^ (^ ,^ ra ^^ IE 3 4 CD C3 .J^^ '_^ p^ ■ hi Q. w C55 J^ o ^ $ "^ OJ o c C^ o bfl r\ ^ Eh <: ^ l^ O :3 !zi E • ^ O M Cj "»^ ^ Ph CO I' Ph ^ ^ ^ Ck >> ^ <^ % c s ^ (U CO 2f ¥> d: Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/baptismitsnature01 ross BAPTISM: ITS NATURE, OBLIGATION, MODE, SUBJECTS, AND BENEFITS. BY L. EOSSER, A.M. OF THE TIRGIXIA ANXUAL CONFERENCE. KICHMOND, YA: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 1853. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by L. ROSSEK, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Tirginia. STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHXSOX AST) CO. PHILADELPHIA. «tC. ApgJbtj; THSO: PREFACE.- The fruitful causes of division in the Christian Church originate in the disposition of weak and selfish man to increase or lessen, modify or do away, the conditions and requisitions of salvation, positively enjoined or plainly implied in the Bible. Out of the old Jewish vail, rent from top to bottom by Christ himself, some fragment is often reserved, and devoted to sectarian purposes. The middle wall of partition, long since broken down, is rebuilt upon the very authority by which it was overthrown, and to secure the very ends which its prostration was designed to prevent. The pure fire of heavenly love, kindled by Christ to burn for ever on the altar of his sanctuary, struggles amid the impure vapours of religious con- tention, till often it finally expires, and in its place flashes up the sickly light of sectarian fervor — a strange fire, destructive alike to the church and the world — the cause of grief and reproach to the one, and of contempt and triumph to the other. In vain may the church weep over her fallen altars, broken harps, rent robes — her failures, misfortunes, and fre- quent defeats — her want of spiritual influence — her sad declensions in charity, in zeal, in spiritual life, in 3 PREFACE. pious activity, and the spirit of unity: — she weeps over her o\Yn work — she furnishes both the occasions and weapons of attack — she invites the insult offered to her majesty, purity, and gentleness — she is the cause of her own misfortunes — the mournful victim of her own arrogance and imprudence. How much of uncharitableness might be prevented, and how extensively the spirit of Christian fellowship might be promoted, in the various branches of orthodox Christianity, by practically observing the invariable truth, that the unity of the church, in all ages, de- pends upon the identity of the doctrines and conditions of salvation, and unity of love, and not upon a mere uniformity in ceremony, 'practice, and opinion, which, from time to time, may be adopted, and which are as mutable as the manners and customs of men ! The "Act of Uniformity," passed in England, in 1661-2, obliging all the clergy to subscribe the Thirty-nine Arti- cles, and use the same forms of worship, caused upward of two thousand ministers to quit the Church of Eng- land — which was indeed a usurpation of power over man's religious nature, and a violation of the spirit of the gospel; and yet these very ministers regarded their own regulations, and differences of opinion in religious matters, as just causes of divisions among themselves, and exclusiveness toward each other — an example, alas, lamentable in its influence in our own country! If our Christian principles and experience are founded on the sweet, simple, and gentle laws of the gospel, framed as they are by infinite wisdom, universal in their sanction, boundless in the range of their blessings, written in the blood of their meek and PREFACE.' 5 compassionate Author, and designed to unite mankind in the bonds of peace on earth, preparatory to com- munion in heaven, why should we regard, with scrupu- lous tenacity, mere difference in external rites and ceremonies as an insurmountable barrier to unity and fellowship on earth ? Can we not be in spirit on earth what we shall be in heaven ? Are not those principles which are sufficient to secure eternal salvation in heaven, sufficient to secure a catholic spirit and com- munion of saints on earth? If we believe they are not, then let us never offer up a prayer again on the principle contained in the admirable form of prayer prescribed by our Saviour — "Thy will be done on earth, as it is done in heaven." Are not the same principles which were able to preserve the church in the bonds of peace and the unity of the spirit, in the days of Christ and his apostles, sufficient to preserve the church in the same unity and communion, in all ages of time? "What other means to protect, or what other chart to guide, do we need, in addition to those which the apostolic church possessed? Do not union, prosperity, and stability depend upon the same great fundamental principles and necessary things now, as then were required? We say necessary — from which man can no more take any part, and to which he can no more add any thing, than he can affect the necessary being of God himself. It is surprising and affecting, that any difference of opinion ever should have arisen in the church on the subject of Baptism ; and yet there never was a subject, respecting which so great a diversity of opinion has unnecessarily existed among pious men as that of Bap- 6 PREFACE. tism — a diversity of opinion that has been productive of nothing but injury to the church. Some consider it invested with indispensable importance, others with no importance — some place all the importance in the mode and subjects, and none in the thing signified — some consider it a Jewish prejudice or pagan super- stition, while others solemnly regard it as a Christian ordinance or sacrament, and place all the importance in the subjects and signification, and none in the mode. Regarding the mode as non-essential, and the subjects and signification only as important, with an humble confidence in Divine Providence, we commit the follow- ing volume to its destiny. Fkedeeicksburg, March 17th, 1853. ^^ J*r!iN TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Preface 3 Introduction 11 PART I. NATURE AND OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. Chap. I. Nature of Baptism:. 1. It is a solemn and public profession of faith in the Trinity 19 2. It is expressive of adoption into the family of God.... 20 -3. It is expressive of spiritual union with the Son 20 4. It is expressive of regeneration by the Spirit 20 5. It is expressive of renunciation of the world 21 6. It is expressive of spiritual union among Christians 21 7. It is expressive of hope of a future resurrection 22 8. It sets forth the doctrine of original sin and free grace 22 Obligation op Baptisit. 1. Founded upon the command of Christ... 23 2. Founded upon the practice of the Apostles 23 II. Circumstances Essential to the Validity of Baptism. 1. The proper administrator 25 2. The proper form 26 3. The proper subjects 27 4. The proper element 27 5. The proper mode 27 . 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS. PART II. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Chap. I. The Mode of Baptism Inferential. PAGE 1. From the Englisli Scriptures 30 2. From the original Greek word /?arrriicj, baptizo 33 11. 3. From the original Greek prepositions 76 III. 4. From the harmonious connection of the mode with the known circumstances of spiritual baptism, &c 88 IV. 5. From the circumstantial nature of the institutions of Christianity 99 V. 6. Collateral proofs. (1.) That mode most proper which is of universal appli- cation 109 (2.) That mode most proper which best comports with devotion 109 (3.) Immersion, in the case of females, indelicate 110 (4.) The diflBculty in certain cases in Scripture avoided, upon presumption that sprinkling or pouring waa practised 113 (5.) Disposition of the Baptists to make a new transla- tion of (3a7TTl^(J 131 (6.) Disposition of the Baptists to destroy the analogy existing between the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and external Baptism 133 VI. Unfairness of the Baptists. (7.) Nearly the whole Christian church, from the days of the Apostles to the present time, has practised sprinkling and pouring, and opposed exclusive im- mersion 133 (8.) Evangelical paedobaptist churches crowned with signal success in publishing the Gospel 157 VII. Objections Considered. 1. Baptism is a positive institution 158 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 9 PAGE 2. Since John is found at Jordan, tlie inference is, that he baj^tized by immersion 159 3. Why did the apostles baptize in the open air, and at ,the water's edge, where was much water? 162 4. "Where reference is made to the operations of the Holy Spirit, under the ideas of sprinkling and pouring, the meaning is figurative 162 5. Immersion is set forth under the figure of a burial.... 163 6. Obligation to be immersed is based on example of Christ 171 7. Immersion at the hands of an administrator who has not been immersed, is not valid Baptism 183 8. Sprinkling was substituted for immersion by the As- sembly of Divines at Westminster, in 1643, by a majority of one 200 9. Immersion is Baptism, and hence it is absurd to talk of mode of Baptism 202 10. There is no cross in sprinkling 203 11. The popular sophistry of the Baptists 205 PAET III. INFANT BAPTISM. Chap. I. The Ground of Infant Baptism 211 II. In all Covenants of God made with Man, Infants HAVE BEEN INCLUDED 225 III. The Christian Church the continuation of the Old TESTA3XENT ChURCH 227 IV. The New Testament in Harmony with the Doctrine OF Infant Baptism 259 V. The Scriptural Argument continued : Oihos—Oikia.... 287 VI. The Silence of Scripture, &,c 300 VII. Collateral Proofs of Infant Baptism 306 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS. PART IV. OBJECTIOXS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. PAGE Chap. I. Ixfant Baptism an Innovation 326 11. History OF Opposition TO Infant Baptism 336 II. Other Objections Considered 352 rV. Collateral Objections Considered 368 PART V. BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM, AND THE DEDICATION OF INFANTS IN BAPTISM A SOLEMN DUTY. Chap. I. Benefits of Infant Baptism 397 II. Dedication op Infants in Baptism a Solemn Duty 409 III. Conclusion 415 Index of Scripture Texts 419 General Index 423 ^^ THEOLOGIG>> BAPTISM. Preparatory to the consideration of Baptism, it is im- portant that we give a brief explanation of the nature of the Sacraments. The essential characteristics of a sacrament are six in number, namely: it must be divine in its institution, sig- nificative in its meaning, appropriate in its nature, connected with the church, universal in its application,* and obligatory till repealed. A rite having these marks, designated by God, properly becomes the formal sensible seal of the covenant of salvation under any dispensation of divine grace. And thus a sacrament may be placed in natural things, by which, in a moral sense, they become difierent from what they were in a natural sense — their natural character being in no re- spect changed — only a moral sense is superadded. For ex- ample, the tree of life was a pledge of immortality to Adam while he observed faithfully the divine law — not that the tree was invested with the elements of incorruption, by which immortality could be secured to Adam, but because * That is, not incotsistent witli climate, sickness, age, or any la-vvs of nature, or circumstances of divine providence. 11 12 INTRODUCTION. it was designated by God as the seal of his covenant. And so, the " bow set in the cloud" is a sign to man that there shall ^^ no more be a flood to destroy the earth" — not that the rainbow possesses any philosophical efficacy to prevent a second deluge, but that it has been selected by God as the most prominent, impressive, sensible seal of his covenant with Noah and his posterity — a natural phenomenon con- spicuous upon the retreat of the storm, as the encouraging sign that God is ever mindful of his covenant. The rain- bow is the same now that it was when it spanned the heavens before the flood ; it never can have any thing added to its natural state, unless natural laws be modified ; but as a sign appointed by God, it possesses a value which it never had before the deluge. For the same reason, silver coin stamped with a public impression acquires a new valuation, though it is changed in no respect in its natural state. Calvin ob- serves, " Even from the beginning of the world, whenever God gave to the holy fathers any sign, it is well known to have been inseparably connected with some doctrine, without which our senses would only be astonished with the mere view of it." ^ Thus all the sensible signs of the Jewish economy were connected severally with some prominent doctrine, either to be believed or practised. And so Baptism is con- nected with all the prominent doctrines of the Christian dispensation, and, as an outward seal, instituted and enjoined by God, it is invested with all the meaning and authority of a seal in its common acceptation. Again, Calvin defines a sacrament to be "an assistance and support of faith — an outward sign by which the Lord seals in our consciences the promises of his good-will toward us, to support the weakness of our faith ; and we on our part testify our piety to him, in his presence, and that of angels, as well as before men." ' Insts. b. iv. c. xiv. sec. 4, INTRODUCTION. 13 After the same form is the definition of a sacrament given in OTir Discipline : ^^ Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession^ but rather they are certain signs of gi-ace, and God's good-will toward us, by the which he doth invisibly work in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confii-m our faith in him/' ^ The explanation of the origin of that undue importance which is attached to the sacraments by certain sects, is to be found in the manner adopted by the ancient Fathers, in translating the original G-reek of the Xew Testament into the Latin language. Thus, the Greek word /j.u(T7rjrjio>, mys- terion, wherever it refers to divine things, the Fathers ren- dered by the word sacramentum, and not arcanum, lest they should seem to degrade the dignity of the subject. In pro- cess of time, the term sacramentum, which was originally only a sign of spiritual things, came to be applied as an in- dispensable means and condition of spiritual things. Sacra- mentum was confoimded with mr/sterlon — the sacrament was identified with the mystery — that is, in the sacrament the mystery was supposed to be hid or concealed ; so that he who did not submit himself to the sacrament, it was con- cluded, could never understand the mystery of spiritual things — never experience regenerating grace. By referring to the Latin translation of the following scriptures, the origin of this confusion may be discovered : ^' Having made known to us the mystery — mysterion — of his will ;" ^ mys- terion is translated sacramentum. '' If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward; how that by revelation he made known unto me the — mysterion — mystery," translated sacramentum.^ '• The mysterion — mystery, which he had hid from ages,'' trans- Dis. art. xvi. ^ Epi^. i 9, 4 jt:ph. iii. 3. 2 14 INTRODUCTION- lated sacramentum.^ On the other hand, the Latins so effectually confounded the meaning of sacramentum with that of mysterion, that the Grreeks themselves denominated the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper mysteries, according to their idea of the proper sense of mysterion. To this misapplication of the term sacramentum, is to be ascribed the pernicious error of baptismal regeneration. Moreover, as man is composed of sense and sj)irit, Christ has wisely adapted the sacraments to his complex nature ; for the sacra- ments are sensible symbols, not only of invisible spiritual communion with G-od, but of spiiitual communion and fel- lowship with saints. Failing to discriminate between the out- ward sensible character of Baptism and its inward spii'itual meaning, either too much or too little importance has been given to baptism. As extremes are found in individual cha- racters, so extremes are often found in individual churches. On the subject of baptism, the Baptist church has taken one extreme, namely, a specific mode, while the Bomish church, the Church of England, the Puseyites, and the Campbellites, have taken the other extreme, namely, spiritual purification or regeneration. The ideas of mode and purification, it is true, are both contained in baptism, the former necessarily, and the latter symbolically; but the Baptists err in restricting mode exclusively to immersion, and the Romish church and its offshoots, in sinking the ceremonial, emblematical sense of baptism into the spiritual, and in investing the rite with a spiritual energy to destroy sin and communicate the Holy Spirit. After a careful examination of standard authorities, we have been enabled to present to the general reader the follow- ing analysis of opinion on the subject of baptismal regene- ration. The Romish church, at an early age, arrogantly 5 Col. i. 27. INTRODUCTION. 15 assumed that baptism, ex opere operato, from the work wrought or performance of the act, in all cases, non ponen- tibus ohicem mor talis peccati, who do not oppose the obstacle of mortal sin, confers regenerating grace. On the other hand, many continental Eeformers assumed that baptism was a mere sign, onerum signuin. In the Church of England arose several parties, namely, those who maintain that ^' elect infants'^ only are regenerated in baptism ; those who main- tain that those infants only are regenerated in whom '^future repentance and faith are foreseen by God 3'^ those who main- tain that those infants only are regenerated in whom ^^a seed, or principle, or liahit, or spiritual bias is implanted in the heart;" those who maintain that those infants only are regenerated in baptism, " one of whose parents (really or at any rate nominally) is believing;" those who maintain that those infants only are regenerated whose ^^ parents make vicarious pledges at the time of baptism ;" those who main- tain "that the full baptismal blessing is not conferred in any case of infant baptism, but a proportionate influence only is bestowed ;" those who maintain — the High-Church party in the Church of England, the Tractarian or Puseyite party, the school of Laud and Montague in the latter part of the reign of James I., and the High-Church party in America — that regeneration universaUij accompanies baptism. The original compilers of the Baptismal Services in the Church of England were Calvinists ; and hence, the dogma of baptismal regeneration in the case of " elect infants" was adopted. The Tractarian party, or High-Church in England and America, interpret the Baptismal Services as the Romish church does. All these parties may be classed under two general divisions : first, those who maintain that Grod, in the case of all infants, has positively tied or connected spiritual regeneration with baptism, and in all cases of adu]t baptism, in which no impediment of mortal sin is placed in J 6 INTSODUCTIOX, the way^ spiritual regeneration is conferred — this is the fiist class. The second class maintain that regeneration is not so tied or connected Tvith baptism^ either in the case of the infant or the adult, but depends upon the conditions which we have mentioned. And yet both classes agree in one thing, which is, that spiritual regeneration, in the case of both infant and adult, is conferred in baptism — they differ only in opinion as to the extent of the blessing, and the con- ditions upon which it is bestowed. It is easy to see how these eri'ors all originated in confounding, as we have already stated, the thing signified with the sacramental sign and seal. There was, among the old Keformers and in the Church of England, another party, who maintained what we regard the proper view of baptism ; and this view is still maintained by the Low-Church in England and America, and by other Protestant churches. It will be the object of the first part of this work to show, that baptism is enjoined in the Scrip- tures merely as a sacrament, in the sense we have defined, ^nd that no specific mode is -enjoined in its religious usage. In order to see the appropriateness of the meaning we propose to give farther to baptism, it is necessary to consider for a moment the history of the gradual development of the plan of redemption. As soon as Adam violated the law of works under which he had been placed in original perfec- tion, God was under legal necessity, either at once to inflict the threatened and destructive penalty incurred, or in mercy to provide a proper and just method of recovery. Such a method was the plan of redemption, through the sacrifice of the Son of G-od. The full development of this method is to be gradually made by many introductory measures, as in the revolutions of time the necessities of man shall require. A few centuries after the fall of man, in the application of measures to instruct and reform the posterity of Ada^ii, INTRODUCTION. 17 the corrupt and incorrigible world is overwhelmed in the Deluge. Soon after the Deluge, the descendants of Noah desire to establish a permanent association that shall ulti- mately embrace the whole earth, which, should they succeed, must render the contagion of moral corruption the more rapid in its diffusion, and the force of wicked example the more energetic and obstinate in its results. To prevent these consequences, language is confounded and the human race is dispersed over the earth. Soon after this dispersion, idolatry becomes the general sin; and to check this evil, Abraham is called, the worship of the true Grod set up, the Mosaic dispensation introduced, and a peculiar people, the Jews, are hereby preserved from the general sin ; and hence, in part, we have the explanation of the design of circumci- sion under the Jewish dispensation. But the Jewish dis- pensation — designed to preserve the worship of the true Grod and to prepare the world for the coming of Christ — being insufficient to reform the human race, Christ, the promised Messiah, at length appears, and, in his incarnation, life, and death he develops, consummates^ and publishes to the world the great principles of the plan of redemption under the form of the Christian dispensation. The Christian dispen- sation is spiritual and final — all others, in one form or other, to a great extent were sensible and preparatory. Hence, the Christian dispensation is called the dispensation of the Spirit. But how is man to be formally initiated into the church under the Christian dispensation? By baptism. And why by baptism? Because, first, the services of the Christian dispensation are pure and spiritual; secondly, because the Sacrifice upon which, it is founded is holy and spiritual*; thirdly, because the agent, the Holy Spirit, that applies that sacrifice, is pure and spiritual ; fourthly, because the condi- tion of salvation is faith, pure and spiritual ; fifthly, because the effects that follow in the heart and life of the believer 18 INTRODUCTION. are pure and holy : in a word, because the Christian dispen- sation contains all the spiritual blessings and doctrines requi- site for the recovery and salvation of man — all of which water baptism, as a sign and seal, sets forth and expresses more significantly than any thing else can do. And thus the baptism of water is divinely instituted as the proper initiatory sacrament of the Covenant of Grace under the Christian dispensation. Hence the propriety of John's baptism, as preparatory to a profession of Christianity. '^John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come, that is, on Christ Jesus'' ^ — the Founder of the Christian dispensation of the grace of God. The Apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Gala- tians — one of the first churches founded under the Christian dispensation — thus unfolds the nature of baptism : " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ." ^ That is. By baptism ye have been form- ally initiated into the church under the Christian dispensa- tion, and thus publicly ye have made a profession of Chris- tianity in contradistinction to Judaism. ^^And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." ^ And so Peter, on the day of Pentecost, urges the Jews to "repent," and be "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus :" ^ that is. Renounce your sins, relinquish your Jewish prejudices, believe in Christ, and be initiated by baptism into the Christian church. Such is the general nature of baptism ; but as it embraces many important par- ticulars, we shall proceed, without further delay, to the spe* cial consideration of the subject of this treatise. 6 Acts xix. 4. 7 Gal. iii. 27, 28. « Gal. iii. 2t». s Acts ii. 38. 1^- .^-- ■A1 PART I. CHAPTER I. NATURE AND OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. Wafer baptism is the outward sign of the inward seal to all the covenanted mercies of God, embraced in the atone- ment of Christ, under the Christian dispensation, whether ohtained conditionally or unconditionally — conditionally as it respects adults, and unconditionally as it respects infants. Thus, it becomes the means of formal initiation into the church, under the Christian dispensation. It embraces also, a solemn, public, and practical profession of Christianity, and hence, it is essentially designed to distinguish the church from the icorld. As the initiatory sacrament of the Christian dispensation, it implies faith in all the doctrines which it contains, obedi- ence to all the precepts which it enjoins, the discharge of all the duties which it imposes, and a title to all the blessings which it promises : it relates to our faith, to our practice, to our hopes, to our obligations, and to God's faithfulness. 1. It solemnly and pid)licly expresses our faith in the Trinity. "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." ^ ' Matt, xxviii. 19. 19 20 NATURE OF BAPTISM. 2. It is expressive of our adoption into tlie family of God. ''For ye are all the children of Grod, by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus ; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.'^ ^ 3. It is expressive of spiritual union xcitli the Son. "Know ye not that so many 'of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him; knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto Grod. Likewise reckon ye also your- selves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.'^ ^ 4. It is expressive of regeneration hy the Spirit. ''Jesus answered. Verily, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." ■* Baptism 2 Gal. iii. 26-29. 3 j^onj. vi. 3-11. i John iii. 5-7. NATURE or BAPTIS3I. 5l is emblematical of that inward, spiritual change, which is of the operation of the Holy Spirit, and hence baptism cannot be sustained as any part of the condition of the new birth. That is, the sacrament of baptism cannot be the con- dition of that which it signifies as already existing. If bap- tism is the condition of regeneration, then faith is not; if faith is the condition of this change, then baptism is not; or if both faith and baptism are the condition, then baptism loses its significative character, since it cannot properly signify that of which it is the essential condition. Baptism, therefore, in the above text, is to be regarded as emblematical, and not conditional, of the new birth. 5. It is exjrressive of renunciation of tJie icorld. It is designed to remind us, through all subsequent life, of the sacred vows and obligations assumed in baptism. Thus, the Apostle Paul, in writing to the churches at Rome, Corinth, and Colosse, refers to their baptism for this purpose. " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Theref- re we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.^^^ It is to be lamented, that the sacraments have so little in- fluence on our lives. 6. It is the visible expression of spiritual union artiong Christians. " I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you, that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-sufi"ering, forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism." ^ An 5 Horn vi. 3-5. 6 Eph. iv. 1-5. 22 NATURE OF BAPTISM. indispensable characteristic of baptism is, that it connects with the church. The design of the sacraments is ^Ho keep Christ's worshippers and servants in one faith, and in the confession of the same." ^'For/' to use the language of Augustine, ^^men cannot be united in the profession of religion, whether true or false, unless they are connected by some communion of visible signs or sacraments." ^ And again, "Baptism also serves for our confession before men. For it is a mark by which we openly profess our desire to be numbered among the people of Grod, by which we testify our agreement with all Christians in the worship of one Grod, and in one religion, and by which we make a public declaration of our faith." ^ 7. It is expressive of hope of a future and triumpTiant resurrection. '^ Buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. F :■ U' we have been planted together in the likeness 01 his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrec- tion." ^ " Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? why are they then baptized for the dead ?"^o Finally — It sets forth the doctrine of origincd sin. " The corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is en- gendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature in- clined to evil, and that continually," ^^ is clearly and solemnly taught in infant baptism. Reference to the propriety of in- fant baptism on the ground of the original corruption of man, furnished Augustine with an irresistible argument against Pelagius. As it sets forth the doctrine of original Calvin's Inst. b. iv. c. xiv. sec. 19. 8 Calvin's Inst. b. iv. c. xv. see. 13. Rom. vi. 3-5. 'O 1 Cor. xv. 29. -' See art. vii. of our Discipline. OBLIGATION OF BArXISM. 23 sin^ it aho sets forth the doctrine of free grace. The doc- trine of free grace is especially set forth in infant baptism, since infants have an unconditional title both to salvation and baptism according to the doctrine of grace before faith : in the case of infants, titles and claims are founded upon free grace alone. It may be added, that the whole creed of our churchy with all the obligations of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is set forth in the offices of baptism as laid down in our ritual. No objection can be maintained against this service of the church, unless, in any instance, the creed of the church be proved to be inconsistent with the plain word of aod. We shall next consider the obligation to be baptized. 1. The obligation to be baptized is founded upon the com- mand of Christ : " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them,'' &c." This is positive and decisive. 2, Upon the practice of the apostles. The converts were baptized at Philippi,^ at Corinth,^^ at Ephesus,^^ at Colosse/^ throughout Asia Minor/^ and at Rome.^^ And hence we may infer that all the converts in the other apostolic churches were also baptized. Thus, obligation to be baptized rests upon the highest authority in the universe. Those who have exercised saving faith, and have not been baptized in infancy, cannot neglect this obligation without incurring the displeasui'e of God. The sacrament of baptism is positive as well as moral, and voluntary neglect of it cannot be for- given without hearty repentance before God. As baptism is the formal means by which the subject is consecrated to Christ, obligation to observe it extends no farther than the importance which is connected with the formal, sensible in- '2 Matt, xxviii. 19. i3 ^cts xvi. 15-33. J^ Acts xviii. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 13 : xv. 29. ^ Acts iv. 5 ; xix, 5. i6 Col. ii. 12. " 1 Pet. iii. 21. is Rom. vi. 3. 24 OBLIGATION OF BAPTISiM. stitutes of Christianity; and neglect of baptism, as the neglect of the Lord's supper — the other sacrament of the Christian dispensation — has all the guilt which is connected with the neglect of any of the ordinances of religion. Bap- tism, in the case of adults, should be received at the earliest opportunity after the act of justifying faith has been exercised. The question is often asked, Is baptism a matter of moral obligation ? The specific nature of this question must first be determined. If the question have reference to a specific and invariable mode, or to any specific and particular time, the answer is, that these circumstances of baptism are im- material and non-essential. But that the believer who has not been baptized is under moral obligation to be baptized according to some mode which he - may prefer, and at the earliest suitable time, there can be no doubt. As baptism, in several of its essential features, however, is wholly sensible, its observance must depend upon concurrent circumstances of a sensible character; and so, under some circumstances, it may be postponed or omitted without guilt,^^ — as in the case of the penitent on the cross, and in any case where baptism is impracticable. Nbie. — There is an important design connected with the institution of baptism, which must strike the attention of every careful reader with peculiar force. Embracing, as baptism does, the principles just considered, and being the initiating sacrament of the Christian church, it continues a standing proof to all ages of the divine origin of the Chris- tian religion. The continued observance of rites and cere- monies through succeeding ages, presents the strongest evi- dence of the authenticity of their original institution. The '9 It is unlike faith in these respects, which is purely a spiritual exer- cise, and hence is independent of outward circumstances, and so is of immediate, universal, and perpetual obligation. CIRCUMSTANCES ESSENTIAL. 25 passover, the feast of unleavened bread, and other institu- tions of the Jewish system, were standing proofs to the Jews of the divine origin of their religion. So baptism and the Lord's supper remain to this day, and will so remain to the end of time, as commanding evidences of the divine origin of the Christian religion. Their commemorative character, while it gives visibility to the Christian church, refers to the time, circumstances, and design of the original institution. Without the sacraments the church would soon be commin- gled with, and indistinguishable from the world. The Qua- kers, who reject the sacraments, give visibility to their society by peculiarities of dress, speech, and behavior. We little think, as Christians, how much we owe to the sacraments as evidences of the Christian religion, until the truth and authority of Christianity are assailed by the infidel and un- believer. Especially does the humble believer find the formality of the church corroborative of its divine origin, although it may be barren and burdensome to him who has assumed it as the counterfeit of real piety. CHAPTER n. CmCUMSTAXCES ESSENTIAL TO THE TALIDITY OF BAPTISM. Hating considered the nature and obligation of baptism, we shall next consider what constitutes valid baptism. There are five elements essential to preserve it in harmony and connection with the plan of salvation, and to secure its validity as the initiatory sacrament of the church under the Christian dispensation, — ^namely, the proper administrator, the proper subjects, the proper form, the proper element, and any appropriate mode. 1. The proper administrator. The man converted yester- 3 26 CIRCUMSTANCES ESSENTIAL day, and unbaptized to-day, is not the proper administrator. Nor is every converted man who has been baptized, though of splendid talents or exalted piety, a proper administrator. Neither conversion, nor baptism, nor talent, nor piety, singly or combined, can invest any one with the right to baptize. The proper administrator is the man who has believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, been born again, called by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel, and has been solemnly set apart by the church, according to its form of ordination, to dis- pense the word of God and to administer the holy sacra- ments.* And so Christ himself, in the great commission, invests the preacher only with the right to baptize : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing in the name,'' &c. 2. The proper form of baptism. Christ, the Founder of the Christian dispensation, has given the proper form of initiation into the chui'ch, under the Christian dispensation, in the following words : — ''In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And why was this form given ? Because the three persons in the Trinity are engaged in the work of redemption. Why, then, was not this form of initiation into the church given at some earlier period of the world? Because the Son of God, one of the parties to the great scheme of salvation, had not yet been fully revealed to the world ; and because, consequently, the Holy Spirit, another party, was under the necessity of delay- ing the full outpouring of his influences till the ground of his agency, the sacrifice of the Son, should be offered up and ' It is worthy of observation, that ordinarily the church is impressed with the presentiment that the candidate for orders is a proper person to receive them; even the world, sometimes, is impressed with the same belief: as if, it would seem, the Holy Spirit hereby prepares the church and the world with confidence in the man thus called to preach the gos- pel and administer the sacraments. TO THE VALIDITY OF BArTISM. 27 manifested to the world. Xo other form of initiation could correspond to the Christian dispensation, and consequently baptism is incomplete without this form.'^ 3. The proper subjects. Passing by infants for the pre- sent, it is universally conceded that the believer is a proper subject of baptism. 4. The proper element. The proper element is water. "Water is proper from the purity of its nature and effects, and is emblematical of the purity and spirituality of the Christian dispensation ; the purity of the Holy Grhost, the agent in conversion ; the purity of the results of faith in conversion — namely, a pure nature, pure principles, pure motives, pure feelings, pure dispositions, holy relations and actions, with all the blessings, holy influences, and designs of the atonement of Christ provided for man under the Christian dispensation. This is the design of water in bap- tism — the whole design. To what other use can water be applied in the salvation of the soul ? It cannot, in the least degree, supersede the efficacy of the blood of Christ, nor the agency of the Holy Spirit, nor the office and necessity of faith : it has a general, expressive, emblematical significa- tion — this is all. 5. The proper mode. The administrator, the subjects, the form, and the element to be used in administering bap- 2 Upon an examination of the practice of the ancient churches it ■will be found, in every case, that consecration to the Trinity is the import of baptism. And hence the apostles rebaptized the disciples of John, because they had not explicitly professed the Son and the Spirit in the baptism of John. Consecration to the Trinity is a primary and peculiar import of baptism. Nothing allusive to the burial of the subject, in earth or water, is designed. Xor can it have reference to the death of Christ, because it has reference solely to the service of Christ The primary and peculiar import of the holy eucharist is the death of Christ, and hence it is not credible that baptism also should "show forth his death" — that two rites, and the only two rites of the Christian dispensa- tion, should refer to the same thing. 28 CIRCUMSTANCES ESSENTIAL tism are all defined and enjoined in the clearest manner, but not one word of specification and injunction respecting tlie mode of baptism can be found in tlie Bible. In the other parts of baptism as they stand related to each other, in order to secure the validit}- of its administration, we find all to be plain, rational, and harmonious ; but here, as it respects the mode, the connection, at first view, at least, is not so easily apprehended. As we do not at once see clearly the connec- tion of the mode with the other parts of baptism, and as no specific mode is explicitly enjoined in the Scriptures, we are to seek the best evidence to satisfy our minds on the subject. If the mode were clearly and specifically enjoined in the Bible, it would be solemnly and perpetually binding, how- ever inconsistent it might appear to be with the other parts of baptism. But as it is not explicitly defined and enjoined, it must be a subject of inference. That is, the connection of the mode with the circumstances essential to constitute valid baptism must be either expressed or implied, direct or inferable. This connection is not directly expressed or en- joined in the Bible : therefore the connection is to be inferred, and that mode is to be preferred which best preserves this connection. Before we refer to the sources of inference on this subject, it is to be observed, that they furnish nothing in the form of command respecting any mode. No one can urge any thing to be a duty by command, which can only be made out to be a duty by inference. Much less can any one urge that to be a duty upon others, which is made out merely by Ms inference. 3Iy own inference may bind my conscience, but it can be obligatory upon no one else, unless he infer as I do. If, therefore, I believe or infer from the sources about to be adduced, that immersion is not the most proper mode of baptism, I cannot consider my inference as binding on any one else, unless he think with me. Respecting the TO THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM. 29 doctrine of inference, every one is left to his own judgment, and consequently, one with the Bible, and all the informa- tion he can get, spread out before him, has just as much right to infer that sprinkling and pouring are valid modes, as another has that immersion is a valid mode; and hence these modes may be regarded as equally binding on him, as immersion is on another who regards it as the only valid mode. In administering the ordinance of baptism, it is essential that water be used in some form, and if any par- ticular and invariable mode of its use had been deemed necessary by Christ and his apostles, they would most clearly have specified it; but as they did not deem it material, they have left the whole matter to the inference of the church, — and we proceed now to the sources of light with which we are furnished on this subject. PART 11. CHAPTER I. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. The sources of inference respecting the mode of baptism are six: — 1. The English Scriptures. 2. The original Greek word ^a-rt^oj, haptizo. 3. The original Greek prepositions. 4. The harmonious connection of the mode with the known circumstances of spiritual baptism, and the plan of salvation. 5. The circumstantial nature of the institutions of Chris- tianity is left to the discretion of the church. 6. Collateral proofs. 1. The English Scriptures are the first source to which we apply for information respecting the mode of baptism. All Scripture, adduced in support of any favorite mode, leads only to inference. Take the case of immersion as an example. Thus, Christ ''went up straightway out of the water" — and it is inferred that he came up from under the water. "Philip and the eunuch both went down into" — and it is inferred that the eunuch went down under ''the water." "Buried with him by baptism into deatV^ — and it is inferred that we are to be buried with Christ by bap- 30 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 31 tism into icafer. And so of all other passages of Scripture from which immersion is inferred. xSow it is obvious, that all this is nothing but inference, for the words luider and water are supplied by the imagination; and it is natural for the mind under moral influences, while in search of informa- tion to support favorite opinions, to strengthen doubtful evidences by light from the imagination, and thus incline to that mode which seems to be sustained by the strongest inferences from the Scriptures. But so far as immersion is concerned, it is not once used in the Bible, and consequently no inference from the abstract word can be made respecting the mode of baptism — unless the idea of immersion be drawn from the original word ,3a-Tt^cu^ — and not even from this — as we shall see presently. But the very words, '^ sprin- kling" and '^ pouring,'^ are used repeatedly, expressly re- ferring to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which external baptism is intended to represent. If similar passages of Scripture, in which spiritual baptism is represented by immersion, could be produced, then inference for external baptism by immersion would be equally strong with inference for external baptism by sprinkling and pouring. For bap- tism by sprinkling and pouring, there is inference based on the very words, which is stronger than inere conjecture; for I do contend, that all immersionists guess at immersion, in all cases, in the Bible, as the scriptural mode of baptism. I put the question : — Do you hiovj that Christ, or any one else mentioned in the Bible, was baptized by immersion ? Do you know it? No, but you honestly infer it; and ac- cording to the grounds of your inference is the strength of your belief. But the belief of others in other modes is better supported, because based on stronger grounds, as we hope to show. It is sometimes boldly asserted by the uninformed, who never read the Bible through, and who are imperfectly ac- 82 THE :\IOT)E OF BAPTISM. quainted with a few passages of Scripture from which immer- sion is inferred by them, " that sprinkling and pouring are not found in the Bible, while immersion is often found/' This is the presumption of ignorance, and the dogmatism of prejudice. The reverse is true. Immersion, I repeat, is not once mentioned in the Bible. From all which we are brought to this general conclusion : Because the mode of baptism is a subject of inference, and therefore arbitrary and discretionary with the responsible subject of baptism, we cannot say that sprinkling and pour- ing are the only proper modes, but because they are sus- tained, as we believe, by stronger inference than immersion, while we do not exclude immersion, they are to be preferred to immersion. That is, in a case like the present, one in- ference has not such pre-eminence over another that it should give the stronger the force of express injunctiony to the exclusion of the weaker as unscriptural and invalid. The selection of the mode, therefore, is to be left with the candidate for baptism, capable of choosing, as in a thousand other instances he enjoys the liberty of selecting the mode. Invested with this right of choice, different minds are differently and innocently persuaded. Take a supposed case of three candidates for baptism. The first comes and says, "I desire to be baptized by sprinkling.'^ And why do you wish to be baptized by sprinkling ? " Because I believe it is the scriptural mode." You believe it is the scriptural mode? "Yes, for I read, 'I will sprinkle clean water upon you,' &c. ; * and as this refers to the inward baptism, I be- lieve the external baptism should correspond as nearly as possible to the internal — and therefore I wish to be baptized by sprinkling." Very well, you shall be baptized by sprin- kling. ' E/.ek. xxxvi. 23; Isa. lii. 15. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 33 The second candidate approaches and says^ ^'Eiit I wish to be baptized by pouring/' And why do you wish to be baptized by -pouring? ^'Becaase I believe it is the scriptu- ral mode, for I read, 'I will pour out my spirit upon ail flesh/ ^ and as this refers to spiritual baptism, I suppose the external mode of baptism ought to be analogous — anl therefore I prefer baptism by pouring." Very well, you shall be baptized by pouring. But the third candidate is of a different opinion: ^'I desire,'^ says he, ^4o be baptized by immersion." Why so? "Because I believe it is the scriptural mode." And why do you believe it is the scrip- tural mode ? " Because, I read, Christ ' went up straight- way out of the water /^ and, 'they went do^>Ti both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch/^ and so I infer Christ and the eunuch were immersed, and therefore I wish to be baptized by immersion." Yery well, you shall be baptized by immersion. Each has his mode, founded on inference, and the wishes of each are to be respected by the proper administrator. That the two former, however, have a broader ground for inference than the third candidate, cannot be questioned for a moment, since they proceed un- der the force of the very words expressing the mode of spiritual baptism, which external baptism is intended to represent. All the light then from the English Scriptures, respecting the mode of baptism, is circumstantially and in- ferentially in favor of sprinkling and pouring. 2. The second source of information respecting the mode of baptism, to which we direct attention, is the original Grreek word, jSa-ri^aj, haptizo. First. We are not to determine the meaning of this word by the particles and appendages with which it is often found connected in Scriptui-e. Common readers, who do not un- 2 Joel ii. 23. 3 Matt. iii. 16. ■» Acts viii. 33. ■^ THE MODE OF EAPTIRM. derstand tlie primary meaning of this famous word^ deter- mine its signification by the particles and phrases thrown around it. But this is giving to the original word the meaning of its appendages; which is unfair, since the appendages have a distinct meaning in themselves, and consequently are to be examined disconnected from the original word. Let us remove these phrases, and consider them by themselves. The phrases, ^'' went down into," " came up out of,' ^ "when he came up straightway out of," "in Jordan," " buried into death," and suchlike expressions are to be examined separately. Now, do these phrases mean immersion ? Certainly not ; and as a plain reader, unac- quainted with the original word, you are left to the whole force of inference from these phrases. We offer you the following criticisms, to prove that the particles and append- ages connected with this word had no reference to its mean- ing, but to the circumstances of its use, and therefore they can furnish no aid in determining the signification of haptizo. In the case of the eunuch, the phrases "went down into," and "came up out of" had reference to the chariot and the manner of approaching and leaving the water, and not to the manner or mode of baptism. The words which are translated "went down into," and "came out of," are xaza- (iaivtoj 'katahaino, and ava^ai-^co, anahaino. That we may learn the meaning of these terms in the present instance, let us consider their meaning in other passages of Scripture. The multitude, while Christ was nailed to the cross, railed on him, and said — " If thou be the Son of God, come down from — y.azdl^rii^i, hatahetJii — the cross." ^ On the morning of the resurrection of Christ, " the angel of the Lord de- scended — y.ara^aq, hatahas — from heaven," kQ.^ And Jesus straightway coming ujp out of- — wm^jabmv a-o, anahainon 5 Matt, xxvii. 40. * Matt, xxviii. 2. THE IMODE OF BAniSM. 60 apo — the water, he savy- the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending — xaza^iai'^uy, katahainon — upon him."' "And Jesus gocth iip into — a>a,3a{'^si, anabainei — a mountain." " And the scribes which came down — xaza- ^d'^rsq, katahantes — from Jerusalem." '^And Jesus icent up — avc^T^, anehe — unto them into the ship'^ — where from ? Why, right from the water — from the surface of the sea : certainly he did not go up from under the water, as the Baptists suppose the eunuch went up from the water into his chariot. '^ And as they came down from — y.aza^ia'.'^-^zio'^, Icatahainonton — the mountain." "And he desired Philip that he icould come uj) — ctva,Savra, anahanta — and sit with him." ^ Thus, when Matthew says that Christ " came up straightway out of the water," and when Luke says that the eunuch " went down into the water," and " came up out of the water," we are not to suppose that these phrases in- volve the idea of immersion, or furnish us any satisfactory light respecting the mode of baptism, but only refer to the fact of baptism. In the case of Philip, we have already seen him go up into — wm^avza, (verse 31,) — the chariot, and seat himself by the side of the eunuch. Presently (verse 38) we see Philip descending — xazi^jr^cm — from the chariot to — e:V, eis — the water with the eunuch, to baptize him. Not one word in all this respecting the mode of baptizing. The phrases "down into," and "came up out of," or from, (as ez, eh, may be translated,) refer to Philip as much as to the eunuch, and describe their descent from the chariot to the water, and return from the water to the chariot. If these phrases signify immersion, then what force is to be given to the member of the sentence — "and he baptized him ?" If ' Mark i. 10. 8 Acts viii. 31. "Without doubt, anahanta here refers to tlic chariot; for as yet they had not reached any water. THE :^IODE OF BAI-TlsM. the phrases and the member of the sentence both impl}^ im- mersion^ then the eunuch was baptized twice! — for the whole statement is, they " both went down into the water, cmd he baptized him." Besides, if the phrase '^down into the water'' signifies immersion, then Philip, the administrator, was also immersed: "and the?/ went down both into the WATER, BOTH PhILIP AND THE EUNUCH." But if we consider the phrases as referring only to the manner of ap- proaching and leaving the water, they may apply with equal propriety both to Philip and the eunuch, without inyclving the idea of the immersion of either the subject or the ad- ministrator. Therefore, the idea of mode cannot be deduced from the declaration, "and he baptized him.'^ If the particles " in," " into," and the phrase " out of* mean under, then Daniel was thrown under the lions' den. Jesus went under the mountain. Jacob went down under Egypt. Zaccheus climbed under the tree. Christ and the penitent thief went up from the cross under paradise. John baptized under Jordan. Jesus came up straightway from under Jordan. The sons of the prophets went under Jordan to cut wood. The Romans were buried by baptism under death. The Galatians were baptized under Christ. Paul baptized the jailer under the jail. The Jews were baptized under Moses, and under the sea. Peter went under the sea, and cast a hook. All the church were baptized under one body. It is needless to multiply instances of the misappli- cation of these terms ; we will conclude by simply stating that the preposition ev, en, translated in Jordan, in the New Testament, is rendered 150 times icith, and more than 100 times at. It is evident, therefore, that the particles and phrases thrown around the word haptizo determine nothing respecting its meaning, and of course can furnish no infor- mation concerning the mode of baptism. Secondly. Since the whole strength of the case turns at THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 37 last on the word haptizo, we will take it disconnected from its appendages, and examine into its meaning. It is asserted by the Baptists, that haptizo means to im- merse, and only to immerse, and needs not the appendage of other words to determine its meaning. Very well ; let us take up hoptizo by itself. " Went down into," and ^^ came up out of" are to be taken away, and ^^he baptized him" is to settle the mode of the baptism of the eunuch. ^' When he went up straightway out of," and ^'in Jordan" are to be taken away, and ^'when he was baptized" is to determine the mode of Christ's baptism. So, " buried with him" is to be taken away, and ^' by baptism" is to determine the mode of baptism in the case of the Romans. Baptizo, as it now stands alone, is wholly divested of the force of the inference , connected with its appendages, and we are to determine the mode of baptism by the inherent meaning of haptizo, as it is used in the gospel sense, exclusive of all other considerations. We proceed to consider at large the original meaning of hap- tizo — a word respecting whose meaning the Christian church has been involved in so many unhappy controversies ever since discussion about it commenced. The primary meaning of i3a-ri^w, in its EVANGELICAL SENSE, is TO WASH — a meaning corresponding to the nature of spiritual baptism, and the character of the Christian dis- pensation, of which baptism is the initiatory sacrament. In this sense haptizo is used rationally and emblematically, since such a meaning is in connection with the whole scheme of salvation; while, in the sense of immersion, it is used without connection and without rational signification. It is admitted that classic authors employ the word in the sense of immersion ; but then, in the first place, it is to be ob- served that they often use the word in other senses also ; and, in the second place, what did ancient classic authors know about the sacrament of baptism ? Had they under- 38 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. stood the nature and design of Christian baptism^ and then used the word in the sense of immersion^ there might be some force in the references which Baptists make to them as authority in settling the evangelical sense of haptizo. But as the case now stands^ how are we to tell whether the word is to be used in the sense of immersion, or in the other senses in which it is used by classic authors ? It is evident that we are to determine its evangelical sense from the gos- pel ; and, if the sense in which it is plainly used in the gos- pel be clearly determined to be otherwise than what Greek writers give it in the quotations usually made by Baptist critics, then we are to adopt the evangelical sense in prefer- ence to the classical — not that the one is in opposition to the other, but that the evangelical sense of the term is some- times given by classic authors, which the sacred penmen selected as applicable to Christian baptism. Preparatory to the consideration of the evangelical mean- ing of hajJtizo, we invite attention to the following remarks : First. There are two kinds of evidence addressed to our belief, namely, moral and demonstrative; and such is the constitution of mind, that both these kinds of evidence are regarded equally strong and satisfactory. And such is the nature of certain great moral questions, that demonstrative evidence is inapplicable in settling them : indeed, the most important questions of life, reputation, and property are sometimes settled by moral evidence alone. Moral evidence as effectually convinces as demonstrative evidence does in the plainest questions of mathematics. All philological reasoning is circumstantial, moral, and cumulative, and em- braces all the facts and laws and their corresponding mental impressions in a given case. Secondly. In the translation, or transfer of a word from one language to another, the original signification cannot in all cases be preserved. In John iii. 5, we have — " Except a THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 39 man be born of water, and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God/' Now the primary and classic meaning of the word rrveD/icc — pneuma — here rendered Spirit, is wind; and the literal translation should be — '^except a man be born of water and the icindj' &c. Indeed, in the 8th verse, this word is translated wind: "the wind bloweth where it list- eth," &c. Upon the principle of intei-pretation adopted by the Baptists, it is impossible to show that the doctrine of regeneration, or the personal existence of the Holy Spirit, is taught in these verses. Take another example : — " For the Sadducees sr.y, there is no resurrection. i;ei:her angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees believe both.'^ ^ The original meanings of the terms here used are : ava<7ra eawffrj T.u.o>,') haptized or stained in blood. ^' Rev. xix. 13. A chieftain's garments are not stained in battle by immersing them in blood, but by sprinkling or aspersion. ''Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozra? Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth the winepress ? I have trod- den the wine press alone; and of the people there was none with me; for I will tread them in anger, and trample them in my fury, and their hlood shall he SPRINKLED upon my garments, and I will ST Ai:^ all my raiment.'' Isa. Ixiii. 1-3 To the same effect is 3Iatt. xxvi. 23 : ^' He that dippeth (o sfj-lsad'aq) his hand with me in the dish,'' &c.; which cannot imply a total immersion, as any one acquainted with the mode of eating in the East will at once perceive. And so Dives prayed to Abraham to send Lazarus that he might dip — ^ar.Ti — bis finger, &c. In these three examples from 44 THE MODE or BAPTISM. the Scriptures, and they will suffice, nothing like the idea of entire immersion is implied. Classical authors maintain the same position. In the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, a mouse is represented as dye- ing or coloring — t^a-rtro — the lake with his blood. '' To suppose that there is here any extravagant allusion to the literal immersion or dipping of a lake, is a monstrous perversion of taste. The lake is said to be dyed, not to be dipped, or poured, or sprinkled. There is in the word no reference to mode. Had Baptists intrenched themselves here, they would have saved themselves much useless toil, and much false criticism, without straining to the impeachment of their candor or their taste. What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the figure of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse ! Yet Dr. Gale supposes that the lake was dipped by hyperbole. The literal sense he says is, the lake was dipped in hlood. Never was there such a figure. The lake is not said to be dipped in hlood, but to be dyed with hlood. '^ Carson and Cox, on Baptism, p. 67. Again, ^' Hippocrates employs it to denote dyeing, by dropping the dyeing liquid on the thing dyed — ^a-rerai. This surely is not dyeing by dipping. ^^ Ibid. p. 60. Again: "In Arian's Expedition of Alexander the Great — 'Nearchus relates that the Indians dye — ^a—o'^ra: — their beards.' It will not be contended that they dyed their beards by immersion.^' Ibid. 61. Dr. Carson also observes, "From signifying to dip, it came to signify dye hy dipping — and afterward from dyeing hy dip- ping, it came to denote dyeing in any manner.'' P. 60. And he adds : " Use is always superior to etymology as a witness on this subject. A word may come to enlarge its meaning so as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvious to every smatterer in philology." P. 62. "Use," he continues, " is the sole arbiter of language. Bar.zio sig- nifies to dye hy SPRINKLING, as properly as by dipping, THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 45 though originally it was confined to the latter." P. 63. No stronger or more candid defence of our argument could be expected of the most accomplished pasdobaptist. All that we claim is here candidly conceded. " This is a fact, and were it even against me, I could not but admit it.'^ P. 6-i-. "What fact? that hapfo denotes "dyeing in any manner. '^ To proceed farther is useless. Admitting that hapto invariably and necessarily means immerse, according to the laws of etymology, haptizo, one of its derivatives, must lose some of the force of its primitive. But we have shown that 'bap)to has not this invariable mean- ing, but is a term of such latitude that it implies any mode or manner, according to its use in various authors. Conse- quently, haptizo, its derivative, cannot be restricted to one meaning: like its primitive, it implies any mode or manner. Secondly. But we pretend not to settle this as a question wholly of etymology and probabilities. "We have positive facts and evidence in the Scriptures, that haptizo is usc'd in the sense oi icash ov pnirif}/, which we shall now addutc. First. The ordinary meaning of the word, as it is used in the Scriptures, with reference to the influences of the Holy Spirit, means to cleanse, io purify, to icash. The cleansing operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion, is set forth under the idea of a baptism : this indeed all can understand, as the plain and rational meaning of the word in its gospel sense. Secondly. A dispute arose among the disciples of John concerning baptism as practised by Jesus and John. '^ Babbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, heJioId the same baptizeth, and all men cometohimy' *7 The question in dispute here was "about purifying,'^ (v. 25^) and hence, with regard to it, the disciples of John referred to Jesus as purifying by baptizing, while they thought that " John iii. 26. 46 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. John, and not Jesus, was invested with authority to ad- minister hoptism as the rite of jjurijication. The terms employed are, xadap: tizo the evangelical sense of wash or purify. '^I indeed baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost," That is, in a ceremonial sense, I indeed cleanse you with water, but he shall purify you spiritually with the Holy Ghost. To say that John had any reference to immersion in the latter case is absurd, and hence we may infer, that John did not immerse in the former case. Give to haptizo the sense of purify, and at once the prophecy of Malachi, the baptism of John, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost harmonize in the most exact and rational manner. Fifthly. The reference made in Heb. ix. 10, to Mosaic purifications, requires that we give the meaning wash, ^purify, to haptizo, "Which stood only in meats and drinks and divers washings'' — iSaTz-tff/xo't^. A comparison is made by the Apostle between the legal typical purifications of the Jewish dispensation, and the real, moral purifications of the Spirit provided by Christ under the Christian dispensation. The baptismois here referred to, such as gifts, sacrifices, the blood of sprinkling, the ashes of a heifer, all relate to persons and not to things. But throughout the scope of the Mosaic ritual, not once is immersion enjoined upon persons. The original Hebrew word 7DLD7 that means to immerse, is not used in a single instance where washing or purifying is en- joined u]^oji j^ersons, but in every such case the word '/HI, which means to ivash or purify, is used. In a word, the whole Mosaic ritual, in its application to personal ablution, might be fulfilled to the letter, without immersion in a single instance. That Paul, in the text above, refers to the Mo- saic ritual, in its application to persons, and not to things, may be proved by reference, not only to the Jewish cere- monial law, but to what he says above : "which was a figure 48 THE MODE or BAPTISM. for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make Mm that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience/' (v. 9.) Thus the term haptismois, in this scripture, must mean purifications, without the remotest reference to immersion. Sixthly. Several other instances: — The baptism of St. Paul: "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.''^"^ The purification of the heart is here typified by baptism. The bloody baptism of Christ : It is evident Christ could not have been immersed in his own blood, and the only rational meaning that can be given to haptizo in this case, is a sacra- ficial purification, and this was done by the outpouring or shedding of his own blood. The baptism of the church at Rome : " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.'' ^i \j^^ Col. ii. 12: "Buried with him by baptism into death," &c. In these passages, nothing can be proved respecting mode from haptizo; and with regard to the word ^^huri/,'^ it would have been used had sprinkling or any other mode been specifically mentioned. The burial here referred to is spiritual, and hence the baptism here mentioned is spiritual. And what is spiritual baptism ? It is the destruction of sin and the pui'ification of the heart — it embraces those bap- tismal influences of the Spirit that give a spiritual force to the will, a spiritual clearness to the understanding, a spiri- tual ardor to the affections, a spiritual energy to the power of faith, and an exquisite delicacy to the conscience, by which we become dead to the world, and alive to God. How then can a person baptized consent to sin ? This ^iew of these texts perfectly harmonizes with the drift of the apostle's argument. If mode, in any sense, be implied in 20 Acte xxii. 16. 21 Rom. vi. 3-i. THE MODE OP BAPTISM. 49 these Scriptures, it must be analogous to that mode which the Spirit adopts, and that is sprinkling or poming, as the Scriptures invariably teach; immersion is out of the question. It may be added, that the dogma of baptismal regenera- tion originated in connecting the idea of purljication with haptizo. In the early times of Christianity, the church began to sink the form of baptism into the spirit of it, and to regard that as a condition which was only a sign and seal of regeneration. It would have been impossible ever to confound the outward with the inward baptism, if baptism was not symbolical of spiritual purification — impossible indeed ever to invest mere immersion ^ftiih. the idea of spiri- tual birth. The Romanists, Puseyites, and Campbellites seize upon the same passages of Scripture, in defence of their pernicious errors, that many of the early Fathers adduced in defence of baptismal regeneration; and the Campbellites themselves, therefore, when they attempt to prove the notion of immersion from the Fathers, at the same time prove from their own witnesses, that haptizo means to purify. From these considerations, the inference is easy : external baptism, the outward sign, should represent the inward cleansing, and hence icater is the element used in the ad- ministration of external baptism. Likewise the mode of external baptism should correspond as nearly as possible to the mode of spiritual baptism adopted by the Holy Spirit, The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a real, indisputable baptism, visible to the senses, seen by John the Baptist- and the multitudes at the Jordan, by the apostles, and by Peter and the brethren in the instance of Corneliiis. And what is the meaning of the word in these instances. Let John the Baptist, who used the word, answer : ^' He shall baptize you u-ith the Holy Ghost." -^ Our Lord himself, 22 Matt. iii. 11 : Mark i. S; Luke iii. 16. 50 THE MODE OF EAPTISM. vrho was the subject of baptism, shall also answer: "Ye shall be baptized icitJi the Holy Ghost not many days hence. '^ ^ That we may fix the sense of the word baptize as to mode, in the above instances, consider the popular meaning of si/nonymous v:oixhy which the sacred wiiters, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, employed, in reference to the same events. ''Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you : but tarry you in the city of Jeru- salem until ye be endued with power from ox high."^ Here our Lord, by using a word synon3'mous with baptize, sets forth the idea of spiritual baptism, altogether inconsistent with immersion or plunging. "And suddenly there came FROM HEAVEN, and appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fii'e, and it sat urox each of them." -'" Here Luke describes the manner in which the apostles were baptized according to the promise of Jesus. And so Peter also bears witness: "The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the heginning.'^ -^ Peter again: ^'God gave them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.""'' The prophet Joel bears testimony respecting the mode of the baptism of the apostles on the day of Pentecost. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my spirit," kc.^ Take other instances: "I saw the Spirit descending from HEAVEN like a dove, and it abode upon him.^^g ^^ Jesus having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." ^° "That they might receive the Holy Ghost; for as yet he was FALLEN UPON none of them."^^ "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." ^3 "The Holy Ghost TELL ON all." 33 <{j.a auzou s/^difrj, apo tes drosou, tou ouranou to soma autou ebaphc ; and in the Vul- gate we have, et rore coeli conspergater — SPRINKLED icith the «Matt. iii. 11. 37 Acts i. 5. 3- Compare Dan. iv. 23, 25, 33. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 53 dew of heaven. In this instance, the person of the royal subject was baptized by the descending, the falling of the dew in the night. The king was certainly not immersed in the dew, for two reasons : the condensation of the vapors of the night never could have produced dew of a sufficient depth to immerse him ; and in the second place, had he been immersed, he would have been destroyed. Again : '' I would not that ye be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized — l^ar.riaw^-o, eha.ptisanto — unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea," ^^ Here the Israelites pass ^' under the cloud," ^^ through the sea,'' ^^ on dry land,'' and consequently, the baptismal element descended from the cloud above — God himself being the administrator. Im- mersion on dry land is an absolute impossibility, and hence, in this instance at least, haptizo does not mean immerse. Once more : ^^ And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he (Christ) had not first luashed — z^ja-zicQr, — ehaptisthc — ^before dinner.'" "*" "And when they came from the market, except they umsh — ^a-zLaw^rat — haptisontai — they eat not." Mark vii. 4. The meaning of the term here is a ceremonial pnrificatlon, a mere refining upon the 3Iosaic ordinances concerning ablution, and has no reference to physical cleanliness. This is the intrinsic and specific meaning here, and about this there can be no controversy. The second point is — what was the mode of this ceremonial customary purification among the Pharisees and Jews gene- rally? We maintain ih^ii pouring was the mode employed. "Here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, who poured water on the hands of Elijah." *^ The same custom prevailed in the days of Christ, and continues still in the East, for customs 59 1 Cor. X. 1, 2. "io Luke xi. 3S. — /Sa^'-cj, hapsei — them and the living bird in the blood of the bird," &c.*^ No bird used in the Jewish sacri- fices could yield blood enough to render the immersion of the living bird, the cedar icood, the scarlet, and the hyssj, hapse — the '*2 Luke^vii. 44. ^ Carson on Baptism, p. 10. Dr. Carson is an Irish Baptist minister, and was once a paedobaptist, but having embraced the opposite views, he wrote a work on baptism, which the Baptists hold in the highest esti- mation. ^ Josh. iii. 15. ^ Josh. iii. 17. ^ Lev. xiv. 6. 56 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. tip of his finger/' kc.*' Of course, the whole finger was not to be immersed — only the ^/j? of the finger. ^'He to whom I shall give the sop when I have dipped — [ja^'aq, hapsas — it." ^^ The meaning here cannot be, that the sop was wholly immersed. " He was clothed in a vesture dipped — ^z^aixiihov, hebammenon — in blood." '^^ The idea cannot be tolerated, that the garment of Christ was immersed in blood. "The washing — ISa-Tccr/inh^, haptismous — of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables."^" "The foundation of the doctrine of baptisms" ^^ — /Sa-r.'cr/jtoiy, haptismon. "Which stood in meats and drinks and divers icashings" ^^ — ^a~TC(T/io'[<;, haptismois. Now it is evident, that various modes of wash- ing are here intended. It may be admitted, that the cups were immersed, though not necessarily so, in order to be washed. But were the "pots and brazen vessels," and the cumbersome "tables," fifteen or twenty feet long by four feet broad, and about four feet high, also immersed ? Be-' sides, the doctrine of baptisms is mentioned in the plural number. And any one but partially acquainted with the ancient regulations and ceremonial ablutions of the Jewish dispensation, knows that the greater part of them had nothing to do with immersion. Again, in the Old Testament, "' And Elisha sent a messen- ger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times." ^ This he did, verse l-ith. "Then went he down, and dipped — l^ar^-ziaazoj ebaptisato — himself seven times in Jordan, according to the sai/ing of the man of God." Here haptiw clearly means to wash; and it is by no means clear that Naaman subjected himself to a total immersion. "But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said. Behold I thought, he would surely come unto me, and stand, and call 4' Luke xvi. 24. "? John xiii. 26. « Rev. xix. 13. so jjark rii. 4. 51 Heb. vi. 2. ^ Heb. ix. 10. ^2 Kings v. 10. THE MODE OF BArXISM. 57 on the name of the Lord his God^ and strike his liand over the place , 2.11^ recover the leper." ^^ Well assured are we of one thing, that the word here means to wash, which is the meaning contended for in this discussion. To meet this difficulty, Dr. Carson lays down the following canon: "In certain situations two words, or even several words, may with equal propriety fill the same place, though they are all essentially difierent in their signification."^^ In the above example, therefore, the meaning of ).ooa), louo, to washy may be expressed by haptizo; and consequently, hajAizo means to wash. Dr. Carson's canon is fatal to his criticisms — the result, no doubt, of the classical research of many years. He unecjuivocally allows, that hapAizo and louo may, "in certain situations, with equal propriety, fill the same place," and hence they may mean what other words mean, "though they are essentially different in their significations." In this single sentence, Dr. Carson saves others the pains of coiTectincr his criticisms, himself offsettin^j them all at a single stroke, by adopting a canon which would give l> jjtizo the meaning to icash, if it had not inherently this meaning. That I have fairly interpreted and applied the canon of Dr. Carson, take his own words. Refemng to the case of Naaman, he says, " This passage is a complete illusti'ation of my canon. The two words kobio and jSa-Tt'Cio are here used interchangeably, yet they are not of the same significa- tion." ^^ In the name of common sense, how can words be used interchangeably that have not in some respect the same signification ? If words used interchangeably have not the same signification, then Xaaman disobeyed the prophet, and the sacred history of the transaction is false ; but if words used interchangeabl}^ have the same meaning, then haptizo ^ 2 Kings V. 11. 55 Carson and Cox on Baptism, p. 81. ^ Ibid. p. S7. 58 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. and louo in this case mean the same thing, and therefore haptizo means to icasli. Dr. Carson again, on same page : " The words haptizo and louo have their own peculiar mean- mgs even here, as well as anywhere else, without the smallest confusion. To haptize is not to icash; but to baptize in a river, or any pure luateVj implies washing , and may be used for it in certain situations. If Naaman dipped himself in Jordan he was washed. '' That is, haptizo, implies washing, and may be used for it in certain cases. Of course then. haptizo may mean to wash in a gospel sense. Could the most explicit declarations of all the psedobaptist churches be clearer than this admission of Dr. Carson ? Placing our- selves then by the side of Dr. Carson, with him, and Elisha, we determine the meaning of haptizo to be to icasli. We make one more remark. Dr. Carson has given a latitude to the meaning of these words, hapto and haptizo, by his canon, which no psedobap-* tist ha? '^-Y ]■ dared to assume. And this is the more re- markable, when it is considered that he had spent so much labor to prove, that one of these words has a univocal mean- ing, and the other but two meanings. On the principle of his canon, ^^circumstances" and ^^situations" alone can de- termine the number of meanings inherent in words, and consequently, language has no fixed laws of interpretation. In vain does Dr. Carson, in his subsequent conclusions re- specting the abstract, primary, and invariable meaning of these words, cry out, ^^ decisive" '^ irresistible," &c. He has forestalled his future progress. This ordinance, so well loaded and directed, sweeps away his preceding labors, and when ruin is complete in that direction, he wheels it around, and keeps up a perpetual and destructive fire throughout his succeeding march. What does it avail him now to marshal Hippocrates, Polybius, Dio, Porphyry, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Lucian, Strabo, Josephus, and many other ancient TIIE MODE OF BAPTISM. 59 authorities^ since his canon, levelled with fatal precision, pours its thunder into the bosom of his beloved and venerated antiquity? Besides, these very authorities, in some cases,' give, with Elisha, the meaning to wash to haptizo, as Dr. Carson himself shall prove. ^' There are instances,^^ says he, ^^in which the word is translated by some wash, and in ivJiich the genei^al meaning may he thus well enough ex- pressed in a free version. ^^ ^^ And yet in the very next sen- tence, in violation of all consistency, he absolutely cancels this admission. ''Still however,^' he continues, "the word, even in such situations, does not express the idea of wash- ing, and has its own peculiar meaning of mode, the idea of leashing being only a consequence from the dipping.'^ If the word does not express the idea of washing, how then is it '^translated by some'^ to wash? If it does not express the idea of washing, how can " icash be well enough ex- pressed in a free version?'^ Dr. Carson saw this difficulty; and so we are not sm*prised to see him, probably before the paper is dry before him, write down a recantation of his last inconsistency. Hear him : " Xow as I am pledged to show that the word does not mean to 2cash in any manner ^^ &c. In any manner? Why, just above, he allows, that "wash- ing is a consequence from the dipping.'^ Is not dipping a "manner'^ or mode of washing! "Pledged" to contradict and refute himself? On another point, abeady examined, I will just here refer to Dr. Carson as evidence. That hap- tizo, when referring to the operation of the Holy Ghost on the heart, means to wash, take the following testimony: "The Spirit is said to be poured out, not because there is any actual pouring, which is represented by pouring out water in baptism, but from the resemhlance heticeen the effects of the Holy Spirit and those of water P ^^ Then haptizo, 5" Ibid p. 9S. 5S iViirj. p. 165. 60 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. when referring to the influences of the Holy Ghost, means to ucash or purifi/j which is all we contend for at present, and which Dr. Carson admits — although he had declared that haptizo does '^not mean to wash in any manner." At the same time however, he endeavors to destroy the resem- blance between the mode of the application of the Spirit's influences, and the mode of the use of water. ^^ Baptism, whatever be the mode, cannot represent either the manner of conveying the Spii'it or his operations on the soul. Though there is a real communication of the Spirit, there is no real or literal baptism." ^^ These are mere assumptions, made without a particle of proof adduced to sustain them. But Dr. Carson shall again refute his own position. "But though the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a figui-ative bap- tism; yet as respects the transactions on the day of Pente- cost, there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit." ^° Indeed I and what was the mode of this real emblematical baptism? Dr. Carson says, in the next sentence, "the dis- ciples were immersed into the Holy Spirit by the abundance of his gifts, and they were literally covered with wind and fire." Immersed into the Holy Spirit! Xot at all — but granted. And then they were immersed by pouring, for pouring was the mode of baptism adopted by the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. ^^ Just one remark here : — Is it not probable, that the apostles who had first been baptized by the Holy Ghost by pouring, adopted pouring as the mode of external baptism in the case of the three thousand, who, w Ibid. p. 164. ^ Ibid. p. 168. 6' Dr. Gale himself, in his "reflections on "Wall," admits that " the word haptizo, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a thing being in that condition, no matter koto if comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes over it." Wall, vol. iii. 122. Consequently, as the apostles, according to Dr. Car- son, were baptized by ponrinj on the day of Pentecost, pouring is a proper "action" of baptism. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 61 tlie same day believed and were initiated into the Christian church? These emblems of the Spirit were sensible and external; and as they were miraculous, concomitant circum- stances of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the idea of pour- ing is suggested as appropriate and consistent in the adminis- tration of the initiating sacrament of the Christian dispensa- tion. Dr. Carson, in explaining the meaning of the word when it refers to the operations of the Holy Spirit, discards all idea of mode, and considers it only as expressing the purifying effects of the influences of the Holy Spirit — and yet for more than 150 pages, he endeavors to convince his readers, that haptizo expresses mode only, and means to dip), and only to dip. But when it refers to the agency of the Holy Spirit, he tells you, it has no reference to the mode of influence, but to the residts of influence. Now if haptizo has but one meaning, and that meaning is to dip — and if haptizo, in the example before us, had no reference to mode, but to the ^^ effects," — then it means nothing when it refers to the agency of the Holy Spirit. But if spiritual baptism does not imply mode, tieither does external baptism; but haptizo, when it refers to spiritual baptism, as in the case above, always suggests the mode, and therefore the analogous mode of external baptism should be adopted. As the critical incjuiries of Dr. Carson have great weight with the Baptists, we shall further consider them. They completely refute his own position. The sum of his con- clusions may be stated in his own words : — " 1st. Ba-rw, except when it signifies to dye, denotes mode, and nothing but mode. 2d. Ba-no and jSaTzzc^w are exactly the same in meaning, as to increase or diminution of the action. That the one is more or less than the other, as to mode or fre- fjuency, is a groundless conceit. 3d. There is one import- ant difference. Ba-zo) is never used to denote the ordinance of baptism, and jSa-rn^oj never signifies to dye. The primi- 6 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. tive word has two meanings, the primary to dip, the second- ary to dye. But the derivative is formed to modify the primary alone. 4th. Bapto means also to dye. And although this meaning arose from the mode of dyeing by dipping, yet the word has come by appropriation to denote dyeing icithout reference to mode. As this point is of material consequence in this controversy, I shall establish it by examples that put it beyond question. Nothing in the his- tory of the words is more common, than to enlarge or diminish their signification. Ideas not originally included are often affixed, while others drop ideas originally inserted. In this way, jSa-ra}, from signifying mere mode, came to be applied to a certain operation usually performed in that mode. From signifying to dip, it came to signify dyeing by dipping, because this was the way in which things were usually dyed. And afterward, from dyeing by dipping, it came to denote dyeing in ani/ manner. A like process may be shown in the history of a thousand other words. ^' This statement of his views clearly, we think, overthrows his own theory. Upon the same ground, on which he extends or diminishes the meaning of bapto, he can likewise extend the meaning of baptizo, and a thousand other words. For as the idea of mode is secondary and non-essential when bajyfo is used in the sense of dyeing, so the idea of mode is second- ary and non-essential when baptizo, the derivative of bapto, is applied to the sacrament of baptism. As bapto, from dyeing by dipping comes to denote dyeing in any manner, so baptizo from baptizing by dipping, comes to denote bap- tizing IN ANY MANNER. ^^ This is conclusive. 62 The judgment of Professor Stuart, as a biblical critic, is of the highest reputation in the United States. He says of Dr. Carson, "He lays down some very adventurous positions, in respect to one meaning, and one only, of words, which, as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth contradicts, and mvst always contradict." On Mode of Baptism, p. 100. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 63 Thirdly. Y^e advance one step farther in this investiga- tion. The word baptism^ as it is used in Scripture, cannot be restricted to one invariable meaning; it means to dip, imhue, drencli, soaJi, overwhelm, povr, sprinJde, to icasJi. If it could be restricted to any one of these meanings, then it might be used si/noni/mousli/ with all the rest. "Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water" — plunge the tip of his finger ! "Judas, who pjlunges his hand with me in the dish." "The Word of Grod was clothed in a xestuve plunged in blood I" "Our fathers were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea" — plunged in the sea, when they were on "dry land 1" and in the cloud, when they were under the cloud I Pharaoh and all his hosts were over- whelmed in the sea, but yet they were not hapAized. We shall now show by many examples, that the word haptism, as it is used in the Scriptures, has many different significa- tions as to mode. First. In the sense of dip, or partial immersion: "Ye shall dip a bunch of hyssop in the blood. "^^ "The priest shall dip his fi.nger in the blood, and sprinkle it.'^ ^* "The priest shall dij^ his finger.'' ^^ " Let Asher dip his foot in oil." ^^ " The feet of the priests were dippjed in the hrim of the water." '^'' "Jonathan diprped. the end of his rod in a honeycomb." ^^ " Thy foot may be dipped in blood, and the tongue of the dogs in the same." ^^ In all these in- stances, nothing more can be intended than a partial ini- TMs decision of Professor Stuart, Dr. Carson himself admits, further on, p. 44, 63 Ex. xii. 22. ^ Ler. iv. 6. ^^ Lev. iv. 17. ^ Deut. xxxiii. 24. 6^ Josh. iii. 15. ^3 i gam. xiv, 27. ^9 pg. Ixyiii. 23. ''O Dr. Gale admits, that "the word haptizo does not necessarily imply a TOTAL iM^fERSiox or dipping tlie whote thing sj^oken of ALL, OVER, WHICH I READILY ALLOAV." (Wall, Vol. iii. 147.) 64 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Secondly. In tlie sense of overwhelming. " Can you be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ?" ^i — overwhelmed. ^' I have a baptism to be baptized with/''^ — overichehned. Thirdly. In the sense of stainixg. ^^Dyed attire upon their heads. '^^^ Fourthly. In the sense of pouring. To what has already been said, the following may be added: ^^And Judith washed herself in (or at) a fountain by the camp."''-* That is, more literally, " she went out and .washed herself at the spring of water that was in the camp." What, plunged herself in a spring that supplied an army of two hundred thousand men with water ? Would she have plunged herself in the open fountain, in the sight of the whole army ? Certainly not, and the conclusion is, that she performed this ablution by sprinkling or pouring. Fifthly. In the sense of sprinkling. '' Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers icasJi- ingSy dia(f6potq jja-zifffxa'tq, diapJiorois haptisniois. Of these divers kinds of baptism the apostle selects two, namely, bap- tism by blood, and baptism by water ; and of these he also selects three rites, and all these rites are sprinklings. Such was the direction for the great day of expiation. "And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and SPRINKLE it with his finger upon the mercy-seat eastward : and before the mercy-seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-ofiering that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinlde it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy -seat." "^ iVnd so the apostle observes. ''^ Mark x. 58. '- Luke xii. ,';0. "^ Ezek. xxiii. 15. ■*•* Judith xii. 7. "^'^ Lev. xvi, 11, 15. THE MODE or BAPTISM. '' If ihe blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean/^ &c.'° There is no mode to which the baptism of blood can be referred but to the sprinkling of Aaron on the great day of expiation. From all these instances, severally and collec- tively, it is evident that the word haptum cannot be restricted exclusively to immersion or plunging ; so far from if, tliey furnish no evidence ichatever that immersion was practised in ritual observances, or in the administration of the gospel ordinance of baptism. Fourthly. Had it been the original design of the sacred writers to employ a word invariably and necessarily imply- ing entire immersion, the copiousness of the Greek language furnished many such terms, which they would have used in preference to baptizo — especially if they invested the mode of baptism with the importance with which the Baptists so strenuously maintain it is invested. And yet the sacred writers do not, in a single instance, employ one of these terms when they refer to Christian baptism : they invariably use baptizo and baptisma. While we have but one single Anglo-Saxon term, plunge, to express unequivocally an en- tire immersion, the Greek language has at least eight, per- haps more, that express this idea, such as -o'^riXio, y.a-a-o'^-i''^u), Pv&iXoi, xa-a^of^'Xo), '/.araoww, y.aTa^a7:riX,oj, e!j.,ja-T'Xoj, and dor.ro) : terms indisputably precise and exact. Henry Ste- phens defines pontizo, ^^to plunge into the sea.^' Kutapon- tizo is most frequently used, and signifies to plunge down "^^ Heb. ix. 13. When the Levites, it may be added, were set apart to their office, it was done by "sprinkling water of purifying upon them," &c. Num. viii. 7. And so a leper was cleansed by sprinkling. Lev. xiv. 7. Thus, among the Jews sprinkling was the mode or emblem of purification. But Christ and his apostles were Jews, and were familiar with all the services of the Jewish church, and hence they never could have formed any idea from analogy of purification by immersion in water or blood, under the Christian dispensation. 6* 66 THE MODE OF BAniSM into the sea, to plunge under. '^ Hedericus : '' to plunge down into the sea, to plunge under." Donnegan : " to sink in the sea." Grove : " to plunge or sink in the sea." Stephens defines hutJu'zo, "to cast into a gulf, the deep, or the sea; to plunge down. Katahuthizo signifies the same, and is more commonly used." Passor : " to plunge down, to cast into the deep." Hedericus : " to plunge ; from buthos, a whirlpool, a bottomless pit, or the deep. Kata- huthizo, to cast into a gulf, or the deep, to plunge down." Donnegan: "to sink, submerge. Katahuthizo, to sub- merge; to sink down quite to the bottom." Stephens defines kataduno, " to enter within or into a more interior place; to enter into a gulf or the deep." Hedericus : " to go into a more interior place, to enter into a gulf or the deep, to plunge down, to plunge under." Donnegan : "to dip under ; to immerse ; to sink — -properly, to cause the sinking of a thing, as of a ship ; to plunge ; to dive; to go under; to go down," &c. Grove: "to go down; descend into; to sink; immerge; plunge," kc. And so of the other terms. All these terms are used in the Scriptures with the same exact and unequivocal meaning. " But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid, and beginning to sink, (Jcatapontizesthai,) he cried, saying, Lord, save me." Matt. xiv. 30. "Whoso shall ofiend one of these little ones, &c., and that he were droicned (Icatapontisthe) in the depths of the sea." Matt, xviii. 6. "And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink" — huthizesthai. Luke v. 7. "But they that will be rich fall into a temptation, and a snare, &c., which drown (huthizousi) men in destruction and persecution." 1 Tim. vi. 9. And so of other scriptures. To proceed farther would be use- less labor. Here are words in the classical and sacred writings whieli exactly and unequivocally convey the Baptist idea of mode; THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 67 but yet, amid all tliis profusion of Greek terms, they reject them all, and confine themselves wholly to haptizo and hap- tisma when they speak of Christian baptism. And yet the Baptists boldly affirm " that there is not another term in the Greek language, whether spoken by pagans or apostles, that can properly express baptizing in the sense subscribed to by the Baptists, if haptizo be rejected V' The sacred writers were not ignorant of these terms, and hence would hiiTe employed them with reference to the Christian ordi- nance of baptism, had they entertained the idea of it which the Baptists do. But they do not use these terms, and the inference is inevitable, that the sacred writers did not originally consider {mmersioii as essential to baptism, or as obligatory upon the church in all ages. When they speak of baptism, they do not call it immersion, pouring, or sprin- kling — they do not refer to any specific mode as invariably necessary. They simply and emphatically employ the term baptism, and from this we may conclude that no other term in the Greek language would have expressed the true natui-e and meaning of the evangelical ordinance of baptism. Other Greek words refer unequivocally to the manner of using water, without specifying the purpose intended. Baptizo and its cognates, in an evangelical sense, refer to the specific purpose intended in the use of water, without specifying the manner of using it. Thus the translators of the Bible were wise in retaining the original Greek word baptism, only making a slight change in the letters to conform to the idiom of the English language. Had they ventured to make a translation conformable to the sentiments of the Baptists of the present day, we should have the following ridiculous statements in the Bible. For "baptism of repentance,'^ the ^'plunging of repentance;^' instead of "I have a baptism to be baptized with,'' ^^ ITiave a plunging to he plunged witli ;' instead of "I indeed baptize you with v»^ater, but he shall 68 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire/' '^ I indeed immerse you icifh water, hut he shall immerse you with the Holy Ghost and icith fire.'' They would have made an equally absurd and ridiculous translation had they substi- tuted sprinkling or poui'ing for haptism ; and psedobaptists, if they restricted the meaning of baptism to these terms, would be exposed to the criticism now so fatal to the ex- clusiveness of the Baptists. We shall conclude this branch of the argument with the following observations. (1.) Xo specific mode is positively enjoined by the sacred writers as invariable and necessary. (2.) In every translation of the Bible into a foreign lan- guage, such a change only should be made in the words haptizo and hap)tism, as will conform them to the idiom of the language into which they are translated. All the efforts of the Baptists to alter the translation of these words in our English Bible are therefore opposed to the essential nature of Christian baptism, the Christian religion, and the philoso- phy of language. (3.) It is a remarkable fact in the history of baptism, that in process of time, amid the corruptions of the church, hataduno was unwarrantably substituted for haptizo. We are indebted to Professor Stuart for the following researches. ''The Greek words hataduo and kafadusis were employed as expressive of baptizing and baptism; and these words mean going down into the water, or immerging. So in the following examples. Chrysostom, Hom. 40, 1 Cor. 1 : "To be baptized and to submerge, (katadusisthai,^ then to emerge, (^anaduein,) is a symbol of descent into the grave, and of ascent from it." Basil De Spiritu, c. 15: "By three im- mersions (^en trisi hatadusesi) and by the like number of invocations, the gi'eat mystery of baptism is completed." Damascus. Orthodox Fides, 4, 10: "Baptism is a type of the death of Christ ; for by three immersions {kataduseon') THE MODE OF BAniSM. 69 baptism signifies/^ &c. So the Apostolic Constitutions, probably written in the fourth century, Lib. iii. ch. 17 : "Immersion (hatadusis) denotes dying with Christ : emersion (anadusis) a resurrection with Christ." Chrysostom, ch. 3, Johannis: "We, as in the sepulchre, immersing (Icata- duontoii) our heads in the water, the old man is buried, and sinking down (katadushato) the whole is concealed at once : then as we emerge, the new man again rises." Cyril, of Jerusalem, uses this language: "Plunge them. (Jcataduetc') down thrice into the water, and raise them up again." Now if these Fathers regarded immersion as the precise and unequivocal meaning of haptizo, why did they not employ haptizo, and not kataduno? If, as the Baptists strenuously maintain, haptizo has but one meaning, immersion, and these Fathers so believed, there was no necessity for substituting the word kataduno. But they did use kataduno as a sub- stitute. Therefore, they did not believe haptizo has but one invariable meaning, viz. immersion. But if they believed kataduno to be synonymous with haptizo, they not only acted inconsistently, but were not sustained by the sacred writers, for they never once use kataduno with reference to baptism. In either case, the Baptists can derive no ad- vantage from their example. Fifthly. I invite the reader's attention to another con- sideration. The most learned lexicogi-aphers, both ancient and modern, unanimously give the word a wider significa- tion than that of immersion. Among whom may be men- tioned Stephanus, Scapula, Passor, Suidas, Hedericus, Cou- lon, Schrevelius, Parkhurst, Ainsworth, Schleusner, Grove, and Donnegan. And therefore Dr. Carson, after assuming that haptizo "always signifies to dip," admits that he has ^^all the lexicographers against him.""'' And yet, notwith- ^ Carson on Baptism, p. 79. 70 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. standing this unanimous testimony of lexicograpliers, and the admission of Dr. Carson, the Baptists generally, from the pulpit, the press, and at the fireside, affirm that all learned lexicographers, ancient and modern, give immersion as the exclusive meaning of haptizo. I make the following extract from Chapin's Primitive Church, pp. 43, 44 : — "As it is agreed on all hands, that the native G-reeks are the best authority for the meaning of their own language, we shall refer the question to them. We give therefore the defini- tions of these words, (hajpto and hajjtizo,^ only from the native Greek lexicographers. The oldest Greek lexicographer is HesycTiius, who lived in the fourth century of the Christian era. He gives only the root hapto, and the only meaning he gives the word is antleo, to draw or pump water." Next in order comes Suidas, a native Greek, who wrote in the tenth century. He gives only the derivative haptizo, and defines it by pluno, to wash. Passing over the intermediate Greek lexicographers, we come down to the present century, at the beginning of which we find Gases, a learned Greek, who with great labour and pains compiled a large and valua- ble lexicon of the ancient Greek language. His book, in three volumes quarto, is a work deservedly held in high estimation by all, and is generally used by the native Greeks. The following are his definitions of hai^to and haptizo : — Bapto. — Brecho, to wet, moisten, hedew. Pluno, to wash. Gemizo, to Jill. Buthizo, to dip. Antleo, to draw, to pump water. Baptizo. — Brecho, to icet, moisten, hedew. Pluno, to WASH. Leno, to wash, to hathe. Antleo, to draw, to pump water. Sixthly. The most learned divines and commentators of THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 71 the cWrcli give a wider meaning to haptizo tlian immersion. From these are selected Piscator, Zanehius, Alstedius, 31as- tricht, Paraeus, Wickliffe, Leigh, Lightfoot, Calvin, Beza, Whitsius, Hammond, Wall, Danaeus, Spanhemius, Bishop Patrick, Calmet, Faber, Doddridge, Stockius, Poole, Wesley, Clarke, Watson, Bloomfield, Stuart — in a word, the whole psedobaptist church. ''« Dr. Samuel Miller, late Professor of Ecclesiastical History, &c. at Princeton, observes, '^I am well persuaded that the venerable Dr. Owen, certainly one of the greatest and best men of the day in which he lived, is borne out by truth when he pronounces "that no one instance can be given in Scripture, in which the word which we render hajytize, does necessarily signify to dip or plunge. In every case the word admits of a different sense ; and it is really imposing on public credulity to insist that it always ''^ The Baptists strenuously maintain that the exclusive meaning of haptizo is immerse. And yet from the commencement of Greek litera- ture to its close — from the time of Homer, 1000 years before Christ, to the time of Constantinus Harmenopulus, 1380 years after Christ, a period of more than 2000 years, including "all the orators, poets, historians, philosophers, physicians, mathematicians, geographers, rhetoricians, and philologists of Greece, all the Greek Fathers of the Christian church, and the Byzantine writers of the Middle Ages" — during all this long period, no controversy existed about the import of this word — though occasions often arose when the attention of the early Fathers might have been directed to the subject. Why then is the controversy about the mean- ing of 6aj9<22o so recent? Simply because till recently no sect arose to limit it to a single signification — indeed, no one dared to do this so long as the Greek continued to be the living, spoken language. " Immersion was never considered essential to baptism till the rise of the Anabaptists in Germany, in the sixteenth century." Dr. Pond, p. 43. The lexicons and vocabularies of Suidas, Zonoras, Hesychius, and others — the numerous treatises on baptism, written in Greek, and frequent allusions to it in the writings of the Fathers — the commentaries which were written on both the Old Testament and the New, in which constant allusions are made to baptism, — contain not one word in favor of the ground taken by the Baptists, but in very many instances directly oppose and contradict it. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. does, and necessarily must signify immersion." "^ Dr. Dwight observes, that " the body of learned critics and lexi- cogi-aphers declare that the original meaning of the word haptizo, and its root hapto, is to tinge, stain, dye, or color; and that when it means immersion, it is only in a secondary and occasional sense, derived from the fact that such things as are dyed, stained, or colored, are often immersed for this end. The primary meaning of these terms is cleansing ; the effect, not the mode of washing ; the mode is usually referred to incidentally, whenever these words are mentioned; and although capable of denoting any mode of washing, whether by affusion, sprinkling, or immersion, yet, as in many instances, cannot, without obvious impropriety, be made to signify immersion, and in others cannot signify it at all.^'^° Mr. Richard Watson observes, that, "if the ad- vocates of immersion could prove what they have not been able to do, that plunging is the primary meaning of the term, they would gain nothing, since, in Scripture it is notoriously used to exj)}'ess other applications of water. Whatever, therefore, the primary- meaning of the verb ^to baptize' may be, is a question of no importance on the one side or the other. Leaving the mode of administering bap- tism, as a religious rite, out of the question, it is used, generally, at least in the New Testament, not to express immersion in water, but for the act of pouring or sprin- kling it; and that baptism, when spoken of as a religious rite, is to be administered by immersion, no satisfactory in- stance can be adduced. In fact, if the true mode of baptism be immersion only, then must we wholly give up the bap- tism of the Holy Spirit, which in any other mode than j.'ouring out was never administered." ^^ The passages in ''9 Miller on Presbyterianism and Baptism, p. 66. «» Theology, vol. iv., pp. 3-45, 346. 8' Theological Institutes, vol. ii., pp. 650, 651. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. the New Testament, in which the word baptize occurs, are just ninety in number. Of these sixty-Jive determine just notJiing as to mode; sixteen favor the mode of SPRINKLING or POURING, — tico of these render it morally certain that the mode was sprinkling or pouring; and of the remaining nine, NOT ONE OR ALL TOGETHER DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MODE WAS IMMERSION. ^2 This closes the consideration we give haptizo, as it stands disconnected from its appendages in the Bible. What then is the use of these appendages? Simply to express the manner of approach to, or departure from, or circumstances at the water. This analysis presents the whole subject in its true light : the proper meanings of the words are not confounded. It is impossible rationally and philologically to maintain the doctrine of express and exclusive immersion upon the appendages, or the original word haptizo, or upon both conjointly. From this whole consideration of the original word ISa-zi^o), the ground we take is this : — The meaning of the word, in its evangelical sense, is to wash, and admits of ajiy external mode which the subject may, in his own judgment, infer is the best representation or emblem ^ Indeed, admit that the general signification of /JaTrrjCw is to immerse, and that the consequent obligation of baptism is imposed upon all be- lievers to be wholly immersed in water, then, in celebrating the Holy Eucharist, the other sacrament, all believers are bound, from the general meaning of the term employed, to eat a full meal whenever they cele- brate this divine ordinance. The literal meaning of the word dzi-vov^ deipnon, (1 Cor. xi. 20,) is a feast or supper. But the apostle severely reproves the Corinthians for so regarding the meaning of the term in their celebration of the sacrament, and advises all that are hungry to eat at home ; evidently teaching that a rigorous interpretation of the term might lead to a perversion of the sacrament from its real and original design. Upon the strict construction of the Baptists, in the case of the Eucharist, the censure of the apostle would be applicable to them; for certainly a similar error is committed in their interpretation of the word hnptizo. 7 74 THE :niode of baptism. of the inward baptism of the Holy Ghost. The word ex- presses, in the fii'st place, the idea of internal, spiritual wash- ing; and in the second place, it admits the adoption of any mode that shadows forth the baptism of the Holy Ghost.. If some think sprinkling is sufficient to shadow forth the inward washing, then sprinkling is a valid mode to them. If others ihiRk 2^ouring answers just as well, they are not to be condemned. And if others think immersion answers better, why, there is no objection, unless they are exclusive in their judgment. In every case, however, the spiritual meaning of baptism is the only important and vital con- sideration. ''Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purification, (y.a'Japtaij.ovy hatharismon.^ And they came to John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he who was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, the same haptizeth, — i3a--i!^£t, haptizei, — and all men come to him.'' ^^ The subject of dispute here does not seem to be the mode of baptism, but the signification of it; and it is this alone in a spiritual sense, after all, that is indispensable in the administration of baptism. One word more. Mode in itself can express nothing of a moral equality. The baptism of water is not called a pui-ifi- eation in consideration of any mode that may be adopted, but because water is the element employed as a religious emblem, just as the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a spuitual and real purification, because the Holy Spirit is employed in the case. So water be employed in baptism, and the idea of purification be set forth, no matter what is the mode that is employed: the idea of purification or cleansing is suggested by the element used, and not by the mode em- ployed. Just as bread and wine set forth the broken body ^ John iii. 25, 26. It is clear, from the synonymous meanings of katharimion and haptizei, that laptizo, in this instance, means to icaah. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 75 and shed blood of Christ, no matter what may be the mode of receiving these emblems; so the emblematical character of baptism is in the water, and not in the mode of its appli- cation to the subject. Until it can be clearly demonstrated — and it cannot be — that some great vital truth is con- nected with immersion, it cannot be enjoined upon any as the only valid mode of baptism. The reason why sprin- kling and pouring are preferable as modes of baptism is, because they are more convenient, and analogous to the modes employed in the ceremonial services of the Jewish church, and to the modes adopted by the Holy Ghost in spiritual baptism ; and we feel safe in adopting such high standards. We shall conclude this chapter with the following inferences. First. Bapto and haptizo have various intrinsic meanings, and immersion is but one of these meanings, — though im- mersion is not once used in the Scriptures as the meaning of haptizo. Secondly. The mode implied, in any given case, is to be determined by the circumstances of the case : — ^knowing the circumstances, we can determine the mode. The circum- stances of no case recorded in the Scriptures justify even the idea of immersion, much less the exclusiveness of the Bap- tists on the subject. Thirdly. ThQ primary evangelical meaning of haptizo is to icasli, to purify, in a sacramental sense : it also implies sacramental obligation on the part of God and man. Mode, then, is non-essential. But knowing the circumstances, in any contested case, we may determine the mode employed in that case. But for the controversy in the premises, there would have been no necessity to refer to the circumstances, and yet an impartial examination, in every case, excludes the idea of immersion. '6 THE :.10D£ OF BAPTISM. Fourtlily. Had tiie mode of the ordinance been absolutely essential, the sacred writers -would have used a word or words of unequivocal meaning as to mode. This they have not done. Fifthly. It has been seen, that we cannot determine either the intrinsic medning of the tenns used, nor the mode employed, in any given case, by reference to our dictionary and grammar; but from the context, occasion, times, manners, customs, habits, taste, general sentiments, ideas, and peculiar usages of the people, — in a word, all the circumstances that stand connected with the specific use of the words, and the transaction which they rationally imply; and, in every case, from these considerations, immersion is excluded. Sixthly. That no moral quality or vital truth of Chris- tianity is connected with mere mode. Seventhly. It is immaterial what mode be employed, so the sacramental nature of baptism is set forth. Eighthly. And lastly, sprinkling and pouring are prefera- ble to immersion, since they are more convenient, and are sustained by analogies in the Scriptures of the highest authority. CHAPTER n. THE ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 3. As a third source of evidence respecting the mode of baptism, we shall consider the original Greek prepo- sitions of the New Testament. It will be found, in this examination, that they furnish no gi-ound whatever for the doctrine of immersion; indeed, it will be found, in the application of the rules we shall lay down, that immersion ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 77 did not occur in a single instance in wliich they are employed in connection with baptism. The rules are the following : (1.) When voluntary motion into a place is signified, d^ — eis — is used before both the verb and noun or pronoun. (2.) When voluntary motion out of a place is signified, ix or k^ — ek or ex — is used before both the verb and noun or pronoun. (3.) When motion to or unto a place is signified, el:; is used only before the noun, without the verb and preposition. (4.) When motion npicard or dov:nv:avd from a place, or to a place, is expressed, a preposition is used both in com- position with the verb, and before the noun or pronoun ; but in this case the prepositions are not the same, nor of similar import. First. When voluntary motion into a place is signified, ei2, is used before both the verb and noun or pronoun. Take a few examples. '^ Enter into thy closet" — E'laeh'tt elq TO ra/j.s'.o'^. Matt. vi. 6. '' Ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" — slffi/.T^rj rs eiq rijv (^aGiXsia-^. 3Iatt. V. 20. ^^ And lead us not into temptation" — Kai /li; slct-^- iyxr}q rj!iaq d^ r.f.paGiiw. 3Iatt. vi. 13. ^^Not every one that sayeth unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king- dom of heaven" — tlatltba—ai sig zrj-^ fiaG'.Xiiw^. ^' And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum" — EiT£g ix rwv pyrjp£{ajv. Matt, xxvii. 53. And so Matt. xiii. 52; xv. 18, 19; xxi. 17, 39. Mark i. 29; V. 2, 8; vi. 54; vii. 20, 21, 26,29, 31; xi. 19; xii. 8 ; xiii. 1. Luke iv. 22, 29 ; xx. 15. John iv. 30 ; viii. 42, 59 ; X. 39 ; xiii. 3 ; xv. 19. Acts vii. 3, 4, 10, 40, 58 ; xii. 11, 17; xiii. 42; xvii. 33; xix. 16; xxii. 18; xxvi. 17; xxvii. 30 ; xxviii. 3. 1 Cor. v. 2, 10. 2 Cor. vi. 17 ; xi. 33. Gal. i. 4; iii. 13. Heb. iii. 16; vii. 5; viii. 9. 1 Pet. ii. 9. 3 John 10. Rev. i. 16; iii. 5; iv. 5; ix. 3, 17, 18 ; xi. 5; xiv. 15, 17, 18, 20; xv. 6; xix. 5, 15, 21; xxi. 1 And so in a multitude of other instances. One hundred and seventeen examples have been examined, in all of which the rule holds good. Ex, before the verb and the pronoun, occurs in the following passages: — Mark i. 25, 26; v. 30; 80 THE MODE OF B.AJPTISM. ix. 25. Luke iv. 35. Acts xiii. 17. 1 Cor. v. 13. 1 John ii. 19. Rev. xviii. 4. Thirdly. When motion to or unto a place is signifiea, etV is used only before the noun or pronoun, without the verb and preposition. "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre" — r^pyovro ecq TO [ivT^fisTov. John xx. 3. "Wide is the gate that lead- eth to destniction" — sl^ rrf^ d-6hta'>. 31att. vii. 13. And so in many other scriptures. Where eis stands before the verb without the noun, it generally, if not always, means in, as may be found by reference to Matt. viii. 8 ; ix. 25 ; xii. 45; xxii. 11, 12; xxiii. 13, 14; xxvi. 58. In several instances where eis occurs before the noun, without the verb and preposition, it is translated into; but even in these instances the action is involuntary or consti'ained. Eis, standing alone, never means into, though connected with the verb or noun, but b&fore the verb it invariably means in. Ek before the verb, generally, if not always, means out ; and before the noun or pronoun, it means of or from. In connection only, therefore, does ex or eh mean out of, or out from, as the case may be. Fourthly, When motion upvxird, or downiuard, from a place, or to a place, is expressed, a preposition is used both in composition with the verb, and before the noun : but in this case the prepositions are not the same, nor of similar import. In expressing motion downward to a place, hata, is generally used in composition with the verb, and eis before the noun : and in expressing motion upward from a place, ana is commonl}' used in composition with the verb, and ex or apo before the noun. " Xow Peter and John went up — anehainon — together into — eis — the temple," &c. Acts iii. 1. " And Joseph also icent up — anehe — from — apo — Galilee." Luke ii. 4. Here the same verb and the same preposition are used as in Matt. iii. 16 to express the motion ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 81 of Jesus in going iqy from the river Jordan. '^ And lie \yas seen many days of them which came up icith him — sun ana- basin — from — apo — Galilee." Acts xiii. 31. "After three days he (Festus) ascended — anebe — from — ajpo — Cesarea." Acts xxY. 1. And so in the Septuagint, this mle is observed with astonishing exactitude. Gen. ii. 6; xvii. 22, are worthy of special attention. Gen. ii. 6 : " there iceni up — anebainen — a mist from — eh — the earth :" here the same verb and preposition are used that are employed in Acts viii. 39 to express the motion of Philip and the eunuch in coming up from the water. Gen. xvii. 22 : "and God icent up — anebe — from — apo — Abraham :" here the same verb and preposi- tion are used that are employed to express the motion of Jesus in going up from Jordan. Other examples of motion downward to a place may be found in Luke x. 30; xviii. 14. John ii. 12. Acts vii. 15; xiv. 25; xvi. 8; and xxv. 6. Such are the grammatical rules according to which the Greek Testament is to be explained, and there are perhaps no rules in any language of more general applicati'.n iluai these. A careful examination of the Greek Testament, from first to last, will result in the conviction of their as- tonishing universality. It is true, as to all general rules, there are some exceptions to these rules ; but they are all unimportant and irrelevant, having no application ichatever to a single specific case of the ORDINANCE of baptism re- corded in the Scriptures. If there were a single exception to the application of these general rules in the sacred record of Christian baptism, and this exception might be employed in favor of immersion in that single case, the exception should be admitted; but there is not a single exception in the premises — not one. The general rules only are applica- ble with the most convincing exactitude in every case in which the mode of administering the sacrament of ChrisV*^^ baptism has been made a matter of controversy. 82 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. We shall now appl}- these rules in the examination of the celebrated cases in which these prepositions are used in con- nection with Christian baptism, ^^And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" — li3aT.7iXoyTo h rat ^lopdw^r^. Matt. iii. 6. Had the verb tii^ar-!Xu) — emhaptizo — been used in this case, then, accordino; to the fii'st rule, the doctrine of immersion micrht be sustained from the force of the Greek prepositions; but the preposition stands alone before the noun, without con- nection with the verb, and the conclusion is, that immersion is not intended. ^^ And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water" — Ka>. ^a-riaf^iiq 6 "Ir^aohq a:A{ir^ £u»9y? drro tod ooa-zoq. Matt. iii. 16. Here the prepo- sition employed is qpo, which is ordinarily rendered in the New" Testament from. Ex, which before the verb, means out of, in this instance is not used, either in composition with the verb, or before the noun : it is not employed at all in this cnfc. Had ecioynimt been employed instead of a'^a^:iav^w, and Ix instead of a-6, the conclusion would be clear that Christ was immersed. The true translation, therefore, of orjjo, in this case, should be from, and not '^ out o/." ^^ And they went down both into the water" — xazi^zGav — dq rh vdwp. Acts viii. 88. " And when they were come up out of the water" — a-A,3r^(jav I/, too uoaroc. \. 39. Eis only is used as a governing preposition, in the first instance, dis- connected from the verb, and consequently means to or unto; and eh, in the second instance, stands alone, disconnected from the verb, and consequently means from, and not out of Had e'Mipynfxai been used, in the fii'st instance, instead of xazaj^abco ; and e^ioyoriai been employed, in the second instance, instead of a'^a-la.i-/co, then, according to the rules we have laid down, immersion might be sustained in the case of the baptism of the eunuch ; but as dq only is used, in the first instance, and ^x only in the second, the conclusion ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 83 is irresistible that immersion was not practised in this case. As baptism in the case of the Jews^ and of Jesus by John, and of the ennuch by Philip, was not performed by im- mersion, and as these are the cases on which the Baptists depend, and which they ordinarily present, as the strongest cases in- support of their views, we deem it needless to apply the rules above any further, though the application might be made with equal effect in every other case of Christian baptism recorded in the Bible. In conclusion, it is worthy of observation, that the rules of interpretation we have given are sustained by the classics. It is easy to see the influence of the imagination of the Baptists in explaining the case of the eunuch. They imagine several things : first, that there was a stream of water at the place where the eunuch was baptized ; secondly, that the stream of water was of sufficient depth for im- mersion ; and thirdly, that even then the eunuch was im- mersed : not one of which circumstances is referred to in the scriptural account of the case. There is no proof that there was a stream of water at all at this place; or if a stream was there, we have no proof that it was a foot deep; or if a foot deep, there is not a particle of proof that the eunuch was immersed. And so imagination supplies all the circumstances in the baptism of Christ, the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, the jailer, Lydia, and the thousands baptized by John, in order to make out a case of immersion : but the plain rules we have applied in this chapter furnish incontestible proof that immersion was not practised in one of these instances. On every hand the Baptists are opposed by insurmountable difficulties; and in my judgment at least, not a single case of immersion can be fairly proved from the Bible to have been obseiTcd in the administration of the sacrament of Christian baptism. If one case of immersion could be fairly proved, this would not 84 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. establish the exclusiveness of the Baptists with respect to MODE; unless it had been enjoined as invariable; but as not a single case of immersion can be proved — a fortiori^ the exclusiveness of the Baptists is not sustained by the Scriptures. But we go one step farther, and proceed to show what the Greek prepositions do mean when used in connection with Christian baptism. They are four in number, viz. Iv, en; itq, eis ; a-o, apo ; ix, ek, or el, ex — a careful examina- tion of which will furnish us with proof that there is nothing in them to support the opinion that baptism should be ad- ministered by immersion. We begin with en. It has various meanings. First. It primarily denotes the time and place of a trans- action, without specifying mode. " Now when Jesus was born in (en) Bethlehem of Judea, in (e?i) the days of Herod the king :'^ the time and place of the birth of Christ. ^' In {en) those days came John the Baptist, preaching in (en) the wilderness of Judea :" the time and place of John's preaching. *^ And (Christ) was in (en) the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel :" the place where Christ remained in retirement till he entered publicly upon his ministry. " And there were in (en) the same country shepherds abiding in the field :" the place where the shep- herds were attending to their flocks. ^' And John did bap- tize in (en) the wilderness :'^ the place where he baptized. ^^ And these things were done in (en) Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing :'"" the place where John was baptizing beyond Jordan. ^' And John also was bap- tizing in (en) Enon, near to Salim :" the place where he was baptizing. " And were baptized of him in (en) Jordan, confessing their sins :" the place merely where he baptized, within the banks of the river, near the edge of the water, and yet not in the water. Dr. Carson himself admits this : ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 85 ^' Instead of keeping John the Baptist ten hours every day in the water, I will not oblige him to go into the water at all. He might have stood on the hanh. He might have been in the river, yet not in the icater : all within the BANKS IS THE RiYER." On Baptism, pp. 336-7, 339. And so Richard Watson : ^^ And when within the bed of the stream, he might as truly be said to be i/i the river, when mere j)Iace was the thing to be pointed out, as if he had been immersed in the water. The Jordan in this respect is rather remarkable, having, according to Maundrell, an outermost bank by its occasional swellings." The remark of this traveller is, " After having descended the outermost hank, you go a furlong upon a level ground, before you come to the immediate bank of the river." Theo. Insts. p. 654. A furlong is the eighth part of a mile, that is, tmo hundred and twenty yards. One anywhere on this beach might be said to be in Jordan, and yet " not in the water J' Place is all that is signified, and no reference whatever is made to the mode of baptism. This is the primary mean- ing of in, a meaning which might be illustrated by pages of quotations from Greek writers. To give but a single example: l-uym u h rc5 z^-cu rc^oj-arwy, '^I happened to be walking in the garden." Plato. And Buttman sustains this view ; " ^EN stands in answer to the question where ; and signifies in, often also hy, at, among," Grammar, p. 413.^ Secondly. The preposition ev, en, indicates the instru- mental cause or means employed in baptism. " I indeed baptize you 2cith (eji) water." "Thou shalt love the Lord — with (en) all thy heart, and icitli (e/i) all thy soul, and with (en') all," &c. " If the salt have lost its savor, where- v:ith (en tini) shall it be salted ?" Thus, in^ the phrase "icith water," the very nature of the case renders it necessary that en be rendered 2cith. And this Dr. Carson 86 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. admits : ^^ I may be asked, do you deny that it (eii) may be translated icitli ? I do not deny this, yet I am disposed to lay stress on it." Carson and Cox on Baptism, p. 191. In one case, it indicates the place where baptism was ad- ministered — as in Bethabara, in Enon, in Jordan; and in another case, it signifies the instrumental cause or means j governing the dative — as " with water." In the former case, mode is not signified ; in the latter case, immersion is out of the question. All that can be said of en, in the sense of icith, is, that it denotes specifically that loater is the instru- ment used in performing baptism : the quantity of water used, or the mode of using it, is not denoted or specified; and yet the necessity of the case excludes immersion. The Baptists frequently give us the following version: — ^^For John truly immersed in loater ; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Grhost." The objection to this is, that in the one case, as water is properly used as the instrumentj in the other case, the Holy Grhost, who is the active agent, is represented as a passive element in which the apostles are plunged, as a man is in water — which is a rendering not only in opposition to reason and sound theology, but to the history of the case, for the Holy Ghost, in baptizing the apostles, SAT upon them — a statement that, if it imply mode at all, favors affusion rather than immersion. The other prepositions to be considered are eis, eh or ex, find apo. Grreek prepositions are frequently interchanged. '^ Jesus was baptized by John in (eis) Jordan" — the only instance of eis with the accusative case after the verb hap- tizo. Bis, into, in this passage, is substituted for en, in. In the following verse we have — " And straightway coming up out of the water," &c. The preposition here employed is apo, from, and thus the proper translation is, '•^from the water," and not out o/the water. This Dr. Carson himself concedes : " I admit the proper translation of apo is froniy ORIGINAL GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 87 and not out of; and that the argument from the former is not of the same nature with that which is founded on ek, (net of." Cox and Carson on Baptism, p. 200. This is all we wish to prove. That eis does not mean into may be also proved from the history of the baptism of the eunuch. ^' They both went down into (eis) the water." Eis may in this instance be translated to. ^'And when we were all fallen to (eis) the earth/' not into the earth. '^ Jesus there- fore Cometh to (eis) the tomb of Lazarus." " Peter there- fore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to (eis) the sepulchre. So they both ran together; and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to (eis) the sepul- chre. Thus, " they went down both — from the chariot — to (eis) the water." It may be replied, " They both came up, out of (eh) the water," implying that both had been into the water. But c/t, in this passage may be substituted by ajpOy as in many instances eis is placed in contrast with apo. ^^ From (opo) city to (eis) city." " From (apo) Jerusalem to (eis) Jericho." " The way that goeth down from (apo) Jerusalem to (eis) Gaza." Matthew and Mark use apo (from) instead of ek (out of) when they describe the Saviour's departure from Jordan after his baptism. Be- sides, ek is often used to denote simply the point from which motion is made. " Howbeit there came other boats from (ek) Tiberias." " Get thee from (eh) thy kindred." '' Who shall deliver me from (eh) the body of this death ?" " Who hath warned you to flee from (apo) the wrath to come ?" Thus, we may translate the passages under consideration, " And straightway coming up from the water" — and '^ they went down both to the water — and when they were come up from the water." Any one conversant with the Greek must admit the justness of these criticisms, and hence comi to the conclusion that tlie fact, and not the mode of baptism, is all that Is intended in these sacred scriptures. The fact 88 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. of baptism is positively stated and settled : the mode of baptism in these cases^ is a matter of so little importance, that it is left to inference ', yet the history of the fact is so plain, that inference excludes immersion, and supports affusion. Thus, on every hand, a candid and proper ex- amination of the Grreek prepositions which are used in con- nection -with baptism, is fatal to the Baptist theory of immersion. CHAPTER m. THE HARMONIOUS CONNECTION OF THE MODE WITH THE KNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES OF SPIRITUAL BAPTISM, AND THE PLAN OF SALVATION. In this chapter, we continue the consideration of the mode of baptism. In the preceding chapters, we considered the mode of baptism as it is plainly inferred from the Scrip- tures, the original word bajjtizo, and the original Greek prepositions, eis, ek, ex, and ajjo. As we have regarded it all along as a subject of inference, we now proceed to the fourth soui'ce of inference — 4. The harmonious connection of the mode with the known circumstances of spii'itual baptism, and the plan of salvation. The significant, expressive, and striking mean- ing of water baptism is best set forth when the mode of administering it conforms to the mode by which the in- fluences of the Holy Spirit are imparted to the believer. The most proper mode of baptism, therefore, is that ichicJi best represents the spiritual haptism. The Scriptures uni- versally set forth the mode of the Spirit's agency in baptism under the ideas of " sprinkling/' ^' pouring," '• baptizing with" — and a corresponding mode of external baptism may MODE AND CIRCUMSTANCES HARMONIOUS. 89 be observed. To refer to but few iustances.* It is worthy of observation, that whenever reference is made specifically to baptism by the Holy Spirit, immersion is NEVER once expressed or implied^ as the mode employed. Immersion, therefore, has nothing in it significative or emblematical of spiritual baptism ] and as a mode of baptism, it is without analogy and without signification. Moreover, it is impossi- ble to ridicule sprinkling and pouring as modes of baptism, without reflecting upon the modes adopted by the Holy Spirit in imparting spiritual benefits to man — without being more than indifierent to the favorite and impressive figures, allusions, and statements of the sacred writers, when they refer to the manner by which the richest blessings of the everlasting covenant are communicated to the heart of the believer. Baptism is emblematical both of the effects and mode of the operation of the Holy Ghost, and nothing more as an emblem. Immersion may be emblematical of the efiects of the operation of the Holy Spirit, but as an emblem of the mode of the operation of the Holy Spirit it is wholly defective. But sprinkling and pouring are expressive em- blems in both these respects, and, therefore, are to be pre- ferred to immersion as modes of baptism. The use of water, in any mode, may be emblematical of the purifying effects of the operation of the Holy Spirit; but when the mode itself has in it no emblematical meaning, baptism, as a sensi- ble rite of the church is so far defective — and such is bap- tism by immersion. But sprinkling and pouring, being complete in their emblematical character, are the most appropriate modes of administering the initiating sacrament of the Christian church. ^ But to be more particular. 1 Isa. xliv. 3. Ezek. xxxix. 29. Joel ii. 28, 29. Zech. xii. 10. Acts ii. 17, 18; x. 45. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 20. Isa. lii. 15. Ps. Ixxii. 6. Hosea vi. 3. 2 "To say that it [imraersion] figures our fpiritual death and resurrec- 90 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. First. Consider the united testimony of the prophet Joel, John the Baptist, the blessed Jesus, St. Luke, and the apostle Peter. Joel : " And it shall come to pass afterward that I ^iM pour out — v/.yiaj — my Spirit upon all flesh,'^ &c. John, referring to Christ who should fulfil this prophecy, declares, ^' He shall baptize — {ia-xiat'. — you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." And Jesus explains the meaning of John, and confirms the prophecy of Joel. ''For truly John baptized — l{id-ziGZ'^ — with water, but ye shall be bap- tized — ,3a-r'.(7Wjtized in this instance. Thirdly. Hear Isaiah : ^' So shall he sprinkle many nations."^ This prophecy doubtless has reference to the universality and fulness of the gospel blessings; and the argument respecting the mode of their communication is a brief one. If the word '^ sprinkle" is to be taken literalJjj, then the mode is at once specified. Or, if the word " sprin- kle'^ has a spiritual meaning, and is to be taken figuratively, then the outward baptism ought to correspond to the inward baptism ; so that in either case, the mode of external bap- tism is easily suggested. It was this passage of Scripture that Philip found the eunuch examining, and hence we in- fer, that when he descended from his chariot to the water, he was baptized by " sprinkling.'' ^ 5 Isa. lii. 15. 6 In order to evade the force of this argument, the Baptists have made a fruitless effort to distort the original meaning of the Hebrew by re- ferring to the Septuagint translation. "The LXX translated this word [yazzeh] into thaumasontai, which signifies either to astonish, or to cause to exult or rejoice. But in no instance is it equivalent to sprinkle, as is known by all who understand the Greek language." Chapin's Letters, p. 48. The same ground is taken by the Baptists in the "Baptismal Question" in "Review" by Wm. Hague, p. 26. In the first place, the question is not to be settled by the Septuagint, but by the original Hebrew. In the second place, the Hebrew word yazzeh uniformly means in the Scripture to sprinkle. As, " Thou shalt take the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron," &,c. Ex. xxix. 21. "And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times." Lev. iv. 6. "And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the east side of the altar." Lev. v. 9. "And he shall sprinkle upon him that is cleansed from the leprosy seven times." Lev. xiv. 7. And the Vulgate translation of the word is in har- mony with the Hebrew word: ''I<>te asperget tjentcs multas." Isa. lii. 15. In the thii-d place, in reference to this passage, Professor Ripley observea, "Was the prophet, I ask, speaking of any particular outward observance to be performed; or did he simply convey the idea that God would purify bis people from their iniquity ? And did he not represent this mural MODE AND CIRCUMSTA^X'ES HARMONIOUS. 93 Fourthly. Ezekiel comes next. The Jews are yet to be converted and introduced into the Christian churchy and this is to be formally set forth by baptism^ the initiating sacra- ment of the Christian dispensation. Hear the prophet, hundreds of years before this event: ^'For I will take you from among the heathen, &c., then will I sprinkle clean water upon you," &c.'' Whether literal or figurative, spriu- Ming is the mode of baptism indicated by the prophet. Fifthly. Consider Peter's question respecting the baptism of Cornelius and his family. ^' Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" ^ This question presents three things : first, that the spiritual baptism was received hefore the ex- ternal baptism; secondly, the propriety of the correspond- ence between the mode of the inward and outward baptism ] and thirdly, the strong probability that the water was hrougJit and applied. '•'■ Can any forbid water,'' that it should be brought and applied to a haptismal use in the case of these persons who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? Sixthly. Matthew shall be heard. " Then went out to him [John the Baptist] Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins."^ TVe have no objection to the trans- lation of the preposition £> — en — in this instance, in our English version. It is translated correctly. The trans- lators were too well acquainted with the nature of the river Jordan to translate it otherwise, as we shall presently see. As John was now opening a new dispensation, and as purifying by the emblem, of aprinklinfj, to "which their ritual had ac- customed them as significant of purification ?"' Eipley's Exam, of Stuart, p. 139. Professor Ripley, a Baptist, had too much sense to give the original Hebrew word the meaning assigned to it in the Septuagint. 7 Ezek. xxxvi. 24, 2&. s Acts 5. 47. ^ Matt. iii. 5, 6. 94 ■ THE MODE OF BAPTIS.AI, great multitudes were daily initiated by baptism, it was necessary that he should take his position at some most eligible place. In the southern deserts of Judea, the streams are few and scanty, probably in the summer entirely dried up. The nearest large body of water is the Dead Sea. The western banks of this great lake are mostly rugged and pre- cipitous; besides, natural feeling and religious awe would have caused the people to shrink from receiving the holy ordinance in these fetid, unwholesome, and accursed waters. The usual station, therefore, which John selected, was Bethabara, the ford of Jordan, which tradition pointed out as the place whejce the waters divided before the ark. Here, though the adjacent region toward Jerusalem is wild and desert, the immediate shores offer spots of great convenience and picturesque beauty. The Jordan has a kind of double channel. In its summer course, the shelving banks, to the tops of which the waters reach at its period of flood, are covered with acacia and other trees of great luxuriance, and amid the rich vegetation and grateful shade afforded at this spot, Italian painters have imagined the unruffled Jordan reflecting the wondering multitudes of every class and age, gathered around with deep interest and intense curiosity, and John performing the sacred rite to listening and devotional thousands. The multitudes baptized went down into the Jordan to the water in the inner channel, and were baptized — how? Let John himself answer: "I in- deed baptize you with water" — here in Jordan, ou the bank of the inner channel. This explains Christ's coming up out of, or from — ajto — the water, and reconciles Matthew and John, the former saying that the ordinance was ad- ministered in Jordan, and the latter asserting that he bap- tized with water. One might have gone down iuto Jordan without touching the water. We would not have the trans- lation altered. This relieves the minds of such as are MODE AND CIRCUMSTANCES HARMONIOUS. 95 troubled about the example of Christy since we conclude that as Christ ascended from the bank of the inner channel, a radiant light, with the rapid and undulating motion of a dove, DESCENDED UPON him, and the voice from heaven was heard, ^^This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased/' That the pJirase ^^in Jordan" does not necessarily involve the idea of immersion, let us consider the passage of the Israelites over Jordan as described by Joshua : " And thou shalt command the priests that bear the ark of the covenant, saying, when ye are come to the brink of the water of Jor- dan, ye shall stand still in Jordan/' ^° And yet they were not immersed, for the waters were immediately divided, and the priests stood firm on dri/ ground, ix THE MIDST of Jordan, and all the Israelites passed over on dri/ ground. Finally, we have seen, in the examination of the original Greek prepositions, in the preceding chapter, that iv, the preposition here used, never means into, except in connec- tion with the verb, and in this case it is used disconnected from the verb, and, therefore, in this place it cannot denote immersion. Thus, as baptism in a spiritual sense is set forth by the prophets, Christ, and his apostles, under the ideas of sprin- kling and pouring ; therefore the external mode of baptism should be sprinkling or pouring, to correspond to the mode of spiritual baptism. In a word, there can be no force or importance at all in the mere mode, unless it be of such a s/uhlish their convic- tions to the icorld? Why then change the translation? Pardon me, my brethren. Luther wished the Epistle of James torn out of the Bible and bui-ned up, because it opposed his doctrine of faith vAthout works; but afterward, when he was taught better, he admitted the genuineness and ac- knowledged the authority of this epistle. Mr. Jewett, a clergyman who left the Presbyterian Church and joined the Baptists, says, in a book published by him on baptism — '' Had the translators of our version possessed the light 132 * THE MODE OF BAPTISM. which the labors of eminent philologists during the last fifty years have thrown over this subject, they would have found themselves obliged, in conscience, to translate the word hap- tizo, immerse, in all cases; and they would not have con- sented to adopt it, instead of translating it, thus concealing the mind of the Spirit. Nay, more, had not King James, under the advice of the bishops, virtually ordered the trans- lators not to translate the words relating to baptism, I believe it morally certain that that learned and pious assembly, acting even under the inferior light which they enjoyed, would have rendered the word in every instance in accord- ance with the views maintained in this discourse." *^ In the first place, this opinion is wholly gratuitous. Secondly, it is an unmerited reflection upon the intelligence and moral honesty of the translators, King James, and the bishops. And in the third place, this reflection is made by an ordinary man, who has written a small book on baptism, made up principally of quotations and opinions from authors on the subject, a thousand times refuted ; and consequently involving in principle the reputation" of his own book long before it appeared. If the Baptists should succeed in changing our good old English version, they ought also to change their own name from " Baptists" to ^' Immersionists," and to surrender a name of which they have boasted ever since theii' origin. For unless they should change their name, to correspond to the new version, their heathen converts would inquire, what does this mean ? You are Baptists, why are you not called Immersionists? And then if they should change their name, their heathen converts would find out, that for a long time, they were called Baptists, and would inquire, why was the original name ^^ Baptists" ever changed, if it was clear that ^^haptizo'^ meant to immerse? ^ Third ed. p. 61. UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. Sixthly. Among collateral proofs in favor of sprinkling and pouring, may be mentioned also the disposition of im- mersionists to destroy the argument from analogy between the baptism of the Holy Grhost and external baptism, by denying and attempting to disprove the baptism of the Holy Ghost altogether." This effort clearly proves, that the force of analogy between the two modes is unfavorable to the views of the Baptists. For why assail so boldly a funda- mental doctrine of salvation — the baptism of the Holy Grhost — ^if there is no resemblance between the modes of spu-itual and water baptisms ? This daring adventure is an admission cciuivalent to a triumphant argument in favor of the validity of sprinkling and pouring, while it displays a reckless pre- sumption in the professed friends of the Bible, surpassed only by the intolerant and inveterate opposition of the avowed and insidious enemies of the Cross. CHAPTER YI. UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. We continue the examination of the collateral proofs in favor of sprinkling and pouring as the most proper modes of baptism. Seventhly. Almost all the learning and piety of the Christian church, from the days of the apostles to the present time, have advocated and practised the modes of sprinkling and pouring, and opposed the doctrine oi exclusive immersion. This argument is accumulative in its strength ] and as time refutes error and confirms the truth, we may regard the '■* This remark has reference priccipally to the Campbellites — a misera- ble heresy, to -which we shall refer again hereafter. 12 134 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. testimony of the cliurcli for eighteen hundred years as sub- stantial ground for the continuation of the practice of sprin- kling and pouring at the present time. Not a fiftieth part of all the Protestants in the world believe in the exclusive- ness of immersion ] and Dr. Kurtz, of the Lutheran Chui'ch, says, "probably not one-sixtieth part practise immersion.'^ The Baptists sometimes claim the practice of the Greek church in favor of their views, and yet the Greek Church practises trine immersion, and maintains that baptism in this form is absolutely necessary. Besides, after these im- mersions, they sprinlde the subject. So that, in no respect, can the Greek Church be adduced in support of the claims of the Baptists. Let me here correct one of the most captivating, insidious, and extensive impositions ever invented and inflicted on the human mind — one, to a great extent, without question, a fruitful means in causing doubtful minds to settle down finally upon the exclusiveness of immersion — an imposition, therefore, to which may be ascribed much of the success of the Baptist Church in obtaining accessions to her numbers and influence, in all parts of the land where she can impose upon those who are destitute both of the discrimination and information necessary to baffle the well-contrived design. The imposition is this : — The Baptists, in quoting the opinions of the church on the subject of the mode of bap- tism, very often adduce paedobaptist authors, di\'ines, and commentators, as witnesses in favor of immersion; and in doing this, they confound the admissions of the validity of immersion as a valid mode, with concessions in favor of immersion as the onli/ valid mode. Nay more; they in- geniously blend the admission of p^edobaptist authors, di- vines, and commentators, with their own bold assumption that immersion was the onlij mode of baptism practised by the apostles and the primitive church. UNFAIRNESS OP THE BAPTISTS. 1B5 Why do the Baptists, in quoting psedobaptist authorities, keep back a part of their opinions, and triumphantly exhibit that part which admits the validity of immersion merely as a valid mode ? Why do they keep their congregations in ignorance on this subject ? Was there ever a more flagi-ant injustice imposed on the public mind ? Let me state the case clearly, openly, and fully. The authorities, ancient and modern, with some exceptions, admit that immersion was an apostolic mode of baptism, but at the same time they maintain that it was not the only apostolic mode ; the Bap- tists maintain that it was the only apostolic mode : in this they differ. The authorities supf)ort infant baptism as an apostolic practice ; the Baptists do not : in this they differ. The authorities oppose ^^ close communion;" the Baptists maintain and practise it : in this they differ. And in many other respects, the authorities and the Baptists differ as materially as in those we have mentioned. Now what have we here ? Why, the Baptist Church standing alone ; not only unsustained, but opposed, in many respects, by all the authorities of the church from the days of Christ till the present time ; and especially unsupported, and even opposed, in her interpretation of the meaning of the word haptizo, by the paedobaptist churches, divines, commentators, classic scholars, and the most respectable Icxicogi'aphers, with but a few exceptions, in all ages of the Christian era. To be governed entirely by the authorities, the Baptists must adopt the other modes of baptism also : otherwise they are against them. This is a fair view of the whole case ; and it is clear that our Baptist brethren, in this matter, deal very unfairly with the authorities, with sister churches, with their own congregations, and with you, who, at this time, with deep solicitude, are forming your opinions on the whole weignt of evidence in support of Christian baptism. Nor is this all. Almost all the authorities quoted by 136 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. the Baptists^ so far from supporting theii* exclusiveness on tlie subject of baptism, have wi'itten expressly against it. Scarcely a pgedobaptist author of eminence has existed since the origin of the Baptist Church, who has not made the most strenuous opposition to the very tenet which is the peculiarity of that chuix-h, and which distinguishes it from the rest of the Christian churches. Many large volumes might be compiled from the works of paedobaptists, which would not only furnish their unqualified testimony on this subject, but, as we believe, would efifectually overthrow the pretensions of the Baptists to exclusiveness in administering the sacraments. Let the opinions of a few represent the rest. "Wall assures us that the first body of men of which we find any account, who denied baptism to infants, were the Petrobrussians, a sect of the x\lbigenses, in the former part of the twelfth centui-y. Milner afiirms, '^a few instances excepted, the existence of the anti-ptedobaptists seems scarcely to have taken place in the chuix-h of Christ, till a little after the beginning of the Keformation." Calvin de- clares "that the substcuice of baptism being retained, the chui'ch, from the beginning, enjoyed the liberty of using somewhat different rites.'' With regard to infant baptism, Dr. Doddridge says, " no argument can be drawn from these words [the gTeat commission] to the prejudice of infant baptism.'' Professor Stuart, after having at large consider- ed the subject of sprinkling as compared with immersion, and proved that the former is equally as proper as the latter, concludes with the following remarks on infant baptism : — " I have only to say, that I believe in both the propriety and expediency of the rite thus administered, and therefore accede to it ex aninio. Commands, or plain and certain ex- amples, in the Xeic Testament relative to it, I do not find. Xor, with my views of it, do T need them. If the subject UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 137 had reference to what is fundamental or essential^ in Chris- tianity, then I must find either the one or the other in order to justify adopting or practising it. But as the case now stands, the general analogy of the ancient dispensation; the enlargement of privilege under the gospel ; the silence of the New Testament on the subject of receiving children into a special relation to the church by the baptismal rite, which shows, at least, that there was no dispute in the early ages relative to this matter ; the certainty that in Tertullian's days the practice was general ; all these considerations put together — united with the conviction that baptism is a syni- hol and dedication, and may be so in the case of infants as well as adults, and that it brings parents and children into a peculiar relation to the church, and under peculiarly re- cognised obligations — serve to satisfy me fuUy that the practice inay he and should he continued.^' Is it not sur- prising that the Rev. James D, Knowles, professor in the Newton Theological Institution, and many others v>-ith him, should, notwithstanding this clear statement of his ^dews re- specting the modes and subjects of baptism, present Professor Stuart to the world as a witness in favor of exclusive immer- sion ? Professor Knowles quotes the language of Professor Stuart as follows : — " After citing the testimony of many ancient writers, Professor Stuart says : ^ But enough. It is, says Augusti, " a thing made out," viz. the ancient practice of immersion. So indeed all the wi'iters who have thoroughly investigated the subject conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly and cer- tainly made out.' I cannot see how it is possible for any candid person who examines the subject to deny this.'' Here is not one word in favor of the cxchisiveness of the Baptists. Professor Stuart admits that immersion was a mode, but not the only mode of baptism practised by the primitive chujch ; for he goes on to prove^ with ec^ual clear- 12* 138 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. ness, that sprinJcling also was equally valid, and that infant baptism was proper, and obligatory on the Christian church. Professor Stuart does not attempt to prove, as the Baptists do, that immersion is a positive institution enjoined by Chi'ist and his apostles, but his design is to vindicate th< occasional practice of immersion by the paedobaptist church from primitive times, through all succeeding ages to tht present time, and thus to establish the admissibility of im mersion as a baptismal ceremony of the Christian dispensa tion. The admission of the validity of a ceremony should not be distorted into an acknowledgment of its exclusiveness, however anciently it may have been practised. Pendleton, in his work on ^' Baptism and Communion," « represents Professor Stuart as saying that haptizo '^means' only immerse, overwhelm." " It is worthy of remark," says he, ^^that Professor Stuart, throughout the Greek classics and the Septuagint, assigns to the word haptizo only immerse, overwhelm," p. 30. "We will refute this gross misrepresenta- tion of the Baptists by referring to the work of Professor Ripley, himself a Baptist, who reviewed Professor Stuart's essay on the " Mode of Baptism," published in the Biblical Repository, April, 1833. He quotes (p. 26) Professor Stuart, as follows: ^^5. — To icasJi, cleanse hy icater, where ^a-ziZu) is used;" and observes, (p. 33,] ^Hhe method by which Professor Stuart would show that i3a-~iZo) here means to cleanse hy water j is liable to objection;" and continues, (p. 34,) ^' I cannot regard the statement as sufficiently sus- tained, that i3a-ri%a) in the Septuagint and Apocrypha means simply to icash, to cleanse hy icater, without containing any reference to the manner, or the extent of the washing." Here then, according to Professor Ripley, Professor Stuart did not restrict the meaning of f^aizzi'^aj to ^^ immerse, over- whelm," as is asserted by Mr. Pendleton. Again, Professor Ripley, (p. 55,) quotes Professor Stuart : " We have also UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 130 seen in Nos. 2, 5, 6, of examples from the Septuagint anJ Apocrypha, that the word haptizo sometimes means to iccicli . There is then no absolute certainty froni usage, that the word, when applied to designate the rite of baptism, means of course to immerse or plunge.' ' This is conclusive. We invite attention to the unfairness of Mr. Booth, in his book entitled " Paedobaptism Examined," in which he has made quotations from nearly a hundred psedobaptist authors to support the tenet of exclusive immersion. We shall ex- amine his work by the chapter. (1.) His quotations from at least twenty learned Pasdo- baptist authors on the subject of positive institutions, prove nothing at all on the subject of the mode of baptism, since not one of these cj[uotations was designed by its author to bear in the remotest degree upon the mode of baptism. Mr Booth argues from the important principles of positive insti- tutions to the mode of baptism, inferring, that the authors he quoted had reference to the mode of baptism ; and thus his '■'■ seven reflections'^ that follow are nothing more than false inferences of his own, and palpable perversions of his authors. (2.) He next adduces the testimonies of eighty-two au- thors, concerning the signification of the terms haptize and baptism. In the outset, he is forced in candor to forewarn his readers that "no inconsiderable part of his authors assert that the word baptize signifies pouring and sprinkling, as well as immersion." And he admits at the same time that these authors "may be justly numbered among the fii-st lite- rary characters that any age has produced," and conse- quently were fully capable of judging correctly in the pre- mises. Consequently, the authorities adduced do not support the dogma of exclusive immersion. (8.) His next step is to adduce seventy-five testimonies from paedobaptist authors in proof of the design of baptism. 140 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Not one of these authors bears testimony that the design of baptism can be expressed or set forth only by immersion, nor do they all admit the validity of immersion as a mode by which the design of baptism may be set forth. Indeed, in some instances^ immersion is not even mentioned or re- ferred to, as in the testimony of Chamierus : " they who are baptized represent the death of Christ, and at the same time their own.'' Mr. Booth supposed Chamierus used the term "baptized" synonymously with immersion; and Chamierus is in part wrong, for the eucharist represents the death of Christ. And in other instances, sprinkling is mentioned as answering the design of baptism, as in the testimony of Surretinus: '^As now persons to be baptized are sprinkled with water ; so they are sprinkled with the blood and spirit of Christ to the washing away of sin." All the quotations made by Mr. Booth from paedobaptist authors prove nothing in favor of exclusive immersion, and whenever Mr. Booth differs from his authorities, as he does in many instances, of course they are to be regarded as against him. (4.) He next adduces ninety-six testimonies to prove that the apostolic mode of baptism was immersion. He com- mences this chapter also with a candid confession : [" N. B. — Candor demands that we should here acknowledge that though these numerous and learned authors have expressed themselves in the following manner, yet many of them insist upon it as highly probable that the apostles did some- times administer baptism by pouring or sprinkling."] Ordinary candor could not have made a better confession, and this confession is fatal to the doctrine of exclusive im- mersion. Besides, most of those authors whom Mr. B. adduces in proof that the apostolic mode of baptism was immersion, and who, as he admits, affirm that the apostles did sometimes administer baptism by pouring or sprinkling^ are also the very authors whom he adduced in the preceding UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 141 chapter to prove that the design of baptism could dp fully set forth onl^ hy immersion ! And thus as these ?.uthors bear testimony also for sprinkling and pouring, ^hey of course maintain that the design of baptism may be repre- sented by these modes. Xot one of these authors bears testimony to the divine institution of immersion as the only proper mode of baptism. (5.) In the fifth chapter, he refers to the present practice of " the Greek and oriental churches, in regard to the mode" of baptism. But some of his witnesses bear testimony also to the practice of infant baptism, as Hasselquist : " The Greeks christen their children immediately after their birth," &c. Anl Anonymous : " The Muscovite priests plunge their children three times over head and ears in water." And one of these witnesses bears testimony to trine immersion as the "primi- tive manner." "9. Dr. J. G. King: The Greek church uniformly practises the trine immersion, undoubtedly the most primitive manner." Here Mr. Booth himself admits the authority of this testimony to the prevalence of infant baptism, for " thirteen centuries ;'' so that in his eagerness to prove immersion as the apostolic mode, he likewise adduces proof to support the apostolic authority of infant baptism, and thus at a single stroke overthrows the Baptist Church — for v:liere vjas the Baptist Church all this time ? (6.) He next endeavors to prove from the same sources, that " the design of baptism is more fully expressed by im- mersion, than by pouring or sprinkling." Then it is obvious, on his own admission, that pouring or sprinkling expresses, in some degree, at least, the design of baptism. Mr. Booth's witnesses are the same good old authors he adduced in the preceding chapters — every one of whom is an advocate for sprinkling and pouring as proper modes of baptism, and Dr. Wall, one of his authors, has written the most powerful 142 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. defeuce of infant baptism ever knoTrn among uninspired writers. (7.) He attempts to explain " the reasons^ rise, and pre- yalence of poui-ing or sprinklings instead of immersion. '^ And here the following things are obvious. First. Sprin- kling or pouring was admitted in certain cases of sickness, feebleness, and in cold countries, as Mr. Booth's witnesses testify. Secondly. His witnesses likewise prove, by the same quotations, the validity of infant baptism. Thirdly. One of his witnesses, Dr. Manton, declares that " Chris- tianity lieth not in ceremonies ; the principal thing in bap- tism is the leashing away of sin, that may be done by pour- ing on of water, AS ttell as dipping." Another witness, "Walaeus, declares that '^ the ancients, in cold climates, generally used aspersion : because a ceremony that is free ought alwa3's to give way to charity.'^ Fourthly. He argues, because " infants cannot bear plunging, without the hazard of health and life, it is presumptive argument against their claim to the ordinance of baptism. Upon the same ground adults, in feeble health, have no claim to the ordinance. The principle that can be compromised on account of phy- sical weakness in adults, can be compromised for the same reason in the case of infants : admit sprinkling as valid, and the difficulty vanishes in both cases. But Mr. B. himself removes this objection to infant baptism, by quotations from medical and philosophical men, attesting that cold ablutions are not objectionable on account of infantile weakness. The second part oihi^ examination of pgedobaptism treats of "the subjects of baptism," and this we shall also consider by the chapter. (1.) His thirty-one quotations to prove that there is " neither express precept, nor plain example, for pasdobap- tism, in the New Testament," are nothing more than bold UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 143 and gross mutilations of the arguments of their authors in favor of infant baptism. (2.) He asserts that there is ^^no evidence of pasdobap- tism before the latter end of the second, or the beginning of the third century," and adduces twelve witnesses to prove it — not one of ichom lived in the first three centuries of the Christian era. He passes over in cautious silence all the Fathers of this period, all of whom bear positive or indirect testimony to the apostolic authority and validity of infant baptism. Moreover, in the preceding chapter of his work, he had quoted largely from a multitude of authors to prove the primitive authority and the general prevalence of im- mersion — often intermingling at the same time their testi- monies in favor of infant baptism, and yet it is surprising, that he overlooked the fact that the same witnesses are as credible in the one case as in the other. And when it suits him, he argues against his faithful authorities ! They are credible, when they testify in his favor — not credible, when they oppose him ! In a former chapter. Dr. Wall was paraded with his hosts of witnesses for the truth — now he is singled out as his antagonist ! And why ? Because he ad- mits Irenseus, and other Fathers of the church, in proof of the early antiquity, and apostolic origin of infant baptism ! He cries out, ^'Is it not strange, is it not quite unaccount- able, that such ambiguous words as those of Irengeus should be considered by our opponents as the most explicit of any on record, in proof that psedobaptism was practised so early as the year 180 ?'^ And yet but a few pages after, in con- sidering the testimony of Origen, he without hesitation "allows" that the "passages" adduced from his writings ^^ are plain and express to the point.^' Indeed, such is the course of argument pursued by Mr. Booth throughout his book, that by an analogical method, one might prove from the Bible that to murder is a divine command : " Cain rose 144 THE MODE OF BArTISM. up against Abel his brother, and slew bim" — ^'Gro thou and do likewise." But after all, bis witnesses prove tbat infant baptism was prevalent in the latter end of the second cen- tury, and he admits that ^Hhe practice of infant baptism did prevail in the latter part of the third century.'^ (3.) In the third and last chapter, he adduces several testimonies in proof of "the high opinion of the Fathers, concerning the utility of baptism" — and many of his wit- nesses, such as Luther, Gerhardus, Buddeus, Deylingius, Vossius, and Dr. Fiddes, bear testimony to the efficacy of baptism in the salvation of infants. Mr. Booth pursues just such a course, in his "Psedobap- tism Examined," as a certain Danvers in England pursued in his "Treatise on Baptism," which was replied to by Mr. Walker. The course pui'sued by Danvers is censured by Dr. Wall in the following very just and strong language — and every word of it is applicable to the author of "■ Paedo- baptism Examined." "Here by the way," says Dr. Wall, "I cannot but take notice how much trouble such an ad- venturous author as this Danvers is able to give to such a careful and exact answerer as Mr. Walker. Danvers does in this place deal with above twenty other writers after the same rate as he does with the two I mentioned, viz. Scapula, Stephanus, Pasor, Vossius, Leigh, Casaubon, Beza, Chamier, Hammond, Cajetan, Musculus, Piscator, Calvin, Keckerman, Diodatus, Grotius, Davenant, Tilenus, Dr. Cave, Wall, Strabo, r.nd Tillotson. 3Ir. Walker shows that he has abused every one of them; by affixing to some of them words they never ijaid, by adding to others, by altering and mistranslating others, and by curtailing the words of the rest." ^ Ptespecting the unfairness of the Baptists in adducing the distorted testimony of paedobaptist writers in proof of the i Wall, vul. ii. 408, 409. UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 145 practice of the primitive church, Dr. Wall himself had oc- casion to observe in his History of Infant Baptism : '' This I have seen done/' says he, "a hundred times, when the same author that is quoted does sometimes in the same treatise, and sometimes in other parts of his works, show that infants are to be baptized, as being in a case that is exempt from the general rule that requires faith, prayer, i-epentance, and other personal preparations."- This in- justice he experienced at the hand of Mr. Gale, in his "Re- flections'' on his work. To which, "Dr. Wall," in his "De- fence," replies: "After a smoothing compliment, he in the next words set up against me one of the falsest accusations and most abominable calumnies that in all the seventy years of my life was ever thrown upon me by any lewd or slander- ous tongue or pen. He makes me a teacher of a false doc- trine, contrary to the principles of the church of which I am a member, and contrary to what I have always taught therein, and contrary to what I declare in many places of the book he had before him. A doctrine that was never maintained by any Christian [beside the antipagdobaptists themselves] but by some late papists; viz. that I ^freely allow that it cannot be made to appear from the Scriptures that infants are to be baptized.' I have been forced by this foul and importunate cavil to look over those places of my own book where I do enforce the proof of in/aiit hcq:)tism from several texts of Scripture. I did bring many proofs from G-od's word, which stand as so many evidences of the falsehood of this false charge against me. Of his untruths, I would beforehand instance in one flagrant and manifest one (which, as I shall show, he has affirmed above twenty times over) his saying, that I have in my book yielded and owned that there is no Scripture proof for infant baptism ; 2 Vol. i. 328. 13 146 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. though near half his hook he spent in refuting (as well as he can) those proofs which I brought from Scriptare/^ ^ One more remark on the unfairness of Mr. Jewett. He quotes Calvin in proof of the declaration^ " that none but believers are entitled to baptism.^'* He thus refers to Calvin: "Calvin. Because Christ required teaching be- fore baptizing, and will have believers only admitted to baptism, baptism d*oes not seem to be rightly administered, except faith precede." Cah^in, in this quotation, is referring to adult baptism, in which case faith must " precede" bap- tism. But on the subject of infant baptism — and certainly infants cannot "believe" — he observes, "as some turbulent spirits in the present age have raised fierce disputes, which still continue to agitate the church, on the subject of infant baptism, I cannot refrain from adding some observations with a view to repress their violence." ^ And he adds, that those who affirm that infant baptism was unknown till a long time after the resurrection of Christ, ^Hherein lie most ahominahly ; for there is no writer so ancient that doth not certainly refer the beginning thereof to the age of the apostles." We bid 3Ir. Jewett adieu — for the present. We proceed next to the vindication of Mr. Wesley, who has often been adduced in proof of the dogma of exclusive immersion. Copious extracts from his works we now lay before the reader. "I made an end of visiting the classes," says he, "miserably shattered by showers of strange doc- trine. At one I preached at Tipton Green, where the Bap- tists also have been making havoc of the flock, which con- strained me, in speaking on these words, 'Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,' to spend some ten mi- nutes in controversy, which is more than I had done in pub- 3 Wall, vol. iv. 66, 175-177. ^ Jewett on Baptism, p. 102. ^ Insts. b. iv. c. 16, sec. 1. ^ Wesley's Works, vol. iii. 610. UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 147 lie for many moutlis (perhaps years) before." ^ And so it seems 3Ir. Wesley, as well as Calvin, met with " turbulent spirits who agitated" the church on the subject of baptism. Referring to the multitudes baptized by John, Mr. Wesley says, '^ Such prodigious numbers could hardly be baptized by immersing their whole bodies under water; nor can we think they were provided with change of raiment for it, which was scarcely practicable for such vast multitudes. And yet they could not be immersed naked with modesty, nor in their wearing apparel with safety. It seems, therefore, that they stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and that John, pass- ing along before them, cast icater on their heads or faces, by which means he might baptize many thousands in a day." ' Concerning "washing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches," he observes, "The Greek word (hajptismos) means indifferently either washing or sprinkling. The cups, pots, and vessels were washed; the couches sprinkled."^ "^And they both went down' — out of the jchariot. It does not foUow that he was baptized by immersion. The text neither affirms nor intimates any thing concerning it." ^ "'We are buried with him by baptism' — alluding to the ancient mode of baptizing b}^ immersion." ^^ And here the Baptists raise the shout I But does Mr. Wesley say that the only ancient mode of baptizing was immersion? Bid he believe it ? Assuredly not ; or he would have positively concluded, as the Baptists do, that the eunuch was im- mersed; but on the contrary, he declares that "it does not follow that he was baptized by immersion." If he believed that tlw only mode of baptizing among the ancients was im- mersion, why does he say that John ^^cast water on the heads and faces'^ of the multitudes whom he baptized ? That Mr. ' Notes on New Test. Matt. iii. 6. = Notes, Mark vii. -I. 9 Ibid. Acts viii. S8. lo jbid. Rom. vi. 4 148 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. TTeslej did not believe immersion was the only mode of baptism practised anciently, is evident from bis note on Col. ii. 12 : "Buried with him in baptism^ by which ye also are risen with him through faith of the operation of God." Mr. Wesley comments : ''The ancient manner of baptizing by immersion is as manifestly alluded to here, as the ancient manner of baptizing by sprinkling or pouring of water is in Heb. x. 22.- But," he adds, '/no stress is laid on the age of the baptized, or the manner of performing it, IN ONE OR THE OTHER PLACE." This is decisive. But we continue our references. '''And were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea' — perhaps sprinMed here and there with drops of water from the sea or cloud, by which baptism might be more evidently signified." " In his Journal, he observes, " I baptized seven adults, two of them by immersion."" Of course, the other five were bap- tized some other way, probably by sprinkling, as his note above on I'Cor. x. 2 enables us to conclude. The catholic views of Mr. "Wesley on the mode of baptism may be obtained from his treatise on Baptism, jDublished in the year 1756, and contained in his works, vol. vi. p. 12, We make the following extracts. "Baptism," says he, "is performed by washing, dipping, of" sprinkling the person in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who is hereby devoted to the ever-blessed Trinity. I say by icasliing, dij)- jping, OT. sprbiMing ; BECAUSE IT is NOT determined in Scripture in vthich or these ways it should be done, neither by any express precept, nor by any example as clearly proves it; nor by the force or meaning OF THE WORD BAPTizo." Eeferring to the washing of cups, &c., according to the Jewish custom, he says, "Here, then, the word baptism, in its natural sense, is not taken for dip- II Notes, 1 Cor. X. 2. "- Works, vol. iv. 16, March 21st, 1759. UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 149 ping, but for wasliiug or cleansing. And that this is the true meaning of the word haptlzo, is testified hy the greatest scholars, and most proper judges in this matter T Again : ^^ As there is no clear proof of dipping in Scripture, so there is very prohahle proof of the contrary. It is highly proba- ble THE APOSTLES THExMSELVES baptized great numbers, not by dipping, but by washing, sprinkling, or pouring water. This clearly represented the cleansing from sin, which is prefigured by baptism. And the quantity of water was not material — no more than the quantity of bread and wine in the Lord's supper." And so he concludes — " To sum up all, the manner of baptizing, whether by dipping or sprin- kling, is not determined in Scripture. There is no command for one rather than the other. There is no example from which we can conclude for dipping rather than for sprinkling. There are probable examples of both ; and both are equally contained in the natural meaning of the word." *^ Dr. Adam Clarke also has often been adduced by the Bap- tists in proof of the cxclusiveness of immersion — and we pro- ceed to defend him before the reader. In his observations at the end of Mark's Grospel, he says, ''On the mode of ad- ministering baptism, there need be no dispute among Chris- tians: both dipping and sprinkling are legitimate forms; and either may be used, as the consciences or religious prejudices of the parties may direct; but the thing itself, in *3 As our Baptist brethren are very fonJ.of quoting Mr. "Wesley on baptism, I invite their attention to his note on "close communion," as it is called. Note, Acts xi. 17 : "Who was I, that I could -withstand God ?" " Particularly laying down rules of Christian communion, which exclude any whom he hath admitted into the church of the firstborn from wor- shipping God together. Oh that all church-governors would consider how bold a usurpation this is, on the authority of the Supreme Lord of the church ! Oh that the sin of thus withstanding God may not be laid to the charge of those, who, perhaps with good intention, but in an over- fondness for their own forms, have done it, and are continually doing it !" 13* 150 THE MUDE OF BAPTISM. its great reference, is of the utniost importance.'^ Extracts from his Theology, pp. 253, 254. ^' Were the people dipped or sj)rinkled ? for it is certain hcqDto and haptizo mean both. 'They were dipped,' say some. Can any man suppose," the doctor continues, " that it was possible for John to dip all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea, and of all the country round about Jordan ? Were both men and women dipped ? for certainly both came to his baptism. This never could have comported with safety or decency. Were they dipped in their clothes ? This would have endangered their lives, if they had not with them a change of raiment. But suppose these were dipped, which I think it is impossihh to prove, does it follow that in all regions of the world m(^ and women must be dipped, in order to be evangelically baptized ? Those who are dipped or immersed in water, in the name of the Trinity, I believe to be evangelically bap- tized. Those who are washed or sprinkled with water in the name of the Trinity, / believe to he equally so — and the repetition of such a baptism I believe to be profane. To say that sprinkling or aspersion is no gospel baptism, is as incorrect as to say that immersion is none. Lastly, to assert that infant baptism is unscriptural, is as rash and reprehensi- ble as any of the rest. Myriads of conscientious people choose to dedicate their infants to God by public baptism. They are in the right ! — and by acting thus, follow the general practice of the Jewish and Christian church — a prac- tice from which it is as needless as it is dangerous to depart." The Baptists have made the same plausible and capti- vating misrepresentations in explaining the old versions of the Bible. We shall mention some of the most important. Martin Luther's version. '^ Luther, one of the great Reformers, gave the Bible translated to the Germans, that they might read in their own language the wonderful works of God, and he rendered haptize into the word signifying (o UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAPTISTS. 151 immerse.''^ -"^g^i^j " ^^ ^^ Luther, the great reformer, renders it in his Grerman Testament, Johannes der Taufer — John the Dipper." ^^ ^^ Other translators may do as they please ; haptize may be twisted into all sorts of meaning ex- cept immersion — except indeed in the case of old versions. Luther may say that it means to immerse, and his version shall continue to be circulated ; but wo be to the Baptists if they say so; and what is the reason ?"'^^ "Will not the reader be surprised when he is reminded that Luther himself baptized by sprinkling, and that the Germans and all the Lutherans who use this very transla- tion of Luther, also, in the present day, baptize by sprin- kling ? The German minister, when he takes the water in his hand and sprinkles or ptours it on the subject, says, ^- L:h taufe dich.'' And so Luther himself, when he took the water in his hand, and sprinkled or poured it on the head of the subject, said, "IcH taufe dich." The meaning, therefore, Luther gave to taufer and taufen, as it respects mode, was sprinkle or pour. And so he translates the word wash, in Mark vii. 4 : " Und icenn sic vom markfe kommen, essen sic nich, sic WASHEN SICH denn" — they WASH THEM- SELVES. And so in Luke xi. 38. " Da das der Pharisacr sah vericunderfe er sich, class er sich nicht vor den essen GEWASCHEN hatte" — had not WASHED himself. Indeed, the Germans use these words with specific reference to the sacrament of baptism, or in a sense that signifies washing. And so the English and German lexicographers translate these words, and whenever they use words express- ing immersion, taufen, is not among them.^" i-i Mr. Woolsey, (a Baptist,) p. 75. i5 D^ij. p. 133, 16 Eeport of Baptist Bible Society for 1S40, p. 89. 1" English and German Dictionary, by F. A. "Weber, Leipzic ed. 1833. BrcKHAKDT, Berlin ed. 1S23. Also, English, German, and French Dic- tionary, 3d ed., Leipsic, 1763,by Chriclian Ludwig. 152 THE MODE OF BAniSM. The Baptists have affirmed, particularly in their discus- sions with the Lutheran Church, ^^ that Luther himself, the great Reformer, condemned the practice of sprinhling, and even disapproved of infant haptismJ' That an assertion so entirely unfounded should be hazarded by any one, can be explained only by the reckless spirit of party ; and it is a matter of regret that any, specially Christian ministers, in their preaching or writings, should ever sacrifice candor to the impulse of such a spirit. Luther's hostility to popery is not susceptible of stronger proof than is his most cordial support of infant baptism and the validity of sprinkling. The proof we shall now give. "That the dipping of a child in water, or sprinMing it with water according to the command of Christ, should cleanse it from sin and transfer it from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God, is re^-iled by reason," &c. SinguJaria Lutheri, by Philip Saltzman, Jena edition, 156-i, tit. 220, art. Baptism, p. 657. "Inasmuch as there is neither ornament nor honor at baptism, and God does out- wardly no more than app>ly a handful of water," &c. Ibid. chap. viii. p. 669. "I consider that hy far the safest baptism is the baptism of children,^' &c. Ibid. chap. x. p. 602. " Devils must flee from baptism ; why ? — they do not regard the water and the letter, but it is because God has com- manded that we must use our hand and tongue in adminis- tering it by SPRINKLING water upon the subject in connec- tion with the words prescribed by God," &e. Ibid. chap. xi. p. 663. "Again, if any one can obtain baptism, and yet cavils in this manner, how can a mere handful of water be of any benefit ? — he cannot be saved. For he despises God's word and the ordinance of Christ; he treats Christ as though he had acted foolishly in ordaining and commanding things useless.'' Luther's Works, Achter Theil, fol. 58. UNFAIRNESS OF THE 15APTISTS. 153 Copy of a letter of Dr. M. L. to his beloved wife, written in Halle : — "1546, Num. 61. '^ Grace and peace in the Lord. ^^ Dear Katy, we arrived at Halle to-day at 8 o'clock, but we could not go to Eisleben. We were met by a large anabaptist woman with waves of water and great cakes of ice that covered the ground; she threatened to baptize us over again, and as we could not retreat in consequence of the Mulda (a stream of water) in our rear, we were obliged to remain in Halle, between the waters; not, however, as though we thirsted for so much icater," &c. Martinus Luther, D. ^^ To my kind and beloved Katy Luther, in Wittenburg." Indeed, Luther was baptized in infancy hj affusion, and considering this valid, he was never rebaptized. Dr. pLiler, a learned Baptist, of this country, in his work on " Baptism and Communion,'' p. 125, observes, " Instead of restoring Christian Baptism, and thus extricating themselves from this, as from other corruptions, Luther and Calvin both aUoiced infant hap)tisin to remain, and pr^actised itJ' Dr. Fuller has too much good sense and candor to bear false witness against Luther, and certainly he will be received by the Baptists as a credible witness in the premises. The Peschito-Syriac version. The most extravagant assertions have been made concerning the antiquity of this version. Bishop "Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, Bishop Lowth, and Dr. Kennicott fix its date in the first century. Bauer, and some other German critics, in the second century; Jahn, at the latest, in the second century; and De Bossi pro- nounces it to be very ancient, but does not specify any pre- 154 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. cise date. But the most probable opinion is that of Michaelis, who ascribes it to the close of the first^ or to the early part of the second century.^^ Mr. "Woolsey affirms that ^'the venerable Peschito- Si/riac version was evidently executed by the fii'st of the last century," *^ that it is " the very hest that has ever been made," and that it has baptize translated by immerse. In the first place, this very version reads, "when she (Lydia) was baptized with her children." 2° Secondly. This is proof that infant baptism existed before the close of the second century. Thirdly. It is not admitted that this version translates the word baptize by immerse. The best critics deny it, and say that " the Syriac version employs a word which signifies ' to confirm — ^to establish' — that is, refers to ' the rite' of confirmation, while the manner of this is apparently left without being at all expressed." "^ Fourthly. The Baptists themselves confess that this version is not favorable to their views. " I confess, I can derive no countenanc-o to m}' practice as a Baptist from this version." ^ Fifthly. This vcr.-ion is the present Bible of the Nestorian Christians, and their word for baptize is exclusively appro- priated to the sacrament of baptism. Sixthly. The Nesto- rian Christ^'ans ^^ baptize either by immersion or afi"usion, and make no objection when they see our missionaries bap- tize by sprinkling, but consider it as good and valid bap- tism."" 23 The Dutch, Danish, and Swedish version. The '^ Home's Introduction, new ed., from the Sth London edition, vol. i. 270. 19 p. 71. ^ Kurtz, p. 99. "The Coptic version gives the same reading." Hall on the Law of Baptism. -' Judd's reply to Professor Stuart, p. 164. 22 See New York Evangelist, Jan. 23, 1841. 23 Hall on the Law of Baptism, 3d ed. p. 130. UNFAIRNESS OF THE BAITISTS. 155 Baptists affirm that the ''Dutcli^ Danish, and Swedish ver- sions have the words in dispute translated by words signify- ing immersion."^ Dr. Henderson, who has studied the languages of Northern Europe on the ground, and is familiar with their idioms, shall be authority upon this subject, and no one will question him as authority. Says he, " As it re- spects the Gothic dialects, which have been repeatedly ap- pealed to with great confidence, it is a settled point with all who are acquainted with them, that the reference is totally irrelevant. That the Masso-Gothic daupian, the Anglo- Saxon d^ppaiij the Dutch doopan, the Swedish dopa, the Danish dohe, and the German tavfen, all correspond in sound to our English word dip, does not admit of any dis- pute, any more than the fact that dah, daub, and duh have the same correspondence ; but nothing would be more erro- neous than to conclude, with the exception of the Anglo- Saxon, that they have the same signification. No Dutch- man, Dane, Swede, or German would for a moment imagine that the words belonging to their respective languages meant any thing else than baptism by the application of water to the body baptized. The words are never used in those languages in another sense, or in application to any other subject. Where the Germans would express dip or immerse j they employ tauchen and not taufen, which is the word by which baptize is translated. The Danes, in like manner, use dyppe and neddi/ppe, for dip), and not dobe. And that neither Luther nor the authors of the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish versions had any intention of conveying the idea of immersion as implied in baptize, is obvious from the pre- position which they have used with the verb. Thus we read in German, mit wasser taufen ; in Danish, dobe met vand j ^ Report of the American Foreign Bible Society, 1840, p. 38. Wool- sey, p. 138. 156 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. in Swedish^ dopa med vatn ; in Dutch, doopen met wasser ; i- e. with water, and not in water; which phraseology is as foreign to these languages as the practice which it would sanction is unknown to the inhabitants of the countries in which they are spoken. Even the Mennonites in Holland, and other parts, though they reject infant baptism, adminis- ter the ordinance by 'pouring^ and not by immersion," ^^ We deem it needless to consider the unfairness of the Bap- tists any further in their appeals to ancient and modern ver- sions of the Bible on this subject. The same exposure might be made in every attempt which they make to support their claims, though they assume that " to them is committed the sole guardianshijj of pure and faith fid translations of the oracles of God into the languages of the earth,' ^"^ and that they are " divinely and peculiarly set for the defence and dissemination of the gospel, as delivered to men by its Hea- venly Author f' -' and yet these ^^ guardians" and "defenders" of the truth are divided among themselves, in their transla- tions of the sacred oracles — Campbell and Woolsey on one side, and Carson and Judd on the other — with Robert Hall meanwhile inflicting some of the heaviest blows upon the iron wall of -' close communion" that ever fell from mortal hands. But it is time we had closed these remarks. I never knew or read of a version, ancient or modern, that sustains the exclusiveness of the Baptists on the subject of baptism, and I never knew or read of a paedobaptist author who ad- mitted the validity of immersion to the exclusion of sprin- kling and pouring as proper modes of baptism. The unfair- ness of the Baptists in adducing psedobaptist writers as witnesses to the exclusiveness of immersion is seen in this, 25 Hall on the Law of Baptism, pp. 131, 132. "'^ American and Foreign Bible Society Report, 1840, p. 79. 2' Professor Eaton, in his speech before the Baptist Bible Society, at its anniversary. UNFAIRNESS OP THE BAPTISTS. thiit they pervert their admissions of the validity of dipping into so many positive arguments in favor of the exdusicene&s of immersion. And hence sometimes the Baptist preacher presents in the pulpit paedobaptist works and pamphlets as proofs of the exclusiveness of immersion, though, as we have seen, nothing can be more unfair or untrue. It were well, on all sucl) occasions, to suspend the judgment till an op- portunity be afforded to settle the question by the v:Tiole testimony of the authors in question. And let the reader be assured, that while these authors admitted the validity of immersion as a mode of baptism, they made a clear dis- crimination between the validity of a mode, and the ex- clusiveness of immersion, in the works which they have ■vn'itten — works full of strong arguments against the ex- clusiveness of immersion, and in favor of sprinkling and pouring, as modes more expedient, rational, and scriptural. They proceeded upon the ground, that a mode, and tlie only mode, have nothing common in principle ; they never ad- mitted, but always opposed, the exclusiveness of immersion. Eighthly. All the evangelical denominations that practise sprinkling and pouring in administering the initiating sacra- ment of the Christian dispensation, have been crowned with great and signal success in publishing the gospel among men. But if there had been any thing essential in the mode of the initiating sacrament of the Christian dispensation, such would not have been their success. And so the success of the Baptists, at home and abroad, is in proof that the mode of initiating into the Christian church which they adopt is non-essential. It is advisable however, that the churches send paedobapti'St missionaries to the polar regions. It may be observed here as a striking fact, that revivals of religion rarely commence among our Baptist brethren at the water's edge, or at the communion table; but great re- vivals have commenced among other denominations at the 14 158 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Lord's table, and during the administration of baptism in the church — which is an impressive and forcible attestation of the divine approval of these institutions as means of grace. We now collect all these proofs together, obtained from the plain Scriptures; the inherent meaning of jSarzTi^m in its gospel sense; the force of the original Grreek prepositions; the harmonious connection of the external mode of baptism with the mode of spiritual baptism, and the spirit of the plan of salvation; and from collateral sources; — and we infer from them all, that the most appropriate mode of bap- tism is sprinkling or pouring : while immersion is not to be excluded, as a mode equally valid, though not equally rational, appropriate, and expressive, as pouring and sprin- kling. We shall, in the next chapter, consider some ob- jections usually urged by the Baptists against the views maintained in this part of the work. CHAPTEn yn. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. Ix this chapter, we shall consider the prominent argu- ments of the Baptists in favor of exclusive immersion as the initiating sacrament of the church under the Christian dispensation. First. '* Baptism is a positive institution, and therefore should be rigidly adhered to.'' G-ranted — but where is im- mersion positively enjoined in the Scriptures as baptism ? No where. The law of baptism refers to the fact, and not to the mode or circumstances of the mode of baptism. The spirit of the law of baptism, is our rule of duty, while the manner of obedience is not determined positively, either by precept or example. Circumcision was a positive institution. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 159 but the mode of administering it was not defined. So the Lord's supper is a positive institution, but the mode of re- ceiving it is nowhere enjoined. The inference, therefore, from the nature, to the tnode of baptism, is utterly ground- less. Besides, this is a new principle of duty, originated by the Baptists, in order to escape the irresistible force of moral or inferential reasoning in favor of other modes of baptism; and it is a principle unsound as it is novel. Circumstantial evidence is often as strong and clear as positive. The ne- cessity of moral duty is often argued by inferential reason- ing. And hence, as the mode of baptism is purely inferen- tial, it may be as clearly deduced from circumstantial testi- mony as if it were specifically and positively enjoined. Secondly. " Since John is found at Jordan, the inference is that he baptized by immersion.'' What — inference re- specting 2i positive institution ! It is an absurdity in terms. Positive injunctions leave no room for inference. The Bap- tists most strenuously and scrupulously demand adherence to the original form of positive institutions. Mr. Booth, in his "Pffidobaptism Examined," observes, " Compliance must he so, and no more, and no less, and no otherwise." This is the invariable requisition of Baptist principles, and Bap- tist ministers, on the subject of baptism. And yet obliga- tion is here founded on inference — that is, a positive institu- tion is made a subject of inference. But granted. And then, upon the same ground of deduction, Saul of Tarsus, Cornehus, the jailer, Lydia, and the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, were baptized by sprinkling or poiu'ing. And so here we have sprinkling and pouring also elemental in the positive institution of baptism. But the Baptists will not admit the force of inference in establishing these modes as positive institutions, and hence they must abandon the ground on which they determine the positive character of immersion as the mode of baptism. The true reason 160 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. doubtless wliy John took his station at Jordan was, because of the multitudes who came to be baptized, as we shall see from the following considerations. John removed from his position at Jordan, and took a more convenient station "in Enon, near Salem, because there was much water there" — and here again the Baptists straightway conclude, that the sole object for selecting such a spot was immersion. But this is not assigned as the reason in the sacred record; for, on this account, he need not have removed his station from Jordan!^ The term translated "much water," in the ori- ginal is plural — ooaza izo/la, liydafa polla — many icaterr.^ many streams or springs. And why did John select such a place as this? Obviously, for the convenience of the multitudes who attended on his ministry — to obtain water for their cattle, for themselves, and for purposes independent of baptism. And thus, independently of the question of immersion, even admitting (which we do not) that John baptized by immersion, he should have selected the place he did, or some place like it. There is not one particle of proof that the purpose was immersion only. In the latitude of Palestine the mercury ranges in winter from 40° to 50°, and, in summer, from 80° to 100°; and in the plains of Jordan, much higher. Consequently, at a season of the year when the heat of a tropical sun was intense, and the people and their beasts would be exposed to great incon- venience on the open sandy beach of Jordan, and especially John himself would be prostrated in the performance of the arduous labors of his mission, it was found desirable at least, 1 If John removed from Jordan to Enon because " there -was much •water there," that is, for the purpose of immersion, then there was more water in the river of Jordan than at Enon, and the reason given for John's removal falls to the ground. Besides, just now it was assumed, that because "John was found at Jordan, the inference is, that he baj*- tized by immersion" — then why does he leave Jordan, and go to Euou? OBJZCnONS C.JNSIDERED. 161 most probably, necessary^ for John to remove to some salu- brious and pleasant station, such as Enon, farther north, where there were many springs, with their shade, and ever}- convenience that John could desire for himself, the multi- tude, their families, their servants, and their beasts of burden. Besides, the water at Enon was better than that of Jordan. "The water of Jordan is turbid and black, and unfit to drink, until it has been filtered, or stood several hours in vessels and settled.'' Jordan, by the Greeks, was called ,a£/«c, hlach. '^I observed that the river (Jordan) was scarcely half full, yet the water was somewhat turbid." Dr. Durbin's Observations in the East, vol. ii. 6. " The shores of the Dead Sea, and the valley to the north of it, consist of an expanse of salt, dry mud, and moving sand. In proceeding through the plain, Chateaubriand discovered what at first appeared to be sand in motion. On drawing nearer, he beheld a yellow current, scarcely to be dis- tinguished from the sands on its shores. It was deeply sunk below its banks, slowly creeping toward the pesti- lential lake by which it is engulfed. This icas the Jordan." Murray's Encyclopasdia of Greogi'aphy, vol. ii. 255. The object of John therefore in removing from Jordan to Enon, was to obtain an adequate supply of wholesome water for the purposes of drinking, cooking, and ceremonial and ordi- nary ablutions. The necessity of "much water" for these purposes is obvious. "Much water" icas required by the multitude for these purposes. In a word, the climate; the qualiti/, as well as quantify/, of water required obviously for other purposes than those of baptism; the superior con- veniences of Enon as a station ; and the fact, that there was more water in Jordan than at Enon, — induce the belief, that the mode of baptism did not enter at all into the considera- tions that caused John to remove his station from Jordan to Enon. To suppose that immersion was the principal 11* 1G2 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. object in view is a mere sunyii'se originating in the imagina- tion, and nnsiipported by a particle of proof, even the re- motest probability. No argument can be drawn from the history of the case in support of the hypothesis of the Bap- tists. But the necessity for much water being admitted on all hands as existing independently of the mode of baptism, it is most probable that John baptized by sprinkling or pouring — as we have seen in the preceding part of this treatise. The multitudes baptized; the distance they came to be baptized; the great inconvenience of immersing both men and women in their apparel ; the indecency of baptizing in a state of nudity; the probability^ that no change of raiment was brought for the pm-pose of immersion; and above all, the brevity of John's ministry — are so many cir- cumstances that render it morally certain that John baptized by the convenient and easy mode of sprinkling or pouring. Thirdly. " Why did the apostles baptize in the open air, and at the water's edge, where was much water?" The answer applicable in the preceding case is equally applicable here. In the first place, in the beginning of Christianity, the apostles had no houses in which to preach and baptize; and, therefore, where else could they baptize but in the open air ? And secondly, because of the vast multitudes crowd- ing every day to their ministry, houses however large would have been too small to preach in, and to afford conveniences for the administration of the ordinances; and hence they must retire to the open air, or to some convenient and well- watered parts of the country. If as great numbers attended the Christian ministry in the present day, and converts were as numerous now as they were in the days of the apostles, there would still be the necessity of resorting to some con- venient position in the open air to preach the gospel and baptize the converts. Fourthly. " Where reference is made to the operation of OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 163 the Holy Spirit, under the ideas of sprinkling and pouring, the meaning \^ figurative.'' Granted : and then immersion is placed farthest from the design of the figure. Had the Scriptures read, '' I will immerse you in clean water,'^ doubt- less a figurative meaning in favor of immersion would have been zealously supported by the Baptists. But there is no prophecy or promise in the Bible referring to, or defining baptism, by immei-sion, though there are many respecting sprinkling and pouring. Fifthly. "Immersion is set forth under the figure of a burial. ^^ Then it is inferential, and hence cannot be positive. Besides, sprinkling and pouring are set forth under the figures of spiritual baptism by sprinkling and poui'ing ; and consequently, on the same ground that the Baptists suppose immersion consistent and proper, they should admit the pro- priety and validity of sprinkling and pouring. But there is no allusion whatever in this passage of Scripture to any mode of baptism. It refers to the spiritual nature and ohUgation of Christian baptism. (1.) It is a plain antithesis. " "We are buried with him," is the first part ; " even so we should walk in newness of life," is the second part. " Newness of life," which every Christian actually experiences in this life, is evidently spiritual; consequently "buried with Christ" is also spiri- tual; and to understand this phrase as a litercdhxu'vdX under water, is, therefore, to give it a meaning which the laws of exegesis positively forbid ; for there is no resemblance be- tween a spiritual huricd unto sin r.nd a literal immersion in ijcater. Give this passage a spiritual meaning, and there is a propriety in baptism by icater, and a coincidence between formal and spiritual baptism; give it a literal meaning, and there is neither propriety nor coincidence in the case. The ritual services of the Jewish dispensation were typical of moral purification, and not of death or interment, and 164 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. analogy under the Christian dispensation is preserved by investing baptism with a spiritual and not a literal sig- nification. (2.) Upon the hypothesis of the Baptists, there is no appropriateness whatever in baptism. None in representing the spiritual character of the subject of baptism. Baptism is an emblem of moral purity, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit: it signifies spiritual life in the subject, and not natural decomposition, putrefaction, loathsomeness, and death. None in representing Christ's interment. The body of the blessed Sa^-iour was laid in a stone cell, above- ground^ and not in a tomb sunk in the earth. Hence, in the passage before us, there is no reference whatever to the mode of baptism. (3.) Upon the hypothesis of the Baptists, the passage before^ns proves too much, and hence fails altogether. In the next verse it is said: ''We have been 'planted together in the likeness of his death.'' Planting with Christ is spiritual, and this every believer actually experiences. Thafc is, as the seed sown in the ground derives from the ground all its nourishment and fruitfulness, so the believer derives from the vicarious death of Christ all his sj)iritual life and fruitfulness. It is evident, no external mode of baptism whatever can illustrate the nature or manner of this spiritual derivation. If the ^^ likeness of Christ's death^^ is to be illustrated literally by baptism, then immersion or plunging cannot do it, for Christ died on the cross, and so the hy- pothesis of the Baptists implies too much. But if the "likeness of Christ's death" is to be illustrated spiritually by baptism, then all external mode whatever is out of the question. ''Planted in the likeness of his death" signifies a participation of the spiritual blessings of Christ's death, and, in the nature of things, no mode whatever can be an appropriate emblem of this participation : the fact, not the OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 165 r.iode, of the participiition, is all that is or can be signified in baptism. The mode of baptism can no more represent the moral or spiritual burial of the believer, or his participa- tion of the spiritual blessings of the vicarious death of Christ, than it can represent the sacrificial equality of Christ's death. These are great facts which have no analogies of a sensible nature in the universe. Besides, (in ver. 6,) we are said to be ^^ crucified with Christ'' by baptism, which evidently is spiritual also, and, in the nature of things, this spiritual crucifixion cannot be represented by any sensible analogies in the universe. Indeed, even admitting that the passage before us is to be literally interpreted, there is no resem- blance between plunging into the water, and the nailing of a body to the cross. And thus, tliough the spiritual mean- ing of the passage be omitted altogether, it proves too much for the Baptists, and so entirely fails. Xor is this all. It proves too much in another respect. In one instance, bap- tism is made to represent the deatli of Christ, in another his crucifixion, in another his hurial, and in another, ''being planted with him." Thus, the unity of the figure is de- stroyed; for how can the mode of baptism represent all these circumstances or events which are essentially dis- similar? especially in the case of immersion, which in fact resembles not one of these events? Christ's crucifixion was literal — immersion does not resemble that: Christ's death was literal — immersion does not resemble that: Christ's burial was literal — immersion does not resemble that : Christ's resurrection was literal — immersion does not re- semble that, for who can tell how Christ's body was revived ? Besides, the believer rises spiritually from a state of moral death. If immersion resembles the raising and nailing of a hody to a cross, how can it resemble the taking down and huricd of a hody in the grave — acts entirely dissimilar? And so we repeat, the interpretation the Baptists give th^ / 166 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. passage under consideration proves too muchj and so fails altogether. (4.) If baptism represents Christ's burial literally, then the person baptized must remain under the water till the third day, for Christ lay in the tomb till the third day; and then the Baptists are to keep the persons they immerse three days under the water; and in this case, natural death must be the result, or the analogy fails. (5.) And so the parallel passage, in Gal. iii. 27, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ," is to be interpreted literally. And then every person when baptized must put off and put on his apparel, and so be baptized naked ! Indeed, this was the construc- tion given to this passage by certain literalists in former days, and so they baptized in a state of perfect nudity, both males and females. They read ^^ buried by baptism," and so commenced 2^lunging ; they read "put on Christ," and so they baptized naked; they read " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and so they adopted trine immersion, or plunging three times : such are the gross absurdities of a literal interpretation of the three phrases be- fore us — two of which absurdities the modern Baptists have abolished, but the first of which they still retain, and which unfortunately is one of their distinguishing characteristics as a Christian denomination. (6.) ^^ Buried into death" — what, death after burial! Crucified after death ! Burial cannot be properly applied to a living man; if so, we must bury the subject pro- spectively, and consequently use the "burial service," in- stead of the baptismal form, whenever we baptize, (7.) If immersion is set forth under the idea of a burial, then "luried by baptism into death," means buried into death by death — which is a perfect absurdity; and "buried with him in baptism," means buried by a grave into a grave OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. IG"; — whicli is nonsense; and " baptized into 3Ioses" — as it may be translated — means buried into 31oses — which is revolting in the extreme ; and " baptized into Christ/' means buried into Christ — ^which is the most shocking blasphemy and profanity. (8.) Some nations burn, embalm, and deposit their dead in vaults, or hang up the hodij till the flesh decays, Tvhich immersion could never set forth to them. The gospel is to be preached to all nations, as a universal blessing; and it is evident that immersion could not in the same manner set forth the idea of spiritual death to those nations who lurn, embahrij and hang up their dead." (9.) The case of Jonah was a sign of Christ's burial and resurrection, and Christ himself declares that no other sign should be given in addition to this sign. It is im- possible that Christ's ordinance should contradict his loords, when he knew that every day his disciples by baptizing did typically set forth his burial and resurrection. (10.) Why did Christ's disciples wonder ^^ what the rising from the dead should mean," if they understood the mean- ~ Mr. E,obert Robinson, the Baptist Mstorian, in his " History of Bap- tism," sustains this objection. "The first English Baptists/' says he, "when they read the phrase, buried in baptism, instantly thought of an English burial, and therefore baptized by laying the body in the form of burying in their own country; but they might have observed that Pau? wrote to the Komans, and the Romans did not bury, but burned their dead and buried nothing but their ashes in urns; so that no fair reason- ing on the form of baptizing can be di'awn from the mode of burying the dead, in England." In like manner it was a custom of the ancient Mexi- cans to burn their dead. '•' On the death of a person, his corpse was dressed in the peculiar habiliments of his tutelar deity. It was strewed with pieces of paper, which operated as charms against the dangers of the dark road he was to travel. His body was burned, and the ashes, collected in a vase, were preserved in one of the apartments of his house. Here we have successively the usages of the Roman Catholics, the Mussul- man, the Tartar, and the ancient Greek and Roman." Prescott's Con- quest of Mexico, vol. i. 63, 64. 168 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. iiig of the baptism which thej administered every day to refer to his resurrection ? (11.) Indeed, after all, if the mode of baptism is set forth by a burial, then in baptizing, as in bui-ying, the water should be poured or sprinkled on the subject till he be covered with the water. (12.) The fact is, our Baptist brethren can find no mean- ing in immersion unless they can make it refer to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, to which it has no re- ference, since the sacrament of the Lord's supper has been expressly instituted by Christ himself "to sliovj forth his death till he come;" and neither men nor angels have any right to "add" another sacrament to show forth this great event, or to give another meaning to either of the sacra- ments not sustained by the Scriptures. These considerations compel us to reject the interpreta- tion of the Baptists, and we proceed to give the true import of the text. Baptism is a federal act, and once administered, is in force during life. Thus, the apostle uses the past tenses with a present signification, and this is in harmony with the genius of the Greek and Hebrew languages. Thus, in the Hebrew: "The earth is full of violence," i. e. the earth has been filled with violence. Gen. vi. 13 : "I delight to do thy will, my God," i. e. "I have deKghted to do thy will," &c. Ps. xl. 8. Here the past tense indicates a state which, be- ginning at some former period, still continues to exist at the time of narration. So in the Greek. The past tenses are often used with a present signification, i. e. indicating a con- tinued action, as awz-dor^iisv. Thus, we ^^ are buried," &c., i. e. have been buried, &c., signifies that, having once assumed the solemn obligations implied in baptism, they continue in force through life. Consequently, if the burial referred to in the passage under consideration is literal, the OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 169 Baptists are bound to keep tlieir converts under water during life — a conclusion certainly not in harmony with the im- port of baptism. The design of the apostle is to illustrate by baptism the character and obligations of the believer. ^' How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" I. e. how shall we, who are separated from sin, have any thing more to do with it? — a phraseology common among the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins. Thus, ^^ JSfihil mQcum tihi, mortuus tibi sum." PlSiutus. / have nothing to do vnth thee; I am dead to thee. Tb%>r^y.a k'jm, I am DEAD to thee. Libanius. The essential character of the believer im- plies, that having renounced sin, and been redeemed from the guilt and power of it, he is to refrain from the practice of it through life. Obligation to do so is next enforced by reference to the import of baptism. '^Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?" That is, by baptism we are formally con- secrated to Christ, formally recognised as participating in the blessings of his death, and formally laid under obligation to conform to the doctrines essentially connected with his death, to die unto sin, as he died for sin. By baptism, we are recognised as sustaining a moral and spiritual relation to the death of Christ, which is essentially inconsistent with sin. Nor is this all. Obligation to walk in newness of life is also imposed by baptism. '^Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life :" a new life, holy and spiritual; — life, death to sin; — life, during all life; — life, in a word, conformable to the obligations imposed upon man by the gospel of Jesus Christ. These great facts are sig- nified by baptism, and that is enough. This interpretation is intelligible, and is consistent with the remainder of the chapter and the whole plan of salvation — an interpretation 15 170 THE 3I0r)E OF BAPTISM. to which allusiou to any mode of baptism could impart no additional force or propriety. Tlie suhsfance, and not the mode of baptism, is all that is required for the argument of the apostle, and is all he employs. The Baptists neglect the substance, and suppose a mode which, if admitted, de- stroys the appropriateness and force of the apostle's reasoning. In a word, the true meaning of this celebrated passage is, Baptism ritually unites to Christ, and sets forth a profession of religion founded upon his death, the subject being hereby typically washed from his former sins and pollutions, that he may afterward " walk in newness of life." Old things are done away, all things are become new. The old man is dead; old connections, old practices, old principles, old names, old dispositions, are no more ; and the young believer testifies to the world that he is dead to the world, and ^^ alive in Christ Jesus;" and that he will no longer "walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit;" that he has formed new con- nections, adopted new practices, embraced new principles, possesses a new nature, and in future is to be known under a 7ieic name among men: and thus, his baptism sets forth a •profession of Christ. Profession of Christ may be made by any mode, and that is the most proper mode which best represents the manner of spiritual baptism, which, as we have seen, is frequently set forth under the ideas of sprin- kling and pouring. The new birth is effected by faith, proved by '^newness of life," and set forth by profession under any form agreeable to the subject — ^but not under the idea of a burial, since no mode could represent a spiritual burial but a real burial of the body, which is impossible. And so we conclude that the apostle had no reference to the mode of baptism, but simply and alone to the solemn consecration and obligations involved in baptism. A mo- ment's reflection must convince the reader, not only of the inconsistency, but the unfairness of the Baptists. At one OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 171 time, they urge upon young converts, tliat "they must follow their Lord and Master down into the water/' and at another time, they impose upon them the hard task of follow- ing Christ down "into death." At one time, they insist upon following the example of Christ in baptism; and at another time, enjoin the duty of being "'planted in the like- ness of his death." What then was the modz of Christ's death? Why, crucifixion. And what is the likeness between immersion and crucifixion? None whatever. And young converts must follow Christ cloicn into the water ^ and up to the cross, while in the former case it has been demonstrated that Christ was not immersed, and in the latter case, it is impossible to follow his exLimple. The error of the Baptists is, that they confound the mode with the import of baptism ; and hence they lay more stress upon the mode than the import; while indeed the import, which is the principal thing in baptism, may be set forth by one mode as well as another. Sixthly. "Obligation to be immersed is based on the example of Christ." So far from admitting that obligation to be immersed rests upon the example of Christ, we do not admit that the obligation to be baptized rests upon his ex- ample. And thus, whether Christ was baptized by immer- sion or not, his example, in this sense, is not binding on us. Christ's baptism does not enter in any respect into the question of Christian baptism. The obligation of Christian baptism rests solely upon the commission of Christ to his apostles after his resurrection. "' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Before we can acknowledge the obligation to be immersed from the example of Christ, two things at least must be proved : first, that Christ was im- mersed; and secondly, that he enjoined his example in this respect as binding on us. 172 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. It is required to be proved; that Clirist was immersed at his baptism. This cannot he done: indeed^ tlie contrary is dediicible from the whole force of inference akeady con- sideredj and will appear the more probable from other con- siderations now to be presented. We offer the following considerations to prove, first, that Christ was not immersed ; and secondly, that his baptism was not received as an ex- ample for any one, whether Jew or Gentile. (1.) John, who baptized Christ, did not abolish the rites of the Jewish dispensation. The Jewish dispensation con- tinued till the death of Christ : His shout on the Cross, ^^ It is finished,'^ rent the vail of the temple from top to bottom, and consummated the Jewish economy. Christ lived and died under the Jewish dispensation, and all that he did pre- viously to his death was in conformity to this dispensation. Indeed, there could not be in force among men two dispensa- tions at the same time, and the Christian dispensation was not opened till after the death of Christ. Besides, it is evi- dent, the appointment of ordinances was a part of Christ's ministry, and consequently Christian baptism could not properly be instituted before Christ was inducted into his ministry, and consummated his divine mission in his death. In other words, a gospel ordinance could not be in force hefore the introduction of the gospel dispensation. Up to this time the 31osaic dispensation was in full force. Hence, John's baptism was not a Christian sacrament. ^ (2.) John opened his dispensation some time before he knew Christ. '^ The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said. After me Cometh a man who is preferred before me, for he was s '•' Xo rite celebrated during the ministry of Jolin, is entitled to a place among Christian sacraments." Robert Hall's "Works, toI. i. 37'2. RobTt Hall is high authority among the Baptists. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 173 before me: and I knew liun not: but that he should be made manifest unto Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water." Therefore John's dispensation preceded the Christian dispensation, since the latter was not introduced till after the death of Christ. John opened his dispensa- tion and baptized at least six months before Christ com- menced his public ministry. And consequently John's baptism was not Christian baptism; so that, whether he baptized Christ by immersion or not, is of no importance in settling the mode of Christian baptism. (3.) John's baptism was preparatory to the Christian dis- pensation.* As the Jews not only circumcised, but also baptized proselytes, signifying by baptism the impurity and uncleanness of the heathen world; so baptism was ad- ministered by John to the Jews, in order to set forth the spirituality of the Christian dispensation, that when the Jewish dispensation, with its initiating ordinance, circum- cision, should be abolished, they might not be unaccustomed to baptism, the initiating sacrament of the Christian dis- pensation. In this sense, John's baptism was wise, as well as preparatory : ^^ that he (Christ) should be made manifest unto Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with waters Now a rite, that was applicable to the Jews only as pre- paratory, could not be applicable to Christ, nor be an ex- ample to Christians ; and hence Jesus was not baptized ac- cording to John's baptism, nor as an example to Christians. (4.) John ascribes his commission to the Fatli.er, and not to Christ. ^^And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him: hut he that sent me to baptize vyith luater, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit * And this A. Campbell concedes : " John's baptism was not Christ'3 baptism. It was a preparatory institution." Christian Baptism, ''printed and published" by himself, Bethany, Va., 1851, p. 219. 15» THE MODE Of EAPTIS?!. descending and remraning on Lim, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost/^ Thus^ John's baptism was not an institution adopted by John, but enjoined by the Father, preparatory to the dispensation of the Spirit.^ (5.) The form of John's baptism was different from that of Christian baptism. The form that John used is expressed by Paul: ''Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying, unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus," ^ This was the form of John's baptism. Besides, some of the disciples of John had not heard "whether there be any Holy Ghost.'' So that so far as the names of two of the persons of the blessed Trinity are indis- pensable to the form of Christian baptism, John's baptism was defective. But from all these considerations, even ad- mitting that Christ was baptized according to John's bap- tism — which we do not — then Christ's baptism was not Christian baptism, and hence it cannot be regarded as an example for Christians. But we go one step farther. (6.) Christ's baptism, in every material point, was not John's baptism- John's baptism was "unto repentance;" but Christ was infinitely holy, and hence could not repent. John's baptism imposed faith in Christ ''to come;" Christ could not believe in his own name. Xeither was Christ's baptism Christian baptism. Christian baptism required "teaching;" but Christ was infinitely wise, and could not be taught any thing. Christian baptism required faith in 5 Here we may answer a popular objection. ''If John's baptism was administered under the Jewish dispensation, why baptize at all, since •circumci>ion was the appointed initiatory rite of the Jewish dispensa- tion?" God, the Father, thought proper to add the rite of baptism, that when, on the death of Christ, circumcision should be abolished, it might be received as the initiating sacrament of the Christian dispensation, 6 Acts xix. 4. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 173 Christ ; but Christ being the object of faith^ could not believe in his own name. Christian baptism Avas administered in the name of the Trinity ; but Christ being one of the persons of the Trinity, could not be baptized in his own name. Christian baptism was not instituted till after the death of Christ; but Christ was baptized before his death. The import of baptism, both as a sign and seal, was wholly in- applicable to Christ. As a sign, it signifieth inward wash- ing and regeneration by the Holy Ghost, which presupposes the defilement of sin. As a seal, it is the pledge of our fidelity to God, and of God's fidelity to us. In none of these respects, in the very nature of things, could baptism be applicable to Christ. As therefore all the circumstances of Christ's baptism prove that his baptism was neither John's," nor Christian baptism, it is conclusive that it should not be regarded as an example for Christians; and it remains for us to incjuire, what was the character of his baptism. (7.) It was a formal and solemn inauguration into the high-priest's office under the Christian dispensation. "And John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him. Suffer it to be so now : for thus it becomcth lis to fulfil all righteousness." "^ What did he mean ? Ob- serve, John did not abolish Jewish rites. Christ had already been initiated into the Jewish church by circum- cision, which was the initiating ordinance of the Mosaic dispensation, and thus, in this respect, he had fulfilled the righteousness of the Jewish dispensation. He had remained, after this event, ^'in the obscurity of private life," till he was thirty years of age, the period required by the Jewish law before induction into the high-priest's office. And now he comes to John to fulfil the righteousness of the Jewish 7 Matt. iii. 14, 15. 170 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. law in this respect also. How then was a high-priest initiated into office under the Jewish dispensation? By referring to Ex. xxix. 4, 7, and Lev. viii. 6, 10, 11, 12, it will be seen that the outward form was washing and anoint- ing. Thus, as the high-priest was initiated into office by washing and anointing, so must Christ, in order to fulfil all righteousness, and to enter upon the great work of atone- ment for mankind. As to the mode of the washing referred to, tJiat is not defined in the book of the ceremonial law; but common sense suggests that this ceremonial washing was performed by the application of water by poui'ing or sprinkling, rather than the total submersion of the subject. And we may conclude that John administered baptism to Jesus by sprinkling or pouring, when the holy anointing of the Spirit immediately completed his initiation into the office of High-Priest of the Christian dispensation. That this baptism was a formal initiation into the high-priest's office, appears conclusive from Christ's appeal to John's baptism in vindication of his authority for pui'ging the tem- ple. ''The hajjtism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or from men?'^ Had they replied, "From heaven,'^ he would have silenced their compaints at once by answering, "You believe John then had a divine commission as the prophet of God — he consecrated me to the priestly office by baptism — and by virtue of my priestly office, I do these things.'^ Robert Hall, who is great authority among the Baptists, entertains the view we have given of Christ's bap- tism. "He was inaugurated into his office at his baptism, till which period he remained in the obscurity of private life." ^ He declares, on same page, as already quoted, that "no rite celebrated during the ministry of John, is entitled to a place among Christian sacraments." Hence, according ? Robert Hall's Works, vol. i. 372. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. IT to Robert Hall, Christ was initiated into the high-priest's office according to the Jewish dispensation. Now as John did not abolish Jewish rites, and consequently as he initiated Christ into the priestly office according to the requisitions of the Jewish economy, of course when Christ himself, by his death, consummated and abolished the Jewish dispensation, he also abolished the ceremonies contained in his own bap- tism, and therefore his baptism can never be regarded as an example for the Christian church in all succeeding ages. The circumstances of his baptism can never occur again in fulfilling the ceremonial law. Had Christ's baptism, how- ever, been Christian baptism, it might then be regarded in the light of an example. Those who feel under obligation to follow Christ in his baptism, ought also to teach and submit to circumcision — to delay baptism till the thirtieth year of age — keep the passover — fast forty days and forty nights after baptism — wash the disciples' feet — keep the seventh-day Sabbath as under the Jewish dispensation — and then, if Christ's baptiiin vvus John's baptism, and not a Jewish ordinance of initiation into the priestly office, they ought to be rehaptized accord- ing to the form of the initiating ordinance of the Christ Ian dispensation, as Christ's apostles did baptize certain of John's disciples. From all that we have said, it is evident, that Christ's baptism was neither John's nor Christian bap- tism; and consequently Christ's baptism was not an ex- ample to the Jews under John's dispensation, nor to Chris- tians under the Christian dispensation. Even admitting — which we do not— that Christ was baptized according to John's baptism, then his baptism cannot be regarded as an example for us — for certain of John's disciples, as first ob- served, were rebaptized under the Christian dispensation. That certain of John's disciples were rebaptized under the Christian dispensation, is evident from the 19th chapter 178 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. of Acts: ^^And he said imto them, unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him; that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, tliey were haptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.'^ Mr. Carson admits that these disciples of John were rebaptized. His language is: "I know this is dis- puted ; but for my part, I never doubted it. I cannot see how this can be denied without torturing the word of G-od." (P. 372.) Nay, further, admitting — which we do not — that Christ was baptized according to John's dispensation by im- mersion, even then the defective character of John's dis- pensation, the mere mode by which its ordinances were administered, could not supersede the necessity of rehaptism under the Christian dispensation. In a word, when it is considered that Christ was not baptized according to John's baptism; an! that, consequently, his baptism was not an example to ihe Jc^.v3 under John's dispensation; that he was not baptized according to Christian baptism, and that his baptism is consequently not an example to Christians; that his baptism had reference solely to his initiation into the priestly office; and that it is morally certain he was bap- tized by sprinkling or pouring, — all hope of support in favor of immersion, from this quarter, must be for ever abandoned by the Baptists. We wish to prove, further, that Christ's baptism was never designed by him to be an example either to Jew or Gentile. John's dispensation, as we have said, was preparatory to the Christian dispensation; and consequently some of Christ's apostles rehaptized certain of John's disciples. Therefore, as Christ was baptized under John's dispensation, if he was baptized according to John's baptism, he should have been baptized again under the Christian dispensation, OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 179 in order to be an example to us. But as CKrist's baptism was not an example to the Jews under John's baptism, since, as we shall presently see, he was baptized after all the people had been baptized; so his baptism cannot be an ex- ample to us, since he was not rehaptlzed under the Chris- tian dispensation. That his baptism cannot be regarded as an example to the Jews under John's baptism, is fully evi- dent from a single consideration. Oui' Baptist friends seem to forget that Christ's baptism was administered too Jate to entitle it to the character of an example. Luke says, that '^when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also, being baptized,'^ &c.^ And so the other evangel- ists say that the baptism of the people preceded the baptism of Christ. Why was not Christ baptized in early life? In- deed, why was he not the first to be baptized by John, that his baptism might have all the force of an example, under John's dispensation ? And hence, since Christ's baptism was deferred till the last, we conclude that his baptism was not designed to be an example to the Jews. And lest some scrupulous mind should doubt the truth of this interpretation of Luke and the other evangelists, we iu^^ite attention to the opinion of Robert Robinson, in his History of Baptism p. 34 : ^' When John began to baptize at Bethabara beyond Jordan, his first baptismal station, Jesus resided at Xazareth in Galilee, and he did not arrive at Bethabara till all the people had been hapAized.^' 3Ir. Robinson refers to Luke iii. 21. Indeed the whole question of antecedence is settled by the fact, admitted on all hands, that John baptized with a view of Christ " to come,^^ which could not have been true, if Christ had previously entered upon his ministry by ini- tiation at his baptism. All the people had been baptized, and consequently were in waiting for him when he came, ^ Luke iii. 21= 180 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. and must have remembered the declaration of John, ^^This is he of whom I said, he that cometli after me is preferred before me.'^ Thus, Christ's baptism was not an example to the Jews under John's dispensation. Xor was Christ's baptism designed to be an example under the Christian dispensation. In addition to what has been said already, we invite the reader's careful attention to the following considerations. Example does not bind merely as example. There is no force in example itself, as for instance, the mediatorial, the peculiar acts of Christ. There must be some explicit rule to determine what examples bind, and what do not, or else we can never know icTiich to follow. It is, therefore, some explicit law that makes example bind- ing; and consequently, in the absence of explicit law, no example can be made binding on the consciences of men. "We are bound to follow Christ's example, not simply because lie did this or that, but because he has expressly enjoined tJie same things on 21s. And hence, though Christ was im- mersed — and we do not believe he was — his example cannot be made binding without positive, explicit law on the subject — of ichich ice find no record in the Bible. On the other hand, in the absence of explicit law concerning any example, we are to be governed by the moralitij of the example, and not by the example itself. If the morality of an action or example can be shown by any other action, the law of Grod i.5 fully met, and our obligations are discharged in that case. Thus, it is binding on all to do good, but the actions by which men do good are not specified and enjoined, for actions absolutely different in themselves may possess the same moral cpality. So the moral quality of actions not specified, be shown, it is immaterial what the action is which may be adopted, provided it be consistent with truth, purity, and order. Thus, it is binding on all to be baptized, and the moral quality of baptism may be shoicn as v:eV by one mode OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 181 a.s h(j anothr. It is admitted, if the action itself possess a moral quality, then it is binding. Has immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, in any respect, a moral quality inherent ? No : and hence, neither of them is binding in view of its moral ciuality, since the mode of baptism is nowhere specific- ally defined and positively enjoined in the Bible. Immer- sion is made binding neither by any inherent moral quality nor by positive divine law; and so with sprinkling and pouring. "We will illustrate this view by two examples from the Scriptures. The first is given in the 13th chapter of the Gospel by John. Christ washes the disciples feet. ^' I have given you," says Christ, ^^ an example, that you should do as I have done." The moral lesson he teaches is hu- mility, for humility is the moral Ciuality of the action — and never was this exalted grace of the Christian character pre- sented in a more impressive form. But surely Christ did not mean that we should adopt his action in this case, although it is definitely stated that " he arose from supper and laid aside his garments, and took a towel and girded himself. And after that he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded." Here all the circum- stances are minutely mentioned; and yet none of them specifically enjoined as our example — only the moral quality of the circumstances is made binding on the Christian church, and especially on the ministers of Christ. The other case is given by Peter, in his first epistle and second chapter. He wished to enforce the submission of servants to their masters, '■'■ when they do well, and sufier for it" — "because Christ also sufi"ered for us, leaving ns an ex- ample, that ye should follow in his steps." ^° Here the •° This passage of Scripture is often quoted by the Baptists in defence of immersion. What has immersion to do with the meekness and gen- tleness of the Christian character enjoined by Peter ? 16 182 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. meekness and gentleness of Christ's character are presented as an example. But it is impossible for men or angels to show forth gentleness and meekness by "following the steps'' of Christ's sacrificial suffering while on earth. He has left us an example, not of action, but of moral quality — and this moral quality may be expressed under a thousand forms in all the ages of time. The same view may be taken of bap- tism. Its moral quality is all that is essential, which may be expressed by any mode, according to the judgment of the subject. Once more : unity is an essential feature of the Christian church. Xo matter how modes of administering the sacraments may vary, so the same moral quality is ex- pressed. It is the moral quality of actions that secures the unity of the church, no mattter how various may be its branches. The moral quality of baptism, and not the mode, entitles the whole church of Christ to the most intimate and holy communion. Besides, we are to follow the example of Christ only in obeying the laws of morality and piety, and not in keeping and fulfilling ceremonial ordinances. More- over, the confounding John's with Christian baptism is an error of no small moment. Paul censured the Hebrews severely for blending Judaism with Christianity; and the error of our Baptist brethren, in identifying John's with Christian baptism, is no less worthy of condemnation. On the whole, we conclude that no obligation can be imposed on the Christian church upon the gi'ound of Christ's bap- tism, whether it respects the fact or the mode of his baptism. Obligation to be baptized, under the Christian dispensation, we repeat, rests upon the great commission of Christ to his apostles, given after his death and resurrection, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,'^ &c., and upon the prac- tice of the apostles themselves, who went forth to fulfil their commission. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 183 Seventhly. " Immersion at tlie hands of an administrator who has not been immersed, is not valid baptism." This objection is founded upon an assumption analogous to the exploded dogma of apostolic succession among the Episcopalians. The chain of succession in both cases — if any ever existed — is broken into a thousand fragments, and the links lie scattered irrecoverably among the promiscuous ruins of time ; and hence both assumptions are to be re- garded as utterly destitute of any consideration in settling the questions of episcopal ordination and the validity of clerical administrations. The whole weight of the objection entertained by the Baptists themselves against the tenet of episcopal succession, lies against their claims to exclusive- ness in the administration of the sacraments, as a moment's consideration shall establish. Upon a careful examination of all authoritative church history, it will be found that opposition to infant baptism commenced about the middle of the ticelfth century, among a people " few, ignorant^ and easily converted.'' The credi- bility of the authorities we shall adduce on this subject^ has never been questioned by the Baptists themselves. The origin of the Baptist Church is thus described by Wall : *'I take this Peter Bruis and Henry to be the first anti-psedo- baptist preachers that ever set up a church or society of men holding that opinion against infant baptism, and rebaptizing such as had been baptized in infancy. They were both Frenchmen. Peter had had a church or parish, but was turned out of it for some misdemeanor. Henry had been a monk, and had deserted the monastery. Peter began to preach in 1126, and about the year 1144 was taken and burnt. As for Henry, after he had gone about preaching in many cities and provinces in France, whence he soon fled, and lying hid for some time, was taken and delivered to the bishop, (the Bishop of Ostia, I suppose,) but what was done 184 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. with liim is not said."" "'^o sooner had the Reformation, begun by Luther, anno 1517, taken good footing in Saxony and some other parts of Germany, but that within some five or six years there arose a certain sort of men that pretended to refine upon him. One Nicodemus Storck, and Thomas Munzer, seconded within a while by one Hobmeir, preached that the baptism of infants was also an abuse that must be reformed; and they baptized over again such as became their disciples. They also added other things ; that it was not fit, nor to be endured in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, that some should be so rich, and some so poor. Abundance of people flocked to them. Munzer called himself iJie sivord of the Lord, and of Gideon. Luther and the Protestants entered their protestation against their proceedings; as bringing a scandal on the new begun Reformation 3 but they went on, and after some time (great numbers of disorderly people joining with them) became masterless, made a sort of army, and committed great ravages on the estates of rich men, where they marched. And at last, anno 1534, a strong party of this sort of men, coming mostly from Holland, seized on the city of 3Iunster, where one John Becold, called John of Leyden, being advanced to be their king, they pre- tended to prophecy and revelation 3 and did, under the name of Christ's kingdom, practise several tyrannies and enormities, as polygamy,^ plundering, &c. Some regular forces being brought against them, they were subdued, and the king, and some heads of them being put to death, the rest were dis- persed into several parts of Germany.*^ That which is more " Wall's History of Infant Baptism, vol. ii. 273-277. ^ " As a demonstration of the soundness of his faith in this Christian liberty, Boccold, the successor of Matthias, took unto himself fourteen xcives, one of whom was the widow of his predecessor, a woman of singu- lar beauty." Robertson's Charles V. p. 5i. '3 See also Goodrioh's History, and Ruter's Church History. OEJECTIONS ANSWERED. 18t material to the history of infant baptism, is to inquire whether this Storck, Munzer, Hobmeir, &c. did at that time, viz. anno 1522, set up this thing new, or newly re- ceived, or whether it had been continued and handed down by some dispersed people, from the time of the Petrobrus- sians to this time. If there v«'ere any continuation of the doctrine for the said two or three hundred years, it must have been- very obscure, and by a very few men, because there is in all that interval no mention of them in any good author. Menno succeeded, a countryman of Friezeland, a man of a sober and a quiet temper ; he held the doctrine of antipasdobaptism, disclaimed against the seditious doctrines and practices of those at Munster, and of Batenburg ; and taught that the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which they had pretended to set up by external force, consisted in patience, and meekness, and suffering quietly, if occasion should be. One Theodoric succeeded Menno in this doctrine. The fol- lowers of Menno, to this day, generally call themselves Mennonites, or by abbreviation, Minnists. One thing Cas- sander says of Menno that is particular, viz. : ' Some of these men (followers of Menno) had first endeavored to fix the origin of infant baptism upon some pope of Rome : Menno had more sense. He was forced to own that it had been in use from the apostles' times. But he said that the false apostles were the authors of it,' As for the present state of the Minnists, a late writer of those parts, an extract of whose book is given by Mr. Boval, says, ' Except Hol- land, where they live peaceably, they are almost extinct.' ''In England there were now and then some Dutchmen found of the antipasdobaptist opinion ever since the time it had taken footing in Holland ; but more of the English nation are known to have embraced it in a long time after. In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, as there were no English antippedohapthts, so there were verv few left in Holland. 10- 186 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. At what time it began to be embraced by any English I do not find it easy to discover. But it is plain that no very considerable number in England were of this persuasion till about sixty years ago. Any very ancient man may remem- ber when there was no Englishmen^ or at least no society or church of them, of that persuasion. Their eldest churches are not yet of the age of man, viz. seventy years. I mean the ancient men or men of reading among them know this ; the young and the vulgar, who will talk right or wrong for a side, do not own it; but the others own, and they justify it by pleading that their opinion is the truest."" The Baptists of the present day do not like to be reminded of these men as their predecessors. But if these men were not their predecessors they have none, for they have never produced any other. Such is the history of the origin of the Baptist Church in Europe. We shall refer more at length to the origin of the Baptist Church in our examina- tion of the rise and progress of opposition to infant baptism, in the latter part of this work. The origin of the first Baptist church in England is thus described by 3Ir. Backus, a Baptist, and historian of the Baptist church in New England: — "A number of people near the borders of the counties of York, Nottingham, and Lincoln, were so much convinced of the corruptions of the Church of England, that they withdrew from her in 1602, and formed another church, in which they covenanted to- gether to walk in all the ordinances and commandments of God, according to the light he had given, or should give them out of his holy word."^^ This the author calls the first Baptist church formed in England, and his account nearly coincides with the statement of Wall. Mr. Bene- 14 Wall's History of Infant Baptism, vol. ii. 292-294, 300, 301, 302, 306, 313, 315, 317, 325, 557-558. First published in 1705. '°Backiis's Church Hi?!, of?:. Engbn.l, c. i. 19. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 187 diet's history of the origin of the first Baptist church in England is not only more comprehensive than that of Mr. Backus, but contains a refutation of the assumption we are considering. "John Smyth/' says he, "a clergyman of the established church, went over to Holland in the beginning of the reign of James I. In his examinations of the Scriptures he soon perceived that neither infant baptism nor sprinkling had any foundation in them. He was soon cast out of tlie church. In a short time several were converted to his senti- ments, and their numbers increasing rapidly, he formed them into a distinct church. This appears to have been the FIRST Baptist church comjjo^ed of EngUshmen , after the Reformation. It was formed about 1607 or 1608. It seems that Mr. Smyth and his friends were put to some difficulty in reviving the practice of immersion. He and all his disciples had been sprinkled in infancy ; and there- fore, according to their views, were Unbaptized. What method he took is not very clearly stated. It is most pro- bable that those who were convinced of the duty of be- liever's baptism, first formed themselves into a church, and then appointed tiro of their numher TO BAPTIZE EACH OTHER, and aftervxird to haptize the rest.'' And 3Ir. Benedict adds, "A similar difficulty occurred in the formation of the original Baptist church in America by Boger Williams, who had recourse to the same expedient; and we shall find, in the seciuel of this history, that the good men of Leicestershire, in the middle of the last century, when placed in similar circumstances, adopted the same method." Benedict's Hist, of the Baptists, pp. 327-330. It is now generally known and admitted that Roger William.s was the founder of the first Baptist church in America. The testimony is abundant. '^ Being settled in this place, which, from the kindness of God to them, they called Providence, Mr. Williams, and those with him, considered the importance 188 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. of gospel union, and were desirous of forming themselves into a church, but met with considerable obstruction. They were convinced of the nature and design of believer's bap- tism by immersion, but, from a variety of circumstances, had hitherto been prevented from submission. To ohtain a suitable administrator icas a matter of consequence. At length, the candidates for communion nominated and ap- pointed Ezehiel Ilolliman, a man of gifts and piety, to ho2^- tize Mr. Williams, and who in return baptized Mr. HoUinian and the other ten.'' ^^ The same author, in a revised and enlarged edition of his work, published in 1848, concerning the same transaction, observes: ^'In 1639, he (Roger Williams) was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman, a layman who was appointed by the little company for the purpose. Then he baptized the rest of the company, and thus laid the foundation for the first Baptist church in Providence, and on the American continent. Some of our writers have taken no little pains to apologize for this unusual transac- tion, but in my opinion, it was just such a course as ALL companies OF BELIEVERS WHO WISH TO FORM A CHURCH IN SUCH EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD PURSUE.'^ And he adds, " it would be difiicult at this day to make a complete list of the Baptist communities which have sprung from this ancient and prolific mother." Pages 441, 442, 450, 459. This occurred in the year 1639, as is evident from the statement of the Baptist historians whom we have already quoted, and to whom we now again refer in the following extracts. ''3Ir. AVilliams had been accused before of embracing principles which tended to anabaptism; and in March, 1639, he was baptized by one of his brethi-en, and then he baptized about ten more. But in July follov-ing, such '6 Benedict's History of the Baptis-ts, vol. i. 475. OBJEOTIOXS CONSIDERED. 189 scruples were raised in his mind about it, that he refrained from such administrations among them. Mr. Williams dis- covers in his writings, that as sacrifices and other acts of worship were omitted by the people of God, while his tempi 3 lay in ruins; and that they were restored again by im- mediate direction from heaven, so that some such direction was necessary to restore the ordinances of baptism, and the snpper, since the desolation of the church in mystical Babylon. But these cases are far from being parallel; f r the altar of God, in one place in the land of Canaan, was th-^ only place where acceptable sacrifices could then be offered; while the Christian church is not confined to any place, but Christ is with his saints wherever they meet in his name ; and he says to his ministers. Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c., and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. And these promises being only unto the children of God, in the way of observing all his commandments, let them be ordained by whom they may. As the priests who could not find a register of their lawful descent from Aaron were put from the priesthood; so those who are born again are the only priesthood whom Christ owns under the gospel." ^^ Such a baptism Mr. Williams himself considered worthless and invalid, and hence '"^ re- frained from such administrations'^ among his brethren, THEREBY INYALIDATIXQ THE WHOLE SUCCESSION OF IM- MERSIONISTS FROM HIM IN THIS COUNTRY. That Mr. Williams regarded his baptism by Holliman invalid, is evident from other testimony. ^^Mr. Williams and many of his company, a few months since, were in all haste rebaptized, and denied comniunion with all others; and now he has come to Cjuestion his second baptism, not being able to derive the authority for it from the apostles, 1'' Backus's Church Hist. New England, c. iii. 50, 51. Norton's Hist, of New England, published in 1669. Also, Winthrop's Journal. 190 THE MODE OF EAPTIF^M, otherwise than by the ministers of Engh^ind, (whom he judged to be ill authority,) so as he conceived God would raise some apostolic power." Says Scott of Roger Williams, ''I walked with him in the Baptist way, about three or four months, in which time he broke from the society, and de- clared at large the grounds and reasons of it, that their BAPTISM COULD NOT BE RIGHT, because it was not ad- ministered by an apostle." ^^ Thus, in March 1639, Roger Williams is rebaptized by a layman; in July of the same year, according to Backus, and in "three or four months" after, according to Scott, he becomes dissatisfied with his second baptism, and breaks from the society, because his baptism "was not administered by an apostle." Mr. Backus, however, opposes the views and course adopted by Roger Williams subsecjuently to his rebaptism, and makes a strong but fruitless effort to establish its validity. He makes a rule, unsupported by reason. Scripture, or the practice of the church, by which he wishes to establish the exclusive authority of the Baptist ministry to administer the sacra- ments of Christianity. The rule is this : " The promises of Grod belong only to his children, in the way of obeying all his commandments, let them be ordained by whom they may." But who baptized Roger Williams? Why, Beacon Holliman, a layman, baptized by sprinlding, in infancy. And in order to indicate the authority of this layman to bap- tize, Mr. Backus observes : " Those who are born again are the only priesthood whom Christ owns under the gospel." But being born again, is not a sufficient ground of authority to "ordain" and baptize. It is an indispensable prerequisite to the validity of baptism, that the administrator be called, 18 "Winthrop's Journal. Knowles's Memoir of R. "Williams, pp. 170, 171, as quoted in a small tract entitl d, "An Inquiry into the Antiquity of the Baptist Church. By Geo. "W. Langhornc, of the Virginia Con- ference," — a masterly refutation of the objection we are considering. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 191 and sent, by the Holy G-host, to preach the gospel. • ^^Go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel to every creature, haptizing them, &c." And 3Ir. Backus himself refers to this great commission as the divine authority of the minister of Christ to administer the sacraments. But Ezekiel Holliman was a layman, and consecjuently under no circimistances, was he a proper person to administer the sacrament of bap- tism.*9 Roger Williams had sense enough to discover this flaw in his rebaptism, and so repudiated it altogether, and dissolved his connection with the church erected upon so spurious a foundation. Here, then, in the first place, the fii-st administrator of baptism is a layman. Xor is this all: this administrator was baptized by sprinkling. Xor is this all: he was baptized in infancy. Nor is this all: Mr. Williams himself subsequently acknowledged his mistake in the whole matter, and withdrew from the society of Holli- man. Nor is this all: 3Ir. Backus observes, '^that he (Williams) was introduced into the ministry in the Church of England, but he soon found that he could not in con- science conform to many things in their worship, and there- fore came over to this country, and arrived at Boston, in February, in 1631 :'^2o g^ ^.j^g Baptist church in this country primarily originated in the Church of England I Nor is this all: where was the Baptist Church for sixteen hundred and thirty-nine years? Professor Knowles declares, that Roger Williams "founded \hQ first Baptist church in America, and '9 In no circumstances of necessity can a layman assume authority to administer the sacraments. The only proper administrator is the man who is called of God to -preach the gospel; and if there be no proper au- thority in the church to ordain him to the ofBces of his holy calling, he may proceed de novo, to administer the sacraments, and do all the work of the ministry. Ezekiel Holliman was not so called, and consequently Roger Williams's rebaptism was radically defective. 20 Hist. Church New England, p. 35. 192 THE MODE or baptism. tlio second, as it is stated, in the British Empire." ^^ Con- sequently there was no Baptist church in America, and in the British Empire, before these churches were founded ! The history of Roger Williams, as the founder of the Baptist Church in America, involves the Baptist Church in inextricable perplexity, because, at a single stroke, it over- throws ah origine the Baptist Church, and invalidates all the subsequent administrations of the Baptist clergy, whether of ordination, baptism, the eucharist, preaching, or any other service, constitutionally or conventionally connected with the office of the properly authenticated minister of Christ. We have seen the fruitless effort of Mr, Backus to prevent these disastrous consequences. Mr. Broaddus, an eminent Bap- tist minister of Virginia, in his reply to " Slicer on Bap- tism," also attempts to destroy the force of this deduction. But he is more unfortunate than Mr. Backus, for he admits that all 'psedoha]^tut ministers are qualified to administer the sacraments. ^^ I grant, sir," says he, ^^that if a man had not been immersed, he may immerse others, and his neglect of his own duty, may not disqualify him from assist- ing in discharge of others." Therefore, Slicer replies, ^' Elder Broaddus being judge, all paedobaptist ministers are qualified to give the ordinance by immersion." Though immersion were in truth the only valid mode of baptism — though all we have said of other modes of baptism were con- trary to reason and the Scriptures — though the Baptist ministry were descended from the apostles by an unbroken and consecutive chain of immersion ists — though the whole history of the recent origin of the Baptist Church in Europe and America were utterly false — and though infant baptism, t prinkling, and pouring, were innovations made by the l)aedobaptist church — ^yet, according to Mr. Broaddus, im- 2' Memoir of Williams, p. 165. OBJilCTlfJ.N'.S CuNsIDtKED. 193 mersion at the hands of a psedohaptist minister is valid hap- tism. And thus, the objection, "Immersion at the hands of an administrator, who has not been immersed, is not valid baptism," is refuted by the history and concessions of the Baptist Church. The history of Roger Williams is a stand- ing refutation of the bold assumption of the Baptist Church in our country to exclusive right to administer the sacra- ments of Christianity. He pretended to no commission directly from heaven to baptize hy immersion. He wrought no miracle to establish his claims. So far from it, he re- gards his rebaptism at the hands of Holliman invalid, "because it was not administered by an apostle." Roger Vrilliams was neither an apostle, nor baptized by an apostle, but by a layman, and he even repudiated the ministration of this layman. Nor did he assume the right to do the work of the ministry de novo — had he done so, even then the whole question of the exclusive validity of immersion were open for discussion. The " Missouri Baptist" is not more successful than 3Ir. Backus and Mr. Broaddus in meeting this difficulty. " Under other circumstances they would gladly have availed them- selves of a regular administrator of the ordinance ; but situ- ated as they were, they naturally and wisely concluded that he who requireth this service will not annex conditions in- compatible with their obedience, and, of course, will accept of their right intention in the performance.'" Right inten- tion ! Then all the ministrations of paedobaptists are valid, for they believe that immersion is a valid mode of baptism. Lapse of time cannot constitute an ordinance valid which was invalid in the beginning, and invalidity is transmitted throughout the succession of the Baptist ministry in this country. Perplexity is now extreme. But hope beams faintly from another quarter. We are told that the line of succession 17 194 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. was transported from Europe to America. And suppose it was — the exotic is as spurious as the native plant. Was Peter de Bruis an apostle ? No. And who baptized him ? Cannot tell. Was Munzer an apostle, or in regular succes- sion by ordination from the apostles ? No. And who bap- tized him ? Cannot tell. The darkness is impenetrable. Who was the founder of the Baptist Church in Europe ? In what part of the world, in what age, and under what cir- cumstances did he exist ? If the pages of history reveal the truth, no better origin of the Baptist Church and ministry in our country can be given than what we have given. If a better origin existed than what we have presented, it would have been adduced by Mr. Backus, who wrote the early history of the Baptist Church in New England. Let us then refer again to the pages of this Baptist historian, who has given such satisfactory information respecting the founda- tion of " the Jirst Baptist church in America, and in the British Empire." The origin of the second Baptist church in America. " Mr. John Clarke was a preacher of the gospel at Newport, until he formed a Baptist Church there in 1644, which has continued by succession ever since." ^^ Who was John Clarke ? and whence did he derive authority to transmit a ^^ succession" of clerical ordinations from Newport? The circumstances of his baptism and ordination are wholly omitted. In the ^' Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,'"' it is stated, " Mr. Clarke was soon employed as a preacher, and in 1644 he formed a church at Newport and became its pastor. This was the second Baptist Church which was established in America."^ We have no information con- cerning his immersion. Like Roger Williams, it is very probable, his authority to baptize commenced with himself. 22 Backus's Church History, c. iii. 52. 23 p. 379. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 195 The third Baptist clmrck in America. ^' While 3Ir Clarke was in England, a new Baptist church was formed out of the first church in Newport, holding to the laying on of hands after baptism, about the year 1656, which was th(j third Baptist church in America, and is still continued bj succession." 2* Whether the "succession" from this church be from the administrations of Mr. Clarke, or otherwise, it is doubtful and immaterial, as must at once be obvious ta the reader. The fourth Baptist church in America. " The first Bap- tist church in Wales was formed near Swansea, in that country, in 1649. Mr. John Miles was their chief leader, and they increased to about three hundred members, by the year 1662, when he was ejected out of his place by a cruel act of parliament, which turned two thousand teachers out of their places in one day, for refusing fully to conform with the Chiu'ch of England." Here then the fii'st Baptist church in Wales grew up in the Church of England, and dates its origin in the year 1649. Mr. Backus proceeds: "He (John Miles) then came over with the book of the records he had kept there, and it remains in our Swansea to thia day. And at the house of John Butterworth, in Rehoboth, in 1663, John Miles, elder, James Brown, and several others, covenanted together as a church of Christ, to obey him in all his ordinances and commandments. In 1667, the court granted them the town of Swansea, where the church has continued by succession ever since, and is the fourth Baptist church in America." ^ Thus, the succession of ministers, whoever they were, from the fourth Baptist church in America, is derived from the Church of England, and hence is no better than the paedobaptist succession deiived from the same church. 24 Baokus's Church History, pp. 108-109. 25 jbid. 93-94. 196 THE MODE OE BAPTISM. The jiftli Baptist church in America. '^The fifth was formed in Massachusetts/' under the following circumstances. A certain Thomas Gould, it seems, had a child born in 1656, and "could not bring him to be sprinkled." He was willing, however, to commune with the church in Charles- town, "if they would let him do it without carrying his child to an ordinance which he had no faith in.'' But they could come to no compromise. "At length three Bap- tist brethren came over from England, recommended from churches there, and met him and others in private houses. And on May 28, 1665, Thomas Grould and others joined in solemn covenant, &c.;" ^^ and thus originated the fifth Bap- tist church in America. Here is Thomas Gould, a layman, and with him, "three Baptist brethren from England," most probably laymen, as Mr. Backus generally designates the office in the church when the person is an elder — and these laymen become the founders of the fifth Baptist church in America — a source of succession radically defective. The sixth Baptist church in America. "A small church was formed out of that (the church in Newport) in December, 1671, holding to the seventh-day Sabbath, which yet con- tinues. This made the sixth Baptist church in America." ^^ The origin of the church in Newport has already been con- sidered. Thus, these six original Baptist churches in America derived their origin from the Church of England, im- mediately or remotely, by separation or ejectment, through elders or laymen, and so, in some cases, succession is radi- cally defective, in others only a regular paedobaptist sac- cession — in all wholly destitute of succession from the apostles, which alone could support the assumption of ex- clusive right to administer baptism by immersion. Therefore, 26 Bnckus'3 Church instovv. p. lU. 05. 2^ Ibid. 109. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 197 the Baptist cliurch cannot deny the validity of the administra- tions of the psedobaptist churches, without invalidating her own. Further, if regular clerical ordination be indispensable to the validity of baptism, then immerdon by 2i psedohaptist minister is preferable to immersion at the hands of a Baptist minister, since the founders of the psedohaptist churches v:er& REGULABLY ORDAINED ELDERS, while the founders of the Baptist Church ic ere, for the most part, laymen, having no authority to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. Indeed, the whole question before us is surrendered in the unqualified and candid concessions of 3ir. Benedict, who is the highest historical authority among the Baptists; and the reader, I am sure, will be not a little surprised at the following extracts from the "History of the Baptists'^ by this celebrated author. He first gives "one line of the Bap- tist succession,'" as follows : — Bate, I Date. Waldenses and Ricards. 1450 Gundulphians 1025 Hussites 1120 Paterines 945 Waldo and his followers 1176 Yaudois 714 Amoldists 1150 Paulicians 653 Henricians 1140 Donatists 311 Petrobrussians 1135 | Xovatians 250 Berengarians 1049 i (See page 47, note.) This, Mr. Benedict calls " one line or chain of Baptist succession,'' in which no two links are united, as he admits himself in the following pages. Hear him : " The Xovatians hroTce off from the Church of Rome in 250;— the Donatists hegan their operations at Carthage, a little after 300; — ^the Paulicians arose within the bounds of the Greek Chuix-h about the middle of the seventh century;— the Paterines hegan in Italy in the tenth centui-y; — the Waldenses and Albigenses became more publicly known about 1165: — the 17* 198 THE MuDE OF BAPTISM. Petrobrussians aro&e in the South of France about 1110;-— Berengarius, the founder of the Berengarians, arose in France 1050 ] — Henrj, the founder of the Henricians, appears as a reformer about 1116; — Arnold, the founder of the Arnold- ists, appear3 as a reformer about 1137; — the Hussites, so named from John Huss, who appeared in the character of a reformer in 1407.'^ (Pp. 51-53.) And he observes (p. 50) of these reformei-s, " they icere all dissenters from the great national churches.^' Dissenters I then they were all baptized IX INFANCY, and consequently they must have baptized themselves in order to become reformers in the sense of Mr. Benedict. Each instance of dissent was a neio era, and furnished a n^w origin. And Mr. Benedict, in this par- ticular, is the most consistent and candid Baptist historian on record. Says he, '' I shall not attempt to trace a CONTINUOUS LINE OF CHURCHES, as we can for a feiu cen- turies past in Europe and America. This is a kind of suc- cession TO WHICH WE HAVE NEVER LAID CLAIM; and of course, WE make NO effort to PROVE IT. We PLACE NO KIND OF RELIANCE ON THIS SORT OF TESTIMONY tO estahlish the SOUNDNESS of our faith, or the validity of our ad- ministrations.^' (P. 51.) ^e\\ done, Benedict I the contest is ended I — and never let the Baptists question again " the soundness of the faith, or the validity of the administrations" of their pssdobaptist brethren. And yet one quotation more. Dr. Wayland, one of the most distinguished divines of the Baptist Church in America, observes: ^'It is convenient, as a matter of church order, that there should be some general rule, and that this rite be administered by a clergyman, and it would he naturally performed hy one icho had himself been baptized by immersion. But if those things be absent from necessity or ignorance, they alter not the fact that the person who has been immersed on profession of faith, is, as I understand it, a baptized believer. This is a very common OBJECTIONS CONSTDEREP. 11/9 case with us in this city. Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and Methodists, here, quite frequently baptize persons on profession of their faith. We consider them as baptized believers, and when they request it, admit them upon a simple relation of their experience. Indeed, were not this admitted, I know not to what absurdities we should be re- duced. If the obedience of Christ depends upon the ordi- nance being administered by a regular baptized administrator, where are v:e to sfoj), and hoiv shall we knoic v:ho is regularly haptized ; or who has obeyed Christ? All this looks to me absolutely trivial, and wholly aside from the principles which, as Protestants and Baptists, we have always con- sidered as essential to Christian liberty. It seems to me assuming Puseyism under another name; or, in fact, going back to the ecclesiastical errors of the Catholic Church. Such are my views. How they meet the views of others I know not, but to me these principles of Christian freedom are above all price." This high authority shows that the Bap- tists themselves admit the validity of immersion at the hands of a psedobaptist minister who has not been baptized by im- mersion, and therefore persons in the psedobaptist churches, who have been immersed by psedobaptist ministers, have been properly baptized. Thus, this old, plausible, and popular objection falls to the ground. But this is not all. If the psedobaptist minister who has not been immersed may administer valid baptism, one of the sacraments, he may administer the Lord's supper also, the other sacrament ; and preach the truth as it is in Christ ; and have the pastoral oversight of the flock of Christ; in a word, do all the work of the minister of Christ, There is no more reason why the Baptists should decline receiving the communion at the hands of a psedobaptist minister, than there is that they should decline communing with persons who have been immersed by a paedobaptist minister. This 200 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. much at least is conceded by the Baptists themselves — that all in the psedobaptist churches who have been immersed, have been validly baptized; and consequently, that all such may as validly receive the Lord's supper at the hands of paedobaptist ministers; and as the Baptists themselves have been immersed, they also may receive the Lord's supper in the paedobaptist churches, without sin, and without blame, upon their own principles — and we welcome them all to the enjo3^ment of the privilege. Eighthly. It has been said by the Baptists, and the reader probably has seen the declaration, that ^^as late as 1643, in the Assembly of Divines at "Westminster, sprinkling was substituted for immersion by a majority of one — twenty-five voting for sprinkling, and twenty-foui' for immersion. This small majority was obtained by the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that As- sembly.'' This statement of the matter is an entire mis- representation, as we shall now prove. 1. Dr. Lightfoot, in his journal, says, that the matter in dispute was, '^sprinkling heing granted, iclietlier dipping should he tolerated with it.^' The question was, not whether sprinkling should be substi- tuted for immersion, for sprinkling was all along received as lawful, but whether immersion also should be admitted as valid. In a word, the question was, shall '' dipping be ex- cluded," and sprinkling be invariably practised. Twenty- four voted against excluding immersion; that is, against prohibiting immersion to those who might prefer it. As in the present day, the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and 3Ietho- dist churches leave the choice of mode with the subject of baptism, so the twenty-four above voted that the same privilege might be granted to the subject in their day; and hence, it can no more be maintained that the Assembly wished to substitute sprinkling for immersion, than it can be maintained, that any in the present day, who prefer OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 201 sprinkling to immersion, wish to substitute sprinkling in its place. Suppose a case : — The question comes up before the legislative or General Conference of the Methodist Church — "Sprinkling being received as lawful, shall we admit immersion also as lawful?'' That is, all admit the lawfulness of sprinkling, but some vote to allow immersion to those who may prefer it to sprinkling. No substitution is proposed, only the vote of preference in certain cases is carried. And so in the Westminster Assembly, twenty-four voted that the right of preference might be granted to the subject. And yet these twenty-four, the minority, did not deny the validity of sprinJcling to those who might prefer it to immersion, as we shall now see. 2 When the propo- sition was put in such a form as include the lau fulness of immersion in the cases of those who might prefer it, the Assembly, "with great unanimity," declared, that as to the mode of baptizing, it is "not only lavful but also sufficient, and most expedient, to be by pouring or sprinkling ^?>.\ev on the face of the child, without adding any other cere^i iiy." Now, how is it possible to believe, that twenty-four voted against suhstituting sprinkling for immersion, and yet should vote for the lavfulness, sufficiency, and expediency of sprin- kling? 3. But nothing final was determined by the vote. "After that vote," says Lightfoot, "when we had done all, we concluded nothing about it, but the business was recom- mitted.^' 4. We have other evidence in the premises. The time when this vote was taken is 1643. Now twenty- three years before this time, the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, and nineteen years after their landing, Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist Church in America, was immersed by Holliman. If immersion had been the Qpmmon practice, the Pilgrim fathers would have brought it with them, and no difficulty then would have existed in the mind of Roger Williams for the want of a proper administrator. Besides, 202 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Richard Bhunt, in the reign of King Charles II., went from England to the Netherlands to be immersed, and then returned, that he might place the Baptist Church on what he deemed the proper foundation. Could these two events have happened in Baptist history, had sprinkling been sub- stituted for immersion but a few years before? Ninthly. "Immersion is baptism, and hence it is absurd to talk of a mode of baptism. '^ The passage of Scripture, "One Lord, one faith, and one baptism,^^ is often adduced in support of this objection. In the first place, it is begging the question, to say that immersion is the baptism referred to in this scripture. In the second place, the Scriptures speak of " baptism." ^^ In the third place, the meaning of the "'one baptism" is wholly misunderstood by the objector. It comprehends spiritual baptism, which is of the Holy Ghost, and outward formal baptism, which is "of water," ^9 both agreeing in one and the same design, namely, consecra- tion to the STvice of God. Here are two baptisms, the one typifying the other. Thus, there are two kinds of faith, historical and suviiig, and yet they both agree in the end, and are parts of the "owe faith." And there are three persons in the Godhead, but they are the "o«e Lord." In the fourth place, if baptism do not admit of mode, how can it be administered at all ? If baptism imply action of any kind, action is the mode of baptism. And thus, if im- mersion is baptism, immersion is the mode of immersion, which is absurd — that is, the sacrament, and the mode of administering it, are one and the same thing, which is absurd. The nature and design of baptism are essentially distinct from the mode of baptism; and the nature and' design being supposed, then the proper subject, the proper administrator, the proper form, and any mode agreeable to 25 Heb. vi. 2. ^ John iii. 5. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 203 the subject, are essential to the proper observance of the ordinance. As baptism properly means a washing, this washing must be set forth by some mode, but the meaning of baptism, and the mode of baptism, are diflferent things. But if haptizo has the exclusive meaning of immerse, and signifies nothing but action, then it has no meaning in a gospel sense. That is, if it mean nothing but immerse, and you cannot separate the action from the meaning, nor add any other meaning to the word, then the ordinance is nothing but a senseless ceremony, which were to exclude it from the Christian dispensation. If however wash be admitted as the meaning of baj^tizo, then any mode that shall set forth this meaning, may be adopted without invalidating other modes that set forth the same thing. Tenthly. " There is no CROSS in sprinhling.^' It is urged that there is a cross in being immersed, and, therefore, im- mersion is to be preferred to sprinkling. G-roundless as this assertion really is, it is surprising to see what an in- fluence it has over many sincere Christians. A partial ex- amination will be enough to convince us that in this instance the Baptists confound the cross of Christ, in a true scrip- tural sense, with a spontaneous or constitutional repugnance to being plunged into water — a resistance wholly physical and instinctive — not having in it any reluctance of a moral nature. Thus, in a frigid zone, and in our own cKmate in certain seasons of the year, it is perfectly natural to shrink from being immersed in cold water; while in a torrid zone, and in our own climate in the summer, the languishing sys- tem instinctively desires the use of the cool, refreshing water. Besides, in the case of the delicate and refined female, there is the instinctive timidity and repugnance of her sex to be taken into the question, in the case of immersion at any time, but especially in the sight of men. In a word, what is here called a cross is nothing more than an instinctive or 204 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. natural propensity to resist any sudden hazard of our safety which Grod himself has implanted in our constitution — an instinct wholly involuntary, and without the co-operation of the will, reason, or the sense of duty, and which, when per- mitted to control, often utterly precludes that devotional serenity of mind which is indispensable to the proper dis- charge of religious obligation. In all this there is not one element essential to the idea of ^^the cross," or the duty of '^taking up the cross," in the scriptural sense of the terms. The Baptists imagine they find a cross where, in the nature of things, there can be none. There can be no cross where there is no duty ; and there may be sufi'ering where there is no cross. It must fii'st be proved that immersion is made binding upon the believer, before the idea of ^' the cross" can enter into immersion. But this is the very point in ques- tion ; and to argue from an instinctive repugnance to being immersed to the obligation to be immersed, is begging the question. It would be just as logical to argue that because man has an instinctive repugnance to putting his hand into the fii'e, therefore it is his duty to put his hand into the fire. But prove that it is his duty, in any specific case, as in mar- tyrdom, to submit to the operation of fire, and it becomes a cross to do so, that is, he must resist the natural repugnance to fire for Christ's sake : " for whosoever shall save his life shall lose it." Again, it would be just as logical to argue that because man has an instinctive repugnance to death, there- fore it is his duty to destroy his life. But prove, fii'st, that it is his duty to die in any specific case, as for " Christ," or " the brethren," and it becomes " a cross" to do so ; that is, he must resist the instinctive repugnance to death for the sake of Christ, or the brethren : " if any man will come after me, let him deiii/ 7iimse7/ and take up 7iis cross and fol- low me, for — whosoever shall lose his life /or my sake shall find it." Matt. x\t, 24-25, Why, in such a case, should a OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 205 man resist his repugnance to death and consent to die ? Be- cause it is made his duty to do so. Where it is not his duty to sacrifice life, instinctive repugnance to death cannot be made the basis of " a cross/' but is an impulse wisely im- planted in our nature for the preservation of life during God's good pleasure. To make the cases analogous, and so make out " a cross" in immersion, the Baptists must first prove that immersion, as the mode of baptism, is solemnly enjoined a> a duty upon every believer. But this is the very point ia controversy — a point to be settled before ^^ a cross," in the proper sense of the term, can be recognised in immersion. Thus, until immersion be proved to be enjoined as a duty, it is denied that there is, properly speaking, any "cross" in immersion, and so the objection utterly fails. Eleventhly. We come now to the accommodating argument of the Baptists, which we shall state in the fairest light, and cvinsider at length. "All orthodox denominations agree that immersion is a valid mode ] but all do not agree that sprinkling and pouring are valid modes ; therefore, that is the best mode about which all agree. In other words : the four prominent denominations of Christians agree that im- mersion is a valid mode, while but three of them agree that sprinkling and pouring are valid modes; therefore there can be no doubt with regard to the validity of immersion." This is the most plausible, captivating, and popular argu- ment ever adduced in favor of immersion; yet never was there an argument more sophistical and unsound. It is rendered the more plausible by the familiar illustration of three deeds or notes, representing the three popular modes of baptism, namely, sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. Four judges attest to the validity of one of the deeds, while three of the judges declare that both of the other deeds are just as good. Three of the judges say there can be no doubt of the genuineness of two of the notes, while one of 18 206 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. the judges says they are counterfeit altogether : but all four judges agree that the genuineness of one of the notes is un- questionable. Therefore, the deed or note whose genuine- ness is attested to by all the judges is preferable to the notes or deeds which are sustained by only three of the judges. All this we pronounce to be sophistry, which a moment's honest reflection may expose. The- sophistry in the argument is this : the Baptists con- found the admission of the validity of immersion as a mode of baptism, with their own views of its exdusiveness. They lose sight of their particular dogma in the general admis- sion of the paedobaptists. The paedobaptists as strenuously oppose the exclusive validity of immersion as the Baptists do the validity of sprinkling and pouring. There is no unanimity among the judges. He that is baptized by im- mersion, vainly imagining that he is confirmed in his opinion by the corroborating admission of the paedobaptists, does in fact set aside the judgment of three of the judges. But he who is baptized by immersion, believing it to be a valid mode, and at the same time admitting the equal validity of sprinkling and pouring, is confirmed in his opinions and practice by the judgment of three of the judges, and sup- ported by the concession of the fourth judge in the case. For the Baptists have been forced to concede, as we have seen, that immersion at the hands of a paedobaptist is valid baptism ; and, therefore, the four judges agree in the validity of immersion at the hands of a pasdobaptist, while the man who believes in exclusive immersion is supported by only one of the judges. It is admitted that immersion is valid ; but this is not admitted upon the ground occupied by the Baptists, namely, exdusiveness of immersion, but because mere mode . is regarded as not essential ; and hence the validity of immersion at the hands of a Baptist does not support their pretensions, nor destroy the validity of immer- OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 207 slon at the hands of a pEedobaptist. Immersion is as valid at the hands of a paedobaptist as it is at the hands of a Bap- tist^ because the validity of immersion, as we have seen, does not depend upon the manner by which the administrator himself was baptized, and thus the note or deed is as good in the hands of the paedobaptist as it is in the hands of the Baptist. The only question now to be considered respects the testi- mony of the judges concerning the validity of sprinkling and pouring. Three of the judges regard them as valid modes, and one of the judges does not so regard them; hence the weight of testimony is in favor of sprinkling and pouring. Besides, he who admits the validity of these modes, and yet prefers immersion, may obtain it in a valid form at the hands of a paedobaptist. Indeed, upon the prin- ciples of the Baptists he may obtain immersion at the hands of a paedobaptist by a more regular succession than he can at the hands of a Baptist — the Baptists themselves being judges. Moreover, immersion at the hands of a paedobap- tist obtains all the advantages of free and open communion. The Baptists cannot deny this without unchurching them- selves and invalidating their own administrations. Indeed, upon the principles of the Baptists, they have no right to administer the sacraments at all, and no ground on which to sustain the dogma of ^^ close communion,'^ since the doctrine of exclusive immersion is not of apostolic origin and succes- sion, and the original immersions of the Baptist Church were administered by laymen — as has been proved. Nor is this all : upon the principles of the Baptists, they are not properly constituted a judge in the premises, and the question must be left with the proper judges for final settlement. The sophism of the Baptists under consideration is ana- logous to two very familiar sophisms in the religious world, 208 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. one of the Jews, and the other of the Romish church. That of the Jews : ''Both Jews and Christians confess that the religion of Moses came from God ; but the Jews do not believe in the divinity of the Christian religion ; the safest way, therefore, is to hold what both sides believe as true." And yet no one becomes a Jew from the force of this con- clusion. The sophism of the Papist : " Both the Romanists and the Reformed believe salvation may be had in the Church of Rome ; but the Romanists do not believe it may be had in the churches of the Reformed : therefore, it is safest to adhere to Popery. '' And yet who becomes a Romanist from the force of this conclusion ? The sophism of the Baptists : '' The Baptist and pgedobaptist churches believe that immer- sion is valid; but the Baptist Church does not believe in the validity of sprinkling and pouring ; therefore, the safest mode of baptism is that of immersion.'^ x\nd many, very many are convinced by this sophism in favor of immersion, though there is no more reason in it than is contained in the sophisms above. The fact, that the great majority of Chris- tians in the world are not Jews, and the powerful arguments written in defence of Christianity, effectually refute the sophism of the Jews : the revolutions of Divine Providence, the rapid progress and unparalleled prosperity of Protestant nations, and the testimony of enlightened generations, com- bine to refute the sophism of the Papists : and so the united testimony of the pasdobaptist churches, from apostolic times to the present, fairly refutes the sophism of the Baptists. Indeed, the concession of the Baptists, that immersion at the hands of a pasdobaptist is valid baptism, invests immersion so administered with all the force of the Baptists' idea of ex- clusiveiiess, and thus in fact the concession alone refutes the favorite sophism of the Baptists ; for immersion at the hands of a paedobaptist is conceded by the Baptists to be valid, and OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 209 consequently immersion, one of the deeds, may be obtained in a genuine form in the paBdobaptist churches. ^° Before closing our consideration of the mode of baptism, we will make one more remark. To prefer immersion as a mode of baptism is admissible, but to regard it as the only valid mode of baptism is superstitious. In the former case it is preferring a mode in itself non-essential, but in the latter case it is investing an external rite with a virtue ex- clusively inherent in itself — and this is elemental in Popery. The efficacy of an ordinance depends solely, upon the in- fluence of the Holy Ghost that accompanies or follows its administration, irrespective of the mode. The benefit of an ordinance does not originate in any essential connection of the mode with the ordinance, bat in the divine blessing alone, impai'ted at the time of administration or thereafter ; and, therefore, we infer that mode is non-essential ) and that exclusiveness is not only superstitious, but dangerous, since superstition tends to abuse. It betrays ^* unwary souls" into a delusive confidence. Immersion, as an external rite, and its concomitant error, ^' close communion,^' are the promi- nent characteristics of the Baptist Church ; and wherever this is the case there is danger of sectarian idolatry, and superstitious reliance in rites and ceremonies. Exclusive immersion is a " yoke of bondage," which the Baptists have 30 We will here correct a misrepresentation often made by the Baptists, in public and in private, "that while the psedobaptists immerse, they do not believe in the validity of immersion." Why, the Baptists proceed, in the sophism above, upon the paedobaptists' admission of the validity of immersion, and it is ungenerous now to charge them with insincerity. Besides, we have only to refer the reader to our Discipline. " Let every adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have the choice either of immersion, sprinkling, or pouring." Methodist Discipline, p. 76. See also "Ministration of Baptism to Infants," ibid. p. 110. Also, "to adults," ibid. p. 115. The same references may be made to the Protestant Episcopal Prayer Book. 18* 210 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. " added" to the " necessary'' things contained in the Book of Life. To this tendency is to be ascribed in part that miserable, pernicious, and destructive heresy of baptismal regeneration, which has recently sprung up in the Baptist Church, and has extended to an alarming and melancholy ex- tent, particularly in the Western country — a heresy, like all other heresies, at once gloomy, mournful, and desperate — I mean Camphellism. To the same source is to be ascribed the spirit of controversy on infant baptism, and immersion, which certain persons often commence in times of gracious revivals in the churches, when penitents should rather first be encouraged in seeking pardon, and young converts be settled in Christian experience and in things essential to their present peace and fitness for the sacramental seal, than have their minds perplexed, as they sometimes are, about a mere external rite, which obtrusive zeal itself admits is not essential to salvation. ^' The river, the river,' really seems by some to be placed in the room of " the Saviour'^ — and often the young and fearful conscience has been injudiciously directed to the imagined necessity of being buried by bap- tism under icater, before the heart has become prepared to be ^' buried by baptism into death.'' PAKT III. Infant §agtism. CHAPTER I. THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. It is surprising that the right of infants to baptism ever should have been contested, or been made tlie cause of division in the church, under whose maternal care they are placed by Christ, and at whose altar they are presented by Christ as a model of piety and obedience to man. Xothing but blessing is connected with their early dedication to God in baptism. The universal formal recognition of the validity and obligation of infant baptism, with the proper subsequent instructions, would be attended with spiritual advantages to the infant, the church, and the world, obtained from no other means. It is the disposition of man to be self-deceived; and when once deception has induced mental habit, it is easy to shrink from an impartial and patient investigation of opposite ground, and difficult to relinquish opinions long and fondly cherished. We despair of communicating any information to those who may read the following pages with a prede- termination to reject every thing that may be in opposition to their views. We beseech the reader not to embrace or oppose what may be presented, merely because it is con- sistent or not with his opinions, but according as it appears to be true or false. We shall proceed carefully in the examina- 211 212 INFANT BAPTISM. tion of the deeply interesting subject before us, under the statement of the following general proposition : The ground OF INFANT SALVATION IS THE GROUND OF INFANT BAP- TISM. We shall consider first, the ground of infant sal- vation. 1. The ground of infant salvation. The ground of salvation is the atonement of Christ, as we have seen in a former part of this work. In the Divine government, the distributions of rewards and punishments is conditional. But on this ground, infants can receive neither reward nor punishment, since the conditionallty of salvation is not applicable to them. That is, on the ground of conditionalitj, infants can neither be saved nor be lost, since the principles of free agency are inapplicable to their case. The infant cannot believe, therefore he cannot be saved ; he cannot sin, therefore . he cannot be lost. Had no pro- vision been made to meet this difiiculty, infidelity might have proposed this unanswerable objection to the church : '^ What becomes of infants ? They cannot believe, therefore they cannot be saved; they cannot sin, and therefore they cannot be lost. x\nd since no provision has been made for them, what becomes of innocent, helpless, unconscious in- fants?" Had Christ, in the Old and the New Testaments, left the question of infant salvation here, the church and the world might weep in moui-nful silence over the final destiny of all children dying in infancy. Indeed there is a sect,* that has surpassed infidelity in insensibility, and declared that all infants dying in infancy are annihilated. 13ut Christ, that he might protect the church against this appal- ling dilemma, as well as confound infidelity, in mercy has said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven — and he ' The Thomaaitex, a branch of the Campbellites. THE GROUND OF INFANT SALVATION. took them in his arms, and blessed them." In this com- prehensive declaration, their salvation is iinconditionaV y secured. And as Christ simply announced divine truths, established them by miracles, and then left them as great elemental doctrines of salvation for his apostles to explain more at large, we have the explanation and vindication of infant salvation clearly set forth by the apostle Paul : " As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men unto condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." ^ That is, all the unconditional evils involved in the sin of Adam are, in the case of infants dying in infancy, unconditionally removed by the death of Christ : dying, they are regenerated, sanctified, and exalted to heaven, without faith; and living, they unconditionally obtain a gracious aid, by which, in duo time, as free agents, they may conditionally obtain '^justifi- cation unto life." As in the original creation of man, God so arranged the system of relations, that all Adam's posterity should be legally connected with him as their federal head, so in his infinite wisdom, he has constituted the redemptive system of relations in such a manner that Christ becomes the second Adam. By the union of diviniti/ with liumaniti/, on the laws of grace, and under the sanctions of justice, in ofiering up himself as a sacrifice for Adam's transgression, Christ transfers the federal representation of children from Adam to himself, and on this ground he unconditionally justifies and saves all infants dying in infancy. The plan of grace substitutes this gracious connection in the place of the legal connection which subsisted in the first creation. That is, in order to prevent the dreadful consequences of legal union with Adam as a federal head, under the opera- tion of the moral law involved in sin under the Adamic 2 Rom. V. 18. 214 INFANT BAPTISM. law, Christ, uniting himself with humaniti/, associates the human race with himself, and so unconditionally justifies all infants while in an infant state, saves all without excep- tion, who die in infancy, and qualifies all for the relations of responsibility, who live to a responsible age. In a word, in view of the efficacy of the blood of Christ to cleanse and sanctify all dying in infancy; in view of the agency of the Holy Spirit in unconditionally regenerating all who die in infancy, that they may be qualified for heaven ; and in view of their right, on these grounds, to the kingdom of heaven, Christ declares, in the tenderest mercy — "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." In a word, the ground of infant salvation is the sacrificial death of Christ. 2. The ground of infant salvation is the ground OF INFANT BAPTISM. That is, the institution of infant hap- tistUy as expressive of the interest of infants in the atonement of Christ, is founded upon the atonement of Clirist: their right to initiation into the Church of Christ, under the Christian dispensation, is founded upon the atonement of Christ. "We shall present the argument at some length. It is not surprising that there should be various opinions respecting the ground of the right of infants to baptism, since men's views of baptism correspond to their theological doctrines, sound or unsound. And yet it is obvious, that those views of infant baptism only are correct, which are in harmony with evangelical truth. A statement, and brief consideration of the prominent views maintained on the subject, may not only be interesting to the general reader, but contribute materially to the establishment of the doctrine of infant baptism. These opinions are the following. First. That the right of infants to baptism " depends upon previous election by God to salvation." Goode on Baptism, p. 34. As in the very nature of evangelical truth, the same objections exist against infant, as against adult election — THE GROUND OF INFANT BAFTISM. 215 that is, as unconditional election is not a doctrine sustained either by reason or by Scripture, and therefore cannot be made the ground of any right whatever, either in the case of the infant or the adult, we shall not stop longer to con- sider this opinion. Secondly. That the right of infants to baptism "depends upon the prevision by God of future faith and repentance in the child, at a subsequent period of life." Ibid. 36. This is in principle the preceding opinion ; and we only add, that the foreknowledge of God is made in no case the ground of right to the spiritual blessings and privileges of the covenant of grace. Thirdly. That the right of infants to baptism depends upon "asee(7, or principle, or hahit of faith, implanted in the heart," or "a spiritual bias of the mind, which may be called a seed or principle of faith." Ibid. 37, 38. This opinion also is founded upon the theory of election and final perseverance, and so may be also despatched without further consideration. Fourthly. That the right of infants to baptism is founded upon the fact that one of the parents really, or at least nominally, is believing. ''Our service on infant baptism is drawn up on the hypothesis that the infant is the child of at least one (really, or at any rate nominally) believing parent." Ibid. 32. The right of infants to baptism is not founded upon social relations, but upon the vicarious death of Christ, and as all children sustain the same relation to the death of Christ, all therefore are invested with equal right to bap- tism : to admit it in one case, is to admit it in all : to deny it in one case, is to deny it in all : to deny it in one case is to destroy altogether their only hope of salvation. Thus, all children indiscriminately are entitled to baptism, in their oion right, founded upon the vicarious death of Christ — in- dependently of any relation to their parents — a right which 216 INFANT BAPTISM. baptism recognises as already existing. The gracious rights of children are not founded upon mere conjectures or hy- potheses of any kind, but upon the essential, substantial, and immutable facts and principles of the Godhead "manifest in the flesh." Fifthly. Nor does the right of infants to baptism depend upon "■ vicarious pledges" made by parents at the time of baptism. "It must ever be recollected that baptism is a rite in which a covenant-engagement is entered into between God and man; in which, therefore, the engagement on God's part is to be met by a corresponding engagement on the part of man ; and where the baptized person is too young to make this promise in his own person, it is to be made by others for him; and baptism is administered on this vicarious jjledge," &c. Ibid. 415. The vicarious atonement, in every case, and not a vicarious faith, is the only ground of infant baptism. Sixthly. Nor does the right of infants to baptism depend upon responsihility , any more than their right to salvation does ; for, in the nature of things in their case, responsibility cannot be made the ground of baptism any more than it can be made the ground of salvation. Seventhly. Nor does their right to baptism depend upon volition, since, in the nature of things in their case, volition can no more be made the ground of baptism than it can be made the ground of salvation. Eighthly. Nor does their right to baptism depend upon (xnsciousness, since, in the nature of things in their case, con- sciousness can no more be made the ground of baptism, than it can be made the ground of salvation. Ninthly. Nor does their right to baptism depend upon repentance and faith , since, in the nature of things in their case, repentance and faith can no more be made the ground of baptism than they can be made the ground of salvation. THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. 21' There is one more view, which we believe is the only view founded upon eYangelical truth, and which we proceed to state and defend. The right of infants— all infants indiscriminately' — is founded upon the vicarious death of Christ. As all infants, in consequence of their association with Christ as their federal representative, have an unconditional right to all the blessings of his atonement, nothing is more just and rational than that this right should be formally ncknowledged as soon as the plan of redemption began to be formally developed. As the plan of salvation referred as much to them as to the rest of the human race, some men- tion of them must be made in the arrangement of the system of salvation — and the church is composed of all who are conditionally or unconditionally the subjects of salvation. Hence, in view of the ground of salvation, and the character of those entitled to association with the church, we may expect to find the defence of the rights, and the declaration of the interests of infants, in the very first dispensation of mercy that shall be proposed, and consequently a continua- tion of the same rights and interests associated with all suc- ceeding dispensations of salvation to the end of time. I go back to the fii'st regularly constituted church in the world, and its constitution embraces children. The covenant made with this church is the everlasting covenant of grace, founded upon the atonement of Christ, and is thus expressed by God himself: '^And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.'^^ This was the form of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham, embraced again in the Jew- ish covenant, founded in both these instances upon the atone- ' Gen. xvii. 7. 19 218 INFANT BAPTISM. ment of Christ, and is essentially the same with the Chris- tian covenant. Hence, as Grod's covenant with the church changes not, Peter, on the day of Pentecost^ opened the Christian dispensation with express reference to this cove- nant in its spiritual bearing on the case of the Jews. ^^ Re- pent, and be baptized,'^ says he, "in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and your chilflren.''* What promise, but the one we have just quoted from the mouth of God, unalterable in its character throughout all generations? This view is supported by the Apostle Paul. "And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being circumcised: that lie might he the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might he imputed unto them." ^ That is, Abraham, through faith, received all the blessings of the everlasting covenant made with him, of which circumcision was the sign and seal, and his children, being embraced in tbe same covenant, received the same sign and seal. So Christian believers receive the same blessings of the same covenant, through the same faith, of which, under the Chris- tian dispensation, baptism is the sign, and therefore their children, embraced in the same covenant, are entitled to the same sign. Were you and your children under the Abra- hamic, or Jewish dispensation, would not your children receive the initiatory seal by which they would be entitled to all the external and spiritual blessings of the Jewish Church ? Xow as every dispensation of the everlasting covenant is founded upon the atonement of Christ, though the dispensa- tion, with its accompanying and corresponding external sign or seal, be changed, the everlasting covenant still remains in 4 Acts ii. 38, 39. * Rom. iv. 11. THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. 219 full force. Therefore, the same right to salvation belongs to children under all dispensations — only the outward form of recognising this right may be changed according to the character of the dispensation; and as the external sign or seal must be either circumcision or baptism ', and as circum- cision is abolished, because the dispensation to which it was adapted is consummated; and as baptism remains the only proper sign of initiation into the church under the Christian dispensation, therefore the rights of infants to the blessings of the everlasting covenant cannot be formally and properly recognised under the Christian dispensation in any other way than by baptism : the covenant remains the same ; the rights of children remain the same; only the rights of children under different dispensations are recognised by a different sign or seal. Under the Christian dispensation, therefore, cliildren are entitled to baptism — and so shall be to the end of the world. So long as the same reason or ground of right continues, the same right remains in full force as at first. Thus, the right of children to church membership remains still in force, since the ground of this right remains the same, namely, the atonement of Christ. Therefore, God himself cannot alter this right, or revoke his own institution, without changing the ground which he himself has laid down as the founda- tion of his church. God himself cannot deny children a right to church membership, witTwut changing essentially the v:hole plan of redemption. The right of infants to church membership remains the same in all ages of the world, since the reason or ground on which God originally connected them with the church remains the same in all ages. Firmly and eternally is the right of infants to church membership established. This right God has confirmed "by two im- mutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie.^' The ground of infant cu'cumcision was sacrificial, and hence 220 INFANT BAPTIS^f. Christ declares; '^I came not to destroy, but to fulfil;'' and hence, in confirming infant circumcision, be confirmed infant baptism. An attempt to change the standing and immuta- ble law of God transcends the bold enterprise of the fabled giants against heaven, which was only a feint to alarm the gods, but this is a blow struck at the throne of Jehovah, to divest him of supreme legislative power and authority, and assumes more than God himself can command without making a fundamental change in his gracious government. Let the Baptists consider that they undertake to do what God him- self has not done, and cannot do without changing the foundation of human redemption. Let them consider, that by changing the reason or ground of the right of infants to church membership, they remove the atonement, which God himself, in infinite mercy and wisdom, laid down for their salvation, and that thus they leave no ground remaining on which children can be saved. They must change the reason, before they can change the right : they cannot destroy the reason without destroying all the spiritual hopes of children : and therefore, in denying children the right to church mem- bership, they are in principle removing the only ground on which they can be saved. It is not in the power of man, however, to withhold from infants admission into heaven, though they are frequently denied it into the church on earth. In other words: the simple fact that a right was acknowledged in the early ages of the church, is not a sufficient reason that it should be acknowledged through every succeeding age of the church, unless the ground on which it was founded be clearly proved to have been con- stituted by God as Qi perpetual force. The ground on which children were received into the church under the dispensa- tions that preceded the Christian dispensation, was the atonement of Christ, to he made in due time. Therefore, since the atonement has been made, children should be THE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. 221 received into the church under the Christian dispensation by baptism. Had no atonement been provided, neither infants nor adults could have been received into the church, for then no church could have been founded; but since the atonement has been made, all children, in all time, have an equal, unconditional, and indisputable title to church mem- bership, which, under the Christian dispensation, is set forth and formally sealed by baptism. Observe, the covenant of salvation made with man was to remain in full force in all ages of time. The Jews were the first to have their children formally recognised as the proper subjects both of salvation and the ''seal of righteousness" in Christ. Is the covenant of Christ, with the reason of an external ratifj-ing seal, set aside in its application to children under the Christian dis- pensation? Certainly not, since the covenant, and the reason of an external seal, remain the same in all ages. All therefore who entertain objections to infant baptism, express equal contempt for circumcision, and oppose Grod himself, and the reason on which he transacts the affairs of his gracious government, under all the dispensations of his grace. Let the Baptists settle this grave question with Supreme Wisdom; for the reason of things, in the case of infant cir- cumcision and infant baptism, is the common gi-ound on which both are founded. Baptism, as in the case of cir- cumcision, was added as a seal after the covenant of grace was made with man, not to give efficacy to the covenant, or to strengthen its validity, but as confirmatory of it. Thus, children are not baptized in order that they may be brought into covenant with God, for they are already lecog- nised by God as his children, and embraced in his covenant, by virtue of the atonement, and the promise of Christ, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven.^' And hence they are solemnly and formally recognised by baptisai as embra^:•ed in the covenant. As in the case of the adult believer, who 19* 222 INFAXr HAITI: has not been baptized in infancy, baptism is added after his faith, not to give any additional efficacy and validity to the covenant of grace, but as confirmatory ; so in the case of infants, who have been constituted unconditional partakers of the blessings of the divine covenant, baptism is added as the formal confirmation of their title. It is vain to dwell upon the element of water, and the mere external observance, without special and exclusive regard be devoutly and reve- rently had to the gracious design of baptism, since it is the importance of the thing signified that gives value to the sign and the seal. And as the covenant of grace is immutable, the design of baptism, in the case of infants, as a sign, is to show that they have been unconditionally made partakers of the thing thereby signified. Dying in infancy, they receive ihe thing signified, without hearing the word, without being taught, and without faith. Why then exclude them from the sign ? If there was good reason in the Divine mind why the covenant of grace, under the Jewish dispensation, should be confirmed by an external seal in the case of children, the same reason continues in force under the Christian dispensa- tion; and hence, it as efi'ectually secures to children the right to baptism, under the Christian dispensation, as it secured to children the right to circumcision, under the Jewish dispensation; and consequently, children have as good a right to baptism under the Christian dispensation, as children had to circumcision under the Jewish dispensa- tion. The difference in the mode of acknowledging the right specified cannot affect either the covenant or the reason. Infants, dying in infancy, are saved by free grace, and therefore they may be baptized by free grace. Free grace gives to them the title in both instances — invests them with equal title to the sign and the suhstance. Infants, though in a passive state, may be capable of inheriting an estate ; TUE GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. £13 much more are they entitled by free gi'ace, dying in infancy, to heirship with Christ. They are unconditionally infant heirs of gJori/, ^' heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ" — and that too, blessed be God I without faith, and without fellow-suffering with Christ. x\s, under the Jewish dispen- sation, circumcision was the outward seal of '■'■ the righteous- ness of faith," and was applied to children before they were capable of exercising faith ; so, under the Christian dispensa- tion, as baptism is the outward seal of '• the righteousness of faith," baptism may be administered to children befoi-e they are capable of exercising faith, since they have righteousness without faith. To say that circumcision was not applied to any as a '^ seal of righteousness," but to those who were capable of exercising faith, is to deny the truth of the sacred record, for it was applied to children as the seal of the '^everlasting covenant." In like manner, baptism may be applied to children under the Christian dispensation, since in their case the atonement of Christ, and not faith, is indispensable to ^"righteousness." And, therefore, all de- ductions unfavorable to infant baptism, drawn from pre- mises embracing repentance and faith, are wholly irrelevant to the case of infant baptism. The premises from which are deduced the propriety and validity of infant baptism are con- tained in the death of Christ, which redeems all infants from original guilt, and therefore their right to baptism is at once established. Likewise, all objections to infant baptism, found- ed upon the unconsciousness of infants, are illogical, since, as above, their right to baptism is founded upon the death of Christ, independently of their unconsciousness. The pro- mises of the gospel supply the obligations to repentance and faith. The ground of salvation is the ground on which in- fants can sustain covenant relations. Consciousness, on the part of infants, is superseded by the anterior ground merci- fully provided in the death of Christ. The infant dying 224 INFANT BAPTISM. in infancy, sustains the same relations to the covenant of grace unconditionally, which the believer sustains con- ditionally. Thus, the infant, upon the ground of previous relation to Christ, should be formally recognised as an heir of glory, and a member of Christ's church on earth, by ap- plying the seal of the covenant of grace, confirming and sealing unto him all the blessings of the everlasting cove- nant and advantages of connection with the Christian church, as he may be able to receive them, and imposing upon him the duty to discharge all the obligations of his consecration as they may rise in his subsequent life. The mixed nature of baptism is founded upon the same ground. Baptism is partly positive and partly moral. Now infants unconditionally possess the primary qualification which the design of baptism requires ; this moral qualifica- tion is obtained for them by the atonement of Christ, with- out faith, and for adults by faith : and hence baptism can be no more withheld from infants than from adult believers. In other words, the only barrier to baptism is moral un- Jitness ; but in the case of infants this barrier is removed by the atonement of Christ, and therefore they are entitled to baptism. One more remark. The moral qualification of infants to receive baptism is not hereditary, but by grace. It is upon this ground, and not that of natural relation to the parent, that all infants, without exception, whether of unbelieving or believing parents, have the same right to baptism. More than this : the ties of grace in Clirist, and not the ties of regenerat- ing grace in i^ie parent, furnish the ground of infant baptism. The children of believers are not entitled to baptism '^ for their fathers' sake" — for upon this ground, it must be ad- mitted, none but the children of believers would be entitled to baptism — but they are entitled to baptism upon the ground of Christ's atonement, and hence no discrimination INFANTS INCLUDED IN ALL COVENANTS is to be made upon the ground of parental relation. Ail infants indiscriminatelY, through the rich, free, and en- larged promises of the gospel, are invested with the same unconditional title to baptism. No age or class is specified. that none may be excluded : all are included. Here we might confidently rest the validity and obligation of infant baptism, but we proceed to other arguments, all of which are founded upon the gi*eat principles of the atone- ment of Christ, and drawn from the Scriptures. CHAPTER n. IN ALL THE COVENANTS GOD MADE WITH MAN, IN- FANTS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. In the Adamic covenant, in Paradise, "in the beginning" of the world, the holy pOvSterity of our first parents vr >uld have been entitled to all the blessings of the coveuaut of works, had Eden continued in its original perfection to the present time. Under the Abraham ic covenant, which was the formal development of the covenant of grace, substituted in the place of the Adamic covenant, children were included, as we have seen in the preceding chapter. So under the 3Iosaic covenant : "Ye stand this day all 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 thy stranger, that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood, unto the drawer of thy water : that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day." * And shall infants be excluded from > Dout. xxix. 10-12. 226 infa!nT baptism. a formal recognition of their rights under the gospel dispen- sation of the great covenant of grace ? — a dispensation which surpasses all others in the extent of its privileges^ the range of its blessings, and the glory of its promises. Does the Christian dispensation contain nothing of a formal, public character for infants ? Is this consistent with the character of the " fulness of times ?" Strange, that while God formally embraced infants in every covenant previously made with man, he should exclude them under the Christian dispensa- tion, which is the consummation and confirmation of all other dispensations under which children were received into the church I Strange, that while the ground on which every other evangelical dispensation was founded, and on which infants were formally recognised as the subjects of salvation, is the foundation of the Christian dispensation also, infants should be excluded from the Christian church ! If it was only by the atonement of Christ, '^ finished'^ on the cross, that the s^al of circumcision, and the hopes of infants, under all previous dispensations, were confirmed and established for ever, surely under the Christian dispensation, above every other dispcnsatiou, infants should be formally taken into covenant with Grod. If a formal recognition of the spiritual rights of infants — if a solemn consecration of infants to God — ^be non-essential under the Christian dispensation, why did not Supreme Wisdom dispense with such recognition and consecration under all previous dispensations ? There is no more reason for omission in one case than in another : indeed, the same reason for their recognition and consecration is elemental in every dispensation; and, therefore, the obliga- tion of the church thus to recognise and consecrate them to God, is elemental in the Christian dispensation. Such is the sti' yur Co^M^^ '"^^ '^^ infnnf hantism under the Christian dispen THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 227 CHAPTER in. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CHURCH. "We shall consider the branch of the argument, at the head of this chapter, under the following divisions : — 1. The church, in all ages, is under the same great cove- nant of grace, though it may he under different dispensations. 2. Hence the seal of every dispensation is a seal of the general covenant of grace. 3. Therefore, baptism, the seal of the covenant under the Christian dispensation, is substituted for circumcision, the seal of the covenant under the Jewish dispensation. * 4. Hence, infants ought to be baptized. These proposi- tions shall follow in order. 1. The church, in all ages, is under the same covenant of grace, though it may be under different dispensations. (1.) The church of Grod dates its origin, properly and formally, at the call of Abraham, though before this time there was what might be called the patriarchal dispensation, during which "men began to call upon the name of the Lord." That the covenant under the Christian dispensation and the Abrahamic covenant is the same, is evident from the following scriptures: "And tL^ scu'giMXQ foreseeing that Grod would justify the heathen through faith, preached he- fore the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shalt. all THE nations of THE EARTH BE BLESSED. So then they x '228 INFANT BAPTISM. wMch be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."* That is, God foreseing that the Gentiles would need salva- tion by grace, and intending to justify the heathen by faith, makes the covenant of grace with Abraham in a formal man- nei', in fulfilment of the promise made to Adam in Eden, and to be confirmed by Christ upon the cross. This com- prehensive view of the covenant of grace is gradually unfold- ed in succeeding ages. The '^everlasting covenant," esta- blished with Abraham, is fii'st mentioned in Genesis, 12th chapter, and confirmed by an external sign in the 17th chapter. This covenant is the fulfilment of the promise made with Adam, '-'• the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head," and is to continue through all ages of time. But the covenant made with Moses four hundred and thirty years later, was added to the old Abrahamic covenant, on account of the transgressions of the people, to show the nature of sin, to restrain from idolatry, and prepare the way for the reception of the Redeemer. Moses's law was " added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made." ^ But Christ being come, the law of Moses that was added, passes away, and the covenant of grace still continues. '^ And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God, in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none efi'ect." ^ Now, from the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, to the time when God formally made the covenant of grace with Abraham, as it is stated in the 12th chapter of Genesis, is precisely four hun- dred and thirty years — the very time Paul specifies ; and as the adding of the Mosaic law did not annul the Abrahamic covenant, the abolition and removal of the Mosaic cere- monial law by the death of Christ was indispensable to the 1 Gal. iii. 8. -' Gal. rii. 19. 3 Gal. iii. 17. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 229 establishment of the covenant of grace made with Abraham. Therefore, the Christian church, which is founded upon the death of Christ, is not only the continuation ^ but the com- pletion of the Old Testament church. " Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness, and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised, that he might be the fether of all them that believe, though they be u;)t circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be of grace : to the end the promises may be sure to all the seed, jind not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. As it is loritten, I have made thee a father of many na- tions." * Thus, as the general covenant included infants under the Abrahamic dispensation, and still contines, it in- cludes infants under the Christian dispensation. Again, the apostle observes " that the Gentiles should be fdhiL'-Jieirs and of the same hochj^ ^u^ partakers of his pro- mises in Christ by the gospel."^ And again: ^'He is our peace, who hath broken clown the middle icall of partition between us, that he might make in himself of twain, one new man, and reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross." ^ And again : " Therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the liousehold of God ; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being TiiE chief corner-stone." 7 Here the apostle declares that "the household," "the body," " the building," "the commonwealth," are not completed till the Christian church is constituted, and the foundation and corner-stone of the whole building laid down by Christ and his apostles. The 4 Rom. iv. ^ Eph. iii. 6. ^ Eph. ii. U, 16. "^ I>>i.'l. ii. 19, 20. 20 230 INFANT BAPTISM. old scaffolding is now taken down, and the cliurch stands forth in its original design, finished, perfect, immutable, majestic. Therefore, when the believing Jews, in the days of Christ, entered into the Christian church, they changed not their church relations. They merely passed from the ^^rudi- ments," as taught by the ceremonial law, to the possession of the doctrines of the gospel, as taught by Christ and his apostles. They embraced Christ, who by consummating and abolishing the ceremonial law, became the foundation of the Christian church. Therefore, as they never left their CHURCH, their children cannot be excluded from the Chris- tian church. The ceremonial law was the ^'partition wall'^ between the Jewish and Christian dispensations, and conse- quently, the breaking down of this dividing wall secured the enlargement of the Jewish church, and its oneness with the Christian church. And as the whole is greater than a part, not only the Jews, but Gentiles, with their children, are entitled to the immunities and blessings of the ever- lasting covenant. By a masterly stroke of Divine power and wisdom, Christ in his death perpetuates the title of Jewish children to church membership, and introduces the children of Grentile parents also into the general church of God under the Christian dispensation. On this ground no change is made in the relations of the believing Jews. They continue as the true church, and still are called ^^the household," '^the citizens," ^^the common- wealth" of God. They that believe continue " the branches," ''the building," ''the city," "the members," '4he house- hold" of faith. The change is made in the condition of the Gentiles. These, as "far off," as "aliens" and "strangers," are "brought nigh," and made "fellow-citizens with the saints." The change in the condition of the Gentiles is absolute, universal, and essential. It was for this very pur- THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, OBS : 231 pose that the Jews were originally called and constituted as the church of God, that the Gentiles also might be gathered into the same great church, and ^'be builded together for a habitation of God by the Spirit," and consequently, that their children might be entitled to the same church relations. To continue the argument: — '^Thou (the Christian church) bearest not the root, BUT THE root thee."^ If the Jew- ish and Christian churches are not integral parts of the same great church, then there is no force in the figure used in the text: the meaning is, the Jewish and Christian churches are as much integral parts of the same great church as the root and trunk are integral parts of the same tree. Again : " For if thou (the Gentile church) wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these (Jews) which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own OLIVE tree.'' 3 Our Baptist brethren themselves admit that the Old Testament church is here represented, and that the church of God, the tree, planted in the days of Abra- ham, though mutilated by a thousand storms, still lives, and the "natural branches" are yet to be graffed into its trunk again, and constitute its crowning glories. But children were the young natural branches of this tree under the Jew- ish dispensation ; and when it was first planted, they were graffed into it with their parents, according to the positive command of God. Now until this command be positively and expressly repealed, they are entitled, in all ages of the Christian church, to be graffed by baptism into the same tree. Indeed, so far from being invested with the right to deny them this privilege, it is our solemn duty to continue it unto them. The covenant is not changed, the outward seal only is changed, and the change of the seal effects no 8 Rom. xi. IS. 9 Ibid. xi. 232 INFANT BAPTISM. modification in the covenant. Hence, it is as just, as wise, as reasonable, as proper, as desirable, that children be now associated with the church by baptism, as it was that they should be associated with the church formerly by circum- cision. The perpetuity of the covenant secures the identity of the church under every dispensation, and consequently, it secures also the continuation of the religious privileges of children through all time. You ask for positive warrant in the New Testament for the church membership of children — ■ and I direct your attention to the identity of the church, under all disjyeiisations, and under both Testaments, and to the positive enactment made by Jehovah tico tJiousand years before the Xew Testament was written, by which children were explicitly and formally associated with the chm-ch, and which, never having been explicitly and positively revoked, remains as effectually in force, under the Xew Testament dispensation, as it was under the Old, when the church of God was first organized. Without repeal, there can be no exclusion — and there can be no repeal under the dispensa- tions oi free grace, until the ground of infant salvation, the atonement of Christ, be changed; and consequently, as "the word of the Lord standeth for ever," the religious privileges of infants must continue for ever. With this immutable and eternal foundation of infant baptism before us, and the consequent continuation of religious privileges to children from the beginning to the end of the world, the Baptists, so far from having any right to call upon us for positive and explicit enactment in the Xew Testament respecting the right of infants to baptism, are themselves called upon to produce a positive repeal of their original right to church mem- bership. The silence of the Xew Testament, if it were wholly silent on the subject, would be a positive confirmation of the rights of children as they were specified in the covenant of grace at the beginning. THE CIlRlSriAN CHURCH, ETC. 233 The Apostle Paul, in the tenth chajDter to the Romans, after having removed, in the preceding chapters, every ob- jection brought by the Jews against the gospel in preference to their law, now sets aside the further evasion that they had not had preachers of the doctrine of salvation by faith, by showing that the gospel had heeii preached to them under the Old Testament dispensation. He introduces the Jew as inquiring, "How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed ? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear with- out a preacher? and how shall they preach except the}^ be sent?'^ But Paul replies, "Have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. But to Israel he saith, all day long I have stretched forth my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people." Here the apostle shows that the gospel is not only the doctrine of every dispensation, but the com- mon property of the world, and that the Jews had a special interest in it. The fact that the Jews disbelieved that the prophecies were accomplished in Christ, and their con- sequent rejection of him, are no proofs that the gospel was not preached unto them under the Old Testament dis- pensation. Compare x\mos ix. 11, 12, with Acts xv. 14-17. "In that day I will i-aise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof: and I will raise np his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old : that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this." The inspired interpretation of this prophecy of Amos is, " Simon hath declared how Grod at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle 20* 234 INFANT BAPTISM. of Da^•id, which is fallen down: and I will build again the ruins thereof^ and I will set it up, that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, who doeth all these things." Acts XT. 14-17. In the Epistle to the Romans, lest they should think he proclaimed a new doctrine, the apostle declared that Chris- tianity was but the fulfilment of prophecy, "which God had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." Rom. i. 2. Before Festus, Paul also pleads the antiquity of the gospel, and identifies it with " the things" foretold by Moses and the prophets : " I continue unto this day, witness- ing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come." Acts xxvi. 22. 3Iany other scriptures might be quoted in proof of the identity of the church under every dispensa- tion of the covenant; such as ''Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day: he saw it, and was glad;"^° "the kingdom of God shall be taken from you (the Jews) and given to a nation bringino; forth the fruits thereof:" ^^ "he will come and destroy the husbandman, and give the vineyard unto others :" ^ but we suppose it unnecessary to multiply quo- tations any further to prove a point so clearly exhibited in every part of the sacred records, and to which we shall soon return in the course of this argument. (2.) The church is the same in all ages, since in its organization it possesses the same Divine Head; the same moral law; the same gospel; the same precious promises; the same spiritual design; the same atoning blood; the same Mediator; the same sanctifying Spirit; and the same doctrines — repentance, faith, justification, regeneration, sanctification, the witness of the Spirit, the resurrection, the general judgment, and the sanctions of rewards and punish- 10 John viii. 56. >' Matt. xxi. 43. 0. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, ETC. 235 ments. "Think not/^ says Christ, "that I am coine to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" — -kr^p(i)(Tat — -plerosai — to complete, to make jpcrfect. The church of Christ began with the fii'st soul saved in the fallen world, and was designed to embrace all men, and extend through all time. It is founded upon the redemptive principle, and the redemptive principle is applica- ble to every case. The process in the development of this great principle, Christ perfected or consummated by his death, and hence the church, founded upon this principle, is the same in all ages of time and periods of eternity. The Jews themselves, under the Levitical and prophetical dis- pensation, were saved upon the redemptive principle, and their faith in Christ to come was established by his death, and after his death he commissioned his apostles to proclaim the applicability of this principle to "all nations.'' And so they did. "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also;" for he is "no respecter of persons.'^ And the time will come when the Jews shall be converted and restored — what then shall become of their children? Jeremiah answers this question: "Their children also shall be as oforetime^ Jer. XXX. 20. That is, shall be formally recognised by baptism as embraced in the everlasting covenant under the Christian dispensation, as they were formally recognised by circum- cision as embraced in the covenant under the Jewish dis- pensation. Indeed, as Christ, the great Antetype, fulfilled in himself all the preceding types, he must still preserve in himself substantially the gracious import of all the types, and so perpetuate the spiritual nature of the Old Testament church. Many things, it is true, under the old dispensation, were instituted for a limited period, and many were dimly revealed, but the elements of identity we have mentioned are essential to the plan of salvation, and immutable, and 236 INFANT BAPTISM, bence secure to children the right to church membership to the end of time. True also, the privileges of the church under the Christian dispensation, are greatly enlarged, but the accession does not destroy the identity of the church,- any more than an accession of rights and immunities destroys the identity of a city, corporation, or nation. While the death of Christ consummated, and therefore set aside, many divine appointments and ceremonial services of the Jewish church as of no more use, it at the same time laid the founda- tion for the enlargement of the privileges, without aifecting the identity of the church. Thus, the original constitution of the church embraced children as church members, and as that constitution remains in all its essential parts the same in all time; and as certain ceremonial laws, in no respect interfering with the spiritual rights of children, have been annulled, therefore children under the same general covenant are entitled to church membership under the Christian dispensation, "We pass now to the second consideration in the general argument. 2. Hence, the seal of every dispensation of the covenant is a seal of the general covenant of grace. (1.) Such was the character of circumcision as a seal. The covenant made with Abraham and his posterity, the Jewish people, is partly spiritual, and partly temporal. It is not specified, that circumcision was the seal of that imrt of the covenant only which referred to temporal blessings, but of the iclioh covenant ; and consequently it referred also to the spiritual blessings embraced in the covenant. This twofold covenant has but one seal, viz. circumcision: cir- cumcision, therefore, was the seal of the covenant of grace, under the Jewish dispensation, and consequently identified the Jewish with the general Church of God. It is objected, that ''circumcision was the external seal of the national covenant, but not of the spiritual, and hence cannot be a THE SEAL, ETC. seal of the covenant of grace." Then, in the first place, the spiritual covenant with Abraham was without an external seal, which is contrary to the positive institution of God. Secondly. God made no difference between the children of Abraham, and the children of Ishmael. " And Abraham took Ishmael, his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with money, every male, and cir- cumcised the flesh of their foreskin, in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him" — and yet not one of these evt r possessed any portion of Canaan, according to the provisions of the temporal covenant; and consequently, unless circum- cision had respect to s2rLrltual blessings, it secured no privi- leges at all to these persons. And subsequently, the children of Esau received the seal of circumcision, by which they possessed a title to the spiritual blessings of the covenant, though they were excluded from a participation in the tem- poral blessings of the covenant: they never possessed the promised land. Xow if the children of Ishmael and Esau, who were the posterity of Abraham, were excluded from the temporal blessings of the covenant, and yet were circumcised, certainly circumcision was more than a national seal. As they never obtained the temporal blessings, nor enjoyed the national privileges, to which circumcision entitled the descendants of Jacob, therefore, circumcision in their case, was a seal of the spiritual covenant of God with Abraham. In the case of the sons of Jacob, it was both national and spiritual; and as a national seal, therefore, Moses repeated it just before the Israelites entered the land of promise, to which their title was now confirmed. Thirdly. The sons of the stranger also received the seal of the covenant. The Gentiles could not derive any spiritual pri\dleges till they had received the sign of the covenant. "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord to serve him, every one that taJceth hold of my cove- 138 I^■FA^•T baptism. nant, will I bring to my holy mountain," &e.^^ Reference evidently is here made to the obligations connected with, the ancient initiatory sacrament of the Jewish church, the ex- ternal seal of the covenant of grace; for it is matter of ex- plicit enactment, that the Jews, and not the G-entiles, should derive temporal advantages, as well as spiritual, under the covenant made with Abraham. Fourthly. Circumcision was the seal of the covenant in which ^^all the families of the earth were to be blessed." It is inconceivable how this promise can be understood in a temporal sense. It must have extended further than to the inhabitants and temporal blessings of Canaan. It is im- possible for the whole world to dwell in Canaan, as also impossible for Canaan to distribute temporal blessings throughout the world. Indeed the Jews became the agents of terrible and destructive calamities to surrounding nations. And hence this promise is to be understood in a spiritual sense ; and consequently circumcision, the seal of the Jew- ish dispensation, was a seal of the general covenant of grace. Fifthly. ^'What profit is there of circumcision? Much every xcoy ; CHIEFLY that because unto them were committed the oracles of God.'^'^* That is, circumcision entitled both Jew and Grentile to all the advantages connected with the possession of the sacred oracles — the revelation of the Divine will made to Moses and the prophets respecting the covenant of grace and the Messiah; — and surely these inestimable spiritual advantages cannot be confounded with the earthly Canaan. Sixthly. That circumcision had special reference to the obedience of the law, the Apostle Paul expressly declares : ^^Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law; but if 15 Isa. Ivi. 6, 7. 1* Rom. iii. 1, 2. THE SEAL, ETC. 239 thou be a breaker of tlie law, thy circumcision is made un- circumcision." ^^ Seventhly. The apostle evidently refers to the spiritual design of circumcision, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, in which he concludes, that they were '' without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, having no hope, and without God in the world," " at the time, when they were of the "circumcision," and "Gentiles in the flesh." But now "being made nigh by the blood of Christ," and cir- cumcision, the original seal of the righteousness of faith, being superseded by baptism, it is evident that circumcision under the Jewish dispensation has the same spiritual re- ference that baptism has under the Christian dispensation. Eighthly. The apostle confirms this view: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God." That is, circumcision as an outward mark, not only had a national meaning, but a spiritual sense, and as such was a seal of the covenant of grace under the Jewish dispensation. Ninthly. While the covenant of grace made with Abraham principally referred to spiritual blessings, and was so under- stood by the Fathers, it also embraced supplemental promises referring to the possession of the land of Canaan. In view of the scope of the covenant of grace, and the range of tem- poral blessings secured to the Jews under that covenant in addition to spiritual blessings, circumcision was constituted the ratifying seal of the covenant of grace, and the promise of the earthly Canaan conjointly, but principally referred to spiritual advantages. >5R. om. 11. zo. 240 INFANT 13APTI.SM. Tenthly. The infant Jesus at eight days old, was solemnly recognised as a member of the Jewish Church — and yet he never possessed a foot of the promised land — he had not where to lay his head. His kingdom was not of this world. Eleventh. Circumcision signified a belief in the promises of the covenant of grace, and hence had reference to spiritual blessings. These promises referred to Christ, "the seed of Abraham/' as yet to come, and hence the well-known and continued expectation of the Jews of their promised Messiah.*^ Twelfth. That circumcision was the seal of the general covenant of grace, is proved from the following circum- stances. 1. Circumcision was a seal binding on the part of the Jews, to believe in Christ to come, and on the part of God, to fulfil his promises respecting the Messiah, in his own time, by revealing him to the world. Hence, upon the advent of Christ, the covenant was confirmed and fulfilled, and circumcision, as a seal, was no longer necessary. 2. If after the coming and manifestation of Christ, circumcision had been continued, it would have implied a rejection of the covenant made with Adam, Abraham, and all mankind in Christ Jesus: ^^ Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of none effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." ^"^ That is, the covenant of grace being fulfilled on the coming of Christ, it was to continue in full force through all time, and as circumcision distinguished the Jews as the peculiar people of God, as well as sealed their title to the land of Canaan, on the manifestation of Christ, the con- 16 And so the baptism of John imposed the obligation '' to believe in liim who should come/' and thus the dispensations of Moses and John, in this respect, were the same, though the outward seals were different. " Gal. V. 2-4. THE SEAL, ETC. 241 firmed covenant of salvation was to be '^made known to all nations, for the obedience of faith/" according to the promise made to Abraham — the peculiar rights of the Jews being now merged in the common participation of the universal provisions of salvation — which at once connects the Jews with the great covenant of mercy in Christ Jesus. Thus, circumcision was not only a national seal, but typical and spiritual in its chief importance; and hence under the Jew- ish dispensation, it was the seal of the covenant of grace. (2.) Such is the character of baptism. It remains now to show, that the church after the coming of Christ, to the end of the world, is under the same gi-eat covenant of grace, and that baptism is the external seal of it. Our work here is easy and brief. That the Christian dis- pensation is a dispensation of the grace of God, and that baptism is its outward seal, none will deny. Christ, in a few words, settles the whole matter. Consider the gospel commission — the scope of it: "the whole world. '^ The duration of it : " lo ! I am with you always, even to the end of the world. '^ And the external seal of it: "baptizing in the name/^ &c. Hence, baptism as the outward seal of the Christian dispensation, is the external seal of the same cove- nant of grace of which circumcision was the external seal under the Jewish dispensation. In reply to the conclusion that the covenant of grace made with Abraham, is the same in all ages of time, the Baptists assume, that the repetitions of this covenant in the 12th, 15th, and 17th chapters of Genesis, are not repetitions, but so many distinct covenants. We answer ; First. Whatever distinctions existed, or additions were made, in the repetitions of the covenant, they all included spiritual blessings, and so the original seal of circumcision was applicable to all. Secondly. Such an assumption destroys the ground of 21 242 INFANT BAPTISM. justification by faith. The Sinai covenant was entered into 430 years after the covenant which was made with Abraham. The Apostle Paul, in his Epistles to the Ro- mans and Galatians, argues that the doctrine of the Bible, from the beginning, is justification by faith; and he selects, as a most promising and convincing example, the case of Abraham. He shows, that Abraham was justified, not on the footing of the law, but under the covenant made with him 430 years before the law was given. As tjbe covenant is entirely distinct from the law, the argument is conclusive, that circumcision was the seal of the covenant; but upon the ground assumed by the Baptists, the law was co-eval with the covenant, though Paul affirms that the law was given 430 years after the covenant — and this covenant, he says, is the gospel covenant. Thirdly. The covenant recorded in the ITth chapter of Genesis, it is alleged, was a covenant of temporal blessings only; and to this covenant, and not to that made with Abra- ham, in the 12th chapter, was the seal of circumcision annexed. Let us see. In the 12th chapter it is stated: ^'Now the Lord said to Abraham, get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, into a land that I will show thee : and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing : and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.'' Now this cove- nant, which is supposed to be one of temporal blessings only, is the very covenant which the Apostle Paul distinctly and frequently quotes in the New Testament, v:ith a SPIRITUAL in- terpretation. Compare Gen. xvii. 4, 5, with Rom. iv. 16, 17 : *'As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt he a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; THE SEAL, ETC. 243 for a father of many nations have I made tlieeP Gren. xvii. 4, 5. "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be b}^ grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, ulio is the father of us all, (^as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,''^ &c. Eom. iv. 16, 17. Jesus himself sustains this interpretation : "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Matt. xxii. 31, 32. And Paul confirms the po- sition: "These all died in the faith; not having received the promises, but having seen them afar ofi', and were per- suaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned: but now, as they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly : wherefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city." Heb. xi. 13-16. Here is reference made to a spiritual and eternal inheritance; and therefore, if the covenant made with Abraham in the 17th chapter did not embrace any thing more than a temporal inheritance, no promise of a spiritual and eternal inheritance was ever made at all to Abraham, and the faith and hope of the patriarchs were vain. The ancient land of Canaan was not the promised country to which they looked, for "by faith Abraham sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Heb. 244 INFANT BAPTISM. xi. 9, 10. And the apostle represents the patriarchs as having '■^no inlieritance in if, (the land of Canaan,) no not so much as to set their foot on:'' and yet, ^^ through faith and patience they inherited the promises/' This is the covenant which the Baptists have degraded to a covenant of temporal promises ! This is the covenant which Paul by inspiration declares to have been the covejiant of grace, "conjirmed he/ore of God in Christ, " and to which the seal of circum- cision was annexed. In a word, no neiv covenant of grace is made or referred to in the JVeiv Testament; the revelation of the great covenant of grace is made in the Old Testament, and the New Testament discloses the great facts of fulfilment and confirmation; and therefore, the church being under the same covenant in all ages, the seal of every dis- pensation of the covenant must be the seal of the general covenant. 3. Therefore, baptism, the seal of the general covenant under the Christian dispensation, is substituted for circum- cision, the seal of the general covenant, under the Jewish dispensation. (1.) As circumcision was the seal of the covenant of grace under the Jewish dispensation, and as baptism was appointed by Christ as the seal of the same covenant, under the Christian dispensation, therefore, in the change of dis- pensations, circumcision being abolished, and baptism enjoined, baptism must be substituted for circumcision. " When the covenant of grace, in its ancient form, was done away in Christ, then the old sign and seal peculiar to that form was by consequence abolished. If then baptism be not the initiatory sign and seal of the same covenant, in its new and perfect form, as circumcision was of the old, this new covenant has no such initiatory rite or sacrament at all ; since the Lord's supper is not initiatory, but, like the sacri- THE SEAL^ ETC. 245 fices of old, is of regular and habitual obseryance." ^^ A seal is a sensible sign, that indicates a formal and more solemn consent of both parties to a thing agreed upon be- tween them, than could have been expressed in mere words — making the contract or promise more sure and binding, if possible, on both parties. Thus, if a seal have reference to a deed, it identifies and authenticates it as his who pro- fesses to be its author, and holds him to the full performance of all its requisitions ; if it refer to a promise, it binds the author to its fulfilment ; if it refer to commands, it carries along with it the authority of their author. The form of the seal may be changed by the authorized party, without in any respect changing the scope of the original deed, or the sacredness of the original promise, or the authority of the original commands, or the obligation and relation of the original parties. Thus, the form of the seal under the Christian dispensation, may be difi"erent from that under the Jewish dispensation, without in any respect materially af- fectincr the relation or connection between the contractinsr parties. And thus it is that believers, who are baptized under the Christian dispensation, are called the children of Abraham, who is the primary example of faith to all be- lievers, though they be not circumcised. The seal of the covenant authoritatively refers to the righteousness of faith^ and guarantees, on the part of Cod, the fulfilment of all his promises to the believer. In the case of children, however, righteousness is without faith, and consequently the seal of baptism in their case is the pledge of faithfulness on the part of Cod, and of obedience, at the proper time, on theii part, as will be evident from a moment's consideration of the import of infant baptism as a seal First, it is a formal and solemn seal, that the guilt of original sin is unconditionally 13 Watson's Lists., vol. ii, 620, 25* 246 INFANT BAlTIS-^r. forgiven through the vicarious death of Christ, and that the infant is already in a state of justification. The pardon of the guilt of original sin, in the adult, is never formally set forth till he is baptized ; nor is the pardon of -actual guilt in the adult ever formally set forth till he is baptized. Secondly, as a consequence of this unconditional forgiveness, it signifies that the infant, dying in infancy, shall be re- generated by the Holy Spirit, and so be saved. Thirdly, it is a seal, pledging conclltionally to the infant, should he live, all the blessings of the covenant of grace^ in time and eternity. The conditions of the covenant of grace are re- pentance, faith^ and obedience, to be performed by the child should he ever arrive at responsible age. Should the child arrive at responsible age, and these conditions never be per- formed, then the covenant from the first is a aiiUity. No one will deny, that he who is in a state of justification has a right to baptism ; and as every infant is in such a state, he has such a right, just as the adult in such a state has such a right. And just as in the case of the adult in a state of justification, should he fail to fulfil the conditions of the covenant, namely, faith and obedience "unto death/^ or during the period of probation, the covenant from the first becomes a nullity; so in the case of the child baptized in infancy, should he live and fail to perform the conditions of the covenant, the covenant to him from the fii"st becomes a nullity. In the case of both infant and adult, baptism, as a seal, imposes conditions subsequently to be performed; in both cases, the covenant, of which baptism is the formal seal, may become a nullity; and hence there is no more reason why one should be denied baptism than the other. In a word, baptism, as a seal, in the case of infants, signi- fies that, should they live, and unto the end of life perform all the conditions implied, they shall enjoy all the blessings of the covenant of grace, to be bestowed at the proper time, THE SEAL, ETC. such as regeneration, sanctificationj grace unto all good works, deliverance in temptation, comfort in affliction, sup- port in trial, special providence, guardianship of angels, triumph in death, a glorious resurrection, acquittal at the judgment, glorification in heaven, and all the blessings of eternal life; and baptism, as a seal, in the case of the adult, in the nature of things, can signify nothing more nor less. Every infant is born under obligation, should he live to dis- charge all the conditions of the covenant of grace ; and so in view of the prospective performance of these conditions, baptism is a seal by which he is recognised as prospectively entitled to all the blessings of the covenant. So far there- fore from the adult having any right to deny baptism to infants, the adult himself, who has not been baptized, is under obligation to discharge all the conditions imposed in his own case, and receive the formal seal of baptism, which was omitted in his infancy — a neglect which he is now bound to adjust. Such, as a seal, is the import of baptism in in- fancy. "Although in children the seal goeth before, and righteousness of faith followeth after, as circumcision in Isaac, as Augustine showeth, and they as yet, when they are baptized, have no faith to make present use of the sacrament, yet, when they come to years of discretion, they are provoked and stirred up by the remembrance of the seal of faith given in baptism, which was indeed received but once; but the use and benefit thereof remaineth all the life long: so that this, notwithstanding the sacraments, are seals of faith, whether the seal goeth before or followeth after." Dr. An- drew Willet, 1600. And he adds: "Although Isaac with many others were first circumcised, and after justified, yet this is perpetual; they v/ere no more justified by circum- cision than Abraham, who was justified before he was cir- cumcised, but by faith only." (2.) That baptism takes the place of circumcision, is con- 248 • INFANT BAPTISM. clusively proved by the Apostle Paul: ^'And ye are com plete in him, which is the head of all principality and power; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circum- cision made without hands, in putting oflF the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Clirist ; huried with him ill bcqytism."^^ Here baptism is recognised as the ini- tiatory rite of the Christian dispensation, in the place of circumcision. The ^^circumcision of. Christ/' in contradis- tinction to the circumcision of the old dispensation, must be baptism, unless we explain the phrase as referring to Christ's personal circumcision, and then the meaning of the apostle will be, " that we put off the body of the sins of the flesh," by Christ's own personal circumcision, and not by his death, which is false in theology, and absurd in reason. And lest some should adopt this dogma, the apostle adds, — ^'huriecl with him in lajytism," — hereby identifying the ''circumcision of Christ" with baptism. Again: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ : and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 2" ''Baptized into Christ" — baptized into the name of Christ, means baptized into the acknowledgment of Christ, a pro- fession of Christ, into a right of participation of the bless- ings of Christ's grace, — into fellowship with Christ. The argument is conclusive. By circumcision the Jews became heirs of Abraham, according to the promise. By baptism, sacramentally, Christians become the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise. The blessing is the same in both cases. Again: the Apostle Paul plainly and ex- pressly declares, that baptism is substituted in the place of circumcision. "Beware of concision" — or those who lay exorbitant stress on circumcision — "for we (who are baj> 19 Col. ii. 10-12. ^3 Gal. iii. 27-29. THE SEAL, ETC. 249 tized) are the circumcision^ wlio worship God in the Sinrit,'^ Phil. iii. 2, 3. This is positive^ absolute, and unequivocal, (3.) At Jerusalem, when "certain men from Judea taught the Grentile brethren, except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be saved,'' ^i the council that met to deliberate on this ques- tion, said nothing about baptism as a sufficient substitute, and therefore their silence is strong proof that baptism was already well understood as divinely instituted for such a purpose. The believing Jewish zealots at Jerusalem, urged against the Apostle Paul : " thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, that they ought not to circumcise their children.'^ What then ? why, they ought to hcqotize their children. (4.) The correspondence between baptism and circumcision as a sign and seal. Firstly. As a sign. "Abraham received the sign of circumcision, — a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised." "And the Lord thy G-od will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.''^ Here circumcision is expressly declared to be a sign of that inward circumcision of the heart by which the soul lives and enjoys the blessings of the covenant of grace. And so baptism, under the Chris- tian dispensation, answers the same purpose. "Except a man be born of water, and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'' Here baptism shadows forth that inward spiritual washing which qualifies the soul for the enjoyment of the blessings of the covenant of grace. Secondly. As a seal. " The Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people; circumcise, therefore, the fore- 21 Acts XV, 1-5, 22 Deut. xsx. 6. 250 INFANT BAPTIS^L skin of your heart." =^ So baptism, under the Christian dispensation: ^'As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ:" that is, by baptism ye have been outwardly sealed as Christians, and have professed Christ. Now as this two-fold correspondence between cir- cumcision and baptism proves that they are signs and seals of the same covenant of grace under the Jewish and Chris- tian dispensations, and as, on the abolition of the Jewish dispensation, baptism was divinely constituted the sign and seal of the covenant of grace under the Christian dispensa- tion, therefore we conclude that baptism was substituted in the place of circumcision. In a word, baptism answers all the purposes of an initiatory ordinance, that circumcision answered under the Jewish dispensation. Circumcision was the initiatory sacrament of the church under the Abra- hamic and Mosaic dispensations: baptism is the initiatory sacrament of the church under the Christian dispensation. Circumcision was the outward sign of the inward seal, to all the covenanto ^. mercies of the atonement of Christ, under the ancient dispensations : baptism is precisely the same under the Christian dispensation. Circumcision was typical of the " circumcision of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter :" baptism is symbolical of the cleansing and renewing of the heart by the same Spirit. Circumcision was the badge of God's people, under the old dispensations: baptism is the same under the new dispensation. If then circum- cision — the initiatory ordinance of the Jewish church, the outward seal of the covenant, the symbol of spiritual cir- cumcision, the badge of God's people — was applied to chil- dren under the Abrahamic and Mosaic dispensations, why, in the case of baptism, which answers all these ends, and which is the only conceivable substitute for circumcision to 23 Deut. X. 15. THE SEAL, ETC. 251 answer these ends, and which is the only proper initiatory sacrament of the Christian dispensation, restrict its applica- tion to the exclusion of children ? — and that, too, without any just and rational ground whatever? Baptism, under the Christian dispensation, which is only another form of the everlasting covenant of grace, holds the same place, and answers all the spiritual ends that circumcision, under pre- vious dispensations, held and accomplished. The fact that circumcision, under other dispensations, accomplished im- portant spiritual ends, is positive proof that it was the initi- atory rite of the great covenant of grace ; and as baptism accomplishes the same spiritual ends under the Christian dispensation, the conclusion is inevitable, that the Christian church is but the continuation ^ as well as the completion of the great plan of salvation that had been in process of de- velopment from the fall of man till the death of Christ — and this, independently of all other considerations, is suffi- cient to establish the authority and validity of infant bap- tism. As a moral emblem, baptism means the same thing, under the Christian dispensation, that was included in cir- cumcision, under the ancient dispensations; and therefore it may be rightly and properly applied to the same subjects. Whatever in whole and in part, in a spiritual sense, was expressed by circumcision, is expressed by baptism both in adult believers and in the case of children. Circumcision was mainly spiritual in its design — and yet it was adminis- tered to children: so with baptism. Circumcision had reference to the blessings which are conveyed through the Messiah — and yet it icas administered to children : so with baptism. Circumcision was a seal of visible membership in the church of God — and yet it was administered to children: so with baptism. Circumcision was an emblem of spiritual cleansing and purification— a/icZ yet it icas ad- ministered to children : so with baptism. The unconscious- 252 INFANT BAPTISM. ness of children was not considered as a barrier to their re- ception of circumcision: so with baptism. Inability to believe and discharge the obligations set forth in circum- cision did not disqualify children from receiving circum- cision : so with baptism. Indeed, there is no difference in the spiritual meaning of circumcision and baptism. If there be any difference between them, it is to be traced to the difference there is between the Jewish and Christian dispen- sations in their external form. Baptism is not the seal of a temporal covenant, nor is it restricted to a specified time, nor is it confined to one sex: "there is neither Jew nor G-reek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but all one in Christ Jesus,'^ under the Christian dispensation. Fifthly. The primitive fathers considered baptism received in the place of circumcision. Justin, A. D. 140, writes: "We Gentile Christians also, who by him have access to God, have not received that circumcision which is according to the flesh, but that circumcision which is spiritual — we have received this circumcision in baptism." Again: "To us Gentiles baptism is given instead of giving us circum- cision." John Chrysostom, Horn. 40, in Gen. says, "There was pain and trouble in the practice of that Jewish circum- cision; but our circumcisioii, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain; and this for infants as well as men." Fidus, A. D. 250, delayed to confer baptism on in- fants till the eighth day, which implies that he regarded baptism as substituted for circumcision. By reference to Wall's History of Infant Baptism,^ the reader will find at length testimonies to this effect from Jus-tin, Cyprian, Basile, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, and others which our limits forbid us here to recite. Mr. Booth states the only plausible objection against the 24 Vol i. chs. 6—15. THE SEAL, ETC. 253 substitution of baptism for circumcision: ^'If baptism suc- ceeded in the place of circumcision, bow came it that both of them were in full force at the same time, that is, from the commencement of John's ministry to the death of Christ? For one thing to come in the room of another, and the latter to hold its place, is an odd kind of succession. Admitting the succession pretended, how came it that Paul circumcised Timothy after he had been baptized?^' This objection is founded upon the supposed identity of John's, and the Christian dispensation; whereas John's dispensation was introductory and preparatory to the Christian dispensa- tion, and hence, as John had no authority to abolish Jewish rites, circumcision was practised along with baptism during John's dispensation; circumcision could not be abolished before the Jewish dispensation was consummated by the death of Christ : but when the blood of the everlasting cove- nant was shed, circumcision was abolished, and baptism alone became the sign and seal of the perfected covenant of grace. As to the circumcision of Timothy, it was merely a prudential regulation. His mother was a Jewess, but his father was a Grreek — and yet Timothy was laid under no obligation to keep the Mosaic law, for he had already sought and ohidimQdi justification hy faith in Christ. But when no prudential consideration of this nature rendered circumcision necessary, the apostle refused to circumcise, as in the case of Titus, who was a Greek, and his parents Gentiles. ^ But to be more particular. In the case of John's bap- tism, and that administered by Christ's disciples before his death, both were preparatory in their nature and design to becoming the sign and seal to the covenant of grace when it should be perfected and proposed to ^^all nations" for ac- ceptance, which did not take place till the "blood of the 25 Gal. ii. 3—5. 22 254 INFANT BAPTISM. everlasting covenant" was shed. As this was the design of John's baptism, and as John was not invested with authority to abolish Jewish rites, or as the Jewish dispensation was not yet consummated, circumcision was yet in force, and continued to be in force, till Christ consummated the Jewish dispensation by his death, and formally instituted baptism as a sufficient sign and seal of the Christian dispensation. The mixed character of John's dispensation, that is, being both Jewish and preparatory, admitted the practice of both circumcision and baptism at the same time. Baptism was expressly added by the Father under John's dispensation; circumcision had not been abolished by the Sa\aour; and therefore the one, circumcision, as the sign and seal of the Jewish dispensation not yet abolished, and the other, bap- tism, as preparatory to the dispensation not yet introduced, were properly, and by divine authority, ''both in full force at the same time." Of course, when the Jewish dispensa- tion was consummated by the death of Christ, circumcision was dropped as no longer appropriate and in force, and bap- tism was retained as the appropriate, standing, and con- firmatory sign and seal of the perfected covenant of grace. In other words, John's dispensation being preparatory, baptism is added by the Father as a significative preparatory rite ; but the Jewish dispensation not being yet abolished, circumcision, its sign and seal, is still in force also ; and both are administered at the same time : but both the Jew- ish and John's dispensation being consummated by the death of Christ, cu'cumcision is abolished, and baptism is retained. Thus, baptism was not substituted in the place of circum- cision under John's dispensation, when both were in force at the same time, but under the Christian dispensation, when circumcision was abolished. Besides, John's baptism was not Christian baptism, and for this reason, therefore, '.bough circumcision was practised at the same time with INFANTS OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 255 John's baptism, it cannot be said to have been in full force at the same time with Christian baptism. The Baptists, in the objection, fail to discriminate between John's and the Christian dispensation, and so omitting this important ele- ment, the Christian dispensation, in the premises, the con- clusion is essentially sophistical. If the Baptists indeed could prove that circumcision and baptism were in force at the same time under the Christian dispensation, even then it would indubitably follow that infants have a right to church mem- bership under the Christian dispensation; and so too much would be involved and proved for the purposes of the Bap- tists. In either case, the Baptists are eciually unsuccessful : if baptism does take the place of circumcision, infants have as good a right to baptism under the Christian dispensation as they had to circumcision under the Jewish ; or if circum- cision was stiir in force under the Christian dispensation, infants had as good a right to it as they had under the Jew- ish : in either case, nothing is gained for the Baptists. To say, that circumcision was in force under the Christian dis- pensation, is to say, that infants had a right to church mem- bership under the Christian dispensation; or to say, that baptism was substituted for circumcision under the Christian dispensation, is to say, that infants had a right to church membership under the Christian dispensation: so that no- thing is gained by the Baptists by admitting the force of the objection. To say, that circumcision was in force under the Christian dispensation, is to admit the right of infants to church membership under the Christian dispensation : to deny that circumcision was in force under the Christian dis- pensation, is to give up 'the objection : in either case, the right of children to baptism is established. But the ob- jection is urged upon a specific case : " How came it that Paul circumcised Timothy, after he had been baptized?'^ The explanation is easy. In the first place, circumcision 256 INFANT BAPTIS3I. was practised in the case of Timotliyj not as a sign and seal of the old dispensation, or as imposing obligation to observe the old Le^dtical rites in order to justification, but as a favorite national distinction which the Jews wished to ob- serve. The mother of Timothy was a Jewess, and his father was a Greek, and Paul circumcised Timothy because "the Jews which were in those quarters" entertained national preju- dices against his father, "'for they knew he was a Greek." If a converted Jew in the present day were disposed to observe this rite in the case of his children, as a national distinction merely, while at the same time he admitted baptism as a sufficient sign and seal of the covenant under the Christian dispensation, the observance would be regarded as innocent, though unnecessary. Secondly, had Paul sup- posed that circumcision in the case of Timothy, or the Hebrew Christians, was observed upon any principle which affected the essential doctrines of Christianity, he would have firmly and fearlessly opposed it. Thus, when certain "false brethren" wished him to circumcise Titus, who was a Gentile, that they might use the apostle as authority in bringing other Gentile converts under bondage to the law of Moses, he resolutely refused to administer the rite, ob- serving, "to whom we gave place by subjection, no not for an hour ; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.'' In the one case circumcision was admitted, as an infirmity of prejudice ; in the other it was refused as involv- ing a rejection of the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith. If the Baptists could prove that the apostles practised circumcision as a sign and seal of the old covenant, even then the right of infants to church membership under the Christian dispensation would follow, and so nothing would be gained by the argument. But Paul positively declares that circumcision, practised as a seal of the old covenant, involves a total denial of Christ, and the new INFANTS OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. covenant ; he also uniformly affirms that circumcision passed away with the old dispensation of which it was the seal : hence he could not have administered the rite in the case of Timothy, nor admitted it in the case of the Hebrew Chris- tians, as a sign and seal of the new covenant under the Christian dispensation. Our fourth proposition follows : 4. Hence, infants ought to be baptized. First. The church was not organized in the days of Christ, but under the old dispensation. The constitution under which any society or association is organized, determines who shall be members of it. The original constitution of the church recognised infants as members of it ; and hence, as the church remains the same in all ages, infants to the end of time are to be formally recognised as a portion of its members. It was not a new church into which Gentile be- lievers entered upon the opening of the Christian dispensa- tion, but the old church, in which children had always been recognised as members, and which, at the time of the enter- ing of the Gentiles, still received children. Had the church been organized in the days of Christ, and in/ants been omitted, then it might be conceded that they are not entitled to church membership : but as the constitution under which the church was organized has not been altered in this re- spect, infants, under the Christian dispensation, are entitled to church membership, and hence should be baptized. Secondly. Circumcision bore the same relation to the cove- nant of salvation, under the Jewish dispensation, that bap- tism does to the same covenant, under the Christian dis- pensation. By circumcision under the Jewish dispensation, children received the outward sign of the covenant, and were received into the Jewish church -, so by baptism under the Christian dispensation, they receive the outward sign of the same covenant, and are received into the Christian church. If children, at one time, though under a different 22* 258 INFANT BAPTISM. dispensation, liave a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant, they have at all times, and under all dispensa- tions, the same right. Circumcision did not belong to the ceremonial law, but to the covenant; hence the abrogation of the Mosaic or ceremonial law, and the abolition of circum- cision, cannot disannul the original covenant, and hence do not invalidate the riorhts of infants to the blessino:s of the covenant. ^'The law cannot disannul the covenant,^' nor set aside the "promises.^' ^^ And as circumcision belonged, not to the ceremonial law, but to the covenant under the law, as baptism belongs to the same covenant under the gospel, both circumcision and baptism being initiating sacra- ments of the covenant, though under different dispensations; it follows that the meaning and application of baptism are the same under the gospel as were contained in circumcision under the law — and hence infants cannot justly be excluded from baptism. The covenant has undergone no change by express precept, which formerly recognised the rights of infants to church membership; the moral character of the infant is the same since the fall of man ; the organization of the church has not been subjected to any modification with respect to infants since its origin in the time of Abra- ham ; and consequently infants are entitled to the formal recognition of the whole scope of their rights under the gospel. Thirdly. Baptism is substituted in the place of circum- cision. This has been proved. But children, under the Jewish dispensation, were circumcised. Therefore, children under the Christian dispensation, should be baptized. We now conclude the argument of this chapter. The CHURCH IN ALL AGES, IS UNDER THE SAME C0\T:NANT OF 26 Gal. iii. 17-21. THE NEW TESTAMENT; ETC. 259 TioNs. . Hence, the seal of every dispensation is a seal of the general covenant of grace. there- fore, baptism, the seal of the covenant under the Christian dispensation, is substituted for circum- cision, THE SEAL OF THE COVENANT UNDER THE JEWISH DISPENSATION. HeNCE, INFANTS OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED, AS INFANTS ARE EMBRACED IN THE GENERAL COVENANT, AND WERE SEALED BY CIRCUMCISION, AS THE HEIRS OF SALVATION, UNDER THE AbRAHAMIC AND MOSAIC DIS- PENSATIONS. CHAPTER IV. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN HARMONY WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INFANT BAPTISM. The New Testament abounds witli scriptures which can- not be satisfactorily and fully explained but in harmony with the doctrine of infant baptism. 1. I invite the reader's attention to the general com- mission of Christ to his apostles: '^Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them,'^ &c.^ How may we sup- pose the apostles, who were Jews, understood this ? How may we suppose all the Jews understood this ? How would missionaries, sent out from any of the pasdobaptist denomina- tions, understand it ? Why, that they were authorized to include children, according to the usages, manners, and laws to which they had been accustomed. And how would Bap- tist missionaries understand it? Why, that children ought to be excepted ? Now from every sound view of the usages, manners, and laws of the Jews, the conclusion is irresisti- ' Matt, xxviii. 19. 260 INFANT BAPTISM. ble^ that the apostles, commissioned by Christ to '^baptize all nations/' understood that children were embraced in the scope of their commission, as we shall now see. For many centuries before this commission was given, it had been the custom of the Jews to baptize all their proselytes from other nations, both parents and children. ^ '<■ It is evident that the custom of rhe Jews before our Saviour's time (and, as they themselves affirm, from the beginning of their law) was to hajptize as well as to circumcise any proselyte that came over to them from the. nations. This does fully appear both from the books of the Jews themselves, and also of others that understood the Jewish customs and have written of them." In the words of Maimonides, the great interpreter of Jewish law : ''By these three things did Israel enter into covenant, by circumcision, and baptism, and sacrifice. Cir- cumcision was in Egypt, as it is written, Ko uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, &c. Baptism was in the wilderness just before the giving of the law : as it is written. Sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them icash their clothes, i. e. their whole bodies. And sacrifice : as it is said, And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered hurnt-offerings,'^ &c.^ Talmud, Tract, Rejmd. "Israel does not enter into cove- nant but by these three things, by circumcision, baptism, and peace-ofiering ; and the proselytes in like manner." ^ And again, Ad Tit. Cherithoth, cap. 2. ^^ As you are, so shall the stranger he. As you are, that is, as was done to your fathers. And what was done to them ? Your fathers did not enter into covenant but by circumcision, and bap- tism, and sprinkling of blood. So neither do proselytes enter into covenant but by circumcision, baptism, and sprin- kling of blood." 3 2 Lightfoot and Wootten. 3 Wall's ni?t. Inf. Bap. vol. i. 11, 12, 13. THE HREAT COMMISSION. 261 Ralhi Solomon in hco. ^' Our rabbles teacb that our fathers entered into covenant by circumcision, and baptism, and sprinkling of blood." ■* ^^And Mr. Selden, De Synedr. lib. i. cap. 3, ob.servcs that that saying of St. Paul, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, "Ail our fathers were baptized unto Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea," would have been dif&cult for those to whom St. Paul wrote to make any sense of, had it not been a thing well known at the time when the apostle wrote, that the Jews looked upon themselves as having entered into cove- nant by baptism; and that St. Paul spoke as alluding to that. And Dr. Hammond concludes the same." * Maimonides observes: '^And so in all ages, when uu ethnic is willing to enter into covenant, and gather himself under the wings of the majesty of God, and take upon him the yoke of the law; he must be circumcised and baptized, and bring a sacrifice. As it is written. As you are, so sliaJl the stranger he. How are you? By circumcision, bap- tism, and bringing of a sacrifice. So likewise the stranger through all generations ; by circumcision, and baptism, and bringing a sacrifice." " Besides, the infant children of proselytes, at the father's desire, were circumcised, and baptized, and admitted as proselytes. The child's inability to declare or promise for himself was not regarded as a bar against his reception into covenant ; but the desire of the father to dedicate him to the true God, was considered available, and sufficient to justify his admission."^ It was a custom of the Jews to baptize any child they found exposed in '^the fields, woods, or highways by the heathen." Maimonides, ITaiach Midirn, c. 8. "An Israelite that 4 TV^all's Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. i. 11, 12, 1.3. 5 pjj^. vol. i. 14. 262 INFANT BAPTISM. takes a cliild, or finds a heathen infant, and baptizes him for a proselyte : behold he is a proselyte.'' Hierosol. JavamotJi, fol. 8. 4. "Behold, one finds an infant cast out, and baptizes him in the name of a servant. But if he baptize him in the name of a freeman ; do thou also circumcise him in the name of a freeman."'' Dr. Lightfoot observes : " The baptizing of infants was a thing as well known in the church of the Jews, as ever it has been in the Christian church.'' And Selden and \Yotton both testify, "that children, Jioicever young, were made proselytes." The rabbles unanimously assert, that proselyte baptism had been the practice according to their law, //•c/?>i the time of Moses dov:n to their oicn oge. The Jews expressed no surprise at the doctrine of baptism preached by John, as if it were a novelty, but they were surprised that he should baptize, as he did not acknowledge himself to be the Christ, nor Elias, nor that Prophet who should come. The Jews expected that they would baptize on their arrival. "Why baptizest thou, if thou be none of these ?^' And if John did not baptize children, the Jews might have incjuired also, and probably would have done so, by what authority do you make this important and extra- ordinary innovation upon our laws and usages ? Ainsworth, having shown at large the prevalence of the custom of prose- lyte baptism, adds at the conclusion, "Hereupon baptism was nothing strange to the Jews when John the Baptist began his ministry. They made question of his person that did it, but not of the thing itself." Thus, it is easy to see, that the comprehensive commission of Christ, "Go, and teach all nations, and baptize them," &c., plainly implied that the apostles, who were Jews, understood that they were not to 6 WaU's Inf. Bap. vol. i. 20. THE GREAT COMMISSION. 20^ depart from the old law and usage of the Jewish church on the subject of baptism. As the ancient custom of baptizing infants had undergone no change by explicit enactment^ and no particular exception respecting it was made in the great commission of Christ to his apostles, it is clear, that when they came to the cases of infants, at any time, in their ad- ministration of baptism, they felt it their duty to baptize them also. Christ made no alteration in this matter in the church in which he and his apostles lived, and consequently none can now be made without some well attested authority from heaven. Suppose the word circumcise had been adopted by Christ instead of hcq)tize, in the great commission, no doubt could have existed respecting the scope of the commission to the apostles : and infants, without any specification being made, would have been regarded as proper subjects of circumcision, according to the unrepealed laws and usages of the Jewish church. In like manner, according to the unrepealed usages of the Jewish church, the apostles must have felt bound to recognise infants as proper subjects of baptism. Had the word circumcise been adopted instead of baptize, the apostles could not have considered children excluded — unless excep- tion had been explicitly made. Consequently, the adoption of a rite, baptism, to which they had been always accus- tomed, and which they knew had been long and universally administered to proselytes, did not involve in their minds any exception of children. They were commanded now to '^ PROSELYTE^' — fxai9rjr£uaj, matheteuo — all nations. "They knew what initiatory ceremonies were performed in the case of proselytes, namely, circumcision, baptism, and sacri- fice. But Jesus had abolished the old Jewish dispensation, and consequently its initiatory rite with it. He had also offered up himself as a sacrifice for sin once for all, and thus the "sacrifice" required was also set aside. But BAP- 264 INFANT BAPTISM. TISM was retained, and was positively instituted by Christ as the sole initiatory rite of the Christian church. In the first council of the Christian churchy in the year 49, when the question of circumcision was discussed, the decision of these very apostles was, that circumcision should be dis- pensed with under the Christian dispensation. Baptism remaining, and being enjoined by our Saviour as the initia- tory sacrament of the Christian church, the apostles were bound, under the most solemn responsibilities, to administer it in the case of children, in accordance with the earliest institution of their laws, usages, and customs, especially when they knew that their commission enlarged, instead of diminished, the blessings and privileges of the everlasting covenant. As Grentiles, under the Jewish dispensation, were received into the church by circumcision, sacrifice, and baptism, and as children were so received with their parents, so under the Christian dispensation, as Christ has abolished circumcision and sacrifice, and retained baptism, the chil- dren of Gentile parents ought to be received into the Chris- tian church by baptism aloue — and so the apostles must have understood it. Now, Christ might just as well have retained circumcision, and dropped baptism, had he seen proper to do so, and then none of the present day, or of any other age, without express prohibition, would have denied children the right to circumcision. But as Christ has re- tained baptism as sufficient without circumcision, certainly children are as much entitled to baptism now, without ex- press prohibition, as they were to circumcision before cir- cumcision was dropped or abolished by Christ. In a word, bf^fore the coming of Christ, Gentile children were entitled to the whole of the initiatory rite above; surely, then, after the coming of Christ, they are entitled to that part which is retained and enjoined, to answer the end of the whole of tlic original, complex, and burdensome rite. Christ '-took," THE GREAT COMMISSION. 26o Bays Dr. Lightfoot, '^into his hands baptism such as he found it; adding only this, that he exalted it to a nobler purpose and a larger sense." And he observes, ^^The whole nation knew well enough that infants used to be bap- tized. There was no need of a precept for that which had ever by common use prevailed. It was therefore necessary, on the other side, that there should have been an express and plain order that infants and little children should not be baptized, if our Saviour had meant that they should not. For since it was ordinary, in all ages preceding, to have in- fants baptized, if Christ would have had that usage to be abolished, he would have expressly forbidden it. So that his and the Scriptures' silence in this matter does confii'm and establish infant baptism for ever." The reason of things is obvious. In the original consti- tution of the plan of redemption, God designed that baptism should finally become the initiatory rite of that dispensation which should embrace "all nations." Before, however, this dispensation could be properly introduced, it was necessary that the Jewish dispensation should be instituted as pre- liminary. From the peculiarity of the Jewish dispensation, its initiatory rite embraced circumcision and sacrifice; and in case of proselytes from Gentile nations, baptism wag added. And why added in the case of Gentiles ? Because, among other reasons, but principally this, when the Jewish dispensation should be set aside, or merged in the Christian dispensation, and that part of the initiatory rite which re- fciTcd especially to the Jews should be set aside also, the remaining part, which referred especially to the GentileS; should still be retained. And so it was customary among the Jews to use bread and wine at the conclusion of the celebration of the Passover, which custom Jesus sanctioned and perpetuated at the last passover. '' Thus the blessed "' Luke xxii. 19-20. 23 266 INFANT BAPTISM. Jesus sanctioned proselyte baptism, and solemnly appointed it as a standing sacrament till the consummation of the Christian dispensation — and the apostles must have under- stood it as still embracing children. It may be added, that this modification of the ancient initiatory rite of proselytes, is the more proper and wise, because it is less burdensome — universal in its application — and more expressive of the dispensation to which it is attached. This view is forcibly sustained by a reference to other parts of the great com- mission. " Gro ye therefore and teach!' — the word rendered Uacli is not bibaGxio^ didasko, but iia{^riTsu(Oj matlieteuo — '^ disciple, proselyte^ all nations" — the very work of the Jewish dispensation, and that icJiich icas designed to succeed the Jeicish dhpensation. "Teaching them to observe" — d'.dday.io — didas'ko, is the word now employed. It would be palpable tautology to say, " Go teach all nations — teaching them," &c; but when the phraseology is changed, "Go, disciple, proselyte all nations — teaching them, imparting instruction to them, training them up in all the precepts and doctrines which I have commanded you," all is con- sistent, plain, and impressive. The full and satisfactory explanation of the great commission then will run as follows : Go ye into all the world, and proselyte all nations, initiating them by baptism into the Christian church, and teaching them, training them up in all the doctrines and precepts of the Christian dispensation. Retain and perpetuate unto the Gentiles that part of the original rite of initiation that espe- cially referred to them, and with which they are already familiar; and as children can be trained for the kingdom of God, embrace them in your commission as proper subjects of baptism, according to the ancient laws and usages of the ^ The highest authority, classical and biblical, give /iacryrcOw this com- prehensive signification. THE GREAT COMMISSION. 267 Jewisli dispensation. Now when in addition to the know- ledge the apostles had of the ancient laws and usages of the Jewish church in the case of proselytes, it is considered that the apostles knew and taught that circumcision was superseded by baptism as an initiating ordinance, no rational doubt can remain respecting the comprehensiveness of the evangelical commission. Granting that the apostles paid no regard to ancient laws and usages, even then, upon the gi'ound of the siihstitutori/ character of baptism, they must have considered themselves as laid under obligation, and invested with authority, to administer baptism to infants under the gospel commission. But when the force of habit, that is, the force of long established laws and usages, is superadded to this consideration, it is morally certain that our conclusion respecting the scope of the apostles' views of the great commission is correct. The fact that the believing Jews regarded their children as proper subjects of circumcision only, and not of baptism, on the expression of faith by any Jewish parents, does not affect the question at all — tliis was the error of their own; for the gospel concluded all under sin, recognising neither Jew nor Greek as entitled to special privileges, and hence embraces "all the world'' in the range of its influence, and comprehends " every creature" in the number of its objects. But "little children," it is objected, "are incapable of in- struction, and therefore they are not included in the terms of the great commission." What, are they not to be taught the doctrines of the gospel ? Are they not to hear of salva- tion by Jesus Christ? Was not Timothy taught in the Scriptures from a child ? Was not the Jewish child, at the earliest age possible, taught the very first part of the ten commandments: "Honor thy father?" Did not the ad- monition of Solomon fall upon the ear of the child as soon 268 INFANT BAPTISM. as instruction could be communicated : '^ Remember now thy Creator?^' Paul, in bis Epistle to the Epbesians, exborted the '^chil- dren to obey their parents/' and the fathers that they should '^ bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," It is further objected, "that the Jews were not accustomed to receive proselytes till the destruction of the second temple, A. D. 70. " Upon unquestionable testimony, which we have adduced, proselytes were received into the Jewish church long before the coming of Christ. But granting that proselytes were not received by baptism till A. D. 70, then we have it admitted by the Baptists, that cMldren were baptized seventy years after the coming of Christ. This was in the very midst of the apostles' days! And therefore it was by apostolic authority that the Jews baptized the children of proselytes ? And it is unaccountable why the Jews should, and the Christians should not, baptize children. Epictetus, a heathen writer, who lived, according to Dr. Lardner, A. D. 109, and according to Le Clerc, 104, and who was about sixty years old when he wrote the following quotation, and obtained his information about thirty years earlier, which brings him up to the apostolic age, says, "When we see any one wavering, we are wont to say. This is not a Jew, but acts one. But when he assumes the sentiments of one who hath been haptized and circumcised, then he both really is, and is called a Jew." Mr. Booth, a distinguished Baptist, ad- mits that "the children of proselytes were baptized along with their parents." Again, it is objected: "It is not commanded in the great commission to baptize infants, therefore they are not to be baptized." To which I briefly answer : it is not forhidden to baptize infants, therefore they are to be baptized, because the original law in their case is unrepealed. Secondly. Peter's first sermon. "Then Peter said unto THE GREAT COMMISSION. 269 them, Repent and be baptized ever}' one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall re ceive the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your children^ and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." ^ This, we say, is a positive declaration and recognition of the right of infants to baptism under the Christian dispensation. ^'The promise" — what promise ? The promise of redemption by Jesus Christ, a promise that runs through the Bible — made to x\dam — ^^the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head;" repeated to Abraham — ^^in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;" affirmed by Christ — "I am of the seed of Abraham;" fulfilled by Christ — ^^it is finished;" proclaimed by Christ — ^^ go ye therefore and teach all nations hojjtizing them in the name, &c. — heginning at Jerusalem;" and preached by Peter on this occasion at Jerusalem — '' for the promise is unto you, and to your children." Children then are here specifically included in the promise, and hence they can be no more denied baptism, than they can be excluded from the promise — can no more be denied baptism, than the converted Jews who embraced the promise could be denied baptism — are just as clearly recognised as entitled to Vjap- tism, because embraced in the promise, as the converted Jews were who embraced the promise and were baptized. To be embraced in the promise, is to be entitled to the seal of the promise, which is baptism: '^children" are embraced in the promise, and therefore are entitled to baptism : " chil- *dren" are specTyzca/Zy embraced in the promise — "children," therefore, are ^specifically entitled to baptism. This then is a positive, specific, scriptural recognition and declaration of the right of children to baptism. " The promise" — the everlasting covenant of salvation — of which circumcision 9 Act6 ii. 38, .39. 23* 270 INrANT BAlTi.OI. ■was the seal under the Jewish dispensation, and infants received this seal under the Jewish dispensation. " The promise" — the everlasting covenant of salvation — but bap- tism is the seal of this covenant under the Christian dis- pensation, and therefore both parents and children should be baptized, for Peter declares that both parents and " chil- dren" are included in ^'the promise." The argument of the Baptists runs thus : " The promise is unto you, and there- fore you are to be baptized : the promise is also unto your children, but they are not to be baptized." This makes Peter contradict himself, annulling the very reason for the baptism of the cliUdren, which he had made the ground of the baptism of the parents. Indeed, the Baptists have in- verted the order of thincfs, and in doing so, have excluded one party altogether from baptism. Antecedent to repentance and faith children have a right to baptism; and subsequent to repentance and faith the adult has a right to baptism ; and hecause the adult repents and believes he has a right to the very privilege which the child had antecedently. So far therefore from excluding children from baptism, adults themselves have not a right to baptism till they repent and believe. And hence Peter says, ^^ Repent, and be bajjtized, every one of you," &c. That is, repentance in adults exalts them to equal privileges with children; in other words, invests adults with a right to the privileges which the children already possess. ^^ For the promise is unto you, and to your children." That is, "your children" are already included in " the promise," and therefore are now entitled to baptism, the seal of the promise ; but you, having forfeited all right by transgression to the blessings of " the promise," can recover right to those blessings only b}^ re- pentance. The reason why baptism is connected with re- pentance in the case of the adults is, because they had forfeited all right to baptism by transp-ession. More is THE GREAT COMMISSION. 271 included in the vscope of baptism than in that of repentance, repentance being limited to adults, and baptism being ex- tended to both children, and to adults that repent. As repentance cannot be applied to, or required of infants, it cannot be made a prerequisite in their case to baptism, and on this account solely they cannot be justly excluded from baptism. And we conclude, that Peter, so far from repeal- ing the old divine statute that included infants in the cove- nant of grace, positively reaffirms their interest in the cove- nant, and so confirms their unconditional right to baptism, its seal under the Christian dispensation — a right whidi cannot be denied them without violating a fundamental prin- ciple of the plan of salvation. It may be added, Peter and the rest of the apostles were well acquainted with four things at this time, fii'st, that " the promise" of the " everlasting covenant,'' made with Abra- ham, embraced '^children," ''little ones;" secondly, that the children of proselytes, from the first, had been baptized with their parents; thirdly, that they addressed Jews on this occasion, who understood the scope of ''the promise," and who had always been accustomed to bring their children under the same covenant with themselves; and fourthly, that baptism was substituted in the place of circumcision. That, Peter, therefore, included the young children at this time, cannot be rationally questioned without setting aside these considerations. Indeed, Peter explicitly mentions CHILDREN as embraced in the covenant still in forcCy and in his commission received from Christ; and if there were no other passage in the Xew Testament that refers to them directly or indirectly, by name or by implication, this single positive specification of children were sufficient to establish the divine and apostolic authority of infant baptism. Specifications of exceptions would have been required for departure from the old laws and usages familiar to the Jews; 272 INFANT BAPTISM. but so far from this, in accordance with the established prin- ciples and knoicii feelings of the Jewish nation, Peter ex- pressly includes children, as entitled to the religious privileges of the new dispensation, iaa common with their parents : ^'for the promise is unto you and to your children." Peter himself, as a Jew, could net except them — or if he did, he must have satisfactorily vindicated his conduct before the scrupulous Jews. The parents were baptized because the promise of salvation was unto them : but it certainly will be admitted on all hands, that the promise of salvation in- cludes little children ; and as the greater blessing involves the less, all who are entitled to salvation have as just and valid a title to baptism ] and hence, children have as good and valid a title to baptism as their parents — and so Peter included the children. That is, the promise of salvation by Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham, is unto you and your child :'jn, and therefore you and your children are equally entitled to baptism, the initiatory rite of the Christian dis- pensation. How would you justify the declaration of Peter except on the ground that children were still embraced in the original covenant, and therefore were entitled to the same initiatory seal with their parents ? Nothing else could have justified or explained Peter's reference to children on the day of Pentecost; for certainly the children could not ^^ repent" nor believe; and but with reference to baptism, their name might have been omitted altogether. Peter well knew, however, that reference to children was necessary in . order to remind them of the continuation of their title to the outward seal of the covenant made with Abraham, and to express the ample range of the Christian dispensation in all ages of time. Had he omitted the children, the Jews would at once have replied, you preach not the whole promise made to our father Abraham, for it expressly embraces our '■^ cliil- dren,'' ^^our little ones:" if we enter the Christian THE GREAT COMMISSION. 273 church, therefore, we must be permitted to take our chil- dren with us. The fact that the apostle states repentance as a pre- requisite, has reference alone to those of responsibU age, and cannot therefore invalidate the title of children to baptism which they had, because included in the promise. Reference to "the gift of the Holy Ghost," in this passage, places no barrier in the way of infant baptism — for it must first be proved that no special blessing is conferred upon children who are baptized, before this objection can be of any force. If there be any efficacy in the prayers of God's people at the time, or any benefit connected with covenanted privileges, there can be no doubt that certain special spiritual influences are communicated to the child consecrated to God in bap- tism, but to what extent, it cannot, in the very nature of things, be definitely assumed. The phrase, "As many as the Lord our God shall call," includes both Jews and Gen- tiles, in all ages of the Christian dispensation, who shall hear and obey the gospel. It is objected by Baptist writers, that "the promise referred to is evidently that which the apostle had previously announced in the closing verse of the passage he had quoted from the prophet Joel : "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Hin- ton's Hist, of Baptism, p. 92. And Judson and Pendleton observe, "It is evident that this promise refers, not to the covenant of Abraham, but to the promise recorded in Joel ii. 28 : 'And it shall come to pass saith God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daugh- ters shall prophecy,' &c." Judson on Baptism, p. 49. Pen- dleton on Baptism and Communion, p. 26. To this objec- tion, we reply, in the first place, that the covenant made with Abraham is commonly, in the New Testament, referred to as the Promise, in contradistinction to the ceremonial and temporal promises of the Old Testament. "For the 274 INFANT BAPTISM. PROMISE, that he should be heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of none effect. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. The covenant which was before confirmed of Grod in Christ, the law, which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inherit- ance be of the law, it is no more promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. ^^ Romans iv. 13, 14. Gal. iii^ 17, &c. Gal. iv. 28. This was the "promise'^ to which Peter refen-ed on the day of Pentecost. In the second place, the same apostle, on another occasion, proposes the same argument, to the same people, the Jews, in other lan- guage: ^'Ye are the children of the covenant which God made with our fathors, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all tlio kindreds of the earth be blessed." Acts iii. 25. On this occasion, the apostle enforces repentance for the remission of sins, (ver. 19 ;) so that no one can en- tertain a rational doubt respecting his meaning in this in- stance; and thus the apostle explains his own words as refer- ring t-o the covenant made with Abraham. In the third place, Peter's reference to ^^all that are afar off," is proof that he referred to the x\brahamic covenant. The Jews were already in the chui'ch, and hence did not need a new call into it, — "the promise is to you and your children." But the Gentiles were "afar off" — and hence the reference of Peter could not have been to the prophecy of Joel, which belonged to the Jews, but to the covenant made with Abra- ham, in whose "seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed." Peter therefore, when he said, "the promise is SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN. 275 to you and your children/' had his mind on the Abrahamic covenant. In the fourth place, how can it be possible that Peter referred to the prophecy of Joel on the day of Pente- cost, when he says expressly that the prophecy of Joel referred to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit bestowed, and wonderful events exhibited on the day of Pentecost ? Peter vindicated these miraculous displays of the Holy Spirit by referring to the prophecy of Joel : that is, the prophecy of Joel referred to the baptism of fire, the mighty rushing wind, the speaking with tongues, the prophesying, and all the stupendous scenes witnessed on the day of Pentecost. All this was distinct from the reference made by Peter to the '^ promise'' made to Abraham : he refers to this, not in vindication of the solemn scenes of the day, but as en- couragement to those who were cut to the heart by the Holy Ghost under his preaching. In the fifth place, the miracu- lous gifts referred to by Joel, and poured out by the Holy G-host upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, are not poured out upon all the Jews, their children, and those who are afar ofi"; and hence the "promise" that embraces all "the Jews," their children, and those who are "afar ofi"," was the Abrahamic covenant, and not the prophecy of Joel. And finally, no matter whether "the promise" referred to was the prophecy of Joel or the Abrahamic covenant; in either case, it is made by Peter the reason for the haj)thm of children. 3. "But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God." ^ First, the kingdom of heaven often means the church of God on earth ; that is, as the church has already been organized under the old dispensation, and the right of children to membership in it has been continued, suffer them 10 Matt xix. 14. INFANT BAPTT8M. to come unto me, for of such is mj churt-b, whose founda- tion I am about to establish by my death. Repeal not the old law, or that part of the original constitution that pro- vides for the church membership of children. Secondly, the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," sometimes refers to the kingdom of glory. If so, then by the most forcible infer- ence, infants are worthy of association with the church or kingdom of God on earth. What ! worthy of the kingdom of glory, through the merits of Christ, and yet not worthy, through the same merits, of association with the church, which is so soon to compose a part of the kingdom of glory ! Worthy of association with angels and archangels, cherubim and seraphim, principalities, powers, thrones, and dominions, in heaven, and yet not worthy of association with imperfect men on earth ! What, while holy angels with joy stand at the portals of immortality to receive the infant saints, and bear them to the Saviour, men, pious men, cherishing in- tensely the hope of reunion with their children in heaven, stand with a scrupulous \igilance at the door of the church on earth, and deny them a formal recognition of their right to all the blessings of the atonement! While Christ re- ceived them graciously, and pressed them tenderly to his bosom on earth, the church of Christ repulses them from her bosom ! and thinks she is acting the part of a mother ! that she inflicts no positive injury upon the "babes in Christ !'' While the church triumphant receives children into the dearest, holiest communion, the church militant, contending amid the trials and perils of time, denies them admission into her safe and hallowed courts, and excludes them from a participation in her sacred and holy privileges ! Why are the two great branches of the church, the one entered upon retribution, and the other in probation, still under the covenant of grace on earth, so different in this respect ? Here is a family : the parents are in the Baptist SL'FFER LITTLE CIIILDREX. cliiireh. TLe parents die in the triumphs of faith, and rsceud to the church triumphant, leaving their chikl, a young heir of glory, excluded from the church on earth. But the child soon follows, and is reunited with his parents in heaven — though he lived and died out of the church on earth — though he was denied association, by a formal dedi- cation, with the church on earth — though the title of chil- dren under the covenant is as good before as after death, and though the title of Christ to the infant is the same on earth as it is in heaven. And hence, as Christ and his church are the same in heaven and on earth, and children are worthy of the kingdom of heaven — worthy of its glories, and association with saints and angels in the immediate presence of Christ — they are worthy of association with the church on earth. "I take these little lambs," said he, "And lay them in my breast; Protection they shall find in me, In me be ever blest, "Death may the bands of life unloose. But can't dissolve my love : Millions of infant souls compose The family above." ^^ Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Blessed opinion of infants! Let it be the epitaph on their tombstone. <'0f such is the kingdom of heaven." Blessed Jesus, we adopt it, and say, OF SUCH is thy church on earth, since what thou hast judged to be worthy of thy church in heaven, we cheerfully acknowledge is entitled to formal ad- mission into thy church on earth. Thus, if the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," means the church of God on earth, then children have, upon the authority of Christ himself, a positive recognition of the coatinuation of their original title to church membership — 24 278 INFANT BAPTISM. and the question of infant baptism is settled for ever in their favor. But if the phrase^ ^'kingdom of heaven/' means the kingdom of glory, then by the most convincing and satisfactory inference, children have a right to associa- tion with the church on earth, which right the church is bound to acknowledge by a formal and solemn consecration in baptism. That is, in either case, infants are here judged by Infinite Wisdom capable of the covenant of mercy; and so infants, "little ones,'^ were admitted into covenant, un- der the Old Testament dispensation, and received the seal of the covenant. Therefore, "suffer them to come unto me." But Christ is not now present with us — how then can infants be brought to him as he commands, but by dedi- cation in baptism? This is the general argument. But to be more particular : The original term as used by Matthew is, rd r^atdia — ta paidia — the children; and as used by Luke is, za ^pi2 Matt, xviii. 3. SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN. 281 the disciples never would have '''rebuked'^ any for bringing young Christians to Jesus that he might bless them. But that no doubt may remain respecting the age of these little children, consider the following testimony from Matthew Matthew and all the Evangelists agree, that Jesus compared his real disciples to these little children, when he said, as above, '^ Except ye be converted, amd become as little chil- dren,'' &:c. The displeasure manifested by the disciples was exhibited, in the expression of Jewish feelings, by the Pharisees, upon Christ's entry into Jerusalem: "who, when they saw the children crying in the temple, Hosanna to the Son of David! y^ere sore displeased ; and said unto him, Hearest thou what these say ? And Jesus answered them, have ye never read, out of the mouths of babe& and suck- lings THOU HAST PERFECTED PRAISE V Certainly babes and sucklings were infants; and certainly, if out of their mouths God had j^erfected praise, they ought to be included by baptism with those who render him imperfect praises. And so when little children were brought to Christ for his blessing, the disciples rebuked those that brought them; that is, thought them too young to receive any spiritual good. But Mark describes our Lord as being " much dis- pleased," at the conduct of his disciples, immediately assuring; them that infants are entitled to his blessins, because they are of his kingdom, or, under the everlasting covenant, entitled to membership in the Christian church. How indeed, after these rebukes, could the disciples of Christ and the haughty Pharisees look with indifference upon ^^ little ones" — " hahes and sucklings P" And why should we hesitate a moment to consecrate them to him by baptism, who, with ineffable tenderness, benignity, and love, took them in his arms,^^ put his hands upon them, and blessed *^ Dr. Clarke, in his commentary, observes, '"And he took them up in bis arras' — one of the Itala reads in sinn suo — 'in his bosom.' Jesug 24* 282 INFANT BAPTISM. them, and accepted their hosannas as the perfection of his praise ? 4. " Except ye be converted, and become as little chil- dren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."" Here the child is made the standard of the adult believer. Such a person is baptized as a copy, and received into the church, preparatory to his reception into heaven. What, baptize the copy^ and not the standard ? Receive the copy into the church because it conforms to the standard, and yet reject the standard! Why, it seems that the standard were incomplete if it be not baptized; indeed, that the standard has a stronger claim to church membership than the copy, or at least that the child should be baptized before the copy can properly and legally recognise it as a standard. In a word, one who baptizes adult believers as little children, cannot refuse baptism to the little children themselves. 5. ^'As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."^ Adults who present themselves for admission into the church by baptism, are in a state of "justification,'^ accept- ance, and pardon, obtained by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. But as infants, who had been brought into a state of condemnation by the "ofi"ence of Adam," have been re- stored to a state of justification, pardon, and divine favor, Christ loves little children; and they are the objects of his most peculiar care. Who can account for their continual 2"'e«6 Gal. iii. 27, 284 INFANT BAPTISM, none effect." ^^ The right of children, therefore, to the outward, visible sign and seal of the covenant, is POSITIVELY CONFIRMED and continued under the gospel. ^^ Kane effect' ' — ciannot effect any change in rights of children set forth in the original constitution. The Baptists call for positive commands — here is a clear, unqualified, compre- hensive, positive recognition of the entire scope of the original covenant of grace made with Abraham — and that covenant specifically recognised the right of children to cove- nant relations, which right, Paul positively declares^ has not heen annulled, hut is still in full force. 8. "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." ^^ "Why would not the apostle have us ignorant of this im- pressive and important circumstance of the Jewish dispensa- tion ? Because he regarded it in the solemn character of an "example.'' (Ver. 11.) And who were these "fathers?" They were those very Jews who came out of Egypt, and were destroyed in the wilderness, and those little ones, children, which in that day — the time of the passage of the Bed Sea — "had no knowledge of good and evil," and, sur- viving the journey through the wilderness, entered with Joshua into the possession of Canaan. Thus, the baptism of these "little ones" happened unto them "for our ex- amp>les, upon whom the ends of the world are come." Be- sides, -u-oi, tup)oi, here translated "examples," generally has a figurative signification in the Old Testament, repre- senting some future institutions under the New Testament, and therefore may be regarded somewhat in the light of prophecy. And thus, as the baptism of the fathers and 1" Gal. iii. 17. 18 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. OTHER SCRIPTURES IN PROOF. 285 their children^ tinder the cloud and in the sea, bound them over to legal obedience, and united them to the church in the wilderness, so the apostle reminds us that baptism, un- der the gospel dispensation, binds believers and their chil- dren to evangelical obedience, and unites them with the Christian church. If such be not the meaning of the pas- sage before us, then the apparent solicitude of the apostle is divested of its impressive force and dignity. The '^fothers" referred to were baptized in infancy , ^^in the cloud and in the sea," and the apostle expressly designates and enjoins their baptism AS AN example for us. The Baptists de- mand either precept or example for infant baptism in the Bible : here are both in the same chapter. 9. "That he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him.'^^^ Are children through mercy in Christ worthy of union in this general association? Are they to be regarded as the babes in this vast family of God ? Un- questionably they are. Then they ought to be formally admitted into his church. 10. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife ; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband ; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." ^° The apostle here incidentally refers to the practice of infant baptism, as if it were a subject universally admitted in his days. "Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy," that is, ayidj here translated "holy," com- monly means those who are baptized into the faith of Christ. Its corresponding Hebrew term, l-edushim, signified all the Jews who entered into covenant with God, under the Jewish dispensation, by circumcision — and infants were circum- cised. And so the Jews considered the children of heathens •SEph. i. 10. 20 1 Cor. vii. U. 286 INFANT BAPTISM. unholy wlio were born before their parents became prose- lytes, and all the children holy who were born after their parents became proselytes. The apostle does not mean that holiness of nature is hereditary/, but that relatively, children are entitled to baptism. If the Baptists so explain these scriptures as to make them inapplicable to infants, then I ask, in what scriptures is the salvation of infants referred to? All such scriptures will support our argument just as well as those we have adduced. But if they explain these away, and all others like them, they cut off, at a single stroke, the last hope of infant salvation; because upon this mode of interpretation, the absence of all reference in the Scriptures, expressed or implied, to infant salvation, as certainly deprives them of all title to salvation, as the absence of scriptures explicitly recognising and confirming the title of children to church membership would deprive them of baptism. Certainly, the foundation of the Baptist Church is not established upon the condemnation of all infants under the Christian dispensation. And yet I do not see how it is possible to deny the right of infants to baptism, the sign, without at the same time denying their right to salvation, the thing signified : and so we conclude, all scriptures that recognise infants as proper subjects of salvation, without the discharge of any conditions on their part, at the same time compre- hend a recognition of their right to baptism, independently of the discharge of any conditions on their part whatever. And when to this consideration it is added, that there ARE SCRIPTURES THAT FURNISH BOTH PRECEPT AND EX- AMPLE FOR INFANT BAPTIS3I, THE CONCLUSION IS IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE SATISFACTORY, THAT INFANT BAPTISM 18 AN INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH, under tlie CJiristiaii dis- pensation, and made solemnli/ hinding on the church to the end of time. OIKOS — OIKIA. 287 CHAPTER V. SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. Oihos — OiMa> Infant baptism derives the strongest support from a proper discrimination between the meaning of the terms oL/.oq^ oikos — and ouia, oikia. If the translators of the Old and New Testaments had observed the difference in the specific meaning of these two terms, the Baptist Church never could have obtained a distinct and separate existence in the world. Upon a candid examination of the Old and New Testaments, it will be found, that the sacred writers use the term oiKOS, house, in the specific sense of family, with special reference to infants; and, therefore, when the apostles say they baptized liouses, whole houses, the terms are synonymous with families, and are used with special reference to infants as included in the sacred rite. Indeed, the more learned Baptists now admit, that the term oikos, as it is now used in the New Testament, is synonymous with family, and consequently, that it includes infants — and as the learned are the only proper judges of an argument of this character, the validity and authority of infant baptism are hereby supported and established by the unanimous decision of the learned world. These terms are not interchangeable. 1. Let us first investigate the meaning of the term ' See Taylor's Apostolic Baptism. 288 INFANT BAPTISM. OlhfA, oikla. "And the wise men came into the oikia— out-houses — the stable where the young child was, and found him and his parents."^ "He (Peter) lodgeth with one Simon, a tanner, whose oikia is by the seaside." ^ Now a tanner's business requires much space, and several out- houses, and so Simon selected the seaside. The men who were sent to inquire for Peter, inquired for the oikia of Simon, and stood before the gate of the tanner's yard.* Consider Peter's supernatural deliverance from prison, as it is described in the 12th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. "And when he had considered the thing he came to the house — oikia — of Mary; and he knocked at the door of tJie ffate" — the outer gate. And Rhoda came out to listen, but " she opened not the gate for gladness, but 7'an m" — (ver. 14 ;) ran across the court-yard back again — " and told how Peter stood before the gate." Oikos is never substituted for oikia. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the sacred writers never interchange the one for the other ; every writer pre- serves a distinction. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all say of the paralytic, "take up thy bed, and go to thy house — oikon.'^ "Devouring widow's houses" — oikia, not oikos. The dwelling of Cornelius is called his oikos, by the servants of Cornelius, by Cornelius himself, and by Peter twice ;^ but the dwelling of Simon, the tanner, is called oikia, by the angel, by the evangelist, by Cornelius, and by Peter. x\gain : oikos is a masculine noun, and oiMa is feminine. Masculine and feminine nouns are not interchangeable in the Greek. Again: a j^ci^'t can never be equivalent to the whole, nor be interchangeable with it. Oikos may be a part of oikia, and thus the notion of a retired apartment of a large building is frequently expressed by the term oikos by the ancient Greek writers. 2 Matt. ii. 11. 3 Acts x. 6. •* Acts xi. 11. ^ Acts xi. 12, 13. OIKOS — OIKIA. 289 2. The term oikos alone is used iu the sense of family, and CHILDREX are the primary and immediate objects of oikos, house, family. It is impossible to separate the idea of children from the term oikos, Jiouse, family. Thus, ^* house of Israel" — ''house of Jacob" — "house of Judah" — ''house of David" — imply young children, infants; for without the infants, what becomes of the family, of the house, of the nation ? And so in the instances of Cornelius, the jailer, Lydia, Stephanus, Crispus, Onesiphorus, Aris- tobulus, and Xarcissus, with many believers who formed the Church of Corinth, and the families of the bishop, the deacon, and the young women, referred to in the Epistle to Timothy, it is incredible to suppose children, infants, are not included. 3. Oihia includes more than the family, as it some- times includes the slaves, servants, or attendants of the family. '^Be not as a lion in thy house, oikia, nor fi-antic among thy servants.^' ^ "As the sun rising in heaven, is a good wife to her household" " — oikias. " All the saints salute you, especially those who are of Csesar's household" ^ — oikias. But not one of Caesar's family was at this time converted to Chi'istianity, while some of his household servants, attend- ants, or courtiers were, as we are informed in the Scriptures : here oikia is used, and does not include children. 4. There cannot be better authority than Aristotle on this subject, who, writing on the polity of cities, thus defines a house: "A house is a society or companion- ehip connected together according to the course of nature, for long continuance." Such a society is called by Cha- rondas, "those who eat from the same cupboard,^^ or pantry; but it is called by Epimenides, "those who sit around the same fireside;" or, as Du Yal, the editor of Aristotle, sup- 6 Eccles. iv. 30. ^ Ibid. xxvi. 16. ^ Philip, iv. 22. 25 290 INFANT BAPTISM. poses^ "those who sit around the same table." Such a So- ciety, says Aristotle, is an oiKOS or house. Aristotle also distinguishes between oikos, house, and oikia, household, just as the Scripture does. Says he, "in order to obtain a clear idea of the parts of which a city is composed, it is necessary that we should previously explain what an oikia is. For every city is composed of connected oikias : and further, an oikia is composed of several parts; and these placed together in their stations, constitute the oikia. But a complete oikia comprises those who are servants, and those who are free." Here the t^rm oikos, house, family, ex- cludes the oikia, household; but the term oikia includes the oikos, house. Thus, a Greek scholar meeting with the term oikos, in the New Testament, would understand it as follows : — " We baptized Lydia, vjith lier family, connected together according to the course of nature, for long con- tinuance. We baptized the jailer, with all those who eat from the same cupboard with himself. I baptized those who sit around the same fireside or eat from the same table with my valued friend Stephanus.'' The Old Testament writers use the term oikos, house, in the sense as above. "Thou, Lord Grod of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee a hoiis^^ — oikos^ — establish thy family. "The Lord telleth thee, he will make thee ■ a 7iOMse"^° — oikos. "Now let it please thee to bless the house — oikos — of thy servant — and with thy blessing let the house — oikos, family — of thy servant be blessed for ever.'^ " 5. Li proof that the term oikos, house, has special reference to children, distinct from their parents. " Then shall his brother's wife spit in his face, and say, So shall it be done unto the man who will not build up his brother's 5 2 Sam. vii. 27. '^ 2 Sam. vii. 11. '12 Sam. viL 29. OTKOS — OTKIA. 291 HOUSE "^ — oikos. So in Other scriptures.^" "All the souls of the house — oikos — of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten." " But it is stated in the 26th verse, " All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, were three- score and six." Here the former number cannot be made up without the child re Ji of Joseph, and hence, mathemati- cally and strictly, the term oikos in this instance includes infants, as may be further proved. "Now these are the names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, every man, with all his hoiise"^^ — Travocxi, panoiki. That the term panoiki includes little children is evident from Gen. xlvi. 5. " And the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, &c., in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him." Now the term panoiki, "with all his house," is the same that is used in the instance of the jailer's bap- tism; and as the apostles deviated not from the long-settled and popular meaning of the language in which they wrote, the term panoiki in the case of the jailer's baptism, as clearly includes infants as it does in the case of all Jacob's family. In the case of the baptism of Cornelius, the term employed is aw ti^zi za> or/.oj — "with all his house, feared God, and were all baptized." Yes, infants feared God — as Samuel did, when he "ministered" in the sanctuary; and as Timothy did, when he "studied the Scriptures." "The heave-offerings have I given to thee and thy sons, and to thy daughters with thee, every one that is clean in thy house" — oikos — famili/.'^^ "I will raise up evil against thee [David] out of thine own house" — oikos, family.'^'^ This meaning of the term oikos was adopted by the apos- tles, as is evident from the following references, in which the parents are explicitly distinguished from their children. 12 Deut. XXV. 9. 13 (Jen. xvi. 2 ; Gen. xxx. 3, ^7;o Vol, ii. 501, 322 INFANT BAPTISM. them.'^^^ And as to Epiphanius^ it may be added, who died after the year 400, his silence is to be regarded as an argument in favor of infant baptism, since the Baptists themselves admit that infant baptism had been prevalent in the church from the latter part of the second, or beginning of the third century. From what we have now written, the reader is prepared to see the truth of the saying of Calvin : "What they circu- late among the uninformed multitude, that after the resur- rection of Christ, a long series of years passed, in which infant baptism was unknown, is shamefully contrary to truth ; for there is no ancient writer lolio does not refer its origin as a matter of CERTAINTY TO THE AGE OF THE apostles/' " 4. The symbols used by Christians in the first centuries prove conclusively that infant baptism was the practice of the church in those centuries. In the etiriiest ages of Christianity, we find the following inscription, with tko symbols of a fish, an anchor, and a dove : "A FAITHFUL, descended from ancestors who also were faithful, here lies Zosimus : he lived two years, one month, and twenty-five days." The following, with the symbol of a dove, is an inscription of the same period : ^^AchiUia, newly baptized, is buried here; she died at the age of one year and five months'' Again : " Sacred to the great God. Leopardus rests here in peace with holy spirits. Having received baptism, he went to the Messed innocents. This was placed by his parents, with whom he lived seven years and seven months." " Vol. iv. 511, 512 J2 insts. b. 4, c. 16, sec. 8. TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 323 Take other examples from ancient existing memorials : ^^ Rufillo, NEWLY BAPTZED, icho lived two years and forty days Quintillian the father places this to the memory of his son who sleeps in the peace of Christ." " To Domitivs, an innocent^ newly baptized^ wlio lived tlwee years and thirty days." ^^ Valerius Decentins the father places this to his son, NEWLY BAPTIZED, icJio lived three years, ten months^ and fifteen days." " To Pisentiis, an innocent soul icho lived one year, eight months, and thirteen days. Newly baptized : buried in the ides of September in peace." " To Leoni: newly baptized, who lived six years, eight months, and eleven days. He rejwsed the sixth of the nones of July, Philippus and Sallia being consuls," A. D. 348. '^ To Aristus, who lived eight years; newly baptized, he icent off the first of the nones of June: Timasius and Promotorus being consuls," A. D. 389. " Flavia Jovina, who lived, three years and thirfy-tv:o days : NEWLY BAPTIZED : deposited in peace, the eleventh of the calends of October," A. D. 367. These will suffice : the cemetery of the early church no doubt contains hundreds of thousands of graves not marked by a single inscription, and those that survive the ruins of centuries are comparatively very few. 5. The continued practice of infant baptism by the Chris- tian church, from the days of the apostles to the present time, is a strong collateral proof of its apostolic origin and validity. Advocates for exclusive immersion and opponents of in- fant baptism say that their views are so plainly set forth in the Scriptures, that they need no arguments to make them clearer, and hence do not trouble themselves much on the subject. Plain, indeed I Why then have they escaped the 324 INFANT BAPTISM. observation of the Christmn cliurcli for so long a time ? Are not eighteen hundred years time enough to open the eyes of the church on the subject of baptism? Indeed^ is not this period of time sufficient to confirm the church in its \aews on this subject ? Without doubt, the continued, unchanged opinion of the church during all this time, is proof enough of the authenticity of the doctrine revealed, especially when it is considered, that so much talent and piety, for so long a succession of years, and through so much controversial strife, during the last few centuries, have been exercised in the in- vestigation. I see no alternative, but that the views of the paedobaptists on this subject are ascribable to ignorance, or dishonesty — or tliat they are scriptural and sound. That their views on the subject of infant baptism are to be ascribed to ignorance, is refuted by their talent and profound erudi- tion : that they are dishonest, is disproved by their piety and good works of every description; and therefore, that their views are scriptural and sound is sustained both by their talents and piety. "We shall refer to this subject again, in another part of this work. These are the collateral proofs. We now sum up the proofs adduced in support of infant baptism as a Divine institution of perpetual obligation. First, the ground of infant salvation, is the ground of infant baptism ; secondly, infants have been included under all the dispensations of the covenant of grace ; thirdly, the identity of the church under all the dispensations of the covenant of grace in all time ; fourthly, the absence of repeal or modifi- cation of the original gracious covenant made with man re- specting children; fifthly, the impossibility of fully and satisfactorily explaining many passages of Scripture but in harmony with the doctrine ; sixthly, the proper discrimina- tion between the terms olkos and oikia, and the specific reference of oihos to children, little ones, babes and suck- SUMMARY. 325 LINGS ; seventhlvj the history of the Christian church since the days of the apostles ; eighthly, the force of the symbols of early Christianity; and ninthly, the judgment, talent, and piety of the whole Christian church in the present day — the Baptists excepted 28 PART IV. CHAPTER 1. ^^ INFANT BAPTISM IS AN INNOVATION," If this objection cannot be sustained by its friends, infant baptism must be received as a divine institution. Let us commence investigation at the time when it is stated this innovation was made. We shall quote the statements and admissions of Baptist authors. Mr. Judson supposes that it ^^ commenced in the latter PART of the SECOND ccuturj." ^ ^'No mention is made of infant baptism in the second century, unless it be just at its close." Chapin's letters, p. 99. "It appears that infant baptism was not practised, until about the close of the se- cond century." Pendleton on Baptism and Communion, p. 21. "No evidence of infant baptism, before the latter end of the second, or the beginning of the third century." Bap- tist Library, 3 vols, in 1, p. 10. Mr. Broaddus, an elder in the Baptist church, in a letter addressed to "Slicer on Baptism," says, "Although the baptism of infants was in- vented as early as the CLOSE of the SECOND century," &c. ^ Mr. Gale himself admits that "the baptism of infants does not appear to have been practised till about the latter end ' Judson on Baptism, p. 79. ^ Siicer on Baptism, p. 88. 326 INFANT BAPTISM AN INNOVATION." 327 of the SECOND CENTURY." '^ That is, he admits that infant baptism was practised by the church in the time Irenaeus wrote, which was about the year 180 — and thus, Mr. Gale himself concedes that infant baptism was the practice of the church within eighty years of the apostolic age, for John died, A. D. 100. Mr. xllexander Campbell also admits that infant baptism is a little more than 1500 years old. ^^That infant baptism," says he, ''is of great antiquity, while in- fant sprinkling is of modern origin, we cheerfully admit. We have no ohjection to admit that infant baptism is 1500 years old, or perhaps a few years older."* In the first place, these admissions silence for ever the oft-repeated declaration, that ''infant baptism is a relic of Popery," since popery did not rise till several hundred years afterward, Mr. Robert Robinson, the Baptist historian, instead of showing that infant baptism was a subject of ahuse amid the corruptions of the Romish Church, which is a fact, ascribes the origin of infant baptism to those corruptions, though, according to the above admissions, its origin dates several centuries earlier. This inconsistency, between Mr. Robinson and more modern Baptist writers, must be palpable to the most cursory reader. In the second place, by the admissions above, we are brought within a very few years of the aposto- lic age; and it is incredible, that at this time, infant baptism, as a corruption, without opposition and historic evidence, could have crept into the church. And here the reader will be surprised to hear Mr. Gale himself admitting: "I will grant it is probable, that what all or most of the church irractised immediately after the- apostles' times, had been appointed or practised by the apostles themselves; for it is hardly to be imagined that any considerable body of these ancient Christians, and much less that the whole, should so 3 Wall, vol. iv, 322. ■* Debate with McCaUa, pub. 1824, p. 365. 328 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. deviate from the customs and injunctions of their venerable founders, whose authority they held so sacred. Now opi- nions or practices are usually introduced hy degrees^ AND NOT WITHOUT OPPOSITION. Therefore, in regard to bap- tism, a thing of such universal concern, and daily practice, I allow it to be very PROBxIBLE that the primitive churches KEPT TO THE APOSTOLIC PATTERN. / verily lelieve that the primitive church maintained, IN THIS CASE, AN EXACT CONFORMITY TO THE PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES, which, doubtless, AGREED ENTIRELY WITH CHRISTIAN INSTITU- TIONS." ^ Established so near the times of the apostles, in direct opposition to their authority, when such a thing was not then known or thought of in all the churches then ex- isting! What, all Christendom carried away blindly and insensibly, at this early age, by an absurd and novel inno- vation ! Especially too, when the church soon became divid- ed into sects, ever watchful, and careful to prevent inno- vation ! Political and ecclesiastical changes are never made without warm and protracted debates, and some account of the discussion and the results, if important, is always pre- served. This is the fact respecting the various disputes and decisions of many councils of the church ; and in like man- ner, had infant baptism been an innovation, it would have passed under review before the whole Christian world, and some council would have transmitted, through the records of the church, some account of the circumstances and the occasion. Consider the character of the discussions of the age. Christendom resounds with strife. The press dissemi- nates debates, in books, pamphlets, and periodicals, to the four winds of heaven — the pulpit thunders from one end of the church to the other — the historian inscribes some ac- count of every important innovation upon the pages of the 5 Gale's Reflections on Wall, p. 398. '^INFANT BAPTISM AN INNOVATION.'' 320 times — and succeeding ages are made acquainted with the past. But not one stroke of the pen — not one whisper — not the least intimation — no controversy — no effort to suppress the error — no decision of councils, general or provincial, against it — no variety of sects — no diversity of opinions on the subject — not one iota of information — in all the past, from anf/ source, respecting the time, circumstances, and place of this supposed innovation ! About 300 years after the apostolic age, the celebrated controversy, already referred to, between Augustine and Pelagius, on the doctrine of ori- ginal sin, arose. The Pelagian heresy was the denial of the doctrine of original sin. To refute this heresy, Augustine inquires, ^'Why are children baptized for the remission of sins, if they have none?" That is, Augustine directs the mind of his antagonist to the ordinance and design of infant baptism, as a proof that children are depraved, and hence should be baptized, that their title to the purifying opera- tions of the Holy Ghost may be set forth in the cases of all such as die in infancy. Now if infant baptism had been an innovation of man, and not a divine institution, Pelagius, with all his skill and learning, would immediately have proved the fact, and thus destroyed the force of the argu- ment drawn from the estaUished practice of infant baptism. But so far from this, Pelagius admits its apostolic origin and authority; and so embarrassed was he by its force, that he and his party resorted, as we have seen, to a variety of futile evasions to explain the design of infant baptism. How easy to have spared themselves all this trouble and inconsistency, by positively denying, and clearly disproving, the validity of the sacred rite in its appHcation to infants ! The learned Dr. Gill, a Baptist, affirms that infant baptism became generally prevalent in the fourth century. About this very time, the controversy between Aug-ustine and Pe- lagius was carried on with great warmth on both sides — and 28* 330 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. yet Pelagius takes no notice of a fact, if it existed, that would have given him great advantage in the discussion! Yea, more : it is affirmed that this innovation was made in the latter part of the second century. And how does it happen, that Pelagius, and all the Fathers, about a hundred years afterward, never heard of it, nor spoke of it — espe- cially when it would have been the very information they needed to obtain a decisive victory over their antagonists ? Mr. Jewett, in his little book on baptism, says : '' While from the earliest period, the baptism of believers appears on every page of history, her voice is dumb respecting infant baptism for two hundred years after Christ.^^ ^ And what of that ? Does this prove that infant baptism is a human invention ? Not at all. In the present day, we never pub- lish the number of infants baptized, but notice only the number of adults baptized. And yet it is a sufficient refu- tation of the objection of Mr. Jewett, when he admits on the very next page that proselyte baptism was known among the Jews A. D. 70, and of course, the baptism of children was also known, seventy instead of two hundred years after Christ. Infant baptism — a relic of Popery, an innovation of man — made out at the close of the second century ! And where teas the Baptist CJiurch all this time? While one is read- ing Mr. Robinson's long History of Baptism, he looks in vain for the history of the Baptist Chui'ch at this early period. All CTiristendom, for centuries, he proves himself, were baptized in infancy, and of course, the Baptist Church WAS NOT IN existence ALL THIS TIME. He adduCCS various authorities in proof of the prevalence of infant bap- tism in the early ages, but not one for the existence of the Baptist Church — and all his explanations of the origin of 6 Third ed. p. 89. INFANT BAPTISM AN INNOVATION." 331 infant baptism are nothing more than mere surmises, or the vaguest suppositions, or assertions without a particle of proof to sustain them. Whose voice is heard against it ? Tertullian's ? But he allowed baptism to infants about to die, and therefore he was no Baptist, but an advocate for infant baptism. The Baptists date the origin of their church at the time of the dispensation of John the Baptist, and run down an imaginary line of their perpetuated existence to the present time. Now tell me, if the vast multitudes bap- tized by John, by the disciples of Christ, with those forming the churches planted during the fii'st iico hundred years, constituted the Baptist Church, how can it be believed, that this innovation all at once should obtain an easy, successful, and universal sanction, without a whisper of opposition, and all at once the whole Baptist Church be converted into a paedobaptist church? The thing is incredible. Suppose at this day, certain traitorous citizens should arise and proclaim through our nation, that the children of slaves are entitled to the rights of citizenship, and that the law securing them this right was not only passed and observed when the constitution was first adopted, but that it had been observed all along by the nation since the constitution was adopted; do you suppose the people at this day would ac- knowledge that they had lived in open "s^olation of the fun- damental law of the land up to the present time, and at once would correct their error by universally admitting the chil- dren of slaves to all the rights of citizenship? No, you would boldly call this a political revolution, and the whole land would rise up in opposition to it. The movers in the revolution would be branded as traitors, and such public measures would be adopted by the nation, as would transmit their names, covered with infamy, to all succeeding ages of the American people. Such, in the history of the church, would have been the fate of the first friends of infant bap- 332 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. tism, had it not been a divine institution. But there is not one word of history of this kind, as we shall presently see, for more than a thousand years after it had been ac- knowledged by the church. Again : — Suppose our nation to have existed a thousand years, and all this time the right of freeborn children to all the blessings of freedom to have been universally acknow- ledged ; and a set of men should arise, and proclaim that the right of freeborn children to the blessings of freedom was an innovation of the second century of our republic — would you not ask for the proof, the record, the legislative enactment in the matter, the circumstances, and all that was materially connected with the innovation ? Would you receive bare assertions and assumjDtions as sufficient argu- ments — assertions and assumptions, too, as we shall presently see, that contain the elements of their own refutation ? You would tell them, it is not in the constitution — not in the histories of the nation — not in the histories, nor in the con- stitutions, nor in the usages of the individual States. And how would you regard such a party of men ? From such a party, hostile to the dearest interests of your children, would you elect a man to the office of president of the United States ? or invest him with any authority over the rights of your children ? And shall we, in the nineteenth century of the Christian era, give the least credence to the declaration, that children have no right to association with the church, and that all now in it, of course, are to be excluded from it, and in future none are to be admitted, because infont bap- tism is an innovation made in the second century ? Such a declaration requires nothing less than a miracle to support it. By the admission of Mr. Alexander Camjobell, we ai»e led back fifteen hundred years on our way to the origin of in- fant baptism. And I confess, I was not only surprised, but highly gratified, when I saw this honest and cheerful ud- "infant baptism an innovation." 833 mission from one of the strongest opposers of infant baptism the world ever saw. I take his admission as equivalent to an acknowledgment that infant baptism is a divine institu- tion. "AYe have no objection to admit," says he, ^^thafc infant baptism is 1500 years old, or perhaps a few years older." The only question here is, what period of time is embraced in these "few years?" Three, or three hundred? The admission does not definitely determine. Mr. Campbell did not say, for he did not know. How did he know that infant baptism was only a few years older than 1500 years, unless he knew something of the circumstances of its origin ? If infant baptism be a human invention of 1500 years' an- tiquity, or a little more, why cannot the same mind that makes this discovery, also point out exactly the time, place, and circumstances of the invention ? What was the au- thority of this investigator of ecclesiastical history on which he admitted the origin of infant baptism? Having no knowledge of the time, place, and circumstances of the sup- posed invention beyond 1500 years, Mr. Campbell had no more right to say that it was only "a few years older," than that it was 300 years older — and this would bring us at once to the days of Christ and his apostles. I see no un- fairness then in taking this admission of Mr. Campbell as Equivalent to the acknowledgment of the divine origin of mfant baptism. Mr. Robert Robinson, in his History of Baptism, ^ says, "The baptism of babes fii'st appeared in the most ignorant and most impure part of the Catholic world, Africa. It was not the offspring of critical learning, or sound philosophy, for it sprang up among men destitute of both, nor did any one ever take the African fathers for philosophers, or critical investigators of the sacred oracles of God ; and if they be all 7 Page 177. OBJECTTOXS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. taken for moral men^ they are overprized, for an eyewitness hatli characterized African Christians quite otherwise." And why did not Tertullian say this, and thus at once justify his views of infant baptism ? Why did not Pelagius, in his controversy with Augustine, say it, and thus at once refute the objection founded upon infont baptism ? There is not one word of authentic proof in favor of the unqualified and bold declaration of the Baptist historian. The declara- tion is incredible, since the whole peedobaptist church would have discovered the truth of it, had it been true, and so never have advocated the doctrine of infant baptism. No notice of the supposed innovation is upon record. Mr. Robinson, it seems, in his history of baptism, has carefully searched all the records in his reach on this subject, and it is certain, that lie furnishes not one v:ord in 'proof of the accuracy of his opinion or surmise. Indeed, this oft-re- peated assertion, that infant baptism originated in the cor- ruptions of the Romish Church, has been already proved to be utterly false ; and upon the showing of Mr. Robinson himself, infant baptism was a prevalent practice of the primi- tive church long hcfore the origin of the Romish Church. But where the admissions of the Baptists are limited, and where Mr. Campbell is silent, v:e have heard the evidence of Justin Martyr, Iren.^us, Origen, Tertullian, Cy- prian, Augustine, Pelagius, Ambrose, and others, filling up this interval of a few years, and completing and confirming Y/ie admissions of the Baptist Church. Nay, further, instead of taking you back a little beyond 1500 years, I have conducted you into the past nearly six thousand years, guided by the lamp of Revelation, and re- vealed to you all the way the right of children to church membership, formally acknowledged under every dispensa- tion of grace since the covenant was made with Abraham. A.S old as the world is the right of children to share with INFANT BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. their parents in the love and mercj" of God — and this right has continued unrepealed till the present time. It is a matter of inquiry, why the Baptists should fix the time of this supposed innovation in the latter part of the second century, and the answer is easy. The earliest ob- jection to infant baptism they find upon ecclesiastical re- cords is made by Tertullian — which we have already con- sidered — and forthwith they conclude, that the innovation was made a "little earlier" than Tertullian' s times — that is, between the times of the apostles and the age of Tertullian. Very well : Tertullian flourished about the year 204, that is, about one hundred years after the apostolic age. Now Mr. Campbell says, in his debate with McCalla, p. 366, "Of forty-four writers, called orthodox, besides a great many called heterodox, who lived, and taught, and wrote, from the Apostle John's time till the time of Tertullian, not one mentions infant baptism." Admit this to be true — which we do not — what then ? Why, their silence is posi- tive proof that infant baptism was not introduced in their times. For though some of these writers were no doubt baptized by the apostles themselves, and were intimate with the apostles — though many of them were descended from pious parentage — though many of them were men of splendid abilities and of extensive and varied information, ever watchful and jealous of the truth, and wrote and preached much in favor of the pure doctrines of Christ, and against error, (for a "great many called heterodox^' existed at this time,) — though the orthodox and heterodox parties were engaged in fierce controversies on theological subjects during this period — though many of the orthodox died mar- tyrs to the truth, and thus proved their faithful attachment to the cause of Christianity — yet "not one of them mentions infant baptism as an innovation" — not one of them raises his warning voice in opposition to this supposed innovation. This is incredible, if infant baptism icas an innovation. It is incontestable, that if any of the modern Baptists' way of thinking existed at this time, they would have recorded their earnest and unqualified opposition to the innovation. Where was the Baptist Church at this time ? But this is not all. As already stated, we have the positive evidence of Justin Martyr, Irenasus, and Tertullian, who lived at this time, in favor of infant baptism, as an apostolic institution and practice. — We shall continue our examination of the objection before us in the following chapter. CHAPTER II. HISTORY OF OPPOSITION TO INFANT BAPTISM. As the history of the time, place, and circumstances of the supposed innovation of infant baptism, cannot be shown by the Baptists, the divine institution of the sacred rite, and its consequent apostolic practice, must be admitted. This conclusion is greatly strengthened by the fact, that we can clearly show the time, place, and circumstances of oppo- sliion to infant baptism. Opposition to infant baptism originated in the twelfth century, when one Peter de JBmis, of Languedoc, amid the papal darkness that overspread Eu- rope, arose, and publicly preached that infants ought not to he baptized, because they could not believe, and therefore could not be saved. He continued to preach this heresy for about twenty years, during which time he gathered about him a considerable number of followers, but was finally arrested about the year 1144, by papal authority, and burned, tind his followers dispersed. The followers of Peter de Bruis, according to Milner, Wall, and others, '^opposed the HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 337 building of churches, and said that singing was mocking God," &c.; and in regard to infant baptism, they say, "Christ, sending his disciples out to preach, says in the gospel, Gro ye out into all the land, and preach the gospel to every creature — he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. From these words of our Saviour, it is plain that none can be saved, unless he believe, and is baptized; that is, have both Christian faith and baptism. For not one of these, but hoth together, do save I So that infants, though they hy you he haptizedj yet hy reason of tlieir age, they cannot helieve, are not saved." This is the only consistent interpretation of the great commission, if faith, in all cases, is necessary to baptism and salvation, AND is the first public oppo- sition TO INFANT BAPTISM UPON RECORD — the followers of Grundulphus excepted, who, according to Wall, said, "This is our doctrine, to renounce the world, to bridle the lusts of the flesh, to maintain ourselves by the labor of our own hands, to do violence to no man, to love the brethren. If this plan of righteousness be observed, there is no need of haptism; if it he neglected, haptism is no avail." The doctrine of Peter de Bruis was little known from this time till the commencement of the Reformation, when it appears, about the year 1521, the sect revived in consider- able numbers, "chiefly from Saxony and the adjacent coun- tries, headed by one Munzer, Stubner, and Storck, and are described by various writers as xery fanaticcd, turhident, and seditious." According to Mosheim, "they declared war against all laws, governments, and magistrates of every kind. But this seditious crowd was routed and dispersed without much difficulty, by the Elector of Saxony and other princes : Munzer was put to death, and his factious followers scattered abroad in difierent places." Afterward more timid, yet they continued to disseminate their principles, and were 29. 838 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. called Anabaptists, till, about the year 1533, ^^a portion of them, perhaps more fanatical and seditious than others, headed by John Matthison, John Bockhold, a tailor, and one Gerard, took the city of Munster, deposed the magis- trates, and proclaimed John Bockhold king and legislator of their new hierarchy. Munster was taken the next year, after a long siege, their Kew Jerusalem destroyed, as they called it, and its mock monarch punished with a most pain- ful death. The better and larger portion of them received and looked up afterward to Menno, a native of Friesland, as their leader, who had formerly been a Popish priest, and who, with great zeal and industry, labored among them for more than twenty-five years. He drew up a plan of doc- trine and discipline, and reduced the scattered sects into more moderation and consistency. They began now to be called by the name of Mennonites as well as Anabaptists. But by continuing to modify still more their tenets, and to oppose the names by which they were called, they succeeded in obtaining for themselves in after ages the name of Bap- tlstsr ^ Says Benedict, a Baptist historian, "Under this head — the German Anabaptists or Mennonites — I shall include the whole family of this people, as described by 3Iosheim, who will be my principal guide in their history from the remote depths of antiquity." ^ Then let us hear Mosheim as Bene- dict quotes him. "The true origin of that sect which acquired the name of anabaptists by administering the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion, and derived that of Mennonites from the famous man to whom they owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is of consequence ex- ' Mosheim, vol. ii. cent. 16th, part ii. c. 3. 2 Benedict's Hist, of Baptists, p. 44. HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 339 tremely difficult to be ascertained. This uncertainty will not appear surprising, wlien it is considered that this sect started up all of a sudden in several countries at the same point of time, &c. Their progress was rapid; for in a short space of time, their discourses, visiohs, and predictions ex- cited commotions in a great part of Europe, and drew into their communion a prodigious multitude, whose ignorance rendered, them easy victims to the illusions of enthusiasm. Some of them maintained, among others, the following points of doctrine : that the baptism of infants was an inven- tion of the devil; that every Christian was invested with the power to preach the gospel, and consequently that the church stood in no need of ministers or pastors; that in the king- dom of Christ civil magistrates were absolutely useless; and that G-od still continued to reveal his will to chosen persons by dreams and visions.'^ " Such are the opposers of infant baptism I And such the founders of the Baptist Church I But what else does Mosheim say of the anabaptists or Men- nonites? Why, that ^'it is difficult to determine, with cer- tainty the particular spot that gave birth to that seditious and pestUential sect of anabaptists, whose tumultuous and desperate attempts were ecjually pernicious to the cause of religion and the civil interests of meinhind f' — that ^^ we may fix this period soon after the damn of the Reformation in Germany, when Luther arose to set bounds to the ambition of Kome;" — that "this detestable faction, in 1521, began their fanatical works, under the guidance of 3Iunzer, Stub- ner, Storck, and other leaders of the same furious com- plexion;'' — that "they declared war against all laws, govern- ments, and magistrates of every kind;" — that "a great part of this rabble seemed really delirious, and nothing more extravagant or more incredible can be imagined than the 3 Benedict's Hist, of Baptism, p. 45, 46. 340 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. dreams and visions that were constantly arising in their dis- ordered brains."-* Nor is this all. Mosheim defines the extent of the "remote depths of antiquity.^' He says, further on: "The Mennonites are not entirely mistaken when they boast of their descent from the "Waldenses, Petro- brussians; and other ancient sects, which are usually con- sidered witnesses of the truth in the times of universal darkness and superstition,^' This must have reference to the twelfth century, since he calls sects that arose at that time, "ancient sects." In proof that he intended to go no further back than the tenth centuiy, is the undoubted and universally admitted fact, that the Petrobrussian sect was, as he states, "founded about the year 1110, by Peter De Bruis," from whom they derived their name. He fixes the rise of the Waldenses some years after. "They were so called from their parent and founder Peter Waldus, who commenced his ministry about the year 1160.'' This is the meaning of Mosheim. And with these began opposition to infant baptism. "Remote depths of antiquity!" Grive Mosheim' s remark the utmost latitude — and is this the foundation of the Baptist Church? A foundation laid — where, by whom, and under what circumstances, nobody knows ! Should any system of vital importance be embraced upon such vain and flimsy pretensions ? If such pretensions be true, the foundation is unknown; if they be false, the foundation does not exist. Nor is this all. Bespecting Menno, the founder of the Mennonites, Mosheim says, "he expressed his abhorrence of the licentious tenets which seve- ral anabaptists held in relation to the baptism of infants, the millennium, &c. : lie explained and modified them in such a Tnanner, as made them resemhle the religious tenets which were universally received in the Protestant churches.'^ ^ And ^ Mosheim vol. ii. cent, 16th, part ii. e. 3. '■> Ibid, part ii. c. HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 341 Wall observes^ ''One tiling Cassander says of this Menuo that is particular, viz. "that whereas some of these men (the Mennonites) had first endeavored to fix the origin of infant baptism upon some pope of Rome, 3Ienno had more sense: lie was forced to own that it had been in use from the apostles' times. But he said that the false apostles were the authors of it.'^ ^ Some Baptist writers claim descent for the Baptist Church from the Waldenses, a body of Christians inhabiting the valleys of the Alps, and brought to light in the twelfth century. They were generally a pious and ex- emplary people — advocated many of the doctrines of the Eeformation — and opposed the false pretensions and super- stitious additions of the Papal Church. But they did not OPPOSE INFANT BAPTISM : this is the only point that con- cerns us, and which we shall now attempt to prove. ^ When certain Komish priests ac-cused them of refusing baptism to their children, they denied the charge, but acknowledged in certain instances that they had delayed baptism because their own pastors or barbs were abroad in other parts of the work of the church, and that hereby the baptism of their children was often delayed longer than they desired, ^ Their own language is, '^Neither is the time or place appointed, for those who raust he baptized; but charity, and the edifi- cation of the church and congregation, ought to be the rule in this matter; yet notwithstanding ice hring our children to he baptized, WHICH TEEY OUGHT TO DO, to vdioiii they are most nearly related as their parents, or those v:hom God has inspired with such a charity T Wall gives the following account : — " The present Waldenses, or Yaudois in Piedmont, who are the posterity of those of old, do practise infant bap- tism : and they were also found in the practice of it, when the Frotestants of Luther's reformation sent to know their 6 Wall; voL 2, p. 301. 7 Perrin's Hist, of the Waldenses. , 29* 342 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT EArrio:^: CONSIDERED. State and doctrine, and to confer with them : and they them- selves do say^ that tlicir fathers never jyractised otJieincise. And they give proof of it from an old hook of theirs, called the Spiritual Almanack, where infant baptism is owned/' ^ In the 17th article of the rule of faith and practice, adopted by all the Waldenses assembled at Angrogne, Sept. 12, 1535, they state their doctrine of the sacraments as follows: — Art. XYII. ^'As to the sacraments, it has been determined by the Holy Scriptures, that we have but two sacramental signs or symbols, which Jesus Christ has left unto us : the one is baptism, the other the eucharist, or Lord's supper, which we receive to demonstrate our perseverance in the faith, according to the promise we made in our BAPTIS3I in our INFANCY," &c. Here is the doctrine of the Waldenses of this assembly; and it seems that all in this assembly had been baptized in their infancy, and that it was the general practice among the Waldenses to baptize in infancy. Bishop Usher quotes out of Hoveden's Annals in Henry II., fol. 319, edit. London, a confession of faith made by the honi homines of Tholouse — this was one name given to those sects of men that have since been called Waldenses — who being summoned and examined before a meeting of bishops, abbots, &c., repeated it before the assembly; but being urged to swear it, refused. In the body of which confession they say: ^'We believe also that no person is saved but what is baptized; and that infants are saved l>y hajptism." Mr. Baxter having been called upon by Danvers to produce any confession of theirs of any ancient date that owned infant baptism, produces this, which was about the year 1176, and says, "Would you have a fuller proof?" ^ Again, referring to the superstitious additions introduced 8 WaU, vol. ii. 240. 9 Murdock's note on Mosheim, Wall, vol. ii. 243, 244. HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 843 by the Papists, they say: '-'The things which are not ne- cessary to baptism, are the exorcisms, the breathings, the sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of the infanfj the salt put into the mouth, the spittle into the ears and nostrils, the unction on the breast," kc. And it is with reference to these corruptions that Perrin, the historian of the Waldenses, observes, ''being constrained for some hundred years to suffer their children to be baptized by the priests of the Church of Rome, they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could, because they had in detestation those human inventions that were added to the sacrament, which thoy held to be the pollution thereof/' ^" Consider one more fact : '' Soon after the opening of the Reformation by Luther, they sought intercourse with the Pteformed churches of Geneva and France; held communion v:ith them; and appeared eager to testify their respect and affection, for them as brethren in the Lord. Xow it is well known that the Churches of Geneva and France, at this time, were in the habitual use of infant baptism. This single fact is sv£icienc to prove that the Waldenses v:ere jjsedohaptists." ^'- Descent is sometimes traced from the Cathari of Germany, the Paterines in Italy, and the Paulicians in Greece. But the following are well authenticated facts in church history, that "all these sects were semi-maniclieans; that the Paulicians denied that this inferior and ^dsible world is the production of the Supreme Being, and distinguish between the Creator of the world, and of the human body, from the Most High who dwells in heaven — and hence some have been led to conceive that they were a branch of the Gnostics rather than w WaU, vol. u. 211. " Dr. Samuel Miller on Baptism. And Dr. ililler adds, on same page, "If they had adopted the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, and laid the same stress on it with them, it is manifest that such intercourse would have been wholly out of the question." 34:4 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. of the Manicliees; that they refused to celebrate the institu- tion of the Lord's supper ; that they rejected the books of the Old Testament^ and looked upon the writers of that sacred history as inspired by the Creator of this world, and not by the Supreme God; that they excluded proselytes and elders from all part in the administration of the church ; that they interpreted the New Testament allegoricaUy ydiudi rejected the two Epistles of St. Peter; that instead of con- fessing the human nature and substantial sufferings of Christ, they amused their fancy with a celestial body, and with a fantastic crucifixion, that eluded the impotent malice of the Jews; that they believed in the eternity of matter;" ^^ and many other doctrines they entertained equally irrational, unphilosophical, and unscriptural. And they were branded as heretics by the Greek Church. Nor is this all. How- ever heretical they were in the above doctrines, they never opposed infant haptism, as no evidence of a satisfactory nature has ever been adduced that they rejected infant bap- tism. Why the Baptists trace the origin of their church to such sects as these, it is impossible to conceive, unless it is that they strenuously opposed certain extravagant dogmas of the Papal Church, such as the cross, the worship of the Virgin Mary, and other vain rites and ceremonies of human invention. The pretensions of others to descent from the Donatists are likewise unfounded. This sect arose in the year 311, and is regarded as a schismatic body, and derives its name from Ponatus, the princijDal leader in the contro- versy that gave rise to the sect. And let it be carefully observed, that after their separation from the church, they made no alteration in ecclesiastical organization, none in doctrine, and continued the practice of infant baptism as 12 Waddington; Wall; Buck, p. 329; Mosheim, vol. ii. 233; Milner, vol. i. 572; Ruter, p. 154. HISTORY OP OPPOSITION. 345 they had done before their sejmration. ''The doctrine of the Donatists was conformable to that of the church, as even their adversaries confess/^ ^^ And yet Mosheim calls them a " schismai iced pestilence,'^ and Milner observes, "as in their origin, so in their manners and spirit all along, they seem unworthy to be compared with the first class, the No- vatian/'" Another ecclesiastical historian observes, "The schism of the Donatists was an impetuous torrent which in- undated and desolated the adjacent country ; but its limits were prescribed, and its mischief confined to the African provinces/' " " Among all the reasons that the Donatists gave why the baptism of the Catholics was null, there is none that lays any blame on their gi^^ng it in infancy. But on the contrary, St. Austin does often make use of the instance of infant baptism, as granted hy them, to overthrow some of their eri'ors that they had about baptism." ^^ That the Donatists did not reject, but practise infant baptism, is evident from the following testimony: — "About the time when the third Council of Carthage was held, the scLi-ui of the Donatists began to break apace, and those who had been brought up in it came over in great numbers to the com- munion of the church. This party of men difiered nothing from the Catholics in any point either of doctrine, or of ceremonies, or of sacraments. Now the bishops of this council debated among themselves tow far it was expedient to admit any that returned from this schism to the church into holy orders. And as for those who, having been once baptized in the Catholic church, did, after they came to years of discretion, revolt to the Donatists, and were bap- tized by them, they agreed that such, upon their return to the church, might be admitted to lay communion, but never 13 Mosheim, vol. i. 123. ^^ Milner, vol. i. 275. 15 Ruter, p. 81. '6 Wall, vol. ii. 130. 346 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. bear any office in tlie cliui-cii. But the case of those loho had been horn among the Donatists, AND HAD BEEN IN THEIR INFANCY BAPTIZED BY THEM, and after they came to years of discretion, disliked the schism, and came over to the church, seemed very different. Concerning these they could not come to any resolution at present ; and therefore they agreed that the advice of two of the most noted neigh- boring churches should be asked in that matter, and they made a canon in these words : ' In reference to the Dona- tists, it is resolved that we do ask the advice of our brethren and fellow-bishops Siricius and Simplicianus, concerning those only who in infancy are baptized among them,' &c. The answer of these two bishops seems to have been in favor of those concerning whom their opinion was asked ; and four years after, the Council of Carthage determines the point absolutely, that such persons may, if there be occasion, be promoted to the ministry. You remember that in a former council it was resolved, that they icho were in their infancy baptized among the Donatists, and when they came to the age of understanding, acknowledged the truth, &c. — they were received by us — all will grant that such may undoubtedly be promoted to church offices, especially in times of so great need.'^^^ Nor is this all. Optatus, Bishop of Milevium, in persuading the Donatists to union with the church, remiiids them that ^^the ecclesiastical organization is one and the same with us and you. Though men's minds are at variance, the sacraments are at none. And we may say we helieve alike, and are sealed with one and the same seal: not otherwise BAPTIZED than you, nor otherwise ordained than you." *^ And Cresconius, a Dona- tisfj anxious to reunite his brethren with the church, settles this question: ^^ There is between us and you one religion, " Wall, vol. i. 307-310. i8 ibid. vol. i. 161. HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 347 THE SAME SACRAMENTS, NOTHING IN CHRISTIAN CERE- MONIES DIFFERENT. It Is a scJusin that is between ^ls, not a heresj/.^' ^^ DONATISTS THEREFORE BAPTIZED INFANTS. But the Baptists attempt to trace descent also from the N'ovatians, a sect that arose in the year 250, and takes its name from Novatian, who separated from the church, not on account of doctrine, but mere points of discijpline. ^'They were distinguished merely by their discij>line; for their religious and doctrinal tenets do not appear to be at all dif- ferent from those of the chmx-h." =° " There was no differ- ence in point of doctrine between the Novatians and other Christians." ^ Novatian had been a Stoic before he was a Christian — and hence probably the rigor of his discipline. ''Thus was formed the first body of Christians, who, in modern language, may be called dissenters; that is, men who separate from the church, not on grounds of doctrine, but of discipline. The Novatians held no opinion contrary to the faith of the gospel.'^ ^^ The origin of this schism is given by Neander: "This dissension arose from a contest about the election of a bishop, and from a contention of opinions on the subject of church penance.'^ ^^ And Xeander observes of Novatian, "when he thought himself near 'his end, he was baptized on his sick-bed;" and in a note he quotes from a letter from Cornelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, "Novatian being in danger of death, he received the rite of baptism only by sprinkling, as his condition required." ^* Benedict himself, whose "His- tory of the Baptists" has superseded that of Backus, admits, in his quotation from Mr. Orchard's account of the No- vatians, all we have said about doctrine. " There was no J9 Wall, vol. i. 161. 20 Watson's Theol. Diet. p. 708. 2' Mosheim, vol. i. 96. 22 Milner, vol. i. 180. 23 Neander's Church Hist. p. 142. ^ Ibid. p. 142. 348 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. difference in points of doctrine between tlie Novatians and other Christians.'^ ^^ The conclusion then is inevitable, that the Novatians BAPTIZED infants. The testimony of Augustine, Pelagius, and Celestius is conclusive on this subject. The celebrated controversy between them, to which we have already referred, occurred after the rise of the Xovatians. Now had the Xovatians denied infant baptism, these three men could not have failed to know the fact, for they were great travellers, and careful observers of the manners and customs of the countries through which they travelled. Pelagius and Celestius " spent the prime of their age at Rome, a place to which all the people of the world then had a resort. They were both for some time at Carthage in Africa. Then one settled at Jerusalem, and the other travelled through all the noted Greek and Eastern churches in Europe and Asia. It is im- possible there should have been any church that had any singular practice in this matter, but they must have heard of it. So that one may fairly conclude that there was not at this time, nor in the memory of the men of this time, any Christian society that denied baptism to infants.'^ ^^ Pelagius declared, that "he never heard, no, not even any impious heretic or sectary, that denied infants baptism.'' And besides. Wall continues, " there are so many books extant, written at the same time, by Cyprian, Eusebius, Optatus, Austin, &c., containing a ventilation of all the disputes between the Catholics and these men, in which nothing has ever been observed that should intimate that they had any such jDractice or opinion. '^'^ Indeed, 31r. Benedict concedes the whole point at issue. "As this [the Novatian] is the first party of importance who were acknowledged to be sound ^ BenccUct, edit. 184S, p. 6. ^ WaU, vol. i. 476. ^ Ibid. vol. ii. 129. HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 349 in doctrine which loitlidrew from the established church, it is proper to give a full account of the reasons which led to the separation/' &c.^^ And what were "the reasons?" Vv'hy just the reasons given by the learned authors above, and infant baptism is not mentioned as one of those reasons. And finally, the third Council of Carthage, which unani- mously refused to defer the baptism of infants till the eighth day, gave its decision at the very time, in the very YEAR, IN WHICH THE SCHISM OF NOVATIAN OCCURRED. Thus, the testimony of a thousand years from the birth of Christ is undisturbed by a single instance of opposition to the apostolic practice of infant baptism. Nay, further, there was no opposition to infant baptism for twelve hundred years, exi3ept from Tertullian, who admitted the universal preva- lence of it in his day, and the Petrobrussians, who founded their opposition to infant baptism upon grounds that would overturn the Baptist Church. Nay, I will go further. For more i}i2iXi fifteen hundred years of the Christian era, there was not a single church on earth that opposed infant bap- tism upon the ground occupied by the modern Baptist Church. In the year 1522, according to authentic eccle- siastical histor}'-, the anabaptists in G-ermany rejected infant baptism upon the principles adopted by the Baptist Church of the present day. This is absolutely and strictly true, according to the positive and unequivocal testimony of the history of the church. Opposition to infant baptism began in the Dark Ages — but we have light to trace this opposition to its earliest origin, and to define satisfactorily its authors and its character. If opposition to the practice of infant baptism were now to begin in this enlightened day, the Bap- tist Church could never exist; and if the Baptist Church w^ould now examine its claims and pretensions on this sub- 2S Hist, of the Baptists, p. 4. 30 350 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. ject by tlie light of the sacred record and ecclesiastical his- tory, it would soon cease to exist as an independent branch of the Christian church. Opposition to infant baptism can originate in nothing else than mere surmises, vague con- jectures, and fondly cherished fancies. It was this kind of opposition to infant baptism that Calvin resisted so boldly in his day. Says he, "Whereas certain persons spread abroad among simple people that there passed a long series of years after the resurrection of Christ, in which infant baptism was not practised, therein do they lie most ahomina- hly ; for there is no writer so ancient that doth not certainly refer the heginning thereof to the age of the aj)ostles." And the learned Brown afl&rms the same thing : " None can without the most affronted imposition allege that infant baptism was not commonly allowed in the primitive ages of Christianity. '^ And Milner crushes the whole opposition to infant baptism by a sweeping, universal negative: " We never had," says he, ^'such a custom as that of confining baptism to adults, nor the churches of God." So far therefore from defining the time, place, and cir- cumstances of the supposed innovation of infant baptism, we find every thing to the contrary; the church in no age making any effort to innovate on this subject, but continu- ing in uninterrupted tranquillity respecting the authenticity, validity, and practice of infant baptism, for more than a thousand years; while we are able definitely to expose to the world the very time, place, and circumstances of oppo- sition to infant baptism — a long-standing doctrine of the Christian church. I cannot close this objection without making one more remark. It is admitted on all hands, that infant baptism has been the practice of the church since the close of the second century. It has been proved, that opposition to this practice did not commence within a thousand years from the HISTORY OF OPPOSITION. 351 beginning of the Christian church. It is also unquestion- able, that, had the Baptist church existed at any time dur- ing this period, it would have opposed the practice as unscriptural, and as an innovation; and the Baptist Church would certainly have obtained information of the time, place, and circumstances of the innovation. But no opposition to infant baptism, as a primitive and apostolic practice, is heard of in the church till the twelfth century — nay, upon the principles of modern Baptists, none till the beginning of the sixteenth century — and therefore the Baptist Church MUST DATE ITS ORIGIN IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. Had the Baptist Church existed sooner, we should have heard of its opposition to infant baptism sooner. The beginning of opposition to infant baptism, upon the principles maintained by the Baptist Church, is coeval with the beginning of the Baptist Church : the latter commences with the former : and therefore to find the time of the one is to find out the origin of the other : which we have done in this chapter. -^ ^ Mr. Gale takes exceptions Against the books, and translations of the books of the Fathers, whenever they support the doctrine of infant bap- tism. Dr. "Wall replies : " To one that is so endless in his cavils and exceptions against the books and translations, Ave must, I think, stop his mouth with that answer of Mr. Stokes: 'It is your common method to evade the authority of the Fathers, by saying, they are but translations, &c. But you have >t:ither originals sob. traxslatioxs of those early times on your side.' "Were there no anti-pasdobaptists then to translate?" &c. WaU, vol. iv. 362. 352 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. CHAPTER III. OTHER OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1. ^^ There is no positive command respecting infant baptism: infant baptism is not explicitly enjoined in the Scriptiu-es.'^ We reply, admitting this to be time — which we do not — this is the strongest proof of its validity. It is as dearly implied, in certain scriptures, as if it were explicitly en- Joined; ond a clearly implied duty is as binding as one positively enjoined. But while it is often alluded to inci- dentally, and embraced in general commissions without speci- fication, because it icas icell known at the time, and admitted hy all, — in other scriptures, as we have seen, it is explicitly and positively referred to. Besides, if the force of the above objection be admitted, for the same reason, women should not be admitted to the Lord's supper; nor should the church consider it optional to select the mode of communing, or the polity and cpiantity of bread and wine to be received; nor should we keep the fii'st day of the week instead of the seventh as the Sabbath. The change of the Sabbath is not explicitly and positively enjoined, yet it is implied, and the obligation to keep the Sabbath continues through all genera- tions. Moreover, the absence of positive repeal is equiva- lent to the confirmation of the original statute, as we have proved in a former part of this treatise. 2. "Repentance and faith are necessary to baptism : in- fants cannot perform these conditions, and therefore they ought not to be baptized." REPENTANCE AND FAITH NOT NECESSARY. 353 (1.) True, they cuunot believe — the power of faith is not yet developed; nor are the laws of faith yet applicable. They cannot repent — they have nothing to repent of — they are justified through the atonement of Christ, and this justi- fication gives them as good a title to baptism as repentance and fiiith give to the adult. Where sin has been committed, repentance and faith are necessary, but where it has not been committed, repentance and faith are not necessary ; and therefore the infant is just as innocent in Christ as the penitent believer, and has on this ground just as good a title to baptism as the adult believer. (2.) The Scriptures require faith of adults, and hence adults must exercise faith before they are entitled to baptism. The obligation of faith can be imposed only upon those who are capable of believing; but infants are not capable of believing, and therefore they are not required to believe in order to be saved or to be baptized. The irresponsibility of infancy presents no stronger obstacle to infant baptism than it does to infant salvation, and consequently the obligation of faith enters not into the question of infant baptism as a prerequisite, any more than into the question of infant salva- tion, and is confined wholly to the case of adults, in whose minds the power of faith is developed, and to whom alone, because they are capahle of believing, the principles of re- sponsibility are applicable. (3.) If this objection is of any force against infant bap- tism, it is of equal force against infant circumcision. But God judged otherwise. The Jews were '^broken off through unbelief," which signifies that they stood by faith — and yet their children were grafied in with them. Faith never stood in the way of children under the old dispensation ; and as God is always the same, the covenant the same, the princi- ples of moral obligation the same, moral relations the same, the relations of children to God in Christ Jesus the same, 30* 154 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. and to their parents tlie same, why make any change in the application of the great covenant that has received children from the beginning? Nothing short of express command from heaven, accompanied by a miracle, can exclude chil- dren from baptism for want of faith. (4.) The objection founded upon the supposed necessity of repentance and faith as preliminary to baptism, will vanish when we properly distinguish between conditional and un- conditional salvation. The conditionality of salvation has no reference to infants, as must be admitted by all, and hence, wherever repentance and faith are explicitly men- tioned in the Scriptures as the condition of baptism, the case VL infants is not referred to, but the duty of those who are capable of repentance and faith. The Apostle Paul declares, "that if any would not work, neither should he eat.'' This declaration has reference alone to those who are capable of working, and yet infants, who cannot work, are not hereby to be deprived of food. Infants can no more be excluded from baptism upon this ground, than they can be held re- sponsible for the discharge of the conditions of salvation. Rules and obligations applicable to persons of riper years cannot be prescribed for infants in order to baptism, since baptism, as in the case of circumcision, is due to infants on grounds independent of accountability. It is on this ground likewise, that infants are not regarded as proper subjects for the communion, since, in all cases, the proper observance of the holy eucharist is involved in the scope of responsibility Finally, the adult is saved conditionally, and therefore he is baptized conditionally ; but the infant is saved luicondition- ally, and therefore he should be baptized unconditionally. The adult is entitled to both baptism and salvation con- ditioncdly ; the infant is entitled to both baptism and salva- tion unconditionally. If the infant has an unconditional title to salvation, the substance, he has undoubtedly the same REPENTANCE AND FAITH NOT NECESSARY. kind of right to baptism, tlie outward, visible siyn and seal of salvation. You cheerfully grant the infant, dying in in- fancy, an unconditional right to spiritual baptisra, and yet deny his right to water baptism, which is emblematical of the spiritual. Baptism is the outward sign and seal of the covenant of salvation, setting forth the right of the believer to all the blessings of that covenant in time and eternity. But the infant has an unconditional title to all these cove- nanted blessings, and therefore he has an unconditional and indubitable title to baptism, the outward sign and seal of the covenant conveying these blessings. The title of the infant and the believer to salvation is the same; their title to bap- tism therefore is the same. In a word, the objection is founded upon the infant's unconsciousness. But the infant's unconsciousness is no objection to his salvation : he is saved through the atonement of Christ. But he is unconscious of this saving interest in the atonement, and as his unconscious- ness does not destroy his title to salvation, it cannot invali- date his title to baptism that sets forth his interest in the atonement. On the ground of the infant's unconsciousness, dreadful as the conclusion is — and yet it is unavoidable from such premises — the infant ought not to he saved. But his unconsciousness does not disqualify him for salvation, and therefore his unconsciousness does not disentitle him to baptism. In a word, in view of the great princi]jUs of tlte plan of salvation J it is impossible to deny the infant an un- conditional title to haptism, icithout denying him an uncon- ditional title to salvation — which would be a most appalling heterodoxy as the foundation of the Baptist Church. The conclusion is inevitable, that repentajice and faith enter in no respect into the question of infant baptism. There are several other forms of this objection to infant baptism which we will here consider. "There is not a single case mentioned in the New 356 OBJECTIOXS TO IN'FAXT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. Testament in wliich baptism did not require faith in the adult; therefore chiklren ought not to be baptized." There is not a single case mentioned in the Old Testament in which circumcision did not require faith in the adult ; there- fore children ought not to have been circumcised under the Jewish dispensation. The inference in both cases is equally unsound and inconclusive. For as Abraham was circum- cised in view of* his faith, and circumcision extended to his children, so baptism should be administered to the children of believers, to say no more, under the Christian dispensa- tion. The sacred record of the baptism of whole families upon the opening of the Christian dispensation, introduces no new order of things respecting children; the statements are made as if the old order of things had been subjected to no innovation in this matter. Thus, " Lvdia was baptized and her famUy ;^ the jailer "was baptized, AND ALL His, straightway." "The promise is unto you, and your cliil- dren.^^ Besides, not one single adult believer baptized by the apostles, is spoken of as descended from Christian parentage, while not one adult believer, descended from Christian parentage, is said to have been baptized in adult age. That "the baptism of adult believers is the only gospel baptism," is argued by Mr. Jewett "from the spiri- tual nature of the Christian dispensation." What, was not the Jewish dispensation spiritual ^^y^oW as temporal? If not, how could circumcision be "the seal of the ric/hteous- ness of faith?" If the Jewish dispensation was not in part spiritual, then none under that dispensation could he saved, except hy the light of nature; and so the only peculiar bless- ings secured by the Jewish dispensation to the Jews, were those of a temporal nature ! But the Jewish dispensation was sp)iritual as well as temporal, and hence circumcision was the sign and seal of a spiritual dispensation. And on this very ground infants have a better title to baptism than REPENTANCE AND FAITH NOT NECESSARY. 357 JeTvish cliildren had to circumcision, since children now are under a better dispensation^ and especially since Christ has left unrepealed the original enactment made in their case. '^ The significancy of baptism, and the obligation under which its reception lays its subjects, afford conclusive proof that it should be applied only to believers." So far as bap- tism refers to adults, this is true. The same conclusion is true as it respects children : in riper years, they can recog- nise the "significancy," and sanction and discharge "the obligations" involved in infant baptism. In baptism, the infant is brought under obligation to repent and believe, should God in his providence spare him to the age of ac- countability, which obligation is imposed upon him inde- pendently of his unconsciousness and non-concurrence, an 1 which he is bound to keep and perform. Obligation, in the case of infants, is left to be perfected by subsequent obe- dience — indeed, infant baptism expresses the obligations of repentance, faith, love of Christ, and a holy life. Infants were circumcised in view oi future obligations to repent and believe; hereby they became " debtors to the law." So under John's dispensation, the Jews were baptized unto future repentance and faith. And so children now are baptized in view of the solemn obligations of the whole subsequent life. "The gospel saves none but by faith. The gospel has to do with those who hear it. It is good news; but to infants it is no news at all. None shall ever be saved by the gospel who do not believe it. Consequently, by the gospel no in- fant can be saved. Infants are saved by the death of Christ, but not by [believing] the gospel, not by faith." ^ Now to bfelieve in the gospel, and to be saved by the death of Christ, are one and the same thing in the end, for salva- tion is the result. Believers are saved by faith in the death ' Jewett, p. 101. !58 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED, of Christy and infants are saved by the death of Christ with- out faith j hence children are as much saved by the death of Christ as believers are. The gospel has glad tidings as specifically for the infant as it has for the adult. If not, why mention them at all in the Old and New Testaments ? The mere fact, that infants cannot ''hear/' "believe/' and understand the gospel, does not invalidate their title to the blessings of the gospel, since Christ died for them, and now ever lives in heaven to make intercession for them, and therefore, hy the go&jpelj their title to baptism is as certainly secured to them as salvation is provided for them. "The Bible makes faith a pre-requisite of baptism.'' So it does in the case of the adult, and such should be the pre-recjuisite in the case of every adult person in the present day, who has not been baptized — such was the order in the days of the apostles — such should be the demand of missionaries in pagan countries — and such was the order in the case of Abraham, who first exercised faith and then was circumcised. But with the posterity of believers — to say no more — in Christendom and in paganism, it is difierent, as it was with the posterity of Abraham. The right of in- fants to formal initiation into the church is connected with every formal dispensation of the covenant of grace in all time. In a word, the Baptists adduce scriptm-es referring to ad.idt baptism, and insist on the universal necessity of understanding and faith in order to the legitimate adminis- tration of baptism. This is a sophism. The premises are particular — the conclusion is universal, which is illogical. The premises specifically embrace adults only, and hence children cannot be brought into the conclusion. The Uni- tarians are in the habit of adducing those passages which only prove that Christ is man, and from which they infer he is not God, which is a sophism, since his divinity does not enter into the premises. We all agree on the points of REPENTANXE AND FAITH NOT NECESSARY. 359 adult baptism and Christ's humanity, but these points of agreement do not logically embrace the negative of infant baptism and Christ's diviniti/. Consequently the discussion of infant baptism must proceed upon other and a2:)propriate premises. To sum up our reply to the objection under consideration": — It is objected, infants cannot repent, and therefore they should not be baptized. That is the very reason why they should be baptized, provided a sufficient ground already exists on which repentance is dispensed with in the case of infants — and such is the vicarious death of Christ. Again, it is objected, infants cannot believe, and therefore they should not be baptized. Again we reply, that is the very reason why they should be baptized, provided a sufficient ground already exists on which faith is dispensed with in the case of infants — and such is the vicarious death of Christ. Again, it is objected, infants cannot exercise consciousness or moral intelligence, and therefore they ought not to be baptized. To this we reply, that is the very reason why they should be baptized, provided a sufficient ground already exists on which moral intelligence is dispensed with in the case of infants — and such is the vicarious death of Christ. Again, it is objected, infants are not responsible, and there-' fore they should not be baptized. And to this we reply, that is the very reason why they should be baptized, pro- vided a sufficient ground already exists on which responsi- bility is dispensed with in the case of infants — and such is the vicarious death of Christ. Thus, the very reasons why baptism is denied to infants, are the very reasons why it should be granted to them. If they could repent, believe, exercise consciousness, or were responsible, their right to baptism would depend upon conditions to be performed by them; but since, in the very nature of things, they cannot be held responsible for the performance of conditions, then* 360 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. right to baptism is founded upon the vicarious death of Christ — a death that answers in the sight of the law, in the case of infants, as if they had repented, believed, and obeyed the gospel — a death that dispenses, in their case, with the discharge of all conditions under the gospel as pre-requisite to baptism and salvation — a death that as fully entitles them to all the blessings of the gospel as if they had dis- charged all the conditions of the gospel. Indeed, the infant has just as good a right to baptism as Christ himself had to circumcision. Christ's right to circumcision was founded upon his own inherent merit; the infant's right to baptism is founded upon Christ's meritorious vicarious death for him : the gracious relation which the infant sustains to the death of Christ entitles him just as much to baptism as it does to salvation : the latter must be denied before the for- mer can be legitimately withheld. Again, every argument, however plausible, that is opposed to a known truth, is false. Thus, he who will not work, neither shall he eat: infants cannot work; therefore they shall not eat. Again, the Scriptures require repentance and faith in order to salvation: infants cannot repent and be- lieve; therefore they cannot be saved. Here the known tiiiths are, infants are entitled to food without working, and to salvation without repentance and faith. Again, "circum- cision verily profit eth if thou keep the law;'' but infants cannot keep the law; therefore their circumcision must be unprofitable. Here the truth opposed is the icisdom of God. Thus, the right of infants to baptism is founded upon the known truth, that they are saved without repentance and faith. In other words, there cannot be more in the con- clusion than is contained in the premises. Thus, infants must be inserted in the premises as follows : — The Scriptures do not recjuire repentance and faith of infants in order to salvation; therefore they may be saved without repentance BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED, ETC. 361 and faith. Here tlie coucliision is contained in the premises. The Scriptures do require repentance and faith of adults in order to baptism; therefore adults who believe are entitled to baptism. Here the conclusion is contained in the premi- ses. The Scriptures do not recfuire repentance and faith of infants in order to baptism; therefore infants, without re- })entance and faith, are entitled to baptism. Here the con- clusion is contained in the premises, since infants are entitled to salvation without repentance and faith, and right to bap- tism is necessarily involved. The same requisitions are made upon adults for both salvation and baptism ; but these requisitions are dispensed with in the case of infants for salvation, and the right to baptism follows. By repentance and faith, the adult has a right to salvation, the thing signi- fied, and to baptism, the sign signifying; but the infant, without repentance and faith, has a right to salvation, the thing signified, and of course has a right to baptism, the thing signifying. o. "We proceed to consider another objection. '^Baptism is not substituted for circumcision, and therefore children ought not to be baptized.'^ (1.) Then the Christian dispensation is without an initia- tory sacrament, and the covenant of salvation, under the Christian dispensation, is wholly destitute of a corresponding oatward sign and seal. Consequently adult believers are not initiated into the Christian church by baptism. We then ask, how are any who are entitled to salvation initiated into the Christian church? Why did Christ, upon the open- ing of the Christian dispensation, command his disciples to baptize? Why did the apostles baptize three thousand believers on the day of Pentecost ? And why do the Bap- tists now baptize even adult believers? Why, because bap- tism is the initiating sacrament of the Christian dispensation, and hence baptism is substituted for circumcision, the ini- 31 862 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. tiating sacrament of the Jewish dispensation; and therefore children ought to be baptized. (2.) We shall consider this objection further by noticing the arguments adduced in support of it. First. " The Jewish dispensation was a civil institution. '* Granted; but it was more. It was typical — typical of what ? Not of temporal blessings merely, for these were already in possession. But of spiritual blessings also^ and hence it embraced the spiritual interests of childi'en^ which under the Christian dispensation cannot be formally set forth but by baptism. Secondly. ^'If baptism be substituted for circumcision, then none but male children ought to be baptized." This by no means follows. [1st.] Adult females were baptized by the apostles, and therefore, as the apostles vai'ied in this particular, there is no reason why they might not vary also with regard to infant females. [2d.] The limitation of one dispensation for special pur- poses, does not necessarily involve a corresponding restriction in another, in which such purposes are not embraced. The fulness of the Christian dispensation includes infant females as proper subjects of baptism, since the reasons for their exclusion from circumcision under the Jewish dispensation no longer exist. The Christian dispensation is more en- larged than the Jewish, and, like the ^^ glorious gospel," embraces all nations ; so that as circumcision is no longer answerable, an initiatory rite must be selected and enjoined, corresponding to the number of its objects — "every crea- ture," — and the range of its blessings — '' all the world ;" and the application of this rite is not confined to the eighth day, nor to place, nor to sex. Under the Jewish dispensation, malci onh/, whether Jews or proselytes, received circum- cision, and the whole family entered into covenant, and for BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED, ETC. 363 this obvious reason. It was unnecessary under tlie Jewish dispensation, that any initiatory rite should be applicable to the females, since, from the constitution of the Jewish polity, the rite that initiated the males represented the title of the females also to the same covenanted blessings, on the exercise oi faith, according to the light of their dispensation. Indeed, this objection, if admitted, proves too much. Adult females were included in the covenant, and were members of the visible church of God under the old dispensation, though they did not receive the seal of the covenant any more than infant females. Were adult females excluded from the covenant, or from the visible church of Grod, under the Jewish dispensation, because they received not the token of membership ? Certainly not. They were recognised as having as good a title in these respects as the infant male who had been circumcised. Besides, infant females were included in the covenant, and recognised as entitled to church membership, independently of the rite of circum- cision. But infant females, and adult females who believe, are still included in the covenant, under the Christian dis- pensation, and as baptism is to be administered to both males and females, under the Christian dispensation, the rights which females had under the old dispensation, with- out circumcision, are now set forth by baptism. TJie ex- ception in the case of females is icithdraicn under the expanded and perfected dispensation of Christ : " for there is neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but we are all one in Christ Jesus.'' There is another reason why baptism should be conferred on females under the Christian dispensation. Under the civil polity of the Jewish people, as under all sound civil governments, the females are represented by the males, in voting, eligibility to office, &c.; indeed, under the Jewish polity, in both church and state, the rights of females were 364 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. in some respects absorbed in those of the males, and thus the females, from infancy, were recognised as entitled to all the privileges of the "promise" or the "everlasting cove- nant," and when they arrived at the proper age, they en- joyed all the privileges of the promise or covenant, in church and state. But under the Christian dispensation, the civil and ceremonial character of the Jewish dispensa- tion having passed away, and consequently the females being no longer represented by the circumcision of the males, and infant females being included in the "promise" or "everlasting covenant" as well as the males, they are entitled to baptism, the seal of the "promise" or "everlast- ing covenant," under the Christian dispensation, as much as the males. Under the Jewish dispensation, their right to the blessings of the everlasting covenant was formally repre- sented by the males, and was formally involved in their relation to the males. But under the Christian dispensa- tion their right to the blessings of the "everlasting cove- nant" continues, and will continue to the end of time; and as this right is no longer represented by social or civil rela- tions, it must be formally and sacramentally set forth by baptism, the seal of the "everlasting covenant" under the Christian dispensation. In other words^ the spiritual mean- ing or signification of the sign and seal of the "everlasting covenant," contained in the circumcision of the males under the Jewish dispensation, is now expressed in baptism under the Christian dispensation. Under the Jewish dispensation, from the relation of the females to the males, the scope of circumcision was the same as though it had been conferred on both sexes : the meaning of baptism is now the same in its spiritual character as the spiritual meaning of circum- cision was under the Jewish dispensation; and consequently, as the females are no longer represented by the males, they must be baptized for themselves, as expressive of their own feAPTiSM is SUBSTITUTED^ ETC. 865 personal, spiritual interest in the cveiiasting covenant. And thus as the spiritual as well as civil interest of wfant females was represented by the circumcision of the males under the Jewish dispensation, and answered for infant females as well as if the right had been conferred on them ; and as, in the very nature of things, the spiritual interest of infant females cannot be represented by the baptism of the males under the Christian dispensation, — baptism, the seal of the everlasting covenant, under the Christian dispen- sation, must be conferred on infant females, or their per- sonal spiritual interest in the everlasting covenant cannot be formally and sacramentally represented. The very nature of the Christmp. dispensation entitles infant females to hajj- tism; for under the Christian dispensation, "there is neither bond nor free, neither 7nale nor female^ but all are one in Christ Jesus." There is another essential reason why baptism should be conferred on females under the Christian dispensation. Often the females only in a family are converted, while the males continue in unbelief, and consequently the females should be baptized. Thus, in the natui-e of things, thougli circumcision was denied to females under the Jewish dis- pensation, they should receive baptism under the Christian dispensation. And as it is faith in the adult female that entitles to the blessings of the everlasting covenant, and so entitles to baptism also, \}Di^ formal, sensible seal of the covenant — and as infant females are entitled to the bless- ings of the everlasting covenant without faith, so they are entitled to baptism also, the seal of the covenant. The rights of the adult female who believes, and the infant fe-- male, are the same — the one conditionally, the other un- conditionally — and consequently baptism can no more be denied to the one than to the other. Christ is the sole representative of the infant female under the Christian dis- 31* 366 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAFTI^Zl CC.^SIDERED, pensation, and hence the right of the infant female to salva- tion and baptism can no more be denied than the gracious relation of the infant female to Christ can be annulled. There is another and a special reason why circumcision should be abolished upon the establishment of Christianity. The covenant of grace, formally made with Abraham, em- braces the promise of the Messiah, in whom all nations were to be blessed, and his descent was restricted to the line of Isaac. Circumcision was the formal seal to this promise, by which God was pledged to fulfil his covenant, and the Jews generally were preserved in the expectation of th© promised Messiah. In this respect, circumcision had a most important spiritual signification. In a word, it had a special prospective sacramental import. Therefore, when the 2>^'0')nised Messiah came, and made atonement for all nations, in all time, the design of circumcision was consum- mated, and circumcision was abolished as a rite no longer significant or sacramental in its use; and baptism, refro- spectiveJi/ referring to the establishment of Christianity by the death of Christ, and signifying the '^putting ofi" the body of the sins of the flesh,'' and corresponding to th« boundless fulness of the gospel, was substituted in the plac*' of circumcision. Thirdly. ^^We learn from Acts, 21st chapter, that Paul was censured by many of the believing Jews, because he ^ taught the Jews who were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their chil- dren.' (Ver. 21.) How natural it would have been for Paul to appease the clamor and conciliate the prejudices of the Jews, by replying that baptism was substituted for circum- cision. But we hear not a word from his lips on the sub- ject." And the inference therefore is, that baptism is not substituted for circumcision. But the inference is stronger, ;that that was the very reason why he prohibited circumcision. BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED, ETC. SGT It is most probable, that the apostle did not forbid circum- cision in the case of children, but .upon the ground that the Christian dispensation was provided with a proper substitute in their case — and hence the apostle's silence is in favor of infant baptism. The explanation of the disaifection of the Jews on this occasion, will strengthen this conclusion. Under John's dispensation, during which Jewish rites were not abolished, the Jews were permitted both to circumcise and baptize their children. Therefore, at the death of Christ, and the consequent abolition of the Jewish dispensa- tion, they desired the same pri\-ileges that they had enjoyed under John's dispensation, to which Paul objected, on the evangelical ground that circumcision was no longer ne- cessary. The Jews wished to circumcise as well as baptize their children. This the apostlo prohibited, because bap- tism, being substituted for circumcision, answered the whole spiritual design of circumcision. If, after this prohibition, the silence of Paid is a proof that baptism is not substituted for circumcision, the silence of the Jeics, on the other hand, is a proof that baptism is substituted for circumcision, for they make no inquiries respecting a substitute. Fourthly. In referring to a council held at Jerusalem, composed of apostles and elders, to determine how far Gen- tile converts might conform to Jewish usages. Dr. Bald- win, quoted by Professor Knowles, observes: "By the unanimous voice of a council comprising most, if not all the apostles and elders of the Christian church, and by the approbation of the Holy Gho.st, we see circumcision put down, and no substitute proposed in its room." The question considered in this council had no reference to the substitution of a rite in the place of circumcision, for this had already been done by the great Founder of Chris- tianity, but to the abandonment of circumcision and the 31osaic ceremonial law. For, while the apostles were giving 368 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. the brethren an account of the "conversion of the Grentiles" — observe^ the people converted are Gentiles — then, "certain Pharisees, which believed, rose up, and said, that it was needful to circumcise, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.'' The question then, is concerning "circum- cision and keeping the law of Moses." The council decided, that the law of Moses and circumcision were no longer bind- ing on mankind, Jew or G-entile. What then ? Why, ye Gentiles obey the gospel of CJirist, which we have preached to you. But what had the apostles preached to these Gen- tile converts? Certainly nothing else than the doctrines contained in the great commission, viz. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," &c. ; which they had preached be/ore this council met, and of course, having previously explained to them the nature and design of bap- tism, no further instruction on this subject was necessary. The Pharisees wished to add "circumcision." All that was necessary for the apostles to do was to put down circum- cision, which they did, and sent letters accordingly to their converts, "which when they had read, they rejoiced for con- solation," The question was not concerning the truth of Christianity, but whether Judaism should be added to it. The apostolic council decide that Christianity answers with- out Judaism, and therefore baptism will answer without cir- cumcision. They had already explained and proved Chris- tianity, and all that now remained was to confirm them in the faith. And so they were commanded to "abstain from all meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled," &c.; and Judas and Silas, who are sent unto them, "exhort the brethren with many words, and confirm them." Also Paul and Silas go "through Syria and Cilicia (the very places to which the council wrote the decision above,) confirming the churches" — that is, establishing them in the doctrines of Christianity, so that though baptism was BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED. ETC. 869 not mentioned in tlie decision of the council, it is most probable it was repeated in tlie preaching of the apostles. Indeed^ the fact that these Gentile converts had been bap- tized, and now desired circumcision, is strong presumptive proof that the apostles considered baptism in the place of circumcision. Had these Gentile converts been circumcised as well as baptized, then the argument would have been clear and strong that baptism was not substituted for cir- cumcision; and therefore, had the decision of the council been that these persons should be circumcised, we must have yielded the point to our Baptist brethren. But the decision of the council in putting down circumcision, most clearly shows that the apostles and elders, ^'with the appro- bation of the Holy Ghost," considered baptism, akeady administered to these converts, as sufficient, and consequently si^bstituted in the place of circumcision. But finally, the C£uestion to be decided by this council was not respecting infant circumcision, but the circumcision of adult helhcrny Gentiles. Had the question of infant circumcision Loen before the council, then very properly the subject of baptism would have been considered with reference to infants, and the necessary decision transmitted to remove any doubts that existed in the minds of the Gentiles on this subject. Fifthly. "If circumcision and baptism were the same thing, why was baptism administered to persons who had been previously circumcised ?" - [1st.] It is not contended, that they are the same thing. [2d.] Yet the fact, that persons were baptized who had been circumcised, is positive proof that circumcision was not considered by the apostles as initiatory into the Christian church, and hence baptism was administered in its place If the objection has reference to John's baptism, a sufficient 2 Jewett, p. 69, 370 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. reply, already giveiij is, that John came not to abolish Jew ish rites, and therefore his baptism referred to the Christian dispensation about to be opened. Sixthly. ^^If baptism be substituted for circumcision, will it not of necessity follow, that all servants, ^born in the house or bought with money,' must be baptized on the faith of the master?" 3 Not of necessity in all cases. [1st.] All children, "bought with money or born in the house,'' ought to be baptized, and it has been done, and still is done, by all who properly regard their duty. [2d.] As it respects adult servants, however, it is differ- ent. Such, under the more enlarged dispensation of the gospel, can be baptized on their faith alone, for the Christian dispensation is wholly spiritual. Seventhly. The identity of the Jewish and Christian dis- pensations in their spiritual bearing is denied, on the ground that the "one, by its constitution, included carnal members; the other, by its constitution, admits spiritual members only." * This is a f ital mistake. The Jewish dispensation was spiritual as well as carnal, or how could any of the Jews have been saved? If none but spiritual members can be saved, and the Jewish dispensation included none but carnal members, then Moses and Aaron and David, and all the prophets, with all the members of the Jewish church, lived and died without hope ! If the Jewish believer was saved under a carnal dispensation, it must have been through some typical reference had to the future confirmatory sacri- fice of Christ, which gave the Jewish dispensation all its spirituality and saving efficacy. And so Paul declares to the Judaizing Galatians, that it is not different from the Christian dispensation in its spiritual meaning. "I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into 3 Jewett, p. 70. "i Ibid. p. 71. OTHER OBJECTIONS. 371 the grace of Christ, unto another gospel, which is not an- other y' in its spiritual meaning, and differs only in its ex- ternal economy. Of course then the spiritual design of cir- cumcision, under the Jewish dispensation, corresponds to the spiritual design of baptism, under the Christian dis- pensation; and therefore the outward signs must represent each other, so that on the abolition of the one, the other must take its place. Finally, "Circumcision was a mark of national distinc- tion.'^ Granted; but it was more ; it was a mark of spiritual distinction. "I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. '^ Hereby the Jews are recognised, in the highest sense, as the spiritual children of God. In a similar manner, baptism sets forth this distinction under the Chris- tian dispensation. And therefore when the Galatians desired to return to Judaism, the apostle informs them that " if they should be circumcised, Christ should profit them nothing,'^ since, " as many of them as had been baptized into Christ, had put on Christ.'^ That is, a profession of religion, under the Christian dispensation, is made by baptism, and not by circumcision ] and hence baptism distinguishes the people of God from the men of the world, in the same manner that circumcision distinguished the Jews, "as the people of God,'^ from the sun-ounding heathen nations. To sum up our reply to the objection under consideration: — It is admitted, that there are points of difference between circumcision and baptism, and that there is not in every respect a perfect resemblance between them. But it does not follow therefore that one is not put in the place of the other. All that is required to establish a general agreement between them is, that the principle of both is the same, that the main object of both is the same, that the same sacra- mental end is accomplished. The nature of prayer, not the form, is essential. There are certain points of dissimilarity 372 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. between the ancient Jewish passover and the Lord's supper, and yet the principle of both is the same, and the latter is substituted in the place of the former. There are circum- stantial differences between the ancient Levitical priests and gospel ministers, and yet the latter take the place of the former. There are certain very prominent circumstantial differences between the beautiful simplicity of Christian worship and the gorgeous services of the ancient Jewish temple, and yet the latter are set aside by the former. In civil matters old laws may be repealed, and new ones enacted, and yet the main objects of the former may be retained under the latter, and thus the latter be properly regarded as substi- tuted in the place of the former. 4. ^^ Christ was baptized in adult age; and we ought herein to follow his example." (1.) John did not begin to baptize till Christ was of adult age. (2.) Then all Christians should not be baptized till they are tliirti/ years of age, for it was at that age Christ was baptized. (3.) The same objection must be in force against infant circumcision, since Abraham was not circumcised till he was of adult age. (4.) Christ was initiated into the Jewish Church in in- fancy by circumcision. And lastly, Christ's baptism was a solemn initiation into the priest's office, which could not legally have occurred at an earlier age ; and hence the period of life at which Christ was baptized forms no objection to in f ant baptism. 5. "Our children are with us in the spiritual church." Very true; and for tliat very reason, they have just as good a title to the formal recognition of this great fact, as you had when you believed. You admit, that dj'ing in infancy, they are entitled to all blessings of the spiritual church in time OTHER OBJECTIONS. 373 and eternity; surely then, living, they have equally as good a title to all the privileges of the external church, which we now enjoy through baptism. G. "But if they die in infancy without baptism, they will be saved." And well it is so. The adult believer also, if no opportunity to be baptized occur, will be saved, as in the case of the dying thief on the cross; and so would the inftint Jew have been saved, had he died in infancy without circumcision, and yet he was circumcised, and being circum- cised, when he became capable of enjoying the privileges of the Jewish Church, he was recognised as legally entitled to them. As in the case of the unbaptized believing adult, baptism is administered with reference not only to present character, but future rights and obligations, so in the case of infant baptism, it is administered with reference to the present character, and future rights and obligations of the infant. 7. "Baptism does not make the infant a Christian." Here we are agreed. "We do not believe in baptismal regeneration. The objection is as good against adult bap- tism as against infant baptism. The adult believer is no more justified after his baptism than he was before his bap- tism. In neither case is the heart changed by baptism, and hence the inefficacy of baptism to change the heart is no argument against infant baptism. 8. "Baptism administered to infants is not binding, since it is necessarily administered without the exercise of volition on the part of the child." We shall consider this objection at some length. First. Baptism does not originate obligation, but implies obligation already existing, founded upon God's original right to the child dying in infancy, and to his obedience, should he arrive at responsible age. The validity of infant baptism does not depend upon the volition of the subject, 32 374 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. but the divinity of its origin, and corresponding propriety in its administration. Infant baptism has been proved to be an institution perpetuated by Christ, and hence the adult who was baptized in infancy, has no right to exercise a private judgment in opposition to a matter sanctioned and enjoined by the word of God, as the standard of conscience and moral liberty. The rights of private judgment are no more invaded in the administration of baptism in infancy, than in the inculcation of moral truths in infant education by the parent. The doctrines taught at an early age furnish the standard of private judgment, and the child is hereby brought under moral obligation; and hence the adult, bap- tized in infancy, has no more right, upon the ground of moral duty, to discard his infant baptism, than he has to violate the obligations of his early education. Infant bap- tism presupposes the absence of right in the infant to private judgment, and hence cannot be regarded as contrary to any inherent and inalienable right. The infant has no inaliena- ble right to remain till he can choose a standard of private judgment for himself, nor can the parent innocently neglect his religious education during the immaturity of his reason, and infancy of his moral powers. The objection founded upon the imagined right of infants to private judgment is as much in force against applying any system of sound morals in educating children, as it is against administering baptism to infants : if it be usurpation in the latter case, it is in the former. Obligation is prior to the act of volition. Choice does not originate obligation, but obligation is to determine choice. Baptism recognises obligation existing prior to the act of volition, and imposes on the subject the duty of dis- charging the original obligation, according to the principles and truths of the gospel. That is, without baptism, the in- fant is under obligation when it grows up to lead a holy life — this obligation exists independently of baptism — baptism OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 375 merely recognises this obligation in a public, formal, and solemn manner, importing, independently of personal choice, the moral obligation of the infant under the gospel adminis- tration. The sense of responsibility lies at the foundation of the human mind; consequently God can justly and properly impose responsibility on the infant, independently of his concurrence and volition. Thus, baptism implies ob- ligation not found in consent, but prior to the exercise of the will, and hence baptism implies no violation of the right of private judgment, and therefore, in the case of infants, is not contrary to the word of God. And let it be observed also, that the obligations of the parents to attend to the bap- tism of theii" children is prior to, and independent of, the undeveloped consent of the children. Again, if the exercise of volition is necessary to originate and impose obligation, then infants are not bound by human laws, nor by parental obligation, nor by the authority of God himself, since infants never sanctioned the social com- pact, nor chose their parents, nor consented to the authority of God, and thus by a single bold stroke, all obligations to parents, to guardians, to masters, to the social compact, and to God himself, are absolutely annulled for ever; and every will in the universe, upon the same principle, may assume with impunity, absolute and eternal independence. "Man is really born, fostered, taught, and governed, with little or no regard to his own will. And even in respect to civil government, the greater part of the circumstances of a man's condition exht before him, and independently of him : for example, the institutions, the laws, the customs, the character of the nation in which he must share, and by which his own habits and actions are mainly regulated. And his re- lation to the government being determined by these external facts, and not by himself, it seems to be a groundless and inapplicable fiction, to speak of that relation as founded upon 376 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. a contract; to whicli he is a party." Whewell's Elements of Morality, vol. ii. 216, 217. Secondly. Unconsciousness does not divest the infant of a saving interest in the atonement of Christ, unless you can prove that his interest depends upon the knowledge of the design of the atonement, reliance upon it, and admission of moral obligation; in which case, you would make infant salvation conditional, and hence infant damnation inevitable. Ignorance does not invalidate the title of the infant to salva- tion, and hence can be no obstacle to his baptism. A Jew- ish writer observes, ^' One may privilege a person, though he is incapable of knowing it; but one ought not to dis- privilege a person without his knowledge" — as the Baptists do in withholding baptism from infants on account of their unconsciousness, or inability to exercise intelligible volition. Thii'dly. Children can enter into covenant with the Lord. ^^Ye stand all of you this day before the Lord your God — your little ones, TO enter into covenant with the Lord YOUR GoD."^ ^'Kead all the words of the law, the bless- ings and the cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law to the little ones."^ The covenant was made with infants to be applicable in adult years. "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not a covenant with our fathers, but with us, ei-en us, 2cho are all of us here alive this day^ ^ This covenant had been made with these adult Jews thirty years before this time,- when many of them at least were infants. Such is the arrangement of Infinite Wisdom, whereby in- fants are made passive parties to the covenant, and is a con- clusive and impressive refutation of the objection under consideration. And so Gregory Xazianzen says, "Hast thou an infant child? Let him he dedicated from his ^ Deut. xxix. 11, 12. '^ Josh. viii. 34, 35. "^ Deut. v. 2, 3. OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 37 cradle^ — enter into covenant with God, which can be done formally in no other way than by baptism. Under the Mosaic dispensation, children, at the age of three years, were considered capable of covenanting with God, and were admitted as members of the Jewish church. At three years of age, Samuel ''worshipped the Lord."^ Timothy, from his infanci/, knew the Holy Scriptures. ^ Would the apostles have refused baptism to such children as these? Should we refuse baptism to such children ? Fourthly. The same objection might have been urged as forcibly against circumcision under the Jewish dispensation, and yet would not have been sufficient to cause its neglect. We may consider this objection in another form. " Per- sons baptized in infancy, in after years may become dissatis- fied with their baptism. '^ And so persons baptized in adult years sometimes become dissatisfied with their baptism. Abstract dissatisfaction is no more valid in one ease than iu the other. Besides, the mere possibility that the adult will become dissatisfied with his infant baptism, is far from being sufficient to set aside the whole weight of testimony in favor of infant baptism — a weight of testimony which enforces the most solemn duty — and the possibility of dissatisfaction can never lessen, much less release wholly from obligation. But let us carefully consider the reasons by which the adult justi- fies his dissatisfaction. His doubts may be thus stated : "I have been baptized in infancy, and though I believe the mode to be wholly non-essential, yet as I had no hand in my baptism, I consider it invalid. And yet if I could sanc- tion and adopt my infant baptism as my act, I would give up all my scruples at once on the subject." The whole statement then of the objection is this: — In order to the validity of baptism, it is assumed, that the subject must be 8 1 Sam. i. 28; ii. 11. 9 2 Tim. iii. 15. 32^ 378 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. conscious of its administration, understand its nature, design, and obligatijDn, and with such knowledge, he for himself, must voluntarily submit to it, otherwise it is not his act, and hence is not valid. As this objection is one of a most per- plexing nature to some minds, we shall endeavor satis- factorily to analyze and answer it. In infancy you were entitled to all the blessings of salva- tion on the ground of Christ's atonement, and hence at that time you were unconditionally eiltitled to baptism, the out- ward sign and seal of such title. But you forfeited your title to salvation subsequently by disobedience and unbelief; and yet a short time since, you believed in Christ, and were pardoned, and so recovered the title to salvation which you had unconditionally in infancy; and wliicli your infant hap- tisni set forth. Why then desire to have your baptism repeated ? Take the case of conversion, baptism, and back- sliding in the adult — of one converted, say, at twenty years of age, who continues faithful, backslides at thirty years, continues a backslider five years, then repents, believes, and is pardoned again — what now are his views, and what is his duty respecting baptism ? Why he goes back to his former justified and happy state, and sanctions his baptism ad- ministered fifteen years before. And so in infancy you were baptized, because you had then an unconditional title to salvation — in adult years you forfeited this title, and re- mained an alien from the commonwealth of Israel to the present time; but now you have believed, and so recovered the title you had in infancy, and which was set forth by baptism in infancy. The very same relation which the reclaimed backslider sustains to his adult baptism, the adult believer sustains to his infant baptism. Alas, that you Ehould complain of a divine privilege, and strive to invali- date a right you possessed independently of your knowledge ! But yet you can obtain your wish in this matter. You can OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 379 have just as much hand in your infont baptism as you could have had in your adult baptism. This we shall now set forth. 1. Why baptism should not be repeated. In bap- tism, the subject assumes all the obligations connected with the everlasting covenant. The violation of the laws of tlie kingdom of God after baptism does not annul the obliga- tions assumed in baptism. Why then repeat baptism? The import of baptism extends through life, and is co-ex- tensive with the time, and corresponds to the character of probation. When a man is naturalized, and takes the oath of allegiance, he thereby pledges himself to keep the laws of the land so long as he lives in the country : the infraction of the laws of the land in any instance does not annul the obligations involved in the oath of allegiance — his obliga- tions still continue, and hence the oath of allegiance need not to be repeated.^" Baptism is a federal act, as circum- cision was, and imposes obligation to keep the whole of the law. When the law was violated, Grod was reconciled, not by the repetition of cdrcumcision, but by appointed sacrifices. So baptism, as a badge of profession, as a seal of the cove- nant, as a federal act, brings the subject under obligation to keep the whole law of gi-ace, whereby he becomes a debtor to the law to the end of life : and whenever sin is committed, the great sacrifice offered on Calvary, by faith becomes the procuring cause of forgiveness and spiritual blessings. Cir- cumcision was never repeated to a Jew. The ceremony of initiation was never repeated to a proselyte. 2. In baptism God pledges himself to bestow upon the subject, continuing faithful, all the blessings of his everlasting covenant, in 1° It may be observed, if baptism be the condition of remission of sins, then, in every case of actual sin, baptism should be repeated; but from the character of baptism as above, it ought not to be repeated, which is fatal to the dogma of baptismal regeneration. 380 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. time and eternity. Baptism is the standing seal on the part of God of the whole covenant of grace, having a prospective reference to the whole duty of man, during the time of his probation, so that a repetition of it would not only be un- necessary, but profane. In the case of backsliding, the sub- ject of baptism, upon repentance and faith, returns to the discharge of his obligations assumed in baptism, and conse- quently there is no more necessity for rebaptism in his case than if he had continued faithful from the moment of his conversion and baptism. The faithfulness of the subject is a matter to be tested, and time and opportunity must be granted him, and hence a repetition of baptism could but repeat a pledge already given, and which had not yet been consummated. Baptism has reference to future obligation and the final reward ; rebaptism can have no other reference, and hence rebaptism implies insincerity on the part of man, and want of faithfulness on the part of God. The advocates for rebaptism are led into error by not perceiving the extent of obligations involved in baptism — obligations extending through the ichoJe life, on the part of man, connected with a standing title to the final reward on the part of God : and so for a double reason, baptism ought not to be repeated. Such is the character of infant baptism. 3. A sign is de- signed to prefigure some future thing, as is proved by reference to the nature of the Jewish dispensation. Thus, baptism in infancy is designed to set forth the child's right to salvation, and in case of death in infancy, or conversion in after years, to set forth spiritual baptism, and consequent right to all the blessings of the atonement and privileges of the church. All then in this case that I have to do, is to go back and sanction my baptism administered in infancy — and this is my duty, as well as a privilege. I could do no more than sanction baptism administered in adult age. 4. There are two rights set forth in infant baptism — that of OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 381 the infant to all the blessings of the atonement, and that of Christ to the infant. These rights are acknowledged at the time of baptism by the church, and subsequently the subject himself asserts his right to the blessings of the atonement, and acknowledges the right of Christ to him. In passing from childhood through life, there is a point where uncon- ditional salvation ends, and moral responsibility begins. At this point, or subsequently, the child, or adult, may sanction, confirm, and continue, and should do so by his own personal faith, his right set forth in infant baptism. Placed upon his own responsibility, all that is necessary for the con- firmation and continuation of his original right is, that he heartily subscribe to the conditions of his baptism, acknow- ledge Christ's right to him, embrace his right to Christ, and continue by faith and good works what he uncon- ditionally possessed in infancy. I can just as fully and satisfactorily sanction a right setting forth my title to Christ, and his to me, after, as before, or at its administration — yea, the more so, it seems to me, after its administration than before, since by my faith, I voluntarily continue a right possessed unconditionally in infancy. 5. The time of sanc- tioning baptism is non-essential. A freeborn infant is en- titled to all the blessings of freedom. These blessings ha may forfeit in subsequent life, by a violation of the law which secures them, or he may appropriate and enjoy them by obedience to the law : thus what he enjoyed in infancy unconditionally, he now enjoys conditionally. You are a freeman. Will any one say, that you are any more entitled to freedom noic than when in infancy ? You were free by relation, and have continued your right to freedom by the discharge of the necessary conditions. And yet you are no more free to-day than you were in infancy. In a similar manner, in view of the atonement of Christ, you were born unconditionally entitled to all the blessings of salvation, 382 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. which title you can confirm by subsequent faith and obe- dience, or forfeit by actual transgression. Baptism was the outward sign and seal of your title in infancy; faith is the condition of your title in adult age; and hence faith con- firms the design of baptism administered in infancy, while you voluntarily sanction the obligations of the rite adminis- tered at that time. As a freeman, going into another coun- try, does not forfeit his original title to the privileges of his native land, but may return at any time, and be recognised as a free citizen, without the usual preliminaries of natural- ization; so the adult, baptized in infancy, by hearty repent- ance and faith, may sanction his infant baptism, recover his original title, and enjoy all the blessings of salvation to which he was unconditionally entitled in infancy. Thus, all along the same character is maintained, and hence the time of baptism is non-essential; only it should be administered as soon as possible. ^ A second illustration may be drawn from the atonement of Christ, which had a retrospective as well as prospective reference. The old world looked forward to it, we look back to it : in both cases it is equally ejficacious — extending salvation to us this day, more than eighteen hundred years after it was made, as well as to those who looked foward to it in faith more than four thousand years before the coming of Christ. Faith in the atonement, and not the time of the atonement, is the condition of salvation. And so the time of baptism is non-essential; the will of the adult be- liever may sanction baptism administered in infancy, as well as in adult age, as the case may be, with equal validity. And so we conclude, the adult believer^ icho has been baj)- tized in infancy, may look back to his infant baptism., and sanction it as his baptism, acknowledge and subscribe to the divine proprietorship therein set forth, confirm and continue his title to all the covenanted mercies of the atonement, of OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT^ ETC. 383 y.'hich baptism was the sign and seal in infancy^ and thus justly and safely consider himself legally and properly ini- tiated into the external and spiritual church of Christ, under the Christian dispensation, as the adult Jew regarded him- self in church relations under the Jewish dispensation, in view of his infant circumcision, and subsequent faith and obedience. The infant is unconditionally entitled to bap- tism r the adult believer continues that right by faith : hence the adult believer, baptized in infancy, has a right to church membership, and all the privileges, institutions, and blessings of the external and spiritual church of Christ without the necessity of repeated baptism. The whole question then turns upon the validity of infant baptism. If you believe in its validity, in the very nature of things, you could not sanction it at the time it was administered. Do you deny the validity of infant baptism ? Xo. Then your scruples are groundless, and the objection must be relinquished. Children circumcised under the Mosaic dispensation were thereby formally and solemnly obligated from the earliest responsible period, to observe the whole law, moral, cere- monial, and civil : " Every man," says the apostle, " that is circumcised is a debtor to the whole law.'^ So children baptized under the Christian dispensation are formally and solemnly obligated, from the earliest responsible period, to observe the whole law, moral and evangelical : and this obli- gation, as in the case of the infant Jew, extends through all subsequent life. And children under the Christian dis- pensation have no more right to say whether they will be placed under such obligation, than the infant Jew had, under the Mosaic dispensation. To deny this, is to reflect upon the wisdom and sovereignty of God in the institution of circumcision. "Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law" — but infants could not keep the law; there- fore they were to keep the law when they arrived at a re- 384 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED sponsible age : so in the case of baptism. '' But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircum- cision" — but infants could not break the law; therefore the law was to be in force when they arrived at a responsible age: so in the case of baptism. Baptism in infancy as much refers to obligation in subsequent life as circumcision did in the case of the infant Jew. Besides, infants are born parties to the everlasting covenant, and therefore their con- sent to become a party to it is not required of them — they are that alread}'. Moreover, baptism does not involve neio obligations, but is a formal recognition of obligations already existing; not a solitary duty is implied in baptism which did not antecedently exist. The principle on which infants are bound in covenant with God, without their knowledge or consent, we repeat, is thus set forth in the Scriptures: '^ Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and youj officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy 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 his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh 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 hath 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 cove- nvint and this oath, but with him that standeth here with us this d^y before the Lord our God, and also with him THAT IS NOT HERE WITH US THIS DAY." Dcut. Xxix. 10-15. "Little ones," and "him that standeth here with us this day" — the present generation, from the youngest to the oldest member of it. "And also him that is not here with us this day" — all future generations. Now if the supremacy and authority of Jehovah can be denied, and OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON RIGHT, ETC. 385 controversy iivitli him be successfully maintained, and obli- gation to bim annulled, then the doctrine of infant baptism may be cancelled; otherwise, as the seal of the everlasting covenant, it may as properly be conferred upon infants, under the Christian dispensation, without their knowledge or con- sent, as circumcision, the seal of the everlasting covenant, was conferred upon infants, under the Jewish dispensation, without their knowledge or consent. Hannah dedicated her son to Grod without his knowledge or consent, and God ac- cepted the act. I will go further. This objection is infi- delity in its most arrogant form. It cancels all obligation of man to God. It is opposed, as we have stated, to the re- ligious education of children without their consent. It annuls the obligation of parents to instruct their children, and the obligation of children to obey their parents. It in- vests the free agency of man with right to pursue with im- punity a life polluted with every vice in the catalogue of crime. If followed out to its legitimate results, it would revolutionize the government of God throughout his moral universe. If followed out to its legitimate resiilts, it would justify treason and rebellion^ and overturn every civil go- vernment on earth. Responsibility no more depends upon consent in the infant, than creation does, for in the nature of things consent is impossible. He is created a rational being, and therefore responsibility is essentially involved in his creation, and baptism formally recognises this responsi- bility. Consequently the essential constitution of mind must be revolutionized, the import of moral powers can- celled, the authority of moral law invalidated, and the su- premacy of God repudiated, before the appropriateness and importance of infant baptism can be denied. 386 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. CHAPTER lY. OBJECTIONS OF A COLLATERAL CHARACTER CONSIDERED There are several objections of a collateral character, whicli we will now consider. 1. '' Infants of unbelieving parents ought not to be bap- tizedj because there is none on whose faith baptism can be administered." First. The child has a right to baptism, not in view of the faith of the parents, but in view of the atonement of Christ, since the same ground that entitles him to salvation, entitles him also to baptism. Secondly. The evangelical form of the covenant has no- thing in it of a temporal character, as in the Abrahamic form of the covenant. Under the Jewish dispensation it was indispensable that the parents should be Jews in order to entitle children to circumcision, because the covenant partly referred to temporal blessings, embraced in the land of Canaan. In view of specific temporal, as well as spiritual blessings promised, none but the children of Jews were cir- cumcised, while those who became proselytes were circum- cised in view of the spiritual advantages alone connected with the Jewish dispensation. But under the gospel dis- pensation, this temporal restriction or limitation is removed, and consequently, all the children in the world, and in all periods of time, are equally entitled to baptism, since no- thing but spiritual blessings are set forth by baptism, and spiritual blessings are unconditionally obtained for all in- fants by the atonement of Christ. INFANTS OF UNBELIEVIXQ PARENTS. 887 2. "Both parents do not sanction infant baptism — ought the approving parent to have the child baptized V First. Abstract objections or sanctions of either or both of the parents no more affect the child's right to baptism, than they do his right to salvation, and Christ's right to the child in baptism. These rights of the infant and of Christ are evangelical in their nature, and therefore inde- pendent of natural relations. If the child be denied right to baptism, it must be on the ground of Adam's offence, as Adam was the federal representative of the human race under the paradisaical law; but the condemnation involved in Adam's transgression, which must otherwise have de- prived infants of salvation as well as baptism, has been re- moved by the atonement of Christ in the case of all infants, and so the title of all infants to both salvation and baptism has been hereby secured and established for ever. That is, the only natural relation that could have deprived children of baptism is that which they sustain legally to Adam; but this relation has been graciously adjusted by the atonement of Christ, whereby every child sustains such a moral, gracious relation to God through Christ, as involves in it a title to baptism. It is this relation through Christ, the second Adam from heaven, that gives the children of unbe- lieving parents a title to baptism. Hence, the approval or disaj)proval of one or both of the parents cannot annul the absolute and independent right of the child to baptism. Secondly. The objection of either or both the parents to the circumcision of their children, under the Jewish dis- pensation, could not in the least respect affect their right to circumcision. Such opposition would have incurred the double guilt of rebellion against God, and great injury to the child. Under the Christian dispensation therefore, and for stronger reasons, the opposition or sanction of either or 388 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. both of the parents; in no manner affects the real right of their children to baptism. 3. "If infants ought to be baptized, they ought also to be admitted to the Lord's supper." As the passover has been succeeded by the Lord's supper, and circumcision by baptism; and as those who were (nr- cumcised in infancy were not admitted to the passover till they were able to understand its signification; so under the Christian dispensation, those who are baptized in infancy have no right to the holy eucharist till they are able to understand its meaning. The testimony on this subject is abundant. " The passover, which has now been succeeded by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descrip- tions promiscuously; but was rightly eaten only by those who were of sufficient age to inquire into its signification." ^ ^^ The law forbids the son to eat of the sacrifice before he has come to the temple, and there presented an offering to God." 2 "Till a child was twelve years old, he was not ob- liged to go to Jerusalem at the time of the passover." ^ And so Poole : " Children at the age of twelve years were brought by their parents to the temple; and from that time they began to eat of the passover and other sacrifices." Bishop Patrick observes, " When children were twelve years old, their parents were bound to bring them to the temple at the passover, where seeing what was done, they would be led to inquire. What mean ye by these things?" And so Dr. Doddridge : " The males were not brought to the temple till they were twelve years of age." And Dr. Gill, a learned Baptist writer, bears testimony : " According to the maxims of the Jews, persons were not obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to its penalties in case of non-performance. Calvin's Inst. b. iv., c. 16. sec. 30. 2 Josephus, lib. xii., c. 1. 3 Stackhouse, Hist. Bible, book viii., c. 1. INFAXT COMMUNION CONSIDERED. 389 until they were. :\ female, at the age of twelve years and one day, and a male, at the age of thirteen years and one day." * And so Lute says of Jesus, ^^And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem, after the custom of the feast y Thus, as infants under the Jewish dispensation were not entitled to participation in the passover, in view of their circumcision, independently of other considerations, so under the Christian dirjpensation, infants are not invested with right to partake of the Lord's supper, solely in view of their baptism. Right to the holy eucharist is founded upon faith and a new creature; but baptism, in the case of infants, is a privilege founded solely upon the atonement of Christ, without faith and a new nature, yet prospectively referring to the obligations of faith and the duty of seek- ing a new nature. The Lord's supper is to be taken by those only who can ^'discern the Lord's body" therein by faith, with a grateful "remembrance" of his atoning sacri- fice, and an humble commemoration of his "death till he come again." With regard to baptism, no distinction of age is made in the Scriptures; but with respect to the par- ticipation of the Lord's supper, the distinction above is clearly made. There is such an essential diiference between these two sacraments in their nature and design, that in the case of infants there is no connection between them. If therefore the objection is based upon analogy^ it is over- thrown at once by the considerations, that children under the Jewish dispensation did not partake of the passover till they were twelve years old; that a proper understanding j with faith and gratitude, is indispensable to the proper ob- servance of the holy eucharist; and that, under the Chris- tian dispensation, many children, both male and female, understand the meaning, and partake of the sacrament in the proper spirit before they are twelve years of age. 4 Comment on Luke ii. 42. 33* 390 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAP7T. M CONSIDERED. In other words, the right of baptized infants to the Lord's supper is prospective, and is involved in the gradation of capacity for the enjoyment of church privileges, and the blessings of the everlasting covenant. As in civil society, the constitution and laws guarantee to infants a certain and adequate amount of privilege, and this amount is enlarged when they arrive at a lawful age; so under the covenant of grace, when they arrive at a suitable, age, and attain the requisite capacity to "examine themselves and discern the Lord's body," and confii-m their original right by faith and a corresponding life, they are admitted to the enjoyment of additional privileges in the church of God, under the cove- nant of grace. It is admitted, "that infant communion is an ancient practice of the church." Of course then infant baptism is an ancient practice too, and must have been prior to the practice of infant communion, as the Baptists them- selves would not permit any one to commune who had not been baptized. But the practice of infant communion never became universal — was not in existence in the days of Poly- carp, Irenseus, Justin jMartyr, and Origen — ^and was always opposed, till it was finally put down in the West, where it originated. Any one who will examine church history, will find the time when infant communion was commenced, how it was opposed by the church, and when it was abandoned by the chiu'ches that began it — hiU no such origin can he found for infant baptism , and it has never been abandoned. 4. " Infant baptism is a part of popery, and is the basis of national churches and worldly establishments. Dr. Grill called infant baptism the main ground and pillar of popery, and a great number of Baptists are of the same opinion."^ In the first place, infant baptism was practised several hundred years before popery existed. Secondly, it is prac- 5 Robinson's Hist, of Baptism, p. 408. INFANT BAPTISM NO PART OF POPERY. tised in those churches that are not and never were under the dominion of the pope. Thirdly, infant baptism was practised long before national churches existed in the world. Foui'thly, civil law gives being to national churches, and national establishments depend altogether upon other causes for their origin and continuance than the one pretended in this objection. Fifthly, the union of the church and state, in all instances, is to be ascribed to the spirit of comirromue. Sixthly, the abolition of the practice of infant baptism would not break up the foundation of national churches, nor pre- vent their origin in future. 5. "Infant baptism serves greatly to corrupt the church." Facts refute the unjust allegation. Go examine the psedo- bastist churches throughout Christendom, and the children of paedobaptist parents, from eiirly age through all periods of subsequent life, will be found inferior in no respect to the children of Baptist parents. In every relation in so- ciety, personal, social, and civil; in every relation in the church, ordinary or official; in every period of life, child- hood, youth, manhood, old age; in every pursuit of honor, usefulness, and eminence; and in every commendable and noble enterprise that renders the present age conspicuous, the paedobaptist churches are in no respect behind their Baptist brethren. It is a matter of common observation, that in powerful and extensive revivals in paedobaptisfc churches, very few persons are baptized — unless they are of Baptist parentage. Inded, it is an obvious and most re- markable fact, that re\-ivals generally embrace the youthful portions of the church, and the great majority of children and youth converted in revivals are those who have been baptized in infancy — have these been corrupted by their baptism ? Properly instructed by pious parents, and piously educated at the altars of the church, as soon as they arrive at the proper age, God, it seems, expressive of his approval 392 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. of their dedication to him in early baptism, receives them by faith into his spiritual church, as his "faithful and elect children/' And I may inquire just here, is the same large proportion of children of Baptist parents, at the same early age, in these days brought into the fold of Christ ? Or are the great majority converted in adult age? And even then, are they not, in large proportion, converted in the pgedo- bapti&t churches, and received finally among their old friends and parents in the Baptist Church ? Are any corruptions that may be found in the pasdobaptist churches to be traced to infant baptism? Then all corruptions found in the Bap- tist church, such as exclusive immersion, restricted or close communion, bigotry, and any false doctrine, are to be traced to opposition to infant baptism. The argument is as good in one case as in the other; indeed, upon a careful analysis, the argument will be found to be wholly false in the former case, but to a great extent strictly true in the latter case. It is admitted that infant baptism has been abused, but the fault lies in the conduct of its advocates, and its oppo- nents have taken advantage of the abuse. But it is easy to see that there is an essential difference between the doctrine of baptism and the abuse of the doctrine. If the doctrine were properly appreciated and observed, incalculable bless- ings would follow in the conversion of thousands of our young people, and but few opponents would arise against it. The neglect, indifference, and inconsistency of its friends, have done incalculably more to discredit it, than all the arguments, sarcasms, and opposition of its enemies have accomplished against it. Whatever of abuse and corrup- tion that may arise from infant baptism, is not to be ascribed to the intrinsic nature of the ordinance, but to the depravity of man. The other sacrament has been more abused than infant baptism, and adult baptism itself, in the Baptist church as well as elsewhere, haS; no doubt, frequently been INFERENCES. 393 perverted to the purposes of ambition and selfishness; and yet all this does not destroy the general principle and validity of the sacrament. 6. ^' But if all parents should have their children baptized, the whole world would be introduced into the church.'' True, and happy world, when all the children can be brought up in the church, under the moral and holy obligations of baptism administered in infancy. There is no better place under heaven in which to instruct the children than the church of Christ. But if the objection presupposes that all persons baptized in infancy have a right to association with the church, and are recognised as having this right in subsequent life, notwithstanding the rebellion of subsequent life, and the violation of the obligations contained in infant baptism, it proceeds upon false premises. This right may be forfeited by subsequent actual transgression, and hence none who were baptized in infancy are admitted into the church in adult age, unless they give proof that they hivs continued or recovered their original title by repeii.-iicc, faith, and good works. 7. "If infants are members of the church by birth, and are not baptized, they forfeit their membership; and hence, on the paedobaptist principle, all unbaptized children are ex- cluded from the church of God and therefore lost." It is not maintained that infants are members of the spiritual church ''by faith," but by virtue of the vicarious death of Christ, and this membership cannot be forfeited by the neglect of baptism in their case. Baptism recognises this right as already existing, and the right still exists though they remain unbaptized, and consequently, dying in infancy, they are not " lost." The neglect of their baptism on the part of parents does not dissolve their connection with Christ's atonement, and association with Christ's spiritual church. It is true, if they are not baptized, they do forfeit 394 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. their membersliip in Christ's visible church, and their right to external church privileges. So the uncircumcised infant JeW; by the command of Grod ^^ should he cut off from Jus 2yeoj)Ie," that is, "cut off," from the external, visible church — forfeit right to participate in the passover and other cere- monial exercises of the Jewish church; but dying in in- fancy he was not thereby lost. The child of David died before he was eight days old, and therefore before he was circumcised, and yet he was not lost, for David, in his grief and fasting, was comforted with the belief, that he "should go to him,'' The penitent thief on the cross was saved, though he was never baptized, and was never associated with Christ's visible church. If the objection be admitted, every unbaptized believer must be lost. The objection proceeds upon the ground that baptism is saving in its nature, or in- dispensable to salvation. This is the old Romish heresy of baptismal regeneration. 8. "If L-hiidren of Christian parents are born members of the church, they hava no need of baptism — they belong to the church without it, and it becomes a work of supereroga- tion." In the first place, because children are born members of the church, is the very reason why they have a right to bap- tism. The objection admits the very ground on which in- fants are entitled to baptism. The argument, if admitted, and applied to the case of adult believers, would render their baptism needless, or as "a work of supererogation." "If adult believers are born members of the church, they have no need of baptism, they belong to the church without it, and it becomes a work of supererogation." Now "he that helieveth that Jesus is the Christ is horn of God," and is at once united with the spiritual church; and hecause he is thus born a member of the church, he is entitled to bap- tism. But if because the infant "belongs to the church INFERENCES. 395 without" baptism, there is "no need" of baptism in his ease, so because the adult believer "belongs to the church with- out" baptism, there is "no need" of baptism in his case also — a conclusion that cscludes baptism from the Christian dispensation altogether. Secondly, baptism does not constitute, but recognises and certifies a right already existing : in the case of the infant, it sacramentally certifies a right, already existing, to all the blessings of the everlasting covenant ; and in the case of the adult believer, it sacramentally certifies the same thing. In closing the consideration of the most prominent and important objections ordinarily urged against infant bap- tism, we are led to the following inferences. 1. Persons baptized in infancy ought not to he rehaptized in subsequent life. Fearful parents sometimes say, "That in view of scruples that may arise in the minds of their children in adult age, they think it best to omit baptism in infancy, and leave the whole subject to the management of the children in subsequent life." "We say, first, to the pa- rents — If you do your whole duty in properly instructing the children, they will never be embarrassed respecting their infant baptism. The scrupulous fear that they will nob sanction their baptism, and continue their rights set forth in baptism, is not a sufficient ground for the neglect of your duty, and withholding from them their right in this matter — especially, too, since hereby you neglect a duty you owe to Christ and his church. "We reply, secondly, to those who have been baptized in infancy, and are now dissatisfied with their baptism — If you will not sanction your infant bap- tism, and acknowledge its solemn obligations, then you must set it aside; and by so doing you incur a fearful responsibility, for you venture to trifle with one of the sacred institutions of Christianity in its application to infants ; and hence incurring as you do such fearful danger, paedo- 396 OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM CONSIDERED. baptist ministers are not willing to be involved with you in the matter, and so you must have recourse to ministers of a different belief on the subject, if you must obtain rebaptism. Baptism is the sensible, formal seal of the covenant of grace in all its parts, and has as much a federal import on the part of God as it has on the part of man. Thus, the cove- nant of grace provides, that sins committed after justifica- tion, whether in the case of infant or adult justification, shall, upon the exercise of repentance and faith, be forgiven; and baptism is a seal of this promise or feature of the covenant. Hence there is no necessity of rebaptism in the case of a person baptized in infancy or in adult age. 2. The iinpropriety of excluding the following j^ersons from the Lord's supper : — First, the adult believer, who was baptized in infancy, and sanctions his baptism as valid and sufficient, and continues or recovers his original title by justifying faith and obedience. Secondly, the adult believer who was not baptized in infancy, but in adult age. Thirdly, all persons who give satisfactory evidence that they are the children of G-od, though there has been no ojpportunity to attend to baptism in their cases. The mode of baptism in no respect enters into the question of right or qualification in the premises. PART y. Xicnefils 0f Infant baptism, u^ % grMcatian 0f C^ilbren in gajtism a Sjolmn gutg. CHAPTER I. BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. I CANNOT close these remarks without mentioning some of the benefits of infant baptism. The question is often proposed by the Baptists, ''What benefit, what benefit in infant baptism? What good is derived by unconscious babes in baptism?" 1. It witnesses to the world that the child has a title to salvation, and God's gracious dealings "are declared among the people." 2. It sets forth in a solemn and impressive manner the fact that infants are afiected by the fall of Adam, and em- braced in the salvation of Christ. It may be replied here, "that infants will be saved without baptism." Time, that will be the good fortune of all that die in infancy, notwith- standing the neglect of parents, since God has not made their salvation in any respect, dying in infancy, to depend on the care or neglect of man toward them, but on the meritorious sacrifice of Christ. So the Jewish infant would have been saved, had the parents omitted circumcision — yet the child would have been "cut ofi" from the congregation of the Lord" in a civil and ecclesiastical sense. It is not so 34 397 898 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. much the child, ^j'^^g in infancy, that is injured by with- holding baptism, as it is Grod, whose title to that child had not been formally acknowledged; and the child living, whose title according to the everlasting covenant, had not been set forth to the world, in view of his living and arriv- ing at responsible age. Because the child dying in in- fancy is saved, is no vindication or excuse for omitting bap- tism.. Thus, though infants, dying in infancy, will be saved without baptism, baptism sets forth the fact, that while they are affected by the fall of Adam, they are embraced in the salvation of Christ, and living, and proving faithful, are entitled to the blessings of that salvation. 3. They are capable of receiving a blessing at the hands of Christ; for -'he laid his hands on them and blessed them," though they did not understand what Christ meant when he put his hands upon them. iVnd surely they are capable of receiving some benefit from the ordinance of Christ, The covenant of grace is a deed of gift, signed by the blood of Christ, and the New Testament may be considered as his last will and testament. Would a generous father omit the names of his children in a deed or will simply because they were unconscious of its meaning ? What good is derived by unconscious babes from the death of Christ? Why, the greatest good in the hands of God, namely, ^^the kingdom of heaven." And shall not baptism, an ordinance of Christ, convey to the child some of the benefit of his sacrificial death ? What harm is inflicted ? What spiritual benefit is withheld by it ? What obstacle to early piety, or barrier to an exemplary life, is placed in the way? None whatever. Then ichij all this opposition to infant baptism? No harm ensues, r.nd an ordinance that sets forth the title of the in- fant to the greatest good, must be connected with important spiritual benefits in its administration. If any benefit accrues to the adult in baptism, surely some BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 399 benefit must accrue to the infant in baptism, who has equal right with the adult to baptism : benefits therefore of the providence of God, of the grace of Christ, and of the opera- tion of the Holy Spirit, must ensue in some sense in the ease of infant baptism; and if in any sense, it must be a subject of the highest importance. And consequently all who forbid the little child to receive the ordinance, deserve the rebuke and displeasure of the Lord and the disapproba- tion of man, since they place a great barrier between the child and the church and the special grace and providence of God. Since Christ has instituted the sacraments as channels of spiritual blessings to the believer, there is no reason why baptism may not be a channel of some spiritual blessing to the infant without faith. Baptism, whether in case of infants or adults, is not a mere form of profession, recognition, and initiation, destitute of all blessings, spirit- ual, moral, social, and providential; nor does it derive all its excellence simply because it is commanded. Xo rite, Jew- ish or Christian, was ever enjoined by command without some blessing intended, certain privileges guaranteed, and effects accompanying and following corresponding to the rite : and such is the essential character and design of bap- tism. If no pri\dleges, no good effects be connected with baptism, then baptism is a useless ceremony; if any spiritual benefits are connected with baptism, then the infant has as good a right to them without faith as the adult has by faith. Let it be carefully observed, however, that baptism is neither regenerating nor saving. As under the Jewish dis- pensation neither the covenant, nor its seal, nor its promises, nor its services could save the Jew, without personal faith; so under the Christian dispensation, neither the covenant, nor its sacraments, nor its promises, nor its services can save the baptized infant in subsequent life, without personal 400 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. faith. Indeed, the whole system of covenants, seals, anl promises is absolutely null without faith. 4. Infant baptism is as profitable as circumcision was under the Jewish dispensation. '■'■ For circumcision verily profit- eth, if thou keep the law — for every man that is circum- cised is a debtor to the whole law." Circumcision was profitable to the Jew, if in subsequent life he kept the law — if in subsequent life he discharged the obligation imposed upon him in circumcision in infancy. So baptism profiteth, if the infant in subsequent life keep the whole law, moral and evangelical, that is, discharge all the obligations im- posed under the gospel. In a word, baptism is as profitable to the infant who discharges in subsequent life all the obliga- tions imposed upon him in baptism, as circumcision was profitable to the infant Jew who in subsequent life kept the whole law, moral, ceremonial, and civil. The profit of circumcision was in keeping the law, and so extended to subsequent life; the profit of baptism is in keeping the law of the gospel, and so extends to subsequent life: hence, there is as much profit in infant baptism as there was in infant circumcision. The former cannot be denied without denying the latter. The argument of the Baptists may be thus stated : " Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law : but infants cannot keep the law ; therefore their uncircumcision must be unprofitable." This is rendering a positive institution of Grod an absolute nullity, which is a reflection upon infinite wisdom. But circumcision is profita- ble — and the argument of the Baptists is a mere sophism; and so the same argument against infant baptism is a mere sophism. The Apostle Paul has stated a case in which baptism is unprofitable: '-But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." That is, circum- cision was connected with no good or profit to him who BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 401 failed to keep the law: so baptism is connected with no profit to him, whether infant or adult, who does not keep the law of the gospel. In this case, the question, What good? may be properly proposed, and the answer is. None at all. That is, if the infant fail to repent, believe, and obey the gospel in subsequent life, his baptism is unprofit- able. The error of the Baptists is, the prospective profit of infant baptism is confounded with some supposed present good. The future profit of infant baptism is left out of the question, and so the premises that refer only to the present fall to the ground. But there are certain present benefits connected with infant baptism, which we shall set forth at the proper place. We will only add here, with reference to the benefit of infant baptism, the language of Paul in reply to certain cavillers of circumcision in his day: '• What profit is there of circumcision? Much EVERY WAY; but what if scrme [who had been circumcised in their childhood] did not [afterward] believe ? Shall their unbelief make the faith of Grod without efifect?" — cause God to fail to keep his promise with those that believe? "God forbid; yet let God be true, but every man a liar — for circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law : but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." 5. Infant baptism is as profitable as adult baptism. Bap- tism is productive of no good to the adult unless he receive it with faith; it is faith, and faith only, in the adult, that derives any benefit from baptism. That some benefit, we re- peat, is connected with infant baptism we have no doubt, because every ordinance of God properly administered must be connected with some spiritual blessing; but whatever this spiritual blessing is, we are assured it is riot regenera- tion, any more in the case of infant baptism than it is in adult baptism. The adult believer in baptism receives the blessing, or "answer of a good conscience,'' and nothing ad- 34* 402 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. ditional only in proportion as he subsequently discharges the conditions implied in baptism : the infant, in the nature of things, cannot receive at the time this blessing, or answer of a good conscience, but in adult age he may for himself sanction his infant baptism, and thus making it his oiciij enjoy the answer of a good conscience, and then, as in the case of the adult, proceed to the discharge of all the con- ditions implied in infant baptism. There is therefore no more reason why baptism should be denied to the infant, than there is that it should be denied to the adult believer. It recognises a state at least — that of justification — in both cases — ^in the adult by faith, in the infant without faith ; it imposes the same obligations in both cases; and is a seal to the same blessing in both cases; and hence is due to one as much as the other. The infant does not receive in baptism, or by virtue of his baptism, that grace by which in responsi- ble age it may "will and do of G-od's good pleasui-e," for this grace is a blessing which Christ has purchased by his \icarious death for every man, and is bestowed upon every man independently of the exercise of faith, or the reception of baptism, or any other consideration in man — an uncon- ditional blessing universally bestowed, and is the basis of moral responsibility in every man under the covenant of grace. All infants indiscriminately receive this grace, by which they may be able to repent, believe, do good works, and perform all the conditions imposed under the cove- nant of grace when they are grown up; and the bestow- ment of this grace is formally recognised in every case of infant baptism. If the infusion of this grace, which is properly called initial or preventing grace, depended upon baptism, then an indispensable and important spiritual bless- ing would be connected with infant baptism; but the gift of this grace is antecedent to, and independent of baptism: •^this is the light that lighteth every man that cometh into BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 403 the world"— and '^lie light" is "the life" of men. The possession of this grace places every man under responsi- bility to perform the conditions of the covenant of grace, which responsibility is formally and solemnly recognised in baptism; and hence every child, in the nature of things pos- sessing it, should be baptized. The adult by faith, enters upon the discharge of these conditions, and hence should be baptized, that he may formally and sensibly set forth in the sight of Grod and man, that he has entered upon the dis- charge of his obligations up to this time neglected. Thus, the adult who has not yet believed, is under obligation to believe, and then to be baptized: no one will deny this: consequently, every adult who has neither believed nor been baptized, has up to this moment neglected both duties — the antecedent one of faith, and the subsequent one of baptism. By actual sin the adult forfeits the justification which he possessed in infancy, and faith is indispensable now to the recovery of justification; and hence, in the case of the adult, faith should precede baptism. When in a state of uncon- ditional justification in infancy, he should have been bap- tized — it was omitted — subsequently by actual sin he for- feited this state of justification — he must now recover this state before he is entitled to baptism — this he does by faith — and hence faith in the adult not baptized in infancy should precede baptism. But the infant is already in a state of justification, and hence the antecedence of faith is not appli- cable in his case : baptism is a positive formal recognition of his present justification and future responsibility, should he live. In other words, none will deny, that baptism is a formal recognition in the adult believer of his present justifi- cation and responsibility during life. But the adult was as much under responsibility hefore he believed as he was after he believed — and hence, if infant baptism be struck out of the evangelical system, there is no formal recognition 404 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. of responsibility from infancy up to the time of faith. Od the part of man, therefore, baptism is a federal act, that ex- tends through all life, and hence it should be administered in infancy. On the part of God, it signifies his faithfulness in bestowing initial grace upon all children; and secondl}", his promise to bestow additional and saving grace subse- quently, in every case of repentance and faith: ''for the promise is unto you^ and to your children.'' 6. Baptism invests the infant with a right to all the privileges of the church and blessings of the atonement, should he sanction it in subsequent life by faith and obe- dience. It is often objected, "that the child will derive no benefit from baptism when he is grown." On the same ground, because the adult will not improve his original title to salva- tion which he had in infancy, he ought not to have been saved had he died in infancy. The benefit, in a great measure, depends on the use which the adult makes of his infant baptism. Xow every properly instructed adult, whether pardoned or unpardoned, believes that he was in a state of salvation while in infancy, and that consequently, had he died in infancy, he would have been saved. A bene- fit he derives from his original title is the impulse given to make his salvation sure. In a similar manner he confirms his title to infant baptism. While he feels that he had a title to salvation in infancy, he feels also, on the same ground, that he had as good a title to the outward sign and seal of that salvation: hoth of icliicli lie now confirms l-ij faith. Thus, the adult believer baptized in infancy, pre- sents himself to the church, and justly claims membership and the enjoyment of all the means of grace connected with the church. This benefit of infant baptism may be set forth in the following manner. The infant obtains from his baptism as much benefit as BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 405 the freeborn cliild does from the civil constitution. If the freeborn child should die, still the conditions of his free- dom were such as would have secured him the blessings of freedom had he lived. So the initiatory rite of baptism sets forth the title of the infant to all the blessings of salva- tion, should he live to enjoy them. As the freeborn child can lay claim, upon obedience to the civil compact, to all the blessings of freedom, so the child baptized in infancy can, in adult years, upon faith and obedience, lay claim to all the eternal blessings of the church of Christ, sealed and ratified unto him in infancy. Repeated baptism, in adult age, cannot strengthen this claim, and hence it may be dispensed with in every case. 7. It distinguishes the church from the world. How interesting, solemn, and impressive the administration of this ordinance in infancy at the altar of the sanctuary, in view of the devotional multitude, recognising the grace of God, the sanctity of religion, the sinfulness of man, and the separateness and distinctness of the church of Christ ! Never was there a more beautiful and impressive ordinance, by which, at a glance, the whole redeeming plan of mercy is set forth, and the awful and extensive evil of sin presented. So impressive is this solemn sacrament sometimes, that unbe- lieving parents, while dedicating their children to God in baptism, are awakened to an effectual and practical sense of their alienation, guilt, and danger; and believing parents too, are excited to observe an increased diligence in edu- cating their children for the duties of life, and qualifying them for the glories of heaven. 8. It imposes a salutary restraint, through all subsequent life, upon all who are properly instmcted in the nature and design of baptism. Your children are now with you in the spiritual church of Christ : in a few years, it is most pro- bable, they will go out of the spiritual church by trans- 406 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. gression. They need, therefore, every help to incline thein to the seryice of God, to acknowledge his right to them, his care of them, their obligation to him, and their interest in him : all of Tvhich are most solemnly impressed on the mind by the conditions of baptism. To neglect the baptism of your children, therefore, at once cuts them off from the influ- ences and incentives found in baptism, releases them in a measure from the obligations and restraints involved in the sacred rite, and thus so far not onlj' promotes their de- partui-e from the spiritual church, but enhances the difh- culty of their return, and leaves them impelled onward in the path of open rebellion and ruin. Circumcision under the Jewish law imposed obligation to keep the whole law, as Paul wi'ites to the Galatians : " I testify to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law. For circumcision cerUy profitetli, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made un- cireumcision" — and baptism is substituted for circumcision, and implies the same obligations. Obedience to baptismal obligations secures all the blessings of the atonement, and this obedience is imposed in infant baptism, which the proj)erly instructed infant recognises and promises to per- form in subsequent life. Nor can the violation of baptismal obligations any more invalidate the propriety of infant bap- tism, than the transgression of the adult Jew. can disannul the legality of infant circumcision. 9. The parents too, as already intimated, are stimulated more than they would otherwise be to train up their chil- dren for heaven. A sense of increased parental obligation is constantly recurring, and consequently more zealous efforts are made in the behalf of the children. Prayer is more earnest — vigilance more constant — solicitude more intense — and a sense of responsibility more solemn. The child, seeing the parents negligent in this matter, soon be- BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. 407 comes negligent too: not being early taught liis responsi- bility, he early feels more at liberty to submit to the impulses and propensities of an evil heart, and hence com- mits sin with less restraint. This is the infallible result. Exceptions, it is true, there are; but the general rule is in full force. 10. The relation between parent and child is hereby endeared and sanctified. Nature's voice is now heard as it would have expressed itself in Eden — and as it did express itself in the Jewish church. What ! the parent stem in the church, and the beautiful hud, so frail, so tender, so deli- cate, that the slightest frost may blight it, hanging exposed and neglected over Zion's walls, above a wilderness world I The dam in the fold, comfortable, safe, and happy, and the feeble lamb out upon the mountains, without a fold and desolate ! The parents in the church, and their offspring, bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, a part of them- selves, out of the church I Not so in civil society. Chil- dren are born citizens of the state in which their parents live. The connection is not less powerful in grace than in nature, nor association less intimate in the church than in the world. Under what a heavy sense of grief would the Jewish parents have mourned, had they been embraced in the church and their children excluded ! It should deeply affect every parent in the Christian church, if his children are not formally associated with him. 11. Infant baptism is an institution of God, and hence, must have important spiritual benefits connected with it. And the least benefit attending it is the proper observance of it. The faithful performance of duty, in any case, is by divine law connected with reward. "In keeping the judg- ments of the Lord, there is great reward." God has pledged himself to bless the faithfulness of parents in discharging their parental obligations. ''For I know him, (Abraham,) c08 BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM. that he will command liis cliildren and his liouseliold after him^ and fhci/ shall heep the v:ny of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.'' Gen. xviii. 19. And so in the case of Timothy. "When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am per- suaded that in thee also." 2 Tim. i. 5. Abraham, Lois, and Eunice, by faith entered into covenant with God, the former receiving the seal under the Jewish, and the two latter receiving baptism under the Christian dispensation, and so dedicated formally and sacramentally their children to God under the dispensations respectively, and the benefit in each case is recorded. The language of philosophy and wisdom is, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he icill not depart from it." Prov. xxii. 6. 12. God's proprietorship is hereby acknowledged. His right to infants can be sacramentally acknowledged in no other way. 13. God seems to exercise a peculiar regard for such as are dedicated to him by baptism in infancy. And no wonder, since it is the outward seal of the covenant of grace. They are most usually converted at an early age; and in many respects, they seem to share most largely in the bless- ings of the covenant. 14. Infant baptism is a privilege vouchsafed to parents. Why should so many parents decline this privilege? Is it not a pri^nlege to you, parents, to have your children uncon- (Vd'wnaUy associated with you in that church of which you form a part? To have them formally and solemnly em- braced with you in the great covenant of redeeming mercy, iind so united with you under the guardianship of the church of God ? To educate them for heaven in the church rather than out of it? To consecrate them with yourselves at the THE DUTY OF DEDICATING, ETC. 409 altar of Grod? That you are permitted to imitate the ex- ample of Hannah, offering up her precious boy Samuel to the service of the sanctuary, and of Joseph consecrating the infant Jesus in the temple of God? Are your church privileges inferior to those of Jewish parents in former days? Tell me, is it not a privilege to be permitted to call God and his church to help you in guiding your children safely to heaven ? These are privileges — privileges to pa- rents — privileges to children — and how much those baptized in infancy owe to the church, to their parents, and to the faithfulness of God, it will be impossible properly to esti- mate before we reach eternity. It remains for them, by God's grace, to continue and confinn their title to the "great salvation.'^ CHAPTER n. THE DEDICATION OP CHILDREN IN BAPTISM A SOLEMN DUTY. The duty of dedicating children to God in baptism is founded upon fundamental principles. 1. The right of children to baptism is independent of parental relation and authority, since it is founded uncon- ditionally upon the vicarious death of Christ, and they are specifically included in the promise or covenant of salvation ', and hence parents are just as much bound formally to re- cognise their right to the seal of the covenant, as they are to train them up according to the conditions of the covenant, and the commands of God given with respect to theii- moral and religious education. Upon the same ground, the church has no right to withhold baptism from children. It is a 35 410 DEDICATION OF CHILDREN IN BAPTISM parental duty to dedicate the child to Grod, and baptism gives vhibility to this act of dedication. Every parent is just as much bound to dedicate his children to God in bap- tism as he is to dedicate himself, for he has no better right to baptism than his children have. It is a duty then pa- rents owe to their children. 2. It is a duty parents owe to God. It is the vicarious death of Christ that gives the child a right to the blessings of the covenant .of grace, and it is the same death that gives Christ a right to the child. It is baptism that formally recognises these rights of Christ and the child — that signi- fies that these rights exist. Thus it is a duty that parents owe to God, as well as their children. 3. The very duties of parental instruction are implied in infant baptism. No one will deny that parental obligation properly to train up the children exists, and parents, in the baptism of their children, formally and solemnly pledge themselves to discharge this obligation. This obligation implies a godly life or example. The parents are to walk in the same holy path they would have their children pur- sue. A godly example is a silent monitor, more powerful than the most affecting appeals, or urgent entreaties, or pru- dent counsels. The parent is under obligation to submit to the authority of God, in keeping all his commandments, not only for his own sake, but for the sake of his children. All this is implied in the expression with respect to pious Abra- ham: ^'He will command his children and his household after him.^' This obligation implies also faithful and earnest prayer for the children. Job prayed for his chil- dren. Prayer is intercourse with God, and it strengthens all the social principles, and enlivens in the highest degree every parental emotion and impulse, and so qualifies the parent the better to train up the children in the fear of God. Parental prayer avails with God, and the children are blessed A SOLEMN DUTY. 411 in a thousand ways by the answers he gives. Frequent and solemn prayer sets the example, and excites the impulse, in the case of the children. But parental example and prayer are not enough. Faithful religious instruction is required. Consider some of the results of pious parental instruction. It insensibly blends intellectual and moral instruction in the same process. This it does at an age when moral impres- sions are easily made upon every mental faculty, and moral principles are incorporated in the very texture of mind. Now the conscience possesses the tenderest sensibility, the will is submissive, the heart is confiding — there is no pre- judice to combat — no pride of opinion to encounter — no artful sophistry to refute — no deep-laid policy to oppose — the evil propensities are yet dormant — evil passions are as yet asleep — the cares of the world, its business, its excite- ments, its pleasures, its ambition, its examples, make as yet no appeal to the attention— and released from the responsi- bilities and solicitudes of life, the young and opening mind may press its whole energies upon moral subjects. Be- sides, childhood is the best time in which to inculcate the principles of moral responsibility. The foundation of moral character is now laid in the a priori faculties of mind. Moral being, moral life, moral history, now begin in their primary elements — doctrines, conduct, enterprises, tastes, pleasures, associations, originate in the moral character now formed. The mind now receives the elements of its subse- quent indefinite expansion, as a citizen of time, and a candi- date for eternity. How he is to think, to act, to feel, as a subject of God's moral government — what are to be his moral sensibilities and tendencies — what are to be the ele- ments of his whole moral being — is now to be determined. A more solemn or important duty cannot be conceived of than this which is devolved upon parents. The elements of future strength are wrapped ^\) in the organized elements 112 DEDICATION OF CHILDREN IN BAPTISM contained within the limits of the unsightly coil of the acorn^ and in their early evolution a child may snap the tender twig* but in the maturity of their development^ the oak spreads its strong branches toward the heavens, and survives the shock of a thousand storms. The streamlet down the slope of the mountain may be diverted in its early progress from its original course by a tiny obstru