-^^>i- 
 
 **«p 
 
 
 r.^. 
 
 .> -.T 
 
 J 
 
 copy I 
 
 L^S^Si 
 
 i9 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 r,* ^ 
 
 •c «yfii» 'vl 
 
 '■^Z 
 
 ^■«^^ 
 
p 
 
 7^ 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnciv Coll. 071 Baptism^ No. 
 
 
 C' 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 witii funding from 
 
 Princeton Tiieoiogicai Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.arcliive.org/details/sermonsonmodesubOOmorr 
 
S E R M ^ J 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MODE AND SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM 
 
 SNTENDED TOR 
 
 THE USE OF INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND 
 SOCIAL MEETINGS, 
 
 BY HEJ^RIT MORRIS, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH, 
 OF UNION- VILLAGE, N. Y, 
 
 Unioii-VillagejW. Y, 
 
 TRINTED BY JOHN W. CURTIS = 
 
 1844= 
 
Copy Right Secured, 
 

 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following discourses were in substance preached to the au- 
 thor's own Congregation in defence of the truth, and they are pub- 
 lished by the request of his hearers. They have been prepared for 
 the press in the midst of other labours, and consequently are not as 
 accurate in language and finished in other respects as he could wish. 
 Perhaps, however, this is a matter of little importance as they may 
 have only a local value, and be ephemeral in their existence. 
 
 The writers on baptism to whom the author is indebted for por- 
 tions of language occasionally, and for much of the matter contained 
 in this volume, are Miller, Wood, Dwight, Arnold, E.Hall, Ward- 
 law, Peter Edwards, Williams, Coleman, and Taylor, Psedo bap- 
 tists; Gill, Robinson, and Carson, Immersionalists. 
 
 In writing the following sheets, the introduction of banter and 
 ridicule, irrelevant matter, and every thing calculated to call forth 
 malevolent passions, has been studiously avoided. In the discus- 
 sion of the questions held in dispute, the reader's attention has been 
 constantly directed to the very doctrine held by the Immersionalists, 
 viz : that baptism is immersion, not by covering the candidate en- 
 tirely with water in any way, but solely by dipping or plunging 
 him in and under water. Robert Hall says, Immersionalists " con- 
 tend for the exclusive validity of immersion in distinction from 
 the sprinkling or pouring of water." Carson says, " the meaning 
 of the word {baptize) is always the same, and it always signifies to 
 dip. It never has any other meaning, never expressing anything 
 but mode." (p. 79.) Robinson says, ''that the word (baptism) is 
 confessedly Greek, and that native Greeks who must understand 
 their own language better than foreigners, have always understood 
 it to signify dipping.^'' (History of Baptism, p. 16.) Surrounding 
 a man therefore with water when it does not touch him, covering 
 him all over with water by perfusion, aspersion, pouring or any 
 other njode except by dipping or plunging into it, is not valid bap- 
 tism. It makes no difference how great a quantity is sprinkled up- 
 on him, or poured over him, he is not baptized without being dip- 
 ped, and it is a matter of no consequence how small a quantity is 
 used, he is baptized if he is plunged all over in it. The author 
 
has eiideavored to keep this precise idea in view in his discussion 
 of the mode oi' baptism. 
 
 He has intended to give no offence by his use of the term Immer- 
 sioNALiSTS. He questions the propriety of yielding to those who 
 " contend for the exclusive validity of immersion," the name of 
 Baptists, since all who " doopemet water," baptize ivithivater^ 
 like " Joannes de Dooper," * John the baptist, are Baptists, and 
 Bible Baptists in a sense more strictly true than those who main- 
 tain that dipping is essential to baptism. He contends that those 
 who give the word Baptizo its legitimate and full signification, are 
 Baptists, and that those who restrict its meaning to immersion, are 
 Immersionalists. 
 
 If the author has expressed his views with confidence and bold- 
 ness, he hopes his readers will not impute it to obstinacy of temper, 
 or unwillingness to listen and yield to calm and conclusive reason- 
 ing. This he feels himself bound to do, but to yield his views 
 without evidence, " hie labor, hoc opus est," this is impossible, 
 "If any man, therefore, (to use the language of Bunyan,) shall 
 count my papers worth the scribbling against, let him de?\ with 
 mine arguments, and things immediately depending upon them, 
 and not conclude he hath confuted a book, when he hath only quar- 
 elled with words. 1 have done when I have told you, that I strive 
 not for mastery, nor to show myself singular ; but, if it might be, 
 for union and communion among the godly : And count me not an 
 enemy because I tell you the truth." 
 
 * Robinson, p. 117, remarks John een dooper, means John the Dipper. The 
 Dutch is De Dooper, not een, &c. Theodore Hack, a Dutch scholar and transla- 
 tor of the Dutch IBible, with Annotations into the English language, has rendered 
 de dooper, the Baptist. " Ende in die dagen quam Joannes de dooper prediken- 
 de, &c. i. e. "And in those days came John the Baptist preaching," &-c. Math, 
 iii, 1. 
 
 Baptizo is rendered in Dutch Geduopl, Doope, and Dooper, which Hack trana 
 lates Baptize. See Mat. iii, 6, 11, 13, 14, 16. 
 
 Baptisma, chop, which he translates baptism. Math, iii, 7. Mark, i. 4, 10, 3S. 
 
 Baptismos. Wascliinge, Wascldngen, Mark vii, 4, 8. Heb. ix, 10, which he 
 translates ifffls/iec?, washing, washings. Der Dooper, 6, 2, Baptisms. 
 
 Bapto, Geverwet, Rev. xix, 13, which he translates Dv.d.^ 
 
 1 
 
-^ V' vt ' ■ 
 
 ^ ,^ ^. o. 
 
 8EMMON 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 " IsAiH LII, 15. So shall he sprinkle many nations. 
 
 These words belong to an important prophecy respecting^ the Messiah, which 
 commences at the l3th verse, and is continued to the close of the next chapter. 
 By the mass of approved commentators Jewish and Christian, this passage has 
 been regarded as having an indisputable reference to Christ. The only doubt in 
 respect to it which any of them have expressed, is as to its interpretation. Some 
 have understood it as having reference to the blood of purifying which would be 
 sprinkled on the nations when the Redeemer should make expiation for sin. 
 Others suppose it should be explained of the word or doctrine of Christ, which 
 is sometimes represented in the Scriptures as falling upon the people as rain, or 
 as being gently distilled on them as the dew. And others have interpreted it as 
 applicable to the act of sprinkling water in the administration of baptism. 
 
 It is evident that the word sprinkle in the original, is used to denote sprinkling 
 with blood or water. The passage, therefore, may be of large import, having 
 reference to the whole work of the Messiah as a purifier, not only by blood, but 
 by the sprinkling of water in baptism, as emblematical of the cleansing and sanc- 
 tifying influence of the spirit.* Thus explained, it inculcates the doctrine that 
 under the New Testament dispensation, Christ shall cleanse or purify his people 
 by sprinkling upon them the water of baptism. The sentiment which may be 
 deduced from this passage then, is, that the application of water to the subject, 
 in the name of Father, Son and Ploly Ghost, by sprinkling, is valid baptism. 
 
 We shall endeavor in this Discourse to prove this sentiment. 
 
 The Immersionalists contend with one voice, "that the idea of immersion en- 
 ters into the very nature of baptism ; that the terms baptism and immersion are 
 equivalent and interchangeable : that the meaning of the word (baptize) is al- 
 ways the same, and always signifying to dip, and that immersion is so essential to 
 the ordinance, that there can be no valid baptism without it." This we deny and 
 reject. We contend that sprinkling, or pouring, is valid baptism, tor the follow- 
 ing reasons. 
 
 1. Because it is a mode of baptism which is " calculated for universal prac- 
 tice." Immersion is not adapted to general use. It is always inconvenient, 
 particularly when administered in cold weather, in a stream of water. The ef- 
 fect of it under such circumstances, is, to produce coldness, shivering, and unea- 
 
 ■•■ " With his bloodshed, and with an sending forth of the gifts and graces of 
 his spirit bv the preaching of the Gospel, and by the use of the Holy Sacra- 
 ments." — Dutch Bible loilh Annotations, publtshecl hi/ authority, 1637. 
 
fiiness both of body and mind, which is in evevy respect unfavorable to devotion. 
 It is, moreover, unsuitable to persons in feeble and delicate health, * ill adapted 
 to northern climatee, and for many months, in high latitudes, is wholly impracti- 
 cable, unless ice and snow is melted, and the water is artificially warmed. In 
 such rigorous climates as Greenland, Iceland, Lapland, Northern Russia, and 
 Siberia, immersion in cold water, in the winter, is out of the question. Henco 
 it is the custom of the Greek Church in Russia, "to warm in winter the baplia- 
 mai water." 
 
 Witsius quotes Christophorus Angelu?, who says, " The Greeks keep in their 
 churches a kind of large vessels called Baptisteries ; that is, vessels so large as 
 are sufficient to admit the infant to be plunged all over therein. When, there- 
 fore, any child is to be dipped in this fount, the relations of the infant first of all 
 loarm the water with some odoriferous herbs." Baptizing in tepid water is ac- 
 tually essential to the administration of the rite by immersion in this climate, 
 though it is not practiced. Dr. Dwight observes, "that the health and lives of 
 .those who are baptized by immersion, are often injured and destroyed, and that 
 he makes this statement not on the ground of opinions but facts." If mdividuala 
 do not Bometim«^s receive serious detriment, it must be because they are preserv- 
 ed almost by a miracle. For in extreme cold weather and in the depth of win- 
 ter, it is necessary to make a large opening through ice a foot thick, and to keep 
 persons employed with rahes or poles to clear the water of the anchor ice which 
 constantly collects, and even then it is with much difficulty, and no small amount 
 of suffering to the administrator and the candidate, that the rite is performed. In 
 a country some six or seven hundred miles nearer the North Pole, and posses- 
 sing a severer climate, it is obvious that immersion in cold water, becomes if not 
 impracticable, in all cases unsafe even for the healthy. Hence, Robinson in his 
 history of baptism, admits that it is necessary to use warm water in high north- 
 ern latitudes, and in proof of it has related the following facts. 
 
 " In the twelfth century, a Swedish Catholic bishop, named Otho, travelled in= 
 to the country of the Ulmegurians, now Pomeramia, and taught a great number 
 of the natives, whom he caused his assistants to baptize in bathing tubs let into 
 the ground, and surrounded with curtains ; and, as the weather was excessive 
 cold, he ordered large fires to be made, it should seem, for the purpose of dissolv- 
 ing ice to supply the tubs with water. 
 
 "At the close of the 10th century, when Christianity, such as it was, was in- 
 troduced among the Icelanders, and when Thorgeir had proposed tliat they 
 should be baptized, they refused to comply except on condition they should be 
 baptized in hot baths, for they unanimously declared, ' they would not be baptized 
 i fcaZ/ ra^n, in cold water.' They were accordingly, by the advice of Snoro, a 
 chief and priest, baptized in the hot baths or springs aboimding in that Island." f 
 
 * While these sheets are being revised (Oct. 14, 1843.) the bell is tolling the 
 funeral knell of a female whose death, it is commonly reported, was occasioned 
 by disease contracted by exposure to the cold while witnessing the rite of bap- 
 tism performed by immersion. 
 
 f See History of Baptism by R. Robertson, p. 456. 
 
These fecte, which are furnished by an ImmereiDnalist writer, shew that im- 
 mersion is not adapted to every climate, and is totally impracticable at certain 
 eeasors of the year, in cold water. Artificial means, such as warming the watery 
 must be resorted to in order to baptize in this way. 
 
 Now, we have serious doubts whether this warming of water, and baptizingf in 
 water warmed, or hot baths, is actually consistent with Christian simplicity, and 
 is required to serve Him acceptably who has declared that his yoke is easy, and 
 his burden is light. In the Lord's Supper, a rite equally as solemn, significant 
 and sacred, liberty is allowed. We are not required by the Immersionalists to 
 conform to the mode adopted by Christ and his disciples when they first celebra- 
 ted the Lord's Supper. They reclined on " couches at the Sacramental table, 
 used unleavened bread, and pure wine, and observed it in the night. We do not 
 imitate them in either of these. We celebrate it at mid-day, and take the bread 
 and wine sitting. We are governed by'considerations of convenience, comfort 
 and adaptedness to our customs, habits and manners. We believe that we act 
 in this agreeable to the spirit of religion, and the will of God. Why should we 
 not act on the same principles in regard to Baptism 1 Why should we lay asida 
 all considerations arising from climate, health, convenience, and the customs ofso- 
 ciety in regard to baptism, and bind ourselves to pursue but one invariable mode 
 in the observance of this ordinance 1 Why may wo not enjoy liberty in this as 
 well as in the Lord's Supper 1 Why is the mode of more importance in one case 
 than in the other ? 
 
 We do not see why reclining at the Lord's table is not as essential to a prop= 
 er observance of the Lord's Supper as immersioii is to Baptism, admitting that 
 that was the mode of baptism practiced by Christ and his Apostles 1 And if tho 
 Immersionalists dispense with one, consistency would seem to require them to 
 dispense with the other. If considerations of convenience, propriety, and re= 
 gard for the customs of society, are sufficient reasons to induce them to vary from 
 the mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper instituted by Christ and his Apostles, 
 these are reasons of sufficient weight to induce them to change the mode of bap- 
 tism by immersion, to pouring or sprinkling.* 
 
 * Baptism by immersion has been attended with drowning. Robinson relates 
 the drowning of a boy in a baptistry at Rome, and also says, "I have heard that 
 a priesr, in immersing a child, let it slip, through inattention, into the water. 
 The child was drowned ; but the holy man suffered no consternation. Give ms 
 another, said he, with the utmost composure, for the Lord hath taken this to hira- 
 gelf." — History of Baptism, p. p, 115, 445, 446. 
 
 Robinson admits, (p. p. 348, 879.) that dipping infants is unnatural and barb= 
 arous. "Peace be with the remains of that humane Frenchman, (he says) who 
 first freed the western world from the custom of baptizing new born infants by 
 dipping, a custom rendered barbarous by the reason given to support it." Again 
 " The absolute necessity of dipping in order to valid baptism, and the indispensa^ 
 ble necessity of baptism in order to salvation, were two doctrines which clashed, 
 and the collision kindled up a sort of war between the warm bosoms of parents 
 who had children, and the cold reasonings of Monks, who had few symyathies. 
 The doctrine was cruel, and the feelings of humanity revolted against it. Powef 
 asay give law ; but it is more than power can do to make unnatural law sit easy 
 on the minds of men," Is not dipping infants so cruel and barbarous in itselfi 
 that infant baptism must necessarily he given up if immersion is practiced, and on 
 the other hand, if infant baptiim is retained* inuBt not immersion be substituted 
 by sprinkling or pouring ? 
 
8 
 
 As the Chrisitian religion is designed to be universal, baptism iiuist be an ordi- 
 nance of perpetual and universal obligation. Consequently, a mode of administer- 
 ing it only can be obligatory which is practicable at all limes, and by every por- 
 tion of the human race. Such a mode is aspersion or pouring. It is suited to 
 every country and climate ; it is safe for the receiver and the administrator ; it 
 may be performed in the place of public worship where the ordinances of Chris- 
 tianity should be administered, and it is in all respects fitted to the universal 
 character of Christianity. We conclude, therefore, that as our blessed Lord in- 
 tended that all nations should enjoy the benefit of the religion of the Bible, that 
 those who dwell in the frigid zone should not be deprived of its blessings any 
 more than those who dwell in the torrid ; that he has given his preferencejto and 
 rendered essential to it, that particular mode of baptism v/hlch is calculated for 
 universal practice. 
 
 i2. The application of water to the subject by aspersion or pouring, is valid 
 baptism, because it corresponds with spiritual baptism, of which it is emblemat- 
 ical. 
 
 By spiritual baptism, we mean tliose divine operations in the souls of believ- 
 ers which are produced by the special influence of the Holy Spirit, and which 
 are intended when the pious are said in the Scriptures to be baptized^ with the 
 Holy Ghost. Water baptism represents the purifying, or cleansing nature of 
 this higher baptism, and, of course, must naturally correspond in its mode, (if it 
 bears any resemblance to it) with the mode of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But this baptism is always represented as a " sending down, coming, giving, 
 falling, shedding, pouring, sealing," &c., and never as an immersing, plunging, 
 or svimersing. " I will pour out my spirit. Jesus having received of the Fath- 
 er the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear 
 The Holy Ghost fell on all," &c. Now, as the baptism of the Holy Ghost was 
 conferred by the descending of the divine influence on its subject, so water bap- 
 tism, which is its symbol, to correspond with it, must be administered by the de- 
 scending ot the baptismal element on the recipient. 
 
 8. The application of water to the subject, by sprinkling, or pouring, is valid 
 baptism, because it ie sustained by the meaning of the words which are used to 
 denote the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 The Greek words are PanTi^co, (baptizo) ■w'llh its derivatives /?a?rr«7;(a, (tepfisma) 
 and Ha-nria^oi, {baplismos) Baptize is a derivative firm /Sdirru, (bapto) and as all de- 
 rivatives retain, in a measure, the signification of their roots, so baptizo may be 
 regarded as synonymous^ to a certain extent, at least, in meaning with bapto. 
 But bapto is a word which means to bathe, to wash, to wet with dew, paint or 
 smear the face with colours, to pour, to dye, tinge, imbue or slain. Mr. Carson, 
 an immersionalist writer of much learning, proves that it means to dye or color 
 in any manner, i. e, by pouring, sprinkling or dipping. 
 
 For the satisfaction of the unlearned, a few casea of the different significations 
 of this word, are cited. Dan. v. 21. Daniel says respecting Nebuchadnezzar, 
 they fed him willi gtfiss like o-xen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven 
 
In the Greek it is, and his body was baptized with the dew of heaven. Dew 
 descends in a very fine sprinkling. Nebuchadnazzar, therefore, was baptized by 
 sprinkling, and the word (bapto) consequently means, in this instance, to bap- 
 tize by sprinkling. 
 
 Homer, an ancient classic writer, uses the word in the 'sense of staining, or 
 discoloring. Speaking of the death of a frog, in his ludicrous mock heroic poem 
 of the battlo of the mice and frog?, he save, " And the lake was baptized with 
 purple blood."* He mean?, of course, that the blood of the frog was sprinkled 
 upon the water, and it was thereby discolored, or stained. He docs not intend to 
 Bay that the lake was dipped, or immersed in the blood of a frog. 
 
 Aristophanes observes that Magnes, an old comedian of Athens, used to 
 shave t!ie face, and {" Pan-oixevos Parpa)(^cioci.) "stain it icith iaicny colors." Dr. 
 Gale, an immersionalist, interprets this passage thus ; '' He speaks of the home- 
 ly entertainments of the ancient theatre, where the actors daubed themselves 
 with the lees of wine, and any odd colors, before Eschyltjs reformed it. and in- 
 troduced the use of masks and visors. Aristophanes expresses this by (bapto- 
 menos ba-tracheiois ;) not that he supposes they dijiped their faces into the color, 
 but rather smeared the color on their faces." 
 
 Aristotle says. " But when pressed ( PaTrrst Kdi m/Bt^ec rrjv ^crpa. ) it tinges the 
 hand, and ^ives it a florid color," He here speaks of a juicy substance pressed 
 or squeezed in the hand. Marcus Antonius, speaking of a man of real worth, 
 says : " He is one {SiKatogwn Pcffai/nsvov ctg ISaSos) ihoroughly seasoned or imhued with 
 justice. Again, he says, " Your mind will be such as the things you most often 
 think of; for the soul (baptelai) is imbued, ov tinctured, by the thoughts." Ao-ain, 
 « See that you be not conformed to the Csssars, fme baphes) lest you be stained 
 or inflected.''^ 
 
 Judges, V. 30, " To Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey oC divers colours of 
 needle work, a prey of du'ers coZors of needle work on both sides." The word 
 colors is in the Greek ( (iai-fara bammata,) a derivative from bapto. This is di- 
 rectly against the sense of immersing, dipping, or plunging. Read on the im- 
 mersing plan, and it would be, "To Sisera a prey o? immersings, a prey of im- 
 mersings of needle v/ork, a prey of immersings of needle work on both sides." 
 
 In the Psalms Ixviii, 23, we read, "That thy foot may be red, or tinged with the 
 blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." 
 
 Lev. xiv. 6. " As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and 
 the scarlet, and the hysop, "Kal^d^psi aira kuI TodpviOeov to ^oiv." and shall tinge or 
 stain them, and the living bird, with the blood of the bird that was killed over the 
 running water." It is clear that these things could not be immersed in, or cov- 
 ered entirely over with the blood of a bird. There is not a sufficient quantity of 
 blood in two or three birds, to immerse a single bird, by dipping, or plunging it 
 all over in it. 
 
 *The frog is represented as struck with a panic and fallen into the lake. Then 
 one of the mice gave him a deadly wound. " He ceased to breathe, 
 
 (" tl3anr^To oj a(uo!r( Xtfivi?.") and, the lake was tinged with blood.*' 
 
10 
 
 Rev. xix, VS. Ana ne was clothed with a vesture,;;<ar<oi' fiepanidvov ai/jaTi, tinged 
 or stained with blood. '* Dutch, " kleet dat met bloet geverwet was," that is, 
 •' with a garment dyed with blood:" ("namely, in respect of his sufferings for us, 
 and in respect of the blood of his enemies wherewith this garment was dyed in 
 this slaughter.") 
 
 Origen, one of the fathers of the Christian Church, uses the word (hajpto) in 
 the sense of pouring. Commenting on the baptism of John, he says, 'How would 
 you think that Elias, when he should come, would ^baptiie who did not in the 
 time of Ahab baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it 
 was to be burnt by the Lord's appearing in fire^ But he ordered the priest to 
 do that, not once only, but he says do it the second time. And do it the third 
 time ; and they did it the third time. Therefore, how could it be likely that this 
 man, who did not then baptize, but assigned that work to others, would himself 
 baptize, when he should according to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear 
 hereupon earth.'' 
 
 Now, in I Kings, xviii. 3.3, we are told that Elijah ordered water to be poured 
 on the wood and sacrifice, but not to dip either in the^water. Yet Origen tells 
 us that pouring water on the wood and^on the sacrifice, was baptizing it. Who 
 can resist the conviction, when he reads this remarkable passage, that Origen 
 had been in the practice of administering the rite of baptism by pouring ? How 
 otherwise can we account for the fact that he regarded pouring wefter on any 
 thing and baptizing it as the same thing"? And if this was his opinion, it was the 
 current belief of the day in which he lived, for he undoubtedly spoke in accord- 
 ance with the prevailing sentiment of his contemporaries. 
 
 If now we turn to baptizo, and trace it through its different acceptations, we 
 shall find that it retains the signification of its root, bapto. 
 
 1. For haptizo means, in the first place, to tirige., bedew and sprinkle. Tertul- 
 lian, one of the earliest Christian writers, uses it in this sense. Remarking on 
 the passage, " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." 1 Cor. 
 1, 17, he says : 
 
 "Cur enim 
 tinxit Caiura, et Crispum, et Stephanse 
 domum? Quamquam etsi non eum 
 miserat Christus ^ad 9 tinguendum ; ta- 
 men aliis Apostolis pr^ceperat tinguere. 
 Verum hsec pro conditione tunc tem- 
 poris ad Corinthios scripta sunt, quoniam 
 schismata, et dissensiones inter illos 
 movebantur, dum alins Paulo deputat, 
 alius Apollos propterq uod pacificus Ap- 
 ostolus, ne sibi omnia defendere videre- 
 tur, non ad tinguendum (ait) se missum, 
 eed ad preedicandum ; nam et prius est 
 prsedicare, postea tinguere.'' 
 
 " Why indeed did he tinge or bedew 
 Caius and Crispus and the family of Ste- 
 phanus] For although Christ had not 
 sent him to tinge or bedew, nevertheless, 
 he^had commanded the other Apostles 
 to bedew. 
 
 But these things were written to the 
 Corinthians as most suited to their con- 
 dition at that time, because schisms and 
 dissensions were excited among them, 
 since one makes account of Paul and 
 another of Apollos, wherefore, the pa- 
 cific Apostle, lest he should not seem 
 to repel all things from himself, says 
 that he was not sent to tinge but to 
 preach ; for it is first in order to preach, 
 afterwards to bsdew or besprinkle." 
 
11 
 
 The word tingo used here as synonymous with oaptizo, means to dye, stain, wet or 
 moisten, in any way whatever, by pouring sprinkling or immersing'. Persius ; 
 Tincta veneno, infected with poison. " Tingat olus siccuni muria," wet, or spar- 
 ingly imbue, his garden stuff with sauce, or any liquid to give it a relish;" "Sepe 
 oculos memini Tingebam parvus olivo ;" I remember that when a body, I an- 
 nointed my eyes with olive oil." — Virgil. "Musto Tirade cruna ;" stain your 
 legs with neiv wine, i, e. in treading out grapes. " Arctos Oceani metruente» 
 sequore tingi;" the bears that cautiously shun being wetted in, or touched with the 
 water of the ocean." — Ovid. ^' Tingere ora lacritnis f to tinge or bedew the 
 face with tears. Calp. " Tingere pascua rore ;" to tinge or wet the pastures 
 with dew. Cicero. " Tunica sanguine tincta ;" garments stained with blood. 
 
 There is a passage in the Apochryphal book Ecclesiasticus, xxxiv, 30, where 
 baptizo is used in the sense of sprinkling. 
 
 avToVj Ti ilicpi Xrjiiv tu Xovrp'Z avroii. 
 
 " He that baptizeth himself after the 
 touching of a dead body, if he touch it 
 again, what availeth his washing." 
 
 When a Jew touched a dead body, he was required by the Mosaic law to puri- 
 fy himself with the water of seperation. But the water of seperation he sprink- 
 led upon himself. The law on this subject is in Numb. xix. 11,13. "He that 
 toucheth the dead body of any man, shall be unclean seven days. He shall puri- 
 fy himself with it, (i. e. water of seperation, v. 9:) on the third day, and on the 
 seventh day he shall be clean ; but if he purify not himself the third day then the 
 seventh day he shall not be clean." 
 
 In the next verse, the mode of this purification is described. " Whosever 
 toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defi- 
 leth the tabernacle of the Lord, and that soul shall be cast off from Israel, because 
 the water of seperation was not sprinkled upon him." &c- 
 
 The writer of the book of Ecclesiastius was a Jew, and of course had reference 
 to this very ordinance respecting the purification of a person who had touched 
 a dead body. But he calls the administration of it baptism ; using the very word 
 baptizo to denote the sprinkling which was employed in the observance of the 
 rite. The conclusion, therefore, inevitably follows that baptizo means to sprink- 
 le. This case is so perfectly clear, that if the passage was translated thus, it 
 may be regarded as fully authorized ; " He that sprinkleth himself after the 
 touchino- of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing." 
 
 " In'Heb. ix. 10, we read of a ritual service which stood only in meats and 
 drinks and divers washings." In the Greek, it is divers baptisms. These divers 
 baptisms belonged to the Old Testatment dispensation. What baptisms are 
 here alluded to, we learn from verses 13, 19, 2L They were sprinklings 
 performed with blood and water. " For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the 
 ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the 
 
 * Dutch, Gewasschen. Cleanseth. 
 
12 
 
 flesh." "For when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according tv> 
 the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool 
 and hysop, and sp-inkled both the book and all the people." "Moreover,he sprink- 
 led likewise with blood, both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry." 
 
 These sprinklings were the divers baptisms to which the allusion is made. 
 The Spirit of inspiration, therefore, has taught us, in this case, to understand 
 aspersion to be baptism. 
 
 In 1 Cor. X, 1, 2. we read that all the Fathers of the Jewish nation " were un- 
 der the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Mo- 
 ses, in the cloud and in the sea." 
 
 In this passage, the word bapliso is used solely in reference to sprinkling. 
 For it is manifest that neither the cloud above them, nor the sea on either side of 
 them, touched the Israelites. They went through the midst of the sea on dry 
 ground, and, consequently, the baptism to which they were subjected, took place 
 on dry ground, and was not an immersion. No immersion can be received on 
 dry ground. 
 
 Dr. Gill, an Immersionalist, and a voluminous commentator, says ; "the cloud 
 which went before the Israelites, and stood behind them, and was between the 
 two camps to keep off the Egyptians, which as it passed over them let down a 
 plentiful rain upon them ; whereby they were in such a condition as if they had 
 been all over dipped in water." 
 
 But this is giving up the controversy concerning the meaning of the word bap- 
 tizo, and is admitting that baptism may be received by the descent of the baptis- 
 mal element. According to his interpretation, it would be valid baptism if suf. 
 ficicnt water be poured upon individuals so as thoroughly to drench them, and 
 put them in such a condition as if they had been " all over dipped in water." 
 
 This confession, which yields the point in debate, in respect to the significa- 
 tion of baptizo, and in regard to the validity of pouring as a mode of baptism', 
 does not, however, go far enough. The circumstances of the Israelites, as they 
 passed through the midst of the sea, do not seem to imply tliat they were thor- 
 oughly drenched by rain from the cloud. The rain did indeed fall upon them 
 from the cloud, (Pe. Ixxvii, 17) but then, it must have been a gentle rain which 
 was poured upon them, for the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground. 
 For in Ex.xiv. 21,22, it i.s said' " the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong 
 east wind all night, and made the sea dry land, and the children of Israel went 
 into the midst of the sea upon dry ground." A very heavy drenching rain would 
 have made the gronnd very wet. But the ground continued dry. It was, there- 
 fore, a sprinkling rain which descended upon the Israelites, as a heavier rain 
 would have moistened the ground. Hence the oaptism of the Israelites unto 
 Moses, was a sprinkling. 
 
 2. Baptizo means to cleanse with water, and to purify, without reference to the 
 mode. 
 
13 
 
 Jt has this Bignificalion in the Apochryphal book^ Jaditb, chap. xii. 
 
 f Kai e^eiropcvero Kara ivkto m rijv (papayya 
 ffervXoia, *^Kai tliami^cra iv rij napenPuXfj im 
 
 "And she (Judith) went out in the 
 night into the valley of Bethulia and' 
 baptized herself at a fountain that was 
 in the camp." 
 
 Judith wag a Jewess, and alone in a camp of 200,000 Syrians. She had en- 
 tered that camp to destroy Holofernes, the commander of the Syrian army. She 
 could not accomplish her purpose without preserving' the utmost cleanliness of 
 person. She visited the fountain of water in the camp, to cleanse, or wash her- 
 self. She might have done this, and not have done anything inconsistent with 
 propriety, and the delicacy which her situation required. But if she had bathed^ 
 or immersed herself in the fountain,(if it had been deep enough for that purpose) 
 it would have been an insult oiFered to the Assyrians, (for it furnished them with 
 their supply of water) and it \rould have been an act of immodesty which would 
 have completely frustrated the accomplishment of her scheme. 
 
 Mark vii. 4. " And when they (the Pharisees and Jev/a) come from the mar- 
 ket, except they wash they eat not." The word in the Greek, is baptize.. This 
 passage does not refer to the persons themselves as being baptized, for the Jews 
 had no such custom as that of washing their bodies in water after they had been 
 10 market. The context teaches us that the reference is to washing their hands. 
 This subject is introduced in the following words: •' And Vi^hen they saw some 
 of his disciples eat bread with defiled hands, they found fault. Then follows the 
 explanation ; For the Pharasees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands 
 oft, eat not ; and when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat 
 not. Then the Pharasees and scribes asked him, why walk not thy disciples 
 according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands." f 
 
 From these words, it is manifest that the washing which the Pharasees and 
 Jews regarded with such scfupulousness after tliey had been to market, was an. 
 ablution of the hands. But this cleansing of their hands, which was probably 
 done with water streaming upon them from a watering pot, we are taught was a. 
 baptism. 
 
 " And many other things there be, which they (the Jews and Pharasees) have 
 
 * Dutch — " Ende sy iciesch haEer in het leger, in de water fonteyne." 
 she washed herself in the camp at the fountain. 
 
 And 
 
 t Dutch — vs. 3. For the Pharasees and all the Jews eat not, without washing 
 (first) the hands often, (or, with the fist ; as they that will wash their hands very 
 clean, use to rub the hand with the fist ; or carefully. Or, up to the elbow, as 
 some report the Jews custom was to do,) holding the institution; (Gr. holding 
 fast, or laying hold on) the tradition of the ancients, (or, of the elders.) 
 
 Vs. 5. Afterwards the Scribes and the Pharasees asked him, wherefore do not 
 thy disciples walk, [that is, live ; a Hebrew phrase ;'^ as Ps. i. 1, and throughout] 
 after the institution of the ancients, or, (of the elders) but eat bread with imu^ashen 
 hands. 
 
14 
 
 received to holtl, as the washing ofcupg, and pots, brazen vessels and of tables.* 
 The washing of cups, &-c. in the Greek, is the baptism o[ cups, &c. "The cups 
 were drinkinaf vessels used at meals, the pots were measures of liquids, and were 
 vessels made of wood, and were used to hold wine, vinegar and other liquids. 
 The brazen vessels were used in cooking, or otherwise. These, if much pollu- 
 ted, were commonly passed through the fire ; if slightly polluted, they were 
 washed." 
 
 The term tables, in the Greek, is couches. It refers to the couches on which 
 they reclined at meals. This is admitted by Dr. Gill.f " The custom among 
 the Jews, was not to eat sitting, as we do, but reclining on couches. The table 
 was made by three, raised like ours, and placed so as to form a square, with a 
 clear space in the midsi, and one end quite open. On the sides ot them were 
 placed cushions, capable of containing three or more persons. On these the 
 Jews reclined when they took their meals, leaning on the left side, with their 
 feet extended from the table," as in tiie following figure. 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 B 
 
 A 
 
 B 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 A, represents the open space between the tables. B. B. B, The tables. C. C. C, 
 The couches on which they reclined at meals ; the head being next to the table 
 and the feet extending back horizontally. 
 
 *Dutch. — And (coming) from the market, [because there they dealt with all 
 sorts of men, Gentiles and others, and touched many other things, whereby they 
 held themselves defiled] they eat not except they be first washed. (Greek, baptized; 
 which signifies both to dip into the water, and also to wash off. Gr. " gedoopt 't 
 vvelck indoopen in 't water en ook afwaschen," from whence the holy baptism 
 hath'its denomination.) And many other things there be, which they have received to 
 hold (a.s namely) the washing of drinking cups, and pots. (The Greek word 
 Xestes signifies the sixth part of a Congius, i. e. about a Dutch pint and a half] 
 and brazen vessets and beds. [That is, bedsteads, or the sides of the beds, where- 
 on the ancients layer leaned on at the Table for to eat, instead of our sitting."] 
 
 f Commenting on Mark vii. 4, he says, "to give further trouble, it is insisted 
 on, that the v^-ord should be rendered beds ; and it must be owned that it is so 
 rendered in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, and in many modern trans- 
 lations : and we are contented it should be so rendered. And these beds design 
 cither the couches they lay, or leaned upon at meals ; or the beds they slept in at 
 ni^ht." 
 
15 
 
 i^ow, aa each of these tables could not have t)ecn less tlim four foot higl), tlirce 
 or four feet wide, and six or eight feet long-, and the couches were proportional, 
 the couches must have been six feet high, six or eight feet long, and at least six feo.t 
 wide. It cannot be supposed that such cumbersome and heavy articles of furni- 
 ture were immersed in water. It would be impracticable to plunge entirely un- 
 der water, after every meal, such articles even in this country, though it is every 
 where well watered, and abounds in large streams of water. How unlikely is it 
 that this was done in Judea, a country where water, even in small quantities, 
 was scarce and hard to be obtained. The word baptism, therefore, here must 
 denote some other application of water than submerging under water. "It 
 must be used in the sense of washing in any way. And if, as is clear, to de- 
 note anything except entire immersion, it may be elsewhere ; and baptism is 
 lawfully performed without immersing the body under water." 
 
 Again, Luke xi. 38. "And when the pharasee saw it, he marvelled that he 
 (Jesus) had not first washed, [Greek, baptized] before dinner." The idea here 
 again is not an immersion of the body. Lightfoot says " it was not necessary, 
 neither was it the custom [of the Jews] before meals, to wash the whole body, 
 but the hands only." The Pharasee, therefore, marvelled that " a man of so 
 much religion and holiness" as the Saviour, "should lay down on one of the 
 couches and begin to eat" with unwashen hands, " and should ^shew no regard 
 to a common custom with them, and which was one of the traditions of their 
 elders, and which they put upon a level with the commands of God." 
 
 "The origin of the custom of washing before they partook of their meals, with 
 so much formality, was that they did not use, as we do, knives and forks, but 
 used their hands only. Hence, as their hands would be often in a dish on the 
 tablCj it was esteemed proper that they should be washed clean before eatino-^ 
 Nor was there impropriety in the thing itself, but the Pharasees made it a mat- 
 ter of ceremony ; they placed no small part of their religion in such ceremonies ; 
 and it was right, therefore, that our Lord should take occasion to reprove them 
 for it." Washing of hands, then, which may have been performed in various 
 ways, as cleansing them with a wet cloth, or rubbing them together in water in a 
 basin, or under water poured upon them from a'pitcher, or the fawcet of a water- 
 ing pot, we are here taught is a baptism.. 
 
 The word baptism is used as synonymous with purification in John iii, 25. — 
 
 " Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews, 
 about purifying." 
 
 This question, or dispute about "purification, is proved by the circumstances 
 which led to it, to have been about baptism.* These, as stated by the Evangel- 
 ist were, that " Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea ; and there 
 he tarried with them and baptized, and John also was baptizing in Enon, near 
 
 * Then there arose a question [or difference] [by some] of the disciples of John 
 vnththe Jews, about purifying. Namely, about comparing of the worthiness of 
 the baptism of John, witii the Jewish purifications ; or, of the baptism of John, 
 with the baptism of Christ's disciples." Dutch Bible and Annotations. 
 
16 
 
 -Salini, because there wm much water there ; and they came and were baptized.'* 
 
 Here were two baptisms. Christ had set up his after John, and as greater 
 •numbers attended his baptism than John's, it seemed to argue that they consid- 
 ered his baptism as conferring a greater degree of purity than John's, and that 
 the baptism instituted by Christ was becoming most popular. The Jews, it seem?, 
 made or drew lliis inference, and stated it to John's disciples. This naturally 
 enkindled the zeal of John's disciples in behalf of his baptism, and led them to 
 contend that it was superior to that of Christ. Hence, it was the claims of two 
 apparently rival baptisms which originated the question between some of John's 
 disciples and the Jews about purifying. The dispute about purification, there- 
 fore, was a dispute about baptism. 
 
 « 
 
 This view of the case is established beyond all controversy, by the reference of 
 this dispute about purification by the parties, to John as a question about bap- 
 tism. The parties not being able to settle the discussion satisfactorily between 
 themselves, came to John, and said to him, " Rabbi, he that wag with thee be- 
 yond Jordan, to whom thou bearest record, behold the same baptizeth, and all 
 min come to him." This reference shews that the debate about purification, 
 turned chiefly on the point of the superiority of Christ's baptism, and its being 
 likely entirely to supercede that of John. Hence, the conclusion is inevitable, 
 that the word baptism, in this case, means purification. 
 
 In confirmation of the idea that Christ's baptism was regarded by the Jews as 
 8 purification, we may appeal to the fact tliat it wbs foretold of Christ, that he 
 should purify. The prophets have designated Christ as a purifier, but in no case 
 08 one who should immerse. In Malichi iii. 1, 3, it is said, "The Lord whom 
 ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, 
 whom ye delight in : behoM he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts. -Butv/ho 
 may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth ? 
 for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers soap, nnd he shall sit a refiner and 
 purijisr of silver, and he shall purify the son's of Levi and purge them as gold 
 end silver." In Ezekiel xxxvi, 2.% the Lord promises under the reign of the 
 Messiah, to sprinkle clean water upon his people, and he says, and ye shall be 
 purified ; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I purify you." 
 
 In Isaih Iii, 15, it is said of the Messiah," So shall he sprinkle many nations," 
 which is rendered in the Syric translation of the Scriptures, which is very an- 
 cient, <' thus shall he purify many nations." 
 
 These passages, the Jews understood of baptism, for they expected that Christ 
 would baptize when he should come. They sent Priests and Levites to John 
 when he began to baptize, (and before the question was settled whether he was 
 the expected Messiah or not) to ask him " who art thou, and why baptizeth 
 thou tliem, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet ? " 
 
 Now, observe, the first inquiry does not demand John's authority for baptizing, 
 but simply who he is, whether Christ, Elias, or that prophet 1 It implies no 
 surprise, it expresses no disapprobation, that he should baptize provided he was 
 the Christ. They did not dispute his authority and right to baptize in that case; 
 «hey asked only for his credentials. 
 
But; the second inquiry Implies both surprise and disapprobation , <• why bap- 
 tizeth thou then, if thou be not that Christ", &c. As soon as they ascertained 
 that he was not the person they had supposed, they immediately question the 
 propriety of his conduct in administering baptism to the people. It is, therefore, 
 evident that the Jews expected that Christ would baptize. 
 
 Now, this belief they must have founded on those predictions in the Old Test- 
 ament, which represent Christ as a purifier. There is no other source from 
 which they could have derived this opinion. Hence, they regarded purification 
 and baptism, [baptismos <$• kalharvsmos, baptizo ^- katharizo] as synonymous, and 
 consequently when they disputed with John's disciples respecting the relative 
 claims of the baptism of John and Christ, they called baptism, purification. 
 
 The synonymous character of these words, is furthermore, established by the 
 fact that purify is the term which exactly expresses the meaning of baptiza 
 in a majority of cases in which the word is used in the New Testament, and j in 
 some instances, is the only one except baptize, which will make good sense. . 
 
 Insert the word purify, in the following passages, and the reading will be nat- 
 ural, and the sense obvious. " I purify you with water," &c^ '' John truly purified 
 with waters" &c. " Jesus was pwr(^etZ of John in Jordan." "Jesus being pw- 
 ri^ed and praying." " They were ywri^ec?, both men and women." "Repent 
 and be purified, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ." " See here is 
 vvater, what doth hinder me to he purified." 
 
 The following examples furnish instances in which the word purify expresses 
 the meaning of baptizo better than any other word except baptize. 
 
 Math. iii. ll. "I indeed baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with 
 the Holy Ghost and vvith fire." Insert the word purify, <<how natural the state- 
 ment and obvious the meaning" ; I indeed purify you with v/ater, but he shall 
 purify you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, i. e. "I perform an external and 
 symbolical rite, by which the body is cleansed with water, but he shall perform 
 a higher purification, in which the mind is purified"* by the efficacious, or refin- 
 ing power of the Spirit of God.f 
 
 Take now, the word imrrtei'se, and insert it in the place of baptize, and the con- 
 struction becomes at once unnatural. "I indeed immerse you with water, but 
 he shall immerse you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." It is not good En- 
 glish to say immersed with water, with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Hence, 
 the insertion of the word immerse, requires that the Greek particle ev, [en] 
 translated with, should be rendered in, to make the sentence tolerable English. 
 But with this alteration, the meaning of the passage is obscured, if not destroy- 
 ed ; for what idea is conveyed by the expression I " I immerse you in the Holy 
 Ghost and, in fire." 
 
 * President E. Beecher Bib. Repository, vol. 3, 1840. 
 
 t " John here distinguisheth his outward baptism from t he inward baptism of 
 Christ, whereby he purifielh our hearts by his spirit, as the fire doth the metal 
 from all allovs and impurity,"— Z^w/cA Annotations. 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 If it is said that immersing in the Holy Ghost, and in fire, means imbuing large- 
 ly with the efficacious influences of the Holy Spirit ? then the antithesis will re- 
 quire that the first member of the sentence, " I indeed baptize you with water," 
 should be understood of imbuing with water. But to give it this signification, 
 is to lose sight of immersion, except as a mode of imbuing, and is to admit that 
 baptizo, in this passage, does not mean exclusively to immerse. The term im- 
 bue, means to dye, tinge deeply, to moisten to such a degree that a color, odon 
 or the like is imbued. Immersion may be a mode of imbuing, and so may pour- 
 ing, sprinkling ahd pressing ; hence, immersing is not necessarily included in 
 the idea of imbuing ; since there are other ways of imbuing. To give the pas- 
 sage this meaning, therefore, is to recede from the position that baptizo means 
 only to immerse. 
 
 In i Cor. xii, 13, it is said, "By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, 
 and have been all made to drink into one spirit." 
 
 The agent of baptism in this case, is said to be the Holy Spirit. The body 
 into which we are all baptized, is the spiritual and invisible body, or church of 
 Christ. So Dr. Gill understood it, for he says, "It is the grace of the Spirit in 
 regeneration and sanctificatioji which is here intended, which grace in the Old 
 and New Testament is frequently called a baptism, by which spiritual baptism, 
 they [i. e. Christians] are brought into one body ; the mystical body of Christ, 
 the universal and invisible church of Christ." 
 
 The baptism, therefore, here spoken of, is not the baptism of water, but of the 
 spirit. Now. as the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the cleansing and renewing of 
 the heart, purified is the very word which gives the proper meaning of baptized, 
 in this passage. " The Holy Ghost does not immerse the mind, but purify it." 
 The Holy Ghost does not unite us to the Spiritual body of Christ, by immersing 
 our bodies or minds, but by the purifying of our hearts. " According to his mer. 
 cy, he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost ; which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." 
 
 ' If it is said to weaken the strength of this argument, that purification involves 
 immersion, and that therefore baptizo means to immerse, it may be replied that 
 it does not confine it to that sense, since purification involves also washing, bath- 
 ing, pouring and sprinkling. All of them equally are modes of purifying; 
 
 Furthermore, immersion is not necessarily connected with purification, for it 
 is a fact that " no word necessarily denoting immersion was employed to repre- 
 sent the purification of persons under theMosaic ritual." The Heb. word used was 
 Raliats, which means to wash, or purify, without reference to mode. The def- 
 finitions which are given to this word in the lexicons of Simonis and Gesenius, 
 are "to wash, to lave, to bathe." President Beecher says if any one will taken 
 Hebrew concordance, and trace the word through the whole of the Old Testa- 
 ment, he will have abundant proof of the correctness of this statement in respect 
 to the meaning of the word ; and, he adds that the whole Mosaic ritual, " as to 
 personal ablution or purification, could be fulfilled to the letter without a single 
 immersion." 
 
19 
 
 RGMIRRS. 
 
 This subject saggeets, in concluding, the following remarks. 
 
 1. Immersion as the only valid mode of baptism, cannot be proved by the sig- 
 nification of the word baptizo. When it can be demonstrated that this word 
 means in every case to immerse, then immersion alone will be proved to be valid 
 baptism. If it means to wash, to sprinkle, to pour, to cleanse or purify without 
 reference to mode, then the rite of baptism may be administered by pouring or 
 sprinkling, and it is valid. 
 
 Finally. It is not zeal for an ordinance, or a particular mode of observing it 
 that will render us acceptable to God, but it is the keeping of God's command- 
 ments, and the waiting upon him in his ordinances with holiness of heart that 
 will prepare us to enjoy his favor. 
 
 Baptism is not a saving ordinance. There is nothing saving, therefore, to be 
 attached to the mode of our baptism. "For neither circumcision availeth any 
 thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." " Except a man be born again, 
 he cannot see the kingdom of God." " Not every one that saith unto me. Lord, 
 Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my 
 Fathet which is in Heaven." These declarations shew us that however firmly we 
 may cling to forms, or outward ordinances of religion, they will not save us, un- 
 less to our faith in them, we add obedience to all the laws of Christ. How de- 
 sirous our blessed Lord was to impress this sentiment on the minds of his disci- 
 ples, is evident from the parting direction which he gave them after he had pre- 
 scribed the form of words to be used in baptism. He adds, " teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This farewell injunction 
 of our blessed Lord, therefore, requires us not to lay a particular stress on bap- 
 tism and a peculiar mode of administering it, or any other ordinance, but upon 
 obedience to all the requirements of the Gospel.. 
 
 He has consequeetly shewn his foUowersr, that their zeal should be expended 
 about vital religion and not baptism ; he has taught his ministers that it is their 
 first and principal business, in all their instructions, to inculcate unreserved obe- 
 dience to God in every thing, both of the heart and life, as the sum and substance 
 of true religion ; and he has clearly intimated to those who neglect this branch 
 of their duty, and labor more to induce men to observe a religious rite in a cer- 
 tain way, than to practice the piety of which that rite is significant— to seek the 
 shadow rather than the substance, " that they are guilty of manifesting a marked 
 contempt of ,the very last command that feir from the lips of their departiug 
 Lord." 
 
^ 
 
 1 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Romans ii, 28, 29. " For he is not a Jew that is one outwardly, neither . 
 that circumcision which is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which is one 
 inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the let- 
 ter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." 
 
 There are strictly speaking but two kinds of religion, the religion of form, and 
 the religion of the heart. The former attaches an undue importance to external 
 rites, and makes religion consist too much in a particular mode of observing them. 
 The latter regards religion as spiritual, having its seat in the affections, its out- 
 ward ordinances as carnal and of no value, except as means of grace and in- 
 struction, and the particular manner of observing them unessential so long as 
 their substance and significance are retained. 
 
 In this world, spiritual things are represented to men by symbols, because 
 they receive their knowledge through the senses, which are the ialets to the mind, 
 In consequence of this organization of our natures, we are creatures of sense, 
 naturally inclined to take the shadow for the substance, and lay undue stress up- 
 on the outward rites of religion. Attaching loo much importance to the observ- 
 ance of a religious ordinance, constituted one of the errors of the Jews. They 
 exalted circumcision above every thing else connected with the service of God, 
 considering it a badge of holiness, and a passport to Heaven. To correct this 
 erroneous sentiment, the Apostles found it necessary to distinguish between the 
 circumcision of the flesh and of the heart, and to assure their hearers that a true 
 Israelite was not one who was outwardly circumcised merely, but whose cir- . 
 cumcision was" that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose 
 praise was not of men but of God." 
 
 Many, like the Jews, cling to forms. They regard the observance of baptism 
 in a particular mode: and connection with a particular church, as of more value 
 than faith and holiness. This attachment to an outward ordinance is deeply to 
 be reorretted. It fosters a zeal about a matter which in itself is of little import- 
 ance, and creates a sectarian and exclusive spirit which endangers the salvation 
 of souls, and retards the advancement of the cause of Christ. Baptism is impor- 
 tant in its place, but among those who profess the religion of Jesus, it should be 
 considered only as an ordinance, and no dependence for salvation should be plac- 
 ed on any thing but the righteousness and grace of God in Christ Jesus. " For 
 baptism as to its saving efficacy, as is said of circumcision, is nothing; but the 
 keeping of the commandments of God." With a full conviction of the sentiment 
 
22 
 
 ot the text, that ai> ordinance is of less importance than the state of the heart, anJ 
 is of no vahif? at all without piety, we proceed in our discussion of the mode of 
 baptism. 
 
 We propose in this discourse to notice several assumptions of the Immersion 
 alists, in regard to the explanation of the word haptizo, and to adduce further 
 proof of the validity of pouring or sprinkling as a mode of bap tiara. 
 
 1. The Immersionalisis assume, in the first place, that the primary, radical, and 
 classical meaning o^ haptizo, is to immerse totally ; i. e. to submerge or plunge 
 the whole of an object entirely under wrter. 
 
 The classic Greek was written by ancient Greek authors, who wrote pure 
 Greek. The appeal to these writers, however can be met. They did not al- 
 ways use the word baptiso to denote the entire submerging and covering of an 
 object with water. This is evident from the following examples. 
 
 \ Porphyry, speaking of the sinner in the Styx, the famous river of Hell, says ; 
 
 '• OTavjSc Karayopovjicvoi tviffrj^ avaftapTrjros 
 
 ftsv CIV aSeus iup^^CTai a^pt tuiv yovarcov c^uv 
 TO vibsp, ajtaprwv Si, oXiyoK rrpoffai ffanri^erai 
 fiC^pt Ke(pa'Xris.'' 
 
 Polybius says, 
 
 5 " fioXii ccoj TOiy fia^o)v oi ve^oi PairTt^oiiCiot 
 iu^aivovy 
 
 '' When the accused person enters the 
 river, if he is innocent, he passes boldly 
 through, having the water up to his 
 knees ; but if guilty, having advanced a 
 little, he is baptized up to the head.*' 
 
 " The foot soldiers passed with diffi- 
 culty, baptized up to the breast." 
 
 Strabo, speaking of Alexander's soldiers marching a whole day through the 
 tide between the mountain Climax and the sea, says : 
 
 " ixcxpi- oii<pa\ov fiaiiTi^ontvoiv.'^ \ "They were baptized Up to the middle." 
 
 The verse of the oracle quoted from Plutarch, Carson translates, 
 
 "AfKoj panri^n, ivvai 6c toi ov dcfiti csri.' I " Thou mavest be baptized, O bladder ! 
 
 'but thou art not fated to sink." 
 
 He remarks pp. 89, 90, "The expression in this verse is allegorical, literally 
 referring to a leathern bottle, which, when empty, swims on the surface, if suffi- 
 ciently filled, will dip, but will not sink." 
 
 The Greek scholiast on Aratus, speaking of the crow, says, " The crow often 
 (ebaptisen)baptizes herself from the head to the top of her shoulders in the river." 
 
 These cases prove that ancient Greek writers understood tha partial covering 
 of a person, or object, with water, to be a baptism. Hence, if they are called in 
 to give their judgement in reference to the meaning of haptizo, it is against the 
 practice of the Immersionalists. They decide, that if the head on\y of the can- 
 didate be dipped in water, or if he ^vade in the water up to his middle or breast. 
 
23 
 
 or if he is let down into the water up to his head, vvitliout beinnr plunged all ovn? 
 in water, that he is baptized. 
 
 Again. The ancient Greeks used the word baptizo, in a sense which entirely 
 excludes the idea of immersion as the act of plunging any thing under water. 
 
 Aristotle says, " They relate of the Phoenicians, who inhabit a place called 
 Gadeira, (or Cadiz) that sailing beyond the pillars of Hercules, with an east 
 wind four days, they came to certain desert places, full of bull-rushes and sea 
 weeds ; which, when it is at ebb are not baptized; but when it is flowing tide, 
 are overflowed." Now, Aristotle does not say that these places are p lunged, or 
 dipped, or put into the sea water below the surface, but they are inundated or 
 covered by the sea water flowing in upon them at full tide. But ih\s flowing in 
 of the water upon them at the rising of the tide, he calls baptizing them. This 
 case, therefore, shews that a thing may be baptized, when it is not put into the 
 water, when it is not plunged or dipped under it, but when the water is brought 
 in and poured over it. Hence, a thing may be baptized when the idea of immer- 
 sion is not included, for immersion is the act, not of pouring water upon a thing 
 until it is submerged, but of putting into the water below the surface ; or the 
 act of plunging or dipping into the water until covered. If immersion therefore 
 is not always implied, how manifestly improper to insist that it is requisite in the 
 Christian ordinance of baptism to render it valid ? 
 
 Again. Homkr describes Ajax killing Cleobulus, thus: '"He struck 
 him across the neck with his heavy sword ; and the whole sword bicame warm 
 with the blood." This is explained by Pseudo-Didymus, by the word baptized, 
 with a view to show how much the sword was imbued, stained, or wetted with the 
 reeking blood. And Dionisious Halicarnassus concerning the poetry of Ho- 
 mer, observes : " That in this phrase there is a peculiar emphasis, which con- 
 sists in this, that the sword was so baptized, as even to be warmed" with the 
 gushing blood. Here, again, the idea of immersion is excluded. The sword 
 of Ajax is not baptized by being plunged into or under or through the blood of 
 Clrobdlvs, but by the blood spirting or gushing out of the wound on the 
 sword. 
 
 Again. Plutarch, in his Treatise of Education compares the method of 
 instructing children to that of watering plants. " For as plants are nourished 
 by moderate waterings, but pine away if these are too frequent ; in like manner 
 the mind, by well proportioned labors, is improved, but when these are more 
 than enough it is baptized,^' i. e. drenched. Here again, neither plunging , dip- 
 ping or immersing is implied; " Plutarch compares the baptizing of the minds 
 of children, while their teachers instil various instructions into them, to a gard- 
 ner's pouring water upon his plants !" 
 
 Again. The word baptize is used by profane authors to denote drunkenness, 
 the condition of drunh.nness, insensibility and sleep, under inebriation, of being 
 involved in debt and overburdened with taxes. " They speak of being baptized 
 with wine" i e rendered drunk, "of being baptized into insensibility and sleep un- 
 
'24 
 
 tier drunkenness,'' '' of being baptized by a debt of 5009 myriads," and " of the 
 common people being baptized with taxes." 
 
 Josephus uses the word in the sense of overflowed or overwhelmed. Speaking 
 of the ships which carried the people of Joppa, after being driven out of the city 
 by the Roniane, he says, " the wave raised aloft, and holding them under its con- 
 trol, baptized them ;" that is, overwhelmed themi The word overwhelm is com- 
 posed of two terms, over and whelm. Over expresses that which is above us in 
 place and position. Hence, to overwhelm anything, is to overpower or bear it 
 down by throwing the overwhelming element upon it, not by thrusting it into, or 
 through the element, as in immersion. A person may be overwhelmed on dry 
 land, but not immersed. Rain, or falling and drifting snow may descend in such 
 quantities upon a man as to overwhelm him, that is, to overpower and bear him 
 down, but he cannot be immersed in rain or in a snow storm. Overwhelming, 
 therefore, as it expresses motion from above, and action upon an object, expres- 
 ses the descent of the baptismal element, and corresponds with pouring and 
 sprinkling, and not with immersion, which implies the action of the object itself 
 upon the inmiersing element. 
 
 2. Another assumption of the Immersionalists is, that there is no difference 
 between the Greek of the New Testament ami the Greek of the ancient classic 
 authors ; that a particular Avord has precisely the same meaning in the New 
 Testament that it has in the classics, and consequently i^baptizo uniformly 
 means in classic Greek, to immerse, it has no other meaning in the NewTesta- 
 rnenti 
 
 This position is not only erroneous, but it furnishes evidence of the weakness 
 of the Immersionalists scheme. " For it has long been an acknowledged fact, 
 among all who are well versed in the critical study of the New Testament, that 
 there are peculiarities in respect to the forms, the use and , the construction of 
 wordB," which make the Greek of the New Testament differ from the Greek of 
 profane authors. Hence, the system which requires sucli a rule of interpreta- 
 tion for Its defence, must be built upon the sand and is tottering to its fall. 
 
 The ancient Greek writers were heathen, lived in countries remote from Ju- 
 deaj and were familiar with religious ideas and customs which were entirely 
 polytheistical. In their hands, the Greek language was a different thing, in 
 many respects, from what it was in the hands of the Jews, for they applied it'ta 
 express ideas which were adapted to the religious notions of the heathen. On 
 the other hand, the Je-ws adapted the Greek language to their peculiar religious 
 notions and usages, and consequently employed it to express ideas " which had 
 never been compounded into existence in the land of classic Greek." 
 
 Hence, in expressing evangelical notions in the Greek Janguage, it became 
 necessary tor the writers of the New Testament to use many words in that 
 tongue, in an entirely new sense, that is, new to native Greeks, unacquainted 
 with the manners and customs of the Jewsy and the peculiar doctrines of the 
 word of God. IMany words, consequently, which had acquired a fixed meaninrj 
 m classic Greek, are used in a different sense in the New Testament. If, there- 
 
ibro, it can be proved tliat a particular word, according to classic usage, radical' 
 ]y and primarily means a certain thing, it will not follow that that word has the 
 same signification in the New Testament. For instance, the word TnVn? [pislis] 
 in classic Greek means simply belief, firm persuasion of the truth and veracity of 
 anyone. But a very common meaning of the word in the New Testament, is 
 that act of the soul by which the sinner receives the offer of pardon and eternal 
 life through the Saviour, and continues to rely upon his merits and mercy for 
 salvation. This is a meaning which no classic author has ever given to the 
 word. Again, the word iiKatdnwrj (di-kai-os-u-ne) was used by the heathen 
 Greek writers in the sense of justice ; equity; rectitude of conduct. But in the 
 New Testament it frequently denotes " tiie active and passive obedience of 
 Christ, whereby he perfectly fulfilled the law and propitiated the justice of God ; 
 which obedience being imputed to believers and received by faith, their sins are 
 pardoned, their persons accepted, and they are brought to eternal glory." This 
 is a sense which was entirely new to an ancient Greek, for he was acquainted 
 with no such doctrine in the whole range of his religious ideas. The words 
 (lyysXoj. (ag-^cl-os) TTvcvjxa (pncu-^ma) avasrasU ianas'-ta-sis) iuirvov (deip^non) and dco;, 
 signified simply in the ancient classic Greek, messenger, air or breath, standing 
 up, a full meal, as breakfast or supper, and a deity of any kind, whether a god 6i 
 goddess. But these terms in the New Testament, denote an angel, i. e. an in- 
 telligent and spiritual being whom God makes use of as his minister to execute 
 the orders of his providence, the Holy Ghost the third person in the adorable 
 trinity, the resurrection of the body after death, the ordinance of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, * and Jehovah, the supreme being. These are meanings, which these 
 
 * Dr. Woods remarks respecting this'word, " that it has a very different sense 
 when applied to the Lord's supper, from what it has in ordinary cases, Eating 
 a morsel o? bread does not constitute a supper, a principal meal ; although this 
 is the common signification of Deip-non. But in this religious rite, eating a 
 small morsel of bread is called a supper. 1 Cor. xi, 26. And^the Apostle charg- 
 ed the Corinthians with abusing the ordinance, because they made use of mora 
 food than the design of the ordinance required. Now, if the word which de- 
 notes one Christian rite, has a sense so widely different from its usual sense, 
 why may it not be so with the word, which denote the other Christian 
 rite ? As deipnon in reference to one' rite, signifies, not a usual meal, but only 
 B. very small quantity of bread, why may not Baptizo in reference to the other 
 rite, signify, not a complete dipping or washing, but the application of water in 
 a small degree ? This would present the two institutions in the same light. In 
 the first — as bread and wine are used, not to nourish and invigorate the body, but 
 for spiritual purposes, or as a sign of spiritual blessings; a very small quantity 
 is sufficient. Indeed the Apostle decides, that a small quantity is better suited 
 to the ends of the institution, than a larger quantity. So in the other — as water 
 is used, not to cleanse the body, but merely as a sign of spiritual purification ; a 
 small quantity of water must be sufficient ; as sufficient for the purposes of this 
 ordinance, as a small quantity of bread and wine is for the purposes of the other. 
 The nourishment of the body in the one case, and the cleansing of it in the oth- 
 er, being no part of the end to be answered ; a large quantity either of bread ^r 
 water can be of no use." Woods on Infant Baptism, pp, 153, 154. 
 
 If the word Deipnon mea.ns a full meal, following out the argument of the Im^ 
 mersionalists, unless they eat a full 7neal atjthe Lord's Table, they have not eat- 
 en the Lord's Supper, and we insist on it that they must eat a full meal at the 
 Lord's Table to be consistent with themselves ; or, if they admit that taking the 
 smallest part of an element at the Lord's Table is sufficient, thcv muat also ad^ 
 
 4 
 
'26 
 
 ^vorde never had in classic Greek, for the ancient heathen Greeks had no such 
 religious notions. 
 
 Now, if you follow the usage of the classic Greek, and translate these words 
 as they understood them, you will make nonsense of many passages of Script- 
 ure. It will lead you to render the passage John iii, 5, thus — " Except a man 
 be born of tfjaier, and of the air, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." — 
 Acts xxiii, 8, as follows — " For the Sadduces say that there is no standing 2ip, 
 7ieiilier messenger, nor air; but the Pharasees confess both." 
 
 These statements shew that the Greek of the New Testament differs material- 
 ly from the classic ; that while it is clothed in the same costume, its sentiments 
 and ideas are derived from the Hebrew, and consequently it is a false principle of 
 interpretation to determine the meaning of vvords in the New Testament by 
 their signification in the classic writers. Hence, if it could be proved that the 
 word laptizo uniformly means to dip,'or plunge entirely under water in classic 
 writers, (which cannot be done) it would not settle its meaning in the New Tes- 
 tament. The writers of the New Testament, being Jews, would think of the 
 purifications and lustrations of the Mosaic ritual when they used the Vord, and 
 would use it (as they evidently have In many instances) with reference to those 
 lustrations. 
 
 But, if the Immersionalists insist that bapdzo must be rendered to dip, because 
 it is so used in classic Greek, then we insist that other words also be rendered 
 according to their radical and primary meaning in the same writers, and then 
 we must read the passages Math, iii, 11, " I indeed (Zip you in water — he shall 
 dip you in the Holy air and in fire." John i. 33, " He that sent mc to dip in 
 water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the air descending and 
 remaining on him, the same is he which dippeth in the Holy air." Luke iii, 21, 
 22. " Now when all the people were dipped it came to pass, that Jesus also being 
 dipped and praying, the heaven was opened, the holy air descended in a bodily 
 shape like a dove upon him." 
 
 How shocking thus to treat the word of God. But, consistency with their 
 own principles of interpreting the language of the New Testament, in order to 
 prove that baptixo always means to dip, compells the Immersionalists thus to 
 distort the Scriptures. 
 
 3. Another assumption of the Immersionalists, is, that all Lexicographers give 
 laptizo the sense of dippang, plunging, or immersing, as the primitive and radi- 
 cal meaning of the word. 
 
 This we deny. There is a large lexicon of the ancient Greek language, 
 •generally used by native Greeks, and deservedly held in high estimation by all, 
 compiled by Gases, a learned native Greek," in which the following deffinitions 
 are given iobajHizo: 
 
 mit that a little water applied to a person by pouring or sprinkling, is baptism, 
 let the original meaning of Baptizo be what it may. There is as much propriety 
 in insisting on retaining the primary meaning o( Deip-non, as oi Baptizo. 
 
2T 
 
 1. To rvet, moisten., bedew.. 
 
 2. To wash, to bathe. 
 
 3. To draw, to pump water. 
 
 SuiDAs, a native Greek, who lived in tiie latter end of the ninth and the be- 
 ginning of the tenth century, compiled a Lexicon of the Greek language, "which 
 ia valuable for the fragments it contains of lost works, and the information which 
 it affords respecting ancient writers-'' He gives the word laptizo, and renders 
 it according to Dr. Owen \ 
 
 1. Madefacio, to wet, to moisten. 
 
 2. Lavo, to wash, to lathe, to iesprinkle. 
 
 3. Abluo, to wash, to ivash away, to purify. 
 
 4. PuRGO, to purge. 
 
 5. MuNDO, to cleanse, to make clean. 
 
 These are the deffinitions of two Lexicographers who are native Greeks, and 
 who of course understand their own language, and yet they do not give dipping, 
 or imjne?-sM2g-, as the meaning of the word at all. Nor is such a meaning ne- 
 cessarily to be inferred from any of the deffinitions given, for a man may tvash 
 and JaZfte himself without subjecting himself to an immersion of his body all over 
 in water. 
 
 ScHREVELius, an European Lexicographer, gives the word baptixo the follow- 
 ing deffinitions. 
 
 1. Baptizo, to baptize. 
 
 3. Mergo, to dip, plunge, immerse. 
 
 3. Abluo, to wash, to wash away, to purify. 
 
 4. Lavo, to wash, to lathe, to besprinkle. 
 
 ScHLEUSNER, ono ofthemost learned Lexicographers, says that " Baptiamos 
 (^baptism) is a term which embraces nearly all the Levitical purifications, and 
 quotes Hebrews vi, 2, ix, 10, to prove it." Many of the Levitical purifications 
 were sprinklings. 
 
 Dr. Featly says the word Baptizo is translated by''HESYCHUs, a native 
 Greek, by Scapula, and Bddeus, in their Lexicons and Commentaries, lavo j 
 to wash, to bathe, to besprinkle. 
 
 Dr. Owen says. Scapula gives Baptizo the sense of lavo and abxuo ; to 
 wash, to wash away. Pasor Lex, Lond. 1644. Bapttzo, to immerse, to wash, 
 to baptize. 
 
28 
 
 Most of the above detTinilioas imply pouring and eprinlding. 'I'o bodew, ig to 
 moisten in a gentle manner, with any liquid, as with dew. But dew falls in a 
 very fine sprinkling. I command my son to wet, or moisten my garment. He 
 sprinkles it with water. Does he not obey my command? I command him to 
 bathe my head ; he pours water on it very gently, or sprinkles it profusely with 
 water. Does he not bathe it ? I command him to wash my window. He 
 dashes a quantity of water against it, and wipes it dry with a cloth; does he 
 not fulfil my injunction 1 
 
 Secondly. Having replied to the assumptions of the Immersionalits in regard 
 to the word baptize, we will now proceed to adduce further proof of the validity 
 of pouring, or sprinkling, as a mode of baptism. 
 
 1. The numbers baptized by John the Baptist during his short ministry, the 
 great multitude baptized by the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and the cir- 
 cumstances under which the Apostle Paul and the Jailor's family were baptized, 
 furnish strong presumptive evidence that baptism was administered in the Apos- 
 tolic age, by some other mode than immersion. 
 
 An immense number of persons attended on the ministry of John the Baptist,- 
 and appear to have received baptism. " All Judea, Jerusalem, and the re- 
 gion about Jordan, went out to his baptism, and were baptized of him in Jordan, 
 confessing their sins."* Now, from some statements which Josephus has made 
 with respect to the populousness of Palestine, and the great concourse of people 
 who attended the yearly festivals at Jerusalem, it is evident that there could not 
 have been less than about 2,000,000 of inhabitants in Judea and Jerusalem, and 
 the region of Jordan. Jerusalem alone must have contained more than 100,000. 
 John's ministry lasted only about eighteen months, and a part of that time he 
 was shut up in prison by Herod. Supposing that out of the 2,000,000, he bapti- 
 zed 500,000 persons, (which is a moderate calculation, being only one-fourth 
 part of the population,) that he baptized one in a minute, and continued ten hours 
 every day in tlie work, (which no man could do unless supported by a miracle,) 
 it can be arithmetically demonstrated that he could not have immersed that num- 
 ber during the whole eighteen months of his ministry. Hence, his baptism must 
 have been a lustration, performed by aspersion, or pouring.f 
 
 * Josephus says that " John the Baptist was a good man, and commanded the 
 Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety 
 towards God, and so to come to baptism" ; that the people " came in crowds 
 about him, for they were greatly moved (or pleased) by hearing his words," and 
 that Herod, who feared le^t the great influence John had over the people, might 
 put it into his power or inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed to do 
 any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent 
 any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difiiculties, by sparing a 
 man who might make him repent of it when it should be loo late." — Ant. Bk. 
 xviii, c. V. §2. 
 
 f Dr. GuTSE, who wrote a very judicious paraphrase on the^books of the New 
 Testament, makes some observations respecting the numbers baptized bv John, 
 which deserve to be inserted here. He says, " I cannot think that such prodio-. 
 ious numbers, as came to John, could be baptized in the way of immersing their 
 whole bodies under water; or that they were provided with cliangc of raiment 
 
29 
 
 I'liia viou of his baptism id sustained by llie oxpressions wliich are employPLi 
 to denote liis baj)tism. There are eight cases where it is said John baptized 
 WITH ■WATER. This language expresses a mode of baptism which was adminis- 
 tered by the appUcation ol" water to the subject, rot by the thrusting of tlie sub- 
 ject under the water. This Dr. Gill admits, for he says, on Math, iii, ll, '' Our 
 version seems to be calculated in favor of pouring, or sprinkling water upon, op 
 application of it to the person baptized, in opposition to immersion in it." 
 
 There is, furthermore, an apparent allusion to the'mode of baptism as prac- 
 ticed by John, [John iii, 34,] which proves that it was performed by the applicar 
 tion of water to the person. " He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of 
 (rod ; for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him." The subject of 
 
 for it, which is no where intimated, nor seems to have been 'practicable for such 
 vast multitudes ; and yet they could not be baptized naked with modesty, nor in 
 tlieir wearing apparel with safety. It seems, therefore, to me, that the people stood 
 in ranks, near to, or just toUhin, the edge of the river ; and Johufassing along be- 
 fore them, cast water upon their heads and faces loith his hands, or some proper in- 
 strument, by which means he might easily baptize many thousands in a day. And 
 this way of pouring water upon them most naturally signified Christ's baptizing 
 them with the Holy Ghost, and w^ith fire, which John spoke of as prefigured by 
 his baptizing with water, (ver. 11, Mark i, 8, Luke iii, 16. John i, 33) and 
 which was eminently fulfilled when the Holy Ghost sat in the appearance of 
 cloven tongues like fire ; and this is expressly called baptizing them with the 
 Holy Ghost in opposition to John's baptizing with water, and is spoken of as the 
 Holy Ghost coming upon them, and as God's pouring out his Spirit, and shedding 
 him forth upon them. Acts i, 5, 8, &c. And with a direct reference hereunto, 
 when the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius, and his friends, Peter said, " Then re- 
 membered I the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; 
 but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." [Acts xi, 1% 16.] The Apostle 
 Paul likewise, in a manifest allusion to baptism, speaks of God saving us by the 
 washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us 
 abundantly, through Jesus Christ, our Saviour. (Titus iii, 5, 6,) Now, whether 
 plunging the body into w-ater, or pouring water upon it, was the likeliest emblem 
 of this effusion of the Spirit, let the reader judge ; especially since [Haptizo] the 
 word constantly used for baptizing, signifies a7iy sort nf washing, and often 
 sprinkling.'^ 
 
 This quotation embraces his note on Math, iii, 6, which he paraphrases thus : 
 •' And they were so far affected with his doctrine, that they made a public pro- 
 fession of repentance, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, both he and 
 they according to the custom of the country, going a little way into the water, 
 either barefoot or with sandals, for the greater convenience and expedition in 
 baptizing them." 
 
 It is often asked, with an air of triumph, why John baptized at the Jordan, and 
 Enon, and places where there was much water, if he did not immerse? We re- 
 ply, that he chose these places because they furnished water for the use of those 
 who went out from all Judea, Jerusalem, &c. to his baptism. The term Judea 
 included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon and Dan, and was a territory 
 more than one hundred miles in length, and fifty or sixty in breadth. Now, as 
 the hearers of John came from all parts of Judea, they must have travelled with 
 mules, asses, and horses, and as it must be supposed, also, that they stayed sever- 
 al days to hear John's preaching, they would need water for themselves and their 
 beasts of burden. Hence, John preached in the vicinity of the Jordan, or some 
 other place where water was plenty for the accommodation of his Iiearers, oth- 
 erwise they could not have gone out to him, as water was not abundant, except 
 near streams. 
 
30 
 
 Christ's baptism had beon mentioned to John, in these words, " Rabbi, he that 
 was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same 
 baptizeth, and all men come to him." John replies that this should be so, be- 
 cause be was not the Christ, but merely his forerunner, the object of his minis- 
 try, doctrine and baptism being to point hiati out to the people, and to prepare 
 them to receive him. Hence his authority and influence among the people must 
 grow, while his own would diminish. Furthermore, Jesus must supercede him, 
 because he was his superior in his origin, teaching, and particularly in the influ- 
 ences of his spirit, which were not conferred on him in a small degree tf lurpov. 
 {eli-me-trou) out of a measure^ as water is given at baptism. 
 
 Now, if this expression alludes to baptism, if John means to say that Christ 
 had received the influences of the Spirit fully and completely, not as he had the 
 water of baptism, out of a measure, then it proves incontestibly, that John poured 
 water upon Christ in his baptism. 
 
 This agrees with those ancient pictures of the baptism of Jesus, some of which 
 belong to the third and fourth centuries, which are still e.xtant; and have been 
 collected by Mr. Taylor. Christ is represented as standing in the river Jordan, 
 while John, from a position on the bank of the river, pours water upon his head 
 out of a measure of some kind, as in the following cut.* 
 
 Christus door Joannes gedoopt. 
 Translation. — Christ baptized by John. 
 
 * "This engraving, or cut, is taken from the Dutch Bible, with Annotations, 
 prepared by the direction of the Synod of Dort, A. D. 1618, and published by 
 authority, A. D. 1C37. Tlie copy is elegantly bound in calf, with brass edgings 
 and clasps, and was printed A. D. 1711. The engraving is therefore one hun- 
 
31 ^ 
 
 Mr. Carson, rcinarkiu^ on the word arro, {ajxi) Matli. iii, IG, says [p. 20/1 
 " Since apo necessarily implies no more than the edge as the point of depaiture; 
 since we are not otherwise informed that John and he (Christ) went into the 
 water previously to baptizing, as we are informed in respect to Philip and the 
 Eunuch, I think there are no reasons to believe that John the Baptist usually 
 went into the water in baptizing. The striking difference between the accounts 
 of these two baptisms, leads me to conclude that John chose some place on the 
 edge of the Jordan that admitted the immersion of the person baptized, while 
 the baptizer remained on the margin." 
 
 There is no evidence to prove that the three three thousand baptized by the 
 eleven Apostles in a small part of one day, were baptized by immersion. The 
 place where this transaction occurred, was Jerusalem, a city which was located 
 on a hill, and which had but one fountain in it ; viz ; the pool of Siloam, situated 
 in its south east corner. The brook Kidron ran on its eastern side, without the 
 walls. Now, if these three thousand converts were immersed, they must have 
 been immersed either in the brook ^Kidron, or in the pool of Siloam, or in the 
 private tanks, cisterns, or baths belonging to the citzens. 
 
 The first supposition is improbable, because "the day of Pentecost was 
 about the twentieth of March, when it was summer at Jerusalem, and there was 
 no rain, and the brook [Kidron was dry." The pool of Siloam was probably 
 public property, and was under the control of the civil authorities of the city, and 
 as that authority was hostile to the Apostles, it is unreasonable to suppose that 
 they had the use of the pool. The private baths, cisterns, or tanks, belonged to 
 individuals, and many of them would have been necessary to baptize so large a 
 number of persons. But these were not the property of the individuals baptized, 
 for they were a mixed multitude from almost every section of the world, and 
 were strangers in Jerusalem, and the Apostles being out of favor with the civil 
 and eclesiastical powers, and unpopular with the chief religious sects of the day, 
 it is by no means probable that they could have secured the use of a sufficient 
 number for the immersion of so great a number of persons. Add to this, that the 
 converts had not such changes of raiment, as would have been necessary for bap- 
 tizing by immersion, and that there is no intimation that they were baptized in 
 this way in the statement of the Evangelists, and the case is made out with a 
 good degree of certainty, that the three thousand were baptized in some other 
 way than by immersion. 
 
 In the case of the Jailor and his family, pouring or sprinkling was the mode 
 of baptism adopted. Notice the facts. Paul and Silas were thrust into the in- 
 
 dred years old. It shows us that a belief prevailed in Holland, one hundred years 
 ago, that John baptized by pouring water on the head of the candidate, who stood 
 in the water. , 
 
 Bishop Hal], one of the English Divines who took part in the deliberations of 
 the Synod of Dort, understood Christ's Baptism to have been administered by 
 pouring. He says, " No sooner is Christ baptized, then he comes forth of the 
 water. The element is offeree but during the use ; it turns common when it is 
 past. Neither is the water sooner poured on his head than the Heavens are open- 
 ed, and the Holy Ghost descendeth on that head which was baptised.^'— Bp. Hall's 
 Contemplations, Christ's Baptism. 
 
3:2 
 
 her prison, the inner implying an outer prison through wliich they passed to the 
 inner. The Jailor brought them not out of the prison, but out of the inner into 
 the onicr prison. In the oziter prison, therefore, he washed their stripes, he re- 
 ceived the word preached to him, and his household, and was baptized, he and 
 all his, the same liour of the night ; a portion of water being used for that pur- 
 pose which he liad'provided to wash their str'ipes. Then the Jailor brought them 
 into his dwelling-house, and gave them food to eat. And there they remained 
 until the magistrates had granted their release from confinement. 
 
 Paul was baptized in his sick chamber. Acts ix, 17, 18. Annanias went in- 
 to his apartment, laid his hands upon him, and immedialtely he received his sight, 
 and arasras (an-os-tas) standing up, was baptized. In the j^aralell place. Acts 
 .\xii, 16, Ananias is represented as saying, " And now, why tarriest thou ? 
 at'OiToi panrisai (an-as-tas-bap-ti-sai,) Stand vp. and be baptized, and wash away 
 thy sins." The phraze, " wash away thy sins," does not imply an immersjion, 
 because immersion does not wash av/ay sins, any more than sprinkling or pour- 
 ing. The expression has reference solely to the thing signified in the applica- 
 tion of water in baptism, viz : the cleansing of the heart from sins in the work of 
 regeneration. 
 
 2. The validity of pouring, or aspersion, as a mode of baptism, is evident from 
 the fact that it is attended with the blessing of God, and answers a good con- 
 science. 
 
 It has long been an acknowledged fact, that there ia as much piety, benevo- 
 lence, and honest zeal for pure religion, and that revivals are as frequent and 
 precious among those denominations of Christians that administer baptism by the 
 application of water, as those that plunge under the water. God blesses not on- 
 ly the churches which administer the rite of baptism in this way, but has been 
 pleased particularly to distinguish families through successive generations with 
 many tokens of his favor, that have adhered strictly to sprinkling as a mode of 
 baptism, and have had the rite administered to their children. Now, we ask, 
 and ask with emphasis, would God connect his blessing with this ordinance as 
 observed by non-immersionalists, if it is a manifest error ? Does God approve 
 the conduct of sinners ? Surely, "the just Lord will not do iniquity, every 
 morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not." 
 
 But, if the mode of baptism by immersion, is essential to the purity of the 
 church, and the peace of the soul — if it is the only valid mode of baptism, aa 
 Immersionalists contend, then it is a violation of a divine institution to practice 
 differently^; and it is consequently to commit sin to sprinkle a man and call it 
 baptism. Nor do they who pursue this practice, sin ignorantly, or blindly. 
 This is impossible, since the zeal of the Immersionalists breaks in upon their ig- 
 norance from every quarter, and must open their eyes to their sin, if they are 
 guilty of any transgression in this matter. Hence, they cannot be ignorant, 
 or blind'; but they sin with a full knowledge oftheir guilt, and are entirely with- 
 out excuse. And yet, the gracious Lord who hatelh iniquity, and will not look 
 upon sin with any allowance, withholds not the gifts of his grace, and the tokens 
 of his favor from those who allowedly, and with a full understanding of their 
 
Ivrono'-doino-, violate a positive divine institution. Yes, his blessing rests of. 
 them as uninterru^fcdly, and Iiis divine bounty towards them is as full, as rich 
 andfrce, as those who practice only immersion. How is this singular proceed- 
 ing on the part of God, to be accounted for, if the mode of baptism they practice 
 meets not his approbation. If it is such an error as the Immcrsionalista contend, 
 it is an offence to him, and he would shew, in some way sufficiently marked not 
 to mistake it, his disapprobationof their practice. 
 
 But, not only is there no mark of the divine disapprobation set to it, they are 
 not even made sensible by any convictions of conscience of any thing wrong in 
 their practice. And herein is a marvellous thing. For they are, in the judge- 
 mcnt of charity, at least, true followers cf God; they profess to be attached to 
 his truth, and to be wiUing to obey him in all his ordinances in the exact way 
 required in his word ; and as probationers for eternity, have just as much at 
 stake, and are just as much concerned to know the truth, and pursue a right 
 practice, as others ; and yet, on the subject of a wrong practice in administering 
 an important ordinance, their minds are suffered to remain undisturbed, and their 
 conscience is satisfied. It must be that there is nothing wrong in the admistra- 
 tion of baptism by the application of water to the subject, since there is noth- 
 ing in it to offend conscience. 
 
 And why should not such^a mode of baptism seem right in the eyes of good 
 men * " The ordinance of baptism properly consists in tlie application of water, 
 as the emblem of the purifying influence of the Spirit of God. The significance 
 and appropriateness of the rite, arises from the cleansing nature of the element 
 employed, and not from the mode of its application."' Of course, the application 
 of water in baptism, is just as proper as immersion under water, as it expresses 
 the thing signified, and immersion does no more. Nay, it is not so expressive 
 as pouring, or sprmkling, because they [resemble the mode of baptism by the 
 Spirit by which this purifying work is effected, which is by a fallin*, or shed- 
 ding down of the divine influence on the soul. Of course, the application of 
 water in baptism, it must be conceded may seem right. 
 
 ' But, it is not, after all, the quantity of water used, but the mode of applying it, 
 which is the turning point in this controversy. It is a matter of no consequence, 
 if a man is immersed all over in water, whether he is dipped in the ocean, or in 
 a tea cup; if that could be done, the Immersionalists would pronounce 
 his baptism valid. It destroys the validity of baptism, in their view of it, 
 to cause the baptismal element to descend on the subject, even if the North Riv- 
 er itself could be poured upon his person. This illustration shews the true 
 ground of dispute ; it is not the quantity of water employed, it is not the thing 
 signified, but it is the mode of applying the baptismal element. How small a 
 mattsr to make the subject of an interminable controversy in the Christian 
 Church. How gladly would we drop it, if the Immersionalists would be con- 
 tented with immersion, and allow us to enjoy our own opinions, and adhere to 
 our own practice unmolested. 
 
 But, they seem to imagine that they have received more light on this subject 
 than we have, and that it is their duty to warn ue, as if wc were persisting in 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 aome great and fatal error. We have, however, supposed that we were efthgbt-> 
 ened, and that we could not be walking in darkness while ■Mue were following 
 the instructions of Witsius,Turretin, Owen, Manton, Howe, Edwards, Luthen 
 Calvin, Beza, and a host of other learned and distinguished men. That these 
 men possessed extensive information, eminent piety, great tenderness of con- 
 science, and great zeal for a pure Christianity, has never been denied, even by 
 those who have rejected their views on the subject of baptism ; and that they 
 had as much at stake, and were as much concerned to know the truth, as the 
 Immersionalists, no one can doubt. That they may have erred sometimes, we 
 do not pretend to deny — but that they have fallen into any mistake on this sub- 
 ject, and then in moments of serious reflection, even until their death, have de= 
 liberately persisted in their errors, we are not credulous enough to believe. Now, 
 we have not taken their assertions for granted, nor settled down in the belief 
 that their decisions are to be received without examination. We have examin- 
 ed them as the opinions of men liable to err, but our examination has settled in a 
 firm conviction that their conclusions are correct, are sustained by sound learn- 
 ing, sound criticism, and a right interpretation of the Scriptures. 
 
 We, therefore, assure our Immersionalist friends that we feel quite as certain 
 that ours is the Christian way of baptism, as they do that it is Anti-Scriptural 
 and untenable, and that we as truly believe that we are setting forward the cause 
 of pure Christianity by its observance as they flatter themselves they are by 
 resisting it. We have read their arguments with attention, we have weighed 
 the evidence which convinces them that they are exactly right, and that all are 
 wrong who do not sympathize with them, but we have not yet been enabled to 
 see things in their light. An exclusive mode of baptism as being essential to 
 its validity we deny, a proscriptive one we abhor. Much as we detest controver- 
 sy, yet one sentiment ^unless our mental and moral natures should undergo an 
 entire change, tantamount to a reconstruction) we will resist as long as we have 
 a being, viz : that immersion is essential to sound Christian principle, true piety 
 and meetness for Heaven, and that Churches have a right to make it a term of 
 communion even to the exclusion of those from the Lord's Table who give 
 satisfactory evidence of piety and agreement in Christian doctrines. 
 
# 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 JuDE i, 3. — •'Beloved — it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort 
 you tJiat ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered un-? 
 to the saints." 
 
 The term faith in this passage has reference to the whole of evangelical truth, 
 " Earnestly to contend" means to be solicitous not only to hold, profess and adorn 
 the doctrine of the Gospel, but to maintain and resolutely defend it with argu- 
 ments. The text, therefore inculcates religious controversy. It requires Chris- 
 tian?, particularly ministers of the Gospel to vindicate the faith once deliverd to 
 the saints, and to exert every power and talent with which God haa blessed 
 them to counteract the efforts of those who l^bor to impugn, or set aside the 
 doctrines revealed in the Gospel. 
 
 However painful controversy in itself may be, it is sometimes necessary to 
 check the boldness of false teachers who labor to bring in damnable heresies' 
 and who would destroy the truth itself, if they were not resisted, It ia necessa- 
 ry to confirm Christians in the faith, and render them able to give every man a 
 ■reason for their belief, with meekness and fear. It is essential, also, to repress 
 in some whom we believe to be the followers of Christ in other respects, a prone- 
 ncss to the form, or shadow, rather than to the substance of true religion, to the 
 tithing of mint, annise and cummin, omitting the weightier matters of the law, 
 judgement, mercy and faith. When any body of professing Christians set up 
 the observance of an ordinance in a particular way, as of paramount value, and 
 make it essential to communion and the rights of church fellowship ; when on 
 this ground they give all the privileges of a Church to a particular party, exclu- 
 ding those from the table of the Lord (which is intended to be free for all who 
 love the Lord Jesus Christ) whom he would admit, and admitting those whom 
 he would exclude, they arrogate to themselves a right which is not granted to 
 them, and are guilty of an' offence which should be rebuked. For they in effect 
 say to all who are out of their limits, if you will not take Christianity on the terms 
 we propose, by observing an ordinance as we observe it, " you shall not beChris_ 
 tians, you shall have no Christian ordinances, no Christian worship ; we will, as 
 far as in us is, exclude you from Heaven itself, and all means of salvation." 
 
 This is violating the constitution of the Church of Christ, and introducing an- 
 other in its place. The Church is a Spiritual society — the great things of re- 
 ligion are Spiritual tilings, such as repentance, faith, love and holiness; not or- 
 dinances, or certain modes of observing ordinances. Christianity itscifj then, is 
 
ihc term, or GOiuliuon of the communion of Chri3tian3 ; all^^whom the Lord hat 
 received, are entitled to the Lord's table. 
 
 These principles must be maintained, and those who presume to violate, or set 
 them aside, must be resisted. There is no error in contending for right views 
 in relii'-ion, if we cherish a spirit of kindness towards those with whom we differ. 
 The danger arising from religious controversies, consists in laying aside in the 
 heat of debate, the meekness, candor and benevolence which the Gospel requires, 
 and attempting to obtain the victory over an opponent by other means than the 
 force of truth, the power of persuasion, and the melting tenderness of love. 
 Sensible of our danger, and praying that we may manifest no other feelings in 
 this discourse than those which God approves, we shall now proceed to reply to 
 the arguments which the Immersionalists urge in defence of the mode of baptism 
 to which they are partial. 
 
 They reason, in the first place, from the import of the prepositions «■, [gn]ar,[eis] 
 CK, & a-:To,[ek <^ apo] which are rendered in our English version, or translation, 
 in, into and out of. These prepositions, they say, are joined with the word bap. 
 tize, so as to shew that it was by dipping, or immersing, that baptism was admin- 
 istered. 
 
 These prepositions are used in the following instances in connection with the 
 word laptize, where the allusion is to the mode of baptism. Math. iii. 6, 16 
 Mark i. 5. 9, 10. Acts viii. 38. In every case they are connected with John's 
 baptism,^except the last, which properly comes under the head of Apostolic, or 
 Christian baptism. We will take into consideration first, those which belong 
 to John's baptism. It may be remarked, however, in general, respecting these 
 prepositions, that they are more frequently translated at, to and from, in the New 
 Testament, than into and out of. 
 
 Now, if we admit that the prepositions [en, eis and apo] rendered in, into and 
 omZ of, imply that our Saviour, and those Avho received baptism at the hand of 
 John, actually went into the river Jordan, yet their immersion still remains to b e 
 proved. In and into, do not mean under. Out 'of, does not mean to come up 
 from under. The utmost that can bo proved by these terms is, that Jesus and 
 those persons who were baptized by John, entered the water, up to the waist, 
 knee deep, or ankle deep. If they stood in the water only ankle deep, they were 
 in the river, and they might be said, with propriety, to have been baptized in the 
 Jordan, and to have come up out of the water after their baptism, if they had 
 been baptized by pouring, or sprinkling. 
 
 Is it said the most natural supposition is, that they went into the water in or- 
 der to be immersed. An Iramersionalist, whose prejudices lean toward immer- 
 sion, may naturally suppose so. A non-immersionalist, whose prejudices favor 
 sprinkling, or pouring, may naturally suppose the contrary. Here are two con- 
 traiy suppositions, and one as good as the other, and both good for nothing, since 
 naked suppositions are not arguments. 
 
 Is it said, the fact that they were baptized in water, proves they were immer- 
 
38 
 
 6€d. But it is said in eight instances, that they were baptized with water, an ex- 
 pression which implies that water was applied to their persons by pouring, or 
 sprinkling, as Dr. Gill admits (see p 29) and which is Bubstantially admitted by 
 the Immersionalists, in their having made a new translation of the Bible. 
 
 Why have they judged such a translation necessary, except on the ground that 
 readers of the old translation understand baptizing with water to " favor pouring, 
 or sprinkling water upon, or application of it to the person baptized, in opposition 
 £0 immersion in it." Putting the two expressions together. John is represented 
 as having applied the element of baptism to those whom he baptized, by pouring, 
 or sprinkling, and they as having received it standing in the Jordan. 
 
 Is it said, finally, that the word baptize means to immerse. Admitting that it 
 does, that does not prove that it means so when applied to John's baptism. For, 
 we have proved that it means to wash, to purify, and to sprinkle. We have prov- 
 ed from ancient Greek authors, that it means wading in the water up.to the mid- 
 dle. Hence, if those whom John baptized, stood in the Jordan up to their loaist, 
 they were baptized. 
 
 But, we are not left in suspense in reference to the nature of John's baptism. 
 It was a purification. John iii, 22, 26. Let the occasion of the dispute about pu- 
 rifying between the Jews, and John's disciples, viz : the concurrence of two ri- 
 val baptisms, and the reference of it to John, as a question about baptism be con- 
 eidered, and no man of calm and unbiassed judgement can hesitate to admit, that 
 the Spirit of inspiration has taught us that John's baptism was a purification. 
 
 But, it may be said John purified by immersion 1 That does not follow, for 
 pouring and aspersion were modes of purification under the Old Testament dis- 
 pensation, * and John baptized under that dispensation, as we shall shew in the 
 sequel. Hence, he purified by pouring, or sprinkling. 
 
 This view of his baptism, however, is sustained by the baptism of Christ. 
 John baptized Jesus in order to manifest him to Israel in his Priestly Office 
 and character. Two considerations prove this ; one is, that immediately after 
 his baptism, he assumed the office of a teacher. He returned to Nazareth, went 
 into the Synagogue on the Sabbath, read a portion of Scripture, and expounded 
 it as having reference to himself. (Luke iv, 16, 27.) The other is that he ack- 
 nowledged that he was baptized for the priestly office. When his authority for 
 teaching in the temple was demanded by the Chief Priests and elders of the peo- 
 ple, he immediately referred tliem to the baptism of John, and asked them wheth- 
 
 * Calmet says '• ritual baptism was performed by aspersion, or such lustration 
 as included no more than the reception of some lustral blood and water scattered 
 slightly on the person; as, when Moses consecrated the priests and altar ; (Ex. 
 xxix, 21,) when the Tabernacle v/as sprinkled with blood, on the day of solemn 
 expiation ; (Lev. viii, 11,) or when the sacrifice was offered by him for the sins 
 of the high priest and the multitude, (Lev. xvi, 14, 1.5,) and he wetted the horns 
 of the altar with the blood of the victim. When a leper was purified after his cure, 
 or when a man was polluted by touching or by meeting a dead body, they light- 
 ly sprinkled puch persons with lustra! water." (Numb. xix. 1.3. 18. 20.) 
 
39 
 
 er it was from Heaven or men 1 They knew that he had been baptized of John ,^ 
 and if hi3 baptism was of man, then, of course, he could have no authority to 
 preach. But if it was from Heaven, then his authority was established. For* 
 he was there actually invested with the office of the priesthood, by the washing 
 of water, and the annointing of the Holy Ghost that descended upon him in the 
 form of a dove. (Acts x, 37, 38.) 
 
 The high priest when inducted into his office was purified by an ablution or 
 washing in water. It was performed at a laver of brass which was put between 
 the tabernacle of the congregation and the Altar ; Exodus xxx., 17 — 21. This 
 ablution was a perpetual ordinance to be observed by the successors of Aaron 
 in the priesthood as long as the priesthood lasted, his successors being his pos- 
 terity for it was ordained that the high priest should be chosen from the family 
 of Aaron. 
 
 In Exodus xi., 30 — 32, we read, "And he (Moses) set the laver between the 
 tent of the congregation and the altar, and put water there, to wash withal. 
 And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet thereat : 
 when they went into the tent of the congregation, and when they came near the 
 altar, they washed as the Lord commanded Moaes." 
 
 Beside this washing with water the priest was annointed with oil. See Ex 
 sxix., 7, xxx. 23, Lev. viii, 12. 
 
 But did not the persons consecrated to the office of Priest wash their feet and 
 hands in the Laver of brass by immersion 1 No, says Dr. Gill, " Not in it, but 
 at it ; the laver had mouths, or spouts, as Ben Melech says, from whence the 
 water flowed when the Priests washed their hands and feet at it ; and so Bar- 
 tenora says, they did not wash out of the laver, but from water flowing out of it ; 
 it is said out of it, not in it." 
 
 Now, ag our biassed Lord fulfilled all righteousness, that is, obeyed the Le- 
 vitical law, it became necessary for him when he took upon himself the office of 
 High Priest, to purify himself by an ablution. Hence, he came to John for bap- 
 tism. If his baptism, then, had any resemblance to the ablution of the High 
 Priest, John poured water upon his person. 
 
 The great reputation, popularity and universal estimation in which the char- 
 acter and baptism of John was held by all the people, not excluding the religioua 
 sects of the Jews, shews however most conclusively, that John's baptism was 
 not a departure from the purifications of the Mosaic ritual. John was a member of 
 the Jewish Church, through his ministry until his death. He was not accused 
 of schism, or of any attempt to alter the forms of religion. He attempted no in- 
 novation upon existing usages. He was generally held in great veneration', 
 and most of the people, not excepting the religious sects, submitted to his bap- 
 tism. 
 
 Now, the Pharasees placed much of their religion in observing the Mosaical 
 ritual, and they were greatly opposed to innovations of every sort in religion. — 
 If John had introduced any thing new in hia baptism, or contrary to the purifies' 
 
 I 
 
40 
 
 tions they had been accustomed to, he must have displeased these watchful guar- 
 dians of the Mosaical institutions, and involved himself in fierce and interminable 
 altercations with them. 
 
 But he gave them no offence, on the other hand, he was popular among thern. 
 His severest reproofs of their sins did not excite their displeasure. They did 
 not reject his baptism, but came to it. These remarkable facts shew beyond the 
 possibility of a doubt, that John must have observed in his mode of baptism, 
 some approved form of purification in use among the Jews. On any other sup- 
 position they are entirely inexplicable. 
 
 But if it could be demonstrated that John immersed those who came to his bap- 
 tism, it would have no weight in settling the mode of christian baptism, for 
 John's baptism belonged to the old Testament dispensation, and was not Chris- 
 tian baptism. This position is strongly contested by the Immersionalists, but it 
 is evidently inconlrovertable, as the following considerations prove. 
 
 1. John did not baptize in the n^me of the Holy Ghost and the Son. It is 
 said (John vii, 39,) that the Holy Ghost was not yet given, that the disciples of 
 John knew nothing about the Holy GhOiSt, (Acts xix, 6, 7,) and John says him- 
 self that the Holy Ghost, (Math, iii,) was not connected with his baptism. 
 
 F' If he had baptized in the name of the Son, there could have been no doubt ex= 
 pressed by the Jews (Luke iii, 15,) whether he were the Christ or not, nor any 
 occasion for the question (John i, 25,) why baptizeth thou, if thou be not the 
 Christ ? If John had baptized in the name of the Son, he could not have admon- 
 ished those he baptized to believe on him which should come after him, (viz, 
 Christ,) nor would Paul have baptized (Acts xix, 5,) some of John's disciples in 
 the name of Jesus. Why were these persons re-baptized if they had already 
 been baptized in the name of the sacred Three, and had received christian bap- 
 tism? 
 
 2. John did not receive his baptism from Christ. He bapti^red some time be- 
 fore he knew Christ ; he says that he knew him not, and that he received hia 
 commission from another, (John i, 33) viz : the Father. Now, Christian bap- 
 tism originated wtih Christ ; his disciples baptized by his authority and commis- 
 sion. (Math, xxviii, 19.) If John's baptism, therefore, had been Christian bap- 
 tism, Christ would not have issued another command to baptize after his crucifix- 
 ion. It would have been unnecessary. 
 
 3. The particular object of John's baptism, shews that it was not Christian 
 baptism. John says (John i, 31) that he came baptizing with water in order to 
 manifest Christ unto Israel, and that he baptized the people with water unto re- 
 pentance, " saying unto them that they should believe on him which should come 
 after him, that is, Christ Jesus." John's baptism, then, had a two-fold object. 
 One was to consecrate Christ by water baptism to the office of the high priest, 
 that in this character he might appear to the people, and the other was to prepare 
 the people to receive him when he should manifest himself to Israel. He bap- 
 Jized, then, not upon their repentance, but unto repentance^ that is, in order to rc' 
 
41 
 
 pentancc, for the specific purpose of confessing their sins and tuminjf from their 
 wickedness to meet the Lord. Hence, those who received his baptism, are said 
 in the act of baptism (not before) to have confessed their sins. (Math, iii, 6.) 
 He baptized those who cams to his baptism not upon their faith, but on condition 
 that they should believe in him who should come after him, i. e. on Christ Jesus. 
 
 Now, Christian baptism requires of adults repentance and faith as pre-requi- 
 sites of' baptism. It is not preparatory to repentance and faith ; but faith and 
 repentance arc preparatory to baptism in the case of adult persons. John's 
 baptism, therefore, was not Christian baptism in the sense it is understood by 
 Immcrsionalists; and, con.sequently, if they contend that John's was Christian 
 baptism, they give up one of their strongholds, viz : that faith and repentanco 
 precede baptism, and they virtually admit that baptism unto repentance and faith, 
 as administered to infants, is valid.* 
 
 4. The multitudes who submitted to John'a baptism, including Sectarians and 
 men of all parties in religion, even those who had imbibed false doctrines as the 
 Saducees, and the restriction of his baptism entirely to the Jewish nation, fur* 
 nish evidence that his baptism was distinct from that instituted by Christ after 
 his Crucifixion. 
 
 Christian baptism is designed for all nations, while John confined his baptism 
 entirely to the Jews. Adults who give evidence of faith and repentance are 
 entitled to Christian baptism. All other adults who have not confessed their 
 Bins, and acknowledged their reliance on Christ for salvation, are excluded, So 
 are all heretics and errorists. 
 
 But John admitted all persons v/ithotit any reference to character, rank, sect^ 
 or party, to his baptism, not excluding even the proud and haughty Pharasee?, 
 and infidel Saducees who were enemies to Christ, and whom he himself calls a. 
 generation of vipers. Luke says, [chap, vii, 30] " the Pharasees and Lawyers 
 rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John," but 
 this is not said of the Saducees, nor can it be intended to mean all the Phara. 
 sees. For Matthew (chap, iii, 7) declares that many of the Pharasees came to 
 his baptism, and he represents John as saying to them " f indeed baptize you 
 (i. e. Piiarasees) with water, unto repentance." It appears that while some of 
 the Pharasees did not receive the baptism of John, ma7iy of that sect did. 
 
 Finally. John's baptism belonged to the Old Testament dispensation. This 
 dispensation was not virtually abolished until the death of Christ. John and 
 Christ were members of the .Jewish Church, and conformed to the institutions of 
 that religion ; a new order of things was not introduced until the death of 
 Christ, all was preparatory up to that event. When Christ died, " he blotted 
 out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to 
 us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross." 
 
 * It is no objection to this that is said " John preached the baptism ot repent- 
 ance for the remission of sins," (Mark i, 4). The idea is, that the baptism he 
 preacl^d imposed repeniance on those who received it, in order that they might 
 receive the remission of sins. 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 The meaning of which is, " that the ceremonial law which waa against and 
 contrary to the Gentiles, as being a middle wall of partition hindering them from 
 coming to God, and putting an enmity between them and God's people, Christ 
 took away by his death on the cross, dissolving and abolishing its obligation, and 
 admitting the Gentiles fellow heirs of the same promises and blessings with the 
 Jews." The ceremonial law, therefore, continued in full force until Christ's 
 death, and John's baptism must have been administered in conformity with the 
 requirements of that law, and consequently it must have been a ritual purifica- 
 tion and not a Christian ordinance. * 
 
 Having now proved that John's baptism was not Christian baptism, and con- 
 sequently that the expressions in, into and out of, when applied to his baptism 
 have no bearing upon the question respecting the mode of Christian baptism, let 
 us now turn our attention to the baptism of the Eunuch, Acts viii, 38, in which 
 passage the prepositions eis and eh, are translated into and out of. " And he 
 commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, 
 both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were come 
 up out of the water," &c. 
 
 We offer the following remarks on this passage. If the expressions into and 
 out of denote immersion then Philip was immersed as well as the Eunuch, " for 
 both Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water, and came up out of the 
 water." One went in as deep as the other, and if one went under the water, 
 both went under. But this is not all. If they both went under the water, when 
 they went into the water, then it follows that while both were under the water 
 Philip immersed the Eunuch, if the word baptize means to immerse. It is evi- 
 dent, therefore, that into and out of, do not in this case imply immersion. Nor 
 is there a particle of evidence to show that the Eunuch was baptized by imraer- 
 Bion, unless it can be proved that the word baptize means to immerse in every 
 case. If that can be done, then it means to immerse in this case and the matter 
 is settled. But that cannot be done. Hence, no one can show that Philip bap- 
 tized the Eunuch by immersion. 
 
 But is this doing justice to the passage 1 Is not^the form of expression such 
 and the circumstances of the case of such a character, as plainly to shew that 
 the baptism of the Eunuch was administered by immersion 1 
 
 We unhesitatingly answer in the negative. Notice the facts in the case. 
 This baptism took place in the <?eser/, Acts viii, 26. The term desert was not 
 often used by the Jews to "denote simply a country in its natural state, but a sandy 
 barren waste, almost entirely ^destitute of water and herbage. If the desert 
 through which the Eunuch was travelling, was a sandy region, it is probable that 
 water was not to be found on the route he was pursuing in a large quantity. Fur- 
 
 * (Mark i, 1^ calls the ministry of John the Baptist the beginning of the Gos- 
 pel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. But he simply refers to John as the fore- 
 runner of Christ, for he quotes the prophecy of Isaiah in the second verse, which 
 pointed him out in that character : " Behold I send ihy messenger before thy 
 face," &c. He means by the beginning of the Gospel, therefore, the preparatO' 
 ry work of the Gospel accomplished by John the Baptist. 
 
 «- 
 
43 
 
 thermore, it is not said that they came to a stream of water, but to a certain 
 water, which may denote only a fountain of water used for a watering place. 
 Fountains or springs of water in the deserts of Arabia and Palestine, it is well 
 known generally are not deep or large enough to immerse a person in, nor are 
 they ever used for such a purpose, but in order to give drink to the weary and 
 thirsty traveller. 
 
 The prepositions eis and ek here do not necessarily mean into and out of, but 
 may be rendered without violating the Laws of Grammar, injuring the harmony 
 or the meaning of the passage, to and /rom, [as they are elsewhere rendered in 
 numerous instances in the New Testament. 
 
 There are several cousiderations which shew that «o and from is the proper 
 rendering. One is the subject of the Eunuch's meditations when Philip fell into 
 his company. He was reading the passage in Isaiah Liii, 7, which he did not 
 understand. Philip explained it as a prophecy concering Christ, and unques- 
 tionably went over the whole from the beginning, Chap. Lii, IS, for " here says 
 Dr. Gill, properly a new chapter should begin, these three last verses treating 
 of the same person and subject as the following chapter ; even of Christ, his 
 person, offices, humiliation and exaltation, and the effects and fruits thereof; for 
 of him undoubtedly the whole is to be understood, Philip, therefore, expounded 
 in " preaching Christ to the Eunuch" these remarkable words, vs. 15, " So shall 
 he sprinkle many nations ;" and appears to have explained them as having re- 
 ference to water baptism. 
 
 For the Eunuch must have received instruction from Philip on this subject, 
 otherwise we cannot account for his exclamation when they accidentally came 
 to water, " See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized." Some con- 
 versation on the subject of baptism must have passed previously between Philip 
 and the Eunuch, and what passage in the whole prophecy could have occasioned 
 such a conversation but that contained in the l5th verse. " In the absence of 
 all proof to the contrary, it is right to presume that the Eunuch was baptized by 
 sprinkling," which is the mode in the prophecy. '' To represent this mode of 
 baptism the words of course should be read and they went down to the water, 
 and came up from the water." 
 
 Another circumstance which militates against immersion In this case, is the 
 remark of the sacred penman that immediately after the baptism of the Eunuch 
 the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the '« Eunuch went on his way 
 rejoicing." This implies that he proceeded on his journey without any change 
 of apparel. But with his clothes dripping wet it would not have been very 
 pleasant to the Eunuch to have proceeded on his journey along a dusty road in a 
 Bandy desert and under the rays of a vertical sun. Such a condition of person 
 surely was calculated to have occasioned discomfort of mind, and to have de- 
 stroyed in some measure the joy arising from his having received the initiating 
 ordinance of baptism and becoming united with the visible church. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that he received baptism in some^other way than by 
 
44 
 
 immersion, and that to &ni from, is the most satiafactory rendering of the prrpo- 
 sitions eis and ek in this passage. 
 
 We have now, in three eermons, presented our reasons in favor of that mode 
 of baptism whicli we practice. We have been nnuch censured for sprinkling in- 
 fants and adults, and many we believe have condemned us merely because they 
 have heard others speak against us, without knowing what we had to urge in 
 our defence. We flatter ourselves that we have succeeded in convincing our 
 readers at least, that it is not a sufficient reason for rejecting the sentiments of a 
 religious denomination, merely because they have always heard them caricatured 
 and spoken against. 
 
 We hope, that we have made some progress towards the checking of the spirit 
 of rash judging. We trust we have made it apparent, that if persons venture to 
 Judge at al!, that ihey should be both circumspect and considerate in their judge- 
 ments. There may be unfavourable reports concerning those who practice pour- 
 ing and sprinkling ; they may be loudly denounced and unsparingly decried as 
 the friends of heresy, and the promoters of an anti- scriptural practice, but re- 
 ports and denunciations are not arguments, nor do they form sufficient ground to 
 go upon in making up our opinions. 
 
 Finally, it' would occasion us much joy to find that we had done somethmg in 
 these discourses, to promote the exercise of charity among the followers of our 
 blessed Lord, " Charity thinketh no evil ; believeth all things ; hopeth all 
 things." Let us endeavor to possess and recommend to others this most ex- 
 cellent gift of charity. This is the bond of unity among saints on earth. The 
 man who looks at the great essentials of religion, will cultivate the spirit of 
 kindness, love and patience. No pent up party in religion can confine his ethe- 
 rial spirit. He has an enlarged benevolence which cannot be cramped with sec- 
 tarian prejudices, which overleaps denominational lines, and which can look over 
 into the pale of another Church and feel that God is honored there, and unite ia 
 spirit with those who worship him there in spirit and truth. 
 
 " As members then of Christian Churches, let us cultivate a spirit of prayer. 
 The more this prevails, the greater is the probability of union and success. Let 
 us persevere in our supplications for all the friends and followers of our blessed 
 Lord, that they may dwell together in unity, being firmly united in their affec- 
 tions to each other with the bond of peace. We know who hath said, that he 
 loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob ; and who hath en- 
 couraged us to unite, by saying wherever two or three meet together in my name, 
 there am I in the midst of them. Let us, in short, adopt the prayer of him who 
 said, « Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces ;' for ray 
 brethren and companion's sake we will now say. Peace be within thee ; because 
 of the house of the Lord, we will seek thy good." 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Ephrsians iv, 5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 
 
 The baptism here referred to, ia not the baptism ot water, but of the Spirit. 
 Ii is classed with a number of unities, each of which are used as arguments to 
 urge Christians " to keep the unity of the Spirit in the boad of peace." " There 
 is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; 
 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, 
 and through all, and in you all." These unities are Spiritual, and as baptism is 
 one of the number, it is of course Spiritual baptism. The one baptism, there- 
 fore, which all true Christians have received, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit 
 into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and a joyful hope of eternal life, through 
 his atonement and mediation. " For by one Spirit, we are all baptized into one 
 body." 1 Cor. xii, 13. 
 
 John Bunyan, the author of " Pilgrims Progress", though an Immersionalist, 
 regarded this as the correct interpretation. He understood the phrase one bap- 
 tism to mean^the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In reply to an opponent who in- 
 quired what he meant by <« spiritual baptism," he says, " I treat not here of one 
 being baptized with the spirit, with respect to its coming from heaven into us, 
 but that act of the Spirit, when come, which baptized into a body, or church. 
 Seeing the argument taken from that one baptism, respecteth church fellowship 
 properly ; and seeing water baptism meddleth not with it as such, it is the other, 
 even that in 1 Cor. xii, 16, that is here intended, and no other." 
 
 The view which Bunyan entertained of this passage, was modified by his doc- 
 trine of open communion. He received all true Christians to the table of the 
 Lord, holding " a sound faith, and an honest conversation in the world," indis- 
 pensable qualifications to "church communion." Baptism, he says, makes thee 
 no member of the church, neither particular, nor universal ; neither doth it make 
 thee a visible saint : it therefore, gives thee neither right to, nor being of mem- 
 bership at all. One Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, (not of 
 water, for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,) one God and Father 
 of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all, is a sufficient rule for us to 
 hold communion by, and also to endeavor the maintaining of that communion." 
 
 Happy would it be for the Church of Christ, if Bunyan's " peaceable princi- 
 ples and true," as he calls them, on this eubject prevailed. How many Chris- 
 
47 
 
 tians would they unite in firm and lasting union, who now are divided into difFer- 
 ent communions, having separate and conflicting interests. But the time has 
 not yet come when the Lord's people " shall see eye to eye,. when they sliall all 
 speak the same thing, and be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in 
 the same judgment." The Immersionalists, as a body, conceive that they have 
 a right to debar from the privileges of communion persons who are discovered 
 to be visible saints by the word of God, because they have not been baptized by 
 immersion, and in their zeal to maintain their exclusive practice contend, that 
 the one baptism of the text is not of the Spirit, but of water and has particular 
 reference to its mode by immersion. Dr. Gill comments on the phrase " one 
 baptism," as follows: "There is but one baptism under the Gospel; for John's 
 and Christ's are the same. There are, besides, figurative and metaphorical 
 ones, which are so in an improper sense, as the baptism of the Spirit and the 
 baptism of blood, or of sufferings ; but there is but one baptism, literally and 
 properly so called, which is water baptism ; and which is to be administered in 
 one and the same way, by immersion in water; and on one and the same sub- 
 jects, believers in Christ." 
 
 It is a matter of regret that Immersionalists should endeavor to sustain their 
 favorite theory, by such interpretations of God's word as this. It prevents agree- 
 ment and union. It compels us to differ from them in our judgment of the 
 meaning of Scripture, and prevents the settlement of a dispute in the Church 
 of Christ, which should have been ended long ago. 
 
 In this discourse we propose, as in our last, to reply to the arguments of the 
 Immersionalists. An argument on which they lay great stress, is the supposed 
 analogy of baptism to the burial of Christ. They cite Rom. vi, 3, and Col. ii, 
 12, to shew that the Scriptures have used the burial of Christ to represent the 
 mode of baptism, because it is said in them that " believers are baptized into the 
 death of Jesus Christ ; and buried with him by baptism into death." 
 
 ' That the Immersionalists have mistaken the meaning of these passages, is evi- 
 dent from the fact that there is no agreement between immersion and the burial 
 of Christ. Let us suppose that Christ had been buried by letting his body down 
 into the grave and covering it with earth. The analogy between immersion and 
 his burial fails, because, in this case, the earth was cast upon his body, and was 
 applied to his body, his body not being thrust into or through the earth. This 
 should have been done to make it resemble immersion, for when a person is im- 
 mersed he is thrust into and through the baptismal element. Hence, if Christ 
 had been buried according to the present mode of interment, his burial would 
 be analagous rather to the mode of baptism by pouring than immersing. 
 
 The analogy also fails in respect to the manner in which Christ actually waa 
 buried. His body was not deposited in the earth, but in a room hewn out of the 
 solid rock, which for a time was left open to the inspection and visits of hia 
 friends. Hence, there was in his burial no more resemblance to immersion than 
 if his body had been deposited in the apartment of a house ; and it would be 
 very strange to say that this haa any resemblance to immersion under water. 
 
48 
 
 Another thing which shews that the immersionalists have mistaken tiie de-» 
 sign of these passage?, is the fact that they do not allude to the mode of baptism. 
 (Rom. vi, 3, 4,) " Know ye not that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ were baptized into his death ? Tiierefore we are buried with him by bap- 
 tism into death ; that as like Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of 
 the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." 
 
 In the preceding chapter the Apostle had discoursed about gratuitous justifi- 
 cation, that is, justification by faith without works. To this doctrine the natural 
 heart objects, ''that it renders obedience to the moral law useless ; and that the 
 more evil a man does, the more the grace of God will abound to him in his re- 
 demption from that evil." In the first verse of the chapter,tiie Apostle slates this 
 objection. " What shall we say then 7 Shall we continue in sin, that grace 
 may abound 1" that is, is it a fair inference from this doctrine, that Christians 
 ought to commit sin in order that the favor of God may abound in their pardon? 
 In the second verse the Apostle declares that this objection is unfounded, be- 
 cause Christians are dead to sin and cannot any longer live therein. " God for- 
 bid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein 1 Now, that thid 
 is the condition of true Christian--, that they are dead to sin, and do not habitual- 
 ly continue in its practice, the Apostle shews in the third and fourth verses. He 
 does this by referring to onr baptism by which we profess Christ, and are initia- 
 ted into a fellowship with him in his death, burial and resurrection. We have 
 put on Christ in baptism, he says, and we arc dead, and not only so but more, 
 we are buried with Christ, and hence, can no more continue a course of siu 
 than one dead and buried can continue to live. We are so comprehended in 
 Christ and united to him, as to have died to a course of sin as he died to this 
 life, as to have extinguished the prevailing desire of wickedness in our flesh, as 
 his life was extinguished when he was buried, and as to have been quickened to 
 a life of holiness, as he was to life again when he was raised up from the dead by 
 the glory of the Father. "Dying, as one has remarked, is the thing insisted on, 
 the principal idea, on which the whole passage turns." We are not said to be 
 baptized into the likeness of Christ's death, burial or grave, but into his death and 
 burial. Hence, if the allusion here was to the mode of baptism, the expression 
 would be, baptized into the likeness of his death, buried with him by baptism 
 into the likeness of his death. * 
 
 * " Or, know ye not that as many of us as are baptized into Jesus Christ,'' (viz., 
 to testify our communion that we have with Clirist by faith.) '^ we are baptized 
 into his death." (That is, are assured by baptism that we have communion in 
 his death, whereby not only our sins are expiated before God, but also the Holy 
 Ghost is procured, by whose working, the corruption that is m us hath its life or 
 reigning power taken away, which is the first degree of our regeneration. Titus 
 iii, 5, 6-) " We are, therefore, buried with Mm," (that is the second degree of 
 our regeneration, which is sealed unto us by baptism ; viz : the increasing and 
 persevering in the killing of sin in us ; as burial was a continuance ot Christ's 
 death, ver. 6.) " by baptism into death, that in like manner as Christ tvas raised 
 from the dead unto the glory of the Father.'" (Gr, dia, which word most common- 
 ly signifies by, i, e., by the glory of the Father, yet is also sometimes taken for 
 to, which fits best here, see 2 Pet. i, 3. ', Even so we also should walk in new- 
 ness of life" This is the third step of our regeneration, which we receive by 
 the virtue of Christ's resurrpction, and is signified and scaled unto us by bap^ 
 
49 
 
 Of similar import with this passage are the words in Col. ii, 13. "Buried 
 with him in baptism wherein ye are risen with him through the faith of the ope- 
 ration of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The subject of the discourse is 
 ♦* the putting off of the body of sins." This is accomplished by regeneration, 
 the circumcision of Christ, the circumcision made without liands. Of this put- 
 ting off the body of sins, baptism is significant, in which or by which we profess 
 Christ, and are brought into a fellowship with him in Jiis burial and resurrection. 
 The passage, therefore, asserts that Christians have a mortified temper, and aro 
 conformed to Christ, that' is, are hol}^ alive unto God, through Jesus Christ. 
 This is signified by their baptism. * 
 
 Another argument of the Inimersionalists is the history of Immersion. They 
 assure us that it is evident from Ecclesisatical histor}% that Inimersion was uni- 
 versally practised in the primitive Church. 
 
 On this argument we offer the following remarks ; " If this is a conclusive 
 argument in favor of baptizing by immersion, it must also be a conclusive argu.^ 
 mcnt in favor of infant baptism. But Immersionalists reject the argument from 
 Ecclesiastical history in favor of infant baptism. To be consistent they ought 
 also to reject the argument from ecclesiastical history in favor of immersion." 
 
 Admitting, however, which is all that can be admitted, that immersion was 
 early and extensively practised, we contend that it was not considered essential, 
 and that other modes of baptism were in use. The feeble and sick were bap- 
 tized by affusion, and it was considered valid. Cyprian, one of the fathers of 
 the Christian Church, who flourished after A. D. 240, about 140 years after the 
 Apostolic age, says that baptism by aspersion when administered to the sick wag 
 lawful. 
 
 tism ; namely, that we have received power from henceforth to walk in newness 
 of life, that is, in holiness and purity." "Het weick oock op onse wijse van doop- 
 en door besprenginge wel kan gepast icorden" i. e. which may well be applied to 
 our manner of baptizing by sprinkling. — Dutch Bible with Annotations, ordered 
 and appointed by the Synod of Dort, 1618, and published by authority, 1037. 
 
 * " Being buried with him in baptism,'^ (or, buried by baptism). For in bap- 
 tism it is signified and sealed unto u?, that our old man is mortified bv the death 
 of Christ, and consequently buried also, i. e. by Christ's sufferings and death he 
 hath so lost his reigning power, that he is like a dead and buried body, which 
 cannot move itself to reign, although indeed it send forth its smell still, until it 
 shall be wholly put away by the same death and spirit of Christ, Rom. vi, 3, fee. 
 " In which," (namely, baptism or Christ. For both are true, but in a different 
 manner. For by the power of Christ's resurrection we are raised up to new- 
 ness of life, and by baptism the same is also sealed, Rom. vi, 4, &c. And the 
 Apostle seeks thereby to prove that we have no more need of the very seal of 
 circumcision in the New Testament, seeing baptism now signifies and seals the 
 very same unto us.) " Ye are also raised up with [/(m] by failh." (Namely, 
 without which the outward baptism hath no virtue. For he tliat believeth and 
 is baptized, shall be saved, Mark xvi, 16. Therefore, faith receiveth the benefit 
 which baptism holds forth and seals to us.) " Of the vjorking of God.'' (Here- 
 by may be understood either the power of God, whereby faith is wrought in us : 
 or the foundation of faith whereto it hath respect in our renovation, namely, to 
 the power of God who raised Christ from the dead, whereby we are raised frora 
 the death of sin j " v:ho raised him from (lie dead,"' — Dutch .\nnotationF, &,c. 
 
 7 
 
 
50 
 
 *' Unde apparet adspersionem quoque 
 aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere, 
 ct quando hsec in ccclosia fiercnt ubi 
 
 "From whence it appears that the as- 
 persion ot water also, is of like value 
 with tlie wholesome bath, and where 
 
 eit et accipientis ct dantis, fides integra,]these things are done in the Church, 
 
 etare omnia ; et consummari ac perfici 
 posse magistale Domini et fidei veri- 
 tate." 
 
 where the faith is sound by the giver 
 and receiver, and the whole is done with 
 due fidelity, and agreeably to the majes- 
 ty of the divine character, all is valid." 
 
 NovATlAN, who in the year 251, was ordained the paster of a Church in the 
 city of Rome, and was the founder of a eect called by his name, which resisted 
 the corruptions that were finding- their way into the Church, was baptized by 
 sprinkling. Novatian and his followers were greatly slandered by their ene- 
 mies, and it appears that Eusebius himself was not altogether free from preju- 
 dice against him. For he quotes from the letter of Cornelius bishop of Rome 
 to Fabius (who was evidently unfriendly to NqvaTian,) what he relates respect- 
 ^g his character and baptism. Speaking of his baptism he says, *' the first oc- 
 casion of his faith was a dangerous distemper ; and when all hopes of life were 
 goncj he received baptism by the pouring on of icater, as he lay in his bed ; if in- 
 
 tiyi ^ori Xeyci-v rov roiovrov si\ri(ptvat." — Eccl. 
 History, Book Vi. Chapter 43 
 
 deed, it be proper to say that one like him 
 did receive baptism.'' 
 
 Notwithstanding this last remark, it seems that his baptism was considered val- 
 id, for he was afterwards ordained a Presbyter, without being re-baptized, though 
 not without some opposition ; for Cornelius adds : *' This illustrious character 
 
 rrtpi^vQeura cJSTtp Koi oUTOi tij KXrjpoi/ Tii>a 
 fiovov ')^cipoTovr]iai.' 
 
 abandoning the church of God, in vvhich, 
 when he was converted he was honored 
 with the presbytery, ard that by the fa- 
 vor of the bishop placing his hands upon 
 him (ordaining him) to the order of bish- 
 ops, and as all the clergy and many of 
 
 the laity resisted it, since it was not lawful that one baptized in his sick bed by as- 
 persion, as he was, should be promoted to any order of the clergy, the bishop re- 
 quested that it should be granted him to ordain only this one." 
 
 This is the account of a writer evidently unfriendly to Novatian. And yet, it 
 appears from this very account, that Novatian's baptism by aspersion was recog- 
 nized as valid by some of the Ecclesiastics of the time, and if they regarded bap- 
 tism by aspersion as lawful in his case, they did also in the case of others. But 
 Novatian became the founder of a numerous sect who were called Cathari, 
 and who were in their turn the fathers of the Waldenses. Now, it is probabla 
 that they imitated the example of their founder in their practice, as to the mode 
 of baptism, for if he considered aspersion valid baptism they undoubtedly viewed 
 it in the same light. Hence, it is proper for us to infer in the absence of all proof 
 to the contrary, that thcy^ adnunistered baptism by aspersion in accordance 
 with the example of their founder. Constaktink, the emperor of Rome, was 
 also baptized either by pouring or spjfinkling- 
 
51 
 
 EvAQARius, * (and with hirn Socrates and Theodoret agroe,) say:* " that 
 •Constantine, at the clo33 of his life, was tinged or sprinkled in the bath or the 
 laver of baptism at Nicomedia, and besides, he had deferred ',it until that time, 
 because he had greatly desired to have been baptized in the river Jordan." Eu- 
 SEBios in his life of Constantine, confirms the statement of Evagariue, and 
 says that Constantine declared that it had always been his desire and purpose to 
 have been baptized in the river Jordan, and that he relinquished it only because 
 the providence of God had prevented the execution of his wishes. The mode of 
 his baptism Eusebius does not describe, unless the following words connected 
 with that transaction allude to it. •' But all the sacred things being finished, and 
 he being clothed in splendid royal apparel, and with clearer light, reclined upon 
 his shining bed," &c. " Then with a clear voice he'prayed and gave thanks to 
 God, and said nearly these words," &c. This passage many imply that Con- 
 stantine received baptism lying on his bed, and if so, then the mode of its ap- 
 plication to him was by aspersion. 
 
 Robinson, in his history of baptism, says that the baptism of Constantine in 
 some ancient engravings at Rome is described bj' pouring'. "The Emperor is 
 kneeling stark naked in a laver; Sylvester is pouring water upon his head, and a 
 verse declares he was at the same time both baptized and cured of the leprosy. 
 " Rex baptizatur, et leprse sorde lavatur," i.e. The King was baptized and 
 washed from the filth of leprosy. This is evidently fabulous, for the disease which 
 afflicted Constantino v/hen he visited Nicomedia for the purpose of receiving 
 baptism, was not cured by his baptism, but terminated his life. Eusebius and the 
 other Ecclesiastical historians, who allude to his baptism and death, state that 
 when he was 65 years of age he was .seized witli a severe and painful illness, 
 that he sought relief in the warm baths of the city of Helenopolie, but obtaining 
 no benefit and finding death approaching, he hastened to Nicomedia, and hav- 
 ing assembled the ecclesiastics of that city and acquainted them with his desire 
 to receive baptism, he was tinged in the laver of baptism, by which being much 
 comforted, he made his will and divided his empire between his three Song. 
 "His will being made," says Socrates, " and his life being prolonged a few days, 
 "mortem oppetil'' he died. 
 
 By whatever mode he received Baptism, whether by sprinkling lying on his 
 bed, or in a baptismal font by pouring : there is, however, an important fact 
 brought out in this case, which we will notice here. Constantine showed no 
 preference to immersion as a mode of baptism, except only as its administration 
 should be in the river Jordan. He was entirely indifferent to it, if performed in 
 any other stream, for he did not avail himselfof the privilege of immersion, as he 
 would have done, if he had believed it the only valid mode of baptism. Further- 
 more, the persons who baptised Constantine, appear to have had no scruples a- 
 bout baptizing the Emperor by pouring or sprinkling. Hence, it is evident that 
 pouring and aspersion, were practised at that early day, and that each were con- 
 eidered valid. 
 
 M 
 
 * Evagarius. " baptismi lavacro /f/wRm." Socralfs, " lavacro baptismalis, 
 quod est Ckrislianoriim propmnn tingue'i^' .»^ 
 
52 
 
 •' Sixty or seventy years aftor the Apostles, a Jew while Ira veiling with Chris' 
 tians fell sick and desired baplism. Not having water, they sprinkled himthrics 
 with sand. He recovered. His case was reported to the Bishop, who decided 
 *Jiat the man was baptized, if only he had 7vater poured on him again.'' Lauren- 
 tios the martyr is mentioned as baptizing two persons, Romanus and Lucilius, by 
 affusion." A Utile while before he suffered, he baptized ouft of his execution- 
 ers with Si pitcher of water: Strabc, a distinguished writer, who flourished about 
 A. D. 853 says, "it is to be observed that many have been baptized, not only by 
 immersing, but by pouring water on a man from above, and they may still be so 
 baptized if it is necessary. As in the martyrdom of Saint Laurentius, we read 
 that a certain person was baptised with a pitcher which was brought. This 
 form was also admitted, when the baptismal fonts were to small to receive large 
 persons, and would not permit the administration of baptism by immersion." 
 
 The Marcosii, an ancient sect, Epiphanius, states on the the authority of Ire- 
 nfBus, baptized by pouring. They mixed water with oil, and poured it on the 
 heads of those who vvere initiated into their fellowship. 
 
 Gregory Bishop of Rome, says, that Augustine baptized, A.D. 597, more than 
 lO,000 Brittons on a Christmas day. Pouring or sprinkling must have been the 
 mode employed in this case , for one man could not have baptized 10,000 per- 
 sons by immersion in a week. 
 
 Tertulljan, who was born about A. D. 143, speaks of baptism being adminis- 
 tered by sprinkling, " Who will accommodate you, a man so little to be trusted 
 with one sprinkling of water." 
 
 Lactantius who flourished about 300years after the Apostolic age,says, " When 
 Jesus was grown up, he was baptized (tinctus est) by the propliet John in the 
 river Jordan ; not that he might wash away his own sins by the spiritual laver, 
 for he had none ; but for an external purification : that, as he had saved the Jews 
 by circumcision, so also he might save the Jews by baptism, that is, (purifici 
 roris perfusione) by the sprinkling of the purifying water-" The word ros is 
 used to denote water or any other fluid. Propertius, "lonio rore," i. e. Ionian 
 Sea. Ovid, " Vivo prolue rore manus," i. e. wash the hands with living, flow- 
 ing water. " Artus liquido perfundore rore," i. e. to besprinkle the limbs with 
 pure Vv'ater. 
 
 Augustine, (De Eccl. Uogmat. chap. Lxxivj says, " The person to be baptized 
 is either sprinkled with icater or dipped in it." 
 
 Cyprian, Jerome, Theodoret and otliers of the Fathers, understood the pre- 
 diction " I will sprinkle clean water upon you," Ezek. xxxvi, 25, as having ref- 
 erence to water baptism. Cyprian says, " Nor let any be moved by the fact, that 
 the sick when they are baptized, are only perfused or sprinkled, since the Scrip- 
 ture says, by the prophet Ezekiel, (chap, xxxvi, 25, 36; 1 will sprinkle clean wa- 
 ter upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness and from all your 
 idols will I cleanse you ; a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will 
 I put within you." fljL 
 
 "Jerome and Augustine speal^of a mode of baotism as common in the an 
 
53 
 
 cient Churcli, wliich wad not to dip the whole body, but a thrice dipping of tlie 
 head." Gennadius who flourished A. D. 490, says, "the person to be baptized 
 makes confossioii of his faith before the priest, and after the confession, he is 
 either tvelted with tvater or plunged into it." Nicetas Serronius in the 9th cen- 
 tury, speaks of those " who have been baptized by pouring."* Thomas Acqui- 
 nas, who died A. D. 1274, says " baptism may be given, not only by immersion 
 but also by affusion of water or sprinkling with it, but he says it is safer to bap- 
 tize by immersion, because this is the general practice." 
 
 Bonaventura, a contemporary of Acquinas, observes, "the way of affusion ia 
 « baptism was probably used by the Apostles, and was in his time used in the 
 Churches of France and some others ;" but remarks, "the method of dipping 
 into the water is the more common, and therefore the fitter and safer." 
 
 Duns Scotus, who became the head of the schools at the University of Paris, and 
 was the chief of the schoolmen, whose death occurred about the year 1309, says, 
 " Nor is it necessary that there should be an ablution, as that is contra-distin- 
 guished from Jz^as^in^, and includes the removal of filth from the body by the 
 contaction of v/ater ; but a washing of the body, so called in general, by water 
 acting upon it to another purpose, is sufHcient ; which implies nothing else but 
 that it is necessary a contaction of the body by means of water should be effec- 
 ted by another causing that contact. But universal antiquity hath given its suf- 
 frage, that this contact may be done either by immersion or by sprinkling. But 
 the dipping of infants, was more usual down to the times of Gregory and Isi- 
 dore." 
 
 In the year 753, Stephen iii, Bishop of Rome being 'assailed by Astulphu?, 
 King of the Lombards, fled to Pepin, King of France. While he remained there, 
 the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him, whether in a case of necessity, 
 baptism, performed by pouring water on the head of ihe infant, out of the hand 
 or a cup, would be lawful. Stephen answered : if such a baptism were perform- 
 ed, in the name of the Holy Trinity, it should be held valid. 
 
 The Synod of Angiers, A. D. 1275, speaks of dipping and pouring as indiffer- 
 ently used ; and blames some ignorant priests, because they dipped or poured on 
 water but once ; and at the same declaring that the general custom of the church 
 was to dip or to pour on water three times. In the year 1311, a legislative coun- 
 cil at Rajrenna declared immersion or sprinkling to ba indifferent. The Synod 
 ot Ijangres, A. D. 1404, speaks of pouring or perfusion only. "Let the priest 
 make three pourings or sprinklings of water on the infant's head." The Coun- 
 cil of Cologne, in 1536, evidently intimate that both modes were constantly prac 
 tised. Their language is, " The child is thrice either dipped or wetted with 
 water." 
 
 Fifteen years afterwards, in the Agenda of the Church of Menlz, published 
 by Sebastian, there is found the following direction : Then let the priest take 
 the child on his left arm, and holding him over the font, let him with his right 
 
 . . __i 
 
 * Porter, in Methodist Magazine. 
 
54 
 
 hand, three several times, take water out of the font, and pour it on the child's 
 head, so that it may wet its head and ehouldera. Then they give a note for this 
 purpose ; that immersion, once or thrice, or pouring of water may be used, and 
 have been used, in the chruch ; that this variety does not alter the nature of 
 baptism I and that a man would do ill to break the custom of the church for 
 either of them. But they add, that it is better, if the church will allow, to use 
 pouring on of water. For suppose, say they, the priest be old and feeble, or 
 have the palsy in his hands ; or the weather be very cold ; or the child be very 
 infirm ; or too big to be dipped in the font ; then it is much fitter to use affusion 
 of the water." 
 
 Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was born A. D. 1467, and died A. D. l'>36, affirms 
 •' that in his time it was the custom to spnnfc/e infants in Holland, and dip them 
 in England." 
 
 The Waldenses, it is admitted, for many hundred years were the witnesses for 
 the truth during the dark and desolating reign of the Papacy, But it is a fact 
 that after the Reformation they recognized the Reformed Churches of Geneva 
 and France as ChristianChurches, and "maintained communion with them and re- 
 ceived ministers from them." In these Churches the rite of baptism has from 
 the beginning been administered by aspersion. This fact proves incontestably 
 that the Waldenses baptized by sprinkling. If they did not, if they practiced 
 only immersion, how could they have received ministers from the Reformed 
 Churches who were in favor of aspersion and who unquestionably practiced it. 
 How could they have held open communion with those churches ? Surely ; if 
 they were Immersionalists they did not believe in close communion, and they 
 did not lay particular stress on the mode of baptism by immersion. 
 
 The immersionalists, affirm that dipping was the only mode of baptism prac- 
 tised in England, until A. D. 1643, when sprinkling was established for immer- 
 mersion, by the Westminister Assembly. The statement which they make 
 respecting the decision of the Assembly, on this subject is, "that it was keenly 
 debated in the Assembly of Divines held at Westminister, in 1643, whether im- 
 mersion or sprinkling should be adopted ; 25 voted for sprinkling, and 24 for im- 
 mersion ; and_even this small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr. 
 Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in that assembly." 
 
 This statement is incorrect. Sprinkling was practiced in England before the 
 Westminister A.ssembly had an existence. At a council in England in A. 
 D. 8l7, it was ordered "that baptism should not be administered by afffusion, but 
 by dipping the whole body of the child ^Areeh'mes.''* Such an order could not 
 have proceeded from a council of ministers, if aspersion was not practiced at the 
 time, and previously to the time it was issued ; if there had been no practice of 
 that kind, it would have been absurd to make a law against it. The settlers of 
 New England, among whom were ministers and laymen, who could remember the 
 practice of the church in England, some 30 or 40 years before their emio-ration ; 
 who landed at Plymouth rock, A. D. 1(520, twenty //irer years before the West- 
 
 *Prie6tlev's Eccl. HIstorv. 
 
55 
 
 minister Assembly was convened, practiced sprinkling in the administration of 
 baptism. They came from England, and were the founders of all the congrega- 
 tional churches in this country, in which it is well known, no other mode of ad- 
 ministrating baptism but by aspersion has ever prevailed. They of course brought 
 the practice with them, and hence sprinkling was in use among the dissenters or 
 puritans of England, many years before the Westminister Assembly.* 
 
 But, there was no debate in the Assembly, whether sprinkling was proper. 
 The debate was respecting the retaining in the directory for the worship of God, 
 which a committee had reported, this clause, " It is lawfnl and sufficient to be- 
 sprinkle the child." Dr. Lightfoot objected to it, because he thought it improp- 
 er to pronounce sprinkling lawful, when no one present had any doubts of its 
 being so. 
 
 " Whereupon," says Lightfoot in his Journal, " it was fallen upon, sprinkling 
 being granted, whether dipping should be tolerated with it. It was at last put to 
 the question, whether the Directory should run thus : ' The Minister shall take 
 water and sprinkle, or pour it with his hand upon the face or forehead of 
 the child ; and it was voted so indifferently, that we were glad to count twice ; 
 for so many were unwilling to have dipping excluded, that the votes came to an 
 equality within one ; for the one side was twenty-four, — the pother twenty-five. 
 
 * The universal practice of sprinkling among the Congregationalists of New 
 England, is decidedly proved by the case of Roger Williams, the father of all the 
 Immersionalist Churches in this country. Roger Williams probably was sprink- 
 led in his infancy ; for his first connection was with the Episcopal Church, in 
 which he was ordained a clergyman. He emigrated to New-England, A. D. 
 1630. He assisted for a short time Mr. Skelton, of Salem. Mass., in his pasto- 
 ral labors, and afterwards became the colleague of Mr. Smith of Plymouth, with 
 whom he remained two years. In 1636 he founded Providence in Rhode Is- 
 land, and in 1638 the first Immersionalist Church in New-England. "He first 
 renounced his baptism and was rebaptized by Mr. Ezekiel Holyman, (who seems 
 to have been a layman) and then proceeded to rebaptize him and ten others, and 
 thus formed the first Immersionalist Church in this country." See Encyclope- 
 dia of Religious Knowledge, and Marsh's Eccl. History. 
 
 From this statement, it is obvious that sprinkling universally prevailed in all the 
 Churches throughout Massachusetts and Connecticut. For there does not ap- 
 pear to have been a single person associated with Mr. Williams who had been 
 immersed. Mr. Holyman seems not to have been, for Mr. Williams immersed 
 him after he had himself been immersed by Mr. Holyman. 
 
 Sprinkling, therefore, is older than the Westminister Assembly, for Mr. Holy- 
 man immersed Mr. Williams, and Mr. Williams immersed Mr. Holyman about 
 five years before that body met, and both had been baptized by sprinkling proba- 
 bly before they immersed each other. 
 
 Sprinkling is furthermore older than Immersion in this country, and if our Im- 
 mersionalist friends trace Immersion back, they must come to the time when it 
 was first administered by one who was sprinkled, and who on their principles 
 could not administer valid baptism. ^^ By nullifying our baptism consequently 
 they nullify their own ; and by unchurching us, they unchurch themselves." On 
 their ovv"n principles then, their own ministers, churches and members, who are 
 in the line of Roger Williams and Mr. Holyman, are unbaptized and unauthor- 
 ized. If, on the other hand, they do not admit this, but contend that Roger Wil- 
 liams received valid baptism at the hands of Mr. Holyman, they admit that our 
 baptism is valid and sustain ua in our practice. 
 
56 
 
 and when we had done all, wo concluded nothing in it ; but the busines.'i was ri- 
 committed.^' 
 
 Thus, it appears that sprinkling was not substimted for immersion by a ma- 
 jority of one vote, for tliere was no point settled by a majority of one. The 
 whole business was recommitted, and nothing concluded in reference either to 
 sprinkling or immersion, by the vote of 25 on one side, and 24 on the other. 
 
 After this, when the subject of the Directory was resumed, the Assembly, says 
 Lightfoot : "thought it was fit and most safe for the dispute itself about dipping 
 to let it alone." And they did let it alone. They simply deeided " tl)at pouring 
 or sprinkling water on the face of the child, is not only lawful, but also sufficient 
 and most expedient." 
 
 They expressed no opinion about dipping at all, leaving it to the judgment of 
 persons what mode of baptism to choose. The final vote of the Assembly in 
 passing the Directory for the worship of God, was unanimous, and it contains 
 those words, " As he (the minister) pronounces these words, he is to baptize 
 the child with water, by pouring or spnnkling it on the face of the child, with- 
 out adding any other ceremony." 
 
 From these considerations, it is evident that the argument from history fails 
 to sustain immersion as the exclusive and only valid mode of baptism practiced 
 by the primitive Church. Other modes were in usp, and were considered law- 
 ful and necessary.* 
 
 * "It is remarkable, says Dr. Dwight, that those who have adopted the doc- 
 trine of infant baptism, have very generally considered sprinkling, or affusion, 
 and that those who liave opposed it, have^considered immersion, respectively, as 
 the proper modes of administration. Why this has happened, I am unable to 
 explain." Mr. Robinson, in his History of Baptism, solves this riddle which has 
 puzzled others besides Dr. Dwight. He says, p. 409, with some little alteration 
 of his language, " The dipping of little infants was found to be a very trouble- 
 some and inconvenient ceremowytsomeiimes extremely offensive,] and at all 
 times depending upon a hazard which must give (mothers) a great deal of pain. 
 The inconveniences of the ceremony of baptizing infants in (tlie form of immer- 
 sion) hath been in all Churches whore it hath been practised, recorded at large. 
 In the Roman Church, and in the Greek, children have been drowned. Baron- 
 ius mentions one who lost his life in the Vatican baptistery on a holy Saturday. 
 A disagreeable accident happened in the East to the Emperor Copronyinuj at 
 his baptism, in Bohemia to the Emperor VVenceslaus at his, and the caronical 
 provisions for such cases, fully imply that they were^very common." 
 
 There is no reason to doubt that baptizing infants by immersion has been re- 
 linquished through necessity. An enlightened community would not tolerate it. 
 Hence, infant baptism and immersion, as an exclusivp mode of baptism cannot 
 CO-EXIST in a land where intelligence and common sense bear sway, and not 
 ignorance and superstition. 
 
 f An old writer says the Church was " arrayed against the christening" in tho 
 following manner. " Near unto the font there must be hanged a traves, (frame 
 of wood) with carpets and quishions (^uiZ/s) to the same, a pan of coals well 
 burnt before they come there for smelling, &nd sweet perfumes to cast therein, 
 chafferons (vessels) of water, with basins of silver and gilt to wash the child if 
 iieed be ;" for the nudus innocens interdum in baptismatc eum et fontem vontris 
 profluvio foedavit." 
 
67 
 
 There fs one fact not yet alluded to, connected with the history of immersion, 
 to which we will now call the attention of our readers. It was the uniform prac- 
 tice in the ancient Church, to baptize in a state of nudity those who were ijap- 
 tized by immersion. Baptizing by immersion, and baplizingr naked, are practi- 
 ces wliich stand and fall together ; "and there is the same amount of evidence 
 in favor of immersing diverted of all clothing, that there is for immmersing at 
 all."* •* The ancient Christians, as Dr. Wall says, when they were baptized by 
 immersion, were all baptized naked, vvhether they were men, women, or chil- 
 dren." 
 
 ♦' Nothing is easier," says Mr. Robinson, " than to give proof that the primi- 
 tive Christians baptized naked, by quotations from the authentic writings of the 
 men who administered baptism, and who certainly knew in what way they 
 themselves performed it. There is no ancient historical fact better authentica- 
 ted than this. The evidence doth not go on the meaning of the single word na- 
 ked ; for then a reader might suspect allegory ; but on many facts reported, and 
 many reasons assigned for the practice." ♦' The reasons assigned for the prac» 
 tice are, that Christians ought to put off the old man before they put on a profes- 
 sion of Christianity ; that as men came naked into the world, so tliey ouglit to 
 come naked into the Church, ior rich men could not enter the kingdom of Heav- 
 en ; that it was an imitation of Christ, who laid aside his glory, and made 
 himself of no reputation for them ; and that Adam had forfeited all, and Christ- 
 ians ought to profess to be restored to the enjoyment of all, only by Jesus 
 Christ." t 
 
 Another reason, and a very prominent one, was, *' that several of the Fathers 
 very early advanced notions respecting the actual presence of the Spirit in tho 
 water, strikingly analagous to the modern doctrine of transubstantiation,anfl this 
 water acquired, in their opinion, as it would seem, a spiritual value, derived from 
 the real presence of the Spirit residing in the water." Hence, originated the 
 names, "death of sin, regeneration, access to God, way of life, vvaler of life, 
 eternal life," &c. by which baptism was called, 
 
 •'In the primitive time?j numbers flocked into the Church from the polluted em- 
 braces of heathenism ; it is therefore very conceivable that many would urge & 
 total ablution, and for greater certainty \.\ie jplunging of the convert, that no part, 
 no, not the fingers end, might remain contaminated with former idolatry. And, 
 surely, if the baptismal water had a spiritual value and efficacy, " if it was re- 
 generation, death of sin, way of life, water of life and eternal life," it was but 
 charitable to make use of it copiously and to apply it to every part. Hence, ftom. 
 the same principle, joined with that of 2eal for superstitious self denial and mor- 
 tification in unprescribed ceremonies, it may be readily perceived, might sinmU 
 taneously arise the practice of baptizing naked, and of baptizing by immersion. 
 
 Accordingly, dipping continued during those ages when, and because, exter- 
 nals made nearly the whole of religion ; and still continues in the Greek church, 
 
 * Dr. Miller. f History of Baptism, pp 94, 95, 
 
 f^-^' 
 
there ia reason to fear from a similar cause ; for it ia asserted that many infants 
 
 are annually destroyed among them by this practice. 
 
 Rome, indeed at length, though abundantly superstitious in other respects, be- 
 gan to relax this line of bigotry, long before the reformation. And whether an 
 attempt to establish the doctrine of dipping as essential to Christian baptism, be 
 not an attempt to re-establish, and to improve upon, what was unworthy of the 
 darkest ages of the church, Heave to be considered bythera whom it concerns,"* 
 
 Finally. Another argument which the Immersionalists wield against their 
 opponents, is the admissions of Psedobapiist writers in reference to Immersion. 
 Almost every author on their side has selected some distinguished writers on the 
 side of pouring or sprinkling, and has so quoted their words as to make them 
 appear to admit all that is contended for by their opponents. This practice we 
 believe, was started by Booth, in his work entitled Pfedobaptism examined, and 
 has been followed by almost every writer on Immersion since. We find almost 
 at the outset, if we look into their pages, the names of Budaeus, Altringius, Be- 
 za, Vitringa, Venema, Witsius, Calvin, with fifty others of the ancients, and a 
 dozen or more of the moderns, including Stewart, Woods, Neander, Chalmers 
 and others, who are announced as having given in their adherence to Immer- 
 sion, and whose concessions are set forth in staring capitals, to frown into si* 
 lence every man who would dare to move his tongue against Immersion. 
 
 On this mode of reasoning, we offer the following remarks, 
 
 1. The concessions of Paedobaptist wrtiers in general, relate to what no one 
 has ever denied, viz : that Immersion is valid baptism, and that baptizo, among 
 other significations, means to immerse. This is yielding nothing ; it is merely 
 saying that baptism by Immersion ia a3 valid as baptism by pouring or sprink. 
 ling. 
 
 2. But if Psedobaptist writers, without any exception had yielded the whole 
 ground,and conceded all that the Immersionalists demand,even then the arguments 
 of those who think differently would not be disproved, or be any less entitled to 
 consideration. Their concessions after al', would be their own concessions, they 
 would be open to the same mistakes with other men, liable to err, and they must 
 etand or fall as they are tried by the word of God. 
 
 3. Nothwithstanding the authority of great men, and the influence of great 
 names, and the opinions of profound scholars, every man has a right to inquire 
 for himself, what the wprd of God teaches, to conform his views to what seems 
 to him to be the meaning of the Scriptures, to express his own sentiments, and 
 to demand that they be tried not by comparing them with the opinions of others, 
 but with the declarations of Revelation, It is consequently unfair to embarrass 
 him, and attempt to frown him down by thrusting in his way a host of human 
 opinions and authorities professedly of his views, but so presented as apparently 
 to decide against his convictions. 
 
 I 
 
 E. Williams, on Baptism, Vol. II, p p 188, 189. 
 
59 
 
 F 4. But unfair &<> such a procedure is, it might be endured with patience if 
 these authorities were quoted right in every case, and they were placed in their 
 true position before the public. This has not been done, and we here charge 
 Bome writers on the side of immersion with not dealing truly with writers in fa- 
 vor of sprinkling or pouring, as a mode of baptism. They have so quoted theso 
 writers as to leave a wrong impression on the minds of their readers in regard 
 to their real views. 
 
 For instance : when Calvin is quoted, a single sentence is generally taken 
 from his Institutes, which contains a concession in favor of Immersion. But 
 Calvin did not say, nor did he mean to be understood when he penned the sen- 
 tence, " the very word baptize means to immerse, and it is certain that immer- 
 sion was the practice of the ancient Church," that pouring, or sprinkling, also 
 was not baptism, and that it was not practiced in the Church — for, in the very 
 connection in which these expressions occur, he uses these words ; " But wheth- 
 er the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, 
 or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance. 
 Churches ought to be left at liberty in this respect, to act according to the dif- 
 ference of countries." 
 
 Witsius has conceded «' that Baptize in its native acceptation, means to plunge 
 or dip ;" but while he has made this concession, he has also said, " though bap= 
 tizo properly signifies to plunge or dip, yet it is also more generally used for any 
 washing, as Luke xi, 38." He also says, '' we are not to imagine, that immer^ 
 eion is so necessary to baptism, as that it cannot be duly performed by pouring 
 water all over, or by aspersion ; for both the method of pouring and that of as-' 
 persion, are not without arguments for them." 
 
 Dr, Woods says, " for myself, I could, without any serious scruple of conscience, 
 adopt immersion, as the usual mode of baptism." Yet, he immediately proceeds 
 to shew, " that it cannot be determined from the New Testament, that baptism 
 was administered by immersion ;" and he says, without any qualification, 
 •' that there is no express declaration in the New Testament, that every one 
 who was baptized was completely immersed in water. Nor is there any com= 
 mand of Christ, or of his Apostles, expressly requiring that Christians should bo 
 baptized by total immersion" 
 
 These examples may suffice. They are (See Appendix,) a specimen of near-= 
 ly all the rest who have been called to give their testimony in favor of immersion. 
 There is scarcely one of them, we venture to say, who has made concessions in 
 favor of immersion, who has not defended pouring and sprinkling with strong 
 and invincible arguments, and who has not died in the faith in which he lived. 
 It is,therefore,very wide from the truth to present them before the public as having 
 given their testimony exclusively in favor of immersion, and to convey the im- 
 pression to others, that by a feeble and relaxed effort, they endeavored to sustain 
 the sinking cause of aspersion. They never doubted the scrength, firmness and du- 
 rability of its foundations.the divinity of its origin, and the certainty of its triumph. 
 
 With this discourse, we close the discussion of the mode of baptism. We 
 dismiss the subject, with one or two remarks : 
 
60 
 
 1. It is evidsnt from the foregoing examination that baptism, by sprinkling, or 
 pouting, stands on as solid ground as immersion, and is equally valid and lawful. 
 IJencc, the mode of baptism sliould not be regarded as a matter of serious con- 
 cern. Persons of sensitive feelings, should not allow themselves to be distres- 
 sed on such a subject. No man has a right to exhibit immersion as a mode of 
 baptism which believers are required to use exclusive of all others, and to pro- 
 nounce t!)03e unbaptized, who have been baptized in other ways. If any man 
 assumes such a right, he ought not to be listened to ; he goes beyond his rule, 
 and assumes an unbecoming confidence. The people of God are at liberty to 
 vary the form of baptism, as their health, strength, and circumstances may re- 
 quire. 
 
 £. Hence, v^e may learn the importance of of keeping uppermost the great in» 
 terests of religon. 
 
 The sum of religion is obedience to God, connected with purity of heart, and 
 of life. Zeal about baptism can convert a man into a violent sectarian, but it 
 cannot make him wise, holy or happy. It is nothing, therefore, to an individual, 
 by what mode of baptism he was baptized, if he has been baptized with water ; 
 but it is all to a man to fear God and keep his commandments. The fear of the 
 Lord, ^not baptism) is wisdom; and to depart frcm evil is understanding. 
 If there is anything worth contending for in this world, it is vital religion. This 
 principle will survive all disputes about its forms, Eind live forever ; and, hence, 
 he who neglects this in his engagedness about the form of baptism, is guilty of 
 undervaluing what is of infinitely greater worth than all the outward ceremonies 
 of piety, devised by man, or instituted by God^ 
 
 ^.^- 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 JBREMIA.H XXX, 20.=-" Tlieir children also shall be as aforetime, and their 
 congregation shall be established before me." 
 
 The words of the text are prospective. They belong to a prophecy which re- 
 spects the state of the Jews under the Gospel Dispensation, when they shall 
 again be grafted into their own Olive tree from which they were broken off by 
 unbelief. This is evident from verses 8 and 9. " For it shall come to pass in 
 that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, 
 and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him, 
 but they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise 
 up unto them." 
 
 By David their king, Christ is meant ; for he is called David in the parallel 
 prophecies, (Ezek. xxxiv, 23, 24 ; xxxvii, 24 ; Hosea, iii, 5.) Jeremiah, more= 
 over, lived several centuries after the death of King David, and of course must 
 have had reference in this prophecy, to him of whom David was a type, viz : to 
 Christ. Furthermore, the deliverance predicted, or promised in these passages, 
 has not yet been granted, for the yoke has not been broken from off the neck of 
 Israel, and strangers have not ceased to serve themselves of him. The Jews 
 have been in a state of subjection to other nations since the coming of Christ. 
 They were at length entirely subdued by the Romans, and vi^idely dispersed, and 
 since that time almost all nations have served themselves of this scattered peo- 
 ple. The prophecy of which this text forms a part, must therefore refer to the 
 future, to a time under the Christian Dispensation, when the Jews will be con- 
 verted and restored to all the privileges of the Church of Christ 
 
 ■ When this shall take place, '* their children also shall be as aforetime ;" that 
 is, they shall be included in the covenant of God with his people, and the token 
 of the covenant shall be applied to them. This is the condition they were in 
 aforetime. The text consequently asserts the continuance of the connection be- 
 tween parents and children under the New Testament Dispensation, which for- 
 merly existed under the Old. Household consecration was practiced aforetime. 
 The pious Jew consecrated his family to God, and as he is assured that his chil- 
 dren shall be as aforetime under the Gospel Dispensation, of course when he 
 shall be converted, he must dedicate his children to God. But how can he do 
 this, except the practice of Household consecration exists in the Christian 
 Church. A Church denying infant baptism, and neglecting household conse- 
 
63 
 
 cratioiii would not afford his children the privileges enjoyed by Jewish children 
 aforetime. Hence, it is not into such a Church that the Jews will be grafted 
 when they embrace the Christian faith. It must be a pee do baptist Church; 
 otherwise the prediction will remain unfulfilled, and the promise must fall to the 
 ground, that their children shall be as aforetime. We conclude, therefore, that 
 household consecration enters into the very constitution of the Christian Church 
 — and if so, then of course it ia the duty of Christian parents to dedicate their 
 children to God by baptism. 
 
 Between us and the Iramersionalists, there is a difference of opinion on thia 
 subject. They contend that adults only are proper subjects of baptism ; while 
 we affirm that the privilege belongs also to the infant children of all who make a 
 creditable profession of evangelical faith and repentance. We shall now call 
 your attention to the arguments in favor of infant baptism. 
 
 1. That the infant children of pious parents are entitled to baptism, appears 
 from the oneness of the Church under the Old and New Testament Dispensations. 
 The Abrahamic or Jewish Church is substantially continued in the Christian. 
 The prophets under the Old Testament, in all their predictions respecting the 
 future prevalence of religion, do not once allude to the erection of a new church 
 in the world, but speak of Zion, of Israel as enlarged by the bringing in of the 
 Gentiles. " It is Zion ; it is Jerusalem that arises and shines ; her light being 
 come; and the glory of the Lord being risen upon her. The Gentiles shall 
 come to her light, and Kings to the brightness of ^her rising : all they gather 
 themselves and come to thee.'' These declarations plainly shew that the proph- 
 ets contemplated the Gospel Church with its enlarged privileges and numbers, as 
 the ancient Zion continued. If so, infant baptism follows as a necessary conse- 
 quence. For it wag an original appointment of the Church, that the infant chil- 
 dren of professing parents should receive the initiatory ordinance of it, and be- 
 come entitled to its privileges. This appointment has not been annulled or al- 
 tered. It remains in full force ; and, hence, infants are still entitled to that or- 
 dinance which is the token of the covenant between God and his Church. 
 
 The Apostle Paul, in several instances, distinctly maintained the oneness or 
 identity of the Jewish and Christian Church. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 ii, 14, he says, " For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken 
 down the middle wall of partition between us." We learn from the context, 
 that the words (^botli, and us,) refer to the Jews and Gentiles. The ceremonial 
 law which commanded the Jews to observe numerous outward ordinances that 
 vcere typical of Christ, was a partition wall between the Jews and Gentiles. 
 This law was fulfilled in Christ, and the seperation which it occasioned was re- 
 moved by his death, " for he is our peace, having made peace by the blood of hia 
 cross." The breaking down of the partition wall, brings the Jews and Gentiles 
 together and made both one. Hence, it appears that the Church, at the calling 
 of the Gentiles, was not dissolved, but remained. The Jews and Gentiles were 
 made one by the removal of the partition wall. The inference, therefore, fol- 
 lows that infants are entitled to baptism. For they hold the same place in the 
 church composed of Gentiles and Jews, that they held in the church when com- 
 posed only of Jews, because they constituted a portion of the members of the 
 
04 
 
 eharch to which the Gentiles were united ; no change being effected in that 
 church, except in its form ; in principle and substance it remained the same. 
 
 Again, in Romans xi, 17, the Apostle speaking to the Gentiles in reference to 
 the Jews who were rejected from the Church, on account of unbelief, says: 
 "and if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild Olive tree, 
 wert grafted in among them, and with them partakost of the root and fatness of 
 the Olive tree ; boast not thyself against the branches." Peter Edwards re- 
 marks on this passage ; " The Olive tree denotes the visible church, Jer. xi, 16 : 
 Hosea, xiv, 6, By the branches, some of which were broken off, and some remain- 
 ed unbroken, is denoted the members of the visible church. The wild Olive tree 
 represents the Gentiles, who were called of God, and grafted in among iho 
 branches which were left as a remnant, and united to them. 
 
 The following conclusions follow from these propositions. 
 
 1. There is no discontinuance of the ancient visible church. In essence, it 
 still remains. It was not broken down and destroyed. Some of the branches of 
 the Olive tree were broken off, and the Gentiles were engrafted into their place." 
 The Immersionalists say that the branches broken off were trom the Christian 
 Church. But the branches broken off were the unbelieving Jews who never be- 
 longed to that Church. Hence, it was the ancient visible church from which 
 some of the branches of the Olive tree were broken off. 
 
 2. "The bringing in of the Gentiles did not constitute a new church. They 
 were called in, and admitted into a church already established. They were graft- 
 ed into the Olive tree which had not all its branches broken off. 
 
 3. Infant membership was allowed in the Apostolical times. All the branch- 
 es of the Olive tree were not broken off; i. c. there was a remnant of tiie mem- 
 bers of the ancient Cluirch left. The members of that church were composed 
 of infants and adults, and consequently infants were included in this remnant ; 
 for it must have been composed of just such individuals as composed the entire 
 Hebrew Church. And, if included in this remnant, then they vvere admitted into 
 the Gospel Church. For, if we affirm that the ancient visible church was dis- 
 solved and not continued in the Christian, then we affirm against the obvious 
 import of this passage of Scripture, and .so against the word of God ; and if, on 
 the other hand, we admit that the Hebrew Church was continued in the Christ- 
 ian, and that the Gentiles were grafted in it thus continued, then we must allow 
 that infant membership was permitted by the Apostles." 
 
 This argument is greatly strengthened by the fact that the children of believ- 
 ers are recognized in the New Testament as sustaining the same relation to the 
 Christian Church that the infant seed of pious Jews sustained to the Abrahamic 
 or Jewish Church. This statement is warranted by the following passages of 
 Scripture. Mark x, 13, 16. ''And they brought young children to him, that he 
 should touch them ; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But 
 when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, suffer the little 
 children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of 
 
65 
 
 God. Verily, 1 eay unto you, whoaoever shall not receive the kingdom of God 
 as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took tliem up in his arms, 
 put his hands upon them, and hlessed them." Peter Edwards remarks on theaa 
 words': " Our inquiry is, what kingdom did our Lord mean 1 Was it the church, 
 or a state of glory 1 If the Lord meant the church, then he has asserted that 
 infants were spoken of by him, as members of the church ; and, therefore, the 
 fact is established. But the Immersionalists in general understand this of a 
 state of glory, and allow infants to belong to that, but deny that they belong to 
 the Church. This, indeed, is granting the greater, and denying the less ; and 
 therefore an argument may be taken, from what they grant, to destroy what they 
 deny ; that is, an argument from the greater to the less. Besides, as tiie insti- 
 tution of the Church is a dispensation of God, which leads to glory; it is absurd 
 to grant persons a place in glory, and at the same time deny them a place in 
 that dispensation which leads to it." 
 
 To escape this argument, the Immersionalists lay hold of the phrase ^^ of such," 
 and affirm that our Lord meant "adults of a childlike disposition, and that of these, 
 and not of the infants he said, Of such is the kingdom of God." But if this is 
 the meaning, then the Saviour offered as a reason for permitting children to 
 come to him to receive his blessing, " that persons not children, but who were of 
 a childlike disposition, were the subjects of the kingdom of Heaven."? Thug, 
 the reason for permitting tliem to come to him, was not the fact that they had 
 childlike dispositions themselves, but because some adults had such dispositions' 
 But if adults of such dispositions were entitled to his blessing, and belonged to 
 his kingdom, why were not children whom these adults resembled 1 What a 
 sorry reason to give for permitting children to come to him, " suffer these chil- 
 dren to come to me, because those adults who are like children belong to_the 
 kingdom of God." 
 
 The evident import of this declaration is, that young children are the subjecta 
 of Christ's kingdom, and if so, tiiere is no diminution of their privileges under 
 the New Testament Dispensation, They sustain the same relation to the Chris- 
 tian Church, that they did to the Jewish, and hence, the Christian is only the 
 Jewish Church in its substance and principle continued. 
 
 Acts ii, 38, 39. "Then Peter said, 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 as many as the Lord our God shall call." The thing 
 here promised to parents and children is the gift of the Holy Ghost. But this 
 promise was originally made to Abraham and his seed, when God engaged to bo 
 a God to iiim and his seed after him, for the Apostle Paul says. Gal. iii, 14, that 
 that general promise included the gift of the Holy Spirit. But it is here said 
 that this promise (including the things contained in it) is extended to believers 
 and their children under the Gospel, and with this promise is connected baptism. 
 Infants, therefore, are placed in the same relation to baptism that they were be- 
 fore to circumcision. Siiall they not then be baptized, since it is plain that the 
 Jewish and Christian Church are the same in relation to Parents and Childrerp 
 
 9 
 
66 
 
 tn 1 Cor. vii, 14, it is asserted, " The unbelieviug husband is sanctified bj' the 
 wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your chil- 
 dren unclean, but now are they holy." To be holy, as here used, is the converse 
 of being unclean ; and denotes that which may be offered to God. To be sanc- 
 tified, as referring to the objects here mentioned, ie to be seperated for religious 
 purposes; consecrated to God ; as were the first born and vessels of the temple ; 
 or, to be in a proper condition to appear before God. In this text, it denotes that 
 the unbeMeving parent is co purified by means of his relation to the believing pa- 
 rent, that their mutual offspring are not unclean,* but may be offered to God. 
 There is no other sense in which a Jew could have written this text, without 
 gome qualification of these words. The only appointed way in which children 
 may bo offered to God, is baptism. The children of believing parents are, there- 
 fore, to be offered to God in baptism." 
 
 To evade the force of this interpretation. Dr. Gill invented the following in- 
 terpretation : " Else were your children illegitimate, but now are they legitimate.^' 
 He did not pretend that the Greek words would bear such an interpretation, but 
 to sustain it had recourse to the Rabinnical Hebrew. There is, in fact, no 
 Greek author, sacred or profane, who use the words dKadapra & ayia{dka-ihar-ta 
 and ag-i-a) in the sense of illegitimate and legitimate. 
 
 Mr, Carson labors hard to sustain this interpretation, but with evident dissat- 
 isfaction at the result, for he could find no author among the Greek writers from 
 Homer to Porphyry who gave him their support. Hence, he exclaims (p 334) 
 "But if any will choose to understand the passage otherwise, let them have it in 
 their own way. In no view of it, can it countenance the baptism of infants or 
 unbelievers. If such infants were even as holy as the infant John the Baptist, it 
 would not imply their baptism. They may possess the holiness that will fit them 
 for heaven without entitling them to baptism. Baptism is for believere and only 
 for believers." 
 
 This is an extraordinary assertion, that infants should not be baptized even if 
 they possessed holiness that would fit them for heavpn. Strange inconsistency, 
 not to admit those who have the thing signified by baptism, viz : holines?, to the 
 rito itself. On what other ground but this is it that the Imraersionalists baptize 
 adults 1 Is it not that they possess holiness ? Certainly ; it is not that they 
 merely profess to have repented and believed, but that as penitent believers they 
 possess a holy character ? If it is not this, what is it ; and why is it that the 
 Immersionalists contend against the baptism of infants, if adults may be admit- 
 ted to baptism without being considered true Christians ? If they may, why 
 may not children 1 
 
 *" The word unclean, in almost all instances, in the Scriptures, denotes that 
 which may not be offered to God, or may not come into his Temple." — Dutch 
 Annotations '■'• For otherwise your children were unclean," that is, strangers from 
 God's covenant as is testified of the unbelieving Gentiles and their seed, Eph. 
 ii, 12. " BxU now are they holy,'' that is, are comprehended in the outward cov- 
 enant of God, and have access to the signs and seals of God's grace, as well as 
 
m 
 
 It is evident from the commission to baptize all nation?, that the Jewish and 
 Cliristian Church are essentially the same. Math xxviii, 19, 20 — " Go ye there- 
 fore, and teach (Greek, make disciples of,) all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of tlie Father, and of the Son, and of tho Holy Ghost ; teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." These words iuclado 
 infants. 
 
 This is a command to disciple, lapdze and teach all rations. Now, little chil. 
 dren are a part of all nations. But all nations are to be discipled, baptized and 
 taught. Therefore, little childred are to be discipled, baptized and taught. Again. 
 The order of the words makes baptism to precede teaching. The direction ia 
 to " baptize, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
 you." Teaching is represented as subsequent to baptism, therefore (reasoning 
 on the principles of the Immersionalists,) little children are first to he baptized, 
 and afterwards to be taught. 
 
 But say they Mark adds, (chap, xvi, 16,) " he that believeth and ia baptized, 
 shall be saved." " Here our Lord teaches us that faith precedes baptism as a 
 prerequisite. But little children cannot believe ; therefore they are not to be 
 baptized until they are capable of faith." 
 
 To this we reply, if Mark refers to little children at all, the meaning of the 
 passage must be, " He that believeth and is (i. e. already) baptized, shall be sa- 
 ved." For if it is understood as the Immersionalists interpret it, it makes bap-, 
 tism a prerequisite of salvation, and teaches infant damnation, — doctrines which 
 are not found in the word of God. The word baptize goes before the word sa- 
 ved, just as the word believe goes before the word baptize. Now, if no one can be 
 baptized without first believing, because the word believe precedes the word bap- 
 tize, it follows by parity of reasoning that no one can be saved without first be- 
 ing baptized, because the word baptize precedes the word saved. Hence, if it 
 excludes infants from baptism because they are incapable of believing, it debars 
 them from salvation likewise, because they have not been baptized. Thus all un- 
 baptized children dying such, must be damned for not having received the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, of which Christ himself according to the doctrine of these 
 men has declared them incapable. 
 
 2. That the infant children of believing parents are entitled to baptism, ap- 
 pears from the fact that the Apostles baptized families. 
 
 There are several such families mentioned in the New Testament, viz : the 
 household of Cornelius, Stephanus, Lydia, and the Jailor at Phillippi. These 
 households are designated by the word oIkos (oikos) which most properly means a 
 family composed exclusively of a man's children, offspring or descendenta.— 
 These households are said also to be baptized in connection with the head of the 
 family, and in two cases where only the faith of the head is mentioned as will 
 appear in the sequel. " Having thus the unquestionable fact of the baptism of 
 families, a fact according with the ancient practice of the circumcision of familiesj 
 and supported by the use of a word that properly denotes a man's children, we 
 are warranted to assume, that these caasg furnish instances of baptism of the 
 
68 
 
 children of believing parents," unless the Immersionalists can shew that thera 
 were adults only in these households. 
 
 This they contend can be done, and they assert accordingly that they were com- 
 posed entirely of adults. la respect to Lydia and her family they state, that she 
 resided at Thyatira, but that she was sojourning temporally at Phitippi for the 
 purpose of selling purple ; that she had journoyinen dyers in her employment 
 who composed her family, that these workmen were converted by the preaching 
 of Paul and his associates, and that they were the brethren whom Paul and Sila^ 
 found at her house when they were released from prison. 
 
 Many persons, and some belonging to Psedobaptist Churches, believe that thia 
 
 statement contains the very facts in the case ; but nearly the whole of it, how- 
 ever, is made up out of suppositions that have no foundation whatever in the nar- 
 rative. In Acts svi, 13, 15, Luke, the writer of Acts says, "And on the Sab- 
 bath we, {Luke, Paul, Silas and Timothy, see Actsxvi, 1, 4. Phil, i, 24,) went 
 out of the city by the river side where prayer was wont to be made ; and we sat 
 down, and spake to the women, (not males lor there were none present;) which 
 resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the 
 city of Thyatira, which worshipped God heard us ; whose heart the Lord open- 
 ed that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when slis 
 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, and she constrained 
 MS." That is, her urgent entreaties compelled us to comply with her invitation, 
 and we made her house our place of residence svhile we continued at Philippi. 
 
 The things stated in this narrative are the following. 1. Paul and his com- 
 panions on this occasion preached the word to females only. There were no 
 males in the assembly, " for they spake unto the women which resortfid thither." 
 2. One woman only believed and was converted at that time. The Lord opened 
 the heart of Lydia, " that she attended unto the things which were spoken of 
 Paul." 3. This single female and her family were baptized together, they being 
 baptized on her faith as not one of them, is said to have believed. " And when 
 she was baptized and her household." Lydia originated from the city of Thya- 
 tira but now lived at Philippi with her family ; where she had a house, in which 
 she lodged the Apostles for sometime. Tlie declaration that she was a woman 
 of Thyatira is of the same import with the expression , " Saul of Tg^rsus," " I 
 am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia,^' &c. This language 
 was used merely to denote that Tarsus was the birth-place of Paul, not his place 
 of residence. So the declaration that Lydia was a woman of Thyatira means 
 that that city was her birth-place, she originated there. * Thus it appears that 
 Lydia resided permanently at Philippi, had a house there, in which she lodged 
 Paul and his associates, Silas, Luke, and Timothy. 
 
 After thoy had remained in her house for a season, Paul and Silas were appre- 
 hended by the magistrates and shut up in prison, but Luke and Timotliv were 
 suffered to continue unmolested at Lydia's house. When they were released 
 
 * Dutch Annotations. " Lydia was of Thyatira by birih," 
 
69 
 
 from their imprisonment, ihey wished of course to see Luke and Timothy. A.. 
 mong other reasons which rendered an interview necessary, was their excited 
 state, and their need of counsel and encouragement, for they were undoubtedly 
 anxious and perplexed in consequence of tlie treatment which Paul and SiliiF, 
 their elder brethren had received from the magistrates of Philippi. Hence, they 
 went to Lydia's house, where Luke and Timotljy lodged, and when they had 
 seen the brethren (Luke and TimoUiy) they irap-rvaXcjai/ (pare-kal-e-san) exhorted 
 encouraged them, and departed. Tliat i?, they spake words of consoktion cal- 
 culated tocheer and fill them with courage, and as they had not excited the sus- 
 picion of tiie magistrates of Philippi, and there was no reason to apprehend an 
 excitement on their account if they should continue in the city, they therefore ex= 
 horted them to remain after their departure, to take care of the interests of re- 
 ligion which had now gained a foothold in the families of Lydia and the Jailor. 
 
 This they accordingly did. For Paul and Silag departed and passed through 
 several cities, and at Berea were joined by Timothy, but Luke staid at Philippi 
 until Paul revisited that place on his way into Asia. Acts xx, 6. We arrive at 
 this conclusion in the following way. The pronoun we is used in Acts xvi, 
 which shews that Luke the writer of Acts, included himself. This pronoun is 
 substituted by the pronouns he or ihey in the following chapters, shewing that 
 Luke was not in the company of his companions. But in chapter xx, verse P, 
 the word we again appears, shewing that Luke had become associated wiih 
 Paul. It seems from the narrative, that Paul revisited Philippi on his way into 
 Asia, and that he took Luke with him from that place. For Luke says that tliere 
 accompanied Paul into Asia, Sopaler, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gains, Tiinotlieus., 
 Tychicus and Trophimus. These going before, tarried for tjs at Troffs. And 
 we fsays Luke including himself and Paul) sailed away from Philippi after the 
 days of unleavened bread, and came unto them at Troas," &c. The next verse 
 relates that Paul preached at Troas. Paul, therefore, was in tlie company that 
 sailed from Philippi to Troas. Hence, the statement of this matter by the Im- 
 mersionalists, that Lydia was a pedler belonging to Thyatira, and on a pedling 
 excursion to Philippi, having journeymen dyers in her employment ; that tticsj 
 composed her household, and were the brethren whom Paul and Silas saw at 
 her house when they were released from prison, is from beginning to end, a mere 
 supposition. It is probably all made out of the fact that Paul and Silas saw 
 brethren at Lydia's house, for it is no where said, intimated or implied, that she 
 had journeymen in her employment, or that any men or women beside herself 
 were converted and baptized when she and her family received that ordinance. 
 The naked fact, then, that Brethren were seen at her house, does not prove that 
 they belonged to her family. They might have been persons converted to the 
 Christian faith by the labors of Paul and Silas in the city, and who met there as 
 the most likely place to see them when they were released from imprisonment, 
 since they had_lodged there before their confinement. This would be the modt 
 natural and probable supposition if we had no other way to determine who these 
 brethren were, because it is not customary nor economical for persons engaged 
 in the business o^ dyeing, or any other employment in which the assistance of 
 other persons is necessary, to take their workmen with them on their trading ex- 
 cursions. They generally keep their journeymen at homo at work, while they 
 
ro 
 
 go out alone for the purpose of trade. If Lydia, therefore, resided at Thyatira, 
 and carried on her business there, it is most proper to suppose that her journey- 
 inen were at Thyatira and not at Philippi. 
 
 But, if it is still contended that these brethren were her workmen, then they 
 were certainly baptized on her faith. Her family was baptized on her faith — 
 these workmen composed her family ; therefore they were baptized on her faith. 
 
 In reference to the family of the Jailor, the Immersionalists tell us that it is 
 embarrassed by the fact that it is said that Paul ana Silas " Spake liie word of 
 the Lord unto hi(n and to all that were in his house, and that he rejoiced, believ- 
 in God with all his house." On this passage, we offer the following remarks. 
 1. The activity of the Jailor renders it probable that he was in the vigor of life. 
 His hastiness of purpose to kill himself, — his calling for a light and springing in 
 the prison, do not very well comport with the moderation of old age. If the 
 Jailor was a young man, or a rnan of middle age, it is possible that he had a fam- 
 ily of young children. 2. The expressions omos, rravoiKi. oi avrov navra, (oi-kos, 
 pan-oi-ki, oi, au-iou, pmi-tes,) translated '' house, all his house, and all his," mean 
 a family of children, and such as were at his own disposal and under his own 
 control. 
 
 Panoiki is used in Exodus i, 1, to denote a man's own family. Now, these 
 are the names of the children of Israel who came into Egypt, every man {pan-oi- 
 ki) with all his house, i. e. his own personal family. 
 
 Oi auiou panics, •' and all his," is an expression which excludes alljpersons 
 who were not under the control and at the disposal of the Jailor. Hence, it lim- 
 its the persons baptized to his own personal family, to his children. These ex- 
 pressions render it very probable that the Jailor had a family of little children. 
 
 3. The gracious connection between the faith of parents and children which 
 Paul and Silas assert, and which they present to the Jailor as a motive to induce 
 him to embrace the Christian faith, impZ?es that he had a family of children who 
 were still minors. " And they said believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be 
 eaved, and thy house." Why did they say this, if his faith had no inSucnce up- 
 on the moral character of his children ? Why did they say this, if he had no chil- 
 dren, or if he had children of such an age that they were no longer under his con- 
 trol? How could the blessing of salvation come upon his family through his 
 faith, if he had no young children ? What inducement or motive had the Apos- 
 tles to speak of his faith having influence upon his household, if there was no 
 connection between parents and children in the covenant of grace ? 
 
 4. But that he actually had a family of little children is evident from the fact 
 that the Jailor was the only person who believed, and consequently his family 
 must have been baptized on his faith. We do not like very well to find fault 
 with the translation of the Scriptures. In general, it is accurate, but it sometimes 
 fails, it must be confessed, to convoy the exact idea of the original. There is 
 a failure of this kind, we apprehend, in the rendering of the passage, " and he re- 
 joiced, believing in God with all his house." Tha idea here is that all the fami- 
 
71 
 
 ]y of the Jailor believed. This meaning is oriven to tlje passage by placing the 
 words, "with all his house," after the participle beliving, which is in the singu- 
 lar number, and which refers to the Jailor and not to his family. Now, in the 
 original, the words "with all his house" go before the participle believing, and 
 stand connected with the word " rejoiced," and if rendered as they stand con- 
 nected in the original, the passage would read thus : 
 
 Kal iiyaXAtaf«ro ttovoIxi TtTrifTfuxwf Tto 6cco. | " he set meat before them and rejoiced 
 with all his house, he having believed in God. 
 
 This gives another idea to the sentence. It regards the Jailor as the only be- 
 liever, and makes liis joy and that of his family not to arise from the fact that 
 now they were all converted, but that they were, as a family, by means of his 
 faith and their baptism, brought into that gracious connection with God, which 
 the Apostles assured him should follow his faith when they said, " Believe on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house." 
 
 This was a matter ealculated to produce joy, not only in his own [raind, but al- 
 so in his family. And that they in some measure understood it we have assu- 
 rance, for the Apostles spake the same things to his family that they did to hiir. 
 " They spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." 
 Now, what they spake particularly to him, we learn from the preceding verse, 
 it concerned faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the gracious connection between 
 parents and children in the covenant of God, by which the faith of the parent 
 may be rendered the means or instrument of the salvation of the children. Very 
 young children might get some idea of these things, and hence it was very prop- 
 er to instruct them, that they might know that now they were a family devoted 
 to God, and were bound to abstain from the worship of false gods and the idola- 
 trous practices of their friends and others around them. 
 
 It has been objected that this could not have been a family of small children, 
 because their baptism was performed in the night, " and it must have been very 
 difficult to have taken them out of their beds in the middle of the night, and to 
 have baptized them." On the supposition that they were sleeping quietly pre- 
 viously, the objection would be weighty. But there is no necessity for suppo. 
 sing that they were taken out of their beds, as the earthquake which shook the 
 prison to its centre and threw open its doors, unquestionably roused the family of 
 the Jailor, and filled them with a terror which drove slumber from their eyes, 
 and produced a consternation which demanded the presence and exhortations of 
 the Apostles to calm and remove. 
 
 The family of Stephanus (I Cor. i, 16,) the Immersionalists contend must have 
 been a family of adults when baptized, because it is said (I Cor. xvi, 15,) they 
 have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." But that does not ne- 
 cessarily follow. They may have been a family of minors when baptized, and 
 afterwards, at a subsequent period, have " addicted themselves to the ministry of 
 the saints." Paul does not tell us whether there were any believing persons in 
 this family or not, nor does he give us any clue to the respective ages of the 
 members of that family when they were baptized. He merely says, " And I bap^ 
 
72 
 
 tized also the household of Stephanus ; besides I know not whether I baptized 
 any other." 
 
 3. The history of infant baptism establishes the lawfulness of the practice, be- 
 cause it proves that it has always been allowed in the Christian Church. 
 
 In tracing the history of infant baptism from the Apostles down to the pres. 
 cnt time, we will begin with the age of Augustine, when it is admitted even by 
 the Immersionalists, it extensively prevailed. * Augustine was the pastor of a 
 Church in Northern Africa, a country then filled with a Christian population. — 
 He was one of the most profound theologians, and ablest defenders of the Chris- 
 tian cause in the age in which he lived. He was born A. D. 354, about 254 years 
 after the Apostolic age, and consequently he lived 50 years nearer that age than 
 we do to the commencement of the glorious reformation under Luther. 
 
 Passages without number might be cited from his writings to shew that infant 
 baptism was an established usage of the Church. He says ; " the custom of our 
 mother church in baptizing little children, is by no means to be disregarded, nor 
 accounted as in any measure superfluous. Neither, indeed, is it to be regarded 
 as any other than a.n apostolical tradition." This he also declares "the whole 
 church maintains, not instituted by councils, but always observed." In another 
 place, speakinjr of the Pelagians, he says : "they grant that infants must be bap- 
 tized, as not being able to resist the authority of Lhe whole church, which icas doubt- 
 less delivered by our Lord and his Apostles." 
 
 Now, Augustine lived nearer the Apostolical age than we do to the age of Lu- 
 tlier. But, liow familiar are we with the history 'of the times in which that 
 groat and good rnan flourished. The fierce wars, and desolating persecutions 
 which have taken place since, though they have deluged Europe with blood, 
 liave not destroyed the monuments and records of the glorious reformation from 
 popery, in which Luther acted so distinguished a part. Every child among us is 
 familiar with his name, his sentimentr, and his triumphant struggles against the 
 Man of Sin. Can it bo supposed tliat the history of the Apostolic age, the sen- 
 timents and achicvraentsof the immediate disciples of our Lord, and the usages 
 of the churches founded by them were less interesting, and less fresh in the 
 memory of Augustine and his contemporaries, than the labors of Luther and his 
 nssociaies are to usl Augustine was undoubtedly familiar with all the writings 
 of tho eminent men who had preceded him, and with all the records of the Apos- 
 tolic age then in existence ; and he knew — he must have known whether infant 
 baptism was derived- from the Apostles or not, and whether it was the usage of 
 the whole church or not. Hence, his declaration that infant baptism was an 
 Apostolical tradition always observed, may be considered as decisive "evidence 
 in its fiivor, for it is impossible to conceive how one situated as he was could have 
 been mistaken. 
 
 * Robert Hall, an Immersionalist, says the practice of infant baptism was in- 
 troduced tov;ards the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, 
 and then adds, "we cannot suppose a shorter space was requisite to procure it, 
 that complete establishment anu ascendancy which it possessed in the time of 
 St, Austin." Works, vol. i. p. 481. 
 
73 
 
 One of the contemporaries of Augustine waa Pelagius a Britton, who became 
 entangled in a controversy with Augustine, whidh related to the subjects of sin, 
 grace and free will, and election ; with which werc'^conriected tiiose of infant 
 baptism, redemption and perseverance in holiness. Felagius believed that Ad- 
 am's sin had no bad effect upon the character and condition of hisjpostority ; 
 that sin arose, merely from imitation ; that all men are, from their nature, mor- 
 tal ; and are born undepraved. Augustine contended, on the other hand, that 
 all men, in consequence of their descent from Adam, arc mortal , are chargeable 
 with hereditary sin ; and are obnoxious to damnation. These doctrines he en- 
 deavored to prove from infant baptism. " Infants,^' he says, " are by all Chris- 
 tians acknowledged to stand in need of baptism, which must be for original sin, 
 since they have no other. If they have no sin, why are they then baptized, ac- 
 cording to the rule of the church for the forgiveness of sins." 
 
 Pelagius felt this argument deeply — he was Willing to evade it if possible, but 
 he did not dare to question its correctness. His reply is full of instruction on 
 the subject of infant baptism. He says, '' who can be eo impious ag to hinder 
 jiifants from being baptized, and born again in Christ." And citing those words, 
 except one be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God, he says, " who can be eo impious as to refuse to an infant, of whatever age, 
 the common redemption of mankind." When it was charged upon him that his 
 sentiments led to the denial of infant baptism- he disavows the consequence, and 
 says — " Men SLANDER me as if I beinied the Sacrament of baptism to in- 
 fants. I NEVEa HEARD OF ANT, NOT EVEN THE MOST IMPIOUS HERETIC, AVHO 
 DENIED BAPTISM TO INFANTS." 
 
 These are the assertions of Pelagius, a witness of high authority. For he 
 was a Britton by birth, and had travelled through France, Africa proper, and 
 Egypt,»to Jerusalem. Had there been any portion of the Christian Church from 
 Britain to Jerusalem, on either side of the Mediterranean sea where the prac- 
 tice of infant baptism did not exist, it seems impossible that he should not have 
 heard of it. Being a man of an inquisitive mind, he must have ascertained, also, 
 if there had been any sect of heretics who denied infant baptism. Being a man 
 of learning, he must have been well informed concerning the usage of the church 
 during preceding periods. Yet, when the doctrine of infant baptism was object- 
 ed against his own opinions and he was puzzled with it, and had every induce- 
 ment to deny it, he nevertheless maintained its correctness. If infant baptism 
 had been an innovation and not a practice for which the authority of the Apos- 
 tles could be alleged, Pelagius knew it, and his interest required him to say so. 
 If it had been only a partial usage in the Church, brought in by the influence of 
 certain great names, and greatly promoted by the efforts of Augustine and his 
 associates, as the Immersionalists affirm, Pelagius would at once have relieved 
 himself from the perplexity v/hich the argument from infant baptism occasioned 
 him, by declaring that it was an innovation, had obtained only a partial usage, 
 and that its great and chief advocate and promoter was Augustine himself. 
 
 If we ascend to the time of Cyprian, who lived in the preceding century, we 
 meet with a Council of sixty-six ministers, with Cyprian at their head, convened 
 A. D. 253, about 153 years from the Apostolic age, to n^ive their opinion on this 
 
 lo 
 
•74 
 
 question, propoaed by Fidus, a country minister, whether a child might be hap- 
 tized before the eighth day, or not. " To this inquiry they reply at length, deliver- 
 ing it as their unanimous opinion that baptism may with propriety, be adminis- 
 tared at any time previous to the eighth day." In their letter to Fidus, they 
 say ; 
 
 "As to the case of infante, — whereas you judge that they must not be baptized 
 within two or three days after they are born, and that the rule of circumcision ia 
 to be observed, that none should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day 
 after he is born ; we were all in the council of a very^different opinion. As for 
 what you thought proper to be done, no one was of your mind ; but we all rather 
 judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being that 
 is born. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the council ; that we 
 ought not to hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God, who is mer- 
 ciful and kind to us all. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more especially 
 to be observed in reference lo infants, even to those neivly born." 
 
 Here, then, is en ecclesiastical body pronouncing an opinion in favor of infant 
 baptism. Here is the judgment of sixty-six ministers in its favor formally given 
 — a decision far more forcible and important than that of a private individual, as 
 it unquestionably denotes the usage of the church, " Now, among such a num- 
 ber of ministers, doubtless there were some 60 or 70 3'ears old, who could re- 
 member within less than 100 years of the Apostles. If, therefore, infant bap- 
 tism had been a practice introduced since the days of the Apostles, some of them 
 must have known it. And, if so, is it not singular, that none of them should in- 
 timate or express any scruple about it." 
 
 As we proceed upward toward the Apostolic age, we meet with Origen, who 
 was born of Christian parents, A. D. 185, within 85 years of the Apostolic age. 
 He resided in Alexandria, in Capadocia, and in Palestine. He travelled in Italy, 
 Greece and Arabia, and must have been in correspondence with the churches in 
 every country. He was distinguished for his great learning, his piety and love 
 of truth. While he was settled at Caesarea, he taught sacred and profane learn- 
 ing to a numerous train of disciples, among whom was Porphyry, a bitter opposer 
 of the Christians, and who has declared respecting him that he was " master ot 
 all the learning of the times."* The high estimation in which he was held, is man- 
 ifest from a sort of maxim, or proverb, which vv'^as current among the great men 
 of the times in which he lived, which was this : " that they had rather have Or- 
 igen's mistakes, than the correct opinions of other men."t The father of Ori- 
 gen and his grandfather, were Christians, and allowing them each 50 years, hia 
 grandfather was born before St. John, the last of the Apostles was dead, for he 
 died about A. D. 95, or lOO. Origen " derived his Christian doctrine, and in- 
 struction" of course, from his ancestors, as Eusebius affirms.} " What is his tea- 
 
 * " Q,uem ego cum adhuc essem valde puer, vidi, arcanam totius eruditions 
 tenentem." 
 
 j- •' Ma1le ee cum Origcne crrare, quam cum aliis bono scntire.'' 
 
75 
 
 uraony ]" It is " that little children are baptized agreeably to the usage of the 
 Church ; that the Church received it as a tradition from the Apostles, that bap- 
 tism should be adminiBtered to children. For this cause (i. e. native pollution) 
 it was that the Church received an order from the Apostles to give laptism euen 
 to infaTils." Now, as Origen lived within a century of the Apostolic age, was a 
 man of eminent learning, had a line of Christian ancestors reaching back into 
 the Apostolic age, and could ascertain even from his line of family ancestors what 
 had been the usage of the church in preceding periods, his testimony in favor of 
 infant baptism is of the most important character. It certainly proves beyond 
 all question that the baptism of infants was derived from the Apostles. 
 
 ;^ Ascending about 40 years higher, to A. D. 145, within 45 years of the Apos- 
 tolic age, we meet with the famous Tertullian. He was a Montanist in- senti- 
 ment, and ran into so many vagaries of doctrine that he banished much of the 
 truth from bis religious views, and no small share of pure intelligence. He en- 
 tertained the strange notion '' that baptism removed in a kind of miraculous way, 
 all sins previously committed ; while on the other hand, the sins committed sub- 
 sequently to baptism,'could be forgiven only with great difficulty or none at all. 
 And so he imagined, that one baptized shortly before death, went out of the world 
 as a man without sin and was saved." On this account he advised the delay of 
 baptism, in the case of unmariied persons, youths and infants until they would 
 be less exposed to temptation, and have a less number of sins to answer for ; and 
 in his book on Baptism, says : " That baptism ought not to be administered rash- 
 ly, the administrators of it know. Give to him that asketh, every one hath a 
 right, as if it were a matter of alms. Yea, rather say, give not that which is ho- 
 ly unto dogs, cast not your pearls before swine, lay hands suddenly on no mani 
 be not a partaker of other men's sins. If Philip baptized the Eunuch on the 
 spot, let us recollect it was done under the immediate direction of the Lord. 
 The Spirit commanded Philip to go that way ; the Eunuch was not idle when 
 he found him, nor did he immediately desire to be baptized ; but having been at 
 the temple to worship God, he was attending to the Holy Scriptures. There 
 was a propriety in what he was about, when God sent his Apostle to him, the 
 Spirit gave Philip a second order to join himself to the chariot. The Eunuch 
 was a believer of Scripture, the instruction given by Philip was seasonable ; the 
 one preached, and the other perceived the Lord Jesus, and believed on him ; 
 water was at hand, and the Apostle having finished the affair was caught away. 
 But Paul, you say, was baptized instantly. True ; because Judas, in whose 
 house he was, instantly knew he was a vessel of mercy. The condescension of 
 God may confer his favors as he pleases : but our wishes may mislead ourselves 
 and others. 
 
 § "Nam et instituta Christianse disciplinse (sicut historia superior declaravit) 
 Origeni a parentibus Integra tradebantur." i.e. For the entire lessons of the 
 Christian discipline, (as our history has already declared) were delivered to Or- 
 igen by his parents. — Eusebius Eccl. History, B. vi, Chap, xiii, 
 
76 
 
 '• Itaque pro ciijus quce personas con-l "It is thorelbre mo.^t expedient to de- 
 ditione, ac dispositione, etiani setateJfer baptism, and to regulate the admin- 
 cunctatio baptismi utilior est: prsecip-istration of it according to the condition, 
 ue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enimlthe disposition and the age of the per- 
 necesse est sponsores etiam periculo in-jsoii lobe baptized; and especially in 
 gcri? Quia et ipsi per mortalitatem [the case of little ones. What necessi- 
 destiluere promissiones suas possunt, etjty is there to expose sponsors to danger? 
 proventu malse indolis falli. Ait qui-|Death may incapacitate them for fulfil- 
 
 dem dominus, Nolile illos prohihere ad 
 me venire, (Math, xix, 14) Veniant er 
 go, dum adolescunt, veniant dum dis 
 Clint, dum quo veniant docentur ; fiant 
 ChrietianiquumChriatumnossepotuerint 
 Quid festinat innocens setas ad remissio 
 nem peccatorum? Cautius ageturin sffc- 
 ularibysjUt cui substantia terrena non ere 
 ditur, divina credatur. Norint petere 
 salutem, ut pretenti dedisse videaris. 
 Non minori de causa, innpti quoque 
 procrastinandi, in quibus tentatio prai- 
 parata est, tarn virginibus per maturi- 
 tatem, quam viduis per vagationem, do- 
 nee aut nubant, aut continentise corrob- 
 orentur. Si qui pondug intelligant bap- 
 tismi, magis timebunt consecutionem, 
 quam dilationem : fides integra secura 
 est de salute." — Robinsmi^s History of 
 Baptism, p 171. Ginseler's Ecol His 
 tory. Vol. i, p l05. 
 
 ling their engagements ; or bad dispo- 
 sitions may defeat all their endeavors. 
 Indeed, the Lord says, forbid them not 
 to come unto me ; let them come, there- 
 fore, v^-hile they are growing up, let 
 them come while they learn, while they 
 are instructed for what they come, and 
 let them become Christians when they 
 are able to know Christ. Why should 
 that innocent age hasten to the remis- 
 sion of sins 1 People act more cau- 
 tiously in secular affairs, they do not 
 commit the care of divine things to such 
 as are not entrusted with temporal things 
 Let them know how to ask salvation, 
 that you may appear to have given it to 
 one that asketh. For no less reason 
 unmarried persons also should delay, 
 who are ezposed to temptation ; as vir- 
 gins by reason of maturity ; as well as 
 widows by being destitute of consorts ; 
 either till they marry, or are confirmed 
 in continence. They who understand 
 the importance of baptism will rather be 
 afraid to receive it, than to put it off; 
 a sound faith alone secures salvation."- 
 
 From this passage the Immcrsionalists gather " that infant baptism was then 
 a novel practice, was just commencing, and approved by very few," and that 
 Tertullian opposes it as such a practice. But the truth is, he was not an oppos- 
 er of infant baptism any more than of the baptism of unmarried virgins, widows, 
 and youths. He opposes one just as much as he did the other, and advised the 
 delay of both for the reason that he very erroneously and foolishly believed that 
 sin committed after baptism, was something vastly different from sin committed 
 before baptism, being almost unpardonable. Pie pleads for its delay wholly on 
 the ground of advantage to the persona who deferred it. He does not pretend 
 that infant baptism was a hovel practice, an innovation, or an unlawful usage. 
 On the other hand, he speaks of it as a practice of the church to baptize infante, 
 and one reason why he advises its delay, is that the godfathers might not be 
 brought into danger by the obligations they assumed in acting the part of spon- 
 sors. The only novel thing, we imagine in this case, was not infant baptism, 
 but Tertullian's notion that the baptism of infants, youths, unmarried person?, 
 &c. should be delayed because sins committed after baptism were almost unpar- 
 donable. This was an opinion of his own and some others, " novel in itself, and 
 approved by very j^?f." * 
 
 '^Robinson, in his History of Baptism, endeavors to evade the force of this tea- 
 
Clemens Alkxandrius, a man diatirig-uishoil for erudition iii.'general, auJ 
 who was contemporary with TertnlUQn, says, "If any one be a fisherman, let 
 liim think of an apostle and the childreii taken out of the water." Clemens is 
 giving advice to Christians concerning their ornaments, and speaks of tlie rings 
 then usually worn on their fingers, and the seals engraven on them. He forbids 
 all idolatrous and lacivious engravings ; and advises to such as are innocent and 
 useful ; and says thus. Let your seal be a clove, or dLfish, or a ship under sail, or 
 a Tiarp, or an anchor, &c. And if any one be a fisherman, let him think of an 
 Apostle, and the children taken out of the water." That is, a fisherman should 
 have the emblem of an Apostle haplizing children engraven on his seal. This 
 would be very suitable to a fisherman, because the Apostles were fishermen. 
 The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from this advice, is that in the time of 
 Clemens the belief prevailed that the Apostles baptized children. 
 
 Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp and otlier Apostolic fathers, who was born 
 about A. D., 97, says ; "For Christ came to save all persons by himself; all I 
 
 timony by affirming that Tertullian did not refer to little infants, in the usual 
 popular modern English sense. He says that " they v/ere infants i?i law, of such 
 an age as to be able to ask to be baptized." p 165. 
 
 But it is evident that Tertullian had reference to infants, or children who were 
 not old enough either to understand the meaning of Baptism, or to ask to be bap- 
 tized. For he nses the word " parvulos'' which means a little child or infant, 
 as can be proved by examples without number. In addition to this he has so 
 expressed himself as to shew that he uses the word in this signification. For 
 he describes these " parvulos,'" as innoceyils in their age, and he advises that their 
 baptism should be delayed until they had attained more knowledge and a great- 
 er age. " Let them come," he says, " while they are growing up, let them come 
 while they learn, while they are taught for what they come, let them become 
 Christians when they arc able to know Christ. Why should that innncent age 
 hasten to the remission of sins]" Furthermore, he refers to our Saviour's words, 
 Math xix, 14, <■ forbid the?n not to come uniome,^ thus shewing beyond all doubt that 
 he had in his eye children of the same age Vv'ith those that were presented to 
 Christ for his blessing. Now those that were brought to Christ are designated by 
 the words " paidia''' n.ni " brephe,^' which mean infants, thdit might be taken w 
 the arms ; bo says Mark, chap, x, 16, « Jesus took (paidia) in his arms, put his 
 hands on them and blessed them." See also chap, ix, SB. Mathev/ (ii, 16.) 
 uses the w^ord ^-paidia" to denote children under two years of age. 
 
 Mr. Robinson, however, is contradicted by P.'Ir. Booth, and Robert Hall, who 
 admit that Tertullian refers to infants in the usual English sense of the word. 
 Booth gathers from this passage that "Infant Baptism was then a novel practice, 
 was just commencing, and approved by very few, because Tertullian opposes it ; 
 had it been otherwise, he adds, there is no reason to imagine that the celebrated 
 African Father would have treated it as he did." 
 
 R. Hall, says : "Supposing the modern practice fof infant baptism) to have 
 been first introduced towards the end of the second or the beginning of the third 
 century, which corresponds to the time at which it is distinctly noticed by Ter- 
 tullian, the first writer who explicitly mentions it." &c. 
 
 If Mr. Robinson did not convince Mr. Booth, and R. Hall, that Tertullian re- 
 ferred to children who were not little babes, surely it is too much to expect that 
 psedobaptists will be, especially when three such writers as Robinson, Hall and 
 Booth, disagree. Furthermore, we do not see with what propriety Mr. Robin- 
 son can say that Infant Baptism began with the time of Tertullian, if Tertullian 
 did not oppose the baptism of babes, b-jt of older children. If he referred to the 
 latter, when did the baptism of babes begin 1 
 
73 
 
 »ay u'lio by hlin are xogeneratod luito God, Ins-ant^ and little ones, and chil- 
 •iren, and youth?, and elder persons." Now, what he meant by " regenerated 
 unto God," ja explained by himaelf in a parallel place, to be baptism ; for he 
 epeaks of baptism '• as our regeneration to God." Regeneration, furthermore 
 is one of the terms by ^yhieh many of the fathers besides Irenaeus denoted bap- 
 lism. The fair inference from liis passage, then, is that Irenaeus epeaks of in-: 
 tant baptism. 
 
 There ia one person more whose testimony we will notice. It is that of Jus- 
 tin Martyr, who was born in the midst of Christians at Neapolis, in ^Samaria, 
 within the Apostolic age, and probably before St. John was dead. In his apol- 
 gy for the Christiana which he wrote A. D. 150, he says " Many persons of both 
 sexes, some ei.xty, some seventy years old, were made disciples of Christ, 
 f,f rrotdajy (ck paidon) from childhood,'' the same word that Luke uses where he 
 Bays Jesus took infants in his arms. " Now there never was any other mode of 
 making disciples to Christ of infant?, except by baptism." * Hence these per- 
 sons of 60 or seventy years of age, may have been baptized while some of the 
 Apostles were living ; for Peter and Paul lived to about A. D. 68, Jude, Thom&s 
 and Luke till about A. D. 74, and St. John till about A. D. 95 or 100, 
 
 We have nov.- traced infant baptism into the Apostolic age. If we return to Au- 
 gustine with whose testimony we commenced, and trace the history downward, 
 we shall find that infant baptism continued to be generally practiced until A. D. 
 l520, when the Anabaptists took their rise in Germany. There was indeed a 
 small body of Waldenses in France, who appeared A. D. 1130, that denied infant 
 baptism, but ilipy soon dwindled away. Excepting these, there is no church 
 that held at all to water baptism, which denied the baptism of infants. This 
 Btatement is mede on the authority of Dr. Wall, who has written a large work 
 en the History of Infant Baptism, and who has left nothing on that subject extan!; 
 in the early Christian writers unread. 
 
 He says, "For the first four hundred years, there appears only one man, Ter- 
 tullian, who advised the delay of infant baptism in some cases ; and one Grego- 
 ry, who did perhaps practice such delay in case of his own children ; but no so- 
 ciety of men so thinking, or so practicing, or any one man saying that it was uru 
 lawful to baptize infants. So in the next seven hundred years, there is not so 
 much as one man to be found, who either spoke for or practiced any delay, but all 
 the contrary. And when about the year 1130, one sect of the Waldenses, or 
 AlbigenscF, declared against the baptizing of infants, because they thought them 
 incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinions ; and 
 they who held that opmion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared ; there be- 
 inc no more persons heard of, holding that tenent, until the rising of the Ger- 
 man Anabaptists, A. D. 152£-." 
 
 " The confessions of Faith and other writings of the Waldenses drawn np be 
 tween the twelfth and sixteenlii coularien, and , in which they represent their 
 usages has handed down from father to son, tor several hundred years before the 
 
 * Dwight's Theology, Vol. iv. p 336, 
 
79 
 
 Refornmtion.'' do eonlain the (loctrinc of infant baptism. They gay, " And for 
 this cause it is we present our children in baptism," &c. The things which are 
 not necessary in baptiam arc, the exorcisms, the breatliing?, the sign of the cross 
 upon the head or forehead of the infant," &c. 
 
 Robert Hall was constrained by this evidence to admit that the Waldensesbap 
 ed infants. " Many of the VValdenses," lie says " are judged with great appear- 
 ance of evidence to have held opinions on the subject of the baptism of infante i 
 coincident with those by which we, ae a denomination, are distinguished. By 
 their persecutors of the Romish community, they are usually stigmatized and re 
 preached for holding the Anabaptist heresy ; wliile it appears, on the contrsr;- 
 that there were not wanting so??ie among them rcho practiced the baptism of iu' 
 fonts." He also says, "After the comraoncement of the fourth century down to 
 the era of the Reformation, the baptism of infants was firmly established, and 
 prevailed to such an extent ih&tfetv traces of the ordindnce in its prirnidve state ar» 
 to he dwcmied."— Works, Vol. i, pp 482, 483. 
 
 From these facts and statements it appears tlmt infant baptism was a universal 
 practice in the Church of God for more than a thousand years after the Apostol- 
 ic age, and consequently there have been whole centuries when none but P aedo- 
 baptist churches have existed. If Pajdobaptist churches, therefore, are not trug 
 churches of Christ, it will follow that there have been whole centuries since the 
 Christian era commenced in which God has not had a visible church in the 
 World. 
 
 Furthermore, if the baptism of infanta had been an unlawful practice, an inno- 
 vation which came into the church after the Apostolic age, it must have occa- 
 sioned disputes. It must have come in the course of one hundred years between 
 A. D. lOO, and A. D. 200. for after that there is the fullest evidence that it uni- 
 versally prevailed. The Christian religion was widely propagated by the Apos- 
 tles, and churches were planted in every kingdom of the civilized world. These 
 churches were numerous and extended over a territory several thousar^d miles in 
 extent and many hundred in breadth. "But if they had been established upon 
 the plan of adult baptism only, and no children had been baptized ; ho^ could 
 infant baptism become so universally prevalent through all the Christian world, 
 among different nations and in churches many thousand miles distant from each 
 other, in the course of lOO years from the Apostles "? How could such a speedy 
 and great alteration take place in a matter of such public notoriety and great im- 
 portance, and yet no noise be made about it, and no opposition be created against 
 it" 1 We have a particular history of the religious doctrines, rites, disputes and 
 divisions of the Christian Church in the early ages of Christianity, composed by 
 Eusehius, Socrates, Theoderet, and Sozoman, men who lived within a few hundred 
 years of the Apostles, we have also the writings of many ecclesiastical persons 
 of high standing in the primitive church still extant, who tell us that when any 
 new religious sentiments were introduced they occasioned controversy, and were 
 brought in with great difficulty. Tliey have also preserved in moat instances 
 the na.niee of the very persons who attempted innovations, and of those whoop- 
 posed them. But you look in vain in the histories of Eusebiio, tSocEAXES, Thc,- 
 ODERET, and Sozoman, and in the writingfj of the fathers of th(? primitive church, 
 
80 
 
 for the name of the person who first taught that infants were eutiiJcd to baptism 
 and who introduced llje unheard of practice of edministcrinDr to them the rite of 
 baptism.* You search them in vain for an account of any controversy or divis- 
 ion in respect to this subject. Whenever they speak of the orighi of infant bap- 
 tism, they uniformly refer it to the Apostles.f But if the churches had been es- 
 tablished on the principle of adult baptism only, if the same high regard for the 
 maintainance of that principle had existed among the primitive Christians that 
 actuates modern Immersionalists, it is very unreasonable to suppose that a mat- 
 ter of such importance as infant baptism could have been introduced into the 
 Christian church, directly contrary to the practice of the Apostles and the usages 
 of all the churches which they had established, without having produced opposi- 
 tion and occasional violent controversies. To suppose that it came in silently 
 
 * Robinson says infant baptism commenced among the Gnostics, in the East- 
 ern or Greek Church. But he admits that " it is impossible to say any thing 
 certain on the baptism of children among the Gnostics, when and where it origi- 
 nated, whether it were only proposed or really practised, how far it extended, 
 and by what means, or at what moment it found its way into the Catholic Church." 
 History of Baptism, p. iI29. This is the concession of a writer who com- 
 posed a learned and elaborate work of more than 500 pages to disprove infant 
 baptism. But he professes to tell when it made its first public appearance in 
 the Greek Church. This was in the year three hundred eighty one, when 
 " Gregory, the Bishop of Constantinople, delivered the fortieth oration, and hav- 
 ing severely censured .3 delay of baptism on account of the danger of it, gave 
 his opinion on the propriety of baptizing children, and the absolute necessity of 
 baptizing even babes, in case of danger of death." How could Mr. Robinson af- 
 firm that this was its first public appearance in the Greek Church, when Or- 
 igen, a Greek father, who preceded Gregory more than one hundred and forty 
 years, had advocated infant baptism, and derived its origin from the Apostles 1 — ■ 
 But suppose we admit it, then on his own principles, Immersionalisls and Poedo- 
 baptists must have been associated and must have communed with each other 
 while it was coming in secretly, and after it was publicly practised. During the 
 long period, while infant baptism was finding its way into the Churchj which 
 must have included many years, •' there must have been some, to use the lan- 
 guage of Robert Hall, who still adhered to the primitive practice, and others 
 who favored and adopted the more recent innovations ; there must have been 
 Baptists and Peedobaptists contemporary with each other, and incorporated into 
 one grand community. There is not the faintest trace or vestige to be found in 
 Ecclesiastical History, that they separated from each other to form distinct and 
 exclusive societies. We challenge our opponents to produce the shadow of evi- 
 dence in favor of the existence during that long track of time, of a single society of 
 tchich adult baptism toas the distinguishing cfiaracteristic." Hence, the doctrine 
 of the Immersionalists that infant baptism came into the Church gradually and 
 secretly, leads to the conclusion that in the primitive Church, Immersionalists 
 themselves introduced and tolerated it, and did not on account of it separate and 
 depart from what must have been the primitive practice, when Immersionalists 
 themselves introduced both infant baptism and ini'aiit sprinkling into the Church. 
 For if the Apostles themselves founded the Church on immersion and adult bap- 
 tism, then Immersionalists have introduced sprinkling and pcedobaptism. This 
 heresy is their own contrivance. 
 
 f *' What they (the Anabaptists) circulate among the uninformed mu]titude,that 
 after the resurrection of Christ, a long series of years passed, in which infant 
 baptism was unknown, is contrary to truth : for there is no ancient writer who 
 does not refer its origin, as a matter of certainty, to the age of the Apostles." — 
 Calvin's Institutes, vol. iii, p. ib^. 
 
81 
 
 and quielly, and none knew wlieri and by whom it waa iiilroducud, is veiy ab- 
 surd ? The Church had then, for she uhvaya had> a few watchful guardians of 
 her purity, men who had no rest in their flesh, who were filled with heaviness 
 Xvhen she was in danger of corruption, and who would not forbear to let their- 
 ■convictions be known when innovations upon her usages were attempted. 
 
 These men must Jiave raised their voice against infant baptism, nnd resisted it 
 with all the means at their disposal. But wliere were they when infant baptism 
 came into the Church ? Did the men of niiglit and holy zeal, who were found at 
 every other season of the Church's peril and necessity, and who 'came nobly to her 
 aid and rescue, slumber on this occasion ] The supposition is very unreasonable. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, from these considerations, that infant baptism wa.- 
 an Apostolic practice, introduced by their authority, and continued by their posi- 
 tive injunctions. If so, it cannot be overthrown. It must stand firmly and im- 
 raoveably, sin«e it ia sustained by the whole history of the Church, and is built 
 tipon the foundation of the .*.p03tles and Prcphet?,- Jceus Christ him-selfbei-fig- 
 ihz chief corner stone. 
 
 11 
 
SERMON VI, 
 
 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Matthew xxi, 25. — "The baptism of John, whence was it; from Heaven or 
 of men?" 
 
 This question was proposed to the Pharasees by our blessed Lord, when they 
 asked him by what authority he had been commissioned to teach, and cast buy- 
 ers and sellers out of the Temple. He does not say directly and positively that 
 he was divinely commissioned to do these things, but inferentially. If they ans- 
 wered his question correctly, and admitted that the baptism of John was from 
 Heaven, (which the people generally believed;) the inference was unavoidable 
 that he held his office by a divine commission, because John had solemnly con- 
 secrated him to it by baptizing him. If John's baptism was from Heaven, then 
 had he been set apart to his office by a divinely constituted ordinance, and 
 hence ho was the Son of God clothed with the divine authority. The Phara- 
 sees perceived the conclusion which would inevitably follow the admission that 
 John's baptism was from Heaven, and as they did not desire to acknowledge him 
 the Son of God, they pretended that they did not know from what source John 
 had derived his baptism. 
 
 In this instance, our blessed Lord silenced his opposers by a deductive or in- 
 ferential argument. He did the same on other occasions, (Luke xx, 37, i\8, com- 
 pared with Exodus iii, 6.) He has, therefore, not only sanctioned this kind of 
 reasoning, but he has evinced its power and conclusiveness to confound and si- 
 lence the adversaries of the truth. Hence, an inferential argument is valid ; 
 and it is lawful and sufficient to employ it to prove or defend any doctrine, or- 
 dinance or practice of the Church of Christ. 
 
 But the Immersionalists deny the soundness of all arguments of this character 
 in favor of infant baptism. _ They say to us, we want no inferences, give us a 
 positive precept, a thus saith the Lord, or a positive example of infant baptism 
 in the New Testament. But why is this demanded 1 If Christ proved that he 
 was a teacher sent from God by an inferential argument, why may we not prove 
 in the same way that infant baptism is an ordinance of God? If the proof is 
 valid in one case, why may it not be in the other ? If it is received by the Immer- 
 sionalists in one case, why should it not be in the other ? 
 
 " If any thing," to use the words of another, " can be made out of the word 
 of God, as having divine authority to support it, it is surely our duty to obey, 
 
S4 
 
 ivJui'eier may hai;e been the ynode if arriving at the conclusion. Only rnaks Uitf 
 supposition that we ccn shev.' eucli authority for any practice ; we certainly can 
 never consider ourBclvea as at liberty to decline compliance, because the point 
 haa not been made out exactly in the way which we had prdvioualy determined 
 to be the only legitimate and right way. The man wlio questions it, (with what- 
 ever assurance he may express himself,) betrays a secret want of confidence in 
 his views. He virtually adijiits that the practice has the support of divine au- 
 thority ; and yet declines conijUiance, because the intimation of God's will has 
 not been conveyed in a manner according to his taste, and hi.s preconceptions of 
 propriety. He prefers his own judgment to that of God, and presumptuously 
 refuses the substance of authority on account of the mode in which its require- 
 ments has been expressed." 
 
 We fully believe that these words sat forth the true po:?ition of the Immersioi;- 
 agists, and we trust thut shall bo able we to make it obvious to our readers in Iha 
 reply which we shall offer in this discourse, to their arguments against infant 
 baptiy-n. 
 
 One of theise is, " there is ao positive command to baptize infant.-*, therefore, 
 infants ought not to be baptized.'' 
 
 Wo answer this ^Yith another proposition which we v.-ill prove, there is no 
 positive command prohibiting infant baptism, therefore infants ought to be bap- 
 tized. 
 
 An express divine injunction prohibiting infant baptism is necesiiary to author- 
 ize us to dispense with their baptism, because parents and children are connect- 
 ed in the covenant of grace, and on the ground of this connection children are 
 entitled to the seal of that covenant. When God called Abraham to separate 
 himself from a nation of idolaters, and go into a laud where God would plant his 
 posterity, and constitute him the head of a holy people to be selected out of his 
 own descendants and all nations, and make him the founder of that religious pol- 
 ity which is denominated the Church, he is represented as saying to him, (Gen. 
 xvii, 1, 7.) " I am the Almighty God; walk before me end be thou perfect. 
 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee ex- 
 ceedingly : and I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed 
 after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto 
 tnce, and to thy seed after thee." Here God revealed the covenant of grace un- 
 to Abraham, and entered into an arrangement or co.mpact with him and his chil- 
 dren, by which the blessings of that covenant were secured to him and his spir- 
 itual seed in all their generations. For the promise, "J will be a God to thee 
 and thy seed after thee," contained tlie fulness of both dispensations of the Old 
 and the New Testaments. It was a general promise containing many particu- 
 iarp, the length and breadth of which can be understood only by comparing it 
 with the history of God's providentiHl dealings with the successive generations 
 of Abraham's seed. It secured besides temporal, all spiritual blessings, viz ; di- 
 vine instruction, ilhnnination, adoption, regeneration, sanctification and salva- 
 tion, together with the means that God employs to convert, sanctify, establish, 
 comfort, and save his saint". 
 
85 
 
 The luiinersionaJisi?, iiowevor, aasert that it was a temporal covenant merely, 
 founded on temporal promises and securing only temporal blessings, h-it the er- 
 ror of their assertion, and the correctness of our position, may be made out from 
 the following considerations. 
 
 ^i 1. In the Old Testament, God often assures the Jews that the ex- 
 pressions of his will in whatever way communicated, whether in laws, statutes, 
 ordinances, covenants, promises, threatenings, or judgments, are made to them 
 to fulfil his engagement to Abraham to be a God to him and hisseed after him. 
 
 Moses speaking by divine inspiration, Deut. xxix, 10, 18, says to Israel, " Ye 
 Btand this day all of you before the Lord your God ; your captains of your tribes, 
 your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones and your 
 wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, that thou suovddst enter into cove- 
 nant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh 
 with thee this day ; that he may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, 
 and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath 
 sworn unto thy Fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob." Here God enters 
 fnto covenant with the Israelites, and in so doing, secures to them all the bles- 
 Eings promised to Abraham, in order that he may fulfil his engagement to Abra- 
 ham, to be the God of his .seed. 
 
 Moses says again, in Deut. xxvi, 16, 18, 19, " This day the Lord thy God 
 hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgment?, and the Lord hath 
 avouched thee to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou 
 raayest be a holy people unto the Lord thy God, as he hath spoken.'' The prom- 
 ise here referred to, undoubtedly is his promise to A.brabam, that he v.'oald be 
 the God of his seed, 
 
 In Lev. xxvi, 42, God declares that he will spare the penitent among his peo- 
 ple when he sends judgements upon Israel on account of disobedience, because 
 " I remember my covenant with Abraham." In Ps. cv., the Psalmist declares 
 that God nourished his people in the wilderness, delivered them from their ene- 
 mies, and wrought miracles in their favor, because '" he remembered his holy 
 promise and Abraham his servant ;" and in Psalm cvi, he afSrms that God did 
 not entirely cut them off, but humbled them with his judgment, " because he re- 
 membered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of 
 hie mercies." 
 
 2. God revealed the moral and ceremonial law, gave the Jews his oracles, and 
 directed them to observe his worship in consequence of his engagement to Abra- 
 ham, to be a God to him and his seed after him. So says tiie Apostle Paul (Rom. 
 ix, 4,) " To whom (that is, the seed of Abraham) pertaineth the adoption, and the 
 glory and the covenant.*, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and 
 the promises." The reason why these blessings pertained to them and not to 
 other?, was God's covGnafit made with Abraham, to be a God to him and his 
 spiritual seed. In reply to the quoation, (Rom. iii, 1, 2,) " What advantage then 
 hath the Jews, or what profit is there of circumcision," i. e. observing the seal 
 of the covenant made with Abraham, the Apostle says, "Much every way ; chief- 
 
id 
 
 ]y, because lliat unto lliPin were coiuuiilteJ tlie oracies of God.'' By the oracles 
 of God is not only meant the Scriptures, but tiie laws and institutions which ac- 
 company them. The advantage of the Jew then over the Gentile, consisted in 
 his having- not only the oracles of God, but the means of grace and the peculiar 
 privilegee of religion, and these blesaings were conferred on him in consequence 
 of his connection wich Abraham and observing circumcision, the seal of the cov- 
 enant made with Abraham. 
 
 3. The promise. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee, respected 
 Abraham as the progenitor of the Messiah as a believer, as having the knowl- 
 edge of the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit in his saving and sanctifying power, as 
 justified by faith, and as the head and Father of all believers, and consequently 
 contained the fulness of the Gospel. 
 
 In (Gal. iii, l6,) it is said, " Nov/ to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
 made. He saith not, and to sccda as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed 
 which is Christ." This text is explained by another of like import in (Acts iii, 
 25,) 'Ye arc the children of the prophet?, and of the covenant which God made with 
 your fathers, saying, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be bles- 
 sed ;" that is, in Christ : for so it is said in verse 26. " Unto you first, God hav- 
 ing raised up his son Jesus.sent him to bless you." This son or child therefore,is the 
 seed. Our blessed Lord said to the Jews, (John viii, 56,) " Your father Abra- 
 ham rejoiced to see my day, (i. e. the coming of Christ,) and he saw it and was 
 glad," that i?, he sav,- it afar off by faith, for there is no other way in which he 
 could have scon it. 
 
 The Apostle Paul declares (Gal. iii, 8,) " that the Scripture foreseeing that 
 God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel to Abra- 
 ham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed." The promise then "in thee shall 
 all nations be blessed," contained in it the substance of the Gospel; it included all 
 those spiritual blessings which are in Jesus Christ. " For alUthe nations of the 
 earth are no otherwise blessed in Abraham, than as Christ who is called the de- 
 sire of all nation.'', and he in whom the GentUes trust, and a light to lighten the 
 Gentiles, descended from Abraham." 
 
 in the same chapter (v;?. 13, 14,) the Apostle says, "■ that Christ hath redeem- 
 ed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, that the blessing of 
 Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might re- 
 ceive tlie promise of the spirit through faith." Tlie promise of the Spirit being 
 connected with the reception of the blessing of Abraham, shews that that bles- 
 sincr included the promise of the spirit. Hence, Abraham possessed the spirit in 
 his saving and sanctifying power. 
 
 In Rom. iv, 1, 3, the Apostle says that Abraham did not obtain justification by 
 virtue of his own works, but by faith. " For if Abraham were justified by works 
 ho hatli whereof to glory but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? 
 Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him tor righteousness." In the 
 16lh and 1 7f.h verses, he continues, "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be 
 by grace ; to t!ie end that the promise might be sure to all the seed ; not to that 
 
only wiiich is of llic law, but to tliat also which is of liie faith of Abraham, who 
 is ihe father of us all, (as it is written I have made thee the father of many na- 
 tiong,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and 
 calleth those things which be not as though they were." 
 
 Again, the same'Apostle says (Gal. iii, 2^,29) all Christiana arc Abraham's 
 seed. "Ye are all one in Christ Jesus; and if ye be Christ'?, then are ye Abra- 
 ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise, for to Abraham [vs. 16] and his 
 seed were the promises made. He sailh not, " and to seeds," as of many ; but 
 as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ." The plain import of these passages 
 is, that the promise " I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee,'' contained 
 the sum and substance of all the blessings and privileges of the Gospel. 
 
 Now this covenant was made with Abraham and hia descendente, and waa 
 sealed to him by a religious rite. It was made with his spiritual seed, including 
 all true Christians, "for they are the children of Abraham fay faith and heirs ac- 
 cording to the promise." It is a permanent covenant not designed to be revok- 
 ed. God declares that it shall be au everlasting covenant, the promise contained 
 in it, " I will be a God to thee and thy seed," being designed to be perpetual 
 and unchangeable. It is consequently in force now, as it includes Christians 
 (Abraham's seed) in their generations. The seal of this covenant which origin- 
 ally was circumcision, was applied to those to whom it was given, and they were 
 required to keep it in their generations. Gen. xvii, 9, 11. This seal in its prin- 
 ciple and substance remains in full virtue under a changed form or another re- 
 ligious rite. Two things belonged to the original seal, the sign and the thing 
 signified. The sign was;^the religious rite itself ; the thing signified was the 
 blessing of which the sign was an assurance or pledge. " The seal then though 
 connected with the visible sign, was not the sign itself, but the thing signified. 
 This was renovation of heart and purity of life. Abraham and his posterity be- 
 came engaged by the covenant which God gave them to walk before him and 
 be perfect, i. e. they laid themselves under obligation ^to live according to the 
 law of the covenant, to cultivate purity of heart and conduct ; to mortify the flesh 
 with its afiections and lusts : to keep at a distance from a world lying in wick- 
 edness, and to behave in every place, and on every occasion, like persons dedi- 
 cated to the service of Jehovah. Their being circumcised, signified this, for cir- . 
 cumcision pointed to the renewal^'of the heart, and it bound those who subjected 
 themselves to it to lead holy lives.'' This statement and the error ofthe Immer- 
 sionalists, who affirm that circumcision was only a badge of national distinction 
 and had no spiritual meaning, is fully proved by the following passages. Deut. 
 X, 16. " Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart-" Deut. xxx, 6. " And 
 the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love 
 the Lord thy God with all thine heart and all thy soul." Jer. iv, 4. Circum- 
 cise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart. Rom. 
 ii, 29. " Circumcision is that ofthe heart, in the spirit and not in the letter." 
 Rom. iv, 11. '' Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith," Col. ii, 
 11. <' Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in put- 
 ting off the body ofthe sins of the flesh." Gal. V, 3, "Every' man that is cir- 
 cumcised is a debtor to do the whnl? law." Rom. ii, i'5, "Circumcision verily 
 
88 
 
 profiteth if thou keep the law." Such were tlie l)iii;gf; signified by circuinci.sici, 
 the religious rite which was the seal of the covenant. 
 
 But these things are retained in the ordinance of buplism. Our blessed Lord 
 when he annulled circumcision, and commanded his disciples to baptize those 
 who were admitted into the Church, merely changed the form of the seal, but 
 retained its principle and substance in baptism. Baptism signifies the same 
 things that were represented by circumcision. It signifies regeneration or the 
 purification of the soul from sin. Tit. iii, 5. " He saved U!3 by the washing of 
 regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." The forgiveness of sins. Acta 
 xxii, 16. •' Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name 
 of the Lord." Admission into the family of God. Gal. iii, 27. " A.s many of 
 you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." A holy life. Rom, 
 vi, 4. " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like bb 
 Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
 ehould walk in newness of life." Baptism having the same import with circum- 
 cision, it follows that the seal of the covenant remains in full virtue, the form of 
 it only being changed, baptism being substituted as it.s sign in place of circum- 
 cision.* 
 
 Hence, we conclude that the children of belicveia (wiio arc Abraliaui's beed) 
 are entitled to baptism, and we dare not withhold this ordinance fromihem with- 
 out a positive divine command requiring us to v.-ithhold it. For, as tiie children 
 of Abraham, they hold in their hands an unrevoked divine charter of perpetual 
 force, in which God has engaged to be a God to them and their seed after themi 
 that charter is given and sealed to them and their children — no change ever hav- 
 ing taken place in it, except in the form of the seal ; the seal itself as to its prin- 
 ciple and substance being continued and expressed by a new religious ritp. Ail 
 true Christians, therefore, have a warrant from God, founded on his own charter to 
 consecrate their children to him by baptism. This is the reason why no com- 
 mand has been given in the New Testament to baptize infante. None was ne- 
 cessary ; the warrant for it is contained in the covenant between God and be- 
 
 =^ The I mmersionalists object to this reasoning, and say if baptism comes in 
 the place of circumcision, tlien infants ought to be admitted to the Lord's Table 
 In reply we offer the following remarks. 1. No person is entitled to the Lord's 
 supper who is not a true Christian. No other can discern the Lord's body, and 
 partake of the Lord's supper aright. Baptism in any form ia not a converting 
 ordinance, it makes no man a Christian. Hence, baptism is not a qualification 
 for the Lord's supper. 2. Baptism does not make its subject a plenary membei- 
 of the church. Nothing short of personal holiness, or a vita! union to Chriat, 
 is allowed by the Scriptures, as a qualification for admission to full membership 
 in the church. Hence, baptism does not entitle any one to the Lord's supper. 
 
 The use of baptism is this, to entitle the subject.^ of it to the blessings prom- 
 ised in the covenant which God has made with believers. Baptism is a seal of 
 the covenant and it places those who receive it in a eiuiatioii to be benefitted by 
 the great and precious promise of God, " I will be a God to thee and thy necii 
 after thee." Parents who give their children to God in baptism can take hold 
 of this glorious promise, their children are children of promise as Isaac was ; 
 and if they are faithful in training up their children for God, their children i.n 
 early life will be coming forward to the Christian profession, and to the partici- 
 f'htion of promi.sed blesssings. 
 
89 » 
 
 iievcfP) which includes their infant children. 
 
 Having now proved that there is a Scriptural warrant for baptizini'' infants 
 without any express command In the New Testament, we have given a solid an- 
 swer to the argument of the Immersionaliste, and might justly refuse to give it 
 further notice. But as it is much relied on, wc feel inclined to examine it a lit- 
 tie in detail. 
 
 The principle in it i'-, that wc are not bound to believe infant baptism and 
 practice it because it is a matter of inference. Now if this is a sound principle, 
 it may be applied to other things, and then we shall not be bound to observe the 
 Christian Sabbath, or to admit females to the communion, or to pray in our fam- 
 iliee, or to keep the ten commandment?, or to teach olir children the Lord's 
 prayer, or to baptize by immersion. There is no command in the New Testa- 
 ment to observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath, no command requiring 
 females to commune, no positive injunction to parents to pray in their families, 
 or to keep the ten commandments, or to teach their children to commit the Lord's 
 prayer. There is no command in the NewTestament requiring parents to teach 
 their children to read the Scriptures, attend on the worship of God on the Sab- 
 bath, and to forbid them stealing, rioting, fighting, profaning the name of God 
 and committing other sins. In short, there is no express command to immerse, 
 in applying the rite of baptism, in the iSTew Testament. There ia a command 
 to baptize, but we may baptize by pouring, or sprinkling, as well as by immer- 
 sing. If these things, therefore, cannot be proved to be duties on the ground of 
 inference, they cannot be proved at all. 
 
 The utter fallacy of this argument, however, is demonstrated by the fact that 
 ic ia itself a specimen of inferential reasoning, — cf that very kind of reasoning 
 which it is employed to oppose. It is nothing more or less, than an inferential 
 argument, its whole force consisting in the inference deduced from it. The na- 
 ked statement, that there is no express command in the New Testament to bap- 
 tize infants, proves nothings It has. no bearing on tlie question of infant bap- 
 tism until the deduction is attached to it, " therefore infants ought not to be bap- 
 tized." The inference then drawn from the statement that there is no positive 
 command in the New Testament to baptize infants, contains the very substance 
 and sum of the whole argument. Now, as such an argument, on the principles 
 of the Immersionalists, is insufficient to prove infant baptism, it follows, of course, 
 that it is insufficient to disprove it, and therefore this argument is good for noth- 
 ing and falls to the ground, being subverted by their own principles. 
 
 2. Another argument which the Immersionalists urge against infant baptism, 
 has been thus expressed: "faith and repentance are prerequisite to baptism, in- 
 fants cannot repent and believe, therefore infants cannot be baptized." 
 
 This argument is unfortunate in several particulars. 1. It is based on the 
 ground that baptism has a spiritual character, and is above the ability of infunt". In 
 this respect, it is as much against circumcision as against baptism. We have 
 ehewn that cireumcision possessed a spiritual character, and^iad the same mean- 
 ing with baptism Faith was the condition of circumcision, as it is of baptism. 
 
 12 
 
 \ 
 
&0 
 
 The circumcioion of Abraham was the sfeal of the faith, which he had being yet 
 uncircumcised. Of course his faith preceded his circumcision, he first beUeved 
 and then circumcised bimsclf as a token of his fdith. 
 
 Now had circumcision remained in the Christian Church, and had the last 
 command of our blessed Lord been, Go teach all nations, circumcising them in 
 the name of the Father, &c., would not the Apostles every where have preached 
 that repentance and faith were prerequisite to circumcision, and would they not 
 have replied to the multitude on the day of Penticost, who exclaimed, men and 
 brethren what shall we do, repent and be circumcised every one 7 &c. To us, 
 this is self-evident, for as circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, 
 they could not have circumcised any adult converts to Christianity, but upon a 
 profession of their repentance and faith. llence, it is manifest that faith was as 
 necessary to constitute fitness for circumcision as it is for baptism^ 
 
 Yet children, who could not repent and believe, who could not understand th'e 
 spiritual character and obligations of circumcision, were circumcised. But this 
 was an unallowable impropriety, if the argument we are considering is valid, be- 
 cause circumcision was above their understanding and ability. 
 
 2. This argument is unfortunate, because it proves to much ; for if it proves 
 that infants cannot be baptized, it proves they cannot be saved. Faith is a pre- 
 requisite of salvation as well as of baptism. (Mark, xvi, 16.) " He that believ- 
 eth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that belicveth not shall be damned." 
 Repentance is also a perequisite of salvation. (Luke xiii, 3,) " Except ye re- 
 pent ye shall all likewise perish." Infants cannot repent and believe, and con- 
 sequently do not possess the character which is indispensable to salvation. — 
 Therefore, they cannot be saved. If this argument is valid against infant bap- 
 tism, it is equally valid against infant salvation, and consistency requires the Im- 
 mersionalists to admit it. There is no escape from this dilemma. Infant dam. 
 nation as surely clings to this argument as the shadow to the substance. 
 
 But this is not all. The reason why the Immersionalists suppbse that infants 
 are excluded from baptism, is because the words repent and believe go before 
 baptism. If this is adopted as a principle of interpretation in one case it may 
 in another. Following this rule of explaining passages of Scripture by the 
 words which go before, and the following text must be understood as requiring 
 us to suffer feeble persons and infants to go without food. (II Thes. iii, 10. j 
 "This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.'' 
 Now, sickly and feeble persons cannot work, infants cannot labor, therefore they 
 must not be suffered to eat. The same rule will prove also that unbaptized per- 
 sons cannot be saved, and consequently that baptism is a saving ordinance. — 
 " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Here the word baptize goes 
 before the word saved. Hence, he who is baptized shall be saved. 
 
 3. This argument is defective ni another particular, it is better than the prac- 
 tice of the Immersionalists. A case like this frequently occurs among them. 
 Adults are immersed on a profession of their faith and repentance who are de- 
 ceived and who fall awav ; but afterwards thev are converted and return to the 
 
91 
 
 church declaring that when lliey were immersed they were strangers to a saving 
 change. Yet it is not customary to re-baptize them ; they are received again 
 to the communion on the ground of their confession alone. Now the baptism 
 of such persons is valid or it is not. If it is not, then they take unbaptized per- 
 sons into their church, and are guilty of the same sin that they lay to the charge 
 of Ptedobaptists. But if it is valid then they demand of persons receiving bap- 
 tism not real or genuine faith and repentance, but what seems to be genuine ; 
 and thus they nullify ''their views of the spiritual constitution of the Christian 
 djurch, and of the holy design, subjects and mode of baptism." For wherein ia 
 a church which admits adults to the ordinance of baptism merely because they 
 seem to be Christians, more spiritual, more pure and more holy than one that ex- 
 tends the privilege of baptism to infants; who do not seem to be members of 
 the Kingdom of Heaven, but respecting whom the Savior positively says, " of 
 such is the Kingdom of Heaven 1" Is not the Paedobaptist Church after all 
 then, a more truly Spritual Society than the Immersionalist ? 
 
 There is, however, one feature of this argument which on the principles of 
 the Immersionalists neutralizes and strips it of force. It is its inferential char- 
 acter. They reject our arguments for infant baptism because they are deduc- 
 tive rather than positive. But when they oppose our reasonings, they forget 
 their own prisciples and proceed to eombat our practice of infant baptism with 
 the same kind of weapons vvhieh they contend we have no right to use. They 
 assail us with inferential arguments. They say, there is no command in the 
 New Testament to baptize infants, the fair inference, therefore, is that they are 
 not to be baptized. Faith and repentance are pre-re^juisites of baptism, but in- 
 fants cannot repent and believe, the legitimate inference therefore is, that infants 
 are not proper subjects of baptism. Now, if we have no right to prove infant 
 baptism by inference, what right have they to oppose it by inference ? If we 
 cannot prove infant baptism by inference, how can they disprove it by inferencel 
 On the principles of the Immersionalists then this argument is condemned; and 
 as this has been considered the chief tower of their strength, the very pillar of 
 their believers baptism; their system is demolished in its overthrow. 
 
 4. Another argument of the Immersionalists is, that there is no example of 
 infant baptism in the New Testament, therefore infants are not entitled to bap- 
 tism.. 
 
 " If inferential conclusions have nothing to do with the settlement of the ques- 
 tion concerning infant baptism ; if the ordinance of baptism both in itself and 
 in regard to the subjects of it is a positive institute ; and if a positive institute 
 cannot be established by reasoning, but requires to warrant its observance expli- 
 cit terms of institution" as the Immersionalists contend, then their inferential 
 arguments do not disprove infant baptism. This argument, therefore, like the 
 preceding being inferential, is on their own principles inadmissible. 
 
 But if it should be granted that there is no example of infant baptism in the 
 New Testament ; that fact of itself is no proof that infants were not baptized by 
 the Apostles. The Sabbath was instituted by God immediately after the com- 
 pletion of the great work of creation, to be a memorial of it, but there is no ex- 
 
9-2 
 
 aniple of its being- observed by any person, nor la it mentioned after its institu- 
 tion until the time of Moses. But, was there no Sabbath in existence, was 
 there no observance of it dtirinor this long- period of 2500 years ? Did Enoch, 
 Noah, Abraliam and the other pious patriarciis live in the entire neglect of the 
 Sabbath ? Is this a reasonable conclusion, because from Adam to Moses there 
 is no example of its observance on record? 
 
 There is no example of circumcision from the days of Joshtra to the birth of 
 John the Baptist. Is this any proof that the Israelites did not practice circum- 
 cision during that long period. There is no example of a single baptism among 
 the Thcssalonians. Were all the members of that church unbaptized ] 
 
 These considerations show that the mere fact that the Scriptures arc silent 
 respecting any particular ordinance, is no evidence that that ordinance was not 
 observed. The want of such example is mere negative evidence, and can have 
 no weight against positive proof. Supposing then that there is no example of 
 the baptism of infants in the New Testament, this is not a proof that none wore 
 baptized. It might have been instituted and practised, though there is no ex- 
 ample of its having been observed. The argument against infant baptism, there- 
 fore, which is founded on the want of an example, has no force at all, except as 
 an inference or deduction from it. But this we are not bound to regard as of any 
 force when urged by Immersionalists because it is condemned by the very prin- 
 ciples which they have adopted in opposing infant baptism. We say to them, 
 therefore, adhere to your own principles. We shall not allow you to combat ua 
 with arguments which when urged by us you disallow. If you want examples 
 of infant baptism to convince you that the Apostles practised it, deal in exam- 
 ples against it, shew your positive commands against it in the Scriptures, not 
 your inferential conclusions founded on negative things, or nothings ? 
 
 But, we do not admit that there is no account of infant baptism in the Scrip- 
 tures. The baptism of the Iiousehold of Lydia and the Jailor, furnish examples 
 of infant baptism, for there is no account that any believed in these honsehoJda 
 except Lydia and the Jailor, (as we have proved in our former discourse) and 
 consequently each of these families w^ere baptized on the faith of their heads. — 
 To these we confidently appeal, and hold them up as examples of infant baptism. 
 
 But if these cases are not satisfactory, we will call the attention of the Immer- 
 eionalists to (I Cor. x, 1, 2,) " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should 
 be ignorant how that all oun fathers (that came out of Egypt by Mcses; 
 were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized." 
 
 The Immersionalists do not deny that here was a baptism of water, they con- 
 tend only that the Israelites were immersed. But if it was a case of water bap- 
 tism, it was also a case of infant ba})tism. "All our fathers," were those 
 who were overthrown in the wildernnsF, and those who came in with Joshua in. 
 to the possession of the Gentiles. What, at the lime referred to, were these lat- 
 ter? They were " /(7/Ze ones," children which in that day had no knowledge 
 hetween good and evil. (Kx. x, 9, 10, 11, 24; xii, 37. Numb, xiv, 28, 31. Deut. 
 i. 39 ; V. 3.) Moreover, the Apostle would not that we should be ignorant, that 
 
0$ 
 
 these " lUlh onei'" and their fathers were all baptizkd." But why would not 
 the Apostle that we should be ignorant of this circumstance ? Because tliis tiling 
 (i. e. the baptism of littlk ones) iiappened unto the fathers for our example, 
 tipon whom the ends of the world (or the Gospel dispensation) are come, verses 
 G, 1.1 • Now ALL those things happened unto lliem, and were our r\.<iroi (tu-poi) 
 examples. Tu-poi here translated example, generally implies some institution 
 under the Old Testament, appointed to represent or prefigure something future 
 ucder the New, and may, therefore, be in some measure referred to the head of 
 prophecy, foretelling by things as the letter does by words. Therefore, when 
 the Apostle says that he would not that we should be ignorant that all the 
 fathers were baptized — for this thing Iiappened unto them for our example — hia 
 meaning probably is, that the baptism of those fathers under the Old Testament 
 was a preintimation ; the sense, substance, or solution of which was that as the 
 fathers and their Utile ones under the former were baptized unto Moses, so be- 
 lievers and their children under the Gospel dispensation, should be baptized unto or 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Here, then, is the very example of infant 
 baptism adduced which has been so loudly demanded." f 
 
 We conclude with the following reflections. 
 
 1, There is no direct or positive evidence against infant baptism. We search 
 the New Testament in vain to find any precept or command prohibiting, or dis- 
 countenancing it. All the arguments urged against it are negative and inferen- 
 entiai, such as there is no command or example for it ; infants cannot repent 
 and believe, therefore they are not proper subjects of baptism ; and these argu- 
 ments, on the principles of the Immersionalists, are inconclusive and inadmissi- 
 ble. But, if they were not subverted on their own principles, they can be prov- 
 to be unsound and sophistical, because they involve consequences and lead to 
 conclusions when applied to other things, which destroy the Christian Sabbath, 
 debar females from communion, and overturn parental government. 
 
 2. Hence wc remark, secondly, that the rejection of infant baptism is a source 
 of pernicious error. It compells the Immersionalists to maintain that the Abra- 
 liamic covenant was not the covenant of grace, but a mere temporal compact in- 
 eluding only promises of earthly blessings ; that circumcision, the seal of tho 
 covenant, was not a seal of the righteousness of faith, but a badge of national 
 distinctiouj* that God had no body of true saints or worshippers under the 
 
 f Christian Intelligencer. August 26, 1843. 
 
 * The Jews held that circumcision was an ordinance of God of such impor- 
 tance that the observance of it was essential to Salvation. Acts XV, 1. "And 
 certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, except 
 ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Whitby 
 and Dr. Gill tell us that it was a common maxim among them, that "God reject- 
 ed uncircamciscd persons, and brought them down to Hell." It is evident, fur- 
 thermore, from Ro:n. ii, 25 — 29 that the .Tews believed that circumcision posses- 
 sed an inherent efficacy which benefitted the soul. " For circumcision verily 
 profiteth if thoa keep the law : but if thou bo a breaker of tho law, thy circum- 
 cision is made uncircumcision. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, 
 neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh : but he is a Jcw,wbich 
 is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, m th» spirit, and not in 
 
94 
 
 yild To«t(imont dispensation separate from tlic nation as a political Lody.^'f 
 
 The «]irect tendency of such sentiments is to diminish the value of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures, and to regard them as being out of date, of no use to 
 Christians, and as having no claims to their attention and obedience ; and also 
 to produce a disrespect of the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath and of the obliga- 
 tion of Christians to keep it as holy time. Hence, many of the Immersionalista 
 reject the Christian Sabbath, and keep the seventh day like the Jews ; and to be 
 coflsietent they ought as a body to be Sabbatarians. These views tend to pro- 
 duce an extensive disregard of family religion, family prayer, and the religious 
 education of children. Another result of these views is to exalt a religious rite 
 v.hich has no inherent efTicacy above genuine piety, and to produce a vehement 
 ze.td about a mere ordinance which throws aside all reserve, overleaps the bounds 
 of propriety and even decency, and seriously interferes with other denominaliona 
 in the exercise of t!»e rights of conscience, and the enjoyment of religious liberty 
 in the worship of God according to their construction of the word of God.* 
 
 the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God." Finally, that the Jews at- 
 tached & spiritual meaning and efficacy to circumcision, is manifest from the lan- 
 guage of Philo, a Jewisli writer, who was born 75 3'ears before Josephue, the 
 Jewish historian. Philo was the contemporary of the Apostles. He says, "cir- 
 cumcision taaglit the cutting off of all pleasures and affections." Eleewhere he 
 says, *' it is a symbol of two things particularly ; the one is the cutting off of 
 pleasuree.and the other is the removal of arrogancy, that grievous disease of the 
 8oul." In another place he calls purity or chastity, "the circumcision of cir- 
 cumcision." Gill's commentary on Rom. ii, 29. How could circumcision have 
 been a badge of national distinction, when other nations also practised it 1 Jose- 
 phue informs us that circumcision was observed by the Arabians, Phenicians, 
 Syrians and Egyptians, and it is observed by Mohomtnedans to this day. 
 
 f That God had among the Jews a separate body of true saints, is evident from 
 Ilia worship and service which he established among them, including a ritual, 
 moral law. Temples and Synagogues in each of wiiich a body of worshippers as- 
 eembled every sabbath to read the Scriptures, and engage in acts of devotion; 
 from the qualifications required of his ow'n worshipperp, viz : right affections, 
 faith and holy obedience; from the distinction kept up through the Scriptures 
 between Israel aller the flesh, and after the spirit, between the Jew inwardly and 
 the Jew outwardly, between those who were circumcised in the flesh and those 
 who wero circumcised in the lieart, It alsoappears from the terms used to denote a 
 eeparatc body of true worshippers.viz: Zio.v* Jeiiiusalem, &c. from the predictions 
 of the Prophets that this Zion should be enlarged by the accession of the Gentiles ; 
 from the declaration of the Apostle Paul, Rom. xi, that the Oiristian Church, is 
 only the ancient Zios continued with enlarged privileges ; and from many inci- 
 dental expressions, ouch as, '• God had recorded his name among them, he 
 dwelt among them, had made his mind and secrets known among them, had a- 
 monglhem a holy people, -who wcie his annointed, his saints, who were dear to 
 him, his peculiar treasure, his jewels', as the apple of his eye, and to whom per- 
 tained the adoption, and the glory of the covenantF, and the giving of the law, 
 and the service of God, and the promisee, and of whom as concerning the flesh 
 Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." 
 
 * .John Bunyan had many severe conflicts with his rigid brethren, of whose 
 disquieting practices he complains in the follo\ying manner. "Assaults I say, 
 upon this congregation by times, for no less than these sixteen or eighteen years; 
 yea, myself they have sent for, and endeavored to persuade me to break commun- 
 ton with my brethren ; also with many others they have often tampered, ifhapi- 
 ly their seeds of division might take. Neither did they altogether fail of their 
 purpose ; for some thsy did rent and dismember from us ; but none but those of 
 
95 
 
 And last, tliough not least, of all ihcy tend to ititroduco close coianiunion, and 
 shut awey from tlie table of the Lord his own dear people. " Persons nia_'- be i:s 
 holy ae St. John ; they may commune with God from day to day, and have fel- 
 lowship with his Son, Jesus Christ ; but if they have not been immersed, thoy N 
 are prohibited from coming to tlie Lord's table. And no apology for such treat- 
 ment isofFered. They may urge their soridus convictions of the validity of sprink- 
 ling; they may urge physical debility, which in the judgment of medical men, 
 would render immersion fatal, or any thing else however rational ; but all to no 
 purpose. It is enough for Immersionalists to know that the^ have nOl been im- 
 mersed; and with this knowledge they debar them from {heir cornmunion, as 
 though they were unbelievers, though they have met and prayed with these soma 
 individuals, and have walked with them to the house of God in company.* And at 
 
 whom now they begin to be ashamed ; tJicJudgmetii of God so following their 
 design, that person's which then they prevailed upon, are now a stain and reproach 
 /o re%Jon."— Bunyan'fl Works, Vol. 3,- p 312. Ed. New Haven. N. Whiting, 
 publisher. 
 
 Richard Baxter complains of them in these word.s : " the main scope of their 
 endeavors in public and private is to propagate their opinions, and so strangely 
 are they transported with a desire to bring men to their opinion, as if they Wete 
 never in a happy condition till they are re-baptised, or as if there Were no hope 
 of the salvation ot the holiest men till then,' and as if there were little more than 
 this required to make men happy. Fdr this is the doctrine that they most eager- 
 ly press ■; and if tlVey cdn get the profanest persons to embrace their opinions, 
 and be re-baptized, ihejr usually make more of them, and shew more affection to 
 them than to the most godly that differ from them." 
 
 Again, he says in another place,' " Where the Gospel before prospered; and 
 Christians spent their time and conference in the edifying of each others eouIf, 
 and in heavenly duties, and mutual ssslstanccr and lived together in unity and 
 love, according to the great command of Christ ;• they ordinarily turn all this to 
 vain janglinge, and enipty, windy, unprofitable disputes^ whifth he that is the 
 most, gracious, doth taste the least sweetness in ; and they ttfrn their unity into 
 divisions and factions, and their amity into jealousies and eohtentions ; erne is 
 for this, and another for that ; and they seldom" meet," but they have jarrings antl 
 cohtondings, and look on one another with strangeness, if riot with secret heart 
 burnings and envying?, studying all they cian to undermine Cct'ch <i>thef, and every 
 man to strengthen his ov?n party." — Infant Church membership and Baptism, 
 pp 143, 14«. 
 
 John Bulkley of Connecticut, says of them', 17£9, "If they can but gain per- 
 sons to their opinions, furnish them with some objections against the established 
 religion of the country, render them prompt and ready at invective and railery, 
 and prevail on them to torsake obr assemblies, (though they) neglect family pray- 
 er, profane the Sabbath, &c.,its enotigh, and there they leave them; they are now 
 good Christians." 
 
 * The celebrated Robert Hall rejected close communion. He says *' When 
 we engage a Christian brother to present supplications t6 God in our behalf, it 
 cannot be doubted that we have fellowship with him, not less real or spiritual 
 than at the Lord's table, f^rom these considerations it is natural to infer, that 
 no scruple ought to be entertained respecting the lawfulness of uniting to com- 
 memorate our Saviour's death, with those with whom we feci ourselves at liber- 
 ty to join in every other branch of religious worship. Where no attempt is made 
 to obscure its import, or impair its simplicity, by the introduction of human cer- 
 emonies, but it is proposed to be celebrated in tha manner which we apprehend 
 to be perfectly consonant to the mind of Christ, it would seem less reasonable to 
 refuse to co-operate in this branch of religion than in any other, because it is ap- 
 pointed to be a memorial of the gfreatest instance of love that was ever exhibited, 
 
96 
 
 the same, they Jo not 'lesitate to sit down at the table of tlie Lord with pcrsonsi 
 whose pitty they ho t9 every reason to doubt thcmseivcF, merely because they 
 have been imnjersed."* 
 
 Now, we cheerfully admit that there are some things included in this catalogue 
 of errore, resulting from the denial of infant baptism that cannot be laid to the 
 charge of all who reject it. But that some are happily exempted from ihesemis'akea 
 ii not owing to their belief. They practise belter than they believe, but the ten- 
 dency of rejecting infant baptism unquestionably is to these tilings?, for it is an er- 
 ror fraught with many other errors. 
 
 We remark, therefore, linally, that the observance of an exclusive mode of 
 baptism, and the rejection of infant baptism, are errors which all true Christiana 
 are bound to discountenance and resist. It is a heresy, a denial ofthe faith once 
 delivered to tlie saints to make all the principles of Christian union and fellow- 
 ship subordinate to the observance of a religious rite in a particular manner. It 
 is a wide departure iVom the simplicity of the°Gospel,when soundness in the faitli, 
 purity of character, holy and heavenly principle?, and virtues which are the fruits 
 ofthe Spirit, and which would exalt angels, are regarded as nothing in compe- 
 
 as well as the principal pledge of Christian fraternity. It must appear surprising 
 that the rite which of all others is most adapted to cement mutual attachment, 
 and which is in a great measure appointed for that purpose, should be fixed upon 
 as the line of demarkation, the impassable barrier, to seperate and disjoin tlie fol- 
 lowers of Christ. He wiio admits his fellow christians to share in every other 
 spiritual privilege, while he prohibits his approach to the Lord's table entertains a 
 view of that institution diametrically opposite to what has usually prevailed ; he 
 must consider it not so much in the liglit of a commemoration of his Saviour's 
 death and passion, as a religious test^ designated to ascertain and establish an a- 
 greement in points not fundamental. According to this notion of it, it is no lon- 
 ger a symbol of out common Christianity, it is the badge and criterion of a parly, 
 a mark of discrimination applied to distinguish the nice shades of difference a- 
 mong Christians." — Terms of Communion, p. 291. Works, vol. 1. 
 
 Bunyan also censures the close communion principles of his brethren. He 
 observes, " and now I say again, the world may well wonder, when they see you 
 deny holy men of God that liberty of tlie communion of saints, which you mo- 
 nopolize to yourselves: and tiiough they do not understand the grounds of pro- 
 fession, or commnnion ; yet they can sec, I say, these holy men of God, in all 
 visible acts of holiness, are not one inch behind you. Yea, I will put it to your- 
 selves, if those many, yea, very many, who thus severely (but with how little 
 ground, is seen by holy men of God,) you deny communion with, are not as good, 
 «s holy, as unblameable in lifej as sound, if not sounder in the faith than many a. 
 mong ourselves : here only they make the stop, they cannot, without light, be 
 driven into water baptism, I mean after our notion of it ; but what if they were, 
 it would be little sign to me that they were sincere with God. To conclude this : 
 when you have proved that water baptism is essential to church communion, and 
 that the church may,' by the word of God both bar and forever shut out those, far 
 better than ourselves, that have not, according to our notion, been baplizod with 
 water, then it will be time enough to talk of ground for so doing. In the mean- 
 time, I must take leave to tell you, there is not in all the Bible one syllablk 
 FOR SUCH A PRACTICE, whcrefore your great cry about your order is wordless, 
 and therefore faithless, and is a mere human invention." — Bunyan's Works, vol. 
 iii, p. p. 346, 347, Ed. New Haven. 
 
 * Porter, in Methodist Msgtlzine 
 
97 
 
 lition with a mere religions rile. Exalting ceremonies above jusUcc, mercy and 
 the fear of God is depressing vital religion, and making the word of God of nona 
 effect. In this elevation of a religious rite above vital pietyi therefore is involv- 
 ed the very principle of ancient Pharaaaism, Romanism, and modern Peuseyism. 
 To such a principle no man is under obligation to yield. On the other hand, ev- 
 ery man who feels concerned for the welfare of a pure Christianity, is bound to 
 resist it by every means of Christ's appointment, nor to cease opposing until it is 
 banished from the world. 
 
 We know of no principle in the Christian system vvhicli requires us lo refuse 
 to acknowledge any at the table of the Lord as brethren, who give evidence that 
 Christ has received them. " To our minds there is something very repulsive, in 
 the idea of confining our affections within narrower limits than the love of Jesus; 
 of making any consideration a bar to Christian communion and fellowship at the 
 Lord's table and elsewhere which docs not exclude persons from the heart of Je- 
 aus^ and prevent them from being the subjects of his intercession within the vail." 
 
 Hence, we prefer our own practice of infant baptism, open communion, and ad- 
 ministering the ordinance of baptism, by sprinkling, or pouring: We believe 
 ibis practice lobe Scriptural and agreeable to the mind of Christ, and we wish to 
 live in the enjoyment of it unmolested. Knowing our attachment to our own 
 views, we trust that we shall be respected while we adhere to them ; if the Ira. 
 mersionalists choose to reject the covenant and its seal, we choose to respect 
 both, and not to follow their example. 
 
 ' We have studied this matter — we understand it ^ and having made up our 
 minds carefully and prayerfaily, we are settled in our views and shall not be 
 moved away from them. If our system contains errors, we believe them to be of 
 a less hurtful character than those which cleave to the views of those who would 
 persuade us to renounce infant baptism, and if we have to answer for our belief 
 and practice at the judgment seat, we cheerfully assume the responsibility of 
 maintaining them and answering for them ;'for we say, without any qualification, 
 that we had rather be judged for having attached less importance to the rites of 
 religion than to true piety, even if we have failed to give them their just exalta- 
 tion. We cannot consent while we have our reason, to give them an undue im- 
 portance, if thereby we must shut from the table of the Lord, a portion of his own 
 people. 
 
iPPENDlX. 
 
 The verdict of eminent Pcedobaptist writers on the meaning or the word bap- 
 
 tixe. 
 
 s 
 
 Turretin. " The term baptism is of Greek origin, deduced from the word 
 Bapto, which is to tinge and imbue. Baptizo, to dye and to immerse. He says, 
 also, the word Baptizo, by a metalepsis, is taken in the sense to wash. Mark vii 
 4. Nor ought we otherwise to understand the bapMsm of cups, of potg, and of 
 beds, in use among the Jews. And the divers baptisms enjoined upon them. 
 Heb. ix, 10, and the superstitious rvashings received from the tradition of the el- 
 ders, Mark vii, 4, 5." 
 
 Dr. Owen. " Baptizo sginifies /o z/jasJ^ ; as instances out of all authors may 
 be given ; Suidas, Hesychius, .Tulius Pollux, PHAVORiNusand Eustachius. 
 No one instance can be given in the Scripture, wherein Baptizo doth necessarily 
 signify either to dip or plunge. I must sa}', and will make it good, that no hon- 
 est man who understands the Greek tongue, can deny the word to signify to 
 wash, as well as to dip. Baptismoa (baptism,) is any kind of washing, whether 
 by dipping or sprinkling ; putting the thing to be washed into the water, or ap- 
 plying the water to the thing itself to be washed." 
 
 Whitby. Remarking on Acts x, 48, " And he commanded them to be bap- 
 tized," he says : " Whom did he command to do this t the Gentiles 1 It seem- 
 eth at first sight absurd, that they who were not yet baptized should baptize oth- 
 ers : or was it the Jews that came then with him ? they seem only to be lay- 
 brethren, who only were permitted to baptize in case of necessity ; it seemelh, 
 therefore, reasonable to say, that he commanded water to be brought/or their bap" 
 iism, and then performed himself the office, or left it to be done by gifted per- 
 sons."— Commentary on the New Testament. 
 
 Doddridge. His paraphraze on Acts x, 47, *• Can any' forbid water, that these 
 should not be baptized," is in these words : " Then Peter yielding to the force 
 of evidence, however contrary to his former prejudices, with great propriety an- 
 sweredy can any one reasonably forbid that water should be brought." His note 
 on this passage is as follows ; " Erasmus supposes a trajection or transposition 
 of the words here, as if it had been said, " who can forbid that these should be 
 baptized with water." But it seems most natural to understand it, (as Dr. 
 Whitby does) " who can forbid that water should be brought.'" In which view of 
 the clause one would naturally conclude, they were baptized by pouring water 
 upon (hem, rather than by plunging them in it." 
 
100 
 
 Liglitfoot. " Tlie application of water ia necessary for the essence of baptism ; 
 but the appJication in this, or tJtat mode indicates a circumstance. To denote this 
 ablution by a sacramental Bign^ the sprinkling of water is equally sufficient as 
 immersion into water, since the former in reality argues an ablution and purifica- 
 tion as well as the latter." 
 
 Vossius. " Bzpi'izo Bigmfles to waxli or purify. It is transferred to the gift 
 of the Holy Spirit ; that is to say, because, that he miglit wash (or purify) the 
 eoul, he is poured out on it, as jcater is poured ; even as Joel epeaks, ii, 28, and 
 from thence Peter, Acts ii. 17, likewise Paul, Tit. iii^ 6.' 
 
 Beza. "The reality of baptism is the sprinkling of the SZooc? of Jesus Christ 
 for the remission of sins and the imputation of his righteousness, which are, as it 
 were, displayed before our eyes in the sign of outward sprinkling. Are they 
 therefore improperly baptized,^who are sprinkled witli water only cast on them ? 
 No : what is in that action (of baptizing) merely substantial, (or strictly essen- 
 tial.) to wit ; the ablution of water, is rightly observed by the Church (by sprink- 
 ling.) But Baptize signifies to dye, or to stain, seeing it comes immediately 
 from Bapto ; and since the things to be dyed or stained are (commonly) dipped, 
 it signifies to 7nake wet and to dip," 
 
 Casanbon. ''Immersion is not nT^.v.'flry to baptism. The opinion (insisted 
 on of immersing the whole body in the ceremony of baptism) has been deserved- 
 ly long since exploded ; for the force and energy of this mystery consist not 
 in that ciroumstanre/' 
 
 Cradock. "Sprinkling is as significanf,as to the main ends ofhaptism as dipping*. 
 Baptising is any kind of religious irashing or sprinkling, m the name, &c.. duly 
 performed by a person rightly qualified for it." 
 
 Usher. "The word baptism in general signifietli any washing. Neither dip- 
 ping Is essential to the eacramer.t of baptism, or eprinkling ; but only washing 
 and applying water to the body as a cleanser of the filth thereof." 
 
 Chemnitz. " Whether the application of the water be made by dipping, ting, 
 ing, pouring, or spriJikling, it is a Baptixation ; for it is a cleansing or ablution 
 by the washing of water : and immersion under water is not necessarily required 
 to washing." 
 
 Peter Martyr. " But this purification, whether wc arc dipped, or perfused, or 
 sprinkled, or by what ever mode' wc are washed witli water, is very appositely 
 represented in ba])tism." 
 
 Zanchius. " In what manner baptism is to ba administered, M'hether the per- 
 sons should be dipped in water, or only their heads sprinkled with water, Christ 
 hath no where determined. 'J'bis word signifies as well to tinge and simply to 
 icaslt, as to dip." 
 
 ParfPUH. "Baptism among the Greeks, is any kind of washing or ablution, 
 vrvhi-ther it be by immersion or aspersion." 
 
■* 101 
 
 Musculug. " As to tlie immersion of tho infant to be baptized, we judge tliat 
 this is not so necessary, as that the Churches were not free to baptize, either by 
 dipping or sprinkling." 
 
 Ursinus. " Baptism signifieth a dipping in water or sprinkling with water. — 
 For washing may be either by dipping or sprinkling ; and baptism is a washing.'* 
 
 Pococke. "^he word baptism does not necessarily denote an immersion of 
 the whole body in water, since it is spoken of him who only intinges even his 
 hand, according to the frequent use of Jewish tradition and discipline. It is some- 
 times used for that slighter degree of washing, which is performed by the affu' 
 sion of water, and it indifferently belongs to bothy 
 
 Mark. '' The action to be performed by water is ablution ; whether by the 
 immersion of the whole body, or by sprinkling, or pouring ; since the word bap- 
 tize is a general term, denoting a washing." 
 
 Pictet. " The word baptismns, (baptism) does not less denote sprinkling 
 than immersion. The Muscovites err, who teach that immersion is the essence 
 of baptism ; and those Greeks, who in the council of Florence, called the Latins 
 unbaptized, were delirious." 
 
 Poole. "From hence it will not follow, that dipping is essential to baptism t 
 the washing of the soul with the blood of Christ, (the thing signified by bap- 
 tism) being expressed by sprinkling or pouring water, as well as by dipping." 
 
 John Westley. "Baptism ig performed by washing, dipping or sprinkling the 
 person is the name, &.c. I say, by washing, dipping or sprinkling ; because it 
 is not determined in the Scripture, in which of these ways it shall be done, nei- 
 ther by any express precept, nor by any such example as clearly proves it ; nor 
 by the force and meaning of the vvord baptize. Tliat washing and cleansing is 
 the true meaning of the word baptize, is testified by the greatest scholars and 
 most proper judges in this matter." 
 
 Adam Clark. " " Bapto and baptizo mean both to dip and sprinkle. Tiiose who 
 are washed or sprinkled with water in the name of the Father, &c., I believe to 
 be equally so ; (i. e. evangelically baptized,) and the repeliiion of such a baptism 
 I believe to be profane." 
 
 Dr. Dwight. " The body of learned Critics and Lexicographers^ declare that 
 the original meaning of both these words, (Bapto and Baptizo) is to tinge, dye, 
 slain, or color; and that when it means immersion, it is only in a secondary and oc- 
 casional sense ; derived from the fact, that such things as are dyed, stained, or 
 colored, are often immersed for this end. This interpretation of the words, also, 
 they support by such a series of quotations, as seem unanswerably to evince, that 
 this v/as the original classical meaning of these v/ords. I have examined almost 
 one hundred instances, in which th.-o word Baptizo, and its derivatives, are used 
 in tho New Testament ; and four in tho Septuigint : thes", so far as I havo 
 observed, being all the instances, contained in both. By this oxarn-nution, it is 
 to my apprehension evident, that the following tilings are true: That the prim-- 
 
102 
 
 rymeanijig of thesf tenns is chansing ; the effect, not (he mode of washing; that 
 the mode is usually referred to incidenlally, where ever these words are men- 
 tioned ; and that this is always the case, where ever the ordinance of baptism ia 
 mentioned, and a reforence made, at the same lime, to the mode of administration. 
 ■That these words, although capable of denoting any mode of washing, whether 
 W affusion, Bprinkling^, or immersion ; (since cleansing was familiarly accom- 
 pliehed by the Jews in all these ways,) yet, in many instances, cannot without 
 obvious impropriety, bo made to signify immersion ; and in others cannot signi- 
 fy it all." 
 
 Knapp. " If it is asked, liowever, if immersion is so essential, that one who 
 has been only sprinkled, is not to be considered as properly a baptized person ! 
 it may be answered. No '. Nothing more is essential to the external part of 
 baptism, than that water be used, (Actsx, 47, John iii, 5,) and that the subject, 
 by the colemn use of this rite, be conseerated to Father, &c. and be pledged to 
 obey the Christian doctriiit", Math, xxviii, 19. The washing of water is consid- 
 ered aa the symbol oPthe purification of sins ; and this can be signified as woU 
 by affusion aa by xmxnereioa.''' —Knapp' s Theology, Vol. ii, \ 139, p I."}?. 
 
 Thomas Blake, an opponent of R. Baxter. " In baptism there is not only wa- 
 ter, but the application of the person to the water in dipping, or the water to the 
 person by inftision, or sprinkling. The word in Scripture use comprises any 
 washing; and therefore in Baptism it is of itself indifferent." 
 
 Richard Baxter. "My sixih argument shall be against the usual manner of 
 their Baptizing as it is by dipping over head in a river or other cold water ; viz : 
 That which is a plain breach f-fthc i,ixth command, thou shall not kill, w no ordi- 
 nance of God, but a most heinous sin. But the ordinary practice of baptizing by 
 dipping overhead in cold water as necessary, is a plain breach of the sixth command- 
 ment. Therefore iti^ no ordinance of God, hvt an heinous sin. And as Mr. Cra- 
 dock in his book of Gospel Liberty, shewF, the magistrates ouglit to restrain it ; to 
 save the lives «)f their Bubjecte. That this is flat murder and no better, beincr 
 ordinarily and generally used, is undeniable to any undcrstandia'^ man ; for 
 that which directly teiuieih to overthrow men's lives, being wilfully used is plain 
 murder; bat the ordinary or general dipping of people over head in cold water, 
 doth tend directly to the overthrow of iheir health and lives ; and therefore it is 
 murder." To which, Mr. Tombep, Mr. Baxter's antagonist having said, there 
 is no necessity of its being in cold water, he replie.f, "His warm bath would be 
 &\eo dangerous to vm" many persons ; and where should this bath be prepared? 
 If in privat*-, it will Fcarce bo a solemn engaging act. If in the meetino- place 
 ofthc church, then it will take no sni.iH room, and require no small stir to have 
 a bathing place and water wherein to dip people overhead. And if they do not 
 run home quickly before they are well engaged, the hot bath will be turned into 
 a cold one to them, and make them rctponltbis badge of repentance, except they 
 will have all things leadv. and be put to bed also in the churoli before the peo 
 pie." 
 
 Baxter urgiie? ogainst tlie opiu on tli'it '' dipping was the cus-tom of Scripture 
 ti'.ns:," as foiiov/i. "Tt is liot y^-l provt-d by any ; the Jailor waa baptized in 
 
103 
 
 th» night in bis houso, tlicrefore not likely over head in that country where wa- 
 ter was 80 scarce. The Eunuch might well be eaid to go down into the water, 
 for the country was mountainous and the brooks were down in the bottoms. 
 Even the river of Enon, where John baptized, because there wag much water, ia 
 found by travellers to be a small brook that a man may almost step ovef. 
 
 The word in the original signifies to tcash as well as to dip, and so ia taken 
 when applied to other things, as Mark vii, 4, 8. The thing signified ia set forth 
 by the phraze of washing or sprinkling, and the sign need not exceed the thing $ig- 
 nijied. Chnat hath not appointed the measure of water, nor the manner of wash- 
 ing, no more than he hath appointed in the Lord's Supper what quantity of bread 
 and wine each must eat and drink ; and as it would be but folly for any to think 
 that men must need fill themselves full of bread and wine; because it best eignifies 
 the fulness of Christ ; so it is no better to say, that we must needs be washed 
 all over, because it best signifies our burial with Christ, A little may signify as 
 well as much, as a clod of earth does in giving possession of much lands, and a 
 corn of pepper signifies our homage for much.'' — Plain Scriptureproof of Infants 
 Church membershif and baplism,- pp 134, 135, 138. 
 
 These quotations from Peedobaptists wrilefs, which might be multiplied, (ad 
 in^nitem) prove that they have not fallen out by the way, and that they have not 
 given their verdict so unanimously in favor of immereion as an exclusive mode 
 of baptism, aa has been represented. 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 The antiquity of pouring or sprinkling In the English Church, ia proved b^ 
 the circular letter of the Archbishop of York, addressed to the Clergy of his Die- 
 oeee in the reign of Henry viii, about A. D. 1538. He says, " AH Curates must 
 openly, in the Church teach and instruct the mydwiefes, of the very wordes and 
 fourme of Baptisme ; to thentente that they may use them perfectly, and none 
 other, in time of nede, that is to say) that ihey, naming the child, must say these 
 words : John, or Thomas, or Agnes,— I baptize thee in the name of the Fader, 
 the Sonne, and the Holie Gost : and that saying these worded, they mast cast 
 water upon the child. For which purpose, they must have ready at hand a ves- 
 sel of clean© water." — Burnet's History of (lit Reformation, Colkction of Records^ 
 No. LVII. 
 
im 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 There ar^a few typographical errors in the precceding pages, which materi-^ 
 ally alter the meaning of several sentences. The reader is therefore particular- 
 ly requested to examine the following' errata : — 
 
 At page 4, line 10 from the bottom, for Hack, read Haak. Line 6 from tha 
 bottom, for Dooper, read Doopen. Line 2 from the bottom, for 6, 2, read Heb. 
 vi. 2. At page 8, line 10 from the bottom, for Panrisftoi, read ffaiTTTsnoi Page 9, 
 line 11 from the top, Tot Par^axelot^, read Par^ax^ciots. Line 25 from the top, for in- 
 flected, read infected. Page 11, line 5 fromjl/ie top, for body, read boy. Line 
 6 from the top, for cruna, read prura. Llnef from the top, for metruente?, read 
 metuentes. Page 15, line 3 from the top, for six feet high, read four feet high. 
 Page 16, line 6 from the bottom, for them, read then. Page 17, line 9 from the 
 top, for Katharsimos, read Katharismos. Page 18, line 8 from the top, for im- 
 bued, read imbibed. Line 5 from the bottom, for taken, read take. Page 30, 
 line 14 from the top, for Ex. xi, 30, 32, read Ex. xl, 30, 32. Page 40, line 17 
 fronn the top, for Acts xix, 6, 7, read Acts xix, 2, 6. Line 18, for Math, iii, read 
 Math, iii, 11. Page 41, line 15 from the bottom, for Math, iii, 7, read Math, iii, 
 7,11. Page 56, line 12 from the bottom, for caronical, read canonical. Page 
 58, line 1, for course, read cause. Page 66, line l8 from the bottom, for believ- 
 ere, read believers. Page 70, line 9 from the top, for believ, read believing. — 
 Page 76, line 18 from the top, for pretenti, read petenti. Page 77, line 1 for 
 Alexand&ius, read Alexandrinvs. 
 
 NOTE. — The author would inform hia readers, that quotation marks have 
 been in several instances unintentionally neglected where they should 
 have been inserted. There are a few sentences in the Sermons, which should 
 have been marked as extracts in part or the whole, from Tracy on Baptism, in 
 Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Hibberd, Dwigbt, Woods, E. Hal), on 
 the same subject, Porter's Lectures, Hodge on Romans, Dick's Theology, and a 
 little >frork entitled Scripture Facts, by Cyrus Comstock.