PRESENTED TO THE LIBRARY
OF
PRINCETON THEOLOGICHL SEMINSRY
BY
JVlPs. Rle^^andep Ppoudfit.
BV 811 .Q8
Quaw, James E.
Bible baptism
^■•,i-:v'-<-ir^-:y^<
BIBLE BAPTISM,
THE IMMERSER INSTRUCTED.
VARIOUS SOURCES.
BY
y
JAMES E. ^UA%Vj A. M., V. D. M.
AUTHOR OF THE COLD-WATEE-MAN, &c.
To the law and to the testimony — Isa. 8: 20.
Make all things according to the pattern — Heb 8: 5.
Truth is mighty and will prevail — Tertdllian.
He who hates truth shall be the dupe of lies — CowPER.
Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good — 1 Thes, 5 : 21.
Second Edition.
DETROIT:
BENJAMIN WOOD, PUBLISHER.
GEIGER & CHRISTIAN, PRINTERS.
1844.
Entered accordinjr to Act of Congress in the year one thousand eight hundred and
forty-four, by Benjamin Wood and James E. ftUAW, in the Clerk's Office of
the District Court of the United States for the District of Michigan.
PHOEM.
Many of the materials for the following work were collected while (he Author was
traveling in primitive apostolic style in diiferent parts of the great American valley.
In these his ministeridl journeyings, he usually preached six or eight times a week ;
while he often traveled on fjot without purse or scrip or two coats, sometimes with
scarcely one, often for days without bread, and occasionally without water. But tha
mighty God of Jacob was always with him.
_ This book was written in a western h'g-cabin ; in a room which, at one and the same
time, answered for a study, a parlor, a sitting-room, a dining-hall, bed-room, and kitch-
en. The hours which, for six or eight months, the Author could spare from the dis-
charge of the duties of a New Testament Bishop, he has, in this rather romantic study,
devoted lo this work. The reader must determine wliether they have or have not been
profitably employed. That the work required labor will be manifest to those who may
read it with tare. Indeed, this is evident from the single fact, that to complete it on
the plan which the Author adopted, more or less words from twelve foreign languages^
ancient and modern, have been introduced into the work.
The learned reader will perceive that for the sake ofthosowho are not acquainted'
with any language except English, the Author has invariably so placed the words taken
from foreign sources, that the mere English reader may omit them entirely without in-
juring, in the least, the sense of the passages where they are used. He will also per-
ceive thfit in consequence of this, the style, in such passages, is not quite so smooth at
it would otherwise have been, especially for such as read and understand both the for-
eign and English words. But such parsons will be the last to find fault on tiiis account.
This work was written to remove tlie rubbish that learning and ignorance and learned
ignorance liave thrown round a plain Scriptural truth and duty •, and then to place these
clearly before the reader's mind, with the evidence in their favor. It has not been-
written in answer to any book, or in. opposition to any class of men. The subject of
baptism has been examined with some degree of care. What men have said in favor of
immersion being the only mode of baptism, has been brought to the test of truth and ex-
amined Tlicir assertions, as a substitute for Scriptural eviderice, often, when examined,
appear ridiculous. But when this is the case, the fault is not in the truth, or in those
who present it to the mind ;■ but in those who, by mistake or otherwise, substitute un-
supported assertions for Divine Revelation.
Many men have written well on different parts of the subject of baptism. The names
of several of those are mentioned in tins work. Not a few of them are an honor to the
a^e and country to which they belong. The writer of this, honors and respects them.
He does not wish to derogate from their usefulness or well-earned and justly-deserved
fame. From the writings of some of them lie has,- with pleasure, made quotations.
These, it is believed, are all acknowledged in the places where they are made. But
■while he cheerfully does all this, he humbly hopes the arrangement of the arguments in:
this work, together with the original matter introduced, will render it acceptable to alii
who love Goo's truth •, notwithstanding the occasional repetition of an idea, in order to
carry out the plan.
If this work is noticed publicly, by the friends or enemies of Divine truth, not with
sneers, assertions or questions, but by fncts and argunrjents which point out any error in
the proof presented, or in the positions taken, the Author will be much obliged to those
who do so. This will enable him to correct any mistakes or errors which it may con-
tain. Those who " gnaw at the cover," quibble at trifles, or misrepresent what it con-
tains, will only ^how what rhey would do ii they could. That no man ever has or ever
can prove immersion to be the only Scriptural mode of baptism, is certain; because the
word of God makes no such declaration in any form of expression. But notwithstand—
IV.
ing this, when errors arc discovered in the following work, the Author will cheerfully
correct them.
I'his book, like most others, will, no donht, fall into the hands of different kinds of
readers. Some of these will be prejudired, and therefore will not judge correctly. Some
will be cynical. These can discover faults whether the book docs or does not contain
any. But such jiersons can neither discover nor correct real errors or mistakes. Those
who are very ignorant will of course be very severe in their censures. The jealous will
judge maliciously. The envious will judge with a jaundiced eye and an envenomed
"liean. Sonic who hate God's truth on this subject, will rage like the sea in a storm -,
wliile others among them will scatter their silent venom like the poison tiee of fabulous
notoriety. But sucli persons as love Divine truth, wherever they discover it, will ex-
amine candidly, judge impartially, and discover and correct errors with discretion ; while
tliey will perceive and acknowledge the force of evidence where it exists.
The whole subject of baptism bus here been investigated. But particular attention
has been paid to its mode and subjects. In tlie investigation, it has been shown that
there is no Scriptural evidence to prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
Hence, to assert that it is so, is to utter a positive untruth. It has also been proved
that no such notion existed for more than 1500 years after the birth of Christ. More-
over, it has been shown that sprinkling is a mode of baptism, expressly and repeatedly
taught in the word of God ; and that infants are definitely recognized as proper persons
to receive this ordinance.
The Author has divided this work into Books, Parts, Chapters and Sections. He has
attempted to have, in each Section, a conaplete argument on the subject mentioned in
the Chaiiter ; in each Chapter, a class of arguments relating to the subject of the Part ;
in each Part, a number of classes of arguments, each relating to that of which the Book
treats; and each Book contains a leading branch of the subject of baptism. This is the
plan. The reader will determine for himself how far it has been successfully executed.
That the Lord may accompany this work with the enlightening, regenerating, con-
verting and sanctifying influences of His Spirit, is the sincere prayer of
THE AUTHOR.
Redford, (Mich.,) June 30th, 1844.
CONTENTS,
Baptism with water, - - - -
The duration of Baptism,
Baptism unto Moses,-
Divers Baptisms, - - - . -
John's Baptism,
Baptism administered to Christ,
Baptism administered by Him and by the
apostles before His resurrection,
Christian Baptism, _ . - .
Doctrine of Baptisms ; one Baptism ; Bap-
tism for the dead, - . - -
BaptisQi without water.
Baptism with the Holy Ghost,
Baptism with fire, . . - .
Baptism with sufferings, - - .
Baptism without Divine authority.
Modes of Baptism mentioned,
The point stated. - - - -
No Scriptural command for immersion, -
No example of immersion.
No inference in favor of immersion.
No allusion to immersion.
Immersion not the only mode of Baptism,
Immersion improbable, - - .
Immersion impossible, - -
Assertions and questions.
Lexicons and dictionaries on immersion,
Writers relating to immersion.
Denominations relating to immersion.
Several matters touching immersion, -
OOK.
Part.
Chaf,
I.
1.
I.
2.
II.
1.
II.
2.
III.
1.
III.
2.
III.
3.
IV.
i.
IV.
2.
V.
V.
1.
V.
2.
V.
3.
VI.
1,2.
VII.
1.
VII.
2.
I.
1.
I.
2.
II.
I.
3.
II.
I.
4.
I.
5.
II.
I.
6.
II.
I.
7.
II.
I.
8.
II.
II.
1.
II.
II.
2.
II.
II.
3.
II.
II.
4.
CONTENTS.
Immersers turn aside from Scripture,
They mistake the point,
They mistake assertion for proof,
When immersion did not originate,
"When and where it did originate,
Evils of immersion, . . .
General view of Immersion.
Sprinkling, Scriptural Baptism,
Scriptural examples of sprinkling.
Lexicons and dictionaries on sprinkling,
Other writers on sprinkling,
Denominations on sprinkling.
General view of Sprinkling.
The church defined,
Invisible church includes spiritual Baptism,
Water Baptism included in visible church
organization, _ . - .
Not things, but persons are to be Baptized,
What in the subject is essential to Baptism,
Adults proper subjects of Baptism,
Infants proper subjects of Baptism,
Church members to be Baptized,
Scriptural evidence in favor of infant Bap-
tism, - . . - -
Scriptural examples of infant Baptism, -
Early christians on infant Baptism,
Modern christian writers on infant Bap-
tism, .-..--
Denominations on infant Baptism,
What infants to be Baptized,
Advantages of infant Baptism,
Evils of neglecting infant Baptism,
Evils of rejecting infant Baptism,
General view of infant Baptism.
Conclusion.
Book
Part.
Chaf.
II.
III.
1.
II.
III.
2.
II.
III.
3.
II.
IV.
1.
II.
IV.
2.
II.
IV.
3.
III.
I.
1.
III.
I.
2.
III.
II.
1.
III.
II.
2.
III.
II.
3.
IV.
I.
1.
IV.
I.
2.
IV.
I.
3.
IV.
II.
1.
IV.
II.
2.
IV.
II.
3.
IV.
II.
4.
IV.
III.
1.
IV.
III.
2.
IV.
III.
3.
IV.
IV.
1.
IV.
IV.
2.
iV.
IV.
3.
IV.
V.
1.
IV.
V.
2.
IV.
V.
3.
IV.
V.
4.
BIBLE BAPTISM,
THE RULE.
That the Bible is the only rule in all religious duties, is a
grand mark of distinction between christians and others.
To admit that any deviation from this rule, is a part of Chris-
tianity, is to declare virtually, that the Bible is defective, and
that men are wiser than God. If the Bible is a perfect rule,
it cannot be made better by any additions or omissions which
men may suggest. Deviations from its perfect requirements,
cannot be holy ; they must be sinful. Since the wisdom of
God is revealed in his word; none can forsake this without
admitting practically, that they prefer the wisdom of men to
that of God. Those who take the Bible for their only rule
in all religious duties, have perfect wisdom to direct them.
Its teaching is plain, positive and uncompromising. It does
not teach opposite and contradictory sentiments. In its de-
clarations, we have more than the opinions of men ; we
have the authority of God. Those who take the scriptures
of truth for their only rule in all religious duties,
1. Ascertain the exact meaning of its words.
2. They take the words in their literal signification, un-
less the context or parallel passages require them to be used
figuratively.
3. In figurative expressions, they deviate as little as pos-
sible from the literal signification of the words.
4. What the scriptures teach, they take for positive proof
on all religious subjects.
5. What the scriptures require, and that only, they re-
ceive and practise as parts of their religion,
6. What the scriptures forbid, they do not practise for any
purpose ; certainly not as a pai-t of their religion.
On the subject of baptism, therefore, the scriptures only
can be recognized as authority to which all are bound to
submit.
RECOMMENDATION.
Bible Baptism is, by many competent judges, said to be
the most valuable work written on the subject of which it
treats. Moreover, it is the only one in print which discus-
ses the subject of baptism in all its various parts.
Ministers and laymen in the Associate, the Associate Re-
formed, the Reformed Presbyterian, the Dutch Reformed
and Presbyterian churches, have expressed the above senti-
ment in relation to this work. They also affirm that it
ought to be in the hands of every man, woman and child
who can read the English language. But the publisher says;
read the book. It will recommend itself.
dedication.
To all who in reality take the word of God for their only
rule in all religious duties, this work is affectionately dedi-
cated by their servant in the gospel of Christ,
The Author.
BIBLE BAPTISM.
BOOK FIRST— BAPTISM.
PART FIRST BAPTISM WITH WATER.
CHAPTER I.
BAPTISM WITH WATER TAUGHT IN THE WORD OF GOD.
1. The Scriptures definitely ieucli tliat^ hajptism with wa-
ter was required by Divine authority. John the Baptist re-
peatedly declares, in the most positive language, that he bap-
tized " with water.^' His language on this subject is ; "I
baptize with water;" I am "come baptizing with water ;"
He — "sent me to baptize with water ;"* "1 indeed baptize
you with water.^'t That John, by Divine authority, used
water in baptism, is as definitely taught by the language just
quoted, as it is possible for words to teach any fact whatever.
To deny therefore, that John baptized " with water," can-
not be less than a positive denial of the plain declarations of
God's word.
2. The disciples of Christ baptized with water after His
resurrection. The language of Peter recorded by Divine
inspiration, teaches this truth. It is this ; " Can any man
forbid water that" Cornelius and his friends " should not be
baptized ^''t The language of the Eunuch teaches the same
fact ; " See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be bap-*
tized ?"§ Both these ^atements, in relation to the use of
water in baptism, were made some time after the resurrec-
tion of Christ ; and in each of them the fact that the disci-
ples used water in baptism, is most clearly taught.
3. The commission to baptize shoics that baptism with wa-
ter icas intended. In this Christ says ; " Go ye, and teach
all nations, baptizing them.''|| Here the disciples are re-
quired to administer baptism. They did baptize as they are
*John 1: 26. 31. 33. fMat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke, 3: 16. JActs 10: 47. §Acts 8: 36.
||Mat.a8:19.
10 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. I.
here required to do. They administered the very ordinance
included in this command. But as they did not, and could
not ba|)tize with the Holy Ghost, that being the work of a
Divine person,* and as they did baptize as the commission
directed; they must therefore have baptized with water.
Wiicn the Apostles administered the baptism mentioned in
their commission, it is manifest that they then baptized not
with the Holy Spirit, but with water.
4. Persons were commanded hy the Apostles to h^ hapti-
zed with ivater. Peter "commanded" Cornelius and his
friends after "the Holy Ghost fell on them," " to be bapti-
zed'^'t by some person or persons authorized to administer
the ordinance of baptism. As these persons had already
been renewed, by the power of the Spirit, and made new
creatures, when Peter commanded them to be baptized, the
command must have required them to be baptized with water.
When Peter, with the eleven, on "the day of Pentecost,"
preached to the "men of Judea," and to all those who dwelt
"at Jerusalem," and commanded them to "Repent and be
baptized," and declared that they should " receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost, "| it is manifest that the baptism here men-
tioned is distinct from repentance, and from "the gift of the
Holy Ghost." This baptism therefore must have been with
water, not with the Spirit ; because these are mentioned as
really different from each other. Besides, Peter, with the
eleven, would not command the Holy Ghost to baptize per-
sons ; and if the command were given to men and executed
by them, then the baptism must have been with water, not
with the Holy Ghost ; for baptism with the Holy Ghost, is
the work of a Divine person, not of men.
CHAPTER H.
BAPTISM WITH WATER TO CONTINUE TILL THE END OF TIME.
1. There is no evidence that baptism with water is to he
discontinued. If the whole scriptures should be searched,
not a single passage could be found that would teach either
directly or indirectly, that baptism with water was to cease
ia any age of the New Testament church. But, since it
*Mat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16, Act 8 1: 5. tActa 10: 44. 48. {Acts 2; 1, 14. 38.
Ch. 2, § 1.] BAPTISM WITH WATER, 11
was administered by Divine authority (a) ; and since God
has not, in any passage of scripture, directed men to discon-
tinue the practice of baptizing with water, and since there is
nothing in baptism itself to limit its duration, therefore to
lay aside that ordinance, is a practical repeal, by men, of a
Divine law. No man can do this without great guilt in
the sight of God. Baptism with water must theretbre be
continued in the church of God, till he repeals his own law
on this subject.
2. The commission to baptize teaches thai baptism with
water is to continue till the end of time. The commission to
baptize includes the promise ; " Lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world."* In this promise, Christ
engages to be with those whom he commissions to teach and
baptize. The duration of the commission is also mentioned.
It is to be in force till "the end of the world." But since
the whole commission is to be in force till the end of time ;
therefore that part of it which requires the Apostles and their
successors in office to be baptized with water (^^), must re-
main as long in force. As the same commission requires
Christ's ministering servants to teach and baptize with wa-
ter ; the duty to teach and baptize must continue together or
cease at the same period. But teaching is to continue till the
end of time ; and therefore baptism with water, required in
the same commission which requires ministers to teach,
must also continue till the end of time.
3. Inspired men teach that iaptism with water is to con-
tinue till the end of time. These baptized with water af-
ter the resurrection of Christ (c). This shows that they
understood what their commission required them to do.
They thus taught that they knew that baptism with water
was an ordinance in the church, which did not cease to be
binding at the death or resurrection of Christ. Nor, as in-
spired men, could they be mistaken in this matter. Thus
baptism with water was, by the example of inspired men,
handed down to the church ; and by the church it has been
practiced ever since the New Testament dispensation of it
commenced, till the present day. Those who do and will
(fi) Ch. 1, § 1-4. *Mat. 28 : 20. (*) Ch. I, § .3. (,c) Ch. 1, § 3.
12 • BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. II.
hereafter follow the same inspired instructions and examples,
will baptize with water " even unto the end of the world."
4. Baptism icilh water as a Divine institution^ is to con-
tinue in the church till the end of time. Our Saviour in his
mediatorial character instituted the ordinance of christian
baptism. lie claims this character in the expression ; "All
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."* In his
human nature merely, he could not have received all this
" power ;" in his Divine nature merely he possessed it al-
ready ; but in his human and Divine natures united in one
person, he could and did receive "all power." In this char-
acter he gives the commission to teach and baptize. He
says ; "All power is given unto me — Go ye therefore and
teach all nations, baptizing them."t Because he possessed
all power, he directed them to teach and baptize. This
commission therefore is of Divine authority. All it contains
is therefore Divinely instituted. It requires baptism with
water to continue till the end of time (a); and therefore
whenever and wherever this ordinance is administered "ac-
cording to Christ's appointment" and by his authority, the
administration is in obedience to a Divine command ; and
therefore the ordinance thus administered is always a Divine
institution.
PART SECOND.
BAPTISM ADMINISTERED BY DIVINE AUTHORITY BEFORE THE
BIRTH OP CHRIST.
CHAPTER I.
BAPTISM UNTO MOSES.
1. The Israelites were ^'■baptized unto Moses in the cloud
and in the sea.^^ This baptism was administered about 1491
years before the birth of Christ. About 50 years after his
birth, we are informed that the Jews were all "under the
cloud and all passed through the sea;" and that they "were
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea."| If
God had not told us in his word, that the Israelites were bap-
tized "in the cloud and in the sea," we would not have
even conjectured that the cloud passing over them and pour-
*Mat. 28: 18. fMat. 28: 18. 19. (a) § 2. +1 Cor. 10: 1. 2.
Ch. 1, § 2, 3, 4.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 13
ing "out water"* upon them, was baptism ; or that they,
passing through the sea on " dry ground," were baptized.
But this was baptism ; and this account in Exodust is the
most ancient record existing that mentions baptism. In this
baptism, no human hand administered the ordinance. But
God himself baptized the nation of Israel; while they re-
ceived the ordinance of baptism which the Divine hand ad-
ministered. The sea was his baptismal font which contain-
ed the element of water to be used in baptizing his people.
He used the cloud, as it passed from their front to their rear,
in baptizing them, before they entered the opening from
which the sea " fled"J before omnipotent power. After they
entered upon " the dry land in the midst of the sea,'^§ the
waters of the deep did not close in upon them. The Al-
mighty's hand restrained them from doing this; while he
baptized them with the waters of the sea.
2. This baptism was typical. We are informed that a
number of things among which this baptism "unto Moses,"
is mentioned, " were our examples ;" and "happened unto
them for ensamples.'^jl These things therefore were in-
tended to symbolize certain occurrences in New Testa-
ment times. Baptism unto Moses is especially mentioned
as one of these. It was therefore a typical or symbolical
baptism. It may have typified christian baptism.
3. This baptism was expressive of the union of the Israel-
ites to Moses as their leader. They were "baptized unto"
(Greek £»^ to, in or into) him.^ This expression indi-
cates, not that they were all entirely covered over in the
body of Moses ; but that they were thus united to him as
their leader and law-giver, under God their king. By re-
ceiving this baptism, they publicly recognised this as their
relation to Moses. God, by administering this baptism to
them, gave his solemn sanction to this their union. There*
fore this relation to Moses as their leader was, not only ex-
pressed by this baptism, but it also in this ordinance receiv-
ed the Divine approbation.
4. In this baptism, their obedience to Moses was indicated.
Obedience to the person or being, in, unto, to or into 'whom
or in whose name, the ordinance is administered, is always
*Ps. 77: 17. tE.T. 14: 19-22. fPs. 114: 3. ^Ex. 14: 29. l|l Cor. 10: 6. 11. IJl
Cor. 10: 2 in Greek.
14 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IR
recognized as due from the baptized. Fie who administers
baptism or requires others to do so, demands obedience from
those to whom it is administered. This obedience is to be
rendered to him in whose name or unto whom they are
baptized. Wlien God requires this obedience ; the baptized
are always bound to render it ; because the requirement is
then always just ; and obedience therefore always proper.
Hence, when the Israelites were baptized to^ in, unto or into
Moses ; they were under baptismal obligations to render him
personal and prompt obedience.
CHAPTER 11.
DIVERS BAPTISMS.
1. These hajptisms were Old Testament wasJiings. The
"gifts and sacrifices" in Old Testament times, it is said,
*' stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings"
(/3 a "n- See P. iv. Ch. 1, ^ 9. jlsa. 53: 5, Rom. 4: 25, and 5: 6. 8.
Oh. 2, ^ 5, 6.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 83
His own sufferings, nor the renewing grace of the Spirit,
could be necessary to make him so. He did not need these
in any degree, for his own personal purification ; and there-
fore he did not need, could not, properly speaking, receive
their external sign in the ordinance of christian baptism.
Where the thing signified cannot in any degree exist in the
nature of things, the external sign must be inappropriate.
Christ being personally holy, did not need, and could not re-
ceive, the regenerating, converting, renewing grace of the
holy Spirit. He could not then with propriety receive chris-
tian baptism which includes the symbolical representation
of these. (6.) Christ's ministry on earth was under the Old
Testament dispensation of the covenant. He "was a min-
ister of the circumcision ;'' He observed the Old Testament
ordinances of circumcision and the passover ; and with his
expiring breath, he said ; "It is finished."* All this shows
conclusively that his ministry on earth was under the Old
Testament dispensation (a). But christian baptism was not
an Old Testament ordinance ; the baptism therefore which
he received during his ministry on earth, could not be the
New Testament ordinance of baptism.
5. Jesus Christ teas a Priest. (1.) He is often so call-
ed. He is said to be "a priest,'' — " a priest for ever," — " a
high priest," — "a great high priest," — "a priest after the
order of Melchisedec."t (2.) He is said to have a " priest-
hood."! None but a priest can have a priesthood. (3.)
As a priest, "he offered himself without spot unto God ;" —
*'he was offered to bear the sins of many ;" — i' Christ our
passover is sacrificed for us."§ This language and much
more similar to it, teaches definitely that the Lord Jesus
Christ was, and is, and will continue to be, a priest.
6. Christ waSf by his baptism, set apart to his priestly of-
jice. He was a priest. As such, he, in order to comply
with the Divine law, must be set apart to his office according
to its requirements. The moral law did not require water
to be applied to persons for any purpose ; neither did the
civil lav/ of the Jews. || No part of the ceremonial law re-
*Rom. 15: 8, Luke 2: 21, and 22: 15. John 13: 1, anrl 19: 30. (a)^ee Ch. 1, § 2. fPs.
110: 4, Heb. 3. 1, ami 4: 14, and 5: 3. 0. 10, and 6: 20. and 7: 11. 15, 17. 20. 21. 26, and
9: 11, and 10: 21,. JHeb. 7: 24. $Heb. 1): 14. 25. 28, 1 Cor. 5: 7. |iSee Ex. 20: 1-17,
Lev. 17: 1-16, and 19: 1-37, and 20; 1-27.
34 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III.
quired the application of water to persons before, at or after,
they were "thirty years of age''* as a religious ordinance,
except that which required the priests to be thus set apart to
their oOice. These were at first to serve " from thirty years
old — until fifty years old.'' In after ages, they were requi-
red to serve " from the age of twenty years and upwards."!
But before any of them could legally engage in officiating
as priests, they must observe the law relating to their conse-
cration. They must be, by Divine authority, set apart to
tlieir office. Therefore Jesus Christ, when he was "about
thirty years of age,"t in giving the reason why he was then
to be baptized or have water applied to him, says, it was " to
fulfill all righteousness."^. " To fulfill all rigiiteousness"
is simply to comply perfectly with every portion of a righte-
ous law. As Jesus Christ came into the world to fulfill per-
fectly every part of the Divine law ; so, in entering on the
public discharge of what the office of a priest required, he
would comply with the Divine direction given to the Levit-
ical priests by the ministry of Moses. God commanded Mo-
ses to "wash" Aaron and his sons "with water;" and he
"washed them with water." j| Here the priests are com-
manded to be washed with water. To comply with this law,
our Saviour must be washed with water in some mode, be-
fore he could legally enter publicly upon his priestly office.
These passages do not mention the mode by which the priests
were to be washed, but another does. It is this ; " Thus
shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them ; sprinkle water of
purifying upon them."1T The Levites then, including the
family of Aaron, were all to be washed by having "water
of purifying" sprinkled on them when they were about to
begin to minister in holy things. When Christ was about
thirty years old, he was so far advanced in life, that no one
on account of his age, could deny his right to enter publicly
upon the office of a priest. But to enter this office legally,
he must be baptized, or have water applied to him by a Le-
vite of the family of Aaron, or of some other family. John
was by birth a priest, and therefore as such, as well as from
his office of prophet, and that of Christ's forerunner (a), he
was a proper person to set apart legally, the Son of God to
*U\\iP 3: 23. tNum. I: 3, 1 Chron. 23: 21. 2 Chron. 31: 17. JLuke 3: 23. §Mat. 3:
15. ||Ex. 40: 12, Lev. 8: C. irNum. 8; 7. (a)Ch. 1, ^ 1, par. 1-7.
Ch. 2, § 7.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 35
his priestly office. For this purpose water must be applied
to him, according to the provisions of the Levitical law. He
was not taken to " the door of the tabernacle ;''* for that
was a mere circumstance, essential to the ordinance only
when it was mentioned, and at no time connected with it only
while the tabernacle stood. Since, therefore, our Saviour
was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness/^ or in other words,
to comply with the i-equirements of a just law ; and since
no law, except that which required the priests to be washed
with water, required persons, at or about the age of thirty,
to have water applied to them as an ordinance ; it follows as
an undeniable inference that he was baptized in order to be
legally set apart to his priestly office.
7. To complete his consecration as a priest, Christ was
anointed. The Levilical priests were to be anointed
" throughout their generations.^' God said to Moses, " thou
shalt anoint'^ Aaron; — "thou shalt anoint" his sons ; and
"Moses took of the anointing oil — and sprinkled it upon
Aaron — and upon his sons."t From these and similar ex-
pressions it appears that the priests, Aaron and his sons,
throughout their generations, were to be anointed with oil
as a part of their consecration to qualify them to discharge
publicly the duties of their office. The Lord Jesus Christ,
when he was about to enter publicly upon his priestly office,
was also anointed. He is (1.) called the "anointed" of the
Lord.| (2.) He is often called the "Messiah" and "the
Christ."^ The word Messiah in Hebrew and the word
Christ in Greek, each denote the anointed. || (3.) He is said
to be "anointed;" (4.) To be "anointed with the oil of
gladness ;" (5.) In this anointing, "the Spirit" was given
him "without measure;" (6.) "The Lord" — "God," the
Father "anointed" him with the Spirit. 1j Tliat Christ might
legally act as a priest, he was not only baptized ; but he was
also anointed with the Holy Spirit. This anointing was in-
finitely superior to that of mere oil. Our Saviour therefore
was in every respect legally set apart for the public dis-
charge of the functions of the priesthood. For this purpose,
he was baptized ; for this he was anointed.
*Ex. 40: 12. tr>x. 40: 13. 14. lo, Lev. 8: 12. 30. JPs. 2: 2. §Dan. 9-, 2.5, John 1: 41.
||See Hebrew and Greek Mexicans onlJie words. UPs. 45: 7,Isa. 61: 1, Luke 4: 18,
John 3: 34, Acts 4: 27, and 10: 33.
36 " BIbLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. Ill,
8. Christ was not baptized as a substitute for his people.
It is not said in any part of the word of God, that he was
baptized for that purpose. To say that he was, is therefore
to turn aside from the scriptures as a rule of duty^aj. It is
often Slated that he died to save " iiis people,'' " his sheep,'' —
and to be a ransom for " many ;''* but in no passage of scrip-
ture, is it said that he was baptized for his people or as a sub-
stitute for them. Moreover, he lived under the Old Testament
dispensation, when the ordinance of christian baptism was
not required of his \ieo\)\e(b). Hence they did not need a
substitute to do that for them, which they themselves were
not in duty bound to do. Besides, he himself expressly men-
tions the reason why he was baptized. To " fulfill all righ-
teousness," not to be a substitute for his people, is the rea-
son he gives for receiving John's baptism. The Lord Jesus
Christ was not therefore baptized as a substitute for his people.
9. He was not baptized to set an example for his followers.
No such instruction is given in the Holy book of God. Our
Saviour himself definitely declares that he was baptized for
a certain purpose. This was "to fulfill all righteousness,"
not to set an example for his followers. He definitely states
for what he was baptized. Men tell us that, in receiving
John's baptism, he had a design different from that wdiich he
mentions. He says he was baptized "to fulfill all righte-
ousness ;" men say, he was baptized to set his followers an
example. Which are we bound to believe % Jesus Christ %
or mere man 1 Christians believe what Christ says on this
subject as well as on others, rather than the mere assertions
of mere men.
10. If Christy in his baptism^ did set an example^ it is not
imitated by his followers. To imitate an example set by a
person, is to do what the person did. A number of things
concurred in our Saviour's baptism. (1.) He •' was baptiz-
ed" by "John;" (2.) **In" or at or near the "Jordan;"
(3.) " With" its waters; (4.) When he was "about thirty
years of age;" (5.) Not "in the name of the Father,"
"Son" and "Holy Ghost;" and (6 ) "To fulfill" the re-
quirements of the Levitical law which pointed out the mode
of consecrating the priests. All this we learn from the po-
Ca;Sce rule No. 4. 5. *Mat. 1: 21, John 10: 11. 15, Mat. 20:28. (b) Ch. 1, $ 4, par. 8.
Ch. 2, § 10.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 37
sitive declarations of God's word.* To imitate our Saviour's
example in baptism, it is necessary to comply with all these
points. None now pretend to be baptized by John ; for he
has been dead more than 1800 years. Very few are bap-
tized at the Jordan or with its waters ; nor do any pretend
that persons can be baptized by its waters and by no others.
None put otr their baptism till they are thirty years of age.
By all who baptize with water, except the Sabians of Syria,
some Ana.iis(a), and perhaps a few others ; the name of
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is used in baptism. Nor are
any baptized "to fulfill'"' the requirements of the Levitical
law. After John's death, and in countries remote from the .
river Jordan ; no one ever has or ever could imitate Christ
in his baptism. Why then do men who plunge persons in a
pond, brook or cistern, more than five thousand miles from
the Jordan, talk of imitating Christ in his baptism'? Do
they not know that they do not imitate, in any one of its
parts, the baptism of our blessed Saviour ? They do not
even plunge in the Jordan as they say John did. Do they
really suppose that persons who think for themselves, can
imagine that to be plunged in any water by any person, is to
follow the example of the Lord Jesus Christ who was bap-
tized by John in, or at the Jordan ? Can they believe that
a brook, pond or cistern, in America, Europe or Africa, is
the river Jordan in Asia 1 Can they imagine that he who
immerses them is John the Baptist ? If they cannot; how
can they be so duped as to imagine that they imitate the ex-
ample of Christ, when they are plunged in water five thou-
sand miles from the Jordan, in the name of the Trinity, by a
person they know is not John the Baptist 1 As Christ was
not baptized by the same person^ or by the same officer^ or in
the same name^ or for the same j)urpose, or in the same
place(b), that his followers are ; therefore they do not imi-
tate him in his baptism.
If his baptism was intended as an example for his follow-
ers, the whole of it must be imitated. An example must be
followed in all its parts. This must be the case, from its
very nature as an example. If the whole is not to be fol-
*Mdt.3: 13-16, Mark 1:8. 9, Luke 3: 23, Acts 19: 2-5. faJThe Arians deny the
supreme deity of Jesus Christ. It is said that in Great Britain and Ireland, some of
them baptize in the name of God, not using the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
gee B. iy. P. iv, Ch 3, § 3. (b)Ch. 1, ^ 1. 17. 18, Ch. 2, § 2. 4. 6.
38 BinLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III.
lowed ; who is to determine which part of tlie example is to
be imitated, and which is not ? If one person, without Di-
vine autiiority, may refuse to imitate one part of an exam-
ple, another person may refuse to imitate another of its parts;
and thus, by different persons, the whole example might be
set aside, o-r be rendered totally useless. What therefore is
given to us as an example, must be imitated in all its parts-
unless God makes exceptions ; and then the excepted parts
do not belong in fact to the example. What is not given as
an example for our imitation, we have no right to make such.
Immersers say, though the word of God does not, that
Christ was plunged in Jordan by John the Baptist. They
sai/i this was for an example to his followers ; though Christ
gives a different reason for his baptism (a). But if our Sa-
viour was baptized to set an example for his followers, then
immersers do not follow it in any one of its parts. They do
not go to the Jordan, are not plunged by John, and most of
them have the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost used
when they are immersed. They do not therefore imitate
any port of the example which they say our Saviour set
them. Besides, no one does or ever did follow it since the
death of John. Even those who are most ready to boast of
their fidelity in this respect, are as far from doing what he
did when he was baptized, as they frequently are from obey-
ing his positive commands in other matters.
Even if he were plunged in the Jordan, those who are
plunged in another stream, no more imitate the baptism of
Christ in such an act, than would the person who should go
near the river Jordan without having a drop of water applied
to him. Neither would imitate Christ in his baptism ; for to
do a very small part of what he did, is not to imitate his ex-
ample. Indeed to pretend that we follow his example when
we only aim at doing a very small part of what we say he
did, is, at best, but solemn trifling.
It is the business of the christian to take for examples,
those actions which the word of God mentions as such. He
has no right to make that an example which the scriptures
do not present for our imitation. Christ was circumcised
when he was '* eight days" old ; he was "baptized" when
he was '• about thirty years of age ;" and just before his
(a) § 9.
Ch. 3, § 1.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 39
death he " eat*' the " passover."* But not the least hint is
given which might lead us to suppose that any one of these
his actions, was intended as an example which his followers
are to imitate. His baptism we know was not intended for
our imitation ; because he himself positively declares that
his baptism was intended for another purpose (a). To take
it therefore as an example, is, in this matter to act, not only
\vithout Divine authority ; but it is to act in direct opposition
to the positive declaration of the Lord Jesus Christ, when he
says, he was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness."!
Jesus Christ complied with all the Divine institutions
which were in force during his ministry on earth. In this
way he honored, as well as " magnified" "the law."| In
the same manner also, men are bound to comply with all the
Divine institutions which are in force during the dispensa-
tion under which they live. He introduced none of the tra-
ditions of men into religion- He in fact excluded from it,
every invention of man.§ All should do this; because the
word of God directs the whole human family in religious du-
ties to go "to the law and to the testimony." It declares,
" if they speak not according to this word, it is because there
is no light in them.'^H What does not accord with God's
word, ijs destitute of Divine light, aixl cannot therefore be,
or be m.ade by man, a part of Spiritual religion.
CHAPTER III.
THE BAPTISM W HIGH CHRIST AND HIS DISCIPLES ADMINISTER*
ED BEFORE HIS RESURRECTION,
1. Jesus Christ himself baptized Ids twelve Ajposties. The
testimony of God's word is very plain on this point. (1.)
It is positively declared that "Jesus and his disciples" came
"into the land of Judea and there he tarried with them and
baptized."t[ He came into "Judea" with " his disciples,"
" tarried with them" and " baptized." If it be asked, whom
did he baptize ? the axibwer must be ; he baptized "-them."
If it is asked, who are intended by the word " them ?" the
answer must be, " his disciples." The language when ex-
amined is very definite. Jesus Christ therefore baptized his
*Luke 2: 21, and 3: 21. 33, and 22: 15, (a) $ 6-9. tMat. 3: 15. $Isa. 42: 21. ^See
>Iat 5: 33, 34. 43, 44, and 15 9. DJsa. 8; 20. ITJplw 3; 22,
40 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P, HI.
twelve disciples. (2.) The disciples of John in addressing"
him, teach the same truth. They say to him ; *' Rabbi, he
that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest
witness ; behold, the same Imptizeth, and all men come to
him."* They declare the fact that Jesus baptized; but they
do not say that he baptized all men ; nor that be baptized
all who came to him. Here then we have another passage
to prove the fact that our Saviour administered baptism. (3.)
It is also stated that " Jesus made and baptized more disci-
ples than John."t Two facts are here presented for our
consideration. The first is ; Jesus made and baptized disci-
ples ; the second, he made and baptized more disciples than
John. The immediate followers of Christ were *' the
twelve."! The number of John's immediate disciples or at-
tendants was less than twelve ; for Christ's disciples or im-
mediate attendants, were only " twelve," and they exceeded
John's in number. John's must therefore have been less,
than twelve. (4.) Jesus did not baptize any but ■" the twelve."
This is manifest from the fact that when it is said that " Je-
sus made and baptized more disciples than John ;" it is im-
mediately added, " Jesus baptized not" any others, *' but
his disciples" did.§ Our Saviour baptized his twelve disci-
ples in Enon. This is clearly intimated, if not expressed,
in this language ; "Jesus — baptized" his disciples; "and
John also was baptizing in Enon," — "and they came and
were baptized."i| To say that John aZvo baplized in Enon,
shows that Jesus Christ, who just before is said to have bap-
tized, administered the ordinance in that place as well as
John. If he had not, the word also would not have been
used in that connection
2. Tlie twelve AjJosfles, or at least some of them, hapilzed
hefore the resurrection of Christ. This is taught in the ex-
pression, " Jesus — baptized not but his disciples ;"^ that
is, "his disciples" baptized.. Who weie baptized by the
twelve, v.'e are not informed. They may, however, have
baptized the "seventy" disciples, or the "hundred and
twenty," whom Peter addressed immediately after the as-
cension af Christ.** A part of these might in fact have been
the seventy sent out by our Saviour to every city which he
*John 3: 2G. fJohn 4: 1. JMat 10; 1, and 11: 1, Mark 3: 14, and G: 7, Luke C; 13,a?.',\
H: 1. ^Jolin 4: X. 2. p-. 22. 23. 114; a. **Lukc 10; 1, Ads 1; lo.
Ch. 3, § 3, 4, 5.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 41
intended to visit personally during his ministry on earth.
But, that the disciples ot* Christ baptized some persons be-
fore his resurrection, is certain from the language already
quoted.
3. The haptism ichich the disciples of Christ administered
before his resurrection., laas administered by his authority.
He himself baptized by his own authority ns King and Head
of his own church. He needed no commission from any oth-
er being to authorize him to administer baptism. But his
disciples being mere men, must der've all their authority to
administer Divine ordinances from a Divine Person. That
he authorized them to baptize, may be learned ; (1.) from
the fact that at the time they administered baptism, they were
with him.* (2.) He did not reprove them for baptizing.
This he would certainly have done, had they attempted to
baptize without his approbation. (3.) The whole passage,
where it is stated that they baptized, shows that they admin-
istered the ordinance with his approbation and authorit}^*
That he therefore authorized them to baptize, cannot in truth
be denied.
4. The baptism administered by the disciples of Christ,
teas confined to the Jewish nation. When Christ sent them
out before his resurrection ; he commanded them not to go
" into the way of the Gentiles," or enter " into any city of
the Samaritans ;" but to go "^to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel. ''t They were not by this authority, allowed to
go among the Gentiles or into any Samaritan city ; and as
this was the only commission under which they acted, till
after the resurrection of Christ, it must, in all its parts, have
been confined to the Jewish nation. By it they were not
permitted so much as to go among other nations. They
therefore could not by it be allowed to baptize any but Jews.
5. This commission to go among the Jews only., did not in-
clude succession. It was given to individuals. It did not
authorize them to send out others as Christ had sent them
out. They therefore could not, by this commission transfer
to others, the powers which, by it, they had received. | It
did not therefore include succession, or authorize those to
whom it was given to transfer its powers to other persons,
*See John 3; 22. 2^3, and 4; 1. 2. jMat. 10: 5. 6. +See Mat. 10: 5-20
42 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III.
6. TAe hap/ism which Christ personally ad minister ed, was
not the ordinance of christian baptism. This will be evident
from a few considerations. (1.) He administered this bap-
tism before the Old Testament dispensation terminated.
This ended at his deD.ih(a). Before this, he baptized his
twelve disciples.* (2.) When he baptized the twelve, the
ordinance of christian baptism was not instituted. Its insti-
tution did not take place till after his resurrection.! (3.)
Christ's mission on earth was limited to the Jews. He de-
clares, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house
of Israel."! Christian baptism as an ordinance extended to
"all nations.^' When therefore Christ administered the or-
dinance only to Jews, and to but twelve of them ; it could
not be that which might be extended to Gentiles also. (4.)
"The eleven disciples" and their successors in office, were
all that were commissioned to administer the ordinance of
christian baptism. § Christ was not one of these. He com-
missioned the eleven and their successors in the ministerial
office to baptize ; and he might if lie had chosen to do so,
have administered the ordinance ; but we have no evidence
that what he administered personally was the ordinance of
christian baptism. From these and other evidences which
might be adduced, it may be clearly ascertained that the
baptism which our Saviour personally administered before
his resurrection, was not the ordinance usually called chris-
tian baptism.
7. T/>e baptism which the disciples administered before
the resurrection of Christy icas not christian baptism. This
is ascertained, (1) From the fact that the Old Testament
dispensation had not then terminated, nor the New com-
menced(Z>j. Of the New, not of the Old dispensation, is
christian baptism an ordinance. (2.) This their first com-
mission was confined to the .Tews and did not include succes-
sion(c). The baptism under it could not therefore be chris-
tian baptism ; because the commission authorizing that, ex-
tended to " all nations"'' and included succession " even unto
the end of the world."|| (3.) When they administered bap-
tism before the death of Christ, the Old Testament ordinance
(a)Ch. 1. § 2 par. 5. 6. *Mat. 10: .5 6. t^ee Mat. 2?: 6. 19. }Mat. 15: 24. ^9ee
Mat. 28: 19. (b)S,Ge Ch. 1, § 2. (c)^ 4. 5. ||Mat. 28: 19. 20.
Ch. 3, § 8.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 43
of the " passover^^* was in fii]! force(«). Christian bap-
tism therefore which is a New Testament ordinance, could
not be in fall force at the same time. These reasons, with
many others which might be mentioned, show that the bap-
tism administered by the disciples of Christ before his resur-
rection, was not in very deed, the ordinance of christian
baptism.
8. The haptism luliich Christ and his tioelve disciples ad-
ministered lefore his resurrection^ was designed to be a sub-
stitute for christian baptism. To perceive clearly the truth
of this proposition, it will be necessary to attend with care
to several points. (1.) If Christ, in his wisdom saw fit, he
had a right to institute an ordinance which should, for the
time being and in special cases, bo a substitute for christian
baptism. Those very perfections by which he might autho-
ritatively institute the positive ordinance of christian bap-
tism, might, if he chose, be exercised in instituting a sub-
stitute for it to be and continue in force for a time. As
head of his church, he had a right to institute positive ordi-
nances ; and therefore, if he saw proper, he might institute
substitutes for them. But this prerogative does not belong
to mere .creatures. (2.) With Christ, "the twelve'' disci-
ples " eat the" last " passover.'^f At this time their circum-
cision was in force as the seal of the covenant ; for " no
uncircumcised person''| was allowed to eat of the passover.
If an "uncircumcised" person even entered the "sanctua-
ry, '^§ it was thereby rendered ceremonially unclean. An
uncircumcised person was not, by Divine authority, permit-
ted to enter a sacred place ; much less to eat the passover.
When therefore the disciples eat of the paschal sacrifice
with Christ's approbation ; their circumcision then must
have been valid. (3.) A person's standing in the New
Testament church, was indicated by baptism, not by circum-
cision. This was the case Avith the Jews who had been cir-
cumcised, as well as with the Gentiles who had not received
that "seal of the righteousness" of faith. !| Paul, though a
"Hebrew of the Hebrews" and "circumcised the eighth
day," yet when he was about to enter the New Testament
church, was directed to "be baptized ;" and " he arose and
*Luke 22: 15. (a)Ch.l, ^ 2. f.VIat. 26: 17-2o, Marlt 14: 12-21, Luke 22: T-l"). JEx.
12: 48. §Ezek. 44: 7. 9. l|Rom. 4: 11.
44 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III.
was baptized."* He was taught by tlie Holy Spirit that his
"circumcision" was then " nothing. '-'t As, in New Testa-
ment times this sign did not avail " any thing" to those who
were " in Christ Jesus"| or to others ; it could not therefore
under the New dispensation be a seal of God's covenant.
While circumcision was a "token" or seal of the "ever-
lasting covenant" which Divine mercy had made with his
visible people, so far from being at that time "nothing" and
of no avail, its "advantage" was great "every way."§ But
when, as a religious rite, it became "nothing;" then the
Jews or "the men of Judea" and those who dwelt "at Jeru-
salem," having asked ; "What shall we do ?" were direct-
ed to "be baptized." This direction was given on "the
day of Pentecost," fifty days after our Saviour's crucifixion.
It was given to those who, because they were Jews, were
circumcised. In the case of these therefore, as well as in
that of Paul, we are taught that the standing of the circum-
cised Jew in the New Testament church, was to be known
and acknowledged by baptism, not by circumcision. The
standing in the visible chuich of Cornelius and his "friends"
who were all " Gentiles," w^as recognized and acknowled-
ged by baptism^ The yoke of circumcision was not there-
fore laid upon any in New Testament times.** Were it
necessary, much additional evidence might be adduced to
prove that the standing of every member in the New Testa-
ment church, was publicly acknowledged by baptism, and
that of not one of them by circumcision. (4.) No unbaptized
person can be publicly recognized as a member of the New
Testament church, "or have in it a ratified standing. By Di-
vine authority, and by that onljs can a creature enter into
covenant relation with God. By the same authority must
this relation be recognized and confirmed. " Be baptized"
was the direction of God to all who desired to enjoy a ratifi-
ed standing as members of the New Testament church ;
and those who were publicly acknowledged as its members,
were "baptized" at the time the public recognition of their
membership took place.ft In the word of God, there is no
precept or example authorizing unbaptized persons to be
*ActsO-. IP, and 2-2: 10. fl Cor 7: 19. JGal. 5: 6. ^Gen. 17: 7 13, Rom. G: 1. 2.
H Acts 2: 1. 14. 37. 38. irActs 10: 24. 45. 47, 48. **See Act- 11: 1. 0-20. 24, 28, 20.
Tt Acts 2. 41, and 8: 12. 13. 37. 38, and 10: 47. 48, s^d 16: 15. 53.
Ch. 3, § 8.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 45
publicly acknowledged as ratified members of God's church
in New Testament times. As under the Old Testament the
covenant was not ratified by those who were in it, till the
seal of circumcision was applied to them ; so in New Tes-
tament times, the covenant is not ratified or completed in all
its parts till baptism is received. No unbaptized person can
therefore, be an acknowledged member of the church in
New^ Testament times ; nor can any such person be entitled
to its special privileges. (5.) The apostles of Christ had an
acknowledged standing in the New Testament church.
This appears from the fact that they performed all the du-
ties required of its members and enjoyed all the privileges
which any of its members could enjoy. They received the
saci'ament of the Lord's supper ; they held the office of New
Testament ministers ; they administered the New Testament
ordinances of baptism and the holy supper.* They must
therefore have had a standing in the New Testament church.
This must, in their case, have been publicly acknowledged
and ratified. This standing did not, as has been shown(a),
belong to them in consequence of their circumcision. By
baptism therefore they must have been publicly recognized
and acknowledged as ratified members of the New Testa-
ment church, and therefore entitled to all its privileges. Je-
sus Christ baptized them(Z'). There is not, in the whole
word of God, the least shadow of evidence, that they were
re-baptized, either before or after the death of Christ. The
baptism therefore which Jesus Christ administered to them,
and in consequence of which, (for we have no evidence that
they received any other) they were publicly recognized as
ratified members of the visible church in New Testament
times, must have been, either christian baptism or a substi-
tute for that ordinance. But it was not, as we have seen(c),
in fact the christian ordinance of baptism; for that, in the
case of the apostles, it must therefore have been a substitute.
(6.) Till the disciples *' eat the'' last " passover"' v/ith the
Lord Jesus Christ, their circumcision was a valid seal of
the covenant ; for "no uncircumcised person'' might "eat
thereof '"f As soon as that passover was "kept'-' by them,
their baptism became a valid substitute for christian bap-
*See Mat. 2C: 2G, 27. and 28: 19, Acts 2: 42. 46, and IS: 15. 33, and 20: 7, 1 Cor. 1:
14. 16, and 11: 23-29 (a) par. 3. (b)<^ 1. (c;<^ G. jii-f • 12: 4S.
46 BIBLE BAPTISM. [n. I, P. IV.
tism ; for no unbaptized person can have a ratified, public-
ly acknowledged standing in the New Testament church ;
or be authorized to eat the Lord's supper, preach the gospel
or administer New Testament ordinances(a) ; and all this,
with much more, the disciples did. Their circumcision then
was valid till the last passover was kept and then their bap-
tism became and remained a valid substitute for christian
baptism.
By similar evidence, it may be proved; that, if any of
those to whom the apostles administered baptism before the
resurrection of Christ, were, after this, publicly recognized
as members of the New Testament church ; their baptism
was also, by the Saviour, intended to answer as a substitute
for the ordinance of christian baptism.
PART FOURTH.
BAPTISM ADMINISTERED BY DIVINE AUTHORITY AFTER THE
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER I.
CHRISTIAN BAPT^ISM.
1. Christian haptism was not instituted till after the resur-
rection of Christ. Tiiat baptism unto Moses and the divers
washings or baptisms used in the ceremonial purifications of
the Jews, were not the ordinance of christian baptism, is too
evident to need illustration. John's was not christian bap-
tism (Z>), nor was that administered to Jesus Christ (c); nor
yet was that administered to or by the twelve apostles before
the resurrection of Christ, the ordinance of christian bap-
tism (d). That the ordinance of christian baptism was not
instituted at the same time with the Eucharist, is manifest
from the fact that at that time not one word is spoken con-
cerning baptism.* Nor is baptism so much as mentioned
while Christ was on the cross or in the tomb.t There is not
therefore the least shadow of evidence to prove that chris-
tian baptism was instituted before the resurrection of our Sa-
Ca;Par, 4. 5. (hC?. iii\ Ch. 1. § l». (c)P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 4. (d)V. iii. Cli. 3, $ G. 7.
B. *Sec Mat. 20: J l-'iO, Mark 14: 12-20, Luke 22: 7-20. fSce Mat. 27: 29-06, and 28:
1-8, Mark 15; 1.5-47, and 16: 1-Jl, Luke 23: 27-56, and 24: 1-12.
Ch. 1, § 2, 3.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 47
viour. Those then who take the word of God for their rule
of duty (a) cannot believe that it was instituted before that
event.
2. Christian baptism is an instituted ordinance. An in-
stituted ordinance is an external requirement which is to be
performed in succeeding generations. That which is requi-
red to be done in it, must be perceptible by the senses. It
must also represent something Spiritual. He who issues the
command by which an ordinance is instituted, must have the
requisite authority, or the observance of the ordinance, in-
stead of being a religious duty, would be but solemn trifling.
In christian baptism is found every thing that is essential to
an instituted ordinance (5), and therefore it must be such.
3. Jesus Christ after his resurrection instituted the ordi-
nance of christian baptism. In the command to his disciples
to teach ''all nations, baptizing them,"* he instituted the or-
dinance of christian baptism. He commanded it to be obser-
ved. A visible emblem was to be used (c); it was to be per-
formed in succeeding ages (d); and the command was given
by him who had the requisite authority. Before he gave the
command to teach and baptize *'all nations," he declared;
"All power is given unto me in Heaven and in earth. "t As
in his human nature merely, he could not receive *' all pow-
er ;" and as in his Divine nature, he already possessed this
power (e) ; he therefore in his human and Divine natures
united in one Person, might and did receive all power " in
Heaven and in earth." Jesus Christ therefore as Emman-
uel, "God with us,"t instituted the ordinance of christian
baptism. Being possessed of " all power," and being " Head
over all things to the church,"^ he had all the authority
which was requisite to institute this ordinance. He did this
after the Angel had expressly stated ; *'He is not here" in
the tomb ; '• He is risen as he said."|| It is evident there-
fore, (1.) That Jesus Christ instituted the ordinance of chris-
tian baptism ; (2.) That this was a mediatorial act ; for he,
as God and man in one Person, instituted this ordinance ;
(3.) That he instituted it after his resurrection ; (4.) That
persons were to receive this ordinance.
rfl;See Rule No. 5. (^) § 3. 4. *iMat. 2=>: 19 in Greek, (c '^ i. d $ B. C«;P,
i, Uh. 2, ^4. t->lat. 23: 18. J Mat. 1:23. QEph 1; 22. || Mat. 23: 6.
48 BIBLE BAPTISM. [u. I, P. IV.
4. Water is the visible emblem to be used in christian bap-
iisni. (1.) The command by which Clirist authorized his
disciples to administer the ordinance of christian baptism,
shows that they were to baptize with water (a). These ac-
tually administered the ordinance which was required by
their commission. (2.) Inspired men used water when they
baptized. Peter enquires; "Can any man forbid water
that" Cornelius and his friends " should not be baptized V^
and the Eunuch said ; " See, here is water ; what doth hin-
der me to be baptized V^ And after he and Philip " went
down into the water," — the Eunuch was "baptized.'''*
These, and many other similar expressions, show clearly
that water is to be used in administering the ordinance of
christian baptism. (3.) It is to be clean water ; for God,
speaking to his people of New Testament times, says; "Then
will I sprinkle clean water upon you."t In this passage,
we are taught by the prophet of the Lord that clean water
is to be used by Divine authority in the New Testament
church. But in this, water is used as a Divine ordinance
only in baptism. In fulfilling this prediction therefore, clean
water must be used in baptism. It is evident then, from
God's word, that clean water is the visible emblem which
Divine wisdom has authorized to be used when christian bap-
tism is administered.
5. The eleven Ajjostles and their successors in the miniS'
terial ofjlce^ are authorized to administer christian baptism.
Our Saviour after proving by his resurrection from the dead,
that he possessed nil power in Heaven and in earth, said to
" the eleven disciples ;" " Go ye therefore and teach all na-
tions, baptizing them." Before Christ gave them this com-
mand, they had no authority to teach and baptize the vari-
ous nations of the earth ; because, before this, no such au-
thority was given them. In this command " the eleven"
received their commission as ministers of the New Testa-
ment church ; for at this time and not before, they are di-
rected to teach and baptize all nations This direction was
in fact their commission to act as his ambassadors. Without
it, they had no authority either to preach to the nations or
baptize them. For them or others to attempt to do either
(a) p. i, Ch. 1, $ 3. p. i, Ch. 2: § 2. 3. *Acts 10: 47, and 8: 36. 38. tEzek. 36: 23.
Ch. 1, § 5.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 49
without Divine authority, would be mere will-worship or re-
bellion against the King of Zion. But while " the eleven"
received this ministerial commission from the Lord Jesus
Christ, it was not confined to them personally. They were
to transmit to others their office of gospel ministers. That
their commission was not confined to their own persons, but
that it was to be handed down to others, is manifest from
the promise which it contains. It is this; " Lo, I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the world.''* The com-
mission must either be transmitted to others ; or these must
live till the end of time. But, as Christ taught his disciples
explicitly, that they should die ;t it follows therefore that
this their commission was to be transfen-ed to others. It
was to be transmitted *- to faithful men who" should '^ be
able to teach others."! Those who were to receive from
them, and be their successors in, this office, were to be faith-
ful to the Lord Jesus Christ, or true believers. They were
also to be men of learning who should be able to teach others
to observe "all things whatsoever" he had " commanded"
in his word.§ To do this, even in a degree, much knowledge
is necessary. Since therefore the ministerial commission
given to " the eleven" is to be transferred from them through
their successors in office from generation to generation "un-
to the end of the world ;" it is certain that whatever this
commission required them to do, is required of all to whom
it is transmitted by our Saviour's authority. Those to whom
it was personally given, were to teach and baptize, and also
to administer the Lord's supper. || Those therefore who have
proper authority to teach ail that he commanded in his word ;
or in other words, to preach the gospel, and also to admin-
ister New Testament ordinances, have this commission trans-
mitted to them. To teach what the word of God contains
and to administer these ordinances, is precisely what "the ele-
ven" were, and their successors in office are, empowered to
do by this commission. As'the whole commission was there-
fore given to the eleven, and as they were to "commit" it
*' to faithful men who should be able to teach others" what
it required to be taught ; that part of it requiring them to ad-
minister baptism must belong to all to whom the whole coni-
*jMat. 2S: 16. IS. 19. 20. fMat. 10: 28. and 24: 9, Luke 21: IG, John IG: 2, Acts 12; 2.
t2Tim. 2: 2. §Mat. 2&: 20. ||See 1 Cor. 11: 23-29.
4
60 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV.
mission is intrusted ; that is, to the eleven and to their suc-
cessors in the ministerial office. But Christ authorized no
others to preach or baptize.
" The eleven'^ had another commission given them before
they were intrusted with this. It was their apostolic commis-
sion. To have this, the person must, (1.) see the Lord Jesus
Christ with his natural eyes. (2.) He must be appointed to it
by a personal act of Christ. (3.) He must be able to work
miracles. (4.) This commission cannot be transferred or com-
mitted to others by him to whom it is given. (5.) Those who
claim, the apostolic office, unless they have these marks are
called " liars."* When a man exhibits these marks to prove
that his is the apostolic commission; all are bound to admit his
authority. But if he who claims to have the apostolic commis-
sion of the disciples, cannot show these signs of an apostle ;
all are bound to treat him as a deceiver who lays claim to that
which he does not possess. True ministers of Christ claim
the ministerial, not the apostolic office of the eleven.
6. Christian haj)tism must he administered in the name of
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This, in the commission to
teach and baptize, our Saviour expressly requires. He pos-
itively commands his ministering servants to baptize " in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."!
In administering the ordinance of baptism, he has not author-
ized them to omit this name or substitute another in its place.
If persons do either therefore when they apply water to oth-
ers ; tlieir act, with such an omission or alteration, cannot
be the baptism which Christ requires to be administered ; for
this must be administered in the name of the Trinity. To
omit, in baptism, the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
would be to attempt to baptize in no name or in an unautho-
rized one. In either case the act would be but solemn mock-
ery. Whoever therefore has received christian baptism,
has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost ; for Christ has not authorized any person either di-
rectly or indirectly to administer it in any other name.
7. Christian baptism is to he administered to Gentiles as
well as Jews. This is taught, (1.) in the commission given
*SeeMat. 10: 1-15, Luke fl: 1-6, Acts 1: 21-30, and 9: 17, and 26: 16, Rom, 1: 1-5,
and Vr. IS), 1 Cor. 1: 1, and 4: 9, and 9: 1, and 12: 28, « Cor. 11: 13, and U: 12, Eph. 4: 11,
Rev. 2: 2, Gal. 1: 1, 1 Cor. 15: 8. jMat. 28: 19.
Ch. 1, § 8, 9.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 51
to baptize. The disciples and their successors in office are
commanded to " teach all nations, baptizing them.''* All
nations is an expression which includes both Jews and Gen-
tiles. (2.) In obedience to the requirement contained in
this commission, both Jews and Gentiles were baptized by
inspired men. On " the day of Pentecost," many Jews
*' were baptized."! Soon after Stephen's martyrdom, not a
few "men and w^omen" in Samaria, "were baptized."! "Cor-
nelius," — "his kinsmen and near friends," were "Gen-
tiles." On them the Holy Ghost was poured out ; and they
were "baptized."^ It is clear therefore that christian bap-
tism is to be administered to Gentiles as well as Jews.
8. Christian hajjUsm is to continue iti the Neio Testament
church till the end of time. (1.) As the whole commission
requiring this baptism to be administered, is to remain in full
force(''aJ "even unto the end of the world ;"|| so that part
of it requiring this ordinance must remain in force as long.
(2.) The eleven and their successors in office are required
to administer baptism as one part of their official duty, till
the world shall end,^«J5I ; so long therefore will the ordi-
nance continue to be administered. (3.) There is no evi-
dence either in the word of God or in the nature of christian
baptism to prove that it will be discontinued in the church
of Christ. Convincing evidence is therefore presented to
the mind that this ordinance is to be observed in the christian
church " even unto the end of the world."
9. Christian baptism is a significant ordinance. In the
Lord's supper, is a lively emblem of the " death" of Christ.
The bread broken aptly symbolizes his sufferings on the
cross ; and the wine poured out, his blood shed.** When he
died, his soul and body were separated. His burial was no
part of his sufferings or death, though it was of his humilia^
tion. Had his soul and bod}^ continued separate, the ordi-
nance of christian baptism would not have been instituted j
for it was not till after he rose from the dead, that he direc-
ted his ministering servants to go and " teach all nations,
baptizing them." When he rose from the dead, his soul and
body v/ere re-united again. This re-union, not his depar^
ture from the tomb, constituted his resurrection. He, after
*Mat. 28: 19. tActs 2: 1. '14. 41. fAds 8: 2.9.12. $Acts. 10: 1.24. 45. 47, 43^
ll>Iat. 28; 20. (a)^ 5. TMat, 28: 19, 20. **See I Cor. 11: 23-29.
52 BIBLE BAPTISM* [b. I, P. IV.
he rose from the dead, instituted the ordinance of christian
baptism to represent the work of the Holy Spirit which he,
us a living Saviour, sends forth into the hearts of sinners t(^
renew and sanctify {hem(a). That christian baptism signi-
fies or represents the work of the Spirit, in its various ])arts,
will appear to the reflecting mind when the attention is di-
rected to a few passages in G^. Every person who is properly baptized, is.
from that fact, recognized as a member of the visible church.
This truth the word of God clearly teaches; "they that
gladly received the word, were baptized ; and the same day
there were added unto" the then visible church "about five
thousand souls ;'' — " and they continued steadfastly in the
apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread,
and in prayers." Even Simon the Samaritan sorcerer,
*'• when he was baptized — continued with Philip. "f Being
baptized, he was so externally united with the visible people
of God, that he continued with them. Those who are bap-
tized members of the visible church, are often said to be seal-
ed. No others are thus described. But since the baptized,
and they only, are said to be sealed ; baptism must therefore
be the seal ; or, in other words, the seal and christian bap-
tism are merely two names for the same thing. The visi-
ble church in its members, is baptized. This same church
is called "a fountain seal."| Paul, under the inspiring in-
fluence of the Holy Spirit, says of himself and other chris-
tians ; " God — hath sealed us and given us the earnest of his
Spirit in our hearts. "§ The seal is here mentioned as some-
thing distinct from the work of the Spirit in the heart. One
angel said to others ; " Hurt not the earth — till we have seal-
ed the servants of God in their foreheads."|( All baptized
church members are, by profession, "sealed" servants of
God. The angel noticed and marked these. For their sake,
the earth was to be spared for a time. The number of the
" sealed" is very great. For them God manifests a special
(a)^ VI. 13. *Rom. 4: 11. C^P, iii, Ch, 3, $ 8, par. 4. tActs 2: 41.42, and 8: 9. 13.
tSong 4: 12. §2 Cor. 1: 21. 22. ||Rev. 7: 3. 4^
Ch. 1, § 12.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 55
regard. The *' locusts" were commanded to hurt "only
those men which have not the seal of God in their fore-
heads.'^* This intimates that those who loere ^'■sealed''
should not be hurt by the locusts. " To the saints — at Ephe-
sus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus,'' it is said ; " after
that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of
promise wiiich is the earnest of our inheritance."! The seal
of the regenerating, converting and justifying grace of the
Spirit, was applied to their souls the moment they believed;
for "all that believe are justified," — are "justified by faith;"'
to them is " now no condemnation," and they " are born of
God" the Spirit.^ But, as these Ephesians and others " were
sealed o/i'cr" they "believed;" the seal here mentioned
must have b-een an external one applied to them by Divine
authority ; or in other words, they received the baptismal
seal after they believed, as they had not previously been
baptized. From the preceding passages of scripture and
others that might be quoted, it appears evident that persons
are by baptism publicly recognized, under the New Testa-
ment dispensation, as members of the visible church ; and
that all baptized persons are, by profession, sealed servants of
God. It is also manifest that christian baptism is a seal which
confirms both temporal and spiritual blessings to the baptized.
12. Christian baptism requires obedience to be rendered to
him in lohose name it is administered. To be baptized " in the
name," is to be baptized by the authority "of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, "§ In the adminis-
tration therefore of this ordinance, the Triune God in whose
name it is administered, claims sovereign authority. This
includes fiie claim of obedience, prompt, implicit and uni-
versal. When therefore baptism is administered in the
name of the Trinity ; obedience to the Triune God is un-
equivocally demanded. To baptize a person (jig) into the
name of Father, Son and Spirit, j| is expressive of union to
the Triune God as a sovereign. This relation includes a
demand of obedience from the person baptized. Christian
baptism therefore which must always be administered in or
(sjc:) into the name of the Trinity (a) requires the baptized
to render obedience to the Triune God.
*Rev. 9: 3. 4. jEph. 1: 1. 13. 14. J Acts 13: 39, Rom. 5: 1, and 8: 1, 1 John 3: P, and
4; 7, and 5: 1. 4, X8. ^Mat. 28; 19, |lSee Mat, 28: 19 in Greek, (a) ^ 6.
66 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. XV'.
13. By receiving christian hapiisvi, the baptized are recog-
nized as under covenant obligations to obey him in whose name
the ordinance is administered to them. When baptism is ad-
ministered in the name of the Triune God, obedience is re-
quired (a). This demand is made in every case when chris-
tian baptism is administered. It is so essential to the ordi-
nance, that it is included in the very form of words which
Christ requires to be used when it is administered. The
justice and propriety of this demand, no believer in Divine
revelation can doubt. The unbaptized person is under legal
obligations to obey all the demands of the Divine law. Its
precepts are " holy, just and good/' and therefore ought to
be obeyed. But in addition to this, the baptized individual
is recognized as being in a state in which he, actually, or
virtually and externally, stands bound also in covenant by
the reception of this ordinance, to obey the Divine require-
ments. The duties of the baptized are not increased ; but
by this ordinance they are more firmly bound to obey ; be-
cause now they are bound by law as others are to do all that
God requires ; and they, by being recognized as in a state
which admits the propriety of all God's demands, are also
bound in covenant to render obedience. Hence by receiv-
ing baptism in the name of the Trinity, the baptized are ac-
knowledged as in a covenant state with the christian's God,
and therefore recognized as under covenant as well as legal
obligations to obey him.
14. Christian baptism does not change the state of the bap-
tized. In whatever light this ordinance is viewed, it cannot,
by the mere act of receiving it, change the state of the per-
son baptized. If, before his baptism, he is in a sinful and
condemned state, he is not delivered from it by this ordi-
nance, but by the converting power of God's Spirit. It is
expressly declared that men are "justified by faith"* (&).
But no passage of God's word contains the least intimation
that persons are, by water baptism, justified or delivered from
a slate of condemnation. If baptism is viewed as a seal of
the covenant into which God has entered with his visible
people ; then it can only be applied to those in this cove-
nant ; for it is the property of a seal to confirm the promise
(a) % 12. *Rom. 5: 1. (h) ^ H.
Ch. 1, § 15.] BAPTISM ^VITH WATER. 57
made in the covenant. It' the baptized are already "justi-
fied by faith.'- this ordinance does not, cannot reduce them
to a state of condemnation. Christian baptism therefore
does not change the state of the baptized. It supposes a
covenant relation to exist between God and the person to be
baptized. The ordinance seals or confirms the promise of
this covenant. But it does not change the state of the bap-
tized.
15. The institution of christian baptism supposes that all
the bloody rites were abolished. The Lord Jesus Christ just
before he suffered, '-eat*' the "passover.'^ At this time there-
fore, it was, as a religious rite, still in force. As such how-
ever it was to cease, when " Christ our passover"' was *'sac-
rificed for us.'' As tlie passover was an annual* sacrificial
feast ; it was impossible for it to be again observed before
his resurrection, which was to take place on " the third
day" after his crucifixion. During this short space of time,
the passover could not be eaten by Divine authority. As
soon therefore as the last legal passover was observed by
him ; he instituted the holy supper. But during the time
Christ was to suffer on the cross and lie under the power of
death in the tomb ; it might be necessary, in order to obey
the Divine law,t to circumcise children. Circumcision,
with the other rites and ceremonies peculiar to Old Testa-
ment times, would cease to be binding as religious ordinan-
ces, wiien their whole design was completely accomplished
in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. I But before his
death, it was a positive duty, originating in the Divine com-
mand, to observe religiously all these precepts. ^\ hile
therefore these were in Ibrce and men might be called upon
by the Divine law, to observe them ; New Testament ordi-
nances were not instituted ; for Christ came not " to destroy
the law"' in any of its parts, "but to fulfill'' it in all its de-
mands."^ Since, while he suffered on the cross and lay in
the tomb, children might, by the law, be required to be cir-
cumcised ; he did not therefore institute the ordinance of
christian JDaptism at the time or before he instituted the Eu-
charist ; for then circumcision was in force. But after his
death "the hand-writing" of these "ordinances" being blot-
*Ex. 1-2: 2. 11: 21. 27, and 13: 10. jGcn. 17: 12. jSec Col. 2; 1 }, F-i.h. 2: ]:?. 15-22.
^Mat. 5: 17.
58 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV.
ted out,* baptism might, with propriety, be instituted. And
instituting it thus as a New Testament ordinance, was a pub-
lic declaration that the riles peculiar to Old Testament times
were abolished. But these being abolished, all bloody rites
must cease as none of these belong to the New Testament
dispensation ot' the covenant. The institution of baptism
therefore supposes that all bloody rites had then ceased to
sustain the character of religious ordinances.
16. Cfirislian haptism is not regeneration. To generate
or beget literally, denotes that natural act which is followed
by a natural birth ; or it is the procreation of a natural crea-
ture in addition to those already in existence. To regener-
ate is to generate or beget again ; or it denotes to re-beget.
The same person that is once generated or begotten and is
then born into the world, is often said to be r
li>-17.
68 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. V.
with the Holy Ghost."* The word of God affords no evi-
dence that most, or even a considerable number, of those
whom John baptized, were enabled to work miracles or to
speak with tongues. But, as, in the expression, "all the
people — ^justified God, being baptized with the baptism of
John,"t we find proof that many of them experienced the
regenerating grace of God ; so it is evident that in the
case of many of them, to be baptized with the Holy
Ghost, was to be regenerated by the power of the Spirit
of God. By being baptized with this spiritual baptism,
they were made heirs of God ; but were not enabled to work
miracles or to speak with new tongues. This kind of spi-
ritual baptism is experienced by every true believer in the
Lord Jesus Christ ; while miraculous powers were confined
to but i'ew and these not all known as the children of God.|
From these remarks it may be easily concluded that baptism
with the Holy Ghost is both extraordinary or miraculous,
and ordinary, such as all true christians experience when
they are actually adopted into the family of God.
3. Jesus Christ baptized with the Holy Ghost. Speaking
of him to the Jews, John the Baptist positively and repeat-
edly declares *• He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."*
From this and similar language it is undeniably certain, that
to baptize with the Spirit, is not the work of mere man, but
of the Divine Redeemer. The converting, as well as the
miraculous work of the Holy Ghost, was therefore a part of
what the Great Shepherd purchased for his sheep.§ To
some whom he baptized with the Holy Ghost, he gave mi-
raculous powers; to others he gave only converting grace,
sanctifying power and eternal glory, with whatever is ne-
cessary to make an enemy of God his true friend.
4. Upon those baptized ivith the Spirit, he, in his influen-
ces, descended. Of such, it is said ; the Spirit was poured
'*out" or "fell on them."j| This, with much similar lan-
guage which is used in relation to baptism with the Holy
Ghost, shows that when persons were thus baptized, the in-
fluences of the Spirit descended or came upon them. This
is manifest. Indeed, nothing can be more evident than, that
*Mat. 3: It, Mark 1: 8. Luke 3: 16. fr.uke 7: 29. JSee Mat. 7: 22. 23. and 12: 17,
2 Thess. 2: 9. 10, Deut. 13: 1-.5, Num. 21: 17-19 compared witli 2 Pet. 2: 1.1. 16. §See
1 Cor. 6: 20, and 7: 23, John 10: 11; 14. 17. 18. HSee Acts 2: 17, and 10: 44. 45 and 11: 15,
Ch. 2, § 1-3.] BAPTISM WITHOUT WATER. 69
when the Spirit is " poured out" on men and falls on them
or enters them so that they are "fUled'"'* with it, they are
not, at the same time, put all over into the Spirit. From the
language of God's word then it is manifest that the Spirit in
his influences descends or comes upon those who are bap-
tized with the Holy Ghost. (^aj-
5. When the Apostles were baptized with the Holy Ghost,
there was an external appearance. This was that of "cloven
tongues like as of fire." It "sat upon each of them. ''t The
word it stands for the fire, or rather the fiery appearance
%vhich remained for a time on each of the disciples. The
appearance of "cloven tongues'' resembling fire, resting on
each of them, as the Holy Ghost was baptizing them, may
indicate that then each of them was about to be enabled to
speak with new tongues. These were " cloven" or divided.
This might indicate to them that they were soon to be sent
to different parts of the then known world to use their mira-
culously acquired power of speaking different languages, in
publishing the gospel of salvation. But whatever might have
been the design of God in causing this visible appearance at
the time the Holy Ghost was baptizing them; the fact that
such an appearance existed, is certain.
CHAPTER IL
BAPTISM WITH FIRE.
1. Baptism with Jire is taught in the word of God. The
language of scripture on this subject is very definite. Bap-
tism "with fire"! is twice explicitly mentioned. The fact
that baptism "with fire" is taught in the word of God, must
then be manifest to every person who will read its language.
2. Jesus Christ laptizes with fire. Of him it is said to
the Jews ; " He shall baptize you — with fire."| That the
Lord Jesus Christ baptizes with fire is here taught in lan-
guage too plain to be disputed by any who can believe the
evidence of their senses.
3. To baptize with fire is Jorcible language. Literal fire
either purifies or consumes material substances. To bap-
tize with fire then may indicate that those who receive this
*Act3 2; 4, ^d JO; 47. (e.)^ 2. tActs 2; 3. JMat, 3: 11, Luke 3: 16.
TO BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. V.
baptism, are either by it to be purified or consumed. Christ
baptizes his i)eople with fire, when he purifies them '-in the
furnace of affliction ;■''* or when he sanctifies them by the
operations of his Spirit in their souls ;t or when he uses
both tliese for the purpose of making them more and more
holy. When both arc used for this purpose, afflictions are
the means, and the Spirit the eflScient operator by which
the means are made effectual in sanctifying the soul. He
baptizes his enemies with fire when he sends upon them
fearful temporal calamities, or the horrors of an awakened
or of a seared conscience; and especially when he consigns
their immortal souls to the gnawings of the "worm" that
never dies, and to the dark dismal flames of that fire which
shall not be "quenched."|
4. This baptism usually manifests itself by its effects. That
afflictions are generally manifested by their effects, all can
perceive. When baptism with fire denotes sanctification ;
it manifests itself by leading those who enjoy its purifying
influence to become more and more conformed to the word
of God, in principle and in practice. When " God,'' to the
sinner out of Christ becomes "a consuming fire,"§ his har-
dened heart, his seared conscience, his careless rebellion
against Heaven, his adoption of unscriptural ])rinciples and
practices for religion, his hatred of Divine truth, proclaim
the fact to all who will hear ; and in the world of woe, his
*' weeping" — and "wailing" and "gnashing of teeth"|| can-
not be concealed. It will be evident therefore to the observ-
ing mind that baptism with fire is usually, if not universally^
manifested in its external effects.
CHAPTER in.
BAPTISM WITH SUFFERINGS.
1. This baptism is taught in the scriptures. Our Saviour
after describing his sufferings and death by crucifixion, calls
them " the cup that" he should "drink of," and "the bap-
tism that" he, at that time, was, and was soon more man-
*Isa. 48: 10. fSee Ex. 31: n, ?.om. 15: 16, 1 Thes. 5: 23. JSee Isa. 66: 24, Jude:13,
Mark 9: 43-48. $Heb. 12; '29. 11 Mat. 8; 12, and 13: 42. 50, and 22: 13, and 24: 51,
and 25: 3i>, Luke 13: 28,
Ch. 3, § 2-5.] BAPTISM WITHOUT WATER. 71
ifestly, to be "baptized with."* In addressing James and
John, he says ; '' Are ye able — to be baptized with the bap-
tism^ that 1 am baptized with V This shows that at the ve-
ry time he was speaking, he was receiving this baptism ;
and that at that time it was not yet completed, appears when
he says of it ; "I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and
how am I straitened till it be accomplished V'f That bap-
tism which, when he addressed James and John, he was ac-
tually receiving, and which was not then completed, could
be no other than the baptism of suffering. It could not be
that which John the Baptist administered ; because that was
completed long before this time. It is therefore evident that
the baptism mentioned in these portions of God's word, is
baptism with sufferings.
2. Jesus Christ received this baptism. He declares ex-
pressly " I am baptized with" this baptism ; and " I have a
baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitened till it
be accomplished V'^ This he says in relation to his bap-
tism with sufferings (ft).
3. The Apostles, James and John, were to he, and were
baptized with suferings. That they were to be thus bapti-
zed is positively stated. Christ said to them; "Ye shall — be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.*'§ That
they were thus baptized, is certain; for Herod killed "James — ■
with the sword ;'' and " John — was" banished to " the isle"
of " Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of
Jesus Christ."|| These two disciples then received the bap-
tism of sufferings according to Christ's prediction.
4. The martyrs were baptized with sufferings. Many of
these have suffered death with " fire, with the sword," with
various kinds of torture, with scourging, with " imprison-
ment," with being '* sawn asunder," with wandering " in
deserts, — in mountains and in dens and caves of the earth. "U
More than fifty millions of the professed followers of the
Lord Jesus Christ have suffered death by the unrelenting
hand of persecution. These, liko their blessed Master, were
severely baptized with sufferings.
5. All trv' christians receive this baptism in a greater or
less degree. Jesus Christ says to all his lisciples; " In. the
*Mat. 20: 17-22, Mr-k 10: 32-38. jLakc 12: 50. JMat. 20: 22. Mark 10: 38, Lube
n 50, (a) § 1, ^Mal. 20; 23, Mark 10: 39. )| Acts 12: 2, Eev. 1: 9. ITHeb. fl: 34-38,
72 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. VI.
world ye shall have tribulation ;'' and again, the same truth
is stated in this language ; " All that will live godly in
Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution."* All such persons
shall be baptized with suffering. The distress of some will
be exceedingly great ; that of others only like a drop from
the ocean. But as a general rule, the more holy and devo-
ted the christian is, the more persecution he will in this life
be called to endure. The more he conforms to the word of
God in principle and in practice, — the more he resembles in.
heart and life the great Redeemer ; the more will the en-
emies of God hate and persecute him. Those who profess
to be christians, while they hate God and the truths of his
word, will generally be most bitter and unprincipled in their
persecuting attacks upon his children. Indeed, persecutors
may be so blinded with sin that, while they are killing the
disciples of Christ, they may imagine, they are doing *'God
service'?'^! But all true christians must expect to "suffer
persecution." In whatever way their enemies persecute
them, or by whatever means they may attempt to justify
their wickedness ; one truth is undeniably certain ; all who,
in this life, truly love God, will find the world a " vale of
tears." They will all be baptized with sufferings.
PART SIXTH.
BAPTISM WITHOUT DIVINE AUTHORITY.
CHAPTER I.
BAPTIS3I WITHOUT DIVINE AUTHORITY BEFORE CHRIST^S
RESURRECTION.
1. The ordinary self-ba'ptism of the Jews was unauthorized
by Divine wisdom. The fact that they did frequently bap-
tize themselves, is positively stated in this language ; *'when
they come from the market, except they wash"or(/D'a'7r, Sol. on Ex. 19: 10,
Mairiioni.les, Clarke, I.iffhtfoot, Seldon, Hammond, Wall, ll^nry, on Mark 1: 1-8,
Claude, Fieury, &.c. *Maik 7: 4, ]Ex. 19: 10.
Ch. 2, § 2, 3.] BAP. WITHOUT DIVINE AUTHORITY. 75
tizing persons. This is only a solemn farce. The Lord
Jesus Christ gives to his ministering servants, and to no oth-
ers, the authority to administer baptism.* None but such
can therefore administer this holy ordinance. For others
to attempt to administer it, is solemn mockery, is practical
blasphemy, since by such an act, a man assumes the pre-
rogatives of a Divine person, for he acts in this matter as if
he were independent of God.
2. Females have no Divine authority to administer bap-
tism. Among Romanists, females, under certain circum-
stances, are allowed, if not required, by their regulations, to
administer baptism. But the word of God does not give
them any such authority. In giving the New Testament
commission to his disciples and to their successors in the
ministerial office, by which they were empowered to preach
the gospel and administer the christian sacraments, Jesus
Christ did not authorize females to baptize. The apostles
and their official successors were not directed to transmit
this office to females, but to " faithful men who'" should "be
able to teach others."f Since therefore, in the scriptures,
females have no authority given them to preach or baptize;
whenever they attempt to do either, they are engaged in
practical rebellion against God.
3. Christian haptis?n cannot be administered except in the
name of Fat her y Son and Holy Ghost, The Sabians of Sy-
ria, some Arians and a few others, apply water in what they
call baptism, without using the name of Father, Son and
Holy Ghost. These Sabians, or " Daily Baptists,'' as they
call themselves, use a form in their baptismal ceremony
which, when translated, reads thus ; " / baptize thee with
the baptism with ivhich John the Baptist baptized'^ (a). They
call this ceremony " the baptism of Light." Some Arians
apply water simply in the name of God, without using the
name of the Trinity. Some others, it is understood, use
this or a similar form ; " I baptize, or I immerse thee in or
into the church of Christ." All baptisms administered by
using these or any similar forms of human invention, are
totally destitute of Divine authority; as such form.s are not
mentioned in the s "rlptures. Besides, when Christ com-
*See Mat. 'iS: 19. t-~ee Mat. 28; 19, 2 Tim. 2: 2. 24. (a) See Micl:;. . on N. T. yo1»
III. ft. I, Taylor, pages 84. 85.
76 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. VII.
mantis his disciples to baptize, he directs them to use a dif-
ferent form. It may also be observed, that in some portions
of the Greek church, what they call baptism is administer-
ed, not by a minister, but by the god-father of the baptized,
without using any form of words («).
To attempt to administer baptism without Divine author-
ity, is treating the Great Head of the church with contempt.
It is, by those who do so, a practical declaration that they
have as good authority as he had, to say who may baptize,
and what form is to be used ; and by practicing on their own
plan, they declare it to be superior to his. The sin of such
a system must be great in the sight of the King of Zion.
Can a true christian be guilty of thus habitually insulting
his crucified Redeemer 1
PART SEVENTH.
MODES OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
THE VARIOUS MODES OF BAPTISM MENTIONED.
1. The word mode ought to he understood. The mode of
doing a thing denotes the particular manner in which it is
performed. It is evident to any reflecting mind that the
same thing may be performed in a variety of different ways
or modes. A man may be killed with a dirk, with a pistol,
with poison or with a sword. The same crime may be per-
petrated in these and a thousand other modes. Indeed the
mode or manner of performing an action, whether in the
discharge of a duty or in the commission of a crime, is never
essential to the action, unless the command requiring or for-
bidding its performance, specifics or includes the mode. The
command, " thou shalt not kill,'' prohibits murder in what
mode soever it may be perpetrated. But the command,
"thou shalt not. kill" with a dirk, forbids the crime to be
committed in one particular mode and in no other. If God
commands an action to be done or a duty to be performed,
without specifying in what mode or manner it is to be done,
(a) See Hist, of the Georgian and Mingrelian churches, Rel. Cer, and Cus. p. 221.
Ch. 1, § 2-4.] MODES OF BAPTISM. 77
then it is manifest that the action or duty may be attended
to in any mode. But if Goci requires a duty to be perform-
ed in a particular manner and in no other, then attempting
to perform it in any other mode is simply rebellion against
his command. If he requires a duty to be performed, and
does not specify the mode, men have no right to do so. If
the mode or manner of doing an action is, by Divine autho-
rity, made essential to the performance of it ; then to attempt
to do it in any other way, is an insult upon the wisdom of
God. It is a virtual attempt to correct Omniscience. If
God has required baptism to be administered in one particu-
lar mode and in no other ; then he has mentioned this in his
word in definite language. If he has not so mentioned it,
then we know that he makes no such requirement of his
creatures. To say that God teaches men to baptize in a
particular mode of which he says nothing, is to affirm that
he teaches what he does not teach ; or in other words; to
make such a statement would be to utter a positive untruth.
It is certain then that in investigating the subject of baptism,
the term mode ought to be understood.
2. To sprinkle is an expression easily understood. It sig-
nifies to cause a fluid to fall in drops. When it is used to
denote the application of water in connection with baptism ;
it signifies to cause water to fall in drops on the forehead or
upper part of the face, of the person to whom the element
is applied. But to sprinkle is an expression too plain to
need farther illustration.
3. Water is sometimes jjourcd upon persons for baptism.
To pour signifies to cause a small quantity of a fluid to flow
down upon some object. A person is said to he poured in
baptism, when a small quantity of water is poured on his
head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In
the word of God, to pour signifies to fall in drops as a shower
of rain descends. When it is said ; "the clouds poured out
water;"* the expression shows that a shower of rain fell
in drops. In the scripture sense of the word therefore,
pour does not materially differ in its meaning from the word
sprinkle. They both denote to fall in drops.
4. Men often say that immersion is haptis??i. When it iis
*Ps.77: 17.
78 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. VII.
used as a substitute for baptism, it expresses a very complex
action. With those who immerse adults and no others ; the
action which they express by it, is eight-fold. In immer-
sion, after adjusting their dress, they (1.) repair to some
river, pond, brook or cistern ; (2.) the person to be immer-
sed wades into the water nearly or quite up to the waist ;
(3.) the administrator takes both the hands of the person to
be immersed into one of his and places the other between
the shoulders of the subject who, at this stage of the opera-
tion, sometimes stands and sometimes kneels ; but when he
kneels he generally chooses more shallow water than when
he stands; (4.) the administrator puts that portion of the
person which is yet above water, entirely under its surface,
by laying him down on his face or on his back, so that the
external garments of the person, if he is dressed, is usually
for a moment under the water ; (.5.) he immediately raises
the person up again ; (6.) the subject wades out of the wa-
ter ; (7.) he then leaves the stream, pond, or cistern ; (8.)
he changes his dress, substituting dry for wet garments ; un-
less he had performed the operation in a state of nudity.
When immersion is practiced for baptism, two of these ac-
tions are always and necessarily included in the significa-
tion of the word. These are the fourth and fifth. The parts
of the body which are yet above, are, by the administrator,
put entirely under the surface of the water, and then imme-
diately raised up again. W^hen a person is immersed, the
body must be entirely under water. If he was left in this
state, the action certainly would not be complete. If he was
left entirely under water, his natural life must, in a very
{"ew minutes, be destroyed. Few, even of those most in fa-
vor of a " watery grave,'' would be willing to remain many
minutes totally covered with water. If they were thus left ;
indeed, if they were not very soon raised from beneath the
surface of that element ; nothing but a miracle could save
them from almost instant death. As therefore to put a per-
son entirely under water and leave him there, would be one
mode of killing him ; no immerser who is not in favor of
destroying life, will affirm that the whole action of immer-
sion as a substitute for baptism, ends when the person is
completely covered with water. To be immersed therefore
Ch. 1, § 4.] MODES OF BAPTISM. 79
for baptism, is to be put entirely under water and taken out
again ; a part at least of which acts must be performed by
the administrator.
Those who immerse infants exclusively or nearly so(a),
besides a great variety of ridiculous ceremonies, usually put
the child entirely under water. The fluid is usually warm-
ed a little. The child is frequently put under the water by
a minister. It is thus immersed three times. He sometimes
uses the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and some-
times he does not. Indeed sometimes the god-father of the
infant immerses it three times without using any form of
words whatever(rt).
Some immersers immerse only a part of their communi-
cants. Some do not view immersion as the only mode of
baptism and some do. Some of them will admit unbaptized
persons to partake with them of the Lord's Supper. Some
will, and some will not, immerse infants. Some put on an
over-dress when they are immersed, lest their bodies should
be entirely wet with water. But in western Europe and in
America, immersers usually immerse adults only. These,
while in the operation, are in modern times, generally, if
not universally, dressed in some kind of garments.
For a person to be entirely covered with air, or fog, or
smoke, or sand, is not to be immersed. If that were the
case, then every person is constantly immersed ; as each in-
dividual of the human race, is, while living, entirely cover-
ed with air, and often with smoke and fog. If a person
should be entirely covered with sand ; not many immersers
would suppose that he, on that account, was properly bap-
tized. It is undeniable, then that to be immersed is to be
covered entirely with water, and not with any other mate-
rial.
It generally appears like a voluntary act on the part of
the immersed when they are grown to years of manhood.
But it seldom is so in reality ; because very few of them ex-
amine the subject and compare it with the word of God be-
fore they are immersed. They therefore act under the gui-
dance of those to whom they submit themselves as their lead-
ers. If they ever examine the scriptures in relation to the
(a) See Rel. Cer. and Cus. Art. Greek Church p. 182. 211. 221. 233. 237, 242, Hart-
ford Ed. 183(5.
80 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. VII.
matter; it is to find something to justify them in what they
have already done ; not to ascertain what God the Lord
teaches them to do.
CHAPTER U.
THE POINT TO BE EXAMINED STATED.
1. It is important to know the point in dispute. If this is
not known and definitely fixed, the mind is in constant dan-
ger of wandering from it, or of being led away from it by
those who have more cunning than honesty. But when the
point to be examined is clearly perceived and well under-
stood ; then the connection of an argument with it will be
perceived ; and the fallacy of sophistry will more readily be
discovered. Truth never shuns the point ; falsehood al-
ways docs. If a position is true, the more evident it is, the
brighter it will shine ; and if it is false, the more easily will
it be detected by having the point clearly stated. It is then,
in all subjects of dispute, a matter of great importance to
have a clear view of the exact point to be examined. With-
out this, little can be done to ascertain the validity of the
claims of immersion to be the only mode of baptism.
2. What the point is not, deserves attention. The point
to be decided is. not (1.) Whether baptism with water is or
is not a duty. That it is, both parties admit ; (2.) Not
whether immersion is a mode of baptism or not : (3.) Not
whether immersion or another mode is more or less conve-
nient ; (4.) Not whether it is more or less desirable or sol-
emn than another mode ; (.5.) Not whether it is or is not a
cross ; (6.) Not whether it is shame or pride or fear or the
influence of others, that leads persons to choose or refuse to
be immersed ; (7.) Not whether many or few adopt this or
another mode ; (8.) Not whether men sanction or disap-
prove one mode of baptism or another ; (9.) Not whether
immersers are good men or bad ; wise or unwise. Whether
these matters are important or otherwise, they form in fact
no part of the subject of discussion between those who do,
and those who do not, maintain that immersion is the only
mode of baptism.
Ch. 2, § 3-5.] MODES OP BAPTISM. 81
3. The point to he settled is this. Is immersion the only
mode of baptism 1? Men often declare that immersion and
that only is bnptism. They say that it is so essential to the
ordinance, that without it, baptism cannot exist ; and that
those and those only who are immersed are baptized. The
evidence in favor of this exclusive claim, is the point to be
investigated.
4. This •point has iivo parts. The position laid down by
the exclusives on this subject, is, that immersion is the only
mode of baptism ; or in other language, they say, that im-
mersion and that only is baptism. When it is said that im-
mersion is the only'mode of baptism, a twofold declaration
is made. It is affirmed, (1.) That immersion is baptism or a
7node of baptism ; and (2.) That it is the only mode of bap-
tism ; or that immersion and nothing else, is baptism. Both
these ideas are manifestly included in the assertion that im-
mersion is the only mode of baptism; because, as the same
thing may be done in different ways or modes (a), so bap-
tism may be performed in different modes unless God re-
quires it to be administered in some one particular mode and
in no other. In the examination therefore of this subject, it
is necessary, (I.) To see whether the word of God definitely
teaches that immersion is a mode of baptism; and (2.) See
whether it informs us that immersion is the only mode in
which that ordinance can be administered. If either or both
these positions are true, then we have definite evidence to
sustain such truth in the word of God.
5. Exclusive claims must be sustained by positive evidence.
When a man affirms that immersion is the only mode of bap-
tism ; to prove his statement he ought to show at least one
passage of scripture which positively states that immersion
is baptism ; or he ought to show a passage which declares
that some one person was baptized by immersion. He should
then point to a portion of God's word, which states that im-
mersion is the only mode of baptism ; or that there is no oth-
er mode or only one mode of baptism. If he fails to do this;
his exclusive claim stands unsupported by proper evidence.
It is a mere proofless assertion. He who makes exclusive
claims, must not expect, among persons of reflection, to sus-
(-a; Ch.l, $1.
6
82 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
tain them by positive assertions or by asking questions. He
must expect that persons of sense, will call upon him to pre-
sent plain, positive, pointed evidence to sustain his dogmat-
ical assertions ; and if he is unable to do this ; he must not
be surprized if he finds himself ranked among mere dema-
gogues. To suppose that an exclusive claim may be sus-
tained without positive testimony, is an insult oifered to the
good common sense of mankind. When a man makes a
positive assertion of any kind ; it is but right that he should
sustain it by proper evidence ; much more should this be
demanded of him who makes an exclusive claim. Those
therefore who affirm that immersion is the only mode of bap-
tism, ought to have something more than an assertion and a
question to prove their position. They must bring a "thus
saith the Lord'' for it, if they would fairly convince intelli-
gent men that their claim is supported by the word of God.
When a man makes a positive assertion which includes
an exclusive claim, and then undertakes to sustain it by
conjecture or saying, it may be so, or there is no proof of
something else, or by saying it must be so, or by asking why
such a thing was done if it was not so ; he either knows very
little concerning the nature of evidence or supposes his hear-
ers know but little on that subject. In a word, such a step
would seem to intimate that he had either very little know-
ledge or very little honesty.
BOOK SECOND— IMMERSION EXAMINED.
PART FIRST.
IMMERSION SOUGHT FROM THE WORD OF GOD.
CHAPTER I.
IN THE SCRIPTURES PERSONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE IM-
MERSED.
1. God^ in his word, does not command persons to he im^
mersed. In no portion of the scriptures is it said to any per-
son, for any purpose ; Be immersed ; or ye shall be immei'-
sed ; or thou shalt be immersed. There is therefore no com-
mand in the word of God given in any form of language,
Ch. 1, '^ 2-6.] IMMERSION NOT REQUIRED. 83
requiring any person to be immersed for any purpose what-
ever.
2. God does not require any person to immerse others. He
does not direct any of his ministering servants or any indi-
vidual of the human race, to immerse others. He does not,
in any passage of his word, say to any ; go ye and immerse ;
nor does he in any form of words command them to immerse
any one person or more. No person can find in God's word
any such direction ; for this plain reason ; none such is re-
corded in that Holy book. God, therefore, does not in his
word, command any person to immerse others.
3. God does not direct persons to he baptized hy immersion
or to baptize others in this mode. New Testament ministers
are commanded to " Go — and teach all nations, baptizing
them."* But they are not told to administer this ordinance
by immersion. In no portion of the book of God, are men
directed or authorized by any requirement, to baptize by im-
mersion. Persons are comm.anded to be " baptized,'^! but
not a word is said in such directions to them concerning the
mode in which baptism is to be administered. Nor are they
in any other passage directed to be baptized by immersion.
4. No person speaking of himself or others, is, in the scrip-
tures, represented as saying I or they immerse or baptize or
were baptized by immersion. John said, *' I baptize ;" — and
Paul, " I baptized ;" — and another sacred writer ; " men
and women" were baptized. | But no person mentioned in
the word of God, says; I immerse or I immersed or they
immersed, or that any individual baptized or was baptized
hy immersion.
5. The iDord immerse is not found in the word of God.
Any person can determine this matter for himself by read-
ing the scriptures. He will not find the very word immerse
itself in any part of Divine revelation. It is not so much as
mentioned by any sacred writer, either in the Old or New
Testament. It is not used in God's word for baptism or for
any other purpose. So far therefore are men from being-
required, by Divine authority, to be immersed or to immerse
others, that the word immerse itself is not once used for any
purpose whatever, in any part of the scriptures of truth.
6. In the original scriptures, men are not commanded to
*Mat. 28: 19. fActs 2: 39, and 22: 16. JMat. 3: U, 1 Cor. 1: 14. 16, Acts 8; 12.
84 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
immerse or to he immersed for baptism or to he haptized by
immersion. In the Gi-eek language there are two words
(^siifSarrru and s/x/3a'7rT»^w) wliich frequently but not always
signify to put the thing mentioned entirely under water or
under something else. Neither of these is the very word
immerse itself; nor is either of them, at any time, used in
the original spripturcs to denote baptism. Indeed, only one
of them (sf/./^aTTTw) is used by the Spirit of God for any
purpose whatever ; but that one is not at any time or in any
passage in the Greek Testament, used to signify baptism.*
If God had intended to teach the world that immersion is
baptism or the only mode of baptism ; he would certainly
for this purpose have used, at least once, one of the words
which sometimes signify to immerse or to put entirely un-
der water. In the original Hebrew of the Old Testament,
no word is used for baptism, which denotes immerse. If
the King of kings had intended to inform the world that im-
mersion is the only mode of baptism ; it is strange, passing
strange, that he has not told men so in a single passage in
his own holy book ! ! It is truly astonishing that men should
be called upon to believe that immersion is the only mode of
baptism, when the word immerse is not used so much as once
in the whole word of God, for baptism, or in English for any
other purpose ! and when neither of the original words which
sometimes denote immerse is, at any time, used in Scripture
for baptize. If the word immerse was ever employed in the
scriptures for any purpose resembling baptism ; men might
fancy that in such an instance the word denoted baptism. —
But how can they imagine that the word is recorded in the
book of God and that it denotes baptism ! And then to crown
the imaginary climax, they appear to fancy that they can
make people of sense believe that immersion is not merely
n mode, but that it is the only mode of baptism. Is it possi-
ble for a man to believe, that God commands him to be im-
mersed or to immerse others, when the scriptures do not so
much as mention immersion as a mode of administering that
ordinance 1 If he can, he can believe that God commands
what is not so much as once mentioned as baptism in the
whole of Divine revelation.
•Bee Mat, 20: 23, Mark 14: 20, John 13: 28, in Greek.
Ch. 1, § 7, 8.] IMMERSION NOT REQUIRED. 85
7. God, in his word, does not say that baptize signifies im-
?nerse. Any person by reading that holy book can easily
perceive, that God therein does not say, that the word bap-
tize always denotes immerse. He does not say that to im-
merse is its radical meaning ; nor does he so much as inti-
mate that it is ever used in that sense. Not even a sugges-
tion of this kind, is found in the whole word of God. By ex-
plaining the word therefore, God does not teach that baptize
always or ever denotes immerse. Had he chosen, he could
have so defined the word baptize. His wisdom could have
discovered an expression by which it might have been ex-
plained, if none such had existed among men. But words
did then exist in the Greek language, by which mankind
might have been taught that baptize meant immerse, if that
was in truth its signification. Either of the two words
(sfA^^a-TTTw or £ja/3a'rTi^w) which in Greek frequently signify to
immerse, might have been used as a substitute for or to de-
fine the word baptize. If either or both these words had at
any time been used by Divine inspiration, for baptism, or to
define that word ; probable evidence would have thus been
furnished to prove that immersion is one mode of baptism.
But neither of them is ever used in the word of God, either
a^ a substitute for or to explain the word baptize. The word
{s^fBcL'Tfru) is used three times in the Greek Testament ; but
in not one of them does it denote baptism ; and it is by no
means certain, that in any of them it denotes immerse.* —
God therefore in his word does not teach mankind, that im-
merse is the only meaning, or the radical meaning, or any
meaning of the word baptize. To affirm that this is its mean-
ing, is, therefore to make an assertion unsupported by the lan-
guage of inspiration. It is to turn aside from the Divine in-
struction of God's word.
8. In no passage of Scripture does the word baptism evi-
dently signify immerse. In the English New Testament, the
word baptize, in its various modifications, is used eighty-nine
times ; and in the Greek Testament the original word (fSwrr-
^i^w) for baptize in its different forms, is found in ninety-
three places. In some of its forms, it is translated into Eng-
lish by the words " wash " — "washing" — " washed, '' and
^SeeMat, 26: 23, Mark 14; 20, John 13: 2G in Greek,
86 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. t.
*< wasliings.''* But in no one of these ninety-three passa-
ges, does the connection evidently show that immersion is
necessarily the meaning of the word baptize. To give it a
difFercnt sense will not, in any place where it is used, destroy
or injure the meaning of the passage. If it be said that John
baptized at the Jordan by sprinkling, the sense is as strictly
correct, as if it were said ; he baptized in Jordan by immer-
sion. When "Philip and the Eunuch" both went down to,
ioivards or "I'n/o the water, and he baptized him ;"' the sense
is at least as good, if we say he baptized him by sprinkling,
as if we say, he baptized him by immersion. When Christ
was baptized ; he did not come from under but^Vom or " oiU
of the watcr^ into which he might have stepped a few inch-
es.f It is therefore manifest that the word baptize does not
necessarily or even evidently denote immerse in these passa-
ges ; and these are the only passages where any person would
think of finding that immersion was necessarily or clearly the
meaning of the word baptize.
CHAPTER II.
No EXAMPLE OF IMMERSION RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE.
1. God in his word does not say that any person was im-
mersed. It is said of Christ and of the Eunuch and of Paul
and of others ; they were *' baptized ;"| but of not one per-
son, is it said, in the whole book of God ; he was immersed.
2. No one named in the word of God says of himself that
he was immersed. In the scriptures, persons are often men-
tioned as speaking of themselves. But in no instance are
we told in the word of God ; that any person good or bad,
declares of himself, I was immersed, or I am about to be im-
mersed, or I will be immersed, or God requires me to be im-
mersed. No one individual mentioned in scripture, wise or
unwise, Christian, Jew or Heathen, pretends to present him-
self as an example of immersion.
3. The original Scriptures do not present any example of
immersion for baptism. No word denoting immerse is used
for baptism in the original scriptures. Neither of the two
*Mark 7: 4, Luke II: 38, Heb. 9: 10, in Greek and English. tSee Mat. 3: 6. 16, Acts
8: 38, in Greek. JMat. 3: 16, Acts 8: 38, and 9: 18.
Ch. 3, § 1.] NO EXA3IPLE OP IMMERSION. 87
words (efx/Sa'Trrw or sfA^a'jr'Tj^w) which in Greek sometimes
denote immerse, is used of any person to express his baptism-
The former of these words (sjx,/3a'n'Tw) is the one used in the
Greek New Testament. It is employed by our Saviour
when he says; " He that dippeth" (sfx/^aN^aj:) "his hand
with me in the dish shall betray me.'' " It is one of the twelve,
that dippeth'' (six^wK'Toixsvog) "with me in the dish;" —
*' When he had dipped'' {si).(3a-^ac:) "the sop, he gave it to Ju-
das."* No person, in any of these expressions, is mention-
ed as being baptized. Since no word which definitely ex-
presses immersion, is used in scripture to denote any person's
baptism ; it is evident that the word of God contains no defi-
nite example of any person being baptized by immersion. —
And without positive precept (a) or example in the word of
God to sustain the position, men are called upon to believe
that immersion and that only, is baptism ! ! What an un-
blushing demand ! ! !
4. No person mentioned in Divine revelation intimates that
he immersed others or that he baptized any one by immersion.
It is often stated that persons baptized others. John "bapti-
zed " the Lord Jesus Christ ; Paul baptized " Crispus and
Gains ;" Philip "baptized" the Eunuch ;t and many other
examples of baptism being administered, are mentioned in the
Divine word. But not an instance is mentioned of one per-
son immersing another for baptism or for any other purpose
whatever. Moreover, it is not stated in a single passage of
God's word, that any person baptized another by immersion;
or that the word baptize ever signifies immerse. There is
therefore no example of immersion for baptism mentioned in
the whole word of God>
CHAPTER III.
IMMERSION NOT INFERENTIALLY TAUGHT IN THE WORD
OF GOD.
1. What is intended by an inference or inferential evi-
dence may be properly noticed here. An inference is not a
mere assertion ; nor is it taking for granted the point to be
proved ; nor yet is it an artful evasion of the subject in dis-
*Mat. 26: 23, Ma'k 14; 20. John 13; 20, in Greek, {a) Ch. 1, $ 1-8. jMark 1: 9, 1
Cor. 1: 14, Acts 8; 38.
88 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
cussion. But an inference is a conclusion fairly drawn from
what is admilled to be true or has been before proved. That
which is a proper inference, must be found in, and be a com-
ponent part of, what is admitted or proved to be true; or it
must be manifestly and inseparably connected with it. If
this is njot the case, the conclusion drawn, is not, properly
speaking, an inference. It is only conjecture or assertion.
In consequence of man's imperfect judgment ; inferences
may appear fair to one person, and dark, if not fanciful to
another. In religious matters therefore but little reliance
can be placed upon inferences or upon the inferential evi-
dence resulting from them, where there is -no positive scrip-
ture testimony on the subject. This remark has the more
force, as every religious doctrine or duty which God requires
men to believe or practice, is expressed in some portion of
his word in plain, positive language. Every doctrine or
practice therefore which claims to be religious, and which
has no positive scriptural evidence to support its claims,
ought to be rejected as being destitute of Divine authority
by which it can be sustained.
2. Fromthe use of the loord '■^into,^' it cannot be inferred
that jJersons loere immersed for baptism. One essential part
of immersion is to go or be put entirely under water (a).
This is not the only meaning of the word '* into.'' Indeed
this is not even one of its significations. It does not denote
under or entirely under. When " Abram went down into
Egypt," he did not go under the ground ; when Christ went
up into a " mountain," he did not go down under it ; when
the two Marys entered " into" our Saviours " sepulchre,"
they did not go under it ; when the mariners with whom
Paul was sailing to Rome, were in distress, " they were
minded" to " trust" the ship " into," not *ffnder a "certain
creek."* These and similar passages in the word of God,
show most conclusively, that the word into does not mean
under. When it is said of Philip and the Eunuch ; " they
both went down into the water ;" the language does not con-
vey the idea that they went under the water ; or performed
one essential part of immersion. If it had been said that
both Philip and the Eunuch went down under the water ;
then each of them would have performed one act which is
(a) B. i. P. vii. Ch. 1, ^ 4, par. 4. *Gen. 12: 10, Mat, 5: 1, Mnik 16: 5, Acts 27; Z%
Ch. 3, <^ 3.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION. 89
essential to immersion. But to go " down into the water''
is not to go under it ; because into never means under. To
go down into the garden, or into the meadow, or into the
cellar ; is not to go under the garden, or under the meadow,
or under the cellar. To go into, then, is not to go under ;
and to go down into the water is not therefore to go under
it in any proper sense of the words used. Nor did going
" into the water'' baptize the Eunuch. But after they had
both gone down " into the water," then Philip baptized him.
The language used plainly teaches this tact. It is this; ''-And
they w"ent down both into the water, both Philip and the Eu-
nuch ; and he baptized him."* If it were asked ; what did
Philip do to the Euntich after they had both gone "down in-
to the water ?" the answer would be ; " he baptized him."
The act of going into the water, was not therefore going un-
der it, was not immersion in any of its essential parts, was
not baptism ; for the ordinance of baptism was administered
after they were both in or at the water. To say therefore
that the Eunuch was immersed because he went down into
the water, is to affirm what the language does not teach
either wholly or in part. Here then we have no inferen-
tial evidence in favor of immersion. In this passage there
is no position mentioned or admitted, or proved, from which
to infer that the Eunuch was immersed. The declaration
that he was baptized by immersion is a mere assertion un-
sustained by Divine authority or by even a tolerable infer-
ence. It is mere unsupported fancy.
3. From the use of the words " out o/"," immersion for bap-
tism cannot be inferred. Because it is said that " Moses —
brought" the children of Israel "up out of the land of
Egypt ;" no one would therefore infer that they had been
under that land. The proper inference would be that they
had been in that countiy. To infer that the lightning which
*' Cometh out of," had been under " the east," would be mere
trifling. But a fair inference would be that before it came
^^ out of '^ it had been in, not under, "the east."t For
Christ to depart " out of this world, "| was not to depart from
under the ground. When it is stated, that " Jesus went
up — out of the water," and also that Philip and the Eunuch
came " up out of the water ;"§ it might be inferred, not that
*^cts 8: 38. tEx. 32. ], Dent. 5: 6, Mat. 24: 27. tJohn 13: 1. §Mat. 3 : 16, Ads 8: 2%
BO BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
any one or more of them had been under the water; but
that each of them had been in or into the water, perhaps
one, perhaps six inches deep. To suppose that coming out
of the water is coming from under it, — or shows that lie who
came out of it, had been under it, or was immersed, is as in-
consistent as to say ; that, because Israel came out of Egypt,
therefore they had been immersed in, or had been under,
the ground. It would be strictly absurd. Besides, as in or
into never signifies under ; so the expression " out of,'^ never
signifies from under. Out of the meadow does not signify
from under the meadow ; nor out of the garden, from under
the garden ; nor out of the cellar, from under the cellar ;
nor out of the barn or house or bed, fr©m under the barn or
house or bed. As. therefore the expres^on " out of,*' never
denotes from under ; so when Christ or the Eunuch is said
to come " out of" the water, it is impossible from this lan-
guage to infer with the least show of propriety, that either
of them had been under the water or immersed. To afhrm
therefore, that Christ and the Eunuch were immersed, be-
cause they came "out of the water^^^' is lo speak not only
without positive instruction from the word of God ; but it is
giving to the expressions a meaning which does not belong
to them. Such an assertion is therefore nothing like a fair
inference drawn from what God's word teaches. Such tri-
fling with Divine revelation as is exhibited by those who use
the words "out of," as if they denoted from under, deserves
the severest rebuke.
4. The doctrine of immersion cannot he inferred from the
use of the Greek word (eic:) translated ^^ into.'^ This Greek
word is found more than six hundred times in the Greek Tes-
tament. It is used in a great variety of senses. Twelve
of these are here mentioned. It denotes on, to, in^ unto, in-
to^ (not under,) at, against, before, upon, for, towards,
among.* But it does not signify under, nor is it so render-
ed in the New Testament. From the use of this word by
the Holy Spirit, it cannot be ascertained that either Philip
or the Eunuch wet so much as the soles of their feet, when
^'he baptized him."'' All we can cetainly know from its use is,
that the Eunuch was not immersed ; for the word (jig) for
*See Lnke ir>: 2-2. and 24: 5, John 7: 5, and 13: 1, Mat. 3: 11, and '29: U, Acts 8: 40,
and 9: 1, and 22: 30, Rom. 13: 6, Mat. 26: 28, 1 Pet. 3: 21, and 4: 8, in Greek and English,
Ch. 3, § 5.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION. 91
into, does not denote under. If the Spirit of God chooses to
use a word which denotes to, at, toivards, and the like ; no
person can, without presumption, say positively, that it
means in or into in a particular connection, unless the sense
of the passage requires it to have that particular significa-
tion. As the sense of the passage which speaks of the bap*
tism of the Eunuch, will not be injured by translating the
word (sjf) for "into,'^ by to or towards; either of these may,
in that very connection, be its signification. From this Vv'ord
therefore, it cannot bo fairly inferred that either Philip or
the Eunuch touched the water with their feet when Philip
administered the ordinance of baptism to him ; and much
less that either of them was entirely under its surface. Be-
sides, this Greek word {sig) does not denote under or below
the surface, and to go or be put under water is indispensable
in immersion. Since therefore, when it is said ; they "went
down'' (sjf) " into the water," the sense would not be inju-
red, if the word (hj?) was rendered to or toivards, instead of
into ; and since this Greek word does not denote under or
below the surface ; no fair inference can be drawn from it
to sustain immersion. Indeed, that the Eunuch was not im-
mersed is certain, because the language used by inspiration
does not signify immersion.
5. Fro7n the use of the Greek word (sx) translated ^^ out
ofj^' immersion cannot be inferred. This word is used by
the Holy Spirit, when it is said ; " Philip and the Eunuch
came "up out of the water,"* and in more than three hun-
dred other places in the Greek Testament. It literally denotes
froi7i. It is so translated in nearly two hundred passages in
*the New Testament. It marks the point from which a
movement is made. This appears from the expression ;
" there came other boats" (sx) '* from Tiberias."t These
boats must have commenced their movement from some part
of the water near which the town of Tiberias was situated.
They could not have sailed on the dry land upon which the
buildings were erected. It is evident therefore that these
boats did not come out of, but " from Tiberias ;" and that
the word (sx) translated /rom, expresses the point from which
their movement commenced. When therefore Philip and
the Eunuch came up (sx) from the water, we cannot infer
*Acts S: 39 in Greek. fJohn 6: 23.
92 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
from the use of this word, that either of them so much as
wet the soles of their feet in the water ; and much less, that
either of them was immersed. The only proper inference
that can be drawn from the use of the Greek word (?x) used
in this connection by the Holy Spirit, is that they had been
at or near the water mentioned. Besides, the original word
(ax) translated " out of," does not denote fro??i under. It is
not used in this sense in any pojtion of the word of God.
No person can therefore, with the least plausibilit}'-, infer
from the use of the original word (sx) translated " out of,"
(not from under,) that either Philip or the Eunuch was im-
mersed. The same words are used of both ; " they both came"
(sx) " up out of the water." Ihey both went down into the
water. This language is used of Philip as really as it is of
the Eunuch. What it proves of the one, it must therefore
prove of the other. It however does not prove, nor inti-
mate, nor suppose that cither Philip or the Eunuch was im-
mersed.
6. Fi-om the use of the Greek word (sv) rendered '•Hcith,^^
immersion cannot he inferred. In the Greek Testament
this word (sv) is used about three hundred times. It is trans-
lated into English by the word " a/," more than one hun-
dred times ; and by the word " with,'^ in more than one hun-
dred and fifty passages ; and by other words in other places.
But it does not signify, and is not translated, under, in tha
whole New Testament («). This word therefore cannot
be forced into the service of immersion by any fair construc-
tion ; nor can it be made the ground from which immersion
can he inferred. As the word (sv) does not denote under or
below the surface ; when it is said, "John baptized" (sv)
" in" (not under) " Enon," — (sv) "in Jordan," (not under
it,) — (sv) " with water;"* it cannot be inferred from this
language, that he baptized under the waters of Jordan or
under those at Enon ; because the word (sv) in Greek never
denotes under ; nor is this the signification of either in or
with, in English. But from the language used, it may be
fairly concluded, that John baptized at or near Enon or the
Jordan, " with water" taken from that fountain or river ;
(a) This word (SV) is Greek. So are Sig, SX and ttlfO. They are not there-
fore found in the original cf the OIJ Testament, which is Hebrew. *IVIat, 3: 6, U,
John 3: 23 in Greek and English,
Ch. 3, § '7.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION. 93
because the Spirit of God uses a word (sv) in these passages
of scripture, which almost universally signifies at or with,
though it is not used to express under. And it should al-
ways be borne in mind that in receiving immersion the per-
son not only goes near or to or in or into^ but he must ne-
cessarily go or be put under, the water in order to be im-
mersed. From the use of this word (sv), it cannot therefore
be inferred with any degree of propriety, that John, when
he baptized, wet the soles of his own feet ; or that the foot
of any one whom he baptized came in contact with water.
No one can therefore, from the use of this word (sv), even
conjecture that John immersed or put entirely under water,
all whom he baptized.
Even when this Greek word (sv) is translated in, it fre-
quently denotes at or near hy. This is manifest from the
following language; '*In" (sv) "the piace where" Jesus
" was crucified, there was a garden.^^* Certainly, this gar-
den was at or n^ar, not under ^ the place where our Saviour
was crucified.
7. Immersion cannot he inferred from the use of the Greek
word (a-ro) translated '-^ out of^^ It is used in the Greek
Testament more than three hundred times. It literally sig-
nifies /rom, and is so translated in the New Testament more
than two hundred and fifty times. It not only may, but of-
ten must, be so translated ; as in the question which John
proposed to some of the Jews ; " Who hath warned you to
flee" (a-rro) " from," (not out of,) " the wrath to come."t
Besides, this word (a'^r'o) never signifies from under, any
more than do the English words **out of (a). The ex-
pression, " Jesus — went up — out of the water"| might,
without injuring the sense or deviating from the original,
be rendered; Jesus went upfront the water. As therefore
the original word (a-TTo) here rendered "out of," never sig-
nifiesfro7n under ; it cannot, when used of our Saviour, in-
timate that he had been under the water or immersed. If a
person comes " out oF' the water, it may be fairly inferred
that he had been in it ; but to infer that because he came
*' out of," that therefore he had been under, the water, would
be absurd (a). But how much more absurd would it be, to
*Jolin 19: 41 in Greek and English. fMat. 3: 7. 16 in Greek and English, (a) % 3.
{Mat. 3: 18.
94 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. 1.
infer that because Jesus Christ came (a'ffo)/rom, that there-
fore he had been under the surface of the water. From the
use of this original word, all that can be fairly inferred is,
that our Saviour had been at or near^ and then came (a-rro)
from the water ; and by no means that he had been under
the water or below its surface.
8. Immersion cannot he inferred from the use of the word
baptize. This is the word, the meaning of which is sought.
To say that the word baptize denotes immerse, because
some men assert that it does, is not fair inferential evidence.
To infer immersion from the use of this or any other word;
it is necessary to find it so situated in some one passage at
least of the word of God, that no other signification can fair-
ly be given to it without destroying, or at least injuring, the
sense. The word baptize is not so situated in any passage
of scripture. In every place where it is found in God's
word ; it may have a signification different from immerse.
In the baptism of Christ, or of the Eunuch, or of Paul, or of
any other person or persons mentioned in the word of God,*
(a) not a single expre.ssion is used which necessarily includes
or teaches immersion. That the word baptize denotes im-
merse cannot therefore be inferred from the connection in
which it is found in any passage of scripture ; because the
connection in no passage necessarily requires this to be its
signification. Since therefore, God in his word, does not
say that baptize signifies immerse ; since he does not use the
word in any connection which requires it to have this mean-
ing ; since he does not, in one passage of scripture, call that
baptism, which in another, he calls immersion ; we have
no scriptural evidence that immersion is the only, the prin-
cipal or any meaning of the word baptize (h). As that can-
not be fairly inferred yro?/^ a word, which is not proved to be
in it; so no one can, consistently with reason, infer that the
word baptize denotes immerse ; because this is not necessa-
rily one of its scriptural significations; nor is this proved,
from the word of God, to be one of its meanings. From the
use of the word baptize, therefore, no proper inference can
be drawn in favor of immersion being even a mode, and
much less the only mode of baptism.
*See Mat. 3: 13-16, M;.rk 1: 8-10, Luke 3: 21, Acts 8: 30-39, and 0: 18, and 22: IG.
(a) $ 2-7. (b) Ch. 1, ^ 1-8.
Ch. 3, § 9.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION^ 95
9. That immersion is baptism cannot he inferred from the
fact that the loord baptize is transferred into the English Bi-
ble, In every passage except four,* where baptize is used
in the Greek Testament, it is ti'nnsferred into English by
merely omitting the prefixes and giving the words an Eng-
lish termination. This one fact proves conclusively that
the translators of the Holy scriptures into the English lan-
guage, were wise and faithful men. There is no other sin-
gle word in the English language, which can express all
that baptize frequently signifies. When water is, by a New
Testament minister, applied to a person '* in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" he is said
to be baptized. This one word often expresses all that is de-
noted by this whole sentence. But all this cannot be ex-
pressed by any other single word in the English language.
A log or an animal may be immersed or put entirely under
water ; but neither can be baptized. A person who is not
a minister of the gospel, may immerse himself or another ;
but a minister only can baptize (a). Indeed there is no one
word which is originally a part of the Hebrew, Syriac, Chal-
dee, Arabic, Ethiopic, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish or
English language, which will convey to the mind, the exact
meaning of the Greek word (/Sa'TrTiJw) for baptize. Per-
haps no other word in any language, would be a complete
substitute for the word baptize. This being the fact, wis-
dom to discover this point, and faithfulness in presenting the
original idea in proper words, will lead those who translate
the New Testament from the Greek into other languages,
to transfer the original word (/Sa-rTj^w) for baptize mto their
translations. Nor would this transfer of the word baptize
imply that it denoted immerse ; nor could any person on
that account infer that immersion was one of its significa-
tions. To alter the word baptize, therefore, in order to sus-
tain a favorite notion, is not a mark of that " wisdom" which
*' is from above."t But to do so shows a bigoted attachment
to preconceived opinions, and a reckless disregard of Divine
truth. The christian loves his religious principles and prac-
tices, because God in his word teaches them. But he does
*See Mark 7: 4, Lrtke 11: 39, and Heb. 9: 10 in Greek, (a) B. i. P. iv. Ch. 1, $ 5,
B. i. P. vi. Ch. 2, § 1-3. t James 3: 17.
96 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
not adopt the scriptures of truth ; because, and so far as,
they sustain his peculiar opinions (a).
(a) It is no new thing for a class of persons to alter the Bible. Often when men dis-
cover an irrecincilable difference between their own beloved am' perhaps lonw-cherish-
ed opinions, hirI the word of God; many of them will alter or so modify the Bible as to
make it conform to their notions. They would much raihertake this step th&n adopt
the word of God as their only rule in ail religious duties. These alterations ihey al-
ways call improvements, t-everal socielies of people have ado])ted this course. (1.)
The Romanists added the Apocrypha and their own traditions to the Bible. They also
substituted the Vulgate, a very inaccurate Latin translation, as I heir standard, instead
of the original Hebrew and Greek. (2.) The Pelagian.^, r^emi-Pelagians, and Arminians
found a new translation necessary to sustain their system. Accordingly they made a
translation ol ihc New Testament to suit their notions. These did not alter the Old
Testament ; as they do not even profess to have much regard for the instruction con-
tained in that. (3 ) 'J'he Unitarians who generally reject the iri'-jiiration of the Old
Testament have made what they call a translation of the New. In this they omit ma-
ny verses and some portions of chapters, besides altering many others. They desired
end made for themselves, a Unitarian New Testament. (4.) The ShaKcrs altered the
Bible in such a way as to make it suit themselves. (5.) The New Jerusalemites or
Swedenborgians remodeled the sciipturos so as to make them, if possible, consistent
with theirfaiicies. (tj.) The Campbellites made a brief paraphrase on the New Testa-
ment. This they represented as a new translation. (7.) The Baptists discovered that
the Bible must be altered or no believer in iis e.\j)licit language, ci>uld adopt the notion
that immersion is ihe only mode of baptism ; because it made no such declaration, Ac-
cordingly they must alter the Biide under the name of a new translation. In this the
word immerse which is inelegant Latin a little modified, is frequently, though not al-
ways, substituted for baptize which is a modified Greek wonl. 'Jhus they trarsferred
a Latin word into their versio i of the Bible, while they were saying all manner of evil
against others for transferring a Greek word. With them it was right to transfer an
inelegant word, native to I'agan and adtitution must be made in all cases; for if it always means
immerse, it ought always to be so rendered, and not in some jiassaires be translated by
another word as it offen is in the Baptist bible. But if they did not really believe that
immerse was the only meaning of baptize, ihey ought not to have made" the assertion
to repeatedly; and if immerse is its only meaning, then why not always so render the
word ?
The second edition of the Baptist Bible was published in Philadelphia in the year
1842, by J. B. J..i{>pincotT. Its editor, A. C. Kendrick, intimates in his preface to the
New Testament, that all the principal Pedo-Baptist commentators sustain his views in
relation to the word baptize. But so far are all these commentators from maintaining
that immersion is the only mode of baptism, (and this is his view on Uie subject,) that
not one of them adopts that opinion. It is true that several of them admit that immer-
sion is one wiorfe of baptism ; but not one of them says or even intimates that it is the on-
ly mode. To make such a statement then concerning ttiose commentators, is a crime
which deserves a harsher name than can be given to it here. A system that «an suffer
its leading advocates thus deliberately to pervert the truth and vilify the righteous dead,
will need more than one alteration in the Bible before it can pass current with men of
truth and veracity. But with all the changes they have made in the word of God to
make an immersion Bible to suit their system ; the most they have accomplished is to
malce immersion appear to bo one mode of baptism. They will have to alter it ai^ain to
make it say that immersion and that only is baptism. Without this, their exclusive sys-
tem cannot stand the test. Now their immersion Bil>le affirms that immersion is a
mode of baptism, not that it is the only mode. Their Bible yet avoids the point indis-
yute between immersers and others. This point is, not whether immersion is or is not
B mode of baptism J but whether it is or is not ihemily node. Their Bible evades this
point. To prove tlial immersion is baptism would by no means prove it to be the only
Ch. 3, § 10.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION. 97
10. Learning cannot find in the icord of God, any inferen^
tiai evidence in favor of immersion. Learning cannot find
that which does not exist. And, as there is no inferential
evidence in the holy scriptures to sustain the claims of im-
mersion ; so learning cannot find any such evidence in
God's word. Learning does not create evidence of any
kind on any subject. It only discovers and presents evidence
clearly to the mind. Ignorance leaves evidence undiscover-
ed or unperceived, and substitutes assertion for argument.
And when learning throws so much light on a subject that
even ignorance cannot but perceive in some degree the force
of truth ; then it begins to revile learning, as if its great
and principal business was to deceive those who were able
to perceive the force and application of the evidence which
it presents in favor of truth. Thus the votaries of igno-
rance are led on by its despotic influence in the paths of
self-deception, till they stumble on the dark mountains of
vanity, and are " destroyed for lack of knowledge."'* These,
at the same time, are, by this their tyrannic master, induced
to believe that ignorance is almost immaculate purity, and
learning only varnished vileness. When a subject is made
so plain by learning that even the ignorant cannot avoid
perceiving the convincing power of evidence, they then im-
mediately fancy that learning can prove wrong to be right
and right, wrong. In this way ignorance keeps its slaves
bound in its chains, and will continue to do so, unless they
allow themselves to believe that learning which makes diffi-
cult subjects plain, is at least as likely to be honest as igno-
rance which darkens " counsel by words without know-
ledge."t Indeed, a wiser *' than Solomon" teaches us, that
men love " darkness rather than light, because their deeds"
are *' evil." Upon ignorance therefore which loves " dark-
ness rather than light,"| must the charge of dishonesty rest.
That which brings matters to the light cannot be chargeable
with keeping them in the dark. If a charge of dishonesty
*Hos. 4: 6. t^ob 3g: 2. +Mat. 11: 4'2, John 3: 19.
mode of baptism. To make out their position, that immersion and thft only is baptism;
they must alter tlieir Bible at least once more. (i^.yTo the Bible, the Mormons have
added their Book of Mormon and other fancies. They are also making or have made a
new translation of the New Testament, to make it correspond as much as may be, with
their system of irreligion. It is therefore nothing remarkable to find men more willing
to force the Bible into a conformity with their own notions thaa to lay aside these fcr
Divine truth.
98 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
is to be made, it must thei'efore be made against ignorance,
not against learning. Besides, ignorance costs nothing..
No labor, no time, no means are required to make a person
ignorant. But not a little of all these is required to make a
person learned. Now since ignorance can deceive as well
as learning, if not better, (because it may be sincere in its
deceptions,) wlio would labor long and hard for the sake
of deceiving others when by remaining in a state of igno-
rance, he could, without labor, accomplish his object better ?
There is little danger of real learning deceiving any person
in relation to baj^tism or any other subject ; while sophistry,
self-sufficiency, bigotry and ignorance are to be dreaded by
all who would not be tlieir dupes. There- is no danger o-f
true learning ever presenting any inferential evidence in fa-,
vor of immersion, as if that were thus taught in the word of
God ; for this plain reason, that true learning, when it is
brought to bear on that subject, will soon perceive that, ia
the Scriptures, there is no such evidence in. favor of immer-
sion..
CHAPTER IV.
NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSION IxN THE WORD OF GOD.
1, An allusion cannot, properly speaking, he made to that
which does not exist. To allude or make an allusion, is to
refer to something. In making an allusion, the thing allu-
ded to is not generally at the time, mentioned in plain words.
But the fact that an allusion is made to any thing, proves that
what is alluded to, does exist. If therefore a thing does not
exist, it cannot be alluded to. But as immersion is not sa
much as once mentioned in the whole word of God, no per-
son ought to expect to find therein an allusion made to it ;,
for it must be but a fanciful conjecture to suppose that Om-
niscience would allude in the Divine word, to what he, in it,
does not even once name. Nor would it be less fanciful to,
imagine that God would very often mention baptism in his
word by its own proper designation, and not once call it im-
mersion, or in any way describe it by language which de-.
notes immerse, if he intended to teach mankind that this was
baptism or the only mode of baptism. To find an allusion
Ch. 4, § 2.] NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSION.. 995
made in the word of God to immersion, is not therefore to
be expected ; because the thing itself is not therein named.
2. The word bury does not allude to immersion. This
word in English does not either literally or figuratively re-
fer to immersion. To say that a- person is buried, might al-
lude to the decay of his body, or to its resurrection, or pos-
sibly to the immortality of the soul of him whose body was
buried; but to say that bury literally alludes to immersion^
is mere unbridled conjecture. Every one knows .that to
bury the dead is not the same thing as to put the living en-
tirely under water. To bury does not mean to immerse..
To say that a person is buried then cannot literally teach or
allude to immersion. Figurately, the word bury denotes to
hide or conceal, not to immerse. The person who is im-.
mersed is not even concealed the moment he is under the-
water. Nor is there any attempt made in immersion to
conceal or hide the person immersed. Nothing of this kind
was attempted, when individuals, both male and female were
immersed in a state of perfect nudity. So far then is the
word hiiry, in its figurative signification, from alluding to or
teaching immersion, that immersers themselves do not even
attempt to conceal or hide the immersed. This act there-,
fore does not, cannot bear any resemblance to the figurative
meaning of the word bury.
The Greek word (^Ja-TrToj) used for bury* expresses all th&
parts of an ancient funeral. These were various. (1 ) The
dead body was washed, not by immersing it entirely under,
but by applying waler to it ; (2.) It was wrapped in a clean
cloth; (3.) It was laid out ; (4.) It was laid in a suitable
place, usually for one or more days ; (b.) It was anointed;-
(6.) It was embalmed ; (7.) It was carried out to the narrow
"house appointed for all tha living ;" (8.) It was deposited*
in the grave.t This original word (^a-TTTw) which in its va-
rious modifications, expresses much more than the English.
word funeral, has this eight-fold signification(a). For a per-
son therefore to say that, when this w^ord is used, an allu-
sion is made to immersion, or that immersion is taught by
it, is to proclaim himself a mere tyro in Greek literature...
*Sce Rom. 6: 4. Col. 2: n, Mark. 14: 8, John 12: 7, in Greek and English. tSee
Acts 9: 37, Mat. 27: 59. 00, Mark 15: 40, and 16: 1, Luke 7: 12, and 23: 53, 50, and 24: 1
Job 30: 2.3, John 11: 38. 44. CaJSee Greek Lexicons,
lOO BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. 2,
Indeed, the most superficial observer cannot but perceive
that a word of such a signification, can l)ave no allusion to
immersion. If a person should affirm that the worA funeral
referred to immersion, or that going to a funeral indicated
that immersion was baptism ; the assertion would be suffi-
ciently absurd. But to say that a word (<)a'7rrw) which de-
notes to wrap in a cloth, to anoint, to lay out and to embalm,
besides expressing all that is included in the term funeral,
alludes to immersion 3 is crowding too hard on the common
sense of mankind.
3. The word bury or buried does not in any passage of
scripture, allude to immerse. Men have quoted three passa-
ges of the word of God, to prove such an allusion. In two
of these, the word buried is used ; in one it is not, though
the death of Christ is mentioned in this last. These are (1.)
^' We are buried with him by baptism into death ;'' (2.) Ye
are " buried with him in baptism ;" (3.) '* So many of us as
were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his
death."* These expressions of scripture are sometimes sup-
posed to allude to immersion. Men often assert that they
teach this to be a mode, if not the only mode of baptism. As
the word bury or buried does not, either in its literal or figu-
rative sense, denote immerse(rt); so in the use of that word,
no such allusion can be found. If these portions of God's
word are carefully examined, no allusion to immersion can
be found in them. This appears (1.) From the fact that the
word bury[a) or ^^buried^^ does not signify any thing that
resembles what is done to a person who is immersed(Z').
The word bury or buried does not in itself, allude to im-
merse. (2.) Moreover, in the burying mentioned in these
passages, persons are said to be "buried with" Christ " by
baptism into death," not into the grave. The death of
Christ took place on the cross. We "are buried with him
by baptism into death." But death by crucifixion has no
resemblance to immersion ; therefore baptism into Christ's
death on the cross, does not, cannot^ teach, or even allude to
immersion. There is not the least resemblance between
the Saviour's death on the cross several feet above the
ground, and the putting of a person entirely under water.
That any person should ever imagine that being buried with
*Rom. 6: 3. I, Col. 2: 12. (a)'^2. (b)B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, $ 4.
Ch. 4, § 3.] NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSION. lOl
him by baptism into death on the cross, had any reference to
immersion, is truly surprising. (3.) Besides, if this burying,
instead of being into death on the cross, as it is, had been,
buried with him into his grave ; still there could be, even
then, no allusion to immersion. Our Saviour when buried
was laid in a " new tomb — hewn out of a rock.'' A "great
stone'' was "placed at the door of " this his "sepulchre."
The place in which he was laid was so large that the two
Marys '* entering into the sepulchre — saw a young man sit-
ting at the right side" of it ; and that Peter and the beloved
" disciple"* entered it at the same time. Our Lord's sepul-
chre was therefore a small room hewn out of a rock, suffi-
ciently large for a number of persons to enter and remain
in it together. There is then no more resemblance between
the act of laying the dead body of Christ in the tomb and
that of a living person going entirely under water, than there
would Joe between immersion and laying a dead body in a
small bed-room- Between the two acts, there is not the least
resemblance ; nor is there the most distant allusion in one
of them, made to the other. (4.) Between the mode of dis-
|X)sing of the dead in any country by any people and immer-
sion, there is not the least resemblance ; and consequently in
the one there can be no allusion made to the other. Some por-
tions of the human race consume their dead on funeral piles ;
some deposit a part of them al least on trees ; some place the
body in asltting posture ; some place the dead in a kind of arti-
ficial caves called vaults ; and some remove the earth and lay
the body in the place from which the material was removed
and then sprinkle or shovel the earth in upon the corpse.
The last two modes are adopted by christian and civilized
nations. The others are practiced by the savage and semi-
barbarous. It is manifest that to consume a body by fire or
place it on a tree, or in a sitting posture, cannot resemble
immersion. To lay a corpse in a vault is like placing it in
a cellar, not like putting a living man under water. Nor
does that mode of interment resemble immersion, in which
the earth is removed from its original position, the body laid
in the place from which the earth was taken, and then the
dead covered by putting upon it a small quantity of earth at
*Mat. 27; 60, Ma.k 13: 46, and 10: 5, Luke 23: 53. and 24: 3, John 19: 41. 42, and 20:
i02 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, F. 1.
a time. This mode of burying might resemble sprinkling or
j)Ouring, but could not reseirible immersion ; because in this,
there is no one act that looks in the least like putting a liv-
ing person under water. But it* any people should, in dis-
posing of their dead, take the body and turn it over back-
wards and thrust it into the ground; then that kind of bury-
ing would resemble immersion as practiced by some ; and if
any turned the body forward or made it kneel down, and
then thrust it into the earth ; in this case, immersion as prac-
ticed by others would be represented. But as no nation or
people, savage or civilized, adopt either of these modes of
burying their dead ; so immersion as practiced by any class
of immersers, does not and cannot resemble the mode in
which any people bury their dead. It is manifest therefore
that no nation or tribe of men so dispose of their dead, as to
make in their interment, an allusion to immersion. (5.)Tobe
buried with Christ "by baptism into death,'' does not teach or
allude to any mode of baptism with water. It is expressly stat-
ed that those who are buried with him by baptism into death,
are "baptized into Jesus Christ;" "walk in newness of life;"
have their "old man — crucified ;" do "not serve sin ;" are
dead "unto sin;" are "alive unto God ;" are "alive from
the dead ;" have "obeyed from the heart ;" are " made free
from sin;" are "the servants of righteousness;" are "be-
come the servants of God;" are "risen with him through
the faith of the operation of God ;" are " quickened together
with him;" and " have their trespasses" forgiven.* The per-
sons here described must have been true christians. No ex-
ternal application of water in any mode or by any person,
could possibly remove from the sinner, his "carnal mind which
is enmity against God,"t and produce in him that spiritual
mind which is here described. To do this is the work of the
Holy Sp!rit(a); not of baptism with water. It is manifest
from facts that baptism with water, whatever may be the
mode or whoever the administrator, is not always preceded,
accompanied or followed by the regenerating and convert-
ing grace of God's spirit. Too many after they are bapti-
zed, no matter how or by whom the ordinance may have
been administered, prove by their actions that they are yet
*Roni. 0: 3. 4. 0. 11. 13. 17. 18. 22, Col. 2: 12. 13. fRom. 8: 7. (a) B. i, P. v, Ch. 1,
Ch. 4, § 3.] NO ALLUSION.TO IIMMERSION. 103
*' enemies" of God " by wicked works."* Simon the Sama-
ritan sorcerer, after " lie was baptized" with water, was still
**in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity."t
His could not therefore have been that baptism which leads
those who receive it to *' walk in newness of life." As no
baptism but that of the Holy Ghost can produce this new
and spiritual " walk ;" so whenever this '* newness of life"
is produced, baptism with the Holy Ghost or regeneration
has taken place. But this holy walk results from being
*' baptized into" Christ's '^ death ;" therefore this baptism
must be " with the Holy Ghost, "| and not with water ; be-
cause this does and baptism with water does not, invariably
produce "newness of life.''' The baptism therefore mention-
ed in these passages, being baptism with the Holy Ghost does
not teach or allude to immersion or any mode of water bap-
tism. (6.) Christians, it is said, "are risen with" Christ,
" through the faith of the operation of God.-"§ This rising
is not the act of coming out of the grave. Christians, as
well as others, will start from the sleep of ages, when the
sound of the Archangel's trumpet shall re-echo along the
cold damp vaults of death, on the morning of the general
judgment day. But the rising here mentioned is that which
has already taken place in every true believer. " Ye are
risen^^^ not ye shall rise, is the language of God's word to
his people. This rising then which is by faith, and which
has already occurred in the case of every true christian, must
be a rising from that state in which he was dead in sin. But
rising from a state of death in sin, is simply being delivered
from its power by the regenerating grace of God's Spirit.
And to deliver the soul from the power of sin, and remove
its guilt by the blood of Christ, cannot be represented or al-
luded to by taking the body up from under the water. (7.)
If a person is put entirely underwater, he may be raised up
out of it again ; but this act of raising the body up out of the
water, can have no necessary connection with that rising
from a state of spiritual death, which is " by the faith of the
operation of God." To be raised from spiritual death is one
thing ; and to be raised up from under water, is another.
To give natural life to a dead body, or to give spiritual life
*Co}, 1: 21. tActs 8; i3, 23. IMat. 3; 11, Mark t 8, Liake 3; 16. $Col. 2; 12.
104 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I,
to a dead soul, and thus to bring the one to natural and the
other to spiritual life, can have, in the act, no resemblance
or allusion to the raising up of a person from under the wa-
ter. (8.) That any person in his senses should ever serious-
ly suppose that, to lay a person down on his face or on his
back in water in such a way as to cover him entirely with
the element, resembles or alludes to the death of Christ,
which was caused by elevating him perpendicularly upon a
cross some distance above the earth, is, to a reflecting mind,
truly surprising. No two things can resemble each other
less or be less likely to allude the one to the other, than im-
mersion and crucifixion. Had our Saviour been drowned
or buried alive, then his death might have been partially
symbolized by immersion. But to imagine that immersion
represents or alludes to crucifixion, is a flight of fancy wor-
thy of the German Anabaptists. For sensible men to say,
that to be "buried with" Christ "by baptism into death'' on
the cross, is to be put entirely under water, is a complete
solecism. What can be more absurd, than to say that to be
put entirely under water, means to be suspended upon the
cross I ! or to* say that immersion resembles crucifixion ! !
The advocates of such a wild fancy, muijt, to men of sense,
appear truly ridiculous.
4. Noah and his family were preserved in the ark ; hut
this fad does not teach or allude to immersion. The lan-
guage in w hich some persons fancy that immersion is taught
or alluded to, is this; ''God waited in the days of Noah,
while the ark was — preparing, wherein few, that is, eight
souls, were saved by water ; the like figure whereunto,
even baptism doth also now save us."* In the ark, Noah
and his family were saved from the all-devouring flood.
They "only remained alive" of the whole human race who
then Jived on earth. The ark, the vessel in which they were
saved from this overwhelming calamity, was borne up by,
and " went upon, the face" or surface " of the waters."!
Noah and his family were saved in the ark. This vessel
was borne up, "upon the face of the waters." This deliv-
erance from a tremendous temporal judgment, of all who
were actually in the ark, represents the deliverance, from
eternal misery, of all true believers. This spiritual salva-
*1 Pet. 3: 20.21. t<3en. 7: 17. 18. 23.
Ch. 4, § 4.] NO ALLUSION TO I3IMERSI0N. 105
tion is enjoyed by those, and by those only, who have by
faith entered the spiritual ark, the Lord Jesus Christ. By
faith sinners are brought into this ark ; for by faith, and by
faith only, are they united to Christ. God the Spirit, in re-
generation, or when they are baptized with the Holy Ghost,
produces this " faith" in their souls.* The baptism here men-
tioned saves us. As no baptisnn is essential to salvation, ex-
cept that of the Spirit ; so this baptism which saves us, or is
essential to salvation, must therefore be baptism with the
Holy Ghost, and not with water. It is this spiritual baptism
therefore, of which Noah's preservation in the ark was a
figure. But his preservation in the ark could not be a figure
of immersion ; because there is no resemblance between the
one and the other. That there is no allusion to immersion
in the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark, ap-
pears ; (1.) From the fact that they were saved by b.eing
in the ark, above the water, not ;^by being put under that
fluid, as is the case with all who are immersed ; (2.) From
the fact that the ark "went on the face of the waters,'' or
floated on their surface, so that even the vessel in which they
were saved, was not immersed or put entirely under water.
(3.) To be carried in the ark above water, could not possi-
bly allude to, or represent immersion, or the putting of per-
sons all over under its surface. (4.) They were under the
roof of the ark ; and persons are usually immersed in the
open air. (5.) They were entirely hid from those who were
on the outside of the ark ; but when persons are in the act
of receiving immersion, they are visible to those who are
near them ; because water is transparent, but the covering
of the ark was not. (6.) The covering of the ark did not
come in contact with Noah and his family, or with their
dress ; but those who are covered with water in immersion,
have the covering element, water, in contact at least with
their dress. It is manifest therefore that the preservation
of Noah and his family in the ark, did not, in any sense of
the word, allude to immersion. In those who perished in
the flood, an allusion to immersion might easily be discover-
ed ; for these were entirely covered with water, and so are
the immersed. Here then is a very manifest reseniblancQ
*Gal. 5: 23, Eph, 2: 8, Phil. 1: 29, Heb. 12: 2.
106 BIBLE BAPTISiM. [b. II, T. I.
between those who were wliolly covered with the waters of
the' deluge, and lliose who are wholly covered with water in
immersion. But Noah and his family were not immersed
or put entirely under water. Even the very ark in which
they were preserved, was not immersed ; for it moved on
the surface of, instead of sinking entirely under, the water.
A person in the ark was as safe from being immersed, as he
would be in a house or church, in wliich no cistern could be
found. In the preservation of Noah and his household in
the ark, there was not a single point which resembles im-
mersion in the least. Noah and his family were saved from
being inmiersed in water. Those who enjoy that baptism
of which their preservation in the ark was a type, are
now saved from being immersed in sin, from remaining un-
der " the wrath of God" and from legal condemnation.
They will also, in the world to come, be saved from being
immersed " in the lake which burnetii with fire and brim-
stone."* In the preservation, therefore, of Noah and his
household in the ark, there can be no allusion to, or evidence
in favor of, immersion,
5. The expression *•*' tc ashing'^ or '•^washed with ivaier,^'^
does not allude to immersion. The language used by inspi-
ration, and which includes the words "-washing" and "wash-
ed, '^ is this; "Ye are washed;'' — "Christ — loved the
church — that he might — cleanse it with the washing of wa-
ter by the word ;" — " He saved us by the washing ot" regen-
eration;" — " Let us draw near" to God, " having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed
with pure water ;" — and " wash away thy sins."t In re-
lation to these passages, it may be remarked, (1.) That the
word immerse is not used in any of them. Nor does the
Greek word (Xouw) or (Xourpov) used in them for wash ne-
cessarily denote immerse.;]; (2.) If the washing mentioned
in them, is literal ; then to perform such a washing, more is
necessary than to dip that to be washed into water, so that
it may be entirely covered and then immediately take it out
again. No literal pollution could be removed in this way.
To wash away literal defilement supposes more than this.
Indeed, in washing literally, a part of the thing washed, if
*Rev. 21: 9. fl Cor. 6: 11, Epli. o: '25. 20, Tit. 3: 5, Ileh. 10: 22. Acts. 22, 10. ISee
Eph. 5: 20, Ileb. 10: 23 in Greek, and Greek Lexicons on the words,
Ch. 4, ^ 5.J NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSlOJV. 107
not the whole of it, is frequently out of the water during the
operation. Moreover, in washing a person, or almost any
vessel, the v/ater is applied to what is washed, instead of
even dipping what is washed into the water. If the article
washed is not so much as dipped into the water, certainly it
could not be immersed or put entirely under water in the
act of being washed. When persons wash themselves, or
are washed by others, or when tables, churns, tubs, pails, or
the like, are washed ; they are not usually, if at all, im-
mersed in water. A literal washing therefore requires more
than immersion ; and it is not usually performed by immers-
ing the articles washed. (3.) In ceremonial washings wa-
ter is applied to a part only of the person washed, to make
him ceremonially "clean every whit.''* (4.) The word
tvash is used to express the falling of tears on the part wash-
ed. Our Saviour's feet were "washed" with "tears."t
Every one knows that tears always fall in drops. That
which is washed " with tears," is therefore washed with
drops falling upon it; or in other words, it is washed by
sprinkling. This washing then could not possibly teach im-
mersion ; for no one can, for a moment, suppose that our
Lord's feet were put entirely under water in the tears with
which they were washed. (5.) If the washing mentioned
in these passages, is spiritual ; then the body is not repre-
sented as being washed either wholly or in part ; because,
spiritual washing is that of the soul, — not the washing of the
body in any of its parts, or for any purpose. (6.) The first
of these passages may denote that christians *' are washed"
in the blood of Christ ; in the second and fourth, the persons
washed had water applied to them in some mode to symbol-
ize the washing away of sin. The third, as it is expressly
called *' the washing of regeneration," not the washing "of
water," or of baptism, must denote the purifying influences
of the Holy Spirit in his regenerating power upon the soul.
In the fifth, the washing " away of sins," is mentioned. No
truly converted person can be made to believe that this work
is effected by the application of water to the body. Only
two of these passages therefore can possibly speak of bap-
tism. And in neither of these is any word used, that de-
notes immersion ; nor is any such word found in the con-
*John 13; 10. jLuke 7; 38. 44.
108 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
text. Not the least intimation then is given us in any one
of these passages that immersion is baptism. But as nothing
is said in them, either directly or indirectly, in favor of im-
mersion for baptism or for any other purpose ; they can
therefore contain no real allusion to that substitute for a Di-
vine ordinance. (7.) As sprinkling is mentioned in one of
these passages, that mode may be taught or alluded to when
the application of water is mentioned. (8.) But it is clear
that immersion is not taught or alluded to, in any of these
passages, whether a literal, ceremonial or spiritual washing
is taught in one or more of them. (9.) The word wash does
not signify immerse. This is not one of its meanings in
the English language. (10.) If it, at any time, signifies
baptize, this is a figurative sense of the term ; as baptize
and tvash are by no means synonymous in their significa-
tions. It is manifest therefore that to wash with water, is
not an expression which alludes to immersion.
6. To be covered all over vnth any material, does not al-
lude to or teach immersion. If to be covered with any sub-
stance is immersion («), then all persons are constantly im-
mersed ; for all are at all times covered with atmospheric
air. This is essential to our very existence. In the ordi-
nary course of Providence, no person could live long, if he
was not covered with air. But if to be entirely covered
with air, is to be immersed ; then every person who has been
baptized in any mode in the name of the Trinity, must, by
immersers themselves, be admitted to be properly baptized.
This they must acknowledge too, whether much or little
water is used ; or even if the words prescribed by our Sa-
viour were used* and no water applied, they must then ad-
mit that valid baptism was administered, because at the time
of the ceremony, they were entirely covered with air. If
to be covered with air is immersion ; and if immersion is
baptism ; then it necessarily follows that to be covered with
air is baptism, if the proper form of words are used by a pro-
per person. But immersers deny that such are baptized ;
and hence according to them, to be entirely covered with
air is not to be immersed for baptism. Perhaps they would
not admit, that to be entirely covered with sand or earth or
(a) See P, vii. Ch, 1, ^ 4, *See Mat. ?8i 19,
Gh. 5, § 1-] iMMERsiOisr not the only mode. 109
smoke or fog, is to be immersed in their sense of the word.
They would not tlien consider a person who had been covered
with one of these as having been as properly baptized as if
he had been covered entirely with water. If the practice
of immersers may be taken as proof on this subject, we may
conclude that by immerse they mean entirely covered with
water ; because, when they immerse persons, they always
put the part of them, or at least of their clothes, not wet by
themselves, entirely under water ; never under sand, air,
earth, smoke, fog or any other substance. It appears there-
fore that immersers, they themselves being judges, do not
believe that immersion signifies to be covered with any sub-
stance. When therefore they take the ground that to be
entirely covered with any thing, is immersion ; they for-
sake their own exclusive notions, be^cause they declare by
their actions, that to be immersed, a person must be entire-
ly covered with water. If therefore an individual should
say that a body buried in the earth is immersed ; he would
by such an assertion, forsake the exclusive creed of immers-
ers. Because, they, by their actions, say that to be cover-
ed with earth is not immersion ; nor is it known that, in
immersing a person, they ever cover him with earth. If to
be entirely covered with any substance, is to be immersed ;
then the whole human race are constantly immersed, as
they are at all times, entirely covered with air. But cer-
tainly such an immersion, or an immersion in smoke, or
fog, or earth, could not teach or allude to the immersion en-
tirely under water of the person so covered. It is certain
that to be thus covered could not teach that immersion is
baptism, or the only mode of baptism.
CHAPTER V.
IMMERSION NOT THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM.
1. Christian haptism is mentioned in the word of God.
This fact is taught in the commission given by the Lord Je-
sus Christ to the disciples and their successors in the minis-
terial office. These are commanded to tench and baptize.*
That they did baptize with water, in obedience to Christ's
*See Mat. 28: 19.
no BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
direction, is a fact often stated in scripture ; and that per-
sons were commanded to receive tlie ordinance of baptism
after his resurrection, is also too frequently mentioned to be
denied by any person wlio believes the bible to be a revela-
tion from God* (a). That the ordinance of christian bap-
tism is mentioned in the book of God, is therefore an unde-
niable fact.
2. Immersion is not, in the Scriptures, mentioned as a mode
of baptism. Any person who reads the word of God, can
easily determine this point for himself. ]t is a mere matter
of fact. If the word immerse or immersion is once record-
ed in the scriptures of truth, it can be found and the chap-
ter and verse mentioned. The person who examines this
subject, with the least degree of care, will soon discover that
the much-loved word ipimerse is not, in the scriptures, used
for baptism. Notwithstanding all the noise which has been
i;nade to induce persons to believe that immersion is the on-«
ly mode of baptism ; God has not definitely taught mankind
in his word that it is even one mode of administering that
ordinance. It will be difficult to make men of sense believe
that what is not so much as once mentioned in the whole
word of God as baptism, is the only mode by which it can
be administered.
3. Immersion, as a mode of baptism, is not, by other lan-
guage, definitebj taught in the holy scriptures. There is, in
the word of God, no command for immersion {b) ; no exam-,
pie of immersion (c) ; no inferential evidence in favor of
fmmersion (cZ) ; nor is there in the scriptures even a man-
ifest allusion to immersion (e). This therefore cannot be
the only mode of baptism. But though to sustain its claims,
it has no authority from the word of God, no evidence in its,
favor either direct or indirect, from Divine truth ; yet im-
mersion, with all the self-importance of an Eastern Despot,
steps forth and demands to itself submission from all, as the
only mode of baptism. It is so self-opinionated that it is not,
(without any definitely expressed scriptural evidence of any
kind in its favor,) satisfied to be allowed a standing as a
mode of baptism. It even demands to be acknowledged as
*See Acts 2: 38. 41, ami 8: 12, 13, and 10: 47 48, and 16: 15. 33, and 10: 5, and 22: 16,-
1 Gor. 1: 13-17. (a) B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, <^ 2-5. (b) Ch. 1, $ 1-8. (c) Ch. 2, $ 1-4.
(d) Cb. 3, § 1-10. (e) Ch. 4, $ 1-6. - -
Ch. 5, § 4, 5.] IMMERSION NOT THE ONLY MOJ>E. Ill
the only mode. Truly in this, the unfledged, unproved, un-
named thing (ft), manifests no small amount of assurance.
4. If any number of 2'>assages of Scripture stated express^
ly that inwiersion was baptism^ and that persons were im-
mersed for biplism, this vjould not prove immersioiv to be the
only mode of baptism. If one passage or ten or ten thou-
sand, stated expressly that immersion was baptism, or a
mode of baptism, then scriptural evidence would thereby
be furnished to prove that immersion was baptism. But no
number of declarations to prove immersion to be baptism,
would prove it to be the only mode of baptism ; or that no-
thing but immersion is baptism. If immersers could prove
from the express language of scripture that immersion was
baptism ; the same express language of scripture, might
prove that water applied in a ditferent mode was baptism al-
so. To prove the position therefore which the exclusive
immersers always take, that immersion is the only mode of
baptism ; they must furnish proof to the point. They must
first show by some express declaration of scripture, that im-
mersion is baptism. This they cannot do, for this plain rea-
son ; there is no such passage recorded in God's book. And.^
then after they have accomplished this impossibility ; they
have another to accomplish, which is not less difficult thaiv
the former. They have then to produce one passage of
scripture or more to prove that immersion is the only mode
of baptism. But no portion of the word of God, teaches ex-
plicitly that immersion is baptism (Z*) ; and much less that
it is the only mode of baptism. So far therefore as Divine-,
revelation is concerned ; there is not the least intimation
given to mankind to prove that immersion is the only mode
of baptism.
5. If there is but one mode of baptism, that cannot he im->-.
mersion. That which is not expressly mentioned in the
word of God, cannot be the only mode of baptism. Immer-.
sion is not thus mentioned ; it cannot therefore be the only
mode of baptism. In no portion of scripture, is immersion
called a mode or the only mode of baptism. God, in one.
passage of his word, speaks of "one baptism ;''* but in no
portion, of it, does he speak of one mode of baptism ; and least;
(a) It is as baptism, unnamed in the word of God. (h) Ch. 1^ § 1-7, Ch. 2, $ 1-4^
*Eph. 4: 5.
112 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. 1.
of all does he say that there is only one mode of baptism.
But if there is only one mode of bajHlsnij it is perfectly cer-
tain to those who take God's trutli for their rule of duty in
all religious matters, that immersion is not that mode. Those
who read the scriptures know full well that Divine truth
does not declare that immersion is a mode or the only mode
of baptism. It is manifest to them that what is not once de-
finitely named, in God's word, as baptism, either in the orig-
inal or in any correct translation, cannot be the only way
in which that ordinance is to be administered. What God
does not plainly teach in his word, cannot be even a reli-
gious duty which men are, by Divine authority, required to
observe. That immersion is not thus taught, is too mani-
fest to be denied by any person who reads and believes what
is revealed in God's word.
6. Baptism in so7ne mode may he explicitly revealed in the
Holy Scriptures, though immersion as baptism is not so re-
vealed. Because the word immerse is not found in the trans-
lation of the scriptures into English ; it does not follow that
no other word is used in them. Though immersion is not
plainly taught therein ; other words may be used, which
may teach a mode of baptism entirely different from immer-
sion. And although no word in the original scriptures de-
noting immersion, is so much as once used for baptism or to
define that word(rt); yet words in the original languages of
God's book may be used to teach another mode of baptism.
It does not therefore follow that if there is no evidence to
prove that immersion is baptism ; then no evidence can be
found to prove that baptism may be administered in any
other way. The point then to which the mind is brought on
this subject, is; not whether a person is to be immersed or
not baptized ; but whether a person is to substitute immer-
sion which is not mentioned in scripture as a mode of bap-
tism, for that which is so mentioned ; and let this thing which
as baptism, is totally nameless in the word of God, arrogate
to itself the exclusive privilege of being the Divine ordinance
of baptism ! ! From these remarks it can be seen of how
much value is the assertion ; " If immersion is not the mode
or the only mode of baptism, then there is no baptism."
(a) Ch. 1, ^ 5-7.
Gh. 6, § 1.] IMMERSION IMPROBABLE. 113
Would such persons really lay aside the word of God rather
than their own beloved substitute for baptism 1 From the
language they often use, it appears that at least some of them
would.
CHAPTER VI.
IMMERSION FOR BAPTISM IMPROBABLE.
1. It is not probable that persons were immersed in places
where it is certain theij were baptized. (1.) John baptized
*' in Bethabara beyond Jordan."* There is no evidence
that at or near this place, water sufficiently deep to immerse
in, was found. That he immersed these, is without proof,
and consequently improbable. (2.) He baptized "in Enon
near to Salim.'H In this place were several small springs
rising out of the ground. These uniting formed one foun-
tain several inches deep. From this flowed a small rivulet.
But here was no water so deep that in it an adult person
might be immersed(«). Grown persons could not therefore
be immersed in Enon, unless a suitable place was construct-
ed for that purpose. And, as not the least hint is given us
that such an artificial receptacle was formed in which to im-
merse ; so, that he immersed in Enon is not probable. Be-
sides, the Jordan is so near Enon, as to render the labor of
constructing an artificial cistern sufficiently large to im-
merse in, entirely useless. The Jordan and Enon are only
a few miles apart. It would therefore have been much more
convenient for persons to have gone that short distance, than
to have made an artificial cistern in which to immerse. But
the word of God does not intimate that any thing of the kind
was done ; and the work of God in creating a number of
small springs at Enon, shows that if persons were immersed
there, an artificial cistern of some kind must have been pro-
vided. To fancy, therefore, that John immersed at Enon
must be an exceedingly improbable conjecture. (3.) He
baptized " in the wilderness'^! {b\ No evidence can be
found in the word of God or in his works to prove that liv-
ing water in any quantity was found in the wilderness where
John baptized. It is exceedingly improbable that water in
*John 1: 28, and 10: 40. fJohn 3: 23. (a) See Jerome; Sandy, Sacred Geography.
tMark 1: 4. (h) See Dr. Ryland's Candid Siatement.
8
114 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I,
sufficient quantities to immerse, was carried away into this
wilderness; and that he immersed there is therefore equally
improbable. (4.) Baptism was administered in various parts
of Palestine, and probably in all seasons of the year. But,
as all the streams in that country except the Jordan, dry up
in summer(a); so it is very improbable that immersion was
the mode or the only mode of baptism there practiced. (5.)
Baptism was administered in " the way'' between '' Jerusa-
lem and Gaza(^), which is desert." A rivulet rises some
distance from this way or road. It runs a short distance and
loses itself in the sand. This stream is only a few inches
deep. It is also quite narrow. It is seldom or never much
increased by freshets. This is the largest, or rather the only
stream on this route from Jerusalem to Gaza(c). The lan-
guage of inspiration intimates that the stream was not only
small, but very small. It is this. '*As'' Philip and the Eu-
nuch " went on their way, they came" [siri n u^wp) " to" or
upon "a certain water." it was so small that, even in that
country where the little mountain torrents were frequently
named ; this stream had no distinctive appellation. It was
not known by any name. They called it "a certain water."
It was so small that they came (sttj) upon it before they ob-
served it. They came upon it unexpectedly. This appears
from the expression of delightful astonishment made by the
Eunuch when he saw the water; "See, here is water;"
(i'5ou L'^ojp) or behold, water.* The stream was so small that
it had no distinctive name ; it was not even known by the
Ethiopian Eunuch. Indeed, the expression (n u^wp) in Greek,
translated "a certain water," is diminutive, and elegantly
expresses a small stream which had no distinctive name ap-
propriated to it. In this little stream, the Eunuch could not
have been immersed, unless a pit had been dug in the sand,
or the water raised by a dam (tZ). It is not likely that he
and Philip either dug a hole in the sand so large that when
filled with water immersion could be performed, or erected a
dam across it so high that immersion might be possible. It is
certain that God has left us no evidence in his word that
they did or attempted to do either. Besides, if immersion
(a) Sec Un. B. Die. Art. Jordan, &c. (b) This plare is GO miles south west of Je«
rnsalem, and about "20 from the Mediterranean Sea. (c) See Sacred Geo^'rapiiy. *Act»
8' 36 in Oreek and English, (d) See Jerome on the passage p. 41, Sandy's Travels,
B. 2, p. 142, and other travels through Palestine..
Ch. 6, § 1.] IMMERSION IMPROBABLE. 115
had been necessary to baptism in the Eunuch's case, it would
have been much more convenient for him to have gone to
the Jordan, or to the river of Egypt, than to have prepared,
in that little brook, a place in which he could have been im-
mersed. It is therefore not at all probable that the Eunuch
was baptized by immersion, (6.) The jailer " was baptized"
in the Philippian prison. He had " thrust" Paul and Silas
*'into the inner prison," and "made their feet fast in the
stocks." At " midnight" they " prayed and sang praises to
God." By an earthquake "the foundations of the the pris-
on were shaken." The *' prison doors were opened." The
jailer was alarmed ; '• sprang in" to the inner prison where
Paul and Silas were ; fell down before them ; " brought them
out" of the inner prison ; enquired what he should do to be
saved ; was directed to believe in Christ ; " the same hour
of the night" he "washed their stripes — was baptized," and'
*• bi'ought them into his house."* From this account, it is
evident that the jailer was baptized in the prison, though not
in the cells into which Paul and Silas had been thrust ; and
that after his baptism, he took them to his own apartment.
It is not said or intimated that they went out of the prison or
to a river. Nor is it probable that a jailer, under the Roman
Government, would, at midnight, take his prisoners out of
the prison-house to a stream to be immei*sed by one of them.
Moreover, it is certain that Paul and Silas did not go out of
the prison that night. This is clear from the fact that they
would not leave it the next morning, though permitted to do
so, until "the magistrates — came and — brought them outt."
If they had been out already ivithout permission from the ma-
gistrates, it would have been mere trifling to refuse to come out
again luith their permission. Paul and Silas were not guilty
of such an inconsistency. Not the least hint is given us in the-
account that they passed the prison-gate till the magistrates-
came and brought them out. By doing this they publicly
acknowledged that the imprisonment of Paul and Silas had
been undeserved according to the Roman law. There is,
therefore, no evidence that these servants of Christ took the
jailer to a river at midnight to baptize him, but positive ev-
idence to the contrary. Besides, not a word was said of a
cistern in the prison. Indeed, to suppose that a government,
*Acts 16: -^-34. jAcls 16: 37-39.
116 BIBLE BAITISM. [b. 11, P, I,
crue] as that of Pagan Rome, would keep a bath in the pris-
on to promote the happiness of those whom it often incarce"
rated without a crime, and, in sport, tossed to the ravenous
wild beast, would not only be improbable, but would crown
the climax of absurdity. But since he was not taken out to
a river, and since there is not the least probability that there
was a cistern in the prison, it is exceedingly improbable that
the jailer was immersed.
2. It is not probable that the Jeics always imviersed them-
selves before their meals. That they were accustomed to cer-
emonially wash or baptize themselves before meals is clear-
ly taught in the word of God. A "certain Pharisee besought"
our Saviour ■" to dine with him." He accordingly "went in
and sat down to meat ; and when the Pharisee saw it, he
marvelled that he had not first washed" (^sjBoLitTKi&ri) or bap-
tized, "before dinner;" and again it is said of "all the
Jews,'' " when they come from the market, except they
wash," (/3ax).
It symbolizes the work of God's Spirit on the souls of the
(a) See M-^r.sh Eccle. Hist, 5tli Ed. 1836, n. 334, 335. and other Eccle, Ilists. Ci)
B.i, P. iv.Ch, ],§9,
Ch. 7, ^ 1.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 121
truly converted, when, in regeneration, he applies to them
the atoning blood of Christ. A large quantity of water is
not necessary for this purpose. Neither scripture nor rea-
son teaches that water enough to immerse the body is neces-
sary to symbolize the purification of the soul from sin. It is
not probable therefore, that this quantity is required or was
always used for baptism.
8. It is not probable that tables or couches upon which per-
sons formerly reclined at meals, were immersed. These were
so large that at least twelve persons might recline at once
on one of them while they were eating together. The
'* washing'' of these " tables" is, in the original, expressly
called {Qairnd^oxjg) the baptizing of them.* Now it is en-
tirely improbable that these tables or couches (a) were im-
mersed every time they were washed or baptized. It is there-
fore utterly improbable that baptize always means immerse,
or that immersion and that only, is baptism.
CHAPTER VII.
IMMERSION FOR BAPTISM IMPOSSIBLE.
1. The Lord Jesus Christ ivould not require baptism to be
administered in such a way as to destroy life. To imagine
that he would, is to suppose that he would act totally incon-
sistent with his character. He "came not to destroy men's
lives, but to save." He "was holy, harmless,'' and " unde-
filed." To imagine therefore that he would direct his min-
istering servants to baptize in such a mode as to violate the
command, " Thou shalt not kill,"t would be to suppose that
he would act inconsistent with himself. That he would thus
act, is impossible ; because to do so would be inconsistent
with his Divine nature. The commission, "Go ye — and
teach all nations, baptizing them,"| includes persons in every
state or condition in life. It therefore includes the sick,
whatever may be their disease. To immerse or put entire-
ly under water, especially in winter, those who are in cer-
tain stages of some diseases (Z>), would destroy life almost as
*See Mark 7: 4, John 13: 22. 23. 28 in Greek, (a) These were used for sleeping on
at night and for eating from during the day. Hence they may be called either tables or
couches; see Greek Lexicons on (xXjvrj) and xXjvW.) fEx- 20:13. :j;Mat. 28; 19.
(b) Such as the yellow, spotted, putrid and some other fevers.
122 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, V. I.
soon as poison. Humanity shudders at the very idea of kil-
ling a sick person by immersion. And if that is the only
mode of baptism, then immersers must destroy life by this
act or some diseased persons cannot obey the command
which requires them to be " baptized. '^ 'io command all
the sick in every stage of every disease and at any season
of the year to be immersed, is manifestly inconsistent with
the character of him who "will have mercy and not sacri-
fice." He does not, in the case of any diseased person, dis-
pense with obedience for a single day, whatever may be the
degree or nature of his complaint. No person, however se-
vere the cold may be, is authorized by the word of God to
defer his baptism for any length of time, till his health is re-
stored. In the scriptures no direction is given by which an
individual is required, authorized or even permitted, to defer
his baptism in consequence of disease. \^ it is impossible
for believers in Divine revelation, to suppose that Christ
would require his ministers to destroy life in the administra-
tion of this ordinance, it is equally impossible for such to be-
lieve that immersion is the only mode of baptism. The
opinion that death has been caused or hastened and disease
induced by immersion, is not mere theory. Instances are
known where both these evils have resulted from putting the
bodies of diseased persons and others under water for bap-
tism. The command, " Thou shalt not kill," stands in the
way, therefore, of the notion that immersion is the only
mode of baptism.
2. It is impossible for a person to he immersed while stand-
ing. Paul was directed to " arise and be baptized ;" and it
is expressly stated that he " arose and was baptized."*
To be immersed, a person must be laid down on his face or
on his back in the water, and then thrust under the element ;
or he must kneel down in it and be turned over forward till
he is eniiroly covered with the water. Some immersers
adopt one of these modes and some another, as their fancies
or leaders may dictate. But none of them ever think of ri-
sing up to be immersed ; this impossibility they have not yet
attempted. It is, therefore, as impossible for immersion to
be the only scriptural mode of baptism, as it would be for
Paul or others to be immersed while standing.
*Acts 2-2: 16, and 9: 18.
Ch. 7, § 3-4.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 123
3. A person cannot he immersed by applying water to him.
In every mode of immersion, and in every case, the person
is applied to the water, and not the water to the person. No
class of immersers, however their fancies may lead them
into absurdities, have yet attempted to immerse persons by
applying water to them. But wherever in the word of God
this matter is mentioned, water is spoken of as being applied
to the person baptized ; and in no one instance is the person
represented as being applied to the water. John, it is said,
"baptized with water"* (a) ; but in no instance is it said
that he aj)plied persons to or put them under the water. Pe-
ter says, " can any man forbid water that" Cornelius and
his friends "should not be baptized ?"! not, can any man
forbid these to be put under water ? As water is applied to
the person in baptism, and as it is impossible to immerse by
applying water to any one, so it is therefore impossible for
immersion to be the only mode of baptism. The use of the
preposition loith after the word baptize excludes the possibili-
ty of immersion being the only mode of administering that
ordinance. " With water'*' does not signify under water.
The word with never denotes under or below the surface.
When therefore God in his word declares that baptism " with
w^ater" was practiced, he teaches, by such language, that im-
mersion was not the mode. Indeed, the language used shows
that in such instances immersion could not have been the
mode. The original word (sv) translated with, often denotes
at^ sometimes in, and occasionally it has other significations;
but in the Greek language it does not signify below the sur-
face or under water. When, therefore, it is said of a man ;
he baptized (ev) ''with water," it is certain that the language
teaches that water is by him applied in baptism to persons,
and not the persons to the water. It is also certain that to
baptize "with water" cannot be immersion ; because to im-
merse is not to baptize " with water." It is 1o put or have
the person go entirely under that element. To those who
are baptized "with water," the fluid is applied. Such bap-
tism cannot be immersion ; for in this last the person is in-
variably applied to the water, not the water to him.
4. It is impossible to immerse persons on dry ground.
*Mat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16, John 1: 26. 3:3. (a) See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 3, $ 6.
fActs 10; 47.
124 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
This is so manifest that no one ever thinks of making the at-
tempt. Nor could any person wlio had no favorite scheme
to defend, ever imagine it [)ossible to put an individual en-
tirely under water on dry ground. The Israelites in esca-
])ing from Egyptian bondage passed through the Red Sea.
God opened a passage for them. This must have been at
least tbrty rods wide. This opening in the sea was "dry
ground ;'' from this the waters had retired and stood as a
wall on either hand. Almost every conceivable form of ex-
pression is used in God's word, to show that this opening in
the sea, through which the Israelites passed, was not covered
with water to the depth of a single inch. The fact that the
ground on this opening in the midst of the sea was dry, is
frequently stated. In six different places this opening on
which the Israelites are said to have passed through the sea,
is called "dry land ;" and in two others it is called *'dry
ground."* It is also said, in relation to this opening : ** the
channels of the sea appeared ;'' God said " to the deep, be
dry;'' He "dried the sea" — and "made the depths of the
sea a way for the ransomed to pass over;" the " Red Sea
was dried up, so he led'' his people " through the depths as
through the wilderness ;'' they "went through the flood on
foot ;" he " divided the Red Sea into parts ;'' and speaking
of the remnant of God's people, the prophet says of them,
they shall go over "the tongue of the Egyptian sea-— dry-
shod — as — Israel — came up out of the land of Egypt."!
This opening, therefore, in the Red Sea, through which the
Israelites passed in escaping from Egyptian bondage, was
"dry land" — " dry ground" — a " way" — like " the wilder-
ness" — was "dry" — was " dried" — " appeared" to the eye ;
and they went over it " on foot" — as the}^ did " through the
wilderness, dry-shod." No language can present more
pointed proof that the Israelites "walked upon dry land in
the midst of the sea." But while in the midst of the sea
on this dry land, they "were all baptized" (s».c) "unto Mo-
ses."! Here then the whole Hebrew nation were baptized
on the "dry ground" on which they passed through the sea.
But it is impossible to immerse persons on "dry ground ;"
*Ex. 14: IG. 21. 22. 29, and 15: 19, Neh. 9: 11, Ps. 66: 6, Heb. 11: 29. f2 Sam. 22: 16,
Josh. 4: 2-3. Isa. 44: 27, and 51: 10, Ps. 106: 9, and 66; 6, and 13^; 13, Isa. 11: 15. 16.
U t'or. 10: 2,
Ch. 7, § 5.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. l25
therefore it was impossible for these Israelites who were bap-
tized on "dry ground" to have been immersed ; and conse-
quently immersion, as the only mode of baptism, is impossi-
ble. They were also baptized "in the cloud."* But before
the sea was divided, " the cloud went from before — and stood
behind them." It thus "came between the camp of the
Egyptians and the camp of Israel. "f In passing from the
front to the rear of Israel's camp, the cloud " poured out wa-
ter.''! In this way they were baptized " in" (sv) or with
" the cloud"(a). But to be baptized with water falling out
of a cloud in drops, is certainly not immersion. And every
one knows, that when a cloud pours down water, it comes in
drops. Nor did the cloud return and spread itself over the
Israelites, after they had entered the sea ; so that the cloud
might be over ihem and the sea on either hand. There is
not the least intimation in the word of God, that the cloud
was spread over the Hebrews while they were " in the midst
of the sea." But if it had been, this would have been a sin-
gular kind of immersion. The walls of water, as Israel
passed through the sea, were more than forty rods apart, and
eighty feet or more high. Persons in the midst of this pas-
sage would have been at least twenty rods from water, in-
stead of being immersed in or put entirely under the fluid.
Besides, at this very time, they were on "dry ground" and
"dry-shod." In such an immersion, a drop of water could
not touch a person, except the exceedingly small particles of
spray from the sea. If the Israelites, before they entered
the opening made for them in the Red Sea, had been sur-
rounded with the cloud, only particles of mist would have
rested upon them. This baptism in or with a cloud, where
only drops of rain or mist could fall on them, was such as to
render immersion in that case impossible. As to immerse
on dry ground, or with drops falling from a cloud is impos-
sible, so this baptism "unto Moses" in (sv) or with "the
cloud and in" (sv) or with " the sea," could not possibly have
been immersion.
5. It is impossible for a person to immerse himself or he
immersed in a vessel containing less than twenty-five gallons.
it was the custom of the Jews to perform their ceremonial
*1 Cor. 10: 2. jEx. It: 19. 20. $Ps. 77: 17. (a) B. ii, P. i, Ch. 3, $ 6.
1*20 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
purifications in stone " water-pots'^ — "containing two or
three firkins apiece"*(fl). These might contain trom one
to twenty-three gallons each. Of these purifications of the
Jews, it is said, " except they wash'' (/Sa'rrjo'wvT-aj) or bap-
tize, as it is in the original, "they eat not." That the Jews
were accustomed to wash or baptize before their ordinary
meals, is manifest from the fact that the Pharisee "marvel-
ed" because our Savior had not " washed," (^sfBwn'rKfQ'n) or
baptized " before dinner."! Had the omission to wash be-
fore meals been customary, the Pharisee would not have
'■' marveled" when he observed the Lord Jesus Christ sitting
down at the table without attending to this traditionary cere-
monial observance. It is manifest therefore that the Jews
were accustomed to wash or purify themselves ceremonially
before they ate their ordinary meals. These their ceremo-
nial washings are in the original expressly called baptisms.
When it is said of these purifications, they "wash" or
" washed," the Greek word for baptize or baptized is used.t
But they were accustomed to wash or baptize themselves in
*'• water-pots of stone," containing, at the very most, less
than twenty-five g^\\ons(a). That these baptisms or wash-
ings were by immersion, is, therefore, as. impossible, as it
would be to immerse a full-grown man in a vessel containing
not less than one, or more than twenty- three gallons. It is
perfectly manifest that an adult person could not possibly be
immersed in such a vessel. But as the washing of adults in
these water-pots, is called baptism, so it is perfectly certain
that this baptism in these pots, not greatly exceeding in size
a half-barrel, and perhaps much less, could not possibly be
immersion ; and that, therefore, immersion cannot possibly
be the only scriptural mode of baptism.
6. Without a miradci it would he impossihle for one man
to immerse five thousand persons each day for five hundred
days in succession. The time which intervened between the
Gommencement of John's public ministry and its close, did
not much, if any, exceed a year and a half. During this
time, " Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round
about Jordan — were baptized of him." These, vvith those he
^John 2: 6 (w) A firkin is a Greek measure. Its exact capacify is not known. It
did not however contjiin less than one gallon, nor more than seven aid a half. Per-
haps different firkins vyere cf Uifterent sijjes. ]M.). In regeneration, neither soul nor body is
immersed; but in the subjects of this gracious operation a
new nature, a new heart, spiritual life, all the christian gra-
ces and affections, are produced by that " Divine power''
which gives to God's people '' all things that pertain unto
life and godliness."t \n baptism with the Holy Ghost,
therefore, when the expression denotes regeneration, noth-
ing like the entire submersion of either soul or body in water
or in any thing else, is mentioned. No person surely, can
imagine that the regeneration of the soul, is the immersion
of the body.
Baptism with the Holy Ghost, is an expression which also
denotes his miraculous powers, especially the gift of tongues
on the day of Pentecost. The disciples were thus " bapti-
zed" not "many days" after the resurrection of Christ. J
When they received this miraculous baptism ; "there came
a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind and it
filled all the house where they were sitting." "Cloven
tongues" then "sat upon each of them" — "and they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost," not immersed in the Spirit ;
and then they "began to speak with other tongues as the
Spirit gave them utterance."^ The apostles in this baptism
were "filled with the Holy Ghost ;" and the cloven tongues
or the fire or the sound "sat upon each of them." It was
ra;See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, ^ 11. *Mat. 3: 11, Acts 1: 5, rWSeeB. i, P. v, Ch.l, $ 2. t2
Pet, 1. 3. tActs 1: 5. $Acts 2: 2-4.
Ch. 7, ^ 12, 13.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 131
impossible for them at that time to have been immersed
in the Spirit ; because they were then filled with the Spirit
or the Spirit was in them. Nor is it said or intimated that
they were entirely covered with the Spirit. The tongues
sat upon them ; the sound like that of a mighty wind, came
*' from heaven" into the house ; so that into these there
could be no immersion ; and if there was, it would not be
immersion into the Spirit.^ but into sound or wind. But no
man can imagine, that to be baptized with sound or wind, if
such a thing was mentioned, is the s:ime as to be baptized
with the Holy Ghost. God, in no passage of his word, says
any thing of baptism with sound or wind. Besides, they
were not put into the sound or v/ind ; but the sound, like
that of a rushing wind, came into and filled the house in
which they were. As the sound or wind filled the house,
the disciples might have been surrounded with one or both
of these ; but this would be essentially different from im-
mersion ; and it would be impossible for any person to sup-
pose that sound or wind resting on them, was baptism with
the Holy Ghost. When baptism with the Spirit, signifies
his miraculous influences ; it simply intimates that God
works miracles of some kind by the persons thus baptized.
In this baptism. Divine power is exercised through those who
are thus enabled to work miracles. But that the baptism in
which the Spirit entered the apostles, or by which they were
enabled to work miracles, or by the influence of which per-
sons are truly regenerated, is immersion or the putting of
the body entirely under water, is not only impossible, but
absolutely absurd.
12. Baptism " wlthjlre^^ cannot he immersion. The ex-
pression, "baptism — with fire"* when used of christians,
may denote the purifying influence of the blood of Christ
applied to the soul by the Holy Spirit in the work of sanc-
tification. But whether this is or is not the true import of
the expression ; it is certain that it cannot mean the immer-
sion of the body in water. To baptize "with fire" cannot
signify to cover the body with water. Fire and water are
opposite elements ; to be baptized with fire therefore cannot
signify to be immersed or covered entirely with water.
13. The baptism of our Saviour with sufferings in the gar-
*Mat. 3: 11, Luke 3: 16.
laa BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
den of Gethsemane and on the cross, could not have been by im-
mersion. The Lord Jesus Christ speaking of these sulFer-
ings, says ; " I have a baptism to be baptized with and how
am I straitened till it be accomplishetl/^* AVhen he was
suffering in tlie garden ; he said, "my soul is exceeding sor-
rowful even unto death." Here " his sweat was as it were
great drops of blood falling down to the ground." He "fell
on his face" in prayer while enduring the wrath of God in
behalf of sinnei's.t But in all this baptism with sufferings,
there is nothing that resembles immersion ; nothing that ren-
ders it possible that, in receiving this baptism, his body
was entirely covered with water. No one can imagine that
while he was baptized with suffering on the cross, his body
was taken down from the tree and immersed in water. The
baptism of Christ with sufferings could not then have been
by immersion; because this his baptism was anguish of soul,
not the application of water to the body. It is impossible
for such a baptism to be by immersion.
14. That which is indecent^ cannot he the only mode of
lapism. In Christ's kingdom "all things" must "be done
decently and in order. "| But in immersion are many
things so indecent that to them, modest females could not
easily be induced to submit, if their minds were pointedly di-
rected to them. A few of these may be noticed here. (1.)
The immersed wade up to the waist in water. (2.) They
are laid down flat in the water. (3.) The dress of females
often floats on the surface of the element. (4.) The wet
dress adheres to the limbs of females in a very indecent man-
ner, while they are walking out of and returning from the
water. Such indecent practices cannot be indispensable to
an ordinance of Christ's church; where "all things" must
*' be done decently" as well as " in order." Many indecen-
cies formerly practiced by immersers are too gross to be men-
tioned here.
15. That cannot he the only mode of ha^ptism^ which agi'
tates the mind and renders it for the time unft for serious
Viought and solemn devotion. That immersion does this,
every one knows who has been suddenly put entirely under
water. By the act of immersing a person, his ears and nose
*Luke 1-2: 50, See also Mat. 20: 2-2. 23, Mark 10: 38, 3». tMat. 26: 36. 33. 39, Mark
14: 32-35, Luke 22: 44. U <^or- 1^= W.
Ch. 7, § 16.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 133
are filled with water. During the time his head is below
the surface, he cannot breathe. While this part of the cere-
mony is in progress, the person can have no serious devo-
tional exercises. The expectation of being submerged, agi-
tates the person more or less. Wet garments must, after
immersion, be removed and their places supplied with others.
This always and almost necessarily follows immersion. All
these and similar exercises are very far from being consist-
ent with the solemnity of a Divine ordinance As therefore
immersion agitates the mind, is inconsistent with solemni-
ty and turns away the thoughts from God and devotion, at,
and for a time after, the person is put under the water ; so
it cannot possibly be, that Divine wisdom has adopted that
as the only mode of baptism. God acts consistently with
himself. He does not command men to offer him solemn
service and devout worship, in that^ the very performance
of which destroys solemnity and devotion. If any person is
not convinced that immersion does this, he can satisfy him-
self of the fact by going suddenly under water.
16. It is impossible for that baptism which denotes the Old
Testament washings^ to be immersion. These washings are
collectively called (/Sa'TTTj^jaoic:) baptisms.* In the whole
Old Testament scriptures, where these various ceremonial
washings are very frequently mentioned, they are not once
called immersions. VV'hen the mode of these is mentioned,
it is not in any case said to be by immersion. For one who
takes the word of God for his only rule in all religious du-
ties, to believe that these baptisms which are never called
immersions in Divine revelation, were always performed by
i?nmersion, is impossible.
Moreover, it may be observed here, that all religious or-
dinances of Divine appointment, are addressed to the under-
standing, to the heart and to the conscience ; never to the
imagination or to the fancy. It is a well known fact that
immersion so operates on the imagination or fancy of the
careless and prayerless part of a community, that they will,
at almost any time, leave their other amusements to see a
person immersed. Immersion therefore, since it is addres-
sed to the imagination or fancy, cannot be one of tho'^^o Di»
*.See Heb, 9: 10 in Greek,
134 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
vine ordinances which are not addressed to either of these
mental powers.
Thus it is manifest that the word baptize is often used
where it is impossible for it to denote immerse. It is there-
fore absolutely impossible for a true believer in Divine reve-
lation, after he has carfully examined this subject, to believe
that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
CHAPTER VIII.
ASSERTIONS AND QUKSTIONS.
1. Assertions cannot prove immersion to he baptism, or
the only mode of baptism. If they could, proof in abundance
on this subject would thus be furnished. That immersion is
the only mode of baptism, is often asserted with as much as-
surance, as if the declaration was, not only made, but fre*
quently made, in the word of God. When the inquirer af-
ter truth, takes the liberty of reading the scriptures for him-
self, and does not find the word immerse used so much as
once for any purpose whatever, in the whole of Divine rev-
elation ; nor yet find it intimated in a single passage, that
any person was put under water for baptism ; he feels as if
attempts had been made to impose on his common sense.
The assertions most frequently made by immersers on this
subject, may here be noticed. (1.) They often assert, that
the original word (jScfTr-rj^oj) for baptize always signifies im-
lYierse. But God in his word does not tell us that it always
or ever has such a signification (a) ; so that on this point,
we have n.orely their assertion instead of proof. This does
not pass current with all persons as a substitute for Divine
revelation. (2.) Tliey often assert, that immersion is the
principal meaning of 4he original word for baptize. But
the word of God does not say this. It is mere assertion
without proof. If how^ever this were its principal significa-
tion ; no evidence would thereby be furnished to prove that
immersion is the only mode of baptism. If this assertion
were true, (but it is not,) it would simply prove that immer-
sion is one mode of baptism ; not that it is the only mode.
(3.) It is often asserted^ that immersion is the original mean*
(a) See Ch, 1,^7,
Ch. 8, § 1.] ASSERTIONS ON IMMERSION. 135
ing of the word baptize. By this expression, they seem to
intimate that the Greek word for baptize originally denoted
immerse and nothing else. But here again we have nothing
but a bold assertion, totally destitute of truth. Besides, the
word of God makes no such statement. (4.) It is often as-
serted, that the root [fSwitToj) from which the original word
((Bwn'ri^u)) for baptize is derived, always signifies immerse.
But in the scriptures no such declaration is made. Moreover,
the assertion itself is entirely destitute of truth. All these
and similar statements are mere assertions without the least
semblance of proof from the word of God. They are in
fact only false assertions. (5.) It is stated, that Philip and
the Eunuch went down into the water ; but it is not said that
they went down under the water («). When persons are
immersed, they do more than go into, they also go or are
put under the water. To go into the water is not to be im-
mersed. Many persons go into the water who do not go
under its surface. (6.) Jt is asserted, to prove immersion,
that the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as Philip and the Eu-
nuch, " came up out of the water;'' but to come out of the
water is not to come from under it (Z>). Many persons have
come out of the water who had never been immersed, or
been under its surface. 1 hose who have been immersed
come from under, not merely out of the water. Those who
have been in or into the water one inch or six, come out of
it. Those who have been immersed, come from under it,
or from below its surface. (7.) It is asserted, thai pious
men believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
But pious men's belief is not Divine revelation. Besides,
ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred or more pious men believe that
immersion is not the only mode of baptism, where one be-
lieves that it is. (8.) It is assorted, that learned men say
that the original word (/Sa'TT^rj^w) for baptize, always denotes
immerse. But these men are not God. The scriptures con^
tain no such declaration. Besides, when a man makes such
an assertion as this, either his learning on this subject, or
his veracity will be questioned by every person who under-
stands the original scriptures and has carefully examined
that word. (9.) It is oft^n stated that, if immersion is not
baptism or the only mode of baptism ; then this ordinance is
Ca) See Ch. 3, $ 2. (b) See Ch. 3, § 3.
136 biblf: baptism. [b. ii, p. i.
not monfionod in the word oC (Uxl. Jt «loe« not follow how-
evf?r, that if iinmor.-iion in not found in (Jod's word, then
nothing oJso is found there. liaptizo or sprinkle may be
found recorded in Divine revelation, though immersion is
not. Hut if nothing was said in the scrij)tur{;.s confirming
.■sprinkling or baptism in any mode ; this silence would not
])rove immersion to be the only mode of baptism. (10. //
fs frequcnily asserted that there is as mnch evidence in fa-
vor of immersion, as there is in favor of any mode of bap-
tism. If this were the case, it would not prove immersion
to be the only rrwde of baptism, it would simply prove that
it is one mode. But if, in God's word, there is no more
evidence for baptism, than there is for immersion ; then
there is none for either ; because it has already been shown,
that, in the whf>le scriptures, there is no preceptyor immer-
sion, no example of immersion, no inferential evidence in
favor of immersion, nor even an allusion made to immer-
sion («). Hut if " tekel"* (h) must be written on immer-
sion by him who takes the word of God and that only for
evidence in religious duties ; it by no means follows that
bapti'-rri, in another mode, is efjually unsuppf^rted by Divine
revelat i(m.
Moreover, it may be remarked that the assert if)n so often
made, that tliere is as much evidence, in the word of (iod,
to sustain immersion as there is in favor of sprinkling, is
not really the position which immersers arc to [>rove. 'i'lieir
position is that immf;rsion is the, only modr. of ba[)tisrn. Hut
if there is as much evidencf; in favor of sprinkling as there
is for immersion, then sprinkling, according to this their
own admission, must be a mode of baptism, sustained by as
good evidence as immersion is. If this is true, then immer-
sion cannot be the only mode of baptism ; and the assertion
that it is such cannot bo true. WIkju he vvho asserts that
immersion is the only mode of baptism, does not even at-
tempt to present scriptural evidenee to sustain his position,
but affirms that there is as much evidence for immersion as
there is for sprinkling ; he sbriws, by employing such sophis-
try, that he is himself satisfied that (iod's word docs not sus-
(a) Hoc Ch. 1, ^ 1-K <^1.. 2, ^i l-l, Ch. a. <, 1-10, Ch. 1. ^ l-.-S. *I>!»n. .1: 2.5. 27.
n) '"I «)knl" it a Clial/lee worsti-
tute asi5ertions for prool\ it is no M-onder that they mistake
falsehood tor truth.
*2. Qursttons do not (trove that immersion in haplism or the
onlu mode of baptism. They only show the amount of know-
ledge which the individual to wluun they are proposed nu\y
possesi? or may wish to connnnnicale on thesuhject to which
they relate. The tact that ai\ individual does not answer a
question pmpv^sed to him. merely proves that ho either can-
not or will not di> sv\ It dws not prove that the ipiestion
nsked cannot he answered hy othei^s. It does not even prove
that the question is a ditVunilt one. If a person should as-
sert that iUo President of the Initeti States receive^! a ^alarv
of one huntiivtl thousand dollars a year, he ought to prove
the p»-vsition he maintained hy making such an assertion,
liut if when pro«.>f is demanded, the asserter in his wisdom
enquires ; if he does not receive this sum annually, why does
he cotnmission so n\anv naval olUcers I every person could
perceive that this question could not prove his assertion to
be true. It would be perfe^-tly nmnil'est that, whether this
question was answered correctly or incorrectly, or n»>t at all,
the answer could not prove that the Tresident receivtni an
annual salary of a hvmdred thousand or of tweuty-tive thou-
sand ilollai*s((i). It cvndtl not even pnn'e that he received
any salary. The answer to any one question or u»ore can
only prove the amount of knowledge pt^ssessed by the indi-
vidual questioned. Hut to prove that any o!m person or
more pcvsijesses a large or a small amount of knowledge on
the subject of baptisn*, or on any other s(»bject. canuv»t piwe
that immersion is or is not baptism or the otily mode kA' Uip-
tisni. To prove tho exclusive claims of iuuiiersioti, sonte-
(n) Ho n-coivcs t\\-<»«ty-fi\-« tlu)osaiut «loll,.»s « jtar.
138 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
thing more than asking questions, is necessary. Indeed,
this plan of asking questions, instead of presenting positive
proof, is a plan often resorted to by designing men to sus-
tain, in appearance, a cause which they perceive, has, in
reality, no support. They suppose the person cannot an-
swer the question proposed to him. If they are right in this
their supposition, they endeavor to leave the impression on
his mind, that the proof of the position is therefore complete.
If the first question they propose is answered correctly, they
ask another, and thus continue on, till the person they are
questioning discovers their intrigue or fails to answer. But
it ought always to be remembered that asking or answering
questions never proves any thing, but the amount of know-
ledge possessed by him who answers them and the intrigue
of such as propose them. On this point, they make an ap-
peal to the real or supposed ignorance of the persons they
question ; and then endeavor by that ignorance, if it exists,
to sustain their position, instead of domg so by fair argument
or positive proof.
When immersers begin to see how utterly unfounded their
exclusive claims are ; and how completely destitute they are
of scriptural evidence to support their much-loved system of
immersion as the only, or even as a mode of baptism ex-
pressly taught in Divine revelation, they then resort to ques-
tions. They enquire ; why did John baptize "in Jordan,"
or " in Enon" if he did not immerse 1 Why did Philip and
the Eunuch go down into the water, if the latter was not
immersed ? Why did Christ, as well as Philip and the Eu-
nuch, " come up out of the water," if they were not immers-
ed ? Now thesf^ questions, whether they are or are not an-
swered correctly, cannot prove that immersion is or is not, a
mode, or the only mode of baptism. To answer or not to
answer these, and a thousand similar questions, would really
prove nothing either for or against immersion. If, when
these questions were asked, the person to whom they were
proposed, should say that he could not answer them ; cer-
tainly his ignorance on this part of the subject of baptism,
would not prove that immersion is the only mode of admin-'
istering that ordinance. If he should attempt to answer
them and fail to do so correctly, his failure could not possi-
Ch. 8, § 2.] QUESTIONS ON IMMERSION. 139
bly prove that immersion is baptism or the only mode of bap-
tism. But if he answered them correctly, his knowledge on
this point, would be as tar from sustaining the exclusive
claims of immersion, as his ignorance. Whether therefore
the questions were answered correctly, or incorrectly, or not
at all, there could be no evidence furnished by the answers
to prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. All
that the answers could possibly prove, would be the amount
of knowledge which the person who gave them, could and
would communicate on this particular subject.
These questions are not answered in the word of God.
The answers to them cannot therefore be a matter of im-
portance in a religious point of view. Th-^y cannot be even
a part of the religion of the christian ; for this plain reason;
they are not recoi'ded in the scriptures. What is not reveal-
ed in God's book, is not, and cannot be made by man, a por-
tion of the religion of christians. It is however, no difficult
matter to find answers to these questions. But it ought to
be remembered, that whether they are answered right or
wrong, or not at all, no proof can be furnished by the an-
swers in favor of immersion being the only mode of baptism.
John baptized in or at the Jordan, " with" its waters,* in
order that " the multitude,'' who came to his baptism, might
have water with which to refresh themselves and their beasts.
He baptized *' in Enon," not because the water was suffi-
ciently deep to immerse persoiis in, but because there was
"much" of it ** there.'' The word " much" does not ex-
press depth, but number. This is one meaning of the word
in English and deep is not. The original word {^oWol) for
much, very frequently expresses number and never depth.
It literally signifies, and is usually translated " many." This
word '* many," generally, if not universally, indicates num-
ber. When "the Lord" said of Athens; "I have much
people in this city," the word *' much" certainly expresses
number. In this and the other passage, the same Greek
word is used.t In one passage it is used in the singular, and
in the other it is in the plural number. The fact that " in
Enon" water boils up out of the ground in a number of pla-
ces (a), and a small rivulet runs f^rom each, so as to unite in
*Mat. 3: 6. 11, Mark 1: 8. 9. Luke 3: 7. 16. fJoha 3: 23, Acts 18: 9. 10 in Greek and
English, (a) See Sacred Geography.
140 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I.
a little reservoir a few inches deep, from which a very small
brook flows, is another evidence that the word " much" is
expressive of number, not of dej)th. From these small
springs, man and beast might easily be refreshed with drink.
But in not one of them, could an adult be immersed, unless
the water was raised by some artificial means ; and there
is not the least hint that any thing of this kind was done or
attempted. John baptized at Enonthen, not because there
was deep water there to immerse adults in ; but because
there were {y6ara iroWa) many waters or several small
springs there, from which those who came to be baptized,
might easily obtain water to drink. It may be farther ob-
served that there is no intimation in this passage that this
" much water" was necessary for, or that it was used in,
baptism. Besides, one person at one and the same time,
could not use {y^ara rroWa) many streams or places of wa-
ter in administering baptism in any mode whatever. Philip
and the Eunuch went down to, toioards or into [a) the water
for the sake of convenience. They stepped out of the chari-
ot, and down to or perhaps a few inches " n?io" the water,
that Philip might readily obtain so much of the element that
with it he might baptize the Eunuch. They cameyro7?i the
water, or if they went a few inches into it, then they came
out .of it (Z>), 710^ froi?i under its surface, that they might re-
turn to the chariot. Jesus Christ came from the water, or
if he had stepped a few inches into the edge of the Jordan,
he Came out of, not from under \\s waters (c), that he might
retire into *' the wilderness"* and then " finish" the remain-
der of his " work" on earth. t Thus these questions which
are so often proposed, are answered. • But whether they are
answered riglit or wrong, is a matter equally indifl^erent so
far as immersion is concerned. If the answers are correct,
immersion is not thereby proved to be the only mode of bap-
tism ■; nor is that point proved, if each ainswer is totally in-
correct. The answers prove neither more nor less than that
the author of them has and chooses to communicate, a cer-
tain amount of knowledge on these particular parts of the
subject of baptism. From these remarks it is manifestly an
undeniable fact, that questions, however answered, or if not
(a) See Cli, 3, $ 4. (b) See Ch. 3, ) teaches that the original word (/Sa'rrrj^w) for bap-
tize has a great variety of meanings. Seven of the princi-
pal authors (c) who have made it their business to explain
the meaning of Greek words, give together, more than for-
ty different significations to the Greek word (/SaTrTi^w) for
baptize. The whole of them present the following as the
true signification of the original word in the various connec-
tions in which it is used by different writers. It denotes,
they say, to purify, wash, sprinkle, dip, immerse, submerge,
plunge, sink, depress, humble, overwhelm, bathe, paint, be
dejected, cleanse, baptize, saturate, perform ablution, imbue
largely, cleanse ceremonially, soak thoroughly, receive bap-
tism, be baptized, bestow liberally, confound totally, drench
with wine, be immersed, overwhelm with any thing, admin-
ister the rite of baptism, procure one's own baptism, receive
the gifts or miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, be im-
mersed in a sea or flood of afflictions, endanger one's life, to
(a) Lexicon is the name usually given to a book which explains the meaning of
words in the Greek and Hebrew languages.
It is worthy of observation liere that a few years ago, imnjersers were accustomed to
admit that the Lexicons were against their exclusive notions ; (See Dr. Miller on Bap-
tism.) Now, and for the last eight or ten years, they assert that all, or all the principal
Lexicons sustain their system ; (See Bliss on Baptism.) That they were formerly right
in relation to the Lexicons will be manifest to those who examine this subject, (b)
Writers of Lexicons, (c) See the GreeK Lexicons written by Grove, Pickering,
Greenfield, Schleusner, Donoegan, Schrevelius, and Farkhurst.
142 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. ll.
die, bind to the performance of some duty, impose obliga-
tion by baptism, receive the rite of baptism, be baptized to
any one, bind one's self to honor, obey and follow any one,
be initiated by the rite of baptism, be prodigal towards one,
be immersed in or overwhelmed with miseries, oppressed
with calamities, wash witlj water in token of purification
from sin or spiritual pollution, immerse repeatedly into a
liquid, voluntary reception of baptism, and dip in a vessel
and draw. Several of these meanings, it will be seen, are
nearly synonymous. They are all that are given by seven
of the principal Greek Lexicographers. Nor is it known
that any other Greek Lexicon will add any thing of impor-
tance to these significations. Certain it is, that no other
Lexicon will add any thing more to what these say on the
subject of immersion. The original word (/Sa-Trrj^oj) for bap-
tize has however a number of other meanings (a), though
the Lexicons do not mention any more. These Greek Lex-
icographers, it is manifest, do not teach that immersion is
the only signification of the original word for baptize ; nei-
ther do they intimate that immersion is the only mode of
baptism. Four of them (b) clearly teach that in the New
Testament, 'the original word {Bairri^u) for baptize, does
not signify immerse; and these alone of the seven distin-
guish between its meanings in the New Testament and in
other books. Two of them (c) explain the original by Latin
words. To define the Greek word (/SaTTTK^w) lor baptize,
they use the Latin words {baptizo) for baptize, [mergo^ for
dip, {abluo) for wash, and (Javo') for lave, sprinkle or draw
out. All these Latin words are used in common by both
these writers to express the meaning of the Greek word for
baptize. One of lliem ((/) gives no other meaning to the
word. He does not therefore use {immersio^ immersus or
immergo,) a word which evidently denotes immerse as even
one of the meanings of that (/Sa-TrTj^w) for baptize. The other
(^) adds the word [im?iiergo) the word for immerse, {intingo)
that for dip in, and (jmrgo) that for purge. These seven
Lexicons are therefore very far from supporting the exclu-
sive claims of immersion. Four out of the seven definitely
teach that the word [^wn'Tt^c,)) for baptize does not, in the
(a) See Ch 2, ^ 4. (b) I'arkhurst, Pickering, Oreenfield and Schleusner. (i)
Schleusner and Schrevelius. (dj Schrevelius. (e) Schlensner.
Ch. 1, § 1.] IMMERSION EXAMINED. 143
New Testament, signify immerse. One of these four does
not give this even as a definite meaning of this term (/3a'7r-
Ti^w ;) the other three do not say whether it does or does
not, in the original scriptures, signify immerse ; and not one
of them so much as intimates, that this is the only, or even
the principal meaning of (Sairn^'.j,) the original word for
baptize. These authors therefore furnish no evidence to
prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Besides,
from the meanings which these principal Greek Lexicog-
raphers give to the original word for baptize, it is evident
that its general signification is fourfold. According to them,
it denotes, (1.) The application of water ; as when it is
used to signify wash, sprinkle, Ac. (2.) It is used when
water may or may not be used ; as when it denotes to
cleanse, saturate, overwhelm, &c. (3.) It is used when the
idea of water applied in any way, is not included in its mean-
ing ; as when it denotes to paint, depress, humble, bestow
liberally, and the like. (4.) It denotes to drink largely ;
as when it implies to drench or physic with wine. These
are the significations which the best Greek scholars give of
the word (^Baitrt^u) for baptize, instead of saying that it al-
ways denotes immerse or the submersion of what is baptized
entirely under water.
These same writers inform us that the word [Qwrrri^^^)
for baptize is derived from another ( 'Sa-Tr-roj) which signifies,
to dip, dip in, sprinkle, tinge, sink, wash, wet, moisten,
bathe, steep, imbue, dye, stain, color, plunge, immerse, sub-
merge, draw out water by dipping a vessel into it, fill by
drawing out of one vessel into another, temper metals by
immersing them in water, draw up, fill by drawing up, and
to be lost as a ship. This word, it appears, does not alwa3's
signify immersion, any more than the original one(,''3a'r-r<^w)
for baptize. Like its derivative (/Sac-ri^w) it has a large
number of meanings. It is used (1.) Where water is appli-
ed ; as when it denotes to wash, wet, sprinkle, and the like.
(2.) It is used when water is not applied ; as when it denotes
to color, dye, stain, &c. (3.) It expresses destruction wheth-
er by water or otherwise; as a ship may be lost or wrecked
on a rock as well as be foundered at sea. It is undeniably
certain, from the various meanings of the word (/^a-Trn^w)
144 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IT.
for baptize, and also from those of (/Sa'TTTw) the root from
wliicli it is derived, that immersion is far, very far, from being
the only signification of the word baptize, as given in the
Greek Lexicons. It is moreover, from the same evidence,
equally manifest that immersion cannot be the only mode of
baptism.
2. Latin Dictionaries do not teach that immersion is the
only mode of baptism. The principal writers of Latin Dic-
tionaries(a) inform us that the word (^baptizo) used in that
language for baptize, denotes to baptize any one, to wash in
a baptismal font(Z>), to sj)rinkle, to initiate into the christian
religion, and to initiate a "^person into a christian assembly.
But they do not represent immerse as being even one mean-
ing of the Latin word for baptize ; and much less do they in-
timate that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
3. French and German Dictionaries do not sustain the ex-
clusive claims of immersion. The French Dictionaries(c)
explain baptize to mean, to christen, to administer the sacra-
ment of baptism; and the German explain it by awoixl [taufcn,)
which signifies to christen, to baptize. These Dictionaries
do not even intimate that immersion is ever one of the sig-
nifications of the word baptize((i). They cannot therefore
be said in truth to inculcate the sentiment that immersion is
a mode, or the only mode of baptism.
4. Other Gothic lan^uofres do not teach that immersion is
the only mode of baptism. In the Dutch language, a word
(doopen) is used for baptize, which denotes to sprinkle, dip,
pour or baptize. It is used in connection with a preposition
which signifies with, not in or under. The Greek word
(/SctTTj^w) for baptize when translated into the Dutch lan-
guage is used in a variety of senses, besides those here men-
tioned. But to immerse, or to go or be put entirely under
water is not definitely mentioned as one of its meanings. It
denotes to apply water to the person baptized ; not to apply
the person to the water. To sprinkle is mentioned as one
of its defitiite significations. The Dutch do not use their
word (^doojjeii) for baptize which signifies to sprinkle, to de-
('a^See Ain3wortl)'s,Levere(('s, &c,, Dicfionaries. Ci^This is a sfone vessel which
contains the waier for baptism. If is found in many E|)iscoi>al Chiirclies. It contains
but a few quarts. It is nsed for sprinklinj; or pourinfr, not for immersion. (c)See Bor-
er's, Nugenl's, Meadow's &c., Diet. (d}See Turner's, Hurst's, Fosdick's, &c,. DiC'r
tionarics.
Ch. 1, § 5.] DICTIONARIES ON IMMERSION. 145
note immerse. In their language a different word is em-
ployed for this purpose. It is therefore certain that (doopen)
the Dutch word for baptize signifies to sprinkle ; and it is by
no means certain that it ever denotes immerse. It is mani-
fest therefore that the word {^doopen) used in the Dutch lan-
guage for baptize, does not sustain the notion that immer-
sion is the only, or even a mode of baptism(a). The other
Gothic languages give no more countenance to the exclu-
sives than the German and Dutch. In the Meso-gothic lan-
guage or dialect the word [daiipian) for baptize, denotes
to sprinkle, to apply water to a person in baptism. The
Saxon word [dyppan) for baptize, also the Swedish (^dopa)
and the Danish i^dobe) for baptize, all have the same signi-
fication(^). Each ot' these words for baptize denotes to sprin-
kle, to apply water to a person in baptism. In these lan-
guages these words are used in no other sense ; nor are they
used for any other purpose. Another word is used in each
of them for immerse. The preposition with which each of
them is connected excludes the possibility of immersion be-
ing the meaning of any one of the words used in tliese lan-
guages for baptize. This preposition is the word for loith.
These people all speak of baptizing with water, none of
them of baptizing in or under water. Besides, they all bap-
tize by sprinkling or pouring ; none of them by immersion.
Even the Mennonite Baptists of Holland have baptized by
pouring for more than a hundred years(c). These people
certainly understand the meaning of the words in their own
languages as well as immersers in England or America do.
These Gothic languages therefore do not teach that immer-
sion is even one mode, much less that it is the only mode of
baptism(^).
^. English i)ictionaries do not inform us that the word.
baptize always denotes immerse. The principal of these (d)
inform us that the word baptize signifies to christen, to ad-
minister the sacrament of baptism. By one of them(e) to
plunge, to apply wrateras a sign of admission into the church,
are added as other meanings of the word The term bap-
(a) See Rev. W. Brakel"^ works Rotl. Ed. 17. v. i, p. {t52 as qaoted by Rev. J. B.
Ten Eyi;k, of Bores, N. Y., Dr. Henderson. (h)\)r. Henderson; Ch. In. No. 550.
Cc^Millor. (d)^ce Johnson's, Walker's, and Webster's Dictionaries. ('e^SeeWelv-
ftiec'& duodecinio.Diciionary printed in ISOfi.
10
146 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II.
tism, they say denotes; (1.) The application of water to a
person as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he
is initiated into the visible church of Christ; (2.) The suf-
ferings of Christ. (3.) So much of the gospel as was preach-
ed by .fohn the Baptist. In one of these Dictionaries(a) bap-
tism is mentioned as a washing or sprinkling with water ; a
holy ordinance and sign of admission into Christ's church.
A noted one(Z>) teaches that baptize means to wash, to sprin-
kle, to dip, to immerse. English Dictionaries do not there-
fore teach that baptize always signifies immerse, or that im-
mersion is the only mode of baptism.
6, Writers of Concordances(c) do not teach that immersion
is the only mode of baptism. In these are frequently collect-
ed the various meanings of important words found in the
scriptures. The principal one of these(rf) says that baptism
is, (1.) An outward ordinance or sacrament wherein, the
washing with water, represents the cleansing of the soul
from sin by the blood of Christ, 1 Pet. 3: 21; (2.) An in-
ward, spiritual washing whereby the gifts and graces of the
Spirit, signified by the outward sign, are really and actually
bestowed, Mat. 3: 11 ; (3.) The sufferings of Christ, where-
by he was consecrated and prepared for his entrance upon
his kingly office, Mat. 20: 22, Luke 12: 50; (4.) So much
of the gospel as John the Baptist taught his disciples when
he baptized them. Acts 18: 25. In all this, immersion is
not so much as mentioned as one mode of baptism. It is not
once even named as a meaning of the word baptize. It is
certain therefore that immersion is not here represented as
being the only or even as being one mode of baptism.
7. Hebreui Lexicons do not teach that immersion is the only
mode of baptism. The word baptize is not found in the He-
brew language. The word (i^'c^) translated into Greek
by (Ba'TT'Tw) the root from which (Bccttt-j^w) that for baptize
is derived, and once by (Bairrj^w) the one for baptize itself,*
signifies to dip in a small part, to wet, dye, sprinkle, wash,
lunge in the ditch, &c(c). But it does not, in the Hebrew
ible, signify to put the body entirely under water. In one
(a)^ce Webster's duodecimo Dictionary printed in 1F06. ('i^Calmet. (d)A con-
fordancc i% a book in which the leadin;^ words of the Bible are so arranged that differ-
ent passages of scripture can easily be found. ('). Not one
of them gives the least intimation that this word (Ba'Trrji^w)
expresses the two parts which are essential to immersion,
and which are invariably performed when a person is im-
mersed. These are (1.) Putting that part of the person not
already wet, entirely under water; and (2.) Taking him up
again. Both these are always performed in the ceremony
of immersion. No one can therefore say with truth, that
immersion is, in the Lexicons and Dictionaries, represented
as being the only mode of baptism. It is not even certain,
from what they say, that they intend to teach that the word
baptize ever denotes any part of what is done in immersion.
It is true, that some few of them, say that one of its mean-
ings is immerse ; but these do not inform us that they then
or always use this word to denote the putting of a person un-
der water. Had they done this ; they would have definitely
shown what they supposed the word does mean, when they
give immerse as one of its significations. But the writers of
Dictionaries, whatever idea may be attached to the word im-
merse, when, it is, in some few instances, used by them as
one meaning of the word baptize, do not sustain the exclu-
sive claims of immersers. They do not altogether, nor
does any one of them, teach that the word baptize always
or necessarily signifies immerse. They do not teach that
(a)Gihhs'. (b)Ch. ^, ^ i. (c)SeQ B. i, P vii, Ch. 1, $ 4.
148 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II.
this is its original or primitive meaning. Nor do they inti-
mate that immersion is the only mode of baptism. For this,
many immersers and all the exclusives contend. This, in
fact, is the point disputed. But it would be much more easy
to prove that immersion is not a mode^ than that it is the only
mode, of baptism. More than one half of the principal Dic-
tionaries and Lexicons, in eleven different languages, teach
that immersion is not baptism, by not giving that as one of
its meanings ; while not one of them teach or intimate that
this is its only meaning, or that immersion is the only mode
of baptism. Some of the best of them teach that immersion
is not baptism, or that the word baptize does not signify im-
merse ; but none of them intimate that it is the only or even
the principal meaning of the word baptize; or that immer-
sion is the only mode of baptism. The exclusive claims of
immersers cannot therefore be sustained by the Lexicons
and Dictionaries.
CHAPTER IL
WRITERS RELATING TO IMMERSION.
1. Where the loord baptize is used in the Apoc7'ypha, it
does not teach that immersion is the . only mode of baptism.
Judith, it is said, " washed herself in a fountain,'' [zQaLitn^S'
TO — siTi TYig ifriyy\g attle whs on the verge of a s'nall lake. In the
contest a frog is said to have been killed. Mis death occurred either in the edge of the
water; or his body must, while bleeding fresh, have entered the lake. This lake was
some miles in circumference; and the elegant Greek poet, llnmer, *ays, the lake was
baptized wiih the blood of this frog. Only a very small portion of the water in this
lake was tinged or stained with or had the blood of rhis fiog-warrior ai plied to its sur-
face. The whole lake could not have been immersed in or put entirely under the blood
of one frog. Even an immerser. however ignorant or prejudiced he might be, would
hardly say that the w rd baptize here mnans inimsrse. But if if always means im-
merse, as immersers confidently assert, then this lake (poor tiling! !) must have been
put entirely under the blood of his frogship.
Cf^ Pedobaptist is one who believes in the baptism of infdOta.
Ch. 2, § 4.] GREEK WRITERS ON IMiMERSION, 151
very far from sustaining their position. Besides, with all
their boasting on this point ; it is believed that they cannot
name one Pedobaptist writer who now does, or ever has,
maintained the opmion, that immersion is the only mode of
baptism. While several of them admit, that baptism may be
administered by immersion as well as by sprinkling ; it is
not known that any among them denies the validity of the
ordinance when administered in this last named mode.
Moreover, it is not known that an individual among them
teaches in his writings or in words that immersion and that
only is baptism ; or that immersion is essential to the ordi-
nance of christian baptism. To assert therefore that Pedo^
baptist writers sustain the doctrine that immersion is the only
mode of baptism, is a crime which will not here be named.
Immersers cannot, on this point, even appeal to the Greek
church for support ; for, though that church, among its other
deviations from the word of God, generally practice the im^
mersion of their infant children ; yet there is no evidence
that they maintain the exclusive notion that nothing but im^
mersion is baptism ; but there is positive evidence to the
contrary.
4. In Greek writers the word for baptize, its root, and their
compounds, have a variety of meanings not usually mentioned
by Lexicographers. Some of these may be noticed here.
The various significations given in the Lexicons to the
Greek word (Ba-rTi^w) for baptize, and to (Ba'^'rw) the one
from which it is derived, have already been mentioned (a).
Some others, from Greek authors, will here be presented.
The reader, especially if he has an accurate knowledge of
the Greek language, will readily perceive the propriety of
these significations, from the connections in which the words
are found. The principal meanings of these words which are
not mentioned in the Greek Lexicons, are (1.) To wet a ve-
ry small part. It is said of the priest when preparing to
cleanse the leper ; *' he shall take" the living bird, and the
cedar-wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip
them— in the blood of the bird that was 'killed."* It is evi-
dent from this and other passages of scripture,! that the
(a) See Ch. 1, ^1. *Ler. 14: 6, 51 in Oreek. fSee Ex. 12: 22. Lev. 4: T. 17 and 9 :
9 and 14: 16, Num. 19: IS, Dent. 33: 24, 1 Sam. (calle.l in Greek 1 Kings,) 14: 27, in the
Greek traaslation of the Old Testament, aqd Luke 16: 24 in Greek,
152 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. 11, P. U,
Greek word (Ba-Trrw) translated dip, signifies to wet a very
small pait of what is dipped. (2.) To extend to, tozvard or
near to ; as in the passage ** he that"'' (sij.fSa-^.ac:) **dippeth
his hand with me in the dish — shall betray me."* As it
would be inconsistent with common propriety for each of
two persons to immerse or put a hand entirely under the
food in a dish out of which they and others were eating, or
even to put any part of their hands into the food ; so the
meaning of the word here translated dip, must be to extend
to, towards or 7iear to the dish out of which they were re-
ceiving food. (3.) To touch; as in the passage *' the feet
of the priests" — (s/oaipT^o'av) '•• were dipped in the brim of the
water'' of the Joi-dan.t Their feet were not in the water
but in the brim of it, or at its very edge ; that is, their feet
merely touched the water. (4.) To imt in the edge. An
elegant Greek writer says; "a smith to haiiien an iron
hatchet'^ (Bairrsi) " dips il in cold water («); that is, he dips
the edge, not the whole tool into the water. (5.) To stab,
pierce or run through. It is said, "the child" (Ba'Tf-^/Sj)
" shall run his sword into the viper's bowels" {b). So small
a reptile as a viper may be stabbed or pierced with the point
of a sword ; but it would be impossible to cover a sword en-
tirely in its body. (6.) 2o transfer from one pot to anoth-
er in any way. A master says, " my servant" (Ba'n'-^.si)
" shall dip me a cup of honey" (c) ; that is, he shall trans-
fer the honey from the vessel which contains it, to a cup to
be carried to the master. (7.) To sicim as a bladder. It is
declared, "the bladder" (Baitn^'f]) ''-can swim, but to sink
is not the law" of its nature (d). It may swim, but can-
not sink, of itself. (8.) To be embai-rassed with debt. The
same writer says of a certain character (e), he (BsfSa'Tt-
TKfixEvog) '* is embarrassed with debt to the amount of fifty
millions of drachms" (/). He who is thus deeply in debt
must be embarrassed with it ; but it does not entirely cover
his body or put it under water. (9.) To be up to the mid-
dle {g); (10.) up to the breast (A) ; (11.) up to the head
*Mat. 26:23. tJosh 3: 15 in the Greek Bible, (a) Homer, (Odvs.9.) ("j; LycopJion
in Cassandra, ver. 1121. (c) Theocrytus Idyl. 5. ver.126. (d) Plutrnrch; the origU
nal is CtcrxOf /Sa-TrTl^rj, Svvai (5s roi OU^SpHc: Sg'l, (e) Flutrarth of Otho. (f)
A dram, drachm, or daric, whs a Persian ( oin of pold. It was worth about five dollars
and a hiilt. His iiebt therefore was about 275 miltions of dollars. Ue must have bec^
a believer in the credit system, (g) Strabo. (hj Polj'biuA.
Ch. 2, § 4.] GREEK WRITERS ON IMMERSION. 153
{7iot over it) in water {a). (12.) To sweep aioay as an over-
flowing stream (6). (13.) To lay on as taxes. (14.) To
overjlow as water does when the tide rises (c). When this
takes place water comes upon, or overflows the land. In
this case, the whole land is not covered, nor even every part
of the beach, with the water of the rising tide. Nor is that
part of the land which is then covered, plunged into or put
entirely under water or immersed; but the water comes up-
on the land. (15.) To be drunk (d). (16.) To adhere to
(c). (17.) To iftijjrove {he mind {e). (18.) To terrify.^
(19.) To stain. A Latin writer (/) says, "what the Greeks
express by" {BarTKfixoc;) "baptize, we," Romans, " express
by to stain." (20.) To habituate. A Greek philosopher
(c) says of a young man ; " the youth" (s.^aTTitfaro) " ha-
bituated himself to sophistry." (21.) To ruin as a city is,
when it is destroyed [g). (22.) To suffer, as is intimated
in the declaration of our Saviour when he says ; " 1 have
a" (BaTTTjo'fj.a) "baptism to be baptized with, and how am I
straitened till it be accomplished. "t The sufferings of Christ
were mainly in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross.
None of them were by immersion. This baptism then of
which he here speaks, could not possibly have been by put-
ting his body entirely under water. To the significations of
the words under consideration, many others might be added,
besides those here mentioned. Not one of these, it will be
observed, is immerse. Indeed, it would be very difficult, if
not impossible, to find the word (Barrj^w) for baptize, or its
root (Ba'Trrw,) so used as necessarily to denote the entire sub-
mersion under water of what is said to have been baptized.
When one of these words describes a ship as sinking or sunk
in a river or even in the ocean, it by no means follows, that
every part of the vessel is entirely under water. J ndeed, por-
tionsofa sunk or wrecked ship, are generally above or floating
on the surface of the water. W^hen either of them denotes to
drown, it is manifest to all, that this effect may be produced by
the head or even the face of the person drowned being in the
water. After examining only a considerable number of the
meanings of the word (Ba-Trri^w) for baptize, who, in his so-
ber senses, can believe that it always signifies immerse ]
(a) Porphyry, (b) Dioflorus. (c) Plato, (d) Aristotle, (e) Marcus Antoninus.
*Jsa. 21; 4 in Greek, (f) Xylander. (g) Josephus. \U\x)i.Q 12: 50 in Greek.
154 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II.
CHAPTER III.
CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS RELATING TO IMMERSION.
1. The Greek Church, does not sustain the exclusive sys-
tem of modern immersers. This Church extends over near-
ly twenty countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. Its mem-
bers, at least thirty millions in number, speak more than for-
ty different languages and dialects. The religion of this
Church consists of a multiplicity of ridiculous ceremonies.
Its members and preachers are generally ignorant, bigoted
and superstitious. It is called the Greek or Eastern Church,
not because its members speak or understand the Greek lan-
guage ; because very few of them do either ; but in opposi-
tion to the Latin or Western Church. For baptism they
usually immerse each of their infant children three times.
The example of the Greek Church cannot therefore favor
the practice of those who refuse to baptize infants and who
immerse only once for baptism. Besides, there is no evi-
dence that the Greek Church maintains that her immersion
or any other, is the only mode of baptism. Indeed, there is
positive evidence to the contrary. Some parts of this Church
baptize occasionally, if not frequently, by sprinkling (a).
Of those who do so, several classes might be mentioned {b).
They also " frequently,*" but not always, "re-baptize the
Latins who embrace their communion (c). Moreover, it is
said ( 3, 4.] DENOMINATIONS ON IMMERSION. 155
Romanists who invariably sprinkle in what they call bap-
tism. Without these, the evidence from human testimony
that immersion is not the only mode of baptism, is complete-
ly overwhelming. Of at least sixty-five millions of Protes-
tants, more than sixty-four millions uniformly deny that im-
mersion is the only mode of baptism. This they constantly
do both in principle and practice. Many of them do not at
any time immerse persons for baptism. Jndeed, among Pro-
testants, the more biblical knowledge and scriptural piety
any denomination of christians, has, the less is, usually, if
not uniformly, their regard for immersion even as one mode
of baptism. Of all the Protestant denominations, less than
one person in a hundred rejects baptism with water entirely;
and about the same proportion hold that immersion is essen-
tial to baptism. When more than sixty millions of Protes-
tant christians, many of whom are confessedly men of exten-
sive scriptural knowledge, and devoted piety, reject immer-
sion as the only mode of baptism, the fact becomes manifest
that most of the professedly christian world turn aside from
and refuse to sustain the exclusive claims of immersers.
3. Some denominations of immersers admit that immersion
is not the ordy mode of haj)tism. One of these, the Sabeans
of Syria, call themselves Daily Baptists and disciples of John
the Baptist. Another, the Baptists of Holland, are called
Mennonites, after Menno Simon, one of their early cham-
pions. These last have for more than one hundred years,
laid aside immersion. Both these, as well as the Greek
Church and some others, admit that sprinkling is baptism ;
though some of them habitually practice immersion. This
proves that truth can find its way, a little at least, into some
minds, notwithstanding the blinding influence of supersti-
tious bigotry.
4, The most bigoted of the exclusives do not, in fact, teach
that immersi.iin is the only mode of baptism. After showing
from what the word (Bairn^u)) for baptize is derived, they
affirm that it signifies *' to dip, plunge, immerse, imbue,
drench, soak and overwhelm." Now these words are not
synonymous. They do not all denote the same thing. If
all the meanings of the original word (Ba-TTTi^oj) for baptize
are accurately given by them, (but they are not,) then it has
156 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II.
more than one signification, immersers themselves being
judges. But if this word has more than one meaning, then
there may be more than one mode of baptism. This will
certainly be the case, unless in the word of God, one mode
is specially mentioned. But so far as the use of this one
word is concerned, according to their statement, dipping is
one mode of baptism ; plunging is another ; immersing is
another ; imbuing another ; drenching another ; and so on.
The words used by immersers to express the sense of the
original word for baptize, have various significations. To
dip is used (1.) where no fluid can be supposed to exist ; as
"to engage in an aflTair, to engage as a pledge, to enter
slightly, to choose by chance, to drop by chance into any
mass (a). A man dips into a book, when he becomes slight-
ly acquainted with its contents. The dipping-needle is said
to dip, when it moves from a perpendicular towards a hori-
zontal position [b). The word dip therefore may be proper-
ly used where a single drop of water is not present. (2.)
It denotes also "to put into any liquor, to moi ten, to wet''
generally a small part [a) (c). When a swallow dips in
the pool, it wets the tips of its wings in the water. To plunge
signifies "to put into any state suddenly, to hurry into any
distress, to force in suddenly, to fall or rush into any hazard
or distress, to put suddenly under water'' (a). These are
the principal meanings of this word. It is said of a horse,
he plunges into a river, when he is forced or leaps into it
carelessly, though his legs only are covered with the water.
A man plunges into sin, when he engages in it with reckless
perseverance. A stick is plunged into a liquid, or a sword
into a man, when only a part of the stick or sword enters.
To imbue is " to tincture deep, to infuse any tincture or
dye" {a) ; and to infuse denotes to instil, infuse by drops or
bring in imperceptibly ; that is, to fall into or upon any
thing in very small drops, or to sprinkle. To drench is "to
soak, to steep, to saturate with drink or moisture, to physic
by violence" (a). When a man is drenched or physicked
with drink, the liquor is in him, not he in the liquor. To
soak is *'to lie steeped in moisture, to enter by degrees into
pores, to drink — intemperately, to macerate in any mois«
(a) See Walker's Dictionary, (b) See Brewster's New Philosophy of Matter, (c)
Ch. 2, § 4, par. 1.
Ch. 3, § 5.] DENOMINATIONS ON IMMERSION. 157
ture, to steep, to keep wet till moisture is imbibed, to drench,
to drain, 'to exhaust" (a). A log may be soaked in water
for years and not sink below the surface in all that time.
To overwhelm is " to crush underneath something violent
and weighty, to overlook gloomily'' (a). If stones, or earth,
or a heavy rain, or sand, should, in large quantities fall on
a man, he would be overwhelmed. But to force him against
or even under any of these, would not overw\\e\m him. To
immerse is "to sink or cover deep, to depress,'' as well as
*'to put under water" (a). When therefore immersers
themselves define the word (Ba^n'Tj^w) for baptize, they do
not teach that im version, in their sense of the term, is the
only mode of baptism. Even the inelegant Latin word (m-
mersio) modified into immerse, in the use of which they take
so much delight, is not exclusively confined, either in Latin
or English, to one meaning. When the signifiications of the
words used by immersers to define the original one {Bair-
•Tj^w) for baptize, are accurately examined, they teach that,
among other things, it denotes to wet a small part, to de-
scend, to touch water, to sprinkle, to fall upon, &c. Strange,
that men with such language on their lips, should still insist
that in baptism, the person must always be put entirely un-
der water !
5. Immersers do not pretend that the word baptize expres-
ses the ichole of what they do in immersion. The action which
they pertorm in immersion, is eight-fold (Z>). Two parts of
this action are so essential to it, that it cannot exist without
them. These are putting the parts of the person not before
wet, under water, and taking him up out of it again (Z>). No
immerser pretends that the word (Ba'Trrjc^w) for baptize, or
its root (Ba-n-rw,) always and necessarily denotes both these
parts of immersion. They do not pretend that baptize ever
expresses them both. Immersers, with all their learning,
and ignorance, and learned ignorance, have never pretend-
ed to discover in the Greek (Bot'^rrjijw) or English word
baptize, but a very small part of what they do in immer-
sion. Jf the word baptize always signified to put entirely
under water, instead of seldom or never having that mean-
ing ; even this would not authorize them to perform all the
other parts connected with immersion. They would not
(a) See Walker's Dictionary, (b) See B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, §4.
158 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II.
thereby be authorized to perform even the two parts which
are indispensable to it, and without both which, it cannot ex-
ist. If "compliance must be so, and no more, and no less,
and no otherwise" (a), and this principle seems to be correct,
then in immersion, they do not render obedience ; for they
do more than they pretend the word (Ba-^rTj^w) for baptize
ever means. If they will neither do more nor less, than
what they say the word means, then they will not wade into
the water or raise up the person after he is put under its sur-
face. To do this, is to do more than what the word means,
according to their own assertions in relation to the original
term, 'i^hey do more than they say it means; and there-
fore, as they themselves decide, do not render obedience.
They do not practice according to their own rule. They do
not conform, even in a tolerable degree, to what they say
the word signifies. The word for baptize in Greek, is very
far from ever denoting even the two essential parts of the
action performed by them in immersion (6), and much less
the whole eight parts, of which this action is usually compo-
sed. It may be well doubted whether any word in any lan-
guage has this complicated signification (c). When the
word (Ba-TTTi^w) for baptize, or its root (BarTw,) or any oth-
er word in the Greek language, does not signify the whole
or even the greater part of what they do in immersion ; how
absurd to talk of that being the only mode of baptism! !
When this word (Ba-TrTi^w) in the scriptures is not once de-
finitely used to denote any part or even any portion of any
part, of what is done in immersion ; to expect an intelligent
believer in Divine revelation, who has examined this subject,
to believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism, is to
suppose that such a person can believe without evidence. It
is to fancy him to be an infant in intellect; or that he can
be made to take assertion for proof.
6. Immersers do not put the person immersed entirely under
water. The person himself generally, if not always, wades
or enters into the water some distance. In this way, a con-
siderable part of the subject is, by his own act, covered or
wet with water. The part which is thus wet, is immersed
(a) See Pcdo. Exam, by Mr. Boothe, Vol. I. (b) B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1. ^ 4, fTir. 4. 5.
(c) Tliis compound idea, or even the two-fold idea that is es.sential to immersion, is not
attached to any word in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldec, Ethiopic, Arabic,
French, Spanish, Itahaa or English.
Ch. 3, § 7.] DENOMINATIONS ON IMMERSION. 159
by himself, not by the preacher who immerses the remain-
der of the body. The subject performs one part of the im-
mersion ; the preacher the other. It is manifest therefore;
that, since the administrator immerses but one part of the
person immersed, only one part of him is properly immers-
ed, unless he has a right to immerse one part, while the
preacher does the other. Besides, this semi-self immersion
is not performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost. Now if a man without authority, can, in no name,
perform properly this half immersion of himself; he might,
one would suppose, on the same grounds, immerse himself
without the preacher's assistance, if the preacher only has
a right to immerse, and if he must perform this act in the
name of the Trinity; then that part of the body which the
person himself immerses in no name whatever, cannot be
properly immersed ; for that part is not immersed by the
preacher ; is not immersed in the name of the Trinity.
Since, when a person is immersed ; the immerser puts only
a part of the body under water ; he, if immersion was bap-
tism, could be only half baptized. It is a wonder that the
advocates of the opinion, that for baptism, a person tnust be
put entirely under water, do not take up the subject and, af-
ter holding him above the surface, at least for an instant, so
that all present might see that he was fairly out of it, put him
entirely under its surface. By doing this, they would act
according to their professed principles. But none of them
do this. None of them usually, if ever, put more than a part
of the immersed underwater, the other part being immersed
by the subject himself. It appears therefore that if to be
baptized, a person must be pur entirely under water, then
modern immersers in western Europe and in America only
half baptize their followers.
7 . In heing immersed^ a person is seldom entirely in con-
tact with the water. His clothes are generally put entirely
under water by himself and the operator ; and usually most
parts of them are wet. But where the dress is tight, espe-
cially round the waist ; the water does not and cannot pene-
trate through the garments, during the moment they are un-
der the water. This partial wetting, immersers admit to be
baptism. If the washing or wetting of the whole person is
160 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. 11.
essential to baptism ; then very few of the immersed, par-
ticularly of those who wear the over-dress(a), are baptized.
But if water applied by a minister to a part of the body, in
the name of the Trinity, is baptism; then sprinkling, as this
is water thus applied to a part of the body, must be baptism.
If it be said that the intention of the parties renders this par-
tial application of water, valid in their case ; it may be re-
marked that if this Romish principle will answer in their
case ; it may, at least in their estimation, answer as well in
the case of those who intend to administer baptism by sprink-
ling. It is manifest therefore that, both in theory(5) and
practice, immersers, notwithstanding their loud professions
to the contrary, admit that water applied to a part of the
person, or, which is the same thing in fact, that a part of the
person applied to the water, is valid baptism. By their own
admissions and practices therefore, tjjeir exclusive system
is overthrown.
CHAPTER IV.
SEVERAL MATTERS OFTEN SUPPOSED TO RELATE TO IMMER-
SION.
1. In the early ages of the church, washing preceded hap-
tism. This washing was sometimes partial and sometimes it
extended over the whole person. At first it was practiced
for the sake of cleanliness. The subject, occasionally at
least, was washed in a state of entire nudity(c). immers-
ers and even others, sometimes mistake this washing for bap-
tism. But where it existed, it always preceded and was
really distinct from the ordinance of baptism. It had not
necessarily, in fact, any more connection with that sacrament
than a washing to remove bodily defilement at the present
day, would have with baptism. The writers who mention
this washing((Z) sustain this position. Some of them do this
very clearly, and others less so. This practice may have
originated in persons supposing that a literal washing for
cleansing was intended by such language as the following :
(a) An over-dress is a dress which many modern immersers pnt on over their other
slothes when they are pnt under the water as a substitute for baptism, (h) ^ 4. (e)
Sec Robinson's and V\ aU's Hist, (d) c-ee Cyprian, Augustme and other ancient wri-
ters.
Ch. 4, <^ 2.] CLAIMS OP IMMERSION. 161
"Ye are washed;" — "our bodies washed;" — Christ — =
cleansed the church " with the washing of watery" — the
washing of regeneration;"* and the like. But the washings
here mentioned were ceremonial or spiritual. If they were
spiritual, then they could not be performed with water ; for
spiritual cleansing or the removing of the guilt or pollution
of sin from the soul cannot be effected by applying water to
the body(a). If they -were ceremonial, then they were or
might have been performed by sprinkling, as ceremonial
washings usually, if not universally were.f But the practice
of washing before baptism, whatever might have been its
origin, cannot sustain the notion that immersion is the only
mode of administering that ordinance.
This washing which was sometimes partial and sometimes
extended over the whole body, preceded the ordinance of
baptism. Though it constituted no part of that sacrament,
yet it soon became invested with a kind of superstitious re-
gard. In the third century, it was viewed as a general pre-
requisite to baptism ; so much so that many persons main-
tained, that before the ordinance was administered either to
infants or adults, the person to be baptized ought to be first
washed. But still this washing was in reality no part of the
ordinance of baptism, it is very possible however, indeed
it may be probable, that some persons becoming more igno-
rant, bigoted and superstitious than others, occasionally sub-
stituted this washing in the room of baptism. But even this
substitution, if it did at any time take place, could not change
this washing into baptism. However, in after ages, immer-
sion, among ignorant and superstitious men, may have re-
ceived some countenance from these superstitious washings.
But if they had, at their first origin in the third century, been
substituted for baptism ; they could not, even in that case,
prove that immersion was then the only mode of baptism ;
for these washings were not Baptism and were often partial.
2. Ancient monumental pictures and engravings do not
teach that immersion is the only or even a mode of hajptism.
More than fifty of these have been preserved. These have
come down to the present day. The motto on some of them
is in Greek ; that on others is in Latin. They mark the
*1 Cor. 6: H, Heb. 10: 2-2, Eph. 5: 26, Tit. 3: 5. (a)^ee P. i, Ch. 4, $ 3, B. i. P. iv, Ch.
1, ^ 16. jSee Lev. 14: 7. 16, 27, Nam. 8: 7, and 19: 4. 13. 18. 19.20, Heb. 9: 13. 19. 21. &c.
11
162 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II.
mode of baptism from about the year A. D. 300, till A. D.
1100(a). They were made by different artists in different
ages and countries. To ascertain the meaning of these pic-
tures and engravings, a person has only to open his eyes.
They speak a language which all can understand. In these
the person who baptizes is, in no instance, represented as
being in the water when he administers the ordinance. Nor
do we find the least intimation in the word of God, that John
or any other person, stood in the water while he adminis-
tered baptism. In this then, as well as in other points, these
monuments of antiquity agree with Divine revelation. In
all these, the water is represented as being applied to the
person, not the person to the water. The person baptized
is sometimes represented as standing nearly or quite up to
the waist in water, and sometimes as standing in a bath; but
he is much more frequently represented as standing during
his baptism, on the ground or on the floor. In not one in-
stance however is he represented as being put under the
water for baptism. It is moreover manifest from these
monuments that standing in the water formed no part of
the ordinance of baptism ; because if this was a part of it ;
then the ordinance could not have been, as it often was ac-
cording to these representations, administered while the per-
son baptized was standing on the ground or on the floor.
Since some of those whose baptism is represented in these
monuments of antiquity, were baptized while entirely out of
the water, as the representations themselves clearly show;
being in the water, could not in their case have been an es-
sential part or indeed any part of their baptism. As these
representations do not show, or intimate that a single person,
during the ages in which they were made, was immersed
for baptism ; so they do not, cannot teach that immersion is
the only mode of administering that ordinance. These plain
speakers then, whose language defies criticism, do not give
testimony in favor of immersion.
3. The marhlefont in the cathedral at Syracuse in Sici-
ly, does not shoiv that immersion is the only mode oflaptism.
(b). It is said(c) that this font was used by Marcion who
lived about the year A. D. 200. But its existence about the
('a;See note (a) B. iii, P. ii, Ch. 2, § 5, for authorities. (h)SeQ Sicilian Inscriptions,
class 17, No. 1. CO By Taylor and others.
Gh. 4, § 4.] CLAIMS OF IMMEESION. 103
year A. D. 300, is certain. It is small, has two handles, is
about twelve inches deep, may contain about two gallons,
and has on it an inscription in Greek, which, in a free trans-
lation may be rendered into English thus; " Zosimus(a) de-
dicates to God this sacred vase for the purpose of holy bap-
tism''(3). Certainly in this baptismal font, adult persons
could not have been immersed. The existence of this ves-
sel to be used as a baptismal font, proves conclusively that
at, and during the time it was so used; immersion could not
possibly have been the only mode of baptism practiced by
the christian church.
4. The exclusive claims of immersers, do not prove theirs
to be the only mode ofhaplism. Unsupported claims are fre-
quently made. These are sometimes exclusive. Indeed, it
may almost be laid down as a general rule, that the farther
persons wander from the word of God as the only rule in all
religious duties ; the more exclusive and dogmatical they
become. But in Popery and High Church Episcopacy, it
is clearly exhibited. These do not even pretend to take the
scriptures as their only rule of faith and practice in all reli-
gious duties ; and yet, each is so exclusive as to hold very
strenuously, that no society of christians can constitute a
branch of the church of Christ, unless Diocesan Episcopacy
forms one of its essential ingredients ; though this is not so
much as once named in the word of God. Immersers are so
exclusive that, in the estimation of many of them ; no class
of christians constitutes a church or a branch of the church
of Christ, unless its members have been immersed as a sub-
stitute for baptism ; though this is not once mentioned as
baptism in the whole of God's book. The resemblance
among these exclusives, is manifest. But all these unsupport-
ed claims, do not prove that Diocesan Episcopacy is essen-
tial to church organization ; or that immersion is essential
to baptism. It do^ not even prove that immersion is that
holy ordinance. Should it be admitted that a few of these
different classes of exclusives are pious and learned men ;
Ca^Zosimus was made Bishop of Rome in the year A. D. 417, as we learn from
church history. (b)The original is this; ava^rjjUia ISPW fSaiTTld'^aTog Zotf-
IjULOU 6sCj) doJ^OVVTOS TOV X^arS^a CCyiOV. Literally this maybe translated;
" The dedicated present of Zosimus who gives this sacred vessel to God for the pur-,
pose of holy baptism."
164 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II.
the facts in the case would be still tfie same. Even the ex-
clusive claims of these, however dogmatically asserted, can-
not make Episcopacy scriptural church government ; nor
immersion, the baptism taught in God's own holy book.
5. To call immersion a cross does not prove it to he the
only mode of baptism. When Christ requires a person to
perform a duty which, for some ca\ise, may, at the time, be
disagreeable to him ; the performance of it under such cir-
cumstances, may be called a cross. To make a particular
action a cross, it must be a duty positively required in God's
word ; and it iDUst, from some cause or causes, be disagreea-
ble to the person at the time it is to be performed. But what
is not positively commanded in the scriptures, cannot be
made a christian's cross. What God does not command,
may be a cross which Satan, the world oV men, may require
us to bear; but this last cross is essentially different from
that which Christ directs his people to " take up" and
"bear."* To "bear" the cross which he commands us to
take up, is essential to Christianity. Without doing this, no
person can be a true child of God. Our Saviour himself
has determined this point. He says, " whosoever doth not
bear his cross cannot be my disciple."t Whatever cross
Christ requires us to " taJ^e up" and "bear," ought to be
borne cheerfully in obedience to his command. Satan, the
world or men may direct us to do what is not required in
God's word. Obedience to their mandate may not be pleas-
ant to us. They may call what they require, a cross in
order to induce us to obey. But we ought to know, that
such a cross is only a creature's invention ; not a cross
which Christ requires us to bear. To take up a cross of the
creature's invention, is not to serve, but to disobey, the Re-
deemer of sinners. To call that a cross which God in his
word does not require, cannot make it such. But in the
scriptures, men are not required to be immersed(a) ; there-
fore immersion cannot be that cross which every ** disciple"
must " bear. "I Besides, to be put entirely under water is, or
is not, a cross accoi'ding to the temperature of the weath-
er, {b) Whether an act is, or is not, a cross of Christ, does
*Mat. 10: 24, Mark 8: 34, Luk^ 9: 23. tl-«ke 14: 27. (a) See P. i, Ch. 1, $ 1-8.
JLuke 14: 27. (b) It is a well known fact that persons in warm weather frequently go
entirely nmier water merely for amusement. This act then, at such a season, cannot
be a cross to them.
Ch. 4, § 6.] CLAIMS OF IMMERSION. 165
not, however, depend upon the temperature of the weather,
or on the change of the seasons. As therefore immersion
is not required in the word of God ; and as it is, or is not, a
cross according to the temperature of the weather, so it can-
not be a cross which Christ commands his disciples to bear.
To call it a cross, when God does not, may deceive men,
but cannot deceive Omniscience. It is manifest from these
remarks, that to call immersion a cross, cannot prove it to
be the only mode of baptism.
6. Immersion cannot be a sign of what is signijied in bap-
tism. Christian baptism signifies the work of the Holy Spirit
on the soul(a). When the operations of the Spirit are men-
tioned, whatever may be their degree or kind, the person is,
in no passage of scripture, said to be immersed in the Holy
Ghost, or to be put under or even into the Spirit. If these
operations of the Spirit, or evrn any part of them, were
represented as being by immersion, then external immersion
might be a sign of them. But as no part of the Spirit's op-
erations, is said to be by immersion, or by putting the per-
son into or under the Holy Ghost ; so literal immersion can-
not represent any portion of them. Literal immersion might
represent spiritual immersion. But, as the work of the Spirit
is not, either wholly or in part, said in scripture to be by im-
mersion ; so immersion under water, cannot be a sign of
the whole or of any part of the Spirit's operations. The
Spirit, in his operations, is often said to be " poured out''
upon men; and persons are represented as being ''filled
with the Holy Ghost,"* when his converting, sanctifying or
supernatural influences are enjoyed in an unusual degree.
When the Spirit is " poured out" upon persons, or they are
"filled with" his influences, the Spirit is in or upon them ;
but they are certainly not put under or immersed all over in
the Spirit. When the Spirit enters into and fills a man,
that man then is not put entirely into or under the Spirit.
That which falls upon a person may be a sign of the out-
pouring of the Spirit on him. But to put him under water
cannot possibly be a sign of what /aZZs on him ; because to
fall upon, be poured out upon, or be filled with, does not, in
the least degree, resemble immersion. As the influences of
the Spirit, which are " poured out" — " shed" — " fall upon"
(a) See B. i, P. jy, Ch. J, ^ 9. *Prov, 1: '• S I. a, 32; 15, Joel 2; 28, Acts 2: 4. 17.
166 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. H, P. tU
or fill the soul,* are symbolized by baptism ; so immersion
in which water is not poured out or shed, and does not fall
upon the person immersed, cannot be a sign of tiiese opera-
tions of the Holy Ghost.
It may also be remarked here, that immersion cannot sym-
bolize the death of Christ. He suffered on the cross ; and
there is no possible resemblance between the death of a per-
son while suspended on the cross, several feet above the
earth, and being put entirely under water in immersion. Nor
can it be a sign of, or symbolize his burial. He was laid in
a *'tomb" "hewn out of a rock,"t not in water. Immer-
sion cannot be a sign or token by which his burial is repre-
sented ; for there is no resemblance between the two ac-
tions(a). In his resurrection, his human soul and body w€re
re-united. This is what is always included in the language
when, the resurrection of a dead body is mentioned. With-
out this re-union of soul and body, no resurrection can take
place. With it, there is a resurrection from the dead. This
is in fact what constitutes a resurrection of the dead. That
exercise of Divine power by which the human body and soul
of Christ were re-united on the third day after his death, had
nothing in it which, in any particular, resembles the going
or the putting of a living person entirely under water. Nor
did the resurrection of Christ from the dead, or in other
words, the re-union of his human soul and body, resemble,
in the least degree, the raising of a living person from un-
der the water ; and this act is one essential part of what is
done in immersion(Z'). Immersion therefore, in any of its
parts, or in them all united, cannot be a sign of, or symbol-
ize the resurrection of Christ, or the re-union, by Omnipo-
tent power, of his human soul and body. Immersion does
not in the least, resemble, and therefore cannot symbolize
his departure out of the tomb. To walk, in any way, out of
the tomb in which he had been laid, could no more be rep-
resented or symbolized by immersion in any of its parts,
than to walk out of one room into another, or out of a house
into the street, can be signified or represented by putting a
person under water and then taking him out from under it
again. To suppose that our Saviour's departure out of his
*Tit. 3: C, Acts 2: 4 and 10: 44. 45 and IJ: 15-18. fMat. 97: 60, Mark 15: 46. (a) P.
X, Ch.4, $ 2. (b) See B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, $ 4, par. 5.
Ch. 4 § 7.] CLAIMS OP IxMMERSION. 167
tomb, which was a small room hewn out of a rock, can be
symbolized by raising a person up from under water, is man-
ifestly absurcl(a). Coming out of such a tomb, or out of a
house, cannot, surely, appear to any reflecting person, like
going into and under the water, and then being immediately
raised up again from under its surface. But as baptism was
not instituted to represent, symbolize, or be a sign of these
or of any of them ; so farther remarks here in relation to
them, are unnecessary. It is manifest however, that as the
influences of the Spirit represented by baptism, descended
upon persons ; so thrusting them entirely under water in
immersion and immediately taking them from under its sur-
face again, cannot be a sign of, or symbolize these opera-
tions of the Holy Ghost.*
7. The command to baptize is not limited to any place ;
nor does it require water to he brought in any particular way.
When Christ directs his ministering servants to " teach all
nations, baptizing them,"t he does not inform them in what
particular way, water is to be obtained for that purpose.
Nor does he require them to administer the ordinance in any
particular place. He does not say, wdiether the water is to
be brought in a bowl in the hand, or in a hogshead on a cart
to fill a cistern. He gives us no direction as to the mode in
which the water is to be brought to the place where it is to
be used. Indeed, this, even in the estimation of immersers,
can hardly be considered an essential part of baptism. More-
over, the practice of the apostles clearly shows that the place
where baptism is administered, or the mode in which the
water is procured, constitutes no part of that ordinance. Nor
M'ould the fact that immersers fill a cistern with water, drawn
in very large vessels, prove that immersion is the only mode
of baptism. It may be remarked also, that as the act of
bringing the water to be used in baptism, is not one of reli-
gious worship ; so no person ought to be surprized when he
finds that nothing is said on that particular point in the scrip-
tures. Nor would a single remark have been here made
upon it, if immersers did not sometimes, when driven by argu-
ment from every other ground, attempt to sustain the claims
of immersion by saying that no person can show scriptural
evidence to prove that water was brought in a bowl into a
(») See B. ii, P. i, Ch, 4, $ 3, rnote b) par. 3. *See John 1: 32. jMat. 28: \»,
168 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. III.
house to be used for the purpose of baptizing persons. This
demand shows that they fancy that the mode of bringing
water lo be used in baptism, is a part of, or essential to the
ordinance. And if it is, they ought to be prepared to prove
their position, and to show that water, for this purpose, must
be drawn on a cart in sufficient quantities to fill a cistern,
in order that immersion might be practiced. But all such
statements do not prove that immersion is the only mode of
baptism. They only prove that immersers feel how abso-
lutely impossible it is to sustain, with any thing like tolera-
ble evidence, the exclusive claims of their system. To sup-
pose that, because it is not stated in the word of God, that
water was brought in. a bowl to be used in baptism, proves
immersion to be the only mode, is that kind of trifling which
ought to make even an immerser blush. But certainly no
person of common reflection could possibly believe that this
would sustain the position that immersion is the only, or even
a mode of baptism.
PART THIRD.
WHY PERSONS ARE IMMERSED.
CHAPTER I.
THE IMMERSED TURN ASIDE FROM THE WORD OF GOD.
1. Facts 'prove this posUion, That immersers, on this
subject, turn aside from the word of God, appears, (1.) From
the fact that the scriptures, in no one passage(o), teach that
immersion is the only mode of baptism ; (2.) From the fact
that the word immerse or immersion for baptize or for bap-
tism, is not once found in the whole book of God(Z'), either
in the original or in any proper translation ; and (3.) From
the fact that no person is, in Divine revelation, said to be
immersed, or is required to immerse others for baptism or
for any other purpose. That thes^ are fads, any person
can learn by reading the scriptures. It is manifest then
that those who adopt immersion as the only, or even as a
mode of baptism, must turn aside from the word of God.
2. The language of immersers proves ihat^ on this subject,
they turn aside from tlie vord of God, When asked, why
(a) See P. i, Ch. 5, $ 1-6. (b) :tec P. i, Ch. 1, ^ 1-8.
Ch. 1, § 3.] WHY MEN ARE IMMERSED. 169
they adopt the notion that immersion is the only mode of
baptism ; they generally, if not universally, give one or
more of the following statements as an answer. They of-
ten say ; (1.) That they know some good man who believes
that immersion is the only mode of baptism ; (2.) That they
felt very solemn on a certain occasion when they saw some
person immersed ; (3.) That their conscience teaches them
that immersion is the right mode of baptism ; (4.) That ma-
ny persons in the neighborhood have been or are about to
be immersed ; (5.) That they were always taught, by some
good men, that immersion is the only mode of baptism ; (6.)
That their parents, who were christians, believed in this
mode of baptism ; (7.) That this seems to them to be the
only mode of baptism; (8.) That the other mode has be-
come antiquated, while this modern mode shows the march
of mind. These, and similar reasons, are given as the evi-
dence by which they are led to be immersed, or to believe
in that substitute for baptism. But as their conscience is
not the rule of duty ; and as all these notions merely turn
aside the mind from the scriptures, which are the only rule
of duty for christians, in all religious matters ; so they prove
that immersers, in adopting immersion as the only mode of
baptism, turn aside from the word of God. These fancies
ought to be all rejected. They really compose no part of
the christian's duty. '* To the law and to the testimony,^'*
all ought to come for religious instruction on this and on
every other subject.
3. 7 Vie immersed do not examine tJie foundation on which
immersion builds its exclusive claims This is (1.) The
groundless assumption that the word (Ba-TfTj^w) for baptize,
always means immerse(a). That there is no ground for
such an assumption, is manifest to any person who has even
a tolerable acquaintance with the meaning of this word eith-
er in Greek or English, as it is used either in the scriptures
or in other books. (2.) Immersers do not undervStand, or
they designedly misrepresent jhe meaning of the preposi-
tions {sir) into, (sx) out of, (a'TTo) from, and (sv) with(Z>).
They seem to imagine that the use of these words must cer-
tainly prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
*Isa. 8: 20. (a) P. i, Ch. 1, § 7, P. ii, Ch. 1, § 1. 5, P. ii, Ch. 2, § 1-4. (b) P. i, Ch.
3, § 2-8.
170 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. JI, P. III.
But such expressions do not even intimate tliat immersion is
one mode oi' baptism. It is certain therefore that they can-
not teach that it is the only mode. Immersers seem to fan-
cy that there is a resemblance between immersion and being
buried with Christ by "baptism into death" on the cross.
But between these, there is not the least resemblance(a).
It appears therefore that immersion, even as a mode of bap-
tism, is obliged to depend for support on a mere assumption,
on a mistake or misrepresentation, and on a fancy. These
often lead persons blindfolded into the notion that immer-
sion is the only mode of baptism. By neglecting to exam-
ine the real evidence upon which immersion builds its exclu-
sive claims, many persons are deceived into the adoption of
the system.
4. Few, if any persons, can turn to any one passage of
scripture and say ; this taught me that immersion is baptism.
No expression in scripture, either in the literal or figura-
tive sense of the language, teaches immersion to be even a
mode of baptism. To say that the word (Ba'TTjJw) for bap-
tize, in the scriptures denotes immerse, is mere assertion or
fancy. No such signification is, in the whole of Divine rev-
elation, given to this word. The connection in no one pas-
sage, shows this to be its definite signification. As such a
meaning for the word (Ba-Trrj^w) is only found in the fancies
of persons, so but few who examine the scriptures, can be
led to imagine that the word baptize, in that holy book, real-
ly means immerse. But ^ew can therefore turn to any por-
tion of the Divine word, and show that as the evidence which
teaches them to believe in immersion as a mode of baptism
which they suppose is therein taught.
5. No one ever found immersion as the only mode of bap-
tism^ taught in the scriptures of truth. The reason is simply
this; not the least evidence of any kind in favor of immer-
sion being the only mode of baptism, is found in scripture.
To this, there is not the most distant allusion made in the
whole word of God. There is not the least intimation given
in it that immersion is essential to baptism. This notion has
nothing in God's word to sustain it even in appearance.
This holy book says nothing that the most unrestrained or
misguided fancy could torture into the notion that immersion
(a) P. i, Ch. 4, ^ 2.
Ch. 2, 5 Ij 2.] THE POINT TO BE PROVED. 171
is the only mode of baptism. The language of scripture
contains no literal, no figurative, no fanciful meaning to
sustain immersers in their exclusive claims. No one could
therefore ever find, in the scriptures, any kind or degree of
evidence to prove, even to his own imagination, that immer-
sion is the only mode of baptism(a).
CHAPTER II.
THE IMMERSED MISTAKE THE POINT TO BE PROVED.
1. What the point to he proved is^ ought to he kept in mind.
This is not whether immersion is, or is not, a mode of bap-
tism ; but the point is, whether it is, or is not, the only
mode(^). That immersion is the only mode of baptism, is
what immersers assert. This is a very different position
from the assertion that immersion is baptism, or one mode of
baptism. This point ought to be kept before the mind in
order that it may be fairly investigated.
2. Persons frequently mistake this point. They adopt im-
mersion simply as a mode of baptism ; not as the only mode.
From the supposition that they are to be immersed, merely
as a preferable mode of baptism, they go into and allow them-
selves to be put under the water. They afterwards, per-
haps, discover that, by taking this step, they have really, in
their practice at least, adopted the notion that immersion is
the only mode of baptism. Having been blindly led to take
this step ; a desire to justify their own practice, or a wish
to appear consistent, or to justify the course of their party,
will usually soon induce them to insist that immersion is the
only mode of baptism. Having taken the first false step,
they are the more easily persuaded to take the second. Thus
they become entangled in the mazes of error. They are
first immersed without finding either precept or example in
the word of God for going under the water ; and then they
are easily led, without a shadow of proof, to assert that im-
mersion is the only mode of baptism. Thus they are fre-
quently induced to be immersed merely as a mode of bap-
tism ; and then they are led to adopt, as a second part of the
same lesson, the notion that immersion is the only mode of
(a) See P. i, Ch. 1, $ 1-8, P. i, Ch. 2, $ 1-4, P. i, Ch. 3, $ 1-10, P. i, Ch. 4, "S 1-5-
0) SeeB. i, P. vii, Ch. 2, $ X-4.
172 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. III.
baptism. This is mere deception. But multitudes are, by
this kind of Jesuitism, induced to unite with immersers and
adopt their exclusive system.
CHAPTER III.
IMMERSERS OFTEN MISTAKE ASSERTIONS FOR PROOF.
1. Immersers often assert that i7nmersion is the only mode
of hapliam. This assertion is frequently made by them with
the most unblushing assurance, though there is not, in the
word of God or in Greek writers(a), the least shadow of ev-
idence to sustain it. These positive assertions, many mis-
take for proof; and more suppose that men professing to be
religious teachers, would not make such unqualified state-
ments without the least evidence to support them. Many,
by these their positive assertions, totally unsupported by any
evidence whatever, are induced to adopt immersion as the
only mode of baptism.
2. The assertion that, sometimes ministers of other denom-
inations, unite with immersers, is often mistaken for evidence
that immersion is the only mode of baptism. But this simply
proves that these men, notwithstanding their professions,
have not carefully examined this subject. If, however, they,
at first, either through ignorance or from design, had deceiv-
ed others in this matter; it might be difficult to determine
whether, after their professed change of opinion, they were
entirely worthy of all confidence, even so far as their own
assertions are concerned. Besides, at least as many forsake
the ranks of immersers to join others, as forsake others to
join immersers. It is manifest therefore that a ilew persons
who may unite themselves with immersers, after they have
been members, of other denominations of professing chris-
tians, do not and cannot, by their assertions, prove that im-
mersion is the only mode of baptism. The assertions of
such persons are really no better evidence than those of oth-
er immersers. Perhaps they are not quite so good proof as
the declarations of those who have not like them, either from
ignorance or design, turned aside from truth and adopted the
unscriptural notion that immersion is the onl v mode of bap^
tism.
(a) r. i, Ch. 5, $ 4, P. ii, Ch. 1, $ X-8, P. ii, Ch. 9. <) 1 -i. ■!.
Ch. 3, *^ 3, 4.] ASSERTION NOT PROOF. 173
3. They often assert that Christ and the Evnuch were
immersed. That this is mere assertion without proof, is ev-
ident to any one who will only read what the Spirit of God
teaches in relation to their baptism(a). It is not said that
eilher of them was put under the water, or was taken up
from under, or came up from under, the water.* Neither
of the two actions which are essential to immersion, is men-
tioned as being performed either by or for Christ or the E^u-
nuch(Z'). To say that they were immersed is therefore mere
assertion without proof.
4. Immersfrs seldom attempt to prove their position. They
assert that immersion is a mode., the only mode of baptism.
This they seldom or never attempt to prove. They find it
much more convenient to make such an assertion than to
sustain it by even the appearance of evidence from the word
of God. But before they ask any person to believe their ex-
clusive assertion to be true ; they ought to prove its truth
by the express language of Divine revelation. But they
seldom attempt to do this. They very seldom undertake to
show from God's word that immersion is a mode, much less
that it is the only mode of baptism. Instead of attempting
to prove their position, like men who honestly supposed
they had good evidence for that purpose ; instead of bring-
ing forward positive proof to sustain the exclusive claims of
their system, as they are bound to do before they can rea-
sonably ask men of sense to adopt the notion that immersion
and that only is baptism ; they, as if they knew and felt the
weakness of their own cause, turn round and begin to ques-
tion others. They thus put these last on defending them-
selves. This is done in order to prevent them from requi-
ring evidence, plain and pointed, in favor of the exclusive
claims of immersion. In this way the eyes of not a few are
blinded. Immersers seldom or never attempt to bring for-
ward any pointed proof to show that immersion is the only
mode or even one mode of baptism. To assert this and sup-
pose it needs no proof, is much more convenient for them.
This plan will also deceive many, much more effectually
than awkward attempts to prove that in favor of which there
is no evidence. They can accomplish this, too, with much
(a) P. i, Ch. 2, § 1-4, P. i, Ch. 3, ^ 2. 5. 7. *See Mat. 3: 10, Acts 8: 38. 39 in Greek
and English, (b) B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, $ 4, par. 4. 5.
174 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IT, P. III.
more ease than they could attempt the impossible task of na-
ming the book, chapter and verse in Divine revelation,
which teaches that immersion is a mode or the only mode of
baptism. This total want of evidence in favor of immer-
sion in the word of God, bore so hard upon their exclusive
system that, to escape from the dilemma into which they
were brought by it, they even altered the scriptures of truth
so as to make an immersion bible for themselves(a). By
this and similar management, they show that they feel the
entire insufficiency of the evidence on which they attempt
to erect their exclusive system. But notwithstanding this,
not a few are deceived by this sophistry. By it, numbers
are induced to go under, instead of to or into the water, as
was the case in one or two, out of the many instances of bap-
tism mentioned in scripture. They submit to be applied to
the water, instead of having the baptismal water applied to
them.
Moreover, when scriptural evidence to prove that immer-
sion is the only mode of baptism, is demanded, it is often as-
serted that there is as much evidence for immersion as there
is for sprinkling. This assertion admits that sprinkling, as
a mode of baptism, is supported by as good evidence as im-
mersion is. It therefore destroys the exclusive claims of im-
mersers ; for if sprinkling is a mode of baptism ; if it is sup-
ported by as good evidence as immersion is, then immersion
cannot be the only mode of baptism ; and that it is such, is
the position which the exclusives on this subject always take.
If it was a fact therefore that there is as much evidence in
favor of immersion, as there is for sprinkling, it would not
prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. If the
scriptures contained no evidence for sprinkling, if they even
declared'that sprinkling is not a mode of baptism, no proof
would even then be thus furnished to show that immersion
is baptism or the only mode of administering that ordinance.
If sprinkling water upon a person in the name of the Trini-
ty, is not baptism, it by no means follows as a necessary con-
sequence or even as a fair inference, that immersion is the
only mode. By adopting such sophistry, immersers show
that they feel how totally destitute their system is of substan-
tial evidence for its support.
(a) See P. ii, Ch. 3, $ 9, (note a,) par. 7.
Ch. Ij § 1, 2.] ORIGIN OF IMMERSION. 175
5. They often assume an inference^ and mistake this for
proof They say, the Eunuch was immersed, because he
went into the water. This is assuming for truth a mere in-
ference ; and an inference too not found in the premises.
It by no means follows that, if the Eunuch went into the wa-
ter, he was therefore immersed. Many persons go into,
without going under water. Perhaps a thousand persons go
into water without going or being put under it, for one that
goes into it for the purpose of being immersed. But this
their assumed inference, though in reality it is mere asser-
tion, is often mistaken for proof that immersion is the only
mode of baptism. And in this way, some are led under the
water as a substitute for christian baptism.
PART FOURTH.
THE ORIGIN AND EVILS OF IMMERSION.
CHAPTER I.
WHEN IMMERSION AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM DID NOT
ORIGINATE.
1. Immersion did not originate with the Apostles. Im-
mersion as baptism, or leather as a substitute for baptism, did
not originate with the apostles ; because they did not im-
merse for that or for any other purpose(). To
say therefore that the Jews performed their Divinely ap-
pointed ceremonial washings or baptisms, by immersion, is -
manifestly mere assertion. To make such a declaration
would be to speak without evidence. Such a statement would
be contrary to undeniable facts. It cannot theretbre be that
immersion originated with the Jews at or before the death of
Christ.
4. This ceremo7]y did not originate with the Lord Jesus
Christ. The scriptures do not teach that he immersed or
directed others to immerse persons for baptism or for any
other purpose (c). He baptized and directed his minister-
ing servants to baptize others.! But it is not stated in the
original scriptures, nor in any accurate translation, that he
himself immersed or that he directed others to do so. It is
worse than trifling then to suppose that immersion origina-
ted with the blessed Redeemer.
5. Immersion did not originate at or before the time of the
Apostles. No Greek word which, even frequently, denotes
immerse, is used in the scriptures for baptism. Of the two
words (s,a/3a'7rTw and sa./^aTTj^oj) which frequently, though
not irwthe word of God, express immerse, or the putting of
what is mentioned entirely under water, neither is, at any
time, in the original, used for baptism. If the Holy Spirit
had intended to teach mankind that immersion is the only
(a) p. i, Ch. 3, § 6, B. i. p. vii, CI.. 1, .^ 4. (b) See B. iii, P. i, Ch. 1, ^ 2. 3. *Se«
Mark 7: 4, Luke 11: 38, Heb. 9: 10. 13. 19. 21 in Greek, (c) P. i, Ch. 1, ^ 1-6. tSe«
Mat. 2s: 19, John 3: 22. 26.
Ch. 1, § 6.] ORIGIN OP IMMERSION. 177
mode, or even a mode of baptism, certainly one of the words
denoting immerse, or both, would have been used as often
as once at least, for baptize. But this is not the case. No
word which in the original, usually signifies immerse, is, in
any one passage, used for baptism or baptize. The word
(Bair-i^u)) for baptize, is not, itself, so connected with other
words in a single passage, in the original scriptures, as to re-
quire it to signify immerse(«) ; nor is it intimated that im-
merse is its only signification, or even one of its meanings.
(b). There is therefore no evidence that immersion origi-
nated in the days of the apostles or before. It may be left
to immersers.to believe, or rather profess to believe, that for
which the word of God furnishes not the least evidence.
Men who take the scriptures for their only rule of duty in
every part of their religion, must beg to be excused from
following the mere conjecture of their fellow creatures.
They do not choose to adopt that as the only mode of bap-
tism, which is not so much as once mentioned in the whole
word of God, even as one mode by which that ordinance may
be administered.
6. Immersion did not originate icitli the early Greek Fa-
thers. These frequently mention baptism. But when they
do so, they use the word (BacrTi^w) for baptize ; but in no
instance do they use, to denote this ordinance, either of the
words (£,a,'3c/.'rri^w or Sfx/Sacrw) which often signify im-
merse(c). Since they did not use a word for baptize which
usually signifies immerse, it cannot with the least propriety,
be supposed that with them originated the opinion that im-
mersion is a mode or the only mode of baptism. Modern
immersers frequently speak in the most unequivocal lan-
guage on this subject. They do not hesitate to use the word
immerse. The early Greek Fathers do not, for baptize, use
a word which generally denotes immerse. If these Fathers
and modern immersers mean the same thing ; their mode of
expressing it is exceedingly different ! ! ! It cannot, there-
fore, be even conjectured with any degree of probability,
that immersion, as the only, or even as a mode of baptism,
originated with the early Greek Fathers. As immersion for
baptism is not mentioned in the word of God, nor in the wri-
(a) P. i, Ch. 1, $ 8. (b) P. i, Ch. 1, $ 7. (c) P. ii, Ch. 2, $ 2.
12
17d BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IV.
tings of any of the early Greek Fathers ; it must be sought
for elsewhere. It is certain to those who examine the sub-
ject carefully, that immersion, as the only, or even as a mode
of baptism, was unknown in the days when "holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ;" be-
cause the word immerse, or a Greek word denoting it, is not
used in the scriptures for baptism or for baptize. For the
same reason, it is certain that immersion for baptism was
unknown in the early ages of the church.
CHAPTER II.
WHEN AND WHERE IMMERSION, AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAP-
TISM, ORIGINATED.
1. Immersion as a mode of baptism originated in the dark
ages. From about the year A. D. 700, till about the year
A. D. 1500, moral and spiritual darkness spread a fearful
gloom over the world. The light of revelation was almost
extinguished. Immorality threw its withering curse over al-
most every portion of Christendom. Iniquity, like a desola-
ting tide of liquid fire, spread its blighting influence over the
nations. " Darkness'^ covered "the earth," and "gross
darkness the people.'^ Ignorance was almost universally
prevalent. True science had but few advocates, and true
religion, scarcely any. Those centuries during which igno-
rance and unbridled wickedness prevailed and exercised a
domineering influence over the minds of men, are emphati-
cally called " The Dark Ages." During these ages of
spiritual desolation, immersion, as a mode of baptism, had
its origin. Between the years A. D. 1110 and 1150, a few
persons among the Albigenses and Waldenses, adopted, as is
supposed by some, the opinion that immersion is a mode of
baptism. These were few in number and continued but a
short time. They adopted the opinion that infants cannot
be saved. They were called Petrobrussians, after their lead-
er Peter De Bruys. It is supposed, though it is not certain,
that this little, short-lived, fanatical sect, sometimes practiced
immersion as a substitute for baptism(a). But there is no
evidence that any even of these fancied it to be the only mode
(a) Among their various fancies they adopted several important truths. See Buck,
Marsh, p. 231, Sketches of Sectarianism, No. 3.
Ch. 2, § 2, 3.] ORIGIN OP IMMERSION. 179
of baptism. Some of them rejected baptism entirely, as the
Quakers and others do at present(a). This is the earliest
definite intimation given in Ecclesiastical history of any
thing like immersion being practiced for baptism. The
word baptize is often, before this date, used to express this
holy ordinance ; but before this, no word is expressly used
for it, which universally or even generally denotes immerse.
2. In the Greek Churchy immersion for baptism, originated
in the dark ages. The Greek or Eastern church separated
from the Latin or Western, about the year 1050. It has a
greater extent of territory than the Latin church and all the
branches which have originated in departing from its com-
munion. At the time the Greek separated from the Latin
church, immersion had no name as an ordinance among pro-
fessing christians. No word which universally or even gen-
erally signified immersion, had then been used for baptism.
But it is not certainly known how soon after this separation,
immersion was introduced into the Greek church for bap-
tism. It is probable however that, at first, the washing
which, at that time and long before, often preceded baptism,
was at length occasionally substituted for that ordinance.
In this way, immersion for baptism, might have been gradu-
ally introducecl(5). But this church, with all its supersti-
tious foibles, does not maintain that immersion is the only
mode of baptism(c). And, for more than a thousand years
after the birth of Christ, its members had not used (stxSa'rruj
or ifxoac-i^w or) any word for baptism which generally sig-
nified immerse. But whether this immersion, frequently
practiced by the Greek church, or that of the Petrobrus-
sians, is the most ancient, is not easily determined ; nor is
this a matter of any importance in reference to the argu-
ment. It is certain that with the one, if it existed at all, it
did not originate before the year 1110 ; nor with the other,
before the year 1050. They both had their origin in the
dark ages ; and neither of them did or does hold that im-
mersion is the only mode of baptism.
3. Immersion, as the only mode of baptism, loas first taught
during the progress of the Reformation from Popery. This
(a) See Sket. of Sec. No. 3. (b) See Buck; Reli. Cer. and Cus, Mosheim, Wells,
Wharev. Gregory and Hawies' Ch. Hist. King's Rites and Cer. of Gr. Cb. Russ. Cat.
Secret Memoirs of the Court of Petersburgh ;'Tooke's Hist of Rus; Ricaut on theGr.
Ch.: Brit. Ency. (c) P. ii.Ch. 3, ^ 1, P. ii, Ch. 4, $ 1.
leO BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IV.
reformation commenced about the year 1517. About the
year 1521, the Anabaptists(rt) began to preach and organize
themselves in Saxony and in some other parts of the Ger-
man Confederation. They professed to be inspired, reject-
ed civil magistracy, the baptism of infants, and all distinc-
tions among men. They held to polygamy, the immediate
and personal appearance of Christ on earth, the immersion
of adults, and a number of other peculiarities. In many
respects they were grossly immoral. One of their leaders
married fourteen wives, most if not all of them living at the
same time. During the year 1525, their number being not
less tlian seventy-five thousand, they took up arms and de-
clared war against all law. They were, by the civil pow-
er, overcome and dispersed, June 24th, 1535. They re-
mained in this disorganized state, till 153G. At this date,
Menno Simon, a notoriously profligate priest, resigned his
office in the Romish church, laid aside some of his immoral-
ities, and joined the Anabaptists. Being a man of some
learning and observation, he reduced their system to a de-
gree of order. He omitted several of its most extravagant
raid fanciful parts. He also added some things less inconsis-
tent with morality than their previous notions were. Under
him, they adopted the notion that immersion is, not only
baptism, but the only mode of baptism. This they did about
the year 1538. About the same time a number of English
Anabaptists renounced their baptism, sent one of their party
to Amsterdam to be immersed by a Dutch Anabaptist, was
immersed by him, and adopted the opinion that immersion
and that only is baptism. This was the origin of immersion
as the only mode of baptism. This notion originated in
blood and rapine, and unbridled licentiousness. All this, its
originators practiced to a fearful extent. They originated
and organized their own system ; were self-appointed ; their
every society is and has been self-constituted. To those
who commenced the system, common morality was a stran-
ger. In many places, the followers of these ancient im-
mersers imitate the example of their former leaders, as near-
ly as circumstances will permit(5). Thus immersion, as
(a) Tlie word Anabaptist denotes one who l)aptizes a second time, or a baptizer
anew. Wells', VVharev's, &c., Hist, (b) Sec Ecclesiastical History, as Marsh, Mo-
sheiiu, &c. ; Robertson's Hist, of Cliarlos V.; Brit. Ency.; Reli. Cer. and Cus.
Ch. 2, §4.] ORIGIN OF IMiMERSION. 181
the only mode of baptism, originated early in the sixteenth
century, among a set of extravagantly wicked fanatics. Their
horrid profligacy would make the most abandoned wretch of
modern days, ashamed of their company. Their fanaticism
would outdo any thing of the kind that has disgraced human
nature, since they, under the name of religion, gave a loose
rein to all the baser passions of the carnal heart. Let those
who adopt such a system, look at its origin and blush. Let
them feel that honest men instead of adopting such a system,
ought to hold it in abhorrence.
4. Immersion originated in America in the seventeentJi
century. Early in this century, a minister of a congrega-
tional church in Boston(rt), refused to commune with those
who had communed with the Episcopal church. He taught
that magistrates ought not to punish men for breaking the
Sabbath or for disturbing public worship, and that all reli-
gions should be tolerated(Z>). These opinions produced great
commotions in the commonwealth. They were contrary to
the civil law. He was therefore, for teaching them, ban-
ished, about the year 1635. He settled in Providence, Rhode
Island, renounced his baptism, and in March, 1638, was im-
mersed by Mr. Ezekiel Hollyman. This Mr. Hollyman
was a layman. He was not, and did not profess to be, a
minister of any denomination. This layman immersed the
Rev. Roger Williams, and then the Rev. Roger Williams
turned round and immersed the same Mr. Hollyman and
nine other persons. A minister, after preaching several
years, professes to have just discovered, one of the first
" principles of the doctrine of Christ.''* He then admits
that he had been deceiving all who had before been instruct-
ed by him on the subject of baptism. He receives immer-
sion from a person who had no authority to administer bap-
tism(c), and then fancies that this blasphemous farce author-
izes him to immerse others as a substitute for baptism. Im-
mersion in America originated therefore, in the seventeenth
century, with an unimmersed layman, who, without the
least shadow of authority from God's word, performed the
solemn farce of immersing Roger Williams, after he, the
(a) Roger Williams, (b) This last is generally, and with propriety, considered tc
be a correct sentiment, *See Heb. 6; X. 2. fc; B. i, P. vi, Ch. 2, § 1.
182 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IV.
said Roger, had been, in profession at least, for years a min-
ister of the gospel(«).
It appears tlierefore from tiiis cliapter, (1.) Tliat immer-
sion as one modeo'L baptism, or rather as a substitute for this
ordinance, may have been practiced in France by the Petro-
brussians between the years UIO and 1150. A part of
these at least, after the death of Peter De Bruys their lead-
er, were called Henricians, after Plenry one of his disci-
ples. (2.) Some time after the year 1050, the Greek or
Eastern cluirch adopted immersion as one mode, and finally
as their usual, though not as the only mode of baptizing their
infants. (3.) In Germany and England, those most wicked,
most horridly profligate fanatics, the Anabaptists, about the
year 1538, adopted immersion as the only mode of baptism.
This is the first instance on record of any class, society or
congregation of persons, good or bad, who adopted immer-
sion as the only mode of baptism. (4.) In America, immer-
sion had its origin in the year 1638, with an unimmersed
layman, who had no authority whatever to administer bap-
tism in any mode. It is manifest therefore that, during the
darkest part of the dark ages, immersion as one mode of
baptism, originated in ignorance ; and that, as the only
anode, it had its origin in the most unblushing profligacy and
licentious wickedness which could disgrace the name of man.
That men professing to be intelligent christians, should adopt,
as a religious ordinance, that which had such an origin, is
truly astonishing. But that any such persons should serious-
ly insist upon this progeny of licentiousness being the only
mode of baptism, can only be accounted for on the supposi-
tion that they have never carefully examined the subject
CHAPTER III.
EVILS OF IMMERSION.
1. Several evils are practiced in persuading persons to he
immersed. These are various. Only a few of them need
be mentioned here. Those whom immersers are attempting
to lead into their snare,-are (1.) Deceived hy false statements.
(a) SeeSket. of Sec. No.3.; Memoir of Roger Williams by J. D. Knowle?, p. 46. lOo.
lOtt. as quoted by E. House; Marsh, Moshcim, and Church History generally.
Ch. 3, § 2.] ^ EVILS OF IMMERSION. 183
They are told that Christ was immersecl(a); that the Eanuch
was hnmersed(^); that Christ was baptized to set us an ex-
ample(c); that John's was the ordinance of christian bap-
tism((Z) that the word baptize always signifies immerse(e);
that immersion is the only scriptural baptism(yj!; that the
Lexicons and Pedobaptist writers teach that immersion is
the only mode of baptisraC^J; that immersion is a christian
cross(/^); and they make a variety of other statements as
destitute of truth as those here named are. (2.) By these
false statements, persons are often led to turn aside from the
word of God. They are thus induced to be immersed as a
substitute for baptism ; when immersion as baptism, is not
so much as once mentioned in the whole scriptures(z). Hav-
ing thus turned aside from Divine authority in relation to
baptism, they (3.) Are prepared to take the assertions of men
for their rule instead of the plain declarations of God's
word(jJ. In this way they adopt the exclusive system of
immersers. These are evils of no small magnitude.
2. A numher of evils are committed in the very act of re-
ceiving immersion. (1.) The command of God is violated
in which he requires men, in every religious practice to act
according " to the law and to the testimony'^*(A;). As there
is no precept or example in God's word for immersion ; in
the very act of going under the water as a part of their re-
ligion, they disobey this command. They also in this act
violate all such commands as speak in this or similar lan-
guage; " Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of
man.^'t (2.) As in this act they trust in the directions gi-
ven by man instead of those which God reveals; they may,
by adopting it for baptism, draw down upon themselves that
curse which is revealed in these words; " Cursed be the man
that trusteth in man. "J (3.) In this act, they use a mere
human invention which originated in gross ignorance and
in most wicked fanaticism(Z) as if it was a Divine ordinance,
the observance of which God had positively required, and
which he had as positively forbidden to be observed in any
other mode. (4.) Not a small proportion of immersers make
rajSee B. iii, P. i, Ch. 2, ^ 1. CWSee B. iii, P. 1, Ch. 2, ). It appears therefore
that they or many of them nearly or quite make a saviour
of immersion.
3. Immersio7i is an evil to the immersed. By being im-
mersed as a substitute for baptism, they are (1.) Prepared to
reject or pervert every passage of scripture which speaks of
the mode of baptism. As not one passage in the word of
God, mentions immersion as the only mode, or even as a
mode, of baptism(c); so they, to sustain their system, must
reject or pervert every passage which mentions that subject.
(2.) This cultivates prejudice against those who take the
word of God for their only rule of duty. (3.) To sustain
their system, they are under the necessity of making false
statements as to the language of the scriptures, of Lexicons
and of those who reject their notions in relation to baptism(fZ).
These and many other evils, are brought upon the immers-
ed, from adopting the notion that immersion is the only mode
of baptism.
4. Others suffer in consequence of men ado'pting the opin-
ion that immersion is the only mode of hajitism. (1.) Some
have lost their lives in attempting to be immersed(e). In
such cases, the crime of man-slaughter, if nothing worse, is
committed. (2.) The health of many is destroyed or very
materially injured, by being immersed. Every observing
person who lives among immersers, can, no doubt, refer to
('rt^See Bliss on Bap. ('JJKemmont. See also Calmet, and Bruce vol. iv, p. 275.
(c)V. i, Ch. 1, <^ 8. (d)^ 1. They frequently assert that the Bible teaches that im-
nierson is the only mode of baptism ; that the Lexicons teach the same notion; that
all who believe in baptism admit their claims to be well founded, &c.; while not one of
these or similar statements is true. ('e^One instance of this kind occurred at CrewQ ia
England Nov. 23, 1343; see Ch. In. No. 700.
Ch. 3, § 4.] EVILS OF IMMERSION. 185
instances of this evil. (3.) This opinion promotes infidelity
by leading its advocates to reject the Old Testament, as if it
was no part of God's word ; and by frequently leading them
to mistake an excitement of the imagination for true reli-
gion. (4.) Some who adopt this notion refuse the seal of
God's covenant to a part of those to whom the command re-
quires it to be applied.* (.5.) Those who hold that immer-
sion is the only mode of baptism, often put christians on a
par with atheists. They debar the children of God from the
table of their Saviour; because they do not adopt as the only
mode of baptism, what is not mentioned as baptism in the
whole of Divine revelation. They thus, as far as their princi-
ples can do so, unchurch all who will not substitute human
for Divine authority in relation to the ordinance of bap-
tism. (6.) It has a tendency to continue its advocates in ig-
norance, by leading them to suppose that God says one thing
when he means another, — that when he says baptize, he
means immerse. This same system originating, as it did,
in ignorance and wickedness(a), introduces men who can
scarcely read their mother tongue with tolerable accuracy,
into that sacred office which requires all who hold it to be
able to teach all things that Christ has commanded. t To
place ignorance in the office of the gospel ministry, has al-
ways been, and yet is, practiced by every class of immers-
ers (b). While men who have so little regard for the
gospel of Christ and for the souls of our race, that they will
not spend the time and labor which are necessary to qualify
them in some degree for teaching what all whom the Re-
deemer of sinners sends out as his ambassadors must teach,
are introduced into the sacred office; so long will ignorant
and wicked men be found in the ministry; and so long as
those who submit to the exclusive claims of immersion, ad-
mit such men to be public teachers among them; so long
will their system promote ignorance and wickedness.
Thus a few of the evils of immersion, have been mention-
ed. These vary in their degree of guilt, from falsehood to
man-slaughter. They are perpetrated by the immerser
and by those who are immersed. They are either direct-
ly or indirectly countenanced by all those who adopt
*See Gen. 17: 12, Rom. 4: 11. (a)Ch. 2, § 3. fSee Mat. 23: 19. 20. C^Tliough this
is a general truth; still there are a few men of science among their preachers.
186 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IV.
immersion as the only mode of baptism. Christians and mo-
ral men ought to be excused from adopting such a system.
A GENERAL VIEW OF
IMMERSION AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISMJ PRESENTED IN
A DIALOGUE.
Baptizer. Mr. immerser do you hold that immersion is
the only mode of baptism?
Immerser. Yes, that is my belief.
B. Does God in his word, command persons to immerse
or to be immersed?
I. No. He commands persons to be baptized; but says
not one word concerning immersion for baptism.
B. Does God say that any person ever was immersed for
baptism?
I. No. He does not. The word immerse is not once
used in the whole of Divine revelation.
B. Do the scriptures teach that the word baptize always
denotes immerse?
I. No. They say nothing of the kind.
B. Do they intimate that immerse is the principal signi-
fication of that word?
I. No. The bible does not inform us that the Greek word
(BofTrri^oj) for baptize or (Ba-Trrw) its root signifies immerse.
B. Is either of the words {s^fSwrrn^o) or sixiSoLtru)) which
in the Greek language, frequently denote immerse, ever
used for baptize?
I. No. Neither of them is, either in the scriptures or in
other books, used to denote baptism.
B. What does the word baptize mean?
I. It has a great variety of significations. Among these,
it denotes to sprinkle, to wet a very small part, &c.
B. When it is said that Philip and the Eunuch " went
down into the water;" is immersion taught by these words?
I. No; for if it was, then Philip must have been immersed
as well as the Eunuch; because " they both went down into
the water."*
B. Was the act of going into the water baptism?
I. No; because Philip baptized the Eunuch after they
"went down into the water."
*Act« 6: 38.
REVIEW OF IMMERSION. 187
B. Do the words " down into" ever mean underl
I. No. Down into the meadow does not mean under the
meadow; nor down into the cellar, under the cellar, &c.
B. Do the words " up out of,'' signify from under]
1. No. When the Israelites came "up out of the land of
Egypt,"* they did not come from under any of that country.
When a man comes " up out of" the garden, he does not
come from under it. When a person comes *'up out of"
the barn he does not come from under it.
B. Does the word baptize ever signify to put persons en-
tirely under water and then take them up again?
I. No. Immersers never pretend that the word baptize
denotes more than a very small part of what they do when
they immerse persons. Indeed, it is by no means certain
that the word baptize ever signifies to put a person entirely
under water.
B. Did John immerse in Enon or in Jordan?
I. No. He himself declares, that when he baptized in
Enon and in or at Jordan; he baptized ^^with water,"t not
by putting persons under that element.
B. Is there any water at Enon sufficiently deep to im-
merse adults in?
I. No. Sacred Geography informs us that there is no
stream in all Palestine except the Jordan, so large that in it^
(except in a freshet,) an adult person could be immersed.
It also informs us that at or near Enon there is no water
more than a very few inches deep.
B. Why do you believe that immersion is the only mode
of baptism?
I. My conscience tells me, that is the right way.
B. Does the word of God tell you that immersion is the
only mode of baptism?
I. No. The bible tells me no such thing.
B. Then why did you adopt the notion that immersion*is
the only mode of baptism?
I. I just made up my mind to be immersed ; and then I
went to the scriptures to find something to support my deter-
mination.
B. Did you find any support for your system in the word
of God?
*Ex. 32: 1. jMat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16; John 1: 33.
188 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, T. IV.
I. No; not the least. Indeed I discovered an irreconcilea-
ble opposition between my system and the word of God.
1^. What did you do then?
I. Why, I determined to make such additions, alterations
and amendments in the scriptures, as would make them cor-
respond with my notions concerning immersion.
B. Mow did you succeed?
I. Not very well. 1 could find no word which really sig-
nifies what I do in immersion. Nor dare I substitute my fa-
vorite Latin word immerse for baptize in every passage
where the original word or its root is used in the scriptures.
If I had made this substitution in every such passage; it
would have made sad work with the immersion part of my
system. If I had said that Nebuchadnezzar was immersed
" with the dew of heaven;" or that the Jews immersed them-
selves in water-pots containing less than twenty-five gallons
each;* my own system must, by this language, have been
cut up b)^ the roots. But with all my anxiety to alter the
word of God, so as to make it suit my notions, I did not suc-
ceed in making it say, in one passage, that immersion is the
only mode of baptism. Besides, I find that my favorite
words, dij}, i^lunge^ immerse^ imhue, ovenuliehn, and the like,
do not always or generally or even at any time, express
what I do in immersion. No one of these words ever de-
notes to put a person under water and then immediately take
him up again from under its surface.
B. What will you do to escape from this difficulty?
I. I do not know. But I would rather give up the bible
entirely, than forsake my long cherished, much-loved, ex-
clusive notion that immersion is the only mode of baptism.
B. I thought so. You do not, love immersion because it
is taught, as you may fancy, in the word of God ; but you
love that holy book only so far as you think it teaches im-
mersion to be the only mode of baptism. It may be well for
you to lay aside this 3-our superstitious bigotry, and hereaf-
ter take Ihe scriptures for your only rule of duty in every
religious act. See to it that you have a Divine command
for every part of your religion. If you do this, you will
*Sce Dan. 4: 25 in Eng. and 4: 30 in Greeek, Mark 7: 4 ami Luke 11: 33 in Greek,
compared with John 2: 6.
Ch. 1, § 1.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 189
soon lay aside your notion that immersion is the only mode
of baptism.
BOOK THIRD.
SPRINKLING A MODE OF BAPTISM.
PART FIRST.
DIVINE AUTHORITY FOR SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
SPRINKLING AS A MODE OP BAPTISM TAUGHT IN THE SCRIP-
TURES.
1. That sprinkling is a mode of baptism^ is expressly
taught in the icorcl of God. The King of Zion says to his
spiritual Israel in New Testament times ; " Then will I
sprinkle clean water upon you.'"* This prediction cannot
relate to the Jewish ceremonial washings. These had been
in use more than nine hundred years before this prediction
was delivered by the prophet. That which was future when
it was spoken by Divine authority, as was this prediction,
could not refer to what had then existed nine hundred years.
It must therefore refer to after ages. No new additional
and permanent ordinances were, after this prediction, insti-
tuted in the Old Testament church. This must therefore re-
fer to New Testament times. In the christian church, wa-
ter is used by Divine authority, in the ordinance of baptism.
God has not required, authorized or permitted, men to use
water in any religious rite after the death of Christ, except
in the holy ordinance of baptism. But the prophet predicts
that water is, by Divine authority, to be used in New Testa-
ment times ; and that it is to be sprinkled upon persons.
No language can more clearly show, than this prediction
does, that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. If water was
used by Divine authority, in the christian church, in any
other religious ordinance except baptism ; then there might
be a doubt as to which of these the prediction related. But
since God requires water to be used in no religious ordinance
except baptism ; there can therefore be no doubt on the sub-
ject. The Lord expressly declares by the mouth of the
*Ezek. 36: 25.
190 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I.
prophet j ** Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you."
Language cannot be more explicit and positive than this.
In the fulfillment of this prophecy, he will "sprinkle clean
water upon" his people, either by himself or by his minister-
ing servants ; or he will sprinkle the water himself, and also
authorize others to do so. But whether he sprinkles water
himself, or authorizes others to do so; he, in either case,
claims to be the author of the action. He is properly repre-
sented as doing that which he directs others to do. This
claim he makes in the matter of baptism.* From this, it is
therefore manifest, that when others, by his authority, "sprin-
kle clean water upon" persons in baptism, (the only ordi-
nance in which he directs water to be used in the christian
church ;) he claims to be the administrator of the ordinance,
(a). The Lord Jesus Christ does what his servants do in
obedience to his command and by his authority. He there-
fore sprinkles clean water, when his ministering servants do
so in his name and by his authority. This prediction can-
not be fulfilled unless clean water is sprinkled on persons in
baptism ; for that is the only ordinance in which water is,
in the christian church, used by Divine authority. That
this sprinkling does not denote the work of the Spirit, is man-
ifest from the language itself and from the connection in
which it is found. The language is ; I will '' sprinkle clean
water upon you." It is not ; I will sprinkle you with the
Spirit. It is with ivater, they are to be sprinkled. The
connection teaches the same truth. The next verse says ;
"A new heart also will I give you."t " A new heart also^^
or in addition to this sprinkling, was to be given to them.
The new heart which is produced by the holy Spirit in the
soul at the moment of regeneration, is not therefore this
sprinkling, but given in addition to it. Moreover, it is an
essentially different work. It is therefore evident, as lan-
guage can make it, that the expression ; " then will I sprin-
kle clean water upon you," teaches that sprinkling is a mode
of baptism ; and that God's spiritual Israel, the members of
the New Testament church, are to be baptized by sprinkling
clean water upon them.
Of the blessed Jesus, it is declared by the prophet ; he
*See John 4: 1. 2. (a) This claim is proper, on the principle that what a persoH does
by another, he does by himself. 'tSeeEzek. 36: 25. 26.
Ch. 1, § 1.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 191
shall "sprinkle many nations."* The Eunuch was read-
ing a part of the language found in connection with this
passage when he " was sitting in his chariot." From this
prophetic description of Christ, Philip *' preached unto him
Jesus,'' and "baptized him.''t The only passage in the
whole of this portion of Isaiah's prophecy, which gives the
least intimation of the use of water, is that in which it is said ;
he shall "sprinkle many nations." But from hearing this
prophetic scripture explained, the Eunuch desired to be bap-
tized. It appears therefore that this sprinkling mentioned
by the prophet, was explained by Philip to be the applica-
tion of water in baptism. Since Philip baptized the Eunuch
after preaching Jesus to him from this prophetic description
of the Son of God; we are clearly taught that Christ, by his
servants, shall " sprinkle many nations" in baptism. As
we are taught that many nations shall be sprinkled ; we are
not entirely without instruction as to that mode of baptism.
The declaration ; he shall " sprinkle many nations," con-
tains positive evidence that sprinkling is a mode of baptism.
The Hebrew word (j^t^) here used by the Spirit of God,
literally signifies to "sprinkle." That part of the verb(a),
which generally expresses causality, is, in this passage, em-
ployed by inspiration. The idea therefore when expressed
in the most literal form of words possible, would be ; " he
shall cause many nations to be sprinkled," or " he shall
cause" men *' to sprinkle many nations." This is precise-
ly the force of the words, he shall "sprinkle many nations,"
used in the common English translation of the bible. This
same Hebrew word (hT^) ^^ very frequently used in the
Old Testament. It is used in the expressions ; the priest
"shall sprinkle him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy
seven times ;" — "the priest — shall sprinkle of the oil with
his finger seven times ;" — " he shall — sprinkle the house
seven times,"| and in a great variety of other passages(Z>).
*l3a. 5-2: 13. fActs S: 32. 33. 35. 38. compared with Isa. 52. 13-13 and 53: 1-8 (a)
The Hiphil conjugation. See Heb. Grammars. JSee Lev. 14: 7. 16: 51 in Heb.
(b) This Hebrew word (^J^T^) also signifies to spatter, to leap for joy and to re-
joice. (See Gibbs' and other Heb. Lexicons.) But it does not, (as Mr. Bliss teaches
in his letters on baptism, p. 51,) denote astonish. It is by no means certain that this
word ever has this signification. If it ever has, it is an exceedingly unusual meaning.
That such a sense cannot belong to the word in Lev. 14: 7. 16. 51. is perfectly certain.
No one, not even an immerser, would be willing to say, the priest — shall astonish of the
oil with his finger seven times, &c. Mr. Bliss, in his remarks on this word, is very
192 BIBLE BAl'TISM. [b. Ill, P. 1.
The language of God's word tlierefore, both in the original
and in tlie English translation of this ])assage, clearly and
explicitly declares, that Christ, by his ministering servants,
"sliall,'' in New Testament times, "sprinkle many nations"
in the administration of the holy ordinance of baptism.
2. The loord hcqitize signifies to sprinkle. That the word
(Ba'TrriJw) for baptize has a great variety of significations,
is certain(rtj). When this is the fact in relation to any word,
it becomes a matter of importance to be able to ascertain its
exact meaning in any book or passage of a book in which it
may be used. How can this be done ? is an important in-
quii-y. If the word, the exact meaning of which is sought,
is a very important one, the importance of knowing its ex-
act signification becomes proportionably great. If we would
ascertain the definite meaning of any word as it is used in
any book, or in any passage of the works of an author, we
must not take what may possibly be its signification in one
or two places, and then assert that this is the only proper
meaning of the word. Such a course may pass with igno-
rant demagogues, with deliberate deceivers, and with those
who mistake their assertions for proof. In Dictionaries or
Lexicons, the usual meanings of a word are generally found.
But to ascertain the exact meaning of a word in any partic-
ular passage of any book, one or both of two ways may be
adopted. One is from the connection. This may be such
that but one meaning will make sense in the passage. In
that case the connection must determine what meaning is to
be attached to the word. Another mode by which the exact
signification of a word may be determined, is, by having it
(a)B. ii, p. ii, Ch. 1, $ 1; B. ii, p. ii, Ch. 2, § I.
cftreful to omit sprin/de, though this is its radical meaning'. His liberal charge of ". 71,) that " Matthew Henry" and others whom he names, "agree"
that tlie jailer's family "were all converted." Henry (on Acts 16: 2.5-34, see Vol. vi,
11. 109, [par. 3.] Phil. Ed. l'-38,) says the exact contrary. His language used as if ad-
dressed to the jailer, is; "Those of thy house that are infants, shall be admitted into
tJie visible church with thee," &.c. Mr. Bliss perhaps referred to the Bajitist edition
of Henry's Exposition, in which immersers have made a number of alterRtions. Men
who can alter the word of God to make it suit their system, will not hesitate to alter
tlie writings of man for the same unholy, unscriptural purpose. If persons will alter the
Bible in order to sustain immersion, they will do almost any thing else for the same
purjiose.
Ch. 1, § 2.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 193
defined or described by the author who uses it. In this last
way, the exact meaning of a word, as used by any good wri-
ter, can always and certainly be ascertained. If the word
(BaTT-jJw) for baptize is thus defined and described in Divine
revelation, then its exact scriptural meaning can be certain-
ly known. In relation to the exact scriptural signification
of this Greek word (Ba-TTTi^oj) it may be remarked, (1.)
That it does not, from the connection in which it is used in
any passage of God's word, necessarily denote any one thing
which is done in immersion(a). This will be evident to any
one who reads with care those passages which mention bap-
tism with water.* (2.) It is frequently so used that it can-
not possibly signify any part of what is done in immersion.
{h). Those passages of scripture which mention baptism
without water clearly teach this truth. t (3.) Il»is frequent-
ly so used that sprinkling and nothing else, will make sense
in the passage(c)|. (4.) To sprinkle is one legitimate
meaning of this word(^), as given in the Lexicons. (5.)
The root (Ba^Tw) from which it is derived, signifies to sprin-
kle {d)^. This the Lexicons also teach. (6.) In every
passage of scripture in which baptism with water is required
or mentioned, II sprinkling may be or may have been the
mode. (7.) When God in his word expressly mentions the
mode of baptism, he calls it sprinkling(e). Of this ordinance
the King of Zion has said to his people in New Testament
times ; "• Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you ;" and
again, it is declared of him, " he shall sprinkle many na-
tions."1] Here Omniscience defines baptism to be the sprink-
ling of clean water upon his spiritual Israel. (8.) The
mode of baptism is often described in the scriptures of truth.
In these descriptions it is called sprinkling. The Old Tes-
tament ceremonial washings are collectively denominated
" divers washings" (Ba-Trritffxojc:) or baptisms.** In the orig-
inal Greek these washings are expressly called baptisms.
The mode in which water and other fluids was applied in
these washings or baptisms, is repeatedly mentioned in the
(a) See B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, $ 4, B. ii, P. i, Ch. 4, § 7. 8. *See Mat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8,
Luke 3: IG, John 1: 26. 33. (b) B. i, P. v, Ch. 1. 2. and 3. and B. ii, P. i, Ch. 7, ^ 1-16
tSee Mat. 20: 22, Luke 12: 50. (c) See Ch. 2, § 3-5. JSee 1 Cor. 10: 1. 2. compared
with Ex. 14: 21. 22. (d) § 4, and B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, § 1. (iSee Dan. 4: 30: Lev. 14: 6,
51, Luke 16: 24, all in Greek. ||See Mat. 3: 6. 11. 1.3. 14. 16, Acts 6: 38 and 9: 18. &c
(e) § 1. -ffEzek. 36: 25, Isa. 52; 15. **Heb. 9: 10 in Greek.
13
194 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I.
word of God. This mode is definitely and expressly, and
frequently called sprinkling(a). In three different places
in this same chapter in which these " divers washings" or
baptisms are mentioned, the mode in which substances were
applied in these baptisms, is expressly said to have been by
sprinkling. Of the mode by which these baptisms were admin-
istered, it is expressly stated that "■ the blood of bulls and of
goats and the ashes of a heifer" were used in "sprinkling
the unclean.''' This washing or baptism is positively said to
have been by sprinkling. It is stated again, that " Moses —
took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet
wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the
people.'' This is another of those " divers w^ashings" (Ba-jr'-
Tjj'aoicr) or baptisms, which was certainly performed by sprink-
ling. Moreover, it is said that Moses " sprinkled" — with
blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry."*
This washing or baptism is also positively declared to have
been performed by sprinkling. Three of these "divers
washings" or (^Bwrrrirfixoic:) baptisms, are here mentioned.
Tiie mode of the baptism is mentioned in each case, and that
mode is expressly called sprinkling. God, in these and in
many other passages of scripture(Z'), describes the word
rBaTTTi^w) for baptize. He thus shows that w^hen ho uses it
he intends to give it a definite signification. He informs us
also what that signification is. He tells us positively that
when he uses this woi*d (Bacrrj^w) for baptize, it means to
sprinkle. Thus we are expressly taught both by Divine and
human wisdom, and in a great variety of ways, that the
word baptize signifies to sprinkle(c).
(a) $ 3. '^Ileb. 9: 13. 19, 21. (b) See passages quoted in § 3.
(c) Tlie liistory of the word baptize deserve here a passing remark. This word
( Ba'TfTj^w) is used by Homer, the earliest Greek writer, (See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 2, §
2. (note h.) and § 4.) It is used in the Septiiagint translation of the Old Testament
which was made about 283 years before Christ. (See § 3.) Nearly 200 years before
the birth of our Saviour, it is found in the Apocrypha, (See B. ii, P. ii, < h. 2, $ 1.) la
its various modifications, il is employed ninety-three times in the New Testament, (See
Ii. ii, P. i, Cli. 1, § 8.) it is frequently used by Josephus. He wrote soon after tlie
Romans destroyed Jerusalem. This event took, place in A. D. 70. Many classical
heathen writers among the Greeks, besides Homer, use this word, (SeeB. ii, P. ii, Ch.
2, $ 4.) By the early christians who wrote in Greek, it is often, employed. Soon after
Greece was conquered by the Komans, about 160 years before Christ, it was introduced
into the Latin language. The early chritstians who wrote in Latin, often used this
word by merely substituting the Ronun for the Greek letters. Jerome, about the year
'•TM, used it in his Latin translation of the Bible, commonly called " The Vulgate." It
became a part of tliC English language, almost in its first origin. The present trans^
latioa of the Bible into English, was completed in 1010, and published the next year.
Ch. 1, ^ 3. J SPRINKLING SCRIPTUIIAL BAPTISM. 195
3. Sprinkling is the only mode of bapism definitely men^
tioned in the word of God. Baptism is often mentioned in
the scriptures when the mode is not stated. It is also fi'e-
quently mentioned in such connections as to render it im-
possible for the word to denote the application of water in
any mode(rt). But in every passage of scripture where the
mode of baptism is explicitly mentioned, sprinkling is spo-
ken of as that mode. The Old Testament ceremonial wash-
ings are collectively called (sa'Trrjtffxoj^) baptisms.* Each
of these is therefore one baptism. Whenever, in the whole
of Divine revelation, the mode of any one or more of these
washings or baptisms, is definitely mentioned, sprinkling is
(a) See B. i, P. v, Chs. 1. 2 and 3, *Heb. 9: 10 in Greek.
But for several centuries before this, the word baptize formed a part of our language.
It has done so ever since. It may indeed be said that tlie Eiaglis)! language is a com-
pound made up of several others. In it, as component parts, are found a greater or less
number of words which have been transferred from more than twenty different lan-
guages, ancient and modern. As examples of sucli transfeired words, immerse from
the low Latin, hymn from the Greek, cherub and serapk from the Hebrew, dernier from
the French, &.c., may be mentioned. Before the year 1010, ten or twelve translations
of the scriptures and portions of the scriptures into English had been made. VVickliff
completed his translation in the year 1382. Copies of it are now found in some few
libraries. Tyiidal completed his in 1530; another was published in 1.541 ; another in
1549-, another in 1.5.51; and otiiers at other dates. A few copies of these are yet ex-
tant in some large libraries. In all these, as far as known, the word baptize is used.
This word ( BavTr/^w) bas been in use among the best Greek writers for more than
2.500 years. It is now, and has for hundreds Bf years, been a component part of the
English language. Its use is therefore as legitimate and proper as that of any other
word in our language.
Immersers used the present English translation of the scriptures for more than SCO
years after it was first published in 1611. During all this time, they sanctioned the use
of the word baptize which it contained. They were so decidedly in favor of this word
that they even adopted it as a denominational name. From this very word, they cal-
led themselves Haptists. Thus, for more than 200 years, they have done all they pos-
sibly could, to establish the claims of this word to be a part of the English language.
By the course they have pursued all this time, they have taught that it was the most
proper English term by which to e.xpress the idea contained in the Greek word
(Ba'TT'TJ^w) for baptize. Now, and for a few years past, these same Baptists, yet
wearing this word for a name, represent the use of it in the English New Testament,
as a "heaven-daring crime," (See Bliss on Baptism.) Let it be remembered too, that
this very word (BaTTTj^'w) is one which the Spirit of God uses in revealing to us his
will. Moreover, it has been employed for more than 200 years by this same denomi-
nation of people to e.tpress this christian ordinance. But now, to use it thus, they in-
timate, is a " heaven-daring crime." When for more than 200 years, they used the Bi-
ble which contains this word, (and not a few of litem do so still;) were, and are they
deceiving their followers ? or are they deceiving them now by saying so many hard
things against the present use of the word baptize in the New Testament? If im-
merser preachers have^as they affirm in their present declarations against the English
Bible, been palming a false translation of the scriptures upon their followers for more
than 200 years, in the shape of what they, with contemptuous blasphemy, often call
King James' Bible; if not a few of them yet use it in their pulpits, as is notoriously
the fact ; then it is truly high time for the public to be on their guard against them.
If they have, for more than 200 years, been thus deceiving those who.have been receiv-
ing them as the Lord's messengers, whether this deception has been, from ijaorancc
or design; it is certainly proper they should now be carefully watched.
196 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I.
the mode expressly named. These *' washings" or baptisms
are said to be administered by sprinkling in a great variety
of passages of scripture. But, in no instance, is any other
mode of performing these " washings" or baptisms, express-
ly stated. The mode of baptism is either not explicitly men-
tioned, or in some form of words it is denominated sprink-
ling. When the terms wash or purify or the like, are used,
tliey do not describe the mode. They merely teach the fact
that a washing or baptism was administered in some mode,
without specifying what tliat was. In more than twenty in-
stances in the passages referred to,* these baptisms are ex-
pressly said to be by sprinkling. In these passages, water
and blood are often said to be sprinkled on persons in per-
forming those ceremonial washings which God, by his ser-
vant calls {BaiTTKfij.oig) baptisms. t These baptismal wash-
ings by sprinkling, are mentioned in the New Testament as
well as in the Old. Only apart of them have been referred
to. But in every passage in which the mode of these bap-
tisms is expressly mentioned, it is, in some form of words,
denominated sprinkling ; and in no instance is it, in any
form of language, expressly said to be by immersion.
The Hebrew word (^^'[^J usually translated into Greek
by (Ba-TTTO)) the root of that lor baptize, is, in one passage in
the Septuagint(a) rendered by (Bct'Tm^oj) baptize itself. The
passage is this ; Naaman — ''went down and (siSwzrKtuTo)
"dipped" or baptized 'Miimself seven times in" (sv) ''Jor-
dan" or v/ith its waters-l That the Hebrew word here
translated into Greek by (Ba'rrrjjw) baptize and into English
by dip, does not indicate the mode by which water was ap-
plied in the case of this captain of the Syrian army, is mani-
fest from several considerations. (1.) The word (j^ni)
used by the prophet in his direction to Naaman, does not ex-
press mode. It expresses what is done ; not the mode by
which the act is performed. Elisha directed him to wash in
or with the waters of the Jordan. (2.) He understood what
*Sce Lev. 4: 6. 17 and 5; 9 and 7: 2 and 8: 11. 19. 24. 30 and 9: 12. 18 and 14: 7. 27. 51
and 16: 14. 15. 19, Num. 8: 7 and 19: 4. 13. 18-21, Heb. 9: 13. 19. 21 and 11: 28. jHeb.
»: 10 in Greek, (a) The Septuagint, or the Seventy, is the translation of the Hebrew
of tlie Old Testament into the Greek lan). In one passage it denotes to wet the end of
the finger. This is truly a very small part of the whole body.
The rich man in torment, asks that Lazarus "may dip"
(Ba4>7]) " the tip of his finger in water and cool" his
*'tongue.''* This word cannot here signify more than to wet
an exceedingly small part of the whole person. In another
passage it is difficult to determine its exact import. It is the
one in which our Saviour points out the person of his betray-
er. He declared that he to whom he gave " a sop" or small
piece *' when'' he had (Ba^)^a?) "dipped it, "t would betray
him. Whether this word [na-^l^ag) denotes to take up, break
offf take from a dish, or out of a liquid or to wet a small part
or the whole of the sop, is not easily determined. But when
it was dipped; he gave it to Judas. The other text in which
this word (Ba-Trrcj) is found, is used in describing the Captain
of Salvation as a conquerer returning victorious from the
field of battle, with his "vesture" (Bs/3a|a,a£vov) " dipped in
blood."! The mode in which the warrior's garments are
stained with or dipped in blood, is, (not by taking them off
and immersing them in the purple fluid, but) by the blood
gushing out upon them from the wounded adversary or fal-
len foe. This word therefore in the New Testament, signi-
fies to wet a very small part of the person ; and to stain the
vesture by sprinkling it profusely with blood.
In the Septuagint(c), the word (Ba-TTTw) is used fourteen
times to express the signification of the Hebrew term(^;2'D)
which is translated into English by the words *'d/p" or ''•dip-
(a)See B, ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, ^ 1. (bJOnly three times. *Luke 16: 24 in Greek. fJohn
13; 26 in Greek. JRev. 19: 13 in Greek. C^Tlie O. T. in Greek.
Ch. 1. § 4,] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 199
ped;^^ — ^* plunge in the ditch;'' — and ^'■wet^^ with dew.*
This same Greek word also denotes to nmsh, sprinkle^ tinge,
and the like(a). This Hebrew word (5^1^) is once trans-
lated into Greek by a term (fxoXuvw) which signifies to defile,
pollute, disgrace, dye, stain or tinge. In the passage where
it is used ; it is translated by the word dip. Joseph's breth-
ren (sfAoXuvav) "dipped" " his coat in the blood" of the kid
which they had killed.f Their design was to make their
father believe that Joseph had been killed by some ravenous
beast. To do this they must stain his coat with blood. The
mode of doing this to produce the deception, must be simi-
lar to that by which the garment of a person who had been
killed by a wild beast, would be stained. This would be by
the blood of the person killed by the animal, flowing out up-
on his clothes. His coat, in this way, would be partly stain-
ed with blood ; not entirely immersed in it. The Greek
word (sa'TT'Tw) from which that for baptize is derived, is, in
some passages, used to express an exceedingly gentle sprink-
ling. To be "wet with the dew of heaven," is to be sprin-
kled with very small drops. Every one knows that dew
falls in drops almost imperceptibly minute. The word there-
fore which expresses the mode by which a pei'son is wet
with dew, must denote a very gentle sprinkling. This is
(Ba<;r' and 53: 2-8 compared with y^cts 8: 26-33.
(b)<^ 1. tActs £h 18. rc;See B. ii, I', i, Ch. 1, $ 7. 8, B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1 $ 1, Ch. 1, $ 52.
Ch. 2, ^ 5.3 SPRINKLING SCBIPTURAL BAPTISM. 211
ployed to express his baptism ; the evidence is clear that he
baptized by sprinkling. (2.) He baptized Jesus Christ by
sprinkling(a) ; therefore that was his mode of baptism.
There is not the least intimation given in the account of
our Saviour's baptism, which can lead persons to suppose
that John adopted, in the baptism of Christ, a mode which
differed in any external point from that used by him when
he baptized other persons. But as he baptized Christ by
sprinkling ; that therefore was his mode. (3.) The number
he baptized daily, proves that sprinkling was the mode he
practiced(5). "John did no miracle ;"* and without a mi-
racle, it would be absolutely impossible for one man to bap-
tize in any mode except that of sprinkling, the numbers to
whom he applied water. John therefore baptized by sprink-
ling. All then baptized by him, are examples of persons
baptized by sprinkling.
5. Th whole nation of Israel were baptized hy sprinkling.
Their baptism took place when they were escaping from
Egyptian bondage. At this time, they nunribered " about six
hundred thousand — men, besides" women and '' children. "f
In this number, the Levites were not included.! In this
enumeration, only men over twenty years of age, who were
"able to ga forth to war," are mentioned. § There must
have been at least as many women as men. There were
therefore at that time in the nation of Israel more than twelve
hundred thousand persons over twenty years of age. This
number would probably be less than one third of the whole
people of Israel at that time ; as not more than one-third,
perhaps not one-fourth part of the human race, reach the
age of twenty. If there were six hundred thousand men over
twenty; the same number of women; and three times as ma»
ny persons under twenty as there were over that age ; then
there would have been thirty-six hundred thousand persons
under twenty, and twelve hundred thousand above that age ;
or in the whole nation, excepting the tribe of Levi, there
would have been forty-eight hundred thousand ; and inclu-
ding that tribe, there could not have been less than five mil-
lions in all. But to say that at least two millions five hun-
dred thousand individuals were included in the whole nation
Ca;§l. (b)B.ii.P.i,Ch.l,^6. *JoLn 10: 41. fEi. 12: 37, Nam 1: 1-46. JSee
Num. 1: 47. ^Nam. 1:3.
312 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I.
of Israel when they were baptized in (ev) or with "the cloud"
and in (ev) or with "the sea,"* would be to lieep entirely witli-
in the bounds of certainty. The nation of Israel then in-
cluding at least twenty-five hundred thousand persons, were
(1.) " Baptized in'' (sv) or with " the cloud." To be bapti-
zed in or with a cloud can be done only by the mist of which
it is composed, resting in very small particles of water upon
those who are thus baptized ; or by the mist becoming con-
densed into larger drops and then falling upon them in rain.
In either case the baptism must be by sprinkling. In one
case the mist in very small particles of water falls upon the
baptized ; in the other, the drops which fall upon them in
their baptism, are larger. The latter is usually called rain ;
the former mist. When " the.cloud went from before'' the
Israelites and "stood behind them ;" it " poured out water."t
This water poured out from the cloud as it passed to the
rear of the Israelites, must, like the rain, have fallen in
drops ; because this is the way in which water is invariably
poured out of the clouds. There is not the least evidence
that this water was poured out of the cloud in a way differ-
ent from water falling from clouds at any other time. Here
then, in (ev) or with this cloud, not less than twenty-five hun-
dred thousand persons were baptized by sprinkling. (2.)
These same Israelites were also all baptized in (sv) or with
"the sea."* This their baptism was on "dry ground." It
could not therefore possibly have been by immersion(a). To
immerse or put persons entirely under water, while they are
on " dry land,"| is a complete impossibility. To mention
the thing is to expose its absolute absurdity. These Israel-
ites could not have been baptized by pouring water upon them
out of any vessel. There were no persons appointed to do this
for them. Nor could this, in their situation, have been done
for them by human beings. If the sea had closed in upon
them as it did upon the Egyptians ; they could not then
have passed through it on "dry ground, "-^t Indeed, if wa-
ter had been poured upon each of them in any quantity which
could properly be called pouring in baptism ; the ground
would not have been dry in the midst of the sea where they
were baptized. They could not therefore have been bapti-
*1 Cor. 10: 2 in Greek. fEx. 14: 19, Ps. 77: 17. (a)B. ii, P. i, Ch. 7; § 4. JEx. 14:
21.2fi. ^Ueb. 11:29.
Ch. 2, § 6.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 213
zed on *' dry ground," in any mode' except by sprinkling.
To have baptized them in any other way, would have wet
the ground. When therefore they were baptized " on dry
ground in the midst of the sea," the mode must have been by
sprinkling. The spray or mist rising from the sea, must
have descended upon them. To be baptized with spray or
mist from the water of which the "wall" on their right hand
and on their left* was composed, would not wet the ground.
Scarcely a particle of it would be likely to touch the dry
land on which they were walking through the sea. This
must therefore have been the mode by which they were bap-
tized ; for to have baptized them in any other would have
wet the ground. Then they would not have " passed
through," but only partly "through, the — sea — by dry land."t
As they were baptized in (sv) or with the waters of "the
sea," and as they went through it on dry land ; they must
have been baptized in a mode that would not wet the ground.
But as any other mode except sprinkling, would wet the
ground ; therefore they must have been baptized in the sea
with its waters by sprinkling. Examples by the million of
baptism by sprinkling are here presented.
6. Every example of baptism with ivater mentioned in the
scriptures^ proves that sprinkling is one mode of administer-
ing that ordinance. Whenever water is said to be applied
to persons in this ordinance; the word baptize which signi-
fies sprinkle(a) is employed. It is said of the three thousand
on " the day of Pentecost ;" they " were baptized. "| It is
also declared that Peter and Philip and Ananias and Paul
and others "baptized persons.^ In all these cases, and in
every other instance where any person is said to administer
or receive this ordinance ; the Greek word (BaTrrj^w) for
baptize is used. And, as this word signifies to sprinkle as
one of its meanings, and as this is its only meaning definite-
ly mentioned in the scriptures; so therefore in every example
of baptism mentioned in Divine revelation where this word
is used, (and it is used in them all,) sprinkling as one mode
of baptism, is taught. Every example therefore of baptism
with water mentioned in the whole book of God, shows that
*Ex. 14: 29. fHeb. 11: 29. (a) See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, $ 1; P. i, Ch. 1, 6 2. 3.
:tActs 2: 1. 41. §Act8 2: 38 and 8: 12. 38 and 9: 17. 18 and 10: 47. 48 and 22: 12 16, iCw.
1: 14. 16.
"^14 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. 1.
sprinkling is one, if not the only, mode of administering this
ordinance.
7. The scriptural evidence which proves sprinkling to he
a mode of baptism^ is clear and full. That sprinkling is a
mode of baptism, is taught, (1.) From the express language
of scripture; (2.) From several millions of scriptural exam-
ples of this mode of baptism ; (3.) From the meanings of the
word (Ba-TTTi^w) for baptize, one of which is to sprinkle ;
(4.) From the fact that (Ba'TTw) the root from which the
word for baptize is derived, often denotes to sprinkle; (5.)
From the meaning of the Hebrew word (b^to) which is
translated into Greek by the root of the word for baptize.
This Hebrew word denotes to sprinkle, to wet a small part,
&c. (6.) From the fact that what is signified by baptism is
often said to be sprinkled ; (7.) From the fact that literal
sprinkling is a proper sign of that which is spiritual ; (8.)
From the fact that the uniform mode of performing scriptu-
ral ceremonial washings, is by sprinkling ; (9.) From sprink-
ling being a proper baptismal seal ; (10.) From the fact
that sprinkling is the only mode which can become as uni-
versal as the commission to administer baptism, requires the
ordinance to be administered(a). These, and the other evi-
dences which have been noticed from the word of God, show
most conclusively that sprinkling is a scriptural mode of
baptism.
8. If there is hut one mode of haptism^ that must he hy
sprinkling. There is no definite evidence in the whole word
of God to prove that immersion is a mode, and much less
that it is the only mode of baptism(Z>). But that sprinkling
is a mode of baptism, is taught by inspired men, in the most
unequivocal language(c). If therefore there is but one
mode of baptism ; sprinkling, as it is often definitely taught
in the word of God, both by precept and example, must be
that mode.
The expression, " one baptism," says nothing of the mode.
It does not say, one mode, or only one mode of baptism(
8e« B. ii, P. 1, Ch. 5, ^ l-«, $ 7. (c) P. 1, Ch. 1, 61-7; and $ 1-7. (d)B. i, P.
iv, Ch. 2, $ 2.
Ch. 1, § 1, 2.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 215
notwithstanding this expression, one kind of baptism admi-
nistered by applying water to the person receiving the ordi-
nance, and another kind by the Holy Spirit operating on
the souls of men ; and these may be entirely different from
each other(a). If however there is only one mode by which
the ordinance of christian baptism can be administered; that
cannot be immersion. It must be by sprinkling ; as this is
the only mode definitely taught in the revelation which God
has been pleased to give to mankind(^).
PART SECOND.
HUMAN AUTHORITY ON SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES ON SPRINKLING AS A MODE OP
BAPTISM.
1. Human authority is no part of the Christian' s rule of
duty in religious matters. However numerous and learned
the writers may be, who adopt a particular view, their au-
thority is not the christian's rule of duty. This authority
may be valuable in various respects. Men may direct the
mind to the word of God. They may present, explain or
enforce Divine truth. But their declarations, however plain
and positive and learned and valuable, do not form any por-
tion of the rule for man's religious duties. The word of
God and that only is, and nothing else can be made, his rule
of duty. Human authority on sprinkling as a mode of bap-
tism, is here presented, not as any part of the christian's
rule ; but it is mentioned merely to show that immersers are
nearly as destitute of evidence from this source to sustain
their exclusive claims, as they are from the scriptures of
truth.
2. Greek Lexicons teach that sprinkling is a mode of hap-
tism. Their mode of doing this is two-fold. (1.) They in-
form us that sprinkle is one meaning of the word (Rairru))
from which that for baptize is derived(c). Hence the derivative
(Ba'TTTi^w) which is also a diminutive of the same word (Ba-Jf*
Tw) and therefore expresses less than its primitive, must sig-
nify to sprinkle ; or rather to sprinkle with fewer or smaller
(a)B. i, P. iv, Ch. 2, $ 2. (l>)Ch. 1, $ 3. (c)B. ij, P. ii, Ch. 1, $ 1.
216 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. II.
drops than (Barrio) its root. That the derivative cannot de-
note more, and may express less, than the primitive word
from which it is derived, will be manifest from a few exam-
ples. Blackish is derived from black ; reddish from red ;
wettish from wet ; foolish from fool, &;c. From these and
other examples; it is evident that a derivative word cannot
denote more than that from which it is derived. That black-
ish cannot denote more than black, reddish than red, whitish
than white, &c., is too manifest to need illustration. (2.)
Greek Lexicographers teach that the word (Ba-Trrj^w) for
baptize itself, signifies to sprinkle(a). Greek Lexicons
therefore teach that sprinkling is a mode of baptism.
3. Hebrew Lexicons teach that sprinkling is a mode of
haptism. They say that (^^'j;^) the word which is transla-
ted into Greek by (Ba'TfTw) the root for baptize, signifies to
sprinkle, to wet a small part, &c(^). The authority of these
Lexicons is, therefore, in favor of the position that sprink-
ling is one, if not the only mode of baptism.
4. English Dictionaries teach that sprinkling is one mode
of baptism. They call baptism a sprinkling with water(c).
This they would not do, if they did not intend to inform men
that sprinkling is a mode of baptism.
The Lexicographers in other ancient and modern langua-
ges might be here quoted, were it necessary, to sustain the
position that the Lexicons and Dictionaries teach that sprink-
ling is a mode of baptism. In every language in which the
word baptize is used, authority might be given to prove that
sprinkling is one mode by which this ordinance may be ad-
ministered. But to refer to more of this kind of authority,
is deemed unnecessary. Lexicographers then, since they
give sprinkle as one meaning of the word baptize, positive-
ly teach that sprinkling is a mode of administering the holy
ordinance of christian baptism.
CHAPTER IL
OTHER WRITERS ON SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAPTISAI.
1. The Apocryphal writers teach that sprinkling is a mode
of baptism. By one of these, it is said ; *'he that washeth"
(a)B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, $ 1. Cj;See P. i, Cli. 1 $4. 5. (c)SeQ Vi^ebster's Duodecimo
Dictionary, New Haven edition 1806; B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, § 5.
Ch. 2, § 2.] SPRIiNKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 217
{Ba.'!fTi^o(j.svog) or baptizes "himself after — touching — a dead
body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing" (a).
When the mode, in which a person who had touched a dead
body was to be ceremonially cleansed, is mentioned ; it is
four times in one chapter said to be by sprinkling.* By
comparing what is here said to have been done, with the
mode of doing the same thing as mentioned in the word of
God ; we have a manifest instance of a baptismal ceremoni-
al washing performed by sprinkling. Moreover, it is af-
firmed of Judith that she " washed'^ (s/Sa'Trj^STo) or baptized
*' herself in" (s-TTj) at, on or upon "a fountain of water in"(£v)
or by " the camp"(^). That this was a ceremonial washing
appears from the circumstances of the case. She was a
Jewess(c). She would therefore perform her ceremonial
washings after the manner of that nation. That the Jewish
ceremonial washings were performed by sprinkling, cannot
but be evident to any one who will read the Old Testament(d).
These washings are very frequently said to be by sprinkling.
As therefore this washing of Judith was a Jewish ceremonial
washing, and as the word baptize which signifies to sprinkle
is used ; so this her washing must have been by sprinkling.
2. The Greek Fathers (d) teach that sprinkling is a mode
of baptism. All the principal, and perhaps the whole, of
these, use the word (Ea'^Tj^w) for baptize, which signifies
sprinkle, when they mention this ordinance. But none of
them uses (f,a/3a7rTw or S|x,/3a'7r-rj^oj) one of the words which fre-
quently signify immerse, to express the ordinance of bap-
tism. They therefore, by using this word for baptism, show
that they held to sprinkling as a mode of administering this
ordinance. Of these Fathers, a number may here be named.
(1.) Polycarp was born about the year A. D. 67, was con-
verted to the christian faith in A. D. 81, and was martyred
about the year 160. He was a disciple of John the apostle.
(2.) Ireneus, of Lyons, in France, was born in the year A.
D. 97, and died about the year 203. He was a disciple of
Polycarp. (3.) Justin Martyr wrote an apology for the
christians about the year A. D. 139. He expressly states
that " sprinkling — with — water was" practiced by the heath-
Ca; Ecclus, 34: 25 in En?, called the Wisdom of Sirach 31: 30 in Greek. *See Nam.
19: 13. 18. 19.20. r*; Judith 12: 7. This camp contained at least 200,000 men, See
Jndith7:2. ('c;Judith8: 1 and 9: 1. 12. Cd;P. i, Ch. 1,^ 7. fc; These were early
christians who wrote ia Greek.
218 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. 11.
en *' in imitation of— true baptism." Tiie true baptism then
must have been by sprinkling, or it could not have been im-
itated by this mode of applying water. Sprinkling does not,
in any particular, imitate immersion. If immersion had, in
the days of Justin, been a mode or the only mode of bai)tism,
practiced by christians, the heathen would have imitated that
mode, as almost all heathenish persons now do, who pretend
to baptize. Of himself this Justin says; *' having been a
disciple of the apostles, I became a teacher of the nations."
Here then is a disciple of the apostles, during the lifetime of
several of their discij)les, within forty years from the death
of John the Divine, affirming that sprinkling is the true
mode of baptism, which the heathen imitated. He wrote
this at least twenty years before Polycarp's death ; and six-
ty years or more before the death of Ireneus. Neither of
these, nor any other writer, denies this statement made by
Justin. The assertion of this martyred disciple of the apos-
tles, as to a mere matter of fact, certainly deserves credit.
(4.) Ignatius was another disciple of John the apostle. He
suffered martyrdom about the year A. D. 107, perhaps be-
fore. Since Justin, a disciple of the apostles, taught that
sprinkling was a mode of baptism ; all their other disciples,
and therefore Ignatius, must have learned and taught the
same truth. (5.) Origen, about the year 250, uses (Botif-
Tiffiioc:) baptism, which signifies sprinkling, to denote this or-
dinance. But in his account of baptism he does not use a
word which definitely signifies immersion. He saw his fa-
ther beheaded for professing chri>tianily. His grand-father
and great-grand-father were also christians. By these, he
would receive instruction almost or quite from the apostles.
This Origen aflirms that by Elijah's order; the " wood" up-
on the ** altar" was baptized.* It is certain that the wood
upon this altar was not taken up and then put entirely un-
der water. (6.) Chrysostom, about the year 380, and ma-
ny others, teach, by using a word (Ba-TrTi^w) which signifies
to sprinkle, when they speak of baptism, that sprinkling is
a mode by which that ordinance may be administered(a^.
3. Latin Fa' hers teach that sprinkling is a mode of bap^
tism. Only four of these will here be mentioned. But all
*1 Kings 1ft: 33. 34. (a) See Marsh, Wall, Mosheim, Milner, and other Eccleaiai-
tJcal Historians.
Ch. 2, § 4.] spRrxKLiNO scriptural baptism. 219
the early cliristians who wrote in Latin, use language sim-
ilar to these, when they mention baptism. (1.) Tertullian
wrote about the year 200(a). In speaking of this ordinance,
he uses the word {^baplismus or baplizo,) baptism or bap-
tize, not any of the words in the Latin language which sig-
nify immerse. (2.) Cyprian, about the year 250, and, (3.)
Fidus, about the same time, teach that sprinkling is baptism.
Indeed, Cyprian, of whom it is said ; " he is a christian
throughout" {b), expressly declares this fact (c). His lan-
guage is too plain to be mistaken. (4.) Augustine wrote
about the year 388 or 390, and for several years after.
When he mentions baptism ; he, like other Latin writers,
uses words which frequently signify to sprinkle. These
and other Latin Fathers, therefore teach that sprinkling is a
made of baptism(. Cr; See Epis. 76 to
Magnus, (d) -ee Marsh, Wall, Mosheim, Milne--, and other Eccle«iastii al Historians.
(e) On Mat. 28: 16-20. *E2ek. 3(': 2.'), I.«a'. 52: 1.5. (f) In his notes and criticisms on
Mat. 3: 5. 6, \^^ intelligent, respecta-
ble and pious. Some of them adhere very strenuously to the
position that nothing is, or can be made by man, any part
of Christianity, either in doctrine or practice, which is not
clearly taught in the word of God. Even immersers them-
selves, will not dispute the piety and learning of the minis-
try and laity of at least one half of these denominations.
The authority then of more than 30 millions of [ ersons, em-
bracing many of acknowledged and deep-toned, scriptural pie-
ty, accurate and extensive learning, conscientious adherence
to the word ofGod as their only rule in all religious duties, and
a habitual willingness to be directed by " the law'^ and '* the
testimony,"* must be conclusive, so far as human authority
can decide this matter.
Moreover, it is a remarkable fact, worthy of a passing
notice here, that no class of persons who maintain that im-
mersion is the only mode of baptism(A), do now or ever did
require their public religious teachers to be thoroughly edu-
cated men. Besides, the exclusives are not at all scrupu-
lous in their practical adherance to the word of God in their
religious exercises. As examples of their deviations from
the scriptures in what they call religion; several instances
may be mentioned. (1.) They often use anxious seats. (2.)
They frequently wear long beards. (3.) Many of them, for
years, maintained the notion that the day of judgement was
(a) See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 3, ^ 2, Wolf, Ward's Letters, See also Dr. S. Mil-
ler, J. P. Perrin, Morland, &c. *Isa. 8: 20. (b) See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 6, ^ 6, par. 3.
224 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. II.
to take place in the year 1843, or before April 1st, 1844.
(4.) They sometimes even violate the commands of God un-
der the name of religion. They not unfrequently violate
that command ; " let your women keep silence in the church-
es,"* and that which requires men to " remember the Sab-
bath day" and "keep it holy;" and also that which says,
"thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.''t
Since they can mistake the violation of some of the positive
commands of God for religious service ; and since they can
so readily violate others ; their authority in matters of reli-
gion, even if they were equally numerous, might be ques-
tioned with much greater propriety than that of those millions
who take the word of God, both in principal and in practice,
for their only rule in all religious duties.
3. Councils^ Synods and Asscmhlies^ hold to sprinkling as
a mode of baptism. Only a very small portion of the prin-
cipal of these can be mentioned here. (1.) The council at
Attica in Africa, may be mentioned. This was composed of
sixty-six pastors or bishops. Cyprian was its president. It
was literally a council of martyrs. It was held in A. D. 253.
(2.) The council of Eliberis was convened in the year 305.
(3.; The second council of Carthage met in A. D. 397;
another in the same place, in 400 ; another in 401 ; an-
other in Rome in 402. (4.) The fifth council of Carthage
assembled in the year 416. (5.) The Synod of Dort held its
sessions in the years 1618 and 1619. (6.) The Westminster
Assembly(ct) held its sessions from the year 1642 till 1648 (Z>).
These, together with the Synod of Cambridge Massachusetts
which met in 1649, and a multitude of others, all teach in
some form of words, that sprinkling is a mode of baptism(c).
Such an amount of human authority, presents itself in favor
of sprinkling being a mode of baptism, that it almost over-
whelms the mind. No human testimony can possibly be
more convincing than what christians present on this subject.
All these believe and habitually teach that sprinkling is a
*1 Cor. 14; 34. tEx.20: 8. 16. (a) Fee the Minutes of these Councils, Synods and
Assemblies. Ci>^ This Assembly met at Westminster in London, July, 1G42. It held
1163 sessions. It continued its meeting by successive adjournments till, after having
Bat five years seven months and twentv-two days, it was dissolved early in the year
16'18. It was composed of 151 members. Of these 121 were ministers, eminent for
piety and learning This Assembly was unanimously in favor of sprinkling being a
modo of baptism. They also decidied by a majority of one that immersion waB bap-
tism, (c) See Ecclesiastical Histories generally; also, Platform, Ch. 12, ^ 7.
Ch. 3, § 3.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 225
mode of baptism. They uniformly reverence the authority
of God. They manifest habitual love to him and to his
cause. They read the scriptures with prayerful attention,
to ascertain what the will of the Lord is. They love righ-
teousness. They take pleasure in obeying the Divine com-
mands. With all this piety, this devotion to the service of
God, this earnest anxiety to learn what he teaches in his
word ; they believe and habitually affirm that sprinkling is
a mode of baptism. If this their uniform assertion is not
true, then they are all guilty of habitual lying. They all
assert habitually that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. If it
is not so ; then, every time the}^ make the assertion, they
are guilty of uttering a solemn falsehood. They must there-
fore be habitual liars, or sprinkling must be what they con-
stantly affirm it to be, a mode of baptism. Habitual liars
are not christians, — are not even moral men. Millions and
tens of millions of persons who, to all appearance, are true,
devoted followers of the Lamb, now declare, and hundreds
of millions, not a few of whom have suffered martyrdom
for their religion, have heretofore, while they lived on earth,
habitually declared sprinkling to be a mode of baptism
taught in the word of God. If this their uniform declara-
tion is not true; then all these professing christians, — these
martyred followers of the blessed Saviour, are living, or
have lived and died, with a "lie in" their "right hand."
And we know that "all liars shall have their part in the
lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."* Such a charge
brought against the great body of professing christians, ought
to be sustained by at least one explicit passage of scripture.
To say that the knowledge of these persons is or was defective
on this subject is but a sorry apology for them. Men of veraci-
ty take care to know that what they habitually affirm is true.
They do not regularly affirm that for truth of which they
have no knowledge. When men uniformly declare that
sprinkling is a mode of baptism ; they either tell the truth,
or this their declaration is not true. If it is false, then those
who constantly make it, are habitually uttering a most sol-
emn falsehood. But those who are guilty of doing this, are
habitual liars. Who, on the mere unsupported assertion of
*Rev. 21: 8.
15
226 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, T. II.
a few immersers can believe that all these millions of profes-
sing christians are, or were, while they lived, habitual liars'?
Those who cannot do this, must believe that sprinkling is a
mode of baptism.
The charge of being thus guilty of "lying" and of be-
ing *' monomaniacs" or deranged in relation to the subject
of baptism, is by immersers, brought, in plain, unvarnished
language, against all who baptize infants by sprinkling.
These and many other similar expressions, are used in rela-
tion to them(a). If these charges are true, then all who
baptize infants by sprinkling, must be most odiously wicked
persons. To say that a lying rebel against the king of Zion,
is a christian, is a gross perversion of language. Before
men of intelligence and candor can believe such charges to
be true, they must have more evidence to sustain them than
the mere assertion of those who, without a blush, can alter
the word of God to make it suit their own system.
A GENERAL VIEW
OF SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAPTISM, PRESENTED IN A DI-
ALOGUE BETWEEN A BAPTIZER AND AN IMMERSER.
Immerser. Mr. Baptizer, do you believe that immersion
is the only mode of baptism ^
Baptizer. I do not.
I. Why do 5^ou not believe that immersion is the only
mode of Baptism 1
B. Because, in the word of God, there is no precept, no
example, no evidence of any kind to prove that immersion is
the only mode of baptism.
I. Do you believe that immersion is one mode of baptism 1
B. I cannot say that 1 do. That which has no scriptural
evidence to sustain its claims to be a mode of baptism ; that
which is not even mentioned in the whole of Divine revela-
tion as a mode of baptism, can scarcely be called a christian
ordinance, by those who take the word of God and that only,
for their rule of duty. That there is no evidence in scrip-
ture to sustain the claims of immersion(^) is perfectly cer-
tain. No one can find any positive evidence in the scrip-
tures to prove immersion to be a mode of baptism ; for this
(a) See Bliss on baptism, p. 40. 66. 201. (b) See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 5, $ 1-4.
REVIEW OF SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 227
plain reason ; no such evidence is recorded in God's word(a).
1. Do you believe th^-t baptism with water is an ordinance
of Divine appointment to be observed in the New Testament
church ?
B. I do ; for there is positive scriptural evidence to prove
that baptism with water is to be observed in the christian
church till the end of time(3).
I. In what mode of baptism do you believe ?
B. I believe that sprinkling is a scriptural mode of admin-
istering the ordinance of christian baptism.
I. Have you any evidence for this your belief?
B. 1 have much ; and it is as positive as language can
make it.
I. Do the scriptures in any passage, positively teach that
sprinkling is a mode of baptism ?
B. They do, in many passages and in different forms of
expression(c).
I. Does the word baptize ever-denote sprinkle ?
B. It does frequently(, Hos. C: 7, Rom. 1: 31.
Ch. 3, § 8.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 239
which God has organized. In the coveiicint entered into
when this church was organized, there were two parties. God
was one party ; and the other was composed of aduhs and
infants. Men do not often, attempt to exclude God from
heing a party in this covenant. But they sometimes break
in upon the other party. It is however, from scripture, ma-
nifest, (1.) That adults constituted one portion of this par-
ty in the covenant at its formation. This is plainly taught by
the express language of " Divine Revelation." " Abram"
and "all the men of his house ^^ and "Ishmael," are ex-
pressly mentioned as being a portion of one of the parties in
this covenant.* These therefore, were all " circumcised.''
In New Testament times adults are represented as being
members of the visible church which had been organized.
The "Lord added to the church — such as should be saved."
Of these, " men and women " are expressly mentioned. "t
(2.) Infants are also definitely mentioned as forming the oth-
er portion of this party in the covenant. This appears (1.)
from the express language of scripture. "He that is eight days
old shall be circumcised. '^ He *- that is born in thy house —
must — be circumcised." The " uncircumcised man-child —
shall be cut off from his people."| Here infants at eight
days old, are expressly recognized as being in this covenant.
They are acknowledged as members of this church. To
them, by the positive command of God, the seal of this cov-
enant was to be applied. (2.) Infants as members of this
church were to be and were actually circumcised. Isaac,
John the Baptist and our Saviour are all mentioned as being
circumcised in obedience to the engagements entered into in
this covenant. § Infants therefore formed a portion of one
of the parties in the covenant into which God entered with
Abraham and his seed when he first organized the visible
church, hf ants yet form a part of the memhers of this one
only visible church which God organized. This appears (1.)
From the fact that God who constituted them members of his
church at its formation, has not excluded them from it or
from its seal. He expressly mentioned them as a portion of
one party in the covenant. He commanded its seal to be
applied to them. That party in the covenant made up of
*See Gen. 17: 2. 4. 7. 23-27. fActs 2: 41. 47 and 8: 12. tGen. 17: 10. 12. 14, Lcy.
12: 3. §See Gen. 21: 4, Luke 1; 59. 60 and 2: 21.
240 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I.
human beings, Wos not composed of adults alone, nor of in-
fants alone. Both these classes of persons united, formed
this party in that covenant, and were therefore together mem-
bers of God's church. If Abran>had refused infants a stand-
ing in the covenant, if he had declined to apply its seal to
them ; he would have refused the covenant of his God, as
truly as if he had refused to apply its seal to adults. God
made infants a portion of one party in this covenant, a por-
tion of " his people,^' of his flock, of the members of his
church when it was first organized. He and he alone had
a right to receive them as members into his church, and he
alone has a right to exclude them from membership. To
receive or to exclude them is alike God's prerogative, not
man's. God in his wisdom received infants into his church,
into covenant relation with himself, and required its seal to
be applied to them. He and he alone has a right to exclude
them. And since he has not excluded them ; they still re-
tain to him the same relation which they did when this cov-
enant relation was formed. They have the same standing
in the visible church which God gave them when it was or-
ganized. He has not excluded them from it ; men have no
right to do so. They are therefore yet a portion of its mem-
bers. (2.) Infants are mentioned as members of his visible
church. They are often spoken of as church members in
the New Testament as well as in the Old. Our Saviour
says of " infants," of " young children," of " little chil-
dren," whom "betook — up in his arms;" — " of such is
the kingdom of heaven," — "of God."* That the expres-
sion " kingdom of God" or " of heaven," denotes the visible
church and especially the visible church in New Testament
times, is often and very plainly taught in the word of God,
(a).t When our Saviour says of any class of persons ; *'of
such is the kingdom of God," the expression cannot signify
less than that these persons constitute a portion of the mem-
bers of which it is composed. This kingdom could not be
that of glory ; for those infants of which it was composed,
were yet living on earth when " Christ took them up in his
arms." They could not have been a portion of those who
were " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and stran-
*Mat. 10: 13. 14. 15, Mark 10: 13-16, Luke 18: 15. 16. (a) See B. i, P. iii, Ch.l, $
2. par. 2. tMat.3: 2and4: 17 and 10: 7 and 25: 1, Luke 12: 31 and 22: 18, Acts 19: 8. &c.
Ch. 3, § ©•] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 241
gers from the covenants of promise,"* for then they would
not have been portions or members of the visible *' kingdom
of God." Our Saviour therefore, instead of excluding in-
fants from the visible church, actually and expressly recog-
nized their standing in that church (3.) He mentions them as
pattern members of the New Testament, church which is his visi-
ble kingdom on earth. He does this when he says to his disci-
ples ; " Except ye — become as little children, ye shall not
enter into the kingdom of heaven;'' — '* whosoever shall not
receive the kingdom of God as a little child, — shall not en-
ter therein. ''t Little children are here presented as pattern
members of this kingdom. To be like a little child is what
renders an adult a proper member of this kingdom. But if
to be like a little child, renders an adult a suitable member
of this kingdom ; to be actually a little child, will not make
a person a less suitable member of it. Little children there-
fore are manifestly«pattern members of this kingdom. But
this kingdom is the visible church in New Testament times.
The eleven disciples had not yet enlered this kingdom. Be-
fore this they were true believers and followers of Christ.
Being believers, they were justified by faith and were there-
fore prepared, when the Lord should call, to enter the king-
dom of glory. That before this they were true believers, is
clear from the declaration so often made that they had a
^- little faith."! That this kingdom was not the visible church
in Old Testament times, or during that dispensation of the
covenant which ended at the moment Christ said *' it is fin-
ished," is manifest from the fact that when our Saviour thus
addressed them ; they were, and for some time after, they
remained members of that church(a). This kingdom which
they could not enter unless they became as little children,
must therefore have been the visible church in New Testa-
ment times. The Lord Jesus Christ then presents "little
children," — *' infants," — such as he took '* up in his arms,"
not only as members but even as pattern members of his
visible church in New Testament times. (4.) "Children"
and " little children" are often by inspired men addressed
as New Testament church members. In the epistle addres-
sed to "the churches" in **Galatia," the spirit of God in-
*MaTk 10: 16, Eph. 2: 12. t^at. 18: 3, Mark 10: 15, Luke 18: 17. $See Mat. ft 30
and 8: 26 and 14: 3i and 10: 8, Rom. 5: 1. 2 and 8: 1, &c. (a)See B. i, P. iii, Cb. T, $ 2,
16
242 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I.
spired the apostle Paul to single out and address the infant
members. He, like a faithful under-shepherd, addressed the
lambs of the flock in this endearing language ; " My little
children. ''* The apostle John, in one very short epistle ad-
dressed to the churches in general, divides those to whom he
wrote into three classes, — " fathers,'* — " young men," and
"little children. ''t These *' little children" are express-
ly mentioned as church members. The " fathers" and
*' young men" are not more definitely expressed than they
are. Indeed, these infant members are no less than nine
times, in this one short epistle, specially and expressly men-
tioned by the appellation of " little children."! When God,
by his servants, so repeatedly addresses "little children" as
church members in New Testament times ; no i>erson who
truly believes his word, can hesitate to acknowledge them as
such. Little children, infants, are therefore expressly men-
tioned as church members both in Old and New Testament
times.
9. God provided for the continuation and increase of the
members cf his church. This he did in a two-fold way. (1.)
The children of those in covenant were to be its members
from their earliest infancy. This truth is expressly taught
in the word of God. Abram's "seed after" him are com-
manded to keep God's covenant. They were, in infancy,
to receive its seal, because they were in covenant with God."^
"Children — that suck the breasts," are mentioned as a part
of the " congregation" of the Lord, more than a thousand
years after this covenant engagement was first made. || In
New Testament times they are very frequently mentioned
as composing a part, if not a principal part of God's visible
kingdom on earth(a). One way therefore by v/hich the vis-
ible church was to be perpetuated from its organization on-
ward through time, was by taking the infant seed of the
members of this church into covenant relation with God.
(2.) Persons who, before were not in covenant, were, both
in Old and New Testament times, to be received, with their
families or households, into covenant with God. This is ex-
pressly taught both in the Old and New Testament. "When
a stranger — will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his
*Gal. 1: 2 and 4: 19. fl John 2: 13. 14. JSee 1 John 2: 1. 12. 13. 19. 23 and 3: 7. 19
and 4: 4 and 5: 21. $Gen. 17: 7. 8-14. ||Joel 2: 16. (a)See $ 8.
Ch. 3, § 9.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 243
males be circumcised ;" — " one law shall be to him that is
home-born and unto the stranger."* Those who were be-
fore " strangers from the covenants of promise/^ might be
received into covenant ; but all their males must be circum-
cised. They must conform to the same law which the na-
tive Israelite was bound to obey. This required the seal of
the covenant to be applied to infants as well as to adults. In
the New Testament, we are definitely informed that parents
and their children, or adults and their households, were re-
ceived into this visible church. As instances of parents and
their children, families or households, being received into the
church, "Lydia" and " her household," the jailer and his
" house," &c., may be mentioned(a).t Here are heads of
families and their households admitted together into the
church of God in New Testament times. Indeed, there is
not, on record, a single instance, either in Old or New Tes-
tament times, of a parent being admitted into the church from
the world, and his children excluded from or suffered to re-
main out of the covenant. From what has been here sta-
ted, it is clear, that parents who were before strangers to the
covenant, might, with their children^ be received into the
church. But there is not the least intimation given, in the
whole word of God, that parents may be received into cove-
nant, and their children excluded or suffered to remain
among the professed enemies of God. Those parents there-
fore who will not bring their children with them into cove-
nant relation with God, have no scriptural right to enter
themselves into that relation.
The church is God's visible kingdom on earth. In all
kingdoms, citizenship by birth is at least as valid as that by
naturalization. To exclude infants, born under any govern-
ment from the right of citizenship, or the protection of the
laws, so far as they could enjoy the one or needed the other,
would be perfect folly and unmitigated cruelty. To say that
all natural born citizens must be put on a par with foreign-
ers, and like them be naturalized before they can enjoy the
privilege of citizens, would be very unwise in any govern-
ment. But the God of perfect wisdom has adopted in the
church which is his visible kingdom, no such law as would
brand with folly any of the potentates of the earth. He has
*Ex. 12: 43. 49, Num. 9: 14. (a)See P. iii, Ch. 2, ^ 6. tSee Acts 16: 14. 15, 31. 33.
244 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I.
not said to the children of his visible subjects ; ye are ** aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel." Let men beware
how they invade God's prerogative in this matter ! ! He
knows who are proper subjects of his kingdom; suitable
members of his church, at least as well as man.
10. This church has a seal hy which the promise of the co-
venant is confirmed. The seal of the covenant, in Old Tes-
tament times, was circumcision. This is called " the token
of the covenant ;" — "the sign of circumcision ;" and ** a
seal of the righteousness of — faith."* That circumcision
was a token or seal of the covenant, and that spiritual as
well as temporal blessings, were promised in it, are facts too
plainly taught by the language of inspiration to be denied
without leaning far towards infidelity. That baptism is the
seal of the covenant in New Testament times, has already
been shown(a). There is now a visible church. This is a
fact known and admitted by all professing christians. A
church supposes a covenant, and a covenant supposes a seal.
Those persons who were added to the church were baptized.
They first entered or were received into this visible cove-
nant with God and then its seal was applied to thera.t That
circumcision, as a seal of the covenant, was discontinued and
became ••'nothing," and that baptism is required as an ordi-
nance in the New Testament church, are facts abundantly
proved from the word of God.| It is also manifest that none
were without baptism admitted to church fellowship after the
death of Christ(6). Baptism is therefore the seal of the co-
venant, which must be applied to all church members in New
Testament times.
11. Commemorative ordinances belong to the visible church.
The passover was the commemorative ordinance in Old Tes-
tament times. It commemorates the deliverance of Israel
out of Egyptian bondage. § It also confirmed other blessings.
But it was not the seal of the covenant. That was made
and sealed more than four hundred years before the Israelites
left Egypt. II It could not therefore be sealed by the pass-
over. It had been long before sealed by circumcision. The
*Gen. 17: 11, Rom. 4: 11. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 11. f^ee Acts 2: 41. 47, and
many other passages. +!^ee A cts 15: 1. 5. 10. 20. 28. 29. I Cor. 7: 19, Gal. 3: 17, Mai.
28: 19, Acts 2: 41 nnd 8: 12 and 10: 47. 4S., &c. (h) fc?ee B. i, P. iii, Ch. 3, § 8; B. i,
P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 1-3. 9. 11. $See Ex. 12: II. 14. ||See Ex, 12: 40, Gal. 3: 17.
Ch. 3, § 12, 13.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 246
Lord's supper is a commemorative ordinance in New Tes-
tament times. It commemorates the death of Christ.* This
also seals spiritual blessings, but not the covenant ; because
it was instituted before the death of Christ, while circumci-
sion continued in force as the seal of the covenant.! The
passover and the Lord's supper are therefore commemora-
tive ordinances which seal blessings, but do not seal the cov-
enant. Persons formerly eat the passover,and at present par-
take of the holy supper ; because they were or are mem-
bers of the visible church ; because they are in covenant
with God and have received its seal ; not to make them
church members or to be to them a seal of the covenant.
12. God's organization of a visible church is the very best
of which man can form a conception. Believing parents and
their children composed its members at first. They do so still.
This organization throws the restraints of God's covenant
as well as those of his law around children who are baptized.
The parents too were and are thus bound in covenant as
well as by the law and natural affection to " train up" their
children "in the way " they "should go."| If thus train-
ed up, we have the Divine promise, that when they are old,
they " will not depart from " that way. This organization
secures more true scriptural piety, more scriptural knowl-
edge, more morality, more conformity to the word of God
in every respect, than any other organization ever yet at-
tempted by man.
13. All attempts to organize a visible church co7nposed on-
ly of true believers, are absurd. No such a visible church
has ever existed. The church in Old Testament times, had
in it unconverted members. In apostolic times, the church
had its "Ananias" and " Sapphira ;" its "Simon ;" its "Hy-
meneus and Philetus," and others who had no true interest
in the Lord Jesus Christ. § Indeed, to organize a church
composed only of true believers, would require a constant
miracle by which men might be taught supernaturally, who
were and who were not truly converted. The visible church
can only be composed of professed believers either with or
without their children. For uninspired men then to ima-
gine that they could form a more pure church than that
*See 1 Cor. 11: 2^-26. fSee Luke 22: I.t-20. JProv. 22: 6. $Acts 5: 1. 3. 7-10 and
8: 13. 21, 2 Tim. 2: 17. 18, Bev. 2: 14. 13, 20.
B40 BIBLE BAPTISM. [B. IV, P. I.
which existed in apostolic times and which was under the
direction of inspired men, is truly absurd. A visible church
composed only of true believers, is not mentioned in the
scriptures ; nor has such a church ever existed on earth. It.
may also be remarked here, as a general truth, that those
denominations of professing christians who make the most
noise on this subject, have usually if not universally, the
least amount of true scriptural piety among their members.
But a very small proportion of them, it will be found upon
a careful examination, are anxious to go " to the law and to
the testimony '' and to that only, as their guide in all reli-
gious duties. They are usually too " wise in their own con-
ceits '' to be directed in all things by the wisdom of God.
If, among the twelve apostles of Christ, one Judas who was
*' a thief and a *' devil,'' was found ; how superlatively ab-
surd must be the self-importance of those who talk of a vis-
ible church on earth composed only of true believers ! !
14. Discipline must he exercised in the visible church or it
will soon become corrupt. In Old Testament times, those
who violated any part of the ceremonial law, or neglected
circumcision or the passover, were to be " cut off from "
God's *< people."* Those who violated the moral law were
to be put to death, or punished in some other way which sup-
posed excommunication from visible covenant relation with
God and his people. t " Sinners " or immoral persons were
not to be allowed a standing " in the congregation of the
righteous."! Neglect of discipline in the Old Testament
church opened the door for all manner of wickedness. This
wickedness of the Jews became so great in the days of Christ's
ministry on earth, that they eventually crucified him. In
New Testament times, none from the world are to be admit-
ted into the visible church till they give good evidence that
they are true christians. § To do this they must receive
with love what God teaches in his word and practice what
he commands in the scriptures. No immoral persons nor
such as reject any part of God's truth are allowed by the
king of Zion to enter or remain in his visible church. All
such should be suspended from sealing ordinances. || By the
*Gen. 17: 14, Ex. 12: 15, Lev. 7: 27. fSee Ex. 31: 14, Num. 15: 30. 32. 35; See also
Lev. 10: 1-3 and 26: 14-39, Num. 35: 29-3:j, Deut. 13: 6-11, &c. tPs. 1: 5. $See Actg
8: 12. 37 and 10: 47, &c. ||See 1 Cor. 5: 1. 5 and 6:8-11, Gal. 5; 19-21, 2 Tijji. 3: 1-5,
Tit. 3: 10. ._ .;.. ,'^i
Ch. 3. § 15.] ' CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 247
neglect of discipline among professing christians, large por-
tions of the once christian church, have become antichrist
tian. Church discipline is therefore indispensable to the pu-
rity of Christ's kingdom on earth.
15. The New Testament church is five-fold. It is true^
formal^ false., nominal or antichristian. (1.) The true chris-
tian church believes and practices all that God in his w^ord
requires of persons during the dispensation under which they
live. These church members do not receive or practice for
religion either more or less than what he commands. They
learn from God's word what he teaches. With this they
are satisfied. In the scriptures they find just what pleases
them ; nor do they find any thing in those holy writings
which they desire to explain away or reject. The word of
God as it is, exactly suits them in every particular. To
conform to this, they are satisfied, is their wisdom as well as
their duty. That they comply so imperfectly with its re-
quirements, is to them, a cause of grief ; but this does not
lead them to wish to make alterations in God's word.* (2.)
K formal church is one which, in mere profession and ex-
ternal actions, complies with what God teaches in his word.
But in general the members of a formal church, have no
true love for God's truth or for his requirements.f (3.) A
false church adopts either more or less than God requires in
his word. Many, if not all, its members choose, in some
things which they call religion, to follow the directions of
men rather than to receive and practice just what God re-
quires, t (4.) A nominal church is one that takes the chris-
tian name without even professing to take the word of God
as their only rule of duty in all their religious principles and
practices.§ (5.) An antichristian church is one which re-
jects God's truth in some of its parts. In it the whole gos-
pel cannot be preached. Ministers and christians who will
believe and practice as religion, neither more nor less than
what God teaches in his word, will not be allowed to remain
in it ; or its members and rulers will continually disturb their
peace while they live in exact accordance with God's holy
*See Deut. 6: 6-S, Isa. 8: 20, Mat. 5: 16 and 28: 20, John 5: 39 and 6: 29 and 15: 14, 2
Thess. 3: 14, 1 Tim. 0: -3. 4, 2 Tim. 3: 15-17. fSee Rom. 2: 20, 2 Tim. 3: 5. JSee
Mat. 15: 3. 9, Coh 2: 22. 23, Heb. 13: 9, 2 Pet. i: 21, Rev. 2: 9 and 3: 9. 11. $See Mat.
15: 8, Rev. 3: 1.
248 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I.
truth. This is, in principle, a persecuting church.* Be-
longing to each of these five parts, there are or may be dif-
ierent denominations. It is the duty of every person to be
or become a member of some branch of the true church(a).
16. Those who turn aside in religious matters Jrom the
word of God are guilty of the sin of division. Every person
who becomes connected with the church, thereby pledges
himself to serve God according to his word. If he does eith-
er more or less as a part of his religious duties than God re-
quires in the scriptures, he becomes thereby a covenant-
breaker. If others join with him, they become guilty of the
same sin. Whether many or few, a large or small propor-
tion of the members of the true church, thus turn aside, in
doctrine or in practice, or in both, from the word of God ;
they are guilty of producing division. Those who adhere
to the scriptures in principle and in practice, are not guilty
of this sin. Those who separate from God's word as their
only rule in religious duties, often profess much anxiety for
union. But they ought to know that all such professions
amount to nothing, while they believe and practice for reli-
gion either more or less than what God's word requires.
They are, while they do not conform entirely to the scrip-
tures as their only rule in all religious duties, Jiving habit-
ually in the commission of the sin of separating from God's
word. All who join them while they remain in such a sin-
ful course, unite with them in sin. It ought always to be
remembered therefore that it is not the man who adheres to
God's truth as his only rule in all religious duties, but the
man who separates from it, who is guilty of the sin of schism.
*See John 16: 2, 2 Thess. 2: 3-12, 1 Tim. 4: 1-3, 2 Tim. 4; 3. 4, 1 John 2: 19. 22
and 4: 3, 2 John 7.
(a) Those who join any church which professes to be christian, solemnly declare be-
fore God and the world, by the act of uniting with such church, that the religious prin-
«iples and practices of the body with which they thus unite, express their views of
•criptural truth. While they continue united with any professedly christian church,
they habitually make tlie same declaration If therefore, the religious doctrines and
practices of the chmch to which any person belongs do not express l)is views of scrip-
tural truth, he is living in the sin of hnbitual falsehood. His falsehood too is of the
most aggravated Isind. It is nothing less than most solemnly declaiming, by his habit-
ual conduct, that he believes what he does not believe. This is one crying sin of pro-
fessing christians in this day of increasing depravity. This (.'od-provoUing sin often
calls itself— liberality or charity. Every church, as well as every mdividuil, is bound to
adopt for religion neither more nor less than what God requires in his word. Those
who do either, are insulting the kingof Zion, by "teaching for doctrines the command-
ments of men." This their " will-worship," they cannot palm npon God for accepta-
ble service.
Ch. 3, ^ 17.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 249
17. The visible church has a ministry. In Old Testa-
ment times, its ministry was composed of heads of families,
prophets, priests and Levites. These discharged their re-
spective duties by obeying the commandments of God. In
executing the duties of their stations, they offered gifts and
sacrifices according to his appointment. They also taught
the people.* In JN^ew Testament times, the visible church
has a ministry composed of persons each of whom (if he is
a true servant of Christ,) sustains the office of an ambassa-
dor of the Prince of Peace. This is not the apostolic, but
the ministerial office which Christ gave to the eleven and
to their successors(a). Those to whom the Lord Jesus
Christ intrusts this office, are qualified by the regenerating
grace of the Spirit, by a desire to serve God in the work of
the ministry, by a capability of teaching in a good degree
whatever Christ has commanded in his word, and then they
must receive the office of an ambassador " for Christ" from
those who are properly authorized to transfer it to others. t
Those who hold the office of the ministry and are therefore
authorized to preach the gospel and administer New Testa-
ment ordinances, and they only, can ordain or set persons
apart to the office of the christian ministry.^ The minis-
ters of Christ all have the same commission. This requires
the same essential qualifications in each minister. It de-
mands the same essential duties of all and each of them.t
That thing called a Diocesan bishop, is not mentioned in the
word of God, unless it is included " in the man of sin — the
son of perdition." Besides, the idea that the same commis-
sion (and there is but one given to the eleven and their true
successors,) should confer two distinct offices, the one, that
of a Diocesan bishop, the other, that of a minister of Christ,
is a perfect absurdity.
The succession of ministers, not of Diocesan bishops, may
easily be traced from the apostles down to the present time.
Before the year 100, the apostles had planted churches in
Syria, in Asia Minor, and in Italy. They had ordained a
number of faithful men to the ministry. From the year 100
till 200, many churches planted by these faithful men, ex-
*Gen. 4. 3. 4 and 8: 20 and 12: 7 and 20: 7 and 35: 1, Ex. 40: 13, Num. 8: 6. 7. 11, Mai.
2: 7. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 5. fMat. 28: 20, 2 Cor. 5: 20, 1 Tim. 3: 1-7 and 4:
14, 2 Tim. 2: 2, Tit. 1: 5-11. JSee Heb. 5: 1-4.
250 B115LE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I.
isted in the north of Italy and in the south of France. These
ministers and tlicir successors, continued to preach, establish
churches and ordain other faithful men to the ministerial of-
fice, till the reformation commenced. Then the true church
which had existed all through '* the dark ages'' under differ-
ent names given them in different ages and countries, such
as Waldenses, Albigenses, Lionists, Paulicians, Hussites,
Lollards, Wickliffites, &c., became one with the reformed.
By these the ordination of the reformers was acknowledged
and thus confirmed. Lax discipline and human inventions
began to be introduced into other parts of the church about
the year 248. About the year 300 the last persecution by
the heathen ended. A system which eventually terminated
in Diocesan Episcopacy, was introduced into several large
churches by Constantino about the year 320. But the true
church still retained the apostolic principles and practices.
It retained the Presbyterian form of government taught in
the word of God, and it uniformly rejected the domineering
claims of Diocesan Episcopacy. For doing this, its mem-
bers suffered many long and severe persecutions. Many
congregations of these true christians were found in France,
Italy, Germany, England, &c., during every part of the
dark ages. About the year 560, the Syrian christians were
driven by persecution from their own country to the north
of Italy. These became united with the Lionists about the
year 590. The enemies of the true church, while they were
persecuting the people of God, destroyed most of their ec-
clesiastical records. But enough remains to show that their
principles,their practices and ordination wereapostolical(a).*
Those persons who are intrusted with the ministerial office,
and those only, have a right to administer the ordinance of
christian baptism(Z'), or perform any of its other peculiar
functions. Wicked or ignorant men may hold the external
office of the gospel ministry ; but they are mere wolves in
sheep's clothing. They are ambassadors for Christ only in
mere externals. They have no heart for his service, no
love, for his cause, or they would not enter the ministry
without the qualifications which arc essentially necessary in
(a) Pee Dr. Allix's Remarks, Adam Blair's History of the Waldenses, &c. *Se9
Acts 11: 26, Rom. 1; 15, Rev. 1: 4. 11. (b) See B, i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 5,
Ch. 3, § 18, 19.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 251
one who is to teach, both by precept and example, what our
Saviour has revealed in the scriptures of truth.*
18. Those who have no interest in the covenant made with
Ab ram and his seed, are not members of the visible church,
God has organized no other church, but that which he form-
ed in the days of Abram. He has formed no other visible
covenant relation with his professed people, but that which
was entered into with Abram and with his literal and spirit-
ual seed. This covenant was confirmed in Christ. It was
to be everlasting. That church has not been disorganized.
That covenant has not been disannulled. Though its seal
has been changed, yet the covenant remains in full force."
By rejecting this covenant, men refuse to receive an inter-
est in the only visible church which God has ever organi-
zed on earth. By turning away from this, they slight the
covenanted mercies of God(a). As therefore there is not
now and never has been, any other visible church organi-
zed on earth, but that which God formed in the days of
Abram ; so those who are not members of some branch of
that church cannot be members of any. They may form
human associations ; but these are not Divinely organized
churches(Z>). Men ought to make a solemn pause before
they, for any consideration whatever, reject or turn aside
from the covenant of God, and set at naught his grace in or-
ganizing a visible church among our guilty race.
19. The privileges oj the visible church are extended in
New Testament times. This may be observed in several
particulars. (1.) Since the death of Christ, the seal of the
covenant has been actually extended to females. Before
this it was virtually theirs, in consequence of their relation
to the males. (2.) Infants of parents, only one of whom is
in covenant, are entitled now to its seal.t (3.) Its bles-
sings are offered to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. (4.)
All its members are freed from the bondage of the ceremo-
nial law. (5.) Its ministers may now be taken from any
family. (6.) It has a greater amount of written revelation.
In these and other respects the privileges of the visible
church are extended. But in no instance is any privilege,
in New Testament times, taken away from the church.
*See Mat. 28: 19. 20, 2 Tim. 2: 2. (a) See $ 1-9. (b) See $ 1. t^ee 1 Cor. 7: 11.
252 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I.
Not the least evidence is found in the whole word of God,
to show that the privileges of the New Testament church
are to be less in any respect than those of the Old. It can-
not be supposed then that infants who, when the covenant
was first made and during its whole Old Testament dispen-
sation, constituted more than one half of one of the parties
in it, should, in New Testament times, be excluded from it
and from the use of its seal, God has not told us, in any
form of words, that he has excluded infants from their stand-
ing in the covenant. He has not taken this privilege from
them or from their parents. God received the infant with
*the parent into covenant relation with himself In many
respects he his extended the privileges of the church in New
Testament times. He has not diminished these, nor taken
them from infants. That he has done either, is unsupport-
ed by any evidence, and is not therefore to be believed by
intelligent men.
20. In the organization of the visible churchy baptism with
water is included as the seal of the covenant in New Testa-
ment times. This will appear by presenting the principal
parts of this subject before the mind at once. (1.) The visi-
ble church was organized in the days of Abram. (2.) Its
members were adults and infants. (3.) Circumcision, when
the covenant was first made, was its seal. (4.) It was to be
applied to infants whose parents were in covenant. (5.)
God has not excluded infants from the church or from a
right to the seal of the covenant. (6.) In New Testament
times, baptism is the seal of this covenant. (7.) If one pa-
rent is in covenant, so are the children.* (8.) Adopted
children are in covenant and therefore have a right to its
seal.t(a). It appears therefore that the very organization
of the visible church included the application of water to in-
fants in the ordinance of christian baptism ; because the seal
of the covenant, whatever it is, belongs to infants. That
seal is now baptism ; therefore they are to receive that or-
dinance ; for it is now the seal of the covenant.
*See 1 Cor. 7: 14. tSee Gen. 17: 12, 13. 27. (a) See ^ 2-5. 8. 10. 17.
Ch. 1, § 1.] THINGS, NOT TO BE BAPTIZED. 253
PART SECOND.
WHAT MAY NOT, AND WHAT MAY BE BAPTIZED.
CHAPTER I.
NOT THINGS, BUT PERSONS ARE TO BE BAPTIZED.
1. An inanimate substance cannot receive the ordinance of
christian baptism. This appears, (1.) From the fact that
when the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned men to adminis-
ter christian baptism, he did not authorize them to baptize
inanimate matter. In this commission, he directs men to
teach "all nations, baptizing them ;"* but in it he gives no
authority for baptizing mere material substances. Men
therefore have no right to do so. (2.) It is not so much as
intimated in the word of God, that inspired men, at any time,
administered this ordinance to things. There is therefore
no authority from example for baptizing material substances
or mere things. (3.) These substances are, in their nature,
incapable of receiving what is signified in christian baptism;
and they therefore cannot receive that ordinance(a). As
there is no authority in the word of God for baptizing bells,
buildings, &:c., so no person has a right to apply water to
them in the name of the Trinity. As they are totally inca-
pable of receiving what is signified in the ordinance, so to
attempt to baptize them, is only a solemn farce over which
Christianity weeps, and from which common sense turns
away with disgust.
Under the Old Testament dispensation of the church,
things, as well as persons, were to be ceremonially purified.
These ceremonial " washings" are, by the Spirit of God,
called (Ba'TfTjfT'fxojg) baptisms.t Divine wisdom informs us,
in more than twenty passages of scripture, that these bap-
tisms were, by the authority of God, performed by sprink-
ling(J). Moreover, it is said of the Jews, that after *' they
come from market, except they wash" (Ba'7f=r;T'wvTai) or bap-
tize, " they eat not ;" "and many other things — they hold —
as the washing" (Ba-n'TjC/xouc:) or baptizing "of cups and pots,
and brazen vessels, and tables(c). f But for this they had no
Divine authority. Nor has any person any Divine author-
*Mat. 28: 19. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 9. fHeb. 9: 10 in Greek. (*; See B. iii .
P. i, Ch. 1, ^ 3. 7. JMark 7: 4 in Greek, (c) See B. i, P. vi, Ch. 1, $ 2.
254 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II.
ity Tor baptizing, in New Testament times, any inanimate
substance. To attempt to do so, is only solemn trifling.
2. Animals cannot receive the christian ordinance of bap-
tism. No authority is given to men by our Saviour to admin-
ister the ordinance of baptism to animals any more than to
inanimate matter. Nor are we informed in the scriptures
that inspired men ever baptized a single animal. Moreover,
animals cannot receive what is signified in that holy ordi-
nance, any more than inanimate matter can(a). Animals
therefore cannot be baptized. To attempt to baptize them is
to insult Zion's King.
3. Human heings and they only can receive christian bap-
tism. To sustain this position many arguments may be pre-
sented. (l.)To them, and only to them, the Lord Jesus
Christ requires the ordinance to be administered. He directs
his ministering servants to '* leach all nations, baptizing
them." (2.) In obedience to this command, his inspired
servants baptized " both men and women.''* These and
many other portions of God's word, teach that human beings
alone were to be, and were baptized by Divine authority.
They alone are capable of receiving what is signified in
christian baptism(a). They only can have the blood of
Christ applied to them by the holy Spirit in his converting
and sanctifying influences. To them only can the sign of
this work of grace be therefore applied with propriety. Hu-
man beings therefore and no others, can receive christian
baptism which signifies the work of the Spirit on the soul.
To receive what is signified in this ordinance is not incon-
sistent with their nature. They may therefore be baptized.
To receive what christian baptism signifies is totally incon-
sistent with the nature of all other creatures. These others
therefore cannot receive christian baptism. It follows then
that human beings, and they only, can receive the ordinance
of christian baptism.
CHAPTER II.
WHAT IS NOT AND WHAT IS, IN THE SUBJECT, ESSENTIAL TO
BAPTISM.
1. To render the ordinance of baptism valid, it is not ne-
cessary that its subject should be a true christian. Many per-
(a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, ^ 9. *Acts 8: 12.
Ch. 2, § 1.] AVHAT NOT INDISPENSABLE. 255
sons are, in the word of God, mentioned as baptized church
members, who were nevertheless entirely destitute of vital
godliness. Persons who are publicly recognized as church
members must have been baptized ; because by baptism
that public recognition is first made. But church members
at Sardis, at Laodicea, and at other places, who, because they
were publicly acknowledged as such, must have been bapti-
zed, had, notwithstanding their membership, only "a name"
to live while they were, in reality, "wretched and miserable
and poor and blind and naked.''* Such also were Ananias
and Sapphira, who lied unto " the Holy Ghost.^f Though
these were baptized church members, yet they were mani-
festly destitute of an interest in the Lord Jesus Christ. Ma-
ny other instances are on record in the scriptures, of per-
sons who, in a state of unbelief, were publicly recognized
as baptized church members. As a specimen of these, Si-
mon, the Samaritan sorcerer may be noticed. In his case,
we may learn what things are not, in the subject, necessary
to the valid existence of christian baptism. From the ac-
count given of him, j: it is evident that hefore, at and after his
baptism he was a hardened sinner. (1.) He was and had
been for years, by profession, a sorcerer or public deceiver.
(2.) He was an unbelieving, impenitent, unconverted, unho-
ly man. (3.) He had no spiritual knowledge or perception
of Divine things. (4.) He was " a natural man,''' who did
not, and could not, in that state, receive or know " the things
of the Spirit of God."§ (5.) He had no '' part" or "lot"
in the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. (6.) He was, at
and after his baptism, still "in the gall of bitterness and in
the bond of iniquity." But notwithstanding all this, Simon
" was baptized." To the existence then of the ordinance of
christian baptism., it is not necessary that the person bapti-
zed, should believe or repent, or be regenerated, or be con-
verted, or be holy, or have spiritual knowledge of the na-
ture of baptism, or of any other ordinance, or have a per-
sonal interest in Chri&t ; because Simon was destitute of all
these spiritual graces and affections, and yet he " was bap-
tized." Besides all his other sins, he professed to be a true
believer in Christ ; while he imagined that " the gift of
*Rev. 3: 1. 15-17. t Acts 5: 1-3. JSee Acts 8: 8-13. 13-24. $1 Cor. 2: 14..
256 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II.
God" might " be purchased with money." In making this
profession, he was guilty of uttering a positive falsehood,
either because he was self-deceived, or because he wished to
deceive others. Though both in words and in the very act
of receiving christian baptism, he was guilty of all this sin ;
still it is declared, he " was baptized." All this wickedness
did not render it impossible for him to be baptized. It did
not invalidate this ordinance. Notwithstanding all this, his
baptism was valid. True religion in the subject is not there-
fore necessary to the validity of christian baptism ; for Si-
mon, who was not a true christian, but a very wicked man,
" was baptized."
2. If true faith was essential to christian haptism, man
could not administer that ordinance. To "search the heart"*
is a Divine prerogative. God alone can see into the soul of
man. He can determine whether true faith exists there or
not. A minister of Christ, however faithful, intelligent and
pious, cannot "search the heart." He may be deceived as
to the real piety, the true faith, of any person who may de-
sire to receive any ordinance of the christian church. If
true faith was indispensable to the validity of baptism ; the
minister could not, in any case, certainly tell, whether he
was engaged in administering a solemn christian ordinance,
or performing an act of mere mockery. Besides, the min-
isterial commission requires those to whom it is intrusted,
to teach and baptize ; but it does not direct them to search
the heart or work miracles. It is evident therefore, that
since mere men are empowered to baptize ; true faith, the
existence of which in the subject they cannot at any time
certainly determine, is not essential to the validity of the or-
dinance.
3. No class of men really hold that true faith in the subject
is essential to valid baptism. Those who adopt the anti-
christian fancy that baptism is regeneration(«), and there-
fore maintain that faith is communicated in the very act of
administering this ordinance, do not, of course, say that the
person baptized had this faith before its administration com-
menced. Those who assert that mankind are born holy,
cannot suppose that, if any of them, are baptized before they
*Jer. 17: 10, Rev. 2: 23. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 16.
Ch. 2, § 4.] WHAT NOT INDISPENSABLE. 257
sin, they can have faith conferred upon them either at or
before their baptism ; because true christian faith, as one of
its exercises, leads those who possess it to trust in Christ to
save their souls from the guilt of sin. Those who are per-
fectly holy, or are totally free from sin before they receive
baptism, cannot need this true christian faith. Some persons
however, by their professions, would lead the unwary to sup-
pose that they hold to what they call believer's baptism.
They thus intimate that true faith must invariably precede
valid baptism. A person unacquainted with their practice
would suppose, from their language, that they never admit-
ted any baptism to be valid unless the subject of it was a true
believer before he received the ordinance. But instead of
this, they seldom or never require, from those whom they
immerse, such an amount of scriptural evidence of the exis-
tence of true faith in their soul, as would convince an intel-
ligent christian that they, even in profession, really believed
in the Lord Jesus Christ. The immersed frequently prove by
their actions, that, like Simon the sorcerer, they are yet in
a state of unbelief(a). Their habitual conduct often shows
that they always lived ** without God in the world.''* If
however, such persons should, after their immersion, be tru-
ly converted to God and to a love of his truth, by the pow-
er of his Spirit ; immersers would not re-immerse them.
Thus they prove by their actions in relation to this matter,
that they do not really hold to the notion that true faith is
essential to valid baptism. They hold that those who are
not true believers, may be baptized. This they prove by
their practice, however differently they often talk.
Indeed, so far as scriptural evidence of regeneration is
concerned, the baptized among Pedobaptist christians give
altogether better evidence of having experienced the renew-
ing grace of God's spirit, than the immersed do. This can
be easily illustrated by the example of any of those Pedobap-
tists who actually take the word of God for their only rule
of duty, and who therefore train up their children in the way
they "should go."
4. Certain things in the subject are essential to the very
existence of christian baptism. These may be known by
ra) See $ 1. *Eph. 2: 12.
17
BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II.
him who administers the ordinance. If they could not, he
could never be certain that the person to whom he applied
water, was really baptized. These are few and very plain.
(1.) The subject of christian baptism must be a human be-
ing(a). None but human beings can be baptized. Men have
no authority to administer this ordinance to any but to human
beings. (2.) The subject of christian baptism must be a sin-
ful creature. None hut sinful creatures can be regenerated,
converted, or have the blood of Christ applied to their souls.
No others therefore can receive what is signified in christian
baptism(Z'). Hence to any others, the ordinance would be
a mere unmeaning ceremony. (3.) In his nature, the sub-
ject of baptism must be capable, at the time, or before, or
after it is administered, of receiving what is signified in the
wdinance. (4.) He must be received into that covenant of
which baptism is a seal. This must be done at the time or
before the ordinance is administered. And, as some are call-
ed covenant-breakers to whom its seal was not applied, and
because it was not applied to them ;* so a person must be
acknowledged to be in covenant at least the instant before
the seal is applied to him(c). It will be evident to those who
examine this matter carefully, that these four things and no
more are really necessary to the very existence of christian
baptism. They will see that men are authorized by our Sa-
viour to administer christian baptism to human beings and
no other creatures; that only sinful creatures, and not the per-
fectly holy, can receive this ordinance ; that the baptized
must,- in their nature, be capable of receiving what is signi-
fied in christian baptism, and that those to whom it is ad-
ministered must be in the covenant which God entered into
with his protessed people.
If it is affirmed that infants cannot enter into covenant
relation with God ; it nviy be answered that Divine wisdom
teaches that they can. God has received them into covenant
with himself He certainly knows who are proper persons
to form that relation. He has long since received infants
into covenant with himself Men have no right to exclude
them. God has received them. t What man is so foolhardy
as to usurp the Divine prerogative of excluding them t>om
(a) See Ch. 1, § 3. (b) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 9. *See Gen. 17: 14. (a) See P. i ,
Ch. 3, % 6. tSee lien. 17: 7-17.
Ch. 3. § 1.] ADULTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 259
an interest in God's covenant I He who does so, claims the
right of dictating to his Maker. He declares, by such an
act, that he can reform the covenant which Omniscience has
made. He thus more than intimates that though God has,
long since, received infants into this covenant with himself,
ns a portion of one of its parties ; yet he, a mere man, will,
in the plenitude of his wisdom, exclude them from it and
from the use of its seal. From such an act, what intelligent
christian will not shrink ?
CHAPTER IK.
ADULTS ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM.
1. True believers are proper subjects nf hapiism. Though
true faith is not essential to the existence of christian bap-
tism(a), yet every true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ has
a right to be baptized. This appears from many plain dec-
larations of scripture. " The people of Samaria" — " be-
lieved — and — were baptized ;" — Philip said to the Eunuch,.
*'if thou believest with all thy heart, thou may est" be bapti-
zed ', the Philippian jailer " believed — and was baptized :''
"Crispus" — with " many of the Corinthians — believed and
were baptized.'"'* These and many similar passages of scrip-
ture show that true believers ought to be baptized.
In the declaration; "he that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved,''! we are taught that the true believer shall
be saved. The baptism here mentioned is represented as ex-
isting at the same time with true faith. The believer is bap-
tized ; not he shall or will be baptized. This baptism is rep-
resented as being administered either at the moment the
person believes or before. As this, together with faith, ap-
pears to be inseparably connected with salvation, so it is more
than probable that spiritual baptism or regeneration is here
intended. This kind of baptism always takes place the in-
stant true faith is produced in the soul. Every true believer
is therefore baptized with this spiritual baptism. But if bap-
tism with water is intended ; then, as it is represented as ac-
tually existing the moment the person believes ; so it must
have been administered before true faith was produced in the
soul : because baptism with water cannot be administered in
(a) Sec Ch. 2, ^ 1-3. *Act8 8. 9. 12. 38. 37 and 1^ 31. 33 and 18: 8. IMark 16-. 18.
260 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II.
an indivisible point of time. But if the declaration was, (as
it is frequently though very incorrectly represented,) be-
lieve and be baptized ; it would simply prove that true be-
lievers ought to be baptized. This is a truth often taught in
other passages of scripture, and which no believer in bap-
tism with water ever pretends to deny. All such maintain
that true believers ought to be baptized, if the ordinance had
not, before they believed, been administered to them.
Moreover, if the argument which immersers attempt to
fabricate from this passage, be examined ; it will exclude
from salvation, every infant which it would exclude from
baptism. The exclusives say(a), faith must precede baptism ;
infants cannot believe ; therefore infants cannot be baptized.
By the same kind of logic, infants must be excluded from
salvation. They might say with equal or even with greater
propriety ; faith must precede salvation ; infants cannot be-
lieve ; therefore infants cannot be saved. But God does not
say that faith must precede baptism ; and the spirit of God,
by his new-creating power, can produce the principle or
grace of faith in the soul of an infant, as easily as he
produced it in that of Saul of Tarsus.* That sophistry must
be worse than useless which can, with equal ease, exclude
infants from baptism and from eternal felicity.
2. Those who have received spiritual baptism or have been
truly regenerated, are to be bajytized with loater. (1.) These
are always true believers(5). To believe and to be spiritu-
ally baptized or regenerated, are only different expressions
to denote different parts of the same change. When there-
fore this change is described by one word which indicates
that the person is entitled to water baptism ; his right to it
is as clearly proved as when for this purpose, a different
word is used. The believer may be baptized. Those who
are spiritually baptized, are believers; therefore these, be-
ing true believers, are to be baptized with water. (2.) Pe-
ter asks, "can any man forbid water that" Cornelius and
his friends, '' should not be baptized, which have received the
Holy Ghost as well as we ?" — " and he commanded them to
be baptized. '^t The very reason given to show that these
persons ought to be baptized with water, is ; they had been
(a) But God does not, nor do they practice on this principle. *See Acts 9: 1. 5. C
13, 17. 20. (b) See $ 1. tActs. 10: ai. 47. 48.
Ch. 3. § 3, 4.] ADULTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 261
baptized with the Holy Ghost, or had been regenerated. It
is certain therefore that those who have been spiritually bap-
tized ought to receive the ordinance of christian baptism.
3. Those loho truly repent are to be baptized. Faith and
repentance do not exist seperately in the same person. He
who is truly regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit,
at the very same instant receives into his soul the principles
of true faith and true repentance. These principles are ac-
tive. They manifest themselves in the life of those who re-
ceive them. The true penitent therefore, because he is a
true believer, may and ought to be baptized (a). That those
who exercise evangelical repentance ought to be baptized,
is also taught in the command ; " repent and be baptized ev-
ery one of you.''* This language clearly intimates that
every one who truly repents, is in duty bound, if he had not
before been baptized, to receive the ordinance of christian
baptism.
4. Professed believers are proper subjects of baptism. A
personal profession of faith in Christ, is not in the scriptures
represented as essential to the existence of the ordinance of
christian baptism. To make such a profession, while the
heart is not right with God, is an act of egregious wicked-
ness. But notwithstanding all this, those who " profess their
faith in Christ and obedience to him,'' have a right to be bap-
tized. Those who, in profession, believe in Christ, profes-
sedly believe what he teaches in his word ; and they actu-
ally, in external matters, obey all his holy requirements.
Those who thus profess their faith in Christ and prove the
sincerity of their profession by their actions, are to be bap-
tized. All this is definitely taught in the case of the Sama-
ritan sorcerer(Z>). He " believed " in profession, " and was
baptized," while he had in reality " neither part nor lot " in
true religion ; while he was in fact " in the gall of bitter-
ness and in the bond of iniquity. "f It is expressly stated
that this sorcerer " was baptized." It is also definitely taught
that he was not a true, but only a professed believer. In
his case therefore, it is explicitly taught that a mere profes-
sed believer may be baptized. Many other publicly recog-
nized church members who as such must have been baptised,
(a) See $ 1. ♦Acts 2; 38. (b) See Ch, 2, ^ 1, jActs 8: X2. 21.
2Q'2 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II.
are mentioned in the New Testament as being destitute of
true faith. Several members of the churches at Pcrgamos,
and Thiatira held to " the doctrine of Balaam " and were
" fornicators." Some church members at Sardis had only a
*' name"' to live, while they were spiritually "dead." Not
a few of the Laodicians were " luke-warm" professors,
while they were "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and
blind, and naked."* But these " luke-warm,'' — "blind,"
— "dead," — " miserable," — Balaamite professors, were bap-
tized church members. Their baptism too must have been
valid, or they could not have been acknowledged members
of these churches. It is evident therefore that those who
make a credible profession of their tailh, are to be baptized.
It is also evident that their baptism is valid, though they af-
terwards prove" that they were destitute of faith ; though
they may afterwards become ever so immoral. By these
sins, they become and remain covenant-breakers. But the
demands of the covenant constantly remain in full force.
By breaking God's covenant as well as his law, they become
more guilty and more hardened than other sinners. A hyp-
ocrite in the church becomes, by his detestable wickedness,
odious to God and man, if not to the devil. But he does not
by his immoralities, render his baptism invalid.
5. Females are proper subjects of baplism. They were,
by our Saviour, required to be baptized. The ordinance
was actually administered to them by inspired men. (1.)
They were commanded to be baptized. When our Saviour
directs his ministering servants to "teach all nations, bapti-
zing them ;"t he commands females to be baptized, because
females constitute an essential part of every nation. (2.)
Females were baptized by inspired men. Jt is expressly sta-
ted that " women" were baptized. ** Lydia" of Thyatira
is even named as one female who "was baptized."| (3.)
Families or households generally if not universally, include
females. Every family therefore, the baptism of which is
mentioned in the word of God, presents evidence to prove
that females were baptized. Of this description are the fam-
ilies of the jailer, of Stephanas, of Cornelius,§ &c. Fe-
* Rev. 2: 12. 14 15. 19. 20 and 3: 1. 14. 16. 17. fMa'. 29: 19. J Acts 8: 12 and 16. 14,
15. ^8ee Acta 10: 2. 33. 44. 47. 48 and 16: 32. 33, 1 Cor. 1: 16.
Ch. 3, § 6.] ADULTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 2dS
males were baptized by Divine authority. They therefore
may with propriety receive that holy ordinance.
In Old Testament times, females were not actually, but
they were virtually, circumcised. They had this virtual
circumcision in consequence of their relation to the males.
That they were virtually circumcised appears fi'om the fact
that they eat the passover. No *' uncircumcised person"
was permitted to do this. But '* the whole assembly," —
*'all the congregation of Israel,"* and therefore females,
were positively commanded to keep the passover. '1 hese
must therefore have been virtually circumcised. But in
New Testament times, females as well as males, actually re-
ceive the seal of the covenant into which God formerly en-
tered with his visible people.
6. Evidence to prove that adults are to he baptized, does
not inihtate against infant baptism. It is positively proved
from the word of God, that adult persons, both male and fe-
male, are proper subjects of baptism. True believers, pro-
t'essed believers, the spiritually baptized, and those who re-
pent, are to be baptized with water(rt). But it by no means
follows, that because adults may be baptized, therefore in-
fants may not receive that ordinance. The fact that adults
were to be circumcised, did not prove that infants were to be
excluded from that " seal of the righteousness of — faith."t
To prove that " men and women" were baptized, is to say
nothing whatever against infant baptism. Such proof might
favor, but cannot possibly oppose, the baptism of children.
It might, with a good degree of propriety, be said, that since
the child of a circumcised Israelite must be circumcised,
therefore the child of a baptized christian or spiritual Israel-
ite, must, or at least may, be baptized. But if a parent may
be baptized, it does not, cannot follow as a legitimate conse-
quence, that his child must remain unbaptized till he arrives
at mature age. The fact then that adults are to be baptized,
does not prove or intimate that infants may not receive the
same ordinance.
It is also worthy of remark that all persons who believe
in baptism with water, maintain that adults who profess their
faith in Christ, may be baptized, if they have not before re-
*Ex. 1-2: 6. 47. 48, lee aJso Lev. 21: 10-13, Dent. 16. IL (a) See $ 1-5. fSee Gee.
17: 11.34, Rome 4: IL
264 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II.
ceived that holy ordinance. When therefore immersers
prove that adults are proper subjects of baptism, they mere-
ly prove what all believers in baptism wiih water maintain
as firmly as they do. But not the least evidence is thus fur-
nished to prove that infants are not to receive this holy or-
dinance.
CHAPTER IV.
INFANTS ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
1. They are human beings. A mere look at an infant
will prove this position to any person of reflection. Every
one can perceive at a glance that infants do not belong to
the inanimate, to the brute, or to the angelic creation. No
person who believes the evidence of his senses can refuse to
admit that they are a part of the human race. They are
therefore possessed of one thing which, in the subject, is es-
sential to the ordinance of christian baptism(a).
2 Infants are sinful creatures. None but sinful creatures
can possibly receive christian baptism(^). That infants are
sinful is clear both from the word of God and from the ex-
perience of mankind. (1.) The scriptures teach that in-
fants are sinful. It is declared that believers " were by na-
ture the children of wrath even as others.'^* As God's
wrath is against nothing but what is sinful; so those who are
by nature children of wrath, must be by nature sinful. Be-
lievers and others are by nature children of wrath ; they
must therefore be sinful by nature. Infants have the same
human nature which adults have ; theirs must therefore be
a sinful nature. The inspired Psalmist positively declares ;
*' behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my moth-
er conceive me.'^t David " was shapen in iniquity" and
*' conceived in sin." This language shows that he was a
sinner in some sense as soon as he was a human being.
The Psalmist also affirms ; " the wicked — go astray as soon
as they are born, speaking lies."| In this passage, the very
first actions of men and their first articulate, and perhaps in-
articulate sounds, are mentioned as sinful. Israel is "cal-
led a transgressor from the womb."§ It is also stated that
(b) See Ch. 1, § 3, Ch. 2, % 4. (b) 8ee Cb. 2, $ 4, par. 2. ♦Eph. 2; 3. tPs. 51: 5.
^Ps. 58:3. $l8a. 48:8.
Ch. 4, § 3, 4.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 265
"both Jews and Gentiles," (and there are infants among
both,) " are all under sin ;" — " there is none righteous, no,
not one ;" — " there is none that doeth good, no, not one;" —
**all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.''*
These and similar passages of scripture prove as conclusively
as language can do, that infants and all other human beings,
are sinful. (2.) The experience of mankind proves that infants
are sinful. All see that infants are liable to pain and sickness
and death. They suffer all these in every stage of their exis-
tence. These are the effects of sin. It cannot, without blas-
phemy, be supposed for a moment that a perfectly just and
Omnipotent Being, would inflict upon absolutely holy im-
mortal creatures, all the distresses which infants often suffer.
They must therefore, in the sight of God, be sinful. All
who believe in a holy and just Ruler of the universe, must
maintain that infants, in some sense, are sinful creatures.
Those who trust to the evidence of their own senses, know
that they suffer the consequences of a nature polluted with
sin. All see, or may see, in them, the effects of sin. All
therefore know, in their own experience, that infants are by
nature sinful creatures. Human beings of every age, from
their earliest infancy to the latest period of life, suffer death;
and death "entered into the world" by "sin ;"t every indi-
vidual therefore, old or young, who is liable to death, is sin-
ful by imputation, by nature or by practice. But as all in-
fants are liable to death ; so, in the sight of God, they must
be all sinful in some sense. This all know or may know,
by their own observation and experience.
3. Infants are capable of receiving laliat is signified ly
christian haptism. It denotes the work of the Spirit on the
soul(a). The holy Spirit is certainly as capable of produ-
cing a new nature, a new heart, true faith, love to God, and
every other essential christian principle, in an infant, as in
Saul of Tarsus, while "breathing out threatenings and
slaughter against the disciples of" Christ. | By the Almigh-
ty power of God's Spirit therefore, an infant can be regen-
erated and have the blood of Christ applied to its soul. More-
over, infants have been truly converted or born "of the
*Rom. 3: 9. 10. 12. 23. tRom- 5: 12. (a> See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 9. J Ads 9; 1. 4.
5 and S^; 13.
266 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. H.
Spirit." David, after his child's death, said; *' I shall go
to him."* This expression intimates that the child was in a
state and place of happiness ; and that it had therefore been
born ** of the Spirit," and had thus been prepared to " enter
into the kingdom of God" above. t .leremiah was "sancti-
fied" from his earliest infancy; and John the Baptist was
*' filled with the Holy Gliost" from his birth. Samuel was
but a young W child" when he *' ministered before the
Lord." 'I'imothy " from a child" knew " the holy scrip,
tures."! These instances clearly sliow that infants and
very young children have enjoyed the renewing grace of
God's Spirit. They teacli that they have experienced what
is signified in christian baptism.
4. Infants are capable of being in covenant tcith God.
That they can sustain this covenant relation with God, is ex-
pressly and frequently taught in the scriptures. God made
"a covenant with" Noah and his *'seed after" him. Abram's
infant "seed," as well as himself, were required to enter into
*'covenant" with God. This they did according to the Di-
vine direction. Again the Israelites positively affirm that
the "Lord — made a covenant with" them " in Horeb." This
"covenant" they declare was not " made with" their "fa-
thers" but with them in person. § The covenant which was
made on a mountain which, as a whole, was called Horeb,
while one part or peak of it received the name of Sinai, was
entered into forty years before this language was used.
When therefore this covenant was made with them, most
of them must have been infants and young children. || That
infants were received, by the special command of God, into
covenant relation with himself, is a fact frequently stated in
his word. But it is not necessary to mention any more in-
stances. Those already mentioned are sufficient to convince
those who believe the scriptures to be a revelation from God,
that infants are capable of being in covenant with him. But
if they can be a parly or a portion of a party in a covenant,
then they can receive its seal.
It appears therefore that infants are human beings(a), are
sinful creatures(&), may be "born again" — "of the Spir-
*2 Sam. 12: *2.3. fJohn 3: 3. 5. t Jer. 1: 5, Luke 1: 15, 1 Sam. 1: 24 and 2: 18, 2 Tim.
3. 15. ^Gen. 9: 9 and 17: 7-14, Dent. 5: 2. 3. ||See Ex. 19: 2-20 and 20; 1-17, compa-
red with Deut. 5: 2-22. (a) ^ 1. (b) $ 2.
Ch. 4, § 5.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 267
it"(a), and are capable of being in covenant with God. To
them therefore, in common with adults, belongs whatever is
essential to a subject of baptism(Z').
It will scarcely be affirmed, even by the exclusives, that,
for an unbelieving, unconverted enemy of God, like Simon
the sorcerer(6J, to profess to be a true christian, is what ren-
ders his ba[)tism valid. For an unbeliever, while he remains
such, to profess to believe in Christ, is to be guilty of a most
solemn falsehood. The word of God does not tench that tel-
ling a lie, qualifies a man for baptism, or renders that ordi-
nance valid to him, which would otherwise be invalid. The
validity of Divine ordinances cannot depend on the wicked-
ness of those who receive them.
To be interested in God's covenant and thereby entitled to
its seal, personal consent in every case, is not necessary.
God himself has determined this point. Into covenant with
himself he received infants who, from their age, were inca-
pable of giving or withholding their personal consent.* He
made them a portion of one party in this covenant. The
other was composed of adults. It is manifest therefore that,
from the fact that infants have been received into covenant
with God, personal consent is not in all cases necessary to
enjoy an interest in that covenant into which he has entered
with his visible church.
5. Infants are guilty of nothing which can exclude them
from the covenant or render their baptism invalid. No in-
fant is or can be guilty of an}^ open immorality. No one of
them can therefore be excluded by proper ecclesiastical dis-
cipline from the covenant. No infant can be as wicked as
Simon the sorcerer was. With all the guilt of years resting
on his soul, he '* was baptized." He came to receive the
ordinance with " a lie in his right hand ;" and notwithstand-
ing this, he, as we are positively told, *' was baptized."t
Simon was a practical villain, up to, and during the time of
his baptism, as well as afterwards ; and yet his baptism was
valid. An infant free from all his open immoralities, cer-
tainly cannot be, merely on account of its infancy, a less fit
subject to receive the holy ordinance of baptism than Simon
was.
(a) $ 3. (b) See Ch. 2, $ 4. (c) Ch. 2, $ 1, par. 1-6. *See Gen. 17: 7-I-I. tA«t«
ft 13, Iga. 44: 20: ' v r-
268 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II.
6. God does not forbid the laptism of infants. In no pas-
sage of scripture is it said that infants may not, or shall not
be baptized. Nor does the word of God contain the least in-
timation of any such prohibition ever being given. Infants
who are themselves proper subjects of baptism(a), are not
therefore rendered unfit to receive that holy ordinance by
any positive enactment. Infants then are, and will always
remain, proper subjects of baptism ; for C4od will not change
their nature, nor his word in relation to them. If it had
been his intention to have excluded them, in New Testa-
ment times, from the seal of the covenant, he would have
expressed this his intention in some form of words. But as
he has not, in any portion of the scriptures stated or even
intimated in any mode of expression, that infants were to be
or have been excluded from the seal of the covenant entered
into with his visible people, it is certain that he did not in-
tend to exclude them from its use. God had commanded the
seal to be applied to them. To say nothing further on the
subject was to leave the existing command in full force.
Since therefore God has commanded the seal of the covenant
to be applied to infants ; and since, in New Testament times
this seal is baptism; the fact that he has not forbidden them
to receive baptism, the New Testament seal of the covenant,
is undeniable evidence that the former command requiring
them to receive this seal, remains unrepealed — is yet in full
force. To secure to infants the New Testament seal of the
covenant, it was not necessary to repeat the former com-
mand. To leave it unrepealed, or not to forbid them to be
baptized is all that was really necessary in their case. But
God has not only left the former command in full force; but
he has repeated it in almost every conceivable mode of ex-
pression(a).
Infants are not proper communicants at the Lord's table.
To them belongs every thing essential to subjects of bap-
tism(Z>). But to them does not belong what is essential to a
communicant. They are not capable of performing the ex-
ternal acts which are required of, and performed by, every
one who partakes of the symbols of the broken body and of
the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is said to all
(a) $ 4, P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 1, par. 13, P. iil, Ch. 2, $ 1-9. (b) See $ 1-4.
Ch. 1, ^ 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 269
communicants, whether worthy or unworthy; "take, eat;'^ —
"take this and divide it among yourselves;" — " drink ye
all of it." These directions are given to all communicants.
By them all, these external actions are all performed. In-
fants cannot perform these actions. They therefore cannot
commune at the Lord's table. Moreover, Jesus Christ says
to each communicant at his table ; " this do in remembrance
of me." Each communicant, whether a true believer or not,
externally complies with this direction. Those who ap-
proach the Lord's table, declare externally by this action
that they have examined themselves; and that they discern
the Saviour's body.* Infants are, from their age, incapable
of performing any one of the acts which all communicants
externally perform. While therefore infants may be bap-
tized ; because, in receiving this ordinance, the subject is al-
ways passive ; they are not proper communicants, because
in receiving the Lord's supper, all who partake are active.
PART THIRD.
DIVIXE AUTHORITY IN FAVOR OF INFANT BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
CHURCH MEMBERS ARE OR OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED.
1. Members of the visible church in New Testament times
are, or ought to be baptized. This position is admitted by all
who believe that baptism with water is an ordinance to be
observed in the christian church. Each church member is
in visible covenant with God. The fact that he is a church
member proves this. But the person who is in covenant,
or who, in other words, is a church member, has a right to the
seal of the covenant. This, in New Testament times, is
baptism(a). Every church member therefore who is not
baptized, is entitled to this ordinance. Those who say that
baptism is the door through which persons must pass to enter
the church, must admit that all who are in it, have been bap-
tized. Those who maintain that persons first enter into the
church by being born in covenant or by entering it after-
wards, must maintain that those who are in covenant ought
to receive its seal, if it has not been applied to them. But
*Mat. 2C: 26. 27, Mark 14i 22. 23, Luke 22: 17. 19, 1 Cor. 11: 24. 25. 28. 29. (a) See
P. i, Ch.3, §6. 8.
270 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III.
as this seal, in New Testament times, is baptism(a); so there-
fore every member of the christian church has been or ought
to be baptized.
2. Jesus Christ teaches that infants are to be baptized.
He expressly says of certain persons ; " of such is the king-
dom of heaven ;" — '* of such is the kingdom of God. '^* This
kingdom denotes the kingdom of God on earth or his visible
church(^). The expression relates especially to the church
in New Testament times. Certain it is that this language
must in many passages of scripture, signify the christian
church. t In the connection in which it is used by our Sav-
iour, it may include, but cannot exclude the church in its New
Testament dispensation. Those of whom it can be properly
said, "of such is the kingdom of God," must form at least a
portion of the members of that kingdom. Those concerning
whom this declaration is made by the blessed Jesus, are four
times called " little children ;" they are once called " young
children,'"' and once ihey are denominated "infants.'^ Of
these same persons who form a part, if not a principal part
of his kingdom or visible church on earth, it is said ; Jesus
"took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them and
blessed them." These "little children," — "young chil-
dren," — " infants'' whom Jesus took " up in his arms," con-
stitute a portion of God's kingdom or visible church on earth. |
This our Savior positively teaches. But as these infants, in
New Testament times, were men)bers of his church on earth;
fco they were entitled to the ordinance of christian baptism ;
for all such members either have been or have a right to be
baptized(c). The language which the Holy Spirit here
uses to denote " infants" is as strong and pointed as can be
used on this subject. That infants form a portion of God's
kingdom on earth, is therefore as certain as the language of
inspiration can make the fact ; and it is equally certain that
as church members, they may have been, ought to have
been, had been, or are to be baptized.
3. The Spirit of God by Paul teaches expressly that in-
fants are to be baptized. This apostle in addressing the Ga-
latians, calls them "brethren" and mentions those to whom
(a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, ^ 1 1, See also P. i, Ct-. 3. § 10, < h. -3, ^ 1, par. 7. 9. 11. 13.
*Mat. ID: 14, Mark 10: 14. Luke IS: 16. (b) Sec B. i. I', iii, Ch. 1, § 2. ji^ee Mat. 3:
9 and 4: 17 and 10: 7, Mark 1: 15. ^Mat. 19: 13. 14, Mark 10: 13-15, Luke IS: 15. IG.
rehire* ^1.
Ch. 1, § 4.J INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 271
he wrote as " churches." But some of the members ot' these
"churches," some of these "brethren," he expressly calls
"little children."* A part of these church members then
were " little children." The original word (i-£xvia) here
translated " little children," is very pointed in its significa-
tion. Jt is derived from another Greek word (rexvov) which
denotes a child and sometimes one unborn. f it is a diminu-
tive, and therefore denotes very "little children." Such
language does the holy Spirit use in addressing some of the
members of the " churches" in Galatia." These "little chil-
dren" were singled out and specially mentioned by the Spi-
rit of God as members of the Galatian churches. These in-
deed are the only class of persons thus particularly noticed
in these churches. But as these " little children" were cer-
tainly members of the churches in Galatia, they were either
baptized or had a right to that ordinance. To say that " lit-
tle children" are members of the visible church of Christ, is
to use most positive language in favor of infant baptism. Be-
sides, these " little children" are publicly recognized as
church members ; they must therefore have been actually
baptized; because this public recognition of church member-
ship takes place neither before nor after, but in the very act
of receiving the ordinance of baptism. Persons commune
at the Lord's table, not to make them church members, but
because they are such before they receive the holy supper(a).
4. The Holy Spirit, by John, teaches that infants are to
be hapti-zed. In an epistle addressed to the churches in gen-
eral, "little children" are mentioned as members no less
than nine times[b),f " Young men" and " fathers" are also
specially mentioned as church members. As a body, they
are collectively addressed as " beloved" and " brethren. "§
In this epistle addressed to the churches in general, "little
children" are much more frequently named than any other
class of members. These " little children," or as the origi-
nal word (rsxvia) indicates, these very " little children," are
publicly recognized as members of the visible churches to
whom John addressed his first general epistle. By being
thus publicly recognized as church members, their baptism
*GaI. 1: 2. 11 and 3: I'l ..rrl 4: 1'2. 19 anfl 5: U- l^^. fSee Gal. 4: 19 in Greek, see
also Greek Lexicons, (a) P. i, Ch. 3, $ 10. (b) See P. i, Ch. 3, § 8. JSee i John 2.
1. 12. 13. 18. '28 aud 3: 7. 18 and 4: 4 and 5: 21. $1 John 2: 13. 14 aud 3: 2. X3 and 4; 1. 1.
272 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III.
is as certainly and as definitely taught, as it could have been
in any other form of words. Those " little children" whom
John addresses as publicly recognized church members, he
addresses as baptized persons ; because all such church mem-
bers, must have been baptized at the time this public recog-
nition first took place. The holy Spirit, by John, there-
fore, teaches very pointedly that infants were baptized by
Divine authority.
5. Infants were baptized in the Red Sea. This the Spirit
of God very pointedly teaches. Speaking of the whole na-
tion of Israel who came out of Egypt, God declares ; they
" were all baptized — in the cloud and in the sea.''* The
Israelites who left Egypt are called the " fathers" of the
Jews who lived in the days of the apostle Paul ; because
they were their ancestors, not because of their age when
they left the land of their captivity. When Israel left their
" house of bondage," they brought with them their " young,"
their "sons" and "daughters," their " little ones," their
"children," those who '^had no knowledge between good
and evil."t With these the " covenant" was made at "Ho-
reb."J These " did all eat the same spiritual meat." They
drank " the same spiritual drink," — from that " spiritual
Rock" which " followed them, and that Rock was Christ."
Those therefore who drank from Christ, the spiritual Rock,
were not the rebels that lusted " after evil things," were
" idolators," were guilty of "fornication," — "tempted"
Christ and " murmured." Those then who are more par-
ticularly mentioned as the persons who left Egypt and were
baptized " in the cloud and in the sea," are such as were at
tliat time the "sons" and "daughters," the " little ones,"
the children who " had no knowledge between good and
evil."§ Certainly these " little ones" are not excluded from
among those who are said to have been baptized. It is there-
fore absolutely certain that these " children" who then had
" no knowledge between good and evil" were baptized
among the rest. The Spirit of God therefore in this account,
teaches positively that infants were baptized. But as " all
these things happened unto them" for " examples" to the
New Testament church, || so now this church, by its minis-
*l Cor. 10: 1. 2. ^Ex. 10: 9. 10. 24 and 12: 37, Num. 14: 31. 33, Deut. 1: 39. fDeut.
5; 2. 3. ^See 1 Cor. 10: 3. 4. 6-10. || I Cor. 10: 6. 11.
Ch. 1, § 6, 7.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 273
try, in order to imitate the example here proposed for its im-
itation, must baptize infants.
6. Ancient Prophets predicted that infants, in New Tes-
tament times, are to be baptized. They clearly point out the
fact that infants are to be members of the christian church.
On this subject, they use such language as this; "a little
child shall lead" the lion and the leopard ; — "the sucking-
child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child
shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den ;'' — the Messiah
"shall gather the lambs with his arm and carry them in his
bosom;" — " the Gentiles — shall bring thy sons in their arms
and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders ;" —
" a little one shall become a thousand and a small one a
strong nation ;" — " my people — mine elect — are the seed
of the blessed of the Lord and their offspring with them ;" —
"I will gather all nations — and they shall — see my glo-
i'y 5" — "the children of thy servants shall continue and
their seed shall be established before thee ;" — " their children
— shall be as aforetime."* The prophets in predicting the
spiritual prosperity of the church in New Testament times,
use many expressions similar to those here quoted. This
prophetic language clearly teaches that " little children," —
** sucking" children, " weaned" children, such " lambs" and
" sons" as were to be carried in the " arms," the " offspring"
of his people, their "seed," the "nations" which always
and necessarily include infants, should have a standing in
the christian church. But, as all church members in New
Testament times have been or have a right to be baptized ;
so when the church membership of infants is predicted, their
baptism is necessarily included. Whenever therefore in-
fants as church members in New Testament times, are bap-
tized ; these and similar predictions are receiving their ful-
fillment.
7. Every passage in the New Testament, which mentions
children as limng under the christian dispensation, teaches
that infants are to be baptized. These passages all inculcate
infant church membership, and therefore teach infant bap-
tism ; for all church members are baptized or ought to be(a).
Certain words are, in the New Testament, used to denote
*Isa. 11: 6. 8 and 40: 11 and 49: 22 and 6C: 22 and 65: 22. 23 and 66: 18, Vs. 102: 28,
Jer, 30: 20. fa; See $ 1.
18
274 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III.
church members. To apply one of these words or more to
an individual, is to call him a member of the visible church
in New Testament times. The words which are descrip-
tive of church membership, are " saints" or holy ones,
*' believers,"—" brethren,''—" faithful,"— "sanctified," &c.
The "saints" at Rome, the "saints" at Corinth, the "saints"
in Achaia, the " saints" at Ephesus, the "saints" at Philip-
pi, the "saints" at Colosse, the "saints" at Jerusalem, &c.,
denote the church members in those places.* These saints
are also called " believers," — "brethren," — "faithful," —
" sanctified," &:c. As these words are used in relation to
the persons to whom the New Testament epistles were writ-
ten, so they must have been applicable to each of them or at
least to each class of persons addressed. But all the epis-
tles in the New Testament were addressed either to chris-
tian churches or to individual believers. When therefore
" little children" or infants are addressed or mentioned as
part of those to whom the epistles were written, they are
addressed as church members ; for what had the apostles "to
do to judge" those who were "without" the. pale of the
church'?! An inspired man would not address an epistle to
a class of persons as church members when some of them
were not such. When therefore an epistle addressed to a
church by an apostle, mentions a particular class of persons
as a part of those to whom it was written, that class must
have been church members ; for all to whom each of the
epistles in the New Testament, was addressed, were such.
When therefore children or " little children" are addressed
in any one epistle or more ; they are thus recognized as
members of the visible church. But as members of the vis-
ible church m New Testament times, they were baptized or
had a right to the ordinance of baptism(a). Some word
which indicates church membership, is invariably used of
♦'little children" or " infants" whenever they are mention-
ed as living in New Testament times. A i^ew instances of
infant church membership, may here be noticed. (1.)
Church members are called saints or holy ones(Z>). Infants
are called "holy," therefore infants are church members ;
*See Rom. 1: 7 and 15: 25, I Cor. 1: 2 and 10: 1, 2 Cor. 1: 1 and S: 4 and 9: 1, Eph. 1:
J, Phil, 1: 1, Col. 1: 2. fl Cor. 5: 12. Ca;See (^ 1. (b)ThQ terra saint denc^tes a.bo«.
^. one..
Ch. 1, § 7,] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 275
because the word holy which indicates church membership,
is applied to them. It is said to parents, only one of whom
is a believer ; " your children — are — holy."* No true
christian can ever imagine that the word " holy" in this pas-
sage of God's word, denotes " converted." This would be
to give the term a very unusual signification. Besides, no
person who has any experimental knowledge of the w^ork of
the spirit on his own soul, can even for a moment suppose,
that because one of the parents of a child is a believer, there-
fore the child is born of the spirit or is truly converted. But
it may with much propriety be said that the children of such
parents are federally *'holy," or in other words, that they
are in covenant with God. The word " holy" is frequently
used in the scriptures to express this covenant relation.
The Jews, because they were in covenant, are called a, *'ho-
iy people ;" professing christians, because they are in cov-
enant, are called a " holy nation" and also " saints" or holy
onest(a). Whoever therefore is in visible covenant with
God, is holy by profession and by covenant engagement.
When infants therefore are called holy, their church mem-
bership is definitely recognized. (2.) Church members are
called faithful, so also are children ; therefore children are
church members. Timotheus — was "faithful ;" Paul "ob-
tained mercy — to be faithful ;" church members at Ephe-
sus were " faithful. "| These and similar declarations prove
that " faithful" was a distinguishing appellation given to
church members in apostolic times. But this word "faith-
ful," which describes a church member is applied to infants.
A bishop's or pastor's children must be "faithful." That
these children were small, is evident from the fact that they
are called children. To designate them, a word is used
which in its ordinary acceptation, indicates very young per-
sons. That they were young is manifest from the direction
given to the father to have them " in subjection." This di-
rection shows that they were so young as to be under the
*1 Cor. 7: 14. tDeut. 7: 6 and 14: 2. 21 and 26: 10, 1 Pet. 2: 9, Eph. 1: 1 in Greek*
(a) The fancy that the word " holy" in 1 Cor. 7: 14 si BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III.
ture into that land of cruel oppression.* Of the nation of
Israel, *' great, mighty and populous," which, like all na-
tions, must have included infants, it is said ; God made Eze-
kiel *' a watchman unto the" (ojxw) " house of Israel. "t In
this passage, the word house is synonymous with nation. It
therefore must include infants and young children ; because
no nation can exist without these. The expressions, "the"
(ojxoc:) "house of Israel," — " the" (o/xoc:) '* house of Jacob,"
— ''the house of Judah," — "the house of David," — "the
house of Jeroboam,'^ — " the house of Ahab,"j: &c., must ne-
cessarily include infants. Each of these expressions denotes
ail the descendants of the person mentioned in it. Among
these, infants must therefore be included. Indeed, each one
of their descendants, must have been an infant the moment
it began to compose a part of the house or family. 1 hat in-
fants are included in the word (oixog) for house is therefore
certain. In the [oixog) house of the bishop or pastor and in
that of the deacon, mentioned by the apostle Paul, infants
must have been included ; because each is commanded to
rule his house well.§ In these and in many other passages
of scripture, the word (^oixo(f) for house is so used as necessa-
rily to include infants or very young children. (3.) The
Greek word for house is used to denote children as distinct
from their parents. The Lord said unto Noah, " come thou
and all thy" (oixotr) "house into the ark;" — Jacob in fear of
the Canaanites, says, "I shall be destroyed, I and my"
{oixo(f) " house ;" of those who went down into Egypt, it is
said, *' every man and his" (iravom) whole house or "house-
hold came with Jacob ;" — to Israel God gave the command,
" ye shall rejoice, — ye and your" (ojxoj) "households" or
houses ; — to each one of them he said, " thou shalt rejoice,
thou and thy" (oixo(f) " household," or house, and again,
"thou shalt eat" the firstling, — "thou and thy" (oixotj)
*' household" or house ; — of the heave-offering, he directed
them and their (oixoi) "households" to eat; — God said to
David, "behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine
own" (ojxou) " house," or from among thy children ; — the
(ojxou) house which the bishop and the (o/xwv) houses which
*See Gen. 43: 8 and 45: 19 and 46: 5.27. 31 in Gr. fDeut. 26: 5, Ezek. 3: 17 in Gr.
tSee 1 Kings (culled in Gr. 3 Kinjrs) 12: 19-21. 26 and 15: 29 and 16: 3 and 21: (in Gr:
20:) 22, Isa. 58: 1, Ezek. 1!: 15 wnd 18: 1.5, Zech. 12: 7. 8. 10. 12. 13, 1-uke 1: 27 and 2
4, Heb. 8: 8. 10 in Gr. $6ee 1 Tim. 3: 4. 5, 12 in Greek.
Ch. 2, § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 297
the deacons were to rule could not include the rulers.* From
each of them thoir fuaiily or house must have been distinct.
In each of these passages, it is perfectly manifest to any one,
even to the most ^'iperficial and prejudiced, that the word
(ojxoo') house si^nities children as distinct from their parents.
(4.) The Gret!: word for house, ivhenit is used for persons^
always denotes relations^ and almost always descendants. It
signifies connc^.tions by affinicy or marriage as well as by
consanguinity or by blood. But when it signifies a family,
it in no instance includes servants or strangers. It often
denotes descendants for a number of generations. All this
is manifest from the passages already quoted ; especially
those which mention the house of Noah, of Israel, of Ja-
cob, of David, &c. It is therefore evident from what has
been said in this section that when the word (^oixod) for house
is used in the scriptures to denote persons ; it primarily and
principally signifies infants, and only in a secondary sense
and very seldom does it denote or even include adults. This
word (ojxoff) is once used by the Holy Spirit to denote a mo-
ther and a grand-mother or aunt. It is not certain which is in-
cluded, as the original word {sxyovci) may signify either
grand-children or nephews. The language is this "if any
widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show
piety (jJjovojxov) '*at home,'"' literally to their own house, or
in other words, to their mothers and aunts or grand-mothers. t
Moreover, it ought to be observed that the word ('^ixoo') for
house, is not, in the New Testament and very seldom if at
all in the Septuagint, used to denote married persons without
children.
Uninspired writers frequently use the Greek word (o(xoj)
for house in the scriptural sense here mentioned. In the
Apocrypha, it is said ; "the blessing of the father establish-
eth the" {wKOog) '■ houses of children. "t In this quotation
houses must denote children. They are said to be establish-
ed by the blessing of the father. He whose blessing is men-
tioned is represented as the father of the children whose
houses are blessed. The term houses therefore here signi-
fies the children of children or grand-children. A grand-
*Gen. 7: land 34: 30, Ex. 1: 1, Deut. 12: 7 and 14: 26 and 1.3: 20, Num. 18: 31, 2 Sam.
(Gr. 2 Kings) 12: 11. 1 Tim. 3: 4.5. 12 ail in Greek and English. fL Tim. 5:4, in Gr.
lElcclas. (called in Greek, the wisdom of Sirach) 3: 9>
298 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III.
father by liisblcssing'orapprobation can do much to establish
his grand-children in ways of wisdom and virtue. Through
this instrumentality a family may be so established as to con-
tinue from generation to generation. A '* house" (oixov) is
said to be "a thrice Olympic victor"(o); when a person(&),
his father(c) and his grand-father(^) were each victorious in
the Olympic games. A noted Greek writer who was born
and educated in Greece, defines the word (oixog) for house.
He says it signifies, "a society long connected together ac-
cording to the course of nature"(e). Such a society is com-
posed of " those who eat at the same board"(/), — or of
*' those who sit around the same fire-side"(^'-), — or of ** those
who sit around the same table"(/i),-— or of "those who are
free by birth"(^). Such a society is what Aristotle calls
(oixocr) a house, when that word denotes persons. It must
therefore primarily and necessarily denote or include infant
children. These are always and incontrovertibly connected
to their parents and to each other according to the course of
nature. It cannot include servants ; tor these are not sup-
posed to be so connected ; nor are they born free.
The Arabs use their word for house, or they say those at
home, when they speak of their wives and daughters(^').
The Latin word (domus) for house is frequently used to sig-
nify a family including infants. The modern Italian word
(casa') for house is often used in the same sense. The En-
glish word house is sometimes in the present day, but was
much more frequently in former periods, used to express a
family including all the children of every age. No term
can be used which will more certainly denote or include in-
fants than the word {imog) house or family. It is in fact
used, by different Greek writers, more than three hundred
times, in such connection as to express or include infant
children.
When this word (otxoj) house denotes persons, it is used
metaphorically. All proper metaphors have a special refer-
ence to language in its literal import. Metaphorical lan-
guage is not therefore the fancy of a disordered mind. To
use it, is a proper, though not a literal, mode of speaking.
(a) See Pinrl. Ode. 13. (b) Xenqphon. (c) Thessalus. (d) PteoHorus. (e) See
Aristotle's Polity. B. i, Ch.2. (f) Charondas. (fr) Epimenides ihe Cretan, (h) Du
Val, the editor of Aristotle's works, (i) Aris, Pol. B. i, Ch. 3. (j) See Man. Arabs
by D'Arieax.
Ch. 2, § 6. J INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 299
A literal house among the Hebrews was a permanent habi-
tation. It was usually built of stone or of some similar ma-
terials. It was essentially diflerent from the tent. This
last was moveable and constructed of perishable materials.
When a house was to be built literally, the walls were raised
by adding stones or other suitable materials to the building
which persons were erecting. A metaphorical house or fa-
mily is therefore built up by adding to it living metaphorical
materials. If it be asked, what is to be added to a house or
family to build it up? the only proper answer that can be
given to the question is this ; infants must be born to in-
crease the family or house. Whenever therefore God speaks
of building a house or family, he speaks of infants being
born to compose or increase it. No other materials can
build a metaphorical house. These then must form it when-
ever it is built up.
If servants or property were to be included in a word, an-
other was used by the Greeks. They then employed a word
(ojKja) for which it is difficult to find an exact substitute in
the English language. Household, denoting the family or
house and what holds to it, expresses more of its meaning
than any other single English w-ord. But the term (ojxia)
itself includes or may include the family, the dwelling, the
out-houses, the servants and the property in and near the
buildings. This compound idea is frequently at least, em-
braced in this one Greek word. To perceive that the mean-
ing of (oixoc:) the word for house or family is included in
(oixia) the one which includes all this compound idea, we
have only to examine the meaning of these two words (orxo^
and ojxia) as indicated by the connection in which they are
found. The signification of each can be definitely ascer-
tained. The meaning of one of them (owoj) has already been
noticed. That of the other (otxja^ will now be briefly exam-
ined. This word (oixja) says a noted uninspired Greek wri-
ter(a), is used to denote both " bond and free." But let us
find its meaning in God's book. ' A few paragraphs from the
inspired word, will show its meaning as taught by perfect
wisdom. Il includes senmnts. This is taught in the salu-
tation ''of Csesar's" (oixja^:) "household.''* About the year
64, when this was written, not one of Caesar's relations had
(a) Aristotle. *Phil. 4: 2-2 in Greek,
300 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III.
been converted to Christianity ; but at that time a number
of his servants had embraced the christian faith. The word
(o»x»a) therefore which includes servants is used, not that
(loxoj) which denotes kindred or relations. Our Saviour de-
clares "the servant abideth not in the" (oixia) "house for-
ever.'^* Here the word (oma) signifies or certainly includes
the apartments appropriated to the servants for their special
accommodation. It dejiotes out-houses. It is said of Christ
and his mother ; " there was no room for them in the inn^'^
yet the wise men, "when they were come into the" (ojxiav)
" house — saw the young child with Mary his Mother." The
word here certainly denotes a stable or an jout-house ; for
Jesus after his birth was laid " in a manger."t This word
(ojxja) includes the property belonging to the family. This
truth is taught in the charge brought by our Saviour against
the Pharisees. He says to them ; " ye devour widows"
(oixjac:) "houses."! These words (oixoj and oixia) are not
synonymous ; nor are they so nearly so, that the one may be
substituted for the other. The account which God, by his
inspired servant, gives of the conversion of Cornelius the
Roman Centurion, proves this position. His dwelling inclu-
ding his family, is five times expressed by [oixog) one of these
words. He " feared God with all his" (ojxw) "house;" — an
angel directed him to send for Peter " into his" (ojxov)
"house;" — Peter and "six brethren — entered into the man's"
(oixov) "house;"-"he had seen an angel in his" (oixco) "house;"
— "thou and all thy" {oixog) " house shall be saved."§ The
dwelling, out-houses, servants and family of Simon the tan-
ner or his whole establishment is four times expressed by
(oixja) the other word. The tanner's (oixja) "house is by
the sea-side;" — the men enquired " for Simon's" {omav)
"house;" — Peter " is lodged in the" (ojxia) " house of one
Simon a tanner;" — "three men" came "unto the" (ojxiav)
"house where" Peter "was."|| In this account, the angel,
the inspired writer of the Acts, Cornelius, his servants and
Peter, all use these words. But in no instance is the one
substituted for the other. The Spirit of God does not there-
fore use them as if they were synonymous. Moreover, the
one (oixocr) expresses only a part of what the other (ojxja) sig-
*John 8: 35 in Greek. tSee Mat. 2: 11, Lake 2: 7. 1-2. 16 in Greek. tMat. 23: 14 in
fireck. ^Acts 10: 2. 22 and 11: 12^14 in Greek. l|Acts 10: 6, 17. 32 and 11: 11 in Greek.
f
Ch. 2. § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 301
nifies. The word which denotes only a part of any thing
cannot be synonymous with that which express€S the whole.
Besides, the one(oixo^)is mascaline and the other (oma) is fem-
inine. This their difference of gender, as well as their dif-
ference of signification, shows that they cannot be inter-
changed. It appears therefore that the meaning of the word
(ouog) for house denoting a family, is definitely fixed in the
Greek language; that it primarily and principally signifies
infants; and that it is very seldom if at all used where in-
fants are not included. It is also manifest that where ser-
vants and others compose the whole or a part of the society
mentioned, another word [oixia] is used.
If then this word {oixog) for house is employed when fami-
lies are said to be baptized ; no language can more definite-
ly express infants. When children and little children are
mentioned as baptized church members as they frequently
are, the unsupported assertion is often made ; these are met-
aphorical children or infants. This declaration is made
without any authority from God's word for domg so. It is
intended merely to ward off the arrow of conviction from the
heart and conscience of those who make the assertion. But
when the word (ojxoc:) for house or family is used almost in-
variably to signify or include infants ; there is no way,
when this is used for those who were baptized, to escape
from the force of truth, but by denying such an array of
tacts as infidelity itself would hesitate to encounter.
The Spirit of God by inspired writers used such language
as would convey ideas to the mind of the careful reader of
the word. The scriptures were written to be searched and
understood. The words used by the writers of them, were
those usually employed by others on similar subjects. The
Spirit suggested to their minds suitable words to express the
exact will of God in every part of their writings.* If any
one in the days of the apostles had said to a Jew, whethei-
learned or unlearned, a (oixog) house was baptized ; the idea
of infant baptism would have been instantly presented to his
mind. He would know that the word (oixoj) denoting per-
sons signified infants and certainly included them as distinct
from their parents. He would at once perceive that the
♦See 1 Cor. 2: 13.
302 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III.
woi'd expressed descendants however young they might be.
Every Jew was too much accustomed to such expressions as
*' the" (orjco(f) " house of Israel," — "the house of Jacob," —
" the house of Judah/' — " the house of David/' &;c., to doubt
for a moment that this word [oixod) primarily signified or
necessarily included infants. If to a Grecian, learned or
unlearned, it was said ; a man's (oixotr) house was baptized,
the word (oixO(t) would immediately convey to his mind the
idea of a "society connected together according to the course
of nature," — "descendants," — or the "free-born" children
residing under the same roof. The expression would teach
him that infants were certainly baptized ; for this word (oj-
xotf) for house denoting persons, almost always in Greek
signifies or includes them.
If to a person acquainted with the Greek language, it had
been said ; Lydia " was baptized" and her [oixoc) house or
"household," he would from the force of the words, be in-
formed that little children or infants were baptized. This
he would easily perceive was taught or certainly included
in the word (oixog) house or " household" here used. He
would know from the use of this word that her servants, if
she had any, were not included. If the Spirit of God had
intended to teach the world that servants were embraced
among those who are here mentioned, another word (oizja)
would have been employed. But besides the use of a word
(oixo-) which denotes or certainly includes children however
young, all the circamstances of the case prove that Lydia's
family were infants or very young children. (1.) It is not
said that they went to the place for prayer by the " river-
side," — or that they " heard" the preaching, — or that "the
Lord opened" their hearts, — or that they "worshipped
God," — or that they were "faithful to the Lord," — or that
they attended to the business of selling " purple," — or that
they invited or "constrained" the apostles to abide with
them, — or that these "entered into" their "house" after
they left the prison.* These eight circumstances are all
mentioned of Lydia, not one of them of her household or
family that were baptized. If any one of her family had
been an adult, that one would certainly have been included
with the mother in some of these statements. (2.) Lydia,
*Act3 16: 14. 15. 40.
r
Ch. 2, § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 303
in addressing the apostles, speaks as if she had her whole
family and possessions under her own special control. She
says, " my house ;" not our house. This shows that her
children must have been quite young. (3.) 'i he sacred
writer speaks of her as having entire control over each indi-
vidual in her house or family. He says, she w\^s " a seller
of purple," — "she besought us," — " she constrained us," —
Paul and Silas " entered into the house of Lydia," &c.
These expressions show that she and no other person, had a
right to invite guests to her house ; and that therefore her
children must have been very young. If they or any of
them had been adults, they would have enjoyed this right in
common with the mother, if she gave no order to the con-
trary. That she did not forbid her children to invite the
apostles to her house, is manifest from two facts. These
facts are ; the Lord had opened her heart ; and she her-
self invited them. She being now a christian, would not
forbid her children to invite the Lord's servants to her house;
nor would she forbid them to do what she herself did. (4.)
The family of Lydia in not mentioned except in connection
with her baptism. If she is baptized then her {oixog) family
is mentioned ; if she is not baptized, then her household is
not so much as named. That not one of Lydia's house,
household or family, is mentioned except at their baptism,
will be manifest to any one who will read the whole account
with care. It is said that " they," Paul, Silas and Timothy,
*'- went through the cities" in Asia Minor ; — " we," Paul,
Silas, Timothy and the writer(«) of the Acts, (for the term
we includes the speaker or writer,) "endeavored to go into
Macedonia ;" — '' we," the same persons, " were in that
city — certain days ;" — " we went out of the city by a river
side — and sat down ;" — Lydia " constrained us." This word
us expresses the same pereons. When these servants of God
had cast a "spirit of divination" (Z>) out of a damsel, her
masters caught Paul and Silas, and the magistrates cast them
into prison. The other two must have escaped, for it is not
said or intimated that they were caught or imprisoned. These
two found a place of concealment in Lydia's house. This
we learn from the fact that after Paul and Silas were re-
fa^ This was Luke the Evangelist, (b) A Pythonic spirit or a spirit ofPylhen.
(Greek.>
304 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III.
leased from confinement, they "entered" her " house," saw
"the brethren," — *' comforted them and departed — to Thes-
salonica." Timothy joined Paul and Silas again at Berea.
Luke the writer of the Acts, the other brother left at Philip-
pi, did not join them again till they came " to Troas."
He says, they " tarried for us at Troas, and we sailed —
from Philippi — and came unto them to Troas."* The breth-
ren whom Paul and Silas saw at the house of Lydia, are
not called her children, her servants, or her (oixorf) house or
family. The word {a5c'k<^ov(f) " brethren," does not inti-
mate that they were her descendants, but rather the contra-
ry. Every circumstance of the case therefore, as well as
the positive language used, shows that Lydia's family or
household was composed of little children. In the Syriac
translation of the New Testament(a), this passage is thus
rendered ; Lydia " was baptized and the children of her
household." if the word little had preceded children in this
translation, the exact meaning of the inspired word {oixocf)
used for Lydia's family would have been given.
If it was said to a native Greek, as the Philippian jailer
probably was ; " believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou
shalt be saved and thy (oixoff) " house ;" and if it was said
of him as it was of the jailer ; " he — was baptized — and all
his straightway ;" he would from the use of the word [01x00'^
house, expressed, and from the use of the same word implied,
at once conclude that infants were baptized. The jailer and
his {oixo(f) house, were baptized. If it is asked, who besides
the jailer was baptized on that occasion ? the answer must,
from the connection, be his (ojxo^r) house, or family. This
word, as has been shown, signifies primarily little children
or infants. When it is said, Paul and Silas *' spake unto
him the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house,
another word (ojxia not oixoij^ is used for house or household.
The gospel was preached to ium and to all that were (sv rrj
oixia) on the premises, or to him, to the prisoners and to his
servants. All these may be included in this Greek word
(nxta). But when his baptism is mentioned, then he is *'bap-
tized" and all his (ojxotf) house or family. After he was bap-
tized ; he "brought" Paul and Silas " into his" (ce communionists, (p. 2'22;) tirat John Calvin
styles himself that famous, learned, godly man, (p. 160-,) that those who baptize infants
by sprinkling are perfectly cr^zy, (p. 152,) deranged, perfect maniacs, &c. (p. 61-65. 91.
135;) that Papists say that infants have no souls till t!iey are sprinkled, (p. 94;) that the
324 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV.
PART FOURTH.
HUMAN AUTHORITY IN FAVOR OP INFANT BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
EARLY CHRISTIANS ON INFANT BAPTISM.
1. Early christian writers teach the doctrine of infant
baptism. Those christians who wrote between the apostol-
ic age and about the year 450 or 500, may be denominated
early christian writers. An unbroken line of such writers
will here be presented to the mind. They inculcate infant
baptism. They begin before the death of .John the apostle,
and continue on till about the year 500 after Christ. (1.)
Ignatius v/as born 12 years before the death of Christ. He
says ; " truly did I see him after his resurrection"(a). He
(a) See Dr. Robert Bayfeild's Bulwark of Triitli, p. 63, Newcastle Ed. 1504.
Baptists have been persecuted in all ages, (p. 200. 205;) that books containing facts are
withdrawn from those who grow up in the belief tliat infnnts ought to be baptized by
sprinkling, (p. 98;) that all new sects sprinkle, (p. GO;) that Lntlier in his translation of
the Dutch Testament (he probably means the German as this is the language into
which Lather tr.inslated the scriptures,) renders the word f t httptism in every case by
one which signifies immersion and that alone, (p. b'2) Sec. It may be remarked here,
that in the German language, there are four words (taucken, cintauckeu, iintcrtaxLchtn
and vcrscutcn,) which usually signify to immerse or to put under water or under some
other substance. Luther, in his translation of the New Te>tanient, does not, at any
lime, use these words, or any one of them, to denote baptize or ba| tism. He, for this
purp >se, uses another word which has already been defined, (See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, ^ S.")
It may also be observed tliat it is a well known fact thdt the Mormons, Aliller'ites.
Chrysiians, Campl>ellites, &c. are sects of very recent origin. People are also gener-
ally aware that these all practice immersion and reject infant baptism. (4.) This said
book contains rather fanciful views of christian character. Its writer charges those
who baptize infmts by sprinkling, with being guilty of treasonable crimes of the deep-
est dye, of heaven-daring atrocities, of high treason against heaven, of dethroning and
robbing God, of cheating Christ, of conimitmg a vast amount of wickedness, of pi-
ous frauds, swindling, rebellion, false and foul slander, &c. Tie calls them perfect
fools, catspaws, immoral, profane, proud, deceptive, persecuting usurpers, &c. He de-
clares that ihey are guilty of stealing in open day fur ttie glory of God, of being as bad
as sheep thieves, of practicing theft under the cloak of religion, of lying, of witchcraft,
of being ravening wolves, of felony, of the greatest heaven-daring crime that can be
committed, of deserving the punishment of death, of morking t'hrist's ordinance, of
laying snares and traps, of practicing stratagems, (fee. He also declares that the con-
duct of these persons hns done more harm to the cause of religion than any device of
safan. (p. 15. 20 2-8. 3L 36. 47. 62. 05. 73. 82. 90. 91. 95. 106. HO. 123. 129. 143. 152-150.
153. 101. 200. 207.) It might be supposed that no human bting after describing persen.s
in such language as is here quoted, would pretend that they were any thing but the vi-
lest of profligates. But this Mr. Pliability is such a liberal minded man and so easily
bent from one thing to another, that, after dealing out a large amount of language only
a nierc specimen of which is given here, calls these same persons whom he thus de-
scribes, most lovely, e.xcellent, honest, hearty, devoted, dear, fellow-christians ! ! ! i
(p. t)4. 105. 117. 151. 192. rZ2.) He says they have pious, devoted, gocd hearts ! ! ! ! (p.
58. 62 117.151.) He must certainly think that what he calls ;nost lovely christians are
the most odious wretche< living, or he cannot believe his own assertions. \i his fd-
/ow-christians are such characters as hedescribes them to be, then it is certainly time
for honest men to be on their guard. For giving such a book or its writer even this pas-
sing notice, an apology is due to the reader. That some few immcrscrs may be deceiv-
ed bv it, is possible. The hope of saving them frora'such a delusion, is the only apolo-
gy that ran be offered for writing this note.
Ch. 1, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 325
was martyred in the year 107, at the age of 86. (2.) Clem-
ent of Rome, lived about the year 100. (3.) Polycarp was
born in A. D. 67. He lived more than 30 years before
John's death. Moreover, he was a disciple or scholar of
that apostle. He suffered martyrdom when he was about
100 years of age, in A. D. 167. (4.) Ireneus was born in
the year 97. He was a disciple of Polycarp, and was his
cotemporary about 70 years. What he declares will there-
fore extend from the days of the apostle John till his own
death, which occurred about the year 203. In the year 167,
Ireneus says ; " infants, little ones, children, youth and per-
sons of mature age, were re-born to God; that is, set apart
to his service by baptism." He again urges the propriety
of infant baptism from the fact that Christ came to save '• in-
fants, little ones, children, youths,'' and " older persons."
Moreover, he declares positively that "the church learned
from the apostles to baptize infants"(a). This language
puts the matter of infant baptism beyond dispute so far as
his authority is concerned. Nor does any one of his cotem-
poraries say aught against these, his positive declarations in
favor of infant baptism. It is therefore manifest that none
of them embraced the modern anti-pedobaptist notions(^) ;
or rejected the doctrine of infant baptism. (5.) Justin Mar-
tyr was born and lived sometime before the death of two or
more of the apostles. This he himself teaches when he
says he was a " disciple of the apostles." The word apos-
tles certainly includes two or more. About the year 139,
not far from 40 years after the death of the apostle John, he
wrote an apology for the christians. He suffered martyr-
dom in A- D. 163. He says ; " several persons among us —
60 or 70 years old-*-were matheteusated'^ or discipled " in
childhood." He here uses the same word which our Saviour
employs in the commission to baptize, and which is transla-
ted "teach.* {d). To say that they were discipled in child-
hood is merely one wa)^ of saying they were baptized in
infancy. But those persons who were 60 or 70 years of age,
40 years after the death of John the apostle, must have been
born about the year 70 or 80 ; that is, 20 or 30 years before
John died. Here therefore this "disciple of the apostles,"
(a) Ad. Haeres B. 2, Ch. 39. W. Wall. Cb)An anti-pedobaptist is one who oppo-
ses infant baptism. *See Mat. 28: 19 in Greek. Cc;See Apol. 1, and Ske. Sect. No. 3.
326 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. TV, P. IV.
this martyr, positively teaches that infants were baptized at
•least 20 years before the death of the apostle John. (6.)
Clement of Alexandria, was born about the year 120. He
was for more than 20 years the cotemporary of Justin Mar-
tyr. He also lived several years before Ireneus died. He
wrote about the year 190. He also teaches the doctrine of
infant baptism(a), though his language on this subject is not
so definite as that of some other early writers. (7.) Ter-
tullian was born about the year 147. He lived in Africa,
and died about A. D. 230. He was the best Latin scholar
of the age in which he lived. He was a cotemporary of Ire-
neus for more than 50 years. He says " that our Saviour
commanded little children to be baptized;" — that " if either
parent were a christian, the children were enrolled in Jesus
Christ by baptism," — that infants " are holy, because they
are designed for holiness in baptism, the privilege of descent
from a church member." But notwithstanding these admis-
sions, he advises the delay of infant baptism in certain cases.
He even seems, in some expressions, to oppose the practice
then universal in the church of baptizing infants. But
whether he opposes infant baptism or advises the delay of it,
he does not intimate that its origin was then recent or that
it was not an apostolic institution(Z>). If it had been a hu-
man invention, or at that time recently introduced, he cer-
tainly would have mentioned both. He wrote not far from
the year 200 and less than one hundred years from the
death of John the apostle. A man of his learning must have
been so well acquainted with the subject of baptism, on
which he wrote, as to have known what was the practice of
the christian church in relation to that ordinance for one or
two centuries. But he admits that to baptize infants was the
practice of the christian church in his day, and that it was of
Divine origin. The very fact that he, in certain cases, advises
its delay, shows that the practice did exist ; for no man would
advise the delay of that which no person practiced. This, his
testimony then is complete in favor of the fact that infant
baptism was practiced in his day, and that its origin was
Divine. (S.) Origen was a presbyter of Alexandria. He
was born about the year 175, and died at Tyre about the
(a)See Pedag. B. 3, C. 11. (b)Bee Ter. on bap. C. 18, and his remarks on 1 Car* 7:
Ch. 1, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 327
year 250. He therefore lived with Tertullian about half a
century, and with Ireneus nearly 30 years(a). He wrote
about A. D. 212. He visited the churches planted by the
apostles in Capadocia and Arabia, in Greece and Rome ; but
he spent most of his life in Syria and Palestine. His father
was a christian martyr. His grand-father also was a^^hris-
tian. Being born about 75 years after the death of John the
apostle, and about 8 or 10 years after Polycarp's martyr-
dom, his father and grand-father must have been the cotem-
poraries of Polycarp, and the latter at least must have lived
part of his life with John. What therefore Origen declares
as to matters of fact, will come to us almost like a message
from the apostles sent by a special messenger. He declares
that '' the church received the injunction from the apostles to
give baptism — to infants ;'' — that " baptism is given to in-
fants ;'' — that "the custom of baptizing infants was received
from Christ and his apostles"(^). Such language cannot be
mistaken or perverted. (9.) Cyprian was born about A. D.
180. He was the pastor of the church in Carthage in Afri-
ca, and suffered martyrdom in the year 257 or 258. He
was the cotemporary of Origen for about 70 years. He was
president of a council of ministers which was held at Car-
thage in A. D. 253, only three or four years before he suf-
fered death for his religion. This council was composed of
66 ministers, many of whom had suffered mutilation for the
sake of Christ. Of the members of this council of martyrs,
some had been deprived of an arm, some of a leg, some of
an eye, some of an ear, some of the nose, &;c. But there
was scarcely one of them who had not been called to suffer
for Christ as well as to believe in him. Fidus the pastor of
a church near Carthage, desired this council to say whether
an infant might or might not be baptized before the eighth
day after its birth. He had supposed that an infant, only
two or three days old, ought not to be baptized. His opin->
ion seems to hnve been that its baptism should be deferred till
it had become at least eight days old. But this council unan-
imously decided that an infant might be baptized before the
eighth day after its birth(c). In the mind of Fidus or in the
(a)Some p'ace his birth and death a few years earlier and some a few years later
than the dates here given. (b)See his Horn. 8 on Lev. C. 12; Horn, on I uke C. 14;
Com. on Rom. B 5. (e)See Let. 66 to Fidus, See also Miller on baotism, p. 21-31 ;
Milner's EccI, Hist, v. i, p. 401; Marsh's "Eccs, Hist.
328 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV.
minds of the men^bers of this council, no doubt existed as to
the propriet}' of infant baptism. All its members, without
hesitation, admitted that infants ought to be bai)tized. The
only question for the council to decide was this ; may in-
lands, or may they not, be baptized before the eighth day af-
ter their birth ? This point was easily decided and the de-
cision was unanimous. This council sat about 150 years af-
ter the death of John the apostle. Their mutilated bodies
bore testimony to the sincerity of their faith. The time in
which they lived and their number shows that they must have
known what the practice of the church then was, and what
it had been from the apostolic age. This council therefore
teaches unanimously that it was then, and always had been,
the practice of the christian church to baptize infants. (10.)
Ambrose was born about the year 245, and died about the
year 335(a). He wrote about the year 270 or 280. He
says ; " the baptism of infants was practiced by the apos-
tles," — and again "infants — are baptized"(Z'). This lan-
guage clearly teaches the fact that in his day infants were
baptized. (H.) Gregory Nazianzen was born about the
year 330, and wrote about the year 360. He, in some of
his writings, advises that the baptism of healthy children be
delayed till they are about three years old. But in others
he teaches the contrary. He says ; " hast thou an infant
child ? let him be dedicated from his cradle." He also teach-
es that Bazil was baptized in infancy. Moreover, it may
be observed that in the case of his own children, he delayed
their baptism till they were nearly or quite three years of
age. But both he and Tertullian, whenever they mention
this subject, insist that weakly infants should be baptized at
an early day after their birth ; though they advised, forcer-
tain reasons which they supposed to be prudential, that the
baptism of others should be delayed. Both these men there-
fore prove that it was the practice of christians in their day
to baptize infants. (12.) Optatus, about the year 360, Ba-
zil, about the year 370, Sericius, about 384, Jerome, about
390, Paulinus, about 393, and Theodoret, about 440, all
teach that infant baptism was practiced in their day. (13.)
Chrysostom was born in the year 354, and died in A. D. 407.
(a)Some say he lived a few years later than these dates. (b)See his com. on Luke
B. 1, C. 1.
Ch. 1, ^ 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 329
He became pastor of the church in Constantinople in the
year 398, nine years before his death. He says of baptism,
a person may receive it *' in the very beginning of his age;''
and of " those — baptized" on a certain occasion, he says ;
*' some of them were infants." Moreover, he affirms ; "our
circumcision, I mean— baptism, gives cure without pain,
and this to infants as well as men.'' He also teaches that
" the church — every where declared that infants should be
baptized ;" and to a person he says ; " thou wast an infant
when thou wast baptized." Besides all this, in a public ser-
mon, he "urged the duty of infant baptism"(«.). Chrysos-
tom is therefore very pointed and full in favor of infant bap-
tism. (14.) Augustine was born about the year 330, was
converted to Christianity about the year 354, and died about
the year 420. He became pastor of the cliurch at Hippo
in Africa, about A. D. 398. He declares; "a little while
ago when I was at Carthage, I — heard — some people — say-
ing that infants were not baptized for the remission of sins,
but they were baptized that they may be sanctified in Christ."
Here the fact that infant baptism was the common practice
of the church is mentioned as that which was universally
known and admitted. He also affirms that infant baptism
was not instituted by councils but was always in use ; — he
mentions " baptized infants ;" — he says ; " the custom of —
the church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded;" —
the Pelagians(Z') " grant that infants must be baptized ;"
and he also positively declares that he " never heard or read
of any christian, catholic or sectarian, who did not hold that
infants were to be baptized." He might well make this re-
mark, because in the age in which he lived, no one had de-
nied infant baptism ; and only two had then maintained that
in certain cases, it ought to be, or might be delayed(c).
Thus this great opposer of Pelagianism in its origin clearly
teaches the doctrine of infant baptism. Augustine, in more
than a thousand passages in his writings, teaches infant bap-
(a)See Horn. 40 on Gen. and Horn. 23 on the Acts, &c. Fonda p. 95. (a)Theae
vreie the followers of Pelapius. He was an unprincipled heretic. He wrote ahout the
year 410. ^'< hen it was said that his doctrines militated against infant baptism, he
declared thai though he h.-d visited almost every part of chrisfendom, he had never so
much as "heard" of "any — heretic" who was so "ignorant" and "impious as to hinder
infants from being baptized " Even Pelagius, that arch impostor, calls the denial of
infant baptism " impious! !" See his Let. to Inno. against Ang.; his work on Orig.
Sin C. 17. (c)See his work on Bap. B. 4. C. 23; Epist. 28. 57; on sin, &c. C.26; Against
Pela. B. 3, C. 10; On Gen. B. 10.
330 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV.
tism(«). Such an amount of authority is truly irresistible.
(15.) Epi[)hanius, in the year 370, quotes the " Apostolic
Constitutions.'' The author of these is not known. But
the statements which they contain show the practice of the
christian church in the fourth century. These, as quoted by
Epiphanius, say ; " baptize your children." By these an-
cient christian writers the practice of baptizing infants is
traced in an unbroken historical line from before the death
of some of the apostles, till the beginning of the fifth cen-
tury.
Moreover, it may be observed here, that Ireneus, about
the year 176, wrote an account of all the professedly chris-
tian sects which had sprung up between the death of Christ
and his own time. Epiphanius, who wrote about the year
370, describes eighty sects of professing christians.- These
he says, are "all the sects of christians that'' he had "ever
heard of in the world." Austin or Augustine, about the
year 400, mentions eighty-eight sects ; and Philostrius,
shortly after this, enumerates one hundred different sects.
He made a sect out of the least difference of opinion about
any trifling matter. Theodoret wrote his account of here-
sies about the year 430. It is a very " learned, methodical,
particular and full" treatise on this subject. But in no one
of these catalogues, is there to he found the least intimation
of any (except such as denied water baptism altogether^) zaho
did not hold to the baptism of infants as a Divine institu-
tion.^^ In " all these catalogues, the differences of opinion
which" existed " in primitive ages" on the subject of bap-
tism, "are particularly mentioned" and carefully described.
But however much they differed in other respects, they all
held to infant baptism as an ordinance of God's appointment.
None, who believed in baptism with water, denied or pre-
tended to doubt that infant baptism was a Divine institution.
Such facts as these, speak a language which, one would sup-
pose, might make an impression on the mind even of an im-
merser(Z>).
2. Children were recognized as baptized church members
in both the Greek and Latin churches. By both they are
frequently said to be " holy" and " faithful." These words
are, in the scriptures, used of church members(c). When
CajSee W. Wall. (b)&ee Eclls on Bap. p. 41. 42. Cc;See P. iii, Ch. 1, $ 7.
Ch. 1, § 3.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 331
therefore, early christians, in both the Greek and Latin
churches, in speaking of the infant children of believers, use
concerning them, the same words which the}' and the scrip-
tures use of adult cimrch members ; no evidence can be
more conclusive than this is, that they considered them as in
visible covenant relation with God as really as their parents
were. But if they viewed them as being in covenant, they
must in consistency, have viewed them as being entitled to
the ordinance of christian baptism, if it had not been admin-
istered to them(«).
The baptism in adult age of any descendant of parents
who were professed believers, does not appear on the page
of early ecclesiastical history. The case of Constantine the
Great, who was baptized just before his death, is not an ex-
ception ; because his father was not a christian but a heath-
en.
3. Commemorative inscriptions show that the early chris-
tians baptized infants. A considerable number of these have
been examined(^). Only a very few need be noticed here.
(1.) "Posthumius," was *' a believer" who "lived six
years'*(c). A word which describes church members, is
here applied to a child six years old. He is called a believ-
er or a faithful. He v^^as therefore a publicly recognized or
baptized church member. This inscription is not dated ;
but the symbol in early Greek characters(fZ), placed above
and on the left side of it, shows that its date could not have
been much if any later than the year 150. (2.) " Here lies
Zosimus a believer, descended from ancestors who were be-
lievers. He lived two years one month and twenty-five
days." This child could not possibly be any thing more
than a ritual believer, or a baptized church member. (3.)
" Leopardus rests here in peace with holy spirits ; — he re-
ceived baptism" and " lived seven years and seven months.'^
This monumental inscription was written about the year
290. (4.) " Achillia, newly baptized(e), is buried here.
She died at the age of one year and five months." (5.)
(a)See Fabrittius. (b)By Fabrittius, Muratorius, Arringhius, and others. (c)The
word believer must here be descriptive of church-membership. Cd^This is JX0C
which denotes a fish. The last character is not used by the later Greek writers, (e)
The Greek word is vSO^phTcg. It denotes recently planted or received into the
christian faith by baptism.
332 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV.
^* Maureutius — lived live years eleven months and two days."
He was '* worthy to repose in peace among holy persons."
(6.) " Cervonia" is "gone" to enjoy happiness *' with holy
spirits." This inscription is dated A. D. 291. (7.) "Julia
reposes in peace among holy persons"(a). The words holy
and in peace indicate that these three last named children
were baptized church members. (8.) " Cyriacus, a believ-
er, died" when he was " eight days less than three years of
age." (9.) " Polichronio, a believer — lived three years."
(10.) " Urcia Florentina, a believer — lived five years iBight
months and eight days." (H.) " Rufillo, newly baptized —
lived two years and forty days." (12.) "Domitius, newly
baptized — lived three years and thirty days." (13.) The
son of Vilerius — " newly baptized — lived three years ten
months and fifteen days." (14.) " Pisentus — lived one year
eight months and thirteen days." He was " newly bapti-
zed." (15.) " Jovius — lived six years ten months and nine-
teen days." He was "newly baptized." (16.) " Aristus —
lived eight months." He was''"newly baptized." (17.)
" Libna — lived eight years." Slie was " newly baptized."
(18.) " Flavia Jovina — lived three years and thirty-two
days." She was " newly baptized." This inscription is
dated A. D. 367. (19.) " Two brothers — newly baptized —
lived eight years two months and six days ;" also, "Justus,
a believer — lived seven years." This is dated A. D. 394.
(20.) "Pascasius lived six years and received baptism."
This child died in the year 463(Z>). These are a ie\w of the
inscriptions on the tombs of infants and children. They
are much abbreviated. Only the age of the child and its bap-
tism are mentioned. They speak a language that cannot
be misunderstood. They teach that, at the time of their
dates, infant baptism was practiced in the christian church.
The testimony of these inscriptions comes to us like a voice
from the unseen world. Infant baptism must have been
practiced at the time of their dates ; for if it had not been, no
parent or friend would have written such inscriptions. Thou-
sands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of the infant children
of christian parents, of whom no memento Js preserved,
must have died in the early ages of the church. Of those
concerning whom some memorial remains, very few com-
(a)T\iis inscription is in Greek. ('i^See Taylor on Baptism.
Ch. 1, § 4. J INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 338
parativel y, have been examined. But the testimony of these
lew in favor of infant baptism, is pointed, plain, convincing,
unanswerable.
4. Later ecclesiastical writers teach infant baptism. Not
one writer from and after the year 360, so much as advises
the delay of infant baptism, till about the year 1140. About
the year 200, Tertullian who supposed that sins committed
after baptism were nearly or quite unpardonable, did, for
that and several similar reasons which he called prudential,
advise the delay of this ordinance in certain cases. For the
same reasons, he held that healthy youths should delay their
baptism till after their marriage. But notwitlistanding this
notion, he maintained that unhealthy infants and all who
were not expected to live long, should, by all means, be bap-
tized. About the year 360, Gregory, though for different
reasons, advises the delay of infant baptism, till children
should arrive at the age of about three years(a). This de-
lay, it is said, he practiced in the case of his own children.
But not one writer whose works have, in any form, reached
the present day, either opposed infant baptism, or advised its
delay, for more than 750 years after A. D. 360. All who
mention the subject during this interval, speak in favor of
ini'ant baptism. Moreover, to baptize inlants, is frequently
mentioned as the universal practice of the christian church.
All the christian writers therefore in the wholp christian
world for more than 750 years from and after the year 360,
teach the doctrine of infant baptism. And before that year,
all inculcated the same doctrine ; because even the two who
advised its delay in particular cases, were in favor of it un-
der other circumstances. The first professing christians
who opposed infant baptism, were a small sect which origi-
nated in the year 1110, and continued till about the year
1150(&). This sect rejected infant baptism, because those
who composed it, imagined that infants could not be saved.
For more than 350 years after these few followers of Peter
De Bruys dwindled away and disappeared, no one opposed
Ca^See $ 1, Nos. 7. 11. ('J^This was a small sect which arose in France amon^ the
Waldenses. Thev were called Petrobrussians after Peter De Bruys, iheir founder. They
were also called Henricians after Hen y the disciple of Peter, lie led them for a time
after the death of their founder. This" sect v.'as very small. Tliey held that infants
could notbe saved. On this ground they refused to baptize tliem. The Waldenses
as a body, rejected the notion of the Petrobrussians. After Henry's death, this lit-
tle sect soon disappeared.
331 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV.
infant baptism. All who mention it, speak in its favor, and
represent it as the universal practice of the visible church.
The true church then was and had been for centuries before,
among the Waldenses, Albigenses, d:c., who resided in the
south of France, in the north of Italy, and were scattered
more or less in the neighboring countries. For more than
a thousand years after the death of Christ, not one writer of
any description, whose works have reached our day, has in-
timated in any form of words, that infants were not to be
baptized(a). Every writer who mentions this subject during
all this time, teaches that infants ought to be baptized. Even
Tertullian and Gregory teach this doctrine. Jn the year
1524 or 1525, the German Anabaptists commenced their
outrages against all law, all true religion, all morality(J).
For three or four years before this date, they had manifest-
ed something of the spirit of anarchy. About the year 1538,
these ignorant, lawless, licentious fanatics, came forward
and, in the face of the christian world, rejected infant bap-
tism. From that time till the present day, infant baptism
has been rejected by many immersers, by quakers, &C., and
it has been advocated and practiced by all other professing
christians. The later writers therefore on ecclesiastical
matters, clearly teach that the church has been accustomed
to baptize infants from the days of the early fathers till our
own time. ,
In this chapter an unbroken historical chain has been pre-
sented to the reader's mind. No link has been omitted. This
historical evidence commenced before the death of John the
apostle. It extends till the year 1844. During the first
eleven hundred years after the death of Christ, not one wri-
ter opposes infant baptism as such. And during these eleven
centuries, only two writers advised its delay in certain cases.
All who wrote in relation to the subject, gave it their appro-
bation as of Divine origin. More than eleven hundred years
after the death of our Saviour, a little sect arose which con-
tinued for a few years and then ceased to exist. This sect
denied baptism to infants on the ground that, in the nature
of things their salvation was impossible. The baptism of
infants met with no other opposition till more than fifteen
(a)iiec Ch.Ob. Eells on Bap. p. 42. (b) See B. ii, P. iv,Ch.2, $3; RUig'ey's body
of Divinity; Reed's Apology ; Dr. AVall ; Fonda p. 97, 98.
Ch. 2, <^ 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 335
hundred years after the birth of Christ. Then the German
Anabaptists arose. These wild fanatics strenuously opposed
infant baptism. For more than eleven hundred years, the
whole voice of history decidedly leaches that infants ought
to be and were baptized. This voice then is for a moment
opposed by a mere whisper from a little sect that very soon
died away. History, after this slight interruption, continues
to speak on as before in favor of infant baptism, till it was
again interrupted by the Anabaptists in Germany about the
year 1538. Since that date the history of infant baptism is
too well known to need a passing remark. None can care-
fully examine this unbroken chain of historical evidence
from before the death of John the Apostle, till this day ; and
then hesitate for a moment to believe that the christian
church has from the apostles down, uniformly practiced in^
fant baptism.
CHAPTER n.
MODERN CHRISTIAN WRITERS ON INFANT BAPTISM.
I. All Pedobaptist writers of any note teach the doctrine
of infant haptis7n. These are numerous. Many of them
are learned and devoted to the cause of Christ. Among
them are many whose self-denying exertions in building up
the Redeemer's kingdom, ought, at least to silence the boast-
ing of immersers in relation to cross-bearing. A few of
these writers besides those already mentioned as being in fa-
vor of sprinkling as a mode of baptism(a) may here be no-
ticed(3). Those named in the note exceed seventy in num-
ber. They are only a specimen of those who might be men-
tioned as the advocates of infant baptism. Indeed, if there
is a single Pedobaptist writer who rejects infant baptism or
who states that sprinkling is not a mode of baptism, im-
mersers ought to mention his name. They ought to quote
his own language. They ought to refer to the page in his
(a) See B. iii, P. ii, Ch.2, $ 4. (b) These are Usher, Wardlaw, Hall, Jer. Taylor,
J. Brown, Ewingr, Hick, Stillingfleet, Hamrmnd, Pearson, BarroAv, Tillitson, Prideaux,
Pocock, South, Burnet, Whitby, Beverid^e, Berkley, Butler, Lowth, Seeker, Newton,
Buchanan, Glass, Fleming, Halyburton, Boston, McLawrin, Longley, Jenkins, the Ers-
kines. Austin, Robenson of Edinburgh, Watson, Lye, Poole, Hunt, Chester, Beza,
Knight, Walker, ( rofessor Campbell, Blair, Robison, Calvin, Luther, Baxter, Owen,
Mead, Flavel, R. Franklin, Howe, Watts, Tate, Brady, S. Clark, Ridgeley, Evans, Cal-
amy, Thompson, Van Vranken, Neal, Blaike, Eells, Lowman, Morton, Lardner,Win=.
t;er, Stafford, Jay, Romaine, S. S. Smith, Brownlee, Pressly, &c.
336 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV.
book where such statements are found. The very expres-
sion should then be pointed out. Till this is done, all their
intimations, hints or assertions, that Pedobaptist writers fa-
vor their exclusive claims, must, with intelligent men, pass
for — nothing. Pedobaptist writers constitute a "great cloud
of witnesses'' in favor of infant baptism. Hundreds, nay
thousands of them are pious, talented, learned, biblical schol-
ars. Their testimony therefore deserves as much confidence
as it is proper to give to human authority. It might claim
too, it would seem, as much confidence as the unsupported
assertions of less than one fiftieth part of their number of
men who, not unfrequently, exalt ignorance to the station
of a religious teacher. If this matter was to be decided by
the weight of human authority, and impartiality was to give
the decision ; it is at least possible that the opinion of a hun-
dred men of learning and piety, would be worth as much as
the bare assertion of one or tv/o immersers whose superior
knowledge and piety, to say the least, might well be ques-
tioned. Pedobaptist writers on this subject present an amount
of evidence which no wise man will treat with supercilious
disrespect. Few human beings will be found so opinionated,
so self-conceited, as to answer with a sneer, such an array
of piety and learning as is presented to the mind by those
who have written in favor of infant baptism. All Pedobap-
tist writers of any note, and perhaps the whole of them of
every description, uniformly maintain that the word of God
teaches the doctrine of infant baptism. Their piety, their
learning, their self-denying devotion to the cause of Christ,
their numbers, place them on an eminence which sneers can-
not reach. A sneer therefore when used as a substitute for
evidence must fall, like a poisoned arrow, on the head of
him by whom it is employed.
(2.) Councils^ Synods and AssemhUes teach infant hap-
tism. Those which have been mentioned as holding that
sprinkling is a mode of baptism(a), also hold and teach the
doctrine of infant baptism. Besides these, every council,
synod or assembly of any notoriety, which met in all the
christian world before, and indeed long after the year 1538,
taught, when they mentioned the subject, that infants ought
to be baptized. Only a very few of these need be specially
(a) Sec B. iii, P. ii, Ch. 3, § 3.
Ch. 3, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 337
named. Several ancient councils inculcate infant baptism.
One of these met in Carthage in A. D. 253 ; another in
400 ; another in 401 ; and one of them met at Rome in A.
D. 402. These and many other ancient councils teach in-
fant baptism, and often mention it as the universal practice
of the church(a). Moreover, besides these, the ecclesiasti-
cal assemblies of the different denominations in modern
times, except a very few, all teach or take for granted the
doctrine of infant baptism. The synod of Dort taught that
*' infants of believers" — " ought to be baptized"(^). The
Westminster assembly assert that "the infants of such as are '
members of the visible church are to be baptized"(c). The
general assembly of the Presbyterian church in the United
States {d), the general synod of the Reformed Dutch
church (e), and the judicatories of the other Pedobaptist
churches, teach by their minutes, that infants ought to be
baptized(y). The Congregational churches may also be
specially mentioned as holding to infant baptism. This they
pointedly teach in their Platform(g-). The minutes and pub-
lic documents of these ecclesiastical assemblies, furnish a
host of writers who stand as the representatives of thou-
sands and millions of professing christians for whom they
write. It is manifest from what has been said in this chap-
ter, that multitudes of writers of the first order, both in their
individual capacity and as representatives of ecclesiastical
bodies, clearly inculcate the doctrine that to baptize infants
is a duty required in the word of God.
CHAPTER III.
DENOMINATIONS ON INFANT BAPTISM.
1. Almost all denominations of professing christians in-
€ulcate infant baptism. This they do both by precept and
example. In the world there are not less than 175 millions
of persons who profess to believe in Christ. The Romanists,
at least 80 millions in number, all in profession baptize in-
fants. Not less than 30 millions of persons who are mem-
bers of the Greek church, both by precept and example, in-
culcate what they call infant ba prism. The authority of
(a^SeeMosheim. Wall, Marsh. Milner, &c. (b)-^ee Con. Fes. Art. 34. (c)3ee
Shorter fat. Qnest. 95. (d)i^ee Min. for 1812, re;See Min. foi 1804-1814-1816-1817,
fXJSee their Min. (g)8c>i Ch. 12, § 7.
22
338 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV.
these is of little moment; as they do not, even in profession,
take the word of God as their only rule in all religious du-
ties. But of more than 65 millions of protestants, all except
about two millions hold to infant baptism. About one mil-
lion of professed protestants entirely reject baptism with wa-
ter ; and about the same number who are not Romanists or
of the Greek church, and who profess to believe in this or-
dinance, reject infant bap-tism. The denominations which
have been already mentioned as holding to sp-iukling as a
mode of baptism(a), all maintain that to baptize infants is a
duty required in the scriptures of truth. Moreover, it oughfe
to be remembered that a large portion of these protestants
are christians who require their religious teachers to be thor-
oughly educated men ; while immersers of every name,
very frequently place ignorance in the pulpit to teach men
*Ho observe all things" which Christ has ''commanded'' in
the holy scriptures.*
2. The christians of St. Thomas teach th? doctrine of in-
fant baptism. They inhabit the southern part of Hindoostan.
Some of them were found there as early as the year 18^.
They had Matthew's gospel in the Hebrev/ language. This
they received, as they affirm, from Bartholomew one of the
apostles. t in the fourth century a number of christians from
Antioch in Syria, being driven from their own country by
persecution, took up their abode in Hindoostan. These and
the christians who had then with their predecessors, been
inhabitants of the country for about two hundred years, soon
became amalgamated. These became known to Europeans
in the fifteenth century. Till then they had never heard of
any professed christian who denied infant baptism. They
themselves had always baptized infants. They trace their
origin to Thomas the apostle(^). This denomination, not
only teach infant baptism, but they also maintain that it ori-
ginated in apostolic times.
3. The Sabian christians of Syria teach infant baptism.
These call themselves disciples of John or Daily Baptists.
They baptize their children when they are "forty days old."
They say that John the Baptist, on ordinary occasions, stood
"on dry ground" when he baptized. They do not baptize
(a)See B. iii, P. ii. Ch. 3, $ 2. *.\fat. 2S: 20. fMat. 10: 3. (b)See Easebius; Buclu
vcl. 4, p. 215 Phil. Ed. 1815; Fonda p. 96. 97; Sket. of Sect. No 3.
Ch. 3, § 4.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 339
in the name of the Trinity. Theirs is not therefore chris-
tian baptism.* They immerse three times. This three-fold
immersion, they call one baptism(a). As they baptize chil-
dren at the age of forty days, their authority is decidedly in
favor of infant baptism. But tiieir authority is of but little
value as they are professedly the disciples of John the Bap-
tist, and not of Christ.
4. The principles of those who baptize none hut adults
prove that infants ought to be baptized. They admit, as a
principle, that those who are truly regenerated by the power
of the holy Spirit, may be baptized. If those who are born
again, converted, baptized with the Holy Ghost, sanctified and
fit for heaven, may not be baptized ; it is difficult, if not im-
possible to conceive who may receive that ordinance. But
if the truly regenerated may be baptized, then infants may
be baptized ; because infants have been and may again be
made the subjects of the renewing grace of God. They
have been and maybe "sanctified," and "filled with the
Holy Ghost" in his regenerating influences from their ear-
liest infancy. t Little children then must be baptized ; for
they, by the renewing power of the Spirit, have been prepared
for heaven. I But since those who are the subjects of God's
converting grace may be baptized, then infants may receive
this ordinance ; for in their souls, the Hoiy Spirit has produ-
ced, and may again produce the principles of the christian
graces and affections, if all infants dying in infancy are
new-created in Christ Jesus,§ then certainly infants ought to
be baptized. They are guilty of no heresy in principle or
in practice on account of which they can with propriety be
excluded from that holy ordinance.
Uninspired men cannot tell what infants are regenerated,
nor can they tell what adults are truly born of God. But
if they may baptize adults without knowing certainly that
they are the true children of God ; they certainly may, on
the same principle, baptize infants without knowing certain-
ly that they are or have been the objects of the renewing
grace of the Spirit. If an adult professes to be a christian
when he is not, he is uttering a solemn falsehood. To be
*See Mat 29: 19. 20, and B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, ^ 6. (a)See Taylor's Apostolical Bap-
tism. tJer. 1: 5, Luke 1. 15. t^ee 2 Sam. 12: 22. 23, 1 Kings 14: 1. 3. 12. W, 2Tim.
3; 15. ^See Eph. 2: 10, 2 Cor. 5: 17.
340 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV.
guilty of such a heinous sin, even an immerser would scarce-
ly say, WcJs essentially necessary in him who would receive
the ordinance of baptism. Few persons would be willing to
say that to utter a positive untruth in the most solemn way
was really necessary to the validity of baptism with water.
But if to do so is not essential to baptism, then an infant who
says nothing may be baptized while destitute of the renew-
ing grace of God, as truly as an adult who professes to be
born "of the Spirit" when he is not. The very principles
therefore of those who baptize none but adults, prove that in-
iants who are or may be born again, ought to be bapti-
zed no less than adults who are or may be born again.
Such persons must therefore baptize infants or prove recre-
ant to their own professed principles. They, to be consis-
tent, must baptize infants, or deny that they are or may be
regenerated, or deny that the truly regenerated may be
baptized. If the regenerated may be baptized, and if infants
are or may be regenerated, then infants may be baptized.
It may also be remarked that in former days when Pela-
gianism and Arminianism, under the names of Popery and
Prelacy, threw their withering blight over most of Christen-
dom, and were drunk *' with the blood of the saints ;"* then
nearly fifty millions of these " baby-sprinklers," as they are
often contemptuonsly called, laid down their lives rather than
relinquish any portion of their religion. More believers in
infant baptism have suffered martyrdom, than would far out-
number all those who have ever practiced the immersion of
adults only. The whole of these, as given in history, would
by no means equal or come near doing so, the number of
those *' baby-sprinklers" whose souls have been forced by
the cruel hand of persecution to quit their tabernacles of
clay. The testimony oT so many hundreds of millions of
christians as have, in different ages of the church, taught
and practiced infant baptism, — the testimony of so many mil-
lions of martyrs as have testified in favor of this same truth,
is authority which cannot easily be resisted. No man of
sense or piety will attempt to treat with contempt the prin-
ciples and practices of such an assemblage of christians, —
of such an army of martyrs(a).
*Rev. 17: 6. ('a^lt may be proper to remark here thit Mr. W. Jones, an English-
man haa written what he calls " The History of tlie Christian Chuicli." A portion of
Ch. 1, § !•] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 341
PART FIFTH.
IMPORTANT MATTERS CONNECTED WITH INFANT BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
WHAT INFANTS ARE TO BE BAPTIZED.
1. Parents ivho are in covenant are hound to have its seal
applied to their children. God commands parents who are
not in covenant to enter it and receive its seal. He also
commands those who have received the seal of the covenant
to apply it to their children(a). If the parent has been bap-
tized, believes all the truths of God's word, manifests his love
to these by obeying the Divine requirements in an orderly
walk and a conversation becoming the gospel ; then charity
requires that he should be viewed as being in a truly con-
fa; See P. iii, Ch. 2, ^ 1, par. 0.
his book might, with proprietv, be called an anti-Pedobaptist misrepresentation of
facts in relation to the mode and subjects of bapti«m. In America, immorsers have al-
tered the word i>f God to make it correspond, in some measure, to their system. In
England, they, by tbe\r historian, have, for the same purpose, falsified church history.
They have, on one side of the Atlantic, !aid unholy hands upon the 'Tible and altered
God's book. < »n the other siile of it, ihey have perverted tlie records of God's people.
But they cannot destroy the ortg;inal scriptures. They cannot blot out of existence the
sources of historical f-vidence. They cannot prevent men from examining these. They
cannot hinder the truth from l)eing told. To show that vir. Jones as a historian is un-
worthy of f-redi', ine lact must here suffice. He represents the Waldenses a^ being op-
posed to infant baptism. In professing to give Perrm's views on this subject, he says ;
" they observed the ordinance of baptism, Hccording to the primitive church." But
Mr. Perrin expressly states, that " 'hey « aused their children to be baptized, according
to the primitive church " That the WnJdenses, (except the Petrobrussians who were,
while they existed, about the one fortieth (wrt of the whole number) baptized infants,
and maintained sprinkling to be a mode ..f baptism, is as undeniable ns historical evi-
dence can make any facts. (See J. I'. Perrin's His. Wal. Fol. Ed. Lon. 1711, p. 27.
Sir S. Morland, Leger, Wharey p. .314-320, Dr. J. M. Meson. Dr. S. Miller on baptism
p. 29. 97, Dr. Brownlee, &c.) 'That Mr. Jones does not fairly present these historical
facts is proved from his own statemenls ; see p. -338 and other parts of his book (Alba-
ay Ed. 1824.) That cnuse must be rotten at the core, which, to sustain its exclusive
claims, has lo alter the scriptures and falsify ecclesia). When any
person names an advantage which baptism is to an adult,
he, if he understands the subject, will readily perceive that
its advantages to an infant are equal or even greater. A
few of the advantages of infant baptism have been mention-
ed. The full value of these can be learned when the light
of eternity beams upon this subject. But even in this dark
world of sin, the christian can perceive much of their impor-
tance. He will not therefore, merely to please ignorant or
designing men, be easily induced to train up his children
*' aliens from the commonwealth of" God's spiritual " Israel
and strangers from the covenants of promise." He will
not, to gratify such characters, leave them without any hope
of enjoying, in infancy, the blessings of this covenant, and
''without" a covenant ''God in" this "world"* of sin and sor-
row. The true christian has too much regard for the spirit-
ual interest of his children to leave them thus exposed to the
wiles of the great adversary of souls.
CHAPTER TIL
EVILS OF NEGLECTING INFANT BAPTISM.
1. To baptize infants is a duty. This duty is frequently
and pointedly and positively taught in the word of God(c).
When therefore infant baptism is neglected, a positive duty
is neglected. God requires the seal of his covenant to be
applied to infants. To neglect to do so, is therefore to ne-
glect a duty to God. The parent owes this duty to his child.
If he neglects it, he then neglects a duty which he ought to
perform for his child. To do what God requires, is also a
duty which the parent owes to himself. To neglect to obey
those commands which require him to dedicate his child to
God in baptism, is to neglect his duty to himself as well as
to God and to his child. To neglect such a manifest duty
(a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 9. (b) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 16. *Eph. 2: 12. (c)
See P. ill, Ch,2, ^ 1-10, and P. iii, Ch. 3, § 1-6.
358 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P, V.
to himself, to his child and to God, is one great evil of which
every parent is guilty who, from any cause, neglects to at-
tend-to the baptism of his infant children.
2. To neglect infant baptism is a si?i. To neglect a duty
is a sin. Parents who neglect the baptism of their children,
are living in the habitual neglect of this duty. They contin-
ually violate all those precepts which, either directly or in-
directly, require them to dedicate their infant children to
God in baptisni(a). The sin of this neglect is exceedingly
complicated. Its name might be Legion. Such parents vi-
olate the command of God. They transgress or neglect his
covenant. They leave their children to grow up in the
continual reception of uncovenanted mercies. They neglect
God's offered blessings. They leave their children exposed
to all the temptations of Satan and to the allurements of the
world. The restraints of God's covenant are not thrown
around them for their protection. In all this sin and much
more, every parent who neglects to have his children bap-
tized, habitually lives. The guilt of neglecting this duty
has no palliation, when God in his providence gives the pa-
rent an opportunity of having his child baptized.
If a parent does not believe it to be his duty to have his
children baptized, this, his sin, will not thereby be diminish-
ed. It may be increased. Men's duties do not depend on
what they do or on what they do not believe to be such.
When God commands, it is every man's duty to obey. All
are bound to believe that to be a duty which God requires ;
and to neglect one duty cannot be a good excuse for neg-
lecting another. Men's unbelief cannot free them from
their obligations to obey the Divine commands. It cannot
become a substitute for the discharge of any duty. The
word of God requires every parent to believe in and prac-
tice infant baptism. His unbelief cannot i-emove this, his
obligation. It will not even have a tendency to lead him to
engage in the discharge of this solemn, this interesting duty
which he owes to God, to himself, to his children, and it
may be added, to the church and to the world. If a man
does not believe it to be his duty to pray for his children or
instruct them, his unbelief will not make the commands "of
God without effect."* The Divine command, not men's
(a) See P. iii, Ch. 2, ^ l-lO, and P. in, Ch. 3, $ 1-6. *Rom, 3: 3.
Ch. 3, <5> 3, 4.] NEGLECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 359
belief or unbelief, is the rule of duty. When he commands,
men ought to believe and obey. But to neglect or refuse to
believe, will not excuse a single human being from his obli-
gations to render obedience to every or any Divine com-
mand.
Parents, because of the relation which they sustain to
their children, are bound to do for them all that they ac-
knowledge to be their duty, when they dedicate them to God
in baptism. They do not, at the baptism of a child, assume
new obligations. They only acknowledge the old, and lay
others under obligations to assist them, as far as providential
circumstances will permit, to " train" him up " in the way
he should go.'' The baptism of the child therefore becomes
a privilege to the parent. It is therefore to him both a privi-
lege and a positive duty. The baptismal obligations, in all
their extent, rest on every parent. From these he cannot
escape so long as he is a parent. If he would have the whole
church bound in covenant to assist him with their prayers,
counsel and sympathy, in these his labors of love ; he by
having his child baptized and in no other way, can enjoy
this privilege.
3. To neglect infant baptism is to turn aside from God^s
mercies. In his mercy, in his rich, free and sovereign
grace, he permits, he commands parents to have the seal of
the covenant applied to their infant children. To neglect to
do this is to neglect both the grace and the promise of the
covenant into which God has entered with his visible peo-
ple. It is to set at naught his condescending love which he
manifested in receiving infant children with their parents
into covenant with himself.
4. To neglect infant baptism is to lose all its advantages.
These are many ; and each of them inconceivably valua-
ble(a). To neglect and thereby lose all the blessings of the
covenant is an evil the extent of which cannot be determined
by man on earth(6).
Ca^ See Ch. "2, $ 1-10. CW Persons onght to present their own children in baptism.
By the parent's own children is meant his natural descendants or his adopted children.
God in his word, does not authorize any other persons to stand as sponcers for children
or to present them for baptism. What ate now, and have long been called sponcers or
god-fathers and god-mothers are not mentioned in the scriptures. They receive no
countenance from the word of God. In the early ages of the christian church, these
characters are not named. In the fifth and sixth centuries, they are mentioned in spe-
<;jal cases. Nor did Popery venture to forbid parents to present their own children for
360 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b, IV, P. V.
Merely to neglect infant baptism, when God, in his pro-
vidence gives us an opportunity of attending to it, is a sin of
no small magnitude. Every parent ought to reflect on this
subject. He ought to ask himself, what account he is pre-
pared to give to God for neglecting to apply the seal of the
covenant to the infant children whom he is training for eter-
nity. The obligation is constantly resting upon the parent
to dedicate his child to God in baptism. He must perform
the duty or live in habitual sin. Parent, which of these
will you do 1
CHAPTER IV.
EVILS OF REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM.
1. Some men reject infant baptism. This truth is gene-
rally known and acknowledged. Infant baptism is a positive
duty required in the scriptures. Jt might therefore be ex-
pected that some persons would reject it. That to baptize
infants is a scriptural duty has already been clearly shown(a).
That men refuse to discharge this duty, is also certain. The
general reason why they reject this duty is simply this.
They do not love, they even hate it. The word of God is
plain and positive on this subject. Human authority on it is
overwhelming(5). It must therefore in general at least be
hatred to this duty or to the word of God which requires it,
or certainly a want of love for these, which leads men to
reject infant baptism. If men really hate this duty, it might
(a)See P. iii, Cli. 2, § 1-10 and P. iii, Ch. 3, § 1-6. (b)See P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 1-4 and
P. iv, Ch. 2, ^ 1. 2. and P. iv, Ch. 3, § 1-4.
baptism till the ninth century. Then, at the council of Mentz, this privilege was taken
froai parents and given to god-fathers and god-mothers. Thus the responsibility of
training up baptized children f^r God, was taken from parents their natural sponcers
and given to those who had neither the will nor the power to instruct tliem in the
principles or duties of ihe christian religion. To substitute, for children at their bap-
tism, other sponsers instead of the natural or foster parents, is a mere relic of Popery.
It receives no countenance from ihe word of God or from the primitive church. Nor
did the pious Waldenses adopt this unscriptural notion. See Augustine, Cyril, Fulgen-
tius, Perrin, Morland, Tertullian, Dionysius, &c.
The rite of confirmation is not authorized by any declaration contained in tlie scrip-
tures. The apostles did not practice this modern ceremony. They confirmed the dis-
ciples by "exhorting them to contmue in the failh." They adopted nothing like the
rite of confimiation as practiced in all Komish and some Protestant churches. This
with other superstitious ceremonies, was introduced into the church in the latter part
of the second century and m the beginning of the tiiird. These superstitious additions
to christian ordinances, were practiced in the following order; exorcism, confession,
renunciation, anointing and confirmation. Baptism preceded anointing. See Dr. Mil-
ler, Tertallian, Owen, &c.
Ch. 4, § 2.] REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 361
well be doubted, even if they did not habitually violate other
Divine commands, whether they in truth love any part of
God's word. He who hates to discharge any one of the du-
ties plainly and positively required in the scriptures, may
well doubt whether he truly loves any of them. Those
who love God's word, love it all. Those therefore who re-
ject infant baptism, if they do not reject the scriptures en-
tirely, certainly neglect to take them for their only rule in
the performance of all religious duties. This is an evil of
a fearful magnitude.
Of those who reject infant baptism and yet profess to be-
lieve the scriptures to be a revelation from God ; some en-
tirely reject baptism with water, while others immerse adults
only. These would all manifest much more consistency, if
they did not profess to receive the word of God as infallibly
true, or if they did not professedly take it for their only rule
in all relig'ous duties. But for persons to profess to take
that holy book for their only rule of duty, and then to alter
it so as to ondeavor to make it teach at least a small part of
what they believe, is not a mark of love for God's truth.
To reject, as they do, some of the duties which Divine re-
velation positively teaches, and frequently, if not habitually,
violate some of its positive commands, is in those who pro-
fess to be guided by its precepts, very inconsistent to the
mind of the christian.
2. Those who reject infant bajHism reject God's covenant.
God entered into covenant with his visible church in the
days of Abram(a). Into this, as one of the parties, God
brought infants and adults. He has not, at any time, ex-
cluded either of these classes of persons from the covenant.
They therefore both together constitute one party in this
covenant. Those who reject that covenant, a portion of one
of the parties in which, is made up of infants, reject God's
covenant. The church which he organized embraces in-
fants and adults. -Those societies therefore which refuse
membership to infants or which do not recognize them as
members, are not branches of that church which God has
organized. In this his church, infant membership is recog-
nized. By refusing to recognize infant membership in their
societies, they reject the covenant into which God has en-
(a)See P. i, Ch. 3, $ 1. 2. 8.
362 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V.
tercd with his professed people. This embraced their in-
fant children. When ihey reject this covenant there is no
other made with his visible people for them to embrace.
The only one into which God has entered with his visible
church, includes infants as a portion of one of the parties.
He has organized no church embracing adults only. Those
societies which embrace adults only, cannot therefore be
portions of that church which includes infants. That which
God organized certainly embraces infants. When men ex-
clude from the covenant one or more of the parties in it,
they reject the covenant itself. If a society of persons
should reject all adults from membership, that could not be
a branch of the visible church ; because they would then re-
ject those whom God had received. On the very same prin-
ciple, those who reject infants, cannot be a portion of the vi-
'sible church. Such persons divide a party in the covenant
and then reject one portion of those whom God made collec-
tively one of its parties. By doing this, they destroy the
covenant, or in other words, they leave it with but one party.
The other is not composed of adults alone, but of infants and
adults together. 7'hese together, not separately, form one of
the parties in the covenant. To divide this party and reject a
portion of it, is to destroy the party ; and to destroy a party in
the covenant is to destroy the covenant. Those who reject
or destroy God's covenant, practically disorganize, as far as
they can do so, the visible church on earth. This is one
great evil of refusing to infants the seal of the covenant,
or of rejecting infant baptism.
3. To reject infant haftism is to substitute the loisdom of
man for that of God. He, in his wisdom, received infants
into covenant with himself. He required its seal to be ap-
plied to them. The Lord Jesus Christ directed his servants
to baptize them. He received them into his church. Those
who reject infant baptism say, by their actions if not in
words, that infants ought not to be or cannot be received
into covenant with God. They deny its seal to them. They
refuse to baptize them. They do not allow them a standing
in the visible covenant into which God has entered with his
people. In fhHr wisdom, they reject infants from the cove-
nant. God, in his wisdom, receives them into it as a per-
Ch. 4, § 4.] REJECTING IxVFANT BAPTISM. 363
tion of one of its parties. In their wisdom, they refuse to
infants the seal of the covenant. God in his^ commands it
to be applied to them. Christian baptism is now this seal.
Therefore those who refuse to infants this baptismal seal of
the covenant substitute their own wisdom for that of God.
This is nothing less than a direct insult offered to Divine wis-
dom. It is to prefer the wisdom of man to that of God. It
is an evil of no small magnitude.
4. To reject infant baptism entirely would leave the world
loithouta visible church. The church which God organized
embraced infants at its formation. It does so yet ; for he
has not excluded them from the covenant or from its seal. If
men exclude them from their societies and refuse to apply
to them the seal of the covenant, they thereby reject God's
church and God's covenant. In God's church and in his
covenant, infants are zncluded. From theirs infants are ex-
cluded. Their church and covenant cannot therefore be
the same as God's. But that which God organized is the
visible church on earth. This included infants. The seal
of his covenant was applied to them. To refuse infants the
seal of the covenant is therefore to reject the visible church
which God organized on earth. This, if practiced by all,
would leave the world without a visible church. There could
then be no people in external covenant relation with the
King of Zion. Then there could be no visible church.
God can, when he pleases, establish a church and form
covenant relations with men. But human beings are not by
him, authorized to organize churches on their own models.
They have no right to say with whom and where he shall
make covenants. He has not given them power to do this.
Men have no right to exclude from covenant relation with
God what classes of persons they choose. When they act
in these matters, they must be governed by Divine wisdom
or be guilty of insulting the King of the universe. Those
who reject God's covenant and church in rejecting infant
baptism, have no right to make such substitutes for these as
will suit themselves or others. God has not authorized them
to do this. But to refuse to apply to the infant children of
believing parents the baptismal seal of the covenant, is to
cast them out of the visible church. Those who do so, re~
364 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V.
fuse to allow these little immortals that standing which God
himself has given them in his visible kingdom on earth.
They will not baptize them. They thus refuse them the
New Testament seal of the covenant. If all professedly re-
ligious societies should do this, then none of them would re-
cognize infant membership. Not one of them could there-
fore be composed of adults and infants. But these two classes
of persons formerly composed and still compose, the visible
kingdom or church of God on earth. If the whole of these
societies rejected infants from membership in them, then not
one of them could be a branch of that church concerning
which it is said; *'ofsuch" — "infants" — or "little children" —
*'is the kingdom of God."* Infants constitute a portion of
one of the parties in that covenant into which God has en-
tered with his visible people. When these are excluded,
then one of the parties in the covenant is nullified ; then one
of them ceases to exist as such. But to destroy a party in
a covenant is to destroy the covenant itself; for no covenant
can exist without the parties between whom the agreement
is made. If therefore the whole human race should unite in
excluding infants from the covenant by refusing to baptize
them, then no visible covenant could exist into which persons
might enter with God. The covenant which he made with
his visible people includes infants. To reject these is to reject
the covenant ; because in this way one of the parties in it,
is, as such, destroyed. To cast infants out of the covenant
which God has made with his visible people is to leave it
with but one party ; or in other words, this is to destroy the
covenant. But where there is no covenant, there can be
no church. If therefore all mankind should reject infant
baptism, the world would be left without a visible church.
This is no small evil.
5. The injury which those who reject infant baptism do to
children is very great. To exclude infants from baptism is
to deprive them of all its advantages(a). Those who do so, re-
fuse to train them up in the way they should go. They
leave them exposed to all the temptations of Satan and to the
manifold allurements of the world. They eject the lambs of
the flock from the visible fold of Christ. They refuse to
bring them to the great Shepherd in the holy ordinance of
*Luke 18: 15. 16. (a)See Ch. 2, $ l-lO.
Ch. 4, § 6.] REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 365
baptism ; and those who would bring them they often hinder.
They deny them covenant mercies. These are only a spe-
cimen of the various and complicated injuries which the re-
jecters of infant baptism are guilty of doing to children.
6. Opposition to iiifant baptism is rehellion against God.
For men to oppose what God requires is open rebellion
against him. God made a covenant with his visible people.
Into this he received infants. For men then to exclude
them from it, is rank rebellion against heaven. Those who
do so invade God's holy covenant and exclude from it one
of the classes of persons who were, by Divine authority, made
a portion of one of its parties(a). Such persons profane
God's "covenant."'* They, by rejecting it, treat it as if it
was unworthy their regard. In rejecting infants from the
covenant and its seal, they invade the prerogatives of the
Most High. They even attempt to undo what he has done.
As far as they can do so, they reject infants whom God has
received into covenant. Thus they would exalt themselves
above the Sovereign of the universe. They aftect to re-
model his covenanted church, that they may make it better
calculated to promote the cause of religion. By acting thus
they incur the guilt of rejecting the covenant and of insult-
ing the wisdom of God. To oppose infant baptism is there-
fore to engage in open rebellion against a covenant-making,
a covenant-keeping God.
The preacher who refuses to baptize infants, or who op-
poses infant baptism, rejects that part of the ministerial com-
mission which requires those who hold it to baptize " na-
tions" — "all nations."t This is certain; because every
nation, — '* all nations" certainly include infants. He who
will not baptize infants, refuses to baptize families, whole
families if an infant or young child is found in them. He
therefore refuses to do what the apostles often did. Preach-
ers therefore who oppose the baptism of infants or who re-
fuse to baptize them, are living in habitual rebellion against
the very directions which the Lord Jesus Christ gives to his
ambassadors in their ministerial commission.
It is no small sin to live in rebellion against God. But
the evil of leading others to trifle with his mercy and to re-
bel against the gracious covenant into which he has entered
fa; See P. i, Ch. 3, § 8. *Mal. 2: 10. jMat. 29: 19. 20.
366 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V.
with his church, his visible kingdom on earth, is a degree of
wickedness which, in view of a coming judgment, ought to
make the guilty tremble. This subject claims the careful,
the deep, the solemn attention of those who oppose infant
baptism. They ought to realize that in doing so, they are
living in habitual rebellion against that God who, in mercy
and love, received infants into covenant relation with him-
self. They ought to know that Zion's King has not exclu-
ded them from a right to its seal and that men have no right
to do so. By Divine authority that seal is now baptism. He
has commanded the seal of the covenant to be applied to
them. This command he has not repealed. It cannot be
repealed by man. 'I he rebellion of those who attempt to
do so, is all open before the infant's covenant God. Let
him who attempts to eject infants from the covenant and
who refuses to apply its seal to them, remember that the in-
fant's God will be his final judge.
Such are a few of the evils of rejecting infant baptism.
Eternity alone can completely reveal their magnitude. A
load of gailt, like a mountain of lead, must rest upon the
soul of him who ventures to trample thus on the gracious
covenant of a merciful God. May his guilt be washed away
by the blood of the infant's precious Redeemer who says,
"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not;
for of such is the kingdom of God."
A GENERAL VIEW OF INFANT BAPTISM.
IN THE FORM OP A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BAPTIZER AND AN
IMMERSER.
Immerser. Mr. Baptizer, do you hold to believer's bap-
tism 1
Baptizer. Please to state what you mean by believer's
baptism.
I. Why, to hold to believer's baptism, is to maintain
that believers ought to be baptized.
B. Then I hold to believer's baptism ; because I hold
that all true believers ought to be baptized if they have not
received that ordinance.
I. But that is not exactly what I meant to ask. My in-
tention was to enquire whether you maintain that professed
believers ought to be baptized.
REVIEW OF INFANT BAPTISM. 367
B. If such persons have not been baptized, they certain-
ly ought to be. Indeed, a credible profession of 'x person's
faith is all the evidence that man can have in this life to
prove that any individual is a true believer. Men cannot
search the hearts of their fellow-creatures.
I. But all this does not come to the point at which I am
aiming.
B. Well, then, have the goodness to explain yourself
more fully.
I. I intended to ask whether you do or do not hold to in-
fant baptism ?
B. I certainly do. The scriptures are too full and ex-
plicit on that subject for any intelligent believer in them to
reject infant baptism.
I. I believe the scriptures to be a special revelation from
God, and yet I reject infant baptism.
B. Do you believe that men have a right to repeal any
portion of God's law ?
I. 1 do not. For men to attempt to repeal or nullify
any Divine command, would be to reject the scriptures.
Such persons cannot believe in the word of God.
B. God has received infants into covenant with himself.
When he organized the visible church in the days of Abram,
they formed a part of its members. God required the seal
of the covenant to be applied to them. Have men a right to
repeal that portion of the law of the covenant which requires
its seal to be applied to infants ?
I. They have not. To attempt to do so would be to
usurp the Divine prerogatives. God only can repeal his
own laws. He and no other being can change his covenant
or alter its seal or exclude from it any portion of that party
which is composed of human beings.
B. Has God ever excluded infants from his covenant, or
from a pght to its seal 1
I. He has not. The scriptures do not so much as inti-
mate any such thing. Though infants are frequently men-
tioned both in the Old and New Testaments, their exclusion
from the covenant or frOm a right to its seal, is not, in any
form of words, taught in a single passage.
B. Have men any right then to exclude them from God's
covenant and from its seal ?
368 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V.
I. No ; they have not. To attempt to do so would be
rebellion against the high authority of heaven.
B. Has circumcision, in New Testament times, ceased,
by Divine authority, to be the seal of the covenant for both
adults and infants ?.
I. It has. It is no longer the seal of the covenant for
any person old or young.
B. What is now the seal of the visible covenant into
which God once entered with his professed people 1
I. The seal of this covenant is now christian baptism,
and it always has been so since the institution of that ordi-
nance.
B. Did circumcision seal spiritual blessings to any of the
circumcised ?
1. It certainly did ; for circumcision was " a seal of the
righteousness of — faith ;" and a part of the promise of this
covenant was, " I will — be a God unto thee and to thy seed."
This certainly includes spiritual blessings.
B. Infants, you say, have not been, by Divine authority,
excluded from this covenant, and that, in New Testament
times, its seal is baptism.
I. I do say so. The seal of the covenant is now baptism,
and God has not deprived infants of its use.
B. Why then do you not have your children baptized,
since infants now have a right to that seal of the covenant ?
I. I don't believe in infant baptism.
B. Will your unbelief on this subject be a substitute for
your duty 1
I. No ; I don't believe it will.
B. W^hy then do you refuse to have your children bap-
tized ?
I. The truth is, to be plain with you, I do not like the ob-
ligations publicly recognized by parents in the baptism of
their infant children.
B. But these obligations all rest upon you as a parent.
To neglect these duties will not diminish their magnitude or
number.
I. I know that. Have you any other evidence in favor
of infant baptism ?
B. I have, much. In the word of God, the command to
baptize infants is positive and frequently repeated. The di-
REVIEW OP INFANT BAPTISM. '369
rection which Christ gives to his ministering servants, re-
quires millions of infants to be dedicated to the Triune God
in baptism. Indeed, every passage in the scriptures which
mentions infants as living in New Testament times, describes
them as being actually baptized, or as having a right to that
ordinance. Multitudes of examples of infant baptism are
also mentioned in the New Testament. Infants were bap-
tized by John, — were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. —
were baptized in families, — and they are frequently men-
tioned as baptized church members. These and similar state-
ments abound in the word of God. They all teach infant
baptism in language too plain to be misunderstood by any
person who will read the scriptures with care.
I. The word of God is so very pointed on this subject
that no true believer in its statements, who is untrammelled
by prejudice, can withhold his full assent to the doctrine of
infant baptism.
B. Why then are you unwilling to have your children
baptized ?
I. I don't see any use in baptizing infants.
B. Is that a good reason why you should neglect to obey
the positive command of God ?
I. No ; it is not. But there is no harm in neglecting
to have my children baptized.
B. Do you really believe that there is no harm in ne-
glecting to obey the positive command of God ?
I. No ; I do not believe that either. To neglect to obey
the command of God, must be a sin.
B. Do you believe that you sustain a covenant relation
to God ?
I. I do.
B. How was this relation formed 1
I. God, in the days of Abram, entered into covenant with
his professed people. This covenant continues in full force
in New Testament times. I became one of God's professed
people, and by making a profession of religion, I entered
into covenant with him.
B. Did you leave your children behind, when, as you
say, you entered into covenant with God ?
I. I did. I left them because they were infants.
24
370 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P, V.
B. Then you yourself are not in covenant with God.
I. Why so '* May I not have him for my covenant God
and leave my infant children to his uncovenanted mercies ?
B. You cannot. God makes no covenant with profes-
sing parents to the exclusion of their infant children. You
cannot enter God's covenant and leave your children in an
uncovenanted state. He has made no provisions for such a
step. He has not authorized you to enter into covenant
with him, and, at the same time, leave your children "aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the
covenants of promise." He has made no covenant with
man in which adults only form a party. By' excluding your
children from the covenant, you turn away from it yourself.
You cannot have an interest in the covenant made with
God's visible people, if in it your infant children have no
interest. His covenant was and is made with believers and
their children.
I. I cannot see how baptism can do an unconscious in-
fant any good.
B. What good does it do an adult to be baptized ?
I. Why ? why "? why ? indeed I never thought of that.
B. Let me tell you then that baptism does an infant as
much good as it does an adult. AVhen therefore you ascer-
tain the amount of good it does an adult to be baptized, you
will know what good it does to baptize an infant. But if
you should still remain ignorant on this subject, if you should
never know so much on it as to be able to determine what
advantage it is to an infant to be baptized ; your ignorance
would not be a substitute for your duty, or prove that infants
ought not to be baptized.
I. I know all that very well. It is also undeniably cer-
tain that the scriptures teach the doctrine of infant baptism.
B. If then you believe the scriptures to be a revelation
from God, and the only rule of duty, you will have your
children baptized.
I. Must a man do all that the scriptures require him to
do under the dispensation during which he lives ?
B. It is certainly his duty to do so ; and if he does not
at least habitually obey the external commands of God, he
acts very inconsistently, if he professes to take the scrip-
REVIEW OF INFANT BAPTISM. 371
tures for his only rule in all religious duties. He would
show much more honesty and regard for veracity, if he even
rejected the word of God as a Divinely inspired rule of ac-
tion for man while on earth, than to profess and act as you
do.
I. Well, I don't believe in those parts of the bible which
teach infant baptism. I only believe in the inspiration of
the New Testament That is enough for a christian.
B. A true christian believes in the inspiration of the Old
Testament as well as in that of the New. But the New
Testament teaches the doctrine of infant baptism as pointed-
ly as the Old does; perhaps more so. It also teaches that the
Old Testament is inspired. Those therefore who reject the
inspiration of the Old Testament cannot believe that the New
teaches truth, much less that it is Divinely inspired.
I. But I can so explain every passage in the New Tes-
tament as to make it consistent with the rejection of infant
baptism.
B. That would prove that you are able to pervert the
word of God. But such a course would not prove that in-
fant baptism is not taught in the scriptures. Besides, you
would then have your own explanations or perversions of
scripture for your guide, instead of God's own truth.
I. Do you suppose ?
B. It is no matter what / or you or any other person may
suppose. We have nothing to do with suppositions. The
w^ord of God is the only rule for christians in all religious
duties. This has nothing to do with men's suppositions. It
contains God's directions. It requires infants to be bapti-
zed.
I. Well, if the scriptures, in a thousand passages, taught
infant baptism, I would not believe it to be true.
B. It is manifest then that you have no real love for
God's word. It is also quite evident that you have no more
respect for it than for any human production. Your belief
in Divine revelation, if it can be called belief, has no heart
in it. You follow your own fancies or those of other men,
and then pervert the word of God in order to obtain its ap^
parent countenance for your wild notions. As you value
your eternal interest, I entreat you to seek the pardoning
372 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V.
mercy of God for your sin in neglectiug to have your chil-
dren baptized. The Lord is yet waiting to be gracious. Do
not any longer, I beseech you, trifle with his long-suffering
patience.
I. You may say what you please. But I won't have my
children baptized. If God does teach it in his word, I would
rather not attend to it and that is reason enough for me.
B. I must now leave you. I pray the Lord to give you
grace in the heart which may lead you to obey his holy
commands in your life. These you profess to take for your
only rule of duty. But yours is manifestly mere profession.
You cannot now even plead ignorance on this subject. God's
word is too plain to allow any palliation for your sin on that
account. Ecclesiastical history, during the days of the apos-
tles, and from that time till the present moment, shows that
the church of God has always baptized infants. Whoever
therefore is ignorant on this subject, must be wilfully so.
May the Lord give you grace to enable you to. attend to the
important, the interesting duty of infant baptism.
1. But stop a moment. Infants do not know what is
done for them when they are baptized.
B. God knew this when he received them into covenant
with himself, — when he directed its seal to be applied to
them, — when he commanded his servants to baptize them.
When infants were circumcised, they had no knowledge of
the nature of that " seal of the righteousness of — faith."
But this their want of knowledge, did not prevent that seal
from confirming to them the promise of the covenant. Nor
can the ignorance of infants in New Testament times, ren-
der their baptism more or less valid. It is not the knowledge
or ignorance of the infant subject of baptism, which entitles
him to that ordinance. Nothing can do this but Divine au-
thority. When this authority requires infants to be bapti-
zed, then they not only may, but must be baptized. If they
are not dedicated to God in this ordinance, then those who
neglect to have it administered to them refuse to comply
with the Divine commands on this subject. Such persons
continue to live in habitual rebellion against God. Besides,
the ignorance of your children will not be a good substitute
for your duty. God commands you and all other parents to
STANZAS ON BAPTISM. 373
believe on the Lord ^esus Christ. He requires you also to
dedicate your infant children to Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
It is your duty to obey this and every other command of
God. For you to say to him in relation to this Divine com-
mand ; ' Lord my children are ignorant, they do not know
what is done for those who are baptized,' would not be
prompt and filial obedience. This would, in fact, be an at-
tempt to teach Omniscience. It would be saying in effect;
'Lord, thou dost command me to -dedicate my infant chil-
dren to thee in baptism, but they do not understand the na-
ture of that holy ordinance, therefore I will not obey thee
in this requirement. In my judgment thou art wrong in
this matter. I will, for the sake of promoting thy glory,
neglect to obey, nay, I will oppose this thy positive com-
mand.' Such is the language of your actions. God, when
he commanded infants to receive the seal of the covenant —
to be baptieed — knew certainly what was and would be the
amount of their knowledge. And with this his perfect pre-
science on this subject, he directed them to be baptized. This
you would not have done, would you ?
^ I. Indeed Iwould not. In that you are right.
B. You therefore differ from God. I prefer his wisdom
to yours. May the Lord enlighten your understanding to
perceive his mercy and grace in requiring parents to dedi-
cate their infant children to God in baptism. My labors
with you are now ended. The blessing of God and that
only, can render them useful to your soul. Adieu. Re-
member, the Divine command requires you to dedicate your
children to God in baptism.
STANZAS ON BAPTISM.
For immersion, in the Scriptures,
Not a word of proof is found(a);
But a nation, it is certain.
Were baptized upon dry ground(&).
God informs us, that to sprinkle.
Is a mode to be baptized(c);
In no other does he teach us.
That his grace is symbolized(cZ).
' ra;See B. ii, P. i. ft; See B. iii, P. i, Ch. 2, § 5. rOSee B. iii. (d}^. iii, P. i,
Cfa. 1, $ 6.
S74 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V.
Infants of believing parents,
Are in covenant with the Lord(a);
To its seal they're hence entitled
In accordance with his word(J).
Infants by Divine direction,
Must with water be baptized ;
Christ commands it as a duty,
Not by men to be despised(c).
His command is plain and pointed ;
To obey the gracious voice
Of the infant's loving Saviour,
Is a duty, not mere choice.
All should listen to his teaching,
As recorded in his word ;
Then would infants be by sprinkling,
Dedicated to the Lord(^).
Reader, when an immerser attacks you on his favorite
topic, just ask him, (1.) To prove by some one passage of
scripture that immersion is a mode of baptism ; (2.) request
him to point to at least one verse in any portion of Divine
revelation, which will prove, either by precept or example,
that immersion is the only mode of baptism ; (3.) let him
know that God once received infants into an " everlasting
covenant" with himself, and required its "token," the "seal
of the righteousness of faith,"* to be applied to them ;
(4.) ask him to prove, from any part of God's word, that
they have ever been, by Divine authority, excluded from
this ** everlasting covenant," or from the use of its seal ; and
(5.) ask him to show from scripture that this covenant has
ever been disannulled. By doing this, you will easily
perceive that immersers have nothing but assertions and
questions upon which to erect their whole windy super-
structure.
fa; See p. ii, Ch. 4, $ 4. (b)P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 1. Cc;See P. iii, Ch. 2, § 5. (d)See B.
iii ; B, iv, P. iii. *Gen. 17: 7. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. 19^ Rom. 4: 11.
CONCLUSION. 375
CONCLUSION.
This work is now brought to a close. In it the reader's
attention has been directed to the important subject of bap-
tism in all its various parts. It aims at directing the mind to
the holy scriptures as the only rule in all religious duties.
It notices baptism with water ; baptism unto Moses ; divers
baptisms ; John's baptism ; the baptism administered to Christ
and that which he and his disciples administered before his
resurrection. Moreover it treats of christian baptism and
of baptism for the dead. This work directs the mind to bap-
tism without water, and to that administered without Divine
authority. It mentions the modes of baptism. It also states
the exact point to be examined when the mode of baptism is
to be discussed. It shows that there is no evidence in the
word of God in favor of immersion as being the only mode
or even as being a mode of baptism. It teaches that immer-
sion as the only mode of baptism is improbable, — is impossi-
ble. It mentions the fact that no Lexicons, no Dictionaries,
no Greek writers of any description, teach that immersion
is the only mode of baptism. It also shows that all these
use (/SccTTTj^w) the Greek word for baptize in a great variety
of senses. It teaches that the Greek church does not hold
that immersion is the only mode of baptism. It mentions
the reasons which usually induce persons to be immersed, —
also the origin and evils of immersion. Moreover, that
sprinkling is a mode of baptism taught by the sacred writers
and by primitive christians, is shown from the language
which they use and from other evidence. This work also
shows that true believers, — professed believers, — females, — ■
and infants are proper subjects of baptism. It directs the
mind to a number of commands requiring adults and infants
to be baptized, and mentions many examples of the baptism
of all these classes of persons ; but it takes special notice of
the examples of infants baptized. It shows that the whole
force of the Greek language is used by the holy Spirit to
prove infant baptism. It also directs the mind to the fact that
every passage of scripture which mentions infants as living
in New Testament times, inculcates infant baptism in some
form of words. Besides, it notices the fact that infant bap-
tism has been practiced by the church of Christ during, and
376 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V.
ever since the days of the apostles. In addition to this, it
mentions what infants ought to be, and what may be bapti-
zed. It also teaches the advantages of infant baptism, — and
the evils of neglecting or rejecting that holy ordinance.
From all this, it appears perfectly manifest that the sa-
cred writers, the primitive christians, — and millions of the
wise and good in every age since the death of Christ, have
believed in, taught and practiced the baptism of infants by
sprinkling. This we know, because they themselves tell us
so. They do this in almost every form of expression. They
very frequently, in the languages used by them, clearly and
definitely express the application of this seal of the covenant
to infants in this mode. Such evidence no candid enquirer
after truth, can examine and resist.
May the Lord make his own truth on this subject and on
every other, "quick and powerful and sharper than any
two-edged sword."* Then it will carry entire conviction to
the understanding, — to the heart, — to the conscience of the
reader. But without the special operations of the holy Spi-
rit, the labor of writing and that of reading this book, will
be in vain. May the God of all consolation therefore grant
his special grace in rich abundance to the writer and to the
reader for the great Redeemer's sake. Amen.
*Heb. 4: 12.
INDEX.
Aaron and the other Levites sprinkled
Abrahamic covenant.
Adult baptism, not opposed to that of infants,
Advantages of infant baptism,
Allusion, none to immersion in scripture.
Anabaptists,
Apocrypha on immersion,
on sprinkling,
Apostles, their baptism confined to the Jews,
theirs not christian baptism,
were baptized with the spirit,
Authority, human, not the rule of duty,
Baptism, administered to Christ,
christian, administered, in what name,
to Gentiles and Jews,
who may administer,
is a significant ordinance,
is to continue to the end of time,
denotes the work of the spirit,
is a sacrament,
is a seal,
is not regeneration,
Jesus Christ did not receive,
is not to be repeated,
N. Testam't circumcision (par. 12,)
of families mentioned,
of infants commanded,
taught by our Saviour,
divine authority for,
examples of,
stanzas on,
administered to 3000 in one day,
which is a seal, not immersion.
Section.
Page.
1
208
1
276
6
304
1-10
347
1-5
98
3
180
1
148
1
216
4
41
7
42
5
68
1
215
4
32
6
50
7
50
5
48
9
51
8
51
9
52
10
53
11
54
16
58
4
32
17
60
i.) 1
281
6
290
5
287
2
270
1-7
269
1-6
316
373
7
127
^ 10
129
378
INDEX.
Baptism with the Holy Ghost, not immersion,
with fire, not immersion,
with suffering, not immersion,
without divine authority,
self, of the Jews,
of proselytes,
by females,
by laymen,
modes of
proper subjects of,
what necessary in a subject of,
what not necessary in a subject of,
true believers may receive,
professed believers may receive,
the spiritually baptized may receive,
the penitent may receive,
females may receive,
infants may receive,
can receive what is signified by,
of infants taught by John,
Paul,
the prophets,
of infants in the Red Sea,
christian, mentioned in scripture,
the sign of, and what is signified in,
with water, in every passage where mention-
ed, proves sprinkling to be a mode of,
by sprinkling, commanded,
can become universal,
christian, what is signified by, is sprinkled,
by sprinkling is a seal,
sprinkling the only mode of, expressly men
tioned in scripture,
of Christ was by sprinkling,
of the Eunuch by sprinkling,
of Paul by sprinkling,
John administered his, by sprinkling,
of the Israelites was by sprinkling,
every example of, teaches sprinkling to be a
mode,
Section.
Page.
11
130
12
131
13
131
1-3
72
1
72
3
73
2
75
1
74
1-4
76
1-3
253
4
257
1-3
253
1
259
4
261
2
260
3
261
5
262
1-6
264
3
265
4
271
3
270
6
273
5
272
1
109
6
202
n-
13
207
12
206
9
204
6
201
8
203
n-
3
195
1
207
2
209
3
210
4
210
5
211
6 213
INDEX. 379
Baptism, the scriptural mode of, by sprinkling,
if but one mode of, that is sprinkling,
human authority for, by sprinkling,
Lexicons inculcate sprinkling as a mode of,
by sprinkling taught in the Apocrypha,
buried with Christ by, into death,
with fire,
with the Holy Ghost,
the work of Christ,
with sufferings, taught,
Christ received,
James and John received,
martyrs received,
all true christians receive,
with water taught,
is to continue,
for the dead,
John's, from heaven,
intended for the Jews,
peculiar to himself,
not administered in the name of the Tri-
nity,
not the seal of the covenant,
not christian baptism,
Christ's, not for an example,
Baptisms, divers,
Baptist, John the, lived in O. T. times,
his authority was divine,
commissioned by the Father,
had no successors,
his commission special,
intended for the Jews only,
his baptism peculiar to himself,
did not baptize in the name of the Tri
nity,
his disciples re-baptized,
his baptism not a covenant seal,
not a New Testament minister,
his not christian baptism.
Baptize, meaning of, not immerse,
Section.
Page.
7
214
8
214
1-4
215
2-4
215
1
216
3
100
1-4
69
1
66
3
68
1
70
2
71
3
71
4
71
5
71
1
9
1-4
10
3
64
4
20
9
22
10
22
i-
11
23
13
24
18
29
9,10
36
1
14
2
17
4
19
5
20
6
20
8
21
9
22
10
22
i-
11
23
12
23
13
24
17
28
18
29
8
94
380 INDEX.
Baptize, immerse not its scriptural meaning,
its true meaning in scripture,
the meaning of (/3a<7rrw) its root,
its signification in the Septuagint,
its signification in Greek Lexicons,
in Latin Dictionaries,
in French and German Dictionaries,
in Dutch and other Gothic languages, 4
in English Dictionaries,
its meaning in Greek writers,
in Homer, (note b,)
history of the word, {note c,)
Baptized, Christ was, as a priest,
not as a substitute,
not to set an example,
any infant can be,
some infants have a right to be,
believe and be,
BaifTKfixoig (Old Testament washings)
this word signifies sprinkle,
Ba'JtTi^Uf its meaning in scripture,
does not in scripture denote immerse,
cannot signify immerse,
in scripture it signifies sprinkle,
its meanings in Lexicons,
in the Septuagint,
in Greek writers,
in the Apocrypha,
as given by immersers,
Ba'ff'Tw, signifies to sprinkle,
its meaning in the Septuagint,
in Greek Lexicons,
in Greek writers.
Battle of the frogs and mice (note b,)
Believers, true, to be baptized,
professed, to be baptized,
B^S(pocr, /3^£(piiX>jov,
Buried, with Christ by baptism,
into death.
Bury, does not allude to immerse,
Section.
Page.
7,8
85
2
192
4
198
5
200
1
141
2
144
s, 3
144
;es, 4
144
5
145
4
151
2
150
2
194
6
33
8
36
9
36
3
343
1
343
1
259
1
14
3
195
2
192
8
85
5-16
125
2
192
1
141
3-5
195
1-4
148
1
216
4
155
4,5
198
7
146
1
143
4
151
2
150
1
259
4
261
7
307
3
100
8
129
2
99
INDEX. 381
Section. Page.
Ceremonial washings, mode of performing, 7 202
Church, visible, attempts to organize a, with true
believers only, absurd, 13 245
is God's visible kingdom on earth, 9 243
Church, visible, its members, 8. 238
infants always members of, 8 239
its members in the Abrahamic covenant, 18 251
its privileges extended in N. T. times, 19 251
its members to be baptized, 1 269
in covenant with God, 3 269
organized in the days of Abram, 2 269
its covenant confirmed, 4 236
is one, 5 236
its members have a right to the seal of the
covenant whatever that is, 6 237
Church, invisible, its members are adults and in-
fants, 4 231
Christ's, not christian baptism, 4 32
Christ, by baptism consecrated to the priestly office, 6 33
baptized, not as a substitute, 8 36
not as an example, 9 36
his example, what it is, 10 36
baptized, why he was, 9 36
not immersed, 6 34
was sprinkled, 1 207
Christians, baptized with sufferings, 5 71
Chrysostom, on baptism, (paragraph 13,) 1 328
Circumcision, the O. T. seal of the covenant, 10 244
confirmedspiritualblessings, (paragraphs 4, 7,) 1 277
New Testament, (paragraph 12,) 1 281
Circumcised, all the, did not enter Canaan, 10 314
Claims of the exclusives, 4 163
Clean water, to be sprinkled, 1 189
Commentators, Pedobaptist, 4 219
Commission to baptize from Christ, 5 287
Confirmation, rite of (710^6 &,) 4 360
Convert to Judaism and Christianity contrasted, 10 316
Councils on baptism, 3 224
Covenant, all the baptized bound in, 8 352
blessings, of the, 3-9 349
38-2
INDEX.
Covenant, parents bound in,
promises of the, J
Covered, to be, with any material, is not to be im-
mersed,
Cross, immersion not a christian,
Cyprian on baptism, (paragraph 9,)
Daupian,
Death by immersion,
Denominations reject immersion,
adopt sprinkling,
Dialogue on immersion,
on infant baptism,
on sprinkling,
Dictionaries on baptism, i
English,
' on sprinkling,
French and German,
Dutch,
Difference between O. and N. Testament church,
(paragraph 15,)
Dip, Greek word (^utttw) for, not. used for baptize,
Divers baptisms,
Divisions, who guilty of the sin of,
Dobe, the Danish word for baptize,
Doctrine of baptisms,
Dopa, the Swedish word for baptize,
Doopen, the Dutch word for baptize,
Drowned, Christ was not, (paragraph 8,)
Dry land, immersion on, impossible,
Israelites, baptized on,
Dutch, Danish, Saxon, Swedish, Meso-Gothic, the
words for baptize in the,
EfA/Sa'^r'Tj^w or sfx^wn'ru not used for baptize, 6
they denote immerse,
see also pp.
Enon, described, (paragraph 2,)
why John baptized in,
Engravings do not teach immersion,
do teach sprinkling,
ection.
Page.
6
350
3,9
349
6
108
5
164
1
327
4
145
4
184
2
154
2
222
186
366
226
2-5
144
5
145
4
216
3
144
4
144
1
284
2
149
2
14
16
248
4
145
1
62
4
145
4
144
3
104
4
123
4
124
4
144
i,^
83
3
86
175-177
1
113
2
139
2
161
5
221
INDEX. 383
Section. Page.
Errorists most adopt immersion, (paragraph 4,) 6 119
Evidence for the claims of immersion, no, 4, 5 170
scriptural, for infant baptism, 2-7 270
from modern writers on infant baptism, 10 276
from divine command for infant baptism, 5 287
from human authority, 1-4 324
from examples of infant baptism, 1-6 316
from the whole force of the Greek language, 7 307
for infant baptism summed up, 7 308
Evils of neglecting infant baptism, 1-4 357
rejecting infant baptism, 1-6 360
of immersion,' 1-4 182
Eunuch, not immersed, (paragraph 5,) 1 114
was baptized by sprinkling, 2 209
Examples of infants baptized in the cloud and in
the sea,. 1 316
by John, 2 317
by the command of Christ, 3 318
in families, 4 319
mentioned by Paul, 5 319
mentioned by John, 5 320
summed up, 6 322
Facts show immersion to be improbable, 6 118
Faith, true, not indispensable to water baptism, 1 256
Families, baptized, 6 290
the word (oixos). for house or family includes
infant children, 6 293
Females, to be baptized, 5 262
Font, baptismal, (^noie bj) 2 144
the marble, at Syracuse, 3 162
Funeral, ancient, denoted by (^a*Tw) the word for
bury, 2 99
German Dictionaries on baptism, 3 144
Gothic languages on baptize, 4 144
Greek church on immersion, 1 154
writers on baptism, 2-4 149
Greeks, their use of (oixos) the word for house, 6 297
Gregory Nazianzen on infant baptism, (para-
graph 11,) I 328
384 INDEX.
Section. Page.
Hebrew Lexicons on (ilnto) ^^® ^^^^ ^^^ (^a^rw)
the root from which {(BtxtfTi^u)) that for
baptize is derived,
Hindoostan, christians of St. Thomas, in,
History of the word baptize, {note c,)
ancient ecclesiastical, on infant baptism,
Homer on (/Sa-Tfrj^w) baptize, {note Z>,)
House, {oixog) denoting family, signifies infants,
Households baptized.
Ignorance, evils of, in religious teachers,
Ignorant preachers, immersers often are, (para-
graph 3,)
Immerse, the word baptize does not mean,
see also.
Immersed, who were in Noah's time, (paragraph 6,)
saved from being,
Immersers avoid giving proof for immersion,
mistake assertion for proof,
the point to be proved,
have altered the bible, {note a, No. 7,)
Immersion, evils of, as the only mode of baptism,
as baptism, when first taught,
as the only mode of baptism, when first taught,
in the Greek church,
not required in scripture,
this word not used in the English bible,
not used in the original for baptize,
no covenant for, in the original,
no example of, in the original,
no command for, or example of, in the Eng-
lish bible,
not a scriptural meaning of baptize,
cannot be inferred from {wn^o) jfromi
from (sig) into,
from {sx) out of,
from (sv) in or with,
from into,
from out of,
from the word baptize,
7
146
2
338
2
194
1
325
2
150
6
293
6
290
10
97
6
119
8
94
7-8
85
4
106
4
106
4
173
1
173
1-4
173
" 9
96
1-4
182
1-7
178
3
179
2
179
1-4
82
5
83
3
86
6
83
3
86
6
83
7,8
85
7
93
4
90
5
91
6
92
2
88
3
89
8
94
INDEX. 385
Section. Page.
Immersion cannot be inferred from transferring
the word baptize into English,
learning, cannot infer, from the scriptures,
transferred from the Latin, {note a,)
the act of, eight-fold,
the point to be proved,
has two parts,
resembles no mode of burying, (par. 4,)
does not resemble the death, burial, resurrec-
tion or departure of Christ from the tomb,
cannot be a sign of what baptism denotes,
not the only mode of baptism,
not taught in scripture,
if but one mode of baptism, cannot be,
as the only mode of baptism, not probable,
not possible,
may destroy life,
while a person is standing, impossible,
cannot take place by applying water to th
person immersed,
on dry ground, impossible,
in small vessels, impossible,
of 5,000 each day for 500 days, impossible,
of 3,000 by 12 men in 5 hours, impossible,
into death on the cross, impossible,
cannot prefigure Noah's preservation,
be a seal,
be baptism with the Holy Ghost,
with fire,
with sufferings,
is indecent,
unfits the mind for devotion,
cannot be the O. T. mode of washing,
cannot be a sign of the work of the Spirit,
symbolize the death of Christ,
persons not wet in,
semi-self, is that of most immersers,
no evidence for, as the only mode of baptism,
did not originate with the apostles,
with John the Baptist,
25
9
95
10
97
9
96
4
78
3
81
4
81
3
101
c-
b, 6
166
6
165
1-6
109
3
110
5
111
1-8
113
1-16
121
1
121
2
122
le
3
123
4
123
5
125
6
126
7
127
8
129
9
129
10
129
11
130
12
131
13
131
14
132
15
132
16
133
6
165
6
166
7
159
6
158
I, 1-5
109
1
175
2
175
386 INDEX.
Section. Page.
Immersion did not originate with the Jews, 3 176
with Christ. 4 176
before the apostles, 5 176
with the Greek Fathers, 6 177
as a mode of baptism, originated in the dark
ages, 1 178
in the Greek church, 2 179
as the only mode of baptism originated among
the Anabaptists, 3 179
originated in America with Mr. Hollyman, 4 181
Infant baptism indirectly taught in scripture, 10 310
intimated in scripture, 8 309
a commanded duty, 5 287
taught by our Saviour, 2 270
by Paul, 3 270
by John, 4 271
by prophets, 6 273
by every passage which mentions in-
fants in New Testament times, 7 273
by the whole force of the Gr. language, 7 307
by the Abrahamic covenant, 1 276
by the covenant of grace, 2 285
by families being .baptized, 6 290
some of the evidence for, summed up, 7 308
examples of, in the cloud and in the sea, 1 316
by John the Baptist, 2 317
in families, 4 319
other examples of, 3, 5 318
summed up, 6 322
human authority for, 1-4 324
early christians in favor of, 1 324
taught by the Greek and Latin churches, 2 330
later writers on, 4 333
Pedobaptist writers on, 1 335
councils, synods and assemblies on, 2 336
denominations on, 1 337
injury done to infants by neglecting, 5 364
Infants members of the visible church, (par. 2,) 8 240
proper subjects of baptism, 1-3 264
in covenant with God, 4 266
INDEX. 387
Section. Page.
Infants are sinful creatures, 2 264
may receive what baptism signifies, 3 265
their baptism taught, 2-7 270
required, 1-6 276
baptized, 3 331
commanded to be baptized, 5 287
never excluded from the covenant or from the
use of its seal, (par. 13,) 1 282
in the new covenant, to be baptized, 2 285
prepared for Heaven, to be baptized, 3 286
baptized by John, 4 287
may be taught, 5 289
included in {oixog) house, 6 293
O. T. not more favorable to, than N. (par. 6,) 10 313
Inscriptions, commemorative, on infant baptism, 3 331
Israelites, the, baptized in the cloud and in the sea, 1 12
not immersed, 4 123
were sprinkled, 5 211
James and John were baptized with sufferings, 3 71
Jailer, circumstances of, 6 305
not immersed, (par. 6,) 1 115
his house baptized, (par. 2.) 6 291
Jewish baptism unauthorized, 1-3 72
use of (oixoc:) house, 6 301
John sprinkled, 4 210
Justin Martyr, on infant baptism, (par. 5.) 1 325
on circumcision, (par. 12,) 1 282
Kingdom of God, infants members of, 8 309
to come, when Christ preached, (par. 3,) 2 18
when John preached, (par. 2,) 2 18
after John's death, (par. 5,) 2 19
Know, those baptized in infancy, that they were, 4 345
Language, of immersers admits sprinkling to be
a mode of baptism, 4 155
Latin Dictionaries, on baptize, 2 144
Laymen, not authorized to baptize, 1 74
Law and the prophets, until John, 14 25
Learning, 10 97
Lexicons, Greek, on (/3a'rr