# 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 .!5 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 ^ • 
 
 4) 
 
 : ' 
 
 ,1,^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 '\ 
 
 SZ H^ 
 
 Q. 
 
 : 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 •s. ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ts 
 
 $ 
 
 
 "S g 
 
 <L> 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 w o 
 
 bi) 
 
 fS 
 
 *25 EH 
 
 :3 
 
 
 |Zi 
 
 E 
 
 .§ 
 
 <^ M 
 
 Cj 
 
 •S 
 
 ^ Ph 
 
 CO 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 -a 
 
 ^' 
 
 % 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 (U 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■ ..._ 1 
 
 S^:^B 
 
 / V 
 
 to 
 
SPRINKLING, 
 
 THE 
 
 ONLY MODE OP BAPTISM 
 
 MADE KNOWN IN THE SCRIPTURES; 
 
 AND 
 
 THE SCRIPTURE WARRANT 
 
 FOR 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 BY 
 
 ABSALOM Meters, d. d. 
 
 < * • » » 
 
 ALBANY: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY E. H. PEASE & CO. 
 
 1848, 
 
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1848, 
 
 BY ABSALOM PETERS, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office for the District of Massachusetts. 
 
 J. MUNSELL, PRINTER, 
 ALBANY. 
 
^^■ 
 
 DEDICATION, %j^^_^. 
 
 To the First and Second Congregational 
 Churches in Williamstown and to the Faculty and 
 Students of Williams College — the very gene- 
 ral expression of whose favorable opinion of the 
 substance of the following treatise, as recently 
 presented in the pulpits of these churches, has 
 induced him to prepare it for publication — this 
 little volume is most affectionately and respect* 
 fully dedicated, with every feeling of interest, 
 and of Christian fellowship, 
 
 By their Friend and Servant, 
 In the Ministry of the Gospel, 
 
 A. PETERS. 
 Williamstovm, Mass., June, 1848. 
 
. ;-. ''.', '* *•>. 
 
 I* 
 
 A WORD TO THE READER. 
 
 In preparing this work, it has been my object to 
 fui-nish a book adapted to be read and understood by 
 our church members generally ; at once so small, that 
 any one may afford to purchase it — so brief, as not 
 to be wearisome — and so arranged as to present the 
 subjects discussed, in then- proper order, and with 
 clearness, to the mind of the reader. It is designed 
 as a candid, dkect and intelligible exposition of the 
 Scripture Doctrine of Christian Baptism, in respect to 
 its nature, mode and subjects. 
 
 Such a work may appear to some to have been un- 
 called for. Scores of books and pamphlets have 
 been published, on Baptism, some of them of great 
 ability ; and much learning has been expended on the 
 subject. But the controversy respecting the mode of 
 baptism has been thrown into no little confusion by 
 false issues in argument, and by a range of learned 
 discussion, often, the tendency of which has been to 
 bewilder the inquirer after truth, while the confidence 
 with which immersionists are accustomed to claun the 
 
 1* 
 
VI WOUD TO THE READER. 
 
 express sanction of scripture, has led many to doubt, 
 whether, after all, the Baptists may not be the nearest 
 right, if they would only give up then- close com- 
 munion. 
 
 It seemed important, therefore, to disembarrass the 
 simple teachings of the Bible from the incumbering 
 arguments which hare been so generally urged in its 
 aid, and to arm the common mind in our churches 
 for the defence of the scriptm-al mode of baptism, 
 practiced by all Protestants, excepting a single deno- 
 mination. We have accordingly made the Bible its 
 own mterpreter. 
 
 The arguments adduced in this ti-eatise are almost 
 wholly scriptural and didactic, with as little to do with 
 controversy, as the nature of the subject and a proper 
 defence of the truth has seemed to allow. 
 
 Similar principles have been adopted m the argu- 
 ment for Infant Baptism, 
 
 Should this undertaking meet the favor which it 
 humbly craves, and sen^e to strengthen the faith of 
 such as already adopt substantially the positions here 
 defended — confirm the wavering, convince the doubt- 
 ing, or guide the honest inquher to the truth, on the 
 much controverted subjects here discussed — it will 
 fiilfil the hopes and answer the prayers of 
 
 THE AUTHOR, 
 
A COMMENDATORY RESOLUTION, 
 
 While preparing for publication, I took occasion to 
 present the ai'gument contained in Part I., at a meet- 
 ing of the " Berkshire Association," who have kindly 
 furnished the following expression of favor, viz : 
 
 " The Rev, Dr. Peters preached the Associationai 
 Sermon, fi-om Matt 28 : 19, and after criticism, the 
 followmg preamble and resolution were unanimously 
 
 " The Association having listened with great inter 
 est to the argument of Dr. Peters on the Mode oj 
 Baptism, and deeming his views original and impor- 
 tant, and a 'short method' of settlmg this question; 
 therefore 
 
 " Resolved, That Dr. Peters be requested to publish 
 his views on this subject, in such form as he shall 
 judge best. 
 
 " A true copy fi-om the minutes, 
 
 "Attest, 
 
 Sesshns of the Berkshire Association, 
 Oixat Barrins;ton, June 6, 1848. 
 

 \ 
 
 '< ^% 
 
 v 
 
 
 CONTENT^.H^^^ 
 
 PART I. 
 
 SPKINEXING THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM MADE 
 KNOWN IN THE SCPvIPTUKES. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 General remarks on the institution of baptism, as 
 a Christian Sacrament, and the controversy re- 
 specting it, ___--- 13 
 
 SECTION n. 
 
 The conti-oversy stated — Meaning of haptizo, as 
 used to designate the Christian ordinance of 
 baptism — The Greek plow, - - - 20 
 
 SECTION m. 
 
 Scriptm*e illustrations of the meaning of the word 
 haptism, independent of the mode of its ad- 
 ministration, and of sprinklmg, as the only 
 mode of baptism made known in the Bible, 36 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION rv. 
 
 Hie nature and design of John's baptism, and of 
 the baptism of our Saviour by John, ^ - 51 
 
 SECTION V, 
 
 All the questions on the mode of baptism re- 
 duced to one — The water applied to the per- 
 son, and not the person to the water, - 59 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 The mode of John's baptism, - - - 68 
 
 SECTION vn. 
 
 Prophecies intimating the mode of Christian bap- 
 tism — The baptism of the Spirit, - - 78 
 
 SECTION vm. 
 
 Historical illustrations of the mode of baptism, 
 as it was administered by the apostles — The 
 Greek particles translated into and out of, - 84 
 
 1. The baptism of three thousand on the day of 
 Pentecost, _ - _ _ _ - 84 
 
 *<i. The baptism of the Eunuch and of Christ, 89 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 Historical illustrations of the mode of baptism, 
 
 as administered by the apostles — Continued, 99 
 
 3. The baptism of the apostle Paul, - - 99 
 
 4 The baptism of Cornelius axad his fi'iends, 99 
 
CONTENTS, aa. 
 
 5. The baptism of Lydia and her household, 101 
 
 6. The case of the jailer and his family, - 102 
 
 7. Two other instances, ^ - - - 105 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 Recapitulation — Figurative expressions concern'^ 
 ing baptism — Conclusion of the argument, 107 
 
 SECTION XI. 
 
 Origin of the mode of baptism by immersion — 
 The Bible does not make the mode essential, 
 yet important — A concession — The great error 
 of tlie Baptists, - - - - - 114 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURE WARRANT FOR INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 The meaning of our Saviour's command, (Matt. 
 28: 19,) in respect to the subjects of baptism — 
 Proselyte baptism, - - - - - 131 
 
 SECTION n. 
 
 In all the covenants of God w^ith men, children 
 jire mcluded with their parents. " - 140 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION m. 
 
 The Church the same under the Jewish and 
 Chiistian dispensations, - - - ^ 144 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Baptism the substitute for ckcumcision, - 149 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 The example and practice of the apostles in re- 
 spect to Infant Baptism, - - - - 162 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 Testimony of early Christians, and of histoiy — 
 Origin of the Baptist denomination — Conclud- 
 ing remarks, - 168 
 
PART I. 
 
 SPRINKLING THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM 
 MADE KNOWN IN THE SCRIPTURES.* 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 GENERAL REMARKS ON THE INSTITUTION OF BAPTISM, 
 AS A CHRISTIAN SACRAMENT, AND THE CONTRO- 
 VERSY RESPECTING IT. 
 
 The last command of our Saviour to his 
 disciples was addressed to them, after his re- 
 
 * I use the word sprinJding, in preference to asper- 
 sion, affusion, or poming, because it is a more familiar 
 word, in common parlance, and is used in scripture, 
 to express the mode of baptism, as it is generally 
 practised. It is also a better translation of the Greek 
 word pavriPc^ (j-antizo) in the Septuagint, and as used 
 by the Apostle (Heb. 9 : 13) in reference to the " di- 
 vers washings" {baptisms) prescribed under the law. 
 I wish it ta be understood, however, that I mean by 
 this word any application of water to the subject of 
 baptism, in larger or smaller quantities, according to 
 the original signification of rantizo, which is to pour 
 aU over ; to wet ; to besprinkle. 
 
14 BAPTISM 
 
 surrection, when having finished his personal 
 ministry on earth, he was about to ascend his 
 throne. The occasion was solemn and memo- 
 rable. " Then the eleven disciples went away 
 into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had 
 appointed them. And when they saw him, they 
 worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus 
 came and spake unto them, saying, All jjower is 
 given unto me in heaven and in earth ; Go ye 
 therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 
 IN THE NAME OF THE FaTHER, AND OF THE SoN, AND 
 
 OF THE Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe 
 all things whatsoever I have commanded you; 
 and lo, I am with yoic alway, even unto the end 
 of the world.'' (Mat. 28: 16-20.) This com- 
 mand is recorded by another Evangelist in dif- 
 ferent words: "And he said unto them, Go ye 
 into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
 creature. He that believeth and is baptized, 
 
 SHALL BE saved ; BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT, 
 
 SHALL BE DAMNED." (Mark 16: 15, 16.) 
 
 These passages contain the only recorded in- 
 stitution of Christian baptism. The disciples, it 
 is true, had before this baptized. But there is 
 no proof that they had done so in the form. which 
 
INSTITUTED. 15 
 
 is here prescribed, and no evidence that the 
 Saviour had before required baptism to be per- 
 formed in the use of these words. In his last 
 command, therefore, as recorded in the above 
 passages, is contained the whole of our direct 
 authority, from Christ himself, for the adminis- 
 tration of this ordinance. Here Christian bap- 
 tism was instituted. This is our only Divine 
 warrant to baptize " in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'' 
 
 This command, to baptize, no doubt, has a de- 
 finite meaning — a meaning w^hich was under- 
 stood by those to whom it was primarily ad- 
 dressed, and which ought to be understood by 
 us. And yet it is expressed in the fewest words 
 possible. It is accompanied with no commen- 
 tary, no explanation of the words. It means, 
 just what the words meant, then and there. And 
 the very brevity of the expressions, and the inci- 
 dental manner, in which the duty is inculcated 
 in the command, indicate that there must have 
 been, present to the minds of the apostles, cir- 
 cumstances and considerations which rendered 
 the words perfectly intelligible to them. They 
 accordingly received the command, asking no 
 
16 BAPTISM 
 
 explanations, and went forth in obedience to it, 
 and administered baptism to their disciples. 
 
 It should also be remarked, that the adminis- 
 tration of this ordinance, in the time of the 
 apostles, being a matter of visible practice, the 
 mode of it was of course seen and understood 
 by those who received it. It seems indeed to 
 have been understood alike by the primitive 
 disciples. Hence we hear of no dispute or divi- 
 sion among them concerning it. They either 
 agreed in a particular mode, which they under- 
 stood to be embraced in the meaning of the com- 
 mand, or they regarded the sjnrit of the institu- 
 tion as alone essential, and felt at liberty to vary 
 the mode to meet circumstances and occasions. 
 Accordingly there was no need of any explana- 
 tion, to them, of the mode of the ordinance. The 
 visible practice of the thing, which they called 
 baptism, explained itself, in this respect. 
 
 But there have come dark ages over the church 
 and the world. Scarcely had the apostles been 
 laid in their graves, when a fancy began to pre- 
 vail, that there was a cleansing power in water 
 baptism. The strange notion of ''bapiism^l 
 regeneration " was early imbibed by professing 
 
INSTITUTED. 17 ' 
 
 Christians, and a mode of baptism was no doubt 
 adopted, to imply and perpetuate that idea. 
 Forms and ceremonies were soon introduced 
 from heathen worship, and monstrous abuses 
 were practised, which continue to the present 
 day, both in the Romish and Greek churches. 
 The spirit of the institution was buried and lost 
 under the accumulation of its borrowed accom- 
 paniments. The leaders of the Protestant Re- 
 formation, therefore, have found it necessary to 
 go back to the Bible, to recover the original 
 meaning of this and other ordinances of the 
 gospel. 
 
 For reasons, however, which I have already 
 intimated, the import of the Saviour's brief com- 
 mand on this subject, is not so readily appre- 
 hended by us as by the primitive disciples. The 
 single word fSair-n^uj, [baptizo,) which defines 
 the ordinance, is not, with us, vernacular, and 
 we are far removed from the usages of those 
 times in our personal experience. We labor, 
 therefore, under some disadvantages in our en- 
 deavors to ascertain the precise truth, as to the 
 original mode of this ordinance. Yet the insti- 
 tution, in its primitive purity, is deemed so ira- 
 
18 BAPTISM 
 
 portant, that learning and ignorance, simple 
 piety and sectarian zeal have all been deeply 
 and perseveringly engaged in its investigation. 
 
 The sad result is a controversy, wide-spread 
 among evangelical Christians, as to the mode in 
 which we are required to fulfil this last command 
 of our Saviour. And what is still more sad, 
 principles have been adopted by some parties, 
 which have divided the church, and broken her 
 visible communion. 
 
 In such a state of things, if there be any key 
 to the discovery of the root of this evil, any 
 principle which may promise to restore the body 
 of the faithful to its primitive unity, surely every 
 conscientious Christian will rejoice to find it. 
 At least every one rightly affected on this sub- 
 ject, will see to it, that he is not himself, through 
 ignorance of the Saviour's command, a schis- 
 matic, or an occasion of divisions among the 
 people of God. 
 
 In what mode, then, did the apostles under- 
 stand that they were to obey the command of 
 Christ, to baptize? To answer this question 
 satisfactorily, we must place ourselves, as far as 
 possible, in their circumstances, and look out 
 
INSTITUTED 19 
 
 upon the truths and usages, which must have 
 controlled their perception of the meaning of 
 the words and things embraced in this command. 
 
SECTION II. 
 
 THE CONTROVERSY STATED — MEANING OF THE WORD 
 BoiirnPo) (bAPTIZO,) AND ITS DERIVATIVES, AS 
 USED TO DESIGNATE THE CHRISTIAN ORDINANCE 
 OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren maintain strenuously 
 that the primary classical meaning of the word 
 i^a-TTTj^w (baptizo,) is to immerse or dip, and 
 that this meaning of the word and its deriva- 
 tives, used to designate the ordinance of baptism, 
 must control the mode of its administration. 
 On this ground, principan}^ they contend that 
 immersion, and nothing else is baptism.* I say, 
 
 *^The proportion of the Christian world, who prac- 
 tice immersion or submersion, is very small. Of the 
 sixty or seventy millions of Protestants of all denomi- 
 nations in the world, probably not a fiftieth part 
 have been baptized in this way. Dr. Kurtz, of the 
 Lutheran Church, says, " probably not one-sixtieth part 
 practice submersion." All the rest administer bap- 
 tism by aspersion or sprinkling. 
 
 T mention this fact rather as a matter of information, 
 
Meaning of baptizo. SI 
 
 on this ground ^principally , because, though many 
 other topics of argument are put forth in their 
 writings, I think it will be made apparent, in 
 
 ihan as an argument ; and since our Baptist brethren 
 sometimes claim the practice of the Greek church in 
 favor of their mode of baptism, it may be proper here to 
 j-emark, that the Greek chm'ch maintain that trine im- 
 rtmsion — plunging three times — is absolutely neces- 
 sary. After these immersions, they sprinlcle the sub- 
 ject with water. They cannot be clahned, therefore, 
 as the exclusive supporters of either mode, while the 
 Roman Catholic church, whose example is quite as 
 worthy of imitation, practice only sprinkling, so far as 
 water is used. But these are both idolatrous churches, 
 whose practices have no authorit}^ with us. 
 
 I may add, that even among Protestants, who prac- 
 tice immersion, the ^^Tunkers^^ — Dippers, usually called 
 Dunkards — insist on an entire triple immersion, by a 
 forward motion of the body, while Alexander Camp- 
 bell, the leader of the Camphellites, a somewhat nu- 
 merous sect in our Western States, judges this mode 
 to be nugatory, inasmuch as it does not, in his opinion, 
 resemble the burial of Chi'ist. " We must dip," he 
 says, " only once, and the motion must be backwards.^ 
 But while these conflicting opmions exist among the 
 advocates of immersion, there is no dispute among 
 those who practice sprinkling, as to the precise mode 
 of its performance. — Ste Kurtz on Baptism, p. 158, fyc. 
 
22 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the course of our discussion, that they are of little 
 weight in comparison with this. This is regard- 
 ed as the main point by our Baptist brethren 
 themselves. It is, indeed, the only ground, on 
 which I can conceive that a candid scholar 
 would be willing to take the exclusive position 
 assumed by the " close communion Baptists." 
 
 But the argument, on this ground, in favor of 
 immersion, derives all its strength from a mis- 
 taken assumption that it is in point, when, in 
 fact it has little or nothing to do with the sub- 
 ject. Learned men, on the Baptist side of this 
 controversy, may have thus been led, by their 
 familiarity with the Greek classics, to take up a 
 false issue to which they have applied their philo- 
 logy, in a manner very satisfactory to themselves, 
 while prejudiced men have felt it incumbent on 
 them so to interpret the scripture expressions 
 relating to baptism, as to make them conform 
 to the imperious demands of this philological 
 argument. But this argument, as I have said — 
 and will now proceed to show — has little or no- 
 thing to do with the subject. 
 
 The question in dispute can never be settled by 
 proving the meaning of the word (SatTi^u^ 
 
MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 23 
 
 (baptizo) in ancient heathen Greek, though it is 
 easy to show, and has been abundantly proved 
 by our best philologists, that the argument is not 
 wholly with the Baptists, even on that score. 
 The word means to tinge, to dye, to smear, &c., 
 as well as to immerse. The Editor of Calmet's 
 Dictionary quotes some eighty examples, taken 
 in part from the ancient fathers and classical 
 writers, but mostly from the Bible, in every one 
 of which the word in question implies less than 
 suhmersion, and in most of them, no more than 
 sprinkling, moistening, pouring, or staining. 
 But I leave that argument as wholly irrelevant 
 to the precise point of difference between us and 
 our Baptist brethren. 
 
 The true question is: what was, and is, the 
 meaning of the word baptizo, as used in the New 
 Testament, to desig-nate the relio;ious ordinance 
 of baptism? Suppose we admit — as we do not — 
 all that the Baptists claim, as to the meaning of 
 baptizo, or (Ba'ifrKfp.og (baptism) in heathen Greek. 
 If it meant there immersion, and nothing else, 
 still that could not govern its meaning as used 
 by Christ and his apostles to designate an action 
 
24 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 which was utterly unknown to the Greeks of all 
 preceding ages. 
 
 Let it be remembered that the Greek lan- 
 guage had never been used to express any of the 
 ideas of revealed religion, until the Jews were 
 conquered by the Greeks some three hundred 
 years before Christ.* Until after that time the 
 idea of a religious ordinance, or ceremony, call- 
 ed baptism, had never entered the mind of a 
 Greek. The Greek language was as destitute 
 of any such idea, as was the language of the 
 Sandwich Islanders before they were instructed 
 by our missionaries. All the ideas of the lan- 
 guage, relating to religion, were heathen ideas. 
 Hence the whole system of the gospel was " to 
 the Greeks foolishness." ( 1 Cor. 1 : 23.) But the 
 Jews, w^ho had before this spoken the Hebrew 
 language, and had the Old Testament scriptures 
 in the Hebrew — which was understood by no 
 other nation — being now in subjection to the 
 Greeks, found it necessary to learn the Greek 
 
 *The Jews submitted to the doniinion of the 
 Greeks under Alexander the Great, who died in the 
 year 323 before Christ After this the intercourse of 
 the Jews with the Greeks was necessarily intimate. 
 
MEANING OF BAPTIZO. '25 
 
 language. And before the birth of the Saviour, 
 they translated their own scriptures into Greek.* 
 But in expressing the truths of revealed religion 
 in their new language, they were obliged to give 
 to many of its words a new meaning. 
 
 The word Tvsu.aa [pneuma, spirit) for instance, 
 in the most ancient Greek, meant wind, or hreath, 
 and nothing further. But in adapting this word 
 to express the ideas of revealed religion, the 
 sacred writers use it to signify spirit, as the spirit 
 of man, and the Spirit of God. 
 
 * The translation here refeiTed to is that known as 
 the Septuagint, which Joseplius and others say, was 
 made under the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who 
 died 247 years before Christ ; and it is generally ad- 
 mitted that that translation existed before our Saviour's 
 time, and is quoted by him. It is conceded also that 
 the Greek language was generally spoken in Pales- 
 tine in the time of Christ, though the Hebrew was also 
 in use among all the Jews. (>S'6e Hug^s art. on " The 
 Greek Language in Palestine,''^ Bib. Repos. 1831,^. 530, 
 ^c.) The Latin language was also now spoken in Pales- 
 tine ; for before this time — 146 years B. C. — the Ro- 
 mans had conquered both the Greeks and Hebrews. 
 Hence the superscription on the cross of Christ was 
 written " in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew," 
 that all the people might understand it. — (Luke 23 : 38.) 
 
26 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The word ayysXos (avgelos, angel,) in heathen 
 Greek, signified simply a messenger, a person hy 
 whom news is conveyed ; and the idea of a spirit- 
 ual messenger from God, called angelos, was 
 unknown to ihe Greek language. But the sacred 
 writers appropriate this word almost exclusively 
 to the expression of this idea. It means, in the 
 Bible, what it did not mean in ancient Greek, a 
 spiritual messenger and, servant of God. 
 
 The Baptists, then, if they would be consistent 
 with themselves, in claiming a literal translation 
 of bapiizo, according to its heathen or secular 
 meaning, must do the same in respect to the 
 words pneuma and angelos. But if they do this, 
 they must read the passage, John 3 : 5, "Ex- 
 cept a man be born of water and of the vnnd, 
 [the Spirit] he can not enter into the kingdom 
 of God;" and, John 3:6, " That which is born 
 of the wind is wind /" And they must make the 
 sacred writer declare. Acts 23 : 8, that the 
 Saducees say, " there is no resurrection, neither 
 messenger nor windl^^ The same absurdity 
 would occur from the carrying out of this prin- 
 ciple in respect to many other Greek words, used 
 
NAMES AND THINGS. 27 
 
 in the New Testament, to express the peculiar 
 ideas of revealed religion.* 
 
 So Christ and his apostles, who were of Jew- 
 ish lineage, and were familiar with all religious 
 ideas, as expressed in the Hebrew^ language of 
 their own scriptures, when they applied the word 
 haptizo to express a religious ordinance, gave to 
 the word a neiv shade of meaning, conformed to 
 the thiyig which it was now intended to express. 
 But the idea of this thing had never entered the 
 mind of a heathen Greek, and until now had 
 
 * Let it be observed, we do not affirm that the New 
 Testament writers always use the words above refer- 
 red to in then* rehgious sense. When they speak of 
 ordinary things in the Greek language, they give to 
 its words the meanings which they had in common 
 use, before they were appropriated to the expression 
 of religious ideas. So our Sa\iour, in the same con- 
 versation in which he used pneuma to signify spirit, 
 made use of the same word in its primitive sense 
 (John 3 : 8,) " The wind" {pneuma) " bloweth where 
 it listeth." The word haptizo is also often used in 
 Scripture in its primitive sense. The principle which 
 we assert is, that it always has a peculiar meaning, 
 unknown to the ancient Greeks, when used to express 
 the rite of baptism. 
 
28 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 been unknown to the Greek language. It is 
 preposterous, therefore, to determine the precise 
 mode of this ordinance from the primary or pre- 
 vious meaning of the Greek word used to express 
 it. The meaning of an old word, when it is used 
 as the name of a new thing, must conform to the 
 things and not the thing to the name. 
 
 " No principle is more universally admitted by 
 all sound philologists, than that to establish the 
 original and primitive meaning of a word, is not 
 at all decisive in respect to its subsequent usage. 
 It often aids only as giving a clue, by which to 
 trace the progress of the imagination, or the 
 association of ideas in leading the mind from 
 meaning to meaning, on some ground of relative 
 similitude, or connexion of cause and effect. So 
 the verb, to spring, denotes an act, and gives 
 rise to a noun denoting an act. A perception 
 of similitude transfers the word to the issuing of 
 water from a fountain, to the motion of a watch- 
 spring, and to the springing of plants in the 
 spring of the year. Yet who does not feel, that 
 to be able to trace such a process of thought, is 
 far from proving that, when a man in one case 
 says, I made a spring over the ditch, in another, 
 
THE LATTER GREEK. 29 
 
 I broke the spring of my watch, in another, I 
 drank from a spring, and in another, I prefer 
 spring to winter, he means in each case the same 
 thing by the word spring ? And who, in using 
 these words, always resorts to the original idea 
 of the verb?" {Pres. Beecher in Bib. Repos. 
 1841.) 
 
 " It is true," says Campbell (Prelim. Dis. L, 
 Part 2,) ^^that as the New Testament is written 
 in Greek, it must be of consequence that we be 
 able to enter critically into the ordinary import 
 of the words of that tongue." " But from what 
 has been observed, it is evident, that though in 
 several cases this knowledge may be eminently 
 useful, it icill not suffice ; nay, in many cases, 
 it will be of little or no significancy." " Clas- 
 sical use, both in Greek and in Latin, is not only, 
 in this study, sometimes unavailable, but may 
 OFTEN MISLEAD. The sacred use and the classical 
 are often very different." 
 
 In the Biblical Repository, for April, 1841, 
 Professor Robinson says, " The language of the 
 New Testament is the latter Greek, as spoken hy 
 foreigners of the Hebrew stock, and applied hy 
 them to subjects on which it had never been em.- 
 
30 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ployed by native Greeks. After the disuse of 
 the ancient Hebrew in Palestine, and the irrup- 
 tion of Western conquerors, the Jews adopted 
 the Greek language from necessity; partly as 
 a conquered people, and partly from intercourse 
 of life and commerce, in colonies, in cities, 
 founded like Alexandria, and others, which were 
 peopled with throngs of Jews." " When to this 
 we add, that they spoke in Greek on the things 
 of the true God, and the relations of mankind to 
 Jehovah and to a Saviour — subjects to which no 
 native Greek had ever applied his beautiful Ian- 
 guage, it will be obvious that an appeal merely 
 
 TO CLASSIC GPvEEK AND ITS PHILOLOGY WILL NOT 
 SUFFICE FOR THE INTERPRETER OF THE NeW TES- 
 TAMENT. The Jewish-Greek must be studied 
 almost as an independent dialect, ^cJ' 
 
 And the Rev. Dr. E. Hall, of Connecticut, to 
 whose able work on baptism, I acknowledge 
 myself especially indebted for the suggestion of 
 the main argument of this treatise — remarks as 
 follows: "The sole intent of all this discussion 
 about the classic use and the New Testament 
 use, is to show that the word baptize in the New 
 Testament may have left its primary classic sig- 
 
THE GREEK PLOW. 31 
 
 nification, and have received a generic, sacred 
 use, equivalent to avashing or purifying, without 
 the least reference to the mode in which that 
 " washing of water " is performed. Whether 
 this be the fact or not, is to be learned not from 
 the Greek classics, but from the New Testament 
 itself. As to this matter of fact, Mark and Luke 
 and Paul are better Avitnesses concerning what 
 they themselves understood by the w^ord baptize, 
 than Xenophon, Aristotle, or than even that He- 
 brew of Hebrews, the Jewish Josephus, when he 
 is using the w'ord in the sense of the Greek 
 classics, w^ith no reference to its use as applied 
 to a religious ordinance." He, therefore, who 
 undertakes to prove the nature or mode of Chris- 
 tian baptism from the previous meaning of the 
 name, now used to designate it, argues inconclu- 
 sively. 
 
 The word arotron, (aporpov,) for instance, in 
 ancient Greek, signifies a plow. But the plow 
 used by the Greeks, and designated by this name, 
 was a straight stick of timber, some six or eight 
 feet long, sharpened at one end, with a clevis at 
 a suitable distance from the sharpened point, by 
 which it was drawn, while it was steered by a 
 
32 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 man at the other end of the stick. The plow 
 used in Greece, at the present day, I am told, is 
 of this description. It is known in the history 
 of mechanics, as the old Roman 'plow. 
 
 Now suppose the Greeks should invade and 
 conquer us, as they did the Jews of Palestine, and 
 should make it necessary for us, as it was for them, 
 to learn the Greek language, and to call our im- 
 plements of agriculture, and other things, by 
 Greek names. And suppose, in our new lan- 
 guage, we should call our plow aroiron. Does 
 not every one perceive, that the word aroiron, 
 thus applied, has a nevv^ meaning, conformed to 
 the thing which it is now used to designate? 
 Does it still mean, with us, a straight stick, be- 
 cause that was its primary meaning in classical 
 Greek? We know it does not. We look at 
 the plow in daily use among ourselves, with its 
 colter, and share, and handles, and other admira- 
 ble contrivances, and when we call it arotron, 
 we mean just what this thing, the modern plow, 
 really is. Thus the word, in our use of it to 
 express an existing thing, loses its primitive 
 meaning. It no longer means, with us, a straight 
 stick, but a veritable Yankee plow. 
 
THE GREEK PLOW. 33 
 
 It needs no great learning to see the point of 
 this statement. It is open to the common sense 
 of plain men, for whom I have designed it. I 
 wish the reader to be done with the embarrass- 
 ment he may have felt from much of the classical 
 learning, which has been displayed on the primi- 
 tive meaning of (3a'ff-Ti^(^ (baptizo) and ^a^rw 
 (bapto,) which is a still more primitive word, 
 and of course, still further removed, if possible, 
 from the religious idea expressed by haptizo, in 
 the New Testament. All this learning is mis- 
 applied. It serves only to darken counsel by 
 words without knowledge, because it has really 
 no bearing whatever on the subject of Christian 
 baptism* Arotron as used by us, in the case 
 which I have supposed, would mean the ploio in 
 common use among ourselves, and how absurd 
 
 * This, I am aware is a strong expression. I do 
 not mean to affirm that there was no reason for the 
 selection of baptizo to denote Christian baptism, rather 
 than any other Greek word. There is an analogy be- 
 tween its primitive meaning and its religious mean- 
 ing ; and that was a good reason for its selection. But 
 since it has been appropriated to this specijSc use, we 
 are to learn its new meaning, not from that analogy, 
 but from tlie thing which it now signifies. 
 
34 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 would it appear to the common sense of the 
 generations that shall come after us, if some one 
 should rise up a hundred years hence, and un- 
 dertake to prove, with a great parade of learn- 
 ing, that the plow called by us arotron, was 
 certainly a straight stick, and nothing else, be- 
 cause that is the meaning of the word arotron, 
 in all the Greek classics I And this I think the 
 reader will see is a fair illustration of the fallacy 
 of the argument derived from the ancient clas- 
 sical meaning of baptizo, to prove that immer- 
 sion is certainly the only baptism. The argu- 
 ment is wide of the point at issue, and is of no 
 practical importance, because it has no bearing 
 upon the question in dispute. 
 
 The foregoing illustration also suggests the 
 only w^ay in which we may hope to come to the 
 truth on this subject. It is to consider histori- 
 cally the- thing, which our Saviour requires, in 
 his command to his disciples under the name of 
 baptism. The scriptural meaning of this word, 
 when applied to the religious ordinance in ques- 
 tion, is what we wish to understand. We do 
 not ask, therefore, what bapto and baptizo meant, 
 in their secular use, before they were applied to 
 
MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 35 
 
 express a religious idea of any sort. Nor do we 
 ask what a heathen Greek — before he had ever 
 seen the thing here called baptism — would have 
 imagined the Saviour to mean by this word ? 
 Nor, again, do we ask what is the meaning of 
 this word, when used in a merely secular sense, 
 with no reference to the religious rite of baptism, 
 even in the New Testament? Neither of these 
 inquiries reaches the point in debate. The true 
 question relates wholly to the meaning of the 
 word as used by the Saviour himself, and as un- 
 derstood by his disciples, in reference to the Chris- 
 tian baptism and analogous rites; and this can 
 be ascertained only from the history of the things, 
 the religious observances, to which it is applied in 
 the sacred writings. This history was familiar to 
 Christ and his apostles. It was contained in 
 their own scriptures, and was a part of their 
 daily experience. It must, therefore, have fur- 
 nished the elements of the meaning which they 
 attached to the word baptizo, when they used it 
 to designate a religious ordinance which they 
 both commanded and observed. 
 
SECTION III. 
 
 SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE MEANING OF THE 
 WORD BAPTISM {f^anfTid^tJig) INDEPENDENT OF THE 
 MODE OF ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND OF SPRINKLING 
 AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM IVIADE KNOWN IN 
 THE BIBLE. 
 
 There were various ritual or prescribed obser- 
 vances under the law of Moses, in which both 
 water and blood were used as emblems of puri- 
 fication or cleansing; which the apostle denomi- 
 nates (Heb. 9: 10,) ^'divers washiiigs,^' In the 
 original it is Sia^popoig (Sa'ifTKfiJ.oTs (^divers baptisms.) 
 
 The reader should here possess himself of de- 
 finite impressions, as to the true nature of these 
 Jewish purifications or baptisms They were 
 not literal or actual washings of the body, which 
 were prescribed in these rites, but only symbolical 
 cleansings. They were external ceremonies or 
 observances, in which water or blood was ap- 
 plied to persons and things, as a symbol, emblem, 
 or sign of their purification, as consecrated to 
 God and accepted by him. There was no neces- 
 
SYMBOLICAL PURIFICATIONS. 37 
 
 sity, therefore, Ihat the water, or purifying ele- 
 ment, should be used in a sufficient quantity to 
 accomplish an actual washing. A.ny quantity, 
 applied in any mode, might serve as a symbol of 
 cleansing, just as the smallest quantities of bread 
 and wine, broken and poured out, in whatever 
 mode, are appropriate symbols of the broken 
 body and shed blood of Christ, in the sacrament 
 of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 This is a principle well settled in the scrip- 
 tures, as acceptable to God in the worship which 
 he requires of men. A purification thus pro- 
 fessed and symbolized is a part of the scripture 
 language of worship, a seal of covenant engage- 
 ments and promises. So among the Jews, when 
 the body of a murdered man had been found, and 
 the murderer had eluded discovery, the elders of 
 the city nearest to the place where the body was 
 found, were required to wash their hands — not 
 their whole bodies — over a slain heifer, as a 
 public pledge or protestation of their entire inno- 
 cence in this matter. (Deut. 21 : 1-9.) And 
 David says, (Ps. 26 : 6,) " I will wash my hands 
 in innocency." Here the washing of the hands 
 was intended as an emblem of the innocencv '^f 
 
38 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the whole man. So Pilate "took water and 
 washed his hands, saying I am innocent of the 
 blood of this just person." (Mat. 28 : 24.) And 
 our Saviour said to Peter, " He that is washed 
 needeth not save to wash his feet, and is clean 
 every whit." (John 13: 10.) 
 
 The true meaning, therefore, of the " divers 
 baptisms" under the law, and of Christian baptism 
 — the main idea, the thing commanded — is puri- 
 jication or consecration. This is the thing signi- 
 fied by the external symbol; and the mode of 
 applying the symbol is comparatively unimport- 
 ant. This is especially the case in Christian 
 baptism. Hence no particular mode is prescribed 
 in our Saviom^'s command to his disciples to 
 baptize ; and the only thing upon which the 
 mind can fasten, in this command, as of divine 
 obligation, is the thing signified by the word 
 baptize, which is to purify, or to consecrate, by 
 the application of water in some mode. And 
 not only is no precise mode of applying the 
 symbol prescribed in the command, but no mode 
 is spoken of afterwards, as binding, or as com- 
 manded. The thing called baptism, or purifica- 
 tmi, is commanded, but nothing said of the mode; 
 
SYMBOLICAL PURIFICATIONS. 39 
 
 and I maintain that the mode is not indicated by 
 the names baptism and purification. These 
 names are used to designate the thing itself, 
 which is symbolical cleansing, or consecration. 
 And these names, in this respect, are synonymous. 
 They mean the same thing. Both in the New 
 Testament and in the writings of the Christian 
 fathers, they are used interchangeably, the one 
 for the other.* 
 
 An example of this is found, Luke 11: 38-41. 
 We are here told that a certain Pharisee invited 
 the Saviour to dine with him; " and he went in 
 and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee 
 savp- it, he marveled that he had not washed 
 (sSa'Trrjo'^y), ebapfisthe, baptized,) before dinner." 
 And the Lord said unto him, " Now do ye Pha- 
 risees make clean [xa&api^srs, katharizete, pu- 
 rify) the outside of the cup and the platter," &,c. 
 " But rather give alms," * * * * '- and behold 
 all things are clean (xa^apa, kathara, pure) 
 unto you." Now the subject of the Pharisee's 
 wonder was the fact of the Saviour's not bap- 
 
 * President Beecher in his articles in the Am. Bib. 
 Repos., 1840-1, has furnished ample proof of the cor- 
 rectness of this statement. 
 
40 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 tizing before dinner. But the Saviour, in shaping 
 his reply to meet the point of the Pharisee's ob- 
 jection, addresses him on the practice oi 'purify- 
 ing the outward man, and of being over-exact 
 in mere legal or superstitious distinctions between 
 clean and unclean things, in a ceremonial sense, 
 and advances the principle elsewhere expressed, 
 that " to the pure" — morally — " all things are 
 pure." Does not the obvious and natural force 
 of this whole passage go to show, that baptizo 
 is here used in the sense of Jcatharizo, to purify? 
 There was an occurrence also, recorded John 
 3: 25, 26, which shows conclusively, that the 
 simple idea, at this time attached to baptism, was 
 that of purifying or cleansing, " Then there 
 arose a question, between some of John's disci- 
 ples and the Jews, about purifying (xa^apio'fxou, 
 katharismou.) And they came to John, and said 
 unto him, Rabbi, he that was wnth thee beyond 
 Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, the same 
 baptizeth, and all men come to him." The sub- 
 ject of dispute here w^as evidently the Jewish 
 rite of purifying, which these Jews had heard 
 that Jesus was practising — " though Jesus him- 
 self baptized not, but his disciples," (John 4: 2,) 
 
BAPTIZE NOT TRANSLATED. 41 
 
 and, to settle this question " about 'purifying^' 
 they appeal to John on the subject of haptism.y 
 showing plainly that they considered baptism, as 
 performed by John and by Christ's disciples, the 
 same thing as the Jewish rite of purification, and 
 that they used the words baptizo and katharizo, 
 to purify, indifferently, the one for the other, 
 when they spoke of these ordinances. 
 
 Yet purify, in our language, would not be a 
 perfect translation of baptizo, because purify, 
 with us, has no exclusively sacred meaning; and 
 we have no word that has such a meaning, in re- 
 spect to this ordinance, excepting baptize. This 
 is the w^ord which is more frequently used, than 
 purify, in the Greek of the New Testament, to de- 
 note this ordinance. Thus it had acquired, as we 
 have seen, a peculiar meaning, appropriate to the 
 thing which it was now used to signify. And 
 there was no word in any other language, except- 
 ing the Hebrew, which did signify this thing. 
 Hence when the Bible came to be translated into 
 Latin, this word baptizo was simply transferred, 
 not translated, because it was the only word in ex- 
 istence, excepting purify, which had been com- 
 monly used to denote the Christian sacrament of 
 
42 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 baptism. There were words in Latin, which 
 signified immerse and submerge, but these did 
 not properly define the ordinance. It was not 
 immersion, but baptism, in the sense of symbo- 
 lical purification. So in translating the Bible 
 into Latin, (see the Vulgate,) the learned men 
 of the fourth century did not employ immergo or 
 submergo, but the Greek word baptizo. And 
 this was done at a time when, if baptism w^as 
 not commonly administered by immersion, yet 
 immersion was certainly practised in connection 
 with it. But immersion, as a mode, did not ex- 
 press the meaning of baptism, because many 
 things that were immersed, were not baptized. 
 
 For the same reason, when the Bible was 
 translated into English, the word baptize was 
 simply transferred. To have used the word 
 plunge, or immerse, or sprinkle, or pour, or 
 purify, would have been a false translation of 
 baptizo, because none of these words would de- 
 fine the religious ordinance in question. They 
 mean any kind of plunging, &c., and have no 
 appropriate sacred sense. But baptism, as yet, 
 had no meaning in the English language. Il 
 was not an English word. But in the Greet 
 
BAPTIZE NOT TRANSLATED. 43 
 
 of the New Testament, and in the Latin transla- 
 tion of the Bible, it had been long appropriated 
 as the name of the Christian sacrament referred 
 to. The transfer of this word bapHsra into the 
 English Bible was only calling the thing by its 
 right name. It had no other name in any lan- 
 guage, and this name having been adopted in 
 our Bible, and used in all religious writings to 
 denote that peculiar thing called baptism, has 
 become naturalized as its name in our language. 
 It means the Christian sacrament of baptism, and 
 nothing else. And we have no other word in 
 the language which expresses this meaning. 
 
 The word baptism, therefore, in its sacred 
 use to signify symbolical purification, conveys 
 no idea as to the mode of purifying. Much less 
 does it define a particular mode. Yet there was 
 a mode of performing this rite. If the thing 
 itself was done, it was of course done in some 
 mode. And there may have been different modes 
 adopted at different times. But it is not impro- 
 bable that both prescription and usage had led 
 to some degree of uniformity in the mode. If, 
 therefore, we can learn what was the common 
 mode of purifying among the Jews, we may 
 
44 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 reasonably infer that the same or a similar mode 
 was practised by John and by the disciples of 
 Christ, in baptizing. 
 
 Let us recur tlien to the remark with which 
 this Section was introduced, viz., that there were 
 various ritual or prescribed observances, under 
 the law of Moses, in which both water and blood 
 were used as emblems of purification or cleans- 
 ing. And the " water-pots" and other prepara- 
 tions for these observances were in common use, 
 in our Saviour's time. So, at the marriage feast 
 in Cana of Galilee, we read, (John 2 : 6,) that 
 " there were set there six water-pots of stone 
 after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, 
 containing two or three firkins apiece." These 
 things were all familiar to Christ and his disci- 
 ples, long before Christian baptism was instituted, 
 and when they spoke of them in the Greek lan- 
 guage, they called them purifyings, or baptisms. 
 So, (Heb. 9: 10,) the apostle speaks of the Jew- 
 ish ritual service as standing " in meats, and 
 drinks, and divers washings,^' (baptisms.) Then, 
 going on to compare the Jewish dispensation 
 with that of Christ, to show the glory of the 
 
SPRINKLING. 45 
 
 latter, the apostle refers to one of these divers 
 baptisms, and shows us what he means. 
 
 The case to which he refers is that described 
 (Num. 19: 17, 18,) as follows: "And for an 
 unclean person, they shall take of the ashes of 
 the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and ruii- 
 ning water shall be put thereto in a vessel; 
 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it 
 in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and 
 upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that 
 were there, and upon him that touched a bone, 
 or one slain, or one dead, or a grave." Now it 
 is this sprinkling, which the apostle refers to, as 
 one of the divers baptisms, which were practised 
 among the Jews, and says, (Heb. 9: 13, 14,) " If 
 the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of 
 a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to 
 the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall 
 the blood of Christ, &c. purge your conscience 
 from dead works?" 
 
 It is clear, from these expressions, that sprink- 
 ling, in the mind of the apostle, was a mode of 
 baptism. It was a baptism too, which was em- 
 blematic oi purification, the very thing that bap- 
 tism signifies under tJ^e gospel, according to the 
 
46 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 dijQferent ideas of 'purification in the two dispen- 
 sations, the one of the flesh, the other of the 
 spirit. And the sprinkling was here performed 
 in a summary way, with a bunch of hyssop, 
 which they dipped in the fluid and sprinkled it 
 upon the people in groups, as they stood. This 
 hyssop was a small herb, probably resembling 
 moss. It is spoken of (1 Kings 4: 33,) where 
 it is called '' the hyssop that springeth out of the 
 wall." This they used alone, or mixed it with 
 wool, as a- kind of sponge, for the purpose of re- 
 taining water. And the sprinkling with this 
 was a baptism, in the scripture meaning of hap- 
 tizo. It is here called a baptism, by the apostle. 
 He proceeds to speak of a similar baptism. 
 performed by Moses, when he dedicated the first 
 testament, and says, (Heb. 9: 19,) " When Moses 
 had spoken every precept to all the people, ac- 
 cording to the law, he took the blood of calves 
 and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and 
 hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the 
 people. The reference here is to Exod. 24 : 
 5-8. How grand and solemn was the occasion, 
 when Moses thus dedicated the covenant ! There 
 were at that time six hundred thousand men 
 
SPRINKLING. 47 
 
 capable of bearing arms in Israel. The people 
 must have numbered two or three millions. Yet 
 they were all baptized with w^ater mingled with 
 blood, and sprinkled upon them from a bunch of 
 hyssop and w^ool, as an emblem of their religious 
 purification before God. 
 
 Now it is in vain to say that these were Jew- 
 ish ordinances which were done aw^ay in Christ, 
 and therefore prove nothing. They do prove 
 the very thing for which I bring them forward. 
 They prove that sprinkling, in the mind of the 
 apostle, so far as the meaning of the word is 
 concerned, was a mode of baptism. 
 
 Another of these divers baptisms is described. 
 Num. 8:7. In purifying the Levites and setting 
 them apart to their office, Moses says: "Thus 
 shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them ; Sprinkle 
 water of purifying upon them," &c. The leper 
 was in like manner to be cleansed by sprinkling. 
 (Levit. 14 : 7.) 
 
 Sprinkling, then, among the Jews, was the 
 emblem of cleansing or purification. But Christ 
 and his apostles w^ere born in the Jewish church, 
 and were familiar with this idea so often exem- 
 plified in the daily services to which they were 
 
48 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 accustomed. So, when speaking of the spiritual 
 cleansing produced by the hlood of Christ, Paul 
 calls it "the blood of sprinkling. .^^ (Heb. 12: 
 24,) and Peter calls it the " sprinkling of the 
 blood of Jesus Christ," (1 Pet. 1 : 2.) 
 
 Now Christian baptism was instituted as an 
 emblem of this same internal spiritual cleansing, 
 of which both Paul and Peter speak above, as a 
 sprinkling. This was the idea in their minds 
 when they thought of the significancy of the 
 ordinance of baptism. They never speak of it 
 as an immersion in the blood of Christ, or an 
 immersion in the Holy Ghost. They attached 
 no such idea to the mode of purification external 
 or internal, whether by blood, by water, or by 
 spirit. 
 
 It is true indeed that the word, tabal, in the 
 Hebrew scriptures, which is rendered by haptizo 
 in Greek, occurs some fourteen times in the Old 
 Testament, where it does not mean to sprinkle, 
 but to dip, as to dip the finger in blood, (Lev. 
 4: 6,) to dip hyssop in water to sprinkle with, 
 (Num. 19 : 18,) to dip a piece of bread in vine- 
 gar, (Ruth 2: 14,) to dip the feet in oil, (Deut. 
 33: 24,) &c. But in all these cases, the word 
 
PURIFICAION OF PERSONS. 49 
 
 is used in reference to things and not to 'persons, 
 and in no case is it used to denote 'purification. 
 In all cases of the use of water or blood, in the 
 Old Testament, as an emblem of purification in 
 respect to persons, sprinkling is the \vord used. 
 I do not doubt that in the bathings practised by 
 the Jews, immersions, as a matter of fact, were 
 common; but they were not enjoined in the law. 
 Dr. E. Beecher, in his article on the " Import of 
 Ba-jrri^w," in the Bib. Repos., for 1840, after a 
 thorough examination, does not hesitate to say, 
 " It is perfectly plain, therefore, that, whatever 
 was the practice of the Jews, no immersions of 
 persons were enjoined, and the whole Mosaic 
 ritual, as to personal ablution, could be fulfilled 
 to the letter without a single immersion. The 
 only immersions enjoined in the Mosaic law were 
 immersions of things, as vessels, sacks, skins, &c., 
 to which no reference is had in Heb. 9 : 10." 
 
 These facts are important to be remembered; 
 for the apostle (Heb. 9 : 10,) is not speaking of 
 all the purifications or ablutions performed by 
 the Jews, but only of those oi persons, which he 
 says, (v. 13,) "sanctified to the purification of 
 4 
 
50 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the Jlesh,'' and which, of course, had respect to 
 the person of the worshipper. 
 
 Professor Stuart also, in his article on Bap- 
 tism, (Bib. Repos., 1833,) says, "We find, then 
 no example among all the Levitical washings, 
 or ablutions, where immersion of the person is 
 required." (Vol. 3, p. 341.) 
 
 From this fact, so fully attested, it must be 
 inferred that sprinkling, so far as the mode is 
 concerned, was the idea in the minds of Christ 
 and his apostles in the institution of baptism, as 
 an emblem of the spiritual cleansing of persons. 
 Carrying this idea into practice, they would 
 naturally adopt sprinkling as their mode of bap- 
 tism. That they actually did baptize in this 
 mode will appear still more probable from con- 
 siderations yet to be introduced. 
 
SECTION IV. 
 
 THE NATURE AND DESIGN OF JOHN's BAPTISM, AND OF 
 THE BAPTISM OF OUR SAVIOUR BY JOHN. 
 
 Having, in the preceding Section, referred to 
 the baptism of John, I think it proper to remark 
 here, that, besides the Jewish rites of purifica- 
 tion, other baptisms somewhat peculiar had been 
 introduced, and were well known to Christ and 
 his disciples, before the institution of Christian 
 baptism by our Saviour. 
 
 To say nothing here of the Jewish proselyte 
 baptism,* which I shall have occasion to con- 
 sider more at large hereafter, the baptism of John 
 had already been commenced and concluded. 
 The nature of this baptism, therefore, should be 
 considered, to show the prevalent use of the 
 word, haptizo, at the time of our Saviour's last 
 
 * Wliatever may have been the mode of the Jewish 
 proselyte baptism, it should be remembered that this 
 baptism was a mere usage, which had grown up, and 
 was not an institution of the Mosaic law. Nor is it 
 named in the scriptures. 
 
52 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 command to his disciples. I do not now allude 
 to the 7node of John's baptism, which will be 
 discussed in its proper place. But it is import- 
 ant for the reader to have in his mind some ac- 
 curate views of the distinctive character of this 
 baptism. 
 
 Let it be understood, then, that John's bap- 
 tism was not Christian baptism. John began 
 to preach and baptize, six months before Christ 
 entered upon his public ministry. His baptism, 
 therefore, cannot be supposed to be Christian 
 baptism, without involving the absurdity oi 
 supposing that the initiating ordinance of the 
 Christian system existed six months previous to 
 Christianity itself And if this were so, it would 
 prove that Christ did not institute Christian bap- 
 tism, which is also absurd; for the law of Moses 
 did not end in John, but in Christ. The legal 
 dispensation, indeed, was in full force during all 
 the time of John's ministry, and the personal 
 ministry of Christ, and came to its close only in 
 the death and resurrection of the Saviour, after 
 which, as we have seen. Christian baptism was 
 instituted. 
 
 Again, John baptized his disciples on profes- 
 
JOHN S BAPTISM. 53 
 
 sion of repentance. Christian baptism is pro- 
 perly administered to adults, only on the profes- 
 sion of regeneration. (Acts 19: 4; 2 : 38; Gal. 
 3: 27.) The faith which John required was 
 faith in a Saviour yet to come; and this was the 
 faith of all the Jews, who believed the prophe- 
 cies of their own scriptures. So Paul declares, 
 (Acts 19: 4) "John verily baptized with the 
 baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, 
 that they should believe on him, loho should come 
 after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.'' But John 
 did not baptize in the name of Christ, nor in the 
 name of the Holy Ghost. If he had, he would 
 have given his disciples appropriate instruction, 
 and certainly would have taught the people to 
 know that he was not himself the Christ. Yet 
 it is said, (Luke 3: 15,) "All men mused in 
 their hearts, of John, whether he were the Christ 
 or not." And after John had finished his minis- 
 try, having baptized a large proportion of the 
 people of Judea, our Saviour propounded to his 
 disciples, the following question, (IVIat. 16: 13, 
 14,) " Who do men say that I, the Son of man, 
 am? And they said. Some say that thou art 
 
54 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 John the Baptist: some Elias: and others, Jere- 
 mias, or one of the Prophets." 
 
 Here was a degree of prevailing ignorance of 
 Christ quite inconsistent with the supposition 
 that John had baptized in his name. Indeed 
 John himself appears not to have known the 
 Saviour's person, until he had been several 
 months baptizing " with the baptism of repent- 
 ance." Hence previous to the Saviour's bap- 
 tism, he expressly declares, " I knew him not." 
 (John 1: 32-34.) And as to any recognition 
 of the Holy Ghost in John's baptism, some whom 
 he had baptized, themselves affirmed, (Acts 19: 
 2, 3,) " We have not so much as heard whether 
 there be any Holy Ghost." So Paul baptized 
 them " in the name of the Lord Jesus," paying 
 no regard to their having been baptized by John. 
 (Acts 19: 5.) This surely he would not have 
 done, if the baptism of John had been Christian 
 baptism. 
 
 It appears then that John's baptism was 
 finished before the institution of Christian bap- 
 tism, and that it was different in its design and 
 in its distinctive character. It took place not 
 under Christ, but under the Jewish dispensation. 
 
John's baptism. 55 
 
 That dispensation continued in full force until 
 the death of Christ. Then the veil of the tem- 
 ple was rent in twain, the great sacrifice for sin 
 was offered, and the typical sacrifices ceased. 
 Then Christ blotted out the hand-writing of 
 ordinances, that was against us, and took it out 
 of the way, " nailing it to the cross." (Col. 2: 
 14.) Yet the baptism of John was not strictly 
 a Jewish ordinance, but rather a Divine ordi- 
 nance independent of Judaism. It was not of 
 the law, but was a specific institution for a spe- 
 cial purpose; and being peculiar in its design, 
 it was of only temporary application. It was 
 an ordinance for the time being, preparatory to 
 the ministry of Christ. Like the preaching of 
 John, and his ministry in general, it was to " pre- 
 pare the way of the Lord ;" and like the ordi- 
 nances strictly Jewish, it was done away in 
 Christ. 
 
 It may be remarked al«o here, that Christ 
 himself, as well as his fore-runner, lived under 
 the old dispensation, and was a strict observer of 
 the institutions of Moses. He was " made under 
 the law," and all that was done in the church, 
 previous to the Saviour's death, belonged pro- 
 
56 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 perly to that dispensation. So the baptism of 
 the Saviour by John was not Christian baptism; 
 that is, it was not the baptism which he himself 
 afterwards instituted as a Christian sacrament. 
 Nor was he baptized in his own name. His 
 receiving baptism at the hands of John was evi- 
 dently one of his acts of submission to the ordi- 
 nances then existing in the church, whether 
 strictly Jewish, or appropriate to the ministry of 
 his forerunner. And so, when " John forbade 
 him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, 
 and comest thou to me?" he said, " Suffer it to 
 be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all 
 righteousness," that is, to fulfil every ordinance, 
 (Mat. 3 : 14, 15.) 
 
 Nor did this baptism of Christ, by John, par- 
 take of the nature of John's baptism, as admin- 
 istered to others. It was not a baptism " unto 
 repentance;" for Christ had no sin to repent of. 
 It was not, as in the case of all others, preparatory 
 to the reception of the Saviour; for he was him- 
 self the Saviour. But the rite here administered 
 was peculiar and appropriate to its adorable 
 subject. 
 
 Christ was now in his thirtieth year — the age 
 
57 
 
 at which; by the appointment of God, the priests 
 under the law were to undertake the duties of 
 their office. He was a " high-priest," and was 
 about to enter upon his public ministry. This 
 baptism, in his case, was not — it could not have 
 been a c-^-nbol of cleansing, but of priestly con- 
 secratioi:. So Christ exercised the office of a 
 priest du :ng his personal ministry. It was in 
 this chai..cter that he purged the temple; and 
 when the chief priests and elders demanded of 
 him, by :hat authority he did these things, he 
 appealed to the baptism of John, for a vindica- 
 tion of his authority. (Mat. 21: 12,23-27.) 
 If the Jev.'s had acknowledged the baptism of 
 John to have been from heaven, he would doubt- 
 less have silenced them by saying, " It was by 
 that baptism that I w^as consecrated to my 
 priestly oliice;" for, among the Jews, what was 
 done by an accredited prophet of the Lord, was 
 both authoritative and irreversible.* 
 
 * Hibbard on Baptism, p. 4 
 
SECTION V. 
 
 ALL THE QUESTIONS ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM RE- 
 DUCED TO ONE. THE WATER APPLIED TO THE 
 PERSON, AND NOT THE PERSON TO THE WATER. 
 
 All the questions that have been raised, as to 
 the mode of baptism, resolve themselves into this 
 one: Is the water to be applied to the person, 
 or is the person to be applied to the water? 
 Shall the water be poured or sprinkled on the 
 person, or must the person be dipped or immersed 
 into the water? This is the question; and I 
 maintain that the applying of the water to the 
 person is the only mode of baptism, as a reli- 
 gious ordinance, made known in the scriptures. 
 My position is that the Bible invariably teaches 
 that in the administration of baptism to persons, 
 both Jewish and Christian, the water was ap- 
 plied to the subject of the ordinance — the person. 
 Some of the proofs of this will now be adduced. 
 
60 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 1. The Primary Idea of Purifying, 
 
 The thing signified by baptism, both Jewish 
 and Christian, as we have seen (Sec. Ill,) was 
 purifying, or cleansing. But the primary idea 
 of purifying, or cleansing, is the application of 
 water to the person or thing purified or cleansed. 
 So, in the examples already referred to, in the 
 Old Testament, of ceremonial cleansings — which 
 the apostle calls baptisms — the water was ap- 
 plied to the persons, and not the persons to the 
 water. They were in every instance performed 
 by sprinkling. 
 
 2. Purifications of Things, as well as Persons, 
 The Baptism of Cups, and Pots, and Brazen 
 Vessels and Tables. 
 
 But there were ceremonial purifications of 
 things, as w^ell as of persons, among the Jews, 
 which Christ and his apostles were accus- 
 tomed to speak of as baptisms. The evange- 
 list Mark says, (7: 4,) of the Pharisees and all 
 the Jews, " When they come from the market, 
 except they wash, (baptize) they eat not. 
 And many other things there be, which they 
 
WATER APPLIED TO THINGS. 61 
 
 have received to hold, as the washing {baptisms) 
 of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables." 
 The word here translated taUes is xXjvwv (Jdinon) 
 and properly signifies beds or couches. It is so 
 translated in the 30th verse of this chapter, and 
 in eight other places w^here it occurs in the New 
 Testament. They had no chairs, and these 
 couches were a kind of sofa or divan, on w^hich 
 they were accustomed to sit, leaning on each 
 other, according to the usual mode of sitting in 
 those days. 
 
 Now the " cups, and pots, and brazen vessels," 
 here spoken of, may possibly have been im- 
 mersed all over in water. But this is by no 
 means probable. They doubtless washed them 
 in a common-sense w^ay, by the application of 
 water with the hand, or a cloth, holding them 
 partly in the water, or over it, or they poured 
 water on them, to suit their convenience. And 
 to suppose that the beds or couches were im- 
 mersed, would be preposterous, especially if w^e 
 consider the superstition of the Jews, Avhich led 
 them to practice these purifications many times 
 in a day. To have immersed their couches so 
 often would have kept them constantly unfit for 
 
62 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 use. Besides, these washings, or baptisms, were 
 merely ceremonial, and we have already seen 
 that such purifications or baptisms, in many cases, 
 were performed by sprinkling. 
 
 So of the first part of this verse, (Mark 7: 4,) 
 *^ Except they wash (baptize') they eat not." 
 This baptizing was the simple washing of the 
 hands w^th a little water drawn from the w^ater- 
 pots, and poured on them. This is abundantly 
 proved by the custom still prevalent in those 
 Eastern countries. It was a mere ceremonial 
 washing, and the water-pots were not of suffi- 
 cient dimensions to render immersion possible. 
 They contained only " two or three firkins," 
 that is about ten or twelve gallons, " apiece;" 
 and they w-ere made small at the top, like a 
 common jar. Yet the washing of the hands with 
 a little water drawn from these pots, and poured 
 on them, was a baptism, that is, a purification, 
 of the whole person from ceremonial defilement. 
 Thus far it is plain that baptisms w^ere perform- 
 ed by applying the water to the person, and not 
 the person to the water. 
 
BAPTISM IN THE CLOUD. 63 
 
 3. Figurative Allusions. Baptism " in the 
 Cloud and in the Sea.^^ The Salvation of 
 Eight Souls in the Ark, likened to Baptism. 
 
 This same idea is illustrated by what is 
 said of baptism in reference to occurrences 
 resembling the purifications of the Jews, but 
 here the rite of purifying was not literally 
 performed. Paul says, (1 Cor. 10 : 2,) that 
 the Israelites " were all baptized unto Moses, 
 in the cloud and in the sea." What does 
 this mean? The reference is to the passage 
 of Israel out of Egypt, (Exod. 14 : 19, &c.) 
 where it is most manifest that there was no im- 
 mersion in water, but water was poured or 
 sprinkled on them from the cloud. The record 
 says, that the cloud " went from before their 
 face and stood behind them." It doubtless 
 passed over their heads, and in passing, it rained 
 upon them, as Asaph declares, (Ps. 77: 17,) 
 probably referring to this very event, "The 
 clouds poured out water." Perhaps, however, 
 the baptism in the cloud did not occur at the 
 same time with the baptism in the sea. Profes- 
 sor Stuart says — I know not on what authority — 
 
64 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " the cloud on this occasion was not a cloud of 
 rain."* Adniitting that it was not, still there 
 was a cloud of rain that attended them on their 
 journey. This fact is recognized in the song of 
 Deborah, (Judges 5: 4,) "O Lord, when thou 
 wentest out of Seir, when thou marchedst out of 
 the field of Edom, the earth trenibled, the hea- 
 vens dropped {distilled), the clouds also drop- 
 pe.i'XcaterJ'' And the Psalmist declares, (Ps. 68 : 
 7, 9,) " God, when thou wentest forth before 
 thy people, when thou didst march through the 
 wilderness," &c., '^^hou, God, didst send a 
 plentiful rain, w^h. ' by thou didst confirm thine 
 inheritance when it was weary." And this 
 illustrates the meaning of the expression, " were 
 all baptized unto Moses, in the cload." They 
 were thus confirmed, when they icere weary, in 
 their allegiance to Moses, as their divinely con- 
 stituted leade.", and, as it were consecrated anew 
 to the service of God, under the law. Their 
 baptism, however, was by spi^inkling and not by 
 immersion. 
 
 But Paul says, they were baptized, not in the 
 
 *Bib. Repos. 1833, p. 336. 
 
BAPTISM IN THE SEA. 66 
 
 cloud only but also in the sea, that is the Red- 
 Sea, when they passed through it by the dividing 
 of the waters. Here too there was no immer- 
 sion, but they were baptized by sprinkling. 
 We are told, (Exod. 14 : 22,) that "!he children 
 of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry 
 ground; and the waters w'ere a w^all unto them, 
 on their right hand and on their left." They 
 were not immersed, but the " strong east wind," 
 which divided the w^aters, no doubt produced a 
 dashing- of the spray, which sprinkled them In 
 no other w^ay could they have been hajyhzed by 
 the waters of the sea, in the case here referred 
 to. The Egyptians, who followed after them, 
 " even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his 
 horsemen," (Exod. 14: 23,) were truly iinmersed; 
 they w^ere " buried in immersion unto death/' 
 as our Baptist brethren are so fond of saying; 
 "they sank as lead in the mighty waters." 
 (Exod. 15: 10.) If, then, the apostle designed 
 to represent baptism as immersion, why did he 
 refer to the Israelites, w^ho went over on dry 
 land, and were only sprinkled by the spray of 
 the sea? Why did he not speak of the Egyp- 
 tians, who were immersed and drowned in it? 
 5 
 
66 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 They were truly baptized, according to the pri- 
 mitive meaning claimed for the old heathen- 
 Greek word haptizo. 
 
 Peter says, (1 Pet. 3: 20, 21,) "The long 
 suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, 
 while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that 
 is eight souls, were saved by w^ater. The like 
 figure w^hereunto even baptism doth also now 
 save us — not the putting away of the filth of the 
 flesh, but the answer of a good conscience to- 
 wards God — by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 
 Baptism is here represented as a means of salva- 
 tion, by, or through, " the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ." It can be so, how^ever, only to such as 
 receive the thing signified by baptism, viz., the 
 cleansing influence of the Spirit of God. All 
 such, through the resurrection of Christ from the 
 dead, have a good hope of eternal life. And 
 Peter here tells us that baptism as a means of 
 salvation, w^as prefigured, not surely by the wa- 
 ters of the flood, but by the salvation of those in 
 the ark, who " were saved by water." But how 
 were they saved by w^ater? Certainly not by 
 submersion. This was the very evil, from which 
 the ark was the instrument of their deliverance. 
 
BAPTISM IN THE SEA. 67 
 
 All who were out of the ark perished. Submer- 
 sion was as fatal to them, as it was to the Egyp- 
 tians, who were buried in the Red Sea. But the 
 ark and they that were in it were not immersed 
 in the flood. They were borne aloft on the tjur- 
 face of the water, and the ark was sprinkled 
 with the rain that fell from heaven, or with the 
 dashing of the spray. This was the " figure, 
 whereunto" Peter likens Christian baptism. It 
 was a sprinkling: with water, and the very idea 
 of immersion is excluded. 
 
SECTION VI. 
 
 THE MODE OF JOHN's BAPTISM. 
 
 John baptized with water, not into water; 
 that is, he applied the water to the subject, and 
 not the subject to the water. So he declares, 
 (John 1: 31,) " Therefore am I come baptizing 
 with water." And, (Mat. 3:11,) "I indeed bap- 
 tize you with water, but he that cometh after 
 me, &c., he shall baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost." To evade the force of this expression, 
 it has been contended by some Baptist writers, 
 that the Greek particle sv [en,) here rendered 
 with, ought to be translated into, which is per- 
 haps the more common meaning of this particle. 
 But the latter clause of the verse shows the im- 
 propriety of such a rendering here; for the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Ghost is clearly an application 
 of the Divine Spirit to the soul of the believer. 
 It would be a plain perversion of the meaning 
 of the passage to say, " he shall immerse you 
 into the Holy Ghost." So John says, " I indeed 
 
John's baptism. 69 
 
 baptize you with water," as Christ " shall bap- 
 tize you with the Holy Ghost." 
 
 But if we were not so emphatically told, as 
 we are in these passages, that John baptized with 
 w^ater, the impossibility of his having immersed 
 the immense multitude that came to him, proves 
 that he must have baptized them in some other 
 way; and the proofs are strong and conclusive 
 not only that he did not apply the persons to the 
 water, but that he did apply the water to the 
 persons by some mode of sprinkling. 
 
 Let the reader examine the subject of John's 
 baptism as it is presented in the New Testament, 
 and see if we are not justified in this statement. 
 Matthew says, (3 : 5, 6,) "There went out to 
 him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region 
 round about Jordan, and were baptized of him 
 in Jordan,* confessing their sins." Mark says, 
 (1:5,) " There went out to him all the land of 
 
 * The expression in Jordan — ;v <rw lop^av/; — is often 
 quoted by Baptists to prove that John's baptism was 
 by immersion. But if this proves immersion in the 
 Jordan, a similar expression — ^Mai'k 1 : 4 — proves im- 
 mersion in the ivilderness ; for it is there said " John 
 was baptizing in the desert — sv tw cp»)|xw. 
 
70 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all bap- 
 tized of him." Luke says, (3 : 21,) " And when 
 all the 'people were baptized, it came to pass, 
 that Jesus himself, being baptized and praying, 
 the heaven was opened," &c. 
 
 Now the population of the city and region 
 here described, as might be proved by credible 
 historical testimony, was probably not less than 
 six millions. In the days of king David, a 
 thousand years before Christ, there were in Israel 
 and Judah, one million and three hundred thou- 
 sand " valiant men that drew the sword." (2 
 Sam. 24: 9.) And this census was exclusive of 
 the tribes of Levi and Benjamin, and of all the 
 people under twenty years old. Reckoning five 
 persons to every warrior in Israel and Judah, 
 which is a moderate estimate, the whole popu- 
 lation at that time was more than six millions. 
 And, notwithstanding the frequent wars of the 
 Jews, by -which multitudes were slain, there is, 
 in their strong aversion to other nations, and 
 their love of their own country, which confined 
 them mostly to Palestine, much to render it pro- 
 bable that the population was not materially 
 diminished in the time of our Saviour. The 
 
John's baptism. 71 
 
 testimony of Josephus confirms the probability' 
 that the population of the holy land was as large 
 as in the days of David. 
 
 It is highly probable also, that a large pro- 
 portion of this population were baptized by 
 John. The representations of the three evan- 
 gelists, which ^ve have already quoted, show 
 this. And then it should be considered that 
 John was the predicted messenger sent to pre- 
 pare the way of Christ. (Mat. 11 : 10.) He 
 was sent, not to any party of the Jews, but to 
 the whole Jewish nation. All parties went out 
 to see and hear him. There seems to have been 
 no great division concerning him, as there w^as 
 concerning Christ. His career w^as brief and 
 popular. Hence our Saviour testified of him 
 to the Jew^s, (John 5 : 35,) " He was a burning" 
 and a shining light; and ye were w^illing, for a 
 season, to rejoice in his light." 
 
 But, to be within bounds, respectable and 
 learned writers, as Hibbard and Kurtz, have sup- 
 posed, that John baptized only one-half of the 
 people of Palestine, say three millions. Could 
 he have done this by immersion? 
 
 Let it be considered that John's ministry con- 
 
/72 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 tinued only about nine months, when he was 
 cast into prison by Herod the Tetrarch, and soon 
 after beheaded, at the request of a dancing girl. 
 He had been engaged in his ministry only about 
 six months, when he baptized the Saviour, and 
 continued about three months after that event. 
 And it is easy to show that he could not have 
 employed the whole of that time in baptizing. 
 
 Suppose then, that John baptized, say, tltree 
 millions of people in nine months. Deduct/br^y 
 three sabbaths, in which, according to the Jew- 
 ish observance of the Sabbath, it was unlawful 
 for him to baptize, and there are left, m all, two 
 hundred and thirty-one days, in which he was 
 perhaps engaged in this service. Now if we 
 suppose him to have stood in the water and bap- 
 tized by immersion, six hours every day, he 
 must have immersed two thousand, one hundred 
 and sixty-four every hour, thirty-six every mi- 
 nute, and more than one every two seconds I 
 
 But the supposition that John baptized so 
 large a proportion of the people as one-half is 
 perha})fi extravagant. The expressions of the 
 evangelists referred to, do not prove that he 
 baptized one-half, any more than that he bap- 
 
73 
 
 tized the whole population. We are not author- 
 ized, therefore, to fix upon any particular 
 proportion. These expressions, however, and 
 the whole history of John's ministry are suffi- 
 cient to show that the multitude whom he bap- 
 tized was very great. If we suppose it to have 
 been only one twelfth part of the population; 
 still it was five hundred thousand, which would 
 require him to baptize three hundred and sixty- 
 one every hour, and six every minute. 
 
 For John, therefore, to have performed his 
 baptisms by immersion, was plainly impossible. 
 And it is in vain to say that he accomplished 
 his ministry, in this thing, by miraculous power; 
 for we are told, that when Christ was afterwards 
 at the very place " where John at first baptized," 
 " many resorted to him, and said, John did no 
 miracle; but all things that John spake of this 
 man were true." (John 10: 41.) 
 
 It is clear then, that he could not have im- 
 mersed all the people that came to him. Yet it 
 is expressly said, that he baptized them all. It 
 may be asked whether it was not equally impos- 
 sible for John to baptize them, according to our 
 mode, that is, by sprinkling them, one by one? 
 
74 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Our reply is, that it is not at all necessary to 
 suppose that he baptized them singly. The 
 Jewish law did not require this; and John made 
 no innovation upon the Jewish rites. He simply 
 employed the customary ceremony of purifica- 
 tion, for the purposes of his own ministry. 
 Hence the Jews found no fault whatever with 
 his mode of baptism; and the only imaginable 
 reason is, that he conformed to their own usa2;e. 
 He doubtless took a bunch of hyssop, and made 
 it sufficiently large for his purpose, and dipped 
 it in water, and sprinkled the people, as they 
 came to him, in large numbers at a time. This, 
 we have seen, was the Jewish mode of purifica- 
 tion, which Paul calls baptism. 
 
 It is manifest, also, that the vast multitude 
 that collected around John, w^ent out to hear 
 him preach. They had no thought of being 
 baptized, until they w^ere convicted, and applied 
 for baptism on the spot. Hence w^e are told, 
 (John 1: 25,) that the Pharisees asked him, 
 " Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that 
 Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" They 
 went out, of course, without any change of 
 raiment. No one surely will suppose that they 
 
BAPTIZING IN ENON. 75 
 
 were immersed, with their clothing on, in these 
 circTMiJstances, and there is no intimation that 
 they were denuded for this purpose. If, then, we 
 had not been so pointedly informed, as we are, 
 that John baptized this immense multitude not 
 into water, but with water, it would still be 
 mconceivable that they were immersed. 
 
 But it is said (John 3: 23,) that "John was 
 baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there 
 was much water there." " Why was this?" say 
 our Baptist brethren. " Why did John choose a 
 place where there was much water, if he per- 
 formed his baptisms by siprinklingV This ques- 
 tion would be of some importance, if it had 
 been said that John was at Enon for the con- 
 venience of baptizing. But no such thing is 
 intimated in scripture. 
 
 The circumstances were these: John had been 
 baptizing " in Bethabara beyond Jordan," (John 
 1: 28.) All his earlier baptisms had been per- 
 formed there. Why did he leave that broad 
 river, and go to Enon? The Evangelist, ac- 
 cording to our translation, says, it was " because 
 there was m.uch water there." But there was 
 more water in the Jordan. If, then, he con- 
 
76 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 suited only the convenience of baptizing by 
 immersion, there was no gain by his removal 
 Surely he was as well accommodated in this 
 respect, on the banks of the Jordan, as he could 
 have been at Enon. 
 
 But there was another reason for his removal, 
 amply sufficient to account for his change of 
 place. The Jordan is a turbid stream. The 
 water of it is unfit for drink or culinary purpo- 
 ses, until it has stood several hours in vessels 
 and settled. But the waters of Enon were pure 
 rivulets or streams, flowing from a single foun- 
 tain or spring. The place has been identified 
 by modern travelers, and it is plainly seen to 
 have furnished far better accommodations than 
 the region of the Jordan, for the encampment 
 and comfort of the thousands and tens of thou- 
 sands that attended the ministry of John. 
 And the geography of the place has thrown 
 light upon the original expression, here trans- 
 lated much water. It is i^riKka o^arot, [polla hu- 
 data,) which literally signifies, not much water, 
 Sut many vxiters or streams. And the reason 
 IS now plain why John resorted thither. He 
 was perpetually attended by the greatest multi- 
 
BAPTIZING IN ENON. 77 
 
 tude that ever assembled around a human being 
 for instruction. Had they no use for these ma7iy 
 waters excepting for the ordinance of baptism ? 
 Were not these pure and healthful waters a great 
 and almost indispensable convenience for drink- 
 ing, and for culinary and other purposes? And 
 did not their camels, and horses, and asses need 
 water? Just such locations are selected by those 
 who have experience in camp meetings in our 
 own country. Pure and abundant springs, or 
 streams of running water, are regarded as indis- 
 pensable for the comfort of the people and their 
 beasts of burthen, without the slightest refer- 
 ence to baptism in any mode. This passage, 
 therefore, proves nothing as to the mode of John's 
 baptism. It leaves us free to presume, that he 
 baptized in Enon, as he did elsewhere, not into 
 water, but with water. Doubtless he applied 
 the water to the persons, and not the persons to 
 the water. 
 
SECTION VII. 
 
 PROPHECIES INTIMATING THE MODE OF CHRISTIAN 
 BAPTISM — THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah speaks of the coming of 
 Christ and of the joy to be occasioned by the 
 gospel, (Isaiah 52: 7-12;) also, of the humil- 
 iation and exaltation of Christ, and the success 
 of his cause, (13-15.) "Many nations," he 
 predicted, were to be introduced into the Chris- 
 tian church. Now if we turn to the second 
 chapter of Acts, we find, that a few days after 
 the Saviour's ascension, at the outpouring of the 
 Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, " many nations," 
 by their representatives, were present to hear 
 the apostles preach. Not less than nineteen or 
 twenty different nations were represented; Par- 
 thians, and Medes, and Elamites, &c. And 
 three thousand of these representatives of " many 
 nations," were, " on the same day," introduced 
 into the Christian church by the initiatory rite 
 of baptism. They were baptized; i^nr^ this, I 
 
PROPHECIES RESPECTING BAPTISM. 79 
 
 suppose, was according to the prophecy. But 
 how was the baptism administered 7 By turn- 
 ing back to the prophecy referred to, we find 
 how it was to be administered; (Isaiah 52: 15,) 
 " So shall he sprinkle many nations." This, it 
 appears, w^as to take place at the very beginning 
 of the promulgation of the gospel. Was the 
 prophecy then fulfilled? If it was, then these 
 nations received baptism by sprinkling, first the 
 sprinkling of the blood of Christ, in spiritual 
 influences, and secondly the sprinkling of water 
 in external baptism. But if the prophecy w^as 
 not then fulfilled, it remains to be fulfilled; and 
 it is equally certain that, when the many nations 
 referred to shall all be converted, they are to be 
 received into the Christian church by sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 The word here rendered sprinkle has been very 
 variously interpreted, and it is not certain that 
 it should be regarded as indicating the mode of 
 water baptism. Yet to sprinkle is its usual and 
 proper meaning, and it is so translated in Lev. 
 4:27; Isaiah 63: 3; 2 Kings 9: 33; and in 
 numerous other passages in the Old Testament. 
 If, however, it is rightly rendered sprinkle here, 
 
80 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 it no doubt had a primary reference to the in- 
 fluences of the Holy Spirit, which were to follow 
 the sufferings of the Messiah, of which Chris- 
 tian baptism is the emblem. So the Syriac 
 version renders it, " Thus shall he 'purify — 
 cleanse or make expiation for — many nations." 
 The allusion is probably to the Levitical rite of 
 sprinkling the blood of the sacrifice, or to the 
 custom of sprinkling with water, as emblemati- 
 cal of cleansing or purity. If used in the for- 
 mer sense, it means that the Redeemer would 
 make expiation for sin, and that his blood of 
 purifying w^ould be sprinkled on the nations. 
 If used in the latter sense, as is most probable, 
 then it means that he would purify them, as un- 
 clean persons under the law were purified, by 
 the sprinkling of water. In either case, its 
 signification is substantially the same; that is, 
 that Christ would purify or cleanse many nations 
 from their sins, and make them holy; and this 
 is the very thing which was to be symbolized 
 by 'water baptism. It is reasonable to suppose, 
 therefore, that there is an allusion in this pas- 
 sage to the rite of baptism itself, as well as to 
 
PROrHECIES RESPECTING BAPTISM. 81 
 
 the spiritual blessings of the gospel, which it 
 represents.* 
 
 Again, there are several prophecies which 
 speak of the conversion of the Jews to Chris- 
 tianity; and Paul asserts (Rom. 11: 17,) that 
 they shall be graffed into their own Olive tree, 
 (the true church,) from which they were broken 
 off for their unbelief. Now when this shall 
 occur, they will of course receive Christian 
 baptism.. But in what mode is their baptism to 
 be administered? The prophet Ezekiel speaks 
 largely on the restoration and conversion of the 
 Jews; let him answer: (Ez. 36: 24-26,) "For 
 I will take you from among the heathen, and 
 gather you out of all countries," &c., " Then 
 will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye 
 shall he clean.'' If there is any thing taught in 
 this passage concerning the mode of Christian 
 baptism, sprinkling is the mode. 
 
 It must be admitted, also, that the scriptures 
 represent the baptism of the Spirit and the bap- 
 tism with water as analogous. The one is the 
 
 *See Barnes on Isaiah; also Cook & Towne on 
 Baptism, p. 128. 
 
 6 
 
82 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 sign or emblem of the other. " I indeed baptize 
 you with water unto repentance, but he that 
 
 Cometh after me is mightier than I, he shall 
 
 baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." 
 (Matt. 3: 11.) Now the baptism of the Spirit 
 is always, in scripture, represented as the appli- 
 cation of the Spirit to the believer, and not the 
 believer to the Spirit. In Acts 1 : 5, the Saviour 
 is represented as having said to his disciples, 
 " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not 
 many days hence." And Peter says, (Acts 2* 
 16, 17,) that the scenes of the day of Pentecost 
 were in fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel, " And 
 it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, 
 I will 'pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." In Isa- 
 iah (44 : 3,) it is said, '^ I will pour my Spirit upon 
 thy seed and my blessing upon thine offspring." 
 And (Acts 11: 15,) Peter says, in describing the 
 effects of his preaching at the house of Cornelius, 
 "The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the 
 beginning." Similar expressions are used in 
 Isaiah 32: 15; 52: 15; Ezek. 39: 29, and many 
 other passages, where the Spirit is represented 
 as poured out upon the people, falling on them. 
 
PROPHECIES RESPECTING BAPTISM. 83 
 
 and descending or distilling as the dew and the 
 rain, and as showers that water the earth; to re- 
 semble which, in water baptism, pouring or 
 sprinkling, and not immersion, is manifestly the 
 proper mode. 
 
SECTION VIII. 
 
 HISTORICAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE MODE OF BAP- 
 TISM, AS IT WAS ADMINISTERED BY THE APOSTLES. 
 THE GREEK PARTICLES TRANSLATED INTO AND 
 OUT OF. 
 
 We come now to matters of fact and history, 
 as to the mode in which the apostles actually 
 did administer Christian baptism, in obedience 
 to the Saviour's last command. 
 
 1. The Baptism of Three Thousand on the Bay 
 of Pentecost. 
 The first account of the administration of 
 baptism, after the ascension of the Saviour, is 
 that recorded, (Acts 2: 41,) where it is said, 
 " They that gladly received his word, w^ere hap~ 
 tized; and the same day there were added unto 
 them about three thousand souls." We have 
 already noticed the prophecy of Isaiah, (52: 15,) 
 iu fulfilment of which we suppose the three 
 thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost, must 
 have been received into the Christian church by 
 sprinkling. But setting aside this prophecy al- 
 
THE THREE THOUSAND. 85 
 
 together, ^nd considering the events of the day 
 of Pentecost historically, we are led to the same 
 -conclusion. 
 
 The apostles had no place for the immersion 
 of such a multitude as were then baptized. The 
 Jordan was sixteen or eighteen miles distant; 
 and at that season of the year, (June,) the brook 
 Kidron w^as nearly or quite dry.* And if it was 
 not dry, a common sewer poured all the filth of 
 the northern portion of the city into it, render- 
 ing it wholly unfit to be used as a place of im- 
 mersion. Where, then, could the apostles have 
 baptized the three thousand converts by immer- 
 sion? These baptisms appear to have been 
 performed on the spot, as well as on " the same 
 day" of their conversion. Where was the wa- 
 ter for their immersion? There was no river 
 nor l:rook to which they could resort in so short 
 a time, and there were only two public pools or 
 bathing places in Jerusalem, Bethesda and Si- 
 loam. The latter was at the foot of Mount 
 
 * This brook flowed along the east side of the city, 
 was at best but a turbid and unimportant stream, and 
 Was always dry in summer. Jahn informs us, its 
 channel is dry except in winter." — Jahn, § 19, p. 20. 
 
86 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Moriah, three-quarters of a mile distant from 
 where the apostles were assembled ; and we have 
 no account of their marching off to it, with the 
 thousands that heard them. 
 
 Bethesda was near at hand on the north-east 
 of the Temple, but it was used daily for the 
 cleansing of sacrifices, and the blood and offals 
 of the sacrifices and temple were washed into it, 
 which, some have imagined, may have imparted 
 to the water its healing virtue. At least it must 
 have been unfit for a place of immersion. It 
 was also in the hands of the priests, the avowed 
 and mortal enemies of Christ and his disciples. 
 They ridiculed the transactions of the day, and 
 said, " these men are full of new wine." They 
 surely would not have willingly given up the 
 pool of Bethesda to the apostles, to be used as a 
 place of Christian baptism. It is probable, also, 
 that both Siloam and Bethesda were of insuffi- 
 cient dimensions to allow the eleven apostles to 
 use them at the same time for the purpose of 
 immersion. 
 
 The implacable opposition of the priests, and 
 of the Jews in general, must also have prevented 
 their making use of the washing lavers of the 
 
THE THREE THOUSAND. 87 
 
 temple for this purpose. Nor can it be su]- posed 
 that they were admitted to the bathing places in 
 private houses for immersion in such vast num- 
 bers. For, besides the inconvenience and im- 
 probability of this, on many accounts, these 
 bathing places were only to be found in the 
 houses of the rich and honorable, very few of 
 whom, at that time, were disposed to befriend 
 the cause of Christ. Where, then, w^e ask again, 
 could the apostles have immersed the three thou- 
 sand on the day of Pentecost? 
 
 But the difficulties of supposing that the con- 
 verts on that day were all immersed, are still 
 greater, if w^e consider that, after the close of 
 Peter's sermon, there were but about five hours 
 of the day remaining. Yet the account states 
 that they were added to the church '' the same 
 day." But to have immersed them all in five 
 hours, each of the apostles must have immersed 
 more than fifty persons every hour, and more 
 than five persons every six minutes! This, I 
 need not say, would have been impossible. But 
 if the apostles performed the rite of baptism by 
 sprinkling, according to the prevalent mode of 
 purifying among the Jews, the three thousand 
 
OO MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 were baptized in five hours with comparative 
 ease. 
 
 It is said indeed, that the seventy disciples 
 (Luke 10: 1,) might have aided on this occasion, 
 and thus rendered possible the baptism of three 
 thousand by immersion, in the time specified. 
 But it is no where said in scripture that the seventy 
 were commissioned to baptize. It is certain 
 that they were not with the apostles at the time 
 they received the Saviour's last command. Only 
 the eleven were then present. (Mat. 28: 16.) 
 And the account of the day of Pentecost, (Acts 
 2:) gives us to understand very explicitly, that 
 the seventy, if they were present at all, were 
 there only as spectators, taking no prominent 
 part in the meeting. It says that " Peter, stand- 
 ing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice." 
 Why are not the seventy mentioned, if they also 
 took part in the services? The truth is, there is 
 no evidence or intimation, that they were there; 
 much less that they took part in the baptism of 
 the three thousand. Nor is there any degree of 
 probability, that any others were authorized to 
 take part in the administration of these baptisms. 
 Only ten days had intervened since the apostles 
 
THE THREES THOUSAND. 89 
 
 had received their own commission from the 
 Saviour; and we have no account of their having 
 ordained any person to the work of the ministry 
 during that time. On the contrary, we are 
 assured that the Saviour had commanded them 
 to suspend the exercise of all their apostolic func- 
 tions, until the descent of the Holy Ghost, which 
 took place on the day of Pentecost. (Luke 24: 
 49j Acts 1 : 7, 8.) The difficulties, therefore, 
 in the way of immersion, on this occasion, re- 
 main insurmountable, and all the probabilities 
 are in favor of the conclusion, that the three 
 thousand were baptized by sprinkling. 
 
 The next account of the administration of 
 this ordinance, in the time of the apostles, is the 
 baptism of Simon and many others, both men 
 and women, by Philip the Evangelist, in Sama- 
 ria. But there are no circumstances here which 
 indicate the mode. It is simply said, "they 
 were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 
 (Acts 8: 12, 13, 16.) 
 
 2. The Baptism of the Eunuch and of Christ. 
 
 The next occurrence of baptism was that of 
 
 the Eunuch. (Acts 8 : 38, 39.) " And he com- 
 
90- MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 manded the chariot to stand still, and they went 
 down both into the water, both Philip and the 
 Eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they 
 were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the. 
 Lord caught away Philip, and the Eunuch saw 
 him no more." There is one other passage, 
 where a similar expression occurs; (Mat. 3: 16.) 
 "And Jesus when he was baptized went up 
 straightway" — that is immediately — " out of the 
 water." 
 
 It would be out of place here to go into a 
 criticism of the Greek particles here rendered 
 into and out of. They might with equal pro- 
 priety be rendered to ?Lndfrom. They therefore 
 teach us nothing as to the mode of baptism. 
 They do not govern the meaning of the word 
 haptizo, which is used in connexion with them, 
 in these passages, but are themselves governed 
 by the meanmg which we attach to baptizo, in- 
 dependent of them. If, for instance, I believe, 
 from other evidence, that Christ and the Eunuch 
 were baptized by immersion, I should say that 
 they went iiito the water and came up out of it. 
 If I believe they were baptized by sprinkling, I 
 should say to Qudfrom instead of into and out of, 
 
THE EUNUCH. 91 
 
 unless I supposed that they stood in the water, 
 which in those days of sandals, is perhaps quite 
 probable. These particles, therefore, are of no 
 use in settling the question, because their proper 
 translation into English depends on the sense of 
 the words they are used in connection with. 
 
 To show how the translation of these parti- 
 cles must vary according to the sense of the sub- 
 ject, take the following examples, where the 
 •word sjj (ew), here rendered into, is used. (Acts 
 2^: 14,) " And when we were all fallen (si?) to 
 the earth," not into, &c. (John 11: 38,) " Jesus 
 therefore cometh (si?) to the tomb" of Lazarus, 
 not into the tomb. And (John 20: 4, 5,) " The 
 other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first 
 (sij) to the sepulchre. And he stooping down 
 and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet 
 went he not (s»?) m." Now if z\g necessarily 
 means into, we ought to read the passage thus; 
 "the other disciple came first into the sepulchre," 
 etc., " yet went he not into'^ it, which would be 
 absurd and contradictory. So in a multitude of 
 other instances, the translations of these little 
 -words vary with the sense of the connexion in 
 which they are found. Carson, one of the most 
 
92 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 learned and yet one of the most strenuous of the 
 Baptists, says in respect to Mat. 3: 16, " I admit 
 chat the proper translation of a-Tro (apo) is from, 
 not out of, and that it would have its meaning 
 fully verified, if they had only gone down to the 
 edg-e of the water, (p. 200.) After all that has 
 been said, therefore, as to the force of these 
 words, into and out of, they prove nothing in 
 respect to the mode of baptism, and we are left 
 just where we were, to learn historically what 
 was the fact as to the mode of these baptisms. 
 
 As to the baptism of Christ in, or at the Jor- 
 dan, it was performed by John, and we have said 
 enough of John's baptism to show the strongest 
 probability that it was administered by sprink- 
 ling. There is no reason to doubt that in its 
 mode, it was in entire accordance with the 
 Jewish mode of purifying. It may be added 
 that the Jews, when they baptized themselves 
 in a running stream, as they often did, were 
 accustomed to kneel down in it, and with 
 their hands throw the water hack over their 
 heads, and thus sprinkle themselves. They 
 do this still, as we are told by travellers. Here 
 then is going down into the water, and coming 
 
THE EUNTJCH. 93 
 
 up out of the water, without immersion. And 
 to this day, Jewish pilgrims are often seen to go 
 down to the Jordan, where Christ was baptized, 
 and while they kneel down in or by the river, 
 the administrator takes up a little water, and 
 baptizes them by applying it to their persons.* 
 Thus they are baptized with water, not into 
 water. Christ was probably baptized in this 
 way, according to the Jewish usage, and went 
 up straightway o^^^ o/, or y?om the water. If 
 he kneeled or stood in the river, he went into the 
 water and came out of it If he kneeled by the 
 side of the river, he went only to the water and 
 came /ro?/i it. But the baptism of Christ, though 
 performed by John, probably in the ordinary 
 mode of his baptism, did not, as we have said, 
 (Sec. IV.) partake of the nature and design of 
 John's baptism, as administered to others. It 
 was a consecration to his priesthood; and the 
 law (Ex. 29: 4,) required the following purifi- 
 cation to be performed in such cases. " And 
 Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring to the door 
 of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt 
 wash them with water." In Numbers 8: 7, we 
 
 * "Kabbah Taken": by R. W. Landis, p. 39. 
 
 7 ■ 
 
94 MODE OF baptism:. 
 
 are told how this washing was to be performed 
 "Thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse themj 
 sprinkle water of purifying upon them." Here 
 then is another evidence, in addition to the gene- 
 ral mode of John's baptism, that Jesus was 
 baptized by sprinkling. 
 
 In the case of the Eunuch, the circumstances 
 are equally and perhaps still more conclusive^ 
 in favor of sprinkling as the mode of his bap- 
 tism. Philip was in Samaria, and the angel of 
 the Lord directed him to " go towards the south, 
 unto the way that goetb down from Jerusalem 
 unto Gaza, which is desert." It was on the 
 road in the desert, that he met the Eunuch, who 
 was a Jew of Ethiopia, and had been up to Je- 
 rusalem to worship. He was now returning^ 
 and having the Jewish scriptures with him, he 
 •was reading, as he sat in his chariot, in the pro- 
 phecy of Isaiah.* And the place where he read 
 "was this: " He was led as a sheep to the slaugh- 
 ter, and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so 
 opened he not his mouth." Now turn to Isaiah 
 53: 7, and you find the very passage which the 
 
 * Acts 8 : 28. Esaias is the Greek spelling of the- 
 Hebrew name Isaiah, 
 
THE EUNUCH. 95 
 
 Eunuch was readinor. It is a part of the pro- 
 phet's description of the Saviour. But the 
 Eunuch understood it not. And so he said to 
 Philip, " I pray thee, of whom speaketh the pro- 
 phet this? of himself or of some other man?" And 
 Philip " began at the same scripture, and preach- 
 ed unto him Jesus."" He explained the prophecy. 
 ^'' And as they went on their way, they came to 
 a certain water; and the Eunuch said, see here 
 is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" 
 Now what was it which led the Eunuch to 
 think of being baptized just at this time? It 
 was the preaching of Philip, opening to him the 
 scriptures which he had been reading. And it 
 is remarkable that just in that connexion, and 
 only seven verses before, (Isaiah 52: 15,) is the 
 prophecy, on which I have already remarked, as 
 having been signally fulfilled on the day of Pen- 
 tecost; " So shall he sprinkle many nations." 
 This, no doubt, Philip had explained to him. 
 So far, therefore, as the mode is concerned, it 
 was sprinkling, and not immersion, which was 
 in the mind of the Eunuch, when he asked for 
 baptism. And, Jew, as he was, and accustomed 
 to this mode of purification, what else could h© 
 
96 MODE OF BAPTIS^I. 
 
 have expected, or hoped, but to be baptized in 
 this way? And the place and the circumstances 
 indicate that he was thus baptized. 
 
 The account says that they came to some -wa- 
 ter. The Greek word here translated certain, is 
 <n (^ti,) which does not indicate, as the English 
 reader might imagine, a well-known fountain of 
 water. It means simply some or any water, and 
 has sometimes the sense of a diminutive. So 
 here it might be rendered, with strict propriety, 
 "they came to a little w^ater;" and the Eunuch 
 exclaimed, with evident emotion, w^hen he saw 
 it, Behold water ! This is the literal translation 
 of the original. Behold water ! He does not say 
 how much water. Nothing is said about a river. 
 It was a desert, as we have seen, and the Eu- 
 nuch was doubtless surprised and pleased to come 
 upon any water in such a place. Indeed it was 
 in this vicinity, in the valley of Gerar, in which 
 the city of Gaza stood, that Abraham and Isaac 
 were obliged to dig wells to get water for their 
 flocks; and "the herdmen of Gerar did strive 
 with Isaac's herdmen, saying, The water is 
 ours." (Gen. ^Q> : 20.) It was not far from 
 this place that Philip baptized the Eunuch; and 
 
THE EUNUCH. 93 
 
 Tip out of the water, without immersion. And 
 to this day, Jewish pilgrims are often seen to go 
 down to the Jordan, where Christ was baptized, 
 and while they kneel down in or by the river, 
 the administrator takes up a little water, and 
 baptizes them by applying it to their persons.* 
 Thus they, are baptized with water, not into 
 water. Christ was probably baptized in this 
 way, according to the Jewish usage, and went 
 up straightway out of, or fiom the water. If 
 he kneeled or stood in the river, he went into the 
 water and came out of it. If he kneeled by the 
 side of the I'iver, he went only to the -water and 
 came/?-om it. But the baptism of Christ, though 
 performed by John, probably in the ordinary 
 mode of his baptism, did not, as we have said, 
 (Sec. IV.) partake of the nature and design of 
 John's baptism, as administered to others. It 
 was a consecration to his priesthood; and the 
 law (Ex. 29: 4,) required the following purifi- 
 cation to be performed in such cases. "And 
 Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring to the door 
 of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt 
 wash them with water." In Numbers 8: 7, we 
 
 *«Rahbah Taken": by R. W. Landis, p. 39. 
 
94 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 are told how this washing was to be performed, 
 "Thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them; 
 sprinkle water of purifying upon them." Here 
 then is another evidence, in addition to the gene- 
 ral mode of John's baptism, that Jesus was 
 baptized by sprinkling. 
 
 In the case of the Eunuch, the circumstances 
 are equally and perhaps still more, conclusive, 
 in favor of sprinkling as the mode of his bap- 
 tism. Philip was in Samaria, and the angel of 
 the Lord directed him to " go towards the south, 
 unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem 
 unto Gaza, which is desert." It was on the 
 road in the desert, that he met the Eunuch, who 
 was a Jew of Ethiopia, and had been up to Je- 
 rusalem to worship. He was now returning, 
 and having the Jewish scriptures with him, he 
 "was reading, as he sat in his chariot, in the pro- 
 phecy of Isaiah.* And the place where he read 
 was this: " He was led as a sheep to the slaugh- 
 ter, and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so 
 opened he not his mouth." Now turn to Isaiah 
 63: 7, and you find the very passage which the 
 
 * Acts 8 : 28. Esaias is the Greek spelling of the 
 Hebrew name Isaiah. 
 
THE JAILEK AND ALL HIS. 103 
 
 agined, that the jailer went out in the night, with 
 the prisoners, to be baptized of them. It would 
 have been a breach of his fidelity, an unjustifiable 
 hazarding of the escape of the prisoners, which 
 might have forfeited his life to the laws. And 
 you see how sensitive he was on this point. 
 
 Nor was this necessary. The jailer, it appears, 
 by some means, had water at hand for the wash- 
 ing of their stripes. A little of the same water 
 would serve them for the purpose of his baptism. 
 And more than all this, Paul himself virtually 
 affirms that they did not go out during the night. 
 As soon as the morning came, the magistrates 
 sent to the jailer to " let those men go." But 
 Paul said, " They have beaten us openly uncon- 
 demned, being Romans, and have cast us into 
 prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? 
 Nay, verily; but let them come themselves and 
 fetch us out." Surely, this refusal, so indicative 
 of conscious integrity and uprightness, would 
 have been made with a poor grace indeed, and 
 "without the least propriety, if the apostles had 
 already been out during the night '' privily," in 
 search of a river or pond, in which to immerse 
 the keeper of the prison and his family. We 
 
104 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 must therefore take this account just as it stands 
 in the Bible, and believe that the jailer "took 
 them the same hour of the night, and washed 
 their stripes," there in the jail, where they were, 
 " and was baptized, he and all his straightway/' 
 
 But it is said that he "brought them out;" 
 that is, as I understand it, he brought them out 
 from " the inner prison," into which he had 
 thrust them for special safety. So, when he is 
 said to have " brought them into his house," it 
 was only into another apartment of the same 
 building, where he could more conveniently " set 
 meat before them." This, however, was after 
 he had " washed their stripes, and was baptized, 
 he and all his.'' All this w^as done in the pri- 
 son proper, before he " brought them into his 
 house." They then returned to the prison and 
 remained there, under charge of the keeper, un- 
 til the next day, when, after Paul's refusal to go 
 out, the magistrates " came and besought them, 
 and brought them out." 
 
 The jailer " and all his," therefore, were bap- 
 tized in the prison. And there is not the slight- 
 est proof that they were plunged into water 
 there, but strong presumptive evidence that this 
 
LYDIA AND HER HOUSEHOLD. 101 
 
 5. The Baptism of Lydia and her Household. 
 The case of Lydia and her household, (Acts 
 16: 13-15,) is also in point. The apostles were 
 met by the side of a river, near the city of Phi- 
 lippi, where they w^ere accustomed to resort for 
 prayer, when Lydia attended to the things which 
 were spoken of Paul, and was baptized. She 
 was away from her house, and probably had no 
 change of raiment with her, and yet she " was 
 baptized and her household." There was a river 
 there, it is true,, in which they might have been 
 immersed, if that had been the mode of baptism 
 practiced by the apostles, but there w^as no other 
 preparation for such a baptism. Surely the fact 
 that they were " by a river side," does not prove 
 that they baptized by immersion, especially when 
 we are told that they went there, not for the con- 
 venience of baptizing, but because it was a place 
 " where prayer was wont to be made." This 
 and the other circumstances indicate that though 
 Lydia and her household may have been baptized 
 with the water of the river, the ordinance was 
 probably performed in the usual way, by sprink- 
 
102 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 6. The Case of the Jailer and his Family, 
 The baptism of the jailer and his family, (Acts 
 16: 33, 34,) is still more conclusive in illustra- 
 tion of the mode of baptism practiced by the 
 apostles. All the circumstances detailed in this 
 account, plainly show that immersion was wholly 
 out of the question. Paul and Silas were pri- 
 soners, whom the jailer had been solemnly charged 
 to "keep safely;" and for this purpose, and in 
 faithfulness to his charge, he had " thrust them 
 into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in 
 the stocks." Suddenly, " at midnight," there 
 was an earthquake, which shook the foundations 
 of the prison, threw open the doors and loosed 
 the bands of the prisoners. The jailer awoke in 
 the greatest consternation and alarm. He was 
 overwhelmed with the thought that the occur- 
 rence would be his ruin. So strong were his 
 feelings of obligation to kee]) safely those who 
 had been committed to his charge, that w^hen he 
 saw the prison doors all open, and supposed the 
 prisoners w^ere fled, " he drew out his sword and 
 would have killed himself." It is not possible, 
 therefore, to suppose, as some Baptists have im- 
 
THE JAILER AND ALL HIS. 103 
 
 agined, that the jailer went out in the night, with 
 the prisoners, to be baptized of them. It would 
 have been a breach of his fidelity, an unjustifiable 
 hazarding of the escape of the prisoners, which 
 might have forfeited his life to the laws. And 
 you see how sensitive he was on this point. 
 
 Nor was this necessary. The jailer, it appears, 
 by some means, had water at hand for the wash- 
 ing of their stripes. A little of the same water 
 would serve them for the purpose of his baptism. 
 And more than all this, Paul himself virtually 
 affirms that they did not go out during the night. 
 As soon as the morning came, the magistrates 
 sent to the jailer to " let those men go." But 
 Paul said, " They have beaten us openly uncon- 
 demned, being Romans, and have cast us into 
 prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? 
 Nay, verily; but let them come themselves and 
 fetch us out." Surely, this refusal, so indicative 
 of conscious integrity and uprightness, would 
 have been made with a poor grace indeed, and 
 without the least propriety, if the apostles had 
 already been out during the night " privily" in 
 search of a river or pond, in which to immerse 
 the keeper of the prison and his family. We 
 
104 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 must therefore take this account just as it stands 
 in the Bible, and believe that the jailer "took 
 them the same hour of the night, and washed 
 their stripes," there in the jail, where they were, 
 " and was baptized, he and all his straightway.'^ 
 
 But it is said that he "brought them out;" 
 that is, as I understand it, he brought them out 
 from " the inner prison," into which he had 
 thrust them for special safety. So, when he is 
 said to have " brought them into his house," it 
 was only into another apartment of the same 
 building, where he could more conveniently " set 
 meat before them." This, however, was after 
 he had " washed their stripes, and was baptized, 
 he and all his." All this was done in the pri- 
 son proper, before he " brought them into his 
 house." They then returned to the prison and 
 remained there, under charge of the keeper, un- 
 til the next day, when, after Paul's refusal to go 
 out, the magistrates " came and besought them, 
 and brought them out." 
 
 The jailer " and all his," therefore, were bap- 
 tized in the prison. And there is not the slight- 
 est proof that they were plunged into water 
 there, but strong presumptive evidence that this 
 
TWO OTHER INSTANCES. 105 
 
 would have been impracticable. There is no 
 intimation of the presence of a bath, suited to 
 the performance of immersion; and a jail, in 
 those days of cruelty, was far less likely to be 
 furnished with such accommodations, than the 
 dwellings of luxury and wealth. Indeed, there 
 is no probability that these persons could have 
 been immersed in the prison, at that dead hour 
 of the night; but every circumstance to indicate 
 that water w^as brought in and applied to them 
 by sprinkling. 
 
 7. Two other Instances, 
 
 There are only two other instances of oaptism 
 performed by the apostles, as mentioned in the 
 history of their acts. The first is that of the 
 baptism of a number of the Corinthians by Paul, 
 (Acts 18 : 7, 8.) The second is that of Paul's 
 baptizing certain disciples at Ephesus, who had 
 been before baptized unto John's baptism, (Acts 
 19: 1-5.) But there are no circumstances, in 
 these cases, which indicate the mode of admin- 
 istration.* We are left, therefore, to infer that 
 
 * Where were all these disciples, when they were 
 thus met, and instructed, and baptized hy Paul? 
 
 8 
 
106 MODE OF BAPTISM. ' 
 
 these baptisms were performed in the way se^ 
 strongly indicated in all the other cases, as the 
 only mode in which baptism was administered 
 
 "by the apostles. 
 
 Were they certainly near to some pond or creek ? " If 
 so, how singular it is, that converts, in these and other 
 cases, could not be found, unless, by a remarkable 
 coincidence, a large body of water was near! If all 
 the ponds and creeks which exist in the imagination, 
 of immersionists who interpret the Acts of the 
 Apostles, had really watered Judea, then, it may be 
 proved by calculation, that there was water enough to 
 have turned the whole land into a sea." — -Kurtz, p* 
 238. 
 
SECTION X, 
 
 EECAPITULATION. FIGURATIVE EXPRESSIONS CON- 
 CERNING SPIRITUAL BAPTISM. CONCLUSION OF 
 THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 We have now considered the Divine warrant 
 for baptism, the meaning of the word baptize, and 
 of the Greek particles, translated into and out of, 
 in connection with it. We have illustrated the 
 meaning of this word by the Jewish ordinances 
 and usages, which the apostles call baptisms ; 
 have showed that the very idea of cleansing- or 
 purifying by water, by blood or by Spirit, is the 
 application of the purifying agent or element to 
 the person, and not the person to the element; 
 have considered John's baptism with water, and 
 those prophecies which are supposed to intimate, 
 however obscurely, the mode of Christian bap- 
 tism; and we have taken up and considered, in 
 their order, all the instances of baptism described 
 in the New Testament, as performed by the 
 apostles. And I trust, it is now plainly seen by 
 the candid reader, that there is nothing to be 
 
108 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 found either in the meaning of the words used 
 to designate baptism, or in the circumstances 
 attending its administration, to favor the idea of 
 immersion, as the mode of baptism, practiced by 
 the apostles. On the other hand, both the words 
 and the circumstances, respecting this subject, 
 do greatly favor the mode of sprinkling ; so 
 much so indeed, as to constitute demonstrative 
 proof that this is the only mode of baptism, as a 
 religious ordinance, made known to us in the 
 Scriptures. It is the only mode prescribed. 
 
 There are other passages, in the epistles, 
 where w^ater baptism is spoken of, but nothing 
 said to indicate the mode. There is a passage, 
 however, (1 Cor. 15: 29,) which may have a 
 bearing on this subject. " Else what shall they 
 do, who are baptized /br," or over, (u-^rsp) " the 
 dead, if the dead rise not at all?" The signifi- 
 cation of this passage is somewhat obscure. 
 " Tertullian, Theophilact and Epiphanius inform 
 us that it was the custom of the Marcionites and 
 Corinthians, if a catechumen died before his bap- 
 tism, to baptize some other in his stead, as the 
 apostle here seems to intimate. And as the early 
 Christians regarded with much veneration the 
 
BURIED IN BAPTISM. 109 
 
 graves of martyrs, and occasionally held assem- 
 blies on the spot, it is supposed, that in these 
 vicarious baptisms, the rite was performed over 
 their graves. This would be the obvious mean- 
 ing of the apostle, if the word, u-Trsp, in this pas- 
 sage signifies over, as it certainly often does in 
 Greek writers. But could the baptisms 02;er the 
 graves of martyrs be performed by immersion? 
 Were their OTaves duo; at the bottoms of rivers'?" 
 ' -Schmucker^s Pop. TheoL, p. 222. 
 
 There are also expressions concerning spiritual 
 baptism, which, though they have really no bear^ 
 ing on the subject, have been strangely and 
 strenuously pressed into this controversy con- 
 cerning the mode. , 
 
 Paul says, (Rom. 6 : 3, 4,) " Know ye not that 
 so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ 
 were baptized into his death. Therefore we are 
 buried with him by baptism into death, that like 
 as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the 
 glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
 in newness of life." And in Colossians, (2: 12,) 
 similar expressions occur, " buried with him in 
 baptisim," etc. 
 
 Most Baptist writers insist on it that these 
 
110 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 passages have reference to the motJe of watei 
 baptism,* and are intended to represent it as re 
 semhling the burial and resurrection of Christ 
 But there are several considerations v^'hich show 
 that there is no allusion, in these passages, to 
 the mode of water baptism. The resurrection 
 spoken of is plainly spiritual. It is to " new 
 ness of life." Consequently being " buried" 
 with Christ must Ipe spiritual. It is simply be^ 
 ing " dead to sin," that, as the apostle himself 
 explains it, w^e might not " live any longer 
 therein;" and there is no more allusion to the 
 mode of external baptism in these expressions, 
 than there is in the figures of planting and, cru- 
 cifixion, which the apostle uses in the same con-? 
 nexion, to illustrate his meaning. And really 
 there is no resemblance between the mode of 
 baptism by immersion and the interment of the 
 dead. 
 
 Dead bodies are not plunged into the earth. 
 
 * There are some exceptions to this statement. Dr. 
 Judson, the Baptist missionaiy, and Robinson, the 
 Baptist historian, both admit that these passages are 
 misapplied when used as evidence of the mode of 
 baptism. 
 
BURIED IN BAPTISM. IH 
 
 Nor is the mode of burying the dead alike among 
 all nations. The Romans in Paul's time, used to 
 burn the body. Some nations hang it up till 
 the flesh decays, and others deposite it in a vault. 
 So Christ was not huried, but laid in a tomb, 
 hewn out of a rock, probably above ground. It 
 is impossible, therefore, that the apostle could 
 have had reference to the mode of baptism. He 
 was speaking only of spiritual baptism, by which 
 ■we become partakers of Christ's death, or the 
 benefits of it. So he says in another place, with-^ 
 out any reference to external baptism, " Ye are 
 dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." 
 Besides other objections to explaining Col. 2: 
 12, as teaching immersion, there is one on the 
 very face of the text, which is insuperable. The 
 person who is plunged in water rises by the 
 muscular strength of the man w^ho plunges him, 
 or at least by physical power. But Paul here 
 says, " Ye are risen with him, (Christ) through 
 the faith of the operation of GoL^^ And can it 
 be that this means simply a resurrection from 
 the water of baptism, which our Baptist brethren 
 w^ithout the least propriety, or scripture warranty 
 (Renominate a watery gravel" 
 
112 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The water of baptism is not a grave, nor the 
 emblem of a grave. In the Jewish ceremo- 
 nies, which the apostle calls baptisms, it was 
 always an emblem, or symbol of purification, 
 never of death or interment. So Christian bap- 
 tism is a symbol of moral purity, of being cleansed 
 from sin, and renovated by the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit. It signifies that we are both dead 
 and risen, at the same time; dead to sin, but 
 alive unto holiness. Such is the signification of 
 the figures here used by the apostle. They have 
 nothing to do with the place of dead men's bones, 
 with physical decomposition or natural corrup- 
 tion, but signify the very opposite of all these — 
 moral purity and spiritual life. " For he that is 
 dead, [by 'baptism into death,'] is freed from 
 sin." (Rom. 6:7.) 
 
 What then shall we say to these things ? For 
 in conducting this argument, we have been con- 
 cerned, not with the Greek classics, nor with 
 human imaginings and the authority of names, 
 but with things and facts, as they are presented 
 in the book of God. We have examined all the 
 important passages in the New Testament, which 
 have a bearing upon the point at issue, and in 
 
CONCLUSON. 113 
 
 none of them have we discoYered any thing to 
 favor immersion, as the scriptural mode of Chris- 
 tian baptism; not even a word, or incidental re- 
 mark, much less ^fad that so much as seems to 
 require immersion. On the contrary the teach- 
 ings of the Bible preponderate overwhelmingly 
 on the side of baptism by sprinkling, and force 
 upon us the belief that this was the mode in 
 which baptism was administered by the apos- 
 tles, in obedience to the Saviour's command. 
 
 8 
 
SECTION XI. 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE MODE OF EAPTISM BY BDIERSIOX. 
 THE BIBLE DOES NOT MAKE THE MODE ESSENTIAL. 
 YET IT IS IMPORTANT. A CONCESSION. THE 
 GRAND ERROR OF THE BAPTISTS. 
 
 How then, it may be asked, did the practice 
 of baptism by immersion come into use among 
 the early Chi^istian churches? For there is 
 evidence sufficient to show that, as early as the 
 second century, immersion was generally prac- 
 ticed, though it was not then claimed by any as 
 the exclusive mode. Sprinkling never ceased to 
 be held as valid baptism, and immersion, though 
 practiced in the early ages, was never made an 
 indispensable condition of communion by any 
 sect, until the rise of the Anabaptists in the six- 
 teenth century. Cyprian, who was constituted 
 Bishop of Carthage, in 248, speaking of some 
 who were baptized by sprinkling, quotes Ezek. 
 36:25, in justification of the practice, " I will 
 sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
 clean," and then adds, " Hence it appears that 
 
ORIGIN OF IMMERSION. 115 
 
 sprinkling is of equal validity with the salutary 
 bath." Origen and Tertullian both lived within 
 one hundred years of the apostolic age. They 
 too testify to the practice and validity of bap- 
 tism by affusion or sprinkling, and recommend it 
 ia cases, where, on account of sickness or other 
 causes, immersion w^as inconvenient or danger- 
 ous. The same may be said of Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus and Ireneus, the first of whom lived 
 within fifty years of the apostles, and the latter 
 was born about the time of the decease of the 
 venerable and beloved John.* But if the validity 
 of baptism by sprinkling was still acknowledged, 
 how came the practice of the rite in this form 
 to be so generally given up in the early centu- 
 ries, and immersion to be substituted in its place? 
 On this subject I remark that it is impossible 
 to trace all the steps of the rapid changes which 
 so soon resulted in the ruinous corruptions of the 
 Romish church. Even in the apostles' days, 
 there sprang up crude opinions and extravagant 
 practices, in the bosom of the church. The 
 Lord's Supper was so perverted by the church 
 
 * See authorities quoted by Prof: Stuart, Bib. Repos., 
 1833. 
 
116 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 in Corinth, that the apostle sharply rebukes them 
 (1 Cor. 11:) for their surfeiting and drunkenness. 
 And so prone were they to abuse the institutions 
 of the gospel, that in the first chapter of the 
 same epistle, Paul gives utterance to this strange 
 declaration: "I thank God that I baptized none 
 of you, but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should 
 say that I baptized in mine own name." 
 
 But in the second and third centuries we find 
 the state of things far more deplorable. Not 
 only had the simple scriptural mode of baptism 
 become changed, but monstrous abuses of it were 
 introduced, as exorcism, unction, the giving of 
 salt and milk to the candidate, clothing him in 
 a snow-white robe, and crowning him w^ith 
 evergreen. It was in these ages that the imagi- 
 nation became prevalent, that there was a saving 
 virtue in the very water of baptism. It was 
 therefore concluded that the more water the bet- 
 ter, and that it should be applied to the whole 
 body, that the regeneration might be complete. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren are fond of claiming this 
 history of the early practice of Christians, as 
 wholly in their favor. But if they take it as 
 authority in respect to immersion, they ought to 
 
ORIGIN OF IMMERSION. 117 
 
 take the other things that I have named along 
 with it. For while it is abundantly proved that 
 immersion was now generally practiced, it is no 
 less certain that it was the general practice 
 equally early to immerse both infants and adults, 
 males and females, in a state of entire nudity, 
 because it was feared that their garments might 
 prevent the water from reaching every part of 
 the body, and thus the regeneration would be 
 imperfect. " There is no historical fact," says 
 Robinson, a Baptist historian, " There is no 
 historical fact better authenticated than this." 
 
 It was in this way, as history would seem to 
 indicate, that baptism by immersion came into 
 use. It did not originate in the supposed fact, 
 tliat the early Christian fathers understood the 
 word baptizo to mean immerse. It has been 
 amply proved, that the simple idea which they 
 attached to the word baptism, was that of puri- 
 fication, and so they used these words, (baptize 
 and purify,) indifferently, the one for the other, 
 without any regard to the mode of purification. 
 This mode of baptism, therefore, was introduced, 
 not from any supposed scripture authority, as to 
 the mode, but from fanciful interpretations of 
 
118 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 certain passages, and from other considerations 
 connected with their ideas of what the ordinance, 
 in this form, might be adapted to signify. Three 
 causes are assigned by Pres. Beecher, which are 
 sufficient to account for the early practice of 
 immersion: 1. Oriental usages and the habits 
 of warmer regions. 2. A false interpretation 
 of Rom. 6: 3, 4; Col. 2: 12; and 3. Avery early 
 habit of ascribing peculiar virtue to external 
 forms.* 
 
 Baptism by immersion, then, sprang up in the 
 midst of other changes, which had no warrant 
 in scripture, and some of which w^ere monstrous 
 corruptions of the original institutions of Chris- 
 tianity. Such is the tendency of even converted 
 men, when they leave their hold on the Bible, 
 and yield themselves up to the impulses and vain 
 imaginings of the times in which they live, 
 rapidly to fall into error and irregularity, and to 
 become the originators of measures, and modes, 
 and usages, which ever after disturb the order 
 and mar the glory of Christ's house. For when 
 once introduced, these modes and usages are apt 
 
 * Am. Bib. Repos., 1841. 
 
NOT ESSENTIAL. 119 
 
 to be held with a tenacity proportioned to the 
 weakness of the evidence by which they are at- 
 tempted to be justified. 
 
 But I turn away from this scene of human 
 error and confusion. The Bible, and NOTHING 
 BUT THE BIBLE, is the creed of Protestants; 
 and here it is that we find our Divine warrant 
 for baptism, and that, too, as we think, in the 
 mode in which it is practiced among ourselves. 
 Yet I readily concede that we have not, in the 
 Bible, an explicit command enjoining this mode 
 of baptism, to the exclusion of other modes. 
 The obligation of baptism with water, in some 
 form, to be administered with solemnity and de- 
 cency, and in the use of the prescribed words, is 
 enjoined by a " Thus saith the Lord." But the 
 precise mode of applying the water was no doubt 
 designedly left undefined, and we are at liberty, 
 within the bounds of decency and order, to vary 
 the mode, as occasions may require; but we are 
 by no means at liberty to break the communion 
 of the church, on the ground of any difference of 
 opinion or of practice, in respect to the mere 
 external form of administering a Christian sa- 
 crament. 
 
120 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 We admit, indeed, that even immersion, though 
 supported by no scripture authority, and though 
 the grounds of its being preferred, as a mode of 
 baptism, be erroneous interpretations of scrip- 
 ture, and false reasonings, may yet be so admin- 
 istered and received, as to be an allowable mode. 
 Yet it is not the scriptural mode; and if v^e are 
 asked to regard immersion as essential to bap- 
 tism, and to administer or receive it under that 
 condition, in the fear of God we must not sub- 
 mit to it. They who make this demand, bind 
 that which Christ has left free; and we ought 
 to " give place by subjection, no,' not for an 
 hour," (Gal. 2: 5,) but to stand fast in the liberty 
 wherewith Christ has made us free. We impose 
 no such bond upon our brethren as a condition 
 of communion, even though the mode which we 
 practice is amply proved to be the mode of the 
 apostles. Yet the mode of baptism is not hap- 
 tism, and we have no right to impose it as such. 
 It is the thing, and not the form, which is com- 
 manded. 
 
 Just so it is with the sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper. We are simply commanded to take 
 bread, &c. But as to the precise mode of doing 
 
NOT ESSENTIAL. 1^1 
 
 this, we are not particularly instructed. And as 
 to apostolic usage, in this case, both we and 
 our Baptist brethren know full well, that in 
 many things we have departed from the mode in 
 which the apostles observed this sacrament. 
 They met in the night for this purpose; not on 
 the Lord's day, but on Thursday; not in a house 
 of public worship, but in an upper chamber of a 
 frivate dwelling; they used unleavened bread 
 and the pure juice of the grape, and received the 
 supper, not standing, nor sitting, nor kneeling, 
 but in a recumbent posture, half sitting and half 
 lying* 
 
 No intelligent Christian will maintain, that ? 
 stjict adherence to all these particulars is neces- 
 sary to the valid administration of the Lord's 
 Supper. There is not a branch of Christ's 
 church on earth, in which all these particulars 
 are observed. By common consent, all Chris- 
 tians, Baptists as well as others, concede that 
 these things are not essential, and that the prac- 
 tice of even the apostles does not bind us to them. 
 Surely, then, our Baptist brethren ought to aban- 
 
 * gee Miller ou Baptism. 
 
122 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 don the ground they have assumed as to baptism, 
 or else to take the same position in respect to 
 the other sacrament. 
 
 But it is in vain for any one to contend that 
 the mode of applying the water in baptism is 
 explicitly defined in scripture. Certainly we 
 have said enough to show, that if any mode can 
 claim a Divine warrant, it is that which we 
 practice. Sprinkling certainly was very defi- 
 nitely prescribed in the Old Testament, as the 
 mode, and the only mode, of performing the rite 
 which " sanctified to the purifying of the flesh." 
 And this, as we have seen, (Sec. III.) was a bap- 
 tism. It was a baptism, too, in common use in 
 the time of our Saviour and his apostles; and, 
 inwoven as it was, in their daily thoughts and 
 conversation, it must have been embraced, with 
 more or less distinctness in the meaning of our 
 Saviour's command, when he instituted the ordi-^ 
 nance of Christian baptism. Yet, as a mode, it 
 is only implied in this command, and not explU 
 citly enjoined. And there is room, perhaps, for 
 some honest differences of opinion respecting it. 
 Such differences, as a matter of fact, do exist 
 among learned and pious men, and ought to hQ 
 
A CONCESSION. 123 
 
 treated with candor and forbearance, however 
 much they are to be deplored. 
 
 The mode of baptism, therefore, is not essen- 
 tial. There may be in this, as in other things, 
 *' diversities of administration, but the same spi- 
 rit." Sprinkling, to my own mind, and I trust 
 now, to the mind of the reader, is the most 
 scriptural. It appears, indeed, to be the only 
 mode any where prescribed or made known in 
 the scriptures, and the only mode illustrated in 
 the practice of John the Baptist and the apostles. 
 It is also more appropriate to the spiritual bless- 
 ings intended to be represented by baptism, and 
 better adapted, than any other mode, to the de^ 
 signed universal spread of the Christian religion 
 in all pUmates, and among all the nations. 
 
 I may add the fact, that our Baptist brethren 
 constantly complain of the common trans- 
 lation of the Bible, for retaining the words 
 baptize and baptism, untranslated. They claim 
 that these words ought to be rendered im- 
 merse and immersion. They were actually 
 so directed to be read in one of the first 
 issues of the New Testament prepared for circu- 
 lation by the Baptist Bible Society; and this 
 
IM MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 principle is carried out in all the translations* 
 circulated by that society in heathen languages. 
 They eschew the very words, hapiize and baptism 
 in all their translations. I name this fact as a 
 concession, perfectly satisfactory, on the part of 
 our Baptist brethren, that they do not regard our 
 present translation of the Bible — retaining the 
 above words to designate the ordinance in ques- 
 tion — as justifying or even favoring immersion, 
 as its proper mode. 
 
 We, then, are the Baptists, and they the Jm- 
 mersionists. We claim the very words of the 
 original scriptures as furnishing the only accu- 
 rate designation of the sacrament under conside- 
 ration. They substitute another word, because 
 it indicates a particular mode, which the original 
 word, baptize, as it is used by Christ and his 
 apostles, confessedly does not indicate. Surely 
 we are the Baptists; and if either party, in this 
 dispute, has a right to demand, from all others, 
 conformity to its own views, it is the party which 
 plants itself on the meaning of the original lan- 
 guage of scripture, as used and understood by 
 inspired men, and by the Saviour himself. Yet 
 we claim no such conformity from our brethren, 
 
IMPORTANT. 125 
 
 as the condition of our free and open com- 
 munion. 
 
 With us, baptism is " not the putting away of 
 the filth of the flesh;" (1 Pet. 3: 21.) Nor does 
 it consist in any precise and exclusive mode of 
 applying water, as a symbol of the baptism of 
 the Spirit. But it is "the answer of a good 
 conscience towards God," by any application of 
 water in this symbolical way. 
 
 The mode of baptism, then, we repeat, is not 
 essential. It is not of the essence of Christianity, 
 which stands not, as the Jewish ritual service 
 did, " in meats and drinks and diverse baptisms," 
 not in outward forms and modes of worship, but 
 " in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost." " For in Christ Jesus neither circum- 
 cision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, 
 but faith which worketh by love." 
 
 Yet if we regard the spirit as well as the letter 
 of our Saviour's command, the very 7node of 
 baptism, though not essential, is still important. 
 We ought surely to practice that mode which 
 best accords with the spirit of the Christian dis- 
 pensation, and see to it that we impose no un- 
 necessary burdens i&pon the followers of Christ j 
 
126 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " which things have indeed a show of wisdom 
 in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of 
 the body; not in any honor to the purifying of 
 the flesh," (Coh 2: 23.) 
 
 We ought also to adopt the mode which is 
 iound in experience to be practicable, in all cli« 
 mates, and in all the circumstances of human 
 beings, to whom we are commanded to preach 
 the go&pel, every one of whom, in sickness or in 
 health, is required to believe and be baptized 
 It must be admitted that there are certain con 
 ditions in which baptism by immersion could no< 
 be practiced without the greatest danger to health 
 and to life.* And the Son of man is not come to 
 
 * If immersion were the only baptism, then God 
 would require of all believers what some believers are 
 unable to perform. Persons in delicate health, or 
 converted in sickness, and near to death, could not, o» 
 that supposition, profess Christ before men, in the only 
 appointed way; and the inhabitants of high latitudes 
 where winter is perpetual, would be excluded from 
 baptism almost of necessity, to say nothing of the dif 
 Acuities and emban'assments which often attend the 
 administration of this ordinance by immersion, even 
 in milder climates. 
 
 The following, which I take from a little work, en- 
 
IMMERSION IMPRACTICABLE. 127 
 
 destroy men's lives, but to save them." (Luke 
 9: 56.) 
 
 Finally, it is especially important that we 
 should entertain right principles on this subject, 
 
 titled "Immersion not Christian Baptism^'' first pub- 
 lished in the " JSPew England Puritan,^'' may stand in 
 the place of a thousand similar facts. 
 
 "A young man was propounded for admission to 
 one of our chm-ches. But he had been educated to 
 regard immersion as the only mode of baptism. 
 Nearly all his relatives were of that belief. The 
 question was natm-ally proposed, why he sliould leave 
 the sect in which he had received all his early im- 
 pressions, and join a psedobaptist church ? He simply 
 replied, " My Tnother believed in immersion ; therefore I 
 do not" On being questioned in respect to this strange 
 reason, he responded to the clergyman who raised the 
 question, and said, 'You knew my mother — do you 
 believe she was a Christian ?' ' I do not question her 
 piety,' was the reply ; ' I believe she is now in heaven.' 
 ' Well, sir,' said the young man, ' years before my 
 mother's death, she hoped she was a Christian. She 
 desired to profess Christ before men, to join the peo- 
 ple of God, and meet the Saviour at his table. She 
 was in feeble health. Her physician told her that 
 immersion would cost her her life. But her physician 
 was not a fi-iend to immersion, and it was thought 
 that his views might influence his judgment. A phy- 
 
128 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and not make that essential, in respect to which 
 Christ has left us free. The grand error of our 
 Baptist brethren, after all, is this: not that they 
 prefer one mode to another; nor that they have 
 adopted the most impracticable and onerous of 
 all modes, which, on that account, they call the 
 " cross of Christ,^' when, in fact, it is only a 
 cross of their own making; nor that they prac- 
 tice a mode for which there is no direct authori- 
 ty in the scriptures — but it is that they make the 
 
 MODE THE ESSENTIAL THING IN BAPTISM, without 
 
 which they recognize no one as having made a 
 credible profession of religion, or as entitled to 
 the privileges of the visible church. They ac- 
 
 sician was sent for whose views of baptism harmon- 
 ized with my mother's. His opinion was expressed 
 in these words : ' If you go into the water, you must die.^ 
 This settled the case. To profess and obey Christ 
 was impossible, as immersion alone was baptism to 
 my mother. And thus, for a long and dark period, 
 she walked alone, till God called her to his table above. 
 I do not believe that such a mode belongs to the gos- 
 pel, and I choose to unite myself to a church in which 
 the feeble, the decrepid, the infirm, the sick and the 
 dying, if their hearts are right, may find access below 
 tothefoldofChi-ist.'" 
 
IMMEKSION IMPRACTICABLE. 129 
 
 cordingly exclude from their communion the 
 great body of the faithful among men, and stand 
 aloof from the family of believers, who equally 
 with themselves, though in a different mode, 
 have been baptized " in the name of the Father, 
 AND OF the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." We 
 have not so learned Christ. 
 
 10 
 
PART II. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURE WARRANT FOR INFANT 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE MEANING OF OUR SAVIOUR's COMttlAND, (MATT. 
 28: 19,) IN RESPECT TO THE SUBJECTS OF BAP- 
 TISM PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren contend that the condi- 
 tions of baptism, as inculcated in the New Tes- 
 tament, are such that it cannot be lawfully ad- 
 ministered to any but to adult believers. On the 
 other hand, the great mass of professing Chris- 
 tians have in all ages maintained, and do now 
 hold, that believers are entitled to this ordinance 
 both for themselves- and their children.^ 
 
 *Of the 3,000,000, who'profess religion in the United 
 States, more than three-quarters consider infant bap- 
 tism as valid. In Scotland, nineteen-twentieths of the 
 people practice infant baptism, and, of all the religious 
 denominations of England and Wales, thiHeen-foiir- 
 
132 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 The doctrine of Infant Baptism, then, is the 
 subject of our present discussion. This, I think 
 is taught in our Saviour's last command, consid- 
 ered in connexion with the inspired history of 
 the church, and other circumstances, which must 
 have controlled its meaning in the minds of the 
 apostles. If it is thus taught, it has its founda- 
 tion in the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
 himself, being the chief corner-stone; and I may 
 hope, by the blessing of God, so to present the 
 grounds on which this doctrine rests, as to cor- 
 rect the views of many who have doubts on the 
 subject, and to confirm the faith of others in 
 those covenant relations, by which it is made the 
 duty of believing parents to dedicate their chil- 
 
 teenths do the same. It is also practiced almost uni- 
 versally in all the other Protestant chm*ches of Europe, 
 and by the Waldenses, the Armenians, and the Syi'ian 
 Clnistians, and the whole of the Roman and Greek 
 chm'ches. 
 
 We are right then, in saj^ng, that the great mass of 
 professmg Christians do now hold, that believers are 
 entitled to this ordinance both for themselves and 
 theh children. And they claim scripture authority 
 for this belief On what grounds, and with bow 
 much reason, we have yet to consider. 
 
BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES. 133 
 
 dren to God in baptism, and the right of minis- 
 ters to administer this ordinance to the infant 
 offspring of believers. 
 
 It will not be doubted that the last command 
 of our Saviour is applicable to all regularly con- 
 stituted ministers of the gospel in all ages. 
 Hence the promise appended to it; "Lol I am 
 with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 world." (Matt. 28:20.) 
 
 The command, then, to those who preach the 
 gospel, is to TEACH all nations. The word here 
 rendered teach, properly signifies to disciple, or 
 to proselyte. This is admitted. The ablest 
 scholars bear harmonious testimony to this sig- 
 nification of the word. The meaning of the 
 command, therefore, as it was understood by the 
 apostles, is that all those who should be con- 
 verted under their ministry, all whom they should 
 disciple or proselyte, to the faith of the gospel, 
 were to be baptized. And this meaning of the 
 word proselyte or disciple, as it was then com- 
 monly used, must have guided their perception 
 of the meaning of the command. 
 
 The matter of proselyting persons from the 
 world, to the faith of the true church, was by no 
 
134 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 means new, in the time of our Saviour. Nor 
 was it peculiar to the Christian dispensation. 
 It was a matter of frequent occurrence, and was 
 familiar to Christ and his disciples in the Jewish 
 church. Persons of other nations, by conquest 
 or otherwise, were often added to the Jewish 
 :ommiaaity, and were admitted to the privileges 
 of the Hebrew church on profession of their 
 aith. But, as the Jews considered the Gentiles 
 mclean and impure, it was natural for them, 
 svhen such persons were converted to their faith, 
 :o insist on their being CQYemomdWy purified, by 
 he application of water. Hence such proselytes 
 ivere not only subjected to the Jewish rite of 
 lircumcision, but the custom had sprung up of 
 ilso baptizing them. And this custom had be- 
 come universal in such cases. 
 
 The baptism of proselytes is not any where 
 commanded in the Old Testament. Nor is it 
 possible to determine at what time the custom 
 was introduced. But there is probable evidence 
 that, long before the coming of Christ, it was 
 common among the Jews to baptize their con- 
 verts from the Gentiles. And the rite of bap- 
 tism in these cases was coextensive with that oJ 
 
BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES. 135 
 
 circumcision. As the children of these converts 
 were required to be circumcised, so it was the 
 uniform custom to subject them to baptism also.* 
 
 „ * As oui* Baptist brethren have labored hard to 
 raise doubts as to the prevalence of the Jewish prose- 
 lyte baptism previous to the time of Christ, it may be 
 proper to refer to a few of the testimonies on which 
 it rests, as a historical fact. 
 
 Maimonides, a Jew and the great interpreter of the 
 Jewish law, says, " Israel was admitted into covenant 
 by three things, viz. : by circumcision, baptism and 
 sacrifice. Baptism was in the Avilderness before the 
 giving of the law." Again, he says, "Abundance of 
 proselytes were made in the days of David and Solo- 
 mon before private men ; and the great Sanhedrim 
 was full of care about this business ; for they would 
 not cast them out of the church, because they were 
 baptized. And again, " Whenever any heathen will 
 take the yoke of the law upon him, circumcision, hap- 
 tism and a voluntary oblation are required. * * * That 
 was a common axiom, no man is a proselyte until he 
 be circumcised and baptized. 
 
 Calniet, in his Dictionary (Art. Proselytes,) says, 
 " The Jews require three things to a complete prose- 
 lyte; &apfi5?n, circumcision and sacrifice; but for wo- 
 men only baptism and sacrifice.'^ 
 
 Dr. Wall says of proselytes to th^ Jewish religion, 
 " They were all baptized, males and females, adults 
 
136 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 The baptism of children, then, as is highly- 
 probable, was common among the Jews, when 
 the Saviour's command was given, and had been 
 for a long time. It was just as much a matter 
 of course to baptize the children of the prose- 
 lytes to Judaism as it was to baptize the pro- 
 selytes themselves. This was known to our 
 Saviour and his disciples, and to all among the 
 Jews, as the prevalent custom, a custom too 
 
 and infants. This was their constant practice^ from 
 the time of Moses to that of our Saviour, and from 
 that period to the present day." But the testimonies 
 are too numerous to be quoted or even referred to in 
 this note. See Kurtz on Baptism, and other works, 
 in which this historical fact appears to be satisfacto- 
 rily proved. 
 
 Professor Stuart thinks the probabilities against the 
 practice of proselyte baptism in the time of our 
 Saviour. He admits however that " the impression 
 has become widely extended in the Christian church, 
 tliat such was the fact," and that a majority of the 
 okler \STiters have adopted the opinion of Selden, 
 Lightfoot, Dantz, Buxtorf, Schoothgen, Wetstein and 
 others, that the baptism of proselytes was common 
 when John the Baptist made his appearance as a 
 public teacher." (Bib. Repos., Vol. 3, pp. 342, 355,) 
 
BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES. 137 
 
 !vhich is continued to the present day in all 
 
 Jewish synagogues. 
 These were the circumstances in which our 
 
 Saviour commanded his disciples to proselyte 
 and baptize all nations. Who then were to be 
 the subjects of this baptism? Was it intended 
 to be restricted to adults only? Why then did 
 not the Saviour prohibit the baptism of infants, 
 when he gave this general command? And in 
 the absence of any restriction, must not the dis- 
 ciples have understood him to mean the baptism, 
 which both he and they had been accustomed to 
 observe among the Jews, viz.: the baptism of 
 children with their parents ? They knew of no 
 other law of baptism, in the case of proselytes 
 to a new form of religion, but that which re- 
 quired its administration both to the proselyte 
 and his children. Such a thing as a believing 
 parent presenting himself for baptism, and with- 
 holding his children, had not been heard of, ex- 
 cepting, perhaps, in the case of John's baptism, 
 in which it is not known that children were 
 embraced. 
 
 John's baptism, however, was peculiar and 
 temporary. It was simply a preparatory rite, o^ 
 
138 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 short continuance. It was not administered in 
 the name of Christ, and some whom John had 
 baptized, we are told, had " not so much as heard 
 whether there be any Holy Ghost" (Acts 19: 
 2.) It is certain also that the baptism of John 
 had not become a custom. It was administered 
 only by himself. And, besides, it had nothing 
 to do with the reception of new 'proselytes or 
 disciples^ into the chuch. It was the baptism 
 of repentance, administered to the back-slidden 
 Jews indiscriminately, to prepare them for the 
 reception of the Redeemer. But our Saviour 
 was now directing his disciples concerning a 
 baptism to be administered to such as they 
 should ?iCi\i'a\\y proselyte to the true faith; and 
 the language made use of proves, with sufficient 
 clearness, that the thought in his mind must 
 have been that of the Jewish proselyte baptism, 
 which, as we have seen, was then universally 
 practiced. This baptism was, of course, familiar 
 to the minds of the disciples; and when they 
 were commanded to disciple and to baptize, how 
 could they understand the Saviour to mean any 
 thing else than this baptism? 
 
 In these circumstances, it is plain, that, in- 
 
BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES. 139 
 
 stead of needing an express command to author- 
 ize them to baptize the children of those who 
 should be converted under their ministry, the 
 disciples would have needed an express prohi- 
 bition, to prevent their so doing, had it been the 
 Saviour's design to restrict their baptism to 
 adults. But no such prohibition was given, or 
 even intimated. 
 
 I am thus led to the conclusion, that our 
 Saviour's command in the circumstances in 
 which it v^as given, inculcates the doctrine of 
 infant baptism. It must have been so under- 
 stood by those to whom it was addressed. It 
 must also have been intended by the Saviour to 
 bte so understood; and in view of the prevalent 
 usage of the time in which it was spoken, I can 
 not understand it otherwise. 
 
 But there are other considerations, yet to be 
 stated, which show conclusively, that our Saviour 
 and his apostles designed to teach the doctrine of 
 Infant Baptism, and that baptism, as a standing 
 ordinance, a sacrament of the Christian church, 
 should be administered to the children of be- 
 lievers, as well as to believers themselves. 
 
SECTION II. 
 
 IN ALL THE COVENANTS OF GOD WITH MEN, CHILDREN 
 ARE INCLUDED WITH THEIR PARENTS. 
 
 Every believer, by making a public profession 
 of religion, enters formally into covenant with 
 God. By his conversion he has become a child 
 of God, a willing subject of his government, and 
 now by a public profession, he recognizes this 
 relation of submission, dependence, love and 
 obedience, and pledges himself to its duties and 
 obligations. He is thus formally in covenant 
 with God. 
 
 Now, as to the meaning and purport of such 
 a covenant, I have to remark, (and I wish this 
 point to be well considered,) that in all the forms 
 in which God ever invited or required men to 
 enter into a covenant of obedience to himself, 
 previous to the time of Christ and the Christian 
 dispensation, children were included with their 
 parents. It was so in God's covenant with 
 Adam; and thus, "By one man sin entered into 
 the world, and death by sin; and so death passed 
 
COVENANT RELATIONS. 141 
 
 •pon all men, for that all have sinned." (Rom, 
 ): 12.) Whatever mystery may be involved in 
 his transaction, nothing can be plainer than the 
 "act, that, as children of Adam, we and all man- 
 kind are even now experiencing-the consequences 
 )f this covenant obligation of our common par.ent 
 ;o God, whose law he disobeyed. And what- 
 ever disputes may have arisen, as to the grounds 
 and reasons of our sufferings in consequence of 
 A.dam's sin, the fact is one of experience, as 
 well as of revelation. It is admitted by all, and 
 all are involved in it, infants as well as adults. 
 
 The children of Noah were also embraced in 
 the covenant, which God made w^ith him. 
 " Moved with fear, he prepared an ark to the 
 saving of his house:' (Heb. 11: 7.) "With 
 thee," said God, " wall I establish my covenant: 
 and thou shalt come into the ark, thou and thy 
 sons, and thy wife, and thy son's wives with 
 thee." (Gen. 6: 18.) And God dealt favorably 
 with the children of Lot, for their father's sake. 
 (Gen. 19.) 
 
 In the case of Abraham, this covenant rela- 
 tion of children with their parents is still more 
 explicitly declared. " And I will establish my 
 
 11 
 
142 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 covenant between me and thee, and thy seed 
 after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting 
 covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to thy 
 seed after thee." (Gen. 17:7.) So the sign 
 and seal of the covenant was required to be ad- 
 ministered to his children, as well as to himself. 
 And the children of every Jewish parent were to 
 be circumcised, as the condition of his own in- 
 terest in the covenant. (Gen. 17: 12, 13.) 
 
 But if God, in all his covenant dealings wuth 
 men, for four thousand yeai^ before the coming 
 of Christ, had invariably included children with 
 their parents — if, in maintaining this principle^ 
 he had even suffered the whole human race to 
 be involved in ruin, in consequence of Adam's 
 »in — then, is it not reasonable to conclude that 
 there is something in the very nature of the re- 
 lation of parents and children, which renders 
 such covenant engagements, as God required in 
 those early ages, proper and even necessary ? Is 
 not the child so dependent on the parent for the 
 influences which guide and mould his character, 
 that they cannot be separated in their moral re- 
 sponsibilities? Must not the parent be, in a 
 great measuie, responsible for the character of 
 
COVENANT RELITIONS. 143 
 
 the child, especially during the periods of infancy 
 and childhood? Was it likely then, nay, was 
 it possible, that God, in the new form of his 
 covenant with believers, under the Christian dis- 
 pensation, should have sundered the connexion 
 between parents and their children? This, I 
 think, is not for a moment to be admitted. But 
 there are other conclusive proofs, that Christ, in 
 the new dispensation of his grace, did not intend 
 to interrupt or destroy this long acknowledged 
 relation. 
 
SECTION III. 
 
 THE CHURCH THE SAME UNDER THE JEWISH ANI 
 CHRISTIAN DISPENSATIONS. 
 
 The covenant which God made with Abra- 
 ham, including children with their parents, was, 
 as we have seen, " an everlasting covenant.^' It 
 has never been abolished, and never can be. It 
 is declared in passages already referred to, and 
 in other places in the Old Testament, to have 
 been with Abraham and his seed, " for an ever- 
 lasting covenant," and is spoken of in the New 
 Testament as to exist " for ever." (Luke 1 : 55.) 
 Paul declares that " the law, which was four 
 hundred and thirty years after, can not disannul 
 [it] that it should make the promise of none 
 effect," and that, as a " covenant of promise," it 
 was "confirmed of God in Christ." (Gal. 3: 
 17.) And believers under the gospel are spoken 
 of as children of this covenant with Abraham. 
 They are also denominated " children of Abra- 
 ham," and " Abraham's seed, and heirs accord- 
 ing to the promise^ (Gal. 3: 7, 29,) and Abra 
 
THE CHURCH PERPETUAL. 145 
 
 ham is called " the father of us all." (Rom. 4: 
 16.) 
 
 Now it is apparent from such declarations as 
 these, that the covenant made with Abraham is 
 God's covenant with the church in all ages. It 
 was not abolished by the coming of Christ, but 
 was confirmed in him, and remains essentially 
 the same under the Jewish and Christian dispen- 
 sations. But if the covenant of the church is 
 the same, then it is essentially the same church 
 under both dispensations. The church is consti- 
 tuted by its covenant with God, and if its cove- 
 nant remains unchanged, the church is the same. 
 Hence the church, under both dispensations, is 
 represented as the same in numerous passages ot 
 scripture. 
 
 The ancient predictions of the conversion oi 
 the Gentiles, and of the prosperity and glory of 
 the church under the gospel, do not indicate that 
 a new church was then to be established in the 
 earth. Such an idea does not seem to have en- 
 tered the minds of the prophets. On the contra- 
 ry, they uniformly represent that the Zion of the 
 Old Testament, the church at that time existing 
 in Israel, was to be enlarged and beautified wjtb 
 XO 
 
146 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 new light and glory by the coming of the Re^ 
 deemer. Their language and their imagery all 
 indicate this. It was to the church of his owa 
 times, that Isaiah gave the following encourage-s 
 ment: "Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and, 
 the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.'' " And 
 the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings 
 to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine 
 eyes round about and see; all they gather them^ 
 selves together, they come to thee : thy sons shall 
 come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed 
 at thy side." (Isaiah 60: 1, 3, 4, &c. See also 
 Isaiah 49: 19-21.) And so of the prophecies 
 of the Old Testament generally. They evidently 
 contemplate, not a new church under the gospel, 
 but new glory and blessings to the church or the 
 house of Israel. 
 
 The same idea is fully carried out in the New 
 Testament. Christ and his apostles do not claim 
 for the church under the gospel, an origin and 
 constitution distinct from that of the former dis- 
 pensation. On the contrary, they claim for it 
 an identity with the church of the patriarchs and 
 prophets. Christ declares that " Many shall 
 come from the east and west, and shall sit dow^n 
 
THE CHUKCH PERPETUAL. 147 
 
 with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the 
 kingdom of heaven." And this he explains to 
 be the same kingdom, from which " the children 
 of the kingdom," the Jews, for their unfaithful- 
 ness, should "be cast out." (Mat, 8: 11, 12.) 
 And again he says, that " the kingdom of God 
 shall be taken from [them] and given to a na-» 
 tion bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Mat, 
 21: 43.) Still it is the same church, though 
 enlarged and beautified. It is taken from the 
 Jews, who had long abused its privileges, and is 
 given to the Gentiles. 
 
 In perfect accordance with these statements 
 and predictions, Paul represents the Gentile be- 
 lievers as grafFed into the same olive-tree, froni 
 which the Jews, for their unbelief were broken 
 off, and to which he says, " they also," that is 
 the Jews, " if they abide not still in unbelief, 
 shall be grafFed in : for God is able to graff theca 
 in again." What is this olwe4ree, if it be not 
 the true church in covenant with God, whether 
 composed of Jews or Gentiles? Therefore, 
 " Boast not against the branches. But if thou 
 boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root 
 thee," (Rom. 11: 17, 18,23.) 
 
148 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Now, in view of these representations, nothing 
 can be more certain, than that the visible church 
 of God, under both dispensations, is substantially 
 the same body. The religion of the Old Testa-* 
 ment, then, is not distinct from that of the New, 
 as if it were another system. The one is but the 
 filling up of the imperfect outline which was 
 drawn in the other, and the true church, in all 
 ages, is essentially the same. It has held essen-» 
 tially the same doctrines, enjoyed the same spir-* 
 itual promises, though with different degrees of 
 light, has been constituted upon the same covC'* 
 Hant, and professed the same religion. 
 
SECTION IV. 
 
 BAPTISM THE SUBSTITUTE FOR CIRCmiCISION. 
 
 I am now prepared to show that — the cove- 
 nant and the church remaining the same — the 
 sis;n and seal of the covenant, though changed 
 in its form, retains all its original significancy 
 and propriety, in its application both to believers 
 and their children. Under the ancient dispen- 
 sation of the covenant, there was an instituted 
 external observance, or rite, prerequisite to a 
 regular standing in the visible church. That 
 instituted rite was circumcision, which was ad- 
 ministered to both believers and their children. 
 Under the new dispensation of the same covenant, 
 with the same church, circumcision has beer 
 discontinued and abolished. But there is another 
 observance, instituted by our Saviour, more sim- 
 ple and convenient and better suited, than the 
 bloody rite of circumcision, to the free spirit and 
 more " easy yoke" of the gospel. Yet it holds 
 the same relation to the covenant. It is, as cir 
 cumcision was, prerequisite to a regular stand- 
 
150 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 ing in the visible church. This new observance 
 or rite, is baptism, which, as a matter of fa<;t, 
 and by our Saviour's command, occupies the 
 same place, in respect to faith and profession, 
 that circumcision occupied under the law. The 
 one, therefore, in these respects, is a substitute 
 for the other; and if that which is done awaj 
 was applied to the children of believers, why 
 should not that which has taken its place be so 
 applied? 
 
 The covenant is the same now as then, and 
 the natural relation of children to their pa- 
 rents, under the covenant, the same. No change 
 has been produced in these respects by the gos- 
 pel. Parents have the same authority now as 
 formerly, the same power of influence, and the 
 same obligation rests on them, and is rather en- 
 forced than enfeebled, to bring up their children 
 " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." 
 (Eph. 6: 4.) And children sustain the same re- 
 lation of dependence now as formerly, and are ab 
 susceptible of moulding influences from their 
 parents. Why then should not the rite, prere- 
 quisite to a regular standing in the church, be 
 administered to the children of belie^^ers now, as 
 
CmCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 151 
 
 well as under the former dispensation? Surely 
 the fact that its form has been changed and 
 mitigated, can not justify us in withholding it, so 
 long as its significancy and propriety remain the 
 same. No one pretends that it has been forbid- 
 den; and in the absence of all prohibition, I can 
 imagine no reason why it should be discontinued 
 in respect to children, while it is administered to 
 adults. 
 
 Circumcision was both a sign and a seal of 
 the faith of those under the old dispensation, 
 who entered into covenant with God. Abraham, 
 says Paul, (Rom. 4: 11,) " received the sign of 
 circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the 
 faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, that 
 he might be the father of all them that believe, 
 though they be not circumcised." Here circum- 
 cision was a sign. It represented the circum- 
 cision of the heart, or regeneration. For " cir- 
 cumcision," says Paul, again, (Rom. 2: 29,) 
 " is of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 
 lettc. whose praise is not of men, but of God." 
 It was also a seal. It confirmed " the righteous- 
 ness of the faith which he had," or his accept- 
 ance of the conditions of the covenant of grace, 
 
152 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 IS a sealed instrument confirms the engagements 
 )f a contract. 
 
 So baptism is both a sign and a seal. As a 
 ign, it represents the washing of regeneration, 
 )r the baptism of the Holy Ghost. As a seal, it 
 s, on the part of those who receive it, a confirm- 
 tion of their covenant engagements to God, 
 vhile it assures them, that, if their hearts and 
 ives are conformed to its sacred import, their 
 aith, like that of Abraham, is imputed to them 
 for righteousness. 
 
 There are numerous other passages, which 
 show that baptism, under the gospel, takes the 
 place of circumcision under the law, and that its 
 significancy is the same. " Beware of the con- 
 cision," says Paul, (Phil. 3 : 2, 3,) that is, beware 
 of those persons who lay great stress on the right 
 Df circumcision, " for we," that is, we who have 
 been baptized, " are the circumcision, which 
 vvorship God in the Spirit." Again, he says to 
 :he Colossians, (Col. 2: 11, 12,) "Ye are cir- 
 cumcised with the circumcision made without 
 hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the 
 flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with 
 him in baptism." The meaning is, in other 
 
CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 153 
 
 words, that having been baptized, spiritually, 
 " ye are^^ thereby " circumcised'^ spiritually, that 
 is, with the " circumcision made without hands," 
 &c. 
 
 I have already remarked, (Part I., Sec. X.,) 
 that both the circumcision and baptism here 
 spoken of, are plainly spiritual, and that, there- 
 fore, the expression " buried with him in bap- 
 tism," can have no reference whatever to the 
 mode of baptism. But if circumcision and bap- 
 tism, in their spiritual import, are the same — as 
 they are here seen to be — and the one was in- 
 stituted in the church as a sealing ordinance, on 
 the removal of the other, what is this but the 
 substitution of the one for the other? But it is, 
 objected, that in numerous instances, from the 
 beginning of John's ministry to the death of 
 Christ, the same persons w^ere both circumcised 
 and baptized, and that Paul circumcised Timo- 
 thy, after he had been baptized. (Acts 16: 3.) 
 It is asked, how can one of these ordinances be 
 considered as substituted for the other, when 
 both were 'practised at the same time? 
 
 I answer, that the covenant of grace was not 
 perfected in Christ, until his own blood, " the 
 
 12 
 
154 INFAJrt BAPTISM. 
 
 blood of the everlasting covenant/' was slied 
 It was perfected in his ovv^n death; and so after 
 his resurrection, he opened its full import to the 
 apostles, and then, for the first tiroe, commission- 
 ed them to go and publish it to all nations. 
 Baptism, therefore, could not have been made 
 the sign and seal of the perfected covenant until 
 now. Accordingly we find that it was just at 
 this time, and not before^ that our Lord formally 
 instituted the sacrament of baptism. 
 
 Before this, during the ministry of John and 
 of Christ, the church was in a state of transition 
 from the former to the new dispensation. It is 
 not surprising, therefore, that there was some 
 "mingling of ordinances, and some approach in 
 the form and import af the rites of the old dis- 
 pensation to those of the new. But they were 
 not yet the permanent institutions of the gospel. 
 So the baptism of John was only preparatory to 
 the rite of Christian baptism. It was adminis- 
 tered on profession of repentance and faith in 
 the speedy appearance of him, who was to bap- 
 tize " with the Holy Ghost and with fire." And 
 the baptisms performed by the disciples of Christy 
 while he was yet with them^ were administered 
 
CmCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 155 
 
 to those Jews that believed on him, as the Mes- 
 siah, all of whom, like the apostles themselves, 
 waited for a fuller manifestation of his character 
 and offices. Both John's baptism and that of 
 the disciples, previous to the resurrection, looked 
 for something yet to come, and were not that 
 baptism, " in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost," which was insti- 
 tuted by our Saviour, after his resurrection, as a 
 standing sacrament in the Christian church. 
 This, I think, sufficiently accounts for the con- 
 tinuance of circumcision among the converted 
 Jews, who were baptized during the Saviour's 
 personal ministry. 
 
 As to the circumcision of Timothy by Paul, 
 it was evidently done to avoid the opposition 
 and reproaches of the Jews. It was a mere 
 measure of expediency to open the way for 
 greater usefulness, in accordance with Paul's 
 uniform and avowed principle of conduct. 
 (1 Cor. 9: 20.) " And unto the Jew^s, I became 
 as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews." But in 
 such cases, circumcision was not administered as 
 a sealing ordinance, but only as a mark of na- 
 tional distinction. Nor did it interfere with the 
 
156 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 established institutions of the gospel. Otherwise 
 Paul would have resisted it, as he did on another 
 occasion, when certain Judaizing teachers un- 
 dertook to impose circumcision on the Gentile 
 converts, " To whom," he says, " we gave place 
 by subjection, no not for an hour." (Gal. 2: 1- 
 5. See Acts 15: 1, 28, 29; and 21:23-26.) 
 
 It thus appears that when the ancient S2^?i and 
 seal of the covenant which God made with his 
 people, for an everlasting covenant, was abo- 
 lished, another ordinance was instituted in the 
 same church, under the same covenant, of 'pre- 
 cisely the same import, and for the same purpose, 
 viz., as a sign and seal of the righteousness of 
 faith. And we ask in vain for a reason why the 
 latter should not be applied to the children of be- 
 lievers, as the former certainly was. I say, we 
 ask in vain, for it is in vain to say, as is often 
 said, that, since infants have not faith,-it can not 
 be proper to apply to them the sign and seal 
 of faith. 
 
 This objection lies with equal weight against 
 infant circumcision. But we know that circum- 
 cision was administered to infants eight days 
 old, by the command of God. If the one is im- 
 
CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 157 
 
 proper, on this account, the other was, and God 
 is in fault for having required it. Moreover, if 
 faith is a prerequisite to baptism, it is also a pre- 
 requisite to salvation. " He that believeth and 
 is baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth 
 not shall be damned." (Mark 16: 16.) If then 
 you deny baptism to infants, on the ground that 
 they are incapable of exercising faith, you 
 ought also, for the same reason, to deny the pos- 
 sibility of their salvation, for faith and salvation 
 are as indissolubly linked together in the scrip- 
 tures, as are faith and baptism. If you admit 
 that children are saved, when they die in infancy, 
 without the exercise of an intelligent faith, then 
 surely their lack of faith can not consistently be 
 urged to debar them from the privilege of bap- 
 tism. And if you say, they have faith, which is 
 known to God, though not manifested to us, and 
 that this is the ground of their salvation, then 
 they have the very thing that you claim as pre- 
 requisite to their baptism, and your objection de- 
 stroys itself. 
 
 Again, it is sometimes asked. What good can 
 baptism do to an unconscious infant? So it was 
 asked, in respect to the Jews, " What profit is 
 
158 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 there of circumcision?" Paul answered, " Much 
 every way^'' and then added, " For what if some" 
 ^— who had been circumcised — " did not believe? 
 Shall their unbelief make the faith of God with-^ 
 out effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, 
 but every man a liar." (Rom. 3: 1-3.) And 
 again he says, " Circumcision verily profiteth, if 
 thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of 
 the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumci- 
 sion." (Rom. 2: 25.) 
 
 So the advantages of infant baptism are many 
 and great. It is a sign of interesting truths, an(5 
 a seal of inestimable blessings. Christ will 
 honor his own institution; and when he suffers 
 little children thus to be brought unto him, it is, 
 that he may bless them. Their right of mem- 
 bership in the visible church is thus recognized 
 and ratified, and they are introduced to the spe- 
 cial care and instruction of the church. And 
 though we can not define all the blessings which 
 the Saviour bestows, in answer to the prayers of 
 his people, upon children, thus in covenant with 
 himself, who can estimate their value? All ob- 
 jections of this sort are equally futile. They 
 
CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 159 
 
 savor of being wise above what is written, and 
 lead to endless difficulties and absurdities. 
 
 I may add, that it is perilous thus to reject an 
 ordinance of God, and throw off its authority 
 from ourselves, merely because, from the mode 
 of our education, or our habits of thinking on 
 these subjects, we do not at once see the grounds 
 of its propriety. It is enough, if God has re-» 
 quired it, though the reasons may not all be 
 apparent to us. And surely, so far as the prin- 
 ciple of this ordinance is concerned, if God has 
 honored it in any case, as he certainly did in the 
 case of infant circumcision, w^e should beware 
 that we do not treat it lightly, nor reject it with- 
 out a Divine warrant to do so. But no such 
 warrant is to be found. On the contrary, the 
 New Testament is full of proof that the sign and 
 seal of Abraham's faith, though changed in its 
 form, still retains its significancy, and is to be 
 administered to us and to our children, so long 
 as we " walk in the steps of the faith of our fa- 
 ther Abraham, which he had being yet uncir-? 
 cumcised." (Rom. 4: 12.) 
 
 Yet there is a large class of professing Chris- 
 tians, in modern tinieSj who reject the doctrine 
 
160 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 of infant baptism, and whose conscientious scrui 
 pies we are bound to respect. They ask for 
 what can not be given, a text of scripture ex- 
 pressly enjoining the baptism of children. Our 
 reply is, that this demand is unreasonable. The 
 doctrine in question is so well sustained by such 
 considerations as I have now stated, that an ex- 
 press command is unnecessary. 
 
 Moreover, if no obligation can be imposed, 
 without an express command, why do those 
 who raise this objection attend public worship, 
 from sabbath to sabbath, as a thing of religious 
 obligation? Why do they observe the first 
 instead of the seventh day of the week as the 
 sabbath? Why do they administer the Lord's 
 supper to females? Why do they pray with 
 their children and families, or teach them to 
 read? There is not in all the scriptures a 
 text expressly enjoining these duties. Yet 
 who doubts that they are duties? Who that 
 embraces the Bible, as the rule of his faith, does 
 not joyfully yield himself to the practice of these 
 duties, as matters of Divine requirement, and of 
 religious obligation? So the dedication of our 
 children to God in baptism may be a duty, 
 
CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 161 
 
 though no single text can be found, which, in 
 so many words, commands it. That it is a 
 duty, there are still other proofs yet to be con- 
 sidered. 
 
 11 
 
SECTION V. 
 
 THE EXAMPLE AND PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES IN 
 RESPECT TO INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 In addition to the strong proof of the identity 
 of the church under both dispensations, the per- 
 petuity of the covenant, and the fact that bap- 
 tism takes the place of circumcision, we have 
 still further corroborative evidence in favor of 
 our belief, from apostolic example and practice. 
 
 Christ and his apostles taught and practiced 
 much as we might expect, on the supposition 
 that they intended to authorize the baptism of 
 children, as well as adult believers, and just as 
 we should not expect, on the contrary supposi- 
 tion. They were themselves of the Jewish 
 church, by birth and education. They knew 
 that, in that church, children were connected 
 with their parents in their covenant relations to 
 God; that they early received the sign of the 
 everlasting covenant; and that, in the case of 
 proselytes, the children were baptized with their 
 parents. And most of those to whom they min- 
 
APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE. 163 
 
 istered in the beginning of the gospel, were 
 also familiar with these Jewish usages. 
 
 What, then, might have been expected of 
 Christ and his apostles, on the supposition that 
 they intended to put an end to this practice of 
 infant baptism? • Not silence, in respect to it^ 
 surely I On the contrary, they would have lost 
 no opportunity of insisting, that the ancient 
 covenant relation of children and parents was 
 now abolished, and ought no longer to be re- 
 cognized in the rites and sacraments of the 
 church. But they neither said nor intimated 
 any such thing in a single instance. 
 
 But what would be expected of Christ and 
 his apostles, on the supposition that they intend- 
 ed to recognize the established covenant rela- 
 tion of parents and children, in the church, as 
 perpetual? What would they be likely to say 
 about the seal of the covenant? Surely it would 
 not be necessary to enjoin it in the case of the 
 children of proselytes; for this would be to en* 
 join expressly what was universally practiced in 
 such cases. But they would be likely often to 
 allude to the covenant relation of parents and 
 children to God, as a thing known and recog 
 
164 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 nized, and to speak of its duties and drop ex- 
 pressions which implied them. They would be 
 likely also often to baptize households, when 
 those at the head of them made profession of 
 their faith, and occasionally to speak of these 
 occurrences in a cursory manner, indicating no 
 doubt that the nature and form of these transac- 
 tions would be generally understood on their 
 bare announcement of them, without explana- 
 tion. And this we find is just the course which 
 they did pursue. 
 
 The Saviour applauded the practice of bring- 
 ing infants to receive his blessing, and said, 
 *' Forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of 
 God." (Mark 10: 14.) Again, he speaks of 
 little children as being received in his name, or 
 as belonging to him. (Mark 9: 37, 42.) Peter 
 taught believing parents that the promise was to 
 them and their children. (Acts 2: 39.) Paul 
 affirms that " the blessing of Abraham has come 
 on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ," (Gal. 3: 
 14.) On another occasion he denominates the 
 children of believing parents "holy;" that is, 
 consecrated. (1 Cor. 7: 14.) The whole ex- 
 pression of the apostle is as follows, (1 Cor. 7: 
 
APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE. 166 
 
 14) : " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified 
 by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sancti- 
 fied by the husband; else were your children un- 
 clean; but now are they holy;'''' that is, holy in 
 an ecclesiastical sense; in other words, they are 
 entitled to baptism, as the children of believers, 
 dedicated or consecrated to God. 
 
 This passage indicates two things; first, that 
 no children but those of believers are entitled to 
 baptism. This was the case in respect to cir- 
 cumcision under the law. It was administered 
 only to the children or wards of those w^ho pro- 
 fessed the true religion. All others were ex- 
 cluded as unclean. So Christian baptism is to be 
 administered to none but the children of profes- 
 sors of the true faith. But we are here taught, 
 secondly, that, if either of the parents is a be- 
 liever and a professor of religion, their children 
 are entitled to baptism, on account of the faith 
 and profession of the believing parent, though 
 the other remain yet an unbeliever. " Now," 
 says the apostle, their children " are holy." In 
 accordance with this, Peter declares (Acts 2 : 39,) 
 that the promise is to " as many" [and their 
 children,] " as the Lord our God shall call." 
 
 13 
 
166 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Now obedience to this call of God implies a pro- 
 fession of faith; hence baptism belongs only to 
 those wha profess the religion of the gospel, and 
 their children, or such as are under their care 
 and influence by guardianship or adoption. 
 
 Paul also repeatedly baptized households, or 
 families, on the profession of tbe faith of theix 
 parents, or of those who had charge of them. 
 Lydia gave heed to the gospel, and she and her 
 household* were baptized. (Acts 16: 15.) The 
 jailer believed, and he and all his were baptized 
 straightway. (Acts 16: .33.) Paul also baptized 
 the hou-sehold of Stephanus. (1 Cor. 1: 16.) 
 
 Another consideration, which has an impor- 
 tant bearing on the force of this argument is, 
 that a great number oi Jewish parents were con- 
 verted under the ministry of Christ and his 
 
 * The editor of Calmet's Dictionary gives no less 
 than ffty examples in proof of the fact, that ojxoj, 
 (oikos,) here rendered household, when used in appli- 
 cation to persons, denotes a family of children in- 
 cluding children of all ages, and assures us, that as 
 many as three hundred instances have been examined, 
 and have proved perfectly satisfactory. See Cal. p, 
 155, and Kurtz, p. 94. 
 
APOSTX)LIC EXAMPLE. ,167 
 
 apostles. These were all " zealous of the law;" 
 and yet we never hear of their complaining that 
 their children were deprived of their interest in 
 the covenant, by the institutions and usages of 
 the gospel, or that they failed to receive the seal 
 of that covenant. Could this have been the 
 case, if baptism had not been administered in 
 the place of circumcision, to the children of those 
 converts? Yet not a word of complaint is heard 
 from them on any such account. It is morally 
 certain, therefore, that in respect to covenant re- 
 lations and privileges, according to a well-known 
 prophecy of Jeremiah, " their children were as 
 aforetime." (Jer. 30: 20.) 
 
SECTION VI. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF EARLY CHRISTIANS AND OF HISTORY. 
 ORIGIN OF THE BAPTIST DENOMINATION. CON- 
 CLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 The earliest of the Christian fathers, also, after 
 
 the apostolic age, considered baptism as standing 
 
 in the place of circumcision. Several of them 
 
 have spoken expressly on the subject, making it 
 
 certain that infant baptism was practiced in their 
 
 times, and was claimed to be of apostolic origin 
 and authority. 
 
 The old Syriac version of the New Testament, 
 the date of which is assigned, by Walton and 
 others, to the first century of the Christian era, 
 substitutes the word children for oixog, " house- 
 hold" and "all his," in the passages already 
 referred to; and so, in that very early version, 
 the reading is, "Lydia and her children,'' the 
 jailer " and his children,'' &c. This is at once 
 a correct translation of the original, and a valu- 
 able testimony, as to the understanding of these 
 passages in the very region where the apostles 
 
EARLY HISTORY. 169 
 
 labored; and being given while some of them 
 were yet alive, it ought to be conclusive on this 
 subject. 
 
 So also Ireneus, who was born about the close 
 of the first century, says, '^ Infants and little ones, 
 and children, and youth, and the aged, are regen- 
 erated to God^'^renascuntur in Deum. It is 
 plain that this expression refers to baptism, for 
 he afterwards quotes Matt. 28: 19, and says, in 
 relation to it, ^* Our Lord gave to his disciples 
 this commission of regenerating/^ that is, of 
 baptizing. 
 
 Justin Martyr J also, who lived in the first half 
 century after the death of the apostle John, says 
 that " Infants are washed with water in the name 
 of the Father and Son and Spirit." And Origen, 
 who lived within a hundred years of the apos- 
 tolic age, a man of great learning and exten- 
 sive acquaintance with the churches of his time, 
 says, " Little children are baptized agreeably to 
 the usage of the church; who received it from 
 the apostles, that this ordinance should be ad-f 
 ministered to infants." The testimony of others 
 is equally explicit. 
 
 But if this is so, ^nd it was understood in the 
 
170 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 times nearest the apostles, that baptism stood in 
 the place of circumcision, and was to be admin^ 
 istered to infants, by apostolic authority, then the 
 question about baptizing the children of believ-^ 
 ers ought to be at an end. 
 
 There is, indeed, no evidence that the right of 
 the children of believers to receive baptism was. 
 ever denied in the earlier ages of the church. 
 Tertullian, it is true, adopted the strange notion 
 that baptism w^as accompanied with the remis^ 
 sion of all past sins; and that sins committed 
 after baptism w^ere peculiarly dangerous. He 
 therefore advised that the baptism of infants who 
 were likely to live, should be delayed, that it 
 might be administered at a later period of life, 
 and thus cancel a greater multitude of sins. 
 Yet he recognizes the existence and prevalence 
 of infant baptism in his time, (the third century,) 
 and recommends it in all cases where the infant 
 is not likely to survive. 
 
 Others of the Christian fathers often allude to 
 this subject and give abundant testimony to the 
 universality of the practice, and the prevalent 
 belief that it was handed down from the apos- 
 tles. Augustine ancj Pelagius, in the fourth 
 
EARLY HISTORY. 171 
 
 century, both learned men, in their long and 
 violent disputes about original sin, affirm and 
 defend their belief of the doctrine of infant bap^ 
 tism. Pelagius says, " Men slander me, as if I 
 denied the sacrament of baptism to infants." 
 And again, "/wetter heard of any^ not even the 
 most impious heretic, who denied baptism to iii- 
 fants.^'* And Augustine repeatedly recognizes 
 the same, and urges it upon his opponent, as a 
 reason why he should also admit original sin, 
 and the necessity of the regeneration of infants, 
 -which it is the design of baptism to signify and 
 represent. 
 
 Our best historians, as Milner and Wall, who 
 have investigated this subject thoroughly, assure 
 us that they can find no account of any body of 
 professing Christians, who denied baptism to in- 
 fants, until about the beginning of the Protestant 
 Reformation in the thirteenth century. Then 
 there arose a small sect among the Waldenses, 
 who maintained that infants ought not to be bap- 
 tized, because they considered them incapable 
 of salvation. The great mass of the Waldenses 
 still held the doctrine of infant baptism anc^ 
 
 * Wall's Hist, of Iiifaut Bap,, Vol. 1, 
 
172 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 practiced it. But this small sect, the followers 
 oi Peter de Bruis, broke off from the main, body 
 of that renowned church, and held that, as in- 
 fants were incapable of salvation, the applying 
 to them of the sacramental seal is an absurdity. 
 Surely our Baptist brethren, knowing their creed, 
 will not wish these people to be considered their 
 predecessors. 
 
 Where then shall we look, in history, for the 
 modern Baptist doctrines on this subject? It is 
 incontestibly proved that baptism was adminis- 
 tered to the children of believers during the 
 apostolic age, and that it continued to be ad- 
 ministered, in all subsequent ages, by the great 
 body of the church, for more th?in fifteen hundred 
 years. For the Petrohrusians* were a very 
 small sect, and, as we have seen, they did not 
 reject infant baptism on the grounds now urged 
 
 * These Petrohrusians, says Dr. Miller, " were a very 
 small fraction of the great Waldensian body, probably 
 not more than a thii'tieth or fortieth part of the v^^hole. 
 The great mass of the denomination, as such, declare, 
 in their Confession of Faith, and in various public 
 documents, that they held, and that their fathers be^r 
 fore them, for many generations, always held, to iu» 
 fant baptism."— JJfi/Zer on Baptism, 
 
ANABAPTIST. 173 
 
 by our Baptist brethren ; and the very first body 
 ofpeople, in the whole Christian world, who did 
 reject it on these grounds were a fanatical sect, 
 called Jlnabaptists* who arose in Germany in 
 I522.t Here, properly speaking, commenced 
 the Baptist denomination. Here the communion 
 of the church was first sundered on the ground 
 of baptism. The Anabaptists produced the sepa- 
 ration, which has since been maintained and 
 extended, as if it w^ere a doctrine of godliness. 
 They have since been called Antipedohaptists, in 
 distinction from all other denominations of Chris- 
 tians, who are called Pedobaptists, because they 
 baptize children. 
 
 All the boasting, therefore, of our Baptist 
 brethren, about tracing the origin of their deno- 
 mination to John the Baptist, and to the day of 
 
 * The word Anabaptist is derived from ava, {anew) 
 and [3a<n'Ti(fTr]g, [Baptist,] and was applied to the sect 
 referred to, because they held, as the close-communion 
 Baptists now hold, that persons baptized in infancy 
 jught to be baptized anew, on their becoming believers. 
 
 f It does not appear that there was any congrega- 
 tion of Anabaptists in England, until about 1640. See 
 Toman's Elements, and Kurtz on Baptism. 
 
174 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Pentecost, is mere declamation. Neither scrip- 
 ture nor history furnishes the slightest evidence in 
 support of such a claim. The fact is susceptible 
 of the clearest proof, that they are a modern sect. 
 This, however, would be no objection, and no 
 ground of reproach, if their positions were true, 
 and supported by the word of God. " To the 
 law" and to the testimony: if they speak not ac- 
 cording to this word, it is because there is no 
 light in them." (Isa. 8: 20.) 
 
 I would not urge, therefore, with too much 
 confidence, the authority of history and of uni- 
 versal practice in the church, since the age of 
 the apostles. I admit that, in all the ages since 
 the Saviour's owm time, there have been errors 
 mingled with truth, in the church, almost every 
 where. And in respect to matters of mere hu- 
 man authority and usage, the Baptists have as 
 good a right to their opinions, as we have to 
 ours. But I think, the evidence of both scrip- 
 ture Emd history, which we have now considered, 
 of the departure of the close-communion Baptists 
 from the faith and practice of the apostles on this 
 subject, warns both them and us to " see and ask 
 for the old paths, where is the good way, and 
 
COiNCLUDING REMARKS. 175 
 
 walk therein, that we may find rest to our souls" 
 — rest in the everlasting covenant of God with 
 his people. 
 
 By the terms of that covenant, every believing 
 parent is bound to dedicate his children to God 
 in baptism, as the sign and seal of his faith. 
 And it is at our peril and the peril of our chil- 
 dren, that we neglect it. The promise is only 
 to " them that love him and keep his command- 
 ments." This is one of his commandments; and 
 surely the blessing of Abraham may be expected 
 to come upon us, in all the fulness of the gospel, 
 if we walk in the steps of his faith, " who is the 
 father of us all," and let there be " no schism in 
 the body." " For by one Spirit, are we all 
 baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12: 13, 25.) 
 This is spiritual baptism, of which every one, who 
 is truly regenerated, is a partaker. If, there- 
 fore, we accompany our external baptism, with 
 pledges, which bind us to division and separation 
 from the great mass of our brethren of the like 
 precious faith, and that too on questions of mere 
 " doubtful disputation," as the Baptist arguments 
 on the mode and subjects of baptism certainly 
 are, instead of binding ourselves, in the recep- 
 
176 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 tion of this ordinance, to union and communion 
 with all the faithful in Christ Jesus, we give to 
 our baptism a meaning, which it has not in the 
 scriptures. It is there intended to represent that 
 spiritual influence, by which " we are all 6ap- 
 tized into one body," " the body of Christ," the 
 church universal. (1 Cor. 12: 27.) For " there 
 is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are 
 called in one hope of your calling ; One Lord, 
 one faith, one baptism, [spiritual,] one God and 
 Father of all, who is above all, and through all, 
 and in you all." (Eph. 4: 4, 5, 6.) 
 
 Let the reader understand, that the " one bap- 
 tism," here spoken of, is spiritual. It is that by 
 which, if he is truly regenerated, he is " baptized 
 into one hody^^ with all others who are regene- 
 rated; and God has not only given him no right, 
 but expressly forbids him, to affix to the exter- 
 nal sign and seal of his spiritual baptism, volun- 
 tary pledges to a single branch of " the body of 
 Christ," which bind him to abstain from com- 
 munion with all the other branches or members. 
 If he makes a worthy profession of religion, he 
 professes to be a member " in particular" of the 
 whole body of Christ, and is not at liberty, by 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 177 
 
 the conditions of his baptism, either as to the 
 mode or the time of its administration, to say to 
 any of the other members, " I have no need of 
 you." But he is bound to receive them as 
 brethren, in all acts of communion and fellow- 
 ship. " And whoso shall receive one such little 
 child in my name," says the Saviour, "receiveth 
 me." (Matt. 18: 5.) 
 12 
 
 14 
 
APPENDIX; 
 
 CONCERNING THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The following is from the learned work more than 
 once referred to in the preceding treatise, entitled, 
 " Apostolic Baptism : Facts and Evidences on the Subjects 
 and Mode of Christian Baptism ; by C Taylor, Editor 
 of Calmefs Dictionary of the Bible.''^ 
 
 Before we can discuss a theological subject, we 
 must clear away those pei-versions in which industiious 
 ignorance and criminal presumption involve it. The 
 prmcipal of these on the present topic is the folloAving 
 proposition—" Christian Baptism is neither more nor 
 less than an immersion of the whole body in water, 
 solemnly performed in the name of the Father, the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 I answer — the bad Latin term. Immersion, is a very 
 convenient cover for a very delusive proposition; 
 especially when used in an unlimited, mifixed, or un- 
 qualified sense. * * * * 
 
 A man is immersed who stands on his toes or up to 
 his knees in water ; he also is immersed, Baptists say, 
 over whose head the water flows. If the term then 
 be so indeterminate, it were chasing an ignis fatuus to 
 follow it, when facts are in question; it eludes the 
 test of Scripture, reason, and common sense. 
 
 Instead therefore, of bewildering ourselves in at- 
 tempting to trace the strict use of a woi'd notoriously 
 uncertain in its application and import, let us examine 
 
180 APPENDIX. 
 
 the thing it should represent. Instead of poring over 
 bad Latin, let us endeavor to apply good English. 
 Translate the term into our mother tongue. To put 
 imder water the whole body, is to plunge it. — ^Now 
 mai'k the proposition : — " Christian Baptism is neither 
 mo] e nor less than plunging the whole body, in the 
 name, &c." This affords a precise idea, that may 
 easily be exammed. Does the original Greek word 
 baptize, wherever it occurs in Scripture, denote plung- 
 ing'? — Let us try this by applying the term to the lead- 
 ing passages. 
 
 Ba'Trrw. — In the New Testament the verb bapto oc- 
 cm-s thrice : — 
 
 Luke xvi. 24. — Send Lazarus that he may dip the 
 tip of his finger; — ^that he may plunge the tip of his 
 finger. 
 
 John xiii. 20. — ^He to whom I shall give a sop when 
 I have dipped it ; — a sop when I have plunged it. 
 
 Rev. xix. 13. — His name is called the Word of 
 God : — he was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood ; — 
 clothed in a vesture plunged in blood. 
 
 Ef/./Sa'Trrw. — The compound verb embapto is used 
 three times: — 
 
 Matthew xx\'i. 23. — ^He that dippeth his hand with 
 me in the dish ; — he that plungeth his hand with me 
 in the dish. 
 
 Mark xiv. 20. — One of the twelve that dippeth with 
 me in the dish; — one of the twelve that plungeth 
 with me in the dish. 
 
 John xiii. 26. — ^He it is to whom I shall give a sop, 
 when I have dipped it ; and when he had dipped the 
 sop ; — he it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have 
 plunged it; and when he had plunged the sop. 
 
 Now, does language tolerate the expression "to 
 plunge the tip of a finger?" does Christianity tolerate 
 the notion of our Lord Jesus "wearing a garment 
 plunged in blood ?" does common decency tolerate the 
 plunging of two hands in the same dish at the same 
 time? 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 181 
 
 Ba.m'TKfiiog. — The noun haptismos occurs four times : 
 
 Mark vii. 4, 8. The ivashing of cups and pots, and 
 of brazen vessels, and tables; — the plunging of cups 
 and pots, and of brazen vessels, and tables. 
 
 Heb. vi. 2. — The foundation of the doctrine of bap- 
 tisms ; — doctrine of plungings. 
 
 Heb. ix. 10. — Sei'\ices, in meats and di-inks, and 
 divers washings ; — divers plungings. 
 
 These passages imply very diflFerent modes of per- 
 forming that action which the sacred A\Titer calls lap- 
 tism; and their order is favorable to the eliciting of 
 conclusive evidence from their connection and tenor. 
 
 Whoever has seen cups and pots washed at a pump, 
 may judge whether they were necessarily plunged. 
 Whoever considers what cumbersome pieces of furni- 
 ture these tables were— ^^een or twenty feet long, by 
 four feet broad, and about four feet high — may judge 
 whether they were plunged, after every meal taken 
 upon them. Why does the sacred writer describe 
 the doctrine of baptisms, in the plural, as one of the 
 foundations of Christianity, if there were only one 
 mode of baptism, that by plunging ? The same \^Titer 
 says exjDressly, that under the laAV there were divers 
 kinds of baptisms : — and fi-om the law itself, we know 
 that by far the greater part of them were not plungings : 
 the word therefore cannot possibly be restricted to 
 that import. 
 
 If then the word baptism be not resti-icted in Scripture 
 to that import, but is used in senses distinct fi-om that 
 of plunging, in reference to things, let us examine its 
 import m reference to persons. What think you of the 
 baptism by the Holy Ghost? This was not a meta- 
 phorical or figurative baptism. It was a real and in 
 disputable subject of the senses seen by John the Bap- 
 tist, by the Apostles, in company of the hundred and 
 twenty, as is generally thought, and by Peter with his 
 brethren, in the mstance of Cornelius ; and not less 
 conspicuous than at the Jordan. It was the subject 
 of John Baptist's repeated prediction; Mat. iii. 11; 
 
182 APPENDIX. 
 
 Mark i. 8 ; Luke iii. 16 : " He shall haptize 5^ou with the 
 Holy Ghost." It was also the subject of our LordV 
 repeated prediction; Luke xxiv. 49: "I send the pro 
 mise of my Father upon you — ye shall be endued 
 with power from on Ai^A." Acts i. 5 : " Ye shall be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.' 
 — Acts ii. 2 : " And suddenly there came from heaven 
 and APPEARED unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire 
 and it sat upon each of them, and they were all tillecl 
 with the Holy Ghost." The same occured in the case 
 of Cornelius : Acts x. 44 ; for Peter says, " the Holy 
 Ghost FELL on them, as on us at the beginning.''^ Act? 
 xi. XV : 8 : " God....gave them the Holy Ghost, even as 
 he did unto us, and put no difference between them 
 and us, purifying their hearts by faith." 
 
 Two words are employed to express this similitude ; 
 one of which, wtf-TTSp, denotes a strict and exact simili- 
 tude, likeness, or conformity. 
 
 The manner in which this baptism was conferred or 
 administered was not only distinct from plunging, but 
 it Avas absolutely inconsistent with that action — 
 Plunging was an impossibility in the administration 
 of this baptism. 
 
 It is proper to adduce those synonymous words which 
 the sacred Spirit has graciously thought fit to emjjloy, 
 for the purpose of fixing the sense of that word which 
 is the immediate subject of investigation. We waive 
 all reference to critics and commentators, however 
 numerous, and however positive. We depend on the 
 New Testament alone — on those wi*iters, under the 
 immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who Avere 
 his instruments in explaining spu'itual things by spirit- 
 ual words. 
 
 This test is a sort of experimentum crucis to false pro- 
 positions. It has detected many. Let us try it iii the 
 case before us. 
 
 Luke xxiv. 49. — Shall send the Holy Ghost — from 
 ON high. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 183 
 
 I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a 
 dove, and it abode upon him; John i. 32. 
 
 This is what was spoken — I will pour out of my 
 Spirit ; Acts ii. 2. 
 
 Jesus having received of the Father the promise of 
 the Holy Ghost, has shed forth this which ye now 
 see and hear; Acts ii. 35. 
 
 Suddenly there came from heaven, and appeared 
 UNTO THEM clovcn tougues ; Acts ii. 2, 17. 
 
 That they might receive the Holy Ghost; for as yet 
 he was fallen upon none of them; Acts viii. 16. 
 
 Ananias put his hands on Paul, that he might be 
 filed with the Holy Ghost ; Acts ix. 17. 
 
 God ANOINTED Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy 
 Ghost ; Acts x. 38. 
 
 Acts X. 44. — The Holy Ghost fell on all. 
 
 Acts xj. 15. — The Holy Ghost fell on them, even 
 as on us at the beginning. 
 
 Acts X. 45. — They of the circumcision were aston- 
 ished, because on the Gentiles was poured out the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 Acts XV. 8. — Giving them the Holy Ghost, even as 
 unto us. 
 
 Titus iii. 6.— The Holy Ghost; which he shed on 
 us abundantly. 
 
 1 Peter i. 12. — The Holy Ghost sent down from 
 heaven. 
 
 Eph. i. 13. — Sealed ^N\th the Holy Spirit of promise. 
 
 These passages give us as synonymous with baptize : 
 
 Sending down; Coming; Giving; Falling; Shed- 
 ding ; Pouring ; Sitting or Abiding ; Anointing ; Fill- 
 ing; and Sealing. 
 
 In all these synonymous words, there is not one that 
 raises the idea of plunging, or even approaches to it. 
 Yet they all refer to baptism. " The Apostles shall be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost," is the prediction ; the 
 Holy Ghost was poured out upon them, is the ac- 
 complishment. Even Paul who was then absent 
 speaks of the Holy Ghost as being shed on him 
 
184 APPENDIX. 
 
 doubtless at his baptism ; Acts ix. ] 7. Perhaps, how- 
 ever, the instance of our Lord is the most complete, 
 of baptism by the Holy Ghost ; and in that we have the 
 very height of certainty, there was no plunging, nor 
 any thing like it : although almost all the synonyms 
 meet in his person ; — as descending, coming, filling, 
 
 ANOINTING, SITTING Or ABIDING aild SEALING. 
 
 We are now advanced to the question, " Did baptism 
 by water resemble baptism by the Holy Ghost ? — and 
 in what?" That there must have been some resem- 
 blance is certain ; and the resemblance must have been 
 striking ; for the Apostle Peter, seeing the Holy Ghost 
 poured out on the company at Cornelius's, immedi- 
 ately recollected an allusion to John's baptism by 
 water. The Lord said, "John baptized with water; 
 but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." If there 
 were no resemblance between the two baptisms, how 
 came the Apostle's memory to be refreshed with what 
 he saw ? How came he to lay a stress on his recol- 
 lection, thus raised to exercise ? This made so stong 
 an impression on his mind, that he adverts to it a long 
 while afterwards. Act xv. 8. If it be asked Avhat he 
 did see ? I answer, he saw the pouring doivn of the 
 Holy Ghost ; for this is the term expressly used in the 
 history. 
 
 Try both these h-reconcilable propositions by the 
 substitution of their synonyms. " John plunges you in 
 water; but ye shall J)e plunged in the Holy Ghost." 
 Shocking abuse of language, and principle! Try the 
 other : " The Holy Ghost shall be poured upon you, 
 shed upon you, fall upon you, &c. ; as John poui'S 
 water, sheds water, lets fall water &c., upon you." 
 What is there offensive in this? What is there con- 
 trary to fact ? What to decency ? What to the ana- 
 logy of faith ? What to the analogy of grammar and 
 language ? Even that seemingly inappropriate term, 
 anointmg, presei'ves the action though it changes the 
 fluid.