SOLD AT THE 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 ©Hf®§ OTQBY 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
 | 
 
 
 American Baptist Publication, a> 
 
 
 and Sunday Scliool Society, e 
 
 
 No. 21 South Fourth St. Philada. £ 
 
 
 
 £5 
 
 3*" 
 
 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 IE 
 
 
 
 *S 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 0> 
 
 
 
 .i^ 
 
 IE 
 
 
 
 SZ H» 
 
 Ql 
 
 
 
 
 «o & 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 w O 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 
 §> 
 
 
 .^J 
 
 
 •25 E-i 
 
 3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 jT 
 
 
 ft 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 <y 
 
 
 «s 
 
 
 •5 « 
 
 (/> 
 
 % 
 
 1 
 
 +* h 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 =? 
 
 q 
 
 
 * 
 
 73 
 Q> 
 
 *-> 
 c 
 
 s- 
 
 
 >^ 
 
 a> 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 •§o 
 
 0) 
 
 CL 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 5c8 
 
 
 
 y y\ t / -*■»-/ / 
 
 cA 
 
 
 
 /o</ 
 
 7U 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/doctrineofchristOOwo 
 
THE DOCTRINE 
 
 OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 EXAMINED BY THE 
 ACKNOWLEDGED PRINCIPLES 
 
 OP 
 
 BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 
 
 IN TWO PARTS, 
 
 INCLUDING BOTH THE HOSE AND THE ■UBJECT*/ 
 
 BY JAMES J. WOOLSEY. 
 
 In vain do they worship me, teaching" for doctrines, 
 the commandments of men. — Christ. Mark vii. 7. 
 
 But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scrip- 
 ture of truth. — Danisi. x. 21. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PRINTED BY I. ASHMEAD 
 1840. 
 
Entered according" to the Act of Congress, in the 
 year 1840, in the Clerk's office of the District Court of 
 the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
At a special meeting of the Ncrwalk Baptist Church, 
 to take into consideration the utility of printing the 
 Sermons on Baptism, delivered by their Pastor, Rev. 
 James J. Woolsey, in the months of June and July, 
 1840, 
 
 It was voted unanimously, that he be requested to 
 furnish a copy for the press. 
 
 Resolved, That John Arnold, Gilbert Hathaway, 
 and Andrew Turney, be a committee to communicate 
 the above vote to Rev. James J. Woolsey. 
 
 Attested, J. ARNOLD, Secretary. 
 
 Norwalk, Aug. 11, 1840. 
 Reverend and Dear Sir, 
 
 The undersigned, by an appointment of the Church, 
 have the honour to communicate to you the above re- 
 quest ; and they have the pleasure to assure you, that 
 they are, 
 
 With great respect, 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servants, 
 JOHN ARNOLD, 
 GILBERT HATHAWAY, 
 ANDREW TURNEY. 
 
' 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In offering to the Christian public a new Manual on 
 Baptism, it may be expected that some proemial remarks 
 should go before and prepare the way for a better under- 
 standing of the work itself, no less than acquaint the 
 reader of some of the reasons which have prevailed 
 with the Author to place this little volume into the hands 
 of those who would fain copy the example of Jesus. 
 
 The following sheets were originally prepared for my 
 own congregation, without the most distant expectation 
 that they would ever be called for, and printed for public 
 utility. In some particulars, they would have borne a 
 different, and in my estimation, a more desirable aspect, 
 had I anticipated what I now realize. And yet I am 
 apprehensive that they will be in their present form, no 
 less acceptable to those whose interest they consult, than 
 though presented as I might prefer them. 
 
 Select portions only, of what I had written, were de- 
 livered to the people of my charge. 
 
 This circumstance was made known to the Committee 
 who waited upon me from the Church, and assurance 
 was had, that it could form no objection against printing 
 
• INTRODUCTION. 
 
 what had been prepared, and not those " select portions 
 only." The circumstance last mentioned, together with 
 having commented more largely on the nineteenth of 
 Acts, and my having reduced the sermons to a book 
 form, with chapters and sections, will account for the 
 work appearing different from what it did when heard 
 from the desk. 
 
 While this little Treatise lays no claim to distin- 
 guished merit, yet it is not wholly void of originality. 
 Every point at issue, examined in the following pages, 
 and advocated by Baptists, is substantiated by an appeal 
 to the Word of God, as interpreted by Pedobaptists 
 themselves. 
 
 The many honest concessions of some of the most 
 able and learned Pedobaptist authors, cited in this 
 work, constitute one of its distinguishing peculiarities, 
 and cannot fail to recommend it to the confidence of 
 others. 
 
 On no point do I appeal to Baptist authors, in sup- 
 port of what I advance. I might have done so to great 
 effect, and with very much propriety. But having 
 heard it suggested, that one of the main sources of 
 proof, in favour of sprinkling and infant baptism, and 
 one to which our Pedobaptist brethren have frequent 
 recourse, is that of quoting their own authors ; and 
 having learned that such is the singular fact, I resolved 
 to avoid the possibility of having a similar charge pre- 
 ferred against me. In pursuance with this design, I 
 have confined my citations from uninspired authors, 
 to Pedobaptists, with few exceptions, where I have 
 availed myself of the unbiassed judgment of Quakers 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Vll 
 
 and Jews, with some of the ancient Fathers, and earliest 
 translators of the New Testament. 
 
 The question may be asked how it comes to pass that 
 Pedobaptists should bear the most decided testimony 
 against their own cause? 
 
 I reply, first : Some of them, as Drs. Wall, Camp- 
 bell, and Whitby, became convinced of the error of 
 sprinkling, and most fully justify immersion as the only 
 Christian Baptism ; while at the same time they hold 
 to and advocate infant baptism. 
 
 Others again abandon infant baptism, but still retain 
 their predilections for sprinkling. 
 
 Secondly : All error, when seeking to wear the as- 
 pect of truth, comes in contact with truth itself. 
 
 Truth and error can never be made to harmonize : the 
 former will continually show a just repugnance to the 
 latter, and the latter will, as continually, cross the path 
 of the former. Hence it is that, Protestant Pedobap- 
 tists, when defending the revealed truths of the Chris- 
 tian religion against infidelity or Romanism, are guided 
 by the just and acknowledged laws of Biblical interpre- 
 tation ; but when they attempt to support sprinkling and 
 infant baptism, then they abandon, for the time being, the 
 very principles, which before they so justly and wisely 
 acknowledged. On the one hand they acknowledge 
 what they refuse on the other. Now they concede the 
 point that Baptists are right, and now again they with- 
 hold such concessions. 
 
 Thirdly : Pedobaptists are not united among them- 
 selves, as to what method and arguments they shall adopt 
 to sustain them, in. their unhappy position. What is 
 
v ^ INTRODUCTION. 
 
 cherished by one is discarded by another. What one 
 advances in support of their peculiar views, is utterly 
 rejected by another as insufficient and untenable. Some 
 feel it the part of candour to concede what others have 
 not the ingenuousness to acknowledge. And thus at one 
 time and another they concede all that Baptists claim. 
 
 And thus ill several ways they manifestly show that 
 their rock is not as our rock, they themselves being 
 judges. 
 
 In conclusion, suffer me to remark, that, while I have 
 not shunned to declare the truth in soberness and with 
 much assurance ; yet, in all, it has been in kindness. I 
 thought it the part of candour arid fidelity to brethren to 
 deal plainly; but if I know my own heart, I have said 
 nothing out of strife, or with the desire to wound the 
 feelings of others. I have this testimony, that what I 
 have written was penned with much affection towards 
 those from whose views I conscientiously dissent. 
 Should the Lord glorify himself through this feeble effort 
 by introducing his people to an acquaintance with his 
 own blessed institution, and unite them in one practice 
 as they are one in Christ Jesus, my object is attained. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 Philadelphia, Nov. 1840. 
 
\ *% 
 
 THE DOCTRINE 
 
 OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 PART I. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 
 Mark i. 9, 10. "And it came to pass in those days, 
 that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was bap- 
 tized of John in Jordan; and straightway coming- up out 
 of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit, 
 like a dove, descending- upon him." 
 
 Section I. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. 
 
 To persons of observation, it must appear 
 that the times under which we are fallen, are 
 big with important events. The more judi- 
 cious and wise are not without some just an- 
 ticipations that the present unsettled state of 
 affairs, both in a political and religious aspect, 
 is to give place to another still in advance of 
 2 
 
14 MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. 
 
 any thing that has hitherto been enjoyed. We 
 are passing on from the comparatively ob- 
 scure, to behold the splendours of a brighter 
 and more perfect day — " to be partakers of 
 the glory that shall be revealed." 
 
 That there are in reserve for us, events of a 
 deep and thrilling interest, all must admit. 
 Nor has such a sentiment obtained without 
 just and sufficient reasons. Apart from the 
 instructions of the word of God, that, "Of the 
 increase of his government and peace there 
 shall be no end," his holy providence indicates 
 the near approach of changes in the affairs of 
 men of no ordinary moment. There is much 
 betokened in the present powerful excitement 
 which so generally pervades the nations of the 
 earth. " Wars and rumours of wars" are the 
 precursors of changes which more or less 
 affect the aspect of human society. The pride 
 and restless ambition of the aspiring, pressing 
 forward to affluence and distinction, have, 
 within the few past years, left us mournful ex- 
 amples of the supreme folly of laying up trea- 
 sures only for time. 
 
 The growing dissatisfaction among the 
 people with church establishments and eccle- 
 siastical tyranny, is indicative of the happiest 
 consequences to men, both as it respects their 
 political and religious privileges. No event 
 of human legislation is more deeply to be de- 
 plored than that of uniting church and stale. 
 None has been more prolific, as a source of 
 
MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. ] 5 
 
 error and disquietude, than a union so unnatu- 
 ral and inimical to the spirit of the gospel. 
 Whatever shall tend to sever these bands, and 
 leave the consciences of men free, to be influ- 
 enced by the word of God in all matters of 
 religion, shall equally contribute to bring for- 
 ward that day when the watchmen shall see 
 eye to eye; unite in teaching the same truths, 
 and in keeping the ordinances as they were 
 when first delivered to the church. 
 
 The present spirit of inquiry among the 
 Jews; the restraints which are taken off of 
 them by some of the ruling powers; the strong 
 conviction of which many of them are pos- 
 sessed, that the Messiah has come; their wil- 
 lingness to read the Hebrew Scriptures, and 
 compare them with the New Testament; and 
 indeed, the whole aspect in which that long 
 dispersed and afflicted people are now viewed, 
 shows signs of some stupendous and hitherto 
 unexampled change in their condition. 
 
 The recent doings of the American Bible 
 Societies,* in refusing to aid in the circulation 
 
 *"In 1835, application for aid was made by Messrs 
 Yates, and Pearce directly to the American Bible Society. 
 The subject was taken up by the Board of Managers. 
 A committee of seven persons, one from each denomina- 
 tion, was appointed to take this subject into considera- 
 tion. A majority of this committee, in their zeal for 
 sprinkling, at their first meeting-, passed a resolution that 
 our versions were false in translating- baptizo to immerse! 
 But after reflecting- on the business for a night, they re- 
 scinded that resolution, doubtless from a conviction that 
 
IQ MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. 
 
 of the Holy Scriptures among the dying mil- 
 lions of India, unless those words which teach 
 
 the Baptists would be able triumphantly to demonstrate 
 their versions to be true. They then agreed upon ano- 
 ther resolution of this import: — 'That it was inexpedient 
 to grant aid for the publication of any version in which 
 baptizo is translated by a word signifying to immerse!' 
 A report to this effect was presented to the Board. Rev. 
 S.H. Cone, the only Baptist on the Committee, presented 
 a counter report. The subject was discussed at some 
 length, and then referred back to the same Committee. 
 The Committee again met, annulled their last resolution, 
 and substituted for it, ' that it was inexpedient to grant 
 aid to any version except those that conformed in their 
 principles to the common English version; at least, so 
 far, as that all the religious denominations represented 
 in this society, can consistently use and circulate said 
 versions in their several schools and communities.' * * 
 "We stated that we considered the conduct of the 
 American Bible Society towards us, as a denomination, 
 to be unconstitutional, because though all the denomina- 
 tions represented in the American Bible Society agreed 
 to the use of the English version, they did not agree to 
 adopt it as the standard of translation in other languages; 
 because the first article of the constitution, which states 
 that the only copies in the English language to be circu- 
 lated by the Society, shall be of the version now in com- 
 mon use, impliedly disavows the idea of considering that 
 version as the standard in other languages; because the 
 convention which formed the constitution, in their ad- 
 dress to the people of the United States, which address 
 was afterwards adopted by the Society and Board of 
 Managers as their own, declare, That the great object of 
 the Society shall be, the dissemination of the Scriptures 
 in the received versions where they exist, and in the most 
 faithful where they may be required. In the work 
 of foreign distribution, they evidently contemplated a 
 very different rule of action from that recently adopted. 
 The Baptist denomination had made twenty-seven ver- 
 
MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. jy 
 
 the ordinance of baptism be given to the hea- 
 then in Greek, a language with which the 
 
 sions of the Bible, which were received, and in use, in 
 the year 1815. The American Bible Society was organ- 
 ized in the year 1815. According- to their constitution 
 and avowed principles of action, they were bound to aid 
 us in the circulation of these versions if they possessed 
 the means. All our subsequent translations of the Bible 
 have been made in exact conformity to the rule required 
 — they are " most faithful." That they are most faith- 
 fully executed, may be inferred from the character and 
 qualifications of the missionaries employed, and from the 
 instructions given to said missionaries by the American 
 Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, and also from the 
 resolutions they have adopted in reference to this all im- 
 portant subject, which are as follow: 
 
 " 'Resolved, That the Board feel it to be their duty to 
 adopt all prudent measures to give to the heathen the 
 pure word uf God in their own languages, and to furnish 
 their missionaries with all the means in their power to 
 make the translations as exact a representation of the 
 mind of the Holy Spirit as may be possible. 
 
 " ' Resolved, That all the missionaries of the Board who 
 are, or who shall be, engaged in translating the Scrip- 
 tures, be instructed to endeavour, by earnest prayer and 
 diligent study, to ascertain the exact meaning of the ori- 
 ginal text ; to express that meaning as exactly as the na- 
 ture of the languages into which they shall translate the 
 Bible will permit; and to transfer no words which are 
 capable of being literally translated.' 
 
 "These principles of action, adopted by the Baptist 
 Board of Foreign Missions, and acted upon by their mis- 
 sionaries, long before any difficulty occurred between us 
 and the American Bible Society, must commend them- 
 selves to every man's conscience in the sight of God ; and 
 never can be opposed, we humbly conceive, except for 
 the purpose of promoting and perpetuating sectarian de- 
 signs, which cannot so easily be sustained where the 
 Bible is translated faithfully and without concealment. 
 2* 
 
19 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. 
 
 hapless multitudes of Burmah and other east- 
 ern nations are not acquainted, show that 
 
 "In his statement, the agent considered the course 
 adopted by the American Bible Society towards us to be 
 unjust; because, when the Baptists became a component 
 part of the American Bible Society, at its first organiza- 
 tion, they united with it as Baptists; nothing' in the terms 
 of the compact required or implied a sacrifice of prin- 
 ciple; had this been the case, a union on our part with 
 said Society would have been impossible. As a denomi- 
 nation, we have brought our full share of capital and 
 labour to promote the objects for which the Society was 
 Instituted: our bequests, donations, and contributions, are 
 admitted to have been liberal ; and our missionaries have 
 translated the Bible into languages spoken by more than 
 one-half of the entire population of the globe. After 
 having- laboured to promote the interests of the Society 
 for twenty years, without having violated any of the prin- 
 ciples of the original compact, or of the constitution, we 
 -are, by a vote of the Society, and of its managers, de- 
 prived of all participation in its funds, except on condi- 
 tions which we cannot consistently and conscientiously 
 adopt. And that we could not submit to such conditions 
 without incurring, in our apprehension, deep guilt in the 
 sight of God, and be unfaithful to the souls of men, was 
 well understood by the managers of the Board, from the 
 statements of the Baptist members previously to the pass- 
 age of said resolution. A resolution, embracing a prin- 
 ciple of action not recognised in the constitution, and 
 tending to exclude us from our just rights to a due pro- 
 portion of the funds of the institution, is a violation of the 
 constitutional compact, a virtual dissolution of the origi- 
 nal firm, and on principles of law and equity, would 
 oblige the American Bible Society to refund a proper 
 share of the capital now in their possession. We are also 
 under the impression that their conduct towards us was 
 far from being- kind and courteous, because, though we 
 were one of the partners of the concern, and therefore 
 had a just right to a proper share in the funds, at a time, 
 
MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. jg 
 
 sectarian prejudice has reached a point where 
 it must revert upon itself, and tend to defeat 
 the object it aimed to secure. 
 
 too, when the treasury was overflowing', we were ex- 
 cluded in a penniless condition, and our protest against 
 these unjust proceedings was not even allowed to be 
 read ! 
 
 "We consider the proceedings of the American Bible 
 Society towards us to be decidedly of a sectarian character,- 
 because, it is well known that all the important ancient 
 eastern versions, and many of the most valuable modern 
 ones, render the Greek word baptizo in the same manner as 
 we do; that is, they do not transfer it, but faithfully trans- 
 late it, by a word that means to dip, or to immerse. The 
 versions of more than one-half of Protestant Christendom, 
 at the present day, are precisely of a similar character. 
 Among- these are the Syriac, the oldest existing- transla- 
 tion from the original Greek, the Armenian, Georgian, 
 Coptic, Sahidic, Arabic, Ethiopic, Amharic, Gothic, Ger- 
 man, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, and others. Now, it is a 
 well known fact that the British and Foreign Bible So- 
 ciety has aided, and continues to aid in the circulation of 
 the aforesaid versions; and the American Bible Society 
 has circulated, and continues to circulate, some of these 
 versions, its resolutions to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 The question naturally arises, Why does it circulate the 
 Dutch Bible, in which the word baptizo is translated by 
 a word which means to dip. and Luther's version of the 
 German Bible, in which the word baptizo is rendered by 
 a word which means to immerse, and yet refuse to aid in 
 the distribution of our versions, which in so far as baptism 
 is concerned, are translated exactly on the same prin- 
 ciple? We know of no reason for this difference in their 
 procedure, except such as are of a sectarian character; 
 the Dutch and German versions were made by Pedobap- 
 tists, and our versions were made by Baptists. Is not this 
 sectarianism? And is not sectarianism totally incompati- 
 ble with the original design of this noble institution? 
 
 " We entertain serious and insuperable objections to the 
 
20 MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. 
 
 In the providence of God, it not unfrequent- 
 ly happens that the eagerness of designing men 
 
 principles upon which translations of the Bible are now to 
 be constructed, in conformity to the resolution of the 17th 
 Feb. 1836. It is well known that the American Bible 
 Society is composed of six or eight denominations, differ- 
 ing- widely from each other in church government, doc- 
 trine, discipline, and practice. Supposing, then, a trans- 
 lation is made, agreeably to the principles of the English 
 version; at least so far that all the religious denominations 
 represented in this society, can, consistently with their 
 respective creeds, use and circulate said version in their 
 several schools and communities. We wish to know 
 what kind of a version it must be? We are inclined to 
 think that it would be a nondescript, neither conformed 
 to the sacred originals, nor to the English version, nor to 
 any other version that ever appeared in the world. If 
 these denominations hold any errors, for example, that 
 sprinkling is baptism, their Bible must not condemn that 
 error, by giving a faithful translation of the word baptizo, 
 so as to express the precise meaning of the action, in 
 which baptism consists; because such a course might not 
 be compatible with the views and creeds of the denomina- 
 tions of which the society is composed; and it might not 
 be considered prudent to admit such a version of the 
 Bible into their schools and communities, lest the rising 
 generation might become convinced that sprinkling is 
 rantism, and consequently not baptism. The arguments 
 of a beloved brother in Alabama, on this subject, 'whose 
 praise is in all the churches,' appear to us forcible and 
 irresistible: 'Leaving the question, whether the consti- 
 tution of that society or the nature of their compact re- 
 quires such a procedure, the procedure itself is directly 
 contrary to the established principle that the Bible with- 
 out note or comment, is to be given to the nations. 1 do 
 not see how the resolution of February 17, 1836, can be 
 defended. I do not now speak of transferring the word 
 baptizo, which I think our translators ought not to have 
 done, and no modern translator ought to do; but 1 refer to 
 
MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. 21 
 
 carries them to such daring extremity, as to 
 overthrow the very object of their ambitious en- 
 
 the general rule adopted by the American Bible Society, 
 that the Bible should be made consistent lull h the creeds 
 of the denominations represented in it. Shall the Bible 
 govern human opinions, or shall human opinions govern 
 the Bible? Which of these shall control and change the 
 other? This is the question on which the Baptists are 
 required to take a side; and I sincerely wish they were 
 all on one side, as they should he' 
 
 " We stated that two of our Baptist brethren, deceased, 
 had left bequests to the American Bible Society, from 
 which would accrue to its funds, perhaps not less than 
 forty-five thousand dollars. Would these brethren, it was 
 asked, have left you this money, if they had believed 
 that you would, in a few years, adopt a resolution to ex- 
 clude from all participation in the funds of your institu- 
 tion, the denomination to which they belonged? Most 
 certainly they would not. These bequests were un- 
 doubtedly made in the full expectation that the claims of 
 the Baptist denomination would be regarded with equal 
 sacreclness, as those of other denominations. If this reso- 
 lution be adopted, you deceive what were the just expec- 
 tations of the dead, as well as of the living. For if your 
 resolution passes, we shall be for ever excluded from all 
 participation in the funds of your society — except on 
 conditions which you know we cannot consistently and 
 conscientiously adopt. The Honourable Peter A. Jay 
 and Judge W. Jay, both Episcopalians, and sons of the 
 late Governor John Jay, objected to the passage of the 
 resolution, and proposed that a committee of laymen, sup- 
 posed to be less prejudiced than clergymen, should in- 
 vestigate all the facts of the case, and present a report to 
 the Board. But investigation was dreaded, and they 
 voted down the resolution. On the final passage of the 
 resolution to exclude the Baptists from all participation 
 in the funds of the society, these gentlemen voted with 
 the Baptists. 
 
 "The obnoxious resolution, the injustice of which we 
 
22 MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. 
 
 deavours. It was thus that the wicked plot of 
 the aspiring Haman turned upon himself, while 
 
 complain, was adopted by a" large majority on the 17th 
 February, 1836. Our protest against it was disregarded, 
 and not even permitted to be read! The society, at its 
 next annual meeting-, instead of nullifying- the proceed- 
 ings of its Board of Managers against us, as justice re- 
 quired, sanctioned their doings. An appropriation of 
 $5,000 was voted to the American Baptist Board of For- 
 eign Missions, on condition that we would comply with 
 the resolution of 17th February, 1836, of the injustice of 
 which we had complained, and against which we had 
 entered our protest. But the Baptist Board firmly and 
 unanimously resolved, not to be influenced by the con- 
 sideration of five thousand dollars, or any other sum, to 
 conceal from the nations of the earth the ordinance of 
 baptism in an unknown tongue, believing with Paul, 'that 
 he that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not 
 unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth him* 
 Our brethren, therefore, concluded to adhere to the in- 
 structions previously given to their missionaries — ■ to 
 transfer no words capable of being literally translated;* 
 and further declared, 'that this Board cannot, consist- 
 ently and conscientiously, comply with the conditions on 
 which appropriations are now made, and cannot, there- 
 fore, accept the sum appropriated by the Board of Mana- 
 gers of the 17th March, 1836.' 
 
 "Thus cut off' from all participation in the funds of the 
 society, on consistent principles, — all aid absolutely re- 
 fused to the circulation of our versions, except we would 
 agree to conceal the doctrine of baptism in a foreign 
 tongue, while other translations of the Bible made by 
 Pedobiptists, in which baptizo is faithfully translated by 
 a word that means to immerse, are bv said society still 
 circulated; we were therefore driven to the necessity of 
 abandoning the American Bible Society, or of abandon- 
 ing our principles — of abandoning truth. We could not 
 hesitate long which of these courses we ought to adopt. 
 We abandoned the American Bible Society. The ques- 
 
MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. 23 
 
 the righteous cause he would fain destroy, is 
 greatly promoted. A Daniel, a servant of 
 the living God, is brought alive from the lion's 
 den, and advanced to a more distinguished 
 prosperity. Thus, the celebrated and opulent 
 Crassus, not content with more than enough, 
 but by overstraining for Parthian gold, loses 
 the object of his ambitious aim, and aids for- 
 tiori now arose, shall the Baptists desert their faithful 
 missionaries, whose piety, diligence, fidelity, and success, 
 in translating- and circulating" the divine oracles among 
 the nations, have endeared them to our hearts, and justly 
 entitled them to be considered among- the greatest bene- 
 factors of the human race; or, shall we aid them in their 
 holy work of benevolence, by adopting a system of ope- 
 ration that shall enable them to prosecute their work 
 with renewed ardour? This was an important crisis in 
 our affairs; we felt that we needed wisdom from above; 
 and we trust that to the Father of Lights our eyes and 
 our hearts were directed, and we believe he has guided 
 us into the path of truth and duty. After mature reflec- 
 tion and prayerful consideration, it appears to be the 
 wish of the great body of the denomination that we 
 should not stay and linger as those that are slothful, but 
 make haste to pursue the path which divine providence 
 has marked out. A separate organization for Bible ope- 
 rations appeared absolutely necessary to sustain the work 
 which we had undertaken among- the heathen, who were 
 demanding from us the word of life. On the evening of 
 the day that the American Bible Society sanctioned the 
 doings of their Board, in depriving us of our just rights, 
 casting- us off penniless while their own treasury was 
 overflowing-, Baptist brethren and deleg-ates from eleven 
 states of the Union assembled in the Oliver street Lec- 
 ture Room, in the city of New York, and proceeded with 
 great unanimity to org-anize The American and Foreign 
 Bible Society." — Maclay's Address. 
 
24 MISCELLANEOUS REMARKS. 
 
 ward, to a more desirable felicity, those whom 
 he thought to make desolate. 
 
 Thus, too, the managers of the above named 
 Bible Society, instead of preventing the grow- 
 ing millions of India, whose imploring hands 
 were beginning to be stretched forth for the 
 word of life, from receiving the Bible faith- 
 fully translated, have at least lost their party 
 aim. Those hands are now being supplied 
 with sevenfold more copies of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures than were ever asked of that now sec- 
 tarian society. 
 
 This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous 
 in our eyes. He knows how to overrule evil 
 for good. 
 
 Once more: the very extensive and increas- 
 ing dissatisfaction among the more pious and 
 conscientious members of Pedobaptist com- 
 munities, respecting sprinkling for baptism, 
 and infants for subjects, betokens the coming 
 of that day, when this divine ordinance of the 
 Christian church shall be restored to its primi- 
 tive order ; setting forth in its own most lively 
 and expressive emblem the burial and resur- 
 rection of the body of our Saviour; and, con- 
 sequently, the glorious resurrection of the bo- 
 dies of all them that truly believe in him. 
 
 From these, and other indications, in the 
 providence of God, which your own informa- 
 tion can supply, it must appear evident that 
 the times are pregnant with great events. 
 
GENERAL PRINCIPLES, &c. 25 
 
 Section II. 
 
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 
 
 That period, it is devoutly hoped, is near at 
 hand, when all the followers of Christ shall 
 seek to divest themselves of every vestige of 
 error ; shall adopt the Bible as the only standard 
 of evangelical truth; and shall, with a cheerful 
 heart, willingly apply those acknowledged prin- 
 ciples of interpretation to an understanding of 
 the ordinance of Christian baptism, which are 
 received and applied for the understanding of 
 every other Bible truth, that we may all attain 
 to a uniformity of sentiment and practice in the 
 church of Christ. 
 
 For let it be particularly remarked that, un- 
 til we all adopt the same principles of inter- 
 preting the Holy Scriptures, and apply those 
 acknowledged principles alike to every part 
 of the sacred volume, to one as well as to an- 
 other of the doctrines of the cross, there need 
 be no surprise that so many different sects and 
 detached parties should obtain among profes- 
 sing Christians. 
 
 It can avail nothing for all parties to appeal 
 to the Bible, as their supreme authority, while 
 each one feels himself at liberty to accommo- 
 date the sacred text to his own peculiar views. 
 
 The more evangelical denominations profess 
 to acknowledge but one standard of divine au- 
 thority in matters of religious worship ; namely* 
 3 
 
26 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP 
 
 the Bible. And there are certain obvious and 
 acknowledged laws by -which the language of 
 the Bible is to be inlerpreted, in order to come 
 to that distinct sense, which the Holy Ghost, 
 by the sacred penmen, intended to convey. 
 
 Both of these considerations should be borne 
 in mind by all those who seek an acquaintance 
 with the inspired volume. As they come to 
 an acquaintance with one, so, by the same laws, 
 are they to seek acquaintance with every truth 
 and ordinance of our holy religion. 
 
 Their articles of faith and practice must be 
 based, not upon obscure passages and infe- 
 rential testimony, but upon those scriptures, 
 the sense of which is plainly revealed and dis- 
 tinctly known by correct principles of inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 If all will abide by these tests of what, shall 
 be incorporated in their religious belief, party 
 distinction shall soon disappear, and delightful 
 harmony shall as soon be restored to the church. 
 It remains with every individual to say whe- 
 ther such a union shall obtain among the peo- 
 ple of God ; whether h\s faith, practice and ex- 
 ample shall all contribute to unite the saints of 
 the Most High. 
 
 There are reasons the most cogent why all 
 who love our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, 
 should seek to attain to that oneness of faith 
 and practice in things of religion, for which 
 the Redeemer prayed, and the spirit of the 
 gospel inculcates. Need you now, for the 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 27 
 
 first time, be made acquainted with the unhappy 
 consequences every where manifest, because 
 of the divided state of the Christian world? 
 
 Thousands are excusing themselves from 
 the kingdom of heaven, because of the disunion 
 among the people of God ! Nor can it better 
 the Christian cause to say such an excuse is 
 unreasonable, while Christians have the power 
 and do not apply it to remove the stumbling 
 stone. 
 
 Again. From the divided state of the 
 Christian world, many have very improperly 
 inferred that there must be a great want of 
 clearness and perspicuity in the sacred text; 
 that the Saviour, when imparting instructions 
 of the first importance to men, employed 
 words of such doubtful import, as forbids our 
 coming to a unity of sentiment and practice. 
 But can we, who profess to be the friends of 
 the Redeemer, admit so unjust a reflection to 
 be cast upon Him, who " spake as never man 
 spake V* Are there not those who shall dare to 
 hold up to deserved rebuke an opinion so allied 
 with the grossest infidelity, and so perfectly at 
 war with every attribute of the wise and com- 
 passionate Saviour? 
 
 The different opinions which have obtained 
 among religious sects, have not their origin in 
 any invincible obscurity in the Scriptures; but 
 'partly by pleading other sources of authority 
 than the Scriptures, and partly by adopting 
 wrong principles of interpretation. 
 
28 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 The more common sources of error, or the 
 main causes why some Christians, enjoying 
 the same advantages as others, for an acquaint- 
 ance with the teachings of Christ and his apos- 
 tles, are betrayed into mistaken views respect- 
 ing the doctrines and institutions of the gospel, 
 may be briefly comprehended as follows. 
 
 The pride and selfishness of man; an im- 
 proper reliance upon the reputed correctness 
 of others' opinions, without strictly examining 
 for themselves;* the influence of early erro- 
 neous instruction, and the force of custom, 
 which, when combined, powerfully control 
 even the sincere, binding the understanding, 
 and chaining it down to a degree of ignorance 
 and prejudice the most incredible, were it not 
 for the unquestionable testimony of the facts 
 themselves; a prevailing desire to make the 
 Scriptures speak that sense which is held by 
 some favourite party, or friends, rather than 
 embrace the obvious meaning which the in- 
 spired writer intended to reveal ; daring to 
 trifle with conscience, suppressing her con- 
 victions of duty and truth, on the ground that 
 the thing required is not indispensable to sal- 
 vation, and therefore of little consequence, 
 
 * St. Basil has the following very judicious remarks: 
 "The hearers that are instructed in the Scriptures 
 must examine the doctrines of their teachers; they must 
 receive those things which are agreeable to Scripture, 
 and reject what are contrary to it." In Moralium Re- 
 gula, 72. 
 
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 29 
 
 quite a matter of indifference, whether it be re- 
 ceived and obeyed or not; a disinclination, if 
 not a settled determination, to hear and read 
 only such instructions as shall favour their 
 own preconceived opinions, and build up the 
 party to which they chance to belong; a con- 
 founding of the literal and figurative sense of 
 Scripture; an attempt to support some favour- 
 ite sentiment by probabilities, suppositions, in- 
 ferences, and analogy, where there is no plain 
 command, nor yet example for any such sen- 
 timent. 
 
 These are the more usual sources of error 
 in doctrine and practice among those who ac- 
 knowledge the authority of the Bible, and pro- 
 fess to take it as their guide. So long as these 
 things exist, we can never come to the unity 
 of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. It becomes 
 every one, therefore, who desires the peace and 
 prosperity of Zion, not only to adopt the Bible 
 as his only authority in matters of religion, 
 but also to see to it, that he does not make the 
 Bible speak what it does not contain; that he 
 gives to every part of the word of God that 
 obvious sense which the Holy Ghost indited in 
 the minds of the sacred penmen : " For what- 
 soever is more than these cometh of evil." 
 Let it not be forgotten by the Biblical student, 
 that substantial interpretations of the word of 
 God must rest upon their own intrinsic evi- 
 dence; in the use of words employed; in phi- 
 lological or grammatical construction; in 
 3# 
 
30 THE PROPER SOURCE OF INFORMATION 
 
 agreement with the immediate context ; and 
 in perfect harmony with other parts of Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 Whoever shall carry out his interpretations 
 upon principles like these, shall see and know 
 their practical utility in acquiring that positive 
 sense which the inspired writers intended to 
 communicate. 
 
 Section III. 
 
 THE PROPER SOURCE OF INFORMATION IN RESPECT TO 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 As our inquiry respects the ordinance of 
 baptism, we shall do well to bear in mind the 
 acknowledged principles of interpretation ; and 
 consider also, that the Bible, and the Bible 
 alone, is our only authentic record in matters 
 of religious faith and practice. From this un- 
 erring source we must draw arguments in 
 support of our belief. And let it be further 
 remarked, that we are to place no implicit re- 
 liance upon the writings and sayings of unin- 
 spired men, when their opinions are not sup- 
 ported by plain passages of inspired truth. No 
 council or body of men, however learned or 
 pious, is to be quoted as substantial proof in 
 support of the doctrines and institutions of 
 Christ.* 
 
 * Cromwell, before a convocation of bishops and min- 
 isters in England, in 1536, had acutencss and valour enough 
 
IN RESPECT TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. g \ 
 
 Human testimony, when clear and undis- 
 puted, is to be respected as collateral evidence; 
 but never trusted as our infallible guide. There 
 are none of the sayings of uninspired men be- 
 fore, nor subsequent to the canon of the New 
 Testament, upon which we can safely repose 
 our confidence, and obtain the satisfaction we 
 seek. 
 
 We are not to test the truth of the Scrip- 
 tures by what men say and think; but to try 
 men and the sentiments they hold, by what 
 the Scriptures teach. "To the law and to the 
 testimony; if they speak not according to this 
 word, it is because there is no light in them." 
 Who does not admire the conduct of a noble 
 lord while awaiting advices from his king, 
 who, when informed by the expected messen- 
 ger what some of the noblemen said touching 
 the point at issue, instantly replied, " tell me not 
 what the noblemen say, they are my equals; I wish 
 
 TO KNOW WHAT MY KING HAS SAID ?" Moreover, 
 
 to observe, "That it was his majesty's pleasure that the 
 rites and ceremonies of the church should be reformed 
 by the rules of Scripture, and that nothing- should be 
 maintained which did not rest on that authority; for it 
 was absurd, since the Scriptures were acknowledged to 
 contain the laws of religion, that recourse should be had 
 to glosses or the decrees of popes, rather than to them." 
 —Burnet's Hist. ofRefor. vol. i. p. 214, " Happy," said 
 Mr. Brooks, " Happy had it been, if the Reformers of 
 the Church of England had invariably adhered to this 
 sacred principle." — Lives of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 3. 
 Happy for the church and the world now, did Christians 
 act upon such a principle. 
 
32 THE PROPER SOURCE OF INFORMATION, &c. 
 
 we are indebted purely to the authority of 
 Christ, and to the practice of his illustrious 
 harbinger, John, and the inspired apostles for 
 any certain knowledge of the rite of baptism. 
 
 This institution, as an ordinance of divine 
 worship, was unknown to the world till the 
 opening of that auspicious day, whose increas- 
 ing "light shall be seven-fold, as the light of 
 seven days." 
 
 No writer, sacred or profane, ever makes 
 the least mention of it before John the Baptist, 
 who commenced his ministry only six months 
 before he administered the sacred rite to our 
 blessed Lord in the river Jordan. There is 
 no trace to be found of this institution in the 
 Old Testament; not the least shadow of it in 
 any of the rabbinical writings prior to the ad- 
 vent of the Messiah, nor, indeed, till many 
 years after his ascension to glory. 
 
 We may not, therefore, go back to the Old 
 Testament for any direct instruction upon this 
 part of instituted worship. There is nothing 
 there that teaches, typifies, or prefigures it in 
 any way whatever. 
 
 Baptism, then, being an ordinance peculiar 
 to the gospel dispensation, the rule of our duty 
 respecting it must be sought in the New Tes- 
 tament exclusively. And when we turn to 
 this source of information, w 7 e find no appoint- 
 ment of heaven more clearly revealed than 
 that of baptism. 
 
THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 33 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM ; NOT OF MEN BUT 
 OF GOD. 
 
 If the scriptures of the New Testament are 
 our only direct source of information respect- 
 ing this positive institution of the christian 
 church, and if John the Baptist was the first 
 who ever taught and administered the holy 
 rite, we ask, as did the Saviour himself, "The 
 baptism of Jolin^ was it from heaven, or of 
 men?" Now upon this question the christian 
 world is divided. Our Pedobaptist brethren 
 contend that John conceived the idea of bap- 
 tism from the previous practices of men. 
 That he took up an old custom which he 
 found among the Jews and adapted it to his 
 purpose, while preaching in the land of Judea. 
 "That baptism had been both known and 
 received in most frequent use among the 
 Jews; and for the very same end as it now 
 obtains among Christians, namely, that by it 
 proselytes might be admitted into the church; 
 and hence it was called baptism for prose- 
 lytism. You see baptism inseparably joined 
 to the circumcision of proselytes. There was, 
 indeed, some little distance of time, but cer- 
 tainly baptism ever followed. We acknow- 
 ledge, indeed, that circumcision was plainly of 
 divine institution; but by whom baptism was 
 instituted, is doubtful. And yet it is worthy 
 
34 THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 of observation, our Saviour rejected circum- 
 cision and retained the appendix baptism." 
 Light foot. 
 
 Baptists dissent from this opinion, and main- 
 tain that John received his knowledge of this 
 institution direct from heaven, and adminis- 
 tered it by divine appointment. 
 
 They deny that baptism, as a rite, had any 
 existence before the ministry of John, and 
 challenge the world to prove the contrary. 
 
 We affirm, without the least hesitation, 
 because scripture sustains us in the affirmation, 
 that this ordinance originated in the counsels 
 of divine wisdom, and was made known first 
 to John, whose ministry, according to Mark, 
 was " the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God." c. i. 1—5. The law 
 and the prophets continued until, or up to the 
 time that John appeared, since that time the 
 kingdom of God is preached. Luke xvi. 16; 
 Mat. ii. 12, 15. Says Mr. Henry, "See what 
 sure grounds John went upon in his ministry 
 and baptism. He did not run without sending; 
 God sent him to baptize. He had a warrant 
 from heaven for what he did. God gave him 
 both his mission and his message; both his 
 credentials and instructions." Expos, on John 
 i. 29—36. 
 
 The Greeks, nor yet the Jews, knew nothing 
 of baptism as a divinely appointed rite, nor 
 did any such practice prevail among them. 
 
 The Jews had certain t iverse washings im- 
 
THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 35 
 
 posed upon them until the time of reformation, 
 but they had no institution like baptism. No- 
 thing that in any way resembled it, farther 
 than a person bathing himself, or dipping his 
 arm, hands or fingers into water. "And 
 many other things there be, which they have 
 received to hold, as the washing of cups and 
 pots, brazen vessels and tables." Mark vii. 4. 
 But there was no more resemblance between 
 these diverse washings of the Jews and the 
 baptism of John, than there is between the 
 universal custom among all nations to bathe 
 and wash their persons, as also their culinary 
 dishes, and the baptismal rite. 
 
 And it is further to be observed, that what- 
 ever was ceremonial in these diverse washings 
 among the Jews, was mostly traditional, tole- 
 rated only as an indifferent practice, and 
 highly culpable when interfering in the least 
 with the commands of God, or any part of 
 religious worship. Mark vii. 7 — 9. Nothing 
 can, therefore, be inferred from these Jewish 
 washings, which in the least identifies them 
 with the sacred and beautiful rite of baptism. 
 
 Any person who will take the pains to exa- 
 mine into this subject, for himself, shall be 
 more than satisfied that there is not the least 
 shadow of evidence, whatever, that the Jews 
 ever had a custom resembling that of baptism. 
 
 The highly gifted and learned Dr. Owen, 
 than whom few men have acquired a more 
 accurate acquaintance with those parts of 
 
36 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Jewish history affecting Christianity, observes, 
 " The institution of the rite of baptism is no 
 where mentioned in the Old Testament. 
 There is no example of it in those ancient 
 records; nor was it ever used in the admis- 
 sion of proselytes while the Jewish church 
 continued. No mention of it occurs in Philo, 
 in Josephus, in Jesus the son of Sirach, nor in 
 the Evangelical history. This rabbinical opi- 
 nion, therefore, owes its rise to the Tanner ae, 
 or Anti-Mishnical doctors, after the destruction 
 of their city. The opinion of some learned 
 men, therefore, about the transferring of a 
 Jewish baptismal rite (which, in reality, did 
 not exist,) by the Lord Jesus for the use of his 
 disciples, is' destitute of all probability." See 
 his Theol. L. 5; Heb." vol. i. 272, and Orig. 
 Nat. of Churches, pp. 36, 39. 
 
 The learned Venema, says, " Part of John's 
 office consisted in baptizing — an external rite, 
 then in a particular manner appointed of God, 
 and not used before:' Eccl. Hist. torn. 3, Lee. 
 1, § 5. See more in Benson's "Public Wor- 
 ship of the First Christians," chap. 5, § 2. 
 
 After such concessions, let no one attempt 
 the gratuitous and visionary project of deriving 
 John's baptism from a Jewish custom, for it 
 is certain that no such custom ever existed 
 among the Jews; nor is there the least men- 
 tion of it until long after John had entered 
 into rest. Proselyte baptism has no other 
 than an ideal existence ; it is a mere figment 
 
THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 37 
 
 of artifice, no where to be found but in the 
 picture of the imagination, as conceived by- 
 designing men, as Maimonides, Lightfoot and 
 others. 
 
 Let us look a little further into the correct- 
 ness of this position. Had any such practice 
 as proselyte baptism, been associated with the 
 Jewish religion, how shall we account for no 
 mention being made of it in our holy writings; 
 especially where every part of instituted wor- 
 ship, among the Jews, is narrated with such 
 particular exactness? The Bible law for the 
 admission of proselytes is explicit, See Exod. 
 xii. 48, but it makes not the least mention of 
 baptism. This law is carried out into prac- 
 tice, as in the cases of Rahab, Ruth and others 
 who were proselyted to Judaism, and yet 
 there is not the slightest intimation that such 
 converts were ever baptized. See Joshua vi. 
 25 ; Ruth i. &c. 
 
 Neither Philo Judasus, whose valuable works 
 contain several treatises, highly illustrative of 
 the Hebrew scriptures, nor yet Flavius Jose- 
 phus, the renow 7 ned historian of the Jews, both 
 of whom lived in the days of the apostles, and 
 wrote concerning the reception of heathen 
 converts to Judaism, has one word respecting 
 proselyte baptism. How shall we reconcile 
 this strange omission with the accredited 
 fidelity of these writers, if a part of the cere- 
 monial worship of the Jews consisted in bap- 
 tizing converts from other nations ? 
 4 
 
3g THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Josephus says, "Two great men came to 
 me out of the region of Trachonitis, and when 
 the Jews would force them to be circumcised, 
 if they would stay among them, I would not 
 permit them to have any force put upon them. 
 And when I had pacified the multitude, I pro- 
 vided for the men that were come to us what- 
 soever it was they wanted, according to their 
 usual way of living." See his Autobiography, 
 sect. 23. 
 
 Here you will observe, the Jews demanded 
 of these proselytes from Paganism that they 
 should submit to be circumcised, but did not 
 so much as intimate any thing about their 
 being baptized. 
 
 Added to which, history informs us, that the 
 famous Acquila, of the second century, when 
 proselyted to Judaism, was circumcised, but 
 makes no mention about his ever being bap- 
 tized. 
 
 And what is still more surprising, if possible, 
 is the fact that, the Mishnah, which literally 
 signifies the oral law of the Jews, composed 
 about A. D. 150, and highly valued as a faith- 
 ful digest of Jewish customs — any way expla- 
 natory of the writings of Moses, and held in 
 high estimation, as a standard work in their 
 schools of learning, makes no mention whatever 
 of proselyte baptism. 
 
 Moreover, the Jerusalem and Babylonian 
 Gemaras, or Commentaries on the Mishnah, 
 written, the one in the fourth and the other in 
 
THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM- 39 
 
 the fifth century, and regarded, when appended 
 to the venerated Mishnah, as forming a perfect 
 work on Jewish rites and customs, have not 
 one syllable respecting the baptism of prose- 
 lytes from pagan worship. And I most deli- 
 berately declare unto you, my friends, that no 
 such practice did ever obtain among the Jews, 
 until some hundred years subsequent to the 
 death of the Evangelist John, the last of all 
 the apostles of our Lord. 
 
 And yet, as strange as it must appear, an 
 attempt is being made by professing Christians, 
 to identify that holy rite which John the Bap- 
 tist administered to repenting and believing 
 Jews, with a mere imaginary custom, having 
 no other than a fancied existence. 
 
 It is pitiful, in the extreme, that our pedo- 
 baptist brethren should attempt to class the 
 baptism which John administered with any 
 mere Jewish custom, and, especially so, when 
 not a Jewish practice, but some notion of the 
 fancy is made the model of that sacred rite, 
 to sanction which the Son of God yielded sub- 
 mission, saying, " Thus it becometh us to fulfil 
 all righteousness" or, as Dr. Campbell renders 
 it, "Thus ought we to ratify every institution." 
 How exceedingly painful, when so much is 
 doing to weaken the force of religious truth by 
 the infidel and the sceptic, when the enemies 
 of the cross are numerous and daring beyond 
 example, that any body of Christians should suf- 
 fer their prejudices, in favour of some chosen 
 
40 THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 scheme, to carry them so far, as to entertain the 
 most distant wish that the holy rite, in com- 
 pliance with which our Saviour was laid be- 
 neath the waves of the Jordan, should not be 
 respected and imitated as a Gospel ordinance! 
 
 All this desperate effort is put forth to avoid 
 the convincing example of our Saviour's im- 
 mersion in Jordan. To get around so plain 
 an instance of believers' baptism, as that ad- 
 ministered by John to the penitent and believ- 
 ing Jews, a thrust is made at the vitality of 
 that ordinance, which is said to be " the coun- 
 sel of GocV 
 
 Although the hope of our pedobaptist friends 
 to demolish John's baptism, as a christian or- 
 dinance, is a forlorn one; yet, should they suc- 
 ceed, what would they gain? Nothing, abso- 
 lutely nothing ! 
 
 I am sure that few of our pedobaptist 
 brethren have examined this subject in a pro- 
 per light, and under a sense of the fearful 
 responsibility which rests upon them. 
 
 Have they ever considered that the liberty 
 they have taken with John's baptism in iden- 
 tifying it with a Jewish custom, is casting the 
 severest reflections upon John, and inveighing 
 in a fearful manner against the character of 
 the Son of God ? 
 
 For could it be demonstrated that John's 
 baptism was not a christian ordinance, but a 
 Jewish practice of admitting proselytes from 
 Paganism to Jewish privileges, then native 
 
THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 41 
 
 Jews ought not to be baptized, for this would 
 be treating them as proselytes from Paganism. 
 And last of all, ought Jesus to be thus treated ! 
 I could sooner believe that John was an im- 
 postor, than admit that he baptized so many 
 Jews, and especially the immaculate Jesus, 
 after the example of pagan proselytes. Nor 
 was such a thing possible. Nothing could be 
 more revolting to the feelings of a Jew, famed 
 for his wonted tenacity, than to be treated as 
 one converted from heathenish superstition 
 and idolatry. 
 
 Nor would Jesus, the long expected Messiah, 
 have so unnecessarily excited the prejudices 
 of the Jews against himself, as to appear in 
 the light of a pagan just coming over from 
 idolatry. This would illy comport with his 
 being " born king of the Jews." It was of the 
 utmost importance that the genealogy of Jesus 
 should be traced up to David through a Jewish 
 ancestry, because the promise had been made 
 that the Messiah should be of that family. It 
 would, therefore, have been impossible to con- 
 vince a Jew that Jesus was their promised 
 Messiah, unless it could be proved that " he 
 was of the house and lineage of David." The 
 Saviour could not, therefore, with any sense 
 of propriety, have weakened the force of such 
 evidence in the minds of the Jews, as should 
 convince them that he had, in a direct line, 
 Abraham, the father of the faithful, and David, 
 
 the sweet psalmist of Israel, for his illustrious 
 
 4# 
 
42 THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 ancestors. He could not fail of weakening 
 such evidence, and of giving the Jews just 
 ground for exasperation against himself, should 
 he submit to a practice known and regarded 
 by the Jews only as an act of introducing 
 proselyted pagans into Jewish privileges. 
 
 The very erudite Carpzovius has well re- 
 marked, " We cannot be persuaded that the 
 baptism of proselytes was prior to the baptism 
 of John and of Christ. For the testimonies 
 produced are either from a following age or of 
 doubtful interpretation, and applied contrary to 
 the design of their authors, as a bare inspection 
 of them will show. The subject being ex- 
 amined with accuracy, it will appear that for 
 an article of such weight, a rite of such great 
 necessity, to have been involved in silence for 
 so many ages, without any urgent reason, ex- 
 ceeds all probability. But supposing, though 
 we do not admit, that the bathing of the pro- 
 selytes was in use when the new dispensation 
 commenced, yet it remains firm and certain, 
 that the sacrament of baptism has nothing an- 
 swerable to the baptism of proselytes; nor 
 was it derived from that rite, but was immedi- 
 ately appointed of God. For as John was 
 immediately sent of God to baptize, so Christ 
 introduced the ordinance of baptism, not from 
 that of the rabbies for the admission of prose- 
 lytes ; but from the most wise counsel of God, 
 from the bosom of the Father." Apparat. 
 Hist. Crit. Anti. Soc. Annotat. pp. 49, 50. 
 
CHRIST'S SANCTION OF JOHN'S BAPTISM. 43 
 
 Section V. 
 
 CHRIST DID NOT SUBMIT TO BAPTISM, AS AN INDUC- 
 TION INTO THE PRIESTLY OFFICE ; BUT HEREBY HE 
 GAVE SANCTION AND VALIDITY TO JOHN'S BAPTISM, 
 AS A PERPETUAL ORDINANCE OF DIVINE WORSHIP. 
 
 Our Pedobaptist brethren tell us that "Christ 
 condescended to be baptized, and it was ad- 
 ministered to him by John, upon the very same 
 principles on which the priests were dedicated 
 to their office. It was necessary to justify the 
 counsels of Divine Wisdom in framing the law 
 of Moses, that the Messiah should recognise 
 its divine institution, and sanction its ordi- 
 nances, by observing its rites in his own per- 
 son." Bloomfield, on Matt. iii. 13. 
 
 " Our Lord represented the high priest, and 
 was to be the high priest over the house of 
 God ; now, as the high priest was initiated 
 into his office by washing and anointing, so 
 must Christ ; and hence he was baptized, 
 washed, and anointed by the Holy Ghost. 
 Thus he fulfilled the righteous ordinance of 
 his initiation into the office of high priest" 
 Adam Clarke, on Matt. iii. 15. 
 
 Now you will particularly observe, that here 
 it is positively declared, that " Christ's baptism 
 was his initiation into the office of high priest; 
 that baptism was administered to Christ upon 
 the very same principles on which priests vjere 
 dedicated to their office ; that Christ 9 s baptism 
 
44 
 
 CHRIST'S SANCTION 
 
 was in justification of the wisdom of God in 
 framing the law of Moses, in recognition of 
 the institution of that law, and in sanction of 
 its ordinances ; and that Christ observed the 
 rites of the Mosaic law in his own person. 
 
 Now one and all of these assertions are per- 
 fectly groundless. Not one of them can abide the 
 test of scripture examination. And one cannot 
 but deplore the weakness of even great minds, 
 to which the above assertions form a fair index. 
 After so many examples of human imbecility, 
 we ought to have learned not to trust any man 
 in matters of religion ; but to go ourselves to 
 the Bible, that unerring guide, with which the 
 blessed God has furnished us, and there have 
 a thus saith the Lord for our faith and practice. 
 It may be, that those who make assertions, so 
 untenable, have been betrayed into the mis- 
 taken idea by the supposed coincidence be- 
 tween the age of the Saviour at the time of 
 his baptism, and the age of priests at the time 
 of their being inducted into office. 
 
 On Luke iii. 23, " And Jesus himself began 
 to be about thirty years of age," Dr. A. Clarke 
 observes, " This was the age required by the 
 law, to which the priests must arrive before 
 they could be installed in their office." Dr. 
 Whitby remarks, on the same text, that " Our 
 Lord entered on his office in the thirtieth year 
 of his age ; and this was the age appointed for 
 the Levites to begin the service of the sanctuary." 
 
 Now admitting the supposed coincidence, 
 
OF JOHN'S BAPTISM. 45 
 
 that the Jewish priests and Christ entered 
 upon their official duties at the age of 
 thirty years, it by no means follows, that 
 Christ, by the act of being baptized, was in- 
 ducted into the priestly office, nor that John's 
 baptism was the same as the washing of a 
 priest at his consecration. 
 
 A mere coincidence, or agreement of circum- 
 stances, however perfect, is no proof. Nor 
 does the fact, that great and good men have 
 resorted to such evidence, in support of their 
 favourite creeds, substantiate such testimony 
 in the judgment of a judicious and wise inter- 
 preter of scripture. 
 
 We read of a candlestick with seven lamps, 
 and a house with seven pillars, but shall we 
 conclude that the seven pillars are the seven 
 lamps? And yet, so far as coincidence is 
 concerned, we may as well draw such a con- 
 clusion as to infer that Christ's baptism was 
 his initiation into the priesthood, because 
 priests were consecrated to their office when 
 at the age of thirty years. Such reasoning 
 illy suits the dignity and holiness of a divine 
 revelation. 
 
 But let us inquire a little more particularly 
 respecting this coincidence. 
 
 Is there any law in the Bible which required 
 that priests should not be consecrated to the 
 priestly office, until they had arrived at the age 
 of thirty years ? 
 
 Such a law did not exist in the time of the 
 
4(5 CHRIST'S SANCTION 
 
 Saviour, nor for some hundred years before 
 the Messiah's advent. 
 
 When the Lord had accepted the tribe of 
 Levi, in exchange for the first-born of the fa- 
 milies of Israel who were preserved from the 
 hand of the destroying angel in Egypt, and 
 hitherto reserved for the service of the sanc- 
 tuary, when the tribe of Levi was accepted 
 and devoted to the sacred ministry, a special 
 precept was enacted restraining the Kohath- 
 ites, the Gershonites, and the Merarites, who 
 constituted the common order of priests, from 
 entering upon the functions of the priesthood 
 until they were of the age of thirty years. 
 Numb. iii. 41 ; iv. 2, 3, 22, 23, 29, 30." 
 
 But this law was to continue only for a li- 
 mited and brief period, probably no longer 
 than the time required in proportioning the 
 Levites to their respective services, for their 
 number was twenty-two thousand three hun- 
 dred, of whom eifjht thousand five hundred 
 and eighty were effective men, able to enter 
 immediately upon the active duties of the 
 priesthood. 
 
 What renders it certain, that the law, re- 
 quiring the Levites to be thirty years old when 
 they entered the ministry, was intended for 
 special purposes^ and designed to continue only 
 for a limited space of time, is the fact that, 
 during the same year, and probably the same 
 month, the Lord informs Moses, that the Le- 
 vites should enter upon the holy duties of the 
 
OF JOHN'S BAPTISM. 47 
 
 priestly office, at the age of five and twenty 
 years, and continue until they are fifty years 
 of age. Numb. viii. 24, 25. Now this last 
 law, which required the Levites to commence 
 serving in the house of God at the age of 
 twenty-five years, continued in force for the 
 space of three hundred and seventy-five years, 
 up to the time when Israel was peacefully 
 settled in the promised land, and when it was 
 no longer the arduous duty of the Levites to 
 carry the tabernacle and its numerous vessels 
 for the service thereof. At which time David, 
 being divinely inspired, gave orders that the 
 Levites should be numbered for the service of 
 the house of the Lord, from the age of twenty 
 years. 1 Chron. xxiii. 24. 
 
 This computation of the Levites for the 
 active duties of the sanctuary, was confirmed 
 by David, a little before his death, and esta- 
 blished as an ordinance for ever. 1 Chron. 
 xxiii. 27, &c. Hence, four hundred and eighty 
 years afterwards, when Israel was restored 
 from the captivity of Babylon, the law, requir- 
 ing Levites to enter upon official duties at the 
 age of twenty years, was renewed and ever 
 after continued. Ezra iii. 8. The same law 
 was in force when Jesus was baptized, but 
 neither Jesus nor John observed it. Nor was 
 there any necessity for them to observe it, 
 since they were not consecrated to the Leviti- 
 cal priesthood. 
 
 But again, I ought not to omit the remark. 
 
48 CHRIST'S SANCTION 
 
 that what is said above has special regard to 
 the Levites, who were the general order of 
 priests, and not to the office of high priest. 
 
 Now Jesus was the great High priest an- 
 swering to the high priest of the Jews. And 
 respecting the Jewish high priest no law was 
 enacted as to what age he should be conse- 
 crated to the holy duties of his office ! If no 
 way incapacitated, he was to continue his 
 sacred functions until death, but at what age 
 he entered upon them we are no where in- 
 formed. Christ, therefore, did not delay his 
 baptism until he was thirty years of age be- 
 cause of any Jewish law requiring him to do 
 so, for no such law did exist. 
 
 But Jet us consider the position which our 
 Pedobaptist brethren assume, that Christ, by 
 his baptism, was initiated into the office of 
 high priest, after the manner of consecrating 
 the high priest of the Jews. 
 
 It is sufficient to remark, in the first place, 
 that the Jews never had any such custom at 
 the consecration of a priest. The Jewish high 
 priest, when set apart to the office of the priest- 
 hood, was washed with water at the door of 
 the tabernacle; clothed with the priestly robe; 
 girded with the curious girdle of the ephod, 
 by which the ephod was bound to him; a 
 breast-plate was put upon him, in which were 
 the Urim and Thummim; a mitre was put 
 upon his head, and upon the mitre a golden 
 plate, the holy crown ; and the anointing oil 
 
OF JOHN'S BAPTISM. 
 
 49 
 
 was poured upon his head ; but never was he 
 baptized. Ex. xl. 12 — 15. Levit. viii. 
 
 Nor did Jesus ever submit to baptism in 
 compliance with any such custom. Even had 
 there been such a custom, John was by no 
 menus a suitable person to administer the rite, 
 since he himself was never consecrated to the 
 office of a Jewish priest. If Christ must needs 
 have been baptized to fulfil the law of Moses, 
 then the regular priest, and not John, would 
 have administered the rite to him. In this 
 case, John's baptizing Christ was an act of 
 gratuitous usurpation, and must have been 
 looked upon as such by every Jew. Even a 
 king had no right to intrude in such matters. 
 2 Chron. xxvi. 17, 18. Moreover, let it be ob- 
 served, that Jesus was never set apart to act 
 in the capacity of a Jewish priest. 
 
 His priesthood was not a shadow, but a 
 glorious reality. It is perfect, and suited to 
 all the ends and purposes of effecting the sal- 
 vation of sinful men. Jesus, as a priest, takes 
 no victim from the fold, but makes a sacrificial 
 offering of himself — the Lamb of God — a noble 
 sacrifice for man ! The institution of the Le- 
 vitical priesthood was typical of that which 
 Christ sustained. 
 
 The former was an allusive institution, 
 highly emblematical of the latter, and w 7 ell 
 calculated to impress the mind of a Jew, as 
 well as enlighten his apprehension respecting 
 the glory and grandeur of him " who, through 
 5 
 
50 
 
 CHRIST'S SANCTION 
 
 the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot 
 to God." 
 
 It must, therefore, have been highly incon- 
 gruous for Jesus to have submitted to the 
 mode of a legal consecration, since he was 
 not the type, but the glorious antitype. He 
 was not constituted a priest after the manner 
 of the ceremonial law, but declared a priest 
 by "the word of the oath, which was since the 
 law." Heb. vii. 28. 
 
 And still further, it is evident that Christ 
 could never have submitted to be consecrated 
 after the custom of the Jewish high priest, 
 since the priesthood and the law of its appoint- 
 ment were to be changed at the coming of 
 Christ. The Levitical priesthood, with all its 
 array of splendour and mode of consecration, 
 was to terminate. It was to be superseded by 
 another, infinitely more grand and important, 
 differing as widely from the former, as the sub- 
 stance transcends its shadow. The Aaroni- 
 cal priesthood answered the end for which it 
 was intended ; but it could never accomplish 
 what was necessary for our salvation; for 
 then there could have been no occasion for 
 the coming of another priest, after another 
 order, and under different laws. "For such an 
 high priest became us who is holy and made 
 higher than the heavens." " A minister of the 
 sanctunry and of the true tabernacle which the 
 Lord pitched, and not 'man." 
 Now, that Christ sustained a priesthood alto- 
 
OF JOHN'S BAPTISM. 5J 
 
 getber different from the high priesthood of 
 the Jews, both in respect to the laws of ap- 
 pointment and mode of consecration, is put be- 
 yond a doubt by the following considerations: 
 
 First, Christ, the High Priest of our profes- 
 sion, it is evident, descended not in the line of 
 the tribe of Levi, the regular and legal line of 
 the high priest of the Jews, but is of the tribe 
 of Jiiciah, respecting which, Moses spake no- 
 thing concerning priesthood. Heb. vii. 13, 14. 
 This single circumstance would have forbid 
 the idea of Christ's ever being consecrated a 
 priest after the law of Moses. The objection 
 would have been immediately raised against 
 him, he is not of the tribe of Levi, and there- 
 fore not eligible to the priesthood. But it is 
 yet more evident that Christ could not be a 
 priest according to the law of Moses, and con- 
 sequently could not have submitted to a legal 
 consecration, since he was not a priest after 
 the order of Aaron ; but after the similitude of 
 Melchisedec. He is made or appointed a 
 priest, " not after the law of a carnal com- 
 mandment, but after the power of an endless 
 lifer Heb. vii. 11, 15, 16, 17, 18. 
 
 And again, it is expressly stated that the 
 Jewish priesthood was changed, and that this 
 change rendered it necessary that there should 
 also be a change of the law by which the 
 priesthood should be regulated. Heb. vii. 12. 
 
 Jesus is come a high priest according to an 
 arrangement entirely unique. This new order 
 
52 
 
 CHRIST'S SANCTION 
 
 for an high priest over the house of God, 
 which is the new or gospel dispensation, was 
 little known till the anointed priest had actu- 
 ally come. 
 
 That such a change should take place, was 
 matter of divine prediction, Ps. ex. 4, and was 
 imperfectly held to view in the priestly office 
 of Melchisedec ; yet it w T as little understood, 
 and reserved till the times of the Saviour to 
 be more fully revealed. Hence, Christ had 
 nothing to do with the legal arrangement fur- 
 ther than to be of the house of David. Nor 
 would it have been a righteous act in him to 
 have sought a consecration according to the 
 law of Moses, for such a consecration would 
 have been illegal. It would have violated 
 every precept of the Mosaic law respecting 
 the qualifications of one designed for the sacer- 
 dotal office of high priest; who, according to 
 law, must be of the tribe of Levi, and of the 
 family of Aaron, and consecrated not by bap- 
 tism, but according to the directions of the 
 law. Levit. viii. 1, &c. Hence it is certain that 
 Christ could not, and did not have any allusion 
 to the legal and ceremonial rites of the Jewish 
 dispensation when he said, "thus it becometh 
 us to fulfil all righteousness." But he had 
 regard to a new and expressive institution 
 which was the badge of his disciples, and a 
 beautiful emblem of his future burial and resur- 
 rection. It became Christ thus to sanction 
 the holy rite, which is to be perpetuated until 
 
OF JOHNS BAPTISM. 
 
 53 
 
 the morning of the resurrection, when the em- 
 blem shall give place to the awful and sublime 
 reality. 
 
 Till then, my brethren, and I mention it as 
 another mark of dissimilitude between Christ 
 as a priest over the house of God, and 
 Aaron the high priest of the Jews ; till then, 
 Christ, the great High Priest, who has passed 
 into the heavens by his own blood, shall there 
 continually officiate as our mediator, while 
 Aaron and all his successors in office shall 
 await the coming of that solemn and eventful 
 day. For Christ is "called of God an High 
 Priest, after the order of Melchisedec;" with- 
 out the beginning of sacerdotal days, and with- 
 out end of life, to abide a priest continually. 
 
 He did not, therefore, commence his media- 
 torial, or priestly office at the time when he 
 ratified the ordinance of baptism ; but long be- 
 fore did he become the sinner's intercessor 
 before the throne of his Father. Vain, then, 
 is the plea, that Jesus' baptism was a mere in- 
 duction into office after the fancied custom of 
 consecrating Jewish priests. 
 
 So far from it, that baptism which Jesus 
 sanctioned by his personal obedience, was a 
 new, sublime, and holy rite. In submitting to 
 it, he put an honour upon the ministry of John, 
 ratified the institution of baptism as a standing 
 ordinance in his church to the end of time, 
 and left his disciples an example of that strict 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 CHRIST'S SANCTION 
 
 obedience which he requires to be rendered 
 to this divinely appointed rite.* 
 
 That baptism, therefore, which John ad- 
 ministered to the penitent, believing Jews in 
 Jordan, and which Jesus himself hallowed and 
 exemplified, as a perpetual ordinance of divine 
 worship, is identically the same as that which 
 Jesus commanded his apostles to administer to 
 believers among all nations; the same as that 
 which the apostles practised. And such was 
 the understanding of Tertullian, the oldest of 
 the Latin fathers, when he said, " There is no 
 difference between them whom John dipped 
 in Jordan, and those whom Peter dipped in the 
 Tiber." De Baptismo, cap. 4. 
 
 But, finally, we are taught by the Saviour 
 himself, in the most satisfactory manner, that 
 John received that baptism which he taught 
 from above, and administered it by divine ap- 
 pointment. When some of the proud and dis- 
 
 * Witsius says: " Our Lord would be baptized, that he 
 might conciliate authority to the baptism of John, that by 
 his own example he might commend and sanctify our 
 baptism; that men might not be loath to come to the baptism 
 of the Lord, seeing the Lord ivas not backward to come to 
 the baptism of a servant; that by his baptism, he might 
 represent the future conditum both of himself and his fol- 
 lowers; first humble, then glorious,- now mean and low, 
 then glorious and exalted; that represented by immersion - , 
 this by emersion; and finally, to declare by his voluntary 
 submission to baptism, that he would not delay the de- 
 livering up of himself to be immersed in the torrents of 
 hell," i. e jleath and the grave, " yet with a certain faith and 
 hope of emerging." — Miscel. Sac. Tom. ii. Ex. xv. sec. 63. 
 
OF JOHN'S BAPTISM. 
 
 55 
 
 dainful priests, scribes and elders of the Jews 
 who rejected the ministry both of John and of 
 Christ, asked the Saviour, by what authority 
 doest thou these things? and who gave thee 
 this authority? Jesus said to them, I will ask 
 you one question, "The baptism of John, was 
 it from heaven, or of men?" 
 
 Now for an instance of prevarication by 
 these Jewish professors. They saw and felt 
 the perplexing dilemma into which the Son 
 of God had brought them. 
 
 They withdrew a little from the Saviour 
 and consulted among themselves, saying, what 
 shall we do? 
 
 "If we shall say from heaven, he will say, 
 why then did ye not believe him?" Why did 
 you not receive his doctrine, obey his com- 
 mands, repent of sin, believe his preaching 
 and repeated testimony of me, and come like 
 other penitent Jews, and be baptized of him? 
 But if we say John's baptism is of men, and 
 has no divine warrant, we fear the conse- 
 quences. " All the people will stone us" for 
 such open slanderous insinuations against the 
 character and reputation of one so confessedly 
 eminent for probity and holiness ; for all men 
 counted John, and are persuaded that he was 
 a prophet indeed. And therefore they de- 
 clined an answer. Not because they were in 
 doubt. Not that the question propounded by 
 the Saviour was an obscure or ambiguous one; 
 but because it better answered their wicked 
 
kq CHRIST'S SANCTION OF JOHN'S BAPTISM. 
 
 ends to dissemble, than ingenuously to acknow- 
 ledge their wrong and abandon their pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Who does not pity these chief priests, scribes 
 and elders of the Jews, in that they had not 
 learned, at the time, that John's baptism was 
 borrowed of a Jewish custom? Had they 
 lived in modern times, and enjoyed the instruc- 
 tions of Maimonides, at Cordova; or of John 
 Lightfoot, at Harnsey, they could have re- 
 turned an answer to *the .Saviour, and saved 
 themselves the extreme mortification of betray- 
 ing their secret and wicked devices. Luke 
 xx. 4—7. Mark xi. 30—32. 
 
 The entire theory, therefore, of our Pedobap- 
 tist brethren, in their attempt to identify the Jew- 
 ish nation with the Christian church; to derive 
 John's baptism from a supposed custom of 
 proselyte baptism among the Jews; that 
 Christ's baptism was his induction into the 
 priesthood; that baptism was administered to 
 our Lord upon the same principles that priests 
 were dedicated to their official duties; that 
 Christ observed the rituals of the Mosaic dis- 
 pensation in his own person ; and that sprink- 
 ling, and the sprinkling of infants are infer- 
 entially deduced from such premises; the 
 whole' of this theory labours under a radical 
 and most fatal defect of evidence. Nor ought 
 those, who advocate a scheme so void of 
 all substantial testimony, deem it surprising 
 that such a theory should gradually, and in 
 
BAPTISM A POSITIVE INSTITUTION. 57 
 
 time to come, fully lose the confidence of an 
 enlightened people. Is not a scheme so vision- 
 ary ready to vanish away ? 
 
 Section VI. 
 
 BAPTISM IS A POSITIVE INSTITUTION OF THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT, MOST EXPLICITLY REVEALED, AND CLOTHED 
 WITH DIVINE AUTHORITY. 
 
 If the Bible, and the Bible alone be " the reli- 
 gion of Protestants" then may we look for the 
 line of our duty no where else. Every thing 
 entitled to our regard as a part of instituted 
 worship, must be founded on some plain direc- 
 tion recorded upon the inspired page. 
 
 Baptism is a positive institution of divine 
 appointment, and must, therefore, be plainly 
 revealed, both with respect to the manner in 
 which the ordinance must be administered, 
 and the qualifications of those who are to be 
 baptized. 
 
 And why should not all cheerfully admit, 
 and rejoice in the truth that the institutions of 
 the gospel are not ambiguous, and capable of 
 any interpretation, like the Sibylline oracles, 
 but plain, and of a certain import? Can we 
 take any other ground, and be safe against 
 the attacks of infidelity ? 
 
 Our Pedobaptist brethren themselves, when 
 arguing upon any subject, except pedobaptism 
 
58 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 and sprinklings most fully argree with Baptists, 
 that positive institutions are to be made out, 
 not by a course of reasoning, but by plain ex- 
 press commands. Hence Dr. S. Clurke says, 
 speaking of the institutions of Baptism and the 
 Lord's JSupper, "In matters of this nature, the 
 command of our Lord is reason sufficient. For 
 in things of external appointment, and mere po- 
 sitive institutions, where we cannot, as in mat- 
 ters of natural and moral duty, argue concern- 
 ing the natural reason and ground of the obli- 
 gation, and the original necessity of the thing 
 itself; we have nothing to do, but to obey the 
 positive command. God is infinitely better able 
 than we, to judge of the propriety and useful- 
 ness of the things he institutes, and it becomes 
 os to obey with humility and reverence." — 
 Expos. Chh. Cat. p. 165, A. D. 1730. 
 
 The truth is, every effort, that is made to 
 justify sprinkling for baptism, and infants as 
 proper subjects of the holy rite, tends equally 
 to bring down the instructions of God in the 
 Bible to a level with the dubious and unintelli- 
 gible oracles, of Greece and Rome. It may 
 answer the purpose of the priests and priestesses 
 over such oracles to play upon words, and in- 
 terpret according to their interest and fancy, 
 but such conduct illy becomes the priests of 
 our holy religion — the ministers of the sanc- 
 tuary of God. 
 
 Respecting the sense of Scripture, in rela- 
 tion to positive institutions, as in all things of 
 
A POSITIVE INSTITUTION. 
 
 59 
 
 biblical record, there should be no prevarica- 
 tion ; no captious objections urged against 
 them, nor specious arguments advanced in 
 their support ; no concealment of the truth in 
 their favour, nor any resort to fanciful inter- 
 pretations of Scripture. All such influences 
 are to be excluded when we canvass the word 
 of God in search after its true import. And 
 if we are careful to bring with us to the Bible 
 a sanctified heart, willing that the Lord should 
 speak in his word, and speak to our conscience, 
 there can be little difficulty in understanding 
 what he shall speak 10 his people. 
 
 In giving precepts and directions respecting 
 positive institutions, it is an universal rule, hu- 
 man as well as divine, to make choice of such 
 words as are of a fixed and certain import, 
 easily defined by those whose obedience is 
 required. 
 
 It has been well remarked by a late writer 
 on moral science, that, "In the institution of 
 the sacrament of baptism, the method of its ad- 
 ministration is prescribed by divine authority, 
 and we have no right to depart from a single 
 item of the prescription. The same authority 
 which instituted the ordinance, also prescribed 
 the manner in which it should be administered, 
 and we are under the same obligations to ob- 
 serve the latter, that we are to recognize the 
 former. 
 
 " When God, in the plenitude of his sove- 
 reignty, instituted an ordinance for our benefit, 
 
60 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 it is incumbent on us to observe it in all its 
 circumstances. We have no right to dispense 
 with even the smallest incident with which it 
 is invested; but are bound to receive it pre- 
 cisely as God gave it. 
 
 " We may remark that, negative passages 
 in the holy Scriptures can never neutralize po- 
 sitive precepts. Christ, in the institution of 
 baptism, pointed out the manner in which it 
 should be administered with circumstantial 
 minuteness." — Rev. Wm. B. Lacey. 
 
 Were it not so, what uncertainty and doubt 
 must attend us in our best and most sincere 
 efforts to understand the commands of Jesus? 
 
 Could the compassionate Saviour, who ever 
 consulted the best good of his followers, em- 
 ploy words of doubtful import, when giving 
 directions to his disciples what they should do, 
 to secure his presence with them, and to 
 make known his salvation? 
 
 As a wise institutor of laws and ordinances 
 of worship, would he employ words that were 
 ambiguous and difficult of understanding ? 
 
 Could a discreet and humane parent, in 
 commanding his children, make use of words 
 the sense of which was not determined, but 
 exceedingly vague and uncertain? 
 
 Would a legislature, in the enacting of laws 
 for a state or province, make use of such terms 
 and expressions as had no settled meaning, ca- 
 pable of different and even opposite definitions? 
 Or, would they not seek to find out and em- 
 
A POSITIVE INSTITUTION. 
 
 61 
 
 ploy the plainest words possible, that those 
 whose faith and obedience were required, 
 mi^ht, if they were so disposed, understand 
 and be able to obey? 
 
 Should, lor instance, the authorities of this 
 town pass an ordinance that every citizen 
 should pave the side walk over against his own 
 house, would they, or would they not, clothe 
 the ordinance in such language as should be 
 intelligible to the people ? 
 
 Could they, with any degree of propriety, 
 make choice of a word, instead of pave, that 
 had no settled meaning, capable of being de- 
 fined any way to suit each one's fancy ? 
 
 Then what might be the consequence of an 
 ordinance so indefinite, capable of diverse in- 
 terpretations? Every one would be left to 
 suppose a meaning for himself. One might 
 fancy that the import of the statute was to 
 beautify the side-walk ; and as it in a particular 
 manner suited his fancy, he would transplant 
 thither the most select shrubbery; another 
 might, with equal propriety, contend that the 
 word employed in the law, and upon which 
 the sense of the statute must be determined, 
 meant to excavate, and the design was to have 
 a subterraneous passage, after the example of 
 the celebrated Tunnel under the Thames; a 
 third supposed that the word in question meant 
 not only to beautify and excavate, but also to ele- 
 vate, and he felt himself at liberty to raise a 
 mound on the side-way ; another contended that 
 6 
 
62 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 the word had twenty or more meanings ; that it 
 expressed nothing definite, and every one was 
 left to select that sense which best suited his 
 own convenience, and notion of things; for 
 any kind of obedience, if only sincere, would 
 be acceptable to the authorities of the town. 
 
 Now such a statute, so indefinite, and capa- 
 ble of so singular an interpretation, would meet 
 our most decided disapprobation, and would 
 justly draw down the severest reflections upon 
 those who should enact a law so singularly 
 ambiguous and doubtful. 
 
 Jesus Christ, the son of God, the King in 
 Zion, has enacted a law, and committed it first 
 to John, and afterwards to all his apostles, and 
 to his ministers in every age, to carry it into 
 effect. 
 
 Pedobaptists assert that the law respecting 
 baptism is extremely indefinite and ambiguous 
 in its most essential points ; that the said law 
 is not express as to the mode of its administra- 
 tion, and the qualifications of those to whom 
 it shall be applied.* They contend that it is 
 quite impossible to define the word baptize, as 
 employed by John, when he baptized the Sa- 
 
 * " Thus the book intended to instruct shall be taught 
 to perplex; the book, in the world the most determinate 
 shall be rendered the most vague; the book, the credit of 
 which is absolutely ruined it' it admit of double meaning's, 
 shall of all others be rendered the most mysterious book 
 in the world, saying 1 every thing, and of course narrating 
 and proving nothing'." — JJr. Bmsan. 
 
A POSITIVE INSTITUTION. gg 
 
 viour in Jordan, and as used by our Lord him- 
 self in his commission to his apostles. Then, 
 of course, so much of their divine commission 
 as relates to baptism, the apostles did not un- 
 derstand. 
 
 Baptists recoil at sentiments like these! 
 
 They dare not bring such an allegation 
 against the Son of God, who spake as never 
 man did, as to clearness and perspicuity, as 
 ■well as to dignity and originality of sentiment. 
 
 Baprists, in every age of the Christian 
 church, have held and maintained, first against 
 the corruptions and innovations of the Romish 
 church, and latterly against those who seceded 
 from her, that our Saviour is not ambiguous 
 in his instructions to men, and in giving direc- 
 tions respecting the order and discipline of his 
 church on earth. 
 
 ■ They believe and confidently affirm that the 
 divine statute which makes it the duty of min- 
 isters to baptize, and believers to yield obedi- 
 ence to the holy rite, is given to the world in 
 the most explicit and definite language possi- 
 ble. That, when John received the command 
 from heaven to baptize, he understood distinct- 
 ly the import of his commission. That, when Je- 
 sus added to the divine authority by which John 
 baptized, an exemplification of the sacred in- 
 stitution by his own personal act, he left no- 
 thing respecting it which is in the least doubt- 
 ful. That the Saviour, in making use of the 
 same word in his last commission to his apos- 
 
64 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 ties, spake intelligibly to them. His was the 
 command of a God, who spoke to be obeyed ! 
 And that the apostles, when they received the 
 law of baptism from their divine Lord, were 
 not at a loss to understand its signification, nor 
 doubtful as to the manner in which they should 
 administer the rite; nor were they in doubt as 
 to the character of those to whom it might be 
 applied. 
 
 Says Mr. Archibald Hall, predecessor of Mr. 
 Waugh, of London: "How grand and awful 
 is that weighty preface to the institution of 
 Christian baptism ! Matt, xxviii. 18,19. Who 
 is that daring, insolent worm, that will pre- 
 sume to dispute the authority, or change the 
 ordinances of HIM who is given to be head 
 over all things to the church? The solemnity 
 of this ordinance is complete; and all the pur- 
 poses of its institution are secured by the autho- 
 rity and blessing of Christ. His laws are not 
 subject to any of those imperfections which 
 are attendants of the best contrived systems 
 among men, and frequently need explanations, 
 amendments, and corrections. It is most danger- 
 ous and presumptuous to add any ceremony, or 
 to join any service, on any pretence, unto Hea- 
 ven's appointment." Gospel Worship, vol. i. p. 
 325, 326. 
 
 If there be a word in the Greek Testament 
 that is clear in its signification, and of a deter- 
 minate meaning, it is the word baptism. " Yet, 
 by a course of sophistry, it shall be first made 
 
A POSITIVE INSTITUTION. 
 
 65 
 
 synonymous with washing, and then washing 
 shall be proved synonymous with sprinkling, 
 and then sprinkling shall be called baptism" 
 But there is not, my friends, a word in the 
 Greek language more definite in its original 
 sense, and more uniform in its application, 
 than the word baptize. 
 
 Moreover, I most deliberately assure you 
 that there is not one doctrine of our holy reli- 
 gion more distinctly and explicitly stated and 
 set forth in the Bible, than the doctrine of bap- 
 tism. It comes to us in the express and posi- 
 tive command of the Great Head of the church, 
 bearing his own sanction. It is held out before 
 us both by precept and example. It is set forth 
 by beautiful and well selected comparisons. It 
 stands forth, on the sacred page, clothed in all 
 the authority with which its divine author 
 himself is invested. 
 
 The God of Heaven appointed the holy rite. 
 — Luke iii. 2, 3; John i. 33. John received 
 and administered it by divine authority. — Luke 
 i. 17; John i. 6; Mark i. 1— S. 
 
 Our Lord and JSaviour sanctioned the rite 
 by submitting to it himself. — Mat. iii. 13; Mark 
 i. 9, 10. He considered his baptism the fill- 
 ing up of a course of righteousness. — Mat. 
 iii. 15. 
 
 A voice from heaven approved of the Sa- 
 viour's baptism, when it said, as he rose up out 
 of the water, "I am well pleased." — Mat. iii. 17. 
 
 The holy rite was rendered still more solemn 
 6* 
 
QQ BAPTISM A POSITIVE INSTITUTION. 
 
 and impressive when ratified at the Saviour's 
 baptism, by the presence of the Three Persons 
 of the Adorable Trinity.— Mat. iii. 16, 17. 
 
 The Saviour incorporated the rite in his last 
 commission to his apostles. — Mat. xxviii. 19; 
 Markxvi. 15, 16. 
 
 The holy apostles, under a solemn sense of 
 the impressiveness of their commission, failed 
 not to keep this ordinance as they had received 
 it, and administered it according to divine ap- 
 pointment. 
 
 Those who refused to believe and be bap- 
 tized, rejected so much of the counsel of God 
 against themselves. — Luke vii. 29, 30. 
 
 What other truth on the pages of inspiration 
 is set forth with such particular exactness? 
 But one thing is true, God cannot speak so 
 plain but what men will cavil. 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 67 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE PROPER IMPORT OP THE WORD BAPTIZE.* 
 
 Section I. 
 
 GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 I proceed to inquire into the real meaning 
 of the Greek word baptize, and to show, from 
 correct principles of interpretation, that the or- 
 dinance of baptism can be administered, accord- 
 ing to the import of the word and the examples 
 of Christ and his apostles, only by an immersion 
 of the body of believers. 
 
 Now, brethren and friends, as this proposi- 
 
 * Here T must remark, and I desire the reader particu- 
 larly to bear in mind, that the word which designates the 
 ordinance of baptism, in the present tense, and expressed 
 by Greek letters, is BaTttt^co, baptizo. All the changes 
 that our translators made in the word, in order to get it 
 into the English version, was merely changing the last 
 letter "o" for "e," and making use of the Roman letter 
 instead of the Greek. Hence they did not translate the 
 word, but only transfer it into their version. Had they 
 done the same by pavrt^co, rantizo, the proper Greek 
 word whose meaning is to sprinkle, then we should have 
 had rantizt in our Bible just as we have baptize now. 
 Then the text in Heb. x. 22, would read thus, "Having 
 our hearts rantized from an evil conscience, and our 
 bodies washed in pure water." 
 
 With this explanation, I shall hereafter employ the 
 word baptize as it is found in the New Testament, with 
 the understanding that it is purely a Greek word. 
 
68 
 
 GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 tion involves the greater points at issue be- 
 tween Baptists and Pedobnptists, i, e. between 
 those who immerse believers only, and those 
 who sprinkle both infants and adults, it becomes 
 us, as Christians and candid inquirers after 
 truth, to lay aside all prejudice for, or against 
 any practice whatever, to divest ourselves of 
 all partiality in favour of any church, and sit 
 down in humility at the feet of Jesus, receive 
 with meekness the engrafted word, and follow 
 Christ and the apostles. It is my sincere de- 
 sire to speak as becometh the oracles of God. 
 I have no selfish ends to answer, nor any party 
 feeling to gratify. 
 
 I wish to say nothing from partiality, nor do 
 any thing through strife or vain glory. I know 
 what I here record shall meet me when I ren- 
 der up my last account before my Judge. I 
 dare teach only such things as I confidently 
 believe shall abide the test, when all our works 
 shall be tried, as by fire. It will soon be known 
 how I have taught, and how you have believed 
 and obeyed. 
 
 I am sure I have no predilections for im- 
 mersion over sprinkling, only, as I conceive 
 immersion to be essential io baptism. Though, 
 I must confess, the holy rite, when adminis- 
 tered to true believers, is a most grand and 
 impressive scene. Never shall I forget the 
 day when I yielded a cheerful obedience to 
 the command of my Lord, which requires his 
 followers to imitate him in the noble example 
 he left us when he was immersed in Jordan. 
 
TRANSLATION, &c. flg 
 
 I can understand the Saviour in no other 
 light, in his command to baptize, than an entire 
 immersion of the body. And I feel happy in 
 being permitted to express in your hearing the 
 grounds of mv unwavering and confident be- 
 lief. 
 
 Give me then your prayerful and patient 
 attention, while I lay before you what I con- 
 ceive to be the truth of the Bible upon this 
 subject. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 IS THE GREEK WORD BAPTIZE, WITH ITS DERIVATIVES, 
 CAPABLE OF BEING TRANSLATED INTO OTHER LAN- 
 GUAGES 1 
 
 We are often told by our Pedobaptist bre- 
 thren that the meaning of the word baptize 
 cannot be expressed in other languages, and 
 that it was on this account that our translators 
 put the Greek word, rather than a translation 
 of it, into our English Testament. 
 
 But I reply, baptize can be literally and ex- 
 plicitly translated into any language which has 
 the words immerse, dip, or plunge, or words 
 equivalent to these. 
 
 And its figurative import can be conveyed 
 into any language which has words such as, 
 overwhelm, imbue largely, deeply oppressed, 
 
70 TRANSLATION OF THE 
 
 sorely afflicted, immersed, as in calamity; or 
 into any words equal to these in value. 
 
 Yea, more, I have diligently examined bap- 
 tize, as to its being capable of a translation; I 
 have weighed the arguments which some few 
 have urged against its translation; and it is 
 my most deliberate conclusion, that no word in 
 the Greek Testament can be more easily ex- 
 pressed in English. The same reasons urged 
 against the translation of this word, may, with 
 equal and in most instances, with greater pro- 
 priety, be urged against the translation of every 
 word in the Greek Testament. For let it not 
 be forgotten, that if any part of a book should 
 be plainly written and capable of being ex- 
 pressed in languages other than that in which 
 it was originally written, it should be that part 
 which contains laws, institutions, commands, SfC 
 
 Especially is this the case when a book, as 
 the Bible, was designed to be translated into 
 all languages for the best good of all nations; 
 containing the very laws and institutions which 
 are to govern the people of every tongue and 
 language in the whole earth. 
 
 The Romish church urged, with equal pro- 
 priety, the same reasons against the translation 
 of the whole Bible, which are now urged by 
 some Pedobaptists against the translation of a 
 part of this sacred gift to man. 
 
 Well was it remarked by a distinguished 
 gentleman, addressing the secretary of the 
 Pedobaptist British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 
GREEK WORD BAPTIZE. 7J 
 
 "You believe that the chief success of Romish 
 priests in twisting to their own purpose certain 
 doubtful or erroneous renderings, arose from 
 their not giving to the people the entire word 
 of God in a language which they could under- 
 stand" 
 
 Our Pedobaptist brethren are indeed tread- 
 ing in the very steps of the papal church, in 
 their attempt to keep this word, with some 
 others, from being translated. 
 
 But, to the question, can baptize be trans- 
 lated \ I remark, first, when the translators 
 of our Bible had not sprinkling before their 
 minds, and did not suppose that they should 
 violate the command of their king, who strictly 
 charged them not to translate certain words, 
 as baptism and others, which were left un- 
 translated by Bishop Parker, a designing pre- 
 late; when they thought that they should not 
 expose their sprinkling, nor violate the restric- 
 tions imposed upon them by their king, they 
 found no difficulty in translating baptize into 
 English. 
 
 By turning to 2 Kings v. 14. " Then went 
 he down and dipped himself seven times in 
 Jordan," you have an example where the very 
 word in question has been literally translated; 
 and that too, by the very men who translated 
 the New Testament, and there, strange as it 
 may appear, put the Greek word' into their 
 version. 
 
 Again, the venerable Peshito-Syriac version, 
 
72 TRANSLATION OF THE 
 
 the first translation of the Greek Testament that 
 was ever made, executed some time during the 
 first century, and, as some of our Pedobaptist 
 brethren maintain, by the apostle Thaddeus, 
 soon after the ascension of our Lord, at the 
 instance of Abgarus, king of Syria, has baptize 
 translated into a word which means to immerse. 
 To the fidelity and unexampled accuracy of 
 this translation, every competent critic bears, 
 the most decided testimony. The perfect ex- 
 cellence of the work itself is a strong internal 
 evidence that it was performed by an inspired 
 hand. "Its language," says Michaelis, "is 
 elegant and pure. It is not loaded with 
 foreign idioms ; and it discovers the hand of 
 a master, in rendering those passages, where 
 the idioms of the two languages deviate from 
 each other. It has no marks of the stiffness 
 of a translation, but is written with the ease 
 and fluency of an original" 
 
 Now this Protoplastic translation, the very 
 best that has ever been made, Pedobaptists 
 themselves being witnesses, has baptize trans- 
 lated. Whether this version of the New Tes- 
 tament be the work of an inspired apostle, or 
 not, which cannot be determined, it evidently 
 was executed by the last of the first century, 
 and by one more than ordinarily qualified for so 
 great a work. 
 
 This single fact ought to put the blush upon 
 the papal church which first led the way of 
 transferring this word ; then upon the prelati- 
 
GREEK WORD BAPTIZE. 
 
 73 
 
 cal Parker; the translators of our Bible, and 
 others who follow this unworthy example; 
 and lastly, and more especially, ought the 
 blush, indicative of wrong, to fasten upon the 
 countenance of those, who, not controlled by 
 any royal edict, swayed only by the force of 
 party prejudice, contend that the word baptize 
 cannot be translated. 
 
 Dr. Campbell, a celebrated Presbyterian, 
 whose name, by virtue of his rare learning and 
 bold defence of the truth, is worthy of frequent 
 mention, said, touching the very point in ques- 
 tion, " When, therefore, the Greek word is 
 adopted, I may say, rather than translated 
 into modern languages, the mode of construc- 
 tion ought to be 'preserved so far as may conduce 
 to suggest its original import. It is to be re- 
 gretted that we have so much evidence, that even 
 good and learned men allow their judgments to 
 be warped by the sentiments and customs of the 
 sect which they prefer. His notes on Matt. 
 iii. 11. 
 
 Indeed, my brethren, I most sincerely pity 
 that man who has, in this age of Gospel light, 
 a conscience that can suffer him to deny the 
 practicability of translating baptize, baptism and 
 their kindred words into words meaning to im- 
 merse, immersion, fyc. In the very pertinent 
 language of the venerable Maclay, I may say, 
 " If, on the earth, there should be some oppo- 
 sition to the principles on which we proceed 
 in the work of translation, by good men, they 
 7 
 
74 TRANSLATION OF THE 
 
 will be ashamed when they see Jesus as he is, 
 that it ever entered into their hearts to conceal 
 a part of his revealed will from the nations of 
 the earth in a dead language, with the view 
 of promoting party designs, and of preventing 
 men from knowing his will and their duty and 
 obligation to obey him." 
 
 Add to this the fact, that the most faithful ver- 
 sions of the New Testament, from the days of the 
 Apostles until the present time, have the word in 
 question literally translated. 
 
 The Coptic, Ethiopic and Gothic versions, 
 translated from the Greek, in the third and 
 fourth centuries, and justly held in high esti- 
 mation, have the word baptize uniformly ren- 
 dered into words which signify to immerse. 
 The ancient Arabic, and the Arabic of the 
 Propaganda, of Sabat, &c, all have the ren- 
 dering immersion. The languages of Egypt, 
 of Abyssinia, of Holland, of Denmark, of 
 Sweden, have the New Testament translated 
 into them, and the word in question is not 
 transferred, after the example of Romanists, 
 but faithfully rendered. 
 
 Luther, one of the great, reformers, gave 
 the Bible translated to the Germans, that they 
 might read in their own language the wonder- 
 ful works of God ; and he rendered baptize 
 into a word signifying to immerse. 
 
 Pedobaptist missionaries have translated 
 baptize in the Cherokee language by a word 
 signifying immerse. 
 
 Baptists, in all ages, have uniformly trans- 
 
GREEK WORD BAI>TIZE. 
 
 75 
 
 lated the word baptize; and no denominntion 
 has equaled them in multiplying copies of the 
 Word of God into different languages. More- 
 over, Baptists hold it as a fearful violation of 
 that trust reposed in Christians, to withhold, 
 from the nations of the earth, a faithful trans- 
 lation of the words of eternal life. They dare 
 not cover up in an unknown tongue any part 
 of the advices of the Prince of Peace. And 
 least of all can there be any just pretence for 
 such a practice, respecting those words, which 
 convey to men laws and positive institutions 
 asking and demanding universal obedience. 
 
 You perceive then, that baptize can be and 
 has been literally translated, and by those too 
 who translated our Bible; and also by some 
 of the most distinguished philologists and cri- 
 tics that have ever adorned the Christian 
 church since the days of the apostles. This 
 word has not only been translated into words 
 whose meaning is immerse, but also into many 
 different languages, and among many nations; 
 including the earliest and most faithful versions 
 ever made. 
 
 The feasibility and propriety of translating 
 baptize were never called in question until 
 after the nefarious decree of 1311, at Ravenna, 
 by a council of the church of Rome, when it 
 was declared that sprinkling should take the 
 place of immersion. Long before this, had the 
 papal church set the example of transferring 
 certain words which the common people were 
 
76 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 made to believe were too sacred to be expressed 
 in a version ; but the practicability of translat- 
 ing the word in question was not disputed. 
 
 The reasons urged by Pedobaptists against 
 the translation of baptize into words which 
 signify to immerse, &c. are of a very modern 
 date, no where to be found prior to the time 
 of Henry VIII., when the Episcopal church, 
 with Henry at her head, seceded from the 
 church of Rome, and proclaimed herself "The 
 Church of England." "The king soon after 
 procured the dignified and flattering title of 
 Supreme Head of the Church of England." 
 Brook's Lives of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 2. 
 
 Section III. 
 
 WHY DID THOSE WHO TRANSLATED OUR BIBLE NOT TRANS- 
 LATE BAPTIZE AND ITS DERIVATIONS, WHEN THEY CAME 
 TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ) WHY DID THEY TRANSFER 
 
 THE GREEK WORDS INTO THEIR ENGLISH VERSION 
 
 I answer, just for the same reason that in- 
 duced " the crafty Bishop Gardiner, in the reign 
 of Henry VIII., when he found it impossible 
 longer to withhold an English Testament, to 
 assert, by a popish stratagem, that there were 
 many words in the New Testament of such 
 majesty that they were not to be trans- 
 lated ; but must stand in the English Bible as 
 they were, in Latin. A Hundred of these he 
 
TRANSFERRED? 
 
 77 
 
 put in a written list, which was read in convo- 
 cation. His design in this," says Bishop 
 Burnet, "was visible; that if a translation must 
 be made, it should be so daubed all through 
 with Latin words that the people should not 
 understand it much the better for its being in 
 English." The following are some of the 
 words he wished to retain in Latin : ecclesia, 
 congregation ; penitentia, repentance ; bapti- 
 zare, immerse; simulachrum, image, &c. The 
 design of the cunning papist in keeping the 
 last of these words untranslated must be evi- 
 dent to all, viz. that the people might not dis- 
 cover in bowing down to an image, as they 
 were taught by their priests, that they were 
 acting contrary to {Scripture. I suppose few 
 will be hardy enough to deny that 'such a ver- 
 sion as Bishop Gardiner proposed, was a Bible 
 mutilated and disguised. And wherefore? 
 Because it concealed the meaning of certain 
 words in an unknown tongue. For the same 
 reason, we maintain a Bible with the Greek 
 words Baptizo, Baptisma, and their cognates 
 untranslated, or concealed from the heathen in 
 an unknown tongue, is a Bible mutilated and 
 disguised. 
 
 " The principle violated is the same, whether 
 we conceal two words or a thousand. We 
 have no more right to leave them untranslated 
 in the one case than in the other." 1. " To 
 give the heathen such a mutilated and dis- 
 guised version, is a violation of the great 
 7# 
 
73 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 law of love ; it is not doing to others as we 
 would they should do unto us. 2. To give 
 such a mutilated Bible lo the heathen, is as- 
 suming a right which belongs only to God — 
 the right of deciding how much or how little 
 God shall reveal to man. 3. It is assuming a 
 principle upon which any and every import- 
 ant doctrine might be shut out of the Bible, 
 simply by leaving the words referring to it 
 untranslated." — Dowlin's Address before the 
 American and Foreign Bible Society. 
 
 No one need be at a loss as to the design of 
 Bishop Gardiner and the papal church in keep- 
 ing baptize with other words untranslated. 
 The Church of Rome, arrogating to herself 
 the right of supreme dominion over the faith 
 and consciences of men, decreed that the peo- 
 ple should bow down to images; that they 
 should do penance; that sprinkling should take 
 the place of immersion in the ordinance of 
 baptism ; that the congregations under the do- 
 minion of the Pope constituted the holy Catho- 
 lic church, and other things equally absurd. 
 
 To compose and satisfy the people as to the 
 correctness of her decrees, she had recourse to 
 the convenient method of giving the Bible to 
 them only partly translated ; or with foreign 
 barbarous words substituted for original ones, 
 under the pretext that such words were too sa- 
 cred to admit of a translation, and must, there- 
 fore, in their original forms, be adopted into 
 their versions, while the common people were 
 
TRANSFERRED? 
 
 79 
 
 taught to depend upon the interpretations of 
 the priests. For, according to the doctrine of 
 the Catholic church, " The penitent must sub- 
 mit himself tQ the judgment of the priest, who 
 is the vicegerent of God." — Cat. Council of 
 Trent, p. 183. 
 
 When once the people were persuaded of 
 their duty in trusting implicitly to the teach- 
 ings of the priests, no difficulty remained in the 
 way of imposing upon them any sentiment and 
 practice which might suit the convenience and 
 purpose of their religious guides. 
 
 For a time, the sentiment was quite popular 
 that, the common people were safe in the hands 
 of their bishops and clergy. All that was ne- 
 cessary on their part was profound veneration, 
 and strict obedience. And but for the trouble- 
 some Baptists of those times, who, notwithstand- 
 ing the severity of their persecutors, would 
 occasionally sally forth from their mountain 
 cloisters, whither they had been driven by the 
 arm of ecclesiastical power, and teach the 
 people liberty of conscience, and the right of 
 reading and examining for themselves ; but for 
 these disturbers, things had continued much to 
 the satisfaction of his holiness at Rome.* 
 
 * "Pope Innocent III., in the year 1204, sent the In- 
 quisitors against the heretical Albigenses," as he was 
 pleased to call them, but who, in fact, were Baptists, 
 "who infested the province of Tolouse, and gave them 
 power to proceed against them, to prohibit their books, 
 and to commit them to the Jiames. This was afterwards 
 
80 
 
 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 But when in the course of events there were 
 some not to be pacified without possessing the 
 Bible in their own vernacular tongue, their 
 desires were granted ; but under such restric- 
 tions as should still support the established 
 church of England, and keep the people in ig- 
 norance. 
 
 Several translations of the Bible into the 
 English tongue in whole or in part made their 
 appearance at sundry times, from before the 
 accession of Henry VIII. to the throne of Eng- 
 land, 1509, till our present English version re- 
 ceived the royal sanction of James I., in 1611. 
 
 In preparing his version, King James re- 
 stricted the translators within certain bounds, 
 which left them not at liberty to follow the 
 plain import of certain words, nor the convic- 
 tions of their own conscience; but obliged them to 
 comply, not with a mandate proceeding from 
 the throne of heaven, but with one coming 
 from the throne of England. 
 
 'o' 
 
 confirmed by other Pontiffs, in other provinces. The 
 adoption of the same measures was also obtained from 
 Alexander IV., by St. Louis, for France; and from Pius 
 IV., by the emperor Charles V , for Spain, and for the 
 provinces under their subjection." — Alphonsus de Ligo- 
 rio de Prohib. Libros. p. 237-8. 
 
 " The same was also prohibited by the councils of Je- 
 rusalem, Mechlin, Camarace, and many other councils, 
 which mav be seen in a work published at Paris, in the 
 year 166i, by command of the clergy of France, under 
 the title of ' A collection of the authors who have expres- 
 ly condemned ihe translation of the sacred Scriptures into 
 tlic vu/gur tongue." — St. de Ligori, Id. p. 224. 
 
TRANSFERRED? gl 
 
 To the translators the king gave several 
 rules, " by them to be most carefully observed." 
 These rules tended, as they were designed, to 
 favour the established Church of England, no 
 less than Bishop Gardiner's rules, in their ten- 
 dency and design, favoured the established 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 In proof whereof, and for your better satis- 
 faction, I will transcribe the first three of the 
 rules, which, in a very special manner, go- 
 verned the translation now in common use; 
 and entirely governed it, so far as the non- 
 translation of certain words is concerned. 
 
 These rules are as follows: 
 
 1. " The ordinary Bible read in the church, 
 commonly called the Bishop's Bible, to be fol- 
 lowed, and as little altered as the original will 
 permit. 
 
 2. "The names of prophets, and the holy 
 writers, with the other names in the text, to be 
 retained as near as may be, accordingly as 
 they are vulgarly used. 
 
 3. " The old ecclesiastical words to be kept ; 
 as the word church, not to be translated congre- 
 gation ;" the words baptize, baptism, not to be 
 translated immerse, immersion ; the word bishop 
 not to be translated overseer, &c. 
 
 Such were the rules imposed upon the trans- 
 lators of our Bible, " by them to be most care- 
 fully observed." 
 
 Such, too, were the rules by which the trans- 
 lators were most willing to be guided, since it 
 
82 
 
 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 was their interest, no less than their king's, 
 to support the established church. No one at 
 all acquainted with the state of affairs in Eng- 
 land, and indeed among other nations where 
 religion is established by law, need be informed 
 of the very special pecuniary interest, bishops 
 and priests have in keeping up a union between 
 church and state. They have their living, as 
 it is termed ; and in too many instances, they 
 have it without lifting a finger to earn it ! I A 
 fat living, drawn from the people in penury 
 and want ! ! ! 
 
 And in this you see why the Bishop's Bible, 
 as it is called, was made the example or model 
 of king James' Bible.* 
 
 * It is well worth our while to spend a moment in view- 
 ing- the chain of connexion which extends between our 
 commonly received English Bible, and the Roman Catho- 
 lic Bible, i. e. the Latin vulgate, which was the first to 
 transfer baptize and other words, rather than translate 
 them. 
 
 John Wicliff, the great pioneer in the way of trans- 
 lating the Bible into the English language, made the 
 vulgate, by all acknowledged to be very defective, the 
 model of his version; which, says the Encyclopaedia Bri- 
 tannica, "is a very literal translation from the Latin vul- 
 gate." 
 
 The translations which succeeded to "Wicliflf's, were 
 little else than improved revisions of his version. There 
 were reasons for copying more or less closely, some of 
 the peculiar features of Wic iff's version, not only be- 
 cause it was the first of the kind, and executed by a great 
 man; but also because, at that time, it whs the next thing 
 to death, if not death itself, to translate the Scriptures 
 into the English tongue, especially should any dare to 
 translate the ecclesiastical words; and further, he who 
 
TRANSFERRED? 
 
 83 
 
 None of the Bibles translated before the 
 Bishop's version, in 1568, could in any con- 
 siderable degree satisfy the established church. 
 
 ventured to expose his life by bringing 1 forth to the peo- 
 ple an English version, had to withdraw from public 
 view, to hide himself in some sequestered retreat, where 
 he might escape the observation of the church of Home; 
 added to which, in such a state of excitement and soli- 
 tude, many of the advantages which a translator might 
 enjoy under other circumstances, were now denied him. 
 
 The venerable Wicliff, and some of his successors in 
 the great and daring work of giving the word of life to 
 man in an English dress, acting upon the received maxim, 
 that " Half a loaf is belter than no bread," retained in 
 their respective versions more or less of the ecclesiasti- 
 cal words as they found them in the authorized Roman 
 Bible. 
 
 Some were more venturesome in giving full translations 
 than others. None half so much so as the renowned 
 Tyndale, who, in many respects, has given a better and 
 more faithful translation of the New Testament than that 
 now in common use. But it cost him his life! He died 
 a martyr to the truth, under the tyranny of the persecut- 
 ing and capricious Henry VIIL, King and "Supreme 
 Head of the Church of England." In September, 1536, 
 he suffered the dreadful sentence which condemned him 
 to the flames for no other crime than putting into his 
 version of the New Testament congregation instead of 
 church; love, rather than charity,- favour, instead oi' grace, 
 &c. But his desire to promote the good of souls, by giv- 
 ing to the world the Holy Bible faithfully translated, his 
 ruling passion, was strong in death. While bound to the 
 stake, his dying voice was distinctly heard in his fervent 
 intercessions for his royal persecutor. " Lord, open the 
 King of England's eyes," and he died. But his transla- 
 tion lives to inform us that "church" is a word which 
 ought never to have been adopted into an English Bible, 
 and that it, together with all the words termed ecclesiasti- 
 cal, ought to have been so rendered as to make known its 
 original import. 
 
84 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 During the reign of Edward VI. much was 
 done to aid forward the Reformation ; chiefly 
 
 In 1535, one year before the martyrdom of the 
 blessed Tyndale, who gave his life for the truth, Bishop 
 Coverdale translated the Bible into English. But he 
 rendered his version less obnoxious to the king", to whom 
 it was dedicated, as follows: " Unto the most victorious 
 Prynce, and our most gracyous Soveraynge Lord, King 
 Henry the Eyghth, Kynge of England, Defender of the 
 Faith, &x." From this dedication, and other circum- 
 stances, there can be little doubt that Bishop Cover- 
 dale furnished his translation at the instance of the king, 
 if not by his royal mandate. 
 
 For Henry, when commanding his subjects to "detest 
 and abhor" Tyndale's translation of the New Testament, 
 promised them, as an inducement to comply with his 
 command, that "he would cause the New Testament to 
 be by learned men, faithfully and purely translated into 
 the English tongue." Moreover, there was a royal in- 
 junction making it the duty of the parson of every parish 
 church within the realm, to furnish his particular congre- 
 gation with two copies of the Bible, one in Latin, and 
 the other in English, that every man, if he be so disposed, 
 might come and read. 
 
 Now Coverdale translated not, as he ought, out of the 
 original Hebrew and Greek .Scriptures, but as he ac- 
 knowledges, "out of the Latin and Dutch." Still keep- 
 ing the Latin vulgate as the model after which to shape in 
 certain respects every after version. 
 
 Two years later, 1537, what is called Thomas Mat- 
 thew's Bible appeared. That this version also was pre- 
 pared and printed by the order of the king there can be 
 no doubt, as the title page evidently shows; "set forlhe 
 by the king's most gracyous license." There can be little 
 question that Coverdale lent no inconsiderable aid in 
 furnishing this work for the press. 
 
 In 1539, Cranmer's Bible appeared in large folio, on 
 which account it was called the great Bible. 
 
 Matthew's Bible did not give any general satisfaction. 
 
TRANSFERRED? 
 
 85 
 
 by repealing those wicked acts of parliament, 
 passed in the reign of his father, Henry VIII. 
 
 It was marked with too near an affinity with Tyndale's. 
 It was particularly liable to objection, because some of 
 Tyndale's notes had been introduced into it. This was 
 enough to condemn it for ever in the mind of the esta- 
 blished church. Every thing- that bore the name of Tyn- 
 dale was highly displeasing- to Henry and his court, who 
 controlled all religious affairs. 
 
 Cranmer, to gratify the king, revised Matthew's Bible, 
 and adapted it nearer to his majesty's pleasure, and less 
 repugnant to the bishops and clergy. That the reader may 
 be made somewhat accpiainted with the great opposition 
 which prevailed in common among the friends of Roman- 
 ism and those of the English church, against Tyndale's 
 translation of the New Testament, 1 will here transcribe 
 some few passages from two of their writers, Dr. Martia 
 and Sir Thomas More. Dr. Martin, reader of divinity to 
 the College at Doway, says, "The Catholicke church of 
 our countrie did not il to furbid and burne suche bookes 
 which were so translated by Tyndal and the like, as be- 
 ing not indeede God's booke, word, or scripture but the 
 divel's word." Discoverie of the Corrup. of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, p. 65. Sir Thomas More, after having mentioned 
 the following errors in Tyndale's translation, viz. his 
 making use of the words " knowledge" rather than "con- 
 fession,-" "congregation" for "church,-" "repentance" sub- 
 stituted for " penance,-" " love" for " charity,-" and "senior" 
 for "priest," says, "he," Tyndale, " wolde make ye peo- 
 ple byleve that we shoulde beleve nothyng but playne 
 scrypture, in which poynte he techeth a playne pestylent 
 heresye." Again, Sir Thomas says, "he wolde advyse 
 any man neither to rede these heretykes bokes nor mine, 
 but occupy theyr myndes better, and standynge fermely 
 by the Catholyke faith of this XV. C. yere, never onys 
 muse uppon these newe-fangled heresy es ; but if at the pe- 
 rell if daynger to burne both here and in hell, he cannot 
 hold his yachynge fyngers frame theysepoysened bokes, then 
 would I counsayle hym in any wyse to rede therewith such 
 8 
 
86 
 
 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 which prohibited the translation of the Bible. 
 But no sooner was Elizabeth, as also her sister 
 and immediate royal predecessor, sealed upon 
 the throne of England, than she gave dire 
 proof of being in love with the aspect of things 
 as in the times of her father Henry. In Janu- 
 ary, 1558, an act was passed in parliament for 
 restoring to the crown the former jurisdiction 
 over all ecclesiastical affairs. Soon after the 
 design was formed to secure a new translation 
 of the Bible under the direction of Bishop 
 Parker, who was devoted to the interests of 
 Queen Elizabeth and the church establishment. 
 His version was compiled, and elegantly print- 
 ed in the year 1568, and called the Bishops' 
 Bible. This version claimed to be nothing 
 more than a revision of Cranmer's Bible, as 
 Bishop Parker said himself in his preface, "The 
 revisers were directed to follow the former 
 translation, (Cranmer's) more than any other." 
 Now the Bishops' Bible was purposely pre- 
 pared to suit the times and wishes of Queen 
 Elizabeth,* and all may know what kind of a 
 
 thyng-es as are wrytten ag-ainst them." Again, "Tyn- 
 dale's heresies farre exceed and passe; and incomparably 
 offende the majestie of our Lorde God, than all the set- 
 tynge uppe of Bell, and Baal, and Belzabub, and all the 
 devyls in hell." Confutation, pp. 36. 96. 
 
 * C. Butler, Esq. styles it "the F.piscopal translation, 
 made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, under the direction 
 of Matthew Parker, the celebrated Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury." See his Horse Biblicx, p. 123, edit, of 1799. 
 
 In what respect it was held by the friends of the Refor- 
 
TRANSFERRED? 
 
 87 
 
 Bible would suit her royal favour, by acquaint- 
 ing themselves with her character and doings. 
 Says her biographer, in the Encyclopaedia 
 Britanica, "Doubtless she was a woman of 
 singular capacity and extraordinary acquire- 
 ments; and if we could forget the story of the 
 Scottish Mary, and of her favourite Essex, to- 
 gether with the burning of a few Anabaptists; 
 in short, could we forbear to contemplate her 
 character through the medium of religion and 
 morality, we might pronounce her the most 
 illustrious of illustrious women." But her illus- 
 trious character has been so sullied by deeds 
 of infamy and cruelly, as to render it impos- 
 4ble to be regilded.* 
 
 mation, may be learned by the nickname it received 
 among* some not friendly to the established church, viz. 
 " Elizabeth's opposition Bible.'* 
 
 * The accession of Queen Elizabeth to the throne was, 
 at first, cause of great joy to the promoters of the Refor- 
 mation. They anticipated better things than had fallen, 
 to their lot during- the reign of her inhuman sister, whose 
 "death was lamented only by her popish clergy." But 
 in such anticipations they were much disappointed. 
 
 Elizabeth manifested little pleasure in lending- her royal 
 influence for the promotion of any reform which inter- 
 fered in the least with the union of church and state. 
 Among- the first acts of her parliament, the two bloody 
 and famous acts, entitled "The Act of Supremacy," and 
 "The Act of Uniformity of Common Prayer," were 
 passed. The former gave, rise to a new ecclesiastical 
 court, called " The Court of High Commission, which, 
 by the exercise of its unlimited power and authority, 
 became the engine of inconceivable oppression to multi- 
 tudes of the Queen's best subjects. The latter Act at- 
 
88 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 Now this Bishops', or, if you please, Eliza- 
 beth's Bible, was made the model of King James' 
 version. Why, I ask, did the king make the 
 Bishops' Bible the model of his translation? 
 There was nothing in it that should have so 
 highly recommended it to his royal favour. 
 Indeed, the very auspices under which it was 
 introduced into the church, ought to have 
 taught his highness that it formed but a very 
 poor exemplar for him to follow ! Why did 
 not the king adopt the Hebrew and Greek 
 Scriptures, the very languages in which the 
 divine messages were indited by the Holy 
 Spirit, and make them the worthy models of 
 
 tempted, indeed, to establish a perfect uniformity in 
 public worship; but it could never be effected." 
 
 By her royal proclamation, she sent forth hev Jiffy dis- 
 tinct injunctions. " She still retained a crucifix upon the 
 altar, with lights burning before it in her own chapel, when 
 three bishops officiated, all in rich copes before the idol. 
 Instead of Stripping" religion of the numerous pompous 
 ceremonies with which it was encumbered, she was in- 
 clined rather to keep it as near as possible to the Romish 
 ritual; and even some years after her accession, one of 
 her chaplains having- preached in defence of the real pre- 
 sence, she presented her public thanks to him for his 
 pains and piety. Her majesty having appointed a com- 
 mittee of divines to review king Edward's liturgy, she 
 commanded them to strike out all passages offensive to 
 the pope, and to make the people easy about the corpo- 
 real presence of Christ in the sacrament. The liturgy 
 was, therefore, exceedingly well fitted to the approbation 
 of the papists." Brooks' Lives of the Puritans, vol. i. 
 pp. 18, 19. Bishop Burnet's His. vol. ii. Heylin's His. 
 p, 124, edit. 1670. Strype's Annals, vol. i. pp. 41 — 44, 69 
 
TRANSFERRED? gg 
 
 his new version? And now, forsooth, all Pedo- 
 baptists, every where, make King James' Bible 
 and the Latin vulgate the unworthy models of 
 their translations.* 
 
 * The Managers of the American Bible Society, on the 
 17th of February, 1836, resolved that they will not aid in 
 translating, printing, or distributing any version of the 
 sacred Scriptures which does not conform in the principle of 
 its translation, to the common English version. One of the 
 interpreters of that resolution says, the English version 
 is a specimen. Here let the reader distinctly observe the 
 rule by which all the missionaries in connexion with this 
 society are, for the future, to be guided in their transla- 
 tions of the Bible into foreign languages, viz. according to 
 the English version. Then, according- to their own inter- 
 pretation of their resolution, the English version is not 
 simply a rule, but a specimen,- that is, an example or pattern 
 which the translator is to follow, in giving- the word of 
 life to the millions of deathless spirits who need the 
 whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and to whom we 
 are bound by every sentiment of piety, justice, and hu- 
 manity, to give the sacred Scriptures entire, that they 
 may read in their own "tongues the wonderful works of 
 God." But now the missionary who has left the endear- 
 ments of home and gospel light, and gone far distant into 
 heathen lands to bear messages of salvation, sits down to 
 give to the heathen a knowledge of the way of life, after 
 twenty years toil and hard labour in acquiring an ac- 
 quaintance with the language, customs, and manners of 
 the people whom he wishes to bless with the pure word 
 of God. He opens before him the Hebrew and Greek 
 Scriptures with a prayerful solicitude to express, in the 
 translation which he is about to make, precisely, if pos- 
 sible, the sense of the inspired writer; neither to take 
 from or add to the word of God. But the English ver- 
 sion lies unfolded at his elbow, upon which he must keep 
 an attentive eye. In the progress of his heavy task, he 
 meets now and then with a word, the meaning of which 
 8# 
 
90 
 
 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 We ask our Pedobaptist brethren why they 
 should make their translations of the Scrip- 
 
 the English version does not express. Perhaps the ori- 
 ginal word is not translated, only transferred, or conveyed 
 over from one language to another. He pauses! He prays! 
 He reads the Greek text, and understands its precise im- 
 port ! He then turns to his English Bible, and there he finds 
 the Greek word not translated, but adopted into that ver- 
 sion; and if he follows the English Bible as a specimen of 
 hiding from the heathen a divine and positive institution 
 of the gospel, he must give them Greek without a Gram- 
 mar or Lexicon by which they may understand the im- 
 port of those Greek, to them barbarous terms. What 
 now shall this missionary do? The English version is a 
 specimen, or an example of handling the word of God, 
 from which he is not to deviate, and yet that version blots 
 out what God lias made plain. Shall he translate, or shall 
 he transfer? Shall he select a word which the heathen 
 understand, and which means precisely the same as the 
 original Greek word, and put that into the version which 
 he is making? or shall he adopt into his translation the 
 Greek word which the heathen do not and cannot under- 
 stand? Shall he obey God, or shall he obey man? Shall 
 he remember that holy men wrote the Scriptures as they 
 were moved upon by the holy God ? or shall he forget the 
 gracious influences of the Spirit, which determined in 
 the minds of those who wrote the Scriptures, the use of 
 the very words in relation to the disposal of which, his 
 mind is now vacillating? Shall he, in fine, follow as a 
 guide the import of the original language in which the 
 truth of God was revealed to the world? or shall he fol- 
 low a version made by fallible and erring men; who, in 
 many respects, did justice to their translation; but who, 
 owing to prepossessed opinions in favour of certain prac- 
 tices, which time and the decrees of councils had ren- 
 dered dear to them, and owing to the direction of their 
 king, to make their vers, on conform in certain particu- 
 lars to a Bishop's Bible, did depart from the evident and 
 only path in which a translator should constantly abide? 
 
TRANSFERRED ? 
 
 91 
 
 tures after the example of James' version, and 
 not after the original Scriptures? Why not 
 
 While the missionary is thus solemnly impressed with 
 a sense of his fearful responsibility before God, his final 
 judge, and knows that his commission from heaven should 
 weigh down every other consideration; and knows, too, 
 that the English version does not express the sense of some 
 parts of the Bible; while he is solemnly impressed with a 
 sense of these things, he looks around him, he finds him- 
 self far away from kindred and friends to whom he can 
 look for the least support; he thinks of his wife and little 
 ones, dear to his soul, as he puts forth his trembling hand 
 to the commission which he received from the Pedobap- 
 tist Board that sent him forth, and here he finds that he 
 is forbidden to translate the "ecclesiastical words," such 
 as relate to the ordinance of baptism, and some others, 
 on pain of being excluded all further support from that 
 Board which sent him into his foreign field.' ! ! The Pedo- 
 baptist missionary translators are compelled, on pain of 
 exclusion from the patronage of the Board, not to trans- 
 late, but to transfer those words called "ecclesiastical." 
 They are not left to act in the fear of God, but forced to 
 comply with the party feelings and wishes of the Pedo- 
 baptist Bible Society, called the "American Bible Society. 
 
 Now, Baptists cannot, dare not favour such a principle 
 of translation. Baptists charge their missionary transla- 
 tors to express in their versions the very sense of the ori- 
 ginal text. The Baptist Board makes it the duty of all 
 their missionaries to be guided in their translations of the 
 Holy Scriptures, not by the version of king James, or 
 Bishop Parker, or king Henry, but by the original of 
 King Jesus. 
 
 Following this principle, in giving to the heathen the 
 word of life, is the enormous sin which has excluded Bap- 
 tists from any consistent participation with, and from the 
 patronage of the "American Bible Society. " But we 
 glory in the principle, while our Pedobaptist brethren 
 oppose it. 
 
92 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 go back to the very fountain where you find 
 the word of the Lord in its purest state, and 
 thence draw for the healing of the nations? 
 Why not make the Hebrew and Greek origi- 
 nals, and not James' version, your pattern? 
 
 James' translation, or more properly, revi- 
 sion of earlier translations, was prepared by, 
 and designed for the established church of 
 England. Well did the cunning sovereign 
 order that the Bishops' Bible should be closely 
 followed! that the old ecclesiastical words should 
 be retained! 
 
 But, as I before remarked, the king had a 
 design no less than Bishop Parker, Bishop 
 Cranmer, Bishop Gardiner, and Henry VIII., 
 all of whom had a church established by law in 
 their eye, and the Scriptures, when translated, 
 must be so guarded and moulded as not to in- 
 terfere with this darling object of their aspir- 
 ing ambition, nor subject them, in their arro- 
 gant importance, to the humility and fancied 
 inconvenience of being immersed so long as 
 they could suppress their convictions of con- 
 science, and satisfy themselves with being 
 sprinkled. But to do this, the old ecclesiasti- 
 cal words must not be faithfully translated into 
 English. To show you still further the great 
 injustice, that must characterize a translation 
 executed upon such a contracted party policy 
 as that which seeks to accomplish its aims by 
 covering up in an unknown tongue, such por- 
 tions of the word of God, which, if fairly trans- 
 
TRANSFERRED ? 
 
 93 
 
 lated, would betray the invalidity of their prac- 
 tices ; let me direct your attention to Acts 
 xii. 4, where our English Bible has Easter, 
 whereas passover is the correct translation of 
 the original word. 
 
 The Greek word for passover, is rtacr^a, 
 pascha. But our translators neither gave us 
 the Greek word, nor yet a translation of it. 
 To support, from the Scripture, the idea of 
 Easter-Sunday and Easter-day, &c, they sup- 
 press the original word which the Holy Ghost 
 moved the inspired penmen to use, and em- 
 ployed the Saxon word Easter, which is the 
 name of the goddess Eastera, worshiped by 
 the Saxons, and in honour of whom, sacrifices 
 were annually offered. Now in this they com- 
 mit two evils. They suppressed or blotted out 
 the import of the word as intended by the 
 apostle, and then introduced another word 
 with a sense entirely different from that 
 which the original signifies. Concealing from 
 the understanding of the people the idea of 
 passover, they adopt the name of a heathen 
 goddess, making it stand for a festive-day, sa- 
 credly to be observed, as of divine appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Such too is the liberty which our translators 
 were obliged to take with other words, accord- 
 ing to the rules imposed upon them by the king, 
 to support an ecclesiastical establishment. 
 
 The Greek word fxxtojsca, ecclesia, signifies an 
 assembly or congregation ; and when applied 
 
94 VVHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 to a community of faithful and devoted fol- 
 lowers of Christ, voluntarily united to maintain 
 the visible worship of God, it means a religious 
 or Christian congregation. 
 
 But by suppressing the original import of 
 the Greek word, and adopting the German 
 word church (kirch,) they make it to signify 
 an ecclesiastical establishment, a synod of clergy 
 or presbyters; the pope himself as head of the 
 church; a general council; and by a figure of 
 speech, it is made to mean the building in 
 which ecclesiastical bodies assemble. See 
 Watts' Logic, part i. civ. § 6.* 
 
 With no better show of reason is the word 
 bishop, instead of overseer put into our Bible, 
 underthe design of keeping up the illusive ideaoi 
 a distinction among ministers in point of power 
 
 * Mr. J. Home Tooke in his Diversions of Parley, has 
 the following- remark: "Church, for instance, (Domiui- 
 cum, aliquid) is an adjective; and formerly a must wicked 
 one,- whose misinterpretation caused more slaughter and 
 pillage of mankind, than all the other cheats tog-ether." 
 First Amer. edition, vol. ii. p. 15, 402. 
 
 This same patriotic individual, alike observant of the 
 wrong's practiced both in church and state, with Hardy, 
 Thelwall and others, members of the London Correspond- 
 ing Society, was indicted for high treason because he 
 maintained the right of the people to an equal represent- 
 ation in the parliament of Great Britain. In this com- 
 mendable effort Tooke and his coadjutors were strenu- 
 ously opposed by the bishops of Fug and. 
 
 The very patriotic spirit of Mr. Tooke is evinced in the 
 case of his raising a subscription in England to relieve 
 the sufferings of the citizens of Boston, when the mar- 
 shal laws were enforced against them, for opposing Bri- 
 tish taxation, and for destroying the tea. 
 
TRANSFERRED ? 95 
 
 of conferring ordination, &c. No such grade of 
 superior power lodged in some ministers to lord 
 it over others, has any foundation in the original 
 Scriptures. 
 
 By this long, though, I would hope, not un- 
 important digression from our subject, you 
 will be enabled to see why baptize, baptism, &c. 
 are not translated but transferred into our 
 English Bible. To translate them would be- 
 tray the erroneous practice of the church of 
 England, and force all her bishops and minis- 
 ters to confess that they had been in an egre- 
 gious error, and that the Baptists were right. 
 To save themselves such deep mortification, 
 says Mr. Calderwood, an assembly of bishops, 
 convened, A. D. 1604, reported to King James 
 that "they found all doctrines, ceremonies and 
 discipline well'm the church; and with great ear- 
 nestness, upon their knees, craved that nothing 
 might be altered, Jest Romishrecusants, punished 
 by the statutes for their disobedience, and Pu- 
 ritans, punished by deprivation from callings 
 and livings for nonconformity, should say they 
 had cause to insult them, as men who had tra- 
 vailed to bind them to that, which by their own 
 mouths was now confessed to be erroneous." 
 Hist, of Reform. Scot. 474, and Hist. Account 
 of further Attempts for Reformation, p. 34. 
 
 The king was not backward in granting the 
 fervent request of his prelatical petitioners. 
 Royal orders were issued obliging all who 
 were dissatisfied with the church establishment 
 
96 
 
 WHY WAS BAPTIZE 
 
 and her customs, to a strict conformity, on pain 
 of being removed. The very words of King 
 James I. were, "If any be of an opposite and 
 turbulent spirit, I will have them enforced to a 
 conformity." Rapin, vol. ii. 162. 
 
 " The king intimated that he would have 
 regard to the tender consciences of such Ca- 
 tholics as could not comply with the received 
 doctrines of the church of England; but in 
 this there was not the least indulgence for the 
 tender consciences of the Puritans. These 
 were all a set of obstinate people, who de- 
 served to have no favour shown them." Ra- 
 pin's Hist, of England, vol. ii. 163. 
 
 Well did Bishop Burnet observe, respecting 
 the king, "That from the year 1606, to his 
 dying day, he continued always writing and 
 talking against popery, but acting for it." 
 History of his own times, vol. i. 12. 
 
 Such was King James, and such, so far as 
 promoted his ambition, and church establish- 
 ment, is his translation of the Bible, which was 
 conformed to his own pleasure in union with the 
 pleasure of his bishops and clergy.* 
 
 * Dr. Geddes says, "The truth is, and why should it 
 not be spoken, that James' translators did little more 
 than copy the Genevan version ; the difference being on 
 the pari, of the former, chiefly in a more scrupulous adhe- 
 sion to the letter of the original, and in the superabundant 
 insertion of italics to supply its apparent deficiency. 1 
 will venture to affirm, and that with fullest conviction, that 
 James' translators have less merit than any of their prede- 
 
TRANSFERRED ? 97 
 
 This is the translation, which, according to 
 Pedobaptists, must be made the model of all 
 succeeding translations !* 
 
 King James of Erigland, and not King Jesus 
 of Zlon, Is, by our Pedobaptist brethren, made 
 to control the translation of the word of life ! ! /f 
 
 cessors, and that the version of Tyndale, revised by Cover- 
 dab, is a far jusier representation of the original!" 
 
 Such is the opinion of one of the most learned of men, 
 and a Pedobaptist by profession. Such too is the strong 1 
 language he employs in expressing his opinion relative 
 to the imperfections of our English Bible, called King 
 James' version, because prepared by his authority and 
 printed for his use in the established English church. 
 This is the Bible now adopted as an example of all Pedo- 
 baptist translations! 
 
 * By keeping the word baptize untranslated, and left 
 to priests for an interpretation, it can be made to mean 
 just what they please, whether sprinkling-, pouring, 
 washing, purifying, wetting, crossing, &c, and the peo- 
 ple be none the wiser. Well did the learned Mr. Van 
 Mildert observe respecting the daring presumption of man 
 in appropriating the words of Scripture to support his 
 own notions, " The privilege of using the word may be arro- 
 gant I ;/ monopolised by the ministers." — Bampt. Lee. p. 217. 
 
 j" During the reign of King James I., and not long* 
 after the famous assembly of divines and lords at West- 
 minster, and little subsequent to the time when "the 
 said assembly presented to parliament the confession of 
 faith, the larger and shorter catechisms, the directory of 
 public worship, and their humble advice concerning church, 
 government ,•" and bound themselves by a bond of union, 
 entitled, " A solemn league and covenant for reforma- 
 tion and defence of religion, the honour and happiness 
 of the king, and the peace and safety of the three king- 
 doms of England, Scotland and Ireland" — a little after 
 these things, Mr. Brooks says: 
 
 "An ordinance soon passed to set aside the Book of 
 
98 IMPORT OF THE 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 THE IMPORT OF THE TERM BAPTIZE, AS LAID DOWN IN 
 OUR MOST APPROVED LEXICONS. 
 
 Let us inquire still further, what our Saviour 
 meant, when he used the Greek word baptize; 
 and hereby again show that the ordinance of 
 
 Common Prayer, and to establish the directory. The 
 Presbyterians now gaining- the ascendancy, discovered a 
 strong propensity to grasp at the same arbitrary power 
 as that under which they had formerly, and for a long 
 time groaned. The parliament published two ordi- 
 nances, one against the preaching of unordained minis- 
 ters, the other against blasphemy and heresy; both of 
 which became the engines of oppression and persecu- 
 tion. The latter, says Mr. Neal, is one of the most 
 shocking laws 1 ever met with in restraint of religious 
 liberty, and shows that the governing Presbyterians would 
 have made a terrible use of their power, had they been 
 supported by the sword of the civil magistrate. Several 
 ministers of puritan principles became sufferers by these 
 ordinances. Mr. Clarkson having embraced the senti- 
 ments of the anti-Pedobaptists, was cast into prison, and 
 required to recant for the marvellous sin of dipping. Mr. 
 Lamb, Mr. Denne, and Mr. Kno l\s, all of the same de- 
 nomination, were apprehended and committed to prison. 
 Mi'. Knollys was afterwards prosecuted at the session, 
 and sent prisoner to London. Mr. Cotes was tried for 
 his life, but acquitted. Mr. Piddle was cast into prison, 
 where he remained seven years." — Brooks, Vol. i. pp. 
 93, 94. 
 
 All these things, and vastly more than I can here men- 
 tion, did Baptists sufier for the "marvellous sin of 
 dipping." 
 
TERM BAPTIZE. 
 
 99 
 
 baptism can be administered, only by an im- 
 mersion of the body of believers. 
 
 Now for a full conviction of this truth it is 
 necessary, in the first place, to ascertain the 
 true import of the word baptize, as laid down in 
 our most approved lexicons, where the word is 
 explained, not only as understood by the lexi- 
 cographers themselves, but also, as substan- 
 tiated by referring to its meaning as used by 
 both sacred and classic, authors. These lexi- 
 cographers were such men and scholars as 
 not to admit of the least reasonable suspicion 
 that they would wish to favour Baptist views 
 of the word in question. Much the more so, 
 in this case, since they are entirely disinte- 
 rested, or such whose prejudices are all in 
 favour of Pedohaptist views, and who would 
 have been glad to have found some authority 
 to justify sprinkling as one of the definitions 
 of baptize. Rut as honest men, seven fold 
 better acquainted with the Greek tongue than 
 most of those who affect to judge them, they 
 gave to baptize no definition which can in 
 any way favour sprinkling or pouring. 
 
 James Donnegan, M. D., in his royal octavo 
 lexicon, printed first at London, England, and 
 reprinted at Boston, U. S., under the judicious 
 band of R. B. Pation, has given to the verb 
 baptize the following definitions: " to immerse 
 into a liquid; to submerge" [?'. e. put or plunge 
 under water ;] " to soak thoroughly, to saturate ; 
 to drench; to dip in a vessel and draw; pass. 
 
100 
 
 IMPORT OF THE 
 
 perf., to be immersed. Metaphor, to confound 
 totally:' 
 
 To the noun baptism he gave, "immersion; 
 submersion; the act of washing or bathing:'' 
 
 Mr. Greenfield, in his excellent Polymiorian 
 Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, defines 
 baptize as follows: "to immerse, immerge, sub- 
 merge, sink ; to trash, perform ablution, cleanse ; 
 to immerse, administer the rite of baptism; met. 
 to overwhelm one with arty thing, to bestow liber- 
 ally, imbue largely ; pass, to be immersed in, or 
 overwhelmed with miseries, oppressed with ca- 
 lamities:' 
 
 The indefatigable E. Robinson, of Andover, 
 Mass., in his "Greek and English Lexicon of 
 the New Testament, from the Clavis Philolo- 
 gica of Christ. Abr. Wahl, of Saxony," gives 
 the same definitions to baptize as Mr. Green- 
 field. 
 
 I shall mention the definitions given to bap- 
 tize and baptism, but by one more lexicogra- 
 pher, the pious and excellent Dr. J. Jones, with 
 whose accurate judgment, every competent 
 scholar and critic concurs. 
 
 Baptize, " to plunge ; to plunge in ivater, 
 to dip ; to bury, overwhelm" 
 
 Baptism, " immersion ; met. plunging in 
 affliction:' 
 
 Now let it be observed, that not one of these 
 authors, and to the same effect might be 
 quoted every lexicographer of acknowledged 
 authority, both in Scripture and classic Greek, 
 
TERM BAPTIZE. 10 j 
 
 not one of them gives to baptize the definition 
 sprinkle or pour. They would have done so, 
 could they have found one solitary example 
 in the whole compass of the Greek language 
 where baptize could, in any justice, be ren- 
 dered sprinhle or pour. 
 
 But no such example could be found ; there- 
 fore, as men, enjoying a high reputation in the 
 learned world, they rose above that littleness 
 which, out of deference to some favourite sect, 
 seeks, on the one hand, to append unauthorized 
 definitions to words; and, on the other, pre- 
 tends that the same words are incapable of a 
 translation. 
 
 Moreover, you will perceive that all their 
 definitions express or imply immersion. 
 
 The first and primary idea is immersion, 
 immerse, submerge, plunge or dip into any 
 thing. 
 
 The secondary idea is to soak thoroughly, to 
 saturate, to wash, to drench. 
 
 Please take notice : do you immerse, plunge 
 or dip, a thing barely by pouring or sprinkling 
 it? Can you ivash a thing merely by sprink- 
 ling? Does a laundress wash her clothes by 
 sprinkling or pouring them? 
 
 Equally absurd is the idea of soaking or 
 drenching a thing by a mere sprinkling. A 
 few citations from eminent writers will abun- 
 dantly show that these words have meanings 
 kindred to an immersion or plunging into 
 the water. 
 9# 
 
102 IMPORT OF THE 
 
 " Drill'd through the sandy stratum every way, 
 The waters with the sandy stratum rise, 
 And clear and sweeten as they soak along 1 ." 
 
 Thomson. 
 
 " Mine is the drenching in the sea so wan." 
 
 Chaucer. 
 
 So WiclifF translates the last clause of Matt, 
 xviii. 6, " he be drenched in the deepness of 
 the sea ;" and of Mark v. 13, " The flock was 
 cast down in the sea, a two thousand, and 
 they were drenched in the sea." 
 
 Hence you will observe, that all the defini- 
 tions which these lexicons give to baptize, 
 either distinctly express, or imply immersion. 
 
 And this accords with the judgment of that 
 distinguished scholar and critic, Dr. G. Camp- 
 bell, principal of Marischal college, Aberdeen. 
 " The word baptize, both in sacred authors and 
 in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to im- 
 merse ; and was rendered by Tertullian, the 
 oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term 
 used for dying cloth, which teas by immer- 
 sion. It is always construed suitably to this 
 meaning. (See his Notes on Matt. iii. 11.) 
 
 Nor is the metaphorical or figurative use of 
 the word baptize less strikingly significant. It 
 has its entire force from the idea of a full and 
 complete immersion. Strip it of this idea and 
 you render its figurative import most singu- 
 larly tame and spiritless. 
 
 What other idea than that of immersion 
 mustCowper have conceived when he wrote: 
 
TERM BAPTIZE. JQ3 
 
 "Philosophy, baptized 
 In the pure fountain of eternal love, 
 Has eyes indeed ; and, viewing- all she sees 
 As meant to indicate a God to man, 
 Gives him his praise, and forfeits not her own." 
 
 What are we to understand by the defini- 
 tions, " to plunge in afflictions ;" " to imbue 
 largely;" "to confound totally;" "to be 
 immersed in or overwhelmed ivith miseries ;" 
 " to be oppressed with calamities?" what are 
 we to understand by these and such like ex- 
 pressions, if not an idea consonant with an 
 immersion ? Does a mere sprinkling of 
 cares, of sufferings, of business, of knowledge, 
 or of calamities, oppress, confound, largely 
 imbue, and overwhelm us ? 
 
 Did our blessed Saviour mean that a mere 
 sprinkling of sufferings awaited him when he 
 said, " I have a baptism to be baptized with, 
 and how am I straitened till it be accom- 
 plished !" No, my brethren, our Saviour 
 never passed the scenes of the garden and 
 the cross without suffering infinitely more 
 than a sprinkling or a pouring! His holy 
 soul was plunged, as into a sea of affliction, 
 when in the garden and on the cross, he said, 
 " My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto 
 death." " My God, my God, why hast thou 
 forsaken me?' 
 
 "The*metaphor," says Dr. Whitby, " of bap- 
 tism or immersion in water, or being put 
 under floods, is also familiar in Scripture, to 
 
I Q4 IMPORT, &c. 
 
 signify a person overwhelmed with calamities; 
 as when the psalmist complains that, ' all thy 
 waves and thy billows are gone over me, 9 
 Ps. xlii. 7. ' Save me, God, for the waters 
 are come in unto ?ny soul. 9 ' / am come 
 into deep waters where the floods overflow 
 me. 9 lxix. 1, 2. See also Ps. lxxxviii. 7. Cant, 
 viii. 7. Jer. xlvii. 2. Ezek. xxvi. 19. Dan. ix. 
 26. Jonah, ii. 3. And in this sense Christ 
 saith of his death, i I have a baptism to be 
 baptized with 9 Luke xii. 50. Of this cup the 
 apostle James drank when he was killed by 
 the sword of Herod. Acts. xii. 2." — His An- 
 notations on Matt. xx. 22. 
 
 " We here behold our blessed Redeemer on 
 the day of his sufferings, praying earnestly, 
 and repeating his supplications, as in the gar- 
 den of Gethsemane, at the prospect of that 
 sea of sorrows, which was then about to over- 
 whelm his agonizing soul." — Geo. Home, D. D. 
 on Ps. lv. 1, 2. 
 
 Dr. Bloomfield observes on the same text, 
 that "This metaphor of immersion in water, 
 as expressive of being overwhelmed by afflic- 
 tion, is frequent both in scriptural and classical 
 writers." 
 
 And this accords with the instructive para- 
 phrase of Dr. Doddridge. 
 
 "Are you able to drink of the bitter cup of 
 which I am now about to drink so deep, and 
 to be baptized with the baptism, and plunged 
 into that sea of sufferings with which I am 
 
UNIFORMITY, &c. |Q5 
 
 shortly to be baptized, and, as it were, over- 
 whelmed for a time ?" 
 
 " I have indeed a most dreadful baptism to 
 be baptized with, and know that I shall shortly 
 be bathed, as it were, in blood, and plunged 
 in the most overwhelming distress! — Dod. on 
 Matt. xx. 22: Luke xii. 50. 
 
 Section V. 
 
 THE REMARKABLE UNIFORMITY OBSERVED IN THE USE 
 OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 
 
 Again - , we may observe that the uniform 
 usus loc/uendi, i. e. the common usage of the 
 word baptize, both in the Greek of the New 
 Testament, and that of the classics, gives us 
 the most indubitable evidence that the word in 
 question means to immerse; and never means 
 sprinkling or pouring. " To every word," 
 says the great Ernesti, in his Elements of In- 
 terpretation, " To every word there ought to 
 be assigned, and in the Scriptures there is 
 unquestionably assigned, some idea or notion 
 of a thing, which we call the meaning or 
 sense of the word.'' "For there can be no 
 certainty at all, in respect to the interpretation 
 of any passage, unless a kind of necessity com- 
 pel us to affix a particular sense to a word; 
 which sense, as I have said before, must be 
 one; and, unless there are special reasons for 
 a tropical meaning, it must be the literal 
 
IQQ UNIFORMITY OF 
 
 sense." " The sense of words depends on the 
 usus loquendi. This must be the case, he- 
 cause the sense of words is conventional 
 (agreed on) and regulated wholly by usage. 
 Usage then being understood, the sense of 
 words is of course understood." 
 
 Now if we apply these acknowledged prin- 
 ciples of interpretation to the usus loquendi 
 of the word in question, we shall see that the 
 word baptize, as used by all Greek writers, is 
 remarkably uniform, both in its literal and fi- 
 gurative application; always signifying a lite- 
 ral immersion, or a figurative overwhelming. 
 This can be made strikingly to appear, as the 
 word is used in the New Testament. To make 
 this good, let me remark that the words bap- 
 tize and baptism are used more than one 
 hundred times in the New Testament, and in 
 no one instance are they used interchangeably 
 with words whose meaning is to sprinkle, pour, 
 or wash. Mark further, baptize and baptism 
 are the words invariably used to express the 
 ordinance of baptism. No other word is ever 
 employed for this purpose, with the exception 
 of sunt hap to (owdaTtr^) to bury with, or in the 
 likeness of another, " to he buried as another 
 has been buried ;" and sump hut os {ov^vro^) 
 planted together, i. e., planted with, or in the 
 similitude of another. See Rom. vi. 4, 5. 
 And these words most happily declare the 
 sense of baptize. Buried, as a body is buried 
 in the earth ; planted, as corn is planted in 
 the ground. 
 
THE WORD BAPTIZE. 
 
 107 
 
 Now you will observe that baptize is used 
 interchangeably with ivords which mean to 
 bury, plant or cover up; but never in its ori- 
 ginal sense, is it interchanged for words 
 meaning to sprinkle, or pour. 
 
 How comes it to pass, that the Holy Ghost, 
 in speaking of the ordinance of baptism more 
 than a hundred times, should always use the 
 same word baptize, unless it be where the 
 most obvious meaning is consonant with im- 
 mersion, and a most fit comment on the word 
 baptize? If, as our Pedobaptist brethren af- 
 firm, sprinkling, pouring, washing, " a water 
 ceremony!"* or any application of water 
 means baptism, how comes it to pass that 
 the Holy Ghost, in speaking of the ordinance 
 a hundred times, by different persons, and of 
 different nations, should not have, on some 
 occasions, used the proper Greek ivords, which 
 mean to wash, pour, and sprinkle? Rantizo 
 (pavn^w) means properly to sprinkle, why did 
 not the inspired penmen make use of it, with 
 reference to this divinely appointed rite, if, as 
 our Pedobaptist brethren tell us, sprinkling is 
 baptism? Or, on the other hand, if baptize 
 menus sprinkle, how happens it that whenever 
 the idea of sprinkling was to be expressed, 
 the sacred writers did not, on some occasion, 
 make use of the word baptize? But it is 
 
 * Dr. Morrison, a Pedobaptist missionary to China, in. 
 his version of the Bible into the language of that nation, 
 has substituted for baptize, the phrase, " a water ceremony.*' 
 
108 
 
 UNIFORMITY OF 
 
 worthy of remark that the Holy Ghost never 
 used the word baptize for rantize, sprinkle, 
 nor rantize for baptize. These words are 
 not once interchanged in all the New Testa- 
 ment. This fact ought to admonish the incon- 
 siderateness of those who dare presume to 
 take liberties with the words of Scripture, 
 which the Holy Ghost did not take, and has, 
 in no instance, warranted them to take. In- 
 deed this is tampering with the word of God, 
 in a ivay that I dare not. Jt is a daring pre- 
 sumption " to correct the diction of the Spirit 
 by that of the party!!" Who may venture 
 to exchange one word for another in the Bible, 
 where God has not made nor warranted any 
 such exchange! 
 
 These remarks will apply to every attempt 
 to make the word baptize mean to ponr, or 
 sprinkle, or any thing else but an immersion 
 and overwhelming. 
 
 This, to one acquainted with the genius of 
 the Greek language, the most perfect of all 
 languages on earth, must evidently appear. 
 So full and complete is the Greek tongue that 
 it comes nearer to having a ivord for every 
 idea, than any other language. 
 
 To exemplify this remark, you will observe, 
 that our English word wash is used without 
 expressing what is washed, whether the hands, 
 body or clothes; whereas the Greeks have a 
 particular word for each of these washings. 
 
 Ntrttw, nipto, means to wash the face, hands, 
 feet, &c. 
 
THE WORD BAPTIZE. ]Q 
 
 Aw, louo, means to wash the body; to bathe; 
 metaphorically, to purify. 
 
 iEuwui, pluno, means to wash clothes. 
 
 In like manner the Greeks have Exxsu? 
 eccheo, to pour out, forth, or upon; pai/r^u, 
 rantizo, to sprinkle, besprinkle, beslrew. 
 
 I ask again, and well do my Pedobaptist 
 brethren know to their discomfiture, if any 
 application of water, ■washing, sprinkling, 
 pour, &c, means baptism, why did not the 
 sacred writers sometimes use the Greek words 
 which mean to ivash, sprinkle, and pour 7 why 
 did they invariably and with studious exactness, 
 make use of baptize, when speaking of this 
 holy rite? Every man who has heard me thus 
 far, unless he be determined to sustain some 
 party, in opposition to the dictates of his en- 
 lightened understanding and in violation of the 
 conviction of his conscience, must concede the 
 point, that the Holy Ghost, in speaking of 
 the ordinance of baptism more than a hundred 
 times, and uniformly using the word baptize, 
 the proper Greek word for immerse, and never 
 using any of the words whose meaning is to 
 sprinkle, pour, or wash, that the Holy Ghost 
 has herein signified to us a divine institution, 
 whose mode of administration is immersion, 
 and immersion only. Moreover, that the 
 Holy Ghost has herein signified to us an insti- 
 tution whose mode of administration is im- 
 mersion, and whose mode is inseparable with 
 the institution itself. When God commands 
 10 
 
110 
 
 UNIFORMITY OF 
 
 us to be baptized he commands us to be im- 
 mersed. And no Christian has obeyed this 
 divine command, unless he has been immersed 
 on profession of his individual faith, "in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost/'* 
 
 * Testimony of a Native Greek on the Rite of 
 Baptism. — A communication has been received from 
 Delta, accompanied by a document written by a native 
 Greek, from which the following- is an extract. The ori- 
 ginal document, with its signature, is in our possession, 
 and is open to the inspection of any friends who may feel 
 interested in seeing- it. — Baptist Advocate. 
 
 " ON THE WORD j3a7tri£u>, TO IMMERSE." 
 
 "I was requested by my friend to describe in this 
 album, what were my impressions when first I saw the 
 Protestants of this country pcu<rt£f(-v instead of ' fia.7tTi%sLv. 
 But before 1 proceed any farther I would refer to the 
 word here made use of, as a scholar, as a Greek, and as a 
 theologian. In the first place, dear sir, the supposition, 
 that /3artrt^w ever signifies pavti^ is a very trifling- and 
 absurd supposition. And if any of my fellow readers 
 pretend to possess any knowledge of the Greek, never 
 think of supposing- that ^an-ri^ca can ever be substituted 
 for pavrt^w, or pa^rt^co for j3a,7tTt£w. 
 
 * * # * 
 
 "The first impressions that were made in my mind 
 when first I saw the baptism performed by sprinkling (/) 
 was something- like this: Suppose you had for nine years 
 witnessed decapitation in a country where that practice 
 prevailed; and then you should go to another country 
 where you should happen to meet with a person who was 
 about to be hung-, and you should ask, what are they 
 going- to do with him? and suppose you tiny would tell 
 you, they were going to decapitate him? Would you not 
 think that they were dreaming?" 
 
THE WORD BAPTIZE. J 1 1 
 
 The uniform sense of baptize is still further 
 apparent from the uniform sense and usage 
 of its corresponding Hebrew words, ^so 
 tahbval, the meaning of which is to dip, or 
 plunge, Pedobaptists themselves being judges. 
 For, in the first place, their own lexicogra- 
 phers define tahbval to dip, to plunge, to im- 
 merse. 
 
 Again, tahbval is found eighteen times in 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, and although it cor- 
 responds not only with baptizo, but also with 
 bapto, which is more general in its applica- 
 tion than baptizo; yet, our Pedobaptist trans- 
 lators did not scruple to translate tahbval to 
 dip, and to plunge, and that too, with a de- 
 gree of uniformity which shows the prevailing 
 signification of the word. The translators of 
 our Bible have rendered tahbval to dip fifteen 
 times out of the eighteen. See Gen. xxxvii. 31 . 
 Exo. xii. 22. Levit. iv. ti, 17; ix 9; xiv. 6, 10, 
 51. Num. xix. 18. Deut. xxxiii. 24. Josh, 
 iii. 15. Ruth ii. 14. 2 Kings v. 14; viii. 15. 
 
 These read as follows, "And dipped the 
 coat in the blood." "And ye shall take a 
 bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that 
 is in the bason/' " The priest shall dip his 
 finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood 
 seven times before the Lord." "And the 
 priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is 
 in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil 
 with his finger seven times before the Lord." 
 "And dip them in the blood of the slain bird, 
 and in the running water." "And a clean 
 
112 UNIFORMITY OF 
 
 person shall take hyssop and dip it in the 
 water." " Let him dip his foot in oil."' "And 
 as they that bare the ark were come unto Jor- 
 dan, and the feet of the priests that bare the 
 ark were dipped in the brim of the water." 
 " And dip thy morsel in the vinegar." "Then 
 went he down and dipped himself seven times 
 in Jordan." "He took a thick cloth and 
 dipped it in water." 
 
 Once they translated the word to "plunged" 
 " Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch." 
 Job ix. 31. 
 
 And twice they rendered tahbval to wet. 
 " xAnd they shall wet thee with the dew of hea- 
 ven." Dan. iv. 25; v. 21. With respect to 
 the two last instances, it should be remarked 
 that Daniel, long before, when yet a child, had 
 been brought a captive to Babylon, and espe- 
 cially selected by the king's orders to be in- 
 structed in the learning and the tongue of the 
 Chaldeans for the space of three years, that 
 at the end thereof he might be received at 
 court, and stand before the king. See Dan. 
 i. 3—6. 
 
 Thus learned in the Chaldee tongue, he em- 
 ployed, especially at court, and when conver- 
 sing with the king, the Chaldee language. 
 Hence he employs tahbval as a Chaldee word, 
 and in the first instance, in a Chaldee form, 
 with a Chaldee sense, to set forth the future 
 condition of the king. Nebuchadnezzar was 
 to be driven out from men, and to share his 
 
THE WORD BAPTIZE. 
 
 113 
 
 portion with the beasts of the field. They 
 shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they 
 shall drench thee with the copious dews of 
 heaven. Let it be remembered that we have 
 a very imperfect idea of the dews of Babylon 
 and vicinity, if we liken them to the dews of 
 America ; for oriental dews are more like 
 occidental rains. The wetting of which Dan- 
 iel speaks was at least a copious, a complete 
 wetting. Such would be the effect of eastern 
 dews; and such too is the mildest sense pos- 
 sible given to tahbval, even in the Chaldee 
 tongue; and when answering, not to baptizo, 
 but to bapto ; while, in the Hebrew, it denotes 
 nothing less than a dipping. In no one in- 
 stance in the Hebrew, nor yet in the Chaldee, 
 does tahbval mean to sprinkle, or pour. The 
 uniform usage of this word can be made yet 
 further to appear, by considering the con- 
 nexion in which it stands in the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures. It is employed in connexion with the 
 words which signify to sprinkle and pour, all 
 these meaning not the same thing, but separate 
 and distinct acts; marking in the most explicit 
 manner three of the successive duties of the 
 priest when officiating in holy things. The 
 priest is directed to dip his finger in the blood; 
 then to sprinkle the blood before the Lord, 
 and then to pour the remainder of the blood 
 at the bottom of the altar. Consult Lev. iv. 
 6, 7, 17, 18; xiv. 10—18. Now the priest 
 would have subjected himself to the displea- 
 10* 
 
I 24 UNIFORMITY, fee. 
 
 sure of God had he changed the order, or mode 
 of discharging his official duties. He was not 
 at liberty, nor had he the impiety to stand and 
 quibble about God's commands with the hope 
 of keeping his finger out of the blood. Now- 
 a-days, some have got to be so very deli- 
 cate, that had those Jewish rites been con- 
 tinued, we might be told not to dip our finger 
 in the blood, for such an act is highly indeco- 
 rous ; besides the original word tahbval does 
 not mean to dip!! 
 
 But anciently priests were very conscien- 
 tious men, attending to all their duties in obe- 
 dience to the commands of God with scrupu- 
 lous exactness. They acted upon the principle 
 that it was God's to command and theirs to 
 obey. Nor did they once stop to inquire if 
 something else would not do as well ! They 
 believed in God and obeyed his voice. 
 
 For the honour of religion, the peace of 
 Zion, the glory of God, and the salvation of 
 souls, I devoutly hope the time is not far dis- 
 tant when all who love our Lord and Saviour, 
 shall yield him the most prompt and implicit 
 obedience, without attempting further to avoid 
 the plain import of words employed by the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 I must once more remark that the Greek 
 word answering to tahbval, as used by Daniel, 
 in Babylon, is not baptizo, the word univer- 
 sally used to designate the ordinance of bap- 
 tism, but bapto. From all this it must appear 
 
THE CONCESSIONS OF PEDOBAPTISTS. Ufr 
 
 evident that the word baptize is remarkably 
 uniform in its application and sense. Few 
 words employed in the New Testament are 
 equally plain and uniform, and attended with 
 less difficulty than the one in question. I am 
 sorry to say that the same course as that 
 adopted by our Pedobaptist brethren, if admit- 
 ted and applied to other words in the Bible, 
 would destroy the entire force of Scripture 
 truth ; yea, the Bible itself. 
 
 And I can but believe that the piety and 
 good sense of many of our Pedobaptist bre- 
 thren shall prevail upon them to come forth 
 in the spirit of our common Master, and for 
 ever put an end to this protracted discussion. 
 Then we shall be one, and we shall have "one 
 Lord, one faith, and one baptism," as well as 
 one Spirit and one hope of our calling. 
 
 Section VI. 
 
 THE CONCESSIONS OF MANY OF THE MOST LEARNED 
 PEDOBAPTISTS, RESPECTING THE TRUE IMPORT OF 
 BAPTIZE. 
 
 In advance of what has been said, should 
 there be any yet in doubt respecting the proper 
 meaning of baptize, I will cite some few of the 
 numerous noble concessions which some of 
 our most distinguished Pedobaptist authors 
 have candidly made. These men ought to be 
 
116 
 
 THE CONCESSIONS 
 
 heard on this subject ; for their fidelity, as to 
 what is truth, reproves their practice. 
 
 Bretschneider, who is acknowledged to be 
 one of the most critical writers on the New 
 Testament, says, " an entire immersion belongs 
 to the nature of baptism. This is the meaning 
 of the word. — The apostolic church baptized 
 only by immersion." 
 
 Casaubon. " This was the rite of baptiz- 
 ing, that persons were plunged into the water, 
 which the venj word baptize sufficiently de- 
 clares." 
 
 Bishop Reynolds, supposed to be a descend- 
 ant of John Reynolds, D. D., one of the trans- 
 lators of the Bible, in common use, called 
 King James' Bible, gives the meaning of the 
 word baptize thus : " The spirit under the gos- 
 pel is compared to water; and that, not a 
 little measure to sprinkle or bedew, but to bap- 
 tize the faithful in ; and that not in a font or 
 vessel which grows less and less, but in a 
 spring or living river." — His works, pp. 226, 
 407. 
 
 Zepperus. " If we consider the proper 
 meaning of the term, the word baptism sig- 
 nifies plunging into water, or the very act of 
 dipping and trashing. It appears, therefore, 
 from the very signification and etymology of 
 the term, which was the custom of ail minister- 
 ing baptism in the beginning; whereas we 
 now, for baptism, rather have rhantism, or 
 sprinkling. 
 
OF PEDOBABTISTS. U7 
 
 The learned Mr. John Selden, who was 
 a member of the Westminster Assembly, se- 
 lected and convened by an act of parliament, 
 A. D. 1643, to settle the government, liturgy, 
 and doctrine of the church of England, ob- 
 serves: "In England, of late years, I ever 
 thought the parson baptized his own fingers, 
 rather than the child." His works, vol. 6, fol. 
 edit. col. 2008. 
 
 Salmasius. " Baptism is immersion, and 
 was administered iri ancient times, according 
 to the force and meaning of the word. Now 
 it is only rhantism, or sprinkling ; not immer- 
 sion, or dipping." 
 
 Altingius. " Baptism is immersion, when 
 the whole body is immersed ; but the term 
 baptism is never used with respect to sprink- 
 ling." 
 
 Hahn. " According to apostolical instruc- 
 tion and example, baptism was performed by 
 immersing the whole body." 
 
 Professor Lange. " Baptism in the apos- 
 tolic age was a proper baptism — the immersion 
 of the whole body in water. Plunging under 
 water represents death, and rising out of it, the 
 resurrection to a new life." 
 
 Witsius. "It cannot be denied that the 
 native signification of the word baptize is 
 to plunge, to dip." Econ. of the cov. L. 4 c. 
 16, § 13. 
 
 Chrysostom, A. D. 398. " To be baptized 
 and plunged, and then to emerge or rise 
 
I lg THE CONCESSIONS 
 
 again, are a symbol of our descent into the 
 grave, and our ascent out of it; and, there- 
 fore, Paul calls baptism a burial" Homil. 
 XL. in 1 Corin. 
 
 G. J. Vossius. " That the apostles immersed 
 whom they baptized there is no doubt. And 
 that the ancient church followed their exam- 
 ple is very clearly evinced by innumerable 
 testimonies of the fathers." Disputat. de Bap. 
 Disp. I. § 6. 
 
 After so many citations from some of the 
 most competent judges of which the learned 
 world can boast, I am at a loss to know how 
 any enlightened Christian, and more espe- 
 cially how any one, professing to be a teacher 
 and guide to others, can deny that the proper 
 sense of the word baptize is to immerse, to 
 plunge, to dip ; that in the first ages of the 
 Christian church immersion for baptism was 
 uniformly practised ; and that sprinkling for 
 baptism is not of God, but of men ! ! 
 
 So truly appalling is the course of reason- 
 ing adopted by some Pedoba prists, and so 
 singularly strange, as well as injurious to the 
 cause of piety cud virtue, the arguments ad- 
 duced and bold assertions made in support of 
 sprinkling -And pouring, instead of immersion 
 for baptism, as justly to awaken apprehensions 
 in the minds of some of their most able bre- 
 thren, respecting the fearful consequences of 
 such a icant of candour in things of reli- 
 gion. 
 
OF PEDOBAPTISTS. 
 
 119 
 
 Professor Campbell, D. D. of Aberdeen, 
 speaking of the want of candour in refusing 
 to acknowledge what is truth, says: 
 
 " I have heard a disputant of this stamp, in 
 defiance of etymology and use, maintain that 
 the word rendered in the New Testament 
 baptize, means more properly to sprinkle 
 than to plnnge ; and, in defiance of all an- 
 tiquity, that the former method was the ear- 
 liest, and, for many centuries, the most gene- 
 ral practice in baptizing. One, who argues 
 in this manner never fails, with persons of 
 knowledge, to betray the cause he would de- 
 fend ; and though with respect to the vul- 
 gar, bold assertions generally succeed as 
 well as arguments, sometimes better ; yet a 
 candid mi) id will disdain to take the help of 
 a falsehood, even in support of the truth." 
 Lectures on Systematic Theology and Pulpit 
 Eloquence, Lee. X. p. 181, American edition, 
 edited by H. J. Ripley. Mr. Wall, who, more 
 than any other man, explored the voluminous 
 writings of antiquity in quest of some evidence 
 favouring infant baptism, makes the following 
 very pertinent remarks: 
 
 " This immersion is so plain and clear by an 
 infinite number of passages, that as one can- 
 not but PITY the weak endeavours of such 
 Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative 
 of it; so we ought to disown and show a 
 dislike of the profane scoffs which some peo- 
 ple give to the English Baptists merely for the 
 
120 
 
 BAPTIZE SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED 
 
 use of dipping; when it was, in all probability, 
 the way by which our blessed Saviour and 
 for certain, was the most usual and ordinary 
 way by which the ancient Christians did re 
 ceive their baptism. 'Tis a great want of 
 prudence as well as of HONESTY to refuse 
 to grant to another ivhat is certainly true, 
 and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy 
 of all the rest that one says." * * " The 
 custom of the Christians in the near succeed- 
 ing times [to the apostles] being more largely 
 and particularly delivered in books, is known 
 to have been generally or ordinarily a total 
 immersion." His. of Inf. Bap. Pt. II. ch. ix. 
 § 2. Def. p. 131. That the word baptize 
 means to dip or immerse; and that the an- 
 cient practice of baptism was by immersion, 
 says Prof. Stuart, of Andover, Mass., "all 
 lexicographers and critics of any note are 
 agreed." * * " I cannot see how it is pos- 
 sible for any candid man who examines this 
 subject to deny it." 
 
 Section VII. 
 
 BAPTIZE SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED BY ITS IMMEDIATE 
 CONNECTION. 
 
 To show still further, if it be necessary, that 
 the Greek word baptize means only immer- 
 
BY ITS IMMEDIATE CONNECTION. J21 
 
 sion, I will cite some few of the many pas- 
 sages, which sufficiently explain the word 
 and declare its proper sense. 
 
 Words, you are aware, are sometimes used 
 in such connections as not to be explained by 
 the context, while at other times, the connec- 
 tion in which a word stands, sufficiently de- 
 clares its true import. 
 
 Now there are many passages in the Greek 
 language where the word baptize is used in 
 such connection, as not to admit of a single 
 doubt, respecting its true and obvious sense. 
 
 Hippocrates, the greatest physician of all 
 antiquity, applies the word baptize to the sink- 
 ing of a ship by being overladen. His words 
 are "Shall 1 not laugh at the man who sinks 
 (baptizes) his ship by overriding it, and then 
 complains of the sea, because it engulfed his 
 ship with its cargo ?" His works, p. 532. 
 
 No one can be in doubt as to the mode of 
 baptizing this ship, since the connection plainly 
 shows that it was an immersion. The ship was 
 engulfed or sunk into the sea. And yet there 
 are some, who, in defiance of all examples 
 and testimony of every kind, venture to affirm 
 that the word baptize never means an immer- 
 sion; that its proper sense is sprinkling, wash- 
 ing or pouring. Such, however, betray such 
 a want of candour, or such ignorance, or both, 
 as to forfeit all claims upon our confidence. 
 
 Take another example: Diodorus Siculus, 
 speaking of the destruction of many land ani- 
 11 
 
122 
 
 BAPTISM SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED 
 
 mals by not being able to swim when the 
 water overflows, says, " Many of the Jand ani- 
 mals immersed (baptized) in the river perish." 
 Now, can any one doubt as to what kind of 
 a death these animals died? Did they perish 
 by a sprinkling, pouring, or washing merely? 
 Were they not overwhelmed by the water and 
 drowned in the sea ? Theirs was an immersion ! 
 Strabo, the renowned geographer, who died 
 only eight years before our Saviour was cru- 
 cified, speaking of the lake near Agrigentum, 
 a town on the south shore, of Sicily, says, 
 "Things which otherwise will not swim, do 
 not sink (baptize) in the water of the lake, but 
 float like wood." 
 
 Strabo, as you will observe, uses baptize 
 here to indicate an entire immersion in water. 
 He makes a difference between floating like 
 wood, and being baptized. Wood, you know, 
 will float partly under the water, while a part 
 yet remains above the -surface. Hence he 
 says, these things are not baptized in the water 
 of the lake, but float like wood. Who need 
 mistake the sense here given to baptize ? 
 
 Strabo also applies the word to Alexander's 
 soldiers marching a whole day through the tide. 
 He says they were " baptized up to the middle." 
 Here you will please observe that baptize is 
 applied to soldiers wading in the water, and 
 expressly limited in its application to that part 
 of the body which was under water. They were 
 baptized — immersed up to the middle. 
 
BY ITS IMMEDIATE CONNECTION. J£3 
 
 But our Pedobaptist brethren, when plied 
 with such examples, where the sense of the 
 word is distinctly declared, leaving them no 
 ground further to dispute, change their posi- 
 tion to another quarter. And tell us that these 
 examples are from classic authors, who wrote 
 a kind of Greek different from that of the 
 Scriptures, and therefore not apposite to our 
 present inquiry. 
 
 Now it is most cheerfully granted, that the 
 above citations,, excepting that from Diodorus 
 Siculus, are out of authors, who wrote pure 
 Greek, without any mixture of foreign idioms. 
 
 But it does not follow thence, that they have 
 no bearing upon the subject before us. They 
 are directly in point, as fixing the true and 
 uniform import of the word baptize. And the 
 number of Pedobaptisfs are comparatively 
 few, who will hazard their reputation, both as 
 scholars and Christians, by the bold and 
 sweeping assertion, that classic Greek has no- 
 thing to do in fixing the meaning, and declaring 
 the sense of the Greek of the New Testament! 
 
 Such an assertion may answer the end for 
 which it is intended ; and, for a time, bewilder 
 the unsuspecting inquirer after truth. But 
 when such are informed", that many passages 
 of the New Testament are written in the most 
 pure Greek, and that the greater portion of the 
 wards are employed precisely in the sense as 
 when found in classic authors, they will with- 
 draw their confidence from such guides as 
 
]24 THE STYLE OF 
 
 would fain make them believe that Scripture 
 interpretation has nothing to do with the usage 
 of words as found in the best Greek authors. 
 
 I am happy to say that the number of 
 Pedobaptists who advocate the above ground 
 is small. I very much regret, however, that 
 there should be any, in this enlightened day, 
 holding on to sentiments, in support of which, 
 they find it necessary to deny the very close 
 affinity wftich subsists between the Greek of 
 the New Testament, and that of classic au- 
 thors. 
 
 Such a scheme to support sprinkling for 
 baptism, is of very recent invention, and can 
 be but of short duration. The more pious and 
 judicious, if learned, can never be drawn on 
 to ground so untenable and injurious to all 
 philological inquiries. 
 
 These will love to concur with Baptists in 
 placing a high value upon classic Greek, as 
 one of the necessary aids to a right under- 
 standing of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Section VIII. 
 
 THE STYLE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 I am now to inquire respecting the idiom of 
 the New Testament, i. e. whether the origi- 
 nal language, in which the New Testament 
 was written, is pure classic Greek, or Greek 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 125 
 
 interspersed with Hebrew idioms. . To every 
 one familiar with this subject, and capable of 
 judging, it must appear evident that the origi- 
 nal language of the New Testament is neither 
 throughout pure Greek nor pure Hebrew, but 
 a mixture of the idioms of both languages. 
 The sacred writers of the New Testament 
 were acquainted with both Hebrew and 
 Greek. From this circumstance their writ- 
 ings, as also their oral conversation, would 
 naturally partake of the peculiar structure of 
 both languages. Hence with much propriety 
 the language of the New Testament has been 
 called Hebraic-Greek.* For such in reality 
 is the natureof the originals of the New Tes- 
 tament, with a sparse admixture of the Chal- 
 daic tongue, and a few other idioms.f 
 
 * Some writers denominate it "the Greek of the syna- 
 gogue." This denomination,' however, is improper. For 
 it was used far more out of the synagogues than in them; 
 and might with more propriety be termed l( the Greek 
 out of the synagogues." But neither of these convey a 
 just idea of the peculiar structure of the language of the 
 New Testament. Hebraic- Greek designates its true cha- 
 racter. For it is the Greek language with the Hebrew 
 idiom here and there intermixed. 
 
 j- The very learned and sensible Mr. Hayne, remark- 
 ing on the style of the New Testament, says, «« Any one 
 skilful in the Greek tongue, may easily perceive from 
 what notable place of Plato, Homer, or other Greek 
 writers, many phrases in the New testament are taken ; 
 and those, which are not to be found in those authors, 
 are fetched from the Hebrew of the Old Testament, from 
 whence all the roots of the Greek tongue are drawn. 
 So that to the exact knowledge and understanding of the 
 11* 
 
126 
 
 THE STYLE OF 
 
 The Greek language, more copious and 
 rich in expression, and much more prevalent 
 at the time the New Testament was written, 
 than any other, was, by the great head of the 
 church, selected as the vehicle of his commu- 
 nications of mercy to the children of men. 
 
 "Perhaps," as one remarks, "the revela- 
 tions of the gospel could not have been given 
 in a language so primitive, meagre, and un- 
 pliant as the Hebrew; while the copious and 
 flexible idiom of the Greek had been in a 
 course of formation and polishing by the first 
 human intellects for ages, doubtless for this 
 very purpose in God's providence.''' See Tur- 
 ner's Sacred Hist. 
 
 Hence you will perceive the absolute ne- 
 cessity there is, that a successful interpreter 
 of the New Testament should be well versed 
 in both the pure Greek and Hebrew tongues, 
 since, while the sacred penmen wrote in 
 
 New Testament two things are requisite, conning in the 
 Greek authors? and in the Old Testament," i. e. the He- 
 brew. Hayne's View of Scriptures, p. 322. Edition of 
 1640. 
 
 Mr. Charles Butler, than whom none is a better 
 judge, says, speaking- of the style of the New Testament 
 writers, "Unavoidably they would be led to adopt its 
 idiom, even in their ordinary discourse, and to introduce 
 it into their writings. The consequence was, that, al- 
 ways bearing* in their minds the idiom of their mother 
 tongue, they moulded the Greek words into Hebraic 
 phrases, and sometimes even used words which, resembled 
 certain Hebrew terms in their sound, in an Hebraic sense.'" 
 Horse Biblicne, p. 10. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. J 37 
 
 Greek, they mingled, frequently, Hebrew ex- 
 pressions, and, at times, other idioms with 
 their writings. 
 
 To this agrees the learned Mr. Keil, when 
 treating of the very subject before us. 
 
 "As the diction of the New Testament is 
 not pure classic Greek, but the Hebrew idiom 
 here and there intermixed with classic Grceh, 
 and as vestiges of the Chaldee, Syriac, Rab- 
 binic and Latin languages occur, it follows, 
 of course, that the interpreter should not only 
 be acquainted with pure Greek, but also with 
 the above named tongues." See his Herme- 
 neutica, § 2. 
 
 To bring this subject within the comprehen- 
 sion of every child that hears me, let me fur- 
 ther remark, that, those of you who are 
 accustomed to receive friends from other 
 nations, or are acquainted with foreigners 
 whose native language differs from our own, 
 know how often, when speaking in our lan- 
 guage, they use phrases and modes of speech 
 which are not common with ourselves. 
 
 Take a Jew, for instance, or, if you please, 
 an Irishman, after having become acquainted 
 with our language, and able to speak it with 
 fluency, yet you can detect them using 
 phrases and methods of speech peculiar to 
 their own vernacular tongue, and dissimilar 
 to ours. The language and writings of such 
 we would call Jewish-English, or Irish-Eng- 
 lish. 
 
128 
 
 THE STYLE OF 
 
 Such is the nature of the Greek of the New 
 Testament, whose writers were Hebrews by- 
 birth, and more or less acquainted with the 
 Hebrew tongue, while, at the same time, they 
 understood Greek, then the prevailing lan- 
 guage, and which had been carried, by Gre- 
 cian prowess, especially by the conquests of 
 Alexander the Great, into all the world. 
 
 Now this Hebrew-Greek, or Greek with 
 Hebrew and foreign idioms mingled with it, 
 is that in which the New Testament was ori- 
 ginally written. 
 
 And to pretend that we must make no use 
 of the pure Greek in ascertaining the sense of 
 the language f the New Testament, is all 
 one, as to pretend that we have nothing to do 
 with the pure English in understanding an 
 Irishman's conversation in English, because 
 he mingles with it his Irish brogue, or some 
 expressions more nearly allied to the Irish 
 than to the English language. 
 
 Once more, it should be remarked, that no 
 part of the New Testament is rendered unin- 
 telligible because of its peculiar style. So far 
 from it, the scriptures of the New Testament 
 are more transparent and of clearer import 
 by reason of the very style and language in 
 which they were originally written. We can 
 see both the wisdom and goodness of God in 
 making choice of the Hebraic-Greek as the 
 vehicle of his communications of mercy to 
 the children of men. For you will observe, 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. J 29 
 
 in the first place, that the Greek, the most 
 perfect language on earth, was chosen, by 
 the Great Redeemer, as the basis of his com- 
 munications; and, secondly, this Greek basis 
 was better adapted to the purposes of a divine 
 revelation to the world as it then was, and 
 indeed to all succeeding generations by virtue 
 of its peculiar character, as derived from the 
 Hebrew tongue. And yet further, it is wor- 
 thy of remark, that the Holy Ghost, superin- 
 tending the writing of the Scriptures, pre- 
 served them against the least ambiguity 
 arising from the admixture of other idioms 
 with the Greek. Hence when words, other than 
 Greek, were employed in the sacred text, if 
 they tended in the least to obscure the sense, 
 the Divine Spirit did not leave them till they 
 were rendered sufficiently explicit. From 
 this circumstance we have some valuable in- 
 terpretations of words and phrases in the 
 Bible. For instance, " Emmanuel, which be- 
 ing interpreted is, God ivith us" Matt, i, 23. 
 " Jesus" i. e. a Saviour, " for he shall save his 
 people from their sins. lb. v. 21. " Sin, a 
 transgression of the law." " Eli, Eli, lama 
 sabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God, 
 why hast thou forsaken me?" Matt, xxvii. 46. 
 '• Faith is the substance of things hoped for, 
 the evidence of things not seen." Heb. xi. 1. 
 Justification, "justified freely by his grace, 
 through the redemption that is in Christ 
 Jesus." Rom iii. 24. " Corban, a gift." 
 
J30 STYLE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Mark vii. 11. " Tabitha cumi, which is, be- 
 ing interpreted, damsel" Mark v. 41. " Si- 
 loam, which is bv interpretation, Sent" John 
 ix. 7. "Jlbba, father." Rom. viiL 15. "Gol- 
 gotha, that is to say, a place of a skull" 
 Matt, xxvii. 33, &c. 
 
 These are sufficient to show how exact the 
 Spirit of God was in saving the sense of 
 Scripture from being dark, and tending to 
 pervert the faith of those to whom the news 
 of salvation comes. If a word was unintelli- 
 gible, it requires an explanation. 
 
 " God is his own interpreter, 
 And he has made it plain." 
 
 Yet infidelity, in its virulent attacks on 
 Christianity, files an objection against divine 
 revelation, because some words are used out 
 of the sense of classic Greek. And then to 
 give to the objection all the power possible 
 over the minds of those whom they would 
 lead astray, they quote these foreign words 
 and phrases, without connecting with them 
 the interpretations of the Spirit. 
 
 From all this it must appear to every re- 
 flecting mind, that the late attempt to avoid 
 the proper sense of baptize, and to make it of 
 doubtful import, by pretending that its use in 
 the Greek of the New Testament is different 
 from what it is in the classics, is without the 
 least foundation whatever. This must be still 
 more evident from the following section. 
 
BAPTIZE IS TO IMMERSE. |3l 
 
 Section IX. 
 
 THE IMPORT OF BAPTIZE IS TO IMMERSE, AS IS EVINCED 
 BY ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, AS USED BY HEBRAIC- 
 GREEK AUTHORS. 
 
 In respect to the word baptize, it always 
 and invariably is used in the sense to immerse, 
 whether in classic, or sacred Greek. It has 
 undergone no change in its signification from 
 what it had in pure Greek by being employed 
 by the Divine Spirit in the New Testament. 
 
 That its only proper meaning is to dip, or 
 immerse has been sufficiently shown during the 
 progress of this discourse; and that too, as 
 used in the Greek of the New Testament. 
 
 That this point may appear evident to every 
 candid and inquiring mind, suffice it to say, the 
 earliest version of the New Testament, trans- 
 lated about the close of the first century, or, if 
 the documentary evidence adduced by Euse- 
 bius be accredited, translated by the apostle 
 Thaddeus, one of the disciples of our Lord, 
 this version has baptize translated by a word 
 whose meaning is to immerse, in the Syriac 
 language. This single testimony is sufficient 
 to settle the meaning of baptize, as used in the 
 times of the apostles, and, as some Pedobap- 
 tists say, by the apostle Thaddeus. But not 
 only this version, accounted by the learned 
 world the most perfect translation ever exe- 
 
J 32 BAPTIZE IS TO IMMERSE. 
 
 cuted, but also all the earliest versions translate 
 baptize it) the same way, to immerse. 
 
 Add to this the fact, that the Septuagint, i. e. 
 the Greek version of the Old Testament, which 
 is Hebrew-Greek, precisely of the kind of the 
 New Testament Greek, uses baptize just as the 
 earliest translators did, and just as the classic 
 Greek uses it, viz. to immerse, or dip. "Then 
 went he (Naaman) down, and dipped himself 
 seven times in Jordan." 2 Kings v. 14. 
 
 After such evidence that baptize is used by 
 the inspired penmen precisely as it is employed 
 by classic authors, by both to signify an im- 
 mersion, you will see the reason why but fev) 
 have ventured so far as to deny the practica- 
 bility of translating the word, and contend that 
 it must be transferred into the English and 
 other versions. 
 
 Moreover, that baptize, as employed by 
 Christ and his apostles, is to be understood in 
 its usual acceptation in other writings, at and 
 before the time John received the command 
 from heaven to immerse believers, is witnessed 
 to by Pedobaptists themselves.* 
 
 * I cannot omit transcribing" here the very judicious 
 remark of Bishop Middleton. 
 
 " It is better to understand phrases according to their ob- 
 vious import, even though we should be compelled to 
 leave the proof of their htuess to more fortunate inquiry. 
 Whenever roe begin to withhold from words their ordinary 
 and natural signification, we must not complain if infidels 
 charge our religion with mysticism, or its expositors with 
 fraud." 
 
BAPTIZE IS TO IMMERSE. 
 
 133 
 
 Dr. Brownlee, of New York, very judiciously 
 and correctly puts it down as a law of interpre- 
 tation, " That the Holy Ghost did not invent 
 words but used them as he found them" " In 
 accordance with this principle the doctor ac- 
 knowledged that to understand the meaning of 
 baptize we must refer to its use by classic au- 
 thors in the Greek language." See his sermon 
 on baptism. 
 
 But to show the entire fallacy of the 
 assertion, that baptize is used by the New 
 Testament writers out of its ordinary sense, 
 as well as to show what meaning the Jews 
 attached to this word, I will refer you to its 
 usage by Joseph us. No uninspired author of 
 all antiquity may compare with Josephus in 
 point of substantial testimony. Respecting the 
 question now under review, his use of the 
 word baptize is particularly valuable. He 
 was a " Hebrew of the. Hebrews," " of the 
 stock of Israel," of the tribe of Levi, of the chief 
 of the sacerdotal families, and of" royal blood." 
 He wrote a history of his own nation, but being 
 acquainted with the Greek language, which 
 then so generally prevailed, he wrote, as did 
 the pen I nun of the New Testament, in Greek, 
 and that too, while some of the apostles were 
 yet living. Josephus frequently employs the 
 word baptize in his writings, and he invariably 
 uses it in the sense, to immerse, or overwhelm ; 
 when figuratively, consonant with immersion. 
 Speaking of the storm that threatened to de- 
 12 
 
134 
 
 BAPTIZE IS TO IAJMEKSE- 
 
 stroy the ship and her crew, with their famous 
 passenger, Jonah, Josephus remarks, "Upon 
 the rise of a most terrible storm, which was 
 so great that the ship was in danger of sink- 
 ing," "and was just going to be drowned." 
 Bk. x. § 2. The word used here for the ship 
 being likely to be engulphed is baptize. What 
 kind of a baptism should you judge it to be? 
 Baptists say, that the master of the ship 
 was apprehensive of being swallowed up in 
 the deep. So great was his and the crew's 
 fear of being drowned, that Josephus tells us, 
 " the mariners, the master, and the pilot him- 
 self, made prayers and vows, in case they 
 escaped the sea/' — Ibid. Yet, some of our 
 friends, who are at the labouring oar night 
 and day to make sprinkling answer for immer- 
 sion in the rite of baptism, and to keep their 
 consciences in a state of tolerable rest, tell us 
 the word baptize never means to plunge. We 
 bring forward examples from classic authors 
 which are too plain to be contradicted; they 
 then affirm, that it never means to immerse or 
 dip in the Hebrew-Greek; we then point thein 
 to 2 Kings v. 14; to the usages of the word, 
 as ever the same, both in pure Greek, and in 
 the Greek of the New Testament; and now 
 they are furnished with another example, 
 where the word in question is employed by 
 a Hebrew who wrote in Greek to express the 
 sinking of a ship at sea. 
 Indeed, my friends, I am ready to inquire 
 
BAPTIZE IS TO IMMERSE. J35 
 
 what position our Pedobaptist brethren will 
 next take, in order to hold on to their sprink- 
 ling affair? Is it not pitiful in the extreme, that 
 such efforts should be made to avoid following 
 the lowly, yet delightful footsteps of Jesus? 
 
 But again, Josephus, speaking of. the wicked 
 artifice resorted to by Herod to destroy Aris- 
 tobulus, says, " The boy was sent to Jericho by 
 night, and there, by command, having been 
 plunged in a pond by the Galatians, he pe- 
 rished." Jewish Wars, 15k. i. p. fii)b\ Here 
 Josephus uses the word baptize, and in what 
 way should you suppose Aristobulus lost his 
 life ? by being plunged or immersed in the 
 water, or by a little sprinkling? Let the can- 
 did decide, and then lend their example and 
 influence to bring forward that day when 
 Christians shall cease to trifle with a word 
 which the Holy Ghost employed to express a 
 divine institution, emblematical of the burial 
 and resurrection of our Lord, and of all his 
 followers. A word which is as easy of inter- 
 pretation and as uniform in its meaning as 
 any word in the whole Bible. If such liberties 
 may be taken in litis case, then there is not a 
 word in the New Testament whose meaning 
 may not be controverted and rendered doubtful. 
 
 The circumstance last mentioned, Josephus 
 records in another book, where he says, "press- 
 ing him down always, as he was swimming, 
 and plunging or baptizing him as in sport, they 
 
136 
 
 BAPTIZE IS TO IMMERSE. 
 
 did not give over until theij entirely drowned 
 him." Antiq. p. 458. 
 
 I will select but one other example of the 
 many where Josephus uses the word baptize 
 and always in the sense to plunge or immerse. 
 Making mention of the disaster which befell a 
 certain city, he says, "After the misfortune of 
 Cestius, many of the Jews of distinction left 
 the city, as people swim away from a sinking 
 ship:' Ibid. p. 757. 
 
 For sinking here the original word is bap- 
 tizing. Can any one be in doubt what mode 
 of baptism the ship was on the point of receiv- 
 ing? After such examples as these, and the 
 number might be increased to almost any ex- 
 tent, after such examples, where the word 
 baptize is distinctly explained by the context, 
 and its uniform sense plainly showed to be im- 
 mersion ; what shall we say, what must we 
 think of those, who professing to be acquainted 
 with the Greek tongue, venture to assert that 
 baptize does not mean to dip or immerse in 
 the Hebrew-Greek? A learned Presbyterian 
 has answered this interrogation. 
 
 "One who argues in this manner never 
 fails, with persons of knowledge, to betray the 
 cause he would defend ; and though, with re- 
 spect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally 
 succeed as well as argument, and sometimes 
 better; yet a candid mind w ill always disdain 
 to take the help of falsehood, even in the sup- 
 port of truth." 
 
GENERAL REMARKS. J 37 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 INSTANCES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM RECORDED IN 
 THE EVANGELISTS. 
 
 Section I. 
 
 GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 After this protracted, yet, I would hope, 
 satisfactory examination, proving beyond a 
 successful contradiction that baptize can be, 
 and has been repeatedly translated to immerse, 
 and to dip ; and that too by distinguished Pe- 
 dobaptists, as well as Baptists and others ; 
 that its usage is the same both in classic and. 
 Scripture Greek; and having adduced testi- 
 mony to a great extent to substantiate these 
 and other facts, it yet remains that some at- 
 tention be bestowed upon those passages of 
 Scripture which relate to the ordinance of 
 baptism. Some of these have already been 
 brought under examination, which will render 
 it unnecessary to repeat them here. 
 
 Our first acquaintance with the rite of bap- 
 tism commences with the ministry of John the 
 harbinger of our Lord, who administered it 
 by divine appointment. So new was this or- 
 dinance, and unlike any religious ceremony 
 with which the world had hitherto been ac- 
 12* 
 
j 38 GENERAL REMARKS. 
 
 quainted, as to persuade the Jews to give to 
 John the appellation Baptist. 
 
 Nothing could have induced them to confer 
 upon John this appellation, if baptizing had 
 been a part of their sacred worship. The 
 Jews were too jealous of their peculiar cere- 
 monies to permit John, or any other person, 
 to bear away under a new form of worship, 
 the name of one of their religious customs. 
 They regarded John as novel and even sift- 
 gular in his deportment; and especially so in 
 his immersing those, and those only whose 
 piety and faith he approved. Hence they 
 distinguished him from every body else by the 
 name Baptist — translated, Immerser, John the 
 Immerser: or as Luther, the great reformer, 
 renders it in his German Testament, "Johan- 
 nes der Taufer — John the Dipper.* 
 
 * The Dutch version has it, "In those days came Jo- 
 hannes en dooper," — John the dipper. 
 
 The German translation of the New Testament was 
 executed by Luther in the year 1522, and afterwards 
 revised and corrected by himself, assisted by the immortal 
 Melancthon. 
 
 So popular with the Germans was Luther's version thus 
 revised, and so much did it awaken the suspicions of 
 those wedded to a religion established by law, as to draw 
 forth from Ferdinand archduke of Austria, a very severe 
 edict, prohibiting- the further publication of Luther's 
 Testament ; and forbidding all the subjects of his impe- 
 rial majesty to have any copies of it, or of Luther's other 
 books in their possession. Some other princes followed 
 his example, to put a stop to the Reformation. Encyclo- 
 paedia Britannica, under Luther. 
 
 This bold defender of the inalienable right of every 
 
PENITENT JEWS IMMERSED. 139 
 
 Section II. 
 
 PENITENT BELIEVING JEWS WERE IMMERSED BY JOHN 
 IN THE RIVER JORDAN. 
 
 John's ministration was novel to the Jews 
 in every particular. His manner of living, 
 his dress, his piety, his announcement of Mes- 
 siah's near approach, his positive command to 
 repent and believe in Jesus, his immersion of 
 believers, his rejection of unbelievers, and in- 
 deed all things were new and strange, well 
 calculated to command attention, especially 
 because of the piety, probity, and truth which 
 so sensibly marked his every act. 
 
 Multitudes were excited and drawn to- 
 gether by his singularities and pointed appeals 
 to conscience. His bold defence of the things 
 he taught, his fidelity in reproving of sin, his 
 solemn warnings to flee the wrath to come, 
 
 man to become personally acquainted with the truths of 
 the Bible, faithfully translated into his own vernacular 
 tongue, when summoned before the diet of Worms, and 
 asked whether he recanted, or intended to continue his 
 course, replied, "Let me be refuted and convinced by 
 the testimony of the Scriptures, or by the clearest argu- 
 ments; otherwise 1 cannot and will not recant,- for it is 
 neither safe nor expedient to act against conscience. Here 
 I take my stand. I can do no otherwise, so help me God, 
 Amen." At another time he said touching 1 the same 
 point, " If there were as many devils in Worms as there 
 are tiles on the roofs of the houses, I would go on." This 
 is noble. " Buy the truth and sell it not." 
 
140 
 
 PENITENT JEWS IMMERSED. 
 
 his persuasive eloquence to faith and repent- 
 ance, his independent and uncompromising 
 course, all commanded respect for him. 
 Some few, comparatively, embraced his doc- 
 trines, believed in a Saviour just at hand, be- 
 came disciples, and were immersed on profes- 
 sion of their faith. 
 
 For such and such only did John baptize 
 as evinced repentance towards God, and faith 
 in our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Such, as the Scriptures inform us, " were 
 immersed of John in Jordan." Matt. iii. 6. 
 Mark says, "were immersed of him in the 
 river Jordan." i. 5. 
 
 Now in these records of the introduction of 
 a new institution, there is, as we might na- 
 turally expect, the most particular minuteness 
 in expressing the mode of administering this 
 sacred rite. Believers immersed of John in 
 Jordan, in the river of Jordan. Nothing can 
 be more exact and explicit. The goodness 
 and mercy of God appear in the plainness 
 with which he speaks to his children in giving 
 to them a new and sublime ordinance of wor- 
 ship. Hear what our Pedobaptist brethren 
 say on this point. 
 
 Mr. Towerson. " For what need would 
 there have been of the Baptist's resorting to 
 great confluxes of water, — were it not that 
 the baptism — was to be performed by an im- 
 mersion? A very little water, as we know it 
 doth with us, sufficing for an effusion or 
 
PENITENT JEWS IMMERSED. 141 
 
 sprinkling." In Booth's Pedobap. Exam. Vol. i. 
 p. 209. Ed. 2. 
 
 Mr. Erskihe. "John's baptism was termed 
 the baptism of repentance, and baptism to re- 
 pentance; because he required of all, whom 
 he admitted to baptism, a profession of repent- 
 ance, and exhorted them to such a conduct as 
 would demonstrate their repentance genuine." 
 In Booth's Pedobap. Exam. Vol. ii. p. 241. 
 Ed. 2. 
 
 Mr. Scott. "It does not appear that any 
 but adults were baptized by John.... adult Jews, 
 professing repentance and a disposition to be- 
 come the Messiah's subjects, were the oxly 
 persons whom John admitted to baptism." 
 Comment, on Matt. iii. 5, 6. 
 
 Mr. Burkitt. "John's baptism was the bap- 
 tism of repentance, of which infants were in- 
 capable. Expos. Notes on Matt. xix. 13 — 15. 
 
 Rev. G. Leo Haydock, a learned Roman- 
 ist, in his Annotations on the Bible, says: 
 
 " The word baptism signifies a washing, par- 
 ticularly when it is done by immersion, or by 
 dipping, or plunging a thing underwater, which 
 was formerly the ordinary way of administering 
 the sacrament of baptism. But the church, 
 which cannot change the least article of the 
 Christian faith, is not so tied up in matters of 
 discipline and ceremonies. Not only the 
 Catholic church, but also the pretended re- 
 formed churches, have altered this primitive 
 custom in giving the sacrament of baptism, and 
 
242 0UR SAVIOUR'S IMMERSION. 
 
 now allow of baptism by pouring or sprinkling 
 water on the person baptized; nay, many of 
 their ministers do it now-a-days by filliping a 
 wet finger and thumb over the child's head, 
 or by shaking a wet finger or two over the 
 child, which it is hard enough to call a bap- 
 tizing in any sense." Matt. iii. 
 
 Section III. 
 
 OUR SAVIOUR'S IMMERSION IN JORDAN. 
 
 But a little in advance of John's immersing 
 the believing Jews in Jordan, we have a very 
 circumstantial account of the immersion of 
 our Blessed Saviour. 
 
 Matthew (iii. 13, 16,) records it thus, " Then 
 came Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, 
 to be baptized of him. And Jesus, when he 
 was baptized, went up straightway out of the 
 waters Mark says, (i. 9, 10,) " That Jesus 
 came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was bap- 
 tized of John in Jordan. And straightway 
 coming up out of the water" &c. 
 
 Nothing can be more explicit, and at the 
 same time comprehensive. There is not a 
 truth in our Bible of plainer import and 
 clearer record, than the immersion of Jesus 
 in Jordan. The Greek, both classical and 
 scriptural, has not the power of teaching the 
 
OUR SAVIOUR'S IMMERSION. 
 
 143 
 
 immersion of one person by another, if the 
 instances here cited do not teach it. The 
 Greek, the most happy in its expression of 
 any language in the world, and especially so 
 when aided by the idiom of Hebrew, and 
 chosen of God before all other tongues, for 
 the express purpose of making known his sal- 
 vation to the children of men in every land, 
 and of every age, the Greek, the most full and 
 copious, cannot teach the immersing of any 
 person in water, if the phrase " Jesus was bap- 
 tized of John in the river Jordan" does not 
 teach it. 
 
 Bishop Taylor says, " The custom of the 
 ancient churches was not sprinkling, but im- 
 mersion ; in pursuance of the sense of the 
 word in the commandment and the example 
 of our blessed Saviour/' In Ped. Exan. Vol. i. 
 p. 199. 
 
 No man, who means to be just with himself 
 and with his fellow men, and honest in the 
 sight of God, need mistake the true import of 
 the Scriptures above cited.* 
 
 He who can resist the force of these scrip- 
 tures, as teaching the immersion of Jesus in 
 
 * Well has Mr. Bloomfield, D. D. vicar of Bisbrooke, 
 remarked in the preface to his Greek Testament, 
 •• Words and phrases must not be taken in some recon- 
 dite, (i. e. abstruse, hidden, or obscure) sense, which 
 men of learning- and ingenuity, in support of an hypo- 
 thesis, may devise; but in the ordinary sense of the words, 
 wherein the persons addressed, whether by preaching- 
 or writing, would be likely to understand them." 
 
J44 OUR SAVIOUR'S IMMERSION. 
 
 Jordan, must be under the controlling power 
 of ignorance, of pride, of prejudice, or of some 
 other influence extraneous to the spirit of 
 Christianity.* 
 
 You will not judge me severe in this remark, 
 when you call up in your recollections the 
 discussion of this subject thus far, and when I 
 direct your attention to the most singular me- 
 thod adopted to do away with these examples 
 of immersion in the river Jordan. 
 
 You are first told that the word baptize 
 must not be translated, that the common peo- 
 ple must depend upon their ministers for its 
 signification; then you are counselled to be- 
 lieve that the word in question means any 
 application of water, any thing that the can- 
 didate shall prefer. That is, that this divine 
 institution is to be accommodated to the 
 wishes, prejudice and pride of those to whom 
 it is administered. But yet, when a convert 
 gives his preference to immersion, to be buried 
 with Christ by baptism, he is plied with the 
 potency of ridicule, and admonished to aban- 
 don such an idea ; he is told that the word 
 
 * Augustin has well remarked, that "The manner of 
 expression in which the Holy Scripture is framed, al- 
 though it is to he penetrated hut by few, is accessible to 
 all. Those plain things which it contains, it speaks to 
 the heart of the unlearned and learned, like a familiar 
 friend, without disguise. That mind which is inimical 
 to this doctrine, is either erroneously ignorant that it is 
 most wholesome, or loathes the medicine from disease." 
 Epis. 137, ad Volusianum. 
 
OUR SAVIOURS IMMERSION. |4£ 
 
 never means immersion, and that immersion 
 is not scriptural baptism; yet, when the con- 
 vert cannot be persuaded to submit to any 
 thing short of immersion for baptism, these 
 same individuals tell him, if he must be im- 
 mersed, tkey trill administer the rite to him. he 
 need not go to the Baptist 1 The inquirer is fur- 
 ther persuaded to believe that John did not 
 baptize the Saviour in the river Jordan; that 
 the word "in* 9 means only "to,"* as when it 
 is said " he went up into a mountain. 11 Matt. 
 v. 1. By this time the unsuspecting convert 
 
 * Mr. Hervey, when contending that tv signifies in, 
 adds, " I can prove it to have been in peaceable posses- 
 sion of* this signification for more than two thousand 
 years." "Every one knows," he observes in another 
 place, that w ith "is not the native, obvious, and literal 
 meaning-; rather a meaning swayed, influenced, moulded 
 by the preceding or following word." Letters to Mr. 
 Wesley, Let. X. and II. 
 
 "lam sorry to observe," says the pious Dr. George 
 Campbell, " I am sorry to observe that the popish trans- 
 lators from the Vulgate have shown greater veneration 
 for the style of that version than the generality of Pro- 
 testant translators have shown for that of the original. 
 For in this the Latin is not more exphc.t than the Greek. 
 Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, 
 that none of them have scrupled to render f v rco lophavr, 
 in Jordan, though nothing can be plainer, than that if 
 there be any incongruity in the expression in water, this 
 in Jordan must be equally incongruous. But they have 
 seen that the preposition in could not be avoided there, 
 without adopting a circumlocution, and saying with the 
 water of Jordan, which would have made their deviation 
 from the text too glaring." See his Exposition of Matt, 
 iii. 11. Compare this 11th verse with verse 6. 
 13 
 
146 0UR SAVIOUR'S IMMERSION. 
 
 is bewildered and perplexed. He dare not 
 dream of any thing short of candour in his 
 religious guides, and yet he cannot reconcile 
 such interpretations with the plain expressions 
 of Scripture. 
 
 He, perad venture, meets a Baptist and in- 
 quires how the Saviour was baptized] the 
 reply is "just as the Bible tells you, the Holy 
 Ghost meant just ivhat he inspired the sacred 
 penmen to write" " Jesus was baptized, when 
 translated, immersed, of John in Jordan, and 
 Jesus, when he was immersed, w T ent up 
 straightway out of the water." He sees and 
 acknowledges that this looks natural and easy. 
 It is just such plain instruction as we might 
 expect to receive from the Saviour respecting 
 his own peculiar institution. He sees further 
 that such a baptism harmonises most beauti- 
 fully and pertinently with its design, as an 
 emblem of the burial and resurrection of the 
 Saviour's body, as of the bodies of all the 
 saints when they shall come forth from their 
 graves to a life of entire holiness.* But then 
 the inquirer is told not to put too much confi- 
 dence in what Baptists say, for it is certain 
 
 * Doddridge's. "And after Jesus was baptized, as 
 soon as he ascended out of the water, behold, the hea- 
 vens were opened unto him. In loco. 
 
 Macknight. Jesus "submitted to be baptized, that 
 is, buried under the water by John, and to be raised out 
 of it again, as an emblem of his future death and resur- 
 rection." Apostol. Epis. Note on Rom. vi. 4. 
 
OUR SAVIOUR'S IMMERSION. 
 
 117 
 
 that the Saviour was not baptized in the river 
 Jordan, since this would be impossible, for 
 Jordan is a mighty river, its great depth and 
 rapid current utterly preclude the idea of im- 
 mersing in it ! The young inquirer is amazed 
 at this; it must be true; it comes from his pa- 
 rents, the deacon, the elder, and perhaps from 
 the minister himself. He cannot doubt it, and 
 yet he cannot make it harmonise with what is 
 said here about the baptism of our Lord in 
 Jordan, nor with what is said in Scripture 
 respecting this river. He remembers having 
 read of Naaman dipping himself seven times in 
 Jordan; of the fords of Jordan, i. e. shallow 
 parts of the river, where a person can wade 
 through, Jos. iii. 28 ; of Burckhardt saying, 
 " The river, where we passed it, was about 
 eighty paces broad, and about three feet deep," 
 Trav. p. 345 ; remembering these and other 
 like facts, he is at a loss to know why it should 
 not be thought possible to immerse in this 
 river as well as in other rivers. These items 
 of proof, showing that the Jordan is not very 
 dissimilar to all other rivers in the world, he 
 feels to be stubborn facts. And yet is he 
 most solemnly assured that to immerse in Jor- 
 dan is a thing impossible. 
 
 When all this, and much more to the same 
 effect, fails to dissuade the inquiring convert 
 who ventures to think for himself, from a faith- 
 ful imitation of his Saviour's example, in the 
 ordinance of baptism; his timidity or want of 
 
148 OUR SAVIOUR'S IMMERSION. 
 
 courage becomes the subject of attack. He is 
 told to be immersed is endangering health and 
 even life itself; and that the Lord does not re- 
 quire his followers to make such hazard for his 
 sake.* 
 
 * "My sixth argument," says Richard Baxter in his zeal- 
 ous opposition of the Baptists* "shall be against the usual 
 manner of their baptizing, as it is by dipping over head 
 in a river, or other cold water. That which is a plain 
 breach of the sixth commandment, ' thou shall not kill,' is 
 no ordinance of God, but a heinous sin. The magistrate 
 ought to restrain it, to save the lives of his subjects. That 
 this is flat murder, and no better, being ordinarily and 
 generally used, is undeniable to any understanding man. 
 And I know not what trick a courteous landlord can find 
 out to get his tenants to die apace, that he may have new 
 fines and h ©riots, likelier than to encourage such preachers, 
 that he may get them all to turn Anabaptists. In a word, 
 it is good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the 
 world that are burdensome, and to ranken church yards. 
 I conclude, if murder be a sin, then dipping, ordinarily 
 overhead in England is a sin, and if those who would 
 make it men's religion to murder themselves, and urge it 
 upon their consciences as a duty, are not to be suffered in 
 a commonwealth, anymore than highway murderers,- then 
 judge how these Anabaptists, that teach the necessity of 
 such dipping, are to be suffered." Baxter's Plain Scrip- 
 ture Proof, pp. 134 — 136. 
 
 Oh, Richard Baxter, did you know of what spirit you 
 were when you penned the above paragraph? Ay, now 
 vou know that the spirit you indulged against Baptists 
 while on earth was not the spirit of glory and of Christ ! 
 Yes, even before you were called away from earth, your 
 own eyes witnessed the sufferings of Baptists, guilty of 
 no other crime than the rejection of sprinkling ana the 
 baptism of infants. 
 
 You called for the magistrates to help, and with your 
 pen you helped the magistiates when you wrote your 
 
MODE OF REASONING. 
 
 149 
 
 Here the youthful convert's faith in Jesus, 
 and attachment to his example are put to a 
 new test. For a moment he pauses, but then 
 recovering himself a little, and though but 
 poorly prepared for such an attack, the ex- 
 ample of his Lord forces itself again upon his 
 attention; while he recollects also the five 
 hundred thousand Baptists in the United 
 States of America, all of whom have been 
 planted together in the likeness of the Saviour's 
 death, and come forth in the likeness of his re- 
 surrection, and yet, not one of them all sus- 
 tains, in consequence of this act of christian 
 fidelity, the least possible disadvantage. He 
 considers, further, that it is but a poor test of 
 one's confidence in Him who hath all power 
 in heaven and earth, to whom he has com- 
 mitted the keeping of his soul, and who has 
 promised his presence to his faithful followers 
 in every act of obedience, to turn aside from 
 the plain commands of the King in Zion, and 
 out of a wretched pusillanimity, a want of 
 
 "Plain Scripture Proof//" Imposing- title ! Ah, brother 
 Baxter, your " Saints' Everlasting Rest " is prepared for 
 none but Pedobaptists and Catabaptists ; not surely for 
 Baptists, because you consider Baptists '* murderers," 
 "highway murderers /" Guilty of violating- the sixth 
 command, l( Thou shalt not kill." And you know that 
 *'no murderer shall inherit the kingdom of God." 
 
 About the time Mr. Baxter wrote his " Plain Scrip- 
 ture Proof," the great and good John Bunyan, a Baptist, 
 of whom the world was not worthy, was confined in pri- 
 son for the space of twelve years. Many a Baptist suf- 
 fered even unto death for Christ's sake and the Gospel. 
 13* 
 
•J50 MODE OF REASONING. 
 
 christian fortitude, to have recourse to human 
 ■policy in acts of divine worship. He recollects, 
 moreover, what man is wont to hazard for 
 the sake of some temporal advantage, in itself 
 worthless it may be, and for the sake of com- 
 plying with the wishes and mandates of an 
 earthly prince. He calis up to renewed recol- 
 lection the instances of his Lord and Master 
 withdrawing amid the damps of the midnight 
 hour to the mountain's brow, and there, pros- 
 trate upon the cold earth, agonizing in earnest 
 prayer; of a pious patriarch, in obedience to 
 his God, and in defiance of human policy, 
 subjecting himself to the danger of choosing 
 the earth for his bed, stones for a pillow, and 
 nought but the canopy of the heavens for his 
 covering, and even there, after the repose of 
 the night, testifies to the preserving favour of 
 his Lord, and consecrates his adamantine pillow 
 a memorial of the Divine presence; he hears 
 an intrepid apostle exclaim, while death in its 
 most cruel forms is depicted before him, / 
 count not my life dear unto myself, so that I 
 might finish my course with joy; he remem- 
 bers the unwavering firmness in keeping the 
 truth, and the consequent martyrdom of the 
 early disciples of his divine Redeemer; recol- 
 lecting these and like instances of fearlessness 
 in the service of the Prince of peace, the as- 
 saulted courage of the youthful convert is re- 
 vived. He feels that it would be an honour to 
 die in an act of obedience to a Saviour whom 
 
B APTIZO CONTRASTED WITH WASH. J51 
 
 he devoutly loves, who has died for him, and 
 for whom he would willingly sustain the loss 
 of all things. The emotions of his pious soul 
 are but kindred to those of the poet and the 
 apostle, when they said, 
 
 "I can do all things, and can bear 
 All sufferings, if my Lord be there." 
 
 " For God hath not given us the spirit of 
 fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind. 
 For the which cause I also suffer these things; 
 nevertheless, I am not ashamed ; for I know 
 whom I have believed, and I am persuaded 
 that he is able to keep that which I have com- 
 mitted unto him against that day." 2 Tim. i. 
 7, 12. 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 A WASHING, AND AN IMMERSION OF THE HANDS CON- 
 TRASTED ; BY WHICH THE IMPORT OF BAPTIZE IS 
 DECLARED. 
 
 Mark vii. 3, 4. " For the Pharisees and 
 all the Jews, except they vl^wtai, wash their 
 hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the 
 elders. And when they come from the mar- 
 ket, except thev wash, faTttiowtai, dip, they eat 
 not." 
 
 From what has been said respecting the de- 
 
152 BAPTIZO CONTRASTED WITH WASH. 
 
 sign of King James I., by whose authority the 
 Bible now in common use was presented to the 
 world as it is, with those words then called 
 "ecclesiastical " untranslated, your minds are 
 better prepared for an understanding of the 
 passage now before us. 
 
 So intent were the translators in following 
 out the king's design, by concealing the origi- 
 nal import of the " ecclesiastical words," as in 
 some instances, grossly to pervert the mean- 
 ing of the sacred text. I have before furnished 
 you some instances where the sense of Scrip- 
 ture has been thus corrupted and turned en- 
 tirely away from its original import. 
 
 Another of these instances we have before 
 us. And'here I wish you particularly to take 
 notice and observe the violence done to this 
 scripture by not translating the Greek word 
 $ait*io*wtat in the fourth verse, nor yet transfer- 
 ring it, as they had done heretofore, but sub- 
 stituting the word wash in its stead. That you 
 may judge for yourselves of the glaring per- 
 version of this scripture, by suppressing the 
 word baptize in the fourth verse, and substitut- 
 ing the word u-ash in its place, I will read the 
 third and fourth verses in connection, restoring 
 the original words in the place of which our 
 translators put the word wasL 
 
 " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except 
 they (vi^vtai literally) wash their hands oft, 
 eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 
 And when they come from the market, excep 
 
BAPTIZO CONTRASTED WITH WASH. 
 
 153 
 
 they ($a7(ti«oivtai literally) immerse them, i. e., 
 their hands, they eat not. And many other 
 things there be, which they have received to 
 hold, as the (SaTi-tiaixovs) dipping of cups and 
 pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." 
 
 Now, you will please observe the marked 
 difference between these two verses, when 
 viewed as written by the inspiration of the Di- 
 vine Spirit. The third verse teaches us one of 
 the traditional ceremonies of the Jews. The 
 fourth verse discovers to us two more of their 
 ceremonial and traditionary observances. 
 
 The translators of our English Bible, for the 
 sake of suppressing the true import of the 
 Greek words baptize and baptism, in the fourth 
 verse, have not only concealed from an English 
 reader so much of the instructions of the Holy 
 Ghost as were intended to make us acquainted 
 with one of the traditions of the Jews, but also, 
 they have represented the Holy Ghost as using 
 the most stupid tautology. 
 
 For what purpose is the first fart of the 
 fourth verse transmitted to us, as a part of Di- 
 vine revelation, if it reveals nothing in addi- 
 tion to what is expressed in the third verse? 
 Wherefore this most needless repetition? if, 
 indeed, it be a repetition ! 
 
 Is it contended that the repetition is for the 
 sake of emphasis, rendering the instruction 
 still more impressive? Much more, then, 
 ought every verse in the New Testament to 
 have been repeated ; since there are few por- 
 
154 
 
 BAPTfZO CONTRASTED WITH WASH. 
 
 tions of the sacred text but what are infinitely 
 more important to man, than to be informed of 
 a Jewish tradition. And yet, the Holy Ghost 
 thought it not unimportant that we should be 
 made acquainted with the traditions of the 
 Jews, and be admonished not to practice what 
 God has not commanded, nor left us by way 
 of example. 
 
 It is not without some just reason that infi- 
 dels object to the inspiration of the Scriptures 
 on the ground of needless repetition, when they 
 meet with the instance before us ; which, in 
 fact, does not appertain to the text as left by 
 the Spirit, but to translations, executed by de- 
 sign. The king, controlling the consciences 
 of the translators by a royal edict, forbade them 
 to express in English what the Holy Ghost has 
 expressed in Greek I ! ! 
 
 Again, it is natural to inquire why the King's 
 translators did not uniformly transfer into their 
 version the Greek word baptize? Why is the 
 word ivash substituted for the word baptize in 
 the text under consideration? 
 
 Now, let it be remembered that they were 
 not at liberty to translate this word in the New 
 Testament, even had they been so disposed ! 
 And in this instance, to transfer the word bap- 
 tize into their version would have been as fatal 
 to their design, in concealing its true import, 
 as to have translated it; since such a transfer 
 would have contrasted the word baptize in the 
 fourth verse with the word wash in the third 
 
BAPTtZO CONTRASTED WITH WASH. 
 
 155 
 
 And in this case, their version would show, as 
 the Greek does, that baptize means more than 
 wash. Such a meaning they wished, if possi- 
 ble, to avoid. Hence they substituted wash 
 for what should have been baptize, or immerse. 
 
 In a further examination of the passage un- 
 der consideration, I may remark that, the third 
 verse mentions a custom of washing the hands 
 among the Jews, which they scrupulously at- 
 tended to before taking their meals. This tra- 
 ditionary practice was in nothing dissimilar to 
 the common practice of all enlightened nations, 
 of washing their hands before sitting down to 
 a regular repast, with the exception, the Jews 
 observed it as a religious ceremony, were very 
 uniform in its observance, and repeated the 
 washing several times on each occasion. Ex- 
 cept they wash their hands often, they eat not. 
 
 In the first clause of the fourth verse, we 
 have not a repetition of the foregoing instruc- 
 tion, but additional information, respecting not 
 the above general custom, but an occasional 
 practice, attended, to according to certain cir- 
 cumstances; and performed, not by washing 
 the hands in the ordinary way, as by using 
 one hand to put the water upon the other, or 
 by having water poured upon them, but by 
 plunging the hands, and a part of the arm, 
 sometimes up to the elbow, in water. 
 
 You will please notice, this last ceremony 
 was observed only occasionally, when circum- 
 stances required it ; perhaps, on an average, 
 
156 
 
 BAPTIZO CONTRASTED WITH WASH. 
 
 not oftener than two or three times a week. 
 Only when they had been more than usually 
 exposed to ceremonial uncleanness, as at a 
 market place, or in a promiscuous crowd, or 
 in any place where there was danger of having 
 come in contact with objects of pharisaical 
 contamination. 
 
 Now when a Jew judged himself, as having 
 contracted, in any way, this ceremonial de- 
 filement, or if he thought he might have un- 
 consciously touched any unclean person or 
 thing, and thereby became defiled, he did not 
 eat, until he had first gone through a ceremo- 
 nial purification, by plunging his kands, wrists, 
 and a part of his arms into water. And for 
 this purpose every family among the Jews 
 provided themselves with water pots, as we 
 read in John ii. 6. " And there were set there 
 six water pots of stone, after the manner of 
 the purifying of the Jews, containing two or 
 three firkins apiece."* 
 
 In this view of the Scripture, now under 
 examination, there is nothing forced, nor far 
 fetched. Ail is natural and plain, without 
 needless repetition, and without the least am- 
 biguity. *' For the Pharisees and all the Jews, 
 except they wash their hands often, eat not, 
 holding the tradition of the elders. And when 
 
 * Drs. Lightfoot, Doddridge, and others, judge that 
 these water pots contained between nine and thirteen 
 gallons each. See Dodd. in loco. 
 
BAPTIZO CONTRASTED WITH WASH. 
 
 157 
 
 they come from the market, except they dip their 
 hands, they eat not." 
 
 Moreover, many of the most profound theo- 
 logians of the Pedobaptist ranks fully sustain 
 the sentiment which I have here advanced. 
 
 The learned and judicious Spencer, in his 
 work on the Ritual Laws of the Hebrews, 
 says: 
 
 " That the greater part of the Jews, and 
 especially the Pharisees, attended to this rite 
 privately at home, and considered it a very 
 important part of religion, is sufficiently evi- 
 dent from Mark vii. 3, 4. Hence it was that 
 stone vessels for water were provided in every 
 house of the Hebrews; so that all, when about 
 to take food, might perform their frequent 
 washings, according to the discipline of the 
 Pharisees. These vessels were very suitable 
 for performing these daily purifications of the 
 Jews ; for it was customary among the Jews, 
 sometimes to wash the hands by water poured 
 upon them ; at other times, to immerse their hands 
 in water up to the wrists. The former mode 
 of washing they expressed by "tos, wash, the 
 latter by iab, dip" — Spen. De Leg. Heb. Rit. 
 p. 1175. 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot remarking on Mark vii. 3, 4, 
 says : 
 
 " The Jews used the washing of hands and 
 the plunging of the hands. And the word 
 vt^wvtcu, wash, in our evangelist seems to an- 
 swer to the former, — and Qo.ntiaweo.%, immerse, 
 14 
 
158 BAPT1Z0 CONTRASTED WITH WASH. 
 
 to the latter." — k ' Those that remain at home, 
 eat not, unless they wash the fist. But those 
 that come from the market eat not, unless they 
 plunge their fist into the water, being ignorant 
 and uncertain what uncleanness they came 
 near unto in the market." Out of Ripley. 
 
 Many Pedobaptists earnestly contend that 
 the Jews did actually immerse their whole per- 
 son when they came from the market and 
 other places of exposure to defilement. As 
 Dr. Hammond, see his Annot. on Mark vii. 4 ; 
 and Grotius in loco ; and others. 
 
 But " Kuinoel, in his commentary, asserts 
 that the existence of such a custom among the 
 Pharisees is not sustained by sufficient argu- 
 ment." Out of Ripley. 
 
 There is not sufficient ground for believing 
 that the Jews immersed their whole body when 
 returning from the market; but there can be 
 no doubt, in a candid mind, as to their practice 
 on such occasions, of dipping their hands into 
 water. 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot well remarks, on the fourth 
 verse, after having given somewhat in detail 
 the reasons for his opinion, that, "The phrase, 
 therefore, seems to be meant of the immersion, 
 or plunging of the hands only" 
 
 The whole passage, therefore, furnishes us 
 with one of the best of proofs that baptize 
 means more than to wash; that it evidently 
 signifies to dip, to plunge, or to immerse. 
 Hence, Dr. Campbell says, " For illustrating 
 
BAPTIZO CONTRASTED WITH WASH. 
 
 159 
 
 this passage, let it be observed, 1st, that the 
 two verbs rendered wash in the English trans- 
 lation, are different in the original The first 
 is vi^wtat, properly translated icask ; the second 
 is /3a7trtffwvrat, which limits us to a particular 
 mode ®f washing ; for /3a7tri§« denotes to plunge, 
 to dip. This is more especially the import, 
 when the words are, as here, opposed to each 
 other. By this interpretation, the words, which, 
 as rendered in the common version, are un- 
 meaning, appear both significant and em- 
 phatic al." 
 
 From what has been remarked you will 
 have a more distinct understanding of another 
 passage recorded by Luke xi. 38. The Sa- 
 viour being invited to dine with a Pharisee, 
 took his seat at table without first ^jSart-ttaOrj) 
 having plunged his hands into water. 
 
 Here again the Holy Ghost employs the 
 word baptized, the translators substitute the 
 word washed. 
 
 Now the Saviour, on this occasion, had been 
 particularly exposed to what the Pharisees re- 
 garded a traditional pollution; having, as we 
 learn from the 29th verse, been surrounded by 
 a mixed multitude; and therefore in the judg- 
 ment of a Pharisee he ought not to have re- 
 clined at table, without having first plunged his 
 hands into water. 
 
 In support of this interpretation, let me cite 
 a single passage from the writings of one in 
 high repute among Pedobaptists. Dr. Light- 
 
160 
 
 WASH IS NOT THE SENSE OF BAFTIZO. 
 
 foot says, "There is a washing of the hands, and 
 thereis a dipping of the hands. This clause we 
 are upon, refers to this latter. The Pharisee 
 wonders, that Christ had not washed his hands, 
 nay, that he had not dipped them all over in the 
 water, when he teas newly come from the people 
 that were gathered thick together" Here you 
 will please take notice, that, because King 
 James' translation has the word icash substi- 
 tuted for the word baptize in the above ex- 
 amined passages, and in some few others, our 
 Pedobaptist brethren, in their interpretation of 
 the word baptize, contend, both in their wri- 
 tings, and in some of their Lexicons, that the 
 word means wash ; and then, as proof of their 
 opinion, they refer to King James' translation, 
 and to their own Lexicons. In this way, they 
 think they make it out with great clearness, 
 that wash is one of the definitions to the Greek 
 word baptize. 
 
 It ought not to be disguised, that, the proof 
 adduced by our Pedobaptist brethren in sup- 
 port of their sentiment, that, to sprinkle, wash, 
 and pour, are definitions of the Greek word bap- 
 tize, is drawn entirely from their own writings. 
 
 Pedobaptists continually quote Pedobaptists ! 
 One makes an assertion, another quotes that 
 assertion as valid proof. The Pedobaptist 
 King James, and his Pedobaptist translators 
 substituted icash for the Greek baptize, or for 
 the English immerse, and now, forsooth, our 
 Pedobaptist brethren attempt to prove that 
 
WASH IS NOT THE SENSE OF BAPT1ZO. 
 
 161 
 
 baptize means to wash, since wash is found in 
 the King's translation. 
 
 In such a circle of reasoning any body of 
 men can prove any thing, however foreign 
 from the truth. Happy am I in having it to 
 say that I have not felt the least necessity to 
 appeal to the sayings of ray Baptist brethren 
 in proof of my sentiments. The word of God 
 interpreted by the same laws that govern the 
 interpretation of other doctrines of our holy 
 religion, and the honest concessions of Pedo- 
 baptists themselves, have been the divine and 
 human testimonies adduced in support of 
 what I attempt to advance. Added to these 
 I have, on a few occasions, called in some dis- 
 interested witnesses, as for instance, a Jew, a 
 Quaker, and an infidel, who with an unbiassed 
 mind testify in favour of what I teach. 
 
 After what has been said upon Mark vii. 3, 
 4, and Luke xi. 38, I shall do little more than 
 refer my hearers to those texts where wash in 
 our version is substituted for baptize and bap- 
 tism, in the Greek Scriptures. 
 
 They are as follows : " And many other 
 things there be, which they have received to 
 hold, as the washing (/Sa^^or?, dipping,*) of 
 cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." 
 " Ye hold the traditions of men, as the 
 washing (^arttt^w*, dipping,) of pots and cups," 
 Mark vii. 4, 8. " Which stood only in meats 
 and drinks, and divers washings, {paMiofiots, 
 dippings,) and carnal ordinances imposed on 
 14* 
 
162 WASH IS NOT THE SENSE OF BAPTIZO. 
 
 them until the time of the reformation." As 
 to these " divers dippings" it is sufficient to 
 learn what they were from a Bible law, which 
 will equally explain the dipping of cups, pots, 
 brazen vessels, and tables, mentioned in Mark 
 vii. 4, 8. The law runs thus, " And upon what- 
 soever any of them, when they are dead, doth 
 fall, it shall be unclean ; whether it be any ves- 
 sel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, what- 
 soever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, 
 it must be put into water." Lev. xi. 32. 
 
 Respecting the traditionary dippings men- 
 tioned by Mark vii. 4, 8. I need do no more 
 than cite a passage from the writings of Mai- 
 monides, a Jew who evinces great tenacity for 
 Jewish traditions. Speaking of the dipping of 
 vessels, &c, he says: 
 
 " In a laver which holds forty seahs of water 
 they dip all unclean vessels. A bed that is 
 wholly defiled, if he dips it part by part, it is 
 pure. If he dips the bed in a pool, although 
 the feet are plunged in the thick clay at the 
 bottom of the pool, it is clean. What shall he 
 do with a pillow or bolster of skin 1 He must 
 dip them and lift them up by the fringes." — 
 Quoted by Lightfoot. 
 
MUCH WATER IN ENON. 153 
 
 Section V. 
 
 the ordinance of baptism was administered by im- 
 mersion, as is circumstantially evidenced in 
 John's choosing enon for that purpose, because 
 there was much water there. 
 
 " And John also was baptizing in Enon, near 
 to Salim, because there was much water there; 
 and they came and were baptized." John iii. 23. 
 
 Every thoughtful and unprejudiced mind 
 must be impressed with the plain import of this 
 text, with a bare reading of it, even with the 
 Greek word baptize in it. The reason why John 
 baptized in iEnon is here given by the Holy 
 Ghost, " because there was much water there" 
 The phrase, " much water" (vSara Ttovka, hudata 
 polla,) is frequently used by the sacred pen- 
 man, and may, with no less propriety be ren- 
 dered, "many waters" As used by the same 
 writer, who employs it in the text, every one 
 may satisfy himself by turning to Rev. i. 15 — 
 xiv. 2 — xvii. 1, 15 — xix. 6. The whole force 
 of these passages is entirely destroyed, by 
 making the phrase "many waters" mean no- 
 thing more than streamlets, as is contended for 
 by our Pedobaptist brethren. Just in the same 
 way, is the strength of those passages destroy- 
 ed which represent the magnitude of the Sa- 
 viour's sufferings by an overwhelming,* when 
 
 * Mr. James Hervey expresses himself on this subject, 
 with great energy. "He longed, (beneficent, blessed 
 
Jg4 MUCH WATER IN ENON. 
 
 the attempt is made to interpret that over- 
 whelming or baptism, of which the Saviour 
 spake, by a mere sprinkling ! 
 
 Again, let it be observed that the phrase, 
 " many waters" is used to designate the great 
 river Euphrates. Jer. li. 13, compared with 
 verse 63. 
 
 The same phrase is used to designate the 
 ocean, as we learn from Psalm lxxvii. 19 — xciii. 
 4 — cvii. 23. From the instances here cited, 
 every one must stand reproved, who shall at- 
 tempt to make it appear that, the phrase, 
 " much water" more generally rendered, 
 " many waters" and great waters" means only 
 rivulets, or little rills. And yet, should the un- 
 suspecting be so far imposed upon, as to be- 
 lieve that " much water," means many little 
 streams, it is sufficient to remind them, that, 
 one little stream often affords the most conve- 
 nient places for the immersion of believers. 
 Much more then must it in all sincerity be 
 granted that, a confluence of many such streams 
 should furnish water in great plenty, even in a 
 superabundance for the purpose of immersing 
 those, who, yielding a glad compliance to the 
 command of Jesus, " came and were baptized." 
 
 I may further remark, the Holy Ghost in- 
 
 BEING !) he longed for the fatal hour. He severely re- 
 buked one of his disciples who would have dissuaded him 
 from going - as a volunteer to the cross. He was even 
 straitened, under a kind of holy uneasiness, till the dread- 
 ful work was accomplished ; till he was baptized with the 
 baptism of his sufferings, bathed in blood, and plunged in 
 death ! Theron and Aspasio, vol. ii. Let. 7. 
 
MUCH WATER IN ENON. jgrj 
 
 forms us that John was immersing in JEnon, 
 because there mas much water there. Some of 
 our Pedobaptist brethren inform us that John 
 was sprinkling at iEnon, because there were 
 many little rivulets there, and that John chose 
 this place out of compassion to the thirsty mul- 
 titude who resorted to his sprinkling, as also 
 out of compassion to their horses and mules, 
 that all might find water sufficient to allay their 
 thirst ! ! ! 
 
 Unfortunately for such expositors of the 
 word of God, others of our Pedobaptist bre- 
 thren, more learned and ingenuous, grant all 
 that Baptists ask, and fully sustain our interpre- 
 tation of this text. 
 
 The pious Doddridge remarks as follows, 
 " And John was also at that time baptizing at 
 Mnon, which was a place near Salem, a town 
 on the west side of Jordan ; and he 'particular- 
 ly chose that place, because there was a great 
 quantity of water there, which made it very con- 
 venient for his purpose. Nothing surely can be 
 more evident, than that Ttovka vho.ua, many iva- 
 ters, signifies a large quantity of water, it being 
 sometimes used for the Euphrates Jer. li. 13." 
 In loco. Calvin says, " From these words, 
 John iii. 23, it may be inferred that baptism 
 was administered, by John and Christ, by 
 plunging the whole body under water." In Paed. 
 Exam. vol. 1, p. 194. Whitby says, " on i>&*?a 
 rco% i ka^v txsc; because there was much water 
 there, in which their whole bodies might be 
 dipped." Annot. in loco. 
 
IQQ BAPTISMS DURING PENTECOST. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 INSTANCES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM RECORDED IN 
 THE ACTS AND EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 Section I. 
 
 THE BAPTISMS DURING THE GREAT ANNUAL FESTIVAL OF 
 THE JEWS, CALLED THE PENTECOST. ACTS II. 41. 
 
 "Then they that gladly received his word were bap- 
 tized." 
 
 The ever memorable transactions which 
 had fallen in swift succession immediately 
 anterior to this pentecostal season, were all 
 such as could not fail to impress the mind of 
 every Jew with the deepest solemnity, and 
 call together on this occasion a vast concourse 
 of people. 
 
 But fifty-three days earlier, and Jesus was 
 hanging upon the cross; the astonished sun 
 was in sackcloth ; the rocks were rent asun- 
 der ; and the smitten sinner, as he gazed upon 
 the scene, was heard to exclaim, "Jruly this 
 was the Son of God." But a liltlc subsequent, 
 this mighty God, despite of human policy, for- 
 sakes the marble tomb ! And then for forty 
 succeeding days he showed himself to many, 
 at several times, till within ten days of the 
 
THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. 2G7 
 
 pentecost, when he was taken up, and a cloud 
 received him out of their sight. 
 
 The awakened anxiety which now 7 so gene- 
 rally prevailed, the long days of leisure, just 
 following the harvest, and the solemnity of the 
 feast itself filled Jerusalem with guests from 
 every part of the land, and from among all 
 nations. A little before the Apostles had re- 
 ceived the promise of being endowed with 
 power from on high. Acts i. 8. Com. v. 5. 
 Now they were realizing the fulfilment of that 
 promise. Acts ii. 1 — 4. Peter preached, 
 aided it is likely, by the rest of the Apostles, 
 and many were deeply impressed, and in- 
 quired what they should do? After further 
 instruction had been imparted to these anx- 
 ious sinners, in which they were directed to 
 believe in Jesus, the sacred historian says, 
 " Then they that gladly received his word 
 were baptized; and the same day there were 
 added unto them about three thousand souls." 
 Acts ii. 36—42. 
 
 We are here informed that about three 
 thousand were baptized, i. e. immersed. 
 
 Our Pedobaptist brethren, in their attempt 
 to make the Greek word baptize mean sprin- 
 kle, have entered an objection against the true 
 import of this scripture, on the ground that 
 three thousand could not have been immersed 
 in a single day. 
 
 Dr. Miller states his objection as follows, 
 " When Peter rose to commence his sermon, 
 
168 
 
 THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. 
 
 it was nine o'clock in the morning. Besides 
 the discourse of which we have a sketch in 
 the chapter containing the account, we are 
 told he exhorted and testified with many other 
 words. All these services, together with re- 
 ceiving the confession of three thousand con- 
 verts, must unavoidably have consumed seve- 
 ral hours; leaving only four or five hours, at 
 the utmost, for baptizing the whole number. 
 But they were all baptized the same day." 
 Miller on Baptism, p. 89. 
 
 Having considered at some length the early 
 usage of the word baptize, and shown to a 
 mind free of prejudice, that its only appropri- 
 ate meaning is to immerse, all I purpose do- 
 ing here is to answer this objection. 
 
 You will observe that no mention is made 
 of the place where these converts were bap- 
 tized. We are simply told that "they that 
 gladly received his word were baptized" When 
 this ordinance was first administered, and 
 while it was yet a new thing to the people, 
 the Holy Ghost condescended to mention 
 with great exactness the places where it was 
 administered, and the circumstances attend- 
 ing its administration. And these are such as 
 cannot fail to declare the true import of the 
 word baptize, even though the word itself 
 were shrouded with ambiguity. We are ex- 
 pressly told that John baptized in the river 
 Jordan. He baptized Jesus in Jordan. And 
 Jesus when he was baptized came up out of the 
 
THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. jgg 
 
 water. And John was baptizing in Enon, 
 because there icas muck water there. No sin- 
 cere Christian ought to ask any thing further. 
 All is plain. But after the institution had 
 been given in language explicit, held to view 
 in the minute circumstances attending its ad- 
 ministration, and the places where it was per- 
 formed particularly noted, the Holy Ghost 
 thought that a bare mention of the ordinance 
 would be sufficient, without repeating, in 
 every instance, the Jordan, or river, or Enon, or 
 brook, or much water, in which the immersion 
 was administered. 
 
 But all error seeks to justify itself by rais- 
 ing captious and frivolous objections, and by 
 demanding more than the Divine Spirit has 
 been pleased to reveal. " We read nothing," 
 says Dr. Miller, "of the Apostles taking the 
 converts away from Solomon's porch, or wher- 
 ever else they were assembled, to any river 
 or stream for the sake of baptizing them." 
 
 Because the inspired historian did not spe- 
 cify the place where the immersion was ad- 
 ministered, Dr. Miller draws the conclusion 
 that the candidates must have been sprinkled. 
 He might, with the same kind of logical rea- 
 soning, have extended his inquiry a little fur- 
 ther and found proof to justify females admi- 
 nistering the holy rite, by saying, " we read 
 nothing of the Apostles baptizing these con- 
 verts; therefore they must have either bap- 
 tized themselves, or some of the Jerusalem 
 15 
 
i 70 THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. 
 
 ladies must have administered the rite to 
 them ! !" 
 
 In the above reasoning of the learned Dr. 
 there is the tacit acknowledgment that had a 
 river, pool, or brook been mentioned, it would 
 indicate that immersion was the mode. When 
 the Holy Spirit was pleased to name the 
 places to which John repaired for the purpose 
 of immersing, the Doctor found a way to 
 evade the force of the divine record ; when 
 the place is not named, then he makes the 
 omission an argument in favour of sprinkling. 
 I am reminded of the Jews who found fault 
 with John for his manner of life; and then 
 with Christ, because his manner of living was 
 unlike that of John's. Dr. Miller is no less 
 fastidious. For when the Holy Ghost informs 
 us that John baptized in Jordan, the Doctor 
 attempts to assign the reason why the river 
 was resorted to on such occasions, not he 
 supposes, to immerse, but because John was 
 so poor that he had not a basin or dish of any 
 description from which to sprinkle the con- 
 verts. And again, when it is said John went 
 to Enon to baptize because there was much 
 water there, the Doctor says, he went to Enon 
 to obtain water for the purpose of quenching 
 the thirst of the people and the beasts employed 
 for their transportation. And then, on the 
 'other hand, when no mention is made of the 
 place of baptism, the Doctor is confident that 
 not immersion but sprinkling was the mode, 
 
THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. jiyj 
 
 or the liver, or stream where baptism was ad- 
 ministered would have been noted. 
 
 I cannot avoid the conviction that such 
 twisting and turning, asserting and inferring, 
 as are every where perceivable in the Doc- 
 tor's Tract on Baptism, will gain for him no 
 reputation among the more pious and learned 
 as a scholar, a Christian, or a candid rea- 
 soner. Besides, such a course is doing incal- 
 culable injury both to the cause of piety and 
 truth. Surely such a course is abetting, in no 
 small degree, the cause of infidelity and scep- 
 ticism. These remarks are prompted out of 
 no unkind feeling towards either Dr. Miller 
 or any of my Pedobaptist brethren; but out 
 of a jealous and careful concern for the cause 
 of religion and the souls of men, which are 
 endangered by such Christian sophistry. 
 
 Again. Our Pedobaptist brethren generally 
 put it down as a Scripture truth, that the 
 three thousand were all baptized on the same 
 day. Now this is wise above what is written. 
 The Bible in no place instructs us to believe 
 that the three thousand pentecostal converts 
 were baptized the same day. The Bible says 
 they were added unto them, i. e. to the church, 
 tJie same day. Their baptism might have 
 been administered during several days in suc- 
 cession ; and then, on some set day. the whole 
 three thousand were received to the fellow- 
 ship of the church and to the breaking of 
 bread. 
 
I J2 THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot judiciously remarks as fol- 
 lows, "It is said they that gladly received his 
 word were baptized; and then as speaking of 
 another story, he (Luke) saith, there were 
 added the same day about three thousand 
 souls." See his Commentary on the Acts of 
 the Apostles. 
 
 But I am not particular on this point. I am 
 willing the objection should be held to view in 
 all the strength with which human, ingenuity 
 can invest it. Let the supposition then read 
 as our Pedobaptist brethren desire it should, 
 though manifestly incorrect, viz: that the 
 three thousand " were all baptized that same 
 day, and during the latter part of the day" 
 Now whatever objection may be invented 
 to destroy the idea of the immersion of the 
 three thousand during a given period, will 
 equally destroy the idea of sprinkling or pour- 
 ing them, during the same period. For the 
 time required for an immersion is but a trifle, 
 if any, more than the time necessary for a 
 pouring or spriiikling. Unless we admit the 
 supposition of some of our Pedobaptist bre- 
 thren, that as the crowd stood near to some 
 water, one of the Apostles took a bunch of 
 hyssop, or some other instrument, and flirted 
 the water upon the multitude.* 
 
 * Mr. Guyse says, " It seems, therefore, to me that the 
 people stood in ranks near to, or just within the edge of 
 the river ; and John, passing 1 along before them, cast water 
 upon their heads or faces with his hands, or some proper 
 
I 
 
 THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. |^g 
 
 Although such a supposition is childish, yet 
 it may be remarked, that it is as well founded 
 as most others which our brethren who advo- 
 cate sprinkling, have the felicity to invent. 
 True, it is a very summary way to administer 
 a divine ordinance, but the mode they say is 
 nonessential, any application of water with 
 them is valid baptism ! ! 
 
 As to the time required for immersing be- 
 lievers, suffer me to adduce some facts, which 
 cannot fail to answer the specious objection 
 which is raised against the immersion of the 
 three thousand in a single day. The Rev. 
 George Higgins, of Philadelphia, on the second 
 day of April, 1840, baptized ninety-five willing 
 
 instrument, by which means, he might easily baptize 
 many thousands in a day." His Paraphrase, Vol. i. 
 p. 12. 
 
 Dr. Miller thinks to have improved a little upon 
 Mr. Guyse's theory. He says, speaking- of John, "As a 
 poor man, who lived in the wilderness, whose raiment 
 was of the meanest kind, and whose food was such alone 
 as the desert afforded, it is not to be supposed that he 
 possessed appropriate vessels for administering - baptism 
 to multitudes by pouring or sprinkling. He, therefore, 
 seems to have made use of the neighbouring stream of 
 water for this purpose, descending its banks, a?id setting 
 his feet on its margin, so as to admit of his using a hand- 
 ful, to answer the symbolical purpose intended by the 
 application of water in baptism." Miller, p. 93. 
 
 Such fanciful interpretations of the word of God, for 
 the purpose of proving to the world that sprinkling is 
 baptism must, it might seem, awaken suspicions in every 
 Christian bosom, and tend to open their eyes to behold the 
 ftarful extreme to which the advocates of sprinkling have 
 gone. 
 
 15* 
 
174 THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. 
 
 converts in the short space of one hour and five 
 minutes,\n a solemn and deliberate manner, Hav- 
 ing no special regard to the length of time oc- 
 cupied. No Pedobaptist minister could have 
 sprinkled, or poured, these ninety-five obedient 
 converts, in a shorter space of time, provided 
 he observed the same degree of deliberation, 
 and did not make use of his scoop, or hyssop- 
 brush. I will only select one other instance of 
 this kind, which goes to show that it was no 
 difficult task for the Apostles, then at Jerusa- 
 lem, to immerse the three thousand in one 
 day. 
 
 " In the Religious Herald, we find a letter 
 over the signature of I. W. Allen, in which the 
 writer states, that being called upon with an- 
 other minister who had never performed the 
 rite, to baptize one hundred and two persons, 
 there were Pedobaptists present to mark the 
 time occupied, and the result was, they were 
 all immersed in the name of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, in the space of sixteen minutes. 
 The above is written for the especial benefit of 
 those who are troubled, or kept from duty by 
 this objection, and if such will use a little arith- 
 metic, they will find that at the rate above, the 
 twelve Apostles alone might have administered 
 the rite to the three thousand in less than an 
 hour! We confess that the showing up of such 
 errors is a small business, but if D. D.'s will 
 make themselves so small, we must occasion- 
 ally try to adapt our arguments to their capa- 
 cities." — Chr. Watchman. 
 
THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. 
 
 175 
 
 But again, the objection of our brethren, 
 who contend for sprinkling as one of the de- 
 finitions of baptize, generally supposes that one 
 of the Apostles must have baptized the whole 
 three thousand. Now this, you will perceive, 
 is wholly gratuitous. The Bible does not in- 
 form us how' many of the Apostles aided in 
 the administration. The Saviour had chosen 
 twelve, the vacancy, occasioned by the dere- 
 liction of Judas, had been filled, as we learn 
 from Acts i. 15 — 26; and at another time, he 
 sent forth seventy more, these all, with others, 
 were now convened in Jerusalem, agreeable 
 to appointment for the purpose, among other 
 things, to choose and ordain one to the ministry, 
 to be witness with them of the resurrection of 
 our Lord. " The number of names together 
 were about a hundred and twenty.'' 1 Acts i. 
 22, compared with v. 15.* 
 
 * Dr. Lightfoot on this fifteenth verse, observes, 
 "This summeth the men that are spoken of in the verse 
 preceding- ; the twelve Apostles, the seventy Disciples, and 
 about thirty-eight more, all of Christ's own kindred, 
 country, or converse. These one hundred and twenty 
 here spoken of, are not to be reputed, or accounted as 
 the whole number of believers at Jerusalem at this time; 
 but only those that had followed Christ continually, v. 21, 
 were of his own country, stood in more near relation to 
 him, as being- of his own family and society, and appoint- 
 ed by him for the ministry." 
 
 On Acts i. 8, he says, '* The whole hundred and 
 twenty, mentioned in v. 15, of this chapter, received the 
 gift of tongues, and not the eleven only." And on v. 13, 
 " They went up into an upper room." He says, "This 
 
17(3 THREE THOUSAND BAPTIZED. 
 
 The frank concession of Professor Stuart, 
 quoted by Professor Jewett, is not a little appo- 
 site to our present purpose. He observes, " It is 
 true, we do not know that baptism was perform- 
 ed by the Apostles only, nor that all the three 
 thousand were baptized before the going down 
 of the sun. The work may have extended 
 into the evening; and so, many being engaged 
 in it, and more time being given, there was a 
 possibility that the work should be performed, 
 although immersion was practised." He might 
 have added, We do not know but the one hun- 
 dred and twenty apostles all aided in the ad- 
 ministration of immersion; and this would 
 leave them but twenty-five candidates apiece, 
 which was most likely the case, provided the 
 three thousand were all immersed in one day. 
 
 Let it be observed still further, that history 
 furnishes us with ample evidence, respecting 
 the possibility of immersing three thousand in 
 one day. It might seem that the providence 
 of God had watched over the ordinance of im- 
 mersion, and furnished answers to every ob- 
 jection that, can be urged against it by the 
 ingenuity of men. 
 
 " On the great Sabbath of the Easter festival, 
 the 16th day of April, A. D., 404,Chrysostom, 
 with the assistance of the clergy of his own 
 
 was the place where this society of Jlpostles and Elders 
 kept, as it were, their college and consistory, while they 
 staid at Jerusalem, and till persecution scattered them." 
 Light, Com. on Acts, in loco. 
 
TEN THOUSAND BAPTIZED IN ONE DAY. jyiy 
 
 church, baptized, by immersion, three thou- 
 sand persons. Yes, one man, assisted only by 
 his presbyters, in one day, and in one place, 
 immersed three thousand persons; and that, 
 too, notwithstanding the Christians were twice 
 attacked by furious soldiers, the enemies of 
 Chrysostom." " So in 496, Remigius, bishop 
 of Rheims, baptized in the same day, by immer- 
 sion, Clovis, king of France, and three thousand 
 of his subjects." — Christian Review, Vol. 3, 
 pp. 91, 92. Out of Jewett. 
 
 "About the year 590," says Dr. Pagitt, 
 " Gregory, bishop of Rome, sent Austen, the 
 monk, and others, into Britain, who mightily 
 prevailed over the heathenish Saxons, in Kent, 
 so that there were in one day about ten thou- 
 sand men baptized, besides women and children, 
 in a river, the water being hallowed by Austen." 
 — Christianography, Part 2, p. 9. 
 
 It cannot be necessary to detain you further, 
 in multiplying instances of this kind, where 
 many have been immersed in one day, in order 
 to induce you to admit what is stated by the 
 Holy Ghost. Your piety, and your reverence 
 for the word of God, if, indeed, you believe in 
 a divine revelation, ought never to have suffer- 
 ed you to question the statement of the sacred 
 penman, Luke, that three thousand had been 
 baptized, and also that, during a single day, 
 the union of this whole number with the 
 church was consummated. 
 
 Indeed, I am forcibly reminded of a little 
 
178 BAPTISM OF PAUL. 
 
 circumstance, with which I have somewhere 
 met, out of the Rabbinical writings of the Jews, 
 that when Moses, by Divine command, was 
 about to write, " Let us make man," he cried 
 out, " O Lord of the worlds, why wilt thou 
 give men occasion to err about thy most sim- 
 ple unity?" The Lord answered him and said, 
 " Write as I bid thee; and if any man love to 
 err, let him err." 
 
 Luke, when writing the history of the Chris- 
 tian Church of his time, and penning an ac- 
 count of the revival at Jerusalem, as he was 
 about to record the baptism of three thousand, 
 without mentioning the length of time, and 
 the number of administrators, might have ex- 
 claimed as did Moses, and been replied to as 
 was he. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE GREAT APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES. 
 
 Acts ix. 17; xxn. 16; ix. 18; 
 
 " And Ananias said, Brother Saul, the Lord, 
 even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the 
 way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou 
 mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with 
 the Holy Ghost. And now, why tarriest thou? 
 Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
 sins, calling on the name of the Lord. And 
 
BAPTISM OF PAUL. j-yg 
 
 immediately there fell from his eyes, as it had 
 been scales, and he received sight forthwith, 
 and arose and was baptized." Here again, the 
 place where baptism was administered, is not 
 specified, further than the converted Saul was, 
 at the lime of his immersion, in Damascus. 
 The advocates for sprinkling contend, that 
 Saul could not have been immersed, because 
 no mention is made of his going to a river, 
 pool, or any body of water. 
 
 Had King James suffered the word baptize 
 to have been translated, all would be perfectly 
 plain: "He arose, and was immersed." But, 
 as before remarked, the Holy Spirit did not 
 design so much to teach us here the manner 
 of administering this ordinance, though this, 
 indeed, is included in the word, as to declare 
 to us the order of the Church of Christ, and to 
 show us one of the first duties devolving upon 
 every converted soul, viz., to be immersed 
 in the name of Jesus, and in the faith of his 
 power to raise us up at the last day. Hence 
 Saul is informed of his duty, in answer to his 
 inquiry, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to 
 do?" "Arise, and be immersed." 
 
 Notwithstanding baptism, here, as in some 
 other places, is only the subject of allusion, 
 just as it is common with all Christians to men- 
 tion baptism without specifying the place of 
 its administration, yet, what is said on the oc- 
 casion, and the circumstances attending the 
 baptism of Saul, all indicate immersion. 
 
I gQ BAPTISM OF PAUL. 
 
 He is called upon to arise, and be baptized? 
 evidently implying that he could not be bap- 
 tized where he was sitting. Had sprinkling, 
 or pouring, been the mode, there could have 
 been no necessity for Saul to leave the place 
 where he was. 
 
 Before he was called upon to arise, Ananias 
 put his hands on him, that he might receive his 
 sight, and while sitting, too, it would have been 
 most convenient to have sprinkled him, if that 
 had been the mode. But the very expression 
 indicates that Saul was to depart to some 
 other place in order to be baptized. This sense 
 is strengthened not a little, by the saying of 
 Luke, who very particularly observes that 
 "he arose, and was baptized." And what 
 renders it still more evident that Saul was not 
 baptized in the house where Ananias found 
 him, is the very expressive interrogation ad- 
 dressed to him immediately on receiving his 
 sight, " And now, why tarriest thou V 9 Un- 
 questionably implying that in order to his 
 baptism, he must depart to some other place; 
 and that he should do it without delay. 
 
 I may further remark, Saul was now at Da- 
 mascus, a great city, the capital of Syria. Isa. 
 vii. 8. So great was this city, according to 
 Josephus, as to suffer the loss of twenty-eight 
 thousand of her citizens, with their wives and 
 children. Ten thousand of these were mas- 
 sacred in one hour. Such a city demands a 
 great supply of water to meet the daily and 
 
BAITISM OF THE JAILER. 
 
 181 
 
 hourly wants of her thronging multitudes. 
 Had nature not furnished her with this indis- 
 pensable blessing, art would have been employ- 
 ed for that purpose. But nature's gifts are 
 bountiful; and Damascus shared largely in the 
 rich distributions of this necessary element, 
 without which we should all cease to live. 
 
 And yet an attempt is made to support sprink- 
 ling by imposing upon the credulity of the young 
 and unskilled in ancient geography, in making 
 them believe that there was not water in and 
 about Jerusalem and Damascus, " which would 
 admit of immersing a human being." 
 
 Section III. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE JAILER AND HIS HOUSEHOLD. 
 
 acts xvi. 30 — 34. 
 
 " And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what 
 must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be 
 saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him 
 the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his 
 house. And he took them the same hour of the 
 night, and was baptized, he and all his, 
 straightway. And when he had brought 
 them into his house, he set meat before them, 
 and rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
 house." 
 
 Who they were that were baptized on this 
 1G 
 
1Q2 BAPTISM OF THE JAILER. 
 
 occasion, and their qualifications for the ordi- 
 nance, will be considered in the proper place. 
 
 It is said the jailer must have been sprin- 
 kled, since he was baptized in the prison. 
 
 But mark: Is it said that his baptism took 
 place in the prison : Let us consider this 
 subject somewhat in detail: 
 
 1. The jailer sprang in where Paul and 
 Silas were, and fell down at their feet. 
 
 2. The jailer next brought them out, and, 
 under a sense of his sins, inquired what he 
 must do to be saved. He was directed to the 
 Lamb of God. 
 
 3. In the third place, the jailer's family was 
 called together to hear the news of salvation, 
 by these pious prisoners. They spake unto 
 him the word of the Lord, and to all that 
 were in his house. V. 32. 
 
 4. The jailer took them and washed their 
 lacerated backs ; they having been severely 
 scourged. Verses 33, 37. 
 
 5. After the Apostles' wounds had been 
 washed, the baptism took place. And was 
 baptized, he and all his, slraightway. V. 33. 
 
 6. When the jailer and his family were 
 baptized, the Apostles were invited to return 
 to the house and take some refreshment. 
 V. 34. 
 
 7. The jailer and all his family now con- 
 verted, and having followed the footsteps, as 
 well as the command of the Saviour in being 
 baptized, rejoiced, believing in God. V. 34. 
 
BAPTISM OF THE JAILER. jgg 
 
 8. After the Apostles had taken meat, they 
 were returned back again into the prison. 
 This is evident from verses 35 — 37. 
 
 9. The magistrates came in the morning 
 and brought the Apostles out of the prison, as 
 the jailer had done the night before. V r erses 
 38—40. 
 
 All these circumstances taken together show 
 most convincingly, that the Apostles were not 
 baptized in the jailer's house, nor in the inner 
 prison; but either in the outer court of the 
 prison, in the prison yard, or in some stream 
 of water near at hand. The river Strymon 
 was adjacent. Every scholar is acquainted 
 with the fact, that eastern public buildings 
 were formerly, and are, in many places even 
 to this- day, provided with large reser- 
 voirs of water. Sometimes the dungeon of 
 an eastern prison was nothing more than one 
 of these reservoirs exhausted of its water. 
 Into such a prison was Jeremiah cast, "and 
 in the dungeon there was no water but mire; 
 so Jeremiah sunk in the mire." Such reser- 
 voirs were of greater or less dimensions. 
 The one into which the prophet was put was 
 of the largest kind. He was let down into it, 
 and raised up out of it by cords. Jer. xxxviii. 
 6, 13. 
 
 You will observe further, that this reservoir 
 or dungeon, as it is called, "was in the court 
 of the prison." V. 6. 
 
 Moreover, it was formerly an universal 
 
184 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE JAILER. 
 
 custom in eastern countries for men in public 
 service to be provided with the conveniences 
 for bathing their whole person. 
 
 " Grotius, (the most learned and best in- 
 formed man in Europe in his time) held it as 
 highly probable, from the practice of the 
 country, that the jail of Philippi was provided 
 with baths, which would admit of the ordi- 
 nance in this form without delay." 
 
 The jailer's family hath would now be at 
 the disposal ot' the Apostles. Most gladly 
 would he now go forth in company with his 
 entire family to yield ouedience to his Sa- 
 viour's command, and to be laid beneath 
 those pure waters where he had often laid 
 himself down without the thought of his final 
 burial and resurrection, and with as little re- 
 gard to a preparation for those solemn events. 
 
 I cannot avoid the conviction, therefore, 
 from the circumstances mentioned in connec- 
 tion with the jailer's baptism, even were the 
 word baptize of dubious import, though it is 
 not, that he and his family were immersed. 
 
 That he was immersed is certain from the 
 import of the word baptize; which, I have 
 before sufficiently proved, means only to im- 
 merse. 
 
 Hence; Hospinianus says, "Christ com- 
 manded us to he baptized, by which word it is 
 certain immersion is signified." Hist. Sacra. 
 L. II. c. i. p. 30. 
 
 Buddeus says, "The words baptizein and 
 
CERTAIN DISCIPLES NOT BAPTIZED. 195 
 
 baptimos are not to be interpreted of asper- 
 sions ; but always of immersion" Theol. 
 Dogmat. L. V. c. i. § 5. 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 CERTAIN DISCIPLES AT EPHESUS, WHEN MORE FULLY IN- 
 STRUCTED IN THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL AND RESPECT- 
 ING THE NATURE OF THEIR BAPTISM, WERE ENDOWED 
 WITH THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 Acts xix. 1. Paul having passed through 
 the upper coasts, came to Ephesus ; and find- 
 ing certain disciples, 2. He said unto them, 
 Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye 
 believed ? And ihey said unto him, We have 
 not so much as heard whether there be any 
 Holy Ghost. 3. And he said unto them, Unto 
 what then were ye baptized? And they said, 
 Unto John's baptism. 4. Then said Paul, 
 John verily baptized with the baptism of re- 
 pentance, saying unto the people, That they 
 should believe on him which should come 
 after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5. When 
 they heard this, they were baptized in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus. 6. And when Paul 
 had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost 
 catne on them ; and they spake with tongues, 
 and prophesied. 7. And all the men were 
 about twelve. 
 16* 
 
18G 
 
 CERTAIN DISCIPLES NOT BAPTIZED. 
 
 This is a much controverted passage, and 
 therefore should never be resorted to as proof 
 against the validity of that holy rite which 
 John administered to our blessed Redeemer, 
 in the river Jordan. 
 
 But the prevailing desire on the part of our 
 Pedobaptist brethren to avoid the plain in- 
 stances of John's baptism, when there can be 
 no reasonable doubt that he administered the 
 holy rite by immersion, has led them to deny 
 that John's baptism was Christian baptism; 
 and, consequently, to deny that our Saviour 
 was thus baptized. And then to make it ap- 
 pear that they are in the right in the position 
 which they have very gratuitously assumed, 
 an appeal is repeatedly made to the Scripture 
 before us. 
 
 From this Scripture the attempt is made to 
 prove John's baptism not to be a gospel ordi- 
 nance, since these disciples whom Paul found 
 at Ephesus, and who had been baptized unto 
 John's baptism, were now, as they suppose, re- 
 baptized by Paul. 
 
 Could the advocates of sprinkling maintain 
 their position, that these disciples were re- 
 baptized, yet it does by no means follow 
 that John did not administer to his believing 
 converts the same sacred rite which the hun- 
 dred and twenty Apostles administered to the 
 three thousand during the feast of pentecost. 
 
 One somewhat obscure passage can never 
 overturn a plain evident truth. Yet is it the 
 
CERTAIN DISCIPLES NOT BAPTIZED. J 87 
 
 almost universal custom of our Pedobaptist 
 brethren to lay hold of the obscure passages, 
 and force them to sustain sprinkling for bap- 
 tism. Indeed, my brethren, it requires no 
 little degree of ingenuity on the part of Pedo- 
 baptists, to turn this Scripture to their advan- 
 tage. At the best, they have to take a very 
 circuitous route; and that, too, at the expense 
 of our Saviour's baptism, both as being valid, 
 and as an example for our imitation. 
 
 No plain, unambitious disciple of our Lord 
 and Master could ever have thought, and much 
 less dared to support sprinkling on a ground 
 which must exclude the holy John, with all the 
 repenting and believing converts that followed 
 his instruction, from the Christian dispensa- 
 tion. And yet, not only John, but also Christ, 
 the captain of salvation, the great head of the 
 church, is not allowed to have been a mem- 
 ber of the new and gospel dispensation, when 
 he ratified the rite of baptism. It required 
 more than a simple pious Christian to have 
 invented such a scheme, savouring more of 
 daring design than of ardent love and attach- 
 ment to the Divine Redeemer. 
 
 The learned Dupin has well remarked that, 
 " If there be obscure and difficult parts in the 
 Bible, it is not generally the simple who abuse 
 them ; hut the proud and learned who make a 
 bad use of them. For, in fine, it is not the ig- 
 norant and the simple who have formed here- 
 sies in perverting the word of God. They who 
 
|gg CERTAIN DISCIPLES NOT BAPTIZED. 
 
 do so are generally bishops, priests, learned 
 and enlightened persons." Diss, pretim. Sur 
 la Bible, B. I.e. 9. par. 1701. 
 
 And by these, lam sorry to say it, yet, by 
 these men are the people made to believe that 
 John and Christ, and all his disciples were not 
 scripturally baptized ! had not even a connec- 
 tion with the Christian church!!! That be- 
 fore they could be initiated into the Christian 
 church, they must be re-baptized! Such rea- 
 soning, I must think, commends itself to no 
 intelligent Christian, whose mind is free of 
 prejudice, and properly impressed with a sense 
 of divine things. 
 
 Having considered, at some length, the cer- 
 tain identity of the baptism which John ad- 
 ministered, with that which the Apostles 
 practised, and then adduced such proofs as 
 cannot fail to establish that identity beyond 
 the possibility of a successful contradiction, I 
 may here detain you only with some few re- 
 marks, touching the same important point. 
 
 One of the laws of argumentation, as laid 
 down and received by our Pedobaptist bre- 
 thren themselves, is that, " A doctrine proved 
 by sufficient evidence is not to be rejected on 
 any account whatever." Dr. Woods, cited 
 by Jewett, p. 54. 
 
 Now I humbly conceive that I haye suffi- 
 ciently proved the identity of John's ministry 
 with the Christian dispensation. If so, then 
 the controverted passage now under* exami- 
 
BEGINNING OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. \gQ 
 
 nation cannot destroy that identity. But I 
 am willing, if it can be necessary to show still 
 further that the gospel dispensation com- 
 menccd ivith the ministry of John. 
 
 Now you will please take notice. The 
 Holy Ghost, measuring the former dispensa- 
 tion, makes it end at the coming of John the 
 Baptist. "All the prophets, and the law pro- 
 phesied until John:'' Matt. xi. 13. 
 
 Again, Mark dates the beginning of the 
 gospel at the time that John commenced his 
 ministry. Mark i. 1 — 4. 
 
 The Saviour speaks of his divine kingdom 
 in the same way. Matt. xi. 12. "From the 
 days of John the Baptist, until now." And 
 again: Peter, in the great council convened 
 at Jerusalem at the time of our Lord's ascen- 
 sion, giving information as to the necessary 
 qualifications of him, who might be elected to 
 fill the vacancy occasioned by the apostacy 
 of Judas, particularly states that such an one 
 must be selected out of those who had been 
 with our Lord, "beginning from the baptism 
 of John. ,, Or more correctly as Tyndal ren- 
 ders it; " Beginning at the baptism of John." 
 Acts i. 22. 
 
 Who, after reading these Scriptures, and 
 observing how Christ and his Apostles spake 
 of the beginning of the gospel dispensation, can 
 deny that John was a gospel minister, and that 
 the baptism he administered was identically 
 the same as that administered by the Apostles? 
 
1 9Q JOHNS BAPTISM VALID. 
 
 I may say, in the language of Dr. Johnson, 
 " He who will determine against that which 
 he knows, because there may be something 
 which he knows not; he that can set hypotheti- 
 cal possibility against acknowledged certainty, 
 is not to be admitted among reasonable beings." 
 Vol. i. p. 489. 
 
 But again, and finally, it should be remem- 
 bered that the same baptism which John ad-, 
 ministered to believing Jews before the Sa- 
 viour was immersed in Jordan, John continued 
 to administer to the converts to the Christian 
 faith until he closed his ministry on earth. 
 And not only John, but also Christ himself, by 
 his disciples, some of whom were once John's 
 disciples, and who were the very Apostles of 
 our Lord, Christ himself, % these disciples, ad- 
 ministered to the repenting and believing Jews, 
 the same baptism which was practiced at the 
 first by John. Another circumstance, of itself 
 sufficient to establish for ever the identity of 
 Christ's baptism, as administered by John at 
 the first, and afterwards by the Apostles, both 
 while their Lord was with them, and after he 
 was taken up into heaven. 
 
 For John was baptizing in Enon, near to 
 Salem, in Samaria, at the same time that 
 Jesus, by his disciples, was baptizing in the 
 land of Judea. John iii. 22 — 26. Compare iv. 
 1, 2. Now from all this, and with what has 
 been said respecting the same point before, it 
 is certain that the baptism, which John receiv- 
 
JOHN'S BAPTISM VALID jgj 
 
 ed and administered by Divine appointment, is 
 identically the same as the baptism which the 
 Apostles practised after the glorious ascension 
 of their Divine Lord. Therefore, should it be 
 made to appear, which it cannot be, that the 
 disciples which Paul found at Ephesus, were 
 re-baptized, yet their re-baptism would not 
 militate in the slightest degree against John's 
 baptism being the same as that practised by 
 the Apostles of our Lord, since this is " a 
 doctrine proved by sufficient evidence, and is 
 not to be rejected on any account whatever" 
 And least of all is a plain truth to be rejected, 
 by straining a single obscure text. 
 
 All that could be made out of the re-bap- 
 tizing of these disciples, would go to show, 
 not that John's baptism was not a Christian 
 ordinance, but that when these certain dis- 
 ciples were baptized, their administrators did 
 not do justice to the holy rite, and therefore 
 their baptism was deemed invalid, and not 
 fellowshipped by the holy Apostle, just on the 
 same principle that sprinkling is not received 
 by Baptists at all as valid baptism. Baptists 
 invariably baptize those who come over to 
 them from Pedobaptist churches, having only 
 been sprinkled. And though such had been 
 sprinkled a thousand times, yet they are not 
 baptized. But our Pedobaptist brethren are 
 divided among themselves upon this subject, 
 as well as upon every other which we have 
 considered. Some of their most able men, as 
 
192 
 
 JOHN'S BAPTISM VALID. 
 
 Beza, Calvin, and others, are more earnest in 
 showing that these certain disciples were not 
 re-baptized, than Baptists are. 
 
 The mistaken views into which some inter- 
 preters have fallen, respecting the re-bapiizing 
 of these disciples, have their origin partly in 
 the force of prejudice, and partly by separating 
 v-hat Paul said in the fourth and -fifth verses, 
 referring the fifth verse, not to Paul, whose 
 language it is, but to Luke, the historian. Now 
 you will observe, Paul found certain disciples 
 who had enjoyed but limited advantages. They 
 had, at some previous period, heard of the name 
 of Jesus, and been taught the way of salva- 
 tion; they had believed on Christ Jesus, whose 
 coming was fervently desired, and the subject 
 c^f ardent anticipation ; and they had been bap- 
 tized in the name of the Lord Jesus, on pro- 
 fession of their faith. But not enjoying, in the 
 remote country where they resided, conve- 
 nient opportunities for religious instruction, 
 theij had never learned any thing concerning 
 the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost. Paul, 
 ascertaining their lack of information upon this 
 point, and assuring them that there was nothing 
 to forbid their enjoying the miraculous gifts of 
 the Divine Spirit, l;ud his hands upon them, 
 and the Holy Ghost came upon them, and 
 they spake with tongues, and prophesied. This 
 interpretation is sustained by the learned Mr. 
 L'Enfant, who renders the fifth verse as a con- 
 tinuation of Paul's discourse, and not as the 
 
JOHN'S BAPTISM VALID. 
 
 193 
 
 words of Luke. He has the rendering thus: 
 "John indeed baptized with the baptism of re- 
 pentance, but they who heard him, and paid a 
 proper regard to his ministry, ivere, in effect, 
 baptized into the name of Jesus, since he was 
 the Messiah whom John spake of as shortly to 
 appear" 
 
 What renders it still more certain that the 
 above interpretation is the only one that can 
 be sustained with any good show of reason, 
 is the fact, that we have a parallel case, in the 
 eighteenth chapter, to the one under examina- 
 tion. "A certain Jew, named Apollos, an 
 eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, 
 came to Ephesus. This man was instructed 
 in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in 
 the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the 
 things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism 
 of John. And he began to speak boldly in the 
 synagogue ; whom, when Aquila and Priscilla 
 had heard, they took him unto them, and ex- 
 pounded unto him the way of God more per- 
 fectly." Acts xviii. 24 — 26. Compare v. 2. 
 
 Now this is precisely what Paul did to the 
 certain disciples, with one addition, conferring 
 the gifts of the Holy Ghost, before which, he 
 took them and expounded unto them the way 
 of God more perfect ly. Read Acts viii. 15, 
 16, 17, which, with xviii. 26, forms a perfect 
 parallel to the Scripture we are now con- 
 sidering. 
 
 That Paul did not baptize these disciples, as 
 17 
 
194 
 
 JOHN'S BAPTISM VALID. 
 
 some of our Pedobaptist brethren would fain 
 have it to appear,* is settled for ever by Paul 
 himself; unless you impute to him a degree of 
 inattention and forgetfulness highly incompa- 
 tible with the character of an inspired Apostle. 
 Paul vindicates himself against such a charge, 
 when he says, "I thank God that I baptized 
 none of you, but Crispus and Gains: and I bap- 
 tized also the household of Stephanas; besides, 
 I know not whether I baptized any other." 
 1 Cor. i. 14 — 16. Had the Apostle baptized 
 the disciples whom he found at Ephesus, and 
 upon whom he laid his hands, and they re- 
 ceived the gifts of the Holy Ghost, he would 
 have mentioned them when he was summing 
 up the number of those whom he had baptized. 
 But he enumerates them not, because he bap- 
 tized them not. 
 
 I am happy in the thought, that Calvin, the 
 great reformer, most fully sustains me in the 
 above interpretation of that long controverted 
 Scripture. 
 
 "For myself," says he, "I grant that the 
 baptism they had received was the true bap- 
 tism of John, and the very same with the 
 baptism of Christ ; but I deny they were bap- 
 tized again.''' Institu. vol. ii. p. 433. 
 
 To which I may subjoin, a passage from the 
 
 * Dr. Whitby says, respecting these disciples, that " Pan} 
 baptized them again, who had before received the bun 
 tism of John." See his Com. on Matt iii. 11. 
 
JOHNS BAPTISM VALID. I95 
 
 works of Dr. Knnpp, Professor of Theology in 
 the University of Halle. 
 
 He says, " The practice of the first Chris- 
 tian Church confirms the point, that the bap- 
 tism of John was considered essentially the 
 same with Christian baptism. For those who 
 acknowledged that they had professed by the 
 baptism of John, to believe in Jesus as the 
 Messiah, and who, in consequence of this, had 
 become, in fact, his disciples, and had believed 
 in him, were not, in a single instance, baptized 
 again into Christ ; because this was considered 
 as having been already done. Hence we do 
 not find that any Apostle, or any other dis- 
 ciple of Jesus, was the second time baptized; 
 not even that Apollos mentioned in Acts xviii. 
 25, because he had before believed in Jesus 
 as Christ, although he had received only the 
 baptism of John." — Christian Theolog} 7 , vol. ii. 
 p. 515. 
 
 I shall close my remarks respecting these 
 certain disciples at Ephesus, by a citation from 
 the writings of Dr. Lightfoot, a most zealous 
 advocate for sprinkling, in support of which he 
 lent the whole weight of his influence, unless 
 controlled by the potency of truth. He says: 
 
 "Not that they were re-baptized, but that, 
 now dowiing to the knowledge of the proper 
 end of John's baptism, namely, to believe in 
 Jesus ; as ver. 4, they own their baptism to such 
 an end and construction. For, 1. What need 
 had they to be re-baptized, when, in that first 
 
196 JOHN'S BAPTISM VALID. 
 
 baptism they had taken, they had come in to 
 the profession of the gospel, and of Christ, as 
 far as the doctrine thai had brought them in, 
 could teach them ? It was the change of their 
 profession from Judaism to Evangelism, that 
 required their being baptized, and not the de- 
 grees of their growth in the knowledge of the 
 gospel, into the profession of which they had 
 been baptized already. How many baptisms 
 must the Apostles have undergone, if every 
 signal degree of their coming on to the perfect 
 knowledge of the mystery of Christ might 
 have required — nay, might have admitted — a 
 new baptizing? 
 
 "2. If these men were re-baptized, then 
 must the same be concluded of all that had re- 
 ceived the baptism of John, when they came 
 to ' new degrees' of the knowledge of Jesus; 
 which, as it is incredible, because there is not 
 the least tittle of mention of such a thing, so is 
 it unimaginable in the case of those of the 
 Apostles that were baptized by John; for who 
 should baptize them again in the name of 
 Jesus, since Jesus himself baptized none. John 
 iv. 3. 
 
 "3. These men had taken on them the bap- 
 tism of repentance, and the profession of Christ, 
 in the baptism of John, that they had received; 
 therefore, unless we will suppose a baptism of 
 faith, different from the baptism of repentance, 
 and a baptism in the name of Jesus, different 
 from the baptism in the name of Christ, it will 
 
A NOBLEMAN BAPTIZED. 
 
 197 
 
 be hard to find a reason why these men should 
 undergo a new baptizing." — His works, vol. 
 iii. pp. 234, 235. 
 
 Section V. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE TREASURER OF CANDACE, QUEEN OF 
 ETHIOPIA. ACTS VIII. 36 39. 
 
 " And as they went on their way, they came 
 unto a certain water; and the Eunuch said, 
 See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be 
 baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest 
 with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he 
 answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ 
 is the Son of God. 
 
 "And he commanded the chariot to stand 
 still, and they icent down both into the water, 
 both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized 
 him. And when they were come up out of the 
 water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away 
 Philip, and the Eunuch saw him no more; and 
 he went on his way rejoicing." 
 
 This Scripture speaks for itself. 
 
 The Holy Ghost has condescended once 
 again to speak of baptism with circumstantial 
 precision. 
 
 No language, not even the copious Greek, 
 when employed by the Spirit of God, has the 
 power of expressing the immersion of one 
 17* 
 
19g A NOBLEMAN BAPTIZED. 
 
 man by another in water, if the 38th and 39th 
 verses of this chapter do not express that sense. 
 
 They went down both into the water, both 
 Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized — 
 immersed him. Jlnd they came up out of 
 the ivater. 
 
 As these phrases stand in the original, there 
 is no Greek word that can be added to them 
 to make them more clearly express a descent 
 into water, an immersion of one party by the 
 other, and an ascent out of the water, after 
 the immersion had taken place. Nor has the 
 English the power of expressing the above 
 sense more plainly, than it is expressed in our 
 Testament, when the word " baptized" is cor- 
 rectly translated. Moreover, the word "bap- 
 tized" receives a most faithful explanation from 
 the connexion in which it stands. Every cir- 
 cumstance mentioned, forces upon the mind the 
 conviction that this baptism was by immersion. 
 Indeed, it seems to me to be perfectly super- 
 fluous, not to say presumptuously daring, to 
 attempt to improve upon the language of the 
 Spirit of God, as here employed. I will only 
 say, an attempt is made to evade the force of 
 this Scripture in favour of immersion, by the 
 bold assertion that the qualifying particles 
 "into" and u out of" mean only " to" and 
 
 Such sophistry illy becomes those who pre- 
 tend to admit the Bible as a revelation from 
 God. Indeed, my spirit is overwhelmed within 
 
A NOBLEMAN BAPTIZED. jgg 
 
 me, while I am obliged to consider the fearful 
 extent to which our Pedobaptist brethren have 
 gone, to justify themselves in practising sprink- 
 ling for Christian baptism. Were it right to 
 suffer sin upon a brother, I would gladly draw 
 the mantle of oblivion over the entire course 
 by which sprinkling, and infant sprinkling are 
 kept alive in the Christian Church. 
 
 The same course of reasoning, with the 
 same principles of interpretation, if admitted, 
 would support any error whatever, as gospel 
 truth, and at the same time destroy any and 
 every doctrine of our holy religion. 
 
 For, let it be remarked, that, if there are any 
 instances where " eis," (»$,) and " ec" (**) 
 mean " into" and " out of" the case of Philip 
 baptizing the Eunuch, is one such instance. 
 All the circumstances of the case go to sup- 
 port the idea of their descent into the water, 
 and their ascent out of the ivater, after the 
 baptism, or immersion, was administered. 
 
 Now let us apply the same principle of in- 
 terpretation to other texts, that our Pedobap- 
 tist brethren apply to the one under examina- 
 tion, and see if it holds good. If not, let it be 
 for ever abandoned, for the same principle is 
 plead by the advocates of Universal Salva- 
 tion, in favour of the idea that the wicked do 
 not go into punishment after death. 
 
 Now mark, sis, into, is used in the following 
 passages. Mat. xxv. 41. Then shall he say 
 also unto them on the left hand, depart from 
 
200 A NOBLEMAN BAPTIZED. 
 
 me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared 
 for the devil and his angels. 
 
 Verse 46. And these shall go away into 
 everlasting punishment, but the righteous into 
 life eternal. Com. Mat. xiii. 42, 50. 
 
 Luke xvi. 28. The rich man in hell lifted up 
 his eyes, being in torment, and said, I have 
 five brethren — that he may testify unto them, 
 lest they also come into this place of torment. 
 
 Mat. xiii. 47. A net that was cast into 
 the sea. 
 
 Mat. xviii. 30. Cast him into prison. 
 
 Mark v. 13. And the unclean spirits entered 
 into the swine, and the herd ran violently 
 down a steep place into the sea, and were 
 choked in the sea. 
 
 Luke xvi. 22. Lazarus was carried by the 
 angeis into Abraham's bosom. 
 
 John vi. 16, 17. His disciples went down 
 (sttt) unto the sea, and entered («$) into a ship. 
 
 John xxi. 7. And did cast himself into 
 the sea. 
 
 Acts i. 11. Why stand ye gazing up into 
 heaven ? This same Jesus, which is taken up 
 (a<j>') from you («$) into heaven, shall so come 
 in like manner as ye have seen him go into 
 heaven. I might tire your patience by enume- 
 rating the passages where " eis" means into. 
 It sometimes, also, means "to" "unto" and 
 "towards" a place. As I go to, or unto Phila- 
 delphia, i. e. into the city. 
 
 The proposition " ec," \ix) " out of" is em- 
 
A NOBLEMAN BAPTIZED. 201 
 
 ployed as follows: Mat. xxvii. 52, 53. And 
 the graves were opened, and many bodies of 
 saints which slept, arose, and came out of 
 the graves after his resurrection. Mat. ii. 15. 
 Out of Egypt. Acts vii. 3, 4, 40. Rev. xx. 7. 
 Out of his prison ; v. 9, out of heaven ; v. 12. 
 The dead were judged out of those things 
 which were written in the book, et a]. 
 
 It cannot be necessary to multiply in- 
 stances of the kind, where the obvious mean- 
 ing of " eis" and " ec," are "into" and "out 
 of\" and where, should we adopt the sophistry 
 of captious disputants, and the skeptical rea- 
 soning of the followers of Pyrrho, we should 
 do worse than make nonsense with the word 
 of God. 
 
 Suppose we render the above cited passages 
 according to the principles which some of the 
 advocates of sprinkling have laid down as the 
 rule by which to fix the meaning of the prepo- 
 sitions " eis" and " ec" Then, Jesus shall say, 
 depart from me, ye cursed, to the margin of 
 everlasting fire. Not into it!!! And these 
 shall go away to the border of everlasting pun- 
 ishment. Not into 'punishment ! ! ! A net was 
 cast to the edge of the sea, and gathered of 
 every l<ind. Not into the sea!!! The herd 
 ran violently down a steep place to the brink 
 of the sea, and were choked, i. e. drowned, on 
 the shore ! ! ! Many bodies of the saints which 
 slept, arose, and came from the verge of the 
 graves. Not out of them ! ! ! 
 
202 A NOBLEMAN BAPTIZED. 
 
 Well has Dr. Doddridge remarked, that, " It 
 would be very unnatural to suppose that they 
 went down to the water, merely that Philip 
 might take up a little water in his hand to pour 
 on the Eunuch. A person of his dignity had, 
 no doubt, many vessels in his baggage, on such 
 a journey through so desert a country, a pre- 
 caution absolutely necessary for travellers in 
 those parts, and never omitted by them." In 
 loco. 
 
 It should be remembered that the land of 
 Palestine was chosen, before all other portions 
 of the earth, for its fertility, and its abundant 
 resources of every kind, especially those of wa- 
 ter, as the promised land of blessing. It was 
 held to view as a land flowing with milk and 
 honey; by which, its richness and facilities of 
 every kind to render it a land greatly to be de- 
 sired, as a place of residence, are beautifully 
 and faithfully symbolized. 
 
 Indeed, I am compelled to say that, it is a 
 most visionary plea, to which our Pedobaptist 
 brethren have resorted, to represent the land 
 of Canaan, in the times of Christ and his apos- 
 tles, as a barren, sterile, sandy desert, having 
 Ijeither fountains, nor rivers of voter ! 
 
 Alas! what liberties men take with theBible ! 
 Sprinkling must he supported at the expense of 
 every real truth of our holy religion! 
 
 The Bible must be contradicted, its sense 
 must be frittered away, and every thing ex- 
 punged from the sacred page which comes in 
 
BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 203 
 
 competition with this Darling — a legitimate 
 offspring of the Church of Rome, but now 
 nursed in the lap of Christianity. 
 
 In looking at the ordinance of baptism, as 
 presented to men in the Bible ; considering the 
 places where it was administered, when the 
 places are mentioned at all, and the circum- 
 stances attending it, I am at a loss to know, 
 how an enlightened Christian can advocate 
 sprinkling for one moment, unless it be on the 
 ground to which Mr. Henry alludes, when he 
 says, " How often are the prejudices of bigotry 
 held fast against the clearest discoveries and 
 plainest dictates of divine truth /" 
 
 Section VI. 
 
 A MOST FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE EXPOSITION OF THE 
 ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM, BOTH IN RESPECT TO ITS DE- 
 SIGN AND MODE OF ADMINISTRATION ; BY THE APOSTLE 
 PAUL. 
 
 " Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
 baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into 
 his death ? Therefore, we are buried with him 
 by baptism into death, that like as Christ was 
 raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father; even so we also should walk in new- 
 ness of life. For if we have been planted to- 
 gether in the likeness of his death ; we shall 
 be also in the likeness of his resurrection." 
 
204 BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 
 
 "Buried with him in Baptism, wherein also 
 ye are risen with him through the faith of the 
 operation of God, who hath raised him from 
 the dead." Rom. vi. 3 — 5. Colos. ii. 12. 
 
 No interpretation of the ordinance of Bap- 
 tism, as well as of its design, can be more 
 beautiful and just, than the one found in the 
 Scriptures here cited. 
 
 The King of life and glory left his Church 
 unincumbered with a multiplicity of rites and 
 ceremonies which so particularly marked that 
 dispensation, which, at the coming of the Mes- 
 siah vanished away. It is worthy of remark, 
 that, while the Saviour did not burden his fol- 
 lowers with many external rites, yet he did not 
 entirely omit to address our senses by emblem- 
 atical representations. 
 
 At his instance there were brought into 
 being two sacramental observances, answer- 
 ing to the two grand distinguishing features of 
 the Christian system. Nothing can be more 
 comprehensive, and at the same time instruc- 
 tive, than the sacraments of the Lord's Supper 
 and Baptism ; bespeaking alike, both the wis- 
 dom and compassion of the King in Zion. 
 
 For let it be observed that, the Christian 
 religion is made to differ from all others, in 
 almost every particular, but especially so, 
 and chiefly in the two great cardinal points, 
 the vicarious sufferings and death of the 
 lamb of God ; and his resurrection from . 
 the dead, to the glory he had with the fa- 
 ther before the world was. 
 
BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 
 
 205 
 
 Now the Saviour, in compassion to our in- 
 firmities, to aid our faith in receiving these 
 sublime and mysterious truths, graciously con- 
 descended to hold them forth by two emblem- 
 atical and expressive institutions. 
 
 The Lord's Supper, most significantly re- 
 presents the death of our Saviour; holding to 
 view the efficacy of that blood which was shed 
 for the remission of sins. This sublime rite is 
 to be a standing memorial in the Church of 
 Christ to the end of time. "For as often as 
 ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do 
 show forth the Lord's death till he come." 1 
 Cor. xi. 23—26. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 
 
 Baptism, the only other divinely appointed 
 rite connected with the New Testament dis- 
 pensation, i e. the Church of Christ, most 
 beautifully and instructively represents the 
 burial and resurrection of the body of Christ, 
 as well as our own future interment and resur- 
 rection to life. Connected with which, there 
 is this secondary idea, that whereas Christ, 
 after his death and resurrection dieth no more, 
 but liveth unto God, and whereas Christians, 
 after their final death and resurrection shall be 
 divested of the last remains of sin and be made 
 perfect before God and the Lamb, so now, 
 having been, by baptism, represented as dead, 
 buried, and raised again, they should live a 
 life corresponding to that which they shall live 
 in heaven. Such is the obvious sense of the 
 apostle in this most comprehensive and instruc- 
 18 
 
206 
 
 BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 
 
 tive passage. The beauty and peculiar fitness 
 of which are still more apparent in the original 
 text, as dictated by the Spirit of God, and un- 
 okscured by the mingling of Greek and Eng- 
 lish words as in our version. 
 
 The apostle's language is so clear and ex- 
 pressive, in conveying to us a knowledge of 
 the design of baptism, and the mode of its ad- 
 ministration, as to make it a matter of perfect 
 surprise, that any should mistake his mean- 
 ing. 
 
 That you may see the exact import of the 
 apostle in his very pertinent explanation of 
 this Holy Rite in the Christian Church, J will 
 read the passage, beginning with the third and 
 ending with the thirteenth verse ; translating 
 the Greek words baptize and baptism into 
 English ; supplying the ellipsis or omission in 
 the fourth verse, as the apostle has supplied it 
 in the fifth; and giving a paraphrastic ren- 
 dering to the third and fifth verses. 
 
 3. " Know ye not that so many of us as were 
 immersed in the manner of Christ Jesus were 
 immersed into an acknowledgment of his death 
 and resurrection 1 
 
 4. " Therefore, we are buried with him by 
 immersion in the likeness of death, that like as 
 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory 
 of the Father; even so we also should walk 
 in newness of life. 
 
 5. " For if we have been planted together 
 in the likeness of his death ; we shall be also 
 in the likeness of his resurrection ; 
 
BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 207 
 
 6. " Knowing this, that previous to our im- 
 mersion, our old man (ovvtsstavpu>9rj) was cruci- 
 fied with Christ, that the body of sin might be 
 destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve 
 sin. 
 
 7. " For he that is dead is freed from sin. 
 
 8. "Now if we be dead with Christ we be- 
 lieve that we shall also live with him; 
 
 9. "Knowing that Christ beins: raised from 
 the dead, dieth no more, death hath no more 
 dominion over him. 
 
 10. " For in that he died, he died unto sin 
 once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto 
 God. 
 
 11. "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves 
 to be dead indeed unto sin; but alive unto 
 God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 12. " Let not sin reign therefore in your 
 mortal body, that ye should obey it in the 
 lusts thereof. 
 
 13. " Neither yield ye your members as in- 
 struments of unrighteousness unto sin ; but 
 yield yourselves unto God, as those that are 
 alive from the dead, and your members as in- 
 struments of righteousness unto God." 
 
 The Christian believes in Christ, in his divi- 
 nity, death, burial, resurrection, and ascen- 
 sion to glory. He believes that his own 
 mortal body, after a season of repose in the 
 grave, shall come forth in the likeness of the 
 Saviour's glorified and exalted body. 
 
 He believes alike in the salvation of the soul 
 and the salvation of the body of every saint. 
 
208 
 
 BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 
 
 And, as his soul has been " crucified with 
 Christ," as in the bitter anguish at her con- 
 version, so his body has been "buried with 
 Christ by immersion in the likeness of death, 
 that like as Christ was raised up from the 
 dead by the glory of the Father ; even so we 
 also should walk in newness of life. For if 
 we have been planted together in the likeness 
 of his death, we shall be also in the likeness 
 of his resurrection. Being, as the Apostle 
 adds, "Buried with him in immersion, where- 
 in also ye are risen with him through the faith 
 of the operation of God, who hath raised him 
 from the dead." 
 
 Such, my brethren, is the import of the or- 
 dinance of baptism, as explained and enforced 
 by the great Apostle of the Gentiles, in his 
 letter to the Romans. And you will see, by 
 my explanation, that I perfectly accord with 
 the Apostle ; or, in other words, you will 
 bear me testimony, that, according to what I 
 have written, I fully believe what the Apostle 
 has said. 
 
 In agreement with wdiich, I find Dr. Dod- 
 dridge piously saying, when remarking on the 
 phrase " baptized into Jesus Christ." " It 
 seems the part of candour to confess that here 
 is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by 
 immersion, as most usual in these early times." # 
 
 I am aware that some Pedobaptists refuse 
 
 * Edinburgh Reviewers. " We have rarely met, for 
 example, with a more weak and t-anciful piece of rea- 
 soning-, than that by which Mr. Ewing would persuade 
 
BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. £09 
 
 to admit what the pious Doddridge has, and 
 what he considered the part of candour to 
 confess. 
 
 There are some who endeavour to evade 
 the force of the Apostle's language, and would 
 fain have it appear that the " burial" and "bap- 
 tism," of which mention is made, are nothing 
 more than an internal or spiritual death ; and 
 that no allusion is had here to the manner of 
 baptizing the faithful in the days of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 It cannot be necessary for me to spend a 
 moment, in meeting such an objection, before 
 those who are acquainted with the nature of 
 language, are permitted to read for them- 
 selves, and believe in the burial and resur- 
 rection of Jesus Christ. Such will at once 
 perceive the sophistry of this singular objec- 
 tion. All, it should seem, must acknowledge 
 that whatever the thing signified might be, it 
 is represented by a baptism, and then the 
 Apostle explains the meaning of the word 
 baptize, when he calls it a burial and resur- 
 rection in the likeness of Christ; and then 
 again, when he terms it a planting together 
 in the likeness of Christ's death, and also in a 
 likeness of his resurrection. 
 
 us that there Is no allusion to the mode by Immersion, in 
 the expression 'buried with him in baptism.' This point 
 ought to be frankly admitted, and indeed cannot be 
 denied with any show of reason." In Mr. Carson's An- 
 swer, p. 40. 
 18* 
 
210 BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 
 
 Indeed, to be consistent with their own in- 
 terpretation of this Scripture, that the death 
 and burial of which Paul speaks, " are in 
 respect to sin, that is, in a moral and spiritual 
 sense," and then interpret baptism " to sig- 
 nify a spiritual purification," our Pedobaptist 
 brethren ought, to be consistent with them- 
 selves, to deny the burial and resurrection of 
 Christ, and consequently, the resurrection 
 of our bodies at the last day. For every 
 one must perceive that the Apostle applies 
 the words burial and baptism to the burial 
 and resurrection of Christ. So, if baptism 
 here does not mean a burial and resurrection, 
 "then is Christ not risen; and if Christ be not 
 risen, then is our preaching vain, and your 
 faith is also vain. For if the dead rise not, 
 then is not Christ raised. But now is Christ 
 risen from the dead, and become the first 
 fruits of them that slept. Else what shall 
 they do who have been immersed in the like- 
 ness of the dead, if the dead rise not at all ; 
 for what purpose are they then immersed in 
 the likeness of the dead ?"* 1 Cor. xv. 14, 16, 
 20, 29. 
 
 * John Edwards. "Some of the fathers hold that 
 the Apostle's argument in the text is of this sort : If 
 there should be no resurrection of the dead hereafter, 
 why is baptism so significant a symbol of our dying- and 
 rising- again, and also of the death and resurrection of 
 Christ. The immersion into the water was thoug-ht to 
 sig-nify the death of Christ, and their coming- out denotes 
 
BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. ^H 
 
 But wherefore this great effort to evade the 
 force of the Apostle's language in the sixth of 
 Romans and elsewhere? Just to make it ap- 
 pear that sprinkling is baptism. 
 
 Let us see for a moment how this Scripture 
 would read with sprinkling inserted in the 
 room of immersion. "Therefore we are bu- 
 ried with him by sprinkling into death, that 
 like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
 the glory of the Father, &c." " Buried with 
 him in sprinkling, ivherein also ye are risen 
 with him." &c. 
 
 To show the fallacy of every effort that has 
 been made to get around the plain instruction 
 of the apostle, in order to support sprinkling 
 for baptism, let me here subjoin some few of 
 the frank concessions of some of the most 
 
 his rising again, and did no less represent their own fu- 
 ture resurrection." In Stennett's Answer to Addington, 
 p. 105. 
 
 The author of the Apostolic Constitution says : 
 "Baptism was given to represent the death of Christ, 
 the water his burial." Con. Apos. Lib. iii. c. 17. 
 
 Peter Martyr says : " As Christ, by baptism, hath 
 drawn us with him into his death and burial; so he hath 
 drawn us out unto life. This doth the dipping into the 
 waters, and the issuing forth again, signify when we are 
 baptized." See Westlake, p. 5. 
 
 Mr. Manton says : " The putting the baptized person 
 into the water denoteth and proclaimeth the burial of 
 Christ; and we by submitting to it are baptized with 
 him, or profess to be dead to sin; for none but the dead 
 are buried. So that it signifieth Christ's death for sin, 
 and our dying unto sin." Ibid. 
 
212 
 
 BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 
 
 able Pedobaptist authors, who felt, as did Dr. 
 Doddridge, that it was the part of candour to 
 confess that, in the sixth of Romans, there is 
 an allusion to the manner of baptism by im- 
 mersion. 
 
 Dr. Whitby, a learned Pedobaptist, and most 
 highly esteemed by our Episcopal friends, for 
 his commentary on the New Testament, and 
 for more than forty other learned works, says: 
 
 " It being so expressly declared here, Rom. 
 vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12, that we are buried with 
 Christ in baptism, by being buried under water, 
 and the argument to oblige us to a conformity 
 to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence, 
 and this immersion being religiously observed by 
 all Christians for thirteen centuries, and 
 approved by our Church, and the change of it 
 into sprinkling, even without any allowance 
 from the author of this institution, or any li- 
 cense from any Council of the Church, being 
 that with the Romish still urges to justify his 
 refusal of the cup to the laity ; it were to be 
 wished that this custom might be again of 
 general use, and aspersion only permitted, as 
 of old in the Clinici, or in present danger of 
 death." Note on Rom. vi. 4. 
 
 So Lord Archbishop Tillotson, of Canterbu- 
 ry, remarks on Rom. vi. 3 — 5. Col. iii. 1. 
 
 " Where we see that to be baptized into the 
 death and resurrection of Christ, is to be bap- 
 tized into the similitude and likeness of them ; 
 and the resemblance is this ; that as Christ, 
 
BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 
 
 213 
 
 being dead was buried in the grave, and after 
 some stay in it was raised again out of it, by the 
 glorious power of God to a new and heavenly 
 life, being not long after taken up into heaven, 
 to live at the right hand of God ; so Christians 
 when they were baptized, were immersed into 
 the water, their bodies being covered alt over 
 with it ; which is therefore called our being 
 buried with him by baptism into death ; and 
 after some short stay under water, were raised 
 or taken up again out of it, as if they had been 
 recovered to a new life." His folio works, vol. 
 3, p. 255.* 
 
 * Mr. George Whitefield. "It is certain that in the 
 words of our text, Rom. vi. 3, 4, there is an allusion to 
 the manner of baptism, which was by immersion, which 
 is what our own church allows," &c. Eighteen Sermons, 
 p. 297. 
 
 Mr. Johst Wesley. " Buried with him — alluding" to the 
 ancient manner of baptizing- by immersion." Note on 
 Rom. vi. 4. 
 
 Mr. Wells. "St. Paul here alludes to immersion, or 
 dipping- the whole body under water in baptism ; which 
 he intimates, did typify the death and burial (of the per- 
 son baptized) to sin, and his rising- up out of the water 
 did typify his resurrection to newness of life." lllust. 
 Bib. on Rom. vi. 4. 
 
 Archbishop Skcker. " Burying, as it were, the person 
 baptized in the water, and raising- him out again, without 
 0.UESTIOX, was anciently the more usual method ; on ac- 
 count of which St. Paul speaks of baptism as represent- 
 ing- both the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and 
 what is grounded on them, — our being dead and buried 
 to sin, and our rising again to walk in newness of life." 
 Lect. on Catechism, L. xxxv. 
 
 Adam Clarke. "When he [the person baptized] came 
 
214 BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 
 
 Says Dr. Samuel Clarke, on Rom. vi. 4, in 
 his "Exposition of the Church Catechism," 
 printed 1730, p. 158. "In the primitive times, 
 the manner of baptism was by immersion, or 
 dipping the whole body into the water. And 
 
 up out of the water, he seemed to have a resurrection to 
 life. He was, therefore, supposed to throw off his old 
 Gentile state, as he threw oft' his clothes, and to assume a 
 new character, as the baptized generally put on new or 
 fresh garments " Comment on Rom. vi. 4. 
 
 Enclycopaedia Ecclesiastica. (This splendid work, 
 now publishing 1 , A. D. 1835, under the patronage of 
 the highest authorities in the British nation, both in 
 church and state, after stating the reasons urged in de- 
 fence of sprinkling, proceeds,) " Whatever weight, 
 however, may be in these reasons as a defence for the 
 present practice of sprinkling, it is evident that dur- 
 ing the first ages of the church, and for many centuries 
 afterwards, the practice of immersion prevailed; and 
 which seems indeed never to be departed from, except 
 where it was administered to a person at the point of 
 death, or upon the bed of sickness, — which was consi- 
 dered indeed as not giving the party the full privileges 
 of baptism — or when there was not a sufficient supply of 
 water. Except in the above cases, the custom was to 
 dip or immerse the whole body. Hence St. Barnabas 
 says, We go down into the water," &c. &c. Article, , 
 Baptism. Quoted by Pengilly. 
 
 Bishop Bossuet. " We are able to make it appear, by 
 the acts of Councils, and by the ancient Rituals, that for 
 THIRTEEN HUNDRED YEARS, baptism was thus 
 [by immersion] administered throughout the whole 
 church, as far as possible." In Stennett's Answer to 
 Russen, p. 176. 
 
 Stackhouse. " Several authors have shown, and proved, 
 that this immersion continued, as much as possible, to 
 be used for thirteen hundred tears after Christ. Hist, 
 of the Bible, P. 8, p. 1234. 
 
BAPTISM COMPARED TO A BURIAL. 
 
 215 
 
 this manner of doing it was a very significant 
 emblem of the dying and rising again, refer- 
 red to by St. Paul in the above mentioned 
 similitude-" 
 
 Dr. Macknight says, "Christ's baptism was 
 an emblem of his future death and resurrec- 
 tion. In like manner, the baptism of believers 
 is emblematical of their own death, burial, and 
 resurrection." 
 
 "Planted together in the likeness of his 
 death. The burying of Christ, and of be- 
 lievers, first in the water of baptism, and after- 
 wards in the earth, is fitly enough compared 
 to the planting of seeds in the earth, because 
 the effect, in both cases, is a reviviscence to a 
 state of greater perfection." Apost. Epis. Notes 
 Rom. vi. 4, 5. 
 
 Assembly of Divines. "If we have been 
 planted together, fyc. By this elegant simili- 
 tude the apostle represents to us, that, as a 
 plant that is set in the earth lieth as dead and 
 immoveable for a time, but after springs up 
 and flourishes, so Christ's body lay dead for a 
 while in the grave, but sprung up and flourish- 
 ed in his resurrection ; and we also, when we 
 are baptized, are buried, as it were, in the 
 water for a time, but after are raised up to 
 newness of life." Annot. in loco. 
 
2X6 BAPTISM OF THE ISRAELITES. 
 
 Section VII. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE ISRAELITES UNTO MOSES IN THE 
 CLOUD AND IN THE SEA. 
 
 1 Cor. x. 1. " Moreover, brethren, I would 
 not that ye should be ignorant, how that all 
 our fathers were under the cloud, and all pass- 
 ed through the sea ; 2. And were all baptized 
 unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 
 
 Dr. Geo. Home, speaking of the passage 
 through the Red Sea says ; " In this amazing 
 transaction let us behold, as in a glass, the sal- 
 vation of believers by baptism, through the 
 death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who 
 made the depths of the grave, as he had done 
 those of the sea, a way for his ransomed to pass 
 over." Notes on Ps. lxxvii. 10. 
 
 "Witsius," says Mr. Booth, "expounds the 
 place to this effect; ' How were the Israelites 
 baptized in the cloud, and in the sea, seeing 
 they were neither immersed in the sea, nor 
 wetted by the cloud? It is to be considered 
 that the apostle here uses the term ' baptism' 
 in a figurative sense, yet there is some agree- 
 ment to the external sign. The sea is water, 
 and a cloud differs but little from water. The 
 cloud hung over their heads, and the sea sur- 
 rounded them on each side; and so the water 
 in regard to those that are baptized.' In Paed. 
 Exam. Vol. I. p. 185. 
 
BAPTISM A FIGURE. 
 
 217 
 
 Whitby. " They were covered with the sea 
 on both sides, Exod. xiv. 22 ; so that both the 
 cloud and the sea had some resemblance to our 
 being covered with water in baptism. Their 
 going into the sea resembled the ancient rite of 
 going into the water; and their coming out of 
 it, their rising up out of the water." Ibid. p. 187. 
 
 It is worthy of remark that a cloud was a 
 symbol of the Divine presence. In it, the Lord 
 often concealed himself from the view of mor- 
 tals, as the water in baptism does the person 
 immersed. " Lo, I come unto thee in a thick 
 cloud" " Then a cloud covered the tent of the 
 congregation." Exod. xix. 9, xl. 34. "I. will 
 appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat." Lev. 
 xvi. 2. " Behold a bright cloud overshadowed 
 them." Matt. xvii. 5. " A cloud received him 
 out of their sight." Acts i. 9. These all might be 
 said, by a metaphor, to be baptized in a cloud. 
 
 Section VIII. 
 
 BAPTISM, AN EXPRESSIVE FIGURE OF OUR SALVATION, BY 
 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. The long suffering of God 
 waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was 
 preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, 
 were saved by water. The like figure where- 
 unto even baptism doth also now save us (not 
 19 
 
218 BAPTISM A FIGURE. 
 
 the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but 
 the answer of a good conscience towards God) 
 by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Dr. Owen says, " I deny not but that there 
 is a great analogy between salvation by the ark, 
 and that by baptism, inasmuch as the one did 
 represent, and the other doth exhibit Christ 
 himself." On Heb. vol. iv. p. 138. Williams' 
 Abr. 
 
 Macknight. " This ansiver of a good con- 
 science being made to God, is an inward an- 
 swer, and means the baptized person's sincere 
 persuasion of the things which, by submitting 
 to baptism he professes to believe; namely, 
 that Jesus — arose from the dead, and that at 
 the last day he will raise all from the dead to 
 eternal life who sincerely obey him." Apost. 
 Epist. Note in loc. 
 
 Dr. Benson observes, " By the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ." "As the last sentence was con- 
 tained in a parenthesis, we may join this to 
 what goes before it, and read thus: — baptism 
 doth now save us — by the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ. He had observed, verse 18, that Jesus 
 Christ was brought to life again by the Spirit ; 
 and he seems here to refer to what he had said 
 there. If Christ had not risen he could never 
 have raised the dead." Notes on loc. 
 
ADDENDUM. 
 
 219 
 
 Addendum. 
 
 SO SHALL HE SPRINKLE MANY NATIONS. Isa. til, 15. 
 
 Inasmuch as some of our Pedobaptist bre- 
 thren, driven, as it might seem, to the last 
 extremity for argument in favour of sprinkling, 
 have resorted to this text, to sustain them in 
 their unhappy position, it may be expected 
 that I should not pass it over in silence. I will 
 only say that it has not even the most remote 
 reference to the rite of baptism. In this I am 
 supported by Pedobaptists themselves. I will 
 cite but one. 
 
 Rev. A. Barnes, of the First Presbyterian 
 Church in Philadelphia, says : " It furnishes no 
 argument for the practice of sprinkling in bap- 
 tism. It refers to the fact of his (Christ's) puri- 
 fying or cleansing the nations, and not to the or- 
 dinance of Christian baptism. Nor should it be 
 used as an argument in reference to the mode 
 in which that should be administered." In loc. 
 
 Let a Quaker's testimony be heard and heed- 
 ed. " What has been said respecting water 
 baptism, is intended to apply to it as it was 
 originally administered by immersion, and in 
 which manner, I conceive, if it be of religious 
 obligation, it can only be rightly administered. 
 
 "But, it is a singular fact, that the greater 
 number of the advocates for water bap- 
 tism, and those who are most apt to reflect 
 
220 
 
 ADDENDUM. 
 
 on us for laying it aside, never practice it 
 themselves; but have substituted for it the 
 sprinkling of a little water in the face of 
 the person pretended to be baptized; and 
 this they apply to infants more than to adults. 
 Now this, I think, may with confidence be as- 
 serted, that the sprinkling of infants is a cere- 
 mony which has neither precept nor example 
 in the Holy Scriptures, all the arguments for 
 it being drawn from equivocal suppositions. 
 
 " For any, therefore, to censure us for the 
 disuse of water baptism, who have themselves 
 laid aside the use of it, and substituted some- 
 thing else in its stead, is not a little extraor- 
 dinary." So writes Henry Tuke, a distinguish- 
 ed writer among the Quakers. See a work of 
 his (London edition, printed in 1805) entitled, 
 " The Principles of Religion, as professed by 
 the Society of Christians, usually called Qua- 
 kers." 
 
 In conclusion, suffer me to remark, upon a 
 few particulars, in a practical way, touching 
 this protracted examination. 
 
 1. It is matter of devout gratitude to God, 
 as well as of pure congratulation to man, that 
 the Most High has graciously condescended to 
 grant us a revelation of his will. Nor is it less 
 a cause of thanksgiving, that communications 
 so important are given into our hands under 
 the tuition of the Divine Spirit; to whom the 
 most secret want, as well as the most hidden 
 dangers, incident to our present state, are dis- 
 
ADDENDUM. 221 
 
 tinctly known, and to which these heavenly 
 instructions are wisely adapted. 
 
 2. We should all receive this directory from 
 the Court of Heaven, as our only sufficient 
 guide in all matters of religion, and not only 
 be willing, but actually divest ourselves of every 
 practice for which we have not a thus saith the 
 Lord. 
 
 3. In the third place, there is occasion for 
 the deepest lamentation, because of the evident 
 desire, on the part of some, to sustain certain 
 opinions, as ordinances of divine worship, 
 which have no better foundation than tradition, 
 the best of which goes no farther back than the 
 commencement of the third century. Opinions 
 standing in fearful contrast with the word of 
 God, and supported by no more worthy argu- 
 ments than the dogmas of the Church of Rome, 
 are supported. Opinions, coming as they do 
 in the place of the commands of God, must 
 forever keep the Christian church divided, and 
 in a far more militant condition, than she would 
 otherwise be. For it cannot be denied, that 
 sprinkling, for baptism ; infants, for subjects ; 
 and religion established by law, have been the 
 cause of more contention, persecution, blood- 
 shed, and general unhappiness among men, 
 than most other causes put together. This 
 truth, though a sorrowful one, is nevertheless 
 indisputable. History bears me out in what I 
 say. The church, established by law and re- 
 plenished by all the infant seed of her mem- 
 
 19* 
 
222 
 
 ADDENDUM. 
 
 bers growing up in sin, has been the prolific 
 source of more cruelty and bloodshed, than 
 even the ambition of men, not connected with 
 the church. 
 
 The Christian Church, designed to bless, has 
 by usurpation and perversion tended to curse. 
 This same spirit has marked, in a greater or 
 less degree, the progress of sprinkling, and in- 
 fant baptism, in every land, not omitting ours, 
 so highly favoured and blessed. As proof of 
 this, we have only to turn to the times when 
 the puritans landed upon our shores, and the 
 long and diligent attempts they made to esta- 
 blish in this country a religion by force. 
 Making it the duty of all men to put their 
 necks under their yoke, so galling to the con- 
 sciences of those, who, adhering steadfastly to 
 the Bible, rejected alike, sprinkling, infant bap- 
 tism, and a religion established by law. 
 
 Still later proof we have of the existence of 
 the same spirit, as evinced by the American 
 Bible Society, which, with a sweeping stroke, 
 cut the Baptist denomination off from that body 
 unless they would give to the heathen the Bible 
 so translated as should favour sprinkling for 
 baptism, different orders in the ministry, and 
 other such things. Yes, while 1 am here speak- 
 ing, the blessed Oncken, of Hamburg, Ger- 
 many, lies incarcerated in a prison, for no 
 other reason than immersing the humble be- 
 liever in Jesus, and refusing to apply the rite 
 to infants. 
 
ADDEDNUM. 
 
 223 
 
 4. Notwithstanding all the efforts to the con- 
 trary, and the reproachful epithets that have 
 been heaped, with an unsparing hand, upon the 
 Baptists, and the Bible truths which they teach 
 and practice, yet they live, and have, under 
 the divine blessing, increased to a great multi- 
 tude. Their numbers have been augmented 
 by the very frequent accessions of many from 
 Pedobaptist churches, who, from a conscien- 
 tious sense of their duty to the God of the 
 Bible, and to the truths which it contains, and 
 to the church, and the souls of men, have 
 corne forward and followed the footsteps of the 
 Saviour.* 
 
 Hitherto God has helped us, or we had been 
 like the chaff of the summer's threshing floor. 
 Brethren, we owe to the God of Providence, 
 to the present and all future generations, the 
 most ardent devotedness in the service of our 
 ascended Lord, for he has done great things 
 for us. 
 
 5. Once more, my brethren, I have a word 
 particularly for you. That you have the 
 truth there can be no reasonable doubt. 
 You have kept the ordinances as they were 
 
 * "A Baptist minister of Western Virginia, within the 
 last four years, has baptized over 200 persons, who had 
 already been members of Pedobaptist churches. An aged 
 minister now residing" in Mississippi, has, at various times, 
 buried with Christ in baptism, more than four hundred 
 persons of this class, of whom forty were Pedobaptist 
 ministers." Jewett, p. 122. 
 
224 ADDENDUM. 
 
 delivered to the church at the first. But 
 you look about you and you see, and at 
 times are made to feel, that others hold views 
 very dissimilar to those entertained by your- 
 selves, and unlike anything taught in the Bible. 
 Towards these your duty is plain. You are 
 at all times, to treat them with Christian fideli- 
 ty and fraternal respect. Your duty to your 
 God and Saviour, and to them, as well as to 
 the world in general, will not suffer you to sac- 
 rifice the truth of the Bible for any considera- 
 tion whatever, nor will the spirit of the religion 
 you profess, allow you, on any occasion, to 
 exhibit towards your Pedobaptist brethren any- 
 thing but the spirit of kindness. It is yours to 
 do them good, let it not be said at the last that 
 you have withheld that good. 
 
THE DOCTRINE 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 
 
 PART II. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Acts viii. 36, 37. " And the Eunuch said, See, here is 
 water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip 
 said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." 
 
 Section I. 
 
 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS RESPECTING UNION AMONG 
 CHRISTIANS. 
 
 It will not, I trust, be deemed presumptuous 
 in me to express my very sincere regret, that 
 there should be any occasion in this enlightened 
 age, to come forth a second time in defence of 
 any of the first principles of the Gospel, and 
 especially of the sacred and spiritual nature of 
 the Christian Church. 
 
226 
 
 CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 It might seem, favoured as we are with 
 every facility of becoming acquainted with the 
 principles of Biblical interpretation, that there 
 need be no dissension among the pious follow- 
 ers of the Lamb of God, respecting his own In- 
 stitutions. And I can but hope, that the time 
 is not far distant, when all the children of the 
 Heavenly King shall see his commands alike, 
 and yield them a cheerful and willing obe- 
 dience. 
 
 I wish here solemnly to record, as the settled 
 conviction of my own mind, that, were Chris- 
 tians to put off that importance which they have 
 assumed, divest themselves of preconceived 
 opinions, and all prejudice, and then choose 
 with Mary " the good part, to sit at Jesus' feet 
 and hear his words," with the pious intent to 
 carry out into practice what they shall learn of 
 Christ, and be satisfied with his instructions, 
 the main causes which now afflict our beloved 
 Zion, and divide her into separate sections, 
 would speedily disappear. Then the different 
 portions of the Christian Church would come 
 together in pristine order, cemented by a unity 
 of sentiment and fraternal regard. Then 
 would " they continue steadfastly in the Apos- 
 tles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking 
 of bread, and in prayers. And the Lord would 
 add to the Church daily such as shall be saved." 
 
 Who can fail to see the desirableness of such 
 endeared "felloirship" among Christians, as 
 that embased upon the " Apostles' doctrine ?" A 
 
CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 227 
 
 fellowship commending itself to our regard by 
 the triumphant consideration, that the Church 
 when possessing it, shall throw off the reproach- 
 cast upon her divided state, and " putting on 
 her beautiful garment," shall sing with the 
 pious Psalmist, " Behold, how good and how 
 pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together 
 in unity. It is ' as the dew of Herman, and 
 as the dew that descended upon the moun- 
 tains of Zion ; for there the Lord commanded 
 the blessing, even life for evermore." Then 
 shall the Church be like to a city upon a hill, 
 which cannot be hid. She shall look forth as 
 the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the 
 sun, and terrible as an army with banners." 
 Such, my brethren, is the future glory of the 
 Church, when truth shall universally prevail. 
 
 The time will come, and may it speed its 
 course, when upon the unfurled banner of the 
 Church shall be written a second time, in liv- 
 ing characters, her rightful motto, " One body 
 and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope 
 of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one bap- 
 tism." Till then let us not cease to pray and 
 labour for this union. 
 
228 THE CHURCH A SPIRITUAL BODY. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 THE VISIBLE CHURCH SHOULD EVER BE WHAT SHE WAS IN 
 THE DAYS OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES, AND WHAT 
 SHE WAS DESIGNED EVER TO BE, A TRULY SPIRITUAL 
 BODY, COMPOSED EXCLUSIVELY OF THOSE WHO GIVE 
 EVIDENCE OF PERSONAL PIETY. 
 
 At this stage of our examination, it well be- 
 comes us to inquire respecting the proper Scrip- 
 tural subjects of baptism ; or, in other words, 
 respecting the spiritual nature of the Chris- 
 tian Church. 
 
 There are few subjects in the whole range 
 of theological investigation, which yield to this 
 in point of importance ; especially so, when we 
 take into account what the Church is capable 
 of effecting. She is an engine of no ordinary 
 power. She ever has been, since the days of her 
 first organization, under the ministry of John the 
 Baptist, and ever will be made instrumental in 
 promoting the veal or icoe of the family of man. 
 The great Captain of our Salvation designed 
 His Church to be one of the richest sources of 
 blessing to the world. Separate her from hu- 
 man policy, and govern her only by those pure 
 laws, devised by Infinite Wisdom, and she can- 
 not fail of accomplishing all contemplated in 
 the design of her formation. But, Oh, how 
 often does it happen, that men pervert what 
 God has created for our good ? The Church 
 designed, and happily adapted to bless and save 
 
THE CHURCH A SPIRITUAL BODY. 229 
 
 our ruined race, has, in some instances, by- 
 designing men, been made the engine of cruelty, 
 persecution, and death ! Christ designed that 
 his Church should be spiritual and holy, men 
 would make her secular ; Christ formed her a 
 religious body, men form her a political society ; 
 Christ designed that she should be composed 
 of such only as are experimentally acquainted 
 with himself; he says, speaking of those in 
 his Church on earth, " all shall know me from 
 the least to the greatest;" but men, disregard- 
 ing the wisdom of God, have opened the 
 doors of the Church to the infant of days, and 
 the man of years, who know not, nor love, the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. These things ought not so 
 to be. It is time that such sorrowful depar- 
 tures from primitive order should be rectified. 
 Well has the learned Cassander remarked, that 
 " Ecclesiastics should set themselves to correct 
 manifest abuses, according to the rule of divine 
 Scriptures, and the primitive Church, from 
 which they have swerved." 
 
 Let such manifest abuses be corrected ac- 
 cording to the rule of Scripture ; let the Church 
 be continually held to view, as not of this world, 
 but as chosen out of the world ; let her be go- 
 verned by those principles of equity and truth 
 which are laid down in the New Testament, 
 and she shall confer infinite blessings upon our 
 fallen race. Let the Church be as Christ or- 
 dained her, and as the Apostles guided her, 
 and she shall do more, infinitely more, than 
 20 
 
230 THE CHURCH A SPIRITUAL BODY. 
 
 was ever supposed Archimedes might accom- 
 plish, had he a support by which to sustain a 
 lever. Then the famed Atlas could not so effec- 
 tually bear up the earth, as she. Put into her 
 hand only the sabre of truth — the sword of 
 the Spirit; marshal for her hosts only the pure 
 in heart; bring to her institutions none but the 
 penitent and the believing, and she shall more 
 than bear up the pillars of the moral world ; 
 she shall revert the world, form it into another 
 delightful Eden, and make it the Paradise of 
 God. 
 
 Give me your attention then, while we weigh, 
 as in the balance of the sanctuary, the sentiment 
 that believers, and believers only, have a right 
 to the ordinances of the visible Church. 
 
 You are perfectly aware, my friends, that 
 this is a sentiment which has been warmly op- 
 posed, especially for some ten or twelve hun- 
 dred years ; nevertheless, like the burning bush 
 which Moses saw, it is not consumed. Like 
 the Hebrew worthies, " who were cast into the 
 midst of the burning, fiery furnace," it still 
 lives; and at no period of its vehement oppo- 
 sition, has it won such signal conquests, as in 
 later years. It is one of those inherent prin- 
 ciples in the Christian system, which is destined 
 to outlive the power of contradiction and arti- 
 fice employed against it. 
 
 There are certain truths in the Bible, which 
 are above the power of man to destroy. Among 
 these is the one in question — that the Church 
 
THE CHURCH A SPIRITUAL BODY. 231 
 
 of onr Lord Jesus Christ, when first constituted, 
 and during the times of Christ and the Apostles, 
 was composed exclusively of suck as believed in 
 the beloved Son of God, and were renewed 
 in the spirit of their minds. 
 
 None, except they appeared to possess these 
 important qualifications, were admitted to the 
 Church, or to her institutions. She was then 
 a spiritual body, offering up spiritual sacrifices 
 to God through Jesus Christ. 
 
 Hence the Apostle's appropriate address, so 
 highly descriptive of the Church as she then 
 was. 
 
 " Unto the Church of God, which is at 
 Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ 
 Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every 
 place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our 
 Lord." (1 Cor. i. 2.) 
 
 In perfect keeping with this beautiful and 
 just description of the spiritual nature of the 
 Church, another Apostle, when inquired of, 
 by a certain nobleman, what hindered him 
 from being baptized, replied, " If thou believest 
 with all thine heart, thou may est" Faith was 
 demanded before baptism. 
 
 If we go back to the ministry of John the 
 Baptist, " the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God," we shall find that the 
 admission of believers only to baptism, was a 
 fundamental principle, from which the Baptist 
 then, as his descendants now, felt himself not 
 at liberty to depart. 
 
232 THE CHURCH A SPIRITUAL BODY. 
 
 Many of the Jews, who came to him to be 
 baptized, instituted the very plausible plea, which 
 is now urged in favour of infant baptism, that 
 they should be admitted to this New Institution, 
 on the ground of their being the children of 
 faithful Abraham. But the Baptist rejected 
 their visionary plea with a most solemn rebuke, 
 while at the same time he informed them what 
 was indispensably prerequisite to baptism. 
 
 John, with his accustomed integrity, was 
 not moved by the plausibility of their claim. 
 The very comprehensive demand which he 
 made of them was, " Bring forth fruits meet for 
 repentance, and think not to say within your- 
 selves, we have Abraham for our Father." 
 
 Now the very principle upon which John 
 the Baptist acted, in rejecting these children of 
 Abraham, who gave no evidence of faith in 
 Christ, the Son of God, is uniformly maintained 
 throughout the New Testament. Not an in- 
 stance is to be found, during the ministry of 
 our Lord and his Apostles, where it receives 
 the least infringement. Every where do they 
 require what is equivalent to that which John 
 required. 
 
 Indeed, the explanations of the nature of 
 the Christian religion, as found in the New 
 Testament, and the qualifications required of 
 those admitted to her institutions are so full 
 and explicit, that it might seem scarcely pos- 
 sible for any, professing to make the doctrines 
 and example of Christ the rule of their faith 
 
THE CHURCII A SPIRITUAL BODY. ggg 
 
 and practice, to be mistaken. The records of 
 the ancient Church are most expressive on this 
 point. They show distinctly who they were 
 that found admission to the ordinance of bap- 
 tism in the times of the Apostles. 
 
 " Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, 
 and were baptized." Acts xviii. 8. " They 
 that gladly received his word were baptized." 
 Acts ii. 41. 
 
 " What doth hinder me to be baptized 1 If 
 thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." 
 "Can any man forbid water, that these should 
 not be baptized, who have received the Holy 
 Ghost, as well as we ?" Acts x. 47. 
 
 " But w T hen they believed Philip preaching 
 the things concerning the kingdom of God, and 
 the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, 
 both men and women." Acts viii. 12. 
 
 Now, if you desire to imbibe the spirit, fol- 
 low the commands, and imitate the example of 
 your Saviour, as well as 1o be true to your 
 own conscience, and faithful to your God, 
 you will yield an implicit confidence to these 
 plain instructions of the Spirit, without seeking 
 to find something to contradict them. 
 
 These Scriptures must satisfy every candid 
 and unprejudiced mind, that the primitive 
 Church received to her bosom believers, only 
 admitted on profession of their individual faith. 
 She was then, it is true, as now, liable to be 
 mistaken. She had not the power of looking 
 into the heart and detecting what is in man. 
 20* 
 
234 THE CHURCH A SPIRITUAL BODY. 
 
 This prerogative the Saviour has reserved to 
 himself. He alone can " search the heart." 
 
 Even the inspired Apostles, with all their 
 rare and unearthly endowments, were not 
 able to know the hearts of others, only as mani- 
 fested by their fruits. 
 
 A Judas Iscariot could deceive John the 
 Baptist; and a Simon Magus could deceive 
 Philip and other Apostles. But neither Judas 
 nor Simon was admitted to the baptismal rite, 
 only as they professed to believe in the name 
 of Jesus, and showed signs of penitential sor- 
 row for their sins. 
 
 Persons may and have been planted together 
 in the likeness of the Saviour's death, in bap- 
 tism, who were not dead to sin, nor alive to 
 God through our Lord Jesus Christ; just as it 
 happens sometimes, that persons are buried 
 alive, who were thought to be dead. But it 
 would be strange logic, indeed, for one to reason 
 that as some have been buried alive, others 
 ought to be. No less strange is it to argue, 
 that, as some have been baptized who, in after 
 life, gave no proof of their conversion to God, 
 others ought to be baptized who profess no 
 conversion. No ! we ought to bury none but 
 the dead; we ought to baptize none but the 
 converted — the pious. 
 
 The liability there is of being deceived, so 
 far from prevailing with the Church to throw 
 open her doors to the admission of any class of 
 unbelievers, whether old or young, should 
 
THE CHURCH A SPIRITUAL BODY. 335 
 
 awaken in her the greater vigilance, that, if 
 possible, none may be added, only " such as 
 shall be saved." Is the sanctity of the Church 
 to be invaded by hearts yet unsubdued by the 
 grace of God ? then should she guard the way 
 into her bosom with the more careful exactness. 
 
 Even a nobleman is not to be received to her 
 institutions unless he believes with all his heart 
 The children of the faithful Abraham, must 
 show signs worthy of repentance, All in the 
 Church must know the Saviour by happy ex- 
 perience, from the least to the greatest. Heb. 
 viii. 11. 
 
 The infants of believing parents, and the 
 infants of unbelieving parents, are alike un- 
 scriptural subjects for the rite of baptism. 
 
 They may not be admitted into the visible 
 church only when come to years of understand- 
 ing, and having embraced the Saviour with a 
 sincere and pure faith. Then with inexpressi- 
 ble delight, do we welcome their accession to 
 the fold of the Lamb of God — the Shepherd 
 and Bishop of their souls. 
 
 Josephus, a Jew, and therefore a perfectly 
 disinterested and impartial witness, bears the 
 most decisive testimony, as to the character 
 of those whom John admitted to the rite of 
 baptism. He says: "Herod slew him, (John) 
 who was a good man, and commanded the 
 Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteous- 
 ness towards one another, and piety towards 
 God, and so to come to baptism. Antiquities 
 B. xviii. c. 5. § 2. 
 
236 THE CHURCH A SPIRITUAL BODY. 
 
 Eusebius is no less distinct in giving to the 
 Apostolic church the character of a spiritual 
 body, requiring faith and confession of sin be- 
 fore baptism. He says : Novatus, " who 
 aided by the exorcists, when attacked with 
 an obstinate disease, and being supposed at 
 the point of death, was baptized by aspersion, 
 in the bed on which he lay, if indeed it be 
 proper to say that one like him did receive 
 baptism." " We justly cherish an aversion 
 to Novation, by whom the church is split 
 asunder, — which also beside all this, sets 
 
 ASIDE THE HOLY BAPTISM, and OVERTURNS the 
 
 faith and confession that precede it." Eu- 
 sebius Eccl. His. B. vi. c. 43. B. vii. c. 8. 
 
 Such, my brethren, was the church in her 
 earliest times, when watched over and guarded 
 by the holy Apostles. And such was she ever 
 designed to be. The Baptists, in every age 
 from the Apostles till now, have claimed such 
 a character for the church of Christ. They 
 have contended earnestly for this part of the 
 Christian faith. They conceive that the 
 church should be a spiritual body, a holy 
 priesthood, a peculiar people. 
 
 But our brethren of other denominations 
 differ with us, and suppose the church to be 
 more secular in her nature ; open to the ad- 
 mission of a certain class who do not believe 
 in Christ. 
 
 Some suppose that all the qualification ne- 
 cessary to church membership consists in the 
 
THE CHURCH A SPIRITUAL BODY. 237 
 
 ability to repeat the catechism to the priest, 
 without the considerations of personal reli- 
 gion. 
 
 Others think that we are born to this inhe- 
 ritance, and hold our membership in the light 
 of a birthright. While others, again, suppose 
 and warmly contend that infants may be ad- 
 mitted into the visible church, by baptism on 
 the faith of their parents, or sponsors acting 
 as godfathers and godmothers. Dr. Miller 
 says: "The main principle of the Pedobaptist 
 system is, that in every case of infant baptism 
 faith is required. But it is required of the 
 parents, not of the children." P. 54. 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot says: " They,'' infants, "are 
 part of their parents; and, therefore, to be 
 brought under the same bond. So I would 
 answer a Baptist; 'I baptize my child, be- 
 cause I am baptized myself.'" His Works, 
 Vol. vi. p. 403. 
 
 But while we respect both the learning and 
 piety of many of those who differ with us, 
 upon these points, we are constrained by the 
 word of God, and the dearest interests of the 
 souls of men, to reject opinions so at va- 
 riance with the spiritual nature of the Chris- 
 tian church, and so vastly inharmonious with 
 the entire and uniform practice of the Apos- 
 tles and of the church for the two first centu- 
 ries of her existence. 
 
238 N0 BIBLE F 0R INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE MOST POPULAR ARGUMENTS, UPON WHICH OUR 
 PEDOBAPTIST BRETHREN REST THE VALIDITY 
 OF INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Section I. 
 
 THE VALIDITY OF INFANT BAPTISM IS URGED AND 
 THOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED, ON THE GROUND OF 
 ITS BEING TAKEN FOR GRANTED, WITHOUT ANY 
 EXPRESS COMMAND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 We commence this examination under very- 
 singular circumstances. Circumstances which 
 ought to awaken surprise in every intelligent 
 mind. 
 
 For in the first place, our Pedobaptist bre- 
 thren have been constrained to acknowledge 
 that there is neither precept nor command, 
 nor yet example, for infant baptism in the 
 Holy Bible. 
 
 We might suppose, after so just a conces- 
 sion, that no further attempt would be made 
 to keep alive a custom, which, more than any- 
 other, has afflicted and divided the Christian 
 church. Why should we not relinquish any 
 and every practice, as of divine authority, 
 which we cannot support by plain and une- 
 quivocal passages from our holy writings. 
 
NO BIBLE FOR INFANT BAPTISM. 339 
 
 To the honour of Christ, and for the peace 
 of our beloved Zion, we ought ta bring a 
 " thus saith the Lord" to every part of in- 
 stituted worship. And be enabled to say, 
 "This is the thing which the Lord commanded 
 to be done." Lev. viii. 5. 
 
 But it has been the extreme infelicity of our 
 Pedobaptist brethren, after the most laborious 
 study and even speculative criticism, utterly 
 to fail of producing one single command or 
 example, to justify the application of the rite 
 of baptism to infants. One might, in all cha- 
 rity, conclude that after so splendid a failure, 
 they would for ever abandon the hope of fix- 
 ing upon infant baptis/n the seal of divine 
 appointment. 
 
 But as strange as it may appear, the va- 
 lidity of infant baptism is urged on the very 
 ground that Baptists reject it. We reject it 
 because not commanded in the Bible. They 
 hold to it because not commanded, but taken 
 for granted ! 
 
 In meeting the objection which Baptists 
 prefer against infant baptism, in that it has no 
 scriptural warrant, one of the popular Pedo- 
 baptist writers very ingeniously observes, " If 
 it be as they," the Baptists, "say, that the 
 New Testament is silent on the subject, this 
 very silence is quite sufficient to destroy their 
 cause, and to establish ours" The silence of 
 the New Testament quite sufficient to esta- 
 blish infant baptism ! ! ! How strangely do 
 
240 N0 BTBLE F0R INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 men reason when they want for solid and sub- 
 stantial testimony ! Who could have thought 
 that a doctor of divinity should have, at this 
 enlightened day, employed logic so singularly 
 strange, and at war with every acknowledged 
 principle of correct reasoning ! ! 
 
 One cannot but regret, that any man, and 
 especially a professor in an institution where 
 young men are being trained for the Christian 
 ministry, should have thus laid himself open 
 to the rebuke of some of the first principles in 
 the science of biblical interpretation. 
 
 Plead the validity of a practice on the 
 ground of the entire silence of Scripture ! ! ! 
 What a principle this for Protestants of the 
 nineteenth century!! Might we not have 
 judged, without betraying a want of Christian 
 charity, that the silence of Christ and the 
 Jlpostles is a quite sufficient reason tohy 
 those of later times should be silent? 
 
 Will not our Pedobaptist brethren review 
 this part of their testimony, and put away a 
 practice for which they have no divine grant? 
 Shall the absence of all evidence be made the 
 best of evidence? What must you think, if 
 accused of crime, and when on trial, your ac- 
 cuser fails to bring forward any testimony to 
 substantiate the charge ; yet the court over- 
 ruled and condemned you, because there is 
 no evidence against you? Making the en- 
 tire absence of all testimony against you 
 quite sufficient to establish the groundless 
 charge ! ! ! 
 
NO BIBLE FOR INFANT BAPTISM. 241 
 
 To what a pass have we come in logic, re- 
 ligion, and laws, when the civilian, the divine, 
 and the logician all concur with a jury of their 
 own selection, in giving a verdict against the 
 innocent, on the very ground that there is 
 no proof which can be made to bear against 
 him! Should the unoffending man complain 
 of a verdict so manifestly absurd, and attempt 
 to defend himself, he is answered by the 
 court, "If it be as you say, that no testimony 
 has been adduced against you in the case, 
 this very silence of all testimony is quite 
 sufficient to condemn you." 
 
 And yet this is precisely the kind of argu- 
 ment which our Pedobaptist brethren employ 
 in justification of infant baptism. No express 
 warrant for it, "but to be taken for granted, 
 without an explicit enactment." 
 
 Another of the same class of divines, to 
 whose name is appended the weighty respon- 
 sibility of D. D., remarks, "If in the record of 
 the administration of this ordinance, some of 
 its original circumstances be omitted, it is evi- 
 dent that this omission cannot render those 
 circumstances nugatory." Should some one 
 have the curiosity to inquire respecting " ori- 
 ginal circumstances, not found in the record 
 of the administration of the ordinance of 
 baptism," should he beg to be informed how 
 any m;in knows any thing about "circum- 
 stances" which the inspired penmen "omit- 
 ted" to mention ; he is answered, " it is evi- 
 21 
 
242 
 
 NO BIBLE FOR INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 dent that this omission cannot render those 
 circumstances nugatory" Those omitted 
 circumstances become v;ilid on the ground of 
 not having a place in our Holy Bible ! ! ! Who, 
 my friends, can fail to see the unhappy ten- 
 dency of such illogical argumentation. My 
 heart sickens within me, while viewing how 
 error seeks to wear the aspect of truth. By 
 the singular law of omission, any and every 
 thing that a person chooses maybe elevated to 
 the dignity and value of a thing divinely com- 
 manded ! In view of such religious specula- 
 tions, I may remark in the language of an 
 eloquent writer, " We cannot sink too low in 
 humility, nor rise too high in heavenly mind- 
 edness; but we may soon be lost in the wil- 
 derness of needless speculation. If we are 
 wise according as it is written, we shall be 
 profitably wise; but if we want to be wise 
 beyond what is written, we shall smart for 
 our folly." 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot observes: "The Anabaptist 
 pleads that 'there is no precept for infant bap- 
 tism.' / say it needs not ; and Christ took 
 up baptism as he found it. If a law be 
 made in these words, 'Let all the univer- 
 sity come to St. Mary's on the Sabbath;' it 
 would be madness hereafter to say, 'That 
 there ought to be no sermons, there, because 
 there is no mention of them in the law ;' that 
 is supposed in the law as a thing common 
 and known. So Christ makes this law, that 
 
NO BIBLE FOR TNFANT BAPTISM. 243 
 
 all nations should be baptized : he directs not 
 in this law how to baptize, nor ivho to be 
 baptized, because that was so well known to 
 all already." His Works, Vol. vi. pp. 405-6. 
 
 The cunning sophistry of the Doctor, by 
 which he would induce the partial observer 
 to believe in infant baptism, can easily be 
 made to appear. His under current should 
 be brought to the surface, and laid open to 
 the inspection of all. Nothing can be further 
 necessary to show the futility of infant bap- 
 tism, than a mere statement of the fallacious 
 arguments plead in its favour. These argu- 
 ments are here brought together by Dr. 
 Lightfoot, who takes the following positions : 
 First, that infant baptis?n needs no precept ; 
 Second, That "Christ took up baptism as he 
 found it ;" Third, That the command of our 
 Lord to his Apostles to " Go and teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the Fa- 
 ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," 
 included infants. But who does not see the 
 sophistry here employed to sustain a practice 
 for which there is no precept? Since those 
 who are to be baptized are first to be taught. 
 And secondly, Mark informs us that not all 
 who are taught are to be baptized, only those 
 who are both instructed and believe. 
 
 The Doctor's fourth position is, that Christ 
 in his command "directs not how to baptize, 
 nor who to be baptized." Hence he infers 
 infant baptism. As well might he infer infidel, 
 
244 INFANT BAPTISM NEITHER 
 
 or pagan baptism. If, as our Pedobaptist 
 brethren tell us, "Christ directs not who are 
 
 lo be baptized," and hence infer infant bap- 
 tism, another may infer idiot baptism, and 
 lunatic baptism. For the inference is just as 
 satisfactory in the one case as in the other. 
 
 It is deeply to be deplored, that any Chris- 
 tian society should plead such singular argu- 
 ments in support of their cherished notions. 
 Any and every opinion which rests upon such 
 fallacious ground should, by Christians, be for 
 ever abandoned. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 THE VALIDITY OF INFANT BAPTISM IS PLEAD FOR AS OF 
 DIVINE APPOINTMENT, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROHI- 
 BITION AGAINST IT. 
 
 And has it come to this ? Shall we hold 
 our peace and forbear uttering our decided 
 disapprobation against innovations into the 
 Christian church, because they are not for- 
 bidden? Shall we tamely submit to every 
 practice which the ingenuity of man may in- 
 vent, because not interdicted in the Bible? 
 
 If such testimony be allowed in matters of 
 religion, what may not be imposed upon our 
 credulity? Such principles of interpretation 
 carried out, would lay the broad foundation 
 
COMMANDED NOR FORBIDDEN. 
 
 245 
 
 for the practice of the most baneful and de- 
 structive errors, and would open a wide door 
 for every species of superstition of which this 
 degenerate world is rife, together with all that 
 the human heart may yet invent. 
 
 My brethren, the souls of men, the honour 
 of the blessed Redeemer, and the hopes of 
 posterity call upon us, as Christians, responsi- 
 ble for the privileges we enjoy, to meet such 
 arguments with a prompt and decided dis- 
 avowal. 
 
 If we plead the validity of any practice in 
 religion, on the double ground that it is nei- 
 ther commanded nor forbidden, having nei- 
 ther precept nor prohibition, then what may 
 we not establish and introduce into the church 
 as ordinances of divine worship? 
 
 This, my friends, is taking sides with the 
 church of Rome. She has long been accus- 
 tomed to plead the validity of her peculiar 
 rites, on this very ground, because they are 
 not forbidden in the Bible. 
 
 " Will they," asks the distinguished Mr. 
 Baxter, when arguing with Papists, " Will 
 they stand to the validity of proofs from 
 Scripture? No ; for they take it to be but 
 part of God\s word, so that toe may not ar- 
 gue negatively, it is not in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures ; therefore, it is not an article of faith, 
 or a law of God ; for they will presently ap- 
 peal to tradition," &c. Jesuit Juggling, p. 80. 
 
 And tradition they hold to be proof positive 
 21* 
 
246 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM NEITHER 
 
 when there is no prohibition in the Bible 
 against the thing for which tradition is plead. 
 
 If such reasoning be admitted among Chris- 
 tians, we shall have ample proof for other 
 things which are not forbidden, as for exam- 
 ple, the invocation of saints ; the inquisition 
 at Rome; infant communion at the Lord's 
 table; infant marriage; and many other 
 things which are quite as well supported in 
 the word of God, as infant baptism. 
 
 By just this kind of reasoning is a divine 
 warrant found for giving a name in baptism; 
 for consecrating the baptismal waters ; for 
 anointing the person baptized; for sponsors, 
 as godfathers and godmothers; for baptizing 
 children on the faith of parents; for a renun- 
 ciation of the devil at baptism, by proxy ; for 
 putting salt in the baptismal waters; for hav- 
 ing others vow and promise for us when bap- 
 tized; for crossing with the sign of the cross 
 the newly baptized, and such like. 
 
 These things, being neither commanded nor 
 forbidden, are tenaciously contended for by 
 the same kind of logic as is plead for sprink- 
 ling and infant baptism. 
 
 Their omission in the divine record, it is 
 said, cannot render them nugatory. If the 
 Scriptures are silent respecting them, this 
 very silence is quite sufficient to establish 
 and justify their being observed. 
 
 Well did the great Mr. Collins say, " that 
 nothing is lawful in the worship of God but 
 
COMMANDED NOR FORBIDDEN- 247 
 
 what we have precept or precedent for; 
 which whoso denies, opens a door for all 
 idolatry and superstition, and will-worship in 
 the world." Jerubbaal, p. 487. 
 
 But our Pedobaptist brethren when disput- 
 ing among themselves, as Protestants against 
 Romanists, do not admit such rules of in- 
 terpretation. Then they come on consistent 
 ground, and utterly reject the doctrines of the 
 Roman church, whose validity rests not upon 
 plain examples, or positive commands. 
 
 Hear what the learned Dr. Baxter says. 
 
 " What man dare go in a way which has 
 neither precept nor example to warrant it, 
 from a way which has a full current of both? 
 Who knows what will please God but himself? 
 and has he not told us what he expects from us? 
 Can that be obedience which has no command 
 for it? Is not this to accuse God's ordinances 
 of insufficiency, as well as his word, as if they 
 were not sufficient, either to please him, or 
 help our own graces? Oh, the pride of man's 
 heart, that instead of being a law obeyer, will 
 be a law maker! For my part, I will not 
 fear that God will be angry with me, for do- 
 ing no more than he has commanded me, and 
 for sticking close to the rule of his word in 
 matters of worship; but I should tremble to 
 add or diminish. " Plain Scrip. Proof, p. 24, 
 303. 
 
 How just and noble are these sentiments ! 
 Worthy, indeed, their distinguished author. I 
 
248 INFANT BAPTISM, &c. 
 
 could wish they were printed upon every 
 heart. Only let them have their full influence 
 over us; let our Pedobaptist brethren carry 
 them out, and apply them, when pleading for 
 infant baptism, and they will for ever aban- 
 don a practice for which they have no com- 
 mand, nor yet example. 
 
 But let us see how differently they argue 
 when attempting to justify infant baptism. 
 Says a Pedobaptist whose writings have ac- 
 quired much popularity : 
 
 " / do not pretend to ground the practice 
 of infant baptism on any plain positive 
 command. Baptism must not rest upon the 
 instructions of the ivord of God, but upon 
 probabilities, inferences, human reasoning, 
 and consequences" Methodist Dialogue, p. 
 9—17. 
 
 Says another, and no less than the distin- 
 guished and eminent Professor Stuart, of An- 
 dover : 
 
 "Commands, or plain and certain examples, 
 in the New Testament relative to it," (infant 
 baptism) " I do not find." 
 
 And Dr. Woods, an associate professor of 
 Dr. Stuart, says : 
 
 " We have no express precept or example 
 for infant baptism, in all our holy writings." 
 
 Cellarius, one of the most learned and la- 
 borious philologists of the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, says: Infant baptism is neither com- 
 manded in the sacred Scriptures, nor is it 
 confirmed by apostolic example." 
 
TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 249 
 
 I might quote scores of Pedobaptist authors 
 who concede the same things, did I suppose it 
 necessary. But I will only present you with 
 one other example at this time, where they 
 have granted all that Baptists ask on this 
 point. 
 
 Gesenius, a celebrated orientalist and biblical 
 critic, whose works have acquired for him an 
 immortal celebrity, being informed that Bap- 
 tists, in America, as well as in other countries, 
 practice immersion only, and reject the bap- 
 tism of infants, remarked, " They do right — 
 that is according to the Bible." 
 
 Section III. 
 
 TRADITION IS A MAIN ARGUMENT URGED IN SUPPORT OF 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 We are told that " The history of the Chris- 
 tian Church, from the apostolic age, furnishes 
 an argument of irresistible force in favour of 
 the divine authorify of infant baptism." — 
 Miller, p. 32. 
 
 Now, while I would not be thought to want 
 proper respect for the traditions of the Fathers, 
 yet I dare not hold their opinions as of divine 
 authority; and the more cautious ought we 
 to be as to the stress we repose on their 
 opinions, since scarcely two of them have the 
 happiness to agree. Nevertheless, Baptists 
 
250 TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 
 
 have nothing to fear from the most rigid scru- 
 tiny of the ancient Fathers, on the point of 
 baptism, whether in respect to the mode of its 
 administration, or the proper subjects of the 
 holy rite. For a long time after Christ, there 
 was not a dissenting voice ; yet we would not, 
 we dare not, put human testimony on a par 
 with the Inspired Writings. That which is 
 submitted for our belief, supported by no better 
 than a mere traditionary legend, ought not to 
 share the confidence of Bible Christians in any 
 considerable degree. Having no better foun- 
 dation than the best possible tradition, it ought 
 not to be classed among the articles of our 
 faith, nor admitted as any part of instituted 
 worship in the house of God. 
 
 If Dr. Miller holds to the infallibility of tradi- 
 tion, as a rule to determine what shall be re- 
 ceived as a Divine institution, in common with 
 the Church of Rome, then he may have some 
 show of reason for his " argument of irresistible 
 force in favour of the Divine authority of infant 
 baptism." But let us hold up by the side of 
 the good Dr. at Princetoy, a noble champion 
 of the Protestant cause, who, having opened 
 his eyes upon the enormities of the established 
 Church, and the utter insufficiency of tradition 
 to establish any thing but error, remarked, 
 "For my part, after long and impartial search, 
 I profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for 
 the sole of my foot, but upon this rock only, 
 namely, that the Bible, the Bible, I say only, is 
 the religion of Protestants. I see plainly, and 
 
TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 251 
 
 with my own eyes, that there are Popes against 
 Popes, Councils against Councils, some Fathers 
 against others, the same Fathers against them- 
 selves, a consent of Fathers of one age, against 
 a consent of Fathers of another age, the Church 
 of one age against the Church of another age 
 — in a word, there is no sufficient certainty, but 
 of Scripture only, for any considering man to 
 build upon. This, therefore, and this only, I 
 have reason to believe — I will take no man's 
 liberty of judgment from him, neither shall any 
 man take mine from me. I am sure that God 
 does not, and therefore that man ought not to 
 require any more of any man than this, to be- 
 lieve the Scriptures to be God's Word; to en- 
 deavour to find the true sense of it, and to live 
 according to it" — Chillingworth's Real Prot., 
 chap. vi. see. 56, p. 379. 
 
 And yet Pedobaptists of America, after hav- 
 ing conceded the point that there is neither 
 command nor example for infant baptism in 
 the Bible, tell to the world that " the history of 
 the Church, from the apostolic age, furnishes 
 an argument of irresistible force in favour of 
 the Divine authority of infant baptism ! ! !* 
 
 But let us see what " alignments of irresisti- 
 ble force," "favouring the Divine authority of in- 
 fant baptism," can be gathered from the history 
 of the Church since the days of the Apostles. 
 
 * Cardinal Bellarmine says, "Traditions are Divine, 
 Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical. 
 
 Divine, are those which were received from Christ him- 
 self teaching his Apostles, and yet are not to be found in 
 
252 TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 
 
 Throughout the New Testament, and from 
 the days of the Apostles till the beginning of 
 the third century, not a word is said about in- 
 fant baptism. 
 
 John, the last of the inspired Apostles, died 
 at the close of the first century, leaving one 
 hundred years from the times of the Apostles 
 to the first mention whatever of infant baptism. 
 
 During this last hundred years, uninspired 
 writers make frequent mention of the immersion 
 of believers, but never do they mention a word 
 about the baptism of infants. 
 
 But our Pedobaptist brethren find no diffl- 
 
 the Scriptures ; such are those which concern the matter 
 and form of the sacraments. 
 
 Apostolical, are those which were instituted by the 
 Apostles, not without the assistance of the Holy Ghost, 
 and yet are not to be found in their Epistles. 
 
 Ecclesiastical traditions are properly called certain old 
 customs, beg-an either by prelates, or by the people, which, 
 by little and little, by tacit consent of the peopl , obtained 
 the power of a law." Lib. 4, de verbo non script, c. 2. 
 extat. torn. i. p. 166. 
 
 Under these divisions, especially the two former, he 
 classes the following: " The perpetual virginity of Mary; 
 the baptizing- of infants; consecrating" the water in which 
 babes are about to be baptized; bidding* them renounce 
 Satan and his works; signing them with the sign of the 
 cross; anointing them with oil; not to re-baptize after the 
 manner of Heretiqucs; to observe Lent; Ember week; 
 inferior orders in the Church; worshipping- of images," 
 &c— Ibid. cap. 9. 
 
 To which others add the following, viz.: "The oblation 
 of the sacrament of the altar; invocation of saints; prayer 
 for the dead; the primacy, confirmation, orders, penance; 
 extreme unction; merits; auricular confession," &c. — 
 Vid. Whitaker de S. Script, conorov. i. q. 6. c. 5. 
 
TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. £53 
 
 culty in getting over this entire silence upon 
 this subject. They hold that this very silence 
 is proof positive in their favour. 
 
 But as they attach great importance to the 
 history of the Church, after the days of the 
 Apostles, I will now show by their own his- 
 torians, that their history reaches no further 
 back than about the commencement of the 
 third century, at which time infant baptism was 
 introduced and contended for by a few. 
 
 Curcellaeus says, " Pedobaptism," the bap- 
 tism of infants, "was unknown in the two first 
 ages after Christ ; in the third and fourth," 
 centuries, "it was approved of by a few; at 
 length, in the fifth and following ages it began 
 to obtain in divers places, and therefore this 
 rite is, indeed, observed by us as an ancient 
 custom, but not as an Apostolic tradition" — 
 Westlake, p. 21. This single quotation is suffi- 
 cient to put to silence every attempt to support 
 infant baptism, as having any existence before 
 the third century. 
 
 Yet, out of the many who make the same 
 concession, let me quote Bishop Barlow, who 
 says, " I do believe and know that there is 
 neither precept nor example in Scripture for 
 pedobaptism, nor any just evidence for it for 
 about two hundred years after Christ." — See 
 his Letter to J. Tombs. 
 
 I am aware that some have thought that 
 Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, both of whom 
 suffered martyrdom, the one in the year 167, 
 
254 TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 
 
 and the other not until 202, had some allusion 
 to infant baptism, in their writings. But it is 
 quite manifest that Justin did not mean infants, 
 but such children as were capable of under- 
 standing and believing the Gospel. 
 
 He spoke of children just as Paul did in his 
 address to Timothy, 2 Tim. iii. 14, 15. "From 
 a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures." 
 But to put it beyond all doubt that he spoke of 
 children who were capable of learning and be- 
 lieving, I will give you his own words, which 
 are sufficiently plain. They are as follows: 
 "Among those who were members of the 
 Church, there were many of both sexes, some 
 sixty and some seventy years old, who were 
 made disciples to Christ from their childhood." 
 Now a disciple is a scholar or pupil, attending 
 the instructions of a teacher. 
 
 To be made the disciples of Christ is to be 
 instructed in the way of salvation through 
 Christ. Such pupils were these children. 
 
 Hence, I find Mr. Matthies, in his interpre- 
 tation of this very passage, saying, "These 
 words" of Justin, " mean simply, that ''from 
 their childhood they were instructed in religion ;' 
 for, in another place, speaking of the order and 
 manner of baptism, Justin Martyr says, that 
 1 only those wlio believe what they were taught 
 were baptized.'' From which it appears that, in 
 Justin's view, baptism was to be given sub- 
 sequently to faith." 
 
 To as little effect, do they appeal to Irenaeus 
 
TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 255 
 
 for proof that infant baptism existed before the 
 beginning of the third century. 
 
 Dr. Winer, who stands confessedly eminent, 
 both as a scholar and critic, says, " Tertullian 
 is the first that mentions infant baptism. Ire- 
 naeus does not mention it, as has been supposed' 9 
 Irenaeus has not a word respecting infant bap- 
 tism in any part of his writings. He speaks of 
 the regeneration of children, not of their bap- 
 tism. 
 
 There is, therefore, no writer that ever men- 
 tions infant baptism before Tertullian, two 
 hundred years after Christ, at a time when 
 many errors began to be introduced into the 
 Church. 
 
 This is the starting point of the Church of 
 Rome. She had her beginning in the origin 
 of the following erroneous sentiments, viz., 
 prayers for the dead; union of church and 
 state; baptism a saving ordinance; infant bap- 
 tism; infant communion at the Lord's Table; 
 &c. &c. 
 
 Indeed, infant baptism had its origin in the 
 belief that baptism was a saving ordinance, 
 and that infants dying without it would be lost. 
 Salmasius, a very learned historian, says, "An 
 opinion prevailed that no one could be saved 
 without being baptized ; and for that reason 
 the custom arose of baptizing infants." — Pengil. 
 p. 68. At first, however, it was intended that 
 baptism should be administered to such infants 
 only as were sick and not likely to recover. 
 
 Among those who embraced the dangerous 
 
256 
 
 TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF- 
 
 error, that baptism was a saving institution, 
 and washed away original sin, or unholiness, 
 there was a division. Some held with Ter- 
 tullian, who dissuaded the baptism of infants, 
 and advised that their baptism be delayed till 
 they are grown up to years of understanding, 
 and able to seek and become Christians.* 
 
 Yes, Tertullian, notwithstanding he supposed 
 there to be something salutary in respect to sal- 
 vation by being baptized, yet he could by no 
 consideration whatever brook the idea of infant 
 baptism. He met this new innovation into the 
 Christian Church, with a strength and con- 
 sistency of argument that does honour to him- 
 self, and justice to the truth of the Bible. But 
 others, who held in common with Tertullian 
 
 * Tertullian says, " The delay of baptism may be more 
 advantageous, either on account of the condition, dispo- 
 sition, or age of any person, especially in reference to 
 little children. For what necessity is there that the 
 sponsors should be brought into danger ? because either 
 they themselves may fail of the promises by death, or be 
 deceived by the growth of evil dispositions. The Lord, 
 indeed, says, Do not forbid them to come to me. Let them, 
 therefore, come when they are grown up ; when they can 
 understand ; when they are taught whither they are to 
 come. Let them become Christians when they can know 
 Christ. Why should this innocent age hasten to the re- 
 mission of sins ? Men act more cautu usly in worldly 
 things; so that Divine things are here intrusted with 
 whom earthly things are not. Let them know how to 
 seek salvation, that you may appear to give to one that 
 asketh If persons understand the importance of bap- 
 tism they will rather fear the consequent obligation than 
 the delay: true faith alone is secure of salvation." — Ue 
 Baptismo, cap. xvlii. 
 
TRADITION NOT VALID PROOR 257 
 
 the saving efficacy of Baptism, did not agree 
 with him that the rite should be delayed; but 
 administered to all infants, lest by some acci- 
 dental occurrence they should be cut off in an 
 unsuspected moment, and die without baptism, 
 and so be lost. 
 
 It should be remembered that those who 
 first introduced and advocated the validity of 
 infant baptism, rested their main argument 
 upon its saving power. Their appeals were 
 directed to the parents' hearts, declaring in the 
 most positive terms, that their infants, dying 
 unbaptized, would be lost, or at least their sal- 
 vation would be greatly endangered. 
 
 I wish to substantiate this statement by a 
 few quotations from their own authors. 
 
 Augustin says, " Not only persons who are 
 come to the use of reason, but also little chil- 
 dren, and infants newly born, if they die with- 
 out baptism, do go into everlasting fire." — 
 Westlake, p. 11. 
 
 Anselm says, " Children should be baptized, 
 that they may be freed from original sin." — Ibid. 
 
 Bernard says, " Without baptism, children 
 cannot be saved." — Ibid. 
 
 The Church of England instructs children to 
 answer, " Baptism, wherein I w T as made a 
 member of Christ, the child of God, and an in- 
 heritor of the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 Cyprian, A. D., 253. " As far as lies in us, 
 no soul, if possible, is to be lost. It is not for 
 us to hinder any person from baptism and the 
 22* 
 
258 
 
 TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 
 
 grace of God ; which rule, as it holds to all, so 
 we think it more especially to be observed in. 
 reference to infants, to whom our help and the 
 Divine mercy is rather to be granted ; because, 
 by their weeping and wailing, at their first 
 entrance into the world, they do intimate no- 
 thing so much as that they implore compas- 
 sion." 
 
 Ambrose, A. D., 390. " For no person 
 comes to the kingdom of heaven, but by the 
 sacrament of baptism. Infants that are bap- 
 tized are reformed back again from wicked- 
 ness to the primitive state of their nature." 
 
 Chrysostom, A. D., 398. "The grace of 
 baptism gives cure without pain, and fills us 
 with the grace of the Spirit. Some think that 
 the heavenly grace consists only in the for- 
 giveness of sins; but I have reckoned up ten 
 advantages of it." " If sudden death seize us 
 before we are baptized, though we have a 
 thousand good qualities, there is nothing to be 
 expected but hell." — See the original of these 
 passages in Mr. WalVs Hist, of Inf. Bap. Vol. I. 
 ch. 6, 13, 14; and II. ch. 6. * 
 
 The late Bishop White, of Philadelphia, said, 
 " If baptism is not regeneration, I know not 
 what is." 
 
 An epitaph upon a monumental stone in the 
 yard of the Peterborough Cathedral, is as fol- 
 lows, 
 
 " Here lies a babe that only cry'd 
 
 In baptism to be washed from sin, and died." 
 
TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 359 
 
 Mr. J. Wesley says, " If infants are guilty of 
 original sin, in the ordinary way, they cannot 
 be saved unless this be washed away by bap- 
 tism." This agrees with the uniform senti- 
 ment of the Church of Rome. She says, 
 " Sin, whether contracted by birth, from our 
 first parents, or committed of ourselves, by 
 the virtue of baptism, is remitted and pardon- 
 ed. By baptism we are joined and knit to 
 Christ, as members to the head." 
 
 And in the Council of Trent, she says, " If 
 any one shall say that baptism is not necessa- 
 ry to salvation, let him be accursed." 
 
 And again, "Such is the admirable efficacy 
 of this sacrament (of baptism) as to remit 
 original sin, and actual guilt, however enor- 
 mous." Cat. of the Council of Trent, p. 127. 
 
 St. Gregory says : " By the sacrament of 
 baptism sin is utterly eradicated, and the soul 
 adheres entirely to God." L. 9. Reg. epist. 39. 
 
 Such, my friends, are the opinions respect- 
 ing infant baptism. It is regarded as possess- 
 ing a saving power. From its first introduc- 
 tion, to this day, Pedobaptists of all names 
 have ascribed to it a sanctifying and saving 
 importance. 
 
 Of late years, I know, when so much light 
 has been reflected, and so many invincible ar- 
 guments urged against infant baptism, and 
 against its saving power, there has been a mo- 
 dification. Some Protestant churches say but 
 little about it being necessary to salvation; 
 
26$ TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 
 
 yet, even these urge upon parents the duty, as 
 they are pleased to call it, of bringing their 
 infant seed to Christ by baptism ; and place 
 upon them the seal of the covenant. 
 
 Such an importance do even Protestant Pe- 
 dobaptists in this favoured land, attach to in- 
 fant baptism, as not to suffer a child to die 
 without it, if by any means they may have 
 access to the dying babe, to perform upon it 
 this rite. 
 
 It has been, until very lately, and is even 
 now practised in many Pedobaptist communi- 
 ties, for infants and adults too, to be sprinkled 
 at the point of death. 
 
 The priest is sent for in great haste, at the mid- 
 night hour, to come, ere the breath has left the 
 body, and sprinkle the dying subject. I appeal 
 for the truth of what I say to the experience 
 and information of those who hear me. And 
 what is still more surprising, instances are not 
 wanting, when adults, at death's door, so near 
 expiring as not to be conscious of what is 
 passing around their dying couch, are sprin- 
 kled, and said to be baptized, and better pre- 
 pared for death and eternity. 
 
 Indeed, among the more superstitious, it is 
 thought a sore calamity for a child to die un- 
 baptized. And in some places even the dead 
 have been sprinkled, with the hope of benefit- 
 ing their souls. 
 
 Baptists in every age have opposed senti- 
 ments so preposterous and dangerous as these. 
 
TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 261 
 
 Their blood cries from the earth in every land, 
 where the combined powers of church and 
 state could be brought to bear against them, 
 simply for not submitting to the application of 
 baptism to infants; the saving efficacy of bap- 
 tism ; and the union of church and state. 
 In the language of the poet, J. Montgomery, 
 
 " When Europe languished in barbarian gloom, 
 
 Beneath the ghostly tyranny of Rome; 
 
 From Persecution's pile, by bigots fired, 
 
 Among Bohemian mountains Truth retired ; 
 
 Then 'midst rude rocks, in lonely glens obscure, 
 
 She found a people scath'd, and scorn'd, and poor ; 
 
 A little flock through quiet valleys led, 
 
 A Christian Israel in the desert fed ; 
 
 While ravening wolves, that scorn'd the Shepherd's head, 
 
 Laid waste God's heritage through every land." 
 
 But to return. Tradition, and not the Scrip- 
 tures, is one of the chief supports of infant 
 baptism. And it ought not to be forgotten, 
 that, it has ever been the cunning policy of the 
 Roman Church to appeal to tradition in sup- 
 port of her numerous dogmas when she could 
 no longer impose upon the unsuspecting, by 
 erroneous translations and interpretations of 
 Scripture. 
 
 The Council of Trent puts it down, as a 
 canon of the Church of Rome, that "traditions, 
 respecting both faith and manners, orally de- 
 livered, and preserved successively in the 
 Catholic Church, are to be received with 
 equal affection of piety and reverence, as the 
 
252 TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 
 
 books of the Old and New Testaments." — Sess. 
 4 Decret. de canon. Scripte. 
 
 Now it cannot be denied that Protestant 
 Pedobaptists take sides with Papal Pedobap- 
 tists in attempting to support infant baptism 
 by tradition. 
 
 Mr. Field says, "The baptism of infants is, 
 therefore, named a tradition, because it is not 
 expressly delivered in Scripture that the Apos- 
 tles did baptize infants, nor any express pre- 
 cept there found that they should do so." — On 
 the Church, p. 375. 
 
 Bishop Prideaux says, " Pedobaptism rests 
 on no other Divine right than Episcopacy." — 
 Fascicul. Contro. Soc. 4, § iii. p. 210. 
 
 Hence, in the year 1547, an edict was drawn 
 up, by the authority of the Emperor of Ger- 
 many, Charles V., to allay disputes between 
 Romanists and the Reformers, wherein tradi- 
 tion is expressly stated as the ground of infant 
 baptism. "The Church, moreover, has tradi- 
 tions handed down to these times from Christ 
 and the Apostles, through the hands of the 
 bishops, which whoever would overturn, he 
 must deny the same, viz., the Church, to be the 
 pillar and ground of truth. Of this sort are 
 the baptism of little ones, and other things." — 
 In Dr, Ryland's Candid Statement, Notes, p. 29. 
 
 Well was it remarked by a learned Presby- 
 terian, when writing against the corruptions of 
 the Church of England, showing her close 
 
TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 263 
 
 affinity with the Church of Rome, that " The 
 spirit of ceremony-making and Church tyranny, 
 is of a restless and encroaching nature, and 
 ought timely to be crushed. 'Twas from such 
 little beginnings the mass of Romish fopperies 
 grew up to its present enormous and oppres- 
 sive height." 
 
 Now please observe how this Presbyterian 
 of the Church of Scotland is met by an Epis- 
 copalian of the Church of England. Dr. 
 Whitby observes, "Baptism by immersion is 
 suitable both to the institution of our Lord and 
 his Apostles, and was by them ordained to re- 
 present our burial with Christ, and so our dying 
 unto sin, and our conformity to his resurrec- 
 tion by newness of life, as the Apostle doth 
 clearly maintain the meaning of that rite; I 
 say, if, notwithstanding this, all our dissenters, 
 (i. e. Pedobaptists out of the Church of Eng- 
 land,) do agree to sprinkle the infant, why may 
 they not as well submit to the significant cere- 
 monies imposed by our Church ? For since it is 
 as lawful to add unto Christ's institutions a 
 significant ceremony, as to diminish a signi- 
 ficant ceremony which he or his Apostles in- 
 stituted, and use another in its stead, which 
 they never did institute; what reason can they 
 have to do the latter, and yet refuse submission 
 to the former? And why should not the peace 
 and union of the Church be as prevailing with 
 them, to perform the one, as their mercy to the 
 
264 TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 
 
 infant's body to neglect the other V 9 — Protes- 
 tant Reconciler, p. 289. 
 
 Well did a learned Quaker, Henry Tuke, 
 remark, " This, I think, may, with confidence, 
 be asserted, that the sprinkling of infants is a 
 ceremony which has neither precept nor ex- 
 ample in the holy Scriptures; all the arguments 
 for it being drawn from equivocal suppositions. 
 For any, therefore, to censure us for the disuse 
 of water baptism, who have themselves laid 
 aside the use of it, and substituted something 
 else in its stead, is not a little extraordinary." — 
 See his Works, under the article Baptism. 
 
 It must be confessed, that the Quakers are 
 by far more consistent than Pedobaptists. I 
 could sooner, and with a better conscience, 
 practise the entire disuse of baptism, than to 
 substitute sprinkling for baptism, or infants for 
 subjects. And I cannot avoid the conviction 
 that the Saviour would be better pleased with 
 those who have thus entirely changed this 
 Divinely appointed rite, would they neglect 
 it altogether. 
 
 Again, such is the uncertainty of the best of 
 traditions, that whatever is plead, on the ground 
 of the history of the Church, and the traditions 
 of the Fathers, had better be omitted. To 
 appeal to such sources for proof in favour of 
 infant baptism, as little becomes the follower of 
 Christ, as it greatly favours the Church of 
 Rome. If tradition be once admitted as valid 
 proof for practices in religion, for which there 
 
TRADITION NOT VALID PROOF. 
 
 265 
 
 is nothing in our Scriptures, it will be easy to 
 establish any and every practice of the Papal 
 Church.* 
 
 * Sir Thomas More, in his earnest endeavour to keep 
 a translation of the New Testament out of the hands of 
 the common people, and in support of tradition, as of 
 Divine authority, uses the following- language: " I take 
 it, that the word of God umvryten, is of as greate authoryte, 
 as certayn, and as sure, as hys worde wryten in the IScryp- 
 ture, w^ich poynt is so faste and sure, pytched upon the 
 rocke, our Savyour Chryst hymself, that neyther Luther, 
 Tyndale, nor Huskyn, nor all the hell-hounds that 
 the devyll hath in his kenell, never hytherto could, nor 
 while God lyveth in heven and the devyll lyeth in hell, 
 never hereafter shall, barke they, howle they never so fast, 
 be able to wreste it out." — Apology, p. 32 ; Confutation, 
 p. 176. 
 
 These unwritten traditions have been collected in an 
 8vo. volume, by the celebrated Dr. R. Smyth, popish 
 reader of divinity in Oxford. The Dr. very soberly in- 
 forms us that these traditions are to be most sacredly re- 
 garded. He says, " We must both believe stedfastly, 
 and also fulfill obedientlye under payne of damnation ever 
 to endure. They are, the sacrament of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, only to be given by a priest; — to be taken fasting; 
 — the wine to have water mingled with it; — the consecra- 
 tion of the elements; — to be kept in the pyxe, or boxe, at 
 Church; — pr yers for the dead; — christening of infants, 
 which necessary thinge hangeth only upon the Apostle's 
 tradition, wythout anye IScripture that can prove, it ,- — 
 praying towards the east ; — elevating- and worshipping 
 the host; — making the sign of the cross; — worshipping 
 the crucifix — keeping Easter and holydays ; — putting 
 pictures and images in churches ; — fasting in Lent and on 
 every Wednesday and Friday ; — holy water ; — priests not 
 to marry ; — Mary continued a virgin until death, and that 
 her body is in heaven," &c. 
 
 Such are some of the unwritten traditions of the Church 
 of Rome, held as sacred as the Word of God. The 
 23 
 
266 INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY PLEAD IN FAVOUR OF INFANT 
 BAPTISM, AND INFANT CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. 
 
 We are told, " although the New Testa- 
 ment does not contain any specific texts, 
 which in so many words declare that the in- 
 fant seed of believers are members of the 
 church in virtue of their birth;" and so have 
 a right to baptism, " yet it abounds in passages 
 which cannot reasonably be explained but in 
 harmony with this doctrine." Miller, p. 26. 
 
 This, it should be observed, is alleged on 
 the supposition that inferential testimony is 
 equivalent to plain express commands in proof 
 of positive institutions; the very 'point which 
 Baptists deny, and which Protestant Pedo- 
 baptists themselves utterly deny when con- 
 tending with the church of Rome and the 
 infidelity of the age ; and the very point 
 which I hope to show, is gratuitously assumed 
 
 Church of England, when she first came off from the 
 Church of Rome, brought most of the above traditions 
 with her. But she has dropt one after another, till many of 
 them are not retained in her worship; yet the Church of 
 England, and all Pedobaptists, still retain the " christen- 
 ing of infants, which necessary thing," says the learned 
 Romanist, " han get h only upon JJpostolic trad ii ion, without 
 any Scripture that can prove it." May we not hope that 
 Protestant Christians will soon abandon such a tradition ? 
 The peace of Z'rcfii would hereby be promoted, God 
 glorified, and the world blessed. 
 
INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 267 
 
 for the sake of holding up a favourite, yet a 
 groundless scheme. No inference, however 
 well drawn from premises the most indisput- 
 able, can ever afford justifiable ground upon 
 which to rest a divine rite in the worship of 
 God. And yet our Pedobaptist brethren make 
 inferential testimony one of the pillars upon 
 which they rest, and would fain establish the 
 right of incorporating their infant seed in the 
 Christian church; and then, by way of con- 
 sequence, to bring them to the public institu- 
 tions of the kingdom of Christ. As much as 
 we love and respect them, yet we can never 
 concede to them a principle so fearful in its 
 tendency, and so subversive of every divinely 
 appointed rite. 
 
 Fair and necessary deductions, from plain 
 and unequivocal premises laid down in the 
 Bible, are certainly to be admi;ted as moral 
 truths binding upon the conscience; but never 
 are they to be taken as proof for divine institu- 
 tions. We must not confound moral truth 
 with positive commands. Such a distinction 
 must not be overlooked or forgotten. It is 
 one of vast importance. The moment you 
 destroy it, you make way for the entire sub- 
 version of every institution of the Bible, and 
 for the traditions and opinions of men to take 
 their place in the Christian system. 
 
 For a positive institution there must be a 
 positive command or example. And where 
 these are wanting there is not, and cannot be 
 any obligation. 
 
268 
 
 INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 And our Pedobaptist friends have felt the 
 force and acknowledged the correctness of 
 this position, when contending against the 
 gross errors of the church of Rome. 
 
 Says the judicious Dr. Sherlock: 
 
 "I would not be thought wholly to reject a 
 plain and evident consequence from Scrip- 
 ture; but yet 1 will never admit of a mere 
 consequence to prove an institution, which 
 must be delivered in plain terms, as all laws 
 ought to be; and where I have no other proof, 
 but some Scripture consequences, I shall not 
 think it equivalent to Scripture proof. If the 
 consequence be plain and obvious, and such 
 as every man sees, I shall not question it ; but 
 remote, and dubious, and disputed conse- 
 quences, if we have no better evidence, to be 
 sure, are a very ill foundation for articles of 
 faith, or ordinances of worship. Let a Pro- 
 testant, then, tell such disputants, that for the 
 institution of sacraments and for articles of 
 faith, he expects plain positive proof — we de- 
 sire a little more certainty for our faith than 
 mere inferences from Scripture.'* Preser. 
 against Pop. Vol. ii. Appen. p. 23. 
 
 Such is the strong and just reasoning of a 
 distinguished Pedobaptist, when called to take 
 the field with the Romanists. 
 
 But when our Pedobaptist brethren come to 
 support sprinkling and infant baptism, by in- 
 ferences and deductions from Scripture, they 
 abandon those very rules of interpretation which 
 
INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. ggg 
 
 they acknoiuledged and wielded so manfully 
 and successfully against the corruptions of the 
 Roman church. 
 
 1. The first passages from which our Pedo- 
 baptist brethren think they can infer infant 
 baptism, are recorded by Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, 
 and Mark xvi. 15, 16, which contain that di- 
 vine commission that our Lord gave to his 
 Apostles as he was about to send them forth 
 among all nations to bear the tidings of salva- 
 tion in his name. 
 
 " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you." 
 
 " And he said unto them, Go ye into all the 
 world, and preach the gospel to every crea- 
 ture. He that believeth and is baptized, shall 
 be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be 
 damned." 
 
 Now this commission embraces several par- 
 ticulars, among which there are the field to 
 be occupied; " all the icorld;" "among all na- 
 tions ;" and the duty which the commission 
 enforces, embraces three distinct parts; first, 
 " Go teach" i. e., make disciples of " all na- 
 tions ; " Go and preach the gospel to every 
 creature" Secondly, " Baptizing them" who 
 become disciples and " believe, in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son> and of the Holy 
 Ghost" And, lastly, these newlv converted 
 23* 
 
270 
 
 INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 and baptized disciples are to be " instructed to 
 observe all tilings whatsoever the Saviour has 
 commanded" 
 
 You will particularly observe that nothing 
 is said about infants. 
 
 The Apostles were to go and "teach" i. e., 
 instruct the people in a knowledge of divine 
 things. To show them their guilt and sin, 
 and point them to the Lamb of God. Their 
 business was to preach the gospel, baptize be- 
 lievers, and build them up in the most holy 
 faith. 
 
 Their commission w r as explicit, and laid 
 down in that order in which it was to be ob- 
 served by them. They had not the liberty to 
 change the order of divine appointment. Nor 
 did they.* 
 
 * Some linen have taken the liberty to change the 
 order of things as left by the Holy Ghost. And herein 
 you may see an example of Pedobaptist effort to make 
 out infant baptism. 
 
 "Mr. Simeon, of Cambridge, has given us a skeleton 
 of a sermon on this commission of Christ, in which he 
 proposed to consider, 'I. The authority he claimed. 
 II. The commission he gave to his Apostles. 1. They 
 were to teach all nations. 2. They were to baptize their 
 converts in the name of the sacred Three.' Then, he 
 adds, * But though they first taught adults, and then bap. 
 tized them, they REVERSED this orhkh with respect 
 to infants.' 
 
 "On reading this last sentence, the inquirer with sur- 
 prise might ask, Who reversed this order } The answer 
 here is, the Apostles. Reversed what order ? The an- 
 swer is, the order of Jesus Christ ; 'first, to teach, and 
 second, to baptize.' Awful thought! that mortal worms 
 
INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 271 
 
 They understood the nature and import of 
 their commission. And their strict integrity 
 and pious labours in carrying out into prac- 
 tice the high behest of their ascended Lord, 
 are our best interpretation of the commission 
 as understood by the inspired Apostles. At 
 the appointed time they were met at Jerusa- 
 lem, in a holy convocation, waiting to be 
 filled, and, as it were, swallowed up of the 
 Spirit of God. Being now baptized of the 
 Holy Ghost, and able to speak with other 
 tongues, they began, according to their com- 
 mission, to preach the gospel to every creature, 
 to teach all nations here assembled; and most 
 signal favour and success attended their min- 
 istry. All of those to whom the commission 
 had been given, were present on this deeply 
 interesting occasion, mingling their prayers 
 and uniting their labours for the salvation of 
 men ; directing the anxious inquiring soul to 
 
 should presume to alter the institutions of the Lord of* 
 Glory; yea, to reverse the order He ordains! 
 
 " Here is a candid confession that the order of Jesus 
 Christ is « reversed with respect to infants.' A fact, alas! 
 too plain to be denied. 
 
 " With respect to the Apostles, however, the charge 
 is not tnie. They never reversed any order or appoint- 
 ment of Christ. He enjoined upon them, in his last 
 words, to ' teach men to observe whatsoever he had 
 commanded them;' and any adding or taking away, to 
 say nothing of reversing, he solemnly prohibited. Rev. 
 xxii. 18, 19. The order of Christ is reversed, but it was 
 not till the Apostles and primitive disciples were long- in 
 the dust." Pengilly, p. 25. 
 
272 
 
 INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 believe what they had spoken. A great mul- 
 titude gladly received the Apostles' instruc- 
 tions, receiving the end of their faith, the sal- 
 vation of their souls. Acts ii. 37 — 41. 
 
 But mark, in what order did the Apostles 
 observe that commission, under whose vast 
 importance they were now acting ? Did they, 
 or did they not baptize believers only? The 
 Spirit of God shall be our interpreter. They 
 tliat gladly received his word, were baptized." 
 
 If infants were baptized on this occasion, 
 they must have been different from all other 
 infants in the world. Such, indeed, as could 
 hear the Apostles speak in their own lan- 
 guage, and be made to see and feel their guilt, 
 were pricked in their hearts, could say unto 
 Peter and the rest of the Apostles, men and 
 brethren, what shall we do ? and could gladly 
 receive and understand the instructions ad- 
 ministered unto them. To the baptism of 
 such infants, Baptists are the last to object. 
 Such undoubtedly have a right to the ordi- 
 nance. For such were embraced in the di- 
 vine commission, and such only. Hear again 
 what our Pedobaptist brethren say, when 
 they feel the importance of the trust reposed 
 in them. Then they interpret Scripture as 
 Baptists do. 
 
 Dr. Poole's continuations, " Go ye, therefore, 
 and teach all nations. The Greek is, make 
 disciples of all nations; but that must be first 
 by preaching and instructing them ; and Mark 
 
INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 273 
 
 expounds it, Go ye into all the irorld, and 
 preach the gospel to every creature; that is, 
 to every reasonable creature capable of hear- 
 ing and receiving it. I cannot be of their 
 mind who think that persons may be baptized 
 before they be taught; we want precedents 
 of any such baptisms in the Scripture." An- 
 nota. in loc. 
 
 Saurin. " In the primitive church, instruc- 
 tion preceded baptism agreeable to the order 
 of Jesus Christ, Go teach all nations, baptizing 
 them," &c. In Paed. Exam. Vol. ii. p. 274. 
 
 Mr. Baxter has a very forcible passage on 
 the same place. " Go disciple me all nations, 
 baptizing them. As for those who say they 
 are discipled by baptizing, and not before bap- 
 tizing, they speak not the sense of the text; 
 nor that which is true or rational; else, why 
 should one be baptized more than another 1 — 
 This is not like some occasional historical 
 mention of baptism ; but it is the very com- 
 mission of Christ to his Apostles, for preach- 
 ing and baptizing ; and purposely expresseth 
 their several works in their several places 
 and order. Their first task is, by teaching, 
 to make disciples, which are, by Mark, called 
 believers. The second work is, to baptize 
 them, whereto is annexed the promise of 
 their salvation. The third work is, to teach 
 them all other things which are afterwards to 
 be learned in the school of Christ. [Observe 
 
274 
 
 INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 what follows.] To contemn this order, is to 
 renounce all rules of order; for where can 
 we expect to find it, if not here? I profess, 
 my conscience is fully satisfied with this text, 
 that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that 
 must go before baptism; and the profession 
 whereof, the minister must expect." In Psed. 
 Exam. Vol. ii. p. 270. 
 
 Limborch says, " They could not make dis- 
 ciples, unless by teaching. By that instruc- 
 tion were disciples brought to the faith before 
 they were baptized." 
 
 Hammond. " If any have made use of that 
 very unconcludent argument [referring to this 
 passage, Acts ii. 39,] I have nothing to say in 
 defence of them. — The word children there, 
 is really the posterity of the Jews, and not pe- 
 culiarly their infant children." Works, Vol. i. 
 p. 490. 
 
 Limborch, a learned divine of Amsterdam. 
 " By tsxva the Apostle understands, not infants, 
 but posterity ; in which signification the word 
 occurs in many places of the New Testament; 
 see, among others, John, viii. 39. [If ye were 
 Abraham 1 s children, ye would do the works of 
 Abraham.'] Whence it appears, that the ar- 
 gument which is very commonly taken from 
 this passage, for the baptism of infants, is of 
 no force and good for nothing." Comment. 
 in loc. 
 
 Whitby. " These words will not prove a 
 right of infants to receive baptism ; the pro- 
 
INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 975 
 
 mise here being that only of the Holy Ghost, 
 mentioned in verses 16, 17, 18, and so relating 
 only to the times of the miraculous effusion of 
 the Holy Ghost, and to those persons who, by 
 age, were capable of these extraordinary 
 gifts." An not. on the place. 
 
 Doddridge. " The promise is to you and to 
 your children. Considering that the gift of 
 the Spirit had been mentioned just before, it 
 seems most natural to interpret this as a refer- 
 ence to that passage in Joel, which had been 
 so largely recited above, ver. 17, &c. where 
 God promises the effusion of the Spirit on their 
 sons and their daughters." Fam. Expos. Note 
 on the place. 
 
 2. Rom. xi. 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 partakest of 
 the root and fatness of the olive tree." 
 
 Our Pedobaptist brethren, believing that 
 piety can descend, like property, from parents 
 to children, have supposed that the passage 
 under consideration justified such a belief; 
 and then infer that infants should be baptized. 
 
 Herein they are labouring under a very 
 great mistake. For in the first place, the pre- 
 mises which they have assumed is opposed both 
 by reason and Scripture. There is no such 
 
276 
 
 INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 a thing as a derived holiness to the infant seed 
 of believers, nor does the Scripture under ex- 
 amination warrant any such opinion. 
 
 So far from it, here is not one word about 
 infants. Paul is writing to Gentile converts 
 at Rome. He shows that their standing is by 
 faith in the Lord Jesus. 
 
 The Jewish nation, having turned away 
 from the Messiah, were cast off from the spe- 
 cial favour of God, while the Gentiles were 
 now enjoying the very standing in the divine 
 favour which had been granted Israel, had 
 they received the Saviour of the world. 
 
 Now every thing here turns upon faith and 
 unbelief. By faith we are saved. By unbe- 
 lief we are cut off and lost. 
 
 And the point at issue between Baptists and 
 Pedobaptists is how may we be admitted to 
 the privileges of the church of Christ. Bap- 
 tists say by faith in Christ, Pedobaptists say 
 that the children of believing parents, by a 
 kind of federal holiness, are to be baptized 
 and received into the church. Without pro- 
 tracting remarks, J shall leave the candid to 
 judge on which side the truth is to be found. 
 
 I may, however, agreeably to my design, 
 cite some one or two Pedobaptist concessions. 
 
 Mr. Edw. Williams exposes this error in 
 strong terms, in his Notes on Morrice's Social 
 Religion. "Our author takes considerable 
 pains to maintain a favourite point, which I 
 
INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 277 
 
 shall pronounce a very precarious hypothesis. 
 It is that of hereditary grace, if I may so ex- 
 press the notion, — that all the children of the 
 godly are absolutely interested in all new 
 
 covenant blessings But that interpretation of 
 
 the Abrahamic promise, Gen. xvii. 7, which 
 Mr. M. and some others have adopted, and 
 which considers the words in their undistin- 
 guished application, is replete with very ab- 
 surd consequences. Jehovah, surely, was 
 not the God of Abraham and of his unbeliev- 
 ing descendants in the same respects The 
 
 New Testament saints have nothing more to 
 do with the Abrahamic covenant than the Old 
 Testament believers who lived prior to Abra- 
 ham." Notes, p. 312—317. 
 
 Matt. Henry. " Grace doth not run in the 
 blood, nor are saving benefits inseparably an- 
 nexed to external church privileges; though 
 it is common for people thus to stretch the 
 meaning of God's promise to bolster them- 
 selves up in a vain hope The children of the 
 
 flesh, as such, by virtue of their relationship 
 to Abraham — are not therefore the children of 
 God." Expos, on Rom. ix. 6—13. 
 
 It is worthy of remark, that we have in this 
 chapter a promise that the Jews shall yet re- 
 turn and receive Christ by faith, and therefore 
 shall be grafted in again. Though now cut 
 off, yet their case is not hopeless. "If they 
 abide not in unbelief, they shall be grafted in ; 
 for God is able to graff them in again." More- 
 24 
 
278 INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 over let us Gentiles be admonished " and be 
 not high minded, but fear." " For if God spared 
 not the natural branches, the Jews, take heed 
 lest he also spare not us," who by nature are 
 no better than they. 
 
 3. 1 Cor. vii. 14. "For the unbelieving 
 husband is sanctified by the wife, and the un- 
 believing wife is sanctified by the husband, 
 else were your children unclean, but now are 
 they holy," verse 12 — 14. Here again, an 
 attempt is made to establish infant baptism as 
 a divine institution by the force of inference. 
 
 You will observe, however, that the text 
 has not one syllable about baptism. Nor is 
 there the most distant allusion to the ordi- 
 nance of baptism whatever. 
 
 Indeed the most judicious Pedobaptist com- 
 mentators agree with Baptists that no shadow 
 of proof can be drawn from this Scripture in 
 favour of infant baptism. Mr. Barnes says, 
 " There is not one word about baptism here ; 
 nor an allusion to it, nor does the argument, 
 in the remotest degree, bear upon it." 
 
 The following citations will sufficiently 
 show the sense of the passage, as understood 
 by the more candid Pedobaptists, with whose 
 views Baptists fully agree. 
 
 Mr. T. Williams, of London. " The unbe- 
 lieving husband is sanctified by the (believing) 
 wife, &c, so that the connexion is perfectly 
 lawful, and the children are legitimate, or in a 
 ceremonial sense, holy." Cottage Bible, on 
 the place. 
 
INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 379 
 
 Melancthon, the Reformer. " The con- 
 nexion of the argument is this, ' If the use of 
 marriage should not please God, your chil- 
 dren would be bastards, and so unclean; but 
 your children are not bastards, therefore the 
 use of marriage pleaseth God.' How bas- 
 tards were unclean in a peculiar manner the 
 law shows, Deut. xxiii." In Pedobap. Exam. 
 Vol. ii. p. 375. 
 
 Suares and Vasques. "The children are 
 called holy, hi a civil sense : that is, legitimate, 
 and not spurious. As if Paul had said, ' If your 
 marriage were unlawful, your children would 
 be illegitimate. But the former is not a fact; 
 therefore not the latter.' " Ibid. p. 373. 
 
 4. The next that we shall examine is re- 
 corded in Matt. xix. 13 — 15. "Then were 
 there brought unto him little children, that he 
 should put his hands on them, and pray; and 
 the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, 
 Suffer little children, and forbid them not to 
 come unto me ; for of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and 
 departed thence." Parallel with Mark x. 13 — 
 16. Luke xviii. 15—17. 
 
 We are told, by our Pedobaptist brethren, 
 that " This language of our Lord concerning 
 little children can be reconciled with no other 
 doctrine than that the infant seed of believers 
 are members of the church in virtue of their 
 birth," and therefore ought to be baptized. 
 They boldly assert that the Saviour baptized 
 
280 
 
 INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 these children, and for that purpose they were 
 brought unto him. Then they infer that be- 
 lieving parents should bring their offspring to 
 the baptismal basin. 
 
 Now our brethren who wish to support in- 
 fant baptism from this Scripture, are generally 
 agreed, that " The kingdom of heaven," in 
 this place, means the visible church. 
 
 "Most manifestly," says Dr. Miller, "we 
 are to understand by it, the visible church, or 
 the visible kingdom of Christ, as distinguished 
 both from the world and the old economy." 
 
 But then, it does not mean that the visible 
 church is made up of such little children ; but 
 rather, and manifestly, of such adult persons as 
 have been born again, and become like little 
 babes in the disposition of their minds, unas- 
 piring, not proud, nor vainglorious, nor yet 
 overbearing; but humble, sincere, dependent, 
 teachable, and "easy to be entreated." 
 
 And that such is the meaning is evident 
 by connecting this detached passage with the 
 first part of the preceding chapter, where the 
 Saviour had been discoursing upon the proper 
 disposition of mind for his disciples to possess. 
 "Jesus called a little child unto him, and set 
 him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I 
 say unto you, except ye be converted, and 
 become as little children, ye shall not enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever 
 therefore shall humble himself as this little 
 child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of 
 heaven. Matt, xviii. 3, 4. 
 
INFERENTIAL TESTIMONY. gg| 
 
 The subjects of Christ's kingdom are spiritual 
 subjects, " from the least to the greatest," 
 without one exception. 
 
 In order to enter into this divine kingdom, 
 we must be born again, " not of blood, nor of 
 the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, 
 but of God." 
 
 We must, as it were, repossess the disposi- 
 tion of a child, and commit ourselves to the 
 care and direction of our heavenly Parent. 
 
 In illustration whereof, suffer me to quote 
 Bishop Lowth's version of Isaiah xlix. 17. 
 
 *' They that destroyed thee shall soon become thy builders; 
 And they that laid the waste, shall become thy offspring." 
 
 That is, thine inveterate and most dreaded 
 foes shall be so transformed by my sovereign 
 grace, so changed in their disposition, as to be- 
 come thy warmest and most attached friends. 
 They shall love thee, obey and serve thee as 
 thine own children. 
 
 It is impossible, therefore, by any power of 
 reasoning and inference to make out infant 
 baptism and church membership from this 
 text. We are expressly told the object for 
 which these children were brought to the Sa- 
 viour, viz: "that he should put his hands on 
 them and pray." And we are told, moreover, 
 what Jesus did to them, " he laid his hands on 
 them," after the manner of the Jews. Gen. 
 xlviii. 14. 
 24* 
 
282 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 But not a word is said about baptizing them. 
 And you might just as well infer that the Sa- 
 viour ordained them, or anointed them to the 
 priesthood, as to infer that he baptized them. 
 But what should satisfy every unprejudiced 
 and candid mind is the plain declaration of 
 John iv. 2, compare John iii. 22, that " Jesus 
 himself baptized not." 
 
 Poole's Continuators say, "We must take 
 heed we do not found infant baptism upon the 
 example of Christ in this text ; for it is certain 
 that he did not baptize these children." An- 
 not. on Matt. xix. 14. 
 
 And so Mr. Burkitt; "They were brought 
 unto Jesus Christ but for one end. Not to 
 baptize them, but to bless them." Expo. 
 Notes in loc» 
 
 Section V. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM IS INFERRED FROM INFANT CIRCUMCISION. 
 
 But by whom are we told this? Upon what 
 is the hypothesis founded ? Is there one pas- 
 sage on any page of the Bible which justifies a 
 supposition so perfectly vague and incon- 
 gruous? Oris it not another of those tradi- 
 tionary legends, which is purely the creature of 
 the fancy, but now held out to the world as a 
 part of Divine revelation? 
 
INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. ggg 
 
 Such is the singular fact. The idea of bap- 
 tism taking the place of circumcision, has not 
 a shadow of support in the Word of God. 
 And yet, this is the hypothesis upon which 
 infant baptism rests. A poor foundation, in- 
 deed, for a Divine institution. 
 
 Jesus Christ and the Apostles make no men- 
 tion whatever, of the derivation of baptism 
 from any Jewish custom ; nor have they any 
 where warranted us to suppose that such an 
 idea ever entered their minds. 
 
 Upon whom, then, shall the singular honour 
 be conferred, of finding out what entirely 
 escaped the observation of inspired men, and 
 even of the Son of God himself? We are bound 
 by every principle of right to give honour to 
 whom honour is due; nor shall those, who 
 have merited the high distinction of espying 
 the connexion between baptism and circum- 
 cision, be robbed of their peculiar glory. Only 
 this much I may remark, that while this hon- 
 our is shared, in common, among all who be- 
 lieve in infant baptism, yet history warrants us 
 in justifying the claims of the Church of Rome, 
 as first in the discovery. 
 
 She sought to find some footing for her 
 tyranny and usurpation over the rights and 
 consciences of men, in making them members 
 of the Church contrary to their wills, and here- 
 by subjecting them to her tyranny, while as 
 yet they have not the power of choosing for 
 themselves. In the hour of their unconscious 
 infancy are they made members of the Church. 
 
2Q4 INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 But failing to justify her course by any com- 
 mand or example in the sayings and doings of 
 Christ and the Apostles, she conceived the 
 idea of making the Jewish nation the same as 
 the kingdom of Christ, and then inferred Gos- 
 pel institutions from the national customs of 
 the Jews. 
 
 Hence it is that the Lord's Supper, and the 
 institution of baptism, are, by Romanists, and 
 Pedobaptists generally, derived, not from the 
 wisdom of the Great Head of the Church, but 
 from Jewish ceremonies. 
 
 According to their opinion, the former takes 
 the place of the Feast of the Passover, and the 
 latter comes in the room of Circumcision. 
 
 I must fortify what I have said touching the 
 effort of the Church of Rome to identify the 
 Christian Church with the Jewish nation, and 
 then to infer Gospel ordinances from the cere- 
 monies of the Jews, lest I should be thought to 
 misrepresent their views. And for this I need 
 only cite the language of the very distinguished 
 and learned Vitringa, who says, " If it be once 
 granted to the Doctors of the Romish com- 
 munion, that the order and warship of the 
 Gospel Church are conformable to those of the 
 Jewish economy, to which the Papists always 
 look for the chief support of their numerous 
 errors, they ivill plausibly defend the whole of 
 their ecclesiastical polity" — De Synog. Vet. 
 pp. 15, 16. 
 
 And yet Dr. Lightfoot lays it down as a 
 
INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 285 
 
 foundation, " That Christ, by himself and his 
 Apostles, platforming the model of churches 
 under the Gospel, did keep very close to the 
 platform of synagogues and synagogue-worship 
 under the law." — Vol. vi. p. 226. 
 
 Now on the supposition that the Christian 
 Church is nothing more than a continuation of 
 the national institution of the Jews, it is in- 
 ferred that the ordinances of the Gospel are 
 substituted for the ceremonial observances of 
 the Jewish Church or nation. And hence it is 
 that baptism is made to take the place of cir- 
 cumcision ; and then by a second inference, in 
 as much as infants were circumcised under the 
 law, it is plead that infants must be baptized 
 under the Gospel. 
 
 The Romanists, and Pedobaptists generally, 
 endeavour to sustain themselves in this posi- 
 tion by the power of analogy, which, to say the 
 least, is a very fruitful source of error, and has 
 been made the ground of some of the grossest 
 superstitions of the Papal Church. 
 
 Romanists, drawing a parallel between the 
 ecclesiastical polity of the Jews and the Church 
 of Jesus Christ, tell us, in as much as the Jews 
 had a High Priest over their religious polity, so 
 must the Church of Christ have a supreme head 
 on earth; hence they infer and maintain, that 
 the Pope of Rome is the head of all ecclesi- 
 astical affairs. As the High Priest of the Jews 
 was set apart to officiate in holy services, and 
 invested with more than common dignity and 
 power, so, also, they infer that the Pope is holy 
 
286 INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 and infallible in all his doings. As circum- 
 cision was practised by the Jews upon the male 
 children of their nation, they infer that baptism 
 must be administered to infants. As the wife 
 of Moses circumcised her son, so it is lawful 
 for mothers to baptize their little ones, &c. 
 
 Such reasoning, it must be granted, is al- 
 together unfriendly to the spread of pure Chris- 
 tianity. It must appear evident, even to a par- 
 tial observer, that such a contrivance, assum- 
 ing one thing and inferring another, and then 
 making the inference the proof of something 
 else, is far better suited to the cause of infidelity 
 than to the cause of religion and virtue. Who- 
 ever deals thus in matters of religion, not a 
 little hinders that cause which he would pro- 
 mote. In arguing thus, any thing may be 
 proved which shall suit the prejudices and con- 
 veniences of proud and ambitious men. Can 
 it be supposed that such a course of reasoning 
 shall contribute to the spread of the glory of 
 Christ, and the salvation of men? O no, my 
 brethren, it weakens the force of truth on the 
 conscience, and divides the people of God 
 asunder. 
 
 Time can never disclose all the unhappy 
 disasters which fall upon the Church and the 
 world by reason of identifying infants with 
 the spiritual Church of Christ. O, when shall 
 men cease to pervert the right ways of the 
 Lord 1 When shall Christians be satisfied with 
 what the Saviour has left us by the spirit of 
 inspiration? 
 
INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 337 
 
 Again, it is said that circumcision is the seal 
 of the covenant, and by being applied to infants, 
 it introduced them into the Jewish Church ; 
 then, from the supposition that baptism comes 
 in the place of circumcision, and that it is the 
 seal of a covenant, it is inferred that infants 
 must be baptized and initiated into the Christian 
 Church. 
 
 But this position is assumed without one 
 shade of evidence. Circumcision is the seal 
 of no covenant; certainly not of the covenant 
 of grace, or the covenant of redemption. This 
 is an everlasting covenant, beginning and end- 
 ing only in God, having eternity as the space of 
 its existence. Let none, therefore, be betrayed 
 into the mistaken notion that such a covenant, 
 so grand and glorious, is sealed by the bloody 
 practice of circumcision. Nothing can be 
 more absurd. Of what covenant, then, is cir- 
 cumcision the seal, and what does it seal? 
 When was baptism substituted for circum- 
 cision, and by whom was the change effected? 
 Answers to these interrogations are to be 
 sought elsewhere than in the Bible; for the 
 Bible authorizes no such opinions. 
 
 Is it not passing strange that, when the ques- 
 tion respecting circumcision was considered 
 by a council composed of Apostles and Elders, 
 convened at Jerusalem, not one word should be 
 said about baptism taking the place of circum- 
 cision, if, indeed, such a substitution was ever 
 intended ? This surprise is heightened when we 
 
28g INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 consider the object which called that council 
 together. A sect of the Pharisees taught the 
 converts "that it was needful to circumcise 
 them, and to command them to keep the law 
 of Moses." "The Apostles and Elders came 
 together for to consider of this matter." Acts 
 xv. 5, 6. The decision of this apostolic council 
 was, that circumcision had nothing to do with 
 the followers of Christ. Verses 24 — 29. Had 
 such an idea, as baptism being substituted for 
 circumcision, entered the minds of the Apos- 
 tles, would they not have given information to 
 that effect? 
 
 Nothing could have been more apposite the 
 design of that council than to have pacified 
 those, whose minds were disturbed, by inform- 
 ing them that their baptism answered to cir- 
 cumcision, if, indeed, such had been the case. 
 But the Apostles on that occasion say not one 
 word about baptism; and for the very good 
 reason, baptism has not the remotest connexion 
 with circumcision, nor with any covenant 
 made with Abraham. 
 
 Indeed, the idea that circumcision seals the 
 covenant, and answered to baptism under the 
 Gospel, is as visionary as it is unscripturaL 
 Never could a notion so perfectly void of the 
 least semblance of truth, have been so widely 
 accredited, had not advantage been taken of 
 our infancy, and we made to believe it from 
 our earliest recollections, while yet cloistered in 
 the nursery. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 289 
 
 And anon, 
 " The priest hath finished what the nurse begun." 
 
 The truth is that no such idea as that for 
 which our Pedobaptist brethren contend, has 
 any foundation in the Bible. Their best writers, 
 when endeavouring to sustain their opinions, 
 that circumcision is the seal of the Abrahamic 
 covenant, and that infant baptism comes in lieu 
 of infant circumcision, are perfectly unintel- 
 ligible. They manifestly show that they them- 
 selves have no clear and well defined concep- 
 tions of what they so confidently affirm. "I 
 found," says one, " myself in clouds and dark- 
 ness. I wandered about in the fogs with which 
 writers have shrouded the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant, the connexion between the Old and the 
 New dispensations; the substitution of modern 
 for ancient rites and ordinances; the obscure 
 passages of ecclesiastical history, bewildered 
 and perplexed." This is not the sentiment of 
 one, but of many. It is even so. Neither the 
 priests, nor their unsuspecting flocks, who pin 
 their faith on their shepherd's sleeve, seem to 
 " know what they say, or whereof they affirm." 
 
 Indeed, there are few ways in which you 
 can more successfully torture the feelings of 
 intelligent Pedobaptists, than to ask them to 
 put their finger upon some plain Scripture 
 proof, that circumcision is the seal of a cove- 
 nant; that baptism comes in the room of cir- 
 cumcision ; that infants are to be baptized and 
 received into the Christian Church, on the 
 25 
 
29(j INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 ground that infants were circumcised, and 
 composed a part of the Jewish nation. Ask the 
 more enlightened among our Pedobaptist 
 brethren, to show some plain unequivocal 
 Scripture proof for any of these opinions upon 
 which they hold with such an unyielding tena- 
 city, and they give signs that your question 
 is an unwelcome one, while you are told, " the 
 Bible is full of such proof." If not satisfied 
 with a reply so indefinite, you are referred to 
 some texts, often the most obscure, upon which 
 suppositions are raised, and the sense actually 
 guessed at, and thence inferences are deduced, 
 which are the proof offered in the answer to 
 your inquiry. If not satisfied with suppositions 
 and inferences, but desire plai?i positive proof, 
 then the subject becomes so sacred and impor- 
 tant as not to be called in question — supported 
 by the ancient Fathers, and by some of the most 
 learned and pious in the world. [{ still incredu- 
 lous and unbelieving, and yet inquisitive, then 
 the subject has lost its great importance, and be- 
 comes u Non-essential,"* a mere external rite ; 
 "you had better not give yourselves any further 
 trouble about it;" " you will not be asked, in the 
 day of judgment when, nor how, you were bap- 
 tized ;" " any thing will answer, only be per- 
 suaded in your own mind;" "there is just as 
 
 * It is well remarked by that pious and eminent servant 
 of Christ, G. T. Bedell, late of* Philadelphia, "It is a most 
 false philosophy ; and it is not only a false, but a fatal 
 theology, which would ever conceive or represent matters 
 of doctrine as of comparative unimportance." — His Life, 
 vol. ii. p. 297. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 291 
 
 much Scripture for infant baptism, as there is 
 for female communion." Such are the com- 
 mon every-day answers returned to anxious in- 
 quirers after truth, who, if not possessed of 
 some degree of firmness and decision of cha- 
 racter, are led into forbidden paths, and left 
 " bewildered and perplexed." 
 
 Such, too, are the arguments advanced in 
 support of what is claimed to be a Divine in- 
 stitution. Indeed, the very extreme efforts, 
 and singular arguments brought forward in 
 favour of infant baptism, might well suggest to 
 a thinking mind the unsoundness of any posi- 
 tion requiring such support. 
 
 Some of our Pedobaptist brethren have seen 
 and felt the invalidity of such proof, as well as 
 the unscriptural nature of such positions, and 
 have ingenuously abandoned them. 
 
 The learned Cattenburgh says, "Though ap- 
 parently there is a great similitude between 
 circumcision and baptism, yet it does not thence 
 follow that this comes in the place of that, be- 
 cause, on the same principle, a person might 
 argue that bread and wine, in the sacred sup- 
 per, succeeded in the place of manna, and of 
 water from the rock. Is it to be believed, on 
 supposition of this assertion concerning bap- 
 tism being admitted, that John the Baptist, 
 in his preaching, would not have signified some- 
 thing of this kind; and that our Lord himself 
 would not have taught his disciples concerning 
 such an appointment? 
 
 " We must add, when so sharp a controversy 
 
292 INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 was agitated about circumcision, Acts xv., not 
 so much as a tittle occurs relating to such a 
 succession, which, nevertheless, on that occa- 
 sion ought principally to have been mentioned. 
 Further, besides the difference of circum- 
 stances mentioned by the learned Limborch, 
 and the most evident argument, none but male 
 children were circumcised, therefore, they only 
 are to be baptized; others add, circumcision was 
 performed by a knife, but baptism is adminis- 
 tered in water. The circumcision of infants 
 was urged by the Lord with such great rigour, 
 that Moses himself was threatened with de- 
 struction for its neglect, Exod. iv. 24; and 
 fathers neglecting that rite, it was lawful for 
 mothers to circumcise their sons, Exod. iv. 25, 
 which the reformed prohibit to women, or do 
 not permit, in regard to baptism. 
 
 " Circumcision was not performed in the 
 name of any one as baptism is in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost. Circumcision was performed upon one 
 member only ; whereas, in baptism, the whole 
 body is ordered to be immersed. Principally 
 circumcision was a discriminating mark of the 
 Jews from other nations; whereas baptism 
 tends to unite all nations in one body." Spici- 
 leg. Theology, L. iv. c. 04, § 2, 22. 
 
 Moreover, let it be remarked, circumcision 
 tuas the seal of no covenant* It is our Pedo- 
 
 * A seal is one thing 1 , and a token is quite a different 
 thing 1 . A seal is an act of confirmation; that which rati- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 293 
 
 baptist brethren, and not the Bible, that tell us 
 circumcision is the seal of the Abrahamic 
 covenant. 
 
 That you may no longer be betrayed into 
 the gratuitous and ungrounded assertions re- 
 specting the nature and design of circumci- 
 sion, it becomes me to present it in its true 
 light. 
 
 Now there are three things to be said of 
 circumcision, which, properly considered, will 
 remove the great ambiguity and perplexity 
 that have been thrown around it, by denomi- 
 nating it the seal of a covenant. 
 
 Circumcision was a token or sign of a dis- 
 tinct and specified covenant, which was not the 
 covenant of grace or redemption, but a cove- 
 nant consisting in an agreement between 
 God and Abraham. Jehovah promises to 
 Abraham, that he shall be a father of many 
 nations; that he and his seed shall have all the 
 land of Canaan, of which he was now a stran- 
 ger ; and that the Lord shall be their God. 
 Gen. xvii. 4 — 8. On the other hand, God re- 
 quires and Abraham promises that Every 
 man-child born in his house, or bought of 
 strangers, shall be circumcised at eight days 
 old. Gen. xvii. 9 — 13. Connected with this, 
 Abraham promises, at the command of God, to 
 
 fies or establishes, or evinces the certainty of a thing-; — 
 whereas a token is only a sign, or a mark by which things 
 may be known. 
 
 25* 
 
294 INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 go in pursuit of the promised land. Heb. xi. 
 8, 9. 
 
 Now this is the specified covenant of which 
 circumcision was a token. Hence it is de- 
 nominated " The covenant of circumcision;" 
 because circumcision was one part of the 
 covenant. And, with equal propriety, it may 
 be denominated The covenant of a numerous 
 posterity, in the land of Canaan, by the favour 
 of God; because herein consisted the other 
 part of the covenant. Consult Nehemi. ix. 7, 
 8. Acts vii. 2— S. 
 
 Now let it be observed, that circumcision 
 was a national and distinctive mark, given to 
 be observed by the posterity of Abraham, or 
 the nation of the Jews, in their successive 
 generations, and particularly designed to keep 
 the male part of the Jewish nation unmixed with 
 surrounding heathen nations. 
 
 Circumcision, then, is to be viewed in the 
 light of a second register, fixing upon every 
 male of the Jewish nation, an indelible mark, 
 by which he might be known as belonging to 
 the house and lineage of Abraham. 
 
 Hence Abraham, by faithfully observing his 
 part of the covenant, in circumcising every 
 man-child in his house, and all who became 
 identified with the Jewish nation, could realize 
 and should be able to acknowledge in the end, 
 that Jehovah had performed his part of the 
 covenant, in giving to him, and his seed after 
 him, all the land of Canaan. By this he 
 
INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 295 
 
 should know who were his seed, and who 
 were not; who had a right to the land of Ca- 
 naan, and who had not. 
 
 Let it be remembered, then, that circumci- 
 sion was a token or a sign of a covenant whose 
 object was the preservation of the male de- 
 scendants of Abraham from uniting with 
 other nations, and hereby lose their national 
 distinction. 
 
 And it is in this light that the most intelli- 
 gent Jews understood the nature and design 
 of circumcision. Josephus, the learned histo- 
 rian of his own nation, and better uninspired 
 testimony on this point, the world cannot 
 afford, says: "God showed Abraham, that 
 from his son Isaac should spring great nations 
 and kings, and that they should obtain all the 
 land of Canaan by war, from Sidon to Egypt. 
 But he charged him in order to keep his poste- 
 rity unmixed with others, that they should be 
 circumcised. B. I. chap. x. § 5. 
 
 Witsius. " The descendants of Abraham 
 were separated by circumcision from other 
 nations, and renounced their friendship; as 
 appears from the open declaration of the sons 
 of Jacob, Gen. xxxiv. 14, 15. A circumcised 
 person, say the Jews, ' has withdrawn himself 
 from the whole body of the nations.' And, 
 indeed, circumcision was a great part, and as 
 it were the foundation of the middle wall 
 of partition." Econ. of the Cov. Book iv. ch. 
 8, $ 20. 
 
296 INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 Cattenburgh says: "Principally circumci- 
 sion was a discriminating mark of the Jews 
 from other nations ; whereas baptism tends to 
 unite all nations in one body." 
 
 And yet further, the covenant of circumci- 
 sion answered its national design ; and with 
 the destruction of the Jewish nation, itself was 
 destroyed, having been fulfilled. And even 
 while that nation had yet an existence, as in 
 the days of Christ and the Apostles, we are 
 taught by the Spirit that circumcision was 
 nothing to Christian converts. " Circumci- 
 sion is nothing, and uncircumcision is no- 
 thing." 1 Cor. vii. 18, 10. Paul, moreover, 
 made no account of it whatever. Phil. iii. 
 4—11. John vii. 2. Acts xv. 24.* 
 
 Mr. Erskine. " When God promised the 
 land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, cir- 
 cumcision was instituted for this, among other 
 purposes, to show that descent from Abraham 
 was the foundation of his posterity's right to 
 those blessings." Theolog. Dissert, p. 9. 
 
 Again. The covenant of circumcision had 
 special regard to the numerous posterity of 
 Abraham, in their being kept unmixed with 
 other nations, both before and while in actual 
 
 * "The Jews," says Ammonias, as cited by Dean Pri- 
 deaux, at the year 129, " The Jews are such by nature, 
 and from the beginning-, while the Idumeans were not 
 Jews from the beginning*, but Phoenicians and Syrians; 
 but being afterwards subdued by the Jews, and compelled 
 to be circumcised, and to unite into one natio7i t and be sub- 
 ject to the same laws, they were called Jews. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 297 
 
 possession of the land of Canaan. But God, 
 all this while, had another distinct object in 
 view in keeping this nation separate and un- 
 mixed. 
 
 The Messiah was to be of the posterity of 
 Abraham through Isaac. And that his gene- 
 alogy might be distinctly traced through suc- 
 cessive generations up to Abraham, it was 
 strictly enjoined upon the Jews to keep a pub- 
 lic register of all the names of the male part 
 of that nation, and to record the same in their 
 national archives. Once more, the Apostle 
 calls circumcision a " seal of the righteousness 
 of the faith." Rom. iv. 11. But this faith 
 went before the covenant of circumcision had 
 been given ; and was hence a faith distinct 
 from that of possessing the land of Canaan. It 
 was the faith which embraced the Messiah, 
 the end of which was the salvation of his 
 soul. In this faith he became " the father of 
 all them that believe." True believers in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ are the spiritual seed of 
 Abraham, and no one else. " Know ye, there- 
 fore, that they which are of faith, the same 
 are the children of Abraham. And if ye be 
 Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
 heirs according to the promise." Gala. iii. 
 7, 29. 
 
 Such we most gladly welcome to the ordi- 
 nances of the church of Christ and none 
 others. For such are sealed by the Holy 
 Spirit, and have, therefore, a right to be- 
 lievers' baptism. Hence says, 
 
298 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED. 
 
 Venema. " Circumcision was a seal of the 
 righteousness of faith, as the Apostle affirms; 
 but this only in respect of such Israelites as 
 were believers." In Pedobap. Exam. Vol. 
 if. p. 268. 
 
 Goodwin. " Baptism supposes regenera- 
 tion sure in itself first. Sacraments are never 
 administered to begin, or irork grace. Read 
 ALL the Acts, still it is said, they believed and 
 were baptized." Works, Vol. i. P. i. p. 200. 
 
 Mr. T. Boston. " There is no example of 
 baptism recorded in the Scriptures, where 
 any were baptized but such as appeared to 
 have a saving interest in Christ." Works, p. 
 384. 
 
 Limborch. " There is no instance can be 
 produced, from which it may indisputably be 
 inferred that any child was baptized by the 
 Apostles." Complete Syst. Div. b. v. ch. xxii. 
 
 2 Cor. i. 22. " Who hath also sealed us, 
 and given the earnest of the Spirit in our 
 hearts." 
 
 Eph. i. 13. "Ye were sealed with that 
 Holy Spirit of promise." 
 
 Eph. iv. 30. " Grieve not the Holy Spirit, 
 whereby ye are sealed unto the day of re- 
 demption." 
 
 Charnock. " God seals no more than he 
 promises. He promises only to faith, and 
 therefore only seals to faith. Covenant graces, 
 therefore, must be possessed and acted, before 
 
HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 299 
 
 covenant blessings be ratified to us." Works, 
 Vol. ii. p781,ed. 1. 
 
 Vitringa. " The sacraments of the new 
 covenant are of such a nature as to seal no- 
 thing but what is spiritual, nor to be of any 
 advantage, except in regard to those who 
 really believe in Jesus Christ." In Ped. Exam. 
 Vol. ii. p. 268. 
 
 No one, after reading the above, can plead 
 that baptism comes in the room of circumci- 
 sion, and thence infer infant baptism, without 
 certain convictions of conscience, that he is 
 pleading what is not true. 
 
 Section VI. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM INFERRED FROM THREE INSTANCES OF 
 HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 
 
 You will bear in mind that no inference, 
 however well founded, can establish a positive 
 institution. There must be direct testimony, 
 drawn from the inspired writings, to support 
 the instituted part of Divine worship. Plain 
 commands, or examples, and not probabilities 
 and suppositions, are what Pedobaptists them- 
 selves demand of Romanists, when contending 
 with them against their numerous errors and 
 superstitions. 
 
 Surely they ought not to blame us for asking 
 
300 
 
 HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 
 
 no more of them, in support of infant baptism, 
 than they peremptorily ask and demand of 
 Romanists, in support of transubstantiation, or 
 any other error of the Romish Church. Some 
 of our most able and learned Pedobaptists 
 have the frankness to acknowledge, that there 
 is no plain command, nor yet example, in the 
 Word of God, for the practice of infant 
 baptism. They further acknowledge that, 
 "The proof, then, that it is a Divine institution 
 must be made out some other way." — Dr. 
 Wood's Lectures, p. 11. 
 
 Another of the popular writers of the Pedo- 
 baptist ranks, has informed us of this other 
 way, as follows: "I do not pretend to ground 
 the practice of infant baptism on any plain po- 
 sitive command." "Baptism must not rest 
 upon the instructions of the Word of God, but 
 upon probabilities, inferences, human reason- 
 ing, and consequences" 
 
 What better ground can be asked in favour 
 of all and every innovation that have ever 
 affected the Zion of God ? 
 
 It is no wonder that Romanists retort upon 
 the Pedobaptists, when canvassing each others 
 errors. 
 
 In the late controversy between Messrs. 
 Hughes, a Romanist, and Breckenridge, a Pres- 
 byterian, on the subject, " Is the Protestant 
 religion the religion of Christ? the Romanist 
 places his Pedobaptist antagonist in a most 
 unhappy position, especially so, when we con- 
 
HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 3qj 
 
 sider the vast importance of the proposition in 
 debate. No good man can read it without 
 deep and sorrowful emotions of soul. Mr. 
 Hughes remarks: 
 
 " The next evidence I shall produce in sup- 
 port of the Catholic rule of faith, and against 
 the Protestant principle, is derived from a 
 source which I am sure you will respect. It 
 is the doctrine and practice of your own 
 Church, laid down in the Westminster Con- 
 fession. The first is the baptism of infants, 
 sanctioned by the " teachings" of the pastors of 
 the Church, but certainly not susceptible of proof 
 by any text of sacred Scripture." — Contro. pp. 
 47, 48. 
 
 When, O when, shall our brethren, who con- 
 tend for sprinkling and infant baptism, aban- 
 don these errors, supported on no better 
 ground than the grossest errors of the Papal 
 Ci urch ! !* 
 
 But let us examine a little into those house- 
 holds, which were baptized, and which are 
 supposed to include infants. 
 
 The first household baptism mentioned in 
 the Bible, is recorded by Luke, as follows: 
 
 * Mr. T. Mag-uire, a learned Roman Catholic, when 
 discussing- with Mr. Rich. T. P. Pope, the doctrines of 
 the Protestant and Roman Catholic relig-ions, asks his op- 
 ponent as follows: M If the Bible exclusively contains the 
 word of God, will Mr. Pope show us from the Bible, 
 that infants may be baptized contrary to the practice of 
 Christ and his Apostles ?" p. 101. 
 26 
 
302 HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 
 
 Acts xvi. 13. And on the Sabbath we went 
 out of the city by a river side, where prayer 
 was wont to be made; and we sat down, and 
 spake unto the women which resorted thither. 
 14. And a certain woman named Lydia, a 
 seller of purple, of the cily of Thyatira, which 
 worshipped God, heard us; whose heart the 
 Lord opened, that she attended unto the things 
 which were spoken of Paul. 15, And when 
 she was baptized, and her household, she be- 
 sought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be 
 faithful to the Lord, come into my house and 
 abide there. And she constrained us. 
 
 49. And they [that is, Paul and Silas,] 
 went out of the prison and entered into the 
 house of hy dm; and when they had seen the 
 brethren, they comforted them, and departed. 
 
 To make out that Lydia's household con- 
 sisted, in part, of infants, our Pedobaptist 
 brethren have to call to their aid the rule of 
 interpretation which they have adopted, of 
 supposing one thing, and from it inferring 
 another; by the applicability of which they 
 suppose Lydia's household contained infants, 
 and then infer that these infants were baptized. 
 
 We shall examine a little into the correctness 
 of the suppositions which must necessarily be 
 raised from this Scripture, in order to make it 
 justify infant baptism. 
 
 1. They suppose that the word house, or 
 household, in Scripture usage, includes all of a 
 family. Such a supposition doe6 not hold good. 
 
HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 3Q3 
 
 We may, in general terms, say, a whole 
 family were at church last Lord's Day, when 
 we do not mean every individual of the family, 
 but such as were capable of going and hearing 
 the word of life. 
 
 Now this was a very common manner of 
 speaking among the ancients. A very appro- 
 priate example of the kind is furnished us in 
 1 Sam. i. 21, 22. " And the man Elkanah, and 
 all his house, went up to offer unto the Lord 
 the yearly sacrifice, and his vow. But Hannah 
 went not up; for she said unto her husband, I 
 will not go up until the child be weaned." 
 
 2. Another supposition, necessary to the 
 purpose of our Pedobaptist brethren, is, that 
 there cannot he such a thing as all in a house, 
 i. e. a household, converted to God, and de- 
 voted to Christ. 
 
 Now our Pedobaptist brethren have been 
 exceedingly unhappy in their supposition ; for 
 it is a thing possible, and even quite common, 
 for entire families to be turned to the Lord. 
 
 Several instances of the kind are furnished 
 us in the Bible. As, for example, Mary and 
 Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, were keeping 
 house, whose love to the Saviour, at all times, 
 made him a welcome guest under their hos- 
 pitable roof. — Luke x. 38 — 42. 
 
 Again, we are told of a certain nobleman 
 who besought the Saviour to heal his son, that 
 " the father himself believed, and his whole 
 house." — John iv. 53. 
 
304 HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 
 
 Once more: "And Crispus, the chief ruler 
 of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with 
 all his house, and many of the Corinthians, 
 hearing, believed, and were baptized. — Acts 
 xviii. 8. 
 
 Added to these, there are many households 
 within the circle of my own acquaintance, who 
 are among the faithful in Christ Jesus. 
 
 3. A third supposition becomes necessary, 
 in order that our Pedobaptist brethren may 
 assist themselves in sustaining the notion of 
 infant baptism from this Scripture, viz., that 
 there can be no household without being com- 
 posed, in part, of infants. 
 
 If such a supposition be well founded, then, 
 of course, Lydia must have had infants in her 
 family. But, my friends, are there nut whole 
 families in every community, and especially 
 in our chief towns and cities, which have no in- 
 fants? Cannot most of you call up to recol- 
 lection some family, in the circle of your ac- 
 quaintance, which is composed entirely of 
 adult persons? 
 
 Follow along in your imagination, if you 
 please, the families which reside on the street 
 passing the house in which we are now assem- 
 bled; commencing with Mrs. Betts, and taking 
 every household in succession — Mr. Cannon's, 
 Mrs. Grummon's, Mr. Turney's, Miss Jarvis', 
 &c. Here are no less than five families, all 
 following in consecutive order, without infants 
 connected with any one of them. And yet it 
 
HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 3Q5 
 
 is thought a thing quite improbable, if not, in- 
 deed, impossible, for Mistress Lydia to have 
 no infants in her house. 
 
 So much stress do our Pedobaptist brethren 
 put upon Lydia's household, as to make it one 
 of the cogent arguments in support of infant 
 baptism. 
 
 4. Another supposition is, that Lydia had an 
 infant babe. Of course she must have had an 
 infant with her, if, as it is supposed, she had 
 one baptized. But it is but a supposition at 
 best; and a supposition, too, quite improbable, 
 when we consider her vocation, and present 
 residence. 
 
 Lydia was a " seller of purple," a very com- 
 mon and honourable calling with the ladies of 
 Thyatira and vicinity, as history informs us, 
 who found it both an agreeable and successful 
 livelihood, and one often resorted to by maiden 
 ladies, but seldom by mothers, because it re- 
 quired those who engaged in it to be much from 
 home. Hence Lydia was a sojourner at Phi- 
 lippi, a city of Macedonia, on the river Stry- 
 mon, and distant from Thyatira, her native 
 town, about three hundred miles. 
 
 Lydia was enjoying but a temporary abode 
 at Philippi, making sales of her silks, and, after 
 the business season was over, destined to re- 
 turn to her native place. 
 
 To me it appears highly improbable that she 
 had infant children at all ; or if she had, that 
 26* 
 
30ft HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 
 
 she took them with her on a journey of so great 
 a distance. 
 
 What renders it still more likely that she was 
 a maiden lady, is, that no mention is made of 
 her husband; a very singular omission, indeed, 
 if we suppose her in social life. And yet 
 further; she is spoken of as having the entire 
 control of the family. If she had a husband, 
 he must have been a very indifferent one, and 
 she must have ruled over him, or how could 
 she say to the Apostles, " Come into my house 
 and abide there," when as yet her supposed 
 husband was unconverted, and by his wife, too, 
 unconsulted whether she might introduce into 
 his family these strange missionaries of the 
 despised Nazarene? Indeed, it appears quite 
 certain, that Lydia was a maiden lady, con- 
 ducting the concerns of her own house, and 
 her mercantile affairs, by the aid of servants 
 and clerks. 
 
 5. In the last place, even should it be granted 
 to our Pedobaptist brethren that Lydia's house- 
 hold was composed partly of infants, they must 
 suppose that these infants were baptized; for 
 it does not follow that a household, or all in a 
 house, must necessarily include every indivi- 
 dual of a family, as is evident from I Sam. i. 
 21, 22. 
 
 That Lydia herself was a fit subject for bap- 
 tism, none pretends to dispute; and with much 
 the same evidence must we believe that her 
 entire family had their hearts opened of the 
 
HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 307 
 
 Lord, that they attended unto the things which 
 were spoken of Paul, since they are called 
 " brethren" whom Paul and Silas " comforted" 
 or as Dr. Doddridge says, " comforted and ex- 
 horted them." 
 
 Mr. Whitby. " And when she, and those 
 of her household, were instructed in the 
 Christian faith, in the nature of baptism re- 
 quired by it, she was baptized and her house- 
 hold. " Paraphrase on the place. 
 
 Limborch. " An undoubted argument, there- 
 fore, cannot be drawn from this instance, by 
 which it may be demonstrated, that infants 
 were baptized by the Apostles. It might be, 
 that all in her house were of a mature age; 
 who, as in the exercise of a right understand- 
 ing they believed, so they were able to make 
 a public profession of that faith when they re- 
 ceived baptism." — Comment, in loco. In Pa>- 
 dobap. Ex. vol. ii. p. 359. 
 
 Mr. T. Lawson, referring to this argument, 
 says, " Families may be without children ; they 
 may be grown up, &c. So it is a wild infer- 
 ence to ground infant baptism upon." — Bap- 
 tismalogia, p. 92. 
 
 The secoivd household baptism which is 
 
 RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE, IS FOUND IN Acts Xvi. 
 
 29. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, 
 and came trembling, and fell down before Paul 
 and Silas. 30. And brought them out and 
 said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? 31. And 
 they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 
308 
 
 HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 
 
 and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 
 
 32. And they spake unto him the word of 
 the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 
 
 33. And he took them the same hour of the 
 night, and washed their stripes; and was bap- 
 tized, he and all his, straightway. 34. And when 
 he had brought them into his house, he set 
 meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in 
 God with all his house. 
 
 We may know of whom the jailer's house- 
 hold was composed, by a careful reading of 
 the account as given by the historian Luke; 
 particularly marking the 32 and 34 verses. 
 "And they (Paul and Silas) spake unto him 
 (the jailer) the word of the Lord, and to all 
 that w t ere in his house." — "And rejoiced, 
 believing in God with all his house." All in 
 the jailer's house had the word of life addressed 
 to them, and all believed, and all were baptized. 
 
 Only by the skill of raising suppositions, as 
 in the case of Lydia's household, can it be 
 made out that the jailer had infants, and had 
 them baptized. 
 
 Doddridge. " Thou shalt he saved, and thine 
 house. The meaning cannot be that the eter- 
 nal salvation of his family could be secured by 
 his faith; but that — if they also themselves 
 believed, they should be entitled to the same 
 spiritual and everlasting blessings with himself; 
 which Paul might the rather add, as it is pro- 
 bable that many of them, under this terrible 
 alarm, might have attended the master of the 
 
HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 309 
 
 family into the dungeon." — Fam. Expos. Note 
 on the place. 
 
 Matthew Henry. " The voice of rejoicing, 
 with that of salvation, was heard in the jailer's 
 house — He rejoiced, believing in God, with all 
 his house : there was none in his house that 
 refused to be baptized, and so made a jar in 
 the ceremony, but they were unanimous in em- 
 bracing the gospel, which added much to the 
 joy. — Expos, on the place. 
 
 Calvin is still more expressive. "Luke com- 
 mends the pious zeal of the jailer, because he 
 dedicated his whole house to the Lord; in 
 which, also, the grace of God illustriously ap- 
 peared, because it suddenly brought the whole 
 family to a pious consent." — Comment, in loco. 
 
 The household of Stephanas. 
 
 This is the third and last household baptism 
 mentioned in our Sacred Writings. I desire 
 you to be your own judges, whether it can in 
 any justice be plead in favour of infant bap- 
 tism. This is the record of it as furnished us 
 by the Spirit of God. 
 
 " And I baptized also the household of Stepha- 
 nas:' 1 Cor. i. 16. 
 
 As no mention whatever is made of infants, 
 in this Scripture, our Pedobaptist brethren can 
 turn it to their account only by their accredited 
 adroitness in raising suppositions, and upon 
 these predicate the notion of infant baptism. 
 
 After what has been said respecting such 
 suppositions, when considering the household 
 
310 HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 
 
 of Lydia, all that can be necessary here is to 
 quote a single passage which sufficiently sets 
 forth the characters of those composing this 
 household. The Scripture to which I refer is 
 recorded in 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16, and reads as 
 follows: "Ye know the house of {Stephanas, 
 that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that 
 they have addicted themselves to the ministry of 
 the saints, that ye submit yourselves unto such, 
 and to every one that kelpeth with us and la- 
 bour eth." 
 
 I will only subjoin some few just concessions 
 of our Pedobaptist brethren, in which the sense 
 of the passage is judiciously explained. 
 
 Doddridge. " They have set themselves, Src. 
 This seems to imply, that it was the generous 
 care of the whole family to assist their fellow 
 Christians; so that there was not a member of 
 it which did not do its part." — Fam. Expos. 
 Note on the place. 
 
 Guise. " It therefore seems that the family 
 of Stephanas were all adult believers, and so 
 were baptized on their own personal profes- 
 sion of faith in Christ." — On the place. 
 
 Hammond. " I think it unreasonable that the 
 Apostle's bare mention of baptizing his [Ste- 
 phanas'] household, should be thought compe- 
 tent to conclude that infants were baptized by 
 him ; when it is uncertain whether there were 
 any such at all in his house." — Works, vol. i. 
 p. 492. In Peed. Exam. vol. ii. p. 358. 
 
 Macknight. " The family of Stephanas seem 
 
REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. 3jj 
 
 all to have been adults when they were bap- 
 tized, for they are said, chap. xvi. 15, to have 
 devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints." 
 Apos. Epis. Note on 1 Cor. i. 16. 
 
 We have now examined, impartially, those 
 Scriptures, traditions, and principles of in- 
 terpretation, by which our Pedobaptist brethren 
 attempt to sustain, in the Church of Jesus 
 Christ, infant baptism, as an instituted part of 
 religious worship ; and we can find not one 
 substantial reason — no, not even from tradition 
 — which can afford any sufficient plea for a 
 notion, which they acknowledge has no ex- 
 press command, nor vet example in the Word 
 of God. 
 
 CHAPTER II?. 
 
 DIRECT AND POSITIVE REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 The discussion of the subject of sprinkling 
 for baptism, and infants for subjects, involves 
 much more than the mere mode of an exter- 
 nal ceremony, or than the simple question 
 "who may be admitted to the sacred rite?" 
 
 It reaches to the question agitated in the 
 days of our Saviour's humiliation, whether the 
 authority of God's word, or that of tradition 
 and human policy shall have the supremacy 1 
 It involves the questions whether the preju- 
 
312 ARGUMENTS ELICITED 
 
 dices and notions of men, or the commands of 
 Jesus shall be respected and obeyed? whether 
 it be right to accommodate the doctrines and 
 institutions of the gospel to the pride and pre- 
 dilections of erring mortals? whether the Pope 
 of Rome, or the King in Zion shall have domin- 
 ion in the church, and dictate the order and 
 manner of divine worship? whether the church 
 shall be amalgamated with the world, or pre- 
 served separate and distinct as a body chosen 
 out of the world, and designed to be a peculiar 
 people ? whether, in fine, she shall be a spiri- 
 tual church, whose aim is the glory of God, 
 and the salvation of souls, or a secular and 
 national church, devoted to the selfish and am- 
 bitious aims of proud and aspiring demagogues? 
 
 Section I. 
 
 THE SPIRIT, AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS ELICITED BY 
 INFANT BAPTISM, IS UNLIKE THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 If any thing may be known by its fruit, then 
 may we safely judge sprinkling and infant bap- 
 tism to be opposed to the spirit of the religion 
 of Christ, because of the passions they call 
 forth. 
 
 I have previously shown, that the arguments 
 by which infant baptism and sprinkling are 
 supported, are entirely anti-Scriptural, and 
 
UNLIKE THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. gjg 
 
 also, that the spirit manifested in sustaining 
 these erroneous practices, is alike foreign from 
 that spirit of meekness, kindness, and forbear- 
 ance, which was so eminently characteristic 
 of our blessed Saviour. 
 
 But additional remarks, upon the same sub- 
 jects, have been reserved for a separate para- 
 graph in this place. And these I should be 
 glad to omit, were it not for the hope that they 
 may tend to dissuade any hereafter from the 
 use of such unlovely arguments in support of 
 their assumed notions. 
 
 I should be sorry if the following remarks 
 should wound unnecessarily the feelings of any 
 one who hears me. Should any feel aggrieved, 
 I can only say I certainly ought not to be cen- 
 sured for rehearsing arguments which our Pe- 
 dobaptist brethren so frequently employ in sup- 
 port of their peculiar practices. Nor should 
 they ever make use of arguments in per- 
 suading young converts to embrace their sen- 
 timents, which they would feel aggrieved to 
 have brought to the view of others. I ought, 
 in justice, acknowledge, and do it with great 
 pleasure, that many of my Pedobaptist breth- 
 ren are above employing such arguments in 
 support of their views. These are more no- 
 ble, pious, and manly than many others, who, 
 contending for the same practices, descend to 
 a course of reasoning unworthy the dignity of 
 an intelligent being, to say nothing of one pro- 
 fessing the religion of Jesus. 
 27 
 
314 
 
 ARGUMENTS ELICITED 
 
 It is not an unfrequent method with some, 
 when dissuading the youthful convert, who has 
 been sprinkled in infancy, from following the 
 convictions of an enlightened conscience, and 
 from a faithful imitation of his Lord and Mas- 
 ter, in being buried with Christ by baptism, to 
 employ reasoning the most unhappy and un- 
 christian. 
 
 The inquiring convert is told, that he was 
 baptized in infancy ; that then he took, by the 
 promise of others, the solemn vows upon him- 
 self, and that he ought not to be baptized again; 
 that if he does, he will deny his former bap- 
 tism, and also the faith of his sponsors or pa- 
 rents, and sin against the Holy Ghost ! 
 
 Now, any person who can deal thus rudely 
 with the disciples of Christ, must be void, at 
 least, of some of the ennobling principles of 
 Christianity. Such duplicity, chicanery, and 
 rude artifice employed over the tender con- 
 sciences of the unsuspecting, and such disre- 
 gard to the tender emotions of the lambs of 
 Christ, illy become an ambassador of peace. 
 
 And by just such arguments are thousands 
 kept from following the footsteps of their Sa- 
 viour. But let such converts know that they 
 cannot better please their divine Lord and 
 subserve the cause of truth, than to break away 
 from restraints so unjustly imposed upon their 
 credulity, and come forth and act for them- 
 selves, according to the dictates of their own 
 consciences, enlightened by the word of God. 
 
UNLIKE THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 315 
 
 Again, there are not a few who are disen- 
 genuous enough to make use of opprobrious 
 language, and even of low artifice in order to 
 dissuade the unsuspecting convert from a faith- 
 ful compliance with his Lord's command to 
 be baptized on profession of his faith. 
 
 What they want in fair argument is supplied 
 by scurrility and chicanery. Taking advan- 
 tage of the corruptions of human nature, and 
 addressing themselves to the vile passions of 
 the soul, they think to justify themselves in the 
 practice of those things, for which they acknow- 
 ledge they have no express command, nor yet 
 example in the inspired writings. 
 
 I sincerely pity the man who is so pressed 
 for sound argument as to be prevailed upon to 
 step aside from the plain principles of interpre- 
 tation and Christian gentility, to have recourse 
 to the power of ridicule and human ingenuity 
 in defence of his faith and practice. 
 
 The more deeply is such a course to be de- 
 plored, when it is brought to bear upon the 
 subject of religion, and especially when it is 
 resorted to by professing Christians. 
 
 It is enough to be deprecated, that such a 
 course should obtain among the political fac- 
 tions of the day. Is it not enough that the ir- 
 religious and profane should take refuge in 
 ridicule? Must Christians copy examples so 
 unworthy their vocation, and lend their influ- 
 ence in support of a course of reasoning so 
 entirely irrelevant to the dignity and sanctity 
 
316 ARGUMENTS ELTCITED 
 
 of our holy religion, and so incompatible with 
 the spirit of the gospel of the grace of God 1 
 Shall the professed followers of Jesus so far 
 lose the spirit of their divine Master, who was 
 meek and lowly in heart, as to be found making 
 appeals to the pride and selfishness of man in 
 support of their favourite opinions? 
 
 I rejoice that Baptists are reduced to no 
 such necessity in sustaining their religious 
 sentiments. Baptists make no appeals to the 
 unsanctified passions of the soul, in order to 
 persuade men to copy the example of Christ 
 and the apostles. They choose rather to mor- 
 tify than to feed, the proud arrogance of men. 
 They had rather put an extinguisher upon the 
 unhallowed passions, than to apply the bellows 
 to increase them to a more vehement flame. 
 And in this too, Baptists are confident that they 
 have Christ for their great exemplar, and the 
 apostles as their fellow-copyists. 
 
 They reject, utterly, ridicule, as argument, 
 and artifice, as testimony, in matters of reli- 
 gion. 
 
 What cannot be substantiated by sound phi- 
 lological principles, and plain Scripture proof, 
 let it fall, and be forever rejected, as unworthy 
 the suffrage of Christians. Indeed, ridicule is 
 generally resorted to where sound argument is 
 wanting. Well was it observed by a popular 
 writer of our own times. " It is said that 
 ridicule is the test of truth ! It is never ap- 
 plied, but when ive wish to deceive ourselves' or 
 
UNLIKE THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 3^7 
 
 others ; when, if ice cannot exclude the light, 
 we are fain to draw a curtain before it. The 
 sneer springs out of the icish to deny; and 
 wretched must be the state of that mind which 
 desires to take refuge in doubt! But the in- 
 stinct of right and wrong is immutable; all 
 other voices may be silenced, but not that in 
 ourselves." 
 
 Conscience must speak. She maybe disre- 
 garded: her warning voice may be unheeded, 
 and for a time put to silence ; yet, there are 
 intervals when she must be heard. The fewer 
 these intervals, and the less audible her. voice, 
 the stronger the proof that the more unre- 
 strained depravity reigns in the heart where 
 she utters her note of remonstrance. Much to 
 be pitied is that man who can say no, to her 
 biddings, or not to stop at her prohibitions ! 
 All should follow the convictions of a tender 
 and enlightened conscience, for she pleads for 
 God and for the rights of men. 
 
 Once more, detraction and misrepresentation 
 are called forward in support of sprinkling and 
 Pedobaptism ! 
 
 With a view to lessen the reputation of Bap- 
 tists in the estimation of others, and hence to 
 dissuade others from embracing their senti- 
 ments and uniting in their communion, the 
 darkest aspersion that invidiousness and inge- 
 nuity could invent, has been cast upon them. 
 No reproachful epithet, promising to detract 
 from Baptist reputation, to defame their moral 
 27* 
 
318 
 
 ARGUMENTS ELICITED 
 
 and religious characters, and to hinder their 
 advancing prosperity, has been withheld. 
 
 And so the doctrines of the Baptist Church 
 have alike been entirely misrepresented, and 
 held out before the public in a way equally 
 calculated to do injustice both to the truths of 
 the Bible, and to the Baptist denomination. 
 Such an unchristianlike course, I am happy in 
 having it to say, is highly disapproved of by 
 many of our Pedobaptist brethren. These 
 have more of the gentleman and the Christian 
 than to be found designingly detracting from 
 other's reputation, and misrepresenting other's 
 sentiments for the sake of sustaining their own. 
 But others there are, who make use of any ar- 
 gument, however false, and at whatever ex- 
 pense of their neighbour's reputation, if, by 
 such means, they can sustain sprinkling, and 
 infant baptism. Speaking of these last, Mr. 
 Wall remarks: "This {immersion) is so plain 
 and clear by an infinite number of passages, 
 that as one cannot but pity the weak endea- 
 vours of such Pedobaptists as would maintain 
 the negative of it, so we ought to disown and 
 show a dislike of the profane scoffs, which 
 some people give to the English Baptists, 
 merely for the use of dipping; when it was, 
 in all probability, the way by which our bless 
 ed Saviour, and for certain was the most 
 usual and ordinary way by which the ancient 
 Christians did receive their baptism." Hist, of 
 Inf. Bap. Pt. 2, C. 9, § 2. 
 
UNLIKE THE SPIRIT OP THE GOSPEL. gjg 
 
 Because Baptists believe not in, nor prac- 
 tice infant baptism, their Pedobaptist brethren 
 have taken the liberty to represent them to the 
 world, as believing in infant damnation ! ! ! 
 Because Baptists believe not in a union of 
 church and state, their brethren of other deno- 
 minations have presented them before the 
 world, as disposed to insubordination and 
 discord! Because Baptists do not admit 
 sprinkling to be Christian baptism, they are 
 represented as believing that baptism is neces- 
 sary to salvation !! Because Baptists receive 
 none into their church, and of course admit 
 none to their communion, unless they give 
 evidence of vital, personal piety, and have 
 been baptized, i. e. immersed, on profession of 
 their individual faith, their Pedobaptist bre- 
 thren have represented them as bigoted, il- 
 liberal, and uncharitable ; as believing none 
 will go to heaven but Baptists! Because 
 Baptists believe and know that the ordinances 
 of the New Testament, viz: Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper, are not taught in the Old Tes- 
 tament, but are peculiar to the New Testa- 
 ment, their brethren of other communions 
 have disingenuously represented them as re- 
 jecting the Old Testament as a part of divine 
 revelation ! ! 
 
 Such are some of the gross misrepresenta- 
 tions, published to the world, as the doctrines 
 of the Baptist denomination. Such illiberal 
 views and misrepresentations are often instil- 
 
320 ARGUMENTS ELICITED 
 
 led into the minds of children, and their preju- 
 dices grow with their growth, and strengthen 
 with their advance in years. 
 
 To some considerable extent, especially 
 among the less informed, who depend princi- 
 pally upon their ministers for their religious 
 sentiments, without much personal examina- 
 tion, sprinklirig and i?ifant baptism are rendered 
 popular at the expense of Baptist views, and 
 Baptist character. Ay, at the expense of the 
 truth as it is in the Bible ! and at the expense 
 of the example of Jesus ! 
 
 If our Pedobaptist brethren would have us 
 hold and practise sprinkling for baptism, and 
 admit unconscious babes as suitable candidates 
 for this public ordinance, let them point us to 
 one plain Scripture proof where such notions 
 are explicitly taught, or to one evident example 
 in the life of Christ and his apostles; and 
 Baptists will no longer reject them, but will 
 forthwith conform to the wishes of their Pedo- 
 baptist brethren. Till our Pedobaptist brethren 
 do so ; so long as they are constrained to ac- 
 knowledge that there is neither precept nor 
 example for their practices, let them conform 
 to the most ardent wish and prayer of Bap- 
 tists. Ay, to the authority and pleasure of 
 the Great Head of the Church, as evidenced 
 in his will and testament, bequeathed, as a 
 sufficient rule of faith and practice, to his 
 children. 
 
 Nor let them longer represent Baptists as 
 
UNLIKE THE SPIRIT OF THE GOSPEL. 32 1 
 
 illiberal, peccant, bigoted, and uncharitable, 
 believing infants are lost, and that none will be 
 received to heaven but Baptists! 
 
 When, in justice to ourselves, and by way 
 of reproof to our accusers, I may ask, when 
 did the Baptist denomination believe that in- 
 fants dying in infancy are lost \ That none 
 but Baptists are saved? That baptism is 
 necessary to salvation, and the way to Christ? 
 That the Old Testament is not a divine revela- 
 tion ? When were Baptists disposed to insub- 
 ordination and insurrection? unless you inter- 
 pret their conscientious regard, to the truths 
 of the Bible, and their fidelity in following 
 the examples of Christ and his apostles, causes 
 of dissatisfaction among those who would 
 compel all to displace some of the commands 
 and institutions of Christ, by the traditions 
 and inventions of men ! ! And when where 
 Baptists void of offices of kindness, of liberal 
 and charitable views towards other denomina- 
 tions professing Christianity ? unless it be a 
 want of that kind of universal charity of 
 which some boast, and which receives and 
 approves of all sentiments and practices, indis- 
 criminately, whether true or false, good or 
 bad ! ! 
 
 If our Pedobaptist brethren have hitherto 
 been betrayed into such mistaken views re- 
 specting Baptists, their sentiments and practices, 
 it is time that those mistakes were rectified. 
 Hereafter, let such groundless objections 
 
322 INFANT BAPTISM CONTRARY 
 
 against Baptists be dismisssed, and no longer 
 be reiterated in the ears of those whose inquiry 
 is, " Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" 
 
 Whatever of sound argument can be ad- 
 duced in favour of Pedobaptism let it be 
 brought forward and stated in a manly and 
 tangible form. If there be one command, 
 precept, or example, for infant baptism, show- 
 it to the world. If there exists neither of 
 these to sustain the practice, then let it be put 
 away as a notion of the fancy, highly detri- 
 mental to the cause of truth and Christian 
 fellowship. As a barrier to the union of God's 
 people, who ought to be one. Having one 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism. 
 
 Section II. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM DEPRIVES THE SUBJECT OF THE RIGHT 
 OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT, AND THEREFORE IS CONTRARY 
 TO THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 Few truths, recorded upon the inspired 
 page, are more evident than the right of pri- 
 vate judgment, in things of religion. "Every 
 one that hath heard, and hath learned of the 
 Father, cometh unto me." "To as many as 
 received him, to them gave he power to be- 
 come the sons of God; even to them that be- 
 lieve on his name." Every where do the 
 
TO THE WORD OP GOD. 333 
 
 Scriptures acknowledge the principles of indi- 
 vidual responsibility, and of personal duty in 
 matters of religion. But infant baptism takes 
 away the right of private judgment, and 
 deprives those, upon whom the imposition has 
 been practised, of the liberty of conscience, in 
 acting according to the dictates of the Word 
 of God. 
 
 It deprives the child, when come to years of 
 discretion, of the right of following his own 
 judgment, and binds the conscience to that 
 faith and practice in religion, respecting which 
 he had not the liberty of choosing. 
 
 Who but admires those noble and evangelical 
 sentiments of the framers of the Declaration of 
 American Independence, "That all men are 
 created equal; that they are endowed by their 
 Creator with certain inalienable rights; that 
 among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit 
 of happiness." 
 
 There are certain inalienable rights belong- 
 ing to every human subject. Among which 
 is that of liberty — liberty to judge and act for 
 oneself; liberty to pursue that course which 
 an enlightened conscience, and the Word of 
 God shall dictate. 
 
 No man, nor body of men, has the right to 
 deprive us, in any way of these inestimable 
 blessings. 
 
 Our parents have not the right to take ad- 
 vantage of our infancy, and then and there 
 impose upon us what shall fetter our conscience 
 
324 INFANT BAPTISM CONTRARY 
 
 when come to years of accountability. Parents 
 are to attend faithfully to the moral and re- 
 ligious instruction of their children. But it is 
 no part of parental duty to impose upon their 
 infant children the externals of religious wor- 
 ship. Every one stands amenable to his 
 Maker's bar, and must there answer for him- 
 self. " As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall 
 not have occasion any more to use this pro- 
 verb in Israel : The fathers have eaten sour 
 grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. 
 Behold, all souls are mine ; as the soul of the 
 father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the 
 soul that sinneth, it shall die" — Ezek. xviii. 
 2, 3, 4. 
 
 As infants are not arrived to the age of dis- 
 cretion and accountability, they are not charge- 
 able with actual transgression. Their un* 
 holiness is only derived, it is not brought upon 
 them by any act of their own. They cannot, 
 therefore, be denominated the souls that sin- 
 neth : and, consequently, they do not fall under 
 the Divine menace, " it shall die" Original 
 sin is cancelled by the blood of the cross. 
 "Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away 
 the sin of the world." But the soul of every 
 one arrived to years of accountability, is more 
 or less guilty of actual sin, and, therefore, 
 must eventually perish, unless so dreadful an 
 end is prevented by timely repentance and 
 faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Adam's sin is 
 not that of which a sinner repents. His is a 
 
TO THE WORD OF GOD. 325 
 
 personal guilt, and a personal repentance. His 
 is the soul that sinneth ; and his soul must be 
 bowed down in the deepest contrition before 
 God, or suffer the awful wages of actual trans- 
 gression. But infants, not being actual trans- 
 gressors, are not called to repentance, nor to 
 believe the Gospel of the grace of God, con- 
 sequently, they have nothing to do with the 
 baptism of repentance, nor with any of the 
 ceremonies of public worship. 
 
 Every child, from its earliest infantile mo- 
 ments, should be the subject of parental soli- 
 citude, and the most fervent prayers. No 
 sooner should reason dawn in the infant mind, 
 than efforts should be directed to improve and 
 mature its opening powers ; nor should such 
 efforts be relaxed at any successive period of 
 the juvenile state. Parents, and all intrusted 
 with the care of children, are under the most 
 solemn obligations to " bring them up in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord." As soon 
 as practicable, the juvenile mind should be 
 imprinted with the Word of God, and be made 
 to feel the weight of its own responsibility. 
 
 But to infringe upon ihe rights of con- 
 science, in relation to the externals of religion, 
 comes not within the province of any man. 
 To sprinkle an infant babe, and then, as that 
 child is verging on to mature years, to tell it, 
 again and again, that it has been baptized, is 
 one of the most despotic acts of which man 
 is capable. It is tyranny of the worst kind. 
 28 
 
326 INFANT BAPTISM CONTRARY 
 
 tyranny in religion! ! Tyranny over the con- 
 science of an accountable being! ! 
 
 It is forestalling that faith and practice 
 which belong to ripened manhood, by an eccle- 
 siastic imposition practised upon the subject in 
 the hour of unconscious infancy ! ! It is over- 
 stepping the bounds both of reason and reve- 
 lation ! ! 
 
 Religion is a voluntary principle in the soul. 
 No coercion can make the heart pious. No 
 ecclesiastical domination can change the moral 
 character, or in the least benefit the soul. 
 
 Man can be truly religious only as there is 
 a virtue in his religion. " He must believe 
 with all his heart." He must repent of sin 
 voluntarily, as influenced by the Spirit of God. 
 And then as a penitent and as a believer in 
 Christ Jesus, is he to keep the commandments 
 of the Saviour; and walk steadfastly in fellow- 
 ship of the Apostles' doctrines. 
 
 But compulsion, further than what is of a 
 moral nature, has no place in religion. "Not 
 by power nor might, but by my Spirit, saith 
 the Lord." 
 
 Nothing is more congenial to the Christian 
 religion, than to enjoy an unrestrained liberty 
 of conscience, in all matters of faith and prac- 
 tice. Nothing can be more foreign to Chris- 
 tianity, than to deprive us of such liberty, 
 either by despotic power, or by taking advan- 
 tage of us at a time when we are not aware 
 of what is being imposed upon us. Such a 
 
TO THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 327 
 
 course tends equally to monarchy and super- 
 stition ; and isalike unscriptural and unfriendly 
 both to true religion and civil liberty. 
 
 To replenish the Church, by natural gene- 
 ration, and by infant sprinkling, is, in effect, a 
 union of church and state, and was, indeed, 
 the very beginning, in the third and fourth 
 centuries, of a union so unnatural and blight- 
 ing to the dearest interests of civil andreligrous 
 liberty, and should be regarded, in this age, as 
 highly disastrous to the perpetuity of a repub- 
 lican form of government. 
 
 Says an highly gifted and well qualified 
 judge, " The actual tendency of infant sprink- 
 ling, is to open the gates of the Church as wide 
 as the gates of the world, and to receive into 
 its bosom all that is born of woman. 
 
 "That this may appear as obvious as the 
 light of the sun, the reader has only to reflect, 
 that if the Pedobaptist system prevailed, so that 
 all the fathers and mothers in any country, or 
 in all countries, were determined to have their 
 infant offspring "initiated into the Church" 
 as soon as born, by the rite of sprinkling, then, 
 in that country, or in all countries so acting, 
 the discrimination between the world and the 
 Church would be lost ; its gates would be as 
 capacious as those of the world, and without 
 the necessity of regeneration, every member 
 of the human family in that region or country, 
 would have a place in the Church. 
 
 " About one hundred years ago, the whole 
 
328 INFANT BAPTISM CONTRARY 
 
 kingdom of Scotland, with the exception of, 
 say two or three thousand individuals, was one 
 great Pedobaptist society. In those days the 
 Church engrossed all that were born, and 
 initiated them into it. Of course, all the enor- 
 mities committed in the realm, were committed 
 by members of the Church ; so that none of the 
 apostolic admonitions, in which the difference 
 betwixt the Church and the world is pointed 
 out, would apply to them. 
 
 " In the year thirteen hundred, and for seve- 
 ral centuries before, all the citizens of Ger- 
 many, France, Spain, England, and, indeed, 
 all the western Roman empire, with the ex- 
 ception of a few Baptists, were initiated into 
 what was then called the Church, as soon as 
 the parents could have the rite performed. In 
 those days, and while those principles prevailed, 
 the Church was secularized, the Church and 
 state completely amalgamated ; and all the 
 follies and vices of childhood, manhood, and 
 old age, were engrafted upon the stock of 
 Christianity. In those days, Pedobaptist prin- 
 ciples triumphed; and there never was a period 
 in which the Church was so completely and 
 universally carnalized and secularized" 
 
 The natural tendency of infant sprinkling is 
 to destroy all distinction between the Church 
 and the world ; and, consequently, to destroy 
 pure spiritual Christianity. When you lay 
 aside the principle of personal piety as an in- 
 dispensable prerequisite to church-member- 
 
TO THE WORD OP GOD. 3gg 
 
 ship, you virtually lay aside the doctrine of the 
 soufs regeneration, and strike a death-blow at 
 the vitality of true religion. You then make 
 Christians by the law of the state, and not by 
 the Spirit of God. And in this way thousands 
 are annually added to the Church, and, of 
 course, if not afterwards excluded, continue 
 members of the Church. And as no Pedobap- 
 tist Church excludes those added by birth, and 
 by sprinkling, of course, they are, to all intents 
 and purposes, members of the Church, and 
 should be treated as such. The Episcopal 
 Church of England and Ireland, the Presby- 
 terian Church of Scotland, the Roman Church 
 of Italy, the Lutheran Church of Germany, and, 
 indeed, Pedobaptists in all countries, except- 
 ing America, acknowledge those added in in- 
 fancy, when grown to years of discretion, as 
 church-members, and treat them accordingly. 
 It must be evident to every understanding 
 mind, that such a course is consistent with it- 
 self, while that of receiving infants into the 
 Church, and then ever after treat them as not 
 belonging to the Church, has not the shadow 
 of consistence. It cannot be denied, that amal- 
 gamating the Church and the world in this 
 way, the foundation of civil and religious 
 liberty is greatly endangered, and must even- 
 tually, in this country, as it has done in all 
 other countries, give place to a full ecclesias- 
 tical and legal establishment. 
 28* 
 
33Q INFANT BAPTISM CONTRARY 
 
 "Dato uno absurdo, multa seguntur;" — 
 yield one absurdity, and many more follow. 
 Grant that it is right to bring the infants of a 
 nation into the Church, and you have a Church, 
 at least in part, of this world ; and just in pro- 
 portion as you render such a system popular, 
 you prepare the way for a religious establish- 
 ment, when, as aforetime, conscientious fide- 
 lity to the commands of Jesus will be punished 
 with stripes and imprisonment, with banish- 
 ment or death. 
 
 Infant church-membership is, therefore, di- 
 rectly opposed to the spiritual nature of the 
 visible Church, as it constitutes a connecting 
 link between the Church and the world. 
 
 And at no period of American independence 
 has there been greater occasion for alarm re- 
 specting our free institutions and religious pri- 
 vileges than at the present time. Romanists 
 are pouring in upon us apace. They come to 
 our shores with high notions of an established 
 religion ; and vast numbers of them, on leaving 
 their native land, are instructed to do what 
 they can to subvert our government, laws, and 
 religion, with a view of establishing Roman- 
 ism, which is only another name for tyranny 
 and dire usurpation over the rights of men. 
 
 It ought to be known and remembered too, 
 by every well-wisher of his American home, 
 and of the souls of men, that infant baptism, 
 and infant church membership constitute the 
 very foundation upon which the Roman 
 
TO THE WORD OF GOD. 
 
 331 
 
 Church hopes to establish herself in this happy 
 land. 
 
 It is time and high time that Christians of 
 America were awake to the efforts of Roman- 
 ists, whose avowed aim is to plant the Roman 
 faith in this land of equal rights. 
 
 A society has been formed in Austria for 
 the express purpose of sending the priests of 
 the Romish Church into America to aid for- 
 ward the design of reducing this country to 
 the dominion of Papal power. In an address 
 before this society the prince of Austria stated 
 that, " the faith" meaning Romanism, should 
 be established in America, if it took a hundred 
 years to accomplish the design. He farther 
 remarked, that free institutions were unfa- 
 vourable to " the faith" and that he would 
 " ever oppose a will of iron to all free insti- 
 tutions." 
 
 Such is the open and avowed purpose of the 
 highest Papal authority in the world. The 
 Prince of Austria has even the Pope at his 
 command, since it is by Austria that the pre- 
 sent Pope holds his office. 
 
 The vast multitudes of the Roman commu- 
 nion, which are annually flocking to our 
 shores, come with raised expectations and even 
 with flattering promises that, erelong, the mis- 
 named " Holy Catholic Church," which arro- 
 gates to herself the right of conferring absolu- 
 tion and salvation, shall be established in Ame- 
 rica, and take the place of our free institutions, 
 
gg2 INFANT BAPTISM CONTRARY, &c. 
 
 which are reputed unfavourable to papacy. 
 The whole multitude of Romanists, who come 
 to this country, are completely under the con- 
 trol of their priests, at whose bidding they are 
 ready for any device promising to promote the 
 pleasure of his Holiness at Rome. The Papal 
 church has formed her design, which is that, 
 •at no distant period she shall be able to say to 
 Americans, " Bow down, and let me pass 
 over." 
 
 Think not, my brethren, that I am sounding 
 a false tocsin. JVay, this is no unnecessary 
 alarm. It is a sober and fearful reality. 
 Almost as frequent as the beating of your pulse, 
 or as the heaving of your lungs, is the Roman 
 church, strengthened and augmented in Ame- 
 rica in three several ways. First, by emigra- 
 tion; secondly by infant baptism; identifying 
 all her infant seed with the church, and as these 
 children come to years, she makes them believe 
 that they are regularly baptized and added to 
 the church ; and lastly by free schools and un- 
 wearied diligence, she is decoying no incon- 
 siderable number of the poor of American 
 citizens, under her influence, holds them there 
 until wedded to her imposing worship, and 
 cheated into the belief that their salvation is 
 secure by virtue of their baptism and con- 
 nexion with the church. It is to the interest 
 of Christianity generally, that infant baptism 
 be laid aside bv all the followers of the Lamb 
 of God 
 
INFANT BAPTISM, &c. 333 
 
 Section III. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM, AS WELL AS SPRINKLING, IS HELD UP BY 
 A COURSE OF REASONING OPPOSED BY ALL SOUND PHI- 
 LOLOGICAL INQUIRY, AND IS NOT A LITTLE PROMOTIVE 
 OF SKEPTICISM. 
 
 It is a thing farthest possible from the design 
 of Protestant Pedobaptiststo lend their influence 
 in support of infidelity. Nor would I say that the 
 Roman priests design to unsettle the confidence 
 of others in such a revelation as they profess 
 to receive. But who can doubt for a moment 
 that, the reasoning of Romanists is directly 
 calculated to destroy the only revelation which 
 God has graciously given into the hands of 
 mortals ? 
 
 And little less certain is it, though without 
 design, that the arguments, by which Pedo- 
 baptism is sustained tend to encourage skepti- 
 cal views in religion. 
 
 The same course of reasoning, if carried 
 out and applied to other doctrines of the Pro- 
 testant faith, wouid reduce them beneath the 
 confidence of intellectual beings, and charac- 
 terize them with all the absurdity in which 
 infidelity would fain invest them. Suppose 
 you select the doctrine of the Supreme Divi- 
 nity of ihe Lord Jesus Christ, and place it on 
 a foundation supported by no better arguments 
 than infant, baptism and sprinkling are sus- 
 
334 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 tained, and who of us would hold on to it for 
 a single moment? Or would any sustain the 
 absurd opposite, viz : that Jesus Christ was only 
 a human being, a little more cunning, and, 
 perhaps, a little better than the commonalty of 
 mankind, they need ask no better testimony 
 than the same plead in support of infant bap- 
 tism and sprinkling, if such testimony be once 
 granted as valid in matters of religion. 
 
 If w r e may be allowed to take the position, 
 assumed by our Pedobaptist brethren, that we 
 cannot tell what meaning to attach to those 
 words in the revelation of God which are em- 
 ployed to teach us Divine institutions and im- 
 portant doctrines, where shall we stop in our 
 daring course of rendering ambiguous what 
 God has made plain. 
 
 If we may set supposition and inference 
 against positive revealed truth, when shall we 
 cease to bring into the Christian Church the 
 absurd notions of the ancient Fathers, sup- 
 ported by no better evidence than inference 
 and suppositions. How far such a course has 
 tended to fill the world with wild and extra- 
 vagant notions, we shall not be able to know 
 till assembled before the bar of Jehovah, when 
 the dire consequences of errors in religion shall 
 be brought to light. Every error here is at- 
 tended with evil results upon the cause of 
 piety and the destiny of souls. 
 
 And, perhaps, no error with which the 
 Church has been distracted and torn asunder, 
 
PROMOTIVE OF SKEPTICISM. 335 
 
 has equalled that of infant baptism. None has 
 been a more fruitful source of other errors. 
 
 How far the reasoning, in favour of infant 
 baptism, has prepared the way for so many, 
 of late years, to deny the Divine nature of our 
 Lord and Saviour, it is impossible for us to 
 know. But one thing we do know, and that 
 is, that vast multitudes of Pedobaptists, both 
 in England and in the United States, have 
 rejected the divinity of Jesus, and embraced 
 Deism. 
 
 Says a popular writer of London, " The 
 successors of the English Presbyterians of the 
 sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have, in 
 almost every instance, renounced evangelical 
 truth and degenerated into Socinians." — Me- 
 tropolitan Pulpit, p. 305. 
 
 Such is the appalling fact. That entire body 
 of Christians, in England, have become skep- 
 tical in their views respecting almost every 
 doctrine of our holy religion ; but especially 
 have they embraced deistical sentiments. No 
 longer is Jesus to them a Divine Saviour. 
 They have rejected Him, as did the Jews 
 before them. 
 
 When such loose notions are entertained 
 respecting the interpretation of the Bible, we 
 may well inquire whereunto such a course 
 shall lead us? Only let it be granted that Pro- 
 testant Christians are under the necessity of 
 leaving words which teach the positive institu- 
 tions of the Gospel, untranslated in their ver- 
 
336 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 sions of the sacred Scriptures, and give this 
 reason to the infidel world, as an excuse for 
 their conduct, viz., that they cannot define 
 nor translate such words, and where is the 
 safety of the truths of the Bible? Let it be 
 granted that inference, supposition, tradition, 
 and conjecture, are sufficient to establish a 
 practice as an institution of Divine appoint- 
 ment, and what can Protestants say against 
 the catalogue of absurdities in the Church of 
 Rome? 
 
 Such loose notions of what shall be received 
 as a revelation from God, well prepares the 
 way for the worst of errors. Such ideas 
 were entertained by the Quakers, multitudes 
 of whom have embraced Socinian views. 
 
 And how painful is the fact, that very many 
 of the Congregationalists of New England, 
 have embraced Socinianism. Where, but a 
 a few years since, Christ was proclaimed as a 
 Divine Saviour, now his Divinity is vilified and 
 held up to the ridicule of infidelity. 
 
 Did not the limits proposed for our subject 
 forbid, some of these circumstances might with 
 much propriety be brought before you. But 
 I can only say, that it is dangerous in the last 
 degree for any to repose the least confidence 
 in what was done to them in their infancy. 
 " Millions," said that excellent and pious man 
 of God, Mr. Hyatt, minister of the Tabernacle, 
 London, "Millions have been taught to say 
 that in baptism they are made members of 
 
PROMOTIVE OF SKEPTICISM. 
 
 337 
 
 Christ, who have given indubitable proof that 
 they uttered falsehood. The members of the 
 body of Christ are united to hirn as a head; 
 and there are no dead, no unsanctified mem- 
 bers. AW are useful, active, and obedient. 
 Ah! my hearers, beware of deception — beware 
 of substituting the name for the reality — the 
 form of godliness for the power." 
 
 2. The tendency of infant baptism is hurt- 
 ful to the peace and happiness of many of 
 those who are really pious. No inconsider- 
 able number of Pedobaptist professors are 
 troubled, and often made sorrowful, because 
 conscious of living in neglect of one of the 
 plain positive commands of the Saviour. They 
 would fain obey, but opposition holds them 
 back. Parents oppose children ; children op- 
 pose one another ; the wife is opposed by her 
 husband ; husbands are opposed by their 
 companions ; and by these and other reasons, 
 many are kept in bondage, all the days of 
 their Christian pilgrimage. 
 
 They know, as they read the Bible, that 
 Christ requires of them, individually, personal 
 obedience in keeping his commands. They 
 feel confident that what their parents did to 
 them in the hour of their unconscious infancy 
 can never excuse them from duties which they 
 themselves owe the Saviour. They see and 
 know their Master's will, and would fain go 
 and be baptized on profession of their faith in 
 Jesus, but their minister, the deacons or elders, 
 29 
 
338 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 a professed friend and neighbour stand in the 
 way of their doing what the Bible and their 
 conscience commands them to perform. Some 
 there are who triumphing over all opposing ob- 
 stacles, assert their rights, their liberty of 
 conscience in things of religion, and obey 
 God according to the dictates of his revealed 
 will, fearless of what man can do unto them. 
 But others, less courageous, are held in bond- 
 age. 
 
 To such let me say, your Saviour's demand 
 upon you is paramount to that of any being 
 in the universe. You should seek to please 
 him, at all times, and in all things. Neither 
 the frown nor the smile should deter you 
 from your duty to the King in Zion. What 
 has tyranny or sycophancy to do with reli- 
 gion? No one has a right to impose upon 
 you any act of religious worship without con- 
 sulting your pleasure. No man on earth has 
 the right to chain the moral sense of his child 
 to any set of opinions not distinctly com- 
 manded or exemplified in the Bible. Nor 
 should children feel themselves under the 
 slightest obligation to be governed by what 
 their parents did to them in their infancy. 
 
 Indeed, as a parent, I should fear and trem- 
 ble in view of the judgment of the great 
 day, if engaged in a course of preventing ac- 
 countable beings acting for themselves in 
 things between them and their God. What 
 part of parental duty is it, for a father and 
 
PROMOTIVE OF SKEPTICISM. 
 
 339 
 
 mother to have a little water sprinkled upno 
 the face of an unknowing, unconscious babe, 
 and then by prayers and daily effort endea- 
 vour to make that babe, when grown to years, 
 believe that it has been baptized? "Who 
 hath required this at your hands'?" 
 
 Where do such parents, where to Pedobap- 
 tist ministers get a warrant for preventing ra- 
 tional accountable beings acting for them- 
 selves? It is time, indeed, that such practices, 
 so well suited to the dark ages, but illy be- 
 coming the nineteenth century, were aban- 
 doned by all respecting the Bible as a revela- 
 tion from God. 
 
 Shall not our Pedobaptist brethren soon be 
 willing to lay aside a practice so perfectly 
 puerile and unscriptural ? Can it be ideal to 
 anticipate a thing so just in itself, and so much 
 to be desired ? 
 
340 CONCLUSION. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 It is with mingled and inexpressible emo- 
 tions, my brethren, that we are called upon 
 thus to canvass the word of God with those 
 professing to receive that word as an inspired 
 rule of religious faith and practice ! Emo- 
 tions, awakened by extreme efforts to retain 
 what God has not commanded, as standing 
 ordinances in the Christian church, are better 
 felt than expressed, especially so when those 
 efforts are put forth by our brethren in Christ, 
 and are held on to, to the dividing of the 
 household of faith. 
 
 Feelings of the soul which must have en- 
 throned themselves upon every heart, whose 
 daily aspirations ascend to the God of grace, 
 for the speedy dawn of that day, when, as in 
 the days of the Apostles, the multitude of them 
 that believe shall be of one heart and of one 
 soul, living in perfect love, and "endeavour- 
 ing to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond 
 of peace," " when the watchmen, seeing eye 
 to eye, shall lift up their voice together, and 
 together sing.' , A day, when truth shall have 
 obtained the acme held in reserve for her, 
 when she shall have reached that elevation 
 towards which she has been gradually ad- 
 vancing under the incumbrances heaped upon 
 her during the third and succeeding centuries 
 of the Christian era, and when she shall have 
 
CONCLUSION. g^J 
 
 victoriously triumphed over every form of de- 
 lusion and error. 
 
 That such a day is yet to dawn upon the 
 church and the world, there can be but little 
 doubt. Every one, familiar with the predic- 
 tions of ancient prophets and the promises of 
 the gospel, must not only look forward with 
 pleasing anticipation, to the coming of such a 
 day, but earnestly pray that it may soon be 
 ushered in. Excited, under the confidence 
 which the Scriptures inspire, we can join in 
 the well known affirmation, " Magna est Veri- 
 tas et prevalebit," — Great is the truth and it 
 ivill ultimately prevail. Faith asserts her 
 claims, and holds in pleasing prospect the de- 
 molition of all idols, and the display of the 
 banner of truth in every land. Where super- 
 stition has long swayed an undisputed sceptre, 
 and where an unbroken and starless night 
 broods over millions of our race, even there 
 shall the sum of righteousness arise with 
 healing in his wings, and the day-spring from 
 on high shall visit these to give light to them 
 that sit in darkness and in the shadow of 
 death, to guide their feet into the way of 
 peace. No less certain, and little less impor- 
 tant are the conquests of truth to be achieved 
 in Christian lands. The time must come 
 when Christ shall glorify himself in rectifying 
 his church and in restoring her to primitive 
 order and pristine purity. The day will 
 come, and may it speed its course, when 
 29* 
 
342 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 " Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah 
 shall not vex Ephraim." But when u the 
 kingdoms of this world shall become the king- 
 dom of our Lord and of his Christ ;" " and the 
 Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that 
 day shall there be one Lord, and his name 
 one." Then, the faith and practice of all 
 Christians shall be so nearly identified, as at 
 least, to secure a striking semblance to the 
 church of Christ in apostolic times, and save 
 the doctrines of the cross from the aspersions 
 palmed upon them by the infidel world, in 
 consequence of the diversity of opinions re- 
 specting the institutions of the gospel, which, 
 unhappily, have obtained in these latter days. 
 
 It is charitably believed, that the more pious 
 and devout among all evangelical denomina- 
 tions, pray daily for a union of sentiment and 
 a concert of action in the Christian world. 
 Such, as individuals, are willing to sacrifice, 
 for the sake of union, every denominative pe- 
 culiarity, in support of which the Scriptures 
 contain no unequivocal and positive affirma- 
 tion. There are, unquestionably, those whose 
 prepossessed opinions and long indulged preju- 
 dices in favour of some distinctive practices 
 are so inveterate and so interwoven with their 
 very existence, as to counteract in them the 
 more befitting characteristics of godliness, 
 which scarcely allow them to pray, and much 
 less to labour for a unanimity of faith and 
 
CONCLUSION. 343 
 
 practice throughout the Christian church. 
 Such cling, with an unyielding tenacity, to the 
 party with which they hold a connection, 
 without inquiring into the validity of the 
 rights, for which they so ardently contend. 
 But happy for the church and the world that 
 there are others, among all evangelical socie- 
 ties, of a far different and more enviable 
 spirit, who are less attached to any party, 
 and more firmly devoted to the truth, as it is 
 in Jesus ; and who, were it not for the per- 
 suasion of leaders and the imbecilities of 
 human nature, would boldly assert their 
 rights, and magnanimously strip themselves 
 from every innovation in the Christian church. 
 " The spirit is willing, but the flesh it weak." 
 There are those, and the number will con- 
 tinually increase, " until we all come in the 
 unity of the faith," who, like the noble Be- 
 reans, search the Scriptures daily, and from 
 them, irrespective of the opinions of men, de- 
 cide what was the order of the church in the 
 days of Christ and the Apostles. They re- 
 gard the Bible as the only history upon which 
 any implicit reliance can be placed, in decid- 
 ing what is to be believed and practiced in the 
 church of Christ. And all, who are most 
 diligent in testing their belief and practice by 
 the writings of holy and inspired men, will 
 come nearer to the truth and be more ardent 
 at a throne of grace, in pleading for union 
 among all Christians; such will suffer no- 
 
344 CONCLUSION. 
 
 thing to divide them from others, only a con- 
 scientious regard to the doctrines and institu- 
 tions of the gospel. I sincerely hope that 
 every Baptist, yes, and every brother and sis- 
 ter in Christ, of whatever name, will examine 
 themselves, according to the above principles, 
 and unite with the examination of their faith, 
 their devout supplications to God for light to 
 understand his truth, and for humility of heart 
 to practise it, in unison with all those who 
 come nearest to the order of the church as 
 delineated in the New Testament. Who can 
 hesitate for a moment, thus to examine, pray, 
 and act, when they behold the progress of 
 error and every species of delusion, in our 
 Christian land? Who, that loves his country 
 and the rights of freedom, should hesitate to 
 divest himself of every prejudice and practice, 
 not consonant with the plain and unvarnished 
 instructions of the Bible, for the sake of pro- 
 moting union of sentiment and action among 
 all Christians, and of uniting them in main- 
 taining the religion taught us from on high, 
 against the flood of infidelity, assuming ten 
 thousand shapes, and threatening to deluge 
 our happy, and, if united as brethren, still 
 happier land ? Who, I ask, my brethren, 
 while viewing the thoughtless and wayward 
 multitude hastening down to the chambers of 
 death, and from thence to the decisions of the 
 last great day, reckless of their eternal inte- 
 rests, and pleading as an excuse of their in- 
 
conclusion. 345 
 
 difference, the divisions and contentions among 
 the differing sects of professing Christians; 
 who, while looking upon such a scene, is 
 not prepared to voiv, whatever may be the 
 consequences, that he will "sacrifice every 
 thing to truth, and her to nothing?" Are you 
 Christians? do you love Christ and his com- 
 mands? have you anxious desires for the sal- 
 vation of your fellow-men accompanying you 
 to the bar of God? would you have your gar- 
 ments pure from the blood of all the thousands 
 over whom your practice and belief command 
 a lasting influence to be entailed upon posterity? 
 Then I anticipate the stand you will take. You 
 will seek to know and understand the truth, 
 and to walk in its holy light. You will anx- 
 iously inquire what can be done for the promo- 
 tion of union in the " Apostle's doctrine and fel- 
 lowship?" What you, as individuals, can do 
 to restore to the Christian church " One Lord, 
 one faith, one baptism ?" What you can 
 abandon in your present practice, and what 
 Bible truth you can put in practice which 
 hitherto you have neglected? Yes, you will 
 inquire with no ordinary emotions of soul, 
 how we, as Christians, can attain that most 
 desirable object, the union of all the true fol- 
 lowers of the Lamb of God, in a way that 
 shall do justice to the Bible, and benefit the 
 souls of men ? In a way that shall glorify our 
 ascended Saviour, till he comes to receive rs 
 to himself in glory. Amen. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 The Assembly of Divines at Westminister, in the yeafS 
 1643, 1644. 
 
 This Assembly was solely the creature of the British 
 government, composed exclusively of Pedobaptists, and 
 convoked by the two houses of Parliament for the ex-» 
 press purpose of preparing a Confession of Faith, a 
 Catechism, and a Directory of Public Worship and 
 Church Government for that nation. 
 
 Parliament was first and last in all things which came 
 before the Assembly. She proposed subjects for debate 
 and then, nothing that the Assembly transacted was of 
 any account, only, as it received the sanction of the 
 House of Commons. 
 
 It was the church and state united in preparing arti- 
 cles of faith and practice for the nation of Great Bri- 
 tain. 
 
 Every one that did not conform to their dictation was 
 to feel the severity of their displeasure. 
 
 " The Presbyterians," says Mr. Brooks, " now gaining 
 the ascendancy, discovered a strong propensity to grasp 
 at the same arbitrary power, as that under which they 
 had for a long time groaned." 
 
 While all, not Presbyterians, suffered because of 
 their sentiments; the Baptists especially were made to 
 feel the weight of their power. 
 
 Often did the Assembly, during its session, consult 
 with the House of Commons how they might suppress 
 
348 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Baptists, or, as they were pleased to call them, Ana- 
 baptists. 
 
 As strange as it may appear, yet it is no less strange 
 than true, that, the Assembly of Divines, attributed their 
 Lord General's defeat in the west, to " Parliament not 
 being active in suppressing Baptists." See Journal of 
 the Assembly, Sep. 9, 10, A. D. 1644. 
 
 On July 10th, 1644. Dr. Lightfoot a violent opposer 
 of Baptists, says, " Here we were consulting what to fall 
 next upon. I moved urgently that we might fall upon 
 baptism, for the clearing of ourselves of Anabaptism 
 which so much increaseth, which was accordingly con- 
 cluded to be done." 
 
 After considering the subject of infant baptism, as to 
 the questions, by whom ? how, and where ? it should be 
 performed, the Assembly came more particularly to con- 
 sider the mode of baptism. For the information of those 
 into whose hands this little manual may fall, I will here 
 transcribe the doings of the Assembly, as taken down by 
 Dr. Lightfoot, who onlv recorded such things as might 
 suit his pleasure. He was not the secretary of the As- 
 sembly. Those were H. Robens and A. Byfield. 
 
 Mr. Lightfoot, therefore, setting down only such of the 
 proceedings of the Assembly as suited his pleasure, has 
 not furnished us with an impartial account of their pro- 
 ceedings against Baptists, nor on the subject of Bap- 
 tism. 
 
 Nevertheless, he records enough to show what efforts 
 were put forth to put down immersion and establish 
 sprinkling. I quote the following. 
 
 " Wednesday, Aug. 7, 1644. Then fell we upon the 
 work of the day ; which was, about baptizing 'of the 
 child, whether to dip him or sprinkle.'' And this propo- 
 sition, ' It is lawful and sufficient to besprinkle the 
 child,' had been canvassed before our adjourning, and 
 was now ready to vote ; but I spake against it as being 
 very unfit to vote, that it is lawful to sprinkle, when 
 every one grants it. Whereupon, it was fallen upon, 
 sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be 
 
APPENDIX. 34Q 
 
 tolerated with it. And here fell we upon a large and 
 long discourse, whether dipping were essential, or used 
 in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom. 
 
 " After a long dispute it was at last put to the question, 
 whether the Directory should run thus, 'The minister 
 shall take water, and sprinkle or pour it with his 
 hand upon the face or forehead of the child :" and it was 
 voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names 
 twice ; for so many were unwilling to have dipping ex- 
 cluded, that the votes came to an equality within one ; 
 for the one side was twenty-four — the other, twenty- 
 five : the twenty-four for the reserving of dipping, and 
 the twenty-five against it: and there grew a great heat 
 upon it : and when we had done all, we concluded upon 
 nothing in it ; but the business was recommitted.'''' 
 
 " Then were produced some letters, sent us out of 
 Holland ; first, from Mr. Strickland, and then from a 
 synod at Hague : these being read, we adjourned." 
 
 " Thursday, Aug. 8. Our first work to-day was, that 
 Dr. Hoyle reported the names of three that had been 
 examined for fellowship in Cambridge. 
 
 " Then fell we upon our work about dipping in bap- 
 tism : and first, it was proposed by Dr. Burgess, that 
 our question proposed yesterday might be proposed 
 again. And this cost some time before we could get 
 off this business ; at last it was put to the question, 
 whether the quest ion put yesterday should be more de- 
 bated before determined, and it was voted affirmatively. 
 " And so we fell upon the business : and 1 first pro- 
 posed, that those that stand for dipping should show 
 some probable reason why they hold it. Dr. Temple 
 backed me in the thing: and Mr. Marshall began ; and 
 he said, that he doubted not that all the Assembly con- 
 cluded that dipping was lawful. I flatly answered that 
 I hold it unlawful, but an tBi%o§prioxsio.\ and therefore 
 desired that it might be proved. But it was first thought 
 fit to goto the business by degrees; and so it was first put 
 to the vote, and voted thus affirmatively, ' that pouring on 
 of water, or sprinkling of it in the administration of bap- 
 30 
 
350 APPENDIX. 
 
 tism is lawful and sufficient.' But I excepted at the word 
 
 • lawful,'astoopoor,forthatitwasasifweshould putthis 
 query — whether it be lawful to administer the Lord's Sup- 
 per in bread and wine 1 ? and I moved that it might be ex- 
 pressed thus, — ' It is not only lawful, but also sufficient ;' 
 and it was done so accordingly. But as for the dispute 
 itself about dipping, it was thought jit and most safe to 
 let it alone, and to express it thus in our Directory, — - 
 
 * He is to baptize the child with water, which for the 
 manner of doing is not only lawful but also sufficient, and 
 most expedient to be by pouring or sprinkling water on 
 the face of the child, without any other ceremony.' 
 But this cost a great deal of time about the wording of 
 it." 
 
 "Friday, Aug. 9. * * * Then did Mr. Marshall re- 
 port from the committee chosen to study a remedy 
 against Anabaptists, Brownists, &c, particularly he 
 mentioned one Knowle, an Anabaptist, and Penrose, 
 Randall, Simson, Tandey, Cornhill, Blackwood, Cursor, 
 &c. This business was also ordered to be sent to the 
 Houses." Journal of the proceedings of the Assembly 
 of Divines; from Jan. 1, 1643, to Decern. 31, 1644. 
 Lightfoot's Works, vol. 13, pp. 299—302. 
 
 1 have subjected myself to no little expense and pains 
 to secure the above doings of the Assembly, as penned 
 by a Pedobaptist, and none other than Dr. Lightfoot 
 himself. The more anxious was I in securing the above 
 because of the different opinions which at this distance 
 of time have obtained respecting the doings of the As- 
 sembly, on the subject of baptism. N ow every one may 
 judge for himself, and be able to see with his own 
 eyes. 
 
 My Baptist brethren have been betrayed into a slight 
 mistake, by reason of their quoting Pedobaptist authors 
 who have in like manner been mistaken. Justice to the 
 reputation of that devoted man of God, the late Rev. Dr. 
 Davis, of Hartford, who wrote the tract containing the 
 statement said to be " vamped up" requires me briefly 
 to remark that the case, as reported by Dr. Lightfoot, is 
 
APPENDIX. 351 
 
 even worse than it has been represented. For mark, so 
 divided were this Pedobaptist Assembly about excluding 
 immersion from their Directory and practice, that 
 "there grew a great heat upon it, and when they had 
 done all they concluded upon nothing in it." 
 
 They found it. best for them to pass over the subject 
 as soon as possible. " As for the dispute itself about 
 dipping, it was thought fit and most safe to let it 
 alone" 
 
 Moreover, I may add that Baptists no where have re- 
 presented that immersion was the entire mode at the time 
 when that Assembly convened. Sprinkling was intro- 
 duced at a much earlier period, as is acknowledged by 
 all Baptist, authors who have written upon the subject. 
 Pedobaptists acknowledge that immersion was the com- 
 mon mode, and almost universal up to the 13th century, 
 when the Roman Church decreed that sprinkling should 
 be the practice. 
 
 Dr. Wall informs us that an Assembly convoked in 
 1544, framed a directory for public worship which for- 
 bids the bringing of the child to the font; then the Dr. 
 adds, " So parallel to the rest of their reformation, they 
 reformed the font into a basin." Vol. 2. C. 9, p. 403. 
 
 B. 
 
 Pious baptized females have a Divine right to come 
 to the Lord's Supper, and there is a Divine warrant 
 for keeping the First day of the week, as the Christian 
 Sabbath. 
 
 One of the fundamental principles of biblical inter- 
 pretation, acknowledged alike both by Baptists and 
 Pedobaptists, is, that, for a positive institution in the 
 Christian Church, there must be found on the pages of 
 inspiration, an express warrant, authorized either by a 
 Divine command or example. 
 
 This is a principle of great importance, and often re- 
 sorted to by the friends of Christianity, when defending 
 her against the objections^preferred by those who seek 
 
352 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 to bring things into the Church, which have no Divine 
 warrant. 
 
 Our Pedobaptist brethren not only acknowledge, but 
 ably defend this rule whenever called to take the field 
 against the numerous and. still multiplying sects which 
 twist the Scriptures to suit their erroneous notions. 
 
 But no sooner do they begin to support infant bap- 
 tism, than they commence an attack upon this rule of 
 interpretation, and attempt to establish a rule directly 
 the opposite ; to make it appear that we may practice 
 that, as a Divine rite, for which we have no positive 
 precept, nor explicit example in the New Testament. 
 In this special case, they set aside the rule, and say, if 
 it be adopted, then "females ought never to partake of 
 the Lord's Supper ; for we have no positive precept, and 
 no explicit example in the New Testament to warrant 
 them in doing .so." 
 
 If it be true, that there is no positive precept nor ex- 
 ample in the New Testament for pious females, who 
 have been baptized on profession of their individual 
 faith, and then added to the Church, to come to the 
 Lord's Supper, then, by all means, ought, they to stay 
 away — it is presumptuous and daring for mortals to 
 venture where God has not authorized them to go! 
 
 The institution of the Lord's Supper is established 
 by the Lord Jesus Christ, and given into the bosom of 
 his Church. The terms of admission, and the qualifi- 
 cations for every communicant, are divinely fixed. No 
 person ought ever to come to the Lord's Supper, unless 
 he has the proper qualifications, and comes in a proper 
 way, according to the terms which God has immutably 
 fixed. You may find fault with Baptists for holding 
 this principle ; our Pedobaptist brethren may, as they 
 often do, misrepresent the feelings and sentiments of 
 our hearts, by proclaiming to the world that we are 
 bigoted and uncharitable, but let them know we dare 
 not depart from the instituted order of Christ's Church. 
 The great Apostle was highly impressed with a sense of 
 the importance of strictly observing the order of the 
 
APPENDIX. 353 
 
 Church, as divinely instituted, when he so sharply re- 
 buked the Corinthians for not observing that order. Hear 
 the holy Apostle, jealous for the house of God, when he 
 asked the Corinthians, by the way of reproof, " What 
 shall I say to you 1 Shall I praise you in this ? I praise 
 you not. I received of the Lord that which also I de- 
 livered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night 
 in which he was betrayed, took bread, &c— Where- 
 fore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup 
 of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and 
 blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and 
 so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." — ■ 
 1 Cor. xi. 16—34. 
 
 As before, so say I again, the terms upon which we 
 may come to the Lord's Table are fixed by the Lord 
 himself. Paul says, " I received of the Lord that which 
 also I delivered unto you." And what Paul and the 
 other sacred penmen received of the Lord and deliver 
 unto the Church, she is bound by every principle of 
 righteousness and love to keep and observe. Neither 
 the cry of bigotry from those who have gone off from the, 
 primitive order of the Christian Church, nor the arm of 
 persecution, should move the disciple of Christ from 
 following his command, and faithfully copying the ex- 
 ample of the holy Apostles. 
 
 Just as many as have the requisite qualifications and 
 come in the way of Divine appointment, should be found 
 often celebrating the vicarious sufferings and death of 
 their once crucified but now ascended Lord. 
 
 Let every one " examine himself and so let him eat 
 of that bread, and drink of that cup." 
 
 If there is any warrant in the New Testament for a 
 religion established by law, and for the state to pre- 
 scribe the terms of communion at the Table of the Lord, 
 then the Episcopalian in England ; the Romanist in 
 Italy and France ; the Presbyterian in Scotland ; the 
 Lutheran in Denmark and Germany; and the Grecian in 
 Russia ; all being made members of those several na- 
 tional Churches by law, may come to the communion as 
 30* 
 
354 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 their laws severally prescribe. But, if Christ has au- 
 thorised no such establishment; if He is the only law- 
 giver in his body, the Church, then all are bound to 
 submit to his ■prescribed course, both in becoming mem- 
 bers of the Church, and in conducting themselves when 
 united to the body of Christ. 
 
 Here I must introduce the testimony of a distinguish- 
 ed Presbyterian, when contending against the corrup- 
 tions of the Church of Rome, as practised in the Church 
 of England. Speaking of the Christian Church, he says, 
 "If it be a Society divinely instituted, then whatever 
 society is not of Divine, but of merely human institu- 
 tution, is not the Church of Christ. If it be a Society 
 divinely instituted, then the terms of admission into 
 this Society, and the qualifications of its members are 
 divinely fixed, i. e., fixed by the will and authority of 
 God. VVhatever visible society, then, hath its terms of 
 admission, and the qualifications of its members not 
 divinely fixed, fixed only by the will and authority of 
 men, cannot be the true Christian Church. 11 — See " A 
 Dissent from the Church of England Fully Justified." 
 Printed, Dublin, A. D., 1766, p. 16. 
 
 The same writer further judiciously remarks, " If 
 you inquire after the constitution and frame of the 
 Church of Christ, where must you look for it? Only 
 in the Bible. 11 " Into the Church of Christ any person 
 may be admitted, who submits to the terms appointed 
 by Christ. 11 "In Christ's Church the Lord's Supper 
 is appointed and used only for spiritual and religious 
 ends, with intention, and as a mean of uniting all Chris- 
 tians, and of destroying all variances and distinctif .s 
 betwixt them." "In Christ's Church, Himself is the 
 only sovereign head ; He only hath power to decree 
 ceremonies and rites, to fix terms of communion and 
 authority in points of faith. 11 — pp. 23, 24. 
 
 Hear this Presbyterian further, for surely he is writ- 
 ing Baptist sentiments; happy for the Church and the 
 world too, if our Pedobaptist brethren would univer- 
 sally abide by them. He adds, " I beseech you very 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 355 
 
 carefully to remember, that the controversy betwixt us, 
 depends absolutely and entirely upon the decision of 
 this single point — is there any OTHER Lawgiver, or 
 King, in the Church of God, to whose authority and 
 command, as to things of religion, Christians are bound 
 to submit, BESIDES Jesus Christ, or is there not! 
 If there be no other Lawgiver besides Jesus Christ, 
 no other King, no other authority to whose decrees, in 
 point of doctrine, and to whose injunctions in point of 
 worship, Chiristians are obliged, and ought to submit, 
 then the dissenters, in every impartial judgment, will be, 
 must he justified; then they act right ; then they ought 
 to be commended, and will surely be rewarded for ad- 
 hering loyally and firmly to the ONE only King and 
 Lord of the Church ; and for faithfully opposing the 
 claims of any other power ; and for refusing obedience 
 to the injunctions of any other Lawgiver ; and the de- 
 cisions of any other Judge, who hath made other 
 articles of faith, other terms of communion, other rites 
 of worship besides and above those which CHRIST 
 himself has made." — p. 66. " This principle — that 
 Christ is the only Lawgiver and King in his Church; 
 and that no man, no body of men upon earth, have any 
 authority to make laws, or to prescribe things in religion 
 which shall oblige the consciences of his subjects, is the 
 grand, the only principle upon which the unity, the 
 purity, and the peace of the Christian Church can 
 possibly subsist. Take away this, and you let in end- 
 less discords and corruptions into it; you split it into 
 parties; you make Christianity one thing, in one coun- 
 try, a quite different in another. In Englandyoxa make 
 it wear an Episcopal form ; in Scotland, a Presbyterian ; 
 in France, a Popish; in Denmark, a Lutheran; in 
 Prussia, a Calvinist, in Russia, a Grecian, &c. But 
 ought these things to be so! Is Christ divided? Is this the 
 unity of his own beautiful, well-compacted body? Can 
 these be all genuine apostolic Christianity! Rather, 
 are either of them so! When the powers of this world 
 take upon them authoritatively to interpret and prescribe 
 
356 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 in things of religion, which are Christ's kingdom and pro- 
 vince, they act beyond their sphere; they invade the throne 
 of another prince ; the certain consequence of which is 
 confusions, separations ; the unity of the Church is 
 broken, the rights of Christians violated ; a gate opened 
 for innumerable superstitions and inventions to enter, 
 and mingle with the pure doctrines of Christ ; and hence 
 necessarily flow schisms, emulations, contentions, and 
 every evil work. I beseech you, by the mercies of 
 God, and for the honour of Christianity, and by the 
 allegiance you owe your only Lawgiver, Jesus Christ, 
 to weigh these things in an impartial and unbiased 
 mind." — pp. 67, 68. 
 
 Pardon me for introducing these lengthy quotations. 
 Their importance is my only apology. They are like 
 apples of gold in pictures of silver. 
 
 The sentiment they teach us is one most dear to 
 every Baptist. It is a sentiment incorporated into the 
 very structure of the Church of Christ as most sacredly 
 adhered to by Baptists in every age. 
 
 The neglect of this rule of Christian faith and prac- 
 tice, has been the prolific source of a vast amount of the 
 commotions which have agitated the Christian Church. 
 In the expressive language of the author above cited, 
 " Whoever departs from this, must wander into end- 
 less mazes of Church tyranny and superstition, till he 
 plunge at last into that horrid abyss of both, Popery, 
 or the Church of Rome." 
 
 But how strange it is that, the very same men and 
 Christians come out and violently opposeth is principle, 
 when endeavouring to sustain infant baptism, because 
 this rule stands in direct opposition to their practice; 
 Pedobaptists reject the rule itself. 
 
 What can the Mormonite, the Campbellite, the Plum- 
 merite, and, indeed, the errorite of every description, 
 desire more in support of their wild and extravagant no- 
 tions, than the destruction of the above rule ] Let it be 
 granted that we may hold to, and practice things in the 
 Church of God, for which we have neither precept nor 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 357 
 
 example in the New Testament, and what error is there, 
 however absurd, that may not be plead for as a part of 
 Divine worship] 
 
 And yet Dr. Miller contends that we may practice 
 those things, as acts of Divine worship, for which toe 
 have no positive precept, nor explicit example to war- 
 rant us in doing so ! ! 
 
 Our Pedobaptist brethren, taking- this dangerous and 
 even ruinous position, tell us that there is no explicit 
 example, and no positive precept, for females to partake 
 of the Lord's Supper; and then they infer that they may 
 practise infant baptism on the same ground that female 
 communion is tolerated in the Christian Church. 
 
 But on examination, it will appear, that our Pedo- 
 baptist brethren have been, by their eagerness to brace 
 up infant baptism, betrayed into a very great mistake. It 
 is not true that there is wo positive precept, nor explicit ex- 
 ample, in the New Testament, for female communion. 
 We have both precept and example, sufficiently plain 
 and intelligible, to justify every pious female, who has 
 been baptized on profession of her faith, and walks ac- 
 cordingly, in partaking at the Lord's Table. Only let 
 there be adduced the same amount of testimony in fa- 
 vour of infant baptism, and we will never again object 
 to it. 
 
 Now in proof that there is a Divine warrant for fe- 
 male communion at the Lord's Table, let it be observed : 
 
 First. The Lord's Supper is an institution purely of 
 Divine appointment, and, deposited in the bosom of the 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 Secondly. The Lord's Supper is given to the Church 
 to be observed and enjoyed by the members thereof, 
 indiscriminately, without any distinction in regard to 
 age or sex. Every member of a regular Christian 
 Church, constituted and conducted in apostolic order, 
 whether male or female, bond or free, old or young, has 
 an equal and indisputable right to come to the Lord's 
 Table. Romanists deny that the communion in both 
 kinds, is intended for all the members of the Church, 
 
358 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 indiscriminately ; hence they refuse to admit all the 
 members alike to partake of the broken symbols of our 
 dying - Saviour. 
 
 And in this, they are closely imitated by all Pedo- 
 baptist Chinches. The principle is the same as found 
 in the Presbyterian, the Episcopal, the Methodist, the 
 Lutheran, and the Roman Churches. All these refuse 
 the Lord's Supper to a large portion of their own mem- 
 bers, acknowledged by them to be regularly baptized, 
 and properly introduced into the Church ; made mem- 
 bers, according- to their doctrine, in a way the strongest 
 possible. For these very members, from whom the 
 communion at the Lord's Table is withheld, we are told, 
 are become members of the Church ; that they are in- 
 cluded in Jehovah? s covenants with his people ; and 
 that they are entered into the Church by baptism. 
 Such, surely, ought, by every principle of right, to be 
 admitted to the Table of the Lord, if we grant them a 
 connexion with the Church. 
 
 Further, the Church of Christ was not, in the days of 
 the Apostles, made up of males only, but of females 
 also. If it can be shown that the Christian Church is 
 composed of believers without regard to sex ; and that 
 all the members of the Church have an equal right to 
 the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, then the objection 
 against female communion is unworthy the confidence 
 of Christians, and much less should such a singular 
 subterfuge be resorted to in defence of infant baptism. 
 
 Now it is perfectly obvious that females did compose 
 a part of the Apostolic Churches. Females were admit- 
 ted into the Church at Jerusalem. 
 
 Of the thousands converted during the days of the 
 Pentecost, some were females, agreeably to the predic- 
 tion of the prophet Joel, as cited and applied by Luke, 
 in Acts ii. 17, 18. " Saith God, I will pour out of my 
 Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons, and your daughters 
 shall prophesy." "And en my servants, and on my 
 hand-maidens, I will pour out in those days of my 
 Spirit." Now " all flesh" means Gentiles as well as 
 Jews, and is a striking contrast to the maxim of the 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 359 
 
 Jewish schools: "The Divine Majesty dwelleth not on 
 any out of the land of Israel." " All flesh" includes 
 females no less than males, and upon the multitude were 
 the blessings of the Spirit poured. 
 
 44 They that gladly received his word, were baptized." 
 
 "The Lord added to the Church, daily, such as 
 should be saved." 
 
 " And believers were the more added to the Lord, 
 multitudes both of men and women." — -Acts ii. 41, 47; 
 v. 14. 
 
 Now here is positive evidence that females were 
 members of the Church, which was composed of be- 
 lievers, baptized on profession of their faith, and thus 
 admitted to the fellowship of the assembly of the faith- 
 ful. And the evidence that such pious baptized females 
 were received to the Lord's Table, is no less explicitly 
 stated. "All that believed were together." "And 
 they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and 
 fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer." — 
 Acts ii. 42, 44. 
 
 Another Scripture is no less express in teaching that 
 pious females were members of the Church in the times 
 of the Apostles, and so had a right to the communion 
 as well as the male members. 
 
 " When they believed Philip preaching the things con- 
 cerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
 Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" — 
 Acts viii. 12. 
 
 Now here again the proof is positive, that the Church, 
 in the city of Samaria, was composed of believers, fe- 
 males as well as males. And all, collectively, enjoyed 
 the privileges of the Church. 
 
 But a still more explicit example, if possible, where 
 all in the Church were admitted to the communion, is 
 recorded in 1 Cor. x. 16, 17, and xi. 23 — 26. 
 
 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the 
 communion of the blood of Christ 1 ? The bread which 
 we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? 
 For we, being many, are one bread, and one body ; for 
 we are all partakers of that one bread." 
 
360 APPENDIX. 
 
 There is, therefore, evidence, positive and explicit, 
 that females were both members of the Church in the 
 days of the Apostles, and were admitted to the Lord's 
 Supper. Female communion was exemplified and prac- 
 tised in the primitive Church. It has a Divine and 
 positive warrant in the Bible, and is not left to be 
 guessed at, and made out by inference and suppositions. 
 
 Let such proof be adduced in favour of infant bap- 
 tism, and Pedobaptists may take back those honest and 
 just concessions which they have made, viz., that there 
 is no precept, command, nor yet example, in the New 
 Testament, for infant baptism. 
 
 The Lord's Day, or the First Day of the week, is 
 sanctioned by the examples of the holy and inspired 
 Apostles, as the Christian Sabbath. So perfectly des- 
 titute of all manner of substantial evidence, is infant bap- 
 tism, as to seek support at the expense of the Lord's 
 Day. 
 
 The Christian Sabbath, the religious observance of 
 which is absolutely indispensable to the support of re- 
 ligion and virtue, yet the blessed Sabbath must resign 
 its claims to Divine authority, and be based upon frail 
 human reasoning, for the sake of furnishing some sort 
 of a plea for infant baptism. 
 
 The advocates of Pedobaptism tell us there are no 
 precept nor examples in the New Testament, for observ- 
 ing the First Day of the week, called the Lord's Day, 
 as the Christian Sabbath ; and then they infer that they 
 may sprinkle infants, although neither commanded nor 
 exemplified in the Gospel. 
 
 But in this last attempt, as in all others, their plea is 
 not only void of the least shade of evidence, but stands 
 in fearful conflict with the cause of righteousness and 
 truth. 
 
 For, let it be observed, that there are several Divine 
 apostolic examples for keeping the First day of the 
 week as the Christian Sabbath. The Son of man is 
 Lord of the Sabbath day; and as he had the right, so 
 he saw Jit to sanction the First day of the week as the 
 
APPENDIX. 3Q! 
 
 Christian Sabbath, upon which he finished the great 
 work of redemption, when he rose from the dead, as 
 God had set apart and sanctified the Seventh day, on 
 completing the work of creation. — Ex. xx. 11. 
 
 As I purpose to be brief, I will only remark that the 
 First clay of the week, the day on which Christ burst 
 the gate of the grave and triumphed over death, was 
 sanctioned by the presence of Christ himself with his 
 disciples after his resurrection, and observed by the in- 
 spired Apostles, as the Christian Sabbath. 
 
 Christ rose from the dead on the first day. — Mat. 
 xxviii. 1 — 6. John xx. 19, 20. This resurrection day 
 was the first of the fifty to the day of Pentecost. 
 
 The next first day of the week the disciples were 
 gathered together : "Then came Jesus and stood in the 
 midst, and said, Peace be unto you." — John xx. 26. 
 
 Says Dr. Paley, "This second meeting on the same 
 day of the week, has all the appearance of an appoint- 
 ment, a design to meet on that particular day." 
 
 Again ; the Pentecost, on which the Holy Ghost was 
 given, was the First day of the week, i. e., our Sunday, 
 or the Lord's Day. Here the Saviour sanctioned the 
 First day, as the Christian Sabbath, by the descent of 
 the Divine Spirit, On this Pentecost day, the disciples 
 were assembled for Divine worship. 
 
 "And thus the Lord's Day," says Dr. Wilson, "is 
 gradually, but firmly and completely established, by 
 exactly that kind of evidence which the nature of the 
 case demanded, and the wisdom of God saw to be best. 
 Its authority is Divine, because the example of the 
 Lord of the Sabbath, and of his Apostles inspired to 
 found his Church, is a Divine authority.'''' 
 
 But still further, we have the most explicit example 
 possible, that the Apostles observed the First day. 
 Acts xx. 7. " And upon the first day of the week 
 when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul 
 preached unto them." See also, 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 
 10; Ps. cxviii. 23,24. 
 31 
 
A BRIEF INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 Assembly of Divines, - 347 
 
 Baptism, a positive institution of the New Testa- 
 ment, ------ 57 
 
 explicitly revealed, - - - 63 
 
 Baptize, import of the word, - - 67, 99 
 
 can be translated, - - 69 
 
 has been translated, - - - 71 
 
 why not translated in the New Testament, 77 
 
 figurative use of, ... 102 
 
 usus loquendi of, - 105, 111, 131 
 
 compared with the Greek words meaning 1 
 
 to wash, pour and sprinkle, - 108, 155 
 
 how understood by Greeks, - - 110 
 
 Pedobaptist views of, - 116 
 
 explained by its connexion, - 120 
 
 classic and Scripture use of, - 122, 133 
 
 Baptism as an ordinance, when first known, 33, 137 
 
 of Christ, - - - 142 
 
 in Enori, - 163 
 
 Pentecost, - - - 1 66 
 
 of 3000, of 10,000 in one day, - - 177 
 
 of Paul, - - - - 178 
 
 of the Jailer, ... - 181 
 
 of the Eunuch, - 197 
 
 compared to a burial and resurrection, 
 
 203,217 
 in the cloud and in the sea, - - 216 
 
 Bible Society, account of, 15 and note, 89 and note 
 
 — — only authority for the rite of baptism, - 30 
 
364 1ni >ex. 
 
 Page. 
 Bible earliest translators of the, - 82 and note 
 
 translated by King" James I., - -92 
 
 Baxter's sixth argument, ... 148 
 
 Christ's baptism, not his initiation into the office of 
 
 a priest, r . -,---48 
 
 Christ sanctioned. John's baptism, - .43 
 
 Christ baptized in Jordan, - . . 142 
 
 Christian union, ----- 225 
 Church, a spiritual body, ... 228 
 
 Circumcision, what, - 287 
 
 Easter, import of, - - - - 93 
 
 Ecclesia, import of, 93 
 
 Female communion, - 351 
 
 Infant baptism, no Bible for, - 238 
 
 not commanded, - - 239, 242 
 
 not forbidden expressly, - - 244 
 
 ■ inferred from Mat. xvii'i. 19, 20, and 
 
 Mark xvi. 15, 16, - - 269 
 
 from Romans xi. 16, 17; 275 
 
 from 1 Cor. vii. 14; 278 
 from Mat. xix. 13—15; 279 
 from infant circumci- 
 sion, - - 282 
 ' from household baptism, 299 
 
 1, of Lvdia, - 302 
 
 2, of the Jailer, - 307 
 
 3, of Slephanas, - 309 
 
 direct testimony against, - 311 
 
 natural tendency and consequence 
 
 of, - - 312, 322, 333 
 
 John Baptized in Jordan, - - 139, 142 
 
 in Enon, - 163 
 
 John's Baptism Christian, and valid, 188, 43, 139 
 
 Siark vii. 3, 4, considered, - - - 151 
 
 Principles of Biblical interpretation, - - 25 
 
 Proselyte baptism, where found, - 33 
 
 Priest, at what age initiated into his office, - 44 
 
 Style of the Greek ofthe New Testament, - 124 
 
 The gifts of the Holy Spirit conferred upon cer- 
 tain disciples, - 185 
 Tradition not valid proof, - - - 249 
 The Lord's Day sanctioned as the Christian Sabbath, 360