew, considered philologically, may mean, as we said be- fore, we see very plainly, from the whole analogy ot the faith, what it cannot mean. Ere long we shall go into this question philologically, and shall do so with the fullest confidence that we shall find nothing in the terms employed, correctly and grammatically interpreted, that in any way disagrees with the uni- form tenor of the Scriptures. But we must now examine the other notion of the word willingness, viz., that of its arising out of a cer- THE COMMISSION. 25 tain degree of previous knowledge. It will probably be admitted, that some acquaintance with the doc- trines of Scripture is requisite previously to the ad- ministration of baptism. Having seen already that the principle of no-limitation cannot be carried out, that neither fraud nor force must be made use of, may we not now also presume that it will be ad- mitted that a mere ignorant assent' cannot justify the administration of baptism, but that the language of the commission must needs be limited even yet a little further ? It will, we think, be admitted, that to baptize any one in a state of perfect ignorance, would be to act contrary to the very spirit of Chris- tianity; that an adult, at least, must have some knowledge of the nature of the act he is about to submit to in offering himself to be baptized. Then, in this case, we ask, How much is to be known as constituting a proper qualification for baptism? Act- ing on the principle of limiting the commission as little as possible, Dr Halley and our Paedo-baptist brethren would probably say, that a very small amount of knowledge is sufficient — that the mere elements of Christianity are all that need be known. Be it so; and we will now therefore understand, that an elementary acquaintance with the Christian religion is the extent of the qualification requisite; that we have no right to impose any moral qualifi- cation; that nothing more is necessary than a bare acquaintance with the leading characteristics of the Gospel. B 26 TIIE COMMISSION. Now, we meet this notion on precisely the same principle as that we have just been reviewing. It may be easily shown that while it is a step in the right direction, it nevertheless stops short of that kind of qualification which we conceive the whole analogy of truth evidently requires. The Scriptures demand godly sincerity, purity of motive, genuine principle, in every act of a religious nature; and why, con- trary to all analogy, should our Psedo-baptist friends wish to impair and shake, as it were, to its very foundations the important general principle, that con- scientious conviction and integrity of character are in all cases necessary, and seek to establish, in one particular case, an opposite principle ? why should they wish to prove that the ordinance of baptism (not surely the least important of all religious duties) may be rightly performed when the heart [is not right with God? that, provided a man has some general knowledge of Christianity, purity of heart and true religious principle are not essential to the discharge of this particular duty ? that this is an ex- ception to all others ? A man of no principle what- ever — one, on the contrary, who entertains an utter hatred and contempt for the truth — may, as is the case in thousands of instances, possess an accurate knowledge of the first principles of the Christian re- ligion. And could we say, supposing such a cha- racter were to solicit baptism at our hands, that there is no need to inquire into his motives ? that we have nothing to do with his character ? that, possessing a THE COMMISSION. 27 certain amount of unsanctified knowledge, he, in submitting to baptism, fulfils every condition that is required ? that he does this duty well and rightly ? Such a latitudinarian and dangerous notion is utterly condemned by the analogy of our faith ; and we can- not but believe, until we have clear demonstration to the contrary, that, as in all other cases, so in this, something more than mere knowledge is necessary, in receiving baptism, to impart validity to that ordi- nance. And, strange as it may appear, we, in this judgment, have Dr Halley on our side. He inti- mates (p. 496), that the application for baptism must not be " made scoffingly and profanely, for that would be a manifest desecration of the service." Why, this looks as if Dr. Halley would advocate some kind of moral qualification, and would require purity of motive and sincerity : seriousness of charac- ter, at least, he requires. How he can make this consistent with his indiscriminate no-limitation prin- ciple, we must leave him to explain. His views really appear to us to be characterized by an un- precedented singularity. The language of the com- mission, he argues, is to be understood without limi- tation — all nations are to be baptized ; and yet the subjects of baptism, by his own showing, are to be willing subjects. They are also to be sober and seri- ous characters. Well, to say nothing of the incon- sistency of all this, we are gratified to find the Doctor, after all, approaching to the very verge of our own opinions. He only needs to take one more step in 28 THE COMMISSION. advance, and allow that religious principle ought to be required in candidates for baptism, and his de- sertion of the principle with which he set ,out will be complete. At any rate, he has no right to meet us with his arguments about the literal sense, and no restriction, if we think ourselves more consistent than he is in taking a little additional license with the universal terms employed. If any should object to the above mode of reason- ing, that sincerity and even piety may consist with a low degree of knowledge, we readily allow it, and indeed hail the sentiment as an implied further ad- mission from the opposite side, and as manifestly helping our cause. But if it shall be argued, that since sincerity and religious principle may co-exist with a very small amount of knowledge, we have no right to withhold baptism from any who have such knowledge, as we cannot tell that they are not sincere religious characters, this opens a very important question, viz., What is the proper province of the administrator of baptism? Is any discrimina- tion, and if any, what, to be exercised by him in bap- tizing ? Is the performance of the rite suspended upon his judgment, or not? Has he the prerogative, or has he not, of judging as to the fitness of candidates? Now, that some discrimination must, as a matter of necessity, be exercised, is, I think, very manifest, for — 1. If baptism was not intended to be administered uniAersally and without distinction, as I think the THE COMMISSION. 29 foregoing argument has proved, then it will follow, without any begging of the question, that there must be discrimination ; and if so, of course, there must be some one to discriminate, and this office or duty must devolve upon the baptizer, or upon him in connection with the brethren with whom he is associated. 2. But, secondly, Dr Halley himself admits, that, in some cases, there must be discrimination; for he says, the ordinance is not to be administered to scoffers and blasphemers — implying, of course, that in particular cases the administrator must judge re- specting the fitness of applicants for baptism. 3. Supposing that mere acquaintance with the first principles of Christian knowledge were the only qualification required, discrimination would be called for even here. Low as such a qualification is, there would be need for the administrator to judge whether or no it were possessed before he could feel himself justified in proceeding to baptize an applicant. 4. But if it be allowed, that, together with know- ledge, sincerity and piety are also requisite, much more will discrimination then be needed ; and if, even on the Ptedo-baptist hypothesis, it turns out that the administrator must certify himself that a candidate possesses the requisite amount of knowledge, and that he is an honest, sober, and serious character, then, who can say that some further discrimination may not be exercised by him ? who can say that the pre- rogative of judging of the motives and of the religious or spiritual character of his fellow- man is not com- 80 THE COMMISSION. mitted to liim, or at least to the Church of which he is the executive ? The whole question comes simply to one of degree. Without converting the minister into an inquisitor, and making one fallible being an infallible judge of another (for God only can judge infallibly), we yet do consider that it is the duty of the Church to preserve its purity in the exercise of that spiritual wisdom which it is supposed to possess, and by which it ought ever to be guided.* Baptism we * The following paragraph, from a series of papers on " Church Principles," published in the Christian Witness in the year 1845, s so much to our purpose, that we cannot forbear inserting it : — " If it be objected that men cannot make the state of each other's hearts the basis of their fellowship, that communion among men must be ordered according to what appears externally of character and conduct ; this is denied, both as a general pro- position, and in its application to the union of Christians in Churches in particular. There are many, and frequent, impor- tant and sacred relations in human society constantly based on the state of the heart, mutually declared and believed. It is a thing easy and natural to be done, that Christians, feeling within the deep and living work of grace, should disclose the experience of their hearts to those with whom, on things so sacred, interesting, and tender, they can hold sympathy and fellowship. There are wise, considerate, and delicate ways in which this can be done even by (query, in the case of) young and timid Christians, \hrough pastors and experienced members, as the way in which communion with Churches is sought and obtained. Wisdom and experience in heart religion will qualify Churches and their elders to form judgments generally accurate of the cases thus submitted to their charity and fidelity. The whole principle, in all its applications, that spiritual conversion and piety form the true and only qualification for the communion of saints, is a con- stant exercise of vital religion, a stedfast testimony to it r a frequent and delightful enjoyment of its holy pleasures." THE COMMISSION. 31 regard as a Church ordinance, intended to be admi- nistered only to such as are fit to be recognised as members of some particular Church. The platform of a Christian Church is laid down in the New Testament, and the required qualifications of its members; and, consequently, the real fitness of any individual for membership and baptism, depends not upon any human judgments, but upon his conformity to scriptural requirements. If he possesses this conformity, he belongs to the true, spiritual, universal Church, whether he is admitted to any particular Church or not; and, of course, whatever the judg- ment of man may be, is a fit subject for baptism. From the necessary imperfections of all human judg- ments, some may be baptized and admitted to the Church who are unfit for such a privilege ; while, on the other hand, some may be kept back, who already belong to " the Church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven." It may, however, be further objected, that, as it regards admission to any particular community of Christians, the same Church that receives, is compe- tent, in case of necessity, to reject; but that, if baptism has been once administered, it is not within any human power to unbaptize, in case of the party sub- sequently proving unfit for the ordinance. Now, in answer to this, we may say, first, that such cases as these are not likely often to occur — that they are, doubtless, the exception to the rule, especially in well regulated Churches; and, secondly, when they do 32 THE COMMISSION. occur, that baptism has been misapplied, and the scriptural intention of the ordinance is defeated.* We only remark further, in view of the above admissions, that if, previously to baptism, it be deemed that an elementary acquaintance with Christianity is essential, baptism itself can, in no sense, be explained as an initiatory ordinance. This form of designation, as generally used by Paado-baptists, is, in this case, evidently inapplicable. If previous knowledge is requisite, baptism, of course, cannot initiate to learn- ing; and consequently the idea, which so generally prevails, of its being the rite of initiation into the school of Christ — a rite constituting an individual a disciple of Christ, however plausible the mere words may sound, is only a vain fancy. Adopted and em- ployed in the strict and proper sense, as an initiatory ordinance, we have already seen what kind of aspect it wears in that point of view. According to our own opinion, which will be better understood when we have explained our idea of Christian discipleship, it does not inaugurate into discipleship — does not constitute disciples, but simply recognises them. And now let us collect into one point of view the substance of what we have debated thus far. Our object has been to canvass the opinion, that the lan- guage, " Teach all nations, baptizing," is not in any way to be limited, but that we are to baptize all we can. We began by remarking that, assuredly, neither fraud nor force must be pressed into service in this * For more on this subject see chapter ii. THE COMMISSION. 33 holy warfare. We then showed that, at least, willing- ness, on the part of candidates for baptism, was necessary. We went on to show, that this willing- ness might be understood as either an ignorant or a partially enlightened willingness. We proved that, to baptize on a mere ignorant avowal of willingness, was to treat man like an infant or an idiot, rather than as a rational being and moral agent, contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture truth; and then went on to prove, on the same principle, that mere elementary knowledge could not be viewed as a suffi- cient qualification for baptism — since the Scriptures eveiy where require sincerity of heart and piety in the performance of every religious duty. We observed, moreover, that even Dr Halley himself, contrary to his own principle, allows that willingness, and even seriousness, are essential pre -requisites for baptism — no unimportant admission, since it completely surrenders the indiscriminate theory; and, in answering certain objections, we have also proved that it is the preroga- tive of the administrator of baptism to judge of the qualifications and fitness of candidates. Thus far, then, we have advanced, and shall now proceed to give explicitly our own views of the baptismal com- mission; and, in so doing, shall fearlessly go into the question of grammar and verbal criticism. It is now, indeed, full time to enter the penetralia of the Temple of truth, and consult the oracle of phi- lology. Like the Grecian oracles, it may perhaps, owing to the necessary imperfection of language, speak 34 THE COMMISSION. to us in somewhat ambiguous terms. But then it is a satisfaction to know that it was not designed to be obscure; and happily we have a key to unlock its mysteries — a principle by which to resolve its am- biguity, to decide between its double meanings, and to select, as we believe, without mistake, the true one. We beg that Dr Davidsons rule may here again be borne in mind, viz., " That analogy teaches what an obscure passage cannot mean ; " and thus, as we said before, goes very far towards leading us to ascertain w r hat it does mean. If, for instance, we have pre- viously concluded that a mere ignorant willingness, on the one hand, and a willingness founded on elemen- tary knowledge, on the other, are not sufficient quali- fications for baptism, we necessarily conclude that the language of Matthew, in reference to the baptismal commission, is not to be interpreted so generally as to make baptism imperative upon subjects thus imper- fectly qualified; and our object must be to show that it can, and may, and does, imply the necessity of some higher qualification. If we merely show that the words of Matthew can support an interpretation im- plying the necessity of sincerity and faith, this is enough — this is all we need do; for, if such an in- terpretation be at all admissible by the rules of grammar and philology, we could not hesitate for a moment to pronounce it the right one, even though the mere language may equally well admit of a wider signification. Into this let us now inquire, critically examining, first, into the meaning of the word ^hnuu. THE COMMISSION. 35 Very many pages of criticism have been written upon this single word; and, as it appears to me, a great deal of superfluous labour has been bestowed upon it. If the word be rendered simply to teach, such a sense is obviously favourable to the conclusions of analogy; for though the word pahrzv&> may be con- sidered as limiting the necessary knowledge to first principles, yet, without urging the difficulty of exactly defining first principles, it cannot, at all events, be questioned but that saving faith may originate even from them. And, moreover, bringing analogy to bear upon the question, we contend that the very inten- tion of the teaching must be understood to be nothing less than to produce faith, to make converts. We contend, too, that the apostles would so understand it; and that when their Lord said, " Teach and bap- tize," they would immediately, as a matter of course, infer that the object of their teaching must be to bring men to believe the Gospel. Only in this way can the command, " Teach and baptize," be interpreted so as not to clash with the whole doctrine of Scripture. The teaching must be understood as designed to result in faith previously to the administration of baptism. But, taking the word in question to signify to dis- ciple, " Go ye therefore and disciple all nations," a rendering which better accords with the etymology of the word, we shall, if we mistake not, still find ourselves conducted to precisely the same result. The verb ^«^ri«« occurs but four times in the Greek 36 THE COMMISSION. Testament — twice in an active, and twice in a passive sense. The first instance of its ever being used in an active signification, is this of the commission, as re- corded by Matthew. The verb must, doubtless, be regarded as a derivative of the substantive petfarvs, a disciple. Consequently, the right way to judge of the proper meaning of the verb is to ascertain, first, the sense in which the primitive noun is used. Let us inquire a little into this. The word f*ot,6*r'yi$ is of very frequent occurrence in the New Testament, being applied to the disciples of John as well as to those of Jesus. It is an interesting question in itself, and one that leads direct to the point of our inquiry, Whether the characteristics and quali- fications of the disciples of John and of Jesus were the same? and whether, in these respects; there was any difference between those who were recognised as disciples of Jesus during his ministry and life, and those who were constituted and regarded as such after his death. In respect to both these questions we take the affirmative, to establish which we offer the follow- ing considerations. A disciple, in the ordinary sense of the word, denotes one who embraces the tenets or the doctrines of any particular school of philosophy or religion. Thus, by a disciple of Plato, we understand one who believed what Plato taught; by a disciple of Moses, one who believed in Moses and his writings; and, on the same principle, by a disciple of John the Baptist, we understand one who received what John the THE COMMISSION. 37 Baptist was raised up to teach; and by a disciple of Jesus, one who believed in him, and all that he taught and enjoined. The obvious way, then, to judge of the character and qualifications of a disciple is, first, to inquire into the doctrine of the Master; and, to decide upon the point under review, we must take into consideration the characteristics of the Mosaic and Christian dispensations, and the circumstances which distinguish the transition from the one to the other. Now, as it regards the Mosaic or Jewish dispensation, it is unquestionable that, while its ultimate aim, through the medium of typical observances, was to inculcate spiritual truth, it also admitted to a participation in its rites and ceremonies indiscriminately any and all who were descended from Abraham. Under that dispensation no outward or visible distinction was made 'between one Jew and another. All were admitted, quite irrespective of character, to all the observances and ordinances of religion. He who adhered to the letter of the law of Moses, however ungodly and unprincipled he might be, was, as a Jew, perfect and blameless — an acknowledged disciple of Moses. But it will be admitted, that Christianity, in its principles and requirements, is essentially dif- ferent from Judaism. That was the dispensation of the letter; this of the spirit. The mere outward observance of rites and ordinances cannot constitute a man a Christian. Spirituality is now requisite in every duty that is performed. The letter fades, the spirit alone remains. A mere formalist might be a 38 THE COMMISSION. disciple of Moses; only a spiritual person can be a disciple of Christ. The period commencing with the preaching of John the Baptist, and extending through the whole life of Jesus till his death, seems to have had charac- teristics peculiar to itself. It was a transition period — a kind of brief intermediate dispensation between that of the letter and of the spirit. It partook, therefore, of the features of both. It was designed to prepare gradually for a more spiritual state of things. John came forth from the wilderness announcing the speedy advent of the Messiah. In the midst of universal formalism he appeared as a great reformer. His mission was, to call the nation to repentance, in anti- cipation of the coming of Christ. He instituted a new ordinance — the baptism of repentance. He taught that something more was necessary than external rites. But to have required satisfactory evidence of repent- ance having taken place, would have been to have anticipated that spiritual dispensation for which things were not yet ripe. Therefore we find, that while he powerfully and solemnly insisted upon the necessity of repentance, and warned the Pharisees of the inutility of his baptism to them unless they brought forth fruits meet for repentance; still, he did not refuse to baptize any who professed to believe in the speedy coming of the expected Messiah. His preach- ing and his baptism were eminently adapted to call off the minds of the Jews from cold, lifeless forms, to the living soul of religion, and thus to " prepare THE COMMISSION. 39 the way of the Lord." A disciple of John was not, therefore, necessarily a spiritual person, but one just emerging from the dim shadows of Judaism to the purer and clearer light of Christianity. While John was yet in the midst of his public labours, Jesus came into notice as a great teacher amongst the people; and, taking up the same senti- ment as John the Baptist had made the chief theme of his ministry, he preached, saying, " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." But it is impor- tant to remark, that during the whole of his public course Jesus was careful not to make a full disclosure of his designs. The time was not yet come. He shrouded himself in obscurity so long as he was on the earth; and it was not till he died that, like a sun, he arose from behind the clouds that hung over his cross, and gathered around his tomb, and poured the full blaze of heavenly light over his spiritual king- dom. The preaching of Jesus was indeed spiritual in the highest degree. But Judaism, with its ritual of forms, was not yet abolished, and even Jesus him- self conformed to its rites and requisitions. Things were not even yet ripe for founding a purely spiritual incorporation. The Saviour taught most distinctly the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and yet, yielding to the spirit of Judaism, the time not having arrived for its absolute and everlasting extinction, he seems to have admitted into his kingdom precisely the same class of persons as John the Baptist had done before him, viz., all who acknowledged their belief in the 40 THE COMMISSION. near appearance of the Messiah, whether they recog- nised him as the " Coming One" or not; and thus, that kingdom was of a mixed character during his life, though intended to consist eventually only of spiritual people. Real conversion was not, therefore, indispensable to constitute a disciple of Jesus during his life and ministry. But, admitting this, I go on to contend, that this is no rule to us for judging of the character and qualifications of a true disciple of Christ. Many were allowed to he called disciples of Christ in the peculiar state of things then existing, 'whom Jesus himself never viewed as true disciples, and never contemplated as the persons who were to form his future Church. Nor must we overlook the fact, that many of the disciples of Jesus, even in his own day, were sincere, genuine characters. Take, for example, the twelve apostles. These, with only one exception, were men of true religion — men who believed in Jesus, and kept his commandments. And, though it is admitted that they entertained some mistaken notions respecting the designs of Christ, until the period of his death and resurrection, yet we are told that " to them it was given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, while to those that were without these things were taught in parables." Observe, again, the mean- ing of the word disciple, as applied to the seventy disciples, of whom we read Luke x. 1, etseq. These evidently were genuine characters; for Jesus sent them out two by two into all the cities of Judea, THE COMMISSION. 41 preaching the gospel, and their names are said to have been written in heaven. And surely, when we read that " many believed on him," as we frequently do, making a large deduction for those who may be sup- posed merely to have expressed their faith in him as the Messiah, we are yet warranted to suppose that not a few of them were brought truly to " believe in Jesus," especially as Paul tells us that after the resur- rection the Lord was seen by five hundred brethren at once. This, indeed, clearly proves that amongst the numerous disciples of Jesus, there were at least that number of true converts. How many more there might have been it is impossible to say; but it is hardly to be supposed that all, from all parts of the land, who truly believed on him, were collected to- gether on that particular occasion. If five hundred of the brethren saw him then, no doubt there were in all many more than these in other parts of the country, in those " many towns and villages" where Jesus " went preaching the gospel." Now, these considera- tions are very important; for, not to infer from them more than Ave are justified in doing, they do most certainly prove that, though the word pafarh was used in a loose and general sense, to denote any who pro- fessed their faith in Christ as the Messiah, it was also well known to have a more important sense, as denoting those who were truly converted in heart to Jesus, and were, in the true and best signification of the word, " disciples." We may learn, moreover, the true character of a c 42 THE COMMISSION. disciple, and the sense in which the word, as employed in the commission, should be naturally understood, from the contrast which the false and' treacherous Judas presents to the other eleven apostles. He, like them, was designated both an apostle and a disciple. But we may as well argue that Judas was a true apostle, because he bore the name, and that there was no need for the apostles to be good men, as that he was, in any proper sense of the word, a disciple. We do not form our idea of an apostle from the case of Judas, nor, in any reason, can we decide upon the meaning of the term, disciple, from the fact of the traitor having been called by that name. Judas was no more a true disciple than a true apostle. Precisely on the same principle we argue that, though many went by the name of disciples during the time that Christ was on the earth, and preparing to establish his kingdom, yet they were not such in any proper or legitimate use of the term, and that Jesus himself never recognised them as such. We may learn what our Lord's own idea of a disciple was from his own language (John viii. 31): " Then said Jesus to those Jews who believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed." They might be called disciples if they professed their faith in Jesus; but they were not so truly unless they continued in the faith of Jesus. Again, Jesus says (Luke xiv. 26, 27): " If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and bre- thren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot 43 be my disciple; and whosoever doth not bear Ms cross, and come after me, he cannot be my disciple." Nothing can be more explicit than this. The mere coming to Christ did not constitute a man a disciple, though, in an accommodated and secondary use of the word, he might be called so. Unless a man had prin- ciple enough to sacrifice all for Christ, he was not, in the view of Jesus, a disciple. Then, we must not forget that the baptismal com- mission was given after the death and resurrection of Christ, and that those events had shed new light upon the minds of the disciples relative to the nature of his kingdom, and the true character of his disciples. Then it was that the Mosaic economy ceased; then that mix- ed state of things that had distinguished the interme- diate period between the old and new dispensations was brought to a close; then the spiritual reign of Christ properly commenced. Now the apostles understood clearly the nature of Christ's kingdom. Now those truths which before were cast into the shade stood out in bold relief in the broad daylight of the gospel. Now they knew that Jesus was truly the Son of God, and that nothing but faith in his atoning death could constitute any one a member of his spiritual kingdom. Now, too, all that he had so often taught them con- cerning the character of his disciples — that they must be such as were ready to forsake all for him, and such as would continue in his word — would come with fresh vividness and force to their minds, and they would naturally understand that henceforth none were to be recognised as the disciples of Jesus but such as 44 THE COMMISSION. answered to this character. When, therefore, after his death and resurrection, our Lord gave the com- mand, " Go, disciple all nations," there- is no reason to suppose that they would misapprehend it. They would, doubtless, understand the word " disciple " in the sense in which the Lord had himself explained it; they would understand it as a command to go and convert all the nations. But even if the disciples of Christ did not at first un derstand the command as we have explained it, our argument remains unaffected. We have the Word of God, and must form our own judgment respecting it ; and it may be that we are in better circumstances to form a correct judgment of our Lord's intention than, at the time (supposing they were left to judge for themselves), the apostles were. Taking all things into consideration, there seems to us no reason to doubt, but that we are to understand the verb, ftetfartfoart in the sense which our Lord himself has so distinctly assigned to the noun, paSttrhs. But if it yet be objected, Why should Ave not understand the word in the more general sense, since all, with no discrimination as to character, were called disciples in the time of Christ ? we reply, agreeably to the above reasoning, The analogy of our faith forbids. The word admits of being understood either in a general or a particular sense, though, as we think, we have shown the latter is the proper signi- fication. But, allowing it to bear either meaning, and, with the acquaintance we have with Christianity, we cannot hesitate for a moment between the two. THE COMMISSION. 45 It appears, then, from all these considerations taken together, that though the word, ttafarhs, is sometimes used to signify merely a follower of Jesus, there is but one accredited sense in which it can be understood. We must assuredly understand it in that sense in which, evidently, Jesus himself intended it to be understood. This, then, is our rule, of judgment respecting the meaning of the verb, pa.enTivffu.ri in the commission for preaching the gospel, and baptizing. "We cannot suppose that to make proselytes was all he meant them to do. "We cannot imagine that this was the extent of his command. No. We must interpret the verb according to our Lord's own ex- planation of the noun. We must take the command, " Disciple all the nations," in its best sense, as strictly and properly signifying, make converts (as Dr. Camp- bell, in his translation of the Gospels, renders it), make true, genuine believers. The verb iMthnvu may, in a free and loose manner, be translated, " Teach." But the full import of the word is not arrived at, till the intended result of that teaching is realized — till sinners are brought to Christ, and made his disciples. Consequently, the best way of rendering the word is, disciple, or make disciples, which involves the notion of teaching, and implies something in addition. Make disciples; that is, preach, instruct, exhort, bring sin- ners to repentance, make them true believers. This we take to be the fair, legitimate meaning of this very significant and comprehensive word — a word newly coined, it would seem, to meet a particular exigency, 46 THE COMMISSION. because no existing word could fully express the idea. Understanding the word p.a.fanvTe$, may be subsequent to that of the verb, ,a«&j7wars. If it may, then, taking the verb in our sense of making disciples, rather than in the defective sense of teach- ing, it will follow that the baptizing may be limited to those who are discipled. The bare possibility of this is all that is necessary for our argument. Grammarians, we are aware, teach, that a par- ticiple following a verb, is frequently used in Greek like the gerund in do in Latin, signifying the means or instrument. This we, of course, do not dispute. It is enough for us that this is not always the case — not an invariable rule. The truth is, the sense of a parti- ciple following a verb in Greek, is very indefinite; and in the Greek Testament (and the use of it there is every thing in this case), it very seldom signifies the 48 THE COMMISSION. means. And, though the relation of time is hut im- perfectly expressed by the participle, yet, more fre- quently than not, it will be found that the action of the participle follows that of the verb. That the baptizing in the commission does not necessarily imply the means of making disciples, and may be considered as designed to be performed after the act of making disciples, is abundantly evident from the following passages, in which, as any one may see by turning to them in the Greek Testament, precisely the same construction occurs. Matt. iii. 1 : "In those days came John the baptist, preaching'.' The preaching here, plainly enough, does not imply the means. John did not come by means of preaching. And, though he preached wherever he journeyed, w are not justified in saying that he preached as he literally went along the road. In the order of time, we must understand that his preaching was consequent upon his coming to anyplace. Matt. xvii. 14: " There came a certain man, kneeling'' The man would have looked very odd had he come by means of kneeling. He kneeled when he had come. The action of the participle " kneeling " is subsequent to that of the verb w came." Matt. xxvi. 55: "I sat daily with you, teaching." Christ did not sit by means of teaching, and certainly the teaching did not precede the sitting. Heb. ix. 6 : " The priests went into the temple, accomplishing the service;" that is, they went into the temple in order to accomplish it; and the service which they had to accomplish, ac-» THE COMMISSION. 49 cording to the institutions of Moses, could not be commenced till after they had entered the temple. Passages might be multiplied almost without end, in which similar construction occurs. But these which we have quoted are more than enough for our pur- pose. Sometimes, undoubtedly, the participle is used like the gerund in do in Latin, signifying means. But, from the above examples, it is sufficiently mani- fest that often it is not so used. Nay, it will be found by any who are willing to take the trouble to make an induction of passages for themselves, and to examine into this question of criticism, that there are far more cases in which the participle, following a verb, does not admit of being rendered as the means, than of those in which it must be so rendered. In some of the texts adduced, the participle is clearly used for the infinitive, expressing a purpose. In classical Greek this is done by the future participle, whereas these are all participles present. This, therefore, seems to present us with a peculiarity of the Hellenistic Greek. In every instance that we have adduced, some kind of relation manifestly sub- sists between the participle and the foregoing verb. After all, this kind of construction is manifestly very indefinite; so 'much so, that it seems impossible to establish any uniform principle of interpretation. The only safe and certain rule, therefore, is to adopt that interpretation which is best supported by the parti- cular circumstances of the case, the connexion of the passage, or the analogy of the faith. The conclusion, 50 THE COMMISSION. then, to which we come in regard to the language of the commission is this : That the act of baptizing may be limited to those who are discipled; that as the action of the participle more frequently than not follows that of the verb, the probability is that it does so here ; that the interpretation which makes baptism follow discipleship is the only one that accords with the analogy of the faith ; and, consequently, that that interpretation alone is the right one; that, in plain language, baptism is to be performed only upon those who have been previously discipled to Christ. If the view we have thus been led to adopt be just, if it be grammatically and critically correct, it ren- ders almost superfluous any examination of the words, " sravra THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES. salem. In this sermon lie clearly explained the great elementary principles of the Christian religion, and charged home upon the consciences of his audience the guilt of rejecting and crucifying the Messiah. This sermon produced a most powerful effect upon the minds of the people. "They were pricked" (*aT£vvV»jas£ participle that is used by Luke (chap- ter vii. 29): "And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John." But, in truth, it matters not whether they were baptized by John or by Jesus ; for the case of the twelve re-baptized disciples at Ephesus (to mention nothing more) must ever stand as an irrefragable proof of an important distinction existing between baptism before and baptism after the death of Christ. Thirdly, We cannot forbear to notice, as it now comes immediately before us, that in the very con- nexion in which the passages we have been consider- ing occur, we meet with a very remarkable declaration, tending to confirm the distinction we contend for be- PARTICULAR TEXTS. 159 tween John's baptism and Christian baptism, viz., " Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist; notwith- standing, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." What can this mean, but that the brief dispensation to which John's baptism belonged was only preparatory to one greatly superior — the dispensation of the Spirit — to commence when Jesus should ascend to the Father, as argued in the first chapter of this work? Taking this into account, together with our Lord's frequent declarations con- cerning the spirituality of his kingdom (never realized while he was on earth), and the true cha- racter of his disciples — in view, also, of the case of re-baptism just alluded to — I do not see how we can avoid the full conviction, that the law of Chris- tian baptism must be regarded as stricter — more spirit- ual, than that of the baptism of John, and, conse- quently, though all the multitudes spoken of in the verses we have been investigating were baptized by Jesus himself, that our principles as to the spiritual qualifications requisite for Christian baptism remain unaffected and unin validated. Let us now turn our attention to the well-known, the noted text, occurring in 1 Cor. vii. 14: " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.' On the full examination of this text Dr Halley, does not enter in those of his lectures which are already 160 PARTICULAR TEXTS. before the public; but apprizes us of his intention to do so in a remaining lecture on baptism yet to appear. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to propose an exposition of this text, which has ever held so conspicuous a place in the baptismal controversy. The subject that the apostle treats of in this chapter is that of marriage. On this he discourses very much at large in a long chapter of forty verses. But it is observable that he does not claim inspiration for all that he says upon this subject, but explicitly declares that, in some instances, he gives only his own judg- ment. This is clearly the case in regard to the ques- tion on which he delivers his opinion in the 12th, 13th, and 14th verses of this chapter; which, also, sufficiently accounts for his speaking familiarly of things, concerning which it might be thought beneath the dignity of the Holy Spirit to give any revelation. The case on which Paul here gives his judgment is, whether a believer, married to an unbeliever, ought to separate. He decides in the negative, assigning as a reason, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his wife, and the unbelieving wife to the husband. The preposition " " " appears, here, to be clearly used in the sense of " in respect to," as in 1 Cor. xiv. 1 1 : " Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be !» Ipo, (id^a^o;; a barbarian to (in respect to) me." In Gal. i. 16., we find also a similar use of this preposition, "When it pleased God to reveal his Son h Ipoe, to me, that I might preach him PARTICULAR TEXTS. 161 h to7s ifoitiv, to the heathen." Taking this, therefore, to he the meaning of the preposition, the apostle gives his opinion to this effect : If you are already united to an unbeliever, you must remain so, the marriage law is sacred, and must he preserved inviolate. The unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, and the wife to the husband. He adds, else — if it were not so, if the marriage relationship were not held sacred — your children would be esteemed unclean, whereas they are holy. From the connexion, I think it is evident, that the sanctification spoken of is not to be understood in a moral or religious sense, but that it is simply a marriage sanctification that is intended, and, of course, on the same principle, I interpret the words " unclean " and " holy," as applied to the children. Paedo-baptists have generally argued that the holi- ness of the children here spoken of is to be understood as a relative holiness. But this is a notion that cannot be sustained. If relative holiness were in- tended, I ask, Why should the separation of the parents affect that holiness? United, or ununited, one of the parents would still be a believer ; and why should not the children be relatively holy (if this is meant) on account of the faith of the believing parent, whether separated or otherwise from the other? If this relative holiness depend only upon the faith of one parent — if that is sufficient, as the apostle represents it to be — why should the union of both be necessary to render it valid ? Why should it 162 particular texts. be impaired by separation ? If faith in both the parents were essential to render the offspring holy, then we could understand how the dissolving of the conjugal bond might affect it. But it is not so; for faith on one side is enough. "Will it be said, that, by the separation of man and wife, the children might be left to be brought up by the ungodly parent, and that they could not be esteemed, under such cir- cumstances, as holy ? It is a sufficient reply to this, that the children might fall to the lot of the believing parent, and surely they would then be relatively holy. But, if it should be said that both parents must live together, and their children with them, forming one family, to render the children holy, this will involve the absurdity of arguing, that though the faith of the believing party is that which constitutes the offspring holy, still they cannot be holy without the unholy parent. In every view, this notion of relative holiness seems to break down altogether; nor does it appear at all probable that the apostle had any such a figment in his thoughts. I conclude, then, that the holiness here spoken of is simply a marriage holiness ; that it can mean no- thing else. The husband and wife must not separate; they are sanctified to each other. For a believer to form a union with an unbeliever would indeed be sinful; but if such union is already existing, it must on no account be broken. Christianity cannot in any case (with one exception) annul the law of marriage as a divine institution, an ordinance of God. It does PARTICULAR TEXTS. 163 not bring confusion into the marriage relation, and destroy the natural sanctity of wedlock. But by dis- solving the marriage relation, illegality would be stamped upon it, the past union would be represented as unlawful and, consequently, the children born under such circumstances (that is, since one of the parents be- came a believer) would be considered as born in unlaw- ful wedlock — they would be regarded as illegitimate — they would be unclean instead of holy. I admit such a sense of the word '• holy "to be unusual. But the holiness of the children, as already argued, is to be understood in the same sense as the sanctification of the unbelieving partner, spoken of in the first part of the verse, which cannot be regarded as of a religious na- ture; but, as Albert Barnes well says, " the unbelieving husband was sanctified in regard to the subject under discussion — that is, in regard to the question, whetherit was proper for them" (the husband and wife) " to live together, or whether they should be separated or not?" so are we to regard the children as " holy" in regard to the subject under discussion; and the sum of all is in perfect agreement with the whole scope of the apostle's reasoning — the marriage relation of the parents is legitimate, and the offspring are legiti- mate. Such, then, appears to me to be the meaning of this much- controverted passage of Scripture. But whether the principle upon which we have explained it be right or wrong, one thing, at least, seems plain, namely, that whether the holiness here spoken of be 164 PARTICULAR TEXTS. regarded as a marriage holiness, or as a relative holi- ness, neither of these views favours, in the least degree, the universal and indiscriminate theory which Dr Halley advocates. But as he has not yet given us his view of this passage, possibly he may have some new light to shed upon it; and w T e shall wait with some curiosity for his exposition. Perhaps, after all, he may think with us, that the text has nothing at all to do with the subject of our controversy. There are a few other texts of Scripture besides those we have examined, which bear upon the ques- tion we have been discussing, but which do not seem to us to call for any specific notice. Here, therefore, Ave bring to a conclusion our reasonings upon the question, who are the proper subjects of baptism ; having shown, as we think, in the preceding chapters, that the ordinance is designed, not [for all persons of all ages and all shades of character, universally and without distinction, but only for believers. THE MODE. 1G5 CHAPTER V. THE MODE. Regarding the practice of indiscriminate baptism, whether of adults or infants, as a great prostitution of a Christian ordinance — as on the one hand secur- ing no intelligible good, and on the other, having a tendency to occasion much harm by confounding the distinction between the Church and the world — my principal design in writing upon the question of bap- tism was, to vindicate it from these perversions and evils — to show that it is properly the believer's ordi nance — the ordinance of the Church. But having ventured to launch my little bark upon this stormy controversy, I will not altogether dismiss the subject without saying a few words concerning the mode of administering the ordinance of baptism. The two branches of this much agitated question, viz., the subjects and the mode, are quite distinct from each other, and require to be pursued in an altogether dif- ferent line of argumentation. There is nothing com- mon between them. So entirely unconnected are they with each other, that it has ever appeared to me to be nothing less than a very remarkable phenome- 1 66 THE MODE. non, that those who contend for infant baptism should uniformly advocate sprinkling, or something less than dipping, as the right mode of baptizing ; while those who have maintained the cause of what is technically termed " believers' baptism " have, without exception (as far as I know), contended for immersion or sub- mersion. I do think it a very singular circumstance, that there is no third party, as formerly, to advocate and practise immersing infants'; or a fourth, which I believe there never has been, to adopt the method of sprinkling believers. I have, however, reason to be- lieve that, mingled in the mass of both denominations, there are not a few of the latter class — not a few who feel it impossible to surrender the conviction, that believers alone are the proper subjects of baptism, but who, nevertheless, are not convinced that immersion is absolutely necessary to render baptism valid — who think that any mode is allowable. Now, undoubt- edly, there must be a right and a wrong to every question ; and in this matter we ought to get at the truth if possible, and every one ought to be " fully persuaded in his own mind." But this part of the question, I freely confess, never has assumed that importance in my estimation which seems, in every point of view, to belong to the other. The inquiry into the subjects of baptism involves great questions of truth in theology; this, in itself alone, affects no impor- tant principles of morality or religion. As a positive in- stitution, it, of course, involves the moral principle of obedience to the command of the Redeemer. If Jesus THE MODE. 1 67 has enjoined immersion, and that alone, and if we are not at liberty to deviate from the literality of a positive institute ; then, though there is nothing moral in dip- ping (nor, indeed, in any other mode), it becomes a moral duty, on account of our Lord's command; and though, were I to enter upon any lengthened discus- sion concerning the mode of baptism, I should feel that I was not making a stand for any great principle, yet I would acknowledge, with all seri- ousness and submissiveness of spirit, .the duty of knowing and doing the whole will of Christ. It is this conviction that brings me briefly to turn my at- tention to the question of the mode of baptizing. I will, therefore, without pretending to enter upon a full investigation, state how this question presents itself to my view. I do not purpose to attempt a dissection of Dr Halley's lecture on the mode of baptism, but shall just touch upon some of its principal arguments. That the w T ord Ba^T^ uniformly signifies to dip, I will not venture to assert, or undertake to prove. I believe, however, that it is pretty generally admitted, on both sides, that the word does mean to dip — that this is its generic meaning, and its most usual meaning. Dr Halley, if I understand him aright, admits as much as this. But it appears quite evident that the word also bears the sense of covering by superfusion. This is admitted by Dr Cox, who says, as quoted by Dr Hal- ley, " a person may indeed be immersed by pouring ■, but immersion is the being plunged into water, or overwhelmed by it. TTere the water to ascend from 168 THE MODE. the earth, it would still be baptism, were the person wholly covered by it." The examples adduced by Dr Halley seem also incontrovertibly to establish this meaning. I shall not enter upon any minute inves- tigation of the instances which Dr Halley has adduced, as I wish to cut short this part of the discussion. And it is the less necessary to do so, as I could add nothing to what has been done in the way of proving, that over- whelming or superfusion is a sense of the word Ba.«.** lZ,u>, is that in which he reasons upon the language of the apostle Paul, in Heb. ix. 9-14. If his exposition of these verses is right, then (to borrow his words), " our case is clean gone." If sprinkling be proved in one instance to be a meaning of baptism, it is as good as a hundred. I must, here, to do justice to Dr Halley's argument, give his words entire, though the quotation will be rather long. He says: " I think the divers baptisms of the Jews, mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, include, if they do not exclusively denote, the purifications by sprinkling performed in th Jewish temple. I solicit attention to the context. The apostle had described 174 THE MODE. the material sanctuary of the first covenant, ' which,' he says, ' was a figure for the time being, in which were offered oblations and sacrifices, which could not perfect the worshipper, as to his conscience; enjoined until the time of reformation, in respect only to meats and drinks, and differs baptisms, ordinances of the jlesh. But Christ being come, a high priest of future good, through a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us, entered once for all into the most holy place. For if the blood of calves and goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, purify so far as the cleansing of the flesh; by how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God, purify your con- science from dead works, for the service of the living God V My conviction is, on reading the whole paragraph, that the divers baptisms included the sprinkling of the blood of calves and goats upon the altar, and the sprinkling of the unclean with the water of separation, in which were mingled the ashes of the heifer. Those baptisms were ordinances of the flesh; and these sprinklings were for the cleans- ing of the flesh. Those baptisms could not purify the conscience. The blood of Christ, of which the blood sprinkled upon the altar, and the ashes sprinkled upon the unclean, were figures for the time being, does purify the conscience."* * The Sacraments, pp. 383, 384. THE MODE. J i 5 Now, it will be observed that Dr Halley gives his own translation of the verses above quoted; and to question the accuracy of any part of it may, perhaps, appear presumptuous. Yet, as it is universally ad- mitted that the structure of some of the sentences is peculiar, and that there is some difficulty in proposing any perfectly satisfactory rendering, we feel the less hesitation in questioning whether Dr Halley's transla- tion of the 9 th and 10th verses is the best that can be given ; and in venturing to propose instead of it, a somewhat different rendering, Dr Halley represents the oblations and sacrifices as having been enjoined in respect only to meats, and drinks, and baptisms. To this, I confess, I can attach no definite idea. I do not know what it means. It may be gramma- tical, but I cannot think it brings out the true mean- ing of the inspired writer. Stuart renders " Qand all the] ordinances pertaining to the flesh had respect only to meats," &c, supplying the words, " and all the," for which I can see no sufficient reason. Dr Halley (verse 10) adopts the reading hxauvpeun, taking this noun in apposition with fi^pdn, trip***, and /3«sr- Tiffuts, and so making the ordinances of the flesh to be explanatory of the meats, drinks, and bap- tisms, and to apply to them alone. Stuart adopts hxawpara (the authority for either word is about equal); but though we do not, in this verse, follow his translation, we give the preference to the reading (inteuu[AaTtt) t which he sanctions. So far as the use of the preposition st< is concerned, our authority is 176 THE MODE." Dr BloomfielcL* We Avould translate as follows : " Wliich (sanctuary) was a figure for the time being, in which were offered oblations and sacrifices, which could not make him who performed the service per- fect in respect to his conscience, being only ordinances of the flesh,t together with meats, drinks, and divers ablutions, enjoined until the time of reformation." This we believe to be correct in point of grammar, and we also believe that it expresses the true senti- ment of the inspired writer. These two verses are those only which affect our reasoning, as will be seen directly. We shall make use of Dr Halley's transla- tion of the remaining verses so far as reference to them may be required. Now, on analyzing this whole paragraph, com- mencing with the 9th verse, and ending at the 14th, bearing in mind the altered rendering we have suggested in the 9th and 10th verses, it ap- pears to me that what is said in the first part (verses 9, 10,) finds its parallel in what immediately follows (verses 11,12), and that then, in a concluding sentence * Vide Bloomfield, Gr. Test., in loco. f It may possibly be objected that oblations and sacrifices are not ordinances of the flesh ; but we think it is very plainly im- plied that they are to be regarded in that light, in the 13th verse, where the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices, mingled with the ashes of the victim, is said to " purify so far as the cleansing of the flesh." This does not imply that they had not a more important design and signification; but it does fully jus- tify their being designated carnal ordinances (literally, righteous- nesses of the flesh), as well as the meats, drinks, and baptisms. THE MODK. 177 (verses 13, 14), this parallel is taken up again. Let us explain our meaning. All those Jewish rites that are first enumerated, and designated ordinances of the flesh — not only the meats and drinks and baptisms, as Dr Halley re- presents, but also the oblations and sacrifices — find their proper parallel in the one offering of Christ. The contrast is between oblations and sacrifices, together with meats, drinks, and bap- tisms, ordinances of the flesh, and the blood of Christ, which has obtained eternal redemption for us. Then, in the following verses, as I said, the parallel is taken up again, but in a more specific form, as it re- gards the first part of it. The meats, drinks, and baptisms are now left out of the consideration; and the contrast is noticed as exhibited, more especially between the sacrifices of the Mosaic ritual, and the great sacrifice of the Redeemer of mankind. Sprink- ling is mentioned in this second parallel, not as a thing separate from the sacrifice, but rather as a part of the sacrificial rite, as properly belonging to it, as involved in the very offering of sacrifices; and very justly so, for never was an oblation or a sacrifice offered without the accompanying ceremony of sprink- ling the blood of the animal offered, and its ashes mixed with water upon the unclean. So, then, the contrast here is simply between the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood (including the sprinkling) and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; and there is no allusion, as I see, in the latter, that is the sprinkling, to the 178 THE MODE. baptisms before spoken of — no reason to suppose that those baptisms are expounded by the sprinklings — that the latter are exegetical of the former. Dr Halley says: " The apostle had made no refer- ence whatever in the first part of the parallel (verses 9, 10) to the sprinkling, if it were not included in the bap- tisms." We reply, agreeably to the above exposition, it was included in the sacrifices. He says, " It was not a gift, nor a sacrifice." We repeat, Though not a sa- crifice, it was involved in the sacrifice. Subsequently, the Doctor speaks of the apostle (on supposition of the baptisms not being identical with sprinkling) as " excluding the sprinklings from his enumeration, and immediately, as though he had mentioned them, making them the strength of his argument." We reply, He does not exclude the sprinklings, for they were so well known to accompany the oblations and sacrifices, that they needed no specific notice; that is, they needed not to be mentioned by name. In taking up the parallel the second time, they are specified, showing that, besides the contrast between the blood of bulls and the blood of Christ, there is also the ad- ditional point of contrast between the cleansings of the flesh by these sprinklings, and the purifying of the conscience by the application of the blood of Christ through the Eternal Spirit. We, think, then, that Dr Halley's exposition of these verses, founded upon a doubtful translation, is fairly questionable; that the explanation we have given has, at least, equal claims to be received with his; and, therefore, that no conclu- THE MODE. 1 79 sive argument can be deduced from this portion of Scripture in favour of explaining baptism by sprinkling. I have expressed my conviction that the word, £*•*- *■'£« may denote superfusion as well as immersion; but this appears to be the widest latitude Ave are allowed to give it. Whether the former mode was ever em- ployed in apostolic times, it is, we believe, impossible to determine. But from the admitted signification of the word, viz., to dip, together with the frequent cus- tom of resorting to rivers and streams of water for the purpose of baptizing — going down into the water, and coming up again out of it — whatever may be the exact meaning of the Greek prepositions employed — there can be no doubt, one would suppose, but that immersion was the customary mode of baptizing in those times. The only remaining question of any importance, is that which Dr Halley has discussed in the first part of his lecture on the mode of baptism, viz., whether, conceding that the word 9>ccxt'iZ,w means to dip, and even admitting that it means to dip only, we are not still at liberty to deviate from the strict letter of the baptismal commission, considered as a positive insti- tution. This narrows the whole question within a very small space. All philological investigation, in fact, becomes superfluous if it can once be shown that positive institutions are not binding, verbatim et Literatim. The whole stress of the controversy, therefore, rests upon this single point. Into this let us inquire honestly and impartially. Dr Halley instances, in proof of his own view of 180 THIS MODE. the case, that positive laws are not binding as to the Idler, first, the positive command given to the Israe- lites in reference to the injunctions laid upon them by Jehovah : " And thou shalt bind them for a sign up- on thy hand, and they shall be as' frontlets between thine eyes; and thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and upon thy gates." In regard to this, we submit that it is not a case in point. It was a command certainly; but it was very different from a positive institution; nor do we imagine that it was ever intended to be obeyed literally. It was a bold, figurative way of enjoining upon the people the duty of keeping the commands of God con- tinually in mind, and nothing more. Next, Dr Halley refers to " the kiss of charity." But here, again, we can see nothing analogous to a religious institution or ordinance. It was simply a command to the Christians of those times to manifest their affec- tion, their holy love towards each other, in accord- ance with their usual mode of salutation; and ^ye ful- fil the spirit of it (all that in such a case is required) by exchanging " the holy kiss" for the right hand of Christian fellowship. Neither do we regard the Lord's Prayer as a positive institution. It was a mere passing circumstance that led to its being uttered and taught to the discipks. One of them said, " Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples." And he said unto them, " When ye pray, say Our Father," &c. But, if this be a positive institution, it then becomes a question, as in the case of baptism, whether we do right THE MODE. 181 to omit it in our prayers — whether we ought not uniformly to make use of this comprehensive form. The nest instance we have to notice is found in the phrase v ^taxov h7*vov — the Lord's supper. Dr Halley argues that, if we think ourselves at liberty to over- look the plain letter of the law in this case, and con- sider ourselves to fulfil our Lord's command fully and sufficiently, whatever time of the day we meet to- gether to break bread in commemoration of him, then, by parity of reasoning, we fulfil his command in re- ference to baptism, simply by the use of water, irre- spective of mode. Now this, we admit, is a case in point ; because, in the ordinance of the Lord's supper, we have the example, not merely of a common com- mand, but of a positive institution, equally important with that of baptism. Yet here, be it observed, that the designation which Paul has given to the ordi- nance is not found in the terms of the institution itself, and therefore, whether we make it an Si^o-roy or a h7*vov^ we in no way deviate from the original insti- tution, or from the words of our adorable Redeemer. The question, whether, under any circumstances, it can be allowable to change the elements, is more to the purpose. That " a man of stern temperance prin- ciples, who conscientiously believes, after careful and devout examination, that it is his duty to abstain from wine at the supper," perfectly fulfils the intention of the ordinance by substituting water for wine, is, I think, not quite self-evident. The firmest adherent to the principles of total abstinence would not, I be- 182 THE MODE. lieve, refuse to drink unfermentecl wine in the cele- bration of the Lord's supper; and it cannot, I pre- sume, be proved that that was not the kind of wine used in the first institution of the ordinance. I, how- ever, can cheerfully subscribe to the first part, and answer affirmatively to the last, of the following quo- tation from Professor Stuart, given by Dr Halley, in a note at p. 315: "The whole symbolic instruction conveyed by the ordinance of the Lord's supper is this: what food and drink, represented by the more impor- tant articles of the same, are to the body for its nourishment and support, and comfort ; that a cruci- fied Saviour is to the soul, for its life, and preservation, and comfort. Could not the inhabitants of a coun- try, then, to whom it might not be possible to procure bread and wine, when it was proper to celebrate the Lord's supper, employ other elements which would symbolize the death of Christ, and the benefits of that death to the believer with like significancy?" I certainly can do no other than answer this question in the affirmative. What, then ! must we at length give in ? Must we at last surrender, and honourably lay down our arms, and cast ourselves upon the gene- rosity of our conquerors ? I confess I do not see that the controversy is yet brought to this issue. I could almost, in my heart, wish it were. But the reply to the case put by Stuart, so far as Dr Halley reasons from it to baptism, is obvious, viz., that the change of the elements under the circumstances supposed, would arise from inevitable necessity, which cannot, of THE MODE. 183 course, be pleaded for changing the mode of baptism from immersion to sprinkling or pouring. Therefore, we do not see that this case, or that of the stern tee- totaller, can justify any deviation from the strict letter of the law respecting baptism. There is yet one other case to which we must ad- vert, viz., the law of the Sabbath. " As a Jewish ordinance," says Dr Halley, "the enactment of the Sabbath was peculiarly strict and severe, so far as la- bour was concerned." " Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt do no manner of work? And yet, he argues, when the disciples, going through the corn-fields on the Sabbath-day, plucked the ears of corn, and rubbed them in their hands be- cause they were hungry, which was undoubtedly a violation of the letter of the law, our Lord defended their act as a justifiable breach of the positive law of the Sabbath. " But," says Dr Halley, " what was the principle of the defence ? Undoubtedly that, provided the benevolent and religious objects of the Sabbath were secured, the letter of the enactment was not worth the inconvenience of a brief cessation from food." All this we readily allow, so far as it is explicatory of the law of the Christian Sabbath, in respect to which a relaxation from the strictness of the Mosaic law of the Sabbath was permitted and introduced by the authority of Christ as " Lord of the Sabbath-day." The case of David eating the shew-bread, was clearly one of necessity — a sufficient reason, we consider, for 184 THE MODE. disregarding the letter of the positive law; for thus far we readily allow that a positive institution is not binding to the extent of a moral law. Hunger might justify the breach of the former, though of course not of the latter. Jesus reminds the Pharisees that there were cases, even under the Mosaic dispensation, in which positive law might be set aside, viz., cases of necessity ; but without signifiying that there was any actual necessity for what his disciples did (for the circumstances of the case do not imply that they were driven to this act by absolute starvation), he asserts that it is his prerogative to relax the law of the Sabbath still further, and on that ground he vin- dicates their act of plucking the ears of corn. He was greater than the temple, and could alter all its services, and all its laws, if so he pleased: he was " Lord of the Sabbath," and was fully authorized, therefore, to prescribe in what way it should be kept. Under the Jewish dispensation, it would have been a sin to have eaten the shew- bread, had it not been a case of urgent necessity; and so, for the priests to have profaned the temple by slaying the animals for sacrifice would have been a sin, but for necessity ; but to have plucked ears of corn, and rubbed them in the hand, without absolute necessity, would, according to the law of the Jewish Sabbath, have been a sin admitting of no excuse. Jesus, however, was intro- ducing another dispensation. He asserts his autho- rity over the Sabbath, and we perfectly agree with Dr Halley in his appropriate language, that " the law of THE MODE. 185 the Sabbath is now obligatory in the generosity of its spirit, rather than in the severity of its letter; but we are not yet brought to see that " this is the true con- struction of every positive institution." It were strange to argue, because our Lord has taught us that the Christian Sabbath is to be kept on a different prin- ciple from the Jewish, that, therefore, we are at liberty to change his own positive laws and insti- tutions. We can by no means see the way clear to this conclusion. But what shall we say concerning those works of mercy, which are also pleaded as exceptions to the literal observance of the law of the Sabbath ? It was allowable, notwithstanding the rigour of the law of the Jewish Sabbath, to pull an ox or an ass out of a pit on the Sabbath-day ; and I must admit that the moral of our Lord's appeal, " Doth he take care of oxen, or saith he not this for our sakesl" is, that w r orks of mercy were to be done on the Sabbath-day, rather than adhere to the strict letter of the law, which, in some cases, might take away the liberty even of doing good. Our Lord, we must candidly allow, does teach, that a work of mercy may supersede the rigo- rous precision of a positive law. I cannot but admit that the proverbial form of expression, " I will have mercy and not sacrifice," leads us to this principle. But then comes the question, How is this principle to be applied ? How far are we to carry it out ? By what rule are we to judge, in particular cases, 186 THE MODE. whether the letter of a positive law is to be obeyed, or whether it is to be overruled by mercy ? Here is the gist of the whole matter. Taking too much licence, it is impossible to say to what lengths we might be led. The plea of mercy, for instance, as it respects this very law of the Sabbath, might prove far ,too conve- nient for lazy and lukewarm professors. What end- less reasons might be assigned, on the score of mercy, for neglecting the public duties of the day! Even good men might, on this principle, practise much self- deception, justifying a frequent misappropriation, even to a great extent, of the hallowed Sabbath hours. Who, then, is to decide what are the claims of mercy, or when they are so urgent as to rise in importance above the plain letter of the positive institution ? The latter, surely, ought to be guarded, and certainly its claims ought not to be set aside for light reasons. If something is due to mercy, something is also due to law. As for deciding upon the respective claims of each, it would require a special illumination (which we do not profess to have) to do it, and, therefore, we can only regard this matter as ope, concerning which it is the duty of every one to form a conscientious judgment for himself. As it regards the law of bap • tism, Ave take the command of Christ to be explicit, viz., that baptism is to be performed by immersion, or, at least, by complete superfusion ; but, supposing this to be universally acknowledged, it is not for us to say that those who practise pouring or sprinkling, THE MODE. 187 on the principle that Christ requires mercy and not sacrifice, are not justified, in their own conscience, in thus far deviating from the plain letter of the law. This is a question upon which we have no sufficient data to argue — on which we have no authority to de- cide; and which, therefore, we leave amongst other cases of conscience, and say " Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind." There is one other argument of Dr H alley's which we must just glance at before we conclude. He says, that the institution of the Sabbath was antecedent to Moses, being enjoined by the fathers ; that the law which requires us to keep the seventh day has never been repealed ; and that, nevertheless, we keep, instead of that, the first day of the week, for which we have no commandment anywhere in the New Testament. He thinks we do right in observing the first day of the week, after the example of the apostles and dis- ciples, though not having any law for so doing, and though the seventh day, as a positive institution, has never been repealed. Agreeing with the Doctor in this opinion, we yet do not see how it helps his cause, as it respects baptism. For though, in this case, we set aside the original law of the Sabbath as instituted from the creation, the fact of our having the example of the apostles as our authority for this, which cannot be pleaded for any change in the mode of baptism, makes all the difference between the two cases. Surely there is no argument in saying, because apostolic 188 THE MODE. authority changed the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first, therefore, we may make any other change, at our discretion, in any other positive institution. This argument clearly proves too much, and therefore is of no value. Let it be proved that the apostles baptized by sprinkling, though the terms of the insti- tution enjoin immersion, and we admit a valid case is made out. We would, in such a case, follow their example without hesitation, though, in doing that, we might, like them, violate and act contrary to the plain letter of the law. But are we, after all, right in speaking of the original Sabbath as a positive institution ? Where are the terms of its institution to be found ? We read, indeed, that after the works of creation were completed, God rested on the seventh day, and that he blessed that day and hallowed it. But he did not say to Adam, Thou shalt keep this seventh day as a Sabbath, and this only, and it shall be so kept for ever ; and, therefore, though the early Christians kept the first day instead of the seventh, they broke no positive law in doing so. We admit that the consecration of the seventh day was virtually enjoined from the creation; but as no formal command was given to keep holy that day, of course there was nothing that needed to be formally repealed. But the practice of the apos- tles and first disciples was a virtual abrogation of the seventh- day Sabbath, and a virtual substitution of the first in the place of it. This is all the authority THE MODE. 189 that the nature of the case required for the change which originated, and which we consider as obliga- tory upon us as if enjoined by express positive precept. But it is quite impossible to argue from this to bap- tism, and it certainly cannot be appealed to for estab- lishing, as a general principle, that a positive institu- tion may be superseded and set aside altogether, and that something else, as we may deem fit or desirable, may be put into its place. To what lengths such a licentious principle might lead, it is impossible to predict. I have now noticed the chief of Dr Halley's argu- ments on the mode of baptism, and I think I have done so with perfect impartiality. In bringing the whole of our discussion to an end, it is my fervent hope, and my earnest prayer^ that the agitation of these questions may have the effect of teaching us all to exercise a candid and charitable spirit towards each other, and may tend to draw all nearer together by the bonds of fraternal and divine love. That we all shall be brought to a coincidence of opinion upon the subject of baptism, is too much to expect. It promises, as long as the world stands, to be an open question. We confess to entertaining strong opinions about it ourselves. We think the tendency of Paxlo- baptism is to irreligion and infidelity, and, did not the better principles of many of its advocates supply a powerful counteractive, the consequences would, we believe, ere now, have been of a very serious na- 1 90 THE MODE. ture. It is a matter of congratulation and thankful- ness, however, that, while differing in respect to an external rite, the generality of Baptists and Pasdo- baptists hold in common the great essential truths and principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that, therefore, we are essentially one. Let nothing sepa- rate us from each other. Let there be no strife be- tween us ; or let us only strive to outdo each other in Christian activity and usefulness. Let there be no envy or jealousy; but rather, in the generous and magnanimous spirit of our religion, let us rejoice in each other's prosperity, honour each other's motives, and co-operate with each other in all good works, as being all interested in a common cause — having one Lord and one faith, if not one baptism. But how strange that we cannot fairly complete the quotation — that, through our misunderstandings, this third particular, which could be affirmed concerning Christians in the time of the apostles, as well as the other two, cannot be uttered in application to them now ! However, this point, in which we are not all one, is just that which is least important. It is a non-essential; whereas the others, in which, happily, we agree, are essentials. Let our minor differences, then, be forgotten, and our denominational peculiari- ties be absorbed in that common Christianity where all inferior distinctions are lost sight of, and faith and love, as the prominent features of the Christian cha- racter, present themselves to the view in all their THE MODE. 191 glory, and beauty, and perfection. " For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ;" and we will add, in full view of the preceding verse, respecting all who have truly put on Christ — " There is neither Paedo- baptist nor Anti- psedo -baptist, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus " THE END.