moe ee en ΝΎ ΚΑΙ ῃ ᾿ i ΠΩΣ ΜῊ \\ . RN > BV 800 .H34 v.1 Halley, Robert The Sacraments Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 https://archive.org/details/sacramentsinquir01 hall THE CONGREGATIONAL LECTURE, TENTH SERIES. ON THE SACRAMENTS. BY THE REV. R. HALLEY, D.D. Nae ‘Wate Jeanine ' Jot ofa donates af ths" ALA. Mok, Wiper ες ike ΘΑ WA M ENTS. AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF THE SYMBOLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, USUALLY CALLED THE SACRAMENTS. BY ROBERT HALLEY, D.D. PART I. Baptism, LONDON: JACKSON AND WALFORD, 18, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD. 1514, ADVERTISEMENT. On the very day announced for the publication of this work in London, I have heard in Manchester, with the most painful feelings, of the unexpected death of Dr. Carson. Too late, alas! to revise the review of his work, I hastily forward to the publishers this advertisement, if possible to be inserted, entreat- ing the readers to construe every sentence which may appear to be severely expressed, as capable of explanation, considermg that every word was written by me under the expectation of its being speedily subjected to the keen and powerful criticism of that lamented scholar. I can do no less than offer this feeble tribute of respect to a man of great talents, learning, and moral worth ; with whose opinions and arguments I have been brought into collision. I trust nothing in the heat of controversy has escaped me inconsistent with this acknowledgment. Some expressions would certamly have been modified, had I imagined he would never have seen them. In discharging this mournful duty, I may be permitted to cite from my Appendix one sentence, on which, as I look amidst many conflicting emotions, I find relief—‘‘ Conscious of infirmity, exposed to error, I ask our Baptist friends to unite with us im the prayer, (after all I have said, I would travel many miles to hear Dr. Carson offer it, and forget, as 1 am sure he would, every hard saying,) ‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.’”’—p. 486. ROBERT HALLEY. Manchester, August 31, 1844, a led foe a ti © Ἢ ant Ἷ ΠΟΤ A nif ΤΠ ? iC et ΝΣ ὍΝ ὀδμὴν τη ΓΝ Oe A ea ee he us fog fe: ἫΝ Fr. ΚΝ u a BF Mp Set tate es ae hot ad in? rts «a 4 } ee ἃ a Ὁ Ι “ie ὥ ' Hee Ὁ ἢ Ὰ ' » oo. . anc A "δὰ δὼ ’ 7 Υ̓ . pti? yikes - iL - : ; ; ἥ =~ . eS PREFACE. THE length of these Lectures may be a sufficient reason for the brevity of their Preface. Had I fore- seen that the selection of the subject would have involved me in so many controversies, I should have turned my attention to some other department of theology. Unexpectedly, if not inadvertently, I have become a controvertist; and I can scarcely venture to hope that I have escaped all the evils of polemical discussion. I am sure I have not wilfully misrepresented an opponent: I have nowhere, so far as I can discover, interspersed insinuation with argument; if I have thought proper not to sup- press an honest expression of feeling, when I have found a fierce and intolerant spirit assuming airs of a2 vi PREFACE. infallibility and self-importance, I have been careful to avoid producing false impressions, by distinctly noticing the excellences of such persons. If I have failed in due respect to any opponent, I shall have ΄ most cause to repent of my negligence. That I have not been able to complete the subject in one course of Lectures, is to me a matter of much regret. With the cares of a large congregation, of late too much neglected, and, what has been far more embarrassing, the incessant interruptions of a populous neighbourhood, theological studies of this kind must be conducted under great disad- vantages. I have often thought it to be my duty to relinquish them altogether. Possibly I have allowed them to encroach too much upon other duties, and, therefore, | may be compelled to proceed more slowly in completing the discussion. I propose, in continuation, to furnish one more Lecture on Baptism, one on the Connexion of Jewish and Christian Sacraments, about four on the Lord’s Supper, and one on the Theory of Salvation by Sacraments. PREFACE. vii When 1 undertook this subject, I had no expecta- tion of its bringing me into collision with the opinions of the Baptist denomination. Of all controversies, that with them was the last on which I should willingly have embarked; not because I thought it presented any peculiar difficulties, but because I have been always of opinion that nothing involved in it ought to separate those who hold different opinions into two denominations. If baptism be not a church ordinance, I see not what right churches, as such, have to express any opinion about it, any more than they have to decide the controversy respecting the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. If I can succeed in convincing our Baptist brethren, not that we are right, but that we have ἃ case which honest men may honestly maintain without being chargeable with criminally resisting the truth, so that churches have no authority to prescribe any regulation upon the mode or the subjects of baptism, my chief object in pursuing this controversy will be attained. As these opinions prevail, the two denominations will unite upon the principle, not of open communion churches whose principle is toleration of error— Baptists allowing Independents, or Independents Vill PREFACE. allowing Baptists to commune with them—but upon the higher principle of unsectarian churches, whose principle would be a disavowal of the authority to determine in such a controversy, the members bap- tizing how, and when, and where, and whom they please; and whose pastors would be chosen and ordained, ‘‘ not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.” In such a state of union the truth, wherever it lies, would, I doubt not, soon be acknowledged. ROBERT HALLEY. Plymouth Grove, Manchester, August, 1844. ADVERTISEMENT. (BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE CONGREGATIONAL LIBRARY. ) Tue ConerecationaL Lecture was established with a view to the promotion of Keclesiastical, Theological, and Biblical Literature, in that religious connexion with whose friends and supporters it origmated. It is also designed to secure a con- venient Jocality for such associations as had previously existed, or might hereafter exist, for the purpose of advancing the literary, civil, and religious interests of that section of the Christian Church to which it was appropriated. Without undervaluing the advantages of union, either with Evangelical Protestants, or Protestant Nonconformists, on such grounds as admit of liberal co-operation, it was nevertheless deemed expe- dient to adopt measures for facilitating the concentration and efficiency of their own denomination. In connexion with these important objects, it was thought desirable to institute a Lecture, partaking rather of the character of Academic prelections than of popular addresses, and embracing a Series of Annual Courses of Lectures, to be delivered at the Library, or, if necessary, in some contiguous place of worship. In the selection of Lecturers, it was judged proper to appoint such as, by their literary attainments and ministerial reputation, had rendered service to the cause of Divine truth in the consecration of their talents to “the defence and confirmation of the Gospel.” It was also supposed, that some might be found possessing a high order of intellectual competency and moral worth, imbued with an ardent love of biblical science, or eminently conversant with theological and ecclesiastical lite- rature, who, from various causes, might never have attracted BS ADVERTISEMENT. that degree of public attention to which they are entitled, and yet might be both qualified and disposed to undertake courses of lectures on subjects of interesting importance, not included within the ordinary range of pulpit instruction. To illustrate the evidence and importance of the great doctrines of Revela- tion; to exhibit the true principles of philology in their appli- cation to such doctrines; to prove the accordance and identity of genuine philosophy with the records and- discoveries of Scripture ; and to trace the errors and corruptions which have existed in the Christian Church to their proper sources, and by the connexion of sound reasoning with the honest interpret- ation of God’s holy Word, to point out the methods of refuta- tion and counteraction, are amongst the objects for which “ the Congregational Lecture” has been established. The arrange- ments made with the Lecturers are designed to secure the publication of each separate course, without risk to the Authors; and, after remunerating them as liberally as the resources of the Institution will allow, to apply the profits of the respective publications in aid of the Library. It is hoped that the liberal and especially the opulent friends of Evangelical and Congre- gational Nonconformity will evince, by their generous support, the sincerity of their attachment to the great principles of their Christian profession ; and that some may be found to emulate the zeal which established the “ Boyle,” the “ Warburton,” and the “Bampton” Lectures in the National Church. These are legitimate operations of the “voluntary principle ” in the sup- port of religion, and im perfect harmony with the independency of our Churches, and the spirituality of the kingdom of Christ. The Committee deem it proper to state, that whatever responsibility may attach to the reasonings or opinions advanced in any-course of Lectures, belongs exclusively to the Lecturer. ConGREGATIONAL Lisprary, Blomfield Street, Finsbury, August, 1844. CONTENTS. LECTURE 1. PAGE ON THE TERM © SACRAMENT, AND THE SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED . . . .- . -© -© «© «© τ 1 APPENDIX A.—THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANCIENT DIS- CIPLINE AND THE ROMISH SACRAMENT OF PENANCE ot Sah, ett ἃ 50 AppreNnpDIx B.—UuUNCTION NOT THE SACRAMENT OF THE DYING . . 55 APPENDIX C.—ON THE SERVICE OF THE SYNAGOGUE AS AFFECTING THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH . . .. « ° 57 LECTURE IL. ON THE PERPETUITY AND DESIGN OF THE SACRAMENTS . . . . . 66 LECTURE III. ON THE JEWISH BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES . . . . . . . . . ILI LECTURE IV. ὌΝ ΘΗΝ Θ᾽ BAPTISM: Φ 6 6 πὸ © 2-8 6 6 «© » 9 on opp boil AppENpIx A.—oN FABER’S CITATIONS FROM THE FATHERS ON THE SACRAMENYTAL IDENTITY OF CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. . , 206 ApreNDIx B.—EULOGIUS OF ALEXANDRIA ON JOHN’S BAPTISM ZO a Xi CONTENTS. LECTURE V. PAGE ON BARTISMALTREGENERATION τ΄. bm So ee ce eee AprenpIx A.—1rHE ANACHRONISMS INVOLVED IN THE REASONING OF THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMAL REGE- INE ATION Gio i, ΡΣ τ ΖΒ AprenpIx B.—oN THE WORD “ REGENERATION” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT via, Lithonia hereto ukicur et el OD ἈΡΡΕΝΡΙΧ C.—PASSAGES FROM JUSTIN MARTYR . .. -. . 286 LECTURE VI. THE MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM ©. sce ue =e ees SeenaoO APPENDIX.—ON THE PRINCIPAL POINTS IN THIS LECTURE AS THEY ARE AFFECTED BY THE REASONING OF DR. CARSON, IN HIS WORK, ENTITLED “ BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS”. . . 439 LECTURE VII. THE SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM... .. . . . =. - 488 ᾿ AppENDIX A.—ON THE CODEX LAUDIANUS ee rien a by (SOS ApprNnDIx B.—oN THE REMARKS OF DR.CARSON, SO FAR AS THEY AFFECT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION . 606 ADDITIONAL NOTES TO LECTURE VI. a τα το ers ΙΓ x. LECTURE I. ON THE TERM ‘SACRAMENT, AND THE SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED. “And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and fora memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord’s law may be in thy mouth.”—Zaodus xiii. 9. “ Sacramentum dicitur sacrum signum, sive sacrum secretum. Multase quidem fiunt propter se tantum, alia vero propter alia designatur, et ipsa dicuntur signa, et sunt. Ut enim de usualibus sumamus exemplum, datur annulus absolute propter annulum, et multa est signifi- catio: datur ad investiendum de hereditate aliqua et signum est; ita ut jam dicere possit, qui accipit; annulus non valet quicquam, sed hereditas est quam querebam. Ad hoc instituta sunt omnia sacramento.”—St. Barnard. Sermo I. in Caena Domini. On commencing these Lectures, I am somewhat perplexed in attempting to form such a definition of a sacrament, as will include Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and exclude every other ordinance of the Christian religion. To show what these ordinances have in common, so as to entitle them to be classified under one term, is more than I can do, or can find already done to my satisfaction. Were I to adopt the very comprehensive definition of St. Augustine, who says that “a sacrament is the visible sign of a sacred thing,” I should include within the compass of these terms many things which are not by Protestants, nor even by Catholics, denominated sacraments. That baptism and the Lord’s supper have usually been comprised under one generic term, has, I believe, been B 2 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. the occasion of some serious error, and of much illogical reasoning; as many persons, assuming the correspondence between them, have confidently rea- soned from the acknowledged character of one ordi- nance to the disputable points of the other. Yet, as I propose to lecture on what are generally called The Sacraments, it will be expected that I state what I mean by the term; while, through the discussion, I guard against the fallacy of assuming a coincidence in things that differ, because they are, for mere con- venience, included in a common designation. It would be in vain to consult the New Testament for any exposition of a sacrament. In a book that has so little of systematic formulary, no term is employed to comprise the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper, or to designate their connexion or coincidence. Nor can the exact definition be obtained from the records of ecclesiastical antiquity; for, although the Greek fathers called both baptism and the eucharist mysteries, as the Latins called them sacraments, neither of these words was used with the modern restriction, as innumerable other things are, in their writings, called mysteries or sacraments. If it be asked, how many sacraments were acknow- ledged by the church of the second or the third century, we can only reply, that the answer must depend upon our own definition of the term; for in the latitude in which it was then used, almost every religious ordinance or sacred emblem was called a sacrament. Although the Romish church acknow- ledges seven sacraments, yet her authorised definition ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. 3 is not inapplicable to baptism and the Lord’s supper, as those rites are regarded by the English and the Lutheran church. In the Tridentine Catechism, a sacrament is defined to be ‘‘a sensible thing, which, by Divine appointment, hath the power of causing, as well as of signifying, holiness and righteousness.” The form of instruction known as the Cate- chism of Heidelberg, drawn up for the reformed church of the Palatinate, and generally adopted by the Calvinists of Germany, contains the following definition :— ‘** What are the Sacraments ? “They are holy visible signs and seals, ordained by God for this end, that he may more fully declare and seal by them the promise of his Gospel unto us; to wit, that not only unto all believers in general, but unto each of them in particular, he freely giveth remission of sins and life eternal, upon the account of that only sacrifice of Christ, which he accomplished upon the cross.” The precise doctrine of this answer seems to be, that a sacrament is an assurance to the person, who worthily receives it, of the blessings of the covenant of grace. To the same import is the definition of the Church of Scotland, in her larger Catechism :--- A Sacrament is a holy ordinance, instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit, unto those within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation ; to strengthen and increase their faith, @ Catech. Trident. Part 2, n. 10. B 2 4 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience ; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without.” In the twenty-fifth Article of the Church of England, it is said, ‘‘ Sacraments ordained of Christ be, not only: badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good-will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.” Some theological writers speak of the sacraments as federal rites, by which we formally and avowedly accept the covenant of grace, and append our seals to it. With many writers both of the Church of England and of the Nonconformists, the sacraments are represented as seals in respect both of God’s assurance to us, and of our engagement with him. Thus Burnet, in his Exposition of the Articles, says, “‘ In the new dispen- sation, though our Saviour has eased us of that law of ordinances, that grievous yoke, and those beggarly elements, which were laid upon the Jews, yet, since we are still in the body, subject to our senses and to sensible things, he has appointed some federal actions to be both the visible stipulations and profes- sions of our Christianity, and the conveyances to us οὐ the blessings of the Gospel.” Dr. Ridgeley says, “‘ The sacraments are God’s seals, as they are ordinances given by him for the confirmation of our faith, that he would be our covenant God; and they are our seals, as we set our seals thereunto when we visibly τ ΟΝ THE TERM SACRAMENT. ‘ ~ profess that we give up ourselves to him to be his people, and in the exercise of a true faith, look to be partakers of the benefits which Christ hath purchased according to the terms of the covenant.” Doddridge, but more cautiously, as he was wont, says,” “ Those rites of the Christian institution, which were intended to be solemn tokens of our accepting the Gospel covenant, peculiar to those who did so accept it, and to be considered by them as tokens of the Divine acceptance, on that supposition may properly be called seals of the covenant.” Mr. Watson, in his ”> maintains the same doc- “Theological Institutes, trine of the sacraments as federal rites and confirming seals, and considers such Protestants as hold them to be only symbolical institutions, whose sole use is to cherish pious sentiments, or to be the badges of a Christian profession, as carelessly leaning to the opinion of Socinus and his followers. At present, 1 notice these views merely to observe that I cannot admit the proper definition of a sacrament to be a federal rite, or in that sense a seal of the covenant. Notwithstanding the weight of Protestant, and even Nonconformist authority against me, my objection to the primary doctrine implied in these definitions, that to those who worthily receive them, the sacraments are seals, or assurances of their personal interest in the covenant of grace, will be hereafter plainly stated for the consideration of my hearers. The sacraments have been designated ‘ positive @ Lect. cc. 6 Pt. iv. ch. 2: 6 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. institutions,” as distinguished from moral duties ; but there are, or have been, many positive institutions which are not usually called sacraments ; the sabbath, for instance, was a positive institution of the Jewish church—as is the Lord’s-day of the Christian ; but neither of these festivals is called a sacrament. They are said to be “ symbolic observances,” but every part of the Jewish ritual was symbolic, and so, where it is observed, is the imposition of hands in the ordination to the ministry : but this is not by Protestants called a sacrament, although Calvin, in the extended signi- fication of the word, admits ordination to be a sacra- ment;* and Melancthon does not scruple to call orders, or the imposition of hands, a sacrament.’ Some have defined a sacrament as if it consisted in the consecration to a sacred purpose, of a common thing, as the water in baptism, or the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, hence called the elements of the sacra- ment. Thus Hobbes of Malmesbury, a strange authority, some may think, on this subject, but he expressed a current opinion, says, “‘ A sacrament is a separation of some visible thing from common use, and a consecration of it to God’s service, for a sign either of our admission into the kingdom of God, to be of the number of his peculiar people, or for a com- memoration of the same. In the Old Testament the sign of admission was circumcision ; in the New Tes- tament, baptism. The commemoration of it in the Old ‘Testament was the eating, at a certain time, ἃ Inst. iv. 19, 31. ὁ Apolog. Cont. De Num. et Usu Sacram. ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. 7 which was anniversary, of the paschal lamb; and in the New Testament, the celebrating of the Lord’s a supper.” Our objection is, that the essence of the sacrament is in the acts performed, and not in the elements selected, or in the consecration of them. The eating of the lamb was the passover, not the lamb which was eaten, nor yet the consecrating of it. Without attempting any logical definition of a sacrament, I at present remark that I consider baptism to be the initiatory rite, and the Lord’s supper the commemorative institution of the Christian church, and both of them symbolic representations of evan- gelical truth. The word sacramentum, etymologically, that which consecrates, in its most extensive signification denotes anything sacred. Its earliest use, so far as we know, was to denote the sum of money deposited, according to a very ancient law of the Romans, by the parties in a suit, under the care of the Pontifex, to be recovered by the party who might gain the cause, and to be forfeited by him who might lose it, to a sacred purpose. The very laudable object of this sacramen- tum, or sacred money, was to discourage frivolous and vexatious suits, and to punish litigious people. Hence a sacrament came to denote a pledge, any sacred obligation, and more specifically the oath of the soldiers in swearing allegiance to their commander. The word is frequently found, not only in the Vulgate, but in the older Latin versions, as the @ Leviathan, pt. 111. ch. 35. 8 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. translation of the Greek term μυστήριον, mystery. The translators seem to have employed it to denote a sign of truth. The services designated by it were, at an early period, regarded as revealing some important doctrines to the faithful. As the Greek Christians, familiar with the mystic rites and initiations of their countrymen, called the sacred symbols of their faith, the holy mysteries: so the Latins, selecting the word sacramentum as the most appropriate to express the same signification, called the symbolic rites of their church, sacraments. Although the word mystery in the New Testament, is never applied to either of the symbolic institutions of the Gospel; yet as they were called mysteries at so early a period by the Greeks, the Latin translators, accustomed to this use of the word, very naturally introduced sacramentum for the μυστήριον of the original. And even in pas- sages where the older Latin versions, as well as the Vulgate, retain the Greek word in its Latinized form, “ mysterium,” the Latin Fathers often substitute the word sacramentum, as St. Augustine in reply to a person, who, on account of his baptism, claimed to be regenerate, says: ‘‘Hear the apostle, If I know all sacraments,” (in the original, as in the Vulgate, mysteries) ‘and all knowledge, and have faith so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”* The Latin word sacrament and the « Sed habeo, inquit, sacramentum. Audi apostolum, si sciam omnia sacramenta, et habeam omnem fidem ita ut montes transferam, cha- ritatem autem non habeam, nihil sum. August. in 1 Epist. Joan. Tractat. v. ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. 9 Greek word mystery, both in the older Latin versions and in the Vulgate, as well as by the Latin Fathers, although there was no original affinity between them, seem to have been used indifferently. Thus we have both in the old Latin and in the Vulgate, 2 Thess. ii. 17, “ The mystery of iniquity ;” but in 1 Tim. iii. 16, “The sacrament of godliness.” So we have in the Apocalypse, the sacrament of the seven stars, and again, the sacrament of the woman in scarlet clothing, and her name is said to be in the Vulgate, Mystery, but in the older version, Sacrament. As the Greek noun μυστήριον, derived from a verb which denotes to instruct in sacred things, to initi- ate, meant a sacred thing to be promulgated only among the initiated;* not an ordinary secret, but according to the definition of Phavorinus, ‘‘a solemn thing not to be told;” so the Latin Fathers used the word sacramentum in the same sense and with the same restriction: and as the mysteries of the Greeks came to denote not only the sacred things themselves, but also their symbols, (the new sense, ritw juvenum, becoming the more prevalent) so in the Latin churches the sacramentum is sometimes the sacred truth of the Gospel, and sometimes (the more frequently the later we proceed) the symbol of that sacred truth. Thus with Tertullian, of sacred truths, the Christian religion is a sacrament,’ the doctrine of “The Greek Fathers call the baptized ‘rods Χριστῷ redovpevous,” Clem. Alex. Ped. lib. iii. cap. 11; as they frequently employ the words τελείον and τελείωσις in this sense. ὁ Apol. i. 15. 10 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. the Trinity is a sacrament of the economy,’ sacred mystery reserved for the initiated is the tacitum sa- cramentum,’ the resurrection of the dead is a kind of sacrament ;° and so of sacred emblems, dreams sent from God are sacraments,’ the cross is a sacrament of wood,’ the anointing of our Saviour by the Holy Ghost, the sacrament of the unction/ the imposition of Jacob’s hands upon the sons of Joseph, crossing each other, an ancient sacrament,’ monogamy, the sacrament of priests and deacons,” baptism the sacra- ment of water, or of washing,’ and the Lord’s supper the sacrament of thanksgiving’ with many similar expressions. It is evident that Tertullian unscru- pulously applied the word to any religious rite what- soever, although he sometimes employs it in the more classical sense of a solemn engagement, as in the address “ad Martyras.” ‘‘ We were,” he says, “called to the warfare of the living God, when we answered in the words of the sacrament.“ By the sacrament, he evidently means the baptismal vow of obedience, demanded by the ancient church, includ- ing the renunciation and the profession of Christ.’ # Ady. Prax. ο. 2. οἰκονομίας sacramentum. ὁ De Prescrip. Heret. c. 26. © De Res. Carn. ec. 21, species sacramenti. @ Adv. Psych. ο. 7. e Adv. Jud.c.18. 0. Adv. Prax. c. 28. 5. De Bapt. c. 8. hDeMonog.c.11. ‘' De Bapt.c.1, 12. De Virg. vel.c. 2. 7 De Corona, ο. 3. Rigs Θὲ !This form is by other Latin Fathers called the Promissum, the Pactum, the Votum, the Professio, the Cautio. Even here, however, the word might have been suggested by the symbolic service rather than by the pledge or engagement. He also applies the term to supernatural gifts—charismata. De Anima, cap. 9. ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. 11 Cyprian uses the word sacramentum in the same sense and with the same latitude as his master. Ac- cording to him, the Eucharist is the sacrament of the cross ;* water is one sacrament, and the Spirit is an- other of which we must be regenerated, the sign and the thing signified being regarded as two sacraments.’ Augustine, however, treating of the same subject, (and his language shows, that in his time, the term was becoming limited in its signification, to the symbol rather than to the truth signified,) speaks only of the water as the sacrament, and not of the Spirit. He says,° “‘ One thing, therefore, is the water of the sacra- ment, another the water which signifies the Spirit of God. The water of the sacrament is visible, the water of the Spirit, invisible. That washes the body, and signifies what is done in the soul; by this Spirit the soul itself is cleansed.” Precisely in the same manner * De Zelo et Livore, c. viii. De Sacramento Crucis et cibum sumis et potum. So I understand the passage, but there are other expositions. See Routh’s Opuscula, i. 842. Cyprian’s correspondent, Firmilian, speaks of the Passover among the “ multa alia divine rei sacramenta.” (Ep. ad Cyp. ¢.ix.) He also, in connexion with the Eucharist, speaks of the “‘sacramentum solite predicationis,” by which may be intended, as Fell supposed, the ἀνάμνησις, or commemoration in words of the death of Christ; or according to others, the customary prayers which St. Basil calls the ἐκκλησιαστικὰ κηρύγματα. Ep. eexl. The ark, with Firmilian, is the sacrament or sign of the church. ὁ Tune demum plane sanctificari, et esse fili Dei possunt, si sa- cramento utroque nascantur, cum scriptum sit: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest introire in regnum Dei. Cyprian. Epist. Lxxii. ¢ Aliud est, ergo, aqua sacramenti: aliud, aqua que significat Spiritum Dei. Aqua sacramenti visibilis est : aqua Spiritus, invisi- bilis. Ista abluit corpus, et significat quod fit in anima: per illum Spiritum ipsa anima mundatur. August. Expos. in Epist. Jam. i. 4. 12 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. Jerome, Ambrose, and the other Latin writers, use the word. The connexion of the two terms, mystery and sacrament, may be observed in several passages. Tertullian says,* “In the mysteries of the idolators, Satan imitated the divine sacraments.” So Augustine, “In baptized infants, the sacrament of regeneration precedes, and, if they retain Christian piety, there fol- lows also in the heart conversion, the mystery of which preceded in the body.”’ So, on the other hand, the Latin sacramentum is translated into Greek μυστήριον by ecclesiastical and even by profane authors; as Herodian, when speaking of the military sacrament of the Romans, says, ‘‘ And now preserving the mili- tary oath, which is the venerable mystery of the Roman sovereignty.”* Aided by this verbal associa- tion with the pagan mysteries, as it would seem, there soon arose in the church the doctrine of reserve, the disciplina arcani, the confining of evangelical truths to the initiated, and concealing from the eyes of the profane the simple rites of the Christian religion, as if they were of peculiar and awful sanctity. These rites became mystic, reserved only for the perfect, in whose initiation baptism was deemed the proper ablution, and the Eucharist was venerated as the ineffable a“ A Diabolo scilicet—qui ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divi- norum, in idolorum mysteriis emulatur.” De Preescrip. Heret. exl. ὁ ΚΤ baptizatis infantibus, precedit regenerationis sacramentum et, sichristianam tenuerint pietatem, sequitur etiam in corde conversio, cujus mysterium precessit in corpore.’ August. de Baptism. cont. Donat. Lib. iv. ο. 44. © “Kai viv φυλάσσοντες τὸν στρατιωτικὸν ὅρκον, bs ἐστι τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῆς σεμνὸν μυστήριον." Πωροά. lib. 8. ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. 13 mystery. Hence too, we think, arose the institution and rule of unbaptized catechumens, so unlike any- thing to be found in the apostolic age; hence the necessity of discoursing with studied ambiguity before the people, concerning the most important truths of regeneration and the sacrifice of Christ; hence the frequent and peremptory command to the uninitiated to depart, as from a revelation too solemn for them to witness, the minister of the sanctuary acting the part of the hierophant of the grove or the grotto, exclaiming almost in his words, “‘ Procul, O procul, este profani ;” hence the frequent remark of the preacher, when adverting in ambiguous terms to a mystery,—‘‘ The initiated understand it:”* and hence the tumid phrase- ology of the philosophical fathers, as Clement of Alexandria, derived from the Eleusinian processions, or Bacchanalian orgies, of sacred mysteries, and awful initiations, and ecstatic visions, and torch-bearing leaders, and mystic dances of angels around the one true God, intended to impress with reverence and awe the minds of the catechumens and other listeners, who were never permitted to witness the communion, or even to look within the baptistery; until these mystic forms eventually led to the transelementation of the waters of baptism into the blood of Christ, and the transubstantiation of the bread and wine of the Eucharist, into the body which was broken, and the blood which was shed for the remission of sins. The answer to the momentous question, What must I do to be saved? then required years for its explanation, , » “ οἱ τελούμενοι ἴσασιν. 14 ON THE TERM SACRAMENT. while the inquirer was passing through the long course of discipline among the hearers, and kneelers, and competents, with all their various rites and forms, until at last he was permitted to know the great, life- giving truths of the Gospel. Somewhat opposed to this view, which appears to me so evidently deduced from the early ecclesiastical writers, and not, I think, with his usual care and accuracy, the Bishop of Lincoln, in his very able work on Tertullian, attributes the introduction of the word sacramentum to its military use, as the oath of the Roman soldier, and thinks that the word being used to signify the promise or vow in baptism, came to denote, by an easy transition, the rite itself, and afterwards extending its signification, it included every religious ceremony, and eventually expressed the whole Christian doctrine.* We have stated our reasons for preferring another origin and rise of the term; yet the sacrament by a very natural figure, is often represented as the Christian’s oath of fidelity. The favourite appellation of the early Christians was, the soldiers of Christ; Christ was their commander, the world, the flesh, and the devil, were their enemies ; Christian graces their armour, martyrdom their crown, the baptismal promise, or the eucharistic profession, their oath of allegiance.’ « Kaye’s Tertullian. p. 356. ὁ “ Malunt exheredari a parentibus liberi, quam fidem Christianam rumpere, et salutaris militia: sacramenta deponere.” Arnobius, lib. ii. Yet Arnobius, like all the Latins, uses the word in the sense of a symbol, “ Religio Christiana veritatis abscondite sacramenta patefecit.” Lib: i. ¢: 3. SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 15 Although the Romanists assert that there are seven sacraments, they adduce neither Scripture nor anti- quity for that precise number. No ancient authority, Greek or Latin, makes the sacraments to be seven, nor assigns to their seven observances the exclusive power of conferring grace; which power, in the estimation of Catholics, and according to their own definitions, is essential to a sacrament. The num- ber having been ascertained by the schoolmen, and especially having been precisely defined by the great master of sentences, Peter Lombard, (and Bellarmine‘ their great controversialist, himself assigns no higher antiquity to the perfect number of seven,) the council of Trent devoted to the terrors of its anathema all who dared to dispute their computation.” Its decree was confirmed, although Bellarmine admits, as indeed is undeniable, that the ancients called many things sacraments, besides these seven.” Thus the council of Trent, if its decrees are to be strictly con- strued, lays under its ban the whole Catholic church of the first four or five centuries, by whose traditions and authority it professes to be governed. So the bull of Pius IV. requires every priest on his ordination to profess that there are, truly and properly, seven sacraments.“ And what may seem unaccountable @ Bell. de Sacram. lib. ii. c. 25. ὁ “Si quis dixerit, sacramenta nove legis esse plura vel pauciora quam septem, anathema sit.” Syn. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 1. ὁ “Multa dicuntur a veteribus sacramenta preter ista septem.” Bell. de Sacram. ii. 24. @“Profiteor quoque septem esse propri¢ et vere sacramenta.” Bulla Pui IV. 16 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. minuteness and precision, the church of Rome, not admitting her seven sacraments to be of equal import- ance, holds in terrorem a curse over all who mistake their comparative value.* The sacraments ordained by the council of Trent are, besides baptism and the eucharist, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction. In noticing these sacraments of the Church of Rome, we must keep in mind her own doctrine, that grace is conferred by the due per- formance of the rite itself, unless it be resisted by mortal sin. Confirmation is the sacrament by which, according to the ancient churches who practised it, and accord- ing to the elder canonists of the Roman church itself, the bishop by the imposition of his hands upon the head of a baptized person, in virtue of his episcopal authority, derived from the apostles, bestows ad- ditional and confirming grace, to complete that which the priest had conferred in the act of baptism. The council of Trent, however, preferring the dialectics of the theologues to the precedents of the canonists, decided, under the sanction of the anathema ever at its command, that the matter or element of confirmation was chrism, and the form of it the words, “I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, ᾽ and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” thus, as some honest Catholics acknowledge, changing both a “Si quis dixerit hee septem Sacramenta ita esse inter se paria, ut nulla ratione aliud sit alio dignius, anathema sit.” Syn. Trid. Sess. 7. Can. 3. ᾿ : SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCTH. 7 the substance and the form of an ancient sacrament. Confirmation being one of the unreiterable sacraments, is said to confer an indelible character ; but what that character is, Catholics, so far as I can find, do not very explicitly declare. Some of the fathers distinguished between the grace of baptism and that of confirmation, by saying, that in baptism, sins are remitted, and in confirmation, the Holy Ghost is bestowed. Hence, in the controversy about the validity of the baptism of heretics, who could not confer the Holy Ghost, they held, on the one side, that the imposition of episcopal hands, being the proper mode of imparting the Holy Ghost, was sufficient, in receiving such as had been baptized by heretics to the communion of the Catholic church. Their opponents, however, who observed the eastern tradition, maintained that the Holy Ghost must be also conferred in baptism, as without his presence, there could not be the new birth, and that, conse- quently, heretical baptisms were invalid and useless.“ Of the difference between the grace conferred in bap- tism, and that superadded in confirmation, Roman Catholic writers are not very clear, nor very consistent; “ One sentence from the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian will show the opinions of both sides. “ Et quoniam Stephanus et qui illi con- sentiunt, contendunt dimissionem peccatorum et secundam nativitatem in hereticorum baptisma posse procedere, apud quos etiam ipsi con- fitentur Spiritum Sanctum non esse; considerent et intelligant spirita- lem nativitatem sine Spiritu esse non posse; secundum quod et beatus apostolus Paulus eos qui ab Joanne baptizati fuerant, priusquam missus esset Spiritus Sanctus a Domino, baptizavit denuo_ spiritali baptismo, et sic eis manum imposuit, ut acciperent Spiritum Sanctum.” Kpist. Firm. ad 8. Cypr. ec. 6. Ὁ 18 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. | yet to deny that the grace of baptism is regene- ration, and therefore sufficient to enable a man to enter the kingdom of heaven, would be to incur the anathema,—as it would be to deny that the grace of confirmation is necessary,—as it would be to assert that the grace of baptism and that of confirmation combined, will be sufficient for a dying man, without the grace of extreme unction, if it may be obtained,— and as it would be to maintain that the accumulated grace of all the seven sacraments would be sufficient for a sinner, without the more effectual purification of the flames of purgatory. ‘To escape the anathemas of the council of Trent, which fly in all directions, and meet us at every turn, the only safe and easy method is to yield implicit faith to the close of the profession of Pius IV.: “ Also all other things, by the sacred canons and cecumenical councils, and espe- cially by the holy synod of Trent, delivered, defined, and declared, I unhesitatingly receive and profess, and at the same time all things contrary, and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the church, I, in like manner, do condemn, reject, and anathematize.”* But then we must believe contradictions, some to Scripture, some to antiquity, some to the decisions of popes, some to the decrees of general councils, and some even to the canons of the holy synod itself. @ Cetera item omnia a Sacris Canonibus et CEcumenicis Conciliis ac precipue a Sacrosancta Tridentina Synodo tradita, definita et decla- rata, indubitanter recipio atque profiteor; simulque contraria omnia, atque hereses quascunque ab Ecclesia damnatas et rejectas et anathe- matizatas ego pariter damno, respuo et anathematizo. SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 19 The Church of England teaches that confirmation is not a sacrament; yet assuredly it is one, according to her own formularies and her own definition. Her catechism defines a sacrament to be “ an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” In confirmation, the bishop prays in these words, “We make our humble supplication unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom (after the example of thy holy apostles) we have now laid our hands, to certify them (by this sign) of thy favour and gracious goodness towards them.” In this prayer it is implied, that the imposition of episcopal hands is not only a sign, but a certificate of God’s favour and gracious goodness. But that which is a sign and certificate of God’s gracious goodness—a visible sign of spiritual grace—is a sacrament according to the catechism. On the contrary, in the twenty-fifth Article, it is said, “ Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for sacra- ments of the gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed by the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of sacraments with baptism and the Lord’s supper, for that they have not any visible sign ” or ceremony, ordained of God.” The evangelical clergy must, I fear, solicit the assistance of the inge- nious author of the Tract No. 90, to reconcile the office of confirmation, which declares that the act of the bishop “certifies by this sign God’s favour and gracious goodness,” and the Article of religion which CES 20 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. asserts that confirmation “ has no visible sign or cere- mony ordained of God.” But if the ceremony be not ordained of God, where may its origin be sought? The Article most clearly informs us; Not being a state of life, like orders or matrimony, but an act of the bishop, it must, accord- ing to the Article, have grown of the corrupt following of the apostles, and with the Article we cordially ce agree ; confirmation has “ grown of the corrupt fol- lowing of the apostles,” and we can trace its growth. As the apostles of our Lord baptized in his name, for “he baptized not, but his disciples,” he seems by the imposition of hands to have blessed the baptized, and so to have recognised and accredited the acts of his apostles. However that may have been, the apostles Peter and John laid their hands upon such as Philip baptized, and conferred upon them the visible and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. So Paul at Ephesus, on finding that twelve men had not received the Holy Ghost, conferred it upon them by the imposition of his hands. It would seem from pas- sages in the Corinthians and Galatians, that the apostles did not usually baptize, although they alone imparted the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. To confer these powers they often travelled a consi- derable distance. St. Paul earnestly desired to visit the Romans, that he might impart to them some spiritual gift. If this imposition of hands by the apostles were confirmation, then let it be observed that the bishops of that age could not confirm. If the bishops were competent, why should the apostle so it Sa SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. Ὁ earnestly desire to confer the extraordinary grace upon the believers in Rome? To reply, that bishops are the successors of the apostles, is to deny that they were contemporary with the apostles; for if apostles and bishops co-existed as two distinct offices in the primitive church, the modern bishops must surely be the successors of the ancient bishops, and not of the apostles, holding another office; or, if they have succeeded to the apostolic, and not to the episcopal office, then ought they to be called apostles, and not bishops. If the apostolic bishops, the holy men on whom the apostles laid their hands, could not confirm, it seems reasonable, with all respect and humility, to inquire how modern bishops became invested with the apostolic authority, to which their predecessors of the apostolic age did not pretend ? The rise of confirmation may, however, be easily traced. At first the imposition of hands, as the sign of conferring the Holy Ghost, was a part or accom- paniment of the baptismal service, or as Hooker, in accordance with the language of antiquity, calls it, “a sacramental complement.” ‘The bishops at a very early period, claimed the right of administering bap- tism, or of approving the persons to whom it was to be administered. “ It is not lawful,” says Ignatius, ‘“‘ without the bishop to baptize, or keep the feast of charity." “ The right of giving baptism hath the chief priest,” that is the bishop, says Tertullian.’ a « Οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν." 8. Ign. Epist. ad Smyrn. cap. 8. ® Dandi quidem habet jus summus sacerdos. De Bapt. c. 17. 22 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. But, as churches increased, and especially as bishop- rics became diocesan, it was not convenient, or even possible, for the bishops to be present at all baptisms. They, therefore, reserved to themselves the confirma- tion of the baptism, and, it would seem also, its most precious blessing, the gift of the Holy Ghost. “ It is the custom,” says Jerome, “for the bishop to go abroad, and, imposing his hands, pray for the Holy Ghost upon those whom presbyters and deacons at a distance have already baptized in lesser cities.’ Decrees of councils direct, that persons baptized when travelling, or in extreme sickness, should, on their return or recovery, be brought to the bishop, who was to confirm the baptism by the imposition of hands.’ The imposition of the apostles’ hands upon the converts of Philip, was cited as the authority for the service,° and so, ““ confirmation growing,” as the Article of the Church of England beautifully and accurately describes it, ‘ of the corrupt following of the apostles,” became a separate service, and even- « Jer, advers. Lucif. cap. 4.“ The cause of severing confirmation from baptism (for most commonly they went together) was sometimes in the minister, who, being of inferior degree, might baptize, but not con- firm.” (Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book v. § 66.) The other cause, accord- ing to Hooker, arose out of heretical baptisms, which were afterwards confirmed by the ministers of the catholic church. Jerome observes, that the cause of this observance is not any absolute impossibility of receiving the Holy Ghost by the sacrament of baptism, unless a bishop add after it the imposition of hands, but rather a certain con- eruity and fitness to honour prelacy with such pre-eminences, because the safety of the church dependeth upon the dignity of her chief supe- riors, to whom, if some eminent offices of power, above others, should not be given, there would be in the church as many schisms as priests. 6 Cone. Elib. Can. xxx. © Cyprian. Epist. 73. SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 23 tually another sacrament, or visible sign of the grace of the Holy Spirit imparted.¢ The next sacrament is penance, of which the name is a corruption of the penitentia of the Vulgate, where it undoubtedly means repentance. But, how should repentance be a sign or sacrament of grace? The Catholics distinguish between the internal virtue or contrition, and the external sign or penance. The acts of penance, especially the auricular confession, were thus made sacramental; but as it seemed diffi- cult to say how grace could be conferred without an act of the priest, some placed the sacrament in the absolution of the penitent. Thomas Aquinas, how- ever, had the singular merit of reconciling the difference, by discovering, through his extraordinary penetration and sagacity, that the confession or con- trition of the penitent is the material, and the abso- lution of the priest the form of the sacrament; that is, the confession becomes a sacrament, when the “ It is remarkable, that priests and deacons, and even laymen and women, were deemed competent to administer the greater sacra- ment of baptism, but only bishops could bestow the lesser grace of confirmation. A most important part of this sacrament was the anoint- ing, the sealing of the forehead with the sacred chrism, which could only be consecrated by a bishop, although at various times presump- tuous and profane presbyters have attempted it, so that many decrees of councils have been necessary to prevent the use of the counterfeit. On what authority this part of confirmation is omitted in the service of the English church, I know not, unless it be the act of the first of Elizabeth, or the fourteenth of Charles II. The English parliament has touched the carved work of the ancient sanctuary with a rough hand. The consecrated oil was so sacred that, according to St. Basil, no unbaptized person might be permitted to look upon it. 2A SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. priest pronounces the absolution. The grace conferred in penance, is the absolution of sins committed after baptism. This doctrine, although it had been opposed by high authorities in the schools, received the solemn sanction of the council of Trent, and is, since that time, whatever it was before, most surely believed by all Romanists to be true, catholic, and apostolic. This sacrament appears without the name, but with something worse, in the order for the visitation of the sick, in the offices of the English church. ‘‘ Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the priest shall absolve him, (if he humbly and heartily desire it,) after this sort. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences. And by his authority, committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” This act of the priest is certainly an outward and visible sign, and the absolution of sin is certainly an inward and spiritual grace; and therefore, in contradiction to the Article, but in accordance with the Catechism, as confirmation was the third, we are warranted in calling absolution or penance, the fourth sacrament of the Church of England. This sacrament of penance must be carefully distinguished from the discipline of the penitents in the ancient church. The - penitents of the early ages were excommunicated or SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 29 suspended persons, who were preparing for their restoration. Their confession was not auricular, but after acts of humiliation in the porch, made publicly in the church, into the midst of which they were con- ducted by the bishop; they were sometimes con- tinued in the penitential classes for years, and as their confession was public, so was their absolution, which was originally and properly the removal of the censure of the church, and re-admission to its com- munion, of which the sacramental sign was the imposition of hands. The penitential canons remain to contradict the council of Trent. Can there be found, in the first three or four centuries, a single instance of absolution pronounced upon any person who had not been previously excommunicated or suspended from the eucharist? ‘‘ Our censure,” says Tertullian, “‘ cometh with much authority, as of men assured that they are under the eye of God; and it is a grave premonition of the coming judgment, if any shall have so offended as to be put out of the partici- pation of prayer, of the solemn meeting, and of all holy fellowship.” ¢ Orders in the Article of the Church of England seems to be regarded, not as a sacrament, but as a state of life. This, however, and the same remark will apply to matrimony, is not a fair representation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome. By the sacra- ment of orders is meant ordination, not so much the state of the priest as the act of conferring the gift or @ Apol. i. 39. See Appendix A. 26 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. grace of the priesthood. By the imposition of epis- copal hands, according to the ancient and the Anglican church, or by the delivery of the sacred vessels, as the chalice of wine and paten of bread, according to the council of Florence, (that of Trent does not define the matter of this sacrament,) the power is commu- nicated of discharging all the functions of the sacer- dotal office. A man so ordained can regenerate in baptism, can transubstantiate the bread and wine of the eucharist, can absolve the penitent, and holding the key of St. Peter, can open, and no man shutteth, and shut, and no man openeth the gate of everlasting life. As to the nature of this power, popish authorities agree that, in ordination, some indelible character is communicated ; but subtle have been their disputes respecting it. Something is imparted to constitute the priest, but what that something is, the quiddity of the character, they cannot or they will not tell us. [{ is not piety, for it may be imparted to very wicked men, as Catholics assert, and some Protestants do not deny. Being unreiterable, it adheres with a tenacity not to be dissolved by the fiercest flames of purgatory, and ever will adhere, even to condemned priests in hell. Amidst the endless disputes of the schoolmen and the doctors of the church, as to the what and the whereabouts, the substance and the locality of the indelible character of the priesthood, as Dr. Campbell shrewdly observes, “The whole of what they agreed in, amounts to this, that in the unreiterable sacra- ments, as they call them, something, they know not SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 27 what, is imprinted they know not how, on something in the soul of the recipient, they know not where, which never can be deleted.” “ Let us now hear the Church of England. Is there not in her office of ordination both an outward and visible sign and an inward and spiritual grace? If there be, is not ordination a sacrament according to her own definition? It will surely not be said that the visible sign is not ordained of Christ, but merely a matter of human arrangement, and therefore not sacramental. Episcopalians plead apostolic autho- rity for their ordinations; and if they did not, it is too much to assume that they can confer the Holy Ghost without the authority of Christ. Solemn are the words of the bishop, as he lays his hands upon the candidate, and says, ‘‘ Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.” If these words be true, if the Holy Ghost be conferred by the imposition of epis- copal hands, then is ordination not only a sacrament, but as the council of Trent makes a distinction, a “ As the Romish doctrine is, that the grace of a sacrament is not conferred, without the will of the priest, nor upon a person in mortal sin; and, as every person is in mortal sin who does not concur in all the anathemas upon heretics, in ordination, a bishop may be so wicked, or a priest so charitable, as to frustrate the grace. On that, no im- probable supposition, all the sacraments administered by such a priest, except baptism, are unavailing. What confidence is there in such a priesthood ? Does not this fact endanger the succession ? 28 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. great sacrament; or rather, as it gives validity to all the others, the Romish and English church ought to call it the greatest of the sacraments. Allow me, how- ever, to ask with the earnestness and solemnity which the subject requires, the many evangelical ministers who adorn the communion of the Church of England, if they really believe that the Holy Ghost and the power of absolution are conferred by the act of epis- copal ordination? Allow me to entreat them to consider the most logical conclusion, but most pernicious doctrine, that evil men, “if lawfully consecrated,” do minister at her altars, by ‘‘ Christ’s commission and authority.” Matrimony. Although Romish writers often ex- press themselves obscurely, yet there can be no doubt that by this sacrament is meant, not so much the state of matrimony, as the act of solemnizing it; not so much the union of the parties, as the blessing of the priest upon that union. It may appear to a superficial observer, extraordinary, that the church which prohibits the marriage of her clergy, ascribes peculiar sanctity to perpetual virginity and_ the monastic life, and allows matrimony only as an indulgence to the infirmities of human nature, should regard as a sacrament the act by which persons are sanctioned in their descent from the purer state to one less honourable in the church and less acceptable to God. Yet, upon this point, the Church of Rome is very particular, and the council of Trent pronounces the anathema upon all who deny that marriage is one SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 29 of the sacraments.* The inconsistency, however, may be explained, on considering the nature of the grace supposed to be conferred in the act of solemnizing marriage. The marriage state itself, per se, according to the Romish doctrine, is polluted, although per- mitted to prevent greater evils. By the sacrament of marriage, the grace conferred so purifies the carnal state, that the sin is not imputed ; whereas the parties, without this grace, would be living together in mortal sm. At a very early period, certainly in the second century, the bishops and priests claimed the right of approving, ratifying, and blessing the marriages of Christians. Ignatius, in his epistle to Polycarp, if indeed that blessed martyr wrote the passages which are so remarkable for their fulsome glorification of bishops, and not very appropriate to an humble member of that order, exactly expresses the catholic doctrine of a later age. ‘If any man can abide in chastity, let him abide without boasting ; if he boast, he is ruined. It becomes both men and women on their marriage, to form their union with the consent of the bishop, that so their marriage may be according to God, and not according to concu- piscence.”’ Tertullian, in the warmth of his ardent soul, is at a loss for words to celebrate the “bliss of that marriage which the church binds, and the obla- « «Si quis dixerit matrimonium non esse vere ac proprié unum ex septem legis Evangelice Sacramentis, a Christo Domino insti- tutum—neque gratiam conferre, anathema sit.” Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. Can. 1. ὁ Epist. ad Poly. c. v. 30 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. tion confirms, and the benediction seals, and the angels report, and the Father ratifies." Clement of Alexandria and later writers represent the presbyter as blessing the marriage,’ which, according to the epistle of Ignatius, is the prerogative of the bishop. The assertion of some of the English clergy, that marriage without a religious ceremony is an un- authorised and sinful cohabitation, evidently implies the popish notion of a sacrament, in imparting by their benediction the grace of purifying the union of the parties from the sin which would otherwise attach to it. The council of Trent says that Christ instituted marriage, but how or where we are not informed. Was the Jewish marriage at Cana, a sacrament? or if it was not, did our Lord by his presence sanction a sinful cohabitation? St. Paul speaking of married persons where only one of the parties being Christian, the sacrament of marriage, even if at that time there was any Christian cere- mony, could not have been observed, says, ‘ the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, and the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife.” The marriage was pure, and the parties to each other were sanctified, and the children were holy, without any sacrament or blessing of a Christian priest. Besides, were all the husbands and wives of the apostolic converts re-married according to the sacra- ment, or were they all, in continuing to live together, living in mortal sin? The reply of Catholic casuists « Ad Ux. II. ο. viii. ὁ Pedag. iii. 11. SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 31 is, that the marriage of heathens becomes sacramental on the parties becoming Christians. In these remarks, I have probably constructed the most respectable theory which can be devised to reconcile conflicting statements of Catholic authorities on the sacrament of marriage. JI am aware that they often speak of the state of marriage as a sacrament ; but as, according to their doctrine, every sacrament causes grace, the marriage service performed by the priest, and not the marriage state, causing the grace, must be regarded as the sacrament. There is also con- siderable difference of opinion as to the grace conferred. I have stated what appears to me the most reasonable and consistent view of the Catholic doctrine. Some Romanists assert, that the grace conferred is the mutual love of the husband and wife; and Bellarmine says,“ “9 ΤῸ causes such alove between a man and his wife, as there is between Christ and his church ;” but although sustained by so high an authority, I do not like to attribute such gross and palpable absurdities even to Romanists. On the subject of marriage, the canonists, and as Stillingfleet has shown, the schoolmen, even the greatest of them, Thomas Aquinas and Scotus, were not orthodox according to the decrees of the council of Trent. Extreme Unction is the last of the Romish sacra- ments, and frequently called the sacrament of the dying. The patient, in his last moments, when life is utterly hopeless, is anointed with oil, by which act “De Sacram. lib. 1. ¢. 5. 32 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. grace is said to be conferred, in order to destroy the last relics of corruption, and to defend him amidst the perils of “ the valley of the shadow of death.” That there is no scriptural authority for this ceremony, must be acknowledged by all who can read the Bible. To cite the words of St. James, ‘Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up,” is to cite a passage totally irrelevant. This anointing was intended for the recovery of the patient, whereas the Romish unction is administered only when re- covery is hopeless. That was medicinal and salutary for the body; this is beneficial only to the departing spirit. After that anointing the Lord raised up the sick; after extreme unction the patient should taste no more food, but calmly await inevitable dissolution. According to the Rabbins,* it was usual with the Jews to anoint the sick with oil; and it would, therefore, appear, that the apostles of our Lord, and the elders of the church, followed the ordinary medical prac- tice ; but instead of the charms and incantations which the Jews were wont to repeat, the Christian elders poured forth their prayers to God for the recovery of the patient.’ So in the early ecclesiastical “ See Lightfoot’s Exercit. on Matt. vi. 17. ὁ Commentators as late as Theophylact and G2cumenius understand the apostle James to refer to the medical anointing mentioned in Mark vi. 13: “And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 33 records, we read of the anointing of sick persons, but evidently with a view to their recovery by medicinal or by miraculous power, as, according to Tertullian, a Christian, named Proculus, healed the emperor Severus, by anointing him with oil. Although anointings, on various occasions, were frequent among the early Christians, as in baptism and con- firmation, and after death, yet of extreme unction, a sacrament for the dying, the first ages of the church knew nothing whatever. The terms applied to the eucharist, as the last and most necessary viaticum,? together with the fact, that it was given in the last moments without any anointing, would show that extreme unction was not the sacrament of the dying.‘ Here, also, the canonists were at variance with the theologians, as some of them expressly maintained, that unction was not a sacrament; and as they generally held that it was to be administered on various occasions, and not to the dying. The council of Trent having pronounced, with its accustomed solemnity, its anathema upon all who maintained such opinions, settled the controversy. Such were the anathemas of the Gicumenical Sacrosanct Council upon the subject of the seven sacraments, that as they rolled through the long aisles of the magnificent cathedral, from the unanimous concurrence of the voices of legates and cardinals, bishops and doctors, divines and lawyers, they were enough to make the “ Ad Scapulam, cap. iv. ’ See Appendix B. ¢ Eusebius Hist. Ece. 1. vi. c. 44. D 34 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. statues of many ancient saints tremble in their shrines ; the bones of their own canonists to start in their tombs; the spirits of doctors, seraphical, angelical, and irrefragable, to turn pale with terror; and the books of decretals and digests to feel the brand of heresy upon every folio of their venerable parchments. From what has been said, it appears that of the seven sacraments of the Romanists, the English church, although restricting the name to two of them, virtually retains five, not regarding matrimony as a sacrament, and repudiating extreme unction. According to her own formularies, she is in possession of five symbols, by which grace is not only exhibited, but communi- cated, the grace of regeneration in baptism, the grace of the Holy Ghost in confirmation, the grace of communion with Christ in the eucharist, the grace of absolution in penance, the grace of administering God’s sacraments in ordination; and if the grace of purifying the marriage union is imparted by the service of matrimony, as some clergymen assert, on their principles we must add the sacrament of mar- riage, to the outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, belonging to the Church of England. By only one sacrament, or at worst, two, is Canter- bury inferior to Rome. I need scarcely mention what a certain class of divines call the sacrament of unity, which, it is affirmed, belonged to the Catholic church before its divisions, in its oneness of creed, around its centre of unity, but which has been lost in the dissension of the Latin and Greek churches, and in the great schism SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 35 of the sixteenth century, producing, on the one hand, the Tridentine doctrine; on the other, the Reforma- tion. This sacrament, allowing the impropriety of the name to pass without remark, is, we believe, a pure fiction; but fiction as it is, we cannot refrain from expressing our surprise, that Tractarian writers should acknowledge it to have vanished, as in so doing they admit the loss of the infallible testimony of the universal church; that is, of the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, in contradiction to the promise of God, as they interpret it, that the Holy Spirit should ever abide with the church. When they now exclaim, ea cathedrd, “hear the church,” they call up learning and royalty to listen to a church, which, by their own confession, has lost its sacrament of unity, and therefore is as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal, and must remain so, until by union it recovers its original, catholic and infallible authority. The unity of doctrine pervading the Catholic church, is supposed to have been, in better days, before the occurrence of the great schism, sacramentally exhi- bited by a visible and acknowledged head, as the centre of all bishops, presbyters, and deacons. On the top-stone of that temple whose foundation is Christ and the apostles, was raised the chair of St. Peter, and his successors, for the time being holding the keys, emblem of the unity; but whether that loftiest pinnacle of the universal church, enclosing Christendom within its walls, rose at Rome or at Constantinople, at Jerusalem or at Antioch, Tract- arians have not ventured to speak with confidence. D 2 36 SACRAMENTS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. Nor is the inquiry now of much importance, as they admit the chair has fallen, by reason of the rending of the temple from the top to the bottom. But if this infallible guidance has been lost in the disputes of the Reformation, why might it not have been lost in the fierce contentions of the ancient church on the keeping of Easter, the baptism of heretics, the homodusion confession, the iconoclastic feuds, and I know not how many other disputes which inflamed the Christian community and divided churches and bishops, who, we are told, possessed in common, though not individually, the teaching of the Holy Spirit? Yet, amidst so much contention, the universal church, according to the Tractarians, did not lose her sacramental unity, until the great schism of the Latins and Greeks, or the greater of the Romanists and the reformed. Of what value to us would be the authority of Scripture, if it could be shown that the apostles disagreed upon various im- portant subjects? Of what authority is tradition, if the traditors while living, were engaged in angry and interminable disputes, arising out of their common faith? Roman Catholics maintain with more consistency, that uniformity still exists, the ever-living and glorious truth of their church, flowing in an undivided and perennial stream, clear as crystal, around its immediate centre of unity, the chair of St. Peter, placed on a rock and not on a ruin, and abundantly supplying with its pure and incorruptible water of life, the one peaceful, harmonious, undivided catholic church of God, having one faith, one Lord, SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 37 one baptism, of which all schismatics and heretics are unhappily and absolutely bereaved. Nor have 1 noticed the sacrament of the catechumens, as it was sometimes called by the ancients. This, several Romanists suppose to have been a part of the bread from the oblations of the faithful, distributed at the feast of the resurrection among the catechumens. It seems, however, to be clearly established by Bingham, in his Antiquities, that this sacrament was the small quantity of salt given to the catechumens as the emblem of purity and incorruption, the only sacrament which was allowed to them, even at the celebration of the great festival of Easter.” Besides these several observances, which by different persons have been called sacraments, there is a service of a sacramental character observed at the present time by many of our Christian brethren, on which a few remarks may be expected. I mean the agapz or love-feasts of the Moravians, the Wesleyan Methodists, and some other religious communities. That there are traces of the agape in the apostolic age we readily admit, and therefore if they were not symbolic observances, we are bound to inquire what purposes they were intended to accomplish. We believe that they were what they were called, really and properly, not emblematically, feasts of charity, feasts for the relief and comfort of the poor, the “Concil. Carthag. HT. Can. 5. Placuit ut per solemnissimos Paschales dies, Sacramentum Catechumenis non detur, nisi solitum sal; quia si Fideles per ilos dies sacramenta non mutant, non catechumenis oportet mutari. 38 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. travellers, and the itinerant preachers of the Gospel. The rich as we believe, provided on the Lord’s day, not luxurious entertainments, but plentiful and agree- able refreshments ; not certainly bread and water as in modern times, when love seems growing parsi- monious, but a friendly and hospitable table, at which all being welcome sat down in common, the brother of low degree rejoicing in that he was exalted, and the rich in that he was made low. The object seems to have been, that the poor might have, at the weekly feast of the resurrection, a more cheer- ful meal than their ordinary circumstances would allow, and that members of the church coming to worship from a distance, and strangers or messen- gers from other churches sojourning in the place, might share the hospitable and friendly entertain- ment. The feasts were not emblems, but acts; not professions, but proofs of charity. They were, indeed, liable to abuse on the one hand among those of a sensual disposition, by affording opportunities of intemperate indulgence; on the other, under the influence of an ascetic temperament in becoming mere formalities, the cold shadow of a feast without its social enjoyment. So abused, they gave place to exercises of charity more appropriate to the altered circumstances of succeeding ages. Let us, however, notice the evidence which, if not absolutely con- clusive, is highly favourable to this opinion. In reading the gospels, we cannot fail to observe how frequently the Jews, in the time of our Lord, invited their friends and neighbours to large and SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 39 liberal entertainments, for the most part, if not always, on the evening which closed the sabbath. How many of the parables and illustrations of our Lord are derived from the guest-chamber! The Saviour, instead of utterly condemning these festivals, which he occasionally sanctioned by his presence, commanded his followers to make them feasts of charity, entertainments for the poor and _ afflicted, offices of mercy, not occasions of luxury and dissi- pation. On the sabbath, at an entertainment of one of the chief Pharisees, which must have been nume- rously attended, for he marked how those who were bidden chose out the chief rooms, Jesus said to him that bade him, “‘ When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind.” This being on the evening of the sabbath, our Lord evi- dently recommended that instead of the costly and luxurious festivals, which ill became the sacred asso- ciation of so holy a day, his disciples should provide feasts of charity and friendship for the poor, by which, in the liberal and generous spirit of their religion, they might appropriately close the solemn- ities of the sabbath, as the religious feasts of the Jews were ordered to be celebrated, with the generous intention of diffusing cheerfulness in their families and among the indigent. ‘‘ And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite, and the stranger that is within thy gates.” Such was the institute of Moses; and shall a Christian church celebrate the propitious and glorious festival 40 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. of the resurrection, while her poor are distressed with the cravings of hunger, and their sorrowful thoughts and anxious looks ill accord with the loud and joyful hallelujahs of the great triumphant com- memoration in which the rich and the poor meet together, for the Lord is the maker of them all ? The digression would be too wide from our imme- diate subject, were I to notice the various circumstan- tials and forms which were transferred from the service of the synagogue, to the offices of the primitive church. Having in a note adverted to this subject,* I must here be content with observing that the apostles would naturally, if not of necessity, retain the modes of worship to which the people had been accustomed, unless those modes were changed by the express authority of the Holy Ghost. It is well known that houses of hospitality, places of sabbath entertainment for the poor, and for strangers attending their worship, were, at least frequently, if not usually, attached to the synagogues. According to Maimonides,’ “the hallowing of the sabbath” (he is speaking of the ceremony of announcing the sabbath) ‘‘may not be used, but only in the place where they eat. Why then do they use the hallowing word in the synagogue? because of travellers that do eat and drink there.” The gloss upon this passage is, “ they did not eat in their synagogues at all, but in a house near the synagogue; and there they sat to hear the hallowing of the sab- “ See Appendix C. ὁ Lightfoot’s Works, by Pitman, vol. 11. p. 274. SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 41] bath.” It appears, then, that these houses were hal- lowed every sabbath, because they were opened on that day for the hospitable entertainment of strangers. When Paul visited Corinth, he reasoned in the syna- gogue every sabbath, “and entered into a certain man’s house, named Justus, one that worshipped God,” (was a proselyte to Judaism,) “whose house joined hard to the synagogue.“ Paul, a stranger in Corinth, which city he had never before visited, went, before a single convert was made, to the house attached to the synagogue, according to the Jewish authorities, the proper place for the hospitable reception of strangers. The house of Justus may denote the house of the synagogue, kept by that proselyte, whose duty in that situation, would be to entertain strangers. But was this hospitable provision to be found in the church of Christ, as well as in the synagogue of the Jews? Did Christian societies, in this graceful and religious manner, show that in their separation from the synagogue, they were not forgetful to enter- tain strangers? Was there a feast, a cheerful though temperate meal, provided on the Lord’s day, for the strangers and for the poor, in the spirit of our Lord’s commendation of a sabbath entertainment? And was this meal the Agape of the primitive church? We think it was. “Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you.”? These words seem to imply an entertainment, not of the members separately, but of the church @ Acts xviii. 7. ὃ Romans xvi. 23. 42 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. collectively ; and to intimate that Gaius had supplied the entertainment at his own expense. It is not necessary to suppose he did so regularly, as often as the church kept the feast, but he did so with sufficient frequency to obtain the name of the host of the whole church. Lightfoot thinks he was an officer of the church, whose duty it was to provide the public entertainment from the common fund; but the ex- pression seems more naturally to refer to an act of personal liberality. With this description of Gaius, the third epistle of John coincides in so remarkable a manner, that we conclude the Gaius to whom it was addressed, was the same person. ‘“ Beloved,” says the apostle, ‘thou doest faithfully, whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; which have borne witness of thy charity,” thy ἀγάπη, “ before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well.” These strangers were, evidently, travelling preachers, de- pendent for support upon the bounty of the opulent, ‘because that for his name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.” Can we then doubt that the charity—the agape of Gaius, was the feast of charity, the hospitable entertainment of the brethren, and of Christian sojourners? St. Jude, in express terms, refers to the feasts of charity, in which false teachers had insinuated themselves, and feasted in- temperately. “‘These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves @ Works, 11. 274. SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 22 ᾽ without fear”—without moderation.” [Ὁ is here mani- fest that the feast of charity was a liberal entertain- ment, which these itinerant preachers, wandering stars, abused to intemperance. Had they been services of religion, rather than festivals of charity, they could not have been perverted to the unrestrained gratifica- tion of the appetite. G%cumenius, commenting on this passage, says, “There were still at that time tables in the churches, as Paul says in the Epistle to the Corinthians, which they called ‘agape.’” In the parallel passage in the second Epistle of Peter, we read, ‘Spots they are and blemishes, sporting them- selves (rather, living luxuriously, ἐντρυφῶντες) in their own deceivings, while they feast with you.”? Here is evidently the reference to the same intemperate and luxurious indulgence of which these false teachers were guilty at the feasts of the church, but one can hardly help suspecting that instead of ἀπάταις, their deceivings, the word must originally have been ἀγάπαις, by the change of a single stroke, luxuriously feeding at your love-feasts, while they feast with you. And when we find that this is actually the reading of the Vatican MS., of both the Syrian versions, of the Arabic, the Vulgate, of the Alexandrian MS., by a correction, and some other authorities ;7 we can have little doubt of its being the genuine text. Probably, @ Jude 12. ὁ 2 Peter ii. 13. ¢ The difference in the uncial manuscripts is only in the transpo- sition of a single stroke, “AITATAIS for ’ATAIIATS. @ A * * (correctio librarii ipsius) B. Syr. Arr. (4th.) Syr. p.in m. Vulg. Ephr. Auct. de sing. cler. Griesbach’s note. 44 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. the meaning of the apostle, when speaking of a woman “well reported of for good works,” to be received among the widows, he says, “1 she have hospitably entertained strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet,” may be best explained by a reference to these feasts; if she have been attentive and generous in providing for strangers and the saints at the feasts of charity ; for according to the customs of the East, in — no other way could a woman so act towards strangers, without bringing a scandal upon her character. Having gained from Scripture so much information respecting the agapz, let us turn to the eleventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, on which I must speak with some hesitation. The apostle evidently refers to improper practices which had arisen from some meal or festival, and which were confined to only a part of the Corinthian church. “ One is hungry, and another has drunk too much.” Was this an abuse of the Lord’s supper itself? or was it an abuse of the feast of charity, celebrated in Corinth, immediately before the Lord’s supper? Some contend that it was an abuse of the Lord’s supper. They suppose, that many of the Corinthians con- verted the Lord’s supper into a luxurious entertain- ment, for which the rich brought their own provision, after the manner of the common feasts of the Greeks, and refused to impart to their poor brethren. Hence says the apostle to those who fared sump- tuously, “‘ Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put to shame those who have nothing?” Lightfoot and others SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 45 suppose, that the Jewish converts retained a strong prejudice in favour of a paschal feast, as part of the Lord’s supper, and that the Jewish party drank cups of wine, as they had been accustomed to do at the passover; but surely the Jews could have no preju- dice in favour of a paschal service at any other time than on the fourteenth day of the first month. A weekly passover, a paschal feast without the paschal lamb, would have been rather in direct opposition to their prejudices, than in accordance with them. As well might it be supposed that Romanists, becoming Protestants, would be so prejudiced in favour of the ostentatious rites of their church in the celebration of Easter, as to observe them every Sunday in the year. The ancient commentators, on the contrary, as Chrysostom,’ and Theophylact,’ think that the dis- orders specified arose out of the feast of charity, immediately following the eucharist. The abuse, however, seems to have preceded the Lord’s supper,— ‘“ When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper, for in eating every one taketh before of his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.” It appears to me that the feast of charity preceded the Lord’s supper in the Corinth- a - A “4 “ Tére ὅτε ταῦτα ἔγραψεν ὁ ἀπόστολος---τῆς συνάξεως ἀπαρτισθείσης i : ; 2 μετὰ τὴν τῶν μυστηρίων κοινωνίαν, ἐπὶ κοινὴν πάντες ἤεσαν ἐυωχίαν, τῶν \ λ ’ ΄, A δ lol δὲ ΄ Ν ὑδὲ > , μὲν πλουτούντων φερόντων Ta ἐδεσματα, τῶν δὲ πενομένων Kal οὐδὲν ἐχόν- > ‘ > es ΄ Ν A lad > ΄ > 2. τ των ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν καλουμένων, καὶ κοινὴ παντῶν ἐσιωμένων. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὕστερον ᾿ $5 : BP ites καὶ τοῦτο διεφθάρη τὸ €Ovos.”—In 1 Cor. Homil. xxvii. initio. ui Say ee Ε , ey i ὁ Ἔν Κορινθῷ κατὰ τίνας ῥητὰς ἡμέρας, ἐορτίους ἱσῶς, κοινὴ εὐώχουντο μετὰ τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῶν μυστηρίων," κιτιλ. In 1 Cor. x1. 17. 46 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. ian church, to which Chrysostom might not advert, as in his time the eucharist was celebrated early in the morning. The agapé, however, had lost its appropriate character in their assembly, and had become an occasion of displaying the profusion of the wealthier members, who admitted only their own friends to participate in their sumptuous enter- tainment; hence, while they feasted, others, and especially the poor, were hungry. On coming toge- ther to partake of the Lord’s supper, they were so unfitted by their conduct at the preceding feast, as to eat and drink unworthily, and the apostle would not allow the service to be regarded as the Lord’s supper ; “When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” The agapz were for a considerable time retained in the Christian church. In the opinion of Ignatius, they ought not to be celebrated without the authority of the bishop. ‘It is not lawful,” he says, “‘ without the bishop either to baptize or to observe the agape.” @This may be illustrated by a very similar abuse described by Socrates, as existing among some of the Egyptian Christians, who were accustomed to observe the Lord’s supper after a sumptuous feast, in the evening of the sabbath. “ After they have feasted, and are loaded with all sorts of meats, in the evening offering the oblation they partake of the mysteries.” “Αἰγύπτιοι δὲ γείτονες ὄντες ᾿Αλεξάνδρεων, καὶ of τὴν OnBaida οἰκοῦντες, ἐν σαββάτῳ μὲν ποιοῦνται συνάξεις" οὐχ ὡς ἔθνος δὲ χριστιάνοις τῶν μυστηρίων μεταλαμβάνουσι" μετὰ γὰρ τὸ εὐωχη- θῆναι, καὶ παντοίων ἐδεσμάτων ἐμφορηθῆναι περὶ ἑσπέραν προσφέροντες, This passage appears to me to cast more light on the state of the Corinthian church than anything I have ever met with in Christian antiquity. ὁ ἐς οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν." Some have thought that we are here to understand the Lord’s supper ; τῶν μυστηρίων peradapBavovow. —Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. 22. SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 47 Tertullian, in his Apology, says, “ Our supper by its name, declares its nature. It is called agapé, the Greek word for love :—there we refresh the poor.— We do not sit down until prayer is presented to God. As much is eaten as is sufficient to satisfy hunger, as much is drunk as is consistent with temperance.”” Jerome says, that ‘some proud women make pro- clamation when they invite people to a love-feast.”’ Augustine says, “ Our love-feasts feed the poor.”’ The Constitutions direct, “if any invite elder women to a love-feast, let them send most frequently to such as ad the deacons know to be in distress.” Pliny, in his celebrated letter, mentions this feast as observed on the stated day, (undoubtedly the Lord’s day,) on which they had bound themselves by the sacrament before daylight; and as a meal, “‘ promiscuous indeed, but Ignatius had just before stated, that the eucharist to be valid must be under the presidency of the bishop, or of one to whom he had entrusted it. The interpolator, however, seems to have under- stood the passage to refer also to the Lord’s supper, as he expands the phrase thus : “ οὔτε βαπτίζειν, οὔτε προσφέρειν, οὔτε θυσίαν προσκο- μίζειν, οὔτε δοχὴν ἐπιτελειν." « «( Cena nostra de nomine rationem sui ostendit. Vocatur enim ἀγάπη, id quod dilectio penes Grecos est :—inopes quoque refrigerio isto Juvamus.—Non prius discumbitur, quam oratio ad Deum pre- gustetur. Editur quantum esurientes capiunt: bibitur quantum pudicis est utile.” Apol. i. ο. 39. ’“ Cum ad agapen vocaverint, preeco conducitur.” Ad Eustor. Ep. 22. e“ Agapes enim nostre pauperes pascunt.” Contr. Faust. Man. xx. 20. “ois εἰς ἀγάπην ἢτοι δοχήν, ὧς 6 κύριος ὡνόμασε, προαιρουμένοις καλεῖν πρεσβύτερας, ἣν ἐπίστανται οἱ διάκονοι θλιβομένην, αὑτὴ πλείστακις πεμπέτωσαν."-Τ 10. il. ο. 28. This extract shows that the agape were supposed to correspond, as we have intimated, with the feast which our Lord commanded. 48 SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. yet harmless.’’* In the councils of the fourth century, these feasts were forbidden to be observed in the churches; and being sadly abused, they eventually declined, and were altogether abandoned.’ I may be expected to notice the salutation by the holy kiss, as it is called by St. Paul, or the kiss of charity, as it is called by St. Peter—enjoined by both those apostles upon the churches—observed in the age of Justin Martyr,° when the baptized were brought to the Lord’s supper—practised in Africa in the time of Cyprian’—noticed by many subse- quent writers—directed in the Constitutions to be regarded,* “ Let a deacon say to all, Salute one another with a holy kiss,’—retained for several cen- turies, but subsequently laid aside on account of its incongruity with prevalent feelings, as it is now exchanged in dissenting churches for an unexception- able salutation of the same import, the right hand of fellowship. The exchange of a token of friendship which was originally enjoined by express apostolical authority, for one which has only an incidental notice 2“ Ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium.” I do not cite the words of Lucian, in his account of the death of Peregrinus, because I do not think the supper in a prison, provided by his Chris- tian visitors, corresponded with the agapé of the church. If it did, then it was sometimes celebrated where the whole church could not assemble. Possibly Lucian received an exaggerated account of the carrying of the elements of the Lord’s supper to the prison, as the early Christians were accustomed to convey them to those who could not be present at the celebration of the eucharist in the church. ὁ See also Orig. c. Cels. i. 1. Chrys. Hom. 27. in 1 Cor. et Serm. de Verb. Ap. 1 Cor. xi. 19. ¢ Apol. i. 4 De Laps. 2. € Lib. ii. sec. 11. SACRAMENTAL OBSERVANCES. 49 in apostolical history, without being enjoined upon any, is an instance of our retaining the spirit of an apostolic ordinance, where the form, or sacrament, or sacred sign, is entirely abandoned. So long as it remained in the Christian church, it was regarded as an accompaniment of the eucharist, although it was usually omitted before Easter on account of the treacherous kiss of Judas Iscariot.“ “See note of Kortholt in Langi et Kortholti Annotationes in Just. Mart. Apol. pri. ed. a Grabe, p. 40. APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. A. Page 25. ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANCIENT DISCIPLINE AND THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. As no part of the controversy with the Romanists is more important than that which relates to auricular confession, and the discipline of penance; and as no part of their system is more dangerous, or more liable to abuse,—no part on which the power of the priesthood so firmly reposes ; it may be desirable to notice how entirely destitute of support is their sacrament of penance, from even that Christian anti- quity to which they profess to appeal. To expose the futility of their appeal is the more needful, as many persons, unacquainted with the subject, are a good deal influenced by the frequent references in early ecclesiastical history, to penance and penitents, confession and abso- lution, as intimating a kind of discipline unlike anything which they find in Protestant communities. The presumption, however, in favour of the Romish practice, entirely disappears on a very slight acquaintance with the subject. Without professing to follow the ancient discipline (for the Bible alone is our religion) we believe that its substance was scriptural, although its forms were unauthorised, and that the substance has been lost in Protestant communities, because excommunication, as indeed church censure of every kind, has been regarded rather as a civil, than as an ecclesiastical process. According to the discipline of the early ages, offenders were sepa- rated from the communion of the church, for gross and scandalous crimes. Many of them sought restoration, and were admitted to the classes of penitents. In several respects, their situation was similar to that of the catechumens. By the course of penance, satisfac- tion was made to the church, and they were absolved from the censure and sentence of excommunication which they had suffered. APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 51 Whatever might have been the corruptions and abuses of such a system, and whatever the unevangelic severity of church officers and clergy; the leading principles of their penance were, evidently, nothing more than such as are implied in the power which every voluntary society exercises in excluding such members as violate the expressed or understood conditions of their membership, and in prescribing the manner in which they should make satisfaction to the society, for the injury it has received. If this be a correct account of the ancient discipline of penitents, it is, in every important particular, utterly unlike the Romish sacrament of penance. Happily, we have more information upon this subject, than upon most others connected with the ancient church, and the contrast can be easily established. So much is said about the lapsed, their penance and their restoration, that we cannot mistake the character of the ancient discipline. The perusal of Tertullian’s tract, “‘ De Pcenitentia,’? or of Cyprian’s “ De Lapsis,” will be quite sufficient to satisfy any candid reader. The persons subjected to penance in the ancient church, were such as had been excommunicated or suspended from religious ordinances, as having been unfaithful in times of persecution, or having fallen into grievous and scandalous sins. The penance of the Romish church is imposed upon its recognised members, who are under no sentence of excommunication. The ancient penance was willingly accepted by the offenders who, in the porch of the church, entreated permission to enter upon the well-known discipline; the penances of the Romish church are imposed by the priest after confession. The exomologesis, or con- fession, was made publicly; that term sometimes denoting the whole penance, commencing in the porch, and completed in the midst of the church, sometimes the last public act: the Romish confession is most sacredly private and auricular. When the offenders are said to make satisfaction for their sins, the meaning evidently is, that they satisfied the church, or its officers, for the scandal they had brought upon it, or the injury they had inflicted: in the Romish church, they make satisfaction by penance, to the injured majesty of God. Having no closer connexion with the church than the catechumens, they continued in the penitential classes for two, three, five, and sometimes even ten or more years; and, according to the severe notions of the early ages, they could perform this penance only once, so that, if they afterwards a This tract is regarded by Neander, Kaye, and almost all commentators, as having been written before its author left the church ; but if he were a Montanist when he wrote it, it is con- firmed in every particular by ecclesiastical authority. 12 Aa iy APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. relapsed, they were regarded as incorrigible, and left to the uncove- nanted mercies of God; in the Romish church, penance is a sacrament for the sins of the faithful, and is continually repeated. The absolu- tion of the penitent by the imposition of hands, was his restoration to the privileges of the community with great solemnity, in the presence of the congregation, when, amidst many prayers, the bishop raised the penitent, assured him of the forgiveness of the church, and restored him to the rank of the faithful; in the Romish church, the absolution belongs to the confessional, not to the public service, and is represented as the pardon of sins, of which the people have no knowledge. From the Romish practice, no institution can be more remote, than the ancient discipline; the one, a sacrament of the faithful; the other, a restoration of the excommunicated: the one, according to the council of Trent, the confession of each and every secret sin; the other, a public acknowledgment of grievous injury, inflicted upon the Christian society. To exhibit the several particulars we have adduced, we have only, in the most cursory manner, to glance at the testimony of ecclesiastical antiquity. That the ancient penance was imposed upon excommunicated per- sons, preparatory to their restoration, is so apparent in the whole discipline of the penitents and in every allusion to them, that, to cite particular passages is wholly unnecessary to the most superficial reader of ecclesiastical history. The perpetrators of scandalous and flagitious crimes, together with the lapsed, those who had apostatised in times of persecution, were the persons who, having been disowned by the Christian society, were often found at the entrance of the church, soliciting the prayers of the people, and entreating to be allowed to obtain restoration by the public and established course of penance. Until they were allowed to assume the character of penitents, they were not permitted to enter the church, they had no participation in its privileges. They were not, until recognised as belonging to the penitential class, permitted to stand even in the narthex, where they might hear the discourse to the catechumens, but daily were prostrate about the cloisters or courts of the church, and so received the name of χειμαζόντες, exposed to the inclemency of the weather. The remarkable instance of the Emperor Theodosius, who, after the barbarous massacre of the people of Thessalonica, wished to attend Divine service in the cathedral at Milan, affords sufficient illustration of this particular, Although an emperor, he was regarded as excommunicated by Ambrose; and until as a penitent, he publicly APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 53 confessed his sin, and submitted to the discipline of the church, he was not allowed to enter the sacred edifice. The excommunicated themselves, earnestly entreated to be admit- ted to the course of penitence. Thus, Tertullian represents them, (De Peenitentia, c. ix.) as prostrate before the presbyters and the beloved of God, and as entreating of all the brethren, the “ legationes deprecationis sue,” the embassy to deprecate their punishment. The Greeks employed the word πρεσβεῖα in the same sense, (Chrys. Hom. 3.) So one Natalius, who had been a heretic and denied the divinity of Christ, on his recanting, in sackcloth and ashes fell down before the bishop, and became suppliant at the feet not only of the clergy but also of the laity, and thus moved the compassion of the church. (Eus. Hist. Ecc. 1. v. c. 27.. See also Basil in Ps. xxii. § 3. Ambrose de Peenit. ii. 9, 10.) The confession was a public bewail- ing of the sin for months and years in a state of separation from the church, compared with the penance of the king of Babylon, in his seven years’ banishment from his kingdom. (Tertullian de Penit. c. ΧΙ. See also De Orat. c. vii. De Pal. c. xii. Ireneus 1. 13. Cyp. Ep. 12. De Lap. c. 11, 12, 20.) The satisfaction for sin made by the penitents was for the injury and scandal done to the church. Augustine distinguishes the satis- faction made to God, and the satisfaction made to the church; the former for secret sins, the latter for public offences. (Ench. 65, 70, 71.) Penance was imposed for years, sometimes even for life. (lreneus 1.13, 11. 4. Cone. Illib. ο. ὃ, 13. Cone. Neoc. c. 2. Cone. Arel.i.c. 14, with other decrees of councils.)* Cyprian complains bitterly of the unseasonable haste with which the lapsed had been released from their sentence. (De Laps. c. 12.) It was allowed only once. Tertullian says, “ God has placed in the porch a second repentance, but only one, and never any more,” (De Peenit. 7, ibid 9. Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 138. Orig. Hom. 15 in Levit. Ambrose de Peenit. ii. 10.) The absolution of the penitent was made publicly on his restoration to the communion of the faithful, as is apparent from continual references to the penitents in sackcloth, being led to the altar or the desk in the presence of the people, and having their sins remitted by being delivered from the state of excommunication. Cyprian explains the discipline of penance in a few words. “ All penitents continue a See Canons of Nice, Note B. p. 56, 54 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. for a proper time in the state of penance, and make confession; and their life being examined, they cannot be admitted to the communion unless they receive the imposition of hands from the bishop and clergy.” (Cyp. Ep. 12.) Add to these particulars the ancient form of absolution for peni- tents, which is only a prayer for their pardon, (Liturg. Jac. in Bibl. Patt.) the ancient maxim that the church did not take account of smaller sins, and the truth, distinctly asserted as by Cyprian, that remission cannot be had in the church for a sin committed against God, (Test. ad Quir. lib. iii. ὃ 28,) and in every particular the Romish sacrament of penance, with its auricular confession frequently repeated, will appear in direct contrast with the ancient discipline. That the absolution at the altar was always supplicatory, and the absolute form, ‘I absolve thee,’ was not introduced until the twelfth century, Archbp. Usher, in his Answer to the Jesuits’ Challenge, and Bingham (Antiq. lib. xix. c. 1,) have clearly proved. We acknow- ledge that private confessions of sins were made as between Christian friends, and that persons privately confessed their sins in great trouble of mind, in order to obtain the best advice from the priest. To such private confessions we find many references. That the penitentiary presbyters appointed after the Decian persecution, when the number of the lapsed applying to be received as penitents was very large, affords no authority for the confessions of the Romish church, is evident from the account of the institution, as related by Socrates, (1. v. c. 19,) and Sozomen, (1. vii. 16,) and has been clearly proved by Bingham, (Antiq. xviii. 3.) These confessions, although privately taken, were intended to be used publicly, as the offenders were admitted to penance. That the faithful, for the health of their souls, were obliged to confess their secret sins to a priest, and that they received from him absolution on performing a private penance, is an assertion as distinctly opposed to the testimony of ecclesiastical history, as it is to that of the evangelical doctrine. ‘This palpable and scandalous imposition was unknown even amidst the gross corruptions of the fifth and sixth century. The origin of the Romish practice of indulgences may be easily traced to the remission of part of the penitential discipline on account of peculiar circumstances, as the intercession of martyrs, or the inability to endure severe treatment on the approach of death. The next note will afford an illustration. APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. δῦ B. Page 33. UNCTION NOT THE SACRAMENT OF THE DYING. THAT unction was not the sacrament of the dying in the early church, is evident from the practice of administering the eucharist to them, as “the last viaticum,” without any reference to anointing. An instance from Eusebius will illustrate the preceding note, as well as confirm this remark. Serapion, having sacrificed, was excommuni- cated, and could not obtain the prayers or religious communion of the faithful. In the article of death, he obtained the eucharist partly on account of the emergency, partly on account of his previous irreproachable character. Having received this sign of re-union to the church, he is said to have been absolved, although from the history, it is certain he could not have been anointed. Eusebius cites the account from a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Fabius of Antioch. I adduce a translation, as there is no necessity to cite the original. “There was one Serapion, an aged believer, who had passed his long life irreproachably, but as he had sacrificed during the perse- cution, though he frequently begged, no one would listen to him. He was taken sick, and continued three days in succession speechless and senseless. On the fourth day, recovering a little, he called his grandchild to him, and said, ‘O son, how long do you detain me? I beseech you hasten, and quickly absolve me. Call one of the presbyters to me.’ Saying this, he again became speechless. The boy ran to the presbyter, but it was night, and the presbyter was sick. As I had before issued an injunction that those at the point of death, if they desired it, and especially if they entreated for it before, should receive absolution, that they might depart from life in comfortable hope, I gave the boy a small portion of the eucharist, telling him to dip it in water and to drop it into the mouth of the old man. The boy returned with the morsel. When he came near, before he entered, Serapion having again recovered himself, said, ‘Thou hast come, my son, but the presbyter could not come ; do thou quickly perform what thou art commanded, and dismiss me! The boy moistened it, and at the same time dropped it into the old man’s mouth. And he, having swallowed a little, immediately expired. Was he not, then, evidently preserved, and did he not continue living until he was absolved; and his sins being wiped away, he could be 56 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. acknowledged as a believer for the many good acts that he had done?” (Eus. Hist. Ece. 1. vi. c. 44.) The thirteenth canon of the Nicene council not only represents the eucharist as the last and most necessary viaticum for the dying peni- tent, but with the two preceding, will illustrate the condition of the penitents in the fourth century. The council of Nice was conyened in the year 325. KANON IA’. Περὶ τῶν παραβάντων χωρὶς ἀνάγκης, ἢ χωρὶς ἀφαιρέσεως ὑπαρχόντων, * = 5 ἢ χωρὶς κινδύνου, ἤ Twos τοιούτου, ὃ γέγονεν ἐπὶ τῆς τυραννίδος Λικινίου »” Lo , 3 ‘ > , > , “ ΄ ἔδοξε τῇ συνόδῳ, εἰ καὶ ἀνάξιοι ἦσαν φιλανθρωπίας, ὅμως χρηστεύσασθαι , “ ~ ΄ , εἰς αὐτούς. ὅσοι οὖν γνησίως μεταμελῶνται, τριά ἔτη ἐν ἀκροωμένοις ποιή- ε ΩΣ ν κε ᾿ ν» ε a , ν ‘ - σουσιν οἱ πιστοί" καὶ ἑπτὰ ἔτη ὑποπεσοῦνται. δύο δὲ ἔτη χωρὶς προσφορᾶς , - “ ΄ ΄ κοινωνήησουσι τῷ λαῷ τῶν προσεύχων. KANON IB’. « ‘ id ‘ € . - , ‘ Ἁ , ε 4 > , Οἱ δὲ προσκληθέντες μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος Kal THY πρώτην ὁρμὴν ἐνδειξά- \\ > θέ ‘A , A ‘ a 31 τὰ A » - » » ὃ μενοι, καὶ ἀποθέμενοι τὰς ξώνας, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τὸν οἰκεῖον ἔμετον ἀναδρα- , « ΄ a Ae) , , \ , aA μόντες ὡς κύνες, ὥς τινας Kal ἀργύρια προέσθαι, καὶ βενεφικίοις κατορθῶσαι ; , ἌΝ , ἃ Ξ τὸ ἀναστρατεύσασθαι᾽ οὗτοι δέκα ἔτη ὑποπιπτέτωσαν, μετὰ τὸν τῆς τριετοῦς > ΄ , » x, a A ΄ , > ’ ‘ , ἀκροάσεως χρόνον. ἐφ᾽ ἅπασι δὲ τούτοις, προσήκει ἐξετάζειν τὴν προαίρεσιν ‘ A ξιδ co , “ \ \ ‘ , ‘ δά WG σι καὶ τὸ ἔιδος τῆς μετανοίας. ὅσοι μὲν γὰρ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ δάκρυσι καὶ ὑπομονῇ ‘ > , ‘ > \ a” ‘ > , , ΜΒ καὶ ἀγαθοεργίαις, τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν ἔργῳ καὶ οὐ σχήματι επιδείκνυνται, οὗτοι πληρώσαντες τὸν χρόνον τὸν ὡρισμένον τῆς ἀκροάσεως, εἰκότως τῶν εὐχῶν 4 \ - J - “σ᾿ > , 3 , , ‘ κοινωνήσουσι, μετὰ τοῦ ἐξεῖναι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ Kal φιλανθρωπότερόν τι περὶ yr , a vas , ” ‘ \ a els} , αὐτῶν βουλεύσασθαι, ὅσοι δὲ ἀδιαφόρως ἤνεγκαν, καὶ TO σχῆμα TOU εἰσιέναι ’ A > , > - > ~~ Ag , ‘ ‘ > , > a eis τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀρκεῖν ἑαυτοῖς ἡγήσαντο πρὸς THY ἐπιστρέφειαν, ἐξ ἅπαντος πληρούτωσαν τὸν χρόνον. KANON II’. Ἄ } , Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξοδευόντων, ὁ παλαιὸς καὶ κανονικὸς νόμος φυλαχθήσεται καὶ - ΝΜ ᾽ ’ - , Ν > , » , ‘4 νῦν, ὥστε εἴτις ἐξοδεύοι, τοῦ τελευταίου καὶ ἀναγκαιοτάτου ἐφοδίου μὴ ΄ , ‘ > ‘ ‘ , ‘ ‘A ‘ > rc αποστερεῖσθαι. εἰ δὲ ἀπογνωσθεὶς καὶ κοινωνίας Taw τυχὼν, παλὶν ἐν τοῖς ΄- » “ ‘ Lod , ΄- > σι , μι la ‘ ζῶσιν ἐξετασθῇ, μετὰ τῶν κοινωνούντων τῆς εὐχῆς μόνης ἔστω. καθόλου δὲ καὶ περὶ παντὸς οὐτινοσοῦν ἐξοδέυοντος αἰτοῦντος δὲ μετασχεῖν εὐχαριστίας, a a > ᾿ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος μετὰ δοκιμασίας μεταδιδότω τῆς mpoopopas.—See Routh’s Opuscula, tom. 1. p. 361. APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 57 C. Page 40. ON THE SERVICE OF THE SYNAGOGUE, AS AFFECTING THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. THERE are few inquiries of more interest to the theologian, or of more importance to the general reader, than the origin of those sub- ordinate parts of religious worship, those forms and observances of the primitive Christians, for which there can be adduced no express Divine authority. A few thoughts upon this subject may be necessary in enabling us to determine some questions which relate to the Chris- tian sacraments. That some regulations for conducting public wor- ship, some institutions for the government of the churches, must have existed, more minute and circumstantial than those which are enjoined in the New Testament, is undeniable. A thousand questions arise, as, What were the hours of worship ? who presided? how was the worship conducted ? how were members accredited? how were officers appointed ? how often was the Lord’s supper administered ? were strangers invited to witness the celebration? was singing cus- tomary ? did Christians kneel or stand in prayer ? was prayer offered silently, or in an audible voice, by one, on behalf of the others; and if so, who prayed for the brethren? These, and many similar ques- tions, suggest one or two others of greater importance. How, and by what authority, were these things determined ? Was the practice of the apostolic churches uniform, and are we bound invariably to follow it as our precedent ? That the modes of worship and precise discipline of the church were severally ordained by express revelation, is an assertion without any support, so far as I know, from the New Testament. Had such a revelation been made in the first age of the church, there can be little doubt that it would have been preserved for our instruction. Express authority for the ancient discipline would be, if it existed, the Divine rule of ecclesiastical government in all ages; and we can scarcely suppose that a Divine rule of permanent obligation and use, would have been allowed to perish in the ravages of time. Great principles of church polity are unquestionably to be found in holy Scripture, but minute regulations are rather incidentally mentioned, than distinctly recorded. The inference is, that no church system, beyond these great principles, can plead prescriptive authority 58 APPENDIX TO LECTURE 1. ἢ from God. With respect to questions in which there is no direction or precedent to be found, there can be no difficulty, although there may be some in those instances in which we have an apostolic prece- dent, without an injunction expressed or implied. For instance, ought every church to have precisely seven deacons, because in the only specification of the number in the New Testament, there were seven ? Ought the Lord’s supper to be administered invariably after sunset, because we have that time mentioned in the account of the institution ? Ought the people audibly to say Amen in the public service, because such a practice seems to have been observed in the Corinthian church ? The resolution of many such questions will depend upon the principle, if we can discover one in the Christian Scriptures, applicable to these inquiries; and this principle will depend, in a great degree, upon the origin and rise of the regulations of the church. The service of the synagogue was, strictly speaking, no part of Judaism; it did not belong to the Levitical economy; it was nowhere contemplated in the laws of Moses. The Jewish service was properly ceremonial and typical, a figure for the time then being, belonging originally to the tabernacle, subsequently to the temple. To Jerusalem it was restricted, there its priests were to officiate; but there the Jews were required to assemble only at the great festivals. Judaism pro- vided no religious worship for the people. Exclusively a ceremonial dispensation, it afforded no regular instruction to the inhabitants of Palestine. Were, then, the Jews under no obligation to worship God statedly in public assemblies, or to meet together for religious instruction on the sabbath, or on other occasions ? Although nothing is prescribed in the law of Moses, yet we do not believe that the Israel of God was left without some system of public worship and religious instruction. We do not believe that, at any time, Judaism, the peculiar institute of Moses, was the whole of the religion of the Jews. As they had circumcision and the sabbath from the fathers, we doubt not they had also public worship from the same ancient source. In the patriarchal ages, men called upon the name of the Lord; the sabbath was insti- tuted; religious instructors were raised and qualified by the Spirit of God ; Noah was a preacher of righteousness; Abraham taught his numerous tribe to worship the God of all the families of the earth. Is it then credible that the patriarchal worship was abrogated in Israel ? The argument of the apostle in the epistle to the Galatians, that the promise made to Abraham, could not be disannulled by the APPENDIX ΤῸ LECTURE I. 59 law of Moses, succeeding after the lapse of 430 years, would seem to justify the conclusion that Judaism could repeal no patriarchal insti- tution of Divine authority. Instead of many places for sacrifice, one great altar was provided for the nation; but it does not appear that, instead of many sanctuaries, one great sanctuary for religious instruc- tion was appointed. Instruction was certainly not the object of the temple service. I, therefore, infer that public worship, being of the fathers, an ancient institution of Divine authority, was not abro- gated by the law of Moses. That its forms were regularly observed without intermission, I do not assert, for even the great law of cir- cumcision fell into desuetude during the government of Moses, until it was renewed by Joshua; but that they ought to have been, and usually were, observed, I have no doubt. That there is no account of a religious congregation meeting on the sabbath, is but a negation of evidence of no great moment, for, on the same authority, it might be contended that circumcision was not practised from the reproach of Gilgal to the birth of John the Baptist, seeing no instance of the practice is recorded. There are several considerations, which induce me to conclude that there was observed in Israel, with some inter- missions, the patriarchal institution of Divine worship, independently of the authority or prescription of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law strictly enjoins the hallowing of the sabbath, as a day to be scrupulously observed. But what were the people to do on the sabbath? From the sanctuary of Moses, there issued no invi- tations to the people. When settled in the land of promise, they were to go up to the ark of the Lord only three times in a year. Some have, indeed, contended that the Jewish sabbath was intended to be only a day of rest and of feasting. That many made it a day of idleness and pleasure, I do not doubt; and such conduct, if it was not a day for religious worship, was not to be blamed. But what say the prophets of Israel? “ For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant, Even unto them will I give, in my house, and within my walls, a place and a name better than of sons and of daugh- ters.” Isa. lvi. 4,5. “If thou turn away thy foot from my sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable, and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee 60 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isa. lviii. 13, 14. It would seem, from these and similar passages, that the laws of Moses, in prohibiting work on the sabbath, were enacted with reference to religious duties performed on that day, according to some other institution of Divine authority. Again we find in the Jewish history, a provision for the religious instruction of the people, entirely distinct from the Mosaic law. I refer especially to the institutions and schools of the prophets. From Abraham to Messiah, with few intermissions, there seems to have been a succession of prophets and teachers, divinely authorised and inspired. The Spirit of prophecy which fell upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was found with Simeon and Anna, and, doubtless, with others of their age, who waited for the consolation of Israel. But the instruction of the prophets was no part of the Levitical law; it cor- responded more nearly with the patriarchal, than with the Jewish economy. These teachers were of various tribes, of Ephraim, of Manasseh, of Judah, and of Benjamin, of which tribes Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood. They delivered prophecies, but not by consulting the Urim and Thummim ; they offered sacrifices, but not in the court of the temple ; they were publicly acknowledged as the men of God, but not attached to the Levitical service ; they taught their disciples in schools, like those in after ages belonging to the synagogues. That the prophets of the Old Testament held public assemblies, is intimated in several passages. Samuel said to Saul, “ Thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with a psaltery and a tabret, and a harp and a pipe before them.” 1 Sam. x. 5. This high place was on the hill of God. May we not suppose it was a sanctuary to which the prophets resorted for religious worship, and from which they were returning with their instruments of praise? So at Ramah (the high place) the messengers of Saul “saw the company of prophets prophesying, and Samuel, as appointed over them.” 1 Sam. xix. 20. They were evidently per- forming a religious service. That the people were accustomed to attend their ministry on the sabbath, and other days of leisure, we may infer from the narrative of the Shunammite, who excited the surprise of her husband, by proposing to visit Elisha at Carmel: “ And he said, Wherefore wilt thou go to him to day? It is neither new moon nor sabbath; and she said, It will be well.” 2 Kings iv. 23. So the Jews are represented as making a false profession of religion in the time of the captivity : “ And they come unto thee as my people cometh, APPENDIX TO LECTURE 1. 61 and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them.” Ezek. xxxiii. 31. In Israel, therefore, as in the land of Uz, the sons of God, at stated seasons, came to present themselves before the Lord, and the prophets addressed them on those occasions. We have thus a Divine institution in Israel, altogether distinct from the Levitical dispensation, of collateral authority with it; not typical, but didactic; not of Moses, but of the fathers; chiefly intended, it would seem, for the religious instruction of the people, and especially on the sabbath. It is said, (Ps. Ixxiv. 8,) ‘They have burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land.” The words Sesto may indeed denote the various rooms of the temple, but it seems more natural to refer the plural to several places of assembly. Gesenius says, after noticing other meanings, (“ If the Psalm pertains to the time of the Maccabees) the Jewish synagogues,”’—suggesting this interpretation, if the time of the Psalm would allow it. It thus affords some confirmation, how- ever slight, that places of worship were erected in the land before this Psalm was composed. As soon as we become acquainted with the Jews after the return from the captivity, we find that synagogues were every where esta- blished. ‘ Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath-day.” The Scrip- tures were expounded, or their truths preached, in the vernacular languages, a custom pronounced to be of considerable antiquity by the apostle James. In no city were Jews to be found without a synagogue. Josephus cites Agatharchides, a pagan writer, as testifying that the Jews in the age of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, spent their sabbaths in their holy places. (Con. Ap. 1. i. § 22.) Even in their temporary sojourn in Jerusalem, the men of different nations had their several synagogues. It seems difficult to account for the universal erection of these houses of worship, if the Jews did not generally believe that they belonged to the ancient and Divine religion of their ancestors. The Jewish authorities universally ascribe the custom of publicly reading the law on the sabbath to the age of Moses. So Josephus, (con. Ap. 1. ii. ὃ 18) says, Moses “permitted the people to abstain from their employments, and to assemble together for the hearing of the law and learning it exactly, and this not once or twice or oftener, but every week.” Philo to the same purpose says, “ From that time,” (of Moses) “the Jews have been accustomed to inculcate the principles of their religion on the seventh days, setting apart that to the study 02 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. and contemplation of the works of nature; for what are their praying places in every city but schools of wisdom and piety?” (De Vit. Mosis, lib. iii.) Most learned men contend that the synagogues were first erected on the return of the Jews from Babylon, and find their origin and model in the account of Ezra reading from a wooden stage the book of the law. The universal prevalence of the practice forbids us to assign a later date; but why may we not believe with the Jewish authorities, that they existed before the captivity ? We are referred, in reply, to the silence of the Scriptures, which we have already noticed, and to the scarcity of the book of the law on certain occa- sions in Israel and Judah. ‘The latter circumstance is not, I think, conclusive. The synagogues, if existing, were probably in idolatrous reions forsaken, or converted into high places of idolatry. Although the reading of the law was the principal part of the service when copies were multiplied, yet when they were scarce, the oral teaching of the prophets who must have convened some assemblies of the people, might have supplied its place. Nor is it improbable that in the schools of the prophets copies of the law were preserved and transcribed, from which the scholars might publicly read to the people. It should be observed that we find synagogues among the Jews who did not return from Chaldea, as well as among those of Egypt and throughout all the world. I do not suppose that the mode of worship was uniformly preserved. The substitution of the written law, and afterwards of the book of the prophets, for oral instruction, must have occasioned a considerable change. The mission of Jehoshaphat is sometimes adduced to prove that there was no public service in the time of the Kings, resembling that of the synagogue. It is said that Jehoshaphat “sent to his princes. . . . and with them he sent Levites . . . and they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them, and went about through all the cities of Judah, and taught the people.” 2 Chron. xvii. 7—9. It might have been an extraordinary thing for the king to send persons through the cities, on account of the scarcity of pro-_ phets and leaders. In those days, as in the time of Eli, the word of the Lord might have been very precious, and there might have been no open vision. What could have rendered this mission necessary, unless there had been some interruption of the regular instruction of the people? May we not conclude that this was an extraordinary means of supplying the ordinary Divine service which had been neglected in the previous reigns ? APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 63 Our Lord evidently accredited the worship of the synagogue ; since he observed its usual forms, and united in its regular celebra- tion. No attentive reader of the New Testament can imagine that He regarded the service as a Pharisaic tradition. Judaism, we are frequently told, is abolished; but the service of the synagogue, correctly understood, was not Judaism. Whether it was derived from the patriarchal service, or was instituted by Ezra, it was no part of the Mosaic law. Moses was indeed read, as were the prophets, but the reading of the law did not bring the service within the Mosaic institutions. Judaism belonged to the temple, and its ritual was entirely abolished by the Gospel. This is so expressly declared, that we know not how any Christians could have imagined that the temple service was the model of the Christian church. A sacrificial liturgy for sin, typical of the work of Christ, is totally unlike the public worship of Christians. It pleased, how- ever, the ecclesiastics who corrupted the early discipline of the church, to found their hierarchy upon the sacerdotal offices of the temple. With the fathers, the bishops and presbyters were successors of the priests and Levites, the Lord’s supper became a sacrifice, and the gifts of the faithful, the oblations of the altar. We are now prepared for the inquiry, What use was made of the service of the synagogue in forming the early institutions of the Christian churches? This is a question of fact, and can be answered only by an induction of particulars. Let us confine the inquiry to those particulars which we know from the New Testament belonged to the Christian church of the apostolic age. The Christians adopted the name under apostolic sanction, and applied it to their places of assembly. James, writing to the twelve tribes of the dispersion, says to the Christians among them, “ If there come into your synagogue” (English version, assembly,) “aman with a gold ring.” The use of the word may prepare us to expect a resem- blance in the worship. It appears also from this passage in James, that, as there were chief seats in the synagogues, there were more honourable places in the Christian assembly. The apostle seems to allow the distinction, but to censure the Christians for assigning the uppermost seats to the rich, rather than to the poor rich in faith. 1 do not, however, ascribe much importance to this particular, which might have been only an accidental distinction, though the apostle seems to speak of it as a general practice, for he did not write to a particular church. There were in the synagogues certain men of reputation, entrusted % 64 APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. | with the direction of the assembly, and called rulers. Thus, Jairus was one of the rulers of the synagogue at Capernaum: Crispus and Sosthenes were rulers of the synagogue at Corinth. They appear to have acted in concert, as at Antioch the rulers of the synagogue sent unto Paul and his companions. In the Christian churches officers were appointed, “ who had the rule over them.” The rulers of the synagogue were called elders and bishops, as were the officers of the Christian church; their council was called the presbytery,—so was that of the Christian officers. (1 Tim. iv. 12.) Both in the synagogue and the church, the induction into office was by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery. The presiding officer, or the person who publicly officiated, was called the legate or angel of the synagogue: each church of Asia Minor had its angel. Distinct from the presby- ters, were officers to minister in the secular affairs of the assembly, as in the church were faithful men chosen to serve tables, διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, to attend to pecuniary affairs. According to the Jewish authorities, the president of the synagogue ought to be a married man; and the apostle enjoins that a bishop be “‘ the husband of one wife.” In the synagogues especial provision was made for widows, very much in accordance with the directions of St. Paul. Alms were collected in the synagogues for the poor; in every church there was a fellowship of saints. Contributions were made in the synagogues of the Hellenists for the poor of Jerusalem; the apostles commanded the Gentile churches to remember the poor at Jerusalem, which Paul “was forward to do.” Offenders were put out of the synagogue, ex- communicated. St. Paul commands the Corinthians to put away the unclean person. In every synagogue was a court of arbitration to settle differences among the members, the decisions of which were usually respected by the Roman authorities; the apostle reproves the Corinthians for not having adopted this expedient to prevent the scandal of their law-suits. When Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, all the people answered, Amen, Amen, lifting up their hands, which form of expressing assent in public worship was preserved in the synagogues. The apostle represents the unlearned as “ saying Amen, at the giving of thanks,” and he “ would that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands.” It would be easy to multiply these particulars, but quite sufficient has been stated to prove the close α Unfortunately our version represents Crispus as the chief ruler of the synagogue, as it does Sosthenes ; but the word is elsewhere used in the plural, and cannot designate one ruler as superior to the others. See Acts xiii. 15. APPENDIX TO LECTURE I. 65 analogy of the synagogue and the church in their forms and discipline. That the Jews would borrow their ritual from the church we cannot suppose, and in a subsequent age the Christians bore as little good-will to the Jews. Besides, we have scriptural evidence to sustain us in asserting that the above particulars were as ancient as the Christian era. We are, therefore, compelled to admit that the rites, offices, discipline, and government of the first Christian churches, were, in several particulars, derived from the synagogue, under the sanction of apostolic authority. We have in the lecture traced the resemblance between the sabbath feasts of the synagogue and the love-feasts of the church. There is another particular of considerable importance, but as it is disputed, I shall not attempt the proof in this note, already too long, (although the evidence is easily accessible ;) the officers both of the synagogue and of the early churches were appointed on the suffrages of the people. On reviewing the subject of this note, it is pleasing to contemplate the evidence of the regular performance of public worship, one day in every week, in the assembles of the pious, from the creation to the present time, with less variation of form and ritual than in the great change of dispen- sations might have been expected. The venerable Amen of the days of Ezra is still heard in our assemblies, the Psalms of David are still sung in the congregation of the Lord, the sabbath of Paradise is still hallowed in the Christian church. For the Jewish authorities in support of the several particulars in this note, the reader is referred to Lightfoot, Selden, Vitringa de Synog. Vet. Calmet, Prideaux, Ikenius, Horne’s Introduction, pt. iii. ch. 1, § 4. Lardner’s Credi- bility, Ὁ. I. ch. ix. 6, Grotius in Act. xv. 21. Respeet for the opinion of Dr. Owen has prevented me from assuming that the several peti- tions of the Lord’s Prayer were selected from the prayers of the synagogue, but the positions which he advances in his Theologou- mena appear to me entirely subverted by Witsius and other writers on the opposite side, who adduce from Jewish writers almost the verbally identical petitions of that formulary. LECTURE II. ON THE PERPETUITY AND DESIGN OF THE SACRAMENTS. ** And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.” Exodus xii, 24. “* Nemo in castra hostium transit, nisi projectis armis suis, nisi destitutis signis et sacramentis principis sui.”—Tertullian de Spectaculis, c. xxiv. In the preceding Lecture, we noticed the several institutions which are observed as sacraments, or as of a sacramental character, by various denominations of Christians, and so we have prepared for the con- sideration of those two symbolical services, which, as we believe, are of perpetual obligation in the Christian church. It may be more convenient, and may bring the subject, in both its parts, more distinctly before you, if instead of diverging at this point to treat sepa- rately of baptism and the Lord’s supper, I notice, in one Lecture, the perpetuity and the symbolic character of these services, in opposition both to those who deny their permanent obligation, and to those who regard them as more than symbols, so far, but only so far as the same arguments and the same objections are applicable to both institutions. PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 67 The society of Friends, as well as some small com- munities of Christians on the continent, reject both baptism and the Lord’s supper, assuming as their distinctive principle, that all worship by means of: forms and ceremonies, is utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian religion. It may seem too much like subtle evasion, to say that neither baptism nor the Lord’s supper is an act of worship, since they are both regarded by us as symbols of doctrine, representations of important truth by significant acts, instead of significant words ; and therefore the objec- tion, strictly and correctly stated, ought to be, that all exposition of Christian truth, by significant actions or religious rites, is utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel. But as writers of reputation among the Friends object that we employ these rites in imme- diate connexion with the more direct and public acts of worship, I will, without demurring upon a dis- tinction which they say they cannot acknowledge, although it appears to me both evident and important, admit the objection, as it is stated by themselves. If there is the most distinct and unexceptionable evidence of the practice of the apostles, in observing the rites of baptism and the supper; it is, we main- tain, little to the purpose to collect a multitude of passages which declare the spirituality of the Christian dispensation. That “‘ the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” is a great and important truth, for in these words, the apostle asserts the invariable distinction between the essential principles F 2 68 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. of Christian doctrine, and all symbolic institutions subservient to them. The kingdom of heaven—the reign of Christ—consists not in the latter, but in the former; not in the external signs, but in the truths signified. But in the assertion of this truth, did the apostle construct an argument against his own practice in baptizing the Philippian jailor, or in breaking bread at Troas? If the argument be valid in our times, it must have been equally so in the apostolic age; for the kingdom of heaven has not changed; and powerful as it may seem in the estimation of the society of Friends, it unquestionably had no such power in the estimation of the apostles. To interpret this passage as implying that all symbo- lic observances are inconsistent with the true spirit of the Gospel, suggests the inquiry, Are we to suppose that the apostles authorised such inconsistencies, and imposed them for a time upon the church? The reply of ‘‘ the Friends,” that they acted in condescen- sion to the infirmities of the Jews, is of no avail. If the kingdom of God were not meat and drink, if it were not form and ceremony ; would the apostles have made it meat and drink, form and ceremony, by a concession to the prejudices of any men or women upon the face of the earth? But if their observance of symbolic rites did not adulterate the Gospel, so neither does ours ; if at the very time that they were baptizing their converts, and breaking bread among their disciples, they did not make the kingdom of God meat and drink, so neither does it become carnal and ceremonial through our imitation of their example. PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 69 We do only as they did. There may be, and if there are, let the Quakers produce them, good reasons for relinquishing the apostolic practice; but we cannot admit that the apostles reduced the Gospel to shadow and ceremony, or that their practice was in opposition to the truth of their own text so often cited against us. The slightest attention to this passage would show that it refers to things indifferent, and is much more appropriate to the peculiarities of dress and of speech which distinguish “ the Friends,” than it is to the sym- bols of our faith, which, if not of Divine authority, are profane inventions of men. If it be said, that the sacraments were allowed as things indifferent, then the argument of ‘the Friends” must be abandoned, because, being only indifferent, and not inconsistent with the Christian religion, there lies against them no such objection as they allege; and things in themselves indifferent, that is, things in themselves innocent, when sanctioned by apostolic practice, are surely not now to be made grounds of division among the dis- ciples of Christ. That previously to the advent of Christ, God appointed a religious institute, in which evangelical truth was exhibited in ceremony and sacrament, is universally admitted, as indeed it is absolutely undeniable. To what extent, on the coming of the Messiah, symbolic services were abo- lished, or retained, or modified, it is for no man to decide, without appealing to the New Testament, upon any general views of the simplicity or the spirituality of the Gospel. If for wise reasons God appointed in the Jewish church a number of magnifi- 70 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. cent, though burdensome ceremonies; for reasons equally wise, he may have ordained in the Christian church a few of a simpler character. If, in regard to the infirmities of the Jews, as “ the Friends” assert, many ceremonial observances were ordained in the ancient church, for aught they know, there may be infirmities so inherent in human nature, or so generally preva- lent, as to render a few simple forms desirable, if not absolutely necessary for the great majority in every age of the world. Is not the Christian church sur- rounded with infirmities, and, for the sake of the weak brethren, if no better reason could be given, may not sacramental services be imposed even upon the strong? Every man is to look not upon his own things only, but also upon the things of others: for mutual edifi- cation is the chief end of that church-union in which believers are commanded to associate. If any man has attained to a Gnostic perfection, in which no sacraments can aid his pure and abstract contem- plations of God, let him consider that there are many in the church whose infirmities place them on a level with the more prejudiced and feebler Christians of the apostolic communities. To say that these observances were for a season conceded to the prejudices or the superstitions of the Jewish converts, but were sub- sequently to be renounced, would be to exhibit the apostolic churches, when acting in obedience to the apostolic authority, not as models for succeeding ages to copy, but as beacons for them to avoid—not as exhibiting the strength and beauty of the Christian PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 71 faith, but its feebleness and deficiency through the beggarly elements of the world. Besides, is it not remarkable that if the apostles, from regard to the prejudice of the age, appointed these unchristian services, they should have made no pro- vision for their gradual disuse ; should have given no intimation of that glorious emancipation from sen- sual ordinances, to which “ the Friends” have happily attained by their abstract contemplation of Divine truth in her simple majesty, unattended by the heraldry of painted symbols? On the contrary, so far from having done so, they have left these carnal ceremonies unim- paired to their successors, who, in the next, and in every subsequent age, have scrupulously retained them as the emblems and memorials of the truth of Christ. ‘The Friends,” however, say, that intimations of the will of Christ do exist in the New Testament. Although the apostles observed baptism and the Lord’s supper, yet, it is asserted, these observances were relics of Judaism, opposed to the true spirit of Christianity. Let us then prosecute the appeal to the New Testament. We have already noticed one passage ; let us now turn to another, which is frequently cited, and which the early Friends, as Barclay, who is said to be unanswer- able, if not infallible, as well as their modern defenders, station in the front of their battle. I refer to the dis- course of our Lord with the woman of Samaria. Jesus said, in reply to the woman of Sychar, who had referred to him the dispute between the Jews and Samaritans respecting the worship of God, in Jerusa- {Pe PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. lem or mount Gerizim, ‘“‘ Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father; the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit, — and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth.” The inference deduced by Barclay from this passage is, that every system of worship by ceremonial observances, like that of the Jews or of the Samaritans, being entirely abolished, the worship of the Christian church is exclusively spiritual, without any external rite or symbolic ordinance whatsoever. But, is not this inference too general? That the spirit and character of the two dispensations are here presented in contrast, we readily acknowledge; but can we justly infer more from the passage than that the dispensation which was to succeed Judaism required no ceremonial, no visible mediation of priests or sacrifices, no sacred places nor seasons, as the means by which we draw nigh unto God? Do we not completely convey the sense and whole force of the passage, in saying that, in every place, and not exclusively in one or two hallowed spots, and with- out any ceremonial or formal observance, every worshipper who presents the offering of a true and sincere heart is acceptable to God? In this doctrine we most entirely concur; but we can see nothing in it which forbids us to baptize a proselyte, or to observe the Supper as a memorial of our blessed PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 73 Lord. If we maintained that these rites were indis- pensable to acceptable worship, or that they were anything more than signs of evangelical truth, the passage, with some appearance of reason, might be cited against us. Our Lord says, “‘ The hour cometh, and now is ;” but by the concession of our opponents, baptism was at that time practised by the disciples of Christ, under his authority, and the Lord’s supper was first solemnized on a subsequent occasion. If the words of our Lord were intended to exclude all symbols from the Christian religion, would he have intro- ᾽ duced the clause “and now is,” when one symbolic service was recently appointed, though as they say for a temporary purpose, and the other was about to be instituted by himself? The hour cometh, and after a short intervening dispensation of only two simple ceremonies, will arrive, would have been the proper phrase, if our Lord intended to teach that baptism and the Supper were to be eventually excluded from his church. If the passage, having in it the clause “and now is,” did not exclude the two symbols from the Christian service of the apostolic age, so neither does it exclude the same symbols from the Christian service of the present day. It can have no more force now than it had at that time; it cannot act upon the future with an impulse which it did not impart to the present; it is not a prophecy of this day, but a relation of that age. The Samaritans themselves, and probably this very woman, were afterwards baptized by the evangelist Philip. These 74 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS, observations will apply to other passages of a similar import, cited especially from the epistle to the Hebrews, of which Mr. Gurney gives us this sum- mary,“—Then “was the law of types abolished ;” to which we reply in few words, that baptism and the Lord’s supper did not belong to that law of types. “There is,” it is a favourite passage with the Quakers, “a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, (for the law made nothing perfect ;) and there is, on the other hand,” (such is the proper translation of the passage,)’ ‘the introduction of a better hope, by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Baptism and the Lord’s supper, we reply, did not belong to ‘the commandment going before,” but to “ the better hope” which was brought in with baptism, and com- memorated in the Supper. If they have discovered that the true exposition of these passages utterly excludes all ceremony and sacrament in the most simple and intelligent form, as wholly repugnant to the genius and spirit of the gospel; then, by adroitly “ Observations on the Religious Peculiarities of the Friends, p. 64. ὁ Αθέτησις μὲν yap γίνεται προαγούσης ἐντολῆς, διὰ τὸ αὐτῆς ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές (οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος) ἐπεισαγωγὴ δὲ κρείττονος ἐλπίδος, de ἧς ἐγγίζομεν τῷ Θεῷ. Heb. vii. 18,19. Through neglect of the particles μὲν and δὲ, this passage is erroneously translated in the common version, as well as by Macknight, Stuart, and other trans- lators whom I have consulted. Instead of opposing the introduction of a better hope to the disannulling of the commandment going before, they oppose it to the parenthetical clause, “the law made nothing perfect,” and supply a verb, “but the bringing in of a better hope did.” PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 75 marshalling the texts of the apostles in opposition to their practice, the Quakers confront them with their own words, and in effect say, We follow your doc- trine, but not your practice ; we do as you teach, but not as you act. For the apostolic practice let us now look into the apostolic records. That John’s baptism was from heaven and not of men, “the Friends” will not deny, unless they are more slow to believe than the Pharisees, who replied to the inquiry of our Lord, “ we cannot tell.” We are told, indeed, that John’s baptism may mean his doctrine, which was from heaven; but what saith John himself? ‘‘ He that sent me to baptize mith water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and resting upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” To this baptism Jesus submitted, not in con- descension to Jewish prejudices, but that he might fulfil all righteousness. But righteousness must have respect to some law, and the inquiry is sug- gested, Of what law did our Lord desire to fulfil all righteousness ? He could not have meant the law of Moses, nor that of the fathers, for neither Moses nor the fathers commanded to baptize in Jordan ; he must have referred to the Divine commission which John had received. The expression evidently implies that the dispensation of John was a law of God, without submission to which, Jesus being a Hebrew of that age, would not have fulfilled all righteousness. 76 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. Afterwards, ‘‘ the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.”* Baptism was therefore administered under the sanction of the Founder of the Christian faith. Because the evangelist observes, “ Although Jesus himself baptized not, but ᾿ his disciples ;’ would it be imagined by those un- acquainted with their writings, that the early Friends as well as their modern disciples have laid great stress upon this incidental notice? I know not how to express the feeling with which I quote the words of so good and candid a man as Joseph John Gurney upon this passage. He says, “Those preachers of the gospel, therefore, who consider it their duty, in conformity with the great fundamental law of Chris- tian worship, to abstain from the practice of baptizing their converts in water, have the consolation to know that in adopting such a line of conduct, they are following the example of Him who is on all hands allowed to have afforded us a perfect pattern.”? Of “a Friend,” we ask, is an argument to be raised from the conduct of our Lord, against the practice of his own apostles acting immediately under his own eye? Our Lord did not actually baptize, but would he have allowed his apostles to do anything inconsist- ent with his own doctrine in the discharge of their public ministry, and to do it in his own name? When the apostles administered baptism, would not every friend and every foe infer from their conduct that the rite was sanctioned by the authority of their @ John iv. 1, 2. ὁ Observations, &e. p. 103. PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. ih Master? and if it was sanctioned by his authority, it is worse than irrelevant to this argument, to add, He did not actually baptize. The sense of the passage ought surely to be thus expounded, Although Jesus did not himself actually baptize, yet by the ministry of his apostles under his sanction, he virtually bap- tized more disciples than John. We have now to consider the great commission which our Lord gave to his apostles: “ Go therefore, and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” We do not maintain, as do many, that our Lord on this occasion instituted Christian baptism, for the apostles under his authority had previously administered it to great multitudes of the Jews. If therefore, it could be shown, by any refined process of reasoning, that these words do not contain a charge given by our Lord to his apostles to baptize with water, the argument from the apostolic practice, both previous and subsequent to the death of Christ, would remain unimpaired. The members of the society of Friends maintain, that by baptism we are here to understand, not the baptism of water which John administered, but the baptism of the Holy Ghost which Christ conferred. An able writer in the Congregational Magazine,’ from whom I differ with reluctance, because his views and arguments on Christian baptism, so well and power- fully sustained, in almost every particular, exactly @ Vol. v. New Series, p. 850. 78 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. coincide with those which I have long maintained, agrees substantially with “the Friends,” and renders the passage: “Go forth, and make disciples of all nations, purifying them for the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” I adhere to the usual interpre- tation of the verse for several reasons. Ist. Although I place little dependence upon a traditive sense of Scripture, yet if uniformity of ancient interpretation is anywhere to be found, it is in refer- ring to these words of our Lord as an authority for baptism by water. Whatever may be thought of the golden rule of Vincent of Lerins, this is one of the very few places to which, amidst the vagaries of even the catholic and orthodox on the meaning of single texts, it may be applied, and with a breadth which even his comprehensive terms do not include, for “all,” (the faithful, as he means,—we add, and all the unfaithful too) “in all places, and at all times,” have agreed in expounding this text with perfect uniform- ity, as containing the commission to baptize prose- lytes with water. Those ancient heretics who did not practise baptism by water, rejected, as I believe, the whole, or important parts of the canonical Scrip- tures ; but I confidently make the assertion of all who have received the Christian canon. The value of this reason will be variously estimated, let it go for what it is worth, be it little or much. 2nd. If there be nothing in the context to induce us to assign a figurative, rather than a literal sense to a word, we are bound to prefer its literal signification. To baptize, although used sometimes figuratively in PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 79 reference to the mind, unless there be some reason to the contrary, ought to be understood, like every other word, in its ordinary acceptation. If however, it be said, the words literally are, baptizing into the name of God, and not into water or with water, we reply, in other passages, where it is said any were baptized into Christ, or into the name of a person, water was emblematically employed. 3rd. Without at present considering what has been said by some writers, who have contended that the word baptize in the New Testament means, to purify ; even admitting their opinion to be correct, it does not seem probable that the apostles at this time were so familiar with the reference of the word to the puri- fication of the mind, as on hearing it without expla- nation, to understand it in that sense. Wherein does it appear, that previously to the Pentecost, they so understood the term? The Jews had a dispute about purifying, and they might have called it baptism, but if they did, they referred not to the sanctification of the mind, but to the ablution of the body. As to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, attributed by John to the Saviour, it is not probable the apostles as yet understood the meaning of John’s declaration. 4th. To purify into the name of a person is an unusual and unauthorised sense of the words, and therefore inadmissible, if the usual and authorised sense is not excluded by the context. The words are rendered, purifying them for the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The word name, we are told, only denotes the person, and therefore may be -.᾿ 4 ν᾿ 80 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. omitted in translating ; but this is not the dispute, for about this there can be no doubt at all. The question is, in the passages in which the sense of the phrase, baptize into the name, or if it be so preferred, into the person, can be ascertained, does it mean an ablu- tion of the body, or a purification of the mind? “ All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” “Were ye baptized into the name of Paul ? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should say that I baptized into my own name.” The twelve men at Ephesus, on hearing him, were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. On the Samaritans, the Holy Ghost had not yet fallen, only they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. In these instances it is indisputable, that water was in some way employed ; but there is no authority whatever for interpreting “ to baptize into the name” of a person, or into a person, as though it denoted only to purify the mind for the person. The dispute, therefore, is between a well- authorised and an unauthorised sense of the phrase ; and it is very little to the purpose to show upon an analysis of the passage, that the words taken singly and separately, when they ought to be taken collect- ively, may be as appropriate to one interpretation as to the other. 5th. The command, to purify all nations, inter- preted in accordance with the general style of Holy Scriptures, must be understood ceremonially. God purifies the heart, or men may be said to purify themselves by the truth, but they are not commanded PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 81 to purify, to sanctify, to save others. The charge, ’ “ Disciple all nations, purifying them,” is equivalent to a direct command to purify all nations, which is certainly not the usual style of Scripture, unless it be understood, as we understand it, in a ceremonial sense. 6th. The objection to the common interpretation, as it is often propounded, is the supposed incongruity between the general commission, Disciple all nations, and the mention of a specific precept, when the con- verts were to be taught to observe all things what- soever Christ commanded. But this supposed incon- gruity is in accordance with the common phraseology of the New Testament, and therefore becomes an argument in favour of the literal interpretation. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be bap- tized, every one of you ; then they that gladly received the word were baptized.” It may be here asked, Why should Peter add to the general charge, Repent, the reference to only one specific duty ? That he did so, whatever might have been his reason, is sufficient for our purpose. Baptism, as the sign of discipleship, was, in the first instance, enjoined upon every pro- selyte. As, therefore, Peter charged his hearers, con- necting the general and the specific, “ Repent, and be baptized,” meaning with water; so our Lord charged his apostles, “ Disciple all nations, baptizing them,” meaning with water. Let me not, however, be here misunderstood. I do not say the commission is, Baptize into water, because it is plainly, Baptize into the name, and there is not a word about water in the text. From this passage G 82 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. alone, we could not prove that water was ever used in baptism. All 1 maintain is, that in baptizing into the name of a person, or into a person, baptizing into the name of the Trinity, or baptizing into the name of Christ, or into Christ, or into Moses, or into any one else, water was always understood to be em- ployed as the sign of that baptism. I shall, hereafter, have occasion to notice, that in the language of the New Testament, proselytes are baptized into Christ by water, and not into water by Christ. Respecting the observance of this commission by the apostles, although they generally entrusted the administration of baptism to evangelists and other assistants, yet from several intimations in their epis- tles, we may safely conclude that not a single convert was unbaptized, so far as their authority extended ; and from the subsequent history, we may infer that the commission was understood as not confined to the apostles. Although Quakers speak with marvellous compla- cency of the great apostle of the Gentiles being sent, not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, yet even St. Paul sometimes baptized; if seldom in Corinth, yet occasionally elsewhere. The Corinthian converts were unquestionably baptized, and many of them, we have no reason to doubt, by the assistants of Paul, and under his direction. The remark, therefore, which we made upon the conduct of our Lord, in not baptizing, will equally apply to the practice of St. Paul. His commission was not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, and therefore he generally left the x PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 83 baptism of the converts to others, yet its administra- tion was sanctioned both by his practice and_ his authority. In reply to the argument derived from the apostolic practice, it is said that baptism was a concession to Jewish prejudices; and as it is admitted, at least by some Quakers, that the Lord’s supper was solemnized in the primitive churches, the same reply is offered to this apostolic precedent. As both baptism and the Lord’s supper were founded upon the usages of the Jews, it is said, they were allowed, in the infancy of the church, to conciliate the Hebrew converts. Barclay intimates, that the apostles themselves were slow in casting off their Jewish prejudices, although he trusts chiefly to the notion that the two ceremonies of the apostolic age were allowed by the apostles in con- descension to the weakness of Jewish believers. But let us hear their own language: ‘ 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 as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unwor- thily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” Is it to be supposed that the apostles would employ G2 84 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. language so solemn and impressive, describing these services as representations of most important evan- gelical truth, if they were speaking of unmeaning ceremonies, tolerated, but not approved, from regard to the weakness of the Jews? Were these the instruc- tions to lead them from carnal elements to the more excellent way? Would one of “the Friends” now repeat them in addressing a pious person of another community, whose prejudices might be as unyielding, or infirmities as pitiable, as were those of the Jews? Was this the style of address with which Fox and his friends extinguished their candles in the churches? But we maintain that the notion of a concession to Jewish prejudice, is wholly gratuitous, or rather, absolutely false. What prejudice had the Jew, which would not be offended rather than conciliated by either of these sacramental services? That both baptism and the Lord’s supper were founded upon Jewish practices, we readily admit. Our Lord adopted the rites of the Jews, and what is remarkable, rites unauthorised by the law of Moses, and consecrated them to be the symbolic services of his church ; yet, in their new form, they must have been directly opposed to every Jewish prejudice. Whether we refer baptism to the divers washings of the Jews observed in accordance with the Mosaic law, or to the baptism of proselytes prevailing in the time of our Lord, the Christian rite must have been opposed to the prevalent opinions and feelings, the prejudice and the pride of the Jewish nation. If it were repre- sented as a purification from legal pollution, would PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 85 it have conciliated a Jew to require, indiscriminately from all, clean or unclean, and specifically from him- self, a legal purification, when he knew that he had contracted no legal pollution? Why was the scrupu- lous Pharisee, proud in his legal righteousness, moving with ever-wakeful scrupulosity to preserve his long robes and broad phylacteries from every stain, to be thus treated, as though, in his uncleanness, he had been living like a heathen man and a publican? He had observed most rigidly, not only the baptisms of the law, but the ablutions of the scribes; he had purified himself from the touch of the dead, and had washed when he came from the market ; he was per- fectly clean according to the law of Moses, and equally so according to the traditions of the elders ; why should he be repulsed, unless he submitted to a new cleansing, as though he were a common and profane man? His baptism, whatever might have been the reason of it, was, surely, a preposterous mode of conciliating his prejudice. Mr. Gurney, however, relies especially upon the proselyte baptism of the Jews, as the origin of their prejudice in favour of such a rite of initiation, believ- ing, as he does, that every Gentile was, in the time of our Lord, baptized with his household, on his becom- ing aconvert to Judaism. Ifthe apostles had baptized. only Gentiles, there might have been some plausibility in his opinion, but the baptism of a Jew was, in effect, saying to him, You are becoming a proselyte to a new religion, from which you, with the Gentile, have been equally estranged. You must wash away your 86 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS, uncleanness, as if you had been a polluted Samaritan, or a Syro-Pheenician dog. The faith of Abraham, the law of Moses, and the institutions of your elders, have not availed to prevent you from appearing in the character, and submitting to the rites of a proselyte. Though a master in Israel, you must, like a Gentile, be born again of water as well as of the Spirit, or you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. So far from being conciliated, the prejudice and wounded pride of the Pharisee would naturally dictate the reply of Nicodemus, How can these things be? Respecting the Lord’s supper, similar remarks, with at least equal force and propriety, may be made. The ritual of the supper is evidently derived from the usages of the Jews in celebrating the passover. ‘‘ Not the poorest in Israel might eat of it, till he was seated,” says the Talmud.* Jesus sat down with the twelve. The officiating minister or president of the feast broke a cake of unleavened bread, and gave thanks to God, who bringeth bread out of the earth.’ Among the several cups of wine used on the occasion, there was one called the cup of blessing, or thanks- giving, over which they gave thanks, and sang the Hallel, or sacred psalms.° These usages Jesus con- secrated as the memorial of his own propitiatory death. But on this very account, the celebration of the Lord’s supper, except on the day of the paschal feast, would have shocked the religious feelings of the “See Lightfoot. “‘ The Temple Service,” &c. ’ Maimonides, see Lightfoot, supra. ¢ Gloss on Maimonides, supra. PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 87 Jews. The rites of the passover were appropriate to the fourteenth day of the first month, the anniversary of the original institution. Their observance on any other day, unless, in an emergency, on the fourteenth day of the second month, especially their weekly observance, and their observance without the other parts of the paschal service, must have appeared unauthorised and profane to the eyes of such as looked with veneration on the institutes of Moses, or the traditions of the elders. Can we then suppose that this service was conceded by the apostles to Jewish prejudice? What law of the nation, what tradition of the elders, what gloss of the scribes, could possibly require a weekly paschal feast without a paschal lamb? A supper to conciliate the Jews would have been something like that which the Judaising Christians, the temporisers of a spirit very unlike that of Jesus or of Paul, afterwards observed ; for we are told by Epiphanius,* that the Ebionites of his time celebrated the eucharist once a year with unleavened bread. Julian, the apostate, knew the opinions of the early Christians better, for he represents them as saying, ‘‘ We cannot keep the feast of unleavened bread, for Christ is sacrificed for us.” That the apostle Paul regarded the Lord’s supper as a perpetual ordinance in the church of Christ, may be inferred from his own words: ‘ As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death until he come.” The @ Heres. xxx. 16. ὁ Cyril contra Julian. 1. x. 88 PERPETUITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. Lord’s supper was to be observed until the coming of Christ. What say ‘the Friends?” What says Joseph John Gurney? ‘“ The words, till he come, were probably added as a kind of reservation, for the purpose of conveying the idea, that when the Lord himself should come, such a memorial of his death would be obsolete and unnecessary.” “a priest by birth ;” and having arrived at the thirtieth year of his age, according to the custom of that nation, he was, after examination of the great council, to have been admitted into the priestly office, but that God had commis- sioned him another way.—Lightfoot’s Evercitations upon Luke i. 80. M 162 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. the precursor of the Messiah. As in sustaining that office he baptized great multitudes,—as he baptized them by Divine appointment, and baptized the Lord Jesus,—his baptism is too important to be dismissed without notice, as by carefully attending to it, we may obtain some assistance in the more important inquiry respecting the nature of Christian baptism. John had to teach a new doctrine. He was com- missioned to declare that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. ‘The older prophets had described the reign of Messiah: John announced his advent. The near approach of that reign was the new doctrine which attracted the attention of great multitudes, who received baptism from him, and were thenceforth called his disciples. That his baptism was regarded as the initiatory rite by which the Jews were made disciples of John, is evident from the words of the evangelist: ‘‘ the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.” Those that Jesus baptized were called his disciples, those that John baptized were his disciples. So closely were the baptism and the new doctrine connected, that the one term seems to be employed for the other. “The baptism of John,” (the new doctrine) “ was it from heaven, or of men?”* “ After the baptism” (the doctrine) which John preached.”’ To be baptized, then, was to be initiated as a disciple, or learner of the new doctrine—the speedy coming of Christ. It is true that the baptism of John is called the baptism @ Mark xi. 30. ὁ Acts x. 37. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 163 of repentance, but then the repentance was in every instance founded upon the new doctrine, the uniform exhortation, the incessant cry of the baptizer being, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The object of this baptism is stated by St. Paul, “ John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” The amount of what we learn from the evan- gelical history is, that multitudes received the rite of baptism from John, and many of them were taught the new doctrine on which he founded his exhortation to repentance. It is indeed said, they were baptized confessing their sins, but whether they uttered an audible confession as they stood in crowds listening to his preaching, or their baptism was itself an act of confession, an acknowledgment that they needed repentance, we are not able to ascertain. The num- bers baptized will not allow us to suppose that there was a distinct and personal confession, anything like auricular confession, of their several offences made to John their baptizer. Of this baptism of John we have, I think, sufficient evidence in determining two particulars,—the one, that it was indiscriminately administered to all appli- cants; the other, that it effected no change, moral or spiritual, upon their minds. The baptism of John was indiscriminately adminis- tered to all applicants. Of the great multitudes who went out to his baptism, we have not the slightest hint of any person whatever having been rejected. M 2 164 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. Matthew® says, ‘‘ There went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Mark? says, “There went out to him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan.”* Although we do not understand these expressions literally, yet they must imply that great multitudes followed him, and the language of Mark is express, ‘‘ they were all baptized of him.” Have we then any right to assume, in contradiction to the letter of the text, that there was any selection, any test of fitness, anything required beyond the application of the parties to receive the sign of his doctrine? It seems to have been the duty of every Jew to enrol himself as an expectant of the coming Messiah, or what was the same thing, as a disciple of John. The Pharisees and lawyers in not being bap- tized of him, “ rejected the counsel of God against themselves.” Hence, when John saw Jesus offer him- self for baptism, there seemed some incongruity, some- thing unsuitable in the greater enrolling himself as the disciple of the less, the Master receiving baptism from the servant. Jesus replied, ‘‘ Suffer it to be so now, to fulfil all righteousness.” Although Jesus had no sins to confess, no repentance to practise, yet as a Jew, he would act as became the men of his nation. As Moses purified the nation preparatory to the descent of Jehovah on Sinai, so it seems to have been 2 ch. iii. 5, 6. 6 ch. i. 8. 5 Or according to a various reading, “ they of Jerusalem, all, and were baptized.” ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 165 the commission of John to purify the whole nation preparatory to the coming of Messiah. Each dispen- sation was introduced by a general baptism. As it was the duty of every Jew to learn of the new pro- phet, so no one was forbidden to be initiated by baptism as his disciple, and so to be purified for the reign of Christ. The baptism of John could have implied no more than the interest of the baptized in his doctrine, and their duty to become acquainted with it. But the general terms employed by the evangelists do not constitute the whole, nor even the chief part of our reasoning. Although no one has a right to limit their universal language, nor when Mark says, all were baptized, to reply, only a class was baptized; yet if some do so narrowly interpret the evangelists, the language of John addressed to the promiscuous crowds of all classes, Pharisees and Sadducees, pub- licans and soldiers, will bear no such _ limitation. ““ When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance ; and think not to say among yourselves, We have Abraham to our father, for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid at the root of the tree: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire.” Yet he continues, “1 indeed am baptizing you with water, but he that cometh after me is mightier 166 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he shall throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”"* From these words we infer that John suspected the Pharisees and Sadducees, whom he called by the opprobrious name of vipers, of reposing in their national privileges as the children of Abraham, that he nevertheless baptized them into repentance, not after it, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost, if they would receive it, must be administered by one mightier than himself, and that the separation be- tween the righteous and the wicked was not to be made at that time by him, but afterwards by his successor. No language, we think, can more expressly and decidedly prove that John administered his baptism indiscriminately to all applicants; and this is but saying in other words, that he admitted all persons indiscriminately to become his disciples, the learners of his doctrine. To say that John selected the parties to be baptized, is inconsistent with the evangelical narrative, for the parties went out to be baptized of him. They must have thought that his baptism would be conceded to them without hesitation, as it is not said they went to learn of him, but to be baptized. Baptism was the first thing they sought, the object they had in view, although they went to him as carelessly as if they had gone to see @ Matt. m1. 7—12. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 167 a reed shaken with the wind, or a man clothed in soft raiment, a man of a vacillating and inconstant spirit, or of a soft and luxurious life. Of no one have we any right to say John refused or deferred his baptism ; John made no selection, and therefore by his baptism he did not attempt to discriminate character. No one has any right to attribute to him the delusion of supposing that the crowds of Jews whom he baptized, were true penitents ; still less to feign a test of character or qualification for baptism, and to say, without authority of Scripture, that John instituted it. Equally clear is it that the baptism of John pro- duced no moral nor spiritual change upon the persons who received it. He disclaimed the power of effecting such a change, when he contrasted his baptism with that of the Holy Ghost, administered by one mightier than himself. Besides, all the subsequent history of the gospels teaches us that the excitement produced by the preaching of John speedily subsided, and the multitudes, who for a time seemed willing to walk in his light, quickly relapsed into their former indiffer- ence. Although from the days of John the Baptizer, all men pressed into the kingdom of God, yet they rejected the ministry of Christ, and refused the Gospel as a narrow and forsaken path. The Pharisees remained as proud, and the Sadducees as sceptical, the pub- licans as extortionate, and the soldiers as violent, as they had been previously to their baptism ; for nothing is more certain than that the Jewish nation, although so generally baptized by John and the disciples of 168 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. Jesus, exhibited no permanent reformation, brought forth no fruits meet for repentance. Through bap- tism all men pressed into the kingdom of heaven, yet they were most disobedient, rebellious, and un- faithful subjects, so that both John and Jesus had to say to the multitudes whom they baptized, ‘‘ We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced: we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.” I need not reason upon this point any longer, because I know not that I have any opponent. The Fathers, with their lofty language on the mighty and mysterious efficacy of baptism,—the Catholics of Rome, and the Tractarians of England, with their dif- ferent theories of sacramental grace,—all admit that John had not the Holy Ghost to sanctify his water of baptism; and that, therefore, being destitute of the great power of God, his baptism was only a sign of the better and mightier baptism of the Christian church. The general opinion of ecclesiastical anti- quity is expressed by Chrysostom,’ ‘‘ The baptism of John was indeed far superior to the Jewish, but inferior to ours: it was a kind of bridge between the two baptisms, leading from that to this.” The ancients frequently observe that it had not the Holy Ghost, and that it did not bestow the remission of sins. Thus Jerome says,’ “If John, as he himself confesses, did not baptize in the Spirit, neither did he remit sins, because sins are remitted to none with- out the Holy Spirit.” There are so many passages “ Hom. Ixxxiv. ® Adv. Lucif. § 7. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 169 of similar import, that all who hold zealously to catholic antiquity admit that John’s baptism con- ferred no spiritual gift. Thus Dr. Pusey, contrasting the baptism of John with that of Christ, terminates the antithesis of several particulars in these words: “The one a baptism in which they knew not whe- ther there be a Holy Ghost, the other a baptism in which the Holy Ghost came upon them, and dwelt in them, and manifested his power within them.”4 It is the uniform opinion of all these defenders of baptismal efficacy, that the Jordan, when John bap- tized in it, was no laver of regeneration, no stream of life, because the Holy Ghost was not yet poured down from heaven. The least baptizer in the king- dom of heaven is, in their esteem, greater than John. We have now, in connexion with this subject, to solicit attention to the universal admission, or rather the indisputable truth, that, previously to the resur- rection of our Lord, there was no such a thing on earth as baptismal regeneration. It may be said the Christian church was not then constituted, nor was it endowed with the Holy Ghost until the day of Pentecost; to which we have only to reply, without commencing a controversy on the origin of the Chris- tian church, that there were many truly pious and devout persons, who, although never baptized, or baptized only by John, were members of the kingdom of heaven, and now inherit its promises. We assume they were faithful and godly men, and we assume @ Tracts for the Times, No. 67. 170 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. nothing more; but this assumption, which surely no one will controvert, strikes at the root of sacramental efficacy, and will, we think, enable us to bring the controversy on baptismal regeneration to a successful issue. The traditional doctrine of the church on which Tractarians rely, is, that neither the baptism of John, nor that of the disciples during our Lord’s personal ministry, was endowed with the power of regeneration ; but if these early baptisms were really Christian baptisms, (and we have never yet seen the essential difference fairly proved, as we shall presently attempt to show,) it follows that Christian baptism at its institution and during its early administration, had no immediate connexion with the regeneration of the Spirit. Tractarians, however, reply, that on the same authority, namely, ecclesiastical tradition, ever strictly orthodox, and ever free from heretical or schismatical contamination ; they maintain that bap- tism, since the resurrection of Christ, has been ever accompanied with the regeneration of the Spirit, and that the essential difference is apparent, for John baptized with water, but Christian ministers, like their Master, baptize with the Holy Ghost. On their own grounds, then, we proceed, and inquire what moral quality, or what spiritual disposition, what Christian grace, what good fruit of the Spirit was there, which John the Baptizer or his disciples be- lieving on Christ, or the disciples of our Lord during his ministry, or those baptized by them, did not possess, or might not have obtained, by prayer, ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 171 diligence and faith, without being re-baptized, as assuredly many of them, if not all, died without receiving what our opponents consider to be Chris- tian baptism? It will be said of John, and Nathanael, and many others, baptized without regeneration, they were good men, but not regenerate of the Holy Ghost. It follows that the unregenerate may be good men, God’s faithful servants, crowned with everlasting glory. We ask, were these men born good? and were they without any change fit for heaven? No, reply the Tractarians, for to say they were would be gross Pelagianism, against which vile heresy the blessed Augustine, and the universal church, with one voice, have firmly and invariably protested. Then what power subdued the original corruption of their nature? and whence was it derived? Was it from heaven, or of men? If from heaven, wherein did this sanctification of Divine influence differ from regeneration by the Spirit? If from men, what need, the Pelagian inquires, for the baptism of the Spirit to do that which a man can effect for himself? In what bath were their sins washed away, and how has that ancient source of sanctity and pardon, whatever it was, been deprived of its cleansing and absolving power, so that no man, having sinned after baptism, can now find it for the relief and safety of his soul? Some of the ancients maintained that unbaptized infants were saved from punishment, although not being born of water, they could not enter the kingdom of heaven. One might conclude that our opponents, to be consistent, would place these first baptized of 172 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. John and of Jesus in that state of partial salvation, that mansion for unbaptized innocents in the Father's house in paradise, but not in heaven,—the place in which the patriarchs were confined until they were liberated by baptism administered by Christ himself, as some of the ancients fancied, when he preached to the spirits in prison. I know that Dr. Waterland, and some other divines of the English church, have maintained that regeneration effected by baptism is not a moral nor spiritual change, but rather a change of state or condition, a relative and federal change, or an introduction into the covenant of grace. But this is not baptismal regeneration as generally understood. It is not the baptismal regeneration of the Tractarians, nor yet of the Church of England, which declares a sacrament to be an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. As we shall have another occasion to notice the system of Waterland, I return to reason with those who believe that baptismal regeneration is an inward and spiritual grace, and advance another step in saying, that previous to the resurrection of our Lord, not only was there no such thing as baptismal rege- neration, but there was no sacrament, no ceremony whatever, which was associated with this inward and spiritual grace. Neither in circumcision, nor in any ablutions of the Mosaic law, in no symbol nor ritual whatever, was there conveyed the regeneration of the soul. Whatever in the ancient church might have prefigured baptism or occupied its place, be it cir- cumcision or be it ablution with water, it was utterly ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 173 destitute of the power of sanctifying the heart. I must refer the reader to some remarks, in the second lecture, on the words of the apostle: “Ηδ is not a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” I need cite no other authorities upon this subject, for the ablest of the defenders of baptismal regeneration, and especially the Tractarians, agree, that circum- cision was only a sign of internal purity, and a seal of the Jewish covenant, but not the channel by which its grace was conveyed to the subject. Thus Dr. Pusey maintains, “It was only a sign, a shadow, a symbol, having no sanctifying power, a mere type of baptism, just such a sign as Calvinists now con- sider baptism to be ;”* and sustaining his opinions by many citations from the Fathers, he asks, Is bap- tism still to be a mere type, because circumcision was? We shall answer this question in the proper place; at present we only notice the concession in accordance with ecclesiastical antiquity, (although divines of the Church of Rome, following the school- men and Augustine, have held a different opinion, ) that circumcision was only a type, and that the sacraments of the law were only symbols prefiguring the sacraments of the Gospel. Indeed the difficulties of maintaining that circumcision was a medium of communicating grace, are so obvious and perplexing, implying that the grace was communicated to the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Ishmaelites, and all @ Tracts for the Times, No. 67. 174 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. the numerous tribes descended from Keturah, to every predatory Arab, every wild man of the desert, and that it was a privilege, in Israel imparted only to the males, that we do not wonder the Anglo-Catholic advocates of baptismal regeneration have discreetly surrendered this most dangerous outwork. Having it now in our possession, we will do our best to fortify it as an advantageous point of attack. But if the Tractarians have surrendered the ancient sacrament of circumcision as only a symbol, and not a medium of grace, their opponent, Mr. Faber, main- tains that circumcision corresponded with baptism, which, according to his view of the Christian rite, is a medium through which regeneration is occasionally, but not uniformly conveyed. In his ‘‘ Primitive Doc- trine of Regeneration,” he says, “‘ By the universal interpretation of the early church, baptism and circum- cision were ruled to be spiritually and sacramentally identical.”* Than such an assertion nothing can be more remote from the truth. The early church every where repudiated the doctrine of regeneration by circumcision, and almost every where maintained, in some form or other, the doctrine of regeneration by baptism. Even if Mr. Faber be right, that the doc- trine of the early church corresponded with his own theory, that baptism was only one of the channels in which regeneration was conveyed, it does not appear that circumcision was ever in the first ages, or in any age, considered a channel of regeneration, a means 4 The Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, b. 11. ο. ii. p. 106. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 170 of grace to the Jewish church. It was anciently regarded as a sign, a type of baptism; but the two rites were esteemed as spiritually or sacramentally identical, no more than the temple and the body of Christ, or than the brazen serpent and the sacrifice of the cross, of which one was the type of the other. The passages which Mr. Faber cites by no means prove his point. Passing over the citations from Augustine, who, we admit, expressed a different opinion from the earlier Latin and all the Greek Fathers, we notice those which he adduces from Chrysostom, from Athanasius, from Cyprian, from Justin Martyr.* In all these circumcision is repre- sented, not as equivalent to baptism, but only as the type of baptism, or the emblem of the true circum- cision, the circumcision in Christ; and so far they agree with the general opinion of the Fathers. The type is represented as a mere sign, the antitype as the means of communicating grace. When, there- fore, Mr. Faber says that cireumcision was regarded by the ancient church “as an outward sign, repre- senting an inward grace, which it was designed instru- mentally and mediately to convey,” he says what his own citations do not prove, and he says it in direct oppo- sition to the whole tenor of ecclesiastical antiquity. Circumcision is, indeed, occasionally mentioned as an emblem of internal sanctity, but not, as the Fathers supposed baptism to be, a means of imparting it.? @ See Appendix A. ὁ Of how little account circumcision was made by some of the early Fathers, may be seen in their disputes with the Jews, as espe- 176 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. The reverend ecclesiastics of the Council of Trent, cardinal and archiepiscopal, with all their minor theolo- gians and canonists, knew better than to anathematize at once all Christian antiquity, when they intended to curse only such modern divines as, with Mr. Faber, hold the heresy condemned in their seventh session, “That the sacraments of the old and new law differ only in ceremonies,” although unfor- tunately they involved St. Augustine in their ana- thema. The doctrine maintained by Mr. Faber and his admirers, is, that regeneration, although not inseparably connected with baptism, is so frequently as to authorise the Anglican church, in the judgment of charity, to pronounce the baptized person regene- rate. Maintaining, as he does, that circumcision and baptism are sacramentally identical, or “ differ only in ceremonies,” he controverts the Tractarian doc- trine, that baptism is invariably the channel of imparting regeneration, by proving that circumcision was not so; but this argument, if good for anything, will quite as effectually demolish his own doctrine. Baptism is not occasionally, as he maintains, the cially in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, in which he contends that circumcision was neither the cause nor the symbol of personal sanc- tity—that it was, with much of the Mosaic ritual, intended as a restraint upon the Jews by making a distinction between them and other nations—that it was a sign of the destruction which should come upon the Jews—and that it had been imposed upon the Moab- ites, Edomites, and other idolatrous nations—({See Appendix A.) The author of the epistle ascribed to Barnabas says, “‘ You will say the Jews were circumcised for a sign; and so are all the Syrians and Arabians, and all the idolatrous priests; but are they, therefore, of the covenant of Israel ?”—e. ix. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 177 channel of imparting regeneration, for circumcision was not so, is the proper reply, in a few words, to his elaborate reasoning. ‘Tractarians, in accordance with Catholic antiquity, deny the sacramental identity of the two institutions, and so leave Mr. Faber on the wreck of his argument and piles of citation, to grow angry with their temerity, and comfort himself with the great St. Augustine. The Fathers speak of the Levitical ablutions exactly as they do of circum- cision,—as types of Christian baptism, and shadows of the good things to come, not able to cleanse the worshippers ; and therefore, we need not travel the same line of argument a second time.” Here, then, for the present we take up our position on ground fortified by antiquity, which our opponents will not dispute, that previously to the resurrection of Christ, there was no regeneration, no spiritual grace, either invariably or occasionally conveyed by any sacrament or ceremonial of any kind whatsoever. According to Scripture, on which we rely, according to ecclesiastical antiquity, on which our opponents depend, according to Catholic witnesses, orthodox at Oxford and at Rome, from Palestine, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Africa Proper, Gaul, North and South Italy, catechists, bishops, and holy martyrs, without any contradictory voice, circumcision was a mere sign, or seal, never accompanied with regenera- tion. Nor is any other ceremony ever mentioned as regenerating. But were no persons then regenerated ? “ See especially Justin Mart. Dial. ο. Tryp. N 178 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. or if they were, by what channel was the grace con- veyed? or had the Jews nearer access to God without a ceremony? Did they receive communications of grace immediately and directly from him? If so, Christianity has become more ceremonial in_ its operations, more ritual in its character, than was Judaism; it does through a sacrament, that which Judaism was able to do without one. The embroid- ered veil of ancient hieroglyphics which concealed the propitiatory, has been rent in twain, that in its place might be suspended another of closer texture and more opaque colouring, until the priest, clothed in apostolic powers, raise it with due formality to admit the initiated. Clement of Alexandria, in his fervid commendations of baptism, calls it the immortal eye-water, which enables the eye to look upon the immortal light; but Judaism, it would seem, with a stronger visual power, without the aid of the colly- rium could look undazzled upon the surpassing glory. Christianity directs her new-born babes to behold the reflected image, the softened splendour of the Sun of righteousness in the consecrated waters of the baptismal font; but Judaism taught her children to look upwards to the regenerating luminary, as in its strength and brightness it shone directly from heaven upon their hearts. Or is regeneration a bless- ing which no Jew, no disciple of John, no believer in Jesus before the Pentecost, no patriarch, no pro- phet enjoyed? Is it more than the righteousness of faith which Abraham attained, more than the Divine communion of Moses, the rapturous devotion of the ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 179 Psalmist, the evangelical spirit of Isaiah, the unbend- ing integrity of Daniel, the incorruptible fidelity of John, or the sanctity of the ancient martyrs, of whom the world was not worthy, could ever attain? These men were surely born of the Spirit ; although not bap- tized, they were surely regenerated. If they of whom the world was not worthy, through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, died in triumph, and entered the heavenly country, of what moral disposition, what inward grace of the Spirit were they destitute? If they were regenerated without baptism, why may not we be affected in the same manner by the power of the same truth? Or if they entered heaven without regeneration, what is the worth of the grace, which to the unbaptized of the old economy was not a qualification for their entrance into glory? We are told that through baptism is conferred the remission of sins. Were not their sins forgiven them? We are told that through the same sacrament is imparted the Holy Spirit; had not the Psalmist who, in his penitence, prayed, ‘‘ Take not thy Holy Spirit from me,’ ᾽ received that gift, although he was unbaptized? Be this as it may, we take our stand, preparatory to our next lecture, upon the ground conceded by our opponents, that there was no sacrament or ceremonial of regeneration in the ancient economy. It will be observed that our reasoning upon the concession that the baptism of John did not impart the grace of regeneration, neither assumes nor denies the essential difference between his baptism and that N 2 180 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. of Christ. We have only cleared the ground so far as to show that there was, previously to the resurrec- tion of Christ, no regenerating sacrament, no such thing as regeneration in all the world, if that grace is invariably conveyed through a sacramental channel. But if the baptism of John was truly and essentially the same as Christian baptism, then Christian bap- tism itself, at its commencement, was only a symbol, and not a means of regeneration. Hence the inquiry becomes of some interest, whether there was, or was not, an essential difference between the baptism administered by John, and that instituted by our Lord? Τὸ prevent any dispute about terms, we think the question may be better proposed in this form: Was the difference between the baptism of John and that of our Lord so important, that those who had been baptized by John, were, or ought to have been, rebaptized on their becoming the disciples of Christ ? That there was some variation in the form, or at least in the words employed, there can be no doubt what- ever; but we should say the difference was or was not essential, according as it appears that the parties were or were not rebaptized, or that the objects of Christian baptism were not sufficiently accomplished by the baptism of John. This question was deemed of considerable importance in the controversies of the Reformation, and was zealously prosecuted by the disputants on both sides. The Catholics, follow- ing antiquity, maintained the essential difference ; the Reformers, adhering as they thought to Scripture, denied it. The early Lutherans seemed to have ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 181 wavered—Luther at first agreeing with the Catholics, afterwards asserting that the baptism of John did not much differ from that of Christ. They, how- ever, seem to have eventually adopted the theory which Zuingle, Calvin, Beza, and all the Calvinists zealously defended. The Council of Trent pro- nounced its first anathema respecting baptism upon the heresy of maintaining the validity of John’s baptism. It may be asked why the Calvinists should have universally and zealously denied, and the Catholics as universally and zealously maintained, the essen- tial difference, and why both parties should have thought it to be a subject of so much importance in their controversy ? On each side it was perceived, that if the baptism of John sufficed for all Christians who had received it, as all acknowledged that it had no spiritual gift of regeneration, the doctrine of sacramental efficacy, the endowment of the life- giving Spirit in baptism, could not be sustained, without direct opposition to the facts of the evan- gelical history. John’s baptism, said the Catholics, as say the Tractarians, was only an emblem of Christian baptism; but the sign could not have sufficed for the substance, the mere baptism with water could not have been identical with the bap- tism of the Holy Ghost. As all admit John had not the Holy Ghost to confer, it is evident that if his disciples were not rebaptized in the Christian church, a baptism which was confessedly not rege- neration, was deemed sufficient in the apostolic age ; 182 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. and if the parties were regenerated at all, it must have been by some process distinct from their bap- tism. The whole doctrine of baptismal regeneration, with all its important consequences, was therefore in imminent peril, unless its supporters could prove the essential difference which we believe they never did prove; and although the defenders of baptismal regeneration have not, since the Reformation, until the recent controversy in the Church of England, very often directed their attention to the subject, the Tractarians, as we think, have not been more suc- cessful than the Romanists. John baptized; the disciples of Jesus baptized during his ministry ; the apostles baptized after his resurrection. Were these baptisms essentially differ- ent, or if different in form, were they identical in their design and import? The several persons are said to have done the same thing. It, therefore, devolves upon those who maintain that their baptisms were different, to show the difference, and upon us to ex- amine the particulars which they adduce. Here we at once concede, that the nearly uniform testimony of Christian antiquity is in favour of the essential difference. Those who believed in the im- partation of spiritual gifts in baptism, as the Fathers did, would naturally and of course adopt this opinion. Although some of them thought that John’s baptism procured the remission of sins, yet they supposed this remission was granted without the communica- tion of the Holy Ghost; while others maintained that it was only to be expected on their being ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 183 afterwards brought to Christian baptism. With those, therefore, who are guided in their belief by Catholic antiquity, its testimony will be conclusive, for on few subjects is it more uniform; but as the same authority will peremptorily enforce baptismal regeneration, we, who do not receive that doctrine, must require some confirmation of even the unani- mous testimony of the early Fathers. But the ancients appeal to Scripture, and their followers in modern times cite the same texts. These texts, therefore, we are bound to read and seriously consider. The passage so often cited by the Fathers, as well as by theologians of the Anglo-Catholic school, is Matthew iii. 2. “Thus,” says Dr. Pusey, “ the infe- riority of the baptism of John to Christian baptism, is declared by the holy baptist himself: ‘I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I... He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.’”* We certainly admit, without a moment’s hesitation, that there is a great and essential difference between bap- tism with water, and baptism with the Holy Ghost. About this there ought to be no controversy; our inquiry properly refers to baptism by water as admi- nistered by John, and baptism by water as solemnized by the ministers of Christ. The words of the con- trast, with water in one instance, with the Holy Ghost in the other, suggest the inference that John * Tracts for the Times, No. 67. 184 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. did not refer to baptism by water at all, when he spoke of the work of Christ. The full force of the expression seems to be, He shall baptize, not with water as I do, but with a more sacred influence, the Holy Ghost; with a mightier and more searching purification, with fire. To us, believing as we do that there is a baptism of the Holy Ghost without water, a cleansing of the soul by his purifying influ- ence, an administration of that Spirit by Jesus the Saviour, upon his earliest disciples in a visible and miraculous manner, and upon all his people by an internal and life-giving process, according to the words of the apostle, ‘‘ 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 which ye now see and hear;” the passage appears most clearly to exhibit the distinction between the visible and the spiritual, the earthly and the heavenly baptism, but not between the baptism of John and that of the Christian church. Dr. Pusey, citing the words of Zuingle in proof of the identity of the two baptisms, because they were both ἡ signs of the same thing, and neither of them conveyed any spiritual blessing, appends notes of admiration, as if he were astonished that any one in this controversy should suppose that Christian baptism conveyed no spiritual blessing. ‘‘‘ The baptism of John worked nothing,’ says Zuingle, (‘I speak here,’ he adds, ‘ of the baptism of water, and not of the internal bedew- ing which takes place through the Spirit;) the baptism of Christ works nothing, for Christ was content with ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 185 the baptism of John, both for himself and _ his disci- ples, whereas had his baptism had anything fuller, he could have baptized the disciples a second time, and not allowed himself to be baptized with the baptism of John!!!’ So Dr. Pusey cites Zuingle, and remarks, “It being settled on such grounds that the baptism of our Lord has no inward grace, the baptisms could not but be the same, ὁ. 6. alike empty in themselves, and but appendages of the same teaching.” If Zuingle assumes that they were both only signs, and so by a petitio principit proves their identity, Dr. Pusey, in his application of the text, assumes that one of them was not a mere sign, with three notes of admiration to aid his logic, and so from that petitio principii proves the essential difference. That the promise, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, does not refer to baptism with water, may be not only inferred from the contrast, but proved from a passage which Dr. Pusey cites in defence of his own opinion. He says,* “ This differ- ence our Lord also inculcated at the same time that he instituted his own baptism. ‘John indeed bap- tized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the ’ Holy Ghost not many days hence.” By what unfor- tunate mistake—in what moment of strange forget- fulness Dr. Pusey, whose memory is not usually treacherous, could have cited this passage in proof of his doctrine, I cannot imagine. It most evidently proves, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was not « Tracts for the Times, No. 67, p. 244. 186 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. connected with water baptism at all, therefore was not baptism as administered by the disciples of Jesus. John baptized with water; without water the apostles were baptized, according to the promise, by the Holy Ghost; the visible sign of their purification was not water, but fire. The “not many days hence” was the phrase which announced the approach of the Pentecost. How was it possible to cite this passage without being convinced that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was essentially distinct from all immersions or effusions of water by whomsoever administered,—that it was shed down abundantly upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, when no water was employed,— and that therefore the words of John, “ he shall bap- tize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” must be understood, not in connexion, but in contrast with baptism by water? It would be an extraordi- nary trope, a most licentious use of a figure, to ‘speak of any influence, however powerful, belonging to water, as a baptism by fire. Though many of the Fathers explain this fire to be the invisible flame, which in baptism, they say, consumes sin in the heart, yet others, as Cyril of Jerusalem, refer it to the fiery tongues of the Pentecost; others, as Hilary, to the fire which shall purify the righteous in the day of judgment; and others, as Irenzeus and Tertullian, to the fire of hell. With any one of these three expositions, it is impossible to apply this passage to the sacrament of the Christian church. With any exposition whatsoever, it is impossible to find water ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 187 in the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. That the persons who maintain the doctrine of baptismal regeneration should cite the words of John, as a proof of the essential difference, is no very wonderful misapplication ; as with them the identity of the baptism of the Holy Ghost and Christian baptism is always assumed; but that Mr. Hall, in his Terms of Communion, should cite the passage for the same purpose, (he not in his theology identifying the baptism of the Holy Ghost with that of the Christian church,) appears to me a most extraordinary and unaccountable fact. As he has constructed an argu- ment in defence of the essential difference, with far more popular effect than any of the Catholic or Tractarian doctors, it might be thought an evasion of the question, were I not to notice the reasons which he assigns, although my object has reference not to the controversy on the terms of communion, but to the older and more important controversy on the terms of salvation. Whatever charge of presumption I may incur, I see not how I can escape, without incurring the heavier charge of unfairness in selecting Dr. Pusey, through fear of Mr. Hall, who, although the champion of another division, fights in the front of this fray with his sharp arrows of winged words, likely to do much more execution than all the heavy artillery of the apostolical polemics. He says, ‘“‘The baptism instituted by our Lord is in Scripture distin- guished from that of his forerunner by the superior 188 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. effects with which it was accompanied ; so that instead of being confounded, they are contrasted in the sacred writings.”* If they are contrasted in the sacred writings, we must of course admit them to be essentially distinct; but where is the contrast to be found? Mr. Hall cites for his proof the words, “I baptize you with water unto repentance, but there cometh one after me, mightier than I: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” If the eloquent apologist for communion with the unbap- tized believed the identity of the baptism of the Holy Ghost with his own immersion, the contrast would be sufficiently manifest; but how, with his acknow- ledged principles, he could have adduced this passage, it is not for me to hazard a conjecture. Yet he does make it the basis of an argument, and proceeds with the illustration, until indeed at the close of the reason- ing, this baptism of the Holy Ghost becomes only a frequent accompaniment of Christian baptism, which however we believe to have been a very infrequent accompaniment. The whole church at Rome, for instance, was doubtless baptized, but as no apostle had visited them when St. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans, they do not appear to have received the spiritual gifts which he desired to impart. Mr. Hall concludes his reasoning on this passage in these words: “Since the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the copious effusion of spiritual influence in which primitive Christians, so to speak, were immersed, was @ Terms of Communion, p. 20. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 189 appointed to follow the sacramental use of water under the Christian economy, while the same corporeal action performed by John was a naked ceremony, not accompanied by any such effects; this difference betwixt them is sufficient to account for their being contrasted in Scripture, and ought to have prevented their being confounded as one and the same institute.” But where, I ask, in Scripture is the baptism of the Holy Ghost appointed to follow the sacramental use of water? Where is the effusion of the Holy Ghost repre- sented as an essential element, or even as a universal accompaniment of Christian baptism? In other words, was not every baptism which Mr. Hall administered, the same corporeal action as that performed by John, “a naked ceremony,” as he calls it, unaccompanied by any Divine power? or was it invariably followed by the copious effusion of spiritual influence? If this be the essential difference, baptism, as he admi- nistered it, and as all men now administer it, (unless the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration be true) is essentially defective ; is, in short, not Christian baptism, but only the “naked ceremony” of John. Even the accidental distinction of the effusion of the Holy Spirit was not uniform, for at least on one occasion the Spirit descended after baptism adminis- tered by John, while on most occasions it did not fall on those baptized by the early Christians. In direct opposition to the opinion of Mr. Hall, that “ the copious effusion of spiritual influence was appointed to follow the sacramental use of water,” it is to be observed, that the apostles were not exclusively, nor 190 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. even generally the persons who administered Chris- tian baptism, and yet they exclusively had the power of imparting spiritual gifts. Baptism was not the office of St. Paul: “ Christ sent me not to baptize ;” and yet the communication of spiritual gifts was an important part of his work, the proper credential of his office, for which he longed to visit the churches on which the Spirit had not been poured down. Not commissioned to baptize, he makes the impartation of the Spirit the chief and manifest proof of his apostleship. That Divine effusion could have accom- panied the baptismal rite only in the comparatively very few instances in which it was administered by an apostle; and even then upon some persons, as upon Cornelius and his friends, the Holy Ghost fell before they were baptized. Very few comparatively could have been the instances of the effusion of the Spirit as the accompaniment of Christian baptism ; rather ought it to be called the accompaniment of the imposition of the apostles’ hands, which might have been, and often was, performed many years after the baptism of the parties. I have insisted upon this point somewhat at length, because I am aware that any argument adduced by Mr. Hall has great weight with many persons, as it always deserves the most serious consideration ; but surely in this instance, sophistry has contrived to plume herself, and not very dexterously, with the splendour of his eloquence. As to his citations from the Fathers, they would be quite consistent from the pens of those who believe the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but are of no ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 191 value whatever to those who, with himself, deny that doctrine.‘ It becomes necessary to notice the other distinctions which Mr. Hall has adduced in proof of the essential difference between the baptism of John and that of our blessed Lord. The first particular is, that Chris- tian baptism originated in the express command of Christ, and John’s baptism had no such origin. But how does this prove the essential difference between them? how does it prove that such as were baptized by John ought to have been rebaptized by the apos- tles? The foundation is too small for the superstruc- ture. John had a Divine commission to baptize, as well as the apostles. Jesus said, “1 and my Father “Tam grieved to learn, that in the delivery of this lecture, I was understood by some persons to ascribe to Mr. Hall the opinions of the Tractarians. Nothing was more remote from my intention. Mr. Hall agreed with them and with the Catholics on the one question of the essential difference, and in his reasoning employs the arguments which they generally adduce. In this paragraph I notice the apparent inconsistency of one of his arguments with his own evangelical theo- logy, without for a moment imputing to him the smallest deviation from that theology. On the review of the paragraph, [ can discover no such implication as some have supposed. I would take this oppor- tunity to add, that I did not mean to express any opinion whatever on the subject of dispute among our Baptist friends respecting the terms of communion. Of that controversy, Mr. Hall himself considered the question of John’s baptism a very unimportant part. If the course of these lectures require me to notice the subject, it will be when I have to consider the qualifications for the communion of the Lord’s supper, before which time I hope to think over it more care- fully than as yet I have had occasion or opportunity todo. With Pedobaptists, the question of administering the Lord’s supper to the unbaptized, is very seldom a question of practical importance. 192 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. are one.” However mysterious may be the unity, it is surely sufficient to sustain the conclusion, that an ordinance observed on the authority of the Father, is not superseded by a similar command of the Son. The Father sent both John and Jesus; and Jesus in commanding his disciples to baptize, ‘‘ did nothing of himself but what he had seen the Father do.” The second particular is thus expressed: “ The baptism of John was the baptism of repentance, as a preparation for the approaching kingdom of God: the institute of Christ included an explicit profession of faith in a particular person as the Lord of that kingdom.” Admitting the correctness of this account of Christian baptism, about which Pzdobaptists may hold a different opinion, the difference is resolved into baptism previous to the public announcement of Jesus as the promised Messiah, and baptism subse- quent to that announcement. John baptized because the kingdom of heaven was approaching; the apostles, because it was announced. But why should the announcement of the kingdom of Christ invalidate the baptism of its precursor? Is it credible that the event which proved the truth of John’s baptism, and conferred upon it all its importance, should in the same moment nullify its significance, and require from its possessors a second ablution? Had the kingdom of heaven not speedily come, John’s baptism would have been a falsity ; but the coming of that kingdom confirmed and established it. St. Paul tells us, that “John baptized, saying, that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Christ ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 193 Jesus.” If so, is it credible that his baptism should have become invalid, just at the moment when the opportunity was afforded to his disciples, of fulfilling the requisition of their teacher and the engagement of their baptism? That John baptized merely into the general belief of the coming of a Messiah is not to be credited, because that was no new thing in Israel, but the universal doctrine of the Pharisees, of the Sadducees, and of every sect of the Jews. He bap- tized in the name of one coming after him, soon to be declared. His baptism was so far specific, and the appearance of the particular individual confirmed and vindicated its truth. The third particular is nearly connected with the second: “Christian baptism,” says Mr. Hall, “ was invariably administered in the name of Jesus, while there is sufficient evidence that John’s was not per- formed in that name.” John baptized in the name of the coming one (ὁ ἐρχόμενος), which was the proper character of Jesus before his public annunciation ; the disciples of Jesus baptized in the proper name of their Master as soon as it was declared. The actual appearance of Christ did not change the object of faith, but revealed it with additional clearness, caused it to emerge from the shadowy horizon of prophecy into the conspicuous altitude of present existence. Those who were baptized into the name of the Messiah about to come, and those who were baptized into the name of Jesus, were baptized into the name of one and the same person. There was a difference of circumstances, but surely no essential O ᾽ 194 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. difference in the mere distinction of the name of the same person. Besides, by those who maintain the essential difference, the disciples of Jesus during his personal ministry are said to have baptized with a baptism of the same kind as that of John, and not with Christian baptism. So say all, I believe, from Tertullian down to Dr. Pusey, Fathers, Roman Catholics, and Anglo-Catholics; but is it credible that the disciples of Jesus did not baptize in the proper name of their Master, then present with them ? If they distinctly and explicitly baptized in his name, this difference of the coming one and of him come could not have been essential, for none maintain the essential difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of the disciples of Jesus during his per- sonal ministry, to which, as this argument equally applies, it proves too much. The fourth particular is, that which we have already noticed, the difference between baptism with water and baptism with the Holy Ghost, and which, as we have seen, depends entirely upon the controversy on baptismal regeneration. The fifth and the sixth particulars are deduced from the supposed rebaptism of John’s disciples. Here we must acknowledge, if it can be clearly demonstrated that St. Paul, or any other inspired teacher, knowingly rebaptized any who had duly and properly received the baptism of John, the essential difference is incontrovertibly proved. We turn there- fore to the nineteenth chapter of the Acts: “10 came to pass while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passing ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 195 through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus; and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, 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? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, 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. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” That these twelve men were rebaptized must, I think, be candidly acknow- ledged. Many ingenious suggestions, I know, have been offered by the reformers, in order to escape the conclusion. Thus Zuingle supposes, that by John’s baptism we are to understand the doctrine of John, and not the actual baptism of water. Into what were ye instructed? Into John’s doctrine. Calvin thinks that they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, yet not by water, but by the effusion of the Holy Ghost, when Paul laid his hands upon them. Others say, that the words, “when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus,” means, when they heard Paul’s account of John’s baptism into the name of Him that was to come, their previous baptism became to them, or was in their estimation, without a repetition of the rite, baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus. Beza contends, that the words, “when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” 02 196 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. are the words of Paul, and not of the historian ; meaning, that the disciples of John were, on hearing their master’s testimony in favour of Him that was to come, baptized virtually into the name of the Lord Jesus. The reformers were versatile with many wea- pons in fighting these twelve Jews, but their weapons broke in their hands; and we must confess, these disciples of the eloquent Apollos constitute the most formidable phalanx in this engagement, without whose aid neither Tractarians nor open communionists could do much to damage the credit of John’s bap- tism. The opinion of Beza has been followed by many Protestant expositors, both Lutheran and reformed. The critical reason assigned, is the con-' trariety implied in the two Greek particles, μὲν and δὲ, “He, on the one hand, baptized the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that they should believe on Him that was to come, that is, on the Lord Jesus: the hearers, on the other hand, were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” But not to insist upon the unmeaning repetition, the only difference of the two members of the contrast being, that John baptized in the name of Him that was to come, and his hearers were baptized in that name; this μὲν, the single particle on which all this exposition depends, is itself a most suspicious pretender of a few manuscripts.* This little Greek @ Griesbach’s note is, “ pev= A B Ὁ. 15, 18, 40, 66, * * 69. Alii Mt. 1. Copt. Vulg. cant.” Being rejected by the Alexandrian, the Vatican and the Cambridge manuscripts, (the codex Ephraim is muti- lated in this passage,) it cannot be acknowledged of good authority. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 197 is a treacherous auxiliary, who comes with forged credentials. Though offering service in my camp, I dare not call him into action. Mill branded him ; Wetstein put him in the suspected list; Griesbach proscribed him; and Scholz, Knapp and Lachmann have nothing to say in his favour. Without him, his inseparable companion δὲ will do us no service. Although Mr. Kinghorn, in his able reply to Mr. Hall, finding him recommended by Beza, who received him, well certified from Marnixius, according to Beza, the most illustrious of Dutchmen in fighting Anabaptists,* assigned him a prominent position in his tactics, we must abandon him to the mercy of the Tractarians. If this particle be not genuine, as we do not believe it is, the criticism of Beza and _ his followers must be abandoned with it. But if we believe, as we do, that these twelve men were rebap- tized by St. Paul, it may be asked, how do we escape the conclusion that the disciples of John were bap- tized a second time by the apostles? I acknowledge the difficulty. Let us observe the connexion of the passage, and if we cannot escape the conclusion that these men were baptized by John, and rebaptized by Paul, we must resign this fact as one argument against us, which is not damaged on examination. The question is suggested, were they baptized by John or his disciples previously to the death of Christ, “ — quam interpretationem hujus loci ab Anabaptistis,—presertim tam vexati, acceptam fero viro tum generis nobilitate, tum pietate et doctrina, et plurimus virtutibus clarissimo D. Marnixio, singulari Belgicarum provinciarum ornamento.—Beza in loc. 198 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. or were they subsequently baptized by Apollos, in his ignorance of the death of Christ, after the manner of John’s baptism? “Tt came to pass when Apollos was in Corinth.” These words suggest the inquiry, why the absence of Apollos should be mentioned, and what connexion he had with the narrative? Had he no connexion with it, the mention of his name would be superfluous and trifling. This clause connects the chapter with the preceding, and by its aid we correct the unfortunate interruption of the narrative by an inappropriate division. Of Apollos it is said a few verses before, “ Being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing,” and therefore administering, “ only the baptism of John.” To know only the baptism of John, seems to intimate that he was acquainted with Jesus, as the Messiah whom John taught, but not with his death and resur- rection. This man, having been a disciple of John, and believing his testimony, that Jesus was the one mightier than he, preached with great power and success the religion of John, before he was taught the way of the Lord more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla, probably giving prominence to the great doctrine of the Baptist, that Jesus was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Imper- fectly acquainted with the Gospel, he baptized his disciples after the manner which John employed, probably as John had done, unto the profession of repentance, preparatory to the reception of the Messiah. But if this form of baptism were proper ON JOILN’S BAPTISM. 199 and valid, as we believe it was, when administered before the resurrection of Jesus, for the apostles and early disciples had no other, it was manifestly impro- per, if so administered subsequently to that event. Apollos might have most firmly believed that Jesus was the Christ, and yet, when he baptized these men, have known nothing of his death and resurrection, as he was residing at a great distance from Judea, and knew nothing of the effusion of the Holy Ghost. Had they been converted by any other ministry, it is not probable they would have been ignorant of the existence of the Holy Ghost. What teacher who knew the things which had been done at Jerusalem, would have said nothing of the effusion of the Pen- tecost, nothing of the baptism of the Spirit? Apollos knew not this baptism. St. Paul says, ‘‘ John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying that they should believe on Him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” It was therefore the only proper baptism for his time. But suflicient as was its administration during the life of our Lord, so that none who then received it, so far as we know, were rebaptized; it was not suitable after his resur- rection, and therefore the disciples of Apollos were rebaptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. It is remarkable we do not read that Apollos himself, who had received John’s baptism, was rebaptized, when taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. It may be said I cannot prove all these particulars, but their probability, even their possibility, is sufficient for my purpose. It must be shown, that these twelve men 200 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. were baptized, not by Apollos, but by some one previously to the death of our Lord, to establish the invalidity of John’s baptism; but the aspect of the narrative being opposed to such a supposition, sug- gests the opinion that they were the disciples of Apollos; and if Apollos, knowing only the baptism of John, baptized these men in ignorance of the resurrection of Christ, (and who shall say he did not ?) the argument against us falls to pieces. Before these twelve men can prove the essential difference, they must show that the register of their first baptism is dated previously to the death of Christ. This exposition, I admit, was not usual in the ancient church; yet even there, prevalent as was the opinion that John’s baptism was not valid, on account of the absence of the Holy Ghost, it was not without its advocates. In Photius, we have an account of the books of Eulogius, archbishop of Alexandria, in the fifth century, against the Novatians ; and we find him furnishing this exposition in defence of his opinion, that the baptism of John was perfect before the resur- rection of Jesus.“ I, however, admit the difficulty, and must acknowledge I am not quite satisfied with the solution. If these persons were baptized before the death of Christ, the essential difference is certainly established. Neither the apostles, nor the first disciples who were Christians at the resurrection, were rebaptized ; but if such rebaptism were proper, it would have @ See Appendix B. ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 201 been peculiarly fitting that they, like their Divine Master, should have suffered it, to fulfil all righteous- ness. Is it credible that the first preachers of the Christian faith should have considered themselves exempted from the obligation of submitting to its initiatory rite?“ My chief anxiety, however, is to maintain that Jesus was baptized with the same baptism as his people. The founder of our faith submitted to the rule of his own religion. If the effusion of the Spirit was the sign of true baptism, in this instance it attested the baptism of John. Admitting the difficulties, 1 adhere to the faith that Christians are baptized with the baptism with which Christ was baptized. « The Fathers are sadly perplexed in attempting to discover the baptism of the apostles, and to rescue them from the great peril of perdition, being unbaptized. Tertullian protests he had heard over- scrupulous people, or rather unscrupulous, question how salvation could belong to the unbaptized apostles. Chrysostom and others think they were baptized by John with water, and afterwards with the Holy Ghost—the one baptism of the church being administered to them in two parts, first with water and afterwards with the Spirit. (Hom. i. in Actt. ὃ 5.) He, however, seems elsewhere to hint they were baptized with water at different times, a strangely anabaptistical opinion. Augustine says they were baptized by our Lord with water, (Ep. 265, § 5;) others thought they were baptized when they were sprinkled with the waves in the ship; others, when their feet were washed by our Lord; though the Fathers generally, with equal reason, say that they had been previously baptized, and, there- fore, our Lord would not wash the hands and head of Peter, saying, “ He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.” Clement of Alexandria, in a fragment of the fifth book of the Hypotyposes preserved by Moschus, says, Christ baptized Peter only; Peter, Andrew; Andrew, James and John; and they, the other apostles. (See Bp. of Lincoln’s Clement of Alexandria, p. 442.) 202 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. Another inquiry is suggested respecting the bap- tism of John. Did he, or did he not, baptize the young children of such as attended his ministry? In the evangelical narrative, we have no direct informa- tion upon this subject. Our opponents will protest against our assuming that he did baptize infants, and we must with equal decision protest against their assuming, from the silence of the evangelists, that he did not. All we know with certainty is, he came to prepare the people for the Lord by a ceremonial observance. As the promise of the Messiah was made to the whole house of Israel, to the natural seed of Abraham in its national character, it would seem probable, that the whole nation, and not a part only, was entitled to receive the sign of his coming. The infants of Israel had the same interest in the promise of the Messiah as the adults. When we consider that all other religious rites of a national character, were, according to the Jewish law, performed for infants as well as for their parents, as for instance the great national distinction of circumcision ; this probability is greatly increased, for why should John for the first time distinguish parents from children in the religious rites of the Jews? Judaism was not then abolished; the principles of Mosaic law flourished with unabated vigour; with its spirit, every new ceremonial must have been accordant; but nothing can be imagined more anti-Mosaic, more contrary to the spirit or letter of the law, than the separation of parents and children in the new rite of purification. Of Israel, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, and ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 203 all that was represented by the baptism of John, the sign of his coming, concerned the whole house of Israel. Why should we restrict the representation to a part only? Preparatory to the descent of God on Sinai, Moses purified all the people, not the adults only. Why should we not suppose that pre- paratory to the coming of the Son of God, John baptized all Judea, and all Jerusalem, and all the region round about, and not the adults only? I admit we may restrict this general description to adults, 7f there be good reason for doing so ; but what good reason can be adduced for any such restriction? To say it is improbable that infants were included, is a perfectly gratuitous assumption, which, although many assumptions as gratuitous have been conceded in this controversy, I trust we are not so foolish as to allow without protest. Under a dispensation of Judaism the religious ordinances were of a national character, without reference to age or class; and is it probable that a restriction was, for the first time, introduced into a service which proclaimed to the whole house of Israel the speedy accomplishment of the promise to which every infant was indubitably the heir, and yet, notwithstanding the restriction, all are said to have been baptized ? That John baptized only the select few, who truly and devoutly waited for the consolation of Israel, is a position, which, as we have seen, cannot be main- tained consistently with the evangelical history. By his preaching considerable excitement was produced, so that vast numbers held him to be a prophet, and 204 ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. crowded to his baptism. Nor have we the slightest intimation of any person whatsoever being refused baptism by the precursor of our Lord. But if the baptism of John was indiscriminately administered to all applicants, and even to those whom the admi- nistrator knew to be ungodly and impenitent, and, if this was done during the continuance of a national dispensation of religion which made no difference in its ritual between parents and children, as it did not between the pious and the profane, but regarded the whole house of Israel as its object, is it at all probable that the children of that nation were excluded from the great national sign of the advent of Christ ? If in the last lecture I succeeded in showing that it is exceedingly probable, if not morally certain, that the infant children of proselytes to Judaism were baptized with their parents, the presumption in favour of infant baptism as administered by John, is so far confirmed. If the Jews were accustomed to see infants baptized with their parents, in an age when proselytes to the faith were very numerous, they would naturally take their children to be baptized with themselves by the preacher of the kingdom of heaven. To those who do not think that the Jews baptized the children of proselytes in the age of our Lord, I leave the probabilities I have noticed divested of that aid; but as its substitute, the expectation [ noticed in the last lecture, of a general baptism of all Israel previously to the coming of Christ. Of John’s baptism I am fairly entitled to say, that it was cer- tainly not believer’s baptism, not baptism administered ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. 205 on account of any pious dispositions belonging, or supposed to belong to the parties baptized,—that it was the baptism of all classes and parties—Pharisees and Sadducees—publicans and _ soldiers—upon the principle that the whole nation was to be purified by a ceremonial of ablution preparatory to the coming of the Messiah. APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. A. Page 175. MR. FABER’S CITATIONS FROM THE FATHERS ON THE SACRAMENTAL IDENTITY OF CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. I ruLLy admit that Augustine at times held the sacramental identity of circumcision and baptism. Mr. Faber’s citations seem to imply so much, but he has overlooked the more direct and satisfactory proofs. Instead of introducing passages which only imply the opinion of Augustine, and which may be met by passages apparently of an opposite tendency, he might have adduced the direct assertion of that Father: “‘ Dominus Christus in ecclesia sua sacramentum Novi Testa- menti pro circumcisione carnis sanctum baptismum dedit.”—Aug. Ep. 108. I fear, however, this passage must have involved the saint together with Mr. Faber in the anathema of the council of Trent. I wonder the Benedictines did not suppress the passage, and conceal the anathematized heresy of the canonized divine. For Catholic casuists it is a curious inquiry; if their infallible church both anathe- matize and canonize the same man, what becomes of him ? Omitting, therefore, the citations from Augustine, as his opinions on baptism require a more prolonged examination than this note will allow, I adduce the passages by which Mr. Faber seeks to prove that “the sacramental identity of circumcision under the law, and of baptism under the Gospel, was, from the first, a ruled case of inter- pretation.” From Chrysostom he cites, “" Ἢ δὲ ἡμετέρα περιτόμη ἡ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, λέγω, χάρις, ἀνώδυνον ἔχει τὴν ἰατρείαν, καὶ μυρίων ἀγαθῶν πρόξενος γίνεται ἡμῖν, καὶ τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος ἡμᾶς ἐμπίμπλησι χάριτος. Καὶ οὐδὲ ὡρισμένον ἔχει καιρὸν, καθάπερ ἐκεῖ" ἀλλ᾽ ἐξέστι, καὶ ἐν ἀώρῳ ἠλικίᾳ, καὶ ἐν μέσῃ, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ γήρᾳ, γενόμενον τίνα, ταύτην δέξασθαι τὴν ἀχειροποίητον περιτομήν."--- ΟΠ γγβοδῦ. in Gen. Homil. xl. APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. 207 He translates, ‘Our circumcision, I am speaking of the grace of baptism, affords acure free from pain, and is to us the administration of ten thousand blessings, and fills us with the grace of the Holy Spirit. Nor, as was the case with circumcision under the law, has it any set time; but, in infancy, and in middle age, and in old age, any one is alike permitted to receive the circumcision not made with hands.” This passage seems intended to establish the very opposite opinion to that for which it is cited,—the contrast, rather than the identity of _ baptism and circumcision; as one is, and the other is not “ a cure free from pain,” “ the administration of ten thousand blessings,” filling us “with the grace of the Holy Spirit.” From Athanasius, “Ἢ yap περιτομὴ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐδήλου, ἢ THY τῆς γενέσεως ἀπέκδυσιν. Τὸν γὰρ τῆ ἕκτῃ ἀποθανόντα ἀπεκδεδυσκόμεθα" καὶ ἀνακαινούμεθα τῇ κυριακῇ, ὅτε ὁ παλαιὸς ἀπεκδυθεὶς ἀνεγεννήθη τῇ αναστάσει. Τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ὁ Παῦλος ἔφη ἐν τῇ προς Κολοσσεῖς" Ἔν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθη τῇ περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τοῦ σώματος τῆς σαρκὸς, ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, συντάφεντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι εἰς τὴν ἅδην, ἐν ᾧ καὶ συνηγέρθητε. Τῆς γὰρ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἀπεκδύσεως τύπος ἢν ἡ περιτομὴ.----ΠΠιστεύσας γὰρ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἔλαβε τὴν περιτομὴν σημεῖον οὖσαν τῆς διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἀναγεννήσεως." ---Αἴπαῃ. de Sabbat. et Circum. Oper. vol. i. p. 768. ‘Circumcision sets forth nothing else, than the putting off the natural birth; for we put off him who on the sixth day died as to the flesh; and we are renewed on the Lord’s day, when the old man, being unclothed, was born again by the resurrection. This is it, which Paul speaketh to the Colossians. In whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the cireumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him. Circumcision therefore, was the type of putting off sin through baptism; for Abra- ham, having believed, received circumcision, which was the sign of regeneration through baptism.” Here circumcision is only the sign of regeneration through baptism, but not like baptism the medium of regeneration. ‘The two are clearly distinguished. From Cyprian, “ Quantum vero ad causam infantium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem, quo nati sint, consti- tutos, baptizari non oportere, et considerandam esse legem cireum- cisionis antique, ut intra octavum diem eum qui natus est baptizandum n nm My i ae ἔχ te τς ᾿ Σ τς, οἷν be a ἄντ. ἄρρεν = » * “» “yr og ot “ie é ; ® 4 ae fal toa τὰ: ι δι e's ἐν 208 | _ APPENDIX TO tens Iv. he i. a et ΠΡ be gre non pease; long? aliud, in concilio nostro, omnibus visum est. In hoe enim, quod tu putabas esse faciendum, nemo consensit ; sed universi potius judicavimus, nulli hominum nato _misericordiam Dei et gratiam denegandam. Nam, quod in Judaica circumcisione carnali octavus dies observabatur, sacramentum est in umbra atque in imagine antepremissum, sed veniente Christo, veritate completum. Nam, quia octavus dies, id est, post sabbatum primus dies, futurus erat, quo Dominus resurgeret, et nos vivificaret, et circumcisionem nobis spiritalem daret: hic dies octavus, id est, post sabbatum primus et dominicus, precessit in imagine; que imago cessavit, superveniente postmodum veritate, et data nobis spiritali circumcisione.”—Cyprian. Epist. Lxiv. Oper. vol. ii., p. 160, 161. (50 far as respects the matter of infants, concerning whom you have said, that those who are only two or three days old, ought not to be baptized; and that the law of ancient circumcision ought to be considered; in agreement with which a child in your opinion, ought not to be baptized and sanctified before he had attained the eighth day; a far different judgment was given by all in our council. No one consented to what you thought fitting to be done; but, on the contrary, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought not to be denied to any person born of man. For, as to the observation of the eighth day in the circumcision of the flesh, according to the Jewish law, that ordinance is a sacrament, appointed beforehand in shadow and in image, but completed in truth at the coming of Christ. The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was about to be that on which the Lord would rise again, and would confer upon us true life, and would give unto us the spiritual circumcision. There- fore this eighth day, the first and the Lord’s day after the Sabbath, went before in an image, which image ceased, when the truth after- wards supervened, and when spiritual circumcision was given unto us.” Here the ancient sacrament, the carnal circumcision, is distinctly opposed to the spiritual circumcision or baptism given to us, not to the purification of the heart imparted to the ancient believers. From Justin Martyr. “Ἢ Ἢ δὲ ἐντολὴ τῆς περιτομῆς, κελεύουσα τῇ ογδόῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ παντὸς περιτέμνειν τὰ γεννώμενα, τύπος ἦν τῆς ἀληθινῆς περιτομῆς, ἣν περιετμήθημεν ἀπὸ τῆς πλάνης καὶ πονηρίας διὰ τοῦ ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἀναστάντος τῇ μίᾳ τῶν σαββάτων ἡμέρᾳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. Μία γὰρ τῶν σαββάτων, πρώτη μένουσα τῶν πασῶν ἡμερῶν, κατὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν πάλιν τῶν πασῶν ἡμερῶν τῆς κυκλοφορίας, ὀγδόη καλεῖται, καὶ πρώτη οὖσα μένει." —Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryp. Oper. p. 201, 202. ‘i APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. 209 “The commandment of circumcision, which enjoins that infants should always be circumcised on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, with which we were circumcised from error and wickedness through Jesus Christ our Lord, who rose again from the dead on the first day of the week; for the first day of the week, remaining the first of all days, agreeably to the entire number of the days viewed as revolving in the hebdomadal cycle, is called the eighth, though it still remains the first.” Here, if by the true circumcision baptism be intended, it is the antitype of circumcision, and not sacramentally identical. If the true circumcision be sanctity of heart, there is no reference to baptism in the passage; and that it is so, we infer from its being attributed to Enoch, Noah, and other unbaptized patriarchs. Having noticed the citation from Justin Martyr, I have only to refer to the many allusions to the principal Jewish rites, especially to circumcision, the sabbath, and the ablutions in the earlier part of the Dialogue with Trypho, to show that in the opinion of the Martyr there was no sacramental identity between circumcision and baptism. See from p. 31 to p. 124 of S. Just. Mar. Dial. ed. a Sam. Jebb; corresponding, according to the margin, with pp. 227—262 of the Paris edition. Two extracts may suffice to show the opinion of Justin. “Ἢ ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραὰμ κατὰ σάρκα περιτομὴ εἰς σημεῖον ἐδόθη" ἵνα ἦτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν καὶ ἡμῶν ἀφωρισμένοι καὶ ἵνα μόνοι πάθητε, ἃ νῦν ἐν δίκῃ πάσχετε, καὶ ἵνα γένωται αἱ χῶραι ὑμῶν ἔρημοι καὶ αἱ πόλεις πυρίκαυστοι. - . « Οὗ γὰρ ἐξ ἄλλου τινὸς γνωρίζεσθε παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους, ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν σαρκὶ ὑμῶν περιτομῆς." “ΤῊ circumcision according to the flesh received from Abraham Was given to you for a sign, that you might be distinguished from other nations and from us, and that you alone might suffer what things you justly suffer, and that your lands might be desolate, and your cities burnt. . . . . For you are distinguished from other men by nothing else than by the circumcision in your flesh.”—Dial. ο. Tryp. p. 49. Jebb. p. 234. Paris. “Ou yap πᾶσιν ἀναγκαία aitn ἡ περιτομὴ, GAN ὑμῖν μόνοις, iva, ὡς προέφην, ταῦτη πάθητε ἃ νῦν ἐν δίκη πάσχετε. . .. καὶ ὑμεῖς μὲν οἱ τὴν σάρκα περιτετμημένοι, χρήζετε τῆς ἡμετέρας περιτομῆς, ἡμεῖς δὲ ταύτην ἔχοντες ὀυδεν ἐκείνης δεόμεθα." “For this circumcision is not necessary for all, but only for you, that, as I before said, you might suffer those things which you justly suffer . . . . and you who are circumcised in the flesh, need our P 210 APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. circumcision, but we, having this, are in no need of yours.” —Dial. c. Tryp. p. 56, p. 236. Paris. He proceeds to show that the patriarchs Adam, Abel, Enoch, Melchisedec, and others, had no need of circumcision. Tertullian (adv. Judeos, c. 2, 3) reasons in the same manner that circumcision did not purify the person; as Adam in paradise, and Abel offering his acceptable offering; and Noah, and Enoch, and Melchisedec, were uncircumcised. See also Ireneus adv. Her. iv. 30, a chapter written expressly to show why circumcision and the sabbath were given to the Jews. Epiphanius represents the first circumcision as not perfect, but only a sign or type of the great circumcision com- pleted in water.—Contra Ebion. If I thought the Fathers ruled these cases, I should say, in oppo- sition to Mr. Faber, it is “a ruled case of interpretation,” Augustine being excepted, that circumcision and baptism are not sacramentally identical. The sacramental identity of the two ordinances must be hereafter examined on scriptural grounds. B. Page 200. EULOGIUS OF ALEXANDRIA ON JOHN’S BAPTISM. THE extract is from a part of the second book against the Nova- tians, preserved by Photius, in his Bibliotheca. "Ore δὲ τέλειον ἦν δῆλον, φασὶ, καὶ ἐξ ὧν οὐδαμοῦ φαίνεται τοὺς μαθητὰς τὸ τὸ παρὰ ᾿Ιωάννου δεδεγμένους βάπτισμα, ἀναβαπτίσας. ᾿Ιησοῦς γάρ, φησιν, οὐδένα ἐβάπτιζεν, add’ οἱ μαθηταί. "EE ὧν πάλιν δῆλον ὅτι τέλειον ὑπῆρχε. Καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ δὲ βαρτισθῆναι αὐτὸ οὐκ ἀπαξιώσας, ὅτι τέλειον ἦν ἔδειξεν. Οὐκ αὐτὸς, ὡς δῆλον ἐστὶ, καθάρσεως δεομενος, ἀλλὰ καθάρσιον τῶν ὑδάτων γινόμενος, καὶ ἁγιασμὸς, καὶ τελείωσις, τοῖς τότε βαπτιζομένοις. ἴΕισοδον δὲ οἱ τότε βαπτιζόμενοι τῆς εἰς Χρίστον γνώσεως τὸ βάπτισμα παραδέχουτο. ᾿Ἐπεὶ γὰρ τοῦτο εἰς τὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐβαπτίζοντο, ἐζήτουν λοιπὸν, τίς ὁ ἐρχόμενος ; καὶ ζητοῦντες, εὕρισκόν τε καὶ ἐμαθητεύοντο" καὶ προσίοντες τῷ σωτῆρι οὐχ ἕτερον βάπτισμα προσελάμβανον, μόνονδὲ τὰς ἐντολὰς προσεδέχοντο. Ἕως μὲν οὖν οὐδέπω ἐδοξάσθη διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, τέλειον ἦν τὸ Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα᾽ μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ, οὐκέτι. Διὸ καὶ, τὸν Ἀπολλὼ βαπτισθέντα ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου κατὰ τὸν ἀρμόζοντα καιρὸν, οὐδεὶς ἀνεβάπτισεν᾽ ἀλλὰ Πρίσκιλλα καὶ ᾿Ακύλας κατὰ τὴν Γφεσον mapa APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. 211 γεγονότα ἐξ ᾿Αλεξανδρείας τῆς πατρίδος προσελάβοντο μεν αὐτὸν, καὶ ἀκρι- βέστερον ἐδίδαξαν τὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" βαπτίσαι δὲ οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν. Τοὺς μὲν tot γε ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ βαπτισθέντας, ἐπεὶ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἄνοδον τῷ ᾿Ιωάννου βαπτίσματι ἐβαπτίσθησαν᾽ Ste οὐ- κέτι ἢν ἐρχόμενος ὁ Χριστὸς, αλλ᾽ ἐληλυθὼς ἤδη καὶ πᾶσαν πεπληρωκὼς οἰκονομίαν, καὶ βάπτισμα δεδωκὼς οἰκεῖον : εἰκότως τούτους εὑρὼν ὁ Παῦλος, καὶ ὅτι οὐδὲ εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιόν ἐστιν ἤδεισαν, τῷ δεσποτίκῳ βαπτίσματι παρεσκεύασεν ἀναβαπτισθῆναι. ἸΠολλαχύθενδὲ, φησὶν, ἐστὶ λαβειν, ὡς τέλειον ἢν τὸ ᾿Ιωάννου βάπτισμα πρὸ τῆς παραδόσεως τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ. Καὶ γαρ, ὁ σωτὴρ τῷ ᾿Ιωάννου βαπτίσματι Πέτρον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους μαθητὰς βεβαπ- τισμένους, κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τυ πάθους ἠξίωσε, τῶν φρικτῶν μυστηρίων" οὐκ ἂν μεταδοὺς τοῦ αχράντου σώματος avTols, καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, εἰ μὴ τέλειον αὐτοῖς τὸ ᾿Ιωάννου ἐκαχάριστο βάπτισμα. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ ὅτε Πέτρος παρητεῖτο τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι, ἀκούει παρὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ὁ λελουμένος, ov χρείαν εχει πάλιν λούσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι καθαρὸς ὁλὸς" καὶ ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστέ. Δι ὧν καὶ ὅτι ὁ τὸ τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου ἐν καιρῷ βαπτίσθείς βάπτισμα οὗ δεῖται δευτέρου βαπτίσματος, ἐπιδείκνυται" καῖ ὅτι δύναμιν εἶχε τοὺς βεβαπτισμένους αὐτὸ, ἀποφαίνειν καθαρούς. Αλλ᾽ οὕτω μὲν ὁ ἙΕὐλόγιος, τῶν πλείστων ἀτελὲς Ov ὅλου τὸ Ιωάννου βάπτισμα δεικνύντων." —Eulogius contra Novatianos in Photii Bibliotheca, cclxxx. “ And that it (John’s baptism) was perfect,” he says, “is manifest, because he never appears rebaptizing the disciples who had received baptism from John. For Jesus,” he says, “ baptized no one, but his disciples. Whence again it is manifest that it was perfect; for since the Saviour did not disdain to be baptized with it, he shows that it was perfect; he himself, as is evident, needing no purification, but being made a purification of the waters, and sanctification and per- fection to those who were then baptized. Those indeed who were then baptized, received their baptism for an introduction to the knowledge of Christ. For when they were baptized in His name who was to come, they henceforth inquired who he was who was to come, and inquiring, they found and were instructed, and going to the Saviour, received no other baptism, but only received his command- ments. So long as Christ was not yet glorified on the cross, the baptism of John was perfect, but not any longer. Wherefore Apollos being baptized by John at the proper season, no one rebaptized; but Priscilla and Aquila received him, having come from Alexandria to Ephesus, and taught him the things of the Lord Jesus Christ more perfectly, but they did not venture to baptize him. But those baptized by him, because they were baptized after the ascent of the p 2 9 APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV. Lord to heaven with John’s baptism, since Christ was no longer about to come, but had come already and accomplished all his dispensation, and had given his own baptism; Paul having found them, and because they did not know whether there was a Holy Ghost, rebap- tized them with the baptism of the Lord. And from many things it may be collected that the baptism of John was perfect before the Lord was delivered up. For Christ,” he says, “‘ to Peter and the other disciples, baptized with John’s baptism, would not have deigned in the season of his passion to communicate the awful mysteries of his spotless body and blood, unless the baptism of John had been made to them perfect. Moreover, when Peter refused to have his feet washed, he heard the Saviour say to him, ‘ He who is washed, does not need to be washed again, but is clean every whit, and ye are clean.’ How? because he who was baptized with John’s baptism at the proper time, did not need a second baptism, but were rendered clean by it. “ So says Eulogius, when most of the Fathers think the baptism of John was altogether imperfect.” LECTURE V. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, “The like figure whereunto even 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,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter iii. 21. “T) yap ὄφελος ἐκείνου τοῦ βαπτίσματος, ὁ Thy σάρκα καὶ μόνον τὸ σῶμα φαιδρύνει; Βαπτίσθητε τὴν ψυχὴν, ἀπὸ ὀργῆς καὶ ἀπὸ πλευνεξίας, ἀπὸ φθόνου ἀπὸ μίσους" καὶ, ἰδοὺ, τὸ σῶμα καθαρὸν ἐστι. Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. ΙΝ our last lecture we arrived, or thought we arrived, at the conclusion, that previously to the resurrection of our Lord, although baptism was administered by John and by the apostles, there was no such thing as baptismal regeneration. Our opponents concede, as we have seen, that baptism by water was not then accompanied by the Holy Ghost, as they concede that no previously existing rite of Judaism, neither circumcision nor any Leviti- cal ablution, was the means through which the Divine life was communicated. We revert to this conces- sion, because it is the basis on which we raise the argument of this lecture; and our reasoning will not be fairly appreciated, unless it be understood, that we have already, with the consent of our opponents, and in accordance with all antiquity on which they 214 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. rely, taken our position upon the ground that pre- viously to the day of Pentecost there was no such thing upon the face of the earth as baptismal rege- neration, or regeneration by any sacrament or cere- monial whatsoever. In controverting the doctrine of baptismal regene- ration, we have first to determine the sense which we affix to the phrase ; for unless this be clearly deter- mined, we shall not be able to preserve the argument free from confusion and perplexity, especially as the defenders of the doctrine do not concur in its exposi- tion. Dr. Waterland, in his “‘ Regeneration Stated and Explained,” and Bishop Van Mildert in his “Bampton Lectures,” as avowedly and earnestly defend what they call baptismal regeneration, as do Dr. Pusey and Mr. Newman; yet the former, by regeneration mean no internal change whatever, but only a federal change of condition, an initiation into the new covenant, an introduction to the privileges of the Gospel; while the latter include in regenera- tion, or at least in baptism, “ the actual death unto sin, and commencement of spiritual life, the unction of the Holy One, the illumination and sanctification of the soul, the dying in Christ, and rising in the power of his resurrection.” ¢ We may, however, consider the doctrine of rege- neration by baptism as it is proposed in these four distinct senses, and I know no other in which it can be expounded. @ "Tracts for the Times, No. 67. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 215 1. Baptism so introduces a person into the evan- gelical covenant, as to give him a right to all its external privileges, by the good use of which, he may acquire a title to everlasting life. 2. Baptism so changes the federal condition of a person, as to bestow upon him an immediate title to eternal life, which he retains, until it be forfeited by sin. 3. Baptism produces a moral and spiritual change upon the soul in connexion with the federal change of condition, which entitles him to eternal life. 4. Baptism is the medium through which a moral and spiritual change is, although not invariably, yet so frequently produced, as to warrant the church, though not with certainty, yet in the judgment of charity, to declare the person to be regenerate. These four distinct theories of baptismal regenera- tion have been strenuously defended by different members of the English church; and, therefore, it is necessary to make a few observations respect- ing them, in order to show more clearly and dis- tinctly the bearing of the argument upon the whole subject. I must, as best I can, while attempting to refute every form of baptismal regeneration, confine myself, as far as possible, to one course of reasoning. The first theory seems to be the least pernicious. It represents baptism as placing a sinner in a new and more advantageous position for securing his own salvation. According to it, his regeneration is nothing more than the acquisition of those privileges of the Gospel by which he may, if he repent, and believe, 216 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. and live a godly life, attain the blessedness of heaven. Baptism places him in a state of salvability, and, therefore, it is implied, that all unbaptized persons are excluded from that state, or, in the most favour- able view which it will permit us to take, that they are not in a state in which we have any right to con- clude that they will be saved. If it be not absolutely certain that they perish, they must be left, to adopt a phrase very frequently on the lips of formalism when clad in the costume of ecclesiastical authority, to the uncovenanted mercies of God. But the scriptural doctrine, as we believe, is, that all men, baptized or unbaptized, are in the state of salvability here sup- posed; that is, all men are invited and encouraged to avail themselves of the privileges of the Gospel— all men are not only invited but required to believe the truth of God by which they may be saved. The obligation to believe what God declares, and to do what God commands, is imperative upon all, ante- cedent to any sacrament, and independent of it. To the Philippian jailor, before his baptism, Paul said, ** Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Was he not at that moment in the state of salvability ? Had he not permission to avail him- self of all the privileges of the Gospel, and to be saved by believing on Christ? We are taught unhe- sitatingly to regard all men as entitled to the privi- leges of the Gospel, and as forfeiting their title only by unbelief. ‘“ God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but might have everlasting ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 217 life.” If, in this sense, to be the object of Divine mercy is regeneration, then all men are regenerate. The free gift is as extensive in its application for good, as was the original offence for evil. ‘‘ As by one offence, the judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by one righteousness the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” ‘“ As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The evangelical covenant has relation, on the one hand, to all men as sinners needing its salvation, and on the other, to all believers, as actually possessing a personal interest in that salvation ; but it is nowhere represented as a covenant with any third class of persons, in a state preferable to that of the world, but inferior to that of the church. “ He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life.’ We read nothing in Scripture of an intermediate state. The Gospel presents assurances of salvation only to believers, overtures of salvation to all men. The second and third theories involve a principle so extraordinary, so opposed to all our previous opinions of the government of God, that we have a right to require in their support the most plain and unequi- vocal authority of Holy Scripture. The doctrine, be it observed, is, that by washing a person with water and repeating over him a form of words, he is intro- duced into a state of grace, his past sins are forgiven, and he is the heir of eternal life; and, moreover, according to the third theory, a great moral and spiritual renovation is wrought upon his soul by the Spirit of God approving and honouring the service. 218 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. In other words, he is made by the ceremony really and truly a Christian in his heart and his character, (for I suppose the change effected by the Holy Ghost is a change of disposition and character for the better, ) and is placed in a state of safety simultaneously with this extraordinary renovation; or if there be no such change of disposition and character, then according to the second theory, he is placed in this state without any personal and spiritual improvement. In accord- ance with the third theory, baptismal regeneration is usually stated and defended by the Tractarian party, and we think with them, that if a change of state according to the second hypothesis be conceded, a change of heart had better be conceded also. If the texts of Scripture, which are adduced in support of a transition effected through water, apply to the state of the subject, they equally and incontrovertibly prove a renovation of character. All we demand is clear and incontestable proof derived from Holy Scripture, of this extraordinary change. It will probably be said, with a contemptuous sneer, This is only a cavil of proud reason, which calls for proof, when humble faith would meekly and im- plicitly submit. We will meekly submit to the lively oracles of God, but not to the uninspired tra- ditions of men. From the traditions of men, the ecclesiastical authority of the primitive church, we candidly admit our opponents have the best, though not the whole of the argument; but on this subject we maintain, Scripture and tradition, the apostles and their successors, Christ and the early church are mani- ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 219 festly at variance. Although some will blame us for making this admission, yet as far as we can understand the testimony of the Fathers, notwithstanding several inconsistencies and some apparent exceptions, the full and rapid stream of ecclesiastical authority from a very early source runs strong in favour of the theory of baptismal regeneration. The defenders of the second and third hypotheses admit, that as the virtue of baptism may be repelled by mortal sin, so it may be subsequently lost by aggravated crimi- nality. It follows that as baptism is the only means of regeneration, those who have lost this grace of God must be in an awful condition, if indeed it be possible to renew them again to repentance. There are, indeed, two other baptisms by which, it is admitted, the lapsed may possibly be recovered,—the one the baptism in the profusion of the bitter tears of penitence ; to what extent required, in what manner sufficient, no mortal can explain, as of this painful recovery of the fallen none can ever speak with confidence; and the other the baptism in the blood of martyrdom, which is generally admitted, in the words of Tertullian, to be ‘the baptism which both stands in the place of the laver when it has not been received, and restores it when it is lost.” ? The fourth theory is received by many of the opponents of the Tractarians in the Church of Eng- land. It seems to have been devised in order to reconcile the preaching of Christ crucified as the α De Baptismo, ὁ. xv. 220 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, wisdom and power of God to salvation, with the standards and formularies of the English church, but is held, I think, by no other Christians, in any part of the world. Every administrator of baptism, according to the offices of that church, prays to God to “sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin,” and then gives thanks “that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit.” In these formularies it is clearly implied, that the effusion of the Holy Ghost is so connected with the baptism with water, that the child born of water is also born of the Spirit. The Tractarian party maintain that, with the exception of the in- stances in which the false reception has frustrated the grace, the effusion of the Holy Spirit is insepara- bly connected with the baptism of water duly and canonically administered. Their opponents, whose views are defended at length by Mr. Faber, in his ‘“* Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration,” maintain that the connexion is not inseparable, but that there are two other modes of regeneration; yet as it is one mode in which the grace of regeneration is frequently imparted, the church, as it must pronounce some opinion, pronounces the most charitable, and declares the baptized to be regenerate. Why the church must pronounce some opinion upon a subject of which it confessedly knows nothing, Mr. Faber does not con- descend to inform us. It may probably be said, | have no right to attri- bute the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in any form, to the whole of the evangelical clergy. I have ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 221 a right to attribute it to every man, who thanks God immediately after baptism that the child is regenerate ; because I cannot suppose that, with these words on his lips, in a solemn religious service, he believes the child is not regenerate. In support of this statement I appeal to the testimony of the ablest opponent of the Tractarian party. In reply to one of the Oxford Tracts in which it is said, ‘ In coming, and we trust better times, it will I think be quoted as a curious and remarkable fact, that there once existed a con- siderable number of the English clergy, who succeeded in persuading themselves that their church did not consider the grace of regeneration to be conveyed in baptism ;” Mr. Faber says, “1 never yet happened to meet with an English clergyman, who had either succeeded in persuading himself, or had even at- tempted to persuade himself, that his church did not consider the grace of regeneration to be conveyed in baptism.’ There are some grave and serious objections to this fourth hypothesis of the evangelical clergy, which do not apply to the second, or even to the third, that of the Oxford theologians. Mr. Faber says, that regene- ration may, “ according to the Divine pleasure, take place either before baptism, or in baptism, or after baptism.” In baptism he makes regeneration depend very much upon the worthy reception of the rite. The hypothesis is, that a person worthily disposed, that is, believing in Christ, and having the answer of “ Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, p. 81. 222 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. a good conscience to the legitimate interrogatories, is often, he will not say always, regenerated in baptism. The interrogatory is, “ Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow, nor be led by them ?—Answer: I renounce them all.” The supposition is, that if this renuncia- tion be not true and sincere, the person making it will not be regenerated. Whatever regeneration may mean in the writings of Roman and Anglo-Catholies, we know what it means in the sermons and conversa- tion of evangelical clergymen; and we ask, is not the person who sincerely and cordially renounces the world, the flesh, and the devil, actually regenerated, in their sense, although he be not baptized? As they contend, in opposition to Tractarians, that rege- neration sometimes precedes baptism, ought they not to admit that it always precedes, when the parties have the answer of the good conscience? And when they have not that answer, there is, on their own princi- ples, no regeneration. Do they not thus reduce that regeneration, for which they thank God, to a mere shadow, a conception which can never be realised, an attenuated and metaphysical abstraction, for the existence of which no time is appropriated? Or if they reduce this answer of a good conscience, this preparatory fitness for baptism, to some good desires and resolutions distinct from the birth of the Spirit, yet absolutely necessary previous to his regenerating power, what is this but the school notion, the old ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 223 Pelagian doctrine of grace of congruity, which, as Dr. Pusey most properly observes, belongs to every theory which makes regeneration in baptism depend- ent upon any previous good dispositions, and which is unquestionably and expressly condemned by the thirteenth article of the Church of England? ‘‘ Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ. Neither do they make men fit to receive grace, or, as the school-authors say, deserve grace of congruity ; yea, rather, for they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not that they have the nature of sin.” The answer of a good conscience, if it precede regeneration, as that term is expounded by the evangelical party, precedes the grace of Christ and inspiration of the Spirit, and is here declared to be ‘‘ not pleasant to God, but to have the nature of sin.” Thus the attempt to combine the evangelical doctrine of the cross with the most harmless form of sacramental efficacy, leads to the grossest Pelagianism, which Tractarians, in accordance with their own church and all antiquity, indignantly and consistently repudiate. Still greater and more formidable objections may be brought against this modified theory of baptismal regeneration, in its reference to infants. It supposes that some infants are regenerated in baptism, and others are not. Is it not more reasonable, more in harmony with the great principles of Divine govern- ment, and more scriptural, to receive the Tractarian 224 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. doctrine, than to admit a distinction so arbitrary and uncertain ? Before the infants have done good or evil, as they lie unconscious on the arm of the priest, the washing with water becomes regeneration to one, and not to another. Mr. Faber, however, thinks the distinction may not be arbitrary, and suggests two modes of obviating the difficulty: either the regene- ration may depend upon the sincerity with which the sponsors renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil, on behalf of the baptized infants, or there may be in an infant ‘‘ the preparatory ingraftation of incipient holiness,” rendering some infants worthy recipients of baptism, in the phrase of the schoolmen, “ accord- ing to the measure of the recipient.”* But is there in Scripture, or even in early ecclesiastical authority, if that be pleaded, the slightest shadow of authority for these extraordinary distinctions? Are they not purely gratuitous assumptions? Where is the proof that baptism produces different effects upon different infants? Who can credit the assertion, that of two unconscious babes, the one worthily as by faith, the other unworthily as by mortal sin, each, ‘‘ac- cording to the measure of the recipient,’ receives the baptismal rite? These marvellous expedients to aid the child, who can act neither worthily nor unworthily, being wholly unconscious, are evidently contrived to reconcile the offices of the English church with the opinion of the evangelical clergy who hold the hypothesis, that the grace of regeneration “ Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, book iy. ch. iii. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 225 is not uniformly, although it is frequently imparted to baptized infants. In the long series of Oxonian tracts, there is nothing worse, more unreasonable, or more unscriptural, than this evangelical theory. When a child is declared to be regenerate, we are told that “the principle of the Church of England, borrowed from the apostles themselves, is the systematic adop- tion of generic as contradistinguished from specific phraseology ;”* but the phrase, “ this child is regene- rate,” would seem to be as specific as words can ¢ make it, yet Faber tells us it is “made generically,” and should not “be interpreted specifically.” His explanation amounts to this: baptized children are as a class regenerated, and therefore in the judgment of charity, this child, of whose actual regeneration we know nothing, may be generically, though not specifically declared regenerate. We imagine our readers will agree with us, that this modified doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the regeneration of a class, but not of the individuals belonging to it, has all the objections of the broader principle, together with some peculiar to itself. So far as we can show that the arguments in favour of baptismal regeneration are not sound, we think it will be acknowledged that this modification of the doctrine stands on no better autho- rity, and deserves no more forbearance at our hands. As to the distinction between generic and specific, by which they speak of a child as regenerated, when they mean nothing more than that a class of baptized « Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, book iv. ch. ili. Q 226 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. children are regenerated, of which that specific child may or may not be one; I can only say, it is for those who make or maintain such a distinction, to speak a little more softly and gently of the ingenious Tract, No. 90, lest they should hear the reply, “ First cast out the beam from thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to take the mote from thy brother’s eye.” Having thus noticed the several theories, let us consider the reasoning which is employed in their support. The first text, and that which is cited with most confidence is, “ Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”* This passage therefore demands our careful consider- ation, not only because much reliance is placed upon it in this controversy, but especially because if we can ascertain its meaning, we shall have the key to most of the other passages which are usually adduced upon this subject. To be born of water, I readily admit, for reasons which have been adduced in a preceding lecture, is to be baptized; but the inquiry is, does it prove the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in the ordinary sense of that expression? If it do not, no other passage can, for its meaning when ascertained will guide us in our interpretation of other passages, as _ we shall see when we have to examine them. The leading question, the inquiry on which the 4 John ui. ὃ. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. ΟΝ sense of the passage depends, is, are we to consider the birth by water and the birth by the Spirit as two distinct operations, or as two parts of the same ope- ration? Is the person born of water necessarily and at the same time born of the Spirit, or may he be only born of water, and fail of being born of the Spirit ? The words of themselves assuredly do not prove the inseparable union of the two things. In a corre- sponding passage, where no figurative terms are employed, “‘ he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,” no one supposes that faith and baptism mean the same thing, nor would any one think of proving from the words, that they are so inseparably united, that faith cannot originate before baptism, or that baptism cannot be administered without instan- taneously producing faith. Tractarians say that the words, ‘‘ of water,” are intended to teach us that our Lord is not to be understood as insisting only upon a spiritual and internal influence; and on the other hand the words, ‘of the Spirit,” that he is not to be understood as restricting the new birth to any outward change of state or relation, however great may be its privileges.* We fully agree with them, for we also maintain, that to be born of water is not a spiritual change, and that to be born of the Spirit is not an external ‘ change. But why should the external and the spirit- ual be united in one operation? Why may not the birth of water precede or follow the birth of the @ See Tracts for the Times, No. 67. Q 2 228 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Spirit? Faith and baptism are, as we have seen, placed in apposition in the words of our Lord, and yet are they distinct in their nature, as I imagine a Tractarian, or even a Romanist, will not maintain, that an infant, when baptized, believes on Him of whom it has never heard. Should it be said the infant believes by its sponsors, we reply, with as much countenance from Scripture it may be said, it is regenerated in its sponsors. And even then the argument remains, if faith and baptism are distinct operations though classed together by our Lord, so may the birth of water, or baptism, and the birth of the Spirit, or regeneration, be distinct operations, as they must have been, according to the opinion of all writers, in the instance of Nicodemus, if he had been at that time baptized. Or even if the appeal must be made from common sense to ecclesiastical tra- dition, the Fathers distinguished faith from baptism. Thus says Justin Martyr, “Those who are persuaded and believe what we teach to be true, are led by us to a place where there is water, and after the manner of the new birth by which we also were new-born, are they new-born; for they are baptized in water.” * And again, Tertullian says, “‘ Be it that in past time salvation was through faith alone, when faith was enlarged by the belief in his nativity, passion, and resurrection, there was added the seal of baptism, the clothing as it were of faith.”” interpretation why should not the birth of water and By the same rule of @ Apol. prim. ἡ De Baptismo, c. 18. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 229 the birth of the Spirit denote two distinct operations, and not one indivisible birth ? To be born again, in Jewish phraseology, is to become a son of Abraham, and so to have a new father. ‘To be born again, in Christian phraseology, is to become a son of God, to have a new Father in heaven. Of this new birth, baptism is the visible sign, regeneration the interna] reality. But if it can be clearly and incontrovertibly proved, not only from the evangelical history, but even from the concessions of our opponents, that the two phrases, as they were addressed specifically to Nicodemus, and as they must have been understood in his time, could not have designated one simultaneous operation, but must have described two distinct and separate things, there is an end of the exposition, which binds together in this verse baptism and regeneration, and consequently of the pile of tottering argument erected upon this sandy foundation. Of this passage, be it remembered, Dr. Pusey says, “1 would gladly rest the whole question of baptismal regeneration on this one consi- deration.”* I rejoin, So would 1. Let us examine it. Dr. Pusey says, as we have seen, and all the Tractarians say with him, as the Roman Catholics said long before them, and the Fathers still earlier, a long catena of authorities containing every important name which can be deciphered in the fading charac- ters of tradition, that there was no such thing in the world as baptismal regeneration until the Spirit, the “ Tracts for the Times, No. 67, p. 41. x 230 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. chief blessing of redemption, was freely given by the ascended Saviour. There was, therefore, no such thing as baptismal regeneration when our Lord con- versed with Nicodemus—no possibility on that night, nor for some time afterwards, of any man in this sense being born of water and of the Spirit. While “from the days of John the kingdom of heaven was preached, and all men pressed into it,” at that very time, when there was no baptismal: regeneration, and yet many were pressing into the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said, “ Verily I say unto thee, Except. a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus might surely have entered into the kingdom of God; many did press into the kingdom of God, but even according to our opponents, none of these acquired baptismal regeneration. The spring of living water had not then issued from the foot of the cross to fill the regenerating font; the angel of baptism had not then descended to trouble the holy waters, and impart to them their sanative virtue; the sacramental gifts were not conferred upon men; the priesthood was not consecrated; St. Peter had not been invested with the keys; the life-inspiring baptistery was not erected in the porch of the church; the initiation into the greater mysteries of the faith had not commenced. Did our Lord then speak to Nicodemus of what it was impossible for him or any one else to experience or understand until the day of Pentecost, the date of the great gift of baptismal regeneration? If he did, how could he say, “ Art thou a master in Israel, and ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 231 knowest not these things?” Can any one seriously expound the passage, as though it were to Nicode- mus, not a declaration of what then actually was, but a dark prophecy of what was afterwards to take place? If there was no such thing as baptismal regeneration at that time, and yet if this verse declares that without it no man can enter into the kingdom of heaven, how is this conformable with the fact that many, during the ministry of our Lord, did enter into the kingdom of heaven? Either they entered that kingdom without baptismal regeneration, or else they had baptismal regeneration before the gift of the Holy Ghost was conferred upon the church. But if either proposition be true, as one must be, this Catholic exposition of the verse, “Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” is obviously and demonstrably false. It may be asked, how did the Fathers resolve the difficulty, respecting those who were baptized before the Pentecost? The general opinion seems to have been that of Chrysostom,’ sustained by Augustine,’ “That they were afterwards baptized with the Spirit, for with us both [baptisms] take place in one; but there they took place separately.” If it were so, (and this is the explanation of our opponents,) Jesus said to a man to whom baptism by water, and baptism by the Spirit, must have been ea concesso, if they were obtained at all, two distinct operations * Hom. i. in Actt. § 5. δ Ep. 265, ad Selencian. ὃ ὃ, a2 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. performed at two different times, “ Except aman be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In respect to him, on their own showing, the outward sign, and the inward grace, must have been distinct and separated, as they were to all who about the same time were baptized. But are we not bound to interpret the words of our Lord, as they were applicable to the person to whom they were originally addressed? To Nico- demus our Lord must have intended to convey the idea that he must be born of water and of the Spirit, not simultaneously, but by two distinct operations, because at that time the water was not imbued with the Spirit; and if this were the original meaning of the passage, with what kind of logic, or on what principle of hermeneutics, can it now be adduced in proof of their inseparable union? To Nicodemus, not to us, these words were spoken; and we have certainly a right to demand an exposition of them, applicable to the person to whom they were originally addressed. Whatever may be the consent of the Fathers adduced in defence of this Catholic exposition, it is in plain and direct contradiction to the facts of the evangelical narrative, even as the Fathers uniformly understood it, and as Tractarians now, as uniformly explain it. If it be said, the authority of the Fathers is incontrovertible, I reply to the Anglo-Catholic who says so, Even admitting the uniform and concurrent testimony of the Fathers to be as complete as you affirm, you first assert that baptism at that time was not regeneration; you ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 233 believe, for you believe Scripture, that many entered into the kingdom of God; these many, therefore, entered into the kingdom of God without baptismal regeneration ; and if you venture to allege the infalli- bility of the Fathers, I ask, by what argument, more plain and obvious, can you prove their infallibility ? And if there be no such argument, in vain you adduce a long and unbroken catena of their authorities to prove a plain and palpable contradiction. The words οἵ our Lord, “ Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” in the sense in which our opponents understand them, were not true at the time they were spoken,—they were not true as addressed to Nicodemus. As they must have had another sense when spoken by our Lord, that sense they must still retain, for the evangelist merely records the words as part of a conversation. ‘Time, the great innovator, cannot change the sense of a record, however numerous may be the years which have gathered around it. Its language may become obsolete, but its meaning cannot vary ; its truth may grow dim and obscure in the remote haze of anti- quity, but a new interpretation—the creature of more recent times, cannot belong to it. The true sense of words when spoken is the sense, whether perceived or not, which is inherent and indestructible in them for ever. The conclusion is inevitable—if when the baptism with water, and the baptism of the Spirit, were not united, but separate, our Lord declared, “ Except 234 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” these words cannot now prove that baptism with water, and baptism with the Spirit, are invariably united in one operation. Yet this is the passage upon which Dr. Pusey says, and we join issue with him, he would gladly rest the whole question.” But if this verse, on which Tractarians place their chief reliance, so utterly fails them, it furnishes an admirable guide to the exposition of other passages which they adduce. If to be born of water, and to be born of the Spirit, are distinct operations, then the washing of regeneration,’ and the renewal of the Holy Ghost, mentioned together by St. Paul, must be acknowledged to be also distinct operations. The terms of the two texts so resemble each other, birth by water and regeneration by washing, birth by the Spirit and renewal by the Holy Ghost, that how- ever various may be the expositions of the passages, the exposition of either readily furnishes the key to the exposition of the other. As a person under- stands the birth by water, so will he understand the washing of regeneration ; as he explains the birth by the Spirit, so will he explain the renewal of the Holy Ghost. The two texts, the gospel and the epistle, Jesus and Paul, teach the same doctrine in very similar language; and, therefore, if the two things are different and disunited in the words of our Lord, so are they in the writings of the apostle. If * See Appendix A. 6 Titus iii. 5. ees ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 235 to be born of water be an external sign of the new birth, so is to be regenerated by washing ; and if the external sign was separate from the internal grace when our Lord addressed Nicodemus, how can it be shown that the same sign, and the same reality, became inseparable when St. Paul wrote to Titus? His language is no more precise nor conclusive than that of our Lord: it admits of exactly the same latitude, and the same limits of interpretation; the true exposition of the Gospel is evidently the true exposition of the corresponding expressions in the epistle; and if baptismal regeneration, as it is now held, cannot be proved by the words of our Lord, as we have seen it cannot, neither can it be proved from the words of the apostle, obviously of the same import. To all the Fathers we prefer our blessed Lord himself, as the expositor of his own apostle. I am aware that in maintaining this interpretation of the passage in Titus, I am exposing myself to objections from opposite parties. There are not only those who contend that we are saved by baptism, but also those who, through extreme fear of the Trac- tarian doctrine, will not allow that St. Paul could have written, According to his mercy he saved us, by baptism and the renewal of the Holy Ghost. We think we can obviate the objection, and reply to both extremes, by reference to other passages of Scripture. Passing without further reference the passage which I have already noticed, ‘He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,” I would entreat 236 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. attention for a moment to the words of the apostle: ' “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’ Here confession with the mouth, as well as faith in the heart, is represented as a condition of salvation. Yet is it evident that confession with the mouth alone will not save, will do nothing towards our sal- vation ; being false and hypocritical, it is of the nature of sin, and will rather augment our guilt. Yet the apostle speaks of public confession exactly as he speaks of baptism. He teaches in the Romans, that we are saved by confession and faith; in Titus, that we are saved by baptism and the renewal of the Holy Ghost. As no one maintains that a public confession will save us, so on the same principle of interpre- tation, no one ought to maintain that baptism will save us. All Christians agree that the confession was regarded only as the appropriate and obligatory expression of the faith of the heart, and so it would follow that baptism was regarded only as the appro- priate and obligatory sign of the renewal of the Holy Ghost. As the apostle wrote to professed and bap- tized Christians, his meaning, allowing him to be his own expositor, must have been, in one instance, if the confession of the mouth corresponded as a true sign with the faith of the heart, the person would be saved ; so in the other, if the washing of regeneration corresponded as a true sign with the renewal of * Romans x. 9. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 237 the Holy Ghost, the person would be saved. Pro- fessed and baptized men were taught that their profession and their baptism were or were not of avail, as they were true signs of the great and momentous realities,—faith, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.’ This exposition of St. Paul is illustrated and con- firmed by the words of St. Peter, which, although they are often cited by Catholics in proof of their doctrine, most plainly and obviously contradict it. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”’ The slightest attention to this verse would correct the erroneous and untenable opinion in defence of which it is often cited. Let us glance at the connexion. The apostle had observed, that at the general deluge, “few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.” He adds, ‘‘Whereunto,” that is, unto which water, the antitype, “baptism, doth also now save us.”° The water of the deluge is represented as the type, the water of baptism as the antitype. As through the type eight souls were saved, so through the antitype are we saved. Wherein consists the @ 1 Peter iii. 21. » ὃ See Appendix B. cece ᾽Ολίγαι (τουτ᾽ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ) ψυχαὶ διεσώθησαν δὶ ὕδατος" ὃ καὶ ἡμᾶς > , A £ , > A > , cr > \ , ἀντίτυπον viv σώζει βάπτισμα (οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, ἀλλὰ συνειδή- σεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς Θεὸν) δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The words type and antitype often express only a resemblance, and not a prefiguration; as an oracle in the first book of Herodotus calls the anvil and the hammer of a smith’s shed the type and antitype. 238 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. resemblance ? Our opponents affirm, and appeal to this passage in proof of their affirmation, that the water of baptism actually saves us, or is the instru- ment which God employs for our salvation; but if their appeal be sustained, it is obvious from the whole structure of the passage that the water of the deluge actually saved or was the instrument of saving the family of Noah. The mention of the type ex- poses the absurdity of the interpretation which is given to the antitype. We are saved by baptism, it is said, and the authority of Peter is adduced in con- firmation: precisely, we reply, appealing to the same authority, as the family of Noah was saved through the deluge. But the deluge actually saved no man ; although eight souls, believing in God, were saved amidst its waters; so baptism, on the authority of parallelism, actually saves no man, although believers in Jesus, being baptized, as in that age they invaria- bly were, are saved through its waters. The apostle, however, as if on purpose to guard against the error which ascribes salvation to the sacrament of baptism, adds, ‘‘ Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con- science towards God.” ‘The putting away the filth of the flesh” must denote the ablution of the body with water. That external baptism cannot save us; but the answer of a good conscience does. Is the answer of a good conscience inseparably con- nected with the ablution of water? If it be, what practical object could the apostle have in saying, ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 239 ‘Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience,” seeing the answer was inseparable from the ablution? But if, as the text intimates, the ablution of the flesh and the answer of the conscience were distinct operations, the cleansing not of the flesh, but of the conscience, doth now save us, that is, not the baptism by water, but the baptism of the Spirit. This conclusion stands firm and unaffected, whatever may be the interpreta- tion of ‘ the answer of a good conscience,” whether it be the internal feeling corresponding with the external sign, or the honest reply of the heart to the profes- sion of the lips, or the stipulation publicly made by the baptized, honourably observed, if indeed the stipulation to renounce the devil and his works, made in replying to the legitimate interrogatory, was as ancient as the apostolic age.* Appeal is also made to the great commission, “‘ Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” These words are said to contain an awful mystery. The being baptized into the sacred names of the undivided Trinity is represented as “ἃ ¢ Even at the time in which sacramental efficacy was the general doctrine of ecclesiastics, we find the words of Peter appealed to in proof that by the true baptism we are to understand not the washing with water, but the cleansing of the conscience. Thus, says St. Basil, “Εἰ τις ἐστὶν ἔν τῷ ὕδατι χάρις, οὐκ ἐκ τῆς φύσεως ἐστὶ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἀλλ᾽ ἔκ τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος παρουσίας, οὐ γὰρ ἐστ τὸ βάπτισμα ῥύπου σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις, ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἷς Θέον." Bas. de Spi. Sancto, c. xv. 240 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. real appropriation of the person baptized to the Holy Trinity,’ a transfer of him from the dominion of Satan to them—an insertion of him within their blessed name, and through their name into the God- ” head.” The reverence of the Jews when they shrink from uttering the incommunicable Name, is spoken of as not unsuitable for us, as we meditate upon the mystery contained under the sacred names with which we are baptized. The citations from the Fathers, serviceable as they usually are, in sustaining the advocates of sacramental efficacy, afford them very little aid in their appropriation of this text. As soon as we turn over the Bible in search of a similar phrase to illustrate the words, the whole pile of awful mystery begins to tremble. The Jews were baptized into Moses, yet they were not regenerated by him; the disciples, before the gift of the Spirit, baptized multitudes into the name of Jesus, yet to them the gift of regeneration was not imparted. How, then, without the authority of other passages, ought we to conclude that Christians baptized into the name of the Trinity are thereby regenerated ? Having noticed the passages of the New Testament which are usually adduced in support of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, we leave the candid hearer to determine whether they afford any countenance whatever to that doctrine in any of the forms in which it is held. The allusions to baptism, which are not so distinctly expressed, must be interpreted @ Tracts for the Times, No. 67. ὦν ᾿ >) a ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 241 in accordance with those whose meaning can _ be clearly ascertained ; and, therefore, we think we are fully warranted in saying that the extraordinary doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the power of effecting a moral and spiritual change in the soul by washing the body with water and repeating a prescribed formula, is sustained by no sure warrant of Holy Scripture. As to the passages of the Old Testament which are sometimes adduced in proof of the doctrine, such as “I will sprinkle clean water upon them and they shall be clean,” or ‘ Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow,” we can only say, no one would think of applying them to Christian baptism, had they not been so applied by some of the early ecclesiastical writers. The value of these citations must, therefore, depend entirely upon the authority which we assign to the Fathers, as expositors of Holy Scripture ; for certainly, without their aid, we should never have discovered the meaning of the words of David, ‘‘ Wash me and 1 shall be whiter than snow,” to be, Baptize me and I shall be sanc- tified and forgiven.t Dr. Pusey and his coadjutors tell us we are bound to take this exposition on the authority of the ancient church. Grave and vener- able as may be that authority, it is scarcely sufficient to induce us to believe that king David prayed for baptism more than a thousand years before it was α Theod. in Ps. li. Ambrose De Sac. iv. 1. ὃ 6. Cyril. Hier, Lect. iii. 1. 242 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. instituted. But be it that before the weeping eyes of the penitential king, the evangelical vision of the Christian church rose in all its grandeur and glory, and the sacred font, adorned with festoons of flowers, at the great festival, and glittering with the pure pellucid waters of regeneration, in its baptistery, crowded with joyful catechumens, inspired his soul with fervent desires, so that as he saw the pardoned and sanctified emerge from the purifying element whiter than snow, he longed and prayed with intense and irrepressible eagerness to bathe in the holy life-giving laver; be all this true, are we also to believe all the wonderful things that the same venerable Fathers say in their expositions of the Old Testament, of the marvellous powers of the watery element; as for instance, when they interpret the words, ‘‘ What aileth thee, O thou sea, that thou fleddest? thou Jordan, that thou wast driven back ?” as “ the amazement of the waters, that our Lord would condescend to be baptized therein ;” or the words, ‘‘ Thou brakest the heads of the dragons upon the waters,” as denoting the destruction, in holy baptism, of the heinous sins of the baptized ?4 Yet Dr. Pusey sees great beauty in these and many similar expositions, which, unfortunately for them, a meagre and degenerate race of rationalists cannot discern. Let us now hastily glance at the ecclesiastical authority in favour of baptismal regeneration, which, @ Aug. ad Loc. ὃ 18. Theod. ad Loc. See also citations from Hesychius, Apollinarius, and the ancient liturgies, in Pusey on Baptism, p. 387. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 243 in the compass of a lecture, it is very difficult to exhibit, and for the purpose of controversy, not very easy to manage. That baptismal regeneration in some form, was the general doctrine of the ancient church, that is to say, from about one hundred and forty years before the council of Nice, every person moderately acquainted with ecclesiastical writers ought candidly and honestly to acknowledge; yet although we find the doctrine as early as Clement of Alexandria,’ and Tertullian,’ we are not prepared to ascribe it to those who are called the apostolical Fathers. Of course, all who believe that they distinctly see baptismal regene- ration in the New Testament, and find it again prominent on the surface of ecclesiastical history, in the latter part of the second century, will con- clude that it floated without interruption down the stream from the apostles, through their immediate successors, to the bishops and presbyters of a sub- sequent age. But if in the relics of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, and of Polycarp, there cannot be found sufficient materials to enable us to ascertain their doctrine on the subject of sacramental efficacy, we cannot allow subsequent writers to speak for them, especially as these writers do not profess to expound the opinions of their predecessors. Beliey- ing that the doctrine in question has no apostolical authority, we are under no obligation to admit for it an antiquity higher than that which can be clearly @ Peds. ¢.'5; 1&8. Ὁ. 12.-:'Strom. IF 8: 1. 4. ὁ De Bap. passim. Bee 244 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. proved from existing records. The precise date at which the doctrine in question arose in the church is not to be assumed without evidence, and no evidence can be adduced which will connect it with the apos- tolic age, through the immediate successors of the apostles. If Justin Martyr, and Irenzus, should be cited as proving the doctrine to be earlier than Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, we reply that, if their phraseology be interpreted in favour of bap- tismal regeneration, good use may be made of them to exhibit the doctrine in its transition state from the simplicity of Christ to the corruptions of the third century. The true state of the question, respecting ecclesiastical authority on the subject of baptismal regeneration, may, I think, be thus fairly expressed. Of the doctrine previous to Justin Martyr’s first Apology, written about a.p. 140, or 150, we know nothing. From that date to the time of Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, at the close of the second, and beginning of the third century, it appears, as we think, rising in the church, in an obscure and im- perfect form, an ill-defined and portentous shade. It afterwards comes forth to public view in its appro- priate character, including a change both of dispo- sition and of state, the accredited doctrine of the Catholic church, although some writers of a later period, and even as late as Augustine, and none more decidedly than that illustrious Father, employ at times, language apparently irreconcilable with the doctrine, as it is maintained by Romanists and Tractarians ; language which certainly no writer of ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 245 either of those classes would now select to express his own opinions. The inquiry is, how far, in form- ing our opinions, ought we to be influenced by this consideration, supposing I have fairly stated the doctrine of the ancient church ?? But have I fairly stated it? In the scanty relics of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, and of Polycarp, or in the relations of the martyrdom of the last two venerable men, we have scarcely a particle of inform- ation respecting their opinion, or the opinion of their age, on the subject of baptism. In the paucity of the materials very little could have been expected. There is, however, a passage in the second epistle of Clement, (supposing the fragment to be genuine, and if it be not, it is undoubtedly of great antiquity, as it was publicly read in the church in the time of Epiphanius,) which speaks of repentance in con- nexion with baptism, in terms very unlike the language of succeeding ages, when baptism being regarded as the means of obtaining the pardon of sin, scarcely a ray of hope was afforded to those who α Scaliger, Dodwell, Le Clerc, Neander, Semisch, and many other learned men, assign to the first Apology of Justin the date a.p. 138, or 139, chiefly influenced by the consideration that Justin does not give to Marcus Aurelius the title of Czsar, which he received soon after the accession of Antoninus Pius in the course of the year 139. Cave, Lardner, Augusti, and others, prefer a.p. 140. Tillemont, Grabe, the Benedictine editors, and others, ascribe it to a.v. 150. And as Justin himself speaks of Christ having been born 150 years before, his own computation seems to supply a better criterion than the absence of a title which might have been neglected by the Christian apologist; or if adopted by him, have been since obliterated by the accidents of time. 246 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. had broken their baptismal seal, had violated their baptismal vow. Clement, or whoever was the author, knew nothing of this severe and gloomy theology. That the violation of the baptismal pledge could be expiated only by the most distressing penance, the baptism of tears, or the baptism of blood, is the doctrine of a subsequent age. He had said, Unless we keep our baptism chaste and unpolluted, with what confidence shall we enter the kingdom of God? And after a few sentences concerning those who keep not their seal, (by their seal undoubtedly he means their baptism,*) it is said, ‘‘ their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be for a spectacle to all flesh;”’ he adds, ‘‘ While, therefore, we are upon earth, let us repent, for we are as clay for the hand of the potter; for as the potter, if he make a vessel, and it be turned amiss in his hands, or broken again, forms it anew; but if he have gone so far as to throw it into the furnace of * See Hermas Pastor iii. ix. 16. Ilud autem sigillum aqua est in quam descendunt homines morti obligati, ascendunt vero vite assignati. Tert. adv. Marc. 1.4. Barn. Ep. 9, and other passages noticed by Suicer, in verb. Sdpayis. ὁ Tay yap μὴ τηρησάντων, φησὶν, τὴν σφραγῖδα, “ὁ σκώληξ ἀυτῶν dv τελευτήσει, καὶ τὸ πῦρ αὐτῶν οὐ σβεσθήσεται, καὶ ἔσονται εἰς ὅρασιν πάσῃ ᾽ «ε > > s “ES. a ’ ΄ > >? σαρκί. Ὡς οὖν ἐσμὲν ἐπὶ γῆς, μετανοήσωμεν. Πηλὸς γάρ ἐσμεν εἰς τὴν χεῖρα τοῦ τεχνίτου" ὃν τρόπον γὰρ ὁ κεραμεὺς, ἐὰν ποιῇ σκεῦος, καὶ ἐν - ‘ > ~ e.) ΠΥ on ΄ > > ‘ yo ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ διαστραῴῃ, ἢ συντριβῃ, πάλιν αὐτὸ ἀναπλάσσει" ἐὰν δὲ προφθάσῃ εἰς τὴν κάμινον τοῦ πυρὸς αὐτὸ βαλεῖν, οὐκέτι βοηθήσει ἀυτῷ" οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἕως ἐσμὲν ἐν τουτῷ κόσμῳ, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ἃ ἐπράξαμεν πονηρὰ, μετάνοήσωμεν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἵνα σωθῶμεν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, ξως ἔχομεν καιρὸν μετανοίας. Μετὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐξελθεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, οὐκέτι δυνάμεθα ἐκεῖ ἐξομολογήσασθαι ἢ peravoveiv.—Epist. i. ο. 8. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 247 fire, he can no more restore it; so we, while we are in this world, should repent with our whole heart, for all the evil we have done in the flesh, while we have yet the time of repentance, that we may be saved by the Lord. For after we shall have departed out of this world, we shall be no longer able either to confess our sins, or to repent of them.” This is surely not the language of one who ascribed the pardon of sin to the efficacy of the sacrament. The punishment of the undying worm and unquench- able fire, he determined to be the consequence of breaking the baptismal seal; but he evidently believed that, during the whole of life, repentance was to be obtained, by which the pledge-breaker might be saved, although he had forfeited the advantage of his baptism. The extract may be thought not very important, but it contains language which the be- lievers in baptismal regeneration would not employ in speaking of the violation of the sacramental vow. Although, as we have noticed in the Appendix to the first lecture, much that is said of sin being only once forgiven after baptism, refers to the restora- tion of the excommunicated, yet the spirit of sub- sequent writings is not reconcilable with this extract. Although in the epistles of Ignatius, we find it said that none may baptize without the bishop,’ a statement which is utterly inconsistent with the diocesan episcopacy of modern times, yet we find no distinct reference to the doctrine of baptismal rege- * Ad Smyrnzos, c. vill. 248 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. neration, unless indeed a passage in the epistle to the Ephesians* should be so interpreted, where Jesus is said “to have been born and baptized, that by his passion he might sanctify water.” If this be the correct reading, of which there is some doubt, inde- pendently of the general uncertainty and corruption of the text of Ignatius, as of it the interpolator was certainly ignorant, it must in candour be admitted that the opinion, inexplicable as it seems to us, that Christ by his baptism sanctified water, is the most ancient form, as it was the most general, in which we find sacramental efficacy ascribed to bap- tism. In the translation of Archbishop Wake it is added, “for the washing away of sin;” but this addition is without any sufficient authority: indeed, the true reading of the whole sentence is too doubtful to sustain the conclusion for which it has been adduced.” It is also true that Hermas in his marvellous Visions and Similitudes, speaks of sins being forgiven in the waters of baptism, but we cannot receive the writings which pass under his name as the genuine productions of the first century. The discrepancy upon the subject of repentance® would satisfy us, the Pastor of Hermas does not belong to the same age as even the second and doubtful epistle of Clement. Surely I need say nothing further respect- ing this most impudent forgery, as all must ac- knowledge it to be, unless they admit its claims to JO ao nbhh δ᾽ Compare the interpolated epistle, which assigns no such reason for the baptism of Jesus. © Com. iv. 3. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, 249 inspiration. Professing to be inspired by the Spirit of God, the writer is to be either revered as of canonical authority, or rejected as a profane and wilful impostor. Let those who ascribe to it any authority on the subject of baptism, tell us what we are to say to the strange similitude of the Shepherd, in which he represents the apostles and first teachers of the Gospel baptizing after death seventy spirits of the ancient patriarchs and prophets, in order that having the seal of water they might enter the kingdom of heaven, from which, being unbaptized at death, they had been excluded.* But we may well leave the dreams of the Shepherd, and with them the spurious epistle of Barnabas, and proceed to Justin Martyr. The celebrated passage in his first Apology, as it is the most ancient account we have of the mode of celebrating baptism after the apostolic age, deserves our careful attention. “In what manner we having been renewed have dedicated ourselves to God, we will now explain. As many as may be persuaded, and may believe the things which we teach to be true, and engage to live in accordance with them, are instructed to pray with fasting for the forgiveness of their sins, we also fasting and praying with them. They are then taken to a place where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner as we were regene- rated; for they are washed with water in the name of the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ says, Unless ye be born again, ye cannot enter α Sim. ix. 16. 250 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. into the kingdom of heaven; and every one knows it is impossible for those being once born, to enter again into their mother’s womb.” And after a few sentences, he adds, ‘that we should not continue children of necessity and ignorance, but of choice and of knowledge, and should obtain the remission of the sins which we have before committed, there is invoked over him who has chosen to be regenerated, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of all things.” He adds, ‘ this wash- ing is called illumination, because those who learn these things are illuminated in their understanding, and in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and the name of the Holy Spirit, who by the prophets foretold all things con- cerning Jesus ; he being illuminated is washed.” After the baptism, the person was admitted to the brotherhood of Christians, to the fellowship of their prayers, and to the communion of the Lord’s supper, with the apostolic token of recognition, the kiss of charity. In the time of Justin, as indeed, so far as we can ascertain, from the apostolic age, no unbap- tized person was admitted to the fellowship of the church, or to the participation of the supper. Having mentioned the introduction of the baptized to the Lord’s supper, he says, “And this food we call εὐχαριστία, of which no one is permitted to partake who has not been washed with the laver for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and does not live according to the commands of Christ.” With this passage we may compare another, in the ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 251 dialogue with Trypho, in which Justin contrasts spiritual baptism with the water baptism of the Jews. ‘Through the washing of repentance and the knowledge of God, which is appointed for the iniqui- ties of God’s people, as Esaias says, we believe and know that the baptism which he pre-announced, is alone able to purify the penitent ; this is the water of life. But the cisterns which ye” (the Jews) “ have dug out, are broken and of no use to you. For what advantage is there in that baptism which cleanses only the flesh and the body? Be baptized as to your soul, from anger and avarice, from envy and hatred, and then behold, the body also is clean.” * On all this we remark, that Justin, in common with all ecclesiastical antiquity, refers the words of our Lord, ‘“‘ Unless a man be born of water,” to baptism, and that he himself therefore calls baptism regeneration. We cannot, however, with anything like certainty, infer that he believed baptism to pro- duce a moral and spiritual change upon the subject. He considers the person as introduced by baptism into the fellowship of Christians, and initiated into the privileges of the church. It is not improbable, that Justin, a Samaritan by birth, considered baptism, as we have seen the Jews considered it, to be a rite of proselytism, and denominated the proselyte thus recognised by baptism, as the Jews would have denominated him, a new-born child, without reference to any other spiritual change. * See Appendix C. for these passages and for some other allusions. 252 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Although he speaks of obtaining remission of sin by the water, he represents the person as having pre- viously repented, making his remission consequent upon his repentance. Although he calls baptism regeneration, yet elsewhere he distinguishes them, for he speaks of the washing εἰς ἀναγέννησιν, for regenera- tion, and therefore distinct from it. Would it not appear that he calls baptism, regeneration, merely as a symbol of regeneration, the true and inward baptism ? He says, “‘ baptism is called illumination :’ very frequently employed by the Fathers, and yet he plainly distinguishes illumination from the act of baptism, for he says, ‘he who is illuminated,”— illumination preceding baptism—‘‘is washed in the name of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Ghost.” From the analogy of the language, we might there- fore infer that the meaning of Justin is to be explained ; he who makes his choice to be regenerated, is bap- tized, and therefore baptism is called regeneration ; as he who is illuminated is baptized, and_ therefore baptism is called illumination. This will appear from a passage in the dialogue with Trypho, in which ᾽ a term he opposes spiritual circumcision to the carnal circum- cision of the Jews: but by spiritual circumcision he does not mean baptism, as some assert; for Justin says, ‘‘ Enoch, and those like him, observed it ;” and further, he says, “‘ we have received it through bap- tism, on account of the mercy of God ;”—thus distinguishing it from baptism. In the passage where Justin says, “The commandment of circumcision ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 253 which enjoins that infants should be circumcised on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision with which we were circumcised from error and wickedness,” he is frequently interpreted as saying, the true circumcision denotes baptism; but ought not Justin to expound his own meaning ? and if he do so, the true circumcision is that of the heart.“ Lastly, in contrast with the Jewish baptism, which being only of the flesh and of the body, is of no advantage, he proposes a baptism without water of the soul from vice, as a sufficient purification, which he would scarcely have done if he believed in a mechanical or magical sanctification by the water of Christian baptism. There are, however, some remarks of Augustine, which may aid the exposition of the language of Justin, and favourably explain the use of the term regeneration as applied to baptism. That great luminary of the African church says, “If the sacraments had not some resemblance of those things, of which they are the sacraments,” (or signs) “they would not be sacraments” (or signs) “at all. From this resemblance they very often receive the names of the things themselves. As, therefore, after a certain manner, the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacra- ment of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of the faith is the faith.’’ And in 2 See Appendix Ὁ. ὁ Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non 254 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. another place he says, ‘‘ For the Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body.”* The same opinion is variously expressed in other passages. Taking Augustine as our expo- sitor of Justin Martyr, we have less difficulty with his terms. He calls, as we have seen reason to infer from his own writings, the sign baptism, by the name of the thing signified, regeneration. The remarks of Augustine, as they are of great importance in ascertaining the opinions of the early Fathers on transubstantiation, so they materially assist us in expounding the terms in which they speak of bap- tism. The vindication of the later writers is hopeless, even with the aid of Augustine, who, in his age, was struggling against the full tide of corruption, on behalf of a simpler and purer theology. We, however, are not prepared to deny, that Justin Martyr held the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in a mitigated sense, different from that of his successors, or that in his age, there was beginning to appear the tendency to corrupt the simplicity of scriptural ordi- nances, which soon afterwards overspread the Christian community, and disfigured the evangelical doctrine throughout the oriental and western churches. There is, we must admit, much perplexing ambiguity in essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacra- mentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Aug. Epist. 98. ad Bonif. @ Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. Contra Adim. Manich. ο. 12, ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 255 sentences in which water and faith and the cross are classed together as means of repentance.“ Thus much, however, we may maintain with safety, that the doctrine and practice of baptism in the age of Justin Martyr, as he himself supplies us with the detail, were very different from the doctrine and practice of the subsequent ages, the third and fourth centuries, to which Tractarians appeal in defence of their prin- ciples. We find no high-sounding titles of baptism, no exaggerated description of its virtue, no appear- ance of the veneration of awful mysteries, no traces of the unscriptural doctrine of reserve. In the Apo- logy, he frankly discloses to the emperors, the senate, and the people of Rome, the rites and ceremonies, the worship and the doctrine of the Christian church. He raises the veil of the sanctuary without hesitation, and exposes to the public, the innermost shrine of the church. Instead of the baptistery concealed with so much jealousy from the eyes of the uninitiated, we have in Justin only a place where there is water; and instead of the basilica, the palace of the great King, with its vestibule, and nave, and chancel, and sanc- tuary, and throne for the bishop, we have the place where those who are called brethren assemble. But no distinction is more remarkable than that which appears in the institution of the catechumens. Although in the succeeding age we find them in their several orders of advancement preparing for baptism, as for a great and awful solemnity, the 2 Dial. eum Tryp. c. 188, See Appendix Ὁ, 256 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. critical period of their lives, their great transition from death to life, from ruin to salvation, from the devil to Christ; in Justin it is only said, “‘Those who are persuaded of the truth of the things we teach, and believe them, are taken to the place where there is water.” The catechumenical services, of which we have no trace whatever in the New Testament, dis- close, in the third and fourth century, an extraordi- nary change of opinion upon the subject of baptism. The apostles baptized the converts on the same day as they preached to them the Gospel; the bishops of the third and fourth centuries placed them under a long and severe discipline before they were admitted to partake of the holy mysteries. As we have no mention in Justin of the audientes or the competentes, or any other class of catechumens, so there is no reference to what, in so circumstantial an account, could scarcely be without notice, if it was at that time known, to sponsors acting on behalf of the baptized, although we find in Tertullian that such persons were required in the next age. From Irenzus, I think we can obtain no further information. His language corresponds with that of Justin Martyr, in so far as he calls baptism regenera- tion. What he means by the term will be variously explained, according to the theology of the expositor. We have seen that Justin both calls baptism regene- ration, and yet speaks of regeneration as distinct from baptism. And so Irenzeus, if we may trust the barbarous old Latin translation, has the term rege- neration, where there is no reference to baptism. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 257 Even later writers by regeneration often mean bap- tism, where no spiritual change could possibly have been intended. Clement of Alexandria,’ and Jerome,? for instance, speak of our Lord as regenerated by John, that is, baptized by him, but assuredly not born again in any spiritual sense. Let it here be observed, as illustrating the use of the term regenera- tion, that while, as we have seen, the Fathers deny that any spiritual change was effected by the bap- tism of John, or that it could impart the Holy Ghost, or secure the pardon of sin, yet they speak of it as regeneration. How far this will explain the use of the term in the early Fathers, as a sign of regenera- tion when applied to baptism, I leave for the con- sideration of the reader. Irenzus says, “ Jesus, committing to his disciples the power of regeneration, said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” The remainder of the passage deserves attention. Irenzeus evidently thought of a regeneration of the Spirit, distinct from baptism by water ; for he adds, “‘ He promised by the prophets, that in the last times, he would pour out his Spirit upon his servants and his handmaids, that they should prophesy. Whence also this same Spirit descended upon the Son of God, made the Son of man, with him accustomed to dwell in the human race, and to rest in man, and to abide in the creature wrought * Pedagog. lib. i. c. 6, σήμηρον ἀναγενηθεὶς ὁ Χριστός. ὁ Contra Jovinian. lib. i. 258 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. upon by God, working the will of God in them, and renewing them from this old state into the newness of Christ.”* This renewing into Christ is represented as the operation of the Holy Spirit, and, therefore, as distinct from the regeneration committed to the apostles. So far as we can ascertain, the opinions of Irenzeus coincide with those of Justin Martyr. We now come to Tertullian, to Clement of Alex- andria,’ to Origen, and to the other writers of the beginning of the third century; and here we are * Protestatem Regenerationis demandans discipulis, dicebat eis: Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Fili et Spiritus Sancti. Hune enim promisit per prophetas, effundere se in novissimis temporibus, super servos et ancillos, ut prophetent. Unde et in Filium Dei Filium hominis factum descendit cum ipso assuescens habitare in genere humano et requiescere in hominibus et habitare in plasmate Dei voluntatem Patris operans in ipsis et renovans eos ἃ vetustate in novitatem Christi. lIren. adv. Her. lib. ili. c. 19. Some other references to baptism occur, but they are too brief and obscure to afford any assistance in this inquiry. See lib. i. ec. 18. δ᾽ If the Epitome of Theodotus, appended to the works of Clement, can be supposed to represent his opinions on the subject of baptism, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration must, in his age, have expanded in its full bloom and perfection. More astonishing representation of the wonderful power of baptism is not to be found in the fourth or fifth century. Although in these passages, be they of Clement, or of Theodotus, or of whatever divine, there are some references to the internal baptism as distinct from the external, and the celestial water as distinguished from the earthly, which would intimate that the writer held some spiritual and correct views; yet baptism is repre- sented as exerting a mystic and most marvellous power upon the soul. The great danger is, lest the unclean spirits should go down with the man into the water, and so acquire the holy seal of baptism with him. But the most extraordinary proof of the regenerating power of baptism—the experimentum crucis, is, that even destiny— ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 259 compelled to surrender the argument. Although there are some exceptions, some passages at variance with others, some contradictions, and some limita- tions, some remarks arising out of controversy, and some earnest warnings against the abuse of sacra- ments, out of all which, a thorough partizan might easily construct a fair and plausible argument against the Tractarian hypothesis; yet we feel bound can- didly to acknowledge, that baptismal regeneration— sacramental efficacy in some form, becomes the gene- ral doctrine of the Christian church, from the close of the second century. In making this admission we claim the right of appending to it some qualifications. Although there is sufficient evidence to compel us to acknowledge that the teachers of the Christian church, in the third century, had departed from what we believe to be the simplicity of Christ, yet no con- sistent theory of baptismal regeneration can be so the awful, resistless, inflexible ἡ εἱμαρμένη, which with absolute sway ruled the Grecian gods—loses its power over the man when he enters the baptistery, for as he becomes a new creature, so the nativi- ties of his horoscope are reversed—and the astrologers can predict nothing more respecting him—péypse τοῦ βαπτίσματος οὖν ἡ εἱμαρμένη, φασιν; ἀληθής" μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔτι ἀληθεύουσιν οἱ ἀστρολόγοι. This book is often considered to represent in epitome the lost Institutes of Clement, but I cannot believe, independently of the discrepancy in other particulars, that such absurdity existed in the church or the school of Alexandria, corrupted as it was with the new Platonism, so early as the age of Clement—much less that it was extracted by him, or by any one else, from an earlier author. Theodotus is usually regarded as a heretic, but such superstition would be unpar- donable in a pagan. According to Photius, however, nothing can be too bad to attribute to the Hypotyposes of Clement. Bib. cix. s 2 260 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. deduced from their writings as to enable us to say with confidence, this is the accredited doctrine of the third or even of the fourth century. As there was no standard of faith other than Scripture to which they could appeal, and as they recognised among themselves no infallible head, no vicar of Christ upon earth, we have no right to assume that there existed among them unity of faith upon a doc- trine which was nowhere proposed for the considera- tion of any general convention, nor expounded with the logical precision of authorised formularies. In the meagre symbols of their creeds, the nature of the sacraments occupied no prominent place. Whatever they thought of baptismal regeneration, they might have honestly professed without dissent- ing from the Apostles’ or the Nicene creed. There was only a general concurrence of teachers, not a uniform doctrine of the church. If there had been, we should none the less insist upon a final appeal to Scripture ; but the view we have taken will account for the inconsistencies of expression, and apparent varieties of opinion, which are to be found in the several writers. We have also to consider, that we are embarked in a controversy of which the ancients knew nothing whatsoever. Had this discussion sprung up in the beginning of the third century, it is impossible to say how Origen, or Cyprian, or any other writer, would have expressed himself, when every word would be carefully considered, lest it should be abused; as it always is of extreme difficulty to ascertain what ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 261 would have been the opinion of any man upon a controversy, which was not agitated until a subse- quent age. After the council of Nice, it is easy to infer, from the style of the writer, whenever he approached the disputed point, whether he was Homousian, or Homoiousian, Athanasian, or Arian, unless he guile- fully concealed his opinion ; but is it so easy to deter- mine respecting Origen or any of the earlier writers ? I ask any candid Trinitarian, if he is thoroughly satisfied with the ante-Nicene testimonies to the divinity of our blessed Saviour, considered as exposi- tions of their doctrine? Is he able clearly to ascertain from their writings, the opinions of any class of Christian divines, the criticising Origen, or the philo- sophising Clement, the platonic Justin, or that most unplatonic of mortals, Tertullian? Until their lan- guage was winnowed by the agitation of controversy, the doctrine does not appear distinctly and formally enunciated. The faith, I doubt not, of most of them was sound, but it is not clearly or consistently ex- pressed. So in appealing to the early Fathers upon the subject of sacramental efficacy, we are consulting them upon a subject which we do not know they ever seriously studied. They frequently reproved such as neglected or abused the sacraments, and hence they employed a loose and _ rhetorical style; but they no more thought of protecting the faithful by logical definitions, from the angry contro- versies of a subsequent age, than they did of fortifying their churches by ramparts against the future attacks of Goths or Saracens. As Bishop Hurd well says of 262 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. appeals to the Fathers, ‘The matters of debate are, for the most part, such as had never entered into the heads of those old writers, being indeed of much later growth, and having first sprung up in the barbarous ages ; they could not, therefore, decide on questions which they had no occasion to consider, and had in fact never considered, however their loose and figura- tive expressions might be made to look that way by the dexterous management of controversialists.” It should also be observed that the Fathers, when speak- ing of baptism without an epithet, sometimes mean the baptism, not of water, but of the Holy Ghost, the βάπτισμα Π]νευματικόν, as when Gregory Nazianzen says,“ “Jesus baptized, that is, with the Spirit.” Some of their lofty eulogies refer to this celestial baptism, as Irenzeus speaks of the celestial water. From Augustine alone many passages of an opposite tendency might readily be selected, although the great stream of ecclesiastical authority, notwithstand- ing some eddies and whirlpools, was proceeding in his time with a strong and irresistible force in one direction. To the eye accustomed to the New Testa- ment, the anti-Christian character of Catholic theo- logy appears too manifest to be mistaken for the evangelical truth. The mystery of iniquity throws off her veil, and exposes her countenance to the multitude, who had lost almost all acquaintance with the apostolical doctrine. The churchmen who represent Jewel's Apology as the ablest defence of the @ Orat. xXxxix. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 263 Protestant faith, although the good bishop says, ‘‘ We, the English Reformers, have approached as nearly as we possibly could do the church of the apostles and the ancient catholic bishops and Fathers which we know was yet a perfect, and as Tertullian saith, an unspotted virgin, and not contaminated with any idolatry or any great or public error,’* may speak with more caution, because they contend with Tract- arians in a false position; but we think it best honestly to confess the fact, and deal with it as well as we can. With this confession, which we are compelled to make, how shall we carry on the dispute with Tractarians ? We are now brought to the rule of faith, and ground of authority in religion. If the Fathers are irrevocably to decide, and ecclesiastical authority is to be Christian law without appeal, we must quietly submit; but, then, let our opponents say plainly and decidedly how far we are bound by the authority of the ancient church. Is every obiter dictum of the Fathers to be cited for gospel? The preponderance of testimony, we admit, is greatly against us; but still, if the Fathers be declared infallible, we can pro- duce counter-testimony, not indeed, nearly equal in amount, but quite sufficient to confute the claim of infallibility. If they be not infallible, how can we safely rely upon their authority, as, even supposing they had the general, although not the uniform and unfailing guidance of the Spirit, how do we know that baptism may not be one of the very few points, if CE Ona pm Way 264 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. very few they were, on which they have fallen into error? Without the assertion of infallibility, the appeal to the Fathers is unsatisfactory; but where they contradict one another, and we have “ coun- cils against councils, Fathers against Fathers, and Fathers against themselves,” the assertion of infalli- bility would only provoke a smile. On this very question it is easy to adduce numerous passages from the Fathers, in manifest opposition to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; but these will prove, not that the doctrine was rejected by the primitive church, but that fallible men were often inconsistent with one another as well as with them- selves. The following instances may suffice to illus- trate this remark. The baptism of Simon Magus is referred to by Jerome,* by Augustine,’ Cyril of Jeru- salem,° and others, to show that the baptism of the body is not sufficient for the purifying of the soul. “Simon Magus,” says Cyril, “‘ approached the wash- ing. He was baptized, but not illuminated. His body was baptized with water; but his heart was not illuminated with the Spirit.” Baptism is by no term more frequently designated than by illumination, yet Cyril here distinguishes baptism from illumination, as elsewhere he distinguishes it from regeneration. “1 speak not,” he says, “of the regeneration of the body, but of the spiritual regeneration of the soul.” 4 @ Comment. in Ezek. xvi. 4. δ᾽ Aug. contra Cres. Grammat. lib. ii. c. 15. Expos. in Evan. Joan. Tract. vi. in Ps. ciii. 1, 9. © Proém. in Catech. @ Catech. 1. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 265 He speaks of persons, though baptized, as not buried with Christ, and not having on the wedding garment, and charges the baptized to keep the seal unbroken,* which, however, in another place he calls indissoluble. Yet no man extols baptism more than Cyril. ‘‘Great indeed,” he says, “‘is the baptism which is offered to you. It is a ransom to captives, and the remission of your offences; the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul, the garment of light, the holy and indissoluble seal, the chariot to heaven, the pleasure of paradise, the obtaining of the king- dom, the gift of adoption.”? But on this subject no writer speaks more de- cidedly than Augustine, whom I quote because he seems elsewhere to assert the inseparable connexion between baptism and regeneration, in which assertion, so often adduced, one of two things is certain: either that he contradicts himself in this particular, or else that by regeneration he means only the external privilege of an accredited Christian, the outward or church state into which he is introduced by baptism. Either supposition will shake the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, founded upon this great ecclesiastical authority. What language can be more express than that of St. Augustine, when he says, ‘‘ The washing of regeneration is indeed common to all who are bap- tized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but the grace of regeneration, of which these are the sacraments, by which the members 2 Proém. ὃ Ibid. 266 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. of Christ’s body are regenerated with their Head, is not common to all; for heretics, and false brethren in the communion of the Catholic name, have the same baptism as ourselves.”* In another place he says, “It is clearly shown that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, and the conversion of the heart another. Nor if one of them be wanting, must we conclude that the other is also wanting, because that” (baptism) “‘ without this,” (conversion,) ‘may be in an infant, “while in the thief without doubt this” (conversion) “existed without that,” (baptism.) “ Baptism may exist where conversion of heart is not, and conversion of heart may be where baptism is not understood.”? So Augustine speaks of baptism as regeneration where he cannot mean a spiritual change, for he speaks of Simon Magus being baptized without charity, as having been brought forth by the church, but having been born in vain; and adds, ‘‘it might have been better for him not to have been so born.”* Again, Augustine considers Simon Magus to have been ¢ Are we to conclude that Augustine is inconsistent with him- regenerated to a greater condemnation. @ Sicut et nunc, jam revelata fide que tune velabatur, omnibus in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti baptizatis commune est lavacrum regenerationis ; sed ipsa gratia cujus ipsa sunt sacramenta, qua membra corporis Christi cum suo capite regenerata sunt’ non communis est omnibus. Nam et heretici habent eundem baptismum, et falsi fratres in communione catholici nominis. August. Enarr. in Ps. lxxvii. ® Aug. de Bap. lib. iv. ο. 25. * Quia caritas ei defuit, frustra natus est. De Bap. cont. Donat. lib, αὶ ὁ. 10: @ In. Ps: cil. a. ΩΣ ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 267 self, or that in commending the virtue of baptism she sometimes employs rhetorical exaggeration, which must be corrected by his more sober statements? Be this as it may, there is no ecclesiastical writer who more clearly asserts the distinction between baptism and a moral and spiritual change of heart; and refreshing it is to turn from the tumid phraseology of Chrysostom and the Greeks to something like the simplicity of Christ in the African Fathers. If it be easy, on the one hand, to adduce some passages in favour of the high mystery of baptism, it is not difficult, on the other, to find many distinctly im- pugning the doctrine which Tractarians defend. We have glanced at the testimony of the Fathers, and expressed our belief that, although from the close of the second century they generally teach the doctrine of the sacramental efficacy of baptism for the remission of sin, and for the regeneration of the sinner, a clear and consistent statement of the doctrine is not to be collected amidst the conflicting assertions of their venerable folios. Sometimes they appear to make baptism, if duly administered, the infallible means of salvation, the unfailing channel of grace ; according to Athanasius, who says, without any limitation, ‘‘ He who is baptized puts off the old man, and as born from above, is renewed by the grace of the Spirit.”* Sometimes they make the virtue depend upon the faith of the recipients, as Jerome, α Ὃ δὲ βαπτιζόμενος τὸν μὲν παλαιὸν ἀπεκδιδύσκεται" ἀνακαινίζεται δὲ, ὡς ἄνωθεν γεννηθεὶς, τῇ τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριτι. Athan. in illud Evan. Quicunque dixerit Oper. vol. i. p. 767. 268 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. who, speaking of heretical baptism, says, “ which may be understood not only of heretics, but of such in the church as did not receive with a full faith her salutary baptism; they received the water, yet did not receive the Spirit.”* And sometimes they repre- sent the faith of the sponsors as the means of securing the grace of baptism; as the author of the work entitled “Questions and Answers to the Orthodox,” appended to the works of Justin Martyr, but assuredly not written by him, says of children, ‘ They are accounted worthy of the blessings obtained through baptism, by the faith of those who offer them.”’ And sometimes conversion is declared to have preceded baptism, and baptism is only the sealing, or assurance, or act of faith, as when Tertullian says, ‘‘ The laver is the sealing of faith, which faith begins from the faith of penitence. We are so washed, not that we may cease from sinning, but because we have ceased since we were already washed in heart, for this is the first baptism of the hearer.’”° Nor will it be difficult to cite from St. Augustine different passages which seem to prove these several views of baptism; so « Quod quidem non solum de hereticis, sed de ecclesiasticis, intelligi potest qui non plena fide accipiunt baptismum salutarem. Quod acciperint Aquam sed non acceperint Spiritum. Hieron. Comment. in Ezek. xvi. 4, 5. ὁ »Αξιοῦνται δὲ τῶν dia τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἀγαθῶν, ty πίστει τῶν προσφερόντων αὐτὰ τῷ βαπτίσματι. Quest. et Respons. ad Orthod. Quest. lvi. in oper. Justin. ¢ Lavacrum illud obsignatio est Fidei: que Fides a Pcenitentie fide incipitur et commendatur. Non ideo abluimur ut delinquere desinamus, sed quia desiimus, quoniam jam corde loti sumus. Hee enim prima audientis intinctio est. Tertull. de Poenit. § 7. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 269 that as far as that great doctor of the African church is an authority, it is not easy to say which party have the best right to claim the sanction of his venerable name. A great and extraordinary man he undoubtedly was, the chief luminary of the Latin church, to whom it is under inestimable obligation ; but it is not easy upon any system, and least of all the Tractarian, to reconcile his various statements on Christian baptism. Keeping in view the passages in which he so clearly and expressly distinguishes the washing of regenera- tion from the grace of regeneration, the baptism of water from that of the Spirit; considering also, as we noticed in a preceding lecture, that he speaks of circumcision as having had the same relation to the new life in the old covenant, as baptism has under the new; and that as none of the Fathers regarded circumcision to be a means of grace, this opinion is as opposed to baptismal regeneration, as it is to the prevalent doctrine of the ancient church; and em- ploying his own principle that on account of the resemblance, the sacrament is sometimes spoken of as the thing signified ; so that even when he founds the necessity of baptism upon the doctrine of original sin, he may only mean there could be no need of the sign, if there was not of the thing signified,—we may regard Augustine as the most evangelical of the later Fathers on the subject of baptism. With regard to children, we doubt not he means by the regeneration of baptism little else than admission into a church state. How else can we understand him, when he 270 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. says, ‘In baptized infants the sacrament of regene- ration precedes, and if they retain Christian piety, conversion follows in the heart, of which the mys- tery preceded in the body?”* And even with regard to adults, how else can we reconcile his language with his decided and strong views of grace and predestination? In these remarks upon Augus- tine, I do not intimate that he avowedly differed from his contemporaries, nor do I say that he agreed with them; but as he has written more largely and distinctly upon the subject of baptism, we have better oppor- tunity of ascertaining his opinions, and certainly many passages are very stubborn in the hands of Catholic theologians. The Jesuits acted with their wonted craft and skill in opposing the Dominican notions of the preponderating authority of St. Augustine; and we think the Anglo-Catholics have as much reason to fear his views of baptism, as had the Jesuits his doctrine of free grace and _ predes- tination. But having admitted that the doctrine of @ In baptizatis infantibus, precedit Regenerationis Sacramentum : et, si christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequitur etiam in corde conversio, cujus Mysterium precessit in corpore. August. de Baptism. cont. Donat. lib. iv. c. 24. The following passage, cited by Mr. Faber, is translated by him, “ When little children are baptized, no less a thing is done than that they are incorporated into the church. Nihil agitur aliud, cum parvuli baptizantur, nisi ut incorporentur ecclesie ; id est, Christi corpori membrisque socientur. De Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. Cont. Pelag. lib. iii.c. 4.” We insist upon the literal version. Nothing else is done when little children are baptized, except that they are incorporated with the church; that is, they are associated with the body and members of Christ. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 271 baptismal regeneration in some form, if nét in that of the Tractarians, is supported by the preponderance of ecclesiastical authorities, we are not bound to find the explanation of their apparent contradictions. The moderate theologians of the English church, who represent baptism as one means of regene- ration, which although frequently effectual some- times fails, have endeavoured, upon the accom- modation of their theory, to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies of ecclesiastical writers. We noticed this scheme in the previous part of this lecture in reference to the scriptural testimony, and we must now say it does not meet the requirement of the case in reconciling ecclesiastical authorities, and it imposes peculiar and pressing difficulties upon its supporters. Baptism, according to this theory, is a charm which sometimes succeeds and sometimes fails. The efficacy of the water is dependent, it may be thought, upon the dispositions of the parties receiving it ; but if their good dispositions exist previously to the baptism of the Spirit which is bestowed solely in consideration of them, we are brought directly upon the Pelagian heresy of the prevenient grace of congruity, in the support of which no true son of the church would expose himself to the fierce anathemas of his mother. If, on the contrary, baptism is in some instances effectual without previous faith, and in some instances it is not, we are compelled to admit that it is or is not regeneration according to an arbitrary appoint- ment of God, of which no man can ascertain anything with certainty. This middle path has, we conceive, 272 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. all the objections of the Tractarian doctrine, nor does it afford the least aid in explaining the conflicting statements of the Fathers. A reference to the passages we are about to cite for another purpose, will show that if the holy bishops and martyrs of the ancient church are to be admitted as the witnesses of evan- gelical doctrine; if their voices, not always harmonious, are to be heard as authorised preachers of the new covenant; then not the views of the moderate church- man, nor even those of the loftiest Tractarian, suffi- ciently exalt and magnify the wonderful properties of illuminating, quickening, sanctifying, absolv- ing, immortalizing baptism. There is no medium which we can find between being content with scriptural authority in receiving baptism as a symbol, and admitting the exposition of the Fathers in sup- port of the most extravagant and incredible dogmas. At these dogmas it becomes necessary for our purpose to take a rapid glance, as the argument in favour of baptismal regeneration chiefly depends upon the authority of the venerable men, “ wiser than any persons” of this degenerate age, who pro- pounded them. It is proper we should consider the extravagances and superstitions which we shall be compelled to adopt, if we admit their authority as our directory of faith and practice on the sub- ject of Christian baptism, especially with no more discriminating rule of interpretation than that which Tractarians apply in citing every sentence of any old writer not branded with heresy, as an authority in religion. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 273 In reasoning with Tractarians, I do not press the argument from the incredible superstitions which some of the Fathers attached to the baptismal service, in order to show that their authority proves a great deal too much, for I scarcely know what Tractarians will acknowledge to be incredible or superstitious. Dogmas, which but a few years ago would have been instantaneously rejected, are now received with veneration ; and practices then invariably repudiated, are now pronounced to be of considerable authority. The influence of the theory is progressive, so that we cannot conjecture what practice or belief, if only it be ancient, will be, in a few years, regarded as superstitious. I think, however, every person should know whither the plausible argumentation of the Oxford theologians, if fairly pursued, will assuredly conduct him; and should seriously consider how far he is prepared for the inevitable result. First of all, it was believed that the element of water at the creation, by the Spirit of God moving upon it, received a peculiar and specific virtue, by which it was especially fitted and appropriated to cleanse and sanctify the soul. Of the meta- physical impossibility of the power of water, or any other material substance, by contact with the body to effect a moral and spiritual change upon the soul, our opponents in their sublime contempt of metaphysics and philosophy may take no account, or probably convert it into an argument in their favour, with the ancient Credo quia impossibile est. We have only to say, we are very thankful that in τ 274 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Holy Scripture our faith is subjected to no such rigorous test. Tertullian deems it necessary in the commencement of his treatise on Baptism thus to extol the excellency of water :—‘ You have, O man, first to venerate the age of water, because it is an ancient substance, and next its dignity, because it was the seal of the Holy Spirit more agreeable to him than the other elements. Thus the nature of water, sanctified by the Holy One, itself received the power of sanctifying.” And again, “ All waters, from that first prerogative, at their very origin, when God has been invoked, obtain the sacramental power of sanctifying.”* Allusions to the same wonderful power may be found in Ambrose, in Jerome, and others, of which Dr. Pusey says, “‘ Their view seems to have been of this sort,—that since God had appointed the use of water for baptism, there must have been an appropriateness in it; and again, God imparted to the physical agent properties corre- sponding to its moral uses.”’ . Yet this ancient virtue and first prerogative of water do not seem to have been sufficient, for the doctrine of the Fathers as with one voice is, that our Lord submitted to baptism that he might sanctify water to the washing away of sin, and impart to it the power of cleansing the soul. St. Ambrose, for instance, says, that ‘the waters « De Baptismo, § 3, 4. ὁ Dr. Pusey adduces on this curious subject the prayer of the old Latin liturgy: “‘O God, whose Holy Spirit was in the very rudi- ments of the world borne above the waters, that the nature of the waters might even then receive the power of sanctifying.”— Tract on Baptism. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 275 were washed by the flesh of Christ, that they might have the power of cleansing us from sin.”* This doctrine is recognised in the baptismal office of the church of England, ‘ Almighty and everlasting God, who... . by the baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, in the river Jordan, didst sanctify water to the mystical washing away of sin.” It has been asked in the Tractarian controversy again and again, From what scripture do those who reject the authority of tradition derive this doctrine, for unless the evan- gelical clergy had some ground for their belief, they would not solemnly thank God for the sanctification of water? The answer, I am sorry to say, is long delayed, and the evangelical clergy seem to be content with tradition as the only reason of their belief in that most orthodox and catholic doctrine of the ancient church, Oriental, and Greek, and Latin, that Christ by his baptism sanctified all water, that it might by its cleansing efficacy wash away the sins of the baptized; unless, indeed, as they repudiate tradi- tion, their faith in this doctrine of the sanctification of water, is faith in the Ist of Elizabeth, or in the 14th of Charles the Second, commonly called the Act of Uniformity. Why do they not reply to the Tractarians, and give us their authority, if it be any- thing else than the royal arms of England prefixed to an act of parliament? With some inconsistency the English church, having already recognised the fact of the double sanctification of all water, presents @ Ambr. Exp. Ev. sec. Luce. 1. ii. ὃ 83. 7 2 276 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. the prayer: “‘ Regard, we beseech thee, the supplica- tions of thy congregation—sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin.” In this inconsistency, however, the ancient church had its full share, for the consecration and exorcism of the water formed an important part of the baptismal ceremony. “‘It is proper,” says Cyprian, that the water be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may have the power in baptism to wash away the sins of him who Ya is baptized. So the council of Carthage decreed in his time that “the water, when sanctified by the prayer of the priest, washes away sins.” But I need not multiply citations, as the sanctification of the water is in the ecclesiastical writings often represented as an indispensable part of baptism. All this is asserted by ecclesiastical writers of the best credit in the early ages; and, contradictory as the several propositions appear, and absolutely impossible as it seems, that water should have any power of excul- pating the guilty, or sanctifying the depraved, all this is received as of indubitable certainty on the authority of the ancient catholic church. But may we not ask, why do Tractarians stay at the triple sanctification of water, instead of following the venerable authority of ancient and orthodox saints, as far as their doctrine can be ascertained, or their exam- ple proposed? Or do Tractarian writers, proceeding further in the same course, for this is no resting- place, and they profess to look higher than to profane * Cyprian. Ep. 70. See also Tertullian. De Bapt. ¢. 4. ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, Pyar acts of parliament, practise some degree of reserve, and conceal their views in loose and indefinite lan- guage, intimating rather than asserting the revival of the great wonders of antiquity? Why not consist- ently and uniformly follow the authority of the ancients ? Why not maintain the presence of Christ’s blood in the water after consecration with Gregory Nazianzen,* and Basil,” and Prosper,’ and Jerome,’ and many others? Why not declare that the consecrated water is red as it moves in the blessed font of immortality?’ Why not say with Isidore, that it is really the water which flowed from the side of Christ? Why not avow with Cyril of Alexandria, and others, the orthodox doctrine of a transelementation of water, so that by consecration its nature is completely changed? Why not with the old writer appended to Clement, assert that in bap- tism the horoscope is reversed, to the confusion of the astrologers ?/ But where can we stop in these inquiries ? We might go through a long series of similar questions until we reached the climax of absurdity, or rather of blasphemy, and ask, Why not believe with Leo, the pontiff, that a man, after baptism, is not the same as he was before, but the body being regenerated, becomes the flesh of Him who was crucified ?? These opinions are all more or less dependent upon the same authority, the same * Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. ὁ Basil. De Bapt. lib. i. c. 2. ° Prosper. De Promissis, lib. ii. cap. 2. 7 Hieron. in Esai. i. 16. © Aug. Tract. ii. in Joh. 7 Theodoti Epit. p. 800. Ed. Colon. ® Leo Serm. 14, de Passione. 278 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. traditions, the same holy Fathers, sainted bishops, and blessed martyrs, as are the acknowledged doc- trines of the Tractarian party. I have no right, however, to assume, in asserting that these doctrines are supported by ecclesiastical authority, that they prove more than Tractarian writers are prepared to acknowledge at the proper opportunity. In their writings may be found so many references to these statements, without a word of exception, or of suspicion, or of surprise, and so much equivocal and indefinite language respecting them, that it is impossible to say, whether they do or do not believe these marvellous powers and wonderful transelementations in baptism. I think their readers have a right to know more distinctly their opinions on these subjects than as yet they have chosen to divulge. When they celebrate the virtues of holy baptism in the verse of their favourite poem, “ The Christian Year,” which Dr. Pusey prefixes as his motto, ‘‘ What sparkles in that lucid flood, Is water by gross mortals eyed, But seen by faith, ’tis blood Out of a dear Friend's side.” We have aright to inquire, whether to see by faith means to believe; and whether they really follow antiquity so far as to believe that the water of baptism becomes blood, or is mingled with blood after consecration; or if they do not, why they are so fond of the ancient terms, and what sense they assign to them. When writers of this school ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 279 speak of the incarnation of Christ being imparted to us, and of our being baptized into his body really, and of his descending by the union of baptism into us bodily, we ought to inquire, do they mean the trans- formation of the body of the baptized into the person of Christ; or, if they do not, what is the precise meaning of the language they employ? They some- times speak as if, by baptism, the element of the resurrection of the body was implanted by the union with Christ, the resurrection and the life, all which is indeed very ancient and catholic; but do they mean that the bodies of the unbaptized will not rise at the last day? Many similar inquiries are suggested by the indefinite and obscure statements of Tractarian writers, who advert to the language of the Fathers, without saying distinctly whether they receive it in its obvious meaning, or with some reservation. Distinct statements ought to be demanded on ques- tions of such vast importance, that we may know how far this portentous movement has already pro- ceeded. Its future course is sufficiently obvious. But whatever may be the benefits of baptism, as they are taught by the Fathers, we have a right to inquire of the Tractarians, and, indeed, of all church- men who maintain regeneration in baptism on the authority of catholic antiquity, how they know that they inherit the ancient blessings, seeing that they administer the sacred rite after a mode so exceedingly different? Either the holy Fathers, ‘ wiser and better than any who live in these degenerate days,” added many superfluous and superstitious ceremonies, to 280 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. which, however, they attributed great importance, or the modern baptism of the church is a maimed and defective rite, destitute of many indispensable proper- ties. Of catholic theology, prostrate with unqualified submission before the shades of departed saints, and never venturing to whisper a doubt at the sight of a mitre, appearing greater than life in the dim haze of antiquity, especially if stained with the blood of martyrdom, we have a right to ask, If church cus- toms be of authority, and ancient traditions be valid, and venerable bishops be the best guides, and the universal voice of the uncorrupted church, (before its catholicity was rent by schisms,) be infallible, where now are the various orders of the docile catechu- mens and the learned catechists, carefully preparing in their prescribed courses for the regeneration of the next festival? Where the studied reserve respecting the mysteries of the baptistery, which the initiated might on no account disclose, and on which the eyes of the profane were not permitted to gaze? Where the powerful exorcism by breathing upon the candi- date, and expelling from him the demon, who, if by misfortune he were baptized with the catechumen, would pollute and desecrate the thrice-hallowed water? And where the consecration of the element, by pouring on it the holy chrism in the form of the cross, and driving from the font the unclean spirits who love to dwell in water, where they lave and cool their parched limbs? And where the courageous renunciation of the devil, with the face turned boldly towards the west, and the hand raised in resolute Pt ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 281 defiance? And where the anointings before and after baptism with the sacred oil, itself by consecration of the bishop having mystically received the Holy Spirit ? And where the most expressive emblem of putting off the old man, by putting off the apparel, that the can- didates, being naked as at their nativity, might be born again as babes in Christ? And where the white robes, the garments of salvation, emblem of the new and glorious nature? And where the trine immersion, great mystery of mysteries, as it signified the three witnesses of the spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three days of Christ’s burial, and the three Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity ? And where the lighted tapers held by the newly baptized, as the proper sign of illumination? And where the milk and honey consecrated on the altar, and placed on the tongue as the foretaste of the fruits of the heavenly Canaan? And where the salt of incorruption, and the gay wreaths of flowers, to crown the regenerate on their natal day? And where the baptismal robe pre- served as the witness against the initiated, if he should ever become apostate to the holy cause to which he was solemnly pledged? And where the many other important ceremonies of ancient times, sanctioned and observed by the great confessors and martyrs, bishops and patriarchs ? Where, I ask, are the ancient baptism, and the honours of the ancient baptistery ? The answer of Tractarians will be, The church is in captivity, the oppression of the secular power is upon it, the pro- fane hand of the civil government has violated the sacredness of the baptistery, rent its veil of awful 282 ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. mystery, exposed its interior to the gaze of the mul- titude, extinguished its lights, cast away its sacred oil, and given it to be the habitation of unclean spirits, who may haunt it with impunity, as they feel no breath of exorcism, hear no voice of adju- ration. The carved work of the sanctuary is broken, and only the scattered stones of Zion remain for the rude altar of her oblations. But have we not aright to inquire, seeing they omit so much of the grand and ancient ceremonial, what authority have they for citing, in defence of their miserably defective rite, all the great and glorious things by which ancient bishops, doctors, martyrs, and confessors, have magnified the full and perfect administration of holy baptism? If the ancient rites of baptism were unmeaning and unauthorised appendages, what becomes of the incontrovertible authority of those who practised them? If they were duly authorised customs of the church, (and they have all the value which tradition or antiquity can confer,) how is the modern church to be assured that in the neglect of these ancient rites her naked baptism has all the validity and virtue of the original and complete sacrament? But why not stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made his people free? Why allow the tyranny of the profane in the house of the Lord? Why not boldly assert by deeds as well as words, by glorious actions rather than by stifled com- plaints, the rights of the church to rule in her own sanctuary ? Why profanely surrender the holy mys- teries of the baptistery, the honours of the cathedral, ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 283 the privileges of the clergy, the rights of the church, and the sceptre of Christ in the hand of his bishop, for a mess of pottage, the miserable secularities, the revenues and baronies, the panis et circences of the civil government of this realm? Above all, why make a great schism in the unity of the catholic church, for the sake of a national church, which has no communion with the rest of Christendom, no provincial assembly worthy of the name, no convo- cation (but a shade) for the regulation of its own business, or the assertion of its doctrine and discipline in the rights of its clergy, the liberties of its people, the solemnities of its worship, and the full adminis- tration of its sacraments? Who would have thought that to the eyes of ecclesiastics the ancient light was so refrangible as to suffer these extraordinary angles of deflection on descending into the denser medium of these dark and degenerate times ? APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. A. Page 234. ΑΝ argument on the inconsistency of the reasoning of those who maintain the doctrine of baptismal regeneration with the evangelical history, similar to that which I have adduced from the words of our Lord to Nicodemus, may be derived from the date of the institution of the Lord’s prayer. The anachronism is quite as palpable. Accord- ing to all writers of this school, the spirit of adoption is the result of regeneration in baptism. The children of God, and they only, have a right to cry, Abba, Father. On this account, the catechumens in the ancient church were most strictly forbidden to be present at the repetition of the Lord’s prayer. From that service, the prayer of the faithful, as Chrysostom calls it, all the unbaptized were most scru- pulously and rigorously excluded. (Chrysost. Hom. 2, in 2 Cor. August. Ser. 42. Tert. De Orat. Dom. Greg. Nyss. Hom. 10, in Ep. ad Coloss., and others.) But were they regenerated by baptism to whom this form of prayer was originally given ? Before the Pente- cost, the disciples were taught to say, Our Father, which art in heaven. On them the noblest privilege of adoption was conferred; and there- fore regenerate, but not through baptism, they were early taught to look up to God as their Father, without the intervention of a sacra- mental service. To give consistency to the theory of baptismal regeneration, the Lord’s prayer should have been reserved as a disci- plina arcani until the day of Pentecost. Equally, if not more glaringly, inconsistent with the Catholic theory of baptismal regeneration, is the anachronism of the favourite notion of Tractarians that Jesus, by his own baptism, sanctified water to the washing away of sin. The doctrine is, that water had no such cleansing virtue until the effusion of the Spirit at the Pentecost ; the assertion is, that this virtue was imparted three years before by the baptism of our Lord, which previous impartation is recognised in the baptismal offices of the English Church. If our Lord, by his baptism, sancti- APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. 285 fied water to the washing away of sin, how did it remain unsanctified until the day of Pentecost ?—if it were unsanctified until the day of Pentecost, how did our Lord sanctify it by his baptism ? The answer to these and similar inconsistencies is, the sainted Fathers knew better than we can know, and they declare all these things to be true. The reasoning we have pursued in respect to the necessity and value of baptism as the medium of regeneration, of which the patri- archs and pious men of the old dispensation were destitute, is precisely that which the Fathers themselves selected in their controversies with the Jews, who insisted upon the necessity and saving virtue of cir- cumcision. As Justin Martyr replies to Trypho, “ The just men and patriarchs who lived before Moses, and regarded none of the things which the Word assures us were originally appointed to be received through Moses, are they saved in the inheritance of the blessed ? And Trypho said, The Scriptures compel me to confess that they are.” Dial. c. Try. p. 292. B. Page 237. ON THE WORD REGENERATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Ir may have been observed, that in the remarks on Titus 11]. 5, I considered the clause, “ the washing of regeneration,” solely in reference to its connexion with the phrase, “ he saveth us,” without interrupting the course of the reasoning by noticing the meaning of the word παλιγγενεσία, translated ‘ regeneration ;’ because its precise meaning, whatever it may be, cannot affect the general argument. In conceding, however, that the washing of regeneration may denote baptism, I am far from conceding that a personal regeneration is in this passage intended. The doctrine of personal regenera- tion is clearly and distinctly taught in many passages of the New Testament, but into those passages is never introduced the word παλιγγενεσία. Although not uncommon in the classics, it is found in only one other place in the New Testament, (Matt. xix. 28,) “Verily I say unto you, That you who have followed me in the regeneration,” or, as the punctuation is uncertain, “in the regeneration ye shall sit upon twelve thrones.” The word manifestly denotes a general and glorious change of the state of things,—the glorious reign of God on earth or in heaven: it seems precisely equivalent to the phrase, the 286 APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. kingdom of heaven. In the classics, the word is applied to the spring of the year, and to the restoration of a conquered country to liberty and independence. Josephus speaks of the Jews, on receiving the decree of Darius for the restoration of their temple, as feasting seven days for the recovery and regeneration (advyyevecia) of their country. In this sense, the apostle seems to refer to the regeneration of the church rather than of individuals, or, in other words, the washing instituted in the kingdom of heaven, the sign of the world to come, the new age rising upon the earth. The Platonists, in imitation of their master, apply the term to the entrance of the soul upon a new state of existence. Plato, in the Meno, (ὃ 14,) represents Socrates citing Pindar and the other divine poets, as saying, that “ the soul of man is immortal, and when it comes to an end, which they call death, then it lives again (πάλιν γίγνεσθαι) and never perishes.” The παλιγγενεσία of the Platonic soul, in the words of the expansion of the Pindaric fragment by some modern translator, was “ Loosened from body, winged and fleet, Freely she mounts to purest sky, No more on earth to live, no more to die. * * Ἄ * Who freed from earthly dross, And every element of body gross, To intellectual bliss in heavenly seat shall climb.” C. Page 255. PASSAGES FROM JUSTIN MARTYR. Some controversy has lately sprung up in Germany respecting the opinion of Justin, on the subject of baptism. He is regarded by some as holding more pure and simple views of this Christian rite than other and later Fathers. In the work on Justin Martyr, by Semisch, recently translated for the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet, Miinscher (Handbuch der Christ. Dogmengeschichte) and Starck (Geschichte der Taufe und Taufgesinnten) are specified as maintain- ing this view of his theology. Semisch himself adopts the opposite opinion, although he does not ascribe to Justin the extravagant notions of the efficacy of baptism which were held by the later eccle- siastics. (See Semisch’ Justin Martyr, translated by J. E. Ryland, APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. 287 vol. ii. p. 330—337.) I append the passages of Justin, translated and sometimes abridged in the lecture, that the reader may form his own opinion, if he have not the opportunity to turn to the writings of the Martyr. "Ov τρόπον δὲ καὶ ἀνεθήκαμεν ἑαυτοὺς τῷ Θεῷ, καινοποιήθεντες, διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐξηγησόμεθα' ὅπως μὴ, τοῦτο παραλιπόντες, δόξωμεν πονη- ρεύειν τὶ ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει. “Ὅσοι ἄν πεισθῶσι καὶ πιστεύωσιν ἀληθῆ ταῦτα τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν διδασκόμενα ν ΄ > \ a 4 , G a . a , Ν καὶ λεγόμενα εἶναι, καὶ βιοῦν οὕτως δύνασθαι ὑπισχνῶνται" εὔχεσθαί τε καὶ αἰτεῖν, νηστεύοντες, παρὰ τοῦ Θεῦυ τῶν προημαρτημένων ἄφεσιν διδάσκονται, ἡμῶν συνευχομένων καὶ συννηστευόντων αὐτοῖς. con ” C289) ἅτ τὰ » “ > % \ , > ΄ ἔπειτα ἄγονται ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔνθα ὕδωρ ἐστι᾿ καὶ τρόπον ἀναγεννήσεως ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀυτοὶ ἀνεγεννήθημεν, ἀναγεννῶνται᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματος γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων καὶ Δεσπότου Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου, τὸ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι τότε λουτρὸν ποιοῦνται" καὶ γὰρ ὁ r 4 “ “ ΄ Χριστὸς εἶπεν, "Av μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, dv εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν > aie “ ᾿ \ Ex WA > \ \ ~ κ \ 4“ οὐρανῶν" (ὅτι δὲ κὰι ἀδύνατον εἰς τὰς μὴτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν τοὺς ἅπαξ γεννωμένους ἐμβῆναι, φανερὸν πᾶσιν ἐστι.) Καὶ διὰ ’Hoaiov τοῦ προ- ΄ © , ” , , , A ς , © φήτου, ὡς προεγράψαμεν, εἴρηται, τίνα τρόπον φεύξονται τὰς ἁμαρτίας οἱ ε ΄ \ a A , \ σ΄ < , \ ἁμαρτήσαντες καὶ petavoovytes’ Ἐλέχθη δὲ οὕτως" λούσασθε, καθαροὶ γένεσθε" ἀφέλετε τὰς πονηρίας ἀπὸ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, μάθετε καλὸν ποιεῖν, κρίνατε ὀρφανῷ, καὶ δικαιώσατε χήραν" καὶ δεῦτε, καὶ διαλεχθῶμεν, λέγει Κύριος. Καὶ ἐὰν ὦσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι ὑμῶν ὡς φοινικοῦν, ὡσεὶ ἔριον λουκανῶ" ‘ γι 5, ς , Φ , ΄“ > A 8 \ > ΄ ΄ καὶ ἐὰν ὦσιν ὡς κόκκινον, ὡς χίονα λουκανῶ. ᾿Ἐὰν δὲ μὴ εἰσακούσητέ μου , ς« ΄ zs ν᾿ ΄ , » 7 a μάχαιρα ὑμᾶς κατέδεται" τὸ yap στόμα Κυρίου ἐλάλησε ταῦτα. “ Καὶ λόγον δὲ εἰς τοῦτο, παρὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἐμάθομεν τοῦτον. co? , \ , ΄ δὶ ἃ > a 3:3 7 ΄ 6 Ἐπείδη, τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν ἡμῶν ἀγνοοῦντες, κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην γεγεννήμεθα ae ε κα ΄ ΄ » ἐξ ὑγρᾶς σπορᾶς κατὰ μίξιν τὴν τῶν γονέων πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἐν ἔθεσι a A oe : φαύλοις καὶ πονηραῖς ἀνατροφαῖς γεγόναμεν᾽ ὅπως μὴ ἀνάγκης τέκνα μηδὲ ἀγνοίας μένωμεν, ἀλλὰ προαιρέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης" ἀφέσεως τε ἁμαρτιῶν, “ LA ΄ σι ΄ ὑπὲρ ὧν προημάρτομεν, τύχωμεν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι ἐπονομάζεται τῷ ἑλομένῳ ἀνα- m cr ΄ - “- “, γεννηθῆναι, καὶ μετανοήσαντι ἐπὶ τοῖς ἡμαρτημένοις, τὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὥλων καὶ Δεσπότου Θεοῦ, ὄνομα" (αὐτὸ τοῦτο μόνον ἐπιλέγοντες, τοῦτον λουσόμενον a γε “ » ao τ ΣῈ ἄγοντες ἐπὶ τὸ λουτρόν. ἤΟνομα γὰρ τῷ ἀῤῥήτῳ Θεῷ οὐδεὶς ἔχει εἰπεῖν" εἰ - > ΄ ΄ , a δέ τις τολμήσειεν εἶναι λέγειν, μέμηνε THY ἄσωτον μανίαν. Καλεῖται de i) A A A «ς rs A ὃ , ΄ - τοῦτο τὸ λουτρὸν φωτισμὸς, ὡς φωτιζομένων τὴν διανοίαν τῶν ταῦτα μανθανόντων.) Καὶ, ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματος δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σταυρώθεντος 5 , aw, z Ξ ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου ὁ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν προεκήρυξε τὰ κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν πάντα, ὁ φωτιζόμενος λούεται. ~ ‘ a , “Kal τὸ λουτρὸν δὴ τοῦτο ἀκούσαντες οἱ δαίμονες διὰ τοῦ προφήτου 288 APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. κεκηρυγμένον, ἐνήργησαν καὶ ῥαντίζειν ἑαυτοὺς τοὺς εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ αὐτῶν ἐπι- βαίνοντας, καὶ προσίεναι αὐτοῖς μέλλοντας, λοιβὰς καὶ κνίσας ἀποτελοῦντας. Τέλεον δὲ καὶ λούεσθαι ἀπιόντας, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ ἱερὰ ἔνθα ἵδρυνται, ἐνεργοῦσι. * * * * “ae - Η Η Η͂ ΄ - Η ῃ \ Ἡμεῖς δὲ, μετὰ τὸ οὕτως λοῦσαι τὸν πεπείσμενον καὶ συγκατατε- θείμενον, ἐπὶ τοὺς λεγομένους ᾿Αδελφοὺς ἄγομεν ἔνθα συνήγμενοι ἐισι, κοινὰς 1} A / « ‘ Ὁ ~ ‘ Lol , ‘ - εὐχὰς ποιησόμενοι ὑπὲρ τε ἑαντῶν καὶ τοῦ φωτίσθεντος καὶ ἄλλων πανταχοῦ πάντων ἐυτόνως" ὅπως καταξιωθῶμεν, τὰ ἀληθῆ μάθοντες, καὶ δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθὸι πολιταὶ καὶ φύλακες τῶν ἐντεταλμένων εὑρεθῆναι, ὅπως τὴν αἰώνιον σωτηρίαν σωθῶμεν.--- Αλλήλους φιλήματι ἀσπαζόμεθα, παυσάμενοι τῶν ἐυχῶν. “Ἔπειτα προσφέρεται, τῷ Προεστῶτι τῶν ᾿Αδελφῶν, ἄρτος καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος. Καὶ οὗτος, λαβὼν, αἶνον καὶ δόξαν τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Yiod καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ᾿Αγίου, ἀναπέμπει" καὶ εὐχαριστίαν, ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιῶσθαι τόυτων παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ πολὺ ποι- εἴται. Οὗ συντελέσαντος τὰς εὐχὰς καὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν, πᾶς ὁ παρὼν λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ, λέγων ᾿Αμὴν. ἙΕὐχαριστῆσαντος δὲ τοῦ Προεστῶτος, καὶ ἐπενφη- 2 A ed ~ « 4 x, € ΄“΄ . ε , μήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, of καλούμενοι Tap’ ἡμῖν Διάκονοι διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ a - yo ~ > , »” ‘ " . τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστήθεντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσιν ἀποφέρουσι. Καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται map ἡμῖν Evxapioria’ ἧς οὔδενι ἄλλῳ μετασχεῖν ἐξόν ἐ ἢ τῷ πιστεύ- ρ᾽ ἡμῖν Εὐχαρ ἣ ᾧ μετασχεῖν ἐξόν ἐστιν, ἢ τῷ > lel \ , «4 c «A \ ΄ ᾿ ξυ ς οντι ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὰ δεδιδάγμενα ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, καὶ λουσαμένῳ τὸ ὑπὲρ > , « “ A > > id 4 XN σ -“ « © ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ εἰς ἀναγέννησιν λουτρὸν, καὶ οὕτως βιοῦται ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς παρέδωκεν.----Οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα, ταῦτα λαμ- βάνομεν.᾽᾿--Φ δῦ Apol. I. cap. 79, 80, 81, 85, 86. In the Dialogue with Trypho, we find several allusions to baptism in the same strain— “ΕΠ τις καθαρὰς οὐκ ἔχει χεῖρας, λουσάσθω, καὶ καθαρός ἐστιν᾽ ov yap ΄- ΄- “ . δή ye εἰς βαλανεῖον ὑμᾶς ἔπεμπεν Ἡσαΐας ἀπολουσομένους ἐκεῖ τὸν φόνον καὶ τας ἄλλας ἁμαρτίας, ods οὐδὲ τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἱκανὸν πᾶν ὕδωρ καθαρίσαι" ἀλλὰ, ὡς εἰκὸς, πάλαι τοῦτο ἐκεῖνο τὸ σωτήριον λουτρὸν ἦν, ὃ εἵπετο τοῖς μεταγινώσκουσι."---ἴ)1}]. cum Tryph. p. 229. Ed. Par. “ Οὐ ταύτην THY κατὰ σάρκα παρελάβομεν περιτομὴν, αλλὰ πνευματικὴν, ἣν Ἑνὼχ καὶ οἱ ὅμοιοι ἐφύλαξαν. Ἡμεῖς γὰρ, διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος αὐτὴν, ἐπειδὴ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐγεγόνειμεν, διὰ τὸ ἔλεος τὸ παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλάβομεν, “ ’ - καὶ πᾶσιν ἐφετὸν ὁμοίως AauBavew.”’—Ibid. p. 261. Again, after having represented the deliverance of Noah as a type of the salvation of Christ, he says, “‘O yap Χριστὸς, πρωτότοκος , , ‘ > A , » 4 ΄ - > ΄ πάσης κτίσεως ὧν, καὶ ἀρχὴ πάλιν ἄλλου γένους γέγονεν τοῦ ἀναγενηθέντος APPENDIX TO LECTURE V. 289 ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δι’ ὕδατος, καὶ πίστεως, καὶ ξύλου τοῦ τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ σταυροῦ ἔχοντος" ὃν τρόπον καὶ ὁ Νῶε ἐν ξύλῳ διεσώθη ἐποχούμενος τοῖς ὕδασι μετὰ τῶν ἰδίων" ὅταν οὖν εἴπῃ ὁ προφήτης. ---Ἰ Ια, p. 367. *Eurov δὲ, δ ὕδατος καὶ πίστεως, καὶ ξύλου δι προπαρασκευαζόμενοι, καὶ μετανοῦντες ἐφ᾽ ὁῖς ἥμαρτον, ἐκφέυξοιται τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐπέρχεσθαι τοῦ Θεοῦ xpiow.”’—Ibid. p. 368. To the mode of interpreting the words, regeneration, illumination, washing, forgiveness, and similar expressions, I have adverted in the lecture. See also the passage which is prefixed, and which, although it refers to Jewish baptisms, intimates that Justin did not regard any baptism of water as an opus operatum, a mystic deed for the salva- tion of the ungodly. He also clearly distinguishes water baptism from the baptism of the Spirit.—Dial. c. Tr. p. 246. LECTURE VI. THE MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ‘* And as I began to speak, 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 with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.”—Aets xi. 15, 16. “ἯΙ: vero qui in ecclesia baptizantur, minus indulgentize et gratia divine consecuti esse videantur, et tantus honor habeatur hereticis, ut inde venientes non interrogentur utrumne loti sint an perfusi, utrumne Clinici sint an Peripatetici.”—Cyprian. Epist. lib. iv. ep. 7. BEFORE we adventure upon the perilous contro- versy respecting the proper subjects of Christian baptism, it may be convenient to defend, as briefly as perspicuity will allow, the opinions we hold upon the mode of its administration. Two inquiries are suggested: the one, Are we bound by the terms of this commission to administer baptism according to the form of words here prescribed; that is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? The other, Is immersion the only proper mode of administering this ordinance ? As to the former inquiry, the command of our Lord seems so clear and absolute, as to admit of no exception. I do not see how any person can baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of THE MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 291 the Holy Ghost, without mentioning the names of these divine Persons; by an act of invocation, im- ploring their blessing; or by an act of authority administering by their commission; or by an act of dedication, devoting the person to their service. I dare not absolutely assert that baptism, in the name of Christ only, would require to be repeated in the full and complete formula, but I maintain that the administrator, so far as he makes this commission his authority, is bound by its terms to baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Before this commission was given, baptism, administered by John into the name of Him who was to come, or by the disciples of Christ into the name of Jesus, was, I believe, legitimate and perfect for all purposes, because it was so ordained by the supreme authority ; but since the recognition of the Persons is distinctly prescribed, to omit any of them would be an act of disobedience to the command of Christ. It is true that in the Acts of the Apostles persons are said to have been “‘ baptized into the name of Jesus;” but in the brief notices of the several baptisms men- tioned in that book, the expression may denote that they received Christian baptism. However that may have been, such incidental notices are not, as authori- ties, to be opposed to the clear, distinct, formal, and express commission of our blessed Lord. I do not assert that the precise words are essential, for if they were, we must use a Greek formulary; but the distinct recognition of the Persons is not the external form, but the great truth of the service. U2 292 THE MODE OF In ecclesiastical antiquity, there is a remarkable uniformity respecting the form of words employed in baptism. From Justin Martyr, who says in the passage cited in the preceding lecture, that “ converts are washed in the name of the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ we find an uninterrupted series of references to this formula. Irenzeus cites it as the commission of regeneration given to the disciples.* Tertullian says, ‘ Christ appointed baptism to be administered, not in the name of One, but Three: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”’ The apostolical canons order bishops and priests to be deposed who presume to baptize in any other way.° Athanasius and others declare such baptism to be void as was performed without the mention of the Trinity ;4 although this was not the general opinion, as in many instances, heretics who had been baptized only in the name of Christ, were admitted into the church with- out re-baptism, on their confession of the Trinity under the hand of the bishop. The dispute on the validity of heretical baptism was made very much to depend upon the use of this formulary, as will appear on consulting the letters of Firmilian and Cyprian on the controversy, which in those times provincial bishops were not ashamed nor afraid to maintain with the bishop of Rome. The trine immersion became catholic, as an immersion before the name of each @ Adv. Her. 1. tii. c. 19. ὁ Cont. Prax. c. 26. * Canon. Apost. ο. 49. 4 Epist. ad Serapion. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 293 Person, and citations to superfluity may be easily found upon the invocation of the Trinity in baptism.“ This discussion, therefore, need no longer detain us. The second and more controverted question re- specting the mode of administering baptism, may be thus proposed. Is it indispensable, in the administra- tion of this rite, to immerse the subject? We believe that immersion is not indispensable,—that pouring or sprinkling is sufficient to constitute the Christian rite which is the emblem of the cleansing of the heart by the truth and Spirit of Christ. But let the opinion we advance be distinctly under- stood. We do not plead for any one specific mode, we do not contend for sprinkling in preference to immersion, except as a question of right or of con- venience. To act only upon the defensive is our purpose. If, however, it be asked, why we do not submit to immersion, seeing we violate no principle, as we have no religious scruple upon the subject, we reply, that to allow anything which is not obviously imposed in a ceremonial observance to be obligatory upon Christians, is to convert a mere form into the substance of a sacrament,—to invest the sign, which may be conveniently changed, with the importance of the immutable truth. To immerse, unless we think it obligatory, for the sake of union, would be, as we conscientiously believe, to concede a principle of more importance than baptism itself. If I eat what « Expos. Fidei, in Opera Justini Mart. p. 377, ed. Par. 294 THE MODE OF I honestly believe to be the Lord’s supper, even though I should use rice for bread, or the juice of the currant for the fruit of the vine, that to me is the act of submission to the legislation of Christ in com- memorating his death; and so if I observe what I believe is Christian baptism, even though I may be mistaken, that observance is to me the act of sub- mission to the legislation of Christ, in receiving what I believe to be the authorised symbol of Christian truth. Who would assert that in the former instance, I, through my mistake, had never eaten the Lord’s supper? To be consistent, he ought to say so, who says that, in the latter instance, I have, through my mistake, not been baptized, even supposing immersion to be the proper mode of Christian baptism. He who denies that the washing which I administer in honest obedience to the command of Christ, is Chris- tian baptism, ought to have very clear and incontro- vertible evidence on which he rests; as he maintains that my conscientious submission to the authority of the King of Zion, in performing a religious ceremony, is invalid, because I have mistaken the form of its administration. Is not this to make a mere form a matter of inherent importance; and is not such a procedure at variance with the spirit of the Christian religion? Sprinkling can be nothing in itself; im- mersion can be nothing in itself; the kingdom of heaven is not in either, but in “ righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ;” each must depend for its validity, whatever that term may mean, upon the command of Christ; that is, upon the conscientious CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 295 construction which each disciple puts upon the words of that command, as he honestly strives to understand it. In any sacrament there is nothing moral, nothing holy, nothing religious, nothing of the least worth, except conscientious obedience to Christ. If I believe that sprinkling is an act of obedience to the command of Christ, in silently submitting to be immersed with no better reason than that no other mode will satisfy my neighbour, I allow him to legislate for me in the kingdom of Christ. His opinion may be honest, it may be correct, and it is law to him; but it must not become law to me. So long as I honestly believe sprinkling with water to be Christian baptism, of what value would immersion be to me, were I to practise it? It would not, in my hands, be submis- sion to the will of Christ, and so far it would not bea religious service. If immersion be rightly observed by others, because they believe it to be the will of Christ, to me, immersion, appearing to have no such authority, would be deprived of all its value. Yet the Baptists declare we have no baptism, deny that to be baptism which we conscientiously believe to be so, on account of a difference in form, and in their controversy among themselves, whether we ought or ought not to be admitted to the Lord’s supper, make the whole of the argument turn upon the question, whether unbaptized believers are admissible to the communion of the Christian church. Their doctrine is that, in reference to a positive ordinance, conscientious obedience to what is honestly believed to be the command of Christ, is not sufficient to constitute the Christian 296 THE MODE OF symbol of the blessings represented, and that we are to be regarded as unbaptized disciples. Can this doctrine be consistently maintained by those who believe that no spiritual virtue is derived either from immersion or from sprinkling? Will they deny that the institution is absolute law to others as they conscientiously interpret it? What can there be important in any sacramental institu- tion, any religious emblem, (unless we admit the Catholic or Tractarian theology,) more than the con- scientious act of obedience to the understood will of Christ? If I believe sprinkling to be baptism, in so administering the rite, and acting according to my interpretation of the commission of Christ, I do that which my Saviour will acknowledge to be what it really is, my sincere act of obedience to his own command. In these things, whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But if I do all that I believe Christ requires, and all that with my present belief Christ does require, who is the man to demand more at my hands, and ascribing to a mere form an importance which does not belong to it, to say, I do not virtually baptize, although to the best of my knowledge, and therefore of my ability, I observe the commission of Christ? Have I no Christian baptism because I do not understand Greek quite so well as my Baptist brother ? for the whole question is resolved into the meaning of a Greek word. If in that learned tongue I cannot say Shibboleth, but only Sibboleth, has he the right for the philological inaccuracy, and for nothing else, to exclude me from the number of those CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 297 who are born of water, and therefore have entered into external relation with the kingdom of God? Good Baptist, be not so severe on an erring brother. Than conscientious obedience to the sacramental command of Christ, what else there is sacred, what else important, what else valuable, I wish you would tell me; as, if there be nothing more, I have, I trust, as well as you, this conscientious obedience, the essence and reality of the sacrament. The principle for which I contend being the very life of all obedience to positive institutions, a prin- ciple distinguished from all formalism, and identified with conscience, with charity, with liberty, with the right of private judgment, and even with the supre- macy of Christ in the church, appears to me far more important than immersion or sprinkling, or any other mode of administering a sacrament. This is our answer to those who say to us, Why do you not, for the sake of union, cease from your sprink- ling, and submit to immersion, to which you acknow- ledge you have no conscientious objection? The Baptist creates the objection, by insisting upon the obligation. I can easily imagine the reply that may be advanced. How far, it may be said, will you carry your prin- ciple? will you acknowledge every kind of service, in whatever way performed, which any person may imagine, in the wild vagaries of his fancy, to be baptism, or the Lord’s supper? To this objection I rejoin, The principle is not to be surrendered, because it may be abused, or because its application in some 298 THE MODE OF supposed instances may be attended with perplexity and doubt. The objection is equally applicable to mixed communion, and to every other recognition of religious acts or religious persons. To the inquiry, How far will you go, and where will you stand? the reply is, So far, and only so far, as I believe the parties being Christian, have in a Christian spirit arrived at their conclusion. I have no hesitation in saying, 1 do not regard the sacrifice of the mass by a Romanist, as the commemoration of the death of Christ, because I do not believe that any Christian man could, with due diligence, honestly arrive at such a conclusion ; but if I see a Christian man of stern temperance principles, who conscientiously believes, after careful and devout examination, that it is his duty to abstain from wine at the supper, and that his ordinary beverage is the proper substitute, if he communicate with bread and water, dare I take upon myself to say he does not commemorate the death of Christ, and observe all that to him is necessary in the supper of the Lord? If he conscientiously thinks that he observes the dying command of his Saviour, who am I, because I believe that wine should be employed, to say that his conscientious act of obedience to the command of his Lord, according to his own honest construction, is not the emblematical commemoration of the death of Christ? To act otherwise, would be not only to walk uncharitably towards my brethren, but to impose my fallible interpretation of a positive precept as a universal rule upon the Christian church. The denial of the principle for which I contend, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 299 involves in it the assertion that Christ has not imposed upon his disciples the duty of observing his positive institutions, according to their own interpretation of his words. I am here contending, not with those who say immersion is right, but with those who say there is no virtual baptism without it; and that I, through my mistake, am not in the kingdom of heaven, or have got into it without being born of water. So important do I consider this principle, that it creates the only interest I feel in the controversy respecting the mode of baptism. To decide upon the comparative merits of sprinkling or immersion would, in itself, occupy very little of my thoughts ; but when I find the assertion positively made and maintained, that sprinkling is no baptism even to those who conscientiously observe it, I am induced to look a little further, and to inquire what is the plain, direct, and incontrovertible evidence in favour of this exclusive mode, the defenders of which are so confident and well satisfied, as to declare all Chris- tians except themselves to be unbaptized. When one party asserts that the Independents have no church, and another that we have no ministry, and a third, about as coolly, in the same exclusive spirit, that we have no baptism, they must excuse us, if in this pitiable and forlorn condition, without apostolic church, ministry, or baptism, we attempt to do a little more than to vindicate our own right to decide for ourselves; and seeing we are thus attacked, to contend for the validity of sprinkling in a controversy 300 THE MODE OF on which the exclusiveness of our opponents has conferred a fictitious importance. I say, the importance is fictitious, for, reasoning from an analogous instance, I do not believe the apostle Paul, were he now living upon earth, would think it worth his while to decide the question between the immersionists and the sprinklers. He, as I think, can be clearly shown, from his conduct in a similar controversy, content with the act of obedi- ence to the command of Christ, according to the understanding of each party, would scrupulously avoid expressing an opinion in favour of either, but would zealously maintain his own doctrine: “ Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” or let every man act upon his own persuasion. I do not wish to affect an air of paradox, but I ask both parties to consider, if this was not precisely his con- duct in the controversy respecting the observance of particular days. ‘‘One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike.” Whether this controversy respected the religious observance of the Lord’s-day, which we believe to be obligatory upon Christians, or whether it respected the Jewish sabbath, which we believe not to be obligatory upon Christians, or whatever was the day esteemed above others, is of no importance in the discussion on which we are entering. The dispute respected a positive institution, and there must have been a right and a wrong in their controversy. The controvertists, in their zeal for truth or party, no doubt plentifully charged each other with disobedience to the positive CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 301 law of Christ, on the one side probably with making a sabbath without Divine authority ; on the other, with breaking a sabbath which Divine authority had made. These men in the apostolic age were the worthy precursors of modern polemicals. How easily might the apostle, in the plenitude of his inspiration, have decided between them! He knew very well whether the day was, or was not, of Divine institution. Although one word from his lips would have silenced the angry disputants, and established the truth, that word he carefully suppressed. He saw on both sides the same unfeigned respect for the authority of Christ; he saw on both sides all that was good in hallowing the day, if it were appointed to be hallowed, or in not hallowing it, if it were not so appointed ; and, therefore, instead of adjudicating the question immediately in dispute, he decided one of far more importance arising out of it, “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” Can we suppose that, were he upon earth, he would construe the dispute upon immersion more strictly than he did the question of the Divine authority of a holy day ? Would he not be content with the service which each party believes to be in accordance with the will of Christ? The fair trans- lation of his words, so as to be intelligible in the noise and turmoil of modern controversy, is, as I think, He that immerseth, immerseth unto the Lord, and he that sprinkleth, sprinkleth to the Lord. All that is good in baptism, both parties retain. This, as 302 THE MODE OF we contend, is the true principle in all positive insti- tutions ; and for little else than the Christian liberty implied in it, are we careful in this lecture. I can, and I do, most conscientiously avow, that I have not the slightest wish to make a single convert to sprinkling. Having no preference for any mode, I only attempt to vindicate our right to be regarded as baptized Christians, to which character we have, I believe, as good a title as any church on earth can supply. We have not entered the temple of Christ without performing the proper ablution at the font which the Divine Architect has placed in its porch. If, in entering the holiest by a new and living way which Christ hath consecrated for us through the vail, we can but satisfy ourselves that our hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience, we are in no trouble because our brethren, as they emerge from the baptistery, say that our bodies are not washed with pure water. Although they insinuate, I am grieved to say it, by the press of the Baptist Tract Society, that we are the least in the kingdom of heaven, we have no desire to adjudicate the position which they occupy in the common temple of. the Lord’s congregation. May both they and we become greater in that kingdom! As it is our opinion that neither the use of the verb βαπτίζω in the New Testament, sustains the conclusion of our Baptist friends on philological grounds, nor even conceding that the word invariably means to dip and nothing else, are we, on that account, so to restrict the administration of the Christian rite, as to exclude pouring and sprinkling, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 303 it would be the most logical arrangement, in the first place, to notice the use and construction of the word, and afterwards to elucidate the principle of interpre- tation for which we contend in reference to positive institutions. It may, however, be more convenient to preserve the connexion of what may be called the theological part of this lecture as distinct from the philological ; and, therefore, for the sake of completing what we have to say upon the principle of interpreting positive institutions, we venture to reverse this order, and to observe, in the first instance, that, even conced- ing the whole of the philological question, we are not restricted to the conclusion of our Baptist brethren ; and in the next, that their philology is not to be con- ceded in the discussion of this question. We con- trovert the conclusion which they deduce from their premises,—we demur to the premises from which they derive their conclusion. I trust that the use of the analytical, rather than the synthetical, order will not obscure the reasoning. If, however, any resolute adherent to logical arrangement should think that we ought first to examine the premises, and afterwards estimate the value of the conclusion, he may, if he please, first read the latter part of this lecture, and then resume the subject from this passage. Many readers will, probably, think it not worth their while to read, in any form, a lecture upon the everlasting dispute between sprinkling and dipping ; and I agree with them, that the dispute in itself is about as trifling as any—vermicular question (Lord Bacon would call it, because the life of the disputants is quickened by the deadness of the subject,) over which the 304 THE MODE OF seraphical doctors of the schools ever sharpened their logical intellects. Were it not for an important prin- ciple of more general application, which is involved in the inquiry, I would not write another line upon such a subject. By this arrangement, faulty as it may seem, I also consult the comfort of the reader who has no taste for philology, and who may safely get through one part of the argument, without being seared by the barbaric forms of dead languages. That our baptism ought to be acknowledged, even if we have mistaken the mode of administering it, I have maintained; because the ordinance itself being only a sign of evangelical truth, the recognition of the truth signified in obedience to the command of Christ, comprehends all that is essential or important. I have now to maintain that we are not labour- ing under mistake, but that we have full liberty, according to the principles of interpretation stated in the New Testament, in construing the words which relate to a positive institution, to consider its nature and design, and preserving the integrity of the emblem, to adopt, in exhibiting it, any mode which is in ac- cordance with its nature, and by which its design may be carried into effect. This principle appears to me not only to be scriptural and important, but to demand a prominent place in theology, as the proper antagonist of Tractarianism, and every other species of formalism. Amidst the tendencies of the present day to magnify the importance of form and ritual, it be- comes us strenuously to maintain, that the signs are made for the things signified, and not the things sig- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 305 nified for the signs,—that the signs are not of the slightest value, any further than they symbolise the evangelical truth. Such a principle, it is con- ceded, is liable to great abuse, and therefore it becomes those who defend it to consider carefully by what restrictions it ought to be guarded, and how it is distinguished from the power of the church to decree rites and ceremonies. Yet, surely, there is an obvious distinction between regarding a sign as having no other importance than that which it acquires from the truth which it signifies ; so that, if the signification of the truth be preserved, all that is important in the sacrament is secured; and ascribing importance to a significant act, because it is ordained by an uninspired church. In the former instance we interpret the command of Christ in the spirit, which, as we believe, he himself has recommended ; in the latter, we observe forms because they are enacted by that notorious usurper, called ecclesias- tical authority. In the former, we say, Christ, the only legislator, has ordained so much and no more; in the latter, men, affecting his authority, have ordained so much and no less. Whether we are right or wrong in our opinion, this distinction is plain, obvious, and undeniable. It is often said by immersionists that in positive institutions we are bound to observe strictly the very words of the precept by which they are appointed, as, unlike moral laws, these institutions have no other authority than that which is derived from the words of the enactment. Mr. Booth and many other Baptist x 306 THE MODE OF writers strenuously insist upon this obligation. We believe that such a representation is more specious than solid, and that it will not bear the proper test οὔ. Scripture. The spirit of moral law is the congruity of the action with the fitness of things; the spirit of positive law is the congruity of the observance with the truth symbolised. In moral obligation, there is aright and a wrong, independently of verbal or written law, which is only an exponent of man’s duty, and cannot be varied without a compromise of truth. In positive institutions, the congruity of the sign, and consequently its propriety, may vary with the changes of circumstances; and in the variation the spirit of the sacrament may be preserved, when the letter has become inappropriate. The phylac- teries of the Pharisees, which incurred the censure of our Lord, arose out of the literal observance of a positive precept, to which neither our Lord nor his disciples ever paid the least regard. The injunc- tion of the Mosaic law was expressed in terms the most distinct and plain—‘“ And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes; and thou shalt write them upon the posts of thine house, and upon thy gates.” Was every Jew obliged by this law to wear the phylactery upon his hand, and the frontlet upon his forehead, and to paint Scripture upon his door-post ? During the scarcity of copies of the law, this institute was probably observed; but the erection of synagogues and multiplication of copies rendering it unnecessary, the observance, like many others corresponding with CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 307 the letter of the law, became Pharisaic, and was so regarded by our Lord. The letter of the sabbatical institution has faded, but its spirit survives in the religious observance of the Lord’s-day. It may happen, that in the mutations of time, the sign may express the reverse of its original signification, and so its unvaried preservation may remain, at the expense of all the significancy of the rite. In such instances, is the external ceremony to be conceded ‘to the evangelical truth, or is the evangelical truth to be sacrificed to the external ceremony? Scripture must decide; but, before I appeal to its decision, let me observe, that our Baptist friends concede the principle for which we contend, and uniformly act upon it in every positive in- stitution, except that of baptism. Let us glance at their deflections from the literality of positive institutions. “Salute one another with a holy kiss,” says St. Paul to the Romans. ‘Greet ye one another with a holy kiss,” he says twice to the Corinthians. “Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss,” he says to the Thessalonians. ‘‘ Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity,” says St. Peter to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Here is a positive institution— unequivocally enjoined by apostolical authority. Churches, in various circumstances, and in distant places, are expressly commanded to adopt a specific mode of salutation. ‘Two apostles ordain the ancient sacrament of the holy kiss, the sacred sign of Christian brotherhood and love. Can as much be said for the sacrament of baptism ? There is in the New Testament X 2 308 THE MODE OF no positive command to Christians generally to be baptized, no command to any except the apostles to administer baptism ; for the original commission was given to the apostles specifically, as is obvious from the assurance of miraculous power with which it was accompanied. That baptism is to be perpetuated in the church is a matter of inference, from the fact of its having been administered by those who were not apostles. But for the sign of the kiss we depend upon no such inference; it is armed with apostolic autho- rity, and allows no room for reasoning ; we have, what we have not with regard either to baptism or the supper, an express command addressed to several churches. We ask our Baptist brethren, are these five verses of the New Testament frivolous and un- meaning ? If it be said the sign of the holy kiss (and we do not read of holy baptism, or of the holy supper, ) was intended only for the apostolic age, we ask, by what argument can this be proved, which does not equally apply to baptism or the supper? A perpetual sign, or sacrament of brotherly affection, may be as desirable for the church, as a perpetual sign or sacra- ment of the death of Christ. The only defence, I imagine, our Baptist brethren can offer—at least the only defence I can make for myself—is, the form or sign of brotherly love may be varied, notwithstanding the express injunction, delivered in words as plain as words can be written, provided we express the thing signified ; and in our churches all that is important in the holy kiss belongs to the right hand of fellowship, or to any other affectionate mode of salutation. The CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 309 kiss is nothing more than a sign which we retain, in a form more expedient in this age, and more ac- cordant with modern feelings. I do not immerse, for the same reason that I do not kiss church-members, with this difference against immersion—baptism was a sign expressly committed only to the apostles, and by us received through inferential reasoning—the kiss was a sign expressly enjoined upon churches; and with this also, in baptism we retain the sign, the use of water, if we change the mode; for the kiss, we substitute entirely a new sign. Sacraments have been defined by Augustine and others, as visible words; and they are signs of truth addressed to the eye rather than to the ear. As to the literal observance of signs, whether visible or audible, deeds done, or words spoken, the principle must be identical. If the disciples of Christ are expressly commanded, in their religious observances, to repeat certain words, or to do certain acts, as the signs of truth, whatever they may think of the question respecting the duty or propriety of literal adherence to those signs, the words and the acts resting upon the same authority, and designed for the same pur- pose, are obligatory in the same degree, but only in the same degree, the one as the other, upon the mem- bers of the Christian church. How then do we decide the question in verbal formularies? ‘‘ One of his disci- ples said, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, (not to the applicant only, but to them all,) ‘ When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven,” and so on. Nothing 310 THE MODE OF can be more express than the words ‘‘ When ye pray, say.” The verbal signs of the Lord’s formulary of prayer are prescribed with quite as much distinctness and directness, as ever were claimed by the most zealous Baptist for the commission to immerse. Must we, therefore, repeat the Lord’s prayer in every devo- tional service? Must we restrict our public devotion to these words? Or do we regard the formulary as simply a guide for our religious exercise, without being restricted to the use of the identical petitions ? Our Baptist friends shall fight this battle on our behalf with such as insist upon imposing this formu- lary in every devotional service. Every argument they adduce in defence of their departure from the form of prayer will tell with equal force against their exclusive practice of immersion ; or if they can devise argument applicable to words but not to acts, their ingenuity greatly surpasseth our poor comprehension. Should it be said the name of the rite is implied in immersion, precisely, we say, as the name is implied in the holy kiss. Sprinkling is in no sense immersion, says the Baptist; And the right hand of fellowship is in no sense a kiss, responds the echo of his aphorism. If he reply, Baptism is a sacrament, a sacred thing, something more than a mere em- blem, then here is the first blush of that Tract- arianism which some of our Baptist brethren have recently and most unwarrantably charged upon us. What is there in a sacrament more than an emblem ? What is there in baptism essentially different from the kiss of charity ? But allowing the mystic sanctity CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 311 of the sacraments to escape without farther remark, let us notice another illustration of our argument in a rite which is admitted to be of at least equal authority with baptism—an illustration derived also from its scriptural and appropriate name. Our Baptist friends admit, (at least I have never heard of any who deny it,) that the apostle, by the phrase κυρίακον δεῖπνον, the Lord’s supper, in the eleventh chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, means the sacramental commemoration of the death of Christ. With them, as with us, the service is com- monly called The Supper of the Lord. But what would our brethren say to any person, who, having studied logic and philology, “after the most straitest should stoutly and stiffly con- ᾽ sect of our religion,’ tend that a repast in the morning could not be the supper of the Lord? Whatever may be the meaning of βαπτίζω, the signification of δεῖπνον in the time of our Lord is incontrovertible. Relying on the proper and literal translation of the word, would the straitest of the Baptists maintain, that when- ever the religious rite is not literally a supper, it is not the authorised and sacramental commemora- tion of the death of Christ? Certainly instituted after sunset, and receiving the name of the evening meal, must it therefore of necessity be invariably solemnised in the evening? Will any say the first Christians, who assembled before day-break to observe this rite, did not come together to eat the Lord’s sup- per? Will they maintain that the modern churches, who keep this feast in the morning, do not scripturally 919 THE MODE OF observe the command of Christ—do not eat the supper in remembrance of him? When a Baptist who ob- serves the Lord’s supper in the early part of the day, says, I cannot baptize, unless I immerse, alleging the signification of the word, may I not reply—First cast the beam out of thine own eye—be consistent in the use of a word, whose meaning is far more obvious— do not substitute the apioroy for the δεῖπνον, and cele- brate a breakfast instead of a supper? The heroes of Homer, indeed, partook of their δεῖπνον in the morning, and their successors seem to have made it their dinner; but long before the apostolic age it had become regularly and constantly the evening meal. If that be not baptism which in the proper sense of the word is not immersion, neither is that the Lord’s supper which in the proper sense of the word is no supper at all. The ancient Christians could fabricate a heresy out of almost anything—as the heresy of calling the con- stellations by heathen names; yet even they, observ- ing the supper, most of them, in the morning, but some, as in Egypt, in the evening, did not brand one another with the odious name of heretic, on account of that difference in usage. Or even if a Baptist reply, I, most carefully eschew- ing all such unscriptural innovations, regularly observe the supper in the afternoon, and therefore I am not the homo to whom you address your argumentum ad hominem, still I inquire, Do you assert that all churches which communicate in the morning, do not commemorate by the Christian sacrament the death CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 913 of the Lord? If you do not, why is the signification of a word not to be pressed in one instance as you press it in the other, unless it be that in one instance you are free from the sectarian bias with which in the other you are heavily encumbered? Judging impar- tially, without any undue influence, you say that the sense of a name is not to be pressed in a matter of form or mode of administration, where the death of Christ is commemorated; but judging under the influence of preconceived opinion, you press_ the signification of a name in baptism, as if it were the essential part of the ordinance. You admit that to be the supper of the Lord, which is no supper at all, and yet with strange inconsistency, you will not admit that to be baptism which is no immersion. Nor am [ sure that this argument will not touch the Baptist, (if such there be,) who, uniformly and from principle, observes the supper in the evening, and excommunicates, as cordially as if they were unbap- tized, all who partake of it a few hours earlier. A supper is a meal, so much food as is sufficient to refresh the body. The small quantity of bread and wine usually taken by each communicant is quite as much a pretence to a supper, a shadow of a meal, as is sprinkling a pretence to immersion, a shadow of a washing. If so small a quantity of bread is yet suf- ficient for a ritual observance called the supper, why is not so small a quantity of water as we commonly use, sufficient for a ritual ebservance called baptism ? Were any church to insist upon the necessity of eating sufficient food to constitute a refreshing meal, 314 THE-MODE OF our Baptist friends would unite with us in reprehend- ing the disposition to magnify a mere form, and to make it essential to the communion service. They, with us, would say, the essence of the sacrament is the commemoration of the death of Christ; and the form, provided it be suitable for the commemoration, is not of the smallest importance. They would smile at the learning which cited authorities to prove that the ancients never supped upon one morsel of bread. In so precise an adherence to words, the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life ; “‘Mutato nomine de te Fabula narratur.” Should it be said that the service was originally instituted after supper, and therefore could not have been intended to be a full and refreshing meal, I admit the force of the remark ; but this very cireum- stance shows how little dependence is to be placed upon the name of a positive institution. If a rite, instituted when he had supped and all had eaten sufficient food, is, nevertheless, called the Lord’s supper; who, with such an illustration before his eyes, would insist upon the meaning of a name, as indispensable or decisive in determining the nature of a religious observance? Its name, however acquired, does not impose upon us, nor ever did impose upon the church, the duty of making it an evening meal.* Should any one say, he insists upon « This part of the lecture required only the reference to the sup- posed case of a man of stern temperance principles, substituting water for wine. I venture here to add, as my own opinion, in accordance with CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 315 the precept, and not upon the name, we revert to the precept of the holy kiss: should he appeal to the these principles, although nothing in the argument depends upon it, ‘that if a reclaimed drunkard feels, as I am told some do, arising pro- pensity to gratify his old desire, if ever he taste wine, it is his duty either to communicate only in the bread, or else to substitute for wine his usual beverage. To encounter the risk of undue excite- ment, for the sake of a symbol, would be to pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, to the neglect of the weightier matters of the law. In the following observations of Professor Stuart, of Andover, I most cordially agree: ‘‘ The whole symbolic instruction conveyed by the ordinance of the Lord’s supper is this; what food and drink, repre- sented by the more important articles of the same, are to the body for its nourishment, and support, and comfort, that a crucified Saviour is to the soul for its life, and preservation, and comfort. Could not the inhabitants of a country, then, to whom it might not be possible to procure bread and wine, when it was proper to celebrate the Lord’s supper, employ other aliments which would symbolise the death of Christ, and the benefits of that death, to the believer with the like significancy ? “Look at the case of Iceland, during that year in which the island remained, for the whole summer, enclosed in the floating ice that had been driven there from the Polar Sea, and no access from abroad to the island was possible, nor any egress from it. Might not the inha- bitants of the island, reduced to live upon fish and water, have cele- brated the Lord’s supper acceptably upon these elements ? Would it not have been as monitory and significant to them, as bread and wine, and as acceptable to Him who instituted the feast ? The man who doubts this, must believe in the mysterious and miraculous virtue of the sacrament, as an opus operatum. With such an one itis not my present purpose to contend. Christians, as I must think, have reason to bless God that the principles that man cherishes, are fast vanishing away before the spreading light of the Sun of righteous- ness.” —Biblical Repository, April, 1833, p. 366. The missionaries in Otaheite, I believe, as bread was not commonly eaten, substituted some root; at least, the Catholics of the Dublin Review bring against them the heavy charge of so profaning the sacrament; but is there a Baptist in England who would deny that they virtually and sacra- mentally, although not literally, ‘came together to break bread ?” 316 THE MODE OF scriptural name, and not to the precept, we return to the supper: should he compound his argument with both the precept and the name, the supper and the kiss may, with equal facility, coalesce in the rejoinder. Only let him not misrepresent by making us in the matter of the kiss, refer to the name and not to the precept; or in that of the supper, to the precept and not to the name. It may be thought that some of the instances which we have adduced would justify the change of the symbol for another equally significant. The kiss, for instance, is symbolic, yet we have changed it; the supper, that is, the evening observance, is not symbolic; and, therefore, the morning observance preserves the symbol in its integrity. In our admin- istration of baptism, we contend that we change no symbol, for, as we believe, the use of water is the only symbol ; but our variation, if we do vary, is ina part of the service, which is not symbolic, but circumstantial, like the evening hour of the supper. The argument from the kiss of charity is ἃ fortiori. If the symbol may be changed, much more are we not inflexibly bound to the part of the service which is not sym- bolic, and, therefore, can be of no importance. There is no necessity to enlarge the ground of controversy, for if dipping, and not water, or dipping as well as water, be the authorised symbol, I can speak for myself, and I am open to conviction, I will hence- forth invariably practise it. But, as I do not believe it to be any part of the emblem, the controversy, as CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 917 I maintain it, is confined to the parts of the service which are not emblematical. My reasons for thinking that immersion is no part of the symbol must, of course, be hereafter stated. The principle for which I contend, ought to be distinctly avowed; and then (let the practices of Baptists or of Paedobaptists be what they may,) to rise or fall on the preponderance of scriptural evidence. That principle is, that symbolic and com- memorative institutions derive all their value from the evangelical truths which they symbolise or com- memorate. The parts, or adjuncts, which symbolise or commemorate no evangelical truth, are subservient to the symbols, just as words are subservient to doctrines, and they are applied to ἃ superstitious use, if they are not strictly kept in that state of sub- serviency. They are no more essential to the symbols than are the Greek characters to the doctrine of St. Paul. Baptism is an emblematical service, and nothing else. Whatever is not emblematical, is only adjunct and circumstance; and if to it any per- sons ascribe importance, they assert an importance distinct from the emblem, and, therefore, make the service something else than emblematical. This is our principle. It is fairly exposed, I acknowledge, to the assault of those stricter Baptists, who appear in their weekly communion, their washing of feet, their kiss of charity, and all the antique garniture of primitive institutions, but not to the attack of those who, if they mingle in this fray, will tear down the 318 THE MODE OF standard which they follow harmoniously with our- selves in all things except baptism.* Such is our principle. Let us hear what Scripture says about it. ‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy- day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” @ Since this lecture was written, I have found in Dr. Carson's work, p. 379, the following statement of Dr. Miller, which, as Dr. Carson calls it popery, and it is a kind of popery with which I am particu- . larly pleased, I cordially adopt. “Even if it could be proved, (which we know it cannot) that the mode of baptism, adopted in the time of Christ and his apostles, was that of immersion, yet, if that method of administering the ordinance were not significant of some truth, which the other modes cannot represent,” (the clause in italies, I do not adopt: if dipping be significant of any truth, let us practise it,) “we are plainly at liberty to regard it as a non-essential cireum- stance, from which we may depart when expediency requires, as we are all wont to do in other cases even” (I omit that word, for the principle has no other application) ‘ with respect to positive institu- tions.” To deny this, appears to me precisely equivalent to the assertion, that it is our duty to perform as religious service, what, so far as we can ascertain, has no use, meaning, or benefit whatever; precisely equivalent to the assertion that it being my duty to read the Scriptures publicly in the church of God, I am bound to read pub- licly the tenth chapter of Nehemiah. Dr. Cox objects to infant baptism, that it confers no benefit, prevents no evil, and contains no moral obligation. If that truly respectable minister will show what benefit immersion confers upon him which I do not possess; what evil it prevents for him which I feel; or what obligation it imposes upon him to which I am not bound; he may enrol me among his converts. As to the popery of this scheme, the popery of private judgment, the popery of receiving no rite, nor part of a rite, which is not emblematical, it has at least one advantage, that if every man would thus become his own pope, the reign of the tiara would cease from the earth. Whenever our brother papists, the Baptists, resign the dispensing power in the matter of the holy and apostolic kiss, they may dispute with us on the popery of sprinkling. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 319 Without encumbering the argument with any notice of the meat or the drink, the holyday or the new moon, let us attempt to ascertain the law of the sabbath, as it is found in the New Testament ; for if it be correctly ascertained, it will assist us in inter- preting other positive institutions. As a Jewish ordinance, the enactment of the sabbath was peculi- arly strict and severe, so far as labour was concerned. “Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh is the sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt do no manner of work.” I need not detain my readers with the inquiry, whether this com- mandment is or is not to be regarded as imposing upon Christians the duty of observing the sabbath, because the construction for which I contend, was authorised by our Lord before the abrogation of the Jewish economy. Rest being secured for servants and domestics, by the relaxation of ordinary labour, and sufficient opportunity being afforded for the services of religion, the great design of the sabbath being safe, the literal construction of the positive precept was not imposed upon the Jews; as we learn from our Lord’s reasoning, in opposition to the traditions and commands of the scribes and Pharisees. Pharisaism adhered to the strict letter of the sabbatical enactment: Jesus taught that a devout regard to the spirit was sufficient. Indeed, the literal observance of positive precepts, the tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, was the point of frequent debate between our Lord and the Pharisees, who, in strict observance of the letter, lost the genuine 320 THE MODE OF spirit of the ceremonial law. “At that time, Jesus went on the sabbath-day through the corn fields: and his disciples were a hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath- days.” The Pharisees charged the disciples with violating the sanctity of the sabbath-day by a species of labour; it was doing some manner of work, and undoubtedly, infringing the letter of the Mosaic law. What said the great Teacher? Did he reprove or justify his disciples? If they were observing the letter of the law, would not our Lord have vindicated them upon their proper ground? Would he not have said, Here is no breach of the law whatever; rubbing out the corn from the ears is not a manner of work prohibited by the enactment? He did not so defend them. Rubbing out corn was as much forbidden by the letter of the law, as any other kind of work what- ever; for if they had so spent the whole of the sabbath, they would have been undoubtedly guilty of profaning it. The spirit of the law, imposing rest, would have been sacrificed. But our blessed Lord defended his disciples, by citing on their behalf the conduct of David, in quite as manifest a breach of the letter of another positive law. ‘‘ Have ye not read what David did, when he was a hungred, and they that were with him, how he did enter into the house of God, and eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?” It is € CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 321 evident that our Lord justified the conduct of David, and by the citation justified also the conduct of his disciples. On what principle? The law of the sabbath, and the law of the shewbread, were alike peremptory. To bear the inconvenience of fasting, is better than to disannul the command of God. Hunger is no justification of sin. The Gospel gives no permission to the hungry man to steal the bread of his neighbour. A deviation from the law of the shew- bread was conceded under circumstances which would not have justified the least deviation from the laws of morality. Unless hunger justifies theft, we have, in these words of our Lord, a clear distinction in the construction of positive and of moral enact- ments. ‘The law of the shewbread was as express as words could be, for it conceded nothing to the impor- tunate hunger of a laic ; as was the enactment of the sabbath, for it made no more exception in favour of hunger, or humanity, or necessity, than did the moral law. What becomes of the doctrine so often asserted by the Baptists, that positive precepts are to be construed more strictly than moral laws, or even as strictly, as they are? How far is the distinction to be allowed? We have a clue,—how far may we trace it? No one, I imagine, will construe the narrative as if the disciples were actually perishing with hunger. Had they been utterly destitute of food, Mark and Luke, who say nothing of their hunger, would scarcely have omitted all reference to so important a particular, as its notice would have given to their narrative a very different aspect. Feeling the ordinary sensation of x 322 THE MODE OF hunger as they passed through the fields, they rubbed corn from the ears ; and our Lord defended their act as a justifiable breach of the positive law of the sabbath. But what is the principle of his defence? Unques- tionably that, provided the benevolent and religious objects of the sabbath were secured, the letter of the enactment was not worth the inconvenience of a brief cessation from food. ‘‘ The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” Can any other interpretation be imposed upon these words, than that the law of the sabbath is obligatory in the ge- nerosity of its spirit, rather than in the severity of its letter? The construction of the law of the sab- bath, confirmed by appeal to the law of the shew- bread, we have a right to infer, (for it is implied in the argument of our Lord,) is the true construction of every positive institution. The principle elicited, rather than the inconvenience supposed, is the point to which I solicit attention. When we say that works of charity or of necessity may be done on the sabbath, notwithstanding the strict and peremptory enactment, on what principle do we repose? When our Lord teaches that the ox or the ass may be pulled out of the pit on the sabbath-day, doth he take care of oxen, or saith he not such things for our instruction? It may be said these were only rare exceptions, justified by the urgency of peculiar circumstances. If they were, they are sufficient to justify similar exceptions in reference to the law of baptism, as for instance, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 323 the clinical baptisms of the sick penitent when immersion might be perilous, or baptism by sprink- ling where multitudes were candidates, and the well of the city was deep, and the water very scarce. But in a country where the climate is unpropitious, and bathing cannot always be performed without danger, and many persons are not accustomed to such an ablution, and from the feelings of delicacy which happily distinguish a high state of civilization, and must on no account be violated, the incon- venience of bathing dresses, and of various decorous and troublesome arrangements, must be admitted: these exceptions, we think, accumulate over the letter of the law; and in Britain we claim the right of not immersing, because baptism was made for man, and not man for baptism. I will not, however, be content with this bill of exceptions. The Christian law of the sabbath (as our Baptist friends concur with ourselves in inter- preting it, and as I honestly believe they rightly interpret it,) will carry us a great deal further than we are required to go, in order to justify our mode of administering the rite of baptism. Between the law of the sabbath as the Christian church almost universally construes it, and the law of the sabbath in the letter of its enactment, the difference is far greater than that which exists between the immersion and the sprinkling of proselytes. The sabbath is essentially a rest, a day of cessation from ordinary labour, enjoined, not of Moses, but of the Fathers, y 2 224 THE MODE OF instituted at the creation of the world, hallowed by the blessing of the Creator, on the placid survey of all his works, the only precious relic of the religious institutions of paradise, the only day exempted from the dreadful curse of exhausting toil. Consecrated to rest, it is the memorial of the complacency with which God looked upon the world as complete on the seventh day. The spirit of the law is accredited, in the devout observance of one day in the week, but than the seventh day there is no other sab- bath of positive enactment. We commemorate the resurrection of our Lord by the hallowing of the first day of the week, instead of commemorating the repose of creation on the seventh; but to comme- morate the resurrection of Christ by the religious observance of any day, we have no express command in all the Scriptures. There is no such positive law in the church. The primitive Christians met to break bread on the first day of the week at Corinth, at Troas, and I doubt not in other places; but that they observed the day as a sabbath we are not told; nor, if they did, that by it they commemorated the resurrection of Christ. Our Baptist friends may have no doubt of the fact,—neither have we; but in the New Testament, our only code, there is no enactment, there is not even distinct information. To commemorate the resurrection of Christ by the festival of the Sunday, is no more a positive enact- ment of Scripture than to commemorate his death by the fast of the Friday. What then is the law of the sabbath? By its letter 1 am commanded CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 325 to observe the seventh day in commemoration of the creation of the world; but as in its spirit I observe another day in commemoration of another event, and transfer the observance of the ancient sabbath, in doing so I can appeal in justification to no positive law respecting the change, for of such a law there is not a shadow in the New Tes- tament. It is true this reasoning will not apply to the Seventh-day Baptists, but with the excep- tion, as I am told, of five women and one man, all the Baptists now repudiate Sabbatarianism. If it be said the sabbath is not a Christian institution, I reply, It is, or why do Christians religiously observe one day in seven? The sabbath was not like the passover, Mosaic; not like circumcision, restricted to the family of Abraham; but the law of Adam, the law of his posterity, the law of all the world, founded upon a positive command, more express, as well as far more extensive, than any which enjoined baptism, or the Lord’s supper. Sprinkling is surely as much baptism, as observing the first day of the week is hallowing the seventh. The principles of the Baptists led numbers of people into the religious observance of Saturday. Such I think is their proper tendency; and in abandoning Sabbatarianism our Baptist friends appear to me to surrender, in practice, the whole argument which they painfully elaborate by their philology. Their right to substitute the first day for the seventh, in order to commemorate the resurrection of Christ, without a particle of scriptural law, is an authority 326 THE MODE OF for substituting sprinkling for immersion, even if they can prove we make the substitution with which we are charged. To proceed at greater length with the illustration of the principle for which I contend, would be wearisome and unnecessary, or we might refer to numerous deflections from the literal enactments of ceremonial law sanctioned by the prophets in the Old Testament, and by Christ and his apostles in the New. We have the principle asserted, in opposition to the inflexible literalist, in the words, “He that observeth the day, observeth it to the Lord; and he that observeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not observe it.” Baptists, however, will say it is now high time that we brought the appeal to be decided by Philology— and if they will have patience a few minutes longer, that loquacious old gentleman, who, as they think, is so invincibly prepossessed in their favour, shall have the final arbitration of our dispute. Before we submit the case to him, we must consider a state- ment of which he will take no cognizance, but which, if it be true, will render our reasoning on symbolical acts inapplicable to the subject. The Baptists say that immersion itself—the act of putting into the water—is the symbol in the service, or rather, (for they seem to allow that water is also symbolic of cleansing,) is one of the symbols authorised in this ordinance. If this be true, our case is gone. I do not mean our case is gone, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 327 if there be found in the apostolic writings, a figura- tive allusion to immersion, as a common mode of baptism, for that would in no way affect our reasoning; but if it be proved that the act of immersion, and not the use of water, is the authorised symbol, the very sign or sacrament, I see not what we can do better than petition Parlia- ment to pass the Bill on Dissenting Trusts, that in a body we may carry over with us to the Baptists, the chapels and endowments now in the possession of the Independents. We, therefore, somewhat anxiously inquire, Of what Christian truth is putting into the water a symbol? And we are told, Of the burying of the believer with Christ. This reply greatly relieves us, for the burying of ἃ believer with Christ is no more a Christian truth than the going in at the strait gate, or the putting on the helmet of salvation, or the anointing the eyes with eye-salve, but like them a figurative expression of Scripture. As the sacraments of Christ are symbols of truth and not of figures, belonging to theology and not to rhetoric, we might without delay fairly dismiss this assertion, were it not that our Baptist friends, or at least some of them, make it so im- portant a part of their reasoning, that it may be thought disrespectful to take no further notice of it. We have, then, to consider baptism as a scenic representation of the burial of the baptized with Christ. As Christ was buried, so the disciple is immersed to represent his participation of the burial of Christ. The authorities adduced in favour of this 328 THE MODE OF doctrine are: “ Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.”* ... . “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him.”? That these are figurative allusions, no one will deny. The design of baptism, if this be _ its design, is nowhere ostensibly taught, but only obliquely noticed in figurative language, in order to illustrate another subject. If the interpretation of the figure can be found in the inspired writings, we readily acquiesce ; but we are not disposed to allow a fallible interpreter of figures to give law to the Christian church, especially when his unauthorised interpretation appears to us incongruous and incon- sistent. If I am asked for the meaning of the apos- tle’s language, I reply (according to my construction of the metaphor, which of course has no more authority than that of my opponents, and disputes upon the meaning of figures are endless,) Do we not satisfy all the legitimate requirements of the figure in maintaining that all who have the spiritual bless- ings proposed in the emblem οἵ baptism, have obtained them through the death, burial, and resur- rection of Jesus? Those who have been baptized not only in the letter, but also in the spirit, are virtu- ally and legally considered as having become united to Christ in the fellowship of his sufferings, and the power of his resurrection; they have figuratively @ Rom. vi. 3, 4. 6 Col, ai. 12. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 329 died unto sin, and become alive unto righteousness. But if the expressions are figurative, and represent spiritual things, no man who has not the reality of the baptismal emblem, has been baptized into the death of Christ, or has been buried with him in baptism ; while every man who has that reality has been spiritually baptized into the death of Christ, and been buried with him in the baptism of the Spirit. If I am dead with Christ, I have been buried with him in my baptism, not into water, but by his Spirit into his death. Is not this the sense, and all the sense, of the figurative language of the apostle? We object, then, to the symbol of the Baptists in the first place, because it is unauthorised, except by figurative language, which will admit of another and, as we think, better inter- pretation. That baptism is the funeral solemnity of a believer, or his interment in the tomb of Christ, is a doctrine which has no sure warranty of Holy Scripture." In the next place the symbol appears to us incon- gruous and inappropriate. It may be said, we have no right to pronounce upon the propriety of an authorised symbol; but in this instance the supposed resemblance between immersion and burial is the foundation of the whole argument. Τί is said by the Baptists, sprinkling does not represent a burial; and our reply is, neither does immersion. ‘The momentary α See a complete and admirable exposition of the passage in the Romans, in Stuart’s Commentary. 330 THE MODE OF and hasty dipping is so little like the solemn act of committing the body to the earth; the water is so little like a tomb; the service so little like a funeral solemnity ; the words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, so inappropriate to the burial of the dead, (and our friends, notwithstanding the use of this formulary, do not profess to bury alive,) that sprinkling itself appears to me as good and veritable a symbol of a believer’s burial, as such an immersion. Besides, the burial is with Christ in his tomb, and therefore the burial of Christ is the model of the service. But was Christ let down into the earth? Was there in his burial any circumstance which can be fitly represented by immersing in water? To lay a person in a tomb cut in a rock, and to complete the sepulture by rolling a stone to the opening, bear no resemblance to any mode of baptism whatever. Our Baptist friends, we think, gain some adventitious aid in representing immersion as the sign of a burial, because the baptistery as usually made in their cha- pels, in size and form, most fortunately for their argument, (I do not say they take undue or designed advantage of it) resembles an English grave much more than it does a Jewish sepulchre. Were the image of the sepulchre in the garden, to be exhibited in front of the baptistery, the charm of the repre- sentation, and with it the force of the argument, would, we imagine, be speedily dissolved. Or is the scene to be changed? Instead of the tomb of Jesus, are we to think of the usual sepulture CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 531] of that age? As the burial is with Christ, we have no right to be allured from the garden of Joseph. But seek where we may for a burial in connexion with the passage, we shall find no resemblance to immer- sion—not even the poor analogy of an English funeral. Deposited in a Jewish tomb, embalmed in the spicery of the dead, and wrapped in clean linen, our Lord was interred as “the manner of the Jews is to bury.” From his tomb, although “ bound hand and foot in grave-clothes,” Lazarus could come forth. To a Jewish burial, I see no resemblance in immersion. We are speaking of tombs in which demoniacs found shelter, and robbers a refuge. But addressed to the Romans, does the repre- sentation accord with the funeral solemnities of the imperial city? The Jews buried their dead, according to the manner of their own nation ; and the Romans of that age placed the corpse upon a pyre, and deposited its ashes in an urn.” We have in baptism no sign of cremation. Immersion in Rome, would remind no one of a burial. The shadow of the watery tomb would become invisible near the blaze of the funereal pile. If water to the Romans or to the Jews suggested any recollections of the dead, they would more probably be associated with the universal custom of washing the corpse. Tarquinii corpus bona feemina lavit et unxit. * The Christians, at a very early period, renounced the custom of burning their dead, and deposited them in sepulchres and catacombs; but such a distinction could not have become prevalent so soon after the formation of their church. 332 THE MODE OF A burial in water must have appeared to the ancients the most incongruous of symbols, estranged from all their associations and sympathies. The shade of Archytas would have been content if, for the . burial of his body, only a few grains of sand had been sprinkled over it, (injecto ter pulvere,) while it must have remained unburied, had all the waters of the ocean rolled over it. The Fathers, it is true, early adopted this opinion of a burial by immersion ; but if their authority be adduced, it is in favour of the trine immersion, as signifying the three days of Christ’s burial. Besides, what conceivable thing, which by any remote analogy—any faint or fanciful resem- blance—any ingenious metaphor, could be associated with baptism, did not the Fathers include in this great sacrament of most varied and inscrutable mystery ? Again, the representation of a burial is inconsistent with the symbol of the sanctification of the Spirit, which all parties acknowledge to be represented in baptism. The ritual use of water is every where in Scripture noticed as the symbol of sanctification—the washing away of sin. All the ablutions of the Mosaic law spake to the Jew of an internal sanctity, represented by the external cleansing. Wash you, make you clean, was the language of their prophets ; and their exposition was, Put away the evil of your doings. In the synagogues of the ancient church was read the prophetic description of the purification of the coming age; and the well-known symbol of water was employed, “I will sprinkle clean water CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 333 upon them, and they shall be clean.” In the New Testament, the church is cleansed by the washing of water, and its members are to draw nigh to God, hav- ing their bodies washed with pure water. This, 1 may say, is the natural and universal language in which the symbol speaks to all mankind. Water, among all nations who have used it in their religious rites, (and what nation, having a ritual, has not used it?) has ever been regarded as the proper emblem of purification. What else was the meaning of the diurnal and nocturnal ablutions of the Egyptian priests, “ the baptisms of the Persians, the Indians, and other barbaric tribes,’ the bathings and sprinklings of the Greeks in all their mysteries, the lustrations of the Romans, whose olive branch, as the instrument of sprinkling, corresponded with the hyssop of the Hebrews? Vile pagan oracles, all of them! some one may exclaim. They are just as pagan as that awful voice heard at their sanguinary altars, which declares that the blood of the victim is a deprecation of the punishment of sin. In both instances, those oracles utter their response in harmony with holy Scripture. But I need not pursue these remarks any further, for our Baptist friends, although they assert that baptism is the representation of a burial, also acknowledge that it is the emblem of purification—of the washing away of sin. We maintain that the two emblems are inconsistent, and cannot be associated without @ Herodotus, ii. 37. ὁ Witsius, gypt. 1. 11. c. 16. 334 THE MODE OF confusion—cannot be blended in one service without destroying each other. To attempt the symbolising of both by the same act, is, on account of the con- trariety between them, to symbolise neither. If at the baptistery I am told the water represents the grave of Christ, and also the purification of a Christian, I am unable in one sign to realise both significations. If the shadow of the tomb of my Saviour, or that of the bath of my regeneration, fall upon the water, I can discern the outline; but if both fall upon it together, the lines are con- fused, and the image of neither can be distinctly traced. Or if we attempt to unite them, we have before us the ludicrous image of a man washing in a grave, or dying in a bath. I would not depreciate the powers of my Baptist friends, least of all at this moment would I ascribe to them any poverty of imagination; but I do not believe they so far tran- scend us in this particular as to be able to combine the two emblems without confusion, and to make the same service, with sobriety and edification, represent a cleansing and a burial. The laws of figurative language are the laws of emblematical representation. Because Christ is in Scripture represented as a vine, and a door, who would plead Scripture in justifi- cation of saying in one sentence, Christ is a grape- bearing door, or denounce the rhetorician as a pro- fane scoffer, who should expose the absurdity of such a figure? Although such a denunciation, I think, has been uttered against those who venture to smile at the washing in a grave, yet with the utmost re- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 335 spect for the religious feelings of my brethren, which ought to impose seriousness upon a spectator, I must believe that Desinat in piscem mulier formosa superné is not the motto of the escutcheon certified by the heraldry of Scripture for the front of the living temple of Christ. * * Our Baptist friends have recently exhibited something like a disposition to emulate the ancients in proposing a great variety of truths as set forth in the symbol of baptism. Their leader, Dr. Carson, has cultivated his imagination in this department of theology, until it has become as prolific as that of Chrysostom or the Gregories. I doubt whether the most eloquent and fervent preacher on the virtues of the great mystic solemnity ever wrote such a passage as the follow- ing : “ To be born of water most evidently implies that water is the womb out of which the person who is born proceeds. That this is the reference of the figure, whatever may be supposed to be its meaning, cannot for a moment be doubted by any reflecting mind.” (There is therefore the end of sprinkling to every mind capable of a moment’s reflection.) Dr. Carson continues : “ Here the figure must signify the washing of the believer in the blood of Christ, which is Jiguratively represented by the water in baptism.” (Baptism not Puri- fication, p. 61.) And yet Dr. Carson most zealously contends, that baptism figuratively represents the burial of the believer with Christ. But does the water of baptism symbolise all these things at once ? Is the one act of baptism the representation of so many different objects as the birth of a believer issuing from the water, and his washing in the water, and his burial into the water, and withal his burial before his birth, as I suppose he is put into the water before he comes out of it? All this must follow, if from every figurative allusion to baptism, we are to seek the evangelical truth which it is designed to represent. We admire the noble candour of Dr. Carson, although it be accompanied with the most contemptuous vitu- peration of all who venture to differ from him. His criticism on the birth of water ought to be adopted by all who agree with him in the exposition of a burial with Christ in baptism. The two refer to 336 Ὶ THE MODE OF ᾿ But, to adduce the objection to which I have already adverted, the burial of a believer with Christ being only a figurative expression, cannot be repre- sented in baptism. The Christian sacraments are signs of evangelical truth, and not of tropes and metaphors—shadows of realities, and not the shadows of a shade. There is, in reality, no more a burial with Christ, than there is a crucifixion with him. Had a believer been actually enclosed in the tomb of Christ, would it have been to him of the slightest advantage? If the body of Judas Iscariot had been interred in the garden of Joseph, instead of lying exposed in the field of blood, would -he, like the man cast into the sepulchre of Elisha, have felt the vivifying influence of contact with the body of a prophet? If it be said, that not the burial of the believer, but the truth implied in the figure, is repre- sented ; the inquiry properly arises, what resemblance does that implied truth bear to immersion? How is the simple truth itself, divested of the embroidery of figure, symbolised by the act of immersion? Be it the same principles. How Dr. Carson proves that the water of bap- tism represents the blood of Christ, I must show in his own words, lest I be charged with misrepresentation in expounding matters which I do not understand. He says, “ In Rey. i. 5, Christ is said to wash us from our sins in his own blood. Christ washes us by his Spirit in his own blood. But his blood is the cleansing element in which we are washed. This shows that to be born of water is to be washed in the blood of Christ!” We learn one thing from Dr, Carson, who has written a book on the elucidation of the proprieties of figurative language, that if we admit several modes of performing the Christian rite, our Baptist friends contend for several things represented by it. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 337 that by the figure the expiation of sin is intended, or be it the sanctification of the sinner, or be it any other spiritual blessing, (for I concede any latitude here, provided we have a blessing and not a trope) and that spiritual blessing has no more resemblance to immer- sion than it has to sprinkling. On the analysis of the figure, the shadow of the tomb over the baptistery vanishes like the mirage on the water when the object itself comes into direct view. If the spiritual bless- ing intended bears no resemblance to immersion, the attempt to represent the figure which clothes it, is to degrade the ordinance of baptism from its proper position in theology, to the subordinate office of being ancillary to the imaginative paintings of rhetoric. Baptism is, in our estimation, not a sacrament dedi- cated to the service of rhetoric, but a symbol of the Divine immortal truth which, in passing before our feeble sight, invests itself for the moment with the fading figures and fugitive colours of terrestrial imagery. On account of all these reasons I maintain that in baptism there is no representation of the burial of a believer with Christ. To find a reality for the shadow, some Baptists declare that immersion is the sign of the death and burial of Christ himself. I am unwilling to ascribe this representation to any who do not themselves assert their faith in it, as I believe some of our Baptist brethren would disavow this opinion, if it were ascribed to them, or if their attention were seriously directed to its implications. As, however, their in- fluential writers do deliberately assert that they Ζ 338 THE MODE OF represent by immersion the burial and resurrection of Christ, they are, | suppose, prepared to defend this assertion against all opponents. Butif the immersion of a person in water represent the burial of Christ, the person so immersed is proposed as the represent- ative or emblem of the blessed Redeemer. Unless the man or woman immersed, so far as that service is concerned, represent Christ, there can be no emblematic representation of the burial of Christ. . But is the baptized person to be considered as representing Christ to the spectators? or is he to consider himself in the service as an emblem of Christ? If he be, this controversy on immersion assumes an awful importance. A man of like pas- sions with ourselves, being put into the water, is proposed as a representation of Christ being laid in his tomb! I will recognise no man in that character. I will not so profane the immaculate person of the Saviour. No Christian, without doing violence to his best feelings, can look upon his fallen brother as per- forming a mystic representation of Christ dying for the sins of men. Ido not stay to inquire how it can be said to a man, who in the service is an emblem of Christ, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; because, instead of reasoning upon this supposition, I will protest for the honour of Christ against any one who pretends to act the part of the blessed Redeemer in the most solemn engagement of his death, burial, and resurrection. Elevate a crucifix before the baptistery—carve the figure of the dead Redeemer in wood or in stone, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 339 rather than propose a sinful man as the representa- tion of Him who for the redemption of the world was dead, and buried, and is risen again. I restrict this language to those who assert that baptism is the re- presentation of the death and resurrection of Christ, because I cannot persuade myself that our Baptist friends universally hold this opinion. Happy shall I be if any of our brethren, still retaining their senti- ments, would be induced to desist from this objection- able language; but let them speak as they will, we must maintain that baptism is nothing else than the use of water (use it how you please) as the sign of the sanctification of the soul, because we believe that to represent it in any other view leads to lamentable perversion or gross caricature of evangelical truth. We leave this part of the subject with the sum- mary of a few words, which, we trust, will be sufficient to prevent misapprehension. We have maintained that in a symbolical service only the symbol is im- posed upon the church, and the mode of exhibiting it is of no importance; and further, that in the bap- tismal service only the use of water, and not the immersion, is symbolical of Christian truth. It is however, obvious, that whatever may be the import- ance of these principles in other controversies, they do not come into operation in this controversy, unless our Baptist brethren establish their averment by sound philology, as they have made it without hesitation or reserve, that βαπτίζω, properly, invari- ably, and exclusively, means to dip, in all Greek,— Classic, Hellenistic, and Ecclesiastical. Z2 340 THE MODE OF As the whole argument does not depend upon philology, we may now, I hope, with more calmness, and less asperity than is sometimes shown in handling the words baptize and baptism, discuss their meaning and use as they occur in the New Testament. On entering this interminable controversy, a novice feels some difficulty in reconnoitring the proper posi- tion of the combatants. They seem to misunderstand each other. One might suppose that some principles of interpretation were agreed upon on both sides ; or if they were not, that the parties had better retire upon truce to study in quiet the laws of philology. But I find the sprinklers charging the immersionists with attempting to bind the ethereal movements of language with iron and inflexible laws; and, on the contrary, the immersionists charging the sprinklers with abusing the rational liberty of language until it becomes the wildest licentiousness. That a living language is ever varying, both parties ought surely to admit; that no variation ought to be assumed or pleaded without evidence, appears as incontrovertible a proposition. The amount of evidence which ought to suffice in each instance designates, I fear, the boundary of everlasting skirmish. That the verb βαπτίζω should have preserved one only and invariable signification—which can be exactly expressed by an English verb—from the ballad- singers of the Homeric poems (if so early it existed) down to the prosing chroniclers of the Byzantine history (for so late it flourished)—in poetry and prose, oratory and philosophy—would, if proved, be, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 341 I imagine, the most extraordinary phenomenon in all the languages of our many-tongued race. If βαπτίζω be, as we are told, to dip, and nothing else, I do not believe a second pair of verbs, so exactly correspond- ing, so nicely balanced, running for so many ages in parallel grooves, is to be found in the wide extent of the two languages. Greek and English verbs do not usually file off in double columns quite so evenly, and keep step quite so regularly, in all their count- less evolutions. Believing, as we do, that this word was not exempt from the accidents of time and ordi- nary fluctuations of speech, we cannot imagine by what inflexible destiny it can have preserved its one only sense unaffected through many ages of cul- ture and of corruption—the solitary evergreen in the vast forest of deciduous vocables—deciduous in their signification, as Horace beautifully represents them in their use, shedding their foliage yearly, the only exception to the maxim, ‘““Nedum sermonum stet honos et gratia vivax.” In English our great lexicographer has endeavoured to confine in its channel the flowing stream of speech, but already the words have broken through the em- bankments of Johnson, and are silently, but surely, subverting his massive piles of learned labour. That the fluctuations of language, as of fashion, are be- yond the control of sages, may be seen in the aspect of two words which we perpetually encounter in this controversy—to dip and to immerse. They seem to have deflected from each other much more widely 342 THE MODE OF than they had done in the days of Johnson, as will appear on comparing the more modern attempts of Webster, and others, at English lexicography. We think, therefore, if we are required to repose with un- limited confidence upon the meaning of a Greek word in the New Testament, we have a right to require some confirmation of that meaning from the New Testament itself. On the other hand, we are charged by our Baptist friends with making unfair use of the vagaries of language, and assuming at our pleasures changes of signification without evidence; so that we leave room for evasion, and propose no certain exposition of our words. There may be some reason for this complaint, and I feel, without for a moment intimating that my brethren would not do the same, bound by the laws of honourable controversy to say what I think is the proper meaning of the verb BazriZw ; and if I suppose it has suffered any change of signification which affects this question, to state in what that change consists. The Baptists have, I think, good right and sound reason in demanding that every controvertist say without evasion what βαπτίζω is, and what it is not, lest they be left to fight with a shade; and if their opponent, thus exposed in open field, be de- feated, in exposing his true colours, they ought not to exult over him, but to acknowledge that he fell fairly and honourably fighting. I feel also bound to admit that some writers on our side of the question have asserted too much, when they have said that no fair inference can be CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 343 deduced from the citations of the classics, on account of the discordant idioms and fashions of classical and Jewish Greek. I cannot conceive how the Greek Testament is to be translated, if its words are not to be understood in their classical import—unless there are reasons to believe that a new signification has been adopted. That new senses abound, I readily admit. When a Jew speaks Greek, although I do not expect to hear the mellifluous language of Xeno- phon, or of Plato, yet, unless I have some intimation of barbarism, I must look to Greek authorities for my interpretation. Paul might have been thought a bar- barian on Mars’ hill, a setter forth of strange gods to those who listened to a strange dialect, but all who would translate him must first resort to the Greek lexicon, and afterwards go the round of the Hellen- istic idioms and the oriental barbarisms. As we assert that the verb in question is found in the New Testa- ment, varying from its classical signification; our Baptist friends, stoutly denying it, require from us, very reasonably, I think, 10 produce the evidence of our assertion. Whether I fail or succeed, I would rather fail than evade so reasonable a demand. I fear, however, we have an unsettled account respecting the primary and classical sense of the word; and until we understand each other upon this point, we can do very little with the secondary signification. Our first inquiry, therefore, before we approach the New Testament, must be, What is the primary and classical meaning of the verb βαπτίζω ? 344 THE MODE OF By the primary meaning, I do not mean the radical signification, but the meaning which we ought first to assign to it, (if there be no reason to look for another,) so far as it can be ascertained from existing documents. The sense of the root, I mean of the common root of the two forms βάπτω and βαπτίζω, we are not competent to investigate. We know not the language in its primitive simplicity, before it assumed its present inflections. The meaning of the old bap, (for etymologists tell us he once lived in good credit with tup, and grap, and lip, and blap, and all their rustic contemporaries in the valleys of Greece,) we cannot ascertain, as the hoarse Pelasgian has so long been expelled from the melodious refinement of Greece. The servant of rude shepherds and warrior tribes, whether he washed their sheep, or dyed their fleece,” or tempered their metal,’ or stained their spears with blood, or smeared their faces with wine lees at the goat feast, we can conjecture only from the un- certain traditions of his polished descendants. We know not anything with certainty respecting the meaning of the primitive; and even if we did, it would render us very little assistance in determining the precise signification of its derivatives. The first inquiry is, do the two verbs βάπτω and βαπτίζω perfectly coincide? Previously to examina- tion, reasoning upon the analogies of language, we should conclude that, intimately related, they would “ Aristophanes Plut. 530. ὁ Sophocles Ajax, 651. © £schylus Choéphore, 1008. ¢ Aristophanes Equites, 525. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 345 bear a considerable resemblance to each other; but that, co-existing in the language for many ages, each would be affected by the mutations of time, and “eventually assume its own distinct and proper cha- racter. Such kindred words are like twin children, usually resembling each other most closely in their early years. To supply the wants of man, whose voluble tongue is ever admirably ministering to the new suggestions of his mind, cognate terms readily adapt themselves to specific parts in the interpreta- tion of thought. We have, therefore, without inquiry, no right to assume that the words are identical in their meaning. As βαπτίζω is formed from βάπτω, some grammarians have made it a frequentative, to baptize often; others a causative, to make some one baptize; others a diminutive, to baptize a little; others an intensitive, to baptize very much. For any of these senses, I have never seen satisfactory evidence adduced. The following particulars I just observe in passing; but I must leave the illustration, so far as it has any bear- ing upon the subject, to an appendix. In their usage, βαπτίζω occurs very seldom in the earlier writers,_more frequently in the later,—with whom it seems sometimes to occupy the place of the βάπτω of the older books. In the general sense, βάπτω seems more nearly to resemble our word to dip, or put into aliquid; βαπτίζω to make to be in the liquid in any way. We dip our hands (βάπτω) ; but sink a ship (βαπτίζω). Although the later writers occasionally use [βαπτίζῳ ἴῃ the former sense, as in the instance cited by Gale from 346 THE MODE OF Plutarch, yet, I think, the distinction is generally observed. Bazrw has peculiar secondary senses, as to dye, to colour, to stain as with blood, to smear, to temper metals, to glaze pottery; βαπτίζω is exclu- sively used in the New Testament, in reference to the religious baptisms of both Jews and Christians ; although a pagan, when speaking of this religious rite, uses the verb Bazrw.* Indeed, the verb never occurs in the New Testament, except in connexion with a religious rite, or else in a figurative sense. The Baptist writers maintain, (or have hitherto maintained, for since this lecture was delivered, 1 have learned that their opinion on this subject is changed,) that the two words have invariably and precisely the same meaning, to dip, and nothing else; so that Gale, Booth, Maclean, and all whom I have consulted, reason with perfect confidence, from one word to the other. Some curious instances of the difficulties of their theory have been adduced in this controversy for a century and a half, and yet they have steadily maintained it. Thus, when the author of the pseudo-Homeric mock-heroic poem of the Frogs and the Mice, says of Crambophagus, one of his brave little cold-blooded champions of the water, mortally wounded by his whiskered foe,—he fell, and breathed no more, and the lake was bap- tized with his blood : “‘ Gasping he rolls, a purple stream of blood Distains the surface of the silvery flood.” * Arrian Epist. lib. xi. ο. 9. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 347 Dr. Gale did his best, with learning and logic, to prove that the meaning is, the lake was, as it were, dipped in frog’s blood, and his party greatly applauded his skill. 1 am, however, happy to learn that, although all the objections of the Pedobaptists founded upon this passage produced no impression, our Baptist friends, following a new leader, generally declare, that good old Dr. Gale, with all his Greek, (and he had no small quantity of that article,) had no true taste for figures, or he could not have swallowed the lake dipped in frog’s blood. The fact, however, is chiefly important as limiting the ground of con- troversy ; and enabling us to disencumber ourselves of an intruder which has no right to be heard in this discussion, unless he can explain the meaning of his cognate. Although I think I have observed a dis- position on both sides to introduce βάπτω silently and surreptitiously, as if it were the true βαπτίζω in an antiquated dress, I do not propose, in this lecture, to make any further reference to it, as it is not the legitimate subject of our inquiry. Leaving Baz and βάπτω, let us attempt to ascertain the primary and proper meaning of BazriZw, as it is found in the classical writers. We believe that βαπτίζω is to make one thing to be in another by dipping, by immersing, by burying, by covering, by superfusion, or by whatever mode effected, provided it be in immediate contact. A body placed ina tomb, a man shutin a house, is not strictly baptized, but a body put in the surrounding earth of a grave, or aman covered with the ruins of a house, 348 THE MODE OF is baptized. As the action of the verb refers, in almost all instances, to liquids, although not of necessity, for it may apply to solids of a soft and permeable nature; it may simplify the matter to say, that Baptists explain the word as uniformly meaning to put the thing baptized into the liquid: we contend that it means to make the thing baptized be in the liquid, however it be done. ‘To put a thing into water is, as they say, to baptize it; this, as we say, is the truth, but not the whole truth ; for to put the water over the thing is also to baptize it. With them nothing is baptized unless it be dipped into the liquid; with us every thing is baptized which is covered with the liquid. With them, to baptize desig- nates the mode in which the object is accomplished : with us it designates no mode at all, but only the accomplishment of the object. With them, to bap- tize is to dip, and nothing else; with us it is not to dip, nor yet to overwhelm, nor yet to pour, but it has a more general signification, which has no reference to mode; and it may be effected by dipping, or by overwhelming, or by pouring, or by any other mode in which the baptized thing becomes in the baptizing substance. The earth was as truly baptized by the flood, as a stone is baptized when thrown into water; with this differ- ence, the earth was baptized by water, the stone is baptized into water. Some of the modern German lexicographers, I refer to those who have devoted their days and nights to making lexicons of particular authors, and nicely defining the distinctions of words, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 349 would say a great deal more so; for I find, so far as I have opportunity to consult them, they ascribe dipping to [βαπτίζω, only as it occurs in the later Greek authors, when it intruded itself very much into the place of Bazrw. Ast, for instance, one of the ablest of them all, in his Platonic lexicon, distin- guishes βαπτίζω from βάπτω by rendering the former obruo, opprimo, to cover over, to oppress, and nothing else, (his instances have been cited in this contro- versy,) and the latter, immergo, tingo, to immerse, to dye. According to his last and best lexicographer, Plato knew nothing of immersion in baptism. Be it observed, this is not my theory. I am prepared to assert, not that βαπτίζω is distinguished from βάπτω by signifying a different mode of effecting its purpose, but that the distinction is in its being used in a more unrestricted sense without reference to the mode. If Baptists produce instances in which βαπτίζω implies dipping, in an author referred to, in Plato for instance, their controversy is so far not with me, but with better scholars who, at least in reference to particular authors, distinguish the two verbs as I have stated. I have no right to extend the authority of the lexico- grapher beyond his specific author, but I have a right to conclude, that he would not attribute to his author an improper use of the word. Ast, for instance, would make Plato write, not as a barbarian, but as an Athenian. While, therefore, I do not shield myself with the authority of Germany, I cannot re- frain from expressing my surprise, that our Baptist friends should so generally assert, that all Greek 350 THE MODE OF scholars agree with them in opinion.* Few Greek scholars, I imagine, will agree with them that Bazrw and βαπτίζω designate the same mode of doing the same thing: when a boy is said to be baptized with questions, few Greek scholars would say that βάπτω might have been used in the same connexion. At this point in the crisis of this controversy, I have to answer an inquiry which is sometimes pro- posed to those who assert that to baptize is to cover with water, as well as to put into it, What do you gain if you prove your assertion? for your sprinkling is not covering with water. I care not what we gain, or what we lose, so that we find the truth. So long as we are perpetually cross-questioning one another, or asking ourselves what each will gain or lose in the several steps of an argument, we shall not be likely to reach the truth in safety. What do we gain? If we prove our point, we gain the truth, and is that of no importance in the controversy ? I wish to gain no more, let the truth be what it will; but if our friends will concede this point, they will soon see what we shall gain, and what position both parties will henceforth occupy. If they will not concede @ I must except Dr. Carson, who, as I find since this was written, candidly acknowledges that, as to secondary sense, the lexicographers and commentators are all against him. If the lexicons to specific authors are made upon the principle that the authors use their words in peculiar senses, so that any word which will read easily in a translation, whether authorised by other writers or not, is the proper meaning, then they are made upon a most vicious and delusive principle. I do not believe that lexicons to particular authors are got up in so senseless a manner. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 351 it, we must trouble them with the evidence of our assertion. That to baptize is to make a thing be in water, (intro- ducing the term water for the sake of convenience, although things may be baptized with oil, or earth, or any fluid or friable substance,) to cover with water, as well as to put into it, 1 am confined by the limits of a lecture to a very brief outline of the evidence. I therefore cite three passages, each of which is a representative of a class which might be adduced. I select one in which the connexion defines the sense of the word; a second, in which the action of the verb is accomplished by overflowing or coming upon; a third, in which the verb simply represents the state of being enclosed, without any reference to the mode in which the enclosing or covering was effected. As these instances are quite independent of each other, if any one is conclusive, our case is proved. ‘That all are conclusive, I consci- entiously believe; and will, therefore, adduce them as our witnesses good and true, unless, of which I have no fear, they break down in cross-examination. The first passage I cite, as defining the sense of the word, is the verse of the Sibyl respecting the city of Athens, as it is given by Plutarch, in his life of Theseus. ᾿Ασκὸς βαπτίζῃ, δῦναι δέ τοι οὗ θέμις ἐστι. In this line, the contrast between βαπτίζειν and δῦναι supplies the definition for which we are in search. The true version of the words, we contend, is, Asa bladder thou mayest be baptized, but thou canst not dip. 352 THE MODE OF Loosely, the line has been translated, The bladder may be dipped, but never drowned; but nobody will seriously contend that δῦναι is to be drowned. Our Baptist friends, I believe, translate the verse, ‘Thou mayest be dipped, but thou canst not sink.” If they do, (and how else they can translate it consistently with their philology, I know not,) they grievously abuse the promise of the ancient Sibyl, as the follow- ing considerations will make manifest. Δῦνω is no more to sink than βαπτίζω, if by sinking is meant going deeper into the water than just below the surface. The action of the verb δῦνω is fully and perfectly accomplished as soon as the bladder is an inch or a line below the surface of the water. There is, indeed, no necessity of going downward at all to act the part of δῦναι in his full costume and perfect propriety. Had the bladder entered a perpendicular wave and risen at the same moment, provided it did not emerge, it would have played the part of δῦναι to perfection. Βαπτίζομαι, often used in describing ships as found- ering, implies sinking quite as much as dww. Adve, δύω, and δῦμι, in some forms and tenses neuter, in some transitive, is simply to enter. With prepositions, it may be made to sink, or to rise; but the simple verb is to go in, and, as every school-boy knows in his lessons in Homer, to go into clothes, or to go into arms. It is used, like βάπτω, for the action of a sword entering the body,—the visceribus ferrum mergere of the Latins. In reference to the sun it simply marks its setting, its passing the edge CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 353 of the horizon. The δῦσις of the stars is at the moment of their setting, as the ἀδῦτον is the inac- cessible part of a temple. Applied to passion, ἐνδῦνει, it enters the heart. The illustrations are innu- merable; indeed the neuter verb corresponds, with little variation, with the Baptist explanation of Bazri- ζεσθαι. Delightful it is to our friends to trace the analogy between baptism and burial, and the dead are said δῦναι γῆν, or δῦναι κατὰ γῆς. Moreover, there is another form of this verb which they ought especially to respect—ovrrw, their own dip, in sound as well as sense, applied to animals dipping their heads, but not sinking, who are said εἰς ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ obrrovrec.* But if the bladder cannot dip, how can it be baptized? Its floating image among the waves sup- plies the solution. Does the bladder enter the wave, or does the wave break upon the bladder? It floats upon the surface and cannot dip, but the curling wave may fall upon it, and so for a moment it is covered. The oracle is interpreted, As a bladder, the wave may pass over thee, but thou canst not sink beneath the surface. Thou mayst be baptized, but thou canst not dip. The word, then, is defined by its contrast with another which in many respects resembles it; and a more satisfactory definition could not be obtained. Let me not here be misunderstood: I say not that the bladder might be dipped without being baptized, but @ Apoll. Rhod. Argon. lib. i. 2A 354 THE MODE OF that it might be baptized without. being dipped. To be baptized it is quite enough that it be in the water, whether by immersion or superfusion. We have before our eyes a distinction between to baptize and to dip, unless the Baptists should say that δῦναι εἰς ὕδωρ is not to dip into water in the neuter sense; and when they do, it will be quite time enough to charge gallantly upon such a phantom. If this opinion needed any further confirmation, the connexion of the Sibylline verse with the history in Plutarch would readily supply it. The bladder originally and properly belonged to Theseus. That perfidious lover of Ariadne was, like many licentious men of old, very piously addicted to the use of oracles, and he received at Delphi, a response which assured him that as a bladder he should sail across the sea in its swell— ‘eo " > » Ὦ ” Ασκὸς yap ev οἴδματι ποντοπορεύσῃ. His bark was to pass over the sea, in the swell. The waves might break over it, but it could not be dipped. This oracle, in which the bladder was the figure of the ship of Theseus, we are told, the Sibyl afterwards applied to the city: of the ship, therefore, as well as of the bladder, it must be said, Thou mayst be baptized, but thou canst not dip. The city may be overwhelmed with the passing wave of calamity, but it cannot be immersed in its flood ; as the ship of Theseus might have been overwhelmed CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 355 with the billow, but it could not be immersed in the sea. Many heavy waves rolled over Athens. She was often baptized, but at last she was immersed —her Sibyl failed her. In the midst of the ravages and devastations of Sylla, her citizens, we are told by Pausanias, received at the shrine of Delphi their ambiguous response. Something was said about the story of the bladder,* but before it was pierced by the sword of Sylla it had floated long enough to assist us in defining baptism, often overwhelmed, but never losing its buoyancy—often baptized by superfusion, but never by immersion. This oracle of the Sibyl will explain a passage of Pindar, which in this controversy, is often cited against us. In allusion to the floating cork of the fisherman’s net, the poet says, ‘“‘ Not to be baptized 1 am as a cork over the surface of the sea.”? The meaning, as explained by the Sibylline verse, is far more poetic and beautiful than that which our Baptist friends assign to the passage. The cork is never covered by the wave, but always rises on its surface. It not only does not dip (οὐ Sive,) as the scholiast says, but is not even over- whelmed. If it be asked, How shall the bladder be baptized and the cork be unbaptizable? we answer, that the bladder was exposed to the fury of the storms, but as men do not fish in great storms, the α Τὰ ἐς τὸν ἀσκὸν ἔχοντα. ὁ ᾿Αβάπτιστός εἰμι, φελλὸς ds, Ὑπὲρ ἕρκος a\yus.—Pyth. il. 140. 2A 2 356 THE MODE OF cork is never covered by the waves.* So we may explain a class of passages which speak of baptism by waves as that of Libanius, cited by Mr. Ewing, “I am one of those overwhelmed by that great wave.” Let us now select an instance in which the action of the verb βαπτίζω is accomplished by bringing the water upon the thing baptized, and not by putting it into the water. One good, clear, unequivocal, instance will be quite sufficient; for if the verb mean to put a thing into the water, it cannot mean to put the water upon the thing, although it may include both significations in its generic meaning. That instance we find in Aristotle—‘‘ They say respecting the Pheenicians, who inhabit the parts called Gadeira, that they sailing without the pillars of Hercules for four days with an easterly wind, came to some desert places, abounding with rushes and sea-weeds, which on the ebb are not baptized, but in the flood are deluged.”” To the Greeks of the Mediterranean a ———————- alone, and as entranced, Counting the hours, the fisher in his skiff Lay with his circular and dotted line On the bright waters.—Rogers’ Italy. The unbaptizable cork of Pindar may be illustrated by the verb φελλεύειν, noticed by Hesychius, to float as a cork, which rises upon the wave without being covered; and still better by the Phellopedes, cork-footed people, of Lucian, (Ver. Hist. lib. ii.) who, walking on the sea, were not baptized, (not overwhelmed, as appears by the con- trast,) but keeping over or above the waves, ov βαπτιζομένους ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερεχόντας TOV κυματῶν. δ᾽ Αὐτὸς εἰμι των βεβαπτισμένων ὑπὸ τοῦ μεγάλου κύματος ἐκείνου. Epis. 25. © ** Λέγουσι περὶ Φοίνικας τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Ta Γάδειρα καλούμενα, ἔξω : ἡ ; meg ΡΝ Wei ky ͵ ᾿ πλέοντας Ἡρακλείων στηλῶν, ἀπηλιώτῃ ἀνέμῳ ἡμέρας τέτταρας, παραγίνεσθαι CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 357 the ebb and flood of the great Atlantic tide must have been a marvellous phenomenon. When Aris- totle says that the land at low water was not baptized, what else could he mean than that it was not covered with the water? In this baptism the water must have gone upon the rushes and sea-weeds, for he never could have dreamed of their going into the water. A more perfect and unexceptionable example cannot be desired. — It does not depend upon the variable customs of that age, or upon historical events, of which inaccurate accounts may have reached us. If we know the customs of the ocean, the immutable laws of the tidal wave, we are as competent to judge of the meaning of βαπτίζω in this instance as were the Athenians themselves. Aristotle, the faithful teacher of nature, had to relate an extraordinary fact ; and we may be sure he would have been scrupulously exact in the selection of his words, in order to make the description as truthful as possible. To dispel any doubt, if a doubt could exist, we have another word not in contrast, as in the pre- ceding instance, but in conformity with baptize, intended to express the same action in a varied phrase. At the ebb the shore is not baptized, but at the flood it is overwhelmed, or covered over with water (κατακλύζεσθαι). About the meaning of this word there can be no controversy. Nobody ever εἴς τινας τόπους ἐρήμους, Opvov καὶ φύκους πλήρεις" οὕς, ὅταν μὲν ἄμπωτις ἢ: μὴ βαπτίζεσθαι. ὃταν δὲ πλημμύρα κατακλύζεσθαι.".----1)6 Mirabil. Auscult. 358 THE MODE OF imagined it meant to dip. But how it spoils the figure which Dr. Gale suggests—the shore at the ebb is not dipped, but at the flood it is covered ! On coming to this passage, Dr. Gale, as if affected with an unpleasant consciousness, was disposed to parley about conceding the point for which we con- tend. He says, “The word BazriZw, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a. thing being in that condition,” (if he had said coming into that condition, he would have exactly expressed our meaning, ) “ no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water is put over it; though, indeed, to put it into the water is the most natural way, and the most common, and is therefore usually and pretty con- stantly, but it may be not necessarily implied.” Very excellent indeed is this remark of Dr. Gale. The mode in which the thing is most commonly done, is most commonly intended in speaking of it ; and hence the secret of a majority of instances of baptizing into water, as compared with those of bap- tizing with water. Dr. Gale adds, ‘‘ However that be, the place makes nothing at all for our adversaries, and therefore as they'll not insist on it,” (Won't we, Dr. Gale, insist upon it?) ‘I will dismiss it when I have desired you, if you believe there is any difficulty remaining, to consider it impartially, and to examine it by the rules I laid down for understanding meta- phorical, elliptical, &c., forms of speech.”* But why α Reflections on Wall, p. 117. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 359 consider rules for the understanding of metaphorical, elliptical, and all the interminable et cetera forms of speech? Where is the difficulty to be solved? Aris- totle was the last man, and especially on the phe- nomena of tides; and more especially in this cold, narrative sort of style, to glare and gloss with a great outlandish trope about not putting the shore into the sea, with all its rushes and fucus, a worthy compa- nion to that other trope of the Baptists, about dipping the lake in the blood of the wounded frog. As to the comfortable sort of proceeding in dismissing the passage, because we will not insist upon it, if we allow our pieces, as soon as they come into good play, to be surreptitiously taken off the board, under the pretext that we do not care for them, the Baptists may very easily, but very ingloriously, cry Check-mate most lustily. If the concession in this paragraph had been made more candidly and less covertly, without the ill grace of the allusion to rules of metaphor, I should not have looked further for an instance of candour and superiority to the tactics of a partizan, which it is refreshing to quote. Dr. Cox, in his excellent work on baptism, says, ‘“‘ A person may indeed be immersed by pouring, but immersion is the being plunge& into water, or overwhelmed by it. Were the water to ascend from the earth, it would still be baptism, were the person wholly covered by it.” I see not what philological question there is between Dr. Cox and myself, as practically we both make a part do for the whole, he baptizing only the head (for the body is baptized 360 THE MODE OF without his aid) and I only a part of the skin of the face, and we both call the act baptizing the person. If the dispute be brought to this point, Christians ought to be ashamed to spend a moment of their precious time and expiring energy over such a wretched altercation. Grant that affusion is baptism, (as Dr. Cox does, if only there be enough of it) and the question becomes one of degree, which may be speedily settled. It assumes the form, How much of | a man needs to be baptized? [5 it not his feet only, but also his hands and his head? To prove that superfusion may be baptism, I cite Aristotle, with Dr. Gale, assenting reluctantly, and Dr. Cox cheerfully. As to the question of degree, the only true orthodox dipper, the only Baptist who baptizes the whole man, I have ever seen, was among the shades of ancient ecclesiastical history,—an anathematised heretic low- ering his disciples into the water head downwards, by the convenient machinery of a stage and ropes. To this class of instances belong the figurative expressions, baptized with taxes; baptized with cares; baptized with debts ; baptized with calamity ; not into taxes, cares, debts, or calamity ; and many similar phrases. An admirable illustration has been cited by Mr. Ewing, from Libanius: ‘‘ He who with difficulty bears the burden he has, would be baptized by a small addition”*—would be overwhelmed by it. I have seen βαπτίζομαι, in these phrases rendered, to sink; but **O Se μύλις a viv φέρει φέρων ὑπὸ μικρᾶς ἂν βαπτισθείε mpooOnkns.— Ep. 310. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 361 the verb is not to sink, according to any translation. If it were, what becomes of the distinction between βαπτίζομαι and dvvw, as maintained by the Baptists ? and, further, into what does the person sink under the small addition? To sink to the earth is not to be baptized, unless the poor man sink into it, and so be immersed. But will any living man maintain, that such an immersion is intended when a man is bap- tized by a small addition to his burden ? We now want an instance of the thing baptized be- coming enclosed in something else, without reference to the mode in which it became so enclosed—the simple baptism in, without the into or the with—the immersion or the superfusion. To define this abstract sense of the word, may be attended with some diffi- culty, as it is always easier to say with precision what a writer expresses, than to say what he does not express. When a word occurs as infrequently as βαπτίζω (and the unlearned reader should know it is not of frequent occurrence, as it is not found in several of the more important of the Greek clas- sics) it may be difficult to find the pure naked verb, without some extraneous encumbrance of mode and fashion, seeing he cannot come forth naked,—is not presentable in society without some modal dress. He cannot act without some mode, as a man cannot paint without some colour; yet to baptize, may have no more reference to a specific mode, than to paint has to a specific colour. Let us seek our illustration in the abstractions of the Platonic schools. Their teachers speak of the 362 THE MODE OF soul as baptized in the body, or as baptized in mat- ter, or as baptized in the dregs of creation. Baptized during life, sometimes as in a sepulchre, when death is their regeneration ; sometimes in a prison, when death is their liberation. The soul is surely not dipped into the body. In the loose sense in which Dr. Cox uses the word immersion, without reference to mode, we may say the spirit is immersed in the body, but the Platonists evidently mean by their baptism, the becoming enclosed in the _ body, whether, as they sometimes speak, the soul enter the body, or, as at other times, the matter concrete around the soul. The soul, however it came there, by direct infusion, or by the conglomeration of matter around it, was baptized, through life, until it emerged, by philosophy, to adopt their mystic phraseo- logy, or else by death, “a psychical principle, not consubstantial with body, to converse with immaterial forms.” The idea was a favourite one with Plato himself, although he does not use the term baptize, as it was with the disciples of Pythagoras generally. Our Baptist friends are fond of pursuing the parallel between a baptism and a burial. Plato, or his mas- ter Socrates, in whose name the disciple speaks, in that curious dialogue Cratylus, taught that es- sences being evolved from names, the body, σῶμα, is truly σῆμα, the sepulchre of the soul. “ The ancient Theologues and Mantists,” says Clement of Alexan- dria, alluding to the doctrine of the Pythagoreans,* α Stromat. lib. 11]. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 363 “testify that the soul is buried in the body as in a tomb.” The material is represented as adhering tenaciously to the spiritual, and, as enclosing it in darkness. When the soul, by the later Platonists, in allusion to this doctrine, as old as Pythagoras, and it would seem, as Orpheus himself, is said to be bap- tized in body, ought not the word to be considered as simply asserting the enclosure without reference to the mode? The σῆμα was a mound of earth thrown over the dead, and such, according to the Platonic theology, is the body to the baptized spirit. Accord- ing to the commentary of Olympiodorus on the Phzedo, for whose perfect orthodoxy in these pro- found abstractions, Thomas Taylor, the great modern Platonist, most fully and expressly vouches, the bodies of men were condensed from the vapour and smoke of the blasted Titans, encircling their souls as a prison, in which baptized, until purified from Titanic pollution, they become perfect Bacchuses. [, however, select a passage in which the soul baptized in its body, is said to sink in matter, distinguishing the baptism from the sinking, which takes place when the soul lies engrossed in matter. This may probably place the simple idea more dis- tinctly before the mind, than when only the baptism in the body is mentioned. Take the passage of Plotinus, in Ennead, i. lib. 8, as cited in Taylor’s Dissertation on the Eleusinian and Bacchic Myste- . = y ε ries.2 ““᾿Αποθνήσκει οὖν, ὡς ψυχὴ ἂν θάνοι" καὶ ὁ θάνατος * Second Edition. 1816. p. 39. 364 THE MODE OF αὑτῃ, ἔτι ἐν τῷ σώματι βεβαπτισμένῃ, ἐν ὕλῃ ἐστὶ κασαδῦναι Kat πλησθῆναι αὑτῆς, καὶ ἐξελθούσης, ἐκεῖ κεῖσθαι, ἕως ανα- δράμῃ καὶ ἀφέλῃ τὴν ὄψιν ἐκ τοῦ βορβόρου." “Tt dies as soul can die. Death to it, being still baptized in the body, is to sink in matter, and be filled with it, and going out, to lie there, until it return upward, and remove its sight from the mire.”* This particular, although it appears to me satisfactory, may not be as evident as the other two, because the word is presented in its abstraction from all accompaniment of form. We conclude from these instances, that βαπτίζω is not to dip, and has no reference to mode, because it is distinguished from a verb, which in that connexion means to dip, because it is employed when the bap- tizing substance is brought upon the thing baptized, and because it is used in a sense which excludes all reference to mode. Thus we may readily account for its varied construction ; as to baptize into, which will strictly and usually mean to immerse,—to baptize with, which will strictly and usually mean to over- whelm,—to baptize in,—which designates neither the one mode nor the other. If the word itself designates no mode, we can baptize in any, and designate it by the construction of the sentence, the use of prepositions, or the other nice and beauti- ful contrivances with which the Greek tongue is so abundantly provided. α The punctuation is as I find it. By altering it another version may be given, but it would not affect the sense of “ baptized.” CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 365 Let us now, on leaving the Lyceum and the academy, to consult the sacred oracles of Mount Zion, carry with us one remark,—that if this theory of baptism be wholly subverted on further exa- mination, it will not bring down in its fall the reasoning from the New Testament. That reasoning may lose some illustration, but it stands upon a distinct and independent foundation. Our case is, that in the New Testament, the words baptize and baptism occur in appropriation to religious rites, in which there was no immersion, either in the strict sense of dipping, or in the loose sense of covering, at least in the emblematical and_ visible acts. Let me explain the reason of introducing the last clause. It may be said that men were bap- tized into Moses, baptized into Christ, baptized into his death, baptized into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which ex- pressions, if literally translated, would be, immersed into Moses, immersed into Christ, and so on; so that the force of the verb may expend itself through its own preposition εἰς, into its own noun, Moses or Christ, and leave the mode of using the water indefi- nite. -With any who adopt this solution of baptism by immersion, I have no controversy. They put persons into Christ, emblematically, by the use of water. It may, on the other hand, be said that the word, coming by appropriation to designate reli- gious rites, so adhered to them, that even when there was no immersion at all, it was still retained by the inspired writers and preachers. The former, 366 THE MODE OF I should call a figurative sense ; the latter, a second- ary sense, which, upon the whole, I prefer; but I am not required to decide this question, but only to prove that, according to the usage of the New Testament, there was baptism without immersion, or, at least, without immersion in water. If it be asked, How should the appropriation have arisen so early, I am not bound to discover its rise. 1 admit that 1 must bear the burden of proof, so far as the fact is concerned, but I have no right to take the additional load of ascertaining the cause. It is not necessary for my argument, as I have sug- gested, that there should be any exclusion of immer- sion at all, unless it be contended that immersion into Christ is not sufficient to meet the requisites of the text. As there were divers baptisms of the Jews, before the Christian era, the name might have been first appropriated to immersions, and afterwards extended to all religious washings among the Jews who spoke Greek. Or -it might have arisen from the religious rites which received this designation, being usually, although not uniformly, performed by immersion ; or it might have been at once given from some analogy, or unexplained circumstance, as an- other ordinance was called the supper, being instituted after supper was ended, and being no more a meal than sprinkling is an immersion. Our business is with the use of the word, but not with the history of its variations. Let me not be represented as saying that immer- sion is excluded. The use of the term, as appro- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 367 priated in the New Testament, may be illustrated by many similar appropriations in the classics. If I say that χειροτονεῖν, to stretch out the hand, came to signify to elect, when the election might have been effected by any other means, am I to be charged with saying, that Grecian elections were never made by the original mode of stretching out the hand? So, in contending that immersion is not necessarily intended, I do not deny that it may often be in- cluded in the term. Sometimes there was immersion, sometimes, as I believe, there was none; sometimes the immersion might have been partial, sometimes complete. I do not exclude it, but I deny that it was uniformly intended by the word, or implied in its use. It may, however, be said, Will you, on account of any supposed difficulty of obtaining water, or of the impossibility of immersing numbers, or of the improbability of immersing women in accord- ance with the habits of some eastern countries, or of similar perplexities, which Pzedo-baptists so com- monly produce, propound your argument in opposi- tion to the original and accredited name of the ordinance? The Baptist gives fair notice that, what- ever the difficulties, he will deny that any person was, or could be, baptized without immersion. I admit that I have no right to reason from the difficul- ties of the disputed practice, if the usage of the word be clearly, distinctly, and uniformly against me. I therefore prefer to adduce the instances not from the disputed rite of Christian baptism, but from 368 THE MODE OF the other baptisms mentioned in the New Testament ; and if they establish a variation in the usage of the word, from its primary sense, I may then fairly, seeing the philological question is open and unsettled, without affirming that either party is right, propound the difficulties in attempting to ascertain the apostolic practice. Let us go, therefore, where every Baptist knows in his heart, before he reads another line, we are going, to the shores of the Red Sea, and to the upper room in Jerusalem. “* Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea.” This passage, notwithstanding all the attempts to explain or evade it, from the beginning of the con- troversy to this day, remains unaffected a clear, unexceptionable, incontrovertible instance of baptism without immersion. Two facts are ascertained on the authority of inspiration, which no Christian can impeach; the one declared by St. Paul, the fathers were all baptized in the sea; the other taught by Moses, not one of them was immersed in the sea. For the hundredth time, the Baptists say this verse has been protruded before them, as it pro- bably will be protruded before them to the end of the controversy, should it unhappily continue until the millennium. Every moment we loiter upon this verse seems time mis-spent, for in its own simplicity, without the verbiage of commentators, it is most clear, forcible, and impressive. There was the baptism CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 369 of a nation into Moses, and not a man was immersed. How then were they baptized? I do not know— I do not care. It might have been by the spray of the sea, it might have been by the rain sent down from the cloud. The Psalmist may, or may not, supply the exposition. ‘‘The waters saw thee, Ὁ God, the waters saw thee, they were afraid, the depths also were troubled, the clouds poured out water.” Whether the Israelites were, or were not, baptized in that water, I do not assert; but I am quite sure they were in some mode baptized in the sea, and Iam quite sure they were in no mode immersed in the sea, because I believe both Paul and Moses. Our Baptist friends usually say, this is only a figurative expression. Of what is it afigure? They say of the passing through the sea; but Paul had just stated that fact in plain terms, and his rhetoric is not of the kind which first states a fact in plain terms, and then, as if the writer had nothing else to do than to spend his time in superfluous writing, repeats it in a figure, and so obscures the meaning. “All our fathers passed through the sea.” What elucidation is afforded by repeating the thought in the words, “and were all baptized in the sea?” Besides, like Aristotle with the tide, St. Paul writes here not to produce effect, but to give correct inform- ation. ‘‘ Moreover, brethren, we would not have you ignorant that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized into Moses.” Does St. Paul mean, I would not have 2B 370 THE MODE OF you ignorant of what never occurred? I would not have you ignorant of a piece of rhetoric, that all our fathers were baptized into Moses; when not one of them was really baptized? That there was no immer- sion for Israel, was the glory of the passage through the sea. While we protest against the principle of re- sorting in controversy to the aid of trope and figure, in the exposition of plain passages, we are sure that such an immersion, with the dead bodies of the im- mersed Egyptians, floating upon the billows and rolling to the shore before the eyes of the apostle, would be of all possible figures the most incon- gruous, and the least impressive, obscuring rather than elucidating the history. Besides, the baptism was into Moses, the syntax corresponding with the baptism into Christ; and immersion is just as much or as little implied in the one phrase as in the other. This passage may illustrate the words of Peter, in speaking of the flood, ‘‘ wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved by water, the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.” Some resem- blance between our baptism and the state of the family of Noah in the flood, is implied in the words. But the eight souls were not immersed. In the strict sense of immersion, even the old world was not immersed—not dipped, for the water came upon them. In no sense was Noah immersed in water. We baptize with “the like figure whereunto,” ac- cording to the mode in which Noah and his family were baptized, and not according to that in which CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 371 the antediluvians were drowned; for our baptism is significant of salvation, and not of destruction. Let us now study the baptism of the Pentecost :-— John said, “I indeed baptize you with water, unto repentance, but he that cometh after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” Were Lexicography herself, uttering her oracles through her hundred tomes, to declare that Jesus dipped his disciples into fire, I would reclaim, and say, no fact in the evangelical history, no doctrine of the evan- gelical theology, corresponds with such an exposition. To confirm this promise, Jesus said, “John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Ten days afterwards the Pentecost brought the baptism of the Holy Ghost,—‘‘Suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” On the day of Pentecost, therefore, Jesus baptized his disciples with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. The apostle Peter says, Jesus has shed forth this which ye both see and hear. I am aware that some of our opponents have charged us, in speaking of the baptism of the Holy Ghost by pouring, with representing the blessed Spirit as in material form poured down upon the disciples; but whatever incautious language may have been used, the Baptists know very well that such gross ideas of the Divine nature belong to our theology not a whit 2B 2 579 THE MODE OF more than to their own. To prevent misrepresent- ation, | am anxious to confine my remarks to the emblems of the Spirit with which the disciples were baptized. Something audible and visible was shed down, for Peter says, Jesus “hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear.” Something fell on the disciples which represented the gift of the Holy Ghost. The tongues distributed as of fire sat one upon each. Were they immersed into those emblems? Were they even covered with them? In the strict sense of immersion, if they were baptized, the emblems of the Holy Ghost must have been in the room before they entered. In the sense of covering or overwhelming, the emblems could not have “sat upon each,” but must have descended to the ground, and so enclosed them on all sides. With regard to all that was visible, all that could be modal, all that could be shed forth, there was no immersion. ‘‘Not many days hence,” after Jesus gave the promise, the disciples were bap- tized with the Holy Ghost. As Jesus baptized them, although he did not immerse in the emblems, so we baptize, humbly imitating his example, although neither do we immerse in the emblems. As the evangelical writers call that act of the Lord baptism, the word had become accommodated to a sense in which immersion was not necessarily understood, and for that sense we appeal to the words, ‘he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” It affects not the inference to say, as Theophylact said long before, the word denotes the abundance of the supply of the Spirit. The inquiry is not why the CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 373 word was used, but what it designates ; not how great the supply, but whether the baptized were immersed in it. We, therefore, in proof of our averment that the word in the New Testament does not necessarily imply immersion, or even overwhelming, add the baptism of the Pentecost to that of the Red Sea. To these texts I appeal; and through the rest of the lecture, in attempting to show that some passages may be best explained, and some pressing difficulties may be avoided, by supposing the word baptism did not imply immersion in designating the religious rite, I must be understood as continually leaning upon these two instances. The subsequent remarks may be easily met, by objecting with a peremptory or oracular tone, according to the temperament of the objector, baptism is immersion and nothing else, and therefore we care not for the difficulties with which you may implicate the subject; but if these instances have shaken that doctrine and left it open for controversy, (to assume no more) such an ob- jection is inadmissible in fair argument. It becomes our duty to ponder the perplexities of the case. In seeking further illustration from other refer- ences to baptism as distinct from the Christian rite, we may confirm our remarks by noticing the daily baptisms of the Pharisees, and the divers baptisms of the Jews. Although the Pharisaic baptisms mentioned in the Gospels have been so frequently considered in this controversy, yet I have never seen anything advanced by our Baptist brethren, sufficient to diminish in the 374 THE MODE OF slightest degree the force of what appears an obvious and incontrovertible argument, that these baptisms were washings without immersion. “Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders, for they wash not their hands when they eat bread?”* ‘ Then came together unto him the Pharisees and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem; and when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault, for the Pharisees and all the Jews, who hold the traditions of the elders, except they wash their hands to the wrist,’ eat not. And coming from the market, except they baptize themselves,° they eat not; and many other things there be, which they have received to hold, the baptisms of drinking cups and of pots,° and of brazen vessels, and of couches.”@ “And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him, and he went in and sat down to meat; and when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not been first baptized before dinner.” « Matt. xv. 1, 2. , ὁ πυγμῇ. Our translation renders it “oft.” There are various other renderings. Water was poured upon the hands, either as far as the wrist, or possibly they rubbed one hand with the closed fist of the other. The former seems the preferable sense. © Some MSS., and among them the Vatican, read ῥαντίσωνται, they sprinkle themselves. This is not the true reading, but it suggests some association in the minds of the copyists between these baptisms and sprinklings, as they mistook the one for the other. @ Mark vii. 14. ¢ Luke xi. 37, 38. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. oD Our time may be spared by considering these pas- sages together. In the instance recorded by Matthew and Mark, the Pharisees murmured because the disciples of our Lord partook of their food without having previously washed their hands. In that in Luke, a Pharisee marvelled at our Lord, because he had not been baptized before his dinner. The inference is, unless reason for a distinction can be shown, that the ceremony in the two instances was the same, and the baptism expected from our Lord was the washing of his hands. The persons who murmured were in both instances of the same sect; Jesus and his disciples belonged to the same class, and therefore they might be expected to observe the same rites of purification; and all the circumstances, so far as we can trace them, were similar. Had the disciples washed their hands, they would have done everything which the Pharisees expected. Why should more have been required from our Lord ? Had he performed the ordinary purification, the Pharisee would not have marvelled. There were, 1 admit, two modes of washing the hands observed by the Pharisees, one by pouring and one by dipping ;* and if our Lord had been subject to the greater defilement, and his disciples to the less, the washing expected from our Lord might have been more complete than that of his disciples. It would be tedious and unprofitable to notice the interminable @ omy no and om moan. 376 THE MODE OF regulations of the rabbins respecting the ablutions of their hands before meat.* I know not whether our Baptist friends will regard as a concession what all ought to acknowledge, that the two kinds of ablution, the pouring of water upon the hands, and the dipping of them in it, might have been intended in the gospel of Mark, where the former is called washing the hands to the wrist, and the latter baptizing. Some Baptists contend, or at least some did formerly contend, that we are to expound the passage in Mark’s gospel, ‘the Phari- sees, except they wash their hands, eat not,” and when they come from ‘the market, except they bap- tize, or dip the things they buy, as herbs and fruits, they do not eat them; but this interpretation is unauthorised by the words of the text, as well as by the customs of the Pharisees.’ Besides, whatever this extraordinary version may do with St. Mark, it cannot extort a word in favour of immersion from St. Luke, who says, the Pharisees marvelled that our Lord had not been baptized. Had Jesus been to market to purchase herbs for the Pharisees? Was it expected that he should do the servant’s duty of « Talmud. Bab. and Hier. in Berach. and Maimonides in Mikvaoth. (Lightfoot’s Exercit. on the passages. ) 6 Although an appeal is made to some ancient versions, yet they are of too little authority to be opposed to the fair translation of the Greek text. The text is, unless they baptize themselves, “ βαπτίσωνται,᾽" and if it be admitted that there is any ellipsis at all, (which we have no right to admit) it must be ras χεῖρας. as to the hands, inferred from the preceding verse. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 377 washing them before dinner? And if Jesus had been expected to dip the herbs, would the passive voice have been employed, that he had not been baptized ? Admitting that the custom ascribed to the Pharisees by Maimonides, of immersing themselves whenever they were polluted by the touch of the common people, prevailed as early as the time of our Lord, we may explain, consistently with the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, the baptism of the Pharisees in coming from market; but, how does this admission account for the expected immersion of our Lord, who never affected the sanctity of the Pharisees, never walked through the streets covered with his long robes and broad _ phylacteries, avoiding the contact of the profane, but who was universally known as one of the common people, and often reproached as the friend of publicans and sinners ? If Jesus sat down at the table of the Pharisee with unwashen hands, he neglected a great and solemn regulation of the elders ; for, according to the rab- binical authorities, it was better to die than to eat without first washing the hands; and a great rabbi was excommunicated for the neglect, and deprived, by order of the Sanhedrim, of the ordinary burial. But to have immersed the whole body, if practised at all, must have been regarded as an act of most scru- pulous sanctity, and Pharisaic strictness. ‘‘ The Pharisee marvelled that he was not first baptized before dinner.” That the Pharisee could not have marvelled, because 378 THE MODE OF our Lord had not wholly immersed himself, may, I think, be made sufficiently plain from the New Test- ament, without multiplying extracts from the rabbin- ical authors, who, although they treat so diffusely upon the ablutions of the hands before meals, say very little of the immersion of the whole body. But if immersion before meat was so generally the prac- tice as to excite surprise by its neglect, what could have been the meaning of section upon section, and comment upon comment, literally line upon line, and precept upon precept, on the washing of their hands preparatory to the partaking of food? The immersion of the body must have superseded the cleansing of the hands. We have seen that no such immersion was expected from the disciples. The reason is obvious. There was nothing in the ordinary intercourse of life to pollute the whole body of those who belonged to the common people. The hands being defiled would, by touching the food, make it unclean, and so unfit to be eaten. That such was the understanding, is evi- dent from the language of our Lord, who defends himself and his disciples by asserting, that food cannot defile a man; although, according to the tradition of the elders, the hands being defiled as they were by ordinary business, would have polluted the food which they touched. There is, however, a hypo- thetical case, in which our Lord would have been expected to immerse himself. Had he contracted the greater pollution of the law, as by contact with a dead body or an unclean animal, he must have CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 379 bathed in performing the rites of purification. But would the Pharisee have wittingly invited a man in such a state of ceremonial defilement to dine with him? His presence would have been a legal pollu- tion. Entering, he would have defiled the house ; and after his immersion, he would have been unclean until the evening. That the Pharisee marvelled at the omission of an ordinary custom among the Jews, is evident; not that he had knowingly invited an unclean person to his table. But conceding what I care not to deny, that the Pharisees, as early as the time of our Lord, practised immersion, after contact with the common people; or even, what I do not think probable, that they practised it regularly every day before meat: and conceding what will be thought a strange con- cession, that our Lord, instead of being reproached as a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners, was reputed the most strict, severe, and abstemious of the Pharisees :—the sur- prise of his host must have referred to the omission, not of an immersion, which if practised at all, must have been performed by the guests at their own abodes, but of some ablution which he expected to be observed at his own house preparatory to the sitting down at his table. Were this a baptism which it was customary for the guests to perform before their arrival, the Pharisee would not have observed the omission, and consequently would not have marvelled at it. But is it at all probable that the guests, on coming to dinner, were accustomed 380 THE MODE OF to strip themselves, and immerse in some bath or large cistern in the house of their host? And is it probable that of this custom we should have no account, not a reference to it, in all the interminable tracts of the Talmuds and rabbinical authors, who treat so largely of the ablutions practised before meat? They washed their hands in various ways; but when or how did they immerse themselves in the house of their host? Were the houses of the Pharisees fitted up with baths and other conveniences daily prepared for the accommodation of guests who might happen to have been in the market, or in any other con- course of people? The wealthy Pharisees often made great feasts, and their houses were crowded with guests. As we may be sure two of them would not bathe in the same water, clean water must have been provided for every person. How could all this un- dressing, and dipping, and re-dressing have been managed in a city where feasts were very frequent, water not very plentiful, and the guest-chamber often crowded with visitors ? We have distinct information, as in this contro- versy has often been observed, of ‘‘ the manner of the purifying of the Jews.” At a marriage-feast, at which the guests were generally very numerous, (and from the deficiency of the wine on the occasion to which we refer, we may suppose they were not fewer than usual,) there were six water-pots of stone, intended for their ablutions, containing two or three firkins apiece,—quite sufficient to supply water for washing the hands, or even the feet of many visitors. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 381 But taking the word rendered firkin, to be the largest measure it can denote, the bath—although some think it was much smaller—each vessel would then contain from fifteen to twenty gallons, in which it would not be easy for a man to immerse him- self. We may certainly conclude that immersion was not the manner of purifying among the Jews, when they assembled at the house of a friend; and that the Pharisee marvelled because our Lord did not perform the customary ablution, which could not have been immersion, of a guest before dinner. Dr. Gale contends, and some of his brethren agree with him, that the Pharisees daily immersed them- selves before dinner, because some of the Jews are said to have been Hemero-baptists (daily baptists.) Citing Josephus,’ who says that one sect of the Jews did immerse themselves before dinner, he thinks it probable another sect might do likewise. But the misfortune is, that sect was very unlike the Pharisees. If I had no better reason for concluding that the Pharisees did not regularly immerse themselves before dinner, I should say, that if they did, Josephus, one of themselves, would not have mentioned daily im- mersion as a peculiarity of the Essenes. Nor did our Lord assume the austerity, nor adopt the maxims of those ascetics of the wilderness; so that the Pharisee could not have supposed him to be one of these Hemero-baptists, and on that account have mar- @ De Bel. Jud. lib. 11. ec. 7. 382 THE MODE OF velled that he did not immerse. No Pharisee would invite an Kssene to dine with him: no Essene would accept such an invitation from a Pharisee. “ The summary of our reasoning is, because the Pharisees did not regularly practise immersion before dinner ; because, even conceding that they did, our Lord was not reputed a Pharisee; because, even conceding that he was so reputed, the immersion would not have been expected at the house of his host; the Pharisee marvelled, not that our Lord did not first immerse himself, but that he did not perform the customary ablution, expected from his disciples on a similar occasion, of washing his hands before meat. @ Of the Hemero-baptists, referred to by Justin Martyr, and other Christian writers, but little is known, although the Apostolic Constitu- tions seem to regard them as the Pharisees mentioned in this passage: ‘‘ The Hemero-baptists are those who every day do not eat unless they baptize themselves: moreover of their beds, and dishes, and cups, and pots, and seats, they make no use unless they first wash them with water.” (Lib. vi. cap. 6.) Epiphanius, however, says that in addition to the rites of the scribes and Pharisees, they baptized themselves every day. Hegesippus, according to Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist. iv. 22,) in speaking of the seven sects of the Jews, distinguishes them from both the Pharisees and the Essenes. Some later writers also consider them to have been a distinct sect; which opinion Mosheim adopts, who believes that they were the ancestors of the present Joannites, or disciples of John, a sort of semi-Christians found in the East. (Commentaries on the Affairs of the Christians. Introduction.) If they were known to Josephus, they must have been the Essenes; but if any, contrary to all probability, will contend that they were the Pharisees, then their daily baptism, as we have seen, would not require the immersion of our Lord.—See Gieseler’s Zecles. Hist. period i. dee. i. chap. i. sect. 22. ᾿ CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 383 Of the baptizing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches, although I have little doubt that various kinds of ablutions are intended in the general word, yet I cannot venture to say as positively as several of my brethren do, that some of these, espe- cially the couches, could not have been immersed. The Jews were undoubtedly most careful and _parti- cular in thoroughly washing the drapery and coverings of their seats ; and, if any one will take the trouble to study the various pollutions of beds and couches, as they are described in Maimonides and the Tal- mudic tracts, he must, I think, in candour admit, that these articles of furniture were in some instances immersed in water.‘ Although I cannot rely so confidently upon these baptisms of furniture, as do many of my brethren, yet I think the divers baptisms of the Jews, mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, include, if they do not exclusively denote, the purifications by sprinkling performed in the Jewish temple. I solicit attention to the context. The apostle had described the material sanctuary of the first covenant, “which,” he says, “ was a figure for the time being, in which were offered @ See Lightfoot on this passage, who maintains, as do many oriental scholars who know much more of these ablutions than I do, that they were effected by sprinkling. I however cannot tell why the couches were not immersed, although the great orientalists say they were not. While I dare not contradict them, I do not make myself responsible for their opinion. ‘The only argument I can find that the baptizing of cups was not their immersion, is derived from the declaration of our Lord, that the Pharisees cleansed only the outside. Its value I leave to the estimate of the reader. 384 THE MODE OF oblations and sacrifices, which could not perfect the worshipper, as to his conscience ; enjoined until the time of reformation, in respect only to meats and drinks, and divers baptisms, ordinances of the flesh. But Christ being come, a high-priest of future good, through a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us, entered once for all into the most holy place. For if the blood of calves and goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, purify so far as the cleansing of the flesh ; by how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God, purify your conscience from dead works, for the service of the living God ?”* My conviction is, on reading the whole paragraph, that the divers baptisms included the sprinkling of the blood of calves and goats upon the altar, and the sprinkling of the unclean with the water of separation, in which were mingled the ashes of the heifer. Those baptisms were ordi- nances of the flesh; and these sprinklings were for the cleansing of the flesh: those baptisms could not purify the conscience; the blood of Christ, of which the blood sprinkled upon the altar, and the ashes sprinkled upon the unclean, were figures for the time being, does purify the conscience. There were divers immersions and divers sprinklings among the Jews. The apostle, by divers baptisms, must refer to the one @ Heb. ix. 95:18. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 385 or to the other, or to both. He calls these baptisms ordinances of the flesh, and afterwards says, “for if the blood of calves and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, purify to the cleansing of the flesh.” Be it observed, further, that the apostle had made no reference whatever in the first part of the parallel to the sprinkling with the ashes of the heifer, if it were not included in the divers baptisms ; aud yet in the second part it is the chief point of his argument. It was not a gift, nor a sacrifice, it was not for meat, nor for drink; our opponents as confidently add, it was not a baptism. Let us con- sider the reasoning of the apostle, on their exposition. ‘* Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and _ sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience ; being enjoined until the time of reformation only for meats and drinks, and divers immersions, institutes of the flesh; for if sprinklings purify the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ purify the conscience?” Is it credible, that the apostle should reason in this style— should represent the Levitical service as a type of the cleansing of the conscience by the blood of Christ ; and enumerating its several parts, should exclude its sprinklings ; and immediately, as though he had mentioned them, make these sprinklings the strength of his argument, and the only part of the type which he specifically notices ; and that, on the other hand, he should introduce immersions into the enumeration of the Mosaic types, and make no application of 20 386 THE MODE OF them to the evangelical service? When had he said, the sprinkling purified as to the flesh, if it were not included in the divers baptisms, the ordinances of the flesh, which being obviously parts of the type must have corresponded with the antitype? What else than the sprinkling of the blood of calves and goats in the sanctuary, and the sprinkling of the unclean with the ashes of the heifer, does the apostle represent as intended to prefigure the purification of the soul by the blood of Christ? What immersion of the flesh in water was typical of the sprinklings of the heart from an evil conscience? The argument re- quires that the sprinklings of the law be included in the ordinances of the flesh, either in the meats, or the drinks, or the baptisms. But if they were implied in any of those three kinds of ordinances of the flesh, they must have been in the divers baptisms. Some Peedo-baptists of great learning and acute- ness excogitate an argument in favour of sprinkling, from the use of the epithet διαφόροις, divers baptisms, or divers kinds of baptisms, designating, as they think, various modes of administering it. As I am not sure that I understand their reasoning, I can neither affirm nor contradict; although my want of perspicacity, in not understanding the reasoning of the ablest theologians which the church has ever known, is not to be construed into a concession of the argument founded on the phrase. Dr. Owen, for instance, says on this passage, that baptism means ‘‘any kind of washing by dipping or sprinkling ;” but as I do not understand his reasons for the asser- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 387 tion, 1 must leave them to the study of the candid reader.® Tired of this tedious logomachy, let us proceed from words to things, and notice some references to Christian baptism in the New Testament which seem to sustain the inference that immersion was not the idea in the minds of the sacred writers. When Peter, seeing that ‘“‘on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, said, Can any man forbid water, ’ refuse water, ‘‘ that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we;’” is it not fairly to be deduced from his words, that he was thinking of the application of water to Cornelius and his household? He speaks as if the water was to be brought to them, and not as if they were to be conducted to the water. As he had seen the emblem of the Holy Ghost shed forth upon the converts, he could not have copied a better model of the baptism he was about to perform. If the argument be good, that he might surely baptize with water those who had been baptized with the Spirit ; its counterpart may safely be adopted by us, that we @ Many critics think that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews employs the word βαπτισμὸς to denote the Jewish ablution, as distin- guished from βάπτισμα, the Christian rite ; but the Greek fathers evidently regard the two words as synonymous, as they both use βαπτισμὸς, when citing other passages, (buried with him, Barricpe,) and call these legal baptisms τὰ νομικὰ Barricpara.—See Photii Bibliotheca, celxxx., for both instances. ὁ Acts x. 47, refuse water, deny water. See Luke vi. 29, ἄο.--- See Schleusner and Wahl. 2:62 388 THE MODE OF may surely baptize with water in the same mode as they were baptized with the Spirit. The water and the visible sign were both emblems of the same thing. Is not this view confirmed by the words of the apostle which I have already cited, “ As I began to speak, 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 with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost ?” Another allusion I notice before I leave this part of the argument. St. Paul says,’ “ Having, therefore, brethren, the right of entrance into the most holy place, by the blood of Jesus, which he hath conse- crated for us a new and living way, through the veil, (that is his flesh,) and having a great High Priest over the house of God, let us go near with a true heart, in full confidence of faith, having been sprinkled as to our hearts from an evil conscience, and washed as to our bodies with clean water.” That there is in this passage an allusion to baptism seems to me undeniable. Here is a sprinkling of the heart, and here is also a washing of the body. In such a connexion the washing of the body is surely not the same thing as the cleansing of the heart. ‘To explain this water as spiritual and mystical water, or this washing as spiritual and mystical washing, would require us to understand the apostle as speaking of spiritual or mystical α Heb. x. 19—22. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 389 bodies, and that too in obvious contradistinction from the heart. That the washing of the body was intended as a sign of the cleansing of the heart, I readily admit; but the apostle distinctly mentions the sign as well as the thing signified. We are to enter the sanctuary of God, with our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience by the blood of Christ, and our bodies washed with the water of baptism. As the apostle represents the believer as entering the sanctuary, there can be little doubt that the allusion is to the washing of the priests, before they entered the holy place. Whether that washing was by immersion, or by the application of the water to the person, is therefore an inquiry which may illus- trate, if it do not determine, the sense of this passage. The Jewish priests entered the sanctuary, having their bodies washed with pure water. Were they, or were they not immersed ? One washing was previous to putting on the sacerdotal vestments. The specific object of this ablution was to purify the flesh, that the priest might not profane the holy garments. It is distin- guished from the washing before he entered the sanctuary. ‘‘ These are holy garments, therefore shall he wash his flesh in water,” or with water, “and so put them on.”* The verb here employed, YT}, is simply to wash, without reference to the mode, as it is em- ployed when it is said of Joseph, “‘ He washed his face.” How the priest washed his flesh we do not @ Levit. xvi. 4. δ Gen. xii. 31. 390 THE MODE OF know: the Septuagint renders, ‘‘ washed with water,” not in it. At the consecration of the priests Moses was com- manded, preparatory to putting the robes on Aaron and his sons, and performing the other rites of initia- tion, to wash them with water at the door of the tabernacle.“ The mode of the washing is not expressed, the same verb, Y7), being employed ; but few things are more improbable than that Moses immersed the priests in that situation. But in con- nexion with the apostle’s argument it is more natural to observe the ordinary and proper ablution before entering the sanctuary, which was performed at the brasen laver—‘‘ Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal. And thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein, for Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: when they go into the taber- nacle of the congregation they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the Lord. So they shall wash their hands and feet, that they die not.” that the proper ablution, previous to entering the sanctuary, was the washing of the hands and feet, From this passage we learn that this ablution is called washing with water, (ver. 20,) as if the person were washed when only the hands and feet were intended. ‘To this ablution it α Exodus xxix. 4. ὁ Exodus xxx. 18—21. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 391 would seem most natural to refer the words of the apostle, were it not for one objection, that the words washed as to the body, especially as the word λελουμένοι is employed, can scarcely be applied to the washing of the hands and feet. How far it may relieve the difficulty to say, as the passage in Exodus seems to imply, that the washing of the hands and feet was for convenience appointed instead of the ablution of the whole person, and therefore con- sidered as equivalent, I must leave the reader to decide. To which of these washings, or whether to any of them, the apostle specifically alludes, it may not be possible to ascertain with certainty. All I assert is, we know not any immersion practised by the priests on entering the sanctuary, and we have no right to assume that anything of the kind took place. If the reference be to the ablution of the Levites on being initiated into the holy service, or of the unclean, that they might not defile the sanctuary of the Lord, we are expressly told they were sprinkled with the water of purifying." If it be shown, by the use of the word and by allusions to the rite, that immersion is not the only mode of administering this ordinance, it is of less importance to ascertain in what manner it was actually solemnised in the apostolic age. Con- tending, as I do, that the use of water is sufficient, whatever mode may be thought the most convenient, or the most expressive, why should I be solicitous to @ Numbers vill. 7; xix. 20. 292 THE MODE OF prove that the apostles preferred any one mode to any other? Believing that all are equally lawful, though all may not be equally expedient, and chiefly de- siring in this controversy to see established the principle that the application of water in any way includes all that is of any value in baptism, if it be honestly intended as the act of obedience to the com- mission of the Lord Jesus, according to the conscien- tious interpretation of the person concerned, I am an advocate of sprinkling in no other sense than I am of immersion; and I am equally an opponent of such as, on the one side or the other, insist upon a restriction which Christ has not imposed. Indeed, I should not have troubled myself to pursue this in- quiry any further, were it not for the apprehension that I might be thought to evade what some of our Baptist friends consider incontrovertible evidence in favour of immersion. Were every baptism in the New Testament an immersion, it would no more affect my reasoning than does the fact that our Lord used un- leavened bread at the institution of the supper, aided by the apostle’s allusion, “let us keep the feast not with old leaven,” impose upon the church the duty of following the Saviour’s example in that particular. Some men, indeed, of profound learning, have contended that dipping is absolutely unlawful, an ἐθελοθρησκεία, an act of will-worship, that horror of the puritans;* but upon the hypothesis for which I plead, it is of less importance to ascertain what * Journal of the Westminster Assembly. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 393 particular mode was practised in the apostolic age. Without assuming, what we have no right to assume, that the mode of baptizing in the primitive church was uniform, or that, because immersion might have been practised in one instance or might not in another, such an instance on either side proves the general rule of the apostles, let us briefly notice a few facts in the evangelical narrative, which may ‘elucidate this inquiry. I feel bound in candour to admit that the Jewish baptism of proselytes was by immersion. Of this there can be no reasonable doubt whatever; for, that proselytes were baptized in a confluence of waters sufficient to cover the whole body, we learn from the Talmuds and from Maimonides.* If it should be supposed that as immersion was practised by the Jews, the apostles would have adopted the mode to which their nation was accustomed, I reply that the prevalent custom might have been a very good reason for such a practice, even though no mode had been specified by Divine authority, as the cus- tomary designation of the rite might have been the origin of the name which John and _ Jesus employed in initiating disciples. The institution was from God, but whether the name was from heaven or of men we know not. That the word had pre- viously among the Jews received a religious appro- priation, may be inferred from its use in the Septuagint as well as in the New Testament, in uniform dis- tinction from βάπτω. * See Lightfoot’s Exercitations upon Matt. iii. 6. 394 THE MODE OF The apostles might have baptized, especially their Jewish proselytes, according to the previous usage of their nation, because that mode was the most expe- dient and usually the most convenient. In our age and climate, however, expediency would rather be a reason for sprinkling or pouring. Yet the mode of baptism observed by the Jews, if we rely upon rab- binical authorities, and from no other do we learn that they practised immersion at all, was in so many respects different from that of John and of the dis- ciples of our Lord, as to preclude any analogical reasoning from the one service to the other. As (to adopt the remark of Mr. Ewing) there is no instance in the law of Moses of one person bathing another, far less of a public bathing before a promiscuous assembly ; so in the rabbinical baptism, the person baptized, standing in the water, plunged himself, and came up a new creature. When a woman was baptized, the teachers rehearsed to her the precepts of the law; and then, no other men being present, as she dipped her head under the water, they turned away and left her with her female companions. Hence these proselytes are said to baptize them- selves ;* but it is manifest that the apostles, who bap- tized their converts, did not observe this particular mode in administering the Christian ordinance. In a warm climate, where the people were accustomed to bathing, and water was not plentiful in the towns, it might have been more convenient to immerse in a * Lightfoot’s Exercitations upon Matt. 111. 6. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 395 river than to sprinkle in a city a considerable number of persons. If it could be shown, that John generally dipped in the Jordan, he might have dipped for pre- cisely the same reason as we sprinkle, the convenience of that mode of administering the rite. By those who contend that immersion was prac- tised in the instances mentioned in the New Testa- ment, the baptisms in Jordan and at Avnon, where there was much water, are usually selected as their proofs. Much argument sometimes floats upon this great quantity of water, as if it were super- fluous for any other purpose than immersion. How often has it been asked, Why should John, if he did not immerse the crowds who resorted to his ministry, have selected the river Jordan or the many streams of Ainon as his place of baptizing? Although Iam under no obligation to deny that John usually immersed, a moment’s consideration would answer this reiterated inquiry. I say nothing about the necessity of water for sustaining the vast multitudes who frequented the ministry of John or of our Lord, so that the spot, as some suppose, might have been selected, as a site for an encampment is often chosen, on the bank of a river; because I think it scarcely fair to explain the narrative as if the proximity to water was preferred for any purpose whatsoever, except that of baptism. In our own land, in which scarcely a town is to be found without a considerable stream in its neighbourhood, containing more water than issued from all the fountains of A’non, we need in our superfluity to be reminded of the scarcity of 396 THE MODE OF water, on the failure of the brooks in the dry season, in most parts of Palestine. In that country, we are told, great multitudes went to be baptized of John; all Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the country round about. Without professing to offer a correct estimate of the proportion of the inhabitants desig- nated by this language, it may surely be inferred that very great crowds, a considerable majority of the population of the district, were baptized by John. If he only sprinkled them with his hands, or poured a small quantity of water from a vessel upon their heads, where, in that country, could he have easily procured a sufficient quantity for his purpose, unless he resorted to some perennial stream, or place of many springs? Jordan was the only considerable river of the country. Would it be possible to baptize many thousands of people even by sprinkling in such a place as Sychem, where the whole city was compelled to resort to the well which Jacob gave them, probably supplying the inhabitants with no more water than they daily needed? From that well water might, possibly, have been obtained to sprinkle the inhabitants of the town, but it is not to be supposed, that it could have been procured at an easy rate to sprinkle the population of Jerusalem and the other cities of Judea. Was John to keep persons employed with vessels, where the well was deep, to draw him sufficient water? What would the Samaritans have thought if he had gathered his crowds of hearers around the precious well which their ancestor had given them? Could he have paci- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 397 fied them by saying he was raising the water only for sprinkling, not for immersing, thousands and tens of thousands of people? Or would he have selected his position to sprinkle the multitudes in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, where Josephus tells us, before the improvements of Titus, the water was often sold in separate measures to the people ?* Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, (at that time John was decreasing ;) but where, in a sultry climate, could he have sprinkled so many thousands, except at a place, like A‘non, abounding with water? We too often think of a few being bap- tized, but I ask any one seriously to consider how much water would be required to wash, to sprinkle, say, for instance, one hundred thousand people, and less than that number cannot be implied in the language employed respecting the baptism of John and of our Lord. How many places in Palestine, as now we know it, with the exception of the sea- shore, and the banks of Jordan, and the lake of Galilee, would supply, without inconvenience, sufficient water for so great an affusion? If much water is necessary, in a country where it is scarce, to sprinkle some hundreds of persons daily, what becomes of the argument so often and so osten- tatiously proposed in favour of immersion from the banks of the Jordan or the much water of Aunon? If any person, even in this land of perpetual rains and perennial streams, were to propose to baptize by « De Bello, lib. v. c. 9, § 4. 398 THE MODE OF affusion or sprinkling, the population of one of our counties, and vast crowds were to resort to him, would he not, if his ministry were in the open air, like that.of John and of Jesus, take his station, for the sake of the convenience of the water, on the bank of some river? Yet there is nothing in the New Tes- tament which has more troubled some good people than this much water of Ainon, and no place which has afforded a more favourite name for a chapel con- taining a reservoir of about a hogshead of water, than this town of limpid streams. I do not wonder at this, but I do wonder at the disingenuous artifice of learned men who, knowing well the nature of the country, have not scrupled to make the most of this worthless argument. But whatever may be the value of the reasoning from the ancient streams to the modern chapels of AMnon, (and all that I maintain is, that the propinquity to water is to be explained without reference to immer- sion,) the numbers who resorted to John have been construed to prove it physically impossible that he should have immersed them all. To notice this argu- ment, were it not for the sake of completing the dis- cussion, might appear superfluous, as my reasoning no way depends upon the mode in which John found it most convenient or most agreeable to baptize. Its only application, is to those who are not satisfied about the baptism of the Israelites in the Red Sea; and so far as it appears improbable that John immersed all his disciples, may that improba- bility give preponderance to the arguments which we CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 399 have already advanced. We, however, maintain that the philological battle has been won on the shores of the Red Sea, and we are not to be tempted to renew the fight on the banks of the Jordan. In fairly submitting to the reader the difficulties of sup- posing that John immersed all whom he is said to have baptized, I leave him to consider how far they do, or do not confirm the general reasoning of this lecture. As, however, in the brief sketch of the gospels there may be omitted many facts and inci- dents, which, if we knew them, might solve or lessen the difficulties, | do not desire to press them unfairly or rashly. Let the reader use his own discretion, and give to the statement what weight, or deduct from it what discount he may think all the uncer- tainties of the case may fairly justify.“ The first inquiry is, how many persons we may suppose John baptized, and the answer can amount to little else than a vague estimate of the minimum of his disciples. Of the amount of the population of Judea and the country round about Jordan, at the time of our Lord, I know of no computation on which we may rely with confidence. Josephus esti- mates the number of persons present in Jerusalem at one passover as two millions seven hundred thousand; at another, as three millions. Such computations may appear vague and dubious, but as they are founded upon the number of lambs slain at the altar, two @ Those who would see the argument proposed in its strength as in the Con- ? against immersion, may consult the “ Essay on Baptism’ gregational Magazine, May, 1841. 400 THE MODE OF hundred and fifty-six thousand five hundred, allowing about twelve persons for each lamb ;* they deserve much more attention than mere conjecture. The writer in the Congregational Magazine, to whom I have already alluded, supposes that we may regard one-third of these as belonging to Judea, and the country about Jordan. This appears to me a very moderate estimate, as I do not imagine the proportion of foreigners to have been greater than two-thirds ; although, as it is mere conjecture, I can claim no authority for it. It would leave nine hundred thou- sand persons of that country, capable of eating the paschal lamb. If it should be objected that Josephus says, the greater number of those perishing in Jeru- salem, being shut up at the passover, did not belong to the city ; let it be remembered that the multitudes of whom we are speaking, as having resorted to John’s baptism, belonged not to Jerusalem only, but to all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan. Let the reader, if he be at all dissatisfied, diminish the estimate to the very lowest which he can suppose could have included the population of Judea, and the country round about the Jordan; the territory of the ancient kingdom of Judah, with the addition of the populous neighbourhood of the Jordan. By the general expressions, Jerusalem, and all Judea, and the country round about Jordan, I must understand that the majority of the population was « “ No less than ten belong to every sacrifice, and many of us are twenty in a company.”—Josephus, War, book vi. ch. 9, ἃ 3. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 401 baptized by John. All the people counted John to be a prophet: through fear of the multitude, the leaders of the Pharisees dared not to say that his baptism was from men. All classes went to be baptized; Phari- sees and publicans, Sadducees and soldiers. As the foreign Jews observed the religious rites of their brethren in Palestine, we may infer that a large pro- portion of the dispersion, the ‘“‘ not a few myriads,” as Josephus describes them, would, while sojourning in Jerusalem under the influence of the general excite- ment, resort to the baptism of John. Among the Hellenists, in distant parts of the earth, his disciples were afterwards found, one of whom was Apollos, at Alexandria. Mr. Thorn estimates the numbers baptized by John® at two millions ; and although I do not know that he can be controverted, I dare not make the estimate so large, but am content with a fourth, or a tenth, or even a twentieth of it. ‘‘ Jesus baptized not, but his disciples,” is said in contrast with the practice of John, who was himself the baptizer. If his ministry continued only about six months, as is most probable, or even terminated within the year from its commencement, of which there can be no reasonable doubt, had he been bap- “ Our translation of John iv. 1, “ When, therefore, the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,” may be adduced in opposition to the inference which I have drawn, that John baptized the majority of the people. The slightest attention, however, to the original, would show that the meaning is, the Pharisees heard that Jesus was at that time baptizing more disciples than John. John was decreasing, but Jesus was increasing ; John was finishing his work, Jesus was commencing his. 2D 402 THE MODE OF tizing in the river, without intermission, from day- break until night-fall, it seems impossible he should have immersed so great a multitude. Does any one believe, Mr. Ewing asks, that he was the amphibious animal which the hypothesis of the immersionists sup- poses? Making every allowance for our ignorance of the circumstances of the history, and reducing the esti- mate to the smallest numbers which do not directly con- tradict the evangelical narrative, it is not inappropriate to ask how these crowds went to him in deep water. Did they go in their usual clothes? or did they return to their homes in them? or did they carry change of raiment from their several cities into the wilderness, and undress and dress on the banks of the river in the midst of the vast crowds? or did they go naked into the water? These baptisms were publicly performed in the presence of great multitudes of people. Let any one consider ‘the habits of oriental women, con- cealed, rather than adorned with their veils, and then resolve the inquiry, whether it is probable that the women of Judea, exposed to the gaze of promiscuous crowds, would submit to be immersed in the Jordan by John the Baptist. In the baptism of a proselyted woman among the Jews, we have noticed the manner in which she was privately placed in the water, where she dipped her own head in the presence of her female companions. It is to me utterly incredible that Jewish women resorted to a public immersion, and none the less so, because immersion in private, with so much care and circumspection, was practised on the admission of female proselytes to the privi- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 403 leges of their nation. The more I consider the circumstances, the more difficult I find it to believe that John immersed all his disciples. Although I dare not propose the objection in the form of absolute physical impossibility, as do some of my brethren ; yet in the midst of such difficulties | am induced to consider why I am required to believe so extraordi- nary a statement, as that thousands of persons, men and women, were publicly immersed in the presence of great crowds of spectators. The only answer I find is, that to baptize is to immerse, and therefore the evangelists say positively they were all immersed. If I ask in return, Were the Fathers who were bap- tized in the Red Sea immersed, I am told I do not understand tropes and metaphors, and therefore can- not distinguish things that differ. In that gay and flowery region of metaphor, it seems the dispute must be left with the reader. Let us now glance at the baptism on the day of Pentecost. After the preaching of Peter, ‘‘ they that gladly received the word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”* We here find that three thousand persons — were baptized in the after part of one day, in the city of Jerusalem. The inquiry has been often pro- posed, but has never, so far as I know, been fairly answered, how and where could so many persons have been immersed, in so short a time? Jerusalem was not like A‘non, a place of much water. The Kedron is a small stream, dry during the summer, @ Acts ii. 41. 2D 2 AOA THE MODE OF dashing impetuously after rain along its rocky chan- nel, easily crossed without bridges. The fountain of Siloam forms two small pools, containing just suffi- cient water for women to wash linen,* and which Josephus says often failed, as well as all the springs without the city. Are we to suppose that three thousand people were immersed in those pools, in one afternoon, during the feast of Pentecost, at the end of May or beginning of June, the commence- ment of the season of the long drought? Or are we to suppose that the apostles betook themselves to the cisterns, on the tops of the houses, in which the water was preserved, and there immersed thousands, and a few days afterwards thousands more, with the summer before them, and with no prospect of rain until October or November? I do not say this, how- ever inconvenient, could not be done, as I do not say there was not abundance of water in the private and public reservoirs ; but if it was done, the people must have separated, and resorted in little parties to a great number of private houses scattered over the city, to which the apostles could obtain access, and even then they must have dipped several persons in the same tank, and spoiled the water for all future use. Such a private baptism would have been very unlike the public ministrations of John and of Jesus at the Jordan and at Auwnon. That they were purified by some easy mode of ablution, with so much water as could be readily procured, immediately after the dis- course of Peter, and in the place where they heard it, @ See Chateaubriand’s Travels, vol. ii. pp. 34, 36. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 405 would seem to be in accordance with the style of the narrative. That they dispersed in all directions to the several baths of the houses, and that the apostles went from one company to another, each immersing ~ about two hundred and fifty in different places, (for surely so many would not be immersed in one bath, in the same water, and in the same day,) seems exceedingly improbable, especially as each family, even now the city is so much smaller, carefully pre- serves its own reservoir. There was, it must be acknowledged, a great deal of water used in the temple service ; but is it likely that the disciples had influence with the prefect who superintended the supply, to enable them to immerse thousands of people in the public tanks? At this very time water was so much needed, that we learn from Josephus, Pilate constructed an aqueduct with sacred money, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the Jews, as it was always precious until the works of Titus relieved the city. This baptism was wholly unexpected, and how could all these strangers have been supplied with change of raiment in the midst of the city? The alternative we indignantly repudiate. Even in an English town, if it be not by the side of a con- siderable river, would it be easy without preparation to immerse three thousand strangers decently in one afternoon, or five thousand in one day? The more [I think of the promiscuous baptism of thou- sands in one day ina city, and especially of women, under all circumstances, and without any previous arrangements; baptism being a rite to which the 406 THE MODE OF apostles, without hesitation, called upon all the crowd then and there to submit, without distinction of age or sex,—the more slow of heart I am to believe it was performed by immersion. In this respect the difficulties were greater, as the event was unexpected, than those of the baptism in the Jordan.* But let us leave Jerusalem and visit Samaria. “Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them: and the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the things which he did.” .... When they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and * I do not wish, in our ignorance of all the facts, to press this objec- tion too far. To find sufficient water for the temple service before the construction of the aqueducts, has always appeared a matter of extreme difficulty. I must candidly, as I do cheerfully acknowledge, that there must have been abundance of water in the city to have washed away the blood of two hundred and fifty thousand lambs slain at one passover. How to reconcile the sufliciency of water for such a sacrifice with the accounts of its scarcity, may not be easy; but that sufficient water must have been in Jerusalem, I am bound to acknow- ledge. Let the reader consider both sides of these references to past events. Let him consider, on the one hand, the great quantity of water used for the sacrifices; on the other, the bringing of water on mules from Bethlehem for sale, as is done to this day. Considering the multitudes in Jerusalem at the feasts, there must have been means of preserving vast quantities of water. How, without large supplies, could they have sustained their long sieges, although they often suffered severely from scarcity? I have no doubt of the suffi- ciency of water ; the practicability of obtaining the use of it for so great an immersion, as it was preserved in reservoirs, is a greater difficulty. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 407 women.” From the language employed, we may infer that the people were generally baptized— ᾽ “There was great joy in that city.” That this city, from which the apostles preached the gospel among the villages of the Samaritans, was Sychem, the metropolis of Samaria,“ there can be no reasonable doubt. But what were the conveniences in Sychem for immersing the male and female population of the city? Jacob’s well was there, but the water was deep, and it could not be obtained without something to draw with. It will not be pretended that the people were immersed in that well. That there was no other considerable collection of pure water, suitable for drinking or for ablutions, would appear from the fact, not only that the woman of Samaria resorted to it, but that she supposed it impossible for Jesus to give her living water. ‘“‘ Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?” If Jesus could tell her of any other water, he was greater than Jacob. Had there been a stream of any consequence in the neighbourhood, would the cattle of Jacob, as she imagined, have been supplied from that deep well? ‘The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.” That well was the customary place of resort for water, and the woman knew of none more convenient. Be it also observed, that this con- versation with the woman of Samaria took place, not in the dry and sultry season, when the brooks fail, * Joseph. Antiq. lib. xi. c. 8. 408 THE MODE OF but in January or February—four months before harvest, in May or June. “Say not, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest.” I must here acknowledge I cannot reconcile with these inferences from the gospel the accounts which travellers give of the flowing stream and the fertility of the country, on account of its perpetual water in the neighbour- hood of Sychem or Neapolis.* If the evangelical narrative does not warrant our inference respecting the scarcity of pure water as obtained by the whole city from one precious well, in opposition to recent statements, I make no more use of it than as it may illustrate the situation of many other cities in the Kast, which undoubtedly derive their supply of water from one or two wells or springs. To that city Philip went, and the men and women with one accord were baptized. We will venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that of the cities of Palestine, which were not situate on the sea, or the Jordan, or the lake of Tiberias, or one or two of the larger brooks, many did not contain sufficient water to immerse the whole population, or a considerable part of it, in a short time, without extraordinary preparation, or without occasioning considerable scarcity. Possibly it may be said, I cannot prove that Sychem was the city in which Philip preached. No other place is @ Near this spot, however, an army was once compelled to sur- render, being harassed with extreme thirst, although the distress may have been occasioned by its having been encamped on the mountain Gerizim, and not in the watered plain.—Josephus De Bello, ib. 111. c. 7, § 82. ᾿ CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 409 so likely to be called the city of the Samaritans ; all persons, without any reference to the controversy, have so regarded it; all antiquity has considered Sychem to have been the residence of Simon Magus. But if every body has been mistaken upon this point, or if, as modern travellers intimate, contrary to my reading of the gospel, there was abundance of water at Sychem, we submit the conclusion, that if the preach- ing of Philip or any apostle had been as successful in a large city, not situated on the banks of a peren- nial stream, and, like many cities in the East, having no more water than is sufficient for daily use, the men and women could not have been baptized with- out great inconvenience, in a short time, if immersion were indispensable. Was Christian baptism a rite which could not have been administered to the people of a city, dependent for water upon the supply of one well or fountain, if they, with one accord, had given heed to the things spoken by the apostles? If it were so, many cities of the East, in which the gospel mightily prevailed, must have been a long time unbaptized. But the baptism of the apostles, we believe, was an ablution which could be easily per- formed, whatever the number of the applicants, in any city, however scarce the water, at any season, even in the drought of summer. Let any traveller in the East say, whether such a baptism of “‘ much people” could always have been by immersion. Let any one say, whether immersion could be easily administered to crowds of the common people, who heard the apostles gladly, in countries where the giving of a 410 THE MODE OF cup of cold water is regarded as an act of benevo- lence, and where travellers, as they drink of the little cisterns by the road, are accustomed to bless the memory of the benefactors who formed the sacred receptacle, to preserve the precious liquid for the refreshment of wayfaring men. In the evangelical history we read of the baptism of women; and how often, in books of eastern tra- vels, do we meet with women collecting round some fountain or small stream, to wash linen and other articles of dress! Careful as they are of exposing themselves, they are compelled, by the scarcity of water in many towns, to resort to some fountain or well without the walls, around which they may be seen, with their faces muffled, in considerable num- bers, washing the linen of their families. This eustom, so opposed to the general habits of females in the East, is to be referred entirely to the deficiency of water in their houses. ‘ In many towns of Asia Minor,” says Dr. Chandler in his Travels, “ the women resort to the fountains by the houses, each with a large two-handled earthen jar on her back, or thrown over her shoulder, for water. They assemble at a fountain without the village or town, if no river be near, to wash their linen, which is afterwards spread on the ground or bushes to dry.” Through- out the country of which he speaks, St. Paul fally preached the gospel of Christ. [5 it probable that in any of the towns so destitute of water, a large pro- portion of the people could have been immersed in the public fountain, or that a sufficient quantity of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 411 water for the purpose could have been carried into reservoirs in the houses? A few persons might have been immersed, but the result of the apostles’ preach- ing was often the conversion of great multitudes in a very short time; and we know from the instances of the converts in Jerusalem, and of the people of Samaria, that they were baptized immediately on the very day in which they professed to have believed. Should it be said that immersion was practised in these very places a century or two afterwards, I reply, when Christianity had become publicly re- cognised, and churches were established, and bap- tisteries were erected, and converts were received gradually, and careful preparations were made for their baptism at the great festivals, immersion might have been conveniently practised. But in the apos- tolic age, the word of the Lord grew exceedingly and prevailed, where no preparation could have been made for its rites; and in many of the populous towns of Asia, those in which water was scarce as well as those in which it was plentiful, large and flourishing churches, consisting chiefly of the poor, were formed during the short visits of the apostle Paul. So mightily prevailed the profession of the Gospel in the region of which Dr. Chandler speaks, Pontus and Bithynia, that a few years afterwards the younger Pliny, in his celebrated letter to Trajan, describes a re-action in favour of paganism, in which the temples, which had been almost forsaken, were beginning to be frequented, the sacred rites to be restored, and the victims again to find purchasers. Christian baptism, 412 THE MODE OF we have a right to conclude, was something easily performed upon great multitudes of people, in a short time, at all seasons, in towns whose whole supply of water was obtained by women, who brought it in pitchers and bottles from a neighbouring foun- tain or well. “ I refer only to one more instance of apostolic bap- tism. ‘On the sabbath-day we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made: and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which wor- shipped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there.” Lydia was an Asiatic woman of devotional habits, accustomed to worship God aceording to the religious forms of the Jews, and with Jewish women to frequent a proseuche by the river side;— a matron of respectability and some importance, for her household was with her,—she had a house in which she could hospitably entertain Paul, Luke, and their companions. She was baptized and her household, but not in her own house, for, when. she α To prevent mistake, let it be clearly understood, that these objections to immersion ought to be urged only upon the supposition, that the meaning of the term “ baptize” is still in controversy. When that is decided, but not before, historical difficulties must be surren- dered. So far only are they elements in the dispute. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 413 was baptized, she besought them, saying, ‘“‘ Come to my house and abide there.” The narrative, as well as the general practice of the apostles, suggests the inference that she and her family were baptized on the spot; we doubt not at the river. But is it pro- bable that a woman of her station, with her family, were immersed by a man, in a place of public resort ; to which, as the apostles found access, any others might approach, without any preparation? So contrary was such a practice to all the customs and feelings of Asiatic, or even of Grecian ladies, that a woman of her station must have been most reluctant to submit to such an immersion, however it might have been performed. She, no doubt, observed her devotions, veiled and covered like a woman of Thyatira; and would the apostle, who was so desirous to preserve those habits among Christian women as to declare it a shame for one to pray uncovered, and perempto- rily to forbid her appearing in the assembly without her veil, have performed the first Christian rite in a manner which would have required her to divest herself of at least a part of her dress? It seems im- practicable to have immersed a woman in an Asiatic head-dress, as it was shameful to baptize her with her head uncovered. It is to me incredible under the circumstances that such a woman, at a distance from her own house, would have offered herself and all her family, to be immersed in a place of public re- sort. But why are we required to believe, contrary to all the probabilities of the case, that she was im- mersed? Because our Baptist friends tell us, that to 414 THE MODE OF baptize is certainly the same as to immerse; so that because Lydia was baptized she must have been im- mersed. When we repeat the inquiry concerning the baptism in the Red Sea, they again tell us, that we do not understand tropes and figures. Be that as it may, they must favour us with some better account of these tropes and figures than any which they have hitherto given, before they will convince us that the baptisms of the New Testament were invariably performed by immersion. But admitting, as I do, that βαπτίζειν construed with the preposition εἰς, is to immerse into, let us apply this remark in expounding the commission of our Lord: “Go ye therefore and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” If to baptize is to immerse in this passage, then, accord- ing to the usual construction of the words, the name of the Holy Trinity is the thing into which the nations are to be immersed. If the words be taken literally, here is certainly no command to immerse into water. 'To immerse, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, into the name of the person whose religion is professed, is the religious rite of making proselytes, as to immerse into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is the appropriate act of the apostles and ministers of the Gospel. The construc- tion of the passage brings the immersion, so far as it exists, not into the element of baptizing, into water, but into the object of baptizing, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 415 So we read of being baptized into Christ ;* baptized into his death ;? baptized into one body.’ Paul inquires of the disciples of Apollos, εἰς ri οὖν ἐβαπτίσ- Onze,“ into what then were you baptized? And the answer is not, into cold water, but, into John’s baptism. Let it be observed that on the other hand, in the New Testament, we have not the phrase to baptize into water, to baptize into the Holy Ghost, we have not the preposition ac, which might determine the sense, but to baptize with water, to haptize with the Holy Ghost; these being construed as the instruments with which the baptism was performed, not the substances into which the persons were baptized. If it be meant that the apostles were immersed into water, why have we not the usual and proper phrase, εἰς ὑδῶρ ? or that our Lord immersed into the Holy Ghost, why not the phrase, εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ aytov ? As to the preposition ἐν, which is employed in con- struction with this verb, it so frequently denotes the instrument in the language of the New Testament, that it is more natural thus to construe it even in phrases where in the Attic dialect such a construc- tion could not be allowed. When the dative case is employed without the preposition, no other version ought to be admitted without necessity. Upon the whole, then, we have, I think, sufficient evidence both from the use of the prepositions, and from the absence of them, that the phraseology of the New Testament respecting the religious rite of baptism, is 4 Rom. vi. 3. ὁ Thid, ¢1:Cor. xi. 18. 4 Acts xix. 3. 416 THE MODE OF to baptize with water into Christ, and not to baptize into water by Christ.* In confirmation of this remark, observe the con- struction which is employed by our Lord himself, in reference to the baptism of the Holy Ghost: ‘“ John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence; and ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.” In accordance with,the phraseology of our Lord, Peter says, “‘And as I began to speak, 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 with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.’ “ The phrase, εἰς τὸ “IopSavoy, might be supposed to affect these remarks, were it not that the proper name of a river may be con- strued as the name of a place, and instances in the later writers occur in which a thing is said to be done, εἰς, in the place. How far this phrase corresponds with such examples of a corrupt use of eis unusual with the Attics, as εἰς Ἐκβάτανα ἀπέθανε, he died in (not into) Ecbatana, Elian V. H. vii. 8 ; or the more appropriate instance in John ix. 7, νίψαι eis τὴν κολυμβήθραν, wash (thy face, we infer from the history) in the pool, not into the pool, for no one would make virrw to immerse, the reader will consider. Even in Attic, a very similar construction may be found. See Porson’s note on the Pheenisse, 1. 1881. On the contrary, ἐν with the name of a river, must, 1 think, be rendered in. John was baptizing (1 must repudiate the version, with the Jordan, or with its water) in the Jordan, either within the channel, standing at the edge, as Dr. Carson thinks, p. 131, or in the stream, as I, being here a better Baptist, believe. Although this construction of εἰς is undeniable, yet I have no wish to deny that in the instance of our Lord, John baptized into the Jordan. In some instances, and in this, immersion might have been the most convenient mode. 5 Acts i. 5. ¢ Acts xi. 15, 16. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 417 Before we close this lecture, it may be expected that we should advert to the use of the words baptize and baptism, as we find them in the early ecclesias- tical writers. Our Baptist friends, often, as we think, with a tone of confidence not quite consistent with their frequent professions of respect. for scriptural authority alone, and not quite befitting those who, whatever countenance they may receive from ancient councils and venerable bishops, as to their mode of administering the ordinance, have all ecclesiastical antiquity both orthodox and heretical, without one exception, (the strange dissonance of Tertullian agree- ing with neither party,) opposed to them on the subject of infant baptism, appeal to the testimony of the ancient church in favour of immersion. On the value of this testimony, I do not now speak; for be it precious or be it worthless, on a near inspection, it vanishes away. The amount of the testimony to which they appeal is, that baptism was usually admi- nistered by immersion, and so far they agree with it ; but that it might under certain circumstances, be administered by affusion, and when so administered was valid and sufficient, and so far they reject it. The inquiry is, with what intent do they appeal to this ancient testimony? Is it of authority? Then why not allow it to determine the question of the validity of baptism by affusion? Is it of no authority ? Then why adduce it in the controversy? Is it of autho- rity, Just so far as it coincides with the opinions of our Baptist friends, and does it suddenly lose its autho- rity at the precise point in which it differs from them? 2E 418 THE MODE OF If ecclesiastical antiquity commands the converts to be immersed, or, as it does, to be thrice immersed, as a sign of sacred mysteries, we do not acknowledge its authority in matters of faith; but if it speaks of baptism by affusion, or baptism by the pouring down of the Spirit, in the colloquial use of its native tongue, casually rather than controversially, and contrary to its own authorised forms, we respect it as a witness of the meaning of the word. As a mistress of theology, we repudiate the claims of ecclesiastical antiquity ; as a teacher of grammar, we listen to her testimony. As a grave and antiquated divine, we care not how zealously she supports the immersionists ; as an old and respectable philologist, she has a right to be heard with attention by both parties. The inquiry is not, what Christian antiquity thought of the proper mode of baptism, but, what use she made of the word baptize. Christians could speak Greek as well as pagans; bishops and divines as well, or at least as much, as philosophers and poets. When they found in the records of their faith the word baptism, did they or did they not understand it to be perfectly synonymous with immersion? We maintain that so far from doing so, they received the word as the name of the Christian rite, and in that appropriated sense employed it when there was no immersing into water, or covering with it. © It is possible, | ought to observe, that the word, having become appropriated to the Christian ordi- nance, might have assumed a secondary meaning, in the time which intervened between the apostolic age CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 419 and its appearance in the writings of the Fathers. As it may have been so, and yet on the other hand as such a variation ought to be proved by those who assert it, I must leave the reader to decide candidly and carefully for himself how much weight ought to be given to the use of the word, as he finds it on the page of Christian antiquity. I believe it exactly corresponds with the usage of the New Testament ; but how far it confirms our opinion of that usage, is to be decided with due consideration of all the cir- cumstances, It may possibly be thought that we have no right to adduce any citations from the Latin Fathers upon the current usage of a Greek word; but as there was no difference whatever in the usage of the Greek and Latin church, no controversy upon the practice between Byzantium and Carthage, Alexandria and Rome, (or if there were any doubts, they were, so far as we know, among the Latins, and therefore their usage is so much the better;) and as the Latins derived both the word and the use of it from the Greeks, I think the Latin usage, corresponding as it does with the Greek, may assist the illustration, leaving my hearers to take what discount they please from the Latin authority, although believing that under the circumstances very little ought to be taken. I, however, only advert to it in one or two instances, for the sake of illustration. That, in the language of the ancient church, the word baptism is not used as equivalent to immersion, may, I think, be demon- strated by the following considerations : 2E 2 420 THE MODE OF 1. Keclesiastical writers admit Christian baptisms to have been valid in which there was no immersion. 2. They speak of other ablutions as baptisms, in which there was no immersion. 3. They apply to Christian baptism passages of Scripture which obviously exclude immersion. 4, They speak of the lustrations of the heathen, in which there was no immersion, as their baptisms, or imitations of baptism. Each of these facts, if established, would prove that the first Christians did not use the word as synonymous with immersion; but the argument is cumulative, sustained by the four considerations. The amount of it is, if in the language of the three centuries immediately after the giving of the commis- sion, ‘‘ baptize all nations,” the words did not mean, immerse all nations, we ought to hesitate, nineteen centuries afterwards, before we impose that sense upon them. I say not that the objection of itself is insurmountable; but let it be considered in con- nexion with the reasoning which has been already adduced. It is not easy, I think, to mistake this argument on philology for a question on church authority. 1. Ecclesiastical writers admit Christian baptism to have been valid, in which there was no im- mersion. The present question is, not whether they were right or wrong, but whether they understood the word baptism to be equivalent to immersion. If the word baptism, in their age, strictly and exclusively CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 421 meant immersion, then, if the fact I have adduced be true, they admitted that to be Christian immersion, in which there was no immersion at all. I speak not of one or two, who might ill understand the language of their age, but of ecclesiastical antiquity, which, however it required immersion as generally to be practised, admitted that in certain cases bap- tism might be administered by affusion. With the ancient church, affusion—however seldom it might have been practised, however much it might have been disliked — was baptism, but surely affusion was not in their language immersion. Clinical baptism we may be told is unscriptural, as we may be told it was discountenanced by the Fathers ; but that is not the answer to the argument, that it was baptism in the opinion of men who spoke the language of the New Testament. All who held the validity of clinical baptism, the περιχύσις, cir- cumfusion of the sick, must have understood the commission of our Lord to include that mode in the baptism which it commanded. To maintain the validity of circumfusion, is to assert in other words, that to baptize, in the language of the church, is not the’same as to immerse. But it may be asked, was this affusion ever called baptism ? Gregory of Nyssa, in his Oration addressed to those who defer their baptism, calls it ἐντάφιον τὸ βάπτισμα, the funeral baptism, the baptism for the burial; but surely not the immersion for it. Cyprian expressly calls it the baptism of the church, when -he contends for its validity; but surely it was not 422 THE MODE OF the immersion of the church.“ The circumfusion of Novatus in his bed has been generally noticed in this controversy, as the account is given in the letters of Cornelius of Rome, preserved by Euse- bius.2 As Novatus was deemed an _ incorrigible schismatic, “that cunning and malicious beast,” Cornelius, apparently with the good-will of sixty other bishops and many presbyters, did all he could to depreciate his character and baptism; and yet he dared not deny the validity of the affusion, although he would not call it by the name of baptism. Since the lecture was delivered, I find that Dr. Beecher‘ has cited a passage from Nicephorus, who says expressly that he baptized him by circumfusion on his bed. Had this testimony been a thousand years earlier, I should have liked it so much the better ; although, as he himself intimates, Nicephorus stu- diously employed on all occasions the language of earlier writers. It has indeed been objected that this affusion of the sick was not regarded as complete baptism, because, by the canons of some councils, the per- sons so baptized, were not allowed to be ordained. That such persons were not re-baptized, evidently shows that immersion was not deemed indispensable ; they are said to have been illumined, and to have re- ceived the illumination, in terms constantly employed Ep. lib. iv. 7. ὁ Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. 48. ¢ Bib. Rep. Jan. 1843. Ἔν αὐτῇ τῇ κλίνῃ ἡ ἔκειτο περικύθεντα δῆθεν ἐβάπτιζεν. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 423 to designate baptism.* Cyprian, in treating of this question, maintains that they have the sacrament of salvation, and cites, in proof of it, the prophecy, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be δ The reason of the exclusion of the clinics from ordination is stated by the councils themselves, as in the twelfth canon of that of Neo-Ceesarea, “‘ He that is baptized in sickness shall not be ordained a clean.” presbyter, because his faith was not voluntary, but as it were of constraint, except afterwards his faith and diligence recommend him, or else the scarcity of men make it necessary.” The delay of baptism, it is well known, was reckoned a grievous offence, and therefore those baptized in the prospect of death, if they recovered, were regarded as not having acted a manly and honourable part, and so, on account not of the defect of their baptism, but of the impro- priety of their conduct, they were excluded from the ministry. Gregory of Nyssa even doubts whether, if they die speedily, they enter the kingdom of heaven, although they may escape punishment: and remon- strances often occur against those who delayed their baptism until the approach of death.” They were to become qualified for the ministry, not by immersion supplying the defect of their baptism, but by extra- - “ »» ” ὦ “Ray νοσῶν tis φωτισθῇ, εἰς πρεσβύτερον ἄγεσθαι ov δύναται.""---- Can. xii. Neo-Cexsar. "Ori δεῖ τοὺς ἐν νόσῳ παραλαμβάνοντας τὸ φώτισμα, καὶ εἶτα ἀναστάντας, ἐκμανθάνειν τὴν πίστιν, καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι θεῖας δωρεᾶς κατηξιώθησαν."--Οἀη. xlvii. Laodic. 5 Ep. lib. iv. 7. ° Orat. In eos qui differunt baptisma. 424 THE MODE OF ordinary faith and diligence, compensating their pre- | vious negligence.” The same rule was enacted by the council of Illiberis, and observed in many churches, with respect to those who were baptized by heretics, although the heretical baptism was esteemed valid and sufficient. I must repeat, that I do not cite these instances as authorities for aspersion, but only as proving, or at least contributing to prove, that the ancient churches did not understand the word baptism as synonymous with immersion. It would have been, I confess, more satisfactory, if I could have found a Greek writer using terms as decided as those of Cyprian. It has been objected that clinical baptism was doubted, if not disowned, in the letters of Cornelius, respecting Novatus, as we have the account in Euse- bius. The words are, “ being supposed at the point of death, he was circumfused on his bed, if indeed it be proper to say that such an one received it.” It is, however, obvious that the objection refers to the infamous character of the man, τοιοῦτον, such aman, received it. I take no notice of the other instances of affusion adduced by Wall and others, as that of the man baptized from a pitcher of water at the martyrdom of St. Lawrence, or the dying man mentioned by Gregory of Nyssa, who expired while @ Neander, speaking of this law says, “‘ The only intention was to keep out of the clerical profession all who, without real repentance, had been induced to be baptized by the agitation of the fear of death.” ® Cone. Hlib. ο. 11. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 425 they were bringing water to his bed, because I do not think much reliance ought to be placed either on the facts themselves or on the authorities from which they are selected, except as they show the opinions of the narrators. There are two passages in Tertul- lian which are thought by some to elucidate the controversy ; the one, “‘ De Poenitentia,” c. vi.; (this tract is generally supposed to have been written be- fore Tertullian became a Montanist, as, indeed, is evident from its discrepancy with the tract “ De Pudicitia,” upon the subject of repentance after bap- tism.) ‘“ Quis enim tibi tum insidiz pcenitentiz viro asperginem unam_ cujuslibet aque commo- dabit?” Who will furnish you a man, whose re- pentance is so treacherous, with one sprinkling of any water whatever? Although there is an allusion to sprinkling, the passage may, with more probability, be thought to mean, Who would even sprinkle you with common water, much less immerse you in the sacred water? The other, (“ De Baptismo,” c. xii.) ‘Some intimate, in a manner very forced indeed, that the apostles supplied the place of baptism when they were sprinkled and wetted with the waves in the ship,” does prove, although Tertullian, as is evident from the subsequent passage, did not consider this to be the baptism of the apostles, that immersion was not, at least by those who supported this hypo- thesis, believed to be essential in baptism. In the ecclesiastical writers, we continually find the expres- sions noticed in our remarks upon the New Testa- ment, baptized with water, not into water; as in Cyril 426 THE MODE OF of Jerusalem, speaking of Simon Magus, “ he bap- tized his body with water,’“ and so continually we find the case of the instrument, both with and with- out prepositions, and with every preposition which can be construed with the instrument of baptizing. 2. Ecclesiastical writers speak of other ablutions as baptisms, in which there was no immersion. In support of this statement it will be sufficient to advert to the manner in which the Fathers frequently speak of three baptisms, the baptism of water for initiation, the baptism of tears in penitence, and the baptism of blood in martyrdom. Thus Gregory Nazianzen says, ‘ I know also a fourth baptism, that through martyrdom and blood, by which Christ himself was baptized; and, much more sacred than the others, inasmuch as it is con- taminated with no second stain.”® Again, “1 know also a fifth, of tears, but distressing, as of him every night washing his bed with his tears.”* The youth who, after baptism, having forsaken the church and joined a band of robbers, was reclaimed by the @ Proém. in Cat.: “7d μὲν σῶμα ἔβαψεν VSarr;” again, Catech. iii., τῷ ὕδατι βαπτιζόμενος, baptized with water. Did Cyril use Barre in- stead of βαπτίζω, in the former instance, from a scruple in calling Simon Magus baptized? The use of the word is remarkable, and corrresponds with that of Arrian. ὁ «Οἶδα καὶ τέταρτον βάπτισμα, τὸ διὰ μαρτυρίου καὶ αἴματος. ὃ Kai αὐτὸς Χριστὸς ἐβαπτίζετο, καὶ πολύγε τῶν ἄλλων αἰδεσιμώτερον, ὅσῳ δευτέροις ῥύποις οὐ podvverat.”—Orat. Xxxix. © (( Οἶδα καὶ πέμπτον ἔτι τῶν δακρύων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπονώτερον, ὡς ὁ λούων καθ᾽ ἐκάστην νύκτα τὴν κλίνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὴν στρωμνὴν τοῖς δάκρυσι.) -- Orat. xxxix. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 427 apostle John, is said in the narrative of Eusebius, preserved from Clement of Alexandria, ‘ to have thrown away his arms, trembling with bitter lamenta- tions, as if baptized a second time with his own tears.’ The blood and water flowing from the wounded side of Jesus are sometimes by the Fathers regarded as typical of the baptisms of water and of blood. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem: ‘ The Saviour, when his side was pierced, poured forth blood and water, because in times of peace men would be bap- tized with water, in times of persecution with their own blood. For the Saviour thought fit to call martyrdom baptism, saying, ‘Can ye drink of the cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that Iam baptized with?’”* It may suffice to add from Athanasius, at least as he is cited by Suicer, or whoever the writer may have been, ‘‘ Three baptisms, purifying from every sin whatsoever, God hath granted to the nature of man; I mean that of water, and next that through martyrdom of one’s own blood, and a md When two of these three baptisms were obviously without immersion, can it third that through tears. be said that the term baptism, in the current language of the ancient church, was synonymous with immer- α Kusebius, lib. iii. 123. ® More frequently this double effusion is regarded as typical of purification and redemption, or of the two sacraments. ὁ Catech. i. 10. a τς Τρία βαπτίσματα, καθάρτικα πάσης οἵας δήποτε ἁμαρτίας, ὁ Θεὸς τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐδωρήσατο" λέγω δὲ, τὸ ὕδατος, καὶ πάλιν τὸ διὰ μαρτυρίας τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, καὶ τρίτον τὸ διὰ δακρύων." —Quest. ad Antioch. Quest. bxxii. 428 THE MODE OF sion? Would any person now speak of dipping the penitent into his own tears, or of dipping the martyr into his own blood?’ If the baptized with tears and the baptized with blood were not immersed, what right have any to affirm, that in the estimation of the persons who used such language, the baptized with water must necessarily have been immersed ? Would our Baptist friends, who maintain that to baptize ought invariably to be translated to dip, call these the three dippings? I repeat that I am not appealing to church authority, but to the language of ecclesiastical writers; and to ascertain the mean- ing and use of words in the New Testament, the language of the Christian Fathers is at least as unexceptionable as that of heathen poets and orators. And if heretics might be supposed to speak with the tongues of men, and might be permitted to speak upon such a subject, the Carpocratians and others, who branded the ears of their disciples in order to baptize them with fire, if such was their notion, and such of the Valentinians as, according to Irenzeus,’ did not lead the person to the water, but poured a mixture of oil and water upon his head, did not re- gard baptism to be synonymous with immersion ;° at least if they called their pouring baptism, as it was @ Tf we speak of being immersed with tears, we do not mean dipped in tears, but covered with them, in the extended sense which immersed is now assuming as distinguished from dipped. 6 Adv. Hereses. lib. i. ο. 24, & lib. i. ο. 18. ¢ Epiphanius says they poured this upon the τελειουμένων, initiated, the common name of the baptized.—Her. xxx. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 429 their substitute. As authorities in doctrine, I think these men no better, and certainly not much. worse, than the orthodox Fathers of the Catholic church ; but I do not know that they should be denied a hearing in a question of words.‘ 3. Ecclesiastical writers apply to baptism passages of Scripture which obviously exclude immersion. There is no passage of the Old Testament more frequently applied to baptism than the prophecy of Ezekiel, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,” (xxxvi. 25.) The question is not whether this be the correct application of the passage, but whether it proves that the Fathers did not consider immersion and baptism to be synonymous words. If the term baptism suggested to their minds the use of water generally as the Christian rite, it is easy to account for this citation. Without asserting that they correctly understood the passage, we perceive by the use they made of it, that there was in their minds an association of the ideas of baptism and sprinkling. But if on the contrary, « As to the baptism of fire, if so the ancient heretics called their branding, and I do not feel quite confident of the fact; so loose a sense of the term can do little more than show the loss of the primary signification. In the Excerpta of Theodotus (xxv.) this branding is noticed as explaining the baptism of fire, but most of the orthodox interpretations of that baptism are no more favourable to immer- sion, whether they refer it to the fiery tongues of the Pentecost, or to the spirit of burning and of judgment, to test the disciples of Christ on the last day. | Beausobre (Histoire du Manicheisme) Bud- deus, and other writers, call the pouring of the Valentinians their baptism, but do not give their authority. 430 THE MODE OF the term suggested the idea of immersion and nothing else, the association of sprinkling with it is inexpli- cable. Would any Baptist brother introducing this prophecy into his elucidation of Christian baptism, promise his hearers a sprinkling with clean water? or if he were to do so, would not his brethren suspect that some Pzedo-baptistical hallucination was disturbing his intellects? But this passage is thus explained by Theodoret, ‘“‘ Pure water the prophet calls the water of regeneration, by which being bap- tized we received the forgiveness of sins.”* Cyril of Jerusalem says, ‘‘ And other texts thou heardest before, in what was said on baptism: Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you.”? To the same effect I might cite Cyril of Alexandria,’ Gregory of Nyssa,* and other Greek Fathers, without noticing the Latins, or the ancient baptismal offices in which the text is introduced.° Ps. li. 7.—‘* Purge me with hyssop” is rendered ςς in the Septuagint, ““ ῥαντίεις μὲ ὑσσώπῳ, thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop. ‘This verse so rendered is applied to baptism, as in the Commentary of Theo- « Theod. Com. ad loc. ® Ad Catech. xvi. 80. See also, iii. 16. © In Lev. @ De Bap. Christ. 6 1 do not cite Cyprian, who expressly alleges this passage in proof of the validity of affusion, nor the council held under him, because it is there used for a controversial purpose. If I laid much stress upon Latin authorities, I would refer to the Comment of Jerome, who thus explains the passage, to “ pour upon those who believed and were converted from their errors, the clean water of saying baptism.”— Ad loc. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 431 doret,—‘‘ Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed, for the gift of baptism alone can produce this cleansing ;”“ and to the same effect other Fathers, both Greek and Latin, who apply this psalm to Christian baptism. The sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb with the hyssop branch is called by Ambrose, the baptism, according to the law, or the typical baptism. The orientals held the same opinion, as may be inferred from the use of the terms—the holy hyssop, the sin-remitting hyssop, the hyssop cleansing all stains; and from similar expressions in the Syriac, Coptic, and Maronite sacramental offices.” But if the Latins and barbarians are not to be allowed to speak on this question, let us return to the Greeks. The sprinkling of the leper by the priest, as well as other Levitical sprinklings, were regarded as types of baptism. Thus says Theodoret, “ the leper sprinkled with pure water was declared pure and clean; so doth he who believeth in Christ and is washed with the water of holy baptism, put off the spots of 51. Cyril of Alexandria preserves the parallel more at length, considering the water where- with the leprous house must be sprinkled, as typical of baptism.“ And again he says of the ashes of the heifer which sprinkled the unclean, “‘ We are baptized not with mere water, nor with the ashes of the heifer, * Ad loc. ὁ See Pusey on Baptism, p. 375. © Ad loc. @ Hom. 16, ὃ 2. See also Chrysostom on Heb, ix. A32 THE MODE OF | but with the Holy Spirit." Gregory of Nyssa says, “ The daily sprinklings of the Hebrews were about to be done away by the perfect and wonderful bap- tism.’”” Origen says, that “Elias did not baptize the wood upon the altar, but commanded the priests to do that. How then was he who did not baptize himself, but left it to others, about to baptize when he came according to the prophecy of Malachi?” ¢ The water, according to the Septuagint, as well as the Hebrew, was poured upon the wood of the sacri- fice. Irenzeus, alluding to water falling upon the dry earth, compares the baptism of our bodies to the rain which is freely shed from heaven. @ These pas- sages, and many more of a similar kind, show that, in the estimation of the Fathers speaking Greek, im- mersion was not the idea invariably associated with the word baptism. 4. Ecclesiastical writers speak of the lustrations of the heathen, in which there was no immersion, as their baptisms or their imitations of baptism. It was a prevalent opinion among the Fathers, that the demons pre-occupied the minds of men by spreading abroad semblances of evangelical truth, counterfeits of the Christian religion, of which they had some previous intelligence, by their knowledge @ Βεβαπτίσμεθα μὲν yap οὐκ ἐν ὕδατι γύμνῳ ard οὐδὲ σπόδῳ δαμάλεως ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πνεύματι ayig.—Cyril Alex. in Isa. iv. 4. This citation I have inserted since the delivery, from Dr. Beecher. ὁ Greg. Nyss. in Baptis. Christi. ¢ Origen. Com. in Joh. @ Treneus adv. Her. i. 17. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 433 of the ancient prophecies, in order to prevent the Gospel from being received.“ So they explain the heathen ablutions as imitations of Christian baptism,’ although in many of them there was no immersion. Thus Justin Martyr contends that, from the pro- phecies of the true baptism, the worshippers in the heathen temples were taught by demons to sprinkle themselves with water before they made their offer- ings.© Clement of Alexandria represents the custom among the heathen of washing before prayer as a figure of baptism,(—citing from’ Homer the verses respecting Penelope sprinkling herself, and Tele- machus washing his hands. ‘Tertullian, agreeing in his opinions of baptism with the Greeks, for in his time there was no discrepancy between the Greek and Latin church, speaking of the zeal of the devil emu- lating the things of God, when he administers bap- tism upon his own people, says,’ “ Kven the gods themselves they honour by washings. Water every where carried about maketh expiation by sprinkling for town and country houses, temples, and entire cities.f Certainly they are baptized at the games of “ See Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 54, 64. Dial. ὃ 70, 78. Cyril Jerus. xv. 11. Tertullian, Apol. i. 22. De Bap. c. v. ® In many sacrilegious rites of idols, persons are said to be bap- tized.—Aug. c. Don. vi. 25. ¢ Apol. i. p. 94.—Edit. Paris. 4 Strom. lib. iv. p. 270.—Ed. Syl. Col. 1588. ¢ De Bap. ὁ. v. 7 The reference is to the Ambarvale (arva ambire) and the Am- burbale (urbem ambire,) in which lands and cities were consecrated by water sprinkled upon them :— 2k 434 THE MODE OF Apollo and those at. Eleusis; and this they suppose they do for regeneration and pardon in their per- juries.”* These lustrations, the greater part of which were performed by sprinkling, the Fathers were accustomed to consider as the baptisms, but surely not as the immersions, of the heathen. For these four reasons,—because they held baptism administered without immersion to be valid,—because they acknowledged other baptisms in which there was no immersion,—because they refer to baptism passages and types of Scripture from which the idea of immersion is excluded,—and because they con- sider lustrations by sprinkling as heathen baptisms, I believe the ecclesiastical writers, not only the Latin, whom I have noticed only to show their concurrence, but also the Greek, to whom the language of the New Testament was vernacular, did not regard immersion as necessarily included in the meaning of the word baptism. It may be said in reply, Yet these very men almost ‘* Mox jubet et totam pavidis a civibus Urbem Ambiri, et festo purgantes mcenia lustro : Longa per extremos pomeeria cingere fines Pontifices, sacri quibus est permissa potestas. Turba minor ritu sequitur succincta Gabino, Vestalemque chorum ducit vittata sacerdos, Trojanam soli cui fas vidisse Minervam. Tum qui fata deum, secretaque carmina servant, Et lotam parvo revocant Almone Cybellen.”—Lucan i. 592—600. * To the lustration of the initiated at the Eleusinian mysteries, Virgil refers, when /Eneas is about to enter Elysium :— “ A verdant branch of olive in his hands, He moved around and purified the bands ; Slow as he passed the lustral waters shed; Then closed the rites, and thrice invoked the dead.” “ Occupat Aineas aditum, corpusque recenti Spargit aqua, ramumgue adverso in limine figit.”—/En. vi. 635, 626. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 435 uniformly practised immersion. My answer is, so much the better for the argument. Amidst their deeds their speech bewrayeth them. Their practice of immersion forbids us to account for their language by supposing that a conventional use of the term had grown up in the church in accordance with its customs. They did immerse, for they seem as if they could not have made too much use of the holy water. With one immersion not content, they observed the trine immersion as the sacramental emblem of the Trinity. They immersed their disciples naked, as the emblem of the putting. off the old man, that in the new vestments they might appear clad in the garments of salvation. Yet these men, exceed- ingly zealous for all the mysterious immersions of the baptistery, as they learned their mother-tongue, not in the church, but in the schools, often speak of baptism in opposition to the customs and prejudices of the age, as if it were washing without immersion. We appeal only to their language, and our Baptist friends are quite welcome to the benefit of their example, doctrine, and practice. In closing this long lecture, allow me in a few words to recapitulate the argument. The doctrine we have opposed is, that immersion is the only mode of baptism. The burden of the proof belongs to our opponents, and they argue from the invariable mean- ing of the Greek verb, that the command to baptize is exactly equivalent to a command to immerse. We, on the contrary, have attempted to show, with what success others must decide, that the Greek word does 2F 2 430 THE MODE OF not necessarily imply immersion. Our argument, supported by instances which we believe to be good, is, that in the classical authors there is mention of baptism by covering with water,—that in the New Testament there are baptisms without immersion or covering,—that Christian baptism is often alluded to in language which is unfavourable to the opinion of immersion,—that in many instances in which Christian baptism was administered, immersion was extremely improbable if not impracticable,—and _ that the early Greek writers did not understand baptism to be equivalent to immersion. On these accounts, we dare not concede to our friends the right to restrict the administration of baptism to any one mode whatever. Scripture imposes upon us no such restriction; and to allow any inferior authority to do so, would be to compromise a principle of inestimable importance. The argument of this lecture, I repeat, is not in opposition to immersion, as a proper mode of baptism, but in opposition to the pretensions of those who declare that it is the only proper mode, and consequently that all Protestants, save themselves, are in schism, being unbaptized, and therefore not in that kingdom into which we enter by being born of water. If, however, I am wrong in all the philological reasoning of this lecture, not in a few instances of the detail but in the principle and meaning of the word βαπτίζω, I surrender it with no great reluctance, but with a valedictory remark—that the only argu- ment by which it can be shown that immersion is CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 487 obligatory upon any man, being founded on the meaning and use of a Greek verb, is altogether unin- telligible to those who do not understand a dead language; and to those who do, it is the source of endless controversy, for the determination of which they have traversed again and again the vast range of Grecian literature, sacred, profane, and apocry- phal— Attic and Hellenistic—of poets, philosophers, historians, orators, physicians, and divines; so that if a solitary βαπτίζω can be anywhere found, it is proclaimed a discovery for the keen investigation of critics and theologians. If any one can believe that a religious obligation rests upon so faint and fading a letter, as multi- tudes of honest and intelligent readers cannot see, in the midst of a revelation, whose bright and glo- rious characters he that runneth may read, and the wayfaring man cannot mistake,—I cannot but regard him as troubled with a superstition not unlike that of the Jew who, with religious awe, binds across his brow the frontlet of his ancestors’ text, after its sacred words with the exception of some faint jot or tittle, are obliterated by time. ‘To counterbalance the satis- faction which he feels in the hard lessons of his lexicography, which God has not given me learn- ing or penetration enough to understand, I find consolation in the assurance that the command- ments of the Lord are plain to them that fear him ; or, that, if in these things they are not plain to me, then upon me they are not obligatory. One thing I do maintain, whatever be the difficulties of the sub- 438 THE MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ject: Ido assert, thoughtfully, seriously, confidently, and with a clear conscience, that if I know not the meaning of baptism, it is not my fault, but my mis- fortune. The misfortune, without the consciousness of criminal neglect, I can bear without much incon- venience, even if I bear it until death. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. ON THE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF THIS LECTURE AS THEY ARE AFFECTED BY THE REASONING OF DR. CARSON, IN HIS WORK ENTITLED, ‘‘ BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS.” Tuts work of Dr. Carson’s is generally regarded as the ablest defence of his side of the question, so far as the mode of baptism is con- cerned; and by many immersionists is esteemed absolutely conclusive upon that part of the controversy. In composing the lecture without having consulted it, I may be thought culpably negligent ; but having failed in many attempts to procure it, on application both to booksellers and friends, and observing that a new edition was announced, with additions and replies to several opponents, I pro- ceeded with the intention, on the revisal of the lecture, to correct any errors of which I might be convinced on reading the work in its improved form. As the sheets were going through the press, it came into my hands, and it has induced me to reconsider parts of my lecture, and to submit to some modification, of which it is my duty to give the reader distinct notice. In the first place, 1 was not aware of the difference between Dr. Carson and preceding Baptist writers on the secondary meaning of Barro, to dye. The lake in Homer stained with frogs’ blood, and the comedian in Aristophanes besmeared with frog-like colours, and the robe in Aischylus stained with gore, and the hand in Aristotle stained with the compressed juice of a berry,—and many such like usages of this verb had been protruded before the eyes of our Baptist brethren from the beginning of the controversy, without disturbing their confidence in the invincible propensity of βάπτω, to dip in 440 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. drugs, pharmacs, and colours, as constantly as in clean water. In their sight, as their writers invariably asserted, it would stain nothing without dipping it. As generally, I am told, as they did follow Dr. Gale in denying a secondary meaning, do they now follow Dr. Carson in asserting it. To what extent this may be true, I cannot say; but as no opponent appears, and as we have no reason to suspect the sincerity of our brethren’s convictions, the result furnishes a remark- able instance of the difference in the force or the impression of arguments, as they are suggested by a friend, and as they are pro- pounded by a foe: That βάπτω often means to dye without dipping, was said by one Pedo-baptist after another, no Baptist regarding ; but when Dr. Carson said the same thing, multitudes were converted. I have modified the introductory remarks of the lecture, without being sure that I have correctly appreciated the extent of this change of opinion. As it is not probable that all our Baptist friends have as yet re-cast their ancient opinions, and forsaken the old dye-vat, in defending which their fathers expended so much learning and argu- ment,—I have not suppressed some remarks on their inflexible adherence to the unvarying signification of mutable words. How far Dr. Carson is chargeable with unreasonable tenacity in reference to the sense of the derivative, is matter of discussion between him and those who say, with Professor Stuart of Andover, that he lays down “very adventurous positions in respect to one meaning, and one only, of words, which as it seems to me,” (Professor Stuart) ‘ every lexicon on earth contradicts, and always must contradict.”—Bib. Rep. April, 1833. For my own part I am bound to say, although I differ from many of the most intelligent of my brethren who hold Dr. Carson, in this particular, to be especially unsound, that in his remarks on the varying and secondary senses of words, I can detect nothing unfair or unreasonable. His great principle, if I correctly understand him, is, that whoever assigns to a disputed word a secondary sense, or any variation of usage, is bound to the proof of it. Can anything be more reasonable? The difficulty, I fear, will be found in adjusting the practical question, What amount of evidence ought to be deemed sufficient in these cases? When, for instance, Dr. Cox intimates, in opposition to Dr. Carson’s more etymological use of the word, that immersion may be managed by pouring; we are left to inquire what amount of evidence is sufficient to entitle this new and prevailing use of the word to undisturbed occupation. In theological polemics here is abundant space for interminable manceuvre. APPENDIX ΤῸ LECTURE VI. 44] Dr. Carson has also indueed me to consider more carefully the danger of pressing historical difficulties in reference to events of which, as they occurred in a distant age, we must be ignorant of many circumstances. Great and insuperable difficulties, as they appear to me, present themselves in supposing that all the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament were performed by immersion. I cannot imagine how three thousand persons were immersed in one day in Jerusalem at the season of the Pentecost without any previous arrangement, as I do not believe it could now be done with decency and propriety in Manchester. Nor do I perceive how the apostles could call upon a promiscuous crowd of men and women to be immediately immersed without any preparation. The solutions which our Baptist friends offer, so far from affording the slightest relief, appear to me rather to confirm the objection. Iam, however, bound to acknow- ledge that these difficulties may be attributed to our ignorance of the circumstances; and therefore, while, on the one side, the difficulties ought to be considered, on the other, our ignorance ought not to be disregarded. No opponent can more earnestly desire the reader to look cautiously upon that part of the lecture than I do myself. Let the difficulties have their full weight, but always with the reserved possibility of a solution, could we learn more of the par- ticulars and minute incidents of the relation. I feel the force of Dr. Carson’s remarks on this part of the argument, and am anxious still more carefully to consider them; but when he talks, in reference, for instance, to the numbers baptized by John, of giving more time to John’s ministry, of finding him under-baptizers, or of doing other things not mentioned in the evangelical narrative, the effect is rather to confirm than to convince; as we perceive he offers no better solution of the difficulties than those which every attentive reader on our side has probably considered and rejected. With this modifica- tion of my views, I have no right to suppress that part of the argument, for these difficulties ought to be considered, but I would have them considered with the explanation I have just offered. 1 have also to acknowledge that I have suppressed the argument founded on the divers baptisms mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was, as delivered, an expansion of the following remark. The apostle says, there were in the temple service divers baptisms, although there were no immersions of the person ; therefore it is inferred that there were baptisms without immersion. The reply of Baptist writers, as far as I had read them, was, first, that there were the 442 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. immersions of persons (at least of the priests in the brazen sea) pre- paratory to the temple service, which I do not believe, as they were no part of the service prescribed by Moses ; and, secondly, that these divers baptisms are not restricted to the tabernacle or temple, and might have been elsewhere performed ; but it appears to me they are so restricted by the express terms of the writer. Dr. Carson appears on these two points to succeed no better than his predecessors; but he adds, that if there were immersions of vessels, or of anything else, in the temple, there were baptisms, and so our argument fails. This, I confess, I cannot answer. It would be presumption in me to say no one else can; but I shall wait with some anxiety to see what my brethren say upon this verse; and if they cannot reply to Dr. Car- son, I can make no more use of it. This acknowledgment no way affects the reasoning on “the sprinkling of the unclean,’ which I still contend, from the connecting words of the apostle, must have been a meat, or a drink, or a baptism; and as it could have been neither a meat nor a drink, it must have been a baptism. The argument founded on the parallelism in Heb. x. 22, “ Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water,” I proposed in the lecture (pp. 888—392) with little confidence, as the language throughout implies doubt and hesitation. The great objection is the use of the word λελουμένοι, which generally denotes the washing of the person by bathing, and not of a part by sprinkling, or other application of water. Although Dr. Beecher has shown that this word is not restricted to the washing of the person, so absolutely as is generally supposed ;* and although it appears clearly there was no immersion in entering the Jewish sanctuary, yet I must acknowledge I have no right to attribute an unusual sense to a word in the New Testament for the sake of a closer corre- spondence with the language of the Old. As at present instructed, I cannot, therefore, insist upon this verse; but as the reasoning is expressed in the lecture with caution and doubt, I have not sup- pressed it. Let the reader examine the passage for himself. Having made these acknowledgments of some of the benefits which I have received from Dr. Carson, it becomes a more painful duty to a Why Dr. Carson (p. 480) should ascribe to Dr. Campbell the distinction between λούω, to wash or bathe the person, and νίπτω, to wash the hands or other parts, I cannot imagine, as it is found in Stephens, and, I doubt not, in all the old lexicons: Aovw, applied to the Person, νίπτω, to the hands and feet, πλύνω, to clothes. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 445 state the grounds on which, after reading his book, I adhere to the main principles and arguments of the lecture. It would be consistent neither with the respect which is due to so able a defender of immersion, nor with the limited space which I can allow to the discussion, to attempt in the form of an appendix any regular answer, or complete examination of-his work. I proposed to append a brief notice of the words βάπτω and βαπτίζω; and a reference to the principles and authorities of Dr. Carson, so far as they affect the controversy, may be the more eligible form of accqmplishing the proposal, as well as of defending my views from the objections which may be suggested to a reader of his volume. Dr. Carson has unhappily, not only in this publication, but in all his works, assumed a tone and style of controversy, which of late years has been, to a great extent, excluded from critical and pole- mical theology. With the most unsparing severity he exposes the mistakes of his opponents, although they are of a kind into which the ablest men are liable to fall. His argument he enlivens with the most contemptuous expressions, as if he noticed only in condescension to their weakness all who venture to controvert anything which he has asserted. His epithets and phrases seem (although I am sure he does not intend so to use them) as if they were selected on purpose to give pain, to crush and terrify an opponent. There is about him a loftiness and elevation of mind which all must admire,—an evident and intense devotion to truth, which probably may be in some degree the cause, if not the excuse, of the peculiarly severe, apparently scornful, and often personally offensive language, into which, not of design, but insensibly, he seems to glide. The conventional deco- rum and restraint of even personal disputes are often neglected. He declares that he judges no man’s motives, and yet he says their reasoning is as wicked as it is weak. He avows in his severest passages that he has as little angry feeling, as when he says, that “the three angles of every triangle are equal to two right angles ;” but how much more Christian-like may be this cool, apathetic mode of vituperation, the sardonic sneer of the stomach, than real, earnest, passionate abuse of the heart, I do not pretend to determine. When his patient complains, he says it shows great want of discrimination, for his dissection of an opponent is part of his argument (an im- portant part, I should think, calculating on the frequency of its recurrence): as solemnly, and deliberately, and on principle he shows that their opinions are the conclusions of men incompetent to reason 444 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. upon the subject. All this is said with such an apparent (I do not believe it is real) affectation of superiority, that I doubt not his sayings will pass as oracular with many to whom his argument (and much of learned and potent, although rude and ill-compressed argu- ment he has,) will be quite superfluous. The Doctor, professedly, uses the knife. Whether he succeed or fail in refuting his adversary, he contrives to inflict a dreadful scalping. He tells us, his dissections are painful to himself ; (assuredly they are to others;) but like a good surgeon, he most admirably contrives to conceal his weaker sympathies, so that such as know him not would think he cruelly delighted in feats of amputation. Even when he cuts his own fingers desperately, he works on, betraying no uneasy sensations, and apparently as insensible to pain, as if he were cutting off the offending member of his patient. To speak of Dr. Carson with respect, as of a man of talents, learning, sincerity, and moral worth, is unquestionably my duty; but to notice his arguments, with- out adverting to the manner in which he propounds them, is more than ought to be expected of flesh and blood. In reply to his suggestion, that the pitiable inability of the de- fenders of sprinkling, is evidence against their doctrine, I would suggest that, if this be true, our cause must have materially suffered in general estimation, from the feebleness and folly of its advo- cates. Be it that our writers are as deficient in learning and logic as Dr. Carson represents them, we are entitled to inquire, how would our cause have appeared, if it had fortunately obtained more argumentative and vigorous supporters? Miserably as it has been sustained, it has kept its position in the Christian church. If, instead of Ewing and Wardlaw, the Congregational Magazine, and President Beecher, men of weak as well as wicked reasoning —of no diserimination—of no soul for figures—of no skill in philology—of no force of logic, sprinkling had been defended by Dr. Carson, or by men of his power in discrimination, in figures, in philology, and in logic, what would be the present state of the con- troversy ! Dr. Carson intimates, that sprinklers do not know their own business; that is, I suppose, do not know the best arguments on their own side; what if they had been as well mounted and equipped as himself for the conflict! As sprinkling has had no other defenders than such as deserve to be treated with consummate contempt, it must have some vitality of its own, or it would, before the power of jts opponents, have withered and perished in the Christian church. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 445 But our cause is defended by other advocates than those who are thus coolly, and on principle, dissected and destroyed. Be it that Dr. Carson has annihilated Ewing, and all the poptists, Beecher, and all the purifiers, what does he think of his own learning and logic ? Incompetency and ignorance are terms which he appears to apply to his opponents in direct proportion as they trouble him; does he think himself incompetent to form a correct opinion on any part of this controversy ? He speaks favourably of Dr. Cox, not more favourably than every one, who knows that most respectable minister, would cheerfully speak of him. But Dr. Cox and Dr. Carson, taken toge- ther, in combination of talent, prove our case. Dr. Cox contends, that baptism or immersion may be affected by pouring, or by making water come up from the ground, provided it cover the person, as Nebuchadnezzar was baptized by superfusion of dew.* Dr. Carson says, (p. 37,) Dr. Cox “ gives up the point at issue, as far as mode is concerned,” and elsewhere wonders what he has to contend about. If Dr. Cox be right in his concession, and Dr. Carson in his asser- tion ; if Dr. Cox be right in his philology, and Dr. Carson in his logic; if Dr. Cox be right in his opinion of baptism, and Dr. Carson be right in his opinion of his brother Baptist, we have our case proved by men whose talents and learning are not to be estimated in the contemptuous manner in which Dr. Carson has gibbeted Pado- baptist incompetents for the edification of the Christian church. It may be supposed that the dissection of opponents after the style of Dr. Carson, is a proof of acute penetration in detecting their errors, and of great ability in exposing them. I can assure my readers who have no practice in such matters, that nothing is more easy. There are abundant materials for anatomical experiments in Dr. Cargson’s book, on which, were any one to employ himself with as little feeling as the geometrician studies his triangle, he might easily detect numerous errors as gross and inexcusable as any which its author exposes in the most incompetent of his opponents. The subject is tempting, but I will refer only to one or two instances, with the hope that Dr. Carson may yet be induced to refrain from a style of con- troversy which can so easily be retorted upon himself. In adverting to them, I do not depreciate his learning or talents, which I believe to be of a high order; I do not insinuate, as he does, that such things damnify a cause, by proving the incompetency of its defenders ; but a On Baptism, p. 94, 41. 446 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. I do say there are so many glaring inconsistencies in his statements, that he ought to be the last man to assume the airs of infallibility, or to imagine that he has an especial call to practise anatomy upon other people for the pleasure or edification of his own party. Had he not avowedly defended the style of controversy which he has adopted, I should have passed his mistakes with a respectful bonus dormitat Homerus. To show that he is fallible, like the rest of us, if it do not put him on his good behaviour, may teach others not to depend upon peremptory assertion, because it is expressed in terms of con- temptuous disregard for all opponents. It has been said in this controversy, that the Fathers regarded circumfusion, or affusion in bed, as valid baptism, and that they called it baptism. The authority of Cyprian has been adduced, and as his words are very plain and express, it has been adduced with confidence. Dr. Carson says, “ Mr. Beecher’s confidence is an addi- tional proof of his want of discrimination.” In saying that Cyprian calls affusion “ ecclesiastical baptism,” who would not speak with confidence ? But does Dr. Carson in his reply betray any lack of confidence ? Study in his own words the intimations of modesty and diffidence with which he appears in favourable contrast with Dr. Beecher. ‘Cyprian calls perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism, as distinguished from baptism, in the proper sense of the term. The persons perfused in their beds on account of sickness were not sup- posed to be properly baptized ; but they received the ecclesiastical baptism; that is, what the church, in such cases, admitted as a valid substitute for baptism. This fact is conclusive, and will afford an answer to all the passages referred to by President Beecher, to prove a secondary meaning in the use of the word among the Fathers.” (p. 489.) So says Dr. Carson. What language can betray less hesi- tation? Has the man who can say, without faltering, ‘“ Cyprian calls perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism, as distinguished from baptism in the proper sense of the term,” the right to rebuke Dr. Beecher, or any one else, for too much confidence? “ This fact is conclusive,” and it is proposed as “ the answer to all the passages referred to by President Beecher.” One would suppose that no man would have ventured to make such an assertion without some inquiry, or to fabricate such an argument from his own fancy, and attempt to give it currency by the unhesitating confidence of his tone. What Cyprian means by the “ ecclesiastical baptism,” is a question beyond the reach of dispute. No one would think of arguing it with the person APPENDIX TO LECTURR VI. 447 who could write without a blush— Cyprian calls perfusion ‘the ecclesiastical baptism,’ as distinguished from baptism in the proper sense of the term,”—‘ the ecclesiastical baptism admitted as a valid substitute for baptism.” Every reader of Cyprian knows the meaning of “the ecclesiastical baptism.” Either the writer of these assertions is not a reader of Cyprian, or he is not an honest man. There is no alternative. Let Dr. Carson turn over the pages of Cyprian as he will; “the ecclesiastical baptism” will obtrude upon him as “ the legitimate and true and only baptism of the church.” Will he deny that immersion as well as perfusion is called “ the ecclesiastical bap- tism?” Has he never read in Cyprian the account of the Council of Carthage? Has he never observed, that in the proceedings respecting the baptizing of heretics, the true baptism of the church and the eccle- siastical baptism (ecclesiasticus baptismus) are used indiscriminately? Has he not seen the ecclesiastical baptism opposed to the heretical ? When Natalis of Oéa gave his opinion in the council that heretics could not be admitted into communion, unless they received the “ ecolesiastical baptism,” did he mean unless they were perfused ὃ Dr. Carson has more to say on behalf of sprinkling than any of us. In saying that perfusion was called “ ecclesiastical baptism,” he vir- tually represents Christian antiquity as sprinkling. “ Cyprian calls perfusion the ecclesiastical baptism, as distinguished from baptism in the proper sense of the term!” I wish Dr. Carson would prove his assertion, for so he would prove that, in the opinion of Cyprian, Philip baptized the Samaritans by perfusion. That Father says, “ because they had obtained the ecclesiastical baptism,’ they had no further need of baptism from Peter and John, but only required the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands.” Did Cyprian believe that the Samaritan men and women and Simon Magus were all clinics, aspersed with “ the ecclesiastical baptism?” I do not reserve this passage for reasoning, as my readers would think me trifling, were I to reason upon so marvellous an assertion. I adduce it to show that it does not become Dr. Carson, who rashly reasons upon terms which he has never considered, from books which he can never have read, to affect the air of infallibility, and to reprove the confidence of others. So palpable and gross a blunder, I do not believe he has exposed in any of his opponents, whose incompetency α Ecclesiasticum baptismum consecuti—fuerant. De Hereticis Baptizandis, p. 325. Ed. Basil. 1521. 448 | APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. he solemnly, deliberately, upon principle, and calmly, as if he were speaking of triangles, makes it his business to announce to the world. Practised as he is in dissection, he has here most severely cut his own fingers. This strange notion vitiates his reasoning on the Fathers, for he avowedly makes it the exposition of other passages, which are adduced from ecclesiastical antiquity in opposition to his opinions. Let him, however, retract his offensive and insulting taunts, and we, respecting his talents, will attribute this and many other equally unac- countable blunders to the sleep of good Homer. If, however, he con- tinue to reprove such men as Dr. Beecher, who know what they say, and whereof they affirm, he may hear a little more of such things as “ the ecclesiastical baptism.” He intimates an intention of eluci- dating the subject of baptism from the relics of ecclesiastical antiquity,—I would respectfully recommend him to read Cyprian before he goes into the press. Dr. Carson is said to be better acquainted with profane, than with ecclesiastical writers; yet even in his own favourite land how often may he be caught stumbling! To show how little he attends to the con- nexion of his own citations, or knows of the works from which he sometimes makes them ; and, therefore, unless he have intuitive perception of their meaning, how little is their value, the reader may find a curious and amusing illustration in his reference to Porphyry. I gently touch him on one of many sore places with his own knife, that those who confide in his skill may see with how ill a grace he uses it upon the quick of sensitive Pedo-baptists. He says, (p. 58,) “The sinner is represented by Porphyry (p. 282,) as baptized up to his head in Styx, a celebrated river in hell.” In the list of his authorities for translating βαπτίζω, to dip, this curious passage seemed to teach something so wonderful in mythology, that it immediately caught my attention. Had I known the author on beginning his book, as well as I did on reaching its close, I should probably have said, there is no such passage in Porphyry, or any where else Although Dr. Carson charges honest people with forgery, I did not believe that he fabricated the passage. That Styx was a cele- brated river in hell, was certainly not the perplexing statement ; but that a poor sinner should be represented as immersed up to his head in it, and that the representation should be found in an admirer of Py- thagoras, seemed very extraordinary information. Could I only have found the passage, I knew not to what mysteries it might prove the clue. How did the wicked ghost get into the river? Did Charon turn APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 449 him out of the boat? Could he beguile the time, and alleviate his sorrow, with the music of that melodious parachoregema of poetical frogs, who sang their brekekekex, koax, koax, in the days of Aris- tophanes? Having no Porphyry except the beautifully printed Latin version of De Abstinentia, mpxtvu., Cum summi Pontificis et Senati Veneti privilegio, in annos x., I read it with the vain hope of discover- ing the baptized sinner in Styx. Disappointed, I had to procure a Greek copy, and going through the “ Life of Pythagoras,” and that curious work, the “ Cave of the Nymphs,” in which may be found some good illustrations of the use of βάπτω ; in that magic cave, the mystic manufactory of mortal men, I could discern no shadow of the sinner baptized in Styx. So, reluctantly abandoning the search, I proceeded with Dr. Carson. Getting through the instances of Sarri¢ taken from Dr. Gale, whom he follows with good heart, through mis-translations as well as correct versions, I found some instances repeated with a change of translation, as if to make a show, and among them, to my surprise, the sinner of Porphyry again baptized in Styx. ‘Porphyry applies the word to the heathen opinion” (it is now no longer Porphyry, but a heathen opinion, so this thing crescit eundo) “of the baptism of the wicked in Styx, the famous lake in hell: ‘when the accused person enters the lake, if he is innocent, he passes boldly through, having the water up to his knees; but if guilty, having advanced a little, he is plunged or baptized up to his head.’ (De Styge, p. 282.) The baptism of Styx, then, is an immersion up to the head.” This a heathen opinion! Where have we been study- ing mythology? De Styge, p. 282! Good Homer is now awake. Has he recovered the treatise De Styge? Has he deciphered a palimpsest, and does he cite from the dim characters of the restored text of Porphyry? Has this recovered piece of Homeric criticism two hundred and eighty-two pages? On referring to a fragment of De Styge, preserved by Stobeus, containing about one page of moderate octavo, I fortunately found the words cited by Dr. Carson. The heathen opinion belongs to the Brahmins! The dipping of ghosts turns out to be no more in the Styx than in the Thames, as it is a dipping of bodies in a lake in India. In the whole fragment, there is not a word about the celebrated river in hell. Had the keen ana- tomist of the sprinklers but read either the preceding or the succeeding sentence, he would have found that he was not baptizing in the Stygian pool. What he means by page 282, 1 cannot divine. But, it may be asked, what has this ludicrous affair to do with the controversy? 2G 450 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. It does no more than afford the opportunity to say, than when Dr. Carson catches a poor Pedo-baptist thus immersed in the wrong place, he exposes the blunder before the world coolly, and on prin- ciple, as proof of incompetence and evidence against his opponents’ cause. Such strange mistakes with which his book abounds, should bind the author to good behaviour ; for if he continue so mercilessly to expose the failings of others, he may hear a little more about his own. They ought to teach him moderation, if not mercy ; for he who thus adduces citations from documents which he cannot have read, has no licence to torture his opponents with the severity of his criticism. Let him, as a fallible man, learn from his own failings, to respect the feelings of others ; and so far from attempting to depreciate his talents or his learning, we shall cheerfully express, as we feel, the highest admiration of them both. Dr. Carson has, I say it with unfeigned respect, the two worst vices which can adhere to controversy : he does not clearly cite his autho- rities, and he surreptitiously shifts his words. He does not clearly cite his authorities. It is true he refers to his former edition for the Greek, but we cannot obtain that edition ; and if we could, what right have we to be taxed with the price of another book to read his argument with fairness and satisfaction? But we desire not so much the few words of Greek, as the distinct references to the original in a form which we can use.—What sort of references are such as these: Plutarch says, Diodorus Siculus says, and so on, with only the English translation appended? By the laws of honest controversy, an opponent has a right to exclude all these passages from consideration. ‘They may be held to amount to no more than the bare assertion of the appellant. I know where to find many of them, but there are some of importance which I cannot find. His frequent citation of the page of an author is also objectionable ; for the reader may have, as I find to my cost, other editions of the same work ; as in Hippocrates, where he cites from the Basil edition, and I, unfortunately, have the Frankfort. In the citations from Hippo- crates of Bara, he assists us by referring to the particular treatises in which they occur, but in those of βαπτίζω, where the references are far more important, he withholds the name of the treatise from which he cites. To find one remarkable instance in which Hippo- crates seems to use βαπτίζω in the sense in which he every where else employs Barro, I have turned over my copy in all directions, and even looked over the splendid Paris edition of Hippocrates and Galen, in APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 451 thirteen volumes folio, without success. ΤῸ find the citation, I know no means less laborious than to read through twelve hundred folio pages of Greek, or to make a journey to London or Tubbermore to consult the Basil edition. I make this statement, not in complaint of Dr. Carson, but in apology for myself in not noticing this particular citation. Ido, however, complain of many other passages in which no reference at all is given. With such inexcusable suppressions, it is impossible to carry on controversy. My next complaint is, Dr. Carson shifts his words. I will give the instances respecting a part of the subject, in which, as I perfectly agree with him, I may judge the more impartially. As there are some persons who think that βάπτω does not in its primary and proper signification mean to dip, Dr. Carson undertakes to refute them; and as he would not willingly fight with a shadow, he must think this part of the controversy of some importance. He notices especially Dr. Owen, who asserts that not Barrow, but ἐμβάπτω, is the proper word to express dipping. Here then is the case of a class of Pzdo- baptists (I hope very small) represented by the great Dr. Owen; and not one of them, I will venture to say, would maintain that ἐμβάπτω is not to dip. What are the tactics of Dr. Carson? He adduces his proofs that Barre is to dip; cites them in overwhelming numbers, pours in his forces to the dismay of all Dr. Owen’s living admirers, arms even his physicians, and puts old Hippocrates in the front of the fight. Citations follow citations in unbroken column, in which the Greeks are unfairly brought up in English uniform. “ Dip,” is in- scribed upon every man; but upon consulting Hippocrates we find that the embapto is surreptitiously introduced with the bapto; and no man who has not Hippocrates to consult, or who has not the Basil edition, can tell how many citations are true and how many are false. If I had the right edition, I would give the proportions, but the pro- portions are of little consequence. I have tracked the intruder ; and although Dr. Carson is very angry at being charged with resorting to shifts, this is what I call shifting his words. I do not insinuate any- thing like intentional misrepresentation, of which I firmly believe Dr. Carson is utterly incapable; but if any one, from whatever cause, will slily shift his words, and introduce ἐμβάπτω in the name of βάπτω, I must see his authorities in their own books before I can trust them. Let me also adduce an instance of the shifting of English words ; 262 452 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. and here I am a party concerned. Dr. Carson says that βαπτίζειν is “dip, and nothing but dip.” (p. 61.) With respect to the instance of the bladder baptized, but not dipped, Dr. Carson says, “a bladder if sufficiently filled will dip, but will not sink.” I do not understand his philosophy, but he clearly distinguishes the dipping from the sinking. To baptize, then, according to his doctrine is not to sink. I perfectly agree with him. Lucifer, son of the morning, in sinking from heaven to earth, was not baptized, unless he was immersed. Dr. Carson might sink, without being baptized, from the lofty elevation of talent and character which I cheerfully acknowledge he occupies, (and no one more cordially prays that he may occupy it with additional lustre for the good of the church until his death than I do,) to the low level on which most unjustly he places his Pedo-baptist opponents. As therefore to baptize is not to sink, which the Baptists are ready enough to assert in certain circumstances, (and none more ready than Dr. Carson, with the bladder of Theseus before him,) we must not allow the word dip to shift into sink, when the former will not do in the place of baptize. It may be said,—Does Dr. Carson, who says the bladder may dip but will not sink, ever shift the words, and make sink to maneuvre into the place of dip? Let us return to his book, p. 85. If the reader will consult my lecture, he will see that a passage has been introduced into this controversy from Libanius—“ He who bears with difficulty the burden he already has, would be baptized (overwhelmed) with a small addition.” We asserted that to be baptized is, according to this passage, to be overwhelmed, and not to be dipped. If the passage be translated “is dipped by a small addi- tion,” every body would inquire, Is dipped into what? and if the answer should be, Into cold water, the reply would be, Where is the water of the passage? Such sentences try the honesty of contro- vertists. Dr/Carson shifts from dip to sink,—he says the burden causes the man to sink. But what have we to do with sinking? The man may sink under his burden to the ground, but unless he be pressed down into the ground he is not dipped. So Mr. Ewing cites a passage from Plutarch, “ Baptized by a debt of five thousand myriads,” not surely dipped by it; and Dr. Carson replies, “it represents the debt when on him as causing him to sink.” But again, I ask, what have we to do with sinking? ‘‘ To baptize,” says Dr. Carson elsewhere, “is to dip, and nothing else.” If it be so, why shift the word sink, which is not to baptize, into the place of dip? This is the ἋΣ ” APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 453 kind of shifting which I find continually in Dr. Carson, and yet he says, “he never resorts to a shift.” I do not think he does: but the shifts continually resort to him ; they creep over him insensibly in the eagerness of contention, and insinuate themselves craftily into his print, imparting a false colouring to his authorities. If to baptize be nothing else than to dip, as Dr. Carson says positively and frequently, I ask him, why he does not invariably translate it to dip. I desire no other refutation of his book, as I think there can be no better, than an edition with no alteration whatever, except the word “ dip,” inserted in every instance for βαπτίζω, to the exclusion of sink, and submerge, and bury, and over- whelm, and every term interchanged for it. Josephus says “ the robbers baptized the city,” (De Bello, iv. 83,}—“ oppressed the city,” says Mr. Ewing,—* sunk the city,” says Dr. Carson, (p. 84.) Dipped the city, he ought to have said, if baptize is invariably to dip; and dipped he would have said, if it would have made sense. If “ dipped” will not make sense, it is not the meaning of βαπτίζω. Lis own dis- tinction between βαπτίζω and diye—baptize and sink in his version of the Sibylline verse, peremptorily forbids him to interchange the words. If Dr. Carson will arrange the compensation of copyright on moderate terms, I would advise the Independents to print the part of his work on the mode of baptism, with no other alteration than the invariable substitution of “ dip” for every other counterfeit representa- tive of baptize. In the mean while let the reader expurgate the book of the insidious word to sink, and no great mischief will be done. To do so is to correct the shifting of words. But to examine the principles of Dr. Carson, is a more important object than to estimate his merits. So far as βάπτω is concerned, I have no controversy with him. He has expended a great deal of superfluous labour, as it appears to me, in reading through Hip- pocrates in quest of proofs of a usage which ought to be regarded as undeniable. For more than six hundred years the definition of Eustathius has been before the world, without having been ever seriously controverted, βάπτω, τὸ ἐμβιβάζω ποι τὸ ἐνιέμενον." Whatever Hippocrates may call “ dipping rags in cold water,” or “ dipping the raw liver of an ox in honey,” (may Dr. Carson never have the disease for which this remedy is prescribed by his favourite physician !) the testimony to the primary signification of βάπτω is clear and satis- factory. α Comment. ad Odyss. Rhap, N. 398—401. 454 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. To the secondary sense, to dye, which Dr. Carson assigns to Barra, we can have no reason to object; as Pedo-baptists have long con- tended for it, in opposition to Baptists, who have maintained that in dyeing only by dipping, it never lost its primary signification. Although Dr. Carson has said enough to satisfy his brethren, he has not, I think, produced the most decisive evidence which the idiom of the language supplies. The best proof of a complete change of the meaning, is a corresponding change of the syntax accommodating itself to the deflection of sense. When we read of he use of the word in dyeing wool, or colouring the hair, or stain- ing the hand, the instances, as adduced by Dr. Carson, are quite satisfactory. But the syntax is not affected. The wool, the hair, or the hand, which would be dipped, if the dyeing were accomplished by dipping, is still the object of the verb. Iu the phrases, to dip the wool, and to stain the wool, the syntax is the same. But if the syntax is so varied as to make not the thing coloured, but the colour itself, the object of the verb,—as when we say to dye a purple—the secondary sense has then renounced all dependence upon the primary, and established itself by a new law of syntax, enacted by usage to secure its undisturbed possession. Dr. Carson might have produced a proof-passage from Plato, De Repub. lib. iv. 429, as of that passage respecting the work of dyers, he has given us the inexcusably inaccurate translation of Gale, of which, however, I adduce only the clause relating to our purpose—‘ no matter what dye they are dipped in.” Would any one think that this was the translation made by Dr. Gale, and cited by Dr. Carson, of the words, ἐάν τέ τις ἄλλα χρώματα βάπτῃ, ἐάν τε καὶ ταῦτα, Whether any one dye other colours or these also? Whether the χρῶμα was the dye into which the wool was dipped, according to the version cited, or the colour imparted to it, is not the question. Be it which it may, it is the object of Barry; it has gained in the syntax the place of the material subjected to the process; and therefore pleads a law of language, that βάπτω in the passage does not, and cannot mean to dip, as the colour cannot be dipped, whatever may be done with the wool. Another instance may be found in Plato, (Leges iv. 847,) where the verbal βαπτὸς is in construction, not with the material coloured, as in Aristophanes and elsewhere frequently, but with the dye or colour, “purple, and whatever colours for dyeing” (Samra χρώματαλ) “the country does not produce.” We have another instance n Lucian (Cynic. p. 1106. Op. Ed. Amstel.), of τὴν πορφύραν βάπ- ae τω APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 455 τοντες, those dyeing the purple. Dr. Carson has produced sufficient evidence in the use of words, but this syntax which he has neglected I hold to be demonstrative. Dr. Carson, I think, ought to have extended the secondary sig- nification of βάπτω to several processes of manufacture, which, like dyeing, were originally and usually performed by dipping. The tempering of metal, for instance, appears to have as good a right to the secondary sense of the word, as the dyeing of cloth. Metal, although usually tempered by dipping, would, I imagine, temper just as well if plenty of water were poured upon it. ᾿Αβάπτος, applied to metal, according to Suidas and Hesychius, is untempered, or having no edge. Βάψις σιδήρου, in Pollux, is the tempering of iron.* In the Agamemnon (595), Aischylus by the χαλκοῦ βαφαί, represented as unknown to women, must mean the tempering or edge of brass; for, I suppose, of the version of Schutz, “ wounds inflicted by brass,’ Dr. Carson would say with Blomfield, “ cui minime assentior.” Similar instances may be produced, but it may be asked according to my own principles, has this usage assumed a syntax of its own? Sophocles in the Ajax (650) introduces his hero saying, “I endured horrible things, as iron in the tempering,” (βαφῇ). Iron is dipped in water, but tempered with water. The scholiast on this passage says, “Iron is tempered in two ways. If they wish it to be soft, they temper it with oil” (ἐλαιῷ βάπτουσιν); “but if to be hard, with water” (ὕδατι). As Dr. Carson elsewhere renders this dative, in water, I must content myself with protesting against his heresy, while I look for a different construction. Another scholiast says the softened iron is βεβαμμένος ὑπὸ ἐλαίου, tempered by oil; for this phrase, whatever Dr. Carson may say, nobody else in all the world would translate, dipped into oil.’ But as the controversy is not or ought not to be about βάπτω, let us proceed to its cognate βαπτίζω. I have in the lecture stated my reasons for thinking the latter term is more generic, or has a more extensive signification than the former. Dr. Carson admits no such distinction; but his own versions confirm my views, and show that βάπτω is more nearly than βαπτίζω related to the English verb, to dip. If the reader will go through his versions of the two a Aytipwy Se εἴρηκε Bary χαλκοῦ Kal o1dqnpov.—J. Poll. Onom. lib. vii. § 169. ὃ It may be interesting to know, on the authority of a Sheffield manufacturer, as illustrating the knowledge of the Greeks, that steel is made supple and flexible for saws by tempering with oil; hard for cutlery by tempering with water. ‘“ 5 τ εν 4δ0 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. words, it will be found that while he generally renders the former, ὦ to dip, he as generally renders the latter by some other word. On | examining the second, third, fourth, and fifth sections of his second chapter, in which he collects his instances of the primary signifi- cation of Barra, I find, if I count correctly, of the one hundred and four instances which he adduces, he renders it to dip, in one hundred and one, and in only three instances by other words, twice to immerse, and once to plunge. In the tenth section, in which he adduces thirty-seven citations of βαπτίζω, he renders it to dip only in seven instances; and by other words, as to baptize, to sink, to immerse, to drown, &c., in the other thirty. Such a difference could have been accidental, no more than the sun could have been lighted by accident. If it be asked, Why should βαπτίζω be rendered immerse, and not dip; and βάπτω, dip, and not immerse, in several instances? I reply, Because immerse does not in common parlance so distinctly mark the mode, and is therefore more appropriate to the generic than to the modal verb; while dip belongs to the modal (βάπτω), rather than to the generic (βαπτίζω). Dr. Carson illustrates this distinction of the words immerse and dip. ‘If, on the top of a mountain, I am suddenly involved in mist, shall” (would, I suppose, he means) “any one misunderstand me, when I say, that I was suddenly immersed in a cloud?” p. 330. Elsewhere he inquires, if we should not say that an army between two mountains was not immersed in the valley. But if, in either of these instances, the word dip were used, it would appear as strange as does the auxiliary shall. In common conversation, immerse is so losing its etymological signification, as often to express only the position, as in the valley or the mist; but dip immediately suggests the idea of the mode of the action. Dip, continuing the modal verb, belongs more properly to Barre, than to βαπτίζω, as Dr. Carson’s citations show very clearly and distinctly. But for this distinction I depend not alone upon Dr. Carson. To any list of citations, made without reference to this point, I carry the appeal. In my own veracity I have no right to challenge con- fidence, when I say, that in the course of my reading some years since, with no thought of such a distinction, I hastily translated the several sentences in which I found the words; and in forty-eight instances of Barre, I rendered forty to dip, and six to dye: but of eighteen instances of βαπτίζω, only one to dip. The coincidence with Dr. Carson’s lists, may prevent my Baptist friends from charging APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 457 me with telling an impudent falsehood. But let us turn to the essay of Professor Stuart in the Biblical Repository, April, 1833. The citations correspond very much with those of Dr. Carson; but as the professor says he did not see Dr. Carson’s book until the close of his labours, his versions were not copied. Of βάπτω there are thirty- four instances, of which twenty-two are rendered to dip, and twelve by other words, chiefly equivalent as to plunge: but of forty-six instances of βαπτίζω, only one is rendered to dip, and forty-five by other words, frequently to overwhelm.? I cite these instances to confirm the opinion expressed in the lecture, that βαπτίζω differs from βάπτω in not so nearly representing our modal verb to dip. I know no better evidence than translations made without reference to the question. It becomes my duty to notice the explanations which Dr. Carson gives of the passages adduced in the lecture, to prove that βαπτίζω is a generie verb, to cover with water, or immerse in it in any mode, and not, as he calls it, the modal verb, to dip, and nothing else. As to the Athenian oracle, I cannot do better than cite Dr. Carson’s own words. His version is, ‘‘ Thou mayest be dipped, O bladder, but thou art not fated to sink.” But ddvew, we still contend, is not to sink, but only to dip; if by sinking is meant descending an inch or aline below the surface. Will Dr. Carson deny that the action of this verb is completed by the heavenly bodies, at the mo- ment they pass the edge of the horizon? Will he dispute with the lexicographers on their versions, intro, influo, ingredior, and similar words denoting entrance, it may be info a house, or into clothes, or into the sea, or into anything else? Karaddve is more like sink- ing; but even that descending preposition κατὰ will not always carry divew downwards. I will give him the verb doubly-headed with prepositions, penetrating and descending, sufficient to carry it to the centre of the earth, if it had the sinking tendency which he ascribes to it, and it shall still move horizontally. If he will turn to the “ Life of Pythagoras,” in his own favourite Porphyry, he will find that the philosopher is said to enter the temple, ἀδύτοις ἐγκαταδύεσθαι, which is only another form of the same verb. I need not refer him to Homer's καταδῦναι ὅμιλον, or καταδῦναι μάχην, in which κατὰ fails to make δῦναι sink. On referring to his own instances of the sinking of ships, in which both verbs are found, δῦναι sinks the vessel by a I have omitted the citations from the Septuagint and New Testament, as they may be suspected of betraying a theological bias, 458 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. the aid of κατὰ: but βαπτίζω with no such weight appended is suffi- cient, as he knows very well, to sink the largest ship in her Majesty’s navy. How then can he, in construing the oracle, make δῦναι mean to sink, as distinguished from βαπτίζειν ? Both words combine in the confutation of his rendering. And is it not surprising, if anything could surprise us in the im- petuous movements of theological controversy, that Dr. Carson, in so many other places, should render βαπτίζω, to sink, or at least sur- reptitiously introduce that word as its representative, but here should make this selfsame sink, his most obsequious servant, come out the antagonist of baptize, and in opposition to the characteristic meaning of the word? Observe the tactics of the great defender of the Baptists. What is to baptize? Something contrasted with sinking, for so he expounds the oracle, and yet something identified with sinking ; for that word he often employs as its representative, as baptized in debt is according to him sunk in debt (p. 85). What is the difference between βαπτίζω and dive? The former is only to dip, but the latter to sink, according to p. 61. What is the greater difference between βαπτίζω and καταδῦνω, to sink down according to the force of the preposition? “Baptizomai is coupled with kataduno as a word of similar import, though not exactly synonymous,” as at p: 65. To sink serves both for the synonyme and for the opposite of baptize, as it may be needed, and therefore we say expurgate the book from that treacherous word, with which it is so easy to play fast and loose throughout the controversy. But let us hear the Doctor" explanation; he says—“The obvious and characteristic distinction between the words is that dunein is a neuter verb signifying to sink.”—p.61. This is only assertion, which I meet by counter-assertion. It is not to sink, but to enter. “ But a thing that sinks of itself will doubtless sink to the bottom if not prevented.” Doubtless it will! “It is therefore characteristically applied to things that sink to the bottom.” This is the very thing. Let Dr. Carson produce the proof passages of this characteristic, and I will concede the argument. Let him show me δῦνω without the aid of κατὰ going to the bottom of Styx, or any other water, and I immediately surrender the passage. He adds, “ Baptizein signifies merely to dip, without respect to depth or consequence,” [it has as much respect to depth and consequence as dunein, | “and is as proper to the immersion of an insect on the surface of the deepest part of the ocean, as to the sinking of a ship or a whale in the deepest part of APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 459 the same.” And so, as he knows very well, is dunein. © Or where, as to size and depth, between the insect and the whale, the surface and the bottom, does baptizein end and dunein begin? “ Both words might, in many cases, be applied to the same thing indifferently, but in their characteristic meaning as in the above verse, they are opposed. The expression in this verse is allegorical, literally referring to a bladder or leathern bottle which, when empty, swims on the surface; if sufficiently filled will dip, but will not sink.” A nice process to produce the equipoise in the bladder between the inflation and the collapse so that it shall dip and not sink! “In this view it asserts that the Athenian state, though it might be occasionally over- whelmed with calamities, yet would never perish.” How beautifully truth will unexpectedly develope itself! Overwhelmed with cala- mities is our baptism, the bladder overwhelmed with the waves, and emerging from them by its own buoyancy, is the very thing for which we contend, ‘There is another sense which the expression might have, and which is very suitable to the ambiguity of an oracle. You may yourselves destroy the state, otherwise it is imperishable. A leathern bottle might be so filled as to force it to the bottom, though it would never sink of itself.” Here baptizein, and not dunein, is made to send the bladder to the bottom; either word, as the Doctor pleases, may answer that purpose. All will concur with the worthy author that this sense “is very suitable to the ambiguity of an oracle.” Dr. Carson concludes his remarks—‘ Nothing can more decisively determine the exact characteristic import of baptizein than this verse. It is dip, and nothing but dip.” If, as is here intimated, there be no better proof, I appeal to the reader, if the case is not clean gone, and like the bladder, sunk of itself. With regard to the next passage in the lecture, that from Aristotle, in which it is said “the coast with rushes and sea-weeds is not bap- tized,” (covered with water) at the ebb, Dr. Carson says, “ The pecu- liar beauty of the expression consists in figuring the object which is successively bare and buried under water.” (The Doctor uses the word bury in several instances as a substitute for baptize, and evidently, in this instance, without regard to mode, not putting into but covering over.) ‘Or, being dipped when it is covered, and as emerging when it is bare.” There is no disputing about taste, and therefore I can only say no passage appears to me to have less of the appearance of figure than this relation of a natural phenomenon. Unless a figurative sense be obvious, no one has any right to assume 460 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. it. Again, the figure, if it be allowed, is in the member of the sentence in which it is least to be expected; not where the idea of the swelling flood might suggest it, but in the bare negation, the uncovered shore. Dr. Carson is a better rhetorician than was Aristotle, and shows a great deal more taste than he ascribes to the author of the Poetics. ‘Dipped when it is covered, and emerging when it is bare,” is the consistent language which he selects to preserve the metaphor from injury. But he makes Aristotle strangely to mingle the figurative and the literal, and to say instead of “dipping” and “emerging,” not “dipped” and “overflowed.” The beauty of the imagery, whatever it be, is created by the genius of Dr. Carson, not by the skill of Aristotle, who commencing with his figure, sinks into dull prose; inspired by the muse at the beginning, is suddenly forsaken in the midst of his brief discussion, and so he dips not the coast into the sea, at ebb; (the beautiful figure!) and covers it with water, at the flood (the unadorned prose.) The corresponding verb, κατακλύζεσθαι, destroys the figure. But if it do not, I ask the reader to consider whether any passage has less of the appearance of figure than this citation, or whether any figure can be produced, more unsightly in its form, more awkward in its move- ment, or more incongruous in its connexion, than this not dipping of the coast with all its rushes and fucus into the sea, at low water ? Dr. Carson adds, “In the same style we might say that at the flood, God immersed the mountains in the waters, though the waters came over them.” This is exactly in the same style. He might say that God dipped the world into the flood, but Iam quite sure he has too much good sense to preach after such a fashion, even to an Irish audience, passionately fond of all kinds of figures. The passage from Libanius, of the man baptized by a small addition to a heavy burden, I have already noticed. Dr. Carson’s explanation is, “ The burden causes the man to sink.” But βαπτίζω is, according to the ablest defender of the Baptists, to cause to dip, not to sink. Lask again, Does it cause him to dip into the earth, or to dip into what substance? We are not surely to be amused with an image of a man swimming with a burden upon his head, to which certainly a very small addition, as a very small burden, would cause him to sink. By the aid of figurative license, and by substituting sinking or other unauthorised words for dipping, Dr, Carson can easily carry his point. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 461 His axiom is, “One mode of wetting is figured as another mode of wetting, by the liveliness of the imagination.” Grant me the use of this axiom with a lively imagination, and I will easily prove the word in dispute to mean any kind of wetting whatever. Let it be to wet by covering with water, I take my passage from Aristotle on the baptism of the shore by the overflowing tide. To all opposing passages 1 apply the axiom, and what beautiful figures rise before me! with what lively imaginations these Greeks must have been endowed! One mode of wetting is figured by another mode, and all modes are figured by the overflowing tide of Aristotle. On leaving the class of passages which represent baptism as over- flowing or covering with water, I propose two inquiries. If βαπτίζω, as to the mode be the same as βάπτω, how is it that in the hundred and fifty instances of the latter verb, in its primary signification, there is no occasion to substitute the word sink or bury, or anything else for a good, honest dipping? and, secondly, what is there in βαπτίζω which so captivates the poet or orator, as to induce him when he rises to the elevation of “ figuring one mode of wetting by another mode,” to select it to the utter rejection of its cognate? Βάπτω was indeed a poetic speaker in the lively imagination of Dr. Gale, and the older Baptists; but Dr. Carson has reduced him to the proprieties of prosaic discourse. If the idea of overwhelming, as in Aristotle and elsewhere, be not in the proper usage of the word, but in the play of the imagination, why in all the instances should βαπτίζω, and not Barre, suggest itself to the lively imagination of the Greek? Why should the former arrogate all the poetry? I propose not a challenge, for I do not write in that spirit, but as an anxious inquirer after truth. I ask our Baptist friends either to produce instances in the use of Barro, “ of one mode of wetting figuring another,” or to explain the ground of the difference. If they will do this out of pity toan erring brother, they will do much to make me a convert, and probably many others whose conversion would be of far more importance. Dr. Carson intimates that the greatness of things baptized has something to do with the difference between the verbs, but this surely cannot affect their figurative use. Besides, in the first instance we meet with a form of βαπτίζω in the range of Greek literature, it is in connexion with a fisherman’s cork, little enough for any purpose of dipping. We are here, I am sure, open to conviction, as it appears to me the 462 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. hinge upon which much depends, after having spent in vain many wearisome hours in seeking for instances of this poetic use of Barre corresponding with βαπτίζω. If it exists, pray let us know it. But I must say, we are not to be referred to Nebuchadnezzar dipped in dew in the book of Daniel. As it is expected that every- body who embarks in this controversy should notice this passage, and as I may not find a more convenient opportunity, I will just advert to it. The phrase, as every one familiar with this dispute knows, is ἀπὸ τῆς δρόσου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸ σῶμα ἀυτοῦ ἐβάφη. Dan. iv. 30. I am not ashamed to acknowledge I do not understand these words. If they be Greek, I am not scholar enough to translate them. It appears to me that the translator has closely followed the Chaldee idiom, in selecting both the preposition ἀπὸ, and the verb Barra, as corresponding in some respects to the Chaldee »2z, which seems, ac- cording to the analogy of the Hebrew and Syriac, sometimes to mean to colour. The Chaldee is plain enough—‘‘ he was made wet from the dew.” If ἐβάφη be a correct translation, it of course must mean the same thing; but I feel bound to acknowledge its inaccuracy so far as I can understand it. Theodotion’s version of Daniel is said to have been substituted for that of the Septuagint, on account of the inaccuracies of the latter; but Theodotion himself was not infallible in Chaldee. Dr. Cox builds some argument upon the peculiarity of the second aorist tense of the verb, which I cannot refute, as I do not understand it; but he will find, if he consult Montfaucon’s edition of the fragments of the Hexapla, that in the twenty-second verse other Greek versions employed the future tense βαφήσεται, which was also the reading of Chrysostom (in Comm). Dr. Carson appeals to the original, and says, “ How can mode be excluded, if it is both in the original and in the translation?” But is it in the original? Gesenius gives the meaning, to wet, to moisten, in both states. Although he says, “otherwise to immerse, to colour,” yet to wet is his version. If, therefore, Dr. Carson will maintain that the Chaldee verb is one of mode, he must carry on the controversy with Gesenius and the orientalists. He thinks the expression is intelli- gible and beautiful in our own language, and offers three poetic illustrations; one which he says we hear every day—‘‘ The man who has been exposed to a summer-plump, will say that he has got a complete dipping;” of which phraseology I can only say, although I have lived some years in the world, I never heard it in my life before: another from Virgil in the beautiful lines— ς ἢ APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 463 Postquam collapsi cineres et flamma quievit Reliquias vino et bibulam lavere favillam. The third is the phrase of Milton, “colours dipped in heaven.” This translation of Daniel must be a curious passage. I have before me a Baptist writer, who says it is a proof of the thorough drenching of baptism in the thick eastern dews; and a Pdo-baptist, who says it proves baptism may be the gentlest effusion. Dr. Carson thinks the man has no soul who does not feel the inspiration of the figure, as if Theodotion,—whose fancy I am sure in no other word of his version ever reflects a sun-beam of poetry,—turning his poetic eye on the sparkling of the dew-drops, saw the maniac king as the three great poets, cited by Dr. Carson on the passage, would have seen him, Virgil, he of the summer-plump, and Milton, with “colours dipped in heaven.” To me, on the other hand, the translator of Daniel appears creeping on the literalities of his original, and afraid of in- dulging his fancy even in the accommodation of his preposition to Greek usage. And withal, the word has nothing to do with bap- tism; for it may mean a thousand things which do not belong to its cognate βαπτίζω. I have only to add, when we ask the Baptists for the firurative use of βάπτω corresponding with the figurative use, as they call it, of βαπτίζω, or the reason why at the sight of one word the writer should so often soar to the top of Helicon, while the other never raises him from the low ground of prosaic life, let them not exhibit Theodotion bewildered with a preposition, as a poet with “colours dipped in heaven.” As the third class of instances to which I referred are not noticed, I proceed to the distinction which has been suggested between the two words under consideration. As Dr. Carson is too well acquainted with the tendencies of language to suppose that two words, however they may be related, would run through a course of ages in parallel lines, he does not proceed without adverting to the distinction between Barro and βαπτίζω. He thinks that the former means to dip, and the latter has the causative sense, and denotes to make to dip. Of this distinction, however, he adduces no proof passage ; nor can I perceive the slightest reason for it, unless it be that it exists between the forms of some other verbs of two terminations. But for the same reason βαπτίζω might be made a frequentative, or a continuative, or many other things, for any list of the verbs in ζω is sufficient to support the assertion of Buttmann that they can be brought under no one class. Because δειπνέω, is to sup, and δειπνίζω, to give 464 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. ἫΝ a supper; we have no right to infer that the same distinction exists in the verbs before us. Besides, this distinction is without a difference, at least without such a difference as exists in other simple and causa- tive verbs ; for as Dr. Carson justly observes, “if we dip an object in any way, we cause it to dip or sink.” (This word sink is everlast- ingly intruding.) According to this distinction we can never do the action of one verb without doing the other,—can never dip without causing to dip; but to sup and to give a supper, to be rich and to make rich, and all other verbs of this kind, so far as I can recollect them, imply a plain and palpable difference; for many miserly people sup, without inviting to supper,—are rich without making rich. Again, Dr. Carson attempts to sustain his shadow of a distinction by shifting the sense of the word: Barre is to dip—the transitive verb, to put a thing into the water, and not the neuter verb, to dip, or go into the water. In the causative the sense is shifted from the transi- tive into the neuter, as when he says the causative “is applied to ships which are made to dip.” This dip of the ships is not Barre, the tran- sitive, but the neuter into which it has shifted. Lastly, βαπτίζω is not causative to βάπτω, for if it were it would mean to induce others to dip; as ifa master compelled his servants, or a physician induced his patient to dip the ox-liver in honey,—the master or physician would baptize, or cause to dip—while the servant or patient would not baptize, but only dip. But is there in all the Greek language— (I ask Dr. Carson, for I am sure he has read a great deal more of it, and to a great deal better purpose, than I have) any appearance of such a distinction? For these reasons I do not believe there is any foundation for the opinion that βαπτίζω is causative to Barre. Nor can I see proof of the continuative sense of Barri¢@,—although it is applied to ships, which are submerged in the ocean and rise no more. This opinion has been supported by two able writers in this contro- versy, the correspondent of Mr. Ewing and the author of the Essays in the Congregational Magazine; but I need not advert to it, as I fully agree in all Dr. Carson has said in its refutation. There remains, so far as I know, no other distinction, (I mean in the primary sense) than that which I have suggested and defended in the lecture. With the exception of the compound in Pindar, standing by itself in the relics of Greek literature, we have, I think, the earliest use of the verb βαπτίζω in Plato and Aristotle; and in their instances it is used as the verb βάπτω could not have been used, meaning, to overwhelm; be it, as I say, the proper sense,—or be it, APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 465 as Dr. Carson says, a figurative use of the word. These two philo- sophers use it as the simpler form is never used, and go the verb, covering, not dipping, its object, is first introduced to our attention. If their index-makers and lexicographers are to be trusted, it is not found in the more common of the Attic writers, historians, tragedians, or orators. It afterwards became more common, is frequently used by Polybius, who, if the lexicon of his words be correct, never uses Barre, and in the later writers, as in Plutarch, it is found occa- sionally occupying the place of Barre, which substitution, although I find but few instances in the earlier writers, is not opposed to the sense which I have given to the word. Βαπτίζω, in my view, has more breadth of meaning than Barre, and therefore, although the earlier writers often employed it, where Barra would not answer their purpose, it might have been used occasionally as a substitute for βάπτω, under particular circumstances. Dr. Carson has well asserted the principle, (as with him it is an axiom,) that words in certain circumstances may be interchangeable, although they are not synonymous. There is in Dr, Carson one instance, as he gives it, from Hippocrates, of βαπτίζω being used precisely in the sense of βάπτω, only one among a hundred of its cognates; a fact in itself remarkable, although explicable in accordance with my views; but as I cannot find the reference in my edition, I must leave it without examination. To explain the use of baptize, Dr. Carson adduces instances of figurative language in English. He cites from an Irish newspaper an account of a bog, which is said to have been submerged by the water, when the water came over it. Were he to translate this into Greek he might use βαπτίζω, but his familiarity with the language would forbid him to use βάπτω. ΤῸ submerge is not to put into water, but to put under water, and in any way. Anything may be put under water by bringing the water upon it, precisely as we say, To lay the meadow under water, by overflowing it. This use of the word occurs both in Latin and in English, and in prose as plain as prose can be. It suggests to me a clear and convenient distinction ; Barre, | maintain, is immergo, and nothing else as to mode; βαπτίζω is mergo, in all its modes and forms, it ’s immergo, and demergo, and submergo, and every other merge, [ believe, of English or Latin. It defines no mode of merging. Let us now glance at the instances which we have cited from the New Testament, and a word or two will be necessary respecting our 2H 466 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. position, which, I must advertise the reader, is not in this Appendix exactly what it was in the lecture. In the lecture I had to show the difference between the usage of the New Testament, and that for which our Baptist brethren contend. To maintain a part of the averment of the lecture, that to baptize in the New Testament is not to dip, is the business of the Appendix: to maintain the other part, that it is not to overwhelm, will be my duty, in addition to the evidence I have already offered, when I see those who concede the dipping and contend for the overwhelming. I see as yet no such adversary in the open field, unless it be Dr. Cox, who thinks that immersion may be effected by water coming up from below about the patient. I know not whether he has ever baptized in that peculiar manner; but if he has, and still refuses to rebaptize, although his brethren say that his mode is no better than sprinkling, he and I might, I am certain, soon bring our difference to an amicable settlement. But I have unfortunately to deal not with the amenities of Dr, Cox, but with the arguments of Dr. Carson. On approaching the New Testament, I find that Dr. Carson meets the objections from the Pharisaic baptisms, and from the difficulties of immersing the great numbers, under the circumstances, mentioned in the evangelical history, by appealing to what, for his purpose, ought to be absolute demonstration,—the established sense of the word. With much more candour than some of his brethren, who seem to imagine that all is as plain as the baptism of a church member, with abundance of preparation, in a comfortable chapel, he adverts to these objections. His canon on these difficulties is,—‘ When a thing is proved by suflicient evidence, no objection from difficulties can be admitted, as decisive, except they involve an impossibility. This is self-evident; for, otherwise, nothing could ever be proved.” But if the canon be self-evident, why offer a reason for it, and a reason a great deal more doubtful than the canon itself? The meaning of this canon is, I suppose, that if the evidence in favour of a proposition preponderate over that against it, derived from objec- tions, the objections are not decisive. If the positive signs taken together, exceed the negative, the result is positive. But on this very account, the negative signs, the objections from difficulties, ought to be carefully compared with the positive signs, the sufficient evidence. In the instances before us, the objections being serious, the evidence to be sufficient ought to fall little short of demonstration. Our Baptist brethren will probably accept this explanation of the APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 467 canon, and say their evidence is little, if at all, short of demonstration. Of the historical difficulties, I have already acknowledged that, on our side, we have sometimes pressed them too eagerly. Give me demon- stration, and I immediately give up difficulty. With regard to the objections which we found on the use of the word in the New Testament, in reference to the baptism in the Red Sea, and to that on the day of Pentecost, Dr. Carson asserts, that the expressions being figurative, imply no real baptism. There was, according to his explanation, no baptism in the Red Sea, no baptism on the day of Pentecost, but only a trope in one instance, and a catachresis in the other. We must, therefore, return to the enchanted land of figure and fancy, of which Dr. Carson is so fond; for 1 must do him the justice to say he is not like the unimaginative Peedo-baptists, who, having no souls, cannot see the beauty of the figure which, in Daniel, dips Nebuchadnezzar into the dew, and, in Aristotle, puts the Spanish shore into the ocean. Having in the lecture adverted to this figurative exposition, I need not expend many words on recurring to it. Dr. Carson’s canon that “one mode of wetting is figured by another mode of wetting, by the liveliness of the imagination,” although it is capable of doing great marvels, will scarcely carry us across the Red Sea, or over the day of Pentecost, because, as he assures us, there was, on those occasions, no wetting at all. But, he says, “ the passage of the children of Israel through the Red Sea is figuratively called a baptism,” [a passage called a baptism !] “from its external resemblance to that ordinance, and from being appointed to serve a like purpose, as well as to figure the same thing.”—p.119. How should the passage of the Israelites through the sea have “an external resemblance” to dipping, “serve a like purpose,” or “figure the same thing?” The reply is, ‘the going down of the Israelites into the sea, their being covered by the cloud, and their issuing out on the other side, resembled the baptism of believers.” The reader who has seen the baptism of a believer may judge of its “external resemblance” to the passage of a million and a half of people, on dry land, in a wide and open way, between the upright waves, at a great distance from many of them, as we infer from the numbers (probably some miles). Does Dr. Carson mean that the Israelites went through a sort of corridor, with the sea on each side, and the cloud resting upon the water? What else he can mean when he says there was “a real immersion,” I cannot imagine. He is somewhat severe upon those who say the Israelites 2H 2 468 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. were baptized with the rain orthe spray. “ This is quite arbitrary.” “Tt is not in evidence that any such things existed.”—p. 119. ‘“ On the Israelites there was neither rain, nor spray, nor storm.”—p. 418. Nor is it in evidence that the Israelites were under the cloud at the time in which they were passing through the sea; but it is in plain contradiction to Scripture, for “ the pillar of the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them, and it came between the camp of the Egyptians, and the’camp of Israel.”—Exod. xiv. 19, 20. The sea was dry to such an extent that the nation whose men of war, above twenty years of age, exceeded six hundred thousand, besides the Levites and their wives and children, their herds and flocks, their tents and furniture crossed in safety, followed by the armies of Egypt. Dr. Carson says of this open space, wide enough for the population of Ulster or of Scotland to pass in a few hours with their cattle and property, ‘ Surely there is no straining to see in this fact, something that may darkly shadow a burial.” Very darkly, indeed! So. darkly that I strain my eyes in vain, to catch a glimpse of it! But I accuse myself, for the man “has no soul,” and “is a Goth,” who cannot see this figure. Calling this a dry baptism, Dr. Wardlaw is thus addressed. “Be patient, Dr. Wardlaw; was not the Pentecost baptism a dry baptism? Immersion does not necessarily imply wetting, immersion in water imphes this.”—p. 120. It would be uncivil in me to turn Dr. Carson into a vocative case in print, after the style in which he treats my venerable friend. This defender of the Baptists, accredited without reproof by their reviews, their subscriptions, their com- mendations; is, I believe, the only controvertist of the age who denies his opponents the common courtesy of oblique address. Notwithstanding the authority which thus catechises its vocatives, this dry baptism is a baptism in the sea, a baptism in salt-water. And if the fathers baptized in the sea, had only a dry baptism, what is there to wet us in a baptism in Jordan, or even in the ‘much water’ of Anon ? α This is far from being the most offensive instance—‘ In the awful presence of the living God, lask Mr. Ewing and Dr, Wardlaw, if they think it credible that John the Baptist would take into the water the multitudes whom he baptized for the purpose of pouring a little on their faces ?”—p. 134. ‘Here, then, Mr. Bickersteth, I charge your conscience as a Christian.”— p. 240. Is this the style of controversy among Christians! Upon your oath, Sir, I ask you! is the language of a coarse-minded barrister, who does not like the answers of his witness, Swear him! swear him! and then see what he will say! is the language of past times even in the Criminal courts. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 409 But figure there is in this baptism, according to Dr, Carson, and figure of no ordinary kind, for, it seems, the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians is a lyric poem, written after the manner of Campbell's Ode on the Battle of Hohenlinden. The citation is curious, and so is the comment: p. 413— «Pew, few, shall part where many meet, The snow shall be their winding-sheet, And every turf beneath their feet Shall be a soldier's sepulchre.’ “ Would any Goth,” asks Dr. Carson, “object that the snow cannot be a winding-sheet, because it does not wind round the whole body of the dying soldier? As the soldier, says the critic, was uncovered above, the snow cannot be his winding-sheet. And is he not a Goth, who says that the Israelites could not be buried” [we have nothing to do with burial, for the controversy respects baptism] “ or immersed” [why not say, or dipped ?] “in the sea, because they were not covered with the water? But our critic must proceed: ‘ As the soldier les on the turf, without any covering from it, it cannot be said to be. the soldier’s sepulchre.’ What sort of criticism is this ?” This may be an answer for “Goths,” but it is not for sober Christians. Was St. Paul writing lyric poetry ? What would be thought if Campbell himself, professing to give an account of the battle, were to employ his own figures in prosaic relation, and to write, I would not have you ignorant, my friends, that all the soldiers slain in this field, were buried in winding-sheets and in sepulchres ? This style of prose, and not that of his poetry, would be after the manner of St. Paul, as expounded by Dr. Carson: “Brethren, we would not have you ignorant that all our fathers were baptized in the sea.” The soldiers were not buried at all. Yes, says the critic of Dr. Carson’s new school, they were all buried in winding-sheets and sepulchres, for ‘he is a Goth” who does not see that the snow was their winding-sheet and the turf their sepulchre; as all the fathers were baptized in the sea, and he is a Goth who does not see some~ thing, we cannot tell exactly what, that “darkly shadows a burial,” or immersion. We may illustrate this criticism by another reference to the winding-sheet, belonging to a guide in the dangerous passes of the Alps— ‘My sire, my grandsire, died among these wilds, As for myself, he said, (and he held forth His wallet in his hand,) this do I eall My winding sheet, for I shall have no other.” Rogers’ Italy 470 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. According to the style of St. Paul, as Dr. Carson represents and admires it, the traveller in the Alps should have written home, I would not have you ignorant, my friends, that amidst the frightful precipices of these mountains, all the guides escort strangers in their winding- sheets. “He must be a Goth,” says the pupil of Carson, who would not understand that the winding-sheets were wallets, for they would have no other. Do our Baptist friends expect us to answer such twaddle as this, which in effect says, the fathers were not baptized in the sea, for St. Paul was only making poetry ? But its ingenious author has another reason for the apostle’s selection of this word. St. Paul must have two or three reasons for doing one thing assigned by those who know nothing about the reasons of his conduct. The passage through the sea “ figures the same thing,” as Christian baptism; it “figured the burial and resurrection of Christ and Christians!”—p. 119. Is there in all Christendom a second man who believes that the passage through the Red Sea “ figured the burial and resurrection of Christ and Christians?” This, if true, is indeed a great sacrament; yet it is nowhere noticed in all the Scriptures; no intimation of the wonderful sign is given in the Jewish history; no annunciation of it is made to the church. Were it not for one or two fanciful Fathers who saw sacraments in every thing, this prefigure- ment might have been applauded as the great discovery of modern theological science. I appeal again to candid Baptists, are we bound to notice such figures recently discovered “ by the liveliness of the imagination ?” With respect to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, Dr. Carson has some important and valuable observations. He shows, as I think, in a very conclusive manner, that baptism cannot be emblematical of the pouring out of the Spirit, because that phrase is itself only figurative, and can have no relation to mode. He adds (p. 422), “in like manner I disposed of sprinkling as an emblem of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. It cannot be an emblem of this, because the blood of Christ is not literally sprinkled on the believer. With all sober men this point must be settled for ever.” I dare not speak for all “sober men.” It is settled with me. I add, “in like manner” we “dispose” of immersion as an emblem of the burial of the believer with Christ, because the believer is not literally buried with Christ. The arguments on both sides for symbolising modes of spiritual things, must rise or fall together. Without repeating what has been said in the lecture, I am glad to have the authority of Dr. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 47] Carson, that this point is settled for ever with all sober men. How he contrives to make himself an exception I do not surmise. He says (p. 107), “ Though the baptism of the Spirit is a figura- tive baptism, to which there cannot be a likeness in literal baptism, yet as it respects the transaction on the day of Pentecost, there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit.” We here, I am happy to learn, leave the fairy land of figures and poetry, and approach the sober realities of fact. If we can only see ‘a real baptism,” we may with truth and certainty copy the mode of performing it. God bap- tized with the emblems of the Spirit; the controversy comes to the crisis when we ask, how did he baptize? Let us hear Dr. Carson. “They were literally covered with the appearance of wind and of fire.” Covered with the appearance of wind! What kind of an ap- pearance? Yet this is “a real baptism”—no figure. ‘“ Now though there was no dipping of them,” (yet this was ‘a veal baptism,’ says the Doctor, or he did say so a few lines before; but I am afraid he will shift his words,) ‘‘as they were completely surrounded by the wind and fire, by the catachrestic mode of speech which I have before explained, they are said to be immersed.” The catachrestic mode of speech! Was ever anything so vexatiously disappointing? We were to be favoured with the sight of a real baptism, but the real baptism, like Ausonia to the Trojans, is ever receding from our view. The catachresis, I know, will work wonders, especially if aided by “the liveliness of the imagination,” but I never before saw it con- vert a reality into a figure. Thus much is certain, for I cordially agree with Dr. Carson in both his assertions, let what will become of the catachresis, “there was a real baptism in the emblems of the Spirit,” “although there was no dipping.” Yet in the reality, he is enamoured with figures, and finds them everywhere ; he has tasted lotus, and cannot leave the pleasant land in which it grows. He adds, ‘“ When a house falls upon the inhabitants, we say that they are buried in the ruins. The word bury, with us strictly conveys the notion of digging into the earth, as well as of covering over with it.” It does no such thing; we may bury strictly and literally by raising a tumulus or barrow over the body, as well as by putting it into a grave. Do we say they are dipped into the ruins ? He adds, ‘‘ There is another grand fallacy in this argument. /¢ confounds things that are different. Water is poured out into a vessel in order to have things put into it. Water is poured into a bath in 472 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. order to immerse the feet or the body, but the immersion is not the pouring. Our opponents confound these two things. A foreigner might as well contend that, when it is said in the English language, water was poured into a bath and they immersed themselves, it is implied that pouring and immersing are the same thing.” (p. 108.) More poetry is appended, about as relevant as the stanza from Camp- bell. But how do we confound these things? If the water is put first into the bath, and the feet afterwards, there is immersion: if the feet are there first, and the water is poured afterwards, there is no immersion. How was it at the Pentecost ? Did the emblems fill the room before the apostles entered ? If so, we do confound the two things. But if the apostles were in the room first, and the Spirit came upon them, in this real baptism there was no immersion. What saith the book of the Acts? How readest thou? Were the em- blems of the Spirit poured down first, that the disciples might be put intothem? Be it where it may, this grand fallaey of confounding different things is not with us. Dr. Carson continues, (p. 110,) ‘ The wind descended to fill the house, that when the house was filled with the wind” (this philosophy of ἃ house full of wind is not of Scripture, but of Dr. Carson, I would have sceptics take notice, lest they should profanely ask, was it ever empty of wind ? or if there were more than usual, what kept the building together ?) ‘the disciples might be baptized with it.” (But they were not dipped into it.) ‘“ Their baptism consisted in being totally surrounded with the wind, not in the manner in which the wind came.” Of course, he means, came upon them. Will you believe me, gentle reader, that his book is written to prove that to baptize is a modal verb, referring exclusively to the manner in which the action is performed ; the manner in which the wind, or water, or baptizing fluid encloses a person, by his being put into it, and not by tts coming upon him? We see at last the baptism of the bladder by the wave falling upon it,—the baptism of the shore by the tide rising upon it,—our baptism and not his, who says, “If all the water of the ocean had fallen on him, it would not have been a literal immersion,” p- 36. As Dr. Carson says this is both “a real baptism,” and yet only “Ca baptism after a catachrestic mode of expression,” is it surprising he showd imagine his opponents “confound things that are different ?” Is he to be allowed to make this baptism “real” or “ catachrestic,” as it may successively suit the various stages of his argument? Here is baptism without immersion, “a real baptism in the em- APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. A73 blems,” which were shed forth upon the disciples. Dr. Carson replies, for such is the end of all his shifting, Then immersion is not immersion. My rejoinder is, The doctor’s language and that of St. Luke do not correspond. He may possibly reiterate his own words, “if the angel Gabriel say so, I will bid him go to school,” and then I am fairly brought to a nonplus. To such a champion of the Baptists a mortal can only reply, You must put St. Luke under the same schoolmaster. The objections which we find in these passages, as well as the difficulties in making immersion correspond with the references to Jewish and Christian baptisms in the New Testament, are in Dr. Carson’s estimation to be utterly disregarded, on account of the overwhelming evidence which he professes to have adduced in favour of the meaning of the word baptize. We assert a secondary meaning ascertained in the usage of the New Testament, and he denies usa hearing. We say the apostles call that baptism in which there was no immersion; and he replies, No one before them ever called it so, and therefore they could not have given that designation to any religious rite which was administered without immersion. “1 give my opponents the whole range of Greek litera- ture, till the institution of the ordinance of baptism.” Nothing can be more unfair. A secondary sense is found, as we maintain, in connexion with the religious ordinance. Without accounting for this signification, we offer proof of the fact. How the appropriation arose we do not affirm; but as the word supper was appropriated to a religious ordinance instituted after supper—as the word denoting to stretch out the hand was appropriated to giving the suffrage—or to the act of election when there was no stretching out the hand—as such appropriations continually occur, so we maintain the word bap- tize became appropriated by the Jews before the time of the apostles, or by the apostles themselves, or by others with their sanction to instances of a religious rite, in which there was no immersion. That the word was appropriated to the religious rite, or rather to several religious rites, is evident; because the more common verb βάπτω, which more usually and more properly denotes dipping, or (if our opponents will not allow this) quite as well, is never employed to designate any ritual use of water, Jewish or Christian. As soon as we meet with the religious rite, we find the verb βαπτίζω appropriated to its designation. As soon as this rite obtained its mame, we con- tend for a secondary signification of the word, and we have offered 474 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. what to us appears satisfactory evidence of the fact. “ But,” says Dr. Carson, “ you cannot prove your secondary signification before the institution of the religious rite.” Nor do we care to prove it. We offer evidence of a secondary sense in connexion with the reli- gious rite. To require the evidence of the usage from previous writers, or from writers who knew not the religious institute, appears to us as unreasonable as to refuse to hear any exposition of the Greek words of which the terms law, justification, sanctification, resurrec- tion, spirit, angel, and many others are the representatives, unless it be in accordance with the ideas which pagan poets and philosophers attached to them. Such an exposition, if carried to its full extent, would convert Christianity into paganism. Am I to attach to the term the Son of God, only the same idea as did the pagan centurion at the foot of the cross ? Dr. Carson himself supplies a far better illustration. We are required to justify the appropriation for which we contend, as found in the New Testament, by examples from previous writers, that is, by examples of an appropriation of which, unless they were familiar with Jewish usage, they must have been utterly ignorant; and we do not know that the appropriation existed even in the usage of the Jews previously to the Christian era. He contends, in opposition to the older writers of his denomination, that the verb Barrw came by appro- priation among the dyers to denote to dye or colour, not only by dipping but by staining, in any manner. That he proves his point I need not say, for how it ever could have been a question with any who understood the difference between βαπτιστὴς, a Baptist, and βαφεὺς, a dyer, it is not easy to explain. But if the ghost of the most learned Gale, or the venerable Booth, or if some surviving brother of their opinion, were to say, I will give you “ the whole of Greek literature till” the invention of dyeing, to find the examples, and you never can show that βάπτω means to dye; or if, as the early literature of Greece has faded, and all that remains is stained by the dyers, he were to say, “you must admit the word was never so used before the invention of dying,” such an objection would be worth just as much, or just as little, as the demurrer which Dr. Carson puts in to prevent a hearing from the apostles, on behalf of their appropriation. We say that an appeal to the writers of the New Testament, without a word of recommendation from pagans, is quite sufficient to determine the appropriation of innumerable words which designate the doctrines, rites, and other peculiarities of the APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 475 Christian religion. Will Dr. Carson, who is fond of ascribing Uni- tarian canons and predilections to his opponents, assert that in the first verse of John’s gospel—in the clause, The Word was God —we are to attribute to the term Θεὸς no other ideas than Greek poets attributed to it when they called their heroes divine? In bap- tism, unless the Jewish or Christian rite was known, the appropria- tion for which we contend could not have prevailed. The fair mode of proposing the subject would have been for Dr. Carson, as he con- tends for the primary use of the word, to have propounded his proof passages down to the time of the institution, and, stopping where we say the secondary sense appears, to have imposed upon us the proof from passages of that age, and from the writers.who employed that secondary sense. We cite Paul and Luke for a usage which Xeno- phon and Plato did not understand. But does Dr. Carson confine himself to the chronology in which he so severely and straitly binds his opponents? He gives us ‘to the very hour” of the institution; does he never wander across the boundary which he himself so strictly prescribes? As he gives the primary signification, and we contend for the secondary, it is reason- able that he should bring his proofs from the earlier writers, and leave us, if we are able, to show the subsequent usage. The Fathers, he tells Dr. Beecher, are too late ; the use of the word in the New Testament is subsequent to the institution of the rite. Let us then hear his own enumeration of his authorities taken from his table of contents. “Section X. Examples of the occurrence of baptizo, to show that the word always signifies to dip, never expressing anything but mode.” “Examples of baptizo from Polybius, Strabo, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Lucian, Porphyry, Homer, Heraclides Ponticus, Themistius, Septuagint. Quotations from sop, Josephus, Hippocrates, Poly- bius, Dio, Porphyry, Diodorus Siculus.” Contents, p. xiv. Here is a formidable array of authorities to prove that βαπτίζω always signifies to dip, and never expresses anything but mode. We assert that not one of these authorities proves anything of the kind; but as the Doctor confines us to Greek literature existing previously to the institution, let us see how far he observes his own limitation. I say this, having no desire to exclude from the argument the authorities subsequent to the Christian era, for they will be found on examination to corre- spond exactly with their predecessors. But as this limit is strictly 476 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. defined by Dr. Carson, we are tempted to inquire to what extent he imposes a restriction upon others which he does not himself regard; and on examining the earlier writers, we are freed from the suspicion of making an unfair selection of his authorities. Strabo, I suppose, we must allow to come within the limitation. As Dr. Carson gives us the whole range up “to the very hour,” and Strabo was contemporary with John the Baptist—for they died, I think, in the same year—we may allow him to have written. before baptism was instituted. Plutarch and Lucian are a hundred years too late. Porphyry, of whose baptism in Styx I suppose the reader has no wish to hear anything more, died in the year of our Lord 304. Homer is unobjectionable on the ground of antiquity, and quickly I turned to the reference to see what he had to say about βαπτίζω; for, old as he is, his opinion would be the greatest novelty which Dr. Carson has introduced into this controversy. But the Homer of the index is no Homer in the text, but only two Greek critics upon his writings. The one is pseudo-Didymus, not the true Didymus, called brazen-bowelled (χαλκέντερος), because, un- like your students of this degenerate age, he vigorously pursued his daily and nightly studies undisturbed by the horrors of dyspepsia. The other, Dionysius, we will allow to be the historian of Halicar- nassus, for it is not worth while starting a controversy on the age of a passage which proves nothing. Themistius lived about three hundred years after the time. As to Alsop, as Dr. Carson has read Bentley's Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris—for every scholar has read it—and especially as he gives us no reference to the particular fable, that we may ex- amine the class to which it belongs, he will not expect us to admit the sop of his citation, to be the Athenian slave or any other witness of the proper age. Josephus is too late, and so is Dion. Porphyry, being a great favourite, is produced a second time with the same citation. Of fourteen authorities, including the Septuagint, which Dr. Carson produces to prove the meaning of βαπτίζω, seven are excluded by the rule which he himself imposes. He refuses to hear them if they have anything to say in our favour, prompt as he is to appeal to them in his scarcity of authorities; for seven men make small show from the whole range of Greek literature, to de- termine a dispute which has so long distracted the Christian church. Omitting the Septuagint for the present, let us inquire how far the APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 477 other six prove that βαπτίζω is ἃ modal verb, “ never expressing any- thing but mode;” that it “ always signifies to dip;” and we shall find that they express being in or under water, either without any refer- ence to the mode, or with such references as intimate as great a variety of modes as could have been reasonably expected in the number of instances. Polybius speaks of soldiers baptized up to the breast in a difficult march through water, in two instances; but the expression may denote they marched covered with water up to the breasts, as well as dipped in water. Indeed, the former is the more natural sense, as the expression refers not to the act of dipping, but to the continued annoyance of marching in the water. So he speaks of their being baptized in the marshes; in which passage he distinguished the verb from καταδῦνω, “baptized and sinking in the marshes.” He also applies the term to ships (a very common application of it), which whether overwhelmed, or engulfed, or run down, or sinking in any way, are said to be baptized. In these several applications Polybius uses the word seven times, and in no other, if the combined acumen of Casaubon, Ernesti, and Schweighauser in the Lexicon Polybia- num, is to be trusted. Strabo is cited for a similar phrase, “‘ baptized up to the middle.” He also applies the word to things which do not sink in certain waters on account of their buoyancy, as in the lake near Agrigentum, and again in a stream in Cappadocia,—and again in the lake Sirbon, in which a man cannot be baptized, but is forcibly borne up. The assertion is, manifestly, without reference to the mode, that these substances cannot be under the water. Indeed, the expression, “ if an arrow is thrown in, it will hardly be baptized,” intimates, that the arrew may be dipped, but is not submerged, or covered with the water. Provided the substances be covered, Strabo proves nothing as to the mode. Diodorus Siculus confirms the view I have taken of the sense of the word. He says—speaking of the overflow of the Nile—‘ The most of the land animals being overtaken by the river, perish, being baptized ;”* that is, being overwhelmed by the waters rising too rapidly for their escape. They were not put into the water, but the water came over them. If this be the passage cited by Dr. Carson, * Τῶν δὲ χερσαίων θηρίων τὰ πολλὰ μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ περιληφθέντα δια- φθείρεται, BawriCdueva,—Lib. i. tom. i. p. 417, Ed. Amstol. 478 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. (and as he gives neither reference nor Greek, how can I tell if I am wrong?) nothing can be more unfair than his translation. His words are, “ Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sinking of animals in water,” (where is the sinking?) “ says, that when the water overflows, many of the land animals immersed in the river perish.” Let the reader consult the words of Diodorus cited below, and then judge whether any controversial writer who can translate “‘ immersed in the river,” ought to be trusted without the original citations of his authorities, or distinct references to them. There is another passage which Dr. Carson does not cite, in which the baptism is distinguished from the rushing into the water. Having described the defeated soldiery as driven into the river, he says, “the river flowing down with a more violent current,” (on account of a great rain) “ baptized many, and destroyed them swimming across in their armour.”* The current overwhelmed them, and the river covered them. Homer is the next authority within the prescribed age ; but, as we have observed, the reference is not to Homer, but to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who is said to have written the life of Homer. Dr. Carson says, (p. 59) “ And Dionysius says, ‘ In that phrase Homer expresses himself with the greatest energy, signifying that the sword was so dipped in blood, that it was even heated by it.” Dr. Carson gives no reference; but as he cites the passage from Gale, we happily know how to identify it. Would it be credited, that there is not a word about dipping in blood in the original? Dr. Carson says, that one of his opponents is as guilty of forgery, as if he appended a cipher to a one-pound note. Ido not say his version is a forgery, because I dare not say it is wilful; but Ido say it is a falsehood. The words are, as they are given by Gale, to whose citation Dr. Carson refers, Vit. Hom. p. 297: Πᾶν δ᾽ ὑπεθερμάνθη ζίφος αἵματι" καὶ yap ἐν τούτῳ περέχει μείζονα ἔμφασιν, ὡς βαπτισθέντος οὕτω τοῦ ζίφους ὥς τε OeppavOjva.—Gale’s Reflections, p. 128. “ All the sword was made warm with blood. For in this phrase he expresses greater emphasis, as the sword being so baptized as to be warmed.” Where is the “dipped in blood?” Will Dr. Carson defend his honesty, by saying οὕτω has reference to the preceding αἵματι Ὁ Will he hazard that assertion? But it is not my business to find the defence. Dionysius says, that the sword was so baptized; and the obvious inference is with blood. To introduce the words “ dipped in « Ὁ ποταμὺς βιαιοτέρω τῷ ῥεύματι καταφερόμενος πολλοὺς ἐβάπτισε, καὶ μετὰ τῶν ὕπλων διανηχομένους diepGelpe.—Diod, Sic. lib. xvi, tom, ii, p. 142. Ed. Amstel. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 479 blood,” on the authority of Dionysius, is as scandalous a misrepre- sentation (truth compels me to use this language) as I have ever detected, where such things are too common, in polemical theology. I ask again, Is Dr. Carson to be trusted without his authorities? In instances like this, his refutation would be to print the original on the same page as the translation. The next instance is from Heraclides Ponticus. The translation as given from Gale is, “‘ when a piece of iron is taken red hot out of the fire, and put into water, (baptizetai) the heat is repelled and extinguished by the contrary nature of water.” There is some doubt about this passage; but as I have no objection, I readily admit it. The words are, ὕδατι βαπτίζεται. The hot iron drawn from the fire is baptized with water, not in water. Why may not the water be put over the hot iron, as well as the iron be put into the water? The syntax sustains the former interpretation rather than the latter ; and if the iron were covered with water, the heat would be effectually expelled. This passage, therefore, can do nothing for dipping, and may, with much more reason, be cited against it. The next authority is that of Hippocrates ; who once, according to Dr. Carson, uses the verb in the sense of Barro. I cannot, for the reason already assigned, find the passage in any edition to which I have access, although I have no doubt of its correctness. The fact itself is extraordinary, that for the English word, to dip, the father of medicine should use Barro, | believe, one hundred and fifty times, and βαπτίζω, in the same sense, only once. There must be some reason for the introduction, which deserves attention; but be that as it may, baptism, as we contend, may be effected by dipping, as well as by overwhelming; and so the instance, if unexplained, would not disturb our position. In two instances he speaks of a peculiar breathing, as of “ persons after being baptized,” which is applicable to persons having been under water, whether dipped or overflowed, and so they teach nothing concerning the mode; or rather, being used where no intention of expressing the mode appears, they confirm our opinion. The fourth instance, from Hippocrates, refers to the baptizing a ship by overlading it, and corresponds with the baptism of ships often mentioned in the later writers. Brought under water in any mode, ships are said to be baptized, often exposed to the storm and overwhelmed by the waves, as well as struck by the beak of an enemy, or overborne by the weight of the lading. The English word overwhelm, will apply to almost all these instances ; ὮΝ πώ ἘΣ 480 , APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. and if Dr. Carson doubts the propriety of so applying it, I refer him to that English authority which, above all others, he seems so much and so justly to respect. He cites Irish newspapers, “ The Ulster Banner,” and “ The Derry Sentinel,” if my memory serves me, about immersing and submerging; and I have no wish to depreciate their authority. In the Essay on Miracles, Dr. Campbell says, “he saw the passengers carried down the stream, and the boat overwhelmed.” In Greek, he might have said, as the instances prove, “ baptized.” But will any one from such instances contend, that overwhelm is a modal verb, denoting, to put into the water, and nothing else? The argu- ment would be quite as good as that which Dr. Carson educes from some of his passages. In all these instances, there is only one, the — unexamined passage from Hippocrates, in which the word can be fairly translated, to dip, and not one which serves the purpose for which it is adduced, of proving, that βαπτίζω “ always signifies to dip; never expressing anything but mode,” In noticing the citations from authors who wrote previously to the institution of baptism, I do not know that I gain any advantage, as those which Dr. Carson adduces from later writers are precisely of the same character. Only one or two can be translated to dip. But as he imposes this limitation upon us, he suggests the most fair and convenient mode of examining his own authorities. Are these the authorities by which he sustains himself in asserting that βαπτίζω is a modal verb signifying to dip, and nothing else? As we contend it is not a verb expressive of the mode, but a verb the object of which may be effected by several modes, by superfusion as well as by immersion, we were prepared to hear of instances in which it was accomplished by dipping. We know not why things should not be baptized by dipping as frequently as by any other mode, and we confess we are surprised that so much labour and zeal has produced no more instances. The Baptists may smile at my scrupulosity; but I confess, I do not think it fair to represent the citations of Dr. Carson as a correct view of what may be said on their side of the question.* I have not referred to the Septuagint. The passage to which Dr. Carson appeals is 2 Kings v. 14, ‘‘ Naaman went down and baptized himself seven times in Jordan.” Dr. Carson says he dipped himself ; a The earliest instance I know of βαπτίζω being effected by dipping, occurs in the poems falsely ascribed to Orpheus, but undoubtedly ancient. I notice it, lest I should be charged with taking undue advantage of Dr. Carson's failure. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅτε γ᾽ ᾿Ωκεονοῖο ῥόον βαπτίζετο Τιτάν. Orph. Argon. 503. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 481 his opponents say, because, according to the law of his purification, the leper was to be sprinkled seven times,—he sprinkled himself. Agreeing as 1 do with Dr. Carson, for the Mosaic law of the leper is inapplicable in this instance, I can see nothing in the passage to determine the sense of the word. Prove from other passages that it means to dip, and there is no objection to admit that sense in this verse. Naaman was commanded to wash; and to ascertain the meaning of the word “baptize,” we must look elsewhere, for there is nothing to expound it in the clause “ he baptized himself seven times in Jordan.” Let baptize mean to dip, or to sprinkle, or to purify, or to do anything in Jordan,—this verse will not explain it. Another instance in the Septuagint is—Isaiah xxi. 4, “ Iniquity baptizes me.” “ Iniquity sinks in misery,” says Dr. Carson, p. 86; “dips” he ought to have said. ‘“ Iniquity overwhelms me,” is our version. Judith at night baptized herself in the camp in the fountain of water. Those who contend that the word means in the dialect of the Hellenists, to purify, assert that a Jewish lady ought not to be supposed to have immersed herself in the midst of a camp, to which soldiers might continually resort for water, and which could not afford the seclusion which to her would be indispensable. Dr. Carson thinks there is no difficulty, but that ‘‘ the most scrupulous, and even romantic delicacy is provided for in the retirement of a lady in a fountain in a valley,” p. 318. To me her bathing in such a situation is about as incredible as is her cutting off the head of Holofernes, or the other incidents of this most ridiculous tale, in which no attention whatever seems to be paid to the verisimilitude of the narrative. Whatever others may be able to do, I can learn nothing from such a use of the word. The passage in Sirach xxxi. 25, “‘ He who is baptized from the dead, and toucheth it again, what does he profit by his washing?” appears to afford very little assistance in this inquiry. The form of the expression ‘ baptized from the dead’ has been adduced to prove that the word must have obtained the signification of purify, because it could not be said ‘dipped from the dead.’ However pro- bable this may appear, I do not think we can with certainty infer more from the phrase than that the idea of purification was so asso- ciated with the word, as in some degree to affect its construction in this sentence. Without such an association, to ‘ baptize from the dead’ is a phrase absolutely unmeaning; but I dare not assert that even in 21 4 482 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. this usage, to baptize is the same thing as to purify. It assumes the construction of words denoting to wash from uncleanness—precisely the construction which may be found on opening any Greek author, and turning to any page in which a cleansing from pollution is men- tioned. It seems not worth while to cite authorities for what is familiar to every body; but as in this controversy I have heard the clamour for authorities in support of assertions quite as undeniable, I turn to the fragments “‘ De Legationibus,” published by Ursinus, and say the ἀπὸ, in the saying of Posthumius to the people of Tarentum, as he held up the official robe of the Roman ambassador, dishonoured by the pollution of their buffoon, as given in the version of Dion,— “This robe with your blood you shall wash” (ἀποπλυνήτε) corre- sponding with the ἐκ in the version of the same speech in Appian and in Dionysius (pp. 302, 344, 376,) is precisely the force of this ἀπὸ in baptizing from the pollution of the dead. Βαπτίζω is here construed as if it denoted to cleanse; but it may be assuming too much to infer from this construction that the verb actually denoted to purify, as whether the cleansing suggested by ἀπὸ had become by usage incor- porated in the verb, or whether it is to be sought in an ellipsis of a verb of cleansing, we may not be able to determine. In adverting to all the instances, it becomes evident that there is nothing in the Septuagint to confirm the doctrine, that βαπτίζω is a modal verb, meaning to dip and nothing else. The reader may now judge how far its sense is so clearly determined, so definitely restricted by the authorities adduced by Dr. Carson, that in approaching the New Testament we are not to weigh the difficulties and objec- tions to his signification of the word ; but, absolutely overpowered by the irresistible force of his citations, we are to acknowledge, con- trary to all the probabilities,—that multitudes were dipped, both of men and women, where water was precious,—that Pharisees expected their guests to be dipped before meals,*—that Christians were dipped a It does seem most remarkable, that Dr. Carson, armed with such classical authorities in defence of his interpretation of the New Testament, should not have taken the trouble to observe the use of the verb βαπτίζω, in the passages on which he reasons, and so by the most unaccountable inadvertence should have made gross nonsense of his argument. Although he prints the verb, in discussing the Pharisaic baptisms, after his own fashion in English characters, in the middle voice, from the New Testament, where it can be nothing else, he claims the right to make it passive if he pleases, and with his own print before his eyes does not seem to observe whether it be passive or middle. In Mark vii. 4, we read, ‘ from the market, unless they baptize themselves,'(Bamrlowvrat, the middle voice as plain as letters can make it). Dr. Carson says, writing professedly upon the meaning of the passage, (p. 69,) ‘Dr. Campbell, indeed, remarks, that it ought to be observed, that baplisontai is not in the passive voice, but the middle, and is contrasted with nipsontai, also in the middle; so that by every rule, the latter must be under- APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 483 in the Holy Ghost and in fire, and that the Jews were dipped in the Red Sea. I repeat that there is not produced a single instance from the classics previous to this era, to prove that this verb defines the mode and means to dip. Should it be said that according to my view of the subject there is a discrepancy between the classical and the scriptural use of the word, 1 admit the fact; and when our Baptist friends have come to a good understanding with us about the classical sense, we may, I think, very soon and very amicably determine all other differences in this question. I feel that little pro- gress can be made until we know the primary and classical sense of the word, wherein it differs from βάπτω, and wherein it agrees. I have not noticed the discussion between Dr. Carson and others on the supposed secondary signification of the word as meaning to purify, because that question has no connexion, so far as I perceive, with my argument. If, however, it be meant that in the language of the Jews speaking Greek, the word βαπτίζω had assumed the signification to purify,—not in its appropriation to a religious rite, the object of which was to purify, but in its ordinary acceptation, I must say I do not agree with the respected and able writers who seem to maintain that opinion. Dr. Carson is very fond of intimating that his oppo- nents do not know their own business; and I cannot but reply, I think he has not produced in this controversy the best citations in support of his own side of the question. He seems to need some decided passage in the writings of the Grecian Jews, in which the word would not be used if it had become commonly appropriated as a term of purification, for to the Hellenistic dialect the appeal is made. ‘stood actively, as well as the former. But though I understand bap/isontai in the middle voice, Ido not acknowledge that this is necessarily required from a contrast with nipsontai. The contrast between nipsontai and baptisontai in the passage referred to, does not require the same voice. Nipsosi, the active itself, might have been used, and baptisontaiin the passive. I under- stand it in the middle, not because nipsontai is middle, but because in the baptism referred to, ‘every one baptized himself. Had it been as in Christian baptism, I should understand it in the passive.” He would understand itin the passive! understand it in what it isnot! What are we to understand by his language? Does Dr. Carson claim the right, if he please, to change the middle into a passive, and in Christian baptism to understand words and forms just as it may suit his purpose? Or, is he ignorant of the paradigm of the Greek verb? His remarks proceed upon the notion that daptisontai, as he himself prints it, is a passive form as well as amiddle. On this notion he controverts Dr. Campbell. Or is he so careless as toreason upon passages like this without giving them the slightest consideration? Is it not strange that our Baptist friends should have commended in their periodicals a book abounding in such gross and unaccountable blunders, as a master-piece of scholarship? What would they have said if they had found this passage in the writings ofa poor sprinkler? Yet Dr. Carson, of all men, is astonished at the unscholar-like things of other people. 21. 484 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. If he turn from the Septuagint, which does him no service, to the Hexapla of Origen, he will find that the words—* Thou wilt plunge me in the ditch,” (Job x. 31,) in the translation of which the Septua- gint employs the verb βάπτω, are rendered by Aquila, ἐν διαφθορᾷ βαπτίζεις ze—thou wilt immerse me in corruption. Although Aquila seems to have been no great Greek scholar; yet, as he made his version for the use of the synagogue, and consulted the taste and feel- ings of the Jews in his deviations from the Septuagint, he would scarcely have selected the word, which the Jews usually employed to designate purity, to express the plunging in filth and corruption. Or is this one of the instances in which Aquila contrived to express his scorn and hatred of the Christians, which, according to Epiphanius, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, he was so prone to indulge? I have no wish, however, to interfere in this discussion; but truth compels me to say that there are some serious objections to the opinion which Dr. Beecher has defended with so much ability; and I should be glad to see them propounded in a calm and Christian spirit by one of our Baptist brethren, that we may have the opinion of the learned Pre- sident respecting them. To the citations from the Fathers, Dr, Carson says in his replies to President Beecher, that they come too late. He had said, somewhat confidently, that he should as soon expect to find steam coaches and railroads in the Fathers; ‘“ Without exception they use the word always for immersion.” p. 466. Finding, however, that this assertion deterred no one from appealing to them, and from showing that even if a shower of rain had fallen upon the thief on the cross, they would have made it good ecclesiastical baptism; Dr. Carson, on the ground, I suppose, that the term might have changed its signification among Christians after the institution of the rite, says, “ The Fathers might prove a secondary meaning, while at the same time they prove that, in reference to the original institution, the word is used in its pri- mary meaning.” p. 483. So far from controverting this remark, I acknowledge both its truth and importance; and no Baptist, I am sure, can be more desirous than I am, that the intelligent reader should keep it in view and consider how far it ought to modify any conclusions which he might be disposed to draw from ecclesiastical testimony. Some of the testimonies, he says, “ are explicable from the passage in Cyprian’s letters.” p. 492. That is, from “the ecclesiastical baptism,” about which Dr. Carson will never say another word. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. A85 This is his “answer to all the passages referred to;” and what an answer, let the reader of this Appendix decide. On “ the ecclesias- tical baptism,” the Doctor reposes with wonderful calmness and satisfaction; and, secure on that tranquil elevation, he scarcely con- descends to reply to his opponents who read the Fathers. I stand, however, corrected, although I confess, I had no suspicion of my error, as I ventured in the lecture to say, when speaking of burial in baptism, that believers figuratively died with Christ, before they were figuratively buried with him ; for I assumed that our Baptist friends did not profess to bury people alive. I find that I assumed too much. They do profess, if Dr. Carson expound their views, to bury alive, and to kill in the burial. I had no right to plead for the sign of the cross in the death of baptism, for death by erucifixion with Christ is not symbolised in immersion, but death by burial with him. Dr. Carson, in explaining how we die with Christ as well as are buried with him in baptism, says, “It is by burial we die. We are supposed to be buried into death, and the figure is well fitted for this purpose. To immerse a living man affords an emblem of death as well as of burial. The baptized person dies under the water, and for a moment lies buried with Christ. Christ our death was spoken of under the figure of a baptism.” p. 157. But in his death was no immersion, and this figure shows the vanity of the Baptist explanation. Besides, what death is here symbolised by burying in figure a living man, who “ dies under the water ?” Does it mean that he is emblematically drowned? Or, as the water represents the tomb of Christ, is it meant that figuratively the person dies by being buried with Christ? But to have placed a man in the tomb of Christ, would not have killed him. Some men lived in tombs. So far as figuratively the believer has died with Christ, he has been crucified with Christ; and as in no other manner did Christ die, we protest against the representation of a believer as having died with him in any other manner. No other death is Christ-like, no other death is Christian. Death by burying alive is not death with Christ. I am crucified with Christ, and I acknowledge no other spiritual death. Moreover, at the moment of this spiritual death, this death in baptism, the person is said figuratively in baptism to wash away his sins.—p. 161. Were ever figures so strangely blended? I know not whether these are the opinions of all our Baptist brethren; but whether they are, or are not, I am compelled to say, in a serious spirit, carefully considering my words, if this be the Christian doctrine ot 486 APPENDIX TO LECTURE Vi. baptism, were I convinced of the propriety of immersion as a Christian rite, I ought not myself to be baptized, because I cannot understand the doctrine signified. I know not any death of the believer but cru- cifixion with Christ. In another death I cannot discern the Lord’s body. I dare not say what Dr. Carson writes is unmeaning rant, because I may not have spiritual discernment, but to me it seems as unintelligible as anything I have ever read. Of one thing I am certain, if these views be correct, many of us are ignorant of the elements of the Christian doctrine, and we need some one, instead of disputing with us about the form, to teach us the first principles of the doctrine of baptisms. We are not only unbaptized, but ignorant of that death with Christ, which is signified in baptism. To all that Dr. Carson says about the importance of strictly retaining the authorised form of the service, I would oppose a para- graph of one of the noblest writers in our language, whose generous spirit looking beyond the uncertainties of the ceremony, to ‘the certainty of the glorious truth, would have all Christians one in the unity of the faith, whatever they may be in the distinctions of sect- arianism. I cite his words, on leaving this subject, with the solemn profession that I have no wish to make a single convert to sprinkling, as my only object is to present the argument before our Baptist friends in such a manner as to induce them to respect our baptisms, as the honest deeds of honest men, who, having carefully considered the subject, have honestly arrived at their conclusion, and ought to abide by it in administering Christ’s ordinance, seeing it is the result of such inquiry as they have grace and ability to conduct. Conscious of infirmity, exposed to error, I ask our Baptist friends to unite with us in the prayer, (after all he has said, I would travel many miles to hear Dr. Carson offer it, and forget, as I am sure he would, every hard saying,) “The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.” I cite the words of James Douglas; and if they be thought no very suitable appendage to a controversial lecture, my reply is, that my controversy on the form of baptism is entirely defensive; I attack no other bap- tism ; I recognise all baptisms of Christian men; I avoid expressing a preference for any mode: my only conclusion is, “ he that im- merseth, immerseth to the Lord ; and he that sprinkleth, sprinkleth to the Lord.” “ Christianity consists of truth, of holiness, and of happiness. ‘That APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI. 487 the truth should be presented before the mind, and continually kept there, by human means, and by Divine aid, is all that Christianity can require. To contribute to this we have two signs, baptism and the Lord’s supper, answerable to the two parts of salvation which are carrying on on earth, justification and sanctification, the washing away of sin, and the living by faith upon the Lord Jesus. Concern- ing the things signified by these signs, there is no dispute amongst those who take the Bible for their guide; concerning the mode of administering these signs, there are endless controversies amongst inquirers after truth, who, to all appearance, are equally sincere. Whatever is important in the Scriptures is clear in proportion to its importance; we may conclude, therefore, that the signification of these signs is highly important, but that the mode of administering them is not so, because very doubtful. It is clear that every one should be allowed to choose for himself, and to use the sign in that way which most directly carries the mind to the thing signified. Controversy here is entirely out of place. It makes the sign of no effect, it dis- tracts the attention from the thing signified, which alone is the useful contemplation, to the mode in which the sign is administered, which is altogether an unprofitable subject of thought; for the use of a sign is, that the mind may pass immediately from it, to the thing signified. Thus these signs not being received in peace and faith, but being continually disputed about, are, to controversialists, not so much the signs of salvation, as the emblems of a peculiar party.” LEO TURE V1 1. THE SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”—Matthew xxviii. 19. ““Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare.” Origen. Comment. in Epis. ad Rom. lib. v. ENTERING upon the important inquiry respecting the proper subjects of Christian baptism, I have to solicit your attention to one or two introductory remarks, which may enable us to conduct the argument somewhat more clearly and directly to its conclusion, than we could do if we had to suffer interruption by continually adverting to them in the course of the reasoning. 1. The precise point of inquiry being suggested by the terms of our Lord’s commission, we cannot too constantly or carefully keep them in view. Go ye therefore and teach, or disciple, all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The question respecting the subjects of baptism is here resolved into one of grammar and criticism. It is simply what is the antecedent to the word them, or for what noun is SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 489 that pronoun substituted. Going forth, disciple all the nations (πάντα ra ev) baptizing them (avtove)— all the nations, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them, all the nations, to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. So far ‘as the grammatical con- struction is concerned, the meaning of the terms is precisely the same as it would be if the words of the commission were, baptize all the nations. Adhering, therefore, to the grammar of the words, we say the commission, which no man has a right to alter, is— baptize all the nations.“ 2. Our Baptist friends frequently insist upon the propriety of adhering closely to the letter of Scripture instead of pursuing inferential or analogical reason- ings; and we assure them that we are quite disposed in examining the only direct commission we have for baptizing at all, not only to accept their terms, but also to enforce them. How, unless by the aid of a little inferential or analogical reasoning, of the logic of which we now say nothing, do they so limit the injunction, baptize all the nations, as to comprise a very small part of them; only so many, or rather so few, as are thought to be cordial believers in the Gospel of Christ? Without severely reprobating the process which they employ, I only suggest that there must be a little, gentle, quiet distillation in the «1 suppose no one will object that αὐτοὺς being masculine does not refer to πάντα τὰ ἐθνῆ, being neuter ; as this would betray gross ignorance of the common rule of Greek syntax, known by every school-boy, respecting the reference of pronouns to neuter nouns. 490 THE SUBJECTS OF alembic of inference or analogy, before they extract believer's baptism, as the spirit, from the letter of the general command to baptize all the nations; and the process, we may intimate, must be a little more curious and refined than such reasonings usually are, as not a word about believers is to be found in the whole commission. As to some of our more zealous and ardent Baptist friends, who have recently exclaimed against reasoning at all upon the subject, seeing, as they tell us, we ought to accept the plain letter of the law in the New Testament; let me reply, that although they so devoutly eschew all unbaptized reasonings on the letter of Scripture, that plain letter, without reasoning, is directly against them, seeing it commands us to baptize all the nations—not the believers only, not the adults only—and as soon as they begin to limit the phrase they begin to reason upon the letter of Scripture ; unless, indeed, they are so consistent as to construct this limitation without any reason at all. I am, however, far from intimating that our Baptist brethren generally have joined in this clamour against reasoning on Scripture premises. 3. In interpreting this commission, we ought to impose no restriction upon the general terms of what may be called the great law of Christian baptism, unless there be obvious and undeniable reasons for so doing. Such a commission we should expect to be clear, distinct, and express, saying neither more nor less than is intended. It will be found, I apprehend, that Paedo-baptists adhere more scrupulously to the letter of this commission than their Baptist brethren, . « ΓῪ “ CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 491 inasmuch as in their wider range of interpretation they approach nearer the latitude of the general phrase, “all the nations.” Should it be said, that it is impossible to obey the command without some limitation, because great multitudes will not submit to Christian baptism, the reply is obvious, as the com- mand certainly enjoins no more than we are able to perform. We are commanded to teach all the nations ; but if classes or nations will not, or cannot, be taught, with them of course our obligation ceases. But if we limit the command to certain classes, and exclude other classes who can be taught, we ought surely to be able to produce some good and sufficient authority for such a limitation. When Christ says, Teach all the nations, what right have I to exclude any who can be taught ? and when he says, Baptize all the nations, what right have I to exclude any who can be bap- tized? ‘There may be grave considerations to sustain the exclusion, but they must be so clearly and ex- pressly stated in Scripture as to warrant a limitation, if it be not an amendment, of the original commis- sion. When Israel was commanded to expel all the Canaanites from the land, they obeyed the command, although they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron ; but they did not obey it when they made a league with the artful Gibeonites. That we cannot bap- tize some, is no reason for our exclusion of others. As to the limitation of the word baptize to those who are taught, we have, according to the letter of this commission, no more right to limit the command to 492 THE SUBJECTS OF baptize to those who are taught, than we have to limit the command to teach to those who are baptized. If it be said, infants cannot be baptized, we ask, why can they not? This is asking our opponents not to prove a negative, but to show the reason for an ex- ception to the letter of the law. When a subject pleads that he cannot obey the letter of the law, the burden of the proof must fall upon himself. If bap- tism be, as our friends assert, immersion, surely infants can be immersed. According to them, the command is to dip, and there is no insuperable difficulty in dipping an infant. Infants, indeed, whose parents will not present them for the purpose, cannot be bap- tized, and so they are excepted on the same ground as their parents; but the infants of Christian parents and the infants of parents willing that their children shall be taught in Christian schools, and foundlings and orphans under Christian care, may be baptized, and are just as much included in the letter of this commission as any other persons whatsoever. We do not say that this commission can have no limita- tion, but the limitation, if there be any, must be proved by direct, or inferential, or analogical reason- ings, or by reasonings of some kind or other. Let them be adduced, and we will examine them; but the literal sense without such reasonings is certainly not with those who confine baptism to believers. Nor is it by an ambiguous expression, a doubtful and diffi- cult text, that the literal sense of so plain a commis- sion is to be extruded. The restriction must be at least quite as express and incontrovertible as the δ + { | 4 ᾿ CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 403 command, the sense of which is to be affected by it. 4. This commission being the chief authority for the continued practice of baptism in the Christian church, its literal signification ought to be preferred to that of the incidental and casual mention of baptism in other places, should there be any apparent dis- crepancy. I do not know any such discrepancy, but if it should be found, we ought not hastily to conclude that the commission is to be explained by the allusion, but rather to maintain that the allusion is to be interpreted by the commission. Let it be observed, that there is in the New Testament no express command addressed to any living man or woman to be baptized, and no other command than that which is implied in this address to the apostles, to administer baptism to any person whatsoever. Were this one text obliterated from Scripture, we should have no direct authority for the administration of baptism. From these observations, it will be understood that our argument through this discussion is founded on the literal interpretation of this commission. We feel bound by its terms to maintain that it is the duty of the Christian church both to baptize and to teach, to the utmost extent within its power, “all the nations,” unless we find in other parts of Scripture some re- striction, imposed in terms as plain as are those of the command. Whatever may be thought of the sound- ness of this basis of our argument, no one can say that it is founded upon inferences and vague analogies. 494 THE SUBJECTS OF We will endeavour to raise the superstructure, looking severely and suspiciously upon inferential reasoning, though we will not absolutely reject it, and say, as we might do, after the example given us, as infants are certainly included in the terms ‘all the nations,” we have precisely the same command to baptize them as we have to baptize adults, and so there is an end of all argumentation. If inferential, or analo- gical, or any kind of honest reasoning, can affect this construction of the great command, let it be fairly tried ; but let not those who construct such an appa- ratus of inferences and analogies, of premises and conclusions, as shall prove that “all the nations” mean only a few adults, assert that the literal sense of Scripture is exclusively with them, and that we alone are compelled to resort to ingenious argumen- tation—to cast up an embankment of earthly reason- ings against the force of their plain, scriptural, and Divine commands. Let it, therefore, be understood that, in our opinion, the great argument for the baptism of infants is the plain grammar of the only commission which we have 5 . received to baptize at all. If there are any restric- tions to this commission, let them be produced, and let the limitation of the word “them,” in the phrase “baptizing them,” deriving its breadth of meaning ‘all the nations,” be fairly con- ς from the antecedent sidered. To any part of the commission, the disci- pling, the baptizing, or the teaching, I know only one limitation, and that is the want of ability to execute it. Until some restriction be produced from the New CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 49ῦ Testament, I maintain, on the terms of the only command to baptize, that to baptize an infant is just as much the duty of the church, and a duty resting upon just the same authority as to teach a Hindoo. Infants are, unless cause to the contrary can be shown, just as much included in the baptism as Hindoos are in the teaching. Every argument against infant baptism is an argument to limit the commis- sion, and therefore by comparison with the words of the commission it must be tested, and its value determined. Limitations of this commission may be founded either upon preconceived opinions of the fitness or the capacity of the parties to receive baptism, or upon passages of Scripture supposed to be applicable to the subject. ‘The former do not deserve a hearing. We have no power whatever, without Scripture, to decide who ought or who ought not to be baptized. To say that infants cannot understand the thing signified in baptism, and therefore ought not to be baptized, is an assertion which may be placed in the same position as the counter-assertion, that the infants in Israel ought not to have been circumcised because they did not understand the thing signified by circumcision. The instance shows that in em- blematical ordinances it is in certain circumstances proper that the parties should not understand the thing signified. Whether, as under the Abrahamic dis- pensation, so under the Christian, those circumstances apply to infants, is neither to be assumed nor to be denied. The washing with water in itself can confer 490 THE SUBJECTS OF no spiritual benefit upon any one, infant or adult. Whether, as an emblematical service, it is or is not to be administered to infants, is an inquiry which no man has a right to answer, unless God be with him. Preconceived opinions, therefore, must not be allowed to limit, or in any way to affect, the words of the commission. Limitations, professing to rest upon other Scriptures, we are willing, as we are bound, seriously to consider; and if we are right in interpreting the commission, we have only to con- sider such scriptural limitations as may be adduced. Those who practise Christian baptism may be dis- tributed into three classes, who interpret this com- mission with less or more latitude, with less or more adherence to its literality, according to the extent of their practice. There are, first, those who baptize only such as they believe to be truly pious and devout persons, or, according to the usual phrase, only such as make a credible profession of their faith in Christ. These impose the greatest restriction upon the command, find the largest exceptions to the rule, and consequently travel farthest from the letter of the term ‘all the nations.” Their reasons we are ready to consider, but the burden of proof belongs to them. ‘There are, secondly, those who baptize such supposed believers and their families. ‘These occupy an inter- mediate position. ‘There are, lastly, those who baptize all applicants whatsoever, provided the application does not appear to be made scoffingly and profanely, for that would be a manifest desecration of the service, and all children offered by their parents, guardians, δὲ — CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ᾿497 or others who may have the care of them. These interpret the commission in its widest sense, and most ς literally explain ‘‘ all the nations.” There is a modi- fication of the last theory, which, as it is suggested by the commission itself, may probably be considered as imposing no restriction upon it. As we are com- manded both to baptize and to teach all nations, the two terms are by some considered as directing us to baptize all whom there is reasonable probability of teaching, and of teaching all who are so baptized. Practically, however, those who baptize indiscrimi- nately all applicants, and all children proposed for baptism, and those who reckon upon the prospect of teaching the baptized, will be found so seldom at variance, (for scarcely ever is any one proposed whose religious instruction might not be secured by proper care) that there is no necessity of rendering the argu- ment more complicated by considering them as two distinct classes. The several principles, variously modified, of the three classes may, I think, be thus expressed. The first class maintain that baptism is exclusively the privilege of true believers; the second, that by virtue of a covenant relation between parents and children, it belongs also to the children of believers; the third, that as no restriction is imposed upon baptism in the New Testament, none ought to be imposed by the ministers of the Gospel. To the law and to the testimony is the appeal. We abide by the literality of the commission. There is the beginning and ought to be the end of our argument, unless restric- 2K 498 THE SUBJECTS OF tions be produced. We ask for plain statements of the exceptions. If these be wanting, we will listen cautiously and suspiciously to inferences, intimations, facts, and analogies, using all the legitimate assist- ance we can obtain in examining and illustrating them; but these exceptions it is the duty of those to find who do not baptize “all the nations.” I know not whether it will be worth the while to notice a remark which I have occasionally heard, respecting the discrepancy of opinion among Pedo- baptists themselves. Our Baptist friends have occa- sionally said to us, You differ in the theory of infant baptism, although you contrive to agree in the practice; you reach a common conclusion by two different courses of reasoning. Be it so. Be it that the practice of infant baptism is conscientiously defended by persons who differ among themselves as to the extent of that practice, or as to the reasons upon which it is founded. It would seem such a fact, if it were allowed to have any force at all, ought to be regarded as favourable, rather than unfavourable, to the practice. What presumption can there be against a conclusion, because parties arrive at it who disagree in their premises, or in their modes of reason- ing? How would a Baptist reply to a Quaker, who might accost him, “Friend, thou art wrong about baptism, for some people immerse and others sprinkle; some confine the ceremony to adults, and others extend it to children; and yet they all profess to believe the perpetuity of the rite?” The reply, “mutatis mutandis,” is our answer to the objector. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 499 The only inconvenience I can imagine is, that it may impose a little additional trouble upon the Baptists ; for if they happily succeed in subverting one course of reasoning, the other remains to resist their attack ; and I must do them the justice to say they do not regard trouble in this controversy. Another remark seems needful to elucidate the position of the two classes of Pzedo-baptists, in so far as they may avail themselves of some arguments common to them both. However they may differ on the general reasoning, they may without incon- sistency agree in particular arguments. As an illus- tration, 1 may adduce the instances of the baptism of households mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Without saying whether that argument often adduced in favour of infant baptism be worthy of attention or worthless, it is obvious that whatever value it may possess, if it possess any, may be fairly used by Pedo-baptists, whatever theory they may adopt re- specting the reasons of infant baptism. Some may think that Paul baptized the household of Lydia because she had become a believer; others, because he then found the opportunity ; but the argument, if it be of any value to one class, is equally so to the other, in sustaining the conclusion of both; and so is every argument in favour of infant baptism which does not involve the reason of its administration. A great deal which may be said in defence of the more unrestricted baptism of infants, is equally favourable to those who baptize only the children of believers ; that is, it is favourable to the baptism of infants, 2K2 500 THE SUBJECTS OF without determining the extent to which it should be practised. Having thus placed the argument on the commission of our Lord, I propose in this lecture, to examine the opinions of the three classes of persons to which I have adverted, and to inquire how far they fulfil that commission; reserving, as lam painfully compelled by the length of the course, the subsidiary arguments in favour of infant baptism, which have no immediate re- ference to the commission, and which, for the most part, are common to both classes of Pado-baptists. Let us first compare the doctrine of the Anti-pedo- baptists with the commission of our Lord. I am anxious correctly to state their doctrine, which is commonly called believers’ baptism; but this term is not accurate, because their approved practice is not in accordance with the opinion that faith is essentially and indispensably necessary to baptism. My reason for this assertion is, that if by any means they have baptized an unbeliever, who has mistaken his own character, or who has wilfully deceived them, should he be afterwards brought to penitence, they would not re-baptize him, on a second and more credible profession of faith. They would not, for instance, have re-baptized Simon Magus, had he listened to the advice of Peter, and become really and heartily a convert to Christianity. According to their practice, therefore, faith is not the indispensable qualification for baptism; nor is the mere profession of faith the qualification, for if they have sufficient reason to believe that the profession is CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 501 hypocritically or ignorantly assumed, they refuse to baptize the applicant. The qualification, therefore, as I imagine, is such a profession of faith in Christ as is thought credible and satisfactory by the ad- ministrator. If any should prefer to say, satisfactory to the church, I have only to ask them to consider the administrator as the official organ of the church in the administration. As this baptism is not, so it ought not to be called, believers’ baptism. Ifa person be baptized in infancy without any profession, and be again baptized in adult age, upon a false and wicked profession of faith, on his becoming a true Christian, the baptism on the false and wicked profession would be deemed valid, while that administered without any profession would be repudiated. In all such instances the baptism in infancy is deemed an idle ceremony, but baptism in unbelief is deemed sufficient; and therefore when I say the right to baptism is founded upon a profession satisfactory to the administrator, I mean that the right is not invalidated by any subsequent discovery of the insincerity of such a profession. To me the inference appears inevitable ;—the falsehood in making the profession supplies, in those instances, the only title to baptism which our opponents, by their prac- tice, hold to be good and sufficient. Were I to make a profession of faith the title to baptism, I should feel compelled to maintain that such a profession ought to be sincere, and that, consequently, wherever it was found to be false, the baptism was invalid—a mere idle, useless ceremony. If a man be received into 502 THE SUBJECTS OF church communion upon a profession of faith, and this profession be ascertained to be false, he is imme- diately disowned; if a man eat and drink unworthily bread and wine, not discerning the Lord’s body, he does not eat the Lord’s supper, but he eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. Faith is a pre-requi- site, and therefore we maintain that no unbeliever has ever sacramentally commemorated the death of Christ. Do the Baptists maintain that no unbeliever, to adopt their own exposition of the rite, has ever been buried with Christ in baptism? If faith be as essential in baptism as it is in the Lord’s supper, the baptism of an unbeliever is not Christian baptism, but a profane mockery of it, which ought not to be recognised, should the unbeliever be subsequently brought to repentance. The doctrine of the Baptists, as ex- pounded by their practice, is, that there is good and sufficient baptism without faith or’ penitence, or any other Christian disposition, provided only it be not administered in infancy, and be not administered by sprinkling. Yet, as expounded on the principle of believers’ baptism, to baptize an unbeliever would seem to be as unavailing and useless as to crown an usurper. This difficulty affects vitally the principle of believers’ baptism. On what principle, consistent with the reasonings of our Baptist brethren, upon such texts as “‘ Whosoever believeth and is baptized ;” «As many of us as are baptized have put on Christ;” and especially upon the necessity of the thing signified in receiving the sign, do they accredit the baptism in unbelief, and repudiate the baptism in infancy? As CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 503 those passages are no more applicable to the hypo- crite than to the infant, the reasoning of our friends would nullify many of the baptisms which they acknowledge. Should any one say, As with Roman- ists, the marriage becomes sacramental when the parties become Christian, so the baptism becomes Christian together with the parties, why may not the same popish principle be applied to infant baptism ? I do not, however, say that any of our Baptist bre- thren make this assertion, and, therefore, I cannot understand the principle on which they accredit the baptism of unbelievers, should they be subsequently converted. Such are the difficulties, unless I mis- understand it, which arise out of the theory of the Baptists, as compared with their own practice. But, passing over these difficulties without further remark, let us compare the doctrine of the Baptists with the commission of our Lord. On their hypo- thesis the commission is to be thus interpreted :— “ Go into all the world and teach all nations, bap- tizing so many of them as make a profession of faith satisfactory to the administrator, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” We ask by what right or authority they insert this clause—affix this limit to the commission? So faras the words of our Lord are concerned, it is perfectly gratuitous. The commission itself requires no such profession, imposes no such restraint, suggests no such limitation, allows no such discrimination to the administrator. The baptizers are not constituted arbiters of the qualifications of the baptized. Instead 504 THE SUBJECTS ΟΕ of the literal interpretation a gloss is appended—an exception is found for the general rule. I do not say there can be no such gloss on the commission, no such exception to the rule, no such appendix of the law, collected from other parts of Scripture; but to restrict the general terms of our Lord, it must be as~ clear and express as they are ;—not a fanciful analogy, nor an obscure metaphor, nor a doubtful inference. But where else in Scripture is baptism expressly — limited to believers? Where do we acquire the infor- mation which excludes from the rule all other classes — than the one selected by our friends? Our assertion is, that there is no text of holy Scripture which requires faith, or any other Christian principle, as a necessary pre-requisite for baptism—no passage which rejects any candidate on account of not possessing it. If we are correct in this assertion, our Baptist Sriends limit the commission of our Lord, that is, alter its terms, without any scriptural authority whatsoever. Let us examine their position, which is, not that faith is indispensable in baptism; but, although faith be not indispensable, for some reason or other only believers ought to be baptized. As, however, they have ventured to alter the terms of the commission as they literally and grammatically appear in the sacred record, the least they can do is to tell us on what principle they have made the alteration. I will not believe they restrict our Lord’s commission for a reason which they will not admit to be sufficient to invalidate their own baptisms, unless they will dis- tinctly avow it. τ CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 505 When we say that, as the restriction is not in the commission, we must require express authority for its insertion, it is surely nothing to the purpose to tell us that many ‘believed and were baptized,” because the question is not whether we ought to baptize believers, but whether we ought to baptize no other than believers. Good men were baptized by the apostles, and so were bad men. No argument can depend upon the one fact or the other, unless it can be shown on the one side that the apostles and their assistants baptized only such as they believed to be genuine converts, or, on the other, that they baptized indiscriminately all applicants, leaving their characters to be formed and tested by subsequent events. As little to the purpose is it to cite passages in which faith and baptism are supposed to be men- tioned in the order in which they are to be observed. I should not have detained you with this remark, if I had not seen it adduced in this controversy by most respectable writers, who cite the passages, ‘‘ Who- soever believeth and is baptized shall be saved ;” “Repent and be baptized ;’—from which words is ingeniously elicited a sort of argument that faith and repentance should precede baptism. But this inge- nuity may be employed on the other side. ‘‘ And now why tarriest thou ?” said Ananias to Saul; “arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” The argument, from the order of the words,—sound or un- sound, let others determine,—is, that baptism should precede the washing away of sin. When the commission to baptize all nations is 506 THE SUBJECTS OF limited by the assertion that only accredited believers are intended, that assertion may be maintained, either directly by adducing some specific declaration of Scripture to that effect, or, indirectly, by proving the exclusion of unbelievers from baptism; or, both these modes failing, then, at the least, incidentally, by showing that the baptisms of the New Testament were administered, not indiscriminately, but upon the supposition that the parties baptized were true believers. We maintain there is no direct, nor indi- rect, nor incidental evidence in favour of limiting baptism to believers. If our Baptist friends will confine themselves to specific declarations of Scrip- ture,—and the burden of proof falls upon them,—we believe they will be left without a solitary passage in support of their scheme. As to the direct argument, a specific declaration of Scripture that only believers are to be baptized, if any passage containing such a declaration could have been produced, the controversy would have been terminated, and we should be bound immediately to surrender. That no such passage exists I conclude, because, if it did, our Baptist friends would have found it long before this time. As they adduce no passage directly asserting the truth of their doctrine, we inquire, have they a text which indirectly sup- ports them by excluding from baptism unbelievers, or unconverted men, or in short excluding any per- sons whatsoever? We ask them to produce it. To refuse baptism, or to delay it, is to do that of which there is no example in Scripture, and therefore for CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 507 doing it there ought to be at hand substantial scrip- tural reasons. The passage most frequently adduced is from the gospel of Mark, “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.” * ‘This text is sometimes cited as if it were an appendage to the baptismal commis- sion, and spoken by our Lord in immediate continu- ation of the words recorded by Matthew. If it were so, it would be no restriction of the preceding clause, for it specifies not the persons to be baptized, but the persons to be saved. In answering the question, Who will be saved? by saying, “He that believeth and is baptized,” we have the full and complete meaning of the passage. But this is no answer to the ques- tion, Who are to be baptized? The difficulty of the passage respecting the salvation of persons unbap- tized, presses equally upon both parties. To me, however, it does seem strange that any persons who, on reading the words “ he that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved,” do not expound baptism as indispensable to salvation, should yet expound belief as indispensable to baptism. In the former intance they dare not say, in deference to the syntax, only the baptized can be saved; and yet in the latter they say, in deference to the mere arrangement of the words, only the believers can be baptized. Upon such precarious authority as the arrangement of @ Mark xvi. 15, 16. 508 THE SUBJECTS OF words we can admit no restriction. I find many Baptist writers, as well as others, expound the wash- ing in 1 Cor. vi. 11, as baptism. If that exposition be correct, does it prove that baptism should precede sanctification, or does the passage prove that sanctifi- cation precedes justification, “‘ but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified?” Although nothing important is conceded in admit- ting that the words in Mark are supplemental to those in Matthew, I deny that they are to be so con- sidered. The commission recorded by Matthew was given on a mountain in Galilee, the command men- tioned in Mark was given “ to the eleven as they sat at meat.” We know not that on the latter occasion our Lord commanded them to baptize at all. Again, baptism in connexion with belief is here made in some sense or other a condition of salvation. With our theology, as we admit that unbaptized persons may be saved, is this language reconcileable upon any other principle than that baptism was conceded to all applicants? If the apostles commanded all persons indiscriminately to be baptized, the unbap- tized hearers of the Gospel were contumacious, like ee the Pharisees and lawyers, who “‘ rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John.” Under such circumstances, the unbaptized would not be saved. Besides, is it credible that any- thing whatever could have been proposed, in any sense, as a term or pre-requisite of salvation, if it were dependent on the opinion which others might form of the character of the party? Did baptism depend CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 509 upon the option of the party who received it, or was there reserved a right of refusal in the hands of the administrator? On the former supposition, the pas- sage means, he who believes and submits to baptism enjoined upon all, shall be saved; on the latter, he who believes and persuades another person to baptize him shall be saved. In the latter, so far as his salva- tion is made dependent upon his baptism (how far, I say not) it is made dependent upon the opinion which another person may form of his qualifications. Of whatever it is said, he that does it shall be saved, we may be sure no one has a right to debar another from the doing of it. If Jesus says, “‘ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” whoever forbids water to any incurs a fearful responsibility. As it is evident that the Pharisees and lawyers refused to be baptized by John, and not that John refused to bap- tize them, so this passage, were there no other, is quite sufficient to prove that unbaptized hearers of the Gospel in the apostolic age refused to be bap- tized, not that the apostles and first teachers refused to baptize them. If it be asked why belief should be mentioned before baptism, we reply, as one must be mentioned before the other, there may have been no specific reason for the preference, or the reason may have been in the circumstances of the address, and now may be of no importance, or usually it was to be expected that persons would first believe and then apply for baptism. We, however, must protest against the assumption that reasons for the collocation 510 THE SUBJECTS OF of words are to be demanded in controversy. That he who believeth and is baptized will be saved, we are bound to believe; but why belief should be men- tioned before baptism, we are not bound to explain. There is, indeed, a passage which is sometimes unfairly introduced into this controversy, as if it proved that faith is a condition of baptism. I refer to Acts viii. 37. ‘‘And Philip said,” in reply to the inquiry of the Ethiopian, ‘‘See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” If Philip insisted upon faith as a qualification for baptism, and, as these words imply, would not have baptized the Ethiopian without a distinct pro- fession of faith, I must admit they offer an objection to which I cannot reply. But, as I do not believe this verse to be any part of Holy Scripture, I do not feel myself bound to pay the least respect to its authority. It is excluded from the critical editions of the New Testament. Of the manuscripts in Uncial letters it exists only in one, the Codex Laudianus, a Latino-Greek manuscript, (the Latin occupying the unusual place of the first column) containing several peculiar readings, and the authority of which we cannot place in opposition to the Alexandrine, the Vatican, and the Ephrem codices. Of the cursive manuscripts, the greater number are without this verse.“ It was, 1 doubt not, originally appended as 2 See Appendix A. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 511 a gloss, in order to soften the manifest opposition between the sacred history and the subsequent prac- tice of catechumenical preparation. It is undoubt- edly ancient, as appears from several references ; but in the third and fourth century nothing would appear more opposed to the practice of the church than the apostolic mode of baptizing persons as soon as they heard the Gospel, as we find Tertullian sorely troubled with the speedy baptism of the Ethiopian treasurer.“ Believers’ baptism haunted the imagina- tion of the man who here tampered with the genuine text of Holy Scripture. Without noticing the only verse which seems to countenance the opinion of those who make faith a qualification for baptism, the lecture might appear to be incomplete, and those persons who are accustomed to appeal to the words might think I could not refute the argument founded upon them. [1 will not reason upon spurious texts. But if there be no passage which directly asserts that faith is a qualification for baptism, and if there be no indirect argument founded on _ the exclusion of any person from that rite on ac- count of unbelief, to limit the general commission, “baptize all nations,’ by inferential reasoning, would seem, unless the inferences be very evident, to make unauthorised exceptions to the express com- mand of Christ. But are the inferences so manifestly in favour of believers’ baptism? Are they in the « De Baptismo, § xlviii. 512 THE SUBJECTS OF , slightest degree favourable to that theory? The circumstances of the primitive baptisms will elucidate the inquiry whether they were administered upon the belief that the parties baptized were previously sanc- tified, or only upon the assurance that they would be sanctified, if they also received the evangelical doctrine. Can we ascertain whether the apostles and their assistants invariably believed the parties whom they baptized to be genuine converts to the faith of Christ? Is there anything to determine the question whether they would have refused baptism to such as they did not suppose to have been truly converted ? I have already assigned reasons for concluding that John administered baptism without restriction to all applicants. The numbers which he baptized, the certainty that many of them must have been entire strangers to him, the rebukes which he addressed to some whom he knew, the declaration “1 baptize you the fact that the responsibility of ” unto repentance, not being baptized was upon the Pharisees and lawyers, establish the conclusion that repentance was not the qualification, nor the want of it an obstacle for his baptism. Indeed, the evangelical history scarcely leaves a doubt upon the subject. Jesus at one time was baptizing more disciples than John ; but can we suppose that those vast multitudes, to whom Jesus declared not himself openly, but spake only in parables, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and be converted, were judged to be sincerely and at heart consecrated to Christ? If the disciples thought so, never was CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 513 there a more lamentable delusion, as appeared on the death of their Master. Of the multitudes baptized, not the slightest intimation is given of any qualifica- tions required. The principle on which the disci- ples, under the sanction of their Master, baptized, seems to have been precisely that which John adopted. A refusal or a delay of baptism is a thing unknown in the evangelical history, as the rite was generally administered, even when Jesus maintained a strict reserve in preaching the Gospel. No exclusion from the great commission can be sustained by precedent, adduced from the evangelists. But let us notice the baptisms mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. ‘‘ Now, when they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, Men and bre- thren, what shall we do? 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.” A multitude of persons, for the most part strangers to the apostles, and previously to that day utterly igno- rant of the Gospel, were affected and alarmed by the preaching of Peter, and in their alarm, they inquired, What must we do? Peter exhorted every inquirer to repent. We cannot suppose that in exhorting them to repentance he made any selection, and the exhorta- tion itself implies, that however anxious might have been their inquiry, they had not then repented, or at least were not then to be recognised as penitents. Nevertheless he exhorted those whom without dis- 21, 514 THE SUBJECTS OF crimination he called upon to repent, to be also ‘baptized every one of them.” It would be to our purpose to prove, that without any discrimination he exhorted a multitude of inquirers to be baptized. It is more to our purpose to show that those who were regarded as not having repented were exhorted with- out delay to be ‘‘ baptized every one in the name of Christ.” They were told to be baptized for the remission of sins. Neither we nor our opponents believe that baptism would procure the remission of sins; but whatever our opponents may under- stand by the phrase, we cannot explain it upon their theory, that the parties were not to be baptized until after their sins were forgiven. The conclusion appears to me inevitable, that persons who were not supposed to have repented, and whose sins were therefore not thought to be pardoned, were exhorted indiscriminately to be baptized. Is this compatible _ with the opinion that faith and repentance are pre- requisites for baptism ? Would any Baptist minister at this time exhort a multitude of strangers, in the first moments of alarm, to repent and be baptized every one of them? Would he exhort them in one breath to repent and be baptized, that is, would he exhort any, being considered at the time as not having repented, to be baptized ? Nor is there anything in this instance to induce us to suppose that the apostles acted in an unusual manner. Viewed as our precedent, this first instance of baptism after the resurrection of Christ is armed at all points. There had fallen on these men no CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 515 especial gift of the Holy Ghost; there had been manifest in them no peculiar demonstration of his presence. Of their sincerity, or of the certain issue of their inquiries, no supernatural intimation had been given. They were assured that on their repent- ance and baptism they should receive the gilt of the Holy Ghost; plainly implying that he had not then fallen upon any of them. Again, it cannot be supposed that the apostle would have refused baptism to any of the persons whom he exhorted to be baptized. If he said to the crowd of inquirers, be baptized every one of you, it is obvious that he was ready to baptize any one. Each held the right to be baptized on the exhortation of the apostle. If any of these inquirers had not offered himself for baptism, or even if he had delayed until he received the remission of sin and the gift of the Holy Ghost, the words evidently implying that baptism should take place immediately, he would have been chargeable with disobeying the apostolic injunction. Besides, according to the theory we oppose, repentance is not the title to baptism, but satisfactory evidence of its reality. Yet as the ex- hortation implies, there was no waiting for satisfac- tory evidence. The presentation of the party for baptism was the only evidence which could have been afforded, or required. If, however, contrary to all fair interpretation, any insist that they were to repent, and after satisfactory evidence of repentance they were to be baptized, we are brought to appeal again to the sacred history. ‘Then they that gladly received his 2L2 516 THE SUBJECTS OF word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”* But evan- gelical repentance is not a thing of which any sinner can assure himself in a few hours—not a thing of which he can furnish satisfactory evidence to others in “the same day,” nor of which he ought to receive an assurance at the moment of his first serious im- pressions. ‘To these persons baptism might have been an assurance that God was willing to purify and pardon them for Christ’s sake, but it could not have been administered upon the assurance that they were already purified and pardoned. Such testimonials are not to be given to converts of an hour’s standing: they do not belong to penitents who have not wiped away their first tears. The narrative appears to me inexplicable, unless Peter was ready to administer baptism indiscriminately to all applicants. Our opinion is confirmed as we proceed. The next account of the administration of baptism is in Acts viii. 12, 13. “ But when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. ‘Then Simon himself believed also, and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip.” I lay no stress upon the numbers who were baptized, nor upon the fact that a very wicked man was baptized with them; for although these things ex- actly correspond with the opinions I advance, yet they might have taken place in accordance with the more @ Acts ii. 41. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 517 exclusive notion. I only refer to the extreme igno- rance of the baptized magician. He is said to have believed, but he could have believed little more than that Philip was a teacher from God, able to work greater miracles than his own. As appears in the sequel, he was utterly ignorant of the nature and simplest principles of the Gospel, totally unacquainted with the outlines of the evangelical theory, for he supposed he could buy the Holy Ghost with money. If Philip baptized all who applied without inquiry or selection, we have no difficulty with the instance of Simon. Ignorant as he was, he might be afterwards instructed ; he might have been baptized with a view to his repentance ; but if any care was taken to select only believers for baptism, it seems incredible that such a man could have been mistaken for a true Christian. His ignorance must have been detected by the simplest inquiry. Is it possible that so igno- rant and deluded a creature, who had not acquired the slightest knowledge of the theory of the gospel, could have witnessed a good confession? In the history of any Baptist mission, is there to be found an instance of so ignorant and debased a man being baptized as a believer in Christ? Or if such an instance were detected, would it not be noticed as a proof of most culpable negligence on the part of the missionary ? The same chapter contains the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian treasurer. Omitting the unauthorised verse, we have the account of an African Jew (as yet no Gentile had been baptized) who had risen to a station of considerable importance in the 018 THE SUBJECTS OF court of the Queen of Meroe, an island formed by the streams of the Nile.*, Returning from the feast at Jerusalem, and reading Isaiah in his chariot, so un- acquainted was he with the meaning of the prophecy that he inquired of Philip, “I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this, of himself, or of some other man?” Philip preached to him Jesus; and then as they proceeded on the journey, as soon as they arrived at a stream of water, Philip baptized the treasurer, of whose character, in the important station which he occupied in a distant country, the evangelist could have had no knowledge. ‘The fruits of repent- ance, the permanent effect of evangelical truth, Philip did not stay to observe. We ascertain from the nar- rative that a stranger utterly ignorant of the Gospel was baptized after a few hours’ instruction,—a fact explicable only upon the theory that baptism was readily administered to all who desired it. We have, in the next place, to notice the baptism of Saul. In this instance Saul was baptized straight- that is, as soon as he possibly could have been, after he was may, soon after Ananias entered the house willing to receive the Christian ordinance. If Ananias believed Saul at the time to have been truly converted, he could not have baptized him at an earlier period ; and therefore on no supposition is the account un- favourable to our views. ‘The language, however, of α Meroe, as we learn from Pliny, was governed by a succession of queens, who bore the name of Candace. There can be no doubt that this was the part of Ethiopia in which the eunuch occupied an official situation. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 519 Ananias implies that, when he exhorted Saul to be baptized, he did not consider the persecutor to have obtained the forgiveness of his sins. He learned, indeed, that Saul was praying; he knew that Saul was a chosen vessel of the election of grace, who was about to render eminent service to the cause of Christ, and therefore he could have had no doubt of his ultimate and complete conversion. Yet he seems to have regarded Saul, at that interview, as in a state preparatory to conversion, rather than of conversion itself. Observe the language of Ananias, ‘‘ And now why tarriest thou?” We may ask, wherein was the delay? The answer is to be sought in the exhorta- tion, “Arise and be baptized.” Nothing else was delayed than his baptism, yet this was manifestly the first interview of Saul with a Christian on friendly terms. ‘‘ The same hour I looked upon him, and he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth; for thou shalt be his witness to all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou ?” [ask again, in what was the delay of Saul? Was he delaying to accept Christ as his Saviour? or was he delaying to offer himself for baptism? To our argu- ment, it is of little consequence which side of the alternative is preferred. If he was delaying his acceptance of Christ as his Saviour, still Ananias says, ‘‘ Why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized.” If he was delaying his baptism, as the words seem to imply, baptism was the immediate duty, which 520 THE SUBJECTS OF was not to be delayed for an hour, of those who heard the Gospel. But observe the whole address, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.” The inference from these words is, that Ananias, in exhorting Paul to be baptized without delay, did not address him as a man whose sins were already forgiven. This indeed may be called inferential reasoning, of which our Baptist friends complain; but I hope they will allow the inference to be logical, that if a man is exhorted to do a thing, he is supposed by the exhorter not to have done it. In fact, we have just the same reason for believing that Ananias thought Saul had not previously washed away his sins, as we have that he thought Saul had not previously been baptized, since he exhorted the persecutor to do both the one and the other, without delay. Such is our reasoning on the words, ‘‘ Why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” Ananias did not require the washing away of sin as a pre- requisile to baptism; that is, Ananias did not admi- nister believers’ baptism. I am aware that some Baptists explain this wash- ing away of sin as if it were only typical and sacra- mental washing. ‘This exhortation of Ananias is, according to their comment, merely an expletive, as it is included in the previous command, “be bap- tized.” The meaning thus elicited is, be baptized, and perform a figurative representation of the wash- ing away of sin. ‘To state this exposition, it appears CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 52) to me, is to confute it. But objections of all kinds offer themselves. What right have any to interpret a command to perform a spiritual duty, as if it meant only to observe the ritual which represents that duty? If we meet with the command, however expressed, to believe in Christ for eternal life, have we any right to conyert.it into a command to eat the Lord’s supper upon the plea that in the supper we have the emblem of believing on Christ to eternal life? The sanctifi- cation of the heart is called circumcision,—the spirit- uality expressed by the sign; but where is cireum- cision called the sanctification of the heart, the sign expressed by the spirituality? The name of the sign _ may be used to denote the thing signified ; but the name of the thing signified never denotes the sign. Baptism may mean holiness, but holiness never means baptism. Such a mode of interpretation we reject as totally unauthorised, and as being the life and spirit of Tractarianism. There are no instances of it to be adduced. It is contrary to all the analogies of speech. To dilute the washing away of sins to a figurative representation, is as unauthorised a process as it is to convert the grace of the Holy Ghost into the emblems of the Pentecost. Such a perversion of Scripture must not be allowed to intrude into the doctrine of baptisms. ‘To wash away sin is a solemn reality, and no ceremonial representation. We inquire again, is there any other reason for this exposition than the exigency of those who sup- 022 THE SUBJECTS OF port it? The literal sense of the words “‘ wash away thy sins,” occasions no difficulty whatever to those who think that Ananias addressed Saul as one who, in an agitated and unsettled state of mind, was to be regarded as becoming a Christian rather than as hav- ing already become so. If we allow the exigencies of controversy to create a new sense of phrases, we may prove anything we please from Scripture.‘ Once more, the objection that the Holy Spirit washes away sin, if applicable to the command literally understood, is equally applicable to the figurative interpretation. According to this theology baptism is an emblem of the Holy Spirit washing away sin, and not of the man himself doing so. But how can he be commanded in figure and emblem to ¢ T find the objection in the words of Dr. Carson, that the “washing away of sin is solely the work of the Spirit."—(p. 358.) Hence it is intimated that men cannot be commanded to wash away sin, except in the emblematical sense. My theology may not corre- spond with that of Dr. Carson, but what else than sin were the people to wash away to whom Isaiah said, “ Wash you, make you clean ?” What right would any have to expound the passage figuratively, and to say, for the sake of securing the doctrine of divine influence, Wash you by the ceremonial ablution of the Mosaic law ? We have as much right to force the one passage as the other. Dr. Carson confutes us, by saying, “‘Could our opponents say to the parents of the infant, Arise and wash away the sins of the infant Ὁ We reply, he annexes to the words a sense which we repudiate. But let me inquire, in the same style, can Baptist ministers say in baptism, We wash away the sins of these good people? If this language be wrong in the baptizer, why confute the parent with it ? If it be right, the Baptist preacher hath “ power and commandment to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins;” and not only to declare it, but to represent it in a sacrament. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 523 do that which he is not competent to do in reality ? Does he in the figure act the part of the Holy Spirit ? I have no difficulty with the literal sense, but those who have cannot be relieved by the figurative inter- pretation. But as this is a comment made for the controversy, we are bound to reject it. The next baptism is that of Cornelius and _his friends. ‘‘ Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Andhe com- manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.”* That the descent of the Holy Ghost upon these Gentiles was not designed to qualify them for baptism, may be inferred from the baptism of the Jews on the day of Pentecost, previous to their recep- tion of the Holy Ghost. The intention was evidently to teach Peter that to the Gentiles were granted pre- cisely the same privileges as to the Jews. As in all the preceding instances, the parties were baptized on the day in which they first heard the preaching of the Gospel. We have next the account of Lydia, who was bap- tized with her household on her interview with the apostle Paul, by the river side, before she returned to her house, having then, for the first time in her life, heard the preaching of the Gospel; and, in the same chapter, the narrative of the Philippian jailor, who, with his household, was baptized on the night of the earthquake, within an hour or two of the time in which he was about to commit suicide. When 2 Acts x. 47, 48. 524 THE SUBJECTS OF Paul spake unto him the word of the Lord, it is said, ** And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway ; and when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” For no evidence of repentance did Paul wait; the same hour of the night the jailor was baptized; and, after his bap- tism, not previously to it, we are told he believed in God, with all his house. Can we suppose, amidst the confusion of such a night, that the poor jailor did anything more than place himself at the disposal of Paul and Silas, that they might do with him what- ever they thought proper? The first thing they did, after speaking the word of the Lord, even before they took refreshment, was straightway to baptize him. In these instances the families, whether infant or adult, were baptized as soon as the opportunity was afforded, by the willingness of the heads to allow the administration of that ordinance. In the instance of household baptisms it is often asked, how do we know they consisted of infants ? A more important inquiry is, how do we know they ) consisted of believers? The question of infant bap- tism is not here directly before us, but we have a right to ask, as the burden of proof belongs to those who limit the commission, how they know that the adults in these households were believers? Lydia was a believer, but of her family we know nothing. The household of Stephanas had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints when the apostle wrote,— CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 525 so many years after their baptism, that he could not recollect whether he had baptized more than two other persons about the same time. As to the jailor, we do not know that he himself was a believer when he was baptized. He was not a believer a short time before, he was a believer a short time afterwards; but | whether his baptism preceded his belief, or his belief his baptism, we do not know. All I know is, that his - baptism with his household is mentioned first, and his believing with his house is reported afterwards in the sacred narrative. The next account is of the baptism of the twelve men of Ephesus, who had been previously baptized by Apollos, after the manner of John’s baptism, and not in the name of Christ. Having considered this re-baptism in a previous lecture, I now pass it over as having no other connexion, so far as I can dis- cover, with our present argument, than as con- firming our deductions from the preceding instances. Paul baptized twelve men who “had not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost;” who, on the very strictest interpretation of their words, had never heard of the effusion of the Pentecost, and of the plenitude of miraculous gifts conferred upon the church, after a brief exposition, as it must have been, of the testimony which John, whose bap- tism alone they knew, had borne to Jesus as the Christ. These are the baptisms mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles ; and again I ask, on the review of them, what authority do they afford for the restriction of 526 THE SUBJECTS OF the baptismal commission to believers? If the New Testament were intended to teach us that only believers, or such as were judged to be faithful, were proper subjects of Christian baptism, it is remarkable that a selection of instances should have been given, of the greater number of which the administrator could have no satisfactory evidence that the persons ᾿ baptized had previously washed away their sins; and in all, the profession of faith in Christ, which, we are told, ought to be credible, (if anything worthy of that name existed,) could not have been of more than a few hours’ standing. Were any one to form his opinion from these historical notices, without any previous bias, would he not conclude that baptism was indiscriminately administered without any qua- lification whatever? There is not in one of them the slightest intimation of any pre-requisite. In no instance was any qualification specified. In no instance was there any hesitation or delay,—but, with the exception of the re-baptizing of those who had been improperly baptized, the ordinance was admi- nistered immediately after the parties, for the first time in their lives, heard the preaching of the gospel. In no instance could a Baptist minister, acting in accord- ance with the usual practice of his denomination, have administered the ordinance. Would he baptize any, as on the day of Pentecost, in the hour of the first convictions, without time for the slightest inquiry ; or, as in the instance of Saul, previously to the remis- sion of their sins? Would he baptize so unin- structed a man as Simon Magus; that is, would he CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. O27 baptize a notorious juggler and impostor without a slight examination of his knowledge of the Gospel ? Would he baptize a stranger to Christ and to himself, as the Ethiopian treasurer on the first interview ? Would he baptize the whole household of Lydia, or of the Philippian jailor, immediately after he had preached to them the first sermon? But if, as we have seen, there is no authority, direct or indirect, for restricting baptism to believers, and no inferential reasoning on the facts of the New Testament in favour of such a restriction, we ask again, what right have our Baptist friends, with no authority of Scripture, or rather in direct contravention of its examples, to impose this limitation upon the general form of the commission of our Lord? — If the restric- tion be apostolical, it must be found in some other documents than in the Acts of the Apostles. As to the allusions in the epistles to the obligations of baptism, by which it has been attempted to defend the restriction to believers, or, at least, to adults, I need do no more than repeat the reply which has been often given to such attempts. When, for in- stance, the verse is cited, “‘ As many of you as have been baptized unto Jesus Christ, have put on Christ,” and the inference is deduced, as only adults could have put on Christ, so only adults were baptized,—it is quite sufficient to adduce, as many have done before me, another verse of the apostle, “1 testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law,” and to inquire if our bre- thren will abide by the inference that, as adults only 528 THE SUBJECTS OF could be under obligation to do the whole law, infants were not circumcised? A baptized infant was as competent to put on Christ, as a circumcised infant was to do the whole law; but this reasoning on passages which manifestly refer only to the parties addressed, as many of you, is undeserving the trouble of serious refutation. Besides, the argument, if it prove anything, will, in its proper breadth, prove that no hypocrites were baptized, because such had not put on the Lord Jesus. But I am aware some of our Baptist friends object to our translation of the words of the commission, and, instead of saying, as we have done, “ Disciple ” all nations,” they, retaining the authorised version, “Teach all nations, baptizing them,” say the words themselves suggest the restriction; for as infants cannot be taught, they are not included in the com- mission, and therefore are not to be baptized. The meaning of the passage, admitting this interpretation, is, that those who are taught are to be baptized. Lask how does this interpretation assist our Baptist friends? Will they baptize all whom they teach? In how many families are children, who, although well in- structed in the knowledge of the Gospel, have no experience of its power, and do not in their practice submit to its authority! Do Baptist ministers bap- tize them because they are taught? if they do, they surrender their doctrine of believers’ baptism ; if they do not, they practically reject this interpretation. In order to exclude children, I have seen the inter- pretation putin this form, only those who are capable CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 529 of being taught are to be baptized, to which the reply is obvious, do they baptize all who are capable of being taught? The only exposition that will Justify their practice is—Go and teach all nations, baptizing so many of them as make a credible pro- fession of faith. But of credible profession there is not a word in the commission according to which they baptize; and they have no more right to insert this limitation as their gloss or amendment, than they have to append a clause restricting baptism only to Jews, or only to Gentiles—only to men, or only to women. By what authority doest thou these things, or who gave thee this authority ? In reference to those who maintain that baptism is to be administered to believers, and to their infant offspring, I need not protract the discussion. If the remarks I have made respecting the exclusive baptism of believers be correct, the argument applies with equal force to those who would establish a distinction in infancy between the children of believers and the children of unbelievers. If baptism is to be indiscri- minately administered to all adult applicants, it would seem to follow, if infant baptism be admitted, that all infants presented by their parents ought to be indis- criminately baptized. Such Pzedo-baptists, I appre- hend, as think that of adults only believers ought to be admitted to baptism, would also maintain that of infants only the children of believers ought to be bap- tized ; and such as think that all adults ought to be admitted to baptism, would administer the ordinance to all infants without respect to the character of their 2M 530 THE SUBJECTS OF parents. Asa practical question, the inquiry concerns English Congregationalists, who generally baptize, without discrimination or scruple, the infants who are brought to them by the regular attendants on their ministry. I think this subject has not been suffi- ciently considered among us, as there are still some respected brethren who baptize only the children of church members, or of professed believers. Without professing to supply this deficiency, or hoping to bring about the unity of our denomination, unless it be remotely by exciting inquiry, I am compelled, by the course of this lecture, candidly, though briefly, to examine this question. The principal argument for restricting baptism to — the children of believers, is founded upon the opinion that, as the ancient sign of the covenant was admi- nistered to the seed of Abraham in testimony of his faith, (the covenant being made with him and with his seed,) so the modern sign of that covenant is to be administered to the seed of believers on account of the faith of their parents. We have therefore to con- sider the very important subject of the relation which baptism, the seal of the evangelical covenant, bears to circumcision, the seal of the Abrahamic covenant. After some anxious consideration, it appears to me that the argument in favour of the transmission of the sign of the Christian covenant from the believing parent to his children, founded upon the transmission of the sign of the Abrahamic covenant through the hereditary line of succession in the posterity of Abra- ham, fails in almost every particular. Independently CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 531 of the feebleness of its foundation, the administration of baptism only to believing adults, the general opinion that baptism is substituted for circumcision, as a kind of hereditary seal of the covenant of grace, appears to be ill sustained by scriptural evidence, and to be exposed to some very serious, if not absolutely fatal, objections. The argument is, I think, stated more clearly and distinctly by Dr. Wardlaw,’ than by any other writer with whom I am acquainted. He proposes it thus: —‘ Before the coming of Christ, the covenant of grace had been revealed, and under that covenant there existed a Divinely instituted connexion between children and their parents; the sign and seal of the blessings of the covenant were, by Divine appoint- ment, administered to children; and there can be produced no satisfactory evidence of this connexion having been done away.” I am sorry that there is much in this statement of my revered friend, and still more in his illustration of it, with which I cannot bring either the facts or the reasoning of Scripture to coincide. The argument is, if I understand it, because the descendants of Abraham were circumcised in their infancy, the children of believing parents under the Gospel ought to be baptized in their infancy ; seeing (for this is essential to the argument) that the Abra- hamic and the Christian covenants are virtually and really the same, and that baptism, as the seal, is to be regarded as substituted for circumcision. On_ this “ On Infant Baptism. Section I. 2m 2 sae THE SUBJECTS OF argument is founded the exclusive right of the chil- dren of believers to baptism. For any man, and especially for a Pado-baptist, to measure syllogisms with Dr. Wardlaw, is far from being an agreeable or a safe adventure. But how can I escape? On consulting other writers, who have employed the general reasoning upon the Abrahamic covenant, I have not found one who has so lucidly, ably, and logically expounded the argument. Be- sides, as the proposition is, that especial privileges are conferred exclusively upon the children of believers, of which privileges baptism is the seal, the reasoning of such theologians as Dr. Wardlaw, and the Scottish Congregationalists, is at least consistent throughout ; but when I meet upon this ground our English friends of the Episcopal, Methodist, or Independent denomination, who, like myself, administer baptism to children, irrespective of the faith of their parents, I am ready to ask, What dost thou here? Your argu- ment will justify but one moiety of the baptisms which you solemnise. In reasoning with our Caledonian brethren, it should be observed that we occupy a position the reverse of their Baptist opponents. We adduce our commission, as we think, for baptizing all nations, and they, by the Abrahamic covenant, would restrict it to the families of the faithful. Their reasoning, as against the Baptists, is for the enlargement of the commission ; as against us, for its limitation. Lf, how- ever, they only reason upon the covenant as against those who confine baptism to believers, and say to us, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 533 If you can prove that all adult applicants may be bap- tized, our views of the covenant do not interfere with the evidence on the one side or on the other, then practically we can have no objection to their estab- lishing, if they can, an additional reason for the baptism of believers’ children. In all arguments, however, which assume any distinction of privileges among children on account of the faith of their parents, we must disclaim-all participation. I cordially agree with Dr. Wardlaw, that the evan- gelical covenant was established with Abraham, although in a specific form in which it was estab- lished with no one else. ‘God preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.” Let us distinguish between the general promise, or the Gospel, and the specific pro- mise, or the honour conferred on Abraham in consti- tuting him the medium of bestowing the blessing upon all the nations. The general promise was that all nations should be blessed; the specific promise to Abraham that they should be blessed in him. The general promise was the Gospel previously declared from the fall, the Gospel preached before to our first parents, the Gospel of Abel, and of Enoch, and of Noah, who, before Abraham was, became “heirs of the righteousness of faith.” Had only the general promise been given, that all the nations of the earth should be blessed, we do not see with what pro- priety it could have been specifically called the covenant with Abraham any more than the covenant with other patriarchs, who, before Abraham, had 534 THE SUBJECTS OF received the same promise, without the seal of cir- eumcision. The covenant made with Abraham had reference to peculiar honours conferred upon himself, inasmuch as the blessing promised for all nations, announced to many patriarchs before himself, should be identified in an especial manner with his name, with his faith, and with his seed. To the nations about to be blessed, it might have been a matter of comparatively little importance whether deliverance should come through Melchizedek, or Lot, or Job, or any other ancient believer; but as one was to be chosen, the election of grace fell upon Abraham. The especial honour was conferred upon him in preference to every other patriarch. God engaged through him, that is, through an illustrious de- scendant from him, to bless all the nations. The Gospel, then, is the subject of the covenant with Abraham, but the specific form is that the promise should be imparted to the world through him. The emphasis of the covenant, so to speak, as established with Abraham, was on the words in thee—in thee shall all the nations be blessed; or, as in the renewal of the covenant on occasion of the offering of Isaac, in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed ; or, as St. Paul expounds it, that the bless- ing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. To this form of the covenant, proposed first in Abraham, and afterwards in his seed, the apostle refers: “‘Now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises made”—he means not (ov λέγει) “‘seeds,as of many, but of one, And to thy seed, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 535 which is Christ.””’ To Abraham and to Christ, as the apostle himself expounds the word seed, the great promise was made, that in them, Abraham as the type, and Christ the antitype, all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Of this covenant (for Dr. Ward- law has, I think, most clearly demonstrated, if the reading of the book of Genesis were not itself abundant demonstration, that the three several form- ularies declared to Abraham describe one and the same evangelical covenant) circumcision was the Divinely appointed seal. I know not that in this view of the Abrahamic cove- nant I differ materially, if at all, from my honoured friend, whose name I have so often mentioned, unless I may be thought to do so in giving more prominence to the fact that Abraham was the man whom God delighted to honour on account of his faith, and with whom he made an especial covenant that through him the blessing of the Gospel should be conferred upon all nations. I fear, however, that in speaking of the sign of the covenant, our difference will become obvious. Agreeing with Dr. Wardlaw in the commencement of his statement, “‘ before the coming of Christ the covenant of grace had been revealed,’ I am com- pelled to hesitate, and the longer I hesitate the more I demur, on its conclusion, “‘and under that covenant there existed a Divinely instituted connexion between children and their parents, according to which the sign and seal of the blessings of the covenant were, by Divine appointment, administered to 536 THE SUBJECTS OF children ; and there can be produced no satisfactory evidence of its having been done away.” No one is bound to produce “satisfactory evidence of its having been done away,” until some one produce satisfactory evidence of its having ever existed. The respected writer, indeed, says, ‘‘ Under that covenant there existed a Divinely instituted connexion between children and their parents ;” but of this connexion, which appears to me to be the hinge of the whole argument, he offers, so far as I can find, no satis- factory evidence, nor even any evidence at all. That the sign of the blessings of that covenant was by Divine appointment administered to children, I, of course, admit; but it is implied in the argument that it was so administered on account of the connexion between those children and their parents. The sign of the Abrahamic covenant was given to every child, as it appears to me, on account, not of his imme- diate connexion with his parents, but of his remote connexion with the head of the covenant. The covenant was made primarily and directly with Abraham, secondarily and indirectly with all his con- nexions of every kind, and was to continue through all generations until its accomplishment by the bless- ing of Abraham coming upon the Gentiles through Christ Jesus. Every descendant of Abraham was born with an incipient interest in this evangelical covenant, and was related to the Messiah according to the flesh, inasmuch as he was related to the progenitor of that promised seed. The descendants of the head of the covenant, on account, not of the CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 537 persons through whom, but of the person from whom they were heirs of the promise, received both the privilege and the sign of the covenant. God established his covenant with Abraham and _ his seed after him—not his children only, but his posterity for ages. According to these terms, the children of Esau, as well as the children of Jacob, received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of the faith of their common an- cestor. Hanoch, and Phallu, and Hezron, and Carmi, received the sign of the covenant, not as the sons of Reuben, but as the descendants, although in the fourth generation, of him whom God had so greatly honoured as to engage in covenant with him and with his posterity for his sake. Ahaziah was circumcised, not because he was the son of the wicked Ahab, or the more wicked Jezebel, but because he was of the covenanted lineage of the faithful Abraham. The privilege, then, is resolved into the connexion between Abraham and his posterity, and no other seems to be recog- nised in the Abrahamic covenant—of no other can I find the slightest trace in all the reasoning upon the analogy of signs and seals in the ancient and the Christian dispensation. A father might by unbelief cut himself off from the people, incur the forfeiture of his privileges, but he could not, by that act, pre- vent his child from claiming restoration as a son of Abraham; but if the forfeiture was not hereditary, neither was the privilege. The proof of ancestry would have been sufficient, however broken might have 538 THE SUBJECTS OF been the link of connexion. In ascertaining the co- venanted relation of the children, the character of the immediate parents was never taken into the account. They might or they might not be believers,—they might or they might not themselves be circumcised. As that rite was neglected during the forty years of the sojourning in the wilderness, for through some reason unexplained, Moses did not enforce it during his government of Israel, it is probable, or rather, in so great a multitude, certain, according to the course of human life, that many, who were born after the day they left Egypt, died before the rolling away of the reproach at Gilgal, at the end of the forty years, leaving their orphan children in the camp. Such children were undoubtedly circumcised, as being the descendants of Abraham. Jesus said to the Jews, “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham ;” and many before them in the lineal descent had forfeited their honourable standing as the children of Abraham; yet their children, the spiritual connexion not being with the immediate parent, but the remote ancestor, preserved unimpaired their in- terest in the covenant, and with propriety received its seal in their infancy. The Edomites, although re- taining circumcision in the time of Jeremiah,’ had abandoned it before the conquest of Idumea by John Hyrcanus, probably through the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes ; but although the connexion between parents and children, in retaining the seal of the Abrahamic covenant, was broken, when they sub a Jer. ix. 25, 26. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 539 mitted to the condition imposed by their conqueror of resuming circumcision, as the descendants of Abraham, these children of the uncircumcised observed the law of the covenant of their great ancestor.* If this view be correct, and it is implied in the words of the covenant, “‘and thy seed after thee, in their genera- ” then the argument of my venerated friend should have stood thus :—‘“‘in that covenant there existed a Divinely instituted connexion between” an tions, ancestor and his posterity in their generations, ‘‘ and there can be produced no satisfactory evidence of this connexion having been done away ;” and the inference from the analogy, or if it so please, the identity of the covenants, according to this mode of reasoning, would be that the posterity of a believer throughout all generations ought to be baptized. If a covenant were now specifically contracted with a believer, for him and for his seed after him in their generations, then we think the Divinely instituted seal of that special covenant would belong to his posterity, not to each on account of his immediate parents having received it, but to all on account of their common descent from the person with whom the covenant was originally made. In such an instance, we think the analogy would be complete. The argument of the Abrahamic covenant, if it apply at all, applies to the grandchildren of believers as well as to their children, and so on to the third and fourth genera- tion, and through an infinite series. * Josephus, Antiq. lib. xiii. ο. ix. ὃ 1. 540 THE SUBJECTS OF In confirmation of these remarks it may be added, that all persons connected with Abraham, or belonging to his household, although not his children, ‘“‘ He that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger,” received the sign of the covenant, and there- fore must have been included in its privileges. Nor does the act of Abraham seem to recognise any peculiar relation in his covenant between parents and children. He “took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abra- ham’s house, and circumcised them.” By house, we must here understand his whole tribe, or village of tents, because he is said to have had three hundred and eighteen trained servants, or warriors, “born in his own house;” but all these, with the fair proportion of females and children, were surely not literally born in his own tent. If, however, Abraham, some years before, had three hundred and eighteen warriors, and continued greatly to prosper; and if to these we add their male children and youth not old enough to bear arms, and all that were bought with his money, his herdsmen and slaves, sufficient, as we may infer from his great wealth, to do the agricultural and servile work of a clan of warriors, whose families must have consisted of more than a thousand persons, we arrive at a computation which makes the act of Abraham appear far more that of the chieftain of his tribe, than of the father of his family. So, in after ages, if any person was received into the house of Israel, he and all his sons were circumcised. Their distinction of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 541 race being overlooked, they were considered as new-born children of Abraham, and admitted to belong to the people in whom the seed should come to bless all nations. From these instances it would appear that the descendants of the patriarch held the sign of the covenant with power to impart it to all who, as servants or slaves, or in any other capacity, might be permanently united with their fa- milies ; and so, eventually, in their posterity might be blended with the Abrahamic race. They were reckoned by incorporation the seed of Abraham, being grafted into the good olive tree,—the partakers of its fatness and fruit. Should it be objected that Esau was rejected from the covenant, the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, and therefore that he did not inherit as the grandson of Abraham, this objection must be irrelevant, as he was not ex- cluded from the visible sign of the covenant. With man is the administration of the sign, according to revealed law; with God the bestowment of the bless- ing, according to the election of grace. It may possibly be thought by some, that this reply to the reasoning on the assumed connexion of children and their parents in the Abrahamic covenant, cannot be satisfactory, or our Baptist friends would have resorted to it, instead of betaking themselves, as they have done, so far as I know, in their replies to Dr. Wardlaw, to the desperate course (I am compelled to call it so) of maintaining that the covenant of circumcision was a covenant of temporal blessings, although St. Paul declares it to have been the pro- 542 THE SUBJECTS OF mise which the law could not disannul; or that cir- cumcision was only a civil, political, or national distinction, although St. Paul calls it the seal of the righteousness of Abraham’s faith. I do not know that Iam bound to refrain from using an argument, because the Baptists do not choose to patronise it. Our friends best know how to manage their own case, and they have, I doubt not, good and _ sufficient reasons for shunning my argument, in their opposi- tion to Dr. Wardlaw’s essay. Looking warily upon every side of this subject, it is possible they might feel, in reference to these views of the Abrahamic covenant, that the one I adopt having a wider range, is the more Peedo-baptistical of the two. In avoiding the doctrine of my friend, that infants received the sign of the evangelical covenant before its confirma- tion in Christ, on account of a Divinely instituted connexion with their parents, they may look as sus- piciously upon my view of the subject, that infants received the sign of that covenant because they were born with a recognised interest in it, as belonging to the lineage which, through all its generations, held the promise until its confirmation in Christ. If the former leads to the opinion that, under the Gospel, the infants of believers are to be baptized, the latter as directly leads to the opinion that all infants who are born with a recognised interest in the Gospel, are to be baptized. Τί, from the doctrine that an infant re- ceived the ancient sign of the covenant, by virtue of his parents’ interest in it, the inference is, that an infant is now to be baptized by virtue of his parents’ inte- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 543 rest in the Gospel; it appears to me, with at least equal clearness, that if an infant received the ancient sign of the covenant, on account of his personal interest in it, as belonging to the kingdom of Israel, whatever might have been the character of his parents; so an infant should now receive the new sign of the covenant on account of his personal interest in it, as belonging, according to the assurance of our Lord, to the king- dom of heaven. Under either form of the evangelical covenant, when it was confined to the seed of Abra- ham, or since it has comprised all the nations of the earth, an unbelieving parent never had power, so far as I can find, to exclude his children from this precious birthright. The most important difference, as it appears to me, between the views of my respected friend and my own, consists in his regarding circumcision as having been performed on the infant on ac- count of the interest of his parents in the Abra- hamic covenant, and in my regarding it as having been performed on account of his own _ personal interest in it, even though his parents, like the Jews who fell in the wilderness, had forfeited the grace of the covenant, and never received its sign. So, under the Gospel, my friend makes the appli- cation of his argument depend upon a relative inte- rest of the children of believers, through their parents, in the evangelical covenant; 1 make it depend, so far as 1 adopt it, upon the personal interest of the children, irrespective of the faith of their parents in that covenant. The principal change, as it appears 544 THE SUBJECTS OF to me, which the Abrahamic covenant, essentially the covenant of grace, has sustained, is, that although previously to the death of Christ, it recognised only the posterity of Abraham, subsequently to that event, it has received “all the nations.” In that state of covenanted privilege, whatever it be, in which Dr. Wardlaw places the children of believers, do I, without respect of persons, place the children of all men. Before the advent of Christ, one nation was blessed in Abraham; since the advent, in him are blessed all the families of the earth. Before the advent, Abraham was inheritor of Canaan; since, he is be- come heir of the world. The termination of the special privileges of the Jews, is the equal bestow- ment of them, without their speciality, upon all mankind; the fall of Israel is the riches of the world; the casting away of Israel is the recon- ciling of the world. The seed of the woman, repre- sented by Christ, has succeeded in external privilege to the race of Abraham. All the Gentiles are branches engrafted into the holy root of Abraham, not on account of their faith (for the Jews were not engrafted by faith) ; and yet standing by faith, as by unbelief, they, like the Jews, may be cut off. The relation, therefore, is merely external, like that of Israel, and refers to external privileges. On account of that relation, no man can now be called common or un- clean. Every Gentile now, as distinctly as was every Jew, is born entitled to the external privileges of the Gospel. Dying in infancy, he is saved by the death of Christ; surviving, he has an inceptive right, con- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 545 ferred by grace, to salvation by faith in Christ, the forfeiture of which he incurs by unbelief, or by what may be considered the guilty act, equivalent to unbe- lief, which, in heathen darkness, leaves him without excuse. On these principles we claim all that is valuable in the reasoning of Dr. Wardlaw on the Abrahamic covenant (how much is valuable let those say who have carefully studied it) for all Gentile children, who are, as we believe, in the exact position, as to privilege, in which he places the children of believers. Should it be asked, Were not Gentiles in this state before the advent of Christ?» We reply, in so far as they were, it was ‘‘ the mystery” hidden from the foundation of the world; and, therefore, under the law of circumcision, no rule of administra- tion for the ancient church. I have, and I ought to confess it candidly, some serious objections to the acknowledgment of baptism as the substitute for cir- cumcision ; but how far these objections on the one hand, and the argument from the analogy on the other, should avail, the more appropriate place to consider will be in another lecture on the specific reasons in favour of infant baptism, and the objec- tions which are alleged against it. All I at present assert is, that the reasoning of my friend, be it valid or invalid, cannot limit the commission to the children of believers ; and so far as it is valid, I put in a claim for it on behalf of “ all the nations.” Dr. Owen, in his tract on Infant Baptism, while he defends generally the views of my respected friend, appends an argument which he thus expresses :— 2N 546 THE SUBJECTS OF “They that have the thing signified have right unto the sign of it, or those who are partakers of the grace of baptism have a right to the administration of it.” This I hold to be incontrovertible. And _ after- wards, in order to show that the infant children of believers have the thing signified, the grace of bap- tism, he says, ‘‘ All children in their infancy are reckoned unto the covenant of their parents, by virtue of the law of their creation. It is therefore contrary to the justice of God and the law of the creation of human kind, wherein many die, before they can discern between their right hand and their left, to deal with infants any otherwise but in and according to the covenant of their parents ; and that he doth so see Rom. v. 11.” If it is meant that the children of unbelievers are, with their parents, and for their parents’ unbelief, excluded from the covenant of grace, and dying in infancy perish inevitably, while the infants of believers are saved, this, I am sure, is nowhere asserted in Scripture, whatever may be “ the law of the creation of human kind ;” on which diffi- cult subject, without the express testimony of inspi- ration, I do not feel competent to reason. Dr. Owen’s distinction, however, is clear, and consistent with his whole argument. He baptized the infant children of believers, because they are in their parents’ covenant of grace; he did not baptize the children of unbelievers, because they, like their parents, are not in the covenant of grace. To these conclusions his view of the Abrahamic covenant logically conducted him; and Owen was not the man CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 547 to hesitate about a conclusion, however startling, to which he was brought from his premises by a due course of logic, however circuitous. But is it the doctrine of the New Testament that there is any such distinction in the spiritual state and condition of infants? The passage to which Dr. Owen appeals asserts the death of infants on account of the trans- gression of Adam, who was the representative of the race in the first covenant. To this we add, in the language of the succeeding verse, “‘ But not as the offence so also is the free gift; for if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” If the offence of one man hath abounded unto many, who have not sinned after the similitude of his transgres- sion, much more hath the gift by grace through another abounded to many who have not obeyed after the similitude of his righteousness. If in Adam all infants die, much more in Christ are all infants redeemed from death. I believe, with Dr. Owen, that all who have the grace of baptism have right unto the sign. I believe, with St. Paul, that the gift of grace hath abounded to all who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, for if it does not reach all infants, it does not abound so much as the offence, and therefore that all infants have the grace signified by baptism, salvation by the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ their head. As it appears to me, Dr. Wardlaw restricts the sign, but nowhere restricts the grace of the Christian covenant 2N 2 548 THE SUBJECTS OF to one class of infants; Dr. Owen, more consistently, restricts both the sign and the grace, and arrives at the conclusion that the infants of unbelievers are under the covenant of works. We restrict neither the sign nor the grace, but believe that all infants are reckoned, not unto the covenant of their parents, but by the first covenant of death unto the first Adam, and by the second covenant of life unto the second Adam, the Lord from heaven. We, therefore, claim all that is valuable in the reasoning of Dr. Owen, as well as of Dr. Wardlaw, for the baptism of all children who have the grace signified by the sign. Although I propose to confine this lecture to the reasoning which depends upon the commission, yet as that reasoning must be, to some degree, affected by the view we take of the position of “all the nations,” under the evangelical economy, I am bound to advert to that subject. The reasoning which I claim from Owen and Wardlaw becomes available, just as it can be shown that the Gentiles have become entitled to the privileges of the Abrahamic covenant. When a restrictive clause is suggested to the commission, excepting all children and all unbelievers, however willing to be baptized, the inquiry arises, What, according to the Gospel, is the position of “all the nations” that they should be thus excluded ? Let us endeavour to trace the reasoning of St. Paul upon this subject in the eleventh chapter of the epistle to the Romans. The apostle had solemnly and firmly denied the inference which some, might CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 549 have been disposed to draw from his doctrine respect- ing the fall of many in Israel, that God had utterly cast off his people. To sustain his denial he says, “ For I am an Israelite ;” but how did his being an Israelite prove that God had not utterly rejected Israel? Had God judicially, by a sentence pro- nounced upon the nation, cast out the people from their religious privileges, no Israelite could have been saved. Excluded from ‘‘ the promise,” the external administration of the Gospel, Israel could not have contained ‘‘a residue according to the election of grace,” which it did, notwithstanding the utter rejec- tion of many Israelites. There is, therefore, a great difference between the rejection of the Israelites in- dividually and the fall of Israel nationally. As a nation, Israel had fallen from its exclusive relation to Abraham, because all the privileges of the Abra- hamic covenant were equally conferred upon the Gentiles. The Jew was no longer sole heir, but only, with the Gentile, co-heir of the promise, hold- ing it, subject to excision and forfeiture, on the same conditions. In illustrating these sentiments, the apostle introduces the passage, “If the first- fruits be holy, so is the lump; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” So far as Israel is con- cerned, the illustration is too obvious to be misun- derstood. The posterity of Abraham partook of privileges derived from that patriarch. In the sense in which he was holy, by a covenant relation, not by personal sanctity, they were also holy, having received, as he had, the sign of the ancient form 550 THE SUBJECTS OF of the evangelical covenant. They were holy, not. by a sanctity independent of their descent, but as springing from the holy root. Some of these holy branches were cut off through unbelief. Their cir- cumcision became as uncircumcision: their relative holiness was forfeited by their personal corruption. But what is the doctrine of the apostle respecting the Gentiles? ‘‘ If some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.” The doctrine surely is, that the inserted Gentiles were placed precisely in the position of the rejected Jews, that is, were partakers of the same relative holiness. To say that partaking “ of the root and fatness of the olive” denotes personal holiness, would be to assert that Jews excluded through unbelief, were also partakers of personal holiness, which is directly contrary to the apostle’s argument. Besides, there was danger to the Gentile of a similar excision ; his standing was only by faith ; his privileges would become like those of the Jews, of no avail through unbelief.“ If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee.” The question is, What Gentiles were partakers of the evangelical privileges with the Jews? what branches were grafted into the good olive tree? who were admitted into the state, not of personal salvation, but of covenant privilege, like that which had long been confined to the house of Israel? We answer, “ The promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off; even as many as the Lord our God CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. dd} shall invite.” All Gentiles brought under the sound of the Gospel, are put upon the trial of their faith. They are all inserted in the good olive tree, to ascer- tain if they will bring forth good fruit. Fruitless, they are rejected with many of Israel; fruitful, they are approved with the residue of the election. The root bears all these branches; so, Abraham becomes the father of many nations, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. To confine the external privi- leges and relative holiness to the Jews, is to represent Abraham, as the father only of one nation, and not, as the promise declared, of many: to confine them to the converted, is to represent the olive, as without any fruitless branches, to be cut off through unbelief. But are the infants of Gentiles entitled to the privi- leges of the covenant with Abraham? Are they holy branches engrafted into the holy root? Undoubt- edly, we reply, without hesitation, every one of them, In the promise made to Abraham, they are co-heirs with the infants of his national seed, for there is no longer any difference between Jew and Greek. The Abrahamic covenant cannot be disannulled, although it is enlarged by the admission of the Gentiles, who, by the call of the Gospel, inherit the promise from the father of many nations, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed. The infant branches of Israel cannot be cut off on account of unbelief; dying in infancy in union with the father of the faithful, they live, we cannot doubt, in Abraham’s bosom. Israel is not then utterly rejected, although its adult population is cut off on account of unbelict’; 552 THE SUBJECTS OF but its little children, not so forfeiting their privilege, are heirs of every promise. And the Gentile infant, grafted into the stock of Abraham, is also and equally partaker of every privilege. The root is holy; the branches are also holy, whether natural or engrafted ; for Abraham is the father of many nations. The Jews, in their collective capacity, originally constituted a privileged body, in a covenant state ; but the Gentiles, in their collective capacity, were represented as an unprivileged body, not in a cove- nant state. Individual Gentiles might be saved as individual Jews were lost; but the Jews were the good olive tree whose root was Abraham,—the Gen- tiles were the wild olive tree whose root was Adam. Wherever the Gospel was preached, it brought the Gentiles into the state of privilege by which the Jews were previously distinguished; all, not ex- cluded by their unbelief, and therefore infants, through the Gospel, were reckoned to the stock of Abra- ham, and, being introduced by grace, they must, arriving at maturity, on their own responsibility abide in him. Abraham is the father of many nations. If this be the apostle’s doctrine, the cove- nant of external privilege made with Israel has never been dissolved, except in its exclusive character. The change it has sustained is entirely of enlargement. The tabernacle of Zion has lengthened its cords, and strengthened its stakes. The good olive tree has not been plucked up, but multitudes of new branches have been engrafted into it, many of them fruitful, CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 553 but many, like the older branches, fruitless. With the commission in my hand, can I find for it a restrictive clause in the apostolic representation of the privileges of all the nations? Can 1 hesitate a moment in conferring a sign of external privilege (baptism is nothing else) upon the children of the Gentiles, the new branches of the good olive? As the older and fruitless branches had their older sign of circumcision, who shall forbid these new branches to receive the new sign of baptism? Whether the two signs are essentially identical, although for- mally distinct, I do not say, for I have that subject still to consider, but both were external signs of their respective forms of the covenant; and baptism, what- ever it may be, is no more to the Gentile the seal of internal purity, than was circumcision to the Jew. Both speak of sanctification, but neither assures its subject of more than the external privilege, the cove- nant relation. Baptism is the sign of this covenant relation. It cannot be the seal of internal purity, for if it were, what erring mortal would dare, by its administration, to attest the character of another, into the secrets of whose heart he cannot penetrate? ΤῸ say it is the sign of purity, or of salvation, upon the condition, or as the result, of believing the Gospel, is to admit the very thing for which we contend; for the state of which we speak, so far as adults are concerned, is a state in which a man is set apart for salvation by the Gospel, unless he be reprobate through unbelief; and, ddA THE SUBJECTS OF so far as infants are concerned, a state in which their salvation is secured by the promise of the covenant with Abraham, into whose root they are engrafted. Our argument, then, from this passage, is similar in form, although more extensive in its application, to that which our friends derive from the Abrahamic covenant by a different process. They contend that infants should be baptized, because they are children of members of the covenant; we, because they are children of its head,—holy. branches from a holy root. They say that, as some infants were recognised by the appropriate sign as members of the kingdom of Israel, so some ought now to be recognised by the appropriate sign, as members of the kingdom of heaven; we say, that as the natural branches of the stock of Abraham were recognised as holy by their appropriate sign, so the engrafted branches ought to be recognised as holy by their appropriate sign. It ought to be observed, that in this argument I have laid no stress upon the epithet “holy,” as it is applied by the apostle to the branches of the holy root. I find in the baptismal commission, “all the nations ;” and I learn from the apostolic writings, that “‘all the nations” have succeeded to the external privileges of the Abrahamic covenant, or that in Abraham all the families of the earth are blessed. I find, consequent on the fall of Israel from its exclu- sive privileges, the reconciling of the world; and I conclude that the apostolic doctrine furnishes no exception to the unrestricted terms of the baptismal commission. It may, however, be asked, Does the CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 555 use of the term “holy” add anything in confirma- tion of the reasoning? I think it does; but as I do not wish the reader to place any reliance upon it, as it in no way affects the general reasoning on the passage, I keep it distinct from the rest of the argu- ment. Great injustice would be done, if I were represented as making the lecture depend upon the few remarks I offer respecting the words, “ If the root be holy, so are the branches.” If the argument does not stand independently of them, let it fall, for they are not proposed as broad enough to sustain it; but if it has another foundation, they may serve to illus- trate or confirm it. My chief reason for noticing them here is, that, otherwise, I should have to return to this passage, and repeat much that I have said ; when, in a subsequent lecture, [ must consider the meaning of the apostle’s assertion, that the children of believers are not “ unclean,” but “holy.” In the connexion in which the apostle speaks of the branches, consisting of natural and engrafted, Jewish and Gentile, as both holy, and as cut off, in some instances, through unbelief, the term can be employed to designate no moral nor religious quality. In this sense the Jewish branches of the root were not holy, and we cannot suppose the apostle would use the one term, “holy,” in two distinct senses, as applied in one common phrase to both Jews and Gentiles. Under the law every Jew was ceremo- nially or externally holy,—under the Gospel no man is common or unclean: “ For what God hath sancti- fied, that call not thou common.” 556 THE SUBJECTS OF I must here protest against the insinuation that I am resorting to a Jewish notion, since I am following the guidance of the apostle of the Gentiles. If any say, that they admit no holiness which is not moral, —no holiness of a Divinely constituted relation to external privileges,—no holy branches from a holy root,—I reply, that they do not admit the plain implication of this text; and having lost the apostle’s doctrine respecting external holiness, they cannot in- terpret his phraseology. This passage, whatever else it may mean, unequivocally teaches that, in a state of external relation to God, persons are called holy. The inquiry is, What is that state? or, more pre- cisely, Who are those persons? According to Jewish law in the book of Leviticus, unclean things were distributed into three kinds,— those which might not be touched, those which might not be eaten, and those which might not be sacri- ficed; although, at least, some of these distinctions were not of Moses, but of the fathers. ‘The things which were not in this sense unclean, were, though clean, distinguished from those called holy; or, if they were called holy, it was only in a sense con- trasted with their previous uncleanness, from which they were purified. Thus, holy vessels were not vessels which might be used, but vessels belonging to the service of God; so holy garments, holy oil, holy meats, and holy sacrifices were dedicated to God. But, what is more to our own purpose, this distince- tion was especially observed in reference to persons : a leper was unclean, but when pronounced clean, and CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 557 so far sanctified, he was distinguished from a holy person. The holy person was especially appropriated to God, and usually, if not always, designated by some act of consecration. Thus the priest was holy and consecrated to his office; the Nazarite was holy and dedicated by his vow; the first-born child, being a male, was holy ; and we have the account of a dedication in St. Luke:—‘ They brought him to Jerusalem to present himself to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that open- eth the womb shall be called holy unto the Lord, and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord.’ In a still more extensive sense, all Israel was a holy nation separated to God from the rest of the world, and the sign of its separa- tion was the rite of circumcision. How many things and persons were thus sanctified by the ceremonies of the Levitical economy, I need not stay to inquire. Almost all were purified with water, or with blood, or with both. The apostle says, ‘‘ The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctify to the purifying of the flesh ;” sanc- tify by an external purification. With these ideas of consecration universally prevalent, when the apostle spoke of persons as holy in an external sense, sanc- tified to the purifying of the flesh, would he not be understood as implying that for them there was some ceremony of purification? They were holy either as fitted for such a ceremony, or as having already received it. They were dedicated to God, or were to be dedicated to him. There was done for them, or 558 THE SUBJECTS OF there was to be done for them, something according to the law, the Jewish law or the Christian law, that they might be called holy. They were sanctified, to the purifying of the flesh, so far as the external rela- tion was concerned. But of all the Jewish purifications, none was so frequently said to sanctify as the washing with water. Preparatory to the legislation on Sinai, Moses was commanded to sanctify the people, that is, to make them wash themselves and be clean. In Levi- ticus, all that touched the flesh of the sin-offering were to be sanctified, that is, as appears from the connexion, to be washed. And so the Jews, as all writers on their antiquities testify, called their divers baptisms, their sanctifications. Christ is said to sanctify his church by the washing with water, in which words, although I doubt not the inward cleansing of the Spirit is intended, yet the allusion to the sign of washing with water, clearly shows the current language of the apostolic age. As _ those dedicated to God by ceremonial observance were commonly said to be sanctified, and as especially the washing with water was called a sanctification, are we not entitled to conclude, unless good reason can be shown against us, that when the apostle, who sanctions this current language of the Jews by his own example, calls persons holy in merely a cere- monial sense, he sanctions a service of consecration, and, under the Gospel, the sanctification by the washing of water? How far it may be thought to confirm this view of the passage, that the Christian CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 559 writers so generally call baptism sanctification, and the baptized holy, as I place very little reliance upon such elucidations of Scripture, I leave others to determine. The instances are too numerous to be cited; and, occasionally, as in the reply of Cyprian and the other bishops assembled in Carthage, to Fidus, on the subject of baptizing before the eighth day, the infant is said both to be baptized and to be sanctified ;* but Cyprian and his suffragans are not, in my opinion, very valuable commentators on St. Paul. Upon the whole, after this prolonged ex- amination of the verse, I submit these additional remarks, not as independent argument of any worth, but simply to elucidate our previous conclusion, that infants, whether of Jews or Gentiles, are holy branches of the stock of Abraham, in one instance by natural growth, in the other by engrafting; and that, having the holiness of the external relation to God, they are recognised in the Abrahamic covenant, which now includes “all the nations” whom the apostles were commanded to baptize. Should it be said that nothing is implied in the covenant relation of the Gentiles to Abraham respect- ing their baptism, I reply that the argument of Dr. Wardlaw and Dr. Owen is, they who have the grace of the covenant have an undeniable right to its sign ; and I claim all that is good in their argument, not for some children only, but for all children whatever. There is, however, this important difference between us. They seem to construct upon the privileges of “ Cypriani, Epist. 64. 560 THE SUBJECTS OF the covenant an independent argument. I do not commit the argument to the world in that character; but producing the commission, whose grammatical interpretation is, baptize “all the nations,” I look to the apostolic doctrine for the exception or the con- firmation of that sense. The doctrine of the apostle is, 1 contend, not the exception but the confirmation. When the kingdom of heaven was extended to the Gentiles, the apostles received their commission to ᾽ baptize “‘all the nations,” as John received his when that kingdom dawned upon the Jews,—and neither commission was restricted to any class. But if other proof of the connexion between the rite and the pos- session of external privileges be demanded, we recur to a passage which, although we have already cited it for another purpose, is important in illustrating that connexion. The apostle Peter, on the day of Pente- cost, said to the people, ‘‘ 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 to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.” I have already stated that these words were addressed to such as had neither repented, nor received the remission of sins, or at least to those who, as Peter thought, had done neither the one nor the other. It is, however, implied that they and their children, and many afar off, were among those whom the Lord had called, or would call. This calling is therefore some external privi- lege, of which the impenitent and their children may CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 561 partake. ‘The reason assigned for their baptism, as well as for their repentance, is, “‘ For the promise is ᾽ to you;” but if “the promise” to them was a reason for their being baptized, “the promise” to their children was equally a reason for their children’s baptism, and “ the promise” to all afar off was also a reason for their baptism. Our inference is, that all who have “the promise,” have the same reason for being baptized as had the persons to whom Peter originally addressed the words. The pertinence of his address depends entirely upon the fact of the parties who heard it having “ the promise.” The only inquiry which appears relevant to the subject is, What was “the promise” to which Peter alluded? Was it the promise of the miraculous effu- sion of the Holy Ghost, as some contend, or was it the great promise of the Gospel, that which St. Paul emphatically calls “the promise,” in contradistinction from the law,—the promise of salvation through Christ Jesus? ‘The promise” could not refer to the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost; for if it did, how could it be made to the children of the persons addressed, or to many afar off,—to distant nations, or remote posterity? That effusion was not granted to all whom the apostles baptized, much less to all who, in the apostolic age, were duly baptized ; and therefore it could not have been the reason assigned for the baptism of any. But the great evangelical promise is to all the families of the earth; for in Abraham and his seed shall they all be blessed. The covenant of grace is for all nations; and all who have not been 20 562 THE SUBJECTS OF cut off on account of unbelief, or sin equivalent, are heirs of its promise. Neither could the apostle, in ‘addressing a promiscuous crowd, have intended that they had the thing promised in the actual and per- sonal interest in its blessing. ‘‘ As many as the Lord our God should call,” should bring under the sound of the Gospel, had the promise of life assured to them, on the terms of the new covenant. Have infants that great promise? has the free gift come upon them to justification of life? That ‘“ the pro- mise,” the covenant relation of the Gospel, belongs to infants, the little children of the kingdom of God, we can assert with more confidence than we can that it belongs to any who have arrived at an age in which, for aught we know, they may have forfeited their privilege, and made ‘the promise” to themselves, although they cannot make it to their children, of none effect, But if “the promise” is to infants,—if they are the heirs of the great promise made to Abraham, that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed,—they have the qualification and the reason for baptism which St. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, declared to be sufficient. It may be said, that this promise applies to repent- ance, as well as to baptism; that by a similar process of reasoning, it might be proved that all who have it ought to be called upon to repent; and that, therefore, if infants are included in the covenant of promise, they ought also to be included in the duty of repentance. All who have “the promise” ought un- doubtedly to repent, if they are able; the reasoning of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 563 the apostle is limited only by the ability of the party concerned. Show me that an infant can repent, and from that moment I reply, he ought to repent, because he has “the promise.” The exhortation sustained by “the promise,” meets him the first moment he becomes able to repent. Unless, then, a Baptist brother be per- mitted to assume that an infant cannot be baptized, the argument remains unimpaired. But does he sup- pose that we shall quietly allow him to assume the whole question in dispute? If he can prove that chil- dren cannot be baptized, of course he has brought this long controversy to a most triumphant conclusion. 1 can only say he is very simple to allow himself to be seduced from this commanding position, in which he can silence us whenever he pleases, to the low ground of interminable disputation upon various reasons for and against doing what, by any possibility, never has been done, and never can be done. If we are in the desperate predicament of contending for the pro- priety of doing a thing which cannot by any means be done, of course all our arguments are worthless ; but if children can be baptized, then we say they ought to be baptized, because they have the promise, which St. Peter adduces as good reason and sufficient qualification for baptism. If they cannot, as they cannot repent, of course we are most fairly and effectually driven out of the whole field of con- troversy. But it may be said, that these persons were com- manded both to repent and to be baptized, and there- fore the two things were to be done in the order 202 564 THE SUBJECTS OF prescribed. We renew our protest against the doc- trine, that if two things are commanded, and persons will not do the one, their disobedience is a reason to justify their not doing the other. But allowing this to pass, what is repentance, that sinners may not only complete it in an hour, but in the same hour have satisfactory evidence of its completion? If only those who have repented are to be baptized, no man ought to apply for baptism until he has good assur- ance of his repentance. If sin must be first washed away in reality, before it can be emblematically washed away in baptism, the applicant ought first to know that his sins are forgiven him. But to what a shade, a fleeting and transitory emotion, would this opinion reduce the work of repentance, and the con- fidence of pardon! Fugitive emotions cannot in a day be distinguished from permanent principles. Faith in Christ may be excited in a moment, but a man is not, without longer trial, to be assured of its reality. The entering in at the strait gate with agony —the taking up the cross of the disciple—must not be regarded as complete with the first emotion of penitence. ‘Three thousand persons were baptized “the same day ;” but, upon ‘the same day,” a deed could not be done with confidence, upon the pre- sumption that the parties were really and _ heartily Christian. An illusive opinion is prevalent, that there was less probability of delusion in the early age of the Gospel than there is at present; but to many under the mighty preaching of Peter, with the miracles of the Pentecost before their eyes, there must have been CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 565 great danger of mistaking excitement for religion. Coming over to Christianity was not, in the true sense of the term, becoming Christian. Baptizing three thousand in the first day of their conviction, seems precisely equivalent to baptizing all applicants. What inquiries could have been made? what certain evidence of religion could the parties themselves possess ? Whatever may be thought of the time required for immersion, the time of accrediting believers was not yet come, and time for inquiry was not allowed. Why, then, were they baptized? Because, as the apostle said, “the promise” was to them and to their children. Believers’ baptism is not the baptism of thousands, in the first moments of thoughtful inquiry. Although it may now appear evident that the com- mission, ‘‘ Teach all the nations, baptizing them,” is not to be restricted to believers, yet it may be thought uncandid not to admit that the indiscriminate bap- tism of adults does not, in itself, afford sufficient proof of the baptism of infants. I admit the objection has some force, although I cannot see any reason for the baptism of an unbeliever, which does not apply to the baptism of an infant. It is, however, possible that both believers’ baptism and infant baptism may be alike unscriptural. To this I reply, besides the specific reasons for the baptism of infants, independent of our interpretation of the commission, which I am compelled to reserve for a separate lecture, and the general reasoning on the phrase ‘“‘all the nations,” which I have alread: 566 THE SUBJECTS OF noticed, there is also an especial reason for not ex- cepting infants from the commission deduced from their recognition as subjects of the kingdom of heaven. ΤῸ prevent misapprehension I observe, that whatever reasons for infant baptism, such as the bap- tism of the households of believers, and the assertion that the children of a believer are not unclean, but holy, are unaffected by the general or restricted inter- pretation of the commission, I do not notice in this lecture; because on them I make common cause with my brethren, who baptize only the children of believers. So, a part of the reasoning usually adduced from the conduct of our Lord to little children, as his performing over them a significant ceremony, as good a sacrament as baptism, by the imposition of his hands, and his especial recognition of them as his disciples, I cannot here allege; because these little ones, for aught I can say to the contrary, might have been received as the children of believers. But the words of our Lord cannot be restricted to those specific children which were brought to him :— “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such” (not of those specific children, but of such children) ‘‘is the kingdom of God.”* I scarcely think any candid member of the Baptist denomination will think of cavilling about the age of these children. Called by St. Luke βρέφη, infants, and taken up in the arms of Jesus, they must have been children of a tender age. The α Matt. xix. 14. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 567 expression of our Lord intimates they were too young to have been corrupted by the world.. These infants Jesus declared to belong to the kingdom of heaven. As to the remark of some of our Baptist friends, that our Lord, by saying “of such,” not of these, ‘is the kingdom of heaven,” may mean of men and women like these children, it is entirely inconsistent with the connexion, as well as utterly unauthorised by the terms. ‘Of such,” clearly means of such children,—of children of the same age and condition, —is the kingdom of heaven. Had our Lord said, of these, his words might have been limited to those children specifically; but the words, “of such,” clearly refer to children generally,—all such children. The words are surely not to be expounded, as mean- ing that these children were not of the kingdom of heaven. So, to expound them, would be a won- derful instance of making the art and mystery of hermeneutics explain away the obvious sense of a passage. Can any one imagine our Lord is to be understood as saying, Suffer the little children to come unto me; for, although they are not of the kingdom of heaven, yet men and women of similar dispositions are? If these children did not themselves belong to the kingdom of heaven, the words of our Lord assign no reason for suffering them to approach him. He, the King in Zion, publicly acknowledges them as his own subjects, and proclaims their title in the most unequivocal terms. To prevent mistake, it may be as well to expound the reasoning which is usually founded upon these 568 THE SUBJECTS OF words, premising that, in this lecture, I adopt it, not as an independent argument, but only as a reason which I plead for not excepting infants from the general terms of the commission. Often as it has been propounded, and often as it has been criticised, it still appears to me perfectly satisfactory, as I shall be ready to maintain elsewhere. It is, how- ever, one thing to say, Here is my reason for baptizing infants; and another to say, having a commission to baptize “all the nations,” Here is my reason for not excepting infants upon the plea of their unsuitableness. My principal reason for ad- ducing the passage, will appear in the subsequent paragraphs. The usual reasoning may be thus expressed :— If infants are members of the kingdom of heaven, they ought, by the officers of the church, to be recognised in that relation. They are not, indeed, members of a particular church or Christian society, for that is formed by the voluntary act of Christian men, and every man joins any such society,—any one of several in his neighbourhood,—on his own election, and is received on the approbation of its members. Were he rejected by them, he would not be expelled from the kingdom of God. Were all these particular churches dissolved, the kingdom of God would remain a kingdom which cannot be moved. Who will say there was no kingdom of God in Britain, until Robert Brown gathered a Congregational church? Indeed, men must be members of the general kingdom, before they are eligible to the particular church, if the church CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 569 be composed only of professing Christians. But how is an infant to be recognised as a member of the kingdom of Christ? Is not baptism the proper recognition of a member of Christ’s kingdom? and if we refuse to baptize an infant, do we not virtually disown him, as if he did not belong to us, or to our kingdom? If we refuse to acknowledge a relation which a child has to Christ’s kingdom, do we not despise one of these little ones, depreciate its privi- leges, and act the part of the disciples in refusing to allow parents to bring their children to Christ, in the only way in which infancy can be brought to him? Infants have all the spiritual blessings of the covenant of grace; they are redeemed from death; they are entitled to everlasting life: their interest in Christ is sure and certain, until they forfeit it by wilful trans- gression. If they cannot have faith, they do not need it; if they cannot have repentance, God requires it not from them. They have a title to heaven, clear and incontestable, which no man can abrogate, and no church has aright to gainsay. They are bought with a price, with no corruptible thing, such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the grace of the Gospel, as well as we? As the infant Jew was a recog- nised subject of the kingdom of Israel, so every infant is a recognised subject of the kingdom of heaven, and recognised by no less authority than that of the King himself. Shall we refuse to recog- nise any whom Christ acknowledges? or shall we 570 THE SUBJECTS OF invent a new ritual of recognition, by which we may, after our own manner, receive an infant in the name of a disciple? Shall we deny the sign of water, where Christ has declared the party to be in posses- sion of all our water signifies? What is baptism more than a sign of the blessings of the evangelical covenant, in which the parties baptized are supposed to be interested? How far they are, or ought to be, personally interested, and what evidence of that in- terest we ought to demand, may be matter of contro- versy. I have expressed an opinion that we have no scriptural authority to require any other interest in the covenant than is implied in its general adaptation to the applicants,—others require credible evidence of an actual and present participation of its bless- ings. But whether the truth be with me in baptizing an applicant as the partaker of ‘‘ the promise,” or, with others, in baptizing an applicant as a partaker of the thing promised, these children whom our Lord blessed, had a personal interest, not only in “the promise,” but also in the blessings promised. Those blessings being by our Lord declared to belong to them, they were to be permitted to come to him, that he might, by a formal act, recognise them as in full possession. If baptism be such a recognition (what more can it be?) in baptizing a child, I do the very thing by water which Christ did by the imposition of hands. The substance is the same, although the form be altered. This is the argument generally adduced from the words of our Lord in favour of infant baptism, and CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 571 in connexion with all the circumstances it appears to me satisfactory; but my object is to show the objection which it affords to the introduction of an exceptive clause in the commission, so far as children are concerned. That infants should be included in this commission is not probable, as they cannot comprehend the nature of the ser- vice, is the objection which is sometimes felt; nor is it probable, if we are to reason upon antecedent pro- babilities, that our Lord would recognise these chil- dren as members of the kingdom of God, seeing they knew not their King, nor their privileges, nor their allegiance. But to me, with evidence better than ante- cedent probabilities, sufficient, at least, to prohibit an exception on the ground of disqualification, if not of itself to establish the right, the language of the Gos- pels teaches that baptized persons, and no others, are recognised as being in the kingdom of heaven. The inquiry I suggest is, on comparison of other passages of the Gospel, Would any persons have been recognised as belonging to the kingdom of God, who were unbaptized, not having the sign of water; or, at most, any persons at the time dis- qualified for baptism, unfitted to receive the sign of water? ‘Two passages seem to elucidate the inquiry,— how far they determine it, let the reader consider, The one is, “‘ Jesus said, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” [ have, in previous lectures, assigned my reasons for interpreting this passage, as a declaration that of the kingdom of God, there are 572 THE SUBJECTS OF the internal grace and the external sign; the internal grace, called the birth of the Spirit; and the external sign, called the birth of water. _As, beneficially, no man is of the kingdom without the birth of the Spirit, so no one is recognised of the kingdom, in its visible administration, without the birth of water. If this interpretation be correct, it will follow that only the baptized are to be recognised as belonging to the kingdom of heaven; that Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, and, therefore, we may sup- pose, declined the profession of baptism, was not to be acknowledged as belonging to that kingdom; and that, on the other hand, the children whom our Lord recognised as belonging to the kingdom of heaven, were not unbaptized. Had they the internal grace, who should deny them the sign? had they the exter- nal sign, we contend for no more. Had they neither the grace, nor the sign of the kingdom, how could they belong to it? Born, neither of water nor of the Spirit, how could they have entered it? Or, if the expressions be extended, to include proper subjects for baptism, as well as the baptized, our conclusion is unaffected. The other passage, which elucidates our view of the connexion between baptism and the kingdom of heaven, is, “From the days of John the Baptist, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.”* These words intimate that there was much popular excitement and general feeling of © Matt. xi. 12. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 573 interest, on account of the preaching of John, and afterwards of Christ and his disciples, which termi- nated in the eager desire of multitudes to be enrolled as subjects of the kingdom of heaven. As it is else- where said, ‘‘The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached, and every man presseth into 11. The in- quiry arises, In what way did the eager and excited multitude take forcible possession of the kingdom ? how did every man press into it? Jesus was address- ing the multitude who went out into the wilderness to see John. Had this vast multitude cordially received the Gospel, and so become personally interested in its great salvation? Had every man, by faith un- feigned and true repentance, pressed along the narrow path, and within the strait gate? Were these crowds, going into the wilderness in search of a sign, con- verted by the Spirit of grace? The evangelical history, and especially the words of our Lord, addressed to the multitudes who listened to John, prevent us from reaching any such conclusion respecting the men of that generation. ‘They eagerly received baptism from John, and from the disciples of Jesus; they pressed in great crowds to obtain that sign of the kingdom, and having done nothing more, they are said to have pressed into the kingdom. Such is the interpretation of the words, which we form on referring to the history of John, when all Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the country round Jordan, went to his bap- tism. But this, it may be said, is only my inter- pretation. To confirm it, let me produce the comment 574 THE SUBJECTS OF of Luke upon the words of Matthew. Let the reader compare carefully the words of our Lord, as they are given in the two gospels respectively, and I think he can arrive at no other conclusion. In both gospels, our Lord is represented as inquiring of the multitudes, ‘““What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” In both gospels the discourse of our Lord is found with scarcely a verbal difference respecting the ‘reed shaken by the wind,” the “man in soft clothing,” the ‘‘ prophet, and more than a prophet.” In Matthew follow the words: *““Among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist; notwith- standing, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he.” In Luke the words are: “Among those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he.” Seldom in these two gospels do we find so close a parallel,—so exact an identity of words. But in one verse they differ. In Matthew succeed the words, “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Instead of this. verse, we have in Luke: ‘And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.” This passage, in both gospels, is followed by the comparison of the men of that generation, to fickle and perverse children playing in the market-place. Our conclu- sion is, that Luke supplies the commentary on the CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. O79 words of Matthew ; and that the taking of the kingdom of heaven, in one gospel, is expounded in the other to mean, “ being baptized with the baptism of John.” From the two passages, of which one declares that, unless a man be born of water he cannot enter the kingdom of God, and the other, that ‘‘the violent take the kingdom of heaven by force,” which, expounded by the Holy Ghost, is “being baptized with the baptism of John,” [ infer, on the one hand, that those who were recognised in the kingdom of God were born of water; and, on the other, that all who were baptized were recognised as in the kingdom of God. With these passages before us, we have no right to assert that any unbaptized persons were acknow- ledged as belonging to the kingdom of God, unless some evidence to that effect can be produced from Scripture. . All, however, that my argument requires me to ascertain is, with these passages in our hands, as the exponents of the meaning of the words, “ of such is the kingdom of heaven,” if we have authority, on any supposed ground of their unsuitableness, to exclude children from the baptismal commission. To notice the argument in favour of including children in this commission, founded upon the Jewish practice of baptizing the children of prose- lytes with their parents, may be thought necessary for the completeness of this inquiry. This argument, although it is propounded as of great weight and authority by some of the most able of our theolo- gians, | am not disposed to introduce in the present lecture, except for the purpose of enabling the reader 576 THE SUBJECTS OF t to consider how far [ do right in not insisting upon it. In a few words, it may be thus proposed :—TIf, as Dr. Lightfoot says, ‘‘ the Jews were as familiar with the baptism of infants as with their circumcision,” the commission to baptize the nations could have been understood in no other sense than as including their children. It has been said, if the commission were, “Go, teach all nations, cirecwmcising them,” there could not have been raised a dispute respecting their children, because, in that rite of initiation, the chil- dren were always associated with their parents. The commission was given to the apostles, who had known no rites of initiation or of proselytism be- longing to parents separately from their children. They would, therefore, it is said, understand the command to baptize as including the children of their proselytes. On this reasoning, let me observe, whatever weight it may have, it rests ultimately not upon Scripture, but upon a custom of the Jews. Although I am perfectly satisfied that the Jews baptized the children of their proselytes, yet, as the fact is contro- verted, I would confine the arguments deduced from it to their own place in a separate lecture, and not exalt them to the rank of scriptural evidences. I have, therefore, already considered them on the lower ground of human probability. Again, if the proselyte baptism of the Jews illus- trates Scripture at all, it does so more naturally and appropriately in connexion with the baptism of households, than in determining the extent of the CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 577 commission. If, therefore, it can be fairly cited, in expounding Scripture, it must be done cautiously and suspiciously, when we come to the specific reasons of infant baptism. Once more, although in determining a dispute about the meaning of words, one of the first and most important inquiries is, How would the parties to whom they were originally addressed be likely to understand them? yet this commission is best illustrated by the subsequent conduct of the apos- tles. Their sense of the words is to be ascertained from their own practice. With the definite informa- tion of the Acts before me, I need not explore the sinuosities of the Talmuds. Although the passing circumstances of every fleeting age cast their shadows over words and sentences, and diversify their fugitive colouring, yet the unrestricted sense of the baptismal commission, sustained by the comment of apostolic practice, appears so plain and unequivocal, that I decline the aid of the Rabbi who comes with his rolls of venerable parchment to tell me that his fathers always baptized the children of their proselytes. Elsewhere I have recorded his testimony, but I am not disposed to endorse the gospels with a super- scription of Chaldaic authorities. Our conclusion, founded, as we believe, on scrip- tural premises, and fortified by scriptural precedents, is, that the baptismal commission ought to be ex- pounded in its literal and unrestricted sense: ‘“ Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 2P 578 THE SUBJECTS OF Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatso- ever 1 command you.” Our commission is to dis- ciple as many as we can, by baptizing and by teaching them. Some may choose to baptize only those who are taught, and others, with as good reason, may teach only those who are baptized. Adhering to the literality of the commission, we admit no exceptions, either in the baptizing or in the teaching, regarding the extent of our ability as the only limit of our obedience. I must, however, observe, before I leave the com- mission, that if I have mistaken its terms, and given to it too large a construction in conceding baptism to all applicants, it does not follow that the usual specific arguments in favour of infant baptism are affected by my error. Infant baptism has been defended by many who restrict the commission, in its aspect towards adults, to as narrow limits as do the strictest of our Baptist brethren. If faith be required, it can only be required of those who are capable of believing; and the inquiry remains for further consideration, How are those to be regarded of whom faith is not required? John’s baptism was unto repentance, Allowing, therefore, for the mo- ment, that the penitent were its proper subjects, was Jesus, of whom repentance could not have been required, an improper subject of that baptism? I have seen pages of reasoning on John’s baptism, which certainly excluded Jesus from the waters of Jordan, but I have not found one of the reasoners CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. ᾿ 579 consistent enough to deny that John did baptize our blessed Lord." « Dr. Carson says, p. 175, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, in order to a remission of sins. It could not then include infants who cannot repent, and whose sins, when they die in infancy, are not remitted on repentance.” How then could Jesus have been baptized, who could not repent, and who had no sins to be remitted ? Again, p. 176, “It was also a baptism in which sins were confessed . Can infants confess their sins ? If not, they were not baptized by John.” Could Jesus, we ask, confess his sins, or was he not baptized by John ? Whatever may be implied on the part of many who repeat his arguments, Dr. Carson is not involved in this implication. He has a resource, which I am grieved to my heart that he has printed. I have pleased myself with thinking that our only difference with our Baptist brethren respected a ritual observance ; and it is ne small comfort for a controvertist to know that, if he be in error, no great evangelical doctrine is affected by his conclusion. But were I a Baptist, the point of agreement would be a trifle, a shadow, compared with the difference which I should still maintain with the theology of the Baptists, if Dr. Carson be their expositor, He makes the baptism of Jesus harmonise with his views, by a process to which 1. advert with emotions which I will not describe. He says of Jesus, (Ρ. 177,) Though he is in himself holy, harmless, and undefiled, yet, as one with us, he is defiled.” Again, “‘ By his being one with us, he can confess himself a sinner. The oneness of Christ and his people, then, is not a figurative way of speaking; it is a solid and consoling truth.” Again, “ If we are guilty by being one with Adam, Christ was in like manner guilty, by becoming one with us.” What can be the meaning of these and similar expressions ? Christ con- fess himself a sinner! and the implication equally applies, he repented of his sins! And this, not a figurative way of speaking, but solid and consoling truth! Dr. Carson’s views of original sin are sufficiently manifest in his book; but Christ, in like manner, guilty, by becoming one of us! Blessed Jesus, I am the sinner, but thou art the Saviour! The sins are mine, but the sufferings were thine! Thou wast made sin for me, but thou wast never made a sinner! Thou wast baptized; but, not confessing thy sins, not unto repentance—not for remission. Perish the whole doctrine of baptisms, immersion and sprinkling, 2p2 580 THE SUBJECTS OF We have sometimes to encounter a popular objec- tion. Itis said, Why should you baptize such as you would not admit to the Lord’s supper? The reply is obvious ; because no person has proved that the qualifications for baptism are the same as those for the Lord’s supper. We may illustrate the reply in a few words. 1. To assume that the qualifications for two distinct ordinances are the same, is absolutely gra- tuitous. The parties suitable for each ordinance, must be determined on reference to Scripture alone. In ascertaining the subjects of Christian baptism, we will not hear of any reference to the communicants at the supper, because a reference which proves adult and infant, rather than the church should learn to repeat such language! I pass over the obvious inquiry, If Christ, not in a figure, but really, were baptized for us, we were really, and not in figure, baptized in him; that is, baptized, not figuratively, before we were born. What then means the anabaptism of believers? They were bap- tized in the flesh of Christ, confessing their sins by the lips of Christ, completing their repentance by the penitence of Christ in the waters of Jordan. Is Dr. Carson really an Anabaptist ? That Christ was baptized, representing us, is said with as little Scripture authority, as that he ate, and drank, and slept, representing us. Will English Baptist ministers repeat these assertions in the pulpit ? If they do not, how, with a good conscience, dare they circulate the book which contains them ? Unless they believe that Christ confessed his sins in Jordan, and repented of them, their difference with Dr. Carson involves considerations far more momentous than any which belong to their controversy with us. If this be the Baptist theology, they may cease from all discussion about open communion; for the two parties do not believe the same gospel. If it be not, the Baptists ought honestly to repudiate the reasoning of Dr. Carson, which so largely rests upon it. This view of Christ is implicated with other parts of his book. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 581 nothing, can only perplex the argument, however simple and decisive. 2. It will be hereafter our duty to ascertain the persons who have right to the table of the Lord. Until this be done, it is evident that the comparison between the persons suitable for the two ordinances, cannot be fairly instituted. In due time, we shall be ready to compare them. | 3. There is just as good reason to say, that only the persons qualified to receive the Lord’s supper ought to observe any other emblematical or com- memorative institution of the Christian religion. Why does not the Baptist say, that only believers can commemorate the resurrection of Christ by the religious observance of the Lord’s day? To keep the Sabbath is as much a profession, and as emblem- atical an act, as to be baptized. The Sabbath is as much the believers’ day, as is baptism the believers’ service. Ought no man to be encouraged to observe the Sabbath, unless he can be brought to the Lord’s table? This question involves the propriety of allow- ing the unregenerate to join in any aet of religious worship whatever. It is but another form of the various schemes which restrict all acts of religious service to the saints, and it implies their fundamental error. 4. The Lord’s supper, as we believe, and shall endeavour hereafter to prove, is an act of a Christian church in its social character; but baptism is, so far as we can find in Seripture, not the act of the church, but the personal act of the administrator. 582 THE SUBJECTS OF 5. We will listen to the objection when we hear cited corresponding language of Scripture respecting the two ordinances. When the objector can say, I find it written, ‘‘Go, and teach all nations, giving them the Lord’s supper;” “Ὁ generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? T give you the Lord’s supper unto repentance ;” “Repent, and take the Lord’s supper every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost;” or, on the other hand, a repudiation of unbelievers’ baptism, in the words, “This is not to be baptized ;” ‘* Whosoever is bap- tized unworthily, is baptized unto judgment ;” then we shall be ready very seriously to re-consider the question. But, I ask, does not the unscriptural sound of these words, grating harshly upon the Christian ear, refute the objection of our opponents ? Besides, the Baptist churches with one voice, say of the immersion of unbelievers, This is to be baptized ; for having immersed them on false evidence, they do not re-baptize them on their second profession of faith. They admit that the unbeliever is buried with Christ in baptism, while we deny that the unbeliever ever discerned the body of Christ in the supper. So much, at present, may suffice for this objection. Were we mistaken in our construction of the com- mission, it seems scarcely possible that we should find in the New Testament no intimation, however slight, of any refusal of baptism, or any delay of baptism, or any hesitation about it, or any sign of baptism after the first opportunity of administering es CIERISTIAN BAPTISM. 583 it, or any appearance of an unbaptized person about the precincts of the apostolic churches. Although the apostolic history extends to about the sixty-second year of our Lord, we have no reference to the baptism of any member of a Christian family, except at the time of the con- version of its head; no allusion to the existence of unbaptized persons in connexion with Christian families; no exhortations upon the importance of preparing such for baptism; no advice in any of the epistles, as to the proper mode of encouraging such to be baptized, if they hesitated; or of restrain- ing them, if they were too forward. Of unbaptized persons in Christian families, the apostles seem to take no notice. The baptisms specified are all of new converts, and of their families. Is it not re- markable, if a large proportion of unbaptized per- sons attended the ministry of the Gospel, as they must have done if the families of the saints were unbap- tized, that not the slightest intimation is anywhere to be found respecting the baptism of any of this interesting class of persons, or respecting their pre- paration for that important solemnity? The argu- ment is indirect, but none the less conclusive. Our brethren do not maintain the doctrine of reserve; and, therefore, they will allow that these unbaptized persons were freely admitted to the services of the church, or rather, were required by their parents to attend the administration of Divine ordinances. In the records of the apostolic age, and in the writings of the succeeding centuries, no contrast is 584 THE SUBJECTS OF more remarkable than in the former, the absence of all allusion to the catechumens; and, in the latter, the continual reference to them. The most attentive student of the apostolic age can never find a cate- chumen: the most cursory reader of the succeeding centuries perpetually meets with crowds. Where was the catechumen of the apostolic age,—the unbaptized youth under religious instruction? No one can tell,—not a shadow of the institute appears. From the apostolic documents we have no reason to suppose that any such persons existed. What was a catechumen of the succeeding centuries? With no person is the reader of church history more familiar. We know his position, his character, his studies, his course, his school, his instructions, his teacher. How are we to account for the difference? On the hypothesis which postpones baptism until there be satisfactory evidence of conversion, the catechumens must have been more numerous in the apostolic age than in succeeding centuries; for, in addition to the persons from the world, in their noviciate, preparing for baptism, (the catechumens when infant baptism was general,) there must have been the numerous children of believers; and yet to any of them, either in the historical records, or the affectionate letters of Scripture, there is not the slightest allusion. If the unbaptized were detained in the precincts of the primitive churches, we have light enough from Scripture to discern their movements. We see stran- gers coming in crowds, whom the apostles have never seen before; and on the day they make their first CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 585 appearance, they are, without hesitation, immediately baptized. We see a magician of Samaria, a courtly treasurer from Ethiopia, a persecutor from the San- hedrim ; and they are straightway, without scruple, baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. We see some bringing their families with them; and with them, on the first day of their belief, their families are baptized. ‘There are no catechumens, so far as living man can find, nor any indication of their pre- sence; but if there are no catechumens, no unbap- tized persons under instruction, the inquiry arises, When, in the apostolic churches, were persons bap- tized? The reply is, in every instance in which the time can be ascertained, On the very first opportunity after they heard the Gospel. So there could have been no catechumens; and so we account for the absence of any the slightest reference to them in the apostolical writings. To the uninspired testimony of ecclesiastical his- tory, respecting the proper construction of the bap- tismal commission, we have made no appeal; because we consider it to be of little value in the distinctness of our Lord’s own words, unnecessary in the evidence of the apostolic practice, and unimportant, com- pared with the intimations of the apostolic writings. That there was some contrariety in the administration of baptism, between the apostolic practice and the discipline of the ancient church at the earliest subse- quent time in which it can be ascertained, is unde- niable; and, therefore, much caution is necessary in tracing the true doctrine as it floats down the stream 586 THE SUBJECTS OF of time, gathering its earthly accretions from various sources, through every century ; now from the cabal- istic Jew, now from the oriental mystic, now from the Platonic school, and now from the lonely monastery. It is desirable to ascertain, if possible, the tendency and direction which the process of corruption assumes ; and, in early church history, it appears not in relaxed, but in severe discipline; not in extending, but in restricting the baptismal commission, of which we find evidence in the unscriptural institution of the catechumenical school. Instead of the apostolic practice of baptizing straightway, years were ex- pended in a laborious preparation and severe novi- ciate. The references of Scripture to speedy baptism, were early noticed as exceptions, and peculiarities, and things liable to abuse. Warnings against hasten- ing to baptism were soon uttered in the church. A gloss on the baptism of the eunuch, which made faith indispensable, was forged, and, it would seem, as early as the time of Ireneus. Sins, after baptism, were invested with indescribable terror. The severe Tertullian would have excluded unmarried people, as well as little children, from the water of the bap- tistery. Yet, with this opposing tendency, the voice of the ancient church is, with scarcely an exception, whenever it can be distinctly ascertained, in favour of infant baptism. I turn over the page of ecclesiastical history, not to find infallible or decisive authority in favour of infant baptism, but to show that whatever were its errors, we have on this point nothing to fear from its tes- μασιν ee δωννανα CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 587 timony, were it as authoritative and sacred as Catholic writers commonly represent it. Although ecclesias- tical tradition by an opposing testimony can do no great injury, am I on that account precluded from saying, let what will be thought of the trine immersion, it is certainly with us, so far as infants are concerned ? The evidence, whatever be its virtue, and of that let our opponents decide, for 1 am not very solicitous upon the subject, is, in this particular, confirmatory of the position which we have taken. When, however, I say, let our opponents decide, I have reason for adding, let them not, whatever be their opinion of ancient testimony, zealously decry it when speaking of infant baptism, and as zealously laud it when speaking of immersion. The position which I ad- vance has been long before the world, but I do not believe it has ever been controverted ; our Baptist friends can find no clear and certain instance of any child of parents, who were professedly Chris- tian® at his birth, being baptized in adult age, or of any such child being among the catechumens, or, in short, of any such child being unbaptized in the time of his youth, during the first half of the Christian era; nor do I confine them to the catholic church α By professedly Christian, I must be understood as meaning bap- tized, because there were some unbaptized persons who frequented parts of the church service, intending, before death, to be baptized, but deferring their baptism from various motives; some unwilling to assume the yoke of discipline to which their baptism would oblige them, others imagining that all sins previously committed would be washed away in the baptistery, while those committed after baptism would be more troublesome if not unpardonable. 588 THE SUBJECTS OF under its various patriarchs and its different branches, spread over the world, Latin, Greek, Syrian, and Coptic, but extending the inquiry to all heretics and schismatics of all kinds whatsoever, who practised Christian baptism at all, I ask them to find a solitary Baptist in their sense of the word, a clear, well-defined, honest-looking, plain-spoken Baptist like themselves, down to the close of the first millennium of the Chris- tian faith. And if amidst all the varied shades of Christian antiquity, passing in review over the wide field of vision, not one, Oriental or Western, Catholic or Heretic, Millenarian or Anti-Millenarian, Novatian or Donatist, Augustinian or Pelagian, Homousian or Homoiousian, cleric or layman, canonist or divine, monastic or secular, in all their fierce controversies, and interminable schisms and endless varieties of opinion, not one can be seen in any remote corner of the church, or outer court of it, doing as they do, not one making to them any certain sign of recog- nition, our Baptist brethren may, if they please, think little of the opinions of antiquity, (and I do not think very much of them,) yet they should speak with a softer voice of the multitude of the ancient immer- sionists, and of the paucity and dishonour of the clinics, as they, themselves, travel an unfrequented road in which it is not easy to discover a single vestige of a solitary traveller for nigh a thousand years. Of the immersionists of that thousand years were there producible in ever so remote a cell of the church, or out of it, were it only a ragged anchorite in his cave, or a poor Donatist in his schism, or even an CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 589 Arian in his heresy, some solitary Christian who, being baptized himself, did not baptize his own children, he might supply an excuse for the propen- sity to plead so confidently the ancient and general practice of immersion. If the Baptists know a brother of old times, let them tell us his name and _ his residence, the church or the heresy to which he belonged, that we may converse with him and inquire where he learned his peculiarity, and what he means by its assumption. A dozen or more have been men- tioned, but they will not bear examination, for, on inquiry, most of them appear to have been heathen or unbaptized themselves when their children were born. The instance which has about it the fairest appearance of probability is the father of Gregory Nazianzen. At first sight that venerable bishop looks something like a Baptist, but, upon closer examina- tion, he speaks so ambiguously .that nothing certain can be understood from his answers respecting his being a Christian or a fire-worshipper at the birth of his son. As to the ancient British church being bap- tistical before the heptarchy, as a tract widely circu- lated has lately re-asserted, we should have supposed that the testimony of Pelagius, himself a Briton, would have been sufficient to determine that question, since in his letter of apology, addressed to Innocent I., in repudiating the charge brought against him of not baptizing infants, he says, although Dr. Gill thought him a liar for saying so, or Augustine for so reporting him, that he had never heard of any impious heretic who held that opinion respecting little children. As to 590 THE SUBJECTS OF the shades which some of our friends say they can see, towards the close of the millennium, of Baptists performing their mystic rites upon believers in the secluded vales of Piedmont, they are amidst the dark- ness of that time too indistinct for us to discern ; but even if they could be seen clearly, we should only have to limit the period to some eight or nine, instead of ten centuries. But, as it is, we abide by the millen- nium, and, we ask, is it not extraordinary, that when almost all possible varieties of opinion respecting baptism may be found, no trace of the apostolic prac- tice can be discerned for so many centuries in any household of the faithful throughout the world? Show me the unbaptized man or woman, boy or girl, born of baptized parents. To glance at the opinions of ancient Christians and heretics, so far as they can be gathered from existing documents as a matter of history rather than of authority, is all we can at present attempt, in a very cursory manner, at the conclusion of this lecture, From Cyprian downwards there is not the shadow of a controversy. The judgment of the martyr of Carthage, and of the sixty and six bishops of the neighbouring towns, assembled in convocation with him upon the case submitted to them, ‘‘ Whether bap- tism should be administered uniformly on the eighth ᾽ day,” is quite suflicient to prove the practice of the African church in the middle of the third century.? In this council, within about one hundred and fifty “ a.p. 253. See Epistle. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 591 years of the death of the last apostle, there being no dispute whatever about infant baptism, they deter- mined ihat there was no necessity for confining the administration to the eighth day. Subsequent to this date, there is no opportunity to raise a doubt. The language of Ambrose in Italy, of Chrysostom in Greece, of Jerome in Palestine, of Augustine in Africa, and of many other Fathers as well as councils, is clear and conclusive in proving the prevalence of infant baptism throughout all Christendom. With the views which these men held, and others like them, we may be sure that amidst the keen warlare, unsparingly waged with heretics, if they had known of any who had renounced the baptism of infants, they would certainly have noticed the error, and probably have cast no inconsiderable amount of vituperation upon the delinquents. To blow fierce blasts of recrimina- tion is no modern accomplishment of polemical theology, The only writer who, subsequent to the time of Cyprian, occasions any difhculty, is Gregory Nazianzen, who recommends that children be bap- tized when they are about three years of age. Contemporary with Cyprian, though having died a few years earlier, was Origen, who, having presided with great reputation in the catechetical school of Alexandria, and afterwards having taught with equal renown at Cesarea, may be considered as representing the opinions prevalent in Egypt and Palestine. He has left us, in his numerous writings, testimonies quite as decisive as that of the African bishops. Nothing can be plainer than the citations as we 592 THE SUBJECTS OF have them, although the most important and express are found in Latin translations of lost originals. He says, ‘‘ Infants are, by the usage of the church, bap- tized ;’* and again, ‘‘ Because by the sacrament of baptism, the corruption of their birth is removed, infants are baptized ;’”” and again, “The church has received a tradition from the apostles to give baptism to infants.”* Baptist writers have taken exception against the passages, as being translations, and have urged that the translators, and especially Rufinus, is not to be trusted, as he acknowledges he changed or omitted whatever was not reputed orthodox. But the passages cited coincide with each other, and har- monise with their connexion ; there could have been no inducement to misrepresent a question on which, at the time of the translator, there was no contro- versy: in the age of Rufinus infant baptism was incontrovertibly orthodox; according to his own account he omitted, but did not falsify, and the doc- trine is found in the translation of Jerome as well as of Rufinus.? At any rate, all the evidence which can be obtained from Origen, is decidedly in favour of infant baptism; and as to the lost originals, we can only tell what they were, by the existing versions. On all other questions, where there is no reason to suspect mutilation, these versions are readily received, « Homil. 8, in Levit. c. xii. ὁ Homil. in Lucam, xiv. ¢ Comment. in Epist. ad Romanos, lib. v. 4 As in Jerome’s translation of the Homilies on Luke, containing one of the most decided testimonies. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 593 as giving a general view of the opinions of the author. What Baptist, for instance, disputes the various citations from them, which Lardner adduces as evi- dence of the genuineness of the books of Scripture ? That Origen has been corrupted by his translators is undeniable, but these passages are sustained by corroborating evidence. On ascending towards the apostles, both parties may not be unwilling to appeal to Tertullian; we, as to a witness of the usage of the church; the Baptists, as to a patron, though a strange one, of anti-pedo-baptism. The passage which has occa- sioned so much dispute is to be found in his ‘ Tract de Baptismo,” (c. 18.) Having referred to the bap- tism of the eunuch and that of Saul, and endeavoured to account for the haste with which they were ad- ministered, evidently with no favourable feeling, he says, “‘ the delaying of baptism is more advantageous according to the condition, the disposition, and the age of every person, and especially with regard to children. For why is it needful, if the case be not extremely urgent, that their sponsors should be brought into danger? The Lord, indeed, saith, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come when they are advancing in youth,—let them come when they learn whither they are going,—let them be made Christians when they can know Christ. Why does this innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? With no less reason unmarried persons should be in- duced to delay, who are exposed to temptation, both 26 594 THE SUBJECTS OF Virgins, arriving at maturity, and widows on account of their singleness,* until they either marry or be confirmed in continence. Those who understand the weight of baptism, would rather fear the reception than the postponement of it. Faith uninjured is sure of salvation.” On this important passage, it is to be regretted that Dr. Kaye offers no illustration. Although this tract was written (as is generally thought) while Tertullian continued in the communion of the Catholic church, yet the severity of his disposition, and his determination to force a principle or opinion to the extreme, which appear so often in his writings, are very manifest in this passage. His principle in the administration of baptism was, as he had just cited © the passage, “ Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.” He evidently regarded the obligations of the rite so weighty, its responsibility so great, and the sins com- mitted after it so aggravated, that as he says, its attain- ment was more to be feared than its procrastination. In his esteem, baptism unspotted by subsequent sin, the fides integra was certain of salvation. Very much afraid lest from the instances of baptism mentioned in Scripture, men should be too hastily admitted to the solemnities of that great sacrament, he looks on all sides for obstacles. In early life he maintained that crimes committed after baptism could only once be pardoned, and afterwards that there was no place of α | have preferred the conjectural reading vacationem, to the manu- script vagationem, as it furnishes a better sense, and as the letters g and ¢ are so frequently interchanged in manuscripts. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 595 repentance.“ Growing more severe as he advanced, he subsequently denied that the more flagrant crimes could be pardoned at all.2 We have then before us the words of a man whose opinion was, that baptism was an awful solemnity, to be long deferred, and whose temperature would never allow him to hesitate in following his opinions wherever they might lead him, through all their consequences. We learn from the passage, that in his age, and when this tract was written, which, as it is among his earlier works, we may place in the close of the second century, the baptism of infants was a prevalent usage in the church. As a witness of the practice, he is unexceptionable, and none the less so because he looked upon it with dislike. If it had been of recent origin in his time, (and he lived but a century from the apostles,) in his angry mood, he would certainly have exposed its novelty. This passage appears to me by far the most important which ecclesiastical antiquity sup- plies on the subject of infant baptism. We have aman of the second century opposing the practice of the church, and we anxiously inquire whether, in so doing, he is acting in accordance with scriptural principles? What are the grounds of his opposi- tion? That baptism is to be dreaded rather ‘than to be desired ; that after it, the remission of sins becomes almost unattainable ; that if unstained by subsequent crime, it assures eternal life. Are these scriptural * De Penitentia, c. 7, 8, 9. δ᾽ De Pudicitia, c. 5. 2Q2 596 THE SUBJECTS OF reasons? Is this old Anti-pedo-baptist a defender or a corrupter of the scriptural doctrine? His ob- jections are not historical but doctrinal, and _ his doctrine is false. Our Baptist friends often cite his opinions. If they are valuable, why not cite them also in opposition to the baptism of virgins and widows? Here they are acknowledged to be worth nothing, but they are only a modification of his favourite principle, the danger of premature baptism, and they are of the same authority in the one instance, as in the other. The most important fact, however, which is here disclosed, is the disposition to delay baptism, contrary to the apostolic practice. We have already noticed the anti-scriptural character of the catechumenical institution. We find in the earliest Fathers the rise of the principle on which it grew, in their unscriptural dread of early baptism. Tertullian, in the passage immediately preceding that which we are considering, betrays his fear, lest the sudden baptism of the eunuch and of Saul should be adopted as precedents; and, therefore, he takes care to delineate all the specialities of those instances, This disposition in deferring baptism, we find afterwards becoming so prevalent, that multi- tudes awaited the emergency of mortal sickness, Tertullian is an early index, and we do well to observe him, ‘The argument is, while every pretext was sought for the delay of baptism, and the diffi- culty and hardship of a subsequent absolution were generally believed, infant baptism existed in cons trariety to the corruptions of the age, and not in CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 597 concurrence with them. This is, I think, a most im- portant point to ascertain; and although Tertullian is the first and most important witness, the evidence accumulates prodigiously as we descend through the third and fourth century. In front of the porch of every church, we encounter the crowds of cate- chumens, slowly passing their several grades of audientes, and genuflectentes, and competentes, taught every where to regard baptism as an awful solemnity, since after it, all sins would become fear- fully aggravated, if not absolutely unpardonable. Amidst such feelings, infant baptism, we believe, could not have risen in the church, although as an ancient and apostolic tradition, it retained its place throughout all the provinces of Christendom. Ter- tullian, tenacious of an unscriptural theory, opposed the prevalent usage of the church, and he does not seem to have been a man who would have scrupled to dispute with an apostle, if an apostle had said anything in contradiction to his opinions. In this very passage, he disputes with our Lord himself, who is cited as saying, Do not forbid little chil- dren to come unto me. Differing from his Baptist admirers, he admits that our Lord is speaking of their baptism, as is evident from his reply. Let them come when they have grown to mature age; let them be made Christians, (or be baptized,) when they can know Christ, that is, when they are no longer little children. According to his own understanding of the words, his reply is a direct contradiction of our Lord. 598 THE SUBJECTS OF He seems to have thought, that nothing was so much to be feared as hasty baptism; nothing so dreadful as the consequences of sin after the reception of that solemn rite. I ask whether it was not natural that with his views, he should look with ἃ censorious eye upon the baptism of infants? Well might he lament the cruel sacrifice of their innocent age. At best, there remained for them in subsequent years, but one place of repentance, but one baptism, of tears, or of blood. Scarcely as he thought, could a baptized child hope to escape the unpardonable sin. ‘The most probable conclusion I can form from this passage is, that the persons who practised infant baptism, did not hold the severe doctrine of 'Tertul- lian, and, therefore, presented their infants at the font; while Tertullian, and possibly others, who thought as he did, remonstrated on account of the terrible jeopardy in which they placed the lives of their little ones.* If 1 thought sin unpardonable after baptism, how could I baptize an infant ? But after all, Tertullian was no Baptist in the « The mention of sponsors suggests the important inquiry, whether, after all the disputation upon this passage, it has any reference whatever to the children of Christians? For such children were there, in this time, any sponsors, except the parents? Would the parents at so early an age have been called by that name? We know that at an early period orphans, foundlings, children of the poor and of slaves, were presented for baptism by Christians, who, as their sponsors, undertook the charge of their education. Is it not probable that such children were intended? If they were, the opinion of Tertullian has no connexion with the argument. If they were not, the considerations suggested in the lecture remain unim- paired. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 599 modern acceptation of the term. In his esteem, the baptism of an infant was no vain ceremony, no idle, unauthorised, invalid form. On account of its fearful validity, he dreaded its administration. The baptism, in his opinion, would prove a great blessing, if only the child, through life, should preserve its faith uncorrupt, and its virtue pure and unimpaired. When, therefore, I said, our Baptist friends could not find a man, in the early ages of the church, making signals of recognition to them, I made no exception for this stern African. His gloomy, frowning shade, stands as remote from them, as from us; and if he mutters an execration upon our infants, he prohibits, in a fiercer tone, their virgins and widows from being baptized, while as to them- selves, he blesses them not at all, nor curses them at all. The usage of his age is with us; the opinions of the man are not with them. They ought either to disclaim his authority, or to submit to it. Previously to the age of Tertullian, our informa- tion on this, as on every other subject of ecclesias- tical history, is exceedingly defective. The few relics of earlier writers contain but passing references to baptism, but in these references, there is not an expression, not a hint, we will venture to assert, in the slightest degree, favourable to the opinions of the Baptists. I mention this, because some learned men, without any authority, which they have adduced, have stated as their opinion, that infant baptism was not practised until the middle, or to- wards the close of the second century, as they have > eres, re 600 THE SUBJECTS OF maintained, that in a part of that time the Lord’s supper was only the recognition of Christ in the ordinary daily meal. By what process they have arrived at their conclusions, they have not informed us. Much as we respect their learning, we still should like to know the authority by which they support their opinions. If any passages exist in writers of that remote age, from which they derive either the one opinion or the other, none are more competent than themselves, to produce and illustrate such authorities ; but if they have no such testimony, they will permit us to say, that even their eccle- siastical lore is no substitute for the evidence of testimony which, if they have it, they can so easily produce. The little we have, the writers on our side have been ever ready to submit to public examination. Irenzeus, within a hundred years of the death of the apostles, says of Jesus, “ He came to save all persons by himself,—all, I say, who by him are regenerated to God,—infants, and little ones, and children, and young, and old.”* Infants, as dis- tinguished from little children, are here said to be regenerated ; and we maintain that, according to the current language of that age, a regenerated infant means a baptized infant. Irenzeus himself, else- where, as we have seen, undoubtedly calls baptism regeneration, as do Tertullian, Clement of Alex- *Omnes enim venit per semet ipsum salvare ; omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascunter in Deum ; infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores.—Lib., u. ο, 39. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 601 andria, and other’ ecclesiastical writers immediately after him. Speaking of the baptismal commission, he says, in a passage we have cited in the fifth lecture, ‘Committing to his disciples the power of regeneration, he said, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them ; and again, where we have his words in their original Greek, he speaks of the Valen- tinians being sent by the devil for the denial of the baptism of the regeneration to God.° The baptisms of the heathen are often called their regeneration, and even the baptism of Jesus is called his regenera- tion. Besides, regeneration in the sense of repent- ance, is not applicable to an infant.4 Justin Martyr, on the verge of the apostolic age, says, “Many men and women amongst us, sixty and seventy years old, were discipled to Christ in their childhood.” These men and women, therefore, were discipled in the age of the apostles. As the Greek word is that which is employed in the com- mission of our Lord, ‘disciple all nations;” and as Justin was a native of Samaria, his language has been considered as most suitable to illustrate the expressions of the New Testament. As our Lord commands to disciple by baptizing, it has been * Tert. De Baptismo, c. 5. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. v. © ΤΡ. 1. ὅς. 19. © Els ἐξάρνησιν τοῦ βαπτίσματος τῆς εἰς Θεὸν ἀναγενήσεως.---Τ 1}, 1.50....8. 4 “Tn Treneus, the regeneration and baptism are intimately con- nected, and it would be difficult for one to imagine anything else than baptism as meant by regeneration, when used in reference to this age.”—Neander’s History, translated by Rose, i. 361. 602 THE SUBJECTS OF inferred that these aged persons were, in their child- hood, discipled by being baptized in the time of the apostles. Polycarp, according to Irenzus, the disciple of John, as we read inthe relation of his martyrdom, addressed to the church at Smyrna, bereaved of its apostolic angel, said to the proconsul, when commanded to deny Christ, ‘‘ Eighty and six years have I been his servant, and he has never wronged me.”* Some refer these years to his office, others to his conversion ; but so great a length of time seems most naturally to include his life, and so it has been thought, that from infancy, he was enrolled in the kingdom of Christ by baptism. I do not, indeed, adduce these passages of the two venerable martyrs as of any weight in the controversy, for their meaning is too uncertain to assist us; but they form a pleasing termination of our inquiry, amidst the shades of ecclesiastical history, from which we gladly emerge to the clear and certain light of revelation. The summary of our argument may be ex- pressed in the following particulars. We have seen that the commission of our Lord was, to dis- ciple all nations, baptizing them,—thus employing the most unrestricted terms; that no restriction of the terms to any class of persons, can be found in any part of the New Testament; that the unre- stricted commission was given to Jews, whose reli- gious rites of discipling were uniformly administered “ De S. Polycarpi Martyrio, ο. 1x. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 603 to the children of proselytes, together with the parents ; that Jesus had previously taught them that little children were members of his kingdom, into which none could enter without being born of water, and of which all the baptized by John were members ; that the apostles baptized persons whom they had not previously seen, and of whom they had previously heard nothing, and on the very day in which they first heard the Gospel; that they and their com- panions exhorted the impenitent to be baptized, and baptized some whose unfitness, through ignorance, if faith or piety had been a qualification, might have been easily detected; that they baptized the several families on the day in which their heads became con- verts; that no qualification for baptism is prescribed in Scripture, and, therefore, no man has a right to impose one ; that neither the refusal, nor the delay of baptism, can be justified by any scriptural example ; that a ceremonial holiness is ascribed to the Gentiles, under the Gospel, similar to that which, under the law, was ascribed to the Jews, whose children, born to the privilege, were acknowledged by the appro- priate sign of their covenant; that for a thousand years, no person of any party among Christians, can be found not having received baptism in infancy, if his parents were themselves baptized; and that baptism restricted to believers, is a practice rigidly and consistently observed by no sect, and for which no warrant of Scripture can be offered, except a doubtful reading, or rather a scandalous forgery. The consideration of another class of arguments, 604 THE SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. which are confined to the children of professed believers, I am compelled to defer until I may be able to resume the inquiry, on completing this course of lectures. Those specific reasons of infant baptism are not opposed to the opinions of this lecture, but Ve confirmatory of them, so far as I can judge, to the extent of the particular class of children, in reference to which they are commonly adduced. The neglect of this distinction has, I think, introduced some confusion into the controversy. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. A. Page 510. ON THE CODEX LAUDIANUS, In determining the evidence of the genuineness of Acts viii. 37— “ And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest: and he said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”—next to its early appearance in Ireneus and the Latin Fathers, the value of the Codex Laudianus is the most important consideration, as this is the only manuscript in uncial characters in which it is found. This Codex, bequeathed by Archbishop Laud, from whom it derives its name, to the University of Oxford, is a Latino-Greek manuscript, the Latin occupying the unusual place of the first column; of which the fac-simile has been beautifully printed by Hearne, It contains only the Acts of the Apostles, and has some peculiar readings which often coincide with the old Italic version and the Latin Fathers. Of this manuscript, Mr. Horne says, “ὙΠ regard to its date,—Mr, Astle refers it to the beginning of the fifth century; Griesbach to the seventh or eighth, and Mr, Hearne to the eighth century. But, from the shape of the letters and other circumstances, Bishop Marsh pronounces it to be less ancient than the Codex Beze, which was written in the fifth century, Probably the seventh century may be assigned as the date of the Codex Laudianus. This manuscript is of great value: Michaelis pronounces it to be indispensable to every one who would examine the important question, whether the Codices Greco-Latini have been corrupted from the Latin; and adds, that it was this manuscript which convinced him that this charge was without foundation,” On the other hand, Wetstein 606 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. says, “Istud vero magis observari meretur, quod iste Codex, agno- scente etiam Millio, egregie, ut reliqui omnes in Ecclesiis occidentis exarati, interpolatus est. Hine orte sunt plurime 118 additiones huic Codici cum sola Italica, ut ex Cantabrigiensi, Cypriano, Irenzo, et Lucifero constat, communes, ita tamen, ut non Latina ex Grecis, sed τος ex Latinis preepostere formata sint.” Griesbach considers that the suspicions of this manuscript Latin- izing have been sufficiently refuted by Michaelis and Woide. See his Symbol Criticee, vol. ii. p. 183. Considering this manuscript in the most favourable light, its authority, especially in favour of a reading corresponding with the Latin versions, is not to be opposed to the testimony of the ancient and valuable manuscripts which do not contain the passage, as especially the Alexandrine, the Vatican, and the Ephrem. The verse probably owes its origin to the manifest inconsistency between the apostolic practice of immediate baptism and the ecclesiastical institution of the catechumens. The eighth rule of Griesbach for discriminating various readings is applicable in this instance, “ Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur, que orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifest® pre ceteris favet.” Of the versions, it is not in the ancient Syriac nor in the principal Oriental versions. [Ὁ is found in the Latin versions, and is cited by Ireneus as well as by Cyprian, Pacian, and other Latin Fathers. Indeed, the authority of the verse is chiefly Latin in opposition to Greek and Oriental testimony, and it is therefore rejected in the critical editions of the New Testament. B, ON THE REMARKS OF DR. CARSON, SO FAR AS THEY AFFECT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION, Dr. Carson is, in the reviews of his brethren, pronounced not so great on “the subjects” as on “the mode” of baptism. It may appear presumption in a man of another party to give an opinion on the comparative merits of the two parts of his work, but the latter « The Codex Bezz is mutilated in this part. The only other uncial manuscript of the Acts, preserved in the library of the Augustinian monastery at Rome, rejects the verse. Of the cursive manuscripts, the preponderance in value is decidedly opposed to it. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. 607 part contains some illustrations of Divine truth which appear to me peculiarly valuable, and for which I offer him my cordial and grateful acknowledgments. In one respect, I think, he has most fairly and honourably, as distinguished from controvertists on both sides, selected the true ground of discussion in making the com- mission given by our Lord, the great and paramount authority by which the question in dispute must be chiefly decided. Many writers scarcely advert to the words of the commission, but amuse their readers with analogies and assumptions of various kinds. Dr. Carson says of the commission, ‘‘ Here I stand entrenched, and I defy the ingenuity of earth and hell to drive me from my position.” p, 170. While I differ most widely from his interpretation, I adopt his prin- ciple, that the commission is our great law of baptism, and to its plain and grammatical sense all other arguments must be subservient. Tell us the meaning of the word them in the commission, and so far as I am concerned the controversy is settled, let what will become of believers’ baptism on the one hand, or of household baptism on the other. As I have insisted at so much length in the lecture upon the unlimited extent of the commission, I may, without incurring the charge of treating Dr. Carson disrespectfully, compress into a few paragraphs my objections to his reasoning on the same _ subject. I object, first, that his interpretation of the commission avowedly rests upon an assumption of the question in dispute; and secondly, that his arguments deduced from it, as against infant baptism, are of so little importance in his own estimation as to be virtually and practically repudiated by himself, as well as by his brethren. Let us observe what he assumes as the foundation, and how he reasons in raising the superstructure. First, His interpretation of the commission avowedly rests upon an assumption of the whole question in dispute. Take the illustration from p, 255, on which it is said, ‘The phraseology, disciple all nations, baptizing them, necessarily confines the baptism to the persons who shall be discipled. ° The antecedent to the pronoun is the word disciples, taken, as grammarians speak, out of the verb disciple,” We say the antecedent is “all the nations,” and with those words before our eyes, are we to be persuaded by a dictum of grammarians, as if, in default of a proper antecedent, to search for it, implicated in the verb? Were there no antecedent in the passage, it δὸς a ω: re Pu :% τ τὰ τ τς ae Pn | : C4 ® "" 4, δὼ tinal Ὑ a 4 a . ; ° 3 ' δεν . . ἣν ad 4 608 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VIE». ony oe ie .. Ψ ΤΉΝ would be necessary to resort to ee δ and contrivance; but having one plainly before us, we steadily adhere to it. Here, to adopt Dr, Carson’s words, “we stand entrenched” against those terrene and subterranean ingenuities which he so magniloquently defies. — The question is, Why reject the antecedent—* all the nations 2” The answer is— The very nature of the thing requires this ; it is ob- viously only disciples that they could baptize.” (p. 255.) Dr. Carson thus rests avowedly upon the obvious “nature of the thing ;” and, i so doing, assumes the whole question in dispute. We say, “the nature of the thing” does not require it. It is not “ obviously only disciples - that they could baptize,” On this assumption his argument reposes ; and Dr, Carson might just as well have assumed at once in so many words, “the nature of the thing” requires Pedo-baptists to retract, as - “it is obviously only” Baptists who are right. This would be only saying the same thing in other and plainer terms. He adds, “ Unbe- lievers would not submit to baptism.” We reply, many of them did submit to baptism ;” and if Dr. Carson be right, many believers, Presbyterians, Independents, and even his beloved Episcopalians, who have, in his opinion, richer and clearer views of the Gospel than here- tical Dissenters, will not ‘‘ submit to baptism.” He then “ undertakes to show the greatest bumpkin in England that the restriction is neces- sary,” and produces a curious illustration of a corn-merchant wonder- fully appropriate to the logical capacities of his rustic disciple ; and winds up the paragraph with this climax— Shame! shame ! shame ! Will the Lord’s people trifle in reasoning about the commands of their Master in a manner that would disgrace idiocy ? Shall they” (will they) “stave off conviction by quibbles not to be exemplified in the most unprincipled chicanery ?” Where Dr, Carson fails in argument he most excels in this kind of writing. I only ask, is all this noise the proper mode of settling the antecedent to the word “them” in the commission ? Dr. Carson had appealed to the words recorded in Mark—* he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” and his opponent re- plies, ‘‘ These words contain no command to baptize at all, they are a promise to baptized believers.” Dr. Carson rejoins,—‘ I maintain that baptism is expressly enjoined upon believers in this passage.” The expression, however, is diluted into an implication as he pro- ceeds: but even were this a command to believers, it would decide nothing in this controversy, for all admit that “ believers ought to be APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. 609 baptized.” But what saith Dr. Carson to the assertion, that the words in Mark are a promise and not a command? (p. 256.) “1 have dis- proved this assertion ; I have shown it to be unworthy of a scholar and a Christian. It is so utterly unscholar-like that, had not the author himself developed his meaning, I should have ascribed it to him with great hesitation.” The paragraph proceeds in the same characteristic manner to the close. ‘ Does Mr. Bickersteth counte- nance such an effort to make void the law of God? Is he the man who thus labours to bring darkness out of light ? Are the rites of a favourite church to be supported by trampling under foot the com- mandments of God ?” Another paragraph, in the same style, suc- ceeds, in which, from certain tenets of his opponent “he turns away as from the ravings of insanity,” and “sees no more sanity” in the pretensions of these Pedo-baptists than in the answers of an idiot who professed to have studied Greek in the moon. The reader will charitably suppose that great destitution of argument must have compelled a good man, sorely against his nature, to resort to such vile declamation ; and I can happily assure him that he may without seruple allow his charity the broadest latitude, for I have sought through the book in vain for any exegetical reason, or any reason at all, for the interpretation of the commission in the restricted sense, which does not assume at the outset “the insanity,” or something like it, of Psdo-baptists. As to frightening his opponents by the outery of “ unscholar-like” and “unworthy of a Christian,” and “trampling upon the commandments of God,” and “ making void the law,” and similar phrases, they only tempt the inquiry, who arrogates to himself all the scholarship of the church ? What poor fallible creature thus dares to brandish the laws of God in the face of honest opponents? His great swelling words shall not prevent us from reiterating, with Mr. Bickersteth and his friend, the words in Mark do constitute a promise, and not a command. But allowing Dr. Carson to assume the truth of his exposition of the baptismal commission, we observe, I. The arguments deduced from it as against infant baptism, are of so little importance in his own estimation, as to be virtually and practically repudiated by himself as well as by his brethren. In this statement I proceed upon the understanding that Dr. Carson concurs in the practice, universally prevalent in Baptist churches, of not re-baptizing on a second profession, or on their re-admission to- 2k 610 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. communion, such persons as have been previously baptized on a false profession of faith. If he does re-baptize such persons, my statement must stand thus corrected. His arguments are of so little import- ance as to be virtually and practically repudiated, not by himself but by all his brethren. Nor do I mean to insinuate that Dr. Carson flourishes in print with arguments which in private he avowedly rejects. I only say he practically rejects them, for they are as_ directly opposed to the theory of the Baptists as they are to our own. It is no answer to say, they baptize in the confidence of the truth of the profession. The inquiry is, if only believers can be baptized with Christian baptism, as Dr. Carson repeatedly asserts ; and if all believers ought to be baptized, as he distinctly maintains, why does he not baptize on a second profession all such as have been mani- festly, or even on their own confession, baptized in unbelief? If he reply he has not the opportunity, I then appeal to the acknowledged principles and recognised practice of Baptist churches generally. But let us hear his own arguments. I, (Page 169.) “1 will risk the credit of my understanding on my success in showing that, according to this commission, believers only are to be baptized. It is impossible that a command to baptize be- lievers, can be extended to include any but believers. We need not say that this cannot be done by inference ; I say it cannot be done by the most express command or explanation. No command, no explanation, can bring unbelievers into the commission, that enjoins the baptism of believers.” Dr. Carson is so fond of risking “ the credit of his understanding,” that he really starts it against the prin- ciple of the Baptists. If “ believers only, can be baptized,” unbe- lievers are not baptized according to this commission, although im- mersed in his baptistery. But as all believers ought to be baptized, why are not those persons who have been immersed in unbelief, re- baptized on conversion ? The argument applies as directly to them as it does to infants. But as it is a principle with the Baptists that they are not to be re-baptized, this argument of the Doctor is prac- tically repudiated by his own brethren. One would think, were it not for very evident proofs to the contrary in other places, that he holds the credit of his own understanding as cheap as he does that of all his opponents. IL. (Page 170.) “Even if I found another command, enjoining the baptism of the infants of believers, I should not move an inch from APPENDIX ΤῸ LECTURE VII. 611 my position. I should still say, this is not included in the apostolic commission. This is another commission, and cannot interfere with the former. There would then be two baptisms on quite different grounds.” But if another Divine command would not bring infants within this commission, how should a mistake of the immerser, or a falsehood of the immersed, bring unbelievers within its terms? If this reasoning be good, there are “two baptisms on quite different grounds” in Baptist churches. But this argument is practically repudiated by the admission on the part of the Baptists of the sufli- ciency of the baptism of unbelievers, provided they themselves be the baptizers. III. (Page 170.) “ Not only does this commission exclude infants, if there were another commission enjoining the baptism of infants, when these infants who have been baptized in infancy, according to this second commission, believe the Gospel, they must be baptized ac- cording to the commission, Matt. xxvili. 19, without any regard to their baptism in infancy.” If infants, baptized on the supposed case of a Divine command, ought to be re-baptized in obedience to this commission, @ fortiori, unbelievers having been baptized in oppo- sition to such a command, ought to be re-baptized. But Baptists repudiate this argument. IV. (Page 170.) “ The commission commands all men to be bap- tized on believing the Gospel. The command of Jesus to every be- liever to be baptized, stands engraven in indelible characters in this commission. Heaven and earth wlll pass away before it will cease to be a duty for believers to be baptized. It is impossible for any explanation, or any express command for another baptism, to excuse them from this.’ But without an explanation or express command to excuse them, Baptists will not baptize “ on believing the Gospel,” such persons as they have baptized in unbelief, although by excom- munication they have treated the hypocrites as heathen men and publicans, and therefore they repudiate this argument. V. (Page 171.) “ A command to believers to observe any ordi- nance whatever can never imply any but believers. This is as clear as the light of heaven. It is a first truth. The denial of it implies a contradiction.” The Baptists deny it in recognising the baptism of unbelievers on their conversion, and therefore contradict this first truth. VI. (Page 172.) “A colonel sends out his recruiting officers with 2R2 612 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. instructions” to enlist men six feet high. ‘“ Did not the instructions that mentioned six feet as the standard forbid all under that measure to be enlisted ?” ‘“ Cease, Dr. Wardlaw, to pervert the word of the Lord,—cease to force a commission enjoining the baptism of believers, to sanction the baptism of infants.” The obvious reply is, Cease, ye Baptists, to sanction the baptism of unbelievers, but re-baptize them on their belief. Your five feet eight inches of unbelief are no better than our eighteen inches of infancy. VU. (Page 173.) “ 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 to either.” Is there no exception? Are all the false professors, whom Dr. Car- son has immersed, unbaptized “with the baptism of the Gospel ?” Should God convert them—will he re-baptize them ὃ We repudiate the argument, exclaim all the Baptists with one voice, for we never re-baptize. VIII. (Page 173.) “ That believers only can be baptized by this commission is clear, from that imto which they are said to be bap- tized.” But what becomes of the “ into” in the unbelievers’ baptism, the validity of which Baptists acknowledge ? IX. (Page 253.) “I would gainsay an angel who should say that this commission may extend to the baptism of any but believers.” The gainsayer of angels has first to gainsay all the Baptist churches. X. (Page 179.) “That commission commands believers to be bap- tized ; and except both sides of a contradiction may be true, it can never include unbelievers.” How does it include the unbelievers ex- pelled from Baptist churches as false professors ? XI. (Page 179.) “ Were a thousand baptisms found in the New Testament, they could not serve for the baptism of the commission, nor relieve the believer from his obligation of being baptized on the belief of the truth.” How can one immersion of an unbeliever in a Baptist chapel afford the relief which “a thousand baptisms found in the New Testament” could not bestow ? XII. (Page 235.) ‘‘ They may appear to be Christians to-day, and therefore ought to be baptized : to-morrow they may prove the con. trary, and therefore they cannot have been sealed by baptism.” On the next day they are converted ; why are they not baptized, seeing they have never been “ baptized with the baptism of the Gospel ?” XII. (Page 177.) ‘‘ John’s baptism did not serve for Christ's. APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. 613 Surely, then, they who are baptized in infancy, upon any pretence whatever, must be re-baptized when they come to the faith of the Gospel.” Why are not adults baptized “upon any pretence what- ever,” ‘“re-baptized when they come to the faith of the Gospel ?” XIV. (Page 260.) “I ask the conscience of my antagonist, if he thinks that the language of the commission commands the ungodly in the nations to be baptized by force.” Does it command the godly to be baptized by force ? If this be a commission to baptize be- lievers, does it authorise Baptists to immerse believing Quakers and Pedo-baptists ? May not pious Presbyterians and Episcopalians walk near the waters of Tubbermore without danger of compulsory bap- tism ? I am not sure, from the structure of this passage, whether the author intended to apply this interrogation of the conscience merely to the remark of his opponent—or whether he offered it to support his own interpretation of the commission, which he had previously sustained by the assertion, that “ unbelievers would not submit to baptism.” If it be merely a reply to his opponent, of course these remarks on the fourteenth particular are inapplicable ; that is, they are only applicable so far as it is insinuated that our in- terpretation authorises the use of force in executing the commission. These are all the arguments I can find, deduced from the commis- sion. The author says of them in his Appendix, “ This is the ground on which I have placed the subject in my treatise. Many a lever has been employed to move it off the foundation, but it remains like a rock lashed by the waves of the ocean.” p. 260. This is somewhat boastful language. If the rock be not subverted, the theory of the Baptists must be wrecked upon it. These great guns of Dr. Carson are turned upon them as well as upon us ; and upon them with more effect than upon us. On these principles Simon Magus ought to have been commanded to repent and be re-baptized. Yet Baptists never command convicted and converted false brethren to be re-baptized. That we may understand them, they ought to act a fair, candid, and consistent part with these arguments. Either let them honestly avow that they adopt as a principle “ believers’ baptism,” and therefore re-baptize false brethren, if they know them, on their conversion ; or let them as distinctly repudiate in words, as they do in deeds, the arguments of Dr. Carson founded upon his interpretation of the com- mission. These arguments being surrendered, there will fall with them as equally opposed to the Baptist theory, another class founded 614 APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. upon passages which are said to assert that only believers can be baptized. The series begins on page 211. “ From John iii. 5, we see that baptism is a figure of regeneration. They who are baptized are represented as born again. Now this is peculiar to believers. The ordinance exhibits the person as at the time born again.” If it does, it is often a false exhibition, and always an exhibition of whose truth or falsehood the administrator knows nothing. But when it is found to be a mockery of truth, why is it still accredited as a Christian ordinance ? These arguments,—which, if good for anything, say to the Baptist minister, Physician, heal thyself,—being excluded, the book in its reduced and attenuated form will occasion to neither party very much trouble. Unless our Baptist brethren, adopting the prin- ciple of re-baptizing, will practically avow, or disclaiming Dr. Carson’s arguments, plainly deny, that “ none can be baptized with the baptism of the Gospel but such as believe it,” we have a right to regard them as retreating from the crisis of the controversy, and as making the believer’s baptism of his book a masked battery, the discharge of which directed against us exposes the unfairness of the position which they have assumed. If they will say of the one symbol in the in- stance of unbelievers, This is not baptism ; as we say in the other, This is not to eat the Lord’s supper, but only a mockery, we can understand these arguments. If they will not, it becomes them to answer Dr. Carson, by proving that unbelievers’ baptism is good Christian baptism, although it does not ‘‘ exhibit the person as at the time born again,” and “ serves for the baptism of the commission” better than “ a thousand baptisms found in the New Testament.” To examine Dr. Carson's reference to the practice of the apostles, would be to travel over the ground on which I have passed in the discussion of the lecture. In noticing one instance of his mode of explaining the historical references to baptism, I may select that which we have the first occasion to consider on opening the New Testament. In reference to the crowds whom John haptized, I have said that he baptized, without discrimination, all applicants. Dr. Carson imposes a restriction, which his system and his mode of inter- pretation both require. He speaks (p. 229) of “the persons whom John drove from his baptism.” He is often very angry with those who add anything to Scripture, and I think, his virtuous indignation may be unsparingly indulged, upon this extraordinary assumption. The reader finding no information in his Bible, will probably inquire, APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. 615 Whom did John drive from his baptism ? The structure of the passage shows, that “the scribes, and Pharisees, and Sadducees” are intended. Let us examine the fact. (Matt. iii. 7—11.) “ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” Let the reader carefully observe, that John addressed these words to unconverted Pharisees and Sadducees, knowing them at the time to be unconverted. Of all persons, they would be the most disposed to abuse the ordinance, because they were prone to lean upon external privileges. ‘‘Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father.” Yet to them, John saith, “I indeed baptize you with water, unto repentance.” Dr. Carson says, in plain contradiction of the text, that John drove them trom his baptism. I reply, in his own words, (p. 177,) “No ground can be found in the passage for this conceit. No force can extract it trom the words. It is man’s scripture,—not God’s.” Dr. Carson says, (p. 334,) “John’s saying, I baptize you, ad- dressing the people in general, did not imply, either that he baptized the whole nation, or the whole of the present audience.” But the words, as recorded by Matthew, were addressed to ‘“‘many of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” and not to “the people in general.” “ He said unto” them, that is, to the brood of vipers, “1 baptize you.” In accordance with Dr. Carson’s scheme, the meaning of the words, “T baptize you unto repentance,” must be, I drive you from baptism, and baptize other people after repentance. A more palpable contra- diction, cannot be imagined. In conclusion, we observe, that the scheme of Dr. Carson has com- pelled him, in direct opposition to Scripture, to deny that the disciples were baptized “ with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence,” for that baptism was only a catachresis—to deny that the “ fathers were bap- tized in the sea,” for that was only “a figure,” which vanishes like ‘a winding-sheet of snow,”—to deny that John baptized the brood of vipers, for “he drove them from his baptism”—to assert, that believers, not figuratively, but really, have died with Christ, and been buried with him, so that “there is no more figure than when it is said, they shall die themselves,” although Jesus was alive again long before they were born, and they have never been within many hundred miles of his tomb,—and, worst of all, in contradiction to the whole Gospel, to assert, that our blessed Lord confessed his sins unto repent- [016 Ὁ APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. ance, at the baptism of John. This is to me, “another gospel;” and rather than receive it, I would surrender the whole doctrine of baptism. Jesus standing a penitent, confessing his sins to John! There is nothing so revolting in Popery on the one hand, or in Unit- arianism on the other. God in mercy protect the Baptist churches from so dreadful a doctrine ! In the remarks which I have felt it my duty to make upon the reasoning of Dr. Carson, I have endeavoured to maintain for his learning, talents, and character, that respect which I am sure they demand from every opponent. I believe that he burns with a gene- rous love of truth; but still, as an inquirer after truth, I do feel, that if truth be with him, he has done it serious injury by the peculiarly ungracious attitude in which he has placed it before the world. The inquirer is not likely to become enamoured of truth, if she is taught to scold and bark like a vixen. Were the arguments of Dr. Carson good, his mode of propounding them by exciting a feeling of repul- sion in the mind of the reader, would, in most instances, neu- tralise their effect. When a reader is perpetually annoyed with sentences which can be intended for no other purpose than to indulge feelings, either of unwarrantable assumption of superiority, or of insolent contempt of an opponent, he insensibly transfers the feeling excited by the inflated or contemptuous expression of the writer to the cause for which he pleads. The arguments of Dr. Carson ought to be a great deal more powerful than they are, to bear the discount which must be deducted, if he write for flesh and blood, on account of the imperious and overbearing style which he has, unfortunately for his own cause, selected for their demonstration. ‘ Let Mr. H. acquaint himself with the philosophy of evidence, before he ventures to criticise my reasoning.” (p. 397.) ‘The greatest part of my trouble is to teach my opponents the laws of reasoning. Not one of them knows when proof lies upon him, and when it lies upon me.” (p. 400.) These are but instances which first occur on turning over the book, and they are not the most unfavourable of his mode of managing controversy. If he has no regard for the feelings of others, let him, for the sake of his own cause, remember that his readers are men of like passions with himself. He tells us with a frequency which our edification does not require, of the great sacrifices he has made to the cause of immersion. He begins his introduction with a reference to the “ serious sacrifice” APPENDIX TO LECTURE VII. 617 he has made, as if it were the first thought of which he must disburden himself. On recurring to the subject, he says, he has lost one world by his adherence to the unpopular truth. While, again and again, he adverts to his great sacrifices in a manner which would excite undue prejudice against his cause, were it not for the recollection, in pleasing contrast, of some excellent Baptist ministers who, having really made great sacrifices to conscience, never say a word about them—who have left Egypt, and never think of its flesh-pots,—I entreat him to make one more sacrifice to the cause which he holds so dear—to write in its defence in a tone and spirit which will allow his arguments to produce their legitimate impres- sion, without that counter-irritation which he perpetually excites upon the heart of human infirmity. If there be truth in his argu- ment, I am desirous not to lose it through the annoyance of his man- ner ; and, therefore, for my own benefit, I intend, as I can find time, to draw my pen through all the words and sentences which refer to himself—his sacrifices—his exploits—his discoveries—his triumphs ; and to the folly—the ignorance—the incompetence—the idioey— the profanity—the blasphemy—and the many other bad qualities of his opponents ; in short, to all that Dr. Beecher calls “his rhetoric,” and then carefully to read the residuum. As I have had the plea- sure of acknowledging some benefits which I have derived from his arguments, although I have had to decipher them through the superin-~ cumbent mass of incivility, so, should I be further instructed, I shall esteem it an agreeable duty to offer my acknowledgments again to a writer whom, with all his offensive expressions, I still greatly respect, although he will concede to none of his opponents the pos- session of common sense and common honesty. ADDITIONAL NOTES TO LECTURE VI. In reading Dr. Carson’s work, I had overlooked the following pas- sage, which appears to me virtually to concede the point for which I contend respecting the classical sense of the word βαπτίζω. In cor- recting an opponent he says, (p. 293,) “‘l am one of those over- whelmed by that mighty wave, ought to be translated, ‘1 myself am of those who were immersed under that mighty wave.’ The wave was the baptizer, and under the wave the persons were immersed.” I have understood Dr. Carson as maintaining that to baptize is to dip or immerse into, and that the baptizer dips or immerses into some- thing—not immerses under something—that is, the baptizer puts the baptized thing into something else. He speaks in the next page of “verbs of dipping, and verbs of motion in general,” implying that baptize is a verb of.motion, that is, it moves its object, or puts it into something. In the citation, does the wave move the person into anything? Does the baptizer, that is, the wave, put the person baptized into the water, or into itself, or into any kind of thing what- ever? Ifthe baptizer baptizes the baptized, by moving it into any- thing, it dips; but if it baptizes the object, leaving it at rest, by coming over it, all 1 contend for, as to the classical sense, is conceded. Does ‘“‘ immerse under” mean “put into?” If it does, Dr. Carson con- cedes nothing; if it does not, he concedes the point for which I contend. The translation of Dr. Carson, “Iam one of those who were immersed under that mighty wave,” seems clearly to imply that the baptizer, as he calls the wave, moving to effect its object, left the baptized person stationary. Ifso, baptize is not to move an object into anything, that is, it is not to dip. Not openly and frankly, but under the disguise of the outlandish phrase “immerse under,” the point of classical dispute appears to me to be conceded. It is impossible to immerse in the strict sense of the term, that is, to dip, without immersing into something. nto what did the wave immerse the man, when he was “immersed under” it? If it be said, into the water, the man was in it before; if into the wave, the wave came over him. ADDITIONAL NOTES TO LECTURE VI. 619 On p. 476, under the title, ‘‘ passages which imply that immersion was the mode of baptism,” we have the following argument. “ Christ refers to his death as a baptism in a figurative sense; but if the word in a figurative sense signifies afflictions, the literal sense cannot be anything but immersion. Neither purify, nor sprinkle, nor any other supposed meaning, will admit the figurative meaning of afHictions as calamities. This is the figure also by which the calamities of the Saviour are figuratively designated in the Psalms. He is represented as overwhelmed with great waters.” | know not whether to call this a concession. But if the argument be good, it tells distinctly and directly in favour of ‘ OVERWHELMING.” Is the argument good? It proves baptism, by overwhelming. Is it bad? Let it be candidly disavowed ; notwithstanding the awkward- ness of disavowing our own arguments, when they prove our opponent’s case. Is it good from the pen of Dr. Carson, but bad when corrupted by Pedobaptist use ? It may be again asked, what do I gain by a concession in favour of overwhelming? I reply, the gain may be discussed, when the concession is really made. Let the concession of baptism by overwhelming, or covering with water, be fairly and openly made by the Baptists, and we have a common position, on which, I am sure, it will be easy to bring this controversy to a satis- factory conclusion. I believe, that, as it is, I have practically covered with water, quite as much of the person as some of my Baptist breth- ren usually dip. At present, however, I only advert to the value of an argument in favour of immersion, from Christ being “overwhelmed with great waters.” On the subject of Greek prepositions, I have, on account of the length of these lectures, suppressed the remarks which I had prepared. I do this the more willingly, as | do not observe in regard to them any difference from Dr. Carson, in more than one particular. That particular relates to the peculiar use of the preposition εἰς in such phrase as “he died in (εἰς) Ecbatana,” to which I have hastily adverted ina note. Dr. Carson contends, that in these instances the preposition retains its usual signification, “into.” If it be asked how any man could die ixto Ecbatana, the elucidation of similar phrases in the New Testament is thus given : “ He lodged into the mountain ; the solution is, he went into the mountain to lodge.” p. 300. “‘ Wash into the pool, he was to go into the pool that he might wash.” p. 800. “It is neces- sary for me to keep the feast into Jerusalem, that is, on the principle 620 ADDITIONAL NOTES TO LECTURE VII. above explained, It is necessary for me to go into Jerusalem, to keep the feast.” p. 301. “To die into Jerusalem :” “ The sentiment fully expressed, is, I am willing to go into Jerusalem, to be bound, or to die.” p. 301. “ Philip was found at Azotus,” (into Azotus.) “Philip was found after he had gone to Azotus.” p. 301. The solution suggested proceeds upon the principle of the grammarians, that the preposition εἰς implies motion in some verbs which in any other construction, they would not possess; that is, having gone into Azotus, he was found in it; having gone into Jerusalem, he died in it, ἄς. That this construction, however admissible in certain in- stances, will fairly solve these passages, I do not believe; but if they would, what use can Dr. Carson make of such a solution in refuting his opponent ? If it be asked, What has this to do with the con- troversy? the reply is, It refers to the phrase baptized in, or into, Jordan. An opponent had cited these phrases in proof that εἰς does not of necessity mean into,—with what success, let the parties inter- ested determine, for I have no objection to the translation, “ into Jordan.” But the solution of Dr. Carson would allow us to translate the phrase, having gone into Jordan he baptized in it. Of what use is εἰς, if thus rendered, in determining the sense of baptize ὃ Were baptize, to purify, as his opponent contends, or to sprinkle, or to wash, or to drink, or to do anything whatever with water, John might go into Jordan to do that thing. ‘This solution, therefore, says nothing in favour of dipping. In conclusion, candour compels me to say that the passage which I inserted from Nicephorus, on the authority of Dr. Beecher, re- specting the perfusion of Novatus, does not support either him or me. On consulting the original, I find the words, “if it is fit to call such a thing a baptism.” Whether this clause refer to the man or to the affusion, | am sorry Dr. Beecher overlooked it; but I dare not suppress it. I hope no Baptist will charge me with the suppression, and overlook this note in which 1 correct the error. London: Blackburn and Pardon, Printers, 6, Hatton Garden. The following Works have already appeared as Volumes of THE CONGREGATIONAL LECTURE. SFirst Sevics. CHRISTIAN ETHICS; or, Moral Philosophy on the Prin- ciples of Divine Revelation. By the Rev. RarpH Warptaw, D.D. Fourth Edition. Foolscap 8vo., price 6s. 6d. cloth. Second Series. THE CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION OF CHRIS- TIANITY. By the Rev. Roperr VauGuan, D.D. 8vo., price 10s. 6d. cloth. Third Series. THE CHRISTIAN ATONEMENT; Its Basis, Nature, and Bearings: or, The Principle of Substitution Illustrated, as applied in the Redemption of Man. With Notes and Illustrations. By the Rev. Josepx GitBeERT. 8vo., price 10s. 6d. cloth. Fourth Sevics. DIVINE INSPIRATION; or, The Supernatural Influence Exerted in the Communication of Divine Truth, and its Special Bearing on the Composition of the Sacred Scriptures. With Notes and Illustrations. By the Rev. EBENEzER HENDERSON, D.D. 8vo., price 12s. cloth. Fifth Series. HOLY SCRIPTURE VERIFIED; or, The Divine Authority of the Bible Confirmed by an Appeal to Facts of Science, History, and Human Consciousness. By the Rey. GeorGe Reprorp, D.D., LL.D. 8vo., price 12s. cloth. Sirth Series. ON THE RELATION BETWEEN THE HOLY SCRIP- TURES AND SOME PARTS OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE. By the Rev. Joun Pye Smiru, D.D., F.R.S., F.G.S. Third Edition, with many additions. Foolscap 8vo., price 7s. cloth. Seventh Dertes. THE CONNEXION AND HARMONY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS; being an Inquiry into the Relation, Literary and Doctrinal, in which these two parts of the Sacred Volume stand to each other. By the Rev. W. Lrnpsay ALEXANDER, M.A. 8vo., price 12s. cloth. Eighth Series. THE THEOLOGY OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH, exhibited in Quotations from the Writers of the first Three Centuries. By the Rey. James Bennett, D.D. 8vo., price 10s. 6d. cloth. Pinth Series. THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL SPIRITS PROVED, and their Agency, particularly in relation to the Human Race, Explained and Illustrated. By the Rev. Waiter Scort, President and Theological Tutor of Airedale College, Bradford, Yorkshire. 8vo., price 12s. cloth. WORKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY JACKSON AND WALFORD. Lectures delivered at Broadmead Chapel, Bristol, By Jonn Foster, Author of “ Essays on Decision of Character,” &c. Selected from the Author’s Manuscripts and Edited by J. E. Ryland, Translator “fo Neander’s Church History,” &c. With a fac-simile of Mr. Foster’s hand- writing. 8vo., price 10s. 6d. cloth. AN ESSAY ON THE Profession of Personal Religious Conviction, And upon the Separation of Church and State, considered with reference to the Fulfilment of that Duty. By Professor A. Viner, of Lausanne. Translated from the French by Charles Theodore Jones. Royal 12mo., price 9s. cloth. The Age of Great Cities ; Or, Modern Civilization Viewed in its Relation to Intelligence, Morals, and Religion. By Ropert VauGuHan, D.D. Royal 12mo., price 7s. 6d. cloth. By the same Author, The Modern Pulpit Viewed in its Relation to the State of Society. Royal 12mo., price 5s. cloth. Also by the same Author, a of 2 y< = = ΑἹ . Congregationalism ; Or, The Polity of Independent Churches viewed in its Relation to the State and Tendencies of Modern Society. Second Edition, enlarged, royal 12mo., price 5s. cloth. Sermons by the late R.S. MeAll, LL.D. Preached in the Ordinary Course of his Ministry, and chiefly at Manchester. (Printed uniformly with, and forming a Third Volume to “ Discourses on Special Occasions, 2 vols. 8vo.) with a finely-engraved Portrait by Woolnoth. 8vo., price 12s. cloth. The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah ; An Inquiry with a View to a Satisfactory Determination of the Doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures concerning the Person of Christ. By Joun Pye Smit, D.D. Third Edition, much improved, and enlarged by a considerable increase of new matter. Three vols. 8vo., price 36s. boards. By the same Author, FOUR DISCOURSES ON THE Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus Christ ; And the Atonement and Redemption thence Accruing. With Supplementary Notes and Illustrations. Second Edition, enlarged. Feap. 8vo., price 6s. cloth. WORKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY JACKSON AND WALFORD, An Analytical and Comparative View Of all Religions now extant among Mankind; with their Internal Diversities of Creed and Profession. By Jostsn Conver, Author of ‘“ The Modern Tra- veller,” &c. One large volume, 8vo., price 14s. cloth. Sketches of Sermons, Preached in various Parts of the United Kingdom and on the European Con- tinent ; furnished by their respective Authors, with an Index of Texts, &c. A New Edition, carefully revised and corrected, (the Eight Volumes reprinted in Four.) 4 vols. 12mo., price £1 4s. cloth. *.* Either Volume may be had separately, (containing One Hundred Sermons,) price 6s. Letters on Puritanism and Nonconformity. By Str Jonwn Bickerton Wituiams, Knt., LL.D., F.S.A. Feap. 8vo., price 3s. 6d. cloth. By the same Author, Memoirs of the Life, Character, and Writings Of Sir Mattruew Hatz, Knight, Lord Chief Justice of England; with a full- length Portrait from an Original Painting in possession of the Family. Post 8vo., price 10s. 6d., cloth. The Book of Psalms, A New Translation, with Notes, Explanatory and Critical By W. Watrorp, late Classical and Hebrew Tutor in the Academy at Homerton. 8vo., price 7s. 6d., cloth. By the same Author, The Manner of Prayer. An Inquiry relative to the Best Means of Discharging the Duties of Public and Social Devotion. Fcap. 8vo., price 3s., cloth. A Wreath for the Tomb. An Essay and a Sermon on the Lessons taught by Sickness, with Extracts from eminent Authors on Death and Eternity. By the Rev. Enwarp Ηττοη- cock, LL.D. Second Edition, with a recommendatory Preface by Dr. Pye Smith. Fcap. 8vo., price 3s. 6d., cloth. The Convalescent. Twelve Letters on Recovering from Sickness. By Mrs. Girperr, Author of “Hymns for Infant Schools,” ‘“ Hymns for Infant Minds,” ἅς, Feap. 8vo., price 2s. 6d., cloth, or 4s. silk, gilt edges. The Voice of Christ to the Churches, Considered, in a Course of Twenty-one Lectures, Expository and Practical, on the Second and Third Chapters of the Book of the Revelation. By the Rev. EBenezer MILcer, M.A., of Rotterdam. 8vo., price 7s. 6d., cloth. WORKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED BY JACKSON AND WALFORD. Memoirs and Select Remains ‘ Of the Rev. Tomas Rawson Tay tor, late Classical Tutor at Airedale College; Yorkshire. Second Edition, with an Introduction, by James MontGomery, Esq. Foolscap 8vo., with Portrait, price 4s. 6d. cloth. Job and his Times ; Or, A Picture of the Patriarchal Age, during the period between Noah and Abraham, as regards the state of Morality, Arts and Sciences, Manners and Customs, &c. And a new Version of that most Ancient Poem, accompanied with Notes and Dissertations. The whole adapted to the English Reader. By THomas Wemyss, Author of ‘“ Biblical Gleanings,” ‘‘ Symbolical Dictionary,” and other works. 8vo., price 9s. cloth. Lectures on Tractarian Theology. By the Rev. Joun Stoucuton, of Windsor. Foolscap 8vo., price 3s. cloth. The Reconeiler : An Attempt to exhibit, in a somewhat new light, the Harmony and the Glory of the Divine GoveRNMENT, and of the Divine Soverercnty. By a QUADRAGENARIAN IN THE Ministry. §8vo., price 10s. cloth. A Complete View of Puseyism ; Exhibiting, from its own writers, its Twenty-two Tenets ; with a careful refuta- tion of each, and exposure of their tendencies. By R. Weaver, Author of “The Reconciler,” ‘‘ Pagan Altar,” &c., ‘ Monumenta Antiqua,” &c. Royal 12mo., price 5s. cloth. By the same Author. Dissent : Its Character, its Causes, its Reasons, and the way to effect its Extinction. Likewise an Appendix, containing Records and Papers not generally known. Foolscap 8vo., price 3s. 6d. cloth. Jethro ; A System of Lay Agency in connexion with Congregational Churches for the Diffusion of the Gospel amongst our Home Population. Royal 12mo., price 5s. cloth. Our Country ; Or, The Spiritual Destitution of England considered; and how far it can be supplied through Lay Agency, especially as employed by Congregational Churches. By the Rev. James Marneson, D.D. Royal 12mo., price 4s. cloth. The Contributions of Q. Q. By Jane Taytor. New Edition, feap. 8vo., price 7s. cloth. With vignette title. Memoirs, Correspondence, and Poetical Remains Of the late JANE TaAytor. New Edition, foolscap 8vo., price 5s. cloth. Nov.] (1851. WORKS PUBLISHED BY JACKSON AND WALFORD, 18, ST. PAUL’S CHURCHYARD, LONDON. Zee In 8vo., price 10s. 6d. cloth, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF THE SYMBOLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, USUALLY CALLED THE SACRAMENTS. By Rogpert Hattey, D.D. PART 1I.—THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Being the Fifteenth Series of the Congregational Lecture.) “To those who should wish to see Cardinal Wiseman’s discourses on this subject refuted in a most masterly manner, we recommend Dr. Halley’s volume,’’— Watchman. ** A few copies of PART I.— BAPTISM, 8vo., price 14s. cloth, may still be had. By the same Author. In foolscap 8vo., price 3s. 6d. cloth, BAPTISM, THE DESIGNATION OF THE CATECHUMENS, NOT THE SYMBOL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. A Reply to the Lectures of the Rev. Cuartes Stover on “ Christian Disciple- ship and Baptism,” and to the Strictures of the Rev. Dr. WarDLAw, in an Appendix to his “ Dissertation on Infant Baptism.” “We have seldom read a controversial treatise so marked by courtesy and candour, by acuteness and ingenuity, by logical accuracy and force. We think it cannot but havea considerable influence on the minds of some who have hitherto maintained opposite opinions, and we cordially commend it to the attention of our readers.” —Biblical ἴδιο. In foolscap 8vo., price 5s. cloth, AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF THE REV. WILLIAM WALFORD, Late Classical and Hebrew Tutor in the College at Homerton. Edited (with a continuation) by Joun SroucHTon. “This is a most valuable piece of biography, particularly so to the peyoholorist, and all ir in ΘῈΣ workings of ἃ mind under the influence of disease.’ inslow’s Psycho- ogucea ourna “One of the most remarkable self-told stories of human life ever submitted to the study of the Christian or philosopher.”—Woncon/formist. “This is a book singularly interesting, instructive, and affecting to the heart.”—Zvan- gelical Magazine. In 8yo., price 10s. 6d. cloth, THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT. By μα Henpry SToweE tt, D.D., (Being the Fourteenth Series of the Congregational Lecture.) “A volume of deep thought, orthodox in its matter, evangelical in its spirit, and written ina slowing, earnest style, that makes the most recondite disquisitions read- able and interesting.”— Watchman. Works published by Fourth Edition, much enlarged, in two vols. 8vo., price 24s. cloth, THE SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY TO THE MESSIAH; An Inquiry with a View to a Satisfactory Determination of the Doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures concerning the Person of Christ. ‘ By Joun Pye Smira, D.D. LL.D. “This work stands unapproached in English theology, as an able and complet e vindi- cation of the scriptural doctrine of our Lord’s divinity.”— United Presbyterian Ma gazine. By the same Author. Fourth Edition, in demy 8vo., price 9s. cloth, SCRIPTURE AND GEOLOGY; Or, the Relation between the Holy Scriptures and some parts of Geological Science. “Dr. Pye Smith is known, not only as a scholar and as a divine, but also as a man of science, from his Work on Scripture and Geology, in which he manfully came forward to vindicate for science a right to be heard, when it was opposed by blind prejudice and unreasoning dogmatism.”—Atheneum. Also, by the same Author. Third Edition, enlarged, foolscap 8vo., price 6s. cloth, FOUR DISCOURSES ON THE SACRIFICE AND PRIESTHOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, And the Atonement and Redemption thence accruing. With Supplementary Notes and Illustrations. “This volume should be in the hands of every biblical student, asan invaluable critical and bibliogray hical manual, in reference to the topics of primary importance which it embraces.”—Patriot. Tn post 8vo., price 6s. cloth, THE AGE AND CHRISTIANITY. Six Lectures, delivered in the Hanover Square Rooms, in February and March, 1849. By Rosert VauaGuan, D.D. adel Fywiye) it is throughout informed with a catholic spirit, the logic is clear and con- vincing, the style lucid, axiomatic, and sententious, and the matter full and weighty . It will well repay perusal.”—Atheneum. By the same Author. In foolscap 8vo., price 1s. sewed, LELTER AND -SPIRIA. A Discourse on Modern Philosophical Spiritualism in its relation to Christianity. “Of all the productions that have yet met our eye on the present_all-importan t con- troversy, it is the one best fitted for popular usefulness,”—Christian Ο In 12mo., price 5s. cloth, LECTURES DELIVERED AT THE MONTHLY UNITED SERVICE OF THE NONCONFORMIST CHURCHES IN NOTTINGHAM. With other Discourses preached on public occasions. By Samuret Mc Att, Minister of Castle-gate Meeting-house. “Intelligence, devoutness, simplicity, and good taste in all respects, characterize this volume.”—Brilish Quarterly Review. πα πε ὐνυδΝῦυ In foolscap By0, price 4s. cloth, THREE ESSAYS: The Re-Union and Recognition of Christians in the Life to Come. The Right Love of Creatures and of the Creator. Christian Conversation. By Joun Suerparp, Author of “ Thoughts on Private Devotion,” &e. “We very cordially commend the book as one singularly calculated to be useful.”— Christian Witness, By the same Author. In 18mo., price 2s. 6d. cloth, ON DREAMS, IN THEIR MENTAL AND MORAL ASPECTS, As affording auxiliary arguments for the Existence of Spirit, for a “ Separate State,” and for a Particular Providence. In Two Essays. “The tone of the volume is admirable. The abundant citations of cases—the fair, moderate conclusions established from them, and the marks of a ripe and cultivated mind on every page, make this a valuable contribution to the literature of a difficult subject.”—Eelectic Review. Also, by the same Author. In 8vo., price 2s. sewed, A LECTURE ON THE ARGUMENTS FOR CHRISTIAN THEISM. FROM ORGANIZED LIFE AND FOSSIL OSTEOLOGY, Containing Remarks on a Work entitled “ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation ;” delivered before the Frome Literary and Scientific Institution, Feb. 7, 1845. “This production is eminently creditable to the learning and acuteness, and to the candour and Christian feeling of the writer. To the Lecture, a considerable body of per- tinent and valuable notes is appended; and the argument in favour of miracles, 88 deduced from the distinction and succession of species, is admirably conducted.”— British Quarterly Review. In foolscap 8vo., price 3s. cloth, HORA ET VINDICIAZ. SABBATICAZ ; OR, FAMILIAR DISQUISITIONS ON THE REVEALED SABBATH. By Ricnarp Winter Hamitton, LL.D., D.D. “Dr. Hamilton’s book is one of the most brilliant duction of his brilliant and pro- litic pen.”— Watchman. In foolscap 8vo., price 4s. 6d. cloth, CURA ROMANA. NOTES ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. WITH A REVISED TRANSLATION. By WILLIAM Watrorp, Author of “ A New Translation of the Psalms,” &o. “So original in its plan, masterly in its execution, elegant in its style, and devout in its spirit,”—Biblical Review, By the same Author. In 8vo., price 7s. 6d. cloth, THE BOOK OF PSALMS. A NEW TRANSLATION, WITH NOTES EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL, “He (Mr. W.) has drawn up his work in a beautiful form; and the whole method of it is perspicuous and elegant.—His explanatory Notes are clear, and almost without τα tion cast light upon the passage.”—Presbylerian Review, Works published by In 18mo., price 2s. cloth, Second Edition, OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ISRAEL’S FUTURE RESTORATION TO PALESTINE, NATIONAL PRE-EMINENCE, &c. With an Appendix on the Ten Tribes, and the Future Destinies of the World and the Church. By Epwarp SwaIne. “ An unobtrusive little work. Yet its litleness consists only in external volume. The arg uments are weighty, the composition chaste, the style calm, and the temper dis- passionate. By all who hold opposite views, it ought to be read in justice to them- sel ves.”—Christian Times. In royal 12mo., price 5s. cloth, AN ESSAY ON THE PROFESSION OF PERSONAL RELIGIOUS CONVICTION, And upon the Separation of Church and State, considered with Reference to the Fulfilment of that Duty. By Professor A. Vinet, of Lausanne. Translated from the French by CHARLES THEODORE JONES. “The talent and piety of the author, the deep sincerity which breathes in his work, the prominent notice it has attracted in the foreign churches, and its reputation even in our own country, warrant us in viewing it as the most powerful of recent assaults upon national religion.”—Churchman’s Monthly Review. Fourth Edition, foolscap 8vo., price 6s. 6d. cloth, CHRISTIAN ETHICS; OR, MORAL PHILOSOPHY ON THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVINE REVELATION. By Raten Warpvaw, D.D. “Dr. W. has conducted his argument with profound theological wisdom, and admirable philosophical acuteness.”—Christian Guardian. In foolscap 8vo., price 6s. cloth, illustrated with several Wood Engrayings, A THIRD EDITION OF JOHN HOWARD, AND THE PRISON WORLD OF EUROPE. FROM ORIGINAL AND AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS. By Herworts Drxon. By the same Author, in foolscap 8vo., price 6s. cloth, THE LONDON PRISONS: WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE MORE DISTINGUISHED PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN CONFINED IN THEM. To which is added a Description of the Chief Provincial Prisons. “These volumes relate to kindred subjects; and are written by one who is in every way qualified to do justice to his theme. We only express our calm and settled convic- tion, when we state it as our opinion, that no works of equal interest, on the same subject, have seen the light in our day.”—Evangelical Magazine. In foolscap 8vo., price 6s. each, cloth, LECTURES BY JOHN FOSTER, First and Second Series. (Either of which can be had separately.) “We know of nothing in the language equal to the Lectures upon Historical Subjects from the Old and New Testaments, in point of graphical vividness of description, and ΣΤΟΙΟΌΠΟΙΝ instructive comment; all the discourses are rich in thought and deeply mpressive, and of all Mr. Foster's writings, they give us the best and truest impress of the real character of his mind.”—Patriot. Jackson and Walford. In foolseap 8vo., price 4s. 6d. cloth, FOUR DISCOURSES. By Tuomas Binney. THE ULTIMATE DESIGN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY NOT A PRIESTHOOD. THE CLOSET AND THE CHURCH. THE SERVICE OF SONG IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD. The above may be had in Three Parts, viz.: the first two Discourses in one volume, 2s. ; the third, 18. 6d.; the fourth, 2s. cloth. All the Author's other Works, now in print, may also be obtained of Jackson and Walford. In 2 vols., feap. 8vo., price 9s. cloth, Essays on History, Philosophy, and Theology. Selected from Contri- butions to the British Quarterly Review. By Roser Vaveuan, D.D. “ 4 collection of Essays, full of thought, close in matter, and accomplished in style.”—Spectator. By the same Author, Second Edition, enlarged, royal 12mo., price 5s. cloth, Congregationalism; or, The Polity of Independent Churches viewed in its relation to the State and Tendencies of Modern Society. “An admirable essay; we heartily recom- mend it.”—T'ail’s Magazine. “Tt is, in all points, a luminous, an elabo- Ene, And highly philosophical performance.”— ‘atriot. Also, by the same Author, In royal 12mo., price 5s. cloth, The Modern Pulpit, viewed in its relation to the State of Society. “This is unquestionably one of the finest books published in our day. It is, indeed, a book for the age, and will be read alike by the statesman and the divine, by the philosopher and the historian, to whom it must afford much pleasure, and no little profit.”—Scoltch Reform- ers’ Gazelle. In post 8yo., price 5s. cloth, lettered, Memoir of the Life of Joseph Gutteridge, Esq., of Denmark Hill, Surrey. By Epwarp Sreanz, D.D. “A brief, yet a beautiful biography, and should be welcomed, which in many families it un- doubtedly will, as a very valuable accession to the household reading of the church.”—Zvan- gelical Christendom. In 8yo., price 7s. 6d. cloth, Life in Christ. Four Discourses on the Scripture Doctrine, that Immortality is the peculiar Privilege of the Regene- rate. By Epwarp Waite. In 8 vols. ϑνο., price £2 2s. cloth, lettered, Historical Memorials of the Inde- pendents, or Congregationalists, from their Rise to the Restoration of the Monarchy, a.D. MDcLX. By BENJAMIN Hansury. In post 8yo., price 4s. θά. cloth, lettered, A Guide to the Christian Ministry; or, Manual for Candidates for the Sacred Office. An Essay. By Rey. THomas WALLACE. In royal 12mo., price 5s. cloth, lettered, Jethro: a System of Lay Agency, in connexion with Congregational Churches, for the Diffusion of the Gospel among our Home Population. By Joun Campsett, D.D. In royal 12mo., price 4s. cloth, lettered, |Our Country; or, The Spiritual Destitution of England considered ; and how far it can be supplied through Lay Agency, especially as employed by Congregational Churches. By Jamxs Marueson, D.D. In royal 8yo., price 2s, half-bound. Outlines of a Private Calendar: Designed to Aid the Cultivation of Prac- tical Piety and Closet Devotion; with an Introduction, explanatory of its use. *,* Five Hundred Copies of the above were presented by the Author to the Con- gregational Union in aid of its Funds, In foolscap 8yo., price 2s. 6d. cloth, or 4s. silk, gilt edges, The Convalescent: Twelve Letters on Recovering from Sickness. By Mrs. GILBERT. “Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?”—Jesus. “This is a beautiful book, which displays ten- derness and holy wisdom in its matter, taste and elegance in its manner, and which could scarcely be spoken of with too much com- mendation.”—Dr. Pye Smith, in his Preface to “ Wreath for the Tomb.” In foolseap 8yo., price 3s. 6d. cloth, A Wreath for the Tomb. An Essay and a Sermon on the Lessons taught by Sickness, with Extracts from eminent Authors on Death and Eternity. By Epwarp Hircucocx, LL.D. Second Edition, with a Recommendatory Preface, | by Dr. Pye Surru. “The ‘ Wreath for the Tomb’ is a very remark- able work. The select passages are appropriate, and of a tendency harmonizing with the other arts of the volume; but the Sermon and the ssay are the things which give to this little volume its extraordinary value.”—Congrega- tional Magazine. 12mo., Second Edition, price 6d. sewed, or 5s. per dozen for distribution, A Revived Ministry our only Hope for a Reyived Church. By OnE oF THE LrasT AMONG THE BRETHREN, Ϊ “The appeal of an earnest, devoted, observing, discriminating, apostolic spirit.”—Scollish Con- gregational Magazine. By the same Author, 12mo., price 6d. sewed, or 5s. per dozen, The Duties{solemnly binding on the various Sections of the Church of Christ, for Suppressing the Emulations and Strifes which preyeut its fultilling its Mission Τὸ THE WoRLD. “This pamphlet is highly seasonable, and is replete with numerous hints of a practical | character.” —Wesleyan Methodist \agazine. In 18mo., price 4d., or 3 . 6d. per dozen, A Catechism of Christian Evi- dences, Truths, and Duties, By the Rev. W. WatLFrorp. “Olear, correct, very comprehensive, and adapted to be exceedingly useful”"—Christian Witness, Twenty-third Edition, 12mo., price 6d., or 5s. 6d. per dozen, The Protestant Dissenters’ Cate- chism, containing—l, A Brief History of the Nonconformists ; 2, The Reasons of the Dissent from the National Church. By the late Rey. Samurt Pater, of Hackney. With a Preface, by the Rey. Joun Pye Smrru., D.D., F.R.S., &e. In 12mo., price 6d., or 5s. per dozen, What is Popery? A Catechism of the Principles, Doctrines, and Practices of the Roman Catholic Church. By Joun Hayben. “A capital Catechism, for which we solicit a aoe in every Protestant family.’—Christian itness. In 8vo., price ls. θά. sewed, Life and Immortality brought to Light through the Gospel. A Funeral Discourse on the Decease of the Rey. Algernon Wells. By the Rey. T. Bryney. To which is prefixed the Funeral Address, by the Rey. H. F. Burprr, D.D. In 8vo., price ls. 6d. sewed, Services occasioned by the Death of the Rey. John Pye Smith, D.D., F.R.S., &e., comprising the Funeral Sermon, by the Rey. Joun Harris, D.D., and the Address at the Interment, by the Rev. GroRGE CLAYTON. 8vo., price 2s. sewed; 2nd Edition, revised and enlarged, IMMORTALITY: its Real and Alleged Evidences. Being an Endea- your to ascertain how far the Future Existence of the Human Soul is dis- coverable by Reason. By J. T. Gray. “We read this work before; we have repe- rused it now, with a high sense of its ability.” —Evangelical Christendom, Heo College, London. In 8vo., price 1s. (with an Engraving of the College), The Address of the Committee and Preliminary Statement. With the Address delivered at the Laying of the First Stone, May 11, 1850. By Joun Pye ὅμιτη, D.D., LL.D., F.R.S., &e. A PORTRAIT OF THE REV. JOHN PYE SMITH, D.YD., LL.D. , F.R.S., &e. Engraved on Steel, in Mezzotinto, by Samurn Brxrry, Esq., from the fine Picture in the College at Homerton, taken by the late Tuomas Parcries, Esq., R.A. Prints Proofs One Guinea. Two Guineas. * Jackson and Walford. Works suitable for Voung Persons, Schools, Ke. New Edition, with Vignette Title, in foolscap 8vo., price 6s. cloth, THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF 6. α. By Jane Taytor. The “Quarterly Review” (in an article on Juvenile Publications) says: “It is a work which cannot be too highly praised; religious precepts, moral lessons, and in- teresting information, all given in a sound and beautiful form. Another instance of the popularity of good writing—this book being in high favour with children.” “That clever little book.”—Times. Fourth Edition, in foolscap 8vo., price 5s. cloth, MEMOIRS, CORRESPONDENCE AND POETICAL REMAINS OF THE LATE JANE TAYLOR. “. .,.. Will delight all readers of sensibility or taste, by the unaffected gracefuiness layful humour, and glow of sentiment, by which they are characterized.”—Eclectic Paiew. New Edition, in 18mo., price 1s. 6d. cloth, HYMNS FOR INFANT MINDS. By Ann and JANE TAYLOR. Authors of “ Original Poems,” “Rhymes for the Nursery,” &c. &c. “Many of these hymns are superior in their poetry and sentiment, and are adapted wisely to impress the lessons of piety on, and instil the spirit into, the minds of chii- dren.”—American Biblical Repository. In royal 18mo., Fifth Edition, much improved, price 4s. cloth lettered, SELECT ENGLISH POETRY: DESIGNED FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS AND YOUNG PERSONS IN GENERAL. EDITED BY THE LATE DR. ALLEN. *,* Most of the Pieces in this selection are new to Works of this kind. “We can only say of this work, that we regard it as certainly the best selection of English poetry for the young with which we are acquainted.”—Christian Spectator. In 18mo., illustrated with Twelve Wood Engravings, price 3s. cloth, ΟΝ TREES, THEIR USES AND BIOGRAPHY. By Joun SHeprarp, Author of “ Thoughts on Devotion,” &c. “Tt is a little book, adapted to put the thoughts of most readers on a new and pleasant track of observation, and an admirable present for the young.” —British Quarterly Review. New Stereotype Edition. Price 2d. sewed. ORIGINAL HYMNS FOR SUNDAY SCHOOLS, By Ann and JANE TAytor. Second Edition. Square 18mo., price 3d. sewed, SEVEN BLESSINGS FOR LITTLE CHILDREN. By Mrs. GizBERT, Author of “ Hymns for Infant Minds,” “ The Convalescent,” &c. “Tt would really constitute a pees blessing, if little children were early imbued with the sentiments so beautifully expressed in this little work. It is worthy of the gifted authoress, whose avocation of writing for little children we reckon to be one of the highest and noblest.”—Scoltish Congregational Magazine. Works published by Jackson and Walford. THE BRITISH QUARTERLY REVIEW PUBLISHED ON THE FIRST OF February, fay, August, and Nobember, PRICE SIX SHILLINGS. Tue British QuarTERLY Review has completed the seventh year of its existence. It has passed its novitiate, and may now be said to be established. It owes its origin to a perception of the fact that the Press has become the great Educator of the times. What the coming generation has learned at school or at college, is of small amount, compared with what it will learn from our General and our Periodical Literature. All men holding opinions to which they attach value are alive to this fact. All parties, in consequence, have their organs, through which their particular views are propounded to the public. Their aim is, to give to those views—whether concern- ing Literature, Science, Politics, or Religion—as large access as possible to the seclusions of thoughtful men, to the fireside of families, to associations of the intelligent and inquiring, and to society at large. Every public journal of wide and influential circulation is a great power. It is the orator, the lecturer, or the preacher, speaking, as with many thousand tongues, in many thousand places at the same time. The party neglecting its proper literature is not of the age, and will not keep pace with it. From the natural course of things, every year must deprive us of some who were among our readers ; but every year, we trust, will give us new friends. If we still plead earnestly for the good offices of those who value the great interests we are striving to uphold, it is that those interests may be better served by means of our better resources, and more widely served by means of our wider circulation. Among the Mission Agencies of the times, the part assigned by Providence to the Press is second to none in its relation to everything Intelligent, Free, Moral, and Religious in our own land, and in all lands. (> Advertisements received until the 20th of each month previous to publication. JACKSON & WALFORD, 18, St. PAUL’S CHURCHYARD. Reed and Pardon, Printers, Paternoster Row, London. τῷ — 1: 1012 01021 0831 © DATE DUE 4 ‘ “Soe pall . J Brodart Co Cat. # 55 137 001 Printed in USA sa skee=t! aM ba ititre ΤΉΝ ΜΗ ἢ ΠΝ oe “ we eee eas iy ae tals 4 pale here ae ter