SAP/ 1853 i^^^plj .:■-■,- : '■-'■ ' '■ ; 3 s Q_ J^ „ .^» . ro j? 1c 3 * ■a OS •*— . IE , ^5 ^ a. • W •S, ft o ta $ * S CD C w O bfl c\ »22 ^ < :> i^ 8 ~o5 * £ •C^ M <<5 *k» •5 rt CO ^ "** Pi i> »>4 <£t >> -Q ft -a c s £ CD tod So ^ CL 1" x Mb Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/replytolectures IiJh.-ty JUgmerJiuehuf KJiwen-, MMkrktt St.Fimh the Spirit gave them utterance." It appears plainly from the " testimony," that they were completely overwhelmed with the Spirit, as the immersed person is with the water, and also filled with it. Does this look like a sprinkling of the Holy Ghost ? The Holy Ghost was on them of course, as it was all around and in them, and " filled all the house where they were sitting." How unenviable the task of attempt- ing to diminish the grandeur of the Divine displays of grace, for the purpose of depriving the Saviour of the honor due to Him from all of his professing subjects ! It ought to be remembered here that the Greek par- ticle en rendered " with " in our version, is rendered in several of the first English versions by the word "in." "I indeed baptise you in water and he that cometh after me shall baptise you in the Holy Ghost." Tyndale has it "in" water, and "with" the Holy Ghost. Matt, iii, 11. In the corresponding passage, in the testimony of Mark i, 5, it is said they were "baptised en in Jordan, for the idea of taking up the river and sprinkling it on them would have been too barbarous ; nor could they say "with the water of the Jordan," for this would have been such a manifest de- parture from the original, that the curse in Rev. xxii, 19, would have been dreaded by them. But, as the particle en may sometimes be rendered " with," and as the translators were forbidden by King James to translate the term baptizo, they so rendered it, in ac- cordance with the practice of the church of Rome. See preface to old English editions of the received version. The Doctor seems to be reluctant to let his readers rfven have one peep into the Greek language, If they 56 could but learn the alphabet, and refer to any Lex- icon in the Doctor's library, they would see that the Greek word for sprinkle is rantizo, and that the Greek word baptizo means immersion, and nothing else. Sometimes Lexicographers take license, and put the effect of dipping some three or four re- moves from the primary radical definition. In do- ing this the word wash is used ; which always implies the dipping of the person, hands, cups, or other things spoken of. The time is fast passing away in which the people will be satisfied to take their instructions at the lips of the minister, without reference to the word of God, especially among Protestants. Without acquaintance with the original language, the intelligent reader will naturally ask, whether the Greeks themselves under- stand the word baptizo to mean, to pour or sprinkle ? It is easy to satisfy this inquiry by the most satisfactory testimony. Sir P. Ricault says that the " Greek church holds plunging to be as necessary to baptism as water is to the matter." Present state of the Greek Church, page 163. Dr. G. King — The Greek church uniformly prac- tices immersion, undoubtedly the most primitive man- ner. Rites and ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia, p. 192. Dr. Wall — The Greek church, in all the branches of it, does still use immersion. Hist. Inf. Bap. v. II, p. 376, ed. 3. In the April number of the Baptist Miss. Magazine for 1841, there is an account of the conversion of a native Greek, who expresses his views upon the ordi- nance of baptism, in which he affirms the same things, 57 viz : That the Greek church had no other view of baptizo than dipping, and that they had from the first, immersed the subject. The next passage the Doctor examines is the allu- sion Paul makes to the ordinance in 1 Cor. x, 1, 2. " Brethren, I would not thai you should be ignorant, how that all of our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." " They were under the cloud and passed through tho sea." This exactly agrees with the history, Ex. xiv, 29. See also Ex. xiii, 21, 22, and xiv/l9 — 22. " And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." The sea stood in walls on either side, and the cloud was over them, between them and the Egyptians, so that they were buried from the sight of their enemies, " in the cloud and in the sea." And they walked " upon the dry ground." So that while they were " baptised in the cloud and in the sea," they were not so much as sprinkled with water. Very unfortunately for the Doctor, the cloud was a pillar of fire, and had not, therefore, so much as one drop to sprinkle upon the Israelites, Ex. xiii, 21. The Doctor knew that no one contended, contrary to the declaration of Paul, that they were " baptised in the Red sea," in the literal sense of New Testament baptism. And no apology can be found for the insinuation, except it be that the Doctor has no fair argument for rantism in the word of God, and is obliged to resort to the trick of misrepre- sentation. I might adduce many Psedobaptist author- ities in favor of my interpretation. One will suffice. Witsius. On the Cov. Lib. iv, chap. 10, § 11, says that the Apostle used the term "baptism" in a "figu- rative sense" " The cloud hung over their heads, and 58 the sea surrounded them on each side ; and so the water in regard to those that are baptised." The Doctor proceeds in the next place, to find some rantisms, from the Jewish custom of washing hands, cups, and couches. The first passage the Doctor quotes he misapplies. The Pharisees did not refer, in what they said of our Lord, to a rite of purification, but merely of a custom among the Jews, of washing hands before dinner. And, it is sufficient for us to say, in reply, that the Doctor washes his hands by immersion. No one thinks it necessary to immerse his body in or- der to wash his hands. In the second quotation, Matt. xv, 2. They wash not their hands, etc., the Doctor was careful not to let his readers know that the Greek word is nipsontai, and not baqtizo. Many of the most learned Paedobaptist writers, assert that there were two sorts of washing of hands referred to, one by pour- (nipsontai) the other by dipping, {baptizontai) . Dr. G. Campbell, says, "For illustrating this passage, let it be observed, first, that the two verbs, rendered wash, in the English translation, are different in the original. The first is nipsontai, properly translated wash; the second is baptizontai, which limits us to a particular mode of washing ; for baptizo denotes to plunge or dip." Accordingly he translates the passage, " For the Pharisees eat not until they have washed their hands, by pouring a little water upon them, and if they come from market, by dipping them." The custom of dipping pots, vessels, and couches is thus described by the Jewish writer, Maimonides, " In a laver which holds forty seahs of water, they dip all unclean vessels. A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dips it part by part, it is pure." The case of "divers baptisms" in the Jewish service, 59 includes the bathing of the Priests, and cleansing of vessels, etc. While the sprinklings or rantisms of which the apostle speaks, refers to the ceremony of setting apart persons and things from a common to a sacred use. JJut the words are never interchanged in reference to the customs and ceremonies designated. Rantizo is never rendered baptism, nor washing ; nor is bajitizo ever rendered sprinkling, or applied to the sprinkling ceremonies of the Jewish worship. On p. 93, the Doctor refers to the symbolical import of the ordinance. Peter anticipates him, and says, that "it is not the washing away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by faith in the (death and) resurrection of Jesus Christ." We are said to be washed from our scarlet colored sins, to receive the washing of regeneration, wash away our sins by baptism, as in the case of Paul, etc. A fountain is opened in the house of David for sin and uncleanness ; " and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth from all sin." We, by bap- tism, profess that we have received the cleansing effi- cacy of the blood of Christ ; and others see in the or- dinance, the symbol of the spiritual bathing in the Wood of salvation flowing from the Saviour's side. It is also emblematic of our death unto sin, and resurrection un- to spiritual life. "We are buried with Christ by bap- tism," like as he was raised up by the glory of the Father, even so should we walk in newness of life." Rom. vi, 4. Etymological view of the word Baptizo. It is only neccessary on this point, for me to say, that universally, both in classic and sacred authors, the word baptizo ( baptise )is rendered immerse, or con- 60 strued in accordance with that definition. Paedobap- tist authors shall furnish the proof, whose inconsistency I leave the Doctor to reconcile. From the numerous Lexicographers, I shall only re- fer to Robinson's Lexicon, which is the standard work in sacred interpretation ; and Donnegan's Lexicon, the standard work in classic study. I begin with Robin- son. Article Baptism. Baptizo — to submerge, sink. Baptisma — what is immersed. Baptismos — baptism, immersion ; spoken of the re- ligious rite instituted by Christ. Bapto — to dip in, to immerse. Donnegan renders the word thus: Baptizo — to immerse, submerge, saturate. Baptisma — an object immersed, submerged. Baptos — immersed, dyed, drawn out. Bapto — to dip, to plunge into water, wash, dye. I now bring forward a few out of hundreds of Pee- dobaptists, who contradict their own practices. Thus, they write their own condemnation, for, the Doctor says, the " command ought to be obeyed." Calvin. "The word baptizo signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church." Institutes lib. v. chap, xv, §2. Luther. " Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when they immerse some- thing in water that it may be wholly covered. And although it is almost wholly abolished, (for they do not dip the whole children, but only pour a little water on them) they ought, nevertheless to be wholly immersed, and then immediately drawn out ; for that the etymo- logy of the word seems to demand." The Germans call baptism tauff, from a depth, which in their language 61 they call teeff, because it is proper that those who are baptised be deeply immersed." Luth. Op. vol. i, page 336. Vitringa. " The act of baptising is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also, it was performed by Christ and his apostles," Aphor. Sanct. Theol. Aphoris. 884. Hospinianus. "Christ commanded us to be baptised; by which word it is certain immersion is signified," His. Sacram. L. II. C. i, page 30. Gurtlerus. " To baptise, among the Greeks, is un- doubtedly to immerse, to dip ; and baptism is immer- sion, dipping. Baptismos en Pneumati agio, baptism in the Holy Spirit, is immersion into the waters of the Holy Spirit : for he on whom the Holy Spirit is poured out, is, as it were, immersed into him. Baptismos en purl, 'baptism in fire,'' is a figurative expression, and signifies casting into a flame, which, like water, flows far and wide ; such as the flame that consumed Jeru- salem. The thing commanded by our Lord, is bap- tism — immersion into water," Inst. Theo. cap. xxxiii, §108, 109, 110, 115. Buddeus. " The words baptizein and baptismos, are not to be interpreted of aspersions, but always of im- mersion," Theol. Dogmat. L. V. C. i, §5. Salmasius. "Baptism is immersion, and was admin- istered in former times, according to the force and meaning of the word," De Caesarie Virorum, p. 669. Venema. " The word baptizein, to baptise, is no- where used in the Scripture for sprinklmg," Inst. Hist. Eccl. Vet. et. Vov. Test. Tom. III. gee. i, §133. Extracts from German writers of the age of the Re- formation, and a few years subsequent, might be great- ly multiplied, but it would be superfluous. Professor Fritche, a disciple of Hermann, in his Com. on Matt, iii, 6, says: "That baptism was per- formed not by sprinkling, but by immersion is evident, not only /row the nature of the word, but from Romans, ri. 4." August!, vol. v. p. b. '* The word baptism, accord- ing to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, sub- merge, etc., and the choice of the expression betrays an age in which the latter custom of sprinkling had not been introduced." Brenner, p. 1. "The word corresponds in signifi- cation with the German word tauffen, to sink into the The author of the Free Inquiry respecting Baptism, Leipsic, 1802. " Baptism is perfectly identical with our word immersion or submersion (tauchen oder unter- tauchen.) If immersion under water is for the purpose of cleansing, or washing, then the word means cleans- ing or washing," page 7. Bretschneider, in his Theology of 1828, vol. ii, p. 673 and 981. "An entire immersion belongs to the na- ture of baptism." — "This is the meaning of the toord.'* This writer is confessedly the most critical Lexicogra- pher of the New Testament. Paullus, in his Com., vol. i, p. 278, says, the word baptise signifies, in Greek, sometimes to immerse, some- times to submerge." Rheixhard's Ethics, vol. v, p. 79. " In sprinkling, the symbolical meaning of the ordinance is wholly tost." "Professor Rost, the principal Greek lexicographer now living, in his standard German- Greek Lexicon re- vised with the assistance of a native Greek, puts down as the primary signification of all such words vls plunge, 63 immerse and submerse (tauchen, eintaucken, untertauck- en (bapto ; but under the words wash, wet, pour, and the like) waschen, benetzen, giesen,begiesen.) though he gives copious definitions in Greek, he never employs the word bapto, or any of its derivatives. Can any- thing be more to the point V Christian "Review, vol. iii, p. 97. Sceileusner, in his Lex. on baptisma. ''Those who were to be baptised were anciently immersed." Indeed the three New Testament lexicographers, Schleusner, Wahl and Bretschnider, limit baptism as a sacred or- dinance to immersion. Schoix, on Matt, iii, 6. "Baptism consists in the im- mersion of the whole body in water." Professor Lange, on Infant Baptism, of 1834, p. 81. " Baptism in the apostolic age was a proper baptism— the immersion of the body in water — >" As Christ died so we die (to sin) with him in baptism. The body is, as it were, buried under water, is dead with Christ ; the plunging under water represents death, and rising out of it the resurrection of a new life. A more strik- ing symbol could not be chosen." The author of the Free Inquiry on baptism, p. 36. " The baptism of John and that of the apostles were performed in precisely the same way," i. e. the candi- date was completely immersed under water. Speaking of Rom. vi, 4, and Gal iii, 27, he says "What becomes of all these beautiful images, when, as at the present day, baptism is administered by pouring or sprinkling?" Rosenmuller, Koppe and Bloomfield, all hold the same strong language on this subject. We will quote only the last, as he includes the others. In his Criti- cal Digest on Rom. vi, 4, he said, " There is here plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by 64 immersion ; and I agree with Hoppe and Rosenmuller, that there is reason to regret it should have been aban- doned in most Christian churches, especially, as it has so evidently a reference to the mystic sense of bap- tism. Waddington. in his Ch. Hist. p. 27, calls "immer- sion, the oldest form of baptism." Bretcshneider : — '• In the word baptizo, and bap- tisma is contained the idea of a complete immersion under water ; at least so is baptisma in the New Tes- tament," Theol. Leipsic, 1330, vol. ii, p. 681. "Rheinhard rightly says, that baptismos may also signify every common purification, but baptisma is used only at religious immersion." Dr. Cave. " The party to be baptised was wholly immersed, or put under water, whereby they did more notably and significantly express the three great ends and effects of baptism." Dr. Johnson, when arguing with a friend, in palia- tion of the Romish innovation, to which Dr. Whitby alludes (that of taking the cup from the laity,) ob- served : "They may think that in what is merely rit- ual, deviations from the primitive mode may be admit- ted on the ground of convenience ; and I think they are as well warranted to make this alteration as we are to substitute sprinkling in the room of the ancient bap- tism. Dr. Chalmers, when commenting on the passage in the sixth chapter of Romans, in which the expression occurs, "buried with him by baptism," observes, "the original meaning of the word baptism is immersion ; and though Ave regard it as a point of indifference whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way, or by sprinkling ; yet we doubt not that the pre- 65 valent style of the administration in the apostle's days, was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water." Edinburgh Ency. "In the time of the apostles, the form of baptism was very simple. The person to be baptised was dipped in a river or vessel, with the words which Christ had ordered, and to express more fully his change of character, generally assumed a new name. The immersion of the whole body was omitted only in the case of the sick, who could not leave their beds. In this case sprinkling was substituted, which was called clinic baptism. The Greek church, as well as the schismatics, in the East, retained the custom of immersing the whole body ; but the Western church adopted, in the thirteenth century, the mode of bap- tism by sprinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants, Baptists only excepted." Circumstantial Evidence Examined. The Doctor seems determined to destroy the insti tui- tion of baptism by pleading for a mode of rantism. We have seen that neither precept nor example can be found in the Bible, for an ordinance of rantism in the name of the Trinity, and that it is opposed to reason and common sense to apply a mode of one action, to the performance of another. In the next place, the attendant circumstances of baptism are brought for- ward, and the history of them construed in such a way as to favor rantism, if possible. On page 94, the Doc- tor refers to the baptism in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. " Then they that gladly received the word were baptised, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand." Now the historian does not say they were baptised on thai day. He only 66 asserts that such as gladly received the word, on that occasion, were baptised. Nine-tenths of the three thousand added to the church on that day, may have been of the multitude whom John and the Apostles had previously baptised in Jordan. But supposing they were all baptised on that day. If the work were divided between the seventy disciples and twelve Apostles of our Lord, there would have been less than forty for each administrator. And the writer of this has, on several occasions, with the assistance of a deacon, baptised two in a minute. In twenty minutes, therefore, the whole number could have been baptised. The warm hearted converts who afterwards were wil- ling to suffer the confiscation of all their goods, or lay them at the Apostle's feet to be distributed among the needy, were of course ready to supply those who need- ed assistance with a change of apparel. Nor would the disciples be prohibited the privilege of immersing in the pools, for the citizens were struck dumb with the majestic display of God's power and grace. In regard to polluting the pools, Josephus attributes the healing virtues of the waters of Bethesda, to the en- trails of animals brought to the sheep market near by this pool. Besides, it is evident from history, and the five porches or dressing rooms constructed upon the verge of this pool, that the principal object of it was to afford facilities for bathing. The size of the pool of Bethesda, to say nothing of those of Siloe and Rogel, was sufficient for the immersion of the three thousand, the administrators standing four feet apart. Chateau- briand, who visited Jerusalem about thirty years ago, says that it measures three hundred and eighty feet around. Maundrell, that it was one hundred and twenty paces long, and forty broad, and eight feet in 67 the deepest place. See Calmet's Dictionary, or Dr. Clark on 2 Chron. xxxii, 30 ; Is. xxii, 9 ; and John ix, 7 ; and Dr. Gill on Acts ii, 41. In regard to Ke- dron, but fifty-one days before, the Saviour crossed the brook with his disciples to Gethsemane. It was not a dry valley at that time. And it was fed by those never failing fountains flowing from Mount Moriah, which secured to the land the praise of being " well watered," and ''flowing with milk and honey." We have seen that, on that day, the followers of Christ were baptised in the Holy Ghost — the whole house being filled with the Divine inf uence, where they were sitting ; and that none were baptised except those who "gladly received the word." Rantism, ac- cording to Dr. Wall, was not practiced until thirteen hundred years after this time, and then only by those who submitted to the authority of the Pope of Rome. See Wall's History of Infant Baptism, v. ii, page 376. On the baptism at Jerusalem, it is only necessary fur- ther to say, that no historian thinks of describing the attendant circumstances of any given custom or rite, in their minutia, every time he refers to it. He only deems it necessary to name it, as he sees it, after he has once or twice particularly described the scene. The case of the jailor is next brought forward. The Doctor is very much tried for methods of shifting from the force of history. " They were in the prison," the Doctor says. Luke says they were brought out, verse 30. And then, that they spake in the house, verse 32. And, then, that the jailor took them, and washed their stripes, and was baptised, he and all his strait- way. And, then, verse 34, when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them. Now, it must be plain to any one who will see, that Paul and 68 Silas were taken out of the prison, into the house ; then taken away from the house, to have their lacerated backs washed, and to baptise the believing household ; and then brought into the house after the baptism was performed. Add to this what is said in verse 13, and you have all the principal attendant circumstances of immersion, and the facilities in addition. There was the river Strymon, and they went out of the house to baptise, and returned to the house, after they had obeyed the Saviour, and the household had imitated his example. Can a matter be more plain, where the ordinance is not particularly described ? The Doctor says, page 98, that they were still in prison. This is a flat contradiction of the sacred historian, who says they were taken out, verse 30, and afterwards taken from the house to baptise. That they went into the prison again is freely admitted ; but that did not change, or destroy the previous facts recorded of them. Let the reader take Pittsburgh, and apply the nar- ration of facts in Philippi, to the jail and the river in this city ; and see how easily the whole can be under- stood of the immersion of the jailor's family in the city of Philippi. Here, the river is only a few hun- dred yards from the prison. And we may rationally suppose that the distance was not greater in Philippi. John's baptism, " in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there," is the next case intro- duced. And here the Doctor makes sad work with the sacred record. His paraphrase would seem to purport that John baptised where there was much wa- ter, to keep the people from dying with thirst. The much water Avas to drink, according to his view. John and the multitude came to Enon to drink, because there was much water there ! This sage criticism 69 would not look so bad, if it could be made appear that the object of John's mission was to lead the people about from one drinking place to another, to keep them from being " exposed to imminent danger of perishing in consequence of thirst !" The Doctor becomes elo- quent here, and seems to say that any other view has as little foundation as "the baseless fabric of a dream." John Calvin says that " from these words, John iii, 10, it may be inferred, that baptism was ad- ministered by John and Christ, by plunging the whole body in water." In. Loc. While he dreams of rantising upon the base he has laid in his remarkable exposition, I take my stand on the immutable testimony of God, that "John was bap- tising in Enon, near Salim, because there was much water there." The next paragraph, is "based" upon a quibble as puerile, as the former supposition is destitute of sup- port. Who ever supposed, far less maintained, that when it is said that John baptised in Enon, that the administration of the ordinance, bears the same rela- tion to the village, that it does to the element or river into which the candidates were plunged ? There would be perfect propriety in saying, that I baptize in Pitts- burgh, in the river Monongahela. In the first part of the phrase, in Pittsburgh, it is distinguished from all other cities and towns ; and in the second, the river designated, in which the persons are baptised. What law of language is violated ? Suppose the Doctor's favorite rendering of the Greek word en were adopt- ed, and his practice of rantism were described, then we should have it thus : He rantised the children with Pittsburgh ! John baptised with Enon ! When we allow the Holy Spirit to narrate, all is intelligible. 70 John baptised in the wilderness of Judea, in the river Jordan. And not in the wilderness of Egypt, nor in the river Nile. If we were to substitute with for in, it would read thus : and the ''people were baptised of him with the river of Jordan." This would be non- sense. We are confirmed, therefore, in the conclu- sion, that the baptism was performed in the river Jordan. It is moreover affirmed by the evangelists that Christ came up straightway out of the water after he had been baptised. A circumstance always attend- ant on baptism ; but never accompanying rantism, or sprinkling. And who ever read of cups, bowls, or basins, in connection with primitive baptisms ? Glad- ly would the humble forerunner of our Lord have car- ried a basin of water from the river or elsewhere, to have served the purpose of rantism, if such had been the will of the Redeemer. But, no ! the lowly Lamb of God, more humble than his professed followers, went into the river, and set us an example that we should follow his steps, saying, " Thus, it become Lh us to fulfill all righteousness !" The Eternal Father, and the Holy Comforter, approved the sacred institu- tion, which Doctors of Divinity try to explain away, and supercede by a human invention ! The case of the Eunuch is next referred to. I should think that there could not possibly be any dif- ficulty in understanding the nature of the ordinance from the circumstances here narrated. But, it does not seem to be the object of the Doctor to let plain truth on this subject have its effect upon those who are under the influence of his instructions. He evi- dently labors to obscure its light, and blunt its edge, by a multitude of words, which, taken as rules of in- 71 terpretation, are without wisdom. For, if the parti- tides en and eis, are to be interpreted contrary to the force of the verb and the context, then there is no marvel why Daniel was not eaten by the lions. Upon the Doctor's principle, he was only taken to the door of the den ! And although our Lord says the righteous shall enter eis into the kingdom of heaven, yet they may only arrive at the gate, if the Doctor's principle of in- terpretation prevail ! But how plain the passage : " They went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptised ( not rantised ) him." Now, first, we see Philip and the distinguished stranger de- scending from the chariot, and going down into the water ; then Philip baptised him according to the law in Math, xxviii, and Mark xvi, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; and when they were come up out of the water, etc., he went on his way rejoicing. The passage quoted from Is. lii, was not the passage the Eunuch was reading. The passage is quoted by Luke from the liii. chapter of that prophet. Besides, the Hebrew word rendered " sprinkle," in the verse referred to, is almost invariably translated elsewhere by astonish. And the prophecy evidently means that Christ should astonish the nations by the greatness of his condescension, the disinterestedness of his love, the power of his miracles, the purity of his doctrines, the intensity of his voluntary sufferings, the triumph of his resurrection, and especially by the achievements of his grace, as the reward of his victory over death, hell, and the grave. In keeping the commands of God there is great reward ; and the Eunuch, who entered into the mar- velous — astonishing light of the above truths, willingly 72 submitted to the Divinely appointed ordinance, and went on his way rejoicing. May all who believe in the Son of God, follow him, as he also followed Christ ! On Rom. vi, 4, the Doctor follows closely in the track of Doctor Woods, of Andover, and with him fails to destroy the force of the argument derived from that and parallel passages. Unluckily for the Doctor, the "sound,''" "meaning," and everything else, in the verse and context, are against the practice of rantism. "We are buried with Christ by baptism," etc. It is not said that we are buried with Christ by dying unto sin, or being sacrificed to the world, or by believing in Christ; but " by baptism" Without a perversion of Paul's meaning, no criticism can destroy the force of this proof for immersion. Paul introduced it as it was in the days of primitive Christianity, when it was yet unmutilated by the hand of man. It was at that time, illustrative of the burial and resurrection of Christ, because the resemblance was striking. The Doctor attempts to detect some dissimilarity between the ordinance of baptism, and the burial of Christ, But, if he were as effectually buried in a watery grave, as Christ was buried in the tomb of Joseph, when tho Stone closed the door, I should take him by the hand, as an obedient disciple of the Redeemer, buried with him by baptism, in affectionate commemoration of the Saviour's death and resurrection ; and in evidence to others that he determined no longer to " make void the commands of God, by the traditions of men." The similarity between the loaf and the body of Christ is no more striking. The wafer and rantism are on a par in this respect. Anxious to find some shadow of proof for sprinkling, 73 the Doctor refers on page 113 and 114 to the sprink- lings connected with the Jewish worship. All read- ily admit that there were typical sprinklings, as well as immersions, under that dispensation. But this by no means proves that there is a figurative rantism or sprinkling instituted by the Head of the church, in this dispensation. There are but two ordinances in the kingdom of the Saviour ; and these are positive com- mands — not to be mutilated in the least by us, but to be implicitly obeyed. When the blood of Christ is called the blood of sprinkling, it is in allusion to the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices in the Jewish worship ; but, in- stead of the word baptism being used, in the Greek, it is invariably the word rantism. Let not any one who rantiscs, therefore, pretend to act under the commis- sion of our Lord, which commands the minister to baptise. Let those at once acknowledge they rantise under the authority of the church of Rome, who are determined not to be governed by the law of God and example of Christ. To those who are willing, in the day of God's power, His yoke is easy and His burden is light. By such submission to their Lord and Mas- ter, they testify their love to him who first loved them ; and shed a light upon those who look upon the order of God's house, that they may see their good works, and also glorify their Father in heaven. May every branch of Zion exhibit the light of truth to a world of darkness, as it shone in the ordinances of Christ, when Christianity was in its pristine purity, and when the church in its primitive splendor was emphatically a LIGHT TO THE WORLD ! A BAPTISMAL CATECHISM. This condensed form of presenting the argument is well adapted to those who have been trained in the shorter Catechism. CHAPTER I. THE PROPER SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Q. By whom was Christian Baptism instituted ? A. "By the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Lawgiver in " Zion, in his ratification of John's Baptism, and in the Commission, Matt. 28, and Mark 16 ; (not by Moses in the law of circumcision.) Q. What does Baptism signify ? A. It is the emblem of our spiritual cleansing, and death unto sin, as washing is an effect of dipping in water and not of sprinkling, Acts xxii, 16. Q. Can baptism cleanse from sin ? A. It cannot. The blood of Christ alone cleanseth from all sin. Q. Of what, then, is Baptism the sign ? A. It has no internal nor external sign, but is itself the divinely appointed sign of an internal work of grace, 76 such as Paul had before his baptism by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and not by virtue of the faith of his parents. Q. In whose name are we baptised ? A. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and Holy Ghost, Matt, sxviii, 19. Q, What important Doctrine are we taught by the command of Christ to baptise in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost ? A. That each of these is a Divine person, being one in name, and equal in authority and glory. Q. Who are the scriptural subjects of New Testa- ment baptism ? A. Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, and not the children of believers, Matt, iii, 8, 9 ; xxviii, 19 ; Maik Xri, 16. Q, What is the point in dispute Willi regard to the subjects of Baptism ? A. It is whether believers are the proper and only subjects of baptism. It is well known that there are no believing subjects baptised in Italy and other coun- tries where the corruption prevails under the control of the Man of sin, who "changes times, and seasons, and " Laws. 1 ' Q. Is it not the doctrine of the Ptedopaptists, as well as the Baptists ? A. It is so expressed in the Westminster Confession of faith. But observation proves that Christ's law, re- quiring the believing subject, is superceded and made void by the commandments of men." Q. What, then, is the point of difference between Us? A. It is simply whether Christ's Law is to be obey- ed implicitly, or whether men have a right to super- 77 cede that law, and bring other subjects to the sacred ordinance. Paedobaptists affirm, and Baptists deny. The former plead inference and the church as author- ity, and the latter the pure word of God. Q. Is there a single passage requiring only believers to be baptised ? A. There is nothing else in all the scriptures of truth. The commission commands it, Mark xvi, 16. The apos- tles practised accordingly, Acts viii, 12,37, etc. Infants are required to be fed, and nursed, and brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and the Lord blesses and saves them through the election of grace, washes them in his blood, and makes them of his kingdom of Heaven ; while millions of the chris- tened intidels of mystical Babylon will terribly perish. Q. How do Baptists prove their doctrine ? A. By express declarations of Scripture — "He that believeth and is baptised," Mark xvi, 16; " If thou be- lievest with all thine heart, thou mayest," Acts viii, 37. Q. Is it not unreasonable that inferences of fal- lible men should be considered paramount with the word of God, and used to make void the divine com- mand ? A. It certainly is preposterous and presumptuous, and shows that men will not only ' 'reject the counsel of God against themselves," when infatuated with the idea that they bear some sort of relation to Abraham, and are entitled to favor on that account, but also disre- gard the declaration of Christ — -"By my word shall ye be judged in the last day." Q. What are tlie passages referred to prove be- liever's baptism ? A. All of those that speak of the subject. In every ease, faith, repentance, or receiving the word, being 78 pre-requisites of a positive Law, necessarily exclude unconscious babes. Q. Are these passages clear and express ? A. Some admit they are as express as the command to "love the Lord with all the heart," and yet in- fer that they may love and worship angels and men with equal devotion, not perceiving in their ig- norance, interest, and prejudice, that the requirements of specific duty prohibits all other devices and sub- stitutes. Q. May not inferential reasoning often conceal a sophism from the eyes of the unwary reader ? A. This is often the resort of error. Truth is plain, express, and consistent, requiring no double dealing. Q. Is the assumption that the salvation of the infant depends upon its baptism, a sufficient premise from which to draw the inference that the requisition — "He that believeth and is baptised," does not necessarily exclude all others not specified ? A. It is not. It being a mere assumption of the Fathers of the Romish Church, Protestants ought to repudiate it. " The Bible " ought to be the religion of Protestants, and not the traditions of the Antichristian church of Rome. Q. Will the assumption that faith is as essential to the salvation of the infant, as it is to the believ- or in revelation, serve the purpose of the sophisti- cal inference that, therefore, children ought to be baptised, inasmuch as the adult cannot be saved with- out faith ? A. It does not. Infants are not the subjects of the command, nor adults as such, but persons possessing the specific qualification of faith in Christ, the terms of the command, necessarilv excluding all others. 79 Q. On what ground, then, do Ptedobaptists plead for infant baptism ? A. " On the ground of divine appointment," they say, but they always fail to produce the M Law and the Testimomy." Let the reader remember the first question and answer in the catechism, and he will wonder how Abraham and Moses can settle the ques- tion of a proper subject of a New Testament ordinance. Q. How do you establish the divine appointment of infant baptism from the Scripture ? A. It must be established from the Scripture, inas- much as God has never established it in the Scripture, and the question proposes that men may establish a divine appointment ! The church of Rome assumes no more. Q. What appears to be the purport of the Abra- hamic covenant — ''I will establish my covenant be- tween 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 ?" A. A national church state was thus constituted, composed of his descendants, securing to them Divine protection, the land of Canaan, and the oracles of truth with the rites of that dispensation. Q. What was the sign of the covenant made with Abraham ? A. There was no internal sign of which we read, but there was a certain sign appointed, called circumcision, to distinguish the children of this covenant from all other nations, and confined to persons of Jewish extrac- tion — they only, have a right to the external rite. Q. What was the spiritual import of this rite ? A. While its national import was a mere badge of distinction from all besides the Jews, its spiritual 80 import denoted typically a change of heart by the Holy Spirit, made without hands, and experienced by all believers, without distinction of nations, dispensations, or signs imposed by human hands, Jer. iv, 4; Col. ii 1 1 . Q. Is circumcision a privilege ? A. Moses' wife thought not, what the internal cere- mony was, deponent saith not, but as a token of God's care and kindness to the Jewish nation, it was appre- ciated even by the "generation of vipers" who cru- cified the Lord of glory. Q. Were the infant seed of believers, by God's ap- pointment, constituted members of his visible Jewish church, under the former dispensation ? A. They were not, as such ; but the natural seed ot the Jews were. To them, were to pertain the covenants, the promises, and the oracles — they constituted the congregation of the Lord, the church in the wilderness ; and the nation or tribes of Israel, in Canaan, were ty- pical of the believing kingdom or churches of the Lord Jesus — the only proper subjects of christian baptism. Gentiles cannot be Jews in the above sense, nor be- lieving parents, Abrahams, nor circumcision trans- muted into baptism by an inference, Gen. xvii, 7. Q. Is there any propriety in looking into the Old Testament, for proof in support of infant baptism ?" A. There is great propriety in searching the Scrip- tures that we may know the will of God in all things, but none, in looking for the rite where it never existed, and where it cannot be found if the first answer be true, that it was instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ the only Lawgiver in Zion." Q. If the children of a believer were constituted mem- bers of the visible church at first, what is the necessary result from this facf> 81 A. As the natural descendants of the believer Abraham were constituted a visible typical church at first, the result is that his spiritual children by faith in God, and union with the notable seed Christ, are the proper subjects of baptism and members of the christian churches. Romans iv, 12 ; Gal. iii, 14, 16, 26. Q. Does not the exclusion of the children of be- lievers from baptism involve the introduction of a prin- ciple which is at war with a revealed fact ? A. It does not. Baptism being the professing act of the believer in Christ, according to His institution, can have no application to Jewish children ; nor was the rite of circumcision ever given up by the Jews for baptism ; nor yet was there ever an\ provision made by Christ for Gentiles to be circumcised and connected with the Jewish church. Q. Is there any intimation in the New Testament that God is more regardless of the children of His people now, than he was under the former dispen- sation ? A. There is none ; and the very supposition that He regards them with equal favor because they are the fleshly children of believers, involves a most palpable and gross theological absurdity. It contradicts the doctrines of total depravity and the election of grace, as well as sets aside the covenant of mercy, and is op- posed to the entire Scripture revealing the Divine Sovereignty. Besides leading parents into the error that piety flows through the veins, or is communicated in baptism, it leads them to trust in the sprinkling per- formance of unholy hands for the salvation of their dying babes, instead of the cleansing blood of an Al- mighty Saviour, who has said " of such is the king- 82 dom of heaven," as he pronounced upon them his saving blessing. Q. Was the church constituted in the wilderness by- Moses, when God gave him the law. the same with the kingdom of Christ organized in Jerusalem under the direction of the Messiah, as the model church of all true churches of Christ ? A. It was not. That church Avas dispensed with its priests, sacrifices, tabernacle, ark, etc., to the Jews exclusively ; but the kingdom of Christ is the anti- typical church, with other than a worldly sanctuary and carnal membership, dispensed with its ordinances, baptism and the supper, and the offices, elders and deacons, to believers alone ; and hence all the letters addressed by the Apostles to the New Testament churches, call them believers, saints, etc., capable of performing divine commands. Acts ii, 42 ; Rom. i, 7 ; Gal. v, 1 ; Eph. i, 1 ; Phil, i, 1 ; Col. i, 2; Thes. i, 1. Q. What conclusion follows the fact that the carnal children of Abraham composed the Jewish church state, when taken in connection with the typical char- acter of that church ? A. It is that the children of God now constitute the Saviour's kingdom. " They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham," "so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham," and are proper subjects of the christian ordinance. The believing Jews changed from ignorant, carnal mi- nors into spiritual children of Abraham, through the same grace that saves the Gentiles, while the unbeliev- ing Jews are cast out with the bond-woman, with her legal circumcised brood, unworthy of dwelling with the children of promise in the Jerusalem which is 83 above. And unless the Baptists save them, the Psedo- baptists will run headlong after them, the church of Rome leading the way. Gal. iii, 22, iv, 23 — 31. Q. Is there any resemblance between circumcision and baptism ? A. There is not. One is performed with the knife, the other, by laying the body in the water and raising it up in likeness of a burial and resurrection. They were both appointed, as well as sacrificing, building altars, and a hundred other things comprised in the system of Jewish worship, by God, for different pur- poses. One was a seal to Abraham of the righteous- ness of his faith, and a type of the regeneration of spiritual Israel under the gospel ; but it was a seal to no others than Abraham, he being the eminent model of a true believer, as well as the father of a fleshly seed. Baptism and the communion were appointed for the observance of believers in the gospel. Acts ii, 41, 42. Circumcision was to be inflicted because the subject was a child of Jewish parents, not to make them such as some will have it. Baptism "is the an- swer of a good conscience towards God, by the resur- rection of Jesus Christ from the dead." 1 Pet. iii, 21. Q. What argument can be adduced for the support of infant baptism ? A. The New Testament furnishes none. The Jew- ish church having forsaken God, and crucified the Redeemer, were not accounted the spiritual seed, or the children of the new covenant, except those who should believe in Christ. To the Jews the Apostles preached repentance as the pre-requisite of baptism, and the state of mind for receiving pardon and the consolations of the Holy Spirit, restricting the promise to those whom the Lord God should call. Acts ii, 38, 84 39. The children of believing parents are said to be holy, and unbelieving husbands sanctified by the di- vinely appointed connubial and parental relations, but if one is eligible to the ordinance on this account, the other is equally so. Christ blesses and saves children, because they were chosen in Him, by his own blood, independent of human devices. Q. Is it anywhere said that the Apostles baptised children ? A. It is not. And as they were never commanded to do it, we may very reasonably suppose that they had the fear of God before their eyes, and would not utter the Divine name over a nullity. It is not. In an honest moment, or incautiously, the truth will find expression. But wo unto the man who will attempt to make Scripture, of inference, or exalt conjecture or tradition above the Divine word. Rev. xxii, 19. Q. What of the households ? A. The jailor and all his house were addressed by Paul, they were all baptised, and he rejoiced, believ- ing in God, with all his house. They all heard, be- lieved, rejoiced, were baptised with him. Infants could not do these things with him. Lydia's house- hold had been converted a few days before, and when the Apostle was let out of prison, he, of course, would call and see the household of Lydia, they being the only converts besides the jailor's family in the city of Philippi, " and when he had seen the brethren, he com- forted them." Acts xvi, 33, 40. The household of Stephanas, and many other Corinthians, hearing, be- lieved, and were baptised, ministered to the Apostles. 1 Cor. i, 14, xvi, 15. Q. Do the Apostles in their discussion of circum- cision, in Acts xv. allude to the identity of the Jewish 85 and christian churches, the membership of infants, or the substitution of baptism for circumcision ? A. They do not ; and it is unaccountable on the supposition that such views prevailed among primitive christians, especially as the Jewish brethren gave all the trouble upon this subject to believing Gentiles and the mother church. Q. Since the Jews to whom the gospel was first preached, had always been accustomed to have their children circumcised, and recognized as belonging to the Jewish church of God, is it reasonable to suppose that they would have submitted to the exclusion of their children under the gospel, without complaining ? A. As the Jewish parents were themselves prohibi- ted from entering the kingdom of Christ by virtue of their relationship in the Jewish church, it is not diffi- cult to see why they did not complain about their children. Their relation to Abraham, the church of God, their circumcision, their tithe-paying of all they possessed would not avail them as a title to member- ship in the church of Christ. Their children not hav- ing been members of the christian church of God, of course, were never excluded from it. Matt, iii, 7, 9. Q. Since children cannot understand the meaning of baptism, of what possible advantage can it be ? A. Such a question argues ignorance and presump- tion, if it were appointed of God. But as it never Was appointed, and as it is not said that the Apostles baptised children, it may be very proper, etc. Q. As the Jews not only circumcised their children, but led them to the Passover, which they could not understand, why do not Peedobaptists take their chil- dren to the Lord's supper, it being the memorial of Christ's death ? 86 A. The fathers in the third and fourth centuries not' only gave them the one, but the other with milk, and and honey, and spittle. Nor is it either ignorance or presumption to say that all these practices are alike destitute of divine authority. Q. What conclusion are we to draw from the varie- ty of reasons for the baptism of infants ? Among which the following are given in the history of this controversy. 1, Cyprian, the inventor, because Elisha raised to life the Shumanite child, thereby showing that the children are equal to men. 2, Augustine — be- cause it removes original sin. 3, Dr. Taylor — because the command may have been among the parchments at Troas. 4, Dr. Edwards — because the beloved of Solomon in the song, had a naval as round as a gob- let. 5, Dr. Wilson — because children believe even be- fore they are born, John leaped at the annunciation. 6, Calvin — the children of the Jews were circumcised. 7, Dr. Wardlaw — on the faith of their parents. 8, Dr. Newman- — on the faith of their sponsors. 9, Dr. Nevin — because Divine life flows through the church organ- ism. 10, Dr. Bushnel — because salvation comes to the children through the organism of a pious family. 1 1, Belarmine — because it is apostolic tradition. 12, Dr. Bird — the Saviour blessed them. 13, Dr. Yeager — the Scriptures do not forbid it. 14, Dr. Mason — it in- creases the number, influence, and resources of the church. • 15, Neander — it is in accordance with the spirit of Christianity. 16, Because it regenerates of the Holy Ghost. See Catholic and Episcopal prayer books and Methodist Discipline. A. We can draw no other conclusion than that when men leave the sure word of God, they wander into labyrinths of error, and their conflicting opinions pre- 87 sent a scene of Babylonian confusion, and so destructive of each other, that Kilkenny itself, never furnished a pa- rallel. Circumcision was God's command, and binds to itself its own subjects, Jewish children, and to the per- formance of the act alone which it specifies, the cutting off the foreskin ; but he who is so ignorant or presump- tuous as to suppose that an inference recently concocted in a studio, that "as children now are as capable" of baptism, etc., is a command of God, surely needs the prayers of the pious in his behalf, that the Lord would in mercy save him from worshiping the saints. Q. What is the duty of Parents to their children ? A. They should regard their children as belonging unto the Lord, and as committed to their care for a season, that they may bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and consequently they should pray with them, and for them, and carefully instruct them betimes in the knowledge of those things which are connected with their everlasting peace. CHAPTER II. THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM. Q. What do you understand by the mode of bap- tism ? A. The manner of of performing the rite. Q. Is there a propriety in using the phrase, the mode of baptism ? A. There would be manifestly if this wotA in dis- 88 pute. The German Baptists baptise the subject for- ward, the English, backward ; but they both bury the subject with Christ in Baptism. Q. What are the conflicting views with regard to baptism ? A. They may be reduced to three, or even two, One view is that baptism is the immersion of the sub- ject in water with the proper formula ; The other view is, that water may be sprinkled on the subject. Q. Does the word baptise, determine that to immerse fulfils its import ? A. It does. All classic usage proves it, and all classic and New Testament usage proves that the ap- propriate Greek term for the action of sprinkling is rantiso, and where the term is translated it is rendered dip, or wash, as the effect of the action, Rev. xix, 13. Q. Why should classic usage determine it ? A. Because the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Greeks have practised accordingly ever since. If the classic Greeks were too old to under- stand the term, the modern Greeks, may not be too young. Q. Do not Lexicographers generally give "wash" as a definition ? A. They do ; as several removes from the primary and predominant meaning of the word, and, as its ef- fect, i. e., "to wash" by dipping, Q. Is "to wash" the only scriptural meaning? A. Not so ; the word represents the burial and re- surrection of Christ ; and therefore, when we die to the world and sin by faith in Christ, we are washed in His blood, and should be buried " in baptism" as the first Christians were, Acts xxii, 16; Rom. vi, 4; Col. ii, 12 Water and wind are both figures of the Holy 89 Spirit's operations, as well as fire and the sword, inde- pendent of baptismal water, John iii, 5, and i, 7, have no reference to baptism. Q. In what manner should water be used in the or- dinance ? A. The administrator, with the candidate should walk down into it as Philip and the Eunich did, and there baptise him, or bury him, or wash him, emble- matically, as he had professed to be washed in the blood of Christ and dead to sin, and then let him go on his way rejoicing, he having answered a good con- science toward God, and imitated the example of Christ in this riteous institution of the New Testament. The subject should thus be baptised. Q. Does the word baptise signify nothing else than immerse ? A. Dr. Wall says no other practice was known for thirteen hundred years, except in extreme sickness and only afterwards until the reformation in the wes- tern church (of Rome); and Dr. George Campbell, says, this is its only meaning ; and Calvin says such was the practice at first, but "the Church has granted to herself to change the form somewhat, retaining the substance," Com. Acts viii, 38. This changing of the ordinance or the substitution of rantism for baptism is freely acknowledged by Catholic writers, who, with Calvin, say the church has a right to change the ordi- nance. The Holy Spirit not only sanctioned the bap- tism of the Saviour in the river of Jordan, but over- whelmed the Apostles with his heavenly influence, fill- ing the house where they were sitting and them too, and calls it a baptism ? Acts ii, 2, 4. The Israelites were buried with Moses by the walls of water on each eide, and the cloud over their heads concealing them 90 from their enemies, and they walked through, dry shod, Ei. xiv, 29 ; 1 Cor. x, 2. A nation in the tomb pledging tVemselves to Moses, to follow him as their leader, so christians do who are buried with Christ by baptism, to follow him. Q. As the baptism of the Spirit was an overwhelm- ing, does immersion only represent it as nearly as the nature of the case will admit? A. It does represent it; sprinkling can no more re- present that sublime display of spiritual influence, than the spray of a jet can equal the Falls of Niagara in volume and power. Dr. Dodridge says that when the Saviour calls his sufferings a baptism, he means to be plunged into sufferings, or overwhelmed by them. Will men degrade His sufferings by corrupting His holy ordinance. The circumstances of primitive bap- tisms as far as mentioned, are all in favor of im- mersion, and cannot be otherwise construed without perversion. The Apostle says, "we are buried with Christ by baptism into death" i. e., death unto sin, which we experience by faith, and of which baptism is emblematical ; and this is what we profess before bap- tism hoping and believing we shall rise at the last day in the entire likeness of our Saviour, whose burial and resurrection we have imitated in our baptism. The spiritual blessing and its emblem are both in the pas- sage, Rom. vi, 3, 4. Q. What should be the object of our great concern, with regard to baptism ? A. It is to know the will of God and to do it : " If ye love me keep my commandments ;" "If ye do what- soever I command you, then are ye my disciples ;" "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature — old things *re passed away and all things have become new." ei H In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any- thing nor uncircumcision, but a new creature," hence, the old circumcision has no application to Gospel times, but the new circumcision of Christ gives a right to baptism, the Lords supper, and all the privileges of the new covenant; the apostle therefore says to believers, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumci- sion made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ ; BURIED with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised Him from the dead," Col. ii, 12, and the reception of the Holy Spirit was a reason for baptism, not for indifference on the part of the subject, Acts x, 4, 7. Though Protestants will renounce the Bible upon this subject, let them not turn away from the exposition of the authors of their confession of faith, who also ratified Rouse's version of the Psalms. Assembly of Westminster Divines. If we have been planted together, etc., Rom. vi, 4, "By this ele- gant similitude tne apostle represents to us, that, as a plant that is set in the earth, lieth as dead and immov- able for a time, but after springs up and flourishes, so Christ's body lay dead for a while in the grave, but sprung up and flourished in his resurrection, and we, also, when we are baptised, are buried, as it were, in the wafer, for a time but after are raised up to new- ness of life," Annotations in this place 92 SYLLABUS OF THE ARGUMENT. IN LOGICAL FORM. Introductory Remarks. — 1. Professors of religion, in general, consider baptism as a duly ; and that it ought to be attended to by all proper subjects. 2. Baptism is a positive institution, and therefore we must have some plain precept or example to direct us, both with respect to the persons who are to be baptised and the ordinance to be administered. 3. If we proceed in ti is ordinance, or any other, without authority from Scripture, God will reject our services with, "Who Lath required this at your hands?" "In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 4. Baptism is an ordinance peculiar to the Gospel dispensation ; and therefore the rule of our duty must be sought in the New Testament, and not in the Old,. 5. The law which enjoins baptism may be found in Matt, xxviii, 19, 20. It enjoins a duty durable as the unchanging dispensation to which it belongs — to charge the command with obscurity, is a daring impeachment of Divine Wisdom and Love — to suppose the Apostles did not understand it, is highly absurd ; they certain- ly must understand it right, and their practice must be the best comment upon it. 6. If, by searching sacred history, we can learn, that the Apostles attended to baptism, we are bound to follow their example ; nor can any argument, de- rived from education, custom, fashion, popularity, sup- posed indelicacy, non-essentiality, etc., justify those who live in the known neglect of it ; for what are all these, when opposed to divine law, to primitive uni- versal practice ? 93 The following observations, with the remarks under each, are submitted to the pious reader's candid con- sideration : First. — We have no proof, from the New Testa- ment, that the Apostles ever rantised or sprinkled. Argument 1. If the Apostles sprinkled, it is reason- able that they would have told us so, but no inti- mation of this can be collected from the New Testa- ment. Argument 2. The word baptise does not signify to sprinkle, but to immer.se ; this is granted by all the learned. The Apostles well knew that this was the import, of the word, and fidelity to their Master's com- mand would induce them to dip, and not sprinkle. Argument 3. If a few drops of water, falling from the hands of a priest, were sufficient for this ordinance, how absurd and unaccountable the conduct of the Apostles ; they chose places where there was much water ; and because there was much water, they went down into the rivers to baptise ; and shall we dare to charge the Apostles wuli folly, to keep up the credit of sprinkling ? Argument 4. The word baptism is sometimes used in Scripture in an allusive or figurative sense : Christ's sufferings are called a baptism — the effusions of the Holy Ghost are called a baptism — and the Apostle says "we are buried with him by baptism." Can v.e sup- pose that Christ was sprinkled with sufferings — that the Apostles were sprinkled with the Holy Ghost — that a body is buried when a few particles of dust are sprinkled ? . Absurd supposition ! But if dipping or covering with water, be proper baptism, then the pas- sages referred to are clear, and the allusions oroper, because the resemblance is striking:. 94 Inferences.-— 1. As sprinkling is not baptism, those who have been only sprinkled, have not been baptised at all. 2. That it betokens great ignorance to deny that immersion is baptism, when such is the meaning of the original word, and it is constantly used in that sense. 3. That those persons who have been sprinkled, ought to submit to immersion ; for the Scriptures tell us that there is " one baptism," and no more. 4. That a person must be greatly unacquainted with the plain, literal, scriptural account of baptism, or extremely prejudiced, not to say perverse, to af- firm that the Bible says nothing about immersion, or burying in water as baptising, for it speaks of this alone. Second. — We have no Scriptural authority to bap- tise infants. Argument 1. If the Apostles baptised infants, it is reasonable to suppose they would have told us so ; but we have not the least intimation of their baptising one infant in all their travels ; they speak of baptising men and women, but never infants. Argument 2. The things required of candidates by the Apostles necessarily exclude infants ; they require Instruction, Repentance, Confession, Reformation, and Faith ; infants are incapable of these, therefore not the proper subjects of baptism. It is granted that the Aposlt's baptised several households, but there are many households without infants ; and the Bible says nothing about infants in these ; what is said of these households cannot, with any truth be said of infants — they believed, rejoiced, and ministered : are infanU capable of these ? It is a fact, that infants or children were brought to 96 Jesus, and that lie blessed them ; but not one word is said about his baptising them ; and it is certain that Christ did not baptise them ; for he never baptised any, either young or old. We sometimes hear of bap- tism succeeding circumcision ; and as infants were cir- cumcised, so they ought to be admitted to baptism ; but it is sufficient to say this strange succession is no where taught in Scripture ; and therefore we have nothing to do with it. Inference. — As infant sprinkling is a human inven- tion, it is in vain to expect the smiles of God upon it, and, therefore, the popular opinion must be erroneous and injurious, which states that infants, when sprinkled, are made " members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven." A supposition absurd in the extreme, contrary to Scripture, falsified by universal observation, and dangerous in proportion to the credit it gains in the religious world : there be- ing reason to fear that many, when they come to the years of maturity, trusting to this sprinkling work, go securely to ruin. Third. — There is also the proof that we can reason- able desire, that the Apostles baptised, i, e., im- mersed. Argument 1. The Apostles certainly did baptise. The preceding observations clearly prove that they did not sprinkle, we therefore infer that dipping was the ordinance. Argument 2. The radical, primary sense of the word baptise, required them to dip or plunge. Indeed, it is so understood by all learned men : and so the Greeks practise. Argument 3. The places they chose, and their going down into these places, make it manifest that they im- 96 mersed. " John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there." Bowls are never mentioned. Fourth. — It is undoubtedly evident that many be- lievers were baptised by the Apostles. Among many other examples, we find Lydia, Ste- phanas, the Jailor, the Eunuch ; and in Acts 2, we read of three thousand, therefore, as we have three thousand and four plain examples in favor of believers , baptism, and not one solitary example of infant sprink- ling, in all the travels and writings of the Apostles, let conscience decide what is the line of duty. The law is: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved." Last. — We give an epitome of our reasons for prac- tising believer's baptism. We practise immersion, not because we wish to dif- fer from our brethren of other denominations, nor be- cause we expect that water will wash away our sins, or procure any part of our salvation, but we administer the ordinance, because : 1. We are commanded to do so. It would therefore be presumptuous to slight the command of our Lord, upon the ground of non-essentiality, or upon any other pretence whatever. "It is better to obey than to sacrifice. " 2. We cannot in conscience trifle with baptism, be- cause, that, in effect, charges Christ with being a trifler. 3. Because we wish, on earth, to walk in the imita- ble steps of that Jesus with whom we hope to live in heaven forever. "Leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps." .