J". 3 /o5: 
 
 Srom f^e feiBrari? of 
 
 (profcBBor ^amuef (ttlifPer 
 
 in (pernor)? of 
 
 Subge ^amuef (ttttfPer QSrecftinrtbge 
 
 ^reecnteb 6^ 
 
 ^amuef (tttiffer QB^recftinnbge &ong 
 
 to f^e fei6rarg of 
 
 (Princeton S^eofogtcaf ^emtnarj 
 
 BV 811 .F684 
 
 
 Fowler, Orin, 
 
 1791-1852. 
 
 Four Sabbath 
 
 evening 
 
 lectures on 
 
 the mode and 
 

 7 
 
 / Jf:/C ^J^^ 
 
 
 c.::^ 
 
 ■V'c^-^V*-* iPj-i^//'^int — 
 
THE MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 FOUR 
 
 SABBATH EVENING LECTURES 
 
 MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 
 
 PREACHED IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1834. 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 CHURCH AND CONGREGATION 
 
 TO WHICH THE AUTHOR MINISTERS. 
 
 ^ 
 
 BY ORIN FOWLER, A. M., 
 
 Faster of the First Congregational Churcli in Fall River, Mass 
 
 So shall he sprinkle many nations. — Isaiah. 
 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. — Paul. 
 
 If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, thoughi 
 one rose from the dead.— Jesus Christ. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM PEIRCE, 
 
 NO. 9 CORNHILL. 
 
 1835. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835, 
 
 Bv ORIN FOWLER, 
 
 In the Clerk's office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 
 
 BOSTON; 
 
 Webster & Southard, Printers, 
 
 No. 9, Cornhill. 
 
LETTER TO THE AUTHOR. 
 
 Fall River, Jan. 5, 1835, 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 The undersigned were appointed a Committee of the church to convey to you 
 the following resolutions: 
 
 " 1. Resolved, That in the opinion of the church, the series of Lectures recent- 
 ly delivered by our I'astor, on the mode and subjects of Baptism, contain a plain 
 and just exhibition of the truth on these subjects; and having been, as we believe, 
 kind and forbearing towards oui- brethren in Christ who differ from us on these 
 points of Christian duty, we most heartily approve of the spirit manifested, and 
 the sentiments and arguments therein set forth. 
 
 " 2. Resolved, That as in our opinion, the publication of these Lectures would 
 be the instrument of good in allayuig unkind and unholy feelings — in correcting 
 erroneous impressions, and in establishing the truth; therefore, our Pastor be 
 requested to furnish a copy for publication." 
 
 We will only add as these resolutions express our own sentiments and desires, 
 we hope your convictions of duty to the cause of Christ, will lead you to consent 
 to the request of the church. 
 
 Very respectfully, we are your brethren in Christ, 
 DAVID ANTHONY, 1 
 
 DAVID OLNEY, ( . 
 
 „ J CommittPC of the 
 
 SYLVESTER C. ALLEN, } Congregational 
 
 WILLIAM SHAW, "' ' " " " 
 
 MATTHEW C. DURFEE. J 
 
 Church. Fall River. 
 
 REPLY. 
 
 Jan. 10, 1835. 
 
 Dear Brethren, 
 
 Your Note of the 5th inst. communicating the resolutions and wishes of the 
 church, and your own sentiments and desires, that I will consent to furnish a 
 copy of my Sabbath Evening Lectures on Baptism for publication, is before me. 
 The responsibility connected with printing — as also the fact that abler treatises 
 are already before the public, furnish strong reasons for refusing my consent: but 
 on the other hand, the hope that these Lectures may be read by some who will 
 thus become more thoroughly acquainted with important Bible truth, together 
 with a strong reluctance to withhold from the church what they seem sincerely 
 to desire, have decided me to comply with their request. A copy shall be in 
 readiness for the press as soon as they can be transcribed. 
 
 Affectionately your friend and servant in the Gospel, 
 
 O. FOWLER. 
 
IV CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 A favorable opportunity having occurred for submitting these Lectures to a 
 few brethren, the following kind notices have been put into the Author's 
 hand. 
 
 "Rochester, Mass. Jan. 13, 1835. 
 
 Having examined the following Lectures in manuscript, I am happy to observe 
 that the mode of Baptism practiced in the Congregational and other Peedobaptist 
 Churches, and the duty of Infant Baptism, are judiciously discussed, and shown 
 to be supported, as they unquestionably are, by the word of God and the history 
 of the Church of Christ. THOMAS ROBBINS, 
 
 Pastor of the Congregational Church, in Jilatlapoisett, Rochester." 
 
 " Dear Brother, 
 
 I thank you for the opportunity of examining your Lectures on the mode and 
 subjects of Baptism. I have no hesitation in saying that you have a right view 
 of the whole subject, and have sustained your positions by arguments which never 
 have been and never can be overthrown. For those who differ from me on 
 these points, I have the kindest Christian feelings; but twenty -five years' exami- 
 nation and observation have convinced me that God is a covenant God, and 
 blesses such as honor him in the dedication of their children. For the universal 
 spread of right views and Christian feeling, we will ever pray. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 S. HOLMES, 
 Pastor of the Congregational Church, JVeui Bedford." 
 Rev. O. fowler, 
 
 "Providence, Jan. 20, 1835. 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 The MODE and subjects of Baptism involve questions of paramount impor- 
 tance, in the organization and discipline of the Christian church. A mistake on 
 either of these points, cannot but be connected with disastrous consequences. 
 He then, who in the fear of God, and the full light of Scripture, and history, and ex- 
 perience, plants both feet on the everlasting covenant of grace, and by force of 
 argument unimpeachable and unanswerable, dispels perversion and ignorance, as 
 you have done, deserves the thanks and approbation of every individual, who by 
 spiritual relationship is a child of Abrahamic promise. Especially is this true 
 at this day, when providential movements, in relation to little children and 
 parental influence, are hailed as among the most brilliant tokens of the approach 
 of that day when all shall know the Lord, and when the child shall, in attainment 
 and blessing, die, being an hundred years old. May your laborious and very 
 critical exposition of this unspeakably interesting subject, be, under God, emin- 
 ently subservient to the hastening of that time, when all parents, like Noah, shall 
 come with their whole house, into the ark of the covenant of salvation. May your 
 efforts quicken ministers, churches and parents, to hold fast the promise, which lias 
 been revealed in the hope of glory to thousands, and tens of thousands of hearts: 
 ' I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee.' For the perusal of your 
 Sabbath Evening Lectures on these topics, with which you have been so kind 
 as to favor me, accept my acknowledgments. I probably feel more interest in 
 them, as thoy are fitted for circulation among the thinking, anxiously inquiring, 
 and quick discerning people of Rhode Island. I can assure you, my dear sir. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. V 
 
 that there are thousands in this State, who are calling for light on a subject over 
 which darkness and perversion have so long reigned. 
 
 Yours fraternall}', and in the bonds of the eternal covenant, 
 
 T. T. WATERMAN, 
 
 Pastor of the Richmond Street Congregational Piedobaptist Church, Providence, R, I." 
 
 ''Pawtucket Jan. 20, 1835. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I take this opportunity to acknowledge your kindness in aflbrding me the priv- 
 ilege of perusing your Sabbath Evening Lectures on the mode and subjects of 
 baptism. Permit me to say, I am highly pleased, with the candor and Christian 
 spirit which they breathe — with the clearness and force of the arguments — with 
 the critical research — with the philological views which they contain, and with 
 the scriptural and other undoubted authorities by which your positions are so fully 
 supported. These Lectures are well calculated to promote the cause of evan- 
 gelical piety — to establish the wavering, and to convince those who may be con- 
 vinced. I am glad, dear sir, that the principles of the eternal covenant of grace 
 are beginning to be better understood in Rhode Island. The views presented in 
 your Lectures are, in my opinion, based upon the immutable oracles of God, and 
 such as were clearly and fearlessly, enforced by the Pilgrim Fathers, and Paedo- 
 baptists generally. Yours in the faith and atonement and privileges of Jesus 
 Christ. BARNABAS PHINNEY, 
 
 Pastor of the Congregational Padubaptist chm-ch, PaicLucket.^' 
 
 Rev. O. FOWLER. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 These Lectures are printed because the Author could not deny what seemed 
 to be a sincere and reasonable request of the church to which he ministers. They 
 were preached, not because he was publicly assailed; (this he could have borne 
 in silence;) but because truths which lie deems of great importance to the wel- 
 fare of Zion, were publicly calumniated, and his own sentiments touching those 
 truths publicly misrepresented. These circumstances, luipleasant and unforeseen, 
 seemed to demand of him a serious and thorough discussion of the matters in 
 question. Such a discussion, if prosecuted for the love of truth, and with the for- 
 bearance of charity, he hoped, might to some extent, defend from perversion an 
 important institution of the gospel; and thus subserve, both the religious improve- 
 ment of the people of his charge, and the prosperity of the Redeemer's 
 kingdom. 
 
 Critical, calm, and kind discussion, was demanded. It is this kind of discus- 
 sion alone, that ever advances the cause of truth. In personal controversy, the 
 Author could not consent to embark. In preparing these Lectures, it has been his 
 aim, to avoid all personalities — to state fairly the questions at issue — and to de- 
 bate these questions honestly, manfully, and in the fear of God. That he has 
 spoken like one in earnest, he acknowledges — but hopes his earnestness has been 
 inspired only by the love of truth, and the settled conviction that the views he at- 
 tempts to defend, are according to the word of God. If there be aught in the 
 spirit and temper of these Lectures which any one can justly censure, it has es- 
 caped his notice, and when discovered, will be sincerely regretted. 
 
 The Author cheerfully makes the common acknowledgment, that many as well 
 as abler treatises have already appeared; and he pleads the common apology that 
 these Lectures were prepared under the pressure of weekly pastoral labors — but 
 still he hopes they may be of local and temporary, — if not of general and 
 permanent service to the cause of truth and piety. The numerous references 
 they contain have been made with care and labor, and he thinks may be relied on 
 as correct. Original sources of information have been sought and improved, as 
 far as possible. The best works on both sides of the controversy, within his 
 reach, have been consulted. Mosheim, Milner, Calvin, Wall, Doddridge, Bald- 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 win, Dwight, Pengilly, Scapula, Hedericus, Pond, Ripley, Woods, Edwards, Stu- 
 art, Judson, Reed, Concord, Lathrop, Wardlaw and many others have been care- 
 fully and freely consulted. To VV^all's History of Infant Baptism, Calvin's Insti- 
 tutes, and Pond's Treatise, he is particularly indebted. 
 
 Fn some instances he may have imconsciously used the thoughts of others with- 
 out due acknowledgment. Indeed, it would be difficult to ascertain to whom 
 many valuable thoughts on this subject originally belonged. In examining the 
 meaninw of Baptizo, it has been, of course, necessary to introduce Greek and 
 Latin words, but in all instances translations are given, so that the English reader 
 may omit these words, without perplexity or loss. For the sake of convenience, 
 Greek words are printed in English characters. The local circumstances, con- 
 nected with this discussion, required the examination of several topics, which, to 
 the distant reader, may seem foreign to the main subject; but the Author hopes 
 even these topics will not be found uninteresting. 
 
 The imperfections of these Lectures he hopes will be rendered harmless, and 
 their merits, if they possess any, useful through the blessing of God, and the 
 kindness and candor of his readers. Such as they are, they are affectionately in- 
 scribed to the church and congregation before whom they were delivered, with 
 the hope and fervent prayer that they may promote their spiritual prosperity, as 
 well as that of all others into whose hands they may fall. * 
 
 ORIN FOWLER. 
 
 Fall River, Mass. Jan. 20, 1835. 
 
 * See Appendix. [Note A.] 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 PRELIMINARY REMARKS.— THE QUESTION AT ISSUE DESIGN OF BAPTISM — 
 
 MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 
 
 MATT. XXVIII, 18, 19. 
 
 Go ye therefore, auil teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son? 
 and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
 you ; and lo, I am with yon alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
 
 This is the commission given by Jesus Christ to his ministers, 
 to disciple, baptize and teach all the nations of the earth — togeth- 
 er with his promise that he will be with them alway, to the end 
 of the world. In this commission, Christ instituted the ordinance 
 of Christian baptism. The langaage of this commission suggests 
 two inquiries : what is the mode of Christian baptism ? and who 
 are the subjects of Christian baptism 1 
 
 It will be my object in this Lecture to answer the Jirst only 
 of these inquiries. If Providence permit, I shall hereafter at- 
 tempt an answer to the secotid. 
 
 What is the mode of Christian Baptism, involved in this Insti- 
 tution of our Lord? 
 
 Before I enter upon the solution of this question, permit me to 
 detain you a few moments with some preliminary remarks. In 
 our inquiries after truth on this subject, it should be remembered, 
 that there is no injunction anywhere given in the Bible, respect- 
 ing the mode in which baptism must be performed. We are 
 simply directed to be baptized. The element (water) with which 
 — not the mode in which, baptism must be performed, is desig- 
 2 
 
10 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 nated in the Bible. The fact that no injunction is given, defin- 
 ing the mode, shows conclusively that the mode is an immateri- 
 al circumstance. It may be by affusion or immersion indiffer- 
 ently. The advocates of immersion* often assert that we are 
 commanded to be immersed. But the proof of this assertion, 
 they have never yet produced. They cannot produce it. The 
 command is simply to be baptized. 
 
 Again : many of the advocates of immersion, being unable to 
 meet the arguments we bring from the Old Testament in sup- 
 port of affusion, assume the fearful responsibility, of rejecting, as 
 obsolete, that part of the Bible, so far as it touches upon this sub- 
 ject. We say frankly, that we have no sympathy for a system, 
 the support of which requires the rejection of any part of the Bi- 
 ble. We believe with Paul, that " all Scripture is given by inspi- 
 ration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- 
 tion, for instruction in righteousness." 
 
 Again : some of the advocates of immersion, being unable to 
 meet the Scripture proof we bring in favor of affusion as the tnode, 
 resort to the artifice of raising questions about Infant Baptism. — 
 For example ; one of their ablest champions, remarking upon 
 passages that bear only upon the mode^ repeatedly throws out in- 
 sinuations like this : " Is it possible to believe that there were any 
 infants included in this account?" And again — "It is impossible 
 that this account should afford any pretence for Infant Baptism." 
 Now this method of avoiding the force of truth is exceedingly dis- 
 ingenuous ; and disputants never resort to it, when they can de- 
 fend their cause with substantial reasons. 
 
 Again : the advocates of immersion frequently represent some 
 one denomination of Pasdobaptists, (the Congregationalists for ex- 
 ample,) as composing but a small part of the Christian world, and 
 then infer that immersion is the only mode — and with the un- 
 informed, this artifice frequently has its intended effect. But it 
 should be remembered that not only Congregationalists, but Pres- 
 byterians, who are perfectly united with us in every article except 
 that of Church Government ; and Methodists, Episcopahans, 
 Moravians, Lutherans ; in short nearly all sects, except that which 
 advocates exclusive immersion, are Pffidobaptists, and all these 
 compose at least three fourths, probably nine tenths, of the Chris- 
 
 * By the advocates of iimiiorsion, I nioim those wlio hold llial immersion is the 
 only vaHd mode oi" Christian baptism. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 11 
 
 tian world. If, therefore, there be any weight in the argument of 
 numbers, it Hes on the Ptt'dobaptist side.* 
 
 Again : the advocates of immersion have long been affirming 
 that the whole Christian world would soon join them, and for half 
 a century past, they have been calling over the list of all who 
 have left the Paedobaptists and joined them ; and drawn the in- 
 ference that themselves only are right. This method of defend- 
 ing their views, would never be practiced but for the paucity of 
 sound arguments. Did we consider it necessary to speak of those 
 who have changed from their views to ours, we might name Jane- 
 way, Skinner, Smith, Howe, Lane, Spencer, two by the name of 
 Dodge, Snow, Ogleby, Edwards, Chapin, Potter, Allen, and a host 
 of other distinguished Ptedopabtist ministers, and many laymen 
 in nearly all our churches, who were once the advocates of exclu- 
 sive immersion. We might mention the European and Amer- 
 ican Mennonites or Dutch Baptists, who have adopted pouring 
 instead of immersion, and who numbered, (See Benedict, Vol. I. 
 p. 150,) 252 churches and 533 ministers : the Dutch Baptists in 
 Germany, Holland, Poland and Transylvania, within 60 years, 
 have by thousands become Psedobaptists : but we have no wish 
 to dwell upon this triumph of our views of truth.t 
 
 Again: some of the advocates of immersion represent us as 
 admitting that they are right, though we refuse to join them. 
 This representation has no foundation in truth. We admit im- 
 mersion may be valid baptism ; but we deny that it is the only 
 
 *"In the Methodist connection," says a respectable minister of that church, 
 in a letter now lying before me, " we have no ministers or members in our church, 
 who say that persons baptized by sprinkling or pom-ing are not baptized. No 
 man, among us, can receive ordination, unless he will administer baptism to chil- 
 dren and in that mode the parents may request. Immersion is practiced," he adds, 
 " among us nuich less than formerly, and many of our people who were immersed, 
 say if it was to do over again, they would be baptized by aflusion in the house of 
 God as the most proper mode and place." 
 
 t An attempt is being made to circulate widely an impression, that a yoimg man 
 at Andover has lately become an advocate of exclusive immersion, in consequence 
 of a remarkable conversation said to have been held between him and Professor 
 Stuart, but the story is wholly without foundation; and yet hundreds may read 
 and thousands hear of it, who will never know on earth that it is entirely false. 
 The story has been submitted to Prof Stuart, who says, in a letter dated Nov. 
 19, 1834, " To the best of my recollection, I never exchanged a word with him 
 on the subject of baptism, at any time whatever; nor did any other person ever 
 have such a conversation with me. Moses Stitart^" 
 
12 MODE OP BAPTISM. 
 
 valid mode of baptism. And we call upon them, (hitherto we 
 have called in vain,) to show us Bible evidence that there is no 
 other baptism but immersion. As they have noi proved, and we 
 believe cannot prove their position ; far from admitting they are 
 right, we believe they are in palpable error. Hence to represent 
 us as admitting that they are right, is doing us gross injustice. 
 No man of candor will do it. Man}^ of the advocates of immer- 
 sion have not done it. When it is done, w^e fear it is to serve a 
 j)urj)ose. 
 
 Again : the advocates of immersion frequently quote the 
 practice of the Greek Church to sustain their views ; but they 
 quote her only so far as that corrupt communion will serve their 
 end. The Greek Church do ordinarily (not always) practice im- 
 mersion;* and they uniformly practice Infant Baptism. Why 
 do the advocates of immersion quote the Greeks in support of the 
 mode, and yet reject and ridicule their practice of Infant Baptism? 
 Besides ; the Greek Church, or, as it is usually called, the Orien- 
 tal Church, is admitted on all hands to be among the most cor- 
 rupt and ignorant of all who bear the Christian name, and as 
 truly the objects of missionary enterprize as any part of the Pagan 
 world. 
 
 Again : many of the advocates of immersion say we are too 
 proud to submit to immersion. We will not boast of our humil- 
 ity; but this we admit — we do fear that many who advocate 
 exclusive immersion have tested their hopes, by their mode of ob- 
 serving the external rite, rather than by that meek and unobtru- 
 sive spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price. There 
 may be vastly more pride connected with an external mode 
 which attracts the gaze of the muliitude, than with a mode less 
 imposing. 
 
 Again : in discussing the question as to the mode of baptism, 
 we Paedobaptists act on the defensive; — we make no assault 
 upon the practice of others. If they prefer immersion, we will 
 not reproach them for it ; and we are ready, notwithstanding, to 
 fellowship them in all Christian ordinances, as brethren. But 
 
 * Wall says, p. 477, (T have before mc the 2d London edition, of 1707,) 
 *' The Greek Cliurcli liardly count a child, except in cases of sickness, well 
 baptized without immersion." So in some cases, then, they do consider afHision 
 valid. Reed says, (p. .30,'5,) " The (Jreek Church universally practice Infant 
 Baptism. They commoH/y dip their infinls, hut not invariably; for the mode 
 of baptizing is not considered by tliem essential." 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 13 
 
 when they affirm that we are unbaptizcd persons, and refuse us 
 Christian intercourse in the communion of the saints ; especially 
 when they hold up to public reproach, the doctrines, duties and 
 forms of worship, which we solemnly believe are taught in the 
 word of God ; we feel ourselves sacredly bound to vindicate our 
 views of truth, and our practice as disciples of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Again: we are often told, that faith, should precede baptism, 
 and in proof, this passage is brought ; "Believe and be baptized." 
 Believing is indeed here put before baptism ; but in other passages 
 baptism is put first. Thus: "Except a man be born oi water 
 and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 
 " I indeed baptize you with water — he shall baptize you with the 
 Holy Ghost." " Be baptized — and ye shall receive the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost." Here baptism is put before regeneration by 
 the Spirit — the thing which it signifies. If, then, any argument 
 can be raised from the order of language, it surely is in favor of 
 putting baptism before faith, rather than after it. 
 
 Again : most advocates of immersion misrepresent Psedobap- 
 tist authors ; asserting that those authors testify in their favor 
 and support their views ; and probably they sometimes create the 
 belief, in uninformed minds, that their assertions are true. This 
 is exceedingly reprehensible and disingenuous. By Pajdobaptists, 
 they obviously mean those who hold to the validity of baptism 
 by affusion. If this be their meaning, they cannot produce a 
 single Pajdobaptist who will testify that immersion is the only 
 valid mode. The supposition that a man, who holds affusion to 
 be a valid mode, will testify, nevertheless, that immersion is the 
 only valid mode, involves a contradiction. No Paedobaptist, of 
 common sense, has done it. Picdobaptists do indeed admit, that 
 immersion may be valid baptism : but the question is not whether 
 immersion be valid baptism; — it is, whether immersion be the 
 only valid baptism. On this (juestion, Piedobaptists, with united 
 voice, answer no : and thus they stand, not with the advocates 
 of immersion, but on the other side. 
 
 These remarks being premised ; let us now state the question 
 before us. What is the point to which our attention should be 
 directed, as to the mode of baptism? A clear definition of this 
 question is vitally important. The point in debate, is this : on 
 the one side, the advocates of immersion insist that immersion 
 
14 MODE OP BAPTISM. 
 
 is ESSENTIAL to baptism — that immersion is the only mode — 
 that nothing is baptism but immersion. On the other side, we 
 Ptedobaptists admit that immersion may be a mode of baptism : 
 but we deny that immersion is the 07ily mode, and insist that 
 affusion is a Scripture mode of baptism.* The real question, 
 then, and the only question, is this : Is immersion the only gospel 
 mode of baptism ? Hence, if the advocates of immersion show 
 that immersion is a Scripture mode and show no more, they do 
 not touch the question in debate. We admit that immersion may 
 be a gospel mode of baptism. But is this the only gospel mode ? 
 The advocates of immersion take the ajffir^native, and therefore 
 the burden of proof lies on them ; and we believe they hare never 
 yet made out their point. Indeed they rarely attempt it. They 
 generally dwell on what is admitted. We Peedobaptists take the 
 negative of this question. We aflirm that immersion is not the 
 only mode ; and that affusion is a gospel mode of baptism. In 
 proof of our position we urge, 
 
 I. The DESIGN of baptism. 
 
 The advocates of immersion frequently affirm that the design 
 of baptism is to symbolize the burial and resurrection of Christ ; 
 and they infer that this design requires immersion. In proof 
 they refer to Rom. 6:4; Col. 2 : 12 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 29 ; 1 Pet. 3 : 
 21. A critical and thorough examination of these proof texts 
 will show any unbiased man that they furnish no satisfactory 
 evidence to the point.t Besides, if the design of baptism be to 
 symbolize the burial and resurrection of Christ, why not put the 
 candidate for this ordinance into a rock 1 Christ, after his cru- 
 cifixion, was buried in a rock — not in the water. His resurrec- 
 tion from the grave was out of a rock ; not out of the water. Even 
 at his baptism, which was long before his burial and resurrection, 
 there is no certain evidence, (as we shall see in the sequel,) that he 
 was immersed, and thus buried in the water. It is not certain 
 that he even went into the water where it was six inches deep. 
 Moreover, there is no analogy between that purification which 
 the use of water denotes, and the loathsomeness and putridity 
 of the grave. The Bible makes the death of Christ a matter 
 
 * I use the word affusion to designate the act oi pouring upon, or sprinkling 
 witli. I use the word immersion to designate tiie act of dipping or plunging into, 
 t See Appendix. [Note B.] 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM, 15 
 
 of fundamental importance, and it teaches ug to celebrate his 
 death by appropriate symbols in the Lord's Supper ; as may be 
 seen, 1 Cor. 11: 24 — 26; Mark 14: 24; Matt. 26 : 26 — 28. 
 But the Bible nowhere teaches us to celebrate his burial and 
 resurrection, (which took place after his crucifixion,) either literally 
 or symbohcally : — this could be done appropriately only by put- 
 ting the candidate into an excavated rock. Joseph laid the body 
 of Jesus " in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the 
 rock." 
 
 What then is the design of baptism ? What does this rite 
 signify 1 I answer, piwijicatioit ; and this is the only Scriptural 
 and consistent answer that can be given. More fully — it is the 
 design of baptism to represent the purification of the soidy 
 and our engrafting into Christ by the Holy Ghost : and the 
 visitation of the Holy Ghost for the performance of this work, is 
 always represented in the Bible by language which denotes affu- 
 sion — never by language which denotes immersion. As water 
 baptism is a symbol of spiritual baptism, and sets before us, by 
 an emphatical sign, the purifying operations of the Holy Spirit, 
 we should expect to find that mode of baptism sanctioned in the 
 Bible, which accords with the mode in which the Holy Spirit is 
 represented as descending upon the heart. This is always by 
 affusion. As this is a point of some importance, let me refer you 
 to the proof that the design of baptism is as now stated. " Christ 
 loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify 
 and cleanse it with the washing, (not immersion) of water by 
 the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church,, 
 not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing ; but that it should 
 be holy and without blemish." "According to his mercy he 
 saved us, by the w^ashing of regeneration, and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost :" that is, we are saved by the regenerating influence 
 of the Holy Spirit, of which washing with water is a symbol- 
 So again : " Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance 
 of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, 
 and our bodies washed with pure water." Here the washing of 
 the body with pure water is joined with the thing signified by it : 
 to wit, having the heart sprinkled or purified from an evil con- 
 science. So saith Peter : " The like figure whereunto baptism 
 doth now save us : not the putting away the filth of the llesh," 
 [not the mere outward cleanshig by baptismal water] " but the 
 
16 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 answer of a good conscience toward God : " that is, our being 
 purified so that we live in the exercise of a good conscience : or, 
 as Paul says, " sprinkled from an evil conscience." Saith Christ, 
 " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
 enter into the kingdom of God." That is : we must not only 
 be purified with baptismal water, but we must be purified with 
 the Holy Ghost. Here baptism with water is put first. Now in 
 these, and all similar cases, it is clear that baptism is represented 
 as the symbol of purification — or an emblem of that- holiness 
 which the Gospel requires, and significant of that sanctifying in- 
 fluence of the Spirit without which no one can see the kingdom 
 of God. Again, (Isa. 44: 3) Thus saith the Lord, "I will 
 pour water upon hira that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry 
 ground ; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing 
 upon thine offspring." So again, (Ez. 36 : 25 — 27) " Then will 
 I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean, — a new 
 heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you, 
 and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will 
 give you an heart of flesh ; and I will put my Spirit within you," 
 (fcc. In each of these passages baptism with water, and baptism 
 with the Holy Ghost are so connected, and the one is so evident- 
 ly put for the other ; there can be no doubt that the one is a sym- 
 bol of the other. These two passages are predictions of what 
 should take place under the Gospel dispensation. (See Henry, 
 Scott, and all other judicious commentators.) Of course they 
 are directly in point, and show the mind of the Lord on this sub- 
 ject. So again : (Matt 3:11,) "I indeed," saith John, "bap- 
 tize you with water — he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, 
 &.C." And saith Luke, (Acts 1 : 5,) " John truly baptized with 
 water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
 days hence," and (2 : 38,) " Be baptized, every one of you — 
 and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here again 
 baptism with water is evidently represented as a symbol of bap- 
 tism or purification with the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Moreover, what were all the ablutions and sprinklings of the 
 ritual law under the Jewish dispensation designed to signify and 
 prefigure? Purification, most obviously. The rites of that 
 dispensation were divided into two great classes ; those which 
 were significant of atonement for sin, and those which were sig- 
 nificant of the purification of the heart. Those which were sig- 
 
MODE OF BATPISM. 17 
 
 nificant of purification, as Paul says, were performed by sprink- 
 ling the unclean. So under the Christiiui dispensation ; the two 
 standing rites or ordinances are the Lord's Supper and Baptism — 
 the one significant of atonement for sin by the blood of Christ, 
 the other significant of the purifying of the heart by the Holy 
 Ghost.* Nothing can be more appropriate than these ordi- 
 nances. We need an atonement and purification that we may 
 find acceptance with God. The one is tlic work of .Tesus Christ, 
 set forth in the Supper — tlie other is the work of the Holy Spirit, 
 set forth in Baptism. The belief of these truths spontaneously 
 forces itself upon every unbiased mind. That it is the design 
 of baptism then to represent or symbolize the purification of the 
 soul and our ingrafting into Christ by the Holy Spirit, is a posi- 
 tion which we believe is made out and established by proof that 
 cannot be set aside. What then, if such be the design of bap- 
 tism, is the significant and natural mode of performing this rite? 
 Obviously, affusion. Hence the work of the Holy Spirit is al- 
 ways spoken of in the Bible in language like this : " I will j)our 
 out my Spirit unto you." — " The holy Ghost shall come upon 
 you." — "I will 2^ouT my Spirit on thy seed." " I will 'pour out 
 my Spirit upon all flesh." " The Spirit shall come doivn like 
 rain upon the mown grass." " So shall he sprinkle many na- 
 tions." Now the Bible calls (his pouring out of the Holy Ghost, 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost, of which water is the visible 
 sign. So Christ promises his disciples, (Acts 1 : 5,) " Ye shall be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." And then 
 he describes this baptism as (v. 8) " the Holy Ghost coining upion 
 them." It is evident therefore that the Prophets, and Apostles, 
 and Jesus Christ understand the poiiring out of the Spirit and 
 the hajjtism of the Spirit as synonymous. Hence applying the 
 water in baptism by affusion, is a proper, not to say the most 
 proper and significant mode. And how do the advocates of ex- 
 clusive immersion attempt to answer this argument ? Some of 
 them tell us that to talk about being baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost at the present day, is to use language without meaning — 
 and sometimes they insist that none were ever baptized with the 
 
 * Says Calvin, (see Inst. Christ. Relig. Book 4, Chap. 15, Sec. 2, and Chap. 14, 
 Sec. 22,) " Baptism promises us no other purification than by the sprinkling of 
 the blood of Christ, which is emblematically represented by water." " Baptism 
 testifies to us our purgation and ablution — the Supper testifies our redemption. 
 Water is a figure of ablution, and blood of satisfaction." 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Holy Ghost except on the day of Pentecost. But what does Paul 
 say ? " By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether 
 we be Jews or Gentiles." 
 
 Paul therefore settles tlie point that all who are horn of the 
 Spirit, are baptized by the Spirit ; — and Paul never used words 
 without meaning. We must submit to his decision. Christians 
 generally have submitted to it — and they have long been pray- 
 ing and praying, and they will pray and pray, (ill the end of 
 time, that all nations, kindred, tongues and people may be bap- 
 tized with the Holy Ghost into one body. Hence the design of 
 baptism requires affusion as the mode of administering the or- 
 dinance. It is on this point, we believe, the error of the advocates 
 of immersion mainly rests. They seem to have mistaken totally 
 the design of water baptism by referring it to the burial and res- 
 urrectio7i of Christ. All Scripture analogy is against such refer- 
 ence ; — the nature of the thing is against it. Water, as exhibited 
 in washing, sprinkling, &c., is never an emblem of death and the 
 grave. This is so plain a matter, we believe the advocates of 
 immersion never would have fallen into a mistake so palpable, if 
 there were sound arguments upon which they could rest their 
 exclusive views. Let them admit, what cannot be denied, that 
 it is the design of baptism to represent the purification of the soul 
 by the Holy Spirit ; and it follows, that baptism by affusion is 
 an appropriate mode of gospel baptism.* 
 
 * To show that the above views are not novel, I refer to a few, of many au- 
 thorities. From the " Harmony of Confessions of the Reformed churches of 
 Europe, published at London, 1643," a work of standard authority, now lying 
 before me, it appears (p. 287) that the Helvetian church hold that" inwardly we 
 are regenerated and purified of God through the Holy i^pirit; and outwardly we 
 receive the sealing of most notable gifts by water." So the Bohemian church 
 hold (p. 290) that " Baptism consists of an outward washing with water, used 
 both to signify and to witness a spiritual washing and inward cleansing of the Holy 
 Ghost from the disease of sin." So the French church (at that time one of the 
 purest churches on earth) holds (p. 292) that "Baptism testifies our adoption, be- 
 cause that therein we are ingrafted into Christ's body, that being washed in his 
 blood, we may also be renewed to holiness of life by his Spirit." So the Belgi- 
 an church holds (p. 293) that " Baptism signifies that the blood of Christ doth 
 internally, through the operation of the Spirit, perform and effect that in the soul, 
 which water dotli externally work in the body." So the Suevcland church holds 
 (p. 301) that " Baptism is a token of the renewing of the Spirit." In later 
 times, says Dwight, (V^ol. V. p. 342,) " The conclusion stands on solid ground, 
 that baptism is, in the Scriptures, instituted as a symbol of the allusion of the 
 Spirit upon the soul in regeneration, and the cleansing of its sins by the blood of 
 Christ." i'rofessor Stuart, and a multitude of other authors, and nearly the 
 whole Protestant world, correspond with these views. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 19 
 
 In proof of our position that affusion is a valid gospel mode of 
 baptism, we urge 
 
 II. The MEANING of the word always used in the Bible to 
 designate this ordinance. This word in Greek is baptizo. 
 Baptizo, with its derivatives, is the word always used by the 
 sacred writers, when they speak of the ordinance of baptism. 
 This all admit. It is admitted also by all, that the controversy 
 about the mode of baptism depends very materially on the mean- 
 ing of this Greek word. What then is the meaning of Baptizo ? * 
 
 We will first consider the definition of this word by Lexicog- 
 raphers and eminent Greek scholars — and then examine its 
 use both by profane and sacred writers. For the sake of those 
 who are unacquainted with the manner in which Greek words 
 are varied in their terminations, I shall generally use the verb 
 Baptizo in the first person of the indicative present, and the 
 noun Baptismos in the nominative singular. 
 
 Schrevelius, that great master and critic of the Greek tongue, 
 whose Lexicon has been a standard work for nearly two centu- 
 ries, gives four definitions of baptizo, to wit ; {baptizo, tnergo, 
 abhw, lavo,) to baptize ; to immerse ; to wash ; to sprinkle, 
 moisten or wet. Only one of these four definitions denotes 
 exclusive immersion. The other three, especially two of them, 
 denote the application of water in other modes than immersion. 
 
 Schleusner, in his accurate Lexicon on the New Testament, 
 a work of undisputed authority, defines baptizo, 1, to immerse 
 in water ; 2, to wash, sprinkle, or cleanse with water, {abhw, 
 lavo, aqua purgo ;) 3, to baptize ; 4, to pour out largely, {pro- 
 funda largiter, cj'c.) Only one of Schleusner's definitions 
 restricts the meaning to immersion. Three of them denote the 
 application of the fluid by affusion. 
 
 Scapula, see his Lexicon, defines baptizo, immerse, wash, 
 sprinkle, {mergo, abluo, lavo.) 
 
 Iledericus, see his Lexicon, defines baptizo, immerse, wash, 
 sprinkle, {immergo, abluo, lavo.) 
 
 Parkhurst, see his Lexicon, defines baptizo, to immerse in, or 
 wash with water, in token of purification from sin. 
 
 Ainsworth, (English Latin Dictionary,) defines it, to wash 
 any one in the sacred baptismal font ; or to sprinkle {inspergere) 
 on him the consecrated water. 
 
 * See Appendix. [Note C] 
 
20 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Leigh, see his Lexicon, i. e. Critica Sacra, defines baptizo, 
 "a kind of washing, as by plunging; and yet it is taken more 
 largely for any kind of washing, where there is no dipping 
 at all." 
 
 Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Philadelphia Edition, defines it to 
 dip or tinge. 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible defines it, to sprinkle or wash one's 
 body sacraraentally. 
 
 Buck, see his Dictionary, says, " its radical proper and prima- 
 ry meaning is to tinge, to dye, to wet or the like ; which primary 
 design is affected by different modes of application." 
 
 Cole, see his Lexicon, defines baptizo, to baptize, to wash, to 
 sprinkle. 
 
 Passor, see his Lexicon, defines it to immerse, wash, sprinkle. 
 Stephanns, see his Lexicon, defines it, immerse, wash, cleanse ; 
 {mergo, abluo, lavo*) 
 
 Suidas, see his Lexicon, defines it, immerse, moisten, sprinkle, 
 wash, purge, cleanse ; {mergo, madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, 
 mundo.) 
 
 Coulon, see his Lexicon, defines it, by immersion, washing, 
 sprinkling, or wetting ; [mersione, ahlutione, et asper'sione.) 
 
 Wahl, see his Lexicon, defines it ; first, to wash, to perform 
 ablution, to cleasne; secondly, to immerse, to administer the rite 
 of baptism.! 
 
 Greenfield, see his Lexicon, defines baptizo as used in the 
 New Testament, to wash, to perform ablution, to cleanse, to 
 immerse, to overwhelm, to administer the rite of baptism. t 
 
 Here we have the definitions of the most eminentliexicographers 
 the world has ever seen ; no one of whom defines baptizo to 
 signify nothing but immersion. They all affirm that it signifies 
 AFFUSION as well as immersion. And there is no Lexicon with- 
 in my knowledge, that says it means nothing but immersion. 
 
 Here we have the definition of baptizo, by standard Lexico- 
 graphers. Let us next examine what learned Greek critics have 
 said of it. 
 
 Piscator says, " Baptizo signifies not only to be dipped, but 
 
 * p. p. 23. For jnany valiinblo quotations, I am indebted to " I'ond's Trea- 
 tise on Christian Baptism." These quotations will be inark('d vvilh tiie let- 
 ter P. 
 
 t P. p. 24. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 21 
 
 also in any other way to be tinged, washed or rinsed ; {lavari, 
 et ahlui*) 
 
 Zelenus says, " Baptism signifies dipping and also sprinkling.t 
 
 Walker says, chap. 3, (his Doctrine of Baptisms, printed at 
 London, 1678, now lies before me,) " I find nine Latin words 
 used to express the import of baptizo, to wit : mergo, immergo, 
 iingo, iiiilngo, lavo, abhio, niadefacio, jmrgo, mundoP To 
 immerse, to plunge, to tinge, to color, to sprinkle, to wash, to 
 moisten, to purge, to cleanse. 
 
 Zanchius says, " Baptizo doth as well signify to dye, and 
 simply to sprinkle {lavare) as to immerse."t 
 
 Bucanus says, " Baptizo signifies to immerse, to tinge, to wash, 
 {ahluere.y^h 
 
 Maldonet says, " With the Greeks Baptizo signifies to dip, 
 to wash, to wash oft, [lavare^ ahluere,) and as Tertullian uses 
 to turn it, to tinge, wet or dye."|| 
 
 Bonaventure says, " Baptizo in Greek signifies as much as 
 Lavo in Latin ; i. e. to wash or sprinkle. "T 
 
 Peter Martyr says, " Baptizo signifies not only to dip, but in 
 any way to tinge or wet."** 
 
 Whitaker says, " The word Baptizo signifies not only to im- 
 merse, but also to tinge or wet."tt 
 
 Vorrilong says, " Baptizo in Greek, is the same that lavo is 
 in Latin. Properly speaking, it signifies nothing [nisi lotionein) 
 except washing."+t 
 
 Alstedius says, " The terra baptism signifies both immersion 
 and sprinkling, [aspersionem) and of consequence ablution. §§ 
 
 Mastricht says, " Baptism signifies washing, either by sprink- 
 ling or dipping."lll| 
 
 Tertullian, who lived in the second century, within 100 years 
 of the Apostles, an eminent man, says " that baptizo means not 
 
 *Com. Loc. de Baptismo. pp. 157, 158. 
 
 t Wail, Hist. In. Bap. Part II. Chap. 9. % Cultu. Dei. Lib. 1. Chap. 16. 
 
 § Loc. Com. 47, p. 605. II Matt. 28 : 19. 
 
 IF Walker's Doc. Bap. Chap. 3. As Lavo, to sprinkle, is one of the uniform 
 definitions of Baptizo; some of the advocates of immersion have recently urged 
 that Foster, one of their own number, says "Lavo is only a distant and conse- 
 quential meaning of Baptizo;" as though the opinion of Foster would set aside the 
 established meaning of this troublesome word. 
 
 ** In Rom. Chap. 10. ft Reed's Apol. p. 114. 
 
 tt P. Works, Lil). IV. §§ P. Encyclopedia Lib. 25, Sec. 3. Loc. 40. 
 
 nil Wall, Part 2. Chap. 9. 
 
22 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 only to immerse, but also to pour, {mergere non tantum, sed et 
 fj erf under e.y^* He defines baptizo also by the Latin word 
 tingo, which the best Latin Dictionaries define to dye, color, 
 stain, sprinkle, imbue, &c. 
 
 Parseus says, " Baptism, with the Greeks, imports any 
 washing or cleansing, whether it be done by dipping or sprink- 
 ling."t 
 
 Ursinus renders " Baptismos, washing as well as dipping.? 
 
 Trelactius says, " Baptism, according to the etymology of it, 
 signifies commonly any kind of ablution or cleansing."§ 
 
 WoUedius says, "Baptism signifies dipping and sprinkUng, and 
 by consequence ablution or cleansing by washing." II 
 
 Peter Lombard says, " Baptism signifies intinction, i. e. a wash- 
 ing of the body ; {ablutio.y^ 
 
 Daneeus says, " Baptism signifies not only immersion, but 
 also lotion and ablution ; and not only are they baptized who 
 are wholly dipped in water, but they that are tinged or wetted 
 with water."** 
 
 Thomas Aquinas says, " Baptism may be given not only by 
 immersion, but also by affusion of water, or sprinkling with 
 it."tt 
 
 Fealty says, " Christ nowhere requireth dipping, but only 
 baptizing ; which word Hesychius, Stephanus, Scapula, and 
 BuddtEUs, those great masters of the Greek tongue, make good 
 by very many instances out of the classic writers, importeth no 
 more than ablution or washing."+t 
 
 Calvin says, " Whether the person baptized be wholly im- 
 mersed, and whether thrice or not, or whether water be only 
 poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance."§§ 
 
 Beza says, " They are rightly baptized who are baptized by 
 sprinkling."!!!! 
 
 Wall says, " The word Baptizo in Scripture signifies to wash 
 in general, without determining the sense to this or that sort of 
 
 * De Anima. Cap. 10. t In Ileb. 9 : 10. 
 
 X p. 26, Explic. Catech. Quea. 69. § Insti. Lib. 2, Cap. de Baptismo. 
 
 II Chris. Theol. Lib. I. Chap. 23. IT Waliver's Doc. Bap. Cap. 6. 
 ** P. 26. Responsio ad Beilarin. Tom. de Sacram. Cap. 1. 
 
 tt Wall, His. In. Bap. Part II. Chap. 9, p. 466. See also the Works of 
 Aquinas printed at Venice in 1483. 
 
 tt Leigh, Critica Sacra. §§ Institu. Vol. 3, p. 343. 
 Illl Tract Theol. Vol. III. p. 195. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 23 
 
 washing." And " to baptize is a word applied in Scripture, not 
 only to such washing, as is by dipping into the wafer the thing 
 or person washed ; but also to such as is by pouring or rubbing 
 water on the thing or person washed, or some part of it.'"* 
 
 Owen says, " Baptism is any kind of washing, whether by 
 dipping or sprinkling."t 
 
 Flavel says, " The word baptize signifies as well to wash as to 
 plunge. A person may be truly baptized who is not plunged."t 
 
 Tilenus says, "If we regard the etymology of the word bap- 
 tism, it signifies dipping and also sprinkling. "§ 
 
 Kecherman says, "Baptism signifies either immersion, or wash- 
 ing, or pouring [perfusionern.y^W 
 
 Doederlain says, " The power of the word baptizo is expressed 
 in washing or performing ablution, {in lavando, ahluendo) on 
 which account we read of the baptism of cups, pots, tables, (fee. 
 Mark 7 — 8.n 
 
 Morus says, " To baptize is in a solemn manner to immerse 
 one in water, or to pour water upon him."** 
 
 Lightfoot says, " The word baptism does not always denote 
 immersion, but sometimes washing only, or even sprinkling."tt 
 
 Cogswell says, " Baptizo signifies to wet with water partially 
 as well as totally, and by sprinkling as well as by immersion. 
 The words immerse and immersion are not to be found in the 
 Bible."tt 
 
 J. Wickliffe says, " Nor is it material whether persons are 
 dipped once or three times, or whether water is poured upon their 
 head."§§ 
 
 Lynwood says, " Dipping is not to be accounted of the essence 
 of baptism, but it may be given also by pouring or sprinkhng."§§ 
 
 Musculus says, " It is free for the church to baptize either by 
 dipping or sprinkling."||i| 
 
 The Westminister Assembly affirm that " Baptism is rightly 
 administered, by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.''^ 
 
 * His. In. Bap. Part II. Chap. 8, p. 433. 
 
 t Com. lieb. IX: 10, p. 572. t Works, Vol. 2. p. 432. 
 
 § Disput. de Baptismo, p. 8S.3. II Theol. Sys. Disp. 37. 
 
 IT Institut. Theol. Chris. Vol. II. p. 748. 
 
 ** P. p. 29, Commentaries Ex. His. Vol. II. p. 491. 
 
 tt Reed's Apo. p. 114. %% Theol. Class Book, p. 166. 
 
 §§ Wall's His. In Bap. Part II. Chap. 9, p. 469. 
 
 nil Wall, p. 471. inr Vid. Cat. 
 
24 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Dr. Doddridge, who had strong partialities for immersion, says, 
 that " Baptizo may signify any method of washing, and is some- 
 times used in Scripture for washing tilings which were not dipped 
 in water, but on which it was poured : as Luke 11 : 38 ; Mark 
 7 : 4."* 
 
 Adam Clarke says, " Baptizo, it is certain, means both to dip 
 and to sprinkle."t 
 
 Pool says, " Baptizo does not always denote immersion, but 
 sometimes washing only, or even sprinkling. "+ 
 
 Barnes says, " Baptizo signified originally to tinge, to dye, to 
 stain." He says, " It cannot be proved from the Old and New 
 Testaments that the idea of a complete immersion ever was con- 
 nected with the word, or that it ever in any case occurred. "§ 
 
 Prof. Stuart, after a full examination of the meaning of Bap- 
 tizo, saysj "I do consider it quite plain, that none of the circum- 
 stantial evidence " [in the Bible] " proves immersion to have been 
 exclusively the mode of Christian baptism, or even that of John. 
 Indeed I consider this point so far made out, that I can hardly 
 suppress the conviction, that if any one maintains the contrary, 
 it must be either because he is unable rightly to estimate the na- 
 ture or power of the Greek language ; or because he is influenced 
 in some measure by party feeling ; or else because he has looked 
 at the subject in only a partial manner, without examining it fully 
 and thoroughly. "II 
 
 President Dwight, that most acute Greek scholar, says, " I 
 have examined almost one hundred instances in which the word 
 baptizo and its derivatives are used in the New Testament, and 
 four in the Septuagint, and to my apprehension it is evident that 
 the primary meaning of the word baptizo is clcatising." 
 Again, says he, " according to the great body of learned critics 
 and Lexicographers, Baptizo means originally to tinge, stain, 
 dye, or color; and when it means immersion, it is only in a sec- 
 ondary and occasional sense." He says that " tinge, dye, stain 
 or color was the original, classical meaning of the word ; and in 
 many instances, it cannot be made, without obvious impropriety, 
 to signify immersion ; and in others, it cannot signify it at all.-'IF 
 
 Clarke, that learned biblical critic affirms ; " To say that 
 
 * See Vol. II. p. 376. t Com. on Matt. 3: 6. 
 
 t Synop. on Mark. § Com. on Matt. 3: 6. 
 
 II liibli. Ileposi. pp. 337, 338. IT Theol. Vol. V. p. 331. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 25 
 
 sprinkling is no gospel baptism is as incorrect as to say immer- 
 sion is none. Such assertions are as unchristian as they are un- 
 charitable. Those who are clipped in water in the name of the 
 Trinity, I believe to be baptized. Those who are washed or 
 sprinkled with water in the name of the Trinity, I believe to be 
 equally so ; and the repetition of such baptism I beheve to be 
 proftine."* 
 
 Lathrop says, "In the New Testament we find clear and 
 direct evidence, that the word baptizo signifies to pour and 
 sprinkle."! 
 
 Hemmenway says, " Washing or wetting is the first and orig- 
 inal import of baptism. "+ 
 
 I need not proceed in these quotations. This list might be 
 greatly enlarged with such names as Luther, Melancthon, Wit- 
 sius. Walker, Henry, Hopkins, Sweet, Edwards, Vossius, Reed, 
 Worcester, and many other Greek scholars of the first eminence, 
 who have shown that baptizo signifies affusioji as well as immer- 
 sion ; but I have no time to quote further. I have now given 
 you the opinion of sixty eminent men, and distinguished Greek 
 scholars. Lexicographers, Critics, and Theologians ; men who 
 have lived during seventeen centuries — -and with united voice 
 they declare positively and explicitly that the original^ primitive 
 meaning of baptizo is affusion as well as immersion. The tes- 
 timony of these men will certainly have weight with all unbias- 
 ed minds, and must settle the question before us.§ 
 
 * Com. Mark 16; et ^fatt. 3: 6. t Dis. Chris. Bap. p. 15. 
 
 t Reed's Apol. p. 121. 
 
 § How do the advocates of exclusive immersion meet all this testimony? I 
 answer: they affirm that baptizo means immersion. Let us examine some of 
 their witnesses. They quote Beza to testify that " Baptizo signifies immersion." 
 This is true; but not the whole truth. Beza says, " Baptizo signifies immersion;" 
 but he adds, " they are rightly baptized who are baptized by sprinkling." So 
 they quote Calvin to say " that Baptizo signifies to immerse, and i£ is certain that 
 immersion was the practice of the ancient church." This is true. But in the 
 same sentence, (see Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 15, Section 19:) he says, " Wheth- 
 er the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or 
 whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him is of no importance." 
 Calvin never says that Baptizo means nothing but immersion; nor, that immer- 
 sion was the only mode practiced by the ancient church. Again, they quote 
 Leigh to say " that Baptizo signifies plunging." This is true; but not the whole 
 truth. Leigh adds, (his Criticci Sacra lies before me) "yet baptizo is taken 
 more largely for any kind of washing, where there is no dipping at all." This is a 
 specimen of quotations by their standard authors. 
 
 4 
 
26 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Having seen what Lexicopraghers, Critics, and Theologians 
 affirm ; we will now examine the import of baptizo as used by 
 ancient Greek writers. 
 
 Plutarch, who was born in Greece and died about year A. D. 
 140 ; in his life of Theseus, quoting the SibylUne verse concern- 
 ing the city of Athens, says, " Thou mayest be baptized, O bladder, 
 but it is not permitted to thee to go under the water." {Aschos 
 baptize, de toi tliemis estL)* Plutarch here uses baptizo to 
 denote a partial wetting. 
 
 Another way in which the advocates of exclusive immersion meet our testimo- 
 ny is, by affirming that Paxlobaptist authors admit baptizo signifies to immerse. 
 This is true; we do admit it signifies to immerse. But it signifies also to pour, to 
 wash, to sprinkle. And this is the universal testimony of Psedobaptists. 
 
 Again; they assert, that if baptizo signifies pouring, it must always signify 
 pouring; and then they substitute baptize for jjowr in such passages as these: "bap- 
 tize the blood of the bullock," — "baptize out dust," &c.; just as though, be- 
 cause one signification of baptize is to pour, therefore, it must always be used to 
 signify pour. Really; this is a mere subterfuge. 
 
 Agam; they say, " Had baptizo been translated immersion, in the New Testa- 
 ment, there would have been no dispute about its meaning." I reply: had bap- 
 tizo been translated affusion, would there have been any dispute about its 
 meaning? 
 
 Again; they sometimes say that baptizo has but one meaning, and that this is 
 immersion. I reply: no man acquainted with the use of language will attempt 
 to defend this position. Every Lexicon, in every language on earth, will contra- 
 dict and overthrow it. Most words have one generic meaning truly; but their 
 specific meanings are numerous, often twenty, thirty, fifty. Nearly every im- 
 portant word has several meanings. In the Hebrew, the same word sometimes 
 has meanings directly opposite to each other. This is true to some extent of the 
 Greek, Latin and English — probably of all languages. The specific meaning of 
 a word in a given location, must be learned from the connection in which it is 
 used. Take the word travel. The generic meaning is, to pass from one place 
 to another. But the use of this word, does not designate the mode of perform- 
 ing the act. Whether it be by walking — on horseback — by stage — by 
 steamboat, or some other mode, must be learned from the connection in which 
 the word ia used. Suppose a philologist should assert that travel has but one 
 meaning — t^at it means nothing but to ride on horseback; how long could he 
 sustain his credit among sensible men? Apply these remarks to the words print 
 — jmt — spin — jTo — determine, and a thousand others. Apply them to bap- 
 tizo; baptizo signifies the application of water or other fluid to a person or thing; 
 but the quantitif to be applied — or the mode of application is not designated. 
 These must be learned by the connection and circumstances in which the word 
 is used. To say that baptizo means nothing but immersion — and this, on the 
 supposition that words have but one meaning, is to contradict all usage, and all 
 analogy — and if the principle were carried out, it would well nigh destroy the 
 beauty and copiousness of all language. These methods of meeting our argu>- 
 ment — far from overturning — confirm it, and show that it is impregnable. 
 
 * See Pond, p. 30. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 27 
 
 So in Judith, (12:7,) written several hundred years before 
 Christ, it is said, Judith went out " in the niglit and baptizetl 
 {ebaptizeto) herself in tlic camp, by or at the fountain of water." 
 The circumstances of this case, forbid the idea that Judith plunged 
 herself into the fountain. She washed herself in the midst of 
 the camp bi/ or at the fountain ; and this washing is called bap- 
 tism. 
 
 So TertuUlan, who lived within 100 years of the Apostles, 
 speaking of a man who had been baptized, says, " Who will ac- 
 commodate you, a man whose penitence is so little to be trusted 
 with one sprinkling of w^ater ? [aspergineni imam aque.y^ 
 This shows, both what was the opinion of Tertullian. and also 
 that sprinkling was a mode of baptism then practiced. 
 
 Origen, a celebrated Greek writer, born within one hundred 
 years of the Apostolic age, who suffered martyrdom at 69 years 
 of age, " represents the wood on the altar, over which water was 
 poured at the command of Elijah, (1 Kings 18 : 33,) as having 
 been baptized," {baptizo.)\ This baptism was performed by 
 pouring — this none can doubt. And thus we have the opinion 
 and usage of Origen, that baptizo means affusion. 
 
 Lactantius, a noted Christian, born in the third century, says 
 Christ received baptism, " that he might save the Gentiles by 
 baptism, that is, by the distilling of the purifying dew : {purifi- 
 ci roris perfusio7ie.)"l The water of baptism is here repre- 
 sented as falling like the dew. Can anything be more ex- 
 pressive ? 
 
 Cyprian, a distinguished martyr of the Christian church, who 
 lived within one hundred and twenty years of the Apostles, 
 understood the prediction in Ezckicl 36 : 25 ; "I will sprinkle 
 clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean," as having reference 
 to Christian baptism. § Jerome, and other distinguished fatliers of 
 that age, were of the same opinion. 
 
 Clemens Alexandvinus, who lived within fifty years of the 
 Apostles, says of a backslider whom the Apostle John was the 
 means of reclaiming, '' He was baptized a second time, with 
 tears; " a most emphatic expression to show that baptizo means 
 affusion.W 
 
 * P. p. 33. De pa-nitit. Cap. 6. t Wall, part. 2. 
 
 t Opera Lib. 4, Cap. 15. § Wall's UU. In. Bap. Part 11. Chap. 9, p. 464. 
 
 II Eu.sebius Eccl. His. Lib. IIL Cap. 20. Edition of 1672, which now lies 
 before me. 
 
28 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Athanasius, another of the early fathers, who suffered severe 
 trials, and was finally a martyr, speaks " of the baptism of 
 iears.'^* 
 
 Gregory, another father, says, " I know of a fourth baptism, 
 that by martyrdom and blood; and I know of a fifth, that of 
 /ear*."* 
 
 Basil, another father, says of a martyr, " He was baptized with 
 his otvn blood.''^* 
 
 The author of the Responses to Antiochus, (attributed to Atha- 
 nasius,) says, " God hath granted unto man three purging bap- 
 tisms ; that of water, that of the testimony of one's own blood, 
 and that of tears."t 
 
 Wall, (Part II, Chap. 6, pp. 359, 360 and elsewhere,) shows 
 that to speak of bapiism with tears and blood, was common and 
 favorite phraseology with the early Christians. It is plain that 
 they used this language, (whether understood literally or figura- 
 tively,) to denote an affusion with tears and blood ; hence it is 
 certain they understood baptizo to signify affusion. 
 
 These testimonies, (many others might be added,) show beyond 
 all dispute, that the Greek writers, fathers, and martyrs, both 
 before Christ, and in the Apostolic and subsequent ages, under- 
 stood and used baptizo to signify affusion. We have now ex- 
 amined the meaning of baptizo, at some length, by citing nume- 
 rous standard authorities, and by tracing its general use among 
 early and learned Greek wniters. The conclusion is irresistible 
 and certain, that baptizo, with its derivatives, does signify affusion 
 as well as immersion. This conclusion places the views of the 
 mode of baptism we advocate upon an immovable basis. 
 
 But the most satisfactory source of learning the meaning of 
 this word, is the Bible. In what sense is baptizo used by the 
 sacred writers ? If they use it to signify affusion, i. e. sprink- 
 ling or poiiriyig ; neither misrepresentation, nor confident, 
 unsupported assertions, nor ridicule, can alter the meaning ; it 
 will stand, while the world endures. 
 
 Let us now examine the meaning of baptizo, as used in the 
 Bible. I begin 
 
 1. With Acts 1 : 5. Saith Luke, " John truly baptized 
 {ebaptisen) with water, but ye shall be baptized {baptisthescs- 
 the) with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Luke says, 
 
 * Walker, Cap. 6. t Walker's Doc. Bap. Chap. 6. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 29 
 
 a few days after, (2 : 2 — 4,) "And suddenly there came a sound 
 from heaven, as of a mighty rushing wind, and it (the sound) 
 filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared 
 unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it [the tongue, or Spirit 
 signified thereby] sat upon each of them. And they were all filled 
 with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as 
 the Spirit gave them utterance." And Peter, one of the Apostles, 
 standing up, assured the multitude that this was the very thing 
 foretold by the prophet Joel ; to wit, " Saith God I w'lW pour out 
 of my Spirit upon all flesh." Now look at these facts ; Luke 
 says, .Tohn baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized loith 
 the Holy Ghost, not many days hence. He says, a few days 
 after, the Holy Ghost sat upon them, and they were filled with 
 the Holy Ghost: and Peter affirms that this was the very poicr- 
 ing- out of the Holy Giiost spoken of by Joel. Now if Luke 
 and Peter were Psedobaptists, as no douljt they were, and it was 
 their design to show that baptizo means pouring, could they 
 have chosen stronger language ? The advocates of immersion 
 attempt to set aside the argument from this passage, by asserting 
 that the Holy Ghost filled the house so full that the disciples 
 were immersed in the Spirit. But Luke says no such thing. 
 He says the sound filled all the house — and that the Spirit sat 
 on each of them ; and they (not the house) were filled with the 
 Holy Ghost. And this was done, as Joel had foretold it would 
 be, by pouring. Here then, Luke, Peter and Joel agree togeth- 
 er in showing that one meaning of baptizo is to jyour. In this 
 case, there can be no mistake. That Luke uses baptizo to 
 signify pouring is proved as unanswerably, as any proposition 
 can be proved. Some of the advocates of immersion assert, 
 indeed, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is a figurative ex- 
 pression. To this assertion, I reply : it is perfectly immaterial, so 
 far as our present inquiry is concerned, whether this baptism be 
 literal or spiritual. The sacred penmen in speaking of this 
 affusion of the Spirit, call it baptism. Hence, in their opinion, 
 baptizo signifies affusion. The advocates of immersion may 
 talk about figurative language ; but here the truth stands out 
 " clear as the light, and firm as th6 pillars of heaven." 
 
 2. Again; see Acts 11: L5, 16, where Peter gives an account 
 of his preaching to Cornelius and his friends, and of what then 
 took place. Says he, " And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost 
 
30 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 fell on them, as on us, at the beginning. Then remembered I 
 the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized 
 with water, but ye shall be baptized {haptisthesesthe) with the 
 Holy Ghost.'' That the Holy Ghosi falling on these converts, 
 is equivalent to his being poured upon them, is plain from the 
 narrative of this same matter by Luke, who says, (10 : 44, 45,) 
 " While Peter 3^et spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on 
 all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision 
 which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, 
 because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost." Any plain man can understand these words of 
 Peter. The Holy Ghost was poured upon the people there, 
 and Peter says he called to mind that promise then fulfilled ; to 
 wit, " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." If Peter 
 had said, baptizo means to pour; it would not be stronger to 
 this point, than the language he actually used. According to the 
 Apostle Peter, then, baptizo means affusion or pouring: Till better 
 authority be produced, dear friends, we must bow to this. The 
 argument here is perfectly simple, and may be examined by 
 any plain man, who can read our English Bible. When Peter 
 here tells us that he considers pouring to be baptism, all the 
 assertions and confidence of the whole world, cannot persuade us 
 against his word. 
 
 3. Again : see Mark, 7:4. " And when they come from the 
 market except they wash [baptisontai] they eat not." See also 
 Luke 11 : 38. " And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that 
 Chiist had not first washed {cbajHisthe) before dinner." Was 
 this washing before eating, (which Mark and Luke here call 
 baptizing,) an immersion of the whole Jjody in water ; or was it 
 the washing of parts of the body, (as the hands and face,) by 
 pouring or putting the water upon them ? Plainly, the latter. 
 Pouring, or applying the water by affusion in some form, is the 
 common and uniform mode of washing. Moreover; it seems 
 to have been a custom among the .Tows to have water poured 
 upon their hands, when they washed, or as Mark and Luke 
 say, baptized themselves. Tliis word baptizo, rendered wash, 
 is used here by Luke in the passive voice ; which indicates that 
 the water was applied, (as was probably customary,) by another 
 person. Hence, (in 2 Kings 3 : 11,) we find this expression, 
 " Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 31 
 
 hands of Elijah." Wherefore, in these two passages, it is very 
 clear that Mark and Luke use the word baptizo to signify affu- 
 sion ; that is pouring. 
 
 4. Again : see Mark 7:4. " And many other things there 
 be which they have received to hold, as the icasliing [baptis- 
 mous) of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables," or couches. 
 Was this washing, (which Mark calls baptizing,) these articles, 
 performed by immersing them, or by pouring the water upon 
 them? What is the common method '? Is it by immersion, or 
 by affusion ? Cups and pots may be immersed, though even 
 this is rarely done in washing them ; but in most families, it 
 would be inconvenient, and in some impossible, to immerse 
 brazen vessels and tables or couches. Did you ever know a 
 table to be washed by immersion? And is this the common 
 mode ? Can we find a particle of proof that immersion was the 
 Jewish mode ? Is it not plain to every unbiased mind that 
 Mark uses this word (baptismoiis) to denote affusion ? 
 
 5. Again : see Heb. 9 : 10. " Which stood only in meats 
 and drinks and divers wasJmigs; {diaphorois baptismoisJ^) 
 The mode of these divers baptisms is explained in the context. 
 The Apostle shows, in the following verses, that he means the 
 various modes of ceremonial cleansing that were enjoined under 
 the law — the principal and most frequent of which was sprink- 
 ling. Saith he, " The blood of bulls and of goats and the 
 ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the puri- 
 fying of the flesh — for when Moses had spoken every precept 
 to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves, 
 and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and 
 sprinkled both the book and all the people. "Moreover he 
 sprinkled likewise with blood, both the tabernacle and all the 
 vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law 
 purged (cleansed) by blood," that is, the sprinkling of blood. 
 Here Paul speaks of divers baptisms, and then illustrates them 
 by reference to divers sprinklings ; the conclusion is irresisti- 
 ble and certain that Paul uses baptizo to signify sprinkling. If 
 it had been his object to teach the church in all coming time 
 that one meaning of baptizo is to sprinkle, could he have used 
 stronger language ? 
 
 6. Again : see 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2. "Moreover, brethren, I would 
 not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers 
 
32 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and 
 were all baptized {ehaptisanto) unto Moses in the cloud and 
 in the sea." Paul here refers to the period when the children 
 of Israel passed through the Red Sea, an account of which 
 reads thus : (Ex. 14 : 21—22,) " And Moses stretched out his 
 hand over the sea ; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a 
 strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and 
 the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into 
 the midst of the sea upon the dri/ ground; and the waters were 
 a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left." All 
 candid minds will agree that Paul, in the above passage, speaks 
 of water baptism, and that the whole multitude of the Israelites, 
 were really and truly baptized. The only inquiry now before 
 us is, what was the mode of this baptism ? It is certain they 
 were not immersed in the Red Sea. Moses says expressly, 
 they went between two walls of water upon the dry ground. 
 The Bible says, several times, the ground on which they walked 
 was drj/. It is certain they were not immersed in the clond. 
 They were under the cloud, and walked on dry ground. How 
 then were the children of Israel baptized, when they passed the 
 Red Sea 1 We have reason for thankfulness that the Psalmist 
 informs us: See Psalm 77. When, verse 20, " thou leddest thy 
 people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron," (verse 16, 
 18) " the waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee ; they 
 were afraid ; the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured 
 out water ; the skies sent out a sound ; thine arrows also went 
 abroad. The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven ; the light- 
 nings lightened the world ; the earth trembled and shook." 
 Here we learn that there was thunder, and lightning and rain — 
 the clouds poured out water in rain upon the Israelites while 
 they were journeying through the Red Sea ; which the Apostle 
 affirms was really and truly baptism. Look, my hearers, at these 
 facts. Moses affirms that tbcy passed through on dry ground. 
 The Psalmist affirms that tbe clouds poured out water; and 
 Paul affirms that the Israelites were then baptized. Hence this 
 baptism was certainly administered by jwuring, Paul being 
 Judge. Paul decides the question, therefore, that baptizo signifies 
 affiision. To his decision we cheerfidly bow. If Paul was a 
 Pajdobaptist, as no doubt he was, and if he had made his best 
 effort to teach us that baptizo signifies to sprinkle or to pour, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISIM. 33 
 
 could he have used plainer and stronger language ? The advo- 
 cates of immersion, aware that Paul here uses baptizo to signify 
 affusion, frequently fancy that the cloud somehow or other em- 
 bosomed the Israelites as water envelopes a person immersed in 
 it. Really ; would they "consider a mati duly baptized by his 
 being placed between two cisterns of water, with another cistern 
 suspended over his head."" 
 
 Other cases might be cited ; but it is unnecessary. The cases 
 now examined, settle the position that baptizo is used in the Bi- 
 ble, sometimes at least, to signify affusion. Look at these cases, 
 my friends, dispassionately and in the fear of God. Is it not 
 certain, that when Luke says the people were baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost, he used the word baptizo to signify afi'usion? — that 
 when Peter affirms, that Cornelius and his friends, upon whom 
 the Holy Ghost had fallen and been poured out, were baptized ; 
 he uses the word baptizo to signify affusion? — that when Mark 
 and Luke tell us the Jews washed before dinner, and call this 
 washing baptism ; they use the word baptizo to signify affusion 1 
 — that when Mark, informing us it was the custom of the Jews 
 to wash their tables and other furniture, and calls this washings 
 baptism ; he uses the word baptizo to signify affusion"] — that 
 when Paul explains divers washings, to mean divers sprink- 
 lings, and calls these washings, baptisms ; he uses the word 
 haptismos to signify affusion? — and that, when Paul says the 
 children of Israel were baptized under the cloud, (and the Psalm- 
 ist explains this baptism by affirming that this cloud poured out 
 rain upon them,) that Paul uses baptizo to signify affusion ? I 
 repeat ; is not ail this certain, and plain ? Here then, we have 
 the word baptizo used by Mark, and Luke, and Peter, and Paul, 
 to signify, beyond all doubt, affusion — that is, pouring and 
 sprinkling. What possible evidence can we have, to support 
 any position, stronger and clearer than this ? These witnesses un- 
 
 * Adam Clarke, (see his comment on this passage at the end of Mari< 16,) says, 
 " Paul clearly spoke of being baptized in the cloud with a direct eye to the mois- 
 ture which it contained. In this view the thought is strictly just; in any other 
 view it would be unintelligible. It follows then, Paul being judge, that to be 
 sprinkled is to be baptized." " Why should we doubt that this was said by 
 Paul for the express purpose of providing means for terminating in its proper time 
 a vexatious dispute .' I am persuaded that when the Apostle was taken to the third 
 heavens, he saw, from that elevation, the whole series of the church's future 
 progress." 
 
 5 
 
34 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 derstood the meaning of the word baptizo — and they have tes- 
 tified truly and faithfully. For one, I must receive and abide 
 their testimony. 
 
 It may be asked, do these witnesses never testify that baptizo 
 signifies immersion ? Suppose they do : (though this supposition 
 may require proof :) but suppose they do use the word baptizo to 
 signify immersion : they never, in a single instance, testify that 
 baptizo means nothing but immersion — no — never. On the 
 other hand they testify, by their nse of the word, that baptizo, 
 sometimes at least, signifies affusion — that is, the act of pour- 
 ing upon, and sprinkling. 
 
 To the foregoing arguments, I add three interesting facts. 
 
 The^/-5^ fact is, the translators of the Bible have not rendered 
 bapiizo, to itnmerse or diji-, in a single instance in the New 
 Testament ; though the word is used about eighty times. 
 Wherever they have translated it, (as they have done in some in- 
 stances,) they have translated it wash, or some word that does not 
 necessarily signify a total immersion. Generally they have only 
 transcribed the word, giving it the English form baptize. They 
 have never translated it immerse. And why was this ? Did 
 they not knoio the meaning of baptizo? Then they were unfit 
 for their great undertaking. Did they know the meaning, 
 and not choose to give it ? Then they weakly and wickedly 
 shrunk from the duty they undertook. But the translators of 
 the Bible were neither ignorant nor wicked men. They knew, 
 and did their duty. Why then did they not translate baptizo 
 into English? Because there is no word in English that fully, 
 and precisely, and in all cases, answers to it in signification. 
 They did not translate it sprinkle, because they knew it does not 
 always signify sprinkle. They did not translate it pour, because 
 they knew it does not always signify pour. They did not trans- 
 late it imincrse, because they knew it docs not always signify 
 immerse. They did not translate it wash, because they knew 
 it does not always signify wash. They knew it signifies the ap- 
 plication of water or other liquid, either by sj)rinkling, pouring, 
 washing or immersing, and as no one English word expresses 
 this signification, they judged it best generally, to give it an En- 
 glish form and leave it imlranslated ; thus, like honest men, sub- 
 mitting it, as the sacred writers do, to every man's conscience to 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 35 
 
 practice (hat mode of baptism wliich should seem most proper, 
 and be most convenient. 
 
 Tlie second fact is, tliat if Christ and the Apostles had intend- 
 ed to confine us to one and tlie same mode of baptism, they 
 might, and doubtless would have used words of the most definite 
 signification. If they had intended to designate immersion as 
 the only mode, they might have used the word dupto, which 
 signifies unequivocally to dip or dive under. If they had in- 
 tended to designate sprinkling as the only mode, they might 
 have used the word rantizo, which signifies unequivocally to 
 sprinkle. If they had intended to designate pouring as the only 
 mode, they might have used the word ekcheo, which signifies mi- 
 equivocally to pour. If tiiey had intended to designate washing 
 as the only mode, they might have used the word louo, which 
 signifies unequivocally to wash. But when they speak of the or- 
 dinance of baptism, they do not use either of these words ; they 
 uniformly use the word baptizo, which, as we have seen, signi- 
 fies to sprinkle, to wash, to immerse, to pour; and the irresistible 
 conclusion from this remarkable fact is, that they did not intend 
 to restrict the ordinance to any one mode of applying the water; 
 but that everyone might choose that mode which an enlightened 
 conscience should show him to be most proper and significant. 
 
 The third fact is, that when dipping is spoken of in the New 
 Testament, the word bapto (not Baptizo) is generally used. 
 Thus : " He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish." 
 Matt. 26 : 23. " It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me 
 in the dish." Mark 14 : 20. " Send Lazarus that he may dip 
 the tip of his finger in water." Luke 16 : 24. " He it is, to 
 whom 1 shall give a sop when 1 have dipped it." John 13 : 26. 
 " And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscar- 
 iot." John 13 : 26. " And he was clothed with a vesture dipped 
 in blood." Rev. 19 : 13. In each of these cases of dipping, 
 the Apostles have used the word bapto, and not baptizo. This 
 is a remarkable fact. If, as the advocates of exclusive immersion 
 assert, the only meaning of baptizo is to dip, why do the Apos- 
 tles always use another word when they wish to convey the idea 
 of total plunging J The fact that when they speak of dipping 
 they use another word, furnishes conclusive proof that they do 
 not consider the only meaning of baptizo to be immersion. 
 
 Let me now briefly recapitulate. On this second head of our 
 
36 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 discourse, I have shown first, from the testimony of the best Lexi- 
 cons, and the most renowned Greek scholars, both ancient and 
 modern, that one prominent meaning of baptizo and its deriva- 
 tives is affusion. I have shown secondly, from a number of 
 Scripture texts, that the writers of the New Testament use the 
 word baptizo and its derivatives to signify affusion ; and they 
 use tliis word in such connection and with such appending cir- 
 cumstances, that no room is left for an unbiased mind to doubt 
 their design thus to use it. 1 have remarked also, that tlie trans- 
 lators of the Bible have never rendered the word baptizo, to im- 
 Tnerse ; — that if Christ and the Apostles had intended to desig- 
 nate immersion as the only mode of baptism, they might, (and 
 doubtless would,) have used a word of most definite signification 
 to that purpose ; — and that when dipping is spoken of in the 
 New Testament, another word (not baptizo) is used. These are 
 deeply interesting facts ; and strongly corroborative of the main 
 argument. 
 
 So far, then, as the meaning of a word can be settled by lexi- 
 cons — by the testimony of eminent Greek scholars — and by 
 the usage of profane and inspired writers, (and they furnish the 
 highest possible authority,) it is settled that one prominent mean- 
 ing of the word baptizo and its derivatives is affusion — that is, 
 the act oi pouring upon or spriiik'Ung. This conclusion proves 
 that our Psedobaptist views of the mode of baptism, are in agree- 
 ment with the word of God, and rest on an immovable basis. 
 Amen. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ATTENDING CIECUMSTANCES ALLUSIONS AND ECCLESIASTICAL 
 
 HISTORY. 
 
 MATT. XXVIII. 18, 19, 
 
 In proof of our position that affusion is a valid mode of gospel 
 baptism, we urge, 
 
 III. The ciRcUiM.sTAXCEs attending those cases of Christian 
 baptism which are recorded in the Bible. 
 
 On this point, the advocates of immersion are bound to show, 
 that all the attending circumstances of all the cases recorded, 
 prove that immersion and nothing else is baptism. If these cir- 
 cumstances show that sometimes, or even in a single instance, 
 affusion was the mode, then our position is established. If in 
 the sequel, it shall appear that the attending circumstances fur- 
 nish no positive proof that immersion was the uniform mode — 
 and if they furnish a probability that this mode was not practiced 
 in any case — and if especially these circumstances show that af- 
 fusioji was the mode generally, or even occasionally practiced : 
 then oilr position is established, and that of our opponents over- 
 thrown. — Now I affirm, and shall show, that the attending cir- 
 cumstances, furnish no positive proof that immersion was the 
 mode practiced in a single instance — while in m,ost of the cases 
 recorded they show clearly that affusion was the mode — and in 
 all the other cases, that this was probably the mode. 
 
 I. I begin with the Baptism of John — not because this was 
 Christian baptism, but because the advocates of immersion de- 
 pend much upon it. The following facts show that John's bap- 
 tism was not Christian baptism. 
 
 1. It was not instituted by Christ. 
 
38 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 2. John did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son and 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. Some wiiom he baptized, afterwards received Christian 
 baptism. See Acts 19. 
 
 4. His baptism was not mider the Christian dispensation. He 
 says the gospel dispensation was ?iear ; but it had not fully come 
 when he was cast into prison. 
 
 5. John observed the ordinances of the Jewish dispensation. 
 
 6. Christ said the gospel dispensation was near, (not fully 
 come,) both before John was put in piison and afterwards. 
 
 7. From the nature of the case, nothing but the death of 
 Christ could set aside the old and introduce the new dispensation, 
 — of course Christian baptism could not be instituted till after 
 the crucifixion — and before that event, John's baptism was over 
 and himself beheaded. 
 
 8. Christian baptism was instituted by Christ after his cruci- 
 fixion and resurrection. See Matt. 28: 18, 19. 
 
 9. The Jewish dispensation was in operation till the death of 
 Christ, which appears from the fact, that Christ observed the 
 passover as one of the last acts of his life, before the crucifixion. 
 
 Though the gospel plan of salvation began to be unfolded 
 both by John and by Christ previous to the crucifixion, as the 
 day-spring announces the speedy approach of the sun, and appears 
 before the full- orbed day is ushered in — yet the legal dispensation 
 was not finished and the Christian dispensation fully intro- 
 duced till Christ on the cross exclaimed, " It is finished ! " and gave 
 up the Ghost. Many commentators and theologians might be 
 cited to this point, but the case is so plain it is unnecessary. 
 
 When Christ said, " It is finished," and gave up the ghost, then 
 and not till then, the legal dispensation was closed, and the 
 Christian dispensation commenced. Previous to the death of 
 Christ, the Jewish ordinances were all in force; and John and 
 Christ and believers generally observed them, till that event in- 
 troduced the Christian dispensation — soon after which, our bless- 
 ed liOrd instituted Christian baptism. These are Bible truths : 
 and if any of the advocates of exclusive immersion are unwilling 
 to abide these plain truths, argument with them will have no 
 force. 
 
 These facts show beyond all dispute, that John's baptism 
 was not Christian baptism. Of course liis baptism furnishes 
 
MUDK OF BAl'TI8I\l. 39 
 
 no certain evidence on either side as to the mode of Christian 
 baptism. But nevertiieless, as the advocates of immersion place 
 much rehance upon Joim's baptism, we \\ill begin with the bap- 
 tism of John. 
 
 What mode of baptism did John practice? 
 
 Mark 1 : 5. "And there went out unto John all the land of 
 Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in 
 the river Jordan," <fcc. 
 
 John 3 : 23. "And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to 
 Salim, because there was much water there ; and they came 
 and were baptized." 
 
 John 1 : 28. " These things were done in Bethabara, beyond 
 Jordan, where John was baptizing." 
 
 Mark 1 : 4. "John did baptize in the wilderness," (fee. 
 
 Matt. 3 : 11. Said John, " I indeed baptize you ivith water 
 unto repentance ; but he that cometh after me, &c. ; he shall 
 baptize you icith the Holy Ghost and ivith fire." 
 
 Acts 1:5. " For John truly baptized with water, but ye 
 shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." 
 
 Matt. 3 : 13 — 16. " Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jor- 
 dan unto John to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, 
 (fee. — And Jesus said. Suffer it to be so now ; for thus it becom- 
 eth us to fulfill all righteousness, [every institution.] Then he 
 suffered him. And Jesus, when [i. e. after] he was baptized, 
 went up straightway out of [or from] the water ; and lo, the 
 heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God 
 descending like a dove and ligliting upon him." 
 
 In view of these passages, what mode did John practice? Can 
 any plain, unbiased man say that it is certain John practiced any 
 uniform mode? or if he did, whattliat mode was? 
 
 Because it is said, " They were baptized of him in the river 
 Jordan," some suppose that his mode was innuersion. But this is 
 mere supposition. Let us look at the case. Has the word in 
 here any certain reference at all to the mode ? Does it not refer 
 rather to the place where he baptized ? John baptized in the 
 wilderness — in Bethabara — beyond Jordan — iji Enon. In 
 these passages it is obvious the word m has reference to the 
 place where John baptized, and not at all to the mode of his 
 baptism. As John baptized in the wilderness — in Bethabara — 
 in Enon ; — so also on another occasion, he baptized in the river 
 
40 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Jordan — or at, hy, or with the river Jordan. This Greek prcp- 
 osiiion en, here rendered in, is frequently rendered in the New 
 Testament at, by, and loitli, as well as in. En is rendered at 
 more than 100 times, loith 150 times, by about 100 limes in the 
 New Testament. If this rendering were adopted, as it might be 
 with perfect propriety, in the above passages, it would read, they 
 were baptized of him at the river Jordan — or by the river Jor- 
 dan-^- or with the river Jordan. And if the passage were thus 
 rendered, would any plain man ever have supposed it referred to 
 the mode of baptism? Would not all have agreed that the sole 
 reference was to the j^lace 7 
 
 But it is said, John baptized in or at Enon, "because there 
 was much water there." — It is asked, does not this prove that 
 the mode was immersion? By no means. It might be asked, 
 why did the king of Assyria, (2 Chron. 32,) need much water, 
 though he did not baptize at all ? Plainly for the people and 
 the beasts that were with him. It may be asked also, why are 
 camp-meetings always located near mucli water ? Plainly for 
 the- accommodation of the people and their beasts. John bap- 
 tized in the wilderness — in Bethabara — beyond Jordan — and 
 in or at Jordan — and as the people flocked to him by thousands 
 and tens of thousands, (perhaps hundreds of thousands,) he lo- 
 cated himself at Enon, because there was much water there for 
 the accommodation of the vast multitudes that followed hirn. 
 Much water was necessary, not for immersion, but to supply the 
 immense multitude, and their beasts, by means of wiiich they 
 had assembled from ail parts of Judea, and from Jerusalem, itself 
 some fifty miles distant. Now suppose it should be said, a camp- 
 meeting was held last September in P., "because there was much 
 water there," would any mortal suppose from this expression that 
 the sole or principal object of meeting in that place, was to im- 
 merse the people? Certainly not. Hence the expression, " be- 
 cause there was much water there," furnishes no conclusive nor 
 even probable proof that John baptized by immersion. 
 
 Let us now see how strongly the circumstances attending 
 John's baptism f ivor the belief that his mode was affusion. Says 
 he, " I baptize icith water ; he that cometh after me shall bap- 
 tize you with the Holy Ghost and witJi fire." If John practiced 
 immersion, this passage would be thus paraphrased — "I baptize 
 you by immersing with water ; but he shall baptize you by 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 41 
 
 'pouring the Holy Ghost upon you." The supposition that John 
 immersed, destroys the force and beauty of the passage. Men 
 are never spoken of in Scripture as immersed with or applied to 
 the Holy Ghost — but the Holy Ghost is always represented as 
 'poif7-cd, shed or sprinkled upon them. If John practiced im- 
 mersion, there was no significancy in the ordinance apparent. 
 If he practiced affusion, the mode was significant and natu- 
 ral. Another question arises here. Was it possible for John, 
 who did no miracle, to have baptized those vast multitudes in 
 eighteen months, the duration of his public ministry, by immer- 
 sion ? No unbiased mind can believe it ; whereas he might have 
 accomplished it by afliision without difficulty. 
 
 Again : — Jesus, after he was baptized, " went up straightway 
 out of the water, and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and 
 he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting 
 upon him." The expression, " he went up out of the water," 
 it is urged by the advocates of immersion, favors the belief that 
 Christ was immersed. And this belief is founded entirely upon 
 the words out of. But if he went up out of the water, it fur- 
 nishes no proof that he was immersed while in it. Besides, the 
 word €12)0, here translated out of, as every Greek scholar knows, 
 is usually translated, in the New Testament, //'om. In the first 
 five books, it is translated from 23.5 times, and out of only 45 
 times ; hence, according to the usage of the New Testament 
 writers, there is five times the weight of evidence in favor of 
 translating apo, from, rather than out of. 
 
 If then we read as Matthew wrote it, Christ went u"^ front, the 
 water, these words do not furnish the least particle of evidence that 
 Christ was immersed. 
 
 Again : what was the object of Christ's baptism ? Saith he, 
 " Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all right- 
 eousness." Scott, commenting on this passage, says, " Jesus was 
 not capable of those ends of baptism, for which it was adminis- 
 tered to others ; but he would honor it as the ordinance of God ; 
 and he would use it as a solemn introduction to his most sacred 
 work and offices." 
 
 Adam Clarke, commenting on the passage, says, " 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 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 he was baptized, washed, and anointed by the Holy Ghost. 
 Thus he fulfilled the righteous ordinance of his initiation into the 
 o^ce of High-priest, and thus was prepared to make an atone- 
 ment for the sins of mankind." 
 
 - Another distinguished commentator says, " The Jewish priests 
 were always consecrated at the age of thirty to their office, by 
 solemnly pouring the oil upon their heads, and by cleansing with 
 water, Christ was now about thirty years of age — as if the 
 Holy Ghost intended lo inform us why Christ was baptized at 
 this time. Being of the tribe of Judah, he could not be conse- 
 crated by the priests at Jerusalem. Tbis then was the time, un- 
 doubtedly, when Cbrist was consecrated to his offices of prophet, 
 priest and king, and if John did it to " fulfill all righteousness," 
 it was doubtless done by pouring water upon him, to represent 
 tbe pouring of the oil by the priests — and at the same time the 
 Holy Ghost descended upon him, and he was anointed by the 
 Holy One."* 
 
 Says Cogswell, " John baptized Christ as an induction into 
 the priestly office. All the priests," says he, " under the law 
 were baptized, and tbus inducted into office," at thirty years of 
 age — the age which Christ had attained at the time of his 
 baptism.! 
 
 Lathrop says, p. 32, " The baptism of Christ was evidently 
 his public consecration to the ministry, on which he was now 
 entering. He chose this ceremony of consecration, in conformity 
 to the law of God, which had instituted a similar form for the 
 separation of the High-priest to his office. And therefore be says, 
 Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Also, p. 33, 
 " The priests under tbe law were to enter on the public service 
 of God at the age of thirty years ; Christ, when he began to be 
 aljout thirty years of age, was baptized. They were consecrated 
 to their office by washing, (i. c. sprinkling,) with water, and by 
 anointing with oil : He was publicly inaugurated into his min- 
 istry by baptism and tbe unction of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Another conmientator says, " In the opinion of many, the Sa- 
 vior, wben baptized by John, was inducted into the Priest's office. 
 When Aaron was consecrated to tbe office of Priest, Moses wash- 
 ed him with water and poured the anointing oil upon his head, 
 
 * Scrip. IHrec. p. l(i. t Class Book, p. 167. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 43 
 
 But Jesus, when consecrated, was baptized and anointed with the 
 Holy Ghost sent down from heaven."* 
 
 Reed, in his Apology, p. 211 and 213, says, " The law of Moses 
 required that the Levites should be publicly consecrated, by a sol- 
 emn rite of purification. Accordingly Moses took Aaron and his 
 sons and washed, or baptized them, before the assembled nation. 
 In conformity to this Levitical law, Christ was baptized by John, 
 in the presence of many witnesses. — Thus he observed every ritu- 
 al, as well as moral precept of God's law. — The baptism of Aaron 
 and his sons was inaugural. So was the baptism of Christ. It 
 was his consecration and induction to public office. He was, 
 hereby, legally called of God — anointed and authorized, as was 
 Aaron, to undertake his official ministrations. — The sacred rite 
 of consecration, administered by Moses, was performed by sprink- 
 ling the water upon them. This argument, I think, proves that 
 Christ was baptized by sprinkling." 
 
 Paul also teaches us, (Heb. 7,) that Christ was a Priest, not 
 indeed after the order of Aaron, who sustained only one office, 
 but after the order or siinilitude of Melchisedec, " who was not 
 only a priest, but also a king;" which double office the Aaronic 
 priesthood did not sustain. And Paul says Christ was a Priest, 
 " not after the law of a carnal commandment ; " i. e. not as suc- 
 ceeding one who was disabled or dead, according to the law which 
 was directed to weak, carnal, perishing men ; " but after the 
 power of an endless life ; " i. e. a Priest forever — one who never 
 dies, and is never disabled — one who ever livelh to make inter- 
 cession for us. Here then we have the assurance of Paul, that 
 Christ was a Priest, who sustained also, as did Melchisedec, the 
 office of king ; and Scott, and Clarke, (with whom, so far as I 
 have observed, all sound commentators agree,) affirm that he was 
 initiated into the office of Priest, by baptism and the anointing of 
 the Holy Ghost, which descended upon him. Hence the object 
 of Christ's baptism, was his solemn introduction into his priestly 
 office. Now the Priests, as the Bible expressly assures us, were 
 consecrated by purification with water and anointing with oil — 
 and this purification was done by sprinkling — (See Numb. 8,) 
 " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Take the Levites 
 and cleanse them — and thus slialt thou do unto them to cleanse 
 
 * Cottage Bible, note — in loco. 
 
44 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 them — sprinkle water of purifying upon them," &c. When 
 therefore Jesus told John that it became them to fulfill all right- 
 eousness, i. e. to observe every institution, he baptized him ; and 
 lo, the heavens were opened and the Spirit of God descended upon 
 him. — And Luke says, God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, 
 (Acts 10 : 38,) which descended upon him at his baptism. Thus 
 Christ was baptized with water and with the Holy Ghost. — And 
 in view of all these circumstances, can any unbiased mind doubt 
 that the mode of Christ's baptism was by affusion ? Some of 
 the advocates of immersion may sneer at these truths, and talk 
 about absurdities ; but their sneers will not overturn the word 
 of the ever-living God. We have the testimony of Moses, and 
 Matthew, and Paul, that these things are so, and the testimony 
 of these three witnesses is true and will stand forever. 
 
 We have before us now a full view of John's baptism. What 
 mode did he practice ? No man can say positively it was im- 
 mersion, for this plain reason, there is no positive or probable 
 evidence of it. But on the other hand, the circumstantial evi- 
 dence is very clear and strong that he baptized by affusion. 
 In the case of our blessed Lord, especially, the evidence is full 
 and satisfactory that he was baptized by affusion.* 
 
 2. Let us now look at some cases of Christian baptism. — 
 The first case of Christian baptism to which I ask your atten- 
 tion, is that of the three thousand, which occurred a few days 
 after Christ's ascension, (Acts 2.) The Holy Ghost was poured 
 upon that multitude — they were thus regenerated ; and it seems 
 they were baptized on the spot, that same day — and this was evi- 
 dently done by twelve men, — the Apostles. Ijuke says expressly, 
 (v. 14,) Peter stood there, "with the eleven" Apostles; and, (v. 42,) 
 
 * Many of the ancients were of opinion that John baptized by pouring. Au- 
 relius Prudentius, who wrote 290 years after the Apostles, (Walker's Doc. Bap. 
 chap. 10,) represents .Toiin as baptizing by pouring, (perfundit fluvio.) — Not 
 long after, Paulinus, bishop of Nola, says, " .John Baptist washed away the sins 
 of believers, (infusis lyniphis,) by the pouring of water." Numerous ancient 
 pictures represent Christ as having been baptized by pouring. Bernard speaks 
 of John as having baptized his Lord after this manner; — Lightfoot says, " As it 
 is beyond a doUbt that John took those whom he baptized into the river, so it is 
 scarcely less certain that he there sprinkled them with water." — (Com. on Luke 
 3: 16.) — One of our missionaries, who has lately visited the place, where 
 tradition says John baptized Christ, relates that while there, some of the com- 
 pany went down into the water and were baptized by kneeling and having water 
 poured ujion them, as it was believed John baptized Christ. 
 
MODF, OF P.ATPISM. 45 
 
 he says the three thousand continued steadfastly in the Apostles' 
 doctrine. Not an intimation that any ministers but the twelve 
 Apostles were concerned in the transactions of that day. Now 
 what was the mode of baptism then practiced? Was it immer- 
 sion or affusion ? Look at the attending circumstances. The 
 occasion was unanticipated. Probably at sunrise that morning, 
 not an individual thought of being baptized. The people were 
 principally strangers from diOerent and distant countries. Par- 
 thians, Medes, Elamitcs, dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea, 
 Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, &c. 6cc. They could have made no 
 previous preparation for a change of garments. They could 
 liave no access to the Temple.* No public or private baths had 
 been engaged, so far as we learn, nor could there be — for the 
 whole city were violently opposed to the Apostles and their ad- 
 herents ; and they were many miles from both Jordan and Enon. 
 There is not a word said, moreover, of their leaving the place 
 where they were assembled : and under these circumstances the 
 baptism took place that same day. The meeting began at the 
 third hour, that is, nine o'clock. Several sermons were preached 
 and many exhortations given ; three thousand were converted 
 and concluded to be baptized. — All this must have occupied sev- 
 eral hours, not less than five or six — after which, three thousand 
 were baptized in the midst of a great city, probably by twelve 
 men ; making 250 a piece, which, reckoning one in two minutes, 
 would require between eight and nine hours. — Now, under all 
 these attending circumstances, what was the mode? It seems 
 utterly impossible that it was immersion. I cannot doubt that it 
 was affusion ; (there was time to have done it in this mode ;) 
 especially when I recollect that alfusion is one prominent mean- 
 ing of baptize, and that the Apostles, and even these three thou- 
 sand, had just been baptized or afl'used with the Holy Ghost ; 
 and I see not how any man who will lay aside his prejudices, 
 and look at these circimistances candidly, can doubt that the mode 
 
 * The advocates of exclusive immersion tell us, that these baptisms might 
 have taken place at the Temple, in the brass lavers, dipping room, and molten 
 sea. But it is manifes-t, they were not assembled at the Temple, and could have 
 no access there for such a purpose. 'Though subsequently it is said, " they con- 
 tinued daily in the Temple, and I)reaking bread from house to house," yet whoever 
 will read the second, third and fourth chapters of Acts, will see that the idea 
 that the transactions of the day of Pentecost took place at the Temple, is mere 
 supposition. 
 
46 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of baptism in this case was afTusion. There is not a particle 
 of evidence that it was immersion. 
 
 3. The next case to which I ask your attention, is that of 
 Paul, (Acts 9 : 18, 19,) — "And immediately there fell from his 
 eyes as it had been scales, and he received sight forthwith, and 
 arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat he 
 was strengthened." What was the mode by which Paul was 
 baptized? Look at the attending circumstances so minutely de- 
 scribed by Luke. Paul had been three days prostrated without 
 food or drink, (and from the fact -that Luke says, he was strength- 
 ened after he took meat,) it is evident that he was previously 
 without strength. And when Ananias came and spoke to him, 
 and assured him that he should be filled with the Holy Ghost ; 
 immediately there fell from Paul's eyes as it had been scales, and 
 he received sight forthwith, and arose — thus taking a proper 
 posture — this, it seems, was all he did — no intimation that he 
 even left the room or bedside — nay, it seems impossible for him 
 to leave the room — he was not yet strengthened. — " He arose," 
 — this was all, and was baptized, and when he had taken meat, 
 after his baptism, he was strengthened. These circumstances 
 show positively and conclusively that Paul was baptized in that 
 very room where he was. And what was the mode ? To me, 
 and I believe to every unprejudiced mind, it is plain that it was 
 afTusion. When I recollect that one prominent meaning of bap- 
 tizo is affusion, and look at this circumstantial evidence, how can 
 I doubt? How can any man doubt? 
 
 That Paul was baptized by affusion, is further evident from what 
 he himself says, (Acts 22: 16.) He affirms, that Ananias (not 
 God) called u|)on him " to arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
 his sins," calling on the Lord. And every man, nay, every 
 €hild knows that washing does not ordinarily mean immersing. 
 In washing we uniformly put the water upon us. This case of 
 Paul's baptism, then, settles the question. Tlie water and the 
 Holy Ghost were poured upon him. The advocates of immer- 
 sion, knowing that all the circumstances of this case lie against 
 their views, try to evade them by telling us that Paul says, " we 
 are buried with him by baptism into death." This is true indeed 
 of all real Christians who put on Christ and die unto sin — who 
 are born of the Holy Ghost and buried to the vanities and iniqui- 
 ties of the world — and who, relying wholly by faith upon the 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 47 
 
 death of Christ, are sanctified by the power of the Holy Ghost, 
 and thus raised up from a carnal to a holy hfe. — But Paul says 
 not a word, no never, about having been immersed at the time 
 he was baptized there in that room by Ananias.* 
 
 4. Let us look next at the case of Cornelius, and his family and 
 neighbors; (Acts 10: 44 — 47.) Peter preached to them the gospel, 
 and " the, Holy Ghost," says Luke, "/eZ/ on all them which 
 heard the word," — "and the gift of the Holy Ghost," he says, 
 " was jfoured out upon them ;" and Peter perceiving that they 
 were thus baptized with the Holy Ghost, said, " Can any man 
 forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have received 
 the Holy Ghost? " This is a strong case, and the circumstantial 
 evidence is entirely conclusive. Here is not a word said about 
 going to a river, or pond — no hint about leaving the house, or of 
 any preparation for immersion ; — but only '' can any man for- 
 bid water? " that is, evidently, '• can any man forbid that water 
 should be brought? " — this is the plain and obvious meaning — 
 the idea which the form of words instantly suggests to every can- 
 did, unprejudiced mind. Moreover, the design and mode of bap- 
 tism are Iwtli clearly exhibited in this account. Cornelius and 
 his friends were baptized or aflfused with the Holy Ghost, and 
 Peter assigns this as a reason why they should be baptized or 
 afliised with water. TIic baptism with the Holy Ghost was per- 
 formed, Luke says, by aO'usion — to make the baptism with 
 water significant, that also must be by afl'usion. Hence this case 
 proves our position beyond all debate. The advocates of immer- 
 sion cannot controvert this proof; and the method by which they 
 usually attempt to do it, shows that they have no valid reason to 
 offer. They usually retreat by saying there is no evidence here 
 of infant baptism. — Very well. — We refer to this case to prove 
 that affusion is the mode — not to prove that infants are subjects. 
 
 — We have other and abundant Bible proofs of infant baptism. 
 
 *To evade the argument from this case of Paul's baptism, our opponents some- 
 times tell us that he was immersed in a bath there, on the spot. And where do 
 they find this ? Luke the liistorian says nothing about a bath. A bath is never 
 mentioned in the Bible in connection with baptism. Indeed, it is a remarkable 
 fact, that we have no account in the Bible of any person's going from the place 
 where he was, to receive baptism. If he was at a river, he was baptized there 
 
 — If he was in a house — or sick-room — or jail — there he was baptized ; — a 
 conclusive circumstance that it was done by afl'usion. 
 
48 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 5. Let us look next at the case of the Jailer ; (Acts, 16.) An 
 earthquake shook the place — the Jailer was alarmed, astonished, 
 and converted — and he and all his house were baptized straight- 
 way — that same hour — at midnight — it would seem in the 
 outer room of the jail. The proof here is decisive, that they 
 were baptized by affusion. It is utterly impossible to believe 
 they were inniiersed. Is it credible that Paul and Silas left the 
 jail in a clandestine manner at midnight, and went away to a 
 river, regardless of the strict charge the jailer had received to 
 keep them safely, and at a moment too when the whole city 
 were in motion, having been aroused by an earthquake? In the 
 morning they refused to go out, until conducted by the magis- 
 trates who had put them in, which was downright duplicity if 
 they had been off to a river during the night. And the suppo- 
 sition sometimes made by the advocates of immersion that in that 
 heathen prison, never before visited by a Christian minister, there 
 was a pool for baptizing Christians, is too far fetched to merit a 
 serious consideration. Can any plain, unprejudiced man look 
 candidly at this case, recollecting that one prominent meaning of 
 baptizo is affusion, and have a lingering doubt that the jailer and 
 his household were baptized by affusion ? The advocates of 
 immersion sometimes throw out the insinuation that after the 
 jailer and his family were baptized they returned to the house. 
 But Luke says no such thing. The order of events as stated 
 by Luke was this : — The earthquake occurred — the jailer 
 sprang in and brought Paul and Silas from the inner prison, 
 evidently into the outer prison — there the preaching, the wash- 
 ing their stripes, and the baptism took place — and the baptism 
 being performed, he brought them into his house, wiiich, it seems, 
 was on the premises ; perhaps one end of the jail building, and 
 there he gave them meat. This is all perfectly plain, and it 
 proves our position beyond controversy. 
 
 6. Let us look next at the case of the eunuch : (Acts, 8.) 
 Because it is said, " they went down 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," 
 the advocates of immersion suppose that the eunuch was im- 
 mersed. But admit they did go down into and come out of the 
 water ; it is begging the question to suppose that while in the 
 water, the eunuch was immersed. Thousands who are baptized 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 49 
 
 at the present day go down into the water, a few inches deep, 
 and are there baptized by pouring or sprinkling the water upon 
 them while kneeling. One of the clergymen, and a number of 
 the members of the Congregational and Methodist churches of 
 this village, were thus baptized, and this is a common method. 
 If, then, Philip and the eunuch went into and came out of the 
 water, it furnishes no positive proof that he was immersed. But 
 there is no certain evidence that they even stepped into the water 
 an inch deep. The Greek word eis, here, (Acts 8 : 38,) render- 
 ed into, is very frequently, though not always, rendered to and 
 tmto. It is rendered to and unto 285 times in Matthew, Mark, 
 Luke, John, and Acts ; and the word ek is often, though not 
 always, rendered /rom. This word eis is rendered to four times 
 in this very chapter. The language of Luke then may read, 
 (and the authority'Tor this reading is undoubted,) they went down 
 to the water and came up from the water. This is as two trav- 
 elers on the road would naturall}'^ do, if they wished to baptize 
 by alTusion. There is another strong circumstance in this case. 
 The eunuch was reading the passage, (Isaiah, 52 and 53 ; this 
 was then all one paragraph, the division into chapters being of 
 modern date,) where the Prophet describes the sufferings and 
 mission of Christ. In this very passage, it was predicted among 
 other things, that Christ, when. he should come, would spi-inkle 
 or baptize many nations. The eunuch, being told that Christ 
 had actually come and suffered all that was foretold, inquired, 
 *• what doth hinder me to be baptized \ This Savior who was 
 to sprinkle or baptize many nations has come, and I am one of 
 them — let me be baptized." And they went down from the 
 carriage to the water, and he was baptized ; and to make the 
 act correspond with the prediction, the mode must have been by 
 affusion. Now, I ask, is there a particle of positive proof that 
 the eunuch was immersed ? On the other hand, is it not highly 
 probable from these circumstances, and from the fact that one 
 prominent meaning of baptizoris to pour and sprinkle, that even 
 the eunuch was baptized by affusion?* 
 
 * The advocates of immersion dwell upon it as their main argument, that they 
 find these expressions used, to wit ; — tliey went into and came out of the water. 
 But wlicn we show that the words rendered into and ottt of, are more generally 
 rendered to and from, and tliat therefore no conclusive argument can be built 
 upon these expressions — and that if they prove anything, they prove in favor of 
 
 7 
 
50 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Let US look next at the practice of Christ and the twelve Apos- 
 tles. "After these things, (.Tohn, 3 : 22,) came Jesus and his 
 disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them 
 and baptized."* 
 
 " When therefore, (John 4 : 1, 2,) the Lord knew how the 
 Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples 
 than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples," 
 &c. Now though the disciples baptized such immense multi- 
 tudes, (more than John,) not a word is said about their going to 
 Enon, or Jordan, or any other river, brook, or pond. It is not 
 even intimated that they immersed a single person, or that they 
 even went to a river or fountain for the purpose of baptizing: 
 what can be the reason ? Plainly, because they baptized loith 
 water, not in water. Why, we ask, is so much said at the pres- 
 ent day about John's baptism, which was not Christian baptism, 
 and so little said about the baptism by Christ and his disciples ? 
 Clnist sent forth the twelve, two and two, to go from city to city 
 and from house to house to preach and baptize, and where they 
 preached, there, in those very houses, for auglit that appears, they 
 baptized. How can we doubt, with these facts before us, that 
 the mode was orchnarily by affusion ? 
 
 Is it necessary to proceed further ? We have examined, I trust 
 fairly, the circumstances attending John's baptism — the baptism 
 of Jesus Christ — of the three thousand on the day of Pente- 
 cost — of the Apostle Paul — of Cornelius and his friends — of 
 the Jailer and his household — of the eunuch — and those under 
 the immediate direction of Christ and the twelve; and what is 
 the result? Do all or either of these cases furnish any positive 
 
 affusion ; this argument, upon which they place chief reliance, is entirely de- 
 stroyed — and some of them are willing to acknowledge it. But there are others 
 who, seeing their main pillar swept away, resort to ridicule and misrepresentation, 
 and talk of Jonah's being cast at the sea, and the wicked being turned by hell. 
 Do they hope in this way to blind their followers, and keep them from looking at 
 the truth ? And do they expect sensible l^uen will be convinced by ridicule and 
 misrepresentation, rather tiian by sound argument ? And will they thus " strength- 
 en the hands and encourage the hearts of tlie wicked, in their attempts to evade 
 the force of truth, when it does not correspond with their prejudices and their 
 practices ?" 
 
 * I refer to this case to show what Christ sanctioned — not that it is a case of 
 Christian baptism. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 51 
 
 proof that immersion was the mode practiced ? If so, which is 
 it? There is no positive proof that John baptized by immersion 
 — nor that Christ was baptized by immersion — nor that the 
 eunuch was : — the balance of evidence arising from tlie circum- 
 stances in each of tliese cases, is in favor of affusion. And in 
 the case of the tliree iliousand — of Paul — of Cornehus — of 
 the Jailer — and of those baptized by Christ and the twelve, the 
 circumstances show beyond all reasonable doubt, to every un- 
 biased niind, that affusion was the mode practiced. Where, 
 then, do we find a single case of baptism recorded in the Bible 
 which furnishes positive proof that immersion was practiced ? 
 No-where. — There is no such case in the Bible. Whereas on the 
 other hand, the proof is as conclusive as circumstantial proof can 
 be, that affusion was generally, perhaps always practiced. The 
 supposition of the advocates of exclusive immersion therefore falls 
 to the ground, while our position stands firm and immovable, 
 sustained by the testimony of such witnesses as Matthew, Mark, 
 Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and Jesus Christ. Being found in 
 such company, if we are humble and believing, we need not fear : 
 the ordinances of God will be preserved, let who may misrepre- 
 sent, and sneer and ridicule. 
 
 In proof of our position that immersion is not the only gos- 
 pel baptism — and that affusion is a valid mode, we urge, 
 
 IV. The Bible allusions to this ordinance. Here, a few 
 references will suffice. Isaiah, (52 : 15,) referring to gospel days, 
 (as all who read the passage may see, and as all judicious com- 
 mentators affirm,) speaks of Christ and says, " he shall sprinkle 
 many nations." What Christ does by his ministers, he is said to 
 do himself; how then does he sprinkle many nations, unless it 
 be by water baptism? Again — Ezekiel, (36: 25,) speaking in 
 the name of Jehovah to the Jews, utters a promise that should 
 be fulfilled under the gospel : — " Then will I sprinkle clean 
 water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; and a new heart will I 
 give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," &.c. There 
 can be no mistake here. Creating the heart anew, and sprinkling 
 clean water are so joined together that no one need mistake the 
 fact, that under the gospel, baptism would represent purification 
 by the Holy Ghost ; and that it should be performed by sprink- 
 ling. The mode is here designated as specifically as language 
 can do it. If (here were one passage in the whole Bible in favor 
 
e 
 
 52 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of immersion, as definite as these two are in favor of sprinkling, 
 it would certainly be considered a striking allusion. And how 
 do the advocates of immersion evade these plain passages'? 
 They cannot deny that they are predictions of what would take 
 place under the. gospel. They cannot say that they are not ex- 
 plicit in foretelling that the mode of applying the water would 
 be by sprinkling. How then do they meet them? I will tell 
 you, my hearers. They say, (and it is all they can say,) that 
 these texts are found in the Old Testament, and there they leave 
 them. 
 
 Again : under the Jewish economy the unclean were sprink- 
 led with the water of purification, and many things were cleans- 
 ed by sprinkling water and blood — and these various sprink- 
 lings the Apostle Paul calls divers baptisms. So again, the 
 blood of Christ is called the blood of sjirinkling. And again, our 
 hearts and consciences are said to be sprinkled. And again, 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost and the baptism of water ar 
 represented by the same language — •' I baptize you with water ; 
 he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."* And this baptizing 
 with the Holy Ghost is explained in the Bible to mean to co97ie 
 upon — to fall upon — to be shed forth — to pour out — to 
 come down like rain. And, my hearers, is there no meaning 
 in all this language ? Are not these expressions clear, and per- 
 tinent and decisive ? In that passage also, (.Tohn 13,) where we 
 are taught how Christ washed the disciples' feet, there is a prin- 
 ciple laid down by the Savior which cannot be controverted. 
 That washing, as the Savior affirmed, was a symbol of the 
 purification of the soul through the blood of Christ; and he 
 
 * The advocates of exclusive immersion frequently tell us that the Greek 
 preposition en, should always be rendered in and not with. If this were so, we 
 must read, "lie shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire," which is ab- 
 surd. En is indeed sometimes rendered in, but in many instances tcith is the 
 only rendering that can properly be given it. For example : — 1 Cor. 5 : 8. 
 «' Let us keep the feast, not (en) ivith old leaven, neither (en) with the leaven 
 of malice and wickedness ; but (en) with the unleavened bread," &c. 2 Cor. 
 13: 4. " We also are weak (en) with him." Eph. 6 : 2. "Which is the 
 first commandment (en) ivith promise." 1 Thess. 4: 18. "Comfort one 
 another (en) loith these words." Kev. 6 : 8. "To kill (en) with sword and 
 (en) w<'</t hunger and (en) lo it h death,"" &c. LukeH: 20. " But if I {en) tvith 
 the finger of God cast out devils," &c. In each of these ten cases with is the 
 only appropriate rendering, and this is true of a multitude of other passages. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 53 
 
 taught the disciples that a symbohcal washing is complete, al- 
 though it be applied only to the feet; as complete as if'it were 
 applied to the hands and the head ; " He that is washed, need- 
 eth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." This 
 principle is applicable to every other symbolical washing, and 
 therefore to baptism. If water be applied to any part of the 
 body in baptism, the design of the ordinance is answered. 
 
 Another consideration is, that immersion is not fitted for univer- 
 sal practice. It cannot be administered in all situations, and to all 
 persons. " There are inhabited portions of the earth, where water 
 sufficient for this mode of baptism might not occur, once in a hun- 
 dred miles. There are other portions, where, amidst mountains of 
 ice, and almost perpetual snow," immersion must, for a consider- 
 able portion of the year, be imprudent, nay, impracticable. Yet 
 the religion of Christ will ere long be spread over "these arid 
 and these frozen regions," and all the people there will be bap- 
 tized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is 
 plain that they will not be immersed. There are many, also, in 
 all our towns who become the children of God while in declin- 
 ing health, and on a sick bed, and whose hearts are drawn forth 
 to desire the ordinances of Christ. It is impossible that they 
 should be taken to a river or pond and immersed. On the ground 
 that notliing but immersion is baptism, all these persons must die 
 without the ordinance. I have baptized a devout and humble 
 disciple of Christ in her sick room, and then given her the bread 
 and the cup, in company with a few other brethren and sisters 
 assembled around that bed ; and it was one of the most solemn, 
 heavenly and delightful seasons I ever enjoyed. Now has the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, who designs that his religion shall fill the 
 earth, required an outward form that cannot be universally prac- 
 ticed ? It cannot be so. 
 
 There is another consideration : baptism by immersion is not 
 adapted to the circumstances of the occasion on which it is usu- 
 ally administered. By affusion, it may be administered here in 
 the house of God, in connection with the other ordinances of re- 
 ligion, silently and solemnly, and without that distraction of 
 mind attendant upon going to a river or pond. Here it can be 
 done decently, and devoutly, and in a manner which is calculated 
 to make a deep impression upon every soul present, and to point 
 
54 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 them to that precious blood of sprinkhng, without which none 
 can see the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Another consideration is this ; men are strongly disposed " to 
 overdo in the externals of religion, while they underdo, and per- 
 haps do little or nothing, in those things" which constitute the 
 vilals of religion. Thus Peter, "not satisfied with that degree 
 of washing which his Master judged to be sufficient, said, ' not my 
 feet only, but also my hands and my head.' " The mode. of bap- 
 tism by affusion, being simple and unostentatious, is calculated 
 to promote a retiring, humble spirit, and to discourage pride and 
 ostentation ; and thus to advance the soul's salvation, the dear- 
 est interests of the true church, and the glory of God. These 
 considerations, taken in connection with the meaning of baptizo, 
 and the circumstances attending the cases of Christian bap- 
 tism recorded in the Bible, are entitled to serious reflection, and 
 must convince every unbiased mind. 
 
 We will now 
 
 Y. Consider the history of the church of Christ on this sub- 
 ject, since the days of the Apostles. 
 
 The question here, (as on the other arguments,) is this: was 
 immersion considered by the early Christians essential to bap- 
 tism — and did they in no case practice any mode but immersion? 
 In other words : was the mode by affusion practiced at all, in 
 the early ages of Christianity, and has it been practiced ever 
 since? Proof that immersion was practiced, does not meet the 
 question. The question is this : Did the Christian church, in the 
 early ages, and in later times, practice nothing but immersion? 
 This being the real question, I propose to show that baptism by 
 affusion has been practiced ever since the Apostles' day ; and 
 though immersion has sometimes been prevalent, yet we find no 
 evidence that immersion was the onlt/ mode practiced, or that it 
 ever was considered essential to baptism, till after the reforma- 
 tion of the sixteenth century. 
 
 Cave stales, that the primitive Christians thought the mar- 
 tyrs " sufficiently qualified for heaven, by being baptized in their 
 own blood."* 
 
 In the time of Marcus AureUus Antoninus, about sixty or sev- 
 enty years after the Apostles, a distinguished bishop decided in a 
 
 * Prim. Chris, part Ist, chap. 10, seventh ed. of 1728, p. 191. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 55 
 
 certain case, that " the man was baptized if he only had water 
 poured upon him," &.C.* 
 
 Irenaeu?, born about the time the Apostle John died, spenks of 
 a sect of Christians, "who," he says, "baptized by an affusion 
 of water mixed with oil."t 
 
 Alhanasius, another early father, speaks of a sect who practiced 
 "baptism by sprinkling ;"+ {raniizomenon.) 
 
 Lawrence, who became a Christian about fifty years after the 
 Apostles, and suffered martyrdom ; a little while before he suffer- 
 ed, baptized with a pitcher of water, one of his executioners."§ 
 
 Novatian, a distinguished philosopher, became a Christian 
 about 120 years after the Apostles ; and,' says Eusebius, the eccle- 
 siastical historian, who lived not long after, Novatian, being "vis- 
 ited with sickness, baptism was administered to him, according to 
 the custom of those times, by affusion or sprinkling." || 
 
 Eusebius mentions Basilides also, as " having been baptized in 
 prison." < 
 
 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, a warm-hearted Christian, and a 
 martyr to his religion, who lived about 150 years after the Apos- 
 tles, speaking of some who were baptized by sprinkling, quotes 
 the language of the prophet Ezekiel, " I will sprinkle clean water 
 upon you, and ye shall be clean ; " and then he adds, " Hence 
 if appears that sprinkling is of equal validity with the salutary 
 bath."l 
 
 Dupin states, that Constantino the Great, " being clothed with 
 a white garment, and laid upon his bed, was baptized in a sol- 
 emn manner by Eusebius." ** 
 
 " [In tlie year 390,] AureUus Prudcntius, a man of consular 
 dignity, a Christian and a poet, thus sings in one of his evening 
 hymns : ' Worshipper of God, remember that thou didst go un- 
 der the {rorem sanction) holy dews of the font and laver ; ' in 
 other words, ' that thou wast sprinkled in baptism.' "tt 
 
 " The Centuriators, (quoting from Socrates, Lib. 7, Cap. 17,) 
 tell us of a celebrated font, ' out of which {baptiza to aqua super- 
 fusa,) the water is poured from above on the baptized person.'" 
 
 * Walker's Doc. Bap. ch. 10. t P. Advers. Ha^res. Lib. 1, ch. 23. 
 
 t P. Oral. 3. § Wall's His. In. Bap. part 2, p. 465. 
 
 II Euseb. Eccl. His. Lib. 6, Cap. 5 and 43, which now lies before me. 
 ir P. Opera Cyp. Lib. 2, Epis. 7. ** P. Dupin Eccl. His. vol. 2, p. 84. 
 tt Walker Doc. Bap. ch. 10- 
 
56 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " Gennadius of Marseiles, [who flourished about the year 490,] 
 says, ' The person to be baptized makes confession of his faith 
 before the priest,' and after confession, he is 'either wetted with 
 water or pUuiged into it.' "* 
 
 " [In the year 499,] Clodovacus, king of the Franks, was bap- 
 tized by Remigius, Archbishop of Rheims, not by immersion, but 
 {per infusioneni aquce) by the pouring of water."t 
 
 " Bede frequently uses the term tingo, abhio, perfimdo aqua, 
 in relation to baptism ; and represents one Herebaldus speaking 
 of himself as baptized in this way : ' 1 was sprinkled with wa- 
 ter.'"! 
 
 " Walafridus Strabo, [who flourished about the year 850.] says, 
 ' many have been baptized, not only by immersion, but also 
 {desuper fundendo) by pouring water on them fiom above ; and 
 they may still be so baptized.' "§ 
 
 " [In the year 858,] Nicetas Serronius speaks of those who 
 have been baptized by pouring."|| 
 
 Liudgerus is said by Mabillon to have "baptized a little infant, 
 by pouring on holy water."^ 
 
 Bernard, A. D. 1120, speaks of baptism as administered by 
 pouring.** 
 
 In the year 1140, Gratian speaks of baptism as administered 
 by sprinkling. " The blessed waters with which men are sprin- 
 kled, avails to their sanctif]cation."tt 
 
 About the year 1255, Thomas Aquinas discussed the question, 
 wdiether immersion be of the necessity of baptism, and answers 
 it in the negative ; for, says he, " as a washing with water may 
 be made, not only by immersion, but also b}'^ aspersion or afliision, 
 so a baptism may be made by way of sprinkling or pouring on 
 water."tt 
 
 Durant, A. D. 1280, says, " Sometimes baptism is given by 
 immersion, so that the whole cliild is dipped in water ; and some- 
 times it is given bj'- aspersion, vvhon the child is sprinkled, or 
 water is poured upon it."§§ 
 
 * Wall p. 4fi(). t Walker Doc. Bap. cli. 10 — 1.3. 
 
 + P. Eccl. lli.s. Lib. .-5. Cap. 6. § P. De Rebus Eccl. Cap. 26, p, 415. 
 
 II P. Com. on Greg. Ora. 40. IT P. Acta Sanctorum, p. 2, Cap. 7. 
 
 ** P. Epis. 77. tt P. De Consecrat. Dist. 4. 
 
 tt Walker's Doc. Bap. ch. 10. §§ p. De llitu Bapliznndi, Cap. 2, 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 57 
 
 Lynwood says, in 1422, " Baptism may be given by pouring 
 or sprinkling."* 
 
 About the same time, " the Synod of Angiers speaks of dip- 
 ping or pouring as used indiflferently in baptism."t 
 
 Erasmus says, " With us (the Dutcli) they have the water 
 poured on them in baptism. "t 
 
 " Martin Bucer says, about the year 1520, " Ood commanded 
 unto man such a rite, as that either by the intinction, ablution or 
 sprinkling of water, they should receive remission of sins."t 
 
 " Walaeus says, ' It hath always been iuditferent in the Chris- 
 tian church, whether baptism were administered by a single or 
 a tri/ne immersion, or Avhether sprinkling or immersion were 
 used.' "§ 
 
 " Danaeus says, ' At this day they who are to be baptized are 
 mostly sprinkled only with water, and not dipped into it.' "11 
 
 " Calvin tells us, that " The substance of baptism being retain- 
 ed, the church, from the beginnings enjoyed a liberty of using 
 somewhat different rites." And, says he, " Whether the person 
 baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once ; or 
 whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no im- 
 portance."! 
 
 " Zelenus says, 'Dipping was formerly more used, especially 
 in the hot countries of Judea ; but this mode was not universally 
 practiced, or essential to the ordinance of baptism.' "** 
 
 " Zanchius says, 'As in a matter of liberty and indifferency, 
 the church sometimes followed one ceremony, and sometimes the 
 other, as she judged most expedient.'" ft 
 
 Dr. Doddridge, speaking of the first century, says, " I sup- 
 pose immersion was often, though not constantly used."U 
 
 Reed says, " We do know that dipping and sprinkling were 
 both practiced in the second century ; and each practice hath 
 been continued from that period to the present time."§§ 
 
 Hawes says, In the primitive churches baptism "was not al- 
 ways" administered by innncrsion. "The quantity of water 
 
 * Wall, p. 469. t Wall's His. In. Bap. P. 2, ch. 9, p. 467. 
 
 X Com. Epis. Rom. cli. 6. § Synop. Theo. Djsput. 44. 
 
 II Isagogo Christiana part 4, Cap. 29, p. .522. 
 
 IT Passim Institutes & vol. 3. p. .343. ** Reed'3 Apol. p. 113. 
 
 tt P. Clark's Scrip. Grounds of In. Bap. p. 128. 
 
 XX Fam. Expos. 1 Cor. 1 : 16. §§ Apol p. 239. 
 
58 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 used, or the manner of applying it, was not then deemed essen- 
 tial, nor ought it to be so considered at the present day."* 
 
 Pond says, (see Trea. Chris, Bap. p 51,) "Until the rise of 
 the Anabaptists, (as they were called,) in the sixteenth century, 
 I find no account of any church, or sect of Christians, which 
 held that immersion was essential to baptism. Some," says he, 
 "seem to have practiced immersion, (connected with various idle 
 ceremonies,) uniformly, except in cases of necessity ; others still, 
 baptized indifferently, by immersion, pouring or sprinkling, ac- 
 cording to circumstances ; w^iile all agreed that immersion was 
 not essential, but that baptism in other modes was equally 
 valid."t 
 
 It cannot be necessary to quote further. Here we have the 
 united testimony of many distinguished men, ecclesiastical histo- 
 rians and others, reaching back to the very age in which the 
 Apostles lived, that baptism by affusion has always, for 1800 
 years, been practiced in the Christian church. In view of these 
 testimonies, my hearers, " you will be able to form your judg- 
 ment, as to the opinions and practices which, in different ages, 
 have prevailed in relation to the mode of baptism." For myself, 
 I can entertain no doubt on the subject ; and I see not how any 
 unprejudiced mind can doubt. 
 
 I will now sum up the arguments which have been presented 
 in these two discourses, 
 
 1st. It has been shown that the design of baptism, is to rep- 
 resent the purification of the soul, and our ingrafting into Christ 
 by the affusion of the Holy Ghost, and that this design may be 
 evidently, appropriately, and impressively set forth in this ordi- 
 nance, affusion must be the mode of administering it. This po- 
 sition has been established by Scripture evidence which seems 
 unanswerable, 
 
 * Tiib. Mem. Pil. p. 29. 
 
 t How do the tidvocitef? of exclusive immersion meet all this historical evi- 
 dence ? I reply — they cite Mosheim, Milner and others, to say that immersion 
 was practiced in the early ages. It is true, Mosheim does say, (vol. 1, p. 105, 
 and elsewhere,) baptism was performed in the first centuries by immersion ; but 
 he does not say that immersion was the only mode, neither does IMilner. Again; 
 they quote Vena;ma, King, and other moderns, who give it as their opinion that 
 immersion was the ancient mode practiced. But how does this invalidate the tes- 
 timonies above cited ? 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 59 
 
 It has been shown, 
 
 2nd. That the meaning of the word baptizo, is to sprinkle, 
 to pour, to ivash, lo immerse. 
 
 This position has been estabhshed by an appeal to tlie opinion 
 of sixty lexicographers, critics, and Greek classic scholars, as to 
 the definition of the word ; and an examination of the use of the 
 word among ancient Greek writers — and of its use by the 
 writers of the New Testament. It was shown that these sixty 
 witnesses all define baptizo — to wash — to pour — to sprinkle, 
 as well as to immerse ; and that this definition is fully and am- 
 ply sustained by the ancient Greek writers, and by the New Tes- 
 tament writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. 
 The evidence from the New Testament, that best of all Lexicons, 
 is clear, full and decisive. It appears, also, that if our blessed 
 Lord had designed to confine the ordinance to any one mode, he 
 might have specified the mode by the use of the word dnpto, to 
 dip — loiw, to wash — ekcheo, to pour — or rantizo, to sprinkle : 
 — as neither Christ nor the Apostles have used either of these 
 words with reference to the ordinance of baptism, but have uni- 
 formly used baptizo, a word which signifies the application of 
 water either by sprinkling, washing, pouring or immersing, the 
 conclusion is clear and decisive, that they designed to leave the 
 church to practice either of these modes, as should seem good to 
 her members. It was further shown that when Christ and the 
 Apostles designate the act of dipping or immersing they use the 
 word bapto, and not baptizo, a plain proof that they did iiot con- 
 sider baptizo as designating this act with sufficient definiteness ; 
 but rather as more generally signifying other modes of applying 
 water. It was shown, moreover, that though the word baptizo 
 is used (with its derivatives) eighty times in the New Testament, 
 fifty-seven of which refer to persons ; yet the translators of the 
 Bible have never translated it immerse, — but when they have 
 translated it, they have used the word wash, or some other word 
 which does not signify a total immersion. — These arguments 
 and facts establish the position upon solid rock, that the word 
 baptizo signifies affusion as well as immersion. 
 
 It has been shown, 
 
 3d. That the circumstances attending those cases of baptism 
 which are recorded in the Bible, furnish no conclusive proof that 
 immersion was practiced in a single instance — but contrariwise. 
 
60 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 they do furnish conclusive proof that in most of the recorded 
 cases, afiusion must have been the mode, and that in all of them 
 it was probably the mode. Here the baptisms of John — the 
 baptism of our blessed Lord — of the three thousand — of Cor- 
 nelius and his family — of Paul — of the Eunuch — of the 
 Jailer and his family — and the multitudes baptized by Christ 
 and the Apostles were examined, and shown to furnish strong, 
 some of them unanswerable proof that affusion was commonly, if 
 not always, the apostolic mode. 
 
 It has been shown, 
 
 4th. That the allusions in Scripture to this ordinance, and 
 several considerations connected with the design of its present and 
 future universal prevalence furnish striking confirmatory evidence 
 of the foregoing conclusions. 
 
 It has been shown, 
 
 5th. That immersion never was considered essential to the 
 ordinance previous to the sixteenth century, and that though im- 
 mersion has been more or less practiced, affusion has also been al- 
 ways practiced in every age since the Apostles' day. 
 
 And now, my dear hearers, what say you of these truths? Are 
 the views of this church, and of all Congregational, and all other 
 Peedobaptist churches, correct and scriptural in relation to this or- 
 dinance, or not '? Who are right ; they who tell us there is but 
 one mode of being baptized, and that unless we are immersed, 
 they -will shut the door of Christian communion against us? or 
 we, who hold with the Bible, and with the Apostles, and with the 
 Christian ci^urch in all ages, that the mode of baptism may be 
 indifferently, either by affusion or immersion ; and that upon this 
 broad basis all evaiigelical Christians who hold the fundamental 
 doctrines of the Bible, should commune together at the table of 
 their common Lord ? Who preaches and holds the truth, and 
 who is engaged in vindicating Christian baptism and the cause 
 of God ? And who, coming to the touchstone of the unerring 
 word, is weighed in the balances and found wanting? Judge 
 ye. And may you "all be baptized by one Spirit into one body," 
 and so be fitted for that kingdom where is "one fold and one 
 Shepherd." 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 aUESTION STATED. — IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH, AND OF THE COVENANT 
 UNDER THE TWO DISPENSATIONS.— CHILDREN UNDER BOTH HAVE A 
 PECULIAR RELATION TO THE CHURCH, A^D ARE ENTITLED TO THE RITE 
 ESTABLISHING THIS RELATION BAPTISM IS SUBSTITUTED FOR CIR- 
 CUMCISION.— THE INSTRUCTION AND PRACTICE OP CHRIST AND OF THE 
 APOSTLES ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 
 
 MATT. XXVIII. 18, 19. 
 
 In view of the text, I have remarked on a former occasion, 
 that in Uiis commission, Christ instituted the ordinance of Chris- 
 tian baptism — and that the language of this commission sug- 
 gests two inquiries : 
 
 What is the mode of Christian Baptism? 
 
 Who are the subjects of Christian Baptism ? 
 
 Having considered the Tnode — I propose now to consider the 
 subjects of this ordinance. Who are the proper subjects or 
 persons to receive Christian Baptism ? 
 
 My first object will be to state definitely and fairly, the real 
 question to be discussed. The question is not whether unbap- 
 tized adults who give no evidence of faith and repentance are 
 proper suljjects of baptism ; we agree with the opposers of Infant 
 Baptism, that thei/ are not; and we agree with them in adopt- 
 ing the full force of those texts of Scripture which enjoin upon 
 adults, repentance and faith, before baptism. Neither is it the 
 question whether those unbaptized adults, who give evidence of 
 true piety, are the proper subjects of baptism : we insist they 
 are. Tho only difference between the opposers of Infant Bap- 
 tism and ourselves, is this: We affirm and insist, that chil- 
 dren WHO ARE UNDER THE CARE OF BELIEVING, COVENANT- 
 ING PARENTS, ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. TlIIS 
 THEY DENY. 
 
62 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 
 
 This is the precise point of difference ; this is the real question 
 in debate : — • Are the children of visible believers fit subjects of 
 baptism, or are they not? This being the simple question, it 
 follows plainly, that all those texts which have reference only to 
 the bajitisni of adult believers, furnish no proof, either way, on 
 the question of our present consideration : inasmuch as they 
 have no reference to this question. As the whole controversy 
 about the baptism of children depends materially upon a clear 
 understanding of this point, let me give a short illustration of it. 
 I inquire of an opposer of Infant Baptism ; Is the young child of 
 a behever a proper subject of baptism ? He answers. No. I 
 ask, Why so ? He replies, the Bible says, repent, and be bap- 
 tized : if thou believest thou mayest. I rejoin ; your answer is 
 not in point. I inquired, is a child a proper subject of baptism? 
 You reply by telling me that an adult who repents and believes 
 may be baptized. Now, as I asked no question about adtdt 
 baptism, the answer is nothing to the purpose. Were I to ask; 
 Is a child a creature of the rational kind ? it would not be a per- 
 tinent, proper reply, to tell me that adults are rational creatures. 
 No answer can be a good and proper answer, unless it have ref- 
 erence to the question proposed. Hence, when I inquire, is a 
 child of a visible believer a proper subject of baptism, and my 
 opponent quotes a dozen texts to show the propriety of adult 
 baptism, his texts do not touch the question, and therefore they 
 furnish no proof either /or or against the baptism of children. 
 This illustration will make it obvious to all, that inasmuch as 
 the simple and single question is. Are the children of believers 
 proper subjects of baptism ? It is plain that all those texts which 
 speak of the baptism of adult believers, furnish no proof, either 
 way, on the question now before us. With this illustration of 
 the point in question, we affirm, and shall show, that children 
 who are under the care of believing, covenanting parents, are 
 proper subjects of baptism. The Bible proof of this position is 
 full and conclusive. 
 
 The arguments upon which I rely are these: 
 
 I. The CONSTITUTION and perpetuity of the church of 
 God. 
 
 II. The instruction given by Jesus Christ, united with 
 his TREATMENT of chikUcn. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 63 
 
 III. The INSTRUCTION given by the Apostles, united with 
 their practice. 
 
 IV. The EARLY HISTORY of the church confirms the fore- 
 going arguments, and therefore furnishes additional proof of our 
 position. 
 
 To the consideration of these /o?^r arguments I ask your care- 
 ful and unbiased attention. 
 
 The sum of them all may be briefly expressed thus : The 
 COVENANT which God made with Abraham and his seed, ex- 
 pressly included infants, and the seal of that covenant was ap- 
 plied to infants by the express command of God. We believing 
 Gentiles, (and all other believers,) are the seed for whom the cov- 
 enant with Abraham was made: and therefore our infants, as 
 well as his, are entitled to the privileges of the covenant, and 
 subjects of the seal of the covenant, by virtue of the original prom- 
 ise made to Abraham, inasmuch as that promise has never 
 been revoked. This covenant was renewed at the Red Sea ; 
 and again in the plains of Moab ; and still infants are expressly 
 included. All along under the Jewish dispensation, children are 
 comprehended with their parents, in all covenant transactions be- 
 tween God and his people, and the token of the covenant is con- 
 stantly applied to the children. The Prophets foretold that it would 
 be so still in gospel days : that " Christ should gather the lambs 
 with his arm," — that God would " pour his Spirit upon the off- 
 spring of his people who should be the seed of the blessed of the 
 Lord, and their offspring with them." Christ, when he came, 
 took infants in his arms and blessed them, and directed that 
 they should be brought to him, because of such is his kingdom ; 
 into which persons are to be admitted by being born of water. 
 He taught his Apostles to receive infants in his name, and treat 
 them as his disciples, (Matt. 18 : 5, 6,) and when he gave them 
 his baptismal commission, he expressed it in terms of such uni- 
 versal import, as must obviously include infants ; and the Apos- 
 tles, knowing what had been the constant usage concerning in- 
 fants, and how Christ had ever treated them, could not but 
 understand the commission as including the children of believers. 
 Accordingly, when the Apostles, soon after, urged the inquiring 
 and convicted multitude to be baptized, they placed their right 
 to baptism on the ground of that promise or covenant, which be- 
 longed equally to them and their children. And when the 
 
64 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Apostles baptized the head of a family, in his own house, they 
 baptized his family with him. They constantly taught, more- 
 over, that the covenant God made with Abraham, of which cir- 
 cumcision was the seal, is the same covenant which we are now 
 under, and that its blessings are come upon us Gentiles — that 
 the Gentiles are grafted into the same stock from which the Jews 
 were broken off — that children are to be treated as holy, in vir- 
 tue of the faith of their parents — that baptism is the Christian 
 circumcision ; and therefore they who are baptized into Christ, are 
 freed from the literal circumcision, and all other ancient rites — 
 and that in Christ Jesus, or under the gospel, both male and 
 female are one in privilege. And hence it was the practice of 
 the church immediately after the Apostles ; and this practice has 
 been continued to the present day, (and doubtless will be contin- 
 ued to the end of the world,) to baptize the little children of vis- 
 ible believers. And thus we see that the doctrine of Infant Baptism 
 is founded upon the unerring truth of God ; and being thus found- 
 ed on the Rock of ages, it cannot be overthrown. 
 
 That the children of believing, covenanting parents are the 
 proper subjects of baptism, I argue, 
 
 I. From the constitution and perpetuity of the church 
 of God. 
 
 That this argument, thus briefly stated, may be made perfectly 
 clear to the apprehension of every mind, we will resolve it into 
 four particulars, to wit : 
 
 First. The church of God is the same now with the church 
 of Israel ; and as then children were visibly dedicated to God, 
 they should be now, unless the law enjoining their dedication is 
 revoked. 
 
 Second. The covenant of the Israelitish church, (that which 
 God made with Abraham,) the token of which was applied to 
 children, is still the covenant of the gospel church ; hence the 
 covenant remaining the same, visible believers are still under 
 ohligations to apply the gospel token to their children. 
 
 Third. Under the Israelitish church, the cliildren of believ- 
 ing parents in covenant, were treated as holding a peculiar cove- 
 nant relation to the church : — the church and the covenant 
 remaining the same, they still hold the same relation, and there- 
 fore are the proper subjects of that rite, by which this relation is 
 established. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 65 
 
 Fourth. Baptism under the gospel cliurch is substituted for 
 circumcision. Circumcision was applied to the cliildrcn of believ- 
 ers by the command of God : that command now hinds believ- 
 ers in covenant to see that baptismal water is applied to their 
 children. 
 
 That these propositions are amply sustained by the Bible, must 
 be manifest to all unbiased minds, who have given this holy 
 book a careful and enlightened perusal. To such it is unneces- 
 sary to dwell upon them. As, however, some of my hearers 
 may desire to see them proved, I will detain you upon them a 
 few moments. 
 
 First. The church is the sa7ne now with the church of Israel. 
 As children were then visibly dedicated to God, they should be 
 now, unless the law enjoining their dedication is revoked. 
 
 Among the opposcrs of Infant Baptism, it is very common to 
 speak of the church under the gospel, as entirely distinct from 
 the church in Old Testament days ; and to hold up the idea, 
 that when Christ appeared on earth, a uew church was founded, 
 and the old one entirely abolished. This idea has no support in 
 the word of God. Both in the Old and the New Testaments, 
 the ancient church is spoken of, (not as abolished and succeeded 
 by another,) but as visited, co7nforted, pjirijied, raised up, and 
 gloriously renovated, revived and enlarged. I do not say 
 there have been no changes whatever— there have been changes. 
 While believers were looking forward to a promised Messiah ; 
 types, offerings, and bloody sacrifices were needful, which, since 
 his coming have been taken out of the way: as saith the Apostle, 
 (Heb. 10 : 9,) " He takcth away the first," that is, the oflerings 
 and sacrifices for sin, prescribed by the law, "that he may estab- 
 lish the second," that is, the offering of the body of Jesus, once 
 for all.* But the abolition of those rites, (the Sinai covenant,) 
 
 * In the seventli, eighth and tenth chapters of Hebrews, where Paul shows the 
 superior excellency of the priesthood of Christ to that of the law, he refers to the 
 national covenant made with Israel at Sinai, and contrasts tliat covenant with 
 the more spiritual dispens;ition, under the gospel ; which dispensation he calls 
 a netv covenant — and with reference to this Sinai covenant he says, " Now that 
 which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." And again, " He 
 taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Some of the opposers 
 of Infant Baptism, in their desire to get rid of the Abrahamic covenant, have ap- 
 plied this language of Paul to that covenant ; but nothing can be more erroneous. 
 Paul is speaking here of the oflerings and sacrifices prescribed under the Sinai 
 
 9 
 
66 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and the introduction of the gospel dispensation, did not affect the 
 identity or sameness of the church. The true church on earth, 
 cmhodies ail true religion, and all tlie real friends of God existing 
 in the world. Those who love God and do his pleasure, have 
 alway;3 sustained the same relation to God and each other, and 
 they have always belonged to the same holy family, and this 
 famil3Ms the church ; and this church, in all her distinctive char- 
 acteristics, has in all periods been the same. 
 
 1. In Old and New Testament times, the church has professed 
 the true religion; and true religion is the same in all peri- 
 ods. There never have been two wa3^s to heaven. From tha 
 day Adam fell, to this hour, the only path to glory above has 
 been through the blessed and only Redeemer. The religion of 
 the Bible, tliat religion which the church has always professed, 
 is one and the same. There is not one religion taught in the 
 Old Testament, and another in the New. The Israelites, who 
 had (he Old Testament, professed the same religion as Christians 
 who have both Testaments. The doctrines of the New Testa- 
 ment are unfolded with greater clearness, minuteness and power, 
 but in all fundamentals, they are the very same doctrines which 
 are taught in the Old. The requireinents of the Gospel are the 
 same as those of the Law. The rules of discipline in the church, 
 and the promises to God's people, are essentially the same in both 
 dispensations. And all must admit that the religion of the Bible 
 consists in its doctrines — its requirements — its j)ro?nises, and 
 {he discipli7ie it enjoins upon those who embrace it. Hence, if 
 the church, under both dispensations, has professed the same re- 
 ligion, she has ever been the sai?ie church. 
 
 2. Again : — A multitude of passages applied to the ancient 
 church in the Old Testament, are applied to the Christian church 
 in the New. For example : God said to the ancient church, "I 
 will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my 
 people !" (Lev. 26: 12.) Paul quotes this very language thus : 
 (2 Cor. 6 : 16 — 18.) " As God has said, I will dwell in them, and 
 
 covenant, and showing how much better is the new covenant or oflering of the 
 body of Jesus once for all. That he does not refer in these passages to the cove- 
 nant of works, of which Adam was the surety, — nor to the covenant of grace, of 
 v\'hich Christ was the surely, and which was ratified with Abraham, and is an 
 everlasting covenant, is so evident as to need no comment. 
 
 In support of these views, see Clarke, Scott, Henry, Doddridge andMcKnight, 
 in loco. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 67 
 
 walk in them, I will be their God, and they shall be my people : 
 and I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and 
 daughters, saitli the Lord Almighty. Having these promises, 
 let us cleanse ourselves." Tiie Apostle surely considered the 
 Corinthians as belonging to the same church as those did to 
 whom these promises were originally made. Declarations of 
 this kind are met with continually in both Testaments. 
 
 3. Again : — In the eleventh chapter of Romans, Paul shows 
 for a certainty, the identity of the church under both dispensa- 
 tions. Here he teaches us that believing Gentiles are grafted 
 into the same olive tree, from which the unbelieving Jews were 
 broken off, and into which, the restored Jews shall be grafted 
 again ! By this olive tree, plainly we are to understand the visible 
 church, from which the unbelieving Jews were broken off — into 
 which the believing Gentiles were grafted, and into which also 
 the posterity of Abraham, when restored, will at length be grafted 
 again. Paul, therefore, in this chapter estabhshes the sameness 
 of the church of God under both dispensations, beyond all con- 
 troversy. In Ephesians also, the Apostle settles this point, when 
 he says, " Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and 
 Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." 
 
 4. Again : — The visible church, under both dispensations, 
 has been equally and truly the church of Christ. Under both, 
 she has been represented as the bride of Christ, the house of 
 Christ, the jlock of Christ, the 'projierty of Christ — and these 
 representations estabhsh the position, that the church has been 
 the same church under both dispensations. 
 
 5. Again : — The case of the Apostles proves the identity of 
 the church. During Christ's public ministry, they were mem- 
 bers of the church of Israel. They attended the worship and or- 
 dinances of that church. The very night Christ was betrayed 
 into the hands of men, they partook of the passover, a sacrament 
 of the old dispensation. But immediately after Christ's ascension, 
 we find these same men pillars in the gospel church. Now were 
 they cut off from one church and formed into another? If so, 
 how, and when, and by whom was it done ? Nothing can be 
 more obvious than the fact, that the Apostles belonged to the 
 same church on the day of Pentecost and afterwards, to which 
 they belonged the night they ate the passover supper with Christ, 
 and ever before that night, after they became believers. 
 
68 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Hence we conclude, from these five considerations, that the 
 Bible establishes the doctrine, that the church is the same church 
 now that she was in the days of Israel. The church is called, 
 as Isaiah predicted she would be, (62: 2,) by a new name, 
 and lives under a new and brighter dispensation : but in all essen- 
 tial and fundamental particulars, she is the sarne church perpetu- 
 ated, which God set up in days of old, and she will remain the 
 same through all periods of time. Now all who believe the Bi- 
 ble agree, that the little children of believers in the ancient 
 church, were visibly dedicated to God by his express command. 
 It follows then, the church continuing the same, either that they 
 ought stiil to be visibly dedicated to God, or that the command 
 enjoining this duty has been revoked. But this command has 
 never been revoked. Jesus Christ did not revoke it — the Apos- 
 tles did not revoke it — it is still in force, and binding upon cove- 
 nanting parents. Their children are now, as they were formerly, 
 the proper subjects of that visible dedication of which circum- 
 cision was, and of which baptism now is, the acknowledged 
 token. 
 
 Secondly. The covknant of the Israelitish church, (that 
 which God made with Abraham,) the token of which was ap- 
 plied to children, is still the covenant of the gospel church. Hence, 
 the covenant remainining the same, visible believers are still 
 bound to a|)ply the gospel token, baptism, to their children. 
 
 We might infer that the cove7iant of the visible church has 
 been the same under both dispensations, from the fact that the 
 church is constituted by its covenant, and that it has ever been 
 Ihe same church. But as the Bible furnishes direct and plain 
 proof on this subject, we will refer you to the "thus saith the 
 Lord." The covenant of the clmrch which God made with 
 Abraham, is recorded in Gen. 17: 7 — 14 ; "I will establish my 
 covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their 
 generations, for an everlasting covenant ; to be a God unto thee 
 and thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and thy 
 seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger ; all the land 
 of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. 
 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shall keep my covenant, 
 therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their generations. 
 This is my covenant which yc shall keep between me and you, 
 and thy seed after thee : every man-cliild among you shall be 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 09 
 
 circumcised. And yc shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin 
 and it shall he a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And 
 he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you, every 
 man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or 
 bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed. 
 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy 
 money, must needs be circumcised : and my covenant shall be 
 in your flesh for an everlastiii;^ covenant. And the uncircum- 
 ciscd man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, 
 that soul shall be cut ofli' from his people : he hath broken my 
 covenant. And, (verses 26, 27,ji n the selfsame day was Abra- 
 ham circumcised, and Ishmael, his son. And all the men of his 
 house, born in the house and bought with money of the stranger, 
 were circumcised with him. And, (Gen. 21 : 4,) Abraham cir- 
 cumcised his sou Isaac, being eight days old, as God had com- 
 manded him." 
 
 This covenant, you observe, extends to infants as well as 
 others, and to all succeeding generations of his descendants, and 
 to the stranger who was not of his family. It was a sjnritiial 
 covenant; and its capital promise was this — I will be a God 
 TO THEE AND THY SEED AFTER THEE. It indeed Contained 
 a promise of the land of Canaan for a possession ; but the great 
 blessing promised was in these words — "I will be a God to thee 
 and thy seed after thee," So it was repeatedly explained after- 
 wards. See Deut. 29: 9 — 15, &c. Now the Apostle Paul 
 shows us that this is the very covenant made by God with the 
 church under the Christian dispensation. Paul represents Abra- 
 ham as the fatlier of all believers — and all believers, as the chil- 
 dren of Abraham. And explains this representation, by refering 
 to the Abraha7mc covenant, of which circumcision was the seal. 
 Saith he, (Rom. 4: 11,) "And Abraham received the sign of cir- 
 cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, 
 yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them 
 that believe^ though they be not circtuncised ; that righteousness 
 might be imputed unto them also." That is, Abraham received 
 the sign of circumcision, a seal of the covenant of grace, that he 
 might be the father of all believers, and that they might be his 
 spiritual children. Paul justifies his language in calling Abra- 
 ham the father of all believers, and them his children, by quoting 
 a part of the original covenant with Abraham ; (verse 16 ;) 
 
70 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 " Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end, the 
 pro7/iise might be sure to all the seed, not to that only wiiich is 
 of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, 
 who is ih&fathej- of vs all; as it is written, (Gen. 17,) 'I have 
 mat3e thee a father of many nations.' " So again, in his Epistle 
 to the Galatians, (chap. 3 : 17,) Paul saith, " This I say, that 
 the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the 
 law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot dis- 
 annul, that it should make the p7'o?Jiise of none effect." Paul 
 here declares that the covenant with Abraham was not abolished 
 with the Levitical law — ■ and that it was a gospel covenant, " con- 
 firmed," says he, " of God iti Chi'ist ;'''' and thus it was a cove- 
 nant of promise to all the spiritual children of Abraham. " Know 
 ye therefore," says he, "that they which are oi faith, the same 
 are the children of Abraham." (Verse 29.) " And if ye be 
 Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the 
 promise." And further to show that all, of both sexes, are in- 
 cluded in this covenant, and have equal privileges, he says, (verse 
 28,) " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor 
 free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ 
 Jesus." Hence the Apostle has established the matter, that this 
 covenant which God made with the ancient church is the same 
 covenant which is in force under the gospel, and it will continue 
 in force while the world shall last.* Though the opposers of In- 
 fant Baptism may speak of the covenant as no longer in force, 
 and as an "old worn out vessel, that has done all the work as- 
 signed her," yet it will nevertheless exist, for it is everlasting, 
 and the eternal God will not suffer it to fail. This covenant 
 being the only covenant of grace which God has ever made with 
 men ; the terms and extent of it must continue as they were 
 originally, unless they are revoked or modified by their Author. 
 
 * Calvin says, (book 4, chap. Ifi,) " The covenant which God once made 
 with Abraham, continues as much in force with Christians in the present day, as 
 it did formerly with the .Tows; unless we suppose that Christ, by his advent, di- 
 minished or curtailed the grace of the Father, which is execrable blasphemy." 
 Agiiin he says, "The principal promises of the covenant which God made with 
 Israel, were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life. At the same time, 
 when he promised eternal blessedness to Abraham, he added another promise 
 respecting the possession of the land of Canaan; but the spiritual promise 
 may always be considered as the source and foundation to which others may be 
 referred." 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. / i 
 
 This he has never done. Now this covenant included infants 
 as well as adults ; and as God has never made any declaration, 
 excluding them, they are still comprised in it. As a token of 
 their covenant relation, anciently they were circumcised ; bap- 
 tism is the gospel circumcision ; under the gospel, then, they 
 should be baptized. 
 
 Thirdly. In the ancient church, the children of believers 
 were treated as holding a pecuhar covenant relation to the visible 
 church. The church now being the same, and the covenant 
 the same, it follows obviously, that the children of believers still 
 hold a pecuhar covenant relation to the visible church ; and there- 
 fore, that they are the proper subjects of that r^7e, by which this 
 relation is established. Accordingly, Jeremiah, foretelling the 
 final restoration of the Jews, and their state and privileges, when 
 incorporated with the gO;?pel church ; uses this remarkably defi- 
 nite language, (30. 20,) "And their children also shall be as 
 aforetime, and their congregation shall be established before me, 
 and 1 will punish all that oppress them!" 
 
 Fourthly. Baptism in the gospel church is substituted in 
 the place of circumcision in the ancient church. This is evident 
 fi"om the fact that the church has been the same under both dis- 
 pensations. Circumcision was anciently what baptism is now, 
 an instituted, prerequisite to a regular, visible connection with 
 the church. And if the church remains the same, the conclu- 
 sion is obvious, that baptism is substituted in the place of circum- 
 cision. This is evident from the fact also, that the covenant 
 with Abraham is still the gospel covenant. As circumcision was 
 formerly the token of the covenant, and baptism, an ordinance 
 of the same church under the same covenant, has been histituted 
 by Christ, it is obvious that baptism is siihstituted in the place 
 of circumcision, as the visible token of the covenant of the 
 church. 
 
 This is evident also, from the fact, that circumcision and bap- 
 tism import the same thing. As a si_:^n, circumcision represented 
 the renovation of the heart, or regeneration. Baptism represents 
 the same thing. As a seal, circumcision confirmed the right- 
 eousness of faith, or the covenant of grace. Baptism does the 
 same. If then circumcision and baptism are of the same im- 
 port, and if, when the former was abolished, the latter was estab- 
 lished in the sa7ne church, and appended to the sa7?ie covenant, 
 it is obvious that the one was substituted for the other. 
 
72 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 This is evident also from the language of Paul to the Colos- 
 sians, where he says, (2 : 11 — 12,) " Ye are circumcised with the 
 circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the 
 sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ ; buried with 
 him in baptism." * Here the Apostle calls baptism the circum- 
 cision of Christ, or the Christian circumcision, obviously teaching 
 us tiiat it stands in the place of circumcision. Moreover, Justin 
 Martyr, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, and the prim- 
 itive fothers generally, taught that baptism was to be considered 
 as having come in the place of circumcision. 
 
 The objection offered by the opposers of Infant Baptism, that 
 circumcision was applied only to males, is obviated entirely by 
 the Apostle Paul, who assures us that under the gospel, (Gal. 3 : 
 28) " there is neither Jew nor Greek — there is neither bond, 
 nor free — there is neither male nor female." In Christ both 
 sexes have equal access to all the visible ordinances of his king- 
 dom. If then baptism has taken the place of circumcision, 
 which was applied by divine command to the children of believ- 
 ers, then the command of God still binds believing parents in 
 covenant, to see that baptismal water is applied to their children. 
 
 Thus we see, from these foiir considerations, that the children 
 of visible believers, now hold the same covenant relation to the 
 church which they held anciently. The church is the sanie 
 church — the covenant is the same covenant — the promise is 
 the same promise — the token of the covenant bespeaks the 
 same thing, and baptism is now substituted for circumcision ; 
 therefore the young children of visible believers are noiv as prop- 
 er subjects for the seal of the covenant, in the form of baptism, 
 
 * Calvin, commenting on this text, says, " What is the meanhig of this lan- 
 guage, but that the accomplishment and truth of baptism is the same with the ac- 
 complishment and truth of circumcision, since they both represent the same thing? 
 For the Apostle's design is to show that baptism was to Christians, the same that 
 circumcision had before been to the Jews." 
 
 So again, after stating fully his reasons, " It is evident beyond all controversy 
 that baptism has succeeded in the place of circumcision, and represents to us the 
 very same thing which that formerly did to the Jews." Again : — " Let us never 
 forget the similarity of baptism and circumcision, between which we discover a 
 complete agreement in the internal mystery, the promises, the use, and the effi- 
 cacy ? " Again, " As baptism and circumcision both stand on the same ground, 
 they can attribute nothing to the latter which they must not also grant to the for- 
 mer." Vide 13ook 4, chap. 16, where there is more to the same effect. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 73 
 
 as they were anciently for the same seal in the form of circum- 
 cision. Their covenant relation is the same, and the nature and 
 import of the seal are the same. We believe this conclusion is 
 sounds and fair, and scriptural — that it rests on solid rock ; 
 and therefore that it furnishes an explicit and ample ivarrant for 
 the practice of the solemn and delightful duty of Infant Baptism 
 — the baptism of the children of the church. 
 
 In proof of the position that the children of visible believers 
 are the proper subjects of baptism; 
 
 II. Let us examine the instructions given by Christ, 
 united with his treatment of little children. We have seen 
 that in the church of Israel, children were uniformly connected 
 with thier parents in God's gracious covenant, and the token of 
 the covenant was uniformly applied to children. This was the 
 state of the case when our blessed Lord commenced his public 
 ministrations. Now if he had designed to put an end to the 
 practice of publicly dedicating young children to God, what 
 course would he have adopted ? Would he have been silent ? 
 By no means. Silence would have sanctioned the continuance 
 of the practice. If such had been hia design, he would have 
 lost no opportunity to urge the riecessity and duty of abolishing 
 the long estabhshed practice. He would have condemned this 
 practice expressly, and without reserv^e ; as no longer to be ob- 
 served by his people. Now did he do it ? Did he do it on any 
 occasion, or in any manner? Never; no, not in a single instance. 
 He never taught, nor hinted, that this practice, which had pre- 
 vailed in the church by God's express command, almost two 
 thousand years, was now under the gospel to be aboUshed. If, 
 on the other hand, our blessed Lord designed that this practice of 
 publicly dedicating the young children of visible believers to God, 
 should be continued ; what course might it have been expected, 
 he would adopt ? Would he enjoin the continuance of the prac- 
 tice by express com^nand 7 This would only be enjoining ex- 
 pressly, what was already enjoined expressly ; an3 what believers 
 generally understood and practiced. What course then might it 
 have been expected, Christ would pursue ? Why truly, the very 
 course he did pursue. It might have been expected, that he 
 would often speak of this practice with implied approl)ation, and 
 that he would include children in his farewell commission. 
 This is the very thing which he in fact did. When Zaccheus 
 10 
 
74 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 believed in him, said lie " this day, is salvation come to thig 
 house ;" — this family, (as commentators generally agree,) foras- 
 much as he is also a son of Abraham [or because he is now be- 
 come a genuine son of Abraham.] So again ; when little children 
 and infants were brought to him by their believing parents, that 
 he might bless them ; he applauded the act, and declared, " of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven." The interview is thus recorded 
 (Matt. 19: 13, 14.) '-Then were brought unto him httle children 
 (Luke says, 18 : 15, they were infants) that he should put 
 his hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them. 
 But Jesus said sufler little children to come unto me, for of such 
 is the kingdom of heaven." " The kingdom of heaven" is a 
 phrase which signifies here, as it generally does in the Evange- 
 lists, the Christian church or kingdom of grace, and whether it 
 refers to the church on earth or in glory, is immaterial, to our pre- 
 sent application of it. When, therefore, Christ says of these in- 
 fants — "of such is the kingdom of heaven," he evidently means 
 to teach the disciples and people that little children are to hold the 
 same relation to the visible church under the New Testament 
 dispensation, as they had held from the days of Abraham. If he 
 did not baptize these infants, the reason doubtless was, because cir- 
 cumcision was still in force, and Christian baptism not yet insti- 
 tuted. But when the disciples rebuked these parents for bringing 
 their infants, the answer of Christ seems designed to teach them, 
 what, as the posterity of Abraham, they would readily understand 
 — to wit, " that little children were to hold the same relation to 
 the church of God, under the Christian dispensation," as they held 
 in the former dispensation. In this passage, therefore, the lan- 
 guage of Christ and his treatment of these infants vindicate their 
 right to baptism. Such is the opinion of judicious commentators 
 generally ; See Scott, Lathrop, Woods, Henry, Dwight, Pond, 
 Doddridge, Clark, Cogswell, Wardlaw, Calvin, and many 
 others. 
 
 So again: — When our Lord gave Ids disciples their final com- 
 mission, this was the form of it: "Go ye therefore and teach all 
 nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost :" The word rendered teach {Mafhe- 
 teusatc) properly signifies, as every Greek scholar knows, and as 
 commentators agree — make disciples — pi'oseli/ic or bring over 
 to the Christian religion. The commission then is this; " Go ye 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 75 
 
 and proselyte or make disciples of all nations [both adults and 
 children] baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In this commis.~ion neither infants 
 nor adults are expressly mentioned ; but the word nations which 
 Christ used, being a collective term, must be understood as in- 
 cluding hath. — And if Christ intended to instruct the Apostles to 
 baptize persons of every age, he could not have used any single 
 word to express his intention more fully. When, therefore, we 
 consider the language and import of this commission of Christ; 
 and the fact also that the Apostles were familiar with the repre- 
 sentations made in the Bible respecting the Divine conduct to- 
 wards parents and their children, it is clear to me, (is it not to all 
 unbiased minds?) that Christ must have intended this commis- 
 sion to baptize the nations^ and that the xlpostles so understood 
 it, 10 include cJiildren with their parents. This, I believe, is the 
 opinion of judicious commentators generally. I need not detain 
 you longer on this argument. From these passages, it is plain, 
 that Christ, in his instructions, and in his treatment of little 
 children, teaches us that the infants of visible believers in the 
 gospel church are proper subjects of baptism. 
 
 In proof of our position, 
 
 III. Let us examine the instruction and practice of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 The Apostles were Jews, and of course they were perfectly ac- 
 quainted with the practice which had long prevailed, of applying 
 the token of God's gracious covenant to the little children of visi- 
 ble believers, and like the rest of their nation were strongly 
 attached to this practice. Now how did they understand their 
 commission to proselyte and baptize the nations ? And what 
 course might it be expected they would pursue ? If, with the 
 uniform custom before them of applying the token of the cove- 
 nant to infants which God had expressly commanded, and with 
 the broad commission of Jesus Christ to proselyte and baptize 
 the nations, in their hands : if, under these circumstances, the 
 Apostles had designed to put an end to the practice of dedicating 
 little children to God, what course w'ould they have adopted? 
 Would they have been silent 7 By no means. Silence would 
 sanction the continuance of the practice. If it had been their 
 design to abolish this practice, they would have improved every 
 favorable opportunity to urge the necessity and duty of laying 
 
76 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 aside the established usage of pubhcly dedicating young children 
 to God, and they would doubtless have been clothed with divine 
 authority for doing so. They would have condemned the observ- 
 ance of the established practice, expressly and without reserve. 
 Now did they do it ? Did they do it at any time — under any 
 circumstances — in any form ? Never : no, not in a single 
 instance. They never taught nor hinted, that this practice, 
 which had so long prevailed by God's express command, was 
 now, under the gospel, to be abolished. If, on the other hand, 
 the Apostles, following their commission, as they understood it, 
 had designed to show that this practice of publicly dedicating 
 little children of visible believers to God, must be continued in 
 the church, wliat course would they adopt? Would they enjoin 
 the continuance of the practice, by express commaiid 7 Cer- 
 tainly not. This would be enjoining expressly, what was already 
 expressly enjoined, and what believers generally understood and 
 practiced. What course, then, would they pursue? Why, truly, 
 the very course they did pursue. They would take an early oppor- 
 tunity, and would repeat it, as occasion might offer, to show that 
 God's gracious COVENANT, which he made with Abraham and all 
 his spiritual children, of all nations to the end of the world, was 
 still in force ; and that therefore young children were still in- 
 cluded with their believing parents, and must still receive the 
 token of the covenant, which Christ had ordered should hence- 
 forward be baptism instead of circumcision: and they would, from 
 time to time as opportunity offered, baptize whole families on the 
 profession of the faith of the parents. Now this is the very thing 
 which the Apostles actually did. In the very first sermon they 
 preached, after the ascension of Christ, on the day of pentecost, 
 when the anxious multitude inquired of Peter and the other 
 Apostles, "men and brethren what shall we do?" he said unto 
 them, " repent and be baptized, for the promise,'^ the great prom- 
 ise, which reaches onward under the gospel, " is to you, and your 
 children, and to all that are afar off," [other nations as well as 
 Jews] " even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Now to 
 what promise does the Apostle here refer ? It could not be ex- 
 clusively the promise of miraculous gifts, spoken of by the pro- 
 phet Joel, and just fulfilled ; for that was neither conferred upon 
 children, nor did it extend to all who were afar off. What 
 promise was it then ? It certainly was a promise, suited to their 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 77 
 
 inquiry as sinners, seeking to understand the gospel scheme of 
 mercy ; and anxious to know what they should do to be saved. 
 It was a promise, too, so well known and understood, that it was 
 only necessary to call it, " the promise." It was a promise 
 that runs to parents and their children. It was a promise well 
 known to the Jews, and clearly held up in the Bible. Now what 
 promise was thus familiar, and thus clearly held up in Scripture ; 
 so that it was known at once, by the name, " the promise ?" 
 There is but one in the Bible possessing these marks : and that 
 is the great promise of the covenant, which God established with 
 Abraham and his seed. Says Henry, commenting on this pas- 
 sage " Your children shall still have, as they have had, an interest 
 in the covenant, and a title to the external seal of it. For the 
 promise of the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, 
 is to you and your children. It was very express, (Isaiah 59 : 21,) 
 ' I will pour my spirit upon thy seed ;' and when God took Abra- 
 ham into covenant, he said, ' I will be a God to thee, and to thy 
 seed : ' now when an Israehte is, by baptism, to come into a new 
 dispensation of this covenant, it is proper for him to ask, ' what 
 must be done with my children ?' ' must they be thrown out, or 
 taken in with me?' Taken in, says Peter, by all means; for 
 the PROMISE, that great promise of God's being to you a God, is 
 as much to you and your children noiv, as it ever was. Nor is it 
 confined to you and them, but the benefit of it is designed for all 
 that are afor o(f ; for the blessing of Abraham comes upon the 
 Gentiles through Jesus Christ." (Gal. iii : 14.)* Says Dod- 
 dridge, " If the 2iro?nise be interpreted as referring to a remoter 
 clause, * the forgiveness of their sins,' this whole verse must be 
 taken in a greater latitude, as rcfering to the encouragement 
 which all future converts and their children had, to expect the 
 benefits of the gospel. In which view, I think it would much 
 favor Infant Baptism, as many writers on the subject have largely 
 shown."t Says Dwight, "The promise, here referred to, is plain- 
 ly that, which was made to Abraham. As there is no other 
 promise in the scriptures, made to the Israelites and their children ; 
 we know, that this is the promise, referred to by Peter : and this 
 declaration assures us, that it is extended to the church under the 
 Christian dispensation. Children, therefore, hold exactly the same 
 relation to the church, at the present time, which they held under 
 
 * In loco. t In loco. 
 
78 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM- 
 
 thc Abmhamic dispensation."* When this promise — this cove- 
 nant was established with Abraham and his seed, circumcision 
 was apphed as the token, that is, the seal of the promise. For 
 the same reason, Peter urges npon these anxious inquirers the 
 duty of baptism ; " Be baptized, says he, and ye shall receive the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is to you and your 
 children." The reason here urged by Peter, in favor of baptism 
 then, is this : the jiromisc which God made to Abraham, being 
 to you and your children, furnishes the same reason for baptiz- 
 ing the childre?i as the 2^o.rents. Here then, in the first sermon 
 of which we have an account, after Christ's ascension, Peter, 
 with the other Apostles, lays down and establishes the doctrine 
 that baptism is to be administered, 'as circumcision had been, to 
 visible believers and their children. And thus the doctrine of 
 Infant Baptism, is \\Qxe founded on an immovable basis. 
 
 The instructions of the Apostle Paul coincide with those of 
 Peter and the other Apostles. Paul teaches us that " the bles- 
 sing of Abraham," an essential part of which consisted in the 
 covenant connection of his children, has come on us "Gentiles 
 through Jesus Christ." (Gal. 3; 14.) — So again, in his Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, (7: 14,) says Paul, "For the unbelieving 
 husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving 
 wife by the husband ; else were your children iinclean, but now 
 are they holt/.^' In this passage the Apostle settles the question, 
 that the children of parents, where only one is a believer, are to 
 be consecrated to God in baptism. The word unclean, here, as 
 in Scripture generally, denotes that which may not be offered to 
 God. The word holy, as used here, is the converse of unclean, 
 and denotes that which may be oifered to God. And in this 
 text, the Apostle evidently teaches that the unbelieving parent is 
 sanctified by the believing parent, in such a sense, that in conse- 
 quence of it, their children are separated from heathenism, and 
 may be treated as sustaining, with the believing parent, a cove- 
 nant relation to God — and thus they should be consecrated, or 
 offered to God in baptism, the only way in which children may 
 be publicly and visibly set apart for the Lord, under the Chris- 
 tian dispensation. Commentators and philologists, generally, 
 have agreed in these views of this text. Doddridge says, " On 
 
 * Theol. vol. 5. p. .316. Sec also Calvin, Latlirop, Edwards, and many 
 others. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 79 
 
 the maturest and most iiiipaitial consideration of tliis text, I 
 must judge it to refer to Infant Baptism. Nothing can be more 
 apparent than that the word holy signifies persons who might be 
 admitted to partake of the distinguishing rites of God's people." 
 As for the interpretation which the opposers of Infant Baptism 
 have contended for, that holy signifies legitimate, and unclean 
 illegitimate, says he. " this is an unscriptural sense of the word, 
 and nothing can be more evident, tlian that the argument will 
 by no means bear it."* So Calvin says, " The children of the 
 Jews, because they were made heirs of that covenant and dis- 
 tinguished from the children of the impious, were called a holy 
 seed. And for the same reason, the children of Christians, even 
 when only one of the parents is pious, are accounted holy, and 
 according to the testimony of the Apostle, differ from the impure 
 seed of idolaters." t Whitby says, commenting on this text, "If 
 the holy seed among the Jews, was therefore to be circumcised, 
 because they were born in sanctity — then by like reason, the 
 holy seed of Christians ought to be admitted to baptism, and 
 receive the sign of the Christian covenant." t Scott says, "After 
 long attention to this subject, I cannot but conclude, that the 
 baptism of the infant oflspring of Christians is here evidently 
 referred to, as at that time customary in the churches ; and that 
 the Corinthians knew that this was not objected to, when only 
 one parent was a Christian." § Many others might be quoted, 
 but it is unnecessary. From these texts, we see that in the in- 
 structions given by the Apostles touching Infant Baptism, they 
 recognize and vindicate, and thus establish the doctrine, that the 
 children of visible believers are the proper subjects of baptism. 
 
 Let us now examine the j^ractice of the Apostles. Did they 
 baptize the children of believers? In the 16th chapter of Acts, 
 Luke has given us two cases of family baptism, about which 
 there can be no doubt ; that of Lydia, and that of the Jailer. 
 " And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the 
 city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us ; ivhose heart 
 the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things that were 
 spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her house- 
 hold, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be fjiith- 
 f«l to the Lord, come into my house and abide tliere. And she 
 
 *In loco. t Book 4. chap. 16. Sec. 6. 
 
 t Vide Scott, in loco. § See Com. on the place. 
 
80 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 constrained us." (14, 15.) Any man, who will read this passage 
 with care and candor, must see that Lydia alone, of that family, 
 believed : and that upon her believing, the whole household were 
 baptized with her. Whether there were infants, or servants, or 
 both in the family, is wholly immaierial ; the account represents 
 hev faniil)/ as baptized on her faith ; and this establishes the 
 doctrine under consideration. The account does not intimate 
 that a single individual believed, except Lydia, the head of the 
 family ; which it surely would have done, if any, and especially 
 if all of them, together with Lydia, had become believers. 
 Take the account as Luke has given it to us, and no unbiased 
 man can doubt that the whole family were baptized upon her 
 faith. This case is so clear and so conclusive, that the opposers 
 of Infant Baptism cannot resist the argument it presents, and 
 they usually pass it with telling us that Paul and Silas, sometime 
 after, before they left Philippi, " entered into the house of Lydia, 
 and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and 
 departed ; " and therefore it is possible that Lydia's family were 
 all believers. But Luke gives no intimation of any such possi- 
 bility. He tells the whole story, from which it is certain that 
 Lydia alone believed. " Whose heart the Lord opened, that she 
 attended," &c. " And she besought us, saying ; If ye have 
 judged me to be faithful — come into my house." This lan- 
 guage shows certainly that she onhj believed. If her whole 
 family believed, as their /ai/^ was infinitely more important 
 than their baptism ; Luke would have mentioned it. So remark- 
 able an event as the conversion of a whole family would not 
 have been passed in silence. The writer's fidelity, to say nothing 
 of any other motive, required the mention of it. Further ; 
 Luke's narration is just such as any other Psdobaptist would 
 have given, on the ground that Lydia alone believed, and that 
 her family were baptized in view of her faith. Nothing can be 
 more certain, then, than the fact, that Lydia only, of that family, 
 believed; and that upon Aer beheving, her whole family were 
 baptized. 
 
 Again ; (verses 31, 32, 33, 34.) " 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 washed their stripes, and was baptized,^ he and all his 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 81 
 
 straightway. And he rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
 house." It is certain, as every reader of the Greek knows, and 
 as commentators agree, that this believing and this rejoicing 
 refer to the Jailer only. An exact, literal translation of the orig- 
 inal Greek, [Egalliasato panoiki pepisieiikos to Theo,) reads 
 thus, "and he rejoiced with all his house, he having believed in 
 God." The word rendered believed is in the singular number. 
 Had the family believed, this word nuist have been in the plural. 
 The word rendered with all his honse, stands with and qualifies 
 the verb rejoiced. It is evident and certain, therefore, that the 
 Jailer only, believed, and that his family were baptized on his 
 faith. There was good reason for the Jailer to rejoice in con- 
 nection with his family ; for this connection with them was such 
 that the Apostle could say, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and thou shall be saved and thy house." This connection be- 
 tween believers and their children, — a connection eminently fa- 
 vorable to their salvation, — was doubtless explained to the Jailer, 
 in the word of the Lord which they spake. Whether there 
 were infants in the family of the Jailer or not, is immaterial to 
 the argument before us, inasmuch as all his, — all that were 
 under his control, of every age, — were baptized in consequence of 
 his faith. This case then, (hke the preceding,) settles the point 
 under consideration. 
 
 There is the case also recorded, (1 Cor. 1 : 16,) where Paul 
 speaks of the baptism of the household of Stephanus — - but 
 upon this, it is not necessary to dwell. It is a remarkable fact, 
 that of the ten cases of Christian baptism, mentioned by the 
 Apostles, three were households. The opposcrs of Infant Bap- 
 tism labor to set aside the evidence arising from these cases, by 
 telling us that the term household does not necessarily imply in- 
 fants. If it does not necessarily imply infants ; it certainly does 
 so generally. This word household is used more than fifty 
 times in the Bible, and uniformly in the sense in which we use 
 the word /am?7y; so that the word household includes young 
 children as truly as the Word famili/, which always embraces 
 the infants. In these cases of households, the language of Luke 
 is unlimited. He does not say Lydia was baptized, and those of 
 her family who believed ; or the Jailer was baptized, and as 
 many of his family as" believed. There is no such limitation. 
 Lydia was baptized, and lier family. The Jailer was baptized, 
 11 
 
52 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and all his. Thus we see how the Apostles understood their 
 commission : they taught and practiced the doctrine of Infant 
 Baptism. 
 
 There are several collateral considerations, which confirm the 
 preceding arguments ; such as the fact that the baptism of chil- 
 dren is reasonable, and in accordance with the best affections of 
 the heart : the analogy of God's covenant dealings in past ages : 
 the enlargement of privilege under the gospel, and the fact that 
 if the children of primitive Jewish believers had been deprived 
 of the token of the covenant under the gospel, they would cer- 
 tainly have complained. But I pass these considerations, and 
 proceed to show, 
 
 IV. That our position is confirmed by Enn.F.siASTiCAL his- 
 tory. On this point I propose to show from the testimony of 
 the early Christian fathers, and the most authentic historians, 
 that Infant Baptism has been the practice of the church, ever 
 since the days of the Apostles. The opposers of Infant Bap- 
 tism sometimes tell us that this doctrine is of modern origin ; 
 and that infant or household baptism was not practiced in the 
 early ages of Christianity. They sometimes make the assertion 
 also, that Infant Baptism had its rise in the dark ages, and un- 
 der the influence of popery. Then again, they tell us that pop- 
 ery is the daughter of Infant Baptism, and that this can be as 
 easily authenticated as any modern historical event. But these 
 are mere assertions ; they have never hcen proved — they ca7i- 
 not be proved. They are no doubt made for the purpose of ex- 
 citing the prejudices of the uninformed ; and because the argu- 
 ments in favor of Infant Baptism cannot be fairly met. We do 
 indeed depend mainly upon the Bible to sustain the doctrine of 
 Infant Baptism ; and I trust that it has been shown from the 
 Bible, that this doctrine is established on solid rock, where it 
 will rest till the end of time. If it can be shown, however, that 
 the churches, immediately after the Apostles' day, practiced 
 Infant Baplistn, it will furnish a complete confirmation of the 
 preceding arguments: inasmuch as the primitive churches, no 
 doubt, held fast to the Apostolic pattern. This I shall do from 
 the most ample testimony. Here let it be premised, that the 
 apostles, Paul and Peter, lived till about the year 66 of the first 
 century; and that the Apostle John lived till the year 101 ; so 
 that the A])Q3tolic age continued through the first century. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 83 
 
 Justin Martyr, of whom Mosheim and Milner speak in the 
 highest terms, was born at the close of the first century, about the 
 time the Apostle John died ; and he wrote about 40 years after 
 the Apostolic age. He says, "There are many among us of both 
 sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years old, who were made 
 disciples of Christ from their childhood ; "* that is, before John 
 died. Justin uses the very word [ematheteiithesaii] which 
 Christ had used in his commission to the Apostles, to go and dis- 
 ciple all nations, baptizing them, (fcc. Justin therefore under- 
 stood the command of Christ, to make disciples and baptize, as 
 applicable to little children. And there never was any other 
 method of making disciples from infancy but by baptism. This 
 is an explicit testimony that Infant Baptism was practiced before 
 John died. 
 
 Irenaeus, whom Milner and Mosheim represent as an ardent 
 and sincere Christian, and a discreet and amiable man ; was born 
 not far from the time the Apostle John died, and was a disciple of 
 Polycarp, who was a disciple of John : Irenaeus wrote about 50 
 or CO years after the Apostolic age. Says he, " Christ passed 
 through every age; for infants he became an infant, that he 
 might sanctify infants." And again, says he, " Christ came to 
 save all persons who by him are born again [or baptized] unto 
 God, infants, and little ones and children, and youth and elder 
 persons. "t By being born again, \i'enasciintur^ Irenaeus, as he 
 himself clearly shows elsewhere, means being baptized. This 
 passage of Irenaeus, therefore, furnishes fulljproof that Infant 
 Baptism was the prevailing practice of the church in his day, — 
 only fifty or sixty years after the Apostolic age. 
 
 Tertullian, whom Mosheim and Milner represent as a man of 
 great learning, and who lived within one hundred years of the 
 Apostolic age, says, "The delay oi baptism is more useful ac 
 cording to every person's condition and disposition, and even 
 their age : but especially with regard to little children or in- 
 fants," X As Tertullian is here directly opposing the common 
 opinion, it is obvious that little children were then commonly 
 baptized. Says Professor Stuart, "It is certain that Infant Bap- 
 tism was in general practice in Tertullian's day, the first century 
 
 * Wall's History, In. Bap.; Part I, Chap. 2. p. 13. 
 
 t Wall's His. In. Bap.; Part T, Chap. 3. p. 14. 
 
 % Wall, Part I. Chap. 4. p. 21. De Baptismo, Chap. 1». 
 
84 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 after the Apostles." The reason why TertuUian proposed the 
 delay of baptizing infants, was, that he attributed to baptism an 
 importance not given to it by Scripture. 
 
 Origen, whom Moshein), Mihier and others represent as the 
 most learned Christian of his time, and who travelled in various 
 countries and was acquainted with the usages of Christians 
 throughout the world, was born about 85 years after the Apostles. 
 His testimony to Infant Baptism is clear and direct. Says he, 
 " According to the usage of the church, baptism is given \etiani 
 parviilis] even to infants." And again, says he, " Infants are 
 baptized for the remissson of sins ; and because, by baptism, 
 native pollution is taken away, therefore infants are baptized." — 
 And again, " The church received an ovder from the Apostles 
 to give baptism even to infants, [ctiatn parvulis dare haptis- 
 mumJ^ ] * Origen certainly had the best possible means of know- 
 ledge. His grandfather, or at most his great grandfather was 
 cotemporary with the Apostles. His opportunities for knowledge 
 were ample, and he stands before the world unimpeached. And 
 he says expressly, that infant bajitism was a usage of the 
 church; and that the church received an order /rom the Apos- 
 tles to baptize infants. The authenticity of this testimony has 
 been amply settled by Dr. Wall.t It cannot therefore be resist- 
 ed ; it settles the point under discussion. 
 
 Cyprian, another distinguished Christian father, who lived in 
 the time of Origen, and after him, was president of the council 
 of Carthage, composed of sixty-six bishops or ministers, which 
 was held 153 years after the Apostles. Before that council the 
 question was proposed by Fid us, a bishop, whether baptism 
 should be administered to children the second day after their 
 birth, or whether, as in case of circumcision, it should be delayed 
 till they were eight days old. Cyprian gives the result of the 
 council in the following words : "Cyprian and the rest of the 
 bishops who were present in council, sixty-six in number, to 
 Fidus our brother, greeting. — As to the case of infonts; where- 
 as you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three 
 days after they are born, and thai the rule of circumcision [to wait 
 till the eighth day] be observed ; we were all of a diOerent opin- 
 ion. Not one was of your mind — but we all rather judged that 
 
 * Wall's Hist. In. Bap. Part I, Chap. 5. p. 27. t Defence, Chap. .'5. pp. 28, 29. 
 
SUBJECl'S OF BAPTISM. 85 
 
 the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being 
 that is born. Tiiis, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in 
 the council, that we ought not to hinder any person from bap- 
 tism, and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to all. 
 And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more esjiecially to be 
 observed in reference to infants^ even to those newly born."* In 
 view of this unanimous decision of sixty -six ministers, only 153 
 years after the Apostles, says Milner, " Here is an assembly of 
 sixty-six pastors, men of approved fidelity and gravity, who had 
 stood the fiery trial of some of the severest persecutions ever 
 known ; who had testified their love to the Lord Jesus Christ in 
 a more striking manner than any Anti-Psedobaptists have had 
 an opportunity of doing in our days : and who are not wanting 
 in ajiy fundamental of godliness. Before this holy assembly a 
 question is brought ; not whether infants should be baptized at 
 all; none contradicted this; but whether it is right to baptize 
 them immediately, or on the eighth day. To a man they all 
 determined to baptize them immediately. — Let the reader con- 
 sider." "Tome" says Milner, " it is impossible to account for 
 this, but on the footing that it had ever been allowed, and there- 
 fore that the custom was that of the first churches "t Among 
 these sixty-six men there must have been some aged men who 
 had lived within sixty or eighty years of the Apostles, and were 
 well acquainted with Apostolic practice. 
 
 Again : in the Apostolic constitutions, ascribed to Clemens, 
 which were extant in the early ages of the church, it is thus writ- 
 ten, "Baptize your infants, and bring them up in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord." I 
 
 Optatus, who lived about 260 years after the Apostles, compar- 
 ing Christ, put on in baptism, to a garment, exclaims, " Oh ! what 
 a garment is this, that is always one, and never renewed ; that 
 decently fits all ages and all shapes ! It is neither too large for 
 infants nor too small for men, nor does it need any alteration for 
 women. But lest any one should say I speak irreverently in 
 calling Christ a garment, let him read what the Apostle says^ 
 '= as juany of you as have been baptized in the name of Christ, 
 have put on Christ."§ 
 
 * Cyp. F.pis. ad Fiduin. Epis. 59. ^VaI^s His. In. l?ap. Part 1 , Ciiap. (>. pp. .37, 38. 
 tSee Church His. Vol. I. p. 102. t Wall's His. In. Bap. Part I. 
 
 § Wall's His, In. Bap. Part I. Chap. 9, p. 56. 
 
56 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, who wrote about 260 years after the 
 Apostles, says, "Hast thou an infant child? Let not wickedness 
 have the advantage of time : let him be sanctified, [that is, bap- 
 tized, as he evidently uses the word,] let him be dedicated from 
 his cradle, to the Spirit. Thou, as a faint-hearted mother, and 
 of little faith, art afraid of giving him the seal, because of the 
 weakness of nature. Give to him the Trinity, that great and 
 excellent preservative ! "* 
 
 Ambrose flourished 274 years after the Apostles. He says, 
 " Those infants that are baptized, are reformed from a wicked 
 state to the primitive state of their nature." Again says he, 
 '* Unless any person be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, 
 he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. You see," says he, 
 " Christ excepts no one ; not an infant."t 
 
 Chrysostom, who lived 280 years after the Apostles, says, 
 " But our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure 
 without pain — circumcision was to be given on the eighth day : 
 but baptism has no determinate time, but it is lawfid that one in 
 infancy, or one in middle age, or one in old age^ do receive it." 
 Again says he, " you see how many are the benefits of baptism. 
 And yet some think that (he heavenly grace (of baptism) con- 
 sists only in forgiveness of sins ; but I have reckoned up ten ad- 
 vantages of it. For this cause we baptize infants also, though 
 they are not defiled with sin" (that is, actual sin.)+ 
 
 Augustine, sometimes called Austin, who flourished about 288 
 years after the Apostles, whom Milner, (Vol. 2. p. 500,) calls 
 " the great luminary " of the age in which he lived, furnishes 
 express and abundant testimony to show that Infant Baptism 
 was handed down from the Apostles. In his work against the 
 Donatists, speaking of the efliicacy of baptism, says he, " this 
 the whole body of the church holds as delivered to them in the 
 case of little infants, who are baptized ; who certainly cannot 
 believe with the heart unto righteousness or confess with the 
 mouth to salvation, 6cc. and yet no Christian will say they are 
 baptized in vain." Again says he, " the whole church practice 
 Infant Baptism. It has not been instituted by councils, but was 
 ever in use, and is very reasonably believed to be a thing ordered 
 
 * Wall, Pajt I. Chap. 11. pp. 62. t Wall, Part I. Chap. 13. p. 88, 89. 
 
 t Wall, Part I. Chap. 14. pp. 92, 91. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 87 
 
 by authority of the Apostles." Again ; in his Book on Genesis^ 
 says he, " the custom of our Mother, the church, in baptizing 
 infants must not be disregarded nor accounted needless, and it 
 must by all means, be believed to be a tradition or order of the 
 Apostles, [Apostolica traditio.''^) Again ; bespeaks of " baptizing 
 infants by the authority of the whole church which was undoubt- 
 edly delivered by our Lord and his Apostles." Again, says he, 
 " I do not remember that I ever heard any other thing from any 
 Christians that received the Old and New Testaments : neither 
 from such as were of the Catholic church, nor from such as be- 
 longed to any sect or schism : I do not remember that I ever read 
 otherwise in any writer that I could ever find, treating of these 
 matters, who followed the canonical Scriptures, or pretended to 
 do so," " that infants are not baptized for that reason, to wit that 
 they may receive remission of sins."* 
 
 Pelagius was cotemporary with Augustine. He was greatly 
 distinguished for his acuteness and learning ; was born in Britian, 
 and had travelled through France, Italy, Africa Proper, and 
 Egypt, to Jerusalem. He was the founder of the noted Pelagian 
 heresy ; and in his controversy with Augustine was crowded ex- 
 ceedingly with the arguments brought against him ; which he 
 might easily have answered by denying Infant Baptism ; but 
 though greatly tempted to this denial, he could not make it in 
 truth ; but on the other hand, contrary to his own interests, he 
 says, "Baptism ought to be administered to infants with the 
 same sacramental words, as it is to elder persons." ' Again, says 
 he, "Men slander me, as if 1 denied the sacrament of baptism 
 to infants." Again, says he, " I never heard of any, not even the 
 most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants." " Who 
 can be so impious," says he, " as to hinder infants from being 
 baptized ? "t 
 
 Celestius, another learned man, who flourished at the same 
 time with Pelagius, and agreed with him in sentiment, says, 
 "We own that infants ought, according to the rule of the 
 universal church, and according to the sentence of the gospel, 
 to be baptized." And again, " as for infants, I always said that 
 they stand in need of baptism, and that they are to be baptized."^ 
 
 ♦Wall, Part I, Chap. 15—19; pp. 106—173. 
 
 t Wall, Port I, Chap. 19; pp.205 — 211. | Ibid. pp. 211 — 281. 
 
88 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 
 
 Now certainly Augustine and Pelagius* and Celestius must have 
 known the truth on this subject: and here they tell us what the 
 truth is. x\nd their testimony, considering their character and 
 cirumstances, is in the highest degcee convincing and satisfactory.! 
 
 Thus, my hearers, I have placed before you evidence, as full 
 and specific and certain as the best authenticated histories furnish 
 of any fact, that Infant Baptism prevailed universally from the 
 days of the Apostles through the first four centuries. During 
 that period, no one denied it — no one wrote against it. — Now 
 what shall we do with this blaze of evidence, respecting the uni- 
 versal practice of Infant Baptism, in the primitive church ? Was 
 the church, during the first 400 years, (the brightest period of her 
 history,) in error on this subject ? Did she not know the mind of 
 Christ, and the Apostles ? And with these truths before us can 
 we doubt where lies the path of duty ? And what is the testi- 
 mony of the history of the church since that period ? Says Dr. 
 Wall, (page 244,) " the first body of men we read of, who denied 
 baptism to infants, were the Petrobrusians in 1150." Dr. Gill, 
 one of the most learned opposers of Infant Baptism, admits "that 
 Infant Baptism was the practice of the church universally from 
 the third to the eleventh century. "J 
 
 Dr. Wall, the most laborious and faithful writer who has ever 
 examined this subject thoroughly, and who devoted no small part 
 of his life to this examination, as the result of his extensive re- 
 searches, says, "For the first four hundred years after Christ, 
 there appears only one man, TertulHan,. that advised the delay 
 of Infant Baptism in some cases, and one Gregory, who did per- 
 haps practice such delay in the case of his own children ; but no 
 society so thinking or so practicing, nor one man saying, that it 
 was unlawful to baptize infants." " In the next 700 years," that 
 is, from the close of the fourth to the begining of the eleventh 
 century, " there is not so much as one man to be found that 
 either advocated or practiced such delay — but all the contrary. 
 
 * Mr. Judson, a noted opposer of Infant Baptism, says, (p. 49,) " Pelagius 
 admitted that baptism ought to be administered to infants, knowing probably that 
 by stemming the popular torrent, he should lose more in point of credit, than he 
 could gain in point of argument." 
 
 t Many other testimonies might be cited. See Doddridge, that deeply read his- 
 torical scholar, in his Sec. Vol. pp. 383 — 391, Woods, Lathrop, and others. 
 
 t Answer to Clarke, quoted by Fond, fu-st edition, page 88. 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 89 
 
 And when, about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses 
 declared against the baptizing of infants, because they supposed 
 them incapable of salvation, the main body of that people reject- 
 ed their opinion. And the sect that held that opinion, soon 
 dwindled away and disappeared. And from that time to the year 
 1522, Infant Baptism was the universal practice of the church of 
 Christ."* 
 
 And, says Milner, another distinguished and faithful historian, 
 after a long and thorough examination, " On the whole, a few 
 instances excepted, the existence of Anti-Psedobaptism seems 
 scarcely to have taken place in the church of Christ, till a little 
 after the beginning of tlie reformation, [in the sixteenth century,] 
 when a sect arose, called the Anabaptists."! 
 
 And ought not the testimony of Milner to be received as good 
 authority ? If so, this point is settled forever, so far as history is 
 concerned. 
 
 I am aware that the opposers of Infant Baptism sometimes 
 affirm that the Waldenses do not practice Infant Baptism. t But 
 the truth is they do practice it. In 1825, Rev Sereno E. D wight 
 of Boston, visited the Waldenses. Mr. Burt, a minister and mo- 
 derator of their synod, informed Mr. Dwight, " that the Wal- 
 denses had always baptized their infants and always done it by 
 affusion."§ The Greek church also, has always advocated and 
 practiced Infant Baptism ; and they do so to this day. Though 
 they have departed from the pure faith of the gospel in many 
 points of Christian doctrine, yet, as they speak the Greek language, 
 this fact should be remembered ; especially, as the opposers of 
 Infant Baptism often quote them in favor of immersion — 
 though they never quote them in favor of Infant Baptism. While 
 it is admitted they generally, though not always, practice immer- 
 
 * Wall's His. In. Bap. part II, Chap. 10. page 523. t Vol. 3. p. 427. 
 
 t Whoever reads John Paul Perrin's account of the doctrine and order of the 
 Waldenses: — Sir Samuel ^lorland's do., — and Leger's Histoire General e ; 
 will see that though a sniall sect of the Waldenses, (the followers of Peter de 
 Bruis,) rejected Infant Baptism ; the great body of them always believed and 
 practiced it. William Jones, an opposer of Infant Baptism, in his history of the 
 Waldenses, in two octavo volumes, professes to give a full account of their faith 
 and order ; but he carefully leaves out of all their public formularies and other 
 documents, everything which would disclose their Psedobaptist principles — an 
 artifice which honesty and justice alike condemn. 
 § Recorder and Telegraph for March 12, 1825. 
 12 
 
90 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 sion as the mode, none can deny, that they uniformly baptize 
 their httle children and infants. 
 
 Now in view of this mass of evidence, who can doubt on the 
 subject before us? Do not these testimonies establish the point, 
 beyond all question, that the baptism of children and infants has 
 been uniformly and almost universally practiced in the church of 
 Christ, ever since Paul preached the gospel to the Gentiles, and 
 the Savior poured out his blood for the salvation of the world ? 
 " Is it not certain, therefore, that Infant Baptism was not an inno- 
 vation in the church, but was sanctioned by the practice of the 
 Apostles themselves 1 On this ground, and this only, all sacred 
 and profane history, relating to the subject, will appear plain and 
 consistent, from Abraham to Christ, and from Christ to this day." 
 Who, with all this evidence before us, can deny the right or 
 the DUTY of Infant Baptism? Who, with this evidence before 
 him, can make light of this duty, and hold it up to public re- 
 proach T 
 
 Thus it has been shown, that the cJnirch of God has been the 
 same church, in all her essential characteristics, under both the 
 
 * And what do the opposers of Infant Baptism do with this testimony of men 
 who lived in the first three centuries after the Apostles ? I answer ; they bring 
 forward a list of witnesses who lived in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth 
 centuries, to testify that Infint Baptism was not practiced in primitive times ; as 
 though such testimony would set aside that of the primitive fathers. But they 
 usually quote these modern witnesses without telling us when they lived, and with 
 the apparent design of making the impression that they lived in the early ages. 
 I am surprised on looking into two of their most prominent authors, ( Judson and 
 Pengilly, now lying before me,) to find that they quote Vitringa, Salmasius, Eras- 
 mus, Chambers, Barlow, Suicerus, Curceiiius, Rigaltius, Venaema, Grotius, Epis- 
 copus, and others ; all of whom lived since the commencement of the sixteenth 
 century, to rebut the testimony of unimpeached witnesses, who lived in the first 
 three centuries after the Apostles. If we were to improve such witnesses in sup- 
 port of our views, we might summon them forth by hundreds and thousands. 
 
 Calvin, who was probably more intimately acquainted with the ecclesiastical 
 history of the first centuries, than any man of his times, and whose historic testi- 
 mony has never been impeached, says, (Book iv. Chap. 16. Sec. 8,) "Every one 
 must perceive that the baptism of infants, which is so strongly supported by the 
 authority of Scripture, is very far from being an invention of men. What they, 
 [the opposers of Infant Baptism,] circulate among the uninformed multitude, 
 that after the resurrection of Christ, a long series of years passed, in which In- 
 fant Baptism was unknown, is contrary to truth; for there is no ancient writer, 
 who does not refer its origin, as a matter of certainty, to the age of the 
 Apostles." 
 
 The judicious Brown, (See Die. Bi. Ait. Bap.) says, " none can, without tha 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 91 
 
 old and new dispensations ; — that the covenant of God with 
 his people has heen the sa?7ie covenant under both dispensations: 
 — that the children of visible believers under both, have sustain- 
 ed a peculiar relation to the church, and are entitled to the rite 
 establishing that relation : — that baptism is substituted for cir- 
 cumcision, and extended to both sexes : — and therefore that the 
 children of believers are no^v, and will be to the end of the world, 
 proper subjects of baptism, the New Testament token of God's 
 holy and gracious covenant. — Also that the instructions of 
 Christ, particularly his final co7nm,ission to the Apostles, and his 
 treatment of children : — and the instructions and practice of 
 the Apostles, show conclusively, that the children of visible be- 
 lievers still sustain a peculiar relation to the church, and are the 
 proper subjects of baptism ; and moreover, that from the history 
 of the church, it appears that the baptism of children and in- 
 fants, was the universal practice of the church immediately 
 after the Apostles, during the first, second, and third centuries, 
 and thence, with few exceptions, down to the sixteenth century : 
 and of a large portion of the Christian world to the present day. 
 Hence, 
 
 The doctrine of Infant Baptism being sustained by the 
 covenant of God — by the instruction and example of 
 Christ and the Apostles : — and the history of the church in 
 every age, rests on an immovable basis, and will rest there 
 till the end of time. It never can be overthrown. Amen. 
 
 most affronted imposition, allege, that Infant Baptism was not commonly practic- 
 ed in the primitive ages of Christianity." 
 
 The accurate Miiner, (see Vol. i. page 401,) says, " To those who say that the 
 custom of baptizing infants, was not derived from the Apostolic age — we have 
 never had such a custom as that of confining baptism to adults, nor the churches 
 of Godr 
 
 The learned Cave, (See his Primitive Christianity, seventh edition, London, 
 1728, page 193,) says, " that it was the constant practice of the church and those 
 who immediately succeeded the Apostles " to baptize infants, " we have suffi- 
 cient evidence from the greatest part of the most early writers — so that the most 
 zealous opposers of Infant Baptism know not how to evade it ; the testimonies 
 being so clear, and not the least shadow in those times of anything to make 
 against it." This is only a sample of the witnesses who have lived since the 
 fifteenth century, whom we might quote. But we rest the historical argument, 
 touching the fiirat three centuries, upon the testimony of witnesses who lived then. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM ANSWERED; THE CONSE- 
 aUENCES OF REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM ; THE IMPORT AND UTILITY 
 OF INFANT BAPTISM ; FREE COMMUNION. 
 
 MATT. XXVIII. 18, 19. 
 
 The doctrine of Infant Baptism being proved from the Bible, 
 and from the history of the church; the opposers of this doc- 
 trine raise against it several objections, which it will be the 
 
 I. Object of this discourse to examine and refute. 
 
 The most common and plausible objection which the op- 
 posers of Infant Baptism bring against it, is, that it is not enjoin- 
 ed by any express command of Scripture. 
 
 They insist that a positive religious rite must be founded on 
 an express command of God ; and that there is no such express 
 command to baptize children. 
 
 As to an express command, why was it necessary or to be ex- 
 pected ? God had already expressly commanded that children 
 should be circumcised. And as this command including chil- 
 dren has never been revoked ; and as baptism has been com- 
 manded in place of circumcision, the command to apply the 
 seal of visible dedication to children, which anciently was cir- 
 cumcision, but now is baptism, is in truth in force. We might 
 therefore conclude, that if any command were necessary, it must 
 be a command forbidding, and not a command enjoining Infant 
 Baptism. As to the fact of an express command; if the explan- 
 ation given in the last lecture, of Christ's commission to disciple 
 and baptize all nations, be correct ; then in this commission we 
 have as express command to baptize children, as we have to bap- 
 tize adults. And until it can be shown that the term nations 
 does not include children, this commission must be understood, 
 as the Apostles and early Christians evidently understood it, in 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 93 
 
 the light of an express command to practice Infant Baptism. 
 But for the present we will waive this consideration. I ask, is 
 there no duty binding upon us, except those which are enjoined 
 by express command ? Then why do we observe the first day of 
 the week as the Christian Sabbath? There is no command in 
 the Bible, requiring us to observe the first day of the week as the 
 Christian Sabbath. If we admit the duty of keeping the first 
 day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, we must rest the ob- 
 ligation to this duty, on the original institution as enjoined in the 
 fourth command — and we must admit that after the resurrection 
 of Christ, a change of the day, from the seventh to the first day 
 of the week, took place. But there is no command recorded in 
 the Bible, enjoining this change. How then do we know that 
 we are right in keeping the first instead of the seventh day, as 
 the Sabbath of the Lord 1 I answer : the Apostles and Chris- 
 tians of the first three or four centuries, as we learn from eccles- 
 iastical history, kept the first day and not the seventh. And we 
 are warranted, from the purity of their faith and lives, (knowing 
 that they had the best opportunity to form a correct judgment,) 
 to conclude, without any express command, that we are author- 
 ized to observe the first day of the week, as the Christian Sab- 
 bath. Apply the universal agreement of Christians in this case,* 
 to the case of Infant Baptism, and there is a most striking anal- 
 ogy between the institution of the Christian Sabbath and that of 
 Infant Baptism. 
 
 The institution of the Sabbath was enjoined by the express 
 command of God — so was the dedication to God, of the male 
 infants of covenanting, believing parents by circumcision. Un- 
 der the Christian dispensation, the original institution of the Sab- 
 bath has undergone the change of observing the first instead of 
 the seventh day, and this change was not brought about by 
 express divine command specifically recorded in the word of God, 
 but by the teaching and practice of the Apostles and primitive 
 Christians. So also, imder the Christian dispensation, the orig- 
 inal institution of dedicating the children of visible behevers has 
 undergone the change of substituting the external token of bap- 
 tism for circumcision, and extending it to both sexes ; and this 
 change was brought about, not by express command, (unless the 
 
 * Those who hold to the duty of keeping the sesenth day, are so few in num- 
 ber as scarce to form an exception. 
 
94 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 commission of Clirist be an express command, and we believe it 
 is,) but by the teachings and practice of the Apostles and primi- 
 tive Christians. We find several things in the Acts and Epis- 
 tles, and early history which imply that the Apostles and primi- 
 tive Christians generally observed the first day of the week, and 
 it satisfies us. So also we find several things in the Acts and 
 Epistles, and early history, which show clearly that the Apostles 
 and primitive Christians generally practiced Infant Baptism, and 
 a large part of the Christian world have therefore been satisfied 
 that Infant Baptism is binding. And we have far more evidence 
 that Infant Baptism was then considered by the church, and 
 was to be handed down to the end of time, as a bounden duty; 
 than we have that it is a binding duty to keep the^r^^ day of 
 the week as the Christian Sabbath. Even if there were no ex- 
 press command, then, in favor of Infant Baptism, the evidence in 
 its favor, independent of such command, is conclusive. So this 
 objection falls to the ground. But again ; if we object to all du- 
 ties except those enjoined by express command, we must bar 
 females from coming to the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper 
 was instituted by Christ, and is therefore a divine institution. 
 But the command to observe the Lord's Supper was given only 
 to men, not to females ; and there is no express mention in the 
 Bible, that females were to partake of the Supper. And yet the 
 whole Protestant world agree, that they are proper subjects of the 
 Supper. But no one attempts to prove it by an express com- 
 mand. We prove it rather by the propriety of the matter, and 
 from the uniform practice of the church in primitive times, as 
 furnished by ecclesiastical history ; together with what the Bible 
 teaches incidentally. We are satisfied in this case of females, 
 independent of an express command. Why should we not be, 
 in that of Infant Baptism ? So again, this objection against 
 Infant Baptism falls to the ground. It has not the weight of a 
 feather in any unbiased mind ; and we believe it would never be 
 offered, if valid objections could be found. 
 
 Another objection urged by the opposers of Infant Baptism, is, 
 that little children are incapable of exercising faith, and therefore 
 they should not be baptized ; because, says the objector, faith is a 
 pre-requisite to baptism. To this I reply ; though faith is re- 
 quired of adults in order to baptism, faith is no where required of 
 infants in order to any privilege. Besides, if faith were in all 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. y;> 
 
 cases a pre-requisite to baptism, then veril}^, how was Christ, who 
 could not have saving faith, a proper subject of the ordinance? 
 Moreover, if infants cannot be baptized for want of faith, they can- 
 not be saved for want of faith, [ he that beUeveth not shall be 
 damned ;) must we believe then that those of them who die in 
 infancy are all lost? Who can adopt so revolting a conclusion? 
 
 Further; this objection lies equally against circumcision. If 
 the modern opposer of Infant Baptism had lived in the days of 
 Abraham, would he have resisted circumcision, because the 
 infant of eight days was incapable of faith ? He might have 
 done it with equal propriety. This objection then, like the pre- 
 ceding, falls to the ground.* 
 
 Another objection of the opposers of Infant Baptism is, that 
 baptized children sometimes become profligates in after life. I 
 reply : persons baptized in adult years sometimes become profli- 
 gates subsequenily. This was true of some baptized by the 
 Apostles: witness Simon, Philetus, Hymeneus, and others. 
 This objection, therefore, proving too much, proves nothing. 
 
 Another objection offered by the opposers of Infant Baptism, is,, 
 that it will do no good. This objection shall be met in a subse- 
 quent part of the discourse. If it shall there be shown that 
 Infant Baptism will do good, this objection will not only be over- 
 thrown, but a strong additional argumentin favor of Infant Baptism 
 will be furnished. 
 
 Another objection against Infant Baptism, sometimes offered, 
 is, that it laid the foundation of Popery. t If this objection were 
 true, it would amount to nothing. If the abuse of Infant Baptism 
 were a subordinate cause of Popery, this would no more inval- 
 idate the rite itself, than the fact that adult baptism, when abused, 
 would invalidate such baptism. The popish abuse of a good 
 thing is no reason against that thing. We might as well say that 
 the Lord's Supper laid the foundation of the popish mass, and then 
 attempt to abolish the ordinance. If the Lord's Supper, or Bap- 
 tism, or the Christian religion, has been prostituted to a bad use 
 
 * If faith is always a pre-requisite to baptism, then why do not the opposers of 
 Infant Baptism re-baptize those who relinquish all hope after baptism, and subse- 
 quently become real Christians ? Such cases frequently occur ; but I am not 
 aware that they ever re-baptize these converts. 
 
 t This is an objection which was never made, to our knowledge, till very 
 recently. 
 
96 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 by wicked men ; this constitutes no solid objection against them. 
 What good thing has not been prostituted by wicked men? But 
 the objection is false, in point of fact. It never has been proved 
 that Infant Baptism laid the foundation of Popery. The truth 
 is, the opposers of Infant Baptism cannot fairly meet the argu- 
 ments in favor of this doctrine, and hence some of them have 
 resorted to ridicule, and the false imputation that Popery has 
 grown out of Infant Baptism. This imputation, we fear, 
 is designed to excite popular feeling, and subserve sectarian 
 ends: but it will not succeed. The objection is a mere 
 assertion : unsupported by a particle of well authenticated his- 
 tory. Dr. Gill, an opposer of Infant Baptism, who died some 
 fifty or sixty years since, wrote an Essay which he called 
 "Infant Baptism a part and pillar of Popery." Robinson, another 
 opposer, in his history, quotes (p. 408.) merely the title of Dr. 
 Gill's Essay as conclusive proof ih^i Infant Baptism is the pillar 
 of Popery. And Benedict, (See Vol. I. p. 87,) another opposer, 
 says, " Dr. Gill called Infant Baptism the main ground and pillar 
 of Popery, and a great number of Baptists are of the same ojnn- 
 iony And hence some of the opposers of Infant Baptism assert, 
 (it is mere assertion, they bring no proof,) that it is not matter of 
 speculation and dispute, but of recorded historical fact, that Infant 
 Baptism paved the way for all the abominations of the Roman 
 church. And they begin to say that they are sustained in these 
 assertions, by Dr. Woods and Prof Stuart. But these assertions 
 are gross, unfounded misrepresentations. They who make them 
 tacitly admit it themselves ; inasmuch as they have never proved 
 them by one item of sober history. As for Dr. Woods and Prof. 
 Stuart, they have never printed a word which will sustain these 
 assertions. In a letter just received from Dr. W^oods on this very 
 point, dated Dec. 10, 1834, he says, " I have never printed, or 
 preached, or said anything to authorize such an assertion, but I 
 have said, and preached, and printed a good deal in direct oppo- 
 sition to it." Again, says he, "Any one who reads my Lectures, 
 must see that it is my full belief that Infant Baptism was prac- 
 ticed from the days of the Apostles, and that I consider the testi- 
 mony of ecclesiastical history as conclusive evidence of this. 
 And I am more and more confirmed in my opinion that it is the 
 will of the Lord Jesus Christ, that believers shouM dedicate their 
 children to God in baptism." He adds, " Prof. Stuart's views, as 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 97 
 
 may be seen in the second edition of my Lectures on Infant 
 Baptism, are correspondent with mine, in regard to tlie argument 
 from ecclesiastical history." 
 
 The assertion that Infant Baptism paved the way for all the 
 abominations of the Roman Church, and (hat this is matter of 
 recorded historical fact, has been submitted to Dr. Emerson, Pro- 
 fessor of Ecclesiastical History, Andover ; Dr. Miller, Professor 
 of Ecclesiastical History, Princeton, New Jersey; Dr. Brownlee 
 of New York, the gentleman who has so ably and successfully 
 combated the Popish Priests in that city ; and Mr. Robbins of 
 Rochester, the author of several exceedingly valuable historical 
 works: all of them deeply and critically versed in ecclesiastical 
 history ; and their written opinion, now lying before me, is in 
 perfect agreement. 
 
 Says Prof. Emerson, " If there be any evidence in history for 
 affirming that Popery owes its existence to Infant Baptism, I 
 have not been so happy as to meet with any of it, and know not 
 where to search for it." Says Prof. Miller, " A representation 
 more utterly false^ could hardly have been fabricated. The 
 author of it must be a reckless as well as an ignorant man." 
 Says Dr. Brownlee, "The assertion is not sustained by one single 
 item of history, ancient or modern : there cannot be produced one 
 portion of sober and authentic history, to sustain it : it is in fact 
 liistorically false. I venture to say that no man well read in 
 church history, and in the history of Popery, could preserve his 
 gravity at hearing it." Says Mr. Robbins, " As to Padobaptism pre- 
 paring the way for Popery, I do not remember to have ever heard 
 the conjecture till recently. It is well known to all who have a 
 moderate knowledge of the history of the church, or the middle 
 ages, that the origin and progress of Popery were from other 
 and very different causes." — Until something besides unsupported 
 assertion is produced, then, we must insist that the objection under 
 consideration is utterly unfounded. 
 
 As to the origin and causes of Popery, the Apostle Paul, 
 speaking of his own time, says, "The mystery of iniquity doth 
 already work." An ambitious spirit was even then entering the 
 church, which Paul foresaw would lead to the gre it apostacy. 
 And whoever will examine the best authenticated histories on 
 this point: particularly Mosheim ; Milner ; McGavin's Protestant; 
 Cramp's Text Book of Popery ; and the History of Popery by 
 13 
 
98 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 a watchman, with an Introductory Essay by Dr. Miller ; will see 
 that the principal proximate causes, which contributed to the rise 
 of Popery, were, 1. The favor of secular power and influence, un- 
 der Constantine and his successors. 2. The dechne of science. 
 3. The neglect of the Scriptures. 4. The introduction of images 
 and the rites of idolatry into the Christian church. The origin 
 of Poperv, accurately speaking, was the public announcement of 
 the bishop of Rome as universal bishop or supreme head of the 
 church. This event occurred in the beginning of the seventh 
 century ; when Phocas, who had turned traitor to the Emperor 
 Mauritius, and murdered him, usurped the reins of government ; 
 and then issued a decree conferring the title and dignity of uni- 
 versal bishop or Pope, upon Boniface HI ; thus Popery arose. — 
 Thus originated that system of spiritual domination " which has 
 covered the church with sackcloth, and drenched the earth with 
 blood." But the assertion that Infant Baptism laid the founda- 
 tion for all the abominations of the Roman Church, is untrue : it 
 is not sustained by a single item of authentic history. And un- 
 til! the historical documents and facts in proof of the assertion, are 
 produced, its authors can expect nothing better at the hands of 
 the community than to be treated as public slanderers. 
 
 Another objection, recently offered by some of the opposers of 
 Infant Baptism, is, that it is the mother of Unitarianism. It is ad- 
 mitted that Peedobaptists have, in some instances, become Unita- 
 tarians. But whoever will read Mosheim, (Book 4, chap. 3 and 4,) 
 and make himself acquainted with the history of the sixteenth 
 century, will see that modern Unitarianism had its origin with 
 the opposers of Infant Baptism ; (they were then called Anabap- 
 tists.) In England and in this country, the great majority of 
 Unitarians have not had their origin with Paedobaptists. In this 
 country, among the Quakers or Friends, who never practice Infant 
 Baptism, a very large number, (probably one third of the whole,) 
 have within the last half century become Unitarians. Among 
 the opposers of Infant Baptism, who have become Unitarians, we 
 need not mention a president of one of our New England Col- 
 leges — several clergymen in Rhode Island and elsewhere, and 
 many laymen, judges of our courts and others, who, though oppo- 
 sers of Infant Baptism, have become Unitarians ; for the number 
 of their ministers in the United States who profess Unitarian prin- 
 ciples, (as we are assured by their own writers,) is seven hundred ; 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 99 
 
 of their clunche?, one thousand : of their communicants from sev- 
 ty-five to one hundred thou.=and : and of those who entertain 
 their view?, from two hundred and fifty to three hundred thou- 
 sand.* Hence I repeat, the great majority of Unitarians in this 
 coimtry are not, and never were Predobaptists. This objection 
 then fails to tiie ground. It has doubtless been thrown out, like 
 that which relates to Poper}', for the purpose of enlisting the preju- 
 dices of the uninformed : but it cannot succeed. Facts rebut the 
 calumny: the community will possess them; and ultimately, 
 these objections will recoil upon the heads of their authors. — 
 These two objections have manifestly been raised for the unwor- 
 thy purpose of enlisting prejudice. Ridicule too has been tried. 
 Infant Baptism has been compared to the baptism of cattle ; to 
 the baptism of nonentities : to the baptism of dead men's bones, 
 <fcc. (fcc. Of the authors of such unhallowed attempts to ridicule 
 this sacred ordinance, we will only say, in the language of Christ, 
 " Father forgive them, they know not what they do."t 
 
 Ridicule will fail. And the slanderous imputation that Infant 
 Baptism is the cause of Popery and Unitarianism will fail. In- 
 fant Baptism is an ordinance of God. It can never be overthrown. 
 It will stand while the world shall stand. 
 
 So far as I know, these are all the objections, worth noticing 
 that are usually brought against Infant baptism. We will now, 
 
 II. Consider briefly some of the consequences of rejecting 
 the doctrine of Infant Baptism. 
 
 They who oppose and reject Infant Baptism, often, if not gen- 
 erally, fall into the error of rejecting the Old Testament, as of 
 binding authority. For if they admit that the Old Testament 
 and the New are of equal authority at the present day, then it 
 will follow, as has been shown in the last discourse, that God has 
 never had but one church on earth — that the Covenant made 
 
 * See the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article, " Christian Connec- 
 tion." 
 
 t Calvin, speaking of the opposers of Infant IJaptism, says, (book 4, chap. 16,) 
 " It behooves us to beware lest, by opposing the holy institutions of God, we oiTer 
 an insult to their Author himself" .'\gain, says he, " If any man takes it into 
 his head to ridicule Infant Baptism, on the ground that it will do no good, ho holds 
 the command of circumcision, wliich was given by the Lord, in equal contempt. 
 For what will they allege to impugn the baptism of infants which may not be re- 
 torted against circumcision." Again, "Those who raise controversies on the 
 subject of Infant Baptism are presumptuous disturbers of the church of Christ." 
 
100 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 with Abraham is slill the covenant with the Christian church ; 
 and that little children are the proper subjects of baptism. Soon- 
 er than admit all this, some of the opposers of Infimt Baptism 
 reject the present binding authority of more than half the Bible. 
 A consequence so shocking and so fatal, one would think must 
 stamp their whole scheme with reprobation. 
 
 Another consequence of rejecting the doctrine of Infant Bap- 
 tism is, it necessarily supposes that within about one hundred 
 years of the Apostles, Infant Baptism was origi7ia(ed and became 
 general in the Christian church ; and yet no mortal ever made an 
 objection, and no historian living in those early ages ever once 
 noticed its origin. That Infant Baptism was generally practiced, 
 in the beginning of the third century, that is, within about one 
 hundred years of the Apostles, is admitted on all sides. That 
 there never was any objection in those days to this doctrine, is 
 manifest : else the early historians would have noticed it, and 
 Mosheim and Milner and others, would have informed us. Now 
 if Infant Baptism was thus universally prevalent within one hun- 
 dred years of the Apostles ; (and this none can doubt ;) and if no 
 account of its origin subsequent to the Apostolic age. is furnished 
 by ecclesiastical historians ; then the man who can believe, that it 
 was not sanctioned by Christ and the Apostles, it seems to me, 
 can easily bring himself to believe any favorite prejudice whatever. 
 
 Another consequence of rejecting the doctrine of Infant Bap- 
 tism is, that they who reject this doctrine, must reject the validity 
 of all baptism. It will not be pretended that there has been a 
 regular succession of adult baptisms from the days of Christ to the 
 present time ; that is, it will not be pretended that the baptism of 
 adults has always been jierformed by persons who had been baptiz- 
 ed when adults; neither will it be claimed that any are qualified to 
 administer baptism but such as have been themselves properly 
 baptized. It follows, then, that they who deny the validity of In- 
 fant Baptism, not only unchurch all other denominations, but 
 they unchurch themselves ; they not only nullify Infant Baptism, 
 but by nullifying Infant Baptism, they nullify all baptism. Con- 
 sequently, upon their principles, none of any denomination are 
 now properly baptized, and none can be properly baptized, till 
 Jehovah shall favor our race with a new dit^jicnsation from 
 heaven. Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church 
 in Providence, R. I., in the year 1639, which was the first that 
 
SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 101 
 
 ever rejected Infant Baptism in America, and tiie second of that 
 order in the British empire, came to the same just conchision. 
 Morton, in his Memorial of New England, pul)li.~hed in 1669, 
 says, Mr. Williams and others, who first seliled Providence, " had 
 not been long there together, but from rigid separation they fell 
 to Anabaptistry, renounoing the baptism which they had re- 
 ceived in infancy, and taking up another baptism, and so began 
 a church in that way: but Mr. Williams slopped not there long, 
 for after some time he told the people that followed him and joined 
 with him in a new baptism, that he was out of the way himself, 
 and had misled them, for he did not find that there was any 
 upon earth that could administer baptism, and therefore their last 
 baptism was a nullity as w^ell as their first; and therefore they 
 must lay down all, and wait for the coming of the Apostles." 
 When that church was formed, Ezekiel Holyman, (himself a 
 layman who had never been immersed,) immersed Mr. Williams, 
 and then Mr. Williams immersed him and ten others.* And 
 thus originated the first Baptist Church in the United Stales. 
 
 Another comsequence of rejecting the doctrine of Infant Bap- 
 tism, (and insisting upon exclusive immersion.) is, that it leads to 
 close communion ; a practice which grieves all unl>iased humble 
 Christians; wounds the cause of Jesus Christ; and cannot be 
 justified by the word of God. On this point I shall speak more 
 fully in a subsequent part of tiiis discourse. Now, if such con- 
 sequences follow the rejection of this doctrine of Infant Baptism, 
 and the practice of exclusive immersion, then how can we re- 
 nounce those Bible views of truth which it has been the object of 
 these Lectures to vindicate? 
 
 III. Let us consider the import and utility of Infant 
 Baptism. Baptism is evidently emblematic of the purification of 
 the soul by the Holy Ghost. Thus saith Isaiah, " I will pour 
 water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground ; 
 I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thy 
 
 * Knowles, in his Life of Roger Williams, intimates that the Roger Williams 
 Church is not the mother of all the close communion churches in this country, 
 and thus he attempts to evade the above consequence. But we learn from Mos- 
 heim, (vol. 3, p. 540,) that the first close communion church in England was 
 formed in 1633, and probably upon the same principles as that at Providence; 
 so that it is immaterial whether this latter be the mother of all the close commu- 
 nion churches in this country or not. In either case it is true, that the opposers 
 of Infant Baptism have no proof that their baptism is received from men who 
 were themselves immersed. 
 
102 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 offspring." So Ezekiel, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
 you, and ye shall be clean. And I will put my Spirit within 
 you, and cause you to w;ilk in my statutes." This language is 
 prophetic of what would come to pass under the Christian dis- 
 pensation ; and (here can be no doubt that it refers to baptism 
 with water as an emblem of the affusion of the Holy Ghost upon 
 the soul. So says the Apostle Paul, " Christ loved the church 
 and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, by 
 the washing of water through the word." And " not by works of 
 righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he 
 saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost." In these and many other texts of like import, we 
 are obviously taught that baptism, by the emblem of the cleans- 
 ing virtue of water, denotes the removal of sin, both as to its pol- 
 lution and its guilt. " When we present our children for bap- 
 tism," says Dr. Woods, " we express our belief that they are the 
 subjects of moral pollution, and must be born of the Spirit, in 
 order to be admitted into the kingdom of heaven ; and we express 
 our earnest desire that they may experience this spiritual renova- 
 tion, and our solemn determination to seek after it by fervent 
 prayer to God, and by faithful attention to all the duties of Chris- 
 tian parents. This seems to me a perfectly natural and satisfac- 
 tory view of what is signified by the baptism of children. The use 
 of water in this Christian rite, is indeed a token of spiritual cleans- 
 ing, not however as a thing actually accomplished, but as a thing 
 which is absolutely necessary." Such being the import of Infant 
 Baptism, what is the use of this ordinance ? The opposer often 
 asks what good will it do to baptize little children ? This question 
 might have been asked by Abraham and his descendants. What 
 good will it do to circumcise little children ? But would this inquiry 
 have nullified their obligation to obey the command of God ? Is 
 it fit and proper, in matters which God has enjoined upon us, to 
 inquire what good will it do to obey him ? All questions of this 
 sort as to Infant Baptism, would have been equally applicable to 
 the circumcision of children. But we are ready to meet this ques- 
 tion. The utility of Infant Baptism may be shown clearly and 
 fully. 
 
 " The utility," says Dr. Woods, " of positive institutions con- 
 sists generally, in the moral influence they exert upon us; in their 
 adaptedness to promote good affections, and to excite us to the 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 103 
 
 diligent performance of duty. Now there is no institution of re- 
 ligion, more evidently suited to liave a salutary influence than 
 this. When we consecrate a child to God in baj)lism, our eyes 
 are turned to Him to whom we and our offspring belong, and 
 we are led to feel the perfect reasonableness of such a consecra- 
 tion. We look to God's holy and merciful economy, of which 
 baptism is the appointed token, and are impressed with the design, 
 condescension and goodness manifested in it, and the invaluable 
 blessings resulting from it." 
 
 1. This ordinance teaches us, in a striking manner, that in- 
 fants are moral beings, possessing moral and intellectual capaci- 
 ties, and capable of receiving spiritual blessings. They are not 
 mere animals ; else the Savior would not have put his hands on 
 the infants brought to him and prayed over them, and said, 
 " Of such is the kingdom of heaven." When a child is present- 
 ed to God in baptism, the truth is forced upon every enlightened, 
 reflecting mind, that this child is a moral being, and capable of 
 an endless progression in holiness and happiness. 
 
 2. This ordinance teaches that infants are depraved. Evan- 
 gelical Christians everywhere believe in native as also in entire 
 or total depravity ; as saith David, " Behold, I was shapen in 
 iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." " The lan- 
 guage of Infant Baptism," says Mr. Pond, " however humiliating 
 to proud nature, is too plain to be easily perverted or misunder- 
 stood ; your children are polluted ; they are depraved from their 
 birth ; they need to be regenerated, to be spiritually cleansed and 
 purified; and it is on this accovmt,and not because they are inno- 
 cent, that the symbol of purification is applied to them." 
 
 3. This ordinance sets before us the necessity of the cleans- 
 ing of the soul by the influences of the Holy Spirit. It 
 shows that the blood of sprinkling, which speakelh better things 
 than the blood of Abel, may be applied through the shedding 
 forth of the Holy Spirit ; by whom the soul of a little child even, 
 may be transformed into a meetness for heaven. 
 
 4. This ordinance, is admirably fitted to impressupon pa- 
 rents the solemn and delightful duty of bringing up their chil- 
 dren in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and of thus 
 leading them to a more faithful discharge of their parental duties. 
 Infant Baptism is the seal of a covenant between God and the 
 parent, respecting the child. This covenant is a covenant of 
 
104 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 promise and requisition. Thus saith the Lord, "I will establish 
 my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, 
 to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee." " The promise is 
 to you and your children." " Walk before me, and be thou per- 
 fect. And I will estabhsh my covenant between me and thee, 
 and thy seed after thee." " Know therefore that the Lord thy God 
 is a foithful God, keeping covenant and mercy with them that love 
 him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations." 
 Therefore, " Train up a child in the way he should go, and when 
 he is old lie will not depart from it." Now the obvious import of 
 these promises and requisitions, with which the Bible abounds, 
 is, that if visible believers who visibly dedicate their children to 
 God in infancy, are faithful to bring them up in the way they 
 should go ; God will bestow upon them his sanctifying grace, 
 and be their God and portion forever. And the history of the 
 chmch verifies the faithfulness of God. Recently in one section 
 of our coimtry, where from tliiee to four thous.uid have become 
 the hopefid subjects of divine grace in a single year, a very large 
 proportion of this whole number were in early life consecrated to 
 God in baptism. In one parish in New England, thirty-one were 
 received to the church at one time; twenty-one of whom were 
 baptized in infancy. At another time, twenty-eight were receive'd 
 to the same church, of whom twenty-one had been thus baptized ; 
 making forty-two out of fifty nine. In another parish, about one 
 hundred have been received to the church, and all but twelve of 
 them were biiplized in infancy. In another parish seventy-nine 
 have been added to the church, and seventy-five of them were 
 baptized on the faith of their parents in early life. In another, 
 during the nine years' ministry of the Pastor, forty-nine out of fifty 
 that have been added to the church, were baptized in childhood. 
 Facts like these are occurring constantly and everywhere, in 
 churches and congregations where Infi\nt Baptism is practiced. 
 Even in this congregation, though the practice of Infant Baptism is 
 of so recent origin in this village, that the first child ever baptized 
 in this place, is not yet twenty five years old, (she is a member of 
 this church,) yet even here, nearly half the number, (about one 
 hundred and thirty,) who have joined the church in the last 
 three and a half years, were baptized in childhood. If parents 
 were uniforndy and universally {\\ithful to bring up their baptized 
 children in the fear of the Lord, we believe very few, if any of 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 105 
 
 them, would be left in the broad road : God would show that he 
 is faithful to fulfil his covenant promise to those who dedicate 
 themselves and their offspring to the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost. Infant Baptism is most wisely adapted to secure the re- 
 ligious training and ultimate conversion of the offspring of visible 
 believers, and therefore it is neither an unmeaning nor a useless 
 ceremony ; but contrariwise, most expressive, reasonable, proper 
 and salutary ; and when observed in faith, and followed liy paren- 
 tal fidelity, the great Head of the church uniformly puts upon it 
 the seal of his approbation. Let us 
 
 IV. And lastly, examine the practice of free or open com- 
 munion. It has been remarked in this discourse, that one conse- 
 quence of rejecting Infant Baptism, and insisting upon exclusive 
 immersion, is, that it leads to the practice of close communion. 
 Here, as in regard to the mode and subjects of baptism, it is 
 important to possess clear views of the point before us. Let me 
 ask your attention, then, to a few remarks designed to illustrate 
 the principles of free and close communion. By close com- 
 munion is meant, communion at the table of our common Lord, 
 restricted to a single denomination ; communion, which in princi- 
 ple and in fact, excludes all other denominations of Christians, 
 however sound in the faith, however exemplary in holy living, 
 however satisfactory the evidence they give of solid Bible piety ; 
 and this because tiiose other denominations, examining carefully, 
 and judging honestly, dilFer from the advocates of close commu- 
 nion in matters confessedly not fundamental, nor essential to sal- 
 vation. If the friends of free, open communion denied and reject- 
 ed the fundamental doctrines of the Bible; as for example, 
 regeneration by the Holy Spirit ; justification by faith in the Re- 
 deemer ; the supreme divinity atid real humanity of Christ; the 
 supreme divinity and distinct personality of the Holy Ghost; the 
 atonement made by the blood and sufferings of Christ; the doc- 
 trine of a future final judgment, and of an eternal state of happi- 
 ness for the righteous, and of misery for the wicked ; then, truly, 
 it would be justifiable to refuse communion with them at Christ's 
 table; and for this plain reason ; these doctrines are essential to 
 the gospel plan of salvation ; and we must not fellowship any 
 man who makes shipwreck of the faith of Christ. But where 
 there is a difference of opinion in matters not fundamental, the 
 spirit and precepts of the gospel require all God's people to walk 
 14 
 
lOG SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 together in communion as brethren. If there be a difference as to 
 the posture of kneehng in prayer ; or about offering prayer with 
 a written form ; or about preaching the pure gospel from written 
 notes, or memoritcr or extempore, or any other point not funda- 
 mental ; then plainly this difference should be no bar to free com- 
 munion. If fundamental truths are waived or yielded, the whole 
 system of saving mercy is marred and jeopardized ; but if mat- 
 ters confessedly not fundamental are yielded, the temple of eternal 
 truth rests upon the Rock of Ages still. If either of the fundamen- 
 tal doctrines just enumerated be removed, an essential link in 
 that golden chain of mercy, upon which hang the hopes of all be- 
 lievers, is destroyed ; and the whole scheme of salvation is endan- 
 gered. Whereas, if prayer be offered to God in faith, the posture 
 of the body, whether it be standing, reclining or kneeling, is an 
 unessential matter, inasmuch as God looks at the heart, not at 
 the outward appearance ; and if the truth as it is in Jesus be 
 preached faithfully, with discrimination and with effect, whether 
 it be with or without notes, memoriter or extempore, as a matter 
 of principle, is immaterial; inasmuch as it is the preaching of the 
 pure gospel that is made the wisdom of God unto salvation. Apply 
 these remarks to the Lord's supper and baptism. The observ- 
 ance of the Lord's supper is enjoined upon all visible believers to the 
 end of the world. But the manner of this observance is neither 
 enjoined nor particularly specified. The Bible says the time was 
 the evening; the place was an upper room of a private dwelling; 
 none but males partook of the ordinance; there was a table be- 
 fore them ; the communicants reclined on couches. Now does 
 any man believe these circumstances essential to the due observ- 
 ance of the ordinance? Suppose the time be morning or after- 
 noon, instead of evening ; tlie place, the ground floor of the 
 Lord's house, instead of the chamber of a private dwelling; sup- 
 pose pious females comnume, and all sit on their seats without a 
 table : if they are sound in the faith, and exemplary in their lives, 
 does any reasonable man suppose the observance is uncriptural, 
 and unacceptable to God, because, forsooth, in these external cir- 
 cumstances, there is not an exact conformity to the original observ- 
 ance ? And was any Christian or any denomination of Chris- 
 tians ever debarred from communion because these original cir- 
 cumstances were neglected? So, as to baptism. Baptism is 
 enjoined upon all visible believers. But the mode of baptism is 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 107 
 
 no where enjoined nor particularly designated. This ordinance, 
 as we have seen in the progress of these Lectures, is scripturally 
 observed by the application of water, in the name of the Holy 
 Trinity, in any decent mode, whether by pouring, sprinkling or 
 immersion. Baptism is enjoined ; but baptism in this mode or 
 that ; by immersion or afTusion, is no where enjoined ; and there 
 is no certain, positive evidence, that any case of baptism recorded 
 in tlie Bible, was performed by immersion. The mode is not 
 designated ; this is left to the judgment, choice, and convenience of 
 all devout disciples of Christ. Moreover ; baptism, though enjoined 
 as a significant, instructive and solemn duty, is never represented 
 in the Bible as essential to salvation. Clirist and the Apostles 
 never class it among fundamental doctrines. Now if baptism is 
 not essential to salvation, and if the mode of it is no where en- 
 joined ; is it not marvellous that any body of men, professing the 
 Christian name, should assume the awful responsibility of exclud- 
 ing from communion at the table of our common Lord, all vis- 
 ible believers, unless they practice the same mode of baptism 
 with themselves, and believe that this is the only mode ? And 
 especially, is not this marvellous, when the advocates of close 
 communion themselves admit that baptism is not essential to sal- 
 vation, and that the only important point of difTerence here, re- 
 spects the mode? We who advocate open communion, are de- 
 barred from their communion, not because they think us errone- 
 ous in any fundamental doctrine ; (if this were so, they would be 
 justified ;) they admit that there is an essential agreement in all 
 fundamental points; but they exclude us from communion sim- 
 ply because we believe, after a careful and honest examination, 
 that the mode of baptism is not confined to immersion, and that 
 our households, as well as ourselves, should be baptized. They 
 in fact debar us from their communion, because v/e, exercising 
 the privilege common to all Christians, of judging for ourselves, 
 do not view the form of an outward ordinance, and the manner 
 of dedicating our offspring to God, precisely as they do. Because 
 we thus differ in a matter confessedly not fundamental, they tell 
 us that we shall not sit with them in communion at the table of 
 our common Savior, to commemorate his dying love. And this 
 unscriptural practice of close communion grieves the hearts of a 
 great proportion of the followers of Jesus Christ, and it is a 
 
108 ' SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Stumbling block before the wcild at large. The great body 
 of true believers everywhere, view it with amazement, sor- 
 row and disapprobation. And the world entrench themselves in 
 unbelief, averring that it will be soon enough for them to embrace 
 Christ, when professors of religion, who expect to dwell together 
 in heaven, can agree to commune together on earth. And verily, 
 the time has come, yea, more than come, when all the true 
 friends of Christ should unite heartily in wiping away this re- 
 proach. All evangelical Christians, of every name, who hold the 
 fundamental doctrines of the Bible, should be united and consol- 
 idated in one accumulating mass of pure and holy love ; and 
 when occasion offers, they should sit as one great family, at 
 the same table of one and the same common Lord ; then the 
 world will have a visible demonstration that the children of God 
 belong to one great family, and have one Lord — one faith — one 
 baptism — and one God and Father of all, who is above all, and 
 through all, and in them all. This practice of close communion 
 cannot, I am persuaded, continue forever ; it must come to an 
 end. It is to me doubtful if it survives the present century. 
 
 Free covnmunion with all visible believers who hold the 
 fundamental truths of the gospel should be practiced, 
 
 L Because the obhgations of brotherly love require it. Saith 
 Christ, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if 
 ye love one another : as I have loved you, ye ought also to love 
 one another." Saith Peter, " See that ye love one another with 
 a pure heart, fervently." Saiih John, " By this we know that we 
 have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." 
 Now can Christians follow this pattern of loving one another as 
 Christ loved us, and of loving one another with a pure heart, fer- 
 vently ; and can we know that we have passed from death unto 
 life because we love the brelhren, unless we practice free, open 
 communion with all believers in regular standing, who hold fast 
 the fundamental doctrines of the gospel? 
 
 Free communion should be practiced, 
 
 2. Because the principles of the farewell grayer of Christ 
 require it. Saith he, (John 17: 20 — 23,) " Neither pray I for these 
 alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their 
 word : that they all may be one, as thou. Father, art in me, and 
 I in thee, that they also may be one in us : that the world may 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 109 
 
 believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest 
 me, 1 have given thcin, that they may be one, even as we are 
 one : 1 in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect 
 in one, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, 
 and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." The burden of this 
 prayer, offered on the eve of the crucifixion, was, that Christians 
 might be united ; and the argument urged in this prayer for 
 perfect Christian union, is, its resistless influence upon the world. 
 This union among believers for which Christ prayed so fervently, 
 embraces union in faith — in spirit — in purpose — in feeling — 
 in action — and in the ordinances of God. Of course it em- 
 braces union and communion in the supper which commemo- 
 rates the matchless love of our only Savior and common Lord. 
 For several generations after the crucifixion, the object of this 
 prayer was realized, in the union and communion of Christians. 
 And how shall the object of this prayer be realized again, unless 
 open coinmunion among true, visible believers be universally 
 practiced ? 
 
 Free communion should be practiced, 
 
 3. Because it is in agreement with the iDord of God. 
 Though there was a diversity of views in some things among 
 the followers of Christ in the Apostolic age, yet Paul, with this 
 fact in his eye, says, " Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye, 
 but not to doubtful disputations. For one beUeveth that he may eat 
 all things ; another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that 
 eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth 
 not, judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. — We, 
 then, that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, 
 and not to please ourselves. — Now the God of patience and consola- 
 tion grant you to be like minded one towards another, according 
 to Jesus Christ, that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify 
 God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore re- 
 ceive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." 
 From this language, can anything be clearer than that Chris- 
 tians who agree in fundamentals, though they may not see alike 
 on points of subordinate importance, are bound to exercise a recip- 
 rocal toleration and indulgence, and on no account to proceed to 
 that open rupture which close communion creates and sanctions ? 
 And is it not obvious that the Apostle urges and insists upon 
 those very principles by which open communion is practiced ? 
 
110 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM, 
 
 Free commnnion should be practiced, 
 
 4. Because no man or sect of men may prescribe as a con- 
 dition oi coxnmumon whuX the Bible does not enjoin as a con- 
 dition of salvation ; in other words, it is wrong to exclude from 
 our fellowship at the table, any whom Christ receives as his peo- 
 ple. It is admitted by all, that the Bible no where makes baptism 
 or the 9node of baptism, a condition of salvation. It is admitted 
 that Christ receives as his people, multitudes who do not practice 
 close communion. The advocates of close communion admit 
 this ; and even insist largely upon their charily and love towards 
 those whom they bar from Christ's table. Now if they are real 
 Christians, Christ receives and communes with them ; and if 
 Christ communes with them, will mortal man assume the respon- 
 sibility of rejecting them from his tabic? But if neither baptism 
 nor the form of baptism, is made a condition of salvation in the 
 Bible, and if we may not reject from communion those whom 
 Christ receives ; it is obvious that we are bound to receive to com- 
 munion all the true, visible disciples of Christ who hold the fun- 
 damental truths of the gospel. 
 
 Free communion should be practiced, 
 
 5. Because on no other ground can the glorious things 
 spoken of Zion be fulfilled. The propiiets assure us that a day is 
 coming, (the Lord hasten it apace,) when Zion's watchmen shall 
 see eye to eye, and when her friends shall walk hand in hand, 
 and when all nations, and kindred, and tongues, and people shall 
 be righteous ; when there shall be nothing to hurt or destroy in 
 all the holy mountain of the Lord. Now how can these things 
 be, while close communion is practiced ? How can the watch- 
 men see eye to eye, and the saints walk hand in hand, and all 
 be righteous, and there be nothing to hurt or destroy in all 
 the holy mountain of the Lord, unless ministers and churches, 
 and all the friends of Christ, adopt and practice open com- 
 munion? 
 
 Free communion should be practiced, 
 
 6. Because we shall otherwise fall into incmisistencies that 
 are a scandal to the Christian name. The advocates of close 
 communion admit that our Pa;dobaptist churches and ministers, 
 are the churches and ministers of Christ ; and they sometimes 
 invite our ministers even to preach their communion sermons ; 
 and yet fall into the palpable inconsistency of barring us from 
 
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 their communion. Why will they thus scandalize the Christian 
 name? If our churches are churches of Christ, and our minis- 
 ters are ministers of Christ, why bar them from his table? The 
 advocates of close communion tell us that the Lord's supper 
 is a positive institution. True : so is the gospel ministry a posi- 
 tive institution, and not less important than the Lord's supper. 
 And if they admit that we are gospel ministers, and have a right 
 to administer the ordinances, why bar us from them ? 
 Free communion should be practiced, 
 
 7. Because it is sanctioned by the practice of the church 
 of Christ in the ages succeeding the Apostles, and for many centu- 
 ries after. In those primitive times there were diversities of opin- 
 ion on points not fundamental ; such as the time and manner 
 of celebrating Easter ; [Easter was a festival in commemoration 
 of the resurrection of Christ;] the validity of baptism performed 
 by heretics ; church government and many other matters. But 
 notwithstanding these diversities of opinion, Eusebius, in his Ec- 
 clesiastical History, (Lib. 6, Cap. 24,) says, " They held commu- 
 nion with each other." So also Crosby, a learned historian, of 
 those who practice close communion, says that previous to the 
 year 1C33, the advocates of exclusive immersion " had been in- 
 termixed with other Protestant Dissenters, without distinction, and 
 shared with the Puritans in the persecutions of those times." 
 
 Free communion should be practiced, 
 
 8. Because the church on earth ought to become, as far asr 
 possible, like the church in heaven. With the church in heaven, 
 where all cast their crowns at the feet of the Lamb and sing, "Hal- 
 lelujah ! the Lord God omnipotent reigncth: blessing and honor, 
 glory and power, be unto him that sittelh on the throne forever 
 and ever ;" there close communion finds no countenance. There 
 one Master presides — one table is spread — • one spirit reigns — 
 one practice prevails. There all who have been baptized into 
 one body, by one Spirit, and waslied in that one fountain opened 
 for the house of David, and are of one heart, and one mind, 
 dwell together in perfect unity. There free communion of heart 
 with heart, and soul with soul, pervades the unnumbered, holy 
 glorious throng. The church on earth ought to bear a strong 
 likeness to the church in heaven. As there is but one table above, 
 there should be but one below. As perfect love binds all hearts 
 to God and each otlier there, so love unrestricted should bind all 
 
112 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 hearts together here. All who have drunk at the same fountain 
 — are enUsted under the same banners — and will finally dwell 
 in the same kingdom — sing the same song— and rejoice forever 
 in the glories of the same Redeemer ; are bound to make the 
 church militant as far as possible like the church triumphant ; 
 and thus to urge forward the chariot wheels of the Prince of life: 
 and this can never be done, unless free, unrestricted communion 
 of visible believers, who are agreed in the fundamental truths of 
 the gospel, be universally practiced. 
 
 In view of these solemn and highly important considera- 
 tions, how can the advocates of close communion continue to 
 shut out from the table of the blessed and only Redeemer, 
 three fourths, probably nine tenths of his true followers? Yerily, 
 it is my sober and deliberate opinion, that they have fallen into 
 a grievous error, and that their exclusive views of the mode of 
 baptism and the subjects of baptism, can never be sustained by 
 the word of God, nor by the history of the church. And the 
 somewhat extended and careful examination I have given this 
 whole subject, within the last three months, (and I have availed 
 myself of all possible helps on both sides of the controversy,) is a 
 more thorough and settled conviction than I ever felt before, that 
 those who advocate exclusive immerson and oppose Infant Bap- 
 tism, are in the ivrong' ; and that our Ptedobaptist views are 
 founded on the word of God, and will endure and prevail to the 
 end of the world. In view of these four Lectures, beloved hear- 
 ers, you will now judge for yourselves where the truth lies. May 
 God in mercy baptize you all into one body, by one Spirit, and 
 lead you into all truth, and carry you onward and upward, till 
 you shall finally reach those mansions which Christ has gone to 
 prepare for all that love him. Amen.* 
 
 * See Appendix, [Note D.] 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTE A . 
 
 Some persons, into whose hands these Lectures may fall, will perhaps be dis- 
 appointed that no explicit notice is taken of a pamphlet recently published, 
 in which the Author of these Lectures and the church to which he ministers, have 
 been so unjustly and grossly misrepresented and reproached. To such persons, 
 the Author would remark, that the ridicule, vulgarity and personal abuse con- 
 tained in that pamplilet, are such as to render it, in his view, inexpedient to no- 
 tice it. It seemed, moreover, entirely unnecessary ; inasmuch as all the sem- 
 blance of argument that pamphlet contains, being found in more reputable pub- 
 lications on that side of the question, might be otherwise duly noticed, in the 
 establishment of the truth on this sacred and important subject. Ja7i. 20, 1835. 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 Rom. 6 : 4. " 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 nevraess of life." Col. 2 : 12. "Buried with him in bap- 
 tism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of 
 God, who hath raised him from the dead." 
 
 Some of the advocates of exclusive immersion take the ground that it is the 
 design of baptism to symbolize the burial and resurrection of Christ ; and hence 
 they say baptism must be performed by immersion ; and they seem to rely upon 
 these texts in proof of their position. But we think they are entirely mistaken 
 in their understanding of these texts. That they do not refer to the 77iode of bap- 
 tism, will appear evident from a careful examination of them. I will give you 
 the views of the following judicious and excellent men. Scott says, " The Apos- 
 tle most emphatically shows, that all who had been baptized into the name and 
 religion of Jesus, had received the sign, and made the profession of communion 
 with him and conformity to him in his death ; that in virtue of his dying for their 
 sins, they should die to all sin, and have done with their former unholy indul- 
 gences, pursuits, habits and connections. This profession was equivalent to being 
 " buried with Christ," as dead with him. For as his burial was a manifestation 
 that he was really dead, and an introduction to his immediate resurrection by the 
 glorious power of the Father, and for the display of his glory : so the baptism of 
 a converted JflHV or Gentile, was a professed manifestation of his death to sin, 
 and to all bis carnal expectations, affections and pursuits, from which he meant 
 15 
 
114 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 to be entirely excluded, as one biuied is from the aflairs of life ; and it was a 
 professed introduction to his walking in newness of life." He says, moreover, 
 that " no argnment is deducible from the expression, ' buried with him in baptism 
 into death,' showing that immersion is necessary to baptism."* 
 
 Stuart, commenting on the same text, says, " The Apostle had in view only a 
 burying which is moral and spiritual ; for the same reason that he had a moral 
 and spiritual (not a physical) resurrection in view in the corresponding antithe- 
 sis." — " As Christ died and was buried in a physical sense, for, or on account of 
 sin; so we die and are buried in a moral or spiritual sense, when we solemnly 
 profess and engage to hate sin and renounce it, as we do in baptism." " I find 
 nothing in all the ritual use of water, as an emblem of purification and consecra- 
 tion to God, which seems to prepare the way for the use of baptism by immer- 
 sion as a symbol of Christ's literal death and burial." " In fact, it is plain, that 
 reference is here made to baptism, because when the rite was performed, the 
 Christian promised to renounce sin, and to mortify all his evil desires, and thus 
 to die unto sin, that he might live unto God; I cannot see, therefore, that there 
 is any more necessary reference here to the mode of baptism, than there is to the 
 mode of the resurrection. The one may as well be maintained as the other."* 
 
 Wardlaw, conmienting on these words, says, " The simple meaning is this : 
 since, in our being baptized into Jesus Christ, we were baptized into his death — 
 into the faith of his death, as the death of a surety; we may be considered as, by 
 faith, partaking with him in his death, — as buried with him ; and that with the 
 special end of our rising with him, in a spiritual resemblance to his resurrection, 
 and walking in newness of life. Now it is quite obvious, that the argument of 
 the Apostle has not the remotest connection with the mode of baptism. "t 
 
 Cogswell, commenting on the words, says, " ' Buried with Christ by baptism 
 into death,' is a phrase similar in meaning to ' planted together in the likeness of 
 his death,' and ' crucified with him,' phrases used in the same chapter. They are 
 figurative expressions, and mean that believers are, or should be, dead to sin — 
 as much so as one buried, planted, or crucified, would be to the affairs of this life. 
 The Apostle has not the least reference to the mode of baptism. Indeed there 
 is not the least resemblance between the death of Christ, and baptism by immer- 
 sion. Had Christ died by being drowned, there might have been a likeness to 
 his death in the mode of baptism by immersion ; but as Christ died on the cross 
 there can be none."t 
 
 Many other authors might be quoted to sustain these views, but it cannot be 
 necessary. After looking at these texts carefully, it does seem to us that they 
 furnish no proof that the design of baptism is to symbolize the burial and resur- 
 rection of Christ ; or that Paul meant to teach that inunersion is the only mode 
 of baptism. 
 
 Another text, Inought sometimes by the advocates of immersion, on this point, 
 is, 1 Cor. 15 : 29. " Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if 
 the dead rise not at all ? wliy are they then baptized for the dead ? " This text, 
 it is confessed by all connnentators, is obscure and of difficult interpretation; but 
 that it should have ever been adduced to support the idea, that it is the design of 
 baptism to symbolize the burial and resurrection of Christ, is the greatest mystery 
 attending it. 
 
 McKnigiit, with much plausibility, gives this interpretation, to wit : " As our 
 Lord termed the suilerings he was to undergo at Jerusalem, * a baptism with 
 
 * In loco. t In loco, p. 117. J Thco. Class Book, p. 1C9. 
 
APPENDIX. 115 
 
 which he was to l)c baptized,' and declared that James and John • should be bap- 
 tized with the baptism he was to bo baptized with,' — that is, should undergo 
 like sutFerinj^s with him, ending in death — so the Apostle, in representing the 
 suflerings which the first Christians endured, under the idea of a baptism, adopted 
 his ."Master's phraseology, and reasoned strongly, when he asked the Corinthians, 
 ' What shall they do who are baptized for believing and testifying the resurrection 
 of the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? "'* 
 
 Doddridge gives this interpretation; " If the hopes of Christians were not as I 
 have stated, what should they do who are baptized in token of their embracing 
 the Christian faith in the room of the dead who are just fallen in the cause of 
 Christ, but are supported by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer 
 themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat 
 in the room of their companions who have just been slain in their sight? If the 
 dead are not raised at all, why are they nevertheless thus baptized in the room of 
 the dead, as ready, at the peril of their lives, to keep up the cause of Jesus in the 
 world ? And indeed, how could my conduct be accounted for in any other light, 
 but by supposing that we act with a steady and governing view to this great prin- 
 ciple and this glorious hope."* Scott and others adopt this as the true interpre- 
 tation; and every unbiased mind will approve it. Thus understood, this text 
 furnishes no allusion to the design or mode of baptism; and we verily believe it 
 would never have been cited by the advocates of immersion, if they were not 
 straitened for proof. 
 
 Another text sometimes cited on this point by the advocates of immersion is, 
 1 Peter, 3 : 21. "The like figure whoreunto even baptism doth also now save 
 us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of agood conscience 
 towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This text, like the pre- 
 ceding, furnisiies no support in favor of exclusive immersion. The true meaning, 
 as A. Clarke observes, is this : " Noah and his family were saved by water : that 
 is, it was the instrument of their being saved through the good providence of God. 
 So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, 
 is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit, in its quicken- 
 ing, cleansing efficacy. Now as the waters of the flood could not have saved 
 Noah and his family, had they not made use of the ark ; so the water of bap- 
 tism saves no man, but as it is the means of typifying to him purification by the 
 Holy Spirit. The ark was not innnersed in the water; had it been so, they must 
 all have perished; but it was borne up on the water, and sprinkled with the rain 
 that fell from heaven. This text, as far as I can see, says nothing in behalf of 
 immersion in baptism; but is rather, from the circumstance mentioned above, in 
 favor of sprinkling.'"* The above are all the texts usually cited and relied 
 upon, to show that the design of baptism is to represent the burial and resurrec- 
 tion of Christ. All who will examine them candidly, must see that they entirely 
 fail of sustaining that supposition. And therefore that the argument built upon 
 them, in favor of exclusive immersion, falls to the ground. 
 
 I will Jigain ask the reader's attention to the gross misrepresentations, some- 
 times made of Pa^dobaptist authors. To take a single case for example. 
 
 The advocates of exclusive immersion sometimes quote Prof. Stuart as saying, 
 " Bapto and haptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge into anything liquid. All 
 lexicograpliers and critics are agreed in this." Now this is true. Prof. Stuart 
 
 Com ill loco 
 
il6 APPENDIX. 
 
 does say so. But, be it remembered, be does not say tbat dip, plunge, or im- 
 merge is the oji/y meaning. No — never. On the contrary, lije proceeds forth;- 
 with to show, and does fhow conclusively that bapto and haptizo^ and especial- 
 ly baptizo, as he affirms, (p. 308,) have " other meanings, viz: to wash, to be* 
 dew, or 7noisten ;" which, he says, "are more clearly and fully exhibited." 
 And after a thorough examination extended to some sixty pages; Prof. Stuart 
 says, (p. 337,) "be considers it quite plain" that 7i072e of the Bible evidence 
 which he had examined, " proves immersion to have been exclusively the mode 
 of Christian baptism, or even that of John." Mr. Stuart says, he " considers this 
 a point so far made out, that he can hardly suppress the conviction, that if any 
 one maintains the contrary, it must be either because he is unable rightly to es- 
 timate the nature or power of the Greek language; or because he is influenced 
 in some measure by party feeling ; or else because he has looked at the subject 
 in only a partial manner, without examining it fully and thoroughly." As to the 
 idea that words have but one meaning, says Prof. Stuart, (p. 384,) " Every Lex- 
 icon on earth contradicts" it, " and always must contradict it." 
 
 Again : Prof. Stuart is represented as saying that the early Christians did 
 " practice immersion." This is true. He does say so. But in the very next 
 paragraph he affirms, (p. 361,) that S' aspersion and aflusion" also were " prac- 
 ticed in primitive times." Mr. Stuart never says that immersion was the only 
 mode practiced in the primitive churches. 
 
 The etlbrts of some of the advocates of immersion to use Prof. Stuart's name 
 in support of their exclusive views, are exceedingly unjust, and betray feelings 
 which no candid man possesses. He who reads the whole of Prof. Stuart's Es- 
 say, will see that the Professor never admits nor affirms that the 07ily meaning 
 of baptizo is immersion ; but on the other hand, he maintains and shows that it 
 means affiision also. He will see too, that Mr. Stuart does not say nor even in- 
 timate, tbat immersion was the only mode practiced in primitive times ; but that 
 be does say aflusion also was practiced. It is matter of grief to all honest minds, 
 that the writings of so amiable and excellent a man as Prof. Stuart, should be so 
 cruelly misrepresented and perverted under the " influence of party feeling." 
 
 NOTE C. 
 
 Some of the advocates of immersion tell us that the definitions put down last 
 in our Lexicons, are of little value, compared with those put down Jirst. Say 
 they, if twenty definitions are given, several of the last are liardly worth noticing. 
 Verily this is a new discovery. Is it not a rule established by all philologists, 
 and one with which every young Tyro in our high schools is perfectly acquainted, 
 that we are always to select the definition which expresses the evident design of 
 the writer and the evident meaning of the sentence .' Whether it be the first or 
 the fortieth definition, is entirely immaterial. The last may not be in as frequent 
 use as the first ; but the authority for the last definition is as good as that of 
 the first. Take for example the Greek word aionios defined in Latin, ceturnus, 
 cBVum, mnndus, seciihtm. Take the definition atnrnus : the English defini- 
 tions are eternal ; continual ; perpetual ; lasting ; of Ions; continuance ; 
 during life. The last two of these definitions have as high authority in their 
 favor as the first two. Even in the Bible, the word aionios is used when the 
 last two definitions are the only ones, that can be selected according to the evi- 
 
APPENDIX. 117 
 
 dent design of the writer ; for example, everlasting priesthood, (Exo. 40 — 15;) 
 everlasting doors (Ps. 24 — 7;) everlasting monntains and perpetual hills, 
 (Hab. 3 : — 6.) Here the Septuagint use aionios ; and in each of these, and 
 all like phrases in tiie Bible and in common conversation, the word eternal de- 
 notes lo7ig continuance, or during life; and hence the authority for these defini- 
 ■tiong is as high as for that of the first two definitions. And no understanding theolo- 
 gian, in controverting the doctrine of universal salvation, would take the ground that 
 fBturnus has but one meaning. "On the other hand he would put the defence of 
 his cause. on the ground that aionios, (though it sonitimes means of long continu- 
 ance and during life,) when applied to God ; to heaven ; to hell ; means dura- 
 tion without end ; as appears from the connection of the words and the evident 
 meaning of the writer. Hence we see that the authority for the last definition of 
 words is as full as that of the first. I might here add, that all the definitions ia 
 pur standard Dictionaries, are put down because all these various definitions are 
 sanctioned by established usage. All the definitions of baptizo and of all other 
 words in standard Lexicons, are of established authority. And I cannot here for- 
 bear the observation, that the man who attempts to advocate exclusive immersioa 
 on the ground that afiusion may not be the ^rs< definition of baptizo, wjiile he 
 admits that it is one of the last definitions, both betrays the weakness of his own 
 cause, and in effect, yields the point in debate. Though he may attempt to excite 
 ridicule, by talking about the twentieth definition of a word, and tell us that defi- 
 nitions increase in value in a ten-fold proportion, every lover of truth, and every 
 man of conmion sense, will turn with disgust from his foolish sophistry. 
 
 NOTE D. 
 
 January 31, 1835. 
 
 During the present month, Eev. Samuel Miller, D. D., Professor of Ecclesiastical 
 History and Church Government in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, has pub- 
 lished a Mamial, comprising fouj- discourses, on the Subjectsand Mode of Baptism, 
 a copy of which has been received, through the kindness of the venerable Author, 
 just as the last sheets of the foregoing Lectures were passing through the press. I 
 have been gratified, on reading this Manual, to observe how fully and ably Dr. 
 Miller has sustained the leading positions laid down in my Lectures. The follow- 
 ing extracts will give the reader a specimen of that interesting work. — 
 
 On the 7node of baptism, says Dr. Miller, — "The word Baptizo does not 
 necessarily, nor even commonly, signify to immerse ; but implies to wash, to 
 sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or dye with any liquid." Again, says he, 
 " The most mature and competent Greek scholars that ever lived, have decided, 
 that many examples of the use of this word occur in Scripture, in which it not only 
 may, but manifestly 7nust signify sprinkling, perfusion, or washing in any way." 
 Again : " To immerge is one of the senses which may be applied to baptizo, yet 
 it is so far from being the universal, the necessary meaning, that it is not even the 
 common meaning." Again; "It is really imposing on public credulity to insist that 
 it always does and necessarily must signify immersion. All impartial judges — by 
 which I mean all the most profound and mature Greek scholars, who are neither 
 theologians nor sectarians, agree in pronouncing that baptizo imports the applica- 
 tion of water by sprinkling, pouring, wetting, as well as by plunging." Again : 
 " When the inspired writers speak of the Holy Spirit being imparted to men, they . 
 alway.^ represent it by the figures of sprinkling, pouring out, falling or resting upon 
 
118 APPENDIX. 
 
 Surely then, baptism by sprinkling or affusion, being invariably, the favorite fig- 
 ures of the inspired writers ; all attempts to turn this mode of applying the water 
 in baplisni into ridicule, is really nothing less than shameless ridicule of the state- 
 ments and language of God's own word." Again: "There is not the smallest 
 probability that John the Baptist, ever baptized an individual by immersion." — 
 Again, says he, " The proof that affusion was practiced in the first centuries after 
 Christ is so complete and indubitable, that no one really acquainted with the early 
 history of the church, will think for a moment of calling it in question. These 
 testimonies," says he, " must, it appears to me, satisfy every impartial mind that 
 from the days of the Apostles down to the reformation ; affusion in baptism, as 
 well as immersion, has been in constant use — and that it has ever been consider- 
 ed as a part of Christian liberty to use either mode as may be conscientiously 
 preferred." "By affusion," says he, " which is no doubt the most scriptural 
 and edifying, baptism may be performed with equal ease and convenience in all 
 coimtries : at all seasons of the year : in all situations of health or sickness : 
 with equal safety by all ministers, whether young or old, athletic or feeble : and 
 in all circumstances that can well be conceived. How admirably does this ac- 
 cord with the gospel economy which is not intended to be confined to any one 
 people, or to any particular climate ; but is equally adapted, in all its principles, 
 and in all its rites, to every kindred, and people, and nation, and tongue." 
 
 On Infant Baptism, Dr. M. is exceedingly interesting. I have room to ex- 
 tract only on a single point — the history of the Church. Says he, "I can affirm 
 with the utmost confidence, after much careful inquiry on the subject, that, for 
 more than 1500 years after the birth of Christ there was not a single Society of 
 professing Christians on earth, who opposed Infant Baptism on anything like the 
 grounds which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren. It is an undoubted fact 
 that the people known in ecclesiastical history under the name of Anabaptists ; 
 who arose in Cermany in the year 1.522, were the very first body of people, in 
 the whole Christian world, who rejected the baptism of hifants on the principles 
 now adopted by its opposers — nothing can be more certain than that this is even 
 so." Again, after producing his testimonies, (substantially the same I have pro- 
 duced in my Lectures,) he adds, " If then historical statements be correct, and 
 that they are so, is just as well attested, as any facts whatever in the annals of 
 the church ; the amount of the whole is conclusive — is demonstration, that for 
 1500 years after Christ, the practice of Infant Baptism was universal; during 
 the whole of that time, Infant Baptism was the general, unopposed practice of tiie 
 Christian church." Thus far Ur. Miller — a man, who for piety, candor, learning 
 .and a knowledge of ecclesiastical history, is not excelled by any man in this coun- 
 try ; probably not by any man on earth at the present time. In view of his tes- 
 timony, and the facts and arguments presented in the foregoing Lectures ; it is 
 preposterous for any man, at this day, who professes an acquaintance with the 
 Greek language and with ecclesiastical history, to say that allusion is not a gos- 
 pel mode of baptism or that this mode has not always been practiced ; and that 
 Infant Baptism has not been practiced ever since the days of Christ. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 The following errors escaped notice till it was too late for correction, viz. 
 
 Pa<»e 9, Line 11, for langaage read language 
 
 14, <' 7, " Ilenee " Hence 
 
 14, bottom line, take away with. 
 
 15, line 7, for in " an 
 17, " S, " acceptance " acceptance 
 
 20, " 23, " cleasne " cleanse [Bap. 
 
 21, " 33, " Wall, Hist. In. Bap. Part H. Chap. 9. read Walker, Doc. 
 21, bottom line, " Wall, part II. Chap, 9, read Walker, Doc. Bap. 
 23, line 16, for 7— 8 read 7: 4,8. 
 25, " 15, take away Walker. 
 30, " 4, insert " after Ghost. 
 32, " 11, for above read above 
 35, " 1, " ef " of 
 38, " 26, " introduced " introduced 
 55, " 9, after martyrdom, insert " 
 57, " 7, before Martin, take away '* 
 57, " 12, for triune read trine 
 62, " 28, for .' read ; 
 62, Same line, take away It is plain that 
 69, line 11, after 27, insert ) 
 73, " 13, for thier read their 
 
 83, " 12, for diseiples read disciples 
 
 84, " 26, for vvbicli read which 
 88, Second line from bottom, for Sec. Vol. read Lee. Vol. 2. 
 
 for objections read objection 
 after faith, insert ( 
 for renounoing read renouncing 
 for immerson read immersion 
 for then read these 
 
 « 92, 
 
 line 9, 
 
 ' 95, 
 
 " 4, 
 
 '101, 
 
 '• 6, 
 
 •112, 
 
 " 22 
 
 •118, 
 
 " 32, 
 

 Date Due 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 
 
 
hmum 
 
 rfmwmi'