CHRISTIAN BAPTISM:
IN TWO PARTS.
PART FIRST-INFANT BAPTISM.
PART SECOND-MODE, OBLIGATION, IMPORT, AND
RELATIVE ORDER.
BY REV. F. G. HIBBARD,
OF TNE iENEqEE COiFEiRu';CE.
Xw-Vo9rk:
PUBLISHED BY LANE & SCOTT,
200 Mulberry-street.
JOSEPH LONGKING, PRITNTER,
1851. 
i I'
N i!
'VI 
CHRISTIAN
PART I.-INFANT
PRO HOC ET ECCLESIA AB APOSTOLIS TRADITIONEM SUSCEPIT, ETIAM
PARYULIS BAPTISMUM DARE.-ORIGEN.
THEIR CHILDREN, ALSO, SHALL BE AS AFORETIME.-JEREMIAH.
BAPTISM.
BAPTISM.  
TO THE
REV. NATHAN BANGS, D. D.
DEAR SIR,-I could not do justice to my own feelings
should I pass this opportunity afforded by the dedication
of this humble volume to you, without bearing my public
testimony to the high sense I entertain of your personal
worth, the efficiency of your public labours, and of your
kindness to me.
Your life has truly been one of labour, responsibility,
and care; not, however, unrequited by the gratitude and
honourable preferments of that growing church, the champion of whose rights and immunities you may justly be
called.
When American Methodism was yet in her infancy,(and, though of rapid growth, she has scarcely yet attained her full vigour,)-when, as yet, her policy and her
characteristic tenets were novel to the age; her institutions, her ministry, and her doctrines, were boldly assailed by men who had little else than a gray antiquity to
sanction their pretensions, and whose ignorance of Methodism, and envy at her prosperity, inspirited them in
their offensive career, you stood up in her defence.
Your early and long association with these unhappy
conflicts, your deep paternal sympathy in the protracted
struggle, your fearless and generous devotion to the cause
t -t
- 8.1  -_-:1 ?, I 
CHRISTIAN IAPTISM.
of truth, as connected with these events, are topics of
grateful and satisfactory remembrance, and combine to
inspire the belief that you will continue to share a liberal
solicitude with your worthy compeers in those polemic
essays that may, from time to time, be put forth for the
defence of truth.
That you may live many days to bless the church and
the world in the exalted stations to which the providence
of God has called you-that your age may be soothed and
sustained by the comforts and hopes of the gospel-that
the goodliest allotments of Heaven may fall to your domestic and social inheritance during the remnant of your eventful and useful life-and that the approbation of our Master
in heaven may be your memorial in death, is the prayer
of, dear sir,
Your obliged friend and servant in the gospel,
F. G. HIBBARD.
2 
PRE F ACE.
1. SOME time since a professional friend, being in my
study, happened to take up a volume of Mr. Cotton's edition of the celebrated works of Drs. Wall and Gale on
Infant Baptism; and perceiving that they contained more
than two thousand pages, octavo, mainly on the single
argument from church history, laid down the volume, saying, "he was sorry there was anybody in the world so
foolish as to write so much on a subject like that of infant
baptism." The surprise, and consequent remark of my
friend, did not originate in any disrespect for the institutes
of Christianity, but simply in not appreciating the just
dimensions, and polemic history, of the subject. He felt
no surprise at seeing the volumes that have been written
with a view to explain the nature and treatment of disease,
or the endless Reports that have been made to illustrate
the true application of law and evidence, in civil matters.
If men would study more the history of theology, they
would better understand the cost of defending it.
2. The details of argument gone into, in the following
pages, may appear to some to be unnecessary; but to such
I have only to say, I have not written for the learned, but
for the sincere inquirer of humbler capacity, and have
aimed to set forth those facts only which are necessary to
be taken into account, in order to master the argument,
and to feel its force.
Also, the highly controverted state in which every thing
is found relating to this subject, as well as the peculiar
nature of the argument itself, must be my apology for having said so much. True, the argument might, in its strictest form, have been compressed within a much narrower
compass; and to this form it was my first intention to
confine it. But, upon further reflection, I could not feel
that such a plan would be productive of the greatest good
to the reader. Objections to infant baptism are everywhere thrown, from the pulpit and the press, before the
minds of young Christians.  These they have not learned 
to meet and obviate; and though they have not yielded to
them an assent, still they exert a disturbing influence upon
their faith. Without mentioning all these objections and
arguments in detail, it has been my constant endeavour to
keep them in view, and to hold them, in all their protean
shapes, so steadily before the Bible argument, as to furnish the reader with ample means for detecting and refuting
their sophistry. But although the work has swelled beyond
the limits I had at first assigned it, still I think it will be
found the argument has never been abandoned for foreign
or irrelevant speculations.  Some trifling repetitions have
unavoidably occurred, while some other matters, not deemed
important, although treated by other authors, have been
omitted. In the following pages the reader is presented
with all that information which is strictly important to the
subject. He is particularly requested to observe the order
of the argument; a general syllabus of which he will find
in the chapter of contents. This he should attentively
scan before reading the work.
3. It is a great calamity to the cause of truth, that its
professed advocates are so often men of strong party feeling, who indulge in an unguarded, and, I may say, reckless habit- of stating both their own doctrine and also that
of an opponent. It is hence, that indefensible positions
are often assumed, false issues taken, personal feelings
enlisted, and a large amount of vituperation and abuse
fabricated. I would not appear invidious in my distinctions, but if the reader have ever read a late work on Baptismn by Rev. James J. Woolsey, he will have found a
melancholy demonstration of all I have stated. To mention but one instance of many, on p. 244 the author opens
a section on the silence of the New Testament respecting
infant baptism, and gives this statement of the Pedobaptist
position:-" The validity of infant baptism is plead for as
of divine appointment, because there is no prohibition against
it." In a former section he has thus stated a kindred position:-" The validity of infant baptism is urged, and thought
to be established, on the ground of its being taken for granted, without any express command in the New Testament."
In these sections the author has argued to the principle,
that mere silence, and mere absence of prohibition, cannot
afford authority for a practice. Now, no one but a mad
4
PREFACE. 
man could be his opponent in this case.  He  has misstated both the position and reasonings of the Pedobaptists. The peculiar point of the argument, as insisted ot
by the Pedobaptists, is not once developed, or even alluded
to, in any way, through the whole course of his remarks.
Is it any wonder that men do not understand each other,
or that parties are not reconciled?
4. If the reader would be profited by the investigations
which are pursued through the following pages, he must
have patience to examine before he ventures to decide.
The subject is of that nature that it cannot be dismissed
with a hasty consideration. The force of the argument
does not lie imbodied in terse, isolated passages, which
require but a single effort of the mind to comprehend them,
and which leave upon the mind, with scarcely an effort of
its own, the lively images of an intuitive conviction. A
process of reasoning must be gone through,-a somewhat
extended range of observation must be brought immediately
under the eye of the mind,-and then the force of the argument must result from these varied premises,-from the
coincidence and focal blaze of these collocated facts, which
the mind should group and scan at a single synthetic
effort.
If I have any doubt of the ultimate satisfaction of the
reader's mind as to the reality of the divine institution of
infant baptism, that doubt is the offspring, not of any suspicion that there is a want of evidence in the case, but,of
a fear that the reader will be deluded into that mental imbecility which rejects all testimony but the most positive and
absolute;- which has not patience or courage adequate to
the length, and breadth, and depth of an extended argument;-and which, at last, making virtue of its own folly,
professes to be guided only by the specific and positive
declarations, in so many words, of the word of God.
5. In the following Treatise I have assumed that infants
are in a regenerated state. This, I am fully aware, will
be likely to provoke controversy, and many will reject all
conclusions based upon this doctrine. But who are those
who deny this doctrine? First, there is a class who believe that all infants who are "not elected" will finally
perish. Such infants, of course, whether baptized or not,
cannot be regenerated. Secondly, there are those who
5
PREFACE. 
believe that regeneration, in adults and infants, is..z
comitant of baptism. Hence, as there can be no regeneration either before or without baptism, unbaptized infants
cannot be in a regenerated state. Thirdly, there are those
who profess no settled or specific view of the regeneration
of infants; only they believe that all infants, dying in
infancy, will be finally saved.
It is well known to the student in church history, that
few, very few, since the days of the apostles, have ever
openly held to the damnation of any of those infants who
die in infancy. The Calvinistic school forms the largest
exception. There have been those who have held that all
unbaptized infants, dying in infancy, go to a sort of middle
state, between heaven and hell, as the reader will see in
the fifth chapter of this work. Others, as St. Austin, (see
pp. 209-211,) with more consistency, held that where the
want of baptism was not the fruit of any wicked and wilful
disposition of the individual, he would be saved without it.
The Protestant Episcopal Church, it appears, chooses, in
regard to the state of unbaptized infants hereafter, to observe
entire silence. (See pp. 270, 271, of this work.)
Now, all I wish here to say is, that I do not insist upon
any peculiar sense of the word regenerate. The term has
been adopted, in the following pages, because it conveniently expresses the doctrine of infant salvation. All I
mean by it is, that infants are, whether baptized or not, in
a state of grace; that they are embraced in the provisions
of the atonement; that, if they die in infancy, they will be
saved, and if they live, they will come under the gracious
economy of Heaven, and receive the free offer of life. I
wish not to contend about a word. I take the words of
Christ, Matt. xix, 14, to refer to all infants, as such,-not
to "elect" infants, or to baptized infants, or to the infants
of Christian parents, merely.  On this point, "if any man
be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
I have only to add, as greater men have said before me,
"If I have done well, and what is fitting the [argument,] it
is that which I desired; but if slenderly and meanly, it is
that which I could attain unto," 2 Mac. xv, 38.
F. G. HIBBARD.
Penn Yan, N.Y., Aug. 20, 1842.
6
PREFACE. 
CONTENTS.
PART I.
CHAPTER I.-THE CHURCH.
SECTION I.                          Page
I. Antiquity of the Church.............................13
2. Its essential character...................................................  14
3. The Abrahamic covenant............................ 15
SECTION II
1. Design of the ceremonial law...............23
2. Difference between it and the covenant of Abraham........... 29
SECTION III.
Jewish and Christian churches substantially one and identical....33
Proved from1. Appellations given to the church.........         33
2. Matthew xxi, 43......................................................... 35
3. Epistle to the Romans..............................35
4.       -   Galatians................................................40
5.           Ephesians............................45
6.           Col oss         ians............................53
7.           Hebrews iii, 1-6....................................... 53
CHAPTER II.
ORDINANCE OF INITIATION.
SECTION I.
1. Initiatory rite of the church under the Old Testament..........57
2. Its import..................................................................58
3. Its application to infants................................................59
CHAPTER III.
THE INITIATORY RITE OF THE CHURCH ALTERED.
The initiatory rite of the church altered under the New Testa.
ment dispensation as to its form, and some other circumstances,
but not changed as to its applicability to infants................ 61 
CONTENTS.
SECTION I.
1. Baptism succeeds to     circumcision........................
2. The probable reasons for this change in the form of the initia    ting rite................................................................
SECTION II.
That the law of initiation, though changed as to its form, and
some other circumstances, is not changed as to its applicability
to infants, is proved from a variety of considerations............  67
1. No assignable reason for such a change........................... 70
2. The fact of such a change has never been recorded in the
Scriptures.........................................70
3. This feature of the initiating rite is vital to the ordinance itself,
and not of a nature to " pass away," without a rescinding
act, like the ceremonial law.......................................  75
SECTION III.
Silence of New Testament. Our opponents have no right, under
the circumstances, to demand even a positive mention of infant
baptism, in so many words......................................... 78
1. Silence itself is no proof, pro or con, but circumstances may
lend it a positive signification..................................... 78
2. The case of infant baptism is no more involved than that of
female baptism.....................................80
3. Or than that of female communion........................... 82
4. Or than the question of rebaptizing an apostate, who afterward
repents.................................................................. 82
5. We have the same kind of evidence for infant baptism that
we have for the change of the sabbath from the seventh to
the first day of the week; for receiving some books of
Scripture as canonical; and for many other things............ 83
SECTION IV.
The New Testament is not silent on the subject of infant baptism,
but makes just such mention of it as, under the circumstances
of the case, proves it to have been the universal practice of the
apostolic churches; that is, it recognises all those facts and
principles which necessarily involve the practice................ 88
1. Infants are in a gracious state................................. 89
2. Infants are capable of being entered into covenant with God.. 90
3. Their right to the initiatory ordinance recognised in many
places..................................................................  93
[1.] In Gal. iii, 29.  A believer in Christ comes in the same
relation to the covenant, of a Jew formerly, and so, by
necessary implication, do his children................93
[2.] Matt. xxviii, 19. The apostles would have understood
their commission  as authorizing and directing infant
baptism............................................................ 94
1.) From the particular custom of proselyte baptism.........   95
8
61
65 
2.) From the general fact that they had always been accus        tomed to seeing the initiating ordinance applied to
infants.......................................................... 100
L3.] The New Testament affirms that relationship of infants
to the visible church which implies their baptism......... 106
1.) Matt. xix, 13-15................................................. 106
Infants proper brought to Christ.............................  107
Christ affirms that they belong to the kingdom of heaven.
(a.) This he affirms of infants proper......................... 107
(b.) The kingdom of heaven includes the visible church;
therefore, if infants belong to the former, so also to
the latter.................................................... 112
(c.) The doctrine further inferred from the command to
receive children in Christ's name...................... 120
2.) 1 Cor. vii, 14.............................................. 122
(a.) Occasion and scope of the passage...................... 122
(b.) Meaning of the words a'ytaarat, acaOapra, and 6yta.. 125
(c.) Incidental arguments afiorded by this text............. 138
[4.] The right of infants to baptism recognised, Acts ii, 38, 39 142
1.) The " promise"' here mentioned refers to Gen. xvii, 7... 142
2.) How a Jew would understand the phrase, " to you and
your children"................................................. 143
3.) The relation of yap to the preceding parts of the dis        course.............................................. 146
4.) The argument stated........................................... 150
[5.] Argument from John iii, 5....................................... 152
[6.] Infant baptism recognised in " household baptisms".....153
1.) The language, in its natural force, carries a strong pre        sumption of infants being baptized...................... 153
2.) This probability strengthened by the circumstances of
the histories.................................................... 155
(a.) Lydia's household.......................................... 155
(b.) Jailer's household........................................  157
(c.) Stephanas's household.........................         159
3.) The familiar manner of speaking of household baptisms
proves them to have been common, which heightens
the presumption that infants were included in them
and of course baptized..................................... 161
4.) Paucity of cases of household baptisms no objection to
the argument................................................ 165
CHAPTER IV.
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
additional evidence derived from strong coincidences, and the
general fitness of the practice....................................... 166
1. Infant baptism accords with the moral state of infants......... 167
2. It is in harmony with the avowed object for which the Chris    tian church was organized.......................................... 167
3. And with the analogy of Jewish church rites..................... 168
9
CONTENTS 
4. Infant baptism is corroborated by Eph. vi, 1-4................. 168
5. It coincides with the feelings of pious parents................... 169
6. And with the obligation of parents to train up their children
for God.......................................... 171
7. And with the import and ends of the ordinance of Christian
baptism..........................................175
CHAPTER V.
HISTORICAL ARGUMENT.
SECTION I.
1. Nature of the argument.............................181
2. Premised remarks on the meaning of renascor............183
SECTION II.
1. Testimony of Justin Martyr.......................................... 186
2.         of Irenus..............................188
3.         of Tertullian.............................................. 189
4.         of Origen................................................. 194
5.         of Cyprian..............................,. 197
6.    - of Optatus.............................. 201
7.         of Gregory Nazianzen.................................. 202
8.         of Basil................................205
9.         of Ambrose............................. 206
10.        of Chrysostom............................................. 207
BEFORE THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY.
. Testimony of Hierome............................. 209
of Austin................................................. 209
Third council of Carthage.......................................... 213
Fifth council of Carthage.......................................... 214
AFTER THE RISE OF THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY.
Creed of Pelagius, and its bearing on the question of infant
baptism............................................................. 214
(12.) Testimony of Austin....................................... 216
(11.)            of Hierome.......................................... 216
14. Testimony of Pelagius.....................................2...  17
15.            of Cele stius.............................218
16. Council of Carthage, A.D. 418.........''............... 220
17. Histories of heresies and schisms for four hundred years
after Christ give no account of any who  denied infant
baptism................................................................ 220
1. History of Irenaus..............................  220
2. —       of Epiphanius.............................................. 221
3.         of Philastrius......................................... 221
4.         of Austin.................................................. 221
5.         of Theodoret............................. 221
10
CONTEN'.rS.
ii.
12.
13. 
CONTENTS.
SECTION III.
Objections to the argument from church history answered....... 223
1. From the paucity of notices of infant baptism by the primi       tive writers in the church....................................... 223
2. From infant communion........................................... 224
3. From the meaning of parvulos and other words, as not
always designating infants in age.............................. 226
4. From the corruptions of the church in the early ages, and
also the place where infant baptism was first distinctly
mentioned.......................................................... 228
5. From the danger of relying on the testimony of tradition,
lest we disparage the authority of the word of God.......  230
CHAPTER VI.
OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTISM ANSWERED.
Obj. 1. Faith is required in order to baptism, but infants cannot
believe..................................................................... 232
Obj. 2. Infant baptism is opposed to the spirituality of the Chris  tian church................................................. 240
Obj. 3. Infant baptism implies no exercise of reason, and hence
forms no presumption of the truth and excellence of Chris  tianity........................................................... 243
Obj. 4. Infant baptism is incompatible with the natural rights of
infants whereby they are entitled to choose a religion for
themselves................................................................. 244
Obj. 5. Infant baptism can do no good............................... 250
Obj. 6. Infant baptism not mentioned in some places in Scrip  ture, where, had it been practised, it must have been men  tioned...................................................................... 254
Obj. 7. Founded on 1 Pet. iii, 21....................................... 257
CHAPTER VII.
BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM.
SECTION I.
1. Baptism does not accomplish the regeneration of infants...... 261
SECTION  II.
1. The relation of baptized infants to the church................... 280
1.) Baptism alone does not confer plenary church privileges in
any case............................................................ 280
2.) The principle of infant church membership recognised by
all civil law, and by the universal reason and practices
of mankind....................................................... 282
3.) Sanctioned by all past analogy.....................2... 82
2. Infant baptism an affecting memorial of original sin........ 2....  85
3. Moral influence of infant baptism...........................    286
I 1 
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VIII.
GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM.
1. All infants by nature in the same state............................ 293
2. Children of believing parents, or who have one believing
parent, only, to be baptized........................................ 293
3. Right of children to baptism not founded on natural descent.. 294
4. Sponsors not to be admitted while the parents are yet living,
except in case of adoption, or something tantamount.......     295
5. Ancient doctrine of sponsors........................................  297
APPENDIX.
NOTE A.-Historical account of circumcision................298
B.-Illustrations of the evidence on which we  receive
many important doctrines of revelation................ 300
-   C.-Proof -that the ancient Jews baptized proselytes....... 304
-   D.-Mr. Cruden's definition of the word sanctify........ 307
-   E.-Controversies on 1 Cor. vii, 14............................ 308
F.-Account of the Waldenses, and some other sects..... 317
G.-Romish superstitions with respect to baptism.......... 324
HI.-Mr. Wesley's views of the efficacy of baptism......... 325
PART II.
CHAPTER I.-John's Baptism............................. 
II.-Christ's Baptism...........
lII.-Criticism on Balrr Bapto... ------
IV.-Criticism on Ba'rrtz( Baptizo. —---------------
V.-Greek Particles.............................
VI.-Christian Examples......... ---—...
VII.-Figurative Language.......... —------------------—.
VIII. —Objections answered and proposed.............
IX.-Obligations of Baptism.......................
X.-Import of Baptism..........................
XI.-Relative order of Baptism ----------------—....................
APPENDIX  -............................................
12
1 1
32
42
51
95
107
114
138
158
163
173
190 
A
TREATISE ON INFANT BAPTISM
CHAPTER I.
THE CHURCH.
ITS ANTIQUITY-ITS PROPER AND ESSENTIAL CHARACTER
-DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN THE COVENANT AND THE
LAW-JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN CHURCHES SUBSTANTIAL  LY ONE AND IDENTICAL.
SECTION I.
1. FIRST of all, in our reasoning upon the subject before
us, we must have enlightened views with respect to the
real church of God. We are not about to inquire which
of all the existing churches professing to be Christian is the
true one; much less are we about to set up a plea of exclusiveness, and say, "The temple of the Lord are we." We
pass by the different Christian sects,-ascending the stream
of time beyond their origin,-and ask, When did the church
of God begin to display itself? And here we may admonish the reader, that it will be some time before we
shall be prepared to draw our conclusions, and directly
urge the force of our arguments.   Meantime, he must go
with us into details and arguments which may appear dry,
but which are necessary to establish our premises. If he
have not patience for all this, he had better here abandon
the investigation.
When we inquire into the proper antiquity of the church
of God, we are led far back in the world's history, to a
period remote from the age of Christ and his apostles, and
even beyond the prophets and Moses. At an early stage
in the history of nations, after the flood, God called Abram, 
INFANT BAPTISM.
and separated him from his own kindred, and from his
own nation, and organized his family into a church proper,
bringing them into a visible covenant relation to himself.
Jehovah had covenanted with his servants, the patriarchs,
at different times, since the days of the first man. These
covenants had been distinguished by signs, as that with
Noah, by the "token" of the "bow in the clouds;" but
never had the covenant of grace and mercy, which was to
be ratified by the blood of God's own Son, been so largely
revealed to man; and the visible token or mark of this
covenant had never before been fixed upon the persons
themselves, who entered as a second party to participate in
its gracious provisions.  This covenant, then, which God
made with Abraham, differs from all others. The covenant with Noah, alluded to above, related to the perpetual
order and harmony of the material world, securing "seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, day and night," &c.
But this with Abraham related pre-eminently to spiritual
blessings, to be bestowed upon the world through Christ.
The sign of the covenant made with Noah was a " Bow"
set in the clouds; the sign of the covenant with Abraham
was " CIRCUMCISION,"-a mark set upon the male descendants of that patriarch, and upon all others who voluntarily
came under its injunctions. Indeed, in whatever light we
view it, we shall find this was the first attempt of Jehovah, on record, to bring man directly into a visible covenant relationship with himself. This transaction forms
the first model of a visible church with which the world
has ever been acquainted. It is here we date our idea of
church. The importance of the subject will justify our
detaining the reader a little further on the particular features of this covenant, which we regard as the great charter of the visible church, within whose ample folds are
gathered and united both Jews and Gentiles.
2. Let us attend, for a moment, to our just ideas of what
constitutes the church of God. We are not now about
to bring the test of a shibboleth to this stupendous question.
We do not propose this inquiry in the spirit of a sectarian.
We plant ourselves upon the broad Bible principle, and
ask, What is the Bible definition of CHURCH?
The visible church of God, in whatever clime or part
of the world it may subsist, is composed of a congregation
14 
INFANT  13APT1). 1.
of persons, who are distinguished by the following particulars:-1. They hold to the cardinal doctrines of the Bible;
those doctrines which are necessary to make a person
wise unto salvation. I do not say that these doctrines
must necessarily be embraced in all cases with an equal
degree of clearness:-they must be received in a manner
answerable to the light which distinguishes the particular
dispensation under which the church may live. 2. They
worship God according to his own will and directions,
written or otherwise expressed. 3. They must be separated and distinguished from the world at large by a particular mark or sign, appointed by God as a token of their
fidelity to him, and of the divine favour to them.
I know not that any one feature distinguishes the church
of God that does not properly fall under one or other of
these heads. Descriptions may be given more in detail,
and many accidents may attach to the true visible church
at one given time, that may not characterize it at another;
but it is of the primary character of the church that we
speak. Now, it is obvious that all these primary characteristics of the church belonged to those who were united
to the covenant of Abraham, and were conferred on them
by that covenant. Not that-the model of the church was
in all respects as perfect in the family of Abraham as it
was afterward rendered: on the contrary, it was evidently improved under Moses, and still more under Christ.
But, I repeat it, in the family of Abraham was the first
germ of a visible church; and the covenant of God with
that patriarch was the first charter under which men ever
formed themselves into a visible church compact, and the
first, of which we have any record, that God ever gave to
man for that purpose.
3. The state of the argument renders it necessary that
we should enter into proof of this position. It has been
stoutly denied that the covenant of Abraham conveyed
any grant of church privileges, or,indeed,of any spiritual
blessings.* It will be our business to show that it imbodied the rudiments of the gospel of Christ, and was the
date of church relations. The words of the covenant, as
* See, for instance, Woolsey on Baptism, p. 287; Jewett on Baptism, p. 62, &c.; and Mr. Pengilly's Tract, p. 60.
15 
INFANT BAPTISM.
reiterated and renewed to Abraham, from time to time,
run thus:   " The Lord said unto Abraham... I will make of thee
a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name
great; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will bless them
that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee: and in
thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.... Lift up
now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art,
northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward;
for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the
dust of the earth...  Look now toward heaven, and tell
the stars if thou be able to number them; and He said
unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed the
Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness.... And
God talked with Abram, saying, As for me, behold, my
covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many
nations. Neither shall thy name be any more called
Abram, but Abraham; for a father of many nations have I
made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and
I will make nations of thee; and kings shall come out of
thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and
thee, anrd 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 give unto thee, and thy seed
after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the
land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will
be their God.... And thy seed shall possess the gate
of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed." Gen. xii, 1-3; xiii, 14-17; xv, 1-7;
xvii, 1-8; xxii, 15-18; xxvi, 3, 4; xxviii, 14, 15.
Before entering upon a close examination 6f the several
parts of this covenant, it is important that the reader be
reminded, first, that it has ever been a prevalent custom
among the Orientals to teach by metaphor and allegory,by making sensible objects the representatives of spiritual
things. It is not needful here to dwell upon the prevalence or the advantages of this mode of teaching; but
suffice it to say that, by this means, a twofold sense is
attached to almost every part of this covenant,-a literal
and a spiritual sense. This will appear, on Scriptural
authority, in the process of our remarks. Secondly, it is
16 
INFANT BAPTISM.
chiefly by the light of other parts of Scripture, and particularly of the New Testament, that we are to interpret the
true meaning of the words of this covenant.  This remark
may apply to a very large portion of the Old Testament
Scriptures, especially to their iypes,and allegories, and prophetic sayings. It is evident that Abraham understood this
covenant in a higher sense than merely to refer to temporal good; and it is not improbable that he received explanations of its high spiritual import, of which the text of
Moses does not give full intimation. The same inspiration that guided Paul's pen in portraying its exalted character, doubtless shed its illuminations upon the mind of
the patriarch.
1.) The first item of this covenant which we notice, is
God's promise to bless Abraham: "I will bless thee, and
make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing....
By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord,... that in blessing I will bless thee;" that is, I will greatly bless thee.
That this promise includes great temporal prosperity
will not be doubted. In this feature also it was abundantly
fulfilled. But beyond this it looked forward to, and embraced spiritual things. 1. It included the blessing of
justification;-Abraham's faith was accounted to him for
righteousness. So Paul, speaking of salvation by faith,
calls it "the blessing of Abraham." "Christ hath redeemed
us from the curse of the law... that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ;"
and this "blessing" he immediately calls "the promise
of the Spirit through faith." " So then, they which are
of faith, are blessed- [after the same manner] with faithful
Abraham." Gal. iii, 9, 13, 14.
2. This blessing, also, included the promise that Abraham should be rewarded as a righteous person. This
reward was to be such as was suited to the obedience
of faith,-the reward of a holy man in this life, and at the
general judgment. The apostle says, "BY  FA.ITH Abraham, when tried,- offered up Isaac," &c.; after which
memorable act of obedience, God says, "By myself have
I sworn, BECAUSE THOU HAST, DONE THIS, and hast not
withheld thy son, thine only son: that in blessing I will
bless thee," &c.  But that blessing which is the appropriate reward of moral obedience must not stop short at
1,7 
INFANT BAPTISM.
temporal things; and thus Abraham viewed it, and "looked
for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker
is God," Heb. xi, 10. Indeed, the whole subject is elevated
infinitely above the dignity of a mere commercial or secular transaction.
2.) God promises to Abraham a numerous posterity: "I
will make of thee a great nation,-I will make thy seed as
the dust of the earth:-thou shalt be a father of many nations," &c.
All admit that these and kindred expressions imply a
numerous and powerful natural posterity. But it is the
twofold sense of these expressions to which we call attention, and it is in that second and higher sense that they are
made to include a promise of gospel blessings. The question is, In what sense was Abraham to become the "father
of many nations?" or his seed to be (in the hyperbolical
language of the promise) "as the dust of the earth?" The
merest tyro in divinity will readily perceive the answer
to this question. The New Testament clearly and explicitly establishes the sense of this promise, and proves
that, in its grandest import, it looked forward to gospel
days, and comprehended gospel blessings. In speaking
of the posterity, or "children of Abraham," two kinds are
mentioned by Paul,-those who are so by natural descent,
and those who are so by imitating, or "walking in the
steps" of that patriarch. The true force and meaning of
the promise in question are thus clearly established, and the
whole matter put to rest by Paul:-" For the promise that
he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or
to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness
of faith.... Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by
grace; to the end the promise [of justification and life]
might be sure to all the seed: not to that only which is
of the law, but to that which is of the faith of Abraham,
who is the father of us all, as it is written,' I have made
thee a father of many nations.'"   "Know ye, therefore,
that they which are of faith, the same are the children of
Abraham.... And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's
seed, and heirs according to the promise." Rom. iv, 13,
16, 17; Gal. iii, 7, 29.
Nothing further need be added in proof of the twofold
sense of this part of the covenant, and that the spiritual
18 
INFANT BAPTIS,T.
was the higher and more important sense.  If it be inquired,
For what purpose hath God constituted Abraham the father
of all believers, and what advantages do they derive from
that appointment? we reply: "According to the apostle
Paul, Abraham was constituted the father of all believers,
for the purpose of receiving, on their behalf, and in
their name, the promises of those blessings, which God,
of his great goodness, intends to bestow on them.... And
in thus constituting Abraham the father of all believers,
whether Jews or Gentiles, for the purpose of receiving on,
their behalf the promises of the covenant, God accommodated himself to the ideas of mankind, who consider what
is promised in a covenant as more binding than the simple
declaration of one's intention."*
3.) The third promise of this covenant contains a grant
of the land of Canaan: "I will give to thee, and to thy
seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all
the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession."
Here, also, concerning the first and literal meaning of
this promise, there can be no dispute, and in this sense
also it was faithfully fulfilled to Abraham and his posterity.
But it had a higher meaning; namely, that, under the image
of Canaan, the possession of a better country, even a heavenly, was promised. This is abundantly proved by the
following facts: -When the Israelites had sinned in the
wilderness, God solemnly and irreversibly interdicted their
admission into the promised land. Num. xiv, 23, 28, 30.
Five hundred years after that event, David, the king of
Israel, exhorted his countrymen not to harden their hearts
like their forefathers, and thus incur a similar judgment.
In this exhortation he calls the land of Canaan, in its
higher import, a "rest," and exhorts his countrymen not
to come short of it. Psa. xcv. Paul, in alluding to this
exhortation of David, says: "Again, when speaking by
David, so long a time afterward, he [the Spirit of God]
designates, or definitely names, a certain day, [in which
they should enter into the true rest of faith,] TO-DAY; as
it is said,'To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not
your hearts,"' Heb. iv, 7. Here, then, we find the psalmist, about four hundred years after the Israelites had been
* See Dr. Macknight on the Covenant with Abraham, whose ana.
lysis of the covenant we have mainly adopted.
19 
INFANT PAPTIST.
settled in Canaan, exhorting his countrymen to enter into
the promised rest. And Paul justly reasons thus:-" For
if Joshua had given them rest, then would he [the Spirit]
afterward [by the mouth of David] not have spoken of another time; [when they should enter into the rest which
the Scriptures promised.] There remaineth, therefore, a
rest to the people of God." Heb. iv, 8, 9. I consider Professor Stewart has hit the true sense:-" In David's time,
nearly five hundred years after unbelievers in the wilderness were threatened with exclusion from the promised
inheritance, the psalmist makes use of the commination
which has been quoted, in order to deter those whom he
addressed from hardening their hearts as the ancient Israelites did, and so losing the rest (as they did) which God
had proffered to the obedient and the believing. The rest,
then, could not be merely the land of Canaan, (as the Jews
of Paul's time understood it to be,) for this both believers
and unbelievers, living in the time of the psalmist, already
enjoyed. Consequently, the rest spoken of by the psalmist was of a spiritual nature, pertaining only to believers."*
And it was this spiritual and heavenly rest that was typified
and set forth in the promise, under the figure of the earthly
Canaan. And thus did Abraham understand it; for Paul
afterward declares that, "by faith, he sojourned in the
land of promise, as in a strange country.. for he looked
for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker
is God," Heb. xi, 9, 10, &c.
4.) The fourth particular in this covenant is thus stated:"I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and
thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting
covenant. And I will be their God."
This promise applies to Abraham and his natural descendants in its literal import. Thus, the chief advantage
of being a Jew was summed up in this statement:-" Unto
them were committed the oracles of God."  "To them,"
says Paul, more in detail, "pertaineth the adoption, and
the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law,
and the service of God, and the promises." Rom. iii, 1, 2,
and ix, 4. All the external blessings of the covenant belonged to the Jew. This was the peculiar privilege of
Abraham's natural descendants. The spiritual blessings
* Professor Stewart's Conmment. in loc.
20 
INFANT BAPTIS. 2.
belonged to themi not as Jetos, but as believers.  Thus was
God's covenant ever with Abraham, and with his seed
after him. But this is to be taken also in a higher sense.
The covenant of the Lord is with the spiritual seed of
Abraham, with all true believers. In this sense it is
truly an "everlasting covenant."
The promise that he would be a God to Abraham and to
his seed, implies that they shall know and worship the true
God, and that God will protect and save them.   This has
been fulfilled, in a general sense, in the Jewish nation,
but in a higher and more important sense in all genuine
believers,-the  spiritual descendants  of Abraham.   In
other words, it is the church proper, in all ages, to whom
this promise has been, and is to be, in its more eminent
sense, fulfilled. The deep meaning, then, of this part of
the covenant is sufficiently obvious without further remark.
5.) The last item we shall specify in this covenant is
contained in the following words:-" In thy seed shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed."
For a full understanding of this part of the covenant we
must go, as before, to the New Testament. \We are assured
by Paul that this refers to Christ, and is a promise that all
nations- should be blessed through him. His words are:
" Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.
He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one,
And to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal. iii, 16. Here,
then, is an end of all controversy respecting the proper
evangelical character of this covenant.   The authority of
inspiration has settled this question, and is against the
Baptists  in this matter.  But  furthermore,  the apostle
would be, if possible, more explicit.   He says, "And the
scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
(ra eOvq the nations) by faith, preached the gospel before unto Abraham,  saying, In thee shall all nations be
blessed," Gal. iii, 8.  Here, then, it is plainly asserted,
that when God promised to bless all nations through Abraham and his seed, he preached the gospel to that patriarch; that is, he revealed to him the plan of salvation
for all nations through Christ. Our Saviour says to the
Jews, "Your father Abraham  rejoiced to see  my day,
and he saw it, and was glad," John viii, 56. It was
in the light of this  covenant, and  especially  of this
2
1 21 
INNFANT BAPTISM.
promise, that Abraham obtained a view of the divine
Saviour.
Indeed, if we remove Christ, and the promise of pardon and eternal life through faith, from this covenant, we
shall array ourselves directly against the entire tenor of
Scripture. Paul expressly affirms, that "the covenant
was confirmed of God IN CHRIST;" and in another place,
"that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for
the truth of God, TO CONFIRM THE PROMISES MADE UNTO
THE  FATHERS; AND THAT THE GENTILES MIGHT  GLORIFY GOD FOR HIS MERCY," Gal. iii, 17; Rom. xv, 8, 9.
There is, in Heb. vi, 13-19, a remarkable declaration
of the apostle, with respect to the spiritual and evangelical
character of the Abrahamic covenant. After having alluded
to the oath which God made to Abraham, (Gen. xxii, 16,)
and to the general confirmatory nature of oaths among men,
he says: "On which account God, willing in the most
abundant manner to manifest to the heirs of the promise
[made to Abraham] the immutability of his counsel, [in
condescension to human ideas and customs,] interposed
with an oath: that by two immutable things, [namely, the
promise and oath of God,] in [either of] which it was
impossible for God to lie, we [the heirs of those promises,
which have been thus abundantly attested and confirmed]
might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge
to lay hold on the hope which [by the promise of this
covenant] is set before us." This I conceive to be the
true meaning of the passage, as the context, and the scope
of the apostle's reasoning, abundantly show.
The strictly evangelical character of this covenant is
further proved from the fact, that Abraham's faith, in its
several promises, was accounted to him for righteousness;
that is, as Paul's reasoning, in Rom. iv, 1-8, most unequivocally proves, by faith in the promises of this covenant,
Abraham obtained that justification, or state of pardon before God, that we now obtain through faith in Jesus Christ.
And the apostle there concludes his argument in the following manner:-" Now it was not written for his [Abraham's] sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us
also, to whom it [faith] shall be imputed, [for righteousness,] if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord
from the dead," Rom. iv, 23, 24.  Now, the plain teach
22 
TNFANT BAP'FIS$I.
ing of this scripture is simply this: that Abraham's faith,
and consequent righteousness, were the same as every
Christian's at the present day; and if this be so, it need
not be said the objects of Abraham's faith perfectly answered to those of the Christian's faith 1now. Clearer
testimony could not be adduced in proof of the real evangelical character of the Abrahamic covenant, and of the
faith which Abraham had in the promises of that covenant.
It was the "g ospel preached unto Abraham," and the faith
of that patriarch in those particular promises is exhibited
for our instruction and imitation. Heb. xi, 8-19. " Know
ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, THE SAME
are the children of Abraham.... And if ye be Christ's,
THEN are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs ACCORDING TO
THE PROMISE." Gal. iii, 7, 29. Such are the views we
are taught concerning the Abrahamic covenant by an
inspired apostle; and to his writings, and the general
light of the New Testament, we further commend the
inquiring reader.
This, then, is the first link in the chain of our argument.  It is the first position to be taken in defence of
infant baptism.   By this we  ascertain the date of the
church of God.  It is true, before this time "men began
to call on the name of the Lord," or, as it should probably
read, "to call themselves by the name of the Lord;"
(Gen. iv, 26;) but we have not sufficient intimation that
they were organized into a church proper before the time
of Abraham. After his day, allusions to the church, or
"people of God," everywhere abound.
SECTION IT.
1. There is a subject to which the reader's attention
must necessarily be directed, and with respect to which
his views should be enlightened; and we know not of a
more suitable place and time than the present for its discussion. We allude to the true design of the ceremonial
law, and the distinction between it and the Abrahamic
covenant. We are fully aware that, unless this point be
guarded, all our conclusions will be liable to be swept
away by a counter current of ignorant prejudice with
respect to the design of the former, and the common delit.
r-4) 3 
INFANT BAPTIS3I.
sion which prevails among superficial thinkers, that it was
identical with the church.   Nothing, however, can be
more unfounded, or foreign to the truth, than such an
impression. The church did not originate with Moses,
and its proper identity is not to be sought for in the ceremonial law. It existed before the ceremonial was given; it
still exists, though the latter has long since been abolished.
There is a proper theory which belongs to the dispensations of God, which it is of the highest importance to
understand. We are not to take their parts separately and
independently, or consider them as so many isolated facts,
unconnected with one harmonious, comprehensive, and
most wise and perfect plan.  The reasons for their variety
and number are not resolvable into any inscrutable, arbitrary will of Deity, but arise from the condition and relations of men; and though not always obvious to the superficial, the careless, and the skeptical, may yet be scanned,
in a great measure, by the diligent and humble inquirer.
"The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all thema
that take pleasure therein," Psa. cxi, 2.
We are not to suppose that all the laws enumerated and
enjoined in the Mosaical code took their origin at the date
of that code.  How many of the same were known and
practised by the patriarchs we cannot tell; but that many
were no more than republications of more ancient, or even
primitive laws, handed down by tradition, we have the
fullest evidence. Thus it was with the sabbath-day, with
bloody and unbloody sacrifices, with the distinctions of
clean and unclean beasts, and with circumcision. Moses
rather enlarged and improved the church ritual than originated it.  The great church charter was first given to
Abraham, but for a long time it appeared as a dead letter.
The time for its taking effect had not yet arrived.  Moses
at length executed it so far as its first stage of immunities
extended; and, "in the fulness of time," Jesus Christ
developed and matured the system.
The ceremonial law is, to this day, an enigma to many.
True, we understand many things respecting it; but its
true philosophy, its real design, seems not to be penetrated by many. We have room only for a few o0lines
of thought on this subject.  The strict necessity  or the
superaddition of the ceremonial law to the proper church
24
e
I 
INFANT BAPT'ISM.
charter is to be sought for in the condition of the human
mind, and of society, in these early ages.
1.) Paul says, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ," Gal. iii, 24. A rratda,ycyog paidagogos, translated here schoolmaster, was a
person who had the care of boys, to train them at home,
accompany them to the public school, &c.; so that, when
the apostle says the ceremonial law was our schoolmaster,
he means that, in the infancy of the human mind, God
placed the church under the care and guardianship of the
law, in order thereby to receive its elemental instruction
and discipline, preparatory to their coining to Christ.
Here, then, is the first grand reason for the introduction
of the Mosaic ritual,-the  human  mind  needed to be
taught the "elements of the doctrines of Christ."
The ignorance of men respecting the doctrines of revealed theology, which characterized those ages, and the
universal prevalence and power of a lewd, debasing idolworship, are not generally appreciated, even by the intelligent. It is difficult, now that we are enlightened, to
bring our thoughts back to those times, and form a just
estimate of the state of knowledge (or rather ignorance)
which then prevailed.  The modern missionary alone can
sympathize fully in this subject, and he feels the need of
some such simple, yet imposing economy, as that of Moses,
to lift the mind of the heathen from its depth of gloomy
ignorance.
Many particular individuals of very ancient times, as
Enech,  Noah, the patriarchs, Moses,  Job, and others,
partook not of the ignorance of the timnes.   But these are
only exceptions. Idol-worship annihilates all ideas of the
unity, power, wisdom, goodness, and especially of the
mnoral attributes of the Godhead. A late anonymous author
of a very ingenious work, entitled the "Philosophy of
Salvation," has taken the bold ground that the idea of the
holiness of God, with those of other doctrines, "had to be
originated, and thrown into the mind through the senses
by a process instituted for that express purpose." This
was doubtless thie fact with respect to the multitude.
True, the patriarchal system contained the elements of
truth, but the surrounding prevalence of a base, corrupting,
and licentious idolatry, together with the long servitude
25 
INFANT BAPTISMI.
in Egypt, had almost effaced the last vestige of divine
truth from the mind.  I cannot furnish a better specimen
of the ignorance of these times, than in the words of the
anonymous author above mentioned:  "At the period of the deliverance from Egypt," says
he, "every nation by which they were surrounded worshipped unholy beings. Now, how were the Jews to be
extricated from this difficulty, and made to understand and
feel the influence of the holy character of God? The
Egyptian idolatry in which they had mingled was beastly
and lustful; and one of their first acts of disobedience,
after their deliverance, showed that their minds were still
dark, and their propensities corrupt. The golden calf
which they desired should be erected for them was not
designed as an act of apostacy from Jehovah, who had
delivered them from Egyptian servitude. When the image
was made, it was proclaimed to be that God which brought
themn up out of the land of Egypt; and when the proclamation of a feast, or idolatrous debauch,* was issued by
Aaron, it was denominated a feast, not to Isis or Osiris,
but a feast to Jehovah; and as such they held it. Exod.
xxxii, 4, 5.  But they offered to the holy Jehovah the
unholy worship of the idols of Egypt. Thus they manifested their ignorance of the holiness of his nature, as
well as the corruption of their own hearts."t
How could such a people be made to understand the
holiness of God, and the consequent necessity of being
holy themselves? They were acquainted with no words
in their language to which the proper idea of holiness, as
now set forth in the Bible, was attached. Their own
* The meaning of the last clause of Exod. xxxii, 6, "They rose up
to play," is not obvious ill our English.  The word IU.   tsahak,
rendered play, "is of ominous import," like 7ratetv, laudere.  It
means, in general, spor-t, play, &c., with singing, leaping, laughing,
gambolling; childish sports. But when applied to heathen worship,
as here, and often when otherwvise applied, includes the idea of lewd.
ness. The children of Israel sat down to eat and drink, and rose up
to lewd, debauching sports. This word is translated "sporting" in
Gen. xxviii, 8, and "m ock" in Gen. xxxix, 14, 17. The reader can
see in what sense it is there used. See Gesenius on this word, and
also on l:Z; Dr. Robinson's Lexicon, Art. rat;(; Dr. A. Clarke's
comment on Exod. xxxii, 6.
t Philosophy of Salvation, p. 71.
26 
!NFANT'I' BAP'TIS.                                2
conceptions had never reached this sublime doctrine in
its maturity. All the worship with which they were
acquainted, as practised among other nations, was impure;
their gods were impure; and their own moral characters,
by a natural and inevitable process, assimilated to that of
the deities which they worshipped. How, then, could
the Israelites learn to form just-notions of the holiness of
God, the purity of his worship, and the consequent holiness required of his true worshippers?
"The plan to originate the idea must consist of a series
of comparisons.... In the outset, the animals common to
Palestine were divided, by command of Jehovah, into
clean and unclean; in this way a distinction was made,
and the one class, in comparison with the other, was
deemed to be of a purer and better kind. From the class
thus distinguished, as more pure than the other, was one
selected to offer as a sacrifice.  It was not only to be
chosen from the clean beasts, but, as an individual, it was
to be without spot or blemish. Thus it was, in their eyes,
purer than the other class, and purer than other individuals
of its own class. This sacrifice the people were not
deemed worthy, in their own persons, to offer unto Jehovah; but it was to be offered by a class of men who were
distinguished from their brethren, purified, and set apart
for the service of the priest's office. Thus the idea of
purity originated from two sources; the purified priest,
and the pure animal purzfed, were united in the offering
of the sacrifices.   But before the  sacrifice  could be
offered, it was washed with clean water-and the priest
had, in some cases, to wash himself, and officiate without
his sandals. Thus, when one process of comparison after
another had attached the idea of superlative purity to the
sacrifice,-in offering it to Jehovah, in order that the contrast between the purity of God and the highest degrees
of earthly purity might be seen, neither priest, people, nor
sacrifice was deemed sufficiently pure to come into his
presence; but it was offered in the court, without the holy
of holies. In this manner, by a process of comparison,
the character of God, in point of purity, was placed indefinitely above themselves and their sacrifices."*
* Philosophy of Salvation, pp. 75, 76.
27 
INIFANT' BAPTISiM.
Such, then, is a specimen of the processes by which
God conveyed to the minds of his peoplethose just conceptions of his character which are so peculiar to the
Bible. What we have adduced under this head is offered
merely as a specimen ofthe design and adaptations of the
ceremonial law; our limits forbid our pursuing this theme
at length.   By sensible signs Jehovah conveyed to the
Jews their ideas respecting their own depravity, their
guilt, pardon, sanctification, the divine holiness, justice,
mercy, power, wisdom, goodness; in a word, all the sublime truths revealed in the former dispensation. These
external symbols and ceremonies originated and assisted
their first conceptions of truth; afterward came the long
line of illustrious prophets, endowed with supernatural
penetration and wisdom, and expounded more fully the
spiritual sense of the "law," lifting the mind of the nation
through another ascending grade of divine knowledge.
And when, finally, by these external means, the principles
of theology were fully communicated; when the Jews had
so associated with other nations, by commerce, travel,
wars, but especially by colonizing themselves everywhere,
as to incorporate their elemental ideas of religion into
other languages, and in some sense to transfuse their own
principles into pagan systems of philosophy and religion;
when the human mind became thus, in a measure, prepared, and "the fulness of time had come, God sent forth
his own Son:"-the great "Teacher"-to abolish the elemental system, to mature those conceptions of truth, and
to complete the illumination of the human mind.
Thus, the machinery of the Levitical dispensation subserved a most important end; but, having originated just
conceptions of God and his worship, of man's character
and duty, these elemental principles'once mastered by the
mind, they could be easily taken and applied to various
subjects at will, while the external machinery which was
the means of imparting them could be dispensed with.
The people of God need- be "no longer under a schoolmaster;" they could now "leave the first principles of the
doctrine of Christ, and go on to perfection."  Nor could
the sublime truths of the Bible have been imparted to the
human mind by any other process, unless Jehovah had
altered the constitution of the mind.  But this has never
28 
INFANT BAPTISM.
yet been done to meet any exigency. All our abstract
ideas are derived primarily through the outward senses.
Whatever theories of philosophy may teach about intuitive
ideas, still it remains an unsophisticated fact, that our
knowledge all comes, primnarily, throtugh the outward
senses.  Hence, all primary words in all original langlages, though many of them  may now stand for abstract
ideas, originally represented sensible objects.   Hence,
children can be taught to comprehend abstract principles,
at first, only by sensible illustrations, and by the most easy
and simple processes; "so likewise we, when we were
but as children in minority, though we had the promise
and hope of the Messiah, were held in bondage under the
discipline of the law; in which we were employed in a
way suited to the imperfect circumstances of an infant
state, about worldly elements, or about those inferior things
which are like the letters of thie alphabet when compared
with that sublime sense which they may be the means of
teaching."*
The reader, then, will readily perceive that the ceremonial law was not the church charter, under the formner
dispensation; but only that temporary discipline and system of elemental instruction under which Jehovah placed
the church for a season.
2. The ceremonial law and the Abrahamic covenant are
not to be confounded. This will further appear from the
following considerations:  1.) Observe the different times of their institution.
From the date of the covenant, about A. M. 2083, (we
reckon from Abram's call, Gen. xii, 1, 2,) to the delivery
of the law on Sinai, A. M. 2513, we reckon four hundred
and thirty years. This is Paul's statement, Gal. iii, 17.
2.) In the covenant of Abraham, "all nations" were to
be blessed. It contained the gospel to the Gentiles (Gal.
iii, 8) as well as to the Jews.
On the contrary, the institutes of Moses were rather
adapted to a high spirit of nationality, and, I may say,
exclusiveness, among the Jews. One grand design of the
ceremonial law was to secure the distinct preservation of
the Jewish people until Christ should come.t In order to
* Doddridge's Expos. on Gal. iv, 3.
t' The danger of mixing with the rest 6f mankind was so great,
2*
29 
INFANT BAPTISM.
this, they must be kept from intermarriages with other
nations, and from copying their manners, or their religion.
To these ends the inexorable ritual of Moses was well
adapted. By giving to the Jews a ritual of a peculiar and
highly national character, burdensome, rigid, and inflexible,
"a middle wall of partition" between Jews and Gentiles
would be erected, and a complete separation preserved.
The Jews would not be likely to copy after the idolatrous
nations around them, nor the heathen after them, while
the great diversity of their respective rites rendered them
mutually odious to each other. Thus the Roman annalist
observes: " Moses established religious ordinances altogether new, and opposite to those of all other men and
countries. Whatever we [Romans] esteem holy, is with
them profane. Again, they permit many things as lawful,
which to us are forbidden and impure."   "The  Jews,"
says he, "are inflexible in their faith and adherence one
to another; but toward the whole race besides they retain
a deadly and implacable hate.... Jovial and gay were the
solemnities established by Bacchus: the Jewish rituals
are preposterous and rueful."'* This feature of Judaism
might easily and profitably be illustrated by many specific
cases, but our limits, and the proper line of our argument,
forbid.  Well might Paul call the institutes of Moses "the
enmity" between Jews and Gentiles, and the abolishment
of these institutes the "breaking down of the middle wall
of partition between them," Eph. ii, 14, 15. He elsewhere says, that the law "was ADDED" to the covenant,
"because of transgression;" that is, on account of the
propensity of the people to transgress, and to check that
propensity. This accounts for many peculiar severities
by which it was characterized. It was intended, among
other uses, as a punishment for,t atld a cure of, idol-worship.
that God ordered a mark to be made on the bodies of all descended
from Abraham, to be the seal of the covenant, and the badge and
cognizance of his posterity. By that distinction, and by their living
in a wandering and unfixed manner, they were preserved for some
time from idolatry; God intending afterward to settle them in an
instituted religion."'-Bishop Burnet's Exposition of the Thirty-nine
Articles, Art. 6.
* Tacit. Hist., lib. 5, c. 4, 5.
t See Mr. Wesley's Notes on Gal. iii, 19
30 
INFANT BAPTISMi.
3.) The ceremonial law is abolished, but the covenant
of Abraham is established in Christ.  The  former, no
Christian will deny.  The latter is expressly affirmed in
Rom. xv, 8; Gal. iii, 16, 17; and elsewhere.
Our argument does not permit us to pursue this subject
fuirther, nor is it necessary. Enough has been said to
enable the most unpractised reader to perceive that the
establishment, and subsequent abrogation, of the Mosaical
law. did not affect the covenant made with Abraham in
any sense whatever, further than as a temporary expedient
introduced for the better security of the final ends of that
covenant.  "The law cannot disannul the covenant," neither is it "against the promises." Gal. iii, 17, 21. The
reader should keep before his mind one general fact while
reading the epistles of Paul. The Jews had colonized
themselves in every part of the civilized world at the time
of Christ, so that wherever the apostles travelled they
found Jewish synagogues and services, and Jewish influence and prejudices, to oppose.   Besides, many of the
Ebionite or Nazarene Christians arose in different parts
in the first age of the church, and many of the Jews-the
deadly enemies of Christianity-travelled into different
parts, in order to subvert the infant churches planted by
the apostles, and bring the converts back to Judaism.
This rendered it necessary, in almost every epistle, to
enter into the controversy about the alleged obligation of
the ceremonial law. This the reader should keep in view
while reading the epistles, and a little care and attention
will supply him with correct information on the subjects
connected with that controversy.
SECTION I,II.
The preceding section may be regarded as a parenthetical topic, being partly a digression from our proper line
of argument,-a digression, however, rendered necessary
by the state of opinion, or rather prejudice, and designed
to remove any after objection that might arise in the
reader's mind against our conclusions.
Our next proper position relates to the substantial oneness, or identity, of the Jewish and Christian churches.
I say substantial oneness, because, although in many
31 
INFANT BAPTIS3M.
secondary and adventitious points they differ, still, in all
the essential features of the real church of God, they are
one and the same.  And here it is proper to admonish the
reader of the importance of this position. It is upon this
ground that we rest the weight of the Bible argument for
infant baptism. This position is the proper basis of evidence on which that institution rests for support, and
without which, all other arguments would still be wanting
in authority.  It is here we stand, as upon a rock, immovable, and plead and contend for the ancient and Scriptural rite of infant dedication to God, and for their special
right to the visible mark, or sign of the covenant. We
are not, however, as yet, prepared for those important
conclusions to which we are tending, and for which we
are striving gradually to prepare the mind of the reader.
I am apprised of the fact that some men  would totally
discard the Old Testament, and others view it as having
no necessary connection with the present dispensation of
grace to men. An impression seems to have gained ground
with many, that, at the appearance of Christ in the flesh,
and the establishment of the Christian church, Jehovah
passed a broad and final act of nullification upon all his
past acts -and plans, and, to use a homely phrase, "began
anew." Certain it is that some such undefinable impression, that has been imbibed without investigation, and
retained without authority or reason, but, in truth, against
evidence, has been allowed to operate peculiarly against
the conclusions and facts that have been urged in support
of infant baptism. A tide of ignorant and absurd prejudice
has thus been permitted to bear against the clear evidence
of reason and Scripture, which could never be resisted but
by such means, but which has thus proved powerless to
many minds.  It will be our aim to dissipate these miststo expose the absurdity of these vague, unfounded impressions-to trace the progress and perpetuity of the church
as it makes its transit from Moses to Christ-from the
ceremonial law to the gospel, and substantiate the present,
which, as we have observed, is the main position in our
general argument.  What was said under the first section
of this chapter applies also, with almost equal force, to the
proposition under this head.  It was our aim, in that place,
to prove that the true visible church originated in the family,
32 
INFANT BAPTISM.
of Abraham, and was formed under the covenant which
God made with that patriarch. It is 1now our business
to prove that the same church has been perpetuated
until this day-that it has been transferred to the Gentiles, or that the latter have been grafted into that original
stock.
1. The reader's attention is directed to the appellations
by which the church was anciently distinguished. We
shall not dwell largely upon this point, but it is worthy of
a place in the argument. The appellations given to the
church anciently are the same as now. God calls them
his "people;" his "sheep;" his "vine," or "vineyard;"
his " children;" his " elect," or " chosen;" " his own;"
his "sons and daughters;" his "church;" and also by
various other endearing and peculiar titles.
In Acts vii, 38, Stephen calls the Jewish people "the
church:"-" This (Moses) is he that was sv Srg Elcicata
en te ekklesia, in, or with, the church in the wilderness."
It is worthy of remark here, that although stcg).lta ekklesia is-the word by which the Seventy generally translate
~   kahal, (an assembly, congregation,* &c.,) yet the same
Hebrew word is also sometimes rendered, by the same
authority, by ovvay/yq, a public assembly, convocation,
&c.  But in the New Testament there is not the same
interchange of these two Greek words. But on the contrary, etKc?lata ekklesia is there uniformly used, when
applied to a religious assembly, to signify "church," meaning the Christian church; and ovvay&)y1 sunagoge is as
uniformly the word used to mean a Jewish assembly, or
synagogue. When, therefore, Stephen calls the Jewish
congregation in the wilderness "THE CHURCH," he uses
a word in the original that, according to the usus loquendi
in the New Testament, conveys the distinct and proper
* "The word'congregation,' as it stands in our version of the
Old Testament, (and it is one of very frequent occurrence in the
books of Moses,) is found to correspond in the Septuagint, which
was familiar to the New Testament writers, to ecclesia; the word
which, in our version of these last, is always rendered-not' congregation,' but' church.'  This, or its equivalent,' kirk,' is probably no
other than' circle;' that is, assembly, ecclesia."-A-Archbp. lVhateley
on " the KIingdom of Christ," p. 84, note.  "The disciples had been
brought up in the Jewish church, or (as it is called in the Old Testament) the congregation, or ecclesia."-Ibid., p. 69.
33 
INFANT' BAPTISM.
idea of the true visible Christian church.   The  word
etKitclAta ekklesia comes from the verb eitcKalEo ekkaleo,
which means to call out, and the people of God, or the
church, was called ekklesia, because they were called out,
or separated, from all the nations, so as to become a distinct and peculiar people. Now, such appellations could
not be fitly applied to the Jews, only on the principle of
their being the true visible church; and if the same distinguishing appellations which are employed in reference
to the Christian church apply with equal fitness to the
Jews, it strongly argues a similarity of character. Thus:
Psa. xxii, 22, " I will declare thy name unto my brethren;
in the midst of the CHURCH (5   kahal, e-icXnata ekklesia)
will I praise thee."  
In this passage the triumphs of the Redeemer are celebrated.   The  Saviour's passion is referred to in  this
psalm from verse 1 to 21, and then the victories of the
resurrection. The apostle quotes the passage Heb. ii, 12,
and gives it precisely this application, using the same
words. That the church proper, therefore, is here intended, is undeniable. Indeed, it is sufficiently obvious
from a comparison of the corresponding members of the
passage:-" I will declare thy name unto MY BRETHREN:
in the midst of THE CHURCH will I praise thee." Also in
verse 25: "My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation," that is, church. (The same Hebrew and Greek
words occur in this verse.) Dr. Coke says, the word
congregation, and the great congregation, (in verses 22
and 25,) "must refer to the whole body of the Christian
church."*
Psalm xl, 9: "I have preached righteousness in tilhe
great congregation," that is, the church. E(     / tKe ata.)
See also verse 10, where the Septuagint have rendered it
avva7&77y7q, synagogue.  Here also I apprehend Dr. Coke
has the true sense of the passage: "If," says he, "we
understand it to refer to Christ, as seems most proper,
then it must refer to the righteousness of God revealed by
faith, and made known by Jesus Christ to his CHURCH."
See also Bishop Horne on this psalm. These illustrations
of the use of etcKiata ekklesia we need not extend.
* Vide his Comment. in loe.
34
0 
INFANT BAPTISM.3
2. Matt. xxi, 43: " Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof."
The reader is requested to read the whole parable. He
will there findthe following doctrines taught, namely, 1. The
"kingdom of God," by which we are to understand the
visible church organization, with all its spiritual provisions
and promises, was given to the Jews. This is illustrated
by the figure of the" vineyard," which the "householder
planted," and which he "let out to husbandmen."  2. God
had sent his servants, the prophets, and finally his own
Son, to the Jewish people, to receive the testimonials of
their spiritual allegiance, and to encourage fruits of righteousness among them; but the former they ill-treated, and
the latter they " slew, and hanged on a tree." 3. In consideration of their extreme wickedness, God declared their
church rights and relations null and void-took from them
the ordinances-and transferred the church to the Gentiles:-" Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God
shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing
forth the fruits thereof." Here, then, was a direct transfer
of the  "kingdom'"-the  visible  church  charter-from
Jews to Gentiles. Whatever that was, essentially, that
distinguished the Jews as a religious body, it was "taken
from them,"'  and given  to another people.   Language
could not make the case more clear. The argument is
complete and irrefragable; the Jewish and Christian
churches are essentially one. The same doctrine is also
taught, chap. xxii, 1-10.
3. One principal object of Paul's letter to the Romans,
as also of the epistolary writings in general, was, to prove
that church privileges were no longer confined to Jews,
but were equally extended to Gientiles-that both Jews
and Gentiles held their relations to the visible church by
the same tenure-and that, therefore, there was no just
ground of jealousies, and disputes, and divisions, on this
subject.*
* " It is in the Epistles principally that we are clearly taught the
calling of the Gentiles to make one church with the Jews. Our
Lord, indeed, had intimated this glorious event in some general
expressions, and also in some  of his parables;  (see Matt. viii, 1;
,x, 1; Luke xv, 11, &c.;) and the numerous prophecies of the Old
35 
INFANT BAPTISM.
The  church at Rome was composed of Jewish  and
Gentile converts. The former considered, that, by reason
of their connection with Abraham by lineal descent, and
by the bond of circumcision,-their observance of the law
of Moses, and their exemption  from heathen  abominations,-they were, therefore, entitled to higher consideration than the latter. It was hereon that they had formerly
based their claims to being the true church, and also their
hopes of salvation. On the contrary, the Gentiles justly
considered that their own title to church privileges, and
their hopes of salvation, were not impaired by the absence
of these adventitious circumstances.  Other topics are
touched and discussed in the epistle, but I have alluded to
the principal occasion of its being written.
In meeting and obviating these discussions in the Roman
church, Paul first establishes the doctrine of our justification and sanctification through faith in Christ. This is a
principle of universal application to both Jews and Gentiles; it excludes boasting on the part of the Jew, and
removes despair from the breast of the Gentile. It places
all on an equal ground. The establishment of this position occupies the attention of the apostle manly, from
chap. i. to viii. of the epistle.
The second general position taken occupies chapters
ix, x, and xi, and relates to the call of the Gentiles, the
rejection and future restoration of the Jews.   Our present
argument does not require us to pursue the analysis of
this epistle any further, and we therefore call the reader's
attention to the propositions already laid down. The
principles laid down in these propositions, (so far as con
Testament, which foretell the calling of the Gentiles, were sufficient
to convince the Jews that, in the timnes of the Messiah, God would
reveal the knowledge  of himself and of'his will to the world more
fully than ever he had done before. But the extraordinary value
which they had for themselves, and the privileges which they fancied
were peculiar to their own nation, made them unwilling to believe
that the Gentiles should ever be fellow-heirs with the Jews of the
same body, or church, with them, and' partakers of the same promises in Christ by the gospel,' Eph. iii, 6.  This, Peer himself could
hardly be persuaded to believe, till he was convinced by a particular
vision vouchsafed to him for that purpose. Acts x, 28. And Paul
tells us that this was a mystery, which was but newly revealed to
the apostles by the Spirit, (Eph. iii, 5,) and therefore not fully disecovered by Christ before."1-orne's Int., part vi, ch. iii, ~ 2.
.36 
INIFANT BAP'rISM.
cerns our present purpose,) and carried out in the discussions, are clearly these:   1.) The Jews were the true church-the chosen people
of God.  They were the "elect," " beloved for their fathers' sakes."  "To them were committed the oracles of
God;"-to them pertained "' the adoption, and the glory,
and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the
service of God, and the promises." Rom. ix, 4, and xi, 28.
This is so plain that it needs no further notice.
2.) That God intended the ceremonial law, the rite of
circumcision, and the peculiar national blessings which
resulted to the Jews on the ground of their" election," and
of the righteousness of their forefathers-in fine, the
general exterior form of the church, as it subsisted under
the old covenant-to pass away at the conlingo of Christ,
and give place to the introduction of a new exterior model
and state of things.
3.) That in consequence of the Jews stubbornly persisting in the observance of their ancient rites, contrary to
the first intention of Jehovah, and, in a manner, to " frustrate the grace of God" through Christ; and also of their
great and extreme wickedness and impiety, in rejecting
the Messiah, and despising the gospel, God took from
them their church privileges as a nation, and not only
declared their national election null and void, but gave
them over to "blindness" and  unbelief"-leaving them
without the pale of his visible church. In this God acted
judicially, as the head and chief executive of the church.
4.) That in rejecting the Jews as a nation-that is, in
unchurching them-God made a distinction between the
holy and the unholy. In unchurching the nation, he did
not, indiscriminately, "cast away his people"-"a remnant was saved, according to the election of grace," chap.
xi, 1, 5.  This " remnant," called also "the  election,"
(verse 7,) God formed after the improved model of the
New Testament church. This he did not do by taking
them out of one church and putting them into anothernot by nullifying their old charter, and giving them a new
oneO-not by declaring their former relations void, and
forming them on a new basis; but simply by divesting
them of a cumbersome ritual-now grown obsolete-which
never constituted a primary element of their church corn
37 
I8INFANT BAPTISbI.
pact, and which, indeed, had been superadded to their
proper church constitution with a view simply to subserve
a temporary, yet important end, and introducing them to
new and enlarged privileges. Here, then, is the proper
state of the case. The Jews, as a nation, had been unchurched-in plain language, all the disobedient ones had
been excommunicated. But the Jewish church was not
destroyed.  The ceremonial law, and the rite of circumcision, had been abolished; but the Abrahamic covenant
-— the proper and original ecclesiastical charter-had not
been abrogated.   Most of the Jews had been rejected
personally; but all the Jews, universally, had not been
expelled. The branches, many of them, were broken off;
but the old stock remained. The apostle argues that the
church was no more destroyed by this general expulsion
of the Jews, than it was in the days of Elijah, when but
"seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to
Baal" could be found, while the rest were apostate.
Taking away some of the branches of a tree does not
impair its proper identity.  And what "if some of the
branches were broken off" from this "good olive-tree;"
is it therefore destroyed? By no means. Here, then, is
the proper nucleus of the church left-its original stock
remains-its identity is unimpaired; the converted Jews
who followed Christ and his apostles, however few in
comparison to the body that remained in unbelief, were
still the true visible church.
5.) Into this original stock-this primitive church-the
Gentiles were ingrafted. Whatever this original stock
was, into it, beyond all question, the Gentile converts were
ingrafted, and thus was the Gentile church formed. We
do not say that they were ingrafted on any limb of the
ceremonial law; but we do say that they were ingrafted
into the Abrahamic covenant, on which both the Old and
New Testament churches stand.  Thus reasons Paul:
"For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy; and
if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of
the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olivetree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest
of the root and fatness of the olive-tree; boast not against
the branches.   But if thou boast, thou bearest not the
root, but the root thee." Chap. xi, 16-18.
38 
INFANT BAPTISM.
Let us attend for a moment to these statements. The
word ayto9, holy, in verse 16, means devoted to God, set
apart for God, as by church relations, or religious rites,*
The  allusion to "first-fruits" and the  "lump;" to the
"root" and the "branches;" is for the purpose of illustration, intended to show that, as the whole harvest, or vintage, or mass of dough, was considered consecrated, when
a handful of either was first taken and offered, as a firstfruit, unto the Lord; so the Jewish nation was considered
consecrated by peculiar relations to God, onIL account of
the devotion of their ancestors.  "For if the first-fruit"that is, Abraham and the heads of the Jewish church —
"be holy,"-that is, were devoted to God-set apart by
church rites,-" the lump is also holy"-the entire mass
of the Jewish nation, their descendants, is also ecclesiastically separated, and devoted to the service of God; i' and
if the root be holy, so are the branches,"-that is, if the
progenitors of the Jewish family were brought into covenant relation to God, and consecrated thus, so are their
descendants.  The immediate point to which Paul is here
arguing is, that although the Jews had generally "fallen,"
and God had "cast them away," yet it was evident that
such was not the first intention of Deity. For as the
forefathers of the Jews were holy, so also should their
descendants be reckoned holy, and such God evidently
designed them to be; and in view of this obvious claim
which they might put forth to church privileges, they
ought to hope still for pardon and restoration.
But the apostle proceeds:-" And if some of the
branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree,
wert grafted in among them," &c.   Now, what is the
doctrine here taught? We answer, evidently, that the
Gentile church was not built up upon a new and separate
foundation from that of the Jews-but that they both stood
on the same ground. Nay, further, the figure is much
* In this sense the word is often used, merely to express a visible
church relation-a consecration, without necessarily implying moral
purity.   Thus, Luke ii, 23, " Every male that openeth the womb
shall be called holy unto the Lord;" that is, devoted to his service.
The iallusion is not made directly to moral character. Thus also the
Jews were frequently called a holy nation, and the temple and its
utensils holy.
39 
INF IANT BAPTISM.
stronger than this. It declares that the pious Jews and
the converted Gentiles were both branches of the same
stock, supported by the same root, and nourished by the
same sap. The Jews are the natural branches, and the
Gentiles were the scions cut from a foreign stock, and
grafted in among them.  But what was this natural stockthis "good olive-tree?"  According to Paul's own phraseology it was the church organization in Abraham's family.
The patriarchs, thus gathered into church relations with
God, were the "root" that supported both the "natural
branches"-their own natural descendants,- and also the
ingrafted branches-the converted Gentiles, or spiritual
descendants of Abraham. The figure is borrowed from
Jer. xi, 16, "The Lord called thy name a green olivetree, fair, and of goodly fruit."
Now, I am not aware that language can make the case
any plainer. I do not rest the force of the argument on
any peculiar construction put upon an obscure figurative
expression, but upon the obvious, natural force of the
apostle's argument, and the indisputable scope of his reasonling.  His entire argument hinges on the complete, substantial oneness of the Old and New Testament churches,
and in -defence of this position we may, therefore, with
propriety, cite the Epistle to the Romans.
4. The Epistle to the Galatians deserves, in the next
place, our candid and critical attention.
At an early day Paul had visited Galatia, and first
planted the gospel among the people in that province.
Afterward, a certain Judaizing teacher came among them,
inculcating the necessity of circumcision and obedience
to the ceremonial lawy. Many of the Galatians were
hereby induced to submit to circumcision, and go back to
the law of Moses, It should here be remembered, also,
that the church at Galatia was composed of Jewish and
Gentile converts, as was the case in most places where
the apostles founded churches.   The Judaizing teacher
above mentioned (some suppose there were many of
them) aimed to invalidate the apostolic authority of Paul,
and to bring him into contempt. The scope, therefore,
of the Epistle to the Galatians is, to assert the apostolical
authority of its author; the truth of his former doctrine;
to rectify the church in regard to errors concerning justifi
40 
INFANT BAPTISM.
cation by faith alone, the supposed obfigationt of the cere monial law, and of circumcision; and to bring back and
confirm the Galatians.in their allegiance to the gospel of
Christ.
The reader will understand that our future remarks on
this epistle will be confined to its immediate bearing on
the argument before us. The object of the apostle is to
prove that salvation, or righteousness, comes not by the
law, but by Christ.  In order to this,   1.) He establishes the doctrine of justification by faith,
and the impossibility of justification by the works of the
law. Chap. iii, 1-14.
2.) Paul asserts the immutability and perpetuity of the
Abrahamic covenant- its distinct and separate existence
from the Mosaic law- and the mere temporary character
of the latter.
On the immutable character of the Abrahamic covenant
the apostle holds the following language:-' Brethren, I
speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man's
covenant, yet if it be ratified, ov'det  dOea- t d't&taraca,erat, no man setteth aside or superadds;"-not the least
alteration is made to a covenant, or contract, after it is
duly signed by the parties.  And this rule obtains even
amoIIng erring men.. Let us, then, apply the illustration.
"Now, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.
He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one,
and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that
the covenant, which was ratified before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,
cannot make aKVpot  without effect, so as to render the promise unproductive, or useless," (carapyqat.)
Language could not mnake it more. plain, that the covenant which God made with Abraham, recorded Gen. xvii,
remains without the least alteration, and without the least
abatement of its original force.  It was once "ratified in
Christ," and no one may subtract, or superadd, or set
aside. The introduction of the Mosaic law did not at all
alter the covenant-did not render it without authority or
without action. The law was introduced for another purpose, and was not permitted to infringe upon the covenant,
so that, now that it is abrogated, the covenant remains, as
it has ever stood, "ordered in all things and sure."  "The
41 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
law was not against the promises of God," so as to either
nullify or supersede themn. Chap. iii, 15-21.
3.) Their church relations, rights, and privileges as
well as their hopes of pardon and salvation, were based
on the covenant, and not on the ceremonial law. This is
a point of so much importance to our general argument,
that we bespeak for it a candid and close attention. We
had intended to introduce this argument in another place,
but it cannot well be passed in this connection, and we
shall not attempt further to delay it. The church rights
of both Jews and Gentiles, under the New Testament,
were predicated of the Abrahamic covenant; and this
argument is exactly to our purpose.  It is proper to remark, that the extreme involution (so to speak) of the
argument renders it difficult to discuss its parts separately,
without seeming repetition. The reader will put on patience. The doctrine of the pending proposition is supported by the following proof:- 
(a.) This was the core and gist of the dispute between
Paul and the Judaizing teachers of Galatia. - The drift of
Paul's reasoning goes to show, if justification "come by
the law, then Christ is dead in vain;" that the true children of Abraham are not those merely who are of his
natural posterity, but those who are of faith; that it is by
faith in Christ that both Jews and Gentiles become one;
that the Abrahamic covenant contemplated this union, and
made special provision for it; and that the removal of the
ceremonial law gave place to the full development of the
gracious provisions of that covenant.
In chap. iii, 18, Paul says, " For if the inheritance be
of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to
Abraham by promise."  The "inheritance" here spoken
of is put for church rights and privileges, both spiritual
and ecclesiastical.  To these the Jews put forth an exclu sive claim, in virtue of their natural descent from Abraham,
and of their observance of the law of Moses. But Paul
says that these do not belong to the "law," but to the
"covenant."  " God gave them to Abraham by promise."
If, then, church rights, and spiritual blessings, are to be
predicated only of the covenant, and if that covenant con teinplated the conversion of Gentiles as well as Jews, in it the gospel being preached before unto Abraham,
42 
INFANT BAPTISM.
then it follows that this exclusive plea of the Jews is
without foundation. This hits the point of the controversy
at that time going on in the Galatian churches; and this
proves that church rights are, and ever have been, predicated of the covenant.  In order-to be "heirs according
to the promise," they must, whether Jews or Gentiles, be
"Abraham's seed," according to the evangelical import of
tnat phrase; and in order to this, they must "be Christ's."
Verse 29. 
(b.) By a striking "allegory," illustrative of "the two
covenants;" the one, the covenant made with Abraham,
and the other the covenant of the ceremonial law, the
apostle clearly asserts, "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was,
are the children of promise."  This is a clear and unequivocal declaration of church rights on the ground of the
Abrahamic covenant. Gal. iv, 21-28.
(c.) In chap; iv, 1-6, Paul informs the Jewish converts
that God had formerly dealt with the church as a parent
would with a minor;-he had placed the church under a
guardian. This guardian was the ceremonial law. It was
called a " schoolmaster," (7atldayyo~, a teacher of children, a pedagogue,) a "tutor" and "governor," (esrtro7roo
gcat oticovolo%  a guardian and steward.) Chap. iii, 24,
and v, 2.
It was the custom of the Greeks and Romans to place
their children, in early life, under a private tutor, or overseer, whose business it was to instruct them; to direct all
their gymnastic exercises; attend them in all their walks;
protect them from harm; cultivate and form their manners
and habits, &c.  and, in fine, to do all for them that their
age,  circumstances,  and destination  required.   These
pedagogues, or family teachers, are alluded to above.
The apostle very properly says, "tlhat the heir, as long as
he is a child, di#ereth nothing from a dovzov slave, though
he be lord of all  but is under tutors and governors until
the time appointed of the father.   EvEN  so WE, WHEN
WE  WERE  MINORS, V7ro Ta a'otxeta Tov iToa(tov  ItEV
d-edovLwlivot were in subjection under the rudiments of the
world." This last sentence is full of obscurity to a common English reader.  The sense is this:-" During the
period of our [Jewish] minority we were subjected, by the
appointment of God, to that discipline and economy (the
43 
Mosaic law) which, by reason of its feeble light, may be
called rudimental, and, by reason of its numerous external
and bodily ordinances, may be termed worldly, or terrestrial."  The apostle continues:-" But when the fulness
of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a
woman, made under the laW, to redeem them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons."
Now, if we analyze this figure, we shallfind it to contain the following doctrines:  [1.] The  church relations of the Jews subsisted antecedently to the Mosaic law, and independently of it. It
must be remembered that the heirship spoken of, verse 1,
has strict and special reference to the title of Jews to
church privileges. The Jews were brought into a family
comnpact-they were made children-and God himself
became their " Father"-long before the giving of the
ceremonial law.  It was in virtue of these relations that
God exercised full paternal authority over them; and by
an exercise of this authority he placed them under the law
as their tutor. Had not these relations previously subsisted, God had not exercised this control; but as the
divine -purposes, in reference to the introduction of the
gospel, were to be kept "hid for ages and for generations,"
-as the full time for the manifestation of God in the flesh
was, as yet, far distant-and as the church, till that period,
were regarded as in a state of nonage,- it was deemed fit
and prudential, by infinite wisdom, to place his children
under a "schoolmnaster, that he  might  bring them  to
Christ."
[2.] The church of God, before the law was introduced,
and since it has been abolished, is one and identical.
MWhen pious Jews were admitted to New Testament privileges, it made  no other' change in them, in respect to
church relations and rights, than to advance them from
the "rudiments" of Christianity, as taught in the law of
Moses, to the sublime and perfect developments of that
divine science.  Under the New Testament, the church
is taken from under the guardianship or tutorage of Moses,
and put under that of Christ; but it is the same church.
It advances from minority to full age-from the state of
heirship to the possession of the inheritance. But do
4,1
INFANT BAPTIS,)L 
INFANT BAPTISM.
these changes at all affect the identity of the church?  By
no means. The identity of the heir is not affected by his
coming into the inheritance. The identity of the minor
is not affected by his coming at full age.  The identity
of the child is not affected by his being placed under a
tutor, and afterward returned again to the direct care and
benedictions of the father. The proper oneness of the
church is not affected by its being first placed, by parental
authority, under Moses, and afterward taken again and
placed under Christ. There may be stages in its im provements; changes in its ritual; variations in the exter nal form of its worship, and of its ordinances; but its
doctrines, fundamentally, remain the same in all ages of
the world, and the same, also, remain the spirit and design
of its institutions.
(d.) In Acts iii, 25, Peter, in his address to the Jews,
uses the following language:-" Ye are the children...
of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying
unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of
the earth be blessed."
It is sufficient to remark here, that, by virtue of the
Abrahamic covenant, the Jews were placed in an attitude
directly to receive all the spiritual blessings of the gospel
ofChrist; and thus Peter immediately adds, " Unto you
first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless
you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."
If this be not a declaration of church rights and immunities, on the ground of the covenant of Abraham, then can
we not understand the language.
5. In further proof of the substantial oneness of the
Jewish and Christian churches, we call the reader's attention to the Epistle to the Ephesians. The design of this
epistle is to prove, or rather to illustrate, the fact that
Gentiles were entitled to equal privileges with Jews, and
that both were one in Christ. Paul was called to be an
"apostle of the Gentiles," to "preach among the Gentiles
the unsearchable riches of Christ." In this capacity he
firmly stood in defence of their spiritual rights-maintained
their equality to the Jews, arguing from the genius and
evident design of the Abrahamic covenant, as well as of
the law of Moses-and eloquently plead and wrote against
the present recognition of all such distinctions as were
3
45 
INFANT BAPTISM.
involved in Jewish rites. But in this noble work he encountered great persecution. At the time of his writing
the Epistle to the Ephesians he was actually a prisoner at
Rome, detained there under chains, through the influence
of Jewish persecutions, and for asserting the spiritual and
ecclesiastical rights of Gentiles.   Under these circumstances, it might well be supposed that in his address to
the Ephesians he would make some pertinent allusions to
Gentile rights. The church at Ephesus was composed
mostly of Gentiles, and these, Paul feared, might be tempted to doubt that the strong ground he had taken in their
favour was tenable, when they saw him pursued thus
fiercely by the persecuting spirit of Jewish bigotry, and
suffering in a dismal Roman prison. These facts, we
say, prepare us to expect and to explain the many clauses
and paragraphs in the epistle relating to the subject of our
present discussion. We notice, first,  Chap. ii, 11-22: "Wherefore remember, that ye being
in time past Gentiles in the flesh,... that at that time ye
were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth
of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world: but now,
in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometime were far off, are made
nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who
hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle
wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh
the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man,
so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto
God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity
thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were
afar off, and to them which were. nigh. Now, therefore,
ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens
with the saints, and of the household of God; and are
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in
whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto
a holy temple in the Lord: in whom also ye are builded
together for a habitation of God through the Spirit."
We cannot, perhaps, give the reader a better general
view of these passages than by transcribing the paraphrase
of Dr. Macknight:
46 
INFANT BAPTrISMl.
" 1]. Wherefoire, to strengthen your sense of God's
goodness in saving you, and of the obligation he hath
thereby laid on you to do good works, ye, Ephesians,
should remember, that ye were formerly Gentiles by natural
descent, who are called uncircumcised and unholy, by that
nation which is called circumcised with a circumcision made
with men's hands on the flesh, and which esteems itself
holy on that account, and entitled to the promises.
"12. And that ye were at that time without the know ledge of Christ, being by your idolatry alienated from the
Jewish nation, which alone had the knowledge of his
coming, and of the blessings he was to bestow, and unac quainted with the covenants, namely, that made with Abraham, and that made with the Israelites at Sinai, twhichl
promised and prefigured Christ's coming to bestow these
blessings: so that ye had no sure hope of the pardon of sin,
nor of a blessed immortality; and were without the knowledge and worship of God, while in the heathen world.
" 13. But now in the Christian church, ye whoformerly,
after ye had attained the knowledge of the true God, were
obliged to worship in the outward court of the temple, far
off from the symbol of the divine presence, are brought
nigh to God, and to the Israelites, in your acts of worship,
through the death of Christ, whereby ye are entitled to all
the privileges of the people of God.
"14. For he is the author of our good agreement, who,
by dying for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, hath
made both one people of God, and hath broken down the
law of Moses, by which, as by the middle wall of separation in the temple, the Jews were fenced in as the people
of God, and all others were excluded from that honour.
15. And hath abolished, by his death in the flesh, the
cause of the enmity between thie Jews and Gentiles, even
the commandments of the law, concerning the ordinances of
circumcision, sacrifices, meats, washings, and holy days;
which being founded-in the mere pleasure of God, might
be abolished when he saw fit.  These ordinances Jesus
abolished, that he might create Jews and Gentiles under
himself as head, (chap. i, 23,) into one new man, or church,
animated by new principles; thus making peace between
them:
"16. And that he might reconcile both in one body, or
47 
INIFANT IIAPTISM.
visible church, to God, through the cross, having slain the
cause of their enmity to God by it; that is, slain the sinful
passions both of the Jews and Gentiles, which were the
cause of their enmity to God;* by his death on the cross.
"17. And to accomplish  our reconciliation  to God,
coming by his apostles, he brought good tidings of peace
withl God, to you Gentiles who were far off from God, and
to us Jews who were nigh to him as his people by prolession.
" 18. Therefore through him, as our high priest, we,
Jews and Gentiles, have introduction, (chap. iii, 12,) both
of us, by one Spirit, to the Father of the universe, to worship with the hope of being accepted.
"19. Well then, being formed into one church with the
Jews, ye Ephesians are not now strangers to the covenants
of promise, nor sojourners (see ver. 12) among the people
of God; but ye are joint citizens in the city of God with
the Jews, and belonging to the temple of God, as constituent
parts thereof;
"20. Being built equally with the Jews, upon thefound ation of the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, (see
chap. iii, 5,) Jesus Christ himself being the bottom corner stone, by which the two sides of the building are united,
and on which the whole corner rests:
"21. By which chief corner-stone, the whole building
being fitly joined together, as the walls of a house by the
corner-stone in the foundation, groweth, by the accession
of new converts, into a holy temple for the Lord Jesus to
officiate in as high priest.
"22. In which temple, ye Jews also are builded together
with the Gentiles, to be a habitation for God, not by any
visible symbol of his presence, as anciently, but by the
indwelling of the Spirit, who is bestowed on you, in the
plenitude of his gifts, both ordinary and extraordinary."
The italicised words in the above denote Dr. Mac knight's translation of the text.
* The "enmity" here spoken of is not merely the natural enmity
of the heart against God, but particularly that hatred which subsisted
between Jews and Gentiles; each regarding the other with a religious abhorrence. This mutual animosity was a great barrier to the
benign purposes of the gospel, and was aggravated by the peculiarities
of the Jewish rites.
48 
INFANT BAPTISM.
In further noticing this passage, the reader's attention
is solicited to the following particular views which are set
forth in it:  1.) The religious state of Jews and Gentiles, before the
coming of Christ.
(a.) The Jews are represented as having had a complete ecclesiastical charter; as being brought together in
one  c)rporate, religious body.   They are called "' r7q
wrottr~eta  the commonwealth."   A  commonwealth  is  a
community of persons united together under a form of
government, and regulated and protected by established
laws. No figure, therefore, could set forth the fact of
their ecclesiastical incorporation,-or, in other words, of
their true visible church constitution, by the appointment of
God, more clearly than this. Their ecclesiastical charter,
or church constitution, was the " covenants of promise;"
namely, that made at first with Abraham, which was further illustrated, and secured in its gracious benefits in
after days, by that of the law made at Sinai.
(b.) On the contrary, the Gentiles are represented all
along as " a7rq]Yorptw!evot being alienatedfrom this commonwealth of Israel."  At the same time, and in consequence of their being in the state of aliens from the visible
church-the  spiritual  commonwealth-they  were  also
strangers to the gracious promise of life eternal, which
was contained in the covenant of Abraham, and adumbrated in that of the law, and were destitute of all hopes
of pardon, the resurrection, and eternal life, living in a
godless condition. Ver. 12. It is hence, in ver. 17, the
Gentiles are denominated'otl ItaKpav the foreign, while
the Jews are called Crot C'Yvg the nigh; that is, citizens.
(c.) Previous to the coining of Christ, the Jews and
Gentiles were in a state of mutuial enmity.  The Jews
regarded the Gentiles with deep religious abhorrence;
and the Gentiles as cordially hated the Jews, and abominated their institutions. It is not necessary here to enlarge
upon his point.  But,
2.) W'hat was the religious state of Jews and Gentiles
after the coming of Christ? We speak more particularly
in reference to their visible church rights and privileges,
and of their mutual former animosities.
(a.) The Jews, that is, those of them who believed in
49 
INFAN, RT BAPTISM.
the Messiah and embraced Christianity, remained as the
true church.   No essential alteration was made.   They
were already " THE NIGH," " THE COMMONWEALTH," " THE
HOUSEHOLD OF GOD," "THE CITIZENS," &C.   No alteration was necessary, when they had embraced the Saviour,
save, inasmuch as the ceremonial law was abolished, to
so remodel the external form of the church as to suit it to
the genius of the new dispensation. The apostle, therefore, speaks of no essential change effected in the condition of Jews in this respect. They still remain upon the
same foundation, and are considered as having all along
made a portion of the true building.
(b.) Not so the Gentiles. A total and essential change
is wrought in their condition, both spiritually and ecclesiastically. They, who once were "the far off," are now
made "the nigh;" they who were once "strangers" and
"aliens," are now made " fellow-citizens with the saints,
and of the household, or family, of God." This last clause
deserves a special notice.  It is said the Gentiles are
made avtiro  trat  (-v 6ayt(tv joint citizens with the saints.
But who are the saints? The word a6ytoq, rendered saint,
is an adjective, and signifies holy, consecrated, &c. Of
course the noun eOvog (or Laos) people must be understood
after it. It would then read, "joint citizens with the holy
people, or nation." Now, how clear is this expression!
It teaches us that the Jews-," the holy, or consecrated
people"-were, beforehand, denizens of the city of God,
that is, lawful members of the church; and that the Gentiles were "brought nigh," and made to share with the
Jews in these glorious privileges. The apostle's address
was to the Gentiles, whom he wished to encourage to
steadfastness by the exhibition of these blessed prospects
and promises; and the point to bd illustrated and settled
was, their perfect coequality with the Jews, on the score
of church rights and spiritual prospects. This coequality
was effected, not by alienating the Jews from their former
privileges as thle people of God, but by incorporating the
Gentiles into their fraternity, and thus naturalizing these
"aliens" and " foreigners."   So, says Paul, they now
olZcetot -ov Oeov belong to the house, orfamily, of God, and
are no more strangers.  Can any thing be more plain or
satisfactory, or more to the point in question?  Most un
50 
INFANT BAPTISM.
deniably there was a city, and to it belonged "citizens;"a "commonwealth," a "household," a "holy," or "consecrated people," before the introduction of the gospel. And
to this city the Gentiles are brought and denizenized; to
this commonwealth they are introduced and naturalized;
in this household they are incorporated as lawful, integral
members; and are made joint participators, with this consecrated people, in the ecclesiastical and spiritual privileg,es of the gospel.
But if the constitution of the church, as it subsisted
under the law, was dissolved- if the Jewish church was
taken and planted on a new foundation-if they were thus
(as they plainly must have been) disfranchised, and if the
old family compact-or "household of God"-was broken
up, and a new church formed at the coming of Christif this were so, then, we ask, where is the propriety or justness of the above phraseology? In what sense could the
Jews be said to be -rotq ~y-v  the nigh, if they were disfranchised, unchurched, and destitute of any ecclesiastical
rights? And how could the Gentiles be called rotq uacgpav
the far of, if they were no further off than the Jews, that
is, if both Jews and Gentiles were alike destitute of any
church character? The entire force of the apostle's reasoning turns upon this view, namely, that the Jews had
a church character, which, in the case of all those who
embraced Christ, was never lost, while the Gentiles, from
immemorial days, were alienated from God and never
possessed such a character, till, under the gospel, they
were brought and incorporated into the ancient spiritual
commonwealth. It should be remembered that what Paul
here says of Jews, he says of them as Jewus, and not
merely as individuals.  He speaks to the abstract question
of Jewish prerogatives. What he says of the Gentiles,
also, is in this abstract light, as Gentiles, and not merely
as Ephesians. The importance of this suggestion need
not be reiterated to an intelligent mind.
(c.) The complete, substantial oneness of the Old and
New Testament churches, is clearly proved by the figure
of a building, employed in verses 20-22.  It is there
stated that converted Jews and converted Gentiles "are
builded together for a habitation of God by his Spirit."
The church, thus contemplated under the figure of an
51 
INFANT BAPTISM.
edifice, rests upon the foundation of the doctrine inculcated
by "the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner-stone." A word of explanation is due
here. The prophets were the oral and living expositors
of the Old Testament dispensation to the Jews. That
dispensation did not originate in the prophets. They were
merely the ministers of God to expound and enforce the
doctrines of the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic law.
Through them the true light of the Old Testament dispensation displayed itself; and it is hence they are said to be
the "foundation," &c.  So also the apostles.  The New
Testament did not originate in them. They were rather
sent to explain more in detail the doctrines and precepts
of Christ, and to inculcate them upon the people.   In
them, therefore, the New Testament light was more fully
displayed. But between the apostles and prophets there
subsisted the most perfect congruity. The foundation of
the church, therefore, was not laid in the apostles. It did
not comminence with them, or in their day. The church
of God first rested "upon the foundation of the prophets;"
that is, on the doctrines expounded and inculcated by
them. This is the foundation that God himself has laid,
and which he has enlarged and strengthened under the
apostles. The principal corner-stone in this foundation is
Jesus Christ; that is, the doctrine of the atonement, or
Christ crucified. Here, again, we are brought back to the
doctrine of the substantial oneness of the church, as it
subsisted under the old, and afterward under the new
covenant. Nor can the attentive reader fail, as he passes
a candid criticism upon the phraseology and figurative
language of Paul, of being convinced of the verity and
soundness of this view. In vain do men say the Mosaic
law is abolished: this we readily concede, but allege that
this was not a dissolution of the charter of the Old Testament church. That charter was the Abrahamic covenant.
In vain are we told that the Jewish nation was rejected,
and disfranchised. This we concede. As a nation they
were unchurched; but the "foundation" was not overthrown; a nucleus of the Jewish stock, namely, those
who embraced the Messiah-" the election"-(Rom. xi, 7)
still remained, and God built up these, together with converted Gentiles, on the old basis, "the foundation of the
52 
TNFANT BAPTISSi,
apostles and prophets," Christ being the principal stone in
the foundation. Here, then, is the proper unity of Jews
and Gentiles.  But more on this point in another place.
6. The Epistle to the Colossians was written about the
same time of that to the Ephesians; that is, about A. D. 62,
while Paul was a prisoner at Rome. The design of both
these epistles was the same, namely, to guard the churches
against the influence of Judaizing teachers, and confirm
them in their adherence to the gospel of Christ. There
are, consequently, many points of resemblance between
them, particularly in relation to the subject under discussion. The reader is requested to keep these facts in
view as he peruses the Epistle to the Colossians, especially the third chapter. He will find the epistle to corroborate our position; but we do not design to notice it at
length.
7. We call the reader's attention to the language of the
third chapter of Hebrews. WVe insert only verses 1-6.
"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly
calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; who  was faithful to him  that appointed him; as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
For this man is counted worthy of more glory than Moses,
inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more
honour than the house. For every house is builded by
some man; but he that built all things is God. And
Moses was verily faithful in all his house, as a servant,
for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken
after; but Christ as a son over his own house; whose
house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the
rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end."
1.) The first thing the reader is to notice here is, that
the church of God is compared to a house. This same
figure is elsewhere employed. So Peter says:-" Judgment must begin at the house (otiKov) of God," 1 Pet. iv, 17.
Paul also says: "That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house (oti,K) of God, which is
the church ("ticlata) of the living God," 1 Tim. iii, 15.
This figure came into use according to a very common
and a very natural law of language, and is of frequent occurrence in the Old Testament Scriptures. It was very
natural to call the Jews, as a religious body, the house, or
53
340 
IN-PA\T n'BAPTTSM.
temple of God, from the circumstance of their necessary
connection with, and constant worship in the temple, or
house of God at Jerusalem.
2.) There is but one "house" spoken of in the above
passage from Hebrews; and in this house Moses acted
as a "servant," and Christ as a "son," or Lord.  I am
aware that the present state of the English text would not
be likely to convey this view, while ignorance and carelessness serve to confirm many in what I deem to be a
wrong impression. In setting before the reader what I
deem to be the true light of this passage, and its just bearing on the question under discussion, I observe,  (a.) The proper antecedent of the pronoun aVwov, " his,"
in ver. 2, must first be settled.  "In all his house."  In
all whose house? The order of the words in the text
might seem to indicate that this intended Moses' house;
but this is far from being the truth, as Moses is here contemplated in the light of a servant, not a proprietor or lord.
This pronoun, then, evidently refers back to dvrov, him,
that is, God, in the same verse, or else to XPtarov'Iq7ovv,
Christ Jesus, in ver. 1, considered as God.   This is evident; for ver. 2 is a quotation from Num. xii, 7, where
God says, "My servant Moses is faithful in all P.=.. bethi,
MY house."  In God's house, or church, then, Moses acted
as a servant.
(b.) To the same original noun (God) must be referred
the same pronoun avrov his, and also the relative o0 hou,
whose, in ver. 6. It is to be observed that our English is
not a fair transcript of the originial. It does not read otiov
avrov oikon hautou, his own house, as our version has it,
but otiov a'roV oikon autou, his hoiise.*  The difference,
which will readily be seen by the critical reader, is exactly to our purpose.  Indeed, the comparison between
M~oses and Christ, upon which the argument of Paul is
foiinded, requires the sense we are contending for. Christ
is represented as being faithful to the same person, (the
Father,) as a son, to whom Moses was faithful as a servant;
also Christ is represented as being ert 7oV Ocov a7'0ov
ovEt his (that is, God's) house, as master, or ruler; while
~Moses is represented as being faithful ev bxoT() ~-(o ot(o:N
e See Pr,fessor S'imtarl's C.nm. in loc.
DA 
INFANT BAPTISM.
all his (that is, God's) house, as a servant. But it was the
same house, or church, for the apostle immediately adds,
ver. 6, "o'v otcog  etev s   te.  WHOSE  HOUSE  ARE WE."
The doctrine, therefore, which we would deduce from this
passage may be expressed by giving to verses 5 and 6 the
following sense:-" Now Moses truly was faithful in all
God's church, as a servant, conforming in every particular
to the instructions which he received from God, relative
to the formation of the tabernacle, and the Jewish ritual,
&c., because these things were to stand for a declaration
of those things which were afterward to be spoken by Christ
and his apostles; but Christ as a son over this same church,
which church are we, provided we hold fast unto the end our
confidence and joyful hope."* But the true force and bearing of the 6th verse may not readily be perceived. I understand the apostle as affirming the church membership
of his Hebrew brethren, under the gospel, on a certain
condition, namely, " IF they held fast their confidence," &c.
It is, therefore, with great propriety that he breaks off from
the subject for a time, to warn and exhort his brethren
against failing to attain to this privilege.  In this caution
he represents the position of the Jews of his day, in reference to the gospel, as being similar to that of their forefathers, when they stood in Kadesh Barnea. They then
stood upon the borders of Canaan, and might have entered
in, but their "confidence" in God failed them, and they
were rejected. Paul's Hebrew brethren now stood in the
very borders of the gospel dispensation,-the New Testament privileges being before them. If now they will leave
Moses, and come to Christ, they shall retain their membership,-they shall be made "partakers of the benefit,"
for which they have so long hoped.  "Therefore," says he,
"harden not your hearts, as in the day of temptation in the
wilderness;" "for," continues he, "we are made partakers
of Christ," that is, we enter into the inheritance of gospel
blessings, and become members of the church under its
new model, of which he is the Head, or over which he is
the son, "provided we hold fast to the end those first-fruits
of our faith," which we gathered under the former dispensation, and also (compare verse 6)" retain the confidence
and joyful hope now revealed in the gospel." So I under                 * See Stuart's Corn. in loc.
55 
stand -rv jpXiv Arc  trroaraaewq, translated in our English
the beginning of our confidence.  Here dpxqv the beginning,
or first, appears to be put for a'ragxqv first-fruits, as in
the margin of Griesbach's Testament, and as the tenor of
the apostle's argument seems to purport. He teaches his
Hebrew brethren that they had gathered the first-fruits
of gospel blessings under the old dispensation. Now,
says he, if we retain these "first-fruits,"-this "beginning of our faith,"-walking according to its true light, we
shall be led to Christ, who will mature it, and give us a
"confidence and bold rejoicing;" (ver. 6;) all which, if
we hold fast, will justify us in the profession of being the
house, or church, of God. Those Jews, therefore, who
lived up to the spirit and teachings of their dispensation,
were thereby brought to Christ; whom, if they embraced,
they were still reckoned on as the true visible church;
"whose house are we," &c. 
Such, then, is a specimen of the evidence afforded to
the doctrine of the substantial oneness of the Old and New
Testament churches.  It is not necessary further to prolong these already lengthy arguments: enough has been
said to settle the question. Whoever attends to the teachin-g of Scripture on this subject, with any degree of candour and intelligence, must feel convinced that the New
Testament dispensation is nothing else than a completion
of those gracious designs which were sketched in their
outlines before the eye of faith, in former ages. Christ
* It is agreeable to the original to read ver. 14, "If we preserve
the first state of our faith steadfast to the end." It is thus apxr
arche is rendered Jude 6,-" And the angels which kept not rnv
tavrov bpx%,v their own first estate." And this first state of the
faith of the Hebrew brethren I take to mean Judaism, not in its cere
rnonial, but in its spiritual character. In Heb. vi, 1, this same word
should be translated "first principles," instead of "principles;" it
being put for croiXeta rAd a'PXfn first principles in chap. v, 12. But
most clearly these " first principles of the doctrines of God" are de.
finied to be those simp'er and more elemental truths, which, as they
belonged to an inferior state of knowledge, characterized an inferior
dispensation. True, the Hebrew brethren were exhorted to leave
them, and "go on to perfection;" but this does not mean to abandon
them,-to cast them away,-as they did the ceremonies of Moses.
They were only to advance beyond their limits to more mature know
ledge; still holding fast to their light, and "walking by the same
rutle." —Vide Dr. Peck's Lectures on Christian Perfection, Lecture I.
56
INF.A.NT BAPTISlf. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
was then, as now, the grand object of faith and worship,
and the end of all their rituals. By symbols, and various
external representations, they were taught the same truths
by which the Christian disciple is now made wise unto
salvation.  "To them was the gospel preached, as well as
unto us."  To them "God spake at sundry times, and in
divers manners, by the prophets," but now hath he "spoken
unto us by his Son." What the prophets then spoke, is
now fulfilled unto us.  "Christ came, not to disannul the
law, or the prophets," in the true import of their teaching,
"but to confirm" our obligations to believe their doctrines,
and obey their rules. The high adaptation of the Jewish
economy to promote the faith and practice of true religion
is everywhere alluded to in the New Testament, and is
traceable in the exemplary piety of many of their illustrious progenitors and countrymen, of whom it is said,
"They all died in faith,-of whom  the world was  not
worthy."  Words need not be multiplied further.  God
has never had but one visible church in the world, so far
as regards identity of doctrine, and similarity of spirit and
practice; although in regard to external form, and the degree of light enjoyed, there obtains a distinction.
CHAPTER II.
ORDINANCE OF INITIATION.
THE INITIATORY RITE OF THE CHURCH UNDER THE OLD
TESTAMENT-ITS APPLICATION TO INFANTS.
1. THE ceremony itself, by which members were inducted
into the church under the Old Testament dispensation, was
circumcision.  "This is [the token of] my covenant,"
saith God to Abraham, "which ye shall keep, between
me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-child
among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise
the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the
covenant betwixt me and you.  And he that is eight days
57 
INFANT PAPTIS.1
old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in
your generations.... And the uncircumcised  man-child,
whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul
shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." Gen. xvii, 9-14.
2. As to the general import of circumcision, it was a
mark or sign of inward holiness to the Jew, just as baptism is to the Christian. This does not require extended
proof, as few men will deny it. We direct the reader's
attention, first, to the well-known passage of Rom. iv, 11:
"And he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a
seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet
being uncircumcised." The sense of this clause may be
more apparent to some, if we should express it thus:"And he received the visible mark of circumcision, a
token of confirmation of the righteousness by faith which
he obtained while in a state of uncircumcision."* This
is exactly to the point, and is of sufficient authority, being
clear and unequivocal; and the plain, obvious sense not
required to be altered by any other passage, to settle the
question of the true spiritual import of circumcision. But
we wish the reader to attend to such passages as the following:  " For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly;
neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:
but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision
is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men, but of God," Rom. ii, 28, 29.
Even so, baptism is "not the putting away of the filth of
the flesh, [merely,] but the answer of a good conscience
toward God," 1 Pet. iii, 21.  God says to Israel, "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no
more stiff-necked."   "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
that thou mayest live."  "Circumcise yourselves to the
Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart."  "We
are the circumcision who worship God in the spirit, and
rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no [superstitious] reliance
[in the merely outward part of the ordinance, which is] on
the flesh." Deut. x, 16, and xxx, 6; Jer. iv, 4; Phil.
* Vide Stuart on Romans
58 
INFANT BAPTITSI.
iii, 3.  Nothing can be more satisfactory touching the
religious import of circumcision.
Circumcision was not only a sign of inward purity, the
Jews thereby denoting that they had "cast off the body
of the sins of the flesh," (Col. ii, 11,) but it was a visible
mark and sign of relationship to the church of God. We
have before shown that the covenant that God made with
Abraham was the first great charter of visible church
rights and privileges ever granted to man. Circumcision
was the rite by which men became annexed to this covenant.  "This is [the token of] my covenant.... every
man-child amiong you shall be circumcised." It was hence
called the "covenant of circumcision;" (Acts vii, 8;) that
is, the covenant, the token of which was circumcision. It
was hence tile Jews were called "the circumcised," and
the Gentiles "the uncircumcised;"-this mark  constituting the visible distinction between their religious states
In all these respects circumcision is shown to have answered the ends of an initiatory church ordinance, answering to Christian baptism.
3. The import of circumcision, as applied to infants,
was appropriately that of a spiritual ordinance. It was
given to Abraham as a token of the covenant; and when,
also, applied to infants, it signified that they had a right to
the blessings promised in that covenant. It was a visible
mark set upon the male descendants of Abraham, and the
male children of proselytes, to designate them as belonging to God by covenant ties, and as being brought into a
special, visible relation to himself. This is the exact idea
of Christian baptism as an inductive ordinance into the
church. It was all the ceremony that was ever used, by
which the male descendants of Abraham were brought
into covenant, or church relations. If Jehovah had a true
church on earth previously to the coming of Christ, circumncision, beyond all dispute, was the appointed ceremrony of admission into that church. If the rite of circumcision did not bring the subject into proper church
relations to God, then the conclusion is inevitable, that
God had no church on earth. The ordinance of initiation,
therefore, under the Mosaic law, retained, thus far, in its
application to infants, its appropriate signification. It was
to them a visible mark,-a token of confirmation of the
59. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
promises, by which they were recognised and approved
as the rightful members of the covenant.
As an emblem of purity, circumcision applied to infants
with equal fitness as to adults. In this, also, it fully answered the purpose of a church ordinance, and is analogous to baptism.
We wish it, moreover, to be borne in mind, that the
applicability of circumcision to infants was settled by express command. This is important, as it settles the question of the design of God, with regard to the relation of
infants to the church, as it subsisted under the law. The
ceremony of circumcision was not only required, but it was
required to be performed at eight days old. This specified
time was an important part of the law, and clearly proves
that God intended, not only that men should belong to the
church, but that they should be ingrafted into it in infancy.
The question of the proper subjects of the initiating ordinance, in the period of the church now referred to, is hence
settled beyond dispute. God intended that, as infants were
to share in the spiritual blessings of this gracious covenant, so they should bear the sign by which they were
known and recognised as such participators. The blessings of the Abrahamic covenant were to come upon children, as well as upon adults, and circumcision was to signify their title and right to such blessings. And thus did
the Jews regard it. They looked upon their children as
joint and equal participators with themselves in the spiritual and temporal blessings of the covenant, and as being
equally entitled to the external mark, or ordinance, which
attested their mutual claim to these blessings.  In these
views were they educated; so that from the days of Abraham to those of Christ, every Jew was accustomed to
regard his children, while yet in infancy and childhood, as
lawfully connected with the visible church, and "heirs,
according to the promise," of the common salvation.
60 
INFANT BAPTISM.
CHAPTER III.
THE INITIATORY RITE OF THE CHUJRCH ALTERED.
THE INITIATORY RITE OF THE CHURCH ALTERED, UNDER
THE NEW TESTAMENT DISPENSATION, AS TO ITS EXTE  RIOR FORM, AND SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT NOT
CHANGED AS TO ITS APPLICABILITY TO INFANTS.
SECTION I.
1. IT is incumbent on us, in order to preserve the proper
connection of our argument, to show in this place, first,
that Christian baptism answers to, and is instituted in the
place of; Jewish circumcision. We are not merely to
show that a resemblance is traceable between the two
ordinances, but to prove that the one succeeds to the place
and office of the other. Remote analogies are not sufficient; an exact unity of purpose and import must be traced
between them, and baptism must be shown to come in the
place of circumcision. As this is an important link in the
general argument, it is not surprising that it has been
strongly contested.   The reader is admonished of the
importance of enlarged views of the divine economy, in
treating subjects of this nature.  He should bring to the
investigation a disciplined and candid mind. Nothing is
more pitiful, or unworthy the dignity, or irrelevant to the
weakness and dependance of our understandings, than for
us, on our first approach to a subject, or on a merely partial knowledge of its connections and bearings, and before
we have entered into the wide and extensive designs of
God, to demand or expect the same' posture of things with
respect to clearness and evidence, as if the present had no
connection with the past, by which it might receive explanation. The great Author of all things acts upon a
wise, established plan, wherein one part has relation to
the other. To understand, therefore, any part of the works
or ways of God, we must understand others which stand
connected with it. God has not seen fit, in the world of
nature, or in the dispensations of his moral government,
to establish each particular fact upon a separate and inde
61, 
INFANT BAPTISM.
pendent ground of proof, but, by establishing a just connection between all the several parts of his vast economy,
one thing is thus made, by the nature of the case, to prove
and illustrate the other. Thus, in directing to a certain
line of duty, he does not always lay down that formal
proof of facts, as if nothing had subsisted in all his former
dispensations to establish faith and enjoin obedience touching this particular thing; but evidently takes into account
the just amount of information that may be derived from
his former acts, and adduces only what may be lacking to
complete the revelation. Nothing can be more prejudicial
to just views of God and his works, than to suppose his
successive acts and dispensations are but so many unconnected and independent efforts, put forth, from time to
time, to meet existing exigences, and not constituting a
regular, progressive development of one wise, broad, comprehensive plan.
"The wisdom of God, in the arrangement of successive
dispensations, seems averse to sudden and violent innovations, rarely introducing new rites without incorporating
something of the old.  As, by the introduction of the
Mosaic, the simple ritual of the patriarchal dispensation
was not- so properly abolished, as amplified and extended
into a prefiguration of good things to come, in which the
worship by sacrifices, and the distinction of animals into
clean and unclean, reappeared under a new formn; $o the
era of immediate preparation [meaning the dispensation
of John Baptist] was distinguished by a ceremony not entirely new, but derived from the purifications of the law,
applied to a special purpose. Our Lord incorporated the
same rite into his religion, newly modified and adapted to
the peculiar views and objects of the Christian economy,
in conjunction with another positive institution, [the Lord's
supper,] the rudiments of which are perceptible in the
passover.  It seemed suitable to his wisdom, by such
gentle gradations, to conduct his church from an infantine
state to a state of maturity and perfection."*
In order to prove that baptism succeeds to circumcision,
it is not necessary to adduce any formal, specific declaration of this fact in the New Testament; much less is it
* Robert Hall's Works, vol. i, p. 303.
,62 
IN-rANT I.APTIS:t.
requisite to trace any resemblance between the merely
external forms of the two rites. All that the argument
strictly requires is, that it be shown that baptism answers
the same ends to the church, under the New Testament,
that circumcision did to the same church under the Old
Testament. The reader, therefore, has little else to do
than recall to mind the various observations and facts
which lie scattered through the foregoing pages.
1.) The church under the Old Testament, and that under the New Testament, are, substantially, one and identical.
2.) Circumcision, under the Old Testament, was the
initiating rite of the church. The same is baptism under
the New Testament.
3.) Circumcision was an indication of purity of heart.
As the flesh, which was circumcised, was cast away, it
indicated the "putting off" all carnal and "fleshly lusts
which war against the soul;" or, as Paul says, it was
"the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," Col. ii,
11. To this sense baptism exactly answers.
4.) Circumcision attested the right of the person who
bore its mark to the blessings of the covenant of Abraham,
which covenant embraced the Messiah. So baptismn. The
New Testament is but the mature and complete developments of the Abrahamic covenant, and baptism attests our
connection therewith and our right thereunto.  Must not
baptism, then, be considered as succeeding to the place
of circumcision?
But as if to put this question finally at rest3 and satisfy
the most pertinacious scruples of the objector, it is decided
in direct terms by the voice of inspiration. We call attention to the following passage, Col. ii, 11: "In whom also
ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by
the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism."
The reader must remember that the Colossian church
was in danger of being corrupted by certain false teachers
who attempted to bring them back to a corrupted species
of Judaism.  Paul utters the caution, "Beware lest any
man spail you... after the rudiments of the world, and not
after Christ... for ye are complete in him."   He then
goes on to prove that they are complete in Christ, without
G.q 
INFANT BAPTISfM.
Jewish circumcision and the Mosaic law. As if he had
said, "Does any one teach you to be circumcised? I say
unto you, that'ye are circumcised with (or in) Christ."'
Now here Paul expressly declares that certain Gentile
converts were circumcised.  But then it was  repl-Voti
axetpowrotiT-  with a circumcision made without handsa "circumcision of the heart, in the Spirit," and not outward, in the flesh. It was the substance-the thing signified by outward circumcision-that these Gentile converts
had; consisting "in the putting off the body of the sins
of the flesh."  And this, says Paul, is wI 7Preotot7'ov
XPaGTov the Christian circumcision, which, in the very next
clause, he affirms to be accomplished, emblematically, in
baptism.  The exact argument of Paul we conceive to be
this: "The import and design of your Christian baptism,
answering, in every respect, as it does, to the import and
design of Jewish circumcision, renders it unnecessary that
you, who have been baptized, should afterward be circunmcised; ye are, in effect, already circumcised, for ye received circumcision, in the Christian sense, when ye were
baptized; this ordinance signifying that ye are dead with
Christ unto sin, just as circumcision denoted the'casting
off of the body of the sins of the flesh."'
This is the exact view which the early Christian church
took of this subject. Justin Martyr, who lived forty years
after the apostles, says, " We, who by him have had access
to God, have not received this carnal circumcision, but the
spiritual circumcision, which Enoch, and those like him,
observed. And we have received it by baptism."* Again
Justin  says,  "We   are circumcised by baptism, with
Christ's circumcision;" alluding to Col. ii, 11, 12.
St. Basil says, "And dost thou put off the circumcision
made without hands in putting off'the flesh, which is performed in baptism, when thou hearest our Lord himself
say,' Except a man be born of water,"' &c.?f
Chrysostom, in one of his Homilies, says, "There was
pain and trouble in the practice of circumcision.... But
our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure
without pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and
fills us with the grace of the Spirit," &c.
t Exhortation to Baptism.
61
* Dialogue with Trypho. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
Both St. Basil and Chrysostom use the exact words of
Paul, and call baptism, in its mystical import, 7ret-TO/tJ
axetso7ote'oiw the circumcision made without hands.
Now, it is to be remembered that these quotations do
not merely give the private opinions of these learned men
on the subject, but they express the current opinion of the
times, and go to form a strong presumption that as the
Christian church had derived this opinion from the very
days of the apostles, so it was a doctrine which was
taught to them by the apostles.  The subject, then, is
sufficiently clear, and needs no further argument to place
it in a light more  satisfactory.   The  early Christian
church believed that baptism takes the place of circumcision.
2. The reasons for changing the initiatory ordinance
of the church from circumcision to baptism, it may not
become us very curiously to inquire into. Some of them,
however, it may not be irrelevant to state.
1.) Circumcision was adapted only to the male sex;
baptism is equally adapted to both sexes.
I am not aware that we are positively informed of the
reason why God selected an initiatory rite of such partial
application, nor is it at all important to our argument to
show and vindicate such reason. The fact is all that
concerns us. Nor is it incumbent on us to show on what
principle females claimed the rights of church members.
As a matter of fact, we know that they did claim such
rights; and it appears most reasonable to conclude that
ablutions and sacrifice answered them in lieu of circumcision, and also that they were considered as being completely represented in the man. However, this might possibly be one of the defects to which the church was
necessarily subjected in its infantine state.
2.) The figurative, or sacramental use of water, is more
obvious and simple than the ceremony of circumcision.
Although, as we have already observed, circumcision
imported purity, or "the putting off of the body of the sins
of the flesh," still, to a great degree, such a meaning seems
forced and arbitrary. On the contrary, water is a natural
and a beautiful emblem of purity; and the external application of it to the body very fitly denotes the inward
"washing of regeneration." The greater simplicity, there
65 
INFANT' BAP'TIS.M.
fore, of the sacramental use of water, adapts it, in a higher
sense, to the genius of the New Testament dispensation.
3.) The comparative severity of the two rites under
consideration yields a preference in favour of baptism.
Circumcision seemed well enough adapted to the tenor
of the Mosaic ritual, and to the prevalent taste and habits
of the ages in which, and the people among whom, it was
in vogue.  It seems, too, to have been designed, by its
peculiarly oppressive character, to operate as a sort of
punishment, as it was certainly a severe rebuke of licentiousness-the prevalent sin of those polytheistic ages.
Certain it is that it was "a yoke that neither the later
Jews nor their fathers were able to bear."* Not so with
baptism. Its adaptations are more universal, and its extremie mildness every way suited to the new economy.
It should be remembered that the Jewish ceremonies
were unadapted to extensive proselyting. The divine intention was sufficiently indicated in the great variety and
burdensomeness of these rites; and accordingly it turned
out, that after having subsisted on the earth during a period
of two thousand years, the Jews had made no important
enlargement beyond the bounds of their own nation.
Circumcision presented a peculiar obstacle to the extension of their religion among other nations; but in proportion to the hinderance it offered to such an enlargement,
it evinced an adaptation to consolidate, by rendering
odiously singular the Jewish people, and hence to preserve, with the most perfect entireness, the identity of
their religion and of their nation.'I'Thus the purposes of
God, in regard to the birth and advent of the Messiah,
and the introduction of the gospel plan, were served more
perfectly.  These considerations are deservedly of great
weight. To a religion thus stationary, the severity of the
initiatory rite could be no primary objection. But just the
reverse is it with the gospel. This is eminently and emphatically a proselyting system. The original command
addressed to the apostles, and through them to all Christian ministers, is, "Go ye, disciple all nations, baptizing
them."  It is obvious, then, that a system professedly
adapted and designed for universal propagation, like the
gospel of Christ, must adopt a proselytic ordinance as
* Vide Note A., at the end of the volume.
'66 
INFANT BAPTISM.
mild and convenient as its own genius and universal
adaptation would naturally require. And such is the case
with regard to baptism. It offers no practical impediment
to the general extension of the gospel, but, wherever the
latter may become "'the power of God unto salvation" to
any people, there baptism may also witness that they are
"the children of the covenant."
These are probably some of the reasons for changing
the initiatory rite from circumcision to baptism; but whatever may be the peculiar reasons for this change does not
affect our argument; the fact is sufficiently obvious, and
this is all that directly concerns us.
SECTION II.
That the law of initiation, though changed as it respects
its external form, and-also its adaptation to females as well
as males, is not changed as to its applicability to infants,
is proved from several considerations.
WVe have already observed that the circumstance of the
applicability of the initiatory rite to infants, under the Old
Testament, was a subject of express precept, and a prominent feature of that institution. The express command
directed that circumcision should be performed at eight
days old, and the practice of ages had so familiarized the
idea of infant consecration to the mind of the Jew, that he
must have associated with this point of adaptation in the
law the validity of the law itself. A change in this feature
of the rite must have been looked upon by the converted
Jew under these circumstances with interest, as affecting
the radical character of the rite; so that, if such a change
has actually taken place, we may reasonably expect to
find such obvious reasons for it, and, withal, such notices
of the fact, if not such a positive prohibitive command, as
will meet all the natural circumstances of the case, satisfy
all reasonable inquiry, and settle the faith and practice of
the church.
The reader will here perceive, by the posture of the
subject, that we claim the entire argument from prescription. We place ourselves upon the ground of the ancient
usage of the church, and whatever advantage of proof
arises fromn uniform and immemorial practice belongs to
67 
INFANT BAPTISM.
us. If there be any probability that baptism applies to
infants, because the initiatory rite of the church has always
been thus applied, we are entitled to the benefit of-that
probability; and if there be any change in the meaning
and application of church ordinances from their ancient
meaning and application, the entire labour and responsibility of proving such a change devolves onI our opponents,
and not on us. Until, then, they shall prove that a change
has actually taken place in regard to the applicability of
the initiatory ordinance of the church to infants, it is not
only our privilege to hold to the ancient usage, but we are
bound so to do. And they also, if they fail to adduce clear
and adequate evidence of such a change of the ordinance,
are wholly unauthorized in varying the ancient practice.
This, then, is the true position of the question.  And here
we might, in strict argumentative justice, rest the controversy, until the point in question be fully set forth by our
opponents. Until that time, moreover, it is with great
propriety that we exhort all to stand by "the ancient landmarks."  And here it would not be enough for them to
prove that the Mosaic ritual is abolished; circumcision
belonged not to the law, but to the covenant: it is not
enough for them to prove that circumcision is done away;
the ordinance of initiation into the visible church remains.
But if the applicability of baptism to infants be shown to
be a chimera, it must be proved that this rite does not bear
the same relation to the Abrahamic covenant under the
gospel, that circumcision did to the same covenant under
the law-that the applicability of circumcision to infants
was an unimportant feature of that rite, not affecting its
general character and design-that the state of opinion
and practice among the Jews, touching this point, at the
time of Christ, was such as to render it naturally and of
course inexpedient and unnecessary to state that this
feature of the initiatory rite was to be omitted, but that
the converted Jews, who were taught that baptism was
the initiatory rite under the New Testament, though they
had always been taught to apply this rite to their male
children, under the old covenant, yet would, without question or controversy, omit the same application of it now,in fine, it must be shown that, expressly or impliedly, our
Saviour has prohibited Christians from administering the
68 
INFANT BAPTISM.
initiatory ordinance to their children, as the Jews an ciently did.
But these things can never be shown; and yet, by an
unaccountable stupidity, or a want of canrdour, many over look this position of the argument, and seem dead to any
just appreciation of its real force.
We would admonish the reader that we are approaching
an important branch of the general argument, and we re quest him to put on candour and patience, and closely and
critically weigh the evidence now to be adduced. What
we have hitherto advanced must be necessarily imperfect
without that which is to follow. All that remains, to
render the Bible argument complete on this subject, is to
prove that the New Testament makes just such recognition
of facts and principles, in relation to infant baptism, as the
state of the case required, on the supposition that Christ
intended infants should be baptized. Remember, we are
not to show that the New Testament commands infant
baptism, or even mentions it in so many words; the first
was not required by the state of opinion in relation to infant consecration, and the second it is absurd to insist upon
as a necessary circumstance; but we are to show that
infants are spoken of just as though they were all along
considered as being, as a matter of course, entitled to the
initiatory rite of the New Testament church, and that this
is all we could reasonably expect would be said, in view
of very ancient opinion and practice. We repeat it, prescription is in our favour, and positive proof is not required,
therefore, to establish the eligibility of infants to baptism;
but contrariwise, positive, prohibitory law is required to be
shown in order to establish their ineligibility to that ordinance. The position we take, then, is this; not to show
that there is a new and express law of the New Testament
requiring infants to be baptized, but that the ancient right
of infants to the initiating ordinance has never been forfeited, and that, consequently, the application of this ordinance to them is a matter of perpetual obligation. We
wait for proof that the old law has been annulled before
we join with our opponents and call for a new one relating
to the same point. And we argue that the ancient law
which required the initiatory rite to be applied to infants
is not rescinded, on the following grounds:
4
69 
INFANT BAPTISM.
1. There is no assignable reason for such a change.
If infants had a right to the blessings of the Abrahamic
covenant anciently, they have the same right now. If
they were eligible to the "token" of that covenant-circumcision-anciently, they are eligible to the token of
the same covenant-baptism-now.  There is no reason
in the nature of the case-in the change or posture of
circumstances-that calls for such a change in the application of the initiatory rite.  Infants are the same, as it
respects their moral condition, as formerly; the covenant
of Abraham is the same-it still remains that "in him
and in his seed," which is Christ's, "all nations shall be
blessed." And why should so important a principle as
that which relates to the recognition of the lawful "heirs
according to the promise" be causelessly altered? If the
divine economy was to be so changed as to exclude infants
from those privileges, and that relation to the church which
they had enjoyed for nearly two thousand years by virtue
of a divine charter, ought there not to have existed such a
state of things as to render this change expedient and necessary? And if our opponents affirm that such a change
has actually taken place in the divine economy toward
infants, are we not warranted in demanding of them the
proof of the requisite corresponding change of circuimstances?  But, we repeat it, no such change of circumstances existed. The presumption, therefore, is, that God
has not changed the principles of his economy touching
the admission of infants to the covenant, or, which is the
same, the church.
2. That the divine economy has undergone no change
that would prejudice the ancient rights of infants to the
initiatory ordinance, is urged from the fact that no publica tion of such change has been made. It has never been
registered upon the page of revelation. There are two
ways in which a law may constitutionally pass into dis use: First, by a rescinding act of the law-making power;
secondly, by the fulfilment of those specified ends for
which it was first enacted. That the law in question has
never been repealed is evident. No record has been made
of such an act. It must be remembered that the abolish ment of circumcision does not affect the point at issue.
Circumcision only defined the external form of the ordi
70 
iNFANT BAPTISM.
nance-this affects its spirit. The abolishment of circum cision was riot an abolishment of the initiatory ordinance
of the church, but only of the ancient form of that ordi nance; the questions of the import and applicability of the
ordinance, which were entirely distinct, remaining un touched.
The importance of this point is vital to the church. It
involves not the mere question of forms and ceremonies,
but of the proper and essential character of the church
of God. If any importance can attach to any law, human
or divine, it must lie in the intended application of such
law. The great question, Upon whom, and in what cir stances, is the law intended to operate? involves all the
importance that can, in the nature of things, attach to any
law. And thus, in regard to any charter, the only possible
question that can illustrate the theoretical or practical
character of the charter itself, or the concernment that
individuals may have in it, is, Upon whom, and under
what conditions, are its immunities conferred? These
principles are so plain as to appeal at once to the intuitive
convictions and practical knowledge of mankind. And in
relation to the inductive ordinance of the church of God,
we repeat it, if it possessed any one feature of importance
above another, that feature did not consist in its external
form, but in its import, and the circumstances in which it
was intended to apply to men. This question is, and must
necessarily be, vital. And this, as we have already seen,
was clearly settled by positive and indisputable authority,
in the ancient church. If the form of the initiatory ordinance-circumcision  was distinctly settled by divine authority, so also were the circumstances and subjects of its
administration clearly defined.
Now, what we wish the reader here to understand is,
that if the abolishment of the externalform of the initiatory
ordinance required an express rescinding act of the Lawgiver; so, also, the question of the proper subjects of the
same ordinance, if it is to be changed, being a still more
vital point than that of the form, must also receive the
same formal decision from the law-making power. The
case appears very clear, but the importance of it will not
justify us in dismissing this point while any obscurity remains.   We  maintain a wide and essential distinction
71 
INFANT BAPTISM.
between the externalform of an ordinance, and the essential character of that ordinance. The former is merely
accidental, the latter is the very substance of the thing
itself. Take an illustration. An oath of allegiance to any
government must have the same essential meaning, or
import, in all nations and in all ages. Yet the form of
such an oath may be made to differ in almost any extent
conceivable, without affecting its proper and essential
meaning. Indeed, the form of such an oath is wholly
unimportant.  It may consist of one set of words, or of
another order of words, or of no words at all, but only of
particular signs. And so long as the government was
pleased to establish a connection between the voluntary
performance of certain signs and the obligations of allegiance-so long as, by the authority of law, any particular
signs were made to import the voluntary assumption of
patriotic principles-just so long such signs would embody
the essential character of a verbal oath of allegiance. It
is the thing intended by the form of words, or the particular
signs, that constitutes the substance and character of the
oath. It is easy to perceive, therefore, how the form of
an oath can be changed, without changing its proper character. -It is so with the ordinances of the church: it is
so with the initiating ordinance.   The form has been
changed, but its primary character remains unaltered.
And we say that the change of the ancient form of this
ordinance does not necessarily, and as a matter of course,
draw after it, or imply, any change of its applicability to
infants, or of its proper and essential character.   The
initiating ordinance, as we have already seen, bears the
same meaning now as anciently; it is our sacramentum,
or oath of allegiance still, although the form of the oath
is changed. And thus must every converted Jew have
considered it. When he was taught to leave Moses, and
come to Christ-to leave the law, and "go on unto the
perfection" of the gospel-to abstain from circumcision,
and be baptized-nothing could be more natural than for
him to regard his children still, as anciently, the proper
subjects of the initiatory ordinance. He would naturally
ask, "If we are to be initiated into the gospel church, not
by circumcision, but by baptism-if the form of the ini tiating ceremony is to be thus changed what is to be the
72 
INFANT BAPTISM.
change, if any, respecting the application of this ordinance
to our children? How are they to be henceforward treated? Are we to regard them still, as heretofore: as the
ingrafted members of the covenant?" And we hold that,
as this point would be regarded with deep interest by every
Jew-as very ancient law and practice would teach him
to look with concern upon the covenant rights and relations
of his offspring-if no prohibitory law appeared to the
contrary, he would naturally, and as a matter of course,
apply baptism to his children. And to have prevented
such an application of this rite, an express prohibition
was called for, in the nature of the case, as much as in
changing the form of that ordinance.
To feel the full force of this argument one has only to
place himself in similar circumstances, and ask himself
if he would ever be likely to abandon, naturally, and as a
matter of course, any practice that he believed to be right,
and of divine injunction, and to which he was almost instinctively disposed by education, and the unvarying usage
of his ancestors. Do such practices easily fall into disuse,
or become obsolete in a day, like the ephemeral customs
that receive their mould by the changing seasons? If any
man has so imagined, he has yet to be informed that he
has made an erroneous reckoning with human nature.
He has constructed his theory without a just estimate of
those inveterate principles of conduct which are engendered by immemorial custom-not to say, religious belief.
Look, for a moment, at palpable and imposing fact.  How
difficult it was for the apostles of Christ to convince even
those Jews that had received the gospel and submitted to
baptism, that circumcision was to be omitted!  How difficult to instil into their minds the doctrine that those were
the truly circumcised that had become Christians —" that
worshipped God in the Spirit, and rejoiced in Christ Jesus,
and had no confidence in the [merely outward ceremony
which was on the] flesh." But if it was one of the most
difficult lessons for a Jew to learn, that he was called upon
to give up and omit that outward ceremony which God
had anciently instituted, and which his fathers had p)ractised with so much religious, not to say, in many cases,
superstitious, veneration; could it have been less obnoxious
to his principles and prejudices to be informed that not
7 -31 
only was he called upon to abandon this outward ceremony, to accept another, but that that feature of the ordinance which had always recognised his children to be
"fellow-heirs with himself of the grace of life"-whichli
had so largely endeared to him, as to his ancestors, the
outward ceremony in question-that that feature, which
touched the vitality of the ordinance, was also abolished?
And if their attachments to circumcision were so inveterate as to occasion so many controversies among Christians respecting it as are recorded-in the New Testament,
and also to give birth to a large and powerful sect of half
Jews and half Christians-which was the fact, as shown
in the history of the Nazarene and Ebionite Christiansis it probable that the converted Jews, while thus, with
characteristic obstinacy, contending for circumcision, would
be likely to yield up the ancient covenant rights of their
children-a fact so prominently recognised in the former
dispensation, and imported by circumcision-and submit
to the new ordinance with quiet acquiescence? Such a
supposition would be characterized with too palpable and
glaring improbability, and would too openly contradict all
the analogies of the case, to be for a moment entertained
by any intelligent mind.  Every inch of encroachment on
the Jewish law, by the gospel system, was disputed with
all the pertinacious obstinacy of a Jewish zealot. The
New Testament affords ample testimony of this statement.
We sicken at the rehearsal of those puerile controversies
which absorbed the intellects, and alienated the hearts of
the early Jewish converts. And where analogy sheds its
light so largely abroad-discovering the real state of
opinion-we are warranted in the opinion, nay, we are
compelled by every reasonable consideration to the belief,
that had the Jews been called upon to change the relation
of their children to the covenant, and in the administration
of baptism to wholly pass them by, they would have submitted to this new order with less alacrity than to almost
any other change.
If, then, the initiatory ordinance was to be so changed
under the New Testament as to wholly omit its application
to infants, such a change, being one of primary importance, would have called for an express prohibitory statute.
Without such a statute, we maintain that the converted
74
INFANT BAPTISINF. 
Jew would naturally, and as a matter of course, have continued to apply baptism, as he had always applied circum
cision, to his children. But the fact that no such prohibition is recorded in the New Testament is a strong presumption that it never existed. At least, with our opponents, who are so loud in their demands for positive precept, it must be admitted to possess peculiar weight. If
the appeal is to be carried to positive "law and testimony,"
we demand positive law for changing the ancient covenant
rights of children. Where, we ask, is the rescinding act
to be found? When and how did children forfeit their eligibility to the initiating ordinance of the Abrahamic covenant? And on what authority do men deny them the rights
which God has secured to them by positive law? These
are grave questions, and we submit them to the intelligence, the candour, and the consciences, of all whom they
may concern.
It becomes, then, an easy task to account for the apparent silence of the New Testament touching the question
of infant baptism; and it will at once be perceived that
such silence, so far from prejudicing our argument, is
itself a powerful argument in our favour. It is an argument of very peculiar force. It not only proves that the
initiating ordinance was applied to infants in New Testament times, but it proves much more-it proves that, such
was the uniformity of that practice, not even a controversy
arose in the church respecting it; and also, such was the
state of opinion among converted Jews, (with whom, it is
well known, the Christian church took its rise,) that it
required no original command to institute and enforce
infant baptism, but that the first members of the church
adopted and continued the practice as a matter of course.
Such, then, is the peculiar force, in our favour, of the
particular circumstance of that kind of silence which the
New Testament observes on this point.
3. But it may be said, "Although Christ has not prohibited the application of the initiatory rite to infants by any
positive law of which we have any account, still, that
ancient practice has fallen into disuse, and was designed
to fall into disuse, at the'passing away' of the Mosaic
ritual." The force of this objection lies in the supposition
that the doctrine of the covenant rights of infants is part
75
INFAN'R BAP'I'ISl. 
and parcel of the Mosaic economy, which was designed
to cease at the coming of Christ. We know, indeed, that
the sacrificial rites of Moses, and of primitive times, found
their fulfilment in Christ; and that that whole economy,
in a general sense, was "a shadow of good things to
come," of which i' the substance was Christ." This being
its character, it ceased to operate, as a matter of course,
and without a rescinding act, when Christ came. Still,
if the reader will attend to the epistolary part of the New
Testament, he will find that almost all the typical and
temporary part of the ancient ritual of the church is mentioned in detail, and rescinded. Yet, in none of these
specifications is the principle, touching the right of infants
to the token of the covenant, infringed. Besides, the point
we here insist upon is, that this belonged, not to that teinporary and elemental state of policy established by Moses,
but to the settled order, and essential character of the
church. We have already stated that the form of the
initiating ordinance was temporary. It was adapted to a
non-proselytic form of religion, such as was that of the
Jews, but not to the gospel plan. But'the purpose of God
in regard to admitting members into the church by some
ceremony remained unaltered. The order of the church,
in this respect, was perpetual. The great Lawgiver never
intended to abolish the practice of admitting members to
the church, or annexing them to the covenant, (which is
the same thing,) by an external sign or ceremony of some
sort. When circumcision was established, it fixed the
form of the ordinance for the time; when it was abolished,
it left the order of the church, which was in this respect
settled and perpetual, unaltered; —it still remained that an
external mark or sign, of some kind, must be put upon all
the children of the covenant. And'we say that the design
of God, in reference to admitting members into his church
by some external ceremony, is not temporary, but perpetual. It can no more pass away than the church itself
can fail; it involves a principle, that not merely affects
the external character of the church, but strikes at its
very existence.
Take a perfectly parallel case.  Among the Jews there
was an institution, called the passover, whose chief merit
consisted in its being a lively type of the sacrifice of
76
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFANT BAPTIS3I,
Christ. It seemed the design of Jehovah herein to represent and set forth the atonement to the believing Jew, in
as distinct features as possible.  This rite was also commemorative. Under the New'r Testament we are furnished
with an institution, in all essential respects the same as
the passover, save this, the passover celebrated the dyiiig
love and atoning merit of a Saviour yet to come, while in
the Lord's supper we celebrate the same love and merit
in a Saviour already come. Now it is evident that God
intended, from the moment of the institution of the passover, to establish a perpetual order-a principle of iunchangeable obligation in the church; namely, that tile
death of Christ, as an atonement, should be celebrated
through all tnime by the true worshippers of God. Under
the law of Moses it was celebrated in a manner suitable
to the genius and character of that dispensation; and under
the gospel, the outward ceremony is also adapted to the
change of circumstances, and the new and enlarged measure of light   But who will say that, in changing the form
of this ordinance, the principle, the essential thing, is
changed? Much less wvill any reasonable man affirm that,
at the comiing of Christ and with the abolishment of the
Mosaic -rites, this order of the church, in regard to the
celebration of the death of Christ, was also abolished, or
that it of course passed away. In this we may see the
distinction between what belongs to the temporary forms
of church ordinances, and the immutable order of the
church with respect to them.
Applying these remarks to the case in hand, we say,
the principle that respected the admission of persons into
the visible church, by some visible ceremony, was one of
vital importance to the church, and could not have passed
away with the obsolete rites of Moses as a matter of
course.   Arid after the abolishment of circumcision, it
must be evident that, in whatever form the initiatory ordinance was to be continued, the essential order and settled
constitution of the church, in this respect, would remain
unchanged.  The dress only of the ordinance was changed.
And here, were it necessary, we  might prove that the
abolishment, or the "passing away," of the Mosaic rites,
was only a disuse of forms, without any alteration of the
principles or doctrine of the church. This the reader will
4*
77 
iNFANT BAI'TI'SM.
keep in mind.  The final conclusion, therefore, is, that
Christ has not rescinded the law touching the application
of the initiating ordinance to infants, nor has that law died
any natural death, it being not of a nature to pass away in
this manner, without a rescinding act.
SECTION III1
13ut it may be said, "The New Testament must be supposed to say something respecting this point.  If Christ
intended that baptism should apply to infants, surely he
would somewhere have specified such an intention, and
not have left so weighty a matter wholly subject to vague
conjecture, or uncertain inference."  We  answer:-We
shall presently see that the New Testament has said something on this subject. The Head of the church has not
left this matter either to conjecture, or to any dubious
inference; but, contrariwise, has made just such mention
of it as the state of the case required;- just such mention
as proves that the practice of infant baptism was universal
in the primitive Christian church, and that God intended
it to be so.
1. But how comes the objector to know, with such positivity, that God would have specified his intentions on this
subject by any positive law in the New Testament? And
how can he feel warranted in drawing a positive inference
from the alleged silence of the New Testament, in favoetr
of his theory, any more than against it?  Mere silence,
abstractly considered, furnishes no argument, either pro or
con, on any question. It is the peculiar posture of circutimstances in which silence occurs, that lends to it whatever
meaning it may possess; and these circumstances may
lend to silence a positive or a negative signification. And
here we may appeal to the common sense of mankind to
decide whether the apparent silence of the New Testament
be positive or negative on the question at issue. It is allowed, I believe, by universal consent, where the particular posture of circumstances renders the final decision of a
question highly important and necessary, in order to place
such question iii a clear and undoubted light, and where
the interest and wish of the party which is to decide are
involved in the negative decision of the question, that
78 
INFANT BAPTISM..
silence, in such a case, is construed affirmatively. Hence,
the old and trite adage, "Malam esse causam silentio confitetlur;" or, as we say,-His silence proves the fact. The
rhetoricians say that silence is sometimes more eloquent,
and may produce a more powerful effect upon an audience,
than any possible form of words. On other occasions
silence may be set down to the score of sheer stupidity
and ignorance. Mere silence, then, we repeat it, proves
nothing, because it is nothing. Circumstances only can
lend it a meaning and force; and, in the case before us,
the only proper question is, What are the circumstances
that must be considered as imparting a positive meaning
to the alleged silence of the New Testament on infant
baptism? These circumstances we have already noticed
as being in our favour. It is remarkable that the objectors
to infant baptism have always urged, with an air of confident triumph, the supposed silence of the New Testament
as an insuperable objection to Pedobaptism. And what is
the force of this objection?  It is simply this:-The New
Testament does not expressly mention infant baptism,therefore infant baptism is not to be practised. And this,
to many, seems unanswerable. But how came our opponents to-know that they had a right to put such a construction upon the silence of the New Testament? If the mere
fact of silence is to be considered, it proves as much on one
side of the question as the other, and we might reason in
our turn: The New Testament does not expressly mention
infant baptism,-therefore it does not prohibit it,-therefore
it may be practised.  And thus stand the two parties.  The
Baptists reject infant baptism for want of a positive New
Testament precept: we maintain it, because there is no
New Testament prohibition of the ancient law of infant
consecration, and also because the New Testament makes
just such recognition of the moral and ecclesiastical state of
infants as we suppose the case called for, on the supposition that they were to be baptized.
But what I wished mostly to notice, in this place, is,
that our opponents have no right to demand even a positive mention, in so many words, of infant baptism, in order
to establish its obligation and its practice. We readily
grant, that if the practice of applying the initiatory ordinance of the church to infants had never been known or
79
t 
INFANT BAPTISM.
heard of before the time of Christ,-if such a practice
would have been new, and the principle involved in it new
to the church,-under such circumstances an express
command would have been clearly necessary. But we
have shown, we apprehend, that this was not the state of
-t    things at the time of the introduction of the gospel.  Fur  thermore, we know that the apostles must have received
many particular instructions from Christ, which, though
they carried out in practice, they did not commit to writing.
In such cases we must look to their practice for a know   ledge of what was commanded them.  Christ might have
commanded them to baptize infants, and still they may not
have been commanded to enter this precept upon record
with the written canons of the church.  The force of early
practice and doctrine might have superseded this. And
herein analogy is certainly against our opponents.
2. Take a case every way equally involved to the one
in question.   The practice of applying the initiatory rite
to females as well as males, was not authorized by any
ancient usage, or even possible, in the nature of the case,
before the introduction of the gospel; and, being wholly
unknown to the Jews, might seem to require an express
direction from the lips of the divine Saviour. Such direc   tion he undoubtedly gave; but, if so, it has never been en   tered upon record; thus demonstrating that, in the estimation
of divine wisdom, this practice would, naturally enough,
take the right direction through all successive ages, though
left to mere inductions from Scriptural and rational
principles; or the requisite instruction might have been
given privately. Herein, then, we have an important
change in the external applicability of a church ordinance,
without any signified, registered intention, that it was the
will of the divine Lawgiver that such a change should
take place. It is true that, after the introduction of Chris   tianity, the baptism of women was mentioned historically,
and as a matter of fact, (Acts viii, 12,) proving that it was
the will of God that they should be baptized. But this is
proof of the very thing we have stated;-it proves it to
have been an apostolic practice, without an express com   mand.  An historical mention of an act, is not a command
to perform that act.  It may presuppose a command, but
the command itself must have existed prior, and is altoge
80 
INFANT BAPTISM.
ther another thing. Here, then, we find the apostles
applied baptism to females, contrary to the ancient usage
of the church, which denied them the initiatory ordinance;
while their only authority for so doing was derived from
the reasonableness of the case, from inference, or from
private instruction that had never been entered upon the
sacred record. And have we any just ground to suppose
that the Saviour would particularize with greater care on
other points which were less likely to be misunderstood?
Have we any right to demand a positive precept, or even
a mention, in so many words, of the applicability of baptism to infants?*-a doctrine clearly pointed out by ancient practice,-when the point of its applicability to
females, which seemed to be forbidden by the analogy of
all ancient law and practice, was not so much as alluded
to in the original commission, and was never expressly
commanded? Can we suppose, in the full blaze and vigour of ancient Jewish law and custom, that infant baptism
* The fact that the Jews would have gone on and practised infant
baptism, as a matter of course, unless prohibited, being governed in
this respect purely, or at least mainly, by the light of ancient usage,
has been illustrated by a homely similitude, and yet a similitude so
much in point, that I will copy it:  "A man orders his servants to mark the sheep of his flock with a
bloody sign; and is careful to add,' See that you apply this sign to
all the lambs also.' Afterward he sees fit to dispense with the bloody
sign, made with a knife in the flesh; and ordains that his servants
shall mark his sheep with paint: but he says nothing about the lambs.
Now, the question is, Will those servants, because the marking is a
' positive institution,' argue that the lambs are no longer to be marked,
because they are not specified, in so many words, in the second order? As they purchase more sheep, with lambs, will they mark the
sheep, but say they have no order for marking the lambs?" Every
man must perceive the case would be just the contrary. All the natural force of circumstances would tend to establish the conviction
that no change was intended in the mark, further than its external
character. Its applicability to the lambs, as well as to the sheep,
would not be considered as being at all affected by such a change in
the mark, or sign. And it is wholly unnatural to suppose that they
would reason from such a fact, to the exclusion of the lambs. So in
the case before us. The fact of the external form of the initiating
ceremony, or mark of discipleship, being changed, is not a sufficient
ground for inferring the change of the applicability of that ordinance
to infants; and it is wholly unnatural and forced to suppose the apost-es would have drawn such an inference.-See Hall on Baptism,
pp. 156, 157.
81 
INFANT BAPTISM.
would be any more likely to be misunderstood and neglected
by the Jewish converts, in the absence of direct precept,
than was female baptism? It is plain that the preponderance of probability which the clear light of analogy throws
upon this question, lies against such a supposition. In this
estimate we are not to consult modern prejudice and modern practice; but we are to go back to the time of Christ,
place ourselves in the situation of a converted Jew, and
endeavour to appreciate the influence and operation of
circumstances upon his mind. And it is in this manner
we have arrived at the above conclusion. How vain, then,
is it for men to put forth demands for positive precept on
this, or any other subject involved in similar circumstances,
as an indispensable condition of their faith and practice!
3. It has been a common practice of Pedobaptist authors
to introduce at this stage of the argument the subject of
female communion.   The use of the argument is this:
That as God has nowhere directly authorized female communion by any express precept; and as, from the reasonableness of the case, we are fully convinced it is the divine
will that they should be admitted to the communion table,
therefore we are warranted in believing that positive duties are - sometimes left to the direction of inference and
analogy, without explicit written command: and if such a
subject as the right of females to the communion table has
been left to inference, analogy, and the reasonableness of
things, so also may the subject of infant baptism;-a subject, we repeat it, no more likely than the former to be
misunderstood.  And all this may serve to show how futile
are the claims which some persons put forth to that highest
kind of moral evidence-explicit command-as a condition
of their faith. This point is so clear and evident, and so
obviously parallel to the case of infant baptism, that it
needs not to be amplified. But we beg the reader's attention to some further illustrations equally clear and in point.
4. The practice of the Christian church in refusing to
rebaptize any person, is far from being based on positive
command. No Christian minister will knowingly give
baptism to any person the second time.  The universal
Christian church regard it as a profanation of the ordinance. But why so? Certainly there might seem to be a
strong analogy, both from Scripture and reason, to favour
82 
INFANT BAPTISM.
ana-baptism. The Jews often lustrated their bodies. When ever they had polluted themselves by any means, they were
restored by a fresh application of water to the body, in
some way, or of water and blood; and why not observe
the same rule among Christians? It might seem too, at
first sight, to be a reasonable inference, that as apostacy
makes baptism to be void, so, upon a renewal of repentance, there should be a new application of the water of
baptism. But no: this is not the fact. The church does
not thus reason. In the absence of all express command,
the church base their practice, in this respect, on the reasonableness of the case, and on church history, but mostly
upon the latter. Baptism being a dedication of the person
to God, it is understood to continue in full force and vigour
while the baptized person remains holy. To repeat the
rite would imply a defect in its first administration, or
reception, or both. It would be to declare the first administration void. But in case of apostacy and subsequent
repentance, we are guided alone by church history. "Finding that the primitive church did reconcile, but not rebaptize apostates, we do imitate that their practice."*  Here,
then, the Baptists themselves assume authority to direct
the administration of a positive institute, without a positive
command. They are, with us, governed by inference, analogy, and particularly by church history, in the use of a,
positive institute of Christianity. Are they consistent?
5. The fact of the change of the sabbath, from the seventh to the first day of the week, rests upon the same
kind of evidence as that which we claim for the support
of infant baptism. It seems not to have been duly considered by our opponents, that from the earliest records of
history God has delivered his commands to men through
various means, and in somewhat varied kinds of evidence.
If we attentively examine into the ground of evidence that
we have for various beliefs, we shall find that, while for
some we have the warrant of a divine positive precept or declaration, for others we have only the authority of historical
testimony and inductive reasoning. And these remarks,
too, apply not merely to forms and accidental usages, but
to cardinal and important subjects. We make these remarks, not to intimate a suspicion that there- is any want
* Bishop Burnett on the Thirty- nine Articles, Art. xxv.
83 
INFANT BAPTISM.
of evidence in any part of Revelation, but to direct attention to the fact, that all duties are not sustained by the
same kind of evidence.
"Admitting, as we must, that all positive religious rites
are originally founded on a divine command, we cannot
safely conclude that such a command will be repeated to
all those who shall afterward be under obligation to observe
such rites, or even that the original command will be preserved and communicated to them in the sacred writings.
Neither of these can be considered as indispensable; because sufficient evidence of a divine institution may be
afforded in some other way. It may be afforded, particularly, by an unwritten tradition. It is unquestionable that
the knowledge of some extraordinary events of Providence,
or of some divine injunctions, may be as truly and as certainly communicated in this way as in others; and we
should, in many cases, consider a man who would refuse
to admit the truth and authority of a tradition, to be as unreasonable as if he should refuse to admit the authority of
written or printed records.
"If we should insist upon the repetition of a divine command at different times, or upon a written record of it as
indispensable, we should set aside one of the methods
which God has manifestly adopted in regard to the positive institutions of religion. For instance, what clear and
certain proof have we that the divine command, enjoining
the observance of the sabbath, or the offering of sacrifices,
was repeated to the successive generations of men from
Adam to Moses; or that they had evidence of either of
these divine institutions from historical records? And
what certain proof is there of the repetition of the divine
command,  or the existence  of any historical records,
during the period from Abraham to Moses, respecting the
rite of circumcision? And, to come down to later times,
what express command has God  given to us, or to any
Christians since the days of the apostles, requiring the
first day of the week to be observed as a sabbath? And
what express declaration have we in the sacred records
that such a command was ever given by Christ or his
apostles?  In regard to this, we who observe the Christian sabbath must either say that a divine command has
been given directly to us, or that a command originally
84 
INFANT BAPTISM.
given by Christ, has been preserved to us in the sacred
records,-neither of which we are able to say;-or we
must justify ourselves in observing the Lord's day, because some other considerations show that such is the
will of God. On what ground, then, shall we proceed in
regard to this subject? We must be sensible that wo
have no express command from God to us, and no record
of any former command, to authorize us to regard the
Christian sabbath as a divine institution. Shall we, then,
admit that it is proper for us to fall in with the prevailing
practice in regard to a religious rite, merely because we
judge it becoming and useful? This we cannot admit.
We must then rest the Christian sabbath on the ground of
the original institution of the sabbath, as enjoined in the
fourth command of the Decalogue. And we must, at the
same time, admit that the original institution was particularly modified at the commencement of the Christian dispensation, although our sacred writings nowhere expressly
require such a modification. It cannot but be evident,
therefore, that if we should insist upon the necessity of an
express divine precept, either originally addressed to us,
or transmitted to us by the sacred records, in order to justify us in observing the rite of infant baptism, we should
contradict our own practice in regard to another subject
very analogous to this.*... My object in this place is to
remove a mistake as to the kind and degree of evidence
which should be deemed conclusive, and to show that demanding an express precept in favour of infant baptism,
Is it not wholly unaccountable that the Baptists should reject
infant baptism on the ground of a want of express precept, aixd then
turn directly about, and advocate the first day of the week as the
true sabbath. They are forced to defend their practice in the ob.
seiwance of the first day of the week as the sabbath-day, on exactly
similar grounds of evidence to those from which we argue the obliga.
tion and validity of infant baptism. Why do they accept this sort of
evidence in the one case, and reject it, nay, hoot at it, in the other?
The Seventh-day Baptists alone are herein consistent with themselves,
and must necessarily possess great advantage of their brethren who
keep the first day of the week, in argument on their respective pecu
liarities. " They must either keep the seventh day," says a Seventh.
day Baptist, " or reject the principles on which they reject infant bap
tism: they must give up their argument, or keep the seventh day, or
else determine to act inconsistently and absurdly." —Rev. E. Hall on
Baptism, p. 124.
85 
INFANT BAPTISM.
that is, demanding a new and explicit command in favour
of the dedication of children to God by the Christian rite
of baptism, would be unreasonable and inconsistent.  I
wish every man to settle it in his mind perfectly and for
ever, that, in a multitude of cases, other evidence ought to
be received, and is received, as satisfactory.
"Consider a moment how we proceed in regard to so
momentous a subject as the authority of some of the sacred
writings. Take, for example, the Epistle to the Hebrews,
which we receive as having been written by inspiration of
God.  But why-do we thus receive it?  What is the kind
of evidence we have of its divine inspiration and divine anthority? Do the other Scriptures give testimony to this
epistle, and require us to receive it? No. Does the author of the epistle inform us that he wrote by divine inspiration? Does he even give us his name? He does neither.
We receive this book as of divine authority, because ecclesiastical history teaches us that it was thus received by the
generality of early Christians, whom we know to have been
far better qualified than we are to form a right judgment
in regard to its claims. It is primarily on the ground of
such evidence as this that we admit the epistle into the
sacred canon. The intrinsic excellence of the book, and
its correspondence with other parts of Scripture, are,
indeed, considerations of great weight in favour of its
divine authority. But these considerations are of a very
different nature from what we understand by express, posi tive proof from the word of God. The same as to some
other parts of the Christian Scriptures. What is the kind
of evidence that we have of their divine inspiration and
authority? They are sanctioned by no voice from hea ven; by no miracle; and by no declaration of inspired
writers. But do we, therefore,'reject them? No. We
receive them as a part of the sacred canon on the ground
of historical evidence. That is, the testimony of antiquity
is in their favour. We rely on that testimony, because it
is the testimony of men competent to judge.  And why
should we not proceed on the same general principles in
regard to infant baptism?  We have at least as good evi dence from history in favour of this, as we have that the
Apocalypse and the Epistle to the Hebrews,  and some
86 
INFANT BAPTISM.
other parts of the Bible, were written by inspired men.
How, then, can we consistently reject it?"*
We have ventured upon this somewhat lengthy quota.
tion, because, after carefully weighing the whole subject,
we could think of no clearer or more comprehensive view
to present to the reader.  After what has been said, it is
needless, although it were quite easy, to multiply instances
for illustration. We flatter ourselves that it is sufficiently
plain that men cannot judge beforehand of the kind or
degree of evidence which the Almighty may deemn fit to
offer in support of any particular institution; or as the
foundation of our faith and obligation. It is in vain for
men to say they will not believe without the most direct
and positive proof. It is folly for them to assume this
attitude, because it contradicts the grounds of action which
they are daily impelled to adopt in reference to a thousand
other matters.  Thomas might have fancied himself justified in rejecting thie testimony of his fellow-disciples, and
demanding the palpable evidence of his senses; he might
even have imagined himself more noble than the rest on
this account; but the Saviour did not commend him, but,
on the contrary, plainly intimated that a less skeptical and
obstinate mind was not the less reasonable, and far more
happy. He also taught him that the same kind of evidence that he enjoyed could not, from the nature of the
case, be granted to all, nor was it necessary.  He who
made man, and constituted the human mind to receive and
weigh evidence, he it is that best knows what kind and
degree of evidence to afford on moral subjects, and how
the probationary interests of inan may best be served
hereby. We are to take the Bible as it is-ascertain its
facts and their supporting evidence-and act according to
the force of those rational convictions which such evidence
inspires. And if it be regarded as hazardous to adopt a
line of conduct without a written testimony, in so many
words, of its being duty; it is no less dangerous to the
spirit of genuine piety, and offensive to the dignity of right
reason, to despise such conduct in others, and spurn it
from the catalogue of our acknowledged duties, because it
may be sanctioned only by evidence of an inferential and
* Lectures on Infant Baptism, by Dr. Woods, pp. 17-21.
87 
INFANT BAPTISM.
analogical character,- evidence which, in the great majority of cases, in religion, politics, commerce, and all the
social walks of life, influences and governs the conduct
of men.
For some further illustrations, the reader is referred to
the note below.*
SECTION IV.
But the New Testament is not silent on the subject of
infant baptism, but makes just such mention of it as, in
view of the state of opinion at that time, proves it to have
been enjoined, and universally practised. It makes just
such mention of the subject as the circumstances of the
case required.  It is not the ordinance of baptism itself
that we now speak of, but it is the application of this ordinance to infants.   The institution of Christian baptism
required and received an express sanction from the lips
of our Saviour; and this command is registered. But the
application of this rite to infants is a point that became so
obvious to the mind of the Jew, and to all who were conversant with the ancient usage of the church, as to require
no direct precept, or, at least, that that precept should be
recorded.  The light of analogy, and the force of ancient
habit, precluded any such necessity.  They had only need
of being informed what was the initiatory rite of the new
dispensation, and the fact of its applicability to infants
would follow as a matter of course, unless prohibited; or,
at most, would require only private direction. Under these
circumstances what mention may we suppose the New
'Testament would naturally make of this subject? We
answer: It is reasonable to suppose that it would merely
recognise facts and principles in -relation to it, in an incidental way, without any intimation of their being new, or
controverted, or doubted. And this we find to be the fact
in the case. The New Testament makes just such allusion to infants-recognises all those facts and principles
in reference to them as supposes them still to retain their
ancient rights to the seal of the covenant, and their ancient
relation to the church. Infants are spoken of in a manner
wholly inexplicable on any other supposition than that of
* See Note B.
88 
INFANT BAPTISM.
their eligibility to baptism, and in a manner to clearly
indicate that there was no controversy on this point in the
New Testament times.  The reader will readily perceive,
therefore, upon a little reflection, the proper distinctive
character of our position. He will be at no loss to appreciate the distinction between a positive command, directing
a certain line of conduct, and a recognition of principles
and facts which imply such conduct; between an ordinance newly issued under sanction of positive authority,
and an ordinance of ancient date, newly recognised in its
principles, and in the fact of its existence. Proceed we
then to the labour of proof:  1. Infants are in a gracious state. By this I mean that
they are included in the provisions of the gospel, and
receive a title to eternal life through the atonement. It is
not our present intention to enter upon the proof of this
point; if any man doubt it, we must leave him to his opinion, and address our argument to those who allow the
statement We do not, furthermore, wish any controversy
respecting the nianner in which infants are saved through
the atonement. All we insist upon is the fact that they
are embraced in the economy of redemption, and, through
the grace -of Christ, entitled to, and prepared for, eternal
life. Now, this fact, which is so fully established by our
Lord's words in Matt. xix, 14, and xviii, 2-5, and by Paul
in Rom. v, and elsewhere, this fact, we say, is one of
primary importance; for unless infants are fit for heaven,
or have a title to heaven, it is evident they are not suitable to sustain any relation to the church. All fitness for
church relations must  be, primarily predicated of, and
based upon, that moral state that constitutes a fitness for
future happiness. The church militant, in its moral features, is designed to be an image and transcript of the
church triumphant.  In this respect, the two " kingdoms
are but one." Baptism is an outward sign of an inward
work of grace,-a token of confirmation that the subject
belongs to the spiritual family of God, and is an heir of
that grace which is promised in the covenant of Abraham.
Of course, therefore, all who are the subjects of this grace,
which is signified by baptism-all who belong to the spiritual family of God-are entitled to baptism.  If they
have the thins signified by baptism, they may, and ought
89 
INFANT BAPTISM.
to receive baptism itself also.  This principle is fully
carried out and established in the Scriptures.  For instance, in Acts x, 47, Peter says, concerning Cornelius
and his Gentile friends, "Can any man forbid water that
these should not be baptized, which have received the
Holy Ghost as well as we?" The argument which he
urged in favour of their being baptized, and one which he
deemed sufficient and conclusive, was, that they had "received the Holy Ghost,"-they had been made the subjects
of grace. At first Peter hesitated to go into the house
with these Gentiles, because they were regarded as unclean, forbidden and rejected of God.  But now, when he
beholds them really the subjects of saving grace, "he
commands them to be baptized."  This is clear and unequivocal.  "Peter went by this rule," says Mr. Wall,
"one that is capable of the ends of baptism should be
baptized. Mr. Tombs himself says,' If it should be made
known to us that infants are sanctified, I should not doubt
but that they are to be baptized; remembering the words
of St. Peter,' "'* as above quoted.- But one less affected
with Calvinism might be more disposed to infant baptism.
Now, the New Testament recognises and affirms that
moral condition of infants which, in an adult, is regarded
as the groundwork of a fitness for baptism and a connection with the church. Our Saviour expressly declares,
"Of such is the kingdom of heaven," which, whatever
else it may mean, clearly proves, in infants, a moral fitness
for baptism and church relations. Whatever, then, may
be urged against infants, in other respects, on the score
of their alleged unfitness for baptism, their moral state can
furnish no ground for such a plea.  And to this our opponents themselves can find no objection, unless they are of
the number of those who believe that "persons (infants
included) not elected cannot be saved."t
2. Infants are capable of sustaining covenant relations
to God. This circumstance also is of primary importance.
If it could be proved that children are incapable of being
entered into covenant with God, we cannot see but this
controversy must be at an end.  On the contrary, if it can
be proved that children are capable of being entered into
* Wall's Dialogue on Infant Baptism.
t Confession of Faith, article "Effectual calling."
90 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
covenant, and of sustaining covenant relations and inheriting covenant blessings, then, their right to the sign of the
covenant, and to covenant relations, is easily substantiated. And here the reader will perceive, if children
possess a moral fitness for church relations,-as is proved
from the fact that they are fit subjects for "the kingdom
of heaven,"-and if they are capable of being entered ilnto
covenant with God, then, no primary objection can be
urged against their baptism; but, on the contrary, these
simple considerations would, of themselves, create a powerful presumption of the truth of the doctrine which we
advocate. Now, that infants are capable of being entered
into covenant with God, and that the Bible so regards
them, is put beyond all question.
In Deut. xxix, 10-12, Jehovah thus speaks to the children of Israel: " Ye stand this day all of you before the
Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders,
and your officers, with all the men of Israel, YouR LITTLE
ONrES, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp,
from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water:
THAT THOU SHOULDEST ENTER INTO COVENANT WITH THE
LORD THY GOD, AND INTO HIS OATH, which the Lord thy
God maketh with thee this day." In this passage the
"little ones" are enumerated with the same formality, and
are made the same account of in the "covenant," as are
the "elders," the " officers," and "all the men of Israel."
But if the children were not intended to be entered into
covenant equally with the rest, it would have been as
much in place to have mentioned their cattle, in this enumeration, as their infants.
In Deut. v, 2, 3, Moses says, "The Lord our God made
a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not his
covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, WHO ARE
ALL OF US HERE ALIVE THIS DAY." Now, this covenant
in Horeb had been mnade with these persons about thirtyeight years previously, when many of them were children
and infants, and all of them in nonage.
But it is not necessary to cite particular instances; the
simple fact that children were entered into covenant with
God by circumcision is sufficient to put this question for
ever at rest. And here, be it remembered, the question
does not hinge on the spirituality of the covenant. We
91 
INFANT BAPTISM.
are not now speaking of the moral qualification of infants
to be entered into covenant, but of the natural fitness of
their being thus entered.  The moral aspect of this question must be determined by the fitness of children for
heaven; the question now before us relates to the propriety
-the natural fitness-of entering them into covenant relations to God; and this, we say, is decided affirmatively by
the actual appointment of God, in relation to circumcision.
And here we plead for no principle that is not recognised and sanctioned by Scripture, by all civil governments, and by the reason of mankind.   The plain truth in
the case is, that if infants have any interest in the benefits
of the covenant, that interest ought to be recognised in a
lawful way. If infants, equally with their pious parents,
are sharers in the bounteous provisions of the atonement,
(which is the great blessing secured in the Abrahamic
covenant,) they obviously possess an equal right with their
parents to the visible mark, or token, of participation in
such blessings.   Under all civil governments  children
have rights; it is a law of nature and a dictate of justice
that these rights should be recognised and protected. The
protection of the laws, the rights of citizenship, and of
property, are secured to them, not on the principle of their
being of a certain age, or of their being competent to judge
of the value of these blessings, but on the principle of their
relation to their parents.   On this point we shall dwell
more at large in another place. This, then, is the principle for which we contend. Children are as capable of
sustaining covenant relations to God, so far as the question of natural fitness and propriety is concerned, as they
are of sustaining any civil relations to government.  They
are as capable of possessing spiritual rights and immunities as civil rights; and are as capable of being injured in
respect of the former as of the latter. Their spiritual
rights are not founded on the circumstance of age or intellectual acquirements, but on the fact of their being human
beings, included, equally with their parents, in the covenant of redemption. It is in view of these facts that we
may well repeat the caution, "Take heed that ye despise
not one of these little ones." That the New Testament
recognises this view will be made to appear in the process
of the argument.
92 
INFANT BAPTISM.
3. The right of infants to the initiatory ordinance is
recognised and proved in different places in the New
Testament.
[1.] We call the reader's attention to Gal. iii, 29, "And
if ye be Christ's, THEN are ye Abraham's seed- and heirs
ACCORDINO TO THE PROMISE."  In this passage it is placed
beyond a doubt that the believer in Christ comes exactly
under the ancient charter of rights granted to Abraham,
and, according to the true spirit of that ancient grant,
becomes an heir of life. In other words, a true Christian
comes exactly in that relation to the Abrahamic covenant
that a pious Jew sustained before the time of Christ.
Inldeed, it is fully attested that the promise of that covenant was not to ilhe Jews as the natural descendants of
Abraham, but to all believers in Christ as the spiritual
children of that patriarch. -It was according to this spiritual lineage that the inheritance of grace and church
privileges was to be reckoned, and not according to natural
descent. To the same purport is verse 7 of the same
chapter: " Know ye therefore that they which are offaith,
THE SAME ARE THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM." Now, the
argument is obvious. If the converted Gentile come in
the same relation to the covenant as the pious Jew, we
must look also, and as a matter of course, for a correspond.
ing application of the ordinances, or institutes of that
covenant. For instance, if the initiating ordinance of this
covenant, under the law, applied to the Jew, and to his
infant offspring, the same application of the ordinance
must be made to the Christian and his children, under the
gospel, if it be true that the latter comes exactly in the
same relations to the covenant as the former. It makes
no difference that the external form of this ordinance is
changed; whatever it be as to form, it must take the same
adaptations as anciently. The ancient privileges of the
covenant must be maintained. The rights of the true
children of Abraham are unimpaired; and if the children
of ancient Jews-who were the "children of the covenant"- were entitled to certain privileges and church
relations, the children of believers now-coming, as they
do, in the exact relations of ancient Jews to this same
covenant-are entitled to the same rights.
It must be remembered that circumcision was the seal
5
93
iI 
INFANT BAPTISM.
of the covenant, and not, as many seem to imagine, a part
of the peculiar institutes of Mloses. It is proper that every
covenant should have its seal, which may be regarded in
the light of the proper signatures of the parties, attesting
the validity and binding nature of the contract. It is hence,
as we have already observed, Jehovah has always annexed
seals, or tokens, to his covenants.  The seal, or token, of
the Abrahamic covenant was to be applied to all the male
children of that patriarch. This no one will deny.  The
question, then, is, Who  are the children of Abraham?
The text under consideration declares that "if we be
Christ's, THEN are we Abraham's seed." Now, if baptism
be the seal of the covenant under the present dispensation,
as circumcision was under the former; and if-Christians
now come exactly in the same relations to that covenant
that pious Jews sustained anciently-being  as truly the
"seed of Abraham" and the "children of the covenant"
as they-then, does it not follow that, the covenant being
the same, our relations to it the same, and the "seal" yet
remaining, we are to look for an application of the seal
corresponding to its ancient use? Would not the apostles,
who were Jews, and their converted Jewish brethren,
naturally understand it thus? Can any thing be more plain
and undeniable than this?  Here, then, is a recognition,
not of infant baptism by name, but of principles that as
naturally and necessarily involve the practice of infant
baptism, as any process of moral reasoning can involve a
sequence in antecedent causes.   And herein is infant
baptism inculcated, not directly and by name, but by analogy and inference.   Antecedent principles are established, and put beyond a doubt, and the mind is left to
trace, bv an easy, natural, and succinct process, the proximate and obvious result; and that result is, that children
of Christian parents now, possess the same covenant rights
and relations - as did the children of Jewish parents anciently.
[2.] The second passage we cite in proof that the right
of infants to the initiatory ordinance is recognised in the
New Testament, is Matt. xxviii, 19, " Go ye, therefore,
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Thie question to be settled in reference to this passage
94 
INFANT BAPTISM.$.
is this: "Would the apostles naturally understand the
words of this commission as authorizing and directing
infant baptism?" We think it is perfectly plain that they
would so understand their commission; and would consequently go forward in the practice of infant baptism, unless
restrained and prohibited by a special interdict.  This,
we are aware, the reader may deem gratuitous and unfounded; but if he will follow us with patience and candour a little, we hope to be able to dispel every shadow
of obscurity from this important passage. To enable the
reader to judge of the argument, we shall be obliged to
enter somewhat into detail, and lay before him fully all the
circumstances of the case.
1.) We argue that the apostles would understand this
commission as authorizing and directing infant baptism,
from the fact that the children of proselytes were baptized
by the Jews. They were accustomed to make proselytes
of infant children, as well as of adults, by baptism. The
argument will be fully comprehended by attention to the
following:  (a.) The passage is not happily translated. The text
stands thus: "Go ye, therefore, and laOq7TevaaTr matheteusate, make disciples, or proselytes, of all nations, baptizing them," &c.*
Baptist authors, seeing the importance of this passage, and that
if the translation we have adopted be received, infant baptism would
be a very probable and natural inference, have insisted upon the
common English version, which merely says, " teach all nations."
But this is objectionable. The translation we have given is, to say
the least, as consistent with the original as the one in our common
English version.  This the Baptists themselves will not deny.  Besides, the specific duty of teaching is referred to in the very next
verse, and is expressed in another word.   Our English presents a
perfect tautology, "Go teach all nations... teaching them."  It will
not be argued that this is either a smooth or forcible sense. The two
words are not the same in the original, and certainly cannot be sup
posed, with any propriety, to bear exactly the same sense here. The
first, which occurs in verse 19, enjoins upon the apostles to bring
Dersons over to the Christian profession, which, in an adult, would
imply some elementary teaching.  But the second word, which occurs
in verse 20, enjoins upon them to instruct these converts. The
former word is more general, the latter more specific. Doddridge
renders it, "Go forth therefore, and proselyte all the nations...
teaching them," &c.- This makes the same sense as the marginal
reading, " Go  make disciples, or Christians, of all nations," &c.
95
i7- - 
(b.) The word DISCIPLE, in the Christian vocabulary,
answers exactly to the word PROSELYTE, in the Jewish.
A disciple is a proselyte; the only difference consisting
in the circumnstance that the latter is employed in the
Scriptures to designate a Jewish convert, while the former
applies to a convert to Christianity. A Jewish proselyte
was one that was brought from heathenism and incorporated into the Jewish church; a Christian proselyte, or
disciple, was one that was taken either from Jews or
heathen, and became a follower of Christ. But the primary idea of both words is convert, or follower. There
was a class of citizens among the Jews from the earliest
period of their history, denominated:e.   and -i:  ~:,
that is, strangers, sons of strangers, foreigners, &c. These
were, for the most part, proselytes to the Jewish religion
who dwelt in the land,* and, though Jews in religion, were
distinguished from native Hebrews by the common appellation of strangers. This same class of persons was afterward called proselytes, fronm 79oo  to, and s)evOw) to come,
to come to, and signifies a person who has left his own
country and has come to another-that is, a stranger,
foreigner; and also, figuratively, a person who has left
his former practices and has come to, or embraced, a new
religion; or that has left his former teacher and has come
to a new onre,-that is, a proselyte, a disciple, afollower, a
Now, it is incontestable that they were commanded  to uaeOrevaare
make  disciples, BEFORE they were commanded to dt6a,a7c  teach.
If not, why are these commands enjoined in this order? and if both
these words mean the same thing in this place, why are the two
employed, instead of one word, which would have been more simple?
It is therefore absurd to suppose they mean the same thing. They
were to perform the first command, (tq make disciples,) before, or
rather by, baptism; they were to perform the second command (to
teach, indoctrinate) after baptism.
Furthermore, the verb bears this sense elsewhere.  Thus, Matt
xxvii, 57, "Joseph.. who was elcyarrevCe made a disciple of Jesus."
Acts xiv, 21, " And when they had preached the gospel in that city,
eat juaOnrevaavre~ tKavovc and having made disciples of many."
That these persons of Derbe were not only taught, but actually dis.
cipled, that is, baptized, and brought under the denomination of
Christians, is evident, for in verse 22 they are called /taOyr7v diciples, and in verse 23 are spoken of as church members.
* Vide Dr. A. Clarke's Com. on Exod. xii, 43. Robinson's Calmet,
art. Proselyte.
96
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
convert, &c.  The word iaOqr7l mathetes, disciple, primarily signifies a scholar; that is, one who has placed
himself under the tutorage of another. A person who left
his idolatry and heathen worship, and came to Moses,
adopting him as his authoritative teacher and guide in
religion, was called a proselyte: a person who "forsook
all" and came to Christ, accepting him as his only religious teacher and guide, was called a disciple. The primary idea in both words is the same. Our Saviour used
the word disciple instead of proselyte, probably for no other
reason than to avoid the confusion that would result from
adopting a strictly Jewish vocabulary, although that vocabulary might, otherwise, have equally served his purpose.
Thus he has used church (esicKlata) instead of synagogue,
(avvay~y&i,) although they both signify the same thingthat is, an assembly-merely to distinguish between a
Jewish and a Christian congregation. Yet, if the word
synagogue had not already been in use among the Jews,
and received by them a specific meaning, it might have
been used in the New Testament instead of ekklesia with
equal propriety.   We  make these remarks in order to
show that the original idea conveyed by the two words,
proselyte and disciple, is one and the same; and also to
show the probable reason why the word disciple was
adopted in the Christian vocabulary, instead of proselyte.
But we have still higher authority than the mere resemblance of their etymological significations, for making the
two words essentially synonymous.
The descriptions which are given in the New Testament
of a disciple are borrowed from, and answer to, the descriptions of a Jewish proselyte.  For instance, "the first
condition of proselytism among the Jews was, that he who
came to embrace their religion should come voluntarily,
and that neither force nor influence should be employed
in this business. This, also, is the first condition required
by Jesus Christ, and which he considers as the foundation
of all the rest.'If any man be willing (st'l  Oe~~t) to
come after me,' Matt. xvi, 24. The second condition required in the Jewish proselyte was, that he should perfectly renounce all his prejudices, his errors, his idolatry,
and every thing that concerned his false religion, and that
he should entirely separate himself from his most intimate
97 
INFANT BAPTISiM.
friends and acquaintances. It was on this ground that the
Jews called proselytism a new birth, and proselytes new
born, and new men; and-our Lord requires men to be born
again, not only of water, but by the Holy Ghost. John
iii, 5. All this our Lord includes in this word, let him
renounce himself —arra{avqaa(0 kavrov. Mark viii, 34.
To this the following3 scriptures refer: Matt. x, 33; John
iii, 3, 5; 2 Cor. v, 17. The third condition on which a
person was admitted into the Jewish church as a proselyte
was, that he should submit to the yoke of the Jewish law,
and patiently bear the inconveniences and sufferings with
which a profession of the Mosaic religion might be accompanied.  Christ requires the same condition, but, instead
of the yoke of the law, he brings in his own doctrine,
which he calls his yoke (Matt. xi, 29) and his cross, (Matt.
xvi, 24; Mark viii, 34,) the taking up of which not only
implies a bold profession of Christ crucified, but also a
cheerful submitting to all the sufferings and persecutions
to which he might be exposed, and even to death itself.
The fourth condition was, that they should solemnly engage to continue in the Jewish religion, faithful even unto
death. This condition Christ also required, and it is comprised in this word, let him follow me. Matt. xvi, 24-26;
Mark viii, 34-37."*
(c.) It is not necessary to extend remarks on so plain
a case. If, then, disciple and proselyte signify the same
thing-and if the apostles, in their Jewish state, had
always been acquainted with a particular mode of proselyting-it is evident that they would naturally understand
the command to make disciples of all nations as tantamount
to a command to make proselytes of all nations, and that
they would also proceed to mnake disciples just as they had
always been taught to make proselytes, unless otherwise
instructed. This is obvious. If any new method of
making disciples, or proselytes, was to be adopted, that
method must be pointed out. If any alteration of the old
method was to be made, that alteration should and must
have been clearly defined; otherwise the apostles would
have gone on and understood and applied terms according
to general usage, and the principles of their religious edu   * Horne's Introd., part iii, chap. ii, sec. 3. Clarke's Com. on Mark
viii, 34.
98 
INFANT BAPTISM.9
cation. Our Lord well knew what influence the former
education and prejudices of-the disciples would exert in
the interpretation of the words of the commission,* and lie
therefore specifies wherein the particular mode of their
making disciples was to differ from the Jewish mode of
making proselytes, namely, that whereas the Jews received
proselytes by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice,t they
were to make disciples of all nations only by baptizing
them. Baptism,l then, to the exclusion of the other ceremonies, was to be the Christian method of making proselytes. So far, then, the apostles understood. But were
there any further directions necessary? Was it necessary
to give any direction respecting the baptism of infants?
Plainly not. The circumstances of the case did not require a distinct command in order that the apostles should
thus apply their commission, but just the contrary; they
required a distinct prohibition of infant baptism if the apostolic commission was not to be thus construed and applied.
The inquiry which now becomes necessary, in order to
set this whole matter in a clear light, is, "What was the
Jewish method of proselyting with reference to children?"
The answer to this we have anticipated above.- It is plain
that whatever might have been this method, or usage, the
disciples would unquestionably have copied it, and have
construed their commission by this usage, unless prohibited by an express command of the Saviour.
The practice of making proselytes, with regard to children, is very well understood by all who have any knowledge of the sacred antiquities of the Jews. It was their
invariable practice to proselyte, in the usual way, all the
children of converted parents.  The  children that were
born after their parents had become  proselytes were
treated, in all respects, like Jewish children:  but the
* I wish the reader to bear in mind the fact, that at the time of
Christ, and previously, the spirit of proselyting ran high among the
Jews, and great efforts were made to bring over to their faith the
Gentile nations. Thus Idumea was wholly brought over as a nation.
Josephus, Ant., b. xiii, c. 9, ~ 1. Thus, also, in every nation the
apostles found proselytes. Acts ii, 10; vi, 5; and xiii, 43. See also
Josephus, Ant., b. xx, c. 3, ~ 4. Our Saviour alludes to the universal
passion of the nation for proselyting, in Matt. xxiii, 15. Every Jew
was familiar with the mode of proselyting.
t See Calmet's Diet., art. Proselyte.          t See Note C.
99
-.1,    ,,,  1.
,,, I, " 
INFANT BAPTIS3f.
children that were born before their parents became proselytes were admitted into the church by circumcision, (if
males,) baptism, and sacrifice.  "Boys under twelve years
of age, and girls under thirteen, could not become proselytes till they had obtained the consent of their parents,
or, in case of refusal, the concurrence of the officers of
justice. Baptism, in respect of girls, had the same effect
as circumcision in respect of boys. Each of them, by
means of this, received, as it were, a new birth."* Whenever a heathen became a proselyte to the Jewish religion,
he thereby became a Jew in every sense, except by birth
and early education; he thereby came under obligation to
the Mosaic law, and became entitled to all the privileges
of the law and of the covenant, just as though he had been
born and educated a Jew, or was, as it was called, a
" Hebrew of the Hebrews." Consequently it became his
duty to consecrate his children to God, as the Mosaic law
required of all Jews. But as those children which had
been born before their parents became proselytes had been
born in a state of heathenism, they needed, in the estimation of the Jews, the same process of purification from
heathenism as their parents, and were, consequently, subjected to the same ordinances.
2.) But, furthermore, we argue that the apostles would
have taken authority from their commission to baptize
infants, (and would consequently have instituted the practice, unless prohibited,) from the fact, before alluded to,
that infants had always been treated as the proper subjects
of the initiating rite. This circumstance need not be dwelt
upon here, but it must not be forgotten that its force is
necessarily unequivocal and decisive.
In connection with this fact, it should be considered
that baptisms were always practised by the Jews in a
religious manner. Whenever a Jew had contracted any
ceremonial defilement, he was temporarily suspended from
the privileges and communion of the Jewish church, until,
by purification, or baptism, he was again restored. These
purifications were repeatedly called baptisms in the New
Testament.   They had all the effect of a ceremony of
initiation, for they actually restored the lapsed Jew to his
* Robinson's Calmet, art. Proselyte.  See Note C.
100 
regular standing in the church.  When Christ commanded
to make disciples by baptism, the ceremony was by no
means a new one. The baptism of John occasioned no
surprise among the Jews, as it would have done had it
been a novel practice, only they were a little surprised
that any person less than Christ himself should administer
it. John i, 25.  When, therefore, in connection with this,
we consider that the apostles had no idea of a church that
did not contain infant members, we are forced to conclude
that they would have so understood their commission as
to give baptism to infants,, unless expressly instructed to
thile contrary.
To all this it must be added, that Christ had bestowed
special consideration upon children, and in a solemn
manner taught his disciples also to bestow upon them a
religious regard, declaring that "of such the kingdom of
heaven is composed." These considerations must have
exerted a powerful influence over the apostles' minds,
disposing them to the baptism of infants, unless, as we
have said, they had been prohibited by a special cominand.
And here, candid reader, I would have you pause and
review -the statements under this section-form a just
estimate of all the circumstances of the case-and draw
your conclusion. Do not mistake the nature and bearing
of the argument, particularly that from Jewish proselyte
baptism. This has been too often done already, and has
occasioned an unreasonable prejudice against the doctrine
of infant baptism. I am sorry to find, in Professor Ripley's reply to Professor Stuart on baptism —a work eviincing, much ability and candour-I am sorry, I say, to find
in such a work so unjust a statement as the following:"I know," says that author, "what use has been made by
Pedobaptist writers of the possible, or probable, or, as they
have often regarded it, certain fact that proselyte baptism
was performed among the Jews before the Christian era;
namely, that it has been used as a starting point in the
defence of infant baptism."  The author then adds, "If any
Christians choose thus intimately to connect their proof of
what they practise as a divine ordinance with the superstitious practices of the Jews,-practices, too, the antiquity
of which is so much a matter of disputation,-on them
iNFkN'I''BAI"rlS-)I.
101 
INFANT BAPTISM.
selves be the responsibility of deserting the plain, beaten
path of Holy Scripture."*
We cannot disguise our astonishment and grief at finding such statements from the pen of so amiable and candid
an author, calculated as they are to misguide and misinform the uninstructed reader. It takes an entirely erroneous view of the argument drawn from the "apostolic
commission," and of the use made of Jewish proselyte
baptism in this connection.   We  deduce no warrant for
infant baptism from the "superstitious practices of the
Jews." Nay, further, we do not deemn it an essential
point at all, whether the Jews ever baptized proselytes
before the Christian era.  All that we profess to do is
that which Professor Ripley himnself, and also every other
expositor of the Bible, is bound to do, namely, to so estimate the history of those times, and the particular education and habits of the apostles themselves, as to be able
rightly to judge of the manner in which they would naturally construe the words of their commission. And this,
it is well known, involves a principle at once the most
difficult and important in Biblical exegesis. How large a
portion of the Bible would still remain in obscurity, but
for the knowledge that has come down to us from foreign
sources respecting the religious, social, and domestic habits
of the ancients! Indeed, it would be trifling with time,
and with the intelligence and good sense of the reader, to
dilate upon this topic.  Whatever goes to determine the
usus loquendi of the sacred writings, whether it come from
the errors or the orthodoxy of the ancients-their religion
or their superstition-must be taken into account.  "It is
common," says Mr. Wall, "for a rule or law to be so
worded, as that one may perceive that the Lawgiver has
supposed, or taken for granted, that the people to whom it
was already given did already know some things which
were previous to the apprehending of his meaning; so
that it was needless to express thenm.  But though these
things were ordinarily known to the people of that time
and place, yet we, who live at so great a distance of time,
do not know them without an inquiry made into the history
of the state of that time, as to those things which the law
Christian Baptislm, p. 109.  See also Robiinsoii's Ihistory of Bap.
tismi, p. 37.
102 
INFANT BAPTISM.
speaks of; and, consequently, without such inquiry, the
rule or law that was plain to them, will, in many particulars, be obscure to us.  So, for example, many  of the
Grecian and Roman laws, whereof we have copies yet
extant, would not be well understood by us unless they
were explained to us by such as have skill in the history
of the state of affairs in those empires.   And so many
passages in the books of the New Testament of our Saviour are not rightly apprehended without having recourse
to the books of the Old Testament, and other books,
wherein the customs of the Jewish nation are set forth,
for understanding the state of religion among the people
at that time when our Saviour gave his rules."*
This, then, is the use we would make of the practice
and method of proselyting among the Jews. We do not
argue that infants are to be baptized now, because the Jews
had a practice anciently of baptizing the children of proselytes. We do not, as Professor Ripley would intimate,
and which, indeed, he has plainly stated, "intimately connect the proof of what we regard as a divine ordinance
with the superstitious practices of the Jews."   If any
person supposes this he is wholly in an error, and if he
continue to hold and teach such an opinion, he greatly
abuses both himself and those who have the misfortune to
believe him.  But we say, that the early Jewish education
of the apostles, in relation to making proselytes, must have
had a decisive influence over their minds in determining
the construction to be put upon that part of their commission which required them to "make disciples of all nations;" and that, as the words proselyte and disciple signified substantially the same thing, in a religious sense, the
apostles would have gone forth discipling the nations in
the same method by which they had always been accustomed to see proselytes made, unless they had been otherwise instructed. And all this is saying no more than that
men will naturally explain language, in any given instance,
according to the custom of the age, unless specially instructed to the contrary.
It is a matter of no importance to the present argument,
whether the Jews fairly derived their authority for baptizing proselytes from the Bible, or only from their doctors.
*History of Infant Baptism, Introduction.
103 
INFANT BAPTISM.
The truth is, they had such a practice, and they quoted the
Old Testament Scriptures as their authority. Whether,
therefore, the practice were rightly or wrongly founded on
the sacred Scriptures, they fully believed it to be of divine
authority, and hence, it is easy to perceive that it would
have the same influence over their minds, in determining
the sense of their commission, as though it had been
indisputably of divine authority: that is, without a prohibition, they would naturally have understood it as authorizing and directing them to baptize infants. The question
is not, whether the baptism of Jewish proselytes-infants
as well as adults-was right? but, whether the disciples,
and all the Jews, believed it to be right? for the influence
which it would exert over their minds is not to be measured by the absolute fitness or obligation of the practice,
but by their views of its fitness and obligation.
The argument, then, is plain.  "Suppose our Saviour
had ordered the apostles to require the nations to keep the
Jewish feasts. If he had meant that they should not keep
the' feast of the dedication,' (which had no divine institution, but yet, being become customary, was observed by
all the Jews, and even by Christ himself,) as well as the
passover, and the rest which had been commanded in the
law, he would doubtless in that case have excepted that.
And there is the same reason in the case before us,"* [to
suppose that, if the baptism of infants was to be omitted
by the apostles, this exception would have been expressly
made in their commtission, or elsewhere; otherwise, it
being a universal practice among the Jews, in regard to
proselytes,-a practice which they regarded as of divine
authority,-it would have been retained by the apostles,
and through them by the churches.]
We are not to interpret the language of Scripture according to the opinions and usages of our own times, but
we are to go back to the ages in which the Bible was first
delivered to men-search into the opinions and practices
of those ages-form a just and natural estimate of the
then existing opinions and prejudices, and of the force
which they would naturally exert over the interpretation
and use of language, and, in view of all -these modifying
circumstances, we must form our opinion of the meaning
*Wall's Hist., part i, Introduction.
104 
INFANT BAPT.ISM.
of the laws and declarations of holy writ. The principle
which I am endeavouring here to define is of fundamental
importance in the interpretation of the Scriptures, and I
feel authorized, from this- consideration, to urge it upon
the reader's most candid and mature consideration. I wish
him to feel its importance to the present argument, as well
as the justness and propriety with which it has been here
employed. Vain and fallacious, indeed, must be that
method of reasoning on this subject, which makes no account of the pre-existing opinions and prejudices of the
apostles themselves, and of the Jews in general.  With
such a reckless and blind method of constructing theories,
it becomes a hopeless undertaking to search for truth.
Long as I have detained the reader upon this particular
point, and great as may be the hazard of incurring the
charges of prolixity and repetition, I cannot deny myself
the satisfaction of closing these remarks with the following
pertinent statements of Dr. Woods:  "If, then," says that author, "it had been the uniform
custom of the Jews to baptize proselytes to their religion,
as we certainly have much reason to think, it is clear that
the baptism of proselytes by John and by Christ was no
new thing. It is, at any rate, clear that baptism, as a religious rite, had been familiarly known among the Jews
from the time of Moses. So that the rite which John the
Baptist instituted was not by any means a new rite. The
question put to him [John i, 25,' Why baptizest thou then,
if thou art not the Christ?'] plainly implies that baptism
was not regarded by the Jews at that time as a new rite.
It was this rite, long used for ceremonial purification, and
also in the case of proselytes to the Jewish religion, which
John applied to those Jews who listened to his instructions, and gave signs of repentance. Afterward Christ
ordained, that this same rite, which had thus been used
among the Israelites for purification, and thus applied to
converted Gentiles, and to Jews who repented under the
preaching of John, should, from that time, be applied to
all, in every part of the world, who embraced Christianity.
The work of proselyting men to the true religion had before
been carried on within [comparatively] narrow limits. It
was now to be carried on extensively; and baptism, in the
Christian form, was now to be administered to all prose
105 
INFANT BAPTISM.,
lytes:' Go ye, and proselyte all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.' In judging of the true meaning and intent
of this commission, the apostles would naturally consider
in what manner baptism had been administered; and particularly its having been applied to proselytes and their
children.  This last circumstance, in addition to the other
with which they were so familiar-namely, that of having
children as well as parents consecrated to God by circumcision-must have had a direct and decisive influence
upon the construction which the apostles put upon their
commission, and must -have led them to conclude that,
under the Christian dispensation, children as well as parents were to be devoted to God by baptism, unless some
contrary instruction was given to prevent such a conclusion.  Knapp says,' If Christ, in his command to baptize
all, Matt. xxviii, had wished children to be excepted, he
must have expressly said this. For, since the first disciples of Christ, as native Jews, knew no other way than
for children to be introduced into the Israelitish church by
circumcision, it was natural that they should extend this to
baptism, if Christ did not expressly forbid it. Had he
therefore wished that it should not be done, he would
surely have said so in definite terms."'*  But no such
prohibitive terms are recorded; nor have we the least
evidence to believe that the apostles ever received such
instructions privately; for, as we shall hereafter show,
both their subsequent practice, and that of the Christian
church, combine to preclude such a supposition.
[3.] The New Testament affirms that relationship of
infants to the church which implies their baptism. This
is tantamount to asserting their right to baptism.  Indeed,
it is asserting it, not directly, but by implication. Certain
things were predicated of infants anciently, which, when
rightly understood, implied their baptism. This is the
ground we here take.
1.) The first passage I shall cite under this head is that
of Matt xix, 13-15:  "Then were there brought unto him
little children, that he should put his hands on them, and
pray: and the disciples rebuked them.  But Jesus said,
Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
* Lectures on Infant Baptism, pp. 50, 51.
106 
INFANT BAPTIS M.                    0
me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid
his hands on them, and departed thence." Mark says,
(x, 16,) "And he took them up in his arms, put his hands
upon them, and blessed them."
In these passages are several facts stated, to which we
will attend in their order.
I understand that those whom they brought to Christ
were  infants.   Matthew  and Mark  both  say, "They
brought unto him little children." The text does not read,
"They brought unto him rratda9 paidas, children, or youth;"
but the diminutive,  ratdta paidia, little children, is used.
Luke says, (xviii, 15,) "'FThey brought unto him also
(69e~'o~ brephos, infants;" the same word is rendered babe
in chap. i, 41, 44; ii, 12, 16; Acts vii, 19; and in a
figurative sense, 1 Pet. ii, 2.  I make these references
that the English reader may see the meaning of the word.
Indeed, the facts that they brought these children to Christ,
(probably in their arms,) and that Christ "took them up in
his arms" to bless them, sufficiently show that they were
infants. I know not that this is denied.
Our Saviour affirms that infants compose the kingdom
of heaven.
Two distinct and important points present themselves,
in this place, for investigation. First. Does our Saviour
intend to say that infants themselves belong to the kingdom  of heaven, or only such as in moral dispositions
resemble them? Secondly. What is intended in this place
by "the kingdom of heaven?"
(a.) We deem it perfectly plain that Christ intended to
be understood that infants themselves are the lawful members of the kingdom of heaven. We are confident that a
plain, common-sense, unvitiated mnind, that had no party
interests to serve, nor party influence- to bias his judgment,
would never think of another interpretation of these very
clear and comprehensible words.   But such is the posture
of this subject, that we should be deemed wanting in our
argument did we not offer proof of this position.
1. Let the reader, then, consider that Christ was speaking to children directly. They were the exclusive subject
of his remarks, not merely the occasion of them. What he
affirms, therefore, he affirms of children. In Matt. xviii, 2,
"Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the
107 
INFANT BAPTIShF.
midst," for the purpose of illustrating and inculcating the
virtue of Christian hunmility. In that connection, therefore,
as might be expected from the occasion, our Saviour, in
the process of his discourse, speaks sometimes of little
children as such, and sometimes of his true disciples as
though they were little children; calling them ltKp(6)v
'OV6)oV these little ones, because in moral dispositions they
resembled children.  The whole discourse of our Saviour,
in that connection, turned upon the declaration, "Except
ye be converted, and become Ad  ra ratda hos ta pazdia,
AS little children," &c.  The primary object of that occasion was to inculcate humility upon the disciples, by pointing out the resemblance between little children and true
Christians.  And yet, it is worthy of note, that Mark, in
speaking of this occasion, (chap. ix, 37,) says, "Whosoever shall receive ev'-()v TOlOVT6)v 7radt6)v one of such
children in my name," &c., evidently meaning infants as
well as those adults who resemble them in moral dispositions; and Luke expressly says, speaking of the same
occasion, (chap. ix, 48,) "Whosoever shall receive'OVTOV
To wrartov THIS little child in my name."  Language could
not be more explicit.  These children were to be "received,"-as well as adults who resembled them, in Christ's
name.  But on the occasion before us, they brought little
children unto Jesus, not for the purpose, primarily, of using
them to inculcate any moral lessons upon others, but that
they themselves might receive from Christ a blessing. It
is true that in the parallel places of Mark x, 13, and Luke
xviii, 15, our Saviour again institutes the comparison between little children and his true disciples, but this comparison was a secondary thought an accident, and inot the
primary object of the occasion; and it was made after he
had affirmed that children composed "the kingdom of
heaven."
2. But suppose (which, however, we cannot admit)
our Saviour did intend to say, not that children themselves
were the subjects of the kingdom, but merely that those
who were like to them in moral dispositions belonged to
this kingdom.   What has the objector gained by this supposition? Has he proved that children themselves are not
subjects of this kingdom? By no means. Do away the
doctrine that children belong to the kingdom of heaven,
108 
and you destroy the ground of the comparison, and the
beauty of the metaphor. For instance, if children are not
the proper subjects of this kingdom, they must be regarded
as aliens. But how can an adult become a fit subject of
the kingdom of God, by an exact resemblance to persons
who themselves are aliens?  How could our Lord have
said, "Except ye be converted and become  as these,
(aliens?) ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven?'
If children themselves are not members of the kingdom,
we see not how they could fitly represent those who are.
Our Saviour, we apprehend, might have hit upon a happier
metaphor.*  It is true that he compares his true disciples
sometimes to "doves" and to "sheep " but never in the
strong language of the text under consideration.  He
never said in reference to sheep, "Of such is the kingdom
of heaven," nor did he ever command us to receive such
"in his name."
3. But, furthermore, it must be considered that our Saviour adduces the membership of children as a reason why
they should be brought to him. This is a most decisive
proof that'he here intends to affirm that children themselves belong to the kingdom of heaven. If they do not
belong to Christ's kingdom-if our Lord only intended to
say that certain persons who resembled children belonged
to his kingdom- then, how could he make this a reason
for urging the duty of bringing little children themselves to
him to be blessed? The sequel shows that Christ took
"little children" into his arms and blessed them; and he
commanded the disciples to "suffer them to come unto
him," alleging, as a reason, that "of such is the kingdom
of heaven." But what propriety can there be in assigning
such a reason for bringing little children to Christ, if the
pronominal adjective "such" refer'not to children themselves, but only to those who resemble them in moral dis
positions? Take the true statement of this proposition, as
our opponents would understand it.  It is this: "Suffer
little children to come unto me, because believing adults
* "' Of such is the kingdom of heaven;' not of such only as were
like these infants. For if they themselves were not fit to be subjects
of that kingdom, how could others be so, because they were like
them? Infants, therefore, are capable of being admitted into the
church, and have a right thereto." — resley' Is Works, vol. vi, p. 18.
]og
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
who resemble them in moral dispositions belong tO the
kingdom of heaven." Now, is there any sense at all in
this mode of reasoning?  If children themselves are not
the subjects of the kingdom, our Lord might as well have
applied the same phraseology to " sheep," and have said,
"Suffer sheep to come unto me,'" because believers who
resemble sheep in their innocency of temper "belong to
the kingdom of heaven.?'  In this passage, "the subject
presented before the mind was, the -little children themselves.  They were brought to Christ for his blessing.
IJpon them the attention of all was fixed. To them the
objection of the disciples related.   And surely, what
Christ said in the way of reply to that objection must
have related to them."
4. To these considerations it is only necessary to add,
that -OoOVTOw toioutos, rendered such in the text, and which
is here to be taken in its literal sense, "properly denotes
the nature or quality of the thing to which it is applied.
'Innuit qualitatem rei.'-Schleusner.' Such,  of this kind
or sort.'-Robinson's Wahl."
Take a few examples of the use of this adjective:
Matt. ix, 8, "And the multitude glorified God, who had
given rotawvTv toiauten SUCH power unto men."
Mark iv, 33,'"' And with many Totav-atg toiautais sucH
parables spake he the word unto them."
Mark vi, 2, "That even Totavwat toiautai SUCH mighty
works are wrought by his hands."
Luke ix, 9.  Herod said, "But who is this of whom I
hear rotavTa toiauta sucH things?'
Luke xiii, 2, "Suppose ye that these Galileans were
sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered
,rotavra toiauta SUCH things?"
John ix, 16, "How can a mani that is a sinner do
rotavra toiauta sucH miracles?"
In 2 Cor. xii, 2, 3, this word is used to signify this
same.  Thus Paul says, " Such a one caught up," &c.,
that is, this same one caught up.  "I knew'otov'ov
avOpwonov such a man;" that is, this same man.  The
literal and usual idea of this word is, the same things before spoken of, and all like them.  For instance, Paul says,
Rom  i, 32, "They which commit  rotavra such things
are worthy of death;" that is, those who commit these
110 
INFiAN' BAPTISM.
same things that he has been enumerating, and kindred
crimnes, are worthy of death. So also chap. ii, 2, 3, et
alibi frequenter. In the Septuagint version we find the
same use of the term. So Jer. v, 9, " Shall not my soul
be avenged on covet'otOV-w-  sUCH a nation?" that is, this
same nation and all like' it.
It is unnecessary to multiply citations under this head.
The use of the adjective rotovero  toioutos, such, is sufficierrtly obvious.   It signifies lite'rally, the things before
specified, and all like to them. When used indefinitely, it
signifies all persons or things of the particular class mentioned, including those which are specified in the context.
Our Saviour says, "And many rotsetre SUCH like things they
do;" that is, they do the things before specified, and many
others of the same class. Mark vii, 8; also verse 13. So
in Gal. v, 23, "Against such there is no law;" that is,
there is no law against such particular virtues as those
specified, or any acts of this class.   In Matt. xviii, 5,
Jesus says, "Whosoever shall receive one,7ratdov rOtoVro  paidion toiouton, such little child in my name, receiveth
me."   Now, the question is, What is the sense of such?
It has been supposed, as our Sayiour intended  on this
occasion to illustrate the Christian character by the similitude of a little child which he "took and set in the midst
of themr," that ratdtov paidion (a little child) is used figuratively, to signify a true Christian-such a one as resembles
a little child in moral dispositions. This is possible; and
at any rate we do not here wish to controvert it. Suppose,
then, our Saviour intended to say, "WVhoso receiveth one
such disciple in my name," the question remains unchanged.
Who are included in the word such?'The answer is obvious; namely, THE disciple specified, and any or all like
him.   Or, suppose 7ra6toV (little child) is used literally;
the word such would then include THE little child specified,
and any or all like it. So in Matt. xix, 14; where 7rat6ta
is unquestionably used in its literal and usual sense, to
signify little children, infants; it says, " Suffer little childreii, and forbid them not, to come unto me;  yap -OtOV7T)V
coty   P actleLa -rv ovpavwv for of SUCH (rat1d6)v little
children being understood) is the kingdom of heaven." Now
here it is to be remembered, that it is an important rule of
interpretation that no one word in any particular connection
111 
INFANT BAPTISM.
shall take a more general meaning than the whole of the
particular subject to which it alludes.   What is the subject, then, exclusively under discussion in the thirteenth
and fourteenth verses of this chapter?  Plainly it is this:
Whether children, or infants, might with propriety be
brought to Christ for his blessing?" Infants, as being the
suitable subjects of the Saviour's benediction, were the
exclusive subject of remark. Here was no metaphorno figure of speech. The subject was plain, the occasion
important, and words were used in their plain and literal
sense. It is obvious, then, that 7ratotov paidion must modify and restrict the sense of toioutos.  If the former refer
to individuals of a particular class, the latter must refer to
all of that particular class; including, as a matter of course,
the particular individuals specified.   If our Saviour intended little children literally, when he said, "Suffer little
children to come unto me," he must have alluded to all
little children literally, and as such, when he says immediately after, and without giving the least intimation of
having changed his subject, "of such is the kingdom of
heaven." Without, therefore, detaining the reader longer
on this point, we may safely conclude that, if we can
comprehend the proper use and mneaning of language, our
Saviour affirms, in Matt. xix, 14, that little children belong to the kingdom of heaven, as its lawful and proper
subjects.
(b.) What,  then, is intended by "the kingdom  of
heaven?"
1. It is of great importance, both to our pending argument and to a right understanding of many parts of Scripture, that the reader should definitely comprehend this
phrase. It may appear to be used, according to the general practice of the Hebrews, with some variety of signification, but no doubt can ultimately arise as to its entire
definiteness, so far as the purposes of our argument are
concerned. The language of Jewish theology is, for the
most part, figurative, and is borrowed from those sensible
objects which seem to impose themselves with the greater
boldness and frequency upon the outward senses. From
the days of the ancient prophets, the Jews were taught to
contemplate the Messiah in the light of a "Prince," and
his doctrines, precepts, and authority, in the light of a
112 
INFANT BAPTISM.
regularly constituted government. The Psalms are often
to be thus construed.  Isaiah foretold that "the government should be upon his shoulders;" and Zechariah exclaims to the "daughter of Zion," "Behold, thy King
corneth unto thee; he is just, and having salvation." Isa.
ix, 6; Zech. ix, 9. But perhaps no prophet contributed
more to the formation of these views among the Jews than
Daniel; who, alluding to the very age in which Christ
afterward appeared and to the very circumstance of his
mission, says, "And in the days of those kings shall the
God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be
destroyed," Dan. ii, 44.  It was to this that the precursor,
John, alluded, when  he proclaimed, "the kingdom of
heaven is at hand."
2. But this language is not a mere figure of speechb
it is the faithful and literal representation of a sublime and
glorious reality. The system of redemption is nothing
else than a modification of the moral government of Goda special, mediatorial administration-introduced to meet
the exigences, and suit the condition, of a-rebellious pore
tion of Jehovah's subjects.  It was in reference to this
special, remedial administration, that "all power was given
unto Christ, in heaven and in earth." It is at the head
of this administration that he, as Mediator, sits; and it is
this authority that he is-to exert, and in this kingdom that
he must reign, "till he has put down all rule, and all
authority and power.  And then cometh the end, [of this
mediatorial administration,] when he shall have delivered
up the kingdom to God, even the Father," 1 Cor. xv, 24.
3. The question that directly concerns us is, What is
the meaning of the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," in Matt.
xix, 14? In the widest acceptation of this-phrase, in the
New Testament, I understand it to'be synonymous with
what I have above called the Mediatorial administration 
that is, the provisions, promises, institutions, and laws,
constituting the system of human  redemption.   If the
reader;will keep this in view, he will spare himself much
perplexity on a very plain, comprehensible subject. But
sometimes this "kingdom" is spoken of with reference to
its Ruler, while at other times it is spoken of with reference to its subjects, or its laws, institutions, provisions,
and spiritual privileges. Sometimes it is spoken of as the
113 
system under which men receive grace on earthl, and at
other times as the medium by which they shall inherit
glory and immortality in heaven. Sometimes it is connected with the forgiveness of sins, and at others, with
the future and final judgment. Sometimes it is spoken
of as being "preached," at other times as being enjoyed;
and at others, as being "inherited."  It is sometimes
compared to a principle of spiritual life within the human
heart, and at other times it is spoken of with reference to
a community of holy persons, over whom is exercised, by
Christ, paternal and kingly authority. These figures of
speech, so common in Scripture style, by which a part is
put for the whole, or the whole for a part- the subject for
the predicate, or the predicate for the subject-will be
readily comprehended by all those who have any acquaintance with the formation and structure of language, especially of the genius of Hebrew style.
4. In order to ascertain what is the meaning of the
phrase in question, ill the passage of Matt. xix, 14, let us
first inquire, What is its most general and prevailing acceptation in the New Testament, and especially in the
evangelical histories?
In most places in the New Testament where this phrase
occurs, it takes a restricted sense; that is, it imports only
a part of what properly belongs to, or constitutes, the
kingdom Of heaven. In most places, also, it is spoken
of with reference to its effects upon the human heart and
character; or as the system of grace and external means
by which men are fitted, on earth, for the enjoyment and
glory of God hereafter.  In this sense it is often synonymous with our idea of church.  Dr. Robinson says, "Our
Saviour designates usually by the phrase, kingdom of
heaven, the community of those who, united through his
Spirit under him, as their Head  rejoice in the truth, and
enjoy a holy and blissful life in communion with him."*
The word "kingdom," where it means the "kingdom of
God," or of "heaven," occurs, in the New Testament,
about one hundred and seven times, without counting the
parallel places in the Gospels, where it stands in the same
connection.   In ninety-two places it is clearly used to
designate the gospel dispensation, with reference to its
' Robinson's Calmet, art. " Kingdome of heaven."
114
INFANT,BAPTIS,I,f. 
INFANT BAPTISSM.
operations, effects, and the circumstances of its continuance among men in this world, including, of course, the
idea of the visible church. In fifteen places it appears
mostprobably to refer to the Mediatorial government, or
gospel dispensation, with reference to the future destinies
of men. It is difficult to assign any general significations
to this phrase more definite than the above, which shall
be, at the same time, correct. In each particular place
where it occurs the discriminating reader will find no
difficulty in determining its specific and distinct shade of
meaning, without a full enumeration in this place. It is
common to generalize the different acceptations of this
phrase into "the kingdom of grace," and "the kingdom of
glory;" but this division does not fully meet the case.
For the benefit of the more inexperienced reader, I will
subjoin a few passages illustrative of the prevailing New
Testament use of this phrase.
Matt. iii, 2, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand." In this place it refers to the gospel, with all its
primary accompaniments of means and privileges, including
church organization. The same also in chapters iv, 23;
ix, 35; xxiv, 14.
Matt. v-, 3," Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven." See also verse 10. Here, also,
the idea of church is included.  As if he had said, "All
the privileges of my church, both spiritual and external,
belong to such."
Verse 19, " Whosoever shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called
the least in the kingdom of heaven;" that is, the least in
the community of those who compose my kingdom-or
my church.
Verse 20, "Except your righteousness shall exceed,
&c., ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven;"
that is, ye shall not be reckoned, on any account, as the
true subjects of this kingdom.  Ye shall not belong to my
church, or be entitled to my grace and protection.
In all those passages where it speaks of persons entering
into the kingdom, or of their not entering into the kingdom,
or of their being in the kingdom of heaven, where the
application is evidently to this life, the distinct idea of
church is strongly marked and clearly set forth. I do not
115 
INFANT  BAPTISM.
say that the idea of church is synonymous with that of
kingdom of heaven, but I say that the former is clearly
and necessarily included in the latter. See Matt. xi, 11
xix, 24; xxi, 31; xxiii, 13; Mark ix, 47; x, 24; John
iii, 5.
Matt. xvi, 19, " I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." This certainly refers directly to ecclesiastical power and church organization.*
Matt. xxi, 43.  Christ says to the Jews, "The kingdom
of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof." It is obvious that our
Saviour did not here intend to threaten the Jews individually with a dereliction of the spiritual blessings of his
kingdom, such as pardon, sanctification, and the hopes of
eternal life; but only, as a nation, with the loss of their
church organization-their ancient visible church privileges and character. It is easy to perceive, therefore,
that the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," in this place, as in
the last-quoted passage, is as nearly synonymous with
"church" as two words can well be, and, beyond all question, the visible church is the prominent idea intended in
both places.
In Heb. xii, 28, this "kingdom" is contrasted with the
external character and privileges of the Mosaic dispensation, and most clearly includes the idea of church. But it
is not necessary to extend this enumeration. What has
been said is intended to aid the critical acumen of the
finpractised observer.  The point upon which we would
fix attention is, that the phrase, the kingdom of heaven,
wherever it applies to this life, if it be not synonymous
* "Then again, with respect to the' keys of the kingdom of
heaven,' which our Lord promised to give.to Peter, the apostle could
not, I conceive, doubt that he was fulfilling that promise to Peter and
to the rest of them conjointly, when he' appointed unto them a kingdom, and when, on the day of Pentecost, he began the building of his
church, and enabled them, with Peter as their leader and chief spokesman, to open a door to the entrance of about three thousand converts
at once, who received daily accessions to their number. The apostles,
and those commissioned by them; had the office of granting admission
into the society from time to time, to such as they judged qualified.
And that this society, or church, was that'kingdom of heaven' of
which the keys were committed to them, and which they had before
proclaimed as' at hand,' THEY COULD NOT DOUBT."-Archbp. Whate
ley on " the Kingdom of Christ," pp. 78, 79.
116 
INFANT BAPTISM.
with, evidently includes the idea of the visible church.
I have taken the ground that where our Saviour affirms
that infants compose the "kingdom of heaven," he affirms
what is tantamount to their church membership; that is,
he does, by these very words, distinctly and literally affirm
their eligibility, or right, to church membership. This I
regard as incontrovertible. For what is the meaning of
visible church membership but a mere recognition, a public
declaration, or a visible authentication of the fact, that
such members possess a saving interest in the atonement,
and enjoy the favour of God? And what is the grand
object of the visible church but "to gather together in one
[community] all things in Christ," whether Jews or Gentiles; and thus to erect a separate and distinct government
in this sin-disordered world? Whoever, therefore, belongs
to Christ, as a redeemed and justified person-whoever
has received through the atonement the present forgiveness of sin, and acceptance with God-is a member of
Christ's kingdom, and is, consequently; and by virtue
hereof, eligible to visible church membership; for the
visible church is, according to its original design, only the
community of those who are the real subjects of the spiritual "kingdom of heaven," collected together, and designated by external ordinances.  God intended, from the
first issuing of the church charter in the covenant of
Abraham, that all who were the subjects of saving grace
should be thereby eligible to, and thereon admitted into,
the visible church. It is true that all that are subjects of
saving grace are not, as a matter of fact, "received into
Christ's holy church, and made lively members of the
same;" but this reflects only upon the delinquency of man,
not upon the munificent provisions and designs of God.
This view, I am satisfied, is of sufficient weight of authority to decide this controversy.  It is not of any acts
of the mind, abstractly considered, that the New Testament predicates an eligibility to church membership. It
is not, consequently, of repentance and faith, considered
in themselves, which are acts of the mind, that the right
to church membership is predicated. But it is of the
state of the mind, or of the moral man, that this eligibility
or right is affirmed. It is the purity of the moral man that
is the groundwork of a fitness for church membership;
6
117 
INFANT BAPTISM.
and this must ever be thb fact; so long as the church of
God on earth is an image of the family of glorified saints
in heaven.
5. The reader, then, will readily comprehend our argument.  The phrase, "the kingdom of heaven," in its most
usual acceptation, applies to the nature, operations, and
the circumstances of the continuance of the gospel, among
men on earth. It often alludes directly to, and always,
when used with the above application; includes the idea
of, the visible chturch.  To affirm, therefore, that a person
belongs to the kingdom of heaven, must import one of the
following things: it must mean that such a one belongs to
the visible church, as a matter of fact; or that he is a
subject of grace and an heir of glory, and, as such, is
entitled to church relations and character.* Either of
these acceptations will sufficiently suit all the purposes
of the pending argument. But we have strong reasons
for understanding the phrase in question, in Matt. xix, 14,
and parallel places, as alluding directly to the visible
church.  Our Saviout says, "Suffer little children to come
unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom
of heaven" [composed.] Some have rendered it, "for to
such the kingdom of heaven belongs;" and have considered
it a parallel to Matt. v; 3, 10, where 6rt av'r)v "artV +
taut~eta  rov ovpavwv is rendered, "for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven;" that is; "the kingdom of heaven
belongs to them"-they have a right to all its privileges
and blessings, whether external or spiritual. This mtnakes
a good sense, and is equally to our purpose, but we incline
to the sense we have given above,-" of such (that is,
children) is the kingdom of heaven" [composed.] Now,
* "By the' kingdom of heaven,' in this passage; and the' kingdom
of God,' as it is expressed by Mark and Luke; we are probably to
understand our Lord to mean his visible church   And by the phrases
little children, young children, and infants, those who were literally
such can alone be intended. But, if by the phrases,' of such is the
kingdom of heaven,' and' of God,' we are to understand our Lord
to mean, that infants are subjects of his grace and entitled to eternal
salvation, which would be using the phrase in a higher sense; then,
the lower sense is also included. For it would be absurd to suppose
that our Lord would say infants are the subjects of holiness and
heaven, but they are unfit to be admitted into my visible church on
earth."-Sermon on Baptism, by R?ev. PJ P. Sandford, p. 14.
118 
INFANT BAPTISM
that our Saviour alludes directly to the visible church in
this phrase I think will appear, if we take all the circumstances of the case into consideration.   He  uses the
phrase, "kingdom of heaven," somewhat suited to current
Jewish ideas, and with a view to meet and oppose the
particular errors of the disciples; that is, to signify a
visible organization of government on earth.  The prevailing Jewish notions of Christ's kingdom were those of a
political monarchy. They imagined the Messiah would
be a secular prince, who would redeem his people from
the Roman yoke, and erect a sovereign and independent
government amid the nations of the earth. Such were the
views of the disciples. It was the prevalence of these
views that induced their occasional disputes about precedence-that prompted the doting "mother of Zebedee's
children" to solicit beforehand a favouirable preferment for
her sons-and that spread the gloom of despair over the
disciples when the Saviour had been laid in the tomb of
Joseph.  It was against these views that our Saviour's
rebuke was directed, when he said, (Matt. xviii, 3,) "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye
shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." It
was these secular views of the kingdom of Christ that
prompted the disciples to repel those that "brought unto
him little children, that he should put his hands on them
and pray." They probably deemed it incompatible with
the character of a monarch, and with the sovereign dignity
of Christ's person) to allow such familiarity on the part of
the people; and such consideration to mere infants. They
imagined that children had nothing to do with this kingdom. Their notions were high, and could not bend to
take in the lowly maxims of the Saviour's policy. When,
therefore, under these circumstances, the Saviour said that
children belonged to, or composed the kingdom of heaven,
he intended that visible kingdom that he was about to set
up on earth, and of which the disciples entertained so
unworthy and erroneous views, namely, the church. No
other application of the phrase would have suited the circumstances of the case, for the disciples certainly understood kingdom in the sense of a visible organization. As
if he had said, " These little children, whom you would
hinder fromn being bro?tght to mefor my blessing, are objects
119 
INFANT BAPTISM.
of my kindest regard.  They, and such as they, stand in a
near relation to my church. The kingdom which I am setting up is not to overlook them, but to embrace and cherish
them.  Peculiar favour was shown to children under the
former dispensation; think not that less is to be shown them
under my reign.  Look not upon them, therefore, with feelings gf indifference.  Strive not to deprive them of my blessing.  Suffer them to come unto me; for to such children the
privileges of the gospel dispensation belong."*
(c.) But this passage, together with that of Matt. xviii,
5, may be seen to favour infant baptism from another view.
There is a duty set forth in these places, and enjoined
upon parents, guardians, and all who-have the responsible,
religious control of children, that cannot be fully performed
but in dedicating them to God in baptism. Our Saviour
commands adults to "suffer little children, and forbid them
not to come to him;" that is, he commands them to bring
little children to him. This command is broad and universal. It applies to all parents and guardians of children, in all ages of the world. This duty, moreover, is
enjoined in behalf of infants as such, that is, while they are
yet infants. It cannot refer, specifically, to the duty of parents to educate children: this may be a correlative duty,
but not the primary one.  But children must be brought
and presented to Christ in nfancy, or this command is not
fulfilled. But how can they be brought to Christ, and be presented to him, except by an outward ordinance of consecration?-a visible presentation? Tile command evidently
contemplates this.  Christ says, "Forbid them not to come
to me." Now, in whatever sense we are to understand the
text as enjoining children to be brought to Christ, in that
same sense, beyond all dispute, we are capable of hindering them. This, the word "forbid" clearly implies. But
we are not capable of hindering children from participating
in the spiritual blessings of Christ's kingdom. We cannot
hinder the operations of grace upon them here, or their
future salvation, if they die in infancy.  We can only hinder them from visible covenant relations.
Furthermore: Christ has said, in Matt. xviii, 5, and he
parallel places of Mark and Luke, that "whosoever receivethl one such little one ert ~-)o bvota-t BlOV in my name, re              * Woods on Infant Baptism, p. 69.
120 
INFANT  BAP'I-I3I.
ceiveth me," &c. Now, what is it to receive a person in
Christ's name, but to receive him on account, in behrlf, and
upon the authority, of Christ himself?  This is its meaning
in the New Testament.  But a person thus received must
certainly be reckoned as belonging to the Christian family.
This is not the language appropriate to aliens and to sinners; it belongs to the community of God's visible church.
"The ordinary meaning of the word receive, in the books of
the New Testament, even when it stands alone, is well
known to all readers of Scripture to be to receive or admit to
a brotherhood, or fellowship int Christianity; as, (to name
one place in forty,) Rom. xv, 7, Paul commands those dissenters of opinion to receive one another.*
"But when Christ does, moreover, add here those words,
in my name, it more plainly still imports that they should
be received to be as his members, his children, belonging to
him." And it is easy to perceive what influence these precepts and principles, laid down by the Saviour, must have
had on the minds of the disciples, in construing and applying the powers of their commission afterward. Here,
then, is a recognition of the principles involved in infant
baptism; and, further than this, the then existing state of
opinion did not require any teaching to extend, in order to
secure its general practice.
I will close this section by the following from Dr. Wall,
which is itself a "picture," and may convey a good idea
to some.
"I wish some good manl would be at the charge of an
impression of a small picture, that might be given to such
as need instruction and satisfaction concerning the will
and purpose of our Saviour in this matter. The proverb
is true, that pictures have with vulgar men the use of books;
especially if they represent some useful history of the gospel, such as this which I am going to recommend, is, being
recited by three evangelists, Matt. xviii, 5; Mark ix, 37;
Liuke ix, 48, our Saviour holding a little child in his arms
and saying to his disciples, Whosoever shall receive this
child (in Matthew and Mark it is, one such little child, or,
one of such children) in my natme receiveth me.  If our Saviour be drawn in that posture, holding forth the child in his
* See also Acts xv, 4; Rom. xiv, 1; 2 Cor. vii, 2; Phil. ii, 29;
2 John 10; 3 John 8-10; and other places.
12 l 
1 NF ANT BAPTISMI.
arms, and those words subscribed, Whosoever shall receive
such a child in my name, receiveth me; and over against him
be drawn two men standing by a font, both pretending to be
ministers of Christ; and some people offering such a child
to them; and one of them reaching out his arms to receive
it, and the other thrusting it back: I would fain see what
countenance the painter would give to that man, who, seeing
our Saviour look upon him, and hearing him say those
words, does dare to reject it."7
2.) The second passage which I shall cite under this
head is that of 1 Cor. vii, 14: " For the unbelieving husband
is sanctified by the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean;
but now are they holy."
This is an important passage to our present argument.
The ground we take in reference to it is, that it affirms
that relation of infants to the church, which necessarily
implies their right of baptism. Had not the children of
Christian parents at Corinth been made subjects of baptism, they never could, with any propriety of language,
have been called "holy," in the sense in which they were
so called by the apostle. Baptism is not affirmed of them,
in so many words, but it is asserted by necessary implication.  Infants at Corinth were declared to be in a certain state in regard to the church: that state necessarily
implied their baptism. This is the position we take. The
highly contested state of the argument, as deduced from
this text, renders it necessary to go into details of proof,
that would otherwise be unnecessary.
(a.) We first notice the occasion and scope of the passage.
The Corinthians had written to the apostle, making inquiries respecting several subjects that then agitated their
church.  In ver. 1, of this chapter,'he says, "Now, concerning the things whereof ye  wrote unto me," &c.  He
then proceeds to give directions relative to those several
"things." One of these questions appears to have been
this; namely, whether a believing husband, or wife, may
continue to live in conjugal relation with an unbelieving
partner, innocently, and without forfeiting church privileges? To this question the apostle replies, from the 10th
to the 16th verse.
* Defence, &c., pp. 508, 509.
122 
INFANT BAPTISM.
The uninformed reader will not fully appreciate the
true character of this question, or the importance which
it assumed in the Corinthian church, unless the nature
and occasion of the controversy be fully explained. It
was this:-The Jews regarded even the touch of a Gentile as unclean; and as producing such a legal defilement,
as to unfit them for any of the solemn ceremonies of their
religion.* It was, hence, unlawful for a Jew to company
with them in any way. The Pharisees, who were the
most rigid in their observance of the law of any of the
Jewish sects, adding many superstitions to their religion,
always lustrated themselves after having returned home
from the market, or any public way, or thoroughfare, lest
they should have contracted uncleanness, by having touched
some unclean person or thing. They also frequently purified their household furniture. It was this kind of sanc,
tity that led them to comnplain of Jesus for receiving " sinners and publicans," and eating with them. It was this
scrupulous state of opinion that caused Peter to hesitate,
at first, to go with the messengers of Cornelius, they being
Gentiles. The whole history of that transaction is a striking
illustration of the power which these Jewish notions still
held over the consciences of many Christian converts from
Judaism.
From very ancient days God had warned his people
against intermarriages with idolatrous and unbelieving nations. "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them;
thy daughter shalt thou not give unto his son, nor his
daughter shalt thou take unto thy son;" and the reason
for this prohibition is thus given,-" For they will turn
away thy son from following me, that they may serve other
gods." Deut. vii, 3, 4; Exod. xxxiv, 15, 16. This was an
important requisition, issued in order to secure the distinct
preservation of the Hebrew people, as well as to preserve
the purity of their religion.  A remarkable instance is recorded in the book of Ezra, (chapters ix and x,) of an extensive breach of this command, when, after the return of
the captives from Babylon, "the people of Israel, and the
priests, and the Levites, did not separate themselves from
the people of the land, but took of their daughters for
themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed
* Vide Dr. A. Clarke's Comment. on John xviii, 28.
123
r 
INFANT BAPTISM.
mingled themselves with the people of those lands," chap.
ix, 1, 2. The sequel shows that they were obliged to
"put away" these heathen partners; although in some
instances the dissolution of the marriage union occasioned
not only a separation of husband and wife, but of parents
and children. Chap. x, 44.
Such were the prevalent notions of the Jews relative
to marriage, in the days of Paul. And as they had colonized themselves everywhere before the Christian era, so
the apostles found thetn in all the cities of note, and countries where they travelled. Many of these Jews were
converted to Christianity, and incorporated into the Christian church, bringing with them, frequently, their Jewish
prejudices, and fomenting controversies among the Gentile
converts, on many points of doctrine, which had their
origin in the now obsolete forms of the Jewish ritual.
Thus was it with the church at Corinth. Jewish controversies had been stirred up among the Jewish and Gentile
converts,-the peace of the church had been disturbed by
the introduction of these foreign, and now irrelevant, distinctions,-and an attempt had been made to bring back
and apply the old law touching marriages, which Ezra
had so signally enforced. The question was, Is it permitted, by the law of Christianity, for a Christian to live
in marriage relations with an unconverted Gentile?  They
all very well knew that such a union between a Jew and
Gentile was strictly prohibited by the law of Moses, and
rigidly enforced by the administrators of that law. But
was that law still in force? Were Christians to come under the same rule? Were these distinctions of clean and
unclean to be still observed?  These were important questions to the Christian church;-. the controversy had spread
at Corinth;-a formal appeal had been made to Paul, and
the decision from his mouth was to be final.
And here I wish the reader to remark, that the question
did not at all relate to the lawfulness of marriage, or the
continuance of the marriage covenant, in a civil sense. It
was a question to be settled by ecclesiastical, not by civil
law. It arose purely out of the ancient ceremonial code
of Moses, and not out of any condition or forms of society
among the Gentilesrespecting marriage. Dr. Reed has justly
remarked, " If the dispute had been concerning the marriage
124 
INFAN'T  IAPTI"FItI.
of these persons, [in a civil sense,] or the legitimacy of their
children, the Corinthians would undoubtedly have applied to
the office of the town clerk, or to the public records, for a
solution of the question;- and not to a Christian casuist,
who resided in the remote city of Ephesus."'
This, then, being the occasion of Paul's discourse, it is
easy to perceive that, unless we are willing to charge the
apostle with reasoning most inconclusively, the scope of
all his reasoning in that particular connection is to show
that it is ceremonially right and proper, on Christian principles, for a believing husband, or wife, to dwell with an
unbelieving partner.  If, therefore, "any brother hath a
wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell withi
him, let him not put her away... For the unbelieving wife
is sanctified by the husband," &c.
(b.) The next point to be ascertained is the meaning of
the words Catal-at hegiastai, a'caOapea akatharta, and
ayta hagia, in the fourteenth verse, and rendered respectively, sanctfed, unclean, and holy.
If the reader will attend strictly to the occasion and
scope of Paul's reasoning, as above described, hle will find
no difficulty in fixing the sense and application of these
terms. When we understand the subject of which ani
author is treating, no difficulty can occur in determining
the sense in which he employs words, if he employ them
according to their usual acceptation.  To apply an author's
words so as to make them prove a sentiment which he
had not at first intended, and for which he had not himself
employed them, is to do him an injustice, that no honest
expositor would knowingly do.  When  we undertake to
represent the opinions of another, we assume an obligation, from common honesty and fairness, to use his own
words as he used them, and to prove nothing more or less,
or different, by them, than he himself intended.   Let the
reader remember, then, that the subject before the apostle's
mind was not one that related to civil law, or to civil relations, as such, but one which came solely under the cognizanr.ce of ecclesiastical law. It was-wholly an ecclesias
* Apology for Infant Baptismi, p. 42.  Dar. R. resided in NewEngland, where the town clerk is required, by law, to preserve a
record of the marriages.  We mention this merely as explaining how
such an officer came to be mentioned by him ia such a connection.
6*
ii)- i 
INFANT BAPTISM.
tical question.  The words sanctified, unclean, and holy,
therefore,,are to be understood, not in a civil, or a moral,
but in a ceremonial sense.   In order to understand the
import of these terms, in this connection, we must go back
to Jewish usage, for the apostle uses these words here in
their Levitical sense.  It is true he was writing to a
Christian church in Greece, and that he employed the
Greek language, but the subject was one of Hebrew
origin, and the terms were employed in strict conformity
to Hebrew use. To this use alone, therefore, can we
appeal. The question, then, is, What is the Hebrew use
of these words?
As I do not consider that our English version gives the
right turn to this passage, I shall first give the sense as I
understand it, in a free paraphrase.  "For the unbelieving
husband is made ceremonially clean to the believing wife,
and the unbelieving wife is made ceremonially clean to
the believing husband; so that it is now admissible and
proper, according to Christian distinctions, that they should
live together in conjugal relation, and not, as under the
Mosaic law, be obliged to separate and break up the marriage union.  Were it otherwise, that is, did not Christianity regard the unbelieving partner as ceremonially clean
to the believing, it would follow that the Christian church
would reckon the children of such a marriage amonga the
unclean, that is, among those who are not in covenant with
God; but the fact that the church regards all such children,
as well as all those whose parents are both Christians, as
holy-they having been baptized, and admitted among the
covenanted people*-proves that their parents are reckoned
as ceremonially clean to each other." In support of this
sense, I adduce the following considerations
First. The language of the tex't allows it. The words
Stag'at.. e.-r Tyvvattat hegiastai en te gunaikai, which
we translate, is sanctified TO the wife, are, to say no more,
as susceptible of this turn of the sense, as of the one given
in our English version. And so of the phrase, +ytaarTat
... ev  76) av(pt hlegiastai en to andri, is sanctified TO the
husband.  Our common version says, the unbelieving party
is sanctified "BY" the believing. But this certainly makes
* This, holine ss"is, as we   shall presently see,  a baptismal huh
ness. Sob also p. 294, note.
126 
INFANT BAPTISM.
no sense whatever. How, we ask, does the believing
party sanctify the unbelieving?  This is a question that
can never be answered. The truth is, God himself, and
he alone, sanctified the whole Gentile world at the opening
of the Christian dispensation; that is, he abolished those
distinctions of clean and unclean, as they applied to Jews
and Gentiles formerly, and as they were now being applied, at Corinth, to believers and unbelievers.
If the reader will turn to the Acts of the Apostles,
(chapters x and xi,) he will perceive, in the extraordinary
vision of Peter, and in his own exposition of it subsequently, in what manner God was pleased to enlightenii
that apostle on this subject, and to deliver him from the
force of his Jewish prejudices. Peter had doubts of the
propriety of "going in to men uncircumcised, and eating
with them," or even preaching the gospel to them.  He
called them "common," that is, "unclean."   He thought it
would defile him, unfit him for religious privileges and
duties.  But God informed him that he had sanctified the
Gentile world,-Jewish distinctions were abolished,-it
was lawful to have intercourse with Gentiles.  "What,
therefore, God hath cleansed, or sanctified, (etaOaptae,)
call not thou common," that is, "unclean."
But what is the nature of this sanctification, or cleansing
of the Gentile world? Certainly the sanctification of which
we  now speak gives to the Gentile, or unbeliever,  no
church privileges without personal holiness. The phraseology is strictly conformable to Jewish usage, and it is
here employed in the lowest sense in which the word
sanctify was used in their religious vocabulary.   Yet so
clearly defined, and so strongly marked are all the circumstances of the case, that of the real meaning of the term,
in the above passage cited from the Acts, and in the place
before us, there can be no doubt. It merely extended so
far as to sanction the external intercourse of Christians
with unbelievers. They might now dwell together in any
of the natural or civil relations; as parents and children,
as husbands and wives, as fellow-citizens, as neighbours,
&c., without any detriment to church relations on the part
of the believer, so long as his spirit and deportment accorded with the gospel. All the innocent relations of life,
whether social or commercial, might now be enjoyed be
127 
INFANT BAPTISM.
tween the Jew and the Gentile-the believer and unbeliever.*  And thus did Peter understand his vision; for
afterward, when he stood before Cornelius and his Gentile
friends; he says, evidently by way of explanation of so
unusual an event, "Ye know how that it is unlawful for a
man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of
another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not
call any man common or unclean."  Peter considered that
this sanctification of the Gentiles extended so far only as
to make it lawful to have company and intercourse with
them. This is exactly the sense of the word sanctify in
1 Cor. vii, 14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctifed
to the wife," &c. The two parties may lawfully live together in this relation, though one be an unbeliever-the
conjugal oneness is not now disturbed by the distinctions
of clean and unclean, as they were formerly applied.
'Hytau-rat hegiastai is a conjugated form of the verb
Iyta~w hagiazo, which means to separate, consecrate, sanctify, make holy, &c. It answers, in the Old Testament,
to the Hebrew Zi l kadas.h, which, in the Piel conjugation,
signifies to make holy, to sanctify, to hallow, consecrate.d
Every person or thing among the Jews, devoted to religious use, was deemed sanctified.t Thus their priests,
their altars, their temple, persons, sacred utensils, &c.,
were sanctified.  But does this sense of aytazw hagiazo
apply to the passage under consideration? Could it be
said of the unbelieving husband, or wife, that he, or she,
was in any sense devoted to religion? Was there any
thing approaching the idea of a religious consecration?
* I hope the reader will form a just opinion of this subject. The
distinctions of clean and unclean were at first purely artificial, and
were established by the will of God, not in the nature of the things
themselves.  It is plain, therefore, that to sanctify these unclean
things to the use of Christians, no positive change was required in
the things themselves, but only that the arbitrary prohibition of the
Lawgiver be taken off. This sanctification, then, was, after all,
merely of a negative character. After the abrogation of the Levitical
code, all things reverted back to their original character. It then
could be said, " Nothing is unclean of itself;",All things are pure,"
Levitically; "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be
rejected."
t Gesen. Heb. Lex., art..   Robinson's Gr. and Eng. Lexicon,
art.'Aytaw.              I{ See Note D.
128
rl-_ 
INFANT BAPTISM.
A learned friend suggested to me that he considered the
clause, "The unbelieving husband is sanctified to (or by)
the wife," &c., to mean, "that, by reason of the connection of the believing party with the church, the unbelieving
partner was thereby placed more directly before the religious sympathies of the church-made more especially
the subject of prayer and religious concern by them-and
that they were obligated more directly to look after his
spiritual welfare, than was the case in reference to the
general mass of irreligious persons; and that in this sense
-the sanctity of the believing partner operating to enhance the religious privileges and prospects of the unbelieving-the latter might be said to be sanctified, or. in
some sense brought under religious influence by the
former."* I cannot feel, however, that this is satisfactory.
It appears plausible, but does not meet the point of the
apostle's argument, and seems, too, rather foreign and
laboured.
The exact point to which the apostle was arguing is
this, namely, Whether it is lawful, according to the distinctions of clean and unclean persons, established by the
law of Moses, for a Christian and pagan to dwell together
in marriage relations? The apostle decided that such a
union was now lawful, in a ceremonial sense.   To prove
this position he needed only to show that Jewish distinctions touching the case were abolished; or, in other words,
God had now sanctified the Gentile world-the unbeliever
to the believer.  Now, it is perfectly plain that Bte sanctification here spoken of extends no further than to authorize
the continuance of an external relation, innocent in itself,
between a believer and an unbeliever. T hecase. was this:
A pagan husband becomes converted to Christianity, while
his wife remains an idolater. Jualaizing teachers step in
and say to him, "It is not lawful for you to live with her,"
and they appeal to the law of Moses, where a Jew is forbidden to live in marriage relations with a Gentile.  The
apostle comes in and says, "If she be pleased to dwell
with you, put her not away, for God has abolished these
Jewish distinctions, and has thereby sanctified the Gentile
world, and, in doing this, has sanctified your unbelieving
* See also Dr. Woods on Infant Baptism, p: 88.
129 
INFANT BAPTISM.
wife to you." Now, does not every one perceive that the
nature and sum of this sanctification was no more, or less,
or other, than a mere sanction of this external marriage
relation?-a rendering it ceremonially lawful for them to
live together, so that the church privileges of the believing
partner should not thereby be impaired?
And such is often the meaning of the word sanctzfy,
whether it is expressed by altam6) hagiazo, or caOapt~w
katharizo, or any word belonging to the same family.
Thus:
1 Tim. iv, 5, "For it [the creature of God] 4ytale7at
hagiazetai, is sanctified by the word of God, and prayer."
Certain men had arisen in the church, and commanded
to abstain from certain meats, as being unclean. Verse 3.
The apostle taught that God had made all things alike for
man's good, and no creature of his was to be thus rejected,
as possessing any innate or natural pollution, but all was
to be received with thanksgiving. If, therefore, we received any of his creatures with thanksgiving and prayer,
they were thereby sanctified to us; that is, it was made
lawful for us to receive and use them.   In 1 Cor. x, 23,
where the apostle is speaking to the same point, instead
of saying, "'All things are clean to me," he says, "All
things are zFea-tv exestin, lawful for me;" that is, I have
a right to eat all meats. See verse 30, and chap. vi, 12.
Those meats which were unlawful for a Jew to use were
called unclean, the same idea being conveyed by both
words. See also Titus i, 15; Rom. xiv, 14, 20.  In Luke
xi, 41, we are taught that by a proper use of the creatures
of God all things become pure to us; that is, lawful for us
to use.
This, -then, we consider to be the sense of the word
sanctified in 1 Cor. vii, 14. The unibelieving -partner is
made ceremonially lawful to the believing, so far as the
conjugal relation extends.
We next inquire into the meaning of the words aicaOcagra
akatharta, and aytog hagios, rendered unclean, and holy.
The question here is, What is the force of these words in
the sentence, "Else were your children unclean; but now
are they holy?"  What state or condition is described, or
alluded to, by the word unclean? and what by the word
holy?
130 
WVe have already proved, we trust, to the satisfaction
of the reader, that the word sanctified, in the former part
of this verse, is limited by the subject to signify rendered
lawful.  This, also, we have seen, is a common  use of
this and similar words.   We have seen that it does not
refer to any church relations conferred in virtue of the
faith of the believing party.   But I consider the terms
unclean and holy to bear a higher signification than the
word sanctified in the same verse. I consider these words
to refer directly to church distinctions, and I cannot, perhaps, render the sense of the passage more obvious to the
reader than by the following: " Else were your children
pagans; but now are they [reckoned] holy seed." I wish
the reader to bear in mind that we offer no violence to the
text, according to the general use of words, in giving it
this turn. Nay, as we shall soon see, it is (we apprehend) the only sense the passage will bear,  It is true
that the general senses of arItade hagiazo and a'ytog hagios
are alike, and that axaOa{'rof akathartos is the counter
sense of the two. But this is far from proving that their
significations are alike in any given connection. It is by
no means  an uncommon thing to find the same word
occurring in different senses in different connections; but
here are two words-an adjective, and a verb derived
therefrom-and surely it would not be strange to find them
occur in somewhat different senses in the same verse.
The apostle affirms that certain unbelievers are sanctified,
and that certain children are holy, and this he affirms in
the same verse.   But does it therefore follow that the
sanctification and holiness spoken of are one and the same,
as to character and degree?  The  sanctification of the
unbeliever may answer one end, while the holiness of the
children may refer wholly to another. And this is just
the state of the case. The holiness of the children was
of a higher order, a more advanced degree, than that of
the unbeliever, and described a state, in reference to
ecclesiastical privileges, far different from his.* This
* One of the continuators of Poole's Annotations says, with refer
ence to the sanctification of the unbelieving party, " I rather think it
signifies, brought into such a state, that the believer, without offence
to the law of God, may continue in a marriage state with such a
yoke-fellow." This I consider to be exactly the senste of the apostle
131
INFANT BAPTISM. 
accords with the general usus of these terms in Scripture.
Almost every thing pertaining to Jewish affairs was deemed
holy, but the holiness of their priests was certainly of a
higher order than that of their land, their chief city, and
the mountains around, although the same term was employed to describe each.
Besides, the particular subject, and s ope of the argument, in 1 Cor. vii, 14, make it incumbent on us to adopt
such a distinction. The holiness of the children is alluded
to as a well-known and accredited fact; and it is appealed
to as an argument in proof of the sanctification of the unbelieving parent, and the consequent lawfulness of the
continued union of the parties. But if the holiness of the
childri.,a was of-the same nature and degree of the sanctificationri of the unbelieving parent, and merely flowed from
and depended wholly on the disputed fact of such sanctification, it could never, with any reasonableness, have been
made an argument to prove that sanctification.
"The general notion of being sanctifed is first applied
to an unconverted heathen, connected in marriage with a
Christian; and it is applied in reference to a particular
question, that is, whether it is proper and advisible that a
Christian- should continue to live with an unbelieving
With reference to the holiness of the children, the same commentator
says, " These are those that are called holy, not as inwardly renewed
and sanctified, but relatively, in the same sense that all the Jewish
nation were called a holy people; and possibly this may give us a
further light to understand the term sanctified, in the former part of
the verse. The unbelieving husband is so far sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife so far sanctified by the believing
husband, that, as they may lawfully continue in their married relation,
and live together as man and wife, so the issue coming from them both
shall be by God counted in covenant with him, and have a right to
baptism, (which is one of the seals of that covenant,) as well as those
children both whose parents are believers."-Vide Poole's Annot.,
in loc.
This is exactly the difference between the words sanctified, as
applied to the unbelieving partner, and holy, as applied to the children, which we intend.  This we understand to be the real force of
the passage. But we do not concur with the author just quoted, in
representing children as being born in covenant with God, and, by
virtue hereof, entitled to baptism.  We  believe they are in covenant
when they are baptized; and their right to baptism is not derived by
virtue of natural descent, but is predicated of their gracious state.
On this point there appears to be somo confusion with some writers.
132
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
partner. Now, when the apostle says, in relation to this
question,' The unbelieving husband is sanctified by [to]
the wife,' it is natural to understand him of a sanctification
adapted to the subject under consideration."*   Such  a
sanctification, as we have seen, was but a negative onethe mere abolishment of Jewish distinctions-the absence
of any Levitical or ceremonial prohibition to the union of
the parties. But would it have been any proof of this fact
to assert that their children were in the same state? All
parties very well knew that if the parents were Levitically
clean to each other, the children would be So of course.
But the question was, Are the parents thus clean, wheri
one is an unbeliever? The apostle affirms that they were,
and, as proof, cites the well-known and established fact
of the holiness of their children. Yet this would be no
better than proving a thing by itself, if the holiness of the
children were in no wise different from the sanctification
of the unbelieving parent.
But let us more directly inquire into the meaning of the
words unclean and holy.. AtaOagrog unclean, according to
Schleusner, signifies that which is prohibited by the 3losaic
law, orfrom which the people of God were required to separate themselves. He represents it as often used to denote
a pagan, an alien from the worship of the true God, or one
who does not belong to the people of God, or to the society
of Christians.  It is this last sense we attach to the word
in the passage in question; namely, pagan, alien from the
worship of God, &c. So, also, Dr. Robinson says the
word is "spoken of persons who are not Jews, or twho do
not belong to the Christian community,"t and cites this very
passage, among others, in proof. Groves defines it thus:
Impure, unclean, defiled, unft for receiving the rites of
relgion.,
In Acts x, 14, 28, agaOag-ro  akathartos is used to designate a Gentile, or "a man of another nation" besides the
Jews.  Thus is it elsewhere used.  So Isa. lii, 1, "For
henceforth there shall no more come to thee [Jerusalem]
the uncircumcised and the  unclean  [mt  aKaOaprog.]
Here the words unclean and uncircumcised are perfectly
* Woods on Infant Baptism, p. 93.
t Greek and English Lexicon.
133
I Ibid. 
synonymous, and apply to one and the same description
of persons, namely, all who were not Jews-all who were
not in covenant with God. So, also, an unclean, or polluted
land, is a land inhabited by pagans, or idolaters. Thus,
Amos vii, 17, "And thou [Israel] shalt die in a polluted,
or unclean land." [att aKaOa@rog.]  This "polluted land"
was Assyria.  It was in contradistinction from all such
idolatrous, or pagan countries, that Canaan was called the
"holy land."  Whenri Paul warned the Corinthians to have
no religious intercourse and fellowship with "idolaters,"
"infidels," and such-like persons, who were enemies of
God and aliens from the true kingdom, he says, "Touch
not the aKaOaprov akathartou, unclean person," 2 Cor. vi,
17.  Our English version reads "things;" but this is unquestionably an error. The apostle was not speaking of
things, but of persons with whom it was not lawful for a
Christian to hold any religious fellowship, and he denominates them unclean, using the same word that is used in
1 Cor. vii, 14. 
It is plain, therefore, that whlen the apostle says, " Else
were your children unclean," it is in perfect accordance
with the usus loquendi to understand him to say, "- Else
were your children pagans-without the covenant." This
sense, the advance in his argument, and the nature of his
subject, require us to understand.
We  are confirmed in this sense, further, by the force
of the next clause, "Now are they holy."'Ayto' holy is
here used in contrast with aKaOapgro  unclean.   A holy
person, in the language of the text, is the exact opposite
of an unclean person, and vice versa. If an unclean person
is the same as a heathen, the holy person is a Christian.
We  have seen that the word sanctified, as applied to an
unbeliever, in the former part of the verse, is restricted in
its sense by the nature of the subject, to signify merely
the abolishment of Jewish ceremonial distinctions, with
regard to clean and unclean persons, so as to render it
now lawful for a believer and unbeliever to dwell together
in marriage union, or in any other relation innocent in
itself.  This is perfectly plain.  But the nature of the
subject does not bind us to fix the same limited construction on the term holy in the concluding part of the passage,
and we appeal to the natural force of the apostle's argu
.34
INFANT BAPTiS.Uf. 
INFANT BAPTISM.1
nient, and the general Scriptural use of the term, in support of the sense above given.  I will give the reader some
examples of the use of this word in Scripture:  Matt. xxvii, 52, "And many bodies of the aytcv hagion,
saints that slept, arose."
Acts ix, 13, "Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by
many of this man, (Saul,) how much evil he hath done to
thy aytotg hagiois, saints at Jerusalem." See, also, chap.
xxvi, 10.
Acts ix, 32, "Peter came down slso to the aytov9
hagious, saints that dwelt at Lydda."
Verse 41, "And when he had called the c4ytovg saints
and widows, he presented her alive."
Rom. i, 7, Grace "to all that be in Rome... called to
be aytotg hagiois, saints."
Rom. xv, 25, "But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister
unto the aytotg saints."
Verse 26, " For it hath pleased them of Macedonia...
to make a contribution for the poor a4yo,v saints at Jerusalem." See also verse 31.
Rom. xvi, 2, " That ye receive her (Phebe) in the Lord
as becometh a4t6v saints," (that is, Christians.)
Verse 15, "Salute...all the aytovq saints," &c.
1 Cor. i, 2, "-to them that are... called to be aytotg
saints," (that is, Christians.)
Chap. vi, 1, "Dare any of you... go to law before the
unjust, and not before the a67tv saints?" (that is, Christians, the members of the church.)
Chap. xiv, 33, "God is the author of peace, as in all
the churches of the ayt)v saints," (Christians.), 
Chap. xvi, 1, "Now concerning the collection for the
aytovg saints," (that is, Christians, church members, who
are poor.) See also ver. 15; 2 Cor. i,' 1; viii, 4; ix, I, 12.
2 Cor. xiii, 13, "All the aytot saints (Christians) salute
you."
Besides these passages cited, the word occurs, where it
is translated saints, about forty-one times in the New Testament; the signification in all these places being substantially the same. Here, also, I wish the reader to understand and appreciate the corroborating testimony drawn
from the use of the corresponding Hebrew words. I have
before mentioned that, although the apostles spoke for the
135 
INFANT BAPTISM.
most part, and wrote wholly in the foreign Greek dialect,
still they were Hebrews; educated in the Jewish religion
and customs, and accustomed to think and to speak accordinl  to the Hebrew idiom.  Hence, they sought out and
employed those Greek words that more fitly conveyed
Hebrew ideas; and hence we often are obliged to resort
to the use of certain Hebrew words that were used to
express the same idea, in order fully to establish the sense
of the New Testament language.'Aytoq hagios, (holy,)
says Dr. Robinson, -"is used everywhere, in the Septuagint, for ay  kodesh and ~Jl  kadosh.  Hence, the ground
idea is pure, clean."*  Take a few examples.
Exod. xix, 6, "Ye  shall be to me  a holy'nation;"
(J ay' tov;') that is, a nation of saints, a consecrated
nation.
Exod. xxii, 31,' And ye shall be holy men unto me;"
(    &7 ayto;) that is, Ye shall be saints, consecrated men.
See, also, Lev. xi, 44, 45; Num. xvi, 3; et alibi.
The Israelites were declared- a holy people, not because
they were all morally holy; far from it; but because, by
profession, they belonged to God, who had separated them
from all other nations, and sanctified them unto himself by
external rites; because they professed the true religion,
which many among them really attained in an illustrious
degree; and because "to them were committedthe oracles
of God," "the covenant," "and the giving of the law and
the promises."  They ever regarded themselves as holy.
Thus they called themselves, as in Ezra ix, 2, "the holy
seed (     aytov) have mingled themselves with the people
of those lands." So, also, Daniel calls them, chap. viii,
24, and xii, 7.
I do not wish needlessly to multiply examples of the use
of these words, but I knew not how to lay before the more
uninformed reader a just view of the argument, without
furnishing at least those above adduced. Nothing can be
more plain, as appears from the examples adduced, and
from the general face of Scripture usage, that a7yto hagios,
and its corresponding Hebrew t-i kodesh and t5q-', kadosh,
when used substantively, signify, a worshiper of God; a
* Greek and English Lexicon, art.'Ay,oC.
136 
INFANT BAPTISM.
person set apart, or devoted to religion, either by spiritual
sanctification, or by external ordinances; a person who belongs to the community of the true worshippers of God, as
distinguished from an idolater, or an irreligious person;
a member of the church of God; a saint; a Christian,
'Aytoq hagios, then, is frequently used in the New Testament in a sense exactly synonymous with church member,
as every person knows who has examined the subject, and
it is a word which is never applied to an unbaptized or
uncircumcised person. It is in this sense that I conceive
it to be used in 1 Cor. vii, 14. When, in that passage,
children are declared to be ayta hagia, they are declared
to be in that state which is exactly contrary to paganisnm,
or Gentilism. But what is that state which is exactly
opposite to Gentilism? It is Christian church membership
The unclean person was an alien from the law and the
covenant,-a Gentile.  The Jews were called the holy,
the clean; and after them the Christians were also called
the holy, the clean, or the saints. The members of the
Christian church were the saints, and the saints were the
nmemrnbers of the Christian church. When, therefore, Paul
affirms that those children who had one parent a believer
and the otfher an unbeliever were not " uniclean," but ayta
saints, he is unquestionably to be understood as affirming
that they were not mere Gentiles,-aliens from the covenant,-" but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of thd
household of God."  All the parts of the apostle's argument conspire to establish this meaning; and the antithesis
employed and indicated in the word acaO9aproq akathartos
(unclean) demands it, for the contrast here is between a
pagan  and  a  Christian;-" Else  were  your  children
pagans; but now are they Christians"'-devoted to God
by a Christian rite. When it is said in Luke ii, 23, every
first-born male child "shall be called ayiov rT) Kvptw
holy, or consecrated to the Lord;" the mneaning of this holiness, or consecration, was, that the child was to be devoted
to God in the most absolute sense, requiring redemption in
order to entitle the parents to resume it, even for proteetion, support, and education. And although this consecration was of a peculiar kind, evidently higher than the
ordinary idea of church membership, still, it illustrates the
force of which the word in question is capable, even when
137 
INFANT BAPTISM.
used in a Levitical sense.  When the apostle says, "the
unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife," he intends
only that degree of sanctity that tenders it ceremonially
lawful for her to live with him; but when he says, " your
children are holy, sanctified, or consecrated," he means that
they belong to the Christian community, and if he does
not affirm their baptism directly, he affirms their relation
to the church, which implies the fact of their baptism;he recognises, by necessary implication, both the principle
and the fact of infant baptism. He says exactly what we
might suppose him to say, on the supposition of the universal practice of infant baptism.  Every Jew would have
understood him as affirming the church membership of
infants.  He says of the children of Christian parents just
what the Jews would have said of their own children,
when they would express their covenant, or church relation-he says they are holy. It was, to their minds, an
explicit declaration of church relation, in contradistinction
from the Gentile, or heathenish state; and, I need hardly
add, that precisely as the Corinthian disputants, in this
Jewish controversy, must have understood these words,
in the same manner must we now understand and apply
them.
(c.) On the whole, upon reviewing this argument, I
cannot but deem it decisive.  I have endeavoured to lay
before the reader all those facts which are necessary to
aid him in forming his judgment of the passage; and if I
have seemed to be prolix, I can only urge in my defence
the highly contested state in which the text in question is
found.* I crave for this argument a most patient and critical attention, convinced, as I am, that it has never been
wrested from its powerful, and, I repeat it, decisive bearing
in favour of Pedobaptism.   But much as has already been
said, I should deem the argument deprived of some of its
force, did I omit to call the reader's special attention to
two things:
First. The question in the Corinthian church respected
the lawfulness of the conjugal relation between a believer
and an unbeliever;  and one  simple  circumstance that
speaks a volume to our purpose is this: namely, that the
apostle, in deciding that the children of such parents were
*S   N ote E.
138 
INFANT BAPTISM.
pyta Christians, plainly intimates that where both parents
were believers, the children, as a matter of course; were
ayta Christians.  I find this argument stated with so much
clearness and force by Dr. J. M. Mason, that I am per suaded the reader will be gratified with an excerpt from
that author in this place.  "The passage thus explained,"
says he, "establishes the church membership of infants
in another form. For it assumes the principle, that when
both parents are reputed believers, their children belong
to the church of God* as a matter of course.  The  w:hold
difficulty proposed by the Corinthians to Paul grows out
of this principle. Had he taught, or thedy understood, that
no children, be their parents believers or unbelievers, are
to be accounted members of the church, the difficulty could
not have existed. For if the faith of both parents could
not confer upon the child the privilege of membership, the
faith of only one of them certainly could not. The point
was decided. It would have been mere impertinence to
teaze the apostle with queries which carried their own
answers along with them. But on the supposition that
when both parents were  members, their children were
also members; the difficulty is very natural and serious.
' I see,' would a Christiaril convert exclaim,'I see the
children of my Christian neighbours owned as members
of the church of God; and I,see the children of othersg;
who are unbelievers, rejected with themselves. I believe
in Christ myself, but my husband, my wife, believes not.
What is to become of my children? Are they to be admitted With myself? or'are they to be cast off with my
[unbelieving] partneir?'
' Let not your heart be troubled,' replies the apostle,
'God reckons them to the believing, not to the unbelieving
parent. It is enough that they are yours. The infidelity
of your partner shall never frustrate their interest in the
covenant of your God.'
" This decision put the subject at rest.  And it lets us
know that one of the reasons, if not the chief reason, of
the doubt, whether a married person should continue, after
conversion, in the conjugal society of an infidel partner,
arose from a fear lest such continuance should exclude
* I shall hereafter explain the relation of infants to the church.
The Jact is all that concerns us now.
130 
INFANT BAPTISM.
the children from the church of God. Otherwise it is
hard to comprehend why the apostle should dissuade them
from separating by such an argument as he has employed
in the text. And it is utterly inconceivable how such a
doubt could have entered their minds, had not the membership of infants, born of believing parents, been undisputed, and esteemed a high privilege,-so high a privilege,
that the apprehension of losing it made  conscientious
parents at a stand whether they ought not rather to break
the ties of wedlock, by withdrawing from an unbelieving
husband or wife. Thus the origin of this difficulty on the
one hand, and the solution of it on the other, concur in
establishing our doctrine, that by the appointment of God
himself, the infants of believing parents are born [ceremonially clean, and have a right to be admitted as] members of his church."*
Secondly. The simple circumstance that Paul cites the
relation of infants to the church in proof of another subject,
and one, too, of such- grave importance as to involve the
perpetual union of husband and Wife, and the good order
of families, clearly proves that the membership of infants
was a point which was not only believed, but it was universally- believed; there was no difference of opinion, or
dispute concerning it, in the Christian church.  The force
of this argument I wish the reader to feel.  In proving
any doubtful point, the only rational method to be pursued
is to advance facts, or deductions from principles which
are themselves established and undisputed, and which
have a relation to the point to be proved. No satisfaction
could ever be realized-no approach to truth and certainty
could ever be made-by advancing one disputed point to
prove or establish another.  In a court of justice the witnesses are called upon to state wlat they do knotw-what
is, with them, clear and undisputed, that has a relation to
the question pending. In reasoning, no argument can be
deemed valid, or as entitled to any importance whatever,
unless it be itself drawn from facts and principles well
established, and which have a relation to the point at issue.
W e cannot, by the mere accumulation of doubtful or dis
* Essays on the Church of God. Christian Magazine, ii, 49, 50,
quoted by Dr. S. Miller; Infant Baptism, pp. 20, 21. See chap. vii.
of this work.
140 
INFANT BAPTISM.
puted argutments, add any weight of certainty to the doctrine
which we would establish by them. To advance one disputed fact to establish another, is but to shift the ground
of the difficulty, not to diminish it. If the testimony itself
can be overthrown, it proves nothing. All the proof that
arises from any given fact, in any given case, is based on
the single circumstance that the fact itself is unquestioned
by the parties who are to be the judges; remembering, of
course, that it must have a proper relation to the point at
issue.
Now, suppose infant baptism and membership had been
disputed topics in the early Christian church. Suppose,
when Paul declared, "your children are not unclean, but
holy"-the precise phraseology which a Jew would employ tQ assert their membership-that, by this announcement, he had touched a disputed point among the Corinthians. And suppose he had advanced (as he certainly
does) the fact that these children were thus clean, or holy,
(by which the Jewish disciples would understand that they
were the covenanted seed, the lawful members of the
church,) to prove another point; I asks Would the argument have had any weight whatever? If they had doubted
that children themselves belonged to the Christian community, they certainly could not have received the assertion that they did thus belong, as proof of any other disputed point. They might very properly have said to the
apostle, "True, your reasoning is very plausible and forcible to those who admit your premises. We readily grant
that IF children of believing parents, or those who have
one parent a believer and the other an unbeliever, do really
belong to the Christian community, then, it must follow
that the unbelieving parent was considered as ceremonially
clean; but this reasoning takes for granted a disputed and
unsettled point. We deny that children are members of
the Christian community. - And as your whole argument
is built upon this mooted point-as it assumes for an axiom
that which itself wants proof, at least in our estimationit can, of course, with us, have no force whatever." But
did the Corinthians make any such reply to the reasoning
of the apostle? Would Paul have advanced such reasoning had he known that such a reply could have been
made? Certainly not. We therefore say, that the mannei
7
141 
INFANT BAPTISM.
of alluding to infant, ceremonial holiness, that is, infant
church membership, proves, even more clearly than a
direct assertion, that infants were universally regarded by
the church as belonging to the Christian community. It
proves that their eligibility to baptism was not only believed, but regarded as an established axiom. Had the
apostle said, "Your children should all be baptized," it
might have implied that some doubted, and neglected the
duty. But when he advances the fact of their relation to
the church, which necessarily implies their baptism, and
uses this fact as the basis of an important argument, it
proves that there was no doubt or disputation on, the subject,-that it was a settled point of faith, an established
axiom in theology.
[4.] The right of infants to baptism is recognised in
those words of the apostle, recorded Acts ii, 38, 39:"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized,
every one of you, in the name of JEsus Christ, for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our
God shall call."
In eliciting the force of the argument, from this passage,
we call attention to the following particulars:  1.) The "promise" here spoken of, refers to Gen. xvii,
7:-" 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."' That the reference is to this passage,
appears evident, if we consider, first, the exact similarity
of expression between them.  The promise made to Abraham says, "to thee, and to t7ly seed:" the promise quoted
by Peter says, "to you, and to your children."  Secondly,
it better suits the analogy of the case, to refer Peter's words
directly to those quoted in Genesis.  Peter connects the
promise with the duty and privilege of submitting to the
initiating rite-baptism: the promise of Gen. xvii, 7, also
stands connected with the same privilege and duty in reference to the initiatory rite of that dispensation-circumcision. In both cases the subjects of the promise were to
be brought into church fellowship by virtue of its provisions and efficacy. Thirdly, the promise here spoken of
142 
INFANT BIAPTISM.1
includes the blessings of pardon and- reconciliation.  It
regards man as a sinner, and brings him within the provisions of mercy, and the reach of hope. This, primarily,
can refer. only to the Abrahamic promise: —" I will be a
God to thliee, and to thy seed after thee." The promise of
Joel ii, 28, 29, refers to a more mature and perfect development of the system of human redemption; not to the
elemental principles of that system, as repentance, pardon, &c.  But Peter exhorts to repentance, and encourages the hope of pardon, by virtue of the "promise" of
God to which he alludes.  It should be considered, moreover, that the promise of Joel is itself based upon the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant, and is one and identical with the promise of that covenant, with this distinction,
that the Abrahamic promise included all spriritual blessings-" I will be a God to the  and to thy seed"-while
Joel speaks distinctively of the gospel days, —the more
glorious period of the covenant.  After all, whether the
"promise" spoken of by Peter allude to the promise of
Joel ii, 28, or to that of Gen. xvii, 7, is not of essential
importance to our argument; for, as we shall presently
show, whatever may be the original character of this promise, it forms, most unquestionably, the ground of right
and-obligation to baptism, with respect to all those persons
to whom it constitutionally applies
2.) How woulda Jew' understand the phrase, "to you
and to your children."
To know this, we must first ascertain the meaning of
the word rTcva tekna, children. I see no ground of dispute on this point.. The usus loquendi sheds a perfectly
clear and unequivocal light.  Tecvov teknon means a child,
whether male or female.  It sometimes answers to the
Hebrew I' ben, as, in the plural form, in Gen. iii, 16,
"God said to the woman... in sorrow shalt thou bring forth
t:o   banim, 7-ecva tekna, children."  This is the proper
meaning of retva t'ekna; but it has also a wider sense,
and is used Hebraistically for descendants, posterity, without any determinate reference to age. But the primary
meaning of -esKvov is a child; and this is indicated by its
etymology, being derived from -titr(o tikto, to bring forth
So, also, r7r-,eta sperma literally means  seed, as being
143 
INFANT BAPTISM.
sown, or scattered.   But tropically it signifies children,
offspring.  It answers to the Hebrew:l. zera.  Now, the
case is this:-The primary meaning of -rsva  tekna is
children; and a primary figurative sense of a,repa sperma
is also children. But both words are also sometimes used
in a wider sense, to signify posterity, descendants, and in
a sense which sometimes shows that adult descendants
are intended, as well as infants.  How then can the force
of either of these words be determined in any given passage? How can we determine, in any one instance where
either of these words occurs, which of the two senses it is
to take; that of posterity, in its broad application, or that
of children, in its more restricted meaning? The answer
is plain;-the sense of the particular passage must decide.
For instance, it must be ascertained what is affirmed or
denied of the'eicva tekna or of the asrepua sperma in the
text. If any thing is affirmed of them that does necessarily belong, or may with perfect propriety be ascribed to
children, and which cannot be properly ascribed to adults,
then the word in question miay be known to be there used
in its literal or more restricted form, to signify children.
But if the thing affirmed do properly belong to adults as
well as children, then the word may be understood in its
larger application, as denoting posterity in general. Now,
in the passage before us it is said,." be promise is unto
you, and to your re~va children."  The question is, Does
rescva mean children proper, or only posterity in general?
To determine this, we ask, Is any thing affirmed of the
-rEiva tekna in the text that is inapplicable to children
proper? The answer is certainly in the negative. There
is nothing absurd, or unsuitable, in the supposition that
children should be made the subjects of a spiritual promise,
-in other words, that they should be made the subjects
of divine grace.  Then, it follows that rsKva tekna may
be understood in its literal and more simple acceptation,
as denoting children proper, although the more general
idea of posterity is not excluded.
This is the' more probable, because, in Gen. xvii, 7,
where Jehovah promises to "be a God unto Abraham, and
to his seed," (I    rrrpe(paTog,) the Jews understood the
promise- as applying to themselves and their infant chil
144 
INI'ANT'l  BAPiT MIS.I.
dre?; and hence, also, the token of this covenant-circumcision-was applied to their infant children, as indicating
their right to the promise. Every Jew, therefore, would
unquestionably understand the words of the apostle Peter
as applying to himself and his infant offspring.  "The
Jews had been accustomed for many hundred years to re(eive infants by circumcision into the church; and this
they did, as before observed, because God had promised
to' be a God to Abraham and to his seed.' They had
understood this promise to mean parents, and their infant
offspring; and this idea was become familiar by the practice of many centuries. What, then, must have been their
views, when one of their own community [countrymen]
says to them,' The promise is unto you, and to your children?' If the practice of receiving infants [into the church]
was founded on a promise exactly similar, as it certainly
was, how could they possibly understand him but as
meaning the same thing, since he himself used the same
mode of speech? This must have been the case, unless
we admit this absurdity, namely, that they understood him
in a sense to which they had never been accustomed...
Certainly all men, when acting freely, will understand
words in that way which is most familiar to them; and
nothing could be more familiar to the Jews, than to understand such a speech as Peter's to mean adults and infants.
So that if the Jews, the awakened Jews, had apprehended
the apostle to mean only adults when he said,'to you
and your children,' they must have had an understanding
of such a peculiar construction, as to make that sense of
a word, which to them was totally unnatural and forced,
[and, we may add, altogether unheard of in such a peculiar
connection,] to become [all at once] familiar and easy."*
But if we take re,cva tekna in its broadest application to
denote posterity, the result will be the same. For what is
our idea of posterity but that of a generation, or of generations of human beings, comprising adults and infants? To
say that the word posterity means adults only, is to assume
a position in the argument too absurd and ridiculous to
merit a serious refutation.  "How idle a thing it is for a
man to come with a Lexicon in his hand, to inform us
* Edwards on Baptism, pp. 67, 68.
I 11 —ii 
that -rsva tekna, children, means posterity!  Certainly it
[often] does, and so, consequently, means the youngest
infants,"* as being necessarily included in the term.
Whatever method, therefore, we adopt for the explica.
tion of the apostle's words, we must, unless we would
rush into the most palpable absurdities, understand him
as meaning adults and infants, when he says, "you, and
your children." Thus must the Jews have understood him,
because this understanding would be according to the most
natural and obvious meaning of the words.  And thus must
Peter have intended to be understood, unless he is to be
charged with an unusual and improper use of terms, which
no one will pretend. Thus did both Peter, and all the
Jews, actually understand an exactly similar phraseology
in the promise given to Abraham.   The hortatory parts
of Scripture are peculiarly simple and natural in their
style. All technicalities, and words of difficult or doubtful
meaning, were studiously avoided, and the words of common life only were employed. Peter, in the passage before us, uses the style and pathos of exhortation. He is
a Hebrew, speaking to Hebrews. He carries them back
to the Hebrew Scriptures-points themn to a distinguished
promise  there recorded-uses  words in their Hebrew
sense, arnd constructs his argument wholly upon acknowledged principles of the Hebrew theology. To lead them
to the spiritual provisions of that ancient promise (Gen.
xvii, 7) was his single aim. All the circumstances, and
the associations of the occasion, concur in establishing
the use of  -erva tekna, in its most obvious and simple
sense, as we have above explained, namely, to mean
children proper.
3.) The relation which the conjunctive particle yap gar,
inverse 39, bears to the preceding.part of the discourse,
plainly establishes the obligation of infant baptism. The
phraseology of this passage is exactly what we might expect, on the supposition that infant baptism was practised
by the apostles; exactly what the Jews must have, deemed
sufficient to establish such a practice; and it becomes
impossible fully to account for the force of the apostle's
words on any other hypothesis. rap gar is what is called,
* Edwards on Baptism.
146
INFANT BAPTISll. 
INFANT BAPTISM.)
in the language of grammarians, a "causal conjunction,"
and has the force of the En,glishfor, because; Latin, enim,
quippe, igitur.* It always expresses the reason of what
has been previously spoken, or implied, in the same connection. Now, the question is, to what word, or words,
in the preceding part of the discourse, does ya-  gar refer?
If we can fix its proper causal relation, we shall be at no
loss to comprehend the force of Peter's argument.. There
are but three facts to which it can allude, and of which it
can be considered as assigning a reason. Does it refer to
either of these facts separately?-and if so, to which one?
or does it refer generally to all the preceding part of
Peter's discourse, contained in verse 38? After mature
reflection, I am inclined to adopt the latter opinion. I will
lay before the reader an analysis of the whole argument,
so as to enable him to judge for himself.  If ha? gar be
referred back to peravonua' e metanoesate, (repent ye,) then
the sense would be indicated by the following grammatical
connection:-" Repent ye... BECAUSE the promise is unto
you," &c.   If yap relate to 3a,r-tcO-(o baptistheto, (be
baptized,) then the grammatical connection would stand
thus: "Be baptized every one of you... BECAUS  the promise is unto you," &c. If yap refer to the declaration,
"'    eaOseC'oa       v av  Tytov Ilvevlvatro  ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;" then the grammatical
relation would stand thus: " Ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost; BECAUSE the promise is unto you," &c.  The
first of the foregoing constructions would require ya) gar
to be understood as expressing the reason for their repentance; the second, the reason for their baptism; and the
third, the reason why they should expect to receive the
Holy Ghost. Now, either of these constructions would
nmake a good doctrinal sense; but we consider yap to refer
to ALL that is advanced in the thirty-eighth verse-first,
because it better suits the plan of Luke, by giving very
general statements of Peter's argument; secondly, yapno
more fitly relates to one of the above-mentioned antecedents than another. It is as really a reason for their baptism, or their repentance, as for their receiving the IHoly
Spirit; and vice versa. Thirdly, it better suits all the
* Vide Buttmann's Greek Gramminar; Robinson's Greek and Eng.
Lex.; and Schrevelii Lex.
147 
INFANT BAPTISM.
circumstances of the occasion to fix the causal relation
of this conjunction to all the facts mentioned in the thirtyeighth verse. For instance, the preaching of Peter had
produced a powerful effect;-" they were pricked in their
heart, and said unto Peter, and to the rest.. Men  and
brethren, what shall we do?" The first emotions of their
remorse had produced a temporary despair; truly, they
thought, we have forfeited not only church rights, but all
hopes of mercy. Peter exhorted them to repentance-to
assume church obligations in the Christian form-and
encouraged them to look for the gift of the Holy Spirit.
All these directions suited the urgency of the moment;
and he proves their appropriateness and adaptation to his
Jewish brethren by adding, " BECAUSE the [ancient covenant] promise [Gen. xvii, 7, to the fulness of which Joel
has referred in chap. ii, 28] is unto you, and to your children, &c.  If it were not so-if the ancient covenant
promise were not to you and to your children-there would
be no propriety in your repentance, (as it would be hopeless,) nor in your baptism, (as you would have no right to
church privileges,) nor (much less) in your expecting to
receive the fulness of the Holy Spirit."  It does not appear that they were in any peculiar need of encouragement in order to enable them to embrace the promise of
Joel ii, 28. On the contrary, it does seem plain that their
immediate concern was to know whether they might expect pardon, and a restoration to covenant, or church blessings, (for which the Abrahamic promise directly provided;)
thinking, probably, (and certainly with much reason,) that
if they were not excluded from the covenant, they might
yet hope for the Spirit's effusion. If, then, we suppose
yap gar to refer to the several statements of the thirtyeighth verge, we understand the apostle as assigning a
general reason for the exhortations and encouragements
therein laid down; which certainly suits the point of the
occasion much better than to refer this particle to the last
clause of that verse.
But lastly, I remark, if the apostle had intended a direct
quotation from, or an exclusive allusion to, Joel ii, 28, he
would undoubtedly have adopted a phraseology more
closely answering to the words and doctrine of that passage.  In describing the persons upon whom the "Spirit"
148 
INFANT BAPTISM.
should be "poured out" in the latter (that is, gospel) days,
Joel speaks only of adults.   He  speaks of "sons and
daughters," of "old men anid young men," of "servants
and handmaids." It will not be doubted that the prophet
intends only adults by these descriptions; unless the words
"sons" and "daughters" should be supposed to include
infants.  But it is evident that he uses  e: banim and
hi:  banoth, as they are often used, to designate age, just
as we would say youth and maidens, to designate an age
advanced from  childhood, though yet tender.  And so the
Seventy understood them, and rendered them by the corresponding Greek viol wvhioi, and Ovyar,epe  thtlgateres,
sons and daughters.  But Joel determines the question of
the age of these sons and daughlters, by immediately adding,
"they shall prophesy."  This proves that he intended onlv
adult sons and daughters.   Indeed, theology can sufficiently decide this question.  The effusion of the Spirit,
under the gospel dispensation, produces no alteration of
the moral state of infants.  Adults only, who are admitted
to greater light and privileges, are directly afiected by this
event. It is plain, then, that Joel is speaking only of
adults; and when he says "all flesh," his general terms
must be limited by the other specific terms employed, and,
above all, by the nature and design of the subject.
But the apostle Peter does not employ a proper phraseology to designate adults only, and therefore cannot be
supposed to intend a direct quotation from Joel.  Peter
says, "the promise is ~ltv tat rotg retcvot' to you (adults)
and to your (infant) children."  If he had intended adults
only, as Joel unquestionablydid, he would have emnployed
another phraseology. TeIcva tekna, though it may, and
often does, mean adults, yet never means adults only,
without being connected with qualifying and definitive
circumstances. In verse 17, where Peter intends a quotation from Joel ii, 28, he uses the exact phraseology of the
prophet, and says, " o  vIot Vlt(ov tat al OvyaTepe9 vlt&)v
your SONS and your DAUGHTERs  shall prophesy," &c. But
the intelligent reader need not be informed that re,cva
children is not sufficiently explicit to be a quotation of
VtOl atl OvyarepesQ sons and daughters, and those, too, that
are old enough to "prophesy!"  I have before shown, in
7*
149
-r 
INFANT BAPTISM.
this section, why the words of Peter, Acts ii, 39, may, and
should, be regarded as a quotation of Gen. xvii, 7. Every
circumstance, save that of a direct assertion, that can exist
to determine any passage to be a quotation of another,
exists in this case to determine the former to be a quotation of the latter.
It is sufficiently obvious, then, that yap gar, in Acts ii,
39, cannot refer exclusively to the promise of Joel ii, 28,
or, in other words, to "the gift of the Holy Ghost," and
must, consequently, be referred back, as above stated, to
Ba,rrtCoOrqo baptistheto, (be baptized,) or to fe-avonuaare
metanoesate, (repent ye,) or to all these facts in general.
There is no grammatical objection to considering the conjunction in question as relating to all the statements of the
thirty-eighth verse, and, for the reasons already assigned,
we shall thus regard it.
4.) The argument, then, which we derive from this
passage, in favour of infant baptism, is easily deduced:
"Because the covenant promise  is unto you, therefore
repent and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost."  But it may be objected, the same promise
is unto their children also; must they repent, be baptized,
and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? If the "promise"
be a valid reason for repentance, baptism, and the bestowinenit of the Holy Spirit's effusion, in the one case, is it
not also equally so in the other?  But as infants cannot
repent, does not this argument wholly fail?  We answer:
The analogy of this argument applies as far as the nature
of the case allows. That infants are incapable of repentance, is no proof that they are unsuitable subjects of baptism, or of the Spirit's influences. No possible difficulty
can arise here to any candid mind, who considers that the
use of words, in such a case, is always to be explained
according to the nature of the subject, and the analogy of
faith. The fact, which I cannot see how to avoid in view
of all the circumstances of the case, is, that the "promise"
in this passage stands connected, by the causal conjunction yag gar, to "baptism," and consequently to church
relations. It must, then, follow that all to whom the promise constitutionally applies have a right to baptism, uiiless they have forfeited it by an infraction of the covenant.
But the promise applies to infants; they have never for
150 
INFANT BAPTISM.
feited it, or any of its external provisions-therefore, they
are to be baptized.
Thus was the ancient rite of circumcision connected
with the covenant promise.   God says to Abraham, "I
will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy
seed after thee,.. to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed
after thee... THEREFORE thou shalt keep my covenant...
This is my covenant.. every man-child among, you shall
be circumcised."  The point of analogy is this, the "promise" is the ground of right and obligation to church relations and ordinances.  "When a positive institute is connected with a promise, all who are contained in the promise
have a right to the institute. I think any one may be
compelled to grant this, as it is certainly an undeniable
truth; for if parents must, therefore, be circumcised because they are included in the promise, then, as infants
are also included in the promise, they too must be circumcised. All this is evinced by the history of circumcision,
and is, indeed, a self-evident case; because, if a promise
give a right to an institute, the institute must belong to all
who are interested in the promise. And, therefore, we
may reason thus: If parents must be baptized because the
promise belongs to them, then must their infants be baptized, because the promise belongs to them also. This
mode of reasoning is the more certain, as it is confirmed,
beyond all doubt, by the divine procedure; for if you ask,
Who are the circumcised? the reply is, Those to whom
the promise was made. If you inquiire again, To whom
was the promise made? we answer, To adults and infants.
Again, if you ask, Who are to be baptized?  the answer is,
Those to whom the promise is made. But to whom is it
made? The apostle says,' To you, and to your children.'
Now, what proof more direct can be made or desired for
infant baptism?"*
Bishop Burnett says, "When the apostles, in their first
preaching, told the Jews that the promises were made to
them and to their children, the Jews must have understood
it according to what they were already in possession of,
namely, that they could initiate their children into their
religion, bring them under the obligations of it, and
* Edwards on Baptism, pp. 74, 75.
151
.t 
INFANT BAPTISM.
procure to them a share in those blessings that belonged
to it."*
[5.] In John iii, 5, the Saviour says, "Except a man be
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God."
This passage has always been regarded as having a
very decisive bearing on the question of infant baptism.
So it was regarded by the early fathers in the Christian
church, and so it should doubtless be of right considered.
That this refers to water baptism is too manifest to require
proof. To say that water is here used only in a mystical
sense, as it is in John iv, 13, 14, and not of the material
element, is not only to contradict the voice of all antiquity,
but, what is of vastly more serious import, it is to contradict reason itself, and the general analogy of Scripture
usage.  Of this, the intelligent reader, with a little reflection and examination, may soon become convinced. (See
chap. v, sec. i, of this work.)
But is it duly considered what our Saviour has here
said?  Hear him: "'Eav l? ltf yevvqoq e 6 vd6aTog ia,,
7rvev[ta'og Except ANY ONE be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  Is
there any exception here? Does it not apply to all alike?
to children and to adults? And let the reader turn back
and compare this with Matt. xix, 14, where our Saviom
affirms that "the kingdom of heaven belongs" to children.
It truly belongs to them, and to such as resemble them in
moral dispositions, but " none shall enter into it," according
to the ordinary appointment of God, "except he be regenerate, and born anew of water and of the Holy Spirit;"
and if the "kingdom" here means, or implies, the visible
church, as it often does, then must all, without any exception, be born of water, as well as of the Holy Spirit, before
they can lawfully become its acknowledged members.
These awful, and very direct words of Jesus Christ, are
too often lost, in their practical effect upon the heart and
conduct of the believer, through the application of an alIegorizing, and certainly a very dangerous, principle of interpretation.  "Blessed are they that hear the word of
God, and keep it," Luke xi, 28.
* Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Art. xxvii.
152 
INFANT BAPTISM.
[6.] The New Testament recognition of infant baptism
is obviously set forth in the mention' of "household baptisms."
There are three different places where household baptisms are recorded, namely, Acts xvi, 15, Lydia and her
household; verse 33, the jailer "and all his;" 1 Cor. i, 16,
"the household of Stephanas." The scope of this argument may be comprehended in the two following propositions: First. The language employed is such as may be
fitly used to represent the baptism of children. Secondly.
The circumstances concur to establish a decided probability
that Pedobaptism, is here intended.
1.) Whenever we would understand the meaning of any
author, our first effort should be to explain his words according to the common usage, and the obvious design of
the particular writer.  If it be an ancient author, we must
ascertain what was the use of the terms he employed at
the time of his writing, and among the people to whom he
wrote. The question, therefore, which we are now to
decide is, Does otkog oikos, (translated household,) the word
which is used in Acts xvi, 15, and 1 Cor. i, 16, properly
include infants? The sacred history informs us that certain persons, with their households, were baptized; the
question is, Does the phraseology properly denote that
infants were, or might have been, baptized? I am fully
apprized that the more informed reader will deem it wholly
unnecessary and gratuitous for me to adduce formal proof
of the affirmative of this question; but for the sake of those
who may not readily appreciate how terms are used in the
Bible, and also that the final argument may not seem to
rest barely on assertion, or the mere authority of names, I
cannot withhold a few statements. OtKoq oikos primarily
denotes a house, that is, a building'or edifice, domus. But
by a very common rule of language it also signifies all that
dwell in a house, that is, a family; including parents,
children, domestics, &c.; all those persons which we
range under the general title offamily, or household. The
point to be ascertained is, whether infants are naturally,
and as a matter of course, included in this phrase. The
opponents of infant baptism take the ground that infants
cannot be proved to have been included in the "house holds" which the apostles baptized, because they are not
153 
INFANT BAPTISM.
specfed, and it is well known that there are households,
or families, without infant children. We take the ground
that, although otico oikos does not specify children, yet,
children are properly included within the term, as much
as parents, or servants; and the presunmption is that they
are always thus included, unless there is a specification
to the contrary. The word family does not necessarily
specify parents,-a family may be constituted, or subsist,
without the relation of parents,-but does this authorize us
to infer that parents are never included in this word unless
they are specified by a distinct and appropriate appellation? The same may be said of servants. The words
otiog, familia, and household, include the idea of servants,
as constituting a part of those who live together in the
same house. Still, neither of these terms is the proper
one to denote a servant distinctively, and there may be
families where there are no servants. But are we authorized to infer, hence, that servants are never included in
these words, unless they are specified distinctly by some
adjunct? For instance, it is said Lydia and her household
were baptized. From this we argue that, as children are
properly included under the general term household, therefore, the presumption is, children were baptized.  "Not
so," says a Baptist; "the term household does not specify
infants; there are many households that do not include
one infant, therefore the baptism of households does not,
in any way, prove the baptism of infants." Well said!
Admirable logic! But hold: will this principle of interpretation hold good in other cases? Let us try. The
term household does not specify domestics of any kind.
There are many households without any servants whatever. Nor does the term specify children that are grown
up. There are many households that are composed of the
husband and wife, or only one of them, and the servants;
therefore, the baptism of households does not prove the
baptism of servants of any kind, or of children of any age,
unless they are specified by a distinct and appropriate
name;-therefore there were no domestics of any kind,
or children of any age, baptized by Paul in the households
of Lydia, the jailer, and Stephanas, because no specifications to this effect appear. Finally, as no individuals but
Lydia, the jailer, and Stephanas, are specified-as the
154 
INF'ANTI BAP'rISI. 
term "household" specifies no particular person, or class
of persons-therefore, it cannot be proved that any particular persons but those three were baptized on those occasions. And thus endeth the first lesson on the logical use
of otsog, according to Mr. Pengilly and the Baptists.
But we maintain that we have the same authority for
supposing that children were included in these households,
and were consequently baptized, as for supposing that any
other individuals were included in them and were baptized.
Children are as natural a branch of the household as servants, and much more so.  Mr. Pengilly says, "From the
word' household,' therefore, to infer the baptism of infants,
is completely begging the question." Just as much is it
begging the question to infer that any other persons were
baptized besides those specified; as, for instance, parents,
adult children, servants, or any others. It is more properly begging the question to infer that children were not
baptized in these households, because it assumes the point
to be proved without any proof, and exactly against the
face of a reasonable probability.
2.) We inquire, Do all the circumstances of the case
so concur as to establish a decided probability that infant
baptism is here intended?
The reader will understand that we are not seeking for
any positive declarations in proof of our position. The
nature of the case does not demand such proof, and the
principles we have before laid down, by which to direct
our inquiries, do not impose upon us this task. I mean
by circumstances, all those corroborating facts that serve to
shed light upon the case in point, which do not appear
from a mere philological examination of the word ot~lo
oikos. It will be sufficient for our argument to prove that
there are no specified circumstances connected with these
family baptisms that impair the force of the probability
that Pedobaptism was practised, according to the natural
indication of the terms employed.
(a.) It is a fact worthy of note, that the faith, or conversion, of Lydia only is mentioned, or even intimated;
following which, as if it were a matter of course, was the
baptism of her household. It is said the Lord opened
HER heart, "that SHE attended unto the things that were
spoken of Paul;" but it does not say that the Lord opened
155 
INFANT BAPTISM.
the hearts of her household, and that THEY attended unto
the same things. Thus, then, stands the account: "SHE"
attended unto the preaching of Paul, and "SHE" and her
"HOUSEHOLD" were baptized.  No more or less can be
made of the words of Luke. Now we do not say positively that there were no other adults in her family, but
we do say positively that no other adults are specified,
and also that infant children are a very usual and natural
portion of a household, which throws the force of a clear
probability on the side of Pedobaptism.  Another point
that perhaps is worthy of mention, as indicating that Lydia
only, of all the members of her house, believed, is, that
when she invites the apostle and Silas to tarry for a time
at her house, she says, "If ye have judged BIE to be faithful, come into my house," &c.  Had  there been other
believing adults besides herself, it might seem more modest
for her to have at least hinted it, and to have said, " If ye
have judged us to be faithful," &c. This might seem
especially suitable, as there appeared a strong reluctance
in Paul and Silas to comply with her entreaties; and if
her faith was an argument of any strength in favour of their
staying, surely the faith of the entire household (supposing
them to be adults and converted) would have added weight
to the argument.   Lydia was a Jewish proselyte before
her conversion to Christianity. It is said, verse 14, she
"e /o   v Oeov worshipped God;" that is, was devout,- a description that is used to distinguish proselytes
from native Hebrews. The probability therefore is, that
she and her household had been previously proselyted to
Judaism; and as she had given up her household to God
in baptism before, according to the Jewish requisition in
making proselytes, so now again, according to Christ's
requisition in making disciples.
"The great difficulty with the Baptists is, to make a
house for Lydia, without any children at all, young or old.
This, however, cannot be proved from the term itself, since
the same word is that commonly used in the Scriptures to
include children residing at home with their parents: as,
1 Tim. iii, 4,' One that ruleth well his own otIKov house,
having his rezva children in subjection, with all gravity.'
It is, however, conjectured first, that she had come on a
trading voyage from Thyatira to Philippi, to sell purple,
156 
INFANT BAPTISM.,
as if a woman [who was a native] of Thyatira might not
be settled in business at Philippi, as a seller of this article,
Then, as if to mark more strikingly the hopelessness of
the attempt to torture this passage to favour an opinion,
' her house' is made to consist of journeymen dyers,' enmployed in preparing the purple she sold;' which, however,
is a notion at variance with the former; for if she was on
a mere trading voyage-,if she had brought her purple
goods from Thyatira to Philippi to sell, she most probably
brought them ready dyed, and would have no need of a
dying establishment.  To complete the whole, these journeymen dyers, although not a word is said of their conversion, or even of their existence, in the whole story, are
raised into' the brethren,' (a term which manifestly denotes
the members of the Philippian church,) whom Paul and
Silas are said to have, seen and comforted in the house of
Lydia before they departed "'* There is, therefore, not
the least circumstance in this whole history that impairs
the force of a reasonable probability that it describes an
instance of infant baptism.
(b.) In the case of the jailer, it appears evident that
there were other adults besides himself who, believed and
were baptized; for it is said Paul and Silas "spake the
word of the Lord to all that were in the jailer's house,"
verse 32. But this in nowise militates against the probability that there were children also in the jailer's family,
and, if so, that they were baptized. It is said of the jailer,
cat e,3aXTroOn avrTOg Kat Obt avov 7ravreq and he was baptized, he and all who were [~aav being understood] of him.
The relative force of ot hoi is not brought out in our common English version, although a kindred sense  to the
above is given to this passage.  All I aim to make out of
this sentence is, that the phraseology indicates that the
jailer had children, (of what age is not specified,) and that
they were baptized.  But if this be so, the probability is
in our favour, namely, that there were young children in
his family, and, therefore, that the text is a recorded instance of infant baptism. The reader will understand that
all that is claimed from this passage, in favour of infant
baptism, is, that it affords a reasonable probability in its
favour, and, of course, against our opponents.
*Watson's Theol. Inst., pp. 641, 642.
157 
1INFANT BAPTISII.
I am aware that it is said that, in verse 34, the historian
informs us that the jailer "rejoiced, believing in God with
all his house;" but it is hardly necessary to inform the
critical reader that this is far from stating that all his house
believed with him. Indeed, it says nothing about the faith
of his house. The grammatical order of the sentence is
brQken by our common version, and, as I think evidently,
the sense much obscured, or rather inisstated. The sentence stands thus: cat q~yaXStaaa-o ~avottt 7re,7tae-Ve6v
~-o Oeov and he rejoiced in all his house, believing in God;
or, to make better English syntax, it should stand thus:
and he, believing in God, rejoiced with, or in, all his house.
The peculiar turn of the passage I understand to be, that
he, (the jailer,) believing in God, rejoiced IN, or, as we
would say, OVER all his family.  How natural is it for a
man newly converted, and whose children also are newly
ingrafted into the covenant of promise, and consecrated to
God, to rejoice in this conversion of his family! The
jailer now looked upon his family as dedicated to God,
and as fellow-heirs with himself of the grace of life. Ile
looked upon his children (for the text certainly indicates
that he had children) as subjects of grace, and as those
who were honoured and blessed of the Lord. He believed
in God-the adult members of his family believed, and all
his family had been newly baptized by these faithful servants of God;  the change was great-it was glorious.
He rejoiced in the conversion of his family. Hie rejoiced
over them just as any Christian father would rejoice in
the consecration of his house to God. This I conceive
to be the true force of the passage, and it is sufficient to
say that no philological objection stands opposed to it.
But how do we know that there were any infants in this
family? We  do not know;-we'have not undertaken to
prove this.  How, then, does it favour infant baptism?
We answer, The presumption always is that otlog oikos,
when used in the sense of family, and  ravoeci panoiki,
(household, all the household, &c.,) include children. So
it is said, Exod. i, 1, "The children of Israel came into
Egypt, every man and his household." (ret  7ravotfc.)  But
how do we know that ravotil panoiki, which the Septua gint here employ, includes young children?  The word
itself does not positively prove that there were any infant
158 
INFANT BAPTISM.                  5
children in these families of the sons of the patriarch.
Yet, if we had no other evidence of there having been
little children in these households but the mere force of
the word, still the presumption would be that there were
such children, because it is a proper word to designate the
collective body of parents and children. But we know
that 7av,ot~i panoiki includes infants in this passage, because it is stated, Gen. xlvi, 5, that the sons of Jacob
"carried their little ones and their wives in the wagons"
to Egypt. So also may the same word be presumed to
include infants in Acts xvi, 34.
I know that it is said in the English version that the
jailer "rejoiced, or believed, with all his house;" thus
indicating that all the members of his house actively united
in his rejoicings, or faith. But there is no such word as
"with" in the Greek text. - It is not in the sentence, and it
does not necessarily appear in the composition of bravoti
panoiki.  The truth is, that with, or in, or some other particle, is left to be supplied by the sense.   "He rejoiced
in all his house;" that is, "over his entire family."  From
an attentive observation, therefore, of all the particular
circumstances connected with the baptism of the jailer
and his household, we find nothing to impair the force of
the natural probability that 7ravots! panoiki, and the phrase
0~ avrov 7ravre9 all who were of him, imply and include
children; and, as they were all baptized, the force of this
scrap of history is evidently in favour of infant baptism.
(c.) "The third instance," says Mr. Watson, "is that
of' the house of Stephanas,' mentioned by St. Paul, 1 Cor.
i, 16, as having been baptized by himself.  This family,
also, it is argued, must have been all adults, because they
are said in the same epistle, chap. xvi, 15, to have' addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,' and further,
because they were persons who took' a lead' in the affairs
of the church, the Corinthians being exhorted to' submit
themselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with
us and laboureth.'  To understand this passage rightly,
however, it is necessary to observe, that Stephanas, the
head of the family, had been sent by the church of Corinth
to St. Paul at Ephesus, along with Fortunatus and Achaicus. In the absence of the head of the family, the apostle
commnends'the house,' the family of Stephanas, to the
159 
regard of the Corinthian believers, and perhaps also the
houses of the two other brethren that had come with him,
for in several MSS. marked by Griesbach, and in some
of the versions, the text reads,' Ye know the house of
Stephanas and Fortunatus,' and one reads also,' and of
Achaicus.' By the house or family of Stephanas, the
apostle must mean his children, or, along with them, his
near relations dwelling together in the same family; for,
since they are commended for their hospitality to the
saints, servants, who have no power to show hospitality,
are of course excluded. But in the absence of the head
f'the family, it is very improbable that the apostle should
exhort the Corinthian church to'submit,' ecclesiastically,
to the wife, sons, daughters, and near relations of Stephanas, and, if the reading of Griesbach's MSS. be followed,
to the family of Fortunatus, and that of Achaicus also.
In respect of government, therefore, they cannot be' supposed'to have had a lead in the church,' according to the
Baptist notion, and especially as the heads of these families
were absent.* They were, however, the oldest Christian
f4milics in Corinth, the house of Stephanas, at least, being
called the' first-fruits -of Achaia,' and eminently distinguished for'addicting themselves,' setting themselves on
system, to the work of ministering to the saints, that is,
of-communicating to the poor saints; entertaining stranger
Christians, which was an important branch of practical
duty in the primitive church, that in every place those who
professed Christ might be kept out of the society of idolaters; and receiving the ministers of Christ. On these
accounts the apostle commends them to the especial regard
of the Corinthian church, and exhorts' Eva sat vtetq
Vrro-acla8qOe r QO  rtotov'otf that ye range yourselves under
and co-operate with them and with every one' also,' who
helpeth with us and laboureth;'- the military metaphor
contained in eraav etaxan, (have set, devoted, arranged,
Eng. ver., addicted,) in the preceding verse, being here
carried forward. These families were the oldest Christians in Corinth; and as they were foremost in every good
word and work, they were not only to be commended, but
* Thus far the reasoning of our author is ingenious and forcible, on
the supposition that Stephanas and his companions did not- return to
Gorinth, as the bearers of the first letter of Paul to that church.
160
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
the rest were to be exhorted to serve under them as leaders
in these works of charity.  This appears to be the obvious
sense of this otherwise obscure passage. But in this, or,
indeed, in any other sense which can be given to it, it
proves no more than that there were adult persons in the
family of Stephanas,-his wife, sons, and daughters, who
were distinguished for their charity and hospitality.  Still
it is to be remembered that the baptism of the oldest children took place several years before.  The house of Stephanas was' the first-fruits of Achaia,' in which St. Paul
began to preach not later than A. D. 51, while this epistle
could not have been written earlier at least than A. D. 57,
and might be later. Six or eight years taken from the age
of the sons and daughters of Stephanas might bring the
oldest to the state of early youth, and as to the younger
branches, would descend to the term of infancy, properly
so called. Still further; all that the apostle affirms of the
benevolence and hospitality of the family of Stephanas is
perfectly consistent with a part of his children being still
very young at the time he wrote this epistle.  An equal
commendation for hospitality and charity might be given
at the present day, with perfect propriety, to many pious
families, several members of which are still in a state ef
infancy.   It was  sufficient, to warrant the use of such
expressions as those of the apostle, that there were in
these Corinthian families a few adults, whose conduct
gave a decided character to the whole' house.'
Thus the arguments used to prove that in these three
instances of family baptism there were no young children,
are evidently very unsatisfactory; and they leave us to the
conclusion, which perhaps all would come to in reading
the sacred history, were they quite free from the bias of a
theory, that'houses, or'families,' as in the commonly
received import of the term, may be presumed to comprise
children of all ages, unless some explicit note of the contrary appears, which is not the case in any of the instances
in question."*
3.:) The familiar, and, as we may say, matter-of-course
manner of mentioning these cases of family baptisms,
clearly indicates that it was in perfect harmony with the
* Watson's Institutes, vol. ii, pp. 642-644.
161 
universal custom of the apostles. Had it been any unusual
thing-bhad infant baptism been unknown to the apostolic
church, and as abhorrent to God as it is to our Baptist
brethren, it is not at all probable that these cases would
have been thus registered by the direction of the Holy
Spirit, without unequivocal intimations that no infant children were included in the number of the baptized. As it
is, however, it leaves upon the mind of the unbiased
reader the impression of a strong probability, not only that
infants were included in those baptized households which
are mentioned but that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
families were baptized in the same way; which is an advance of the argument that falls little short of the highest
Scriptural authority.
It cannot have escaped the observation of the attentive,
intelligent reader, that the simple fact of the register of
household, or family baptisms, as well as the manner in
which they are registered, is in perfect keeping with the
hypothesis that infants were universally baptized with their
believing parents in apostolic times.  There is a corroborating force to these circumstances that should not be
overlooked.  Such a record of baptisms certainly never
would occur in the same easy, unrestricted, familiar style
of history, as that adopted by the author of the Acts of the
Apostles, under an anti-Pedobaptist ministration.  It is
true that our Baptist brethren tell us they have baptized
households. Mr. Pengilly tells us, in his work on Baptism, that he "has baptized households; and, among others,
a'Lydia and her household,' and yet never baptized a
child;" and concludes that "to infer the baptism of infants from the word'household,' is completely begging
the question."* His argument amounts to this.: He has
baptized households without ever having baptized a child,
-therefore, it is begging the question to suppose that
there were any children in those households whose baptism is recorded in the New Testament. But the point
upon which I wish to fix attention here is, the incongruity
of such registers, and such historic accounts, in the easy,
familiar, and matter-of-course style of Luke, to the hypothesis that infant baptism was unknown and unpractised
# Scripture Guide, p. 43.
162
T,NFANT RAPTlS5f 
INFANT BAPTISM.
by the apostles. A Baptist disputant, for the sake of giving
effect to his argument, may record a household baptism
which he himself had performed; but would he be likely,
in sending home missionary reports, for instance, to return
an account of family baptisms in the same open, unqualified manner as that of Luke, in recording the baptism Of
Lydia's family?  Or, furthermore, were a Baptist writing
a history of the Baptist miissions, or of the general Baptist
denomination,-a history that was to be read by future
generations, when its author, and all who now might have
any personal knowledge of the facts recorded, would be
no more-a history, one prominent object of which was to
set forth the validity and true character of water baptism,
as held and practised by the Baptists-were a Baptist, I
say, to write such a history, would he be likely to men-'
tion family baptisms  in s~uch an indefinite, familiar, and
unqualified manner as to leave the impression upon
thousands of minds, that infants, being a natural part
of a family, were to be baptized? Does it accord with our
knowledge of the Baptists' views on this subject, to sup4
pose that they would be likely to write so unguarde~dly as
to leave the impression on the minds of many of their
ingenuous readers that they practised infant baptism?
And if the apostles, and the author of the book containing 
an account of their "Acts," and the primitive church, had
all been opposed to infant baptism, or had been wholly
ignorant of any such practice, I ask, Would they have
been likely to leave such an unguarded account of their
baptisms, as to give the impression to thousands that they
practised infant baptism? Would an intelligent Arminian,
now-a-days, write concerning the doctrine of "free grace"
in terms that would be likely, from -the natural force of
words, to leave the impression that he was a believer in
the "five points of Calvinism?"  And yet, absurd as would
be the affirmative of these suppositions, it would not fully
illustrate the absurdity of an anti-Pedobaptist construction
of the household baptisms of the New Testament. For
here, according to the theory of our opponents, we not
only have anti-Pedobaptist authors (for such the Baptists
suppose Luke and Paul to have been) writing about baptism in terms exactly calculated to leave the impression
that infant baptism was an apostolic practice, but we are
163 
INFANT BAPTISM.
bound to believe that such an absurdity was sanctioned by
the authority of the Holy Spirit! for these men wrote "as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
To illustrate this subject still further, let us suppose the
following case:-" Two missionaries have for a number
of years been successfully labouring for the conversion of
a particular tribe of savages in the wilderness of America.
We have heard of their labours, and of their success, and
have rejoiced in it, but have never learned, and have never
to this day inquired, whether they practised infant baptism
or not. For special reasons, this now becomes a subject
of inquiry; and the only means of information which we
have at hand is a brief history which those missilonaries
have published of their labours. In that history, which
is now subject to a careful examination, we find that they
speak of several instances in which individuals embraced
Christianity and received baptism.  And they informin us
that at such a time they baptized one of the chiefs, and
his famtily; and that, at another time, they baptized such
a man, and all his; and again, another man, and his household. This is all the information they give. They mention, without explanation, the baptism of several persons,
and their households, and so make faimily baptisms a noticeable circumstance in the history ofthei? mission.  Would
not such a circumstance lead us to think it probable that
they practised infant baptism? Be sure, it might be said,
that they do not expressly mention the baptism of little
children, and that all who belonged to those families may
have been adults, and adult believers. This, I admit, would
be possible. But would it be probable? Would those who
do not baptize children be likely to speak in this manner?
Should we not think it very singular to find accounts of
family baptisms in a history of Baptist missions?"*
The apostles wrote and spoke of them just as the Jews
would in reference to household proselyting; the idea of
proselyting households among the Jews was perfectly
familiar, by which they understood the bringing of the
parents and children over to Judaism by circumcision,
baptism, and sacrifice. The practice of discipling and
baptizing households among the early Christians appears
equally familiar, and equally common to record. We  say
* Woods on Infant Baptismn, pp. 81, 82.
164 
INFANT BAPTISM.
therefore, that family baptisms, as recorded in the New
Testament, exactly coincide with, and strongly corroborate, the doctrine of infant baptism.
4.) It has been urged that the paucity of instances in
which the mention of household baptism occurs is a
powerful presumption against the supposition that the
apostles baptized infants. In reply, we can but remark
with what amusing facility some people, who are earnest
partisans, overrate the comparative importance of their
favourite dogma.   They have a hobby,  and their great
wonder is, that it is not mentioned in every page of holy
writ.  They conceive -of nothing more important than the
success of their darling theory, and they wonder how the
Almighty could pass it by so lightly in his revelation.
Some people seem to imagine that infant baptism ought,
if true, to have been mentioned with great minuteness and
particularity, and with many repetitions.  But is this according to the analogy of the divine proceedings? By no
means. "The sabbath was instituted at the creation: and
though weeks are mentioned in the sacred history, the
sabbath is not again mentioned till Moses: [a period of
more than two thousand four hundred years.]  Yet, how
important the sabbath was considered in the sight of God
is well known. Again, it is not mentioned from the time
of Joshua till the reign of David, [a period of about four
hundred years,] and yet, as says Dr. Humphrey,' it will
be admitted that, beyond all doubt, the pious judges of
Israel remembered the sabbath-day to keep it holy.' Moreover, the Bible says nothing of circumcision from a little
after Moses till the days of Jeremiah-a period of eight
hundred years; yet, doubtless, circumcision was practised
all the while.
"In like manner, the Missionary Herald, each volume
of which is twenty times as large as the book of Acts, is
now in progress of the thirty-sixth volume. In the whole
of these, containing the journals of so many missionaries,
narrating every important incident with so much minuteness, and continued for so many years, there are very few
instances mentioned of infant baptism.   I have not the
means at hand of ascertaining how many; but though I
have long been familiar with them, and have long observed
the fact with some curiosity, and have specially examined
8
165 
INFANT BAPTISM.
not a little, I am not able to find, or to call to mind, more
than a very few instances previously to the last two years.
But we know the missionaries of the American Board are
all Pedobaptists. The paucity of these records of infant
baptisms in their letters does not prove that they do not
baptize infants: we know they do; and once in a while
the fact is mentioned, but it is rare, though their converts
amount to many thousands.?'* It is unreasonable, therefore, to hold that if infant baptism be true, it must necessarily be a subject of frequent allusion in the history of the
apostolic churches.
CHAPTER IV.
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE,
DERIVED FROM STRONG COINCIDENCES, AND THE GENERAL
FITNESS OF THE PRACTICE.
THERE are several points which merit attention in this
stage of the argument, not so much from any direct bearing
they may have on the question as furnishing independent
proof, as on account of the strong corroborative force of
evidence resulting from their natural fitness to the doctrine
of infant baptism. After a doctrine or practice is proved
to be Scriptural, it is but reasonable and fair that we
should expect to find that natural fitness and adaptation to
all the circumstances of the case that we so uniformly
find in the works and dispensations of God. If we could
clearly point out an unfitness and incongruity in it to the
circumstances of the case, we are ready to concede that
such incongruity would necessarily weaken, if not overthrow, all the arguments that might be brought forward in
its support. Revelation is consistent with itself, and with
all the other works of God, as well as fitted to the condition
of man. God cannot contradict himself. ie suits his
dispensations to the condition and circumstances of man,
no less than to the perfection of his own infinite and unerring mind. All that he has commanded is befitting the
* Rev. E. Hall on Baptism, pp. 168,169.
166 
INFANT BAPTISM.
occasion, and is in harmony with the other parts of the
system. Now, if we could point out, in infant baptism,
some strong irrelevancy to other parts of the divine economy, or to other parts of the duty of Christians, it must
necessarily jostle all our confidence in the professed Scriptural authority for its observance,-we should, in such a
case, be forced to conclude it was not of God. This will
be readily admitted on all hands.
On the contrary, if, upon a more minute examination
of all the kindred circumstances, we shall find that the
practice perfectly coincides with all the circumstances of
the case,-if we find that there is a natural fitness in the
practice to the other parts of the Christian economy, and
to the acknowledged duties of Christian parents and their
relation to their offspring; I say, in such a case, the presumption in favour of its divine origin would be powerful,
while no objection, either from reason or Scripture, could
be urged against it.  Thus, then, stands the question;
and we ask, Is there any thing unsuitable to all the circumstances of the case in the practice of infant baptism?
1. We have already shown that infant baptism is suitable to the moral state of infants. On this there can be
here no controversy.  Infants belong to the "kingdom of
heaven," and this constitutes the groundwork of a fitness
for baptism. If they are members of the kingdom, it is
unquestionably fit that they should be declared such by
baptism.
2. It is in perfect harmony with the avowed object for
which the Christian church was erected, that infants be
baptized. What was the intention of God il having a
church upon the earth?  Let the apostle answer: "That
he might gather together in one [family] ALL THINGS IN
CHRIST, both which are in heaven, and which are on
earth; even in him," Eph. i, 10. Now, the meaning of
this is, that all who enjoy a saving interest in the atonement-who are justified in Christ-are to be collected in
one community, at the head of which is Christ, and this
community, or church, (for they are the same,) in connection with all other holy beings, constitutes God's family.
The same idea is conveyed in chap. ii, 15, where Paul
says that Christ abolished the ceremonial law, "for to
make in himself of twain [that is, of Jews and Gentiles]
167 
INFANT BAPTISM..
one new man," &c. The object was to gather all those
who were truly justified in Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles, into one fraternity-one family, or church-of which
Christ was to be the head, or chief. So it is said, also,
in chap. iii, 15, that "of Christ the whole family [of holy
beings] in heaven and earth is named." This doctrine is
largely taught in the New Testament. The only question,
therefore, that can possibly arise is, Do infants belong to
Christ? Are they "in Christ,?" Is he their spiritual Head?
their Saviour? If so, it was the intention of God "to gather
them together in one" family, even his church, with all
other persons who belong to Christ. Although this is a
valid, and, as we regard it, a positive argument, still we
have chosen to place it under the chapter of coincidences.
We say, then, that infant baptism is altogether suitable to.
and befitting, the nature of the Christian church, and God's
original design in forming it.
3. Infant baptism is in harmony with the analogy of
Jewish church ordinances. We have already mentioned,
somewhat at large, that Jehovah, from the first organization of the church, took infants into covenant relation to
himself. We need but mention the fact here. The light
of analogy is clear and overwhelming, and the practice
of infant baptism is just what we might expect, from a
knowledge of all the past.
4. There is a particular mention of children in Eph. vi,
1, that so strikingly coincides with, and seems to corroborate infant baptism, that I deem it worthy of a mention in
this place.  The apostle commands " children to obey their
parents in the Lord." These children were so young as
not to have received their elemental instructions, as appears from verse 4. Yet they were said to be "in the
Lord."  For "how could they obey ev Icvpt(o in the Lord,
if they themselves were not ev lVpto in the Lord?"* The
phrase, "in the Lord,"' is used to signify church membership in the New Testament. Thus, the "household of
Narcissus were in the Lord;"  Onesimus was  " in the
Lord;" "Andronilcus and Junia were in Christ." Rom.
xvi, 7, 11; Philem., ver. 16.  The address of the apostle,
in a strain of command and promise, would have been
* Mr. Knox's remarks on Infint Baptism, inserted at the close of
Dr. A. Clarke's comment on Mark's Gospel.
168 
INFANT BAPTISM.
unsuitable to any but such as were in covenant with God.
If children were not thus in covenant, we see not how
they could be addressed as a distinct class, in an apostolic
epistle which was professedly addressed to Christians.
Mr. Jerram well says, "If children are enumerated among
the various classes to whom the epistle is addressed as
constituting the church of Christ, they must have been
members of it; and if members, they must have been
baptized in their infancy."* It is certain that when this
same command, "Honour thy father and thy mother," &c.,
was first issued, it was addressed to children in covenant
with God.  The "promise," also, which was appended,
was a promise included in the covenant. See Exod. xx,
12; Deut. v, 16. Comp. Gen. xvii, 8. The remarks of
Mr. Knox, above alluded to, are exactly in point:-" It
must not escape attention," says he, "how exactly the
sequel of the apostle's address accords with the commencement; the injunction being given as to those in express
covenant,' Honour thy father and thy mother; for this is
the first commandment with promise.' Had those addressed been out of the Christian pale, this language would
have been inapplicable. In that case they would have
been a,7q,o  pt&o-ev oL rig'TroZtretag rov Iaaql [aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel]-therefore not within
the range of the divine commandment;  and avo  -rwv
dtaOnlov vrI  e,rayye8taq [strangers from the covenants
of promise]-consequently not warranted to assume an
interest in the promise. As, then, the pressing of the
sacred injunction supposes tlie persons on whom it is
urged to be avIorOt~at r6v dyt(tv fellow-citizens with the
saints, their acknowledged interest in the promise proves
them to be oticetot -ov Oeov of the household of God."
Eph. ii, 12, 19.
This is not only an ingenious, but, so far as I can judge,
a valid argument. If the reader can clearly comprehend
it, (and it is not obscure,) he will scarcely fail to be
strongly influenced by its corroboration of, and its perfect
and strong coincidence with, the doctrine and practice of
infant baptism.
5. The consecration of little children to God, in baptisiim, coincides with the feelings of pious parents. The
* Conversations on Infant Baptism, p. 63.
169 
INFANT BAPTISM.
deep and sleepless solicitude of the devout parent for the
spiritual salvation of his offspring finds a natural expression in this act; and his anxiety is soothed, and his gratitude awakened, by the reflection that God has affixed to
his child the token of his love, and the pledge of his protection. This, indeed, is not advanced as an independent
argument for infant baptism, but merely as an important
coincidence; showing such an agreement between the
practice and our sanctified affections, as proves that it
involves nothing impious or absurd.  "What pious parent,
rightly apprehending the nature and design of infant baptism, would not acknowledge it to be a benevolent appointment of God? Who would not be gratified to find such a
doctrine as that of infant baptism true? Who would not
deem it a privilege to perform such a duty? And who
would not regard it a subject of heartfelt grief to be deprived of such a privilege? It must surely be the wish
of pious parents to give up their children to God; and to
do this in the temple of God, where the prayers of many
will ascend with their own to the Lord of heaven and
earth in behalf of their children; publicly to apply to them
a sacred rite which marks them for God; which signifies
that they are placed in the school of Christ, and in the
nursery of the church; that they are to enjoy faithful,
parental instruction, and the affections and prayers of
Christians; which signifies, too, that they are to come
under the influence of a divine economy, fraught with the
most gracious promises, and the most precious blessings;
-to apply to children a sacred rite of such import, must
be inexpressibly delightful to godly parents.... Pious parents, I repeat it, who rightly apprehend the doctrine of
infant baptism, cannot but wish it true. And it would
seem to me that their first inquiry must be, whether they
may be permitted to devote their dear offspring thus to
God, and to apply to them the seal of his gracious covenant. If nothing is found toforbid their doing this; especially if they have reason, from the word and providence
of God, to believe that he would approve it; I should
suppose they would embrace such a privilege with the
sincerest gratitude and joy, and hasten to confer such a
blessing on their children."*
Woods on Infant Baptism, pp. 110, 111.
170 
I am sorry to find Mr. Jewett, an anti-Pedobaptist, exceeding the bounds of fairness in his statement of this
point. He has overrated it, and thus has done injustice,
doubtless without design, to the argument.   He  says,
"The principle on which the reasoning proceeds is this:
Whatever observance is pleasant to the feelings of good
mnen ought to be regarded as an institution of God."*  This
is not the ground of the argument. It is too unguardedly
expressed, and it does not develop the point aimed at by
the Pedobaptists. The truth is, that the natural agreement
of the practice of infant baptism with the best feelings of
godly parents, points out a moral fitness in the practice
that is calculated to remove any prejudice that may arise
against it on the supposition of its impiety or absurdity,
but does not prove that therefore it "ought to be regarded
as an institution of God." The proof of this fact must,
and does, rest on other ground of evidence.
6. Infant baptism is compatible with the obligation of
parents to educate their children for the Lord.
This obligation is of a most solemn character, and is
binding upon parents at the period of the very tender age
of their offspring.   As early as the child is capable of
forming the most simple distinctions, or of becoming attracted by external perceptions, the parent should apply a
method of tuition and cultivation suited to its age and
capacity, and thenceforward aim, with unintermitted and
tireless diligence, to prepare the child for the duties of
religion here, and the enjoyments of glory hereafter. Nor
is this course of instruction urged merely in anticipation
of the child's moral destiny, but because it is itself now
an heir of grace, and, as such, claims, on the score of
present fitness, an education suited to its moral state.
Children belong to the kingdom of heaven, and therefore
it is meet that they should be early dedicated to God.
The philosophy of the human mind, and the Scriptures
of truth, inculcate upon the parent the duty and importance
of an early consecration of the child to God, and a subsequent corresponding course of instruction. If the child is
a moral being-is in a state of grace-is to be, from early
infancy, trained for religion-the practice of devoting it
to God by baptism seems the most consonant to all these
*Mode and Subjects of Baptism, p. 73.
171
INFANT BAPTISL. 
circumstances of any thing conceivable. It seems a most
suitable auxiliary and attendant of parental obligation and
duties, by yielding to them a divine sanction and encoun
ragement. The Bible is explicit and abundant in its inculcations touching the duty of parents. Very anciently
God commanded his people that the words which he delivered to them should be in their hearts: "And thou shalt
teach them diligently, saith God, to thy children, and shalt
talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when
thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and
when thou risest up," Deut. vi, 7.  David says, "God
established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in
Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should
make them known to their children; that the generation
to come might know them, even the children which should
be born, who should arise and declare them to their children; that they might set their hope in God, and not forget
the works of God, but keep his commandments," Psalm
lxxviii, 5-7. The obligation of parents to bring up their
children according to the religion of the Bible was fully
understood by the Jews.  The wise man says,'" Train up
a child in the way he should go;" and adds, for the encouragement of parents, "and when he is old he will not
depart from it."  Houbigant renders it, "Initiate, instruct,
catechise; lay down the first rudiments," &c.
,-    Now pliantly inure    -
Your mind to virtue, while your heart is pure;
Now suck in wisdom; for the vessel well
With liquor seasoned long retains the smell."
So said a heathen. The Hebrew of this passage reads,
"Initiate a child at the opening (the mouth) of his path."
"i_U hanak, which we translate train up, or initiate, signifies also dedicate; and is often used to denote the consecrating any thing, house, or person, to the service of God.
[So it is used Deut. xx, 5;' 1 Kings viii, 63; 2 Chron.
vii, 5.]  Dedicate, therefore, in the first instance, your
child to God; and nurse, teach, and discipline him as God's
child, whom he has intrusted to your care. These things
observed and illustrated by your own conduct, the child
(you have God's word for it) will never depart from the
path of life."*
* Dr. A. Clarke's Comment. in loc.
172
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFiAN     BAPT:r            TI.
And thus Paul commands, Eph. vi, 4, " Bring them  up
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;" or, as Mr.
Wesley more properly has it, " in the instruction and discipline of the Lord-both in Christian knowledge and practice."  Dr. Robinson says, "7ratdeta Kvptov, that is, such
training as the Lord approves."*
Thus stand the oracles of truth in regard to the religious
education of children. Such is the duty of parents, and
such their high responsibility, with respect to the early
training of their offspring, and their subsequent character
and destiny. Great is the authority which God has vested
in the parent, in order to secure the moral instruction and
happiness of his offspring; and most sacredly and awfully
is the obligation of filial submission and fidelity guarded
by the word of God, with an unerring aim at the same
unspeakable good.   Anciently the parent had absolute
power of life and death over the child; and long after this
power was taken from the parent and vested in the civil
magistrate, it was said, "' Whoso curseth father or mother,
let him die the death."  How solemn are these considerations! How strict and inexorable are the injunctions of
Scripture upon parent and child! And thus it must of necessity be, so long as the temporal and eternal interests
of the child are so largely lodged in the power of the
parent, and so deeply involved in the discipline and instructions of childhood.   By the peculiar constitution of
our nature, if it be not a necessary result of the structure
of mind itself, early impressions constantly grow with our
growth, strengthen with our strength, enlarge with the
mind's development, and mature with our years. The
long and faithful discipline and instruction of childhood
and youth, by a wise arrangement of Providence, fits us
for the duties of social life. and submission to the authorities of civil government, and prepares us, by the habit of
wholesome restraint upon our passions, and salutary influences upon our hearts, "to receive," in after-life, "with
meekness, the ingrafted word, which is able to save our
souls." How suitable, then, to these parental duties, and
to these filial obligations, is baptism!  How appropriate
for the parent thus to " dedicate his child to God, in the
opening of his way!"  How appropos to all the circum                 * Robinson's Lex., art. 7raideta.
8*
I t' 3 
INFANT BAPTISM.
stances of the case! How effectually must it remind the
parent of his duty, and how tenderly must it affect his
heart, to know that with prayer and devout supplications
he has offered up his little one to the Lord in baptism!
And this dedication, so concordant to the moral state and
the prospective destiny of the child, shall be a divine
pledge of spiritual blessings, which he has promised to
the seed of the righteous. But if it were otherwise,if there were an entire want of correspondence between
infant baptism, and the duties, and obligations, and pious
solicitudes of godly parents, this circumstance certainly
would go far-perhaps be of itself sufficient-to invalidate
all argument in favour of the ordinance. Such an incongruity, however, never occurs in any of the works or dispensations of God.  "It would avail little to say, in the
way of objection, that parents would be under all these
obligations, and would have sufficient motives to faithfulness, without such an ordinance as baptism.   The obvious
design of baptism is, to cause these obligations to be felt
more deeply and constantly than they would otherwise be,
and to give greater efcacy to these motives than they
would otherwise have. The influence of public rites and
observances has been acknowledged in all ages, both in
civil and religious concerns.   In our own country, and in
other countries, they are kept up, in order to perpetuate
the principles of civil government. Among the Israelites
they were established for the purpose of giving to one
generation after another a knowledge, and a lively impression, of the principles and laws of their religion. The
human mind is so constituted, that it is very doubtful
whether tihe truths of religion could be inculcated and
impressed with the necessary efficacy without the help of
public rites and observances. The utility of the Lord's
supper, which is generally acknowledged to be great, rests
on the very same principle as that which gives importance
to infant baptism. Thus it was also with the utility of the
passover and circumcision. And we may as well say that
the principles of religion might have been effectually
taught, and impressed, and transmitted from one generation to another among the posterity of Abraham, without
the passover, or circumcision, or any of their sacred rites;
and that the principles of the Christian religion might be
174 
INFANT BAPTISM.
effectually taught and impressed, and its motives rendered
sufficiently powerful, without the Lord's supper, as to say
that the influence of such a rite as infant baptism is unnecessary, and that parents will be as likely to feel their
obligations, and attend to their duties, without it, as with
it. The experience of the world is in favour of visible
signs and tokens, of public rites and observances. The
human mind requires them, as means of inculcating moral
and religious truth. To undervalue them would be a discredit to our understanding; and to neglect them, an injury
to our moral feelings,"* and, we may add, a reflection upon
the wisdom of the past dispensations of God.
7. Infant baptism is suited to the import and ends of the
ordinance of Christian baptism.
It is strange that on so plain a subject as the proper
import of baptism there should have been so much diversity of opinion. I cannot see why men should dispute
with so much pertinacity over this subject as has been
exhibited by many authors. Verily the whole subject is
comprised within a limited compass. The difficulty arises
wholly from a misapprehension of the phraseology of
Scripture; in applying terms which are used in hortatory
style, and for the purpose of moral suasion, as if they were
elaborated with critical precision and dull correctness, to
fit a system of didactical divinity.  Baptism is frequently
alluded to in the New Testament for the purpose of deducing an argument, or of sanctioning an argument for the
fidelity and holiness of Christians, and in such a popular
strain of exhortation we must not look for that precision in
the use of words, or that critical order and exactness of
ideas, as we expect to find in a close argument, or a set
treatise. I do not make these remarks with a view to
unhinge the mind of the reader, and to create the impression that the language of Scripture is indefinite; on the
contrary, I urge them only on the ground of just criticism.
The Baptists insist that baptism is "everywhere regarded
as a public profession of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ"that by baptism we take upon ourselves a voluntary and
"sacred obligation, in the presence of God, to maintain a
good conscience, to be watchful against sin, and to strive
after holiness."  They hold also that "the New Testament
* Dr. Woods on Infant Baptism, pp. 166, 167.
175 
INFANT BAPTISM.
represents baptism to be emblematical of the death and
resurrection of Christ;" and also to be "significant of the
belief of the subject of it, in the resurrection of the body,"
&c.  And it is asked, "What  avails all this fulness of
meaning, this richness and preciousness of instruction in
the gospel ordinance, if it is to be thrown away upon unconscious infancy? But if only those who believe are proper
recipients of the ordinance, then indeed can we perceive
it to be instructive, impressive, and delightful."*
These views, which are common to Baptist authors, we
conceive to result from an erroneous construction of the
language of Scripture. The truth is, baptism imports inward purity, and is an external token that the subject
belongs to the covenant of grace. In this sense it most
fitly applies to infants; and where those persons who have
been baptized in infancy attain to years and understanding,
and are taught the nature of baptism, nothing can be more
natural for them to infer, or obvious, in fact, than that their
baptism imports an obligation of voluntary and perpetual
devotion to God. To the infant, as to the adult, it primarily denotes that the subject is interested in the gracious
provisions of the covenant; and from this generic and
primary sense it is easy, and natural, and proper, to make
specific deductions to sanction duties that belong to adult
age, in an exhortation, or a moral inculcation addressed to
an adult. All this would not at all disparage the entire
and perfect fitness of baptism to infants.
Take the case of circumcision. That it had a spiritual
meaning-that it imported to the adult, "the putting off
the body of the sins of the fiesh"-I see not how any one
can deny. Yet it was applicable to infants. It denoted
entire devotion to God: "The Lord will circumcise thy
heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart."  To Abraham it was a "seal of the
righteousness of faith."  Yet infants were circumcised.
Could they "love the Lord their God with all their heart?"
Could they believe? They were in a state of grace, but
it could not be said with propriety that they "loved the
Lord"-that they had "put off the body of sin"-or that
they believed. But the fact that they were subjects of
grace; that they belonged to the covenant; was enough
* Jewett on Baptism, pp. 86-89.
176 
INFANT BAPTISM.
to constitute a fitness for circumcision; and afterward, in
adult age, it was easy to perceive that circumcision bound
them to a holy life. Nor were their obligations to holiness, arising from their circumcision, less sacred, or less
obvious and binding, because their circumcision was performed in infancy.  So is it with baptism.  The analogy
holds perfectly good, and forms an unanswerable refutation
of all such objections as those above mentioned. (See my
Treatise on the Mode, &c., of Baptism, chap. x.)
It is strange, indeed, that the Protestant Episcopal
Church should have heedlessly rushed into this very error,
namely, that baptism is a profession of faith; and then
have trusted to the strength of their doctrine of sponsors
in baptism for their escape from the absurd consequences
of this admission.   Bishop Hopkins, of the diocess of
Vermont, says,  "But how does this requisition of repentance and faith
before baptism apply to the case of infants? We answer,
that it does not apply at all; for infants are baptized upon
the repentance and faith of others, under the solemn obligation, nevertheless, of exercising both these graces, so
soon as they attain to years of sufficient discretion... We
find, then,-that, according to the doctrine of the [Protestant
E.] Church, baptism is the ordinance appointed by the
Lord for admitting sinners into his kingdom, as his regeierate, adopted children... that in the case of infants they
are adopted through the repentance and faith of those who
present them to the Redeemer;  which is available before
God, until they are capable of repenting and believing for
themselves."*
Nor is the Protestant E. Church alone in this belief.
Others have followed the same phantom. It were easy to
quote authors, but we adduce but one, and we select him
from the modern Calvinistic school. Dr. Miller says,  "After all, the whole weight of the objection,t in this
case, is founded on an entire forgetfulness of the main
principle of the Pedobaptist system. It is forgotten that
* Primitive Church compared with the Protestant Episcopal
Church, pp. 23, 24.
t The objection which the author is answering is, " That infants
are not capable of those spiritual acts or exercises which the New
Testament requires in order to baptism."
177 
in every case of infant baptism faith is required, and, if
the parents be sincere, is actually exercised. But it zs
required of the parents, and not of the children. So that,
if the parent really present his child in faith, the spirit of
the ordinance is entirely met and answered."* Does our
author mean to say, that faith is required of the parents
in behalf of the children?
We would seriously inquire what this vicarious repentance and faith mean? Is it assumed that infants have need
of repentance and faith in order to salvation, and that,
being incapable of performing these acts themselves, their
performance by proxy becomes acceptable to God? What,
then, becomes of those children who have no sponsors or
pious parents to repent for them? Or are repentance and
faith only necessary to baptism, and not necessary to the
salvation of the infant? Besides, how is it that a being is
capable of sinning, who, at the same time, has not the
constitutional faculties necessary to repentance?  Have
infants sinned, that they need to repent? Or do they need
some one to repent of Adam's sin, and then transfer such
repentance to their account?
But all this theory is singularly at variance with God's
word, and the principles of his moral government.  "The
soul that sinneth, IT shall die." There is no sinning by
proxy, and there is no repenting by proxy. God requires
repentance of no being in the universe but the sinner, and
he will accept of no repentance, or faith, at the hand of
any other being in lieu of the sinner. This idea of the
transfer of moral virtues is as absurd in philosophy as it
has ever been monstrous in divinity. See Ezek. xviii, 2-4.
It is unaccountable that thinking men should have rushed
into these delusions-that they should not have scanned
the philosophy of baptism with a happier discrimination.
One would suppose that their own absurdities would react
upon the mind so as to produce conviction of the truth.
Baptism, it is said, imports "a profession of faith," "is
emblematical of a burial and resurrection," is a profession
of "faith in the resurrection of the dead," and signifies the
blessings of "pardon," "adoption," and "resurrection to
life."f And what else? In thus attempting to prove every
* On Infant Baptism, p. 40.
t Sec Dick's Theol., vol. ii, pp. 387-389, and Willett on Baptism.
178
INFANT BAPTIS,l. 
INFANT BAPTIS3l.
thing, we prove nothing. Baptism truly stands connected
with many of these blessings, in the practical exhortations
and admonitions of the apostles. But it is easy to perceive that all these significations are deduced from that
one pervading, original, generical idea,-the complete regeneration of the inward man. We do not, however, believe
that baptism ever imports a burial and resurrection; and
as to its denoting faith in the resurrection of the dead,
founded on that obscure passage, 1 Cor. xv, 29, it is enough
to say that o6t Ola,'toevot vep,sov vespoV (translated,
who are baptizedfor the dead) is too dubious, as to its real
application, to be pressed into this argument.
How, then, can baptism be made to signify, primarily,
any of the means, accidents, or consequences of salvation?
The moment this liberty is taken, the imaginations and
conceits of men are permitted to take their range, and
the simplicity, beauty, and certainty of the import of the
ordinance are impaired. But if baptism import regeneration-inward purity, and conformity to God-if it be an
outward sign of this moral state-then, manifestly it is as
applicable to infants as to adults, and cannot be any specific token or profession of "faith."  It is true, faith is
implied in this moral state in the case of every adult, and
so also are repentance, godly sorrow for sin, and prayer.
And faith is no more necessary to the justification of the
adult sinner, than prayer, confession of sin, and godly
sorrow. Why, then, in the nature of the case, should
baptism import, distinctively and exclusively, one of these
exercises any more than the other? But is there not the
veriest absurdity in the supposition that baptism is a
"public profession of faith?"-that applying water to a
person, in any form, should be made to represent an act
of the mind? Water is a natural and fit emblem of purity,
and moral purity may imply, as it does in the case of
adults, an act, or acts of the mind; but is water a natural
and fit emblem of any mental act or exercise? It has
never been regarded so, and the supposition is too preposterous and absurd to be harboured for a moment. Faith
is an act of the mind. It is not in itself a virtue, nor is
the profession of it in itself a virtue, but a relative virtue
is ascribed to each. They do not, therefore, either of
them, deserve to be the grand original, emblematical idea
179 
INFANT BAPTISM.
of baptism. Moreover, faith does not need a separate and
solemn ordinance of religion for the mere purpose of
declaring it to the world. Such a profession is more appropriately made in another form;-" With the mouth confession is made unto salvation," and by the "works" faith
can be clearly attested. But relationship to the church
of God, claimed and conceded on the ground of being in
a state of grace and reconciliation with God, is not so
attested by the appointment of God.
If our opponents use faith as synonymous with regeneration, why, then, the controversy is at an end.  It is the
thing we contend for, not the name. And how explicit is
the evidence of Scripture on this point! Take a perfectly
parallel case. Paul says, " Abraham believed God, and
it was counted unto him for righteousness... And he received the Signi of circumcision, a SEAL of the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the faith which he had." Rom. iv, 3, 11.  But why
was not circumcision a "sign" and "seal" of faith by
which he became righteous?  This would have been in
exact accordance with the hypothesis we  are opposing.
But God ordained it to be a sign and seal of righteousness;
which, in Abraham, was obtained through "faith," but in
infants is wrought by the agency of God without faith.
We  say, then, that faith is made prominent in the New
Testament, in connection with adult baptism, because with
all adults it is an indispensable prerequisite to baptismbeing, with such, a prominent condition of regeneration.
It is its connection with regeneration that gives it all its
importance as a prerequisite to baptism. If, therefore,
regeneration could be obtained without faith, baptism would
be equally appropriate, and faith might be altogether dispensed with as a prerequisite to the consecrating rite.  It
is by making faith to assume the importance and character
of regeneration that it is made, per se, a prerequisite to
baptism, whereas it is made, in fact, a prerequisite only
by circumstances.  It is insisted upon, not on its own
account, but solely in view of its relative importance, as a
condition of regeneration.
iso
4;; 
INFANT BAPTISM?
CHAPTER V.
HISTORICAL ARGUMENT.
SECTION I.
1. IT becomes important to inquire into the ancient usage
of the Christian church in reference to baptizing infants;
not because this argument is fundamental in the nature of
the case, but because of its strong collateral bearing upon
the point. We go to the records of church history, not to
prove the primary obligation of infant baptism,-this must
be proved from the Bible,-but to prove its antiquity-its
contiguity to the age of the apostles. And if it can be
clearly and satisfactorily shown to have been the universal
practice of the Christian church from the very times of the
apostles,-if it were a doctrine of primitive Christianity,the presumption is strong, and amounts to evidence amnost
irresistible, that the apostles themselves authorized the
practice.  We readily concede that mere antiquity cannot
prove any doctrine to be true, or any practice to be binding on us.- But if we should find a practice which a candid and close examination of Scripture would lead us to
consider obligatory; which at least was not forbidden by
the letter or spirit of revelation; and which had been the
uniform practice of the church from the earliest times;
which the church generally regarded as an apostolic commandment; which many of their most learned doctors had
directly declared to be such; which was not contradicted by
any heresy or schism-any individual or body of menfor one thousand years after the apostles; which does not
necessarily involve an absurdity; I'say, if the apostolic
antiquity of a practice could be proved under such circumnstances, it would be perhaps unreasonable, if it were even
possible, for a person to deny its apostolic authority. This is
the case with infant baptism, only the Scriptural argument
is far more decisive and satisfactory than is here stated.
The force of an argument derived from tradition in support of any doctrine of religion, and the circumstances
under which such an argument becomes admissible, are
clearly defined by Bishop Henry U. Onderdonk, of Penn
181 
sylvania, in his charge to the clergy. The principles
which he lays down are the following:-" 1. If any tradition be in anywise contrary to Scripture, it is void; the
greater authority cancelling the less when in opposition
to it. 2. If there be an absolutely unquestioned tradition,
clearly traceable to the apostolic age, the matter of which
is asserted in Scripture also, the authority in the case must
be accounted twofold; that of the written word, however,
being from its nature the more excellent of the two. 3. If
there be an absolutely unquestioned tradition, the matter
of which is not found in Scripture, or believed not to be
there, yet in no degree contrary to Scripture, and clearly
traceable to the apostolic age, it must be regarded as
having such authority without Scripture as belongs to the
case.* Of this, the substitution of the Lord's day for the
old sabbath will probably be deemed the best example, by
those who think that they do not find Scriptural warrant
for the change," &c.
If,,then, a doctrine be sustained by an unquestionable
tradition from the apostles, and if that doctrine be not contradicted by Scripture, but on the contrary strong intimations are given of its truth therein, although it may not be
expressly declared, that doctrine is to be considered as
possessing suitable and adequate authority. Yet infant
baptism has far superior authority to this, as the Bible
argument is more clear and satisfactory than here stated.
This, then, is the nature of the argument we propose to
consider in this chapter. We adduce the testimony of the
Christian fathers and early councils to prove the fact of
the antiquity of infant baptism; and having fixed the date
of the practice coeval with the times of the apostles, we
then advance from this ascertained fact to the argument,
namely, if it was handed down to us'from the very times of
the apostles, all the circumstances of the case combine to
prove that it was delivered to the first churches by apostolic authority.
* We cannot follow the bishop in this last particular, if we understand him. We do not believe any doctrine or duty, further than
relates to church government, is fully sustained by the sole authority
of tradition, however "unquestionable," joined to the mere silence
of Scripture. Mr. Cruden on this point is very clear. See his Concordance, Article TRADITION.
182
IN,FANT BAPTISM. 
2. It will be seen that the testimony of Irenecus, in the
following section, turns upon-ty-supposition that renascor,
to be regenerated, means, or implies, to be baptized. This,
to an uninformed reader, who knows nothing of the use of
these words in ancient times, may appear unwarrantable,
and may, at first sight, tend to prejudice our argument with
such. It is, therefore, proper to state, in this place, that
regeneration was often used by the fathers to signify baptism. It should be recollected that the Scriptures use a
language in some sense calculated to bring about such a
usus of terms.  Jesus Christ has said, " eav At -tg /ev*       OV?10 v: da'o9 gat wvevta'roq except any person be generated, or born by water and the Spirit," &c., John iii, 5.
Paul calls Christian baptism, "the washing of regeneration," and says we are saved " da Zovrpov 7ra;tyyeveata9
by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the
Holy Spirit," Titus iii, 5. So the Jews, in conformity to
the same law of language, called the water employed in
ceremonial rites, the "water of purification," of "separation," &c. The Jews, at the time of Christ, were accustomed to call that proselyte who had been baptized, "born
again." The proselyte was required to renounce all his
former customs, and even his relations, his parents, and
friends, and to assume new ones, more compatible with
his new religious profession and character. He was baptized in token of having put off all these, and of having
been purified from them. The change was great; it was
complete and universal, and they called it "the new birth,"
or regeneration. So says Maimonides, "The Gentile that
is made a proselyte... behold, he is like a child new
born." So the Christian fathers regarded a person baptized
as being newly born; and this also is an appellation given
to disciples in the New Testament. So Peter says, "As
new born babes," &c. It is easy then to perceive how the
early church came to use regeneration so as to include, by
that term, water baptism.
Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, describing the manner of making Christian disciples, says, concerning their
baptism,  "We bring them to some place where there is water,
gat  Qporrov avaEvvtlaeo  bv Kat qtet av-ot aveyevvq7O0711ev, avayevviov,at and they are regenerated by the same
183
l,','FANT BAPTIS.11.
E 
INFANT BAPTISM.
wa y of regeneration by which we were regenerated; for they
are washed with water [that is, baptized] in the name of
God the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ says,
'Except ye be regenerated, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.'..... And that we shall obtain forgiveness
of the sins in which we have lived, by or in water, [ev ro
vdart,] there is invoked over him that has a mind to be
regenerated [avayse~vqOvat] the name of God, the Father
and Lord of all things.... and this washing [or baptism]
is called the enlightening," &c.
Irenaeus says, "When Christ gave to his apostles the
commission of regenerating unto God, (regenerationis in
Deum,) he said unto them,' Go and teach all nations,
baptizzng them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.'"
Gregory Nazianzen says to the baptized person, to
deter him from falling back into sin, "ov  ovaK  v     6evTe9aq avayevvglaero there is not another regeneration afterward to be had, though it be sought with never so much
crying and tears;" and yet grants, in the very next words,
that repentance may be exercised after baptism; but he
means that baptism is not to be repeated.
St. Austin being asked, whether a parent carrying his
child, which had been baptized, to the heathen sacrifices,
does thereby obliterate the benefit of his baptism, says, " An
infant does never lose the grace of Christ, which he has
once received, but by his own sinful deeds, if when he
grows up he proves so wicked: for then he will begin to
have sins of his own, quoe non regeneratione auferantur,
sed alid curatione sanentur, which are not removed by
regeneration, [baptism,] but will be healed by some other
method."
St. Hierom, discoursing ill praise of virginity, "Christ
was born of a virgin, and regenerated [that is, baptized] by
a virgin;" alluding to John Baptist, who was unmarried.
St. Austin calls the persons by whose means infants
are baptized, those by whom they are regenerated; cos per
quos renascuntur.*
Mr. Whiston, a learned Baptist, says, "That regenera  * Wall's History of Infant Baptism, part i, cap. ii, sec. 4, 5, and
cap. iii, iv.
184 
INFANT BAPTISM.
tion is here, [in John iii, 5,] and elsewhere, (generally, if
nriot constantly,) used with relation to baptismal regeneration, is undeniable;" and adds, "not as supposing the
bare outward ceremony to deserve that name."*
"The ancient doctors of the church," says Dr. Waterland, "in explaining regeneration, were wont to consider
the spirit and the water utnder the lively emblem of a conjugal union, as the two parents; and the new-born Christian
as the offspring of both.... Whatever aptness or justness
there may or may not be in the similitude, yet one thing is
certain, that the ancients took baptism into their notion of
regeneration."t
In accordance with this sense the reader is to undestand the quotation from Ireneus, to be hereafter given.
Dr. Gale, in his Reflections upon Mr. Wall's History of
Infant Baptism, has attempted to evade the force of this,
by showing that regeneration does not always mean baptism, and also that it is not used in the above particular
instances as a perfect synonym of baptism.+ But it is
easy to perceive that he mistook the real question, and
Mr. Wall has not failed to discover his vulnerable positions.~   The  question  is not, whether regeneration is
baptism, according to the sense of the fathers? but, whe
thier regeneration necessarily includes or implies baptism 
Dr. Gale, in assuming the former, has missed the mark,
and Mr. Wall himself is not always sufficiently careful to
keep clear distinctions. Dr. Waterland's statement above
is as definite and satisfactory as any thing I have ever
met with. The fathers included baptism in their idea of
regeneration, but the two terms are not synonymous.
SECTION II.
We now proceed to lay before the reader a just view of
the argument for infant baptism, as derived from the testimony of the Christian fathers, during the first four hundred
years of the Christian era.I
* Primitive Infant Baptism, p. 7.      t On Regeneration, p. 9.
t Reflections, &c., pp. 481-483, 5i4, &c.
~ Defence, &c., p. 363, &c.
11 As the following summary of the argument from church history
is chiefly derived from Mr. Wall's well-known and valuable History
185 
INFANT  BAPTISIAf.
1. Justin Martyr, who was a learned Samaritan, was
converted to Christianity about A. D. 133, and wrote about
forty years after the death of St. John, who was the last
of the apostles. Justin says, "We also, who by him have
had access to God, have not received this carnal circumcision, but tlihe spiritual circumcision, which Enoch, and
those like him, observed. And we have received it by baptism, by the mercy of God, because we were sinners: and
it is enjoined upon all persons to receive it in the same
way." Again: "We are circumcised by baptism, with
Christ's circumcision."   Again: "Many persons among
us, of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who
were  discipled (e-TaOqevOe6aav) to Christ in their childhood, (e/ 7,rati&,) do continue uncorrupted."t
The testimony of this most ancient father may be thus
summed up:  1.) He maintains that baptism answers to circumcision.
This admission, especially in a dialogue with a Jew, such
as Trypho was, and with a professed intention of justifying the Christians in their neglect of Jewish circumcision,
can be regarded in no other light than that of an acknowledg,ment of infant baptism. If baptism succeed to circumcision; if it be fitly called r/  rregt-TO// Tov Xgtarov the
Christian circumcision, or, as Justin here calls it, 7rvev[artuqv
of Infant Baptism, I deem it proper, for the sake of those who may
not be acquainted with this celebrated work, to give the following
notice of it. Dr. Wall is regarded as a very correct and judicious historian. He has written with great ability, candour, and impartiality.
"On Feb. 9, 1705, the clergy of England, assembled in general
convention,'ordered, that the thanks of this house be given to Mr.
Wall, vicar of Shoreham, in Kent, for the learned and excellent book
he hath lately written concerning infant baptism, and that a committee be appointed to acquaint him with the same.' Dr. Atterbury, a
leading member in said convention, says,'that the History of Infant
Baptismi was a book, for which the author deserved the thanks, not
of the English clergy alone, but of all churches.' Mr. Whiston, also,
a very learned man, well acquainted with the writings of the fathers
of the four first centuries, and a professed Baptist, in his address to the
people of that denomination, declares to them,'that Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, as to facts, appeared to him most accurately
done, and might be depended on by the Baptists themselves.' "-Me.
moirs of his Life, part ii, p. 461; quoted by Dr. Ridgeley, Body of
Divinity, vol. iv, p. 209, note. See also Advertisement to Mr. Cotton's
edition of Dr. Wall's History, &c., 4 vols., 8vo. Oxford.
* Dialogue with Trypho.              t Apologia P'rima.
186
p 
INFANT BAPTISM.
rEptrOtilV spiritual circumcision, it is plain that its application to infants must be similar now to what it anciently
was.
But it must be distinctly kept in mind that Justin is not
speaking here either of external circumcision, or of external baptism, exclusively, but of the spiritual import of these
ordinances. He speaks of them in their emblematical
sense, but of course the external ordinance is implied.  If
this be remembered, the reader will find a ready solution
of all the learned and laboured objections of Dr. Gale.*
On this point Mr. Wall's expressions appear sufficiently
guarded, who says, that in this place, from Justin, and also
in Col. ii, 11, 12, circumcision "refers both. to the inward
and outward part of baptism;" whereof the inward part is
done without hands: and accordingly the ancients were
wont to call baptism, 7retroliv aXEtgorrotq-rov "the circlmcision made without hands."t
2.) Justin predicates the necessity of baptism, of the
common corruption of our natures.... This is more clearly
shown in other parts of his writings. This is not only a
primitive, but it is a Scriptural doctrine; and it argues
equally strong in favour of infant, as for adult baptism.
Here, however, the reader must remember, that the
point is not whether Justin conceived a right opinion of the
necessity of infant baptism, but the fact that he had such
an opinion, argues equally in favour of infant, as of adult
baptism; and it is the fact of infant baptism, and not its
reasonableness, that we are now proving.
3.) He  expressly declares that many persons in his
day, of sixty and seventy years old, were made disciples
in childhood. The word rendered made disciples, is the
same as in Matt. xxviii, 19, where our Saviour commands
the apostles to go "make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them," &c. This shows that children were discipled,
(and, if so, baptized of course,) as well as adults; and
these persons of whom Justin speaks, being now sixty
and seventy years old, might have been baptized by the
apostles themselves, as they certainly were baptized long
before John died. We merely add, in reference to this
*Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, pp. 395, 396,
466-477.
t History of Infant Baptism, part i, cap. ii, sec. 2.
187 
father, in the words of Mr. Waddington, "As Justin flou rished only one century after the preaching of Christ, we
are not extending the value of tradition beyond its just
limits, when we consider his opinions as receiving some
additional weight from their contiguity to the apostolical
times."*
2. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons (in France) about A. D.
178, and consequently flourished about seventy years after
the death of the apostle John. Some suppose he was
born four years previous to the death of John, but it was
not far from the time of that event, either way; that We are
to reckon the date of his birth. Ireneus, though afterward
bishop of a western church, was educated in Asia, where
St. John had lived and died.  In early life he was accus tomed to hear Polycarp converse of the apostle John.  Po lycarp was John's companion, and was appointed by that
apostle to be bishop of the church at Smyrna;  (see Revt
ii, 8.)  In his old age Ireneus speaking of Polycarp, says,
I remember the things that were done then better than I
do those of later times, so that I could describe the place
where he sat, and his going out, and coming in; his man ner of life, his features, his discourse to the people con cerning the conversation he had had with John, [the apos tle,] and others that had seen our Lord; how he rehearsed
their discourses, and what he had heard them that were
eye-witnesses of the Word of life, say of our Lord, and
of his miracles and doctrine: all agreeable to the Scrip  tures."t Such was the proximity of this father to the apos tles and to Christ.  The passage we quote from him is the
following:- 
"For he [Christ] came to save all persons by himself:
all, I say, qui per eum RENASCUNTUR in Deum; infantes, et
parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores; who by him are
REGENERATED [that is, baptized] to God; infants, and.lit  tie ones, and children, and youth, and elder persons."t   /
To appreciate the force of this passage the reader must
remember,    1.) The Christian fathers often used the word regenera  tion as synonymous with, or as including, baptism. This
* History of the Church, p. 81.
t Wall's History of Infant Baptism, p. 21. See Euseb. Hist., lib. v,
cap. xix.             t Second Book against Heresies.
188
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
no one will doubt who is acquainted with their writings,
or who candidly looks at the evidence already adduced in
its support, in a previous section of this chapter. It was
a common mode of speaking of baptism, and we are autho rized, therefore, to take the testimony of Irenaeus in the
case, as positive.
2.) Consider his proximity to the apostles, and how little
probability there is that he has, in this matter, -deviated
from their rule.
3.) What he says, we are to receive, not as his private
opinion merely, but as the doctrine of the church in his
time. His private opinion might be more easily questioned, as to its truth or propriety, as he was but a fallible
man, though a firm Christian.   But his testimony concerning what the church in his age believed, is above impeachment, and cannot be questioned.  And it is to this
point that we especially direct the attention of the reader.*
3. Tertullian flourished about one hundred years after
the apostles. He was made presbyter of the church at
Carthage about A. D. 192.  He was a man of very irregular and contradictory principles and habits, possessing a
sour, monastic spirit.  "Tertullian is described by Jerome
as' a man of eager and violent temper;' and he appears to
have possessed the usual vice of such a temperamentinconstancy.  The same is the character of his writings;
they contain some irregular eloquence; much confidence
of assertion, and a mixture of good with very bad reasoning. He wrote many tracts against heretics, and then
* The reader will be astonished to learn, that on this single quotation,
from Irenaus, Dr. Gale has expended forty-one octavo pages in "Reflec.
tions," with a view to wrest it from the hands of Pedobaptists; and
Mr.Wall has devoted no less than eighty-four pages, octavo, in his "Defence," in order to restore the passage to the Pedobaptist cause. It will
not be expected of me to give even a syllabus of the arguments pro and
con in this small treatise.  Mr. Gale, apprized that this passage from
Irenwus is important, attempts to invalidate its force, 1. By denying
its genuineness; 2. By asserting that regeneration does not always
mean, or imply, baptism. 3. That infants, according to the usus of
the term by Irenaeus, are persons under ten years of age. The arguments on either side are too lengthy to be cited, even in a condensed
form, with any satisfaction to the reader. Those who wish to see the
subject exhausted, and more than exhausted, and, withal, the entire
force of the passage in favour of Pedobaptism fully vindicated, can
consult Mr. Wall's Defence, &c., pp. 321-405; Hist., p. 77, &c.
9
189
IF 
INFANT BAPTISM.
adopted the opinions of the least rational of all heretics,
the Montanists, [so called from one Montanus, who gave
himself out to be the Paraclete, or Comforter, promised
by our Saviour.]  But in spite of many imperfections, his
genius, his zeal, and his industry, place him at the head
of the Latin fathers of that period. His moral writings
must have been eminently serviceable to converts who
had been educated with no fixed principles of morality;
and  his'Apology' is among  the most valuable  monuments of early Christianity."* I have said thus much for
the reader's better understanding of Tertullian's character,
and for his better appreciation of his testimony which is
to follow. I must add, moreover, that Tertullian imbibed
an error, which now began more than ever to prevail in
the church, and which gave a peculiar turn to his notions
on infant baptism. The error which I refer to was, that
baptism removed all previous guilt, and hence, as the
newly baptized person was deemed pure, and fitted to enter paradise, so the practice of deferring baptism until just
before death grew to be prevalent.   Tertullian was a
strenuous advocate of this practice, as will appear in the
quotation we shall make from his writings, and yet, with
characteristic inconsistency, he elsewhere as vehemently
urges baptism without delay.  He says,   "But they whose duty it is to administer baptism are to
know that it must not be given rashly.' Give to every
one that asketh thee,' has its proper subject, and relates to
alms-giving: but that command rather is to be here con sidered,' Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither
cast your pearls before swine.' And that [command also,]
'Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of
other men's faults.' Therefore, according to every one's
condition and disposition, and also their age, the delaying
of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of
little children. For what need is there that the godfathers
should be brought into danger? because they may either
fail of their promise by death, or they may be mistaken by
a child's proving of wicked disposition. Our Lord says,
indeed,' Do not forbid them to come to me.' Therefore
let them come when they are grown up: let them conme
when they understand: when they are instructed whither
*Waddington's Church History, p. 52.
190 
IN}ANT BAPTISM.3
it is that they come: let them be made Christians when
they can know Christ. What need their guiltless age
make such haste to the forgiveness of sins?  Men will
proceed very warily in worldly things: and he that should
not have earthly goods committed to him, yet may he have
heavenly.  Let them know how to desire this salvation,
iIn regard to this testimony of Tertullian, the reader willi
notice,   1.) The simple fact that he speaks of infant baptism as 
a well-known and general practice in his day-proves it
to have been instituted long before his day.  If Tertullian
opposed infant baptism, then it is incontestible that infant
baptism existed.  This is the best kind of proof we could
possibly have.  But if the practice of infant baptism ex isted before the days of Tertullian, that is, within less than 
one hundred years after the death of the apostle John,
when, we ask, did it commence? and with whom did it 
originate?  Can our opponents tell us?  Could such a
practice, which affects (in the estimation of our opponents 
at least) the essential character of the ordinance as well 
as that of the church,-could such a practice, I say, ori- 
ginate in merely human authority, and become general
over Europe, Western Asia, and Northern and Eastern
Africa, within less than a single century after the apostles i
and yet its novelty not be objected to by one who opposed
the practice? Tertullian was, as we have seen, opposing,
under certain circumstances, infant baptism. Now, what-4
ever would make for his argument, we know he would
i have had no scruples in using,. Many pitiful and puerile
things we know he did say, for want of better material to"
work with.   Could he have found more  powerful and
plausible weapons at hand, unquestionably he would have
used them.  Suppose, then, infant baptism had been an
invention of some doctor, or doctors, in the church, since
the days of St. John; such a circumstance, had it been
true, could not have escaped the knowledge of such a man
as l'ertullian, and had he been knowing to such a fact, he
certainly would not have failed to urge it. Why, then,
did he not come out at once, and say, "First of all, this
doctrine of infant baptism is a novel thing, and without
* Ter.tull. de Baptismo.
191 
! any authority whatever from Christ and his apostles; 
therefore it ought to be abandoned, and baptism deferred
to adult age?"  Why, I say, did he not urge its novelty, 
and its utter want of Scriptural authority, against its being
practised? Why did he not point out the innovator who
first introduced the custom, and brand him as a heretic?
All this would have been directly to his purpose, and
would have weighed a thousand times more in argument 
than the contemptible puerilities over which he makes a 
pitiful display of reasoning.  Why, then, did he not use  i
these important facts?  Why?  To this there can be but 
one answer: Because no such facts eN ted in th-i
because  infant baptism bore a date and an authority coeval 
and coequal to the date and authority of adult Christian 
baptism.
2.) It is a matter of still further moment to attend to
the principle on which Tertullian opposed infant baptism.
Indeed, strictly speaking, he did not oppose it. Infant)
fbaptism, as such, he did not oppose.  His       opposition tot
rested, pnlary, on       ground that it was better to defer
baptism, in all cases, till just before death, or till the indi   vidual was beyond the reach of peculiar temptation; and
this notion arose out of the prevailing belief that baptism
washed away all previous guilt, and not from any objection
to infant baptism per se.  This made sin after baptisrn
appear to them the more terrible, inasmuch as the Fji-}
Bnance ould  not be re eated.   On the same  principle
ertullan advses all singe persons, widows, &c., to defer
baptism until they are either married, or confirmed in con   tinence, lest they, being exposed to temptation, should fall
into sin.  "They that understand the weight of baptism,"
says he, " will rather dread the receiving it than the delay   ing it." In this connection he is not speaking of infant
baptism exclusively, nor of the delay of infant baptism
only, but of the delay of baptism in all cases where there
is no immediate expectation of death, and where there is
any peculiar danger from temptation.  Hear him: "There    fore, ACCORDING TO EVERY ONE'S CONDITION AND DISPO    SITION, AND ALSO THEIR AGE, THE DELAYING OF BAPTISM
IS MORE PROFITABLE."  But where there is an approach
of death, or a case of necessity, he strongly advocates
even lay baptism, and says, if a person "neglects at such
192
INFAsNT BAPTISMl.
i 
INFANT BAPTISM.
a time to do what he lawfully may, (that is, to baptize,
or to discharge the office of a bishop toward the person in
necessity,) he will be guilty of the person's perdition."
From this view, then, of Tertullian's peculiar notions re specting the ordinance of baptism, the character of his
far-famed opposition to infant baptism assumes quite another aspect. It is true that he advances arguments (such
as they are) against the baptism of infants; but at the
foundation of all his objections to this practice lay this
primary error, namely, that baptism, in all cases, should be
delayed, unless a case of clear necessity urged its prompt
administration, and then, even lay baptism was to be tolerated, if a bishop or presbyter could not be procured. It
was not infant baptism, in itself considered, that he really
opposed, but only an improper haste in receiving the ordinance, which infant baptism seemed to him to indicate,
but to indicate no more, according to his own showing,
than baptism in many cases in adult age, for he says, after
laying down his reasons for deferring infant baptism,"FOR  NO  LESS REASON unmarried  persons ought to be
deferred, who are likely to come into temptation," &c.
And in confirmation of this view, we  mlay add that the
older  editions  of Tertullian's writings, instead of the
clause above quoted, "For what need is there that godfathers should be brought into danger?" &c., it reads,
"What occasion is there, except in case of necessity, that
godfathers should be brought into danger?" &c.*  This,
and many other corroborating circumstances, are adduced
by Mr. Wall. But enough has been said on this point.
3.) The reader must here also recollect, that it is not
the individual opinion of Tertullian that gives an importance to his testimony on this point, but it is his testimony
as to what were the opinions and practices of his age that
attaches a value to his statements.   Even  his errors and 
absurdities are equally to our purpose, for we are not now
proving the reasonableness of infant baptism, but its  an~
testimony alone proves that it was much older than hit
day, and if so, it is impossible to date it later than the
apostles and Christ.  For when, and where, we again ask,:
See a note by Mr Cotton,  in his edition of Wals History,
vol. iv, pp. 412, 413,:
193 
INFANT BAPTISM.
did it arise? Where is the account of the controversy in
the church, upon the occasion of its first introduction?
Could it have been introduced without producing the
slightest shock to the previous faith of the Christian
church? Nay, without even exciting sufficient attention
to secure from some of the historians and writers of that
age a bare mention of its origin? Let those who can believe without evidence, or, rather, against evidence, credit
this fiction.
4. Origen was born A. D. 185. He descended from a
long line of Christian ancestry, and his father suffered
martyrdom A. D. 202, when Origen was but seventeen
years old. He was a native of Egypt, and was learned
in all the knowledge and philosophy of the times. He
was early called into the service of the church, and his
learning, and the success of his labours, not only revived
greatly the suffering church, but procured for himself a
first rank in the list of the early fathers. Origen had his
errors, as was the case also with all the fathers of the
Christian church, but he is not accused of any error on
the subject of baptism by the men of his times.   He held,
on this subject, what was, in his day, the orthodox doctrine. He says,   "Besides all this [evidence of original sin,] let it be
considered what is the reason that whereas the baptism
of the church is given for forgiveness of sins, secundum
ecclesis observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari, infants
also, according to the usage of the church, are baptized:
when, if there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be superfluous
to them."*  Again:   "Infants are baptized for the'remission of sins. Of
what sins? or when have they sinned?  Or how can any
reason of the laver in their case hold good, but according
to that sense we mentioned even now, [namely,]' None is
free from pollution though his life be but of the length of
a single day upon the earth.' And because by the sacra ment of baptism our native pollution is taken away, there fore infants may be baptized. Parvuili baptizantur in re missionem peccatorum.... Et quia per baptisma sacra
* Eighth Homily on Leviticus
194 
INFANT BAPTISlM.
mentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur parvuli."*
In another place, speaking of original sin, and of its
affecting infants, he says, "Pro hoc ecclesia ab apostolis
traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare: For
this [cause] the church received from the apostles a tradition
[that is, an order] even to give baptism to infants. For
they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew
that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin,
which must be done away by water and the Spirit."t
There are other parts of Origen's writings which would
also serve our purpose, but we have quoted sufficiently to
answer our present demand, and to satisfy the reader of
the decided bearing of the testimony of this father. In
summing up the evidence of the foregoing quotations, the
reader will remember,  1.) Origen was born only about eighty-five years after
the death of St. John. At this distance of time many of
the events that transpired in the times of Christ and his
apostles must have been still measurably fresh.  It was a
remove of only two generations from the days of the
founders of Christianity. It is more than probable that
Origen's grandfather saw and conversed with some of the
apostles, or, at least, it is certain he lived in their day.
Here, then, is a contiguity that affords this Christian father
large opportunity to know from unwritten and uncorrupted
tradition, as well as from the written Scriptures, and other
documents, many things that the apostles did and taught.
2.) The reader must recollect that Origen was one of
the most learned men of his day, and had access to all the
writings of his age.
3.) His orthodoxy, with respect to baptism, was never
questioned, so that we are to take his statements as a
candid expression of the current and prevailing doctrine
of the church in his times, and previous. It is not the
private opinion of this father that we are searching out,
but it is his testimony, as an author, as to the opinions
of the church in his day. And to give a clear and intelligent testimony he was amply prepared. He was born and
educated at Alexandria, and "had lived in Greece and at
* Homily on Luke.      t Comment on Epistle to Romans.
193 
INFANT BAPTISM.
Rome, and in Cappadocia and Arabia, and spent the main
part of his life in Syria and Palestine."
4.) I merely add, Origen was of Christian parentage.
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, enters into this
point particularly.  He says, "the Christian doctrine was
conveyed to him from his forefathers;" or, as Rufinus trans  lates it, "from  his grandfathers, and  his great-grand  fathers."* The Christian ancestry, then, of this father
gave him a more important proximity to the apostles, in
reference to a true knowledge of apostolical doctrine and
practice, than that of any of the preceding fathers. When
he says that "the church had received from the apostles
a custom or tradition to baptize infants," his testimony is
clear, important, and above impeachment, for his Christian
ancestry gave him uncommon advantages for knowing,
and, as he had no controversy with any one on the subject
of infant baptism-as he had no possible interest in making
a false statement-as his statement was spontaneous and
unbribed-so it should be taken without abatement or
gainsaying.
5.) We see, then, a great and learned man, and devoted I
Christian, whose ancestors were Christians from the days
of the apostles, within two hundred years from the death
of Christ, and a little over one hundred from that of the 
apostles, bearing repeated testimony to the fact that infant
baptism was the prevalent custom of the church in his
age, and that this custom had been received direct from
the apostles themselves. Now, upon the supposition that
infant baptism had been a recent invention of the church  that it was not handed down from the apostles themselves,
we again ask, When and where did it originate? This
unwelcome question has never beep answered.t
* Wall's History, p. 43.
t Dr. Gale has very hotly contested the admission of Origen's testi  mony, on the ground that it is not authentic, the most of that father's
writings having come down to us only through Latin translations of
his original works, some of which are deemed faulty by the learned,
in many respects, and Dr. Gale has attempted to invalidate his whole
testimony in favour of infant baptism, on the ground of these faults in
the translations. I cannot here rehearse the arguments pro and con.
tra; the reader can, if he choose, refer to the works of Drs. Wall an4
Gale.  Dr. Wall has fully shown the unfairness of Dr. Gale's attempt,
What is of the most importance for the reader to know is, that the
translations of Rufinus, which are those comniplained of, are generally
196 
INFANT PAPPISM.
5. Cyprian was conTerted from heathlenism to Chris tianity late in life, and was soon after raised to the see of
Carthage, in A. D. 250, by the general approbation. This
honour, however, he did not long enjoy, as he fell a martyr
to Christianity in A. D. 258.   Cyprian was  a mani of
learning, and of amiable and irreproachable character;
though less remarkable for his learning than for his piety
and humility. In A. D. 253, three years after he was
raised to the bishopric of Carthage, a council, composed
of sixty-six bishops, was held in that city. This council
was convened, according to the usual custom, to consult
and determine upon any important concerns that might
affect the purity and well-being of the church. Fidus, a
country bishop, sent a letter to the council, inquiring,
among other matters, whether, in case of necessity, an
infant might be baptized before it was eight days old?
To this they returned the following answer:   "Cyprian, and the rest of the bishops who are present
at the council, in number sixty-six, to Fidus, our brother,
greeting.
"We read your letter, most esteemed brother, in which
you write of one Victor, a priest, &c.... But to the case
of infants: Whereas you judge'that they must not be
baptized within two or three days after they are born, and
that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, so that
none should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth
day after he is borni:' wE wERIE ALL, IN OUR ASSEMBLY,
allowed to give Origen's sense in the main.  They contain the sub
stance of that father's writings.  Also, there existed no reason why
Rufinus should give a false representation of Origen's views of infant
baptism, except, as he denied (though for the most part secretly during
his life) the doctrine of original sin, it would have been much to his
interest to have denied infant baptism, if he had dared. But this
renders his testimony to infant baptism more clear from suspicion.
If Origen had not held to it, Rufinus would not have inserted it in the
translation, because it was his interest to deny it.
Besides, the Homily on St. Luke was translated by St. Hierome,
whose translation is allowed to be a faithful one. He himself says,
that in that translation he had " changed nothing; but expressed every
thing as it was in the original." (See Wall's History, p. 107, &c., and
Defence, pp. 426, 427, &c.) So that the reader may turn back and
review the quotation from this part of Origen's writings, and satisfy
himself of the reality of that father's views on infant baptism. These\
/remarks will enable him to perceive what hard toiling our opponents
have to breast the torrent of historical evidence which is against them
9* 
.107 
INFANT BAPTISM,
OF A CONTRARY OPINION.   For as for what you thought
fitting to be done, there was not one that was  of your
mind, but all of us, on the contrary, judged that the grace
and mercy of God is to be denied to no person that is born.
For whereas our Lord, in his Gospel, says,' The Son of
man came not to destroy men's souls, [or lives,] but to save
them;' as far as lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be
lost.... So that we judge that no person is to be hindered
from obtaining the grace by the law that is now appointed:
and that the spiritual circumcision [that is, tle grace of
baptism] ought not to be impeded by the circumcision that
was according to the flesh, [that is, Jewish circumcision,]
but that all are to be admitted to the grace of Christ;
since Peter, speaking in the Acts of the Apostles, says,
'The Lord has shown me that no person is to be called
common or unclean.'
"If any thing could be an obstacle to persons against
their obtaining the grace, the adult, and grown, and aged,
would be rather hindered by their more grievous sins.
If, then, the greatest offenders, and those that have grievously sinned against God before, have, when they afterward come to believe, forgiveness of their sins, and no
person is prohibited from baptism and grace; how much
less reason is there to refuse an infant, who, being newly
born, has no sin, save that being descended from Adam
according to the flesh, he has from his very birth contracted
the contagion of the death anciently threatened? who
comes for this reason more easily to receive forgiveness
of sins, because they are not his own, but others' sins that
are forgiven him.
"This,  therefore,  most  esteemed  brother, was  our
opinion in the assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any
person from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind, and affectionate to all. Which rule, as it is
to govern universally, so we think it more especially to be
observed in reference to infants and persons newly born.
To whom our help and the divine mercy is rather to be
granted, because by their weeping and wailing at their
first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so
much as that they implore compassion.
" Dearest brother, we wish you always good health."*
* Cyprian's Epistle to Fidus,
198 
Other quotations might be given from this father, but
the above is all-sufficient, and our limits do not allow of
very extended citations. In order fully to estimate the
evidence of this quotation from Cyprian, the reader wil
please observe,     1.) The exact point to be established by it is, not wha
were the opinions of these bishops merely, but, what was
the universal usage of the church in those times. It is
not a question of opinion that we are to settle, but a ques
tion of fact. It is not, whether infant baptism be right or
wrong; but, whether, as a matter of fact, the churches
generally believed it to be right, and therefore practised it
The doctrinal opinions of these bishops, though deserving
much respect, could not be decisive in the case, but their
testimony to the state of opinion and practice in their
times is to be received without abatement, and is decisive
These bishops were assembled from different and distan
parts. Each one would certainly know what was prac
tised in his own diocess, and he also would know whe
ther such practice accorded with the general usage of the
church in Europe and Asia.  As they were all approved
and devoted men, and especially Cyprian, who was revered
and beloved by all for his orthodoxy and piety, and as
their decision in this case was never revoked or censured
by the church, it is absurd to suppose they spoke any
thing but the general faith.
<J Besides, the question was not, whether infants are
? to be baptized at all.  This nobody disputed.  But the
question was, May they, in cases of necessity, be baptized
\before they are eight days old?
2.) Consider the means of knowing the truth in the
case that this council possessed. They not only were
competent to tell what was the practice of their own times
in reference to infant baptism, but it is clear that they were
amply competent to decide whether that practice was ac  cording to the apostles' doctrine and usage. This council
was convened only one hundred and eighty-eight years
after the death of Paul and Peter, and only about one
hundred and fifty years after the death of the apostle John.
Now, two, or, at the most, three persons, could have suf  ficed to hand the true practice of the apostles, touching
this subject, to the members who composed this council.
199
INFANT BAPTISM 
INFANT BAPTISM.
Doubtless many of these bishops were aged men, and if
seventy or eighty years of age, might have conversed with
men that had seen the apostles, or, at least, that had lived
in the apostles' day, and were- acquainted with their prac  tice in a matter so important as that of infant baptism.
Tradition must have been still fresh, and the fathers, or,
at least, the grandfathers, of these bishops must have had
personal knowledge of apostolic times. Certainly, in the
sixty-six diocesses over which they presided, there must
have been many old men whose information on these
points was ample, and whose recollection was clear.
Take sixty-six intelligent and aged ministers, holding high
and responsible offices in the church, and whose Very
offices, as well as ministerial profession, oblige them to
study and understand the history, the doctrines, and
the usages of the church-take sixty-six men of this
class, I say, in this day, and assemble them together in
council, and then propose to them a question, whether it
it be lawful, according to the doctrine and usage of the
church, to do a particular thing or not.? I say, would not
these men be fully competent to expound the doctrine of
the church, so as to decide such a question? I allude now
only to questions offact. I need not say that they would
be fully competent to such a task.  And with all the ad vantages resulting from the extensive personal knowledge
of these African bishops-their access to the records of
the church, and to the writings of the earlier fathers-and
the fresh gushings of the fountain of traditionary informa tion-I say, with all these advantages, this African council
could have been at no loss to understand what was the
usage of the church then, and what it had been since the
days of the apostles.  And let it be remembered,[   3.) That the council were unanimous in their decision.
" Not one was of Fidus's mind, that infant baptism must
be delayed until the eighth day, in conformity to the law
of Jewish circumcision.  Much less was there any of
\ opinion that it was not to be used at all."
4.) The only question, then, that can possibly arise to
occasion the shadow of a doubt as to the apostolical cha racter of this decision, is that which respects the moral
honesty, or the true Christian integrity, of these bishops.
Have they given us the true doctrine of the apostles, or
200 
INFANT BAPTISM.
have they, with all their advantages of correct informnation, given us only a figment of superstition, which owes
its origin to the apostacy and corruption of the church?
I know not that I can better shape a reply to this question
than in the language of Dr. Milner. Speaking of this
council, he says,  "Here is an assembly of sixty-six pastors, men of approved fidelity and gravity, who have stood the fiery trial
of some of the severest persecutions ever known, and who
have testified their love to the Lord Jesus Christ in a more
striking manner than any anti-Pedobaptists have had an
opportunity of doing in our days; and if we may judge of
their religious views by those of Cyprian,-and they are
all in perfect harmony with him,-they are not wanting in
any fundamental of godliness. No man, in any age, mnore
reverenced the Scriptures, and made more copious use of
them on all occasions, than he did; and, it must be confessed, in the very best manner. For he uses them corntinually for PRACTICE, not for OSTENTATION; for USE, not
for the sake of VICTORY in argument. Before this holy
assembly a question is brought, —not whether infants
should be baptized at all-none contradicted this,-but
whether it is right to baptize them immediately, or on the
eighth day? Without a single negative, they all deter.,
mined to baptize them immediately.   This transaction
passed in the year two hundred and fifty-three. Let the
reader consider: If infant baptism had been an innovation,
it must have been now of a considerable standing. The
disputes concerning Easter, and other very uninteresting
points, show that SUCH an innovation must have formed a
remarkable era in the church.  The number of heresies
and divisions had been very great. Among them all, such
a deviation from apostolical practice as this MUST have
been remarked. To me it appears impossible to account
for this state of things, but on the footing that it had EVER
been allowed; and, therefore, that it was the custom of
the first churches."*
6. Optatus, bishop of Melevi, in Numidia, was a person
of some note, a man of orthodox faith and genuine piety.
He wrote against the Donatists-a schismatical, rather
than heretical party in the African church-about A. D. 370
* History of the Church, cent. iii, chap. xiii.
201 
INFANT BAPTISM.
Mr. Wall places him two hundred and sixty years after
the apostles.'Among other things he refers to baptism.
The question, however, was not, whether infants are to be
laptized; but, whether a person, coming over from the
Catholic Church to their party, should be considered as
baptized, or, (as Mr. Wall sarcastically expresses it,)
whether they "must be baptized afresh by some such
pure men as the Donatists were." This question, therefore, does not prejudice the cause of infant baptism.
The only quotation from this writer which it concerns
us to make is the following. Optatus had been comparing
a Christian's putting on Christ at baptism to the putting on
of a garment; and had compared Christ, so put on, to a
garment, &c.  He then adds:   "But lest any one should say, I speak irreverently, in
calling Christ a garment, let him read what the apostle
says,' As many of you as have been baptized in the name
of Christ, have put on Christ.' 0O what a garment is this,
that is always one, and never renewed; that decently
fits all ages and all forms: it is neither plaited for infants,
nor stretched for men, and without alteration is suitable to
women."*
All I wish to notice, in connection with this citation, is
the familiar manner in which infant baptism is referred to.
Nothing can more clearly point out the settled unanimity
of faith in the church, touching this subject, than that
easy, familiar, and matter-of-course way of alluding to it,
that seems to take for granted that all parties, whether
Catholics or schismatics, orthodox or heretics, believed
and practised alike.
7. Gregory, commonly called Gregory Nazianzen, was
born at Arianzumn, an obscure village in the province of
Cappadocia, about A. D. 320. He was a man of great
learning, and, though inclined to the ascetic life, was
raised in succession to the sees of Sasinii, Nazianzus,
and Constantinople. He was an intimate friend of St.
Basil. He died in A. D. 389. The testimony of Gregory,
in favour of infant baptism, is clear and abundant. In his
eulogy upon St. Basil, his intimate friend, (who, though
the younger, died before Gregory,) he relates the baptism
* Fifth book concerning the Schism of the Donatists.
202 
INFANT BAPTISMT.
of that father in his infancy, as one of the commendable
things in his history. With this account we shall not
detain the reader. Before citing from this author, it is
important to observe, that the practice of deferring baptism
from year to year had become alarmingly prevalent. Persons would remain in the state of catechumens until just
before death, and then receive baptism, and be admitted
into the church. This practice, which had now received
the example of the emperor Constantine, had, as we have
before mentioned, grown out of a superstitious notion of
the saving efficacy of baptism. They considered that it
removed all previous guilt; and, as the ordinance could
not be repeated, and as they feared they might stain the
purity of their baptism afterward, if baptized in early life,
they were easily betrayed into the habit of deferring it.
This exact view it is important to remember, and against
it Gregory levels the artillery of his argument and the
polished shafts of his eloquence. He reminds them of
the danger of losing baptism by sudden death-that such
procrastination is often a mere pretext for living longer in
carnal pleasures-that it is a wily stratagem of the devil
to cheat souls, which he calls upon them to resist; and
then says,  " Art thou a youth? fight against pleasures and passions
with this auxiliary strength: list thyself in God's army.
Art thou old? let thy gray hairs hasten thee. Strengthen
thy age with baptism.... Hast thou an infant child?  Let
not wickedness have the advantage of time. Let him be
sanctified from his infancy. Let him be dedicated from
his cradle in the Spirit.' Thou, as a faint-hearted mothers
and of little faith, art afraid of giving him the seal, [that is,
baptism,] because of the weakness of nature. Hannah,
before Samuel was born, devoted him to God, and as soon
as he was born, consecrated him, and brought him up from
the first in a priestly garment, not fearing on account of
human infirmities, but trusting in God. Thou hast no
need of amulets, or charms.... Give to him the Trinity,
that great and excellent preservative.   Aof  avwo  T-V
-rtada, ro tesa iat ta~ov Ovcaptrqptov."  Again:   "Some of them [those who neglect baptism] live like
beasts, and regard not baptism. Some have a value for
baptism, but delay the receiving it, either out of negli
203 
INFANT BAPTISfM.
gence, or a greediness longer to enjoy their lusts. But
some others have it not in their own power to receive it,
either because of their infancy perhaps, (71 da vrto-rqra
rvxov,) or by reason of some accident utterly involuntary...
And I think of the first sort, [that is, those who despise
baptism,] that they shall be punished, as for their other
wickedness, so for their slighting of baptism. And that
the second shall be punished, but in a less degree, because
they are guilty of their own missing it, but rather through
folly than malice.   But that the last sort, [those who omit
baptism involuntarily, as infants,] will neither be glorified
nor punished by the just Judge; as being without the seal,
[that is, baptism,] but not through their own wickedness;
and as having sufered the loss rather than occasioned it."
W" Ve must, therefore, make it our utmost care that
we do not miss of the common grace," &c.   "Some mayi
say, Suppose this to hold in the case of those who can
desire baptism: what say you of those that are as yet
infants, and are not in capacity to be sensible, either of the i
grace or the want of it? Shall we baptize them too? Yes, 
by all means, if any danger make it requisite.   For it is 
better that they be sanctified without their own sense of t
it, than that they should be unsealed and uninitiated.  Kat
7ov7'ov joyo~f gttv ~ oKTaqa,gof re +troliq and our reason
for this is circumcision, which was performed on the eighth
day, and was a typical seal, and was practised on thosej
who had no use of reason. As for others, I give my
opinion that they should stay three years, or thereabouts,
when they are able to hear and answer some of the holy
words; and though they do not perfectly understand them,
yet they form them: o-rwf ayta;~ev tat Vpvxa9 Sat awtara
-p styaiw [  tvare ptwo r7tG  7E.Ze taeow~ and that you then
sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of
consecration. For though they are not liable to give account of their life before their reason be come to maturity,
yet, by reason of those sudden and unexpected assaults of
dangers that are by no efforts to be prevented, it is by all
means advisable that they be secured by the laver [of
baptism.]"*
A few remarks it may be proper to subjoin to this
lengthened citation.
* Discourse on Baptism.
204 
INFANT BAPTISM.
1.) The peculiar notions of Gregory, or of his age,
concerning the efficacy of baptism, &c., we do not quote
with approbation of their moral or theological tendency.
These errors do not affect the testimony of this father, in
reference to the points upon which we intend his testi mony to bear.
2.) The principle upon which persons deferred baptism,
in his day, was of such a nature as not to argue in the
slightest degree against infant baptism, as such.  The
validity of infant baptism was not called in question, any
miore than adult baptism.  The delay of baptism till just,a
before death was urged by many, purely on the ground of
its supposed efficacy in removing past sin, and the danger
of losing the grace of the fnance by subsequent trans    -
gression; and on this ground Gregory took up the ob jection.
3.) Gregory and Tertullian are the only two that speak
of delaying infant baptism at all; the latter till the age of
reason, the former till three years. Both one and the
other, however, are to be understood, where there is no
danger of death in the meanwhile: which is plainly ex pressed in the above extract from Gregory, and in Tertutl lian is collected from his other speeches.*
4.) According to the testimony of Gregory, then, infant
baptism was fully believed to be Scriptural in A. D. 370,
and was commonly practised in the Christian church, ex cept where such superstitious notions of the ordinance as
those above noted occasioned its delay, which exception
is no detriment to our argument.
8. The statements of St. Basil, in his discourse to the
catechumens, possess not sufficient importance to merit a
full recital here. He does not profess to speak directly
to the subject of infant baptism. Mr. Wall says, the most
material evidence that can be derived from this father in
support of infant baptism is taken from his practice.  He
then proves it to have been the practice of St. Basil to
baptize infants, by citing, from Theodoret, the instance
where he (Basil) recommended to the emperor Valens to
have his child baptized by a person of the catholic faith.
(The word catholic distinguishes only from the Arian fac.
tion, in this place.) The child, however, was baptized
*Wall's History of Infant Baptism, part i, c. xi, sec. 10e
205 
by an Arian.  This child was an infant son of Valens,
according to Socrates.*
9. Ambrose was born in Gaul about A. D. 338. He
was educated in Italy, and his talents and conduct early
brought him into notice, and raised him to high civil
honours. He was elected bishop of Milan, in A. D. 374,
by the unanimous voice of the people. With some weaknesses and equivocal traits of character, he was still a
great and useful man. He died in A. D. 397, after enjoying a life of universal celebrity.
After having mentioned the miracle of Elijah, in dividing
the waters of Jordan, he adds:- -
"But perhaps this may seem to be fulfilled in our time,
and in the apostles' time. For that returning of the river
waters backward toward the spring head, which was
caused by Elias when the river was divided, (as the
Scripture says; Jordan was driven back,) signified the
sacrament of the laver of salvation, which was afterward
to be instituted; per quee in primordia nature  sue qui
baptizati fuerint, parvuli a malitia reformantur, by which
those infants who have been baptized are reformed from
[their] perverseness, to the primitive state of their nature."t
Again; -he cites those words of our Saviour, "Except any
person be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God;" and then adds, by way
of comment,  "Utique nullum excipit: non infantem; non aliqua preventum necessitate,  Certainly none is excepted:  not an
infant, not one that is prevented from necessity.  But," he
adds, "suppose that such have that freedom from punishmnent, which is not clear, yet, I question whether they
shall have the honour of the kingdom.":
A few remarks are necessary here.
1.) Ambrose expressly refers infant baptism to the
apostles' times.  He says: "Sed fortasse hoc supra nos
et supra apostolos videatur expletum, But perhaps twe see
the fulfilment of this in our own and the apostles' times;"
that is, as he immediately adds, it appears to be fulfilled
in infant baptism.   The  contingency expressed in the
sentence does not apply to the fact of infant baptism being
* Wall's History, part i, c. xi. t Comment on Luke i, 17.
t Ambrose concerning the patriarch Abraham.
06
IiiFANT BAPTIS,'W. 
INFANT  BAPTI,S3.111
practised in the apostles' day, but to the circumistance of
the application of the figure as made in the passage.
2.) The puerility of the figure here employed, to set
forth infant baptism and its efficacy, does not militate
against the testimony of Ambrose to the fact that he believed in the doctrine, and that he also believed in its
apostolic origin, as also that it was the current doctrine
of his day.  We know that the Christian fathers employed
many silly comparisons and weak  arguments to defend
Christianity, but that they employed weak and even silly
arguments does by no means prove their cause to have
been weak. This would be a strange mode of reasoning.
We all know that they were given, unhappily, to an allegorical interpretation of Scripture, especially after the days
of Origen, which often betrayed them into the most vague
and idle conceits, but this does not affect their testimony
to the great doctrines of revelation as believed and practised in their day: this does not affect the credibility of
their testimony to an unbroken tradition, handed down,
through them, from the apostles. The same may be said
of their erroneous notion of the saving efficacy of baptism,
as we have before stated.
3.) It is proper to state also, for the information of the
more uninformed reader, that the last quotation from Ambrose evidently teaches the doctrine of a middle statea place, after death, that partakes not fully of the qualities
either of happiness or misery-to which place unbaptized
infants, and others, were supposed' to go. It is not our
business to dwell upon these errors, either to explain or
refute them.   We simply wish the reader to understand
that such errors do not discredit the testimonies of these
men to the fact of infant baptism in their day, or the fact
of its traditionary transmission from the apostles.
10. Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, was born at
Antioch about A. D. 354. He died A. D. 407. He was
renowned for his eloquence, and the people used to say
that they would rather the sun would not shine than that
John should not preach. He was a man of great powers
of mind, having many imprudences of conduct, and not a
well-balanced and tempered zeal. In contrasting the two
rites of circumcision and baptism, he says,
Bi "Bt our circumcision-I mean the grace of baptism
207
i 
INFANT BAPTISM.
gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thousanl
benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit: and it
has no determinate time as that had, a'dl ~eat cat ev
Gl anoto itcta, sat ev e at, tat ev avro T'V  ypa yevoltevoq
-tva ravrlv 6:aerOat rqv aXEtpoIrotqrov 7reptroptV, but 
one in immature age, or in middle lf, or that is in old age, t
may receive this circumcision made without hands; in which 
there is no trouble to be undergone, but to throw off the
load of sins, and receive pardon for all previous offences."*
From a homily of St. Chrysostom's on Baptism, which
is not now extant, the following passage is quoted by
St. Austin:i   "Ata rovro gat ra  7ratdta 6arTrt~o)~v eatrot atEaparq- 
. Sara oa exovra, for this reason we baptize infants also,
although they have no [actual] sins."
In another place he is censuring the women for  "a
custom that they had of rubbing the forehead of the child
with a sort of dirt, prepared with some magical tricks,
which was to preserve it from being bewitched.  He tells
them that such a practice, instead of guarding and purify  ing the infant, makes it abominable."  His words are:     He that anoints an infant so with that dirt, how can
he think but that he makes it abominable?  How can he
bring it to the hands of the priest? Tell me, how can you
think it fitting for the minister to make the sign on its
forehead, where you have besmeared it with the dirt?"t
In these quotations from Chrysostom, then, it is ex  pressly declared that. baptism is appropriate ev a6po?
rtfc'ta in immature, or newly begun, age,-that is, in in fancy;-that the church actually did baptize infants; and
he inveighs against the superstitious practice of putting
dirt on children's foreheads as unseemly and improper,
because it has no relevance to-the consecrating ordinance
of baptism which their children received from the priest.
BEFORE THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY.
I shall follow the order of Mr. Wall, and give quotations
from the fathers who lived during the Pelagian controversy, distinguishing those quotations which date prior to
that controversy from those which date subsequently to its
*t Homily xl, on Genesis.  t Homily xii, on 1 Corinthians,
208 
I NFANT BAPTISM.
origin. The reason of this is, that the Pelagian contro versy had a direct effect, more than any other event since
the days of the apostles until that time, to call forth defi nite opinions and positions in relation to infant baptism.
11. St. Hierome, in a letter to a lady, about A. D. 380,
urges the duty of the right education of her child, from the
fact that God will require the sins of children at the hands
of their parents. He says,    "But he that is a child, and thinks as a child, his good
deeds, as well as his evil deeds, are imputed to his parents.
Unless you suppose that the children of Christians  are
themselves only under the guilt of the sin, except they
receive baptism; and that the wickedness is not imputed
to those also who would not give it them, especially at
that time when they that were to receive it could make no
opposition to the reception of it."*
The meaning, or doctrine, of this passage is simply\
this:-Infants are not chargeable with any sin in the
oemission of their baptism.  Such a delinquency could be
imputed only to their paxents, or those who withheld bap  tism from them.
12. Austin, or Augustin, lived three hundred years after
the apostles. He was a man of great eloquence; he
wrote much, and exerted a powerful influence over all
parties in the church during a long life.  Our limits do
not permit us to go at length into quotations; we shall
give all that are necessary to the complete purposes of
our present argument. In one of his books against th"
( Donatists, who were a schismatical party of the Christian 
( church in Africa, this father is showing that if a person be ~
i baptized in insincerity, like Simon Magus, or, like him, be 
baptized with erroneous and crude notions of the Trinity, l
still, having attained better views, and having repented, he I
is not to be rebaptized-his former baptism is yet to be
theld valid.  He says,, So that many persons increasing in knowledge after
their baptism, and especially those who have been baptized
either when they were infants, or when they were youths; as
their understanding is cleared and enlightened, and their
'       inward man renewed day by day,' do     themselves deride, 
and with abhorrence and confession abjure the former
* Letter to Leta.
209 
0INFANT BAPTI'ISM.
opinions which they had of God, when they were imposed 
on by their own imaginations   And yet they  are not
therefore accounted either not to have received baptism, i
or to have a baptism of the same nature of their error.
But in their case, both the validity of the sacrament is
acknowledged, and the vanity of their own understanding
rectified." Again:     "And as the thief, who by necessity went without bap  tism, was saved; because by his piety he had it spiritu  ally: so where baptism is had, though the party by neces
sity go without that [faith] which the thief had, yet he is
saved: quod traditem tenet universitas ecclesie cum par  vuli infantes baptizantur, which, being handed down to them,
the universal church holds, with respect to infants who are]
baptized; who certainly cannot yet believe with the heart
(to righteousness, or confess with the mouth to salvation,
as the thief could; nay, by their crying and noise,   while
the sacrament is being administered, they disturb the holy
mysteries; and yet no Christian will say they are baptizedj
to no purpose.
"Et si quisquam in hac re auctoritatem divinam quaerat:
quanquam quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis insti  tutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate apos- 
tolica traditum rectissime creditur, and if any one do ask 
for divine authority in this matter, though that which the
universal church practices, which has not been instituted by
councils, but has always been observed, is most justly be  lieved to be nothing else than a thing delivered [or handed
down] by the authority of the apostles: yet we may, be  sides, take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of
baptism does avail infants, by  the circumcision which
God's former people received.
"  Therefore as in Abraham the righteousness of
f faith went before, and circumcision, the seal of the right eousness of faith, came after; so in Cornelius, [the centu rion,] the spiritual sanctification by the gift of the Holy 
Spirit went before, and the sacrament of regeneration by i
the laver of baptism came after.  And as in Isaac, who
was circumcised the eighth day, the seal of the righteous ness of faith went before, and (as he was a follower of 
his father's faith) the righteousness itself, the seal whereof
had gone before in his infancy, came after  so in infants'
210 
baptized the sacrament of regeneration goes before, and
(g nyput   in practice the Christian religion) conversion
of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in their
body, comes after.
"And as in that thief's case, (alluding to the thief upon
the cross with our Saviour,) what  was wanting of the/
sacrament of baptism the mercy of the Almighty mad&
up; because it was not out of pride or contempt, but of0
necessity that it was wanting: so in infants that die afteri
they are baptized, it is to be believed that the same grace,
of the Almighty does make up that defect, that by reason,~
not of a wicked will, but of want of age, they can neithert
believe with the heart to righteousness, nor confess within
the mouth unto salvation.  So that when others answer
for them, that they may have this sacrament given them,"
it is valid for their consecration, because they cannot
answer for themselves.   But if for one that is able toi
answer for himself, another should answer, it would not
be valid.
"       By all which, it appears that the sacrament of
! baptism is one thing, and conversion of the heart another; 
but that the salvation of a person is completed by both of 
them.  And if one of these be wanting, we are not to think i
that it follows that the other is wanting; since one may
be without the other in an infant, and the other was with- 
out that in the thief: God Almighty making up, both in;
one and the other case, that which was not wilfully want    ins.  But when either of these is wilfully wanting, it in-t
"    volves the individual in guilt."*   
The reader is particularly requested to notice,      1.) St. Austin gives the general opinion of the church.
All believed in the utility and necessity of infant baptism.
He says, Nullus Christianorum, No Christians will call
infant baptism useless.   All who believed in any water
baptism at all (and there were a few who denied all bap    tism) held to infant baptism.
2.) This father directly affirms that no council of the
church had instituted the rite-that it was the universal 
practice-that it had been practised from the first-and
that, with the strictest propriety, it was  regarded as
* Fourth Book against the Donatists, concerning Baptism.
f-           -. -            t ",/ li
211
INFANT BAPTIS.9
'! u,, i         r..  
having been delivered to the church by the authority of 
the apostles. 
3.) He holds, as is common with all the fathers, a strict
analogy between circumcision and baptism.
(Besides these references, there are others that belong
to about this date, A. D. 408, which we might make
equally to our purpose. For instance, a bishop by the
name of Boniface writes to St. Austin, propounding questions in relation to infant baptism. Austin answers him
at length. In both epistles the utility and divine authority
of the practice are taken for granted, and the fact that the
church did generally practise infant baptism at that time
fully attested. So also, in Austin's book on our Lord's
sermon on the mount, and his books on free will, which
our limits do not allow us to notice.)
This father further says,   "Consuetudo tamen matris ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, neque ullo modo superflua
deputanda nec omnino credenda nisi apostolica esse traditio, Yet the custom of our mother, the church, in baptizing
infants, is by no means to be disregarded, nor be accounted
needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the
apostles;"-* [that is, an institution handed down from the
apostles. Tradition is something handed down, as from
father to son; and when infant baptism is said to be
esteemed as a tradition of the apostles, the meaning is,
that it is a doctrine and practice handed down from the
apostles, and of course by their authority.]
In a letter to St. Hierome, St. Austin says,  "I ask where the soul contracted that guilt, by which
it is brought to condemnation, (even the soul of an infant
who is surprised with death,) if the grace of Christ do not
relieve it by the sacrament whereby' infants are baptized."
Speaking of the question, whether the soul of man is a
new creation of God, or generated in the same way as the
body; and of the different modes of settling this question;
he says,  "Before I know which of them is to be chosen, this I
know, that the one which is true does not oppose that
most firm and established faith by which the church of
* St. Austin's tenth book on Genesis.
212
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
Christ believes that even the new-born little ones of mankind cannot be freed from condemnation, but by the grace
of the name of Christ, which he has commended to us in
his sacraments."
In his letter to eighteen Pelagian bishops afterward,
being an answer to one they had published, he says,  "But this I say, that original sin is so plain by the
Scriptures, and that it is forgiven to infants in the laver
of regeneration, is so confirmed by the ANTIQUITY and
AUTHORITY of the Catholic faith, so NOTORIOUS  BY THE
PRACTICE of the CHURCH, that whatsoever is disputed,
inquired, or affirmed of the origin of the soul, if it be contrary to this, cannot be true."
13. In the forty-eightlh canon of the third council of
Carthage; held about A. D. 397, we find the following:  "In reference to the Donatists, it is resolved that we
do ask the advice of our brethren and fellow-bishops, Siricius and Simplicianus, concerning those only who are in
infancy baptized among them; whether in that which they
have not done with their own judgment, the error of their
parents shall hinder them, that When they, by a wholesome purpose, shall be converted to the church of God,
they may not be promoted to be ministers of the holy
altar."
It appears that the consent of these bishops was obtained; for four years afterward, in another council held
at Carthage, Aurelius, bishop of that city, addresses the
council thus
"You remember that in a former council it was resolved
that they who were, in their infancy, before they were
able to understand the mischief of that error, baptized
among the Donatists, and when they came to age of understanding, acknowledging the truth, &c., they were received by us. All will grant that such may undoubtedly
be promoted to church offices, especially in times of so
great need.
"Some that have been teachers in that sect would come
over with their congregations, if they might have the same
places amnong us. But this I leave to a further consideration of our brethren. Only that they will consent to our
determination, that such as were baptized by them in infancy may be admitted to orders."
10
213 
INFANT BAPTISM.
In the sixth canon of the fifth council of Carthage, held
about A. D. 400, we have the following:  "It is resolved concerning infants of whose having been
baptized there are no positive witnesses that can give
certain evidence, and they themselves are not capable oY
giving any account of that sacrament having been adminristered to them, by reason of their age; that such be,
without any scruple, baptized," &c. This was the received
doctrine of the church in regard to all doubtful cases.
There are many testimonies that might be introduced
here, but as they are of a nature to require introductory
and explanatory remarks in order to give a full view of
their force to the reader, and as our limits do not permit
this, and as, also, there are many others directly to the
point that are not so involved in circumstances that require
lengthy explanation, we therefore omit them. It is enough
that we assure the reader that there is no want of evidence,
or any contrary current of testimony, that induces any
omission.
AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PELAGIAN CONTRO                        VERSY.
We have now arrived at the period of the origin of the
Pelagian controversy. Pelagius was a native of Britain,
a monk, and a man of the first order of intellect and genius.
He associated with him Celestius, a native of Ireland, and
a man of talent. The Pelagian heresy began to make its
appearance about A.D. 405.   In A.D. 410, when  the
Goths took and plundered Rome; these heresiarchs, who
were then residing in that city, fled, Celestius to Carthage,
and Pelagius to Palestine, after which they attained more
note than ever. Never before had the doctrine of infant
baptism been subjected to such a test as by this controversy. Its antiquity, its utility; and its Scriptural authority,
were points upon which the event of the controversy
largely depended. The hinging point was, original sin,
and the necessity of divine grace in order to salvation.
In a council of fourteen bishops, held at Diospolis,* in
Palestine, in A. D. 415, the following errors were charged
* This place is called in Scripture, Lydda.
214 
INFANT BAPTISLM.
upon Pelagius, which he was compelled at the time to
abjure, though he did not afterward forsake them:    1. That Adam, whether he had sinned or not, would
have died.
2. That his sin hurt himself only, and not mankind.
3. That infants newly born are in the same state that
Adam was before his fall.
4. That neither by the death, or fall, of Adam does all
mankind die, nor by the resurrection of Christ does all
mankind arise.
These are, in substance, what were charged upon
Celestius four years previous, in a council held at Car  thage.  I have inserted these points from the creed of
Pelagius, in order that the reader may the more perfectly
comprehend the force of the testimonies soon to be adduced.
As Pelagius and Celestius denied original sin, it would
seem that they would of course deny the necessity of in  fant baptism, for all the Christian world believed that bap  tism was "for the remission of sins."  Infants, indeed,
were not supposed to have any actual sin, but yet there
was that liability to punishment, that unfitness for heaven,
that, without the atonement of Christ) is an inseparable
property of our nature, and this the ancient Christian
church held was removed by, or at, baptism. A denial
of the doctrine of this innate depravity, therefore, appeared
to carry with it, necessarily, a denial of the fitness and
obligation of infant baptism.  And so it did.  Accordingly
r'the great spirits in the church who opposed Pelagius ceased
not to press him with this argument, "If infants are withi out fault in their nature, as you affirm, why then are  they
baptized?" Now, any person can at once perceive how it
became the interest of Pelagius to invalidate the practice
and obligation of infant baptism, if hlie could. He never
i met with a more difficult and troublesome argument, in all
the circle of this famous and furious controversy, which
shook and menaced the church in Asia, Africa, and Eu rope, than this simnple one with which he was constantly
beset.  In vain did he attempt to shelter himself from the
charge of denying the utility and obligation of infant bap tism, by holding that infants needed baptism, not for the
remission of any guilt, which he denied their having, but
in order to fit them for the kingdom of heaven.  In vain,
i
215 
INFANT BAPTISM.
{I say, did he urge this distinction.  He was met with the
i argument, "If infants need baptism in order to fit them
for heaven, then, previous to their baptismn they were unfit
for heaven, which would argue their sinfulness."  "As
for infants that die without baptism," says Pelagius, " I
know whither they do not go; but whither they do go I
know not, that is, I know that they do not go to the kingdom of heaven; but what becomes of them I know not."
But why all this difficulty-this hard labour with the argua ment?   Why not cut the knot at once by denying infant;
X baptism? by pointing out its want of Scriptural authority;
. and by demonstrating the fact that it had crept into the
church in an evil hour, under the auspices of ambitious,
and corrupt men?  Let those who deny infant baptisnm
reply to these questions. Meantime we call the reader's
attention to the evidence elicited by the history of this
controversy.
(12.) St. Austin, in one of his books concerning the
guilt and forgiveness of sins, and baptism of infants,
says,    "The whole church has of old constantly held that
baptized infants do obtain remission of original sin by the
baptism of Christ."  "For my part," continues he, "I do
not remember that I ever heard any other thing from any
Christians that received the Old and New T''estaments,
non solum in Catholica ecciesia, verum etiani in qualibet
haeresi vel schismate constitutis, neither from such as were 
in the Catholic church, nor yet from such as belonged to any )
sect or schism.  I do not remember that I ever read other,,wise, in any writer that I could ever find treating of these
i matters, that followed the canonical Scriptures, or did
mean, or did pretend so to do."
In connection with this declaration of St. Austin, we
wish the reader to recollect that this father was well versed
in the history of the church, and a few years afterward
wrote a "history of all sects and opinions" that were or
had been in Christendom.
(11.) St. Hierome, in one of his books against Pelagius,
after having crowded him hardly with the argument de rived from the practice and obligation of infant baptism,
as being irreconcilable with the notion that they were
without sin, says,
216 
" This one thing I will say, that this discourse may at
last have an end: Either you must set forth a new creed,
and after the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, baptize
infants into the kingdom of heaven: or else, if you acknow   ledge one baptism for infants and for grown persons, you
must own that infants are to be baptized for the forgive   ness of sins."
14. In a letter of Pelagius to Innocent, bishop of Rome,
he complains of his opponents, and says, 
/  "Men  do slander me as if I denied the sacrament of
,baptismin to infants," &c. He further declares,      "Nunquam se vel impium aliquem haereticum audisse,
qui hoc quod proposuit de parvulis, diceret: that he neverA
H  heard even  an  impious  heretic  who  would  affirm  this  )
concerning infants;  [namely, that they were  not to be}
baptized.]
He still continues:      "Quis enimn ita evangelicam lectionis ignarus est, qui
hoc non modo affirmare conetur, sed qui vel leviter dicere
aut etiam sentire possit? Denique quis tam imapius, qui
parvulos exortes regni celorum esse velit, dum eos bapti   zari et in Christo renasci vetat? For who is so ignorant
of the reading-of the evangelists, as to attempt (not to say to
establish this [doctrine,] but) to speak of it heedlessly, or
even have such a thought? In fine, who can be so impious
as to hinder infants from being baptized, and born again in
Christ, and thus cause them to miss of the kingdom of
heaven; since our Saviour has said, that none can enter
into the kingdom of heaven that is not born again of water
and the Holy Spirit? Who is there so impious as to refuse
to an infant, of what age soever, the common redemption
of mankind, and to hinder him that is born to an uncertain
life from being born again to an everlasting and certain
one?"
Before we pass to another citation, we beg the reader
to pause and consider that this man, (Pelagius,) who
affirms his belief of infant baptism, and complains of being
slandered when it is reported that he denies it-that de   clares he never heard of any person so impious or so
ignorant of the gospel, not even among heretics, that pre    sumed to deny the doctrine, or even call it in question    this very man, we say, would, as has beenii mentioned,
'217
INFAN'R BAPTIS.IT. 
have found it greatly to his interest to have been able to
cast discredit upon the practice. Could he have proved
that infant baptism was of human invention, or any thing
short of apostolic authority, it would have made more in
favour of his cause than almost any other argument he
could have advanced. As it was, he was obliged to maintain the obligation of the practice in connection with his
notion of the innate purity of infants, which was an
absurdity too gross to be concealed by all the arts of his
sophistry. And this letter to Pope Innocent was written
in A. D. 417, only three hundred and seventeen years after
the apostles. Could not Pelagius- have traced out and
exposed the spurious origin of infant baptism, if such an
origin it really had? To doubt it requires more faith than
we can command at the mere challenge of a cavilling
obj e ctor.
15. Celestius wrote a creed, or book of faith, which,
though it differed somewhat from Pelagius's views, sufficiently sets forth his own. The work is not extant, but
St. Austin quotes from it, and we take from him. Celestius says,  "Infantes autem debere baptizari in remissionem peccatorum, secundum regulam universalis ecclesie, et secundum evangelii sententiam, confitemur; quia Dominus statuit regnumn ccelorum non nisi baptizatis posse conferri;
quod quia vires naturee non habent, conferri necesse est
per gratie libertatem: But we acknowledge infants ought to
be baptized for the remission of sins, ACCORDING TO THE
RULE OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, and ACCORDING TO THE
SENTENCE OF THE GOSPEL, because our Lord has ordained
that the kingdom of heaven shall be bestowed upon no person
except he be baptized; which, as men do not receive it by
nature, it is necessary to confer by the power [or liberty]
of grace."
Here Celestius plainly admits infant baptism for the
remission of sin, which was according to the opinion of
the church; but this can hardly be regarded as any thing
else than an insincere profession, designed to allay the
violence of opposition. And so St. Austin regarded it.
Pelagius himself, when pressed hard by friends to renounce his objectionable tenets, at last confessed to them:
"Infantes in remissionem peccatorum percipere baptismum,
218
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFANT BAPTISM.)
Infants are to receive baptism for the remission of sins."
Yet, they denied that infants had any sin. Their most
common and plausible argument was, that infants are baptized for admission into the kingdom of heaven, because
our Saviour says, "Except a person be born of water and
of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God:" but that
they were not baptized for the remission of sins, because
they had no sin. The Constantinopolitan creed declared,
"We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."
So said the whole Christian world. But Pelagius's doctrine of the purity of our nature rendered infant baptism,
in this view of it, an absurdity. Why, then, did hlie not
deny the obligation and Scriptural authority of the practice? He never was able to give a rational account of the
utility and necessity of infant baptism-bhe tried every
possible way to evade the argument derived from its obligation and import-he was restless under its weight, while
it chafed him on every side-but still he did not deny it,
and thus take the shorter, and certainly the more consistent
way, in the estimation of his opponents, to rid himself of
its annoyance. Still, both he and Celestius confess that
they never heard of any sect or person who denied infant
baptism. Mr. Wall has justly said, ". If there had been any such church of anti-Pedobaptists
tin the world, these men could not have missed an opportunity of hearing of them, being so great travellers as they
were.  For they were born and bred, the one in Britain,
the other in Ireland. They lived thne prime of their age
(a very long time, as St. Austin testifies) at Rome-a place
to which all the people of the world had then a resort.
:They were both for some time at Carthage, in Africa.
..Then the one [Pelagius] settled at Jerusalem, and the
.other [Celestius] travelled through all the noted Greek
,and Eastern churches, in Europe and Asia. It is imnpos-sible there should have been any church that had any
singular practice in this matter but they must have heard
of them. (So that one may fairly conclude that there was
,,not at this time, nor in the' nemory of the men of this
:time, any Christian society that denied baptism to infants)
This cuts o  at once a l the pree nces which some anti:Pedobaptists would raise from certain probabilities, that
the Novatiat's, or Donatists, or the British church of those
I
v.f -W~~;  I
I t. It<A*S&tKr
21 li
_;r,
1-i
11
#1
.vl 1-, 
i times, or any other whom Pelagius must needs have known,\
did deny it."*
16. A council, composed of two hundred and fourteen
bishops, was held in Carthage, A. D. 418, at which they
considered the Pelagian error concerning infant baptism,
and also the question, whether infants may be baptized
before they are eight days old; which, it seems, some
doubted. The violence of the Pelagian controversy was
well calculated to elicit definite statements; accordingly
we have them.  The council thus decree:    "Also we determine that whosoever does deny that
infants may be baptized when they come recently from
their mother's womb; or does say that they are indeed
baptized for forgiveness of sins; and yet that they derive
no original sin from Adam, (from whence it would follow
that the form of baptism for forgiveness of sins is in them
not true, but false,) let him be anathema."
17. That infant baptism was the'universal practice of
the church, from the days of the apostles, is strongly forced
upon our belief from the fact that there was no sect, or
schism, in the church that did not hold it. The reader
[will recollect that we have mainly attended to the practice 
of the general, or catholic church, in the foregoing pages.
But from the body of the church there separated various
k and numerous disaffected, or heretical parties.  These were all distinguished from the church by some peculiar
doctrine, or principle. But among all these, during the
period through which we have thus far travelled, none are
found who denied infant baptism. Let us attend for a few
moments to this point:   1. Ireneus wrote a history of all the sects and heresies
that had arisen up in the church before his time, from the
history of Simon Magus, mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles. He wrote his treatise about seventy-seven years
after the death of the apostle John. We have before no ticed that Irenaeus was acquainted intimately with Poly carp, who  was the companion  and friend of St. John. 
After having resided in Smyrna during the earlier part of
his life, Irenieus was appointed bishop of Lyons, in France. 
Thus he became conversant with the churches both in 
Asia and Europe, by actual residence and intercourse 
w all's History of Inlfant Baptism, part i, c. xix, sec. 36.
220
INFANT BAPTISill. 
INFANT' BSAPTI'SM. 
among them, as well as by his general learning,, and hiss
office.  Irenaus mentions all the different sects that had
sprung up with particularity, but he mentions none that
held any doctrine contrary to the general church touching
infant baptismthat is, he mentions none that denied in- ii
fant baptisvii.  Hgathe-re been such a sect, or had' theIe
Lben d i'vailety of practice on this subject among thel
Christians anterior to his day, he must have known it;
if he had known of such a case, he certainly would have 
mentioned it.  "Inasmuch, therefore, as Irenmus, amon    i
all these observations, says nothing, pro or contra, about
baptizing infants among the heretics, it may, as I said, bc 3
concluded that they had nothing singular in that point, but 
practised as the catholics [or general church] did;"* that
is, baptized their children.
2. Epiphanius, about A. D. 374, wrote an account of all
the sects that had appeared until his time. He enumerates, in all, eighty heresies, which, he says, "were  all
that he had heard of in the world."  " He  says nothing
of their baptizing or their not baptizing infants," but, after
he has spoken of all the heretical sects, he speaks of the
doctrines of the general church, and mentions baptism,
stating that-it is to us "instead of the old circumcision,"
&c.  Had there ever been a denial of infant baptism, he"
would undoubtedly have known it, and, if so, of course)
recorded it.
3. Philastrius wrote an account of all the heresies up
to about A. D. 380.  He is very minute, "making a differ ence of opinion about any trifling matter a heresy," of
which he numbers above one hundred.  "He  mentions
no dispute about infant baptism."
4. St. Austin wrote his history of all the sects about
A. D. 420. He reckons eighty-eight heresies in all, of
which that of Pelagius was the last. He expressly de clares that he never knew of any sect, or heresy, that
denied infant baptism.  The Pelagians held to infant baptism on a different ground from that which was held by
the church, but the thing itself they did not deny.
5. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, in Syria, wrote about
the same time. He classifies all the heretics under four
divisions. He mentions some, who were of the most
Wall's History, part i, c. xxi, sec. 3.
10*
I) II) l 
INFANT BAPT''ISAIM.
impious character, who denied all baptism; but of those
who admitted any baptism, he mentions none who denied
it to infants.  Thus, says Mr. Wall, "they none of them
mention infant baptism either as practised, or as not prac       tised, by the sectaries,-a plain proof that they held no       thing in that point different from the ordinary practice of
the church."*
/ Thus have we followed the church through the first N
three hundred and thirty years after the death of the apos-.
tles.  We  might have added many other testimonies, but
we have now brought forward the strength of the argument
from church history, and we do not wish to embarrass or
weaken its force by cumbersome and needless citations.
If the foregoing testimonies be not sufficient to settle the'
question as to the real doctrine which church history 
~t,eaches, then, verily, it will be  trifling to add others.
fter the time of St. Austin, no one doubts that infanT
aptism was the general practice of the church.  This
the Baptists admit, and hence there is no reason why we
]sTOuIu   rsuee argument down to a later date.  Cas       sander, who wrote in the twelfth century against the novel
heresy that had sprung up, and had been propagated by
{Peter Bruis, who denied infant baptism, aggravates theA
charge of novelty by stating, that if infant baptism were 
r    only a mock baptism, as Bruis alleged, then, "a alls
France, Spain, Germany, and Italy, and all Europe, has
had never a person baptized now for three hundred, or
fk       Ialmost five hundred years, otherwise than in infancy, it
has had never a Christian in it."t  I produce this quota       tion to show the general and prevailing practice of infant
baptism in the middle ages. Dr. Gale gives up the argu       ment from church history, after the time of Cyprian of
Carthage.  The first body of men, says Mr. Wall, that!
ever denied baptism to infants were the Petrobrusians,~
(so called from one Peter Bru'is, the founder of the sect,)
A. D. 1128, of whom some account is given in the Ap-!
pendix to this work.-.  "To those who say that the customn
of baptizing children was not derived from the apostolic
ages, thle traditional argument may fairly run, in language
nearly Scriptural,' If any man seem to be contentious, we
* History, part i, c. xxi, sec. 4.
i Wall's Hist., part ii, c. ii, sec. 2.     i Sce Notc F.
222
I 
INFANT BAPTIS'M.
have no such custom, neither the churches of God:'-we
never had any such custom as that of confining baptism to
adults."*
If infant baptism was received from the hands of the
apostles, then all is clear, and universal history and tradition speak an intelligible language. But if it was introduced at some subsequent period, then, what period was
that? Why have we no account of the first person, or
persons, who introduced the practice?  Why have we not
an account of some sect who still held to the old apostolic
doctrine of adult baptism during the first four centuries of
the Christian era? How came the church to glide into
this practice so imperceptibly as not to know the time
when it originated; and at the same time so universally
as not to occasion the slightest controversy? Can our
opponents tell? No: they cannot tell. They have never
told. These questions admit of no solution on the principles of their hypothesis. Infant baptism came from the
apostles, and if, in after-ages, it became associated with
errors, as was the fact,t still, this cannot invalidate the
truth and obligation of the ordinance, much less the simple
fact (which is all we have aimed to prove in this chapter)
that it has been received down from the apostles.
SECTION III.
1. But some ask, Why, then, was it not mentioned
more fully and more explicitly in apostolic times, and by
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who followed so soon after the
apostles? Also, several very ancient authors do not mention infant baptism at all. This has been urged by the
Baptists as being incompatible with the supposition that it
was universally practised.
At first blush this objection may appear to have weight.
But let it be remembered, infant baptism was not a debated
subject in apostolic and primitive times. It is not to be
wondered at that a subject which elicited no question or
controversy, should be wholly omitted by some writers,
and but occasionally alluded to by others. Besides, the
church was engrossed in other and more important concerns.
The doctrines of the unity of the Godhead, the atonement
*Milner's Church History, cent. iii, ch. xiii.   t See Note G.
223
.i-fl
II
I
I
fII
t
I
I
I
I
1
.4 
INFANT BAPTISM.
by Christ, the fall of man, salvation by faith, the resurrec
tion of the body, and future retribution,-these, with the
"great fight of afflictions" that the church was early called
to endure, absorbed its attention, and engrossed its powers.
The numerous enemies from without gave them little leisure to attend to the minor points of doctrine.
"The same remark, I think, ought to be made upon that
objection which the anti-Pedobaptists do so much insist on,
namely, that St. Luke, in reciting the lives and' Acts of
the Apostles,' does not mention any infants baptized by
them. Whoever observes the tenor of that history, and
considers the state of those times, will perceive that St.
Luke's aim is to give a summary account of the principal
passages of their lives; and of those passages especially
in which they found the greatest opposition. And in such
a history, (which is but short in all,) who can look for an
account of what children they baptized? Suppose the
life of some renowned and laborious modern bishop, or
doctor, were to be written, (say of Bishop Usher or Stillingfleet,) and that in a volume ten times as long as the
book of the Acts of the Apostles, who will expect to find
an account there of what children he christened? And
yet there -is no doubt but he did christen hundreds. [The
fact, that no mention is made of his having christened infants, would not prove that he had not christened any;
much less would it prove that he was opposed to the practice. So in the case before us.] The main business of an
apostle was to preach, [plant churches,] attest the truth of
Christ's resurrection, [doctrines,] and miracles, and not to
baptize, as Paul says, 1 Cor. i, 17.   The baptizing of
such as the apostles had convinced, and especially of their
children, would of course be left to deputies. Yet of the
six baptisms, (which are all that St. Paul is mentioned to
have been concerned in,) three were the baptisms of whole
households: such a one, and all his. And this is as much
as can reasonably be expected of so minute a circumstance."*
2. It has been objected to the argument for infant baptism derived from church history, that infants were introduced to the communion table, and made to partake of the
* Wall's History, part ii, chap. x, sec. 3.  See also closing remarks
of chap. ii. of this work.
224 
INFANT BAPTISM.
consecrated elements; and that if history prove infant
baptism to have been practised, it also proves infant com munion, with other absurdities; and so by proving too
much, it proves nothing.
1.) It is easy for an ignorant, cavilling mind, "to darken
counsel by words without knowledge;" alias, in modern
phrase, "to raise a dust" on any subject.  Powerless and
unfair as is this pretended objection, we shall give it a
brief notice for the sake of those who may not have the
information beforehand to detect its fallacy.  Let it bet
i'reiterated, then, for the last time, that it is not the truth
A and obligation of infant baptism that we attempt to prove
(save in a secondary manner) from church history, but
simply the fact of its apostolic antiquity.  This is a ques tion of fact, to be decided by testimony, and the testimony
we have adduced is not to be invalidated by any doctrinal 
errors of the witnesses on other, or even kindred topics. 
i Their testimony to the existence of certain opinions is un impeachable, while those opinions themselves may even
be absurd.
2.) But the main facts in the case are these:-It ap pears most probable, says Mr. Wall,* that in Cyprian's
time, A. D. 250, the people of the church of Carthage did
sometimes bring their children, younger than ordinary, to the
communion; and that in St. Austin's and Pope Innocent's
time, A. D. 400, in the western church, the communion was
given to infants from a belief of its necessity in order to
salvation, inferred from the words of Christ, "Except ye
eat the flesh, and drink the blood, of the Son of man, ye
have no life in you," —" The bread which I give is my
flesh, which I give for the life of the world," &c. That
the practice continued about six hundred years after this
time, namely, till about A. D. 1000, wivhen the doctrine of
transubstantiation coming into credit, occasioned the omis sion of the elements to infants, and the council of Trent,
A. D. 1560, finally prohibited the sacrament of the supper
to infants formally.  The Greek church, being always in ferior to the Latin, borrowed the practice from them, and,
as they did not receive the doctrine of transubstantiation,
and consequently had not the same ground for dropping the
practice, they continued it on, and practise it to this day,
* History of Infant Baptism, part ii, chap. ix, sec. 15-17.
225 
Now, what force this absurd practice may have to invalidate the antiquity of infant baptism, and the presumption
that, if it came from the very times of the apostles without
controversy, and as the universal practice of the church,
it came by their sanction and authority, I leave the reader
to judge.
Dr. Miller has justly remarked, that "infant communion
derives not the smallest countenance from the word of
God; whereas, with regard to infant baptism, we find in
Scripture its most solid and decisive support. It would
rest on a firm foundation, if every testimony out of the
Bible were destroyed.
"The historical testimony in favour of infant communion
is greatly inferior to that which we possess of infant baptismn. We have no hint of the former having been in use
in any church until the time of Cyprian, about the middle
of the third century; whereas testimony more or less clear
in favour of the latter has come down to us from the apostolic age,
"Once more: Infant communion by no means stands
on a level with infant baptism as to its utiversal, or even
general, reception."* We have seen what was the prevalence of the latter; the former was manifestly an innovation.  We can trace out its origin; its spread through the
churches; its discontinuance in the Latin church, and the
reason for it; but we cannot point to the time when infant
baptism originated, nor to the sect who denied it.  The
two cases, then, have no resemblance to each other.
3. Another attempt to evade the force of the historical
argument has been made in the pitiful effort to prove that
infants proper are not intended in the earlier mention of
infant baptism. Mr. Robinson says,  "The fact is, infants appear three' times, at three different and distinct periods, and the baptism of them is each
time claimed for a new and different reason. The first
time, it is an infant in lawt, able to ask to be baptized, and
accompanied by his sponsor or guardian. This happens
in the time of Tertullian. The second is an infant of
eight days old.  This haf pened about forty years after
the former, [in the time of Cyprian.] The last is a newborn babe," &c.t
* On Infant Baptism, p. 46.    t Hilst. of Baptism, pp. 165,166
226
INFANT BAPTISM. 
1.) The  reader must understand that all the Baptist
writers assert that infant baptism was first mentioned by
Tertullian, and that he opposed it.  This, they say, was
the date of the first attempt to introduce the practice. To
this, however, it is enough to reply, that Tertullian speaks
of infant baptism, of sponsors, &c., as facts.  He recog j nises them as already known, and not as then about to be
introduced.  Besides, he does not mention the circum  stance of novelty as an objection to the practice.  Perf:
mceiving this, and not willing to fully confide in the hypo- 
thesis that this was the proper origin of infant baptism,  i
/our opponents have fitted up a life-boat of the assertion 
tliat infntes, parv(los,'c., co0 not men iB ts "in the i
modern popular Eish sen'se of that word."  Mr. Robin-   t
_oAre. bo         ) 7-__i6 hcr s M.sJ 
son undertakes to make out that"Tetufllt'an and Irenaeus
!  speak only of" minors"-" infants in law," &c.; and he
i; finally concludes that these infants mentioned by Tertullian!
A might have been seven years old.*  He says, " they were J
ysand not babes."  Dr. Gale had previously taken the
same position in regard to the meaning of infantes, &c.;
and had ventured upon the opinion that those spoken of
by Ireneeus were children of any age under ten years.t
Later writers have been pleased to catch at the same
straw. So Mr. Hinton, after occupying a section, em  bracing five pages of his work, to prove that the Greek
and Latin words employed to designate children, youth
infants, &c., do not always express a definite sense with
regard to age, concludes that we must have something
more than the force of these terms to make out a case of
infant baptism, or to prove that, where they relate to bap  tism, a babe was baptized.t
2.) To this it is sufficient here to reply, that Tertullian
describes the kind of little children; or infants, which he
intends: they are s" such as cannot ask;" such as cannot,
of themselves, "come to Christ;" such as are of "guilt  less age;" "such as know not whither it is that they are
brought," when they are brought to baptism; in fine, they
are exactly the same description of infants as those which
they " brought to Christ" in the days of his flesh, for Ter  tullian says, respecting them, "Our Lord says, indeed,
* History of Baptism, pp. 159, 167, &c.
t Reflections, &c., pp. 524-527.    t Hist. of Bapt., p. 226, &c.
y';   -                                        ~ 4,,,  t~   0 t:'"
N
I
0.27
INFANTR BAPTISM., 
INFANT BAPTISM.
' do not forbid them to come unto me,' therefore, continues
he, let them come when they are grown up, when they under stand, when they are instructed whither it is that they come,
let themn be made Christians [baptized] when they can know
Christ." Are not these infants proper?
The infants of which Origen (who lived at the same
time with Tertullian) speaks are those who have never
committed any actual sins —who have no need of any for giveness, except of original sin. The reader can turn back
and read the descriptions which these two fathers give of
the parvulorum of whom they speak. Irenmus lived at the
same time with Tertullian and Origen, only he was the
oldest of the three, and used words, of course, as they used
them. In the same place he enumerates the various stages
of life with respect to age, and mentions infantes, et par vulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores, infants, and little
ones, and children, and youth, and elder persons.   Yet we
are gravely told that infants here do not denote babes
proper, but children under ten, (according to Dr. Gale's
conjecture,) or of about seven years, (according to Mr.
Robinson's.) And then, these children of ten years, and
under, are alleged capable of repentance and confession
of faith, and hence capable of believer's baptism. Thus
infant baptism, after all, is said not to be proved by the
/earlier fathers.  Will our opponents tell us what word
Irenwus should have used to denote an infant proper?vr
N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4.  1.) Baptist writers have resorted to another plan to
bring the historical argument for infant baptism into dis credit,-a plan well calculated to take with the ignorant.
It is a favourite method with them to preface all their
chapters on this subject with a long, dolorous, piteous
complaint concerning the corruptions of the church in the
first five, and even the first three, centuries. All the sayings of all the authors that have ever written on the early
church, which go to cast a shade upon its reputation, are
studiously sought out, and industriously scraped together,
to make one appalling picture of corruption and depravity.
The ultimate design of all this is, to make people think
that the Christian fathers are not worth believing, let them
say what they may respecting the primitive and apostolic
antiquity of infant baptism.  When they affirm that the
universal church believed infant baptism to be of Scrip
228 
INFANT BAPTISM.
tural authority, and practised from the earliest times, lo!
they are met with the reply, that the age in which they
lived was a very corrupt age, and therefore their testimony
is not to be received!
2.) It is stoutly affirmed that infant baptism first made 
its appearance in Africa-a place, it is said, noted for its
fertility in error;-and the country of its alleged nativity'
and the times of its alleged origin, are declared sufficient
to account for such a corruption of the Christian ordinance. 
All this is said, merely because it was in Africa that the 
first disputes concerning infant baptism arose.   Do not our
opponents know that Tertullian and Cyprian, as well as 
all others who mention infant baptism, speak of it as an
EXISTING custom?  How can it be said to have arisen in
Africa, when the earliest mention we have of the practice
speaks of it as ALREADY ESTABLISHED, and as already being 
the UNIVERSAL and UNDISPUTED faith of the church?  The
earliest disputes (if such they may be called) concerning
infant baptism all recognise the practice to have been i
ESTABLISHED.  This is the fact which, all along, we have
endeavoured to press upon the attention of the reader. 
Yet our opponents take these very notices of the practice, 
which do not relate to its validity, or its Scriptural author ity, and which unanimously concur in speaking of it as an
established custom-they take these notices, I say, as so
many proofs of the simultaneous date of the practice.
And, furthermore, because it happened to be in Africa that
these notices were first taken, therefore it was in that place
I that the practice of infant baptism originated.
The most curious part of these truly wonderful argu-!
ments is their logical conclusiveness -Infant baptism is
first noticed in Africa, (instead of Europe or Asia,) there fore it is a corruption of Christianity.  Again: Infant
baptism was first disputed about in corrupt ages of the
church, therefore it is itself corrupt. The major proposi,tions to these syllogisms the reader will readily supply.
3.) But we are far from wishing to slander the early
ages of the church.   They had their blemishes, their
errors, their childish and ridiculous opinions on many
topics; yet, the corrupt ages of the church, properly so
called-the apostate age-dates after the conversion of
Constantine, in the former part of the fourth century. But
229 
INFANT BAPTISM.
how can existing corruptions in the first three centuries
affect the credibility of the testimony of the writers of that
period concerning a matter of fact? Such corruptions might
shake our confidence in the correctness of their opinions,
but do they invalidate their testimony to an existing fact?
It is amusing to witness the management of our opponents.
/No people have ever made a more ostentatious display of 0
the musty records of Christian antiquity to corroborate 
anyioctrine than the Baptists, to set forth their theory of
exc sive immersion.  Whole books have been written on
the ",I story   aptism," with no other ultimate aim than
to set forth the authority of history (as far as possible) in
favour of this doctrine among others; and in these com pilations no corruptions of the church-no darkness of the
age-no heterogeneous, affiliating errors-deter them fromN
(taking'0own whatever of testimony'they can find, and
wherever they can find it.  And yet, if a Pedobaptist cite
witnesses from the first three centuries, (the purest ages
of the church before the time of Luther,) forthwith a hue
and cry of CORRUPTION is raised, and a vulgar prejudice is
excited against the testimonies thus brought forward.
5. The world, too, have been warned to withdraw their
confidence from all traditionary evidence in support of
Scriptural doctrine.  Long sections have been written in
illustration of the Popish character of all reliance upon
tradition in matters of Christian faith and practice. Bap tist authors have Jlaboured hard-to fix the impression upon
their readers that Pedobaptists, in this case, exalt tradition
to an equal authority with the Scripture canon.* They
have openly charged us with Romanism-with "preaching
another gospel"-with "making void the law Qf God" by
tradition-while for all this they have had no better grounds
than the fact that we have insisted upon the real force of
the historical argument-not as the basis of authority for,
but as strong corroborating evidence of, the apostolic origin
of infant baptism. If individual Pedobaptist authors have
at any time expressed an undue reliance upon tradition in
respect of this or any other subject, still, our opponents
should know that this is not a sufficient warrant for the
broad allegations they have laid at our door. But the fact
Dr. Gale's Reflections, &c., p. 243, &c.  Hinton's History
p. 209, &c.
230 
INFANT BAPTISMf..
is, Baptist writers begin by denying that the Scriptures
contain any proof of infant baptism, and then, by making
the entire proof rest upon tradition, they easily fabricate
and deal out their uncharitable censures. All their trumpet
alarms about Romanism and semi-papacy in the Protestant
church, respecting this subject, are  but as "sounding
brass," the moment it is admitted that the sacred Scrip tures do authorize infant baptism. All their charges are
predicated solely on the assumption that they are right,
and that we are wrong, touching the Bible argument.
Modest men! Can they ask for more?  Mr. Hinton mag nanimously says,   "In our closing chapter it will be demonstrated that one
of the great evils of the unhappy perversion of the ordinance of baptism is, that it tends materially to weaken the
attachment of those DELUDED by it to the great Protestant
principle, or rather principle of the true church, that' the
Bible, and the Bible ALONE, is sufficient for ALL matters
both of faith and practice.' Indeed it is manifest that
whenever Pedobaptists engage in a contest with the advo cates of Popery, they find their position on the subject of
baptism one of great embarrassment, to say the least, and
giving great advantage to their opponents."*
How happy it is for the church, and the world, that
some pure Protestants yet remain! —Protestants who have
not defiled their garments with the corrupting doctrine of
infant baptism, or adulterated their faith by the muddy
streams of tradition! And how unassuming is it, in our
Baptist brethren, to advertise themselves to the world as
being this same class of Protestants!
In closing this chapter, I have only to assure the reader
that I have not designedly omitted any argument or objection that has any important bearing upon the subject. I
have endeavoured so to exhibit the whole evidence in the
case as to enable him to judge for himself; and though it
were easy to swell this single chapter into a volume, yet
I feel confident that he has the just dimensions and real
merits of the historical argument before him.  Dr. Gale,
as we have before stated, gives up the controversy at 
Cyprian, and acknowledges that afterward infant baptism]
-was practised.  Mr. Robinson represents Austin as making
*History of Baptism, p. 214.
231 
INFANT BAPTISM.
"efforts to bring in the baptism of babes."   I have, therefore, carried the subject down to that father's time. I have
seen much to pain me in the process of the investigations
necessary to complete this chapter, so that, I confess, I
reluctantly throw aside my pen even now, and yet the
reader may think, perhaps, that an apology is due for
having detained him so long.
CHAPTER VI.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
OBJECTION I. It is urged against infant baptism that the
Bible requires "faith" in order to baptism; but as infants
are incapable of exercising faith, therefore they are not to
be baptized.
This is one of the most prominent and specious objec  tions that has ever been urged against the practice for
which we contend. It appears, at the first blush, to be
fair and unanswerable; and being easy of comprehension,
and summary in its logic, it has proved a very successful
weapon in the hands of the opponents of Pedobaptism.
/And here it must be conceded, that if the doctrine of this'
objection be true,-if the Scriptures do require faith in
Christ, in all cases, to precede baptism, then the contro  versy is at an end; infants are not the fit subjects of the
consecrating ordinance.   But it is proper to admonish the
reader, that after all the evidence which has been adduced
in support of infant baptism, no objection can be presumed
to be valid against it, before a most careful and rigid inves  tigation of its character. The objector himself is bound
to make out a fair and valid objection, of clear and indis  putable authority, before it can be admitted to have any
weight against arguments of so just and conclusive a
nature as the Scriptures furnish in support of the affirma  tive. Indeed, as we have once before remarked, if a doc  trine be fairly proved, no valid objection can possibly lie
against it. Truth cannot contradict itself. Either the
argument, therefore, or the objection, must fall to the
232
'L 
INFANT BAPTISM.
ground. Proceed we then to canvass the merits of the
present objection. And
1. It is based upon a wrong application of the language
of Scripture.
The Scriptural authority for making faith an indispen   sable and an invariable prerequisite for baptism is pro   fessed to be derived from the words of the apostolic com   mission, and from the history of the early Christian bap   tisms, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, where
preaching the gospel to the individuals, and repentance
and faith on their part, are mentioned as having taken
place before baptism was administered. But
1.) Does the apostolic commission teach any doctrine
irreconcilable with infant baptism? The words, as recorded
by Mark, chap. xvi, 15, 16, run thus: "Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  He that
believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that be   lieveth not shall be damned."  This, say our opponents
[ clearly places "faith" before "baptism," and hence exJ.    cludes infants.  But is this a lawful inference? Are we
authorized to conclude against infant baptism from any
thing that appears in this passage? I must confess I can   not so view it. It is true, that if no other circumstance
existed, that would naturally lead the apostles to practise
infant baptism, unless expressly prohibited,-if no evi   dence existed, aside from this text, to render this practice
lawful and binding; in such a case we could not infer, or
take authority for it from the words of this passage. But
even in such a case the text itself could not, so far as I
can appreciate, be urged as any impediment to the doctrine.
For, first, the very general terms of the commission, and
its exceeding brevity, forbid us to expect any details, or
specifications, that do not strictly belong to a commission
to "preach the gospel." Those points oil which the apos   tles might have received instruction previously, or even
subsequently, by other means, were here altogether omit   ted. The grand object of the Saviour seems to have been,
simply to authorize them, from his own lips, to promulgate
his gospel to all nations. The details of church ordi   nances, of church government and institutions, were left
to be supplied from other sources, or at a future time.
The occasion and manifest design, therefore, of this com
~
I z5,
233
e          i;         t.-..,~..,;   Z.        ~',
C   He   A  prosy/, 4f 3'','114, A - ai 
INFANT BAPTISM.
mission do not authorize us to expect great particularity in
the settlement of church ordinances. What information
we have in this commission, on the subject of church
institutions, further than the most general allusion to baptism, seems rather incidental to the main design. The
holy supper is not alluded to at all.
Secondly.  It being a commission to "preach the gospel" and to administer baptism, comprised in the most
succinct and comprehensive form of words, it is, as a
matter of course, and as all documents of so public and
general a character naturally should be, addressed to
adults. The duty of preaching, specifically, has reference
to adults, or to persons whose reason is so far developed
as to sustain a moral responsibility.   To preach, is to
publish, proclaim,  announce;  and  presupposes persons
capable of attending to what is published, proclaimed, or
announced. This is a primary and distinctive duty of all
the ministers of Christ. Now it is evident that publishing
the gospel has relation only to adults; and it is evident
also that this specific duty of the ministers of Christ has
no exclusive bearing upon the privileges or the condition
of children. A command to publish the gospel to those
who are old enough to act under a moral responsibility in
receiving or rejecting it, is not a command, either expressly
or constructively, to exclude children from baptism. Nor
is a command to baptize those who believe the published
truth any command, either directly or impliedly, to exclude
children from that ordinance. But on the contrary, as it
is evident that our Lord intended to authorize the apostles,
not only to publish the gospel and to baptize, but also to
plant churches, administer discipline, and do all other
things necessary to the final and most universal success
of their ministry; and as these varied powers of their
office are not specified, but, so far as respects this passage,
are wholly constructive; and as infant baptism may be, and
is, sustained on other ground of evidence; it follows that
this commission may, and must, be so construed as to
authorize the practice for which we contend.
It is evident that a command addressed to adults, containing duties appropriate only to adult, or responsible age,
cannot conclude either for or against the privileges and
condition of infants.  So far, theirefore, as this commission
234 
INFANT BAPTISM.
is specific in the duties it enjoins, or in the powers which
it confers, it must be regarded as leaving the question of
infant baptism wholly untouched; and in this light, we
should not feel authorized, from the text, either to affirm
or deny the doctrine. But it is evident that the commission itself confers large constructive powers upon the
apostles, while'it leaves out, and seems to pass over, the
greater amount of church institutions and ministerial funlctions. It appears to be a general commission to the apostles, and to all ministers of Jdiis Christ, to do all things
requisite to the existence and purity of the church, and
the universal success of the godspel; that is, all those things
that are directly, or by necessary construction, taught in
the word of God.
I cannot pass from this point without noticing an unfair
statement of it, which, as it occurs in a work of somewhat
recent date, evinces that the Baptists do not, even now,
always appreciate the ground taken by their opponents.
The author says: "But it is said,' The directions of Christ
here refer only to those who are capable of believing, and
the language does notforbid thle baptism of infants.' True,
these directions command none but believers to be bapized... But the terms of the commission, while they
enjoin the baptism of believers, do, most certainly, exclude
the baptism of any but believers.  If I commission my agent
to purchase for me a lot of Webster's large dictionaries,
does he not violate his instructions, if he also buy on my
account a lot of the abridgments? But, he says,' You did
not forbid the purchase of the abridgments.' Did notforbid the purchase! I ahswer, It was not necessary for me
to insert in your commission a prohibition against purchasing other books.  Your instructions were definite;
and when I directed you to buy the large books, you must
have known that you had no authority to buy small books;
you have done it at your own risk."* All this shows just
how far some authors look into a subject before they pronounce upon it. The analogy, however an unpractised
reader may be influenced by it, is an unfair and perfectly
puerile statement of the case.   For in the first place,
Pedobaptists do not take their authority for baptizing infants from the mere absence of a prohibition of such a
* Jewett on Baptismrn, pp. 90, 91i.
235 
practice, as the pretended analogy teaches. We know
not, indeed, how a Christian author could make such a
representation of the opinions of his brethren. All we
affirm touching this point is, that the total absence of a
prohibition, in this particular commission, does not prove
an universal prohibition; it proves nothing at all, either
pro or conz. And yet our author attempts to prove that the
absence of an express prohibition, in this specific case,
does directly prove a general prohibition. Furthermore,
the analogy is without any just force whatever, because,
although a command to buy large books, is no authority
for the purchase of small books; and a command to baptize believers is no authority for baptizing infants; yet, as
such commands contain no prohibition, there may exist
circumstances, or there may, in another way, be instructions communicated, to authorize the purchase of the small
books, alias the baptism of infants; and this may be such
a perfect matter of understanding between the master and
the "agent," as to render it wholly unnecessary to specify
it. And this, we maintain, is the exact state of the case
in relation to infant baptism.
But if we turn to Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, we shall find the
directions contained in the apostolic commission so arranged as to exactly suit the practice of infant baptism.
The command there reads, "Go ye therefore and make
disciples, or Christians, of all nations, baptizing them, &c.
;. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you." This text we have already noticed.
One incontestable proof that our Lord speaks exclusively
of adults, in Mark xvi, 15, 16, and that, therefore, his
words cannot be urged as any objection to infant baptism,
is, that whatever force this text may be supposed to exert
against the doctrine of infant baptism, it exerts in an equal
degree, and by perfect parity of reasoning, against the
salvation of infants.  It is contended that want of  faith
incapacitates infants for baptism; but it is said also, "he
that believeth not shall be damned."   Does want of faith
incapacitate, and unfit them for salvation? (If these words
are to be so construed as to bear against infant battism,
I. a~~~w~t rfi. n we mrlea.ad
on the score of their wont'"Tfatt, we urge the principle
still further  and say, for the same reason ther  must be
damned."  Now, by prving toouch Tromn t lese words
236
INFANT BAPTISM.
w
-~..,. 
I. w 
INFANT BAPTISM.
our opponents have proved just n ing ata,  and we are
brought back to the point from which estarted, namely,
that the phraseology of the text does not conclude either
for or against infant baptism, the language being intended
for, and appropriate to, adults only.
But we have pursue hhis argument thus far, on the
supposition that the text decides the order of baptism, in
relation to faith. This, however, is not the case. It does
not say, "He that believeth, and afterward is baptized;"
but, "He that believeth, and Is baptized."  Two things
are here required-faith and baptism.  The requisition is
put forth to adults.'lThe questions are, first, Do they believe? Secondly, I-Have they been baptized? If both precepts have been filfilled, the claims of the apostolic commission have been fully met.  And infant baptism may
meet the requisition as fully as baptism in adult age. Nor
is this a mere quibble.  It is a plain and literal statement
of the fact.  The verb OaTr,t(Oe-t  baptistheis is in the
Aorist passive participial form; and the sentence literally
reads, "He that believeth, having been baptized, shall be
saved," &c. This turn of the passage exactly suits the
hypothesis of infant baptism.
Baptist authors have felt the force of the fact, that if
children are not to be baptized for want of faith, so neither
could they be saved, and for the same reason; and Mr.
Carson, one of their most celebrated writers, has boldly
attempted to escape from the dilemnma by the following
extraordinary declaration:-" With reference to Mark xvi,
16,' He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved;
and he that believeth not, shall be damned'-it is said,
'If we infer that a person must actually believe, else he
cannot be baptized, we must also infer that he must actually
believe, else he cannot be saved; hence, infants cannot be
saved.' Certainly, if there were no way of saving infants
but by the gospel, this conclusion is inevitable. The gospel
saves none but by faith. But the gospel has nothing to do
with infants, nor have gospel ordinances any respect to
them. The gospel has to do with those who hear it. It
is good news; but to infants it is no news at all. They
know nothing of it. The salvation of the gospel is as
much confined to believers as the baptism of the gospel is.
None shall ever be saved by the gospel who do not believe
11
237
t-7I 
INFANT BAPTIS[I.
it. Consequently, by the gospel no infant can be saved
Infants are saved by the death of Christ, but not by the
gospel, not by faith. They are to be regenerated, but not
by the gospel; they must be sanctified for heaven, but not
through the truth revealed to man.  The position is there  fore good; none can be saved by the gospel but such as
believe the gospel; none can be baptized with the baptism
of the gospel but such as believe the gospel. There is no
exception in either case."*
All this only serves to show how hardly the author was
pressed with the difficulties of his position, and into what
labyrinths of absurdity men will sometimes plunge, in their
vain attempts to escape from the consequences of their
untenable and indefensible dogmas.   If infants are not,
/  saved by the gospel, then, unless the merest quibble is  \
l intended on the word gospel, have they not been  affected
bv the fall.'...  
"._TAnd thus also must the history of adult baptism be
understood in the Acts of the Apostles.  The requisition
of faith before baptism, in the case of the eunuch, and
others, proves indeed that the apostles did not baptize un   believing adults-that faithis an indispensable qualifica   tion fox baptism with reference to all such as can believe;
but further than this it does not prove.  It does not amount
to an exclusion of infants.
2. The objection is founded upon a wrong view of the
nature and importance of evangelical faith.
This, I am apprised, may seem bold. What we mean
is, that faith is made to assume the place of regeneration,
or that work of grace wrought upon the heart by the Holy
Spirit, whereby man is created anew in the image of God.
Now faith, in an adult, is only the instrument, or medium,
of. this great work, of which baptism is an outward sign
and seal. Why, then, should it be said that baptism pri   marily, and in its most original sense, is to be "regarded
as a public profession offaith in the Lord Jesus Christ?"t
True, faith is a prominent idea embraced in the import of
adult baptism, but it is not the original idea. As the in    strument of our salvation it is the most proximate of all the
means, but it is not the salvation itself  "Receiving the
END of your faith," says the apostle, "EVEN THE SALVA
* See Jcwctt on'Baptism, p. 93.
238
-1 A
PA
t Ibid., pp. 86-89. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
TION OF YOU'D SOULS," 1 Peter i, 9.  Why, then, should
the means be so publicly celebrated by a distinct and separate ordinance of Christianity, when the great " END" of
this means is not mentioned? Now the idea which we
are striving to bring to light here, we apprehend, is quite
simple, and is all-important to a right understanding of
the ordinance under consideration. When, for instance,
the traveller visits Breed's Hill, near Charlestown, Mass.,
he beholds a towering obelisk.  He asks its meaning;
and is very properly told that it is designed to commemorate the great battle which was fought there in 1775.
The idea is simple, and he readily calls to mind all the
circumstances of that great and awful event. The idea
of the battle is simple, that is, comprehended by one effort
of the mind, though generic. It is embraced in one word
-in one thought. Yet it comprehends under it a great
variety of circumstances-of means  and accidents-of
causes and effects. But who would be silly enough to
suppose that the grand, original intent of the monument
pointed to any isolated circumstances? One man might
say, The battle never could have been fought without arms
and ammnunition,-therefore the obelisk commemorates
these means, without which no stand could have been
made against British valour and discipline. Another man
might say the battle would not have been fought but for
the indomitable prowess of freemen,-therefore the obelisk
commemorates the unexampled valour of simple yeomen.
And this might seem a plausible account. But no. It is
a mistake. The grand, original idea is the battle; other
circumstances are necessarily included, but they are all
subordinate to this. This illustration, though crude, may
serve the more unskilful reader a good purpose. Baptism
is not, indeed, a commemorative ordinance, like the holy
supper, but it stands as an outward sign of something
unseen, because spiritual. As a sign it must, of course,
signify something, and that which it signifies, or points to,
must, according to all analogy, be simple.   It may be
generic, but the original idea must be one and singular.
That idea is regeneration, taken in its broadest sense.
Baptism, as we have before mentioned, is not an emblem,
or a representative of faith, or of repentance, or of godly
sorrow, or of prayer, or of any of the means of salvationi,
239 
INFANT BAPTISM.
but of THE SALVATION ITSELF-the regeneration of the
entire man. If, therefore, children be the subjects of regenerating grace, they may be, and are, in virtue of this
state, entitled to baptism. And if faith be, as it is in the
case of adults, required before baptism, it is solely because
it is necessary to place the adult in a justified and regenerated state before God, in which state he is on a perfect
parity of standing with the child, in respect of a moral
fitness for baptism. Faith, then, is mentioned, not on its
own account, but simply as being an immediate and inidispensable condition of justification, which alone is the
groundwork of fitness for baptism, both in adults and
infants.
OBJECTION II.-It is objected to infant baptism that it
is opposed to the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom.
Mr. Jewett has thus stated the objection, which he
quotes from the Christian Review: —" The ecclesiastical
constitution which commenced in the family of Abraham,
and was fully organized by the ministry of Moses, was not
only religious, but political. Church and state were then
one, for the civil government was then a theocracy.  It
embraced all who were natives of Judea. To be a member of the Jewish church and a subject of the civil government was the same thing; for to the church God held a
political relation. But to the Christian church God holds
no political relation. Though the Son is king in Zion,
and wields a mighty sceptre, yet he rules by a spiritual,
not a civil sway.   If, then, the kingdom  of Christ is
strictly spiritual; if the subjects of it'are born, not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God;' if they are not to say within themselves, We
have Abraham for our father, because God is able, of the
very stones, to raise up children unto Abrahamn,-then how
incongruous is it with the nature of that kingdom, to give
one of its sealing rites to those who can furnish no evidence of a spiritual regeneration, and who are connected
with the subjects of it only by ties of natural or civil relationship! What a confounding is this of the relations of
nature and of grace, of the claims of the flesh and of the
Spirit, of the immunities of the church and of the world!"*
* Jewett on Baptism, pp. 85, 86.
240 
INFANT BAPTISM.V
Such loose, and yet somnewhat plausible, reasoning has
had its effect upon many minds. But it is sophistry, and
adapted only to mislead. What if Moses gave to the Jews
a political code? Does this corrupt, or in the least degree
modify, their proper church character? It is true that the
civil and the ecclesiastical laws of the Hebrews emanated
from the same divine authority, but does this prove that
they were one and identical? or that the plan of the
Jewish church was half spiritual and half political? The
church was in its state of minority, or nonage, (Gal. iv,)
but it was the church of God it was the Christian church
in fact, but not in maturity.  It is easy to perceive that the
above objection calculates on making capital out of the
very obnoxious word "political." In this respect it is a
mere argumentum ad ignorcantiam, and will weigh only
with the ignorant. We have already fully vindicated the
proper church character of the Jews. If children were
ingrafted into a spiritual covenant by an ordinance of spi ritual import anciently, surely they may be ingrafted into
the same covenant by an ordinance of exactly similar
import now. If the spirituality of the covenant was no
impediment to their membership then, so neither is it at
the present time. If children are in a state of favour with
God, they are spiritually fit for baptism; and if so, the
spirituality of the church presents no obstacle to their
being baptized.
an   But there are statements in the above extract that are
strange indeed.  With what propriety or evidence it is 
asserted that the Jewish "church and state were one," is 
not easy to perceive.   Their magistracy and their priest- 
hood were totally separate; the ruler, the judge, the king, I
had no sort of control over the ecclesiastical affairs, ex  i
cept sometimes, as in the case of the' Sanhedrii, to settle 
questions judicially. The king was not regarded as the I
spiritual head of the nation, nor was the high priest, or 
prophet, endowed with political sovereignty.  The priesti
was not appointed or deposed by government,* nor were 
the functionaries of government elected or removed by the
priests.  Circumcision did not make a man a member of
the nation of the Hebrews, or a subject of the Jewish
* It is true, this was the fact in the corrupt and degenerate ages of
the nation, but we speak only of what the Mosaic law enjoined.
241
t
I
I
41 
INFANT BAPTISM.
government, as is ignorantly asserted in the above objection. It gave him no title to an inheritance in the Holy
Land.  Hundreds, and probably thousands, were circumcised among the Gentiles who never saw the Promised
Land, and who never submitted to the political code of
Moses.  Yet they were Jews in their religion, and of the
spiritual seed of Abraham. How, then, could the Jewish
religion be so mixed up with politics as to destroy the
proper spirituality of the Old Testament church? The
truth is, our opponents aim to make out that the Jewish
church was a sort of ecclesiastico-political constitutionnot a church-a something, they know not exactly what;
but any thing to make it dissimilar to the New Testament
church, so as to make all reasoning from the former to the
latter without foundation, and without force. In this they
will never succeed. They might as well attempt to convince the world that the Church of England is not a
branch of the true church of God, because it is a national
establishment, as to convince men that the political code
of Moses annihilated their proper church character, or
destroyed its spirituality.   Indeed, it appears that the
church to which Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, and
Daniel belonged, is not spiritual enough for our opponents!
The  genius of those doctrines  and church institutions
which fostered such exalted piety in them, and in innumerable others, does not meet the high requisitions of their
more enlightened views. All these things are of no avail.
It is of no avail that God himself has declared that "he
is not a Jew which is one outwardly;.. but he is a Jew
which is one inwardly;" that circumcision is not that
which is outward on the ftesh, but circumcision "is of the
heart, in the spirit;" it is in vain that God has declared,
all along, to his ancient people, that " the sacrifices of God
are a broken and a contrite heart"-that God requires
truth "in the inward parts"-that it was of no avail that
they, at any time, "drew nigh unto him with their mouths,
and honoured him with their lips, while their hearts were
far from him;"-in vain, I say, hath all this, and a thousand times more testimony, been borne to the spirituality
required and expected, and in many instances illustriously
attained, in God's ancient church; all, all is in vain. It
was not a spiritual church!  It was  an "ecclesiastico
242 
INFANT BAPTISM.
political" one!  Sltch a thurcTl as might admit infant mem  bers! I would not be sarcastic, but really, what reply
could be made to such assuming ignorance?
The hinging point of the present objection, however, is
[ this: Are infants in a state of grace?  If so, which we
affirm, the spirituality of the church is no objection to their
baptism; unless the church is too pure to admit all of]
t God's redeemed ones.
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OBJECTION III.-Infant baptism implies no exercise of
reason, or of choice, and therefore forms no presumption
of the truth or excellence of Christianity.
I find this objection stated in the following language by
Mr. Robinson; and as it bears so general an endorsement
by the Baptists, it is worthy of an insertion here:-" When
the subject [of writing a history of baptism] first darted
into my mind," says that author, "I own I was not thinking
of baptism, but of the evidences of Christianity. I was
entering on that argument, which is taken from its rapid
progress, and the multitude of its professors; and I was
the more struck with it by observing that the first ecclesiastical historian, Luke, in the book of Acts, makes frequent use of it; but I could not help at the same time
observing, that the same argument is not valid now, because a profession of Christianity doth not now imply an
exercise of reason and assent, but is put upon infants by
extrinsic force. The conduct of a multitude of wise, free,
and virtuous men forms a presumption in favour of the
reasonableness of their actions; but a multitude of beings
of no character cannot form even the shadow of a presumption. The first are the thousands of whom Luke
wrote; the last are the modern professors of the Christian
religion."*
We do not deem this objection as meriting a formal
notice; but as its high endorsement invests it with a
borrowed importance, we think it should not be wholly
omitted.  It may appear plausible to some, but, after all,
what is its real force? All the force it can possibly possess
is derived from the assumption that baptism is, primarily,
a profession of faith in the Christian religion. Destroy
this notion, and the objection falls to the ground. Now
*History of Baptism, Preface.
243 
INFANT BAPTISM.
we readily grant that, in the case of an adult, baptism
implies both the fact and the obligation of faith in the
Christian religion. But is this its primary and leading
signification? By no means. Nor does this admission at
all militate against the fitness of applying the ordinance to
infants. The principle is the same as that involved in
circumcision. But as we have so fully explained this
principle already, we forbear any further remarks in this
place. The whole difficulty originates in a very common
blunder with respect to the import of baptism. If this
point were set right, the others would correct themselves.
Baptism, like circumcision, is, primarily, a seal of righte-)
Gousness, not an emblem, or a profession offa.  If faith,
and a declaration o-  octrine, be necessary to salvation,
they are then and there necessary to baptism. But if not
necessary to salvation, they are not necessary to baptism.
The true philosophy of this subject is astonishingly mis apprehended by many.
OBJECTION IV.-Infant baptism is incompatible with
those natural rights of manil by which he is entitled to
choose for himself the religion he professes.
Mr. Robinson says,-" Nor doth infant baptism appear
less incongruous with the natural rights of mankind, than
it is with the wisdom and equity of Christianity.  Of personal liberty, one of the dearest branches is liberty of
conscience, the liberty of choosing a religion for one's self,
of which none is capable during infancy. It is the parent,
or the magistrate, who chooses what religion the infant
shall profess, and this is depriving him of a natural birthright,"*
Mr. Woolsey, a Baptist, in his Treatise on Baptism, has
a section (p. 322) under the following caption:-" INFANT
BAPTISM DEPRIVES THE SUBJECT OF THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT, AND THEREFORE IS CONTRARY TO THE
WORD OF GOD."
"Who but admires," says he, "those noble and evangelical sentiments of the framers of the Declaration of American Independence,' That all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
* History of Baptismn, Preface,
244 
INFANT BAPTISFM.
pursuit of happiness!"' —" Our parents," continues  he,
"have not the right to take advantage of our infiancy, and
then and there impose upon us what shall fetter our con   science when come to years of accountability.*
I have known some  sincere Christians to take this
ground.  "Children," say they, "should grow up, and
choose for themselves; then they will be satisfied. But
if we cause them to be baptized without their choice, and
tley grow up and become dissatisfied with their baptism,
and at the same time do not wish to become Baptists, they
will be subjected to many unpleasant, and even painful
circumstances. They will either be obliged to join the
Baptist church, which may not be the church of their
choice, in order to receive'believer's baptism,' or else
remain in a Pedobaptist church, with the painful convic   tion of having never received what they believe to be
Christian baptism, for no Pedobaptist minister would re   baptize them.   Thus their liberty of conscience is re   stricted, and we therefore prefer that our children should
grow up and choose the form and kind of baptism that
their own consciences approve. Then they will be satis  fied, and will not have to reproach us." This is the sub  stance of -the objection we wish here to meet. In reply
we observe, —
1. This is not the princie upon which the question of
our duy in the premises is to turn.  If it be a Christian 
l institution, enjoined by divine authority, we  arto practise
it, w{ithout re6rence to any such'Tuure contingencies as
are contemplat'ed in the  objection  but if the Bible ha
not sanctionedor enjo-nied  t, ten we are to omit it, not
because it may have a supposed repugnance to the rights
of conscience, but because the Bible does not require or
sanction it. This is the principle by which our conduct
is to be governed. Yet, if infant baptism, or any other"
practice or institution, plainly and really trenched upon;
the natural rights of conscience, or the moral liberty and'
ri,ght of choice which God has gLven to every mian as ani
inalienable property, and constituent part of his morali
nature, I could not doubt but such a practice, or irstitu-{
tion, must be plainly and essentially antiscriptural.
2. But the same objection is equally conclusive against
Vide Rev, E. Hall on Baptist Errors, p. 101.
11*
245 
INFANT BAPTISM.
all religious training, and especially that education in  a
particular system of doctrine which it is the pious concern
of every consci.ous and devout parent to  miprt tohis
child.
The moment the parent engages to instruct the child in
the Christian religion-or to pre-engage its faith and affec tions in favour of any particular system of doctrine-that
moment he undertakes to commit the child, by the strongest
principles that govern human conduct-namely, those of
early associations and religious habit-in favour of one
particular faith, to the exclusion of all others. The parent
uses his own superior reason and experience, to control
the pliant sensibilities and docile intellect of the child,
and to mould them according to a model that, in after-life,
it may disdain and utterly renounce. The child is not
consulted-it has no option-it is wholly submissive and
obedient to the authority of the parent, whose instructions
it is taught to receive without gainsaying, and to regard as
infallible. The child, in such a case, cannot be said to
have chosen its own religion. It may, in after-life, ap prove it, and be willing to lay down his life for it, but it is
a religion which the parent first chose for the child, and
in which; availing himself of all the advantages which
nature and Providence had put in his hands, he had taken
unwearied pains to establish the child, before it should
arrive at that period wherein it could be said to be capable
fof choosing for itself. Now, what is all this but choosing>
a religion for another? What is it but abridging the rights 
of conscience, according to the notion of the objection 
aforesaid?  If infant baptism be repugnant to the natural 
freedom and rights of conscience, so also, on the same 
principles, is the religious education of children.
It may be supposed, however, that the two cases are
not parallel. But wherein do they differ? Are the oblig,aftions of Christian institutions in any wise different fromn
those of Christian doctrine?  Have the former a binding
force upon the conscience different in kind or degree from
the latter? Is it any more the duty of parents to pre engage their children in the belief of the one, than in the
practice of the other? Or is it any easier to break away
from the restraints of one than of the other, in after-life?
The principle is involved in this simple question, whether
246 
INFANT BAPTISM.
a child, before the period of personal choice, may be
committed in favour of any one religious doctrine or insti  tution, to the exclusion of its opposite, without impairing
its natural liberty of choice. Infant baptism, if true, is no
more binding than any doctrine of revelation; and if false,
is as easily thrown off, in after-life, as the force of any
particular doctrinal education. The natural liberty of con  science is affected no more in the former case than in the
latter. Is it not plain, therefore, that
3. This objection is based on a licentious interpretation
pf the natural rights of conscience?  Nothing is more
clear, as a dictate both of revelation and nature, than that~
the responsibility of giving a right direction to the mind
and conscience of the child devolves wholly on the parent.
ut could there exist such a responsibility, in the absence
of a power and a right, both to choose for the child and
to enforce instructions? The thought is absurd. Where,
then, is the right of the infant to choose for itself? Or,
which is the same, where is their right to claim to be left
alone and neglected, as to their religion, until they can
choose for themselves? If the infant is endowed with
such rights, then, plainly, the parent can claim no antago  nistic right.  Nature cannot contradict herself.  If the
infant has a right to remain without a religious education,
or a- religious bias, previous to the period of personal
choice, then it is clear that the parent can have no right
to impart and enforce such instructions during all the ternm
. of immature reason.    But is this a doctrine of the Bible A
Is it a dictate of nature?'Is it iln accordance witi reason?
Is it-not raiier aTtitudinarian construction put upon the
doctrine of our naturalrights 
A cognate principle to the above, and one which is
often assumed by our opponents, in this controversy, is,
that infant baptism confers no obligation upon the child,
because the latter does not become a subject of the ordi lance, or a party to the covenant, by personal, voluntary
choice. Such objections appear the more plausible to
some, because they seem to coincide with the full and
unrestrained moral freedom of the actor.  But how falla cious are all such reasonings! Are moral beings under no
obligation to obey their Creator previously to their volun tarily engaging to obey him? Does the voluntary choice
247 
INFANT BAPTISM.
of duty make it any more sacred, or truly obligatory?
Baptism originates no obligation. It is, at most, merely
the sign, or recognition, of a pre-existing obligation. It
is the pledge and memorial of our devotion to God;  but
can it make the obligation of that devotion more sacred
than it was before?  Was the duty of the "son," to "go
and work in his father's vineyard," any more sacred after
he had said, "I go, sir," than at the moment that he uttered
the undutiful words, "I go not?"  Did his own personal
choice in the matter alter the nature of his obligation, or
modify or enhance it in the slightest degree?  Who does
not see that it did not? So neither can the want of per sonal choice in infants affect the binding nature of their
baptism.  They are obligated, if they grow up, to   leas
holy lives, according to the import of their baptism, no
ls than as if they had chosen their own baptism in
adult age.
"Consent is not necessary; for infants receive inherit ances. This is by forqe of mtunicipal laws. But are not
the laws of      d     mtu    s                 [it is said]
implies obligations, whic  an  e founded only on consent.'
Then it will follow that infants are not bound by human
laws, for -they have not assented to the social compact.
They are [moreover] under no obligations to obey parents,
guardians, or masters, because they either did not choose
them, or were incompetent to make such choice.  [Nay,
further,] they are not bound by the laws of God himself,
because they have not consented to his authority; and if
they never consent, they will be always free equally fromi
all obligations and all sin.  Such are the consequences of i
the above objection."*
It is folly to pursue this point further.  Reason and
piety revolt at such doctrines. Why, then, have our oppo nents descended to such things, and consented to employ
such sophisticated weapons against the doctrine of infant
baptism? In this their zeal has betrayed them into conse quences which they no more believe than we ourselves.
If Christian parents believe it to be their duty to bonse crate their children to God in baptism, they ought to do it
and no fancied rights of conscience onThe part of the
infant shiou-" deert em.  The mature reason and con                Ridgeley's Divinity, vol. iv, p. 187.
248
./ 
INFANT BAPTISM.
science of the parent must act for the child, while its own
remain undeveloped; and whatsoever the parent judges  to
be right, according to the best means of information in his
power, it is his duty and his prerogative to do. If, after
all this, he errs, it is the child's misfortune-the parent's
infirmity-and to God alone is he held amenable.   The
4 whole subject, then, resolves itself back into the question,
Is infant baptism a divine institution?
4. It is 6 vious, therefore, ta the objection assumes,
as an established principle, the very point to be proved.
It assumes that infant baptism is an antiscriptural insti   tutionl.  If it be a divinely authorized institution, there can
be no doubt but it ought to be practised; if not, it ought
not, on any ground, to be allowed in the churches.
5. As to the fact that some persons, who have been
baptized in infancy, having grown up, become dissatisfied
with their baptism, this can never be made a valid objec  3 tion to the practice. The dissatisfaction that an adult may
feel with regard to his baptism in infancy can formn no
conceivable objection to the truth and validity of the ordic
nance.   How many persons become dissatisfied, in after   life, with their early religious education! Men are con    stantly shifting their position, in regard both to doctrine
and to church government.   And if this circumstance
might be urged as a proof of the truth of their new faith,
the world would be confused more than ever with the
heterogeneous testimony of conflicting partisans. That a
man abjures his former faith is no evidence of its being an
error; and that he becomes a willing martyr to his new
doctrines is no evidence of their truth.  The circumstances
of the case may fully attest his sincerity, but can furnish
no proof whatever of his infallibility.  And what if some
( persons renounce their baptism, because it was received
in infancy.  Is this an argument to prove that infant bap\
tism is an error, and not to be administered?  We  have
known persons to become dissatisfied with their baptism,
though received, by their own choice, in adult age; but
does this prove the ordinance void, and that it ought not
%to be administered? Must we wait until a man has shifte
[his opinions for the last time, before we may venture to
administer to him the ordinances, and then administer
them in a way to suit the final state of his opinions?  We
249 
INFANT BAPTISM.
cannot forestall what changes the faith of an individual
may undergo, nor are the ordinances at all affected by
these things. The only fact that it concerns the adminis trator to know, as the guardian of the purity of the ordi nance, is, that it fitly applies to the candidate, according to
its true spirit and intent, at the present time. His duty is
then obvious-the administration is then fully authorized,
and completely guarded.
But the point we are now considering is of small importance. The broadest dimensions of this objection are
too insignificant to beget any alarm among Pedobaptists,
or to justify any flattering expectation of triumph on the
part of their opponents.   The  probability that children
will become dissatisfied with their baptism, in after-days,
on the supposition of their having been properly educated
in religion, and instructed in this particular topic, is so
small, as to be wholly unworthy of a special consideration.
If parents do not seriously intend to train up their children
"in the nurture and admonition of the Lord"-if they do
not intend to instruct them in the nature of baptism, and ill
the obligations of which it is a recognition, as well as the
fact that they themselves have been early dedicated to God
by this solemn rite; if, I say, they do not teach their children these things, it would doubtless be better that they
should wholly omit their baptism.   It would be trifling
with sacred things, and with the awful mysteries of religion, to consecrate a child to God by a divine ordinance,
and then neglect to educate and bring it up in a manner
suited to such a solemn dedication. But if proper pains
were taken with children, to inform them as to the fact
and nature of their baptism, and their obligation to answer
its holy and mystical import, there is no reasonable probability that they would ever become dissatisfied in afterlife. Few, very few, evenil now, indulge any doubt of the
entire sufficiency of their early consecration, notwithstanding the too prevalent irregularities perceptible in the plan
of religious education generally adopted in reference to
children.
OBJECTION V.-It is objected to infant baptism, that it
can do no good.  It is often asked, "What good can it do
to baptize an unconscious babe? Does it confer any spi
250 
INFANT BAPTISM.
ritual benefit? Will it make its salvation more sure, if it
should die in infancy, or its manhood more exemplary and
pious, if it attains to years? Is the infant conscious of any
advantage received, or capable of appreciating or receiving
any personal good through this means? And, if not, where
is the benefit of infant baptism?"
There is, to this objection, such an air of impertinence,N
that I have hQsitated long on the question of notic   it. J
~~~~~~.z........   ~ q.      ~ou_  a  t.y-et
But when it is considered that it has its influence over
many sincere minds, who are not much accustomed to
argumentation, and who, therefore, do not always appre ciate what belongs to a valid objection, the prominence we
here give it will be the more readily excused. Our object
is to attain to truth, and to disabuse the minds of sincere
inquirers after truth of all erroneous impressions, as far as
it may be discreet and obligatory upon us to pursue the
evasive forms of error. In attempting to seize, and detain
before the mind of the reader, the Protean shapes of this
objection, we remark,(   1. It assumes to judge of divine institutions by the test
of utility.  The moment  a man brings the institutes of
(eligion to this test, he is in the greatest daner.  True,
the institutes of religion are all useful; an  if any one
could be pointed out and clearly demonstrated not to be
subservient to a useful end, one could not reasonably doubt
that it emanated from some human source. But the ques tion is, Is it our prerogative to subject the truth and autho rity of the Christian institutes to such a test? Are we at
liberty to receive or reject them, according to our notions
of their utility, or their inutility?  That all divine institu tions are useful, we doubt not; but is our opinion of their
usefulness to be the ground on which we are to receive
them? I think no Christian is prepared to assume this
position. If evidence is afforded sufficient to produce a
rational conviction that a certain act, or course of conduct,
is required of God, it doubtless becomes our duty to obey,
without calling in question the utility of the requirement.
Human wisdom is ever rife with suggestions for the im  provement of the divine economy. Adam might have
questioned the wisdom and fitness of the prohibition laid
on the tree of knowledge.   Abraham  might have plead
eloquently for the privilege of remaining in his parent
251 
INFANT BAPTISM.
country; and human wisdom would have suggested an
emigration of the patriarch at that time eastward, instead
of westward, although after-history has demonstrated that
such a movement would have defeated the great objects
of his " call." How numberless are the dangers that beset
such a course of reasoning! The mind would soon be led
into the wilderness of skepticism, and left to "stumble
upon the dark mountains" of unbelief.  If we are satisfied
God has required of us any particular act, we should
cheerfully obey, not doubting its ultimate utility, or questioning its propriety, or, above all, cavilling where we
ought to acquiesce.
2. We have not the slightest objection to meeting our
opponents on this ground, and, as far as it is permitted to
man to judge of the divine commands by his perceptions
of their utility, to rest the fate of this subject on the issue
of this argumnent.  But our opponents must remember that
they cannot hold us to any principle, or rule of judging, in
this case, that does not hold equally good, and that they
themselves will not cheerfully abide, when applied to doctrines ex confesso of divine origination.
( The Romish doctrine, as expressed by the council of
/Trent, declares the sacraments to confer grace ex opere
operato, that is, by the external administration of them.,
Tlhis the Protestant  principle contradicts.  We do not hold
thkatan in erent efficacy resides in tn external ordinances
themselves, that by the mere act of administration is made
over to the recipient.  In this sense, according to Protestant principles, baptism could be of no service either to
adults or infants.  How, then, can infants be benefited by
baptism? We answer, Their gracious interest in the
covenant is thereby attested; the pledge of the divine
blessing is thereby given; their own gracious state is recognised; and they are thus, by divine direction, made
members of the Christian family, according to the rules
of which they are required to be brought up, and to live.
This subject will be fully noticed in another chapter.
But the important feature of this objection, to which we
invite particular attention, is, that it assumes that an infant
is incapable of being benefited by a religious ordinance,
because it cannot now reflect, and reason, and comprehend the nature of things, like persons of maturer years.
252 
INFANT BAT TISM.
The phrase, "unconscious babe," is a favourite expression
with our opponents, to which they often give a peculiar
emphasis. But what is the force of this objection? What
force ought to be conceded to it, when it openly contra  dicts established facts, and empties its contempt upon
usages which Jehovah himself has sanctioned! What
good did it do to the "unconscious babes" that were
brought to Jesus, that " he took them up in his arms, put
his hands on them, and blessed them?" Were they con  scious of the deed performed by our Saviour? Could they
reason upon it?  Could they at all comprehend it? We
hope our Baptist brethren will answer these questions.
But whether it availed any thing or not, the Saviour said,
"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
l me;" and this command is as binding on us now as on
the disciples anciently.
{   But stranger still.  God commands Abraham, and hisA
natural descendants, to circumcise their male infants. 
Can any person inform us what good this ever did them?1
I know our opponents would escape by saying that cir  cumcision was a mere mark of Jewish descent, and served
only a political purpose; although it unfortunately happens
that God himself has declared that that is not circumcision
which is merely outward, on the flesh, "but circumcision
is thiat of the heart, in the spirit, whose praise is not of
men, but of God;" and also that Abraham's circumcision
was "a seal of the righteousness of faith," Rom. ii, 29,
and iv, 11.  These are all-important facts for our oppo  nents to account for, on the principle that an'" unconscious
babe" can derive no benefit from a religious ordinance,
before they approach us with this same principle, and i
claim the privilege of applying it to the disproof of infant
baptism.  If they urge the application of the principle in
the latter case, we shall certainly urge it in the two former;
and i'f they hold it to be an objection to infant baptism, we
i shall hold it to be an objection to the wisdom and fitness
of circumcision, and a reason why our Lord ought not to
have taken up little children in his arms and blessed them.
Strange that the Saviour did not know that "unconscious
babes" could not be blessed! Will not our Baptist brethren
count the cost of their own arguments before they adopt
them?  But let them beware   The Saviour may rebuke
253
L-7 
INFANT BAPTISM.
them, as he did the disciples, with the significant words,
t" FORBID TiEM NOT."
OBJECTION VI.-An  objection to infant baptism is
founded on the omission of a word in Acts viii, 12. It is
there stated that the Samaritans, "when they believed
Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of
God, were baptized, both men and women." Here, it is
said, if but a single word had been added, this whole
controversy about infant baptism might be brought to a
close, or, rather, would never have occurred. If it had
read, "men and women, and children," the text would have
furnished a clear precedent for infant baptism, and all doubt
of its Scriptural authority would be removed.
Great use is made of this trifling circumstance by Baptist writers; and their appeals, ad ignorantiam, (for they
are no better,) are not without their effect. The circumstance of so trifling an omission, where so much depended
upon explicitness; and also the total omission of the mention of children, where the historian professes to be very
explicit, and where, according to the Pedobaptist theory, it
is supposed infants must have been baptized; these circumstances are dilated upon with great seriousness, as possessing vast weight in the present controversy. But let
us examine this matter:  1. We call in question any man's right to assume what
the Scriptures ought to say on any given subject, and then
construct an argument, pro or con, on the mere authority
of that naked assumption. With such a license a man
could decide any controversy whatever. It is well known
that in former days a great controversy raged in the church
as to whether the earth moved round the sun, or the sun
round the earth; whether the earth was round, or flat;
whether it had afoundation, or was pendulous, &c.; and
many carried their appeals directly to the Bible. These
controversies gave rise to severe persecutions, and lasting
disgrace to religion.  A few words, direct to the point, had
they been inserted in the Bible, had prevented all this
scandal.
The geological age of the earth has been asserted to
contradict the chronology of Moses; and the enemies of
revelation have, for many years past, exulted in the sup.
2 00' 4 
I-\FANT P,APrISM:
posed discovery, at last, of arguments drawn from the solid
framework and superficial strata of our globe itself, sufficient to destroy the credibility of our sacred writings.
Many Christians have felt their confidence shaken for a
time, and long and painful has been the suspense of many
minds respecting the issue. Science has never made so
formidable an attack upon revelation as by the skeptical
geology of modern days. The event, with many minds,
is not yet decided. Yet, if Moses had added two words to
the second verse of Genesis,-if he had written," And ages
afterward the earth was waste and desolate," (or "without
form, and void,") no apparent ground of difference between
the Mosaical and geological antiquity of the earth could
ever have existed. How much, apparently, would have
been spared to the cause of truth!  But are we at liberty
to reject revelation on the ground of such an omission?*
So is it with the doctrines of the Trinity, of the divinity
of Christ, of vicarious atonement, and indeed of every other
doctrine which has ever been a subject of dispute among
men. If certain express words had been added to the
present text, touching them severally, painful controversies
had been spared the world.  Every man who doubts any
doctrine of-Scripture imagines he has found a radical defect in the present Scriptural proof of that doctrine, and
that if the Holy Spirit had ever intended to teach it at all,
he would have taught it in a particular form of words,
which he has now, at length, discovered to be the only
suitable method of conveying the doctrine. Thus, every
man proposes to the Author of revelation his own condition of faith. It would be endless to enumerate all the
demands, of a perfectly kindred character to the one in
question, which have been made upon revelation for additions here, and additions there. So it is. After all the
miracles of Christ's spotless life, yet some cannot believe
on him; an important item of evidence is omitted; "If he
be Christ, the chosen of God, let him now come down from
the cross."  How easy it is to make converts!
* I would not seem to betray any doubt, in my own mind, of the
sufficient clearness of the Mosaic account, and of its entire harmony
with the real facts of geological science. I merely allude to the con.
troversy as an existing fact, and an evil that might have been prevented by a few express words, had they been inserted in the Mosaic
narrative.
2 5 
INFANT BAPTISM.
2. The phraseology of the text in question does not, as
the objection assumes, preclude infants. We are not to
suppose that infants are excluded, merely because they
are not specified; this would involve us in difficulty when
we came to apply the same principle to the explanation
of other texts. If our opponents assume that children
were not included in the number of baptized Samaritans,
merely because they were not expressly mentioned, then we
understand them, and they must not complain if we hold
themn to the same principle of interpretation in all similar
cases.  Now, let us try the principle.
It is said that Joshua and the Israelites destroyed the
city of Ai, and that "Joshua drew not his hand back...
'ntil he had utterly destroyed ALL the inhabitants of Ai."
Now, the question is, Were there any infants destroyed in
this city? The sacred historian says, "And so it was, that
ALL that fell that day, BOTH OF MEN AND WOMEN, were
twelve thousand, EVEN ALL THE MEN (population) OF Ai,"
Josh. viii, 25, 26.  Here, then, it is stated that ALL the
population of the city was destroyed, and men and women
are enumerated, just as they are in Acts viii, 12.  But no
mention whatever is made of infants. Were there, then,
any infants in this city? And remember, the question is
not, whether, judging from other causes, the city probably
contained infants; but, whether the mere omission of infanits, in the enumeration of" men and women," &c., proves
that there were no infants. And I believe, if any man
should assert that, because "men  and womnen" are expressly mentioned, and infants are wholly omitted, in this
enumeration, therefore we are to infer that this city of
twelve thousand inhabitants contained no infants; I believe, I say, that such a man would be commiserated by
every Baptist in the land, as one that had lost his senses.
Why, then, will they continue to urge upon us such a
sheer puerility in the shape of an argument? Is it because
they are in want of valid arguments?
The reader may also turn to Judges ix, 49, 51. He
will there find, in verse 49, an account of the destruction
of "about a thousand men and women" in the tower of
Schechem. Infants are not enumerated. Is this proof
that there were none? In verse 51 he will find an account
256 
INFANT BAPTISM.
of the flight of " all the men and women" of the city of
Thebez to the tower within the city. Children are not
mentioned. Had this city no children? According to the
principle of interpretation which our opponents have applied to Acts viii, 12, we are to infer that Thebez, the
tower of Schechem, and the city of Ai, contained no children, because, after an express enumeration of "men and
women," as composing their population, no infants, or
children, are mentioned. If the principle hold good in one
case, it holds equally good in all the rest.
We see, therefore, that nothing can be gained by our
opponents from the circumstance of the omission of infants
in the enumeration of Acts viii, 12; and the most we can
make of that enumeration is, that it is a mode of expression merely tantamount to " male and female"-" they were
baptized, both male andfemale."'
3. But finally, if the text in question had read, "They
were baptized, men, women, and children," still, we have
no reason to believe our opponents would have been satisfied. Doubtless they would have gone to worki to prove
that it meant an "infant in law' -a "minor"-and not an
infant proper. This they have done already in a case
where far less depended on the argument than would be
the case in the passage before us, if the word children
were added. Tertullian, in the second century, speaks
of the baptism of children, and not only calls them little
children, (parvulos,) but describes them as such. (See
page 227, &c., of this work.) Yet page after page has
been written by Baptist authors, to prove that the Greek
and Latin words for children, infaints, &c., meant, often,
only minors-infants in law. So we apprehend it would
be if the word children had been inserted in Acts viii, 12.
It is in vain that men call for Lazarus to convince them,
when they reject Moses. They would not receive him.
OBJECTION VII.-An  objection  to infant baptism is
founded on 1 Peter iii, 21, "Baptism doth also now save
us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience toward God.")
The stress of the objection lies on the supposition that
infants are incapable of the ends of baptism. Baptism
257 
INFANT BAPTISM.
imports the "answer of a good conscience toward God;"
infants are incapable of this; therefore they are improper
subjects of baptism.
1. The word  epwstt a eperotema, translated answer,
is supposed to refer to the answer to questions propounded
to the candidate at baptism, or to those questions themselves as the word sometimes means demand, as well as
answer-or to the whole examination, including both question and answer.   Dr. Robinson says, "The word is
spoken in the New Testament of a question put to a convert at baptism, or rather of the whole process of question
and answer, that is, by implication, examination, profession," &c.* The word occurs in no other place in the
New Testament, and but once in the Septuagint, in Dan.
iv, 17, (Sept. iv, 14,) where it is rendered in the English,
demand.  The verb -7rep)T-awo eperotao, from which it is
derived, signifies to ask, inquire, demand, &c.  So, also,
its corresponding Hebrew  ~'t shaal.  See Gen. xxiv, 47;
Judg. iv, 20; et alibi.
Now, it is plain that the apostle here intends the spiritual import the essence itself-of baptism; namely,
that it is not merely an outward washing, but a washing
of the mind, or purity of conscience. He speaks of baptism here, just as it is natural to speak of it-as it applies
to adult age, and as obligating to a holy life.  As if he
had said, "Baptism doth now save us; however, the ends
of baptism are not answered when  the person has answered certain questions of doctrine, but when the conscience gives a right response to God." I say, the address
of the apostle is made to adults, and to such his words are
particularly applicable. But this does by no means exclude the idea of infant baptism. Infants are placed under
the same obligations by baptism, to profess sound doctrine
and lead holy lives, as age and -reason shall render them
capable.
But the particular point I would notice here is, that
subjects are often spoken of as if they had an application
only to adults, when, at the same time, they have an equal
application to infants; or as having an application only to
males, when they equally apply to females   The point to
* Greek and English Lexicon.
,-, 5 8 
INFANT BAPTISiT.
which we allude is what is called speaking of a subject
in the abstract. Baptism is often thus spoken of in the
New Testament; and a grievous error with many persons
in ordinary, who reason on this and other topics, is, that
they take the language which was used only as applicable
to an abstract question, and apply it to a specific case.
For instance, to illustrate the principle, in Gen. vi, 5, it is
said, "And God saw the wickedness of man that it was
great," &c. Here the masculine gender only is employed.
But will any one argue that the female sex were excepted
in the divine mind from participating in this general wick edness, merely because this wickedness is affirmed of
man? Every one sees that it is the fact, in the abstract the fact of general depravity of morals-that is asserted,
without any attempt to distinguish between the compara tive corruption of the sexes. And when Jehovah threatens
that his "Spirit shall not always strive with mans," and
that he will "destroy man from the face of the earth," does
not the dereliction in the one case, and thie visitation in
the other, apply to human beings, of whatever sex?  And
so of a thousand other cases we might mention, where a
distinction is to be made between a general question and
a given case; and where the language is to be explained
accordingly.
Saving grace is often mentioned as coming "through
faith."  "By grace are ye saved through faith."  " He
that believeth, shall be saved; and he that believeth not,
shall be damned." "Whosoever believeth on him shall
not perish, but have everlasting life." Here grace is
limited to the exercise of faith.  Infants are not excepted.
No intimation is given here of any special adaptation of
the atonement to infants.  And this, too, is in harmony
with the tenor of Scripture phraseology. Yet, does thex
i Saviour exclude infants from heaven for want of faith?.
What I wish the reader to notice is, that language is often
addressed to adults which seems appropriate only to thenm,
and yet that same language does not imply an exclusion
of infants from sharing an equal interest in the things thus
set forth. The reader can easily apply these remarks to
circumcision, which was often spoken of as applicable
only to adults: thus, "Circumcise the foreskin of your
heart  and be no more stiff-necked."  "Circumcision is
259 
INFANT BAPTISI.
not that which is outward on the flesh... but circumcision
is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;
whose praise is not of men, but of God." Deut. x, 16;
Rom. ii, 28, 29.  This high spiritual and practical import
of circumcision was as impracticable to infants then, as
"the answer of a good conscience toward God" is to the
same class of persons now. Yet, the Jewish child, as he
grew up, was taught his duty to assume these obligations,
(which, indeed, God had already devolved upon him, and
which did not, and, in the nature of things, could not,
originate in baptism,) and to carry out the purport and
meaning of his circumcision. So with the baptized child
now. But
2. The scope of this passage from Peter is most de cidedly in favour of infant baptism. Here we have pre sented to view a family saved by the operations of the
faith of its head.  "By faith NOAH, being moved with
fear, prepared an ark TO  THE  SAVING OF HIS HOUSE,"
Heb. xi, 7.  "In like manner baptism doth also now save
us." As Noah and his family were anciently saved by
water, so now also may believers and their families be
saved by baptism.  Let every believing parent, then, re ceive the- ancient admonition and command of Jehovah,
which was addressed to Noah, " Come thou, AND ALL THY
HOUSE, into the ark."  For a further illustration of this
passage, I beg to refer the reader to my treatise on the
Mode, &c., of Baptism, chap. vii, sec. 2.
260 
INFANT BAPTISM.
CHAPTER VII.
BENEFITS OF INFANT BAPTISM.
SOME observations which migiht properly fall under this
head we have already forestalled, and shall endeavour not
to repeat them here.  The subject of the present chapter
has this indication of truth and merit, that it has drawn
down upon itself the sneer and ridicule of such as could
oppose to it no better weapons.   The reader will understand that we have no compliment to pay to such illiberal
and grovelling attempts, and, passing them by, shall address our remarks to his candour and his understanding.
The errors that have been held in connection with infant
baptism by its friends, as well as the prejudices that have
been enlisted against it by its enemies, make it incumbent
on us, before we commence our enumeration of its benefits,
to state what it does not accomplish for the subject.
SECTION I.
~   1. Baptism does not, in any peculiar sense, accomplish\
the regeneration of the infant; nor do we consider that the
child is regenerated AT baptism any more than before, or
after.  We do not consider that baptism accomplishes any)
more for a child than for on adult.
It is well known to the student in church history, that
the Christian fathers associated a saving efficacy with thisi
ordinance. Their ideas, however, do not appear to be
always clear, or satisfactory to themselves. A general
tendency existed to overrate the virtues of baptism, although their expressions are often such as an ultra Protestant himself could not hesitate to adopt. We are far,
however, from adopting, without exception, either their
style, or their sentiments, touching this point. But whatever excess, and tendency to superstition, might have
marked the progress of opinion on this subject during the
first three centuries after the apostles, it is evident that the
extravagant dogmas of Romanism, in-after-ages, were far
in advance of the theology of the fathers.
12
-32;;;;~
261
I
i
k 
INFANT BAPTISM.
The Church of Rome not only associate a saving virtue
with the administration of baptism, but derive that virtue
directly from the administration of the external ordinance
itself. (See Objection V, of the chapter on "Objections,"
&c., in this work.) It is not easy to define this idea.
"This barbarous phrase, opus operatum, which is utterly
unintelligible without an explanation, signifies the external
celebration of the sacraments. It has been defined by
Popish writers to be the performance of the external work,
without any internal motion; and sacraments have been
said to confer grace ex opere operato, because, besides the
exhibition and application of the sign, no good motion is
necessary in the receiver. All that is required is, that no
obstacle shall be opposed to the reception of grace, and the
only obstacle [which they admit] is mortal sin. But as
sins of this class are reduced by Roman casuists to a very
small number-all others being accounted venial-the exceptions to the efficacy of the sacraments which are made
by this negative qualification are quite inconsiderable....
It is in vain to ask any proof of this doctrine from Scripture, for none is to be found."*
Another dogma of the Church of Rome respecting the
efficacy-of sacraments is, that the priest who administers
the sacrament "must intend to do what the church does."
The meaning of this is, that the intention of the priest is
essential to the efficacy of the rite.  If he intend the sacrament to be efficacious, it is efficacious; but if he intend
it otherwise, it is then a mere external symbol, without
any accompanying grace. This absurd and impious doctrine invests the priest with absolute power to lock up or
unlock, at will, the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.
But it is not our intention to pursue this error. It bears
its own refutation upon its forehead.
Baptismal regeneration is a doctrine that has been
charged upon the Protestant Episcopal Church, and other
branches of the Protestant family.
It is difficult to affirm that the Church of England
believes this or that respecting this doctrine; and it is
difficult because, while one party in the Church affirm,
and the other deny it, and while both alike hold to the
Liturgy, and while both these parties are large and re               Dick's Theology, vol. ii, p. 360.
262 
IN IANT BAPTIS.$I.
spectable, it is not an easy matter to say which is the
Church. The Church of England certainly could not be
supposed to hold to both sides of this question. Doubtless
one of these parties holds the doctrine of the Church, while
the other holds a dissenting opinion. The present state
of opinion on this and other topics, in the English Church,
is thus alluded to by Dr. Pusey, in a letter to "Richard,
lord bishop of Oxford:"-" I own, my lord, I have myself
shrunk from stating fully the degree of evidence which
there is, that baptismal regeneration is the doctrine of the
Church of England, lest in these days, when men hold so
laxly by their Church, and are ready to quit her upon any
ground of difference,-ready to suspect her, and very slow
to suspect themselves,-the result of proving that baptismal
regeneration is the doctrine of our Church, would be that
men would rather forsake their Church than embrace her
doctrine....
"Not as if I entertained any doubt, my lord, that we
speak with our Church on this point, and that every syllable
of her teaching in her services for baptism, confirmation,
and the catechism, goes the same way; and that her Articles imply the same thing; but that it seems useless and
ungracious for us to press upon them, that their Church
holds the doctrine, until their prejudices against it shall
first be, as those of many are being, somewhat softened."*
But what is meant by baptismal regeneration? The
doctrine of the Church of England (we speak of what is
called the "high-Church party") is, that the child is, ordinarily, regenerated AT baptism, and BY baptism, as a means.
This is according to the ordinary appointment of God.
Regeneration, they hold, is the result of two concurrent
causes,-the outward washing of baptism, and the Holy
Spirit.  The outward ordinance is the instr,ttnent-the
means of conveyance-the Holy Spirit is the agent.  They
do not believe that regeneration is always necessarily confined to baptism, but that it is ordinarily so; that by the
appointment of God men are thus to be regenerated, although salvation is not necessarily dependant on baptism.
On this subject, however, we are constrained to say, their
language is often strong.
Dr. Waterland says,-" Every one must be born of water
* Letter, pp. 79, 80.
263 
INsFANTr BAPTISll.
and of the Spirit: not once born of water, and once of the
Spirit, so as to make two new births, or to be regenerated
again and again, but to be once new born of both, once
born of the Spirit, in or by water; while the Spirit primnarily and effectively, and the water secondarily and instrumentally, concur to one and the same birth, ordinarily the
result of both, in virtue of the divine appointment."...
"Regeneration is the work of the Spirit, in the use of
water; that is, of the Spirit singly, since water really does
nothing, is no agent at all."...
"If we look either into the New Testament, or into the
ancient fathers, we shall there find that the sacrament of
baptism, considered as a federal rite, or transaction between God and man, is either declared or supposed the
ordinary, necessary, outward instrument in God's hands of
man's justification: I say, an instrument in God's hands,
because it is certain, in that sacred rite, God himself bears
a part, as man also bears his," &c.*
Immediately afterward the same author proceeds to
show from Scripture, (according to his understanding of
Scripture,) that "baptism is, ordinarily, the necessary outward mean, or instrument, of justification, the immediate
and prodimate form and rite of conveyance" of that blessing.
Dr. Hook says,-" So, again, with respect to the sacraments. On this subject all must admit that the language
of the Church of England is peculiarly strong.... She
declares the sacraments to be generally necessary to salvation, and she defines a sacrament thus necessary to
salvation'as an outward and visible sign of an inward
and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a
pledge to assure us thereof,'-a means to convey grace, a
pledge to assure the worthy recipient of its illation. Of
* On Regeneration, pp. 9, 15, 48.  "Few names," says Bishop
Van Mildert, " recorded in the annals of the Church of England,
stand so high in the estimation of its sound and intelligent members
as that of Dr. Waterland. His writings continue to be referred to by
divines of the highest character, and carry with them a weight of
authority never attached but to names of acknowledged pre-eminence
in the learned world." It is proper here to state that I quote from an
American edition of Dr. Waterland's work, entitled " Regeneration
stated and explained according to Scripture and Antiquity: with a
summary View of the Doctrine of Justification.  Philadelphia, 1829."
264 
INFANT BAPTISlM.
baptism she states the inward grace of which it is the
means, to be'a death unto sin, and a new birth unto
righteousness.' She quotes the third chapter of St. John,
in which the necessity of a new birth is asserted, as a
chapter implying, on that account,' the great necessity of
baptism where it can be had;' in the baptismal offices she
expressly connects the regeneration of infants always, and
of adults duly qualified, with baptism; in the office for
confirmation she does the same; in the Homilies, the font
is designated as the' fountain of our regeneration,' while
it insinuates that by baptism we are justified; and she
teaches our children in the catechism that they were, at
baptism, made members of Christ, children of God, and
inheritors of the kingdom of heaven."*
Bishop Latimer says, "In all ages the devil hath stirred
up some light heads to esteem the sacraments but lightly,
as to be empty and bare signs."
Nonconformist's  Memorial,  Introduction, p. 9: —" So
evidently does the Church connect baptism with regeneration, that the Puritans in Queen Elizabeth's time, and
the Nonconformists in the reign of Charles II., justified
their secession on the ground that'the Ch]urch clearly
teaches the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration.'"
Archbishop Cranmer, Works, vol. ii, p. 302, says,"Christ hath ordained one spiritual sacrament of spiritual
regeneration in water."  And in Works, vol. iii, p. 65,"And when you say that in baptism we receive the spirit
of Christ, and in the sacrament of his body and blood we
receive his very flesh and blood, this your saying is no
small derogation to baptism, wherein we receive not only
the spirit of Christ, but also Christ himself, whole body
and soul, manhood and Godhead, unto everlasting life, as
well as in the holy communion. For St. Paul saith,' As
many as be baptized in Christ put Christ upon them.'
Nevertheless, this is done in divers respects; for in baptism it is done in respect of regeneration, and in the holy
communion it is done in respect of augmentation."
And in his sermon on Baptism, pp. 1, 7:-" And the
second birth is by the water of baptism, which Paul calleth
' the bath of regeneration,' because our sins be forgiven us
in baptism, and the Holy Ghost is poured into uts as into
A Call to Union, &c., pp. 20, 21.
265 
INFANT BAPTISM.
God's beloved children, so that by the power and working of
the Holy Ghost we be born again spiritually, and made new
creatures. And so by baptism we enter into the kingdom
of God, and are saved for ever, if we continue to our live's
end in the faith of Christ.... When we are born again by
baptism, then our sins are forgiven us, and the Holy Ghost
is given us, which doth make us also holy," &c.
Bradford says, "As, therefore, in baptism is given to us
the Holy Ghost, and pardon of our sins, which yet lie not
lurking in the water; so in the Lord's supper is given unto
us the communion of Christ's body and blood, without
transubstantiation, or including the same in the head. By
baptism the old man is put off, the new man is put on,
yea, Christ is put on without transubstantiating the water.
And even so it is in the Lord's supper."-Sermon on the
Lord's supper, quoted in Wordsworth's Life of Latimer,
vol. iii, p. 236.
Mr. Simeon, Works,  vol. ii, p. 259, says,-" In the
baptismal service, we thank God for having regenerated
the baptized infant by his Holy Spirit.  Now, from hence
it appears, that, in the opinion of our reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did accompany baptism."*
"By-this doctrine," [of baptismal regeneration,] say the
Oxford tractarians, "is meant, first, that the sacrament of
baptism is not a mere sign or promise, but actually a means
of grace-an instrument-by which, when rightly received,
the soul is admitted to the benefits of Christ's atonement,
such as the forgiveness of sin, original and actual, reconciliation to God, a new creature, adoption, citizenship in
Christ's kingdom, and the inheritance of heaven,-in a word,
REGENERATION."
"But the two sacraments of the gospel, as they may be
emphatically styled, are the instruments of inward life, according to our Lord's declaration, that baptism is a new
birth, and that in the eucharist we eat the living bread."t
With respect to the initiation of Christians, says Bishop
Pearson, "It is the most general and irrefragable assertion
of all, to whom we have reason to give credit, that all sins
* See Appendix to "Call to Union," &c., a sermnon by Dr. Hook,
vicar of Leeds, and chaplain in ordinary to the queeni, from which
several of the foregoing extracts have been taken.
t Tracts for the Times, Nos. 76 and 90.
266 
INFANT BAPTISM.
whatsoever any person is guilty of are remitted in the baptism
of the same person." Again: "It is, therefore, sufficiently
certain that baptism, as it was instituted by Christ after the
preadministration of John, wheresoever it was received
with all qualifications necessary in the person accepting,
and conferred with all things necessary to be performed
by the person administering, was most infallibly efficacious,
as to this particular, that is, to the remission of all sins committed before the administration of this sacrament."  Again:
"And therefore the church of God, in which remission of
sin is preached, doth not only promise it at first by the
laver of regeneration, but afterward, also, upon the virtue
of repentance; and to deny the church this power of absolution, is the heresy of Novatian."  Again: "St. Peter
made this exhortation of his first sermon,'Repent, and be
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sins,' Acts ii, 38. In vain doth doubting and fluctuating Socinus endeavour to evacuate the evidence of this scripture; attributing the remission either to
repentance without consideration of baptism, or else to the
public profession of faith made in baptism; or, if any thing
must be attributed to baptism itself, it must be nothing but
a declaration of such remission.  For  how  will these
shifts agree with that which Ananias said unto Saul, without any mention either of repentance or confession,' Arise,
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins?' and that which
St. Paul hath taught us concerning the church, that Christ
doth'sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water?' "  The Church of England, in her baptismal service, instructs her ministers to say, concerning an infant after its
baptism, "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this
child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's
church, let us give thanks," &c. And in the collect
which is immediately to follow, the minister says, "We
yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it
hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant WITH THY HOLY
SPIRIT," &C.
In the catechism to be used before confirmation, the
bishop asks the name of the candidate, and then asks,
"Who gave you this name?"  Ans. "My sponsors in bap         * Exposition of the Creed, Art. x, pp. 549-551,
267
I: 
INFANT BAPTISM.
tism, WHEREIN I was made a m?nember of Christ, the child
of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven."
If the reader thinks I have been tedious in these extracts, I must urge the great importance of the subject as
my apology. The question of baptismal regeneration is
agitating the churches.  It is destined to "trouble Israel"
in its progress and results, and it is folly for us to be
blinded or ignorant respecting its true nature and bearings.
Baptist writers have taken great advantage of this point in
the controversy on infant baptism, and I arn sorry to add,
they have not always dealt in fairness.
Respecting the efficacy of the sacraments; the Calvinistic and Arminian schools, with the general family of Nonconformists, do not hold with the Church of England.
We, who are styled of the more ultra Protestant school,
take entirely a different view.   There may be a tendency
among us to undervalue external ordinances, and our jealousy for a spiritual religion, and abhorrence of the Romish
rituals, may have betrayed us, in some cases, into this
ultra tendency. I say, this may be, to some extent, a
truth which candour would oblige us to admit. Still we
are not sensible of such a tendency. It is true we have
among us those who reject water baptism, and discard all
outward ordinances. WVe have Quakers, and mystics of
different classes.  But the soundness of the general Protestant view, with regard to the efficacy of the sacraments,
we do not consider affected by these exceptions.
The tendency of all formalism is, to exalt the virtues
of outward rites. But it may still be questioned, that Romanism, in attempting to exalt the character of the sacraments, has not lowered their true dignity. Indeed, the
real degradation of the sacraments is traced in nothing
more clearly than in an attempt to associate with them, in
so high a sense, a saving efficacy. We are hereby led
to contemplate them no longer in the simple light of their
being beautiful and instructive emblems, but as being possessed of charms, and to be rendered efficacious by a sort
of incantation.
That the Church of England has stopped short of the
true meaning of the sacraments, in her secession from the
Papal thraldom, is the candid belief of a large portion of
the Protestant family. I say, a large portion, for not all
268 
TNFANT BAPTISM.
Protestants who are not of the Church of England are
agreed as to the real nature of the sacraments.   Luther
and his followers, says Dr. WVall, do indeed speak more
doubtfully of this; [that is, whether baptism is strictly necessary to salvation;] and do lay so much stress on actual baptism, as that they allow a layman to do the office in
times of necessity, rather than that the infant should die
without it.*
"A late Lutheran," says Dr. Pusey, "admits that'as to
the sacrament of baptism, there is no controversy of much
moment between the two churches,' Lutheran and  Roman."t  This is an astonishing admission, and taken in
connection with the doctrine of consubstantiation, places
the Lutheran Church, in respect to these two sacraments,
in fearftil proximity to Rome. It is painful to make these
reflections, and happy should we be to believe the English
Church pure in this matter.  But how far short of Romanism do they fall?  How far do they come from  the doctrine that sacraments confer grace ex opere operato?  Not
that they hold to this doctrine, but that the doctrine which
they do hold is liable to objections scarcely less serious.
The exact doctrine of the Church of England touching
.he efficacy of baptism, and the certainty of its saving
results, is this: that the person is always regenerated at,
or in baptism, unless some obstacle intervene to prevent.  In
the case of infants no impediment can be opposed to the
grace of baptism; therefore such are always regenerated
in that ordinance. Hear them: —
"In the case of infants, their innocence and incapacity
are to them instead of repentance, which they do not need,
and of actual faith, which they cannot have. They are
capable of being savingly born of water and of the Spirit,
and of being adopted into sonship with what depends thereupon; because, though they bring no virtues with them, no
positive righteousness, yet they bring no OBSTACLE, no IMPE DIMENT. +
"The principle of St. Augustine, on the contrary, that
children being able to puitt no bar of an opposite will, God's
goodness flows unrestrained toward them, is, in our own
* History of Infant Baptism, part ii, chap. vi, sec. 8.
t Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 73.
t Dr. Waterland on Regeneration, p. 19.
12*
269
L 
INFANT BAPTISM.
Church, thus beautifully expressed by I-Hooker:-' He
which, with imposition of hands and prayer, did so great
works of mercy for restoration of bodily health, was
worthily judged as able to effect the infusion of heavenly
grace into them, whose age was not yet depraved with
that malice which might be supposed A BAR to the goodness
of God toward them. They brought him, therefore, young
children, to put his hands on themn and pray.'
"In the same way again Archbishop Bramhall:' Secondly, we distinguish between the visible sign, and the
invisible grace; between the external sacramental ablution, and the grace of the sacrament, that is, interior re,eneration.  We believe that whosoever hath the former,
hath the latter also, so that h,e do not put a BAR against the
efficacy of the sacrament by his infidelity or hypocrisy, of
which a child is not capable.*
And, next, baptism is considered to be  rightly received, when there is no positive obstacle, or hinderance to
the reception, in the recipient, such as impenitence or unbelief would be in the case of adults; so that infants are
nece, sarily right recipients of it, as not being yet capable
of actual sin."t
Thousands in the Protestant E. Church, both in England and America, justly complain of this language as too
strong. The words of the baptismal service, catechism, and
Homilies, are so softened by them as to leave the rite of
baptism where our Saviour and his apostles undoubtedly
intended to leave it. Yet, that the above is really the
doctrine of the Church of England, however some of her
more evangelical children may dissent, cannot be denied.
Nor is it irrelevant to press this subject upon the American churches.  The Episcopal Church of this country is
following close in the steps of the Anglican mother.
A treatise on baptism by a late clergyman of that denominationi, which bears the warmn commendations of Bishop
Chase, of Illinois, and others, contains the following:  "Christ rebuked those who forbade little children to be
brought unto him.  What shall he say to those fathers or
mothers who neglect or refuse to bring unto him their
own children? They have need of redemption through
- Vide Dr. Pusey's Letter, &c., pp. 75, 76.
t Tracts for he Times, No. 76.
270 
him as well as yourselves, and will you deny them the
privilege of coming unto Christ in the way he hath ap pointed? I by no means insinuate, that if an infant die
without baptism, its future state is thereby rendered worse.
It was no10 fault of its own. But it is neither unreasonable,
nor against the Scriptures, to believe that some distinguish  ing marks of goodness shall be conferred on those infants
in another world who have entered into the door which the
Church hath opened. And to a parent that regards Chris tianity, I cannot but think it is a just cause of uneasiness
when his young child dies without baptism, through his
neglect."*X
All this is in itself too strong language-doctrine  to'f
which we  cannot subscribe:-besides, it seems to inti-l
mate a latent suspicion in the author himself, that infant
baptism mnay possibly be necessary to infant salvation 
after all.  Why, else, should the delinquent parent feel
"uneasy?"  Sorrow he may feel for not having dedicated
his child to God in baptism, and thereby signified his ac  quiescence in a divine direction; but uneasiness  at the
thought of this delinquency, as affecting the future destiny 
of the child, is extending the efficacy of baptism far  ~
beyond  what  we  consider to have  been the intention 
of its Institutor.
Yet, Archbishop Laud says, "That baptism is necessary
to the salvation of infants, (in the ordinary way of the
Church, without binding God to the use and means of that
sacrament to which he hath bound us,) is express in St.
John iii, 5,'Except a man be born of water,'" &c.
</D" Concerning the everlasting state of an infant," says
r. Wall, "that by misfortune dies unbaptized, the Church
of England has determined nothing, (it were fit that all]
churches would leave such things to God,) save that they
forbid the ordinary office for burial to be used for such a
one; for that were to determine the point, and acknow ledge him for a Christian brother. And though the most
noted men in the said Church from time to time, since the
reformation of it to this time, have expressed their hopes
that God will accept the purpose of it for the deed; yet they
have done it modestly, and much as Wickliffe did, rather
not determining the negative, than absolutely determining
* Rev. Alexander Hay on Baptism, pp. 129, 130.
271
INFANT BAPTISMF. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
the positive, that such a child shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven.  Archbishop Laud's words, we see, are,'We
are not to bind God, though he hath bound us.' And Arch bishop Whitgift, disputing with Cartwright, says,' I do
mislike, as much as you, the opinion of those that think
infants to be condemned which are not baptized.' But
there are, indeed, some, who make a pish at any one who
is not confident, or does speak with any reserve about that
matter."*                                e
/   Before passing to notice the doctrine of our own (th
Methodist Episcopal) Church, we wish to offer a few_
thoug,hts on the foregoing views.
1. We have already stated that, inI our own opinion,
the stress laid upon baptism by the Church of England is
too great.  Its efficacy is overrated;  and the primary
cause of this error is, the too literal interpretation of a few
passages of Scripture.   Language which has been em ployed evidently in a figurative sense, has been pressed
too closely to the letter, and the metaphor has been thus
made to assume an importance which belonged only to the
thing itself, which was represented by it.
These texts are such as John iii, 5; Acts ii, 38, and
xxii, 16; -Rom. vi, 4; Gal. iii, 26, 27; Eph. v, 25, 26;
Titus iii, 5-7; 1 Pet. iii, 21. Admitting that some Pro testants may have attached too lax and unworthy views to
these strong expressions of Scripture, still it is but figura.
tive language, and baptism is made to be only an outward
rite, having no efficacy beyond the force of a sign and a
visible pledge.
2. It is contrary to the analogy of Scripture doctrine, as
well as to the nature of the case, that an outward rite, ap plied to the flesh, should be made an "instrument," (in the
proximate sense of that term,) or "means of conveyance"
of spiritual regeneration.
It is contrary to the analogy of Scripture doctrine, be cause nowhere is an outward ceremony appointed as the
proximate instrument of regeneration. Circumcision, to
which baptism now answers, was given to Abraham, not
as a means of conveyance of regeneration, but, as " a seal
of the righteousness WHICH HE HAD YET BEING UNCIRCUM cIsED," Rom. iv, 11.  Paul, when speaking of the efficacy
* Wall's Histori, part ii, chap. vi, sec. 8.
272 
INFANT BAPTISM,
of all outward ablutions under the law, admits merely that
they "sanctified to the purifying of thre FLESH," and in
direct antithesis to this he asserts that "the blood of
Christ" only is the proximate means by which God will
"purge our consciences from dead works."  But the blood
of Christ is here spoken of figuratively, as being sprinkled,
or used as a material instrument. Analogy, therefore, is
against this doctrine.
But reason no less repudiates it. How can a physical
rite convey grace to the soul?  It may represent  that
grace, but can it convey it? Can the chasm between
mind and matter be so closed as to bring the two into
proximity?   Nay, more, can a moral change be effected
through a physical medium?  God alone, who is a "spirit," can carry his grace to the heart and conscience of
man. Water can go no further than the flesh; there it
must stop.  Beyond that it cannot be used as any "means
of conveyance," because, beyond that it does not go. But
beyond this God's Spirit enters, and regenerates the heart.
As baptism is not, therefore, the means, in propriety of language, of regeneration, so regeneration is not confined to
baptism, either from the nature of the case, or the ordinary
appointment of God.
I wish the reader to appreciate that it is not a mere
phantom, or a mere form of words, that is here opposed.
Dr. Waterland says, "From these several passages of the
New Testament laid together, it sufficiently appears, not
only that baptism is the ordinary instrument in God's
hands for conferring justification; but also, that ordinarily
there is no justification conferred either before or without it. Such grace as precedes baptisnm, amounts not ordinarily to justification, strictly so called: such as follows
it, owes its force, in a great measure, to  the standing virtue of baptism once given.*
So then, whether a person have faith or not, before baptism, it is all one, "ordinarily," so far as respects complete justification, or "justification strictly so called!"
This is utterly out of the question.  Again: "In baptism
is the first solemn and certain reception of justification."t
Such quotations might be easily multiplied. If nothing
more were meant, by all these strong expressions, than
*On Justification, p. 54.'     t Ibid., p. 48.
273 
INFANT BAPTISM.
that baptism is a means of grace, a peculiar means, if you
please, so that the word means were used in its ordinary
acceptation, as denoting that which helps the soul to em brace Christ, or answers some spiritual end, we would
here drop this controversy.  And let it be remembered,
the question is not whether a person may be regenerated
at baptism? but whether baptism is the appointed instrument of conveying that blessing? Whether by the special
appointment of God, regeneration, or justification, takes
place, in all ordinary cases, at that time, and by that
means? and, consequently, whether it is reasonable and
Scriptural to expect either without baptism, where baptism can be had? Whether the importance of baptism be
such as to leave a doubt respecting the future happiness
of those infants which die unbaptized? so that it is modest
for the Church, in reference to such, to express no opinion as to their future happiness or misery? Whether a
child will receive "some distinguishing marks of goodness in another world," for having been baptized in this?
And whether a parent has "a just cause of uneasiness,
when his young child dies without baptism, through his
neglect?" These are grave considerations, and they are
this day agitating the church of Christ, in many parts, with
a deep and terrible convulsion.
-I know that it is said the Church of England holds to
regeneration by the Holy Spirit only, and that baptism is
not abstractly necessary to salvation, but only necessary in
the ordinary appointment of God. All this we understand.
But we deny that regeneration by the Holy Spirit takes
place AT baptism, any more than BEFORE that ceremony.
We hold to the fitness of baptism, BECAUSE the subject is
regenerated.  And we hold, also, that baptism is no more
essential to salvation than any other appointed outward
means of grace.
3. It is astonishing to reflect how completely these
views, which we oppose, mistake the genius of gospel
ordinances. It seems to be entirely overlooked that the
ordinances have reference strictly to the church in its militant state. All their suitableness arises from the circumstances of the church in its earthly relations. We need
no external ceremonies to fit us for, or induct us into, "the
church of the first-born, which are enrolled in heaven."
274 
INFANT BAPTIS3F.
Baptism has no prospective relation to another life. All
its significancy, all its intentions, are fully met and answered in this life. It is designed to give visibility to the
church, not to confer on it a spiritual character. This is
conferred only by the Holy Spirit, in his direct communications to the heart. We do not, therefore, conceive any
fitness in baptizing a dying person, merely because he is
dying. It is proper to bear testimony to the truth, and to
show our spirit of obedience, by embracing the sacraments
at any suitable time.  But the importance of baptism to
the individual recipient is not enhanced by the mere circumstance of the near approach of death. The church
triumphant recognises no such outward rites, and the
terms of membership there relate to the essential purity of
the moral man, not to any accidents.
Indeed, this is the very essence of superstition, to place
the eternal happiness of the soul upon some outward and
accidental circumstance of the person here. God has
never placed the spiritual destinies of men upon such precarious footing. It is not in the power of one man thus to
withhold salvation from another, or to confer it upon him,
in the strong sense which this doctrine of baptismal regeneration supposes. Such a notion is no less revolting to
all our natural sense of justice, than it is repugnant to
Scripture and right reason. Men have always had a contest with the Almighty as to which should hold the greater
sway over their consciences and moral destinies, themselves or their Maker. Man loves to do the work of God
better than his own; and if he dare not always assume
the prerogative of plenary remission of sin, he will make
his consequence to be felt by linking himself somewhere
in the train of causes that are to result in such remission.
If he dare not assume to regenerate the heart, he will fain
think that the Almighty has been pleased to subject himself, as to the time of regenerating, and the means of justifying, "ordinarily," to the moment of his own  convenience, and the ministry of his own hands. These may
be deemed uncharitable expressions, but we utter them not
in such a spirit. We do not wish to impute any such sentiments as the above to any living men. As a matter of
fact, we are aware many, very many, of the Church of
England, as well as Episcopalians in this country, repu
275 
INFANT BAPTISM.
diate all such pretensions.  But this, we say, is the tendency of the language of the Liturgy and standard writings
of their Church; and if they sincerely regard the general
interests of truth, and at the same time revolt at the
general construction put upon their statements, why do
they not condescend to a more popular, and hence a more
comprehensible phraseology? T'his has long been a subject of just complaint by many of the evangelical sons of
their own communion. But have they at all heeded these
complaints? A reconciliation with the evangelical party
within her pale the Church of England earnestly wishes,
but, unhappily, wishes it on the ground stated by Dr.
Pusey,* ill the following words: "And to this reconciliation it may perhaps the rather tend, if I add, that we do
not wish to enforce any technical view of baptismal regeneration: for myself, I should be fully content with any
view, which acknowledged in its simple sense the words
which our Church teaches every child to say of itself,
' wherein I was made a,child of God, a member of Christ,
anId an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven;' meaning, of
course, really what is here said, a real child of God, and
a real member of Christ, not simply an outward member of
an outward body of people called Christians:"-that is,
the Rev. doctor would be satisfied with any view of the
words in the baptismal service, catechism, and homilies,
peradventure such view accorded with his own, and that
of the high-Church party! and all this he would do for
the sake of reconciliation!
The Methodist connection, it has been covertly insinuated, holds to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Mr. Hinton asks, "Is Methodism clear of baptismal regeneration?" and then says: "It will be perceived that although the prayers in this service [meaning the baptismal
service prescribed in the Methodist Discipline] closely
resemble those of the Episcopal Church of England, yet,
by avoiding the thanksgiving at the close, the Methodist is
allowed to escape the assertion that the baptized child is
' sanctified with the Holy Ghost,' and' is received into the
ark of Christ's church,' and has received' the fulness of
grace;' though in the prayer,'ever remain in the number
* Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 81.
276 
INFANT BAPTISM.;
of thy faithful and elect children,'* it is clearly intimated
that the child was about to become one."t
This, to be sure, is a very curious statement. First,
Mr. Hinton gravely tells his readers that the Methodist
Church, by avoiding the thanksgiving which the Church
of England employ after the baptism of an infant, is
"allowed to escape the assertion that the baptized child
zs sanctified," &c.; that is, by omitting to afirm the doctrine of the Church of England, the Methodist Church is
allowed to escape the assertion of that doctrine! This is
extraordinary!  Secondly. In the prayer, "ever remain
in the number of thy faithful and elect children?" &c., it
is not " intimated that the child is about to become one" by
baptism, but that it is already a subject of grace and an
heir of heaven, and therefore is entitled to the seal of the
covenant.
Mr. HIinton has ventured upon the following statements:
"It is not necessary," says he, "to enter more minutely
into the investigation of this ordinance as found in the
Methodist Church, since the authorized statements respecting
it are exceedingly loose and indefinite," &c. And in a footnote remarks, "I am aware, however, that in some instances the authority of great names in the Methodist
Church may be found sanctioning some of the wildest
fancies of the  fathers  respecting infant baptism; but
wherever fidelity will permit, it is pleasing to exercise
forbearance."t
I think it cannot be denied by the intelligent and candid
of the Methodist Church, that some of our standard writers
have adopted too far the phraseology of the Church of
England. Some of them were educated for the ministry
in that Church before they became Methodists, and others
were drawn into particular modes of speech from a long
intimacy with her justly admired standard writers, as well
as from the force of educational connection with her ritual.
Mr. Wesley was, in the earlier period of his life, a highChurchman. Afterward his views of doctrine and church
government, it is well known, became greatly changed.
He always retained, however, those forms of expression
concerning baptism which are employed in the Liturgy,
* See collect before baptism.
t History of B13aptism, p. 348.     t Ibid., p. 349.
277 
INFAN r BAPTISM.
attaching to them, invariably, that modified sense of which
they are capable, and which, in his guarded method of
using them, could not be greatly objectionable even to a
Baptist, and certainly could not be misunderstood. Mr.
Wesley's real views of the efficacy of baptism were Scrip tural, according to the most settled principles of the Pro testant school, and his predilection for the forms of speech
used in the Liturgy of the Church of England, of which
he was a member, is not to be ascribed to any obsequious
copying after the Christian fathers. He understood John
iii, 5, and Titus iii, 5, to refer to Christian baptism, and
considered his language no stronger than that employed
in Scripture. But whatever objection may be had to his
language, none can be urged against his meaning, which
is repeatedly and explicitly set forth in his sermons.*
We could have wished, also, that Mr. Watson had, in
one or two single expressions, employed words less liable
to be misunderstood; as when he says,-" Baptism conveys
also the present blessing of Christ"-" It secures, too, the
gift of the Holy Spirit, in those secret influences by which
the actual regeneration of those children who die in infancy
is effected, and which are a seed of life in those who are
spared."- We say, a more guarded phraseology might
have been adopted, in strict accordance with Mr. Watson's
views, and hence, we could have wished it had been, for
the sake of the more fastidious. Mr. Watson's views are
fully and most unexceptionably expressed thus: " In a
word, it is, both as to infants and to adults, the sign and
pledge of that inward grace which, although modified in its
operations by the difference of their circumstances, has
respect to, and flows from, a covenant relation to each of
the three persons, in whose one name they are baptized."t
Yet it is possible Mr. Hinton imagined he saw in these
expressions "some of the wildest fancies of the fathers re specting infant baptism"-expressions "exceedingly loose
and indefinite;" although common sense, combined with
common honesty, would have taught him to understand
their words as they had explained them, in which case no
objection, doctrinally, can lie against them.
~  The doctrine of the Methodist E. Church respecting
-   See Note H.   t Institutes, part iv, ch. iii, sec. 2
x * See Note H.      t Institutes, part iv, oh. iii, sec. 2
278 
INFAN-T PAPTISM.-I.
the sacraments is expressed in her 16th article of faith:
"Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges, or
tokens, of Christian men's profession; but rather they are
certain signs of grace, and God's will toward us, by the
which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only
quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him." 
Of baptism she says, in her 17th article of faith: "Bap- 
tism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christians are distinguished from others
that are not baptized: but it is also a sign of regeneration,
or the new birth." What apology a man can have, after
all these statements, (to which we might add others, to an
indefinite length,) for representing the Methodist Church
as holding loosely and indefinitely to the doctrine of infant
baptism, I shall not trouble the reader to divine.
Before dismissing this subject, I beg leave to state that
I apprehend some confusion of ideas has resulted from the
use of the word sacrament. A sacrament is defined to be
an outward sign of an inward grace; consisting, consequently, of two parts, the one visible, and the other?inVisible; and in baptism one part of the sacrament is cwater,
the other regenerating grace. It is evident, therefore, that,
according to this definition, baptism, or the outward washing, is not of itself a sacrament, but only the visible, or
outwbard part of a sacrament-the lesser half. How improper, then, to use the words baptism and sacrament as
synonymous! By this means an obscurity has sometimes
rested upon language. No one ever believed that baptism,
or the outward washing, regenerates; but only that a person is regenerated at baptism, and that regeneration is a
necessary part of the sacrament, of which baptism is the
other part. We could mention many cases where an unguarded use of terms has led to false issues on this point.
The question is, Has God appointed that regeneration
should ordinarily accompany baptism?  We all admit that
regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit-that baptism
adumbrates it; but while the Church of England holds
that it ordinarily accompanies baptism, and that baptism is
a means of conveyance, or instrument, of this grace, we hold
that regeneration takes place ordinarily before baptism, and
that baptism is appropriate because the person is regenerated, and is, also, a sign and seal of such regeneration.
279
i
ti
11, 
INFANT BAPTISM.
SECTION II.
zed infants
ubject tha
nctions sh e
er of the ca
is not a m
roduces a p
ptism alone
icular chu
church, or
quired bes.
is baptized
church o
ter of any
e baptism
t minister,
a Presbyte
as a mini~
e of his 
the Presb2
oduce him
hrist."* 
n with our
nst the bapt
nfants have
t as this is
alleg,ed tha
this privil     h
self is abs
rder to pla
the true lig
to suppose
i   the privil
constantly
tted by us
s are prop
g more th,
inks of cla
ground of
(as none w
ord on Bapti9
280
3M, P.  -.,                                    t
3t    f   o-,.+JX~~~i':
I >-   e _Zr-                                       t 
INFANT BAPTISM.
cient to overthrow the principle upon which the above
objection is founded, and hence, to overthrowy the abjec  tion itself. If mere baptism do not entitle an adult to
communion, certainly it cannot be supposed to give infants
such a title, and therefore it is not absurd, per se, to baptize
infants and then deny them the Lord's table. If something
else besides baptism is necessary to this privilege, then
manifestly it cannot be predicated of baptism alone.  1
/here baptism gives permission to sit at the Lord's table,s
then, why do our Baptist brethren ever suspend from corm  Meunion some   of their own      members? but if not, why do t
they reproach us for not making mere baptism a sufficient d
qualification for the same privilege?  Will they answer? J
The truth is, the two ordinances differ in this respect:
He that "eateth" at the communion table must "discern
the Lord's body," in order to partake "worthily."  But the
design of baptism, as a sign and seal of covenant grace,
does not thus exclude infants from participation, on the
score of incapacity; unless it be proved that they are not
in a state of grace.
Besides, how do our opponents know that baptism war  rants the privilege of communion, any more than it does
other church privileges?  For this they have no sort of
proof; it is mere assumption.  Now, it is incontrovertible
that baptism does not confer full church privileges in all
cases. All females are prohibited for ever all eligibility
to ministerial or churcht offices:-" I suffer not a woman to
teach, or to usurp authority"'-" Let them keep silence in
the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak,"
1 Cor. xiv, 34, 35;  1 Tim. ii, 11, 12.  Here, then, are
half the lawful members of Christ's church ecclesiastically
disfranchised and laid under perpetual ecclesiastical dis  abilities;-church members, denied the rights of church
members! Now, we mention this merely to show that
baptism alone does not always introduce to all the rights
of church membership, and, so far as the abstract principle
is concerned, it is no more paradoxical and absurd to deny
the communion to baptized infants, than to deny other
church rights to baptized females. I am aware, however,
that for an ad hominem argument this is an unfortunate
one, for our opponents admit females to sit in judgment on
the opposite sex in their church assemblies.  But whether
281 
INFANT-  BAPTIS1M.
in this feature of their congregationalism they claim to
follow the letter of Scripture as closely as in baptism, we
cannot say.
2.) The principle involved in this question is clearly
recognised in the common sense and universal practices I
of mankind.  We know, indeed, that this is not an adequate sanction for any religious practice, as such; but it
may suffice for illustration, and, withal, it clears us fromi
the charge of acting absurdly.  Children are entitled to
some of the immunities of law from their earliest infancy.
From their birth they are recognised as citizens.  Yet are
they disabled, during all the period of minority, from holding any share in certain rights which belong to citizens.
They belong to the nation-are citizens-are capable of
enjoying some of the immunities of law-and yet are
physically and legally incapacitated to share in the fill
privilege of citizenship.
So it is with a child who is heir to an estate. Who
will dispute his title on the ground of his age? Yet his
title does not give him possession of the inheritance during
nonage. So that it may truly be said, "Now an heir
differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed."
there is a title without possession.  Here is admission to
some rights, and exclusion from others, while at the same
time the individual holds an equal title to ALL.   Nonage
cannot invalidate the title, but it does legally, as it of right
should, in the eye of reason, suspend the possession, and,
consequently, the plenary enjoyment.  So do we regard
the case of infants with respect to communion. They are
subjects of grace-they may bear the seal of the covenant
-they are entitled to the blessings of the church-" the
kingdom of heaven belongs to such"'-but the period of
actual inheritance, when they come into the exercise and
enjoyment of all the privileges of their gracious birthright,
is postponed to the age of maturer reason. Our opponents,
then, will remember, that Scripture, reason, and the common sense of mankind, do sanction the principle involved
in the practice of denying the-communion to baptized infants. If they wish to ridicule it, therefore, it must be at
their own expense. We are vindicated.
3.) But we have higher authority still for this practice.
282 
INFANT BAPTISM.
We are able to settle, not the abstract principle only, but
the thing itself, by a case so nearly analogous, as justly to
be regarded as a precedent, and as to remove all reason   able ground of doubt respecting its propriety.  It is matter
of fact that circumcision did initiate into the visible church,
nder the law of Moses.  This our opponents will nf
deny, unless they deny the existence of any visible church
at that time. It is a fact, also, that male infants, among
the Jews, were circumcised, and that ALL infants, of both
sexes, were considered as belonging to the church, and as
having an equal interest with their parents in the covenant.
Yet we know that it was physically impossible for them tO
artake of the passover as early as they were required to
e circumcised.  We know, also, that they could not have
shared in the other feasts, nor in the sacrifices, offerings,
and ablutions required by the law. Here age was wanting.
Age alone could give capacity.
If we attend to the tenor of the law respecting the
observance of the passover, as recorded in Exod. xxiii,
1-5-17, we shall find that it would have been impracticable
for young children to attend that feast. The reader will
there find that "three times in a year all the males were
to appear before the Lord," in the place which he should
choose, and they were not to appear empty.  The pass   over formed one of these occasions. But it does not ap   pear at all probable that their male infants were required
to be present at the passover with an offering. Indeed,
this would not have been practicable. On the contrary,
it is plainly intimated in Exod. xii, 25, and elsewhere, that
children were not brought to these annual feasts until they
were old enough to inquire of their parents, "What mean
you by this service?"
And hence it was that the Jewish "custom," or law,
prohibited children from these privileges of the church
We learn from Luke ii, 41, 42, that Jewish children were)
Ladmitted to the passover at "twelve years old."  This was
e age at which our Saviour first went up to Jerusalem to
this feast.  Calvin remarks, that " the Passover, which has4
,now been succeeded bv the sacred ipr,  id not admit
guests of all escriptions  promi scuously; but was rightly
eaten by those only who were of sufficient age to be able
to inquire into its signification."
283
I -         "'' I .,   i,, 
The same distinct statement is also made by the Rev.
I'Dr. Gill, an eminent commentator of the Baptist denomina'tion:-" According to the maxims of the Jews," says he,
persons were not obliged to the duties of the law, or
subject to the penalties of it in case of non-performance,
until they were, a female, at the age of twelve years and
one day, and a male, at the age of thirteen years and one
day.*  But then they were accustomed to train up their 
children and inure them to religious exercises at an earlier
aoe.  They were not properly under the law until they
had arrived at the age above mentioned; nor were they
reckoned adult church members until then; nor then nei ther, unless worthy persons; for so it is said,' He that is
worthy, at thirteen years of age, is called a son of the 
cong,regation of Israel.' "'t
t  This, then, is sufficient to settle this point.  No objecftion can lie against the practice of excluding baptized
children from the   Lord's supper, that does not equally lie
against  t he     exclusion of circumcis ed children from the
passover.  But the latter is settled by divine authority and
* The German author, Frederick Strauss, represents the custom of
the Jews as allowing children to go up to the passover at an earlier
age than twelve or thirteen years, if they discovered a capacity for
enjoying that sacred feast.  In his "Pilgrimage of Helon," which was
designed to furnish a "picture of Judaism, in the century which preceded the advent of our Saviour," he describes a procession of Jews
going up to Jerusalem to attend the passover.  As the vast multitude
passed on, with every demonstration of holy joy, "before a house in
Bethshur stood a fine boy of ten years old. Tears streamed from his
large, dark eyes, and the open features of his noble countenance had
an expression of profound grief. His mother was endeavouring to
comfort him and to lead him back into the court, assuring himnt that
his father would take him the next time. But the boy listened neither to her consolations nor her promises, and continued to exclaim,
' 0 father, father, let me go to the temple! I know all the psalms by
heart.' He stretched out his arms to the passers-by in earnest entreaty; and happening to see among them a man of the neighbourt
hood whom he knew, he flew to him, and clinging to his girdle and
his upper garment, besought him with tears to take him with him, till
the man, moved with his earnestness, asked his mother to allow him
to go, promising to take care of him till he should find out his father.
' And this,' said Helon,'is the object of children's longing in
Israel; so early does the desire of keeping the festival display itself.'
Brought up in Palestine, he felt it would have been with him exactly
as with the child."-Helon's Pilgrimage, &c., pp. 96, 97.
t Comment on Luke ii, 42.  See Miller on Baptism, p. 52.
284
INFANT BAPTIS'.,Nf. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
the nature of the case; the foriner, therefore, cannot be
absurd or irrelevant.  The great difficulty lies in assuming
the principle that children cannot be members  of the
church in any sense, without being so in the fullest sense,
and, consequently, if entitled to any, entitled to all, the
privileges of the church.  This principle we have seen
to be absurd.  Our opponents will not abide its consequences when applied to other subjects, or to the case of
circumcision, which is perfectly analogous to the one in
point.  Why, then, will they continue to urge it?  Baptized children, therefore, are members of the church just
as far as all children are members of the nation, or subjects of the government to which they belong; just as far
as all circumcised children were members of the Jewish
church; they are members of the church so far as to entitle
them to all the spiritual benefits that belong to their age and
capacity.
2. Infant baptism, as well as that of adults, is an affecting memorial of the sinfulness of our nature, and of our
consequent need of inward sanctification by the Holy Spirit.
One primary intention of all outward ceremonial ablutions is, to impress man with the truth of his own pollution
by sin.  "Behold," says David, " I was shapen in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me," Psa. li, 5; and
Job justly inquires; in reference to the depravity of Adam's
descendants," Who can bring a clean thiing out of an unclean?" Job xiv, 4.  "We are by natutre children of wrath,"
Eph. ii, 3. No method could have been adopted which
could have more fitly aroused the human mind to a just
sense of the corruption of our nature, and of our utter need
of inward sanctification, in order to the enjoyment of God,
than the Jewish ritual respecting outward washings. The
same emblematical sense is preserved in the Christian
ordinance of baptism, and in this sense is fitly applied to
infants.
"Infant baptism," says Dr. Wardlaw, "contains a constant memorial of original sin; of the corruption of our
nature being not merely contracted, but inherent.  And
this doctrine of original corruption, of which infant baptism
is a standing, practical recognition, is one of fundamental
importance; one, I am satisfied, to inadequate conceptions
and impressions of which may be traced all the principal
13
i
II
I
t
p
:1
t
I
285 
INFANT BAPTISIM.
perversions of the gospel.  In proportion to its relative
importance in the system of divine truth is it of conse quence that it should.not be allowed to slip out of mind;
the baptism of every child brings it to view, and impresses
it [upon the mind.] If in any case it should be otherwise,
the fault is not in the ordinance, but in the power of cus tom, and in the stupidity and carelessness of spectators,
of parents, of ministers. It teaches very simply, but very
significantly, that, even from the womb, children are the
subjects of pollution; that they stand in need... of purifi  cation from the inherent depravity of their nature, in order
to their entering heaven."*
3. The moral influence of infant baptism upon parents
and children merits attention.
Never was a maxim uttered with more propriety and
truth than was that of the apostle:  "With the pure, all
things are pure; but to them that are defiled is nothing
pure."  That principle of human nature developed by this
maxim ceases not to affect the opiiions and conduct of
men in all departments of society, and in every variety of
interest.  Men will contemplate things through the medium
of prejudices and opinions previously formed, and truths,
presenting themselves to the mind through these media,
will borrow their hues, and appear more or less to blend
with their character.  As the colour and appearance of
external objects are, to our vision, affected by the medium
through which we view them, so are doctrines and facts
affected by the disposition and prejudices of the mind be  fore which they are presented.   Cameleon-like, even truth
cannot come before the mind without seeming to take the
i hues of surrounding notions with which it becomes thus
associated.
Such reflections have forced themselves upon our minds,
as we have followed the general strain with which Baptist
authors have treated this subject. They have represented
the moral influence of infant baptism, upon both the subject
and the parent, as most hostile to the best interests of
Christianity and good morals; and, if the reader can main  tain his gravity, and credit our statement, as dangerous to
the liberties of these United States!t Religious declen
* Dissertation on Infant Baptism, p. 179.
t " Now, I ask, what is the moral influence all this infant baptizing
I
I
28C) 
INFANT BAPTISS.f
sion in all the Protestant churches is traced back to this
practice, as the "spring head" and fountain of all impurity;
and indeed, the reader would be likely to infer, from the
reading of most Baptist authors on this subject, that but one
thing was necessary to remove the great obstacles to the
conversion of the world, namely, the abolishment of infant
baptism. Dr. Gill called it " a part and pillar of Popery,"
and he has been echoed and re-echoed by later writers till
this day. So the Papist sees nothing but transubstantiation in the words, "this is my body"-the Episcopalian
nothing but "the apostolic rite of confirmation" in the
words, "the doctrine of baptisms and the laying on of
hands"-and the predestinarian his peculiar tenet in Rom.)
-ix, 18. Men will be likely to judge of evidence, and of
the moral influence of doctrines, by the force of precon -I
ceived opinions in their own minds.  These constitute the
glass through which they look, but which often, unhappily,
discolours all objects before the mind.   Let us endeavour
to break away fromn this thraldom of prejudice, and contemplate the moral influence of infant baptism according
to the true philosophy of things.
It must always be remembered that the moral influence
of all external ceremonies of religion is to be judged of
simply by their adaptedness to excite and encourage moral
dispositions in the recipient, and in those who may be
witnesses of the administration.  And this moral influence
is not conferred upon the patient by the mere external act
of administration. No inherent virtue resides in the ordinances themselves; and none, therefore, can be evoked
is adapted to produce in the minds of those involuntary members,
either of the Greek, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Methodist Churches?
The grace of God may, in many instances, prevent it,-but the natural
tendency of this system is to produce disgust and alienation, where
all would be most desirous to secure respect and kindly feeling."...
To my own knowledge, spiritual embarrassment and confusion of
the most stupifying, or else distressing kind, is the result of this
system... I do not design to encourage the insinuation that Pedobap
tists, either Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Methodist, have any
present design TO ERECT A NATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT ON THiE RUINS OF
OUR FREE INSTITUTIONS!.. BUT IT MUST BE EVIDENT TO EVERY REFLECTING MIND, THAT IF ANY ONE PEDOBAPTIST DENOMINATION WERE TO ABSORB
ALL OTHERS, AND THERE WERE NO' IGNORANT AND CONTENTIOUS' BAPTISTS
REMAINING, THAT A NATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT WOULD THEN BE INEVITA.
BL.E!!"-Hinton's History of Baptism, pp. 363, 369, &e.
287
II
I 
INFANT BAPTISM.
from them by any sort of incantation. Their moral influence depends on the moral dispositions of those concerned
in them, and the uses to which they are applied.
Take an example. It will not be doubted that the
Jewish ritual was highly adapted to excite and encourage
pious and devout feelings among the Jews.  Their numerous ablutions were well calculated to impress them with
a sense of their own impurities, and of the necessity of
holiness; their sacrifices taught them their guilt, and their
dependance upon the great Atonement for pardon; their
feasts called back to mind those great events of their history, so illustrative of the principles of the moral governmrent-of the character of God-and of their own duty;
their offerings were a thankful recognition of an overruling
and bounteous Providence; and thus it was that, by external ceremonies, the great principles of the natural and
moral governments of God were kept before the mind.
This was the natural tendency of these ceremonies, when
observed with an enlightened sentiment and a devout
heart. Yet, they possessed no conceivable power, in
themselves, to change the heart, or to avert the severity
of divine justice. At a time when the nation was most
exact and most constant in the observance of the law, as
to all its outward ceremonies, it was most abhorred in the
sight of God.   Thus it was in the days of Isaiah, (see
chapters i. and lviii,) and in the days of Christ.
But would it become us to cavil, and to ask, "Of what
use, then, were all these ordinances?"  We-know, indeed,
that the Christian ordinances are often unproductive of any
visible good, even in adults; but does this prove that they
are, by any philosophical necessity, unprofitable? We
know that they cannot save the soul in any case, and that
they never can supersede, in the least degree, the necessity of the atonement, of the divine agency of the Holy
Spirit upon the heart, of repentance and faith on the part
of the adult, in order to salvation; but shall we, hence,
discard them? Shall we say they are but useless forms?
Shall we call that conmmon, which God has called clean;
or that idle, which he himself has appointed? All objections which are urged against infant baptism, on the score
of i?efficacy, may be urged equally against all outward rites,
Jewish or Christian; and especially against the rite of
288 
INFANT BAPTISM.
circumcision, which, in this respect, is a perfectly parallel
case.
It must be remembered that the tendency of an ordi nance to produce a good moral effect is not to be judged
of by the actual effect which it may have produced in any
given cases. Infant baptism, we are sorry to say, has
often been unproductive of good. The same, also, may
be said of adult baptism. But for this failure the ordi nance itself cannot be held accountable.   Errors  have
been associated with the rite that have, in some instances,
contributed to bring about this result; and in others, a
general want of piety, and sense of religious obligation,
have neutralized its happier tendencies. Yet, what can be
more directly adapted to encourage and stimulate the pious
exertions of the parent, in training its little one for God,
than the recollection that he has already consecrated that
little one to God in baptism? The parent beholds, with
humble gratitude and holy joy, that God has been pleased
to affix the seal of the covenant to his tender offspring to enter into covenant " with him and his seed"-to recog nise his child as an heir of salvation, and place upon it the
visible mark, or pledge, of his protection and grace-all
these considerations, presenting themselves to the parent's
mind, could not fail to produce, if rightly improved, a deep
and  abiding impression.  This, I say, would  be their
tendency.
And the child, when come to years of reason, if properly'
instructed in the nature and obligations of its baptism,
would, if inclined to religion at all, acquiesce in the order
~'of God-recognise the validity and propriety of its early
consecration-assume, in propria persona, all the obligations,
consequent upon that act, and feel gratefial to his parents
for their early and prompt attention to his spiritual welfare,"
:and to God for having blessed him with such  parents. i
This, I say, would be the natural tendency of infant bap  tism, when rightly used. 
But I need not say to the reader, that all these salutary
influences depend wholly upon the moral state and educa tion of the parties concerned.  The faith of the parent in
the divine authority for this practice is an indispensable
condition of its salutary effect.  If the parent believe that
God has directed it, and do it, therefore, from a principle
289 
INFANT BAPTISM.
of obedience to a divine order, attending to all the several
duties belonging to the same rite, from the same principle,
under such circumstances, the rite itself is highly adapted
to the happiest effects upon the parent, securing the happiest results to the child. But if the parent do not believe
it to be of divine obligation, or neglect the other duties
belonging thereto, we readily conceive how, to him, the
practice would be likely to be attended with mischief,
rather than good.
So with the child. Should it be permitted to grow up,
after baptism, in ignorance of its duty to God, and of the
nature and obligations of its baptismi and, withal, should
it be taught to believe, either by its parents or others, that
infant baptism is a mere human invention, a corruption of
the Christian ordinance, "a part and pillar of Popery,"
and the highest imposition that could be practised upon
"helpless infancy;" I say, under these circumstances it
is not possible, in the nature of things, that an unhappy
and mischievous effect should be prevented.   Still, the
moral effect would be rather negative than positive-they
would only fail to derive any good from the ordinance,
without being made positively worse on that account.
Infant baptism, as it cannot confer grace ex opere operato,
so. neither can it confer any possible evil, in the same
way, by those who afterward treat it unworthily. I mean
there is nothing peculiar in infant baptism, in this respect.
It is always an occasion of evil, in a greater or less degree,
to misapprehend and misapply the truth and ordinances
of God. But all orthodox Christians hold that outward
ceremonies are not to be reckoned among the essentials
of religion.
It is easy, then, to perceive how the Baptists have
arrived at their notion of the mischievous moral tendencies
of infant baptism. They form their estimates wholly on
the supposition that neither the parent, at the time he
devotes his child to God in baptism, nor the child, in afterdays, fully credits the Scriptural obligation of the ordinance.  They first introduce skepticism in the minds of
all the parties concerned, and then calculate the tendency
of infant baptism in the light, and by the operation, of that
skepticism.  Now, the question is not, "What would be
the tendency of infant baptism, if all believed it to be a
290
-7 
INFANT BAPTIS. f.
mere human invention?" but, "What would be its tendency, if all believed it to be of divine origin?" What is
its natural tendency, when faithfully practised, and carried
out in all its parts?
Will any man, in his senses, believe that it is calculated
"to produce disgust anid alienation" in the mind of the
child, to inform it that it has been dedicated from early
infancy to God?  Disgust it may produce in the mind of a
vicious youth, who is now informed for the first time that
he was dedicated to God in infancy. Such a mind will
turn with equal repugnance from all the institutes and
precepts of Christianity. But would this be a proper test
of the natural tendency of infant baptism, any more than
of Christianity in general? If this same youth had felt
predisposed, from the influence of early teaching, and from
early divine influence, (which is rendered effectual, ordinarily, by such teaching,) to revere the institutes of religion and submit to its precepts,-if he felt disposed to
give his heart to God-would he now feel "disgust" to
know that he had been, in early life, dedicated to God by
a solemn ordinance of religion? Exactly contrary to this
would be the effect. It is perfectly obvious, therefore,
that our opponents calculate the moral tendencies of infant
baptism in the light of skepticism, and not in the light of
faith;-they calculate what its moral effects would be
likely to be upon an impure, not upon a pure mind;a method of procedure this, as unfair as it is absurd.
But it is worthy of our constant attention that God has
settled this question by his word, and by the very constitution of our nature.   The question is simply this:-" Is
the fact of having dedicated a child to God in baptism
calculated to exert a bad moral influence over the mind of
that child in after-life?"  And on tliis question there is
about as much room for controversy as on this: "Whether
it would be calculated to alienate the child from God, in
after-life, to bring it up from early childhood in the principles of the Christian religion?"  We  cannot trifle with
the reader's understanding, and, above all, with the word
of God, to dwell upon such themes.  We wished, how
ever, to say, that the divine obligation of infant circumcision settles for ever the question of the moral tendency o
infant baptism, for the two cases are exactly parallel. 
291 
As to the question, whether the general practice of infant baptism would lead to national establishments, or the
union of church and state, we deem the matter too childish
to merit attention.  Our opponents can harp upon it, if
they can find any one to listen to them. We are not
anxious.   But the charge of a general tendency to "formalism" and spiritual lethargy is one of very serious consequence, and which, if it fitly apply to infant baptism, must
refute all its claims to Scriptural authority.* The philosophy of some men amounts to a literary curiosity.  Their
method of tracing out cause and effect, and the logical
principles by which they deduce and apply evidence in
particular cases, ought to be written for the general admonition, or, perhaps, diversion, of mankind.  Baptist authors
have attributed the formalism and spiritual lethargy of the
national establishments of Europe principally to the practice of infant baptism.t  They might as well have attributed it to monarchy, or to the wars of Charlemagne.
But to cut this matter short, we must address a sort of
argumentum ad verecundiam to our opponents, and dismiss
the point. It is painful to be obliged to assert one's own
good character, or to be under a necessity of comparing
and off-setting moral characters with an opponent, in order,
by a sort of final appeal to respectability, to terminate a
tiresome controversy. This is an issue which, to say the
least, is unpleasant. Modesty recoils, while duty and necessity urge forward. We are somewhat comforted, however, when we reflect that Paul, the great apostle, once
condescended to the same thing.  When  driven to this
necessity, he did, finally, assert that his character was as
good as that of his opposers. He finally consented to take
this issue with his adversaries,-" Seeing that many glory
... I will glory also," 2 Cor. xi, 18.  So say we; and we
appeal to the truth-telling, page of history in support of the
assertion, that Pedobaptist churches (Protestant) do exhibit
as truly and as extensively the genuine signs of orthodoxy
* "Here begins to appear the most lamentable moral influence
of infant baptism; it has the very contrary effect to that for which
baptism was designed by its Founder. Instead of SEPARATING the
church and the world, IT ACTUALLY UNITES THEM," &C.  See Hinton's
History of Baptism, p. 366, &c.
t Hinton, p. 367.
292
INFANT BAPTIS14. 
INFANT r)APTISM..
and vital godliness, as do the Baptist churches in this or
any other country.  "I am become a fool in glorying; ye
have compelled rme."  We  consent, then, that the  moral
tendencies of the respective doctrines of exclusive adilt
i and infant baptism should be judged of by the spiritual
state of the churches respectively who hold these tenets;
thiough still we say, " It is not expedient for us, doubtless,
to glory."
That additional matter which otherwise would fall under
this head, the reader will find contained mostly in the third
and fifth chapters of this work.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE GROUND OF AN INFANT'S ELIGIBILITY TO
BAPTISM.
1. ALL infants are, by nature, in the same state, as it
respects moral condition; all are under condemnation.
"We are, by nature, children of wrath."   But at the ino.
ment when -the period of personal existence commences    at the moment when the identity of the human being is
established, so that it is capable of moral happiness or
misery-at that moment we  consider the soul to coler
/"within the gracious provisions of the atonement, which 
secures unconditional salvation to all such as die in iln
,,fancy. All children, we consider, are alike in this respect.
All are on a perfect parity of standing; and, in so far, all
are equally eligible to baptism, the seal of that covenant,
of grace by which they are saved.  And this we regard'
,as  the proper, primary ground of eligibility to this ordi' nance. We know of no principle, either of reason or
revelation, which authorizes us to make any distinctions
between different children as it respects moral condition.
2. Yet does it not necessarily follow that all children,
without distinction, should be brought to baptism. Other
circumstances, of a secondary nature, must be taken iiiut
f.  accoutnt.  Infant baptism contemplates, from its very na-I
t'ture, early religious education.  Its obligations are pro    -
!   pective.  If they are not met and fulfilled, both by the
13*
2 9 " ") 
INF ANTR BAPTISM.
parent and the child, its grand intention is unanswered
and its efficacy lost.   Just so with the adult; if, aftr
taptism, he fail to keep the law, his baptism is void.  IJ
ihe language of a Jew in a parallel case, "his circumcision is counted for uncircumcision."  If parents  do not 
educate their children for God, it is no better than solemn
inockery to offer them up in baptism.
Now, it is reasonable that some pledge of the suitable
education of the child should be required of the parent
before the child is admitted to baptism.   Without this, the
ordinance would not be sufficiently guarded, and would
inevitably fall under public scandal.   But ungodly parens
cannot  give this pledge, from the nature of the case; 
therefore it is unsuitable to admit the children of ungodly
parents to baptism.
3. It will be perceived by this, that we do not hold to
the right of children to be baptized, on the ground of
natural relation to the parent, (if -we understand that
phrase.) It is not by virtue of natural descent, as some
authors have loosely expressed it, that children derive any
claim to the sealing ordinance. The ties of nature, and
those of grace, are not to be thus confounded. The one
can confer no title to the privileges of the other.
Children of believing parents are not "born members
of the church,  as Dr. Mason  has  strangely asserted.*
This is a doctrine fraught with monstrous consequences.
Yet it is probably a mere unguarded phrase, as no indivi  dual, or body of Christians, ever believed that a person, 
adult or infant, could be made  a member of the church 
otherwise than by baptism; that is, if they held to water
baptism at all."t
Christian's Magazine, vol. ii, pp. 49, 50.
t Such a thing as birthright membership in the church of God was
never yet known. Among the Jews none were thus reckoned.
Circumcision, not natural descent, was the initiating ceremony. Nor
were they born ceremonially clean. Both the mother and the child
were reckoned unclean; the child till eight days, and the mother from
forty to eighty days, according to circumstances. Lev. xii.  The
mother and child were restored to a state of purity by the sprinkling
of blood, and sacrifice. See Luke ii, 22-24. All this certainly does
not look like being born either clean, or members of the church.
T'ertullian thinks the apostle intended to be understood, in 1 Cor.
vii, 14, that the children were 1"holy," only by baptism; they were
desigied for holiness, says he, (sanctitati designati.) "Every soul,"
294 
INFANT BAPTISM.
On this point, unhappily, many loose, unguarded expressions have been made. The idea of the "federal
holiness" of the children of Christian parents is not well
defined, and ought to be omitted. In paraphrasing 1 Cor.
vii, 14, Dr. Mason, as above quoted, says, speaking to the
"believing" partner concerning his or her children, "They
are holy, because you are so." This certainly does not
necessarily follow from the words of the apostle, and the
doctrine is too liable to objection to be received on such
ground. It is carrying Jewish distinctions further than is
warranted in the gospel.
4. Nor is it relevant to admit of "sponsors," in lieu of
parents, while the latter are yet living. Parents are the
natural guardians of children,* and their control over their
children precludes that exercise of authority and discipline
on the part of sponsors, which are requisite to the fulfil
continues he, " is reckoned as in Adam, till it be anew enrolled in
Christ, and so long unclean, till it be so enrolled."-De Anima,
c. 39, 40. -
Bishop Burnett says, "Their children were not unclean-that is,
not shut out from being dedicated to God."-Expos. of the Thirty
nine Articles.
This is the true idea. All children are born without the covenant;
that is, they do not come within the covenant by virtue of natural
generation, but by grace, and baptism is the visible token of that
covenant.
As a matter of fact, the children of pious parents in Paul's day 
t were, by their parents, designed for holiness-that is, church rela -
tions; and so were baptized.  But their right to baptism was not
founded on the piety of their parents, but on the fact that, though by 
natural birth they were "children of wrath," yet by grace they were
included in, and made partakers of, the promise of life; and it became 
fit and proper to baptize them, because the piety of their parents be.
came a pledge and guarantee that the ordinance should not be abused,  i
but should be made to answer its appropriate ends.  We say again,  i
it would be absurd for ungodly parents to dedicate their children to
God.  This could not be done in sincerity.
* "The law of nature and of nations puts children in the power
of their parents; they are naturally their guardians; and, if they are
entitled to any thing, their parents have a right to transact about it,
because of the weakness of the child; and what contracts soever they
make, by which the child does not lose, but is a gainer, these do cer-i
a tainly bind the child.  It is then suitable, both to the constitution of 
mankind, and to the dispensation of the Mosaical covenant, that;
parents may dedicate their children to God, and bring them under
the obligations of the gospel."-Bishop Burnett on the Thirty.nine
Articles, Art. xxvii.
295 
INFANT BAPTISM.
ment of their obligations to the baptized child. If the
parent, by reason of his impiety, incapacitates himself to
become the spiritual sponsor of the child, and thus de prives it of baptism, still the case, we consider, is without
remedy. No other person has any right to step in and
assume the control of the child, in such a degree as to
justify the obligations of a sponsor. In order to this, the
child should be formally surrendered to, and adopted by,
the sponsor. At least the latter should be invested with
an entire discretion, to bring up the child as if he were
its parent.
This we consider the true philosophy of the case. If
a child have Christian parents, or, according to the apos tolic rule, (1 Cor. vii, 14,) if it have only one Christian'
(parent, and the parents both concur in this, it is proper to
)aptize the child.  The pledge of the believing parent is
sufficient.  If it have unbelieving parents, it is irrelevant
to baptize the child; not because its moral state is not
upon a perfect par with that one which has Christian pa rents, but because there is no adequate pledge that the ends
of baptism, so far as relates to early education, will be
answered in the child. Yet, if the child were wholly sur rendered to, and adopted by, some person, or persons, who
would proffer and redeem the requisite pledge, it might
with propriety be baptized. And thus, if a child were
found, whose parents could not be ascertained, and were
adopted by Christian parents, it would be proper to bap tize it at their request.   But no person can act as a god father or a godmother (very awkward words, by the by)
to the child of another, while at the same time the person
thus acting as sponsor has no further control over the
child than to see that it is instructed in certain doctrines
of religion, and certain catechetical forms. The practice
is absurd, and leads to very mischievous consequences.
The parent, either by nature or by formal adoption-the
person who has the responsible supervision of the entire
conduct of the child-can alone become responsible for
the religious training of the child; and he alone, there fore, could, with any propriety, present the child in
baptism.
This, then, is the true doctrine of sponsors in baptism
not, indeed, as it is held and practised by the Church of
296 
INFANT BAPTISM.
England,* but as it may be justified by the nature of the
case, and the principles of religion.
5. However, there is a modified form of this practice
which may, under particular circumstances, be harmlessly
retained.   Parents alone can stand directly pledged  for
the child; but persons of approved gravity, piety, age, and
experience, may pledge themselves to assist the pious
efforts of parents, taking a sort of collateral responsibility.
And this, under certain circumstances, may be not only
harmless, but highly expedient.t Especially might this
be expedient in case of the death of the parents, and in
times of great persecution in the church. 
" I have nothing to except," says Dr. Ridgeley, "against 
i the first rise of this practice, (of having sponsors in bap-  i
tismt,) which was in the second century, when the church,,
\ was under persecution, and the design thereof was lauda-,
ble and good, namely, that if the parents should die beforei
the child came of age, whereby it would be in danger ofi
being seized on by the heathen, and trained up in their
superstitious and idolatrous mode of worship, the sureties i
promised that, in this case  they would deal with it as
though it were their own child, and bring it up in thei
Christian -religion; which kind and pious concern for its
welfare might [however] have been better expressed at
some other time than in baptism, lest this should [come at
length to] be thought an appendix to the ordinance. How  ever, through the goodness of God, the children of believ  ing parents are not now reduced to those hazardous
circumstances; and, therefore, the obligation to do thin is
the less needful.  But to vow, and not perform, is not
only useless to the child, but renders that only a matter
of formi, which they promise to do in this sacred ordi  nance."I
* See the exhortation to godfathers and godmothers after baptism,
prescribed by the Church of England.
t Vide Wesley's Works, vol. vi, pp. 235, 236.
t Body of Divinity, vol. iv, pp. 228, 229.
297 
INFANT BAPTISM.
A.PPENDIX.
NOTE A.-Referred to page 66.
SOME information respecting circumcision cannot fail to
be acceptable to the reader, particularly as such informa  tion is commonly rare, and the physical nature of the
transaction but little understood by people in general.
1. Circumcision was known and practised by other na  tions besides the Jews; the Egyptians, Samaritans, Ara  bians, Saracens, Ishmaelites, Colchians, and Ethiopians.
The Colchians were originally a colony from Egypt, and
probably derived this practice from the parent country.
The Egyptians most probably received it from the Ara  bians, who, together with the Saracens and Ethiopians,
derived it from Ishmael. Gen. xvii, 11, 25, 27. The state ment of Herodotus, that the Jews derived it from the
Egyptians, is not worthy of credit.  "Those who assert
that the Phoenicians were circumcised, mean, probably,
the Samaritans; for we know, from other authority, that
the Phoenicians did not observe this ceremony." (See Cal met.)  No account is given by these nations as a reason
of their practising this rite, and it never was insisted on
among the Egyptians as an indispensable condition of
their enjoying national privileges, as among the Jews.
i 2. "Circumcision," says Mr. Stackhouse, "is the cut  ting off the foreskin of the member which in every mal
is the instrument of generation; and whoever considers
the nature of this operation, painful if not indecent in
those of maturity, and to such as live in hot countries
highly inconvenient, if not dangerous;-an operation
wherein we can perceive no footsteps of human inven tion, as having no foundation either in reason, or nature,
or necessity, or the interest of any particular set of men,
we must needs conclude that mankind could never have
put such a severity upon thenmselves, unless they had
298 
INFANT BAPTISIM.
been enjoined and directed to it by a divine command.
Nay, this single instance of Abraham, who, at the advanced age of ninety-nine, underwent this hazardous operation, and the very indecency of it in a man of his years
and dignity; these two considerations are in the place of
ten thousand proofs that it was forced upon him; but
nothing but the irresistible authority of God could be a
force sufficient in those circumstances.   So that  theA
strangeness and singularity of this ordinance is so far from }
being an argument against it, that it is an evident prooe
of its divine institution; and what was originally instituted l
. by God, cannot, in strictness, be accounted immodestl
though we, perhaps, may have some such conception of
it; since'unto the pure all things are pure,'" &c.-Hist.
of the Bible, book iii, sec. 1.
3. " The manner of this ceremony's being performed," 
says Calmet, "whether in the public synagogue or in private 
houses, is this:-The person who is appointed to be the 
godfather sits down upon a seat, with a silk cushion pro- 
vided for that purpose, anrid settles the child in a proper 
posture on his knees, when he who is to circumcise him 
(which, by the by, is accounted a great honour among 
the Jews) opens the blankets.  Some make use of silver 
tweezers, to take up so much of the prepuce as they de-?
sign to cut off; but others take it up with their fingers. i
Then he who circumcises the child, holding the razor in i
his hand, says,' Blessed be thou, O Lord, who hast com mianded us to be circumcised;' and while he is saying
this, cuts off the thick skin of the prepuce, and then, with
his thumb nails, tears off a finer skin still remaining.
After this he sucks the blood, which flows plentifully on 
this occasion, and spits it out into a cup full of wine.
Then he puts some dragon's blood upon the wound, some 
coral powder, and other things to stop the bleeding, and 
so covers up the part affected.  When this is done, he 
takes up the cup wherein he had spit the blood, moistens 
his lips therewith, and then, blessing both that and the 
child, gives him the name which his father had appointed, 
and at the same time pronounces these words of Ezekiel,
' I said unto thee, when thou wast in thy blood, Live; i
(chap. xvi, 6;) after which the whole congregation repeats 
the one hundred and twenty-eig-hth  Psalmn,'Blessed is 
299
i.I
i
I
I 
INFANT BAPTISM.
every one that feareth the Lord,' &c.; and so the ceremony concludes. Only we must observe, that, besides
the seat appointed for the godfather, there is always one
left empty, and is designed, some say, for the prophet
Elias, who, as they imagine, is invisibly present at all
circumcisions."-Calmet's Dict., Art. Circumcision.
NOTE B.-Referred to p. 88.
On the subject of the kind and degree of evidence which
any particular subject requires, and which we may reasonably demand as a condition of our assent, much may be
said. The subject itself deserves our most mature and
candid consideration. Most persons who, in a moment
of hasty dispute, and when urged and chafed by the argument of an opponent, put forth a demand for a certain kind
or degree of evidence to support the contested doctrine,
without duly counting the cost. They are generally apt
to be short-sighted, blinded by the precipitancy of their
zeal, and deceived as to the relative importance of their
mooted doctrine. We wish our opponents and the world
to know that we adopt such principles of reasoning and
interpretation in the present case, and such only as we are
prepared to adopt and carry out in all our investigations
of the word of God. And we wish them and the world to
know, also, that we shall hold them steadily and inflexibly
to their own principles. If they have adopted, in the case
of infant baptism, a theory of interpretation and evidence
by which they consent to abide; and if they hold us to
certain conclusions, according to the principles of their
own theory  our only resort is to test the soundness of
that theory. And we, in our turn, have a right to hold
them answerable for the consequences which result from
the application of their own principles. It would be an
easy thing to adopt a principle, or rule of evidence, in one
particular instance, to help us out of a present, galling
dilemma, if we had no other concernment or responsibility
in the matter than the mere application of such particular
rule to the case in hand; but it is quite another thing to
conduct an argument skilfully and successfully, according
to principles of reason and evidence which are of acknow
300 
INFANT BAPTISM.
ledged and universal authority. We are athirst, but let us
not, therefore, rashly accept the poisoned draught, lest,
while we escape from a partial evil, we do thereby plunge
ourselves into general destruction.
In addition to the illustrations offered on this point in
the body of this work, I beg leave to adduce the following
from the pen of the shrewd and eloquent George Stanley
Faber, B. D. Although his remarks applied to another
subject, they are designed to illustrate the same principle
as that under consideration:  "If, indeed, we be required to produce, in so many
words, a specific declaration that, at the commencement of
patriarchism, God himself instituted the rite of expiatory
sacrifice, a task is certainly imposed upon us, which can
never be performed: but a truth, I apprehend, may be
clearly and distinctly conveyed in other modes than that
of a regular scholastic enunciation.
1. A modern Socinian writer has  challenged us to
bring forward a single text in which the twofold nature of
Christ is unequivocally asserted: and he boasts that, al,
though such a challenge has often been given, it has never
yet been accepted.
"Doubtless he may make the boast with perfect safety:
for, after the most careful examination of the whole Bible,
from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse, we must fairly confess that the precise words,
Christ has two natures, nowhere occur. Yet, we do not,
on that account, the less hold the doctrine.
Why, then, it will be asked, do we deem ourselves
fully authorized to maintain it? Simply, because, in some
passages, we find Christ expressly declared to be God,
while, ill other passages, we find him no less expressly
declared to be man. These two declarations, each alike
resting upon inspired verity, we combine in a single proposition: and the clear RESULT is the doctrine of Christ's
double nature.
"2. The same remark, and the same mode of reasoning, may be extended to the all-important doctrine of the
Holy Trinity.
"That doctrine forms the very nucleus of sound religion: but still, I fear, we must confess, that nowhere, in
the regular scholastic form of an article or a symbol, are
301 
INFANT BAPTISM.
we taught that God is one essence, and three in personality.
Yet, notwithstanding this omission of a direct enunciation
in some one specific text, every sound Catholic holds the
doctrine to be of vital necessity: nor will he allow the
silence of Scripture to be any proof of its neutrality.
"How, then, does he proceed, for the purpose of establishing his position, and of vindicating his belief?
"With Athanasius of old, he examines the Bible:  and,
since he there finds the essential unity of the Godhead
expressly maintained, while the identical things predicated
of the Father are also predicated of the Son and of the
Spirit, he perceives that in no way can Scripture be reconciled with Scripture, save by the reception of the doctrine of a trinity in unity.
"The  demonstration is, I think, clear and invincible:
but, after all, we must acknowledge that it rests upon
induction; after all, we must confess that God has not
revealed, in so many precise and formal words, that the
Deity is three in regard to personality, and one in regard to
essence.....
"3. I have yet to learn in what part of the Mosaic
narrative, or even in what part of the entire volume of
Scripturei the primitive divine institution of a perpetually
recurring sabbath, to be observed by man as matter of ordained religious obligation, is PRECISELY AND SCHOLASTICALLY ENUNCIATED.   I vainly look for an absolute coMMAND, that the subjects of the patriarchal dispensation
should observe a perpetually recurring sabbath.
"The record is brief, and simply historical:  "' On the seventh day, God ended his work which he
had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his
work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh
day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested
from all his work, which God created and made.' Gen.
ii, 2, 3.
"The FACT that God, having rested on the seventh day
from the work of creation, sanctified the precise seventh
day on which he rested from all his work, is indeed
distinctly specified: but, in regard to the positive INSTJTUTION of a perpetually recurring sabbath, we are neither indefinitely told that EVERY successive seventh day was sanctified, nor are we definitely taught that EVERY successive
302 
INFANT BAPTISM.
seventh day should always be set apart BY MAN for the duties
and purposes of religion.
"4. By those who advocate the theory of Bishop Warburton and Mr. Davison, we are assured that the primitive
divine institution of expiatory sacrifice is nowhere mentioned
in the Mosaic history.
"With respect to this allegation, I freely confess that,
IN THE FORM OF A REGULAR PROPOSITION, the primitive
divine institution of expiatory sacrifce, immediately after the
fall, is nowhere mentioned.'
"I myself hold the primitive divine institution both of
the sabbath and of piacular sacrifice: and, in each case, I
hold it much upon the same principle. Yet were I to set
up any difference between the two, I should not hesitate
to assert, that the evidence for the primitive divine institution of piacular sacrifice is stronger and more direct than
the evidence for the primitive divine institution of the sabbath. For almost at the very commencement of the patriarchal dispensation, we can produce a specific instance
where the devotement of a sin-offering is COMMANDED:
[which manifestly intimates that such was the DUTY of
Cain, to whom the command was addressed, in consequence of a well-known, already existing divine institutioil.] But throughout the whole book of Genesis (which,
from the creation, brings us down well nigh to Moses)
we are unable to produce a single instance where either
the observance of the sabbath is enjoined, or where it is
mentioned as a positive institution, or even where it is
barely noticed as a mere occurrence."'
I have ventured upon this extract merely to illustrate
further to the reader the method by which we often arrive
at truth. I wish him fully to appreciate what would be
the condition of theology should the principles of reasoning and evidence adopted by our opponents, in the case
of infant baptism, be universally adopted in reference to
all other subjects. The great doctrines of Christianity
need no other evidence than that which they have; but it
cannot be denied that many of themn utterly fail of that
kind of evidence which results purely from clear and express statement. Yet this is the evidence which our
opponents demand for infant baptism.
*Faber on Primitive Sacrifice, pp. 188-199.
303
IF
.1 
INFANT BAPTISM.
NOTE C.-Referred to p. 99.
The fact that the Jews baptized their proselytes at the
time ofChrist, is now generally admitted without controversy among the learned.  It is a remarkable fact that the
Jews felt no surprise at the fact that John baptized his
disciples, which they certainly would have manifested had
baptism been a novel thing.  Nay, they even go to John
and ask, "Who art thou?"  He assured them he was not
the Christ.  They reply, "Why baptizest thou then, IF
thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?"
John i, 25.  Here is no surprise manifested at the simple
fact of baptism-this they seemed to have expected when
Christ should come-but they merely wished to be informed how it came to pass that a person of less authority
than Messiah could baptize.  This indicates most clearly
a familiarity, on their part, with baptism as a religious
ceremony, in which light John employed it.
When  our Saviour talked with Nicodemus, and announced the startling doctrine that, "except any person (so
it reads in the Greek) be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot see the kingdom of God," the Pharisee was surprised, and his surprise arose from a want of clear comprehension of the nature of the new birth, and also from
the fact that our Saviour made no exceptions in favour of
the Jews, but affirmed the -necessity of the regeneration
of them as well as of Gentiles.  Our Lord, in turn, expressed his astonishment that he, being a 4" master in
Israel," should not understand this doctrine. As if he had
said, " Dost thou, as a spiritual master in Israel, command
proselytes to be baptized with water, as an emblem of a
Dww birth; and art thou unacquainted with the cause, necessity, nature, and effects of that new birth?" (See Dr. A.
Clarke on the place.)
Nicodemus did not seem to be surprised at the phraseology of Christ, but only at the sense he attached to this
phraseology, and its application to Jews as well as Gentiles; and Christ expressed his wonder that this language,
which was so generally employed by the Jews, as applyiig to proselyted Gentiles, should not be comprehended in
its true import by one whose office it was to be an instructor of the ignorant, and a guide to the blind. He did
304 
INFANT BAPTISM.
not comprehend the meaning of that very language which
was familiar to every Jew from the practice of proselytic
baptism.
The Jews derived  authority for baptizing  proselytes
/ from the fact that, before they themselves were entered
into covenant-with God at Mount Sinai, they were com manded to sanctify themselves, washing their clothes, &c., /
8 which was called a baptism.  At this time, therefore, they
considered that their whole nation was baptized, and thus,
in connection with the use of circumcision and sacrifice,
they were entered into covenant.  Then, it was written in
their law, Num. xv, 15, 16, "One ordinance shall be for
you, and also for the stranger (that is, proselyte) that
sojourneth with you... As ye are, so shall the stranger be
before the Lord. One law and one manner shall be for
you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you."  As
they themselves, therefore, considered that they had ae quied, and still retained, their standing as Jews by cir  cu-ncision, baptism, and oblation; and as one law must
serve equally for them, and the stranger, or proselyte, that
sojourned  with them, it is obvious from whence their
authority for baptizing proselytes proceeded.  As to them  selves, however, they considered that as their nation was
once dedicated to God solemnly by baptism, (Exod. xix, 10,
&c.,) there was no necessity that their children should
afterward be baptized, being, born of parents already legally
clean, or holy.
But these notions whether well-founded or not, haven
no weakening force upon our argument.  All that we are 
concerned to prove is, the fact that the Jews uniformly
baptized proselytes at the time of Christ.  Indeed, they/
knew of no way of making disciples, or proselytes, but by/
baptism.  So Mainionides says,' And so IN ALL AGES, when a Gentile is willing to enters
into covenant, and gather himself under the wings of the[
majesty of God, and take upon him the yoke of the law,}
he must be circumcised, and baptized, and bring a sacrice.
As it is written,' As you are, so shall the stranger be.',
How are you? By circumcision, and baptism, and bring-!
ing of a sacrifice.  So also the stranger, [or proselyte,]
THROUGH ALL GENERATIONS; by circumcision, and bap-'
\tism, and bringing a sacrifice.....
305 
!   "At this time, when there is no sacrificing, they must,
be circumcised and baptized.  And when the temple shall 
be built, they are to bring the sacrifice.  A stranger that 
is circumcised, and not baptized; or baptized, and not 
circumcised; he is not a proselyte till he be both circum- 
cised and baptized."
The Talmud of Babylon says, "When a proselyte is
[ received, he must be circumcised: and when he is cured
[of the wound of circumcision,] they baptize him in the
i presence of two wise men, saying,'Behold, he is an
t Israelite in all things.'"
The Talmud of Jerusalem testifies to the same point,
only specifying" sacrifice" in addition to circumcision and
baptism.
The Gemara of Babylon, a Jewish commentary on the
Mishna, says, " The proselytes entered not into covenant
but by circumcision,  baptism, and sprinkling of blood."
So they believe Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, was pro   selyted, and all others who came into the Jewish church
after his day. Hence, Arrianus, who wrote about A. D. 147,
calls the Jewish proselytes, in derision, "the baptized."
As baptism was well understood and practised by the
? Jews in our Saviour's time, so also was infant baptism. 
"   i Maimonides says, "If an Israelite take a Gentile CHILD,'
or find a Gentile INFANT, and baptize him in the name of
a proselyte, behold he is a proselyte."  Rabbi          Joseph
i   says, that persons who are made proselytes in infancy may
kretract when they are grown up, &c.
Rabbi Hezekiah has this rule, in regard to proselyting a
person in the name of a free man, or a servant: "Behold, 
one finds an infant cast out, and baptizes him in the name 
f a servant: do thou also circumcise him in the name of 
a servant.  But if he baptize hinr in the name of a free 
man: do thou also circumcise him in the name of a free 
man."*
"In regard to this subject," says Dr. Woods, "let the
following things be well considered
* See Dr. Lightfoot's Horne Hebraicse Talmudicee; also his Har
mony of the New Testament. Dr. Hammond's Annotations; also
his Six Queries on Infant Baptism. Quoted by Wall, History, part i,
Introduction; and Dr. A. Clarke, at the close of his comment on
Mark's Gospel.
306
INFANT BAPTISM. 
INFANT BAPTISM.                  307
"1. The rabbins unanimously assert that the baptism
of proselytes had been pravtised by the Jews in all ages, ~
from Moses down to the time when they wrote.   Now
these writers must have been sensible that their contemporaries, both Jews and Christians, knew whether such a
practice had been prevalent, or not. And had it been
known that no such practice had existed, would not some
Jews have been found bold enough to contradict such a
groundless assertion of the rabbins? At least, would there
not have been some Christians, fired with the love of truth
jealous for the honour of a sacred rite, first instituted by
Christ,; who would have exposed to shame  those who
falsely asserted that a similar rite had existed for more
than a thousand years? But neither of these things was
done.
"2. Had not the Jews been accustomed to baptize pro selytes previously to the Christian era, it is extremely improbable that they would have adopted the practice after ward.  For their contempt and hatred of Christianity ex ceeded all bounds, and must have kept them at the greatest
possible distance from copying a rite peculiar to Christians.
"3. It seems to have been perfectly consistent and
proper for the Jews  to baptize proselytes.  For their
divine ritual enjoined various purifications by washing, or
baptism. And as they considered all Gentiles to be unclean, how could they do otherwise than understand the
divine law to require, that when any of them were proselyted to the Jewish religion, they should receive the same
sign of purification as was, in so many cases, applied to
themselves?"*
NOTE D.-Referred to p. 128.
Cruden enumerates four senses in which the word
sanctify is employed in Scripture:-,
" I. It signifies, to confess and celebrate that to be holy
which in itself was so before. Matt. vi, 9. And thus it is
to be understood, wheresoever God is said to be sanctified.
"2. To  make persons holy, [in a moral sense,] who
* Lectures on Infant Baptism, pp. 48, 49. 
INFANT BAPTISM.
were impure and defiled before. 1 Cor. vi, 11. And this
is the sense of the word in those passages of Scripture
where the elect are said to be sanctified.
"3. To separate and set apart some things, or persons,
from a common unto a holy use, as the tabernacle, temple,
priests, &c. [This is proper ceremonial sanctification.]
4. To  employ a thing in holy and religious exercises,
in the worship of God in public and private, and the celebration of his works; in this and the former sense, the
seventh day is sanctified. Exod. xx, 8."
Not to mention that the last two of these significations
seem necessarily to involve each other, and hence, to be
one and the same thing substantially, the great fault of this
enumeration is, that it overlooks the very sense in which
ay,ta;o occurs in 1 Cor. vii, 14, and, indeed, in many
other places. Things were deemed sanctzfed that were
not devoted to any particular religious use, but which were
,merely lawful for a Jew or a Christian to use, as has been
noticed in the body of this work.
NOTE E. —Referr'ed to p. 138.
It is proper that the reader should be informed of the
various opinions that have been held with regard to this
passage, in order that he may the more clearly settle his
own opinion respecting the true meaning. I have given,
in the body of this work, what I conceive to be the true
sense  of the terms employed,.and the real force of the
apostle's argument.   I shall here  endeavour briefly to
notice others that have elicited the most considerable share
of attention from writers on both sides of the question.
First. There is an opinion which Pedobaptists have
held respecting this passage, which is set forth in the
following paraphrase'o: "For it has ordinarily come to pass,
that an unbelieving husband has been brought to the faith,
and so to baptism, by his wife; and likewise an unbelieving wife by her husband.  If it were not so, and if the
wickedness or infidelity of the unbelieving party did usually
prevail, the children of such would be generally kept unbaptized, and so be unclean. But now we see, by the 
INFANT BAPTISM.
grace of God, a contrary effect, for they are generally
baptized, and so become holy, or sanctified."*
This view requires us to understand the words sanctilfed
and holy as applying to moral character, and as implying
baptism. The reasons urged in favour of this construction
are the following:   1. The grammatical form of the sentence is said to indicate it. It stands thus: ~ytaa-at yag 6 adv7 6 a'7rtaro
iv  Tq  Ivvatua for the unbelieving husband  HATH  BEEN
SANCTIFIED by the wife, &c. The verb ~yta'rat sanctify
is in the perfect passive, and not in the present active form,
as our translators have rendered it.
2. This is the view entertained by many of the fathers
of the Christian church.
3. It is supposed to accord better with the scope of
Paul's reasoning, for he expressly says in verse 16, "For
what knowest thou, 0 man, whether thou shalt save thy
wife?" &c.; as if the scope of his argument all along is,
to show that the salvation (and hence baptism) of the unbelieving partner might be, and often had been, effected
through the instrumentality of the believing partner, and
this should induce them to live together, as it would sanction their continued union.
Mr. Wesley seems to have been of this opinion. He
says, "For the unbelieving husband hath, in many in-!
stances, been sanctified by the wife, &c., else would
your children have been brought up heathens, whereas
now they are Christians." (See his Notes on the place.)
So also Bishop Burnett: "The apostle does appoint the
Christian to live with the infidel, and says that the Christian is so far from being defiled by the infidel, that there is
a communication of a blessing that passes from the Christian
to the infidel, the one being the better'for the prayers of
the other, and sharing in the blessings bestowed on the
other: the better part was accepted of God, in whom
mercy rejoices over judgment." —Expos. of the Articles,
Art. xxvii.
In reply, it is sufficient to say, 1. As to the grammatical
form of the sentence, it equally accords with the version
and particular turn of sense we have given to the passage.
We  might read, "For the unbelieving husband has been
See Walls HIistory of Infant Baptism, part i, c. xi, se. 1I.
14
309 
INFANT BAPTISM.
sanctifed to the wife," &c., and it would equally make to
our purpose. 2. It appears strange that writers should
have found so much trouble with the little particle ev en.
Our English text has it by, and this is, I believe, the
translation more commonly given. It is this translation
of this small word that has occasioned so much misunderstanding of the passage, and which, indeed, is the basis
of the above view. If this particle were rendered to, instead of by, the whole argument of Paul would assume
another aspect. Indeed, the opinion above stated does
not give a true view of the force and character of the
argument. The question in the Corinthian church was
this, whether it was ceremonially lawful for a believer to
dwell with an unbeliever? But it is no proof that such a
union would not render the believing party now unclean,
to say that sometimes the unbeliever has been sanctified
by the instrumentality of the believer, and that the latter
might, in this case, hereafter be the means of accomplishing the same good.
Secondly. It has been maintained by Baptist authors,
at whose head, in this respect, stands Dr. Gill, that the
word "u tnclean,"' ver. 14, is to be understood in the sense
of illegitimate, and the word "holy" in the sense of legitimrate, or lawfully begotten.
Dr. Gill has thus expressed this view:-4"' The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by her husband; else were your
children unclean; but now are they holy.'  The parties
spoken of are duly, rightly, and legally espoused to each
other; —otherwise, that is, if they were not truly married
to each other, the children must be spurious, and not legitimate.'Else were your children uinclean, but now are
they holy;' that is, if the marriage contracted between
them was not valid, and if, since the conversion of one
of them, it can never be thought to be good; then the
children begotten and born, either when both were infidels,
or since one of them was converted, must be unlawfillly
begotten, base-born, and not genuine, legitimate offspring;
but as the parents are lawfully married, the childien born
of them are, in a civil and legal sense, holy, that is, legitimate."
this view of the text is endorsed by the American
310 
INFANT BAPTISM.
Baptist Publication and Tract Society, as it is the view
of Mr. Pengilly, whose tract on baptism that society have
published: although, to be sure, they have published another view of the text in the same tract, which we shall
notice hereafter.
The most plausible argument in favour of this construction is, that it appears to coincide with the scope of Paul's
reasoning. He certainly is arguing to the question, whether a man and woman may innocently live together, under
given circumstances, in marriage relations; and it appears,
at first blush, to be a natural and a satisfactory reply to this
inquiry, to show that the parties were lawfully married at
first. The great objections lying against this theory,
however, are,   1. If it had been a question of civil law, or relating to
the lawfulness of marriage in a civil sense, it is not pro.
bable, as we have before observed, that the Corinthian
church would have applied to Paul, now residing at Ephesus.  Why did they not appeal to civil law at once?
2. T o understand aitaOaapro  akathartos and &yta hagia
in the sense of illegitimate and legitimate, is contrary to
the usus loquendi.  "It puts a sense upon these words
which is widely different from the prevailing sense; yea,
different from the sense which they have in any other
passage of Scripture. And Dr. Gill himself does not pretend that either of the words is used in the sense he contends for, in any other text. He does, indeed, attempt to
support his rendering by referring to the use of the Hebrew
~   in the Talmudic books, where it has the sense of
espousing merely.   But Schleusner objects to the argument, and says,' that the notion of espousing, which certain interpreters have attributed to the word ro ayta;etv,
from the use of the word;iJ1 in the Talmudic books, is,
as any one must see, manifestly foreign to this place.
There is not one of the senses of 5_, given by Gesenius,
and not one of the many senses of a'yta~'), given by
Schleusner and Wahl, which favours the rendering of
Dr. Gill. The same is true of the adjective ayta. Schleusner and Wahl give a great variety of senses, but none of
them relate to the legitimacy of children.  Nor is ataOa9ro', nor the corresponding Hebrew Fr   ever used to
311
L —' 
INFANT BAPTISM.
designate a sprious, or illegitimate offspring.  Good use,
then, is entirely against the rendering of Dr. Gill."* We
have already, in the body of this work, illustrated the
Scripture use of these words.
3. Such a meaning as this of Dr. Gill, and his disciples,
does not meet the design of the apostle. We have before
noticed the true occasion and design of Paul's reasoning;
and we here refer the reader's attention to those remarks.
The question before the apostle arose purely from Jewish
ceremonial distinctions, and not from any state or condition
of the civil law respecting marriage;-it respected, therefore, only their ceremonial purity, and not the legality of
their marriage, or the legitimacy of their offspring.
4. It has been urged against this view that it represents
the apostle in the puerile effort of trying to prove a thing
by itself.  It represents him as proving the lawfulness of
the marriage of the parties by the legitimacy of their offspring —" You are lawfully married, because your children
are not bastards." A shorter method of arguing, on the
same principles, would have been to say, "You are lawfully married, because you are lawfully married."
This opinion concerning the sense of 1 Cor. vii, 14, the
Baptists have long held, and many of them still hold it.
But by many also it is totally discarded, so that it does not
seem necessary to extend our notice of it further.
Thirdly. The next opinion which deserves notice in
this place is, so far as I am informed, original with the
Rev. John L. Dagg, formerly pastor of the Fifth Baptist
church, Philadelphia. His views are published by the
directors of the Baptist General Tract Society, in an appendix to Mr. Pengilly's Scripture Guide to Baptism.
Mr. Dagg takes the words" unclean" and "holy" in their
usual sense, and brings forth the following paraphrastic
exposition of the passage:  "The apostle," says he, "decides, in verses 12 and 13,
that they [the believing and unbelieving partners] may
lawfully dwell together; and in ver. 14, for the convincing
and silencing of any members of the church who might
object to the decision, he in substance says,' The unbelieving husband is not unclean, so that his wife may not
* Dr. Woods on Infant Baptism, p. 85.
3 I 0
I
a 
INFANT BAPTISM.
lawfully dwell with him; the unbelieving wife is not unclean,
so that her husband may not lawfully dwell with her. If
they are unclean  -then are your children unclean, and not
one parent in the whole church must dwell with or touch his
children, until God shall convert them; and thus Christians
will be made to sever the ties that bind parents to their children, and to throw out the offspring of Christian parents
into the ungodly world, from their very birth, without any
provision for their protection, support, or religious education."
Mr. HIinton, in his History of Baptism, (p. 150,) adopts
this view at large, as the most probable one he had met
with.  Mr. Jewett also (Baptism, p. 79) adopts the same
opinion. Mr. Woolsey seems to prefer the opinion advocated by Dr. Gill. Which of the two constructions is
nearer the truth, in the estimation of the Baptist General
Tract Society, they have not informed us.  They have
offered both to the public on equal authority, and, with
much liberality, have left the matter to our election. We
prefer neither. However, they both serve to show how
troublesome is this tetx to'their peculiar theory.
The reader will perceive that the pronoun your, our
author understands to refer, not exclusively to those parents of whom one was a believer, and the other an unbeliever, but to the whole church.  He  thinks that if the
apostle had intended to speak of those children only who
had one parent a believer, and the other an unbeliever, he
would have said, -retva avrwv tekna auton, their children,
instead of -exva V'Cwv tekna humon, your children; the use
of the latter pronoun being more customary in addressing
the whole church, while the third person is nmore generally
employed to designate individuals of the body. He thinks'
also that the present tense of the verb, "your children 
kgrt are unclean," is a mode of speaking more'suited to a
parallel than.a dependant case.   
The objections to this view  are the following: -1. It
is based upon a suppositionr thait is wholly improbable and
absurd, and which contradicts all analogy  It supposes that
if it be not ceremonially lawful for a believing husband or
wife to live in conjugal relation with an unbelieving partner, so neither would it be lawful, on the same principles
of reasoning, for Christian parents to live with their cbil
313 
INFANT BAPTISM.
dren. Now, the cases are by no means parallel, and the
latter cannot be inferred from the former. It does not follow, by parity of reasoning, if a Christian and a heathen
cannot live together as husband and wife without the ceremonial defilement of the Christian, that, therefore, Christian parents cannot live with their children, whether born
before or after the conversion of the parents, without contracting ceremonial pollution in an equal degree. Analogy is altogether against such a supposition. The history of ceremonial distinctions clearly informs us that
where both parents were clean, the children, who should
be afterward born, would be clean also. And if among
Jews or Christians a believer has been reckoned defiled
by living with an unbeliever, or children have been reckoned unclean when but one of their parents was converted,
(both which held true among the Jews,) certain it is that
children have never been reckoned unclean where both
their parents were converted before their birth, any more
than two Jews or two Christians have been reckoned unclean merely by living with each other. We know not,
indeed, where our author derived his authority for advancing such a supposition, or by what authority the "directors of the General Tract Society" endorsed it; but
this we do know, that it is unauthorized by any precedent
or parallel in the entire range of analogy.
"If," says Dr. Woods, "we admit the above-mentioned
interpretation, what sense would there be in the apostle's
argument? Speaking of a believing wife who is connected with an unbelieving husband, he says, Such a
husband is sanctified to his wife, so that she is under no
necessity to leave him;-and the same as to a believing
husband and an unbelieving wife;-and then he adds, addressing himself unquestionably to the same persons,' otherwise,' that is, were it not for this innocency of relation,
which the believing partner has to the unbelieving,'your
children would be unclean;-but now,' in consequence of
this favourabie relation,'they are holy;' are to be regarded and treated as a holy, consecrated seed. The whole relates
to the particular case described. What sense can the passage have if we understand it as addressed to the Christian
husbands and wives generally, both parties being believers?' Else were your children unclean!' How? Why?
314 
INFANT BAPTISM.;1
The apostle says that it would be so, were it hot that the
unbelieving partner is sanctified to the believing.  But
here, according to the supposition, there is no unbelieving
partner. And then; what sort of relation has the conclusion to the premises? The reasoning supposed consists
of two parts. First. If the unbelieving partner were not
sanctified to the believing partner, the children of all other
Christians would be unclean.  Secondly. But now as the
unbelieving partner is sanctified to the believing, the children of all other Christians are holy. The first could not
be true. If the unbelieving partner were not sanctified to
the believing, it would indeed follow that their children
would be unclean, but it would not follow that other children would be unclean, where both parents were believers.  The conclusion in the second part is true,-but it
does not follow at all from the premises.  The children
of the church generally, where both parents are believers,
are indeed holy; in the sense of the apostle; but not because an unbelieving partner is sanctified to a believing."*
2. If the above supposition were true;-if we concede
to our opponents all the claims of the above argument,
still, we frankly confess, we cannot feel that it possesses
force.  What is the argument?  Why, simply, "that if it
be not ceremonially lawful for a believing husband or wife
to live with an unbelieving partner; so neither is it lawful,
by parity of reasoning, for Christian parents to live with
their children." But wherein lies the force of this argument? Simply in the supposition that it is more unnatural
and shocking to humanity for parents to refuse to live with
their children, than for husbands to refuse to live with
their wives, or wives with their husbands. Destroy this
supposition, and the argument has no conceivable force.
Why  should the fact, that parents may not refuse
to live with their children, be urged as an argument to
prove that husbands should not refuse to live with their
wives, or wives with their husbands, except on the supposition that the former is self-evidently unnatural and
shocking, while the latter is not? If there be any thing
* Infant Baptism, p. 98.-I have slightly altered the phraseology
of this extract, merely to suit the turn I have given to the text in the
translation I have adopted, but not so as to alter the bearing of the
argument as intended by the author.
315
Ir 
INFANT BAPTISM.
in the philosophy of Mr. Dagg's argument, this is it.
But if we appeal directly to nature, or to the common
sense of mankind, we shall find that it is no more repugnant to the social feelings, the good order and happiness
of society, nor more appalling to humanity, for parents to
refuse to live with their children, than for husbands and
wives to refuse to live together. The former is not more
strongly prohibited by nature itself, by revelation, or by
the disastrous consequences that would ensue, than the
latter. It is plain, therefore, that the unnatural wickedness of the one cannot be a forcible argument against the
performance of the other, where the wickedness of both
would be equal. Our author, then, undertakes to prove a
doctrine, first, by stating a parallel, which indeed is found
to be no parallel; certainly not such an obvious one as
to entitle it to become the basis of a new theory! and,
secondly, by deducing from this supposed parallel appalling consequences, which, indeed, are no more appalling
or impious than those of the original error which they are
intended to refute.
The consequences, moreover, are unfairly drawn.  The
fertility of the author's genius in deducing corollaries has
betrayed him into a most amusing excess. It appears as
if he had attempted to storm the imagination, and take the
judgment prisoner by a sort of coup de main, but it proves
a failure. If we should suppose that Christian parents could
not live with their children without ceremonial defilement,
and to avoid profaneness, were consequently obliged to separate from them until they had grown up and become converted, still it would be far from following, (and that man
must be crazy indeed who could suppose that it must follow,) as a necessary alternative, that they must "sever
the ties that bind them to their children, and throw out their
offspring into the ungodly world from their very birth,
WITHOUT ANY PROVISION FOR THEIR PROTECTION, SUPPORT, OR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION!!"  Facinus horrendum!
On the contrary, even if Christian parents could not be
allowed to live with their children, still they could love
them, and make any other provision for them in their
power, for "their protection, support, and religious education."
3. After all, this mode of reasoning seems nothing bet
316 
INFANT BAPTISM.
ter than proving a thing by itself; a method of procedure
absurd and senseless, and expressly rejected by Mr. Dagg
himself. If it be an absurd mode of reasoning to say,
"You are lawfully married, because your children are
lawfully begotten," (and Mr. D. says it is absurd,) then,
also, is it equally absurd, and by perfect parity of reasoning, to say, (as Mr. D. has said,) "You are clean, bee
cause your children, which are born of you, are clean."
If the cleanness or holiness in both cases is the same, an,
swering the same ends, then has Mr. D. adopted a mode
of reasoning which he himself had repudiated in Dr.
Gill. And this is not merely an argumentum ad homninem,
for in both cases the reasoning is to be rejected.
NOTE F.-Referred to p. 222.
In connection with the historical argument in support
of infant baptism, it becomes necessary to fuirnish the
reader with some account of the Waldenses, Albigenses,
&c., and particularly of the sect called Petrobrusians.
The reader should be apprized that the Baptists havemade great searchings into the ecclesiastical records of
Christian antiquity, to find some sect, or broken fragment of
the church, or independent society, through which to reckon
the descent of anti-Pedobaptism from the apostles.  They
have found a society, answering their purpose in part, in
the character and history of some obscure people, who
began to attract attention in the middle ages, but whose
antiquity and true history are shrouded, in a great degree,
to this day, in impenetrable night. The people to which
I allude are now more commonly designated by the general name of Waldenses and Albigenses. Before entering
upon the brief account of this people which we intend to
give, it is proper to premise, that after the Christian
church began largely to corrupt itself by the usurpation
of temporal dominion, the use of images in worship, and
a hundred other departures from the simplicity of the gospel, which it is not necessary to mention, there arose,
from time to time, small parties who opposed these existing abominations. These, always being in the despised
14*
317
I 
INFANT BAPTISTM.
minority, and mostly of obscure birth and fortunes, were
overawed in the populous cities, where church power
was dominant, and quickly expelled. Hence they confined themselves mostly to the obscurer parts of the kingdoms in which they arose. The Waldenses seem to have
arisen up, and more generally to have remained, in the
mountainous regions of Italy and France.  Here, in the
retirement and solitude of a rural life, hedged in with
lofty mountains, God gave them, for a long time, that
liberty of conscience and freedom to worship him, without Papal interdiction, which their seclusion from the
world, their distance from Rome, their paucity of numbers, and their unostentatious pursuits, seemed so naturally to guaranty.   In the principality of Piedmont, in
Italy, and in the late province of Dauphlliny, in France,
(now comprising the departments of Drome, Isere, and
Upper Alps,) as well as in many parts bordering on the
Pyrenees, are beautiful and' fertile valleys, where, under
a genial sun, are cultivated all the fruits and luxuries
which belong to any of the districts of France or Italy.
In these regions, on account of the greater security
which the situation offered, arose numerous sects, at
different times, widely differing from each other, and all
enemies of the Catholic Church. The word Waldenses
simply signifies valleys, inhabitants of valleys, &c., and
applied to all the sects generally who inhabited these valleys.  Of the sects that arose in these regions, some were
Manichees,* and, with many impious and absurd tenets,
denied all water baptism, retaining only a "baptism by
fire," as they called it, which they administered only to
adults.  Mr. Wall says, "Though the authors do not well
distinguish the names, yet, most generally, this sort that
denied all baptism, and held the other vile opinions, are
denoted by these names, Cathari, Apostolici, Luciferians,
Runcarians, Popelicans, alias Publicans."f
After minutely searching out the histories of all the
different sects that inhabited these valleys, and which are
modernly denominated Waldenses, he fixes upon one sect
only of those who held to water baptism at all, who yet
* For an account of the Manichean heresy, vide Dr. Mosheim's
Ecclesiastical History, century iii, chapter v.
t History, part ii, chap. vii, sec. 7.
318 
INFANT BAPTISM'.
denied infant baptism.  This sect was the Petrobrusians.
Ecclesiastical historians complain much of the obscurity
that rests upon the history of these times. The history
of these sects we derive from their enemies and persecutors, the bigoted monks, and others who took part
against them. Hence they are sometimes charged with
denying particular doctrines, and, among the rest, infant
baptism, evidently to slander them. The whole evidence
of there being any sect, or society of men, among those
generally called Waldenses, that denied infant baptism,
who, at the same time, held to any water baptism at all,
is but probable. So says Mr. Wall, and so many others
regard it.
"The modern Waldenses in Piedmont and Provence,
who are the descendants of those ancient ones, practise
infant baptism.  And they were also found in the practice
of it when the Protestants of Luther's Reformation sent to
know their state and doctrine, and to confer with them.
And they themselves say that their fathers never practised
otherwise; and they give proof of it from an old book of
theirs, called the Spiritual Almanac, where infant baptism
is owned. Perin, their historian, gives the reason of the
report that had been to the contrary. He says,'Their
ancestors being constrained for some hundred years to
suffer their children to be baptized by the priests of the
Church of Rome, they deferred the doing thereof as long
as they could, because they had in detestation those huiman inventions that were added to the sacrament, which
they held to be the pollution thereof. And forasmuch as
their own pastors were many times abroad, employed in
the service of their churches, they could not have baptism administered to their infants by their own ministers. For this cause they kept them long from baptism;
which the priests perceiving, and taking notice of, charged
them with this slander.' There are many other confessions of theirs of like import, produced by Perin, Baxter,
Wills, &c. This is the account the Waldenses give of
themselves in those confessions, some of which seem to
have been published about two hundred years ago, (that
is, about 1505.) One, of the Bohemian Waldenses, is
dated 1508."*
* Wall's History, part ii, chap. vii, sec. 3.
319 
INFANT BAPTISM.
These various sects that arose in the tenth, eleventh,
and twelfth centuries, were known by different names in
different places. In France they were mostly known as
Albigenses, so called from Albi, a city in Languedoc,
where they became very numerous; or, perhaps more
accurately, from Albigesium, the general denomination of
Narbonnese Gaul in that century. So some of them also
were called Lyonists, or the poor men of Lyons.
The antiquity of these various sects cannot well be
computed. The exact date of their origin is not a matter
of history. Peter Waldus, a native of Lyons, an opulent
merchant and a layman, became so affected with the existing corruptions of the church, that he began to inveigh
against them. He began his ministry about A. D. 1160.
In the course of his exertions he became acquainted with
a people in the valleys of Piedmont, of spirits congenial
to his own. These were what were afterward called the
Waldenses, or "men of the valleys."  By the influence
and labours of Peter, his disciples from Lyons became
intimately associated with those in the valleys of Piedmont.   But the latter had long subsisted there previously
to this date. Some believe that they had existed from
the days of the apostles. Others ascribe to them an indefinite antiquity. St. Bernard says they must have derived
their origin from the devil, since there is no other extraction which we can assign to them. Waddington says we
must admit that the direct historical evidence is not sufficient to prove their apostolical descent. He supposes the
general sect of the Waldenses may have gradually crept
into existence, and extended from the eighth to the eleventh century. It still appears, says he, that the name
is not mentioned in any writing before the twelfth century; and there is no direct, specific evidence of the
previous existence of the sect. Nevertheless, as its origin was confessedly immemorial in the thirteenth century,
and as there has not, perhaps, existed, in the history of
heresy, any other sect to which some origin has not been
expressly ascribed, we have just reason to infer the very
high antiquity of the Vaudois, or Waldenses.*
But the antiquity of this sect, or, we should say, perhaps, of these sects, is of very little importance to the
* History of the Church, p. 290.
820 
INFANT BAPTISM.
argument of our opponents, so long as it is by no means
clear that they denied infant baptism.  Indeed it is clear
that they did not deny it, if we except a single party of a
later origin. Mr. Gilly, an English clergyman, who made
excursions among the modern Waldenses of Piedmont ill
1823, has shown that they now practise infant baptism
and Mr. Jones, in his History of the Waldenses, has at;
tempted to evade the force of this by showing that the
present inhabitants of the valleys of Piedmont are not the
true descendants of the ancient Waldenses, and that they
do not hold the same faith of the latter.  His proofs, how,
ever, do not appear fully satisfactory touching the point
of infant baptism, to say no more. For where he quotes
the ancient Waldenses as saying that antichrist "teaches
to baptize children into the faith, and attributes to this the
work of regeneration," &c., it does not necessarily follow
that they intended to condemn infant baptism itself, but
only the making it to be equal to regeneration, and indeed
what immediately follows proves this to have been the
point of their meaning. So when they speak of professing
faith before baptismi it may only refer to adults, which is
a very common mode of speaking.*
But allowing the ancient Waldenses to have denied infant baptism, still this can hold true only of one of the
many sects that went under that name, namely, the fol -
lowers of Peter Bruis, hence called Petrobrusians.  Peter
began to preach about A.D. 1126, in the province of
Dauphiny, in France. His sect spread over much of the
southern part of France, both in country and city, particularly in Toulouse. He was arrested and burnt as a heretic
in A. D. 1144. He was succeeded by one Henry, who
took the lead of the party for some time. Henry was
arrested, and it is probable that he was executed, about
A. D. 1147 or 1148. St. Bernard had been sent out by
Pope Eugenius to suppress this sect, and, after the death
of Henry, "it is said that those who had erred were reduced, the wavering were satisfied, and the seducers so
confuted that they durst nowhere appear.   And a little
after this, Bernard sends a letter to the people of Toulouse,
congratulating their recovery from the confusions that had
* See Jones's History of the Waldenses, vol. ii, pp. 335-338; and
Preface to fifth edition,.Philadelphia.
321 
, been among them on account of those opinions."* Here 
then, was thet   suppression of the only sect, of which we
--    have any authentic and positive knowledge, for the firstj
-   eleven hundred years after the apostles, who denied infant i
~   } baptism.  Their distinct existence as a sect seems not to
have continued more than about thirty years. After this,
there is no direct account of any sect who denied infant
baptism until the rise of the Anabaptists in Germany early
in the sixteenth century, (A. D. 1522.) This sect might
have arisen, like the phenix, from the scattered ashes of
the former.
I have now laid before the reader, very briefly, the pro      minent facts in the case, in relation to the Waldenses, so
far as they stand connected with our subject. The ques      tion, then, arises, What does all this make for the argument
of our opponents? In other words, What is the force of
the argument for anti-Pedobaptism, derived from the fact
that the Waldenses, or some who-passed under that general
name, denied infant baptism?  Really we cannot see that
-it has any force whatever.  All the force that the argument
!can possibly have, in the nature of the case, is derived 
from the supposition that there existed, in the northern
part of Italy and in the southern part of France, a sect
who, from the days of the apostles, denied infant baptism,
and held to believers' baptism only. If anti-Pedobaptism
cannot be traced through these men up to the apostles,>
the argument is good for nothing.  The argument from
church history is brought in merely to prove the antiquity
of the practice; and if it can be traced up to the apostles
themselves, as the uniform and uncontested practice of the
church, it furnishes a powerful presumption, nay, almost a
demonstration, that it was instituted by the apostles.  This,'~
in regard to infant baptism, we have shown to have been'
the fact.  But is this the state of the case in reference to 
; anti-Pedobaptism? Far from it.  What if all the Walden      sian sects denied infant baptism? What if they had united
to ascribe their origin to apostolic times, and their practice
to apostolic teaching? All this could have proved nothing,
any more than the antiquity of the Chinese can be proved
from their mere pretensions. In the absence of authentic
records, or of powerful circumstantial testimony, we can
* Wall's History, part ii, c. vii, sec. 7.
322
INFANT BAPTISMT. 
I NFA NT PAPTISM.
place no reliance whatever upon mere rumour, or upon
mere sectarian pretension. The Waldenses did not come"
fully into notice till the twelfth century, and the denial of 
infant baptism dates no further back than the year 1128. 
Beyond this is, with reference to this subject, the fabulous
age- the age of fiction and conjecture. All the Christian
world regarded the doctrine as new when it then appeared,
first in the Alpine regions of Dauphiny.
But it should be remembered (which we have not before
stated) that the principle on which infant baptism was
denied by the Petrobrusians is such as to indicate sufficiently its new and heretical character.  "Christ sending
his disciples to preach," say they, "says in the gospel,
' Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature.   He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.'  From
these words of our Saviour it is plain that none can be
saved unless he believe and be baptized: that is, have
both Christian faith and baptism. For not one of these,
but both together, doth save. So that infants, though they
be by you baptized, yet, since by reason of their age they
cannot believe, are not saved. It is therefore an idle and
vain thing for you to wash persons with water, at such a
time when you may indeed cleanse their skin from dirt in
a carnal manner, but not purge their souls from sin. But
we do stay till the proper time of faith: and when a person is capable to know his God and believe in him, then
we do (not, as you charge us, rebaptize him, but) baptize
him. For he is to be accounted as not yet baptized who
is not washed with that baptism by which sins are done
away."*  The principle, then, upon which this sect denief
infant baptism was plainly this, that infants, baptized or
not baptized, are lost, so that it is unfit that they should be 
subjects of any religious ordinance, not being subjects of
grace. A practice founded on a principle so erroneous
(not to say shocking) cannot commend itself to us with
authority, or yield any important aid to the cause of modern anti-Pedobaptism.
* Vide Wall's History, part ii, c. vii, sec. 5.
323
I: 
INFANT BAPTISM.
NOTE G.-Referred to p. 223.
The Church of Rome hold that the administration of
baptism belongs chiefly to bishops, priests, and deacons;
but, in case of necessity, men or women, Jews, infidels,
or heretics, may do it, if they intend to do what the Church
doeth.
The ceremonies that are used in baptism are the following:
1. Chrism, or oil mixed with water. This is a token
of salvation.
2. Exorcism, composed of certain words, prayers, and
actions, for expelling the devil out of the person, and also
out of the salt to be used. The priest is to blow in the
face of the child after the form of a cross, saying, "Go
out of him, Satan!"
3. The forehead, eyes, breast, &e., are to be crossed,
to show that by the mystery of baptism the senses are
opened to receive God, and to understand his commands.
4. Then some exorcised salt is to be put into the mouth,
to signify a deliverance from the putrefaction of sin, and
the savour of good works.  And the priest, in putting it
into the mouth, saith, " N., take the salt of wisdom, and
let it be a propitiation for thee to eternal life.  Amen."
5. Then the nose and ears are to be anointed with
spittle, and then the child is to be brought to the water,
as the blind man to Siloam, to signify it brings light to the
mind.
After baptism, 1. The priest anoints the top of the head
with chrism; and adds,   Let him anoint thee with the
chrismn of salvation."
2. He puts a white garment on the baptized  saying,
"Take this whitte garment, which thou mayest bring before the judgment-seat of Christ, that thou mayest have
life eternal."
3. A lighted candle is put into the hand, to show a faith
inflamed with charity, and nourished with good works.
Vide Wesley's Works, vol. v, pp. 785, 786, from which
this is taken.
Now, can all these senseless and ridiculous ceremonies,
which are evidently only the inventions of men, prove that
324 
infant baptism itself was also nothing but an invention of
man? If such an argument holds good against infant bap
tism, it certainly holds equally good against all baptism
whatsoever, for adult baptism was involved in the same
superstitious corruptions. On the same principles of rea?
soning also the divine institution of the eucharist is invalidated, and proved to be a human invention, because it was
corrupted with not only silly superstitions, but monstrous
absurdities.
How pitiful, then, is all this attempt to get up an ignoa;
rant prejudice against the apostolic institution of infant
baptism, merely on the ground of its having been abused
by the superadditions of a foolish superstition, to meet the
vitiated taste of an apostate church! It is amusing, and'
at the same time pitiful, to trace the laboured efforts of
Mr. Robinson, and of his copyist and admirer, Mr. Benedict, in their Histories of Baptism and the Baptists, through
tiresome pages, wrapping themselves in an endless verbo
sity, and saying many silly things, and all to show that
infant baptism had its origin in the middle ages! and arose
from the general despotism of the laws, the ignorance of
the people, the licentiousness of the clergy,  &c., &c.!
We  say, considered in the light of either sober argument!
or authentic history, all this is pitiful-is contemptible
Iti~
It is a mere play upon the presumed ignorance and credu lity of their readers.  See Robinson's History of Baptism,
pp. 269-282; and Benedict's Hist. of the Baptists, vol. i
i pp. 60, 61, &c,
NOTE H.-Referred to p. 278.
In his sermon on "Marks of the New Birth," Mr. Wesley says,  "Say not, then, in your heart,' I was once baptized,
therefore I am now a child of God.' Alas! that conse.
quence will by no means hold.  How many are the bapg
tized gluttons and drunkards, the baptized liars and comn-.
mon swearers, the baptized railers and evil speakers, the
baptized whoremongers, thieves, extortioners! What think
you?  Are these now the children of God?  Verily I say
unto you, whosoever you are, unto whom  any one of the
325
INFANT BAPTISll.
I 
, preceding characters belong,' Ye are of your father the
devil, and the works of your father ye do.'  Unto you I
call,  in the name of Him whom you crucify afresh, and in
his words to your circumcised predecessors,' Ye serpents,
! ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation
lof hell?'
"How indeed, except ye be born again! for ye are now a
dead in trespasses and in sins.  To say, then, that ye
i cannot be born again, that there ts no new birth but in bap- 
e tism, is to seal you all under damnation, to consign you to 
hell, without help, and without hope....
'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye,' also,'must be
born again.''Except ye' also' be born again, ye cannot
see the kingdom of God.'  Lean no more on that staff of 
a broken reed, that ye were born again in baptism.  Who
denies that ye were then made children of God, and heirs
of the kingdom of heaven? But, notwithstanding this, ye
are now children of the devil.  And let not Satan put it 
into your heart to cavil at a word, when the thing is clear. 
Ye have heard what are the marks of the children of God:
all ye who have them not on your souls, baptized or un- 
baptized, must needs receive them, or, without doubt, ye
will perish everlastingly.  And if ye have been baptized,  i
your only hope is this, that those who were made the
children of God by baptism, but are now the children of e
the devil, may yet again receive'power to become the
sons of God;' that they may receive again what they have
lost, even the'spirit of adoption, crying in their hearts,
Abba, Father!' "-Works, vol. i, pp. 160, 161.
In his sermon on "the New Birth," he says,    "I proposed, in the last place, to subjoin a few infer ences which naturally follow from the preceding observa tions.
"1. And first, it follows that baptism is not the new 
: birth: they are not one and the same thing.  Many, indeed,
seem to imagine that they are just the same  at least, they 
speak as if they thought so; but I do not know that this:
opinion is avowed by any denomination of Christians
whatever.  Certainly it is not by any within these king doms, whether of the established Church, or dissenting
from it.  The judgment of the latter is clearly declared
iii their large catechism:' Q. What are the parts of a
326
INVANT 13AI"fiSAI. 
INFANT BAPTISlM.
sacrament? Ans. The parts of a sacrament are two: the
one, an outward and sensible sign; the other, an inward
and spiritual grace, thereby signified. Q. What is baptism? Ans. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein Christ hath
ordained the washing with water, to be a sign and seal of
regeneration by his Spirit.' Here it is manifest, baptism,
the sign, is spoken of as distinct from regeneration, the
thing signified.
"In the Church Catechism, likewise, the judgment of
our Church is declared with the utmost clearness:' Q.
What meanest thou by this word sacrament?  Ans. I mean
an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual
grace. Q. What is the outward part or form in baptism?
Ans. Water, wherein the person is baptized, ill the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Q. What is the
inward part, or thing signified? Ans. A death unto sin,
and a new birth unto righteousness.' Nothing, therefore,
is plainer than that, according to the Church of England,
baptism is not the new birth.
"But, indeed, the reason of the thing is so clear and
evident as not to need any other authority. For what can
be more plain than that the one is an external, the other
an internal work; that the one is a visible, the other all
invisible thing, and therefore wholly different from each
other?-the one being an act of man, purifying the body;
the other a change wrought by God in the soul: so that
the former is just as distinguishable from the latter, as the
soul from the body, or water from the Holy Ghost.
"2. From the preceding reflections we may, secondly,
observe, that as the new birth is not the same thing with
baptism, so. it does not always accompany baptism: they do
not constantly go together. A man may possibly be' born
of water,' and yet not' born of the Spirit.' There may
sometimes be the outward sign, where there is not the
inward grace. I do not now speak with regard to infants:
it is certain our Church supposes, that all who are baptized
in their infancy are at the same time born again; and it is
allowed that the whole office for the baptism of infants
proceeds upon this supposition.  Nor is it an objection of
any weight against this, that we cannot comprehend how
this work can be wrought in infants. For neither can we
coumprehend how it is wrought in a person of riper years.
327 
INFANT BAPTISM.
But whatever be the case with infants, it is sure, all of
riper years who are baptized are not, at the same time,
born again.' The tree is known by its fruits:' and hereby
it appears too plain to be denied that divers of those, who
were children of the devil before they were baptized,
continue the same after baptism;'for the works of their
father they do:' they continue servants of sin, without any
pretence either to inward or outward holiness."-Ibid.,
pp.404, 405.
From these extracts it appears most obvious that Mr.
Wesley's view of baptismal regeneration is of the most
modified form, differing far less with the general class of
dissenters than with the hig,h-Church party.. His cate chetical and liturgical forms of expression differ, some times, from those which we prefer to adopt, but his ex planations, and practical uses of the doctrines of baptism
and regeneration, are evangelical and sound. His Chris tian character and doctrines were too highly evangelical
to admit of an error here. No man, since the days of
Paul, ever exhibited the necessity of inward holiness with
a greater clearness of expression, or enforced it upon his
hearers with a bolder energy of diction. He levelled his
fearless rebukes against the formalism of his day-against
all that tendency to exalt the outward means to the dis paragement of real godliness which was  bringing the
Church, with a fearful proclivity, in a retrograde move ment toward the enormities of the tenth century-against
these deteriorating tendencies, I say, Wesley opposed the
most pungent rebukes of the oracles of God, and hurled
the polished shafts of the quiver of truth. He is the last'
man  upon whom  suspicion of formalism  can fix her  )
venomous fang. 
THE END.
328 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
PART II.-MODE, OBLIGATION, IMPORT,
AND RELATIVE ORDER.
NOW I PRAISE YOU, BRETHREN, THAT YE... KEEP THE ORDINANCES
AS I DELIVERED THEM UNTO YOU.-PAUL.
xl-11 
,!,I!; 
PREFACE.
THE reader will probably first expect my apology for
presuming to fan the embers of a tiresome controversy,
which has promised, or rather threatened, a continuance
coextensive with human frailty. My apology is, that I
judged the argument could be placed in a better light than
that in which it is generally found in treatises on the
mode of baptism; besides, several important points have
not been duly noticed in any work that has come under
my observation. The controversy is often encumbered
by matter totally foreign to the subject, and hence we
often find people arguing in a manner that leaves themni
further apart in the end than they had supposed, or, in
fact, were at the beginning. The argument is a Bible
argument-purely, and most absolutely, a Bible argument
To this limit I have kept it. While there is difference
of opinion among Christians on any subject, it is natural,
it is right, to render a judgment of the case.   I have
given mine, not without hope that it may contribute its
mite of influence to establish the opinions of the candid
who ask for light.
If ever this controversy on the mode of baptism be
settled, it will be effected, in my sober judgment, by
giving that position to the philological argument that I
have given to it in this work. I mean, this will be the 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
main engine that will tend to the accomplishment of this
desirable end. And here I wish to record my sense of
obligation to the writings of that shrewd polemic and
accomplished scholar, the Rev. Edward Beecher, president
of Illinois College. Some years since I had partly taken
the same ground in writing on the same subject.  But it
was President Beecher's lucid "Criticisms on Bawrrtz
baptizo," published (and now being published) in the
American Biblical Repository, that settled my views, and
induced me to take the position I have in this work, in
relation to the import of parteo.   I have, therefore,
freely borrowed, as the reader will see, from that author's
published numbers; although it is but just to myself to
say, that many of the coincidences that occur between
that author's views and my own are not chargeable to any
plagiarism in me.
The -reader should remember that the argument is
cumulative.  No single argument can decide the controversy to entire satisfaction; but various arguments, brought
together from different sources, uniting in their evidence
to support the same general position. In such a case,
the force of the evidence is greater than that of all the
arguments separately, and than the sum of all the arguments; above all ti Lese, there is the force of the coincidence
of the different parts. Hence the reader should be patient
in his investigations, and never abandon the subject till
he has followed it out in all its ramifications.
I have said nothing in this treatise concerning the
proper subjects of baptism. This omission has not resulted from any light estimation of the subject of infant
baptism; on the contrary, it is one that lies very near my
8 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISII.
heart   But I have an insuperable objection to such  a
mutilation of the argument on this important doctrine, as
must result from an attempt to compress it into one or
two brief chapters.   It is itself worthy of a separate
treatise, as it certainly forms a distinct and independent
subject. The reader will find little or no allusion, therefore, to infant baptism. Indeed, no side is herein taken
on that subjects; but neither the silence that prevails
throughout the following pages respecting it, nor any
particular phraseology that may occur, must be construed
into a want of belief in, or appreciation of, infant baptism,
on the part of the author; nothing could do greater injustice to my established convictions.
The subject has been kept from a controversial aspect
as far as practicable.  It is true an "opponent" has been
kept in view, and an eye has been had to the main force
of the opposite sentiments; but this has been discovered
only so far as it was judged important to the better understanding of the proper merits of the subject.  The object
has not been to defeat an antagonist, but to elicit truth.
All extraneous matter has been studiously avoided, and
many minor, collateral arguments have been neglected,
from a wish not to embarrass and weaken those arguments that are clear and direct.
The reader is particularly commended to the philological  argument  on  those  chapters  on  parts  bapto,
parTTl  baptizo, and the Greek particles.  These, in the
order of argument, should properly have come first; and
they must necessarily exert a determining influence on
the question, pro or con.
The present work is the result of a careful and anxious
9 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
investigation, carried on at intervals for several years
past. I felt it more difficult to abridge than to swell its
limits; but can confidently say, that the just dimensions
of the argument, as I conceive it, are contained in these
few unpretending pages.   If they prove successful in
settling the opinions of any of my Christian brethren, and
leading them to juster views of the subjects of which
they treat, I shall not regret my labour of writing.
F. G. H.
GENEVA, April, 1843.
10
S.. 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
MODE OF BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
JOHN'S BAPTISM.
SEC. I.-JOHN'S BAPTISMAL STATIONS.
VARIOUS views are entertained ill relation to the baptism of John. Some regard it as identical with Christian
baptism, while others will deem an apology due for introducing it at all in the present discussion. The character
of John's baptism will be noticed hereafter; at present we
shall turn our thoughts to an investigation of the mode of
his baptism.  It is not greatly to be wondered at that the
advocates of exclusive immersion should so readily have
imbibed the belief that John performed his baptism by immersion; but it is truly unaccountable that persons of the
opposite sentiment should, in any instance, have conceded
to them this ground on so slight investigation. Still, whatever may be the final determination in regard to the mode
of John's baptism, it can have no direct tendency to fix
the evangelical mode of Christian baptism, any further
than to throw light upon the use and application of the
word baptize.
Before stating the arguments in support of our own
views, we shall notice some of those which have been
brought forward in defence of the hypothesis that John
immersed.  The argument of our opponents derived from
the word baptize we shall consider in a future number.
We notice at present only those circumstances which
stand connected with the notices of John's baptism, and
which are supposed to favour the idea of immersion. 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISMI.
It is urged in favour of the immersion of John's disci ples, that he "baptized in Jordan."   The force of the
Greek particle (Ev) will be discussed in its appropriate
place; but we introduce it here, merely to give a logical
cast to the argument. What, then, is the argument, when
logically stated?  It is this, viz.:  John baptized in Jor dan. therefore he baptized by immersion.
But it is further urged, in support of immersion, that
"John baptized in Enon, near to Salim, because there was
much water there," John iii, 23.  The circumstance of
John's choosing a place where there was much water is
supposed to favour the doctrine of immersion. Hence the
question is asked, with an air of argumentative triumph,
Why did John choose a place of "much water," if he
merely sprinkled the people? And so, as if the argument
were complete, it is inferred that John chose such a place
for the purpose of immersion only. Now we are not bound
to show the real cause of John's choosing such a place.
If any man assert that it was for the purpose of immersion
only, why, the onus probandi lies with himself; let him
prove it. We have not, like our Baptist brethren, taken
upon ourselves any such responsibility. But mark the sin gular lo,oic of the argument above alluded to.  It amounts
to this, viz.:-John baptized at Enon because there was
mniuch water there; therefore John immersed.  Doubtless
this mode of reasoning proves satisfactory to some, but we
cannot participate in a faith which rests upon such evidence.  Where, then, is the proof that John immersed?)
amWe know of none.  But observe,
1. Considering the vast multitudes that followed John,
"much water" was requisite for the convenience of bap tism in any form.  But, as this will not obviate the point
of difficulty with our opponents, we remark,
2. That, as the history does not inform us whether the
much water was needed for baptism or for some other pur pose, we are left to conjecture the necessity of its demand
by the light of circumstances. Now we know that bap tism may be performed in a small body of water.  But
there were other circumstances, besides simple baptism, for
which John was to make provision. In that country the
mercury ranges, in winter, from fortyto fifty degrees, and
in summer from eighty to one hundred, and in the plains
I , 
CHRISTIAN BAFPTISM.
of Jordan, where John was baptizing, often much higher.
Water, therefore, was in constant demand, not merely for
baptism, but more especially for the uses of the people
and for their beasts. And this necessity of the people
John must see and provide for, whenever hlie would fix his
)osition for baptizing, unless he would endanger the lives
of the people. In connection with this observe,
3. The Greek (7ro?,a d6aTa) is in the plural number, and
may be rendered here, as it is in other places, "many wa ters."  This suggests the fact that John selected a place
for baptism which abounded in living springs and running
brooks, water which the people might drink.* This trans lation is supported by historical facts.  1. John had been
previously baptizing in the Jordan near Bethabara.  But
the water of the Jordan is unfit to drink until it has stood
several hours in vessels, and settled. The river itself is
bold and rapid, and its waters always turbid and dark.
HIlence the Jordan was sometimes called, by the Greeks,
/uE2ac, which signifies black. The multitudes, therefore,
that thronged to Johln's baptism at Bethabara were proba bly inadequately supplied with wholesome water, which
determined the course of John northward, to Enon, where
this inconvenience might be obviated.  2. Another circumstance, and one which seems to be altogether overlooked
by the Baptists, is, that John had left Bethabara, where 
i  there was more water, for Enon, where there was muck
. water.  Why should it be said that, because there was
mnuch water at Enon, John chose that place for baptism,
when he had all along baptized at Bethabara, where the
Jordan is much broader, and, consequently, where there
was a much larger quantity of water?  If the mere quan tity of water is to be understood, we can assign no reason
why John preferred Enon to Bethabara. Upon this sup position the passage in question is perfectly enigmatical.
But, if Enon was supplied with many springs of water
suited to the necessities of so vast a multitude as followed
John, then we perceive a reason why Jolhn should select
such a place, and we perceive also a propriety in the
translation we have adopted.  Strange therefore as it mlay
seem, we are nevertheless bound to the conclusion, by all
the evidence in the case, that it was the quality, and not
* See note A, at the end of the volume.
I —,
0 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the quantity of water that determined the baptismal station
!of John northward at Enon; and that the Greek phrase!
translated much water should read many waters, applyingi
! to many living springs and running rivulets.
'This passage, therefore, which has been quoted with
such peculiar confidence by the Baptists as favouring their 
views, is found to have no possible connection with the 
point in dispute.  It leaves the question of the mode of 
i John's baptism where it found it; and we again demand i
of our opponents proof that John immersed.
SEC. II.-MODE OF JOHN'S BAPTISM.
We shall now inquire more particularly into the facts
recorded in connection with John's baptism, with a view
to ascertain the practicability of immersion.   In doing
this our observations will necessarily become more extended. In constructing our argument we shall direct our
inquiries to three several particulars,-the population of
Palestine, what proportion of the entire population John
baptized, and what length of time John was employed in
his public ministry.
I. The population of Palestine.-The reader must not be
startled to find a population in Palestine, in the commencement of the Christian era, vastly superior, in proportion to
its extent of territory, to that of our own country; or to
most, if not any, of the modern nations. Many circumstances contributed to the formation of a dense mass of
inhabitants; among which may be reckoned, the universal
passion among the Jews for a numerous offspring;* their
religious predilection for their native soil; and their aversion to the manners and customs of all other nations.
Besides, their religion and their customs were so highly
national, and so peculiarly their own, as to render all intercourse with other nations, either social or commercial,
extremely difficult. These powerful causes checked emigration, and penned the Jews within the narrow confines
of their own territory.  It was not until the disastrous
consequences of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions
had torn them away from the land and the graves of their
1, See no te B.
14 
CHRIS'TIAN BAPTISM.
sires, that they first thought of planting themselves on
heathen ground. Afterward, though they emigrated to
different parts of the civilized world, still, the universal
prejudice of the nation, (and particularly of the Aramean
party,) in favour of their own land, was expressed in the
current maxim, "Israel is Israel only in the Holy Land."
Hence, we are not surprised to find, in the days of King
David, one million three hundred thousand "valiant men
that drew the sword," exclusive of the tribes of Levi and
Benjamin. And in this census was not reckoned any
person from twenty years old and under. Now, if we
reckon five persons to every warrior, which, considering
the multitude under twenty years, with the aged and those
otherwise disabled from bearing arms, together with all
the female population, is not an extravagant estimate;
and if we reckon the tribes of Levi and Benjamin to
number one hundred thousand each, (which is not their
(proportion,) we shall make the entire population of Pales- 
tine to amount to six millions seven hundred thousand.
We might corroborate this statement by references to the'
population of other ancient countries, but our limits forbid
such a digression.* We make these statements merely to
show the probable correctness of the following account
given by Josephus of the population of Palestine, A. D. 66.
That author says, (Wars, b. ii, chap. xiv, sec. 3,) " While
Cestius Gallus was president of the province of Syria, no
body durst so much as send an embassage to him against
Florus; but when he was come to Jerusalem, upon thet
approach of the feast of unleavened bread, the people 
came about him not fewer than three millions; these be  sought him to commiserate the calamities of their nation,
and cried out upon Florus as the bane of their nation," &c.
Now this Florus was governor of Judea; and when the
Jews said he was the "bane of their nation," they intended
that part of their nation over which he ruled, viz., Judea;
and hence it is probable that these three million JewsX
who complained to Cestius about their governor werei
mostly citizens of the single province of Judea. 
At another time, when Cestits would {e the census
of the Jewish population, in order to report the same to
* See note C.
15
I 
CItRISTIAx  BAITi' 3i,
Nero, he applied to the priests for aid, who, in order to
facilitate the end, counted the number of the paschal
sacrifices slain at the passover, which were found to
amount, in all, to two hundred and fifty-six thousand five
hundred. (Jos.,.TVars, b. vi, chap. ix, sec. 3.) Now, it was
not lawful for the Jews to eat the passover alone, and it
often happened, according to the original command, (Exod.
xii, 3, 4,) that two or three small families united in the
purchase and consumption of the lamb.  Josephus says
there were often twenty persons to one lamb. But sup pose the average number of persons to each paschal lamb
. to be twelve, it would follow that there were in attendance,'\
at the feast of the passover, three millions and seventy-)
eight thousand persons.  But observes in both of the above
instances is given the number of those persons only who
were holy or legally clean, and in actual attendance at
Jerusalem on the feasts. Consider, then, the number and
variety of legal impurities which, by the law of Moses,
disqualified the subject from attending the feasts.  So
numerous were those legal impediments, and so large a
proportion of the people being necessarily disqualified
thereby from attending at Jerusalem on the first passover,
that it was enacted in the law of Moses, (Num. ix, 9, 11,)
and thereafter became a custom among the Jews, to hold
a " second passover" on the fourteenth day of the second
month of their ecclesiastical year, (which month answers
to the moon of our April,) for the accommodation of those
who were thus, by accident, ceremonially defiled, or other wise prevented from attending on the regular day. (An
example of this is found in 2 Chron. xxx, 1, 3.) Consider,
also, the number who, through poverty or business, were
detained at home, and we cannot reasonably reckon upon
more than half the adult population as being in attendance
on these occasions. Indeed, it is hardly supposable that
such a proportion of the people would venture from home
(at any one time.  But, by this estimate, the whole Jewish,
t population of Palestine would amount, according to the\
latter census mentioned, to six millions one hundred and
\fifty —six thousand. But there were other Jews at Jerusa lem on these occasions, from remnote countries.  Bating,
therefore, the one hundred and fifty-six thousand as an
offset against the number of foreign Jews, we have six
I t; 
CHRISTIAN BAIPT'IS,l.
millions left as the probably true population of Palestine.
And whoever takes into account the number of Jews in
the days of David,-their deeply rooted aversion to other
nations-their own love of country, which confined them
mostly to Palestine-and also the immense population of
other ancient nations,-will not deem this an exaggerated
statement. Josephus says, one million one hundred thou sand perished in the siege of Jerusalem, A. D. 70.
I II. Hre next inquire what proportion of the population of 
Palestine attended John's ministry and were baptized ofhin. The reader will not look for great arithmetical exactness
in our calculations, when he considers that a few general
facts constitute our only data; nor will he, on the other
hand, regard our conclusions as "air built and baseless,"
when he reflects that those general facts are the express
declarations of Scripture.
Previously to all direct investigation of the subject, it is
important that we have enlightened views of the object
of John's mission.  John was sent to "prepare the way
/of the Lord."                         He was sent to no private sect or party,
but to the Jewish nation-to the great Jewish family,J
.r-esident in Palestine.  He was received by the Jews as
a nation.  -There was no such divislon of public senti ment in regard to John as prevailed in reference to Jesus
Christ. The Pharisees and Sadducees in general sub mitted to his baptism,* ambitious of the distinction thus
conferred, and all parties coalesced in the popular senti  ment that John was a divine prophet. Indeed, nothing
short of this general reception would have fully answered
the intent of John's mission.  " He was a burning and a>
/shining light, and the Jews were willing, for a season, to 
rejoice in his light." These considerations furnish a
strong presumption that the major part of the people were 
~ baptized of John. 
In exact accordance with this presumption are the ex  press declarations of Scripture.  Matthew says, (chap. iii, 
5, 6,) "Then went out to him JERUSALEM, and ALL JUDEA,,
and ALL THE REGION ROUND ABOUT JORDAN,  and were
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins."  Mark
informs us, (i, 5,) "that there went out unto him ALL THE
* See note D.
17
t See note E. 
LAND OF JUDEA, and THEY OF JERUSALEM, and were ALL 
baptized of him."  Luke says, (iii, 21,) "And when ALL
THE PEOPLE were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus
himself, being baptized," &c.
Josephus, the great Jewish historian, informs us that
there were so many who followed John, that Herod the
tetrarch, fearing that John might secretly harbour treason  ous designs, and, in the event, head an insurrection, ap  prehended, and caused him to be executed.  Let us attend
for a moment to these testimonies. That of Matthew
goes to prove by specific statements that the population
of the city of Jerusalem, the province of Judea, and the
great valley of the Jordan, went out and were baptized of
John.
The province of Judea comprehended nearly one half of
the entire territory of Palestine west of the Jordan. The
"region round about Jordan," by which we are to under  stand the great valley of the Jordan, lies between the
mountains of Israel on the west and those of Hermon,
Gilead, and Abarim on the east, reckoning from the north  ern extremity of the sea of Tiberias (according to Burk  hardt) to the embouchure of the Jordan.  This "region"
embraces most of the territories of Samaria and Perea,
besides a large portion of Galilee. The description of i
Matthew, therefore, is found to embrace the heart of the 
Jewish population.  Mark and Luke agree, in substance, 
with Matthew; the former saying that ALL the land of Ju- 
dea, and they ofJerusalem, went out, and were ALL baptized, 
and the latter simply stating that ALL THE PEOPLE were
baptized.  Besides, many foreign Jews, who were at Jeru  salem at the passover, which was celebrated toward the
close of John's ministry, probably received his baptism
/Twelve of the foreign Jews, disciples of John and after
ward Christians, were found by Paul at Ephesus. Acts 
xix, 1-7.  How  many others from abroad received hisr
baptism history does not inform us, but the number was,
probably, not inconsiderable.
The only difficulty that can arise in fixing the sense of
the evangelists lies in the use and limitation of the general
terms employed.   The word "all," in the several connec  tions cited, must necessarily mean something. It cannot
be argued, with good reason, that it here amounts to a
18
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
C(HRISTIAN BAPTISM.
mere Hebraism for a great multitude.* There exists no
reason why the word, iii the above connections, should
be understood in a proverbial, and not in a narrative, sense.
No impossibility or absurdity is necessarily involved in
taking the word literally, or to signify a great majority
which is a very common acceptation. Or, if any absurdity
be involved in such an acceptation, it can be so only on
the principles of our opponents, and must therefore lib
against their theory, which supposes that John immersed
his disciples one by one. It must be remembered that the
evangelists are historians who narrate the events of which
they, for the most part, were eye-witnesses. Independ  ently of the question of their inspiration, they are above
suspicion as faithful narrators.  They were not biased by
party zeal or heated by passiol, so that they would be
likely to colour their descriptions. Unless therefore we are
willing to discredit and prepared to disprove the historical
accuracy of the New Testament, we cannot reasonably
suppose the word "ALL" to signify less than the major
part.  But, to make the most liberal allowance in favour'%
of our opponents, we will suppose John baptized one half
[ the entire population of Palestine; it would then follow(
{ that he baptized, in all, three millions of persons. No doubt
many, who may not have given to the subject a previous
attention, will be startled at the first view of this aggregate
result. John may not have baptized, in fact, so many.
Still, we think the words of the sacred history oblige us
to understand something like the result to which we have
attained; which certainly is far from being absurd, or im  possible, considered as a matter of fact.  John was sent t
(preach "repentance" to all the Jews, and to baptize all that
k submitted to his doctrine.  The query arises, "Was it the
duty of all to repent and be baptized'?" If so, which all;
admit, then, evidently, must there have been allowed time
for the process.  It could never have been the duty of the
Jews to submit to John's baptism when a natural impossi   bility precluded such an act of submission.  The physical
strength of John-the time allotted to the continuance  oft
his mninistry-the manner and circumstances essentially
connected with the valid administration of his baptism
*x See note F.
19 
CHRIST'IAN BAPTISM.
must all be taken into the account, and in view of all
these considerations it must have been clearly possible
for John to baptize all whose duty it was to repent and
submit to the claims of his doctrine; otherwise there was
clearly an absurdity-a discrepancy indicative of a want
of forethought-in the adaptations and different parts of 
John's dispensation.
III. Ute now inquire into the duration of John's public ministry.-According to Luke, (chap. iii, 1, &c.,) John opened
his ministrv in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius
Cesar, (reckoning the three years of his reign conjointly
with Augustus,) which, according to our most approved
chronology, answers to the thirtieth year of John's life.  It
is generally agreed by chronologers that our Saviour was
born December the twenty-fifth, A. M. 4000. John the
Baptist was six months older than Christ, (vide Luke i, 30,
31, 36, compared with ver. 13,) and, consequently, was
born the twenty-fourth of June previous. Allowing, then,
John to have opened his ministry at the age of thirty, in the
latter part of June, year of the vulgar era 26; and supposing, as Luke says, (chap. iii, 21, 23,) Jesus was baptized when he was thirty years of age, i.e., about December the twenty-fifth of the same year;* it would then
follow that John had been engaged six months in his
public ministry at the time of Christ's baptism. The
Greek Church hold that Christ was baptized on the Epiphany, which is the sixth of January, new style.  But the
difference of a few days, either way, cannot materially affect the weight of our argument. How long John continued
baptizing subsequently to this period we are not definitely
informed. But, fromn a careful collation of facts, we can
safely limit the period of his after labours to four months.
The last account we have of John, previously to his
imprisonment, states that he was "baptizing at Enon near
to Salim," John iii, 23. This was immediately after our
Lord had attended his first passover, which was celebrated
on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, which, as thle
': I suppose it will be understood that the birth of Chtist is reckoned
to have actually taken place FOUR  YEARS  (strictly, three years and
eight days) before the commencement of the vulgar era, or Auno
Domini, so that A. D. 26 answers, in reality, to the thirtieth year of our
Saviour's life.
20 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.                  21
Jews reckoned their years by lunar months, answers
to the moon of our March. As a necessary consequence
of their reckoning time by the phases of the moon, the
celebration of their passover sometimes fell on the latter
half of the month of March, and sometimes on the fore
part of April. We cannot therefore be exact to a day;
but, by closely following the circumstances in the evangelical history, we shall arrive at a reasonable certainty
that John did not continue his ministry beyond the period
above assigned him. The whole chain of facts runs
thus:-After Jesus was baptized he went into Galilee,
where, on the third day after his arrival, he attended
the marriage at Cana. John ii, 1. After this he went to
Capernaum where he stayed "not many days," ver. 12.
Leaving Capernaum he returned into Judea to attend the
passover at Jerusalem. Ver. 13. Here he purged the
temple, (ver. 14,) and held conversation with Nicodemus.
John iii, 1-21. Leaving the city of Jerusalem, he went
out into the province of Judea, and baptized. Ver. 22. At
this time, "John also was baptizing at Enon near to Salim," (ver. 23,) about twenty miles distant. Their mutual
proximity, and the increasing popularity of Jesus, led to
disputes among the Jews, (verses 25, 26,) and excited
the jealousy and malice of the Pharisees. John iv, 1-3.
"When, therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had
heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than
John, he left Judea, and departed into Galilee." Here,
then, it is stated that Jesus "departed into Galilee,"
while John was in the vicinity of Enon baptizing, imrnmediately after the first passover which our Lord attendedi. e., the latter part of March, A. D. 27, nine months after
John had commenced his public ministry. But, by comparing Matt. iv, 12, and Mark i, 14, we find that Jesus did
not depart into Galilee at this time, until after "he had
heart  that John was cast into prison."  The conclusion,
therefore, is, that John was arrested during his stay at
Enon; and Jesus, in view of the commotion excited in
Judea by that event, and also of the controversies going
on there, concerning himself and John, prudently withdrew, for a season, into the remoter parts of Galilee.
Various circumstances corroborate this conclusion. It
is evident, both from Josephus and the New Testament, 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISMl
that John was arrested by Herod Antipas, governor of
Galilee and Perea. (Jos., Antiq., b. xvii, chap. viii, sec. 1.)
But Enon lay at the southern extremity of Herod's dominions on the west of the Jordan; therefore, if John had
been south of Enon, he would have been beyond the jurisdiction of Herod. And, as we never read of John's
going north of that place, we conclude he was arrested iat
Enon.
Again, our Lord did not fully open his mission until 
after John was cast into prison. Matt. iv, 12-17, and 
Mark i, 14, 15.  The popularity of John presented an impediment to the ministry of the Saviour.  Indeed, it is
natural to suppose that two such great characters, labouring 
in the vicinity of each other, would inevitably produce 
a great division of public sentiment.  Jesus, therefore,
prudently withheld himself until John had "fulfilled his 
course."  But, from the nature of the case, he cannot be
supposed to have thus withheld long, the obect of his 
mission being of such paramount i                 tat m
John's.
Thus have we followed John, in his public ministry,
during the space of nine months.  He had introduced)i
Christ to the Jews, and having thus fulfilled the 6bet
hi'mission,'(John i, 31,) he retired, gy a singular provir
denc iYrnom the field of his labour, some time in the,
month of April, A. D. 27.  That lie continued his minis-  X
try longer than about nine months cannot be proved Tfm  I 
the Bibe, and we shali, therefore, fix'ihe e'ntire period 6f 
his p-u1ic labours at ten months  as being the utmost 
limit to which it can be exended with any shadow of
evidence.
But here are several facts to be considered.
1. John could not have commenced baptizing immediately upon the opening of his mission. Some time must
necessarily have elapsed before the people would become
so acquainted with him as to apprehend his character and
the purport of his mission, and be induced to receive his
baptism. We will suppose, then, he preached two weeks
before he began to baptize.
2. John's term of public labour included one wintry season, wherein, though the climate in that country is muchi
milder than in our own, stil, there would be an unavoid- 
22 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.i
able loss of time, occasioned by foul weather. This, with
those who are acquainted with the calendar of Palestine, 
will not be deemed an insignificant item. During the 
winter, the inhabitants of Palestine often experience
storms, especially during the rainy seasons, at which time 
there is little travelling abroad.  This, together with the
time occupied in moving from place to place, would require another deduction from John's time for baptizing, of l
not less than twenty days.
3. Forty-three sabbaths are to be deducted, wherein~,
according to the Jewish observance of those days, it was),
unlawful for John to baptize.  Thus we have left, in all,'
two hundred and twenty-seven days, in which we may
suppose John exercised the function of his ministry.
We next inquire how many hours per day John was
employed in the very act of baptizing. If he immersed
his disciples, according to the modern mode, he could not
have thus laboured more than six hours per day, pursuing
his labours in the same ratio for two hundred and twentyseven days. John was unsustained by any miracle, and
we must calculate his labours as we would those of any
other man, according to a medium ratio of physical
strength.  And no man could rationally suppose John to
have stood in three feet depth of water mnore than six
hours in a day, and for the number of days above mentioned, labouring at the top of his strength, without an
iron-bound constitution, or a miracle of aid. But, accord-ion
ing to this estimate, the whole number of hours in which )
John was employed in the very act of baptizing amounted
to one thousand three hundred and sixty-two.
We are now ready for the argument.
1. John baptized, in all, three milli      on persons.
2. The whole time in which John' may be supposed to
h        ave bee n engaged in the very act of baptizing did noti
exc    eed one thousand three hundred and sixty-two hours. 
Therefore John must have baptized, in one hour, two i
thousand two hundred and two; in one minute, thirty-six, 
or a little over one in every two seconds.  And he must
have ursued  tliese' labours in -the -. same  rapid ratio  
during six hours per day, for the space of two hundred 
and twenty-seven days. 
Here. then, is an expose of the real facts in the case.
r 
I
I
tt;..
23
f
tI
i
t
I 
I",-,;i,
-'a -.
i
N,4
I
i
I
i 
24       "      CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Let not the advocates of the hypothesis that John im  mersed deem the subject unencumbered with difficulty.
We are not at liberty to construct our theories irrespective
of facts. That age of fanciful philosophy wherein theory
subsisted antecedent to investigation has passed.   nves
<tigation is now the great talisman of the inquirer after
',.truth. We are, however, far from being tenacious, to a
imit, of the exact arithmetical aspect of the above calcula  tion. The perfect triumph of our argument does not
require it. It would not become us in view of the very
general character of those facts which have constituted our
principal data.  All that we fix upon tenaciousl is, the
-UTTER IMPRACTICABILITY of immersi            e    iltitud-s 
It may be supposed, by some, that our argument is as
conclusive against sprinkling as immersion: that it was
impracticable for John to have baptized such numbers in
any form. And so it certainly was on the supposition of
his taking them one by one, according to the practice
observed in Christian baptism. But there is no just
ground for supposing this to have been the fact. The
nature of his baptism did not require it, and the force of
the language employed to describe his baptism does not
prove it.  I take the following facts to be established:    First. The water of baptism was administered to the
people by John's own hand. This is evident from the
force of the words, "And were baptized v,r' avrov BY him,"
&-c. Matt. iii, 6; the preposition by here denoting, ac cording to its usual acceptation, the efficient cause.
Secondly. There is no necessity of supposing him tort
ai have baptized them one by one.  This would not only
have been totally impracticable, but the Jewish law did')
(not require it.  It must be remembered that John made no 
innovation upon the Mosaic rites, but employed the ex isting ceremonies of purification to the purposes of his
own ministry.   This is evident from several circum
rstances: 1st. If the reader will refer to John iii, 25, 26, 
he will find that both John's baptism and that of Christ, 
before the resurrection. had reference only to Jeish
ceremonies  of pu'riatin, taken  and  applied  to the
' higherpurposes of JTn's ministry.  2d. No controversies  }
1 were ever started about the validity of Johni's baptism. j
~n  
CHRISTIAN BAPTISS).
This is, alone, sufficient to satisfy any candid, intelligent
person, that John did not depart from the usage of Moses.
It is unaccountable that the Pharisees and lawyers who
did not submit to be baptized of John should have held
their peace, and failed to have used so plausible and
powerful a pretext for their opposition to John as that
which would have been furnished them by the fact of an
innovation. They questioned every assumption of power
made by the Saviour; and complained of every fancied
breach of Moses' law, or even of the tradition of their
elders. And had John introduced any new external right,
they would, beyond all doubt, have disputed his authority.
But we have no account of such a dispute. 3d. Further   more, John was not sent to abolish the Jewish rites, but
to resuscitate the languishing state of the Mosaic religion.
The spirituality of that dispensation had suffered an
almost total eclipse from the incorporation of numerous
traditions, and the supplementary glosses of their expositors.
Practical piety was in a low state. John was sent to
revive the spirit of ancient institutions, and excite an
immediate expectation of Messiah.
If, therefore, John's manner of baptism was taken from
the Jewish law, it is not difficult to conceive of the prac  ticability of his baptizing such multitudes. The Jews had';
-a mode of purifying the people by dipping a bunch off
hyssop into water and sprinkling it upon them.   So it is
said of Moses, "When he had spoken every precept to
all the people according to the law; he took the blood of
calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool, and
hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people,"
Heb. ix, 19.  Now it is worthy of remark that the people,
numbered, at this time, six hundred thousand warriors; 
[ which, reckoning five of the common people to one war f rior, leaves a round number of three million persons.
These Moses sprinkled.  The occasion was one of the
most grand and awful import of any similar one recordedJ
iin the Old Testament.  It Was "the dedication of the
rst testament;" and not only were "ALL THE PEOPLE"
then solemnly dedicated to God, but also the tabernacle
and all its utensils. Heb. ix, 18-21; Exod. xxiv, 6; Lev.
xiv, 16. But if Moses dedicated the people to God by}
(~~~~~~~~~
sprinkling, and if such forms of consecration were familia4
2
25 
CHRISTIAn" BAPTISM.
with the Jews, and if John adopted a Jewish rite for the
purposes of his ministry, then, evidently, we may suppose
he sprinkled the people by means of a hyssop branch,
dipped in the water.  If this were the actual manner of
John's baptism, (or purification, see chap. iv,) he might
have performed the labour with comparative ease, adminis  tering to many at the same instant of time, as they might
pass before him in ranks.  I am aware that this ground\I
- Swill be contested, standing, as it does, so directly opposite
to the commonly received opinion.  But let the objector
: candidly weigh the difficulties that lie against the Baptist
theory; let him consider that the common hypothesis, thatJ
John baptized the people separately, is wholly assumed,
and is without any supporting evidence; let him consider
that the hypothesis we have advanced is sufficiently in
harmony with Jewish usage; and, withal, let him remem  ber that we have not theorized beyond the obvious bear  ing, and, what appeared to us, the necessary requirement
of facts. And if, finally, he should not be satisfied with
our conclusions, let him exercise himself a little in
arithmetic, and ascertain, to his abundant satisfaction,
what probable number John could have immersed (taking
them one by one) within the space of ten months. When
he has found that six thousand persons is an almost in   credible estimate, then let him compare the result of his
calculations with the inspired declarations on the subject,
and with the incidental notices of John's popularity and
success; and if, after all this, he be not satisfied of the\
improbability and impossibility of the Baptist theory, we
imust, perhaps, leave him in the undisturbed and everlasti   ing repose of his chosen, yet baseless faith.
SECTION III.
One view of John's baptism remains to be taken, viz. \
the difference between it and Christian baptism.  Many snpi! p    eoset    ~aftms  of J6hn to be identi'dalwith Christian
baptism, and hence they argue from the former to the
, latter without reserve or qualification.
The arguments, proving their total distinctiveness, may
be thus epitomized. The baptism of John is proved to bo
different from Christian baptism,
~I,  I I -          1.
i
t'
I
26
.i
1,
i
i
i,.1
-  I-   .,         , I 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.1
1. From the time of its institution.-John began to preach
and baptize six months before our Lord entered uponi
ihis public ministry, previously to which he performed now 
iofficial act.  Those, therefore, who maintain that John
administered the ordinance of Christian baptism, involve
ilthemselves in the following absurdity,';~viz.;'hahristii?
baptism was administered six months prior to any officiali
act being performed by the founder of Christianity; i. e.,
that the initiating ordinance of the Christian system ex  Isted six months previous to Christianity itself!  Accor
ing to this, then, it would follow most unquestionably that
Jesus Christ did not institute Christian baptism, unless it
can be proved that he instituted it before he entered upon
this public ministry-which no one, in his senses, will 
affirm.
Moreover, the law of Moses was still in force, and the 
Christian ordinances which superseded the Mosaic insti i tutes could not, consequently, have been in vogue.  The
law of Moses did not end in John, but in Christ.
2. Its distinctive name.-It is called "JohIn's baptism."
But if it be identical with Christian baptism, why does 
the Holy Ghost employ this distinctive appellation? Why 
was it ever -called any thing, in the Bible, but Christian
baptism? The Bible calls things by their proper names. 
But if John administered the Christian baptism, then it  }
would be as egregious a misnomer to call it John's baptism,
as it would be to call it Peter's baptism, because the same
ordinance was administered by that apostle.  And thus,
on the same principle, we should have a Paul's baptism —
a Philip's baptism-a Timothy's baptism-and so on ad 
i'f. nitum.
3. Its distinctive nature.-John baptized his disciples
on a creditable profession of their repentance.  The adult 
I Christian candidate receives baptism'nri'pofession of re
eneration.  Vide Acts xix, 4; ii, 38; Gal.qi~27..
l   ".tfa  ith of John's disciples, required, in order to bap-i
(tism, does not answer to the faith of the lawful adult candidate 
for Christian baptism.-1. John did not require faith in thy
,Holy Trinity.   Whether John was well informed on this 
?tdamental doctrine of Christianity, we cannot say.  It
was not a distinctive feature of Judaism, although obscurely
taught in the Old Testament scriptures.  But certain it ist
27 
CHRISTTAN BAPTJSM.
that John did not require of his disciples any formal pro fession of belief in this doctrine at the time of baptism;
nor was there at such times any formal recognition made
of it, as is the case in valid Christian baptism. These
circumstances form a primary distinction between John's
baptism and the Christian ordinance. (Vide Acts xix, 2, 3;
comp. Matt. xxviii, 19.)  2. John required of his disciples,'
\ in order to their baptism, faith in a Mlessiah to come. Hence,
John always referred his disciples forward to him who
came "after him," i.e., Christ.  Paul says, (Acts xix, 4,)
"John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,
saying unto the people, that they should believe on him that
should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."  The words
we have italicised seem to have comprised the substance
of John's formula of baptism. But the same apostle affirms
that Christian baptism imports faith in, and conformity to,
the death of Christ.  Thus, "Know ye not that so many
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized
into his death?" Rom. vi, 3.  This clearly proves that,
whatever else Christian baptism imports, it plainly im plies, on the part of the candidate, faith in the reality of 
t,the death of the Messiah.  But in this it is diametricallyJ
psd to John's baptism.  If a person, in these days,
Ishould adopt the exact faith of a disciple of John in this
respect, he would be accounted a Jew or an antichristian,
and would be rejected from the communion of all our
Christian churches.  No Christian minister would baptize
pers6n on-profession of such a fit, ut under pain o0
{ church censure.  3. Johnd not so much as baptize in the
ame of Jesus.  For, if he did, he must not only have used
as name in baptism, but also have taught his character and
doctrines; so far, at least, as to'make his disciples rudi  mental Christians.  To baptize in the name of Jesus, of
wh-iose character the adult candidate is left in ignorance,
is a sheer mockery of sacred things.  But the general
ignorance of the people concerning Christ, even after he 
came, proves that John had not baptized in his name. 
During John's life, it is said, (Luke iii, 15,)" All men 
mused in their hearts, of John, whether he were the Christ 
or not."  Toward the close of our Saviour's ministry he
propounds the following question to his disciples:  "Who
do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" The disciples, I
28 
CHRIS'FIAN BAPTISM..
who certainly had a good opportunity of knowing the state
of public opinion concerning Christ, reply, "Some say
that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others,
Jeremias, or one of the prophets," Matt. xvi, 13,14. Here,
to be sure, was a great diversity of opinlion, and not one of
them right, which is unaccountable on the hypothesis that
John baptized the people in the name of Jesus.  It seems,
further, that John's personal knowledge of the Saviour
atlas very imperfect, as, previous to the baptism of Christ,
John expressly says, "I knew him not," John  i, 32, 34.
But whence has arisen this opinion, so prevalent witha
many, that John's baptism was identical with the Christian
ordinance of washing?  Can any enlightened Christian
entertain, for a moment, the supposition that John incul cated upon his disciples the doctrines which belong, dis tinctively, to the Christian system?  It is said that " he
that is least in the kingdom of heaven (meaning the
Christian dispensation) is greater than John the Baptist."
But if all John's disciples were indoctrinated into the
Christian faith, (and nothing short of this would have
justified a Christian baptism,) and baptized with a Chris tian baptism, it is difficult to conceive on what grounds
of propriety or truth our Lord could have miade such a
atement.  But, 
5. The apostles paid no regard to John's baptism, but re-i
Iba Ie         c~,d.-This  they certainly would not have
done, had they believed the dogma we  are  opposing.
The proof of our position is found in the history of the
fActs  chap. six 1-5.) There has been, however, a mode
voconstruc"tion invented for this passage which makes it
speak a directl contrary doctrine from what we have
supposed.  The two different constructions placed upon
this passage take their origin from diverse opinions in
regard to the real author of the fifth verse. The common
opinion is, that that verse is the language of Luke, where
hlie again takes up the thread of the history of the disciples
of Ephesus after the short interruption of Paul's speech in
the fourth verse. The opposite construction assumes that
the fifth verse is a simple continuation of Paul's discourse,
commencing with verse 4, and that, consequently, the pro noun they, in the fifth verse, refers to the collective noun
people in the fourth verse, and not to disciples, in verse 1.
29 
C-ICHRISTIAN BAPTrISM.
The vast contrariety between these constructions is seen
at a glance, by applying them respectively in the reading
of the whole history. It is not our design to take up the
controversy on this passage at length. A primary objec tion, however, to the latter, which we regard as a spurious
construction, is found in fixing the proper antecedent of
the pronoun them in the sixth verse. For if the pronoun
they, in verse 5, be the true representative of the collective
noun people, in verse 4, then, according to every principle
of grammatical criticism, the noun last mentioned is also
the true original of the pronoun them, in the sixth verse.
The legitimate consequence of this construction, then, is,
that where it says, in verse 6, that "Paul laid his hands
on themn," &c., it does not mean that he laid his hands on
the twelve "disciples" of Ephesus, but, on the "people"
whom John baptized, mentioned verse 4.
"Either this must be supposed, or the words which,
in their original structure, are most intimately combined,
must be conceived to consist of two parts,-tthe first re lating to John's converts in general, the second to the
twelve disciples at Ephesus; and the relative pronoun,
expressive of the latter description of persons, instead of
being conjoined to the preceding clause, must be referred
to an antecedent removed at the distance of three verses.
In the whole compass of theological controversy, it would
be difficult to assign a stronger instance of the force of
prejudice in obscuring a plain matter of fact."*
6. If John  administered the ordinance  of Christian
aptism, then, most unquestionably, his disciples  were
christianized.  If so, then the greater part of the Jewish
nation were Christians at the very point of time in which
Christ opened his public ministry, but immediately afterJward they apostatized and became the most embittered
and malignant foes of the Christian name.  Now, it woild
have been wonderful, indeed, to behold a whole nation so
generally turning to God, and submitting to the initiating
ordinance of Christianity, all within the space of a few
months; but it surpasses our conceptions to account for
their total apostacy, within a period of time much shorter;
and it is still infinitely more mysterious that the New
* Rev. R. Hall's Works.
30 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISIM.
Testament history should pass over such mighty revolutions of opinion (supposing them to be true)-revolutioiins
which form the most interesting subjects of sacred history
-in profound silence, while it records incidents of inferior
note with such studied care. Our Lord never reproaches
the Jews for their apostacy from Christianity; but, for
their defection from the spirit of the Mosaic institutes,
and for their actual sins, he publicly and repeatedly condemins them.
"There is attached to apostacy a character of perfidy
and baseness peculiar to itself-a species of guilt which
the inspired writers frequently paint in the darkest colours;
yet, strange to tell! though they had no motives to conceal
or palliate the conduct of their countrymen in their treatment of the Messiah, but many motives to the contrary,
not a syllable escapes them of the charge of apostacy.
What terrible energy would that accusation have lent to
Peter's address! What unspeakable advantage for alarming their consciences would he have derived from reminding them of their baptismal vows, and of their unspeakable
impiety in crucifying the divine person to whom they had
previously dedicated themselves in solemn rites of religion.
\When Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, gives loose
to one of his finest bursts of indignant feeling and rapid
eloquence, in a brief portraiture of the character of his
countrymen, the circumstance which would have given
incredible force to the picture is suppressed, and he seems
to entertain no suspicion of their having been baptized in
the name of Jesus."*
* Rev. R. Hall's Works.
31
I 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
CHAPTER II.
CHRIST'S BAPTISM.
HAvING concluded our remnarks on John's baptism,
something should be said of the baptism of our Saviour;
and we shall not find a more appropriate place for this
subject than in the present stage of the general argument.
We have, therefore, assigned to it a special chapter. If
any suppose that we are wandering from the direct
point at issue, we readily concede the justness of their
views; but wp urge, as a sufficient apology, the real
state of the controversy.  The baptism of our Saviour has"-,
'been drawn into the controversy on Christian baptism, 
and is app'eale to6,by"the"'-a"'a)ocates of immersion, as
possessing decisive authority, both in regaraito th'e duty
\ and mode of baptism.'
/   I. As to the mo of Christ's baptism the Scriptures
(  furnish no information, savew'  hat'm"ay be gathered from
the import of the Greek word baptize, and from the force?
of two or three vague particles.  These we shall not at
present notice, but shall consider them in another place.
II. The character of Christ's baptism is a question
fraught with more importance, and deserves a more ex  tended notice. But our opponents must be reminded that
we are under no obligation, from the posture of the con  troversy, to prove what was the real character of his
baptism. We do not profess to know positively, on this
subject, what the Bible has not positively expressed, or
what may not, by fair implication, be attributed to it.
Should our views of the subject prove unsatisfactory to
any, let us not therefore be faulted.  We  shall render
what we deem to be the Bible and rational account of the
matter, making no account of the baseless assumptions or
ignorant prejudices which have been entertained by many.
Our proper position, in relation to this question, is on the
negative side. Our Baptist brethren have assumed that)
Christ received a Christian baptism.  The labour that law fully devolves upon us will be fully accomplisd welen we
shall have'      edisproved  he corretiiiess< 6f this assumption,
32 
CHRISTIAN BAPT1'ISM.18.
In order to place this subject fully before the under  -standing, we remark:     1. Thle baptism of our Saviour did not partake of the cha  racter of John's baptism.  For, (a) John baptized his con  verts "unto repentance;" i. e., after they had repented,
and in testimony of the fact.  Therefore, if our Lord's
l   baptism partook of the nature of John's baptism, inasmuch
as the latter witnessed to the repentance of the candidate,
he must have previously repented of sin-which is blas  phemous to assert.
.. (-'hn-red of the candidate faith in the Messiah
about to come.  "John verily baptized with the baptism
of repentance, saying unto the people that they should
believe on him which should come after him, that is, on
Christ Jesus," Acts xix, 4.  If, therefore, Christ was bapA tSized with John's baptism, he must have believed in a
X Messiah to come, and to this faith John must have exhortedl
i him.  But the absurdity and heresy of such a doctrine!
need not be mentioned.
(c) The  ultimate  design of John's baptism was  to)
prepare the way of the Lord;" i. e., to prepare the'
hearts of the people for the reception of the Messiah, in
all his gracious offices.  This was the great aimn of all
his labours.  But was our Saviour baptized with this )
(intent-?  Could the proper import of John's baptism apply
to the Saviour in any form?  But it is idle to push these
arguments.  If a man will labour to support the hypo/ thesis we are opposing, it is, perhaps, trifing with time
fnd with reason to oppose him..
2. Christ's baptism did not ]artake of the nature of Chris tian baptism.  For,
(a) Christian baptism was not instituted until after thee
resurrection of our Saviour.   Matt. xxviii, 18, 19, and
parallel places.  We  have already sufficiently explode4&"
{the notion that John's baptism was identical with Christian
baptism, and we certainly have no account of the admi-t<
nistration of the latter untl[the:-T pef  tdS..
heere  Chis  roes ni<(               -   peteco.<st.v;-<By M > iA  9,
therefe, CriStreceved Chrst ian baptism, the event
must have taken place about three years previous to the
actual institution of that ordinance, which is absurd to
suppose.
(b) Christian baptism is performed in the name of the
2*
33 
CLRiiSITIAN  LDAPTISS{.
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; thereby importing the faith
of the candidate in the existence, and his dedication to the
glory, of the three persons in one God. But if Christ had
been baptized in this profession, it would have been, to say
the least, irrelevant and trifling. There is a manifest prfib
1,riety, a sublime significance, in our being baptized in the
name of Christ the Son, in token of our devotion to his
service; but there is an inconceivable absurdity in the
idea of Christ's beinoa ba]lti i      oew' 0n: — n n'e, in,iprofes sion of hiis eotedness to his own cause and person.  Yet
we must suppose all this, if we suppose that Christ was
baptized with a Christian baptism.
(c) The import of Christian baptism is totally inappli cable to the person and character of Christ.  For, bap tism is both a sign and seal. As a sign, it witnesseth
to our inward washing and regeneration by the Holy
Ghost, which, from the nature of the case, presupposes
defilement by sin.  Remove the idea of antecedent pollu-'
tion by sin, and you annihilate the grand intent of baptism)
as a sign. As a seal, baptismn becomes the pledge    (a) Of our fidelity to God:
(b) Of the divine faithfulness in bestowing upon us the
blessings of the new covenant; as repentance, pardon,
regeneration, sanctification, &c.  Such then being the
true import of baptism, can any person, in his sober senses,
presume it to be applicable to the Saviour of the world?
We could hardly persuade ourselves that any Christian
would assume so preposterous ground, if the fact did not
exist to demonstrate the monstrous absurdity.  And yet
our Baptist brethren will maintain that Christ received ay
Christian baptism.  They cannot, surely, intend by this
that baptism, in the case of the Saviour, imported the same
that it does in believers,-that it was emblematical of the
inward washing of the Holy Ghost, and implied previous
defilement,-that it was with him, as with us, the seal and
sign of the covenant of grace. We cannot in charity sup pose this to be any part of their meaning when they ad  vance the strange doctrine in question. What then do they
mean?  We cannot take upon ourselves positively to de  cide this question. But if they have embraced a theory,
in the ardour of their zeal, without investigationi, we  (an
4 
excuse them, and forbear to urge upon them its deductions,
which they no miore believe than we ourselves.
It is possible that some may imagine that the outward
form of baptism was used in the case of our Saviour, while
the import of the ordinance was, in reference to him, set
aside. I am not aware that this opinion is entertained, but
I state it as a possible case.  This indeed would shieI\
them from the impiety of the above conclusions, but would
involve them in the absurdity of supposing that, in the case
,of Christ, a hypocritical, a miock baptism was used; a 
3baptism destitute of all meaning and personal application 
to the candidate, or which was endued with a significance (
altogether extraordinary, concerning which the Bible has.
gilven us no account.
3. What then was the real design of Christ's baptism
and wherein lay the necessity of his being baptized at all?J
Before attempting any direct answer to this question, we
shall inquire into the stupp,osed design of it.  It has been\
(alleged by the Baptists that our Saviour was baptized ir}
Horder to furnish his followers an example.  Hence they
/exhort young converts to go forward in baptism, following)
tl,e example of Christ.  Hence young Christian disciples
themselves, who are, in this respect, of the Baptist faith,
are often heard to express their anxiety to imitate the
example of the Saviour; i. e., to be immersed. Hence
the phrase "going down the banks of the Jordan" is un  derstood, in the technology of the Baptist faith, to mean
being immersed, in imitation of the examnple of our Saviour.
An effort is made to associate the baptism of Christ with
ou.r duty of baptism, and particularly with the alleged duty
of immersion, so as to sanction the latter by the former
..he effect which this mode of reasoning has upon manA
iminds is truly powerful.  The pAos snities of thee
yQung disciple are deel mo         by every apeal to the 
( exaMDle of Christ.  Always anxious, while prompoted only
by thT  ardour of his first love, to tread in the very print of
his steps, who is set forth in the gospel as our great ex  emplar of moral conduct, he is the more willing to imbibe,
without investigation, the dogma in question.  In the wholes,
Tcircle of this controversy I am not aware that the Baptists
have wielded a more successful argument ad ctplandum/
35
CHR16TI,iN BAPTI',,Y,-.
I
I 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM{.
[ vulgus (pardon the expression) than this, appeal to the
example of Christ.  But we pause to demand proof of thir
assumed faith.  Where is it written in Scripture that our
Saviour was baptized for the purpose of setting his follow  ers an example?   There is no such declaration in thJ
CBible.  Nor is the doctrine deducible, by any correct
rules of criticism, from the sacred text. Where then is
the proof required?  Candid reader, there is no  -roof 
But that our Saviour was not baptize  wit a  iewto
furnish his followers an example may be argued, in addi  tion to what has been already adduced, from the following
considerations.
(a) The example would be essentially defective in one
of its most prominent features.  Christ was thirty years'..
f age when he was baptized.  Does the putting off of  )
~~~~~~~~~~
aptism until that age comport with the early piety of Je-J
sus?  Would it be walking in all the commandments and
ordinances of God blameless, for pious youth to defer bap  tism (after the example of the Saviour) until thirty years
of age? Our opponents would rather make the blessed
Saviour to furnish an example of procrastination than other  wise.  Besides, Luke says, "Now when all the people
wWere baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also, being bap:tized," &c., Luke iii, 21.   The  other evangelists talso'
relate the baptism of the people as taking place previously {
to that of Christ.  Does this appear like an example?  A?
i strange example this for the age then present, when ALL 
THE PEOPLE had been beforehand in the same matter!
Why  was not our Saviour baptized in youth, to have
furnished an example for the youngo?  Why did he wait
until thousands had gone before him in the discharge of,
ktheir duty?  Will our Baptist brethren inform us?
(b) The example, if such it be, is unreasonably partial,
and hence analogy is against it. If Christ submitted to
Christian baptism in order to furnish his followers an exam  ple, it is both natural and rational to inquire what was his
conduct in reference to the other ordinance of Christian  ity, viz., The Lord's supper. 
If there was a call for his example in one instance, so
/also there was in the other. But we know that our Sa-)
Lyiour did not partake of the sacramental elements. When
he handed to the disciples the sacramental cup, he says,
'i 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISfM.
- "Drink YE all of it," &c., "but I say unto you, I WILL NOTj
DRINK henceforth," &c.   Besides, such was the  natur6
of the ordinance itself, as to preclude all participation of
the elements on the part of the Saviour.
If, then, our Lord has left us no example of the cele  bration of the eucharist, there is, at least, a strong pre  sumption against the hypothesis of his having given us one
in his personal submission to baptism,
4. We have hitherto taken only a negative view of the
question. In changing, therefore, the tenor of our remarks,
we inquire-Has the Bible furnished us with any state  ment of the reason which rendered the baptism of Christ
necessary?  We  answer, Jesus Christ has certainly fur [nished the true reason for his baptism, in his reply to 
John's scruples, in the following words,-" for thus if
becometh  us to fulfil all rilghteousness."  Thi.sa answer,
whatever ay                  Diteapot: etly satisfied John
of the propriety of baptizing the Saviour. For previously
to this, "John earnestly hindered" (6teKW2.vv) his baptism;
but, after the above reply of Christ, it is immediately
added,-" then he suffered him."  There can be no doubt
that all the reason that ever subsisted, rendering the bap  tism of Christ necessary, is couched in the above words
of the Saviour. The only possible difficulty, therefore,
which can, in the nature of the case, be realized in set  tling this tiresome controversy on the import of Christ's
baptism must lie in our mode of understanding the parti cular phrase rendered "toffu1   l  all righteousness."  It is
an established rule of criticism, that, in the explication
of terms, where the literal and ordinary import can be
retained without violence to the particular scope of the
passage, or to the analogy of faith, it then and there be   comes the only true and lawful sense of such particular
terms. "The received signification of a word," says
Horne, "is to be retained, unless weighty and necessary
reasons require that it should be abandoned or neglect   ed."* In the case before us our Lord may be supposed
to use a slight metonymy, putting righteousness for ordi   nance or institute; or he may be supposed to use righteous   ness in the sense, not of ordinance, but of thefulflmnent of
* Introd., part ii, b. i, sec. 2.
37 
CHRIaSTIAN BAPTISTM.
law. In either case the result would be the same, and
the whole clause may therefore be better understood by
reading  it,-" For  thus it becomneth us to fulfil every
ordinance."  In support of this sense of the clause, we
urge   (a) A kindred word is frequently thus rendered; as
"Then verily the first covenant had also dtKat(,/aTa ordi nances," Heb. ix, 1; vide also Rom. i, 32; Rev. xv, 4;
Luke i, 6, et al.
(b) This is the obvious import of the same, or a similar
mode of expression, throughout the New Testament. Thus,
when  Paul  says, (Rom.  viii, 4,) I'va dticatcwta rov vo/Lov
v7rxp~O  ev bRev, he means,-" that the PRECEPTIVE CLAIMS
of the law might be answered or obeyed in us."
Every mind must perceive that this is the same form
of expression used by our Lord, when he says,-" Fo?
thus it becometh us 7rZ,pwaa   iracav dticatoavvqv to obey or
flilfil every PRECEPT;  i. e., of the law.   To  "fulfil all
righteousness," to "fulfil the righteousness of the law," and
to "fulfil the law," are phrases in the New Testament, of
exactly similar import. For instance, our Saviour says to
Withe Jews,-" Think not that I am come to destroy the law"
or the prophets: I alm not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'"
This form of speech answers exactly to the above reply
to John, and we consider themn both to refer to the fulfil ment of the Mosaic law. Matt. iii, 15, and v, 17. The
verb rk;7poo pleroo, to fulfil, is used variously in the New
Testament. It stands in connection with different pro phecies about twenty-two times, and signifies their ac complishment.  It is used in connection with righteous ness, or law, either ceremonial or moral, about ten times,
where it always intends its fulflment, or the right observ ance of its precepts. The verb in this connection points
us retrospectively to an existing statute. To talk, therefore,
of "fulfilling all righteousness" by acts which are uncalled
for by any statutory claim, is a mode of speech altogether
unknown in the New Testament.
(c) An inquiry into the proper antithesis of the phrase,
"fuli  all righteousness," will tend to elucidate and es tablish the above construction. If we can ascertain the
true antithetical reading of this clause, we shall the more
readily arrive at the genuine thesis of our Lord's reply.
38 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
The  phrase in question must necessarily admit of a
counter sense.
The inquiry therefore is-What is that reading which
is directly opposed to the phrase, "fulyl all righteous ness?" In order to supply the antithesis, and give the
entire sense of our Lord's reply, paraphrastically, we
would read it, " For thus it becometh us to full every
/institution of the law of Moses, so as finally to answer its
[ typical intention, and not, arbitrarily, to dissolve all obligaI tion to its observance, before it has thus received its accom.plishment in me."  This sense is fully corroborated by
-'ur Lord's statement, Matt. v, 17. In that passage, our
Lord uses Kcara7Zvcat TOV voov, to abrogate the law, in direct
contrast with,r72pwcat ro7V VOIOV, to full the law.  And so
also we  consider Kara2vcac  rar dtLcatoavvag, (or, dKcatcuara,
for they are sometimes interchanged; vide Rom. v, 18;
Rev. xix, 8,) to abrogate the ordinances, to be the true anti  thetical reading of.2,yp7eoat,trtav detao'vvnv  to fulfil all
righteousness, or every ordinance.  And this antithesis our
Lord here omitted by ellipsis, but supplied it, as we have
seen,,i chap. v, 17.
I know not how any person of candor and information
can elude the force of this argumrent.  The term "right  eoutsness," in the text in question, cannot be supposed to
stand inii contrast with personal unrighteousness. He who
is Lord of the institution of the sabbath, who was "IM  i,iANUEL, God with us," could not have been dependant for
his personal justification, or rectitude of character, upon
the act of submission to baptism! We cannot suppose
our Lord sustained any personal obligation to obey the
law, without fatally detracting from the merit of his obe  dience. Had he refused baptism, he would still have been
" as holy, and as harmless, and as undefiled," as the imI mortal divinity within him could have rendered his imma  culate nature.   Wherein,  then,  lay  his  obligation  to
baptism?  We answer,- t grew out of his assumed rela  tin'stfo the law, as our vicar, it being a function of his
priestly character to accomplish the intent of the Mosaic
ritual. The question, therefore, was, whether an ordi  nance of the law should then receive its ultimate fulfil  ment in the person of Christ, and then pass away, as an
obsolete form of worship that had constitutionally passed
39 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the specified rirm of its duration, or whether it should be
immaturely abrogated by the same authority that framed it
at the first.
(d) The word itself rendered righteousness in the Eng  lish text, is elsewhere used in the sense of institution
ordinance, appointment, method, or rule. Thus Paul, (Rtomin
i, 17,) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for
therein is the dicatocwvv righteousness of God revealed,"
&c.  By the "righteousness of God" is here meant, the
method of God for saving sinners. This, says Professor
Hodge, is consistent with the meaning of the word in the
original. Again, in chap. x, 3,  "For they being ignorant
of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their
own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto
the righteousness of God." We may understand the word
rendered righteousness in the sense of justification; "jus  ti.cation of God" being taken as equivalent to " God's
method of justification." They being ignorant of God's
method of justification, and going about to establish their
own method, have not submitted themselves to the method
which he has proposed.* In the same sense the word is
probably used John xvi, 8.
But the same result is realized if we take d&atoavvn in
its usual acceptation, to signify righteousness instead of
ordinance.  For righteousness is that which ftlfils the pre -
ceptire claims of law. This is its literal import.  We might
as reasonably talk of extension without space, or of an
accident that has np subject, as to talk of a righteousness
that does not imply the existence and fulfilment of law.
f If, then, "Christ fulfilled all righteousness," he did it b9
answering the claims of existing laws.
e  next step o our nquiry w    e to ascertain what
law  then in vogue, required the Saviour to be baptize.
There were various ordinances of ablution among the
Jews, but these, in general, could hot be supposed to
apply to Christ. We cannot suppose our Lord to have
previously contracted any ceremonial defilement which
was the reason of his baptism. But observe the particular
i juncture. Our Lord was about to enter upon his publics
t ministry.  He had attained his thirtieth year-the age at}
* Professor Hodge's Comment on Romais.
40 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM..
which, by the appointment of God,* the priests under tlleC-.
' law were to undertake the duties of their office,-and he)
!was a "high priest."  This was the character in which
he was to display the infinite love of God to man, and
illustrate that justice in whose even scales the sinner ha.
been found wanting.  If we examine the whole code O
<Moses, we shall find no law that required Christ to bet
i baptized, at this particular juncture, but t'he law'enjoining
an' regulating priestly consecration, recordie' in Exod.
lxix, and Lev. viii.  that 0our Saviour's baptism wasa
p riestly consecration, is corrborate  by all te acnco
panying circumstances recorded in the evangelical histoy
And in addition to all we have advanced under this hea
we will simply say, Christ did exercise the office of a
priest when he purged the temple; and when the chief
priests and elders demanded of him, on that occasion, by
what authority he did these things, Christ appealed to the
aptism of John. Matt. xxi, 12, 23-27.  This is worthy
of particular notice, as he evidently appealed to John's
baptism for a vindication of the authority he had exercised,
And had the Jews then acknowledged the baptism of John
to have been from heaven, our Saviour would undoubtedly
have replied, "John bore witness of me, and foretold yout
of my authority, and actually consecrated me to the priestlff
office according to your law."  To this the captious Jew
could have made no reply; against it he could have uttered
no complaint. What was done, among the Jews, by an
accredited prophet of Jehovah, was as irreversible as the
mandate of a Roman dictator.
We cannot finally close our remarks under this head
without again reminding the reader that, though we have
taken up the positive side of the question, we were und er
no obligation so to do. Enough has been said to rescuer
he baptism of the Saviour from the erroneous construc ion of our opponents; but what was its real character we l
are not responsible for showing,  If our remarks under"
this head suit the reader, he has them gratis; if not, we:
shall not complain-they do not affect our proper field o)
argument.
* Some of the Levites were entered as probationers at twenty-five
years, to do some kinds of service, and in the days of David at twenty
years. Num. viii, 24, 25; 1 Chron. xxiii, 241
41 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS.A.
CHAPTER III.
CRITICISM ON BAIT2 BAPTO.
THE theme, or root, of Pa~rrt( baptizo is Pa7ror bapto
whose etymological syllable, according to Professor Stuart, is the triliteral far bap, "whose leading and original
signification seems to have been dipping, plunging," &c.
The former word only is used in the New Testament
to describe the rite of Christian baptism; but as some
knowledge of the use of 3arrw bapto will facilitate a
correct appreciation of the meaning of its derivative, and
shed a collateral light upon its New Testament use, serving to show, at the same time, upon what untenable ground
our opponents have constructed their main argument, we
shall bestow upon it a suitable degree of attention.
"' I would say thus much," says Mr. P. Edwards, "of
the term gakro, bapto, that it is a term of such latitude of
meaning, that he that shall attempt to prove, from its use
in various authors, [the exclusive sense of] an absolute
and total immersion, will find that he has undertaken that
which he cannot finally perform."*
"I do not intend," says Dr. John Dick, "to deny that
patrtc bapto ever means to dil), but that this is its only
sense; and hence we may fairly conclude, that although
its derivative faGTrto baptizo means to immerse, it does not
follow that this is its only signification."t
This is a plain statement of the case.  That the word
under consideration, and its derivative, signify to dip, im merse, &c., we do not deny.  This, indeed, need hardly
be stated; and this, being allowed on all hands, we shall
not undertake to prove.  But that these are the only senses
which apply to the above terms, as our Baptist brethren
affirm, we  deny.  In prosecuting the present inquiry,
therefore, we shall mainly endeavour to establish the fol lowing propositions:-1. That exclusive immersion can-\
not be proved from the import of the Greek word baptize; )
and, 2. It cannot be proved to have been practised in the
42
* Caiidi(I Reasons, &c., p. 136.
t Theology, vol. i, p. 375. 
first century by any circumstances connected with the history of baptism in the New Testament.
The senses are various in which flaTrr  bapto occurs in
the wide range of classic and Hebrew Greek; we shall
only enumerate some cases, supporting our views by
citations from Scriptural Greek. The word, as has been
observed, primarily signified  to dip, immerse,  &c.   It
afterward, according to a very natural law in the general
analogy of language, came to signify to dye, or colour, because articles were generally dyed by dipping them into
the colouring liquid.  At length it came to signify to stain,
without any allusion to the manner, and where the circumstances were such as to preclude immersion, or dipping.
In the range of its use it is employed, also, to signify to
partially dip, to smear, to moisten, or bedew.  We  notice,
then, the following senses:  I. To smear over, to moisten. -Lev. xiv, 16: "And the
priest shall smear (gaVet bapsei, Eng. ver. dip, Heb. Alt
tabal) his right finger aro roy e,atcov with the oil that is in
his left hand."
In this passage parr7  cannot mean to dip or immerse, for
how could the priest immerse his right finger in the oil
that was in the hollow of his left hand?  The utmost that
could be effected was to moisten the end of his finger in
the oil. The verb here will not, therefore, bear the sense
of immerse. It simply means to smear, or wet. This sense,
also, suits the other part of the sentence. The preposition
a7ro apo, does not compare with the idea of dipping, properly. The priest did not plunge his finger of or with the
oil, but he wet it with the oil, or smeared it with the oil.
So also verse 6: "As for the living bird, he shall take
it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop,
and shall smear, or moisten (Pfatet bapsei, Heb. }~   tabal,
Eng. dip) them and the living bird (err TO ata, And  be
damn) in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water."
We have adopted the above translation because we
consider it agrees best with all the circumstances of the
case.  That the Greek bapto, and the Hebrew tabal, will
not, in this passage, bear the sense of immerse, seems
evident from the following circumstances.
43
(,'I-IRIS'flAN BAPTISPF.
F 
CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.
1. It was not necessary to immerse the hyssop and
living bird. The purposes of this ceremony did not require it  The object, or intention, was, "to sprinkle upon
him that was to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven times."
This did not require an immersion of the hyssop and bird,
or any thing more than that they be wet, or moistened, in
the blood and water. The same ceremony was performed
by putting the end of the right finger in some oil contained
in the left hand. Ver. 16.
2. The quantity of the liquid used seems wholly to
preclude an immersion. They were required to take
some running water in a clean earthen vessel, in quantity
about a quarter of a log, "or an egg shell and a half full,"
according to the rabbins,* and with this clean spring water
they were to mingle the blood of the bird killed, and in
this mixture they were to smear (immerse?) the living bird
and hyssop. These circumstances seem to dictate the
rendering we have given above.
Lev. iv, 17: "And the priest shall smear, or moisten,
(papper bapsei, Heb. }=_ tabal, Eng. version, dip,) his finger
atro roV aluaror, 2-.   min ha dam, with the blood."
It is only necessary here to observe, 1. That the rendering we have given is a lawful one.  The Hebrew preposition min, and the Greek apo, will bear the sense of
with, by, by means of, &c. This rendering also suits the
circumstances, and comports with bapto better than a rigid
adherence to the primitive sense of the verb and prepositions, which would require us to read,'" And the priest
shall plunge his finger from the blood," &c.
2. The sense of pairro bapto is, here, that of smearing
only, and not that of dipping, or plunging.  The priest
might, as a matter of fact, have plunged his finger in the
blood; but the meaning and intent of the command did
not necessarily require it, and it would have been equally
complied with if he had poured a little blood on his finger,
because this would have smeared or moistened it in the
blood sufficiently for all the legal purposes of the ceremony.
Exod. xii, 22: "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop,
and Bapavreg a'rro rov al/uaroc having smeared, or moistened
* Vide Dr. A. Clarke, in loc.
44 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
[it] with the blood," (Heb. tt:_t.   vootebhaltam, ye shall
SMEAR, &c.  Eng. version, DIP.)
Here it is to be observed, the quantity of blood was,
probably, insufficient for an immersion of the hyssop;a partial dipping, a smearing, or moistening, was all that
was required by the circumstances of the case; and here,
also, the occurrence of azro apo with the genitive after the
verb, constitutes a form of speech unadapted to convey
the idea of dipping.* The original (to follow out the
* It is proper here to remark, that the original form of the sentence
sometimes admits of another turn in the sense. Hence, Professor tRipley
has attempted to evade the force of the above passages by availing
himself of this other method of translating them. To give the English
reader an idea of the posture of the argument, we adduce the following
observations.
1. It is contended by Professor Ripiey that the Heb.      min, which
is translated in the Greek by atro apo, has the sense of or, and is
used, in Lev. xiv, 16, et al., as a partitive. This would require the
passage to be read thus:' And the priest shall dip his right finger [in
some] of the oil that is in his left hand."   This retains for [laertr the
sense of dip.
2. We  hate given /larro bapto the sense of smear, and to Oh min,
and a7ro apo, the sense of with: thus, "And the priest shall smear his
right finger with the oil," &c.
In support of our translation we have said that it was a sense in
which the above prepositions sometimes did occur. Thus the phrases,
"red (dark) WITH wine"-"wWhite WITH milk"-" BY (by means  of,
through, with, denoting the effcient cause) the odour of water it sprouts
?p'."  "WITH dreams thou dost terrify me"-" No more shall all flesh
be cut off BY, or by means of, (or with, denofirng the instrumental cause,)
the waters of the deluge." Gen. xlix, 12; ix, 11; Job xiv, 9;  vii, 14.
Vide Gesenius.   So also, in Dan. iv, 33, Nebuchadne2zar's body is
said to have been wet a7ro Tr7'  dpo7ov TOv ovgavov WITH, or sBY iEANS
OF, the dew of heaven.
The sense of the connection in Lev. xiv,'16, clearly determines that
the Hebrew preposition is not there used partitively. It would be absurd to say, "he shall dip his finger in some of the oil in his left hand,"
when all of it was insufficient for a dipping, that is, if we understand
dip in the sense of immerse.   The context generally intimates with
sufficient clearness when )t min is to be used as a partitive, and when
it is not.  For instance, in Lev. iv, 18, it reads: "And the priest shall
put of the blood upon the horns of the altar." Here the sense is, evidently, that he shall put a part of the blood, or some of the blood, &c.;
and our English translators have very properly added the word some"some of the blood," &c.  And we know that the sense of the preposition is that of a partitive, denoting that only a part of the blood is to
45 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
translation of our opponents) exhibits a form of speech
like the following English' "And ye shall take a bunch
of hyssop, and having plunged it from, or of the blood,"
&c.-a translation wholly without meaning.
I am disposed to conclude that the passage in Matt.
xxvi, 23, "He that dippeth (e,a,3ao ) his hand with me in
the dish," &c., may be classed also under this head.
Certain it is that fatr'o bapto, in this passage, does not
signify immerse, and smear makes a good sense.
Here is a plain reference to a mode of eating similar
to that which is now practised by the Turks, Arabs, and
others in the East; viz., by taking the food out of a common dish, or platter, uising the fingers instead of forks or
spoons. It is a point of etiquette among the Turks, and
others in that country, (Western Asia,) while eating, to
present any delicate morsel, in the fingers, to the mouth
of a distinguished or favourite guest. This is a mark of
special consideration. Thus, Dr. Jowett, speaking of their
manners, says, "But the practice which was most revolting to me was this: When the master of the house found
in the dish any dainty morsel, he took it out with his
fingers and applied it to my mouth. This was true Syrian
courtesy-and hospitality; and had I been sufficiently wellbred, my mouth would have opened to receive it."* This
is precisely the conduct of our Lord related John xiii, 26;
where, instead of "sop," it should read morsel; "And
when he had dipped the morsel, (ipwutov,) he gave it to
Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon."
To dip the hand in the dish, or platter, was not to submerge it up to the wrist in the liquid contained therein,
but simply to take food therefrom with the fingers, in true
Asiatic style, instead of using a fork, or spoon, after the
manner of the Europeans. The idea, therefore, intended
by the word fiarro bapto, in Matt. xxvi, 23, is not that of
immerse, but rather that of smear. The hand was said to
be put upon the horns of the altar, because it is immediately added, " he
shall pour out ALL [THE REST OF] the blood at the bottom of the altar."
But there is no such reason why we should understand the Hebrew
min, in the above connections, partitively, and there are good reasons
against it.
* Christian Researches in Syria, &c.  Vide Rob. Calmet; Article,
Eating.
46 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
be baptized when the ends of the fingers only were
smeared in the liquid contained in the dish.  Or, fa~r7
bapto may be used here to signify merely the downward
and reflective motion of the hand in taking the food.
But in John xiii, 26 the sense of smear is plainly carried
oult.  The Saviour says, "He it is to whom para9 TO  wJutov e7rtdcjdc I shall give the morsel when I have SMEARED it,"
i. e., in the oil, or liquid.  "And e/l-apa To ~boutov when he
had SMEARED it (i.e., in the liquid or sop) he gave it to
Judas." This, we apprehend, is the sense of the passage,
and exhibits the true force of farTfr bapto in that connection.
II. It means to stain, or colour, where the circumstances
of the case show that the colouring was not performed by
dipping, but by bespattering, sprinkling, &c.
Psa. lxviii, 23: "That thy foot may be stained Pao,
with the blood of thine enemies." English version, "dipped
in the blood," &c.
Bishop Horne has hit the exact imagery of the text.
lie says, "Thus Jehovah had promised to repeat in Israel,
by David, his glorious acts; to work as signal victories
and deliverances for his people as he had formerly done
in the field of Bashan, and at the Red Sea; when they
saw their enemies dead at their feet."* It was in the
battle-field that their feet were to be baptized, or stained,
by the blood of their enemies slain. The idea does not
come up to the sense of plunging. It comports equally
well, and indeed much better, with the notion of pouring,
or sprinkling. The blood of thleir enemies gushed out upon
them as they trod them down in the day of battle.
Rev. xix, 13: "And he was clothed with IOartOV fie6a.fteVOv at/uart a vesture STAINED with blood." Our English
version has it "dipped in blood;" but the idea, most unquestionably, is not that of a dipping, but of a staining,
and the circumstances show that this staining was performed by bespattering, or sprinkling the blood upon the
garment.
The imagery of the whole passage is twofold. First,
that of a conqueror, leading his triumph, followed by his
victorious army, having his "garment stained" by the blood
* Comment. in loc.
47
I 
CcHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
of his enemies. This staining is called baptizing his garmenit in blood, which, from the nature of the case, could
not have been effected by dipping, but by aspersion, as this
alone is the mode in which a general's garment is stained
by the blood of his enemies in battle.  Secondly, the allusion is made to the vintager, whose garment is supposed
to be stained by the juice of the grape, while he is engaged
in treading the wine-press. The question therefore arises,
"How would the garment of the vintager become stained
(i.e., baptized) by the juice of the grape?"  Surely not by
dipping, unless the person himself who wore it was also
dipped into the wine-vat! but by the occasional gushing
out of the juice of the grape upon it.  Neither was the
garment wholly stained, as if it had been dipped. The allusion, in either of the above cases, is at the furthest remove
from the idea of a dipping. A general's garment may be
stained in various places by the blood of his foes, but it is
never wholly dyed in their blood; and so of the garment of
the vintager. The garment of our Saviour, to which allusion is made in the text, could not be supposed to have
been dipped nor yet to have been wholly dyed, as if it had
been dipped into his own blood. But his blood may be
supposed to have gushed out upon it and to have stained it
in places.
To place the whole subject at once before the eye of
the reader, we shall subjoin the following synopsis of the
passage in question and its parallel reading in Isaiah:
And I saw in heaven, and
behold a white horse; and he
that sat on him was called
Faithful and True, and in
righteousness he doth judge
and make war.
And he was clothed with
a vesture stained (ge6aulevov
bebammenon, Eng. ver. dipped)
with blood: and his name is
called the Word of God.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with
it he should smite the na
Who is this that cometh
from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah?
Wherefore art thou red in
thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth
the wine-press?
I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me:
for I will tread them in mine
anger, and trample them in
my fury, and t         heir blood shall
be SPRINKLED upon my gar
48 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISlM.
ments, and I will STAIN all my tions: and he shall rule them
raiment.  Isa. lxiii, 1-3.   with a rod of iron: and he
treadeth the wine-press of the
fierceness of the wrath of Al                             mighty God. Rev. xix, 11-15.
Here then is an instance wherein a garment is said to
have been baptized, (or stained,) where, from the nature
of the case, the baptism, or staining, could be effected only
l)y sprinkling, or aspersion; and where a parallel passage
directly affirms this to have been the mode.
III. It signifies to moisten, bedew, wet.
Dan. iv, 30, (Eng. ver. iv, 33:) "His body aro rvc Jpoaov rov ovpavov e6aoq was wet, or moistened, with the dew of
heaven." (Chal. t:Z to wet, moisten, imbue.)
Here the reader will remark: 1. The thing set forth by
the expression. The object was not to describe what a
vast quantity of dew fell upon the king; but simply to
make it clear that the king, in his severe punishment,
lodged in the open field, and not in a palace. Hence in
ver. 12 (Eng. ver. 15) it simply says, "Kat ev r; 6poaw  rov
ovpavov Kot-raaOarat, And he shall go to rest, or lodge, in the
dew of heaven;" that is, exposed to falling dew. The
grand idea of the passage is conveyed in the following
words: "And let his portion be with the beasts, in the
grass of the earth." He was to live like a beast, and not
like a man. This, then, being the force of the expression,
the sense of parri bapto does not turn upon the amount or
quantity of dew that fell upon the king, but upon the simple
fact that it did fall; the idea of quantity being foreign to
the thoughts of the speaker.
That the word bapto, in this connection, is adequately
explained by the verb moisten, or, as our English has it,
wet, I can see no just reason to doubt.
To urge that the dews in that country are copious, and
- t herefore, the body of Nebuchadnezzar was drenched,
.es not remove the difficulty.  Besides, it is far from
being manifest that his body was as thoroughly wet by the
dews of heaven as though he had been dipped in the Euphrates. No competent critic would advance this position.
But, as this is a difficult passage for our opponents, they
have cast about with uncommon diligence to find some
3
49 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
mode of explication suited to their restrictive theory.
Professor Ripley says, "I consider the word pa~rro bapto
as hyperbolically used in the book of Daniel."* But
wherein lies the necessity of considering the term an
hyperbole? The dews in Babylonia were phenomena in
their domestic meteorology with which both the prophet
and the king were acquainted. All the effect of exposure
to falling dew was perfectly understood by both. What
then could the prophet have gained by heightening his
picture by such an hyperbole as the professor supposes,
but to have exposed himself to the ridicule and contempt
of the king and court? Under such circumstances it could
have added no force to his descriptions, but wolud rather
have weakened them by an ostentatious display and pomp
of language. Besides, it should be remembered, the word
occurs in plain, narrative style, where we are not to look
for poetical figures and exaggerated suppositions. The
fidelity of the author, in this case, required of him a plain,
unequivocal diction.
2. The Chaldee word, as we have already shown, which
answers to bapto in the Septuagint, is not the word that is
used to import an immersion, but means moisten, wet, tinge,
imbue, &c.t
3. To carry out the translation of our opponents we
must read, "And his body was plunged, or immersed, from
the dew of heaven." The verb bapto in the Greek takes
after it axo apo with the genitive, which constitutes a mode
of speech, as shown above, wholly irreconcilable to the
hypothesis of dipping. It will not be contended that airo
is here used Hebraistically in a partitive sense, and that
the passage is, therefore, to be rendered, " His body was
dipped [in some] of the dew of heaven." No hypothesis
will shift the force of this passage from its fatal bearing
against the construction of dipping.
But if to become wet by exposure to falling dew be
tantamount to a baptism, how are we to appreciate the
authority by which we are told that faTrrw bapto, and its
derivative gairrt1o baptizo, always correspond in sense to
the Latin immergo, and to the English immerge, or im
* Examination of Stuart, p. 37.   t Vide Gesenius and Parkhurst.
50 
CkHRIT'IAN  BAP'TI.Sl l.
merse? To what credit are the critical opinions of men
entitled when they are at war with the facts of an authentic history? Let no one be awed, or deceived by the display of learning which has been arrayed in defence of
this pseudo  philology.   No  rules of verbal criticism
can alter the stubborn nature of authenticated facts
When, therefore, it shall be proved, that to be wet with
the dew of heaven is tantamount to an immersion, then
also will it be proved that sprinkling is immersion.
Leaving the reader to sum up the evidence adduced in
this chapter, and to give it a candid and rational bearing
upon his - own belief, we shall close our remarks under
this head, by stating that the Rev. John Groves, the Greek
lexicographer,  was  certainly a man  possessed of an
honest and independent mind, when, with Parkhurst, and
other great names before him, he said,-Paxro bapto signifies, "to dip, plunge, immerse; to wash; to wet, moisten,
sprinkle; to steep, imbue; to dye, stain, colour."
CHAPTER IV.
CRITICISM ON BAIITIZO BAPTIZO.
IN the foregoing chapter we cited instances, wheretin
/3,-rro bapto is used to signify something less than innmerse.
WVe have already observed, that this word is not employed
to designate the rite of Christian baptism, although it is
well known that, by the laws of etymology, it has a philological bearing, collaterally, in fixingj the sense of baptizo. As derivative words branch off from their roots,
they lose some of their primitive force, and assume new
shades of meaning. Hence, whenever we would attain
an accurate knowledge of the meaning of derivative
words, we trace their pedigree, and, as we follow them
back to the parent word, we find their sense more restricted and definite. It becomes lawful, therefore, to
presume, antecedently to all direct investigation, that
in the case before us, faxrrtr  baptizo may lose some of
51 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the force and restrictedness of meaning that belongs to
its primitive gairro bapto.
As we have now arrived at an important part of this
controversy, and are about to investigate the point upon
which the whole must hinge, we beg the reader's patient attention to a few preliminary remarks. Every thing
depends upon correct and intelligent views of the subject
of this chapter; and I need hardly forewarn the reader,
that, if he start with wrong notions, or from wrong preinises, he never may hope to arrive at a right conclusion. The exact subject of inquiry should be clearly ascertained, and its just dimensions lucidly defined. Many,
from mistaken notions of the proper point of inquiry here,
and of the proper field of argumentation, have undertaken
to show what is the primary meaning of partW, and have
gone to the classic Greek for arguments and illustrations
in support of their views. From these sources they have
argued to the New Testament meaning of the word, and
to its use in a religious sense. They might as well have
gone to Homer, Aristotle, and Xenophon, to prove the
doctrines of St. Paul.
The only question here to be settled, is, " What is the
meaning of fla~rrLt  baptizo, in the New Testament, when
used in a religious, or ritual sense?" A right decision of
this question must for ever hush the unsettled elements
of this wordy and tiresome controversy. The reader must
understand, furthermore, that we are not at liberty to
travel out of the bounds of Hebraistic Greek in search of
arguments. Nay, further, even Josephus and Philo could
render us no decisive aid; and we are to confine our researches to the Septuagint and New Testament Greekparticularly the latter. The Bible has certainly given
us a clew to the meaning of this word, and Scripture
usage must be the criterion of judging of Scripture terms.
The reader should be apprised of the difference between classic Greek, or the writings of those Greek authors who were educated in the philosophy and doctrines
of heathenism; and Hebraistic Greek, or those books
which were written in Greek by Jews, who had been
educated in the doctrines of the Bible; and who, though
they spoke in the Greek language, yet they thought as
Jews, or Christians. Aristotle would naturally express
51) 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.5
only the ideas of a heathen in Greek  words;  but St.
John, when called upon to write in that language, would
as naturally express, in Greek, the ideas peculiar to a
Jew converted to Christianity. Hebraistic Greek is,
therefore, nothing else than Hebrew ideas expressed in
Greek words. And where converted Hebrews are called
to write the history and doctrines of Christ, in the Greek
language, it is evident that their words may not, at all
times, be used in strict accordance with the usus loquend&
of either the Septuagint or classic Greek, but may take
still another idiom, and one conformed to the peculiar
doctrines of the Christian system. M1any Greek words
have become entirely changed in their meaning, by being
thus transferred from a native Greek to a Hebrew, and
then to a Christian. The doctrines of Christianity could
never have been expressed in Greek, as they have been,
without altering the meaning of many words. The reason
is obvious. The Greeks never had any conception of
many of the doctrines of Christianity, and consequently,
had no words in their language primarily adapted to express them. Wherever, therefore, the New Testament
differs from the notions of the heathen; wherever Christianity becomes peculiar to itself-sui generis-if some
circumlocution of the pliant Greek be not employed; we
may look for a change in the meaning of words, corresponding to these new opinions, and we must there
appeal to the usage of the New Testament, and not to
that of the classics.*
I am aware that it has been urged that the sense of
fair,t o baptizo has not been changed by its Hebrew use;
but we shall see, in the course of this discussion, whether
the objection has been advanced on good and tenable
ground,
Another fact, of indispensable moment to a right appreciation of the point now at issue, is, that a word may
have different meanings, in different connections; meanings which may not bear a very obvious relation to their
primary sense It is not always easy to trace those operations of the mind which lead on to a change in the use of
words; yet we may certainly know that certain words
* See note FF.
53 
C(HRT,STIAN BAPTISM.T
are changed from their former meaning. It is not easy
to assign a reason for a change in the meaning of the
word prevent, within the last two centuries; still, we
know such to be the fact.   To  argue from the primitive meaning of a word, to prove its sense in a given
connection, is a procedure condemned by all just rules
of philology.*  It is equally inadmissible to argue that
a word bears a particular sense in a certain  connection, because it bears the same sense in a different connection.  These  principles will not be denied by any
man, unless his ignorance and party spirit overbear all
appreciation of truth and justice. It will not be denied
that, although paro bapto primarily means to dip, still,
like the Latin tingo, it is sometimes used to signify tinge,
dye, colour, &c., and when it is used to signify tinge, or
colour, it drops its primary meaning altogether, and no
longer signifies to dip. Suppose it should be proved that
garrt;(o baptizo means immerse, in every place in the Bible,
except where it applies to a religious rite-would that
prove that the same word bears the same sense also in
the latter class of texts? As well might we argue that,
because atwvtov primarily, and almost always in the Bible,
means-everlasting, that therefore it has that meaning in
each and every place where it may occur. But we know
that it sometimes applies to things that have an end.
It seems, also, not to have been sufficiently considered
that when a word is used purely in a religious sense, or
to denote a religious rite, that it is likely to assume a
meaning different from that which it bears in common
use. Who can believe that our Lord meant to attach
no higher sense to pa7rrTl, when he said to the disciples, "Teach all nations, baptizing them," &c., than Josephus did, when he spoke of his shipwreck, and of the vessel
in which he sailed being baptized, or sinking, (arrta0evOfroa,)
in the Adriatic Sea? It would be easy to enlarge in illustrations upon these remarks, but we apprehend it is not
necessary.
Furthermore, we wish to premise, that, whatever the
meaning of fa,rto may be, when used in a ritual sense
in the New Testament, in any one place, it must be
* See note FFF.
.54 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
uniform in its meaning throughout, in all similar connections. If it describe an external act, or the manner
of performing an external rite in one place, then also
must it have the same restricted sense in all other places.
But if it have a generic sense; if it signify the effect of
some outward mode of using water, as, for instance,
purify or cleanse, then also must it be uniform in this
sense, in all similar places.  If it mean to sprinkle, it
cannot mean to immerse, and vice versa.  And if it mean
either sprinkle or immerse, it cannot mean purify, and
vice versa.
"Whichever way we decide, as it regards the import
of the word, we ought to be uniform in its use as applied
to baptism. For though the same word may have diverse
meanlings when applied to different things and in various
circumstances, yet it certainly cannot, when applied to the
same thing and under the same circumstances.
"Hence, if we adopt the generic meaning purify, or
cleanse, we must adhere to it at all times when speaking
of the rite. On the other hand, if we adopt a specific
meaning, as immerse, or sprinkle, we must adhere to it in
the same way, and not pass from the generic to the specific, and from the specific to the generic, according to
exigences, on the ground that the word fa?rrt~' may, in
the whole circuit of its use, mean sometimes one thing
and sometimes another.  Nor must we adopt both, for,
however numerous the possible meanings of a word may
be in its various usages, it has in each particular case but
one meaning, and in all similar cases its meaning is the
same.  Hence, the word parrrtW, as applied to a given
rite, has not two, or many meanings, but one, and to that
one we should in all cases adhere.
"If we adopt a generic meaning, denoting an effect,
we are not limited by the command to any specific mode
of fulfilling it, and are at liberty to vary the mode according to circumstances. But if we adopt a specific meaning,
d noting an external act, we are limited, by the very import of the command, to the range of that meaning.
"Hence, if the command is purify, or cleanse, we are
not limited by the command to any one mode, but may
choose that which seems to us most appropriate, whether
it be sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.
55 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
" But if the command is specific, as immerse, then we
are limited by the range of that word, and cannot fulfil
the command by sprinkling or pouring, for these are not
modes of immersion, any more than riding is a mode of
walking, or writing is a mode of painting.
"It is true that sprinkling and pouring may be modes
of purifying and so is riding a mode of going. But if
the command is not purify, but immerse, then all debate
as to the mode is at an end, for you can immerse, not by
sprinkling, but only by immersion."*
I know not that the case can be stated with greater
perspicuity. It is plain that if I command that an article
be cleansed, I do not command that it be sprinkled, or
dipped,-I enjoin nothing with respect to the mode of
cleansing; I only enjoin that a certain effect be produced
by the application of water, leaving the manner of applying
the water wholly at the disposal of other circumstances,
or at the option of the person to whom the commnand is
addressed. My command would be fulfilled when the
effect was produced, whether the manner of producing it
were by sprinkling or pouring water upon the article, or
by dipping the article into water. But if I should command that the article be dipped in water, the command
would be specific, and could not be fulfilled by sprinkling
or pouring water upon it, because sprinkling is not a mode
of dipping. It is so with the word baptize. Where our
Saviour commands the apostles to "baptize all nations,"
if the word "baptize," in that connection, means immerse,
then plainly the command can never be fulfilled by
sprinkling; but if it mean to cleanse or purify, or consecrate, then the command is generic, and only enjoins, not
the manner of performing an external act, but the production of a certain effect, without anriy allusion whatever to
the manner of producing it. It must be remembered, also,
that if the original command to baptize be generic, merely
enjoining purification by water, without respect to the
mode, the word must retain the same sense in all those
places where it occurs in the New Testament in a ritual
sense.
If the reader has attended to the foregoing remarks, he
* President Beecher's crit. on Ba'rr', B13ib. Repository, 1840-1.
55
I 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
may be now ready for the direct investigation of the point
at issue. We are, then, to show, not what is the primary
meaning of i3a7rt;(, not what are its meanings in the wide
range of classic and Hebrew Greek, not what is its gene ral use in Scripture, but, what is its mneaning when used iit
a ritual sense in the Newv Testament; and we take the
ground that it means, in all such connections, to purify,
or cleanse, and is exactly synonymous with KaOap~( katha rizo, which is a word in the Jewish ritual signifying to
purify or cleanse, without any allusion whatever to the
mode of cleansing.
I. Nothing less than this would have been sufficiently
definite and significant. All will agree that a word which
is used as the descriptive title of a rite should signify the
most considerable trait, or circumstance, of that rite.  It
was so in the word passover; it was so in the title sabbath
-that institution denoting, primarily, rest.   The title
should give some clew or index to the nature, or history,
or design, of the rite or institution.  Indeed, this is no
more than saying that things ought to be called by their
proper names.  Suppose, now, the Saviour had said to the
apostles, "Disciple all nations, washing them," &c.; thus
using Aov& in the sense of wash instead of gafrrti  baptizo;
every one must perceive that this would have been a vague
manner of expressing the utility or design of this external
rite. For although wash may be used to signify purify,
yet it does not necessarily take that meaning; but, on the
contrary, if the liquid used in washing be impure, the
sense of the word wash would be that of pollute, or soil.
Thus we speak of the wash of the street-of a kitchen"red wash," "yellow wash," &c.
Besides, the word wash sometimes drops the idea of
purify, and merely denotes "a copious, superficial application of water. So we speak of the sea as washing the
shores or rocks."  In this instance the idea of cleansing
is wholly set aside, and we have simply the idea of the
copious application of water, without denoting any design,
or any effect whatever. The mere idea of wash, therefore, is too vague to attach to the cognomen of the Christian rite of baptism.
But suppose we  understand SartOW in the sense of
immerse, and take the ground that the Saviour used it
3*
57
I' 
CHIRISTTIAN BAPTISTSM
thus, and that, therefore, the command to baptize is a
command to immerse. This is the point insisted on by
our opponents.  But is this satisfactory?  Is it definite?
Is it at all intelligible? Our opponents must be philologists enough to know that whatever 3a7rrtW baptizo may
mean, in the Saviour's command, its meaning must be
simple, not complex. It cannot mean to dip, in order to
cleanse, any more than isrrevw hippeuo means to ride, in
order to health.  Hippeuo means to ride, without any allusion to the object or design of riding, which may be health,
or business, or pleasure. Just so baptizo, if, in Matt.
xxviii, 19, it signify immerse, this is all its meaning in
that place, and in all other places in the New Testament
where it denotes the performance of a Christian rite;
and the design of immersing could be gathered only from
circumstances, not from the word. Things are dipped,
sometimes, to cleanse them, if it be in pure water; otherwise, if dipped in impure water, it may be to tinge, or to
befoul them.  So Job ix, 30, 31: "Though I wash myself
in snow water-yet shalt thou plunge (i. e., defile, e[aipac
baptize) me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor
me." A person may be plunged into water for his health,
for physical cleansing, for merriment, or with a malicious
intent to drown him.
Now suppose the Saviour had commanded the disciples
simply to immerse, that is, to put the converts under water. Would the command have had any meaning whatever? As immersion is performed for various purposes,
it might with great propriety be asked, For what purpose
should they immerse the converts? The word immerse
would never give a clew to the solution of this question.
Philology could never settle it. History might determine
it. But the word baptize, as the cognomen of a rite, would
be wholly uninstructive and meaningless.  If it have the
sense of immerse, it cannot have the sense of purify, for
immerse and purify are not synonymous, nor are they
correlative, or necessarily connected at all.  And on the
other hand, if it mean purify, it is gratuitous and absurd
to say it means immerse. or that it necessarily implies
immersion.
3But suppose we understand 3a,rn7c in the sense of
purify, a.nd that our Saviour said to the disciples: " Go
58 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
disciple all nations, purifying them," &c. This would
make the sense complete, and fia7rrto would then denote
the grand intention of the ceremonial use of water.  And
now, does not every one know that it is according to the
analogy of all language that words which were primarily
used to denote an external act, afterward, by a very natural
transition of the thought, have been used to signify the
object or intention of that act? Thus air,wco bapto primarily
meant to dip, but, as people frequently dipped articles in
order to colour them, it afterward came to signify to dyethat is, it came to signify, not to dip, but the object or end
of dipping; and finally, it was used to signify to dye, when
the facts of the case proved it was by sprinkling.  So also
8axrrrt  baptizo may primarily mean to immerse; but, as
people often immersed for the purpose of purifying, so the
word might, according to the laws of analogy, be used to
mean purify, and thus drop all reference to the mode of
purifying. This is, indeed, so plain a case that we cannot
think it will be misunderstood by any, or doubted by any
who understand it.
The sense of purify, therefore, without any allusion to
the mode of purifying, is the meaning we are to attach to
flarrxt~  in -the New Testament, when used in a ritual sense.
There is no philological objection against such a construction; it is in perfect keeping with the general use of words,
and consistency and the nature of the case seem to require it.
II. The Jews expected the Messiah would baptize when
hlie camne, but they did not expect him to immerse. There
is no way of accounting for this expectation of the Jews,
but by understanding olalrrXt baptizo in the sense of KaOapt~  to purify.  It was a subject of ancient prediction that
Messiah should purify; John Baptist reiterated this prediction, and revived the expectation'and faith of the Jews
on the subject, but he uses the word  iarrrct  baptizo,
instead of icaOapt'  katharizo.  That such an expectation
existed among the Jews is proved from John i, 25: "Why
baptizest thou then, if thou art not that Christ?" That the
Messiah should immerse is nowhere foretold; but that he
should purify is often and fully predicted. But especially
is this foretold in that last and prominent prophecy of
Malachi, (iii, 1-3,) which was designed to fill the eye of
the mind of the nation until he came.
59
t 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
"He is here presented to the mind in all his majesty and
power; but, amid all other ideas, that of purifying is most
prominent. He was, above all things, to purify and purge,
and that with power so great, that few could endure the
fiery day.' Who may abide the day of his coming, and
who shall stand when he appeareth? for he shall be as a
refiner's fire!'
"Suppose the word ia7rt~w to mean as I affirm- the
whole nation are expecting the predicted purifier; all at
once the news goes forth that a great purifier has appeared, and that all men flock to him and are purified in
the Jordan. How natural the inference! the great purifier, so long foretold, has at length appeared; and how
natural the embassy of the priests and Levites to inquire,
Who art thou? And when he denied that he was the
Messiah, or either of his expected attendants, how natural
the inquiry,'Why purifiest (baptizest) thou then? It is
his work-of him it is foretold; why dost thou intrude
into his place, and do his work?'
"In view of these facts I do not hesitate to believe most
fully, that the idea which came up before the mind of the
Jews when the words Ihavv?7 BarttraTl [John the Baptist]
were used, was not John the immerser, or John the dipper,
but John the purifier-a name peculiarly appropriate to
him as a reformer, as puritan was to our ancestors, and
for the same reason.
"This view has to my own mind the self-evidencing
power of truth, for there is not the slightest presumption
against it; all probable evidence is in its favour; and it
explains and harmonizes the facts of the case as no other
view does."*
The bearing of this argument cannot but be felt by
every attentive, candid mind that contemplates it; and
we request the reader to take his Bible and examine the
passages referred to, and kindred ones, and then ask
himself if Malachi, and other prophets, with John the
Baptist, did not conspire to raise an expectation among the
Jews that Jesus would purify, and if this expectation was
ever expressed by them, save in the question about baptism.
III. "The contrast made by John between his own
* President Beecher on fa7rrtzo.
60 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISIT.
baptism and that of Christ illustrates and confirms the
same view.   This contrast exists in three particulars,the subject, the agent, and the means.
"In the case of John, the subject was the body; in the
case of Christ, the mind. In the case of John, the agent
was material, that is, a man; in the case of Christ, the
agent was the Holy Spirit. In the case of John, the
means was water; in the case of Christ, they were truth,
and the emotions of God.
"Now, the idea to purify is perfectly adapted to illustrate and carry out such a contrast, but to immerse is not.
The sense to purify can be with ease applied to the body
or the mind, to human agents or to the Holy Spirit, to
water or to truth and divine influences.
"How simple and how natural the statement!' I indeed purify you with water, but he shall purify you with
the Holy Spirit. I perform an external and symbolical
rite, by which the body is cleansed with water, but he
shall perform a higher cleansing, or that in which the
mind itself is purified by the Spirit of God.' And how
harsh, how forced, how unnatural to say, I immerse you
in the Holy Spirit, and in fire! Such a use of language,
to denote such  a thing, is entirely foreign to all the
laws of the human minid.  Indeed, so much is the force of
this felt, that in this part of the antithesis, many resort
to a new modification of the idea, and maintain that it
means, to imbue largely; to overwhelm with divine influences.  But this destroys the whole symmetry of the
antithesis. John does not mean to say, I immerse you
largely with water, but either, I immerse you in water,
or I cleanse you with it; and whichever sense we adopt
in one part of the antithesis, we ought to retain [the
corresponding  one]  in  the  other:"*   If,  then,  John
intended to say, "I purify you with water," we must
retain the corresponding sense in the other part of the
antithesis, and say, "but he shall purify you with the
Holy Spirit:" but if we suppose John to say merely,
"I immerse you in water," we must also say, to carry out
the sense in the corresponding part of the contrast, "but
he shall immerse you in the Holy Spirit and in fire."
* President Beecher on fa'rrt'.
61 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISMI.
Now we appeal directly to the reader's understanding,
and ask which of these two senses (for one of them
we must adopt) is the most natural and obvious; the
most suited to all the circumstances of the case, and
most in accordance with the easy, and natural, and correct interpretation of language? Is there not a violent
irmprobability against the construction,  " He  shall immrnerse you in the Holy Ghost and in fire?"   Is there
a principle of philology, of exegesis, or of divinity, that
requires such a construction? On the contrary, does not
the construction, "He  shall purify you with the Holy
Spirit and with fire," better suit the symmetry of the antithesis, better accord with the prophetic descriptions, and
better harmonize with the obvious, and easy, and correct use of words? If so, we are bound to attach to
t3a7rret  the  sense  of purify, in the connections above
cited, and  in kindred places.   This view is still further confirmed by comparing the language of John with
the passage from Malachi already quoted. It seems to
be at all times his great desire to lead them to apply
those words to Christ, and  not  to himself.  As if he
had  said, "Do not think that I am that great purifier
spoken of in those words.-After mne cometh one mightier
than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am unworthy to
loose. He shall purify you with the Holy Spirit and
with fire; whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge (dtaKcaOaptet, purge through) his floor," &c.
But all the force, correspondence, and natural illumination of those passages depends on giving the word #arrtiw
the sense of purify.  It should be remembered that the
Holy Spirit is the efficient agent of spiritual baptism.
The apostle says, "For by one Spirit we  are all baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink
into one Spirit," 1 Cor. xii, 13. It is by the Spirit's
influences that we are baptized. Now, to say that the
Spirit immerses us into himself, is as monstrous a figure
in rhetoric as it is absurd and gross in theology.   But to
say that the Spirit purifies us by his influences through
the truth, is at once beautiful and proper. We are again
brought back. therefore, to the conclusion, that 3aTrr~t',
used  in a religious sense, signifies to purify, without
respect to the mode of purification.
(32 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
IV. An appeal to the usus loquendi of Pairrtif baptizo in
Scripture, where it occurs in a reliogious sense, will show
that it bears the sense of purify, cleanse, &c., in such
connnections.
Our object is not to examine all the passages of Scripture wherein the word occurs, but only, or at least
chiefly, those wherein it is used in a religious sense.
It is the religious use and meaning of baptizo that we
wish to ascertain.   We  have already brought forward
some passages, and offered some remarks that might
fitly apply under this head to some extent. But they
were judged, on the whole, to belong to another class
of argument. Without repeating what has been said,
we shall turn our attention to the general religious use
of baptizo, with a view to elaborate, in the course of our
remarks, the philological argument.
Although the controversy must be finally decided by an
appeal to the canonical Scriptures, especially the New
Testament, still, as shedding a few rays of collateral light
upon the meaning of pa7r,tf baptizo, we shall first adduce
two passages from the apocryphal writings. I need hardly
say to the reader that the Greek of the Apocrypha is the
same, considered in a literary point of view, as that of
the Septuagint version.
SECTION I.
The first passage is that of Judith xii, 7: " And Judith
washed herself (e,arT;7rC ebaptizeto) at a fountain by the
camp." We do not suppose this was a ceremonial, or religious washing, or baptism; yet we think it is entitled to
a consideration in this place. It is evident that the sense
of the Greek verb baptize, in this passage, is that of
cleanse, purify; although the cleansing or washing was
a common, and not a ceremonial one. The idea of
immerse does not meet the force and meaning of the verb.
Judith was in the camp of Hlolofernes, with whom she
was striving to form such acquaintance as might further
her deep-laid scheme.   It was all-important, according
to the fastidious notions of the orientals respecting female
delicacy, that she should bestow uncommon attention to
the purity of her person, in order to render her daily
appearance before the haughty Assyrian desirable and
63 
CIIRISTIAN BAPTISMI.
engaging. This, in that hot climate, and in the dust and
filth of a camp, became no easy task. Frequent washing was
therefore indispensable. Simple immersion, or bathinig,
could not have sufficed: she must cleanse or purify her
person. That she bathed or immersed herself in the process of cleansing, might, as a matter of fact, have been.
But this is not the obvious meaning of the Greek verb
baptize. It does not suit the exigence of the case: it does
not answer the manifest purpose for which she went to the
fountain; she might have immersed herself and still returned without the necessary cleansing. WTe say, therefore,
that SatrrtG, in this connection, has the sense of cleanse,
purify; and not that of immerse; and the English translators
have therefore very properly rendered it "washed herself"
Besides, the structure of the whole sentence in the
original is peculiarly unadapted to convey the idea of immersing.  It stands thus: egairTt7eT  ev 77 7rapej~6oA7 Ert
r-, 7,-7Vy  roV'vdaror, [Judith] baptized herself within the camp
AT the fountain of water. It does not say she baptized
et?7v r'7)7V IN, or INTO the fountain; but care rvg 7rynvc AT,
or BY the fountain. The English here is as exact a transcript of the aspect of the Greek as can be given. Now,
no man will be willing to adopt the translation, "she
plunged, or immersed herself AT the fountain." She might
have washed or purified herself AT the fountain, but if she
immersed at all, she immersed herself into, or in the fountain. This the Greek text does not affirm; but it does
affirm just the contrary. Prof. Ripley, feeling the force
of this, attempts to evade it by the usual resort-the
invention of baths.  "There surely may have been conveniences for bathing the whole person'AT the fountain,' in
the immediate vicinity of it, and conveniences which were
supplied with water from the fountain.....Is it unlikely
that a Jewish city [as Bethulia] thus furnished with
natural supplies of water, would also be furnished at the
fountain or fountains with artificial accommodations for
bathing?"* Now, what has all this to do with the philolog,ical argument? Verily, nothing.  But, furthermore, the
text says that she baptized herself ev in, or within the camp.
This would not be a suitable place to bathe, attended as
* Examination of Stuart, pp. 27, 28.
64 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.5
she was by only a female servant. Still, to this circumstance we attach no great weight. All things considered,
whether Judith baptized herself for a religious purpose,
(as seems to be intimated, chap. xi, 7; xii, 9,) or for a
physical cleansing, the word parrtr  baptizo evidently
takes the sense of purify, cleanse, &c., or, as our English
has it, wash.
SECTION II.
The second citation from the Apocrypha is from Ecel.
xxxiv, 30, (Eng. version xxxiv, 25,)" He that cleanseth
himself (pa'rLtzopevor baptizomenos, Eng. ver. washeth himself) from a dead body, and toucheth it again, what availeth his washing?" (Xovrpo loutro, washing.)
In rendering the above, "He that cleanseth from a dead
body," &c., we have exactly followed the original. Our
English is a kind of periphrasis, introduced, it would seem,
to make a smoother sentence.
The reader should here be informed that an allusion is
made in this verse to the statutes of Moses relating to the
purification of those persons who had touched a dead body.
These statutes are recorded in Lev. xi, 25, 28, 31, 39,40;
Num. xix, 11-19.  In order, therefore, to determine the
sense of ia7rrtiw in this passage from Ecclesiasticus, we
must compare it with the words used in the Mosaic prescriptions. We consider the reference made especially
to the cleansing from a human corpse, and shall, therefore,
only refer to the foregoing passage in Numbers. It is
there recorded: "He that toucheth the dead body of any
man shall be unclean (aicaOaproc akathartos) seven days.
He shall purify himself (7yvtcwOY,erat hagnisthesetai) on the
third day, and on the seventh day, and he shall be clean
(IcaOapoc katharos.)... And for an unclean person they shall
take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin,
and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel; and a
clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water and
SPRINKLE it upon him that touched a bone, or one slain,
or one dead, or a grave: and the clean person shall
SPRINKLE upon the unclean on the third day, and on the
seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, [that is, he shall finish purifying himself,] and shall
WASH (7r;vve plunei, wash) his clothes, and shall WASH
65 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIST.
HIMSELF (Xovaerat lousetai, wash, Heb.  i7  rahats, wash) in
water, and shall be clean at even."
In this somewhat lengthy quotation the reader is required to notice:  1. The unclean person is required to
purify himself. The words used in the Seventy, to set
forth this command, are ayvtL  agnizo, to purify, separate,
sanctify, &c., and icaOapti katharizo, purify, cleanse, &c(.
This command is not a command to immerse, to bathe, to
sprinkle, or wash; but a command to purify. 2. Specific
directions are given as to the external manner of applying
the water to the body of the unclean person. The requisite purification was to be attained by sprinkling, and by
washing with water. 3. In all this process immersion is
not once enjoined. The Greek louo, and the Hebrew
rahats, answer to the English word wash, and do not imply
oathing, or immersing, any more than they do pouring or
sprinkling. They denote a general use of water, but do
not specify the mode of using it. The English translation
bathe, therefore, in verse 19, is not strictly correct, because
bathing denotes a specific mode of cleansing, whereas
rahats and louo are not specific. Hence the Greek word
ireptLovG) perilouo signifies, not to bathe all around, but, to
wash all around, as if by casting water upon the body.
Our English, therefore, should read wash.
Now,  the argument is obvious.   1. The  mode  of
cleansing an unclean person from the pollution of a dead
body being complex; that is, including different methods
of using water, such as sprinkling and washing, pafrt
baptizo, in Eccl. xxxiv, 30, cannot refer to this outward
mode, because baptizo is not a complex term-it does not
signify, in the same place, both to sprinkle and wash.
2. If it should be still urged that baptizo, in this connection, refers to the outward mode of using the water of
purification, then we ask, to which of the words, in the
original command of Num. xix, 11-19, does it answer in
signification?  Does it answer to 7reptphatrv perirhraino, to
sprinkle around upon, or to;ovc louo, answering to the
Hebrew Ott rahats, wash?  These are all the words that
are used in the original command to describe the outward
act, or mode of using water. Indeed louo is not specific.
It denotes a general use of water upon the body, in dis
66 
CHRTISTIAN'BAPTISM..
tinction from vt7rr  nipto, to wash hands, and xrrvvw pluno,
to wash clothes, but it does not specify the mode of using
the water. We ask, then, to which of these original
words does parretr  baptizo refer?  Which  of the two
positions will our opponents adopt? Are they not fairly
grounded? And will not their theory overwhelm them  in
difficulties if they do not speedily abandon it?
3. But the sense of purify, or cleanse, may be attached
to baptizo in Eccl. xxxiv, 30, and the sense is complete.
It would then answer to KIcOapt'p  katharizo, or ayvPi' agnizo,
in the passage in Numbers, both of which signify to purify,
cleanse, &c.*
* I do not wish to exhaust this passage by multiplying remarks upon
it, but the posture of the controversy seems to require that some notice
be taken, from time to time, of what has been advanced by our opponents. It is contended, by Rev. Willard Judd, in his review of Stuart
on Baptism, (p. 35,) that the passage from Ecclesiasticus should read,
"He that is immersed from a dead body," &c.  In support of this he
argues, that where the law requires the Jews to wash, (Heb. rahats,
Greek louo,) they understood it to mean immerse. To sanction this
construction he cites the Talmuds and Maimonides; and he might as
well have appealed to Zoroaster and the Zendavesta. Why did he not
appeal to the Old Testament use of rahats and louo? This would have
settled the question at once.  The question is not, "How did the Talmudical writers understand ~7_  rahats?" but, "How  did the Holy
Spirit employ the word in the Old Testament scriptures I" We do not
inquire whether the Jews did, as a matter of fact, bathe themselves, but
whether the original word, rahats, required them to immerse.
Mr. Judd also appeals to 2 Kings v, 10, 14, where Elisha commands
Naaman to wash (Zovaat) in the Jordan, and the latter complied by
dipping himself (efairrrcaro.)  But here the argument holds just as
strong in favour of giving ia7r'rt; the force merely of Xov&), as vice
versa.
The nearest approach that Mr. Judd makes to an argument in support of his version, is when he says, the phrase "' immersed from the
dead' may be compared with'washed from sins,' Rev. i, 5; and
'sprinkled from an evil conscience,' Heb. x, 22. Cleansing is, (continues he,) in each case, implied as a consequence, but not expressed
in either." The error of the author results from his rigid adherence to
the physical sense of baptize, supposing it to have undergone no change
of meaning in its ritual use. But is his position sustained by his appeal
to what he supposes to be parallel phrases? WVe cannot think it will
be so regarded.  The sentence "washed from sins" does not mean
"bathed from sins," nor "dipped from sins," nor "sprinkled from sins,"
but it means "purified from sins;" Zovw louo here, dropping its literal
and taking its metaphorical sense, signifies, not the external act or
mode of washing, but the effect of washing, viz., purity.  So, also, the
67 
CHRISTIAN B13APTISM.
SECTION III.
But we come now to inquire into the New Testament
meaning of Paqrtri  baptizo, when used in a religious
sense.
Mark vii, 4: " And when they come from the market,
they eat not except they purify themselves, fiairT1)vrat bap tizontai," Eng. ver. "wash."
Luke xi, 38: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar velled that he had not first been purifed (e,-ar~ntOq ebaptisthe, Eng. ver.'washed') before dinner."
These passages, having a common allusion to the same
subject, or ceremony, we have placed together. The
reasons we assign for the translation we have given are
the following:
1. It gives a good sense; it meets all the circumstances
of the case; it gives an easy, natural, expressive turn to
the passages; it is not unphilological, but perfectly in accordance with the general usage of language, to suppose
such a change in the use of baptizo, and there is no other
word that so well meets all the circumstances of the case.
The sense of purify, therefore, should be the received
sense of baptizo in these connections.
2. In the passage from Luke it seems pretty evident
that purify is the sense of baptizo, from the ready recurrence of the Saviour's mind to that subject.
"The Pharisee marvelled that he had not e8a'rXtC71
baptized before dinner; and the Lord said unto him, Now
do ye Pharisees KaOapt're purify the outside... but rather
give alms, and behold, all things are KeaOapa pure unto you."
Now the subject of the Pharisee's wonder was in relation
to the Saviour's not baptizing before dinner; and the
Saviour, in shaping his reply to mtneet the point of the
Pharisee's objection, and to obviate his perplexity, addressed him on the practice of purifying the outward
person, and of being over-exact in mere legal (or rather
phrase "sprinkled from an evil conscience" means "purified from an
evil conscience;'" pavt,'t rantizo being there used to signify, not the
external act of sprinkling, but its effect, viz., purity. And so the sentence "baptized from a dead body" does not mean "immersed from a
dead body," or "plunged from a dead body!" but simply, "purified
from a dead body."
68 
CHRISTIAN  BA'PTiSM3.
superstitious) distinctions between clean and unclean things.
As if he had said, "Do you wonder that I have not
baptized (purified) myself before dinner? I say unto you
Pharisees, that ye do indeed labour to purify the outer
man, and ye abound in nice distinctions of clean and unclean things; but rather consecrate your substance to God
by distributing to the needy, and behold, all things are
pure unto you." We ask, then, does not the obvious, natural force of this whole passage go to show that part-t
is here used in the sense of ica~aptco katharizo, purify?  We
are not to strain the words and circumstances, so as to
make them fit to a particular dogma. We are not to try
if, by some stretch of the imagination, baptizo may not be
made to mean immerse. We are to take the natural, easy,
obvious sense, and that alone will be the true sense. And
ill this view, we think, all must feel that our position is
the right one. Indeed, we must suppose that, either the
Pharisee used baptizo in the sense of purify, or that our
Saviour did not speak at all to the point.  The latter none
will admit; the former, we believe, all must concede.
3. The sense of purify better suits the advance in the
thought which is perceptible in reading the third and
fourth verses of Mark vii. There is an advance in the
sense from species to genera, from a given case to a common custom, from vXrrT nipto, to wash hands, to pa7rcrt
baptizo, to purify, whether the purification be that of per    -
sons or things, and whether it be effected by sprinkling or
immersion. The passage stands thus: "For the Pharisees
and all the Jews, except they vIttovrat ractXetpar washt their
hands, eat not;... and returning from the market, except
they fa,rrtaYvrat baptisontai, purify themselves, they eat not."
In the first case they are said to have washed their hands;
in the second case they are said to have had a custom of
purifying their persons as the nature of the case required,
whether in whole or in part.
That gaTrrtzw baptize does not bear the sense of immerse
in Mark vii, 4, and Luke xi, 38, is evident from the following considerations.
1. The character and frequency of these purifications
render it improbable that they were effected by immersing
the whole body in water. (a) Their character being religious, or ceremonial, and sprinkling being efficacious in
69 
CHPRISTIAN BAPTISM.
all ordinary cases for the purification of the unclean per.
son, it is highly probable that sprinkling, or aspersion, was
the common method employed. This, of course, is only
presumptive evidence. (b) The frequency of these purifications would render their accomplishment by immersion
inconvenient, to an extent that throws the reasonable probability against that hypothesis. It must be remembered
hat these baptisms were performed always before eating,
and after returning from market. This the reader will
perceive by comparing the passages above, from Mark
and Luke. The Jews ate three times a day. How often
they returned from market we know not. The market,
among the Greeks and Romans, and also among the Jews,
after they had copied the manners of those nations to some
extent, was a place of resort for those who wished to
trade-for philosophers to teach wisdom-for magistrates
to administer justice-for poets, dramatists, and actors to
amuse the people-and for the unemployed to seek for that
society and conversation suited to their tastes. Hence
we find Paul disputing with philosophers in the market,
and Paul and Silas accused before the magistrate in the
market-place. Acts xvii, 17, and xvi, 19. Hence the
Pharisees "loved salutations in the market-places," Mark
xii, 38. Their visits to the market would not be casual,
but frequent and necessary.  Many were called thither
by the nature of their avocations, many from motives of
pleasure, and many others from sectarian pride. But did
they always immerse on returning from market? We
know that the argumentum ab inconvenienti in this case
will not pass very current with our opponents; but still we
say, it throws the reasonable probability against the theory
of immersion.
2. Besides, it being clear that they baptized themselves
for a religious, and not for a common purpose, it becomes
still more improbable that they immersed on these occasions, from the fact that their clothes would need to be
submerged in water equally with their bodies. According
to Jewish laws, and notions of legal defilement, whatever
operated to defile the person tended equally to defile all
the clothes which he had on at the time; and the clothes,
under such circumstances, needed to be purified equally
with the mall himself. If the Pharisees, then, on account
70 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
of their high notions of legal sanctity, immersed their bodies
in water on returning from market, and before eating, they
must also have submerged their clothes in water, or the
touch of their own garments would have rendered them
still unclean. But who can believe that they were in any
such habit of drenching their clothes three or more times
a day?
3. A corroborating circumstance is found in John ii, 6.
We there read, "There were set six water-pots of stone,
after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing
two or three firkins apiece." The word urerp7rag, rendered
"firkin," denotes a measure with which we are not well
acquainted. According to Bishop Cumberland, as quoted
by Dr. A. Clarke, it contains about seven pints and one
eighth of a pint. Others suppose the capacity of the vessel here referred to, to be much larger, sufficient to hold
ten gallons. In 2 Chron. iv, 5, it answers to the Hebrew
I= bath, of about seven and a half gallons.  The following
may throw some light upon the subject of the capacity of
these stone pots.  "While Mr. W. Rae Wilson (who visited Palestine in 1819) was at Cana,'six women having
their faces veiled came down to the well, each carrying
on her head a pot for the purpose of being filled with water. The vessels were formed of stone, and something in
the shape of the bottles used in our country for containing
vitriol, having great bodies and small necks, with this exception, that they were not so large. Many had handles
attached to the sides; and it was a wonderful coincidence
with Scripture, that the vessels appeared to contain much
the same quantity as those which the evangelist informs
us had been employed on occasion of the nuptial celebration,' viz.,' threefirkins,' that is, about twelve gallons each."*
Such, then, being the capacity of the vessels which were
appropriated to the common purifications of the Jews, the
idea of their frequent immersions becomes manifestly improbable, if not absurd and impossible.
4. It appears quite probable that the washing of hands
was alluded to as the principal omission on the part of our
Saviour and his disciples. This, indeed, we know was
* Vilson's Travels in Egypt and the Holy Land, p. 339, first edition,
quoted by Horne, Introd., part iii, chap. v, sec. 3.
71 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the ground of the repeated complaints of the Pharisees, as
the reader will perceive by referring to Matt. xv, 2; Mark
vii, 2.  It was the omission of that kind of washing, or
purification, which was peculiarly appropriate before eat ing. So also in Luke xi, 38: "And when the Pharisee
saw it, he marvelled that Christ had not first washed before
dinner."  Also, "When they come from market, they eat
not, except they wash," Mark vii, 4. The foolish super stitions of the Jews taught them that to eat with unwashed
hands was a great sin; and that the food of such persons
was subject to an evil spirit they called shibta. (Vide Dr.
A. Clarke on Matt. xv, 2.) This washing of hands, also,
was a religious ceremony. Hence our Lord says, in reply
to these superstitious notions, "Not that which goeth into
a man defileth a man," &c. Hence he says also, to the
Pharisee, The triue way to make "all things pure" is, not
merely to purify your hands before eating, but to "give
alms of such things as ye have," thus rendering your
substance to God.
These considerations strongly force themselves upon
our minds as convincing evidence that the Pharisee, in
Luke xi, 38, was offended because the Saviour omitted
the ceremony of washing his hands before dinner.  "It
is no more likely that a want of immersion offended the
Pharisee, in the case of Christ, than it is that this was
the ground of offence in the case of the disciples, Mark
vii. It does not appear that Christ had been to the market.
Nor is it likely at all that an immersion was expected, as
a matter of course, before every meal, even on coming
from a crowd. The offence in the case of the disciples
was, that they had not washed their hands. An immersion was not expected of them, though they had been in
crowds. Why should it be of Christ?
"Kuinoel, on this passage, well remarks, that the existence of any such custom of regular immersion, before all
meals, cannot be proved. And the opinions and statements of Jewish writers in after ages are of very little
weight."*
Other considerations might be urged, to show that the
washing of hands was the principal thing alluded to in
* President Beecher on Ga7rrtw.
72 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.i.
Luke xi, 38, and Mark vlii 4; but the reasonable probability already appears in favour of that position, and this
is sufficient to justify an argument from the mode of washing hands.*   It becomes, then, a proper subject of inquiry, "What was the mode of washing hands among the
Jews?'"t
Customs never change in the East. What was practised in the days of David was still in vogue in the days
of Christ, and has been handed down, with little alteration,
to the present time.  That the Jews washed their hands
by pourino water upon them is evident from 2 Kings iii,
11,   Here is Elisha Ben-shaphat, who poured water on
the hands of Elijah." The same practice prevails, to this
day, in the East.  So Pitts, speaking of the Mohammedans,
says, " The table being removed, before they rise from tile
ground on which they sit, a slave, or servanrt, who stands
attending on them with a cup of water to give them drink,
steps into the middle with a basin or copper pot of water,
something like a coffee-pot, and a little soap, and lets the
water run upon their hands, one after another, in order as
they sit. Such service, it appears, Elisha performed for
Elijah." On the same subject D'Ohsson says, "The
Mussulman is generally seated on the edge of a sofa,
with a pewter or copper vessel, lined with tin, placed
before him upon a round piece of red cloth, to prevent the
carpet or mat from being wet: a servant, kneeling on the
ground, pours out water for his master; another holds a
cloth destined for the purifications. The person who
purifies himself begins by baring the arms as far as the
elbow. As he washes his hands, mouth, nostrils, face,
arms, &c., he repeats the proper prayers.  It is probable
that Mohammed followed, on this subject, the book of
Leviticus."t
The same custom, substantially, prevailed in the time
of Christ, as appears from John xiii, 45, where Jesus
performed the office of servant, as above described.
The argument, then, is plain. BaxrrrL baptizo is used,
in l,uke xi, 38, and Mark vii, 4, generically to mean purify.
It does not there mean immerse, or sprinkle, or pour, or bathe,
but onlypurify. The Jews had a custom of purifying them        * See note G.                t See note GG.
t Vifle Robinson's Calmet, art. BAPTISM.
4
73 
CHRISTIAA\ BAPTISM.
selves, and all their furniture, often. Sometimes they purified their whole persons; sometimes they purified their
hands only. Sometimes they purified by bathing, sometimes by sprinkling, and sometimes by pouring water on
the hands. The purifications which were performed before
eating were emphatically of the latter kind. The stone
pots which were set for purification were, unquestionably,
for the purpose of sprinkling; and in this the custom of the
Pharisees bears a strong resemblance to modern Roman
Catholic ceremonies. These purifications were called
baptisms, not because they were immersions, or sprinklings, or pourinugs, but because they were purifcations,
baptizo being used for katharizo.
5. But that the fia7rtC/ovc baptisms of Mark vii, 4, were
not immersions, is put for ever beyond the region of doubt
from the circumstances of the case. It is said that the
Jews not only baptized their persons, their " cups, and
pots, and brazen vessels," but also their icKptvv beds, or
couches.  Our English word "tables" is not correct.  In
order to place the subject fully before the reader, we
remark:
1. The word bed, in Scripture, is used to denote a kind
of hammock, or mattress, and pillow, such as the Orientals
use to this day to recline upon. They are composed of a
thick quilt of cotton, or some similar substance. Such
was the bed spoken of Matt. ix, 2. Such beds they could
conveniently carry; hence the command, "Arise, take up
thy bed and walk." Now, with this definition of the term
bed, we admit the abstract possibility of their being immersed. But then, does even this seem a rational probability? Would it have been practicable to have dipped
these beds into water as often as the superstitious nicety
of the Pharisees required a lustration, and still to have
kept them in a state fitted for use? The rich might have
sustained this expense, but the poorer classes could not
have furnished themselves with the requisite supply of
beds.
2. The word bed is used to denote that on which the
hammock or pallet was laid; in other words, a bedstead,
couch, or sofa. (Vide Prov. vii, 16, 17; Amos vi, 4.)
"It should be observed that the use of chairs is unknown in the East. The Orientals sit, or recline, on a
74 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.7
duan, divan, or sofa; that is, a part of the room raised
above the floor, and spread with a carpet in winter, and in
summer with fine mats, and having cushions, or bolsters,
placed along the back to lean against. These divans frequently serve the purpose of a bed, with the addition of
two thick cotton quilts, one of which, folded double, serves
as a mattress, the other as a covering."
These beds were not made to suit the size of the person, but rather that of the room. Thus the bed on which
Og, king of Bashan, reclined, was about fifteen feet and a
half long, and six feet ten inches broad. The size of the
bed was somewhat proportionate to the dignity of the
person, and to his voluptuous manner of living.t Whenever an unclean person sat or reclined upon these divans,
or couches, they were thereby rendered unclean, and, by
the law of Moses, whosoever afterward sat upon, or touched
them, previous to their purification, was, in like manner,
defiled. The Pharisees carried their notions of legal
purity to a superstitious exactness. In order to guard
against any possible impurity, they lustrated their beds,
and other furniture, much more frequently than the law
of Moses required. And as they used their beds to recline upon while taking their meals, it seems perfectly
consonant'with their other practices to suppose they lustrated them always before eating.  But that they immersed
them, no man in his senses, and with the facts already
adduced before him, will assert.
"Mr. Carson seems to feel this point keenly, and yet
manfully maintains his ground. He says he will maintain
an immersion until its impossibility is proved, and suggests
that the couches might be so made as to be taken to pieces
for this end! He has proved, he says, the meaning of the
word,-the Holy Ghost affirms that -the couches were immersed,-and to call this absurd, is to charge the Holy
Ghost with uttering an absurdity; and he is filled with
horror at the thought, and warns his opponents to beware
of so fearful a crime, and he has a long dissertation on
the infidel and Unitarian tendencies of allowing difficulties
to shake our faith in the assertions of God. But what is
all this to the point? The question is not,'Will we be
* Robinson's Calmet, art. BED.
75
t See rwte GGG. 
CH RISTIAN BAPTISM.
lieve that the couches were immersed if the Holy Ghost
says so?' but this, Has he said so?  And what has Mr.
Carson proved? Why, truly, that, in other instances,
pa-rrLt[ means immerse.  But does this prove that it means
so here? Not at all. The probability, as we have shown,
is all the other way. Hence, the demand to prove an impossibility of immersion is altogether unreasonable. And
it is against his own practice in other cases. Does he
not admit that /a-rra bapto means to dye, or colour, when
it is applied to the beard and hair? And is it impossible
to dip these? Improbable it surely is, but not half so
much so as the immersion of couches.
"The fact is, that the whole reasoning against the sense
claimed for,aa7rrtc baptizo, in these passages, rests on
false principles. It assumes a violent improbability of the
meaning in question, and resorts to all manner of shifts
to prove the possibility of immersion, as though that were
all that the case required, while the truth is that no such
improbability exists, but one directly the reverse, and the
whole scope of the passage demands the meaning claimed,
that is, to purfy."*
"There is no reason to think," says Dr. Dick, "that
this baptism consisted in immersion.'Cups, and pots,
and brazen vessels,' may have been baptized by beingo
plunged into water; but, as the operation could have been
performed equally well by pouring water into them and
upon them, we can draw no certain conclusion respecting
the mode, and the words fatrretiv and fa7rrrotuoz convey
nothing more than the general idea of washing.  The last
word in the passage, Ktct'vwv klion, is improperly rendered
tables in our version, and the proper translation is beds, or
couches. These were the couches on which they reclined
at their meals.  They were so large as to hold several
persons at the same time; and, from their size, it seems
reasonable to suppose that they were baptized, not by being
immersed in water, but by being washed with the hand, or
sprinkled, to remove any real or fancied impurity.'"t
The following is the opinion of one of the first Oriental
critics of the present age:-" As  the word  3arrtwuovc
baptisms is applied to all these; and as it is contended
*, Pres. Beecher on Ba7-rt,,'w.
76
t Theology} vol. ii, p. 375 
CHRISTlIAN BAP'IIS3I.
that this word, and the verb (baptizo) whence it is derived, signify dipping, or immersion alone, its use in the
above cases refutes that opinion; and shows that it was
used, not only to express dipping, or immersion, but also
sprinkling and washing.... Eaptisontai may mean either
to wash, or dip. But instead of the word in the text, the
famous Codex Vaticanus, eight others, [MSS., quoted by
Griesbach and others, of very respectable authority,] and
Euthymius, have pav7-avi,at rantiso7tai, sprinkle."*  Accordiing to these authorities, then, the Jews sprinkled
themselves before eating, and on returning fronl market
or, they may have used pavTl7(J rantizo, as we construe
ga7rrTr'  baptizo to mean purity.
SECTION IV.
John iii, 25, 26  "Then there arose a question be tween  some  of John's disciples and  the Jews aboutf
ic KaOapLcalov katharismou, purifying. And they came to John 
and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyondC
Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, the same Pa7rrtei!
baptizeth, and all men comne to him." 
Here is an incontestible proof of our position, viz..
that /arrrt~' and iaOapti are synonymous, in their religious'
use, both meaning to purify.  The subject of dispute was
purification, to settle which, an appeal was made to John 
ioni the subject of baptism.  The argument, then, is ob- i
vious.  If the decision of a question onI baptism couldn
settle a controversy on the subject of purification, and
vice versa, it needs  no great powers of logical or of
philological discrimination to perceive that the two terms
i are perfectly synonymous.''The argument then is cor-i
!plete; nothing more need be added.  No room is left for 
further controversy.
This text also clearly fixes the character of John's bap?
/tism.  It was a Jewish purification, taken and applied to 
the higher purposes of John's ministry. 
SECTION V.
The history of spiritual baptism completely corroborates
and establishes our view.
* Dr. A. Clarke oli Mark vii, 4, 6.
77 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
In Joel ii, 28, 29, we find this remarkable prophecy and
promise: "And it shall come to pass afterward that I will
esxe,-  ekcheo, pour out my Spirit upon all flesh;....and
also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those
days will I eKe  ekcheo, pour out my Spirit."  This was
a promise of the effusion of the Holy Spirit which was
to be accomplished  in gospel days.  John the Baptist
revived the expectation of the Jews on this subject, and
excited them to look for an immediate fulfilment of the
ancient promise. But when John comes to speak of it,
he calls it a baptism. Referring to Christ, through whom
this promise was to be fulfilled, he says, " he shall baptize
(giarrrtcet) you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire."
When our Saviour was about to take leave of his disciples, to return "to their God and to his God," although he
had sanctioned their apostolic commission by the highest
authority in heaven and in earth, yet he commanded them
to delay the exercise of their new and important functions, until they were endued with the plenary inspiration
of the Holy Spirit. He then renews the promise at first
made by Joel, and reaffirmed by John, in the following
words: "For John truly baptized, or purified (ei3arrtuev) with
water, but ye shall be baptized, or puried (gairTcOnacrOe')
with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence," Acts i, 5.
Ten days after the ascension of Christ, this "promise
of the Father" was fulfilled. The event is thus described
by Luke, Acts ii, 3, 4: "And there appeared unto them
cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon ('etcaOtae)
each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost." Peter, afterward explaining to the Jews this
extraordinary dispensation, says: "This is that which
was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to
pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out (ECxeC)
my Spirit upon all flesh," &c. Some time after this, Peter
was preaching to Cornelius and his Gentile friends, when,
it is said, "the Holy Ghost descended upon ('erereae) all
them that heard the word.... and as many as came
with Peter were astonished, because that on the Gentiles
also was poured out (eKKcexvrat) the gift of the Holy Ghost,"
Acts x, 44, 45.
Although this last instance mentioned, of the effusion
of the Holy Ghost, took place subsequently to the spirit
78 
CHRISTIAN BAPT'ISMl.
ual baptism of the apostles, it nevertheless stands
directly connected with that event, and is embraced, specifically, in the fulfilment of the promise of Christ recorded
Acts i, 5. This is evident from the import of the particle
"also," in the 45th verse; "because that on the Gentiles
ALSO was poured out," &c.; and also from the words of
Peter in his vindication, chap. xi, 15, 16: "As I began to
speak," says he, "the Holy Ghost fell on them, AS ON US
AT THE BEGINNING. THEN remembered I the word of the
Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized you with
water, BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY
GHOST."
This clearly demonstrates that Peter regarded this
affusion of the Spirit as an instance of the fulfilment of,
the divine promise of a spiritual baptism, to which his
mind so readily and so naturally reverted.
After this collation of passages, let us pause to give
place to the sober bearing of the argument. We have
seen that the promise of a spiritual baptism made by John
and by Christ was fulfilled on the day of pentecost, and in
subsequent effusions of the Holy Spirit.  Now, pafrt
baptize, as used by John, (Matt. iii, 11,) and by Christ,
(Acts i, 5,) must denote, either the external act of baptism,
or it must signify the effect of baptism; that is, it must
mean purify. If it be used in the sense of purify, this is
what we contend for; and thus the controversy is at an
end. But if it denotes the outward act, or form of baptism, then, most undeniably, it is employed in a sense
exactly synonymous  with  eKc3eo ekcheo, to pour forth,
e7rt7rtTrr7 epipipto, to fall upon, /caOt~' kathizo, to sit down
upon. So far as the effect of the argument is concerned,
we are not anxious to know which of these two senses
our opponents will contend for. In any case, their theory
is totally prostrated. But truth, and the just principles of
criticism, require us to understand baptizo here, in the
sense of purify.  Our Lord, in Acts i, 5, promises that the
apostles " shall be purified with the Holy Ghost not many
days hence." This was not a promise of immersion, or
of sprinkling, but of purification.  The word parcrt( having the sense of purify, does not, of itself. indicate the
mode. But the circumstances, and the use of other terms,
most triumphantly and unequivocally show that the mode
79
flI 
Cl-HRISTIAN BAPTISM.
of spiritual baptism was not by immersion. The baptism or
purification by the Holy Ghost was effected by a pouring
out, a descending upon, a sitting upon, &c. The Holy
Spirit appeared in the form of a luminous body directly
over the apostles' heads, and then divided off in the shape
of fiery spires, or tongues, each spire resting, or, in the
language of Luke, sitting upon, one of the disciples. The
appearance seems to have been that of a beam of light,
taking the hues of fire, as if it had been poured out from
above upon the heads of the apostles: a mode of baptism,
or purification this, as far removed from the idea of immersion, as the force of language and of literal descriptions can place it.
SECTION VI.
A remarkable passage occurs, 1 Cor. x, 2: "All our
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through
the sea; and were all consecrated (eia,rrtuavro ebaptisanto,
Eng. baptized) unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea."
1. It should be remembered that our English Bible, in
this place, gives no translation whatever of gaerr~t, baptize.
It merely gives an English termination to the Greek verb,
using it as a technic, without attaching to it any definite
sense whatever.  To say "they were all baptized unto
Moses," &c., is to say nothing. The word baptizo conveys
no idea.  But if we should say, "they were all immersed
unto Moses," or, "they were all sprinkled unto Moses,"
or, "they were all consecrated unto Mioses," we should then
attach a definite meaning to baptizo.
2. The translation we have given makes a good sense,
and is, evidently, the real meaning of the word in this
place.  Moses was the "mediator of the old covenant."
To be "baptized unto Moses," was to be devoted, by a
solemn act, to the doctrines and duties of that dispensation of which he was the mediator; just as the New
Testament phrase imports.  To be "baptized unto Jesus
Christ," is to be consecrated or devoted by a solemn rite to
Christ, as the Mediator of the new covenant. This, then,
we conceive to be the true sense. The words consecrate
and purify are not exactly synonymous, but they are exactly correlative. To be purified, implies a separation from
a common, and devotion to a sacred purpose; and to be
80 
CHR ISTIAN BAPIv8,)I.
consecrated, or devoted, in a religious sense, presupposes
the exact idea of purification.  We consider, then, that
baptizo, in 1 Cor. x, 2, retains its generic use, purification
being the leading idea.
3. The word i3air-t;C will not bear the sense of immerse
in this connection.  If its generic sense, for which  we
have contended, be still rejected; if it be  still maintained that it refers to a specific, outward act, then must
our opponents reconcile the sense of immerse with the
historical allusions of the text, or they must admit that
baptizo imports sprinkling. But this is, and ever has been,
a difficult passage for our opponents, and it justly merits a
more extended notice.
Various have been the hypotheses resorted to, by Baptist authors, in order to evade the direct and manifest
bearing of this text, and to retain for baptizo the sense of
immerse.  But the favourite one is to regard the baptism
of the Israelites as merely figurative; and thus, having
thrown the whole subject into the regions of ideality,
they can theorize and speculate at will. "The language,"
says Professor Ripley, "is evidently figurative, and is intended to represent the Israelites, not as being literally
baptized, (immersed, I suppose the professor means,) but
as submitting themselves to the special authority and
guidance of Moses," &c.*
That the learned professor has distinctly stated  the
import of their baptism, we unhesitatingly concede; but,
that their baptism, and their act of submission to the doctrines and authority of Moses, were one, and identical;
that is, that their baptism implied nothing more than their
voluntary devotion to Moses, without the use of water;
that it was wholly "allusive;" that it was merely typical
and shadowy, we can never admit, except with a deliberate consent to a use of garrrto baptizo, for which we
know of no warrant in its usus loquendi in the Holy
Scriptures. It is remarkable, too, that our opponents
should here resort to an unexampled use of baptizo, without any other necessity for so doing but to save their own
theory. In vain do we call upon them for a vindication
of this new and extraordinary sense of the word. As
* Christian Baptism, p. 100.
4*
81 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISfM.
a last and forlorn shift, they have here left the beaten
path of criticism, and fled to their own imaginations.
Professor Ripley gravely inquires, "What though they
were inot touched with the water?"* assuming that they
were not. How it is that people can be baptized in an aqueous element, and yet not be touched with water, we leave
the reader to judge. The voice of inspiration declares
they were "all baptized in the sea and in the cloud." Others
have supposed that the cloud stood over their heads
during the passage of the Red Sea, which, with the walls
of the waters on both sides, surrounded the Israelites, so as
in a manner to immerse them. Beautiful imagery! Our
imaginations are indeed regaled, but our understandings
are still unfruitful. But it is unfortunate for this hypothesis that the "cloud," during the passage of the Red
Sea, stood, not over their heads, but behind the Israelites.
Ex. xiv, 19, 20.
We cannot attain a just view of the meaning of paTrr7t1
baptizo, in 1 Cor. x, 2, without removing some rubbish
from the historical allusions of the passage which erroneous hypotheses have accumulated, and exhibiting all the
circumstances in a plain and unencumbered light.
It seems to have been generally taken for granted that
the baptism "in the cloud and in the sea" took place at
one and the same time; whereas, it is by no means clear
that this was the case. The grammatical structure of the
passage in Corinthians fairly conveys the idea of two distinct times of baptism: one "in the cloud," and the other
" in the sea." With this hypothesis also agree the Old
Testament  accounts.   Want  of attention to this has
occasioned  much  confusion.   Professor  Stuart says,
speaking of the passage of the Red Sea, "The cloud on
this occasion was not a cloud of iain."t Admit it. But
what is gained or lost by this supposition? Verily,
nothing. But though the cloud which stood behind
the Israelites, during the passage of the Red Sea, was
not a cloud of rain, still, there was a cloud of rain
that attended them on their journey. It should be remembered that the cloud (or clouds) which followed
them served a fourfold purpose;-it was their guide in
* Christian Baptism, p. 101.
t Essay ill Biblical Repository for April, 1833, p. 336.
82 
CHIIRISTIAN BAPTISTM.
the desert; it gave them light by night; it overshadowed
them by day; and it supplied them with water. Thus the
psalmist, (cv, 39,) "He spread a CLOUD for their COVERING." Allusion is also made to the uses of the cloud, Isa.
iv. 5. It should be remembered that the people required
some shelter from the heat of the sun, and vast and constant supplies of water for themselves, and for their numerous herds and flocks. Whence did they derive this
water?  During thirty-eight years they were supplied
miraculously.   There is no method of supplying them
mentioned, (save in one or two special instances,) but
by the cloud.
The apostle says that "all our fathers were v,ro rav vee2]v UNDER the cloud," and were "all baptized ev rq vepe;A
IN, or WITH the cloud." This shows that the cloud in, or
with which they were baptized stood over their heads at
the time; and this agrees with the statement Psa. cv, 39.
But their baptism in the cloud does not apply to the time
of their passing the Red Sea, but to a subsequent period,
and the cloud in which they were baptized was not the
same as gave them light by night. We cannot better
illustrate our views on this subject than by furnishing a
synopsis of Old and New Testament representations of
the affair. Thus:
Moreover,brethren,I would
not have you ignorant, how
th at all o ur fathe rs were under the cloud,... and were all
BAPTIZED into Aoses IN THE
CLOUD. 1 Cor. x, 1, 2.
O God, when thou wentest
forth before thy people, when
thou didst mnarch through the
wilderness,... thou, O God,
didst send a plentiful raitn,
WHEREBY THOU DIDST CONFIRM thine inheritance when
it was weary. Psa. lxviii,
7, 9.
Lord, when thou wentest
oit of Seir, when thou marchedst out of the field of Edom,
the earth trembled, the heavens dropped, the clouds also
dropped water.  Judg. v, 4.
The Septuagint render Judg. v, 4, thus:'o ovpavor taraftS
dt)oaovc, Eam a6 veoeJbaz carafav 6)Up, The leavens distilled mnoist
83 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISIM.
ure, and the clouds dropped water. The Hebrew simply
says, "The heavens DISTILLED, also the clouds dropped
waters."  But this is an elliptical mode of speaking, with
which the Hebrew abounds.  The  meaning is, "The
heavens distilled or dropped moisture."  The Hebrew 
natap answers to the Greek ara'c  stazo, Lat. stillo, Eng.
distil, to drop, or trickle down. In Psalm lxviii, 8, the same
language is employed. If we follow the Septuagint, who,
we believe, have given the right turn to the sentence here,
we shall read, "The land shook, and also oi ovpavot ecraav
a,-o 7rpocwitov tov oeov o,v   [:va,    ~:. t: e e  n] a ro rpo,7wrov trov  eov Iapa7i,% the heavens DISTILLED
[water] from the face of this God of Sinai, [even] from the
face of the God of Israel." Then the ninth verse immediately gives an intensive repetition of the thought: "T hou,
0 God, didst send         -m,= 7:  gasham nedboth, abundant or
liberal rain. (Pluvia larga, says Gesenius.)  Sept. ipox7iv
eKcovatov spontaneous or plenteous rain."
It is not a little surprising that some commentators
should have construed these passages so as to wholly set
aside the idea of rain. They seem to think of nothing
else but showers of manna and quails around the Israelitish camp. Why should we not understand the psalmist
to speak of rain literally?  The Israelites were in need
of water no less than of manna.  They tarried in the desert of Sinai about eleven months and twenty days, and the
rains they there received are associated, by the psalmist,
with the other miraculous and wonderful phenomena which
they witnessed while at that station. The cloud of rain
attended them also on their journeyings, and was a circumstance of such large importance to the preservation
and well-being of the nation that it deserved to be commemorated in song in after ages.
How beautiful is the sentiment of the psalmist! When
that immense multitude were moving over a tract of desert, described by Burckhardt as " the most barren and
horrid tract of country he had ever seen;" which M.
R(ippell denominates "a frightful desert," and which Moses calls a "great and terrible wilderness;"-when, I say,
the Israelites were traversing this monotonous waste of
" chalky hills, alternating with rolling plains,"-exposed
84 
CHRISTI.AN BAPTISM.
to the burning rays of an Arabian sun, and prompted, by
a parching thirst and numerous privations, to tempt God,
and to doubt the divine legation of Moses,-then it was
that "God did send a plentiful RAIN, whereby he CONFIR,IED his inheritance," in their allegiance to him and to
Moses their leader. And this, we apprehend, is what the
apostle calls being BAPTIZED in the cloud. For, as Christian baptism is an outward seal and confirmation of our
obedience to Christ, so did these rains CONFIRM God's
people in their devotedness to him. And it is with strict
philosophical propriety that the apostle says they were
baptized in or with the cloud, when that cloud was being
distilled upon them in drops of rain.
That the Israelites, then, were baptized by means of
water, we can see no just ground to deny. Besides, if
8a'rTe' baptizo, in 1 Cor. x, 2, is not intended to denote
or suggest a real use of water, why should it be said they
were baptized "in the cloud and in the sea," any more than
in the passover and in the manna, or in the waters of Meribah and in the Jordan, or, in the plagues of Egypt?  Were
not the great miracles they witnessed all contributory to
their confirmation, and to their submission to Moses? Yet
how absurd to say "they were baptized into Moses in the
passover and in the manna!" But why not in these, as
well as in the cloud and in the sea, if baptizo does not
purport the use of water? It would be no greater perversion of the sense of pfatrye in one case than in the
other.
/  As to their baptism in the sea, we know it was not by
immersion.  The Egyptians were, indeed, immersed, for it
is said, "The depths have covered them, they sank into the]
ottom as a stone," Ex. xv, 5.  But "the children of Israel
walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea," Ex. xiv, 29.
It is true the Bible gives us no account of the positive
node of their baptism. But as, from the nature of the
case, immersion is precluded, we must necessarily suppose some other mode.  It seems most probable that, as
the climate was oppressively warm, and as the people,
being closely pursued by the Egyptians, were greatly
fatigued, God refreshed them (and thus baptized or consecrated them to Moses as their earthly mediator) by sprays
of the sea being blown over them. We know, indeed,
85 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISIM.
that this must have been a necessary consequence, as "a
strong wind prevailed all that night," Ex. xiv, 21.  And
as this was so opportune to the necessities of the people,
and also so analogous to their baptism in the cloud, it is
the more probable. The reader can adopt our hypothesis
or not; we are not solicitous. But the argument drawn
from the text in question, against the theory of our op ponents, is, and must for ever be, complete. We only
/add, that the translation of the Campbellite Testament, as
well as the Baptist construction, which requires us to
read, "And were all immersed into Moses, in the cloud
and in the sea," is an outrage upon common sense, no
less than upon the right use of language, and contradicts
e attested facts in the history.
SECTION VII.
We come now to a very extraordinary passage, furnishing a most incontestible and triumphant argument in
favour of our position. In Heb. ix, 10, speaking of a particular class of the Levitical institutes, the apostle says,
they "stood only in meats, and drinks, and dtaoopot  fiaxrrtwotc diaphorois baptismois, different purifcations," &c.
Eng. version, divers washings.
We request the reader's patient attention to the following considerations:  1. The apostle was here speaking only of those external ceremonies which the worshipper, under the old covenant, was obligated to perform on account of their personal
effect, but which could not deliver his conscience from a
sense of guilt. Hence, when he comes to speak of the
Jewish purifications, which he calls different baptisms, he
does not allude to those particular rites for the purification
of cups, skins, clothes, vessels, &c., but only those ceremonies which had an application to the body of the worshipper. This will be obvious to the reader if he attends
to three things:  (a) The apostle all along (see the context) contemplates
the effect that these ordinances of purification, or baptisms,
were supposed to have upon the conscience of the worshipper. Now, the purification of inanimate things, as vessels,
clothes, furniture, &c., we all know, had no possible effect
upon the conscience of the worshipper, and they were nevrer
86 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
designed, even typically, to remove his guilt. All the
effect that was produced by such ceremonies was upon
the things themselves, and no effect whatever was realized
upon the conscience of him that performed the service.
It was only when water, or blood, or the ashes of the
heifer, was sprinkled upon the body of the unclean person
himself that it had any personal effect.
(b) Besides, the apostle expressly calls all that class
of ordinances, of which he is speaking, dtKa twaac capiog
dikaiomasi sarkos, ordinances of the flesh, (ver. 10,) or, as it
might read with equal propriety, ordinances of the person,
in distinction from those ordinances which related to the
purification of inanimate things. Our English has carnal
ordinances; but the word carnal does not convey the
proper idea. The whole connection is thus exhibited by
Professor Stuart:-" Oblations and sacrifices are offered
which cannot fully accomplish what is needed for the
conscience of him who performeth the services, being
imposed (together with meats and drinks, and divers
washings-ordinances pertaining to the flesh) only until the
time of the reformation."*
(c) The antithesis of the apostle's argument proves that
the washings here referred to were lustrations of the body
of the worshipper only, and not those of vessels, and of
inanimate things. The apostle's main intention is to draw
a contrast between the supposed virtue of these outward
lustrations required by the law of Moses, and the real
virtue of that purification effected by the blood of Christ.
Jewish lustrations, he says, were applied to the bodythey were fleshly ordinances; but the blood of Christ is
applied to the mind. The blood of bulls, and of goats,
and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctified
to the purifying of the FLESH, but the'blood of Christ shall
purge your CONSCIENCE from dead works, to serve the
living God.
Now, without multiplying remarks, it is most obvious
that in all the context the apostle speaks only of those
ordinances of purification which related to the person, or
flesh (capioc) of the worshipper.
2. This. then. being clearly understood, it is evident
- Commentary oil Hebrews.
87
-7 
CHRISTIAN BAI'TISM.
that the mode of administering those Jewish ordinances
of purification becomes a fit and important subject of inquiry. For if the noun  baptisms refer to a particular class of Jewish lustrations, it becomes necessary,
ia order to settle the true sense of the word, to understand
how these lustrations were enjoined; that is, the manner
in which they were required to be performed. If these
Jewish lustrations were to be performed by immersion of
the body, then aT1o~, undoubtedly, in Heb. ix, 10,
mean immersions; but if not, then, undeniably, the Greek
noun does not import immersious, and our opponents are,
consequently, obliged to recede from the ground they have
taken in regard to the meaning of the word.
And here, et it be understood, we are not to show
whether the Jews did, or did not, as a mere matter of
fact, immerse themselves on different occasions, in performing their ceremonies of ablution; but only to show
what was actually required of them, in order to effect the
purification of the unclear We do not now ask, What
was the praetice of the Jews? but, What was the /anguage
of the law? What words are employed by the Holy Spirit
to enjoin bodily lustrations? And is immersion ever enjoined, under any circumstances, as necessary to effect a
purification? These questions are now in point; and we
are happy to be able to answer them in the following
language of President Beecher
"No immersions of persons are enjoined under the
Mosaic ritual. As this fes not ap#~?o have been
noticed as it ought, and as many assume the contrary, it
is necessary to furnish the proof of this assertion.
"It lies in this fact, that no washings of persons are
single instance, nor by any word that denotes immersion;
but, as I think, without exception, by the word yri rahats,
which denotes to wash, or purify, without any reference to
the mode.
"Those who read the English version might suppose
that where the direction to bathe occurs, immersion is
enjoined; but in every such case the original word denotes only to wash.
If any doubt whether this is the true view of the iin
88 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
port of yr' rahats, let him take a Hebrew concordance
and trace it through the whole of the Old Testament, and
he will have abundant proof. He will find it used to denote the washing of any thing in any way,-of the feet,
the hands, the face, the body, or the mind. Its translation
in the Septuagint denotes how wide its range of meaning
is; for it is at one time [translated by];ovw louo, [which
denotes a general washing of the body by whatever means,]
at another by Vt'rXc nipto, [which denotes a more partial
washing, as that of the hands, and hence, I believe, always
takes:etpec cheires, hands, after it,] and at another time
r-vvPQ pluno, [which is used to denote the washing of
clothes,] just as the circumstances may seem to require,
If ever it is applied in cases where bathing was probably
performed, the idea depends not at all on the word, but on
the circumstances of the case. So a Baptist writer thinks
that, in the case of Pharaoh's daughter, (Exod. ii, 5,) the
word denotes bathing; but all our evidence lies in the
fact that she went down to the Nile, and not at all in the
word 7tr rahats, and therefore our translators have very
properly rendered it wash.
"I would quote passages to illustrate all these assertions, did not the proof lie so plainly on the surface of the
whole usage of the word that I do not suppose any one who
has investigated the subject will think of denying it.*
"It is perfectly plain, therefore, that whatever was the
practice of the Jews, no immersions of persons were enjoined, and the whole Mosaic ritual, as to personal ablution, could be fulfilled to the letter without a single immersion. I do not doubt that immersions were common,
but nothing but washings of the body was enjoined; and
immersions fulfilled the law, not because they were immersions, but solely because they were washings.
"The  only immersions enjoined in the Mosaic  law
were immersions of things, as vessels, sacks, skins, &c.,
to which no reference is had in Heb. ix, 1O."t
These facts are important to be remembered. No immersions of persons were enjoined under the law, but only
inanimate things were sometimes (but not often) required
to be immersed. But Paul, in Heb. ix, 10, is not speak
* Vide note GGGG.         t President Beecher oln fa7r-tl.
89 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
ing of all the purifications required by the law of Moses,
but only those personal purzfcations-or that class of
lustrations which, as he says, 6ytaetC 7rpo~ rv -ref aaplcof
KaOapoT7ra sanctify to the purification of the FLESH; (ver. 13;)
and which, of course, applied to the body of the worshipper.
This fact, we apprehend, is, therefore, unequivocally
clear. But if the above statements be correct, the argument is conclusive and irresistible against the theory of
our opponents.  Bafrrta/o  baptismos is here found to be
not only synonymous with KaOaptatof katharismos, purication, but, to refer to a distinct class of purifications-a
class wherein immersion, or bathing, was rarely admissible, and where it was NEVER enjoined.
A circumstance that adds great weight to this argument
is, that in the class of legal ablutions we are now speaking
of, and which the apostle calls baptisms, sprinkling was by
far the most common, and the most important ceremony.
Hence it is said, in Num. xix, 20, "But that soul that
shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul
shall be cut off from among the congregation... the water
of separation hath not been SPRINKLED upon him; he is
unclean." And so Paul, in Heb. ix. After having referred
to the personal purifcations under the law, and called them
baptisms in verse 10, when he afterward, in verse 13, has
occasion to allude to these baptisms, for the purpose of
summing up his argument, he only mentions one mode,
"sprinkling," this being by far the most prominent and
efficacious, and hence a fit representative of the efficaciousness of the entire system of bodily ablutions, or bal)tisms, in the Levitical code.
In Heb. vi, 2, Paul refers to the same subject, and uses
the same language.  The ga~rrtraowy d6daxc instruction concerning purifcations (Eng. ver. doctrine of baptisms) refers
to the Levitical law enjoining and regulating bodily ablutions. This the Jews had been taught as altogether indispensable, in order to retain their covenant relations to
God.  But now Paul exhorts them to leave rtc apXT -rov
Xp~Jrov.oyov the beginning, or former state, of the doctrine
of Christ, (that is, Judaism,) and go on to perfection-to
the maturer developments of the gospel. Among the instructions they were wont to receive, was the "doctrine
of baptisms," or purifications.
90 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
SECTION VIII.
Under this section we adduce various passages in a
connected view, merely to show that the sense of fa,rret~
bazptizo, in the New Testament, bears the sense of consecrate, devote, purify, &c. We again remind the reader that
the word baptize, in the English Bible, is not a translation
of the Greek word, and to an English reader it conveys
no sense whatever, being used merely as a sort of technic.
The word baptize, from its frequent and long use, may seem
to have a smooth sound to many English ears, and many
may have necessarily associated with it a meaning of some
sort, from a long habit of using the word, and not from any
philological examination of its use. It is hence even possible that, from mere habit, and long usage of the term, the
Anglicised form baptize may sound smoother to some, than
any translation of the word we could put in its place. We
should not have made these remarks, had we not been
aware of the force of such habits and prejudices, especially
over those who are little accustomed to philological investigations.
We remark also that it is the generic use of the word
baptizo for-which we are contending.   Hence, when we
render it consecrate, although it is not exactly synonymous
with purify, yet the generic use is retained; the leading
idea is purify; and the rendering is also in harmony with
the usage of language.
(a) Rom. vi, 3, 4: "Know ye not that so many of us as
were consecrated unto Jesus Christ, were consecrated into
[a communion with] his death? Therefore we are buried
with him, by [means of this] consecration into [communion
with his] death."
The reader will perceive that we have given ert eis a
force and peculiarity of meaning which, to a superficial
observer, may seem improper. It would be easy here,
however, to justify this construction by citations from
commentators and divines, but it is not our desire to encumber and embarrass a plain subject. In 1 Cor. xii, 13,
we find the followingi language: "1ll tr braVas elf tV aria
eparrt7On/ev we all are baptized (consecrated, initiated) INTO
one body;" that is, INTO communion or fellowship with one
body.  "Here," says Professor Stuart, "etc eis plainly
91 
CHILISTIAN BAPTISM.
designates participation, and the meaning of the phrase is,
that by baptism we come to belong to one body, to participate in one body, to be members of one body.... The
idea is, for substance, that'by baptism we become consecrated to any person or thing, appropriated (as it were)
to any person or thing, so as to belong to him, or to it, in
a manner peculiar, and involving a special relation, and
consequent special duties and obligations.' This sense
is such a one as fits the passage of Rom. vi, 3. Thus
interpreted it would mean,' As many of us as have become
devoted to Christ by baptism,' &c."*
(b) 1 Cor. i, 13: "... were ye consecrated (e,3arretO6re
ebaptisthete, Eng. baptized) in the name of Paul?"
To be "baptized into the name of a person," and to be
"baptized into a person," are phrases of exactly similar
import. The word bvoaa name is, in such places, expletive.
Verses 14-17: "I thank God that I consecrated none of
you but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had
consecrated in mine own name. And I consecrated also the
household of Stephanas: besides, I know not that I consecrated any other: for Christ sent me not to consecrate,
but to preach the gospel."
I have presented these passages mostly to show the
reader that consecrate gives an easy, smooth, natural, and
expressive sense to pa~r't'   baptizo.  Besides, although our
opponents may retain the sense of immerse in these passages, still, they are forced to lug in some ad-signification
to make out the sense of consecrate.
(c) Gal. iii, 27: " For as many of you as have been
consecrated unto Jesus Christ, have put on Christ."
Before taking our leave of the phrase "baptized into
Christ," we may remark that it has given commentators
and divines abundance of trouble.  Professor Ripley prefers to retain the more common acceptation of the phrase,
understanding it to mean, "baptized INTO an acknowledgment of Christ."  So also, "to be baptized into Christ's
death," is to be "baptized INTO an acknowledgment of his
death;" and the phrase, he thinks, may  compare with
Matt. iii, 11, " I baptize you INTO (etr) repentance," that is
"into an acknowledgment of repentance."
* Commentary on Romlans.
9 .4 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS)M.
In respect to the last quotation from Matt. iii, 11, we
wish only to say that elc eis has the meaning of unto, with 
respect to, on account of, &c.: "I baptize you in respect to, 
or in consideration of repentance."  This seems to be the
force b':the particle in Gal. iii, 27, "baptized into Christ,'"
that is, "consecrated TO Christ."
(d) 1 Pet. iii, 21. In order to present the true, unen   cumbered sense of this passage, we subjoin the following
free paraphrase:-" Eight souls were saved in Noah's ark
by water; and in like manner the antitype, which is the
ordinance of consecration, (ga'rti/ua baptisma,) doth also now
save us (not, indeed, that mere outward purification, the
putting away of the fith of the flesh; but, that inward and
real consecration of the soul, the answer of a good con  science toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Here the Greek noun baptism is evidently used in the ge  neric sense, signifying the effect of using water ceremon  ally upon the body; that i, it signifies purify, or consecrate.
And the apostle was so exact in this use of the word that,
to prevent misconception, he introduces his parenthetical
exposition, expressly declaring this to be the true sense. 
(e) Acts viii, 16: "For as yet he [the Holy Spirit] was
fallen upon none of them  only they were consecrated TO
the Lord Jesus;" the words etf To 6voila in t e name being
expletive.
See also chap. xix, 3, 4, 5.
{    It is not necessary to adduce any more passages under
i this head. The argument which we wish to draw out
and commend to the reader's judgment is this: garteo
baptizo, in every passage in the New Testament where it
occurs in a religious sense, mnay be rendered by the En  glish verb purify, or consecrate, and in all such connections
it has a generic sense, leaving the outward form or mode
of applying the water of baptism wholly out of the sense.
On the other hand, to render fla7r-rt  baptizo by immerse is
to involve many passages in utter obscurity and in irre  trievable confusion. Besides, the word immerse never
meets the full exigences of the case so well as purify, or
consecrate, even where the former may seem to give a
lawful sense.  How uncouth and how ridiculous would it
] be to read, "For as many of us as have been dipped into)
eslus Christ have been dipped into his death; therefore[
93 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM,.
we are buried with him by dipping into death!"  We apprehend the turn we have given to this passage will convince the reader, after this comparison, that we have hit its
true force and meaning. Compare also our version with!
the following: "I indeed dip you in water, but he that 
cometh after me shall dip you in the Holy Ghost and in
fre!"  "As many of you as have been immersed into Je-/
sus Christ have put on Christ." "And were all immersed
into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea."
Can any person in his senses be made to believe that,
in these passages, to instance no more, a faithful translation of pa7rrt1, has been given?  Never yet was a man
-immersed in the Holy Spirit and in fire. Never were the
Israelites dipped into the cloud, or in the Red Sea. Baptism is figuratively called "the washing of regeneration."
But if baptize means dip, why not, when the allusion is
made to baptism, use the word dip, and read, "the dipping
of regeneration?" Beautiful simile! Rhetoric extraordinary!
SECTION IX.
It has been stoutly maintained by our opponents that
as immerse is the primitive and literal sense of ia7rrtl
baptizo,; therefore the word must bear this sense in all
those places in the New Testament where it is used to
describe a religious rite.
Let us, for a moment, suppose this method of reasoning from the primitive sense of a word to its sense
in a particular connection to be valid.   We  will propose to the reader a parallel case:-The word &Lrrvov
deipnon, in the New Testament, signifies a supper, which,
with the Hebrews, was the principal meal of the day. It
also signifies feast, banquet. Luke xiv, 12, et alibi. Now,
it is well known that Paul uses this same word to signify
the institution of bread and wine, called the " Lord's supper," Kvptaicov deixvov. 1 Cor. xi, 20. Hence, if we adhere
strictly to the primitive meaning, and general usage of the
word, we shall arrive at this conclusion, viz., that the
Lord's supper is a sumptuous repast, a ftll meal, a feast,
a banquet, which is exactly contrary to the true meaning
of the word in that connection, and to the proper manner
of celebrating that institution.  But there is no reason, so
94 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
far as the mere philology of the question is concerned,
why we should use patfw in its primitive sense immerse,
and not as uniformly use 66txvov in its primitive sense of a
feast, or banquet. And if we can obey the command to
"eat the Lord's supper" by eating a morsel of bread and
taking a single sip of wine, analogy would teach us that
we might obey the command to be "baptized" by having
a small quantity of water applied to us.
And here we may rest the philological argument from
the import of the word PairTt71  baptizo.  More might be
said by way of shedding collateral light, but the strength
and just dimensions of the argument are before the reader.
We have striven to simplify the whole so as to bring it
within the comprehension of any attentive observer, and
we must here be excused from a recapitulation. If the
reader has attended to the various parts of the argument,
he, we  apprehend, will believe with  us, that iairT;i.
baptizo, when used in a religious sense in the New Testament, may be translated by purify, consecrate, or (sometimes) wash; that it is a generic term, in all such places,
signifying the effect of the ceremonial use of water, without any allusion to, or stress put upon, the particular mode.
CHAPTER V.
GREEK PARTICLES.
"HITHERTO we have found nothing to justify the confidence with which it has been asserted that pa'rT7w necessarily signifies to immerse.  But to supply what may be
wanting in the evidence arising from. the word itself, it is
alleged that such phrases are joined with it, as clearly
show that it was by dipping or plunging that baptism was
originally administered."* An examination of this hypothesis will lead us to notice the Greek prepositions employed in connection with the history of baptism in the
New Testament.  These are four in number, viz., eV, el,
apro, and e/c, or el.
* Dick's Theology, vol. ii, p. 375.
95.
r 
CHRISTIAN PAPTIST.
The frequent interchange of these particles-the different senses in which they are used, together with the rareness of their occurrence in connection with water baptism,
-all concur to render their testimony to the cause of our
opponents so dubious, that we should deem it altogether
unworthy of any formal notice, had it not assumed an
importance in the estimation of some who,  for want
of investigation, seem not to have appreciated its real
merits.
"Prepositions which mark a removal, derivation, or motion from a place; viz., avro and EK, as well as those which
signify motion to a place, as etr, are often interchanged
with those which mark rest in a place, as ev, and vice
versa."* It is not, however, our purpose to treat of the
prepositions at large; but only to adduce those instances
wherein they occur in connection with baptism,  and
wherein they are supposed to favour the idea of immersion. In order, therefore, to the greater perspicuity, we
shall treat them separately.
1. Ev. Its primary meaning is in, and it denotes rest in
a place.  The first sense we shall notice as belonging to
this preposition, where it stands connected with baptism,
makes it synonymous with our English preposition, AT.
Thus-the people were baptized by John ev rw Iop6avq "AT
the Jordan," Matt. iii, 6. Our common English version
reads "in Jordan."  It is well known that the Baptists
claim this passage in their favour, supposing that, if John
stood in the waters of the Jordan when he baptized, it
must have been for the purpose of immersion only. But
in this it is easy to perceive that they have assumed the
very point to be proved.   Nay, they have assumed it
against proof. If John stood in the water, still it is altogether gratuitous to assert that, therefore, he immersed.
As well might we maintain that ev Ai-ia certainly imports
under the soil of Asia, and ev BeO;det under Bethlehem, as
that ev Iopdav7l necessarily imports, in the above connection, an immersion. In translating -v by at, as above, we
do not intend to deny that John ever stood in Jordan, when
he baptized. We suppose he may sometimes have stood
in the water and sometimes out of the water when he
* alpy's Greek Grammar, edited by C. Anthon.
96 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
performed the ceremony.  But the object is to show that
the force of the preposition has nothing to do with the
mode of baptism, but only serves, in the passage adduced,
to denote rest in a place, i.e., it merely fixes John's general
position to be in the vicinity of the Jordan. This will
appear plain from the following parallel places.  Mark
says, John baptized ev r,7 epry/u "in the desert."  Luke
says, he came "preaching the baptism of repentance (i.e.,
preaching repentance and baptizing) in all the Trepty(,pov
country ABOUT Jordan;" while John declared he baptized
,repav yov Iopdavov "BEYOND Jordan ev in Bethabara," and
also, at another time, cv "in Enon."* What, then, becomes
of the force of the particle ev?  What connection does it
hold with the doctrine of immersion? If the phrase " baptized in Jordan" denotes immersion, what is denoted by
the phrases, "baptizing beyond Jordan" —" baptizing i?c
Bethabara"-" baptizing in the wilderness?"  Our opponents must surely abate the tenor of their criticism, or
difficulties will accumulate upon their hands. But if we
suppose the evangelists merely intended to relate that
John stood AT, or in the vicinity of Jordan, Bethabara,
Enon, &c., when he baptized, the statements are all
reconciled.  We might add to this, that ev is elsewhere
rendered at.'I Thus, "the tower ev at Siloam"-" ev at the
right-hand of God," Luke xiii, 4; Rom. viii, 34.  But it is
needless to prolong these remarks.
The second sense of ev, when used in connection with
baptism, is properly expressed by our English WITH, denoting the instrumental cause, or means by which a thing
is performed. Thus —" I indeed baptize you ev v6ar7t WITH
water," not " in water," Matt'. iii, 11; Luke iii, 16.  In
this sense the same preposition is elsewhere frequently
employed. Thus, (Matt. xxiii, 37,) "*Thou shalt love the
Lord... ev with all thy heart, and ev with all thy soul, and
Ev with all thy mind."
Luke xiv, 34: "If the salt have lost his savour, ev rave
WITH what shall it be seasoned?"
Matt. vi, 29: "Solomon ev with, i.e., by means of, all
his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
The translation of c,,, therefore, bv with, in the connec
* Matt. fii, 6; Mark i, 4; Luke iii, 3; John i, 28; ii, 23.
5
97
0 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
tion of Matt. iii, 11, and parallel places, is justified by the
,uss loquendi of that particle, and it is here used to import
that it was by the application of water that baptism was
effected, without the most distant allusion to the quantity
of water used, or to the mode of using it.
A third use of the particle ev, which our subject requires
us to notice, is to denote the efficient cause, or agency,
by which a thing is effected.   Thus, (Acts i, 5,) "But
ye shall be baptized ev BY the Holy Ghost." See also
chap. xi, 16. The same sense is attached to this particle,
Luke i, 4: "Jesus... was led ev BY the spirit into the
wilderness." Matthew (ch. i, 4) explains it by vro, BY.*
That the Holy Ghost is the efficient agent of spiritual
baptism, we are abundantly taught in the Holy Scriptures.
And that this was the doctrine specifically taught, in the
above passages from the Acts, as well as in Matt. iii, 11
and Luke iii, 16, admits of no reasonable doubt. Still we
are presented with the following version of Acts i, 5
" For truly John immersed in water; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Ghost," &c. And this, we are gravely
nformed, is the philological rendering.  Doubtless it accords well enough with the philology of those who, in
constructing their exegesis, consult the rules of etymology
more than the principles of sound theology, or the undeniable facts of history.  The doctrine taught by our Saviour, in the passage last mentioned, is plainly this, that,
as water was the instrument of their outward baptism,
which they received at the hands of John Baptist, so the
Holy Ghost should be the immediate agent of that spiitual and more important baptism to which they were
eferred by the outward washing. And the particle ev by
s here used to denote that agency which the Holy Ghost
should exert upon them, without any allusion to the mode
f spiritual baptism. The version of our opponents, thereore, as above noticed, not only fails to convey the true
ense of the passage, but it gives a palpably false renderng-leading the mind to overlook the grand idea of the
ext. It represents the Holy Ghost as a passive, inert
lement, in which the believer is plunged, as a man is
lunged   in water-than which nothing can be more ab
* Vide Dr. Gerard's Biblical Criticismins, p. 335.
08
t.c 
CI!RI$TIAkN BAPTIS2,1.
surd in the light of reason, to forbear all comment upon
the theological bearing of such a doctrine.
But our opponents pay as little deference to facts as to
theology, in their zeal for a literal translation.  In de scribing the mode of the Spirit's baptism, Luke    says,
(Acts ii, 3,) the Holy Ghost "SAT UPON" the apostles;
although our opponents would have it that the apostles
wvcre immersed in the Holy Ghost.
! will not here, as I at first intended, introduce the
question respecting the use of the dative instead of the
accusative case, after the active verb garrt~l baptize. The
argument is too indeterminate to beget any degree of
satisfaction in ordinary cases, and I cannot believe that
the question at issue hinges on such refinements. Whether
the evangelical writers borrowed their use of -v from the
Hebrew preposition   be, which has the force of the
Greek ev, e-i, vro, &c., and of the English in, into, by,
with, &c.; or whether they borrowed their use of that
particle from Greek classic usage, is certainly a matter
of no importance to the present controversy. An appeal
to New Testament usage must finally settle all such dis putes. We have shown the use of the particle ev when
employed in the New Testament in connection with water
baptism, and that it has no bearing whatever upon the
question of the mode of baptism.
2. Elc into, eic out of, aro from.-I have placed these
prepositions together, and in connection with their primary
significations, because it will not be convenient to treat of
them separately.  It must not be forgotten that they fre quently bear other senses different from what are annexed
to them above, so that it is not always a conclusive or
satisfactory mode of arguing to depend upon their primif<tive force in a particular connection. It is recorded in
i Mark i, 9, " Jesus was baptized by John etc into the Jor dan." This passage presents a solitary example, in the
New Testament, of the use of etr with the accusative case
after the active verb 3a~rrtf baptizo, and, philologically,
furnishes as good proof of immersion as any passage in
the New Testament. Still we are by no means satisfied
that it presents a clear case of immersion, and we shall
state the ground of our doubts in the following consider ations: —
99
I 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
(a) This is, as we have already mentioned, a solitary
use of rtz with the accusative, after the verb baptize, where
such a construction would affect the question at issue.
The dative, with or without ev in, is more generally employed, (vide Matt. iii, 6; Mark i, 5, et al.,) not with reference to the manner, but to the means of baptism. (See the
preceding section.)
(b) This is plainly an instance of the frequent interchange of Greek particles where e'- into, is put for ev il,
or at.
(c) The passage in question is made to prove immersion
only by supposing the Greek word baptize to signify immerse only; otherwise the particle elr has no force at all
in fixing the mode of baptism. This throws the whole
controversy back on the significance of the verb baptize,
which is a manifest abandonment of the whole argument
derived from the Greek particle. Indeed, it is quite obvious that the meaning of the verb, and not that of the
particle, is, after all, the proper ground of controversy in
this passage, for it is the sense of the verb that fixes that
of the particle, and not vice versa.
(d) The sequel intimates that Jesus had not been into,
but only to, the water. Thus it says: "And forthwith
ascending atro from the water," &c. Ver. 10.  Precisely
the same language is employed by Matthew, (iii, 16,) although in both cases our English version reads "out of
the water," which certainly is not the true rendering.
The second and last place where etr into occurs in
connection with baptism, in a manner to affect the present question, is found in Acts viii, 38: "And they went
down both etf into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,"
&c. The circumstance of going into the water is urged
as proof of immersion. It is true. that the more considerate advocates of immersion do not urge this as proof
positive of their distinctive theory, but then it is no less
true that it is claimed by all as a proof text of immersion,
and is usually quoted with great approbation and an air
of triumph, on occasions of baptism.  But wherein lies
the stress of the argument for immersion? Surely not in
the circumstance of their going "into the water," for that
is affirmed of "both" of them.  Whatever, therefore, is
proved from this circumstance in relation to one, must
100 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISIT.
hold equally conclusive with regard to the other. Besides, the act of baptism is said to have taken place after
they had "both gone down into the water," and is described
by another word. So far, indeed, is this text from proving
the immersion of the eunuch, that it does not necessarily
prove that he went further than the margin of the water,
i.e., to the water.  For though it is said "they went down
both etf reo v;p," still there can be no philological objection to our reading it thus: "They  went down both TO
the water," &c. Numerous examples might be here adduced to show that such a rendering would be in entire
accordance with Greek usage. A few, however, must
suffice.  Acts xxvi, 14: "And when we" (Saul and his
company) "were all fallen eAi to the earth;" not into the
earth.  John xi, 38: "Jesus therefore cometh ets to (not
into) the tomb" of Lazarus.  John xx, 3-8: "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came tc to
the sepulchre. So they bothl ran together; and that other
disciple did outrun Peter and came first ec0 to the sepu]chre,
.... yet went he not etc in. Then cometh Simon Peter,
following him, and went et into the sepulchre.... Then
went eft in also that other disciple that came first egt to
the sepulchre."  These examples are to the point.  Others
might be given, but it is not important.  Any person who
is at all conversant with his Greek Testament may readily
satisfy himself as to the use of the prepositions by the
New  Testament writers.   If, therefore,  etc TO  uvi/letov
means TO the sepulchre, and e'c 77/V y7?v means TO the
earth: the preposition merely denoting the point to which
the motion is made: so also may e-c TO V&tp signify TO
the water, and in the connection of Acts viii, 38, may
mean no more than that Philip and the eunuch both went
to the margin of the water.
We are aware that it will be said, " they both came up
es out of the water," thus imnplying that they had previously
been into the water. But it is probable that ec, out of, in
this passage, has only the force of axo, from. At least
such a construction would be in harmony with its usus
loquendi in the New Testament.
(a) It cannot have escaped the observation of the intelligent reader who has perused his Greek Testament with
any reference to this point, that etc into often stands in
1.1161 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
contrast with aro from, instead of esc out of.  Instance
passages like the following: " aro from city elt to city:"
" a7ro from Jerusalem etf to Jericho:"7  "The  way that
goeth down afro from Jerusalem etr to Gaza," &c. This
circumstance we conceive to have great force in settling
the controversy about the terms employed to describe the
eunuch's baptism: for if erl eis is indifferently put in cointrast with a7ro apo and e, ek, nothing can be clearer than
that it may signify either to or into, according to the circumstances of the case. So that the far-famed and favourite argument for immersion, drawn from the connection of est and eic with an active verb in Acts viii, 38, falls
to the ground. The importance of this argument justifies
a few further remarks. It has been argued that the phrase
"from city to city," means "out of one city into another;"
just as the phrase "going to Boston" includes the idea of
entering into that city. Popular usage may, and doubtless
often does, include the idea of entering into the city or
place, when only a motion toward, or an approach to, such
place is expressed. But the question is not whether, for
instance, in the passage, "Jesus went down erg to Capernaum," (John ii, 12,) the Saviour did, as a matter of fact,
go into the city; but whether the force of the preposition
necessarily requires us to suppose that he actually entered
into the city. Now, we have no doubt that Jesus did
enter into the city. But this is not the question. The
only question is, "Does the force of the particle ert necessarily import such a fact?" Every person must see that
it does not; and that if any man would prove that Jesus
actually entered into Capernaum at that time, he would
find himself obliged to search for other evidence than that
afforded by the particle in question. If Jesus had only
gone to the gate of Capernaum, it might be said, in Greek
phrase, that garefv7 arl Ka7repvaova he went down INTO Capernaum. If the reader be still in doubt of the truth of our
assertion, let him turn to Luke viii, 23. It is there stated
that " a stormni of wind came down into the lake," (carer7... E rv 2,v7v.) Yet we know, from facts resulting from
natural causes, that the " storm" did not enter into the lake,
but came only on or to the lake. In Rev. xiii, 13, the
following somewhat remarkable passage occurs: "And
he (the beast) doeth great wonders, so that 7rv)p ro,v icara
102 
CHIRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Patvetv cc Tov ovpavov e  T r/v y7v he maketh fire come down
FROM heaven ON (or TO) the earth." Here the prepositions
erf and et are put in contrast, and both stand connected
with an active verb, exactly similar, so far as the present
criticism would require, to the passage of Acts viii, 38, 39;
and yet in this text cited from the Apocalypse, they have
only the force of the English prepositions from and to.
Now, apply this last example to the case in hand. If it
be good New Testament Greek to say, "he maketh fire
come down e, ro ov pavov etf r;V 7qV FROM heaven TO the
earth, or ON the earth," then, beyond all controversy, it is
also in accordance with good usage to say of Philip and
the eunuch, "they both Ka7Eflnuav eta To v6&p went down TO
the water," and, after baptism, av,e-aa  eC TOV v6aror, they
ascended FROM the water.
We have already observed, that both Matthew and
Mark use a7ro from, instead of eic out of, when they describe the act of our Saviour, in leaving the water
after baptism. They simply say, he came from the
water. The passage therefore, in question, is a solitary
case in the history of baptism, where eic is put in contrast with etr, denoting motion to, and from, or into, and
out of the water of baptism.  This circumstance, to say
the least, renders their testimony to the doctrine of immersion extremely unsatisfactory. But, furthermore, it is
well known that e-c is often used to denote simply the
point from which a motion is made.  Thus: "Howbeit
there came other boats ec from Tiberias."  "Get thee
eic fromnt thy kindred."  "Who shall deliver me ec from
the body of this death," &c. John vi, 23; Acts vii, 3;
Rom. vii, 24. It would, therefore, be every way consistent with the general use of the prepositions in question,
to adopt our translation, and read, "And they went down
both to the water.... and when they were come up fromn
the water," &c. Besides, it should be remembered, that
the act of coming out of the water, as well as going into
the water, is affirmed of both Philip and the eunuch, and
has no more to do with the act of baptism than with their
riding in the chariot.  The Greek prepositions, employed
in this narration have the same latitude of meaning as
our English into and fjrom, or out of.  And, in popular
language, a person goes into the water when he enters to
103
F: 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the depth of six inches; and, when he recedes from that
point, he comes out of the water. Professor Ripley here
proposes a question that is, indeed, singular enough. It
is, whether the preposition etL indicates, that they went
far enough into the water for immersion. How such a
question is to be determined satisfactorily, I am unable to
judge. Certain it is, that philology can never settle it.
But, while the subject of the eunuch's baptism is before
the reader, I will adduce a few considerations, which
may tend to corroborate the foregoing statements, and
show that an immersion was not probably practised on
this occasion.
(a) The place where  the eunuch was baptized was
"desert." Vide ver. 26. The word desert, in Scripture,
sometimes means a barren waste, and sometimes merely
a country place, in contradistinction of a city. The former is probably the true sense, in this connection. For
when the angel said to Philip, "Arise, and go toward the
south, unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem to
Gaza, which is desert," if he intended merely a country
place, the description would have been trifling. It was
already understood, as a matter of course, by Philip, that
the place was rural; but that itwas adesert proper,might not
have been so obvious. But to find a body of water in a desert
proper, sufficient for immersion, would be strange indeed!
(b) The body of water itself, in which the eunuch was
baptized.  The account says, "They came  erG r  vdwp
to SOME water." No more or less can be made of Luke's
statement.  But what is some water?  How much? The
pronoun nt (some, any) has sometimes a diminutive sense,
and so here.  "They came to a little water," &c.  Our
English reads "a certain water;" as if our translators had
in view a particular watering-place for travellers or caravans. And so the eunuch, when he saw it, exclaimed
with evident emotion, Idov'vdcp, Behold water. He does
not say how much water, but seemed a little surprised
and pleased to find any water in such a place. Indeed,
it was in this vicinity-in the valley of Gerar-the v'alley
in which, according to our most accurate maps, the city
of Gaza stands-that Abraham and Isaac were obliged to
dig wells, to procure water for their flocks. It was here
that "the herdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac's herd
104 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
men, saying, The water is ours." It could not have been
far from this place where Philip baptized the eunuch.
We sometimes, in Scripture, read of " springs in the desert," boiling out of the ground, (Gen. xxvi, 19,) and it
was probably such a body of water in which the eunuch
was baptized. Whence, then, has arisen all this fancied
abundance of water sufficient for an immersion, where
herdmen would contend for a " well" to water their flocks?
The reasonable presumption is against it. We want more
proof.
(c) Whether or not it may be considered as having
much force in the present connection, I cannot forbear
recalling the reader's attention to the phrase, "they went
down into the water."  It would seem that this phrase is
supposed to be a natural indication of immersion. So
also, when our Saviour went "to the Jordan" to be baptized, the circumstance of his going to a river to be baptized, as also that of John's choosing a river to baptize in,
is supposed to indicate the practice of immersion. But,
certainly, it is altogether a fanciful argument-an argument that has no force but in the imagination of its author.
We wish only to refer the reader, in this place, to a passage recorded in Tobit vi, 2. The passage runs thus:
"And when the young man icare677 rreptc2,vaa0a t went down
to wash himself all round," &c.  That is, he went down to
thile river Tigris to wash himself all round, by casting water
over his body, as the word imports; and that he went into
the water is evident from the sequel, for he was attacked
by a "fish," which he "drew to land," ver. 3. We do not
suppose the story itself to be true, but it is, nevertheless,
equally in point for our purpose.  Here then is a case
where a young man went down into a river of water for
the purpose of purifying himself, and although the case
itself allowed immersion,  and the heat of the climate
might seem to determine in favour of such a mode of
cleansing, still, he went down into the river to purify himself by casting water all over his body. So also Philip might
have gone down into the water, not to immerse, but sprinkle
the eunuch. At least, it may edify our Baptist brethren to
know that it is said a man once went down into a river, in
a hot climate, to purify himself by casting water all round
his body.
105
5* 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
In concluding our remarks under this head, we wish to
apprise the reader that a cursory and hasty perusal of this
chapter will not be likely to beget a very high state of
satisfaction in his mind, as to the real merits of the argument drawn from the Greek prepositions, unless he is
already somewhat accustomed to philological investigations.  The argument itself, indeed, is nriot deep.  It lies
on the surface. A habit of close and correct observation
of the meaning of words will render the above citations
and remarks fully comprehensible without a knowledge of
the Greek. For, while we have endeavonred to exhibit
every important phase of the subject, and to enter into
such detail as to be able to draw out and explain the
several points which we judged to have any important
bearing; still, we have striven so to simplify the whole,
and to retrench unnecessary and unimportant views, as to
disencumber the whole, as far as possible, from that embarrassment which would be likely to accrue to the mere
English reader. But if, after the argument shall have
been mastered, he find that it has no great force, pro or
con, in the question at issue, he will have exactly attained
to our settled opinion on the subject; always remembering that, while the force of the prepositions determines
neither the one side nor the other of this controversy, the
bearing of their aggregate and almost uniform evidence is
manifestly against the hypothesis of exclusive immersion.
If it be said we have bestowed too much attention upon a
branch of the argument which, after all, is indeterminate,
we must beg to assure the reader that the posture of the
controversy required all this at our hands. Besides, it
should not be forgotten that the evidence which the subject admits is not demonstrative, but cumulative.  No
single argumnent is sufficient to decide the whole question
and to establish general and satisfactory convictions; but
we must patiently build our conclusions upon various data,
brought together from different sources and compared,
deriving from each one its tribute of support to the establishment of the general result.
106 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISSM.
CHAPTER VI.
CHRISTIAN EXAMPLES.
1. AT this stage of the argument it is proper to inquire
into the practice of the early Christians, with a viewv to
determine the specific bearing of their example onii the
question at issue.  On this subject I feel constrained to
depart fromn that popular opinion which is ever prone to
pay a blind veneration to the practices of early Christians.
I feel incapable of appreciating the views of those who
congratulate themselves in a fancied pre-eminence of virtue, or of orthodoxy, merely because they find a precedent
to their conduct, or a sanction to their belief, in the history
,f the opinions and practices of the primitive church.  It
must be acceded that those who enjoyed the personal instructions of our Saviour and his apostles possessed, from.n
opportunities of private conversation, advantages from
which we, at this distance of time, are necessarily excluded; advantages which would seem to invest their
example with a degree of authority over the faith of all
succeeding generations of the church. Still, it will not
have escaped observation, that these advantages on their
part are more than counterbalanced by our superior state
of moral and intellectual improvement, as the facts in our
comparative histories abundantly demonstrate. The early
churches were formed from Jewish or Gentile converts,
who had alike been bred in the vilest superstitions. The
potency of their early education was felt long after their
espousals to Christianity.  Even under the pruning hand
and vigilant eye of Paul, there sprang up, in the bosom of
the church, the rank weeds of a barbarous religion. The
solemn ordinance of the holy supper was turned into a
bacchanalian revel! Endless disputes, on points of no
importance, were warmly prosecuted-disputes which are
generated only by superstitious and ignorant minds. So
prone were they to abuse the institutions of Christianity,
that Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, (chap. i, 14, 15,)
gives utterance to this strange declaration: "I thank God
that I baptized none of you but Crisputs and Gains; lest
107 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
any should say that I baptized in mine own name."  But if
we pass into the second and third centuries, we shall find
a state of things far more deplorable. Here the true genius of the Oriental philosophy, mingling with a variety of
vulgar superstitions, began to display itself. Who cain
forget the ridiculous ceremonies at baptism, of exorcism,
unction, giving salt and milk to the candidate, attiring him
in a snow-white robe, and crowning hinm with an evergreen? Who, I say, can forget all this, and persuade
himself that these very Christians, so prolific of superstitious refinings and innovations upon the rite of baptism in
every thing else, did yet, in regard to the mode of baptism,
remain infallible?
But the appeal is carried up to apostolic practice; and
here, doubtless, the weight of the argument from church
history mainly hinges. Let us not, therefore, be misunderstood. We do not suppose that either primitive or
apostolic practice could, from the nature of the case, decide
this controversy. We have already observed that the
verb baptize is a generic term, like our verb purify, or
wash, and therefore comprehends under it a variety of
particular modes of ablution.  Whatever, therefore, may
have been the precise mode of baptism practised in the
early church, it can never constitute any obligatory rule
of faith or practice for us, so long as  the command
to be baptized is not specific as to the. mode. The climate of Palestine, and also of many of the other countries where the gospel was preached by the apostles, is
warm. This rendered bathings frequent; and this latter
circumstance, of itself, might naturally be supposed to
have begotten in them a predilection for immersion,
even though it were not required, but only allowed, by
the original command.   But in a mnore rigorous climate,
where bathings are unfrequent, and attended with greater
inconvenience and exposure, a diverse propensity would
naturally exist. The practice of the church, therefore, in
any age, setting aside denominational prejudices, would be
likely to shape itself, in general, according to the climate
and the corresponding habits of the people. There is more
weight, I amn persuaded, in these remarks, than a prejudiced mind would be willing, readily, to concede. The aquatic habits of a Greenlander and an Otaheitan,-I mean their
108 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
habits in relation to bathing, swimming, diving, &c.,
although respectively engendered by climate,-are totally
diflerent.  And when we say that a Greenlander, when
left to the direction of his own choice in relation to the
mode of baptism, would feel a natural bias to the practice
of aspersion instead of dipping, and that an inhabitant of
the Society Isles would be naturally inclined to an oppo site choice to that of his shivering brother, we pay no
more than a reasonable tribute of respect to the preju dices of climate. And when we consider that these pre judices are not only innocent and unavoidable, but highly
salutary to the health and comfort of the body, we cannot
but admire the wisdom and characteristic goodness of the
Author of our religion, in so graduating his command,
touching the duty of baptism, as to harmonize with the
various conditions of his great family. If, therefore, it
should be found, upon examination, that the apostolic
churches did practise immersion, still, if the foregoing
remarks be correct, that circumstance can be sufficiently
accounted for on other ground than that of a specific com mand of Christ.*
2. But, from an examination of all the instances of
baptism recorded in the New Testament, we are far from
being satisfied that immersion was uniformly practised;
so far, indeed, that in many cases the circumstances
seem to preclude all idea of immersion. Instance, the
baptism of Saul. Acts ix, 18, and xxii, 16. The account
simply states that he was required to " stand up" (avtcartt)
and be baptized. Lydia Was indeed baptized by "a river;"
still, nothing can be inferred from this circumstance in
favour of an immersion, inasmuch as the apostles went
to the river, not to baptize, but to pray. Acts xvi, 1
15.  Peter, when he would baptize Cornelius and his
friends, made no proposition to leave the spot; no preparations are made for an immersion; but he modestly
inquires, Can any man forbid water that these should not
be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well
as we? (Acts x, 47,) i. e., in plain English etiquette, "Will some one present be kind enough to fetch some
water, that these may be baptized?"  The language of
* See note H.
109 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS.IM.
Peter deserves a little further notice.  The  verb K'w,v
forbid, implies, in this connection, as in other places,
the power (sometimes including the right) of imposing a
prohibition on the thing or act specified. Thus: Nuni.
xi, 28, "Joshua said, My lord Moses, forbid them," (i.e.,
~Eldad and Maedad, from prophesying.)
Mark ix, 39: " But Jesus said, Forbid him not."
Mark x, 14: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not,
to come unto me."
Luke vi, 29: " He that taketh thy cloak, forbid not to
take thy coat also."
Nothing is more obvious than that the prohibitive phrase
in these passages fully recognises the power of granting or withholding at option; and this power is also clearly
recognised in the persons to whom Peter's address was
made. Hlad they possessed no such power as the one
in question, the appeal of Peter on this occasion would
have been trifling and senseless. For instance, if it had
been the intention of Peter to repair to some public pool,
a pond, or a-river, in order to immerse the candidates, it is
manifest that the persons present would have had no power
of interference to prohibit such an act. And in such a case
it would have been senseless to inquire, "Can any man
present prohibit the use of a public water that these should
not be baptized?" &c.  But if the apostle  intended to
baptize the Gentile converts on the spot, and by aspersion, and consequently needed only a vessel of water to
be brought in; a service which it was certainly in the
power of any one present to grant or withhold-it was
with the greatest propriety of language-which at the
same moment evinced true delicacy of sentiment, combined with the most disciplined courtesy-that he couched
his request for a vessel of water in. that interrogatory appeal, "Can any man forbid water that these should not
be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well
as we?" These words of Peter, therefore, when rightly
understood, present a singular difficulty to the theory of
exclusive immersion; and, so far as we now can judge,
are irreconcilable with it.*
(The baptism of the Philippian jailer was perfo-rm.ed in
* See note J.
110 
CHRISTIAN BAPT!ia,.
his own house, in the jail.  The jailer could not have 
quitted the jail, during the night, in company with the 
apostles, as some suppose, without a breach of fidelity,
and a forfeiture of his life to the laws of his country. The
guilt or innocence of the apostles could not have affected
his duty as jailer, which was, not to award to them the
sentence of the law, but to immure them safely within the
walls of the prison, until that sentence should either be i
finally executed, or revoked.  But Paul himself virtually 
affirms they had not been out, in hisrefusal'to'We       t "'truSt
0.otpri." I  Fs reTusi would have been urged with a
sistency if they had already been "out privily" during
the night preceding, in quest of a pond or a river of water
wherein to have immersed tlie ailer. But, as if to remove
all  i {culties'and s"""' all"c'C on.i,ersy, resort is had to
the old and convenient hypothesis; an hypothesis which
has peculiarly befriended our opponents on other occa sions of need, viz., that there was, in all probability, a
private bathI in the jail which served them on this occa sion for a place to immerse.  It is unfortunate, however,
for this hypothesis, that Philippi lay under latitude 410
north, in a climate where baths are little used; and that
the person supposed to have furnished the bath on this
[occasion was a jailer and not a gentleman.                  i
The account of Luke (Acts ii) goes to prove that three
thousand persons were baptized and added to the church
on the day of Pentecost; but does not specify the mode.
If, however, we attend critically to all the circumstances
of the occasion, we shall find the weight of evidence to
lie against the idea of their being immersed. Proceed we
then to notice   1. Their  time for baptism.  Peter  began to preach
"about the third hour of the day;" i.e., nine o'clock, A. M.
Yer. 15. Judging from the nature of the occasion and
from the drift of his discourse, as given by Luke, he con tinued at least an hour.  Luke says, "With many other
words Peter testified and exhorted," &c. Ver. 40. Peter's
sermon being ended, the converts must be selected from
the multitude, and questioned as to their faith and experi ence. This was not the work of a moment. If they were
immersed, they must have been provided with a change
I11 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
of raiment. This must have occasioned great delay. For
when the multitude came together, at first, it was with
somle confusion and no expectation of Christian baptism
or conversion. Then, apartments for men and womer
must be procured adjacent to the place of baptism.
x Before all these preliminaries could be disposed of with
decency, it must have been afternoon; say one o'clock.
The Jewish day closed at six P. M., and Luke says they
were baptized and added to the church "the same day."
Consequently they had but five hours left, in which to
perform their labour. But if the twelve apostles baptized
three thousand persons in five hours, they must have ave raged for each apostle, two hundred and fifty; which
would be, for each, fifty persons per hour, or five persons
in every six minutes. This, I need not say, would have
been impossible. But if the apostles baptized by asper sion, they thereby saved much time, and might have per formed the task with comparative ease. I know it has
been said that the seventy disciples aided on this occa sion.  But where is the proof that they were commis sioned to baptize t. It is not found in Luke x, where we
are furnished with an account of their call and commis sion. The authority to baptize was one of those important
functions originally invested in the apostles only. It was,
at first, distinctively, an apostolic prerogative:  subse quently, they transmitted this power to others, whom they
judged men of established reputation for integrity, piety,
and understanding, who felt moved by the Holy Ghost to
take the office of the ministry.  "Lay hands hastily on
no man," was an apostolic maxim in reference to priestly
ordination. 1 Tim. v, 22. But we have no account of the
apostles having ordained any person to the work of the
ministry during the ten days that intervened between
their commission and the day of Pentecost. We do know,
however, that our Saviour himself commanded them to
suspend the exercise of all their apostolic functions until
the descent of the Holy Ghost, which took place on Pen tecost. Luke xxiv, 49; Acts i, 7, 8.
Besides, Luke seems very explicit in giving us to un derstand, that, if the seventy were present at all, they were
present only as private individuals, and took no part in the
transactions of the day.  In ver. 14, he says, "But Peter,
112 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
standing up with the eleven," &c. But why not mention
the seventy, if they also took a part? Certain it is, if
they took so considerable a part on the occasion as to
assist in baptizing, this partiality of Luke is rather unaccountable, especially as he professes to be explicit.
2. They had no place for the imnmersioni of such a multitude. The brook Kidron, (Cedron,) which ran along
the east side of the city, was, at its maximum, but a
turbid stream,-always dry in the hot season, and it was
now about June; so that its waters must have been failing fast. Besides, soon after it issued from its source, it
received, from a common sewer, all the blood and ordure
of the sacrifices, and the common filth, both of the temple and the northern section of the city. This alone
would have rendered it unfit for baptism. As to public
pools, we have account of only two, Bethesda and Siloam.
The latter was three-fourths of a mile from the spot where
the apostles had preached. We have no account of their
marching off three thousand persons, with all the multitude of spectators that would naturally follow, this distance.
Besides, their time would have failed them. Bethesda lay
within the precincts of the temple, and was used in the
temple service for the washing of sacrifices, &c. It was,
therefore, in the hands of the priests, the avowed and
mortal enemies of Christ and his apostles; and I believe
it will not be pretended that the dignitaries of the Jewish
church, after their recent hard-earned and diabolical triumph over Christ and his followers; their concerted and
undisguised hostility to the Christian name; their settled
and incurable malice, now newly festered by the alarming success of the apostles,-it will not, I say, be pretended that, under these circumstances, they would have
peaceably surrendered their claims to the use of Bethesda,
in order to have accommodated the apostles of Christ with
a place for Christian baptism; particularly, as the time
for the evening sacrifice came on between three and four
o'clock, P. M., when the use of the pool was always
needed; and it being now Pentecost, and the sacrifices
numerous and important, its use would have been wholly
indispensable. In addition to all this, (if any additional
remark be necessary,) both Siloam and Bethesda were
probably of inadequate dimensions to admit twelve men,
113
I 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
(much less the seventy disciples,) for the purpose of im
mersing. In the porches of Bethesda, the sick constantly
reclined, waiting to receive the benefit of its healing
waters. Where, then, did the apostles immerse the
three thousand converts? Are there not difficulties
attending that hypothesis?
CHAPTER VII.
FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
SEC. I.-GENERAL ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY.
WE come now to treat of an important branch of the
general argument. The inquirer after truth will scarcely
fail to be convinced of the general correctness of our position, in proportion to the intelligence and candour with
which he investigates the following argument. This we
predicate, not so much of the presumption that we shall
present the subject in its happiest light, as of the intrinsic
force of the argument, when once it is fully and clearly
received in the understanding.
There is no controversy among Christians, as to whether baptism be emblematical; nor is there any dispute in
regard to the fact, that outward baptism is an emblem of
inward purity. All agree that baptism with water derives
its entire efficacy from its emblematical character, while
none deny that it also signifies purity of heart. But while
the Baptists maintain that baptism is designed to adumbrate
inward purity, as procured through the death, burial, and
resurrection of our Saviour'; we hold, in common with all
Pedo-baptist churches, that it is a simple and beautiful
emblem of the Spirit's agency upon our hearts, operating
as the efficient cause of inward holiness.  They regard
baptism as a recognition of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the procuring cause of moral
purity; but we regard the ordinance as a recognition of a
divine agency upon our hearts, "working salvation." This
distinction I have been the more careful to state, as it
forms thebasis of important conclusions.  The Baptists,
114 
ClItRISTIA.N  BAPTISM.T
regarding baptism as a recognition of a burial and resurrection, with strict propriety, insist upon exclusive immersion.  Professor Ripley says, "It is most readily granted,
that if purification be the only thing represented by baptism, then there is by no means so much need of opposing
a departure from immersion. But something else is also
intended to be represented, which renders immersion nec(;ssary; and, as the purification represented in baptism is
purification obtained through the death and resurrection of
Christ, it is surely not surprising that the apostle should
teach that in baptism there is a recognition of this death
and resurrection, and of our obligation to die unto sin as
Christ died for sin; and to rise to a new and holy life as
Christ arose to a new and glorious life. Conceding then
that sprinkling, or pouring, or washing may have a significancy, it does not follow that it has all the significancy
that the baptismal rite was intended to possess."*
I have made this quotation to show, on good authority,
what use is made in this controversy of the construction
which the Baptists have fixed on the mystical import of
baptism.  It is plain from this, that they could abate the
strictness of their theory, if it could be made to appear that
their views of the emblematical sense of baptism were
erroneous. If they err here, "then" (we quote their own
words) "there is BY NO MEANS so much need of opposing
a departure from immersion."  It is conceded, too, that
"sprinkling, pouring, and washing may have a significancy." All this, to be sure, looks like an approximation
to a friendly coalition of sentiment. The field of controversy appears much narrower than before, which encourages the hope of a final reconciliation on some common
Scriptural ground of faith.
But here it is of the last importance to the issue of this
controversy, that the reader settle it in his own mind, once
for all, that the two opinions above stated, in regard to the
mystical signification of baptism, cannot both be correct.
If baptism represent a burial and resurrection, it cannot, in
the nature of things, at the same time be a lively emblem
of the agency of the Holy Ghost upon our hearts. Two
transactions, so totally diverse in their forms, could not be
* Examination of Stuart, p. 123.
115 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
adumbrated by one and the same act. These two prototypes, therefore, would necessarily require diverse forms
of administration of the consecrating element, in order to
create that similitude on which the very notion of an emblem is founded. On this subject Dr. John Dick has justly
observed, "It is by no means probable that God would
speak of his own operations in one way, and symbolically
represent them in a different way; that he should promise
to sprinkle or pour out his Spirit upon us, and, to confirm
this promise, would command us to be plunged into water.
There would be no analogy in this case between the promise and the seal; and the discrepance would give rise to
a confusion of ideas."* It is evident, therefore, that whichever of the two views already mentioned be substantiated,
the opposite must, of necessity, fall to the ground. We
hold, in common with all Christian churches, that regeneration and sanctification are changes wrought in the moral
man by the power of the Holy Ghost. And that, in the
great scheme of redemption, if the death of Christ were
necessary, as a government act, to vindicate before the
universe the moral rectitude of'the divine Lawgiver in the
public overtures of pardon to the guilty; the agency of the
Holy Ghost is no less necessary in order to render that
atonement available or efficacious in the personal salvation of the sinner. The ground we take, then, in this
discussion is, that baptism is the symbol of the regenerating and sanctifying agency of the Holy Ghost, and that,
therefore, the form of baptism should be adapted to represent the manner in which the Holy Spirit bestows his
influences upon the heart.
If we scan the figurative language of Scripture, we shall
find that two distinct ideas are comprehended under the
general ceremonial use of water, namely, regeneration and
purifcation of heart. The one is founded on the resuscitating, and the other on the purifying qualities of water.
This distinction will be observable in the process of the
argument. In order to give somewhat of a classification,
or rather, a division of our thoughts, we shall,
1. Inquire into the ancient Jewish import of the ceremonial use of water. It seems almost superfluous to en
* Theology, vol ii, p. 377.
116 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS.I.
large upon this part of the argument, so plain is it to every
reader of the Old Testament. The whole history of bodily
ablutions among the Jews speaks but one language, and
yields a united testimony to one point. We shall content
ourselves with a few passages, and the reader may extend
the line of citations ad libitum.
David says, Psa. xxvi, 6, "'I will wash my hands iit
[token of] INNOCENCY." Psa. li, 2, 7: " Wash me tho roughly frojm mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin."
... "Purge me with hlyssop, and I shall be CLEAN: wash
me, and I shall be whiter than snow."
Isa. i, 16: " Wash you, make you CLEAN; put away the
evil of your doings."  Isa. iv, 14: "0 Jerusalem! wash
thy heart from wIcKEDNESS."
Evidently, in these instances, the outward washing
represented inward purity. These passages also accord
with the universal tenor of the Old Testament.  But the
ancient oracles are more explicit.   They describe the
maanner in which the purifying and refreshing graces of
the Spirit are bestowed, by the pouring or sprinkling of
water, either ceremonially or otherwise.
Isa. xliv, 3: "I will POUR WATER upon him that is
thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground; I will POUR MY
SPIRIT upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring."  What a lively-what a beautiful emblem!  "I
WILL POUR WATER... I WILL POUR MY SPIRIT."
Ezek. xxxvi, 25, 27: "Then will I SPRINKLE CLEAN
WATER upon you, and ye shall be CLEAN; from all your
filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you....
And I will PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU," &C. Here also
the Spirit's influences are associated with the sprinkling
of water.
Hos. x, 12: "Seek the Lord till he come and RAIN
righteousness upon you."' Hos. xiv, 5: "I will be as the
DEW unto Israel."
In these last citations from Hosea the prophet beautifully represents the refreshing influences of the Spirit by
a metaphor taken from the falling of dew and rain.
Psa. lxxii, 6: "He [Messiah] shall come down like
RAIN upon the mown grass." "And what image," says
Bishop Horne, "can convey a better idea of those most
beneficial and blessed effects, which followed the descent
117 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISIM.
of the Son of God upon the earth, and that of the Spirit at
the day of Pentecost."'*
Joel ii, 28, 29: "And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will POUR OUT my Spirit upon all flesh."... "And
upon the servants, and upon the handmaids, in those days
will I POUR OUT my Spirit." Comp. Acts ii, 16-20.
These passages will suffice to show the opinion of tile
ancient Jews in regard to the import of the emblematical
use of water; and also in regard to the most significant
mode of using the water of ablution. They also clearly
designate the manner of the Spirit's operations. It is
hardly necessary to add, that the idea is at the furthest
remove imaginable from that of a burial and resurrection.
2. This ancient sense attached to the ceremonial use
of water is fully corroborated and sustained by the typical
import of John's baptism. The baptism of John was a
visible token of reformation on the part of the recipient.
But, in addition to this, it was also manifestly typical of
the dispensation of the Holy Ghost which was ushered in
with so much power and grace on the day of Pentecost.
Hence, when John baptized with water, he exhorted the
people to look forward through the shadowy medium of
that outward ordinance to the more important baptism of
the Holy Ghost. The prospective and typical relation of
John's baptism to that of the Holy Spirit is fully established by the following passages:   Matt. iii, 11: "I indeed baptize you with water;..
but he [Christ] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."
Vide also Mark i, 8; Luke iii, 16.
Acts i, 5: "John truly baptized with water; but ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days
hence." These are the words of our Saviour to his apos tles just previous to the ascension. The object was to
revive and continue, in the minds of the apostles and dis ciples, that expectation of the effusion of the Spirit that
John the Baptist had at first inspired by the exhortations
above alluded to. In order to this, he reverts to their at tention to John's baptism, to which they had already sub mlitted, and to its typical character, and then renews the
promise of its fulfilment in the dispensation of the Holy
* Commentary on Psalms.
118 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Ghost. So Peter also, when he saw the Holy Ghost de scend upon the household of Cornelius, felt his mind to be
instantly drawn, retrospectively, to the promise of the
Saviour.  Speaking of that event, he says, "Then remem bered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John in deed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost," Acts xi, 16; comp. chap. x, 44. But
why associate thus John's baptism with that of the Holy
Ghost, unless there be a mystical connection between the
two? The above passages clearly establish such connec tion. Here, again, we pause, to give the argument its
just weight and bearing. John's baptism represented the
puriying and renovating agency of the Holy Ghost. It
was not merely a symbol-it was a t?ype or image of the
latter. And as it is always required that there be a fit
application of the type to the antitype, so also in this
instance.  Do we ask, then, What was the mode of John's
baptism?  The answer is at hand; and it is involved in
the inquiry, What was the mode of the Spirit's baptism?
For if the baptism of John typified the baptism of the Holy
Ghost, there must be a resemblance between the two, so
that a knowledge of the form of one would lead to a knowledge of the form of the other.  This view of the subject
will not be objected to by any person who is acquainted
with the nature of a type; nor can it be overthrown but
by subverting the established relation which subsists between a type and its antitype.  But, in relation to the
mode of the Spirit's baptism, we have already (in a former
chapter) had occasion to remark that it was a "pouring
forth," a "descending upon," a "sitting upon," &c.  We
ask, therefore, Could such an act of the Holy Ghost be
adumbrated by plunging a man in water?  Would not the
pouring out or sprinkling of water upon him be a more
expressive emblem? It is needless to dwell upon an
argument so plain. Nor will the force of it be shuffled
off by such miserable attempts as appear in the newfangled version of our Testament, where we find Acts i,
5, and cognate passages, distorted so as to read, "John
immersed in water; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy
Ghost." But this also has been noticed in a former chapter. Thus have we shown, we trust to the satisfaction of
the candid reader, that the ancient church of God, up to
119 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the time of Christ, had always regarded bodily ablutions,
and emblematical uses of water, as expressive of that inward purity, and regeneration, produced by the agency of
the Holy Ghost, and were total strangers to the modern
doctrine, that ceremonial washing imports a burial and
resurrection. I am aware, however, that our Baptist brethren take the ground, that the doctrine that ceremonial
washing signifies a burial, &c., is a doctrine which belongs peculiarly to the Christian dispensation. But, of
this there is no proof. And certainly analogy is against
it. The idea, moreover, is wholly unnatural and arbitrary.
But,
3. We inquire into the New Testament views of baptism. The object of this inquiry is to ascertain whether
our Saviour and his apostles taught that ceremonial washing, or, in other words, baptism, is a symbol of the purifying and regenerating influences of the Holy Ghost; that
is, whether the Old and New Testament doctrines, in regard to the emblematical sense of ceremonial ablution,
accord. The following passages will serve to elucidate
the New Testament argument on this subject: —
John iii, 5: "Except a man be born of water and of
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Whether our Lord alludes in this place, distinctively, to
Christian baptism, has been matter of dispute, and is not
important to our argument. We may suppose our Lord
here to allude to Christian baptism, or we may suppose
him to allude to all outward ceremonial washings, as such
-Jewish or Christian.  As if he had said, "Except a
man be born [not only] of water, [which, as the mere
emblem, is the less important, but also] of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Acts ii, 38: "Be baptized every one of you... and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here, Christian
baptism stands associated with "the gift of the Holy
Ghost," in a manner clearly to indicate its mystical relation to the latter.
Acts x, 47: "Can any man forbid water that these
should not be baptized, which have received the Holy
Ghost as well as we?" It should be observed that Peter
urged the propriety of their baptism on the ground that
they had already "received the Holy Ghost."
120 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Acts xix, 2, 3: Paul said to the Ephesian disciples,
"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard
whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto
them, Unto what, then, were ye baptized?" The words
etc T into what, in the last clause, refer to the faith or
doctrine which they professed at baptism. As if Paul had
said, "Into what (or in respect of what) profession of
faith were ye baptized?" Paul was evidently astonished
at the ignorance of these disciples, and perplexed to know
the cause. It is worthy of special remark, however, that,
finding them ignorant of the effusion of the Holy Ghost, he
instantly, and, indeed, very justly, questions the validity
of their baptism.  As if he had said, "What! are ye so
ignorant of Christianity as not to have ever heard of the
effusion of the Holy Ghost? Unto what profession of
faith, then, were ye baptized? How could you have re ceived Christian baptism, understandingly, and still have
remained in ignorance of this all-important doctrine, which
is shadowed forth and signified thereby?" All, however,
was explained when Paul was informed that these disciples had only received "John's baptism."  They were,
probably, still looking forward in prospect of the gift of
the Holy Ghost, as John exhorted them, (Matt. iii, 11,)
or, possibly they were still ignorant of the real nature of
the doctrine.  From this scrap of history, we are plainly
taught, that when outward baptism (I mean Christian baptism) does not teach the doctrine, and inculcate upon the
disciple the necessity and duty of receiving this inward
washing and gift of the Holy Ghost, it is, by the word of
God, meaningless and void.
Acts xxii, 16: Ananias saith to Saul, "Arise and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of
the Lord."  1 Cor. vi, 11: "But ye are washed... by the
Spirit of our God." Eph. v, 26: Christ gave himself for
the church, "that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the
washing of water by the word."  Heb. x, 22: "Having
our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our
bodies washed with pure water." In all these passages
it is plain that water, ceremonially applied to the body,
represents the cleansing operations of the Holy Ghost
upon the heart.
6
121 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Titus iii, 5c " He saved us, by the washrng of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."
I have placed this last quotation by itself, and lastly,
because it merits particular attention; and I deem it of
sufficient authority to settle our opinion on this subject.
Baptism is here denominated, "the washing of regeneration." That is, the washing that stands as the outward
sign and seal of regeneration.  This is, obviously, the
purport of the phrase.  The "washing" stands conjoined
with the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" in a manner to
evince its true emblematical character.
With respect to the manner of the Spirit's operations
upon the heart, in addition to what has already been said,
it may be proper to notice another class of texts.  When
our Lord would bestow the graces of the Spirit upon the
apostles, "He BREATHED ON THEM, and said unto them,
Receive ye the Holy Ghost," John xx, 22. He did not
immerse them into the Holy Ghost.  Sowhen the apostles
afterward communicated the full power and privilege of
the gospel kingdom to believers:  "THEY LAID THEIR
HANDS ON THEM, [in token of the manner of the Spirit's
communication,] and they received the Holy Ghost," Acts
viii, 17.- The same form was observed when any peculiar
power, or privilege of a spiritual or ecclesiastical nature,
was to be conferred on any individual. Acts xiii, 3; 1 Tim.
iv, 14; Heb. vi, 2, et al.
Without attempting any further adduction of evidence
in support of our position, we might here pause, and,
waiving for the present the allusions of Rom. vi, 4, and
Col. ii, 12, require proof of the opposite hypothesis.
Where is the emblematical use of water conjoined with
the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, so as to
authorize the doctrine of exclusive immersion on the
ground of the mystical import of baptism? The passages
from Romans and Colossians admit of an interpretation
opposite to that insisted on by the Baptists; and under
these circumstances, they will never convince those who
are acquainted with the rules of Biblical interpretation,
that those mooted texts are of sufficient authority to
counterbalance and nullify the whole  argument drawn
from analogy.  Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend upon
what ground of consistency their professors in theology
122 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS5M.
can advance their position, with respect to these texts,
and shelter themselves under an appeal to the laws of
Biblical interpretation. It cannot be denied, or evaded,
that if baptism be an emblem of a burial and resurrection,
it cannot, at the same time, represent the effusion of the
Holy Ghost. We have, then, arrived at this new and
important (and alarming) discovery in the science  of
,'lcred hermeneutics, viz., that the authority of two texts,
wherein one and the same allusion occurs, in figurative
style, and which may admit of a different interpretation,
is yet sufficient to establish a new and extraordinary doctrine-a doctrine of which we hear nothing in other parts
of the Bible, and against which the usage of all antiquity
bears a uniform testimony.
But we shall abide the decisions to which we are conducted by antique usage, which has never been either
contradicted or impaired. We cannot allow an innovation
upon the ancient and established meaning of the emblematical use of water, for which there is not only no necessary demand, but which alters in so important and vital
respects the aspect of New Testament doctrines and
allusions.
If, therefore, according to the general analogy of Scripture, water be used ceremonially, as an emblem of the
purifying and regenerating operations of the Holy Spirit;
and if God has uniformly spoken of the latter as being
poured out upon men-as falling Tupon-as sitting upon
them, &c.; and has also signified it, symbolically, by the
falling of dew-by the descent of rain-by the pouring out
of water-by the sprinkling of water-by Christ's breathing
upon the disciples-by the "laying on of hands;" and, if to
this general, emblematical sense of ceremonial ablutions,
accord the particular teachings of the New Testament in
regard to Christian baptism; it follows, that, by the sanction of all Jewish usage-by the analogy of water and
spiritual baptism-and by the common law of interpretation of all symbolical rites-the water of baptism should
be applied by SPRINKLING or POURING.  And here, candid
reader, pause and review the argument. Let ridicule and
low wit be left to the disingenuous and to the ignorant.
Start not-falter not at the sound of words. Have courage
to think-to deliberate-to determine.  Have candour to
123 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
confess.  You will not appreciate the entire bearing of th.
foregoing remarks by a single perusal, unless you havc
given the subject an investigation at some previous time.
Thousands of intelligent and conscientious Christians
repose their faith on this rational and Scriptural ground.
Etymology is a science which often becomes so abstruse
as to render its deductions altogether unsatisfactory, and
in this controversy we cannot concede to it the authority
claimed in its behalf by our Baptist brethren.   Philology,
properly so called, fails, in repeated instances, to effect
conviction upon the great mass of mind, owing to an inevitable, or an accidental ignorance.  Besides, although
it is a primary, still it is not the only source of argument.
But the argument deduced from the analogy of ceremonial
and spiritual purifications,while it emanates from a source
every way calculated to inspire confidence and satisfaction, is also open to the inspection and comprehension
of all capacities; and is, so far as we can judge, unanswerable.
SEC. II.-BIBLE ALLUSIONS.
There are various allusions to baptism in the New TI'estament, illustrative of its import; but we recollect of no
passage where an allusion is made for the professed purpose of setting forth the mode in which it should be administered. Had not certain passages of an allusive chaiacter been pressed into the service of our opponents,
contrary to what we deem to be just and fair rules of
argumentation, we should not feel that the cause of truth
would demand of us the matter of this section. Several allusions to baptism have been briefly noticed in the
former section of this chapter. Two only remain, which,
from the manner of their having been interpreted  and
used by our opponents, seem to deserve a particular
notice.
1. The first we shall notice occurs in 1 Pet. iii, 21.
After having stated that "eight souls were saved by
water" in Noah's ark, the apostle says: " The like figure
whereunto  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us."   It is
well known that Dr. Macknight has given to this clause
the following rendering: " To  which WATER  the antitype baptism doth now save us also, by the resuriec 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
tion of Jesus Christ." He observes that the relative (5
which, being in the neuter gender, its antecedent cannot
be KtgfiCo  the ark, which is feminine,  but Ida? water,
which is neuter. After this exegesis, the doctor goes on
to a still further elucidation of what hlie no doubt thought to
be the doctrine of the text, aided alone by fancy, and deducing three grand particulars, wherein he attempts to show
that the flood was a type or emblem of baptism. The
bearing of the whole is to press the text into the service
of the theory of immersion. The subject does not deserve a lengthened notice, although Dr. Macknight has
been copied, I believe generally, by succeeding commentators. The principal thought that engaged the mind
of Peter at this time, was the point of analogy between
the circumstance of Noah and his family's being saved
by the water of tile deluge, and our being saved [emblematically] by the water of baptism. No reference whatever can be supposed to be made to the manner of Christian baptism, without the aid of a somewhat lively fancy.
Every person must feel that Dr. Macknight's translation is
very unsatisfactory. It gives an unnatural awkwardness
to the phraseology of Peter; besides, it makes baptism,
which is an ordinance, to stand as the antitype of water,
which is a liquid element. Now the proper antecedent
of t which, is, we apprehend, neither KtOG)ror ark, or vdco
water.  The whole difficulty is removed, and the whole
sentence restored to an easy and natural construction, if
we understand the noun rporof manner after the relative
( which.  It would then read, "In or after which MANNER the antitype baptism doth also now save us," &c.
An objection may arise against this construction, from the
fact that M ho is in the neuter form of that pronoun, while
rpovror tropos is in the masculine. This objection is removed, however, if we suppose 4 ho in the dative neuter
to be put for 6 ho, a contract of 6v hou in the genitive masculine, as in the margin of Griesbach's Testament. This
makes the relative and noun agree in gender, and justifies
our translation.
The force of the text, then, is, that as Noah and his
family were saved by water, so we are now saved by baptism. The two cases are put in juxtaposition by the
apostle, merely because they possess in common that
125 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
remote point of resemblance, viz., salvation by means of
water. Yet the apostle, in his parenthetical qualification,
guards us against running too close an analogy. What
then has this text to do with the mode of baptism? Verily,
nothing.  Peter alludes to Noah's deliverance by water,
and then says, "after which manner we are now saved
by the antitype baptism."
If, however, the copyists of Dr. Macknight, like the
editor of the Comprehensive Commentary, should insist
upon the circumstances of Noah's being enclosed in the
ark, like one laid in a tomb, and his emerging therefrom,
like one rising from the dead, &c., as being typical of a
burial in water, and a resurrection therefrom at baptism;
we have only to remind them that they have left the
beaten path of exposition, and have turned aside after
their own fancy. Noah was not immersed in the water.
He was borne up above the waters, and sprinkled with
the rain. David's hiding in a cave, and then coming forth,
was just as much a type of immersion as was this case of
Noah.
2. But the allusion most worthy of our notice at this
time is contained in Rom. vi, 4. It occurs also in Col.
ii, 12, and is supposed to embody an irrefragable argument for exclusive immersion. The stress of the argument rests wholly upon the supposition that baptism imports a burial and resurrection. We institute our analysis
of the subject by inquiring into
(a) The scope of the passage. In the preceding chapter, the apostle had dwelt somewhat at large upon the
statement, that "where sin abounded, grace had superabounded." In the commencement of the sixth chapter, he anticipates an abuse of that doctrine which might
possibly arise, and which he states in the following
words: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue *n
sin, that grace may [continue to] abound?"  Against this
preposterous conclusion-the monstrous offspring of an
ignorant and perverse mind-the apostle argues, from the
second to the eleventh verse consecutively. His first argument is drawn from the nacture of the Christian religion,
showing its opposition to sin.  "How  shall we who are
dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Ver. 2. As if
he had said, "If the sinner's justification by faith, not
126 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
only implies his renunciation of sin, but also exemption
from its power and dominion, how can lhe, consistently
with the nature of that justification, continue to live in
the commission of sin?"  Paul's second argument against
the doctrine of the continuance of believers in sin, is
a confirmation of the first, and is deduced from the
import of Christian baptism.   "Know  ye  not that so
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" That is, "Do ye not know that so
many of you as have received Christian baptism, have
been thereby taught your obligation to conform to the
death of Christ-to die unto sin as he  died for sin?"
"Therefore, we  are buried with him by baptism into
death: that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead,
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life,"  Upon this (fourth) verse we offer, at
present, no paraphrase.   The question now is, "What
did the apostle aim to set forth and prove in this passage?" We answer, He intended simply to set forth the
reality of our death to sin, proved by the significance of
baptism.
The scope of the passage, therefore, does not require
us to suppose that the apostle alludes at all to the outward
form of baptism: that subject was not embraced in the
author's intention.  But, by a strong figure he endeavours
to place in undoubted certainty the doctrine that salvation by grace implies a moral death to sin.  We  consider, then, that Paul here uses an intensive form of
speech; as if he should say, "Know ye not that so many
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized
into his death? Wherefore, in respect of the death of
Christ. we do as truly hold fellowship with him therein,
according to the true import of our baptism, as though
we were already entombed with him." The allusion to
a burial is not made (as we suppose) for the purpose
of lugg,ing into the argument any proof of the external
form of baptism; but it is added in order to give an
intensity or vigour to the idea. A burial is the last and
most indisputable proof of natural death; so is baptism,
in the true force of its mystical signification, an undeniable evidence of our death unto sin.  Our remarks,
thus far, are intended simply to show, that the faithful
127 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
interpretation of the text in question does not require
us, necessarily, to suppose that any allusion is made to
the external form of baptism; and that, therefore, the
construction fixed upon it by our opponents, is not, of
necessity, the correct one, but is rather foreign to, and
possibly at variance with, the scope of the author.
(b) But the "burial" spoken of, ver. 4, is not a physical
burial in water, as our opponents affirm, but a moral
"burial unto death." WVe have already remarked that
the whole stress of the argument for immersion rests
upon  the hypothesis that baptism is an emblem of a
burial and resurrection. Captivated by the mere sound
of words without due attention to their connection and
meaning, hundreds have rushed to the conclusion that
the burial of Rom. vi, 4, is an outward one; and, in the
ardour of their zeal, have overlooked the legitimate consequences of their theory. Others, who have, with a
happier penetration, forestalled the consequences, have
in no wise suffered themselves to be intimidated thereby,
but have, like the fabled fox, boldly leaped into the
deep well, trusting to their learning, or their ingenuity,
or the fancied strength of their cause, for their safe
deliverance. If, however, the burial be a physical one
in water, as Baptist authors affirm, then also must the
resurrection, which is its proper antithesis, in order to
compare with the nature of the burial, be a physical
resurrection,-a resurrection of the body from under the
water. But, on the other hand, if the burial be taken
purely in a moral sense, then also must the resurrection, which is to supply the antithesis of the thought,
be a mloral one,-a resurrection of the moral man from
the death of sin to a life of holiness. It is thus, therefore, that, by ascertaining the nature of the resurrection which the apostle opposes to the burial, we are
furnished with the undoubted signification of the latter, by means of an argument as satisfactory as it is
logcical.
The construction for which our opponents contend
would  require us to read the passage thus:  "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into the water: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also, having been
128 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
raised out of the water,should walk in newness of life."
So great a falling off from the force of the apostle's reasonimg must inevitably occasion surprise in every mind. But
a little attention to facts will show, that, however unwelcome such a construction may appear, it is the only
sense that can, in fairness, be attached to the doctrine,
or be deduced  from the statements, of our opponents.
A physical, baptismal burial, such as our opponents colntend for, we have already observed, could be made only
"in water," not "into death."  A resurrection corresponding, to such a burial must be a resurrection, or an emerging
from the water.  But is this the sense of the apostle?  Is
there any thing expressed in relation to their being raised
out of the water? " I take it for granted," says Professor
Stuart, "that after Mutc [we] in ver. 4, eyepOevrPe  [having
been raised up] is implied, since the nature of the comparison, the preceding all eye(pO0  Xploror, [as Christ was
raised up,] and also ver. 5, make this entirely plain."*
The passage would then read:-" that liklie as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we  also, having been raised up, should
walkl in newness of life." Walking "in newness of life,"
necessarily presupposes a resurrection. But the question
is, Is that resurrection physical or spiritual? This question hardly admits of debate. It was in virtue of the
resurrection that they were enabled to walk "in newness
of life;" they must, therefore, have experienced a resurrection unto moral, or spiritual life. In other words, they
experienced a moral resurrection; and it is this, and this
only, that could be placed in contraposition to a "burial
into death."
In the fifth verse the apostle speaks of a spiritual resurrection-" We shiall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."  In ver. 8 he says, "Now if we be dead with
Christ, we believe that we  shall also LIVE  with him."
Also ver. 11: "Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
indeed unto sin, but ALIVE unto God." To live with Christ,
to be alive unto God, are phrases which imply a spiritual
resurrection to this spiritual life. And the reader will
plainly perceive that the apostle, all along, preserves the
* Commentary on Romans.
6*
129 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
moral death and the moral resurrection in exact juxtaposition.
If we turn to Col. ii, 12, we shall find the same doctrine, clothed in a similar form of speech to this passage
in Romans, with this advantage, that the former fully carries out the antithesis of the figure in the expression.  Tlhe
following paraphrase may assist the reader in apprehending our views of this passage: " For ye are as truly dead
to sin as though ye were already buried with Christ, as
ye have witnessed at your baptism; in which ordinance
also ye are risen with him through that faith which is inspired in your hearts by the energy of God, who hath, by
the same power, raised up Christ from the dead."
It will readly be perceived that I have supposed the
relative o6 ho to refer to the noun farlcat  baptismnati, and
not to the pronoun avnw auto. This gives to the passage
exactly the sense of our English version, which seems,
most of any other construction, to favour our opponents
and for which Professor Ripley contends. Now, the
argument of our opponents is this, that as the burial is
said to be performed in or by baptism, atnd as baptism is a
physical rite, therefore the burial itself must be physical.
Carrying out the antithesis, therefore, of such a burial, so
as to make a correspondence of sense throughout, we
affirm that the resurrection should be a physical resurrection. But does this accord with the statement of the
apostle? Assuredly not; for he declares that the resurrection is attained "through the faith of the operation of
God."  But if it be attained through faith, it certainly cannot relate to raising the body out of the water by muscular
strength. Faith, then, being the instrumental cause of the
resurrection, determines its character to be spiritual; but
a spiritual resurrection can stand opposed only to a spiritual burial; and if both be spiritual, they cannot refer to
the outward form of baptism, and consequently the passages in question can yield no aid to the cause of onr
opponents.
Professor Ripley seems to feel the force of this argument, and finding no other way to escape from its conclusive bearing on the question, he undertakes to show that
the apostle runs a double comparison, the one spiritual
and the other physical,-that "on the one hand there is a
130 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
moral death and an emblematical burial; on the other, an
emblematical resurrection and a holy life."*
All this is but a web of fancy. We cannot see that the
words of the whole connection sustain or allow any such
hypothesis, and we see powerful reasons against it.
If we take the relative, ho in Col. ii, 12 as referring to
avrr auto, him, or rather to the original noun XptaTov Christ,
in ver. 8, the passage will then read, "Buried with him
in baptism, with whom also ye are risen through the faith
of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the
dead." The relative is thus rendered in the eleventh
verse,-"In whom (ev a) also ye are circumcised," &c.;
and also in ver. 3,-"In whom (ev a) are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Language could not
make it plainer that a spiritual resurrection alone is intended. The — text declares that believers are raised up
by the power of God, through faith, and by the same
divine power, too, that raised up Christ from the dead.
It should be remembered, also, that the same phrase,"raised up with Christ," or "risen with him,"-elsewhere
has the same moral sense. See Col. iii, 1; Eph. ii, 6.
If it should be urged that, admitting the resurrection to
be moral, and thus to compare fitly with the death, which
also is moral, still the allusion to a burial seems unaccounted for, and that the ground taken in this argument is
insufficient to meet all the circumstances of the case;
we remark, 1. The phrases in Scripture, dead to sin; dead
with Christ; buried with him by baptism into death; buried
with him in baptism; baptized into his death,-are terms
which we understand as synonymous, with this exception,
the allusion to a burial gives energy to the expression.
This we have already alluded to. It seems not to have
been sufficiently noticed that a death and burial may be
spoken of in the nervous, figurative style of a hortatory
address, and where the object is moral suasion, wheni
nothing further than the idea of a death is intended, and
where, in narrative style, this word only would be used.
2. The words death and burial constitute no more than a
proper antithesis of the word resurrection, especially in the
style just alluded to, which is that of Paul in Rom. vi. So
* Examination of Stuart, p. 89.
131 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISfM.
Professor Stuart: "The  reason why  avveraaoev we are
buried with is used in Rom. vi, 4, and in Col. ii, 12, seems
to be, that the language employed may be a full antithesis
of the word resurrection, which is used in a corresponding
part of the comparison.' You who are buried with Christ'
gives energy to the expression. A dead body would indicate that life had departed; but a body dead and buried
would indicate more thoroughly the entire removal of it.
Such is the strong language, evidently to be taken in a
figurative sense, which the apostle has here employed."*
(c) If we admit the burial to be a physical one in water,
how shall we dispose of the last clause of the sentence, e-t
rov Oavarov into death, which stands so intimately connected
with the verb cvverapi,zv, we are buried with?  The words
into death are unquestionably to be understood in a figurative sense, and they evidently modify the sense of the
verb cvvOairrw, to bury with, (used in the passive voice.)
How, then, can the burial be physical?  The text affirms,
in so many words, "We  are buried with him.... into
death," and its syntactical structure, in the original, bears
an exact resemblance to Mark i, 9, "Jesus was baptized
... into the Jordan." In the latter case we have no doubt
of an outward baptism, and the words etf rov Iop6av7v into
the Jordan, beyond all contradiction, affix to the verb baptize its literal signification. But, instead of the present
form of that text, suppose it had read, "Jesus was baptized
t.. elf o   avarov into death;" would not the last words of
the sentence, into death, standing as they do in such relation to the verb baptize, suggest to the expositor of Scripture the necessity of attaching to baptize afigurative sense
somewhat like that which it bears in Matt. xx, 22, 23?
Apply this reasoning to the case in hand. If the passage in Rom. vi, 4 had read, "Therefore we are buried
with him... etr Trv yyv into the earth;" or if it had read,
"Therefore we are buried with him... ev roe/vv/eto in the
sepulchre;" who does not perceive that the words earth
and sepulchre, in these sentences, would determine the
physical character of the burial? And what commentator
would ever think of maintaining that the verb OaTfro, to bury,
must be understood in a figurative sense, when it stood in
* Commentary on Romans.
132 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
such connection with 77 earth, or?~7v/,tov sepulchre?  Furthermore, if this much-litigated passage of Romans had
read, "Therefore we are buried with him, by baptism,
etn To V'Jp into the water: that like as Christ was raised
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we
also, being raised ec rov vd6aoc out of the water, should
walk in newness of life;" I say, if the passage had thus
read, no doubt could have remained upon any mind of the
physical character of the burial. But, as the text reads,
the case is far different. It is, indeed, altogether another
statement. The apostle does not say we are buried into
the earth, nor in the tomb, nor yet into the water, but, into
death. No one would think of understanding the phrase,
buried in the ground, in a figurative sense, and yet they
would have the sanie reasons, philologically, for such
a construction, that we now have for understanding the
phrase, buried into death, in a physical sense. We apprehend, therefore, that to others, as to us, the words into
death, in Rom. vi, 4, will appear to have a decisive bearing
in determining the spiritual character of the burial.
(d) In the eighth verse, the apostle recapitulates the
main proposition of his argument thus: "Now, if we be
dead with Christ." Hence the attentive reader will readily
perceive that, in all the preceding argument, the apostle
has attempted to establish nothing more than the reality
of the Christian's death unto sin, to which idea, in the
fourth verse, he gave an intensive energy by the additional allusion to a burial. Hence, also, the words cvreraon/uev avr7o et' rov Oava'ov we are buried with him into death,
(ver. 4,) seem evidently to be synonymous with the words
areOavoyev Cvv Xpitac we are dead with Christ, (ver. 8,) with
this exception, that the former expresses the sense with
more energy than the latter. And the apostle, in finally
summing up  the whole argument, in verse 11, and in
deducing his final corollary, says, " Likewise  reckon
ye yourselves to be VeKpov rEV Trn ay6ap'ta dead indeed to
sin," &c.
Nothing can be plainer, then, than that the doctrine of
the believer's death to sin was'the true and only idea that
the apostle placed in juxtaposition with the "life of holiness," and which occupied the unbroken tenor of his
thoughts.  And to force upon the fourth verse a construc
133 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
tion differing (save in the degree of the energy of the
thought) from that of the eighth and eleventh verses, is
plainly acting without authority from the context, inas much as the substance of all the former statements is
contained in each successive breviary of the argument,
as here shown.
(e) That the apostle does not allude to the outward
form of baptism, appears evident from the fact that he
uses a mixture of figures designed to set forth the same
doctrine. For instance, in verse 4, he speaks of our being
"buried with Christ by baptism into death;" in verse 5,
of our being "grafted* together in the likeness of his
death;" in verse 6, of our being "crucified with Christ,
that the body of sin might be destroyed." In every instance it is our death with Christ untb sin that is the thing
set forth. Paul, first, illustrates it by an allusion to the
import of baptism; secondly, by a metaphor taken from
grafting; and thirdly, by a crucifixion. Now, are we
warranted by the context in taking one part of the apostle's argument literally, and the rest symbolically? If so,
which part is to be understood in the literal sense? Is it
the baptism, or the grafting, or the crucifixion? Does he
allude to the external form of baptism, any more than to
an external grafting, or to an external crucifixion?
Besides, if we turn to the passage in Colossians, we
shall find still another figure employed, and the-whole
subject placed in a clear light.  The apostle there declares we are not only buried with Christ in baptism, but
we are "circumcised with Christ."  Professor Ripley has
fallen into a singular inadvertence here. He says, " Mr.
Scott, (the commentator,) I apprehend, has fallen into an
error as to the last expression,  circumcised with him,'
that is, Christ. I have searched in vain for this expression in the Scriptures."t We will satisfy the professor's
doubts.  Here is the expression:-" ev   c Kat 7cepter/7eOre
with whom (i.e., Christ) also ye were circumcised," Col. ii,
* The word cv/wvrot sumphutoi, translated planted together, is derived from avv with, and ovo to grow, and signifies to grow together
with.  "Dr. Taylor reckons it a beautiful metaphor taken from grafting, or making the scion grow together with the new stock." —Dr. A.
Clarke's Commentary.
t Examination of Stuart, p. 88.
1341 
CHR.STIAN BAPTISM.
11. But does the apostle intend a literal and outward
circumcision? Certainly not; for he strictly guards against
such a construction by immediately adding that the circumcision was "made without hands." And as if to make
the subject still more plain, and to assure them that he
alluded, not to the outward circumcision, but to its spiritual import, he further adds, that the circumcision to
which he alludes consisted " in the renunciation of the
body of the sins of the fiesh,"-that they had not received
a mere Jewish, but a Christian circumcision, and had
been circumcised " ev T7  7eptro/U'ov Xpiarov with the circumcision of Christ." Then, after having deduced an
argument from the import of the Jewish ordinance of
consecration, to show that they were truly dead to sin,
Paul argues to the same point from the import of the
Christian ordinance of consecration. They were not only
"circumcised with Christ," but they were " buried with
him in baptism." All which goes to prove the reality of
their death to sin, and nothing else. But if Paul alludes
to circumcision when he only intends the import, and not
the external form of that rite, is it lawful to infer that
when, in the same connection, and for the same purpose,
he refers to baptism, he intends any thing more than the
import?
(f) It is an objection of no  inconsiderable weight
against the hypothesis of our opponents, that baptism is
nowhere in Scripture declared to import a burial. Bodily
ablutions, among the Jews, signified purity of heart. This
is its emblematical sense in the New Testament, as we
have shown in another place. But in those familiar and
constant allusions to the emblematical sense of external
washings-allusions which are dispersed over the entire
range of Scripture history-there is not found, in one solitary instance, the most distant approach to the idea of a burial and resurrection. I ask, then, Is it safe-is it in accordance with the established laws of Scriptural interpretation, to add a new emblematical sense to baptism-a sense
altogether extraordinary, and comparatively modern in the
history of bodily ablutions-which contradicts and sets
aside all Jewish analogy-and this on the authority of a
single disputed allusion of holy writ?
(g) Furthermore, the hypothesis we are opposing, by
135 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
assuming a similar ground, goes far to supersede the holy
supper. In the sacrament of bread and wine we have,
emblematically, set forth the death of our Saviour: " WVe
do thereby show forth the Lord's death," 1 Cor. xi, 26.
WVhere, then, is the propriety of having another ordinance
to signify the same thing? If baptism be emblematical
of the death of Christ, we can see no reason why it should
not displace the other ordinance. Professor Ripley observes: "Baptism is to be regarded as reminding us of
the manner in which purity is attained, viz., through the
death and resurrection of Christ.... Thus it is a token of
our recognising Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, on
account of sin."*  But I ask, So far as baptism is "a
token of Christ's death on account of sin," is it not manifestly superfluous; coming, as it does, upon the identical
ground occupied by the ordinance of the supper?  Is not
the one necessarily supplanted by the other? But the
error of the quotation just cited consists in its overlooking
the grand agency employed in our conversion.  The sacrificial death of Christ constitutes the meritorious ground of
our salvation; this is signified by the ordinance of the
supper. But inward purity, including regeneration and
sanctification, is wrought in us by the agency of the Holy
Ghost, through the truth; and this agency, or efficient cause
of our salvation, is adumbrated by the water of baptism.
It does not belong to this discussion to enter at large upon
the distinction between the two ordinances of Christianity, and the distinctive grounds they occupy, but suffice
it to say, that this distinction, besides being supported by
Scripture, has this merit also, it preserves the ordinances
of Christianity from an unmeaning sameness.
Other remarks might be offered under this head, and
such, too, as have been considered to possess an influence
on the argument; but we think of nothing of sufficient
importance to justify a greater length to this section.
The strength of our argument is already brought forward.
We have laboured to adjust the scales of candid and impartial criticism, and to ascertain the bearing which this
far-famed passage has upon the question of the external
form of baptism. In conclusion we can but remark, that,
* Examiniation of Stuart, p. 94.
136 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
so far as we can now judge, the construction of our opponents, though it seems to be generally sustained by the
popular voice, cannot abide the severity of criticism.
We cannot see but it is subject to powerful and, indeed,
insurmountable objections. Verily, the text admits of another construction, and one, too, we judge, less liable to
serious difficulty. When we consider this, and reflect
upon the strength of evidence adduced in support of the
generic use of Pa7rrtw baptizo in the New Testament, we
cannot suppress or disguise our astonishment, that this
passage from Romans should have been urged by our opponents, as a proof text of their theory, and with a tone
of unmeasured confidence.
Finally, whatever support this passage may be supposed to yield to the theory of exclusive immersion, its
support is but circumstantial and unimportant. Suppose
our opponents are correct in their construction, what have
they proved?  "Why," says one, "they have proved the
universal obligation of exclusive immersion,-they have
finally and triumphantly established their theory; inasmuch as Paul says,'AS MANY OF You as have been baptized,' &c., plainly showing that all had been baptized in
one and the same way; and'oaot hosoi also means whoever, that is, all without exception."
So thinks Mr. Judd: " What he (Paul) affirms, he affirms of baptism as baptism, and not of an occasional or
particular mode of administration."* From all this we
feel constrained, from a common regard of right rules of
interpreting language, to dissent. That Paul spoke to
the abstract question, touching the import of Christian
baptism, we readily enough concede; but that he thus
spoke in relation to the form of baptism, or that the text
obliges us to suDpose he alluded to the form of baptism at
all, we cannot admit. Baptism imports death to sin; so
did circumcision.  Immersion is not necessary to make
the emblematical sense complete; and a burial is alluded
to, to give intensity to the idea of a death.
It is possible the Roman Christians were, as a matter
of fact, immersed. But whatever might have been their
plactice, or that of the early Christians, with respect to
* Review of Stuart, p. 74.
137
I 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the mode of baptism, it does not bind us. This has been
noticed elsewhere. If the apostle alluded to the outward
form of baptism, his argument must have been, to the Roman and Colossian Churches, of the ad'hominem character.
But still, we say, we are unable to comprehend the necessity of such a construction; and the allusion, if such
there be, must be obscurely couched somewhere, like
Milton's adversary, at the ear of Eve, " squat like a toad,"
which needs the spear of Ithuriel to rouse it up.
CHAPTER VIII.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED AND PROPOSED.
SEC. I.-OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
SOME notice should be taken of certain objections,
which, though trivial in their character, are yet common,
and not without their influence over many sincere, though,
generally, uninformed minds.
1. It is objected to sprinkling and pouring, that they
are insufficient modes of baptism. It is not easy to state
the objection in specific terms; but its force lies imbodied
in the following interrogatory, which is advanced with an
air of supercilious exultation: "How can a filthy garment
be cleansed by merely sprinkling or pouring a little water
upon it?"  And hence, as if the argumentwere complete,
it is inferred that baptism also, if performed by aspersion,
would be a mere mock cleansing. At the outset, we inform the reader, we are not disciples of the earl of Shaftesbury, and do not endorse his strange maxim, that "ridicule
is one of those principal lights or natural mediums by
which things are to be viewed, in order to a thorough
recognition." We do not aspire to compass our ends by
such low artifice, which is often resorted to by disputants,
ostensibly for the detection of error, but, in truth and
reality, to cast grave subjects into the most ludicrous
light, and which certainly leaves the mind in an unfavourable state for the sober investigation of truth. Vain,
138 
CIIRISTIAX BAPTIS3.I
inidteed, is that contempt with which some affect to view
the practice of sprinkling. Vain are those weapons of
sophistry,-those insidious comparisons,-by which it is
assailed. The intelligence, the piety, the candour of the
age will resist them.
In reply to the above objection we remark,
(a) It proceeds upon a false assumption in regard to
the original design of baptism. The analogy which is
here drawn between the washing of a filthy garment, in
order to purge it from an offensive matter, and the ceremonial washing of the body in baptism, gives a total misrepresentation of the meaning of the ordinance.  Will it
be contended by our opponents that baptism was originally
designed to remove that common filth which, from personal neglect, accumulates upon the surface of the body?
And yet, strange as it may appear in their own eyes, this is
the identical construction which they themselves have fixed
upon the ordinance, by pressing too closely the analogy
between common and ceremonial washings. If ceremonial
ablutions were intended originally to effect a kindred purpose with that of household washings, we readily concede
that, under such circumstances, the quantity of water and
the mode of applying it would materially affect the efficiency of their administration. But the case is far otherwise. Domestic washings are used only to effect a physical cleanliness, while ceremonial washings borrow all
their Importance from their mystical  signification, not
from their visible effects; and hence the mere quantum of
water is not a circumstance of primary moment. We,
indeed, marvel that such an objection should ever have
found its way into this world of error; and it is a wonder, surpassed only by the ignorance in which it originated
and through which it is uttered by a thousand mouths at
the present day.
But do not our Baptist brethren perceive that their weapon, in this instance, with which they thought to do mischief to the cause of their opponents, has, like the elephants
of King Pyrrhus, turned back upon their own ranks? By
their own showing, they are defeated on their own principles, no less than we. If the analogy above alluded to is
to be thus hardly pressed,-if sprinkling is to be denounced
on the score of inefficacy, according to the doctrine ad
139 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
vanced in the objection,-certainly the difficulty is not
removed by a resort to immersion. If sprinkling a garment will not cleanse it, I know of no one so silly as to
imagine that simple immersion would cleanse it.  And
thus the doctrine of the objection is as fatal to immersion,
the Baptists themselves being judges, as it is to sprinkling.
(6b) The common sense of mankind, too, in settling a
principle of this nature, merits a decent respect, especially
where it lies imbodied in religious ceremonies of great
antiquity, and which, though now abolished, were originally founded upon divine authority.  For instance, "It
was a custom among the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins,
to wash their hands in token of their innocence, and to
show that they were pure from any imputed gullilt."* So
also, according to the Mussulman's creed, ablution consists in washing the hands, feet, face, and part of the head.
The  devotee is then pronounced wholly clean.  Thus,
by different nations, in different ages of the world, has
the principle been clearly recognised, that perfect or entire
purity may be significantly represented by applying water
to a part of the body only. But what renders this circumstance of weight in the present controversy is, that the
Bible itself has given sanction to the principle, in the form
of religious duty. Anciently, among the Hebrews, when
the body of a murdered man was found, and the guilty
perpetrator had eluded discovery, the elders of the city
nearest the spot where the body was found were required
to wash their hands over a slain heifer, as a public protestation of their innocence of the murder whose author was
unknown. Dent. xxi, 1-9. But why were they not required to immerse themselves, if the principles of our opponents be correct, and if, consequently, a partial washing
may not-represent entire purity? David says, "I will
wash my hands in innocency," Psa. xxvi, 6. Here, undeniably, the washing of the hands betokened the entire
purity, or innocence, of the whole man.  So, also, Pilate
"took water and washed his hands, saying, I am innocent
of the blood of this just person," Matt. xxvii, 24. But
why did he not immerse himself in token of his alleged
innocence? See Psa. lxxiii, 13.
* Dr. A. Clarke's comment on Matt. xxvii, 24.
140 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
(c) But, doubtless, our opponents will call for other
testimony in support of our position; and certainly the
subject admits of other proof, which shall be adduced, in
compliance with so reasonable a demand. We subjoin a
few passages only.
Psa. li, 7: "SPRINKLE (paVtIrm) me with hyssop, and I
shall be clean."
Ezek. xxxvi, 25: "Then will I SPRINKLE clean water
upon you, and you shall be clean."
Heb. x, 22: "Having your hearts SPRINKLED from an
evil conscience."
Heb. ix, 13: "The blood of bulls and of goats, and the
ashes of a heifer, SPRINKLING the unclean, sanctifieth to
the purifying of the flesh."
Again do we admonish the reader of the error and dising,enuity of a misapprehension of our position. We do
not adduce these passages and statements as direct proof
that Christian baptism should be performed by sprinkling,
but simply to show that Jehovah has long since settled
the principle in his church, that a partial washing, or
sprinkling the body with water, may suffice to represent
an entire cleansing of the moral man. And we wish our
opponents to bear it distinctly in mind, that when they
ridicule the practice of baptism by sprinkling, on the score
of its inefficacy, they ridicule a principle that God himself
has, from the remotest antiquity of the church, settled by
his own authority. We know it is quite convenient for
men, when arguing on this subject, to blind the eyes of
the more uninformed, and create a tide of ignorant prejudice by the hue and cry of JUDAISM, whenever we would
make an allusion to Old Testament practices or principles.
We are not pleading for the restoration of the obsolete
rites of Judaism; nor are we in doubt that, with the intelligent and candid, the position we have taken will be
estimated according to its legitimate bearing upon the
point at issue. But we have something more to do with
the principle under consideration. The subject assumes
too serious an aspect to be scouted away by the frivolity
of superficial thinkers. When the Bible speaks of the
application of the blood of Christ to the heart, in order to
effect (not a ceremonial, but) a real cleansing, it employs
the following allusion: "Elect... through sanctification
141 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
of the Spirit... and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus
Christ," 1 Pet. i, 2. The same reference is also made,
Heb. ix, 13, 14, and x, 22.  So also Heb. xii, 24: "Ye
are come... to Jesus and to the blood of SPRINKLING."
But why is not the allusion made to immersion instead
of sprinkling?  Will our opponents ridicule the idea of
cleansing the heart from moral defilement by having the
blood of Christ sprinkled upon it? Why, then, should they
speak lightly of having water sprinkled upon the body,
when the object is merely to represent this moral cleansing? "There are three," says John, "that bear witness in
earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood," 1 John v, 8.
We are acquainted with the operations of the Spirit, and
the application of the blood of atonement, only by their
AFFUSION upon the heart.  This is the mode in which
they uniformly yield their testimony to the divinity and
Messiahship of Christ.  Analogy, therefore, would teach
us that the water of baptism, in order the more forcibly to
"agree in one" testimony with the "Spirit and the blood,"
should agree with them also in the mode of its application,
i. e., should be sprinkled or poured upon the body. There
is a remarkable instance recorded in Isa. vi, 7, of the entire purgation of the prophet, by simply applying a coal
of fire to his lips.  "Lo," says the seraph, "this hath
touched thy lips, and thy iniquity is taken away, and thy
sin is purged."  So far as the principle under consideration is involved, we might ask, Is there any thing more
absurd, in supposing that an application of water to one
part of the body may represent the entire purgation of the
whole man from moral defilement, than in supposing such
a purgation to be actually effected by applying a coal of
fire to the lips only?
2. It has been objected to the. practice of sprinkling,
that "there is no cross in it;" while the cross of being
immersed is a circumstance urged in proof of the s operior
and exclusive merits of that mode. Of course the cross
of Christ is intended. Simple as this objection may appear, it is not without its influence over many sincere
Christians. The process of reasoning by which it comes
to possess that influence is also simple and summary. It
is something like the following:-All Christians must
bear the cross of Christ. That is a cross to which we
142 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
feel a strong repugnance. And hence, it is loosely inferred, to overcome our repugnance to a particular act, is
to bear the cross of Christ. This is evidently somewhat
the process of thought by which many attain their peculiar views of this subject.  They seem to measure the
cross of Christ, in any particular duty, according to their
re uctance to perform it. This, I am well assured, is the
popular view taken of this subject. And if people would
examine the subject with candour and impartiality, they
would find that what generally passes under the specious
appellation of the cross of -Christ in immersion, is nothing
else than the irrepressible risings of a constitutional repugnance of such treatment of  the body. To persons
living in frigid climates there is a strong resistance to
being plunged into the water. This resistance arises,
not from the force of theological opinions, but from the
natural effects of climate on the. physiological constitution.
On the other hand, in the torrid regionis, to be dipped into
the water is a luxury ardently craved by every impulse of
the languishing system. Yet the cross of Christ no more
strongly marks the immersion of an Icelander than that of
a Cingalese. The Author of our being has implanted in
our natures, for our own welfare, an instinctive propensity
to resist any sudden or unexpected hazard of our safety.
The operations of this instinct are involuntary, and without
the co-operation either of the will or of the rational faculty.
Thus, if a man stumble in his walk, he makes an involuntary effort to recover his upright position. This effort is
made before he has time to reflect upon his danger, and
consequently without any concurrence of his reason or his
will; it is the operation of an instinct of self-preservation.
It cannot be denied, that to plunge a man backward under
the water gives a most unnatural and helpless posture to
the body-a posture that inevitably renders the safety of
tne body a little precarious, and which cannot be maintained for any length of time without actual strangulation.
Indeed. the candidate often comes out of the water, not in
the serene dignity of a newly consecrated disciple, but ire
spasms for breath! Great precaution and self-possession.
are requisite to avoid drawing the water into the nostrils,
and thus obstructing the channels of respiration. This is
a matter of so much importance, in order to preserve the
143 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
order and solemnity of the scene, as often to become the
subject of special instruction from the minister previous to
baptism. But all this, together with a little apprehension
of danger, arising from the constant liabilities of the minister himself to accident or blunder, involves so much
mental calculation and concern on the part of the candidate, as often to produce a powerful diversion of mind
from the solemnity of the ordinance. We know, to be
sure, that immersion might be practised in such a place,
and under such circumstances as to preclude any risk of
personal safety. It is also true that in many cases, as
immersion is now practised, by dint of the rational faculty,
the jealousies of the instinctive principle of self-preservation are quieted. But in many other instances, it is equally
true, it gains the entire ascendency, prompting the candidate to involuntary efforts to regain his feet before he has
been submerged; which requires the minister to make
two successive efforts to effect a complete immersion, and
presents him in the attitude of an adversary to the candidate-the latter struggling for freedom and the former for
control. It is my settled conviction, founded upon somewhat extensive observation, that many, very many, who
deeply imbibe the doctrine of exclusive immersion beforehand, still, at the moment of baptism, experience so much
agitation and alarm as utterly to preclude that sense of
religious obligation and devotional awe that should wholly
pervade and possess the mind. Witness the hurried, convulsive respiration-the stifled sigh-the violent palpitation-the alarm depicted upon the pale visage-the spasmodic grasp of the candidate on the arm of the ministerthese are the common symptoms which give evidence of
a resistance in the human frame and temperament to such
treatment of the body; and proclaim also, that the mind
of the candidate is occupied with anxious thoughts of
safety, and not with the devotional solemnities of religion.
Yet all this agitation of body and mind, which is the result of natural causes, passes for the cross of Christ. I
am fully apprised that these statements will give umbrage
to some; but how unreasonable-how groundless-is that
offence! I do not state these things because they give me
pleasure, nor because I wish to have them so. Herein 1
speak, not as a polemic writer, but as a narrator of facts
144 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
facts over which I am unable to exert the slightest power,
either to reverse or modify. Whatever censure, therefore,
may fall upon the above remarks, let it be understood that
we are exculpated. He who gave man his present constitution-he alone is the opponent of the Baptists in this
case.
Still we are taunted,-(nay, reader, do not deem us unguarded, or uncharitable, in our choice of terms. " We
speak," not without pain, "that we do know,")-yes, I
repeat it, we are taunted with the opprobrium of avoiding
the "cross,"-of inclining to a mere fleshly, selfish ease,to the subversion of a pure administration of Christian
baptism,-and this, because we deny the theory of exclusive immersion.  We have not courted this controversy;
but we shall not shrink from meeting any form of attack
our opponents may please to adopt. We are not swayed
by a vain elation of our orthodoxy, or of our fidelity to the
primitive institutes of Christianity; nor would  we  disparage others by an invidious comparison. The Baptist
Church have signalized themselves in the field of Christian philanthropy, and it is just that their praise should be,
as it is, pronounced in the churches. But is it quite modest for them to compare themselves with other churches?
Nay, is it -just for them to impugn thus the motives of
other  Christians?  Are the Baptists themselves well
aware that they do not rest an undue stress upon this one
rite?  Are they as rigid-as jealous of encroachmentin the practice of all other duties as in this fanciedlypriinitive practice?  On the other hand, have not the Pedobaptist churches advanced to the front ranks in the great
strife, and shown themselves valiant for the truth? Have
they slunk into concealment in the hour of persecution
and the times which have tried men's souls?  Have they
ever betrayed the common cause, or given any just ground
for a latent suspicion (much less a public proclamation)
on the part of the Baptists, that, like the apostate Galatians, they wished to "avoid  the cross of Christ?"
Where, then, is the justice-where the truth of these
insidious whisperings of defection? We repudiate the
ungenerous reflection thus cast forth upon the fair reputationr of the great body of the church; while we assure
the reader, that if, in his estimation, we have descended
7
145 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
to an odious personality in our argumentum ad hominem,
it has not resulted from our choice, but from the delicacy
of our position in this ill-fated controversy.
SEC. II.-MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS AGAINST EXCLUSIVE
IMMERSION.
Several considerations combine to stamp the hypothesis
with a decided cast of certainty, that immersion,-however
appropriate under some circumstances, was, nevertheless,
never designed for universal application. - It is the glory
of the Christian institutions, that, like the moral precepts
of the Bible, they are adapted to the universal condition
and capacities of mankind. Their observance was designed to be commensurate to the spread and authority of
evangelical truth. Hence, they were graduated according to a just and merciful precognition of the diverse and
changing circumstances of human life; and are now
brought to bear upon us with a mildness which marks
the legitimacy of their origin. The great error of the
Baptists, we conceive, to lie in their substituting a specifc
for a generic term. We have already noticed, that the
Greek word baptize is a generic term.  We have deduced
from the original wordand its derivatives, as used in the
Bible, by rules-of interpretation which we are more than
willing should be submitted again to the scrutiny of unsparing (if intelligent and just) criticism, the following
senses, viz.: to besmear, to bedew, to pour, to sprinkle, to
purify, to wash. Now, what is the fair and candid conclusion, but that it was the intention of the Holy Ghost,
in selecting a term of such large application to designate
the ordinance of baptism, to leave the particular mode of
baptism to be determined by circumstances? But, contrariwise, the Baptists have affixed to the Greek verb in
question a specific sense.  They have affirmed, that it signifies to immerse only. - They have left nothing to circumstances; and have thus caused the requisition of Scripture, touching baptism, to lay very unequal claims upon
different members of the human family,-claims which,
as we shall hereafter see, in numerous instances, can
never be met but by an imminent and criminal hazard of
health and of life. Turn we, then, to an investigation of
146 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the condition and ability, not of any particular class of
men, or of any local section of the human race, but of the
universal family of man, in reference to the observance of
such a specific and restrictive command.
1. We call the reader's attention to the objection lying
against the Baptist theory, arising from climate.
When the missionary penetrates northward into those
regions traversed by the sixtieth parallel of latitude, he
finds himself already in a temperature where wells are
frozen at a great depth, and where, for the most part of
the year, water can be obtained only by melting snow or
ice. In the region of the Esquimaux, the lakes and stand  ing waters, unless deep, are generally in winter frozen to
the bottom. They continue frozen from seven to nine
months of the year.  "In Greenland, Lapland, and the
coldest countries of this region, brandy and mercury)
.freeze during the winter."  "During the winter, the in habitants of the coldest parts remain crowded together in
small huts. The whole inside of a hut, or ship, is usually
lined with ice, formed from the vapour of breath, which
must be cut away every morning. The inhabitants of
Siberia stop the openings of their houses with ice, and
use it instead of glass.  If the cold air suddenly enter the
house, the vapours fall in a shower of snow. Every part
of the body must be covered in going out, or it is instantly
frozen. The air when breathed seems to pierce, and
even rend the lungs. The cup often freezes to the lips,
if it be touched in drinking. The provisions must be cut
with hatchets and saws. Trees and the beams of houses
are split by the frost, and rocks are rent with a noise like
that of fire-arms."*
In a country thus bound in "thick-ribbed ice," for most
of the inhospitable year, can it be'supposed that immer sion is practicable? For how, we demand, could they
obtain their supply of water during the severe season?
Could they obtain it by melting snow or ice?   Could
they furnish baths?  Could they endure  the process?
No sensible man would maintain that they could. And
yet in these regions of terrible frost dwell millions of the
human species. How difficult it is to practise immersion
* Woodbridge's Universal Geography, p. 145.  Sevcnth cdit. 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
in our own climate during the severer parts of the year!
But we are not in the habit of having our deep wells
frozen, or the mercury congealed in the bulb of our thermometers. But allowing the abstract possibility (and this
is the utmost that candour can demand, or truth concede)
of practising immersion generally, during the wintry season, in Labrador, Lapland, Siberia, Iceland, Greenland,
and other countries lying within the polar and frozen regions, where the mean annual temperature is often below,
and seldom much above freezing point; still there will be
found none presumptuous enough to pretend that such a
requisition, which for the inhabitants of those countries
would be enormously expensive and burdensome, would
bear any analogy to the mild and merciful character of
gospel institutions. Let not the reader dismiss this argument with a leering suspicion of its candour or its justice.
Can it be doubted that the condition of this portion of our
race, now under consideration, forms a fair and necessary
exception to the universal practicability of immersion?
As Humboldt and others have traced the isothermal lines,
not less than eight millions of human beings inhabit the
polar and frozen regions. To these the gospel must be
promulgated. Churches must arise in the very bosom of
their heartless winters. To these must the gospel ordinances be administered as well as to us. But-to the administration of immersion nature has interposed a barrier
for two-thirds of the year,-a barrier which, to them,
would render immersion more galling than the bloody
rite of circumcision. Does it argue well for either the
wisdom or goodness of the Author of Christianity, that he
has established an ordinance of perpetual obligation,
which, though it may be tolerably adapted to the condition and convenience of some of the human family, must
in the nature of things bear oppressively upon others?
But the above remarks are designed to apply only to
those who inhabit regions of almost perpetual frost;
whereas, with some modification, they may be made to
apply to a much larger portion of the world's population.
About one-eighthI of the entire population of our earth inhabit regions north of our own latitudes, in climates more
ungenial than ours. Their winters extend through six to
ten months of the year, while they experience an average
1-18 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISMi.
temperature  through  the year  (taking  their  climates
collectively) of only about thirty-eight degrees. In
many populous places, as at Stockholm and Petersburg,
the mercury ranges below freezing point during six
months of the year. We, who live in the northern sec  tion of what is called the temperate region, enjoy a mean
annual temperature of about fifty degrees, while our win  ters continue only from three to four and sometimes five
months. But even with us, there may be reckoned six
months of the year wherein immersion cannot be per  formed without great inconvenience, and producing those
unpleasant and even painful sensations of body, which
possess no imaginable power to improve the heart, and
are altogether at variance with the analogy of New Tes  tamenrt institutions. If, indeed, we are to attach a merit
to such physical sensations according to a papist's idea
of penance, or a Brahmin's notion of self-mortification, we
readily acknowledge, that so far from regarding snow,
and ice, and arctic winds, and a temperature of two de  grees of Fahrenheit, as impediments to immersion, we
should exult in them,  as being joyful circumstances,
which would enhance the merit of our obedience, and
ensure its acceptance.  But we have not learned divinity
in such schools; and we repeat it, that the theory of ex  clusive immersion lays very unequal, and, in many in  stances, oppressive claims upon the human family.
# From all that we have adduced, thus far, under this
a head, the reader will clearly perceive our opponents to be
t fairly and irretrievably lodged in one of the following coni clusions, viz.: that, either God has established a Christian
ordinance of universal and perpetual obligation, which,
during most of the time from year to year, by the unaltera  ble course of nature, is rendered, either totally impractica  ble, or, at least, oppressively burdensome, to a large portion
of the human family; or, that exclusive immersion is not
of divine appointment.
We  cannot dismiss this topic without adverting to a
very singular passage which we find in Professor Ripley's
treatise on baptism. That author says, " The difficulties
supposed to be connected with the ancient rite [immersion]
are only imaginary; and are of little power except in the
hands of an adversary, to excite dread and disesteem
149
L 
CHIRISTIAN BAPTISM.
against the ordinance. Among those who always practise
immersion the mention of such difficulties only provokes
a smile, and it serves to show how empty is mere theory
when contrasted with facts."* So exulted the invincible
Alexander when he had pursued his; conquests down the
Indus to the shores of the Indian Ocean, and vainly ima gined he hadreached the boundaries of the universe! But,
like the Grecian monarch, our author is doomed to disap pointment. He has, as yet, conquered but half the world.
His "imaginary difficulties" are still overcome only in
imagination. The universal practicability of immersion
has never yet been proved; and the Baptists, in their
confident exultation and boasting on the subject, are alto?gether premature. Happy for their theory, that they have
always kept themselves within prudent latitudes.  In thisJ
they have done wisely. While other Protestant sects of
Europe have extended their lines far north into Norway,
Lapland, and Greenland, the Baptists have prudently kept
themselves mostly confined within Germany, the southern
part of Poland, and some of the northern states of Austria.
The Baptists have sent out their missionaries to India,
Africa, and among the aborigines of North America; but
we have never seen the experiment of a Baptist church 
rising up in Labrador, Siberia, Greenland, or central Rua
rsia.  Doubtless they would not "smile" at the "difficul ties of immersion," nor deem them altogether "imaginary,"
in these regions.
The Greek Church, which includes, with other coun tries, most of Russia, baptize by trine immersion. Of
course they have to contend with the frosts of a Russian
winter, although in the eastern and northern parts the
people are scarcely reached by any religion whatever.
But in the Greek Church, previous to the administration
of baptism, "the baptismal water is consecrated, and in
winter WARMED, and perfumed with sweet herbs."t Of
course the reader will understand that they generally use
fonts, or baptisteries.  This practice of warming the bap tismal water is the legitimate offspring of necessity; but
it is a practice which cannot be carried into the coldest
regions, for want of fuel, fonts, and suitable houses.
* Examination of Stuart, p. 128.
t Robinson's History of Baptism, p. 455.
]50 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
"In the twelfth century a Swedish Catholic bishop,
named Otho, travelled into Pomerania and taught a great
number of the natives, whom he caused his assistants to
baptize in bathing-tubs let into the ground and surrounded
with curtains; and, as the weather was excessive cold,
he ordered large fires to be made, it should seem, for the
.purpose of dissolving ice to supply the tubs with water.  In
such a rigorous season it was a case of necessity."* The
same author observes, that the missionaries who introduced
Christianity (rather popery) into Iceland, in the tenth century, found some difficulty with the inhabitants in persuading thein to be baptized.  When it was proposed to them
to be baptized, "they refused to comply, except on condition that they should be baptized in hot baths, for they
unanimously declared'they would not be baptized i kalt
vatn, IN COLD WATER. "t  They were consequently baptized in some of the natural hot baths with which the
country abounds by reason of its volcanic heat. This,
our author says, "was mere caprice" in these Icelandic
converts.  But we think they acted wisely.  At least,
the above facts will serve to show how hard it is for the
missionary to grapple with the rigours of northern climates,
in order -to support the theory of exclusive immersion.
These climates engender a settled aversion to being immersed in cold water; and it is only superstition in the
Catholics of that region that prompts the infatuated devotee to overcome this aversion, and exult in those bodily
pains which result from such a practice, and which bear
a stronger resemblance to heathen than to Christian rites.
If we turn from these inclement skies and ice-bound
shores, to contrast the scenes of a tropical climate, we
shall find a very natural and satisfactory solution of the
allegation, which to many has been'perplexing, and to the
Baptists an occasion of triumph, that those people who
enjoyed the first teachings of Christ and his apostles,
generally, in the first century, practised immersion. We
have already suggested, in a former chapter, that climate
is sufficient to account for this circumstance. We introduce the subject here, in juxtaposition with the foregoing
remarks. that the reader may the better judge of the can
* Robinson's History of Baptism, p. 456.
151
t Ibid. 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
dour and correctness of our position. Upon a very super  ficial view, many have supposed that the reason of the
first churches practising immersion was, that they better
understood the import of Christ's command; that is, that
they better understood the meaning of the word baptize,
than we. This is certainly more than any man can prove.
To illustrate our views we subjoin the following extract
fromWoodbridge, which he takes from Humboldt:-"Snow
is here [in the tropical regions] almost unknown. The
streams are never frozen, and vegetables grow through
the winter. The thermometer sometimes rises above one
hundred, and continues at this height during the night.
Travellers have been obliged to wet their clothes, and
even wrap their head and face in wet cloths, at night, to
protect themselves from the scorchiing air."* Within this
climate lies the land of Palestine.  It was such a climate
that originated the demand for baths, and pools, and foun  tains, throughout the East, and made the practice of bath  ing to be common.  And, we repeat it, it was this universal
custom of bathing,-a custom so indispensable to pleasure,
to decency, and to health, among the Orientals,-which,
more than any thing else, gave a bias in their minds to
immersion instead of affusion.  And as, during the first
ages of the church, the Christian religion did not spread
very far northward; and as the foreign churches always
maintained a deference to the practices of the church in
Judea, so, in this also they probably became obsequious,
and thus transmitted a practice, which was only suited to
warm regions, to climates for which it has no adaptation.
But had our Saviour opened his mission in the heart of
Siberia, or in central Russia, it is undeniable that the
people, left to their own option as to the mode of baptisms,
((which we maintain to be the true state in which our
tJLord left the ordinance,) would have chosen affusion.
Christianity, though first planted in Palestine, is a native
of every clime, and adapted to every people under heaven.
While it flourishes in one region, it is not doomed to
protract the sickly existence of an exotic in another. Its
ordinances and its precepts possess a universal adaptation
to man as he is. But this cannot be said of exclusive
immersion. But,
* Universal Geography, p. 137.
152 
CHRISTIAN B3APTISM.
2. Not only does the practice of immersion require a
moderate temperature, but it also makes a demand for a
certain degree of health, which the candidate does not always possess.  Can it be credited, that the compassionate
Author of Christianity has instituted an external ordinance
of religion, of universal obligation, so irrespective of the
frailties of his creatures, as that thousands, by the irreversible necessity of circumstances, are for ever debarred all
p)articipation therein? And this, too, while he has ever
bestowed the most distinguished compassion, in every
other respect, upon this very class (the sick) of our race.
How large a proportion of our race are actually labonring
under chronic diseases which, for months and even years
together, deprive them of the power of being immersed!
Phose who repent and obtain pardon upon their deathbeds not having been previously baptized, though they
may afterward linger for weeks, or even months, with the
most devout solicitude to receive this ordinance, are for
ever denied the privilege of putting on Christ by baptism.
Moreover, a want of Christian baptism, according to the
settled usage of the churches, incapacitates them for receiving the elements of bread and wine in memory of the
Saviour's death; and thus, however Christians may indulge a hope for their salvation after death, they are still cut
off from all hopes of obtaining any visible relation to Christ's
body, and consequently from all church communion with
his saints on earth.  Thus it is clear, according to the
theory of our opponents, that the ability to fulfil the command touching baptism is not commensurate to the ability
of men to repent, which evinces a discrepancy not to be
charged upon true Christianity. And hence, about the
middle of the third century, during a tiresome and virulent
controversy in the church on another question respecting
baptism, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, decided, "and certainly," says Dr. Milner, "with much propriety, that those
whose weak state of health did not permit them to be
washed in water, were yet sufficiently baptized by being
sprinkled:-Cyprian observes that the virtue of baptism
ought not to be estimated in a carnal manner, fly the
quantity of external apparatus."*
* Milner's Chiurch Hlistory, cent. 3, c. 13.
7*
133 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Mr. Robinson, the Baptist historian, notices this fact,
and acknowledges that sprinkling was introduced and
practised, before the Reformation, from necessity, and that
in such cases it was held valid. This, one would suppose, would be sufficient, of itself, to suggest to such a
mind as Mr. Robinson's, that exclusive immersion is too
unadapted to the universal conditions of men, and too severe in its exactions upon the sick and enfeebled, to justify
the high and unqualified pretensions to divine authority
claimed for it by its advocates.*
I now distinctly recollect the case of Mrs..   She
was a member of my charge, and we all thought her to
be a sincere Christian. Two whole years rolled away,
and she lived in the neglect of baptism. She had strongly
imbibed the notion, that, for her, nothing would be baptism but immersion. But she was in ill health, and deferred. I was never able to engage her to receive baptism; nor could I ever seem to impress upon her mind
the incongruity of her faith to a reasonable requirement.
The last that I knew of her she was unchanged in her
belief, with the gloomy prospect of carrying the same
enfeebled body to the grave. To be baptized was her
constant and ardent wish; but she felt that, if she would
be immersed, she must abandon every prudent consideration, and rush into the jaws of death. Do you affect pity
for her imbecility, and say, that, if she had "faith," she
would come out of the water unhurt? I know that faith
is the sine qua non with many, and is supposed to possess
the power of preventing disease. But whether this notion
agree better with Christian or heathen theology, we leave
the reader to judge. Where, we demand, is the Scriptural ground of such faith?  Whence did our opponents
derive their peculiar views on this subject? Does it become them to exhort a frail being to an act which a little
knowledge of physiology would condemn as rash and
hazardous, and then appeal to Scripture to sanction their
temerity? I know not how others may view this subject,
but it strongly forces itself upon my mind, that this liberty
which is taken with the evangelical doctrine of trust in
God, bears a kindred likeness to that recorded Matt. iv,
* Vide Robinson's IHistory of Baptism, p. 116.
154 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
6.  It is saying to a frail, dependant mortal, "Cast thyself down, for he shall give his angels charge concerning
thee, and in their hands they shall hold thee up." So
reasoned the young, and sprightly, but sincere
When all the shivering group stood upon the frost-bound
shore, muffled in their double enveloppe, her slender form,
exposed to the keen arctic winds, was let down through
the ice into the cold liquid element below. - She afterward stood upon the shore, clad in her icy garments, until
several more were immersed; and then, with a body benumbed with cold, and quaking under the effects of such
unnatural treatment, she was conveyed to her chamber,
whence, after a few weeks of rapid decline, she was removed in a hearse to the lonely domicil of the dead. Thus
died the youthful —-       -; however sincere, yet the
victim of her own imprudent zeal. Her friends regarded
her death as the consequence of her exposure at baptism.
Do you say she died a martyr? Do you deem her death
enviable? Nay, my friend; think not that God has ever
established an ordinance in his church, which, in so
many instances, is at war with the very health and existence of his creatures.  Think not that God has ordained
that rigid system which denounces all modes but immersion as antichristian-papistical innovations upon the
rite of baptism,-that requires of the candidate  at all
times, and under all circumstances,-whether he dwell
under the wintry skies of Lapland, or inhabit the sunny
shores of India; whether he exult in the vigour and the
bloom of health, or gasp his stinted breath in the infected
atmosphere of a sick chamber,-to come under the same
yoke-a yoke which, many very' many, are not able to
bear. Still, the prejudices of the reader against us are preengaged bybeing told that the difficulties of immersion "are
of little power, except in the hands of an adversary, to excite dread and disesteem against the ordinance." Professor
Ripley further says,-" Shall I be told that men have actually, by their practice of immersion, contracted disorders, and met with accidents, which have terminated in
death'? May I not also ask, Did never a minister die in
the pulpit? Did never a man come to his dissolution
while on an errand of mercy?"'  But the learned profes
*Examination of Stuart, p. 128.
155 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
sor should know that this is not an adequate apology
for the unwholesome and deleterious bearing of immersion. In the one case, a servant of God comes to his
end by unjust and violent proceedings; a Stephen is
stoned, or a Paul beheaded; and this takes place in a
course of providential government: but, on the other
hand, Jehovah is supposed to have ordained a ceremony of religion, of perpetual and universal obligation,
which, in numerous instances, is condemned as rash and
hazardous, on physiological principles. And, filrthermore,
the question is not whether, on the supposition that immersion is the only true mode of baptism, its obligation
would remain unchanged in the case of sick persons.
The professor, in arguing to this question, has missed
the mark.  There is no room for controversy on such a
question, among men who have their senses. But the
question is this: whether Jehovah has established an
ordinance of universal and perpetual obligation, which his
own infinite knowledge must have foreseen, (and which
facts now abundantly demonstrate,) to be unadapted to
the condition, and at war with the health and happiness,
of a large portion of the humnan family?
CHAPTER IX.
OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM.
"THE  obligation of baptism," says Richard Watson.
rests upon the example of our Lord, who, by his disciples, baptized many that by his discourses and miracles
were brought to profess faith in him as the Messias; —
upon his solemn command to his apostles after his resurrection,' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name  of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost;'-and upon the practice of the apostles themselves, who thus showed that they did not understand
baptism, like our Quakers, in a mystical sense."*
That the example of our Lord, as above quoted, fur
* Institutes, part iv, chap. iii.
156 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
nishes any valid ground of obligation to receive Christian
baptism, we are not prepared to concede. We would\
/rather regard it as a supplement to John's dispensation, l
and as preparatory to te s i/               ff i       /
Vtime, was stltl Iue.
Christianbaptis'm was not instituted till after the resur  recton o~h,rist, and the obligation of the ordinance pro —
-per"  rests Bpon  the Saviour's original command.   We.
have no account of the ordinance being administered to i$
any person prior to the day of Pentecost, after which the
history of water baptism makes a prominent feature of the 
early history of the church.
Plain, however, as is the evidence that water baptism
was instituted by Christ, and practised by his apostles,
the practice has been boldly assailed, and repudiated with
abhorrence, as the relic of a spurious religion, by a large
body of men, calling themselves Christians, and professing
veneration for the sacred oracles. It is well known that
the Society of Friends not only deny the obligation and
validity of water baptism, but hold it (together with the
Lord's supper) in deep religious abhorrence, as a carnal
rite, adverse to the spirituality of the Christian religion.
The views of this society are so well known, that little is
incumbent on us at present to perform by way of exhibit  ing them; and they have been so often and so ably refuted,
that, were it not that some notice of the subject became a
necessary part of a treatise on baptism, we might be ex  cused from the task altogether. The views of the Society
of Friends could not, perhaps, so far as opposition to bap  tism is concerned, be more readily expressed than by an
extract from a joint letter from Messrs. J. Forster, S. Gur  ney, and G. Stacey, of London, to Elisha Bates; and also
an extract from the minutes of the morning meeting of the
ministers and elders of the Society of Friends, "held
10th of tenth month, 1836." Mr. Bates was an accredited
minister of the society, belonging to the Ohio yearly
meeting.  He went to England in the spring of 1836 on
business, and, during a short residence in the vicinity of
London, obtained several interviews with the celebrated
Dr. J. Pye Smith, by whom he was at length baptized.
In relation to this event Mr. B. was addressed by the
above named Friends in a joint epistle.  Part of their
157 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
letter runs thus:-" We heard with much concern, after
thou left London, that thou hadst thought it right to undergo the rite of water baptism, and cannot but deeply
lament so painful a symptom of alienation from those
spiritual views of the gospel dispensation which our
society has ever thought it right to uphold.....  Much do
we desire that the importance of the spiritual character
of the gospel of our holy Redeemer, as set forth in the
Scriptures of truth, may be upheld among us, intimately
connected as we consider it to be with the disuse of
water baptism, which is, in our apprehension, a practice
to which the language of our yearly meeting's epistle of
1835 applies-' that no shadows, in the worship of God,
were instituted by our Lord, or have any place in the
Christian dispensation."'
The extract from the minutes of the morning meeting,
above alluded to, runs thus:   "This meeting thinks it right, in much Christian love
for Elisha Bates, to record its deep concern on the occasion, [of his baptism,] and its continued sense that the
practice thus adverted to (against which our society has
uniformly believed itself called upon to bear a public testimony, as no part of the Christian dispensation) was not
instituted by our Lord and-Saviour, whom we have always
acknowledged  as the only and supreme  head of his
church."
When we read such statements, made, not only by
professing Christians, but by those who profess a purer
Christianity than is cherished by other sects, we are utterly at a loss to appreciate those principles of evidence
by which their faith has been formed, or those rules of
exegesis which they would apply to the sacred text.
"The  spiritual character of the  gospel intimately con
nected with the disuse of water baptism!"-" No part of
the Christian dispensation!"-And this society feels itself
"called upon to bear a public testimony against it!"
We are aware that this is a trite subject; but while
hundreds, and thousands, are affected by the above error,
we cannot pass it by without directing the eye of the
reader to the antidote.
It might suffice, it would seem, to modify the confident
tone of Quakerism on this point, to state that the Bible
158 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
has nowhere, either expressly or constructively, prohibited water baptism. We know, indeed, that they have
attempted to make out the argument from constructive
evidence; but their peculiar rules of interpretation are
wholly inadmissible. We call for proof of the prohibitive
law.
Certain it is, if the language of the New Testament
means anything, that Jesus commissioned and commanded his disciples to baptize. But it is said this was a
spiritual, not a water baptism.* And here we join issue
with that mystic divinity whose leading result has ever
been to dissipate and nullify the palpable and effectual
truth of God.  We hold that the command of the Saviour,
Matt. xxviii, 19, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost," is a command to baptize with water.
Quakerism teaches us that it is a commission and a
command to baptize with the Holy Spirit. In meeting
this absurdity, we remark:
1. The apostles were never commissioned to baptize
with the Holy Ghost.
John said, speaking to the Jews of Christ, "HE shall
baptize-you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."  He
further says, "He that sent me to baptize with water, the
same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit
descending and remaining on him, THE SAME IS HE WHICH
BAPTIZETH WITH THE HOLY GHOST," John i, 33.  God
says: "In the last days" (i.e., gospel days) "I will pour
out my Spirit upon all flesh," &c. Acts ii, 17.
Indeed, we recollect of but one individual in apostolic
times that imbibed the dangerous error that any being but
God could baptize with the Holy Spirit. This person
was Simon Magus. Acts viii, 18. What is a spiritual
baptism? Is it not the emotions, or agency of the invisible
God upon the human soul? How, then, can such a prerogative be delegated to mortal man? The absurdity of
this theory is its own ample refutation. Were the apostles
ever sent to forgive sins? to regenerate the heart of man?
to bestow the emotions of God upon the soul? We know
that in these extraordinary senses the pope of Rome
* Vide Barclay's Apology, pp. 432, 433, &c.
159 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISMl.
claims extensive power, as God's vicegerent upon earth.
But who would have suspected an unpretending Quaker
of holding such an absurdity?
John Baptist was very particular and exact in his
teachings, to convey the impression distinctly and clearly
that he did not baptize with the Holy Spirit: "I, truly,
baptize with water." At the same time he was equally
explicit in teaching that Christ alone would baptize with
the Holy Spirit.  Peter says, that Christ, "being by the
right hand of God exalted, and having received of the
Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, HE hath shed forth
this."  Christ had promised "to send the Comforter."
The apostle informs us, that while they (the apostles)
preached, God co-witnessed to (,vve,rtuaprvpovvror) the truth
"with gifts of the Holy Ghost Kava rU7v avro Oe~1o'tv according to HIS pleasure;" or, (says Professor Stuart,) as it
seemed good in his sight.
Now, here it is expressly taught, first, that God only
bestowed the Holy Spirit which accompanied the apos —
tles' preaching; secondly, that the Holy Spirit was given
according to the divine will, or discretion, and not according to any apostolic discretion. In the effusion and gifts
of the Holy Spirit, God attested the truth and authority of
apostolic preaching. But this seal, affixed to their apostleship, was the privy seal of the kingdom of heaven, committed to no created being.  Christ alone possesses the
keys —" he alone shuts and no mail opens-he alone has
the residue of the Spirit." It is hence Paul says, "for
unto the angels hath he not (much less to men) put in
subjection the world to come, whereof we speak." The
phrase, r?/v OtKOvUeVv rv peX;Lovaav, translated the world to
come, is equivalent to rw a~twvt ype22ort, the age, or world to
come, (Matt. xii, 32,) and signifies, in Jewish phraseology,
the gospel dispensation, or, the world as under the gospel
kingdom.  This, God has never committed to men, or
angels, but to Christ only. (See context of Heb. ii, 4.)
But if Christ had intrusted the apostles with the power
of baptizing with the Holy Spirit, they must have received,
in this important commission, the very keys of the spiritual
kingdom. But this error does not deserve to be further
pursued under this head.
2. The commission of the apostles to baptize would
160 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
naturally have been understood by them of water baptism,
unless special instruction had been given them to the
contrary.
This is so plain, that I know not how it should have
failed to prove a greater obstruction than it seems to have
done to the faith of the disciples of George Fox.
The original command, or commission, specified "teaching" and "baptizing."  This was the mode of operation to
be observed by the apostles in evangelizing the world.
Now, this had been the manner in which the Jews had
long been accustomed to make proselytes. The disciples,
were Jews, and as such, must have well uhderstood this
method of making Jewish proselytes; viz., by teaching,
circumcision, and baptism. They also had been inducted
into John's dispensation in the same way, circumcision
only excepted. Teaching and water baptism were the
accredited and common means of making converts hitherto, and thus the apostles, as Jews or as Christians, must
have understood the words of their own commission.
Christ himself had already practically taught them how
to take these words, for, under his direction, they had
already made converts by water baptism. See John iv,
1, 2.  But,
3. The apostles did understand their commission as
referring to water baptism, as is most clearly shown by
their subsequent practice.
The first exercise of the apostolic functions put forth
after the ascension, was in teaching and baptizing. Thus
Peter, on the day of Pentecost, said to the inquiring multitude, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here observe
the order of duty-repentance, water baptism, and then
they were promised the gift of spiritual baptism.
So, also, the baptism of the eunuch by Philip was a
water baptism: " See, here is water; what doth hinder
me to be baptized?... And they both went down into (or
to) the water; and Philip baptized him," Acts viii, 36, 38.
In the case of Cornelius and his household, Peter says,
after the Holy Spirit had descended upon them," Can any
man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts x, 47.
161 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Here,-as in other places, the baptism of water, and that
of the Spirit, are plainly distinguished; and it should be
remembered that water baptism was administered, either
in direct anticipation of receiving the Holy Spirit, or in
view of his influences already bestowed. It should be
further remembered, that many of the instances of water
baptism recorded in the New Testament,occurred under
the direct and special suggestions of the Holy Spirit.
Peter was sent on a special embassy to teach and baptize
the house of Cornelius; and so of Philip and the eunuch.
The reader may also consult Acts xix, 1-6, and other
passages.
Now, water.baptism we  find to be most plainly an
apostolic practice.   We  also find persons, professing
Christianity, holding the practice in great repugnance, as
a carnal rite, and "as no part of the gospel" of Jesus, and
also holding that "the spiritual character of the gospel is
intimately connected with its disuse." Here, then, we
are brought to a direct issue, and one of the following
conclusions is irresistibly forced upon us; viz., that either
the apostles erred, and acted, not only without divine authority, but against that authority in a matter so vital as
that which involved the spirituality and uncorruptness of
the religion of Jesus; or, water baptism is a divinely instituted rite of the Christian religion. But if it be a divine
institution, the duty of submission thereto needs no further
argument.  The proof is complete.  "What man is he
that feareth the Lord? Him shall he teach in the way
that he shall choose."
162 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM,V
CHAPTER X.
IMPORT OF BAPTISM.
WE do not inquire in this place, what is the philological sense of pairrt' baptizo? but, what is the theological
import of the rite of Christian baptism.? Much that categorically belongs to this chapter has been brought forward
in the course of the general argument on the mode of
baptism. This became necessary to the complete development of that subject, and we shall not repeat the same
in this place.
Valid baptism assuredly comprehends a wider meaning
than simple washing, or plunging in water. All washings
do not equally constitute a baptism in the Christian sense.
Some signification, sui generis, there doubtless is, which
distinguishes baptism from all other washings. We have
maintained the ground that baptizo means purify. This
we believe to be its sense when used to express a religious rite in the New  Testament.   But the rite has a
further meaning; it has an ad-signification, which a philologoical investigation of the word would not fully discover; and it also implies certain other circumstances,
necessary to a valid administration.  In setting forth our
views under this head, we remark, —
1. In a general sense, Christian baptism confers the
mark of religious distinction. Those who are baptized are
thereby separated and distinguished from the common mass
of irreligious men. A mark of discrimination is hereby
applied to the Christian, and he is known as being devoted
to Christ, just as a Jew, by circumcision,was distinguished
from a Gentile, and known to be devoted to the law of
Moses. It is the external and visible badge of Christianity. Some writers have indulged in a degree of fancy
on this subject. Mr. Robinson says: "Baptize is a dyer's
word, and signifies to dip so as to colour.... the word,
then, conveys two ideas, the one literal, dipping, the
other figurative, colouring; a figure, however, expressive
of a real fact; meaning, that John, by bathing persons in
163 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the river Jordan, conferred a character, a moral hue, as
dyers, by dipping into a dying vat, set atinctor colour."*
The author's theory would be well enough, if it were
founded in evidence. - ie has deduced a secondary sense
of garrro bapto, and applied it to Pafrrt~ baaptizo. The latter does not mean, to dye, or colour, anywhere; and how
the author fell into the mistake is not easy to say. We
do not, moreover, believe that baptism confers a moral
tinct. This would be too much like regarding it as a
regenerating rite. But it does confer an outward and
visible relationship to Christ; and it constitutes the most
considerable line of distinction, externally, between those
who are the disciples of Christ, and those who are not.'
2. Baptism is a sacrament. The word sacrament is not
found in the New Testament, but comes from the Latin
sacramentum, and has been borrowed from the writers of
the Latin Church, and applied to baptism, and also to the
institution of the holy supper. It is not for the word that
we contend, but for the sense, the meaning, the idea. Sacramentum, among the ancient Romans, signified a gage,
or pledge in money, deposited in court by the adverse
parties that went to law, which, "being forfeited by the
party that was cast, was devoted to sacred uses, and hence
was called sacramentum."t
The word signified, also, an oath, because of its sacredness, but was especially applied to the military oath
which the Roman law required of every soldier when he
entered into military service, and which bound him to be
true to his country and his general. Hence, the word was
used by the Latin fathers to denote those ordinances of
religion by which men came under an obligation of fidelity to the gospel. These, on account of their sacredness,
and of their being a token of voluntary submission, were
deemed binding as an oath. This sense was evidently in
the minds of those who first adopted the term into the vocabulary of Christian theology, "as there are occasional
allusions in the writings of the ancients to the military
oath, when speaking of the sacraments.t
By a very natural transition of thought, sanctioned by
the universal consent and use of language, that which origi  * History of Baptism, pp. 17, 18. t Dick's Theol., vol. ii, p. 353.
. Ibid.; p. 354.
164 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
ially signified an oath, on account of its peculiar sacredness, at length became applicable to that which partook
of the nature of, and was deemed equally sacred to, an
oath.
Baptism, then, as a sacrament, confers upon its subjects
the obligation of fidelity to God, arising in the scale of
religious sanctity to the awful considerations of a formal
oath. If common oaths among the Romans were sacred,
their military oath was peculiarly so. The public service
was important, and could not be intrusted to individuals,
except under the most jealous and restrictive policy.
Hence, not all citizens were admitted to the honour and
rank of soldiers. Persons possessing no property were
not supposed to be animated with sufficient patriotism,
and were not included in the general rule of requisition as to military service. And none were admitted
without the sacramentum, or military oath; as if the public safety required the most ample indemnity against the
abuse of that power which was lodged in the military
department.   Delinquency, mutiny, desertion, were prohibited by the sanction of oaths, and the menace and
terror of punishment.  
With these views we may illustrate our baptismal obligations of fidelity to the cause of truth. This world is the
theatre of one mighty struggle, not between belligerent
states or empires, for political sovereignty, but, between
truth and error, holiness and sin. Jesus Christ has appeared as the great captain of our salvation, leading forth
the votaries of truth. The alien armies have leagued for
the suppression and subversion of Bible truth and purity
The parties have already taken the field; the battle-ground
is squared, and the armies are now engaged. The rebel
arms have triumphed over many lands that now dwell in
the region and in the shadow of death.  The enemy lies intrenched in surrounding error, superstition, and crime.
Dark and strong are his holds; deep and almost impenetrable are his fastnesses. His spies and emissaries are
abroad; they have gone  up into the high places of the
earth; they have entered into the very courts of God.
Literature, laws, and religion, are menaced. Meantime,
"wisdom hath uttered her voice in the streets; she hath
cried in the chief place of concourse. unto you, 0 men,
165
L 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
doth she call."  She counsels, she warns, she expostulates with all, to turn to the defence of truth and righteousness; to "pult on the whole armour of God."  God
has determined to leave the cause of truth in the earth,
intrusted to human fidelity. Instrumentally, we are to
achieve its final triumphs.  Baptism is our sacramentum,
or oath of fidelity; we take it, and arrange ourselves on
the side of Christ. Every thing lodges here, subordinately, with human means, and human responsibility.
Fidelity shall be crowned with life,-eternal life; "but if
any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in himn."
We might seem to be wanting here, should we omit to
notice the manner of explaining the sacraments adopted
by divines in general, and sanctioned by the common
usage of church formularies. It has been disputed what
was the real occasion of the adoption of the term sacrament into Christian theology, and its application to the
rites of baptism and the Lord's supper.* The correctness
of the view we have taken above is not denied, but it has
been supposed that the word sacrament was adopted
mainly for another reason.  Dr. Dick says,   I have long
been disposed to doubt whether this is the true account of
the ecclesiastical application of the term. In the writings
of the early Christians it received a new meaning, of
which I believe there — is no example in the classics.  It
signifies a mystery, as every person knows who is conversant with the ancient records of the church, and as
any [person] may learn by looking into the Vulgate translation. To give a few examples:' Great is the mystery
of godliness' is there rendered,' Great is the sacrament of
godliness,''magnum est pietatis sacramentum.'  For the
words of Paul subjoined to the institution of marriage,
'This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ
and the church,' we have,' This is a great sacrament,' &c.,
'sacramentum hoc magnum est;' and in the Revelation,
'The mystery of the seven stars, which thou sawest in thy
right hand,' is,' The sacrament of the seven stars,' &c.,
'sacramentum septem stellarum.'  This is the translation of
* The Church of Rome hold to seven sacraments. In addition to
baptism and the eucharist, confirmation, penance or penitence, orders,
marriage, and extreme unction. We shall not, however, here consider
their claims to this character.
166 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the word pvcT'ptov musterion, [mystery,] which was used
by the Greeks to denote, not only the profound and incomprehensible doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation,
but also baptism and the Lord's supper, and especially the
latter, which was called 4ytoV UvUreplov, [the holy or sacred
mystery,] partly, no doubt, because under external symbols
spiritual blessings were veiled, but partly also on account
of the secret manner in which it was celebrated. As the
heathens had their mysteries, to which none but the initiated were admitted, so the church came at an early period
to allow none to be present, when the Lord's supper was
administered, but the baptized; and heathens, Jews, excommunicated persons, and catechumens, were excluded.
Now, I think it probable that the word mystery having
been used by the Greeks to express baptism and the
Lord's supper, and the word sacrament having been used
by the Latins as synonymous with mystery, it is in this
way that we are to account for its application to those
symbolical institutions.  The sacraments are the mysteries of our religion. I do not deny, at the same time, that
the other sense of the word may have had some influence,
as there are occasional allusions, in the writings of the
ancients, to the military oath, in speaking of the sacraments."* -
This view is evidently sustained by the authorized instruction of orthodox churches. In the Confession of
Faith of the Presbyterian Church, chap. xxvii, it is said,
"Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of
grace, immediately instituted by God to represent Christ
and his benefits."  "There is, in every sacrament, a special relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and
the thing signified."  In the larger catechism it is asked,
"What are:the parts of a sacrament-? Ans. The parts of
a sacrament are two: the one an outward and sensible
sign, used according to Christ's own appointment; the
other an inward and spiritual grace, thereby signified."
Here, it is evident, the ground is taken that the adoption
of the word sacrament is mainly in view of the sacred, or
mysterious, spirtual relation that subsists between the outward ceremony or rite, and the inward grace. Thus, also,
* Lectures on Theology, vol. ii, pp. 353, 354.
167 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the Church of England defines sacraments to be "not only
badges and tokens of Christian men's profession; but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of
grace, and God's good will toward us, by the which he doth
work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also
strengthen and confirm our faith in him."*  The same
doctrine and phraseology are adopted by the Methodist
Episcopal Church, in her sixteenth article of religion.
What weight is to be attached to the hypothesis that
sacrament in Latin and mystery in Greek, as applied to
the Christian ordinances, are borrowed from the usage of
the heathens in regard to their mysteries, denoting the
exclusion from these institutes of all but the initiated, we
shall not undertake to decide. The above facts will aid
the reader in forming an opinion of the import of baptism,
so far as the nature of a sacrament is concerned: it denotes our obligation of fidelity to Christ, and it mystically
adumbrates spiritual blessings.
3. But in contemplating baptism as the sign of spiritual
blessings, we are conducted to a distinct view of the subject. Without repeating what has been said in another
part of this work, on the import of baptism as a ceremonial
washing, we may remark that it stands, generically, for
the whole work of grace wrought in the soul; but by a
common figure of speech, whereby a part is put for the
whole,-a figure often used in Scripture,-it is sometimes
spoken of as representing a particular portion only of this
work.  We  are not to suppose, however, that baptism
stands, distinctively, for the blessings of pardon, regeneration, the resurrection, &c., as some have fancifully maintained; but for the entire work of salvation as a whole.
To this work there are, indeed, different stages, and a
diversity of spiritual influences is manifest throughout,
but it is the grand total of these operations,-the new
creation,-that is set forth by baptism. This is the view
set forth in John iii, 5; Titus iii, 4-6; 1 Pet. iii, 21; and in
other places.   For further remarks on this point the
reader is referred to chap. vii of this work, on figurative
language of Scripture, sec. 1.
4. Baptism is the seal of the new covenant. It is God's
* Twenty-fifth article of faith.
168 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISIfM.
mark or signature, affixed to the all-important document,
containing rules for human conduct, promises of eternal
life to the faithful, and declarations concerning the future
destiny of men.
In regard to the use of seals in general, it may be proper to premise, that it is a custom of immemorial usage,
resorted to as a convenient mode of attesting the genuineness or authenticity of the instrument sealed. Anciently, when the art of writing was little known, and in
all cases attended with great expense and trouble, the
practice of sealing contracts was extensively adopted.
Every man had his seal, which he affixed to an instrument instead of signing his own proper name.  As the
seal stood for the signature of the person who possessed
it, whatever contract or document bore the seal of an individual, it thereby bound that individual to all the conditions, duties, &c., therein contained. The practice originated in necessity, at a time when few could write;
but having once obtained, as a general custom, it continued long after the necessity which gave it birth had
ceased to exist. The Bible contains various interesting
allusions to this custom of sealing, which the proper line
of our argument does not permit us here to notice.
God has always affixed his seal, or mark, or sign, or
signature,-whatever we may please to call it,-to his dispensations; and, in doing this, he has accommodated the
simplicity of the sign to the state and circumstances of
man. Of this nature, it is reasonable to suppose, was the
tree of life in the garden of Eden. It seems most probable, that Adam partook of its fruit sacramentally; that is,
it was to him a token or pledge of the life which was
promised him in case of obedience, while his act of partaking was a voluntary recognition of his obligation to
obey, and a renewal of his fidelity.
When Jehovah covenanted with Noah, after the diluvial
catastrophe, promising "not to smite any more every living
thing," he "set his bow in the cloud;" and "God said,
This is the TOKEN of the covenant which I make between
me and you and every living creature... And it shall come
to pass, that when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the
bow shall be seen in the cloud: AND I WILL REMEMBER
MY COVENANT which is between me and you and every
8
169 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
living creature of all flesh; and the bow shall be in the
cloud; AND I WILL LOOK UPON IT, THAT I MAY REMEMBER
THE EVERLASTING COVENANT between God and every living creature..... And God said unto Noah,- This is the
TOKEN of the covenant which I have established between
me and all flesh that is upon the earth," Gen. ix, 11-17.
It is here observable, that the token, or sign, (cn/eyov,)
exhibited thus, was to be as a remembrancer of the obligation, and a perpetual pledge of the fidelity of Jehovah in
the performance of the promises of the covenant.
This simple form of binding parties in a transaction was
suited to the genius of those times, and may be familiarly
illustrated by the affair of Laban and Jacob, recorded
Gen. xxxi, 44-49. They formed a mutual covenant, and
Jacob and his brethren gathered stones, of which they
made a heap. This heap they called "the heap of witness."  Its use and meaning was to remind either party
of the covenant there formed, and equally bind both to
the observance-of the stipulations. In the case of default
of either party, this heap of stones would witness against
the delinquent; that is, it would attest the validity and
genuineness of the contract.
I need not inform the intelligent reader, that these
transactions belong to a rude and simple state of society,
in which written contracts are little if at all known. In
civilized society, altogether a different method obtains.
A written instrument is drawn up, bearing the proper signatures of the contracting parties, and they are thus holden
to the agreement.
Circumcision was the seal of the Abrahamic covenant,
under the Mosaic law. At the time of its institution Abraham was informed, that it should "be a TOKEN of the covenant" between God and him. Gen. xvii, 11.  Thus also
Paul: "And he [Abraham] received the SIGN of circumcision, a SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which he
had," &c., Rom. iv, 11. Circumcision, therefore, among
the lineal descendants of Abraham, was the visible mark
which Jehovah annexed to this covenant,-it became the
impress of Jehovah's seal, whereby he attested the validity
and binding nature of the covenant, and offered assurance
to the Jews of his own faithfulness; just as a man would
bind himself in a contract, by affixing his seal, signature
170 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISMI.
or mark to the instrument. I need hardly say, that, in receiving circumcision, the Jews voluntarily became a party
in the covenant, and assumed the obligations that it devolved upon them.
Of this nature is baptism, under the New Testament
dispensation. It is a seal of the covenant which God has
graciously entered into with man. It should here be remembered, that the gospel is nothing more than the complete  development of the Abrahamic covenant.   This
covenant stretches through all time, and comprehends all
nations within its liberal provisions. It was a covenant
of grace and mercy, of pardon and eternal life, conditionally, to universal man; not merely of secular good to a
partial few.  Hence, says Paul, "If ye be Christ's, THEN
are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE." He declares the gospel was preached to Abraham when the promise was made:  "In thee shall all
nations be blessed."  "For the promise, that he should
be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or his seed
through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."
See Gal. iii, 7, 9, 16, 29; Rom. iv, 13, &c.; comp. Gen.
xii, 2, 3, and xxii, 18.  The blessings of this covenant
were partially revealed and bestowed under the law of
Moses. At that time it bore the seal or mark of circumcision. But in these gospel days God has appointed baptism as the sign or seal.  "For as many of you as have
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.  There is
[therefore, now,] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye
are all one in Christ Jesus." Other remarks might here
be offered; but as, in our estimation, the proper idea of
baptism, as a seal, is now before the reader, the just limits
of our subject do not allow us to go into collateral views
for general improvement.  Baptism authenticates the divine word and promise to the proper subject, while the
latter, by submitting thereto, becomes a willing party
to the covenant, and underwrites his name to the doctrines and duties of the cross.
5. Baptism is a badge, or profession, of Christian discipleship. It confers an obligation, or rather is a recognition and avowal of an obligation, to be like Christ. In
Rom. vi, 3, 4, it imports our obligation of death unto sin
1.71 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISTM.
and life with respect to holiness. This has been elsewhere noticed. (Vide chap. vii.) Paul says to the Galatians, (chap. iii, 27,) " For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ."  The verb  vedvaaaOe, translated ye have put on, is a reflexive form of the
verb sevJ6vvw, to clothe, to invest, to array. As if the apostle
had said, "For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." To put on a
person, or to be clothed with a person, was a figurative
mode of expression among the Greeks, signifying the
most exact imitation of that person.  To "put on Christ"
is a phrase of frequent occurrence in the New Testament,
and means, says Professor Robinson, "to be filled, imbued with Christ's spirit, to be like him."*  When we
clothe ourselves with or put on Christ, we assume his
character and act as he acted.  "The mode of speech is
taken from the custom of stage-players; they assumed
the name and garments of the person whose character they
were to act, and, endeavoured as closely as possible to
imitate him in their spirit, words, and actions."t
By baptism, then, we publicly invest ourselves with
Christianity. We assume the name, and habits, andprofession of Christ. We publicly engage to act as he acted,to carry out his spirit and doctrines in our lives,-to zmitate his example,-in a word, to be Christians.  It is only
in cases where baptism is wrongly applied, where the
candidate is insincere and hypocritical, or unfaithful to his
baptismal engagements, that the ordinance loses its original power and signification, and becomes an empty and
an idle ceremony.
* Greek and English Lex.     t Dr. A. Clarke on Rom. xiii, 14.
1 62 
CHRISTIAN BAPtI'IStI.
CHAPTER XI.
RELATIVE ORDER OF BAPTISM.
THE question on the mode of baptism borrows all its
importance from the question, "Is Christian baptism itself
essentially prerequisite to a Scriptural participation of the
Lord's supper?" This latter topic has been treated adjunctively with the question of the mode, and lends to it
an unspeakable interest. Divines have not entered the
polemic arena to show their skill and tact at debate. The
long and painful controversy on the subject of the mode
of Christian baptism has not been merely a display of intellectual parts. The Corinthians are justly censurable for
wasting time and intellectual power, and brotherly charity,
in a controversy concerning i"meats and drinks, and new
moons, and holy days;" the schoolmen have exhibited
themselves to the ridicule of all succeeding generations,
for their fruitless and eternal disputations on such points
as, whether there is any possible distinction between essence and existence-whether all angel, or pure spirit, can
pass from one absolute point to another without passing
over the intermediate space; and nearly allied to such
topics must be the question of the mode of baptism, if it
have no further importance than the mere convenience or
fitness of an outward ceremony.   But the case is far
otherwise. The bearing which the mode of baptism is
alleged to have on the validity of the ordinance; and the
connection which it bears to the lawful approach to the
Lord's table, and to the rights and immunities of church
fellowship; these invest it with a character of paramount
importance. The question no longer respects merely a
ceremony of religion, but has assumed the bold and alarmimg aspect of CHURCHa OR NO CHURCH!  Every ordinance,
every institution, every rite and privilege of visible Christianiity, is drawn along and merged into the bosom of this
doubtful controversy. Within its ample folds are embraced
the questions of true Protestantism and pure Christianity;
while its capacious vortex has set in motion the very pillars of the visible church, threatening to whelm it in its
173 
CillRISTIAN  BAPTIS.M.
troubled waters. The issues of this controversy are to
decide whether the Pedobaptist churches are the true
churches of Christ; whether their ministers hold th~
commission to administer the ordinances by a lawful te nure; whether their members have any right to approach
to the table of the Lord, and whether the privileges of the
%church may be conceded to them without desecration.
Verily, the question of the mode of baptism is a fa reaching subject.   Without controversy it is a grave
theme.
Before entering upon the argument before us, it is but
just to remark that in one principle the Baptist and Pe dobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting
from communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying
the rights of church fellowship to, all who have not been
baptized. Valid baptism they consider as essential to
constitute visible church membership.  This also we hold.
The only question, then, that here divides us, is, "What
is essential to valid baptism?" The Baptists, in passing
the sweeping sentence of disfranchisement upon all other
Christian churches, have only acted upon a principle held
in common with all other Christian churches; viz., that
baptism is essential to church membership. They have
denied our baptism, and, as unbaptized persons, we have
,been excluded from their table.  That they err greatly i
Ctheir views of Christian baptism, we, of course, believe
But, according to their views of baptism, they certainly
are consistent in restricting thus their communion.  We
would not be understood as passing a judgment of approval
upon their course; but we say, their views of baptism
force them upon the ground of strict communion, and
herein they act upon the same principles as other churches, i.e., they admit only those whom they deemi baptized
persons to the communion table.  Of course, they must be
their own judges as to what baptism is. It is evident
that, according to our views of baptism, we can admit
them to our communion; but with their views of baptism,
it is equally evident, they can never reciprocate the courtesy. And the charge of close communion is no more applicable to the Baptists than to us, inasmuch as the question
of church fellowship with them is determined by as liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant churches,
.i
174 
CIIRIS'IAN   BAPiTIS.1.
so far, I mean, as the present subject is concerned; i. e.,
it is determined by valid baptism.
Now, this being the case, does it not become a measure
of responsible moment to decide upon the question of the
mode of baptism? Indeed, so awful are the aspects of this
subject, that thousands have feared to assume a decided
position in reference to it. They have held to exclusive
immersion, and at the same time have held to catholic
communion, or communion with persons who have not
been immersed,-an anomaly and absurdity that presents
a singular contrast to the characteristic symmetry of Christian theology. Robert Hall thinks it may be doubted that
the belief of close communion is the sentiment of the
majority of the Baptist denomination.*
This clearly shows,-after all their plausible reasonings
in support of exclusive immersion, how intimidated men
are at the terrible sequences of that theory.  And well
may they be.  But it is far less responsible, in our estimation, to hold that baptism may be administered by
sprinkling or pouring, than to hold fellowship, at the
Lord's table, with persons we do not believe haye received Christian baptism.
We  now proceed to arrange  and bring forward the
main arguments which may be adduced in support of the
position that baptism should precede the act of communion
at the Lord's table. It has been urged by Baptist writers
who have plead for strict communion, that the institution
of baptism was prior to the institution of the Lord's supper, and that, therefore, the administration of the former
should always take place prior to the participation of the
latter.  This argument, however, is built entirely upon
the hypothesis that Christian baptism originated with John
the Baptist. We trust it has already been satisfactorily
shown that the baptism of John was not identical with
that which was administered by the apostles after the resurrection. The argument, therefore, cannot be relied on.
Besides, we cannot perceive what force an argument can
embody, which is deduced merely from the chronological
order of institution.
1. The first argument under this head is based upon the
order of the apostolic commission.
* Works, vol. i, p. 401.
11-5 
CHRIRiSTIAN BAIPT'rISTM.
The words of the commission, as given by Matthew,
(chap. xxviii, 19, 20,) ruin thus: " Go ye therefore, and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you," &c.  It is well known that our English version does
not give a satisfactory view of this passage. The word
rendered teach, in the nineteenth verse, is altogether a
different word, in the Greek text, from that which is ren dered teach, in verse 20.  It should read: "Go ye there fore and disciple, i. e., smake converts to Christianity, of
(!aO?-revgare) all nations, baptizing them, &c.... teaching
(6,6acicoVPTe) them to observe," &c. Here it is to be ob served, first, certain things are enjoined; viz., to disciple,
to baptize, and to teach; secondly, these things are en joined in a certain order; viz., the order in which they
stand in the divine commission. The apostles were first
required to persuade the people to forsake heathenism and
Judaism, and embrace Christianity. This being done, the
next injunction in order, in their commission, was to baptize them. Being thus brought into a church relationship
with one another, and to a visible relation to Christ, they
were to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ
had commanded. Of course the ordinance of the supper
was one of the "all things whatsoever" alluded to.  One
thing further deserves particular notice.  The participial
form of the word baptize (faTTr7Ovr7e) indicates that the
nations were to be discipled BY baptism; and this ordinance was certainly a public recognition of discipleship.
If baptism was to be the public process of making disciples, or of recognising men as such, then, it is plain, it
must precede communion.
Without adverting at large to the controversies which
have been had on this passage, we may simply remark,
that we cannot appreciate the difficulties that have been
urged as attending the above mode of construing the divine
commlission of the apostles.  It is true that the ordinance
of the supper is not particularized as coming in either
before or after baptism; but the reasonable, and, indeed,
the necessary presumption is, that it is one of the things
comnmanded to be taught after baptism.  It is certain that
baptism is enjoined as the first public duity after disciple
176 
Clni.I'stiAN IlAVTi8l.r
ship; or, it may be regarded as the very act itself, or
process, of visible discipleship. The very position, therefora, that baptism is made to occupy, in relation to a course
of Christian duty, viz., at the commencemlent, sufficiently
establishes the conclusion that the ordinances of the supper, and all other observances which have an exclusive
reference to the Christian profession, must come in as
subsequent duties.
The reader will perceive that this argumient is based
entirely upon the ORDER of the apostolic commission. It
may be questioned by some whether the argument is
genuine, and whether it is entitled to any considerable
force.   But suppose we  assume  an opposite ground?
Suppose we say that the things commanded are important
to be done, but that the order observed in the commission
is a subject of indifference. Now, what will be the coInsequence of this position? What, but total and irretrievable
confusion? The apostles go forth; they are intent upon
doing all that Christ commanded them, but the order of
the duties is a subject of indifference. The consequence
is that some are baptized before they are converted from
heathenism; some receive the holy supper before either
baptism or conversion; others are engaged in a course of
instruction before they are discipled; and the most incoherent and unsuitable practices everywhere prevail. Improper persons are baptized, or baptism is improperly delayed; the holy supper is approached before the candidate
has been duly prepared, and it is therefore desecrated, or
it is unduly withheld from rightful comlnunicants.  Is not
the prescribed ORDER, therefore, in the administration of
the ordinances, and the duties of the apostolic commission,
all important? And thus we hold that Christ enjoined the
order as well as the diuties themselves; and, in this order
of Christ, baptism precedes communion at the Lord's
table.
2. Our second argument is drawn from apostolic precedent.
It will be more satisfactory to inquire, How did the aposti.les understand their comimissioni with respect to the relative order of the Christian institutes? The argument from
apostolic precedent is undeniably important. They were
commissioned to teach the converted nations " to observe
,8.*
1'7'7 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
all things whatsoever" Christ had commanded. This was
the extent, and this the limit of their authority. Hence,
Paul says to the Corinthians: "I have received of the Lord
THAT which I delivered unto you." Hence he says, —" I
praise you, brethren, that ye.... keep the ordinances AS I
delivered them unto you." " Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our
epistle." Their teaching, also, was uniform. The order
of one church was the order of all the churches: "as I
teach everywhere in every church," says Paul. 1 Cor.
iv, 17, and xi, 2, 23; 2 Thess. ii, 15. Whatever, therefore,
was the practice of the apostles, we must suppose that
that practice was founded upon the command and instructions of Christ.  We speak now, not of forms of
church government, or any other accident of the apostolic churches; but we speak particularly of what concerns the doctrines, ordinances, and spiritual order of the
churches; and we need hardly say that apostolic precedent is, therefore, endued with the same authority
over our faith and practice, as anyof the commands of
Christ. They received ample instructions from Christ,
and those instructions were faithfully carried out. And
though they did not adduce, in each particular instance,
the express command authorizing them thus to act, still,
we must suppose them to be endued with such authority.
The act must necessarily imply the specific instruction
from Christ, unless we suppose (which no consistent
believer in revelation will suppose) the  apostles were
left, on important occasions, to act at option, without
any divine authority or instruction. But their commission utterly forbade such a discretion on their part. They
were strictly charged, not, to act their own private judgment or discretion; not, to teach the doctrines of their
fancy, or administer the ordinances at haphazard, but, to
teach "all things whatsoever" Christ commanded  them.
To teach more or less than was commanded, or to establish precedents unauthorized by Christ, would be plainly
transcending their commission, or betraying their trust.
What. then, did the apostles teach and practise, with
respect to the time and relative order of baptism? On
the day of Pentecost, when the people inquired of the
apostles, " Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter
178 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
answered, "Repent and be baptized every one of you."
Luke sums up the glorious results of that memorable day,
thus: "Then they that gladly received the word were
baptized: and the same day were added to the church
about three thousand souls. And they continued stead
fastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in
breaking of bread and in prayers," Acts ii, 41, 42. This
was the first occasion on which the apostles were called
upon to exercise their high commission. It was only ten
days after they had received that commission, and the
freshness of that event, and the plenary inspiration of
the Holy Spirit now received, all combined to render it
certain that on this occasion they would not act under the
influence of any mistaken views as to their duty, or the
powers of their office. And here, indeed, we are called
upon to notice particularly the order in which they enforced the divine precepts. Upon their adult, penitent
hearers, they enjoined, first repentance, then baptism, then
the duty of church fellowship, then "breaking of bread,"
or the Lord's supper. Comparing the order here observed
with the order of the words of their original commission,
we are struck with admiration at the prompt fidelity of
the apostles.
A few examples more must suffice to illustrate the uniform practice of the apostles:
Acts viii, 12:  When  the Samaritans believed Philip, "they were baptized, both men and women."
Ver. 13: Simon believed and was baptized.
Verses 36-38: The eunuch was baptized immediately
after professing faith in Christ.
Acts ix, 18: Saul received his sight, and arose and
was baptized.
Although Saul was evidently weak through long fasting,
as appears from the next verse, still he was baptized before he took meat. It is worthy of notice that Paul, in
rehearsing the matter afterward before a large and tumultuous concourse of Jews, represents Ananias as chiding a
little delay in coming to baptism, after his conversion:
"And now, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized."
Acts x, 47, 48: After the Holy Spirit had descended
upon Cornelius and his household, Peter "commanded
them to be baptized" on the spot.
179 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISlM.
Acts xvi, 14, 15: "The Lord opened Lydia's heart
that she attended unto the things which were spoken by
Paul. And when she was baptized, she besought us," &c.
Ver. 33: When the jailer believed, "he was baptized,
he and all his straightway."
Acts xviii, 8: "And many of the Corinthians hearing,
believed, and were baptized."
The above quotations need no comment to make them
plainer in their teaching, respecting the relative order of
baptism. They bear an unequivocal testimony to the
point, that baptism was commanded and administered as
the next act of religious duty after conversion. This
was apostolic practice; and, if we suppose them not to
have transcended, nor to have fallen short of the instructions of Christ, and the powers of their commission,
but, on the contrary, to have acted upon divine authority
in all those important matters which relate to the administration and order of the Christian institutes, we must admit
the authority of their practice to be valid ground of action
for us, and that, to depart from their practice, is, to say
the least, a doubtful and dangerous policy. It will not be
doubted that what the apostles enjoined upon their converts is equally binding upon the disciples of Jesus in
all ages. Peter commands Cornelius to be baptized;
and this command, originally addressed to the centurion, is
admitted, under all similar circumstances, to have the same
authority over us that it had over the faith and practice
of the Romanii. On this ground, we shall have no controversy with any person who admits the obligation of external ordinances. But why may we not suppose, also, that
the same order of duty is now binding on every adult
candidate for baptism? Is not baptism binding upon us,
as the next duty in order after conversion, as much as it
was upon Cornelius, or the converts on the day of Pentecost? Suppose Cornelius had withstood Peter on the
question of the order of baptism? Suppose he had desired Peter to defer baptism till after he had communed
at the Lord's table, or to some indefinite period? Would
he not, in this instance, have arrayed himself against a
positive command of God? The command was, to be
baptized.   This was enjoined as the next act of religious (dutyvafter conversion.  The time and relative order
ISO 
ciRISrTIAN BAPTISlM.
of the institution were points of palpable and direct obligation, as well as the ordinance itself in the abstract; and
to invert this order, or defer baptism, would have been to
oppose the divine arrangement.
We readily admit, the obligation of the eucharist rests
"on the precept that enjoins it," and not "on the previous
reception of baptism." But the order of the eucharist in
relation to baptism is a distinct question from that of
primary obligation, and a question that rests upon other
ground.  It is asked, "Where is it asserted in the New
Testament, that no unbaptized person shall partake of the
eucharist-?"* We answer, It is nowhere so asserted. But
what then? Is the controversy settled? Far from it. The
argument does not necessarily hinge on that kind of evidence; and yet, the evidence which the Bible affords is
scarcely a shade inferior to that of positive declaration,
and certainly is sufficient to decide the controversy. But
if men are not satisfied with the light in which the Bible
has left the question, still, there is no higher source of
ev idence to which they may carry their appeals-the case
is without remedy. The argument from apostolic precedent we consider fairly deduced, and of sufficient authority
to decide this controversy.   We readily admit that such
arguments are often, from their very nature, somewhat
liable to objection. The difficulty lies in determining
what constitutes a precedent; and also, whether the particular conduct appealed to is of such a nature.  The
apostles felt themselves at times impelled, from the force
of local circumstances, to act in a particular way. In
such cases their conduct could not be proposed as a universal model.  But no such restrictive circumstances can
be supposed to impart a local aspect to their uniform
practice with respect to the time and relative order of
baptism. Herein their conduct was evidently regulated
by the high and authoritative tenor of their commission.
Herein their practice was the same in all countries,
among all nations and classes of men, in all climates,
and at all times. So universal a practice can be re garded in no other light than as forming an apostolic
precedent, and if so, it furnishes an authoritative rule
* Rev. R. Hall's Works, vol. i, p. 306.
181 
CHIRISTIAN BAPTISM.
of faith and practice to the Christian church in all ages
of the world.
3. Our third argument is deduced from the nature and
relative import of the Christian ordinances.
That eloquent and incomparable polemic, the Rev. Ro bert Hall, was the great champion of the rights of open
communion. Himself a Baptist, and at the same time a
strenuous advocate of what Mr. Benedict, the Baptist his
torian, calls "the embarrassing practice of open commu
nion;" surrounded by great spirits of the antagonistic
party, of whom not the least were the gigantic Fullers,
he gave unlimited range to his mighty genius, and left no
weapons untried-no resources unexplored-that might
aid in establishing his own favourite theory, or in con founding his numerous  and powerful opponents.   His
writings have produced, as might have been expected, a
deep and abiding impression upon many minds. Those
who wish to find an answer to Mr. Hall, from a member
of his own order, will find it in the work of J. G. Fuller
on communion. We can give no more than the general
weight of the argument here, leaving the reader to follow
out the minuter bearings at will.
Among the subtle and plausible arguments of Mr. Hall
is the following:-" To justify the exclusion of such [i.e.,
unbaptized persons] from the Lord's table, it is not sufficient to allege the prescribed order of the institutions; it
is necessary also to evince such a dependance of one upon
the other, that a neglect of the first, from involuntary
mistake, annuls the obligation of the second.... But we
affirm, that in no part of Scripture is it [baptism] calculated as a preparative to the Lord's table."*
In all positive institutes it is sufficient for us to know
the authority on which they are founded, and the order in
which they are enjoined; for our obligation to observe
them rests, primarily, not so much on the force of our
perceptions of their abstract reasonableness and propriety,
as upon the clear dictates of that divine authority which
first erected them into the forms of law. The Bible has
certainly left the question of the order of the Christian
institutions in an obvious, intelligible light. It is true,
* Works, vol. i, p. 306-7.
182 
CHRIS'rIAN BAPTISMS.
the practice of the apostles rather establishes the simple,
yet invariable, priority of baptism than asserts any correlative dependance of the two ordinances. But, pausing
here, let us inquire, Is not this sufficient? If the invariable
priority of baptism can be maintained by all the evidence
which the sacred history furnishes, what more need be
done? Are we to reject this evidence, and appeal to the
fitness of things on a question respecting a positive institute? Such a procedure, we hesitate not to pronounce, is
wholly unwarrantable, and the principle dangerous to
adopt. We cannot suspend this question on such a pivot.
It would be rejecting the palpable testimony of God, and
flying to our own fallible, partial perceptions of abstract
truth. It would be to exalt our own deductions from abstract principles, not merely to a level with, but above the
level of apostolic practice and precedent. We cannot rest
any great stress of argument upon the intrinsic character,
the abstract fitness, or the natural dependance of these
rites. This is a mode of arguing that should, to say the
least, be admitted with caution on subjects of this nature,
and should never be allowed to rise higher in its authority
than the positive light of revelation.  Positive duties are
not like moral precepts: they do not, like the latter, arise
in the order of a natural series, where each succeeding
duty flows as a consequence of the pre-existent state of
the mind. That we are often able to trace an abstract
fitness and propriety in them, is true. But their authority,
as rules of action for us, does not rest on our perceptions
of that fitness and propriety. All that we may hope to
know clearly and perfectly, in general, is, that by an adequate authority they are enjoined upon us.
Yet we do not wholly refuse to meet the objector on
this ground. Nay, we here erect one of our most satisfactory arguments, next to the apostolic commission and
the apostolic precedent.
1. Can any person of intelligence persuade himself
that the uniform practice of the apostles, in relation to the
order of the Christian institutions, was the result of any
loose, unsettled notions with respect to their proper order?
Does not the perfect harmony of their conduct, in this
case, clearly indicate in them established principles, clear
and intelligent views of the nature and relative dependance
183 
,CHlI ISTIAN  BAPTRISM.
of the ordinances, and also unity of sentiment? Now,
this is not begging the question. This is not reasoning
in a circle. We say, the apostles did administer the
ordinances in a certain order. We hold that the uniformity of their practice, herein, can be accounted for
only on the supposition of settled views of the ordinances,
and these views originated in divine authority, and in the
perceptions of reason; not in chance, or fortuitous circumstances. Here, then, we argue the necessity of a
certain theory from the certainty and uniformity of given
facts. We argue that there is, and must be, a fitness in
this order of the Christian institutes, or the apostles would
not have so uniformly adopted and practised it. If it
had been otherwise-if the ordinances have no10 natural
dependance-if it may be a matter of perfect indifference
which is attended to first-if the apostles had no reason
in the nature of the case for their uniform practice-why
have they left us no10 exceptions to their general conduct?
If chance, or circumstances, control the question, why
has it not assumed a more equivocal aspect? We are
willing these suggestions should pass for what they may
be worth.
2. Although the obligation and order of positive precepts rest on the annunciations of legislative authority,
and not on the nature and fitness of things; still, there is
a fitness, either relative or absolute, in their existence and
their order, and this fitness we may generally trace to a
considerable extent. For instance, baptism, from its nature, stands at the opening of the visible career.  It is
alI badge of the Christian profession-the seal of the gospel covenant- the ordinance of admission into the iisible
church of Christ.  Previously to baptism, the individual
has no rights in the visible church.  Setting aside, for
the present, communion at the Lord's table as a moot(d
right of the unbaptized, they have no privileges as the
members of Christ's mystical body. No society of Christians would receive an unbaptized person into their community, and tender to him the privileges of their body.  So
far as proper church rights and privileges are concerned,
he is regarded in the same light as any unconverted man.
The converts on the day of Pentecost were first baptized,
and then added to the church. The concurrent voice of
184 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the Christian world excludes an unbaptized person from
fellowship in the visible church of God. On the contrary,
the eucharist, from its very nature, is a church ordinance,
and as such can be properly participated in only by church
members. As a church ordinance, it never can be carried
out of the church. This is so evident that no words can
make it more plain, or add to its force.  And here lies the
relative dependance of the ordinances. Baptism is tie
ordinance of initiation into the church; it is therefore
applied, not to church members, but to persons without, in
order to bring them within the pale and fellowship of visible Christianity. But the eucharist is not an initiatory
ordinance; it belongs to those who have been brought into
the church by baptism; to recognised and acknowledged
members. Hence it has a retrospective relation to baptism.  It is not our business here to give a treatise on the
nature of the eucharist, but we cannot withhold from the
reader a few further remarks.
3. According to the true, Oriental notion of a feast, this
eucharistic feast is a token of fellowuship. Those who meet
at the Lord's table signify thereby that they have mutual
fellowship in the faith, experience, and practice of the
gospel.  Hence, Paul calls it the "communion of the body
and blood of Christ;" "for we, being many, are one bread
and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread."
Or, says Dr. A. Clarke, "The original would be better translated thus: Because there is one bread, or loaf, we, who are
many, are one body," 1 Cor. x, 16, 17.  This feasting together declares a community of interest in the merits of the
same Jesus whose sacrificial death is exhibited ih the distributed elements, and proves the disciples of Christ to be
"ONE BODY."  How, then, can an ordinance which manifestly declares its recipients, though "many" individuals,
to be "ONE BODY," be administered to those who are not
of that "body?"  If the celebration of the Lord's supper
be a recognition and acknowledgment of church fellowship
among the communicants, I know not how it is to be
extended to those who hold no such fellowship with
Christians.
From the above view of the case, therefore, we are
warranted in concluding that there is a natural fitness in
the order of the Christian ordinances, as exhibited in
185 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
apostolic practice. We are able to trace a relative dependance, and we perceive a reason for giving the priority
of order to baptism.
4. But we take the ground that, if unbaptized persons
are to be admitted to the Lord's table because their exclusion is not expressly required by any prohibitive law, so
also, by parity of reasoning, their admission is not to be
allowed, because it is not expressly enjoined in the word
of God.
If it be a responsible act to reject them, in the absence
of an express interdict; certainly it is not less responsible
to admit them in the absence of an express command. If,
in rejecting them, there is danger of offending a "little
one that believes" in Christ; so also, in receiving them,
there is danger of diverting the ordinance from its intended
application, and profaning its sanctity. If express precept
is what the advocates of mixed communion demand, certainly they are in no better case than we are.  And we
have the same authority for rejecting, as they have for receiving unbaptized persons to the table of the Lord; and,
so far as we can now judge, they incur a responsibility of
no less magnitude than we ourselves. The truth is, that
the preponderance of Scripture evidence is against mixed
communion; and yet our opponents think it far less hazardous, in a matter which they think the Bible has not
directly decided, to neglect this preponderating testimony,
the best evidence the case affords.  "There is no position," says Robert Hiall, "in the whole compass of theology, of the truth of which I feel a stronger persuasion
than that no man, or set of men, are entitled to prescribe,
as an indispensable condition of communion, what the New
Testament has not enjoined as a condition of salvation."*
So then, either baptism is necessary to salvation, or it is
not necessary to communion at the Lord's table. But if
baptism be not necessary to communion, it is not necessary
to church fellowship, and to a union with Christ's mystical
body, for feasting together at the communion table is an
outward expression of our being "one body," and hence a
person can belong to the visible church, or, which is the
* Preface to "Terms of Communion," Works, vol. i, p. 285.
186 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.1
same, enjoy all the immunities of the visible church, without baptism. Yes, this is the sequence of the charitable
position of that eloquent and admirable writer; this is the
bearing of his argument, when stripped of its cumbersome
verbosity, and dismantled of the charms of its diction. It
is true, much may be said on the subject of "Christian
toleration," "brotherly love," "involuntary ignorance," in
Jefence of mixed communion; but, specious as are all such
pleas, they are wholly inadmissible in a controversy like
this. In admitting persons to church fellowship we do
not act upon a discretionary power, as to the terms to be
dictated. Those terms are already settled by the great
Head of the church. All our discretion in the premises
consists in judging of the conformity of the candidate to
the terms already prescribed,-whether he comes within
the provisions of the charter, and may claim its rich and
heavenly immunities.
"Men will, ere long, tremble," says Robert Hall, " at
the thought of being more strict than Christ, more fastidious in the selection of members to the church militant,
than he is in choosing the members of the church triumphant:" to which Mr. J. G. Fuller has replied in the
following forcible and sensible manner: "You take it for
granted," says he, "that the rule of admission into the
church militant and the church triumphant is one and the
same rule; a position perpetually asserted and assumed,
but totally incapable of proof. In the admission of members into the celestial church, Christ acts as a sovereign:
in the admission of members to Christian churches on
earth, we must act as servants, yielding implicit, undeviating obedience to the direction of our sovereign Lord.
To reproach us with being'more fastidious in the selection of the members of the church militant, than Christ is
in choosing the members of the church triumphant,' may
be applauded as an unanswerable argument by those who
are less attentive to sense than to sound, to reason than
to the charms of eloquence. Could you reproach us with
being more strict, more fastidious, in the selection of our
members, than the commission of Christ requires us to be,
there would be some justice in the rebuke: at present
there is none; and it may better become those to'trem
187 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
ble' who are less strict, less fastidious, than their Lord's
commission, and who wish to receive members [to their
communion] in a way which Christ never authorized."*
To these sensible remarks there can be no rejoinder.
If Christ has left us directions for the formation and spiritual order of his church, we are concerned no further
than to understand and apply those rules. And although
in moral purity the militant church should be an image of
the heavenly family; still, to assert that the external ordinances are no more necessary to fellowship in the former
than in the latter, or that a strict analogy obtains here between the two great branches of God's redeemed offspring,
is to transcend the powers of the divine commission, and
treat the authoritative injunctions of Christ with unlimited
discretion.
5. We argue from the analogy of Jewish and Christian
rites.
Baptism and the Lord's supper bear the same relation to
the Christian church, that circumcision and the passover
did to the Jewish church. It does not become necessary
for us here to enter into the proof of this statement.  The
proof is abundant, and the case is clear.  Among the Jews
the passover was celebrated only by those who had been
previously circumcised. Circumcision was an indispensable prerequisite to a seat at the paschal feast, not so
much on account of any natural dependance between the
two rites, as of the relative positions they were made to
occupy, and the peculiar ends they were destined to serve.
Circumcision was the ceremony of initiation into the Jewish church, as baptism is to the Christian church. The
passover of the old dispensation is revived under the new,
in the ordinance of the Lord's supper; "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." The. passover could not be
carried out of the church to uncircumcised persons, neither can the eucharist be carried to unbaptized persons;
we have as much authority for the former as for the latter.
It is true the latter is not prohibited in so explicit terms
as was the former; but, where analogy diffuses so great
light, it is not to be supposed that positive prescription
must necessarily be superadded. The preponderance of
* Conversations on Communion, pp. 106, 107.
188 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
the argument, we repeat it, is in favour of admitting those
only to the LI,ord's table who have been baptized. Baptism may be attended to at any time; no inconvenience
need result from giving it always the priority, or, if it do
result, it must be chargeable to the theory of exclusive
immersion, and for it that theory must be responsible. But
to adopt the opposite custom could be productive only of
confusion, embarrassment, and disorder, in the church of
God. The line of church distinction would soon be obscured, procrastination and delay of baptism would be
engendered, and loose practices be encouraged in young
converts, while a sense of propriety, order, and discipline
would be effaced from the conscience. Let all the pastors of Christ's flock, and the appointed guardians of his
church look well to this important subject, and relax not
the rule which the Scriptures have so plainly laid down
for their guide.
189 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
A P —P E N D I X.
NOTEr A.  Referred to page 13.
THAT the words xro?Pa $6ara polla hudata, many waters,
convey the idea of plurality, I think, is clearly demonstrable.  The idea is'sometimes that of a large mass, or collection of water, but generally, that of distinct, separate
or broken nasses.  We adduce a few instances:
2 Sam. xxii, 17: "He sent from above, he took me, he
drew me out of v6arov ~ro,72e many waters."
David here celebrates his providential deliverance
from the power of strong enemies; as he says in verse
18th, "He  delivered me  from my strong enemy  AND
from  THEM that hated me."  Many  Waters, then, here
stands for numerous and powerful enemies, viz., Saul and
his minions.
Psa.-xviii, 16: (Same words in the same sense.)
Psa. xciii, 4:. "The Lord on high is mightier than the
noise of v,ar',v 7ro.wv many waters- yea, thain the mighty
waves of the sea."
The idea here is, that of broken and separate masses
of water in a state of agitation, like the "waves of the sea."
The idea is evidently that of a plurality of waters. See
also Rev. i, 15, and xiv, 2, and xix, 6.
Jer. li, 13: "0 thou that dwellest to, idat iroXLotr upon,
or among many waters."
This address was made to Babylon; and because that
city was situated on the Euphrates, therefore it is urged
that many waters means only that river. But, that the idea
is plural and not singular, will appear, if we attend to the
following facts.  The  plain around Babylon, being in
many places marshy, and being also subject to the inundations of the Euphrates, was intersected by numerous
artificial canals, dykes, lakes, &c.  These were for the
purposes of irrigation, the regulation of the overflow of
the Euphrates, and the draining of the marshes.  The
190 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.1
city itself was traversed by many of these canals and artificial rivers, by whose banks, as well as in the extensive
gardens which they watered, sprang up a heavy growth
of willow. Some of these artificial canals united the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris. It was here that the
Jews, while exiles in Babylon, sitting by the sunny banks
of these pleasant waters, recalling to mind their own Jordan,
and the sweet murmurs of their native streamlets, took up
that beautiful and pathetic lamentation recorded Psa.
cxxxvii: "By the RIVERS of Babylon there we sat down;
yea, we wept while we remembered Zion." These
'rivers of Babylon" were the "many waters" upon, or
among which, the city was situated.  "Babylonia," says
Professor Robinson, "was a land abounding in water;
and Jeremiah might, therefore, well say of it, that it
dwelt upon many waters."
Rev. xvii,  1: The  mystical Babylon  "sitteth  e-rr
v6arov rroxav upon many waters."
As Babylon here is supposed to be mystically put for
Rome; and, as this city is situated on the Tiber, therefore Mr. Robinson, the Baptist historian, and others, have
supposed that the phrase many waters, in this text, means
the Tiber. A little attention to6 facts, however, will show
to the contrary. Rome, or the Roman power, was literally
upon "many waters," while she commanded the mnaritime
resources of the world. Her "sitting upon many waters"
denoted her extensive commercial intercourse with the
nations  of the earth;  and hence, her merchants are
represented in the apocalyptic vision as the chief mourners of her catastrophe. Chap. xviii, 11-19. Also, miystical Babylon's "sitting upon many waters," denotes, in the
strongly Hebraistic style of St. John, her dominion over
"peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues,"
chap. xvii, 15. These descriptions may also apply to
ancient Babylon literally.
Psa. lxxvii, 19: "Thy way is in the sea, and thy path
in vdaai 7ro71ot~ great waters."
Psa. cvii, 23: "They that go down to the sea in ships,
that do business in vdaat 7roXotf great waters."
The phrase great waters, in these passages, is equivalent to our phrase, high seas. The idea is that of vast and
various collections of water.
191 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
These citations and remarks may suffice to show that
troi;ka Sara polla hudata properly has a plural signification, and may mean many waters, in John iii, 23, in distinction from one body of water. This, then, being a lawful, and, indeed, a common signification of the phrase,
and agreeing so much better with all the circumstances
of the case than the common reading, ought to be adopted
in the above passage. But as this rendering destroys
that seeming countenance to the doctrine of immersion
that our English version has been supposed to give, our
Baptist brethren have contended hardly against it.
Mir. Robinson, after remarking upon the meaning of
polla hudata, says, "How it comes to pass that a mode
of speaking, which on every other occasion signifies
much, in the case of baptism signifies little, is a question
easy to answer." (History of Baptism, p. 27.) The meaning of this insinuation lies upon the surface. We have
taken polls hudata in John iii, 23, in a plural sense, to
mean many waters; that is, many living springs or streams
of water; and Mr. Robinson covertly charges us with disingenuity in so doing, because the Greek to;p.a polla, in
other places, may mean much instead of many. Our translation, and the reasons for it, are before the reader. We
only wish here to say, that immediately after the above
ungenerous insinuation of Mr. R,, he proceeds to prove,
by  elaborate arguments, that Enon  was  a celebrated
"cavernous spring," and that John probably baptized in a
small basin of clean water supplied by a little stream,
like a "spring issuing from the fissures of a rock, gurg
ling through the chinks as water out of a bottle, falling
from crag to crag, murmuring from bed to basin, and from
basin to bed, fretting along the ragged sides of a rocky
channel, and echoing through rude and spacious caverns."
(History of Baptism, p. 30.) And this, gentle reader, is
what our veritable author would have us believe is the
much water spoken of John iii, 23. And this, too, is HIS
opinion, after castigating us for translating 7rol;;a polla by
many, instead of much, as he would have it!
192 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISSI.
NorE B.-Referred to page 14.
The passion of the Jews for a numerous offspring was
a trait of character worthy of remark. It was the maxim
of the Jewish state, which lay at the foundation of all
their politics, that " in the multitude of people is the
king's honour; but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince," Prov. xiv, 28. " Lo," says David,
"children are a heritage of the  Lord... happy is the
man that hath his quiver full of them," Psa. cxxvii, 3, 5.
To have many children was regarded as a peculiar mark
of divine favour. Eccl. vi, 3. Thus, the prayer of Balaam
(which is not always rightly understood) was in perfect
keeping with the spirit of those ages. After alluding,
prophetically, to the numerous posterity of Israel, he intimates it as his highest ambition, and his dearest earthly
desire, to be in this respect like them: "Let me die the
death of the righteous, and let my posterity be like his."
(Vide Dr. A. Clarke, in loc.) So the Septuagint under-.
stood it: Kai yevotr  o o avrepa yov ug, ro arepua rovrcv, and
mnay my SEED (posterity) be made like his SEED (posterity.)
NOTE C.-Referred to page 15.
On the populousness of ancient cities and states it may
be proper to submit to the reader some statements, with
a view to show that we have not transcended probable
bounds of correctness in our estimate of the population
of Palestine.
In the most flourishing period of Rome, at the close of
the republic and beginning of the imperial monarchy, the
population was very great. The number of citizens may
be estimated at three hundred thousand, and the whole
number of residents at two millions, and upward.
Lipsius computes the inhabitants of Rome, at its most
flourishing period, at four millions; and Tacitus states,
that by a census in the reign of Claudius, the number
of Roman citizens amounted to nearly seven millions, (including, probably, all who had attained Roman citizenship
throughout the world.)-Eschenburg's Man. of Class. Lit.,
edited by Professor N. W. Fiske, 2d edition, p. 482.
9
193 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
Gibbon computes the total amount of the population of
the Roman empire at about one hundred and twenty millions.
Attica was a small province of Greece, of a triangular
shape. Its base, which was northward, was not thirty
miles wide; and its vertex, which penetrated into the
Saronicus Sinus, (gulf of Engia,) was not removed above
thirty geographical miles from its base. Yet Attica was
estimated to contain five hundred thousand inhabitants,
while the county of Rensselaer, (N.Y.,) which may compare with Attica in geographical limits, contained, in 1830,
only forty-nine thousand seven hundred and thirty inhabitants.
Sparta, which did not embrace more than one-fifth of
the territory of the Peloponnesus, (modern Morea,) was
reckoned to contain more than three millions one hundred
and twenty thousand inhabitants. This immense population was confined within a territory about one half as large
as that of Palestine.
The city of Corinth is said to have once contained four
hundred and sixty thousand slaves, and Egina four hundred and seventy thousand.
Julius Cesar was said to have encountered four millions
of Gauls, to have killed one million, and to have taken
another million prisoners. The whole nation of Gauls
was supposed to number two hundred millions.
The city of Agrigentum (Sicily) is computed by Fleury
to have contained not less than two millions.
The city of Nineveh contained one hundred and twenty
thousand infants. Jonah iv, 11. The population was, indeed, great.  Ninus, the founder of this city,:led an army
of one million seven hundred thousand foot, two hundred
thousand horse, and about sixteen thousand chariots,
against the Bactrians.
Italy, a little before Hannibal's time, could send into
the field (including citizens and allies) near one million
men.
The city of Syracuse alone, in the time of Dionysius
the tyrant, furnished one hundred and twenty thousand
foot and twelve thousand horse, besides four hundred
vessels manned.
Semiramis employed two millions of men in building
Babylon.  TI'he same queen, in her expedition into India,
194 
C.HRISTIAN BAiTISrS r.
headed an army of three millions foot, and five hundred
thousand horse.
Xerxes, in his Grecian expedition, commanded an army
of two and a half millions. The whole number that followed this vain monarch on this rash enterprise is supposed to be not less than five millions. See Fleury's
Manners of the Israelites, edited by Dr. A. Clarke, pages
48, 49; and Rollin's History.
NOTE D.-Referred to page 17.
I say, the Pharisees and Sadducees, in general, submitted to his baptism And so, it appears to me, we are to
understand the sacred historians. Mr. Robinson, however, says, "It doth not appear that John baptized any
persons of rank and fortune. No great names were seen
among his converts. The Pharisees, in reputation for
piety, and the lawyers, famous for their knowledge of the
law, rejected the counsel of God by John, and were not
baptized by him."-History of Baptism, p. 32.
I think it appears from the account, that John did baptize many of the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to
him, of which notice is given in Matt., chap. iii. On that
occasion John says, "Who hath warned you to flee from
the wrath to come? Bring forth, THEREFORE, fruits meet
for repentance." The force of the conjunction ovv therefore, leads us directly to suppose that John proceeded
without loss of time to baptize them. As if he had said,
"Inasmuch, then, as you submit yourselves to my baptism
oni profession of your repentance, exhibit that conduct
that is suitable to this profession."
In the eleventh verse, John says, "I truly baptize You
with water," &c. This was a continuation of his address
to the Pharisees, in the audience of the people, and designed also for their general instruction.
In Luke vii, 30, it is said, "The Pharisees and lawyers
rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not
baptized of John." I take these words, together with the
twenty-ninth verse, to be those of the evangelist, and not
of Christ.  The attentive reader will easily discern the
difference. Consequently, the Pharisees and lawyers
193 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
spoken of refer only to those who were present at that
time, and not to those of the whole nation. Other passages might be noticed, but it is not important. The
truth seems to be, that many of the Pharisees and great
men received John's baptism, but still the number of baptized among them was disproportionate to that among the
common people.
NOTE E.-Referred to page 17.
Mr. Robinson, the author of the History of Baptism,
pp. 32; 33, holds the following statements respecting the
numbers baptized by John:-" It is generally supposed
John baptized great multitudes. His converts were, indeed, of the multitude, but it is far from being, clear that
they were numerous.  All Jerusalem, all Judea, and all
the region round about, went out to him, many of the Pharisees and Sadducees came to his baptism, but they went
out only as spectators they went out, as our Lord expresses it, for to see; and this will appear most worthy
of belief to such as consider the general character of the
Jewish populace, and their blind guides and the prerequisites necessary to John's baptism, especially when it is
observed, that after the resurrection (and it is supposed
all Christians saw him) the greatest number of believers
assembled together at any one time were not many above
five hundred."
This, to be sure, is a very extraordinary passage, and
is an indirect effort to convey the impression that John
did not baptize much above five hundred persons. It
seems, too, that the author leans largely upon the doctrine
of final perseverance for the force and conclusiveness of
his arguments. For unless we suppose all John's converts to have persevered and embraced the doctrine of
Christ, the argument in question falls to the ground. This
is the more unaccountable, as the author was not a Calvinist, but a Unitarian.
Burt are we at liberty to pass the accounts of John's
baptism to the score of hyperboles and Hebraisms, and
explain away their force and natural meaning? If a plain,
common sense man, unaffected by party bias, could read
196
I
i
i 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM,
the accounts given of John's ministry without being impressed with the belief that he baptized the major part of
the nation, we very much mistake the sincerity of our
impressions.  That the reader may more fully appreciate
the conclusion to which we have arrived, we request his
attention,
1. To the prophetic descriptions of John's ministry,
and its effects upon the Jewish nation.
Isaiah says (chap. xl, 3) of John Baptist, that he should
be a crier in the desert, saying, "Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our
God."  Now, the duty and office of John are here described.  Can any man, who understands the force and
interpretation of these figures, suppose, in sobriety of
speech, that they fitly apply to the actual repentance of
only about five hundred, as Mr. Robinson supposes? The
prophet further says, speaking of the effect which John's
ministry was to have on the moral condition of the nation,
"Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and
hill shall be made low; and the crooked shall be made
straight, and the rough places plain," verse 4. That the
prophet here alludes to John Baptist is evident by comparing Luke iii, 4, 5, and Matt. iii, 3.
That Isaiah is here speaking of the great moral change
that should be effected in the feelings, expectations, and
conduct of the Jews, through John's preaching, none will
doubt. And I apprehend we must allow, that either John
did, in fact, baptize immense multitudes, or the vivid and
strong imagery of the prophet must be ascribed to a
mythic inspiration. See also Mai. iv, 6; comp. Luke i,
16, 17.
2. The incidental notices of John's reputation go to
establish, upon higher grounds of'probability, the hypo.
thesis that John baptized the major part of the Jewish
population.
Luke iii, 15: "And as the people were in expectation,
all men wondered intheir hearts of John, whether he were
the Christ."
"So general was the reformation produced by the Baptist's preaching, that the people were ready to consider
bim  as the promised Messiah."-Dr. A.  Clarke.  The
people were suspending (rpo6o(ovror) their judgment re
i
197 
CHRISTIAN nAPT'ISM.
specting the real character of John.  In this state "all
men," that is, the nation generally, inclined to the opinion
that "he was the Christ."
Matt. xiv,- 5: "And when Herod would have put John
to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted
him as a prophet."
It was the force of political, not moral motives, that
swayed the mind of this profligate governor. He feared,
not the opinions of the virtuous, but the indignation of his
people.  He feared an insurrection, and summary ven geance on his own head. This clearly and most strongly
proves the firm attachment of the people of his province to
the Baptist.
Matt. xxi, 26: If we say the baptism of John was of
men, "we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet."
Here, indeed, is a remarkable instance, illustrative of
John's popularity. The proud persecutors of Christ-the
dignitaries of the Jewish church-the men who enacted,
in the chief council of their nation, "that if any man confessed Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue"these very men, I say, feared to attack the reputation of
John, being awed by public opinion; for, said they, "ALL
THE PEOPLE WILL STONE US," Luke xx, 6.
John v, 35: "John was a burning and a shining light,
and ye [that is,'ye as a nation, generally'] were willing,
for a season, to rejoice in his light."
Our Saviour addressed these words to no particular
class of Jews, but to the multitudes, assembled from all
parts of Palestine, to celebrate one of their religious feasts.
His words on this occasion prove two things:-i. That
the Jews generally rejoiced at, and gladly received, the
word of John at first; but, 2, when they afterward found
John's dispensation linked to the htlimiliating doctrines of
the cross, unwilling to embrace the latter, they thenceforward receded from the light of John's ministry. This
fickleness of mind, and defection from John's dispensation,
the Saviour rebukes in the parable of the sower. Matt. xiii,
5, 6, 20, 21.
Such, then, are some of the notices given of John's reputation and influence among the Jewish people. We find
the enemies and calumniators (for such there were, Matt.
xi, 18) of John always in the minority, and that minority
19$ 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS5f.
always awed by "the people."  Now, can any man believe that such a state of opinion respecting John could
have subsisted with a common consent to reject his baptism? Believe it who can. All the reason in the case,
all right interpretation of Scripture, go to establish the
conviction that John baptized the major part of the Jewish
population. And adding to the presumptive proofs here
adduced those positive declarations of Scripture which
have been considered in the body of this work, and also
the reason of the case deduced from the design of John's
ministry, I know not how any person can escape from the
force of the conclusion we have adopted, unless he do it
in defiance of all the proper evidence of the case.
NOTE F.-Referred to page 19.
We are bound to understand the words of the evangelists either in a narrative, natural sense, or else hyperbolically. But where is the necessity of resorting to the
hyperbole to explain these descriptions? The hyperbole
is a figure of speech frequently employed in the Scriptures,
and consists in magnifying or diminishing an object beyond
its natural limits.  "Hyperbole," says Dr. Gerard, "whetiler consisting in bold tropes, exaggerated comparisons,
or impossible suppositions, gives an appearance of falsehood; to avoid which the sense, not the expression, must
be regarded." (Bib. Crit., p. 362.)  But in general there is
not the least difficulty in determining the sense. We are
not to take every statement, which may chance to out-step
our former notions or prejudices, as an hyperbole. When
God says to Abram, "I will make thy seed as the dust of
the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the
earth, so also shall thy seed be numbered," (Gen. xiii, 16,)
there being a manifest absurdity in the literal sense, we
must take it as an hyperbole. So Job says, (vi, 3,) if his
grief were "thoroughly weighed," "it would be heavier
than the sand of the sea."
The Pharisees, in a rage of jealousy and malice at the
popularity of Christ, exclaimed, "The world is gone after
him," John xii, 19. So John supposes that if all the acts
of Christ were written, "the world itself could not contain
199 
CR ITISTIAN  B3APTISlM.
the books that should be written," John xxi, 25. But in
these, and similar instances, there is no danger of misconception.
The statements of the evangelists, however, in regard
to the numbers baptized by John, are wholly of another
character. They involve, necessarily, no exaggerated
statements, no impossible suppositions. The attempt to
fix upon them an hyperbolical construction is uncalled for,
and forbidden by the laws of Biblical interpretation. No
necessity exists for such a construction, and therefore
such a construction is inadmissible.
We cannot forbear noticing how improbable it is that
the evangelists intended an hyperbole here, considering
their usual mode of speaking on similar subjects. When
they speak of the numbers that followed Christ, they are
far from using exaggerated comparisons. When Mark
speaks of the five thousand who were fed in the desert,
he simply says, "multitude," "much people." Matthew
also calls the four thousand a "multitude;" and Luke
holds the same language. Mark vi, 33, 34, 44; - Matt. xv,
32, 38.  This is certainly a chastened mode of speaking.
No extravagant terms are employed; nor. do we find, in
the New Testament, any tendency to extravagant, hyperbolical descriptions, where multitudes are spoken of. We
cannot, therefore, suppose any departure, in the cases in
question, to be made from a plain, narrative style.
NOTE FF. —Referred to page 53.
Since writing this work an article has appeared in the
American Biblical Repository for April, 1841, on "the
Bible and its Literature," from the pen of Edward Robinson, professor of Biblical literature in the Union Theological Seminary, New-York.  It cannot fail to be acceptable
to the reader to find the remarks of Professor Robinson, on
the New Testament dialect, appended to this work in this
place.  After enumerating the chief difficulties attending
the exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures, and remarking
upon the mere fragmentary form of Hebrew literature as
possessed by us, he says, "Nor is the case very dissimilar with the Greek language of the New Testament.
200 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.V.
This, too, is but the fragment of a peculiar dialect in the
wide field of Greek philology. True, we have here the
aid of all the branches of the classic Grecian language
and literature, in their poetic youth, their Attic manliness
and vigour, and their later decline.  We have, too, all tho
results of ancient and modern research in regard to Greek
philology; while the idiom and character of the language
are far more accordant than the Hebrew with our own.
The Greek, too, in an altered form, is to this day a spoken
language.  Yet all this neither suffices for the illustration
of the idiom of the New Testament, nor does it supersede,
even here, the necessity of an acquaintance with the Hebrew tongue of the earlier Scriptures.
"The language of the New Testament is the later Greek,
as spoken by foreigners of the IHebrew stock, and applied by
them to subjects on whichI it had never before been employed
by native Greeks.  After the disuse of the ancient Hebrew
in Palestine, and the irruption of western conquerors, the
Jews adopted the Greek language from necessity; partly
as a conquered people, and partly firom the intercourse of
life, of commerce, in colonies, in cities, founded like Alexandria and others, which were peopled with throngs of
Jews.  It was, therefore, the spoken language of ordinary
life which they learned; not the classic style of books
which has elsewhere come down to us. But they spoke
it as foreigners, whose native tongue was the later Aramaean; and it therefore could not fail to acquire upon their
lips a strong Semitic character and colouring. When to
this we add, that they spoke in Greek on the things of the
true God, and the relations of mankind to Jehovah and to
a Saviour,-subjects to which no native Greek had ever
then applied-his beautiful language,-it will be obvious that
an appeal merely to classic Greek and its philology will
not suffice for the interpreter of the New Testament. The
Jewish-Greek idiom must be studied almost as an independent dialect; and its most important illustrations will
be derived from the idiom of the Old Testament, especially
as exhibited in the version of the Seventy ard the Apocrypha, and from the contemporary writings of Philo and
Josephus.
"The volumes of controversy which have been written
in former centuries upon the character of the idiom of the
9*
201 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
New Testament, may at the present day be safely left out
of view in a theological education, except as matters of
history. Even in this view, they are important chiefly as
showing by what crude theories and slow advances the
human mind and human learning often arrive at truth.
"The principle virtually laid down was, that as God
spoke to man in Greek, he could employ only the most
pure and perfect Greek; and therefore the idiom of the
New Testament must be accounted as one of the purest
models of the Greek language. It was here overlooked
that God spoke to man only in the language of those
whom he addressed; and that therefore to judge of this
language, we must look to the character and circumstances of those who spoke it. These were at the time
a conquered, and, in some respects, already an abject people; and their dialect of the Greek, in comparison of the
Greek itself, was much like the dialect of the Jews at the
present day in modern lands, unpolished, and corrupted
by foreign words, idioms, and forms."
NOTE 3FFF.-Referred to p. 54.
It is unaccountable that philologists and divines should
have ever consented to argue, or concede any force to the
reasonings of others who did argue, upon the principle
here condemned. Yet it has been the practice, time out
of mind, to urge that, because the primitive meaning of a
word was so and so, therefore its meaning in a given connection was the same; whereas, nothing can be more
fallacious and absurd.
I wish the reader to attend to one general principle, or
law, governing or modifying thie change of words from
their primary to their secondary sense. Words which, in
their primary use, signified a particular act, or thing, are
also used to express some general consequence, or adjunct,
of that particular act, or thing. It is on this principle that
we say 13a7rtli baptizo, which primarily means to immerse,
is used in the sense of purify, without any allusion to the
mode, because purifcation is a very general consequence
of immersion. Now, to illustrate this principle further
we subjoin the following examples: —
202 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
The word iaraavco kataluo, primarily signified, to ungird,
to unloose. Afterward it was used to signify, to lodge, to
rest, to halt, refresh, &c. But where is the natural connection between the primary and secondary senses?
By what principle did the mind take its transit from the
first to the second? Modern customs and ideas would
not readily suggest the true answer. The ancients wore
long and loose, flowing garments.  When they travelled,
walked, or laboured, &c., it became necessary to "gird
their garments about them."  When they rested, they ungirded themselves.   Now,  it is very easy to perceive
how  Kara2Lvw kataluo took its change of signification.
The ancients had to ungird themselves in order to rest;
therefore, the word which primarily signified to ungird,
came at length to signify to rest, lodge, &c.
The word   v sham means, primarily, tQ place, put, set,
adjust, &c. Now, it would be impossible for a person,
unacquainted with the philosophy of the formation of
words, to account for the fact, that this same Hebrew
word is used to signify the aerial regions, the celestial
expanse, heaven, as the abode of God and holy beings;
and, which is still more paradoxical, an onion. But let the
reader- start with the primary idea, and then follow its
occult operations in the formation of other words. For
instance, nothing appeared so immovable as the firmament,
or expanse. Therefore, the word which primarily signified
to put, place, set, &c., was used to denote the celestial expanse, as being fixed and immutable. And because the
abode of Jehovah was located above the stars, in the
opinion of the Jews, therefore, they invented still another
tu sham, called the third heavens. Now, by this process,
the attentive reader will perceive how the word that at
first only signified to put, came at length to signify heaven, as the abode of the glorious Creator.
But how could the same word come to signify a species
of onion? All analogy seems here to fail, on first view.
But look again.  When you cut an onion diagonally, you
find it composed of concentric layers, arranged in great
order and regularity, apparently around a common nucleus. Now, the Hebrew word sham means, to put, place,
arrange, adjust, &c., and it hence denotes the onion, be
203 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISiM.
cause its layers are arranged, or placed with such care
and regularity.
But, how can the same word denote astonishment, amazemnent, &c.? Because astonishment denotes a kind of fxedness, or immobility of mind.
So also the English word heaven comes from the Saxon
heofon.  But heofon primarily means, the place or region
overhead, without any reference to a place of happiness,
or to any religious notion whatever. The region overhead
was called heofon, merely because it was heaved, or, as it
was anciently written, hoven, that is, raised up, elevated.
Now, how could such a word come to signify a place of
holy delight, without any reference to its being up, or
down, or horizontal to us, in its position? How can it
come to drop the idea of relative position altogether,
and assume another meaning, viz., that of happiness?
Is not this as great a change of signification as that
which we claim for pair.t'r baptizo?  But the reader is
requested to mark the process by which the word heaven
has acquired its present use and meaning.  It first signified the place overhead, the region of the stars, because
they seemed to be lifted or raised up above the earth.
But as all idolatrous nations consider the stars, planets,
and sun, to be the abode of the gods; and as they conceive
the gods to be happy, so heaven, the place overhead, the
region of the stars, the abode of the gods, was at length
considered as a place of happiness; and now, the primary
sense is wholly lost, and this new sense is the exclusive idea imparted by the word.
The word charity formerly denoted the principle of benevolence, love, without including the idea of any outward
act; but now, it means the outward act of giving to the
needy, without any reference to the principle. Here is an
exact inversion of the  sense.  Paul says: "Though I
bestow all my goods to feed the poor,.... and have not
charity, I am nothing." This clearly shows that charity
was a principle, and not an act, formerly; but if a man
should bestow all his goods to feed the poor now, that
very act would define him as a person of the most extensive charity, according to the-modern sense of the
term.
It were  easy to extend examples of this kind, but
204 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISiSf.
enough have been adduced.  Let the reader, then, understand, that it is according to the general analogy of language that a word which signifies a particular act or
thing, afterward may come to signify some attribute, consequence, adjunct, or circumstance of that act or thing.
All this clearly applies to the case in hand, and proves
that fagrrit  baptizo may take the sense of purify, without
the least departure from the analogy of language.
The importance of the subject will be a sufficient apology for subjoining to these remarks others from the pen
of President Beecher:
"On the other hand," says he, "even if I were to admit
that its original and primitive idea was to immerse, and
that, when it denotes an external act, it never departs
from this sense; still the question would arise, Is there
not another meaning derived from the effects of this act,
and in which the mind contemplates the effect alone,
entirely irrespective of the mode in which it is produced?
I contend that there is-and that, as thorough purification,
or cleansing, is often the result of submerging in water,
so the word parriz  baptizo has come to signify to purify,
or cleanse thoroughly, without any reference to the mode
in which it is done.
"There is not, a priori, the least improbability of such
a change of meaning, from the laws of the mind, or of
language.
"It nay, at first sight, seem an improbable position to
some, that if a word originally signifies'to immerse,' it
can assume a meaning so remote from its primitive sense
as' to purify,' and entirely drop all reference to the mode.
Yet the slightest attention to the laws of the mind, and to
well-known facts, will show that not the least improbability of such a result exists.
"No principle is more universally admitted by all sound
philologists, than that to establish the original and primitive meaning of a word is not at all decisive as to its subsequent usages. It often aids  only as giving a clew by
which we can trace the progress of the imagination, or
the association of ideas in leading the mind from meaning
to meaning, on some ground of relative similitude, or connection of cause and effect.
"But to multiply words on a point so plain would be
205 
CHRISTIAiN BAPTISMT.
needless, had not so much stress been laid on the sup posed original meaning of this word. It is therefore too
plain to be denied, that words do so often depart from
their primitive meaning, as entirely to leave out the ori ginal idea- and that the secondary senses of a word are
often by far the most numerous and important.
"Moreover, to establish such secondary meanings, it is
not necessary that we should be able to trace the course
of the mind, though it is pleasant to be able to do it. A
secondary meaning, however unlike it may seem to the
primitive, may yet be established like any other fact in
the usage of language, that is, by appropriate testimony.
"But while such transitions are common in all words,
they are particularly common in words of the class of
gairrt;( baptizo, denoting action by, or with reference to,
a fluid. This is owing to the fact that the effects produced by the action depend not on the action alone, but
on the action and fluid combined-and, of course, may be
varied as the fluid or its application varies.
Let us now take the general idea of enveloping, or
immersing in a fluid, and see how unlike [to each other
are] the effects to which it may give rise. 
"If the envelopment is produced by a flood, a torrent,
or waves, the effect may be to overwhelm, to oppress, to
destroy.
"If by taking up an object-; and immersing it into a
colouring fluid, it is to impart a new colour, or to dye.
If by taking up an object and immersing it into a
cleansing fluid-or by going into the fluid-or by pouring
the fluid copiously over the object-the effect is to purifty
or cleanse. And on these natural, or material senses,
may be founded the same number of spiritual or moral
senses, by transferring the ideas to'the mind....
.... But what secondary sense shall.be adopted cannot
be told a priori, but must be decided by the habits, manners, customs, and general ideas of a people, and sometimes by peculiar usages for which no reason can be
given. For example, no reason exists in the nature of
things why,3warT bapto rather than pairTlw baptizo should
pass from the sense of immerse to) the sense to dye-yet
there is evidence that it did. On the other hand, it could
not be certainly foretold that [3afrrio baptizo would pass to
206 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISTM.I.
the sense to cleanse, and yet that it did so pass may still
be true, and, if true, can be proved like any other fact.
And the existence of manners and customs tending to
such a result renders such a result probable."-Biblical
Repository, January, 1840.
Not only does the meaning of words vary from their
primitive use, so as often to come to signify entirely a
different thing, but the same word, in all languages, is
differently used in different places. Let the reader observe the Scripture use of conversation, thought, (Matt. vi,
31,) deacon, everlasting, flesh, &c.  Now, who would admit it as valid argument that, because either of these
words had a particular meaning in a given place, therefore it has the same meaning in another particular place?
Yet this is the mode of reasoning that has been adopted
in the case of parrrt; baptizo-a method which is at war
with sound philology, and will never fail to land its abettors in perplexity, confusion, and error.
NOTE G.-Referred to p. 73.
Some noun must necessarily be understood after garrtivrat   baptisontai.  Now,  as  the subject of washing
hands was the principal subject before the mind of the
writer, and as the verb vlp(Jvrat nipsontai, wash, in the
third verse, has for its object the noun xetpac hands, so
also it would seem justifiable and necessary, according to
all just rules of grammar, to supply the same noun (xetpag
hands) after  a7rrtIcCrVat baptisontai, in the fourth verse.
It must be remembered, that the washing, or purification,
or baptism, here spoken of, is of that character that fitly
applies before eating.  This sufficiently suggests, that it
is the purification of the hands and arms, or, as Theophylact has it, " up to the elbows," that is intended. Besides,
why should they immerse before eating any more than
after eating?  Their hands and arms alone might be supposed to come in contact with the food, so as to defile it.
Some may urge, that as tamrrtcavorat baptisontai is in the
niddle voice, the action is reflexive, turning back and terminating upon the actor, and that, therefore, themselves
should be understood after the verb; as, "except they bap
207 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
ti&e themselves," &c.  This, however, is an argument
that cannot be relied on. The middle voice is elsewhere
used in an active sense, taking a noun expressed, after it,
as in Job ix, 30; Matt. xxvii, 24.  This, indeed, is a frequent use of the middle voice in Greek. (See Valpy's
Greek Grammar.) Besides, where the phrase wash m7yself occurs, as in Job ix, 30, the meaning is simply wash
my hands.  Thus: "Though I wash myself in snow water, (a7ro,ovao,uat xtovt,) and purify my hands (airocaOeap/uaa
Zepat) thoroughly."  The last member of the sentence is
evidently added, merely as an intensive of the former.
We see no valid objection, therefore, to the following
reading of Mark vii, 3, 4: "For the Pharisees, and all
the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, particularly (icat) on returning from market, except they purify their hands, (or themselves, as the case requires,)
they eat not." We only add, that the above use of the
conjunction ieat is somewhat frequent; as, "Go view the
land, Icat particularly Jericho." " Tell his disciples, Kat
especially Peter." Josh. ii, I; Matt. xvi, 7.
Let not the reader misunderstand me. I do not mean
to say that fa7rt~r,  in Mark vii, 4, simply mneans washing
of hands.  I hold it to mean purify, and it may apply to
the purifying of hands only, or of some other part of the
body, or of the whole body, without itself determining the
mode. But I think the purifying of hands, in Luke xi,
38, and Mark vii, 4, was the subject emphatically alluded
to by a7aTrT7tL  in those places, as it was that kind of purification, or baptism, which the superstitions of the Jews
required always before eating. They at such times expected it, as a matter of course; but they did not expect
an immersion, as a matter of course, before eating.
NOTE GG. —Referred to p. 73.
On the custom of washing hands among the Pharisees,
the following remarks will not be unacceptable to the
reader. They are taken from the works of Thomas Godwin, B. D., published in London, 1641. The writings of
Godwin have been long held in high estimation. They
were formerly used as a standard of reference, but are
208 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
now scarce, and are superseded by works of more modern
date and style. Speaking of the Pharisees, he says:
"They would not eat until they washed their hands.
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the
elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat
bread. Matt. xv, 2. This washing is said to have been
done 7rvylzl pugme, (Mark vii, 3,) that is, often, as some
translate it, taking rv7yu pugme, in this place, to signify the
same as rvXa pucha, in Homer, frequenter.  Others translated the word, accurate, diligenter, intimating the great
care and diligence they used in washing. With this the
Syriac text agrees.  Others think that there is in that
phrase allusion to that rite or manner of washing, in use
among the Jews, termed by them netilah ziddim, the liftitg up of their hands. The Greek word 7rvyu~ pugme is
thought to express this rite, because in this kind of washing they used to join the tops of the fingers of each hand
together with the thumb, so that each hand did, after a
sort, resemble a fist. This ceremony was thus performed: First, they washed their hands clean; secondly, they
composed them into the forementioned form; thirdly, they
lifted them up, so that the water ran down to the very elbows; lastly, they let down their hands again, so that the
water ran from off their hands upon the earth. And that
there might be store of water running up and down, they
poured fresh water on them when they lifted up their
hands, and poured water twice upon them when they
hung them down. Unto this kind of washing Theophylact
seems to have reference, when he saith that the Pharisees did cubitaliter lavare, wash up to their elbows. Lastly, others interpret Trv~y>u pugme to be the fist, or hand
closed, and the manner of washing hereby denoted to be
by rubbing one hand closed in the palm or hollow of the
other. All imply a diligent and accurate care in washing: the ceremonial washing, by lifting up the hands and
hanging them down, best expresseth the superstition,
which openly was aimed at in the reproof; though all
these sorts of washing, to the Pharisees, were superstitious, because they made it not a matter of decency and
civility, but of religion, to eat with washed or unwashed
hands, urging such a necessity hereof, that in case a man
may come to some water, but not enough both to wash
209 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
and to drink, he should rather choose to wash than to
drink, though he die with thirst. And it was deemed
among them as great a sin to eat with unwashed hands
as to commit fornication. This tradition of washing
hands, though it were chiefly urged by the Pharisees,
yet all the Jews maintained it, as appeareth by the places
quoted."-Civ. et Ecclesiast. Rites, yc., pp. 39, 40.
NOTE GGG.-Referred to p. 75.
It will be impossible for the reader to appreciate the
argument fully, unless he have the true Oriental idea of a
bed, or couch. European or American notions are inadmissible, although they might sufficiently serve the argument.
The tables of the ancients were constructed in the form
of a hollow square, or else in the form of a crescent, or
semicircle. As they reclined (upon the left elbow) while
eating, theirbeds, couches, or divans were arranged around
upon the outside of their tables. The servants entered the
inside of the hollow square, or crescent, while serving the
table.  Upon their couches were arranged quilts and bolsters, for the ease and luxury of their occupants while
eating. The beds were much larger, more ponderous
and clumsily constructed, in reference to moving, washing, &c., than their tables. Yet these are said to have
been baptized. But were they immersed?
NOTE GGGG. —Referred to p. 89.
For the sake of those readers who may not be able to
consult the original Hebrew and the Septuagint version,
we subjoin here a list of citations from the Old Testament,
illustrative of the sense of Aft rahats, and:ovw  louo.  The
ground we take, in'reference to the meaning of these
words, is this,-that they denote the application of water
to the person or thing, and not of the thing or person to the
water, as in the case of immersion: that they denote an
in(lefinit use of water, that is, they do not define the quan
210 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.I
tity of water used, or the mode of using it, or the extent of
its application to the person or thing on whom, or on which,
it is used. They are used, as nearly as can be defined,
synonymously with the English wash, but they are not
synonymous with bathe.
Gen. xviii, 4: "Let a little water be fetched, and wash
your feet."  (y_n  rahats, viErrc nipto.)
Gen. xix, 2, and xxiv, 32: (The same words, in the
same sense.)
Gen. xliii, 24: (Same words, in same sense.) Verse
31: "And Joseph washed his face."  (7,11 rahats, vtrro
nipto.)
Ex. ii, 5: "And the daughter of Pharaoh came down
to wash herself."  (7~  rahats,;ovw louo.)
It is possible that the Egyptian princess did, as a matter of fact, bathe; but the original is unadapted to convey
such an idea, if we look merely at the structure of the
sentence. It says, "The daughter of Pharaoh came to
wash herself'       -7, e-ro ToM zroriao, nY or AT the river."
Ex. xxix, 4: "And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring
to the door of the tabernacle, and wash them."  (T7~  ra
hats,;ovw louo.)
Ex. xxx, 19: "For Aaron and his sons shall wash their
hands and feet thereat."  (y7r  rahats, Vtwr7J nzpipto.)
Ex. xxx, 20, 21: (Same words, used in the same sense.)
Ex. xl, 12, 32: (Same words, used in same sense of
chap. xxix, 4.)
Lev. xiv, 8: "And he that is to be cleansed shall wash
himself in water." (~tr_ rahats, 2ovw louo.)
The same words occur in the same sense Lev. viii, 6,
and xv, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27, and xvi,
4, 24, 26, 28, and xvii, 15, 16, and xxii, 6; Deut. xxiii,
11; Num. xix, 7, 19.
Deut. xxi, 6: "And all the elders of that city shall
wash their hands over the heifer." (7rn rahats, virro
nipto.)
Judges xix, 21: The  Levite and concubine "washed
their feet." (y7_ rahats, VLTSr nipto.)
Ruth iii, 3: Naomi said unto Ruth, "Wash thyself and
anoint thee."  (yM_  rahats,.ovQ lotto.)
211 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
The words also occur, 2 Sam. xi, 2, and xii 20; 1
Kings xxii, 38, (and they washed his armour;) Job ix, 30;
Isa. i, 16; Ezek. xvi, 4, 9, and xxii, 40; 2 Kings v, 10,
12, 13.
1 Sam. xxv, 41: "Behold, let thy handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord." (rt7_
rahats, vi7rr  nipto.)  The  same words occur, in same
sense, 2 Sam. xi, 8; Cant. v, 3.
2 Chron. iv, 6: "Such things as they offered for the
burnt-offerings they washed (-_7  rahats, r;svv  pluno) in
the lavers; but the sea was for the priests to wash in."
(7rr  rahats, VL7rw nipto.)
Job xxix, 6: "When I washed (_ rahats) my steps
in butter, and the rock poured me out rivers of oil." The
Septuagint render it thus: "When my paths were flowed
(eXeovro) with butter, and my mountains poured forth (exeOTo) milk." The reader will observe that the Hebrew
rahats is translated into Greek by xey cheo, to pour out,
diffuse, to shed.
Psa. xxvi, 6: "I will wash my  hands in innocency."
(7Tq rahats, vtrrw nzpto.) The same words occur, in same
sense, Psa. lxxiii, 13.
Psa. lviii, 10: "The righteous shall wash his feet in
the blood of the wicked."  (7U- rahats, vtzrr nipto.) The
sense of this text, and the force of the words, seem evidently to be synonymous with Psa. lxviii, 23. The sense
is that of staining or wetting, by having the blood gush out
upon the feet. See this last text explained, chap. iii of
this work.
Cant. v, 12: "His eyes are... washed in milk."  (
rahats,;OVwo louo.)
Isa. iv, 4: "When the Lord shall have washed away
the filth of the daughter of Zion."  (y7_  rahats, irvvo
pluno.)
The above are all the places, save one or two, in the
Old Testament, in which ~,t rahats occurs. We wish
the reader to observe,-1. The latitude of its meaning is
indicated by the fact that it is sometimes translated into
Greek by Zovw louo, which means wash, and is generally
212 
CHRISTIAN BAPTIS.f.
used to denote the washing of the body; sometimes by
vt7rrw nipto, which means also wash, and is used to denote
washing of hands or feet; sometimes by xr;vvw pluno,
wash, which is used to denote the washing of clothes;
and once it is translated by xe cheo, to flow, to pour forth,
to shed.
2. It is never used as a synonyme of bathe. It properly denotes wash. The washing, it is true, might be
performed by bathing; but then it might be performed
equally well without it, and where bathing might have
been practised it was not of itself sufficient. The force
of the word implies some efiort made to cleanse, as by
rubbing with the hand. And, as President Beecher has
well said, bathing fulfilled the command, not because it
was a bathing, but solely because it was a washing.
Besides, in many cases, as in the washing of hands, the
water was poured.  At other times it was simply taken
out of the vase or vessel by one hand, and applied to the
body. This was washing, and this mode was included in
the fa.-rrta/ v baptisms of Heb. ix, 10.
The word used to enjoin the washing of clothes, in the
Old Testament; is Z? kabas, which primarily means, to
treat, to trample with the feet; and hence, to wash, to
cleanse, &c., as garments, by treading them in a trough;
and finally, to wash in any way. (Vide Gesenius's Lexicon.)
It is sometimes used in a figurative sense, as in Psa. li, 4, 9;
(Eng. version;) li, 2, 7; Jer. iv, 14, and ii, 22; Mal. iii,
2. It may shed a ray of light upon this subject to add,
that -r2,,vv, pluno, to wash, (clothes,) in the Septuagint,
sometimes answers to _' shatap, to gush, to pour out,
to rush, to overflow; hence, to wash, rinse; as Ezek. xvi,
9: "Yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood."  The
same word is used in Job xxxviii, 25, to signify an "outpouring" of waters. See also Prov. xxvii, 4, where it
should read, "Anger is an outpouring," Eng. "outrageous." This word is generally translated rinse in English,
where it denotes washing of hands, or vessels, as in Lev.
xv, 11, 12.
Such, then, is the force of some of the words employed
in the Mosaic ritual, to set forth the duty of external
washings.  I trust the reader is satisfied that bathing or
213 
CHRISTIAN IIAPTISit.
immersion was never enjoined by the law of Moses, although it was practised on different occasions.  In view of
all this, is it not astonishing that Mr. Judd (p. 40) should
render 6tafopot~ Patrriaoic (Heb. ix, 10) different or diverse
immersions? Did not that author know that different
modes of purification were required? such as washing,
sprinkling, rinsing, and, in the case of inanimate things
only, they were sometimes required to be put in the water?
Now, the apostle says the Levitical institutes consisted
uovov monon, "ONLY of meats and drinks, and diverse
baptisms." But did the lustrations consist ONLY of immersion?  Besides, the adjective 6taopotc different, qualifies
the noun baptisms. This makes good sense, if we suppose the noun to be generic, as purifications, but it is
absurd if we take the noun as specific, like immersion.
The Baptists are wont to argue that the words ev [a7'rTUa
hen baptisma, ONE baptism, (Eph. iv, 5,) proves their doctrine of one mode of baptism. This they think good logic.
But what, then, does the phrase DIFFERENT baptisms import? Does it not prove different MODES? Will they not
allow us to argue upon their own principles?
NOTE H.-Referred to p. 109.
The following statements of President Beecher, in
the Biblical Repository, for January, 1841, are clear and
cogent.  "What, then," says that author, " are the facts,
as it regards the earlier ages of the church? I am willing
freely and fully to concede, that, in the primitive church,
from the earliest period of which we have any historical
accounts, immersion was the mode generally practised,
and, except in extraordinary cases, the only mode. I do
not mean that these remarks shall apply to the apostolic
age, but to the earliest historical ages of the uninspired
primitive church. The practice of the apostolic age, I
shall consider by itself. After all that has been said upon
this point by learned men, it will not be deemed necessary
for me to advance proof of the  position, that, in the
primitive church, immersion was the general mode of
baptism....... But, admnitting these things to be facts,
what then? Does it follow of course that the fathers were
214 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISMh.
led to adopt this form, by a belief that the import of the
word fparrti( is to immerse?  This I know seems very
generally to have been taken for granted on both sides of
the question.  For example, Professor Stuart, after an
able and clear exhibition of the proof that the early
churches did baptize by immersion, says: "In what
manner, then, did the churches of Christ, from a very early
period, to say the least, understand the word pa7rrti  in
the New  Testament?   Plainly, they construed it as
meaning immersion." "That the Greek fathers, and the
Latin ones, who were familiar with the Greek, understood the general import of the word pamrrt', would hardly
seem to be capable of a denial."-Biblical Repository,
vol. iii, p. 362.
Now, all this is manifestly based on the assumption,
that the practice of the fathers, in this case, is an infallible index of their authority; i.e., if they did, in fact, immerse, they must of course believe that pairnt' means to
immerse. Indeed, this seems generally to have been regarded as a first principle, an indisputable truth. As long
as it is so regarded, the facts already stated, as to early
practice, will exert a strong, disturbing influence on the
mind. The scholar, in the region of philology and logic,
finds all plain; but he enters the dizzy and bewildering
region of early practice, and his brain reels, his energy is
dissolved, and some unseen power seems to be wresting
his previous philological conclusions from his grasp.
Indeed, if it is a sound principle, that we must infer the
principles of the fathers, as to the import of Oairrt~, from
their practice, I see not how we can avoid letting them
go; for, of the facts there can be no doubt. But it is
high time to ask, Is the principle sound? Is it logical?
Has it any force at all? It may seem adventurous to call
in question a principle so generally received and so firmly
believed. Nevertheless, I am compelled to say, that
I cannot perceive that the position is based on any sound
principle of philology or logic; nay, it seems to me
that there is abundant evidence that it is entirely illogical and unsound: 1. Because, where a given result
may have been produced by many causes, it is never
logical to assume, without proof, that it is the result of
any one of them alone. The proper course is, to inquire
215 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
which of the possible causes was, in fact, the real and
efficient cause of the result in question. 2. Because, oni
making the inquiry, it appears manifest to me that the
practice in question did not originate in the belief that
the word Pa'rtzw means immerse, but in entirely different
and independent causes.   Suppose,  now, the word  to
mean to purify, it is neither impossible nor improbable
that certain local and peculiar causes may have led to
some one mode of purifying rather than another, and that
this mode may have been immersion; and if all these
things may have been so, who has a right to assume,
without proof, that they were not so? I believe that they
were.  If it is inquired, what causes they were?  I answer: 1. Oriental usages, and the habits of warmer regions. 2. A false interpretation of Rom. vi, 3, 4, and
Col. ii, 12.   3. A very early habit of ascribing peculiar
virtue to external forms. The first is sufficient to begin
the practice; the other two to extend, perpetuate, and
confirm it. Now, if it can be shown that these causes
did exist, and did operate, and had great power, then a
sufficient account of the origin and progress of the usage
may be given by these alone; and thus, all presumption
against.the meaning I have assigned to [arrvtw, or in
favour of the sense to immerse, will be taken away; and
thus, the way will be prepared to resume the direct philological proof, that in the earlier ages the word pamrrtf did
mean purify. But of their existence, or their power, can
there be a doubt? Did not Christianity begin in the warm
regions of the East, and in the midst of a people whose
climate, habits, costume, and mode of life, were all adapted
to bathing? And was not the practice nearly universal?
Hence, nothing could be more natural than its use on
convenient occasions, as a mode of religious purifying; and
if, as some maintain, the form had been previously used
as a religious rite, nothing could be more natural than its
adoption, as a mode of purifying, in the church. As to
the interpretation of Rom. vi, 3, 4, and Col. ii, 12, as referring to the external form, all may not be ready to concede that it was false; yet that it was early prevalent and
powerful, no one, I think, at all acquainted with the facts
of the case, will deny. But of this, more in another place.
As to a superstitious attachment to forms —-who can deny
216 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
it? nay, who that is a Protestant does? Evidence of it
throngs on every page that records the early history of
the church. To omit all else, the history of this rite
alone would furnish volumes of proof.  Let the holy
water-the baptismal chrism, to symbolize and bestow
the Holy Spirit-the putting on of white robes after baptism, to symbolize the putting on of Christ-the baptism
of men and women perfectly naked, to denote their entire
moral nakedness before — putting on Christ-let the anointing of the eyes and ears, to denote the sanctification of
the senses-let the eating of honey and milk-the sign
of the cross; and finally, let baptismal regeneration-the
sum and completion of all these formal tendencies-bear
witness to the mournful truth. Now, when the tendencies
to formalism and superstition were so all-pervading and
almost omnipotent, what could avert a blind and superstitious devotion to an early form-one especially in which
-o much was supposed to be involved, both of emblema tical import and of sanctifying power?
NOTE I.-Referred to page 110.
Mr. Judd gives another turn to this passage, which
Lertainly appears plausible, and we insert it for the inf.:mation of the reader.
- The expression,' Can any man forbid water?' &c., can
mean neither mole nor less tnan, Can any man forbid that
these should be baptized in water, who have received the Holy
Ghost as well as we? The Jewish believers who accompanied Peter from poppa were the only persons present
who could be supposed to have objections to any of the
proceedings; and their objections would not lie against
the use of a river, or a bath; nor yet against water being
brought into the house. Their only possible objection must
vi against these Gentiles being baptized into the church.
The Jews had hitherto scrupulously avoided all religious
association with the Gentiles; and the brethren of the
circumcision would have trembled at the thought of their
being admitted, without further ceremony, into the church,
unless they had the most explicit intimations that such
10
217 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
was the divine pleasure.  The apostle, being already informed by a vision that the partition wall between Jews
and Gentiles was now removed, therefore exclaims,
"Since God hath shed down upon these Gentiles the
abundant influences of his grace, baptizing them with
the HIoly Ghost, as he did us at the beginning, thus
evincing that he puts no difference between us and them,
can any one forbid that they should be baptized in water, and
thus be incorporated into the Christian churcli?"-Review
of Stuart, pp. 67, 68.
OCT 3 0 1915
THE END.
218