m 
 
// ^ 
 
 ^^,«^^3, 
 
 wiMrg. 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 I 
 
 Part of the ^ 
 J ADDISON ALEXA.NDER LIBRAEY, "> 
 which wiig presented by 
 Messks. B. L. and a. Stuart. 
 
 BV 811 .L3 63 — 
 
 Lape, Thomas. 
 
 Manual of Christian bapti 
 
 sm 
 
 '^ :>■-—> 
 
A 
 
 MANUAL 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM: 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 MODE; 
 
 IN TWO DISCOURSES, 
 
 BY THE ,, 
 
 Rev. THOMAS lAPE, A. W.' 
 
 SECOND EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED. 
 
 Baltfmort: 
 
 PRINTED AT-THE PUBLICATION ROOMS 
 
 *0F THE EVAVGKLICAL LUTHER AN. CHURCH, 
 
 NO. 7, SOUTH LIBERTY STREET. 
 
 1813. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress of the United 
 States, in the year 1843, by Thomas Lape, A. M., m 
 the Clerk'-s Office of the District Court of Maryland. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The former edition was written in the midst of many in- 
 terruptions, and the result naturally was, the occurrence of 
 some inaccuracies. The present edition has heen corrected 
 and considerably enlarged. It has been the oliject of the 
 writer to present the Interesting subjects, which are discuss- 
 ed, in a clear, intelligible, but above all, scriptural manner. 
 The woik has been written with no unkind feelings to- 
 wards his Baptist brethren, from whose principles, he dis- 
 sents. He hopes and prays that the day is not far distant 
 when the unhappy division that now exists on the subjects 
 and mode of baptism may not only cease, but that chris- 
 tians ^ every denomination may live together in Peace, 
 Union and Fellowship. 
 
RECOMiMENDATIONS. 
 
 1. From the Rev. George A. Lintner, D. D., late Pre- 
 sident of the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran 
 church in the United States. 
 
 "I was much pleased with your treatise on baptism and 
 I have no doubt that in the minds of many of our people 
 it will be instrumental in removing the difficulties and cor- 
 recting the misrepresentations that have existed on this 
 subject. It is brief and comprehensive, and presents the 
 whole controversy in so simple a form, and clear a light, 
 that all who read, can understand it. I am pleased to hear 
 that you are about publishing another edition, and hope that 
 the work may be extensively circulated through our church." 
 
 2. I take pleasure in stating that I entirely concur in the 
 sentiments respecting the Rev. Mr. Lape's Treatise on Bap- 
 tism, expressed by the Rev. Dr. Lintner. B. KURTZ. 
 
 3. At a recent meeting of the Synod of Hartwick, held 
 in Johnstown, Fulton county, New York, the following is 
 the result of tlie comniillce appointed to examine 6iaid*vvork: 
 
 " Tiie committee appointed to examine the work, Manual 
 of Baptism, would respectfully report that the work has 
 bee« prepared with cure and is considered well adapted to 
 establish the minds of our people on the interesting subjects 
 of Infant Baptism and the Mode. The rapid sale of the for- 
 mer edition, together with tlie additional matter introduced 
 and the approbation of several eminent divines of ditferent 
 denominations, strongly recommend the work to the chris- 
 tian public. The committee are liappy to learn that the 
 author is about issuing a second edition, and we trust tiiat 
 it will be widely circulated through the bounds of our 
 church." JACOB Z. SENDERLL\G, 
 
 DAVID EYSTER, 
 a2 LEVI STERNBERG. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM, 
 
 Matthew xxvni. 19. 
 
 " Go ye therefore and teach (make Disciples of j all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 By virtue of the authority of Christ, his dis- 
 ciples were invested with a high commission. 
 They were directed to go and make disciples 
 of all nations. The whole world was placed 
 in a salvable state. Baptism was ordained to 
 be the medium of the introduction into the 
 visible church of Christ, and every individual, 
 who has an opportunity of receiving it, is in 
 duty bound to become baptized. But an ob- 
 jector says that believers only are to be bap- 
 tized. To which I reply, that the text is not 
 limited to such only^ but it declares " make 
 disciples of all nations.'''' A question arises 
 here of what is a nation composed .? It is 
 composed of men, women and children. Chil- 
 dren then are to be baptized. The objector 
 says, but children are not expressly mentioned. 
 I reply, neither are men and women expressly 
 mentioned. Must I then refuse to baptize 
 children because I find no express command in 
 so many words that children are to be bap- 
 tized ? Then according to correct reasoning 
 I must not baptize men, because men are not 
 expressly mentioned — then I must not baptize 
 a3 
 
6 
 
 loomcn^ because women are not expressly men- 
 tioned. Now to follow out this express rule, 
 then noiw are to be baptized. Eut this is con- 
 trary to the text, viz. — " make disciples of all 
 nations^ baptizing," &c. Therefore I am au- 
 thorized to baptize all who compose a nation, 
 men, women and children. Infant baptism then 
 is commanded in the scriptures. 
 
 In tlie further elucidation of this subject, let 
 me call your attention to the following consid- 
 erations. 
 
 I. The Church of God is virtually and 
 
 ESSENTIALLY ONE AND THE SAME UNDER BOTH 
 
 Dispensations. The common definition of the 
 Church of God is, the collective body of the 
 people of God ; though divided into different 
 branches and worshipping- God according to 
 different external rules, yet all constitute but 
 one society. Now in the church of God, of 
 both dispensations, we find the same great es- 
 sential identity. Both dispensations have the 
 same divine Flead, both have the same precious 
 covenant, both have the same spiritual object 
 in view, both have the same atoning blood ; 
 the same sanctifying spirit, and both have the 
 same great promise of heaven and eternal hap- 
 piness. 
 
 To place this subject beyond any reasonable 
 doubt, the Saviour himself declares in Matthew 
 5th chap. 17th verse, "Think not that I am 
 come to destroy the law, or the prophets ; I am 
 not come to destroy but to fidjilP The Sa- 
 viour undoubtedly meant to convey the idea 
 
that he had not come to destroy the law of God 
 or even to lessen its requirements, but to carry 
 out its great object and design more complete- 
 ly, more perfectly, and as far as it had respect 
 to the church of God, which was only in its 
 infant and imperfect state, he would render it 
 too 7)iore complete^ more perfect. The apostle 
 Paul also, speaking of the future restoration of 
 the Jews, says in Romans, 11th chap. 23rd and 
 24th verses, '' they also, if they abide not still 
 in unbelief, shall be grafted in : for God is able 
 to graft them in again. For if thou (Gentile) 
 wert cut out of the olive tree, that is wild by 
 nature (heathenism,) and wert grafted contrary 
 to nature, into a good olive tree (tlie Jewish 
 church ;) how much more shall these (Jews,) 
 who are the natural branches, be grafted into 
 their own olive tree (church ?") The good 
 olive tree here must mean the church of God ; 
 the natural branches the Jews, who, in conse- 
 quence of unbelief were cut off; the wild olive 
 tree means the Gentiles, who ^vere grafted 
 into the good olive tree, — the church of God. 
 Now the apostle teaches, that the Jews, in the 
 fulness of time, shall again he grafted into the 
 good olive iree^ — the church of God, The 
 natural consequence then is, that the church of 
 God that existed under the Old Testament Dis- 
 pensation must still be standing, or in other 
 words, the church of God under both Dispen- 
 sations is virtually and essentially one and the 
 same, 
 
 a4 
 
8 
 
 But an objector says, '* this is not so." To 
 which I reply, what ! if the church of God is 
 represented by the figure of a good olive tree, 
 and the Gentiles, the wild olive tree is grafted 
 into the good olive tree, how could those 
 branches of the wild olive tree live if the good 
 olive tree, into which they are grafted, be 
 dead ? They, to exist at all, must draw their 
 nourishment from the good olive tree, and if 
 that were dead, they too must die. But if that 
 lives and imparts nourishment, the grafts placed 
 therein, wiH live also. So then, since the 
 church of God is still standing, out of which, 
 the Jews in consequence of unbelief, were 
 cast for a season, and the Gentiles admitted: 
 but when the restoration of tlie Jews shall take 
 place, tlicy, viz. ihe Jews shall be grafted in 
 again. Now how can they be grafted in again 
 if the good olive tree, into which they are to 
 be grafted again he dead? Surely if the church 
 of God under both dispensations is not virtual- 
 ly and essentially one and the same, the apos- 
 tle Paul w^ould do violence to language to say, 
 speaking of the Jews, that they shall be 
 ^^ grafted again into their own olive tree^'^^ or 
 in other words, be received again into the 
 church of God from which they had been ex- 
 cluded. 
 
 As a confirmation that the church of God 
 under both dispensations is the same, we have 
 the authority of Christ himself. When he 
 was upon earth, he chose twelve apostles. 
 They were members of the church under the 
 
9 
 
 old dispensation. They attended the worship 
 and the ordinances under that dispensation. 
 The very niglit previous to his being betrayed 
 they partook of the passo\'er, administered to 
 them by his own hands, which was one of the 
 sacraments of that dispensation, and at which 
 time this ordinance was changed, and called 
 the Lord's Supper. Those very men after his 
 ascension to heaven, were his agents in extend- 
 ing his kingdom upon earth. They preached 
 on the day of Pentecost, and admitted 3000 to 
 his church. Now I ask the question, lucre they 
 cut off from the church under the Old Dispensa- 
 tion and initiated into the J\^ew Dispensation ? 
 No." They belonged to the same identical 
 church as when tliey became believers in 
 Christ and ate the Passover Supper with him. 
 Is not this a confirmation without the possibil- 
 ity of doubt, that the church of God under 
 both dispensations is virtually and essentially 
 one and the same ? 
 
 II, I DESIRE TO GALL YOUR ATTENTION TO 
 THE MEMBERSHIP OF INFANTS IN THE CHURCH 
 
 OF God under both Dispensations, ct. In- 
 fants were members of the church of God un- 
 der the former dispensation. This truth is 
 contained in several passa.!?;es in the Bible. We 
 read in Genesis the 3rd chapter, that the cove- 
 nant, which God made with Adam, before he 
 was banished out of Paradise, included infants. 
 The covenant, which God made with Noah 
 after the flood, included infants. The cove- 
 nant, which God made with Abraham is equally 
 
 a5 
 
10 
 
 comprehensive. In Gen. 17th chap, we have 
 this covenant stated in this emphatic lang-uage, 
 " I will establish my covenant between me and 
 thee, and thy seed after thee in their genera- 
 tions, for an everlasting covenant : to be a God 
 unto thee and thy seed after thee." Again, 
 God says, " this is my covenant, which ye 
 shall keep between 'me and you, and thy seed 
 after thee: Every man child among you shall 
 be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the 
 flesh of your foreskin : and it shall be a token 
 of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he 
 that is eight days old shall be circumcised 
 among you : every man child in your genera- 
 tion : he that is born in the house or bought 
 with money of any stranger, which is not of 
 thy seed. He that is born in tliy house, and 
 lie, that is bought with money must needs be 
 circumcised and my covenant shall be in your 
 flesh for an everlasting covenant.'"^ 
 
 Again, in Deuteronomy 29th chapter, the 
 same covenant was promulgated anew by Mo- 
 ses as the covenant made with Abraham: and 
 represented as the basis of that visible {)eople 
 of God, which should profess his name in all 
 future generations : " ye stand this day nil of 
 you before the Lord your God : your captains 
 of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, 
 with all the men of Israel, your little ones^ 
 your wives, and the stranger that is in thy 
 camp from the hewer of thy wood unto the 
 drawer of thy water : that thou shouldst enter 
 into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into 
 
11 
 
 his oath, which the Lord thy God niaketh with 
 thee this day : that he may establish thee to 
 day for a people unto himself, and that he may 
 be unto thee a God, as he hatli said unto thee, 
 and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers, to 
 Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Neither 
 with you only do I make this covenant and this 
 oath : but with him tliat standeth here with us, 
 this day, before the Lord our God, and also 
 with him that is not here with us this day." 
 From these passages, " it is evident, says Dr. 
 Dwight, that the covenant made with Abraham 
 was made first with himself: secondly, with 
 his household generally : thiidly, with his ser- 
 -vants by name, whether they were born in his 
 house or bought with money : fourthly, with 
 his infant children^ after^vards limited particu- 
 larly to the descendants of Jacob : fifthly, to 
 these descendants as a people : sixthly, to their 
 little ones, or infants in every generation : 
 seventhly, to the strangers who dwell in their 
 nation. To all these, God covenanted that he 
 would be their God, and that they should be 
 his people." 
 
 In accordance with this divine covenant, we 
 have the strongest declarations in the Sacred 
 Scriptures that children had for nearly 2000 
 years before Christ, been invariably received 
 into the church of God. Not only were the 
 children of Jewish parents thus admitted into 
 the church of God, but the children of those 
 parents when they became proselytes to the 
 Jewish religion, were, likewise, admitted to 
 
 a6 
 
12 
 
 the church. And although various alterations 
 had been made in the outward ceremonies of 
 religion, yet nothing had been done to change 
 the nature of the everlasting covenant, which 
 God had made with Abraham. When our 
 Saviour was born into this world, we read that 
 he was taken into the temple of the Lord to 
 do for him after the custom of the Law, and 
 while there, good old vSimeon took him into 
 his arms, blessed God and said, " Lord, now 
 lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, ac- 
 cording to tliy word, foi' mine eyes have seen 
 thy salvation." If children had been excluded 
 from the church of God, we would not have 
 had this beautiful illustration of infant dedica- 
 tion. If children had been excluded from the 
 church of God, we would not have had that 
 tender language of our Saviour, " suffer little 
 children to come unto me for of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven.''* If children had been 
 excluded from the church of God, the Saviour 
 would not have uttered the general and unlim- 
 ited command contained in the text. " Go ye 
 and make disciples of all nations ^'''^ S^-c. 
 
 In addition to the above considerations, we 
 are informed in history, that baptism had been 
 introduced among the Jews, in connection with 
 circumcision as an initiatory rite, and was thus 
 applied to iiifants. Sometime before Christ 
 there was a rigid sect among the Jews, called 
 
 *If Christ considered children proper subjects for the 
 kingdom of lieaven, tlien certainly they are proper subjects 
 for an admissioi^ into his cliurch upon earth. 
 
13 
 
 the Essenes, who had been in the habit of re- 
 ceiving proselytes by baptism^ both adults and 
 children. Maimonides, the great expounder of 
 the Jewish law declares, that " baptism was 
 in the wilderness before the giving of the law." 
 Again he says, " that was a common axiom, 
 no man is a proselyte until he be circumcised 
 and baptized.^'' Says Rabbi Hona, " children 
 are baptized by direction of the consistory." 
 Says that eminent historian and divine. Dr. 
 Miller, of Princeton : " We liave the most 
 abundant proof that the Jewish Rabbins unani- 
 mously declare that, the baptism of proselytes 
 had been practised by the Jews in all ages, 
 even from Moses down to the time when they 
 wrote." A host of other men, the most learn- 
 ed and candid make the same acknowledgment. 
 EpictituS;, a heathen philosopher, who lived at 
 the time of the apostles, has the following lan- 
 guage in confirmation that baptism was cus- 
 tomary among the Jews; " And when Ave see 
 any oae wavering we are wont to say, this is 
 not a Jew, but acis one. But when he assumes 
 the sentiments of one, who has been baptized 
 and circumcised^ then he both really is, and is 
 called a Jew." The Rev. Mr. Booth, a dis- 
 tinguished Baptist writer, admits that " ^/le 
 children of proselytes were baptized along with 
 thmr parents^ Says the learned and pious Dr. 
 Wall, " there never was an age, at least since 
 Abraham, in which the children, whether of 
 Jews or proselytes, that were admitted into 
 covenant, had not some badge or sign of such 
 
14 
 
 their admission. The male children of Abra- 
 ham's race were entered by circumcision. The 
 whole body of the Jews, men, women and 
 children were in Moses' time baptized. After 
 which the male children of proselytes, that 
 were admitted by circumcision, baptism and a 
 sacrifice, the female children by a baptism and 
 a sacrifice." In a word, we have the most 
 conclusive evidence that children together with 
 adults were baptized before the coming of 
 Christ. And as a further confirmation of this 
 custom, the Jews expected that when the 
 Messiah came, he would baptize : else how 
 can we account wliy the question was put by 
 the Jews to John the Baptist as recorded by 
 John, 1st chapter, 25t]i verse, " why haptizest 
 thou then if thou be not that Christ?'' 
 
 In accordance with the above considerations, 
 the language of the text could not have been 
 understood to mean that infants would be ex- 
 cluded from baptism and from the church of 
 God. No. But on the contrary, since children 
 were included in the covenant, which God had 
 made with Abraham, and which too was an 
 everlasting covenant, and since children had 
 been regularly admitted to the church of God 
 during the period of nearly two thousand 
 years ; we are authorized to come to the con- 
 clusion that, if God intended to have excluded 
 infants from the covenant of promise and from 
 his church, he would ha e giveyi a command to 
 that effect in language as explicit as their intra- 
 duction into his church had been explicit. But 
 
15 
 
 on the contrary, we find, that instead of such 
 an exclusion from his church, Christ, our Sa- 
 viour uttered the language of the text, " Go 
 ye and make disciples of all nations^ baptizing 
 them^'''' 8{c. in other words, baptize all who 
 make up a nation, men, women, and children. 
 
 b. From this part of the subject, w^e pass on 
 to the consideration of the New Testament 
 history, in which ice find the principle of family 
 baptism as clearly stated as in the Old Testa- 
 ment. And here let it be remembered that all 
 the apostles were native Jews. They had of 
 course, been accustomed to the practice of 
 famjly baptism and infant membership to the 
 church of God on the faith of the parents. 
 They had never seen or even heard of a sect 
 that attempted to exclude children from the 
 church of God, but on the contrary, they had 
 always seen children, both male and female, 
 universally admitted to membership in the 
 church with their parents, on the faith of the 
 parents. When the apostles therefore speak 
 of family baptism, they consequently must be 
 understood to mean, that children were baptiz- 
 ed with their parents. In the Acts of the 
 Apostles, 16th chapter, 15th verse, we have 
 described the family of Lydia, and in the 33rd, 
 the family of the jailor at Philippi. In Corin- 
 thians, chapter 1st, 16th verse, the family of 
 Stephanus. 
 
 What adds weight to the fact that children 
 were included in those household baptisms is 
 the declaration, which Peter made on the day 
 
16 
 
 of Pentecost, Acts 2nd chapter, 39th verse, 
 " jPor the promise is to you and to your chil- 
 dren?^ The language of the apostle here is 
 virtually the same as that used in the everlast- 
 ing covenant made hy God to Abraham, 17th 
 chapter, 7th verse, "7o he a God to thee^ and 
 unto thy seed after thee?'' Now all must ac- 
 knowledge that the word seed means children^ 
 and that children means seed. And as it is evi- 
 dent that parents and infants were intended by 
 the one, it must be equally evident that parents 
 and infants are intended by the other. Again, 
 remember that the above declaration '''-for the 
 promise is to you and to your children.^^'^ was 
 made hy Peter to the Jews, at a time when 
 thousands of them had been assembled togeth- 
 er at Jerusalem to celebrate one of their great 
 feas(s. I say this declaration was made to the 
 Jews, who had always seen children admitted 
 to the church, and consequently since Peter, 
 who had been a Jew himself, and he too ad- 
 dressing Jews, must have meant the promise 
 which God had made to Abraham that " he 
 would be a God to him and his seed after hini 
 in their generations for an everlasting cove- 
 nant.'^'' As if he had said " this promise is not 
 annulled under the new^ dispensation, but it is 
 extended to you and to your children. You 
 can participate in it, you and your children as 
 well as under the former dispensation, and he- 
 come saved, through the promised Messiah." 
 Thus then, we have seen that the church of 
 God under t*ie old and the new dispensation 
 
17 
 
 is virtually and essentially one and the same. 
 And we have seen too that infant-membership 
 is a constituent part of both dispensations. 
 
 III. From this part of the subject we pass 
 on to consider the initiation of infants 
 INTO THE CHURCH OF GoD. During the Old 
 Testament dispensation, circumcision teas tlie 
 initiatory rite. We are told in Genesis, 17th 
 chap. 10th verse. " This is my covenant, says 
 God, which ye shall keep, between me and 
 you and thy seed after thee ; every man-child 
 among you shall be circumcised^ Here you 
 perceive that circumcision is the initiatory rite 
 into the church of God. It is both a sign and 
 a seal ; a sign of the relation which Abraham 
 sustained to God and a seal, a public confirma- 
 tion to the fact that, God had formerly approv- 
 ed of him and that he should be the father, the 
 illustrious example of the faithful both of tlie 
 Jews and the Gentiles throughout the world. 
 That circumcision is the sign and seal of the 
 covenant, which God made with Abraham, vre 
 have this express declaration of the apostle 
 Paul in Romans, 4th chapter, 11th verse, "he 
 (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a 
 seal of the righteousness of the faith which he 
 had yet being uncircumcised." Here then we 
 have a sign, and a seal of the rigfiteousness of 
 faith. This is the very subject, that the apos- 
 tle Paul is urging as the ground, by which the 
 sinner is justified and has peace with God 
 throufich our Lord Jesus Christ: of which .lus- 
 tification the apostle cites Abraham as an lUus- 
 
IS 
 
 trious example? Thus you perceive that 
 Abraham received circumcision as the seal. 
 But the question arises, ivhat is the import of the 
 seal? It is the renewal of the heart and of the 
 spirit. This was the true circumision of which 
 the outward circumcision was given as the 
 sign. The apostle Paul says in Ramans, 2nd 
 chap. 29th verse, " circumcision is that of the 
 heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." 
 That, is the real import of the outward sign 
 circumcision. 
 
 J\hiv baptism is the seal and sign of the same 
 thing. The apostle m Acts, 22nd chap. 16th 
 verse says, '' arise and be baptized and wash 
 away thy sins." Let it be remembered that 
 baptism does not literally wash away sins. 
 No, but it is truly the sign or seal of tlie wash- 
 ing away of sins, and of acceptance with God 
 in justification through the righteousness of 
 faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The real wash- 
 ing away of sin is effected only by the blood 
 of Christ, of wiiich baptism is only the seal, 
 in the same manner that circumcision under the 
 old dispensation was the seal of the rii^hteous- 
 ness of faith : and the blood of Christ^is shad- 
 owed forth by tiie application of water in bap- 
 tism. A question arises here, ^chat is the im- 
 port of this seal effected by baptism? It is the 
 cleansing of the heart from the pollutions of 
 sin by the Holy Spirit, which is called in 
 scripture, the baptism of the spirit, or as it is 
 termed by the apostle, " the washing of regen- 
 eration and tlib renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 
19 
 
 Here then you evidently perceive, that as cir- 
 cumcision under the old dispensation was the 
 sign and seal of our acceptance with God, so 
 baptism, under the new, is in like manner the 
 sign and seal of our acceptance with God. 
 Both effect precisely the same thing. 
 
 Again, tlie apostle does not stop here, but he 
 declares that baptism is the sign of the circum- 
 cision of the hearty or in other words, it is 
 christian circumcision. He says in Collossians 
 2nd cliapter, 11th and 12th verses, "in whom 
 (Christ) ye are circumcised with the circum- 
 cision made without hands, in putting off the 
 body of the sins of the tlesh : by the circum- 
 cision of Christ, buried with him in baptism." 
 What is a circumcision made without hands ? 
 It is the regeneration of tlie heart as declared 
 by God himself in Deuteronomy, 30th chapter, 
 6th verse. " The Lord thy God will circum- 
 cise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to 
 love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and 
 with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.'' 
 Again, what is this circumcision of Christ? It 
 cannot mean his circumcision in the flesh, when 
 eight days old. Neither can it be the circum- 
 cision of the heart, for this is expressed above 
 as the circumcision made without hands, but it 
 is our being " buried with him in baptism." 
 Thus it is evident that christian circumcision 
 is New Testament baptism. And baptism is 
 christian circumcision. Hence baptism takes 
 the place of circumcision. In a word, baptism 
 answers the same thino; as circumcision. It is 
 
20 
 
 the seal of the same everlasting covenant. It 
 is ordained for the same church. It answers 
 precisely the same object, viz. — the cleansing 
 of the heart by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 As an evidence of which we have the exam- 
 ple of Christy the Great Head of the church him- 
 self When he commissioned his apostles to 
 go and make disciples, &c., they belonged to 
 the church under the old dispensation, they 
 had not received christian baptism by the use 
 of water, in any mode, but had only been cir- 
 cumcised, and in virtue of their circumcision 
 and faith in Christ, they by Christ were made 
 the pillars of the church under the new dis- 
 pensation. Now if circumcision was not a 
 spiiitual ordinance and an initiation into the 
 church of God, why were they not baptized 
 before celebrating the christian passover with 
 Christ and receiving the great commission in 
 the text, to be the means of extending his 
 kingdom throughout the world ? 
 
 The question arises, why then were they, 
 who had been circumcised, not acknowledged 
 members of the church, at the day of Pente- 
 cost? Why icere they baptized? I answer, 
 because that circumcision, had been abolished 
 and baptism instituted ; and because tliey had 
 not believed in Christ, until after the introduc- 
 tion of the new dispensation by the apostles, 
 they therefore were required to be initialed 
 into that dispensation by the ordinance of bap- 
 tism — the ji^iiliatory rite. 
 
21 
 
 a. But notwithstanding' this scriptural repre- 
 sentation of the substitution of baptism instead 
 of circumcision, yet an objection is raised, 
 " This is not 50, baptism is a spiritual ordi- 
 nance^ hut circumcision is not?'' I admit that 
 in the covenant of God with Abraham, there 
 w^ere national blessings stated, but at the same 
 time, we have the positive declarations of God 
 himself that spiritual blessings of the highest 
 degree were therein contained. God coven- 
 anted with Abraham in the following explicit 
 language, " to be a God uyito4hee and thy seed 
 after thee?'' And again in a ratification of this 
 same covenant in Deut. 29th chapter, Moses 
 expressly declares, '■'•That he (God) may estab- 
 lish thee to day for a people unto himself and 
 that he may be unto thee a God?'' Declarations 
 thus solemnly made by God himself cannot be 
 understood in any other light than meaning 
 spiritual blessings. If they do not mean spiri- 
 tual blessings, what else can they mean ? Do 
 we read in any part of the Bible, that God 
 ever promised, any people, that he would be 
 their God in a political point of view } No. 
 There is no instance to be found. But we 
 have many declarations, that he in a spiritual 
 point of view, is a God to protect and de- 
 fend, ^to bless and to save his people. Look 
 for example in Rev. 21st chapter, 7th verse, 
 where he says, " He that overcometli shall in- 
 herit all things and / uill be his God and he 
 shall be my son." Evidently here the highest 
 spiritual blessing is implied, 'In a similar point 
 
22 
 
 of view, the declarations, in the covenant, 
 whach God made vvith Abraham must be un- 
 derstood to imply spiritual blessings and that 
 too of the highest degree. 
 
 Again, if baptism has not come in the place 
 of circumcision, then a highly spiritual blessing 
 has been annulled. Under the Old Testament 
 dispensation there were two sacraments, Cir- 
 cumcision and the Passover. The Lord's Sup- 
 per has taken the place of the passover, and 
 il baptism does not take the place of circum- 
 cision, then the^hurch of God, under the new 
 dispensation, has been deprived of a sacrament, 
 which has been declared by the apostle Paul 
 to be of peculiar advantage. The question 
 was asked, what advantage then hath the Jew, 
 or what profit is there of circumcision } The 
 apostle in Rom. Srd chapter, 1st verse replies, 
 " much every way, chiefly because that unto them 
 were committed the oracles of God,'' that is, trie 
 scripture of the Old Testament, especially the 
 law of Moses and those types, promises and 
 prophecies wliich relate to Chi-ist and the gos- 
 pel. ^ Now if baptism does not take the place 
 of circumcision, then that sacrament, which 
 God had ordained for the introduction of in- 
 fants into the church of God, has been lost. 
 Does then no sacrament, ordained to be the 
 seal of the everlasting covenant to infants, suc- 
 ceed It.? Is then the New Testament church, 
 in all her fulness— perfection and unlimited ex- 
 tension, less gracious to infants than the old, 
 which embraced them and which had a sacra- 
 
23 
 
 ment ordained, for their admission and partici- 
 pation in all her spiritual blessings ? No ! who 
 can for a moment, indulge the thought? must 
 we not hence conclude that baptism by the 
 authority of our Lord himself, has taken the 
 place of circumcision; that these baptized, 
 have the same spiritual blessings in the New 
 Testament church, as those, that were circum- 
 cised under the old dispensation, enjoyed ? 
 
 b. Another objection raised, is, but circum- 
 cision was applied to males only? Admit it, 
 but females nevertheless participated, under 
 the Old Testament dispensation, in all the 
 spiritual blessings of the everlasti7ig covenant. 
 They not only were included, but were virtu- 
 ally circumcised in the males. Paul says in 
 1 Cor. 1 1th chap. 3rd verse, that the " head of 
 the woman is the man." What, therefore, was 
 done to the head was done to the body, or in 
 other words, what was done to the man, was 
 virtually done to the woman. At the com- 
 mencement of the new dispensation, an initia- 
 tory rite was established for admission into the 
 church, which could be applied to both sexes. 
 It was baptism. In view of which the apostle 
 Paul in Gal. 3rd chap. 28th verse, says " There 
 is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond 
 nor free, thei*e is neither male nor female^ 
 Thus you perceive that the distinction which 
 once existed between male and female is not 
 only abolished, but the distinction likewise be- 
 tween Jew and Greek, bond and free. The 
 blessings of Christianity are now extended to 
 
24 
 
 all without regard to nation and condition, to 
 young and to old, whether male or female. Or 
 as the commission of Christ is in the text 
 " Go and make disciples of all nations^ kctptiz- 
 
 c. Another objection raised against infant 
 baptism is, but Christ declares, " He that he- 
 lieveth and is baptized shall be savedP How 
 then can children be proper subjects for baptism^ 
 seeing that they cannot believe ? To which I 
 reply, let us read the whole of that passage. 
 It is recorded in Mark, chap. 16th, verse 16th. 
 " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
 saved, but he that believeth not shall be damn- 
 ed." Thus then you perceive that by taking 
 the latter part of the sentence in connection 
 with the former, if believing is necessary in a 
 subject for baptism, then believing is equally 
 necessary for salvation, and the legitimate con- 
 clusion is that, because children cannot believe, 
 therefore children cannot be saved. Or to 
 place this kind of reasoning in the form of a 
 syllogism. The objector's argument stands as 
 follows : 
 
 Faith is required in order to baptism. 
 
 But infants cannot exercise faith. 
 
 Therefore, infants cannot be baptized. 
 
 We will follow out this same kind of reason- 
 ing, based on the latter part of the verse : 
 
 Faith is required in order to salvation. 
 
 But infants cannot exercise faith. 
 
 Therefore, infants cannot be saved. 
 
25 
 
 Thus then the objection not only excludes 
 infants from the church of God, but consigns 
 them to everlasting woe and destruction. Aw- 
 ful conclusion ! ! What christian parent's heart 
 does not recoil at the very idea ? 
 
 If this passage of scripture is produced to 
 oppose infant baptism, then it militates against 
 the text. ••' Go ami make disciples of all na- 
 tions^ hapizing^^'' Sfc. where infants are evi- 
 dently included. No, brethren, not only has 
 this passage of scripture no reference to in- 
 fants, but likewise all similar passages which 
 require spiritual acts to a proper reception of 
 the ordinance of baptism : such as, ^' Repent 
 and be baptized — Believe and be baptized," 
 &c. All sue! I exhortations are addressed only 
 to adults. And when we are called upon to 
 instruct adult persons, who have never been 
 baptized, we always address them in the above 
 scriptural language. They have no reference 
 whatever to infants. As such they are under- 
 stood, generally, by the most learned and pious 
 men. 
 
 Again, we are often told that faitJi sliould 
 pjecede baptism as in the above passage ; 
 "'/ie that helievcih and is baptized." True be- 
 lievins; is here put before baptism, but then let 
 it not be forgotten that the reverse too is the 
 case. Clirist says in John, 3rd chapter, 5th 
 verse, " Except a man be born oi^ loater and 
 of the spirit," &c. John says in Matthew, 3rd 
 chapter, lltli verse, "I indeed baptize with 
 water — he, viz., Christ shall baptize you with 
 
26 
 
 the Holy Ghost." Here baptism is placed be- 
 fore regeneration — the very thing which it im- 
 parts. The objectors arguments based upon 
 the order of language is therefore not only 
 against him, but it is more in favour of putting 
 baptism before believing tlian after it. 
 
 d. Another objection raised against infant 
 baptism, is '■^ what benefit can it be to baptize 
 unco7iscious babes ?'' I would answer this 
 question by asking another. What benefit was 
 it to those children, Mark 1 0th chapter, 16th 
 verse, wdiich our Saviour, when upon earth, 
 took into his arms and blessed ? Could they 
 understand the import of that blessi7ig? They 
 could certainly understand the ordinance of 
 baptism as well as they could the blessing of 
 Christ pronounced upon them ? Let it here be 
 remarked that laying on of hands was an an- 
 cient and a venerable custom. The apostle 
 Paul in Heb. 6th cha|). 2nd verse, ranks it with 
 baptisms, the resurrection of the dead and 
 eternal judgment. What that peculiar bless- 
 ing consisted in, which our Saviour pronounced 
 upon those unconscious children, we are not 
 informed, but it must have been no ordinary 
 blessing. And what is baptism, but a dedica- 
 tion to God so that his blessing should rest 
 upon them .'' Intimately connected with this 
 subject, is their capability of complying with 
 the obligations of their baptism. Brethren, 
 baptism imposes no new obligation, which we 
 are not previously bound to obey. It is only 
 an acknowled^-ment of that oblisration. or in 
 
27 
 
 other words, it is the answer of a good con- 
 science towards God and man. And children 
 under the new dispensation, are under no great- 
 er obligations to obey the laws of God now^ 
 than children were under the former dispensa- 
 tion. Paul says expressly, " I testify unto 
 every man, that is circumcised, is a debtor to 
 the whole law." Why I ask are not children 
 now as capable of the baptismal obligations to 
 the laws of Christ as the circumcised children 
 of the Jews were of being debtors to the laws 
 of Moses? Certainly just as capable. 
 
 Again, another answer to the above objec- 
 tion is, because it is GocVs commands. The 
 point at issue is not between the objector and 
 myself, but between himself and the God of 
 heaven. He has, in the most explicit manner, 
 declared that every male child of the Jewish 
 people should be circumcised on tlie eighth day 
 for an everlasting cove^iant. And since that 
 everlasting covenant has not been annulled, but 
 is still in force, although the rite for admission 
 into the church has only been changed, and is 
 extended to both sexes, it is therefore the 
 duty — the bounden duty of every christian par- 
 ent to have his children solemnly dedicated to 
 God by baptism. He has no more right to 
 withhold his children from this ordinance, than 
 a Jewish parent had his son from being circum- 
 cised. What did the wise man mean when he 
 said, " Train up a child in the way that he 
 should go," &c., but that it directly implied, a 
 dedication of him to God .'* What did the apos- 
 
ts 
 
 lie Paul in Eph. 6th chapter, 4th verse, mean 
 when he said " and ye fathers, provoke not 
 your children to wrath : but bring tJicm up in 
 the nurture and admonition of the Lord," but 
 that it directly implied a dedicaiion to God? 
 
 But a question arises here, " if then the one 
 of the pareyits be a cJiristian and the other not^ 
 ought their children to be baptized ?"" To whicli 
 I answer, that a similar question was put to the 
 apostle Paul, as recorded in 1 Cor. 7th chap. 
 14th verse. The following- is his answer, " the 
 unbelieving husband is sanctified by tlie wife: 
 and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
 liusband, else ^vere your childien unclean, bid 
 VvOiv are they holy^ But how are they hohfi 
 In being- separated from the rest of tlie world 
 and dedicated to God. Holiness, in scripture, 
 is used in a two-fold sense. In one sense, it 
 means purity of heart and life; in the other, 
 separated from common use and dedicated to 
 God. And as persons, ])laces, &c. must be 
 dedicated to God, in order to their bein^- ac- 
 coimted holy^ so children must be dedicated to 
 God, in order that they may be tJius rendered 
 holy. 
 
 But an objection is raised, '' if children are 
 thus accounted holy by virtue of the faitli of 
 one of the parents, why then n-ill not the ^mhe- 
 licving iiarent be accoimled equally holy ?" To 
 which I reply, if the apostle had so understood 
 it, he would evidently have declared it, but 
 since he has not said so, we are not to infer 
 tliat the unbelieving parent is thus accounted 
 
29 
 
 holy. His reasonin;^ has reference only to 
 children^ who are accounted holy alone hy vir- 
 tue of the faith of one of their parents. 
 
 Another question arises here, " if children 
 are members of the church of Christ, in view of 
 their baptism^ ivhy then are they prevented from 
 coming to the table of the Lord V To which 
 1 reply, in the old dispensation, children were 
 memhers of the churcli of God, but they how- 
 ever were not pernnitted to partake of the 
 Passover until they had arrived at a proper age, 
 so as to understand its object and design — as- 
 sume the obligations required and the engage- 
 nients of the everlasting covenant. So, under 
 the new dispensation, baptized children, al- 
 thiOugh they are members of the church of 
 Christ, but yet are not permitted to participate 
 in its spiritual privileges, until tliey too arrive 
 at a proper age — have the proper instruction — 
 can examine their own hearts and are able to 
 discern the Lord's body, then and not till then 
 are they received into full communion in the 
 church and are entitled to all the spiritual pri= 
 vileges of said church. 
 
 Again, another question arises, ^' was not the 
 Lord's Supper administered in former ages to 
 children ?''l I admit it, but those who did thus 
 administer it to them had no scriptural warrant 
 for so doing. In like manner, we are inform- 
 ed that those who were immersed, in former 
 ages, were thus immersed entirely naked^ 
 whether they w^ere men, women or children. It 
 the one was improper so was the other. If the 
 
one was unwarranted by the sacred scriptures 
 so was the other. We will therefore place 
 both in the same scale and say that the people 
 in those days had superstitious notions in rela- 
 tion to the ordinances of God. 
 
 e. Another objection is urged, '' that there is 
 no instance on record in the JYew Testament of 
 infant baptism^ To which I reply, that in all 
 the examples of household baptisms in the 
 New Testament, there is no mention made that 
 there were any adults. The objector cannot 
 deny tiiat Lydia and Stephanus, Cornelius and 
 the jailor were the only believing members of 
 their respective families. It is said expressly 
 of Lydia, that the Lord opened the heart of 
 Lydia. Not a word is said that any of her 
 household had either repented or had exercised 
 faith besides herself But yet we are told that 
 ber household was baptized. Here tben it is 
 manifest, that whether her family consisted of 
 adults or children, they were baptized on the 
 faith of the parent or heads of the household. 
 Now if the objector denies that there were 
 any children in these household baptisms, then 
 he must admit that those adults were baptized 
 williout manifesting either repentance or faith; 
 which principle is directly opposed to his "be- 
 liever's baptism." He no doubt would sooner 
 acknowledge that they were children. This 
 is tlie only rational conclusion to which we can 
 arrive. These housebolds therefore consisted 
 of children, who were thus baptized on the 
 faith of the^parents alone. 
 
31 
 
 Again, as a confirmation of tbe above con- 
 elusion, we are informed that there is a Syriac 
 version of the Bible, whose date is assigned to 
 the first century, which has the word " house- 
 hohV translated '' children.'^'' " Lydia was bap- 
 tized and her children^ '' The jailor and ids 
 children^'''' &.c. 
 
 The above examples are the offering up of 
 tlieir respective families to tlie Lord. They 
 are just such accounts as would now be given 
 of a household or family that were baptized on 
 the faith of their parents. 
 
 But there is a striking example of infant 
 baptism recorded in the New Testament 
 uhich cannot be successfully contradicted. In 
 1 Cor. 10th chapter, we are told " that all our 
 fathers were under the cloud and all passed 
 through the sea : and were all baptized unto 
 Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Now if 
 the baptism of the fathers was valid, then that 
 of the childi-en who accompanied them W'as 
 equally valid with that of the fathers. Who 
 will deny this.? 
 
 As an evidence that there were children who 
 actually accompanied their parents through the 
 Red Sea, we have the fact stated, preceding 
 that eventful period in Ex. 12th chapter, 37th 
 verse, " And the children of Israel journeyed 
 from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred 
 thousand on foot that were men, besides chil- 
 dreny Subsequently, an allusion to them is 
 made in Deut. 1st chap. 39th verse, in the fol- 
 lowing language, " Moreover your little ones^ 
 
3t 
 
 which ye said sliould be a prey, ond yozir chil- 
 dren which in that day had no knowledge 6e- 
 tween good and evil^ they shall go in thither, 
 and unto them will I give it, and they shall 
 possess it." With the exception of Caleb and 
 Joshua all the (then) fathers, who left Egypt, 
 died in the wilderness, but their children had 
 grown up^ — they become fathers — tliey togeth- 
 er with Caleb and Joshua took possession of 
 the land of Canaan — they constituted the prin- 
 cipal part of the Israelitish community and of 
 the church of God from that time.* Nay, in 
 the language of Moses, Deut. 5th chapter, 3rd 
 verse, " The Lord made not this covenant with 
 our leathers, but with us, even us who are all of 
 us here alive this day." Here then we see 
 that those who were little ones and children, 
 who in that day had no knowledge between good 
 and evil^ constituted a part of the fathers spok- 
 en of by the apostle -in the above chapter. 
 They, in their infancy were baptized nnto Mo- 
 ses and in the cloudy and thus their baptism pre" 
 sents us with a striking example of infant bap- 
 tism in the JYew Testament, 
 
 But again^ in connection with God's provi- 
 dential dealings with the Israelites in conse- 
 qnence of their sins, the apostle, in the above 
 chapter ad(!s another idea, which is contained 
 in the 6th verse, but particularly in the 11th 
 verse, in the following language : " Now "all 
 these things happened unto them for ensaraples 
 
 *Exodn3 lOlh rliapfrr, 9, 10, 11 and 24t]i verses. Num. 
 14th chap. £8— 31 verses. 
 
33 
 
 i. e. types, patterns. And since infant baptism 
 constituted one of these things alluded to by 
 tlie apostle as a type or pattern of the New 
 Dispensation, therefore we have here a strik- 
 ing example of infant baptism recorded in the 
 New Testament, and such a one that we may 
 safely and lawfully follow. " Moreover, breth- 
 ren, says the apostle, I would not that ye should 
 be ignorant how that our fathers were baptized^'''' 
 &c., as if his object was to impress upon their 
 minds, that they had been dedicated to God by 
 their baptism^ and were thus placed under pe- 
 culiar obligations to serve the Lord, their God. 
 /. Another objection gravely urged against 
 infant baptism is, " that children ought not to be 
 baplized^ because Jesus Christ himself was not 
 baptized before he was thirty years of ageV 
 This objection implies too much. If we are 
 striatly to follow out the example of Christ, 
 then no one can be baptized, however pious 
 and devoted, until he too has arrived to the age 
 of thirty. To this, the objector would not 
 v/iilingly consent, yet it is in strict accordance 
 with his own prrnciples of reasoning. 
 
 Again, let it be remarked that the baptism by 
 John was not a christian baptism. To con- 
 vince you on this subject, I will refer you to 
 the mode of christian baptism in the next dis- 
 course. 
 
 But the question returns, " why then was Je- 
 sus Christ baptized by John?^'' I answer, he 
 represented the High Priest, and was to be the 
 liigli Priest over the house of God. His bap- 
 
34 
 
 tism was his introduction into that sacred of- 
 fice. " The. Mosaic law required every priest 
 Avhen thirty years of age (Num. 43rd chapter, 
 23rd, 30th and 35th verses,) to he consecrated 
 to their sacred work by being* sprinkled and 
 washed with water (Lev. 8th chap. 6th verse,) 
 as a symbol of the anointing of the Holy 
 Ghost, they were also anointed with oil. Now 
 mark the coincidence. When Jesus carne to 
 John, he was about thirty years old (Luke 3rd 
 chap. 21st and 23rd verses,) and was just about 
 entering upon his office as Priest: after bap- 
 tism he was anointed by the decent of the 
 Holy Ghost."* We read in Luke, 4th chap., 
 that he went into the synagogue on the Sab- 
 bath day and read the following to show his 
 fulfilment in himself; " The Spirit of the Lord 
 is upon me, because he has anointed me (ech- 
 rise. " This term, says the learned Dr. BIf)om- 
 field, signifies not so much being anointed^ as 
 iiKatgurated^ introduced into an office,) to 
 preach the gospel to the poor," &c. Here 
 then you see that immediately after his intro- 
 duction into the High Priest's office, he enter- 
 ed publicly upon the discharge of the duties 
 of tiiat office. And here you see too that his 
 baptism was his introduction into that office : 
 for the apostle Paul says in Heb. 5th chapter, 
 5th verse, that Christ did not glorify himself 
 to be made rt High Priest: but he that said 
 unto him, " Thou art my Son, to day have I 
 begotten thee." This passage of scripture de- 
 
 *Rcv. Messrs Cooke ani! Towiie, 
 
flares explicitly that God made Christ a 
 High Priest^ when he uttered the wordi^. 
 " Th(m art my Son,'''* &c. Now this was the 
 same language that God used, (Luke 3id chap. 
 22nd verse,) at his baptism. 
 
 Again, to comply with the former dispensa- 
 tion, Christ had been circumcised, and now 
 when about to introduce the new dispensation, 
 it was necessary for him to observe the rite in 
 his own person, w^hich w^as established as the 
 initiation into this new dispensation. Hence 
 he was baptized by John who was the last 
 prophet under the law and w^ho too w'as de- 
 clared to be the forerunner of Christ. And 
 although he was thus baptized by John, yet 
 christian baptism was not established until 
 three years afterwards, viz. not until Christ 
 himself gave the apostles the commission con- 
 tained in the text, " Go ye," &c. 
 
 g. Another objection urged with great con- 
 fidence is, " where is the express command in 
 the Bible that infants shall he baptized 'P To 
 which I reply, where is the express command 
 that children shall not be baptized ? We have 
 already shown that infants have, during a space 
 of nearly two thousand years before Ciirist, 
 been admitted members of the church of God, 
 by an express command of God himself and 
 that too, in accordance with his covenant which 
 is everlasting, and before they can be excluded 
 from ihe church notv, whose blessings and 
 privileges are in every respect more extensive, 
 lliere certainly must be an express command 
 
36 
 
 to tliat effect. We have a right to ask this 
 question of the opposers of infant baptism. In 
 what chapter and verse, in ihe New Testa- 
 ment, is that prohibition to be found .? What ! 
 exclude infants from the clmrch of God, to 
 which they have an unalienable right guaran- 
 teed them by the great Head of the church ; 
 Avhich right has been confirmed by Him, in the 
 com.mission, which he gave his apostles, as 
 contained in the words of the text. " Go ye 
 and make disciples of all 7iations baptizing ^''^ 
 
 Again, if the objection against infant bap- 
 tism is still urged, because we, in the New 
 Testament, have no express command in so 
 many words to baptize them, and therefore 
 they ought not to be baptized : then by parity 
 of reasoning, the objector, to be consistent 
 wit!) himself, ought not allow females to come 
 to the table of the Lord, because there is not, 
 in so many words, an express command to that 
 effect — then he ought likewise to reject the 
 christian Sabbath for the same reason. If you 
 ask the objector wliy be admits females to the 
 communion, he will not pretend to act in ac- 
 cordance with an express command in tliat 
 respect, but he will proceed to prove their 
 right by inference that they have immortal 
 souls — that they can exercise faith, &c., and 
 therefore they ought to commune. Here you 
 perceive the objector excludes infants from the 
 oixlinancG of baptism, because he does not iu 
 so many words find an express command iu 
 
37 
 
 the New Testament to that effect, but notwith- 
 standing this, he will admit females to the 
 communion without such an express com- 
 mand ! ! Is this manner of reasoning correct 
 and conclusive ? Is it honest and sincere ? 
 No, brethren, no. We have the authority and 
 the sanction of Christ himself in favor of in- 
 fant baptism, and therefore let us esteem it a 
 privilege that we and our children can be unit- 
 ed to the same church and participate in the 
 same covenanted blessings. Let us consecrate 
 them to our God and adopt the language of the 
 christian poet : 
 
 " We bring them, Lord, with thankful hearts, 
 
 And yield them up to thee ; 
 Joyful that we ourselves are thine, 
 
 Thine may our offspring be." 
 
 From this part of the subject we pass on to 
 consider in tlie third place, the historical ac- 
 counts of infant baptism. Some of the oppo- 
 nents of infant baptism have gravely declared 
 that it is of recent origin. Others declare that 
 it is the origin of popery. Others again say 
 that it commenced in the second century. 
 Passing by these conflicting representations, 
 by the opponents of infant baptism respecting 
 the time of its commencement, we have, after 
 leaving the scriptural accounts, the most abun- 
 dant and conclusive evidence in history of its 
 continuation from the time of the apostles. 
 Dr. Miller, of Princeton, who is decidedly one 
 of the most candid and learned historians of 
 
38 
 
 o«r country, speaks in the following energetic 
 language on this subject. " I can assure you, 
 my friends, with the utmost candor and con- 
 fidence, after much careful inquiry on the sub- 
 ject, that for more than fifteen hundred years 
 after the birth of Christ, there was not a single 
 society of professing christians on earth, wlio 
 0|) posed infant baptism on any thing like the 
 grounds wdiich distinguish our modern baptist 
 brethren." Similar declarations have been 
 made by a host of other men ; men learned, 
 candid and pious ; men who have no other ob- 
 ject in view but the truth, on this interesting 
 subject, have given us their most decided tes- 
 timony in the belief of the practice of infant 
 baptism, not only during the apostolic age, but 
 its continuance from that time to the present. 
 
 Let it be remarked, that the apostles, Paul 
 and Peter lived till about the year sixty-six in 
 ihe first century, and that the apostle John 
 lived till about the year 101. 
 
 rt. Justin Martyr, who is spoken of in the 
 highest terms for truth, was born about the 
 year 100. He says in his writings, " There 
 are many among us of both sexes, some sixty 
 and some seventy years old, who were made 
 disciples of Christ from their childhood." 
 This is an explicit testimony of the baptism of 
 infants, even before the death of the apostle 
 John. 
 
 b. Irenaeus, a very pious and discreet man, 
 wrote about fifty or sixty years after the apos- 
 tolic age, says, " Christ came to save all per- 
 
39 
 
 sons who by him are born again (baptized) unto 
 God, infants and little ones and children.'''' 
 This declaration of Irenseus gives full proof 
 that infant baptism was the prevailing practice 
 of the church in his time. 
 
 c. Tertullian lived about one hundred years 
 after the apostolic age, acknowledges the com- 
 mon practice of infant baptism in his day, but 
 desired that it might be delayed not only to in- 
 fants, but even to unmarried persons, in conse- 
 quence of attributing a mysterious sacredness 
 to baptism. Though when a child was about 
 to die, he declared that it ought to be baptized. 
 If it be right to have a child that is about to 
 die baptized, why not then with the same pro- 
 priety, baptize those that are icell? 
 
 d. Origen, who is represented as the most 
 learned man of his time, and who had travelled 
 extensively in various countries, was born about 
 one hundred and eighty-five years after the 
 apostolic age. His testimony on infant baptism 
 is clear and direct. He says, " According to 
 the usage of tlie church, baptism is given even 
 to infants." Again he says, " The church re- 
 ceived an order from the apostles, to give bap- 
 tism even to infants." 
 
 e. In the year 153, after th.e apostolic age, a 
 council of sixty-six bisliops were assembled at 
 Carthage on a question proposed, whether bap- 
 tism sliould be administered to children the se- 
 cond day after their birth, or w^hether, as m 
 the case of circumcision, it should be delayed 
 till they were eight days oM. They unani- 
 
 'b2 
 
40 
 
 mously agreed to have them baptized as soon 
 as convenient. Here is testimony beyond the 
 possibility of any doubt in the bosom of every 
 rational man, that infant baptism was then uni- 
 versally practised in the churches. 
 
 /. I pass by the testimony of several other 
 eminent men, who give the most satisfactory 
 accounts of the practice of infant baptism in 
 the church of Christ. But I will come down 
 to the time of Augustine, the great luminary of 
 the age. He lived about two hundred and 
 eighty-eight years after the apostles. He says 
 in the most express language, that ^' the whole 
 church, practice infant baptism." Again he 
 speaks " of baptizing infants by the authority 
 of the whole church," which was undoubtedly 
 delivered by our Lord and his apostles. 
 
 Pelagius lived at the same time with Augus- 
 tine. He was a heretic. He however, bears 
 ample testimony in favor of infant baptism. 
 He says in one place, " Men slander me, as if 
 I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants." 
 Again he says, " I never heard of any, not even 
 the most impious heretic, who denied baptism 
 to infants." 
 
 Many more writers might be mentioned, 
 who in the most unequivocal language, declare 
 that infant baptism was practised from the time 
 of the apostles. 
 
 g. There is not the least evidence, that in- 
 fant baptism has ever been considered an inno- 
 vation, or was ever opposed by any society or 
 
41 
 
 set of men, until the year 1159, when a small 
 party arose among the Waldenses, who oppo- 
 sed it. They believed that infants were inca- 
 pable of salvation. They however, soon gave 
 up either their opposition, or became extinct. 
 About the time of the Reformation by Luther, 
 in Germany, in the year 1522, there arose a 
 sect, who opposed infant baptism. They were 
 called Anabaptists. And although they spread 
 in several kingdoms of Europe, yet within 
 sixty years past, thousands of them have given 
 up their opposition to infant baptism, and are 
 uniting with Evangelical churches. 
 
 h. According to the history of the English 
 Baptists by Ivimey, a distinguished writer of 
 that denomination, the Particular or Calvinistic 
 Baptist denomination, commenced Sept. 12th, 
 1633. They constitute a respectable body of 
 christians, both as to piety, talent and number 
 of members. In America, they have the se- 
 cond largest number of members of any of the 
 christian denominations. They oppose infant 
 baptism. 
 
 Thus then, I have given you a faithful sketch 
 of the history of infant baptism from the time 
 of the apostles to the present period, together 
 with a specification of the times, when oppo- 
 sition to it was made. 
 
 i. Before however, concluding my remarks 
 
 on the historical part of infant baptism, let 
 
 another subject not be overlooked. The 
 
 church of the Reformation, commonly called 
 
 b3 
 
42 
 
 the Protestant church,* embraces noiD rising 
 of sixty millions of members, that portion who 
 oppose infant baptism number about one mil- 
 lion.f Now among the number of professors, 
 who constitute the remaining, and who advo- 
 cate infant baptism, are men of the most ex- 
 tensive learning ; men of the deepest piety ; 
 men of the greatest humility ; men actuated by 
 the purest of motives ; men whose object is the 
 glory of God, and the extension of the Re- 
 deemer's kingdom. Now is it reasonable to 
 conclude that men of such character and of 
 such deep piety ; men who enjoy all the op- 
 portunities of knowledge, human and divine, 
 would advocate infant baptism if they had no 
 scriptural foundation ? And what adds weight 
 to this subject is, that all the great Reformers, 
 commencing with Luther, together with all the 
 most learned and pious men, from that time to 
 the present, with few exceptions, should advo- 
 cate and practise infant baptism, if they had 
 no scriptural warrant for so doing ! I appeal 
 to the conscience of every rational being. 
 
 j. Again, the Greek church contains about 
 forty-five millions of members. To that church 
 
 *Vi:5. the Lutheran church — the Episcopal — Presbyterian, 
 Baptist, &c. 
 
 fThe Baptists according to their own published docu- 
 ments number in the United States about 700,000 mem- 
 bers. In the United Kingdoms of Great Britain 210,000. 
 Besides these, they have some in other parts of Europe and 
 the Canadas. Among' thoir foreign missionary stations 
 4,000. All united will not exceed 1,000,000 of members 
 throughout t^he christian world. 
 
43 
 
 the opponents of infant baptism appeal, sup- 
 posing that it possesseth the most intimate 
 knowledge of the Greek language, particular- 
 ly in reference to the definition of the word 
 baptizo, translated baptize. That church ad- 
 vocates and practices infant baptism. 
 
 k. Again, the Roman Catholic church has 
 from her very origin, advocated and practised 
 infant baptism, and still does, though she is 
 corrupt in many of her other doctrines. That 
 church contains about one hundred and fifty- 
 five millions of members. 
 
 I. Admitting that the two latter may be 
 called christian, let us sum up all these together. 
 The Protestant church contains about sixty 
 millions. The Greek church about forty-five 
 millions, and the Roman Catholic church about 
 one hundred and fifty-five millions; the total 
 amount is about two hundred and sixty millions. 
 Out of this great number, only about one mil- 
 lion oppose infant baptism ; or, in other words, 
 there is one opposer to infant baptism to two 
 hundred and fifty-nine who advocate and prac- 
 tise it, in the christian church throughout the 
 world. Truly, the contrast is very great, and 
 the result strongly- confirms the doctrine of in- 
 fant baptism. 
 
 In view of this subject, who will refuse the 
 dedication of children to God, in baptism? 
 Who will withhold from them the seal of the 
 covenant of promise, which God has ordained 
 for their spiritual good } What christian par- 
 ent's heart will not be raised in thanksdvino: to 
 b4 
 
44 
 
 Almighty God for his favors manifested to .him 
 and his child ? Let him dedicate that child to 
 God in baptism — let him bear in mind that 
 they both belong to Christ the great covenant- 
 ed head of the church — let him discharge his 
 duty to him, looking forward to the time when 
 they shall meet around the throne of God and 
 be re-united forever in heaven ! 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Matthew xxviii. 19. 
 
 " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost." 
 
 Christian baptism is not a saving ordinance. 
 It is the symbol of regeneration. It is per- 
 formed by the use of water. Water lias been 
 wisely selected by the Saviour, in consequence 
 of its abundance everywhere, and its adapta- 
 tion to express the signification of this ordi 
 nance. 
 
 But the question arises, in what mode is the 
 Waaler to be used in order to constitute it scrip- 
 tural baptism ? There is a difference of opin- 
 ion on this subject. Our respected Baptist 
 Brethren manitain that immersion alone consti- 
 tutes true baptism. On the other hand, the 
 great body of professing christians, though di- 
 vided into different denominations, yet they do 
 consider it immaterial, how the water is used 
 whether the subject is immersed into the water, 
 or the water applied in some other w^ay, such 
 as pouring or sprinkling. They maintain with 
 Luther, that "it is not the water that produces 
 the effects, but the word of God, which is con- 
 nected with the water, for without th^ word 
 of God, the w'ater is mere water, and does not 
 constitute a baptism; but with the w^ord, it 
 b5 
 
46 
 
 becomes a baptism, that is to say, a graceful 
 water of life, and the laver of regeneration in 
 the Holy Ghost." Thus you perceive that the 
 question is not whether baptism by immersion 
 is valid baptism ; this is admitted by all, but it 
 is whether immersion alone constitutes chris- 
 tian baptism ? The great body of the christian 
 church maintain that it is not essential in what 
 mode water is used, whether by immersion or 
 by pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 In the further consideration of this subject, 
 let me call your attention to the meaning of the 
 word, which is employed to express this sac- 
 ramental rite. It is a Greek word, baptizo, 
 which is derived from bapto. The common 
 definition of which is to immerse^ to imsh^ to 
 sprinkle^ to pour on icater and to color as loitrli 
 a liquid. Satisfactory evidences of these de- 
 fiinitions can be given in classical authors to 
 every unbiased mind on this subject. And 
 when we pass from classical authors to the sa- 
 cred scriptures, we come to the same conclu- 
 sion. Says Carson, one of the best scholars 
 in the Baptist church, " 1 have all the lexi- 
 cographers and commentators against me in 
 that opinion," viz. that baptizo signifies to im- 
 merse only. This is a declaration not unwor- 
 thy of your notice. Here, you perceive, is 
 one man's opinion placed in opposition to a 
 host of men, whose qualifications, certainly, 
 are as good as his, and who too, possessing 
 this advantage, that they have no sectarian 
 
47 
 
 principles at st^ke, have given us their candid 
 opinion to the above definitions. Says Dr. 
 Miller, of Princeton, one of the best scholars 
 and divines of the present age : " I can assure 
 you, that the word which we render bap- 
 tizo, does legitimately signify the application 
 of water in any way as well as by immer- 
 sion." " Nay," he continues, " I can assure 
 you, if the most mature and competent Greek 
 scholars that ever lived, may be allowed to 
 decide in this case, that many examples of 
 the use of this word occur in scripture, in 
 which it not only mc/y, but manifestly must sig- 
 nify sprinkling, perfusion, or washing in any 
 way." 
 
 Luther, in'his translation of the Bible, gives 
 -it the same definition. It is therein translated 
 tauffen. If he. designed to have given the word 
 baptizo the definition, to immerse only, he 
 would not have employed the word tauffen but 
 eintauchen. Abundant proof of the above de- 
 finition can be given from his own works. 
 
 Here I would make the remark that our 
 Baptist Brethren not only do great injustice, 
 but they even manifest a want of candor, when 
 they quote the writings of men differing from 
 them on the meaning of the word baptizo. 
 They say for example that Luther, Stuart and 
 other distinguished men acknowledge that 
 that word signifies to immerse, but no one of 
 them gives this as the only definition, but they 
 give other definitions, besides they invari- 
 
46 
 
 ably, when they do baptize, use water in other 
 modes.* 
 
 Again, our Baptist Brethren place great con- 
 fidence in the Greek church as being the best 
 qualified to define the meaning of the word 
 baptizo. But on an examination of their dic- 
 tionaries in their own native language, it has 
 been found, especially in that one by Gases, 
 which is in common use by the Greeks, that 
 the following definitions of baptizo are given, 
 " to loety moisten, bedew ; to wash, to bathe, to 
 draw, to pump waters The definition to im- 
 merse is not given at all, except it be by infer- 
 ence. But notwithstanding this, the Greek 
 church baptize by immersion, extraordinary 
 cases excepted. Children and persons in de- 
 licate health are baptized by pouring or sprink- 
 ling. Passing by other authorities, let me only 
 mention the name of the Rev. Dr. Kurtz, the 
 able editor of the Lutheran Observer, who, 
 several years ago, travelling in Europe, says: 
 
 *To give a specimen how our Baptist brethren oftentimes 
 misrepresent the views of Pajdobaptist writers, we will se- 
 lect their manner of quoting- Prof Stuart They represent 
 him as saying, that the Greek words "bnpto and baptizo 
 mean to dip, plunge or immerse into any thing liquid. Ml 
 lexicographers are agreed in f/ita." Tluis far they quote him. 
 But let it be remembered he does not say that these aie the 
 only meanings of these Greek words. No. He proceeds 
 to siiow that they and especially baptizo means also " f o 
 icash — to bedeio or moisten; which, he says, are more clear- 
 ly and fully exhibited." Our Baptist brethren quote just 
 so much from him as suits their case, and then publish to 
 the world that Prof Stuart coincides with them in the 
 meaning of those Greek words. Is not this exceedingly 
 unjust and u^icancid?"? 
 
49 
 
 " We ourselves once witnessed the baptism of 
 an infant in the great cathedral of St. Peters- 
 burg by pouring.^'' Such is the history which 
 we have of this cliureh as it respects the de- 
 finition of the word baptizo and their practice 
 of the mode of baptism. 
 
 Without entering farther into detail in rela- 
 tion to the meaning of that word, as it is un- 
 derstood by the christian church in general, 1 
 hasten to an examination of some of those pas- 
 sages in the sacred scriptures, where this word 
 occurs, which will fully illustrate and confirm 
 the position laid down that it has other mean- 
 ings than immersion. 
 
 In the classic Greek of the Old Testament, 
 we have several striking instances. 
 
 a. In Ecclesiasticus, 34th chap. 25th verse, 
 the son of Sirach, speaking of one who had 
 been purified from the pollution of a dead body 
 says : " he was baptized from the pollution of 
 the dead." The question arises how was an 
 individual purified from the pollution of the 
 dead.? In the book of Numbers, the IQth 
 chap. 13th verse, we read as follows : '^ Who- 
 soever toucheth the dead body of any man that 
 is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the 
 tabernacle of the Lord ; and that soul shall be 
 cut off from Israel : because the water of sep- 
 aration was not sprinkled (baptized) upon him^ 
 he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon 
 him." Here, you perceive, this baptism was 
 expressly performed by sprinkling water upon 
 him. Evidently, here, baptizo cannot mean to 
 immerse, but to sprinkle. 
 
60 
 
 h. In Leviticus, 14th chapter, 6th verse, we 
 have the following language : '' As for the liv- 
 ing bird, he (the priest) shall take it, and the 
 cedar- wood and the scarlet, and the hyssop, 
 and shall rfip (baptize) them and the living bird 
 in the bird that was killed over the running 
 water." Now I appeal to the conscience of 
 any man, is it possible that the cedar-wood, 
 the scarlet, the hyssop and the living bird 
 could all be immersed in the blood of a single 
 bird ? There would only be blood sufficient 
 to stain them, or in common language, to ren- 
 der them bloody. Here then the word baptize 
 cannot mean to immerse, but only to stain or 
 colour. 
 
 c. In the book of Dan, 4th chap. 33rd verse, 
 we have a description of the insane king of 
 Babylon given, that he was baptized with tlie 
 dew of heaven, in the following language: 
 " And his body was loet (baptized) with the 
 dew of heaven." Here there can be no im- 
 mersion. Immersion signifies the sinking of a 
 body in w^ater, but here you perceive that the 
 dew of heaven fell upon him. The word 
 baptizo here evidently then cannot mean to im- 
 merse, but to hedeic or sprinkle. 
 
 Many more instances from the Greek of the 
 Old Testament might be quoted to confirm my 
 position, but I pass on to the New Testament. 
 And here let it be impressed on the mind, there 
 is not a single passage in the Bible, that de- 
 clares in so many words, that a person was 
 
 EVER BAPTIZED IN WATER, BUT WITH WATER. 
 
51 
 
 In Matthew, 3rd chapter, 16th verse, it is said 
 that John " baptized with watery In John, 1st 
 chap. 31st verse, it is expressed : ••' Therefore 
 am I come baptizing with waters In Acts 1st 
 chap. 5th verse, it is said : " For John truly 
 baptized with water ^ but ye shall be hapized 
 with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." 
 Here evidently the water was applied to the 
 person, and not the person to the water. To 
 evade this, however, it is contended by our 
 Baptist Brethren that the particle with should 
 be rendered into. Admitting for a moment that 
 construction, it should not be forgotten that 
 iiito is not under. Immersion does not simply 
 signify into water, but particularly under water. 
 Again the impropriety of rendering with even 
 into is evident, when we take the latter part 
 of the sentence in connection with the former. 
 In that case the baptism of the Holy Spirit 
 would be performed by the person sinking into 
 it, but this is contrary not only to good sense, 
 but even to the common language of scripture. 
 The Holy Spirit is every where represented 
 as coming from above — as being poured upon. 
 In Luke, 24th chapter, 49th verse, the Holy 
 Spirit is described ; sent doxcn. Acts, 2nd chap. 
 33rd verse, shed forth. Acts, 2nd chapter, 2nd 
 verse, came. Acts, 8th chap. 16th verse, fallen. 
 Acts, 15th chap. 8th verse, giving. Acts, 10th 
 chap. 44th verse, fell. John, 1st chap. 32nd 
 verse, descending. All these passages clearly 
 show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was 
 an application of it to the person thus baptized. 
 
52 i 
 
 Again, there is another important idea con- 
 tained in the above passage (AetSy 1st chapter, 
 5th verse,) which is tliat the baptism of* the 
 Holy Spirit is analogotis to- the baptism of 
 water. The apostle Peter, in Acts, 1 1th chap, 
 15th and I6th verses, in vindication of his own 
 cause says : "As I began to speak the Holy 
 Ghost fell on them (epipjpto, to fall upon) as 
 on us at the heginning. Then remembered I 
 the word of the Lord, how that he said, John 
 indeed baptized you with water, hit ye shall be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghosf^ not many days 
 hence^" Here evidently is not only an allusion 
 to but a fulfilment of the promi^se of Jo-hn. in 
 the above chapter of the baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit. The direct conclusion to which we 
 come is, that since the baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit was effected not by immersion, but by 
 pouring^ the baptism of water by John was like- 
 wise effected not by immei^ion, but by pminng 
 or sprinkling. Who will contradict this? 
 
 (I In the 1st Epistle of Paul to the Corin- 
 thians, 10th chap. 1st and 2nd verses, we have 
 a description given of the Israelites, who were 
 baptized in the cloud, in the following lan- 
 guage, " Moreover, brethren, I would not that 
 ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers 
 were under the cloud and all passed through 
 the sea : and were all baptized unto Moses in 
 the cloud and in the sea." The question arises 
 how was this baptism performed ? Certainly 
 not by immersion, for we are expressly told by 
 Moses in Ex. 14th chap. 22nd verse, that the 
 
53 
 
 children of Israel went into the midst of the 
 sea upon the dt^y ground. From this it is evi- 
 dent, that in whatever manner water was used 
 for their baptism, it could not have been by 
 immersion. Does it not appear more reason- 
 able to suppose that if water touched them, at 
 all, it must have been either hy the spray of 
 the sea, which the east wind, spoken of by 
 Moses, must have dashed over them ? or it 
 might have been performed by the descent of 
 the rain from the clouds which passed over 
 them at the time. For if they were under the 
 cloud, then the cloud was over them, and if 
 they were baptized in the cloud, then they 
 must have received some of its contents upon 
 them. The Psalmist evidently alludes to this 
 in the 9th verse of the 6Stii Psalm : *••' Thou, 
 O God, didst send a 'plentiful rain^^^ &c. 
 
 It may be said that the language of the apos- 
 tle is figurative, and thereby implies, that be- 
 cause water was on both sides of the Israelites 
 they were immersed. There is as much of a 
 figure in the language of the apostle, as if an 
 individual were to pass between two hogsheads 
 filled with water, and then say he is immersed. 
 But permit me to remark, that in this eventful 
 period there was an immersion, the first in- 
 stance recorded in the Bible — an immersion 
 not figurative, but real, genuine. Moses says in 
 Ex. 15th chap. 10th verse, " The sea covered 
 them (the Egyptians:) they sank like lead in the 
 mighty waters." Or as the poet expresses it: 
 
 "The Lord hath but spoken 
 And chariot and horsemen are sunk in the wave." 
 
54 
 
 e. In the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, 
 9th chapter, 10th verse, we have^^the following 
 language : " Which stood only in meats and 
 drinks and divers washings," (diaphorois bap- 
 tismois) literally translated different baptisms. 
 Now if we refer to the Old Testament where 
 these different baptisms, or as it is rendered, 
 divers washings are described, we evidently 
 see that they were performed not by immer- 
 sion, but by sprinkling and pouring. Moses 
 says, in Num. 19th chap. 18th verse: " And a 
 clean person shall take a hyssop and dip it in 
 water, and sprinkle it upon the tent and upon 
 the vessels, and upon the persons that were 
 there, and upon him that touched a bone, or 
 one slain or one dead, or a grave," &c. Simi- 
 lar language you will tind in Lev. 14th chap. 
 7th verse ; Num. 8th chapter, 7th verse. All 
 which specify that these washings, or baptisms, 
 were performed by sprinkling and pouring. 
 No mention is made at all of immersing under 
 water. 
 
 /. In Mark, 7th chap. 3rd verse, the word 
 baptizo cannot mean to immerse, but must ne- 
 cessarily mean, to wash ; the following is the 
 language of scripture. " And when they come 
 from market, except they wash (baptize) they 
 eat not. And many other things there be, 
 which they have received to hold, as the wash- 
 ing (baptisms) of cups and pots and brazen 
 vessels and tables." As it respects cups and 
 pots and brazen vessels, they might easily be 
 immersed in water, but to suppose that tables 
 
55 
 
 or couches would be taken out of the house, 
 carried to some river, creek, pond or pool and 
 be immersed under water, appears too unrea- 
 sonable and inconsistent. But it appears rea- 
 sonable and consistent to apply water to them 
 either by pouring, sprinkling or washing. In 
 intimate connection with this example is the in- 
 stance of our Saviour, as recorded in Luke 
 11th chap. 3Tth and 38th verses, who had re- 
 ceived an invitation from .a Pharisee to dine 
 with iiim, who when he sat at meat, marvelled 
 because the Saviour "had not first washed 
 (baptized) before dinner." The' wonder on 
 the part of the Pharisee was evidently because 
 our Lord had not first washed his hands before 
 dinner. To say, that he (Christ) had not first 
 immersed before dinner would have been con- 
 trary to the custom of the Pharisees, for we 
 are expressly told that, " the Pharisees and all 
 the Jews, except they wash their hands oft (or 
 with the fist) eat not." In a word, to iMxMerse 
 AND immehsion are expressions which do 
 
 NOT occur, at all, IN THE BiBLE. 
 
 From these considerations, we pass on to 
 examine some of the examples recorded in the 
 New Testament, where the rite of baptism 
 was actually performed. As it respects the 
 baptism performed by John, we have the 
 clearest evidence that it was not christian bap- 
 tism. 
 
 a. It was called by the apostle Paul, Jb/inV 
 baptism^ Acts, 19th chap. 5th verse, in contra- 
 distinction to christian baptism, b. It was the 
 
56 
 
 introduction of Christ in his official character, 
 as he says himself, John, 1st chap. 31st verse, 
 '' I knew him not, but that he should he made 
 manifest to Israel, therefore I am come baptizing 
 with water?'' c. It was not instituted by Christ. 
 d. He did not baptize in the name of ths 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 Our text expressly declares that christian bap- 
 tism had to be thus perfoj-med. e. We are ex- 
 pressly told in the Acts the 19th chapter, 5th 
 verse, that those of John's baptism, who be- 
 lieved in Christ were baptized again ; "when 
 they heard this, they were baptized in the name 
 of the Lord Jesus CJtristy Now if John's 
 baptism had been a christian baptism, why 
 wei^e they baptized again? What evidence 
 can be clearer than this, that his baptism was 
 not ehi'istian baptism. /. The multitude which 
 he baptized did not follow Christ. Could they 
 have received a christian baptism.? could they 
 have been brought into his church by the very 
 rite appointed for that object and yet reject 
 him and even join in the general shout at his 
 trial, " crucify him, crucify him .'"' Does 
 christian baptism exert no happier influence 
 on the minds of adults than that which they 
 manifested to\vards Christ.? Will not every 
 rational man say, the baptism with which they 
 were baptized, was not christian baptism ? 
 g. No, brethren, christian baptism was not es- 
 tablished until within three years after that 
 time ; whan it w^as established by Christ him- 
 self: when he uttered the words of the text. 
 
57 
 
 " Go ye and make disciples of all baptizing^'' 
 &c. Then and not till then was this ordinance 
 established, which was hereafter to be the ini- 
 tiatory rite of admission into his church upon 
 earth. This is the general view of this subject 
 by the ablest of divines. Among which num- 
 ber is the late Robert Hall, an eminent clergy- 
 man of the Baptist church in England. 
 
 Admitting, therefore, that John's baptism 
 was not a christian baptism, then his baptism 
 affords no true criterion to decide the precise 
 mode of baptism. But notwithstanding this, 
 our Baptist Brethren place great reliance upon 
 his baptism. We will select that interesting 
 instance, wiien our Saviour was baptized by 
 him, and see whether it favors immersion. 
 
 Before entering upon an examination of the 
 mode of Christ's baptism, let it be remarked, 
 that if our Saviour had been inducted into the 
 Priestly office by immersion, then his induction 
 into that office would have been contrary to 
 God's own appointed way. We have in Ex. 
 29th chap. 21st verse, the following explicit 
 language : " And thou shalt take of the blood 
 that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, 
 and sprinkle it upon Aaron," &c. Aaron was 
 the first High Priest. He was an eminent type 
 of Christ. Now in accordance with the above 
 manner of induction into the Priestly office, 
 established by God himself and continued by 
 Him during the old dispensation, you evidently 
 perceive that Christ's induction could not con- 
 sistently have been performed by immersion, 
 
but by sprinkling. And if God permitted 
 John to induct Christ into his Priestly office 
 by immersion^ then it implies that the mode of 
 induction, by Him, was not regarded essential, 
 but immaterial. And if God recorded the 
 mode of Christ's baptism immaterial, then by 
 parity of reasoning. He will not regard the 
 mode of our baptism essential, but likewise 
 immaterial. 
 
 We are told in Matthew, 3rd chapter, 16ih 
 verse, that " Jesus when he was baptized, went 
 up straitway out of the water." Although at 
 first view, it appears this passage asserts that 
 Jesus had been actually in the Jordan, but how- 
 ever there is no evidence that he either went 
 under the water or that he came up out of the- 
 water. Immersion means going under the 
 water, but this passage does not say so. With- 
 out doing violence to language, it can be ren- 
 dered,* he went up straitway away from the 
 icater. The little word that is rendered mit of 
 is rendered in other places from, five times 
 oftener than out of. And the word that is ren- 
 dered in or into is frequently rendered at., to. 
 This every Greek scholar acknowledges. In- 
 stead of saying therefore, in the Jordan, it can 
 be rendered at or to the Jordan. There is an 
 instance recorded in 2nd Kings, 6th chap. 4th 
 verse, where this expression occurs, speaking 
 of the sons of the prophets, they " came to the 
 Jordan to cut icood.^'' It would be inconsistent 
 to say, that they went into the Jordan to cut 
 wood. ^ 
 
 ♦Robinson. 
 
69 
 
 From these considerations it appears evident 
 that Christ was not immersed by John, but that 
 water was sprinkled upon him in accordance 
 with God's own appointed way of the dedica- 
 tion of High Priests to that sacred office. 
 
 The same remarks are applicable in the case 
 of the Eunich, Acts, 8th chap. 38th and 39th 
 verses. ••' They went down (the Eunich and 
 Philip,) both into the water, and he baptized 
 him." The little word, into, can, agreeably to 
 the above, be rendered, to, and then it would 
 read, " They went down both to the water," 
 &c. Here then, you perceive, that these little 
 words do not certainly prove anything more 
 than that they went to the water, and when they 
 were come from the water. But even if it 
 were certain that they went into the water, this 
 would not determine the mode in which the 
 water was used. If it be insisted upon, that 
 the Eunich was actually immersed, then it 
 proves too much. For nothing is said of the 
 Eunich, that is not said of Philip. " They 
 went down both into the water, and when they 
 were come up out of the water." If the Eunich 
 was actually immersed, then Philip was in like 
 manner immersed. And if Philip was not im- 
 mersed, then there is no evidence that the Eu- 
 nich vras actually immersed. On the principle 
 of coYrect reasoning, this cannot be contra- 
 dicted]. In a word, they might have gone to 
 the water edge, and there Philip baptized 
 him, either by pouring or sprinkling water on 
 him. 
 
60 
 
 There are other circumstances, which must 
 be taken into account, which do not favor im- 
 mersion. As it respects the baptism of John, 
 it is said by the Evangelist Matthew, 3d chap. 
 5th and 6th verses, *' There went out to him 
 Jerusalem, and all Judea and the regions round 
 about Jordan, and were baptized of him in 
 Jordan,* confessing their sins." Upon good 
 authority, it has been estimated, that in the 
 days of David, the population of Palestine 
 could not have been less than six millions and 
 seven hundred thousand, and in the time of 
 John, it amounted to about six millions, and of 
 these, one would suppose, judging from the 
 language of Matthew, at least three millions 
 must have been baptized by John. 
 
 Again, John the Baptist was six months older 
 than Jesus Christ. He then must have entered 
 upon his ministry about six months earlier than 
 Christ did upon his. John continued but a few 
 months after he had baptized Christ ; conse- 
 quently, his ministry must have been a year or 
 less than a year. Now the question arises, 
 how could John baptize such an immense mul- 
 titude in such a short space of time by immer- 
 sion } Admit for a moment, that he did bap- 
 tize nine months — that his bodily strength 
 would allow him to be in the water twelve 
 
 *If Jerusalem and all Judea, &c., went out to be baptized 
 of Jolin,then children jn like manner were baptized. Chil- 
 dren constitute a great portion of every community, and 
 they must evidently be included in the number, since the 
 exproFsion all is used by the sacred penman in his jiar- 
 rutivc. 
 
61 
 
 hours each day, both in summer and in winter, 
 then he would have baptized rising of eleven 
 thousand a day, rising of nine hundred an hour, 
 and about fifteen each minute. Now is it pos- 
 sible that he could have baptized all these by 
 immersion ? Let reason and candor decide this 
 matter. But he could easily have baptized 
 them either by pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 Again, look at the case of the Eunich. He 
 was returning from Jerusalem. He, riding in 
 his chariot, was engaged in reading in the pro- 
 phecy of Isaiah, wheie a description is given 
 of the humiliation of Christ. In which portion 
 of scripture, this passage occurs, " iSo shall 
 he (Christ,) sprinkle many nations.'''' The 
 prophet had been speaking of the kingdom of 
 Christ in the world, and here declares how dif- 
 ferent nations of which he was one should be 
 introduced into that kingdom. He here says 
 tliat it shall be done by sprinkling, as the initi- 
 atory rite. And if it was to be done by sprink- 
 ling, then certainly the Eunich would not have 
 been willing to be immersed since it was not 
 only contrary to the prophet's declaration, but 
 contrary also to Christ's mode as stated above. 
 This promise had its accomplishment, when 
 Christ sent his apostles to make disciples of 
 all nations, by baptizing, &c. Now from the 
 circumstance that the Eunich had been reading 
 of sprinkling, as being the initiatory rite for 
 the admission into the kingdom of Christ, it 
 appears evident that Philip must have sprinkled 
 him. 
 
The instance recorded in John, 3rd chapter, 
 23rd verse, that John baptized in Aenon be- 
 cause there was much water there, does not 
 determine the manner of his baptism, because 
 we read that he baptized also at Bethabara and 
 in the wilderness where there is no express 
 mention made that there was any water ; al- 
 though there was no doubt sufficient for the 
 ordinary purposes of life. And if John's par- 
 ticular object in going to Aenon carries the 
 idea that he went there expressly to immerse 
 his subjects under water, then it appears evi- 
 dent that his former mode of baptizing had not 
 been by immersion, but performed in some 
 other way, because there was not a sufficient 
 quantity of water for that purpose at the for- 
 mer place. And if he actually did immerse 
 his subjects under water at Aenon, but did bap- 
 tize them at the other places in some other 
 manner, then the conclusion is that the use of 
 water in the administration of the rite of bap- 
 tism in the view of John himself was immate- 
 rial. And if immaterial, then consequently, 
 there is nothing favorable to immersion alone 
 as constituting christian baptism. 
 
 Again, I would ask why did the women, 
 spoken of in Acts, 16th chap. 13t.h verse, go 
 to '''the river-side^ where prayer was wont to 
 be made .?" It evidently could not have been 
 for the object of baptizing. No, for that sacred 
 right had not been known among them until the 
 apostle canxe there and preached. That place 
 was selected for its pleasant location, its beau- 
 
63 
 
 tiful scenery and convenience. So John must 
 have selected Aenon — a place of convenience, 
 having an abundance of water for the accom- 
 modation of the multitude that came to his 
 baptism. No inference whatever can there- 
 fore be drawn from this circumstance in favor 
 of immersion. 
 
 Finally, in relation to the baptism performed 
 by John, he says himself in Matt. 3rd chapter, 
 11th verse, "I indeed baptize you with water 
 unto repentance, but he that cometh after me 
 is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not wor- 
 thy to bear ; he shall baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost and with fire^ Now if the word bap- 
 tizo always means to immerse, does- it, accord- 
 ina: to good sense, appear proper to say, im- 
 mersed in the Holy Ghost and immersed in fire ? 
 Is not the Holy Ghost invariably represented 
 as coming from above, as being poured out ? 
 Now if the word baptizo always means to im- 
 merse^ then this prediction of John has not yet 
 been fulfilled. But we have every reason to 
 believe that it was fulfilled on the day of Pen- 
 tecost, Acts, 2nd chapter, when " there came a 
 sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, 
 and it (the sound) filled all the house where 
 they were sitting. And there appeared unto 
 them, cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat 
 upon each of them, and they were all filled 
 with the Holy Ghost," &c. This baptism of 
 the Holy Spirit was in accordance with the 
 promise of God made to the prophet Joel, 
 2nd chap. 28th and 29th verses. The apostle 
 
64 
 
 Peter, in explaining to the Jews the above ex- 
 traordinary event, says in the 16th and 17th 
 verses : " This is that which was spoken by 
 the prophet Joel, and it shall come to pass 
 in the last days, saith God, 1 uill pour out 
 (ekcheo, to pour forth) my spirit upon all 
 Jie-sh,^'' &c. Here then you have another evi- 
 dence that this baptisni of the Holy Spirit 
 was not effected by immersion, but by being 
 poured out upon the subjects thus baptized. 
 Now taking this instance in connection with 
 the one in Acts, 1st chap. 5th verse, explained 
 on page 52, you evidently see that the mode 
 of the baptism with the Holy Ghost was not 
 effected by immersion, but by pouring or 
 sprinkling, and if it was thus performed, then 
 we may safely conclude that the baptism loith 
 water was in a similar manner performed. 
 
 The baptism of the three thousand converts 
 on the day of Pentecost, Acts, 2nd chapter, 
 was performed at Jerusalem, where there was 
 no river or creek — when it was summer, and 
 the rains were scarce, the brook Kedron was 
 dry, and no water was near except the pool of 
 Siloam. Where could the apostles have found 
 water in sufficient quantity to immerse the three 
 thousand ? We do not read that they went in 
 search of water. Besides, when we consider 
 all the circumstances in respect to the time re- 
 quired in preaching, in examining the converts, 
 in preparing dresses; and then consider that 
 each apostle had but a few hours left to im- 
 merse two hundred and fifty; is it not more 
 
65 
 
 reasonable to believe tbat they were baptized 
 by sprinkling, in accordance to the Jewish cus- 
 tom, which could have been done in a short 
 time ? 
 
 Again, does not this appear to have been the 
 manner, when we look at the prophecy in 
 Isaiah, 5th chap. 2d verse, where it is de<^lared 
 that, " he (Christy) shall sprinkle many nations^ 
 Now if we look to the day of Pentecost, which 
 occurred a few days after Christ's ascension, 
 many nations were present to hear the apostles. 
 Not less than nineteen or twenty different na- 
 tions were there present by representation, and 
 three thousand of these representatives were 
 at once introduced into the christian church. 
 Here then, on the day of Pentecost, there ap- 
 pears to have been a commencement of the ful- 
 filment of that prophecy. And you perceive 
 that their introduction into the church, was not 
 by im.mersion, but by sprinkling. 
 
 Again, while speaking of the prophecies, we 
 have a description in Ezek. 36th chap. 25th 
 verse, of the conversion of the Jews, their se- 
 paration ffom among the heathen, and their re- 
 turn again to their own land. The question 
 arises, how will this be effected } In what 
 manner will the initiatory rite of baptism he ad- 
 ministered to them ? Let the prophet Ezekiel 
 answer this question : " Then will I sprinkle 
 clean water upon youP Showing evidently, 
 that the initiatory rite of their admission into 
 the church of Christ will be not by immersion, 
 but by sprinkling. 
 
66 
 
 The case of the jailor in Acts, 16th chap., 
 being baptized in the jail, does not favor im- 
 mersion. There is no mention made, that he 
 and the apostles, Paul and Silas, went out either 
 to a stream or a pool of water. Besides, ac- 
 cording to the Roman laws, it would have been 
 death to the jailor to have left the jail for any 
 purpose whatever with one of his prisoners. 
 The apostles ^vere his prisoners. It w^as at 
 midnight when he was baptized. The city 
 was in agi^tion in consequence of the earth- 
 quake, how would he have dared to go out 
 will) his prisoners. Besides, the apostles on the 
 following day, would not leave even the jail 
 without permission of the ruling aulhorities. 
 All these circumstances do not favor immer- 
 sion, but rather that he was baptized in some 
 other manner. He evidently was baptized im- 
 mediately after his conversion in the principal 
 room of the jail. 
 
 In tlie Acts of the Apostles, the 9th chapter, 
 18th verse, an account is given of the baptism 
 of Paul. " He arose and w^as baptized." If 
 it read, he arose and went out to be" baptized, 
 then it might favor immersion, but it simply 
 says; <' he arose and was baptized." No man 
 laying claim to any scholarship in the Greek 
 language would hazard his reputation by con- 
 tending that the Greek word translated arose^ 
 signifies any thing more than to stand up — to 
 arise as from a bed. It implies no motion for- 
 ward. P^ml had been in a house — was very 
 weak in consequence of not having taken any 
 
67 
 
 food for three days. He evidently just stood 
 up and was in that position baptized, which 
 could not have been done by immersion, but 
 must have been done in some other manner. 
 Let me present another instance, in which there 
 can be no doubt but that water was apphed to 
 the subject. In Acts the 18th chap. 47 verse, 
 we have an account given of the conversion of 
 Cornelius, his family and friends. Peter says, 
 " Can any man forbid water, that these should 
 be baptized." This is just such language as I 
 would employ to baptize by pouring or sprink- 
 ling. But a Baptist clergyman would have to 
 change the expression, in order to be correctly 
 understood. The appropriate language for 
 such a one to use, would be, '' Can any man 
 forbid us to go to the water that these should be 
 immersed .f"' This example clearly points out, 
 that they were not immersed, but that water 
 was applied in some other manner. 
 
 From the foregoing examples and illustra- 
 tions we can safely draw the following conclu- 
 sion, that the Greek Avord, baptizo, which ex- 
 presses the rite of baptism, does not necessar- 
 ily mean to immerse, but means the application 
 of water in other ways to the person baptized. 
 Again, it cannot be proved from an examina- 
 tion of any, or all the passages in the Bible, 
 that an entire immersion was ever connected 
 with the word, or that in a single instance of it 
 ever occurred. The apostles were accustom- 
 ed to baptize whenever and wherever an occa- 
 sion required them to administer this ordinance.. 
 
68 
 
 Whether they were in prison, on a journey, in 
 a sick room, or wherever proper subjects pre- 
 sented themselves, there they baptized them. 
 We do no where read in the Bible that they 
 ever went out expressly to a river or pond in 
 order to immerse their subjects. If the per- 
 sons baptized, went into the water, still there 
 is no positive evidence, that they were im- 
 mersed. And without a positive precept, no 
 man is under obligation to be immersed under 
 water, unless he feels willing or desirous that 
 his baptism shall be performed in that manner. 
 But notwithstanding this clear representation 
 that the word baptizo means the application of 
 water in different other modes than immersion, 
 yet our Baptist Brethren are unwilling to yield 
 the point in debate. They adhere to exclusive 
 immersion as the only valid mode of baptism, 
 like as a drowning man clings to a straw to 
 save him from a watery grave. They lay great 
 stress on the figurative language of the apostle 
 Paul as recorded in Rom. 6th chap. 4th verse, as 
 favoring the mode of immersion alone. The fol- 
 lowing is the language of the apostle, " There- 
 fore we are buried with him by baptism into 
 death ; that like as Christ was raised up by 
 the glory of the Father, even so we also should 
 walk in newness of life." In order to satisfy 
 the mind of an unprejudiced person as to the 
 real object of the apostle in this passage, we 
 need only quote the next verses which are con- 
 nected with the former one. The apostle con- 
 tinues, " For if we have been planted together, 
 
69 
 
 (slill by baptism) in the likeness of his death, 
 we shall be also in the likeness of his resur- 
 rection ; knowing this, that our old man is crw- 
 cified (still by baptism) with him, that the body 
 of sin might be destroyed, that hereafter we 
 should not serve sin. For he that is dead is 
 freed from sin." Now if being buried with him 
 hy baptism implies that Christ was actually im- 
 mersed under water, when he was baptized, 
 then the question arises, what resemblance is 
 there between his baptism by immersion, and 
 our being planted with him ? None whatever. 
 
 Again, as the apostle in the same connection, 
 speaks of our being crucified with Christ and 
 that by baptism ; what resemblance can there 
 be between immersion in water and the nailing 
 of a body to a cross ? 
 
 Again I reply, none whatever. Had the 
 apostle said that " we are buried under water 
 in our baptism," or had Christ died by being 
 drowned^ then there might be some resemblance, 
 but since he died on the cross there can be no 
 possible resemblance. For to immerse signi- 
 fies the sinking down of the body under water, 
 but to crucify signifies the raisi^ig up the body 
 and nailing it to a cross. The position of the 
 body in both respects is directly the reverse 
 of each other. Admitting for a moment that 
 there is a resemblance between Christ's death 
 and his baptism, (by immersion) then it would 
 imply that immersion is not the only mode, but 
 only one of its modes ; for as we have already 
 seen in the foregoing examples and illustrations, 
 
70 
 
 that baptism was performed by pouring and 
 sprinkling, besides we have clearly seen too 
 that Christ's baptism could not have been by 
 immersion, but either by pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 Again, the apostle in the above passage sim- 
 ply uses the words " being buried with him 
 by haptism^''^ where the nature of this ordinance 
 is only mentioned without the least allusion to 
 the mode. Rev. Mr. Robison, the Baptist 
 historian, and Rev. Mr. Judson, the Baptist 
 missionary, together with a great body of 
 learned and pious divines " admit that this pas- 
 sage is misapplied when used as evidence of 
 the mode of baptism." 
 
 The following appears to be the correct ex- 
 position of this passage : " Therefore as he, 
 viz., Christ was naturally buried, so are we 
 spiritually buried by that forgiveness of sins, 
 which subjected us to a spiritual death. That 
 like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
 the glory of the Father, even so we also should 
 walk in newness of life."* In a word, the 
 baptism spoken off is spiritual and has not the 
 least reference to any particular mode of the 
 external rite. It means that believers in Christ 
 are dead to sin, dead to all sinful affections, 
 pursuits and actions •, or as it is expressed by 
 the apostle Paul, " I am crucified with Christ, 
 being made conformable unto his death, dead 
 indeed unto sin, but alive to God through Je- 
 sus Christ our Lord." 
 
 ♦President' Beecher. 
 
71 
 
 A gam, there is another passage urged with 
 much confidence as favoring immersion, to be 
 tl]e only valid mode. It is in Eph. 4th chap. 
 5th verse : " One Lord, one faith, 07ie baptism.^'' 
 It is contended that baptism administered by 
 water is here meant, and since there is but one 
 baptism, there can be but one mode of admin- 
 istering the rite. Allowing that water baptism 
 is here meant, yet nothing is favorable to any 
 particular mode of using the water in this or- 
 dinance. Its oneness does not consist in the 
 mode, but in the design and the object of it, ad- 
 ministered by a suitable person in the name of 
 the trinity and by the use of water. Analo- 
 gous to this is the Loid's Supper — one simple 
 ordinance, designed to commemorate the dying 
 love of Christ. Its oneness does not consist 
 in the manner where received or how received ; 
 whether in an upper room or in the church — 
 whether the partakers receive it sitting, stand- 
 ing, kneeling or lying on a bed — whether on 
 the Lord's day Or in the week — whether at 
 evening, noon or morning. These attending 
 circumstances do not effect the oneness of this 
 ordinance. Now to reason in a similar man- 
 ner, why should the mode of the use of water 
 in baptism effect its oneness ? 
 
 But the objector still returns and says, " but 
 Christ went in the Jordan^ and all true disciples 
 must follow him there ?" To which I reply, 
 admit it, that Christ went in the Jordan, he has 
 not told us that we should follow him there. 
 There is not a passage in the Bible, that says, 
 
that we must go in the Jordan to be baptized, 
 or in other words, that we must be baptized 
 by immersion alone. All the water in the Jor- 
 dan in and of itself cannot cleanse the heart of 
 any man. Christ said to Nicodemus, John 3rd 
 chapter, " Except a man be born of water and 
 the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God." 
 
 But the objector says, " we must follow th^ 
 footsteps of Christ in every particular.^'' To 
 which 1 reply. Let us pass by his washing 
 the disciples' feet, w^hich the objector does not 
 do — let us pass by his many other acts of kind- 
 ness and love, which the objector does not 
 manifest — let me direct your attention to the 
 time and the circumstances, when Christ first 
 instituted the Lord's Supper. It was on Thurs- 
 day instead of Sunday. It was in the evening 
 instead of the day time — it was in an upper 
 room instead of the church, unleavened bread 
 was used instead of the finest leavened wheat- 
 bread. He did neither sit, stand, nor kneel, 
 but reclined on his elbow. It was a full meal — 
 an evening supper, instead of a small piece of 
 bread. No females were present, none but his 
 disciples together with Judas. There and un- 
 der these circumstances, Christ celebrated the 
 Lord's Supper. Now if the objector insists 
 that w^e must follow the footsteps of Christ in 
 every particular, then the Lord's Supper must 
 be celebrated at just such a place — wMth just 
 so many present, together with a Judas. 
 
73 
 
 Again, I would ask the question, if a small 
 piece of bread, and that leavened, answers the 
 same purpose in the celebration of the Lord's 
 Supper, that a full meal does, why will not a 
 small quantity of water answer the like purpose 
 for the rite of baptism that a whole fountain 
 does ? Permit me to tell you that the Greek 
 word, which is translated supper^ does not mean 
 a small particle of bread, but a full meal — an 
 evening supper. Now then it appears consis- 
 tent that if a small piece of bread answers the 
 same purpose in the administration of the 
 Lord's Supper, then by parity of reasoning, a 
 small quantity of water will answer the same 
 purpose in the administration of the ordinance 
 of baptism. 
 
 Again, if immersion was the only scriptural 
 mode in the ordinance of baptism, why then 
 does the Lord bless the labors of those ministers 
 and churches who administer this rite of baptism 
 in any mode ? When we look at the catalogue 
 of the annual increase of the number of the 
 members in these Evangelical churches, who 
 do not baptize by immersion only, who will 
 deny that they are not blessed of the Lord? 
 Not only are they increasing annually in num- 
 ber, but in piety and in closer union with God — 
 in more holy fellowship with each other, and 
 in Unity of action for the extension of the Re- 
 deemer's kingdom upon the earth. Now if 
 God does so richly bless them and their labors 
 of love, can they be out of the church of 
 Christ, because they cannot believe and prac- 
 c 
 
14 
 
 tise heliever'^s baptism only? No, brethren. 
 We have abundant reason to adopt the lan- 
 guage of the apostle Paul, " If God be for us, 
 who can be against us ?" 
 
 God, in the plenitude of his goodness, blesses 
 all Evangelical churches. His grace is not 
 withheld because the modes of administering 
 the ordinance of baptism, in different branches 
 of his church are not alike ; should we then, the 
 recipients of his grace, make any distinction? 
 Should we then withhold the right hand of 
 christian fellowship from those whom he has 
 accepted and adopted in his own family to be 
 his beloved children, because they cannot be- 
 lieve in believer'' s baptism only? Has Christ 
 our great pattern and exemplar not taught us to 
 pray " thy will be done on earth, even as it is 
 done in heaven," how then can we be Christ's, 
 if we refuse and reject those who are his by 
 adoption — belong to his visible church — expe- 
 rience his rich grace and give all the evidences 
 of genuine Christianity ? Brethren, I have 
 heard the religious experience of many — I 
 have read of the religious experience and hap- 
 py deaths of many, but I have not yet heard or 
 read of one, who regretted, even at death's 
 door, that he had not been immersed under 
 water in the ordinance of his baptism. 
 
 Again, although ministers of other denomi- 
 nations have left their respective organizations 
 and united with those of exclusive immersion 
 and communion, yet ministers belonging to 
 them, have likewise left them and united with 
 
75 
 
 other denominations. From good authority, I 
 can mention the names of some of the most 
 distinguished ministers in the christian church, 
 that have changed their views on exclusive 
 immersion and communion. I can mention the 
 names of Janeway, Skinner, Smith, Howe, 
 Lane, Spencer, two by the name of Dodge, 
 Snow, Ogelby, Chapin, Potter, Allen, Wilson, 
 John Wayland and others, men distinguished 
 for talent, learning, piety and usefulness. One 
 Edwards has written an able tract on the sub- 
 ject, styled, " Short way with the Baptists.'''' 
 
 In addition to those who have changed their 
 views on the subject of exclusive immersion, 
 we have authentic accounts that hundreds of 
 ministers and hundreds of churches of the 
 Anabaptists in Europe, have adopted pouring 
 instead of immersion. They found by sad ex- 
 perience that candidates for baptism when ly- 
 ing on sick beds or having infirmities, could 
 not be immersed under water ; they have there- 
 fore deliberately given up immersion and sub- 
 stituted pouring or sprinkling. And the work 
 of change is still in progress among them, and 
 the prospects are that before long many more, 
 if not all will give up immersion and adopt the 
 common mode of baptizing by pouring or 
 sprinkling. 
 
 Again, not only is a change of view in pro- 
 gress among the Anabaptists, but a change is 
 going on among the Baptists in England, on the 
 subject of close communion, or close baptism 
 as it is called, which chana:^ is not wifavoralle 
 c2 
 
n 
 
 to sprinkling. In a letter that appeared in 
 many of the religious papers of this country 
 during the previous year, we learn that there 
 is a great tendency among the Baptists in Eng- 
 land, towards a closer union with their christian 
 brethren of other denominations. It appears 
 that there is a committee, called '' the Central 
 Committee of Particular Baptists in England, 
 maintaining strict communion to the Baptists 
 of America." This committee was appointed 
 in April 1841, to arrest as it is said, the pro- 
 gress of open communion, which they lament 
 as wrong and as tending to subvert their very 
 existence as a denomination. They intreat the 
 aid of their American brethren and state their 
 emergency in the following terms. '' We be- 
 lieve that there is still a considerable majority 
 of strict communion churches in our denomi- 
 nation, but in not a ^qw of these, the -pastor^ 
 and therefore, perhaps an increasing propor- 
 tion of members are in favor of an open com- 
 munion ; so that it is probable that the number 
 of strict churches will continue to decrease; 
 and this probability is strengthened by the 
 fact, that most of the tutors of our colleges.^ and 
 of the students under their care, are also in 
 favor of open communion^ 
 
 In connection with the above change in the 
 views of the advocates of exclusive immersion 
 and communion, permit me to remark that upon 
 an examination of administering the ordinance 
 of baptisni, as recorded in church history, no 
 particular mode was held essential, until we 
 
77 
 
 come down to the year 1522, when the Ana- 
 baptists arose in Germany. But as we have 
 already seen, a great portion of them have 
 changed their views in favor of pouring. From 
 that period to the present, there has been in 
 some portion of the Protestant church an un- 
 happy division on this subject. Our respected 
 Baptist Brethren do consider immersion alone 
 essential to christian baptism. The GreeR 
 church as we have already shown, practise 
 both immersion and affusion, but neither are 
 regarded essential. The Roman Catholic 
 church practises pouring and sprinkling. She 
 has always done so, since her very origin. In 
 a word, although there are individual members 
 in all those respective churches, who may re- 
 gard immersion as more expressive of the rite 
 of baptism and do perhaps immerse, but yet do 
 not consider it the only essential mode. Such 
 for example, were the views of Dr. Campbell, 
 of Edinburg. But still he did not maintain it 
 to be the only mode, but that others were 
 equally valid. 
 
 Thus, then, we have seen that the Greek 
 word, baptizo, does in no case, signify exclu- 
 sive immersion, but the application of water 
 in any manner to the subject. We have seen 
 that there is no specific mode pointed out by 
 the Great Head of the church, so as to consti- 
 tute it the only essential one. We have seen 
 too that as such it is now regarded, with the 
 exception of our Baptist Brethren, and has 
 c3 
 
7a 
 
 been so understood generally, in the christian 
 church in all asres. 
 
 o 
 
 To conclude. The first inference from this 
 subject is, that to consider immersion aloyie^ as 
 the essential mode, is investing that mode with 
 a sacredness which will exert an unhapp)^ ten- 
 dency in the minds of our Baptist Brethren. 
 This principle is clearly manifested in the case 
 of a sect, called Campbellites, who have sece- 
 ded from the Baptist church. They have, un- 
 happily, been the means of rending asunder 
 many a flourishing congregation of that de- 
 nomination. They are very numerous in the 
 southern and western states. They place an 
 undue attachment to immersion under water as 
 being the only mode of baptism. Nay, they 
 consider it a saving ordinance. Mr. Campbell 
 their leader has declared " that immersion is so 
 significant and so expressive, that when the 
 baptized believer rises out of the water — en- 
 ters the world a second time — he enters it as 
 innocent — as clean — as unspotted as an angel." 
 Our Baptist Brethren, lay, in like manner, too 
 great a stress upon immersion. And although 
 they do not say, in so many words, that it is a 
 saving ordinance, yet they carry out this prin- 
 ciple by their close communion, that they alone 
 have a christian baptism, and therefore, are 
 alone the true followers of the Lord. They 
 regard themselves as possessing alone the pro- 
 mise of the gospel, and are alone entitled to the 
 blessings ^of the Lord. While they regard 
 other denominations of christians as virtually 
 
79 
 
 not belonging to the christian church, but as 
 living and acting in violation of the commands 
 of God, and if saved, cannot be saved in God's 
 appointed way, but by his uncovenanted mer- 
 cies. 
 
 Again, by laying so great a stress upon the 
 particular mode, our Baptist Brethren have in- 
 jured themselves. In the energetic language 
 of President Beecher, " It has injured them. 
 Among them are eminently pious men, but a 
 bad system has ensnared and betrayed them. 
 How else can we account for it that they should 
 have dared solemnly and formally to arrogate 
 to themselves that they are divinely and pecu- 
 liarly set for the defense of the gospel, and that 
 the heathen world must look to them alone for 
 an unveiled view of the glories of the gospel 
 of Christ. Has it come to this ^ Take away 
 immersion, and is the gospel shorne of all its 
 glories ? Yea, is the gospel itself annihilated ? 
 Is immersion the gospel ? What more can the 
 most bigotted defender of baptismal regenera- 
 tion and sacramental sanctification say than all 
 this ? But do our pious Baptist Brethren mean 
 all this } No ! a thousand times. No. They 
 know and feel, as well as we, that immersion 
 is not the gospel. These facts only show, 
 what all experience has shown, the danger of 
 holding a system which makes a mere form of 
 so much moment in practice as to outweigh 
 holiness of heart and of life." 
 
 Placing so much dependence upon a parti- 
 cular mode, a narrowness of feeling and an un- 
 o4 
 
80 
 
 charitable and even an unchristian spirit has 
 been generated in the hearts of our Baptist 
 Brethren. Their system has had a tendency 
 to exalt themselves in their own estimation^ — to 
 regard tliemselves as the only true depositories 
 of gospel truths and gospel ordinances in this 
 world. This unhappy spirit has particularly 
 been manifested in relation to the American, 
 and to the British and Foreign Bible Societies ; 
 those two noble and christian institutions ; in- 
 stitutions, which are susSained by the tears, the 
 prayers and the liberalities of millions of pro- 
 fessing christians of different denominations, 
 who can lay aside their sectarian peculiarities 
 and unite on one common basis to disseminate 
 the word of life throughout the world, but our 
 Baptist Brethren arrogate to themselves a pe- 
 culiar divine appointment to propagate their 
 own sectarian principles — to define the pecu- 
 liar mode of the christian ordinance of baptism, 
 which the Holy Ghost has not defined, and 
 thus charge those two great national societies 
 " as virtually combining to obscure a part at 
 least of divine revelation," and say that " the 
 real meaning of words used in connection with 
 one of Christ's ordinances is purposely kept out 
 of sight.''^* Such serious charges — such a vain 
 bigotted spirit manifested on their part towards 
 those societies, to which belong men certainly 
 as holy — as sincere — as learned and as defend- 
 ers for gospel truths and gospel ordinances as 
 
 *See the Report of their Bible Society, 1840, p. 39. 
 
81 
 
 themselves ; such a spirit, I say, does not cor- 
 respond with the teachings of Christ — the 
 promptings of the Holy Spirit — the first warm, 
 generous impulses of the christian heart, but is 
 the result of sectarian principles, and of a false, 
 deluded and deluding system, which pervades 
 the minds of the great body of our Baptist 
 Brethren. 
 
 Again, not only is it injurious to themselves 
 to lay too great a stress upon the particular 
 mode of baptism, but it is injurious to the best 
 interests of the whole community. The gos- 
 pel of Christ infuses peace and charity in the 
 hearts of its professed followers towards each 
 other among all the christian denominations, 
 but their system has a tendency directly the 
 reverse. On all the fundamental doctrines of 
 the Bible, christians of every name can unite 
 in worshipping the God of heaven — labor to 
 promote the best interest of Christ's kingdom 
 upon earth — sing and pray together; should 
 they then be placed in hostile array against 
 each other on non-fundamentals — nay, on mere 
 external rites and forms ^ The system of our 
 Baptist Brethren does this. It makes non-fun- 
 damental principles apparently of more import- 
 ance than fundamental doctrines. These prin- 
 ciples unfortunately arm holy men against holy 
 men — these alienate feelings disturb oftentimes 
 the peace of whole christian communities — set 
 near relations at variance — encourage infidel- 
 ity and check the work of grace in hearts, de- 
 sirous of gospel truths. The evils, resulting 
 c5 
 
82 
 
 from such a system, have been often manifested 
 in times of revivals ; when the public mind was 
 absorbed in religious matters, and when souls 
 were inquiring- the way to Zion, then, often in- 
 stead of pointing the serious enquirer to the 
 Lamb of God as their only blessed hope of 
 heaven, the subjects of " immersion you must 
 follow Christ in the Jordan,^^ &c., formed the 
 prominent topics of conversation and anxiety 
 by our Baptist Brethren. If any of the seri- 
 ous in their own revivals happened to belong 
 to families of other denominations, attempts 
 were made, and that too often successful, in 
 prejudicing their minds against their own min- 
 isters and people and doctrines and churches. 
 Even cliildren have had their minds thus un- 
 happily wrought upon. Passages of scripture 
 were given, which, instead of pointing the in- 
 quirer to Christ for salvation, apparently favor- 
 ed their own sectarian views — thus arming 
 them, as was supposed, in warding off all the 
 attempts, which their own ministers and friends 
 might, in the discharge of their solemn duties, 
 urge upon their minds as the one thing needful 
 for peace and pardon. Such scenes have been 
 witnessed with grief And such scenes too 
 have not been uncommon of late. The sad 
 consequences naturally were unholy controver- 
 sies on non-fundamental principles — the depar- 
 ture of the Holy Spirit — the check of the re- 
 vival and the ruin of many precious souls. All 
 this is wrong ; radically wrong. Over which 
 many christians have deeply mourned and fer- 
 
83 
 
 vently prayed. Our most judicious Baptist 
 Brethren have seen and felt too with us, the 
 sad consequences, which their own system di- 
 rectly tends to promote. Brethren these things 
 ought not so to be ! ! 
 
 But considering the mode of baptism as un- 
 essential, and performed, regarding the bodily 
 constitution and the health of the candidate — 
 the season of the year — the climate — the de- 
 cency — the convenience and solemnity of the 
 ordinance, no undue stress will be laid on any 
 particular mode.* The great body of the 
 
 *Baptism performed by immersion, is not in accordance 
 with that tender sense of decency and propriety wliich 
 ought always to characterize females. Who has not often 
 seen them, after beinff immersed, shrink as it were, by an 
 inward sense of indehcate exposure from the gaze of the 
 spectators? Neither is it calculated to solemnize the mind 
 or retain that composed and devotional spirit, which affu- 
 sion produces. Who has not often witnessed, in the female 
 candidate when about to be immersed, the hurried breath- 
 ing — tlie violent palpitation of the heart and her spasmodic 
 grasp on the arm of the administrator? And when raised 
 up out of the water has she not oftentimes strangled — mani- 
 fested deep agitation and even a distress of soul? Besides, 
 who will deny but that severe sicknesses — derangements 
 and even deaths have not oftentimes been the sad conse- 
 quences of their immersion? 
 
 Again, immersion is not fitted for universal practice 
 throughout the world at all times and under all circum- 
 stances in life. Thousands of the Anabaptists, who once 
 were strong advocates for immersion, have seen this and 
 have thus wisely given it up. Paseing by the sick bed — the 
 infirm — the delicate in health and the lame, examine upon 
 your map those portions of the world inhabited where water 
 sufficient for immersion could only be found a hundred 
 miles distant. Can immersion be conveniently practised in 
 such countries? No. There are other portions, where, 
 amidst mountains of ice and almost perpetual snow, it 
 
 c6 
 
84 
 
 christian church, though differing on various 
 subjects, yet as it regards the mode of baptism, 
 have no contention. They believe in the na- 
 ture and importance of the ordinance, — they 
 attend to its requirements as well as the res- 
 pected denominations of christians, called Bap- 
 tists. Nay, they in one word, are as good 
 Baptists as those are, who are expressly desig- 
 nated by that name. 
 
 The second inference from this subject is, to 
 consider immersion as the only essejitial mode 
 in the ordinance of baptism, then there is no 
 christian church upon earth. You have already 
 been told that there was no denomination of 
 christians, from the death of Christ, until the 
 Anabaptists arose in Germany, in 1522, that 
 considered any particular mode essential. And 
 after them, the Calvinistic Baptist church in 
 England, which commenced, as stated in the 
 preceding discourse, September 12th, 1633. 
 
 must be hig'hly imprudent, and if at all performed, it is dart' 
 gerous. As an evidence of which, we are told by Captain 
 Cochrane in his travels in the Northern Regions of Europe 
 and Asia in 1820 — 1, the following: "After they had pa- 
 raded a little, the priest baptized men and women, not by 
 sprinkling them with water, but obU.3;ing them to strip mid 
 plunge three times into a caldron of ice wdtter. Tiie long 
 hair of the women became surrounded by icicles." A 
 question arises here "does the gospel of Christ, require the 
 indecency — the stragglings of soul — the opposite of all de- 
 votional feelings and Ihe exposure of liealth, in the public 
 profession of its candidates?" No. No. Immersion has 
 manifested all these, but affusion never. Does not then 
 affusion, in these respects, appear to be the most reasonable 
 and proper 1 ^ 
 
85 
 
 Now tbe question arises, who baptized by 
 immersion, those that constituted their first 
 church? The clergyman's name was Spils- 
 bury. Another question arises ; had he been 
 immersed by one of the same faith and order, 
 who himself too, had been immersed ? Ivimey, 
 the author of the History of the English Bap- 
 tist, vol. 1, p. 138, when speaking of their ori- 
 gin, says : " And as they believed that baptism 
 was not rightly administered to infants, so they 
 looked upon the baptism, which they had at 
 that age as invalid, whereupon most of all re- 
 ceived a new baptism, (by being immersed in 
 water) on personal profession of repentance 
 and faith.^' From which it appears, that those 
 who were then immersed, were not so immers- 
 ed by one, who had himself been immersed by 
 one of the same faith and order, consequently 
 to reason according to their own principles laid 
 down, their baptism was invalid, because per- 
 formed by one who had not truly himself been 
 immersed. 
 
 Again, how did the Baptist church in Amer- 
 ica, take her origin.'* We are informed in 
 Governor Winthrop's Journal, and by the Rev. 
 Mr. Backus' Church History of New England, 
 that the Rev. Roger Williams was the founder 
 of the Baptist church in America, in the year 
 1639. He having been a minister of a Pedo- 
 baptist church in Salem, Mass., from thence he 
 was banished for some civil affair. He fled 
 to Providence, Rhode Island, together with 
 eleven of his people. There they embraced 
 
86 
 
 Baptist views and organized a church. But 
 how did they do it? The following is the ac- 
 count given : " One Ezekiel Holyman, who 
 was a layman, and who had been baptized in 
 infancy, and by sprinkling, and consequently 
 had never been baptized according to the 
 views of the Baptists, took Mr. Williams and 
 baptized him by immersion, or rather went 
 through the ceremony of baptizing him ; and 
 then Mr. Williams, who upon the principles of 
 the Baptists, had never been baptized, re-bap- 
 tized Mr. Holyman, the very individual, who 
 had just before gone through the ceremony of 
 baptizing him., and also the ten others who fled 
 from Massachusetts bay." Now, upon the 
 principle of our Baptist Brethren, none of 
 these were actually baptized, and consequently 
 no Baptist church was ever established. The 
 baptism which Roger Williams received, hav- 
 ing been performed only by a layman. Thus, 
 by attempting to unchurch all those denomina- 
 tions, which have not been immersed by one, 
 who had himself been immersed, professing 
 the same faith and order, they actually un- 
 church themselves. Nay, to follow out their 
 own principles of reasoning, there is actually 
 no valid baptism, and consequently, no chris- 
 tian church upon earth. 
 
 Such was the conclusion to which Roger 
 Williams himself arrived ; for it is said that 
 after preaching for several months as a Baptist 
 minister, v"he then separated himself from 
 them, doubting the validity of all baptisms. 
 
87 
 
 because a direct succession could not he traced 
 from the apostles to tlie ojfficiati7ig ministers?'' 
 
 But blessed be God, we are not placed in 
 this unhappy condition. I believe that Christ 
 has a church upon earth, built upon a founda- 
 tion so firm, that all the combined powers of 
 earth and hell, cannot prevail against her ; a 
 church nurtured, sustained and blessed by him- 
 self as her king and protector. Of which 
 church, all Evangelical denominations consti- 
 tute a part, and hence all ought to be knit to- 
 gether in the tenderest bonds of affection, aid 
 each other in opposing sin in every form, and 
 labor together for the extension of the Re- 
 deemer's kingdom upon the earth. 
 
 Another inference, resulting from consider- 
 ing immersion alone essential^ is, that it leads 
 to the practice of close communion. It is not 
 uncommon with our Baptist Brethren in a time 
 of deep seriousness to tell the young convert, 
 " unite with us and you will be sure to be 
 right ; if the way in which water is applied is 
 not essential, you will be right ; but if it es- 
 sential you will be right. At all events by 
 uniting with us you will be more in the right 
 than by uniting with any other denomination." 
 Immersion is thus prominently held up beibre 
 the mind of the young convert as all important 
 in making a profession of his faith, while how- 
 ever tbe principle of close communimi is left 
 in the shade. Many serious inquirers after 
 truth have tlius been deceived. They have 
 ignorantly subscribed to a principle, whicb is 
 
revolting to every christian feeling; which, 
 with the sharp knife of excision, cuts asunder 
 the bonds and fellowship of christians, who 
 ought to be one in Christ. But the question 
 arises, what is close communion ? It is com- 
 munion at the table of the Lord, confined and 
 restricted to a single denomination ; all others, 
 however sound in faith, however devoted to 
 God, however satisfactory the evidence of 
 their christian experience, yet are debarred 
 from partaking with them at this feast of love F 
 Though they will unite with others in worship- 
 ping God at the same altar — sing together the 
 same songs of Zion — unite in prayer, and even 
 their ministers will acknowledge the ministers 
 of other denominations, pray for them, call 
 them brothers in the Lord, exchange pulpits 
 with them, yet when their own communion- 
 table is spread, those ministers are not invited, 
 and even should they approach, they would be 
 debarred from that great blessing and told, 
 ''''ice cannot fellowship you because you have n(4 
 been immersed.'''^ 
 
 It was in view of this, that that eminent ser 
 vant of God, the late Rev. Robert Hall, him 
 self a Baptist, opposed close communion, called 
 it '■'■party communion,'''' but advocated open 
 communion, and it is upon the same principle 
 that such a large and respectable portion of 
 the Baptist church in England have come out 
 in favor of open communion. And I have been 
 informed, t^pon good authority, that the cause 
 of open communion is beginning to develope 
 
itself more and more among our Baptist Breth- 
 ren in this country. 
 
 In consequence of close communion, many a 
 heart has bled, many a tear has been shed, 
 many a struggle of soul has been endured, 
 many relations and kindred of the deepest 
 piety living together — others meeting, after 
 years of separation, in a christian church at 
 the time of communion have been denied this 
 heavenly privilege of uniting together in this 
 christian ordinance- Is this genuine Christian- 
 ity ? Is this the Spirit of the great Master of 
 the least? Is this manifesting brotherly love? 
 Is it setting s«ch an example before the world, 
 so as to constrain the fieople oi" the world to 
 exclaim in the language of the heathens of old^ 
 "see how these brethren love each other?'*' 
 Is this following out the injunctions of Christ, 
 when speaking of brotherly love, " By this 
 shall all men know that ye are my disciples, 
 if ye love one another ; as I have loved you, ye 
 ought also to love one another T'' The apostle 
 John, whose very soul was filled with love, 
 says, " By this we know that we have passed 
 from death unto life, because we love the hreth- 
 reny Is it brotherly love to debar each other 
 from the table of the Lord, to deny to them 
 the greatest and the most heavenly of all earth- 
 iy blessings? Who can read the farewell 
 prayer of Christ, in John 17th chap., and not 
 have his very soul moved with love to him, and 
 to our fellow christians ? Christ had before 
 him his disciples, to wliom he had administered 
 
90 
 
 the christian Passover, although they had not 
 been baptized but had only been circumcised, 
 and yet he did not debar them from the graci- 
 ous privilege, but administered it to them with 
 his own hands, and shall we be wiser and more 
 holy than he was ? He, at the eve of cruci* 
 fixion, prayed that all christians might be unit- 
 ed, be one, one in common faith, one in spirit, 
 one in purpose and action, one in love, and one 
 in the celebration of the ordinances established 
 in his church for their own spiritual good. 
 
 1 will conclude this subject in the language 
 of an eloquent writer:* "Free communion," 
 says he, " should be practised because the 
 church on earth ought to become, as far as 
 possible, like the church in heaven. With the 
 church in heaven, where all cast their crowns 
 at the feet of the Lamb and sing, ' Hallelujah ! 
 the Lord God omnipotent reigneth ; blessing 
 and honor, glory and power be unto Him that 
 : sitteth on the throne forever and ever;' there 
 close communion finds no countenance. There 
 one Master presides, one table is spread, one 
 spirit reigns, one practice prevails. There all 
 who have been baptized into one body, by one 
 spirit, and washed in that one fountain opeq^ed 
 for the house of David, and are of one heart, 
 and one mind, dwell together in perfect unity. 
 There free communion of heart with heart, 
 and soul with soul, pervades the unnumbered, 
 holy, glorious throng. The church on earth 
 
 *Rev. Orin l-^owler. 
 
91 
 
 ou^bt to bear a strong likeness to tbe church 
 in heaven. As there is but one table above, 
 there should be but one below. As perfect 
 love binds all hearts to God and each other 
 there, so love unrestricted should bind all 
 hearts together here. All who have drunk at 
 the same fountain, are enlisted under the same 
 banner, and will finally dwell in the same king- 
 dom, sing the same song, and rejoice forever 
 in the glories of the same Redeemer; are 
 bound to make the church militant as far as 
 possible, like the church triumphant, and thus 
 urge forward the chariot wheels of the Prince 
 of life ; and this never can be done^ unless 
 free, unrestricted communion of visible be- 
 lievers, who are agreed in the fundamental 
 truths of the gospel, be universally practiced.''^ 
 Amen. 
 
GENERAL INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Pog-es. 
 Text and Introduction, --,.-- 5 — 6 
 Church of God under both dispensations, - 6 — 9 
 
 Infant membersiiip under the old dispensation, - 9 — 15 
 Infant membership under the new family baptisms, 15 — 11 
 Initiation of infants under both dispensations, 17 — 20 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Baptism is a spiritual ordinance, circumcision is not, 21 — 23 
 Circumcision was applied to males only, - 23 — 24 
 
 Belicveth and is baptized, - . - - 24 — 26 
 
 What benefit can it be, - - - - 26 — 28 
 
 If one of the parents only is a member, - - 28—29 
 Why prevent children from coming to the table of 
 
 the Loid, ------- 29 
 
 Was not the Lord's Supper administered to chil- 
 dren, 29—30 
 
 There is no instance in the New Testament of in- 
 fant baptism — family baptisms, - - - 30 — 31 
 A striking example of infant baptism in the New 
 
 Testament, 31—33 
 
 Children not to be baptized because Jesus Christ 
 
 was not until 30 years of age, - - - 33 
 
 Why was Jesus Christ baptized by John, - - 33 — 35 
 Where is the express command, - - - 35 — 37 
 
 HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS. 
 
 Dr. Miller— Justin Martyr— Ireaneus—Tertullian — 
 Origin — Council of Bishops — Augustine — Pela- 
 gius, -------- 37—40 
 
 Opposition to infant baptism — Ivimey, - - 40 — 41 
 The church from the Reformation— Greek church- 
 Roman Catholic church, - - - - 41 — 43 
 Concluding remarks, ----- 43 — 44 
 
94 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Pages. 
 In what mode is water to be used to constitute 
 
 scriptural baptism — Lutljer, _ _ - 45 — 46 
 The Greek word bapto and baptizo— Carson — Dr. 
 Miller — Luther's Translation — Stuart — Greek 
 
 church— Dr. Kurtz, 46 — 49 
 
 The classic Greek of the Old Testament — Eccle- 
 siasticus, 34th chapter, 23th verse — Lev. 14th 
 chap. 6th verse — Daniel, 4th chap. 33rd verse, 49 — 60 
 The Greek of the New Testament— Matthew, 3rd 
 chap. 16th verse — John, 1st chap. 31st verse — 
 Acts, 1st chap. 5th verse, 11th chap, 15th and 
 
 16th verses, ' 51 — 52 
 
 1 Cor. 10th chapter, 1st and 2nd verses— Heb. 9th 
 chap. 10th verse — Mark, 1th chap. 3rd verse — 
 Luke, 11th chap. 31th and 38th verses, - - 52—55 
 John's baptism not christian baptism, - - 55 — 57 
 Christ's baptism — his induction into the Priestly 
 
 office not by immersion, _ _ _ - 57 — 59 
 
 The Eunich— Acts, 8th chap. 38th and 39th verses, 59 
 
 John's baptism not by immersion — Matt. 3rd chap. 
 16th vers'e — Matt. 3rd chap. 5th and 6th verses — 
 John, 3rd chap , 23rd verse — Matt. 3rd chapter, 
 11th verse— i Joel, 2nd chapter, 28th and 29th 
 verses — Acts, 2nd chapter, - - - 60 — 64 
 
 The 3,000 at Pentecost — Acts, 2nd chapter, - 64 — 66 
 The return and conversion of the Jews — Ezekiel, 
 
 36th chap. 25th verse, _ - - - 65 
 
 The Jailor— Acts, 16th chapter, ... 66 
 
 The apostle Paul— Acts, 9th chap. 18th verse, 66 — 67 
 
 Cornelius — Acts, 18th chap. 47th verse, - 67 
 
 The conclusion of the examination of the above 
 
 passages of scripture and remarks, - - 67 — 68 
 
 Buried in baptism — Rom. 6th chap. 4th verse, 68 — 70 
 
 One baptism — Eph. 4th chap. 5th verse, - 7 J 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Christ went in the Jordan — follow Christ in every 
 particular — a small piece of bread at the com- 
 munion — why does the Lord bless all denomina- 
 tions — minivers of other denominations unite 
 with the Baptist and the reverse — the change of 
 
95 
 
 Pages. 
 
 views in Europe in relation to immersion and 
 close communion — the Central Committee — 
 Church History — Dr. Campbell, - - 71 — 17 
 
 INFERENCES. 
 
 Immersion alone as the essential mode exerts an 
 unhappy tendency on the minds of the Bap- 
 tists — is injuring them — is injuring community, 78 — 84 
 
 Immersion alone as the essential mode, then there 
 is no christian church upon earth. The history 
 of the origin of the Baptist church in Eng- 
 land — America — Roger Williams, - - 84 — 87 
 
 On close communion, ----- 87—91 
 
• ,