y^H OF PRIW?^ 
 
 
 BV 811 .B3 
 
 Baker, Daniel, 1791-1857 
 A plain and scriptural view 
 of baptism 
 
^^^^^V^^^2^^^^ 
 
 A PLAIN 
 
 SCEIPTUEAL VIEW OF 
 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 BY THE! 
 
 REV. DANIEL ^B AKE R, D.D. 
 
 OF TEXAS. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 
 
 No. 265 CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1853, by 
 
 A. W. MITCHELL, M.D. 
 
 in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the Eastern 
 District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Stereotyped bySLOTE & Mooney, Philadelphia. 
 Wm. S. Mart I en. Printer. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface, 5 
 
 Definition of Baptism, 7 
 
 I. Proper Subjects of Baptism, .... 8 
 Infant Membership a part of the original Con- 
 stitution of the Church, 9 
 
 Has never been abolished, 16 
 
 Baptism has taken the Place of Circumcision, 21 
 
 The Language of the Saviour, 22 
 
 His last Command, 25 
 
 Household Baptisms, 27 
 
 Holiness of the Children of Believers, ... 30 
 Testimony of the Fathers — Tertullian, Cy- 
 prian — Clemens and others — Augustine, 32 — 42 
 Seven objections answered, ; 45 — 75 
 
 II. The Proper Mode of Baptism, ... 76 
 
 Immersion not the only Mode, 78 
 
 Meaning of the Greek Word, 78 
 
 (3) 
 
4 CONTEXTS. 
 
 FAas 
 Baptist Armenian New Testament — "Believe 
 
 and be drowned," 79 
 
 Divers Baptisms, 84 
 
 Scripture Usage, 86 — 90 
 
 Cases examined — John baptizing in Jordan 
 
 — at Enon — Baptism of Christ — Philip 
 
 and the Eunuch — Paul's Baptism — the 
 
 Jailer — Cornelius— the three thousand, 90-114 
 
 Baptist Proof-texts explained, 122-129 
 
 Conclusion, 129 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Perfect unanimity of sentiment cannot be 
 found in the happiest and best regulated families 
 on earth ; and it is well known that our wisest 
 statesmen and purest patriots often differ in their 
 views of some points, even of constitutional law. 
 It should not therefore be any matter of surprise, 
 if amongst the multitudes of those who compose 
 the Christian Churchj there should be some diver- 
 sity of sentiment in relation to some matters of 
 faith and practice. And this should not break the 
 bonds of union which should ever bind them 
 together as members of the same household of 
 faith, for the apostle does not say, Grace be with 
 all them who tliinh alike, but " Grrace be with all 
 them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity J' 
 Cordially agreeing in essential matters, we may 
 then with perfect integrity of religious character, 
 in other things harmoniously and safely agree to 
 differ. In relation to the proper subjects and 
 mode of Baptism, many persons have given their 
 1* (y) 
 
VI PRETACE. 
 
 views. This little unpretending book presents 
 mine. 
 " Hane veniam, petimusque damusque, vicissim.'' 
 I am now an old disciple ; my locks are silvery. 
 Full threescore years have rolled over my head, and 
 more than thirty-six years have I preached with 
 some success, I hope, the glorious gospel of the 
 blessed God. My sun of life must soon go down ; 
 even now the shades of evening are lengthening 
 around me. With much love for my brethren 
 who in the matter of baptism differ from me, (and 
 yet with many of whom I have often taken sweet 
 counsel, and gone to the house of God in company,) 
 I now hand over to my family, to the church of 
 God and the world at large, in this little book, my 
 testimony in favour of doctrines and practices 
 which I verily believe to be both scriptural and 
 true ; and all I request of the reader is, with a 
 prayerful spirit to read, examine and compare; 
 bringing everything to the test of God's blessed 
 word, withal remembering, that as neither circum- 
 cision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but 
 a new creature, even so neither will water baptism, 
 however administered, avail anything without the 
 washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 VIEW OF BAPTISM 
 
 The word Baptism is a Greek word in 
 an English dress. It has not been trans- 
 lated, because, having a variety of signi- 
 fications, no single term in our language could 
 be found sufficiently comprehensive. Like 
 the Latin word conversation^ and the Greek 
 word angel, and the Hebrew word amen, 
 the precise meaning of which, in any given 
 place, is to be ascertained by the connection 
 in which it is there found. 
 
 "Water baptism is a sacrament or holy ordi- 
 nance instituted by Christ. It is a lively 
 emblem of spiritual baptism. It is a sign 
 and seal of the covenant of grace ; and im- 
 plies that the subject is a sinful creature, 
 
 (7) 
 
8 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 needing to be cleansed, and that this cleansing 
 is to be accomplished only by the application 
 of the atoning blood of Christ, and the puri- 
 fying influences of the divine Spirit. Two 
 points will here be considered; the proper 
 subjects of baptism, and the proper mode. 
 
 I. The proper subjects of baptism. Un- 
 questionably adults^ upon a credible profes- 
 sion of their faith in Christ, having never 
 been previously baptized, are proper subjects 
 of this ordinance. Thus far we agree pre- 
 cisely with those who hold to what is usually 
 denominated "believers' baptism." But we 
 further believe, that the infants of such as 
 are members of the visible church are also to 
 be baptized. Our argument is this : Infant 
 membership formed a part of the original 
 constitution of the visible Church of God. 
 Infant membership has never been abolished, 
 and therefore infants have a right to member- 
 ship still. Baptism has taken the place of the 
 ancient initiatory or recognizing ordinance, 
 and therefore infants are to be baptized. This 
 is the ground which we take. Each position 
 is susceptible of clear scriptural demonstra- 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 9 
 
 tion, and therefore must " stand the test of 
 scrutiny, of talents, and of time." 
 
 First. Infant membership formed a part 
 of the original constitution of the church of 
 God on earth. When was this church con- 
 stituted, and by whom ? Not by John the 
 Baptist, nor any in his day ; for who can sup- 
 pose that God had no church on earth for 
 four thousand years ? And does not Stephen 
 speak of the ''Church in the wilderness?" 
 Acts vii. 38. Indeed, we have reason to be- 
 lieve that there was a church organization 
 from the period when the first promise was 
 made to the human family, touching the 
 " seed of the woman that should bruise the 
 serpent's head;" and from what is said about 
 the connection which existed in the earliest 
 ages of the world, between parents and their 
 children, it would seem that they were linked 
 together by some bonds and ordinances of a 
 sacred character, even from the time of Adam. 
 Hence, not only were Noah and his wife in- 
 cluded in the ark, but also all the members 
 of their family, and none else. Moreover, Mo- 
 ses, speaking of events immediately subsequent 
 
10 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 to the deluge, makes this remarkable record : 
 " And God blessed Noah and his sons.'* 
 And again, " God spake unto Noah, and Ms 
 sons with him, saying, And I, behold I estab- 
 lish my covenant with you, and your seed 
 after you'''^ So that even at this early period, 
 
 * " There is a very rational ?in^just sense in which 
 God may be said to establish his covenant with 
 infants ; for the Scripture expressly sa3''s, (Gen. ix. 
 9 — 13,) that he established his covenant even with 
 the cattle and the fowl, solemnly engaging no more 
 to drown them by a flood. Is there anything strange 
 then, or unreasonable in the belief that God has es- 
 tablished a covenant with infants, solemnly engaging 
 to pour out his Spirit and blessing upon them ? or that 
 the evils they suffer in consequence of Adam^s sin, 
 shall be removed and amply compensated through 
 the righteousness of Christ? But if there is a 
 rational and just sense in which God may establish 
 his covenant with infants, there is the highest reason 
 to presume that he has actually done it, and that they 
 are taken into his covenant ; for if he graciously con- 
 descended to establish his covenant with the brute 
 creation, promising no more to drown them by a 
 deluge of waters ; and appointed a standing token or 
 memorial of this his covenant with them, as well as 
 with man, viz. the bow in the clouds ; much more 
 may we hope that he has estaUisJied his covenant with 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 11 
 
 there was a covenant, and this covenant em- 
 braced parents and their children, and their 
 seed after them. But for a more full and 
 distinct development of the principle, we 
 must refer to the time of Abraham. Him 
 God separated from the heathen ; with him 
 entered into a covenant, appointing circumci- 
 sion as a sign and seal of that covenant. The 
 record of this memorable transaction is in these 
 words : " And the Lord said unto Abraham, 
 As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, 
 and thou shalt be a father of many nations ; 
 and 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 to thy seed after thee, 
 and I will be their G-od. And this is my 
 covenant which ye shall keep between me 
 and you, and thy seed after thee — every man- 
 child among you shall be circumcised. Gen. 
 
 infants also, promising to deliver them from the fatal 
 consequences of the fall ; and that he hath appointed 
 a standing token or sign of this his covenant with 
 them, to perpetuate the knowledge and remembrance 
 of it in the Church." 
 
12 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 xvii. (Read the whole chapter.) In accord- 
 ance with the provisions of this gracious 
 covenant, Abraham proceeded forthwith to 
 bring his family into a state of visible church 
 relationship with God, making use of circum- 
 cision as the initiatory rite then prescribed. 
 And when Isaac was subsequently born, he 
 also, when eight days old, was added as a 
 member of the same visible church, by the 
 application of the same appointed rite. And 
 thus was the family of Abraham separated 
 from the world ; and by a formal religious 
 act, taken into covenant or church relation- 
 ship with God. This (we insist upon it) was 
 not a national aifair, as some would have us 
 to believe, for the apostle referring to this 
 very thing says, " And the scripture foresee- 
 ing that God would justify the heathen 
 through faith, preached before the gospel 
 unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all na- 
 tions of the earth be blessed." Gal. iii. 8, 9. 
 Mark the language ; " preached the gospel !'* 
 This proves that the blessings contemplated 
 were of a spiritual and not of a national cha- 
 racter. National it could not be, for the affair 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 13 
 
 had reference to but one family, and the pos- 
 terity of Abraham had no national existence, 
 and no civil institutions for many ages after ; 
 besides, the very solemnity with which the 
 transaction was introduced shows its purely 
 religious characte7\ The record is this : " And 
 when Abram was ninety years old and nine, 
 the Lord appeared to Abram, and said ui>to 
 him, I am the Almighty God, walk before 
 me, and be thou perfect." Then follow the 
 words, "And I will make my covenant be- 
 tween me and thee." And further, that this 
 was not a national affair, appears, if possible, 
 with still clearer evidence, from this language 
 found in the seventh verse : " And I will es- 
 tahlisJi my covenant between me and thee, 
 and thy seed after thee." The word estab- 
 lish, here used, shows that this covenant was 
 but the renewal of a previous one ; the one, 
 for example, made with Noah, already referred 
 to, and which has never been called a national 
 one ; and I would here remark, that as the 
 covenant with Noah embraced children, as 
 well as the covenant with Abraham, here we 
 have additional evidence of the fact, that 
 2 
 
14 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 infant memhersMp did form a part of the 
 original constitution of the church of God on 
 earth. 
 
 The Mosaic dispensation, which was estab- 
 lished four hundred and thirty years after the 
 covenant with Abraham, furnishes an exam- 
 ple of another covenant, besides that of cir- 
 cumcision, into which infants were taken, by 
 which, being circumcised, they became mem- 
 bers of the Jewish church by a new, and it 
 may be a peculiar bond. You will find it in 
 Deut. xxix. 9 — 15. "Ye stand this day all 
 of you before the Lord your God ; your cap- 
 tains of your tribes, your elders, and your 
 officers, all the men of Israel ; your lit- 
 tle ones, &c., that thou shouldst enter into 
 covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his 
 oath which the Lord thy God maketh with 
 thee this day ; that he may establish thee to- 
 day for a people unto himself, and that he 
 may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto 
 thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, 
 to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob," &c. 
 And that this was no unmeaning ceremony, 
 as it respected the infant portion of that peo- 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 15 
 
 pie, Ezekiel proves, when he says: (chap, 
 xvi. 1—3, 20, 21,) " Thus saith the Lord 
 God of Israel unto Jerusalem .... thou 
 hast taken thy sons and thy daughters whom 
 thou hast home unto me, and these hast thou 
 sacrificed unto them, to be devoured ; . . . . 
 thou hast slain my children and delivered 
 them, to cause them to pass through the fire 
 for them." 
 
 The reader need not be told that God ex- 
 pressly required that every first-born male 
 should be consecrated to him, and be called 
 holy unto the Lord, (Luke ii. 22, 23 ; Exod. 
 xiii. 2 ; xxii. 29 ; xxxiv. 19.) Our Lord himself, 
 when an infant, was brought into the temple 
 and solemnly devoted to God. Among the 
 Jews, every child on the day of its circumcision 
 was called Qhatan, because it was then con- 
 sidered as espoused to God and united to 
 his people. (Schind. Lex. Pent, page 677.) 
 Hence it is evident Jewish infants, during the 
 Mosaic dispensation, as well as previously, in 
 consequence of their dedication to God, and 
 of their being received into his covenant, 
 were, in an especial manner, God's children — 
 
16 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 Ms property ; that is, they were his in a 
 sense in which the infants of the idolatrous 
 and uncircumcised gentiles were not. Unless 
 it be so, there is no meaning in these passa- 
 ges whatever. The bearing of this argument 
 cannot be mistaken. Did God take the infants 
 of his people into covenant with himself 
 under Abraham and Moses ; and command, 
 as a standing token of it, that the seal of the 
 covenant should be solemnly affixed to them? 
 But under the dispensation of Jesus his Son, 
 has he made no such manifestation of his 
 regard to them — admitted them into no cove- 
 nanty nor appointed any token that he receives 
 them as his children, and that he will be to 
 them a God ? How improbable ; nay, how 
 uncomfortable the thought ! Thanks to his 
 mercy, we can with confidence say that it is 
 not so ; accordingly our 
 
 Second affirmation is this : Infant member- 
 ship thus originally instituted, and continued 
 under and through the Levitical economy, 
 has never been abolished. Abolished ! Where 
 is the abolishing act ? It cannot be found in 
 all the Bible ! Abolished ! It cannot be, for 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 17 
 
 the covenant which embraced infants was 
 expressly declared to be an everlasting cove- 
 nant. Abolished ! It could not be, for it 
 had direct reference to gospel times; and 
 was designed, as was expressly stated, to em- 
 brace in its gracious provisions believers of 
 every place and every age. This the apostle 
 himself positively affirms. I give you his 
 very words: "And he (Abraham) received 
 the sign of circumcision, a seal of the right- 
 eousness of the faith which he had, being yet 
 uncircumcised, that he might be father of 
 them that believe, though they he not circum- 
 cised ;'' that is, though it be in a remote age, 
 when circumcision as a religious rite shall no 
 longer exist. But some tell us, that infant 
 membership formed a part of the old dispen- 
 sation ; that it was altogether a Jewish affair; 
 and that the old Jewish dispensation having 
 passed away, infant membership has passed 
 away with it. But this cannot be ; because 
 infant membership was instituted long before 
 the Jews, as a nation, had any existence at 
 all. Indeed, as it would seem to make this 
 matter perfectly clear, the apostle expressly 
 
18 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 tells US that the covenant made with Ahra- 
 ham, and the law given by Moses, were two 
 entirely distinct things ; and that they had 
 no such connection, that the one could not dis- 
 annul the other. Hear his own words, Gal. 
 iii. 17 : " And this I say, that the covenant, 
 which was confirmed before of God in Christ, 
 the law, which was four hundred and thirty 
 years after, cannot disannul, that it should 
 make the promise of God of none effect." Now 
 this is precisely to the point, and is perfectly 
 conclusive ; for if the coming in of the Leviti- 
 cal or Jewish dispensation could not disannul 
 that covenant which embraced infants, but 
 rather gave occasion to further and peculiar 
 ties, as we have seen, surely its passing away 
 could not. And if the abrogation of the old 
 Jewish dispensation could not abolish the 
 covenant, what could? Nothing! No, the 
 covenant has not been abolished. It cannot 
 be, for it is declared to be an " everlasting 
 covenant ;" and, verily, to the end of time 
 it will remain firm and stable, based upon 
 the promise and the oath of God. In con- 
 firmation of the correctness of our views, let 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 19 
 
 it be remembered that the covenant being 
 unchanged, the Church, founded upon it, of 
 course must also remain the same ; and this, 
 I repeat it, is an additional evidence that 
 infant membership has not been abolished ; 
 and that the Church of God, amid all exter- 
 nal changes, is really one and the same is 
 evident from the words of the Saviour : " The 
 kingdom of God shall be taken from you, 
 and given to a nation bringing forth the 
 fruits thereof." The Church of God on 
 earth is here included, if not evidently in- 
 tended; and certainly the mere transferring 
 of an object from one to another can effect 
 no material change in that object. Again, 
 that the Church of God is still the same 
 under both the Jewish and the Christian dis- 
 pensation, is also evident from what the 
 apostle says about the good olive tree, to 
 which he likens the Church. Rom. xi. 
 Speaking of the rejection of the Jews and 
 the calling of the Gentiles, he uses the fol- 
 lowing language: "If some of the branches 
 be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive 
 tree, wert graffed in among them, and par- 
 
20 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 takest of the root and fatness of the olive, 
 boast not thyself against the branches ; but, 
 if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but 
 the root thee." Here the church, the good 
 olive tree, is spoken of as one ; and all the 
 changes which have taken place are repre- 
 sented as having reference to the branches, 
 not the root or stock. That, amid all external 
 changes, remains one and the same. And 
 if in gospel times there is an enlargement of 
 church privileges and members, this is only 
 the beautiful and exact fulfilment of certain 
 prophecies found in the fifty-fourth chapter 
 of Isaiah, and in numerous other places in 
 the Old Testament scriptures referring to 
 New Testament times ; and this enlargement 
 of church privileges and members in our day 
 can no more afi'ect the identity of the church 
 itself, than the adding of a chamber or two 
 to some marble palace can change the iden- 
 tity of that palace which has been standing 
 on the same spot, defying the storms and 
 ravages of many generations. And to 
 crown the matter, Paul, in his epistle to the 
 Ephesians, speaks of the church as one build- 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 21 
 
 ing, "built upon the foundation of the apostles 
 and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
 chief corner-stone." Observe, apostles and 
 prophets are here linked together, and cer- 
 tainly one corner-stone can denote but one 
 building ! 
 
 Thirdly. Baptism has taken the place of 
 circumcision. We argue this from the fact 
 that, according to the scriptures, both are 
 of the same import, and are made to answer 
 similar purposes. Col. ii. 11. Each is made 
 a seal of the covenant, and both emblemati- 
 cal of spiritual influences which, under the 
 Old Testament dispensation, are called " the 
 circumcision of the heart," and under the 
 new, "regeneration." That baptism has 
 taken the place of circumcision is also evi- 
 dent from the fact, that if baptism be not 
 now a seal of the covenant, as circumcision 
 formerly was, then we have now no seal of 
 the covenant at all. And if baptism be not, 
 at the present time, the initiatory or recog- 
 nizing ordinance of the church, then, at the 
 present time, we have no such ordinance 
 whatever. Yes, 
 
22. A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 " Water seals the blessing now, 
 That once was sealed with blood." 
 
 And does not this fall in precisely with 
 the milder character of the gospel dispensa- 
 tion, and with the well known words of the 
 Saviour, " My yoke is easy and my burden is 
 light?" And this is particularly the case, 
 when baptism is administered, not by immer- 
 sion, but the more scriptural mode, as we 
 shall hereafter show, of pouring or sprinkling. 
 And now, having shown that infant member- 
 ship formed a part of the original constitu- 
 tion of the church of God, and that this 
 membership has not been abolished, it fol- 
 lows, as a matter of course, that infants are 
 entitled to membership still. They are to 
 be admitted by some religious ordinance or 
 other. But baptism is now the only initia- 
 tory rite existing ; and, therefore, infants are 
 to be baptized. 
 
 Hence 1. The language of our Saviour : 
 " Suffer little children to come unto me, and 
 forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom 
 of God." Now by " the kingdom of God" 
 we are to understand either the church on 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 23 
 
 earth, or the church in heaven. If it be the 
 church on earth, then the case is settled ; for 
 as children are said to be of that 'kingdom^ 
 certainly their right to membership is clear 
 and unquestionable ; and if the church in 
 heaven be meant, the case is equally clear, 
 for if they are worthy of membership in the 
 church above, most assuredly they are wor- 
 thy of membership in the church below. " At 
 another time he took a little child into his 
 arms, and showing it to his disciples, said, 
 'Whosoever shall receive one such little 
 child (this child) in my name receiveth me.' 
 Matt, xviii. 5; Mark ix. 37. Now the re- 
 ceiving a little child in Christ's name, must 
 mean the considering or treating it as stand- 
 ing in some peculiar relation to Christ, as 
 {io'c Xpttf-rou coi') belonging to Christ ; that is, 
 as being of his flock. That this is what our 
 Lord means hy receiving in his name, he 
 himself has shown in the same discourse, ex- 
 pressly explaining it, because ye belong to 
 Christ. 'For whosoever shall give you a 
 cup of water to drink, in my name, because 
 ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you he 
 
24 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 shall not lose his reward.' Mark ix. 41. 
 Hence it is evident infants may be, yea are 
 to be received in Christ's name ; that is, to 
 be received as belonging to Christ, or as 
 capable of standing, and actually standing, in 
 some peculiar relation to him; but such a 
 relation can be constituted only by their 
 being solemnly devoted to him, and being 
 admitted into his church by his ministers." 
 Besides, from our Saviour's saying, " Suifer 
 little children to come to me," it appears he 
 thought them capable of being his disciples, 
 because to come to hwiy and 7iot to come to 
 him, in a figurative sense, imply being prose- 
 lytes or not to his religion ; and the original 
 word justifies this sense, because it is the 
 word from which proselyte is derived. This 
 is confirmed by the fact, that he makes child- 
 ren the standard of qualification for the king- 
 dom of heaven. Mark x. 14 ; Matt, xviii. 3. 
 Thus we come again to the same conclusion. 
 Moreover, I would ask in what way can min- 
 isters forbid children coming to Christ, ex- 
 cept by debarring them from admission into 
 the visible church on earth ? If Clirist was 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 25 
 
 willing to receive children, do we follow his 
 example, or act in accordance with his spirit, 
 if we reject them ? and what if the cry of 
 these little ones thus excluded from the fold, 
 should enter into the ears of Him who not 
 only said,. " Feed my sheep," but also, *' feed 
 my lambs?" But in further confirmation of 
 our doctrine, that infants ought to be baptized, 
 we adduce 
 
 2. The last great command of our Sa- 
 viour — " Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, teaching them to observe whatsoever 
 I have commanded you." In our transla- 
 tion, we have the word to teach repeated. 
 This is tautological, and is not sanctioned by 
 the original; for the Greek words are not 
 the same. In the first place, it is ^a^s^rf-Doatf, 
 and in the second StSaoxoirsj, the first mean- 
 ing unquestionably to disciple, or make dis- 
 ciples ; and the other to teach. By this com- 
 mand all nations are to be discipled and bap- 
 tized^ and afterwards taught. And now if all 
 nations are to be discipled and baptized, and 
 3 
 
2(3 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 placed upon the roll of those who are to be 
 taught the things pertaining to the kingdom, 
 as children form a part of all nations, they 
 are certainly entitled to the same privilege 
 with others. And with regard to the matter 
 of discipling all nations, the Saviour in his 
 last command seems to point out the very 
 mode and manner in which this is to be 
 done, viz. by baptizing. As when Paul and 
 Barnabas are said to have returned to cer- 
 tain places, confirming the souls of the disci- 
 ples, exhorting them to continue in the faith,* 
 we are informed of the way and manner in 
 which they confirmed the souls of these dis- 
 ciples ; namely, by exhorting them to con- 
 tinue in the faith ; so the apostles, and all 
 duly authorized ministers were to make dis- 
 ciples by baptizing; and certainly in this 
 way and manner infants may be discipled 
 as well as others ; aye, and, as we believe, in 
 apostolic times were thus discipled. f For, 
 
 ■^ The conjunction and is not in the original, and 
 therefore the latter member of the sentence is sim- 
 ply explanatory of the former. 
 
 t " Suppose,'^ says one, " there were a master, who 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 27 
 
 3. There is the case of household baptisms^ 
 which falls in very naturally with the doctrine 
 of infant baptism, and which cannot very 
 easily be accounted for on any other princi- 
 ple. Let it be remembered, that there are 
 no less than four cases upon sacred record : 
 the household of Lydia, of Stephanas, of Cor- 
 nelius, and the Jailer. Can we suppose for 
 one moment, that there was not a single child 
 in one of these four households ? The thing 
 is incredible ! For now let any individual just 
 spread the wing ; let him hover over any con- 
 tinent or island in this wide world, and let 
 
 had the secret of predisposing a child to future 
 learning, or of giving a principle or power of future 
 knowledge ; would it not be a very desirable and 
 proper thing to put children under his management ? 
 and when done, would it not be very reasonable to 
 account such children, though infants, scholars or 
 disciples of such a master, even before they should 
 be actually taught? Yet Mr. Tombs, a learned anti- 
 pedobaptist, acknowledges that the grace of God may 
 put infants into Christ, and unite them to him by 
 his Spirit.'^ Among the Romans, an apprentice, as 
 soon as it was agreed he should become such, and 
 before he had received any instruction, was called 
 (discipulus) a disciple. 
 
28 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 him alight on any spot whatever, in the city 
 or in the wilderness ; and let him enter into 
 any of the first four houses nearest at hand, 
 and baptize all the inmates in each, and if 
 some child be not baptized it would be strange 
 indeed. He might make the experiment a 
 hundred times, and I fully believe there would 
 be no failure in a single case. Indeed, the 
 account which is given of the baptism of Ly- 
 dia's household seems to admit of no reason- 
 able doubt, so far as her family is concerned. 
 The record is this : Acts xvi. 14, 15 ; " And 
 a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of 
 purple, of the city of Thyatira, heard us, 
 whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended 
 unto the things which were spoken of Paul ; 
 and when she was baptized, and her house- 
 hold^ she besought us, saying. If ye have 
 judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come 
 into my house and abide there ; a'nd she con- 
 strained us." "Whose heart did the Lord open ? 
 Lydia's. Any other mentioned ? Not another ! 
 and yet it is said she ivas baptized, and her 
 household. But what else ? She brought us, 
 saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful. 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 29 
 
 Observe me^ not u%. If any other adults 
 were converted, why was there not some men- 
 tion made of them also ? And she constrained 
 us. If other adults were converted and bap- 
 tized by Paul, I think, judging from what I 
 have seen in our day, their affection for the 
 apostle would have induced them to unite 
 with Lydia, in urging him to abide with them 
 some days. I feel quite sure that young 
 converts in similar circumstances in our times, 
 could not and would not be altogether silent. 
 I believe that on that occasion Lydia was the 
 only adult converted; who can say there 
 were others ? We are told that %lie was bap- 
 tized, and her houseliold. I believe that her 
 household embraced children ; who can say 
 it did not ? 
 
 4. There is a passage in Cor. vii. 14, 
 which very naturally falls in with our doc- 
 trine; and which, on any other principle, 
 seems to be altogether inexplicable. It is 
 this. "The unbelieving husband is sancti- 
 fied by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by 
 the husband, else were your children unclean, 
 but now are they holy." Unclean! What 
 3* 
 
30 A PXAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 does the apostle mean ? Illegitimate ? Cer- 
 tainly not ; for it would be strange indeed if 
 it required one parent to be a believer to 
 legitimatize the offspring. No, no ! this can- 
 not be. What then? A Jew would have 
 caught the idea immediately, for he well 
 knew that, according to the long established 
 usage, the term unclean denoted unfitness to 
 he admitted to church ordinances ; and the 
 term holy just the reverse. And I ask, does 
 not the language of the apostle, on our prin- 
 ciples, present just such a case as might have 
 been expected to occur ? Paul having taught 
 that all believers were recognized as the child- 
 ren of Abraham, and heirs according to the 
 promise — the case, when both parents are be- 
 lievers, would be clear ; their children would, 
 of course be embraced in the covenant. But 
 if only one parent be a believer, what then ? 
 Why, says Paul, the gospel, leans to the side 
 of mercy. Let the child be admitted on the 
 faith of one parent. How natural is this 
 interpretation; and if infants were admitted 
 to church membership in apostolic times, as 
 we know was the case, how natural was it 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 31 
 
 that just such a case should have occurred !* 
 But this leads me to mention in the 
 
 Fourth and last place that the testimony 
 of " the fathers" in favour of infant baptism 
 is full, clear, positive, and express. Justin 
 Martyr, who lived immediately after the apos- 
 tolic times, says in so many words, that in 
 the earliest days of the Christian church 
 baptism was practised in the place of circum- 
 cision. Ireneeus, who flourished not long 
 after, states expressly that the chui'ch learned 
 from the apostles to baptize children. 
 
 * It is plain from this passage that the Christian dis- 
 pensation, as well as the Jewish, makes a distinction 
 between the children of believers and the children 
 of infidels. Some of the Corinthian converts having 
 unbelieving yoke-fellows, doubted the lawfulness of 
 cohabiting with them, lest among other evil conse- 
 quences the offspring of such unequal marriages 
 should be deemed impure and unmeet to be taken 
 into covenant with God. The doubt seemed just, 
 being grounded on the conduct of Ezra x. 1 — 3. 
 But the apostle tells them that the unbelieving yoke- 
 fellow icas so far sanctified by [to or because of) the 
 believing, as that their children (which would be 
 otherwise unclean) are now Jwlj/. Thus the state or 
 condition of the children in respect to Jwliness or 
 
82 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 In a tract recently published it is stated 
 that Tertullian opposed infant baptism as an 
 innovation ; but the truth is, he is an incon- 
 testable witness to its long continued preva- 
 lence. He did indeed advise that the baptism 
 of infants should be deferred, except in cases 
 of necessity ; but he appears to have been quite 
 
 uncleanness is made to depend upon the belief or 
 unbelief of their parents. The children of unbe- 
 lievers are unclean, that is, they do not stand in any 
 visible covenant relation to Jehovah. The children 
 of believers are holy ; that is, holy in the same sense 
 the Jews were holy as a nation ; that is, as standing 
 in a peculiar relation to God. The sentiment, there- 
 fore, of an infant's holiness, and of the propriety of 
 its being brought into the church and solemnly dedi- 
 cated to God, is quite scriptural and rational. The 
 infant Jesus was brought to the temple for that pur- 
 pose. Luke ii. 22, 23. The sacred ceremony under 
 which he passed, was of the same nature as the 
 solemn presentation of our infants to God, at the time 
 of their baptism. It may be added in confirmation, 
 that in the Jewish sense to he uncircumcised is to he 
 unclean. Compare Acts x. 28 with xi. 3, 8, 9. Hence 
 the Ixx. say that Joshua cleansed the children of 
 Israel, when the Hebrew text says he circumcised 
 them, Josh v. 4. See also Isaiah vi. 13 ; Ezra ix. 2; 
 Lev. xxi. 23; Col. ii. 11. 
 
VIEW0FBAPTI3M. 33 
 
 singular in this his advice. Some there are 
 indeed who understand Tertullian in the pas- 
 sages referred to, as intending only the infants 
 of heathen parents, which Christians of those 
 days were wont to baptize when they came 
 into their power, by purchase or conquest ; 
 and that such was his meaning may be urged 
 upon probable grounds. But we have nothing 
 to do with Tertullian's reasoning or ortho- 
 doxy on this or any other point. He is cited 
 merely as a witness to a matter of fact. His 
 words are, Itaque pro cujusque personse con- 
 ditioner &c. " Therefore, according to every 
 one's condition, disposition, and also age, the 
 delaying of baptism is more pro fitahle ; espe- 
 cially in the case of children." And again, 
 Quid festinat innocens sstas ad remissionem 
 Ijecoatorum ? Quid enim necesse est sp)onsore§ 
 etiam peyHculo ingeri, &c. " Why does that 
 innocent age make such haste to the remission 
 of sins ? (i. e. to baptism.) What necessity 
 is there that the sponsors (i. e. god-fathers) 
 be brought into danger ?" These questions 
 plainly prove the practice of baptizing infants 
 in those days. 
 
34 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 This author lived about a hundred years 
 after the age of the apostles, and is the only 
 person among the ancients who advises even 
 to defer the baptism of infants, which he does 
 under the superstitious notion that baptism 
 literally washed away all sins previously com- 
 mitted, and that sins subsequently committed 
 were extremely dangerous, because the rite 
 of baptism could not be repeated. On the 
 same ground that this author recommends 
 the deferring of the baptism of infants, he 
 advises "that unmarried persons should be 
 kept off from this sacrament, who are likely 
 to come into temptation; .... until they 
 either marry or be confirmed in continence," 
 for, says he, " those who understand the weight 
 of baptism will rather dread the receiving of 
 it than the delaying of it." ( Tertullian de 
 Baptis. cap. 18.) 
 
 It may be interesting to some readers to 
 know what other early Christian writers have 
 said upon this subject. They are undoubtedly 
 good witnesses to matters of fact within their 
 knowledge, although we may justly reject 
 many of their opinions as absurd or unsound. 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 85 
 
 Origen, who was cotemporary with Tertullian, 
 (Horn. viii. on Levit. chap, xii.,) has these 
 words : " Infants also by usage of the church 
 are baptized." Again, on Luke he says: 
 " Parvuli haptizantur in remissionem," &c. 
 " Infants are baptized for the remission of 
 sins." In another treatise (Com. on Epist. 
 Rom. 1. 5) he says, ^'Pro hoc et ecclesia,'' &c. 
 *' For this also it was that the church had 
 from the apostles a tradition or order to give 
 baptism to infants." 
 
 Cyprian, who wrote about one hundred 
 and fifty years after the apostles, gives, if 
 possible, a more indubitable testimony to the 
 practice of infant baptism. In his time, 
 (A. D. 253,) a council of sixty-six bishops 
 having been convened at Carthage, one Fi- 
 dus, a country bishop, having entertained 
 some doubt, not whether infants should be 
 baptized at all, but whether baptism might 
 be lawfully given them before they were eight 
 days old, according to the law of circumci- 
 sion ; they unanimously decreed that the bap- 
 tism of infants was not to he deferred till the 
 eighth day, and after many things said to 
 
36 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 the point, they conclude thus : " Cwterum 
 si homines impedire aliquid," kc. "But if 
 anything shouki hinder men from baptism, it 
 will be heinous sins, which will debar the 
 adult and mature therefrom ; and if those 
 who have sinned extremely, yet afterward 
 believe, are baptized, (and no man is prohi- 
 bited from this grace,) how much more ought 
 not an infant to be prohibited, who being 
 but just born is guilty of no sin but of ori- 
 ginal, which he contracted from Adam? 
 Wherefore, dearly beloved, it is our opinion 
 that from baptism and the grace of God, who 
 is kind and benign to all, none ought to be 
 prohibited by us, which as it is to be ob- 
 served with respect to all, so especially with 
 respect to infants, and those who are hut just 
 born, who deserve our help and the Divine 
 mercy." (Cyprian Epist. ad Fidum. Epist. 
 64.) 
 
 This extract proves beyond reasonable dis- 
 pute, that it was the constant and estabhshed 
 practice of the Church at the time this 
 author lived to baptize infants. It shows 
 also that no regard whatever was paid to the 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 37 
 
 advice of Tertullian on this subject, if indeed 
 his advice was general, and not confined, as 
 before suggested, to the infants of heathen 
 parents. 
 
 If now we may suppose that the bishops 
 composing this council (or as we should say 
 Synod) were born of Christian parents, 
 (and there is no reason to doubt that some 
 of them were,) they must, have known whe- 
 ther they were baptized in infancy, by the 
 information of their parents ; and if we may 
 suppose that some of them were advanced in 
 life, (as probably some were,) the practice 
 may thus be traced through them to within 
 eighty or ninety years of the age of the apos- 
 tles, and the Christian parents of these 
 bishops, or of such of them as were advanced 
 in life, could not but certainly know what 
 the practice and the appointment of the 
 apostles was in this matter.* 
 
 * To avoid misconception as to the character and 
 functions of these bishops, the reader will do well to 
 consult Abbe Fleurj's discourse upon the history of 
 the first six ages of the church, in which he will find 
 (§y.) a passage to the following efi'ect : — "The 
 bishops (viz. of the first six centuries,) being entirely 
 4 
 
38 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 The Clementine Constitutions, a book es- 
 teemed bj some to be of great antiquity, and 
 by all acknowledged to have been extant in 
 the fourth or fifth century, contains this ex- 
 occupied with their functions, thought not how they 
 should be clothed or lodged. They gave no great 
 attention to the temporalities of their church. The 
 care of those they left to the deacons or to stewards, 
 "but they did not abandon to others the spiritual. 
 Their occupation was prayer, instruction, correc- 
 tion. They entered into every possible detail* It 
 was for this reason, that their dioceses were so small ; 
 so that one person only would be sufficient," (i. e. 
 for a diocese,) *' and might Jcnow hij himself the whole 
 of his focJc. For to act by others, and from a dis- 
 tance, one bishop would have been sufficient for the 
 whole Church. It is true there were priests" (he 
 means elders) " to lighten their labours even in 
 the spiritual, to preside at prayers, and to celebrate 
 the holy sacrifice," (he means the Lord's Supper,) 
 " in case of the absence or sickness of the bishop, to 
 baptize .... in case of necessity. Sometimes the 
 bishop confided to them even the ministry of the 
 word, for regularly it was only the bishop who 
 preached. The priests" (i. e. elders) "were his council, 
 and the senate of the chui-ch, raised to this rank on 
 account of their ecclesiastical knowledge, their wis- 
 dom and experience." Changing a few terms in 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM." 39 
 
 press admonition : '' Baptize your infants, 
 and bring them up in the nurture and admo- 
 nition of God ; for he says, ' Suffer little child- 
 ren to come unto me and forbid them not.' " 
 Several other testimonies might be pro- 
 duced from Clemens Romanus, Hermas, the 
 Recognitions of St. Peter, Clement of Alex- 
 andria, Justin Martyr, Gregory Nazianzen, 
 Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom and Jerome, 
 very full and conclusive to the purpose ; but 
 they are too long to be inserted in this trea- 
 tise. There are some, however, in the writings 
 of Augustine and Pelagius so very remarka- 
 ble and decisive that they must not be omitted. 
 These two celebrated persons lived and wrote 
 about three hundred and ten years after the 
 age of the apostles. They are not cited to 
 prove that the baptism of infants was univer- 
 sally practised in their days, but to show that 
 
 this account, as they ought to be changed, it is easy 
 to trace in it substantially an organization closely 
 similar to a Presbyterian church, consisting of a 
 minister and a bench of elders. Such, undoubtedly, 
 were the sixty-six bishops composing the council 
 convened at Carthage, (A. D. 253,) above referred to. 
 
40 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 they considered it to have been the constant 
 and unvarying practice of the church from 
 the beginning. 
 
 Augustine, in his controversy with Pelagius 
 about original sin, in order to prove that in- 
 fants were tainted with it, frequently urges 
 an argument from their baptism. He asks 
 Pelagius " why infants are baptized for the 
 remission of sin, if they have none." Pela- 
 gius seems greatly embarrassed by this argu- 
 ment, and any one can see how much it con- 
 cerned him to deny the fact that infants were 
 and had been baptized from the beginning, 
 if he could have done so. Had infant baptism 
 been an innovation or a departure from the 
 apostolic practice, Pelagius was too acute, 
 and too well informed, not to have known the 
 fact and the importance of it to his cause. 
 Yet so far from attempting anything like 
 this he affirms the fact, though he endeavours 
 by various shifts to evade its force. 
 
 Some of his adversaries, having drawn as 
 a consequence of his opinion, that infants are 
 not to he baptized, he warmly disclaims it, and 
 complains with indignation, " Se ah hominibus 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 41 
 
 infamari quod neget aparvuUs haptismi sacra- 
 mentum," &c. ; " that he had been slanderously 
 represented by men as denying the sacrament 
 of baptism to infants, and promising the king- 
 dom of heaven without the redemption of 
 Christ." He adds, " Nunqiiam se vel im^num 
 aliquem hdereticum audisse qui hoe quod 
 proposnit de parvulis dicerety'kG. ; "that he 
 never heard, no not even any impious heretic 
 who would say that which he had mentioned, 
 viz. that unhaptized infants are not liable to 
 condemnation for the first man, and that they 
 are not to be cleansed by the regeneration of 
 baptism." He then proceeds, " Quis enim 
 ita evangelicse lectionis ignarus est,'' &c. 
 "for who is so ignorant of that which is read 
 in the gospel as, I do not say, boldly to afiirm, 
 but even lightly to suggest, or even to imagine 
 such a thing ? In a word, who can be so im- 
 pious as to hinder infants from being baptized, 
 and born again in Christ, and so make them 
 miss of the kingdom of God?" 
 
 After citing John iii. 5, he goes on thus : 
 " Quis ille tarn impius est qui eujusUhet deta- 
 ils pfarvulo,'' &c., " Who is there so impious 
 4* 
 
42 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 as to refuse to an infant, of what age soever, 
 the common redemption of mankind?" (See 
 also August, de Peccato Origin, cap. 17, 18, 
 de Pec. Merit, cap. 6. Serm. x» de Verb. 
 Apost.) 
 
 To estimate this piece of testimony rightly, 
 the reader should know that Pelagius, and his 
 co-worker Celestius, were born, the one in Bri- 
 tain and the other in Ireland. They lived a 
 long time in Rome, at that time the centre of 
 the world. They were both for some time at 
 Carthage, in Africa — then the one settled at 
 Jerusalem ; the other travelled through the 
 East, and visited all the noted Greek and 
 Eastern churches in Europe and Asia. If 
 there had been then any church or number 
 of churches in any part of the world, either 
 at that time or in any preceding age of the 
 church, who denied baptism to infants, it is 
 incredible that these two learned and saga- 
 cious persons should not have heard of it, nor 
 would they have failed to take advantage of 
 it, to check the triumph of their opponents, 
 and wrest from them this argument, by which 
 they were more grievously pressed than by 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 43 
 
 any other. But instead of such a denial of the 
 fact, they endeavoured to evade its force some- 
 times by alleging that infants have actual sin, 
 and that their peevishness of temper is to be 
 considered such. Sometimes they urged that 
 infants had pre-existed, and it was for sins 
 committed in some former state they were 
 baptized ; sometimes they said they were not 
 baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but that 
 they may be made heirs of the kingdom — 
 sometimes, that they were baptized for for- 
 giveness, not that they had any sin, but that 
 the uniformity of the words might be kept; 
 or because they were baptized into the church 
 where forgiveness was to be had, and with a 
 sacrament which had the means of forgive- 
 ness for those who wanted it. 
 
 To such extreme difficulties they saw them- 
 selves reduced, in order to reconcile their opi- 
 nion with the baptism of infants, all of which 
 would have been removed instantly by deny- 
 ing the fact that infants were or ought to be 
 baptized. But the fact is that infant baptism 
 was, at that time, as Celestius confessed, ac- 
 cording to the rule of the universal church. 
 
44 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 Iso one can, I think, in view of this testimony, 
 successfully deny the universal prevalence of 
 infant baptism in apostolic times;* and for 
 many centuries after. Now, how shall we 
 account for this, if the doctrine of infant 
 baptism be not correct? If these ancient 
 and renowned fathers were simply giving 
 their views of what they deemed right and 
 proper, we might all feel a perfect liberty to 
 exercise our own judgment in the premises ; 
 but when they perfectly agree in the simple 
 statement of a matter of fact, certainly their 
 testimony deserves as much credit as that 
 of any other historian. Even spurious writ- 
 ings, if incontestably ancient, may furnish 
 good evidence of a fact like this. And now, 
 in view of all these things, to deny that in- 
 fant membership was recognized, and infant 
 baptism was practised, in the earliest and 
 palmiest days of the church, seems to me 
 much the same as to deny that Christ ever 
 taught, or the apostles ever lived, or the 
 
 ^ It is remarkable that those who tell us that 
 tminersion was practised in primitive times, also tell 
 us that children also were immersed. 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 45 
 
 martyrs ever suffered ; and yet, in these la- 
 ter ages, this ehurcli memhership of infants 
 divinely appointed and never repealed; this 
 blessed privilege, made sacred by a thousand 
 hallowed associations, is to be abolished and 
 set aside as an "evil and a curse." How? 
 By any positive command ? No ! Such can- 
 not be shown. How then abolished and set 
 aside? By inference, and that inference not 
 good. I repeat it, that inference not good. 
 I will now mention some of the things most 
 relied upon, and then let the reader do his 
 own thinking, and judge for himself. 
 
 1. It is said that there is no precept in 
 all the Bible for infant baptism ; and, there- 
 fore, "infants should not be baptized." I 
 answer, There is no precept in all the Bible 
 for female communion, and, therefore, on 
 the same principles females must not be per- 
 mitted to commune. There is no precept 
 for observing the Christian Sabbath; and, 
 therefore, we must not observe the Christian 
 Sabbath — nor for family worship, and there- 
 ' fore we must not have family worship. No 
 precept for infant baptism? It was not 
 
46 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTUKAL 
 
 necessary. Infant membership divinely 
 appointed, infant baptism, as we have shown, 
 follows as a matter of course. The prin- 
 ciple settled, there was no occasion for any 
 further legislation upon the subject. The 
 principle settled, the matter of duty is plain. 
 Not long since, I saw that a reward of one 
 thousand dollars was offered to any one who 
 could produce any precept in the New Tes- 
 tament for infant baptism. I think we may 
 very safely offer a reward (if such offers could 
 prove anything) ten times greater than that, 
 to any one who can point out any precept in 
 the New Testament abolishing infant mem- 
 bership. And this is the precept which is 
 most needed — which is absolutely necessary ; 
 for even in human governments, a law once 
 enacted is always in force until repealed. 
 Now, the law touching infant membership 
 was enacted ; where is the record of its repeal? 
 By a positive precept, infant membership 
 became a law of the church, of course it re- 
 quires a positive precept to annul it ? Where 
 is this precept to be found, if infant mem- 
 bership has been abolished, I ask again. 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 47 
 
 Where is this abolishing act ? And if 
 abolished, by whom abolished ? Not by 
 John the Baptist, for he made no pretension 
 to any such power ; nor by our Lord, for he 
 said — " Suffer little children to come unto 
 me, and forbid them not, for of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven ;" as if he had said, " I 
 am the Head of the church ; these are mem- 
 bers ; suffer the little ones, therefore, to come 
 unto me, their Head, and forbid them not." 
 Forbid them ! How can ministers forbid 
 children coming to Christ, except by debar- 
 ring them from membership in that church of 
 which Christ is the Head ? And what meant 
 the Saviour by these words: "Whosoever 
 receiveth this little child in my name, re- 
 ceiveth me ?" Certainly he meant that little 
 children, or infants, should, in some way or 
 other, be publicly or officially received in his 
 name ; and those who in church matters 
 will have nothing to do with children or in- 
 fants, I ask in what way do they publicly 
 or officially receive them ? But if infant 
 membership has been abolished, I ask once 
 more, By whom abolished ? We have shown 
 
48 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 that it was not abolished by John the Bap- 
 tist, nor by our Saviour. Well, then, was it 
 abolished by the apostle Peter ? He had the 
 special honour of throwing open the doors of 
 the Christian church on the day of Pentecost, 
 and the special honour a little after of first 
 preaching the gospel to the gentiles — did he 
 abolish infant membership ? I think not ; for 
 if, when he went and preached the gospel to 
 Cornelius, many in Jerusalem contended with 
 him, saying, " Thou wentest in unto men un- 
 circumcised, and didst eat with them," can 
 we, for one moment, suppose that none would 
 have contended with him, if he had abolished 
 that which was originally of divine appoint- 
 ment, and that which was made sacred by its 
 associations with the Abrahamic covenant, 
 and long usage, and parental feelings too ? 
 This is worthy of serious thought. If Peter's 
 acting contrary to certain Jewish prejudices, 
 in a matter comparatively of small import- 
 ance, occasioned much excitement, would his 
 abolishing a precious privilege, a privilege 
 esteemed for many ages previously peculiarly 
 sacred and dear, have occasioned no excite- 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 49 
 
 ment at all? The thing is incredible; and 
 this very silence itself is convincing proof 
 that infant membership was not abolished by 
 Peter, nor any other person in apostolic 
 times. No, nor was any atte7npt made to 
 abolish it, so far as my knowledge goes, for 
 many ages after. In this matter Tertullian, 
 in the second century, stands alone for many, 
 very many long ages ; and even he, although 
 he opposed infant baptism on the ground of 
 inexpediency, never it seems denied the perpe- 
 tuity of the Abrahamic covenant, or the right 
 of infants to church membership. The fact 
 is, that infant membership was not opposed, 
 so far as I can learn from history, nor was it 
 proposed even to defer it until the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration began to prevail, 
 or the idea that water baptism was not 
 merely a symbolical or initiatory rite, but a 
 kind of saving ordinance, which literally 
 washed away all sins previously committed. 
 This idea induced many, as in the case of 
 Constantine, to put off baptism until death 
 seemed to be near at hand. And we know 
 some of the evils which have flowed from this 
 5 
 
50 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 source, even in our day. The matter then 
 here involved is one of great importance, 
 and the question, when and by whom was 
 infant membership abolished, is a very serious 
 one ; and as the Bible says some startling 
 things touching those who '''add to,'' or 
 ^Hake from,'' what God has commanded, I 
 solemnly declare, that until an act abolishing 
 infant membership can be pointed out, I for 
 one would no more dare to touch that insti- 
 tution of divine appointment, than I would 
 the throne of God; and yet, without an 
 annulling precept, or even the shadow of such 
 a thing, it is to be set aside by infereyice, and 
 that too by those who, in the matter of bap- 
 tism, are wont to deny the propriety of all 
 inference, and insist upon the necessity of 
 some positive command ! This is strange 
 indeed. 
 
 2. It is said that 'infants can know 
 nothing of the nature or design of baptism, 
 and therefore they ought not to he baptized,'^ 
 I answer, infants in ancient times could know 
 nothing of the nature or design of circumci- 
 sion, and therefore infants in ancient times 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 51 
 
 ought not to have been ch*cumcised. This is 
 speaking rather boldly I think. We must 
 take care how we handle edged tools ; we must 
 take care how we impugn the wisdom of 
 heaven, lest haply we maybe found ''even 
 to fight against God." Some speak con- 
 temptuously of what they are pleased to term 
 ^'hahy sprinkling ;'' and it is not impossible 
 that some in former times were wont to 
 speak just in this way about '' infant circum- 
 cision,'' and I. am strongly inclined to think 
 that such were signally punished for it. 
 Even Moses himself was once severely rebuked 
 for not paying due respect to that ordinance 
 of divine appointment. Nay more, it had very 
 nearly cost him his life. The record touch- 
 ing this matter is a very remarkable one, 
 and may be found in the fourth chapter of 
 Exodus, from the 24th to the 26th verse, 
 inclusive ; and the reading of it may well fill 
 with strange alarm those who deride infant 
 baptism, on the score of infants not under- 
 standing the nature and design of that ordi- 
 nance ; and I will go further, and say, if the 
 case be examined, I strongly suspect that 
 
52 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 such deriders, either in their own persons or 
 families, have not been without some marked 
 proof of the divine displeasure. At any 
 rate it is written, " Be ye not mockers, lest 
 your bands be made strong." The inference 
 then against infant baptism, drawn from 
 infants not understanding the nature or 
 design of that ordinance, is not good. Nay, 
 it is wicked ; and yet this is one of the infer- 
 ences by which a divine and positive pre- 
 cept may be set aside. But 
 
 3. It is further objected, that in the scrip- 
 tures, something is said about haptism which 
 cannot apply to infants, and therefore in- 
 fants ought not to he baptized. And what is 
 this ? Why it is said, " Believe and be bap- 
 tized." Infants cannot believe, and therefore 
 infants must not be baptized. And is it not 
 also said in the same scriptures, "He that will 
 not work, neither shall he eat." Infants 
 cannot work, and therefore infants must not 
 eat. Again it is written, " Except ye repent, 
 ye shall likewise perish." But infants cannot 
 repent, and therefore infants must all like- 
 wise perish. And again, " He that believeth 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 53 
 
 not, shall be damned." Infants cannot be- 
 lieve, and therefore infants must be damned ! 
 Reasonings which lead to such conclusions 
 cannot be sound ; and yet this is the kind of 
 reasoning employed to set aside an institu- 
 tion divinely appointed and never repealed. 
 The fact is, when the command was given to 
 believe and be baptized, it had reference to 
 adults and not infants; and mark, to those 
 also who bad, as yet, not been baptized ; and 
 this is the very thing we say to those in hea- 
 then lands, to whom the gospel had never 
 been preached before, only after the example 
 set by Peter, and we would add by way of 
 encouragement, "for the promise is unto you, 
 and to your children.'' And, just here, I 
 would ask. Why should it be thought incre- 
 dible that the faith of the parent should, in 
 certain cases, avail to the benefit of the child ? 
 There are numerous cases on record. I will 
 mention one, the case of the Syrophoenician 
 woman. Matt. xv. 22—28. "And behold, 
 a woman of Canaan came out of the same 
 coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have 
 mercy on me, Lord, thou son of David ; 
 6* 
 
54 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 
 And he answered her not a word. And his 
 disciples came and besought him, saying, 
 Send her away, for she crieth after us. But 
 he answered, I am not sent but unto the lost 
 sheep of the house of Israel. Then came 
 she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help 
 me. But he answered, and said, It is not 
 meet to take the children's bread, and to 
 cast it to dogs. And she said. Truth, Lord, 
 yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall 
 from their master's table. Then Jesus an- 
 swered, and said unto her, woman ! great 
 is thy faith ; be it unto thee, even as thou 
 wilt. And her daughter was made whole 
 from that very hour." In this case the 
 faith of the parent availed for the curing 
 of her daughter, and that too when the 
 daughter was as unconscious of what her 
 mother was doing as the child; and even as 
 the slumbering child now is what time the be- 
 lieving parent offers it up to God in the ordi- 
 nance of baptism. 
 
 Take even a stronger case, that of Jairus's 
 daughter (Luke viii. 41, 42, 49, bQ ; Mark 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 55 
 
 V. 22, 23, 35, 43). Did the faith of Jairus 
 avail nothing towards the restoration to life 
 of his deceased daughter ? The sorrowing 
 parent left her in a dying state to seek the 
 Saviour, but too late, as his friends must 
 have thought, to be of any avail ; because 
 she actually expired before he returned. 
 They supposed, no doubt, that although the 
 Saviour had the power to restore health to 
 the living, yet not life to the dead. Perhaps 
 Jairus shared in their belief. But what said 
 the Saviour to him? "Be not afraid, only 
 believe." Believe! what good could the be- 
 lief of Jairus do to his dead daughter ? It 
 might do him good to believe in Jesus, but 
 how could his belief have any effect on his 
 dead child ? Ah reader, if you are disposed 
 to ask such questions, be assured that faith 
 has a wonderful power, as this example 
 shows. It is, in truth, a great law in the 
 world of redemption; as wide, pervading, 
 unerring, all-powerful, and controlling, and, 
 for ought we know, infinitely more so than 
 the law of gravitation in the material crea- 
 tion. Read the eleventh chapter of Hebrews 
 
56 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 and Matt. xvii. 20, xxi. 21, and similar 
 passages, and then say, if you can, what 
 effects cannot be accomplished through the 
 power of faith. It was through the medium 
 of Jairus's faith that the almighty power of 
 the Saviour was exerted in this case, in re- 
 storing the dead child to life ; and with good 
 reason were her parents astonished with 
 great astonishment. Say not that the 
 Saviour could as easily have exerted his power 
 without the faith of the parent (Mark ix. 23 ; 
 vi. 5, 6). It is not a question concerning 
 the divine power^ but concerning the divine 
 will and the divine appointment. God has 
 graciously been pleased to connect a wonder- 
 working power with faith, even when exer- 
 cised in behalf of others, as we learn from 
 these and many other examples. Now may 
 we not reason thus: — If the faith of the 
 parent proves efficacious in such cases, why 
 not in others? and that especially, as in 
 former times, the Jewish infant was circum- 
 cised, not on account of its own faith, but 
 that of its parent. Yes, I say the faith of 
 ike parent ! for we are told that circumcision 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 57 
 
 was a sign and seal of the righteousness of 
 faith. Of whom ? Certainly of the parent, 
 not the child. What then, shall we say of 
 the inference, that because infants cannot 
 believe, therefore they must not be baptized ? 
 This inference bears the family mark of all 
 the rest. It is good for nothing but to prove 
 that the cause which it is adduced to support 
 is unscriptural ; is not good.* But the ob- 
 jector urges, 
 
 * The following appears to be a fair argument, 
 and pertinent to this question : " As it was in the 
 days of Noah" — the end of the old world, (2 Pet. iii. 
 6,) "so shall it be also in the days of the Son of 
 Man" — the end of the world that now is, (2 Pet. iii. 
 7 ; Matt. xiii. 41.) Families existed then as now, 
 and doubtless will exist in all time to come. Now, 
 as the covenant with Noah and Jiis faith (Heb. xi. 7,) 
 availed to the saving of his household, (Gen. vi. 8 ; 
 X. 18, and vii. 1,) by means of the ark, why may we 
 not believe (and .is it not tacitly included in our 
 Lord's comparison of the two catastrophes? Luke 
 xvii. 26; Matt. xxiv. 37,) that in like manner God's 
 covenant with Christian parents and tJieir faith will 
 avail (although in a diflPerent way, Phil. iii. 21 ; 
 1 Cor. XV. 51 ; 1 Thess. iv. 17,) to the saving of their 
 infant offspring ; yea to the saving of all their child- 
 
58 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 4. That baptism cannot have taken the 
 place of circumcision^ because it is more ex- 
 tensive in its application ; but, I ask, is 
 not this in exact accordance with heaven's 
 plan, that in gospel times there should be a 
 breaking down of partition walls, and the 
 
 ren, excepting those who, like Lot's sons-in-law, shall 
 wilfully reject or neglect the blessings of the covenant 
 of salvation ? Or must we believe, that while pious 
 parents will be caught up to glory, their infant off- 
 spring, though consecrated to God, and brought within 
 the Abrahamic or gospel covenant, (Gal. iii. 8,) in the 
 way of his own appointment, (Col. ii. 11,) will be 
 left beneath the deluge of the descending wrath? 
 2 Thess. i. 8, 9. Did our gracious Lord, who said 
 " Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid 
 them not," (words which he used in reference to 
 Jewish children, who, no doubt, bore the seal of the 
 covenant then in use,) intend to intimate there 
 would be any such separation? Matt. xxiv. 40, 41. 
 If the faith of Jairus availed to the resurrection of 
 his dead daughter, (Mark v. 36—42,) why may not 
 the faith of Christian parents in that day bear their 
 infant children with them upward to glory ; seeing 
 that they also are heirs and children of the same 
 gracious and everlasting covenant, which contains 
 the assurance that they shall not be cut off from 
 their people. Gen. xvii. 13, 14; Col. ii. 11. 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 59 
 
 enlargement of church privileges and subjects ? 
 Read Isaiah liv. 2, 3. " Enlarge the place of 
 thy tent, and let them stretch forth the cur- 
 tains of thine habitations : spare not, lengthen 
 thy cords and strengthen thy stakes ; for thou 
 shalt break forth on the right hand and on 
 the left ; and thy seed shall inherit the Gen- 
 tiles." Whilst Paul in his epistle to the 
 Ephesians tells us that Christ has broken 
 down the wall of partition between Jews and 
 Crentiles, and made them both one, in his 
 epistle to the Galatians, he goes further, and 
 tells us that under the gospel dispensation, 
 not only is the distinction which formerly 
 existed between different nations destroyed, 
 but also between all classes, conditions and 
 sexes ; and that too with regard to this very 
 thing of church membership and baptism. I 
 give you his very words : Gal. iii. 27 — 29. 
 " For as many of you as have been baptized 
 into Christ have put on Christ. There is 
 neither Jew nor CrreeJc, there is neither bond 
 novfree, there is neither male nor female : for 
 ye are all one in Christ Jesus." And is it 
 not very remarkable that this enlargement 
 
60 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 of church privileges in relation to male and 
 female is made the subject matter of a spe- 
 cial prophecy ? Thus, in Isaiah xlix. 22, we 
 find these words : " Thus saith the Lord God, 
 Behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, 
 and set up my standard to the people, and 
 they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and 
 thy daughters shall be carried upon their 
 shoulders." This is truly a remarkable pro- 
 phecy ; and who is not struck with its beau- 
 tiful and exact fulfilment, when, in our days, 
 Christian parents come forward publicly, into 
 the sanctuary, to enter into covenant with 
 God, bringing " their sons in their arms and 
 their daughters upon their shoulders T' Thus, 
 then, the argument urged against infant bap- 
 tism, from the more extensive application of 
 the present initiatory rite, is positively and 
 strongly in its favour ; and yet this is one of 
 the leading arguments urged for setting aside 
 an institution, as we have shown, divinely ap- 
 pointed and never repealed. But, says the 
 objector; 
 
 5. If infants are received as members of 
 the visible church on earth, why are they not 
 
VIEW or BAPTISM. 61 
 
 admitted to the table of the Lord ? I an- 
 swer, they are received not as adults, but 
 as infants', and, certainly, a distinction 
 should be made between infant and adult 
 membership. The correctness of this prin- 
 ciple is* acknowledged in state citizenship ; 
 and why not in church membership ? The 
 law of the land will not permit any child, 
 though an American citizen, to approach the 
 hallot-hox until he has the qualifications pre- 
 scribed; that is, until he is twenty-one years 
 of age ; even so the law of the church will 
 not permit a child, though an infant member, 
 to come to the table of the Lord until he 
 has the qualifications prescribed: viz. *' know- 
 ledge to discern the Lord's body, faith to 
 feed upon him; repentance, love, and new 
 obedience." 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 29. And now, 
 shall we say because the child is not admitted 
 to the ballot-box, he cannot be in any sense 
 an American citizen ? Equally absurd would 
 it be to affirm, that because a child is not 
 admitted to a certain ordinance of the church, 
 therefore he cannot, in any sense, be a mem- 
 ber of that church. Here, then, is another 
 
62 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 inference against infant baptism, which I 
 think has been properly disposed of; or an- 
 other argument, so called, to be laid in the same 
 grave with those gone before it. Once more : 
 6. Another objection is this: What ad- 
 vantage is there in infant baptism f Here it 
 is assumed, that no benefit can result from 
 baptizing infants, and therefore infants should 
 not be baptized. I deny the premises, and 
 therefore cannot admit the conclusion. What 
 advantage ? Much every way. And first to 
 the child. Children, when baptized, are 
 given up to God as was Samuel; and on that 
 very account are more likely to receive bless- 
 ings from above. Besides, being thus "dis- 
 cipled by baptism," they are enrolled as 
 young disciples in the school of Christ, to be 
 instructed and tenderly watched over by the 
 church, and particularly by the pastor, to 
 whom the chief Shepherd has given this 
 special charge. Feed my sheep ; feed my 
 lambs. And here I would remark, if the 
 sheep are in the fold, why should not the 
 little lambs be there also ? Besides, baptized 
 children are placed under the immediate care 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 63 
 
 of those parents who have taken the vows 
 of God upon them, touching this very mat- 
 ter ; and who, also, upon that very account, 
 are likely to be more conscientious in the 
 discharge of all parental duty. It was after 
 Abraham had given up his family to God, in 
 the religious rite which then existed, that 
 God sa id, " I know him, that he will command 
 his children and his household after him, and 
 they shall keep the way of the Lord." Pa- 
 rents have an almost unbounded influence 
 over their children. They can do much to 
 form and stamp the character of their child- 
 ren, for virtue or for vice, for heaven or for 
 hell. And if parents could only be roused 
 to a more faithful and conscientious discharge 
 of parental duty, I do believe that the benefit 
 thereof, resulting to children, would be great 
 indeed. And what, I would ask, is better 
 calculated to excite parents to a proper dis- 
 charge of parental duty, than the act of 
 giving up their children to God in a public 
 and solemn covenant, to bring them up in 
 the nurture and admonition of the Lord? 
 And hence the remark, so commonly made, 
 
64 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 that "the children of Presbyterian parents 
 are better trained than others." And is this 
 nothing? But even this is not all. Baptized 
 children, I verily believe, are not unfre- 
 quently held in check, and made deeply 
 serious, too, by the thought that they were 
 in early life given up to God in the sacred 
 ordinance of baptism; and that they have 
 no right to undo what their parents have 
 done. Indeed, I know at least one case of 
 this kind, and thank God it was in the 
 bosom of my own family, and has reference 
 to one who is now in the holy office of the 
 gospel ministry. 
 
 7. But suppose, says the objector, the bap- 
 tized child is removed by death during infancy 
 — what advantage is baptism to him then ? 
 Much, I would believe, every way, although 
 I could not tell or even surmise how; for sure 
 I am, that God will put honour upon his cov- 
 enant, and show it to be no unmeaning thing. 
 We are not obliged to suppose that infants 
 dying unhaptized before they are capable of 
 actual sin, will either be annihilated or pun- 
 ished with the pains of hell, in order to show 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 65 
 
 the superior advantage of the baptized infants 
 of believers. No ; for when God covenanted 
 with Abraham that he would be the God of 
 his infant offspring, and gave him circumci- 
 sion as the seal of his covenant, the covenant 
 undoubtedly implied some peculiar privilege, 
 yea, something very great. He certainly in- 
 tended that Abraham should understand that 
 He would be in a peculiar manner their guar- 
 dian and benefactor — that he would take 
 them under his especial patronage and care 
 of his providence — would bestow on them the 
 influences of his Spirit, and vouchsafe to them 
 the ministration of his angels if they lived ; 
 but if they died in their infant state without 
 actual sin, with the seal of the covenant in 
 their flesh, they should not therefore be cut 
 off from their people as in the case of the 
 uncircumcised, but should certainly be raised 
 to a state of happiness after death, with all 
 the holy of their nation. To be their God, 
 implied at least thus much ; " For God is not 
 the God of the dead but of the living." Luke 
 XX. 37. And the promise to be their God, 
 is as much as to promise that they shall be 
 6* 
 
66 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTUHAL 
 
 his sons (Rev. xxi. 7) ; and whosoever Is a 
 son of God will assuredly be declared or 
 manifested to be such by a glorious resurrec- 
 tion. Rom. viii. 19 ; Luke xx. 36. But, 
 says the objector, if the uncircumcised infant 
 who died without actual sin, be also raised 
 from the dead, what advantage then ? Much, 
 I must still believe, every way ; because sure 
 I am that God will in some way, though I may 
 not know how, put honour upon his own cov- 
 enant. And now, suppose I were to affirm 
 that the circumstances of all those infants, 
 who are solemnly devoted to God in the way 
 of his appointment, (whether by circumcision 
 or baptism) may consistently, with the divine 
 perfections, be more advantageous or glorious 
 in the future state, than the circumstances of 
 those who were never thus devoted to him — 
 what could the objector reply ? Paul teaches 
 us that there are different degrees of glory 
 among those raised from the dead ; just as 
 there are differences in the glory of the sun, 
 moon, and the different stars. Some have 
 supposed the advantage may consist in their 
 being aggregated to a more glorious company 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 67 
 
 of tlie redeemed, or that it may consist in an 
 earlier as well as in a more glorious resurrec- 
 tion. Apart, however, from such suppositions, 
 (which I merely mention for the objector to 
 answer,) we may at least be sure of thus 
 much, that God will assuredly put honour 
 on his own appointments, and that is enough : 
 " What I do, thou knowest not now," said 
 the Lord to Peter, "but thou shalt know 
 hereafter," and were we as ignorant of the 
 meaning of this ordinance, as applied to in- 
 fants, as Peter was of the Lord's intent in 
 washing the disciples' feet, before he explained 
 it, yet it would none the less concern us to 
 receive with faith, and implicitly to follow, 
 all the appointments of the Lord. It is our 
 duty as well as our glorious privilege to do 
 so ; and not less those which we do not under- 
 stand, than those which we may suppose we 
 do understand. If like Peter we refuse to 
 obey, until we know the reason and the 
 use of them, where is our faith, nay, where 
 is our discipleship ? John xiii. 8. 
 
 But again, what advantage ? much every 
 way. Not to children only, but to parents 
 
68 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL: 
 
 also. The very act of presenting their child- 
 ren to God in a public and solemn manner, 
 the very act of entering into covenant en- 
 gagements to bring up their children in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord, in the 
 very nature of the case, must have a power- 
 ful and happy influence upon the hearts of 
 parents, and upon their lives also. Yes, I 
 have seen the pious parent presenting his 
 children to God in baptism. I saw deep de- 
 votion marked in his countenance ; he was 
 solemn ; the tear was in his eye. I saw it 
 steal silently down his cheek ; he was think- 
 ing about serious matters ; he was covenant- 
 ing with his God ; he was pleading for his 
 children; he was doing a work for great 
 eternity. And how natural for a parent, 
 after a transaction of this kind, to retire and 
 think thus with himself — I have gone into 
 the presence of my Maker upon a solemn 
 errand. I have given up my children to God 
 in a holy ordinance ; my vows are recorded 
 on earth, they are registered in heaven. 
 for grace to fulfil my vows, and keep all my 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 69 
 
 engagements.* And if a child thus conse- 
 crated to God, should be laid upon a bed of 
 death, how it will strengthen the faith of the 
 parent in offering up his last prayer for this 
 
 * In the language of another, the sentiments of a 
 pious parent may be expressed thus: 
 
 "Oh God of grace and of glory, our good and gra- 
 cious Father, I acknowledge, with the greatest thank- 
 fulness and joy, thine absolute right in me, and in 
 all that is mine, for all I have is thy gracious gift. 
 This child thou hast given me, and I receive it as 
 from thy hand. It is thine, for thou hast made it, 
 and redeemed it by the blood of thine only begotten 
 Son. To thee, therefore, I now solemnly devote and 
 give it up, to be guarded by thy Providence, minis- 
 tered to by thy angels, taught, influenced, and 
 strengthened by thy Spirit, guided safely through 
 the many dangers and evils of this present world, 
 and to be preserved unto thy everlasting kingdom. 
 
 " For ever blessed be thy name, that as by one man^s 
 offence judgment came upon all to condemnation and 
 death ; even so by the righteousness of one, the free 
 gift comes upon all to justification of life ; — that as 
 the fatal effects of the first Adam's sin extend to our 
 infant offspring, subjecting them to pain, and misery, 
 and death ; so the salutary effects of the second 
 Adam's righteousness extend also to these — our be- 
 loved offspring. 
 
70 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 dying child ! And how it will comfort his 
 heart to think that he had done for his child 
 what he could ! Alas ! that any 'parent 
 should lightly esteem an institution so im- 
 
 *' I render thee unfeigned thanks, that the "blessings 
 of redemption and of the covenant of grace reach 
 also to them — that thou didst command that little 
 children should be brought into thy presence to re- 
 ceive thy blessing, and that thou didst declare such 
 to belong to thy family and thy kingdom. I thank 
 thee that thou hast appointed the baptismal water 
 as a memorial of thy favour and gracious acceptance 
 of them, and of thy readiness to pour thy Spirit on 
 our seed and thy blessing on our offspring. Lord, 
 I believe ; help thou my unbelief. I most thank- 
 fully embrace this liberty which thou hast given me. 
 I here bring my helpless infant, commending it to 
 thee and the power of thy grace : Oh receive it into 
 the number of thy chosen ones, and into the arms 
 of thy love. Pour down thy blessings upon it. 
 Write its name in the book of life. Sanctify it from 
 this dawning of its being, and make it a chosen, a 
 consecrated vessel fitted for thy service. May thy 
 Spirit henceforth and for ever continually dwell in it 
 with his life-giving power, rectifying the disorders 
 of its nature, rooting out the seeds of vanity and folly, 
 which may spring up in its heart — enlightening its 
 understanding, strengthening its moral powers, puri- 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 71 
 
 portant, and the associations of which are so 
 sacred and tender. And alas, too, that any 
 minister especially should divest this ordi- 
 nance of its proper interest and solemnity, 
 by administering it in a cold and formal man- 
 ner, as if it were only an unmeaning ceremony. 
 When children are presented to God, the 
 scene, to one whose heart is rightly affected, 
 is one of deep and thrilling interest. It is 
 calculated to remind us of the words of 
 
 fying and controlling its passions and appetites, and 
 forming it into a living temple of God. 
 
 " Guard and preserve, if it please thee, the life thou 
 hast thus graciously bestowed. Conduct it un- 
 harmed through the dangers of childhood and youth. 
 Spare it to be a blessing to its friends, and a burn- 
 ing and shining light in this dark and corrupted 
 world. As it grows in years, may it also continu- 
 ally grow in grace, in wisdom, in virtue, and in 
 favour with God and men. Grant also that I may 
 ever walk before it with a wise and perfect heart, to 
 bring it up in the fear and in the nurture of the 
 Lord, and may I so faithfully discharge all my duties 
 towards it, that I may at last meet it with joy at thy 
 appearing and kingdom, and may then say with 
 triumph and joy, ' Behold me and this child which 
 thou hast given me.' '' 
 
72 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 Moses, " Ye stand this day all of you before 
 the Lord your God, your captains, your 
 elders, your officers, with all the men of 
 Israel, and your little ones, that thou shouldst 
 enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, 
 that he may establish thee to-day for a peo- 
 ple unto himself." It is calculated also to 
 remind us of the fact recorded in the tenth 
 chapter of Matthew, in these words: "And 
 they brought young children to him, that he 
 should touch them, and he took them up in 
 his arms and blessed them." And how in- 
 teresting is the thought, that in presenting 
 our children to God in baptism, we are show- 
 ing a proper regard to a time-honoured as 
 well as a divine institution; that we are imi- 
 tating those who have gone before ; and are 
 one in feeling and sentiment with thousands, 
 and tens of thousand of the excellent of the 
 earth of the present day. 
 
 ** Thus Lydia sanctified her house, 
 When she received the word ; 
 Thus the believing jailor gave 
 His household to the Lord ; 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 73 
 
 Thus later saints, eternal King, 
 
 Thine ancient truths embrace, 
 To thee their infant offspring bring 
 
 And humbly claim thy grace." 
 
 0, if the occasion were only properly im- 
 proved; if ministers would only, at such a 
 time, speak feelingly and strongly, as they 
 should, on the subject of parental responsi- 
 bility ; I do believe that the influence upon 
 parents, and all parties concerned, would be 
 most happy. Nay, I will go further and say, 
 no ordinance would be more impressive, and 
 even none more earnestly desired, for the 
 relation of parent and child is very tender. 
 I well recollect, once in particular, when 
 preaching on this subject of infant baptism, 
 how my own feelings were wrought upon. 
 The idea that my parents had publicly and 
 solemnly given me up to God; and then, 
 shortly after, had taken their flight for glory ; 
 this idea, suddenly flashing upon my mind, 
 came over me with great sweetness and 
 power. My heart was melted! my soul 
 was subdued ! I wept, and many of my 
 hearers wept with me; for they too, as 
 T 
 
74 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 children of the covenant, had also, by their 
 parents, been given up to God in infancy, in 
 the holy ordinance of baptism. Even a 
 brave and veteran soldier who was present, 
 and who had won laurels on the battle field, 
 eould not himself refrain from weeping like 
 a child ; and shall such associations have no 
 place in the church of Christ? God has 
 very closely linked parents and children 
 together, in the kingdom 'of nature, and 
 why should he not in the kingdom of grace? 
 In Christ alone can parents hope to have 
 any permanent happy union with their child- 
 ren. The doctrine of infant membership is an 
 exceedingly precious one ; and the privilege 
 of having our children embraced with us, in 
 the bonds of the everlasting covenant in 
 Christ, is of inestimable value ! And I would 
 again say, if the sheep are in the fold, why 
 should not the little lambs be there also? 
 And now, this ordinance of divine appoint- 
 ment, hallowed by long usage, which existed 
 in the purest and holiest days of the church, 
 which is made sacred by its associations with 
 the Abrahamic covenant, and parental feel- 
 
VIEW or BAPTISM. 75 
 
 ing,* and which moreover is so admirably 
 calculated to have a powerful and happy 
 influence upon domestic comfort and family 
 religion — this precious privilege has, in these 
 later times, been stigmatized as " an evil^'' 
 and " a curse ;" and is to be abolished by 
 no divine precept, but by mere human 
 inference, and that inference, as we have 
 clearly shown, not good ; and abolished, too, 
 by those who are wont to insist upon it, that 
 in the matter of baptism no inference will 
 answer — there must be a positive precept. 
 How strange, how passing strange is it, that 
 those who insist upon a positive precept, 
 when it is not at all needed, should, in exclu- 
 ding infants, be willing themselves to act 
 without such a precept, when it is absolutely 
 indispensable. This is truly a serious matter ; 
 and to say nothing of the fearful responsi- 
 bility involved, it may, I think, well be num- 
 bered with the inconsistencies of human nature. 
 
 * Gal. iii. throughout, where the whole scope of 
 the apostle's argument is to prove that the covenant 
 with Abraham is still in being and force, and that 
 his blessing has come on all believers. 
 
76 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 Having thus given, what I verily believe 
 to be a plain and scriptural view of the pro- 
 per subjects of baptism, I shall now proceed 
 to consider : 
 
 II. The proper mode. But, first, I would 
 make two preliminary remarks. 
 
 1. The Christian religion, directing men 
 to one great object — to worship God in spirit 
 and in truth, seems to regard matters of 
 mere mode and form, as comparatively of small 
 importance; hence no particular mode has 
 been prescribed for private, social, or public 
 worship ; nor any particular posture in sing- 
 ing, praying, or taking the sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper. The Lord's supper, equally 
 with baptism, is a holy sacrament ; and yet 
 what little stress is laid upon all the modes 
 and forms connected with this sacrament ! 
 Some persons, for example, take it kneeling, 
 some sitting, and some standing; whilst the 
 primitive disciples took it neither kneeling, 
 sitting, nor standing, but reclining. Some 
 make use of leavened, and some of unleavened 
 bread ; and whilst some take it on the first 
 day of the week, and some on the second, 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 77 
 
 some in the morning, and some in the after- 
 noon, it is certain that the apostles at its 
 original institution took it neither on the 
 first nor on the second day, but on the fifth; 
 and neither in the morning nor in the after- 
 noon, but at night. And whereas it is 
 called a supper^ and in early times the sup- 
 per was the principal meal, yet now any 
 portion of the elements of bread and wine, 
 however small, is deemed sufficient. And 
 let it be remembered, that this latitude in 
 relation to the modes and forms of one sacra- 
 ment, is freely allowed, even by those who, 
 in relation to the other sacrament, will allow 
 of no latitude whatever. 
 
 2. As the Christian religion was designed 
 to embrace the whole world, it is reasonable 
 to suppose that baptism as well as the Lord's 
 supper would be adapted to the physical condi- 
 tion and circumstances of all mankind. If our 
 views be correct, this is the case ; but if bap- 
 tism means immersion, and immersion only, 
 then this adaptedness does not exist ; for 
 immersion is neither suited to the frozen re- 
 gions of the polar circle, nor to the burning 
 7* 
 
78 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 sands of the barren desert ; neither to him 
 who is chained down in a dungeon, nor to 
 him who is confined to a bed by chronic dis- 
 ease. Why this want of adaptedness in the 
 sacrament of baptism ? Are there two Gods ? 
 and does the God of grace require what the 
 God of providence forbids ? Whence this ap- 
 parent conflict ? and why is that beautiful an- 
 alogy, seen to reign in all the departments of 
 the empire of God, broken only here ? Having 
 made these preliminary remarks, which I 
 deem of much importance, I will now state 
 distinctly the ground which I take. It is 
 this: 
 
 Water baptism being an emblem of the 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost, and significant of 
 spiritual cleansing or purification, may proper- 
 ly be administered in various ways ; the Scrip- 
 tures in no place, either by precept, example, 
 or allusion, limiting it to any one particular 
 mode ; or in other words, immersion is not the 
 only mode, nor is it the most scriptural. 
 
 The Greek word Baptism has a variety of 
 meanings. If we deny this, we must wage 
 war with many Cf-reek lexicons, for they cer- 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 79 
 
 tainlj give more meanings than one ; such as 
 to dye, to stain, to dip, to wash, to purify, 
 and to immerse. Even Dr. Carson, who 
 affirms that the word rendered baptism al- 
 ways means to clip^ admits that he has all 
 the lexicographers and commentators against 
 him. Here I would remark, that if Dr. 
 Carson is right in affirming that the word 
 means to dip, and onli/ to dip, and those also 
 are right who say it means to immerse and 
 immerse only, does not this prove that the 
 word has more meanings than one ? for, 
 whilst to dip conveys the idea of putting un- 
 der and taking out, to immerse conveys the 
 idea simply of " putting under, without any 
 reference whatever to taking out ;" (as Pha- 
 raoh and his horsemen may truly be said to 
 have been immersed, for they sank as lead in 
 the deep waters, and rose no more.) Those, 
 therefore, who insist upon it, that the word 
 baptism means immersion, and immersion 
 only, are peculiarly unfortunate,* because 
 
 * The Baptist Missionaries at Calcutta, strange as 
 it may seem, have pushed their reform of the ancient 
 Armenian version of the New Testament to this es- 
 
80 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 thej condemn their champion, who says that 
 baptism means to di'p — that is, " to put under, 
 and take out again' — and not to immerse 
 and nothing more — that is, to put under j and 
 
 tent, as will be seen by the following extract of a let- 
 ter to the author from a returned Missionary : 
 
 " The New Testament was translated into the noble 
 tongue of the Armenians early in the fifth century. 
 The version is not perfect, but is most admirable, and 
 ranks next to the Syriac in point of value and au- 
 thority. This ancient Armenian version we trans- 
 lated, at Smyrna, into the modern dialect, as it is 
 spoken in Asia Minor. The Baptist Missionaries at 
 Calcutta (under the patronage of the American and 
 Foreign Bible Society) have also published a trans- 
 lation of it into the modern dialect as spoken by the 
 Armenians in India and Persia. The difference be- 
 tween these two dialects is not very material. 
 
 ** At your request I would state a fact respecting 
 this Baptist New Testament which will speak for 
 itself. In the Armenian language, both in the an- 
 cient and modern form of it, to baptize is muggurdel. 
 This signifies to baptize, to dip, to wash, to immerse. 
 This is the word which, from the time of the nation's 
 conversion to Christianity, has always been employed. 
 It needs no translation, for the most ignorant Arme- 
 niaiv- knows that it means to baptize; and they all 
 understand too that baptism is to be by immersion. 
 Would you not suppose that, in these circumstances, 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 81 
 
 not take out again. Moreover, they are in- 
 consistent with themselves ; for they immerse 
 and take out again^ whilst they hold to im- 
 mersion and immersion only. Again, if we 
 
 our Baptist brethren would have been content to let 
 alone the old word so long set apart to this idea? 
 No ! this did not suit them. Accordingly they cast 
 about for some word of a still more Baptist complex- 
 ion, and finding one which they thought suitable, 
 they have introduced it, sometimes alone and some- 
 times with the old word along side of it, in paren- 
 thesis, to explain its meaning. And what is this 
 term which has displaced the old and well-understood 
 muggurdel ? Your readers will be as much amused 
 as you were, to learn that it is no other than a word 
 which, in its every-day application, means io drown ! 
 The word is ungughmel. Having been for twelve 
 years resident among the Armenians, and having 
 learned their language (both ancient and modern) so 
 as to translate into it and preach in it, I feel pre- 
 pared to say that the ordinary acceptation of this 
 word is no other than the above. If a ship founders 
 and goes to the bottom, the Armenians would say 
 that she unguglimetsar ; and when they refer to the 
 Egyptians, as drowned in the Red Sea, they say, the 
 Egyptians unguglimetsan. 
 
 " Such is the extreme to which their zeal has led 
 our brethren of the American and Foreign Bible So- 
 
82 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 say that the Greek word rendered baptism 
 means immersion only, then we must wage war 
 with the Greek classics, and ^nani/ other Gf-reeh 
 writers, for in Homer we read of "a lake 
 baptized with the blood of a frog;" and of 
 " a rock baptized with the blood of a stag." 
 Now whilst both the lake and the rock might 
 have been sprinkled, or stained, with this 
 blood, it is certain, that by it neither could 
 have been immersed. In the Septuagint, 
 Nebuchadnezzar is said to have been baptized* 
 
 ciety. How ridiculous the sound of all this must be 
 in the ear of the Armenians ! IIow must it tend to 
 injure the cause of our common Protestantism among 
 that already too superstitious people! Think how it 
 would sound, if the new Baptist version in English 
 were to read " Go, teach all nations, drowning them 
 &c." — or " He that belioveth and is droioned shall he 
 saved!" Would it help the matter that the word 
 baptized should be put in a parenthesis, along side of 
 droioned, in the way of a commentary upon the impi- 
 ous mistranslation ? — and why then should this sec- 
 tarianism make free with God's holy word in a for- 
 eign tongue, after a fashion which it would be ashamed 
 and afraid to follow in our own language ? 
 
 I am yours very truly." 
 
 * E^a<prj, a word of the same root. See Morel. Lex. 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. b6 
 
 with the dews of Heaven. Now he may 
 have been sprinkled, or made wet with the 
 dews of heaven, but assuredly not immersed ; 
 for in immersion, the subject is applied 
 to the element, and not the element to 
 the subject. In the case of Nebuchadnez- 
 zar, the matter was entirely reversed, for 
 the element was applied to the subject, and 
 not the subject to the element ; and yet, 
 although he was only sprinkled or made wet, 
 i^a^iq with the dew, he was said to have been 
 baptized. In Ecclesiasticus xxxi. 25, speak- 
 ing of one who had been ceremonially puri- 
 fied, after having touched a dead body, we 
 have these words, /SaTtrt^o^ue^oj arto vfxpou, which 
 may be rendered, was purified from the dead, 
 but certainly not immersed. And, however 
 strange it -may be, Taylor, the editor of 
 Calmet's Dictionary, quotes some eighty ex^ 
 amples, in which the word in question im- 
 plies less than immersion ; and in most of 
 them means no more than sprinkling, moist- 
 ening, pouring, or staining."^ How certain 
 
 * See Peter's ** Sprinkling the only mode of 
 baptism." 
 
84 A PLAIN AND SCBIPTURAL 
 
 it is then that the word rendered baptism 
 has more meanings than one ! But again, if 
 we say that baptism means immersion, and 
 immersion only, we must wage war with the 
 sacred Scriptures, This is a heavy charge, 
 and I would not dare to make it, if the evidence 
 were not clear as a sun-beam. And this is 
 the strong point ; for if all lexicons, and all 
 the classics, and all uninspired writers were 
 against us, it should not and would not have 
 any influence with me in fixing the meaning 
 of the word, if the sacred Scriptures should 
 show that it is used in another sense. And 
 to prove that this is the fact, I adduce the 
 following examples. 1. In Heb. ix. 10, 
 Paul uses this phraseology, Sta^potj ^an-nGnoi^, 
 divers baptisms. Now, if there was only one 
 mode of baptism, why does the apostle use the 
 plural number baptisms, arid connect with it 
 the word divers, which denotes variety ? 
 Should I take you into a room promising to 
 show you divers beautiful objects, and then 
 show you only one, what would you think of my 
 promise ? Or should I invite you into an or- 
 chard, and tell you that I would treat you to 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 85 
 
 divers fruits, and I should place before you 
 only one kind of fruit, would you not be much 
 disappointed ? The very phrase then divers 
 baptisms evidently bespeaks more kinds than 
 one. But to what does the apostle allude, 
 when he uses the phrase " divers baptisms?" 
 This may easily be ascertained by comparing 
 the whole verse with a parallel passage, found 
 in Mark vii. 4. Paul says, " Which stood only 
 in meats, and drinks, and divers washings 
 (Gr. baptisms), and carnal ordinances, im- 
 posed on them until the time of reformation." 
 The language of Mark is this, " And when 
 they come from the market, except they 
 wash, (or baptize,) they eat not. And many 
 other things there be, which they have re- 
 ceived to hold, as the washing (Gr. baptism) 
 of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of 
 tables." Here it appears that the reference 
 unquestionably is to the ablutions, which were 
 commonly practised amongst the Jews ; and 
 for which water-pots filled with water were 
 always provided, and near the door. Hence 
 this testimony touching the marriage in Cana 
 of Galilee ; " there were set there six water- 
 8 
 
86 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL' 
 
 pots of stone, after the manner of the puri- 
 fying of the Jews, containing two or three' 
 firkins apiece." Now the Jews, when they 
 returned from the market, invariably per- 
 formed an act of purification at the water- 
 pots. This, which is expressly called bap- 
 tism^ could not, I think, have been by ^V?^- 
 mersion. And whilst the cups, and pots, and 
 brazen vessels, may possibly have been im- 
 mersed, it is pretty certain that the tables 
 (or couches) of which Mark speaks were not, 
 for we are informed that they were very cum- 
 brous articles of furniture, being usually 
 about twenty feet long, four feet wide, and 
 four feet high ; too large, I should suppose, 
 to be conveniently immersed, especially in 
 the water-pots just mentioned. Here, then, 
 we find that certain things are in Scripture, 
 said to have been baptized, which could not 
 have been immersed. 
 
 The second Scripture example which I 
 shall advance to prove that the word to 
 baptize cannot, in every case, mean im- 
 mersion, is this, Levit. xiv. 4 : " Then shall 
 the priest command to take for him that 
 is to be cleansed two birds, alive and 
 
VIEWOFBAPTISM. 87 
 
 clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hys- 
 sop ; and the priest shall command that one 
 of the Hrds be killed in an earthen vessel, 
 over running water. As for the living bird, 
 he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and 
 the scarlet-, and the hyssop, and shall dip (or 
 hajJtize) them and the living bird in the blood 
 of the bird that was Jcilled." Now I ask, 
 could the bird killed have had blood enough 
 to make a pool sufficiently large and deep 
 for hnmersing all over the living bird, to- 
 gether with the cedar wood, and the scarlet, 
 and the hyssop ? And yet by the command 
 of heaven, all these must be dipped or bap- 
 tized in the blood of the single bird killed. 
 Certainly then, according to the Scriptures, 
 an object may be baptized, and yet not im- 
 mersed. 
 
 Take another example, John xiii. 26, 
 *' He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when 
 I have dipped or baptized it. And when he 
 had dipped the sop, {^fx^a^as to ^ioy.iov) he gave 
 it to Judas Iscariot." And again. Matt, 
 xxvi. 23, "He that dippeth (^ sy-^a^ai) his hand 
 with me in the dish." Now certainly there 
 was no immersion here, for there was nothing 
 
88 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 like a liquid used. The lamb was to be 
 roasted, and this was to be eaten with bitter 
 herbs made into a kind of paste, and a small 
 piece of unleavened bread called a sop was 
 smeared with it. The bringing of this piece of 
 unleavened bread in contact with the roasted 
 lamb, and the bitter herbs thus made into a 
 kind of paste, is called dipping, or baptizing 
 the sop. I repeat it, surely there is no im- 
 mersion here. 
 
 But 3. we adduce those passages of 
 Scripture which denominate the influences 
 of the Spirit haptisvi, when there is no- 
 thing like immersion spoken of. Thus it 
 is written: "I will be as the dew to Is- 
 rael;" and again — "I will pour my Spirit 
 upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine 
 offspring;" and again — "He shall come 
 down as the rain upon the mown grass, and 
 as showers that water the earth;" and again 
 — " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
 ye shall be clean." These, and many similar 
 passages of Scripture, unquestionably refer 
 to the influences of the divine Spirit which 
 should be vouchsafed to the church in gospel 
 times ; and are not these expressly denomi- 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 89 
 
 nated baptism ? What said the blessed Sa- 
 viour in his last interview with his disciples. 
 *' John indeed baptized with water, but ye 
 shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not 
 many days hence." And when did this bap- 
 tism take place ? On the day of Pentecost. 
 Then it was that the Spirit descended^ and as 
 an emblem of divine influences, cloven tongues 
 like as of fire sat upon each of them. And 
 what said Peter ? " This is that which was 
 spoken by Joel the prophet, And it shall 
 come to pass in the last days, says God, 
 I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." 
 This pouring out of the Spirit is evidently 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost which the Sa- 
 viour promised ; and if he denominates this 
 pouring out of the Spirit baptism, who are 
 we, that we should contend against such au- 
 thority ? Again, John the Baptist says, '^ I 
 baptize you with water, but he that comes 
 after me is mightier than I. He shall bap- 
 tize you with the Holy Ghost ;" and in what 
 way shall he do this ? The prophet Isaiah tells 
 us distinctly, " He shall sprinkle many na- 
 tions." Isa. lii. 15. Thus, that baptism which 
 
90 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 comes from Christ, and the Holj Spirit which 
 he promised to send, is represented by pour- 
 ing and sprinkling^ but in no solitary case 
 by immersion. So far then from the Scrip- 
 ture limiting baptism to immersion, it may 
 be seriously questioned whether it gives any 
 countenance to that mode at all. And this 
 more particularly as it inverts the order of 
 heaven's plan, applying the subject to the 
 element, when, if the manner of the baptism 
 of the Holy Ghost be respected, the element 
 is to be applied to the subject, and not the 
 subject to the element. The word baptism, 
 then, having most manifestly more meanings 
 than one, of course no simple precept to bap- 
 tize can of itself designate any one mode. 
 But it may be said, if no command can re- 
 strict baptism to immersion, this is done by 
 certain scriptural examples and allusions. 
 We will now notice some of the most noted. 
 
 1. The case of John baptizing in Jordan, 
 Any Greek scholar knows that the preposi- 
 tion here rendered m, viz. ft?, is frequently 
 rendered at, to, hy, upon, or nexir to. Take 
 one example out of at least a hundred found 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 91 
 
 in the New Testament. "There came a 
 man named Jairus and fell «? Jesus's feet." 
 Certainly, in this place it should be ren- 
 dered at^ and not in. But we can adduce 
 an instance where this very word e^j is ex- 
 pressly declared not to toean in, but to. See 
 John XX. 4, 5. " So they ran both together ; 
 and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and 
 came first "?, to, the sepulchre ;" not in, nor 
 into, for in the very next verse it is added : 
 "Yet went he not in." Now, if in numerous 
 cases the word is properly rendered to, at, 
 hy, on, and near to; and in one case, at 
 least, we are expressly told that it does not 
 mean in, or into; how can a preposition, 
 which has so many meanings, fix the mean- 
 ing of a word which has also, as we have 
 shown, a variety of meanings. The fact is, 
 when the word ft 5 clearly means in, or into, 
 it is almost invariably reduplicated or 
 doubled. In the case before us it is not. 
 John, I am strongly inclined to think, did 
 not immerse a single individual; but stand- 
 ing on the banks of Jordan, near the water's 
 edge, baptized his disciples by simnkling^ 
 
92 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 in accordance with the mode of purification 
 prescribed in Leviticus; and with which, of 
 course, he must have been very familiar. It 
 seems, indeed, almost certain that he did not 
 immerse, for we are told that "all Jerusa- 
 lem, and all Judea, and all the region round 
 about Jordan, came to John, and were baptized 
 of him in (or at) Jordan, confessing their 
 sins." Now, if only one tenth part of the 
 population which, according to Josephus, 
 then existed in those regions, were baptized 
 by immersion, and if we allow one minute 
 for each to confess his sins, and be immersed, 
 John must have remained in the water six 
 hours every day, for three years. The more 
 I think upon the subject, the more convinced 
 I am that John, according to Old Testa- 
 ment usages, baptized by sprinkling, and not 
 by immersion. But suppose that John did 
 immerse, his baptism was not the Christian 
 baptism; for that was not as yet instituted; 
 and hence those who had been baptized by 
 John were baptized over again.* Acts xix. 
 
 * The following note, which is abridged from- 
 another work, may cast some light on this point. 
 The purpose of John's baptism was peculiar. It 
 
VIEW or BAPTISM. 93 
 
 2. The case of John's baptizing in Enon^ 
 because there luas mucli ivater there. Enon 
 was not a river, it was only a town, or place 
 where there were, yto-hxa iiSaira, not ''much 
 
 continued only during John's ministry, and it was 
 restricted to the Jews. What form of words he used 
 we know not. We can only conjecture them from 
 Acts xix. 4. His baptism was superseded by the 
 commission Christ gave to his disciples after his re- 
 surrection, if not before. Matt, xxviii. 19. The rite 
 appears to have been appointed for the whole nation 
 without discrimination of age, sex, character or con- 
 dition. Matt. iii. 5 ; Mark i. 4, 5 ; Luke iii. 12, 14, 
 21 ; Matt. xxi. 31, 32. It was in fact preparatory to 
 the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus among that 
 people, (Acts xix. 4,) just as the baptism by Moses 
 was preparatory to the giving of the law by which 
 the people came into new covenant relations with Je- 
 hovah. Exod. xix. 5 ; 1 Cor. x. 1, 2 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20, 
 21. How John baptized we are not expressly in- 
 formed ; but we have no more reason to suppose that 
 he dipped those who came to him, one and all, small 
 and great, beneath the waters of Jordan, than we 
 have to believe that Moses dipped the whole congre- 
 gation of Israel in the cloud, or in the sea. The 
 Syriac translator uses the word amad for baptize, 
 which primarily signifies to stand, because, says 
 Schindler (Lex. Pent.) " those who were baptized 
 stood." Siabant enim qui haptizabaniur. (See Cas- 
 
94 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 water" (singular number), but ''many wa- 
 ters" (plural), that is, many streams, or 
 springs; and if immense multitudes attended 
 upon his preaching; there were other pur- 
 poses for which many streams, or (if it be 
 
 telli Lex.) The baptism of Moses was introductory 
 to the Levitical economy, as it was soon to be estab- 
 lished over that people. The baptism of John came 
 at the end of that economy, and was introductory to 
 the ministry of Christ. Hence John was to forerun 
 the Messiah, not to labour cotemporaneously with 
 him. John i. 27 ; Matt. iv. 12 ; Acts xiii. 25. We 
 do not read that John baptized after Jesus began to 
 preach, nor that any other baptized by John's autho- 
 rity or commission. No argument therefore can be 
 fairly drawn from John's baptism which cannot be 
 drawn from the baptism of Moses. But if it be in- 
 sisted upon still, then it must be conceded that in- 
 fants should be baptized as well as adults ; because 
 John's baptism had respect to the whole nation, as 
 well as Moses', and there was the same reason for 
 baptizing all classes and descriptions of persons in 
 the one case, as in the other. Properly speaking, 
 however, John's baptism was a legal rite, or a rite 
 which had respect to a people living under an econ- 
 omy of law, and was soon superseded ; whereas the 
 baptism of Christ was appointed as a seal of the 
 covenant of grace to continue unto the end. 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 95 
 
 insisted upon) much water, would be vastly 
 more needed than for the mere matter 
 of immersion. Culinary purposes would 
 require much; and even for drmking, much 
 would be required for themselves and their 
 cattle. Besides, they were in the habit of 
 performing daily ablutions, or purifications, 
 and their "water-pots" were, probably, not 
 taken along with them. When our Metho- 
 dist brethren are selecting some place for a 
 great camp-meeting, many streams or inuch 
 water would be a strong recommendation 
 with them, although it is well known that 
 they usually baptize by sprinkling, and not 
 immersion. 3Iuch water! John, as we 
 have said, needed much water for the accom- 
 modation of the multitudes that waited upon 
 his ministry, but he did not need "much 
 water" half so much for the purpose of 
 immersing his disciples ; for one fountain, or 
 pool, would have answered as well as one 
 thousand. Besides, let it be remembered, that 
 John seems to have gone from Bethabara, 
 the main ford of Jordan, to Enon ; that is, 
 he went from the river Jordan to Enon, 
 
96 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 a place where there was no river. If much 
 water for the purpose of immersion was the 
 thing in view, why did John leave the river 
 Jordan? Was there not water enough in 
 that river? Certainly there was water 
 enough in Jordan for immersion, but it 
 may not have been so well adapted to the 
 accommodation of his hearers; and there- 
 fore in selecting Enon, because there was 
 much Avater there, immersion could have had 
 nothing to do with the matter whatever. 
 This case, then, need not, must not, be relied 
 upon to prove the correctness of immersion, 
 and immersion only, for it has no strength, 
 and will assuredly prove no better than a 
 broken reed. But, 
 
 3. There is the example of Christ; was he 
 not immersed? I am strongly inclined to 
 think that he was not; for, as we have 
 shown, sprinkling was the mode prescribed 
 for purifying under the Levitical economy ; 
 and John seems to have followed that exam- 
 ple.* But is it not said, ''When Jesus was 
 
 ■^ The Syriac version (whicli was probably the first 
 made) may suggest to the learned reader an argu- 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 97 
 
 baptized, he went up straightway out of the 
 water?" So it is in our translation, but 
 what is the Greek word here translated out 
 of? It is cirtOj the very word which is found 
 
 ment on this point. If he will turn to Matt. iii. 13, 
 14, in that yersion, he "will find fov /Sanncdrjvai (to be 
 baptized) in vs. 13, rendered d'neamad, and the 
 same words in verse 14 rendered ethamed. Both 
 are from the root (amad) which signifies, both in He- 
 brew and Syriac, Tie stood erect. (Schind. Lex., Cas- 
 telli Lex., Taylor's Concord, ad vac.) The figura- 
 tive sense (baptize) arises from the fact that standing 
 was the posture assumed for receiving the rite. Hence, 
 in Acts xxii. 16, Ananias is represented as saying 
 to Saul, avaaras (iairTiaai (Syr. kum amad,) arising, 
 (standing, having arisen) be baptized, i. e. put your- 
 self in the posture for receiving baptism, (for the 
 word PaiTTiaai is in the middle voice.) The same 
 kind of phraseology occurs in Acts ix. 18. (apaaras 
 t^airncGt]), This explains the remark of Schindler 
 before cited, Stabant enim qui baptizabantur. But to 
 return to Matt iii. 13, 14: Bearing this sense in 
 mind — neamad is in the Fut. Peal (3. s. m.) which 
 denotes an active intransitive signification corres- 
 ponding somewhat to the middle voice in Greek ; 
 (comp. Acts xxii. 16.) whereas ethamed (the word 
 in vs. 14) is in Ethpeel, or as we should say, in the 
 passive voice. Why the translator should have 
 9 
 
98 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 in the seventh verse of this chapter, in this 
 sentence, " generation of vipers, who hath 
 "warned you to flee {o.Tto'jfrom the wrath to 
 come ?" Is not the meaning here very plainly 
 
 rendered the same Greek word (/SaTTTiaOnvai) in these 
 consecutive verses into different voices in Syriac — 
 the one having an active intransitive signification, 
 and the other by a word having a purely passive sig- 
 nification, it may be difficult to explain. But it seems 
 very clear that he did not understand the word 
 pairriadrivai to signify immcrse in verse 13, for whatever 
 of action the word d'neamad expresses or implies, 
 it ascribes it to the Lord Jesus, and not to John. 
 
 But however this may be, neither the fact nor the 
 form of our Lord's baptism is properly applicable 
 to this question, owing to the peculiar relations he 
 sustained — for observe: although he was baptized 
 hy John, he was not baptized with iJie baptism of 
 John. John's was the baptism of repentance for 
 the remission of sins, (Luke iii. 3 ; Acts xix. 4 ; 
 Mark i. 4,) and was attended with the confession of 
 sins. Matt. iii. 4 ; Mark i. 5. But Jesus was holy, 
 harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners. Heb. 
 vii. 26. John could not have exhorted him, as 
 he did the people, to believe on him who should come 
 after him, (Acts xix. 4,) for that would have been 
 an exhortation to believe in himself. John's bap- 
 tism did not have the effect of preparing the nation 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 99 
 
 from^ and not out of? And again, in 
 Matt, xxvii. 40, we have these words, " If 
 thou be the Son of God, come down (arto) 
 from the cross." It is the very same word ; 
 
 to believe in Christ ; it was not an opvs operatum, 
 for the nation afterwards with great unanimity re- 
 jected Christ ; and that result was, perhaps, the 
 thing chiefly signified, or typically foretold, by our 
 Lord submitting himself to be baptized by John. 
 Our Lord afterwards said, (Luke xii. 50,) " I have a 
 baptism to be baptized with, and how I am strait- 
 ened until it be accomplished ;" alluding no doubt to 
 his sufi'erings on the cross. See also Matt. xx. 22, 
 23 ; Mark x. 38, 39. John's baptism of the people 
 had respect to their existing covenant relations, as 
 still the subjects of law ; whereas the baptism of 
 our Lord must have had respect to foreseen events, 
 and the covenant of grace, which was to be estab- 
 lished by or through his sufferings and death. There 
 is therefore no point of analogy between the baptism 
 of the people by John, and the baptism of Christ by 
 John. John himself plainly saw this when " he for- 
 bade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, 
 and comest thou to me?'' Matt. iii. 14. We are 
 therefore to consider this act of our Lord in pre- 
 senting his body to John for baptism, (like his act 
 of offering up the same body on the cross,) as an act 
 hy itself proper to no other person, and without a 
 
100 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 a^d now, I ask, would it be proper to render 
 it, come down out of the cross ? There are 
 very many cases of a similar kind, where the 
 word, as all admit, may very properly be 
 rendered from, and why then not in the . 
 passage before us? It will then read, 
 "When Jesus was baptized he went up 
 
 precedent ; and were it even proved that our Lord 
 was baptized by way of immersion, yet it would 
 not follow, either that John baptized the people gen- 
 erally in that way, or that the apostles under their 
 second commission followed that example. Indeed, 
 it does not appear that there was any witness of this 
 action of our Lord, excepting only John (the Baptist) 
 and the Holy Spirit. Matt. iii. 13—17 ; Mark i. 
 9—12 ; Luke iii. 21 ; John i. 32, 33. See Scott's re- 
 marks on Matt. iii. 16, 17. It is evident, too, that 
 John did not understand his commission, (John i. 
 33,) as comprising the act of baptizing the Lord 
 himself; for if he had, why should he have refused, 
 or even hesitated to perform it? But this dij0&culty 
 was instantly removed by the express command of 
 his Lord ; which we must understand as a new and 
 distinct commission given for this single act and 
 purpose, or we must believe that John (though filled 
 with the Holy Ghost, and acting continually under 
 his inspirations,) did not fulhj comprehend the ex- 
 tent of his commission. 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 101 
 
 straightway from the water." But, sup- 
 pose that Christ, to "fulfill all righteous- 
 ness," to comply with all the requirements 
 of that day, was immersed; does it follow 
 that we also must comply with the same 
 requirements of that day, and be immersed ? 
 Then, on the same principle, circumcision is 
 still binding, for Christ was circumcised ; 
 and we must keep ihQ passover, for Christ 
 kept it ; and we must observe the Jewish 
 Sabbath, for Christ observed that also. Be- 
 sides, as Christ was not baptized until he 
 was thirty years of age, we must not be bap- 
 tized until we have reached the same period. 
 If the candidate for baptism be fifteen years 
 of age, he is much too young to be baptized. 
 If he be twenty, he must wait ten years 
 longer ; and if even twenty-eight, he must 
 be patient, and wait still two years more. 
 Moreover, if our baptism must in all respects 
 be like that of Christ, we must have no sins, for 
 he had no sin ; and we must, by baptism, be 
 set apart to the priest's office; for it was for 
 this purpose he was baptized; hence, when 
 he was asked, on a certain occasion, by 
 9* 
 
102 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 what authority he did certain things in the 
 temple, he referred to John's baptism. How 
 singular, then, it is, that any one should for 
 a moment suppose that what Christ did, in 
 this case, was ever intended as an example 
 for us! He ate the paschal supper, must 
 we eat the paschal supper? He observed 
 the Jewish Sabbath, must we observe the 
 Jewish Sabbath ? He was transfigured, must 
 we also be transfigured? He raised the 
 dead, must we also raise the dead? He was 
 crucified, must we also be crucified ? We 
 must follow Christ in whatever he intends 
 that we should follow him; but what was 
 peculiar to himself, and the requirements of 
 the Levitical law at that time, was, of course, 
 never designed for our imitation. Judge not 
 according to appearance, but judge righteous 
 judgment. But, 
 
 4. The case of Philip and the eunuch 
 is thought strongly to favour the doctrine of 
 restricting baptism to immersion. / think 
 differently ! But let us examine the case. 
 The passage reads thus: "And as they 
 went on their way, they came to a certain 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 103 
 
 water.'" How vague is this language! It is 
 not said, a river. It could not be, for there 
 is no river there ! It may have been only a 
 streamlet, or shallow pool, such as is common 
 in the prairies of Texas. But to proceed: 
 And the eunuch said, *' See here is water, 
 what doth hinder me to be baptized?" This 
 is just precisely what a traveller in similar 
 circumstances would now say, if on his way 
 to San Antonio he should come to the Cibolo, 
 and see by the road side, what I have seen, 
 a place scooped out by the hand of nature 
 where travellers usually water their horses. 
 And I am confirmed in the correctness of 
 this opinion, by the fact, that the region 
 through which the eunuch was passing is in 
 ihQ south country; is called " c^eser^;" and 
 in latitude, in soil, in climate, and face of 
 the country, is very much the same as the 
 , region of the Cibolo, some sixteen miles east 
 of San Antonio. What said he ? " See here 
 is water, what doth hinder me to be bap- 
 tized?" How natural this language, at the 
 sight of any water, much or little ! Observe ! 
 he had just been reading that prediction 
 
104 A PLAIN AND SCEIPTURAL 
 
 concerning the Messiah — " He shall sprinkle 
 many nations." " Of whom, says the eunuch, 
 speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or 
 some other ? And Philip began at the same 
 scripture, and preached unto him Jesus." 
 The eunuch, believing Christ to be the very 
 Messiah predicted, desired as an evidence of 
 his faith to be sprinkled in his name. " Not 
 sprinkled,'' says one; "not sprinkled! but 
 immersed!" How far fetched is this; and 
 how unnatural ! For neither in this pro- 
 phecy, nor any other touching the Messiah, 
 is it predicted that he should immerse, but 
 that he should sj^rinkle. Of course, then, 
 the eunuch expected to be sprinkled, and 
 not immersed; hence he did not wait until 
 he came to a river, but as soon as he saw 
 water, an^ water, he immediately proposed 
 to have the element applied to him in 
 the mode and form predicted. But, says the 
 objector : The eunuch must have been im- 
 mersed, for it is said by the historian that he 
 commanded the chariot to stand still, and 
 " they went down both into the water, both 
 Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him." 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 105 
 
 Both were in the chariot, and it is not at 
 all surprising that both should have got out 
 of the chariot, and have gone down to the 
 margin of the water. This would have been 
 very natural, and very pleasant to any jaded 
 travellers in a warm climate. But is it not 
 said. They went down ""into'' the water? 
 We have already shown that the preposition 
 "s (here used) is frequently employed to 
 denote proximity^ and in perhaps at least 
 one hundred cases, in the New Testament, it 
 is translated at^ to, by, on, upon, and near 
 to. And who can affirm that it may not be 
 rendered, in some of these ways, in the pas- 
 sage before us ? But suppose Philip and the 
 eunuch both went down the bank literally 
 into the water ; this is no proof whatever 
 that the eunuch was immersed, for as the 
 climate was warm, and the legs were usually 
 bare, and no boots or shoes but only sandals 
 worn, it would have been no unpleasant thing 
 for this man of the sunny south, literally, to 
 have stepped into this shallow streamlet or 
 pool ; and it would, moreover, have been 
 more convenient for Philip, in this way, to 
 
106 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 have baptized him by si^rinkling^ or pouring 
 on him water, in the name of the Messiah, 
 in whom he now believed. And it is very re- 
 markable, that a goodly number of very 
 ancient pictures represent the baptism of the ■ 
 Ethiopian as having been administered just 
 exactly in this way. But says the objector, 
 Is it not expressly said, " When they came up 
 'ow^ o/' the water ?" This is certainly our 
 translation ; but let us, for a moment, look 
 at the original Greek. The preposition here 
 used for " out q/"' is ^x^ and this is the very 
 same word that is used in this sentence : " 
 generation of vipers, who hath warned you 
 to flee, ix^from the wrath to come?" surely 
 not out oi\ and in this passage. Matt. xxi. 2. 
 '' The baptism of John, whence was it ? from 
 heaven ov from men ?" Can any one suppose 
 it should be rendered out of heaven, or out 
 of men ? The whole passage then touching 
 Philip and the eunuch may be rendered thus : 
 "And they went down both to the water, both 
 Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him, 
 and when they came from the water" — I be- 
 lieve that the eunuch was not immersed ; but 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 107 
 
 suppose you say, "J think he was immersed." 
 Be it so, but remember you must not only 
 think he was, you must be sure of it, or you 
 cannot limit baptism to immersion. 
 
 5. The case of PauVs baptism. And here 
 I would remark that if even the eunuch was 
 immersed, it is pretty clear and certain that 
 Paul was not. Let us examine the matter. 
 When, on his way to Damascus, breathing 
 out threatening and slaughter against the dis- 
 ciples of Christ, the Lord Jesus appeared to 
 him in dazzling splendor. Struck down to 
 the ground, this fierce persecutor heard a 
 voice saying unto him, "Saul! Saul! why 
 persecutest thou me ? And he trembling and 
 astonished asked, Lord, what wilt thou have 
 me to do ?" He was told he must go to Da- 
 mascus, and he should there be told what he 
 must do. Being led by the hand, he was 
 taken to a certain house in Damascus. There 
 he remained three days, and neither did eat 
 nor drink. In these circumstances Ananias, 
 divinely directed, comes to him and says, 
 amongst other things, "And, now, why tar- 
 riest thou ? Arise and be baptized ;'' and, 
 
108 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 forthwith, he arose and was baptized. Luke 
 says, avantas £|3artrt50?j, having stood up he 
 was baptized. "Was he baptized by immer- 
 sion f I think not ; for, in that case, there 
 certainly would have been some such record 
 as this: "And he arose and ivent out and 
 was baptized in such a river, or stream." 
 But there is no such record. It is simply 
 this: " He arose and was baptized;" and it 
 is added, "When he had received meat, he 
 was strengthened." Now, as Paul must have 
 been exceedingly weak, having been without 
 meat or drink for three days, I should think 
 that, had they taken him out to be immersed, 
 common feelings of humanity would have 
 suggested the propriety of giving him some 
 refreshment first. It will not do to say, that 
 as Paul had been miraculously converted, he 
 might have been miraculously sustained; for 
 we are expressly told that he was strength- 
 ened after he had eaten ; and that was after 
 he had been baptized. It is evident, then, 
 that Paul was baptized, not in any river or 
 pool, but in his own room. It may have been 
 by pouring or sprinkling, but certainly not 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 109 
 
 by immersion. For mj part, I have not the 
 faintest idea that Paul was immersed ; but if 
 we restrict baptism to immersion, we must 
 not only think that he was immersed, but be 
 positively sure of it. That is, we must be 
 positively sure of that which is altogether 
 improbable. Again, 
 
 6. The case of the jailer and his house- 
 hold is familiar to us all. Converted in 
 prison at a midnight hour we are told, " He 
 was baptized, he and all his straightway ^ 
 Now I would ask, is it likely that Paul and 
 Silas, bruised and beaten as they were, would 
 have gone out to a river at the dead hour of 
 the night ? And is it at all likely that wak- 
 ing up the family of the jailer, they would 
 have hurried them, dear little children and 
 all, from their comfortable beds and midnight 
 slumbers into the cold waters of a flowing 
 stream ? Believe this who can ! But we 
 must not only believe it, we must hioiv it, or 
 we cannot restrict baptism to immersion. 
 No ! they were baptized, as we have full rea- 
 son to believe, in prison ; and there was no 
 river there. But is it not said, " He brought 
 10 
 
110 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 them out ?" Yes, but let it be remembered 
 that they had been thrust into the inner 
 prison. Out of this inner prison, unques- 
 tionably, they were brought into the court, or 
 more spacious apartment. But, says the ob- 
 jector, is it not also said that after the jailer 
 €ind his household had been baptized, '' he 
 brought Paul and Silas into his own house?" 
 This is not denied, but who does not know 
 that it is a very common thing for prisons 
 to be so constructed, that there is a commu- 
 nication between the apartment occupied by 
 the keeper of the prison, and the courts, and 
 cells of the prison ? And that this must have 
 been the case at Philippi is evident from 
 what follows : " In the morning the magis- 
 trates sent the Serjeants saying, Let these 
 men go." And Paul said, " They have beaten 
 us uncondemned being Romans, and have 
 cast us into prison, and now do they thrust 
 us out privily ? Nay, verily, but let them 
 come themselves, and fetch us out." Now, 
 if Paul and Silas had themselves that very 
 night gone out privily^ would this language 
 have been correct ? Nay more, would it not 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 have been a clear breach of official duty in 
 the jailer to have taken them out of the in- 
 closure? I believe that the jailer and his 
 household were baptized in prison. Who can 
 say that they were not ? I believe that they 
 were not immersed. Who can positively say 
 that they were? But this must be affirmed, 
 or baptism cannot be limited to immersion. 
 But again there is 
 
 7. The case of Cornelius and his house- 
 hold. The Bible account of the matter is this : 
 " The Holy Ghost fell on them that heard 
 the word, and they of the circumcision, which 
 believed were astonished as many as came 
 with Peter, because on the gentiles also was 
 poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
 " Then," said Peter, " remembered I the word 
 of the Lord Jesus. John, indeed, baptized 
 with water, but ye shall be baptized with 
 the Holy Ghost." Observe ! It was when 
 the Holy Ghost was 'poured out upon Corne- 
 lius and his household, that Peter was re- 
 minded of the promised baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, which was received on the day of 
 Pentecost, and theyi it was he said, " Who can 
 
112 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 forbid water that these should not be baptized 
 who have received the Holy Ghost as well as 
 we?" Having had the Spirit poured out 
 upon them, let water be brought, and poured 
 out upon them as an emblem of this spiritual 
 baptism. How natural is this interpretation I 
 Notice the language of Peter, "Then re- 
 memhered I." Now, how the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost administered on this occasion 
 by pouring, could remind the apostle of wa- 
 ter baptism by immersion, cannot very well 
 be conceived, for the memory is usually 
 quickened by resemhlances, not by differences 
 or dissimilarities. And here I will make two 
 remarks. First, The Scriptures invariably 
 represent the element applied to the subject, 
 and not the subject to the element. Cer- 
 tainly this is true at any rate, with regard to 
 the main baptism — the baptism of the Spirit; 
 and why should it not be so with regard to 
 water baptism, which is but its emblem ? And 
 that water baptism is an emblem of spiritual 
 baptism, is evident from the manner in which 
 they are spoken of as connected together, 
 and also by this well known language of the 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 113 
 
 apostle : " We are all baptized by one Spirit 
 into one body." My second remark is this: 
 Wherever persons were converted in apos- 
 tolic times, there — in the same place, they 
 were baptized ; whether in the city or in the 
 wilderness ; whether in the private chamber 
 or on the public highway ; whether in the 
 prison, or by the river side. Yes, there is 
 no account of a single individual after con- 
 version, having been taken out to any river, 
 or pool, or water course of any kind to be 
 baptized ! Wherever they were converted, in 
 that very place, on that very spot they were 
 baptized ; and it would seem just in the way 
 which was most convenient, and which re- 
 quired no change of raiment. And here I 
 am reminded of the words of our Saviour to 
 Peter, who was willing to be washed all over, 
 in token of his thorough and devoted attach- 
 ment to his Master. " He that is washed, 
 needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean 
 every whit." What is the idea here pre- 
 sented ? Simply this : that a person may in 
 the judgment of heaven, be " clean every 
 whit," without the washing of the whole 
 10* 
 
114 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 body ; a part (by a divine synecbdocbe) will 
 do for the whole. As Paul speaks of divers 
 baptisms, we would not contend for any 
 ^one particular mode. If only the heart be 
 sprinkled from an evil conscience, it matters 
 not much whether the body be washed with, 
 or in pure water. We must beware how we 
 think more of the sign, than the thing signi- 
 fied, lest we fall into the error of those who 
 make outtvard ordinances every thing, and 
 who would substitute baptism for regenera- 
 tion. And here I would remark, that certain 
 churches in Kentucky and elsewhere, once 
 flourishing, now nearly broken up, may serve 
 as a beacon to warn others of the danger of 
 laying undue stress upon immersion, and of 
 unchurching those Christian brethren who 
 conscientiously prefer another mode. 
 
 8. The last case which I shall mention is 
 that of the three thousand that ivere converted 
 and baptized on the day of Pentecost. These 
 were all baptized on one day, but were they im- 
 mersed? I think not ! I think that they could 
 not have been ; for there was neither time nor 
 place for immersing so great a multitude. 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 115 
 
 There was not time ! Let us look at the matter. 
 The hour of prayer was nine o'clock. How 
 long the disciples continued in prayer before 
 the Spirit descended upon them in cloven 
 tongues, like as of fire, we know not — say one 
 hour ; if so, then it was not until ten o'clock, 
 that it began to be noised abroad, that some- 
 thing remarkable had happened. How long it 
 took the multitude to assemble, and how long 
 all the apostles spoke before Peter began his 
 sermon, I know not, and how long was the 
 sermon of this ardent apostle, I cannot tell ; 
 but one thing I do know, that after recording 
 a pretty long address of Peter, the evangelist 
 adds : " And with many other words did he 
 testify and exhort." We have reason to believe 
 that, considering the ardor of this apostle, and 
 the peculiarly exciting circumstances of the 
 case, his sermon must have been very long ! 
 And then much time must have been consumed 
 in discriminating between those who were con- 
 verted, and those who "mocked" — and, as 
 those who were baptized, were baptized con- 
 fessing their sins. I think this, also, must have 
 occupied much time ; and then, if immersed, 
 
116 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 surely it would require some considerable time 
 for each man to go to his own home, to procure 
 the requisite change of raiment ; for we cannot 
 suppose that they would be willing to go drip- 
 ping wet through the streets of Jerusalem ; 
 and then would it not have required much time 
 to find out and secure proper places to be im- 
 mersed, if there were such places, and such 
 places could be obtained ? Now, by the time 
 that all these things could have been done, 
 surely the day must have been far spent ; 
 indeed, too far spent, I think, for three thou- 
 sand persons to have been immersed by 
 the twelve apostles; even if aided by the 
 seventy disciples, concerning the presence of 
 whom, however, on this occasion, no mention 
 whatever is here made. But as there was not 
 time, neither was there any place for immers- 
 ing so great a multitude. Where^ I ask, could 
 they have been immersed? Not in the brook 
 Cedron, for that was a very shallow stream, 
 and oftentimes entirely dry. Not in the 
 Pool of Bethesda, for that was the place 
 where the sick lay, waiting for the moving of 
 the waters. Not in the u])per pool of G-ihon, 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 117 
 
 for that was covered ; nor in the lower pool 
 of Gihon, nor in the pool of Siloam, nor in 
 the pool of Jlezekiah, for over these the ene- 
 mies of Christ had full control. As for Solo- 
 mon s pool, from that they were some seven 
 or eight miles distant. Tell me not that 
 haths were common in Jerusalem. These 
 baths were in the houses of the rich, and we 
 know full well that very few of them were 
 disposed to show any favour to the disciples 
 of the crucified Nazarene. The fact is, that 
 if what I have gathered from books, and 
 those who have sojourned in Jerusalem, be 
 correct, there was no place in or about that 
 city where the pentecostal converts could 
 have been immersed. I feel confident, there- 
 fore, that they were not taken out to any 
 river, or pool, or bath to be immersed, but 
 like Paul in his chamber, and Cornelius in 
 his house, and the jailer in his prison, and 
 the eunuch on the highway, and Lydia 
 at the sea-side, and John's disciples on 
 the banks of Jordan, on the ver^ spot 
 where they were converted, there were 
 they baptized by sprinklingy or some other 
 
118 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 of the modes of purification pointed out dis- 
 tinctly in the book of Leviticus, and em- 
 braced in Paul's " divers baptisms." It seems 
 to me a matter reduced almost to an abso- 
 lute certainty, that the pentecostal converts 
 were not immersed, and could not have been. 
 Yet if we limit baptism to immersion, we 
 must not only think that they were immersed, 
 but we must be sure of it ; that is, we must 
 be sure of that of which no man on the face 
 of the earth, as it seems to me, can be sure. 
 How utterly unreasonable, then, is it to say 
 that baptism is immersion, and immersion 
 only; and on this baseless assumption to 
 unchurch more than four-fifths of the Chris- 
 tian world ! This is a serious matter. It 
 shows no proper respect for the opinions of 
 others. It rends the seamless robe of Christ. 
 It erects barriers where none should exist, 
 and cuts off from brotherly fellowship and 
 Christian communion those who are our 
 brethren in the Lord — those who are bought 
 with the same precious blood, sanctified by 
 the same divine Spirit, members of the 
 same household of faith, and who, with the 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 119 
 
 truly pious in every land, are all passing 
 through one beauteous gate to one eternal 
 home. " Will you not let me commune with 
 you next Sabbath ?" said an old and faithful 
 servant of Christ, of another persuasion, to 
 a church, many of whom were his own spirit- 
 ual children — '^will you not let me commune 
 with you next Sabbath?" *'No, we cannot," 
 was the reply, "the rules of our church forbid." 
 "Then," said he, with touching simplicity, "I 
 will go and tell my Heavenly Father that you 
 will not let me come with you to his table." 
 The appeal was powerful ; the argument was 
 a strong one ; it flashed conviction ; it set all 
 things aright; and, as the story goes, the 
 next Sabbath the good old man was found 
 seated very lovingly with his spiritual child- 
 ren at the table of their common Lord. But 
 some tell us that close communion is a mat- 
 ter of consistency ; that immersion is the 
 only valid baptism ; and that those who have 
 not been immersed have not been baptized, 
 and therefore must not be admitted to the 
 table of the Lord. This puts us in posses- 
 sion of a new and powerful argument, which 
 
120 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 is calculated to demolish the whole system 
 of the immersionist ; for the point to which 
 the immersion principle leads is so com- 
 pletely at war with the very spirit of our 
 religion, and the best feelings of the pious 
 heart, that this very thing proves the whole 
 system wrong. At any rate, the conclusion 
 to which the immersion principle brings us 
 is so unchristian-like and incredible, there 
 must be an error — I repeat it, there must be 
 an error somewhere !* 
 
 * Baptism is emblematical of the Holy Spirit's work 
 in this world upon the believer, and there is no war- 
 rant in scripture for confining its signification to any 
 particular part of his work exclusively of other parts. 
 This work begins with convincing him of sin, (John 
 xvi. 8 ; Eph ii. 1 ; Acts xxvi. 18,) and ends with pre- 
 senting him in his redeemed and immortal body 
 (Rom. viii. 11,) before the presence of his Lord's glory 
 with exceeding joy. Jude 24. As a rite it has, in 
 itself and independently of the Spirit's power, no 
 more efficacy than the clay with which our Lord 
 anointed the eyes of the blind man. John ix. 6. 
 Hence it is always spoken of in connection with the 
 operations of the Spirit. John iii. 5 ; Mark xvi. 16 ; 
 Comp. with Eph. ii. 8 ; Col. ii. 12 ; Titus iii. 5. Our 
 Baptist brethren mil concede that the Holy Spirit 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 121 
 
 We have shown, as we think conclusively, 
 that there is no precept nor example in all 
 the Scriptures which limits baptism to immer- 
 sion. But, as a last resort, certain allusions 
 
 does not hegin his work in behalf of the redeemed 
 at the resurrection of their bodies from the grave. 
 They believe as well as we, that the Holy Spirit con- 
 vinces of sin, enlightens and renews the mind, (Rom. 
 xii. 2,) engrafts into Christ, imparts true faith, sancti- 
 fies the soul, converts the body of the believer, so 
 to speak into a living temple, (1 Cor. vi. 19,) and seals 
 him (body, soul, and spirit) unto the day of redemp- 
 tion. Eph. iv. 30. In many cases he carries on 
 this work through many years, giving daily guidance, 
 strength, and every needed gvUcQ. And when the 
 body of the believer drops into the ground, he still 
 watches over even the sleeping dust, waiting as it 
 were to gather and glorify it, at the revelation of the 
 Lord from heaven. But for all this previous work 
 (according to their view,) there is no appointed em- 
 blem. And why not ? Is it not all one work ? Does 
 not the beginning of it infallibly ensure the comple- 
 tion of it in the perfect redemption and glorification 
 of its subject ? Phil. i. 6 ; Rom. viii. 29, 30. Can any- 
 thing short of almighty power even begin it, sustain 
 it, or carry it on during the life of the believer ? Is 
 it not as easy for the Holy Spirit to gather and glo- 
 rify the scattered dust of a man in a new and incor- 
 11 
 
122 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 in the New Testament are relied upon. "We 
 will now notice some of the most prominent 
 ones : 
 
 1. Romans vi. 3. **As many of us as were 
 
 ruptible form as to renew his soul ? A priori, then, 
 may we not say, it was as fitting and proper to 
 appoint an emblem suitable to represent the begin- 
 ning, as the ending of such a work ? Nay ; as our 
 Lord did not prescribe any particular form, is it un- 
 reasonable to suppose he designed to allow his apos- 
 tles to adapt the form either to the beginning or to 
 the end of the Spirit's redeeming work, or to both ? 
 Adopting for a moment this supposition, it was quite 
 natural for the apostles, in view of the events of the 
 day of Pentecost, to%djiist the form of the rite to the 
 beginning as to the consummation of the Holy Spirit's 
 •work. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit would 
 suggest the outpouring or sprinkling of water. Acts 
 xi. 15, 16 ; ii. 16, 17, 33 ; Isaiah xliv. 3. This form 
 would imply all that immersion may be supposed 
 more significantly to set forth : for the Holy Spirit 
 will certainly deliver from the power of hell and the 
 grave the bodies of all those whose souls he hath 
 renewed in this life, and none others. Phil. i. 6 ; 
 Rom. viii. 29, 30; xi. 23. 
 
 There is another idea of great importance on 
 this question. The apostles knew that believers 
 shall not all die and sleep in the grave, although 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 123 
 
 baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into 
 his death." Is Christ's death intended to be 
 here represented by baptism ? I should 
 think not, for Christ's death was by crucifix- 
 
 all believers will be changed in their bodies as 
 well as souls. 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iv. 
 17 ; Phil. iii. 21. Now in regard to such as shall 
 not die, baptism by immersion does not so sig- 
 nificantly set forth the work of the Holy Spirit in 
 descending upon them and changing their bodies, as 
 the outpouring of water. Such will not be unclothed 
 and raised from the grave, but clothed upon ; and 
 consequently the greater or closer analogy to the 
 thing signified, which is supposed to be furnished 
 by immersion, fails in respect to these. It fails also 
 in respect to all those believers whose bodies shall have 
 been burned or devoured by wild beasts, or otherwise 
 have been deprived of burial ; and who can say how 
 numerous this company will be ? Let it be conceded, 
 however, for the sake of argument, that baptism by 
 immersion does more significantly represent the re- 
 surrection of the believer's body at the last day, than 
 sprinkling or pouring. Its greater or more apt sig- 
 nificancy is certainly confined to those who shall 
 actually die, and whose bodies shall have been buried. 
 On the other hand, baptism by pouring or sprinkling 
 more aptly and significantly sets forth the beginning 
 and progress of the Holy Spirit's work upon the soul 
 of the believer in this life, which the apostle calls 
 
124 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 ion, and what resemblance is there between 
 crucifixion and immersion ? None at all. 
 This allusion, then, can hardly serve to 
 restrict baptism to immersion. 
 
 2. " Therefore we are buried with him, by 
 baptism, into death." These words are in 
 
 his first fruits, (Rom. viii. 23) ; the enjoyment of 
 which he assures us justifies the confident expecta- 
 tion of the eternal redemption and glorification of 
 the body. Rom. viii. 29 ; xxx. 23 ; Phil. i. 6 ; John i. 
 12 ; 1 John iii. 2. And besides its greater or more 
 apt significancy, it extends to those classes of per- 
 sons just mentioned, who may have been deprived 
 of burial, or who may be actually alive at the Lord's 
 coming at the last day. 
 
 It is admitted on all hands that had the form of 
 the rite been positively prescribed, it would have been 
 essential ; whether that form were by sprinkling, by 
 pouring, or by immersion. The argument, therefore, 
 is directed simply against the inferential arguments 
 or conclusions of those who would make fi particular 
 form essential, where none was prescribed, and that 
 too in cases where other forms significantly and 
 strikingly set forth essential parts of the same one 
 great work of the Holy Spirit. Such being the state 
 of the question, the doctrine of immersionists is a 
 new precept, and a requirement to which neither our 
 Lord nor his apostles gave their sanction. 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 125 
 
 immediate connection with the preceding, 
 abeadj quoted, and as in the one so in the 
 other, we believe that there is no reference 
 to the 7}%ode of baptism whatever, but to 
 something vastly more important, even to 
 the spiritual change which takes place in 
 regeneration, of which water baptism is but 
 the visible sign or emblem. But, if it be 
 insisted upon that the mode is referred to — 
 be it so. But let it be remembered that the 
 apostle in the very same connection, speaks 
 not only of our being " hurled,'' but also 
 ''' crucified'' with Christ. Now if the term 
 buried designates immersion as one mode of 
 baptism, the term crucified must denote 
 another mode, and this would be death and 
 the grave to the idea that baptism can be 
 lawfully administered only in one way. I 
 repeat it, in all these figures there is no 
 reference whatever to the mode of water 
 baptism, but to the effect of spiritual baptism, 
 causing us to die unto sin, and to live unto 
 righteousness. But if it be still insisted upon, 
 be it so. It only serves to prove our point ; 
 for after all, how is a dead man buried? 
 11* 
 
126 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 It is not by being put down into a grave, 
 but by having earth poured in upon liim! 
 This passage, then, so much relied upon, 
 and which has caused our brethren, as I sus- 
 pect, to misapprehend the very nature and 
 design of the ordinance of baptism — this 
 very passage, I say, if it has any bearing 
 upon the mode of baptism at all, proves that 
 pouring is the true mode of baptism, and 
 not immersion. Surely, then, it will never 
 answer to adduce this passage to prove that 
 baptism should be restricted to immersion.* 
 
 ■^ The reader observes, the argument is not direc- 
 ted against the validity of baptism by immersion, 
 but only against those who deny that any other form 
 is valid. It is not denied that baptism in ancient 
 times was performed by immersion of the body, 
 wholly or in part, as well as by pouring or sprinkling. 
 Schindler (Lex. Pentag. page 686,) cites the Talmud 
 to the effect, that whoever was received into the con- 
 gregation of Israel, was circumcised, baptized and 
 made an oblation. The baptism (he adds) consisted 
 in the proselyte's sitting in water up to the neck 
 long enough to learn some of the precepts of the law, 
 difficult or easy. But even this baptism, (although 
 perhaps one of those things grievous to be borne, to 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 12T 
 
 3. " They were all baptized into Moses, 
 in the cloud and in the sea." What ! Im- 
 mersed into Moses ? This would be strange 
 language. But to proceed — were all baptized 
 in the cloud and the sea ; were they immersed 
 in the cloud f This could not have been, for 
 the cloud passed over and went before them, 
 so that baptism by the cloud could have been 
 only by pouring or sprinkling. Were they 
 immersed into the sea 9 No ! for that was 
 made to retire and stand as a wall on either 
 side, so that baptism by the sea could 
 only have been by its spray sprinkled upon 
 them. Now, then, whilst by the sea the 
 children of Israel may have been baptized 
 by sprinkling, and by the cloud, both by 
 pouring and sprinkling ; hj neither could 
 they have been baptized by immersion. 
 Pharaoh and his host were immersed, for we 
 are told that thei/ sank as lead in the deep 
 
 which our Lord refers in Matt, xxiii. 4,) did not con- 
 sist in the immersion of the whole body. If this 
 form of the rite was in vogue in the days of the 
 apostles, it is certain they did not feel bound to 
 adopt it. 
 
128 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 waters ; but the children of Israel were not 
 immersed, for we are expressly informed that 
 they passed through on dry land and dry 
 shod. The fact is, the children of Israel 
 were the only ones not immersed. They who 
 were immersed were drowned. In the Ixxvii. 
 Psalm light is thrown upon the subject, and 
 referring to this very thing the Psalmist 
 tells us precisely how the children of Israel 
 were baptized when passing through the Red 
 Sea; " The clouds j!?oitrec? out water.'' They 
 were rained upon. So it appears that they 
 were baptized not by immersion, but by pour- 
 ing. This passage then is rather an unfor- 
 tunate one to prove that baptism means im- 
 mersion, and immersion only. 
 
 4. " 07ie baptism." By reference to the 
 context, it will be seen that this phrase, "one 
 baptism," has no reference to water baptism 
 at all, but to the main baptism — the baptism 
 of the Spirit. The influences of the Spirit 
 descending and resting upon the heart, we 
 know, are frequently called baptism, and 
 spoken of as the main baptism ; and now to 
 say that this phrase, ''one baptism," means 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 129 
 
 immersion, and that this water baptism is 
 the one main and only baptism, is to assume 
 a position which I think very few would be 
 willing to take. One baptism! Unquestion- 
 ably no baptism can claim such pre-eminence 
 but the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and this 
 is frequently represented as administered by 
 pouring and sprinkling, but in no single 
 case by immersion. This passage then can- 
 not, I think, limit baptism to immersion. 
 
 Our argument is now closed. I object to 
 the doctrine which limits baptism to immer- 
 sion, because the original word rendered 
 baptism has different significations, and there- 
 fore cannot be made to have only one mean- 
 ing. I object, because the baptism of the 
 Spirit, of which water baptism is but an em- 
 blem, is represented under various forms, 
 almost every form indeed but immersion. I 
 object, because whilst no precept, or example^ 
 or allusion restricts the ordinance to any one 
 mode, there are several which bespeak any 
 other mode sooner than that of immersion. 
 I object, because it has a tendency to make 
 us attach more importance to outward forms 
 
130 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 and ceremonies than to things more spiritual 
 and divine.* I object, because it presents 
 
 * There can be but little doubt that the heresy of 
 baptismal regeneration originated in the form of bap- 
 tism by immersion. These words at first (as an at- , 
 tentive reading of the early Christian writers will 
 show,) signified nothing more than baptismal resur- 
 rection, or a symbolical setting forth of the resurrec- 
 tion (redemption Rom. viii. 23, or regeneration) of 
 the body; represented by the act of raising the body 
 out of water after it had been immersed. So long 
 as the phrase was thus understood, it appeared to be 
 harmless ; for no one could mistake the symbolical 
 action for the future reality which it set forth. Every 
 body could see that it was uot a real resurrection, or 
 a real regeneration of the body, because it was obvi- 
 ously the same mortal body, after it was taken out 
 of the water, that it was before it was immersed. It 
 was understood to be what in fact it was ; and (in 
 itself considered,) afibrded no more evidence of a 
 renewing or change of the mind, (Rom. xii. 2, which 
 was the work of the Holy Spirit,) than it did of a 
 change or regeneration of the body. It was indeed 
 emblematical of both ; because we know, that the 
 Holy Spirit will never raise from the grave the body 
 of any one to happiness and glory, without first re- 
 generating his soul in this life. Besides the baptism 
 was a man^s act, although appointed to set forth a 
 work, divine in all its parts, whether it had respect 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 131 
 
 at least a seeming conflict, between the God 
 of grace and the God of providence, as if 
 they were distinct beings, and one required 
 what the other forbids. I ohject^ because 
 immersion is so peculiarly liable to circum- 
 stances calculated to destroy all solemnity, 
 
 to the body or the soul. This phraseology thus in- 
 terpreted by the action itself and hy the absence of 
 any visible effect, was ignorantly, inadvertently, or 
 artfully transferred by the Roman Church, to the 
 form of baptism by pouring or sprinkling, which 
 was primarily designed to represent the invisible 
 operations of the Holy Spirit (John iii. 8,) upon the 
 soul of man in this life. Thus it came to be designated 
 erroneously a real work [opus operatum) on the soul. 
 It was impossible to confute this error by instant, 
 ocular, palpable evidence — (as when it was applied 
 to the whole man, body and soul) and in that way 
 to prove that no real change was wrought by the 
 rite on the soul ; whereas in the original use and 
 sense of the phraseology, (as applied to the body) 
 it was impossible that such an error could arise. 
 While, therefore, our Baptist brethren are orthodox 
 on this point, they erroneously hold exclusively to 
 that form of the rite, which gave occasion to this 
 heresy, and thereby deprive themselves of the true, 
 direct and surest means of confuting it : viz. by 
 tracing its course backward to its source. 
 
132 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL 
 
 and disturb that calm and devotional frame 
 of mind so desirable in administering and 
 receiving so holy an ordinance. I object, 
 because limiting baptism to immersion we are 
 likely to think and speak lightly of the term 
 sprinkling, a term made sacred by the pre- 
 diction touching the Messiah, that " He 
 should sprinkle many nations ;" and by the 
 promise of the purifying influences of the 
 divine Spirit made in these words, " I will 
 sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall 
 be clean," and made most sacred also, by the 
 fact that the precious blood of Christ, in 
 which the robes of all who reach heaven are 
 to be washed and made white, is emphatically 
 called " the blood of sprinkling !" And finally, 
 I object, because if I embrace the doctrine 
 that baptism means immersion, and immer- 
 sion only, I must pronounce every other 
 mode of baptism invalid. I must unchurch 
 more than four-fifths of the Christian world. 
 I must say that the great mass of those who 
 have gone from earth to heaven, have gone 
 there without having obeyed one of the last 
 and great commands of our blessed Re- 
 
VIEW OF BAPTISM. 133 
 
 deemer. Moreover, I must interpose a cruel 
 barrier between myself and those whom in 
 the Lord I love. If my dearest friends and 
 nearest relations, if even my own parents, 
 or my own children, or the wife of my bosom, 
 be of another communion, though devout as 
 martyrs, and pure as the angels of God, I 
 must never meet them at the table of the 
 Lord. I must be separated from them. I must 
 stand aloof. Although I may have full evi- 
 dence that the Master accepts them, yet !> 
 must not accept them ! and if the spirits of 
 just men, made perfect in heaven, are willing 
 to commune with them in the church on 
 high ; I must not commune with them in the 
 church below. This, in my judgment, seals 
 the condemnation of the doctrine which 
 limits baptism to immersion. It raises, as it 
 were from the dead, that same old Diotre- 
 phes, concerning whom even the apostle 
 John had occasion to say, " He receiveth us 
 not, neither doth he receive the brethren, 
 and forbideth them that would, and casteth 
 them out of the church." Alas ! how evident 
 is it that we have not reached heaven yet ! 
 12 
 
134 A PLAIN AND SCRIPTURAL, &C. 
 
 happy world ! where Christians of every 
 communion shall see " eye to eye," where 
 they shall form one blessed family of love ; 
 and where, without a discordant note, they 
 shall unite in one sweet song of praise ; and 
 with thrilling rapture shout, and through 
 everlasting ages shout, " Unto him that hath 
 loved us and washed us from our sins in his 
 own blood, and hath made us kings and 
 priests unto God and his father — unto him 
 be glory and dominion for ever and ever. 
 Amen. 
 
 Even so, come Lord Jesus, come quickly ! 
 
 THE END. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer LIbrai 
 
 1012 01021 2316