i '■•■• 
 
£5 
 
 03 
 Q_ 
 
 
 
 _ro 
 
 
 /? 
 
 1c 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 ^^. 
 
 IE 
 
 1 
 
 ^T Ha 
 
 D_ 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 *£> m 
 
 O 
 
 
 to 
 
 $ 
 
 
 "s g 
 
 (0 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 
 ^. o 
 
 bfl 
 
 ~T 
 
 •25 ^ 
 
 < 
 
 § 
 
 i^ 8 
 
 ~a3 
 
 ftT 
 
 & 
 
 E 
 
 ^ 
 .«-j 
 
 O M 
 
 Rj 
 
 <: 
 
 ^ pc; 
 
 CO 
 
 & 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 <* 
 
 
 
 5^4 
 
 "O 
 
 =g 
 
 1 
 
 CD 
 
 c 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 <L> 
 
 
 tf> 
 
 CL 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/criticalexpositiOOsa 
 
CRITICAL EXPOSITION 
 
 BAPTISM; 
 
 EMBRACING THE 
 
 MOSAIC BAPTISMS; JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS; JOHN'S 
 BAPTISM, AND CHRISTIAN BAPTISM: 
 
 CLIARLY ESTABLISHING THE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY OF 
 
 AFFUSION AND SPRINKLING, 
 
 AND OF 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 BY LEICESTER A.'SAWYER, A. M. 
 
 President of Central College, 0. 
 
 Published by Henry VV. Derby & Co. 
 CINCINNATI, O. 
 
 AND 
 
 D. Appleton, & Co., 
 NEW YORK. 
 
Entered according to act of Congress, in 1844, by Leicester A. 
 Sawyer, in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of Ohio. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. pag i 
 
 Mosaic Baptisms .. . . 9 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Jewish Traditionary Baptisms 27 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 John's Baptism 38 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Christian Baptism 47 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Mode of Christian Baptism — Immersion and Pouring 59 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Mode of Christian Baptism — Affusion and Sprinkling 78 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Subjects of Christian Baptism 97 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Church-membership of Children 107 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 Analogy of Christian Baptism to Circumcision 128 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 Perpetuity of the Abfahamic Covenant 135 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 Designating the subjects of Christian Baptism by general 
 terms 144 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 The absence of any exclusion of infants from Christian 
 Baptism , 150 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. page. 
 
 Provision for the early conversion of children 152 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 Testimony of the early Christian Fathers 155 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 The blessings of God on Infant Baptism 162 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 Conclusion in favor of the Baptism of Infants 164 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 Duties of the Church to Infant Members 169 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 Miscellaneous topics relating to Baptism 176 
 
PREFACE 
 
 1. The present work is designed to contain a 
 complete and thorough exposition of baptism. 
 
 Many partial expositions of this ordinance arc al- 
 ready before the public, and some of them of con- 
 siderable merit. But none have received that degree 
 of favor which is necessary, in order to their becom- 
 ing generally read; and none are generally convin- 
 cing. 
 
 Believing that the scripture doctrines respecting 
 Christian baptism, can be so expounded as to secure 
 for them the general adoption of mankind, and thus 
 put an end to rational controversy in regard to them ; 
 the author of the following work, has undertaken to 
 contribute something towards the attainment of this 
 result. How far he has succeeded, remains to be 
 determined. He indulges the hope that his effort 
 will so far receive the approbation of the great head 
 of the church, and be so far in agreement with the 
 designs and purposes of God, as to be made useful. 
 
 2. Infant baptism is intimately connected with 
 family religion. Most families are so imperfectly in- 
 formed in regard to its authority and design, that 
 something is imperiously demanded for general cir- 
 culation with respect to that branch of the subject. 
 
 The position which baptism occupies, as the sacra- 
 mental seal of covenant relations subsisting between 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 God and man, and the unhappy diversities of opin- 
 ion, among Christians, in regard to it, are additional 
 reasons for the general and thorough investigation of 
 the subject, both by the ministry and membership of 
 the church of Christ. 
 
 3. Baptism is one of the most interesting branch- 
 es of Polemic Theology. 
 
 Polemic Theology is discarded by many. But 
 when we consider the apostolic injunction, to contend 
 earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints; 
 and the obligation both to observe and maintain the 
 institutions of Chris tin their purity, we are constrain- 
 ed to be polemical. If the doctrines of Christ met 
 with no opposition, Polemical Theology would not 
 be necessary. But to cease contending for the faith, 
 while that faith is violently assailed, is the part of 
 cowardice and treachery,- and is a base abandonment 
 of the essential principles of Christianity. 
 
 It becomes us not only to defend the institutions 
 of Christ and to prevent their being broken down 
 by assailants, but also to support them by sound and 
 convincing argument, to such a degree as will carry 
 conviction to every unbiassed mind. This has been 
 earnestly attempted in the present work. 
 
 4. The scripture doctrines, respecting the mode 
 and subjects of Christian baptism, must be settled, 
 if settled at all, by argument. The opinions of men, 
 unsupported by evidence, are of no weight whatever 
 in the legitimate establishment of them. 
 
 Neither can these doctrines be safely determined 
 from the English bible, considered independently of 
 the inspired original. The English bible is not the 
 inspired word of God; and has not, and cannot have 
 the authority which belongs to the inspired original. 
 The English bible is not a safe guide on subjects im- 
 
PRE1A. I 7 
 
 perfectly understood by the translators. Translators 
 cannot give a version of unquestionable authority, 
 even when they understand, perfectly, the subject 
 treated of. Still less can they do this, where they 
 do not perfectly understand the subject. If a scho- 
 lar translates according to the best of his knowledge, 
 his version will be conformable to that knowledge, 
 but will in no case exceed it. 
 
 The ultimate standards of appeal, on all contro- 
 verted subjects in Christian theology, are the origi- 
 nal scriptures, the only inspired word of God, and 
 the only unerring and perfect rule of Christian 
 faith. The best translations, possible, are imperfect 
 and may mislead us. The opinions of the best and 
 most learned men may be erroneous, and are, there- 
 fore, not to be implicitly trusted. But God's inspir- 
 ed word is entitled to our unhesitating confidence. 
 It camiot be wrong. It cannot mislead us, if proper- 
 ly interpreted. 
 
 In the present work, the original word of God is 
 constantly referred to; and in cases where the com- 
 mon version is supposed to be objectionable, other 
 translations are adopted and supported by arguments 
 capable of being appreciated by all intelligent read- 
 ers. 
 
 The leading arguments contained in the following 
 work were first published by the author in two pam- 
 phlets, one on the Mode and the other on the Sub- 
 jects of Baptism, in 1838. In the present work, 
 those arguments are more fully expanded, and the 
 main conclusions have been strengthened by several 
 additional arguments. 
 
A 
 
 CRITICAL EXPOSITION 
 
 OF 
 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 Origin of Baptism. 
 
 § 1. The eailiest baptisms of which we have any 
 particular account, are those instituted by Moses. 
 Whether the institution of baptism had its origin in 
 the time of Moses, or whether it came down with 
 the system of sacrifices from the earlier patriarchs 
 and from the commencement of time, we are not 
 informed in the scriptures, and cannot decide from 
 uninspired testimony. There is a tradition among 
 the Jews, that the origin of baptism was previous to 
 the time of Moses, and that Moses incorporated it, 
 as he did the other religious rites of his time, in the 
 Jewish discipline, without originating it. Though 
 this is incapable of proof, there is no good reason for 
 supposing the contrary. It is, therefore, not improb- 
 able, that the institution of baptism is as old as that 
 2 
 
10 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 of sacrifices, and that both had their origin in the 
 express appointments of God, and in the time of 
 Adam. 
 
 Primitive title of the Mosaic Baptisms. 
 
 §2. The Mosaic baptisms are described among 
 the Mosaic institutions, under the title of purifica- 
 tions. The name baptism was not applied to denote 
 them in the Old Testament, because the Old Testa- 
 ment was written in Hebrew, and baptism is a word 
 of Greek derivation. The Greek language did not 
 begin to be used by the Israelites till several centu- 
 ries after the time of Moses. The books of Moses 
 were compiled 1451 years before Christ. The 
 Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the 
 Scriptures, was not completed till about 285 B. C, 
 after a lapse of 1166 years from the time of Moses. 
 The translation of the Septuagint was executed by 
 different hands, and the different parts of it with dif- 
 ferent degrees of fidelity and ability. The Penta- 
 teuch was the first part of the Septuagint translated. 
 It was required to be translated first, in consequence 
 of the prominent position which the reading of it 
 occupied in the synagogue worship. The terms 
 adopted to denote the different Mosaic rites in the 
 translation of the Pentateuch, would naturally be 
 adopted, unless found objectionable, by the transla- 
 tors of other parts of the sacred volume. 
 
 In the Pentateuch, the Mosaic rites of cleansing 
 are denominated purifications, not baptisms. The 
 same modes of expression are continued throughout 
 the old Testament, and occur occasionally in the 
 New. 
 
MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 11 
 
 PROOF THAT TIIE MOSAIC PURIFICATIONS WERE BAP- 
 TISMS. 
 
 First argument from the Apocrypha. 
 
 $3. In Ecclesiasticus 34: 25, Greek Siracides, 
 31: 30, the word baptize is applied to denote one of 
 the principal Mosaic purifications. Literally transla- 
 ted, the passage reads thus : k< He that is baptized from 
 a dead body and toucheth it again, what profit will 
 he derive from his washing?" 
 
 Ecclesiasticus is one of the apocryphal books. It 
 is one of the finest uninspired Jewish literary pro- 
 ductions extant in the Greek language, and has been 
 reckoned, by the Church of Rome, as belonging to 
 the sacred canon. 
 
 Being baptized from a dead body is the same as 
 being purified by baptism from the defilement con- 
 tracted by touching a dead body. The baptism re- 
 ferred to was, evidently, the Mosaic purification from 
 defilement, contracted by touching the dead. The 
 passage, therefore, shows, that the Mosaic purifica- 
 tion referred to, was a baptism according to the 
 usage of the Jews in those times. 
 
 Second argument from the Apocrypha. 
 
 *>4- In Judith 12: 7, we are told, that Judith 
 abode in the camp of the enemy three days, " and 
 went out in the night to the valley of Bethulia and 
 baptized herself in the camp at a fountain of water.*' 
 This baptism was connected with prayer, Judith 11 : 
 17. "Thy servant is religious, and serveth the God 
 of Heaven day and night. Now, therefore, my Lord, 
 
12 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 I will remain with thee, and thy servant will go out 
 by night to the valley, and I will pray to God." 
 
 Judith is described as an eminent Jewish saint and 
 heroine. Her baptism was a religious rite, which 
 does not appear to have been commanded in the 
 Mosaic ritual, but belonged to the traditionary obser- 
 vances of later times. These traditionary observan- 
 ces were analogous to the divinely appointed ones. 
 The divinely appointed baptisms were the purifica- 
 tion from defilement contracted by touching a dead 
 body, and the other analagous purifications. — § 3. 
 
 The baptism of Judith was, undoubtedly, a cere- 
 monial purification by means of water; probably, an 
 uncommanded ceremony. The mode of its admin- 
 istration is not defined, but the circumstances of the 
 case clearly show, that it could not have been by im- 
 mersion. 
 
 1. It was performed by a woman on herself. 
 
 2. It was performed statedly in the night, and 
 every night, in connexion with other religious exer- 
 cises. 
 
 3. It was performed at a fountain. 
 
 4. It was performed at a fountain within a camp, 
 with a hostile army around her, by whose general 
 she was at the time entertained. 
 
 The book of Judith purports to describe transac- 
 tions and events which took place during the reign 
 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. It is a reli- 
 gious historical novel, of which Judith is the heroine, 
 and was, probably, founded on facts, as such novels 
 generally are. It constituted a part of Jewish Greek 
 literature previous to the time of the apostles, and 
 illustrates the manner in which Greek words were 
 applied to denote Jewish institutions and usages. 
 
 It shows clearly, by the case of Judith, that cere- 
 
M- VIC BAPTISMS. 13 
 
 monia] cleansings, by means of water, wore denom- 
 inated baptisms, as well as purifications. Judith's 
 baptism could have been nothing else than a ceremo- 
 nial religious cleansing or purification, and was 
 doubtless analogous to those instituted by Moses. 
 
 First argument from the New Testament. 
 
 §5. The application of the term baptisms as an 
 appropriate title of the Mosaic purifications, is also 
 evinced by Hebrews 9: 9, 10. This passage, pro- 
 perly translated, reads as follows: "Which [taberna- 
 cle] has been a type to the present time, in which 
 both oblations and sacrifices are offered, that cannot 
 make him who performs the service perfect in res- 
 pect to the conscience, being imposed with [absti- 
 nence from certain] meats and drinks and various 
 baptisms, ordinances pertaining to the body, only till 
 the time of reformation.'" 
 
 The original word which I have translated baptisms 
 in the above passage, is baptismois, and ought, un- 
 doubtedly, to be rendered baptisms, not washings, as 
 in our common bible. In the above passage, various 
 baptisms are associated with oblations, sacrifices and 
 distinctions of clean and unclean meats, as rites of 
 the Mosaic dispensation. What these baptisms were, 
 is not stated in this connexion any further than this 
 is indicated by the name baptisms. This word is 
 used as a title of certain Mosaic rites, in a manner 
 which clearly shows that it was a common and well 
 understood name of those rites. 
 
 The Mosaic rites, as enumerated and described in 
 the books of Moses, consist of circumcision, sacrifi- 
 
14 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 ces, abstinence from certain meats and drinks, as 
 ceremonially unclean, and purifications. 
 
 In Hebrews 9 : 9, 10, these are referred to under 
 the titles of sacrifices, abstinence from meats and 
 drinks, and baptisms. Which class of the Mosaic 
 rites were baptisms? Which would this word most 
 naturally denote? Evidently purifications. Can it 
 possibly be applied to any other? By no means. 
 Sacrifices were not baptisms.. Circumcision was 
 not a baptism. The Mosaic baptisms then, must 
 have been the Mosaic purifications. 
 
 We are shut up to the necessity, therefore, of in- 
 terpreting baptisms in Heb. 9: 10, as a title of the 
 Mosaic purifications; and divers or various baptisms 
 must be considered as descriptive of the various and 
 diversified purifications enjoined by Moses. 
 
 Second argument from the Neiv Testament. 
 
 $6. That the word baptism was applied by the 
 Jews to denote purifications, is also evident from 
 John 3 : 25, 26. " Then there arose a disputation of 
 the disciples T of John, with a Jew, concerning purifi- 
 cation; and they came to John and said to him, Rab- 
 bi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom 
 thou bearest witness, behold the same baptizeth. and 
 all come to him.'" 
 
 The word translated purification in the above, is 
 the same that is used in 2 Pet. 1 : 9, which properly 
 translated, reads as follows: "But he who is destitute 
 of these [virtues] is blind, having a forgetfulness of 
 his purification from his former sins." 
 
 The disputation of John's disciples with a Jew, 
 related to purification. They refer this matter to 
 
MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 15 
 
 John, by stating that Jesus Christ had instituted and 
 was administering, what appeared to them, a rival 
 baptism to his. The matter in dispute, therefore, 
 was the baptism of Christ, or christian baptism. 
 The dispute concerning purification, was a dispute 
 concerning christian baptism, or, perhaps, concerning 
 the relation of Christ's baptism to that of John, and 
 the comparative dignity and authority of the two in- 
 stitutions. 
 
 If Christ's baptism was a purification, then the 
 divinely appointed purifications of the Jews were 
 doubtless baptisms. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 $7. The argument contained in paragraphs 3, 
 4, 5 and 6, does not lead to a mere probability, or 
 conjectural conclusion. It places the matter in ques- 
 tion, beyond reasonable doubt. It proves that the 
 Mosaic purifications were baptisms, and that they 
 were so understood and so denominated by the Jews, 
 both before the time of Christ, and during the period 
 of his public ministry. The conclusion is not forc- 
 ed, nor far fetched. It is easy and natural. It is 
 inevitable. We cannot, legitimately, get away from 
 it if we would. We cannot infer the contrary. We 
 cannot conclude that the evidence is indecisive, and 
 that it leaves the matter only probable, and in a 
 greater or less degree uncertain. This is not the 
 fact. It does not leave the matter, in any degree, 
 uncertain. The only way to avoid coming to the 
 conclusion is, not duly to consider and estimate the 
 evidence adduced in the case. 
 
 Men may conclude against any degree of evidence 
 
16 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 when they have refused to admit and consider it. 
 But evidence admitted and considered, produces its 
 effect with certainty and uniformity. Hence, truth 
 has this peculiarity, that it bears consideration, and 
 becomes clearer the more accurately and thoroughly 
 it is investigated and considered. Much that does 
 not appear to superficial inquirers, or that shines out 
 obscurely and imperfectly to their view, developes 
 itself to the patient, studious and considerate, with 
 a force of evidence that is irresistible. 
 
 First and superficial impressions are often false. 
 They ought never to be trusted. Those views which 
 bear the ordeal of impartial and extended investiga- 
 tions, and those alone, are entitled to our confidence. 
 They are entitled to it equally, whether they occur 
 readily or tardily; whether they are our first views, 
 and those most naturally suggested by a superficial 
 consideration of the subjects to which they relate, or 
 whether they are the opposite of what merely super- 
 ficial consideration would suggest. 
 
 SPECIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 §8. 1. Baptism of sacred objects. 
 
 2. Baptism of the Levites. 
 
 3. Baptism of the Priests. 
 
 4. Baptism of persons and tilings, on account of 
 ceremonial defilement from touching the dead. 
 
 5. Baptism of recovered lepers. 
 
 G. Baptism of the entire nation of the Israelites, 
 previous to the giving of the law. 
 
H08AIC BAPTHHB. 17 
 
 1. Baptism of .sacred objects. 
 
 $9. Lev. 16: 14, 19. "And he shall take of the 
 blood of the bullock and sprinkle it with his finger 
 upon the mercy seal eastward, and before the m< rcy 
 seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger 
 seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin 
 offering that is for the people, and bring his blood 
 within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with 
 the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the 
 mercy seat and before the mercy seat. And he shall 
 make an atonement for the holy place, because of the 
 uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of 
 their transgressions in all their sins. And so shall 
 he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that re- 
 maincth among them in the midst of their unclean- 
 ness. And he shall go out to the altar that is before 
 the Lord and make an atonement for it, and shall 
 take of the blood of the bullock and the blood of the 
 goat and put it on the horns of the altar round about, 
 he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger 
 seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the 
 uncleanness of the children of Israel." 
 
 This passage records the purification of the mercy 
 seat and the altar. It was performed, not with water, 
 but with the blood of victims offered in sacrifice, and 
 was repeated annually on one of the great annual 
 festivals of the Israelites. 
 
 The object of these rites was the removal of cer- 
 emonial uncleanness. The effect of them was, to 
 cleanse and hallow the objects to which they were 
 applied. They therefore agreed with the other puri- 
 fications in design and signification, and were purifi- 
 cations. 
 
 They were administered by sprinkling blood seven 
 
18 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 times successively with the finger on the object to be 
 purified. 
 
 The Mosaic purifications having been proved to 
 have been baptisms, these were baptisms. The sig- 
 nificancy of these baptisms depended on the typical 
 character of the victims whose blood was used. 
 These victims were types of Christ, and their blood 
 types of his blood. They were offered to God in 
 sacrifice as types of Christ, suffering a violent death 
 to make atonement for the sins of the world. Hence 
 the application of their blood represented the appli- 
 cation of the blood of Christ for the removal of 
 human guilt. The application of that blood to 
 things, as well as to persons, represented the participa- 
 tion of things in the effects and consequences of 
 human guilt, and their exemption from the same 
 through the atonement. It was, therefore, a symbol 
 of legal justification. 
 
 2. Baptism of the Levites. 
 
 §10. Num. 8: 6, 7. "Take the Levites from 
 among the children of Israel and cleanse them. 
 And thus shalt thou do to them to cleanse them: 
 Sprinkle water of purification upon them, and let 
 them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their 
 clothes, and so make themselves clean." 
 
 This purification was a ceremonial cleansing of 
 persons in order to qualify them for religious services. 
 It was performed by sprinkling with prepared or lus- 
 tral water, and was accompanied with other symboli- 
 cal ceremonies. Its significancy depended upon the 
 mixture of the ashes of a victim offered in sacrifice 
 to God in the water made use of. This victim w \s 
 
MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 19 
 
 I type of Christ suffering for the sins of men. The 
 application of water prepared with its ashes repre- 
 sented the application of the atonement made by 
 Christ to the subject of this rite. It was, therefore, a 
 symbol of legal justification. 
 
 3. Baptism of the Priests. 
 
 $ 11. Ex. 29: 3, 21. "And Aaron and his sons 
 thou shalt bring to the door of the tabernacle of the 
 congregation, and thou shalt wash them with water. 
 And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the al- 
 tar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle [them] 
 upon Aaron and upon his garments, and upon his 
 sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him; 
 and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his 
 sons and his sons' garments with him." 
 
 The effect of the washing and sprinkling was, that 
 Aaron and his sons and their garments, were cleans- 
 ed. This cleansing was of course ceremonial, and 
 the demand for it did not depend on any want of 
 physical cleanliness on the part of the subjects on 
 whom it was performed. 
 
 The washing was such as could be performed at 
 the tabernacle door. Whether it embraced any thing 
 more than the customary washing of the hands, face 
 and feet, we are not informed. It is not said that 
 the under garments of the persons receiving this 
 baptism were changed. The sacred vestments, con- 
 sisting of the coat, the robe of the ephod, the ephed, 
 and the breast plate, were put on for the first time 
 after the baptismal or ceremonial washing, and before 
 the sprinkling with blood from the altar. 
 
20 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 The purification, however, depended essentially 
 upon the sprinkling; and this had respect to the sa- 
 cred vestments of the priests, as well as to their per- 
 sons. 
 
 It does not appear that this purification involved 
 any immersion; and in the absence of any thing in- 
 dicating an immersion, an ordinary washing is all that 
 can be legitimately inferred. 
 
 4. Baptism of persons and tilings, on account of 
 ceremonial defilement from touching the dead. 
 
 §12. Num. 19: 17,20. "For an unclean per- 
 son, they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer 
 of purification for sin, and running water shall be put 
 thereto in a vessel. And a clean person shall take 
 hysop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon 
 the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the per- 
 sons that were there, and upon him that touched a 
 bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave. And the 
 clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean, on the 
 third day and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh 
 day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and 
 bathe himself with water, and shall be clean at even- 
 ing." 
 
 This purification depended upon a law declaring 
 that both persons and things became ceremonially 
 unclean by coming in contact with a dead body; and 
 in some cases by proximity without contact. The 
 defilement continued seven days; when, by Divinely 
 appointed rites, it. was removed. If not removed by 
 such rites, it continued indefinitely. 
 
 The purification was effected by Bprinkling with 
 lustra] water on the third day, and again on the 
 
.MOSAIC BAPTI8 21 
 
 nth day. After this, in the case of poisons, the 
 subject was required to wash himself and his clothes 
 in water, whereupon lie became clean at evening. 
 
 This purification is referred to directly as a baptism 
 in the Apocrypha, in Ecclcsiasticus 34: 25. That 
 reference has been considered in §3. It is, however, 
 but one of the various Mosaic baptisms mentioned 
 in Ilcb. 9: 10; and the other purifications, estab- 
 lished on similar principles, and administered in simi- 
 lar modes, must be concluded to constitute the 
 others. If this purification was one baptism, the 
 other analogous purifications were the other bap- 
 tisms. 
 
 The defilement from which this baptism was a 
 cleansing, was of a legal and symbolical nature. It 
 was created by law, and was designed to represent 
 sin. Every dead body was a symbol of sin; and 
 touching it, or coming into proximity to it, represent- 
 ed becoming defiled with sin as with a contagion. 
 The rite by which this symbolical contagion was re- 
 moved, was a baptism or purification, and was per- 
 formed mainly by sprinkling the person or thing with 
 lustral water duly prepared for the purpose. In the 
 case of persons, washing by the individual was added 
 as the conclusion of the whole ceremony. The 
 mode of this washing is not explicitly defined. Per- 
 haps it was not important. 
 
 The washing is, in this case, as in that of the other 
 Mosaic baptisms, enjoined by a Hebrew word which 
 corresponds well, in signification, to the English 
 word wash. It is applied to washing the face, as in 
 the case of Joseph, Gen. 43: 31; to washing the 
 hands, as in Ps. 26 : 6 ; and to that of other parts of 
 the body. 
 
22 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 This word, therefore, does not require immersion; 
 neither does it prescribe the mode or extent of the 
 washing. All that it requires is a washing of the 
 individual himself, to be performed by himself. The 
 word bathe, made use of to express this washing, in 
 our common English version, is to be understood in 
 the same sense as when we speak of bathing the 
 head with vinegar, not in the sense of going into 
 deep water. In this sense, bathing is synonymous 
 with affusion; in the other and more common sense, 
 it does not answer to the original, of which it is de- 
 signed to be a translation. The water made use of 
 in this baptism was running water. 
 
 It appears from the above that the purification from 
 defilement, contracted by touching the dead, was a 
 highly significant and impressive ordinance, and well 
 adapted to make a strong and solemn impression on 
 a reflective mind. It was not a merely arbitrary ap- 
 pointment, adopted to accomplish no perceptible 
 good, but a symbolical rite, representing, in the most 
 impressive manner, the defiling and contagious na- 
 ture of sin, and the removal of that defilement and 
 contagion. It made a strong appeal to the faith of 
 the ancient saints, and tended to confirm and increase 
 the same. 
 
 Lustral Water. 
 
 Lustral water was a mixture prepared to be used 
 in ceremonial cleansing or purification. It consisted 
 of water taken from a stream, impregnated with the 
 ashes of a heifer killed and burnt under the direction 
 of the priest, with appropriate attending ceremonies. 
 The slaughter and burning of the red heifer was a 
 kind of sacrifice of that animal for the purpose of 
 
MOSAIC 8*1000. gg 
 
 obtaining her ashes for the uses here referred to. 
 
 Tbeaahee were considered as possessing die es- 
 sential virtues of a sacrificial death. They had the 
 power of expiating and removing defilements con- 
 sidered as symbols of sin. In the purifications, 
 therefore, in which this water was used, there was an 
 allusion, not only to the nature of water as an instru- 
 ment of purification, but to Christ, as denoted sym- 
 bolically by a sacrificial victim, whose ashes were 
 made use of in the preparation of the lustral water. 
 
 The scriptural account of the preparation of lus- 
 tral water is contained in Num. 19: 1-10. 
 
 5. Baptism of recovered Lepers. 
 
 § 13. Lev. 14 : 7, 9. " And he (the priest) shall 
 sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the 
 leprosy, seven times, and shall pronounce him clean. 
 And he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes 
 and shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water 
 that he may be clean. After that shall he come into 
 the camp, and shall tarry abroad out of his tent seven 
 days. But it shall be on the seventh day that he 
 shall shave off all his hair from his head, and his 
 beard, and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall 
 shave off; and he shall wash his clothes; also, he 
 shall wash his flesh in water and he shall be clean." 
 
 The word flesh seems to be here used in the sense 
 of body. It was not said in the law respecting be- 
 ing baptized from the dead, that the subject should 
 wash his body, but simply that he should wash ; and 
 the word " himself" is supplied in the translation to 
 distinguish this washing more clearly from that of 
 his clothes, mentioned in the context. But in the 
 
24 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 case of the recovered leper, the subject's body is to 
 be washed at the conclusion of the ceremony. 
 
 In this case as in the former, however, sprinkling 
 seven times with lustral water on two different occa- 
 sions, is an essential part of the ceremony. This 
 was done once on the first day, and the second time 
 on the seventh day. On the seventh day the cleans- 
 ing of the subject was completed. 
 
 The cleansing of the recovered leper was not of a 
 remedial nature. It was not designed to effect his 
 recovery, and had no adaptation to such a purpose. 
 It was designed only to remove the ceremonial de- 
 filement contracted by his having been a leper. 
 
 The leprosy was an extremely filthy and malig- 
 nant disease ,- and persons seldom recovered from it. 
 In this religious purification, it was made a symbol of 
 sin. It was one of the most expressive symbols of 
 sin that has ever yet been presented to the human 
 mind. The defilement contracted by having the 
 leprosy, was a symbol of the defilement or guilt con- 
 tracted by being sinners ; and the purification from 
 this defilement a symbol of the expiation and re- 
 moval of guilt. The mode as well as the design of 
 this purification, bear a striking analogy to those of 
 the purification from defilement contracted by touch- 
 ing the dead. If one was a baptism, the other must 
 also have been a baptism, for they are both substan- 
 tially the same thing. It is a remarkable peculiarity 
 of the baptism of recovered lepers as well as of that 
 from the dead, that the water made use of was run- 
 ning water, and that the ceremony was necessarily 
 performed by streams where such water could be ob- 
 tained. Lev. 14: 5, 6. 
 
JC BAPTISMS. 25 
 
 G. The baptism of the entire nation of the Lsrad- 
 itcs prerious to the giving of the Law. 
 
 1 14 fc$: 10, 14. "And the Lord said to 
 Moses, £ to the people and sanctify them to-day 
 and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes. 1 ' — 
 "And Moses went down from the mount to the peo- 
 ple, and sanctified the people, and they washed their 
 clothes. 91 
 
 The purification is here expressed by the word 
 sanctify. The sanctification of the people was a 
 ceremonial one. It could not have been any other. 
 A ceremonial sanctification is but another name for 
 a ceremonial purification. But if it was a purifica- 
 tion, it was a baptism. Because the Mosaic purifica- 
 tions have been proved to have been baptisms. 
 Besides it agreed with the other Mosaic baptisms in 
 representing the removal of guilt under the title of 
 defilement. 
 
 The mode of its performance is not described; 
 and as it was not designed to be repeated, a knowl- 
 edge of it was not particularly important for the suc- 
 cessors of those who were the subjects of it, neither 
 is it necessary for us. 
 
 The general nature and design of the Mosaic Bap- 
 tisms. 
 
 \ 15. From the foregoing investigations, die na- 
 ture of the Mosaic baptisms is easily inferred. They 
 were all ceremonial purifications, in which physical 
 defilement is made»a symbol of moral and legal de- 
 filement ; and the removal of real or supposed physi- 
 3 
 
28 MOSAIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 cal defilement a symbol of the removal of moral 
 defilement and legal disabilities. 
 
 Mankind are, by nature, sinners ; and, as such, both 
 defiled and condemned. 
 
 The Mosaic baptisms represented, by striking and 
 impressive imagery, the removal both of this defile- 
 ment and condemnation. In the cases of the de- 
 filement from the dead, and from leprosy, the symbols 
 made use of are the most solemn and affecting that 
 can well be conceived. Sin is viewed as a death, 
 and a leprosy, a contagious death and a contagious 
 leprosy. The person affected with this contagion is 
 excluded from all communion with God, and with 
 his people, until it is removed. Its entire removal 
 occupies a period of seven days, requiring two seven 
 fold baptisms, by sprinkling, together with appropriate 
 sacrifices, and is concluded with a washing of him- 
 self by the subject. In the case of the baptism 
 from leprosy, the sprinkling was with the blood of a 
 victim offered in sacrifice; and in that of the bap- 
 tism from the dead, with lustral water. The sprink- 
 lings were performed in the case of the baptism 
 from leprosy by the priest; in that of the baptism 
 from the dead, by any person not the subject of cere- 
 monial defilement. This arrangement, by which any 
 clean person was authorized to baptize from the 
 dead, was necessary, on account of the frequency of 
 those baptisms. To have devolved this duty upon 
 the priests exclusively, would have laid a burden 
 both upon them and upon the people, which neither 
 could have borne. 
 
 It appears, on the whole, that the Mosaic purifica- 
 tions were not that unmeaning and insignificant 
 tern of arbitrary exactions which many have supposed 
 them to be. They were religious rites of great 
 
JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 27 
 
 solemnity. They were parts of a system of spiritual 
 worship, and were themselves as spiritual as any ex- 
 ternal rights can possibly be. Christian baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper are not superior to them in this 
 respect. These Christian ordinances are no more 
 spiritual than the Mosaic purifications were. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 
 
 Specification of the 'principal traditionally Baptisms 
 of the Jews. 
 
 $16. The Jewish traditionary baptisms were of 
 two kinds. 
 
 1. Baptism of Proselytes or Proselyte Baptism. 
 
 2. Domestic Baptisms. 
 
 Proselyte baptism was administered to converts 
 from the heathen, on their admission to the Jewish 
 church; in the case of male subjects, after their cir- 
 cumcision, and in the case of female subjects with- 
 out any previous initiatory rite. It was administered 
 also to the children of proselytes equally with cir- 
 cumcision, and extended to those of both sexes. 
 
 The domestic baptisms of the Jews comprehend 
 those which were performed statedly before meals, 
 together with the baptism of things from the market, 
 and the occasional baptism of articles of furniture^ 
 &c. 
 
28 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 
 
 PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 
 
 Origin of Proselyte Baptism. 
 
 \ 17. The origin of Proselyte baptism is involved 
 in obscurity. Some have supposed that it did not 
 prevail till after the Christian era had commenced. 
 The more general and more probable opinion how- 
 ever, is, that this institution had its origin soon after 
 the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivi- 
 ty. The arguments in favor of this opinion are the 
 following : 
 
 1. This custom was universal among the Jews a 
 few centuries after the commencement of the Chris- 
 tian era, accompanied with a tradition of its having 
 been handed down from the time immediately after 
 the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. 
 If introduced after the institution of Christian bap- 
 tism, it must have been in imitation of that ordi- 
 nance, or at least with a knowledge, on the part of 
 the Jews, of the existence of that ordinance in the 
 Christian church. Either of these suppositions is 
 highly improbable. It cannot be supposed that the 
 Jews would borrow this ordinance from the Christian 
 church; for that church was the object of their con- 
 tinual and violent hatred and opposition. It cannot, 
 for the same reason, be reasonably supposed that 
 they would adopt it from any quarter, while they 
 knew of its previous adoption and use in the Chris- 
 tian church. Their hatred to the Christian church 
 would naturally prevent their making any changes in 
 their established rites, by which they would seem to 
 conform to Christian usages. It would, therefore, 
 have prevented a change of this kind. The sup- 
 
JEWISH TRADITIONARY RAPT] 90 
 
 position, therefore, that Proselyte baptism was adopt- 
 ed by the Jews after die establishment of < Jhristianhy, 
 is both unsustaincd by evidence, and is highly im- 
 probable. 
 
 2. If Proselyte baptism was introduced among 
 the Jews since the commencement of the Christian 
 era, there would be likely to be some traces of its 
 origin in modem Jewish history and literature; but 
 there is none. This circumstance increases the 
 legitimate presumption, that the origin of the Prose- 
 lyte baptism was previous to the Christian era. 
 
 3. Epictetus, born 90, A. D., whose sayings were 
 collected and published by his pupil Arrian, denomi- 
 nates proselytes to the Jewish faith and worship, 
 baptized persons. Arrian Diss. Epict. 2, 9. This 
 denomination clearly implies that baptism was to 
 proselytes a visible sign of membership in the Jewish 
 church, and that being baptized was equivalent 
 to being made proselytes. It may refer to prose- 
 lytes as the subjects of the numerous Mosaic, and 
 of the other traditionary baptisms of the Jews; but 
 it seems most naturally to be accounted for on the 
 supposition of the practice of Proselyte baptism at 
 that time. On this supposition, the baptized, in 
 reference to proselytes, would be a designation per- 
 fectly analogous to the circumcised, so often used in 
 the scriptures to designate the Israelites. 
 
 4. In the Ethiopic version of the scriptures, sup- 
 posed to have been made as early as the third or 
 fourth century of the Christian era, the phrase, to 
 make one proselyte, Matt. 23: 15, is translated to 
 baptize one stranger. Therefore, in the opinion of 
 the translator, for the Jews to make one proselyte 
 was the same thing as to baptize one stranger or Gen- 
 tile. This clearly shows that proselytes were made 
 
30 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 
 
 by baptism, and consequently, that Proselyte baptism 
 was in use at that period. 
 
 5. The introduction of John's and Christ's bap- 
 tisms, with so little explanation in the New Testa- 
 ment, as initiatory rites into the respective societies 
 established by John and Christ, is decidedly in favor 
 of the opinion, that Proselyte baptism had been pre- 
 viously instituted. On the supposition that Proselyte 
 baptism had been instituted and handed down from 
 the times of the later prophets, the uses of John's 
 and Christ's baptisms as initiatory rites into new re- 
 ligious communities, would require no explanation. 
 They would be in conformity with an established 
 and well known usage. On the contrary hypothesis, 
 this application of baptism must have been a novelty 
 to the Jews, and would evidently require explana- 
 tion in a narrative like the gospels, addressed pri- 
 marily to persons only acquainted with Jewish prin- 
 ciples and usages. But no explanation is given. 
 The whole subject is referred to and disposed of by 
 the Evangelists as if it needed no explanation, but 
 would be understood of course. 
 
 This circumstance is strongly in favor of the opin- 
 ion that Proselyte baptism had been previously 
 established, perhaps with the sanction of the later 
 prophets; and that the baptisms of John and Christ 
 were but modifications of the same. 
 
 The disciples of John were proselytes to John's 
 faith and practice. The disciples of Christ were 
 proselytes to the faith and practice inculcated by 
 Christ. To those already acquainted with Proselyte 
 baptism, the baptisms of proselytes to John and 
 Christ would be easily understood, and would excite 
 little surprise. 
 
Jewish tkaihtionakv HAVKBOB, 31 
 
 Tlic little explanation, therefore, which was judg- 
 ed necessary on these subjects by tlic Evangelists, 
 is an evidence <>t* the previous institution and preva- 
 lence of Proselyte baptism among tlic Jews. 
 
 Objection. 
 
 It has sometimes been objected to the opinion in 
 favor of the early origin of Proselyte baptism, that 
 this rite is not mentioned by Josephus, when he 
 apeaks of the circumcision of the Idumeans in the 
 time of Hyrcanus. 
 
 His language is, that the Idumeans were allowed 
 their choice, either to leave their country or to be 
 circumcised and conform to the laws of the Jews. 
 The omission of baptism in this expression does not 
 imply that it was not required. Circumcision was 
 the leading initiatory rite. It was the first rite per- 
 formed on the candidate, and was the rite to which 
 foreigners would be most likely to object. In pro- 
 posing to the Idumeans, therefore, to be circumcised, 
 and to conform to the laws of the Jews, Hyrcanus 
 proposes to them to submit to all the established 
 rites of Judaism. Baptism was comprehended in 
 the general requirementjo conform to the laws of 
 the Jews. 
 
 It was not necessary that it should be explicitly 
 mentioned in the proposal of Hyrcanus, or in the 
 narrative of Josephus, in order to its being under- 
 stood, on the supposition of its general prevalence at 
 that time. The neglect of Josephus, therefore, to 
 mention baptism in connection with circumcision, in 
 the account which he gives of the proposal to the 
 Idumeans to become proselytes to Judaism, and of 
 
32 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 
 
 their accession to the same, proves nothing against 
 the prevalence of Proselyte baptism at that time. 
 
 The foregoing argument in favor of the early ori- 
 gin of Proselyte baptism, is strengthened by the con- 
 sideration that Proselyte baptism was a kindred 
 institution to the other Jewish baptisms, and seems 
 naturally to have grown out of them. In the esti- 
 mate of the Jewish law, the entire heathen world 
 was in a state of ceremonial defilement. The Jews, 
 when defiled, were purified by baptisms. What could 
 be more natural than to resort to the same means for 
 the cleansing of the defiled Gentiles? 
 
 The principle of the Jewish defilements and puri- 
 fications, applied to proselytes, seems to require that 
 they should be baptized previous to participating in 
 the fellowship of the baptized Jews. Their circum- 
 cision removed a local defilement — their baptism re- 
 moved a general defilement. If Proselyte baptism 
 grew legitimately out of the Mosaic baptisms, it was 
 virtually a Divine institution, and of equal authority 
 with the other baptisms out of which it grew. How 
 the defiled heathen could be received to communion 
 in the Jewish church, without baptism, consistently 
 with the divinely established principles respecting 
 ceremonial defilements anjd purifications, it is not 
 easy to see. 
 
 Order of initiation into the Jewish Church. 
 
 The order of the initiation of proselytes w r as as 
 follows : 
 
 The candidate was first instructed in the princi- 
 ples and usages of Judaism, and gave his assent to 
 the same. Their male subjects were circumcised. 
 After circumcision, they were baptized, and received 
 
JEWISH! TRADITIONARY KAPTIS.MS. 33 
 
 to full communion in the Jewish church. Femi 
 wen- received by baptism only. The children of 
 proselytes were circumcised and baptized at the same 
 
 times with their parents. This baptism v. 
 
 iiher in tlie case of children or adults. 
 
 Mode of Proselyte Baptism. 
 
 The primitive mode of Proselyte baptism is not 
 known. That which has prevailed as far back as the 
 history of this rite can be distinctly traced, is by im- 
 mersion in the presence of three judges. 
 
 Design of Proselyte Baptism. 
 
 Proselyte baptism, like other Jewish purifications, 
 was a symbolical rite, indicative of the removal of 
 guilt, and of the cleansing of the soul from sin. 
 The Jewish Rabbins have for ages attached to it a 
 saving efficacy. They teach that the baptism of 
 proselytes is the occasion of their receiving new 
 souls, or experiencing a literal change of soul. This 
 error is analogous to that of making Christian bap- 
 tism the occasion of regeneration, of which it is only 
 the symbol and seal. 
 
 Proselyte baptism is supposed to have been intro- 
 duced for the following purposes : 
 
 1. To distinguish proselytes, by a religious initia- 
 tory rite, from circumcised Gentiles; such as the Ish- 
 maelites. 
 
 2. To serve as an initiatory rite, to seal the intro- 
 duction of females to the Jewish church. 
 
 As circumcision was applicable only to males, it 
 must have seemed highly desirable to accord to 
 woman some analogous seal, by which their interest 
 
34 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 
 
 in the grace of God, and in the blessings of his 
 covenant with men, should be distinctly marked. 
 
 Proselyte baptism answered this purpose. 
 
 3. To remove that general defilement which, ac- 
 cording to the principles of the Mosaic laws respect- 
 ing ceremonial defilement and cleansing, pertained 
 to the whole heathen world. 
 
 DOMESTIC BAPTISMS. 
 
 $18. These are referred to in Mark 7: 3, 4. 
 This passage has greatly perplexed commentators 
 and translators. Properly translated, it reads as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "For the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not, ex- 
 cept i they wash their hands with the fist closed. 
 And [things] from the market they do not eat, unless 
 they baptize [them]. And there are many other 
 [customs] which they have received to hold, [as] 
 baptisms of cups and pitchers and brazen vessels 
 and couches." 
 
 The first difficulty in translating this passage is 
 with the word translated oft in the common version, 
 and fist closed, in the above. The signification oft 
 or often, is derived from the vulgate, a latin transla- 
 tion, and the one commonly used by the Papal 
 church. The Greek word, however, to which this 
 corresponds, does not have this signification. Its 
 usual and proper signification is that which I have 
 given. There is no reason to depart from it, provi- 
 did the context will bear this sense. 
 
 Washing the hands with the fist closed, would be 
 very different from an ordinary and natural mode of 
 washing them, and perhaps may have been adopted 
 
JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTIMM. 35 
 
 for this reason. A religious washing ought to differ 
 from an ordinary one, even if performed in the same 
 genera] mode. Besides, this washing, like the other 
 ceremonial washings, was not performed for purposes 
 of cleanliness, but solely for the purpose of ceremo- 
 nial purification. It may have been performed, 
 either by dipping the fists in water or by having water 
 poured on them. 
 
 The fourth verse admits of being construed in two 
 different ways; in both of which, an ellipsis is to be 
 supplied. Translating it without altering the arrange- 
 ment or supplying the ellipsis, it reads thus: "And 
 from the market, unless they baptize, they eat not." 
 Some supply before from, returning, and take baptize 
 in its middle or reflexive sense as terminating on the 
 subject, so as to make it read thus: "And returning 
 from the market, unless they baptize themselves, 
 they do not eat." 
 
 Our objection to this rendering is, that it makes 
 the whole expression superfluous and contradictory 
 of the assertion contained in the verse before it. 
 
 The evangelist had said in the preceding verse, 
 mat the Jews washed their hands as a ceremonial 
 purification before all meals. Such a washing was 
 a baptism ; for it was a religious purification of the 
 same kind as purification from defilement contracted 
 by touching the dead. The design of both was to 
 denote spiritual cleansing. Both removed ceremo- 
 nial defilement. Both were administered, fully or 
 in part, by means of water, considered as a medium 
 of physical cleansing. 
 
 Purification from defilement, contracted by touch- 
 ing the dead, was called, being baptized, in one of 
 the aphocryphal books of the Septuagint, making 
 that kind of religious rites baptisms. The religious 
 
36 JEWISH TRADITIONARY BAPTISMS. 
 
 washing of the hands, according to the tradition of 
 Elders, referred to Mark 7 : 2, 3, and Matt. 15 : 2, 
 was a rite of that kind, therefore it was a baptism. 
 
 According to the interpretation now under consid- 
 eration, the Evangelist tells us, in the first place, that 
 the Jews practiced baptism before all their meals, 
 and then in the next verse, that they did it before 
 some of their meals, that is, after returning from the 
 market. 
 
 Not only is the second declaration superfluous, it 
 is contradictory of the other. For it implies that 
 baptism was not practiced generally before all meals, 
 but only on occasions of returning from the market. 
 
 The version which I have adopted, supplies things 
 and them, instead of returning; and takes the verb 
 baptize in its active sense, a sense which is common 
 to the middle form of Greek verbs, and which is al- 
 ways given them by intelligent translators, when the 
 connection requires it. 
 
 Eating from the market, is a natural expression to 
 denote eating things from the market. 
 
 A similar mode of expression is used in Mark 7: 
 28, which is rendered in the common bible ; " cat of 
 the children's crumbs." 
 
 1 Cor. 9: 13 and 14, contain similar ellipses, 
 where it is said; "Do ye not know, that they who 
 minister about holy things, live of the temple ; (that 
 is of the things obtained from the temple ;) and they 
 who wait on the altar, are partakers with the altar? 
 Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they Who 
 preach the gospel, should live of the gospel j that is, 
 of the proceeds of the gospel." 
 
 The version which I have adopted, is in perfect 
 agreement with the orginal Greek which it repre- 
 
JBWX3B Ti:\I»ITIO\AHY' HAI'TISMS. 37 
 
 scnts, and suits perfectly the context and the nature 
 of the subject treated of. 
 
 Food from the market is in every point of view as 
 appropriate a subject of ceremonial defilement and 
 cleansing, as dishes and couches; and those who bap- 
 tize the latter, would be compelled, in order to be 
 consistent with themselves, to baptize the former. 
 
 On the whole, therefore, I conclude, with Kuinocl 
 and other distinguished interpreters, that the first 
 part of Mark 7: 4, relates to the baptism of provi- 
 sions obtained from the market, and not to the bap- 
 tism of persons returning from it. 
 
 The latter part of Mark 7: 4, mentions explicitly 
 the baptism of cups and pitchers, and brazen vessels, 
 and couches. The original word in this passage, 
 translated washing in the common bible, denotes 
 baptisms, not secular washing, and ought to be trans- 
 lated accordingly. 
 
 In the entire passage, therefore, we have three 
 different Jewish baptisms : 
 
 1. The baptism of persons before meals, perform- 
 ed by washing the hands with the fists closed. 
 
 2. The baptism of provisions obtained from the 
 market, the mode of which is not described. This 
 must have been, however, by sprinkling, as many 
 kinds of provisions would not admit of being either 
 washed or dipped. 
 
 3. The baptism of cups, pitchers, brazen vessels 
 and couches. 
 
 The mode of baptism in respect to those articles 
 of furniture, is not described. Sprinkling is the 
 most probable, and is the only one that was practica- 
 ble in respect to couches and articles of that kind. 
 
38 John's baptism. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 JOHN'S BAPTISM. 
 Nature of John's Baptism. 
 
 § 19. The baptism of John began and ended with 
 that reformer. That it was not the same as Christian 
 baptism, is proved by Acts 19: 2-5, where disciples 
 who had been baptized with John's baptism, after- 
 wards received Christian baptism from the hands of 
 the apostles. John's baptism, therefore, is an insti- 
 tution by itself, different from the Mosaic baptisms, 
 different from the traditional baptisms practiced by 
 the Jews of his time, and different from Christian 
 baptism. 
 
 Considered as a baptism, it was analagous to the 
 other baptisms which have been described. It was, 
 like them, a ceremonial purification, and symbol of 
 moral cleansing. It differed from them, however, in 
 being a rite of initiation into the society of John's 
 professed disciples. Hence the expression, John 4 : 
 1. "The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made 
 and baptized more disciples than John." 
 
 The making and baptizing of disciples by Jesus 
 and John are here contrasted. Jesus made disciples 
 by converting them to his doctrines, and then he ad- 
 mitted them to the society of his professed followers, 
 by causing them to receive baptism. John made 
 disciples by converting them to his doctrines, and 
 then admitted them to the society of his professed 
 followers, by a similar rite. 
 
john's BAFtm. .30 
 
 As Cfaristiao baptism was a rite of initiation into 
 the Christian church, John's baptism was a rite of in- 
 itiation into John's church, or John's religious soci- 
 ety. 
 
 John did not found the Christian church, and did 
 not, by his baptism, admit persons into it. He did, 
 however, found a religious society within the bosom 
 of the corrupt Jewish church and admitted persons 
 to it by baptism. John's baptism, therefore, diners 
 from all other baptisms in being a rite of initiation 
 into the religious order or society of which he was 
 the founder. 
 
 This society was not destined to be permanent. 
 It was soon merged in the Christian church, and its 
 initiatory rite discontinued. But for a time it exert- 
 ed an important influence in favor of piety and good 
 morals, and contributed greatly to prepare the way 
 for the successful establishment of Christianity. 
 Every true disciple of John, was prepared to become 
 an immediate disciple of Christ, as soon as an oppor- 
 tunity should offer. 
 
 In being made a rite of initiation into the society 
 of John's disciples, his baptism became of a sacra- 
 mental character. As a seal of discipleship to John, 
 it sealed the obligations of the subjects to perform 
 all the duties of disciples. It also sealed their faith 
 in the doctrines which John taught and inculcated. 
 Hence it is called " the baptism of repentance for 
 the remission of sins," Mark 1:4; and hence the ex- 
 pression, "I baptize you with water to repentance," 
 Matt. 3: 11. 
 
 The baptism of repentance for the remission of 
 sins, involves the recognition of the doctrine, that re- 
 pentance is necessary in order to our obtaining the 
 remission of sins. It also implies, that the baptism 
 
40 JOIO*S BAPTISM. 
 
 so denominated, is a seal of our faith in this doctrine. 
 Baptizing persons to repentance, involves a recogni- 
 tion of the obligation to repent, and an engagement 
 on the part of the subjects to discharge this obliga- 
 tion. To baptize one to repentance, is to take his 
 confessed obligation to repent, and seal it with the 
 ordinance of baptism. In the case of adult persons, 
 it implies still more. It implies a profession of 
 actual repentance on the part of the subjects, and is 
 the seal of that profession. 
 
 Subjects of John's Baptism. 
 
 §20. The subjects of John's baptism are describ- 
 ed in the following general terms; Matt. 3: 5, 5, 
 " Then went out to him, Jerusalem and all Judea and 
 all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized 
 at Jordan by him, confessing their sins.'" 
 
 These general terms require some limitation. 
 The natural limitations are made in the following 
 paraphrase : The Jews in Jerusalem and throughout 
 all Judea and in all the region about Jordan, gener- 
 ally believed in John, became his disciples, adopted 
 his principles, and were admitted to the society of 
 his professed followers, by baptism. This embraces 
 men and women, though neither are distinctly speci- 
 fied in the above description. Whether it embraced 
 the children of adult converts or not, is a question 
 of some considerable interest, and one in repect to 
 which, different opinions are entertained. 
 
 Children are no where in the New Testament ex- 
 plicitly stated to have been included among die sub- 
 jects of John's baptism, nor are they any where 
 explicitly stated to have been excluded from this 
 
JOHN"? BAPT1BM. 11 
 
 rite. Tiic subject is only adverted to, in the moel 
 ral terms, in the inspired narrative. The only 
 tieations are of Pharisees and Sadducces, Matt. 
 3: 7, Jesus, 3: 13-15, the multitude, Luke 3: 7, 
 the people, 8: 10, the publicans, 3: 12, and the sol- 
 diers, 3: 14. 
 
 Some deny that the children of adult, disciples 
 were included among the subjects of John's baptism, 
 on the following grounds: 
 
 1. That they are not distinctly specified as having 
 been the subjects of his baptism, in the inspired nar- 
 rative. 
 
 2. That they could not exercise the repentance, 
 and faith which he enjoined. 
 
 Both these premises are true. But the conclusion 
 does not legitimately follow. 
 
 John was a divinely appointed herald, calling upon 
 all the tme servants of God to separate themselves 
 from the rest of the nation, by joining his religious 
 association. His organization proceeded on the 
 principle, that the nation, as such, was fundamentally 
 corrupt, and liable to be cast off from the favor of 
 God for its corruption. 
 
 He raises the standard of true piety and calls upon 
 all to crowd around it, and form a true church in the 
 midst of one that had become partially corrupt. He 
 does not teach a religion, fundamentally new. He 
 is only an expounder of the old religion. He aims 
 to bring the people back to the spirit and letter of 
 their long established institutions. What Abraham 
 and the Patriarchs were, in respect to a due obser- 
 vance of religious and moral duties, he aims to make 
 them. 
 
 All who respond to his call and obey his injunc- 
 tions, he seals by baptism, as belonging to the reform- 
 4 
 
42 John's baptism. 
 
 ed branch of the Jewish church. His society was 
 not a new church organized on new principles. It 
 was only a reformed branch of the Jewish church. 
 
 Now, in the absence of any explicit and scriptu- 
 ral statements on this subject, what is the fair pre- 
 sumption in respect to children? According to the 
 principles of the Jewish economy, what were the 
 rights and privileges of children? Evidently, the 
 fair presumption is, that children, included with their 
 parents as the subjects of religious purification gen- 
 erally, were also included as subjects of this partic- 
 ular purification. Having been from the time of 
 Abraham, the subjects of the initiatory rite and seal 
 of faith and holiness, they must be entitled to share, 
 with their parents, this additional seal, unless the 
 contrary is explicitly asserted. The contrary is not 
 asserted, neither is it implied by any thing that ap- 
 pears in the inspired narrative. It follows, therefore, 
 that children must have been included with their 
 converted parents as subjects of John's baptism, on 
 the same principle, in accordance with which, they 
 w r ere made the subjects of circumcision, and of the 
 other Jewish baptisms. 
 
 Mode of John's Baptism. 
 
 $21. The mode of John's baptism is no where 
 in the scriptures particularly described. The word 
 baptism does not restrict this rite to any particu- 
 lar mode, because this word denoted the Mosaic 
 purifications, which were administered in different 
 modes, but chiefly by sprinkling and affusion, or 
 washing. No other terms are applied to describe 
 John's baptism, which designate the mode of its per- 
 
43 
 
 formance. The common English Bible represents it 
 as having been administered in the river Jordan. 
 Matt. 3 : 6, and Mark 1 : 5. The preposition which 
 in these passages, is translated in, means cither in 
 or at. In many situations, it signifies in, in the sense 
 of within, and usually lias this signification before 
 the names of cities, countries, edifices, &,c. In 
 many situations, also, it has the less definite and 
 wider signification of at, on, by, near, &c, as in 
 Luke 13 : 4, where the tower in Siloam means the 
 tower at or near the fountain of Siloam, not in it. 
 The same preposition that expresses, in the above 
 passages, the relation of John's baptism to the river 
 Jordan, expresses, in Luke 13 : 4, the relation of a 
 tower to the fountain of Siloam. The tower, how- 
 ever, was not in the fountain but near it. The bap- 
 tism of John may then not have been administered 
 in the river Jordan but near it. 
 
 The passages, therefore, where in the common 
 English Bible, John's baptism is said to have been 
 administered in the river Jordan, are incorrectly 
 translated, and afford no proof that his baptism was 
 administered in the river; the same word, in the 
 original, expressing both the relations of in and at, 
 or near. 
 
 It is impossible to determine, from the word used 
 to express the relation of the river to John's bap- 
 tism, whether it was performed in the river or only 
 by the river. This word, therefore, proves nothing 
 in respect to the mode of his baptism. 
 
 The common Englfsh Bible informs us, Matt. 3 : 
 16, that, "Jesus, when he was baptized, went up 
 straightway out of the water." 
 
 The preposition here translated "out of," usually 
 means from or away from, and is correctly translated 
 
44 john's baptism. 
 
 as expressing that relation, Matt. 3 : 7, in the sen- 
 tence, "Who hath warned you to fee from the wrath 
 to come ?" The question is not " Who hath warned 
 you to flee*out of the wrath to come," but " Who 
 hath warned you to flee from, or away from, the wrath 
 to come." So in numerous other passages. 
 
 This passage merely teaches that Jesus, after his 
 baptism, went up from the water, not that he went 
 up out of it. It therefore proves nothing in respect 
 to the mode of John's baptism, except that in the 
 case of Jesus it was administered at the river Jor- 
 dan; and, by implication, that it was administered 
 with river water. 
 
 It does not appear, however, that all John's bap- 
 tisms were administered even at the river Jordan; 
 for we are told, John 3 : 23, that, at a certain time, 
 " John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salem, because 
 there were many waters there." The expression 
 "many waters," is the literal rendering of the origi- 
 nal. It means many streams or fountains. 
 
 The reason assigned for John's baptizing in Enon, 
 does not indicate any particular mode of baptism. 
 It cannot reasonably be supposed that many streams 
 were more necessary for one mode of baptism than 
 for another. One stream was sufficient for any mode 
 of performing this rite. The immense crowds, how- 
 ever, who attended on the preaching of John, coming 
 in great numbers from the distance of fifty or eighty 
 miles, and the same individuals naturally remaining 
 for a considerable time, required large accommoda- 
 tions. A main article in respect to their supply, was 
 water for themselves and for their animals. This, 
 in large abundance was indispensably necessary ; and 
 to meet this exigency, we have reason to believe 
 Enon was chosen, for a time, as the place of John's 
 
John's baptism. 15 
 
 labors. Its many streams made it a suitable p] 
 in consequence, not of any particular mode of bap- 
 tism which John practiced, but in consequence of its 
 betti r adaptation to accommodate properly the vast 
 multitudes who attended on his ministry. 
 
 John, during the short period of his public minis- 
 try, baptized, according to the Evangelists, almost the 
 entire Jewish nation, which consisted of several mil- 
 lions. Matt. 3:5; Mark 1 : 5. He did this with his , 
 own hands, not by the ministry of his disciples; for 
 it does not appear that his disciples baptized at all. 
 
 This fact indicates a mode of baptism that could 
 be administered without great fatigue, or exposure 
 of health to injury from long standing in the water. 
 It is not the plan of Divine Providence to perform 
 miracles for the preservation of men; the object of 
 miracles is to serve as grounds of faith. We have 
 no intimation that John was preserved from injury, 
 and sustained, under the fatigue of a laborious mode 
 of administering baptism, by a continual miracle. 
 Therefore, we are not authorized to believe that he 
 had any miraculous support in this part of his minis- 
 try. We are, on the other hand, expressly informed 
 that John wrought no miracles. John 10: 41. 
 
 Whatever, therefore, was the mode of his baptism, 
 it does not seem possible that it could have been im- 
 mersion. No human constitution could have en- 
 dured the labor and exposure of immersing the 
 millions that appear to have been baptized by him, 
 during the short period of his public ministry. 
 
 Authority of John's Baptism. 
 
 $22. John's baptism was of divine authority. In 
 this respect, it stands on a level with the Mosaic bap- 
 
46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 tisms, and far above the traditionary baptisms of the 
 Jews. His baptism received the approbation of the 
 Saviour, and of the Evangelists. This could not 
 have been the case unless it had been of divine au- 
 thority. In being of divine authority, it was con- 
 formable to a divine law requiring it. That law, 
 however, is not recorded in the scriptures. Its ex- 
 istence is a matter of inference ; but though its ex- 
 istence is a matter of inference, it is not a matter of 
 doubt, or of uncertainty. Nothing can be more cer- 
 tain. 
 
 John himself refers to the divine authority of his 
 baptism, in the expression recorded, John 1 : 33, 
 " He that sent me to baptize with water, the same 
 said to me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit de- 
 scending and remaining on him, this is he, who bap- 
 tizeth with the Holy Ghost." 
 
 We infer from this passage, that God sent John to 
 baptize; consequently, that his baptism was of divine 
 authority, an inference in agreement with that be- 
 fore made from other premises. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Historical account of the Origin of Christian 
 Baptism. 
 
 § 23. Christian baptism is the baptism instituted 
 by Christ and administered to his disciples. The 
 
CHRISTIAN BAFTIS.M. 17 
 
 scriptures contain no record of its primitive institu- 
 tion, or of the explanations and instructions of the 
 Saviour respecting it, either at the time of its insti- 
 tution, or on any subsequent occasion. 
 
 The earliest notices that we have of it, are in the 
 Gospel of John, 3: 22,20, and 4: 1,2. "After these 
 tilings came Jesus, and his disciples, into the land of 
 Judea, and there he abode with them and baptized. 
 And they (John's disciples,) came to John and said, 
 Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to 
 whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, 
 and all come to him. 1 ' " When, therefore, the Lord 
 knew that Jesus made and baptized more disciples 
 than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but 
 his disciples,) he left Judea and departed again to 
 Gallilee." 
 
 These are all the scriptural instructions we have 
 on Christian baptism, till after the resurrection of the 
 Saviour. They are all confined to the Gospel of 
 John. Matthew and Mark take no notice of Chris- 
 tian baptism till they received the commission to 
 preach the gospel to every creature, after the resur- 
 rection. They then notice it only as making a part 
 of that commission, without any explanation, further 
 than that persons are to be baptized to the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 Luke takes no notice of it at all. 
 
 The passages referred to in John, show clearly 
 that Christian baptism was instituted by Christ at the 
 commencement of his ministry, not after its close, 
 as is erroneously supposed by many. 
 
 After the crucifixion, Christian baptism is men- 
 tioned by Mark and Luke, in the following passages: 
 Mark 16: 16. "And he said to them, -go ye into all 
 the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 
 
48 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved, 
 but he that believeth not, shall be damned.'" 
 
 Matt. 28: 19, 20. "Go ye, therefore, and make 
 disciples of all nations, baptizing them to the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatso- 
 ever I have commanded you ; and lo I am with you 
 always, to the. end of the world." 
 
 These two passages contain similar injunctions 
 respecting preaching the gospel, and administering 
 Christian baptism to all men. That recorded in 
 Mark is supposed to have been delivered on the even- 
 ing of the day of the resurrection. John 20 : 19-23, 
 and Luke 24 : 36-47, relate to the same occasion. 
 
 That recorded in Matthew was addressed to the 
 disciples, by the Saviour, on the occasion of his ap- 
 pearing to them, agreeably to previous appointment, 
 on a mountain in Gallilee. This appearance occur- 
 red on the third Sabbath after the resurrection, and is 
 recorded only by Matthew. 
 
 The next notice of Christian baptism is in Acts 
 2: 38, 39, 41. "Then Peter said to them, repent 
 and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission 
 of sins, and ye . shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your chil- 
 dren, and to all that are afar off; even as many as 
 the Lord our God shall call. Then they that gladly 
 received his word were baptized ; and the same day 
 there were added to them about three thousand 
 souls." 
 
 In the subsequent parts of the New Testament 
 history, and in the Epistles, Christian baptism is fre- 
 quently mentioned and alluded to, but in no case- 
 particularly described. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTI8J \$ 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the scriptures contain 
 no accoimt <>f the institution of Christian baptism. 
 The first notice which we have of it relates to it as 
 already instituted, and as being administered by the 
 disciples of Christ to large numbers of converts. 
 We arc expressly informed that Christ did not ad- 
 minister his baptism, but referred the administration 
 of it entirely to his disciples. John 4: 2. Where 
 it is said, expressly, that he baptized, in John 3: 22, 
 it must be interpreted on the principle that, what one 
 does by another he does by himself. He baptized 
 by employing his disciples to do it for him. 
 
 Nature and design of Christian Baptism. 
 
 \ 24. The nature and design of Christian bap- 
 tism are not particularly explained, either in connec- 
 tion with the first notices of it, or subsequently. 
 They must, therefore, be ascertained by indirect evi- 
 dence. 
 
 Had it differed essentially from the other custom- 
 ary baptisms of the Jews, some explanation would 
 have been necessary. The fact, therefore, that no 
 such explanations are given, proves that it does not 
 differ essentially from them. 
 
 The older Jewish baptisms were ceremonial puri- 
 fications, representing, symbolically, that spiritual 
 cleansing which fits us for the enjoyment of God. 
 The same appears to have been the case with John's 
 baptism. It was a ceremonial cleansing or rite of puri- 
 fication, representing holiness as necessary to salva- 
 tion. 
 
 The allusions to baptism, and the figurative uses 
 made of it in the New Testament, fully sustain this 
 
50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 view. Hence the expression, to baptize with the 
 Holy Ghost. Matt. 3: 11 ; Mark 1:8; Luke 3: 16, 
 17; John 1: 33. In these passages, John contrasts 
 his baptizing with water, with Christ's baptizing with 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Christ makes the same contrast, Acts 1 : 5. "For 
 John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be bap- 
 tized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." 
 Peter alludes to this declaration on the occasion of 
 his being called to account for preaching the gospel 
 to Cornelius and his friends. Acts 11 : 15, 16; "And 
 as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as 
 on us at the beginning. Then I remembered the 
 word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed 
 baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with 
 the Holy Ghost.'' The conclusion drawn from 
 Peter's argument, of which the above is a part, was, 
 that " God also, to the Gentiles, granted repentance 
 to life." Acts 11: 18. 
 
 It appears that the declaration of Christ, " ye shall 
 be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days 
 hence," was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when 
 the Holy Spirit was largely poured out, and operated 
 in the conversion of about three thousand persons. 
 These persons were baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
 by being converted and purified from sin. 
 
 In the conversion of Cornelius and his friends, 
 Peter recognizes the administration of this same 
 spiritual baptism to the Gentiles, which had before 
 been performed upon the Jews. 
 
 In Acts 22: 16, Ananias says to Saul, "And now, 
 why tamest thou? Arise, be baptized, and wash 
 away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
 Here baptism is spoken of as a washing away of 
 
CHRISTIAN BArTISM. 51 
 
 sins, showing that, in the apprehension of Ananias, 
 it wa.- a symbol of moral cleansing. 
 
 Titus 3: 5, contains a similar allusion, where it is 
 said of Christ, that "Not by works of righteousness 
 which wo have done, but according to his mercy, he 
 saved us by the washing of regeneration and the re- 
 newing of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Also, 1 Pet. 3: 21. "The antitype to which thing, 
 baptism even now saves us, (not the putting away of 
 the filth of the flesh ; but the answer of a good con- 
 science towards God,) by the resurrection of Christ.-* 
 
 Here baptism is referred to as a saving ordinance. 
 But the baptism which has this efficacy is said not to 
 be the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but that 
 internal operation of the Spirit, which produces a 
 good conscience. The answer of a good conscience 
 is the declaration of Christian faith, which is returned 
 from a sanctified mind. Hence external baptism is 
 a sign of internal cleansing. This conclusion, which 
 has already been deduced from other premises, may 
 fairly be deduced from the above passage alone, and 
 is a necessary inference from it. 
 
 John 3 : 25, is in agreement with the doctrine 
 that Christian baptism is an ordinance of ceremonial 
 purification, where the question concerning purifica- 
 tion appears to have been a question concerning the 
 relative character of the baptisms of John and Christ. 
 This clearly appears, from the verses which follow, 
 and from the information given to John on the oc- 
 casion, as involving the matter in dispute, that Christ 
 was baptizing, and that all men were coming to him 
 for baptism. 
 
 In addition to being a symbol of purification, bap- 
 tism was a seal of discipleship to Christ. This is 
 evident, from the following considerations : 
 
52 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 1. It was administered to all disciples immediate- 
 ly on their becoming such, and was never repeated. 
 The obligation to receive it was universal. Those 
 who were made disciples during the personal minis- 
 try of Christ were baptized during his ministry; those 
 who were made disciples on the day of Pentecost, 
 were baptized on the day of Pentecost; and so of 
 others. 
 
 2. The baptismal formula indicates that baptism 
 is a seal of discipleship. 
 
 This is alluded to in the following passages: 
 Matt. 28 : 19. " Baptizing them to the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 Acts 8: 16; "For he (the Holy Ghost,) as yet was 
 fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized 
 to the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19: 5; 
 " When they heard this, they were baptized to the 
 name of the Lord Jesus." Rom. 6: 3, 4; "Know 
 ye not, that as many of us as were baptized to Christ, 
 were baptized to his death? Therefore, we are 
 buried with him by baptism to his death." That is, 
 by being baptized to his death. 1 Cor. 12: 13; 
 " For by one spirit we are all baptized to one body, 
 whether Jews or Gentiles; * whether bond or free." 
 Gal. 3 : 27; " For as many of you as have been bap- 
 tized to Christ, have put on Christ." 
 
 In the above passages, persons are spoken of as 
 being baptized to the Father, and the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost; and in allusion to the fact that Christ 
 was the discriminating object of faith; as being bap- 
 tized to him, the other persons of the Trinity not 
 being specified. They are also spoken of as being 
 baptized to the death of Christ, and to one body or 
 community. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAfimC. 53 
 
 The word which I have translated to, in all ihc 
 
 above passages, and which, in the common bible, is, 
 in some of them, translated in, and in some of them 
 into, is susceptible of several different significations. 
 
 It means to, into, in, for, &C, and is translated by 
 these different words, and others, both in the New 
 Testament and in other ancient writings. It is often 
 used after verbs of motion, to express the direction 
 of that motion; as in John 7: 8, where it occurs 
 twice. "Go ye up to this feast. I go not up yet to 
 this feast, for my time is not yet fully come/' Matt. 
 5: 1; "He went up to a mountain." In the latter 
 passage, the preposition is incorrectly translated into 
 in the common bible. 
 
 Men often go to mountains, but they do not, in or- 
 dinary cases, go into them. 
 
 John 8:1. "Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.'" 
 John 1*2 : 1 ; " Then Jesus, six days before the pass- 
 over, came to Bethany." John 17 : 1 ; " These words 
 spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven." 
 
 Before the names of persons, this preposition sig- 
 nifies to, towards, for. 
 
 In most of the passages which contain an allusion 
 to the baptismal formula, this preposition is used be- 
 fore the names of persons; in one of them it is used 
 before a word which, in that connection, denotes the 
 Christian church. What is the relation, then, which 
 it must denote in these connections? Evidently it 
 denotes the relation of the person baptized to the 
 person to whom he is baptized. If he is baptized to 
 the Trinity, the preposition before Trinity denotes 
 the relation of the baptized person to the Trinity. 
 If he is baptized to the Lord Jesus, it denotes the 
 relation of the baptized person to the Lord Jesus. 
 
54 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 If he is baptized to one body, the church, it denotes 
 his relation to the church. 
 
 What then is the relation of a baptized person to 
 the Trinity? 
 
 Answer. It is the relation of a professed worship- 
 per and disciple of the Trinity. 
 
 So the relation of a baptized person to the Lord 
 Jesus, is that of a professed worshipper and disciple 
 of the Lord Jesus, and his relation to the church is 
 that of a church member. 
 
 It appears then, most clearly, that persons are bap- 
 tized to Christ, as his worshippers and disciples. 
 Baptism, therefore, is manifestly the seal of their dis- 
 cipleship, because it is a consecration of them to 
 him as his worshippers and disciples, or a seal of such 
 consecration. 
 
 Theory that Christian Baptism is a symbolical rep- 
 resentation of the death, burial, and resurrection 
 of Christ, considered and disproved. 
 
 $25. Some have adopted the theory that Chris- 
 tian baptism is a symbolical representation of the 
 death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This theory 
 is supported by an appeal to Rom. 6: 3-5, and Col. 
 2: 11, 12. These passages, properly translated, 
 read as follows : 
 
 " Know ye not that as many of us as have been bap- 
 tized to Christ, have been baptized to his death. We 
 are, therefore, buried with him by baptism to death, 
 that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory 
 of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of 
 life. For if we have been planted together in the 
 
CHRISTIAN B.vrTISM 55 
 
 likeness of his death, \vc shall be also [planted to- 
 gether in the likeness] of his resurrection." 
 
 "In whom, also, ye are circumcised, with a cir- 
 cumcision made without hands, by putting off the 
 carnal body, by the circumcision of Christ, being 
 buried with him by baptism ; by which, also, ye are 
 risen with him, through faith, in respect to the power 
 of God, who raised him from the dead." 
 
 In the common bible, the preposition which shows 
 the relation between baptized and Christ, and bap- 
 tized and death, Rom. 6 : 3, is translated into instead 
 of to. This translation falls little short of being ab- 
 surd. Even on the supposition that baptism was ad- 
 ministered by immersion, what propriety would there 
 be in calling such an immersion an immersion into 
 Christ, or an immersion into his death? On that 
 supposition, baptism was an immersion into water, 
 but not into Christ or into his death. 
 
 But considering baptism, without respect to the 
 mode of its administration, as sealing persons for 
 Christ, and thus uniting them to him in church mem- 
 bership; and substituting to for into, we have a con- 
 sistent sense. According to this hypothesis, being 
 baptized to Christ means being made a professed 
 disciple of Christ by baptism ; and being baptized to 
 the death of Christ, means being made a subject of 
 the death of Christ, or being introduced by baptism 
 to a state of death analogous to that which Christ 
 suffered. Being baptized to the death of Christ, is 
 a figurative expression, introduced as an inference 
 from our baptism to Christ. Because Christ has 
 died, and we are baptized to him after his death; 
 therefore, baptism introduces us to a state of death. 
 By death is here meant deadness to sin. 
 
50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 In the expressions baptized to Christ, and baptized 
 to the death of Christ, therefore, we have no evi- 
 dence of any representation of Christ's death in bap- 
 tism; neither do these expressions indicate any 
 particular mode of performing this rite to the exclu- 
 sion of others. Their signiflcancy depends not on 
 the mode, but on the design of baptism, as a rite of 
 initiation into the Christian church, and an ordinance 
 by which persons are sealed and devoted to Christ. 
 
 Being buried with Christ, by baptism to death, or 
 by being baptized to death, means being located with 
 Christ; being introduced into the same state and 
 condition with him, by being baptized to him, or de- 
 voted and sealed by baptism to him. Here, there- 
 fore, is no representation of burial by baptism. 
 
 It is inferred that if we are baptized or devoted by 
 baptism to Christ, who has suffered death, then we 
 must be dead also; that is, dead to sin. And it is 
 still further inferred, that, as the dead are usually 
 buried, and thus removed entirely from any partici- 
 pation in the affairs of this world, Christians, being 
 dead as Christ was dead, must also be buried as he 
 was buried. Thus, buried with Christ means buried 
 as Christ was buried. This, however, is to be taken 
 figuratively and spiritually. We are buried from a 
 state of sin by being far removed from it. The 
 Apostle extends this into an allegory through Rom. 
 6: 5, 6, &c. 
 
 In the whole, however, no allusion is made to 
 what baptism represents, but to the relations which 
 it establishes, and the condition into which it intro- 
 duces us. 
 
 Being buried with Christ by baptism, and being 
 risen with him by the same, (mentioned in Col- 
 losians.) are similar to the passage now explained. 
 
The preposition which I have translated by, is, in 
 tlir common bible, incorrectly translated in. Before 
 noiii ig place or capacity for containing any 
 
 thing, if signifies in, at, or by, as in Luke 11: 1; 
 
 mat, as ho was in a certain 
 place praying;" "in a house," Matt 8: 6; " in the 
 temple,' 1 Acts 2:46; "in the synagogues," Matt. 
 
 Before nouns denoting elevated objects, it signifies 
 on or upon; as "on a tree," Mark 11: 13; "on a 
 mountain," Luke 8: 32; John 4: 20; Heb. 8: 5. 
 
 Before nouns denoting means, instruments, and 
 agents, it signifies by or with; as Matt. 3: 11; "I 
 indeed baptize you with water to repentance; but he 
 that comcth after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 
 I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with 
 the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Matt. 9: 34. " But 
 the Pharisees said, he casteth out demons by Beelze- 
 bub, the prince of demons." Matt. 12: 24, 26. 
 Acts 7: 35; " This Moses, whom they refused, say- 
 ing, who made thee a ruler and a judge 1 the same 
 did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer, by the 
 hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush." 
 Rom. 15: 16; "That the offering of the Gentiles 
 might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy 
 Ghost." Rom. 16: 16; "Salute one another with a 
 holy kiss." Rev. 6:8; "And power was given to 
 him over a fourth part of the earth, to kill with the 
 sword and with famine, and with pestilence." Rev. 
 5:9; "And thou hast redeemed us to God by thy 
 blood." 
 
 In the above cases, and in many others, the pre- 
 position Which, in Col. 2: 12, expresses the relation 
 of baptism to being buried with Christ, and to being 
 risen with him, expresses the relation of the instru- 
 5 
 
58 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ment, means, or agent to the action performed. Here, 
 also, it has a similar meaning. Baptism is the in- 
 strument or means of our burial and resurrection 
 with Christ. 
 
 But in what sense does it bury and raise us up to 
 life with Christ? 
 
 Answer. By representing us as dying to sin and 
 becoming alive to righteousness ; or, in other words, 
 by representing us as cleansed from sin, and made 
 spiritually alive with holiness. 
 
 This is the appropriate symbolical significancy of 
 all baptisms; or baptism buries us with Christ, and 
 raises us up to life with him, by sealing us his, and 
 devoting us sacramentally to him. 
 
 It appears, therefore, from a careful examination of 
 Rom. 6: 3-5, and Col. 2:11, 12, that these pas- 
 sages do not assert nor imply any symbolical repre- 
 sentation of the death and resurrection of Christ, by 
 Christian baptism. 
 
 The administration of baptism in the modes ap- 
 propriated to the Mosaic baptisms, that is, by sprink- 
 ling and affusion, does not bear the slightest analogy 
 to the death, burial, or resurrection of Christ. The 
 administration of the same by immersion might rep- 
 resent a death, burial, and resurrection, if it had been 
 appointed for that purpose. But we are no where 
 informed, in the scriptures, that such an appointment 
 was made; neither is there any evidence whatever of 
 such an appointment. 
 
 To suppose that there was such an appointment 
 on account of allusions, which admit of a satisfactory 
 explanation on other grounds, is evidently unauthor- 
 ized. The allusions to baptism in Rom. 6 : 3-5, and 
 Col. 2: 11, 12, do admit of satisfactory explana- 
 tions on other grounds. They, therefore, do not 
 
MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. N 
 
 prove an appointment of baptism to represent the 
 
 dcatli, burial, and reSOTTectlon of Christ Conse- 
 quently, there is no proof in favor of the hypoth- 
 that Christian baptism is a symbolical representation 
 of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, in 
 the bible; That hypothesis must fall. It is not a 
 part of religious truth. It is not an appropriate ob- 
 ject of religious faith. Faith requires evidence; to 
 believe without evidence, or any further than evi- 
 dence leads, is not to exercise legitimate faith but 
 criminal credulity. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. -IM- 
 MERSION AND POURING. 
 
 The importance of a correct and convincing exposi- 
 tion of the Scriptural mode of Baptism. 
 
 § 26. The world, at the present time, is greatly 
 divided in its opinions in respect to the scriptural 
 mode of Christian baptism. The Greek church 
 practices immersion; the Roman Catholic church, 
 sprinkling and affusion; the Nestorians and Arme- 
 nians, immersion; most Protestant churches practice 
 affusion and sprinkling; and the Baptist churches, 
 with their numerous affiliated branches, many of 
 
60 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 which have departed from the general standard of 
 orthodoxy on other religious subjects, practice im- 
 mersion. 
 
 This extensive diversity is not maintained in peace. 
 The different denominations insist upon their parti- 
 cular modes of baptism as highly important to be 
 adopted, to the exclusion of all others. The Baptist 
 churches, especially, insist on immersion, not only as 
 the scriptural mode of baptism, but as the only mode 
 in which this ordinance can be administered. They 
 deny that the baptisms of those churches which prac- 
 tice affusion and sprinkling, are baptisms, and con- 
 sider them as possessing no validity whatever. Hence 
 they regard the members of such churches as entire- 
 ly unbaptized, and as having renounced, or essential- 
 ly corrupted, one of the sacraments of the Christian 
 church. On this ground they separate themselves 
 from the entire body of Christians who practice af- 
 fusion and sprinkling, and have no communion with 
 them. They thus create an additional schism in the 
 already divided body of Christ, contrary to that 
 memorable prayer of the Saviour, that his disciples 
 all may be one, as he and the Father are one, in or- 
 der that the entire world may be brought to believe 
 in his divine character and mission. John 17: 21. 
 Churches which God has acknowledged, by bestow- 
 ing his spirit upon them, and crowning their organi- 
 zations with success and usefulness, their immersion- 
 ist brethren do not acknowledge. All schisms are 
 injurious. They impair the influence of Christianity 
 generally, by placing its professors in opposition to 
 each other. They give the impression to unbe- 
 lievers, that the principles of the Christian system 
 are uncertain; that they are matters of opinion and 
 speculation merely, not of knowledge. They raise 
 
DUMM ami roller 01 
 
 id insurmountable obstacle to the genera] triumph of 
 Christianity. Christianity cannot triumph till the 
 essential unity of the church is re-established. Then 
 the powers of earth and hell will not be able to pre- 
 vent its triumph, or to protract, for any consider;) ble 
 time, the period of its depression. 
 
 If the scriptural mode of Christian baptism can be 
 correctly and convincingly expounded, the immer- 
 sionis? Bchism may, after a time, be honied. No one 
 who believes in the truth of Christianity, and who 
 expects its final triumph, can doubt the practicability 
 of making such an exposition. The scriptural doc- 
 trine on this subject must be capable of being clear- 
 ly exhibited, whatever it is. A clear exhibition of 
 it must carry conviction to reflecting minds. If it 
 does not triumph at once, it must, when it comes to 
 be properly presented, gradually prevail. 
 
 Such a presentation must be made. The inter- 
 ests of truth, the honor and success of religion, the 
 salvation of the world by an undivided church, de- 
 lineated on the pages of inspiration, all conspire to 
 demand it. The demand must be answered. God's 
 Spirit, moving mysteriously on the minds of his peo- 
 ple, will impel them to the work, till the truth shall 
 be shown; and till it shall be so shown as to pre- 
 vail. 
 
 The principal modes of Christian baptism are, 
 immersion, pouring, and affusion and sprinkling. 
 Affusion and sprinkling constitute, essentially, but 
 one mode of baptism, and are used together, or one 
 or the other is adopted indifferently by those who 
 adopt these rites. 
 
t)2 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF IMMERSION. 
 
 Specification of the principal Arguments. 
 
 $27. 1. That the ordinary meaning of the word 
 baptize, in the classic Greek writers, is to immerse 
 or plunge in a liquid, generally in water. 
 
 2. That John's baptism was administered in the 
 river Jordan. 
 
 3. That, in being baptized, persons went into the 
 water, and came out of the water. 
 
 4. That baptism is a symbolical representation of 
 the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. 
 
 5. That immersion prevailed at an early period 
 after the age of the apostles, and still prevails in the 
 Greek church, and in other branches of the professed 
 church of Christ in the East, which are the lineal 
 descendants of the apostolic churches. 
 
 These five arguments are the foundation and sup- 
 port of the doctrine of immersion, as the scriptural 
 mode of baptism. They are the premises of the im- 
 mersionist conclusion. The conclusion drawn from 
 them is, that baptism ought to be administered by 
 immersion. Two things are always to be considered 
 in order to determine the conclusiveness or incon- 
 clusiveness of reasoning. 
 
 1. The premises. The first thing to be consider- 
 ed in deciding on the validity of an argument, is, 
 whether the premises are true. If the premises are 
 not true, they can of course prove nothing. 
 
 2. The conclusion drawn from the premises. If 
 the premises are found not to be true, further in- 
 quiry is unnecessary. But if they are found to be 
 true, the next thing to be determined is, whether the 
 
■SBSJffli and FOURIHe. 63 
 
 conclusion is a legitimate and necessary deduction 
 from the premises, or from any on<' of them. If it 
 
 ia iiot.tlir argument is imperfect, and the conclusion 
 false or uncertain. Every conclusion is uncertain, 
 ami should be presumed io be false, till true pre- 
 mises are found, from which il can be legitimately 
 inferred. 
 
 The doctrine of immersion is inferred from five 
 independent premises. If it is a legitimate and 
 necessary inference from any one of tbem, and tbat 
 premise is found to be true, then this doctrine must 
 be admitted to be true. Still more must it be ad- 
 mitted to be true, if two or more of the above pre- 
 mises are found to be true, and at the same time to 
 render the conclusion in favor of immersion legiti- 
 mate and necessary. 
 
 First argument in favor of Immersion. 
 
 $ 28. The ordinary meaning of the word baptize, 
 in the classic Greek writers, is to immerse ; there- 
 fore, this word means to immerse, in the scriptures; 
 and being applied in this sense to describe baptism, 
 that rite must originally have been administered by 
 immersion, and ought to be so administered now. 
 
 The definition of baptize, as this word is used in 
 the classic Greek writers, is given by Domiegan, a 
 popular Greek lexicographer, as follows: "To im- 
 merse repeatedly into a liquid ; to submerge ; to soak 
 thoroughly ; to saturate ; hence to drench with wine ; 
 metaphorically, to confound totally; to dip in a ves- 
 sel and draw/' 
 
 These definitions arc correct, so far as classic 
 Greek usage is concerned; and the meaning of the 
 
64 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 word in the New Testament, ought to be presumed 
 to be in agreement with classic usage, unless evi- 
 dence exists of a different usage among the Jewish 
 Greek writers. If evidence exists of a different 
 usage among the Jews who used the Greek language, 
 that usage ought to be followed in the interpretation 
 of this word in the New Testament, in preference to 
 classic Greek usage. 
 
 It has already been shown (§ 3-7,) that a different 
 usage did exist among the Jews. The Mosaic puri- 
 fications are denominated baptisms. These were 
 not immersions, but sprinklings and affusions, or 
 washings. The modes of these baptisms were vari- 
 ous. Hence they are called various baptisms. Heb. 
 9: 10. 
 
 Their title baptisms, therefore, did not depend up- 
 on any particular mode, otherwise the Mosaic puri- 
 fications could not have been various baptisms; for 
 they differed considerably from each other in respect 
 to modes of administration. Yet they are referred 
 to in Heb. 9: 10, as different or various baptisms. 
 It appears, therefore, that the applications of water 
 in different modes, such as sprinkling and affusion, 
 or washing, are baptisms j and a Jewish usage is es- 
 tablished in respect to the words baptize and baptism, 
 entirely different from that of the classic Greek 
 writers, in favor of sprinkling and affusion instead of 
 immersion. 
 
 This usage is a legitimate rule of interpretation 
 for the words baptize and baptism, in all cases where 
 their meaning would otherwise be determined, in 
 conformity with classic Greek usage. 
 
 The first argument, therefore, for immersion. Bfl 
 the scriptural mode of Christian baptism, is incon- 
 clusive. It does not prove the position which it is 
 
■BOHBsoa am) j'di kin... »;.") 
 
 addiici (1 to prove; neither docs it, in the real cir- 
 c-iini ny presumption in 
 
 favor of th:it position. 
 
 The established Jewish usage, in favor of a differ- 
 ent signification of baptize, and baptism from that 
 which is common in the classic Greek writers* supef- 
 oedes entirely the other and more remote ride of 
 classic usage, and is itself the true rule, according to 
 which these words ought to be interpreted in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 Second argument in favor of Immersion. 
 
 §29. John's baptism was administered, princi- 
 pally, in the river Jordan. That, being administered 
 in the river, it was probably administered by immer- 
 sion, because a river would not have been necessary 
 to sprinkle or wash from. 
 
 All the force which this argument can have, is to 
 create a probability or presumption in favor of im- 
 mersion; and this force may be counterbalanced by 
 opposing evidence of any decisive kind. 
 
 The inspired record has already been shown (§ 21) 
 to be indefinite, and not to declare with certainty, 
 whether John baptized at the Jordan, or in the Jor- 
 dan. If he only baptized at the Jordan, it may have 
 been at a greater or less distance from the river, and 
 still have been at the Jordan, in the common accepta- 
 tion of that phrase. 
 
 But if he actually baptized in the Jordan, as ap- 
 pears to have been the case in the baptism of Christ, 
 which is more circumstantially described than his 
 other baptisms, this does not prove that he baptized 
 by immersion. 
 
66 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Some of the Mosaic baptisms were required to be 
 administered with running water. John may have 
 made use of the same ; and if he did, this is a rea- 
 son why he should have baptized at the Jordan. 
 Another reason for his holding his meetings near 
 that river, may have been to accommodate the vast 
 multitudes who attended on his ministry, with an am- 
 ple supply of water for themselves and their ani- 
 mals. 
 
 These reasons are sufficient to account for John's 
 having preached and baptized at the Jordan, and in 
 other places where there were many streams, whether 
 the mode of his baptism was by immersion, or by af- 
 fusion and sprinkling. It does not, therefore, prove 
 immersion. In order to prove immersion, it ought 
 to be unaccountable on any other hypothesis. But 
 it is not unaccountable on the hypothesis of affusion 
 and sprinkling. 
 
 Besides, even if it did prove immersion in the 
 case of John's baptism, it would prove nothing in 
 respect to Christian baptism. For it does not ap- 
 pear that Christian baptism was administered in the 
 river Jordan, or in any other streams. The Mosaic 
 baptisms were administered in different modes; and 
 John's baptism, for aught that appears may have been 
 administered in one mode and Christ's in another. 
 
 This argument, therefore, like the former, proves 
 nothing. 
 
 Third argument in favor of Immersion. 
 
 $30. In being baptized, persons went into tho 
 water and came out of the water. This was entirely 
 unnecessary for washing and sprinkling, unless the 
 
IMMERSION AND roiKI.\<;. 67 
 
 washing was general, pertaining to the whole body. 
 It t lit i * fore proves Immersion. 
 
 The premise assumed in this argument requires 
 proof. The passages (Matt. 3: 16, and Mark 1: 
 10,) generally relied on by immersionists, in proof 
 of it, have been shown ($21,) to bo indefinite, and 
 not to teach With certainty any more than that, in 
 the administration of John's baptism, the administra- 
 tor and the subject both went to and from the water. 
 The preposition, unfortunately translated out of in 
 these passages, is very seldom, if ever, used in the 
 sense of out of; from and away from being its ap- 
 propriate meaning. 
 
 Acts 8 : 38, 39, ought also to be translated in con- 
 formity with Matt 3 : 16, and Mark 1 : 10. Properly 
 translated, it reads as follows: "And Philip and the 
 Eunuch both went down to the water, and he bap- 
 tized him; and when they came upyro?n die water, 
 the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and he saw 
 him no more ; and he went on his way rejoicing." 
 
 The preposition which I have translated from, in 
 the above passage, is a different one from that used 
 in the two other passages just considered. Before 
 nouns denoting place, however, it signifies from and 
 away from, equally with out of, and is so defined by 
 the best lexicographers. See Donnegan, Brctschnci- 
 der, and others. In this passage it is virtually re- 
 stricted to the sense of from, by the relation of the 
 clause in which it stands to the clause descriptive of 
 the going down to the water. The mode of expres- 
 sion in that clause is the same which is used in Matt. 
 3: 16, and Mark 1: 10, where the accompanying 
 preposition, expressing the relation of the ascent or 
 going up to the water, signifies only from or away 
 from, not out of. In those passages, therefore, the 
 
58 MODE OF CHKISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 descent or going down must have been to the water, 
 because the ascent, or going up, was only from it. 
 In this passage, therefore, it ought to be presumed to 
 have a similar meaning, unless the context requires 
 a different one. But the context does not require a 
 different one. It admits either of the same or of 
 another, and admits of the same equally well with 
 the other. Therefore, the descent, or going down, 
 in Acts 8 : 38, is a descent or going down to the 
 water. Consequently, the ascent, or going up, men- 
 tioned in the following verse, must be an ascent or 
 going up from the water, not out of it. 
 
 A similar usage in respect to the preposition which 
 I have translated from, is found in John 6: 23. 
 " Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias." 
 Matt. 17: 9; "As they went down from the moun- 
 tain. 1 ' The preposition translated from, in these 
 passages, is the same that expresses the relation of 
 the ascent or going up to the water, in the case of 
 Philip and the Eunuch. 
 
 The passages relied on by immersionists, there- 
 fore, to prove that, in the administration of Christian 
 baptism, there was a going down into the water and 
 a coming up out of it, fail of proving the position 
 assumed. The premise of the third immersionist 
 argument, therefore, being unproved, and not being 
 known to be true, no legitimate conclusion can be 
 deduced from it in favor of immersion. 
 
 But even if this premise was true, it would not 
 prove immersion. In the ancient representations of 
 the baptism of Christ by John, made by different 
 artists, and handed down from the fifth century, iho 
 Saviour is constantly represented as standing up to 
 the middle in water, and being baptized by pouring. 
 There is a representation of this kind in the dome of 
 
!■■■■! Ill M l ami roriiiv:. 00 
 
 a F> . iii Italy, ;i building erected 
 
 in 454, A. D. 
 In this piece, John. the Baptist is repi 
 
 on tin' bank of flhe Jordan* holding a ci 
 
 in liis It'll hand, and in hifl right ft shell of modi 
 
 . from which he puurs wafer uu tin- head of 
 Christ Chris* receives tide standing naked, in the 
 water up to his waist. 
 
 There is another similar representation pn 
 in Mosaic, in the church in Cosmedin, in Ravenna) 
 which was erected 401, A. D. In this, also. Christ 
 Stands naked in the river, with the wall r reaching to 
 his waist, and John, standing on the bank of the 
 river, pours water upon his head from a small shell 
 or cup. Other similar representations are present d 
 of later date; and some of which are considerably 
 anci< nt, but of uncertain date. 
 
 These representations teach us the views enter- 
 tained by Christians in those times, respecting the 
 mode of baptism administered by John to the Saviour. 
 They show that Christ was supposed to have gone 
 into the Jordan naked, and there to have been bap- 
 tized by John, standing on the shore and pouring 
 water upon him. 
 
 This supposition is not more improbable than im- 
 mersion. If, therefore, it could be proved that the 
 subjects of John's baptism, went actually into the 
 water to be baptized, and that the Eunuch baptized 
 by Philip did the same, it would still be possible that 
 the baptisms were administered by pouring or afTu- 
 sion, and that the going into the water was only pre- 
 paratory to the reception of baptism, not any part, 
 still less an essential part of the rite. 
 
 In the argument under consideration, therefore, 
 there are two defects. 
 
70 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 1. The premise is not proved, and cannot be 
 shown to be true. Consequently, no legitimate con- 
 clusion can be drawn from it in favor of immersion. 
 
 2. The conclusion in favor of immersion is not 
 a legitimate inference from the premise, if it was 
 true- Therefore, if the premise was shown to be 
 true, the conclusion would not legitimately follow. 
 It would still be possible that the going into the 
 water was only preparatory to pouring or affusion, 
 and that the baptismal rite consisted essentially, not 
 in going into the water, and not in being immersed 
 in it after having gone into it, but in having water 
 applied by affusion or pouring. 
 
 Fourth argument in favor of Immersion. 
 
 §31. Baptism is a symbolical representation of 
 the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Im- 
 mersion is necessary to furnish any analogy on which 
 to found such a representation. Therefore, immer- 
 sion is the scriptural and proper mode of baptism. 
 
 The premise of this argument is a hypothesis 
 which depends for its support on two solitary pas- 
 sages of scripture, Rom 6: 3-5, and Col. 2: 12. 
 These passages have been considered, (§25,) and 
 have been shown not to afford any adequate support 
 to this hypothesis. They admit of easy explanation 
 on the supposition that baptism is to be administered 
 by affusion and sprinkling, as well as on that of im- 
 mersion. They contain a manifest allusion to the 
 design of baptism but not to the mode of its ad- 
 ministration. 
 
 The expression, buried with Christ by faith, is as 
 significant and consistent as buried with Christ by 
 
IMMERSION" AND POURING. 71 
 
 baptism; and being baptized to Christ is as signifi- 
 cant, on the supposition of allusion and sprinkling, 
 as on that of immersion. Being baptized to Christ, 
 on cither supposition, means the same thing. It 
 means not being immersed or plunged into him, 
 which would fall little short of being an absurdity, 
 but being devoted to him by baptism as his disciples, 
 or as his subjects and worshippers. 
 
 Besides, if it was the design of baptism to repre- 
 sent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, 
 how did it represent these events before they occur- 
 red? Christian baptism was instituted and adminis- 
 tered to multitudes before Christ died. John 4:1. 
 The disciples who administered these baptisms did 
 not know as yet that Christ was to die; still less that 
 he was to die and rise again. With what propriety 
 could they have administered this rite, when they 
 did not know and could not explain its meaning? 
 With what propriety could subjects receive it without 
 being instructed in its true import and design? Ac- 
 cording to the hypothesis that baptism represents the 
 death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the disci- 
 ples, previous to the crucifixion, administered it in 
 the most profound ignorance of its true import and 
 design, and their converts received it in like ignor- 
 ance. 
 
 The signification of baptism here supposed, was 
 entirely different from that of the Jewish baptisms 
 previously instituted ; all of which were purifications, 
 or symbols of moral and legal cleansing. Why was 
 no explanation of this difference put on record by 
 the Evangelists? Why was no allusion made to it 
 in the entire gospel history? 
 
 If Christian baptism was to be understood as of 
 similar import and design to previously instituted 
 
72 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 baptisms, it required no explanation. But if it was 
 now used for a purpose altogether new and unex- 
 ampled, surely some intimation of this departure 
 from previous customary usage was to be expected, 
 and was necessary. 
 
 But no intimation of this kind is found in the New 
 Testament. We conclude, therefore, that none was 
 necessary; and that Christian baptism is of the same 
 general import and significancy as the previously in- 
 stituted baptisms practiced among the Jews. 
 
 Fifth argument in favor of Immersion. 
 
 \ 32. Immersion was the common mode of bap- 
 tism at an early period after the age of the apostles, 
 and has been handed down by tradition in the Greek, 
 Nestorian, and Armenian churches, till the present 
 time. 
 
 This argument is not drawn from the scriptures 
 but from uninspired history. It is adduced as a sup- 
 plement to the scriptural arguments in favor of im- 
 mersion. The scriptural arguments in favor of 
 immersion have been seen to fail entirely of estab- 
 lishing the position in favor of which they are ad- 
 duced. Can the cause and claims of immersion, 
 unsupported by scriptural evidence, find adequate 
 support from uninspired history? 
 
 The fact of the early prevalence of immersion in 
 the Christian church is freely admitted. This seems 
 to have been the mode of baptism usually practiced 
 in the times of Cyprian and Origcn, in the third cen- 
 tury of the Christian era. The premise of this argu- 
 ment, therefore, is acknowledged to be true. Is the 
 conclusion a necessary inference from the premise? 
 
aaaaewB am> poi ring. 73 
 
 If it is, the claims of immersion may yet stand; and 
 extensive ;;s the apostacy has be< 11 from the practice 
 oT tliis mode of baptism, the lost and wandering may 
 yet be reclaimed and recovered. But if the con- 
 clusion is not legitimate, then immersion is without 
 adequate support from any quartet, and the immer- 
 sionist is the wanderer ami schismatic, that must be 
 reclaimed to scriptural truth and Christian duty. 
 
 The legitimacy of the conclusion in favor of im- 
 mersion in this argument, depends upon the fact, 
 whether it is possible that the church may have 
 changed its mode of baptism in the interval between 
 the third century of the Christian era and the times 
 of the Apostles, or not. If such a change is possi- 
 ble, then this conclusion is not legitimate. It does 
 not conform to the premise from which it is deduced. 
 Such a change was manifestly possible. The dis- 
 crepancy between scriptural and classical usage in 
 respect to the signification of the words baptize and 
 baptism, must have been highly favorable to it. The 
 church enlarged itself, and from being limited to 
 Jews, and persons acquainted with Jewish usages, 
 it spread itself over the land of classic Greece, 
 and throughout the Roman Empire, where a know- 
 ledge of classic Greek usage was common to most 
 literary men. Learning, however, was confined to 
 the few, and these were the standards of opinion for 
 others. 
 
 Biblical learning was not extensive. When the 
 classical scholar of Greece and Rome read the New 
 Testament, he naturally interpreted it according to 
 the most approved standards of Greek literature, just 
 as multitudes of modems, who ought to have known 
 better, have done. The consequence was, that the 
 same modes of speech which, to the well instructed 
 6 
 
74 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Jew, taught affusion and sprinkling, would to him 
 teach immersion, or plunging in the water. 
 
 Add to this that the scriptural meaning of the 
 word baptize was indefinite, that there were differ- 
 ent modes of baptism possible, and that different 
 modes had actually been instituted by Moses with 
 the divine sanction; and is it not more than possible 
 that, under such circumstances, a change was made ? 
 Would not a change be easy and almost natural? 
 Would not this be especially so in an age when learn- 
 ing was confined to the few, and when Biblical learn- 
 ing was far less extensively and far less thoroughly 
 cultivated than classical? Besides the change was 
 plausible. It was taking nothing away, but was 
 rather adding to the pre-established ordinances of 
 sprinkling and affusion, on the supposition that they 
 were pre-established. 
 
 The manner in which the ancient immersions were 
 performed renders them suspicious. Subjects were 
 immersed naked and in private ; they were anointed 
 with oil and exorcised for the expulsion of spirits; 
 after immersion, they were dressed in a white uni- 
 form, as an emblem of their sanctification or moral 
 cleansing. 
 
 Is this apostolic usage? Is this the unchanged in- 
 stitution of Christ? I think not. Several things are 
 unquestionably added, which did not belong to Chris- 
 tian baptism as it was practiced by the apostles. 
 
 Baptizing persons naked and in private was an ad- 
 dition; anointing with oil and exorcising the subject 
 for the expulsion of demons was a second addition; 
 the white uniform put on after baptism was a third 
 addition. These additions all bear testimony to the 
 ignorance and superstition of the times. The per- 
 sons who practiced them were not knavish, interested 
 
 
IMMERSION AND rOURINO. 75 
 
 impostors and deceivers. They were misguided 
 Christians. The fiicts adduced above show their lia 
 bility to I)'' misled, and to what an extent they ac- 
 tually were misled, in respect to the very rite in 
 question. Is the practice of these persons a safe 
 guide in favor of a mode of baptism not taught in 
 the scriptures? Is it of sufficient authority to show 
 that this mode was the apostolic one, notwithstand- 
 ing that the apostles themselves have not shown it in 
 their writings? No. Such examples, as far as they 
 agree with scriptural evidence, lend some confirma- 
 tion to it. But where they deviate from it or go be- 
 yond it, they amount to nothing. 
 
 This argument, then, fails like all the others; and 
 the last hope of immersion is lost. 
 
 The entire argument, therefore, in favor of im- 
 mersion, when weighed in the balance of legitimate 
 and conclusive reasoning, is found wanting. It does 
 not establish the position assumed, and contributes 
 nothing towards establishing it. 
 
 BAPTISM BY POURING. 
 
 $ 33. Pouring is a mode of Christian baptism for 
 which some who discard immersion set up the claim 
 of exclusive scriptural authority. Considered in re- 
 spect to the amount of water made use of, it stands 
 next to immersion. This mode of baptism was 
 practiced at an early period in connection with im- 
 mersion, or probably in connection with going into 
 the water to a considerable depth, so that some part 
 of the body, and the lower extremities, were entirely 
 submerged, without a complete immersion of the 
 whole body. 
 
76 MODE OF CHRTSTTAN BAPTISM. 
 
 The representations handed down from the fifth 
 century, which were noticed in § 29, are indicative of 
 the prevalence of pouring at that period, and also of 
 the prevalence, at that time, of the opinion, that 
 pouring was practiced in John's baptism. John is 
 represented in both cases as pouring water upon the 
 Saviour. A similar representation has been pre- 
 served, for an indefinite period, on the door of a 
 church at Beneventura, in Italy. Christ stands naked 
 in the water, with his lower extremities submerged, 
 and water is poured upon his head by John, stand- 
 ing entirely out of that element, from a small cup or 
 dish. The picture is considered as quite ancient, 
 but its precise date is not known. 
 
 A monument has been found near Naples, repre- 
 senting, in sculpture, the baptism of Argilulphus and 
 Theolinda, King and Queen of the Longobardi, who 
 occupied Beneventura in the sixth century. The 
 sculpture was produced in the latter part of the sixth 
 or beginning of the seventh century. The King and 
 Queen are represented as standing naked in a bath- 
 ing vessel, which is large enough in circumference 
 for both of them to stand up together in it. They 
 stand in a stooping posture. The top of the vessel 
 does not quite come up to their middle. Water is 
 poured upon them from a pitcher by a man in a mili- 
 tary habit, who stands by the side of the vessel. 
 
 On the same monument is an engraving repre- 
 senting a person kneeling and in prayer by a bathing 
 vessel. The bathing vessel is between one and two 
 feet in height, that is, about one fourth the height of 
 the worshipper, and of about the same diameter as 
 height. In another part of the picture, persons are 
 represented as kneeling on the ground, and receiving 
 
 
[MMEB8I0N \M> POIKING. J / 
 
 baptism by water being poured upon them from a 
 pitcher. 
 
 Other representations, both in sculpture and en- 
 graving, represent baptisms at periods not far from 
 the time above referred to; and some of them, at un- 
 certain periods, by pouring. 
 
 The antiquity of this mode of baptism is an evi- 
 dence in its favor, But this alone is not sufficient 
 to establish it as of scriptural authority. It is al- 
 ledged, however, in favor of pouring, that, in the 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Divine Spirit is de- 
 scribed as being poured out. Acts 2: 10, 17; 10: 
 45. Joel 2:28. 
 
 The pouring out of the Holy Ghost on the day of 
 Pentecost, is evidently the baptism with the Holy 
 Ghost, mentioned Acts 1:5, as to take place not 
 many days from that time. But it is too slender a 
 ground on which to establish a theory in respect to 
 the scriptural mode of baptism with water; especial- 
 ly as none of the Mosaic baptisms appear to have 
 been administered in that mode. 
 
 The pouring out of the Holy Spirit is itself a 
 figurative designation of the Spirit's influence on the 
 minds of men, and not a proper object of emblem- 
 atical representation in baptism. Baptism should 
 represent the effect of the Spirit's influence, which 
 is cleansing, not the mode of that influence. The 
 mode of the Spirit's influence is not explained in the 
 scriptures, and is not a legitimate object of symboli- 
 cal representations. 
 
 Pouring, therefore, is not adequately sustained as 
 the scriptural mode of Christian baptism. The 
 scriptural evidence on which it rests is fanciful and 
 indecisive, and the historical evidence in its favor is 
 drawn from too late a period, and accompanied by too 
 
78 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 many questionable circumstances, to be entitled to 
 any great confidence as an indication of apostolic 
 usage. These circumstances have been adverted to 
 in considering the historical argument for immer- 
 sion. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. -AF- 
 FUSION AND SPRINKLING. 
 
 Introductory Remarks. 
 
 $ 34. Having disposed of immersion and pouring, 
 affusion and sprinkling remain to be considered. If 
 any particular mode of Christian baptism is taught 
 in the scriptures, it must be one or both of these. 
 If one or both of these are not taught in the scrip- 
 tures, we shall be compelled to conclude that no 
 mode of baptism is enjoined, but that the church of 
 Christ is left to its discretion in this matter, and may 
 lawfully adopt one mode or other, as fancy or caprice 
 may dictate. This, in the opinion of some, is the 
 true state of the case. If it is a fact that there is 
 no scriptural mode of Christian baptism, and that the 
 subject is left indefinite, to be settled and altered as 
 the feelings and judgment of men may dictate, the 
 prospect of harmony and agreement on the gtibject, 
 among the different branches of the Christian church. 
 must be very unpromising. But if there is a well 
 
MFlsioN AM) IFRINKLIHG. 79 
 
 established seiiptural mode of administering this rite. 
 one thai can be clearly exhibited and satisfactorily 
 i i i i « 1 . retoodi and if the evidences by which this ap- 
 pears arc within the comprehension of common 
 minds, then existing delusions may yet be dispelled, 
 and a general agreement be attained smeng mankind 
 <>n this subject As, therefore, other modes are 
 found wanting in scriptural authority, it is a matter 
 of great interest to know whether those of affusion 
 and sprinkling can be fully sustained. 
 
 Specification of the arguments in favor of Affusion 
 and Sprinkling. 
 
 $35. 1. The modes of the Mosaic baptisms were 
 principally by affusion and sprinkling. 
 
 2. The Jewish traditionary baptism before meals, 
 consisted of a ceremonial washing of the hands. 
 
 3. The baptism of the Israelites at the time of 
 crossing the Red Sea, under the direction of Moses, 
 was by sprinkling. 
 
 4. It was predicted that Christ should cleanse 
 mankind from sin, under the imagery of sprinkling. 
 
 5. Circumstantial evidence pertaining to the mode 
 of Christian baptism is in favor of affusion and sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 6. Affusion and sprinkling are more suitable than 
 immersion, to serve as modes of Christian baptism, 
 on account of their greater significancy as modes of 
 purification, and their greater convenience. 
 
 7. The servants of God under the New Testa- 
 ment dispensation, are described as being sealed in 
 their foreheads. 
 
80 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 First argument in favor of Affusion and Sprinkling, 
 
 $36. The modes of the Mosaic baptisms were 
 principally affusion and sprinkling. Christian bap- 
 tism, being subsequently instituted, and no specifica- 
 tion of the mode of its administration being put on 
 record, ought to be administered in the same mode 
 as the previously instituted baptisms; therefore, it 
 ought to be administered by affusion or sprinkling, 
 or by affusion and sprinkling. 
 
 The principal Mosaic baptisms were of frequent 
 occurrence. They were often repeated in the life 
 of every true Israelite, and consequently must have 
 been familiar to the Jews. If there is no injunction 
 of a different mode in the scriptures, we are bound 
 to adopt the modes previously established, and of un- 
 questionable divine authority, rather than to introduce 
 others of man's invention. 
 
 The propriety of this is obvious. Authorized 
 modes and established precedents are of the nature 
 of general laws. Deliberative bodies are governed 
 by them in the transaction of business, courts are 
 governed by them in the decision of cases, both in 
 respect to property and life; and, according to them, 
 kings rule and princes decree justice. 
 
 Affusion and sprinkling were modes of baptism in 
 actual use at the time of the institution of Christian 
 baptism, and they continued to be used by divine 
 authority in the Mosaic baptisms, till some years af- 
 ter the crucifixion. 
 
 These divinely authorized modes of former and 
 to some extent contemporary baptisms, are a rule for 
 our direction in respect to Christian baptism, onless 
 we have specific information enjoining a different 
 
1FFUSI0N ami simunki.im;. 81 
 
 mode. Rut we have no such information; therefore, 
 we ought to baptize by affusion and sprinkling 
 These modes are actually enjoined by precedents, 
 which, in the circumstances of the case arc laws, 
 and from which we may not lawfully depart without 
 divine permission. 
 
 Second argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 $37. The Jewish traditionary baptism which was 
 practiced statedly before meals, being a washing of 
 the hands for the purpose of ceremonial cleansing, 
 is an evidence of Jewish provincial usage, in respect 
 to the meaning of the Greek words baptize and bap- 
 tism, which favors affusion, or the application of 
 water with the hand, as the appropriate mode of 
 Christian baptism. 
 
 There is an allusion to this in Luke 11: 37, 38. 
 "And as he (Jesus Christ) spake, a certain Pharisee 
 invited him to dine with him. And he went in and 
 sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it 
 he marvelled (or expressed surprise,) that he was not 
 first baptized before dinner." 
 
 The verb which I have translated baptized, in this 
 passage, is incorrectly rendered washed in the com- 
 mon English bible. It is the same which is used in 
 all places where Christian baptism is spoken of, and 
 it is never used in the New Testament to denote a 
 secular washing of any kind. The rite referred to 
 in this passage is, beyond all doubt, a baptism. The 
 observance of it was so general among the Jews, 
 and it was deemed so necessary, that the Pharisee 
 
82 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 wondered that Christ did not perform it upon himself 
 previous to sitting down to dinner. 
 
 In Matt. 15 : 2, and Mark 7 : 2, we are informed 
 that the Scribes and Pharisees found fault because 
 the disciples of Christ did not perform a ceremonial 
 washing of their hands previous to partaking of their 
 common meals. They denominate this neglect a 
 transgression of the tradition of the elders, and refer 
 to the hands of the disciples as being ceremonially 
 defiled on account of it. 
 
 Here we have, in one case, a baptism before meals 
 mentioned by that title, and in the other, a sacred 
 washing of the hands as a rite of ceremonial purifi- 
 cation. We have also proved, in former sections, 
 that the Jewish purifications were baptisms. The 
 purifications, therefore, referred to in Matthew and 
 Mark, and the baptism referred to in Luke, are one 
 and the same thing. This is evident from the fol- 
 lowing considerations : 
 
 1. Purifications are baptisms. The washing of 
 the hands referred to in Matthew and Mark are puri- 
 fications; therefore, they are baptisms. If they are 
 baptisms they are baptisms practiced statedly before 
 meals, and therefore are rites of the kind denomi- 
 nated baptism in Luke 11: 38. 
 
 2. The supposition that the washing of the hands 
 as a ceremonial purification, mentioned in Matt. 15: 
 2, and in Mark 7: 2, is not a baptism, leads to the 
 conclusion that the Jews practiced two religious rites 
 of purification before meals; one of which consisted 
 in the washing of the hands, and the other, accord- 
 ing to the hypothesis of immersionists, in the immer- 
 sion of the entire body. 
 
 Is this a fact ? Were there two such rites preva- 
 lent among the Jews in the time of Christ? Has 
 
AFFUSION AND SPBINKJLXWO. 83 
 
 immersion, before meals, ever prevailed in any coun- 
 try or in any ;><, r e? These questions admit of an 
 answer only in the negative. 
 
 The uniform practice of immersion, before meals, 
 as a religious rite of purification, or for any other 
 purpose, has never prevailed in any age or country, 
 and cannot prevail It is a yoke which is too heavy 
 to be borne. It would be an oppressive yoke in any 
 country, and at all seasons of the year. In such a 
 country as Palestine, and in the winter season, it 
 would, in respect to a large proportion of the inhab- 
 itants, be utterly impracticable. 
 
 The hypothesis of immersion, before meals, as a 
 customary rite of religious purification among the 
 Jews in the time of Christ and previously, is inad- 
 missible on account of its impracticability, as well as 
 for the entire want of any evidence whatever, in its 
 favor. It is a mere figment of imagination, formed 
 to sustain a theory, and undeserving of the least con- 
 fidence. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the baptism referred to 
 in Luke 11: 38, where the Pharisee wondered that 
 Christ was not first baptized before dinner; and the 
 washing of the hands before meals, referred to in 
 Matt 15: 2, and Mark 7: 2, are one and the same 
 religious rite. Consequently, persons were baptised 
 by the washing of the hands; and the appropriation 
 of the words baptize and baptism, to denote this 
 washing* was according to the Jewish provincial 
 usage of those times. 
 
 Hence the appropriation of the same words, with- 
 out definition, to denote Christian baptism, indicates 
 that this was a religious washing, not an immersion. 
 A ceremonial washing is performed by anusion. 
 
84 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Third argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 $38. The allusion to the wetting of the Israelites 
 with rain on the occasion of their being led across 
 the Red Sea, by Moses, on dry land, and to their 
 being wet by the Sea on that occasion, as baptisms, 
 by Paul, proves that this word appropriately denoted 
 sprinkling according to Jewish usage, and is an evi- 
 dence in favor of sprinkling, as an appropriate mode 
 of Christian baptism. 
 
 This allusion is contained in 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2. 
 u Moreover brethren, I would not that ye should be 
 ignorant that our fathers were all under the cloud, 
 and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized 
 to Moses by the cloud and the sea." 
 
 I have adopted the rendering by the cloud and by 
 the sea, instead of in the cloud and in the sea, for 
 reasons set forth in $ 25. 
 
 By is the proper rendering of the preposition here 
 used in the original, when it stands before nouns 
 denoting instruments, agents, or means. The nouns 
 which here follow it, denote means. The baptisms 
 were by means of the cloud, and by means of the 
 sea. 
 
 How the Israelites w r ere baptized by means of the 
 cloud, is clearly shown by Ps. 77: 16-20. "The 
 waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee and 
 were afraid. The depths, also, were troubled. The 
 clouds poured out water. The skies sent out a 
 sound. Thine arrows, also, went abroad; the \ 
 of thy thunder was in heaven. The lightnings light- 
 ened the world. The earth trembled and shook. 
 Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great w i- 
 
&FFUBION am» BFUNXLUfO. Rf. 
 
 tors, and thy footsteps are not known. Thou leddest 
 thy people like :i flock, by the hand of Moses and 
 Aaron. 91 
 
 It appears from this description, that the passage 
 of the Red ^ (, a was accompanied with the fall of 
 rain. Clouds arc spoken of as pouring out rain. 
 The mode of the baptism of the Israelites by the 
 cloud, therefore, must have been by sprinkling, the 
 universal mode of the pouring out of water from 
 clouds. 
 
 How they were baptized by the sea. remains to l». 
 inquired into. This could not have been by immer- 
 sion, because we arc expressly told, Ex. 14: 21, 32, 
 "That the Lord caused the sea to go back, by a 
 strong east wind, all that night, and made th<' sea (In- 
 land, and the waters were divided. And the chil- 
 dren of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon 
 the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them 
 on their right hand, and on their left." 
 
 The Israelites were not, therefore, immersed in 
 the Red Sea. The apostle, however, tells us, that 
 they were baptized by it. How was this baptism ad- 
 ministered? The mode of the baptism of the Isra- 
 elites by the Red Sea, is not explained. It was 
 evidently, however, not an immersion, for the theory 
 of the immersion of the Israelites in the Red Sea at 
 the time of their crossing it, would be in contradic- 
 tion to the Mosaic narrative. 
 
 Amid the fury of the storm and wind which 
 accompanied the passage of the Israelites on this 
 occasion, and with the sea standing as a wall on their 
 right hand and left, it is not improbable that they 
 were sprinkled with its spray. If so, their baptism, 
 by means of the sea as well as that by means of the 
 cloud, was administered by sprinkling. 
 
Ob MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 According to New Testament usage, therefore, 
 sprinkling is a legitimate mode of baptism. 
 
 Fourth argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 $39. The prediction, that Christ should purify 
 men by sprinkling, which must be presumed to be 
 fulfilled, by his administration of the Gospel dispen- 
 sation, is an evidence in favor of sprinkling as an 
 appropriate mode of Christian baptism, and conse- 
 quently, the scriptural mode. 
 
 Isa. 52: 15, "So shall he sprinkle many nations.'" 
 Ezek. 36 : 25, 26, " Then will I sprinkle clean water 
 upon you, and ye shall be clean. From all your 
 filthiness, and from all your evils, will I cleanse you. 
 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit 
 will I put within you." 
 
 The first of the above passages relates ■ directly 
 to Christ, and declares what he was to do under the 
 Gospel dispensation. The second passage is a dec- 
 laration of God, as to what he will do during the 
 same period. 
 
 If baptism is performed by sprinkling, it is a liter- 
 al and beautiful fulfilment of these predictions. By 
 means of this rite, Christ is now sprinkling many na- 
 tions, and ceremonially cleansing them from all their 
 filthiness and from all their idols. 
 
 If Christian baptism was to have been by immer- 
 sion, the more natural and more expressive form of 
 the above predictions would have been, So shall he 
 immerse many nations. Then will I immerse you in 
 clean water, and ye shall be clean, Sfc. 
 
Afpwui ami mumiiw 87 
 
 But the I Inly Spirit made choice of the term 
 sprinf:h\ rather th;in immerse, to describe this 
 cleansing. Why then should he not be supposed to 
 
 have made choice of the mode of sprinkling, rather 
 than that of immersion, to represent the same in 
 Gospel times? If sprinkling is an appropriate and 
 expressive figure hy which to represent the cleansing 
 of men, as that cleansing was foretold, it is an equally 
 appropriate and expressive symbol by which to repre- 
 sent that cleansing, when it is actually perform* <1. 
 
 Fifth argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 § 40. Circumstances attending the administration 
 of Christian baptism by the apostles, in several in- 
 stances, are favorable to the doctrine of afiiision and 
 sprinkling, and unfavorable to that of immersion. 
 
 In all cases where direct testimony is not decisive, 
 or where it is difficult to be obtained to such an ex- 
 tent as is desired, circumstantial evidence is naturally 
 resorted to, and is often highly serviceable to the 
 cause of truth and justice. Many an important case 
 that would otherwise be doubtful, is rendered clear 
 by this means; and many an important truth, that 
 would otherwise elude the grasp of the human un- 
 derstanding, is by this means reached and secured. 
 
 Circumstances cannot lie. Language may change, 
 and the customary signification of words in one age 
 may be lost in another, but circumstances do not 
 vary. They speak the same language, and sustain 
 the same relations to things on which they attend, in 
 distant and romote periods, which they spoke and 
 sustained at the time of their occurrence. 
 
88 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 N6ne of the circumstances of the apostolic bap- 
 tisms, as recorded in the New Testament, indicate 
 immersion. The only one which can be supposed, 
 by any one, to indicate immersion, is that of the 
 going to and from the water by Philip and the Eunuch 
 related in Acts 8 : 38, 39, improperly translated in 
 the common bible, going into the water and out of it. 
 See $ 30. 
 
 Several circumstances relating to the Apostolic 
 baptisms, are indicative of the more easy and con- 
 venient modes of affusion and sprinkling. 
 
 1. The number converted and baptized on the day 
 of Pentecost. Acts 2: 41, "Then they that gladly 
 received his word, were baptized; and the same day, 
 there were added to them, about three thousand 
 souls." 
 
 It appears from the context, that Peter began his 
 public discourse about 9 o'clock, A. M. After this 
 hour, he preached the gospel to the conviction and 
 conversion of about three thousand persons. These 
 persons were subsequently instructed sufficiently to 
 receive baptism, their professions of faith taken, and 
 their baptism actually administered on the same day. 
 All this was done in a decent and orderly manner. 
 For God is a God of order; and it was done under 
 the direction of his Spirit. 
 
 We do not say that the immersion of these thou- 
 sands, within the limited time allowed for their bap- 
 tism, could not have been performed by the apostles 
 and their assistants; but we are clearly authorized to 
 consider it extremely improbable, from the fact of the 
 great number baptized, and the short time allowed 
 for their baptism, that this was performed by immer- 
 sion. The apostles do not seem to have been sur- 
 rounded by a great number of fellow-laborers at this 
 
Al'ITHON AM) VJUMKUS9. s -> 
 
 lime, li not alone they were attended by com;' 
 
 tivch i i In a meeting for the most important 
 business, bekl h short time before, only a hundred 
 and twenty attended. But few if any of these could 
 have been qualified to administer baptisms. Yet 
 
 thousand baptisms were administered, and three 
 thousand communicants received to the church in 
 the little portion of that day which was not taken up 
 with other religious exercises. Affusion and sprink- 
 ling take much less time than immersion. It is pro- 
 bable, therefore, from the greatness of the number, 
 and the shortness of the time that could have been 
 had for their baptism, that they were baptized by 
 allusion and sprinkling. 
 
 2. Saul arose and was baptized, after he had 
 been three days without food, and also without sight. 
 The inspired narrative informs us, Acts 9: 17, 18, 
 19, that Annanias went, by divine command, into the 
 house where he w r as, laid his hands on him, restored 
 him to sight, and communicated to him the Holy 
 Ghost. Upon the laying on of his hands, " there 
 fell immediately from his eyes, as it were, scales, 
 and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was 
 baptized. And when he had received food he was 
 strengthened." 
 
 Here is no going to the water, and no notice of 
 any of the conveniences for immersion. 
 
 A blind man, weak from three days' anxiety and 
 fasting, receives his sight, arises from his couch, that 
 is, assumes the standing posture, and is baptized. 
 
 These circumstances agree well with affusion and 
 sprinkling; but they do not agree with immersion. 
 
 3. The administration of baptism, in the night, 
 in a prison, indicates affusion and sprinkling. Paul 
 and Silas had been thrust into the inner prison at 
 
 7 
 
90 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Philippi. The doors of the prison were opened at 
 midnight by an earthquake. Paul and Silas preached 
 the Gospel with effect to the jailer and his family. 
 The jailer's family appear, as is usual, to have occu- 
 pied apartments within the prison. After the con- 
 version of the jailer, he took the prisoners, Acts 16: 
 33-35, " the same hour of the night, and washed 
 their stripes, and was baptized, and all his, straight- 
 way; and when he had brought them into his house, 
 he set food before them and rejoiced, believing in 
 God, with all his house. And when it was day, the 
 magistrates sent officers, saying, let these men go." 
 
 The preaching was performed after midnight. 
 The jailer and his family were converted, sufficiently 
 instructed to receive baptism, and actually baptized 
 before morning; and though the jailer had brought 
 Paul and Silas to his own appartment, it appears from 
 their subsequent declaration that they would not 
 leave the prison, unless the proper officers came and 
 fetched them out, that they could not yet have left 
 the prison. 
 
 In these unpropitious circumstances, and before 
 day, the jailer and his family were baptized. We 
 cannot say with certainty that their immersion was 
 impossible, but it certainly was improbable. All the 
 circumstances of the case harmonize much better 
 with the doctrine of affusion and sprinkling than 
 with that of immersion. 
 
 Sixth argument in favor of Affusion and Sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 §41. Affusion and sprinkling are more mutable 
 than immersion to serve as modes of baptism, on the 
 
UBSDX AM) srRIMvLOG. 91 
 
 tnd of their greater convenience and fitness for 
 the purpose intended to be attained. 
 
 God's appointments arc all founded in fitness and 
 propriety. Bf some modes of baptism have a greater 
 fitness than others, for the purposes intended to be 
 attained by this rite, that fitness is a presumptive evi- 
 dence in their favor as being the modes of God's 
 choice and appointment. 
 
 Affusion is the most expressive and significant 
 mode possible of applying water for ceremonial 
 purification, or as a symbol of internal and moral 
 cleansing; because it is the usual mode of physical 
 cleansing. When we wash ourselves for purposes of 
 physical cleansing, we usually apply the water by 
 affusion. It would appear most fit, therefore, to 
 adopt this mode of applying water in a rite intended 
 to represent moral cleansing- The most usual and 
 effectual mode of physical cleansing is the most ex- 
 pressive sign of moral cleansing. Affusion, there- 
 fore, is, of all modes of applying water, best adapted 
 to be used in baptism as a symbol of moral cleans- 
 ing. 
 
 A rite designed for universal application ought to 
 be such as can be administered at all times, in all 
 places, and to all classes of subjects. Baptism is 
 designed for universal application. Therefore, a 
 proper mode of baptism is one which can be ad- 
 ministered in all places, at all times, and to all classes 
 of subjects. Affusion and sprinkling have these 
 properties; immersion has not. There are places 
 where immersion cannot be administered : there are 
 times and seasons of the year when it cannot be ad- 
 ministered without great difficulty and danger to 
 numerous subjects. There are persons in a certain 
 condition and state of health, who are the proper 
 
92 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 subjects of baptism, to whom immersion cannot be 
 conveniently and safely administered at any time. 
 
 Affusion and sprinkling, therefore, have greatly 
 the advantage of immersion, on the ground of con- 
 venience and fitness for the purpose intended to be 
 accomplished by baptism. This convenience and 
 fitness are evidences in their favor. 
 
 Seventh argument in favor of Affusion and SprinJc- 
 
 \ 42. The servants of God, under the New Tes- 
 tament dispensation, are described as being sealed 
 in their foreheads. Rev. 7: 3. "An angel cried 
 with a loud voice,' 1 to agents who had power to hurt 
 the earth, " saying, hurt not the earth, neither the sea, 
 nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our 
 God in their foreheads.'" The wicked are described 
 as " those who have not the seal of God in their 
 foreheads." Rev. 9 : 4. 
 
 The word translated seal in the latter of the pas- 
 sages above referred to, is the same which is applied 
 to describe circumcision in Rom. 4: 11, where it is 
 called a seal of the righteousness of faith, or more 
 properly translated, a seal of justification by faith. 
 
 Baptism has been shown to be the sealing ordin- 
 ance of the Christian church. It seals the baptized 
 as the Lord's. It is the initiatory rite administered 
 to every adult convert on his introduction into the 
 church, and is the divinely appointed seal of Chris- 
 tian discipleship. 
 
 To seal the servants of God, therefore, is to bap- 
 tize them; and to seal them in their foreheads, is to 
 baptize them in their foreheads. But if the seal of 
 
AFFBSZON AM) si'illXK! ' '.)3 
 
 baptism is applied to (he forehead, as is expressly 
 stated, it cannot be by immersion, and must naturally 
 
 be by allusion and sprinkling. Immersion applies 
 this Bed to the whole body, affusion and sprinkling, 
 to the forehead. 
 
 Conclusion in favor of Affusion and Sprinkling. 
 
 § 43. On the whole, it appears clearly that affu- 
 sion and sprinkling are the scriptural modes of Chris- 
 tian baptism, and the only mode which the scriptures 
 sanction. The conclusion in favor of aflusion and 
 sprinkling is sustained by several independent argu- 
 ments, each of which is sufficient of itself for the 
 support of that conclusion. 
 
 To overthrow this conclusion, it is not enough to 
 show that some one or more of the arguments which 
 sustain it is inconclusive. It must be shown that no 
 one of them is conclusive, and that all together are 
 not so. If this can be done, the conclusion can be 
 overthrown; otherwise not. 
 
 If the arguments adduced in favor of afiusion and 
 sprinkling are not conclusive, it must be on one or 
 other of these two grounds. Either that the premise 
 is false or uncertain, or that the conclusion is not a 
 logical deduction from the premise, in cases where 
 the promise is admitted to be true. Which of the 
 premises in the foregoing arguments is false or un- 
 certain? And if the premises are true, which of the 
 conclusions are not legitimately inferred from their 
 premises? Let the reader examine and ascertain, 
 and having ascertained let him show. 
 
 If this deficiency cannot be shown, the conclusion 
 must be admitted to be true, and to be as well en- 
 
94 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 titled to universal adoption as the demonstrated truths 
 of geometry and algebra. 
 
 But if the foregoing arguments should be found, 
 on critical examination, to be defective, and not to 
 establish the conclusion as true, it will remain to be 
 inquired whether they render it probable. Many 
 things can be proved to be probable which cannot be 
 proved to be true ; and the higher degrees of proba- 
 bility, in cases where certainty cannot be attained, 
 have all the practical importance of certainty itself. 
 
 Truth is the highest principle of action to rational 
 beings, and is always to be attained where the at- 
 tainment of it is possible. But where truth cannot 
 be attained with certainty, we are bound to be gov- 
 erned by probabilities. In such cases, strong proba- 
 bilities are as valid principles of action as truth itself; 
 and our obligations to submit to them are as impera- 
 tive. 
 
 If, therefore, affusion and sprinkling have not been 
 proved with certainty to have been the scriptural 
 modes of baptism, has not this conclusion been ren- 
 dered probable ? Has it not been rendered highly 
 probable ? If it is only probable, we ought to adopt 
 affusion and sprinkling in preference to modes which 
 are not probable. If it is highly probable, we ought 
 to adopt it in preference to modes which are in a less 
 degree probable, and still more in preference to those 
 which are in no degree probable. 
 
 The highest degree of probability is next to cer- 
 tainty, and does not differ from it to any appreciable 
 extent. So far as all practical purposes are con- 
 cerned, it does not differ from certainty at all. 
 
 If the arguments adduced in favor of affusion and 
 sprinkling, therefore, fall short of establishing the 
 conclusion deduced from them as certain, and 
 
MUMo.X AND SFR0KIXKO. SKI 
 
 establish it as probable, the degree of probability 
 which they establish will require to be estimated. 
 If the probability established is of a high degree, the 
 conclusion will possess a proportionally high value. 
 If the degree of probability is indefinitely high, the 
 lusion will be an indefinitely near approximation 
 to certainty, and will not be inferior to certainty in a 
 practical point of view. 
 
 The value of a certain or even of a highly proba- 
 ble conclusion in favor of affusion and sprinkling, is 
 immense. It is a basis of union and agreement 
 among Christians, and will ultimately bring them to- 
 gether. 
 
 A conclusive argument has all the effect of a dis- 
 covery. It may be disputed and opposed for a time ; 
 but it will, by and by, assert its claims with effect. 
 When a truth is once discovered and demonstrated, 
 it becomes the property of the human race, and at- 
 tains a gradually increasing diffusion, until it is gen- 
 erally acknowledged. 
 
 A true estimate of Immersion. 
 
 § 44. If immersion is an unscriptural mode of 
 baptism, it ought not to be persisted in. It does not 
 follow that persons are unbaptized because they are 
 baptized in unscriptural modes. An unscriptural 
 mode of baptism may be baptism, just as an unscrip- 
 tural mode of partaking of the Lord's Supper may 
 be the Lord's Supper. But in either case there can 
 be no reasonable objection to keeping as close as 
 practicable to scriptural modes. The nearest practi- 
 cable approximation to the scriptural mode of re- 
 ceiving the Lord's Supper is to receive it in the 
 
96 
 
 MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 sitting posture, the usual posture in which we receive 
 our meals. The apostles, in the first instance, re- 
 ceived it reclining, the usual posture of receiving 
 set meals at that time. The customary posture of 
 receiving our usual meals having changed, there is a 
 propriety in deviating from a scriptural mode which 
 had no significancy, but was entirely accidental, and in 
 adopting the more convenient one of sitting. 
 
 This change has respect to a mode which is acci- 
 dental and insignificant, and is adopted only because 
 it was in agreement with the usages of those times. 
 It is changed in order to bring it into agreement with 
 the usages of modem times. 
 
 But no such reasons exist for changing the scrip- 
 tural mode of Christian baptism. Sprinkling and 
 affusion were not accidental modes of administering 
 this rite; neither are they without significancy. IVlo 
 change of manners has occurred or can occur which 
 will render these modes inappropriate or undesira- 
 ble. We are not, therefore, at liberty to depart from 
 them. The prevailing departure from them in the 
 case of immersion ist churches, is a violation of Chris- 
 tian order and a breach of Christian duty, which 
 nothing but ignorance can palliate, and which nothing 
 can justify. 
 
 Modes which are significant, and which Cod has 
 established, may not be departed from. They are 
 as obligatory as the rites to which they appertain. 
 
 Immersion, however, is a valid baptism; because, 
 though not a scriptural mode of administering this 
 ordinance, it is used in the belief that it is scrip- 
 tural, and is administered for the principal or most 
 essential purposes of Christian baptism. The high- 
 est end of Christian baptism is that which it accom- 
 plishes as a sacrament or seal of consecration to God, 
 
SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAFT] 99 
 
 id his prof Bsed worshippers. That end is not lost 
 of by immereionists; consequently, their bap* 
 dams are entitled t<> be considered valid, though not 
 scriptural in respect to the mode. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Adult converts who have not previously been bap- 
 tized. 
 
 §45. There is a general agreement among Chris- 
 tians, that all adult persons who have not previously 
 been baptized, are appropriate subjects of Christian 
 baptism when they become Christians. Persons be- 
 come Christians by receiving Christianity as a system 
 of truth, adopting its principles, and obeying its 
 laws. All unbaptized adult persons, therefore, who 
 receive Christianity as true, adopt its principles and 
 obey its laws, are entitled to receive Christian bap- 
 tism. It is the duty of all adult persons who are not 
 Christians to become such; and having become such, 
 if unbaptized. it is their duty to receive baptism. 
 
 So far, the scripture doctrine respecting the sub- 
 jects of Christian baptism is clear and unembarrassed, 
 and generally understood by Christians of all orders. 
 
SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Christian baptism is to be administered but once to 
 the same subject. 
 
 $46. It is further obvious that we have no scrip- 
 tural authority for administering Christian baptism 
 but once to the same subject. The scriptures do 
 not authorize a repetition of this rite in any case 
 whatever. It may not, therefore, be lawfully re- 
 peated. To repeat it is to transcend our legitimate 
 authority, and acting without authority our action be- 
 comes void. No persons, therefore, who have once 
 been duly baptized, can be again appropriate subjects 
 of baptism. Their second baptism is without divine 
 authority, and is therefore not a valid ordinance. 
 
 Backsliders, when reclaimed, may renew their 
 covenant with God and their profession of religion, 
 but they may not lawfully be baptized anew. So 
 those baptized in infancy, on the supposition that in- 
 fant baptism is agreeable to the scriptures, may enter 
 in covenant with God and his people when they be- 
 come adults, but they may not be baptized again. 
 
 Question respecting Infant Baptism. 
 
 §47. Whether infants are appropriate subjects of 
 baptism on the ground of the faith of their parents, 
 is a question which has greatly divided and agitated 
 the church for more than two hundred years past. I 
 is a point in Christian doctrine that ought to be set- 
 tled beyond reasonable dispute. God designed his 
 church to be one. A diversity of sentiments on the 
 question whether infanta arc appropriate subjects of 
 Christian baptism, together with a corresponding di- 
 
SUBJBCTfl or christian BAPTISM. 99 
 
 versify respecting the mode of baptism, has rent it 
 asunder into separate bodies, holding no communion 
 With each other. 
 
 These diversities of sentiment must be removed, 
 and the church re-united, before the entire conver- 
 sion of the world. The legitimate mode of removing 
 tlnin is to show what the true scripture doctrine is on 
 the subject of the title of infants to Christian bap- 
 tism, with such clearness and force of argument, and 
 with such fulness of illustration, that all sensible per- 
 sons will be able to understand it. This it is pro- 
 posed to do on the present occasion. 
 
 ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS. 
 
 § 48. 1. There is no specific precept for baptizing 
 them. 
 
 2. There is no unquestionable example of infant 
 baptism in the New Testament. 
 
 3. Infants are not the subjects of faith and re- 
 pentance; and therefore are not qualified to receive 
 baptism. 
 
 4. The covenant relations of God and men have 
 been so changed in the Christian dispensation, that 
 infants are no longer included with their parents in 
 the religious covenant which subsists between God 
 and his people. 
 
 First argument against the baptism of Infants. 
 
 §49. There is no specific precept for baptizing 
 infants in the New Testament; therefore, they ought 
 not to be baptized. 
 
100 SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 The premise of this argument is admitted. There 
 is no specific precept for the baptism of infants in 
 the New Testament. The conclusion, however, is 
 not a legitimate deduction from this premise. 
 
 Laws are of two kinds, general and specific. A 
 general law is one which applies to two or more 
 specific cases, or classes of cases. A specific law is 
 one which applies to a single case or a single class 
 of cases only. It is not possible to make specific 
 laws to meet all cases; and it is not desirable to have 
 them if it was possible. A comparatively few gen- 
 eral laws are sufficient to meet an immense variety 
 of cases. One advantage of general laws is, that it 
 takes less time and labor to learn them than it would 
 take to learn specific laws, comprehending all the 
 cases to which they apply. The scriptures deal ex- 
 tensively in general laws. The ten commandments 
 are beautiful examples of thcs?. They apply to 
 thousands of various cases. 
 
 If there is no specific law in the New Testament 
 requiring the baptism of infants, it remains to be as- 
 certained whether there is any general law requiring 
 it. The absence of a specific law is no proof of the 
 absence of obligation, provided a general law em- 
 braces the subjects to which that obligation apper- 
 tains. 
 
 Specific laws are only necessary to reach cases 
 which general laws cannot reach. 
 
 The want of an express precept for baptizing in- 
 fants, therefore, is no evidence against the scriptural 
 authority of infant baptism. Because that authority 
 may be. vested in general laws, and if so, specific 
 laws are not necessary to establish it. 
 
 Besides, many divine laws are not revealed to us 
 in the form of precepts. Even in cases where they 
 
r-nuKcTs 01 » mssrruM bapxvm. 101 
 
 were originally delivered in thai form, the revelation 
 of them to oa may be in a different form. 
 
 This is the case with the law respecting the Chris- 
 thin Sabbath. The observance of the Christian Sab- 
 hath is not enjoined by precept in the New Testament, 
 still less by a specific precept It is amply enjoined, 
 however, by other means, and is one of the bulwarks 
 of the Christian faith. So, for aught the above ar- 
 gument shows, it may be with the baptism of infants. 
 It may be enjoined by the general law relating to the 
 baptism of disciples; and if so, it is as really our 
 duty to extend the application of this rite to infants, 
 as if we had explicit laws requiring it. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the absence of precepts 
 or commands, either general or particular, does not 
 prove the non-existence of laws; because laws may 
 be revealed in other forms besides that of commands. 
 It appears further that the absence of specific laws 
 does not prove the non-existence of obligation; be- 
 cause obligation may be created by general laws, 
 binding us to perform particular duties comprehended 
 with other duties under those laws, and expressed 
 only in general terms. 
 
 The want of a specific precept for baptizing in- 
 fants does not, therefore, invalidate die authority of 
 infant baptism. It only refers us to a more general 
 law, relating to die subjects of baptism, to see 
 whether infants are comprehended among the other 
 subjects of this rite or not. 
 
 If infants are included in a general law respecting 
 the subjects of baptism, that general law will possess 
 all the binding force in favor of the baptism of in- 
 fants which could belong to a specific law. 
 
 The first argument against the baptism of infants, 
 therefore, is a failure. It proves nothing against the 
 doctrine which it is adduced to disprove. 
 
102 SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Second argument against the baptism of Infants. 
 
 $ 50. There is no specific example of the baptism 
 of infants in the New Testament. It is incredible 
 that this should have been the case, if infant baptism 
 had been practiced by the apostles. Therefore, the 
 baptism of infants is not an apostolic usage. 
 
 The premise of this argument is admitted as in 
 the former case, and as in the former case the con- 
 clusion is denied. It would be very natural to look 
 for specific examples of infant baptism in the New 
 Testament, provided infants were baptized by the 
 apostles. But the absence of such examples does 
 not prove that infants were not baptized. 
 
 If it can be proved that infants were appropriate 
 subjects of Christian baptism, and that the law de- 
 termining the subjects of this rite, clearly compre- 
 hended them, we are authorized to conclude that 
 they were baptized, notwithstanding that no specific 
 record is made of their baptism in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 The title of infants to baptism depends upon a 
 law including them among the subjects of this rite, 
 not upon the contingency of specific examples being 
 put on record in the scriptures, of obedience to this 
 law by the apostles. Examples of obedience by the 
 apostles add nothing to the force of laws which they 
 illustrate, and the want of recorded examples de- 
 tracts nothing from it. 
 
 If the baptism of infants is according to Christian 
 law, it was practiced by the apostles. The position 
 that, if infants were baptized by the apostles, some 
 specific example of it must have been left on record 
 in the New Testament, is without adequate founda- 
 
SUBJBCTB Off niKisTi.w kaiti-m. 103 
 
 lion. If is au unauthorized assumption which has 
 never v«-t been proved and never can be proved. 
 
 Examples of infant circumcision occur but seldom 
 in the < Hd Testament. Century after century passes 
 away without the occurence of any. Infant baptism 
 may not have bad a greater claim to the notice of the 
 writers of the New Testament, than infant circum- 
 i had to that of the writers of the Old Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 The absence of any examples of circumcision 
 during long periods of the Old Testament history, 
 does not prove the disuse of infant circumcision 
 during those periods. No more does the absence of 
 any specific examples of infant baptism in the New 
 Testament history, prove that infants were not bap- 
 tized in those times. 
 
 Third argument against the baptism of Infants. 
 
 §51. Infants are not the subjects of faith and re- 
 pentance, and therefore are not qualified to receive 
 baptism. 
 
 In the case of adults, baptism naturally follows 
 faith and repentance. The order of duties is, first, 
 faith and repentance; second, baptism. Hence the 
 expressions, "He that believeth and is baptized," 
 and "Repent and be baptized." This, however, 
 does not prove that infants must repent and believe 
 in order to be baptized. 
 
 Repentence and faith, are indispensable religious 
 duties incumbent on adults. Therefore, they must 
 perform them in order to be baptized. These duties 
 are not incumbent on infants. Therefore, infants 
 need not repent and believe in order to be baptized. 
 
104 SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 It is no where explicitly stated in the scriptures, 
 that faith and repentance must precede baptism, in 
 the case of adults. This doctrine, however, is 
 taught with sufficient clearness by implication. We 
 do not find it explicitly stated in the scriptures, but 
 we infer it, legitimately, from what we do find there. 
 To this extent, our inference in respect to the neces- 
 sary precedence of faith and repentance to baptism, 
 is legitimate, but no farther. Those passages from 
 which we infer that adults must repent and believe 
 in order to be baptized, furnish grounds for no such 
 legitimate inference in respect to infants. 
 
 The scripture requirements of faith and repen- 
 tance, have respect to adults, not to infants. They 
 furnish no evidence, therefore, against the fitness of 
 infants to receive baptism. 
 
 The propriety of applying baptism to infants, 
 equally with adults, is clearly shown by the Mosaic 
 baptisms, several of which were applicable to them. 
 The infantile state is no necessary disqualification 
 for receiving Christian baptism, more than it was 
 under the former dispensation for receiving the 
 Mosaic baptisms. 
 
 Baptism has the same symbolical meaning when 
 applied to infants, which it has in application to 
 adults. It is in respect to them, as it is in respect to 
 adults, a seal of discipleship to Christ, and a mark 
 of consecration to God, as his servants and worship- 
 pers. Baptism does not mark the infant as a believer 
 or a penitent, but it does, equally with adult baptism, 
 mark its subject as a consecrated person, and seal to 
 that subject, the promised grace of God. It also 
 seals the obligation of the subject, to serve and wor- 
 ship God. 
 
SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 105 
 
 It appears clearly, therefore, that the want of fait!) 
 and repentant e, <m the part of infants, is no disqual- 
 ification fur baptism, and no evidence that they are 
 not to be baptized. 
 
 Fourth argument against the Baptism of Infants. 
 
 $52. The covenant relations of God and man 
 have been so changed, in the Christian dispensation, 
 that infants are no longer included, with their pa- 
 rents, in the religious covenant which subsists be- 
 tween God and his people. 
 
 A change of covenant relations between God and 
 his people, is supposed, by some, to have been pre- 
 dicted in Jer. 31: 31-34. "Behold, the days come, 
 saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with 
 the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, 
 not according to the covenant that I made with their 
 fathers in the day that I took them by the hand, to 
 bring them out of the land of Egypt, (which, my 
 covenant, they broke, although I was a husband to 
 them, saith the Lord.) But this shall be the cove- 
 nant that I will make with the house of Israel : Af- 
 ter those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in 
 their inward parts and write it in their hearts, and 
 will be their God and they shall be my people. And 
 they shall teach no more, every man his neighbor 
 and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord, 
 for they shall all know me, from the least to the 
 greatest of them, saith the Lord : For I will forgive 
 their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no 
 more." 
 
 8 
 
106 SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 This passage is quoted at large in Heb. 8 : 8-12 r 
 and applied to the gospel dispensation, as being one 
 of greater perfection than the Mosaic. 
 
 The doctrine of the new covenant, made between 
 God and man under the gospel dispensation, is made 
 use of, by the apostle, to prove the superiority of 
 Christ, to the Levitical priesthood. The ministry of 
 Christ is claimed to be more excellent, than that of 
 the Levitical priesthood, by as much as the covenant 
 of God with man, under the Christian dispensation, 
 exceeds in excellence, that made with the Israelites 
 at their departure from Egypt. 
 
 The superior excellence of the Christian to the 
 Mosaic covenant, consisted, not in the exclusion of 
 infants from a joint interest with their parents, but 
 in the actual conversion and sanctification of men. 
 Under the Mosaic covenant men were not generally 
 converted ; under the Christian covenant, conversion 
 should become, not only general, but universal. 
 
 The exclusion of children from a joint interest 
 with their parents in the Christian covenant, receives 
 no support, whatever, from the inspired description 
 of this covenant, and is not to be admitted without 
 evidence. We are not authorized to suppose the 
 Christian covenant to differ from the Mosaic, any 
 farther than a difference can be clearly proved from 
 the scriptures. No difference can be proved from 
 the scriptures in respect to the joint interest of chil- 
 dren, with their parents, in covenant blessings. 
 Therefore, none ought to be assumed. 
 
 On the whole, it appears, that the arguments 
 against infant baptism, are not conclusive. They 
 do not prove, that infants ought not to be baptized. 
 It remains to determine whether they ought to be 
 baptized. 
 
CHURCH MHMHERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 107 
 
 SPECIFICATION OF ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF INFANT 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 $53. 1. Membership of children in the Christian 
 church. 
 
 2. Analogy of Christian baptism to circumcision. 
 
 3. Perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant. 
 
 4. Designation of the subjects of Christian bap- 
 tism, by general terms. 
 
 5. Absence of any exclusion of infants from bap- 
 tism. 
 
 6. Provision for the early conversion of children. 
 
 7. Testimony of the early Christian fathers. 
 
 8. The blessing of God on infant church-member- 
 ship and baptism. 
 
 CHAPTER Vin. 
 
 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 $ 54. The children of church-members are enti- 
 tled to be admitted to the Christian church, on their 
 parents' account. 
 
 The doctrine of infant baptism is mainly impor- 
 tant, as it is connected with other doctrines respect- 
 ing the church relations of the children of church- 
 members. Disconnected with those other doctrines, 
 
108 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 it sinks into insignificance, and is comparatively un- 
 important. Connected with them, and sustained by 
 them, it assumes an importance, scarcely, if at all, 
 inferior to that of adult baptism. 
 
 First argument in favor of the Church-membership 
 of Infants. 
 
 $55. One of the affiliated doctrines connected 
 with infant baptism, and one on which the adminis- 
 tration of baptism to infants mainly depends, is the 
 doctrine of the church-membership of infant chil- 
 dren in consequence of their position in the families of 
 church-members. The principle of admitting chil- 
 dren to the church, on account of their position in 
 pious families, was established in the time of Abra- 
 ham. This usage was probably of patriarchal origin, 
 and for aught that appears, is as old as the church 
 itself. Long before the time of Abraham, the 
 church of God was propagated from generation to 
 generation, in the line of family descents, and the 
 sons of God appear to have been made so, by paren- 
 tal discipline. Gen. 5: 21-32 6:2; The line of de- 
 scent from Seth, was the line of the Antediluvian 
 patriarchs; and, apparently, of the Antediluvian 
 saints. 
 
 But whether instituted before or not, in the time 
 of Abraham, the church-membership of the children 
 of pious parents, was clearly and explicitly establish- 
 ed. Of this, the circumcision of infants was a seal. 
 The principle of the membership of infants, in the 
 church of God, was incorporated into the Mosaic 
 dispensation, and its divinely appointed seal adopted. 
 Before the Mosaic dispensation was closed, that of 
 
< in Rcn-Mr.MnERSHir of ciiildiua. 100 
 
 Christ commenced. For a time, that is, during the 
 public, ministry of Christ and till the abrogation of 
 the Jewish rites at the time of the conversion of 
 Cornelius, both dispensations were contemporaneous. 
 The Jewish converts were, at the same time, both 
 Jews and Christians. They observed all the institu- 
 tions of Moses, and also, the additional institutions 
 of Christ. 
 
 The Christian church was, at this time, a division 
 of the Jewish. The same persons were members of 
 both. Till the divine communications made to Pe- 
 ter, at the time of the conversion of Cornelius, the 
 apostles seem not to have had the least idea of the 
 abrogation of the Mosaic rites. Up to this time, the 
 Christian church was a reformed branch of the Jew- 
 ish, embracing all the essential features and princi- 
 ples of Judaism. The church-membership of infants, 
 being a feature of Judaism, established by divine 
 authority, must have been retained. To suppose its 
 abrogation, in the absence of the least vestige of 
 evidence to sustain such a supposition, is absurd. 
 
 In the rejection of the unbelieving Jews, and the 
 abrogation of the sacrifices, circumcision, and other 
 Mosaic and patriarchal rites, nothing is said of the 
 principle of the membership of children in the 
 church. This principle, and the usage founded on 
 it, cannot be abrogated and abolished, without being 
 mentioned or alluded to. They are, therefore, still 
 in force, and belong to the christian church as legiti- 
 mately, as they did to the Jewish. 
 
 That part of the Jewish church which received 
 Jesus Christ, became a Christian church without 
 ceasing to be a part of the Jewish church, and with- 
 out abandoning any of the legitimate principles of 
 Judaism. They did not at first and for some years, 
 
110 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 that is, till the conversion of Cornelius, omit any of 
 the Jewish rites. This branch of the Jewish church 
 came off from the other. They, of course, took off 
 their children with them. Not to have done so, 
 would have been contrary to one of the essential 
 principles of Judaism, and contrary to every dictate 
 of humanity and piety. 
 
 The Christian church in its first establishment, 
 during the life of Christ, was, simply, a sect of Jews, 
 and a reformed branch of the Jewish church. As 
 such, it continued to adhere to all the divinely ap- 
 pointed Jewish ceremonies. When the unbelieving 
 and anti-Christian part of the Jewish church was re- 
 jected, and became utterly reprobate, the Christian 
 part continued to be the same body, essentially, as it 
 had been before; its essential principles being un- 
 changed, but certain Mosaic and patriarchal rites 
 being laid aside. This church, therefore, is but a 
 continuation of the Jewish church in a different 
 form and with a more simple religious service, found- 
 ed on the same principles and for the same objects. 
 It is built on the foundation of the patriachs and 
 prophets, as well as on that of the apostles. 
 
 Before its change from the Jewish to the Christian 
 organization, the church consisted of adults and their 
 children. When the Christian organization was com- 
 pleted, and the Jewish not dissolved, as was the 
 case after the resurrection, till the time of the con- 
 version of Cornelius, a period of some years, infants 
 were still included by virtue of the Jewish organiza- 
 tion. The abrogation of the Mosaic and patriarchal 
 rites, which followed at the time of the conversion of 
 Cornelius, did not affect the relations of children. 
 Therefore, those relations continue to be the same 
 as before, and the membership of infanta in the 
 
cm m h-mi:mhkrship of "^"— ' 111 
 
 church, is a? legitimate a principle of Christianity, 
 as it was of Judaism. 
 
 The principle of tho membership of children in the 
 church of God, established in the time of Abraham, 
 was incorporated in the Mosaic dispensation, and no 
 change in respect to it being revealed or intimated 
 in the New Testament, must be concluded to have 
 passed into the Christian church, and to have become 
 incorporated in the Christian dispensation. 
 
 This principle having been established by divine 
 authority, must continue till it is revoked by the 
 same. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the children of church- 
 members are entitled to be received as church- 
 members, and that all children who belong to pious 
 families are, in consequence of their position in 
 those families, entitled to share the enjoyment of 
 this privilege with the children of pious parents, as 
 under the former dispensations. 
 
 Second argument in favor of Church Membership 
 of Infants. 
 
 $56. The scriptural authority of the church 
 membership of infants, may be proved more directly 
 by the explicit declarations of Christ. Math. 19: 
 13, 15. "Then were there brought to him little 
 children, that he should put his hands on them and 
 pray; and the disciples rebuked them: but Jesus 
 said, suffer the little children and forbid them not to 
 come to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 The narration of this transaction, occurs almost in 
 the same words, in Mark 10: 13, 16; and in Luke 
 18: 15, 17. Luke denominates the children brought 
 
112 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OP CHILDREN. 
 
 to Christ, infants ; and Mark says, in addition to what 
 is said by the other evangelists, that "Jesus took them 
 in his arms and blessed them.'" 
 
 Why the disciples rebuked persons for bringing 
 children to Christ on this occasion, we are not in- 
 formed. Perhaps it subjected them to some incon- 
 venience, or interfered with some favorite arrange- 
 ments for business or pleasure. Possibly they 
 thought the matter of too little consequence to oc- 
 cupy their time, and that of their master, and to de- 
 tain them from other engagements. Whatever their 
 reasons were for finding fault on this occasion, with 
 the bringing of children to Christ for his blessing, 
 they were not sustained by the Divine Saviour. He 
 viewed their conduct in relation to this matter, with 
 deep displeasure, and required them in future to ab- 
 stain entirely from making opposition in any case to 
 the bringing of children to him. Mark 10: 14. 
 
 The phrase, suffer little children to come to me 
 and forbid them not, is more than usually energetic. 
 It expresses an injunction both positively and nega- 
 tively. Suffer them to come, is a positive injunction ; 
 and forbid them not to come, is the same injunction 
 expressed negatively. The whole expression is 
 equivalent to saying, suffer little children by all 
 means to come to rne for my blessing, and on no ac- 
 count prevent or hinder their coming. 
 
 Some have endeavored to elude the force of this, 
 by saying, that it described children of sufficient 
 to come of their own accord, not such as might be 
 brought. Such an evasion savors more of puerile 
 trifling, than of serious and intelligent reasoning. 
 
 The nature of the coming referred to, is clearly 
 explained by the context. It was such a comm: 
 was practiced by the children brought to the Savior 
 
< m ki ii-MioinERSHir of cHmmun 113 
 
 on that occasion; the corning of infants, the coming 
 of such as could appropriately be taken hi the arms 
 to receive a blessing. To come to Christ in this 
 sense, is the same as to be brought to him. This the 
 Saviour commands the disciples to Buffer and by no 
 means to oppose. 
 
 The reason assigned for suffering children to come 
 to Christ for his blessing, is expressed in the follow- 
 ing words : " For of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 The antecedent of the relative word such, is children. 
 Such, therefore, denotes children in the present case; 
 and putting children in the place of the word sveh, 
 which denotes them ; the whole passage reads thus : 
 Suffer the little children to come to me and forbid 
 them not, for of children is the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 To say that children are of the kingdom of heaven, 
 is the same as to say, that they belong to it. To 
 evade tins conclusion, some have proposed to inter- 
 pret such not as denoting children, but adult persons 
 resembling children, or of a child-like simplicity and 
 humility. This interpretation cannot be admitted, 
 for the following reasons. 
 
 1. The antecedent word to which such relates, and 
 for which it stands, is children, not persons resem- 
 bling children. The meaning of such depends upon 
 the word for which it stands, and is determined by 
 that word. If it stood for persons resembling chil- 
 dren, and related to words denoting such persons as 
 its antecedent, it would denote them, but standing as 
 it does for the word children, and relating to that 
 word as its antecedent, it denotes children. 
 
 2. The relation predicated of the persons deno- 
 ted by the word such, is assigned as a reason for 
 suffering children to come to Christ. That which 
 is a reason for suffering children to come to Christ,. 
 
114 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 must pertain to children, not merely to adults of a 
 child-like disposition. Therefore, such, the subject 
 of this proposition, must refer to children, otherwise 
 the reasoning of the Saviour is inconclusive. The 
 interest of child-like adults in the kingdom of 
 heaven, is no reason whatever for suffering children 
 to come to Christ. It is only a reason for suffering 
 child-like adults to come to him. 
 
 Of such is the kingdom of heaven, therefore, 
 means of children is the kingdom of heaven; that is, 
 that children as well as adults, are subjects of the 
 kingdom of heaven. 
 
 But What is the kingdom of heaven, as the phrase 
 is generally used in the gospels? I answer it is the 
 Christian church. In proof of this, the following 
 passages may be adduced. Matt. 3 : 2. " Repent 
 for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." So Matt. 4: 
 17, 10: 7. Matt. 13: 24. "The kingdom of 
 heaven is like a man sowing good seed in his field." 
 See also, verses 31, 33, 44, 45, 47. The phrase 
 kingdom of God, is used as synonymous with king- 
 dom of heaven. Mark 1: 14, 15. "Now after 
 John was put in prison, Jesus came into Gallilee, 
 preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and 
 saying, the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God 
 is at hand ; repent ye and believe the gospel." 
 
 Luke 4: 43. "And he said to them, I must 
 preach the kingdom of God to other cities also." — 
 Luke 6: 20. "And he lifted up his eyes on his dis- 
 ciples, and said blessed be ye poor, for yours is the 
 kingdom of God." Acts 10: 8. "And entering 
 into a synagogue he spake boldly for the space of 
 three months, disputing and persuading the things 
 concerning the kingdom of God." Acts 28: 30, 31. 
 " Paul dwelt two years in his own hired house, and 
 
CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 115 
 
 received all that came to him, preaching the king- 
 dom of Cod, and teaching those things which con- 
 cern the Lord Jesus, with all confidence, no man 
 lorbidtling him." 
 
 The church of God is his kingdom on earth. 
 God is its king, gives it laws, establishes its offices 
 and ordinances, and administers, by means of those 
 offices and in modes of his appointment, its govern- 
 ment. It is a spiritual kingdom not established for 
 secular purposes, but for religious purposes. 
 
 Of this spiritual kingdom infants arc subjects. 
 This is equivalent to saying that infants are members 
 of the church of Christ. We have, then, the doc- 
 trine of infant membership in the church of Christ, 
 explicitly asserted by Christ himself, and asserted 
 as a reason why infants should be brought to him for 
 his blessing. 
 
 The phrase, kingdom of heaven, is interpreted by 
 some, as referring to the kingdom of glory, and not 
 to the church of Christ on earth. This interpreta- 
 tion is objectionable, on the following grounds: 
 
 1. Kingdom of heaven having become a common 
 title of the Christian church, ought throughout the 
 evangelical history, to be interpeted in that sense, 
 unless in cases where the context will not admit of 
 this interpretation. 
 
 2. The participation of infants in the kingdom of 
 Christ on earth, is a more direct reason for the con- 
 duct enjoined, than their participation in the fellow- 
 ship of his kingdom above. When two interpreta- 
 tions are admissable, that which assigns a reason 
 most to the point, other things being equal, is always 
 to be preferred. Therefore, the interpretation of 
 kingdom of heaven to denote the kingdom or church 
 of Christ on earth, is in this case to be adopted. 
 
116 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 Third argument in favor of the Church Membership 
 of Infants. 
 
 §57. A third argument in favor of the member- 
 ship of infants in the Christian church, may be de- 
 duced from Rom. 11: 16, 17. "For if the first 
 fruit be holy, the lump is also holy, and if the root 
 be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the 
 branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive- 
 tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them par- 
 takest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree, boast 
 net against the branches." 
 
 In this passage, the church of God is compared to 
 an olive-tree. The olive-tree previous to the break- 
 ing off of some of its branches, was the Jewish 
 church before the rejection of the greater part of that 
 nation on account of their unbelief. The tree was 
 not destroyed, but only some of its branches broken 
 off. This shows that the church was not dissolved, 
 but passed unchanged from the Mosaic to the Chris- 
 tian dispensation ; as it had previously done from the 
 Patriarchal to the Mosaic dispensation. 
 
 Some of the branches were not broken off. The 
 believing part of the Jewish church continued in their 
 primitive church relations, and were the Jewish 
 church modified by the omission of certain specified 
 Mosaic rites, and the introduction of certain speci- 
 fied Christian rites. 
 
 The grafling in of branches from the wild olive- 
 tree, denotes the admission of Gentiles to the church 
 of God to partake of the genial influence of church 
 principles and institutions, without having been pre- 
 viously proselyted to Judaism. 
 
 The Jewish church thus modified, by the excision 
 of a part only of its brandies, and the grafling in of 
 
CIiriUTI-MI -.MHKKSHIP OF CIULDRI.N. 117 
 
 others to occupy their place, and by the omission of 
 certain Jewish rites and the adoption of certain 
 Christian rites, is die Christian church of succeeding 
 times. 
 
 The roots and trunk and a part of the brandies of 
 this church-tree are the same as formerly. This de- 
 notes the essential unity of the Jewish and Christian 
 churches. They are of one stock, and are one con- 
 tinuous body. 
 
 It is not true, as some have supposed, that the 
 Jewish church was a secular establishment, and that 
 the Christian church is a spiritual one. Both are 
 spiritual. Both are alike in this respect, because 
 one is a continuation of the other. 
 
 Judaism, as it existed previously to the establish- 
 ment of Christianity, and as it was constituted by di- 
 vine authority, is to be distinguished from that Juda- 
 ism, which the apostles subsequently condemned as 
 involving the doctrine of justification on the ground 
 of meritorious obedience, and as at the time consist- 
 ing in uncommanded and therefore useless ceremo- 
 nies. 
 
 The Judaism of the accepted patriarchs and proph- 
 ets was one thing, that of the rejected Jews was an- 
 other. The former was in essential agreement with 
 Christianity; the latter was in irreconcileable oppo- 
 sition to it. The former was spiritual; the latter 
 carnal. 
 
 It appears, on the whole, therefore, that the repre- 
 sentation of the church under the emblem of a tree, 
 and that of the excision of the unbelieving Jews, by 
 the excision of some branches of this tree, while the 
 others remain, clearly proves the identity of the Jew- 
 ish and Christian churches. Hence it follows that the 
 
118 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 membership of infants, which prevailed in the Jewish 
 church, must be considered as continuing in the 
 Christian church. 
 
 Fourth argument in favor of the Church Membership 
 of Infants. 
 
 $58. A fourth argument in favor of the church 
 membership of children, is drawn from the applica- 
 tion of the titles of church members to denote them 
 in the scriptures. 
 
 The titles of church members are saints or holy 
 persons, and faithfuls. The latter is in some cases 
 improperly translated believers. Both these terms 
 are applied in the new testament to denote children. 
 
 $59. (1.) Children of church members are called 
 saints, or holy persons. 1 Cor. 7 : 14. u For the 
 unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing 
 wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
 husband, else were your children unclean, but now 
 are they holy.'" 
 
 This passage occurs as an argument to prove that 
 married church members may lawfully live with un- 
 christian companions. The established rule on the 
 subject of matrimonial relations among the Jews 
 was the opposite of this. The Jew might not live 
 with a heathen companion. Hence, in the time of 
 Ezra, connections of this kind were forcibly dissolved 
 by the authority and influence of that prophet. See 
 Ezra 10: 1-17. 
 
 Under the Christian dispensation, a milder law 
 prevails. A holy husband makes the wife so far holy 
 as that it is lawful for him to live with her as a com- 
 
C'AVm II MKMHKRSIIIP OF CHILDREN. 119 
 
 panion; and a holy wife makes the husband so far 
 holy, that it i.s lawful for her to live with him. This 
 representation is founded on the Jewish law of de- 
 filement. A denied object rendered all objects 
 which came in contact with it defiled. So, under 
 the Christian dispensation, a Christian companion 
 rendered an unchristian one holy, in a legal sense, 
 as under the former dispensation, a defiled object 
 rendered a clean one denied. The defilement thus 
 created under the Mosaic dispensation was entirely 
 ceremonial. So the sanctification effected by the 
 Christian companion is only ceremonial or figurative, 
 and is the basis of lawful companionship. This lan- 
 guage is used with reference to the disability created 
 by impiety for lawful companionship with the saints 
 under the former dispensation. It signifies only the 
 removal of that disability. The removal of all dis- 
 abilities for companionship with Christians on the 
 part of persons who are not Christians, is fully settled 
 by a reference to the position of the children of such 
 connections. 
 
 If such connections had not been lawful, and the 
 unchristian companion had been accounted unclean, 
 that is, unfit for Christian companionship, the chil- 
 dren, as under the former dispensation, would also 
 have been accounted unclean. In the case of the 
 Israelites, the children of mixed marriages were re- 
 quired to be excluded from any participation in Jew- 
 ish church privileges equally with their heathen 
 parents. Ezra 10: 3. 
 
 Under the Christian dispensation, the apostle in- 
 forms us that such children are holy. He mentions 
 it not as something that was new to his Corinthian 
 brethren, but as something which was well known, 
 
120 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 and could therefore be made use of to illustrate less 
 obvious truths. 
 
 According to the Mosaic law, the people of God 
 were the clean or holy, and all others were the un- 
 clean. Hence it is said, Isa. 52 : 1, "Awake ! awake! 
 put on thy strength, O Zion! Put on thy beautiful 
 garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for henceforth 
 there shall no more come into thee the uncircum- 
 cised and the unclean?'' Ezek. 44: 23; "They (the 
 priests and Levites,) shall teach my people the dif- 
 ference between the holy and profane, and cause 
 them to discern between the unclean and the clean" 
 The clean and unclean, in these passages, are titles 
 of the pious and wicked. Clean is extensively used 
 in the sense of holy, as in Job 11: 4; 15: 14: 33-. 
 9. Isa. 52 : 1 1 . Jer. 13 : 27. Ezek. 36 . 25. 
 
 A similar usage prevails in the New Testament. 
 Holy, commonly translated saint, is applied exten- 
 sively, in the New Testament, a sa title of members 
 in the church of Christ. Of this, the following pas- 
 sages are examples : 
 
 Acts 26: 10. "And many of the saints did I 
 shut up in prison, having received authority from the 
 chief priests." Rom. 15: 25; "But now I goto 
 Jerusalem to minister to the saints" 2 Cor. 1:1; 
 "To the church of God, which is at Corinth, with 
 all the saints which are in all Achaia." Eph. 1:1; 
 " To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the 
 faithfuls in Christ Jesus." Phil. 1 : 1 ; " To all the 
 saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the 
 bishops and deacons." 
 
 If children, where either of the parents is a church 
 member, are not unclean but holy, this must be un- 
 derstood according to the meaning of the terms un- 
 clean and holy, taken in connection with the nature 
 
till •RCII-MKMnERSIIIP OP CHILDREN. 121 
 
 of the subjects to which they arc applied. Accord- 
 ing to the meaning of the terms unclean and holy, it 
 must refel to the separation of such children from 
 the children of unbelievers, and their consecration 
 to God. According to the nature of the subjects 
 spoken of, which are children, not adult persons, it 
 must denote a separation of such children solely on 
 account of their position in Christian families. 
 
 This was analogous to what occurred under the 
 Mosaic dispensation, and proves an agreement of the 
 Mosaic and Christian dispensations in having the 
 children of believers included among the acknow- 
 ledged and professed people of God. 
 
 If children were reckoned as church members, 
 then they were not unclean but holt/. If they were 
 not reckoned as church members, they were unclean 
 in the same sense in which the gentiles were, and, 
 in this respect, were not distinguishable from them. 
 
 Unbelieving companions were sanctified legally, 
 in a figurative sense, so that church members might 
 lawfully continue in connection with them ; and this 
 is commended to our faith by the consideration that, 
 if it were not so, our children would be unclean, 
 whereas they are known to be holy. That is, if this 
 were not so, our children would have to be reckoned 
 as of the same unsanctified body with the heathen, 
 whereas they are now reckoned as belonging to the 
 church of God, and as being so far the subjects of 
 ceremonial holiness. 
 
 There is no other sense in which the children of 
 church members can be accounted holy, except as 
 fit candidates for admission to the Christian church - 
 Their ceremonial holiness, therefore, is an evidence 
 of their title to church membership, and their title 
 9 
 
122 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 to church membership lays a foundation for their 
 baptism. 
 
 § 60. (2.) Children of church members are called 
 faithful. The term faithful is a title frequently ap- 
 plied to Christians in the New Testament. It is 
 sometimes improperly translated believers. The fol- 
 lowing are some of the instances in which it occurs : 
 Acts 16:1; " The son of a certain woman, who was 
 a Jewess and a faithful" that is, a Christian. 2 
 Cor. 6 : 15 ; " What part hath a faithful with an un- 
 faithful." 1 Tim. f : 16; "If any faithful [man] or 
 faithful [woman] have widows, let such relieve 
 them." 1 Tim. 4: 12; " Be thou an example to the 
 faithfuls, in word, in conversation, in charity, in 
 spirit, in faith, in purity." Eph. 1 : 1 ; " To ihe faith- 
 fuls in Christ Jesus." 
 
 In the above, and many similar passages of scrip- 
 ture, faithful and faithfuls denote Christians or 
 church members. Being a title of church members, 
 the application of this term to children by the apos- 
 tle is an evidence that they were church members. 
 
 An application is made of it to children in Titus 
 1 : 6, in describing the qualifications for the office of 
 Presbyter or Bishop. "If any be blameless, the 
 husband of one wife, hawing faithful children." 
 
 In what sense is having faithful children a qualifi- 
 cation for the office of bishop? It may be taken in 
 the sense of obedient children, as it is said in a 
 parallel passage, 1 Tim. 3:4, " One that ruleth his 
 own family well, having his children in subjection 
 with all gravity." 
 
 It may also refer to children as made Christians, 
 that is, baptized, and thus admitted to the com- 
 munion of the saints; and this is in agreement with 
 
CHtTBCH HEMBBBSHIF OF ciiili>ri:.v 123 
 
 the general usage of the word in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 A similar usage prevailed among the early Chris- 
 tian-, as appears from ancient inscriptions. The 
 following are some examples of these; "Cyreacus, 
 a faithful, died eight days less than three years old. 
 Ill Kat. Alar." Muratori. "The mother, Eustasia, 
 places this [stone] in commemoration of her son, 
 Policitanio, a faithful, who lived three years." 
 Gruter, No. 8. " Uncia Florentina, a faithful, rests 
 here in peace. She lived five years, eight months, 
 and eight days. Muratori." 
 
 Paul informs Titus that a Presbyter or bishop must 
 have faithful children. The term faithful is a title of 
 professing Christians in the New Testament, and 
 was applied to denote baptized children by the an- 
 cient Christians. Whence we infer, that, in the 
 apostolic direction to Titus, faithful children means 
 baptized children ; and that no person was allowed to 
 be made a presbyter or bishop who did not have his 
 children baptized, and bring them up in a religious 
 manner. 
 
 Fifth argument in favor of the church-membership 
 of Infants. 
 
 $61. It was predicted that Christ, under, the 
 Christian dispensation, should regard and treat chil- 
 dren as lambs of his flock. 
 
 Isa. 40: 11, "He shall feed his flock like a shep- 
 herd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm and 
 carry them in his bosom." Christ alludes to this pre- 
 diction, in John 10: 11-18, and declares, "I am the 
 good shepherd." He also says, alluding to his Jew- 
 
124 CHURCII-MEMBERSniP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 ish disciples, " Other sheep I have, which are not of 
 this fold. Them, also, I must bring; they shall hear 
 my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shep- 
 herd." 
 
 In the comparison of the church to a sheep-fold, 
 the sheep represent adult Christians, and the lambs 
 their infant children. Taking the lambs with the 
 arm and carrying them in the bosom, denotes taking 
 the children of the church in the arm, and carrying 
 them in the bosom. 
 
 If adult converts may, in some cases, not inappro- 
 priately be called the lambs of Christ's flock; this 
 does not prove, that children are not equally entitled 
 to be comprehended under that designation. The 
 lambs of Christ's flock, may comprehend adult con- 
 verts; but they must comprehend the infant children 
 of church-members. 
 
 In all periods preceding the establishment of the 
 Christian church, pious adults were regarded as the 
 sheep of Christ's fold, and their children as the 
 lambs. A prediction in regard to the lambs, when 
 these lambs denoted, beyond all question, the chil- 
 dren of the saints, must be interpreted agreeably to 
 that usage, as denoting them too. 
 
 It is clear then that, under the Christian dispensa- 
 tion, Christ was to take children with 'his arm, and 
 cany them in his bosom, as the lambs of his flock. 
 This is done by the baptism of children, and their 
 recognition as members of the church of Christ. 
 Where children are not baptized, and not recognized 
 as members of the church of Christ, this is not done. 
 They cannot be taken in the arms of Christ as lambs 
 of his flock, without being recognized as a part of 
 that flock. 
 
< m ki ■ii-mi:mhi:ksiiip of infants. 125 
 
 The opposen of infant baptism, discard theil own 
 children ;is not being lambs of the flock of Christ, 
 and not being tit to bo taken up and cherished as 
 Bach. How contrary is this to the prediction: "He 
 shall feed his flock like a shepherd. He shall gath- 
 er the lambs with his arm and carry them in his 
 bosom.*" 
 
 Sixth argument in favor of the Church-membership 
 of Irfants. 
 
 $ 62. Eph. 2 : 1 1-12, " Wherefore remember, that 
 ye being in time'past Gentiles in the flesh, who are 
 called uncircumcision by that which is called circum- 
 cision in the flesh made with hands; that at that time 
 ye were without Christ, being aliens from the com- 
 monwealth of Israel and strangers from the cove- 
 nants of promise, having no hope, and without God 
 in the world. But now in Christ Jesus, ye who 
 sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood 
 of Christ." 
 
 • V. 19. " Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers 
 and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints 
 and of the household of God." 
 
 In the above declaration of the apostle, the com- 
 monwealth of Israel, with its covenants of promise, 
 denotes the Jewish church. 
 
 Members of the Christian church, arc described as 
 being no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow 
 citizens with the saints and of the household of 
 God. 
 
 From this it clearly appears that, in the estimation 
 of the apostle, the Jewish commonwealth was, for the 
 time being, the family or church of God, and that 
 
126 CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 
 
 the Christian church is a continuation of this family, 
 so that those who are received into it, are fellow cit- 
 izens with the saints of the former dispensation. 
 
 In being called fellow-citizens, the church is com- 
 pared to a state. The Jewish and Christian saints 
 are described as fellow citizens, that is, as members 
 of one and the same state. But if the Jewish and 
 Christian churches are one and the same state, so 
 that Christians are fellow citizens with the Jews of 
 the former dispensation, then Judaism and Christi- 
 anity are, essentially, the same system; and all the 
 essential principles of Judaism, are principles of 
 Christianity. It was one essential principle of Juda- 
 ism, that children should be included, with their pa- 
 rents, as subjects of religious rites. The same, 
 therefore, is a legitimate principle of Christianity. 
 
 The church-membership of children is established 
 by six independent arguments. 
 
 §63. Each of these arguments is independent of 
 the others, and each, consequently, must stand or 
 fall by itself. The first three will be easily under- 
 stood, and their conclusiveness easily perceived % 
 candid readers. 
 
 It may be questioned whether the fourth is con- 
 clusive. Explanations may be put upon the promi- 
 ses of that argument, which do not require the 
 hypothesis of the church-membership of children. 
 The evidence which they afibrd, therefore, is of the 
 probable, not of the demonstrative kind. But the 
 probability which they establish is of very considera- 
 ble strength. It depends upon laws of interpreta- 
 tion which are so general, and upon facts and prin- 
 ciples which are so obvious and indisputable, that 
 the conclusion based upon it, particularly with res- 
 
( IIURCn-MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN. 127 
 
 pect to the application of the word holy, falls little 
 short of being certain. That conclusion is not only 
 probable, but probable in the highest degree, and, 
 therefore, if it was unsustained by the three prece- 
 ding arguments, would be a legitimate principle of 
 action, and a valid reason for admitting children to 
 be members of the Christian church. 
 
 It appears on the whole, therefore, that infants, 
 belonging to the families of church-members, are 
 entitled to be admitted to the Christian church. 
 This conclusion is supported by evidence of the 
 most decisive character. There is no counter evi- 
 dence. There is nothing in the scriptures inconsis- 
 tent with it. The objection that infants are not 
 mentioned as church-members, and not particularly 
 treated as such in the New Testament, amounts to 
 nothing. God may not have taken our own favorite 
 modes of acquainting us with this feature of Christi- 
 anity, but he has furnished us with other means of 
 ascertaining it; which, if properly improved, will 
 conduct us to the most certain conclusion on the 
 subject. 
 
 The title of infants to church-membership, com- 
 prehends their title to Christian baptism, because 
 baptism is the rite of initiation into the church. 
 
 Children, therefore, being entitled to church-mem- 
 bership, are entitled to receive baptism, the rite of 
 initiation into the church, and the seal of church- 
 membership. 
 
128 ANALOGY OF BAPTISM 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ANALOGY OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM TO 
 CIRCUMCISION. 
 
 Second argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 
 
 § 64. Christian baptism is analogous to circumci- 
 sion. 
 
 Nature of Circumcision. 
 
 1. Circumcision was, formerly, enjoined upon all 
 the true worshippers of God. with the exception of 
 females, who were incapable of receiving it, as a 
 seal of justification by faith. Hence it is said, Rom. 
 4: 11, 12, "And he (Abraham,) received the sign 
 of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, 
 [which he obtained] in uncircumcision, that he might 
 be the father of all them that believe in circumci- 
 sion, that righteousness might be imputed to them 
 also ; and the father of the uncircumcision, not to those 
 of the circumcision only, but to those who walk in 
 the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, which 
 he had in uncircumcision." 
 
 The righteousness of faith is the same as justify 
 cation by faith. Circumcision, therefore, in being 
 to Abraham a seal of the righteousness of faith, was 
 to him a seal of justification by faith. And if it 
 was a seal of justification by faith in the case of 
 Abraham, it was a seal of the same thing in the case 
 of all others to whom it was lawfully applied. Con- 
 sidered as a seal, it did not confirm one tiling to 
 
TO ( IRITMCISION. 
 
 129 
 
 Abraham and another and different thing to others, 
 but scaled one and the same thing to all. It WIS} 
 therefore, a seal of justification by faith, when ap- 
 plied to infants, as much as when applied to Abra- 
 ham. 
 
 §65. 2. Circumcision was a symbol of moral 
 cleansing. Hence, in Dent. 10: 16, it is said, "Cir- 
 cumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be 
 no more stiff-necked. Deut. 30 : 6, " And the Lord 
 thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of 
 thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart 
 and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. 1 " 
 
 Jer. 4: 4, "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord 
 and take away the foreskin of your heart, ye men of 
 Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem.'" Acts 7: 51, 
 "Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and 
 ears, ye do always resist to Holy Ghost: as )Our 
 fathers did, so do ye." Rom. 2 : 28, 29, " For he is 
 not a Jew, who is one outwardly; neither is that cir- 
 cumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is 
 a Jew, who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that 
 of .the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose 
 praise is not of men, but of God." 
 
 In these passages, the significancy of circumcision 
 as a symbol of moral cleansing, is most clearly set 
 forth. To circumcise the heart means, to cleanse 
 the heart. The cleansing of the heart is, moral 
 cleansing. Circumcision, therefore, is evidently a 
 symbol of moral cleansing. 
 
 $66. 3. Circumcision was a rite of initiation into 
 the Patriarchal and Mosaic church 
 
 Wh<>n the infant, eight days old, was circumcised, 
 it was initiated into tie then existing church of God, 
 
130 ANALOGY OF BAPTISM 
 
 and recognized as a member of that church. So in 
 the case of adults, who were converted to the Abra- 
 hamic and Mosaic faith. They were initiated into 
 the ancient church, by circumcision; and circumci- 
 sion when administered was, in the case of males, a 
 seal of their membership. 
 
 § 67. 4. Circumcision was a seal of the covenant 
 relations subsisting between God and his people, 
 and in being a seal of those relations, it was a seal 
 of all the blessings promised by God in his covenant 
 with men, and of all the obligations assumed by men 
 in their covenant with God. Hence, circumcision, 
 at the time of its institution, was expressly declared 
 to be a token of the covenant subsisting between 
 God and men. Gen. 17: 11. 
 
 The token of a covenant, as the word is here 
 used, is the same as a seal of a covenant. 
 
 The circumcision of Abraham, was a seal of God's 
 covenant with men, as it subsisted between him and 
 Abraham. With others who were circumcised, 
 whether lineal descendants of Abraham or not, it was 
 a seal of God's covenant with men as it subsisted 
 between God and those persons. 
 
 $68. In the four particulars which have now been 
 specified, circumcision under the Patriarchal and 
 Mosaic dispensations, answered the same purposes 
 which Christian baptism now answers, and possessed 
 the same significancy which Christian baptism now 
 possesses. These were all the essential purposes of 
 circumcision, and they are all the essential purposes 
 of Christian baptism. 
 
 Circumcision was required to be administered to 
 infants and young children on the ground of the 
 
to cinci'Mt aaifl r. 131 
 
 church-membership of their parents. This require 
 incut was insisted upon us of the utmost importance, 
 and might, on no account, be neglected. 
 
 In m!.. dienc to this law, Abraham circumcised all 
 his male cliildrcn and servants. In obedience to the 
 same, circumcision continued to be administered to 
 infants, till after the full establishment of the Chris- 
 tian Church. Christian baptism was instituted be- 
 fore circumcision was abolished. Being similar in 
 design and import to circumcision, it must have been 
 administered to the same subjects. There is a pro- 
 priety in its administration to the same subjects, and 
 in the absence of any specific information, relating 
 to the subjects of Christian baptism, as comprehend- 
 ing or not comprehending infants, we are authorized 
 to infer, from the similarity of Christian baptism to 
 circumcision in design and significancy, that infants 
 were comprehended. 
 
 If baptism performs the same office in the Chris- 
 tain church which circumcision performed in the 
 Patriarchal and Mosaic churches, the natural infer- 
 ence is, that it ought to be administered to the same 
 subjects, and on the same conditions. In the ab- 
 sence of any specific information, limiting the sub- 
 jects of Christian baptism to adults, the inference, 
 from its resemblance to circumcision, that it ought 
 to be extended to infants, and was extended to them, 
 becomes most clear and certain. 
 
 If infants were fit subjects of circumcision former- 
 ly, they arc fit subjects of baptism now. If there 
 was a propriety in their being circumcised formerly, 
 there is a propriety in their being baptized now. 
 Infant nature has not altered since the days of Abra- 
 ham. The essential conditions, liabilities and capac- 
 ities of infant children, are the same as formerly. 
 
132 ANALOGY OF BAPTISM 
 
 Their privileges ought not, therefore, to be abridged. 
 No higher qualifications are required for baptism, 
 than were formerly required for circumcision. In- 
 fants had all the requisite qualifications for circum- 
 cision; therefore, they have all the requisite qualifi- 
 cations for baptism. 
 
 §89. The analogy of Christian baptism to circum- 
 cision was believed and taught by the early Christian 
 fathers. Justin Martyr, converted 132, A. D., and 
 beheaded 164, A. D., writes thus: "We Gentile 
 Christians also, who by him, (Christ,) have access to 
 God, have not received that circumcision according to 
 the flesh, but that circumcision which is spiritual; and 
 moreover, for indeed we were sinners, we have re- 
 ceived this circumcision in baptism, for the purpose 
 of God's mercy, and it is enjoined on all to receive 
 it in like manner." 
 
 Chrysostom says : " There was pain and trouble 
 in Jewish circumcision, but our circumcision, I mean 
 the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain; and 
 this for infants as well as men." Horn, on Gen. 40. 
 
 Hence, also, Fidus, 250, A. D., hesitated to bap- 
 tise infants before they were eight days old and 
 thought that the Jewish law respecting circumcising 
 children at eight days of age ought to be observed 
 in respect to the baptism of infants. 
 
 §70. I have thought proper to base the argument 
 from circumcision, in favor of infant baptism upon 
 the analogy of baptism to circumcision. Some have 
 chosen to base it on a substitution of Christian bap- 
 tism for circumcision. The reasoning will then 
 stand thus. 
 
 Christian baptism is substituted for circumcision, 
 as a seal of covenant relations to God, and of church 
 
TO CrRClMC TSI<>\. 133 
 
 membership. Circumcision was administered to in- 
 fanta belonging to pious families; therefore, Christian 
 baptism ought to be administered to infants in like 
 
 circumstances. 
 
 The conclusion of this argument is a legitimate 
 deduction from the premises, and if the entire argu- 
 ment is in any respect defective, that defect must 
 pertain to the promise in which it is asserted, that 
 Christian baptism is substituted for circumcision. 
 
 It is denied by some, that Christian baptism is sub- 
 stituted for circumcision, on the ground that this rite 
 was instituted before circumcision was abrogated. — 
 How, says the objector, can one ordinance be substi- 
 tuted for another, when it is instituted before that 
 other is abrogated? As long as circumcision con- 
 tinued to be in use, no co-existing rite could be a 
 substitute for it. This objection is valid only for the 
 time which followed the institution of Christian bap- 
 tism, and preceded the abrogation of circumcision. 
 Two ordinances of similar import and design, estab- 
 lished at different times, may be observed together 
 for an indefinite period, and then the one last adopted 
 may supplant the other, and become a legitimate sub- 
 stitute for it. 
 
 So it was with circumcision and baptism. They 
 were instituted at different times, and were ordinan- 
 ces of similar import and design. For a few years 
 they were observed together, but after a while cir- 
 cumcision was abrogated, and Christian baptism 
 thenceforward was used alone for the same purposes 
 as before, and for the same purposes essentially for 
 which circumcision had been used from the days of 
 Abraham till the conversion of Cornelius. 
 
 Considered as a rite of initiation into the church 
 of God, and as a seal of covenant relations and obli- 
 
134 ANALOGY OF BAPTISM, ETC. 
 
 gations between God and man; therefore Christian 
 baptism is a substitute for Christian circumcision. It 
 became so at the time when circumcision was abro- 
 gated. Previous to that time, it was a concomitant 
 seal, used for the same purposes essentially as cir- 
 cumcision, but serving to distinguish the Christian 
 Jew from the unchristian Jew. This use of Chris- 
 tian baptism arose from the fact that the Jewish 
 church had, to a considerable extent, abandoned the 
 legitimate principles of Judaism, and that it became 
 expedient to separate the spiritual Jews from the un- 
 spiritual, or the true Jews from the false. 
 
 The substitution of Christian baptism for circum- 
 cision considered as a seal of covenant relations and 
 obligations, is extremely obvious. At first, circum- 
 cision was practiced alone as a seal of the covenant 
 subsisting between God and man. Then from the 
 commencement of the public ministry of Christ, till 
 the conversion of Cornelius, they were practiced to- 
 gether as joint seals of this covenant; and after the 
 conversion of Cornelius, Christian baptism was prac- 
 ticed alone as a seal of the same covenant. 
 
 God's gracious covenant with man was one per- 
 manent arrangement entered into and sealed at the 
 time of Abraham. This arrangement still exists, 
 with baptism substituted for circumcision; that is, 
 with circumcision its first seal abrogated, and baptism 
 substituted in its place. 
 
ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. 135 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 PERPETUITY OF THE ABRAHAMIC 
 COVENANT. 
 
 Third argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 
 
 $71. The Abrahamic covenant continues in full 
 force. God appeared to Abraham and granted him 
 on several occasions great and precious promises. — 
 These promises were renewed, and the relations of 
 God to Abraham were reduced to the form of a sol- 
 emn religious covenant on the occasion referred to 
 in Gen. 17. This covenant consists of certain prom- 
 ises and requirements, to which Abraham gives his 
 assent, by submitting to a religious rite affixed as a 
 seal of the arrangement. 
 
 The promises are briefly comprehended in this; 
 v. 7. " I will establish my covenant between me and 
 thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, 
 for an everlasting covenant; to be a God to thee and 
 to thy seed after thee." 
 
 Other promises and specifications may all be con- 
 sidered as comprehended in this. That God should 
 be a God to us and to our descendants after us, is all 
 that we need, and all that we can desire. This is 
 the tenor of the covenant with Abraham. The lead- 
 ing terms of this covenant are suited to the condition 
 of mankind in all ages and countries. Some speci- 
 fications were added which pertain to the particular 
 descendants of Abraham, and to their destination 
 under the former dispensation. But in respect to its 
 spiritual provisions, and in respect to temporal bless- 
 
136 ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 
 
 ings generally, it is equally suited to the condition of 
 all men, at all times, and under all dispensations of 
 grace. 
 
 This covenant was the basis of the Mosaic dispen- 
 sation. When the Mosaic rites were disused it 
 remained unrevoked. 
 
 The Mosaic rites were no part of the Abrahamic 
 covenant. 
 
 Paul puts forth an elaborate argument in favor of 
 this position, in the third chapter of Galatians. He 
 informs us that they who are of faith are the children 
 of Abraham ; v. 7. That Christ has redeemed us 
 from the curse of the law ; that the blessing of Abra- 
 ham might come on the gentiles through Jesus 
 Christ; v. 13, 14. That this covenant was not dis- 
 annulled or superseded by the law; v. 17. That we 
 are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ; 
 v. 26 ; and that, if we are Christ's, then we are Abra- 
 ham's seed and heirs, according to the promise; 
 v. 29. 
 
 A more explicit evidence of the perpetuity of the 
 Abrahamic covenant could not be given. Not only 
 an apostolic assertion, but an apostolic argument 
 is put on record in its support. 
 
 Here then we have a perpetual covenant in ac- 
 cordance with which God dispenses blessings to 
 mankind. This covenant was esteemed infinitely 
 precious in former times. It is still precious in the 
 view of all who properly understand it. 
 
 At the time of its establishment, it was a sealed 
 arrangement. Circumcision was its seal. This seal 
 continued till after the commencement of the Chris- 
 tian dispensation. 
 
ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. 137 
 
 57*2. Seals arc liable to be altered, and aro often 
 lltered for good and sufficient reasons. After the 
 seal of circumcision had been in use more than 
 1,900 yean* God saw fit to abrogate it, together with 
 th«' Mosaic rites of religious worship. 
 
 Its abrogation did not take place till several years 
 after the crucifixion. The first indication which the 
 apostles received of its abrogation, was in A. D. 41, 
 in connection with the conversion of Cornelius, the 
 Roman Centurion. Peter was called upon to asso- 
 ciate with Cornelius and his friends, on terms which 
 were entirely inconsistent w r ith established Jewish 
 usages. Cornelius and his gentile friends appear to 
 have been baptized and admitted to the Christian 
 church without circumcision, and were the first un- 
 circumcised converts of whom we have any account. 
 
 Here then, for the first time, the ancient seal of 
 the Abrahamic covenant was omitted by divine au- 
 thority. The omission of it, however, did not pass 
 without notice. 
 
 On his return to Jerusalem, Peter was called to 
 account for his violation of the established and hither- 
 to sacred usages of the Jews, in reference to Corne- 
 lius and his friends. He explains the whole matter, 
 showing that he had done nothing of himself, but 
 had acted under the authority antf special direction 
 of God. His statements were satisfactory. They 
 showed the disciples generally what Peter then, for 
 the first time, understood, that the Mosaic rites, 
 together with circumcision, the ancient seal of the 
 Abrahamic covenant, were no longer valid and no 
 longer obligatory. Acts 11 : 1-18. 
 
 So strong, however, was the attachment of the 
 Jewish Christians to the Mosaic rites, that the sub- 
 ject was brought up again in a council of the elders 
 10 
 
138 ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 
 
 and apostles, held at Jerusalem, A. D. 49; eight 
 years subsequent to the time when Cornelius was 
 converted. 
 
 After a full discussion of the subject in this coun- 
 cil, the disuse of the Mosaic rites and circumcision 
 was unanimously agreed to, as being in conformity 
 with the will of God. The grounds on which the 
 decision was made, were the divine communications 
 made directly and indirectly to Peter, on the occasion 
 of his preaching the gospel to Cornelius, the authori- 
 ty and practice of Paul and Barnabas, and prophecies 
 relating to the subject, which were recited and ex- 
 pounded by James, President of the Council. Acts 
 15: 1-29. 
 
 In this manner, circumcision and the Mosaic rites 
 of religious worship, comprehending the observance 
 of the seventh day of the week as a sabbath, were for- 
 mally abrogated. 
 
 The Abrahamic covenant, agreeably to the reason- 
 ings of Paul, already adduced, remained in full force. 
 All the great principles of the former dispensation 
 remained. 
 
 § 73. The reasons for the great change now re- 
 ferred to are, ne where in the scriptures, particularly 
 explained. It is not the manner of God ; neither 
 does it suit the dignity of the Divine Majesty to go 
 unnecessarily into explanations of the reasons of his 
 procedure. It is proper for us humbly to investigate 
 these reasons as far as they may appear, and rever- 
 ently to wait for illumination where they do not ap- 
 pear. 
 
 Several reasons, however, are obvious, showing a 
 propriety both in the discontinuance of circumcision 
 and the Mosaic rites. 
 
AI!K.\TI\MTC COVENANT. 130 
 
 The antitype of tlic Patriarchal and Mosaic sacri- 
 fices baring come and performed his appropriate work, 
 it w;is tit that there should be a change in those insti- 
 tutions, corresponding with the altered light in which 
 their antitype was henceforth to be viewed. This 
 accounts for the disuse of sacrifices. Other Jewish 
 typical ceremonies were intimately associated with 
 these, and naturally stood or fell with them. 
 
 The Abrahamic covenant too, had, in addition to 
 its general provisions, adapted to all times, its Jewish 
 peculiarities, which had now received their accom- 
 plishment. An alteration of its seal corresponds to 
 the renewed form which that covenant henceforth as- 
 sumed, and marked a new era in its administration. 
 
 But the main reason that appears for the disuse of 
 the Mosaic rites and of circumcision, was, that the 
 unrcformed Jewish branch of the church was rejected 
 from being any longer a part of the true church; and 
 it was desirable that the reformed branch of it which 
 had embraced Christianity should be reorganized in 
 a different form, in order to indicate this fact. 
 
 §74. But though altered in form, the Christian 
 church embraces the true seed of Abraham, and is 
 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
 Jesus Christ himself being the chief comer stone. 
 Hence Peter says, in connection with the injunction 
 to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, 
 and the assurance that those who did so should re- 
 ceive the Holy Spirit, Acts 2 : 39 ; " For the promise 
 is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar 
 off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 
 The Abrahamic covenant, still remaining in force 
 in respect to its main provisions, it ought to have a 
 seal. If the old seal is disused, it ought to have a 
 
140 ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 
 
 new one, to be applied like the old. There is the 
 same demand now for a seal to this covenant as for- 
 merly. The seal was formerly applied to believing 
 adults and their children. The renewed seal ought, 
 therefore, to be so applied. Is there any such seal? 
 Or has God abrogated the old seal and given us none 
 in its place ? If he has given us a new seal, to take 
 the place of circumcision, the old one, what is it? 
 I answer, it is baptism. Baptism signifies what cir- 
 cumcision signified, and seals what circumcision 
 sealed. It seals men as the servants of God. Bap- 
 tism, therefore, occupies, in the Christian dispensa- 
 tion, the place formerly occupied by circumcision, in 
 the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. It is, 
 therefore, suitable to serve as a seal of the Abrahamic 
 covenant in its renewed form ; and in the absence of 
 any other seal, must be presumed to be that seal. 
 
 We are not left, however, to inference and analo- 
 gy on this subject. We have explicit scriptural tes- 
 timony to establish this point. 
 
 Col. 2: 11, 12. "In whom also ye are circum- 
 cised with the circumcision made without hands, by 
 putting ofT the sins of the carnal body, by the cir- 
 cumcision of Christ, being buried with him by bap- 
 tism.'" Baptism is here called the circumcision of 
 Christ, or Christian circumcision. This must mean 
 that baptism is now what circumcision was formerly. 
 It cannot mean any thing else. It is, therefore, a 
 direct scriptural evidence, that baptism is a seal of 
 the same covenant now, of which circumcision was 
 the seal formerly. 
 
 $75. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 as a fundamental law of the Christian dispensation, 
 may be proved by an independent argument from 
 
ABRAJIAMIC COVENANT. 141 
 
 Acts 2 : 3$ 89. " Then Peter said to them, repent 
 and be baptized, every one of you, to the name of 
 Jeetlfl Chllflt, (or the remission of sins; and ye sliall 
 r< ceive tin' ^ii't of the Holy Ghost. For the promise 
 is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar 
 offj even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 
 
 The promise here spoken of must relate to the 
 bestowment of the blessings mentioned in the pre- 
 ceding rewe. These are comprehended under the 
 titles of remission of sins and the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost. The promise, therefore, must relate to the 
 remission of sins, and the sanctifying influences of 
 the Holy Ghost ; or, in other words, to bestowing sal- 
 vation in the gospel dispensation. 
 
 Thus interpreted, the doctrine of this passage is, 
 that in the gospel dispensation, salvation is offered to 
 us and our children. This doctrine is proposed as a 
 reason for repenting and being baptized. Repent 
 and be baptized says the apostle, because salvation is 
 promised to you, and to your children on these con- 
 ditions. The mention of children in this connection 
 is remarkable, and deserves to be well considered. 
 It is the more worthy of consideration on account of 
 its occurring in the first gospel sermon which was 
 delivered after the resurrection. 
 
 Soon after this, we have an account of another dis- 
 course by the same apostle, and in it a passage simi- 
 lar to that above mentioned. Acts 3: 19,20; "Re- 
 pent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins 
 may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing 
 shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he 
 shall send Jesus Christ, who before was preached to 
 you.*" V. 25; "Ye are the children of the prophets, 
 and of the covenant which God made with our 
 fathers, saying to Abraham, and in thy seed shall all 
 
142 ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 
 
 the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Children of 
 the prophets may mean descendants of the prophets, 
 or disciples of the prophets. The language was ap- 
 plicable to the Jews in both senses. They were, to 
 some extent, the descendants of the prophets, and 
 were generally their disciples. 
 
 Children of the covenant made with their fathers, 
 means heirs of that covenant. The covenant made 
 with their fathers embraced the promise of the Mes- 
 siah, and other spiritual blessings. Their title to the 
 blessings promised in that covenant is assigned as a 
 reason why they should repent and become Chris- 
 tians. One of the most important provisions of the 
 covenant referred to was, that God would be a God 
 to his servants, and to their children after them. 
 Gen. 17:7. 
 
 Here then, in the preaching of the gospel on the 
 day of Pentecost, when many of the hearers were 
 foreigners and ignorant of Christian principles, (Acts 
 2 : 9- 11,) and on a subsequent occasion, not far from 
 the same time, we have, first, the annunciation that 
 the promise of salvation, under the Messiah, is to us 
 and our children; and secondly, an appeal made to 
 the Jews as heirs of the covenant made by God with 
 the patriarchs of the former dispensation; both as- 
 signed as reasons for repenting and becoming Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 The promise of spiritual blessings in being to us 
 and our children, is essentially the same as in the 
 Abrahamic covenant, in which it is said: Gen. 17: 7. 
 " I will establish my covenant between me and thee, 
 and thy seed after thee, in their generations; to be a 
 God to thee and to thy seed after thee.'" The prom- 
 ise of spiritual blessings in the Abrahamic covenant 
 to them and their children after them, was the ground 
 
ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 143 
 
 of infant circumcision. The similar promise of spir- 
 itual blessings to us and our children, under the gos- 
 prl dispensation, is an equally substantial ground for 
 infant baptism. 
 
 Under the former dispensations, spiritual blessings 
 were dispensed to parents and their children, and in 
 conformity to this arrangement, circumcision, the seal 
 of God's covenant, was applied to the children of 
 God's people. Under the Christian dispensation, the 
 promise is, that spiritual blessings shall be dispensed 
 to parents and their children, just as formerly. — 
 Hence, baptism, the seal of covenant or promised 
 spiritual blessings, ought to be applied to the children 
 of God's people, as much as to adult converts. 
 
 God's promises in respect to spiritual blessings, 
 are his covenant, or his part of the covenant subsist- 
 ing between him and his people. God's covenant, 
 therefore, so far as children are concerned, is the 
 same as it was formerly. It embraces all adult 
 Christians and their children. 
 
 The continuance of the Abrahamic covenant, re- 
 quires a joint participation of children with their 
 parents in Christian baptism, the seal of covenant 
 relations to God. 
 
144 SUBJECTS DESIGNATED 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 DESIGNATING THE SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN 
 BAPTISM BY GENERAL TERMS. 
 
 Fourth argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 
 
 $76. The terms which describe the subjects of 
 Christian baptism in the scriptures comprehend in- 
 fants. 
 
 This is the case in respect to John's baptism. — 
 It is said, Matt. 3 : 5, 6, that " all Jerusalem and all 
 Judea and all the country round about Jordan went 
 out to him and were baptized by him at Jordan ; n 
 and in Mark 1 : 5, that " all the land of Judea, and 
 they of Jerusalem, were baptized by him at the river 
 Jordan, confessing their sins." 
 
 The terms here made use of to describe the sub- 
 jects of John's baptism, are of the most comprehen- 
 sive kind. All of a people include infants equally 
 with adults. 
 
 The declaration that they were baptized, confess- 
 ing their sins, does not militate against the idea that 
 infants were included among them. Because, if 
 confession of sins was made generally by adults, the 
 language made use of by the evangelist would be 
 perfectly appropriate, though infants made no con- 
 fession. 
 
 The question whether infants were baptized by 
 John, is a question of interpretation. The appropri- 
 ate answer to it depends on the right interpretation 
 of the terms denoting the subjects of his baptism in 
 the passages of scripture above referred to. 
 
BY GENERAL TERMS. 145 
 
 Unless some restriction is put upon those terms, 
 they most be interpreted as comprehending infants 
 If ih' I are to I"- restricted, on what grounds is this 
 restriction to be made? We may not restrict the 
 meaning of general terms without reason. Shall 
 these terms he restricted to adults on the ground 
 that infantfl are not fit subjects of baptism? That 
 assumption is false. Baptism was applied to infants 
 from the days of Moses to those of John, and the 
 fitness of infants to receive it does not appear ever 
 to have been questioned. It is too late, therefore, 
 to assume it now. If infants were fit subjects of 
 baptism, we infer, that they were comprehended un- 
 der the terms made use of by the evangelist to de- 
 scribe the subjects of John's baptism ; and conse- 
 quently, that they participated with their parents in 
 the reception of that ordinance. 
 
 If John's baptism included infants among its sub- 
 jects, Christian baptism must have done the same. — 
 For they appear to have been kindred institutions. 
 • 
 
 $77. Matt. 28 : 19, contains the injunction, "teach 
 all nations, baptizing them to the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The word 
 them, in this passage, which denotes the subjects of 
 baptism, stands for all nations. All nations, there- 
 fore, are to be baptized. This term always includes 
 infants, unless there is some obvious reason for ex- 
 cepting them, either in the predicate or in the context. 
 
 The nature of baptism presents no reason for ex- 
 cepting infants, for it was common to baptize them ; 
 and the laws of God had required such baptism for 
 nearly two thousand years. The context furnishes 
 no evidence of their being excepted; therefore, we 
 are authorised to infer that the apostolic commission 
 
146 SUBJECTS DESIGNATED 
 
 to baptize, required them to baptize the infants of 
 believing adults equally with their parents. 
 
 Mark 16 : 16, in which it is declared that "he that 
 believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that 
 believeth not shall be damned," proves nothing 
 against the interpretation of Matt. 28 : 19 as enjoin- 
 ing the baptism of infants. 
 
 In respect to adult persons, faith ought to precede 
 being baptized. He that believeth and is baptized, 
 is the natural mode of referring to faith and baptism, 
 on the supposition that infants were baptized. It 
 therefore proves nothing against that supposition. — 
 In order to prove any thing against that supposition, 
 it ought to be incompatible with it. 
 
 $78. In Acts 16: 14, 15, it is said that " a certain 
 woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city 
 of Thyatira, who worshiped God, heard [the gospel] 
 whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended to 
 the things which were spoken by Paul. And when 
 she was baptized, and her household, she besought 
 us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the 
 Lord, come into my house and abide there : and she 
 constrained us." 
 
 We are here told that Lydia heard the gospel 
 preached; that the Lord opened her heart so that 
 she attended to the things spoken by Paul ; and then 
 that she was baptized and her household, or family. 
 It does not appear that her family heard the gospel, 
 or believed, but that, they were baptized on her ac- 
 count. If this family contained infants, they must 
 have been baptized, and baptized on Lydia's account. 
 The word translated family in its ordinary and proper 
 meaning comprehends infants. Unless restricted to 
 adults, it must comprehend them here. No such re- 
 
15V eJUMKAL TSBXB. 1-17 
 
 tion is required l>y tin? nature of the ordinance 
 of baptism, or by the context,- therefore, none is to 
 be assumed. 
 
 $79. In Acts 16 : 32, 33, it is said that Paul and 
 Silas spake the word of the Lord to the Philippian 
 jailer and to all that were in his house. "And he 
 (the jailer,) took them the same hour of the night, 
 and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all 
 his, straightway.'" 
 
 After the word his, near the close of this passage, 
 family is to be supplied. It appears, therefore, that 
 the jailer was baptized and all his family. Whether 
 there were infants in his family or not, is not specifi- 
 ed. The word family, naturally comprehends infants, 
 and we have a right to infer that it is to be interpre- 
 ted as comprehending them here, unless they are ex- 
 cluded by the nature of the predicate baptized, or 
 by the context. The nature of baptism does not 
 exclude them. The context does not exclude them. 
 An attempt has sometimes been made to exclude 
 them by the context because it is said that the apos- 
 tle spake the word to all that were in the jailer's 
 house, and that the jailer rejoiced, believing in God 
 with all his family. 
 
 These modes of expression imply that there were 
 adult persons in his family besides himself, to whom 
 the word was preached, and that tiiese believed. — 
 But they imply nothing against the supposition, that 
 his family comprehended infants too. 
 
 §80. In 1. Cor. 1 : 16, Paul says, "I baptized the 
 family of Stephanas." Of what persons or what de- 
 scription of persons this family consisted, we are not 
 informed. The term family is of sufficient compre- 
 
148 SUBJECTS DESIGNATED 
 
 hension to embrace infants, and does naturally and 
 usually embrace them. 
 
 Family, with us, is used to denote children, either 
 inclusive or exclusive of one or both of their parents. 
 Thus we speak of a man who has children, as having 
 a family, and one who has no children, as having 
 no family. When a widow is left with several chil- 
 dren, we speak of her as being left with a large fami- 
 ly. So persons are spoken of as subjects of family 
 sickness, when sickness relating to children is in- 
 tended. 
 
 A similar usage prevails in the scriptures, 1 Tim. 
 3:4; "One that ruleth his own family well, having 
 his children in subjection with all gravity . , " V. 12; 
 "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, 
 ruling their children and their own families well.'" 
 5: 14; "I will, therefore, that the younger women 
 marry, bear children, guide the family." 
 
 The term family, in each of the above passages, 
 denotes chiefly children. This is the term made use 
 of to describe the subjects of Christian baptism, in 
 several passages in the New Testament. Lydia and 
 her family, therefore, means Lydia and her children. 
 The jailer at Philippi, and his family, means the 
 jailer and his children; and the family of Stephanas 
 means the children of Stephanas. In these three 
 cases, it is expressly said, that the families of parti- 
 cular persons were baptized. 
 
 In Acts 11 : 13, 14, the family of Cornelius is men- 
 tioned separately from himself, as to participate with 
 him in salvation. "Whereby thou and all thy family 
 shall be saved. 1 " Cornelius and all his family were to 
 be saved by means of the preaching of Peter. 
 
 In Acts 18: 8, we arc informed that " Crispus, lli< 
 chief ruler of the Synagogue, believed in the Lord 
 
n GENERAL TERMS. 1 10 
 
 wilh all liis funnily; and many of the Corinthians, 
 hearing, believed and were baptized." 
 
 Thu fimilies of Cornelius and Crispus mean, 
 chiefly, the children of those persons. Their ages 
 are not specified. Some were probably of sufficient 
 ige to become believers and be baptized on account 
 of lh<ir faith; others, for aught that appears, may 
 have been infants, which, if baptized at all, must 
 have been received as infant saints, or faithfuls, and 
 not as adult believers. 
 
 {81. The only account which we have of the 
 subjects of Christian baptism in the scriptures, is ex- 
 pressed in general terms, such as have been cited 
 above. If baptism was not to be restricted to per- 
 sons of any age, the use of these terms is an ap- 
 propriate and sufficiently distinct and perspicuous 
 description of its subjects. But on the supposition 
 that it was to be restricted to adults, the terms de- 
 scriptive of its subjects in the scriptures are not as 
 specific as they should be, in order to withhold us 
 from error. 
 
 The scriptures describe the subjects of baptism by 
 the use of terms which include infants equally with 
 adults. There is no specific restriction of these 
 terms to adults, in any single case. Therefore, they 
 ought not to be restricted. If we restrict them we 
 do it on our own responsibility, and contrary to the 
 well established laws of interpretation, as they relate 
 to all languages both ancient and modem. 
 
150 EXCLUSION OF INFANTS 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXCLUSION OF INFANTS 
 FROM CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Fifth argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 
 
 §82. The scriptures do not, in any instance, ex- 
 clude infants from a participation with their parents 
 in Christian baptism. 
 
 In some cases, not to exclude persons from parti- 
 cular privileges, is the same as to include them 
 among the subjects of such privileges. This is be- 
 lieved to have been the case with respect to infants, 
 considered in relation to Christian baptism. Chris- 
 tian baptism was introduced in the Mosaic church ; 
 Christianity produced a schism in that church; and 
 Christian baptism was, from the commencement of 
 our Lord's public ministry, administered to all his 
 disciples and followers. The Christian part of the 
 Jewish church formed one division, and the anti- 
 Christian part another. 
 
 In respect to ceremonial institutions, till some 
 years after the death of Christ, both divisions were 
 similar. The Christian division practiced all the 
 Mosaic rites equally with the other. Among these 
 were circumcision and the Mosaic baptisms. But, 
 in addition to the Mosaic rites, they also practiced 
 Christian baptism, as a rite of initiation to their 
 ecclesiastical body, and a seal of disciplcship to 
 Christ. 
 
FROM < HKISTIAN HAPTISM. 151 
 
 An account of Uie origin of this schism, of the 
 organization of the followers of Christ into a separ- 
 ate body, and of the initiation of members to this 
 body by baptism, is related by the evangelists, with- 
 out stating whether infants were initiated with their 
 parents, and on the ground of their parents 1 faith or 
 not. Whether they were thus initiated or not, is left 
 to be inferred. One or the other inference we are re- 
 quired to draw. From the silence of the inspired 
 historians respecting them, we must either infer that 
 infants were admitted to the Christian division of tlie 
 Jewish church, with their parents, and on their par- 
 ents' account, and baptized, or else, that they were 
 rejected and left unbaptized. 
 
 We infer that they were admitted, because it was 
 in conformity to the usages of the church within 
 which the Christian church was formed, to practice 
 such admissions. If this usage had been departed 
 from in the organization of the Christian church, it 
 ought to have been specified in the evangelical his- 
 tory. But there is no such specification. The whole 
 subject is passed over by the Evangelists in perfect 
 silence. 
 
 We are not authorized to suppose the Christian 
 division of the Jewish church, at its first organiza- 
 tion, to have differed from the other in any points not 
 specified. There is no specification of a difference 
 in this point; therefore, no difference can be legiti- 
 mately inferred. It is a confirmation of this argu- 
 ment that the reception or rejection of infants was a 
 subject of very great consequence, and pertaining to 
 the fundamental principles of church organization. 
 If the history of the introduction of baptism, there- 
 fore, is so written, that the baptism of infants can be 
 legitimately inferred from it, we are fully authorized 
 
152 EARLY CONVERSION OF CHILDREN. 
 
 to believe that they were baptized, and that the evan- 
 gelical history was designed to teach this. 
 
 The baptism of infants was not only according to 
 Jewish usage in respect to circumcision, but it was 
 conformable to it in respect to all the Mosaic and 
 traditionary baptisms. This usage, in respect to in- 
 fants, was not only of divine authority, but was most 
 peremptorily enforced. God had not only command- 
 ed it, but he had enforced it as an indispensable and 
 essential part of those religious ordinances which he 
 had seen fit to institute for the benefit of men. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 PROVISION FOR THE EARLY CONVER- 
 SION OF CHILDREN. 
 
 Sixth argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 
 
 \ 83. God has made provision for the early con- 
 version and the salvation of children, generally. 
 
 So far as the atonement is concerned, provision is 
 made for the salvation of all mankind. But children 
 may be brought to avail themselves of it. Hence it 
 is said, in Gen. 18: 19, "I know him [Abraham,] 
 that he will command his children, and his household 
 after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, 
 to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring 
 
EARLY CONVERSION OF CHILDREN. 153 
 
 upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." 
 Here the efied <>1" Abraham's commanding his chil- 
 dren and family, is said to be, that they should keep 
 the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment. 
 This comprehends their becoming truly pious. 
 
 Solomon says, Prov. 22 : 6, " Train up a child in 
 the way he should go, and when he is old he will not 
 depart from it." Paul directs, Eph. G: 4, that we 
 should bring up our children in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord. 
 
 These passages of scripture, and others, clearly 
 imply that children may and ought to be brought up 
 to be pious. If it is not possible to train up children 
 in the way they should go, what is the propriety of 
 the injunction that we should do this? What is the 
 propriety of the apostolic injunction to bring them 
 up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? It 
 is possible, then, to train up children, and educate 
 them to be truly pious. This possibility exists in 
 respect to all children, as far as means are provided 
 for the purpose. 
 
 In respect to the children of the church, each 
 parent separately, and the church as a body, are 
 charged with the responsibility of doing this. 
 
 Just as far as this duty is faithfully performed, we 
 see the children of the church converted in child- 
 hood. The main hope of the world for the triumph 
 of Christianity depends not on the conversion of 
 adults by missionary and other evangelical labors, 
 but on the conversion of the children of the church. 
 Others can be reached with difficulty. The children 
 of the church are under its entire control. Adults 
 come into the church subject to many inevitable dis- 
 advantages from previous sins, and sinful habits and 
 associations. Children, brought in from their infan- 
 11 
 
154 EARLY CONVERSION OF CHILDREN. 
 
 cy, are not subject to these disadvantages. They are 
 more valuable to the church than others after con- 
 version, in proportion to the easiness of their con- 
 version. 
 
 Parental influence and other educational influ- 
 ences, determine the character of children generally. 
 When these influences "are in favor of idolatry, chil- 
 dren grow up to be idolaters ; when they are in favor 
 of Islamism, children grow up to be Mahomedans ; 
 when they are in favor of the Papal religion, children 
 grow up to be papists ; when they are in favor of the 
 different denominations of protestants, children grow 
 up to be of those different denominations. 
 
 The conversion of parents, therefore, usually se- 
 cures the children also. It ought uniformly to do 
 this. 
 
 The consecration of children to God by circum- 
 cision, was in beautiful accordance with the doctrine 
 of responsibility of parents for the piety of their 
 children. God virtually said to the pious Jew, " It 
 belongs to you to form, directly or indirectly, the 
 character of your children. You can form their 
 characters for heaven or hell. I require you to form 
 their characters for heaven. I claim them at your 
 hand, and put upon them the mark and seal of my 
 servants on your responsibility. Do your duty to 
 them, that when Ihey come to years of discretion, 
 they may know and serve me." He says the same 
 to the pious Christian in the ordinance of infant bap- 
 tism. 
 
 If Christian parents, and the church within whose 
 fold children are born, are responsible for the pietj 
 of their children, and if God holds them responsible 
 for this result, how appropriate is it that they should 
 be baptized on the ground of their parents faith! 
 
■ASK! < HRISTIAN FATHERS. 155 
 
 Their hope ifl in this. Their prospective piety and 
 salvation depend upon this. Well, therefore, may 
 they be baptized on the ground of this faith! 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY CHRIS. 
 TIAN FATHERS. 
 
 Sixth argument in favor of Infant Baptism. 
 
 §84. The early Christian fathers bear testimony 
 in favor of infant baptism. 
 
 Tertullian. 
 
 1. The earliest explicit testimony of the Christian 
 fathers, in respect to the subjects of baptism, is given 
 by Tertullian. Tertullian was bom at Carthage, 
 about 150, A. D., and died in 220, A. D. The time 
 of his conversion is uncertain. He received a liberal 
 education, and was well versed in Greek and Roman 
 literature, and Roman law. Towards the latter part 
 of his life, he left the orthodox church and joined 
 the Montanists. The ground of his separation from 
 the orthodox church, related chiefly to discipline in 
 regard to which he was inclined to be excessively 
 austere. 
 
156 EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 
 
 The Montanists claimed superior perfection ; were 
 generally strict in the observance of external rites, 
 and placed great dependence upon them. Montanus, 
 the founder of this sect, claimed to be the Comforter, 
 and undertook to perfect the Christian system. 
 
 In conformity with his extravagant views as a 
 Montanist, Tertullian discountenances the baptism 
 of infants, on the following grounds : 
 
 1. That their sponsors may not incur danger; 
 
 2. That they may first learn the design of baptism ; 
 
 3. Because their innocent age does not require 
 forgiveness of sins. 
 
 With equal positiveness, he discountenances adult 
 baptisms in the case of unmarried persons, and those 
 who have lost their partners on account of the ex- 
 posure of such to temptation. 
 
 Tertullian does not state explicitely what the 
 usages of the orthodox church in his time, respecting 
 the baptism of infants were. But he gives his opin- 
 ion as to what they ought to be, and assigns his rea- 
 sons for that opinion. 
 
 He puts the baptism of infants on a par with that 
 of unmarried persons, and argues against both with 
 equal positiveness, and on similar grounds. His 
 argument against the baptism of infants, is a decisive 
 evidence of the practice of infant baptism in his time. 
 
 It is also an evidence that he had no good 
 reason to find fault with this practice. For he may 
 safely be presumed to have adduced against it the 
 best reasons he had. It would have been much to his 
 purpose to have said that infant baptism was not of 
 apostolic origin, that it was an innovation upon apos- 
 tolic usages, and unauthorised by the scriptures. — 
 But he says none of these things. 
 
IAIUA' CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 157 
 
 The prevalence of infant baptism may be inferred 
 from the objections made to it by Tertullian, and its 
 apostolic authority from the frivolous nature of the ob- 
 jections which he alleges against it. Being a man of 
 learning, he must have known whether the baptism 
 of infants had been handed down from the times of 
 the apostles or not, and his neglect to object against 
 this usage, the want of apostolic authority, proves 
 that there was no ground for such an objection. 
 
 Origcn. 
 
 §35. Origen was born at Alexandria 185, A. D., 
 and early instructed by his father in the sciences and 
 in the Christian religion. At the age of 18, he be- 
 came principal of the catechetical school in Alexan- 
 dria; and his lectures were attended by multitudes 
 of both sexes. In 211, he went to Rome, where he 
 gained many friends. He was early advanced to the 
 office of presbyter, and preached the gospel with 
 distinguished honor and success in different impor- 
 tant places in Palestine and Arabia. He died at 
 Tyre, in consequence of persecutions which he en- 
 dured under the Emperor Decius in 254, A. D. — 
 Ilis writings were numerous and valuable. 
 
 The following are among his testimonies concern- 
 ing the subjects of baptism. 
 
 Homily 8, on Leviticus c. 12. "According to the 
 usage of the church baptism is given to infants when 
 if there were nothing in infants which needed for- 
 giveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be 
 evidently superfluous." 
 
 Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are baptized for 
 the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? or at what 
 
158 EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 
 
 time have they sinned? or how is it possible that any 
 cause for the laver should exist in respect to infants, 
 except according to that sentiment which we have 
 expressed a little before; that no one is free from 
 defilement even if his life has been but of a single 
 day upon earth. And because, by the sacrament of 
 baptism, native defilement is taken away, therefore 
 even infants are baptized." 
 
 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, book 5. 
 " For this cause it was that the church received a 
 tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to 
 infants.'" 
 
 The above passages are taken from parts of Ori- 
 gen's works, which have not been preserved in the 
 original Greek. They are, however, preserved in 
 ancient translations, which are entitled to the highest 
 confidence. 
 
 They teach explicitly two things: 
 
 1. That baptism was generally applied to infants 
 in the times of Origen on their parents 1 account; 
 
 2. That this usage was believed to have been hand- 
 ed down from the apostles. 
 
 The extensive learning and travels of Origen, and 
 his great abilities and opportunities of information 
 render it morally impossible, that he should have 
 been mistaken on this subject. 
 
 Cyprian. 
 
 $ 86. Cyprian was bom about 200, A. D., at Car- 
 thage, and was descended from a respectable family. 
 He was converted to Christianity in 246. Soon af- 
 ter this, he was made a Presbyter; and in 248, A. D., 
 was made bishop of the church of Carthage. He 
 
■abut i wamn m i \ nans, 159 
 
 was beheaded September 11, ~5s, A. 1)., for preach- 
 ing the gospel in the gardens neai Carthage, contra- 
 ry to the decrees of (be civil authority. 
 
 In 253, A. D., Cyprian presided in a council com- 
 posed of sixty six bishops. In a letter still extant. 
 he communicates to an absent bishop the decision of 
 the council on a question respecting infant baptism, 
 in the following words: 
 
 " But as far as relates to the case of infants, who 
 you said ought not to be presented to be baptized, 
 within the second or third day after they are born, 
 and that the law of ancient circumcision ought to be 
 considered; so that you supposed that no one ought 
 to be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day 
 after he was bora, it seemed far otherwise to all in 
 our council. In this which you thought ought to be 
 done, no one agreed, but we all rather judged that 
 the mercy and favor of God ought to be denied to 
 no human being. x\nd, therefore, dearest brother, 
 this was our opinion in council, that no person ought 
 by us to be prohibited from baptism and from the 
 grace of God, who is benignant and kind to all. — 
 But when this ought to be observed towards all; we 
 supposed that it ought more especially to be observed 
 towards infants and persons recently born." 
 
 The above testimony is decisive in respect to the 
 prevalence of infant baptism in those times; and its 
 supposed scriptural authority. 
 
 587. Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose Chrysostom and 
 Augustine, have given us equally explicit testimonies 
 in favor of the prevalence of infant baptism in their 
 times; and in some cases, have referred to it as cor- 
 responding to the infant circumcision of the former 
 dispensation. 
 
160 EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 
 
 Augustine declares explicitly the universality of 
 infant baptism in the Christian church, and asserts 
 the apostolic authority of this usage. 
 
 While the above and similar testimonies assure us 
 of the prevalence of the baptism of infants, no evi- 
 dence of any kind has come down to us of the ex- 
 clusion of infants from this rite in any branch of the 
 Christian church which did not discard all baptism. 
 Some sects are mentioned by ancient writers who 
 practiced no baptism at all, in this respect, like the 
 Quakers of modem times. But those who baptized 
 at all, baptized infants. At last this was generally 
 the case, and no evidence whatever has come down 
 to us to prove that it was not universally so. 
 
 §88. The testimony of the early Christian fath- 
 ers is entitled to full credit, as to the fact of the 
 prevalence of infant baptism in their times. It is 
 also of great weight in favor of the apostolic origin 
 of infant baptism. For they had means of investi- 
 gating this subject historically, which later ages do 
 not possess, and can never attain. They had access 
 to vast stores of information which have since per- 
 ished. Hundreds of churches had existed in unbro- 
 ken lines of succession from the times of the apos- 
 tles, and the records of many of them, from their 
 commencement, had doubtless been preserved. A 
 reference to them was all that was necessary to as- 
 certain what the apostolic usage was. Such refer- 
 ence could easily be made, and doubtless was made 
 by the very persons whose testimonies have been 
 adduced and referred to. 
 
 The general prevalence of infant baptism at the 
 early period above referred to, cannot be satisfacto- 
 rily accounted for on the supposition that it was not 
 
KARf.V CIIRISTIAX FATIIKRS. 101' 
 
 of apostolic origin. The exclusion of infants from 
 baptism, if they were excluded, depended upon no 
 provincialism, which, according to Jewish usage, 
 taught that infants were not to be baptised; and ac- 
 cording to classic usage taught that they were to be 
 baptised. The only causes that can be assigned for 
 the introduction of infant baptism after the days of 
 the apostles and previous to the times of Tertullian 
 and Origen, are the apparent fitness of baptism to be 
 administered to infants, the supposed good to be at- 
 tained by it, the analogy of baptism to circumcision, 
 and other considerations of this kind. These con- 
 siderations must all have been met by the apostles, 
 had they discarded the baptism of infants, and over- 
 come ; and in overcoming them, they must have laid 
 a firm foundation for the exclusion of infants from 
 baptism. But where was this foundation laid? Not 
 in the New Testament. Not in any documents 
 which continued till the times of Origen and Cypri- 
 an. Where, then, did they lay it? I answer no- 
 where. No such foundation was laid. If it had 
 been laid, it would still be capable of being found . 
 Some vestige of it at least would be discoverable. 
 
162 THE BLESSING OF GOD 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 THE BLESSING OF GOD ON INFANT 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 § 89. When the blessing of God signally attends 
 the observance of any religious institution, it is an 
 evidence of the propriety of that institution, and of 
 its agreement with the will of God. It is not to be 
 supposed, that God will signally bless institutions 
 which are not conformable to his will, or that he will 
 make such institutions, channels of his mercy and 
 grace. God's appointed institutions are, the chan- 
 nels of his mercy. In them, his blessings flow. In 
 this way, he honors his own appointments. By this 
 means, he makes an obvious and important difference 
 between them and the institutions of men. 
 
 The sabbath, prayer, and public religious worship, 
 may be referred to, in proof of the fact, that God 
 distinguishes his own institutions by his blessing. 
 God's blessing signally accompanies the observance 
 of the sabbath, it signally accompanies prayer and 
 public worship; so much so, that if all other evi- 
 dence of the divine authority of these institutions, 
 should be suddenly annihilated, this, unaided and 
 alone, would be sufficient for their establishment. 
 The usefulness of the sabbath, the usefulness of 
 prayer, the usefulness of public worship, would 
 cause them forever to be observed, as sacred and in- 
 dispensable duties, if all other evidences in their 
 favor were lost. This usefulness, is the effect of 
 God's blessing, and is a continually renewed testi- 
 mony of his will in regard to moral actions. 
 
OH imam- baptism, 103 
 
 The baptism of infants, with a recognition of them 
 as lambs of the fold of Christ, has been marked with 
 the must BignaJ demonstrations of God's favor. It 
 has been blessed, in a high degree, to parents, as a 
 means of quickening them in the discharge of their 
 parental duties, pertaining to the moral government 
 and religious instruction of their children, and a^s a 
 means of affording them consolation under the re- 
 moval of their children by death. It has been bless- 
 ed, in a high degree, to children,, in early impressing 
 their minds with a sense of the obligations impress- 
 ed upon them by the baptismal seal and covenant, 
 and in early leading them to the Savior. 
 
 In the Episcopal church, where the baptism and 
 church relations of infants are more respected, per- 
 haps, than in any other of the Protestant churches, 
 especially by the most evangelical portions of that 
 church, the infant membership is the main source 
 for the supply and multiplication of adult members. 
 The numerous confirmations, which occur in the 
 families of pious Episcopalians, are so many testimo- 
 nies of the excellence of Episcopal principles and 
 practice on this subject. They are so many divine 
 testimonies, that infant church-membership and in- 
 fant baptism, are in agreement with the will of God. 
 
 But the Presbyterian church, though far behind 
 the most spiritual portions of the Episcopal in a due 
 appreciation of infant church-membership and infant 
 baptism, has ample experience of the benefits result- 
 ing from this feature of its system, as far as it is 
 legitimate preserved and carried out, in the practice 
 of its congregations and members. 
 
164 INFANT BAPTISM CONCLUDED. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 CONCLUSION IN FAVOR OF THE BAP. 
 TISM OF INFANTS. 
 
 $90. The conclusion, from the foregoing argu- 
 ments, is clear and strong in favor of the baptism of 
 infants. That conclusion is not merely probable. It is 
 certain. The evidence adduced, is incompatible with 
 the contrary hypothesis. But even if it was only 
 probable, and probable in a high degree, that proba- 
 bility, in the absence cf any thing more decisive, 
 would be a legitimate rule of action to the church 
 of God. It would be the indispensable duty of the 
 church to extend Christian baptism to its infants, 
 even if it was only probable that Christ and the apos- 
 tles did so. Where certain conclusions can be at- 
 tained, we ought not to stop short of attaining them ; 
 and are to blame if we do so. 
 
 But where certainty cannot be attained, we must 
 be governed by probabilities. Probabilities are, in 
 such cases, as legitimate rules of moral action, as 
 certainties in other cases; and we are, as imperative- 
 ly, bound to be governed by them. 
 
 The kind of evidence by which the scriptural 
 authority of infant baptism is proved, is not what 
 many have demanded, and is not what many have 
 thought necessary. But it is such as God has seen 
 fit to give, and ought, therefore, to be satisfactory. 
 God's plans are, in many respects, different from 
 what appears to us desirable. If he had taken coun- 
 sel of us, he would have had to remodel his word 
 
IMAM' BAPTISM 0ONCU7MD. 165 
 
 altogether. But neither in the kingdoms of nature 
 or of grace, has he taken our officious advise. In 
 both departments of his agency, he has acted on 
 principles which we can only imperfectly compre- 
 hend, and produced anomalies which we cannot ac- 
 count for. 
 
 Many things enter into the divine plan which we 
 would have excluded from it, and many tilings are 
 left out of it which we would have comprehended 
 in it. 
 
 Some tilings are explained in the scriptures, with 
 a greater fulness and particularity, than to us appears 
 necessary, other things are proportionably too ob- 
 scure. Here, God has said too much to suit us; 
 there, too little. In the opinion of some, it was in- 
 cumbent on God to make every thing to which his 
 word appertains, so obvious, that reasoning and inves- 
 tigation would not be necesary to a right understand- 
 ing of it. 
 
 The most superficial interpretations of the scrip- 
 tures, are sure to be adopted by such, as the most 
 probable ; and all the results of profound and pro- 
 tracted reasonings, are discarded. 
 
 This assumption of the simplicity and obviousness 
 of divine truth, is the baseless fabric of imagination. 
 It is true of a part of divine truth, but not of the 
 whole, 
 
 God has not so constructed his word, as to save 
 men the necessity of the most profound and extend- 
 ed investigations of which they are capable, in the 
 interpretation of it. 
 
 Why God has not made every important truth ob- 
 vious, in the scriptures; why he has made it neces- 
 sary to ascertain and teach them, in many cases, by 
 means of protracted courses of reasoning and argu- 
 
168 INFANT BAPTISM CONCLUDED. 
 
 ment, it is not necessary to explain. Such, however, 
 is the fact. And the man who, from indolence or 
 any cause, will not investigate; and he who, from 
 mental imbecility, cannot; must both inevitably fail 
 of reaching many profound and interesting, and 
 many valuable results, which are fully reached by the 
 unprejudiced and laborious interpreter. 
 
 There is a demand for profound and extensive 
 processes of reasoning, in respect to all the diversi- 
 fied objects of human knowledge. The jurist, the 
 legislator, the chemist, the mathematician, the natu- 
 ral philosopher and the historian, must attain many 
 of their most important and most valuable results in 
 tliis way. The interpreter of nature, in this respect, 
 finds himself in circumstances precisely similar to 
 those of the interpreter of the scriptures. 
 
 By means of such demands, the human mind is 
 called into exercise, and its higher powers essentially 
 improved. Having invested man with vast capacities 
 for the attainment of knowledge, by extended pro- 
 cesses of reasoning, it is fit, that demands should be 
 made, for the full exercise of these capacities; other- 
 wise, they would be undeveloped and useless. 
 
 The fact, that no record of the first institution of 
 Christian baptism is preserved, and that the scriptu- 
 ral instructions, respecting this ordinance, consist, 
 entirely, in allusions and references to it, as already 
 well understood, both in respect to its nature and its 
 subjects, accounts for the want of direct evidence in 
 regard to the proper subjects of this rite. These 
 facts are undeniable, and deserve to be well consid- 
 ered. 
 
 Scriptural allusions and references to Christian 
 baptism made, not for the direct purpose of explain- 
 ing it, together with church traditions and uninspired 
 
[M'WT BAPTKM COOT l.CDED. 1G7 
 
 testimony, arc the only sources of information Co Ufl 
 on mailers which may have been settled, by the most 
 explicit unrecorded instructions of our Lord and the 
 apostles. 
 
 The law respecting baptism as originally given, 
 was doubtless clear and explicit. No questions seem 
 to have agitated the church on this subject, during 
 the apostolic age. 
 
 What that law was, we are left to infer from sev- 
 eral indirect evidences, because the law itself has 
 not been made a matter of record Some infer, 
 that infants were, in this law, included as legitimate 
 subjects of baptism. Others infer, that baptism 
 pertained only to adults. 
 
 Both opinions are matters of inference, not of spe- 
 cific scriptural testimony. Both are inferences, not 
 from any scriptural record of the divine law relating 
 to baptism, but from incidental references to baptism, 
 in which it is mentioned, not for the purpose of be- 
 ing explained, but for the purpose of being enforced 
 and for other purposes 
 
 Hundreds and thousands of members of the church 
 testify, that their early conversion was owing, directly 
 or indirectly, to their baptism received in infancy. 
 Hundreds and thousands of its parents testify to the 
 effectual influences of the Holy Spirit in turning 
 their hearts to their children, to instruct them in the 
 doctrines and duties of Christianity, by means of 
 obligations which they acknowledged and in part 
 assumed, when they consecrated their infant off- 
 spring to God in baptism. 
 
 What is the inference? Is not that which God 
 blesses, of God? Is it not conformable to his will? 
 Docs not his blessing give it his sanction? Then, 
 infant church-membership and infant baptism, are of 
 
16S INFANT BAPTISM CONCLUDED. 
 
 God, for God's richest and most signal blessings are 
 on them. 
 
 Exclusive of the purpose of explanation, the ques- 
 tion between the baptists, and other denominations, 
 is not a question between a hypothesis sustained by 
 direct evidence, and another hypothesis sustained by 
 indirect evidence. It is a question between two 
 hypotheses, both of which depend upon indirect 
 evidence ; both of which are inferred from the scrip- 
 tures ; neither of which is contained in them, other- 
 wise than as a conclusion is contained in the premises 
 from which it can be legitimately deduced. 
 
 The conclusion in favor of the baptism of infants, 
 is inferred from several different independent pre- 
 mises. If these premises are correct, and the con- 
 clusions legitimately drawn from them, the doctrine 
 of infant baptism is fully sustained. If this is true 
 in the case of any one of the foregoing arguments, 
 infant baptism is fully sustained, even if all the other 
 arguments are shown to be inconclusive. 
 
 The want of direct evidence creates a necessity 
 for more extended and discriminating investigations 
 than would otherwise be necessary. It also occa- 
 sions, after the lapse of eighteen Centuries, a liability 
 to error, which might not otherwise have existed 
 But it does not render the attainment of certain con- 
 clusions impracticable, neither does it render errone- 
 ous opinions on the subject inevitable. 
 
 In the absence of direct evidence, we resort to 
 that which is indirect, of which we find a sufficiency 
 for the full establishment of affusion and sprinkling 
 as the mode, and of believing adults and their chil- 
 dren as the subjects of Christian baptism. 
 
DUTIES OF THE CHURCH, ETC. ICO 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 DUTIES OF THE CHURCH TO INFANT 
 MEMBERS. 
 
 I. DUE RECOGNITION OF INFANT CHURCH-tt£MHER- 
 BHEP. 
 
 § 91. The doctrine of infant church-membership, 
 with infant baptism as its seal, is a cardinal point in 
 the Christian system. It affects, essentially the or- 
 ganization of the Christian church. The churches 
 which reject this doctrine, organize themselves on a 
 plan entirely different from that which God has in- 
 stituted. 
 
 The adoption of infant baptism, without a full re- 
 cognition of infants as being thereby introduced into 
 the church and entitled to its care, is but little better 
 than the entire rejection of it. It is a conformity to 
 tne letter of the divine law on this subject, but a 
 violation of its spirit. 
 
 The conclusion at which we have arrived, in favor 
 of the baptism of infants, is not a matter of mere 
 speculative interest; it is of the greatest practical 
 importance. The design of God is, that children 
 should participate equally with their parents in the 
 blessings of church organization and discipline. He 
 claims as his subjects all adult Christians, and ex- 
 tends to them the benefits of his jurisdiction, and 
 of the system of moral and religious discipline which 
 he has instituted. He also claims equally the chil- 
 dren of the church, and requires them to be trained 
 up and instructed in all the doctrines and duties of 
 12 
 
170 DUTIES OF THE CHURCH 
 
 Christianity. He requires them to be trained up not 
 merely to know, but also to do his will, and to per- 
 form the duties which he has enjoined as constituting 
 his service. 
 
 The responsibility of giving children this training, 
 is devolved, in the first place, upon their parents, and 
 in the second place, upon the church to which they 
 belong. 
 
 The church is as much bound to provide for the 
 instruction and edification of its infant members as 
 for those of adults. It ought to' do this by its offi- 
 cers as it performs other corporate duties. How 
 sadly and how criminally this church care of children 
 is neglected, in the different branches of the Presby- 
 terian church, is well known ! Children are baptized, 
 and then, so far from receiving the church attention 
 due to them as members of that body, in most cases, 
 their membership in the church is never afterwards 
 acknowledged. If they see fit to take their places 
 among the other members of their respective con- 
 gregations when they come to be adults, they do it 
 by profession not by confirmation. In this manner, 
 their church connection is virtually nullified imme- 
 diately after it is created. 
 
 To baptize children and then deny them the privi- 
 leges of church discipline, is, in some respects, more 
 criminal than not to baptize them at all. By it, the 
 very purpose and design of infant church-member- 
 ship, and of infant baptism, is, in many cases, en- 
 tirely and in others partially defeated. 
 
 The conclusion in favor of infant baptism is in- 
 separably connected with the doctrine of the church- 
 membership of baptized children. If we baptize our 
 children, and thus initiate them into the Christian 
 church, we are bound to recognize them as church 
 
TO INFANT MEMBERS. 171 
 
 members, and extend to them the benefits of church 
 discipline. 
 
 This cmnot be done without early instructing bap- 
 tiz (I children in the principles and ordinances of 
 Christianity, and confirming them, on their own pro- 
 fessions, [0 the enjoyment of churcli relations and 
 privileges. 
 
 This is done by the Episcopal churcli, and, in doing 
 it, that churcli acts consistently. Why is it not done 
 by all pedo-baptist churches? Ought not confirmation 
 to be extended as far as infant baptism extends? 
 The inconsistency of practicing infant baptism, with 
 no subsequent recognition of the church relations of 
 baptized children on the part of the church, is too 
 obvious to be denied. It has done much to prejudice 
 the cause of infant baptism with unbelievers, as well 
 as to defeat its ends. 
 
 The most spiritual portions of the Episcopal church 
 baptize their children, instruct and edify, and then 
 confirm them. Why should we not do the same? 
 The introduction of confirmation would not require 
 any depression of our existing standards of qualifi- 
 cation for church-membership. We might examine 
 our candidates for confirmation on the state of their 
 affections and dispositions, as well as on their faith 
 and knowledge, and receive only such as should have 
 entered on a course of evangelical obedience. 
 
 We are not at liberty to be negligent in this mat- 
 ter. Church order is of God's appointment, and 
 must be maintained and carried out according to his 
 design. If we will not maintain it, and cany it out, 
 others will. God will intrust the cardinal interests 
 of his kingdom with such, and with such only, as 
 shall prove themselves worthy of this trust. If we 
 decline to execute his plan, he will take his institu- 
 
172 DUTIES OF THE CHURCH 
 
 tions ultimately from us and give them to others. 
 Already has God frowned upon our remissness in re- 
 spect to the lambs of his flock. Many of them have 
 been lost to our denomination. Many have been lost 
 to the church altogether, whom a reasonable fidelity 
 would have saved. 
 
 God will admit of no substitute. Sabbath schools 
 have done much for children. They are good aux- 
 ilaries; but they are not an adequate substitute for 
 church discipline. God will never allow them to 
 take the place of the church. 
 
 n. CHURCH DISCIPLINE OF INFANT MEMBERS. 
 
 §92. 1. This devolves, in the first place, on the 
 parents, who, in the Presbyterian church, stand as 
 sole sponsors for their children, in assuming the ob- 
 ligations of the baptismal covenant. It is the duty 
 of parents to train up their children in the way of 
 piety, both by religious instruction and government. 
 This training ought to be commenced at the earliest 
 period in which it is practicable, and ought to be 
 prosecuted with the utmost earnestness till its objects 
 are secured. 
 
 2. If parents prove negligent and remiss, it is 
 incumbent on the church to admonish them, and call 
 them to due performance of their duty. If it does 
 not succeed in this, it becomes its duty, as far as pos- 
 sible, to supply the deficiency of parental instruction 
 and government, by means of its officers and oilier 
 members, but especially by its stated ministry. 
 
 3. Children, having been duly instructed and 
 governed, when they arrive at years of discretion. 
 are entitled to be admitted, on a profession of their 
 
TO INFANT MKMItlK- l?.'l 
 
 iaitli, to the full enjoyment of all church privilt : 
 This, in the Episcopal church, is distinguished from 
 tin* Admission of unhaptized persons, by the title of 
 confirmation. As some distinction ought evidently 
 to Ix- made between it and the admission of unbap- 
 ti/fii : and as confirmation answers the pur- 
 
 of making such a distinction, it would be well 
 to introduce it generally wherever infant member- 
 ship is recognized. The confirmation of infant 
 church-members ought to take place at as early a 
 period as the children can be duly prepared for it. 
 Some may lie confirmed at twelve years of age; 
 others at 15, and others at later periods. It ought 
 to be called confirmation in the church, not admis- 
 sion to it. By calling it confirmation, we recognize 
 the subjects of it as already church-members; by 
 calling it admission to the church, we virtually deny 
 the previous membership of those so admitted, and 
 discard the doctrine in conformity with which that 
 membership was constituted. 
 
 4. If from neglect on the part of the parents or of 
 the church, or from any other cause, children on at- 
 taining years of full discretion, refuse to be confirm- 
 ed, and to adopt Christianity as a rule of life, they 
 should be cut off from the church by the same au- 
 thority by which other unworthy members are re- 
 moved. This may be done with more or less for- 
 mality as may seem best. It ought, however, to be 
 done by authority, and in an orderly manner, so as 
 to be understood both by the church from whose fel- 
 lowship such persons are separated, and by the per- 
 sons themselves. 
 
 These four particulars embrace the essential prin- 
 ciples of the discipline of children in the church of 
 Christ. They are all legitimate deductions from the 
 
174 DUTIES OF THE CHURCH 
 
 doctrine of infant church-membership. If infanta 
 are admitted to the church by baptism, they become 
 therefore, church-members, subject to church disci- 
 pline; and cannot loso their standing in the church, 
 unless deprived of it by the due exercise of church 
 authority. 
 
 III. REFORMATION DEMANDED IN RESPECT TO CnURCH 
 DISCIPLINE OF INFANT MEMBERS. 
 
 $93. It was predicted by Malachi, that before the 
 advent of the Messiah, Elijah, the prophet, should be 
 sent to turn the heart of the fathers to their children, 
 and the heart of the children to their fathers. This 
 office was performed by John the Baptist. Matt. 11 : 
 14. Is not a similar mission now necessary to se- 
 cure to the children of the Presbyterian church in 
 its different branches, that attention, and those privi- 
 leges to which they are entitled? 
 
 Many considerations conspire to call our attention 
 to the church relations of children and to the disci- 
 pline which is due to them as church members. — 
 Our responsibility to God faithfully to carry out 
 his plan in regard to children; our responsibility 
 to our children to do the most we can for their 
 early conversion, and for their general conversion; 
 our responsibility to the church of which we are 
 members, to make its greatest perfection and en- 
 largement are of this description. There is a part of 
 the gospel camp that we have not sufficiently fortifi- 
 ed. God has made provisions for the salvation of 
 our children, but we have not fully availed ourselves 
 of those gracious and abundant provisions. Let us 
 awake to our duty. Let us arise and build up our 
 
TO INFANT mOU 175 
 
 church; one of the noblest in other respects that can 
 
 bo found; but in this respect, weak and negligent 
 
 Several other denominations are before us in atten- 
 tion to their children) and in a recognition of their 
 title to church privileges. The Episcopalians arc be- 
 fore us. The more spiritual branches of that church 
 are far before us in this respect. Even the Roman 
 Catholics exercise a wisdom and fidelity in respect 
 to their children which ought to clothe us with 
 shame and humiliation. Their children are brought 
 up in the church and for the church. We claiming 
 to be wiser and purer than they, and discarding 
 many of their traditionary errors, have hitherto ne- 
 glected to profit by their examples of wisdom and 
 fidelity in a matter which pertains to the fundamental 
 principles of church order and prosperity. There 
 must be a reformation among us in respect to that 
 part of our organization and usages which relates to 
 children. Weakened, as we are, by our deficiency 
 in this respect, we can never secure to our religion 
 its proper ascendency among men. God will be 
 compelled to cast us aside, and commit his work to 
 other orders, or we shall be compelled to cany into 
 effect, and carry ouf that part of the Divine plan 
 which relates to infant church-members, in conformi- 
 ty with the letter and spirit of the New Testament. 
 
176 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS RELATING TO BAPTISM 
 
 I. CHRISTIAN NAMES. 
 
 §94. Giving children names in baptism, has been 
 handed down by tradition from ancient times. It 
 probably had its origin simultaneously with Christian 
 baptism itself. Such names are called Christian 
 names; because they are given at the time of the 
 administration of baptism, and designed to distin- 
 guish the subjects as consecrated to the worship and 
 service of God. 
 
 None but a baptized child, has, properly speaking, 
 a Christian name. Others have names which desig- 
 nate them as individuals; but the names of those 
 who are baptized in infancy, designate them not as 
 individuals only, but as Christians, as individuals con- 
 secrated to the worship and service of Christ. 
 
 The Christian names of persons baptized in infan- 
 cy, are perpetual mementos of their consecration to 
 God. 
 
 Paul bore the name of Saul till his baptism. His 
 Christian name was Paul. It does not appear, how- 
 ever, that a change of name was considered neces- 
 sary in cases of adult baptism. It was probably at 
 the option of tire subject. 
 
MM KLLANEOUS TOPICS, 1 177 
 
 II. POSITION PROPER FOR RECEIVING BAPTISM. 
 
 $95. In the case of adults, baptism may be re- 
 ceived by the subject cither standing or kneeling. — 
 Kneeling, however, is the most suitable posture for 
 
 receiving it; because it is the most humble and re- 
 ap ctful posture. Kxamplesof kneeling in religious 
 worship, occur both in the Old and New Testaments. 
 Daniel knelt in his customary family devotions. — 
 Dan. 6: 10. Paul knelt, and prayed with his Ephe- 
 sian brethren on the occasion of his celebrated vale- 
 dictory address, recorded Acts 20 : 36. The recep- 
 tion of baptism by an adult, is the most solemn act 
 of his life. If we ever ought to kneel, we ought to 
 do it on that occasion. 
 
 Infants are most appropriately baptized by being 
 taken in the arms of the officiating minister. This 
 is in conformity to the example of Christ, who took 
 little children in his arms and blessed them. 
 
 III. TIMES AND FIACES PROPER FOR ADMINISTERING 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 } 96. Infant baptisms ought evidently to be ad- 
 ministered at an early period. In the case of cir- 
 cumcision, the eighth day was fixed upon as the ear- 
 liest period practicable for the administration of that 
 rite. Reasoning from analogy, we may safely con- 
 clude that infant baptism ought to be administered 
 at the earliest period practicable. We are not limit- 
 ed to the eighth day, but we are restricted to the 
 earliest convenient season. The propriety of having 
 infant baptisms administered at the earliest conveni- 
 
178 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 
 
 ent season is too obvious to require comment or ar- 
 gument. Those who defer having their children 
 baptized from one convenient season to another; and 
 thus suffer months and even years to pass away in 
 the neglect of their duty are guilty of culpable re- 
 missness. 
 
 If it is God's will that infant baptism should be 
 observed at all, it must be his will that it should be 
 observed promptly. Remissness and unnecessary 
 delays, imply a low estimate of this duly; and an im- 
 perfect apprehension of the binding force of God's 
 laws. A due sense of the binding force of God's 
 laws, will not allow us to be remiss in respect to any 
 duty which he has enjoined. 
 
 5> The proper place for the administration of baptisms 
 both in the case of infants and adults, is the church 
 of God. If we have no churches, our usual places 
 of holding religious meetings become churches, so 
 far as the essential purposes of church edifices are 
 concerned. 
 
 Baptisms ought to be administered in the presence 
 of church congregations, and not in private, except 
 in extraordinary cases; because the entire congrega- 
 tion has an interest in it. The baptized child is 
 admitted as a church-member, and the church is laid 
 under obligations to it as such. The service ought 
 to be performed in the presence of the church, that 
 it may assume those obligations voluntarily and un- 
 derstandingly. 
 
 IV. AMOUNT OF WATER TO BE USEB IN BAPTISM. 
 
 5 07. Some use water in baptism so sparingly, as 
 hardly to represent cither a washing or sprinkling. 
 
Mlscri.[.\\i:ors topics, i:tc. 179 
 
 A s ihing requires the free use of water. 
 
 Sprinkling is Bo i aibleni probably derived from the 
 falling of rain, and repreB< nts the Spirit of God as 
 poured out Like the ruin upon the baptized subject 
 It reprV a mis not only the pouring out of the Spirit, 
 but the communication of those gifts and graces 
 which the Spirit confers, as if they <l( scend* <l upon 
 us from on high. As the rain washes the objects 
 which it fills upon, and cleanses them from defile- 
 ment, so baptism represents the Spirit of God as dis- 
 tilling upon us from on high, to such an extent as to 
 effect our cleansing from all sin, and entire removal 
 of our guilt. This may be signified by the use of 
 very little water; but it is much more strikingly 
 represented by using water witli considerable free- 
 dom and in considerable abundance. 
 
 Some use a s : ngle affusion or sprinkling, and some 
 repeat these applications of water three times. These 
 seem to be sufficient reasons for repeating them : 
 
 1. We are baptized to the three persons of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 2. The verb baptize is a frequentalive verb, and, 
 as such, signifies not a single, but a repeated applica- 
 tion of water. 
 
 V. BAPTISMAL FORMULA. 
 
 $98. The formula for administering baptism, 
 taken from Matt. 28: 19, is as follows: 
 
 " I baptize thee to the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" 
 
 To ought to be used in this formula instead of in, 
 for reasons already explained. 
 
180 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 
 
 In the Episcopal service, the parents and sponsors 
 promise, in behalf of the infant subject which they 
 present for baptism, three things; repentance, faith, 
 and obedience. They also promise to renounce 
 Satan according to a formula referred to by Tcrtul- 
 lian, as made use of in his day. This is done in 
 answer to questions proposed by the officiating minis- 
 ter, and is sustained by an appeal to 1 Peter 3: 21, 
 where the answer of a good conscience implies that 
 candidates for baptism were questioned respecting 
 their faith, and required to return satisfactory an- 
 swers. 
 
 In the case of adults, a profession of faith is gen- 
 erally insisted on, as an essential qualification for 
 baptism. In the case of infants, the same thing is 
 required of the sponsors in behalf of infant subjects, 
 by the Episcopal and some other churches; but by 
 the Presbyterian church it is omitted. 
 
 VI. HISTORICAL NOTICES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 SINCE THE DAYS OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 $ 99. In the third century, the original modes of 
 baptism had been generally superseded by immer- 
 sion. No account is transmitted to us of the manner 
 and grounds of this change. It is easily accounted 
 for, however, by the fact, that the great body of Chris- 
 tians who used the Greek language, the language 
 in which the New Testament was written, under- 
 stood it as used by the classic writers, and not as used 
 by the Jews; and that, interpreted according to clas- 
 sic usage, baptize meant to immerse or plunge in 
 water. 
 
Mi.-rr.u. wmr- mi 181 
 
 Besides, it was the disposition of the people in 
 
 those times, as it is more Of lesfl in all times, to make 
 
 additions to the simple forms and modes which God 
 
 has established. The simplicity of God's modes is 
 their highest beauty and excellence. Bui the great 
 mass of human minds do not think far enough to 
 perceive this. They therefore prefer something 
 
 r in amount or more complex than what God 
 requires. The burden of the Mosaic ceremonies 
 appears to us to have been great; but it was not so 
 great that the Scribes and Pharisees did not think 
 best to make it much greater by their traditions. 
 
 So the early Christians were no sooner left to 
 themselves by the removal of the Apostles, than they 
 began to make additions to the simple rites of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 Contemporaneous with immersion, we find anoint- 
 ing with oil, exorcism of evil spirits, and the Christian 
 uniform made use of on the occasion of receiving 
 baptism. No one can tell the origin of these rites. 
 They came in silently during the second century. 
 The first that we know of them is that they were in 
 use, and apparently in general use. But they were 
 not of apostolic or divine origin.' The New Testa- 
 ment knows nothing of them, and gives them no 
 countenance. Neither does it know any thing of 
 immersion as a mode of baptism. 
 
 Immersion, when once established, continued to 
 prevail, generally, for several hundred years, when af- 
 fusion and sprinkling were re-established in the 
 Roman Catholic church. The Greek church has 
 continued to adhere to immersion till the present 
 time. The leading Protestant sects withdrew from the 
 Papal church, and brought off sprinkling and affusion 
 with them as customary modes of baptism. 
 
182 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 
 
 Infant baptism was generally practiced in all the 
 ancient branches of the Christian church. Peter de 
 Brugs founded a small sect in Languedoc and Pro- 
 vence, in 1110, who denied the propriety of infant 
 baptism. But this sect never became numerous, and 
 its peculiarity in respect to baptism was not widely 
 disseminated. 
 
 Immediately after the commencement of the Re- 
 formation by Luther, the Anabaptists arose in Ger- 
 many, who held to immersion as the only mode, and 
 adult persons as the only proper subjects of baptism. 
 They were organized under Munster, Stubner, and 
 others, as a distinct faction, in 1521. They were 
 highly fanatical; discarding civil government, dis- 
 tinctions of rank, and the institution of private pro- 
 perty, for which they proposed, after the plan of some 
 more recent innovaters, a common stock. 
 
 After having contributed more or less to fan the 
 unparalleled excitement of those times, and after 
 having come on several occasions in conflict with the 
 civil authorities of the countries which they wished 
 to reform, they gradually declined and became ex- 
 tinct. Out of their ashes, however, arose, Phoenix 
 like, the modern baptists. 
 
 These abandoned the fanaticism of the Anabap- 
 tists, and contended simply for immersion and adult 
 baptism, to the exclusion of infants. 
 
 The first particular Baptist church of the charac- 
 ter of the modern Close Communion Baptists, was 
 organized in London, in 1033. In 1650 these 
 churches began to form associations and to hold 
 epistolary correspondence with each other, in dill' r- 
 cnt countries. In 1G89, they held a general assem- 
 bly, in which one hundred congregations were repre- 
 sented. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 183 
 
 The first Baptist church in Scotland waft formed 
 in 17t>5. The leading peculiarity of the Scotch Bap- 
 tists was b plurality of pastors in each church. This, 
 however, has been generally given up. 
 
 The Hist Baptist church in Aim ilea was formed 
 by Roger Williams, at Providence, Rhode Island, in 
 1039. 
 
 At present, the Baptist denomination is numerous 
 and respectable in this country and in Great Britain, 
 and prevails to a limited extent in some other coun- 
 tries. 
 
 Besides the leading Baptist denomination, there 
 are several minor sects, who concur with them in 
 respect to baptism, while they deviate more or less 
 from them, and from the other orthodox churches, in 
 other respects. The most important of these are the 
 Campbellites, who claim the title of Disciples. 
 
 Sprinkling and affusion, and infant baptism, prevail 
 throughout the Presbyterian and Congregational 
 churches, the church of England, the Episcopal 
 church of the United States, the Lutheran church, 
 the Reformed churches of Germany and other parts 
 of Europe, the Methodists, both regular and reformed, 
 and the Roman Catholic church. Infant baptism 
 prevails in Greek churches, and in the other Eastern 
 churches. 
 
 VII. TRESEIST ATTITUDE OF THE BAPTISTS. 
 
 § 100. The Baptists have assumed an attitude of 
 confidence and determination in regard to their pecu- 
 liar views, which renders it highly necessary for 
 those who properly understand the subject, 1o exert 
 themselves for the diffusion of scriptural principles 
 on this subject. Their missionaries are translating 
 
184 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 
 
 the Bible into different modern languages, and pro- 
 mulgating their views, by means of these translations, 
 in different quarters of the globe. 
 
 They have assumed it as an unquestionable fact, 
 that the nations of the earth must now look to them, 
 and to them alone, for faithful translations of the 
 word of God. Their Foreign and American Bible 
 Society, declares the versions of other denominations 
 to be essentially defective, and purposely to keep out 
 of sight the real meaning of words. It charges the 
 American Bible Society and the British and Foreign 
 Bible Society, with having virtually combined to ob- 
 scure at least a part of divine revelation; and circu- 
 late versions of the Bible which are unfaithful, so 
 far as the subject of baptism is concerned. 
 
 They also hold, (Baptists,) that those who are bap- 
 tized by sprinkling or affusion are unbaptized, and 
 not to be recognized as church-members; and ex- 
 clude all such from the Lord's table. They thus 
 conspire, both against the truth on this subject, and 
 against the unity and prosperity of the church of 
 Christ. 
 
 We are not at liberty to suffer men to imbibe these 
 errors, or to remain in them, without using every 
 practicable means of their preservation and recovery. 
 
 The immersionist errors, are the basis of one of 
 the greatest and most injurious schims in the church, 
 that has ever occured. This schism ought to be 
 healed. It can be healed. The subject of baptism 
 is difficult. Men cannot master it in a moment. 
 But it is level to the capacity of common minds, 
 provided the evidence is duly arranged and exhibited. 
 
 We are not at liberty to say, that baptism is only 
 of minor importance, and that if men arc only con- 
 verted, it makes little difference what opinions they 
 
mis<i:i.l\m:oi s Turns, r/rc. 1K> 
 
 embrace on this subject Those errors which ci 
 
 an extensive schism in the church of Christ, are j»n»- 
 ductive of more evil than language can express. 
 Viewed in the mildest Hght possible, the Baptists 
 
 are schismatics. They divide the church of Christ. 
 They repel their more correct brethren from the 
 Lord's tattle, as unhaptized. They claim not to be 
 a branch of the church of Christ, but to be Christ's 
 only church. 
 
 During the last fifty years, the Baptist cause has 
 gained a vast amount of strength. It is strong now, 
 and becomes increasingly so, by the supineness and 
 apathy of those to whom a knowledge of the scrip- 
 tural system, in respect to baptism, is committed, not 
 only that they might enjoy the same, but that they 
 should impart it to others. 
 
 CAUSES OF THE SUCCESSFUL PROPAGATION OF BAPTIST 
 ERRORS. 
 
 $101. There are several reasons for the little 
 success which has hitherto attended the endeavors of 
 the church to maintain and diffuse, more generally, 
 the scriptural doctrines respecting baptism. The 
 principal of these are the following. 
 
 1. Apathy and indifference to the subject. 
 
 Multitudes regard it as of almost no consequence. 
 They do not even teach what they know of it to 
 their baptized children, still less to their neighbors. 
 When this is the case, is it strange that their children 
 are easily misled; and that their uninstructed neigh- 
 bors, should be carried away with the confident asser- 
 13 
 
186 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 
 
 tions and plausible reasonings of the Baptists? This 
 is by no means strange. It is what ought to be ex- 
 pected. It is what ought to take place. Supineness 
 and apathy ought to suffer defeat and humiliation, 
 even in a good cause. 
 
 2. Making undue concessions. 
 
 Too much, a great deal too much, has been con- 
 ceded to the Baptists, and they have availed them- 
 selves, largely, of these inordinate concessions. 
 Their true position is that of schismatics, dividing 
 the church and family of Christ. This, however, is 
 generally kept out of view, in the opposition which 
 is made to their other errors. Let us embrace the 
 truth. Then let us make no concessions subversive 
 of it. 
 
 Some of the inordinate concessions, made by per- 
 sons of other orders, to the Baptists, are the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 1. That immersion is, probably, the scriptural 
 mode of baptism, but that other modes will answer 
 the same purpose. 
 
 If immersion is, probably, the scriptural mode of 
 baptism, let us adhere to it. Let us not be wise 
 above what is written, or suppose that we can im- 
 prove upon the methods adopted by divine wisdom. 
 
 2. That immersion, though not the scriptural mode 
 
 of Baptism, is nearly as good as that, which 
 
 is scriptural. 
 
 The unity of the church is essential to its honor, 
 peace and efficiency. In order to unity, there must 
 be agreement, as far as practicable, both in modes of 
 worship, and in doctrinal opinions. There must. 
 
.MIS( -IlLLAM-iil-s T()!'I('<. BUD. I8fl 
 
 especially, ho agreemeal in all those modes which 
 
 arc deemed fundamental, whether they are so or not 
 
 Immersion is deemed fundamental hy the Baptists. 
 
 Hence, they regard and treat all the rest of Christen- 
 dom as onbaptized, and as apostates from this essen- 
 tial pait of Christianity. In every point of view. 
 therefore, the Baptist errors are injurious. They are 
 a departure from truth, and the basis of an cxtee 
 schism in the church. 
 
 3. That there is no great harm in neglecting Infant 
 Baptism. 
 
 If infant baptism is not of Divine authority, it 
 ought not to be persisted in. If it is of Divine au- 
 thority, it ought by no means to be neglected or 
 lightly esteemed. The feature of the Divine econ- 
 omy, however, on which infant baptism is engrafted, 
 is one of the most interesting which it possesses. — 
 Infant baptism is a seal of grace bestowed on the 
 children of the saints through the use of appropriate 
 means by their parents and guardians. This was a 
 principle of the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. 
 It is equally a principle of the Christian dispensation. 
 Grace is bestowed on the children of the saints. — 
 From them the ranks of the church are usually filled. 
 They constitute a large proportion of those who are 
 converted early in life to the Saviour. The children 
 of the church are its hope for the future existence 
 and prosperity of the Christian religion among men. 
 They are its hope for the conversion of the entire 
 world. 
 
 But in order to secure the grace of God for them, 
 we must devote them to him in baptism. If we ne- 
 glect this, we forfeit the blessing. If we neglect it 
 
188 MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS, ETC. 
 
 wilfully, the forfeiture will be likely to be taken at 
 our hands, and the grace which is the source of un- 
 numbered benefits in this world, and which brings 
 eternal life in its train, will be likely to be withheld 
 forever. The ordinances of religion are not to be 
 trilled with. They are appointed as so many chan- 
 nels for the conveyance of spiritual blessings. By 
 attending upon them, we put ourselves, and in the 
 case of infant baptism, put our children in the way 
 of receiving inestimable benefits not to be obtained 
 by any other means.