(!' 
 
 I 1*1 
 
 PHI 
 
 
# 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 (0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /? 
 
 
 IE 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 J5 
 
 - 
 
 .fc^. 
 
 
 IE 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 •-D 
 
 Q. 
 
 1 
 
 # w 
 
 
 
 
 *Sj 
 
 tQ 
 
 o 
 
 
 ts 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 
 4pa^ 
 
 K 
 
 <D 
 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 bfl 
 
 PS 
 
 ,23 
 
 ^ 
 
 <t 
 
 5> 
 
 la> 
 
 
 3 
 
 <s. 
 
 
 h 
 
 E 
 
 .<o 
 
 W 
 
 M 
 
 <y 
 
 *v» 
 
 *5S 
 
 rt 
 
 CO 
 
 ■&■ 
 
 -*-* 
 ^ 
 
 Pk 
 
 2 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 £ 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 t9> 
 
 CL 
 
 1° 
 
 CA 
 
7* 
 
 SL-4- 
 
Notices of the First Edition of this Work. 
 
 " These discourses which were delivered on occasion of the first 
 administration of believers baptism within the memory of man at 
 Windsor, give a temperate and compendious view of the points of 
 difference between ourselves and our Psedo-baptist brethren." — 
 Baptist Mag. Jan. 1840. 
 
 " This is another admirable, and well-written pamphlet on the 
 Baptismal controversy." — Baptist Reporter. 
 
 " The subject is treated in a masterly style, and the objections 
 openly and candidly met, — the work does credit to the head and 
 heart of the author, and will doubtless prove a blessing to all per- 
 sons into whose hands it may come, who wish to understand the 
 subject." — Gospel Herald. 
 
 BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 THE FREE INVITATIONS OF THE GOSPEL 
 RECONCILEABLE WITH THE DOC- 
 TRINES OF GRACE. Price 6d. Houlston 
 and Stoneman. 
 
 "Mr. Stock illustrates the nature of the act referred to, the 
 sinner's warrant for coming, and the great hindrances which pre- 
 vent the sinner from coming to Christ. In doing this, we are happy 
 to find him maintaining strenuously that " the free and gracious 
 invitations given in the gospel to sinners, as such, constitute our 
 only warrant for coming to Christ ;" that so universal and so invet- 
 erate is human depravity, that " no sinner has or ever will come to 
 Christ unless the blessed Spirit enlighten the eyes of his under- 
 standing, turn the inclination of his heart, and subdue the perverse- 
 ness of his will," and adding, "It is the depravity of your heart, 
 and nothing else, which keeps you sinner from coming to Christ. . . 
 The reason why you set at naught the gracious invitations of the 
 gospel, and will not come to Christ is, you have a desperately wicked 
 heart." — Baptist Magazine for May 1842. 
 
 "The author's design is to exhibit the doctrine of scripture on 
 the subject, and he has done so, with considerable clearness and 
 force." — Prim. Church Magazine, for May 1842. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION EXPLAINED 
 AND VINDICATED. Price 6d. Houlston and 
 Stoneman. 
 
 This discourse presents the testimony of scripture on this import- 
 ant subject, with great clearness, condensation, and accuracy. The 
 evidence under each division, is given with sufficient fulness to 
 satisfy the mind, and at the same time with a brevity and point 
 which sustain interest, and make the impression which it leaves 
 distinct and easy to be remembered. It shews that the election of 
 sinners is founded in the election of Christ to the mediatorial office 
 — that they are chosen in him personally and to certain salvation, 
 — that their election is a part of God's eternal and immutable pur- 
 pose, — that it is an act of free and sovereign favour, — that its end 
 is the glory of God's own name, — and that the evidence of it is the 
 work of the Holy Spirit upon the soul. The author shows, in con- 
 clusion, that this doctrine does not in the least reflect on the justness 
 or goodness of God ; does not tend to encourage licentiousness ; 
 impedes no man's salvation ; diminishes no man's responsibility ; 
 and does not interfere with the freeness and universality of the invi- 
 tations of the Gospel." — We recommend this pamphlet as a faithful 
 exhibition on all these points, of what appears to us to be " the truth 
 as it is in Jesus." — Prim. Church Magazine for June 1842. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST INDEPENDENT 
 OF ALL SECULAR AUTHORITY. Price 
 2d. or 8s. per hundred. Houlston and Stoneman. 
 
 " Many thanks for your admirable little book on Voluntaryism." 
 — Rev. J. Angus, M. A. 
 
 " A convincing, comprehensive, and cheap address, delivered to 
 Sunday School Teachers, and printed for general circulation." — 
 Sunday School Magazine for June 1843. 
 
 SERMON ON THE HAPPY DEATH OF A 
 LITTLE CHILD ; delivered to the children of 
 the Zion Chapel Sunday Schools. Taken in short 
 hand. Price Id. or 4s. per hundred. Fordham, 
 Chatham. 
 
AN 
 
 ESSAY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MODE AND SUBJECTS 
 
 OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 JOHN STOCK, 
 
 MINISTER OF ZION CHAPEL, CHATHAM. 
 
 " Buried with him," alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by 
 immersion. — John Wesley. [Note on Rom. vi. c. 4, v.] 
 
 " The manner of baptizing was by immersion, which is what our church 
 allows." — George Whitefield. [Eighteen Sermons, page 297.] 
 
 "Ego neminem damno in quo aliquid Christi reperio. — Jo. Sturmins. 
 
 j&econt) (Sftttton, 
 
 CONSIDERABLY ENLARGED. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 HOULSTON & STONEMAN, 65, AND G. &. J. DYER, 
 
 24, PATERNOSTER ROW; GARDINER & SON, 20, 
 
 PRINCES ST., CAVENDISH SQUARE; AND MESSRS. 
 
 HIGHAMS 54, CHISWELL ST., FINSBURY SQUARE. 
 
 CHATHAM : 
 A. T. FORDHAM, 127, HIGH STREET. 
 
 1844. 
 

 PREFACE. 
 
 It is justly said, that, "a humble tenement should 
 never have an imposing entrance ;" — and it is equally 
 true that an unpretending volume should never be 
 introduced by a lengthy or elaborate preface. It will, 
 however, be proper to state here, the circumstances 
 which first brought the author before the public as a 
 writer upon the subject discussed in the following 
 pages. In the year 1839, he was called upon to assist 
 at the first administration of believer's baptism, within 
 the memory of man, in the Town of Windsor. He 
 prepared with some care, two lectures, which he read 
 on the occasion ; and which seemed to produce a deep 
 impression at the time of delivery. At the request of 
 many christian friends, a large edition of these lectures, 
 was published for circulation in the Town and Neigh- 
 bourhood of Windsor. This edition has been long since 
 exhausted, and the author has had repeated applications 
 for copies, which he has been unable to supply. 
 
IV. PREFACE. 
 
 Several aged and experienced friends have frequently 
 urged him to re-publish the work ; but he has always 
 until now shrunk from the task. 
 
 The present production can scarcely be called a 
 second edition of the former one. It is in fact a new 
 book. All that was considered valuable in the former 
 work is retained here ; but the author has preferred 
 adopting in the present volume the more popular style 
 of the Essay, and has introduced topics which were 
 not even alluded to in the lectures. The present 
 production is more than twice the size of the previous 
 one, and gives a bird's eye view of the whole baptismal 
 controversy. The writer has gone into the entire 
 question, and is not aware that he has omitted referring 
 to any of its material points. 
 
 He had some hesitation as to the propriety of pub- 
 lishing his book after the appearance of Dr. Carson's 
 learned and unanswerable work on the same subject. 
 But on reflection he was induced to believe, that, many 
 persons will read a small two and sixpenny volume 
 like the present, who will not wade through a bulky 
 tome like Dr. Carson's. Many people desirous of 
 light upon the subject have but little time for reading. 
 This volume is intended especially for them. It gives 
 them a manual of the entire question in a small compass. 
 Such as it is the author commends it to the Spirit's 
 blessing. He has earnestly sought divine guidance 
 
PREFACE. V. 
 
 while writing it. He has endeavoured to avoid every- 
 thing approaching to asperity, though he has always 
 spoken unreservedly and boldly. God forbid, that, he 
 should on the one hand unnecessarily wound a brother's 
 feelings ; or that he should on the other hand, flinch in 
 the advocacy of truth, or in the exposure of error. 
 He desires both to preach and to write with the day of 
 retribution in full prospect. 
 
 The preparation of the following pages for the press 
 was nearly completed before Dr. Carson's last work on 
 the same subject appeared. His first production the 
 writer never had the happiness of seeing. 
 
 May the Spirit of grace and truth bless this effort to 
 uphold and defend one of the Redeemer's ordinances, 
 and may the glorious day soon come when christians 
 "shall see eye to eye" upon this now much contro- 
 verted subject. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 Chatham, April 1, 1844. 
 

 v 
 
 CONTENTS, 
 
 PART I. 
 
 BAPTISM PROVED TO BE IMMERSION. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 I. Introduction 1 
 
 II. The meaning of the term ... 4 
 
 III. The scriptural use of the term . . 17 
 
 IV. The spiritual signification of baptism . 30 
 
 V. The testimony of ecclesiastical history . 35 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM*— 
 BELIEVERS ONLY. 
 
 I. Baptism as administered in the days of 
 
 Christ 43 
 
 II. Christ's commission to his apostles . . 51 
 
 III. Baptism as administered by the apostles 
 
 after Christ's ascension 56 
 
 IV. The spiritual meaning of baptism . . 60 
 V. The one-ness of christian baptism . . 70 
 
 VI. The testimony of ecclesiastical history . 73 
 
VIII. CONTENTS. 
 
 PART III. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE BAPTISM OF 
 BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 I. The Abrahamic covenant ... 85 
 II. The conduct of Christ to the little children 
 
 brought unto him . . . .99 
 
 III. The holiness of the children of believers . 102 
 
 IV. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost . 105 
 V. The baptism of households . . .107 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION AS THE ONLY MODE 
 OF BAPTISM. 
 
 I. The baptism of the three thousand on the 
 
 day of Pentecost . . . .116 
 
 II. The baptism of the Israelites in the cloud 
 
 and in the Red Sea . . . .120 
 
 III. The baptism of the Spirit . . . 124 
 
 IV. Remaining objections. — 1. " Can any man 
 
 forbid water? : ' Acts x. 47. — 2. " Divers 
 washings;" (baptisms) Heb. ix. 10. — 
 3. Luke ii. 38. — 4. Mark vii. 4. — 
 5. The baptism of the Philippian jailer 128 
 
 PART V. 
 
 INFANT SPRINKLING CONSIDERED. 
 
 I. Reasons for rejecting infant sprinkling . 134 
 II. Concluding address to the reader . .139 
 

 PART I. 
 
 BAPTISM PROVED TO BE IMMERSION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 Every thing relating to the kingdom of the Redeemer, is 
 unquestionably worthy of the serious attention of the true 
 believer. Nothing, with which the glory of Christ and the 
 purity of the Church are connected, should be viewed as 
 unimportant, by the man who calls himself a Christian. 
 Every revealed truth, and every ordinance of the ever- 
 lasting gospel, should be more " precious to him than 
 gold, yea, than much fine gold." The ordinance of 
 Christian Baptism, whatever may be our views of its 
 subjects and mode, cannot therefore with propriety be 
 regarded as a light and trivial affair ; it must not be 
 dismissed from our attention after a slight and preju- 
 diced examination : still less may it be treated with 
 
 B 
 
2 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 ribaldry and contempt : it is a subject of grave import- 
 ance, and demands of us a candid, unprejudiced, and 
 prayerful scrutiny. When we consider the glory of its 
 institutor; — the important place which it occupies 
 in the church of God ; — the honour which was put upon 
 it by the Mediator's example ; — the frequency with; 
 which the seal of the divine blessing has been affixed to 
 its administration ; — the fatal and wide spread mishiefs 
 which have ensued from its abuse and corruption ; — and 
 the conflicting views of its nature and intent, which at 
 the present day abound ; — we cannot but feel that it 
 becomes us to give the subject a full and searching in- 
 vestigation. The man who can treat a matter of such 
 moment with levity, is surely deserving of the severest 
 reproof. It would be far more in accordance with his 
 profession as a christian, if he would imitate the candour 
 of the noble Bereans, and " search the scriptures," not 
 hurriedly, but patiently, and "daily," to see "whether 
 these things be so." 
 
 My dear reader, are you an earnest and sincere 
 enquirer after truth ? do you desire, in your examina- 
 tion of the sacred page, not so much to be convinced 
 that your views are right, as to ascertain what is the 
 will of Christ ? are you prepared to give the subject 
 discussed in the following pages an unprejudiced investi- 
 gation ? If you are, then before you proceed any fur- 
 ther, lay down this volume, and look upward for the 
 teachings of the divine spirit, that you may be rightly 
 guided in your decision. But are you prejudiced, 
 bitterly and violently prejudiced, against the sentiments 
 to be advocated in the following pages ? Does your 
 conscience tell you that you pant not for truth, but for 
 triumph ? Then go and confess your sin before God : 
 pray for a better spirit than you now possess : overcome 
 your bigotry by supplication and grace ; and then, and 
 
i.] or BAPTISM, 3 
 
 not till then, would I have you peruse this book. You 
 will never read it to profit, if you are determined not 
 to be convinced. Prejudice, like stained glass, tinges 
 every ray, even of the pure light of heaven which falls 
 upon it, with its own peculiar hue \ And Oh ! thou 
 Holy and Eternal Spirit, thou glorious fountain of all 
 wisdom and grace, cause thy teachings to illumine the 
 mind of him whose eye is now scanning these pages ! 
 Bow his every faculty in mute and reverential attention 
 to the dictates of the scriptures, thine own infallible 
 oracles ! Teach him thy will, and lead him into all the 
 truth] 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 MEANING OF THE TERM. 
 
 The first point which it is our intention to discuss, 
 is the mode of Baptism. We shall endeavour to estab- 
 lish the following proposition : — 
 
 I. That the only Scriptural Mode of Bap- 
 tism is Immersion. The proof in support of this 
 sentiment is various and multiform ; order, however, 
 seems to require that we should consider, 
 
 1 . The meaning of the word Baptize. It is much to 
 be regretted, that the translators of our authorized 
 version of the Bible, allowed themselves, in deference 
 to the pleasure of James I., to Anglicize instead of 
 translating, this perfectly unambiguous term. Had 
 they acted in this matter, faithfully to their God, instead 
 of obsequiously obeying the dictum of their earthly 
 king, many of the disputes about the mode of Baptism 
 which have convulsed the Church of Christ in England 
 for so many centuries, might have been prevented. 
 Baptism is a term which was transplanted from the 
 Greek into the English Language, in order to render the 
 mode of initiation into the visible church, ambiguous to 
 uneducated people : it had no being in English parlance 
 until it was invented to suit the convenience of king 
 
[CHAP. II.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 5 
 
 James' translators. Its import is Immersion. This is 
 admitted by the most learned, even of the Paedo-baptists 
 themselves. The Lexicons of Dr. John Jones, of 
 Schrevelius, of Scapula, of Stephens, of Schleusner, and 
 Parkhurst, all of whom were Psedo-baptists give immer- 
 sion as the radical and primary meaning of Baptism, 
 This is in fact true of every Lexicon of any authority in 
 the literary world. There is not one which does not give 
 the same verdict. Until of late years, that Baptism is 
 immersion, was considered an indisputable matter of fact. 
 The most learned of the ancient Pasdo-baptists unhesi- 
 tatingly confessed its truth. Luther says, " I would 
 have those that are to be baptized, to be entirely im- 
 mersed, as the word imparts, and the mystery signifies." 
 (a) Calvin observes, that "the word baptize signifies im- 
 mersion, and the rite of immersion was observed by the 
 ancient church." (b) Zanchius asserts, that "the proper 
 signification of baptize, is to immerse, plunge under, 
 or overwhelm in water." Tindal remarks, that " Tri- 
 bulation is our right baptism, and is signified by plung- 
 ing into the water." (c) The learned Grotius has the 
 following, " That baptism used to be performed by im- 
 mersion, and not by pouring, appears both from the 
 proper signification of the word, and the places chosen 
 for the administration of the rite." (d) Acknowledg- 
 ments equally explicit, are to be met with in the works 
 of Vossius, Witsius, Limborch, Vitringa, Venema, 
 Claude, Saurin, Baxter, Dan. Rogers, Burkitt, Poole, 
 Bingham, Picart, and Bower : — of Archbishop Seeker, 
 Archbishop Tillotson, Archbishop Leighton, Bishop 
 Stillingfleet, Bishop Taylor, Bishop Nicholson, Bishop 
 
 (a) Luth. Cat. minor, (b) Christ. Insti. L. 4. c. 15. (e) Pref. 
 to Obed. Christ. Man. 1528. (rf) Apud. Polum. Synop. ad Matt, 
 iii. c. Cv. 
 
6 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 Pearce, Bishop Prettyman, Bishop Hoadley, Bishop 
 Burnett, Bishop Hall, Bishop Davenant, Bossuet, 
 Bishop of Meaux, Dr. Samuel Clarke, Dr. Wall, Dr. 
 Bloomneld, Dr. Wells, Dr. Manton, Dr. Scott, Dr. 
 Whitby, Dr. Barrow, Dr. R. Wetham, Dr. Robert 
 Newton, Dr. John Edwards, Dr. Towerson, and Dr. 
 Macknight, all of whom were Peedo-baptists, and men of 
 sound and extensive erudition. 
 
 That most eminent of Scottish preachers, Dr. Chalmers, 
 of Edinburgh, candidly confesses, that " the original 
 meaning of the word Baptism, is immersion," (a) Dr. 
 Adam Clarke says, "that the Baptism of John was by 
 plunging the body, (after the same manner as the wash- 
 ing of unclean persons was,) seems to appear from those 
 things which are said of him," &C;, (6) and in his com- 
 ment on vi. Romans, 4 v., he observes, "that it is pro- 
 bable the Apostle here alludes to the mode of adminis- 
 tering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put 
 under the water." John Wesley, in his note on the 
 same place makes a similar admission, "Buried with 
 him, alluding to the ancient custom of baptizing by im- 
 mersion.'" We meet with the following passage in 
 his journal ; Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was bap- 
 tized according to the custom of the first church, and the 
 rule of the church of England, by immersion." (c) Dr. 
 Xeander, one of the most illustrious scholars which mod- 
 ern Germany has produced, says, that " the usual form 
 of submersion at Baptism, practiced by the Jewish 
 Christians, was transferred to the Gentile Christians. 
 Indeed, this form was the most suitable to signify that 
 which Christ intended to render an object of contempla- 
 
 (a) Lectures on Epistle to Romans, vol. 2, chap. vi. (b) End 
 of Mark, (c) Extract from Journal from his embarking for 
 Georgia, page 11, edition 2. 
 
II.] OF BAPTISM. 7 
 
 tion by such a symbol — the immersion of the whole 
 man, in the spirit of a new life." (a) We leave the 
 reader to conjecture how these holy and learned men 
 could reconcile their practice of sprinkling with these 
 candid admissions ; our business is with the simple fact, 
 that they grant us all we wish to prove in this chapter; 
 — that baptism is immersion. 
 
 Bapto, the root from which baptizo is formed, has 
 but two meanings ; to immerse, and to dye. The for- 
 mer is the primary, the latter the derived significa- 
 tion. Dyeing was usually performed by the Greeks as 
 it is among us, by dipping. Hence the word came to 
 signify "to dye, by dipping," and in process of time, 
 "to dye generally, and by any mode." But when 
 the word is used in its primary sense, it uniformly means 
 to immerse It should however be remembered, that 
 bapto is never applied to the ordinance of christian 
 baptism, 
 
 Baptizo, the derivative of bapto, has but one meaning; 
 to immerse. It never received the secondary sense to dye. 
 In its literal use, it is a word descriptive of mode, and 
 nothing else. It is frequently employed figura- 
 tively, as is our word immerse ; but its meaning is in 
 every case the same. We are accustomed to use such 
 expressions, as "immersed in wine," — "in care," — "in af- 
 fliction," — "in debt," — "in vice," — "in pleasure;" — but 
 such metaphorical uses of the word immerse, change notits 
 signification ; it still means to immerse and nothing else. 
 The Greek word baptizo is sometimes used in a similar 
 way: thus we meet with such phrases, as "baptized in 
 wine," — "in affliction," — "in vice," — "in debt," — "in 
 pleasure, ' ' — ' 'in the spirit ; ' ' — but in such phrases the word 
 
 (a) History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church 
 by the Apostles, vol. 1, page 187. 
 
8 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 does not depart from its original signification any more than 
 does our word immerse, when similarly applied. It 
 still signifies immersion, and immersion only. 
 
 Baptizo denotes " to immerse in any fluid or 
 penetrable substance." The idea of water is not in the 
 word at all. It is applied to immersion in oil, or blood, 
 or fire, or filth, or earth. It as much refers to a bap- 
 tism which defiles, as one which purifies. The following 
 passage in the Septuagint proves this, " kai e anomia me 
 baptize!;" "and iniquity overwhelms or baptizes me." 
 When iniquity is the baptizer, it cannot be said that 
 baptism is a purification. 
 
 The word does not in itself express any thing but 
 mode ; it does not convey any information upon the 
 manner of the immersion, whether it is performed by 
 one's-self or another person ; nor upon its length, whether 
 it is permanent or transient ; nor upon its intent, whether 
 it is for purposes of purification or defilement; nor 
 upon the substance or fluid, into which the immersion 
 takes place ; we must look to other and independent 
 sources, for information upon these points. "When 
 however no part is particularly mentioned, the word 
 implies the immersion of the whole body. Much has 
 been said upon the peculiar force given to verbs by the 
 termination in zo ; Dr. Carson in his unequalled work 
 on baptism learnedly observes, " that this termination 
 when employed to form a derivative, appears to him 
 to have served some such purpose as the Hebrew causal 
 form, and to denote the making of the action of the 
 verb to be performed." (a) The examples which he 
 gives are the following ; " plouteo, is to be rich, ploutizo, 
 to make rich, deipneo, is to sup, deipnizo, is to cause to 
 sup, or to give a supper." To these I would add the 
 
 (a) Page 20. 
 
Il], OF BAPTISM. 9 
 
 following ; exastheneo r is to grow weak, exasthenizo, is 
 to make weak, dokeo, to be a person of consequence, 
 doxazo, to render glorious, aristao, to dine, aristizo, to 
 cause to dine, or to entertain with a dinner, siteuo, to feed, 
 sitizo, to give food to, to make fat. Hence it would 
 appear, thatbaptizo, in the first instance, meant to cause 
 to dip, or to lay under the immersing substance. It is 
 however applied to all kinds of immersion, whether 
 voluntary, or involuntary, and however effected. 
 
 Now it is quite clear, that a word thus peculiarly 
 expressive of mode, cannot designate three modal acts, 
 so different from each other as immersion, pouring, and 
 sprinkling. If the mode designated by baptizo, be im- 
 mersion, it cannot be pouring, or sprinkling, as well ; 
 unless pouring, and sprinkling, are the same modes of 
 action as immersion ! It is impossible to speak in too 
 strong terms of the absurdity involved in such a suppo- 
 sition ! How can any one modal term describe three 
 acts so essentially different from each other ! If 
 then baptizo means to immerse, it cannot mean to 
 pour, or sprinkle ; and that it does mean to immerse, 
 may be speedily proved. 
 
 That the root bapto, has this signification, will 
 surely not be disputed ; it is used in this sense, in the 
 following places : — (a) 
 
 By Euripides, in his Hecuba : " Take a vessel ancient 
 servant, and having dipped it in the sea, bring it hither." 
 
 By Aristophanes, in his Eirene : " Bring the torch, 
 that I may take and dip it." 
 
 (a) I cheerfully acknowledge that I am indebted for most 
 of these examples, (especially those from the higher Greek 
 classics,) to Dr. Carson's elaborate and unanswerable work on 
 baptism; a production which has immortalised its author, and 
 for which he deserves the hearty thanks of every sincere enquirer 
 after truth. 
 
10 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 By Aristotle, who speaking of a kind of fish, observes, 
 " They cannot bear great changes, as the immersion of 
 them into cold water, even in summer." Refering to 
 the remedy for the bite of a certain kind of snake in 
 Africa, he says, " Of which the remedy is said to be a 
 certain stone, which they take from the sepulchre of a 
 king of ancient times, and having immersed it in wine, 
 drink." He applies the word to the immersion of 
 animals in a pool of Sicily, which had the property of 
 resuscitating them when put into it after suffocation. 
 
 Aratus terms the setting of a constellation, its " dip- 
 ping into the sea." He uses the same figure in describ- 
 ing the setting of the sun, " If the sun dips himself 
 without a cloud, in the western sea." Again he says, 
 " If the crow dips his head into the river." 
 
 Homer applies the word to the dipping of red-hot iron 
 in water, by a smith, to temper it. 
 
 Herodotus applies it to an immersion of the 
 whole body in a river, for the purpose of purification. 
 " The Egyptians consider the swine so polluted a beast, 
 that if any one in passing touch a swine, he will go 
 away and dip himself, with his very garments, going 
 into the river." 
 
 Examples from the classics however need not be mul- 
 tiplied. It may be safely affirmed, that, when bapto 
 is used in its primary sense, it invariably denotes dip- 
 ping ; and it is the primary sense alone, which its deri- 
 vative receives from it. 
 
 Baptizo, the derivative of bapto, and the word which 
 is invariably applied in holy writ to Christian baptism, 
 is never used in the classics or in the scriptures, in 
 more than the one sense of immersion. 
 
 It is applied by Polybius, vol. iii. p. 311, to soldiers 
 passing through water, baptized, or immersed up to the 
 breast. Strabo, also applies the word to Alexander's 
 
II.] OF BAPTISM. 11 
 
 soldiers " marching a whole day through the tide, 
 between the mountain Climax, and the sea, baptized 
 or immersed up to the middle." Lib. xiv. p. 982. 
 Diodorus Siculus, describing an overflowing of water, 
 says, " many of the land animals, baptized or immersed 
 in the river, perish." 
 
 The sinner is represented by Porphyry, (p. 282.) 
 as baptized or immersed up to his head in Styx, a 
 celebrated river in hell. 
 
 Heraclides Ponticus, applies the word to the plunging 
 of red hot iron in water, for the purpose of cooling it. 
 
 Plutarch uses it, to describe an immersion in the 
 sea. 
 
 Josephus, a learned Jew, who wrote in the Greek 
 language in the apostolic age, repeatedly uses the 
 word, and invariably in the sense of immersion. He 
 employs it several times to represent the immersion of 
 a sinking ship ; he uses it in describing the death of 
 Simon by his own hand, in the following way, " he 
 baptized or plunged his sword up to the hilt in his own 
 bowels." In relating the murder of Aristobulus, by 
 command of Herod, he says, the men "pressing him 
 down always as he was swimming, and baptizing or 
 immersing him as in sport, they did not give over until 
 they entirely drowned him." 
 
 Hippocrates, the celebrated physician of antiquity, 
 always uses it in the same sense. " Baptize oi dip it 
 (the blister) again in breast milk and Egyptian oint- 
 ment." p. 254. " He breathed as persons breathe after 
 being baptized or immersed." p. 340. 
 
 Let the reader cast his eye over these passages, and 
 tell me whether they do not incontrovertibly prove that 
 baptizo, signifies to immerse. Can he resist the con- 
 viction which they must force upon his mind ? They 
 are however, but a scantling of the proofs which may 
 
12 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 be adduced. Dr. Carson has brought forward a host, 
 which must, we think, put obstinacy itself to the blush, 
 and silence the most violent of our opponents. 
 
 But it has been said, why might not baptizo have a 
 secondary signification, as bapto, the root, unquestion- 
 ably had? To this we answer; baptizo might have 
 received a secondary meaning, in common with many 
 other words ; but, the simple fact is, that it did not 
 receive any such addition to its signification. While 
 there was nothing to hinder it from enlarging its meaning, 
 the truth is, that it did not do so. It had but one signifi- 
 cation when the scriptures were written, and that was 
 to immerse. Dr. Carson has defied the whole literary 
 world to prove the existence of a secondary meaning 
 to baptizo, and bold must that man be who will venture 
 to accept the challenge. 
 
 We would ask our Psedo-baptist brethren one question, 
 suppose they were translating a passage out of the 
 New Testament, the Septuagint, or any classical writer, 
 in which the word baptizo occurs, would they render 
 this disputed term, sprinkle ; and would they stake 
 their literary reputation, upon the propriety of such a 
 rendering ? Or if they were composing in Greek, and 
 wished to express the act of sprinkling, would they 
 select the term baptizo ? We firmly believe that they 
 would be more likely to use baptizo, to express the 
 act of immersion ! Of one thing, we are sure, that they 
 could not find a word in the whole compass of Greek 
 literature, that would more forcibly or elegantly con- 
 vey the idea ! 
 
 The Greek is not a meagre or ambiguous language ; 
 it is characteristic for its fulness and precision ; it has 
 distinct words which express most accurately the several 
 acts of pouring, sprinkling, immersion, washing, and 
 purification. The circumstances of the language ir 
 
II.] OF BAPTISM. IS 
 
 which the New Testament was inspired, therefore afford 
 no excuse for ambiguity. There was no necessity for 
 the slightest obscurity. If the Holy Spirit had meant 
 to convey the idea of pouring, why did he not employ 
 the word cheo, or leibo ? or if he had intended the ordi- 
 nance to be by sprinkling, why did he not use the term 
 raino, or rantizo ? Why select a word, the meaning of 
 which is immersion, if he had intended to convey the 
 idea of sprinkling or pouring, when there were words in 
 the language which would have most precisely and 
 forcibly expressed either of those acts ? Why, in short, 
 say immerse, if he meant sprinkle or pour? If he 
 desired to convey the idea of a purification, without 
 respect to mode ; and if he intended to leave us to our own 
 fancy in the selection of the mode, why did he not use 
 hatharizo ? Would the merest tyro in Greek literature 
 select baptizo in preference to hathatizo, to express a 
 purification irrespectively of its mode ? Would President 
 Beecher himself do so ? Would he have been under- 
 stood in the Apostolic age, if he had done so ? And 
 will any sincere believer in the inspiration of the Bible, 
 charge the blessed Spirit with being the wilful author 
 of such unnecessary ambiguity, in making known to us 
 the mind and will of God ? — will any christian accuse 
 the Spirit of darkening thus gratuitously those lively 
 oracles which are intended to guide us in the most mo- 
 mentous affairs, and which should consequently be so 
 clear and perspicuous, that he who runneth may read ? 
 can it be supposed, that the Spirit of love has purposely 
 thrown a veil of obscurity over the light of his own 
 revelation and employed terms to mislead us? These 
 however, are the charges which are virtually brought 
 against the blessed Spirit, by all who assert that he 
 used the term baptizo, to convey the idea of pouring or 
 sprinkling or purification I 
 
 c 
 
14 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 The Greek, though it has undergone considerable 
 alterations, is still a living language. The changes 
 which it has passed through are much less in extent 
 and importance than those to which the Latin has been 
 subject. The feeble and effeminate Italian of the pre- 
 sent day is but little like the nervous and emphatic 
 Latin of ancient Rome ; but the living, in many respects 
 closely resembles the ancient Greek. The term bap- 
 tizo is still current among the inhabitants of Greece, 
 and the meaning which they give to it is immersion. — 
 They are amazed at our disputes about a point which 
 is to them so clear. More than once have they been 
 appealed to, and their unvarying and unhesitating testi- 
 mony has been in our favour. And surely they are the 
 best judges of their own native tongue ! 
 
 Let me entreat the reader seriously to ponder the 
 testimony of a Greek monk, in a curious work of his 
 upon the subject of Baptism, some extracts from which 
 appeared in the Baptist Magazine for September, 1842. 
 This singular book is written in modern Greek, and 
 shews no mercy to the poor Papists and others who 
 practise pouring or sprinkling instead of immersion. 
 The Greek in which it is written, is substantially the 
 same as that of the New Testament. Whatever asperity 
 there may be in the spirit of the writer ; and how- 
 ever erroneous may be his theology, he is clearly 
 one of the best witnesses that can be called in to give 
 evidence upon the meaning of a word in his native 
 tongue. 
 
 The title of the book is as follows ; — " A book called 
 Light of those in Darkness ; in which are contained 
 Testimonies and Proofs of the Divine Fathers' that only 
 •he Baptism given from God to the Apostles cleanses 
 ?ins ; but the filthy and salted sprinkling and pouring, 
 
It.] OF BAPTISM. 15 
 
 satanically devised by the Latins, (a) not only do not 
 cleanse, but even defile the sprinkled, as foreign from 
 the evangelical and apostolical tradition. Composed bv 
 a certain religious Monk, a genuine son of the Eastern 
 Church, for the conversion of the heretical Latins, and 
 the benefit of orthodox christians ; and now first printed 
 1757." The following passages occur in this book : — 
 " The Holy Gospel says baptizing, these vile magi- 
 cians (the Latins) must of necessity say rhantizing, 
 sprinkling and pouring as they do. Besides, what 
 agreement has baptizing with sprinkling and pouring ? 
 none at all surely." p. 12. " Sprinkling and pouring 
 is not a divine fruit, but of Popish origin, and a novel 
 practice, and contrary to the Gospel term, and to the 
 declarations of Apostles and Councils." p. 12. "And 
 again, the word baptism will not express any tiling else 
 but dipping." p. 49. "The Latin does not go down 
 into the water, how indeed does he try to come up." 
 p. 49. " And besides, as we have said, the word bap- 
 tism means dipping, and its being performed according 
 to the injunction of the church, signifleth the death of 
 the Lord, according to Damascenus ; " For Baptism 
 manifests the death of the Lord." But what I pray, 
 does sprinkling signify 1 ye yourselves do not know." 
 Perhaps, as I suppose, it signifies that fire which con- 
 sumed Sodom, because likewise will sprinkling consume 
 both them that teach and defend it." p. 29. " I think 
 that not one doubt any longer remains, that such things 
 whether they be sprinklings, or pourings around, or 
 pourings upon, are not called baptism, but impious and 
 unlawful deeds." p. 35. — Such are the sentiments of 
 the modern Greeks upon the subject ! Of course we 
 
 (a) Alluding to the ceremonies which the Papists practise at 
 Baptism. 
 
1(1 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. [CHAP. II.] 
 
 dn not defend the temper or the theology of the above 
 extracts ; we simply produce them, to prove that the 
 Greeks themselves unhesitatingly affirm, that baptism 
 is immersion, and immersion only ; and to such testi- 
 mony it will not do to turn a deaf ear. Who can be 
 more competent than they to give an opinion in such a 
 case ? 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURAL USE OF THE TERM. 
 
 We have not assigned a distinct chapter to the con- 
 sideration of the scriptural acceptation of the term Bap- 
 tism, because there is really any necessity for so doing ; 
 hut solely with a view to meet the modern argument, 
 that the term when applied to christian baptism, has a 
 peculiar and sacramental meaning, which can be ascer- 
 tained, not by the universal usage of the language, and 
 the ordinary rules of philological criticism, but solely 
 by a reference to the probabilities of the case ! The 
 meaning ordinarily assigned to the term by the abet- 
 tors of this fantastic theory, is " purification," or 
 11 consecration." 
 
 Such a mode as this of dealing with the word of God 
 is fraught with imminent peril : it opens a door to the 
 wildest fanaticism, and permits men to make the sacred 
 text a nose of wax, which each critic according to his 
 predilections, may twist and turn into any shape he 
 pleases. The principle if carried out would envelope 
 the whole revelation of God's mercy, in a cloud of im- 
 penetrable obscurity : the gospel trumpet would give 
 a fatally uncertain sound, and who then should prepare 
 himself for the battle ? One cannot but shudder at the 
 
18 THE MODE [ciIAr. 
 
 consequences which would ensue if this mode of dealing 
 with the sacred oracles were universally acted upon : — 
 our joy and peace in believing would be destroyed ; 
 we could never attain either the full assurance of under- 
 standing or faith ; uncertainty would characterize all 
 our expectations ; and the calm settled confidence of 
 the saint in the infallibility of the foundations of his 
 hope would be destroyed ! " If the foundations be 
 destroyed," or even moved, " what shall the righteous 
 do ?" Then indeed, might the Romanist insultingly 
 ask us, how can you explain so ambiguous a book as 
 the bible, without the traditions of the church ? 
 
 Such a method of interpretation is palpably opposed 
 to the simplicity of the scriptures. The Holy Spirit 
 has given us no intimation that he uses words in any 
 other than their ordinary sense ! he has furnished us 
 with no glossary of theological terms ; on the contrary, 
 he assures us that his revelation is so clear, that " he 
 who runneth may read," and " the way-faring man 
 though a fool shall not err therein." If the Spirit had 
 not used words in their ordinary acceptation, how could 
 he have been understood? If lie had employed words 
 in a new and unknown sense ; and had not stated that 
 fact, and given the new sense, we might as well have 
 been without the bible ! This theory would match in 
 extravagance any of the wildest fancies of the ancient 
 mystics ! («) 
 
 Unquestionably one of the designs of baptism is 
 public consecration to the service of God. The immer- 
 sion of the believer in water upon a profession of his 
 faith, is the appointed mode of publicly dedicating him- 
 
 (r/) This chr.] yvas written before I was privileged to see Dr. 
 Carson's conclu efutation of President Beechers theory. I 
 
 have pursued m i line of thought upon the subject. 
 
III.] OF BAPTISM. 19 
 
 self to the adorable Trinity. In his immersion he is 
 consecrated. But this fact is not to be gathered from 
 the meaning of the term baptism ; for that still retains 
 its literal and ordinary acceptation, but from other pas- 
 sages of scripture in which the signification and inten- 
 tion of the act, when applied to believers upon a profes- 
 sion of their faith, are fully explained. The argument 
 in favour of this theory founded upon the novel sense, 
 in which it is asserted the scriptures use other terms, 
 such as faith, and justification, deserves a moments 
 notice, as it wears some appearance of speciousness. 
 But I assert, that the scriptures use both these words 
 in their ordinary acceptation, and in no other. The 
 term " pistis," signifies simply belief; and " dikaioma" 
 a pronouncing just ; and are not these the meanings 
 which they retain in the New Testament ? The essence 
 of the act of faith, is belief; and of justification, a pro- 
 nouncing just. It is true that the faith of God's elect 
 has some peculiar properties; and is attended with ex- 
 traordinary concomitants and results ; but these are not 
 axpressed by the term faith, but are described at length 
 in other parts of scripture. Hence we read, that the 
 faith of God's elect " is the gift of God ;" and " a fruit 
 of the Spirit ; that it, "purifies the heart ;" " overcomes 
 the world;" and "works by love." But the meaning 
 of the term " pistis" is not disturbed by these facts; 
 its signification is still neither more or less than 
 belief. 
 
 It is equally clear that the justification of the gospel 
 has some peculiarities : which however do not at all 
 affect the meaning of the original words dikaioma, and 
 dikaiosis. They still express the idea of pronouncing a 
 man just. We gather the peculiarities of gospel justi- 
 fication from other and independent sources. 
 
 We are expressly informed that we are justified, or 
 
20 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 pronounced just, "freely;" "by God's grace;" "not 
 through our own works ;" but through the redemption 
 that is in Christ Jesus." But these peculiarities do not 
 destroy the essential signification of justification, which 
 is still a pronouncing just. 
 
 And if the act of immersion when applied to believers, 
 on a profession of their faith, be peculiar in its attendant 
 circumstances, and in its signification, this changes 
 not the nature of the act itself. The word baptizo does 
 not express these peculiarities ; nor is its obvious mean- 
 ing in the smallest degree changed. We have other 
 sources from which to gather that immersion is the mode 
 of consecrating believers publicly to Christ. The scrip- 
 tures tell us, that this immersion is to be administered 
 solely to believers ; and in the name of the Trinity ; 
 that in it, the convert publicly "puts on Christ;" "is 
 buried with Christ; and " rises to newness of life;" 
 that it is emblematic of the Redeemer's immersion in 
 the waves and billows of affliction ; and expressive of 
 our own faith, in the certainty of the resurrection of the 
 dead. But these facts are to be gleaned, not from any 
 human notions of the probabilities of the case ; but from 
 the explicit testimony of revelation. The essence of 
 christian baptism, so far as the physical act is concerned, 
 is still immersion ; an d this is all that the word in itself con- 
 veys, or is intended to convey ! For the intent and 
 signification of the act, we must search the sacred ora- 
 cles, which contain all the information upon those points 
 that can be desired. 
 
 From the examination of this novel method of dark- 
 ening the counsel of God, we turn to those passages of 
 scripture in which the administration of the ordinance 
 is described. 
 
 " Then went out to John all the land of Judea, and 
 they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized by him, in 
 
III.] OF BAPTISM. 21 
 
 the river Jordan, confessing their sins." (<z) Here we 
 may well enquire, how our Paedo-baptist brethren can 
 explain the conduct of John, and the people of Judea, 
 unless they admit that baptism is immersion. Why 
 should a river be resorted to as a place for sprinkling a 
 few drops of water on the face ? and why did John lead 
 the people into the river, if he only intended to sprinkle 
 them ? If he immersed them the whole scene is natural 
 enough ; but on the sprinkling theory, it was a mere 
 farce. In this place the preposition " en" which is 
 almost invariably used after the term baptize, is em- 
 ployed and is very properly translated in. It would 
 have been absurd to have said, " John baptized witji the 
 river Jordan," and therefore our translators have been 
 obliged to render it " in the river Jordan." It cannot 
 be supposed that John lifted up " the river Jordan," and 
 applied it to the candidate ; the baptized person was 
 applied to the river, not the river to him. (b) 
 
 11 Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was bap- 
 tized of John, in (or into) Jordan. And Jesus when he 
 was baptized, went up straightway out of the wa- 
 ter." (c) In this passage the preposition eis, which 
 literally signifies into, is used after baptize ISo lan- 
 guage could more emphatically describe an immersion 
 in or into water, than that here employed. In the work 
 of the Greek Monk, from which 1 quoted in the loth, 
 page of this book ; the preposition eis is used where he 
 wishes most emphatically to express a descent, not to, 
 but into the water. " The Latin does not go down into 
 (eis) the water." p. 15. In fact no one who looks at 
 
 (a) i. Mark, 5. (b) Mr. Carson has demonstrated that the pre- 
 position en, never signifies at, and that when used with baptizo, it 
 should always be rendered in. See his work pages 337, 338, 339. 
 (c) i. Mark, 9, 10. 
 
22 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 the original of i. Mark 9, 10, with an unprejudiced mind 
 can deny that our Redeemer was immersed in or into 
 Jordan. 
 
 Dr. Macknight, though a Paedo-baptist, well observes, 
 upon this passage, that " Jesus submitted to be bap- 
 tized, that is buried under the water by John, and to be 
 raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future death 
 and resurrection." (a) And Bishop Taylor candidly 
 admits, that " The custom of the ancient churches was 
 not sprinkling, but immersion, in pursuance of the sense 
 of the word in the commandment, and the example of 
 our blessed Saviour!" (b) 
 
 '' John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because 
 there was much water there." (c) If John sprinkled 
 he only required a little water ; why then did he select 
 a place for baptizing, because there was much water 
 there." Admit however that baptism is immersion, 
 and we can readily account for his choice. 
 
 " As Philip and the Eunuch went on their way, they 
 came to a certain water. And they went both down 
 into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch and he bap- 
 tized him ; and they came up out of the water." (d) 
 In this account there are several things deserving of our 
 attention. Why did Philip and the Eunuch wait until 
 they came to this pool of water, before the latter was 
 baptized ; if sprinkling or pouring was the mode of ad- 
 ministration ? They were travelling in a desert, and 
 had abundance of water at hand in skin bags ; and Phi- 
 lip could have as easily administered the ordinance in 
 the chariot, as any where else. He could have taken 
 one of the skins of water and emptied its contents on the 
 
 (a) Expos. Epist. note on Rom. vi. c. 4. v. (b) Paedo. Bap. 
 Exam. Ducta Dubitant. vi. 3. ix. (c) iii. John, 23. (d) viii. 
 Acts, 38. 
 
III.] OF BAPTISM. 23 
 
 head of the Eunuch, or sprinkled a little water in his face, 
 without troubling him to move ; much less was there 
 any necessity for them both to go down into the water. 
 Substitute the word sprinkle for baptize, and then see 
 what sense can be made of the passage. " And they 
 went both down into the water, both Philip and the 
 Eunuch, and he sprinkled him ; and they came both tip 
 out of the water.'' But use the word immerse, and 
 every thing becomes perfectly intelligible. " And they 
 went both down into the water, and he immersed him : 
 and they came up out of the water." The criticism 
 upon this passage, which is intended to prove that they 
 only went to the water, and came from the water, has 
 been so often and so successfully refuted, that it scarcely 
 deserves notice. We would simply ask our Pcedo-bap- 
 tist brethren; supposing they wished to describe a des- 
 cent into water, for the purpose of immersion ; and an 
 ascent out of water after immersion ; what more em- 
 phatic particles and general construction could they use, 
 than those which are here em ployed? The original reads as 
 follows; — katebesan amphoteroi eis to hudor, kai ebapti- 
 sen auton; hote de anebesan ek, tou hudatos. The preposi- 
 tion eis is used to express their going into, and ek to 
 describe their coming out of the water; and two more 
 emphatic and conclusive terms could not have been 
 employed. The former corresponds as we have pre- 
 viously said, with our particle into; and the latter in- 
 variably signifies out of. (a) If a descent into water, 
 immersion in water, and a subsequent ascent out of 
 water, be not meant by these words, then there is no 
 possibility of expressing them in the Greek language ! 
 
 (a) D. Carson proves to a demonstration that ek never means 
 from, thousrh sometimes in a free translation it is so rendered. 
 L3i — 140. 
 
24 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 There are many places in the New Testament where 
 the term bapto is translated and not transferred, and in 
 all such cases, it is rendered immerse or dip. Where 
 a faithful translation of the term could he productive of 
 no great inconvenience, we always have the word dip. 
 Let the reader seriously consider the following cases : — 
 
 "He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the 
 same shall betray me." (a) 
 
 " It is one of the twelve that dippeth with me in the 
 dish." (6) 
 
 "Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, 
 when I have dipped it : and when he had dipped the 
 sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot." (c) 
 
 "Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger 
 in water, and cool my tongue. "(d) 
 
 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in 
 blood." (e) 
 
 In all these instances the word in the original trans- 
 lated dip, is BAPTO. 
 
 There are several cases in the Greek Septuagint ver- 
 sion of the Old Testament, in which bapto, and in some 
 instances baptizo, are used to express the act of immer- 
 sion. We specify the following instances.* 
 
 "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in 
 the blood that is in the basin." (/) 
 
 " And the Priest shall dip his finger in the blood, 
 and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the 
 Lord." (<?) 
 
 (a) xxvi. Matt. 23 (b) xiv. Mark 20. (c) xiii. John 26. (d) 
 xvi. Luke 24. (e) xix. Rev. 13. (/) xii. Exod. 22. (g) iv. Lev. G. 
 
 * Of course we do not refer to the Septuagint version because 
 we regard it as inspired, but simply because it is composed in 
 Hebraistic Greek, and is a valuable help in determining the sense 
 in which words are used in the New Testament. 
 
III.] OF BAPTISM. 25 
 
 The same repeated.; "And the Priest shall dip his 
 finger in the blood, and" &c. (a) 
 
 " And the Priest shall dip his right finger in the oil 
 that is in the left hand." (b) 
 
 " He shall dip them, and the living bird, in the blood 
 of the bird that was killed, (c) 
 
 " He shall dip them in the blood of the slain bird, (d) 
 
 " And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it 
 in the water." (e) 
 
 " Let him dip his foot in oil." (/) 
 
 '• He dipped his finger in the blood." (g) 
 
 " The feet of the Priests that bare the ark were dip- 
 ped in the brim of the water ; for Jordan overfloweth 
 his banks all the time of harvest." Qi) 
 
 " Dip thy morsel in vinegar." (i) 
 
 " That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine 
 enemies." (j) 
 
 " Jonathan dipped the rod in an honey comb. (£) 
 
 " He took a thick cloth and dipped it in water." (I) 
 
 " Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine 
 own clothes shall abhor me." (rri) 
 
 In each of these examples, the word in the Septua- 
 gint corresponding with dip, or plunge, is bapto. 
 
 There is another passage in the Septuagint whicli 
 illustrates with peculiar clearness the meaning of the 
 term bapto. 
 
 " And the Priest shall take some of the log of oil 
 and pour it into the palm of his hand ; and the priest 
 shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left 
 
 (a) iv. Lev. 17. (b) xiv. Lev. 16. (c) xiv. Lev. 6. (d) xiv. 
 Lev. 51. (e) xix. Numb. 18. (/) xxxiii. Dent. 24. (g) ix. 
 Lev. 9. (h) iii. Joshua 15. (i) ii. Ruth 14. (j) Ixviii. Psa. 23. 
 (&) i. Sam. xiv. c. 27. v. (/) ii. Kings viii. c. 15. v. (??/) ix. 
 Job. 31. 
 
26 THE MODE L CHAP. 
 
 hand ; and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven 
 times before the Lord." (a) The reader is requested 
 to observe the great importance of this passage. • 
 Here were the three distinct acts of pouring, dipping, 
 and sprinkling, to be most accurately distinguished 
 from each other. Of course the Seventy would select 
 that word in each case, which would most emphatically 
 express the act to be described, and most effectually 
 distinguish it from the other two acts. And what 
 word think you, dear reader, do they use to express the 
 act of dipping, as distinguished from pouring, and 
 sprinkling? No other than bapto! Who then will 
 venture to assert, that bapto means either dipping, 
 jjouring, or sprinkling ? 
 
 If bapto means either pouring, sprinkling, or dip- 
 ping, indifferently, why is that term here selected, as 
 of all others the most adapted to distinguish the act of 
 dipping, from both pouring, and sprinkling? 
 
 In the following passages the word baptizo, is used ; 
 
 "Then went he down, and dipped, or baptized him- 
 self seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of 
 the man of God." (b) 
 
 In this passage the same word and construction are 
 employed as are used to descibe christian baptism. 
 
 (a) xiv. Lev. 15, 16. (/;) ii. Kings v. c. 14. v. 
 
 * The author is bound to state in justice to himself that the 
 examples given in this chapter from the New Testament and the 
 Septuagint, are the results of his own reading. He finds they are all 
 specified in Dr. Carson's comprehensive work, but he had collected 
 them together by his own labour before the appearance of that 
 masterly production. Dr. C's. first book on Baptism, he regrets to 
 say, he never saw. This statement will he hopes shield him from 
 the charge of borrowing without acknowledgment. He can honestly 
 say these examples are his own. 
 
III.] OF BAPTISM. 27 
 
 The word expressing the act of dipping, is not bapto, 
 but baptizo ; " ebaptisato en to, Iordane." The cor- 
 responding word in the Hebrew is Taval, which has 
 but one meaning, " to dip or immerse." (a) And in 
 rendering this word into Greek, the Seventy could rind 
 no term that would more forcibly express its meaning, 
 than baptizo ! It can be but effrontery to deny, in the 
 face of this fact, that baptism is immersion ! 
 
 " Iniquity baptizes or overwhelms me." (b) I do 
 not pretend that anomia me baptizei, is a correct transla- 
 tion of the Hebrew original. No one can be even 
 slightly acquainted with the Septuagint, without being 
 convinced that it gives in many cases, a mere paraphrase, 
 and in some others, an incorrect translation of the ori- 
 ginal. I refer to it because it was written by Jews, 
 and in Hebraistic Greek, and exactly corresponds in 
 its style, &c, with the New Testament. The Septuagint 
 is only an uninspired translation of the Old Testament ; 
 but it explains in many instances, the phrases and idioms 
 of the New Testament. In the above passage it uses 
 baptizo to express an overwhelming or immersion. 
 
 " Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they 
 should not stay her (Judith) ; then she abode in the 
 camp three days, and went out in the night into the 
 valley of Bethulia, and baptized, or immersed herself, 
 in a fountain of water by the camp." (c) This is a pas- 
 sage from the Apocrypha, but it affords us satisfactory 
 evidence of the sense in which the Hebraistic Greek 
 uses the term baptizo. In addition to the testimony 
 of the word employed to denote the act of immersion, 
 we are informed that after Judithhad dipped, she ascended, 
 or as our translation has it, came out. How she could 
 have come out of the fountain, if she had not previously 
 
 («) See the Lexicon of Gesenius. (b) xxi. Isai. 4. (c)xii. Judith 7. 
 
28 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 been in it, I cannot understand. And why she should go 
 into it, if she did not intend to immerse the whole per- 
 son is equally inexplicable. She had every opportu- 
 nity of doing so with perfect security from interrup- 
 tion. The guards were forbidden to follow or annoy 
 her ; she was screened from observation by the dark- 
 ness of night ; and was in the bottom of a secluded 
 valley. 
 
 " He that w r asheth (baptizes, or immerses,) himself 
 after touching a dead body ; if he touch it again, what 
 availeth his washing." (a) The allusion in this pas- 
 sage is to the washing which completed the purification 
 of the person who had rendered himself unclean by 
 touching a dead body. At the close of his seven days 
 of uncleanness he was " to purify himself, and wash his 
 clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be clean at even." 
 (b) The writer in this passage enquires ; — if after the com- 
 pletion of his purification, a man should again touch a 
 dead body, would he not have the whole process to 
 go over again ? The final bathing of the person is men- 
 tioned, because it was the concluding ceremony of the 
 whole ordeal, and baptizo is the word by which that 
 act is here expressed. 
 
 We may sum up the whole of the argument of this 
 chapter, in the following striking and incontestable facts. 
 The word " dip," as we have shewn, occurs six times 
 in our translation of the New Testament, and in every 
 case the original word is " bapto !" The words bapto, 
 and baptizo, though they occur repeatedly in the Scrip- 
 tures, are not in a solitary instance rendered pour, or 
 sprinkle ! The words pour, and sprinkle, are fre- 
 quently met with in our translation, yet there is not a 
 
 (o) xxxi. Sirach 25. (b) xix. Numbers 19 
 
III.] OF BAPTISM. 29 
 
 case in which the original is either bapto, or bap- 
 tizo. In every instance in which the term baptism 
 occurs, it will make good sense if you translate it im- 
 mersion ; but the substitution of pouring, or sprink- 
 ling, will in most cases render the passage unin- 
 telligible. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICATION OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The preceding arguments will derive additional force 
 from a consideration of the significancy of the act of 
 baptism, when applied to believers upon a profession of 
 their faith. We may fairly infer, that baptism is im- 
 mersion, and not pouring, or sprinkling; if we find that 
 the emblematic significancy of the rite absolutely re- 
 quires the former mode of administration. When God 
 condescends to illustrate important truths by means of 
 external rites, he always wisely adapts the means to 
 the end, and makes the type as strikingly illustrative 
 as possible of the truth which it is intended to exhibit. 
 How fully are these remarks illustrated, in the breaking 
 and eating of bread, and the pouring out and drinking of 
 wine at the Lord's Supper. The breaking of the bread 
 beautifully sets forth the bruising and mangling of 
 the Redeemer's body ; the eating of the broken bread, 
 illustrates our participation in, and spiritual nourish- 
 ment by the death and sacrifice of Christ : — the pour- 
 ing out of the wine represents the shedding of lmman- 
 uel's blood, and the drinking of the wine sets forth our 
 reception of the atonement, and the exhilirating joy and 
 
[CHAP. IV.] THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 31 
 
 gladness with which faith in the blood of Jesus is ac- 
 companied. 
 
 The ordinance of Baptism is significant of things 
 which require immersion, in order to their adum- 
 bration. 
 
 I. It is emblematic of the believer s burial with Christ, 
 and Jtis resurrection to a newness of life. "We are bu- 
 ried with him by baptism into death ; that, like as 
 Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the 
 Father, even so we also should walk in newness of 
 life." (a) " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also 
 ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation 
 of God, who hath raised him from the dead." (b) Bap- 
 tism sets forth the Redeemer's burial and resurrection ; 
 and the believer's burial and resurrection with him. 
 The question with which we are concerned is this ; — 
 is not immersion the mode of baptism, with which 
 alone these figures agree. We admit that the believer's 
 burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism are only 
 symbolical ; but we have still a right to enquire which 
 mode of baptism best agrees with the figure ? There would 
 be no agreement between the sign and the thing signi- 
 fled, if the mode of baptism were sprinkling or pouring ; 
 for how can either of these modes fitly represent a 
 burial and resurrection ? When however the believer is 
 immersed under water, and raised up again ; the Re- 
 deemer's burial and resurrection, and the spiritual 
 burial and resurrection of every true believer, are beau- 
 tifully typified. The literal burial of the convert in the 
 liquid grave of baptism, and his subsequent resurrection 
 therefrom, appropriately symbolize the spiritual burial 
 and resurrection which the rite is intended to exhibit. 
 Accordingly some of the most eminent of the Paedo- 
 
 (a) vi. Rom. 4. (6) ii. Colos. 12. 
 
32 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 baptists have admitted that these passages clearly prove 
 that baptism was anciently administered in nearly every 
 case by immersion ; — and among these, we may mention 
 the names of John Wesley, (a) George Whitefield, (b) 
 Dr. Adam Clarke, (c) Archbishop Seeker, (d) Archbishop 
 Tillotson, (e) Bishop Hoadley, (/) Bishop Hall, (g) 
 Bishop Davenant, (/?) Dr. Scott, (i) Dr. Whitby, (j) 
 Dr. Bloomfield, (&) Dr. Wells, (I) Dr. Manton, (m) 
 Dr. Doddridge, («) Saurin, (o) Burkitt, (p) the As- 
 sembly of Divines, (q) Bingham, (r) and the Edin- 
 burgh Presbyterian Reviewers, (s) These great and 
 learned Paedo-baptists unhesitatingly confess that in the 
 two passages now under consideration, " there is an 
 indisputable allusion to the ancient manner of bapti- 
 zing by immersion ;" and in so doing they have set an 
 example of candour which is deserving of the imitation 
 of some modern writers, who have endeavoured by their 
 feeble and attenuated criticisms to explain away these 
 unambiguous and forcible testimonies to the propriety 
 of our practice. * 
 
 (a) Note on vi. Rom. 4. (b) Eighteen Serm. p. 297. (c) Note 
 on vi. Rom. 4. (d) Lectures on Cate. L. 35. (e) Works Vol. i. 
 Serrn. vii. p. 179. (/) Works Vol. iii. p. 896. (g) Hard Texts on 
 ii. Colos. 12 edition, 1633. (h) Expo. ii. Colos. 12. (i) Works 
 Vol. i. 446. edition 1718. (,;') Note on vi. Rom. 4. (/c) Notes on 
 Greek Test, in loco. (/) On vi. Rom. 4. (m) Sermon on vi. Rom. 
 4. («) Fain. Ex. on vi. Rom. 4. (o) Sermon Vol. 3. p. 171. 
 (p) Expos, on vi. Rom. 4. (<?) Annot. on iii. Matt. 6. (r) Orig. 
 Eccle. vi., xi., ch. 11. (s) Rev. Vol. i. p. 531. 
 
 * If the reader would like to see Mr. Ewing's ridiculous " em- 
 balming" theory completely cut to pieces, he has only to turn to Dr. 
 Carson's work, page 146 — 154 ; Mr Ewing's learned and laborious 
 attempt to prove that " burial in scripture is not burial, but a wash- 
 ing, or embalming the dead," is there without mercy, torn limb 
 from limb. 
 
IV.] OF BAPTISM. 33 
 
 1 1 . Baptism is symbolical of the Redeemer's sufferings . 
 " Jesus said, I have a baptism to be baptized with, and 
 how am I straitened until it be accomplished." (a) 
 Unquestionably the Redeemer here refers to his ap- 
 proaching sufferings; and the point which we have 
 now to consider is, did his sufferings most resemble a 
 sprinkling, pouring, or immersion ? 
 
 We unhesitatingly answer, an immersion. 
 
 "We suppose that no one will venture to affirm that 
 sprinkling will afford us a fit representation of the 
 tremendous sorrows of our glorious Redeemer ; we are 
 therefore left to choose between pouring and immersion : 
 and of these we contend that the far more significant is 
 the latter. Our Redeemer's sufferings can only be ade- 
 quately represented by an immersion of the whole bod}-. 
 Pouring water upon the head but feebly symbolizes 
 sorrows like his. " Is it nothing to you all ye that 
 pass by ? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like 
 unto his sorrow." 
 
 The Psalmist David, on an occasion of great affliction, 
 likens his sufferings to an immersion ; " Deep calleth 
 unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts ; all thy 
 waves and thy billows are gone over me." (b) The 
 69th Psalm is evidently a prophetic representation of 
 the Redeemer's sufferings, as the reader will discover 
 by consulting the 9th and 21st verses, both of which 
 are quoted and applied to Christ in the New Testament. 
 In the 2d verse of this Psalm, the Saviour's baptism in 
 blood and anguish is beautifully and touchingly des- 
 cribed. " I sink in deep mire, where there is no stand- 
 ing ; I am come into deep water, where the floods over- 
 
 («) xii; Luke 50. See also xx. Matt. 22, 23. and x. Mark 33. 
 (6) xlii Psalm 7. 
 
34 THE MODE OF BAPTISM. [cHAP. IV.] 
 
 flow me." Hence it is evident that the Saviour's 
 baptism in suffering was an immersion. 
 
 Such a mode of expression is justified by the circum- 
 stances of the case ; and by all the usages of language. 
 Are we not familiarized with such phrases as these ; 
 " immersed in sorrow ;" " overwhelmed with anguish," 
 &c. And in what case that can be conceived of, may 
 these modes of expression be used with so much force 
 and beauty, as in describing the amazing and unparal- 
 leled agonies of the Son of God ? If he were not " im- 
 mersed in sorrow, and overwhelmed with anguish," who 
 ever was ? 
 
 The force of this argument is not at all lessened by 
 the fact that the inferior sufferings of the sons of Zebe- 
 dee at their martyrdom, are also likened to a baptism or 
 immersion ; (a) since as we have already shewn, it is 
 usual to employ this figure in describing any extraor- 
 dinary affliction. We therefore contend that the pro- 
 per way of reading this passage, is " I have an immer- 
 sion in which to be immersed, and how am I straitened 
 until it be accomplished." 
 
 Such metaphorical modes of speech are common in 
 the Holy Scriptures. "All the night make I my bed 
 to swim,'" says David, (b) But no one would venture 
 to assign a new meaning to " swim," because of such 
 an application of the term ; and it is equally absurd to 
 give baptizo an additional signification, because it is 
 metaphorically used to denote an immersion in suffering. 
 
 (o) xx. Matt. 23. (b) vi. Psalm 6. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 
 
 We think enough has been said to prove that the only 
 primitive mode of baptism was immersion, Dr. Chal- 
 mers himself says, "We doubt not that the prevalent 
 style of administration in the Apostles days, was by 
 actually submerging the whole body under water." (a) 
 
 And Richard Baxter confesses, that " Baptism then 
 (in the primitive times) was by washing the whole 
 body." (b) 
 
 But it may not be uninteresting to the reader if we 
 give a brief compendium of the testimony of ecclesias- 
 tical history, upon the subject now under discussion. 
 
 All credible historians have unanimously admitted 
 that immersion was the primitive mode of baptism. 
 The celebrated ecclesiastical history of Mosheim, (a 
 Paedo-baptist, be it remembered) is very explicit in 
 the account which it gives of the mode of baptizing in 
 the earlier centuries of the Christian Church. The 
 sacrament of Baptism was administered in this (the first) 
 
 (a) Lectures on Epist. to Rom. Vol. ii. ch. 6. (b) Par. on N. T 
 iii. Matt. 6* 
 
36 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 century, without the public assemblies, in places ap- 
 pointed and prepared for that purpose, and was per- 
 formed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal 
 font." (a) During the second century, " The persons 
 that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the 
 creed, confessed, and renounced their sins, and partic- 
 ularly the devil, and his pompous allurements, were 
 immersed under water, and received into Christ's king- 
 dom, by a solemn invocation of Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, according to the express command of our blessed 
 Lord." (b) These statements are confirmed by a ref- 
 erence to the writings of the earlier Fathers, all of whom 
 speak of baptism as immersion, and nothing else. 
 
 Justin Martyr, says in his Apology for Christians, 
 written about A. D, 140. "We bring them (converts 
 to some place where there is water, and they are bap- 
 tized by the same way of baptism by which we are bap- 
 tized ; for they are washed in the water, in the name of 
 God the Father," &c. Apolo. ii. Sect. 79. 
 
 Tertullian says, that in his day, A. D. 20-1. " The 
 persons to be baptized in great simplicity were let down 
 into the water, and with a few words said were dipped." 
 " They are immersed in the water," (in aqua merguntur) 
 De Baptismo cap. 2. 4. 7. 
 
 The succeeding Fathers, Gregory Nazianzein, Basil, 
 Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Chrysostom, whose 
 writings bring us down to about the year 400, all une- 
 quivocally testify to the same fact, — and prove ' that 
 primitive baptism was immersion, (c) 
 
 The first recorded case of the substitution of affusion 
 
 («) Mosheim. Cent. i. ch. iv. sect. 8. (5) Mosheim. Cent. ii. ch. 
 v. sect. 13. (c) See Vossius. Disput. De. Baptis. Disp. i. sect. 6. 
 where the Patristieal Testimony on the mode of baptism is given 
 at full length, and with great learning. 
 
V.] OF BAPTISM. 37 
 
 or pouring for immersion, occurred about the middle of 
 the third century. It is given at length by Eusebius. 
 
 " Novatian fell into a dangerous disease, and because 
 he was very likely to die, had water poured or sprinkled 
 all over him in the bed where he lay, if that might be 
 termed baptism." He however recovered, and in the 
 year 251, became a candidate for the See of Rome. 
 Cornelius, who aspired to the same honour, and proved 
 the successful candidate, wrote a long letter to Fabius, 
 bishop of Antioch, disparaging the claims and preten- 
 sions of his rival Novatian, in which epistle he says ; 
 " Novatian came not canonically to his order of priest- 
 hood, much less was he capable of being chosen bishop, 
 for all the clergy and a great many of the laity were 
 against his being chosen presbyter ; because it was not 
 lawful they said, for any one that had been poured over 
 in his bed as he had been, to be admitted to any office 
 of the clergy." 
 
 It appears then, from this fact, that in the primitive 
 church, immersion alone was considered to be baptism ; 
 that even a pouring over of the whole body was only 
 tolerated in cases of extreme peril ; and that not being 
 immersed in baptism was generally considered a suffi- 
 cient disqualification for any office in the church. 
 
 When Cyprian, who lived at the same time as Nova- 
 tian, was asked by one Magnus, " whether they are to 
 be esteemed right christians who are not washed in the 
 water, but only sprinkled over ?" he answered that " the 
 baptism was to be considered good, necessity compelling 
 it, and God granting his indulgence." At this time the 
 opinion that baptism was essential to salvation, and 
 obtained the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, very generally prevailed. 
 
 Thus Cyprian says in his seventy- third letter, "It is 
 manifest where, and by whom the remission of sins, 
 
38 THE MODE L CHAP. 
 
 which is conferred in baptism, is administered. They 
 who are presented to the rulers of the church, obtain 
 by our prayers and imposition of hands, the Holy 
 Ghost." (a) It was this false notion of the necessity 
 of baptism to salvation, that caused the permission of 
 sprinkling or pouring in cases of extreme danger. 
 
 Dr. Wall states that ' ' France seems to have been the first 
 country in the world where baptism by affusion was used or- 
 dinarily to persons in health." Pouring was not tolerated 
 in the church of Rome until the eighth century ; while 
 immersion still continued to be the established law of 
 the church. It was not until the sixteenth century that 
 pouring was generally adopted. 
 
 The English church retained the ancient mode of bap- 
 tism longer than those of the continent, as appears from 
 her rituals. Her offices and liturgies all along enjoined 
 dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling. 
 In A. D. 1549, first appeared the exception for "weak" 
 children, four years afterwards the word thrice, after the 
 ©rder to dip was omitted." The following is taken from 
 the office of baptism, as contained in the Prayer Book 
 of 1549, "The Priest shall take the childe in his 
 hands, and ask his name ; and naming the childe, shall 
 dyppe it in the water thryse ; the first dypping the right 
 side, and the second the left, the thyrde dypping the 
 face towards the fonte ; so it be done discreetly and 
 warily." 
 
 " Edward the VI., son of Henry VIII., and Jane 
 Seymour, born October 12, 1537, was immersed on the 
 following Monday, at Hampton Court. Sponsors, 
 Cranmer, Duke Norfolk, and Queen Mary." (b) 
 
 " Queen Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII., and 
 Anne Boleyne, was born at Greenwich, Sunday, Sep- 
 
 (a) See Mosheim. Cent. xxx. ch. iv. sect. 4. (b) Antiq. 
 Repertory. V. 4. 
 
V.] OF BAPTISM. 39 
 
 tember 7, 1533, and was baptized by immersion, the 
 Wednesday following. The sponsors were Cranmer, 
 the Duchess of Norfolk, and the Marchioness of 
 Dorset," (a) 
 
 Sprinkling did not prevail in England to any extent 
 until about 1550 ; and from that time it became grow- 
 ingly popular. In 1600, immersion was almost entirely 
 abandoned, though it was still enjoined by the Liturgy, 
 except in cases of sickness. (b) Even to the present 
 day, the offices of the Church of England require dip- 
 ping when the child is able to bear it. In the Church 
 Catechism, we have the following question and answer ; 
 Q. ' 'What is the outward visible sign or form in baptism ? 
 A. Water wherein the person is baptised." In the 
 service for the private baptism of infants, we meet with 
 these directions : " But if they who bring the infant to 
 the church do make such uncertain answers to the 
 Priest's questions, as that it cannot appear that the 
 child was baptized with water, in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (which 
 are essential parts of baptism,) then let the priest bap- 
 tize it in the form before appointed for public baptism 
 of infants, saving that, at the dipping of the child in the 
 font, he shall use the following form of words," &c. 
 In the office for the public baptism of infants, it is also 
 enjoined, that "if the parents shall certify that the 
 child is able to endure it, the priest shall dip it in the 
 water discreetly and warily." It is evident therefore, 
 from the book of common prayer, and from history, that 
 the earliest English Reformers, were convinced that 
 immersion is the proper mode of baptism, and I trust 
 
 (a) Ex. M. S. in Corp. Christi. Coll. Cambridge, Leland Collect. 
 v. 2. (b) The reader will find all these facts confirmed by a ref- 
 erence to Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. pt. ii. ch. 9. 
 
40 THE MODE [CHAP. 
 
 this fact will have the serious attention of every Episco- 
 palian into whose hands this book may fall, and will 
 lead him to inspect our sentiments upon the other points 
 of the controversy with less prejudice than formerly. 
 
 The Eastern or Greek Church, which comprehends 
 in its bosom, a considerable part of Greece, the Grecian 
 Isles, Wallachia, Moldavia, Egypt, Abyssinia, Nubia, 
 Lybia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Cilicia, Palestine, 
 and Russia, and which never acknowledged the usurped 
 supremacy of the Roman Pontif, has always retained, 
 and still retains the ancient practice of immersion. 
 From this they have never swerved, as is evident from 
 all the writings of the Greek Fathers, as well as from 
 indisputable historical facts. It will not however be 
 necessary to adduce any formal proof of the fact, as its 
 veracity is unhesitatingly admitted by those eminent 
 Psedo-baptists themselves, who have examined most 
 learnedly and profoundly the history of baptism, (a) 
 
 And does the reader require any proof bey ond what has 
 been now adduced. Will not the accumulated evidence 
 to which his attention has been drawn, satisfy him that 
 the only scriptural mode of baptism is immersion? In 
 what respect is the proof defective? What additional 
 evidence can honestly be required by the sincere en- 
 quirer after truth ? If the proof already furnished does 
 not convince, nothing will do so. If we believe not 
 the evangelists and the apostles, neither " should we be 
 persuaded though one rose from the dead !" We 
 venture to affirm, that those hesitators upon the 
 mode of baptism, who require more proof before they 
 are immersed, would in any other case be satisfied with 
 one half the evidence which this ordinance affords. If 
 
 (a) See Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. p. 1 ch. ii. Millar Georg. v. ii. 
 p. 480, — and page 32 of this work. 
 
V.] OF BAPTISM. 41 
 
 they had one half the certainty of success in any mercantile 
 enterprise, which they have of the propriety of baptism 
 by immersion, they would without fear embark the 
 whole of their fortune and energies in the undertaking. 
 But alas, alas, when obedience to Christ's command- 
 ments is required at their hands, a sudden, excessive, 
 and guilty timidity, steals over them ; and no possible 
 amount of proof seems sufficient to remove their hesi- 
 tation. 
 
 But say some, cannot we be baptized in any other 
 way than immersion? To this we answer, we have 
 proved that baptism is immersion, and nothing else. 
 The question therefore involves an absurdity ; it is like 
 asking can I be immersed in any other way than by im- 
 mersion ? Baptism or immersion, is a perfect act. Any 
 thing less than immersion therefore is not baptism. 
 But it is said that the Mode of Baptism is an insignificant 
 point, not worth contending about. The apostle did 
 not think so, or he would not have exhorted the Thes- 
 salonians " to stand fast, and hold the traditions which 
 they had been taught whether by word or epistle." An 
 act may be in itself insignificant, and yet if made a mat- 
 ter of divine command, it becomes important. Its ob- 
 servance then is necessary to obedience ; and its neglect 
 exposes us to the charge of rebellion. There was no- 
 thing important in the act itself of eating of the tree of the 
 knowledge of good and evil, until the fruit of that tree was 
 forbidden to our first parents by divine authority ; but 
 from that time abstinence in this particular case became 
 a virtue, and indulgence a grievous sin. And now the 
 act of immersion has been associated by the express 
 command of Jesus Christ, with the ordinance of initia- 
 tion into the Christian Church ; its observance is an act 
 of holy obedience, and its wilful neglect, when convinced 
 of its propriety, a flagrant sin ! — Christ commands it, 
 
42 THE MODE OF EAPTISM. [CHAP. V.] 
 
 and that simple fact renders it any thing but a trifling 
 or insignificant matter ! 
 
 The same authority is required to repeal, or even to 
 modify, as is required to institute, a ceremony depend- 
 ing solely for its existence upon the will of the great 
 lawgiver of Zion. 
 
 The rite of baptism is not a moral precept, arising out 
 of the natural fitness of things , or the adaptation of 
 which to our condition can be ascertained by us, inde- 
 pendently of the command of God : it is a ceremony 
 which derives its origin and authority exclusively from 
 the command of Christ ; and while that command re- 
 mains unrepealed, we have no power or right to modify 
 any of its details. And therefore until Pasdo-baptists 
 can produce us in proof that the command of Christ to 
 immerse believers in water upon a profession of their 
 faith, is altered or repealed, evidence as good and 
 weighty, as we can shew that Christ gave and the apos- 
 tles obeyed that command, we can never consent to 
 deviate in the slightest particular from the law as we 
 find it in the New Testament. Where are we told that 
 Christ has altered his own divine law, by substituting 
 affusion, or sprinkling, for immersion ? We ask for 
 proof, that the same power which gave, has altered the 
 law ? Christ alone can change his own institutions. 
 " The authority of the church and of her ministers, is 
 not legislative but executive ; it is our province to en- 
 force and to practice the laws of Christ's kingdom, as 
 we find them in the New Testament ; but to make new 
 laws, or to add to, take from, or modify in any 
 way those already existing we have no authority 
 whatever." (a) 
 
 (a) My own Tiact on " The Church of Christ, independent of all 
 secular authority." p. 3. 
 
PART II. 
 
 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 MY OBJECT IN THIS PART OF THE WORK WILL BE TO 
 SHEW THAT BELIEVERS ALONE ARE SCRIPTURALLY 
 ENTITLED TO THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM BAPTISM AS ADMINISTERED 
 DURING THE DAYS OF CHRIST. 
 
 There seems to be but little difference of opinion 
 upon the subjects of John's Baptism. The scriptures 
 inform us that all whom he immersed, "went out to 
 him;" and "confessed their sins." His baptism is 
 styled. " the baptism of repentance.'' These facts clearly 
 show that babes could not have been included in John's 
 baptism ; forasmuch as they could not " go out to 
 him;" "confess their sins;" and " bring forth fruits 
 
44 THE SUBJECTS [CHAP. 
 
 meet for repentance." Could infants be fit subjects of a 
 baptism , the evident terms of which were a profession of re- 
 pentance for sin and of faithin the coming Messiah?(a) Mr. 
 Scott though an Episcopalian, well says in his commentary 
 " That it does not appear that any but adults were bap- 
 tized by John ; adult Jews professing repentance, and 
 a disposition to become the Messiah's subjects, were 
 the only persons whom John admitted to baptism." (6) 
 " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into 
 the land of Judea ; and there he tarried with them and 
 baptized." (c) " And they came unto John, and said 
 unto him Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, 
 to whom thou barest witness, behold the same baptizeth, 
 and all men come to him." (d) "When therefore the 
 Lord knew how that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus 
 made and baptized more disciples than John, (though 
 Jesus baptized not, but his disciples) he left Judea, and 
 departed into Galilee." (e) From this narrative it ap- 
 pears that those whom Jesus baptized were made disci- 
 ples previously to their baptism ; for Jesus first " made" 
 and then " baptized" his disciples. Clearly therefore 
 infants could not have been included in his baptism, 
 as they were incapable of discipleship. Mr. Scott, (to 
 whose commentary I have already referred,) frankly 
 admits in his note upon this passage, " That the bap- 
 tism of Jesus was doubtless of adults alone ! A mar- 
 vellous admission, coming as it does from a Psedo- 
 baptist. 
 
 But it will be necessary here to notice the manner 
 in which these arguments are parried and evaded, by 
 the assertion that christian baptism did not exist until 
 after Christ's ascension ; and that therefore references 
 
 (a) See xix. Acts 4. (6) Note on iii. Matt. 5, 6. (c) Hi. John 
 22. {d) iii. John 26. (e) iv. John. 1, 2. 
 
I.J OF BAPTISM. 4«") 
 
 to baptism as administered antecedently to that time, 
 prove nothing to the point in hand. 
 
 That there may have been slight and unimportant 
 differences between baptism as administered by John 
 and Jesus, is not improbable, but that those differences 
 were not sufficiently weighty to unchristianize the bap- 
 tism of John, is perfectly clear. For 
 
 I. We are plainly told, that, the preaching and bap- 
 tism of John belonged to the new, or Christian dispen- 
 sation. Our Lord, when addressing the multitude con- 
 cerning John, said, " From the days of John the Baptist,'' 
 (that is from the time that John commenced his public ca- 
 reer as a preacher and baptizer,) " until now the kingdom 
 of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by 
 force. For all the law and the prophets prophecied 
 until John," (Eos Ioannou.) (a) In this passage Jesus 
 teaches us that the law and the prophets, or in other 
 words, the old dispensation, ceased when John began to 
 preach and baptize ; and that from that time, the king- 
 dom of heaven, which was proclaimed in his ministry, 
 suffered violence ; the awakened Jews pressing forward 
 with eagerness to a reception of its blessings. John's 
 baptism, therefore, did not belong to the old, but to the 
 new or christian dispensation. The same sentiment 
 was repeated by our Lord on another occasion. When 
 reproving the Pharisees, he said, " The law and the 
 prophets were until John ; since that time the kingdom 
 of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (b) 
 Here, again, our Lord asserts, that the law and the pro- 
 phets, which is a phrase expressive of the old dispensa- 
 tion, ceased when John began to preach ; and that from 
 the day on which he commenced his ministrations, the 
 kingdom of God, or the Gospel was preached ; and 
 
 (a) ii. Matt. 12, 13. (b) xvi. Luke 16. 
 
46 THE SUBJECTS [CHAP. 
 
 every man eagerly hastened to receive the joyful tidings. 
 These two passages place it beyond doubt, that the 
 preaching and baptism of John belonged to the Gospel 
 dispensation. If then, John's baptism be a part of the 
 christian dispensation, it must be christian baptism, but 
 we are told by Christ himself that John's baptism is a part of 
 the christian dispensation, ergo, John's baptism is christian 
 baptism. If the baptism of John be entirely distinct 
 from the baptism of Jesus, then we have two distinct 
 baptisms in the same dispensation ! But this cannot be, 
 for in the Gospel dispensation, there are "one Lord, 
 one faith, and one baptism." 
 
 II. The second argument, by which the identy of the 
 baptisms of John and Jesus may be established, is, the 
 fact, that John and Jesus both preached and baptized 
 at the same time. After our Lord's interview with 
 Nicodemus, " Jesus and his disciples came into the land 
 of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized. 
 And John also was baptizing," (at the same time) "in 
 Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water 
 there : and they came and were baptized, (a) And 
 then, a few verses further on, we read, that " the Jews 
 came unto John while he was baptizing in Enon, and 
 said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond 
 Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same 
 baptizeth, and all men come to him." (b) It is 
 very clear then, from these passages, that John and 
 our Lord both preached and baptized at the same time. 
 This fact it is impossible to deny ; and from it we 
 justly infer the identy of the two baptisms. For who 
 can suppose that two distinct baptisms, both accredited 
 by divine testimonials, could be lawfully practised at 
 the same time ? John was as truly " sent by God" to 
 
 (a) iii. John 22, 23. (b)m. John 26. 
 
I.] OF BAPTISM. 47 
 
 preach and baptize, as was Jesus. He received his 
 commission from the same quarter. His baptism was 
 " not of men, but of God;" it is even called by our 
 Lord himself, " the council of God." If then, there be 
 a radical difference between the two baptisms, here were 
 two distinct baptisms, both of them sanctioned by God, 
 and both accredited by numberless testimonials of their 
 divine origin, in force at the same time ! In what an 
 awkward dilemma would this place the pious and en- 
 quiring Jew ! He might justly reason thus with him- 
 self, " Here are two public teachers, both of them 
 evidently sent by God, both preaching and baptizing at 
 the same time, and yet their baptisms are entirely dis- 
 tinct ; which am I to follow ? Which of the two may 
 justly claim my obedience ?" We have only to imagine 
 ourselves living at the time, and we shall instantly 
 perceive how perplexing this question would be to an 
 anxious and enquiring mind. The dirhVulty however 
 is entirely obviated by supposing that John's baptism 
 was true christian baptism. The fact, then, that John 
 and Jesus baptized at the same time, incontestibly 
 proves that their baptisms are the same. 
 
 III. The terms of Johns baptism were the same as 
 those required in christian baptism. John required two 
 things of those who were candidates for his baptism, a 
 profession of repentance ; and a declaration of their faith 
 in the Messiah. This is expressly stated in scripture. 
 " John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, 
 saying unto the people, that they should believe on him 
 which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 
 Acts xix. 4. These are the identical terms of christian 
 baptism. The apostles required " repentance towards 
 God," and "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," as pre- 
 requisites to a reception of baptism. The only point 
 of difference was, that the Jews whom John baptized 
 
48 THE SUBJECTS [cHAP. 
 
 exercised faith in a Messiah whose work was yet to be 
 accomplished ; whereas, those whom the apostles im- 
 mersed after our Lord's resurrection, believed on the 
 Messiah as having already " finished the work given him 
 to do." But faith, the term itself was the same ; it 
 had respect to the same object, and that object was 
 Christ Jesus. The mere difference, that in the one 
 case it had respect to the Messiah as about to bleed and 
 die ; while in the other it had reference to the Messiah 
 as having already died, is of no importance. Now if 
 John, Christ Jesus and the apostles, required the pre- 
 cise same things as terms of baptism, clearly their bap- 
 tisms were the same. 
 
 IV. The fourth fact which establishes our point, is, 
 that when John's disciples became followers of Jesus, 
 they were never re-baptized. Without doubt, many of 
 our Lord's apostles and disciples had been baptized by 
 John, and were never baptized by Jesus. We are ex- 
 pressly informed that two of our Lord's apostles were 
 disciples of John before they followed Jesus ; and yet 
 we are nowhere told, that they were re-baptized by 
 Christ. We have no evidence in fact, that the apostles 
 ever received any baptism but that of John. If then 
 John's baptism be not christian baptism, clearly the 
 apostles, and most of the primitive christians never re- 
 ceived christian baptism, and died without having 
 passed through that ordinance ! Had Jesus re-baptized 
 the disciples of John when they became his followers, 
 it would certainly have been recorded ; so important an 
 event would not have been omitted by the inspired 
 historians, (a) If then, Jesus did not re-baptize the 
 
 (a) For an exposition of xix. Acts, 1 — 7.' See my Tract on 
 " The Identity of the Baptisms 'of John and Jesus." Price Id., 
 which may be had of the Baptist Tract Society. 
 
I.] OF BAPTISM. 49 
 
 the disciples of John, when they became his (Jesus') 
 followers, but allowed them to take their places at once 
 among his disciples, then clearly either John's baptism 
 is Christian baptism ; or, Jesus received men and 
 women into discipleship without baptism. 
 
 V. Jesus himself submitted to John's baptism, and on 
 that solemn occasion, uttered these emphatic words, 
 "Thus it becometh ws," (me and my followers,) " to 
 fulfil all righteousness." The words of Christ clearly 
 prove that John administered a baptism which it 
 becomes all true christians to receive ; but if John's 
 baptism were not christian baptism, submission to it 
 would not have been an act of Christian obedience, and 
 consequently, it would not become us, thus to fulfil all 
 righteousness. 
 
 VI. Mark prefaces his account of John's baptism, 
 with these remarkable words ; " The beginning of the 
 gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written,'" fyc. 
 But if the preaching and baptism of John, were the 
 beginning of the gospel, they were, doubtless, parts of 
 the christian dispensation, and it must therefore be 
 admitted that John's baptism, was gospel, or christian 
 baptism. 
 
 As then it appears, that the baptism of John was 
 christian baptism, it follows, that all the arguments in 
 favour of adult baptism by immersion, deducible from 
 his practice, may be fairly brought to bear upon the 
 present controversy. Baptism, as administered by 
 John, Christ Jesus, and the Apostles, was essentially 
 the same ordinance, for, as has been already observed, 
 in the christian dispensation, there is but " one baptism. ,, 
 
 We are at a loss to conceive on what grounds it can 
 have been asserted, that the baptism practised by the 
 apostles, during Christ's residence upon earth, was not 
 christian baptism. The Redeemer presided over, and 
 
50 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. [cHAP. I. 
 
 directed its administration ; it was celebrated by his 
 own apostles, and was intended to be a badge of disci- 
 pleship to him. — " The Lord made and baptized more 
 disciples than John." If this were not christian bap- 
 tism, where shall we look for that ordinance ? From 
 these observations, it appears that we have acted 
 honestly in quoting from the accounts of Baptism given 
 in the gospels ; and that their testimony must be re- 
 ceived as of equal authority with that of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, and the Epistles, in the settlement of this 
 controversy. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST S COMMISSION. 
 
 Though christian baptism undoubtedly existed before 
 Christ's ascension, yet up to that time, it had been 
 administered only on a limited scale. It had, together 
 with every other gospel privilege been restricted to the 
 pious Jews, This state of things however, was then to 
 pass away, and the gospel and all its privileges were to 
 be diffused through every part of the earth. Under 
 these deeply interesting and momentous circumstances, 
 Jesus delivered his last solemn charge to the Apostles, 
 in which he enjoined them to shake off their Jewish 
 prejudices, and to become from that day Missionaries 
 to a lost and perishing world. 
 
 " Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power 
 is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye there- 
 fore, and teach all nations, immersing them into the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost ; teaching them to observe all tilings whatsoever 
 I have commanded you ; and lo I am with you always, 
 even unto the end of the world. Amen, "(a) " Go ye into 
 
 (a) xxviii. Matt 28, 29. 
 
52 THE SUBJECTS [cHAP. 
 
 all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 
 He that belie veth, and is immersed, shall be saved ; but 
 he that belie veth not shall be damned." (a) 
 
 There are several things worthy of serious attention 
 in this commission. 
 
 I. First. Men are to be taught and discipled, before 
 their baptism. The order enjoined by the Redeemer is, 
 first teach men and thus make disciples of them, and 
 then baptize them. This was the way in which Christ 
 himself had acted during his personal ministry on earth ; 
 he first made men disciples and then baptized them. 
 But how can we preach the gospel to, or in any way 
 teach or disciple infants, before baptizing them? Is 
 not the sprinkling of infants first, and the teaching them 
 afterwards, a practical inversion of our Saviour's com- 
 mand, which enjoins hearing the gospel, and discipleship, 
 before baptism ? It is absurd to say, that " immersing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost," is merely exegetical of the command 
 to " disciple all nations ;" and that the apostles were 
 simply enjoined to make disciples of all nations by bap- 
 tizing them and their infants. The word " matheteuo" 
 means to teach, or to make disciples by teaching ; the 
 passage therefore should read, " Go ye therefore, and 
 make disciples of, by teaching, all nations ; immersing 
 them," &c. 
 
 The apostles thus understood their divine Master, 
 and invariably discipled men before baptizing them, as 
 we shall hereafter show. 
 
 II. Secondly. Men are to believe before baptism. 
 Those whom Matthew calls disciples, are explained by 
 Mark to be believers. " He that believeth and is bap- 
 tized, shall be saved." Hence it is evident that our 
 
 (a) xv. Mark 15, 16. 
 
II.] OF BAPTISM. 53 
 
 Lord intended a confession of faith in his name, to pre- 
 cede baptism. Upon this point the apostles and their 
 coadjutors never hesitated for one moment. When any 
 person desired baptism, the condition invariably pro- 
 posed, was, a profession of faith. " If thou believest 
 with all thine heart thou mayest." Infants however 
 cannot make any such profession, and therefore, have 
 clearly no title to baptism. 
 
 III. Thirdly. Our Lord makes no separate pro- 
 vision for the baptism of infants. He gives only one 
 rule of action ; that faith shall precede baptism. He 
 makes no distinct and special reference to the case of 
 infants. He does not add, " and when ye have bap- 
 tized believing parents, then sprinkle their children." 
 And yet surely, if he had intended, that the children of 
 believers should be sprinkled, he would have introduced 
 a command to that effect in this his last solemn charge 
 to his apostles ! It cannot be supposed, that the Re- 
 deemer would have been silent upon so important a 
 point as this. But where do we find any thing in 
 Christ's commission about the baptism of infants ? 
 Christ has given us but one rule by which to act, which 
 renders it improper to baptize any but believers. 
 
 IV. Fourthly. This Commission extends to the end of 
 the world. The promise, " Lo, I am with you always," 
 reaches * even unto the end of the world," from which 
 we may gather, that the precept connected therewith, is 
 intended to be of equal duration. This solemn charge 
 will remain binding upon the Church of Christ, until 
 all the elect of God shall be gathered in. Shall we then 
 be so presumptuous as to alter or modify any of its 
 details ? What daring hand shall interfere with the 
 regulations given us by our exalted Head, in his solici- 
 tude and wisdom ? 
 
 V. Fifthly. This regulation is of universal applica- 
 
54 THE SUBJECTS [cHAP. 
 
 Hon. It embraces " all nations," and " all the world." 
 " Every creature" to whatever nation he may belong, is 
 to be thus dealt with. He is to be taught, discipled, and 
 then immersed. Our Saviour does not introduce any 
 clause to suit the convenience of colder climates. He 
 does not say, " the law of immersion is partial, and only 
 applies to warm climates ;" but he expressly enjoins 
 believers of " all nations," and in "all the world," to 
 be immersed ! 
 
 Many judicious Paedo-baptists admit, that nothing 
 can be gathered in favour of infant baptism, from our 
 Saviour's commission. Baxter well says, " This is not 
 like some occasional historical mention of baptism, but 
 it is the very commission of Christ to his apostles, for 
 preaching and baptizing, and purposely expresseth their 
 several works in their several places and order. Their 
 first task, says he, is by teaching to make disciples, who 
 are by St. Mark called believers : the second work is 
 to baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of their 
 salvation : the third work is to teach them all other 
 things which are afterwards to be learned in the school 
 of Christ." He adds, "To contemn this order, is to 
 renounce all rules of order ; for where can we expect 
 to find it if not here ? I profess my conscience is fully 
 satisfied from this text, that it is one sort of faith, even 
 saving, that must go before baptism, and the profession 
 whereof the minister must expect." {a) 
 
 To the same purpose are the observations of Dr. 
 Hidgley, " Some suppose that we are made disciples by 
 baptism, and afterwards to be taught whatsoever Christ 
 hath cammanded ; but I cannot think this sense of the 
 word so defensible or agreeable to the designs of our 
 Saviour. And besides, while we have recourse to this 
 
 (a) Disp. to Right to Sacra, p. 91, 149. 
 
II.] OF BAPTISM. 55 
 
 sense to defend infant baptism, we do not rightly con- 
 sider that this cannot be well applied to adult baptism, 
 which the apostles were first to practise : for it cannot 
 be said concerning the heathen that they are first to be taken 
 under Christ's care by baptism, and then instructed in the 
 doctrines of the gospel by his ministers." (a) 
 
 Dr. Whitby has the following comment in loco : — 
 " Teach all nations ; that is, preach the gospel to all 
 nations, and engage them to believe it, in order to their 
 profession of that faith by baptism, as seems apparent 
 from the parallel commission in St. Mark : " Go preach 
 the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is 
 baptized, shall be saved." If here it should be said 
 that I yield too much to the baptists, I desire any 
 one to tell me, whether the apostles were not sent to 
 preach to those that could hear, and to teach them to 
 whom they preached, that Jesus was the Christ, and 
 only to baptize them when they did believe this." (6) 
 
 (a) Body of Divinity. Quest. 166. (6) See also Poole'* Con- 
 tinuators, Annot. in loco. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM BAPTISM AS ADMINISTERED BY 
 THE APOSTLES AFTER CHRIST^ ASCENSION. 
 
 The first instance of the administration of baptism 
 after the ascension of Christ, is, that of the three thou- 
 sand on the day of Pentecost. The reader is requested 
 to turn to the account given us of this event, in the 
 second chapter of Acts, beginning at the thirty-seventh 
 verse. Four things are stated of the persons baptized 
 on that memorable day ; first, they were pricked to the 
 heart with a sense of their guilt ; secondly, they were 
 solemnly exhorted to repent ; thirdly, they gladly re- 
 ceived the word ; fourthly, they continued after their 
 baptism stedfastly in the apostles doctrine. All who 
 were baptized gave credible evidence of repentance and 
 faith ; and therefore, infants being physically incapable 
 of either, could not have been included in the number. 
 No mention is made of the subsequent baptism of the 
 children of the three thousand believers, and yet surely 
 some notice would have been taken of such an event if 
 it really took place. The apostles said nothing to these 
 converted Jews upon the propriety of baptizing their 
 
[CHAP. III.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 57 
 
 children, which they certainly would have done, if they 
 had considered infant baptism an ordinance of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 The Baptism of the Samaritans, is the next which 
 claims our attention, and is thus described : — " Then 
 Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached 
 Christ unto them. And the people with one accord 
 gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing, 
 and seeing the miracles which he did. And there was 
 great joy in that city. But when they believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, 
 and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both 
 men and women." (a) In these verses it is stated, that 
 " The gospel was preached to the Samaritans;" and 
 that "they heard the word," and "believed the things 
 concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
 Christ," before they were baptized. But infants could 
 not have believed in the name of Jesus Christ, nor in 
 the kingdom of God, and therefore, infants were not in- 
 cluded in the baptism of Philip. Philip baptized those 
 only who were of an age capable of hearing, understand- 
 ing, and believing the gospel ; but infants can neither 
 hear, understand, nor believe the gospel, infants there- 
 fore were not baptized by Philip. It is expressly 
 stated, that men and women were baptized by multi- 
 tudes ; but the scripture is altogether silent as to the 
 baptism 01 one infant; and yet if infant baptism were 
 practised at all. it certainly would have been mentioned 
 here. 
 
 The fact next demanding our attention, is the baptism 
 of the Eunuch, In this case, as in the other two, the 
 account given is full and particular. 
 
 (a) viii. Acts 5, 6, 12. 
 
58 THE SUBJECTS [CHAP. 
 
 " Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the 
 same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as 
 they went on their way, they came unto a certain 
 water : and the Eunuch said, see, here is water ; what 
 doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said, */ 
 thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest, and he 
 answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 
 of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still," 
 &c. (a) The following things here require our notice : 
 first, Philip preached Christ to the Eunuch ; secondly, 
 the Eunuch applied for baptism himself ; and thirdly, 
 Philip required a profession of faith, before he thought 
 the Eunuch a fit subject for baptism : " if thou believest 
 with all thine heart thou mayest," (exestin) it is lawful. 
 
 This implies that it was not lawful in apostolic times 
 to baptize any who did not believe with the whole 
 heart ; how it can be lawful now, to baptize or sprinkle 
 infants, who, from the necessity of their nature, are in- 
 capable of believing at all, is a question which I confess 
 my own inability to answer. 
 
 " Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were 
 baptized." (6) Here again the same order was ob- 
 served. The Corinthians were discipled, that is, they 
 became believers before they were baptized. No allu- 
 sion whatever is made to the baptism of any of their 
 infants. 
 
 There are many other scripture cases which we might 
 specify did our limits permit, but we must content our- 
 selves with referring to the baptism of Cornelius and 
 his household. The reader will have the kindness to 
 turn to the conclusion of the tenth chapter of the Acts, 
 where he will find this event fully described. Of the 
 persons baptized on that occasion, it is said, that 
 
 (a) via. Acts 15. (6) xviii. Acts 8. 
 
III.] OF BAPTISM. 59 
 
 previously to their baptism, " the Holy Ghost fell 
 on them all;" so that " they spake with tongues, and 
 magnified God." The Apostle Peter, based their right 
 to baptism, upon their reception of the Holy Ghost, (a) 
 It is quite clear therefore, that none but adults were 
 baptized on this occasion. We have no intimation 
 whatever, that after the baptism of Cornelius, and "his 
 kinsmen and near friends," their children were baptized. 
 How happens it that there is not a solitary instance of 
 infant baptism recorded in scripture ? If this ceremony 
 were constantly observed in the apostles days, 
 should we not meet with some few instances of its ad- 
 ministration ? The illustrious Calvin himself admits, 
 "That no such circumstance is expressly mentioned by 
 the evangelists." (6) And the acute Richard Baxter, 
 whom we have already more than once quoted, makes 
 the following manly avowal : — " I conclude that all exam- 
 ples of baptism in scripture do mention only the admin- 
 istration of it to the professors of saving faith ; and the 
 precepts give us no other direction ; and I provoke any 
 one, as far as it is seemly for me to do, to name one 
 precept or example, for baptizing any other, and make 
 it good if he can." (c) 
 
 (a) See x. Acts 47. The baptism of households will be 
 tonsidered in the replies to objections. (6) Insti. Book iv. ch. 16. 
 sect. viii. Calvin's chapters on infant baptism contain the best 
 defence of that ceremony I have yet seen. (c) Disput. of Right to 
 Sac. p. 156. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SPIRITUAL MEANING 
 OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The intention of Christ in the institution of Baptism, 
 will aid us in forming our opinions upon the persons 
 who are entitled to a participation in the ordinance. 
 Our object in this chapter will be to shew that the 
 signification and intent of baptism can only be realised 
 in the baptism of professed believers ; and are com- 
 pletely destroyed by the substitution of infant sprink- 
 ling in its place. 
 
 I. In baptism we symbolically and professionally die 
 unto sin, and live unto God. The reader is here re- 
 quested to turn to the sixth chapter of Romans, and 
 read from the third to the twelfth verses. In this pas- 
 sage we are said to " be buried with Christ by baptism 
 into death," and to rise, that thenceforth we " should 
 walk in newness of life." 
 
 This passage is capable of an easy explanation, if 
 we refer it to the baptism of believers, but it is utterly 
 unintelligible if applied to the sprinkling of infants. 
 When a believer is baptized upon a profession of his 
 
[CHAP. IV.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 61 
 
 faith, he is publicly entombed with Christ into a death 
 to sin, self, and the world ; and he rises from his tem- 
 porary liquid grave, to walk before the world in a new 
 character, or as it is here expressed, "in newness of 
 life." But, can it be said, that unconscious infants are 
 buried with Christ in their baptism into such a death as 
 this, and, that they rise from the waters of baptism, 
 " to walk in newness of life ?" (a) 
 
 II. In Baptism we are buried with Christ, and rise 
 with him through faith. " Buried with him in baptism, 
 wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of 
 the operation of God, who hath raised him from the 
 dead." (6) In baptism we are not merely symboli- 
 cally and professionally buried with Christ ; but by the 
 power of a divinely implanted faith, we rise with him to 
 a more glorious state of being. By faith, we see that 
 our emersion from the waters of baptism, is emble- 
 matic of our resurrection with Christ, to a new life. 
 Sentiments like these will apply to the baptism of a 
 professed believer ; but will our Paedo-baptist friends 
 tell us, how a child can " be buried with Christ in bap- 
 tism," and "rise therein with him through the faith 
 which is of the operation of God!" What faith can an 
 infant possess ? And if an infant cannot possess faith, 
 how can the signification of baptism, as given in this 
 passage, be realised in his case ? 
 
 III. In Baptism we publicly put on Christ, and become 
 professionally his disciples. Baptism is the appointed 
 badge of christian discipleship. It does not constitute 
 us disciples ; but it is the ordinance by which we declare 
 
 (a) If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration be true, these words 
 may be applied to baptized infants, but not unless. On no otber 
 principle, can this passage, with any propriety, be considered as 
 referring to them, (b) ii. Colos. 12. 
 
 G 
 
62 THE SUBJECTS [cHAF. 
 
 ourselves to be so. " As many of you as have been 
 baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." (a) In bap- 
 tism we testify our faith in the Redeemer, as well as 
 our willingness to be guided entirely by his spirit and 
 word ; and solemnly consecrate ourselves, body, soul, 
 and spirit, to his service and glory. But how an infant 
 can be "baptized into Christ" and thus "put on 
 Christ," we confess ourselves unable to perceive ! Can 
 an infant make a profession of discipleship in his bap- 
 tism ? And if he cannot, this is but saying in other 
 words, that he cannot be baptized into Christ, nor put 
 on Christ, and that consequently he has no right what- 
 ever to be baptized. 
 
 IV. In Baptism we testify our faith in the doctrine of 
 the Resurrection of the Dead. " Else what shall they 
 do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at 
 all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" (b) 
 There is an allusion in this passage to the ancient cus- 
 tom of making a brief confession of faith in the resur- 
 rection of the dead, previously to baptism. The con- 
 vert was baptized as it were into this great doctrine. 
 By descending into, and arising from the grave of bap- 
 tism, he gave a significant and public evidence of his 
 belief of this fundamental truth of our holy religion. 
 The christians of the Apostle's day were eminently ex- 
 posed to peril. They knew not but that they might 
 be hurried from the waters of baptism, to the place of 
 martyrdom. Their profession of Christianity at once 
 marked them as victims ; and from the moment they 
 became disciples, they were hourly liable to a cruel and 
 ignominious death. Without faith in the certainty of 
 their resurrection, they would have been " of all men 
 the most miserable." Hence the peculiar propriety of 
 
 (a) iii. Gal. 27. (b) 1 Corin. xv. 29. 
 
IV.] OF BAPTISM. 63 
 
 their declaration of faith in the resurrection, at their 
 baptism, the hour of their entrance upon this career of 
 danger. But how can an infant testify his faith in the 
 resurrection, at his baptism ? With what propriety can 
 the passage now under consideration be applied to any 
 but believers ? The intention of baptism as here stated, 
 is frustrated, by the administration thereof to an uncon- 
 scious infant, who cannot concern himself at all whether 
 the dead rise or not ! 
 
 V. True christian baptism is connected with the answer 
 of a good conscience towards God. " The like figure 
 whereunto baptism doth also now save us, (not the put- 
 ting away of the filth of the flesh,) but the answer of a 
 good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ." (a) It was usual as Cyprian and other 
 ancient writers testify, to interrogate the catechumen 
 previously to his baptism, concerning "his faith in 
 Christ, and his renunciation of Satan, the works of dark- 
 ness, and all the vanities of the world ;" and to this cus- 
 tom the apostle here refers. 
 
 When the catechumen replied to these solemn queries 
 with honesty, and with a good conscience towards God, 
 it was evident that he was in a state of salvation. And 
 it was being able thus by grace, to answer such interro- 
 gations, that saved his soul, not the mere lustration of 
 his body in water. But how an infant can have the an- 
 swer of a good conscience in baptism, we confess our 
 inability to perceive ! An infant's conscience is not 
 yet developed, and cannot act in anyway. Here again 
 we see, that the end of the institution of baptism is 
 defeated by its administration to infants ! 
 
 VI. Baptism is a symbol of the remission of our sins 
 " And now why tarriest thou ? arise, and be baptized, 
 
 (a) 1 Peter iii. 21. 
 
64 THE SUBJECTS [cHAP. 
 
 and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the 
 Lord." (a) This passage is clearly inapplicable to 
 infants ; can they " arise," and " call upon the name of 
 the Lord," and thus "wash away their sins," in bap- 
 tism ? can baptism be to them an emblem of their ablu- 
 tion in the blood of Jesus ? Dr. Doddridge says in loco, 
 " Baptism in the adult, (excepting the very peculiar 
 instance of our Lord,) was a token of confession and 
 humiliation for sin, on which account it is called " the 
 baptism of repentance," and of a desire to be cleansed 
 from it as the body was by water cleansed from its pol- 
 lution ; and being administered to such professed peni- 
 tents by divine appointment, as a token of favourable 
 regard to them, it was a seal of pardon ; nor did God 
 ordinarily give any particular person any public 
 and visible token of pardon till he submitted to 
 baptism ; and this may explain in what sense baptism 
 might be said to wash away sins, and elsewhere to 
 save." 
 
 With this exposition we in some particulars do not 
 agree. Baptism is not a seal, but an emblem of our 
 cleansing in the blood of Jesus. Dr. Doddridge how- 
 ever admits all we wish here to prove, viz ; — that this 
 passage is incapable of application to any but adults. 
 For this is but admitting in other words, that they only 
 have a title to baptism ; unless indeed we maintain that 
 there is another kind of baptism ordained to suit the 
 circumstances of infants, widely different from that which 
 is here referred to. 
 
 But we cannot meet with any reference to two such 
 diverse baptisms in the New Testament ; nor can our 
 Paedo-baptist brethren produce proof of their existence. 
 
 (a) Acts xxii. 16. 
 
IV.] OF BAPTISM. 65 
 
 On the contrary in the church of Christ there is " but 
 one baptism." 
 
 VII. Baptism is a fulfilling of Righteousness. " Thus 
 it becometh us," (said our adorable Jesus at his bap- 
 tism,) " to fulfil all righteousness." (a) What was 
 becoming in Christ, is also becoming in his followers. 
 Our Saviour in these words proclaims a general truth, 
 which is intended to be applied to every convert. By 
 his example and precept, Jesus taught every believer, 
 that, he is bound to be baptized, " Thus," therefore, 
 k ' it becometh us," and all " who know the Lord," to 
 " fulfil all righteousness." But can an unconscious 
 infant fulfil any act of righteousness in his baptism ? 
 Can a babe perform any act of intelligent obedience to 
 the Divine will ? And if this be impossible, he is clearly 
 an unfit subject for christian baptism. 
 
 VIII. We are baptized " by the authority, and into 
 the faith, profession, and ivorship, of the eternal Father^ 
 Son, and Spirit." Dr. Guyse. This is comprehended 
 in our baptism in or into (m) the name of the sacred 
 Trinity. By this solemn ordinance we are immersed 
 into the christian faith, and declare our subjection to its 
 authority. But infants can have no faith; they cannot 
 possibly profess, nor believe in, nor worship, the names of 
 the Father, Son, and Spirit, and are therefore unfit subjects 
 for christian baptism. As Mr. Craps well observes in 
 his tract on baptism, " Infants can neither be what 
 baptism implies, nor do what it requires." Is not the 
 inference then unavoidable, that, Christ never intended 
 them to be baptized ? 
 
 IX. Baptism is the appointed ordinance of admission 
 into the visible Church. As circumcision was the rite of 
 initiation into the Jewish Church ; so is baptism into 
 
 (a) iii. Matt. 15. 
 
66 THE SUBJECTS [cHAP. 
 
 the Christian. " For by one Spirit are we all baptized 
 into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether 
 we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into 
 one Spirit. " (a) The apostle does not here refer to " the 
 baptism of the Spirit" as it is usually called, which was 
 restricted to the communication of extraordinary and mi- 
 raculous gifts ; and was only limited and partial in its 
 extent ; but rather to baptism in water upon a profes- 
 sion of faith. " The baptism of the Spirit," is invaria- 
 bly connected in the Scriptures, with the communication 
 of miraculous powers, it is never applied to his ordinary 
 regenerating influences. But it could not be said, that, 
 a reception of the extraordinary influences of the Spirit, 
 was indispensible to admission into the church. The 
 apostle's meaning evidently is, that, by the grace of the 
 Spirit we are made fit subjects for the ordinance which 
 admits us into the visible church, and are brought to 
 submit to its authority ; and, that after our admission, 
 we continue to partake of the Spirit's reviving influ- 
 ences, just as we from time to time drink of the sacra- 
 mental cup. 
 
 The question therefore, to be now considered is, 
 what kind of a society is the visible church, and are 
 infants fit persons for admission into its bosom ? 
 
 The Church of England well defines a christian 
 church in her nineteenth Article. " The visible Church 
 of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the 
 pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be 
 duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all 
 those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." 
 In agreement with this are all the descriptions given 
 us of the apostolic churches. The primitive churches 
 consisted of persons who were " not of the world, but 
 
 (a) 1 Corin. xii. 13. 
 
IV.] OF BAPTISM. 67 
 
 were chosen out of the world," who " were beloved of 
 God and called to be saints," who " obeyed from the 
 heart that form of inspired doctrine which was delivered 
 them," who were "sanctified," and " faithful in Christ 
 Jesus," and were " called to the fellowship of God's 
 dear Son. (a) All the epistles addressed to the apos- 
 tolic churches style their members " saints and faithful 
 brethren," and solemn charges are given to them to 
 expel from their communion every carnal and incon- 
 sistent member; " Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, 
 that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened." (6) 
 " Put away from among yourselves that wicked 
 person." (c) 
 
 And is an infant a fit person for admission into such 
 a society as this ? In short can an infant be a member 
 of the visible church ? Is the thing possible ? Is an 
 infant a saint, or a faithful brother ? Has he been 
 called to the fellowship of God's dear Son ? Has he 
 obeyed from the heart that form of inspired doctrine 
 delivered to us in the scriptures ? Can he have 
 communion with the members of Christ's kingdom ? 
 The idea of infant membership with the church is 
 supremely ridiculous. But if infants are unfit for 
 membership with the church, what right have they to 
 the ceremony which initiates into the church ? Can it 
 be right to give them the ordinance of admission, if they 
 are physically incapable of membership ? They are 
 not in fact practically recognised as members of the 
 church, by any body of christians. The Established 
 Church does not admit them to the Lord's table, nor to 
 any privilege of church membership ; but requires them 
 to be confirmed, - &c, previously to their reception. 
 
 («) Consult the epistles to the churches for proof. (6)1 Corin. v. 7. 
 (c) 1 Gorin. v. 13. 
 
68 THE SUBJECTS [cHAP. 
 
 The Congregational Churches pursue the same line of 
 conduct. They do not receive children to member- 
 ship ; but require of them, in after years, the same 
 evidence of conversion to God, as they expect from an 
 unbaptized person : in fact they make no distinction. 
 Both the Established and Congregational churches 
 practically regard baptized infants as unfit for admission 
 into the church ; and confer upon them no privilege 
 of church membership. They place their baptized 
 infants in the same condition as the catechumens of the 
 primitive church, and require a profession of Christianity 
 in riper years, antecedently to their admission. 
 
 They, however, invert the ancient order, in one 
 important particular. The catechumens in the Apos- 
 tolic church were never baptized until the termination of 
 their catechumcnate. They were prepared for baptism 
 during their probation, and were not baptized until they 
 were considered fit for admission to all the immuni- 
 ties and blessings of membership. The baptism of 
 infants at the commencement of their catechumenate, is, 
 a complete inversion of the apostolical order. 
 
 It is difficult to conceive in what sense it can be said, 
 that, baptized infants are members of the church. It 
 cannot be known whether they belong to the invisible 
 church, whose names are written in heaven, for many 
 infants grow up to manhood, and die in their sins ; nor 
 can it be said, that they belong to the visible church, 
 for that, is a society of professed believers, and is of 
 such a nature, that, infants are incapable cf membership 
 therewith. Their membership therefore is a fiction, 
 invented to cover the deformity of Pagdo- baptism. 
 .But the garment is flimsy and thin, and will not conceal 
 the fact, that Paedo-baptism, is not an ordinance of 
 Christ, but an invention of man. 
 
 The writer is a believer in the salvation of infants 
 
IV.] OF BAPTISM. 69 
 
 who die such ; but he does not rest his belief in that 
 important truth, upon their supposed regeneration at 
 baptism ; nor upon their pretended membership with 
 the visible church ; but solely upon their secret interest 
 in the covenant of redemption. This however, gives 
 them no title to admission into the Church of Christ on 
 earth ; for the only terms of admission into this society 
 are, faith, and Baptism upon a profession of faith. 
 Paul's secret interest in the covenant of redemption, 
 antecedently to his calling, gave him no title to baptism 
 and church membership. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE ONENESS OF CHRISTIAN 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 It is emphatically asserted by the Apostle, that in the 
 christian church, " there are one body, and one spirit, 
 one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 
 and one God and Father of all." [a) That the one bap- 
 tism here specified, is baptism in water into the name 
 of the sacred Trinity is evident. It is placed in the 
 list immediately after effectual calling and faith ; which 
 is just the place that baptism is intended to occupy in 
 the christian church. The one spirit of which all believers 
 are made partakers is mentioned in a previous place. 
 Besides if the baptism of the Spirit be the one baptism 
 here specified, the Quakers are right in rejecting water 
 baptism altogether. This passage affirms that in the 
 christian church there is but one baptism, which is per- 
 manent and of universal obligation ; but if water bap- 
 tism, and the baptism of the spirit are both perpetual, 
 then clearly there are two baptisms. Hence it appears, 
 
 (a) Ephes. iv. 4, 5, 6. 
 
CHAP. V.] THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 71 
 
 that the baptism of the spirit was only temporary, and 
 limited in its existence, being confined to the apostolic 
 age. 
 
 Christian baptism then is but one. It is one in its 
 mode ; — but we have proved that mode to be immersion, 
 consequently pouring and sprinkling are not baptism : 
 and it is one in its subjects ; — but we have proved that 
 they ought to be believers, consequently the sprinkling 
 of infants is not baptism. Paedo-baptists have two 
 baptisms. When their missionaries sprinkle a converted 
 heathen upon a profes sion of his faith, so far as the 
 subject is concerned, they practise the one baptism of 
 the apostles ; but this will not suffice them, they must 
 have another baptism, that of babes ! The converted 
 heathen's children, if he has any, must all be sprin- 
 kled with their parent ! and what we ask our readers, 
 can be more dissimilar than the baptism of a believer 
 upon a profession of his faith, and the baptism of a 
 helpless and unconscious babe ! Are the two ceremo- 
 nies in the slightest degree alike ? Are they not two 
 invincibly incongruous baptisms ? 
 
 The Paedo-baptists therefore, clearly practise two 
 baptisms ; one, the baptism of converts upon a profes- 
 sion of their faith, and the other the baptism of infants 
 who have no faith ! Both cannot be included in the one 
 baptism specified by the apostle ; consequently one of 
 them must be a human invention. But Paedo-baptists ad- 
 mit the propriety of baptizing adults upon a profession 
 of their faith ; therefore they must give up the baptism 
 of infants as un scriptural. All the passages of holy 
 writ which refer to christian baptism speak of it as but 
 one. There is no hint of the existence of two kinds of 
 baptism. It is said of all the baptized, " that, they 
 put on Christ, were buried with Christ, and rose to 
 newness of life " in their baptism. Now, these things 
 
72 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. [CHAP. V.] 
 
 may be said of a baptized believer. All the references 
 to baptism in the scriptures will explain, if applied to a 
 baptized believer ; but they will not explain, when 
 applied to a baptized infant. Can any thing more 
 clearly prove, that, infant baptism is not the "one bap- 
 tism " of the New Testament. Paedo-baptists must either 
 prove, that, believers baptism and infant baptism are 
 identical ; or they must confess that they practise two 
 baptisms ; or, ( which will be better than either,) they 
 must give up infant baptism, and be content with the 
 one baptism of believers upon a profession of their 
 faith ! 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 
 
 Reference to ecclesiastical history, is not essential to 
 the decision of the question discussed in these pages, 
 though it may serve to cast some light upon the origin 
 and history of Infant Baptism. 
 
 We consider the matter to be settled, when we have 
 ascertained the verdict of the New Testament. It is 
 evident, that the apostacy of the church commenced at 
 a very early age. Many corruptions existed even in the 
 apostles' times, as several of the epistles abundantly 
 prove. Nothing therefore, can be recognized by us as 
 binding upon the church of God, for which the clear 
 sanction of apostolical precept or practice, cannot be pro- 
 duced. " To the law, and to the testimony, if they 
 speak not according to this rule, it is because there is 
 no light in them." 
 
 Though it could be proved that infant baptism ex- 
 isted in the earliest ages of the church ; yet if scripture 
 precept, or precedent cannot be produced in its defence, 
 it must be rejected along with all the other mummery 
 
74 THE SUBJECTS [cHAP. 
 
 of the man of Sin. Infant baptism is not in the scrip- 
 tures, and therefore must be designated an act of " will 
 worship," 
 
 Let it then, be distinctly understood, that in writing 
 this chapter, we are doing a work of super-errogation. 
 We do not consider it necessary to the decision of the 
 point in debate ; we take our stand upon the solid rock 
 of scripture, and on this immoveable basis we rest 
 our cause. The controversy is settled, when the mind 
 of the Spirit has been ascertained. 
 
 We meet with no reference to the existence of infant 
 baptism until after the year 200. At that time, the 
 opinion began to prevail, that baptism purchased the 
 forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and, 
 (as we have before stated,) this produced the toleration 
 of pouring in cases where immersion was impossible. 
 But the effect of this erroneous view of the absolute 
 necessity of baptism to salvation, gradually produced 
 another deviation from the laws of Christ, and originated 
 the baptism of infants. It was thought necessary that 
 they should be baptized in order to their safety, espe- 
 cially when they were weak and likely to die. But for 
 two centuries after Christ, we have undoubted evidence, 
 that none but believers were baptized. Dr. Mosheim, in 
 his history of the first and second centuries, states, that 
 the ordinance of baptism was then administered solely 
 to converts. In his history of the second century, you 
 find the following passage. " The sacrament of bap- 
 tism was administered publicly twice every year, at the 
 festivals of Easter and Pentecost, or Whitsuntide, either 
 by the bishop or presbyters, in consequence of his 
 authorization and appointment. The persons that were 
 to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, con- 
 fessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the 
 devil, and his pompous allurements, were immersed 
 
VI.] OF BAPTISM. 75 
 
 under water, and received into Christ's kingdom, by a 
 solemn invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 according to the express command of our blessed Lord. 
 After baptism, they received the sign of the cross, were 
 anointed, and by prayers, and imposition of hands, were 
 solemnly commended to the mercy of God, and dedicated 
 to his service ; in consequence of which they received 
 milk and honey, which concluded the ceremony. The 
 reasons of this particular ritual, coincide with what we 
 have said in general, concerning the origin and causes 
 of the multiplied ceremonies that crept from time to 
 time into the church. Adult persons were prepared for 
 baptism by abstinence, prayer, and other pious exer- 
 cises. It was to answer for them, that sponsors or god- 
 fathers were first instituted, though they were after- 
 wards admitted in the baptism of infants." (a) Sal- 
 masius and Suicerus as quoted in Paed. Exam., both 
 admit, that, "in the two first centuries no one was bap- 
 tized except being instructed in the faith and acquaint- 
 ed with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess 
 himself a believer ; because of those words " he that 
 believe th and is baptized." (b) Curcellasus, a learned 
 divine of Geneva, and professor of divinity, as quoted in 
 the same work, confesses, that "the baptism of infants, in 
 the two first centuries after Christ, ivas altogether unknown ; 
 but in the third and fourth, was allowed by some few. In 
 the fifth and following ages, it was generally received. 
 In the former ages, no trace of it appears, and it was 
 introduced without the command of Christ." (c) In the 
 same elaborate work, there is the following quotation 
 from that learned Paedo-baptist divine, Venema. "Ter- 
 tullian, (who wrote about the year 204,) has nowhere 
 
 (<0 Cent. 2. chap. iv. sect. 13. (b) Paedo. Exam. vol. ii.p 76. 
 (c) Paedo. Exam. vol. ii. p 76. 
 
16 THE SUBJECTS [cHAP 
 
 mentioned paedo -baptism among the traditions and 
 customs of the church, that were publicly received, and 
 usually observed ; for in his book, De Baptismo, he 
 dissuades from baptizing infants, and proves that the 
 delay of it to a more mature age is to be preferred. 
 Nothing can be affirmed with certainty, concerning the 
 custom of the church before Tertullian, seeing there is 
 not any where, in more ancient writers, that I know of 
 undoubted mention of infant baptism." The same 
 great writer, (Venema) remarks ; "Tertullian dissuades, 
 from baptizing infants, which he certainly would not 
 have done, if it had been a tradition, and a public cus- 
 tom of the church, seeing he was very tenacious of 
 traditions ; nor, had it been a tradition, would he have 
 failed to mention it." (a) It seems then, that infant 
 baptism did not make its appearance in the christian 
 church, until after the year 200 ; and that when it is 
 first mentioned, it is alluded to as a decided innovation 
 upon the ancient and ordinary custom ; and as something 
 quite unknown to Christ and his apostles, and destitute 
 of their authority. In a word, it is only mentioned to 
 be reprobated. Tertullian opposes both the baptism of 
 infants, and the use of sponsors. These are his words, 
 " what necessity for bringing sponsors into danger, 
 who being themselves mortal, may fail of performing 
 their promises, or may be beguiled by the growth of an 
 ill disposition ? The Lord indeed says — " Forbid them 
 not to come to me." Let them come when they 
 grow up — let them come when they learn — when they 
 are taught to what they should come — let them be 
 christians when they shall be capable to know Christ." 
 From history it likewise appears; that from this time 
 infant baptism gradually insinuated itself into the 
 
 (a) Paedo. Exam. vol. ii. p 79. 
 
Yi.] OF BAPTISM. 77 
 
 church, together with other errors, such as the essenti- 
 ality of baptism to salvation, the consecration of the 
 baptismal water, the use of sponsors or godfathers, the 
 imposition of hands at baptism, and the use of material 
 unction at confirmation. All these ceremonies, together 
 with the baptism of infants, were unheard of, until the 
 time of Tertullian, A. D. 204, and were evidently in- 
 troduced about that period. After this, these errors ob- 
 tained more general circulation, and ultimately overran 
 the greater part ot the christian church ; but, we repeat 
 it ; until the close of the second century, the baptism 
 of infants was unknown throughout the christian world. 
 
 In the middle of the third century, Cyprian wrote 
 largely in favour of infant baptism in an epistle to 
 Fidus. And what think you gentle reader are the rea- 
 sons which he urges for its practice ? Does he adduce 
 scriptural precept or precedent ? The following is his 
 argument, " none is to be kept back from baptism and 
 the grace of God, and much less new born infants, who 
 in this respect do deserve more of our aid, and God's 
 mercy ; because in the beginning of their birth, they 
 presently crying and weeping, do nothing else than 
 pray" ! This is a genuine specimen of patristical argu- 
 mentation ! were it not a subject with which the honour 
 of God is concerned, such a reason might well provoke 
 our laughter. And yet this powerful vindication of in- 
 fant baptism, was signed by Cypriaa himself and sixty - 
 six bishops gathered together in council. He further 
 says, " the mercy and grace of God, are to be denied to 
 none that are born of man, for the Lord saith in the 
 gospel, that the Son of Man came not to destroy men's 
 souls but to save them ; and therefore as much as in us 
 lies, if it may be, no soul is to be lost ; and therefore 
 infants are at all times to be baptized." 
 
 These are the very first arguments that are to be 
 met with in favour of infant baptism. They are built 
 
78 THE SUBJECTS [cHAP. 
 
 upon the doctrine, that baptism confers the grace of 
 God, and is absolutely indispensable to salvation. They 
 arose out of a misinterpretation of the fifth verse of the 
 third of John, and satisfactorily expose the erroneous- 
 ness of the practice which they were intended to 
 defend, (a) 
 
 In Cyprian's time they actually admitted infants to 
 the Lord's supper, and used to rub the lips of these 
 baby communicants with the consecrated elements. 
 This superstitious and ridiculous practice continued for 
 about six hundred years ; and was at last rejected by a 
 council ; (6) would that its twin sister, infant baptism, 
 had been abolished at the same time. Augustine, who 
 flourished in the fifth century, strenuously advocated 
 the propriety of infant baptism ; but the argument 
 which he adduced was not taken from the scrip- 
 tures, but the authority of Cyprian, and the neces- 
 sity of baptism to salvation ; " neither salvation nor 
 eternal life," says he, " is to be hoped for by any with- 
 out baptism — it is in vain promised to infants without 
 it. "(c) Augustine himself was not baptized until he was 
 about thirty years of age, though he had been educated 
 as a christian by his pious mother Monica. He tells us, 
 indeed, that when young, he fell sick, and his mother 
 and he both desired that he should be baptized, but 
 upon his recovery it was deferred. Augustine's own 
 son was not baptized until he was fifteen. These and 
 other circumstances, clearly shew, that infant baptism 
 was not at first universally practised, even by those 
 who recognised its propriety in cases of extreme danger. 
 The error gradually oversj:>read the christian church, 
 
 (a) It is quite uncertain whether this council was really held : 
 there have been many disputes among the learned as to the truth of 
 its existence, (b) As Maldonat confesses on vi. John 53. (c) De 
 Peccatis, cap. 24. 
 
VI.] OF BAPTISM. 79 
 
 until it was all but universally received. This is not 
 to be wondered at, when we consider that baptism was 
 generally considered to be essential to salvation, as 
 early as about the year 250 ; that the church was being 
 rapidly overrun with numberless other errors which were 
 as readily received as this ; that the clergy had attained 
 such power over the people as to give them amazing 
 facilities for the diffusion of the most dangerous here- 
 sies ; and that the people generally speaking were 
 grossly ignorant and superstitious, and consequently 
 easily duped by their ecclesiastical oppressors. 
 
 The Baptism of infants as practised by the Estab- 
 lished Church of these realms, very closely resembles 
 the first infant baptism of which we read. 
 
 The Church of England, be it remembered, in her 
 catechism, boldly says, " that Christ has ordained two 
 sacraments in his church as generally necessary to sal- 
 vation.'" She regards both baptism and the supper of 
 the Lord, in the same light as did Cyprian, and in con- 
 formity with this notion, states, at the commencement 
 of her burial service, that " the office ensuing is not to 
 be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommuni- 
 cated," &c. This was the same deadly error which 
 caused the introduction of infant baptism. Regarding 
 baptism in the same light as the Church of England 
 does now, "as necessary to salvation," and fearful lest 
 their offspring should die unbaptized, the ancients were 
 perplexed as to the manner of giving their children a 
 title to the ordinance. They knew well that faith 
 should precede baptism, and not being able to find it 
 in a helpless infant, they hit upon the expedient of 
 introducing sponsors, who were to engage, that should 
 the child grow up and reach maturity, he should become 
 a christian ! while, on the other hand, if he died in in- 
 fancy, the faith of the sponsors was to be reckoned to 
 
SO THE SUBJECTS [ciIAP. 
 
 his account, and by the merits of this vicarious faith, 
 he was to enter heaven ! Their practice proceeded upon 
 the general principle, that faith must precede baptism ; 
 but as this faith could not possibly be found in the 
 baptized person, it was found in a sponsor. Now it 
 appears to us that this is just the case with the Church of 
 England. Hers is the baptism of those who believe by 
 proxy ; of those who exercise a vicarious faith. Still 
 she recognizes the general principle, that faith should 
 go before baptism ; but not being able to find it in an 
 infant, she looks for it from a godfather ; in the absence 
 of a personal, she accepts a representative faith ! 
 
 " In ihe Midsummer number for 1838, of the British 
 Critic, and Quarterly Theological Review, which is 
 generally understood to express the prevailing senti- 
 ments of the hierarchy, there is an elaborate article on 
 justification, in which, there is a curious passage re- 
 specting the baptism of infants. After shewing, that 
 in the case of adults, the offices of ihe church require 
 faith as a pre-requisite to baptism, the Review adds, 
 " So much for the baptism of adults. The case of 
 infants indeed bears a different aspect ; and if we had 
 been left solely to the guidance of our own judgment, 
 we might perhaps have been induced to think, that the 
 whole spirit and design of the gospel, would have been 
 better consulted, and more consistently followed out, by 
 leaving our children in the state of catechumens, (a 
 term applied in the first century to persons who were 
 in a state of probation, previous to their admittance 
 into the church,) until they should be of age to make a 
 profession of faith for themselves. The church, how- 
 ever, has interpreted the mind of the Spirit, by her 
 immemorial practice. On the one hand, she accepted 
 the faith of the catechumen, who might chance to die 
 before baptism could be administered. And, on the 
 
VI.] OF BAPTISM. 81 
 
 other hand, she has always received into her bosom, 
 those who are too young for repentance or belief, and 
 has accepted a vicarious profession of faith on their 
 behalf; even as our blessed Lord himself was pleased 
 to heal the helpless paralytic, when he saw the faith of 
 those who brought him to be healed. But, even in so 
 doing, she manifestly recognizes the general principle, 
 that belief is a necessary antecedent ; and declares that 
 two things are properly requisite in them that are to be 
 baptized ; repentance, whereby they forsake sin ; and 
 faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of 
 God." It appears, then, that the orthodox party of the 
 Church of England teach, first, that there is a discrepancy 
 between the baptism of infants and the genius of the 
 gospel ; secondly, that as faith and repentance are the 
 necessary antecedents of baptism, sponsors are abso- 
 lutely required to render the baptism of infants availa- 
 ble ; and thirdly, that the foundation of infant sprink- 
 ling, is not the revealed will of Christ ; but the practice 
 and authority of the church ; the church interpreting 
 the mind of the Spirit, and accepting the vicarious pro- 
 fession." But where shall we find a scriptural warrant 
 for sponsorship 1 Where is a vicarious faith or repent- 
 ance spoken of in the word of God ? What divine 
 sanction can be adduced for this unseemly farce ? The 
 language, the exhortations, the promises, the very 
 genius of Christianity, are personal ; — " he that believeth 
 and is baptized, shall be saved ; he that believeth not 
 shall be damned." But the whole genius of this cere- 
 mony is representative, and the unconscious babe has a 
 certain number of deputies, to represent him before the 
 high court of heaven. It is repentance, faith, and 
 religion by proxy, as if men and women could go to 
 heaven by proxy ! Besides, we ask, are godfathers 
 and godmothers much better than perjured, seeing they 
 
82 THE SUBJECTS [CHAP. 
 
 solemnly promise that for others which they cannot 
 perform for themselves ? They engage, that " the 
 child shall love the Lord his God, with all his heart, 
 and keep all his holy commandments;" while, at the 
 same time, their own tenth Article declares, that "the 
 condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that 
 he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural 
 strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God;" 
 and their ninth Article expressly states, that " man is 
 very far gone from original righteousness, and is, by 
 his own nature, inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth 
 always contrary to the spirit ; and therefore, in every 
 person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath." 
 And yet, with these articles before them, godfathers and 
 godmothers dare to promise, and priests dare to accept 
 the promise ; that the child shall repent, shall exercise 
 faith, and love the Lord his God, with all his heart, and 
 keep all his holy commandments ! If this be not per- 
 jury, where shall we find it ? Were the Church of 
 England to do away vrith the use of sponsors, her own 
 articles and formularies would make her a baptist church, 
 for they require all that we require ; repentance towards 
 God, and faith in Christ before baptism ; and that bap- 
 tism should be by immersion. 
 
 The most eminent divines of the Church of Rome ad- 
 mit, that the baptism of infants can only be defended by 
 the traditions of the church. The greatest writers of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, have always confessed, that the 
 scriptures contain no warrant for the baptism of infants ; 
 and are quite willing to base their practice simply upon 
 the authority of their traditions. In this they have the 
 advantage over the votaries of the Church of England, 
 and others, who practise infant sprinkling, and yet deny 
 the authority of tradition. Dr. Wiseman, professor in 
 the University of Rome, writes, " I pass over two or 
 
VI.] OF BAPTISM. 83 
 
 three other passages that might be brought in favour of 
 purgatory, upon one of which I shall have to comment 
 a little later. All these texts you will say, are, after 
 all, obscure, and do not lead to any certain results. 
 True, but we have enough said in them to guide us to 
 some very striking probabilities ; these require further 
 elucidation, and where shall we look for it but in the 
 church, especially in ancient times. Take, as a similar 
 instance, the sacrament of baptism, as preached now in 
 the church. The apostles were simply told to baptize 
 all nations ; but how do you prove from this, that bap- 
 tism is to be conferred on infants ? And yet the 
 English Chuich Articles prescribe this infant baptism. 
 Or, whence comes the warrant for departing from the 
 literal meaning of the word, which means immersion, and 
 the adoption of mere affusion or sprinkling of the water ? 
 There may have been infants in the families or houses 
 spoken of as baptized, probably so, surely not enough 
 to base an important practice on it, which without bet- 
 ter authority should seem to contradict our Saviour's 
 command of faith preceding or accompanying baptism, 
 "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." 
 And in a positive institution, wholly depending on the 
 will of the legislator, positive authority is required for 
 any modification of the prescribed act. Where is the 
 security for these modifications, if not in the explana- 
 tions of the church conveyed to us by her ancient prac- 
 tices." (a) Thus we see that the greatest living divine 
 of the Romish Church, admits, that infant baptism 
 cannot be proved from scripture ; but he, as a catholic, 
 and a believer in the equal authority of the traditions 
 of the church with scripture, is consistent with himself 
 in his practice, But those are inconsistent, not only 
 
 (a) Lectures vol. ii. p 5. 
 
84 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. [cHAP. VI.] 
 
 with scripture but with themselves, who, as protestants, 
 reject the authority of tradition, and yet retain this rite. 
 They retain traditionary rites and forms, and yet reject 
 tradition. The catholic is honest in avowing that scrip- 
 ture contains no sanction for the baptism of infants, and 
 in pleading tradition as his authority ; but he is scarcely 
 honest who retains the ceremony, and yet denies the 
 sole basis of its authority. In the authenticated report 
 of the discussion between the Rev. T. D. Gregg, (a 
 protestant,) and the Rev. Thomas Maguire, (aromanist,) 
 which report is published by the church party at Dub- 
 lin, and is authenticated by the signature of the pro- 
 testant champion, the catholic asks the episcopalian this 
 knotty question : — " If the scriptures be the sole rule 
 of faith, as you say they are, how will you prove from 
 them, the lawfulness of infant baptism ; or give me your 
 authority for aspersion instead of immersion ?" An 
 awkward question indeed for an Episcopalian to 
 answer ! 
 
PART III. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE BAPTISM 
 OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 
 
 When the advocates of Paedo-baptism are driven 
 from every argument which they produce from the New 
 Testament, they usually fly to the Abrahamic covenant, 
 as to their Palladium. Here they imagine themselves 
 securely sheltered from all our assaults. They argue, 
 that the " covenant made with Abraham was made also 
 with his seed ;" that " this covenant was substantially 
 the same as the covenant of grace," and that as the 
 " children of the Jews were circumcised, the children of 
 believers ought to be baptized." 
 
 It will be unnecessary for us to weary the mind of 
 the reader by entering into an exhibition of the various 
 theories upon the nature and privileges of the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, with which our Paedo-baptist brethren 
 have deluged the christian public. We shall prefer 
 
86 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE [cHAP. 
 
 proceeding at once to shew, that to argue from circum- 
 cision to christian baptism, is egregious folly. Circum- 
 cision has no more connexion with christian baptism, 
 than any other Old Testament rite. 
 
 I. Circumcision was administered only to the male 
 children of the Jews, while baptism is administered to 
 both sexes. If the covenant made with Abraham was 
 the covenant of grace, and if circumcision was its seal, 
 then clearly the female children of the Jews were destitute 
 of this seal, and their souls were left to the uncovenanted 
 mercies of God ! But baptism is to be administered 
 equally to male and female. Circumcision was a 
 national ordinance, and as such, might with propriety be 
 administered only to males, they being usually regarded 
 as the representatives of the whole commonwealth. 
 But, in Christ Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek, 
 male nor female. Baptism is confined to no nation or 
 sex. Wherever there is faith, there exists a valid title 
 to the ordinance. 
 
 II. It was obligatory upon all the Jews, whether 
 they were believers or infidels, to have their male chil- 
 dren circumcised. The priest was allowed to make no 
 distinction ; but whatever the character of the parents 
 might be, he was obliged to perform this rite upon their 
 offspring. But those who practise infant baptism will 
 not administer that rite to any but children who have 
 believing parents, or who have sponsors to answer for 
 them. 
 
 III. The men servants and slaves of a household 
 were all commanded to be circumcised with their mas- 
 ter, upon pain of being cut off from the people, or put 
 to death. But who is there that believes this is the 
 case with the ordinance of baptism ? Who will main- 
 tain that when a man believes upon Christ, not only 
 are all his children to be baptized, but all his male ser- 
 
I.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 87 
 
 vants, and that upon pain of death 1 According to the 
 . hypothesis, that baptism is of the same nature as cir- 
 cumcision, if a West India planter should embrace the 
 gospel, every male negro on his premises should be 
 baptized ; or, if he refused, be put to death ! 
 
 IV. Though our blessed Lord had received the Jew- 
 ish rite in his infancy, yet he was baptized in his riper 
 years. This proves that there is a distinction between 
 the two ceremonies, or, where the necessity for the 
 observance of both? All the earlier converts to Chris- 
 tianity being Jews, had been circumcised in their infancy, 
 and yet, when they embraced the truth as it is in Jesus, 
 they were baptized, upon a profession of their faith. 
 
 V. It cannot with propriety be said that circumcision 
 was a type of baptism. Both circumcision and bap- 
 tism are types, and no type can be the type of a type. 
 
 The Apostle Paul tells us what circumcision typified ; 
 " In Christ we are circumcised with the circumcision 
 made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of 
 the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." The circum- 
 cision of Christ is one " made without hands :" it there- 
 fore cannot be infant baptism ; for infant baptism is 
 a ceremony as truly performed with hands, as was cir- 
 cumcision. That which circumcision typified, was not 
 baptism, but " the putting off the body of the sins of 
 the flesh." True indeed, circumcision and baptism are 
 both typical of the same thing ; but the one is not 
 typical of the other. 
 
 VI. Suppose we were to grant that baptism came in 
 the room of circumcision, we have one question to 
 ask the Paedo-baptists ; To which seed of Abraham is 
 the new ordinance of baptism to be administered ? his 
 natural or his spiritual seed ? Now let our opponents 
 think well before they reply. They must choose one of 
 the two alternatives. Do they answer " To Abraham's 
 
88 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE [ciIAP. 
 
 natural seed?" then they must baptize none but Jews, 
 for they only are Abraham's natural seed. But if they 
 choose the other alternative, their cause is equally 
 defeated ; for then they must confine baptism to be- 
 lievers; for they only are Abraham's spiritual seed. 
 Abraham was a spiritual father exclusively " to those 
 who believe," to " those who obtain like precious faith 
 with himself." Hence our Redeemer justly charged 
 the unbelieving Jews, with not being Abraham's chil- 
 dren. They were his natural but not his spiritual seed. 
 Let our Paedo-baptist brethren, then, take which horn 
 of this dilemma they please ; their argument from the 
 Abrahamic covenant is ground to powder and scattered 
 to the winds of heaven. In fact, we have turned their 
 weapon upon themselves, and made it pierce the very 
 vitals of their theory. Either they must baptize none 
 but Jews, or none but believers. The children of be- 
 lievers are neither Abraham's natural nor his spiritual 
 seed ; and therefore no argument can be drawn from 
 the Abrahamic covenant in favour of their baptism. If 
 the argument is of any force, it tells against instead of 
 for infant baptism ! 
 
 VII. The New Testament Church is widely different 
 in its members, ordinances, and nature, from the Old Tes- 
 tament Church. The Old Testament Church consisted 
 of the whole body of the Jewish people ; and its members 
 were entitled to admission by birth and by circumcision. 
 Its ordinances, its worship, and its sacrifices, were all 
 typical of "better things to come." No change of 
 heart, and no faith in God's promises were required in 
 order to admission within its pale. Every Jew was 
 ipso facto, a member. Now infant circumcision was a 
 very proper ordinance of initiation into such a church 
 as this. A national initiatory ordinance, well became a 
 national church. A Hebrew infant was as truly a son 
 
I.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 89 
 
 of Abraham, as the full grown man, and 'therefore, 
 equally entitled to the ordinance of circumcision. But 
 the Church of Christ is a society of entirely a different 
 character. Members are admitted within her pale, not 
 by a carnal but by a spiritual birth. " Except a man 
 be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 
 The New Testament Church is a spiritual society, and 
 if at any time carnal members creep into her bosom, she 
 is unhesitatingly to eject them. She is compared to " a 
 chaste virgin, espoused unto Christ." Her ordinances 
 are spiritual, and such as only renewed characters can 
 lawfully celebrate. The new birth gives a right to 
 baptism, and the new birth and baptism united, give a 
 title to admission into the church. Carnal descent 
 from Abraham, and circumcision, occupied the same 
 place under the Old Testament, as the new birth and 
 baptism do under the New. An infant is incapable of 
 membership with the christian church, and therefore has 
 no right to the ordinance which initiates into that sacred 
 society. Prove that an infant belongs to the spi- 
 ritual seed of Abraham, and that he is capable of fellow- 
 ship with the church of God, and then you will prove 
 his right to baptism. But does it follow that because 
 infants were admitted into the Jewish church, therefore 
 they should be admitted into the Christian ? 
 
 The Jewish church consisting of all the carnal pos- 
 terity of Abraham, was a type of that church the mem- 
 bers of which are " a royal generation, a holy priest- 
 hood, and a peculiar people." Infants might be admit- 
 ted into the former, but they are incapable of member- 
 ship with the latter. 
 
 VIII. There is clear evidence, that the apostles neither 
 preached nor practised infant baptism as a substitute for 
 infant circumcision. We are prepared to show, that 
 such a ceremony as infant baptism coming in the room 
 
90 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE [cHAP. 
 
 of infant circumcision was unknown in the Apostle's 
 days. This is more than we are bound to prove by 
 the legitimate rules of controversy. Our opponents 
 assert, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, in 
 the place of infant circumcision ; and we deny it. Now, 
 the onus probandi clearly lies upon them. They must 
 prove their affirmative before we can be justly called 
 upon to prove our negative. But this they cannot do, 
 for no passage of scripture can be found to sustain their 
 position ; and in the absence of proof on their part, 
 their assertion falls to the ground, and our negative is 
 virtually proved. 
 
 We are, however, both willing and able, in this con- 
 troversy, to do a work of super-errogation ; and shall 
 prove by a simple fact, that infant baptism as a substi- 
 tute for infant circumcision, could not have been taught 
 or practised by the Apostles. 
 
 If the Apostles had preached or administered the bap- 
 tism of infants, as a substitute for the circumcision of in- 
 fants, how can we account for the unceasing disputes with 
 which the New Testament Church was convulsed respect- 
 ing the continuance of circumcision ? The wranglings of 
 the early christians upon this point, clearly shew, that 
 in their days, infants were not the subjects of a rite 
 corresponding with circumcision. If the apostles had 
 preached infant baptism as a substitute for cir- 
 cumcision, the latter would immediately have died a 
 natural death. Suppose a case by way of illustration. 
 Here is a Jew converted to Christianity ; he has been 
 in the habit of having his children, as they were born, 
 circumcised according to the law of Moses ; a child is 
 born to him after his conversion, and now the question 
 arises, " what am I to do with respect to the circmci- 
 sion of this babe?" He is, however, taught by the 
 apostles, that a new ceremony, infant baptism, has come 
 
I.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 91 
 
 in the room of infant circumcision ; that his duty 
 is, to have his children baptized ; and that this will he 
 a sufficient substitute for their circumcision. Now we 
 ask, what difficulty could he feel in determining how 
 to act ? Would not every scruple be removed, and 
 would not infant circumcision be abandoned by 
 him without a question ? But the perpetual strifes con- 
 cerning the continuance or abandonment of circumci- 
 sion which existed in the Apostle's days, prove that there 
 was then no corresponding ordinance for infants in the 
 christian church. 
 
 On one occasion the Apostles and Elders assembled 
 at Jerusalem, to deliberate upon this question, (a) and 
 a long discussion ensued. No one, however, suggested 
 that the debate was superfluous, because infant cir- 
 cumcision was superseded by its anti-type infant 
 baptism. And yet the mere annunciation of this cir- 
 cumstance, would have for ever settled the controversy. 
 We contend, that the apostles could not have avoided 
 making some reference to such a satisfactory solution 
 of the existing difficulty, as this must have proved if 
 such a solution existed. A mere reference to the sub- 
 stitution of infant baptism for infant circumcision ; a 
 declaration that though the modus of the Jewish rite 
 was changed, its essential features were retained ; would 
 have quelled all clamour. But the perfect silence of 
 the apostles concerning any such mode of settling the 
 dispute, proved that such mode did not exist ; and that 
 infant baptism as a substitute for infant circumcision 
 was unknown to them. 
 
 We entreat our Paedo-baptist brethren, to consider 
 this argument. We have never yet met with the man 
 
 (a) See Acta x- 
 
92 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE [CHAP. 
 
 who could reply to it ; nor do we believe it possible 
 fairly to escape from its force. 
 
 IX. Infants are saved not by virtue of any covenant 
 made with man, but by the covenant of Redemption. To 
 this point we have already referred ; (a) we shall there- 
 fore not enlarge upon it here. Even the children of 
 Abraham, and of believers, are not saved by what is 
 commonly called the new covenant ; but by their inter- 
 est in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. They are incapa- 
 ble of faith, and consequently cannot have an interest 
 in that covenant, the terms of which are, "he that 
 believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." 
 
 Hence appears the absurdity of baptizing infants. 
 The ordinances of the new covenant cannot with 
 propriety be administered to any but those who are 
 interested in the new covenant ; but infants are not 
 interested in the new covenant, and therefore, are not 
 entitled to its ordinances. They are interested in the 
 secret covenant of redemption ; but not in the new 
 covenant of grace. 
 
 X. We shall now be better prepared to consider the 
 true nature and tenor of the Abrahamic covenant. We 
 apprehend that the right explanation of the Abrahamic 
 covenant has been hit upon by those who consider it, 
 as having a literal and spiritual signification. 
 
 " For the accomplishment of the grand promise, that 
 all nations should be blessed in Abraham, three promi- 
 ses were given to him. First, a numerous posterity, 
 which was fulfilled in the letter, in the nation of Israel. 
 It was fulfilled in the spirit, by the divine constitution, 
 that makes all believers the children of Abraham. The 
 unbelieving Jews were Abraham's children as to the 
 flesh, yet there is a sense in which Jesus denies that 
 
 (a) Pages G8, 69. 
 
I.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 93 
 
 they were the children of Abraham. The second pro- 
 mise was to be a God to him and his seed, which was 
 fulfilled in the letter, by his protection of Israel in 
 Egypt, — his delivering of them from bondage, — his 
 taking them into covenant at Sinai, — and all his subse- 
 quent dealings with them in their generations, till they 
 were cast off by their rejection of Christ. This pro- 
 mise is fulfilled in the spirit, by God's being a God to 
 all believers, and to them alone, (a) in a higher sense 
 than he was to Israel. (6) The third promise was of 
 the land of Canaan, fulfilled in the letter to Israel, and 
 in the spirit fulfilled to the true Israel, in the possession 
 of the heavenly inheritance. In accordance with this 
 double sense of the promises of this covenant, the king- 
 dom of God in Israel, with its officers, laws, worship, 
 &c, is a visible model of the invisible kingdom of 
 Christ, (c) 
 
 Hence it appears, that the promises of the Abrahamic 
 covenant, had a twofold application. They guaranteed 
 to Abraham's natural seed, the enjoyment of many tem- 
 poral blessings ; and they secured to his spiritual seed, 
 that their faith should be counted to them for righteous- 
 ness. Bat the Abrahamic covenant contains no pro- 
 mise to the natural seed of Abraham's spiritual seed. 
 It is true God promised to be a God to Abraham's seed 
 after him ; and this promise has ever been fulfilled. 
 God was a God to the Jews, Abraham's natural seed, 
 until they were cast off, for crucifying the Lord Jesus ; 
 and he has ever been a God in a higher and more im- 
 portant sense to Abraham's spiritual seed, to all who 
 have obtained like precious faith, with their illustrious 
 head. But no promise was made in that covenant to 
 
 (a) iv. Rom. 11, 12. (6) xxxi. Jere. 33. (r) Dr. Carson on 
 Baptism, p. 2H 
 
94 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE [CHAP. 
 
 the natural seed of believers. " That covenant consti- 
 tutes all believers Abraham's seed, and secures to them 
 an inheritance as such ; but of their seed it says no- 
 thing." (a) No argument therefore, can be drawn from 
 the promises made in that covenant to believers, to 
 favour the baptism of the children of believers. 
 
 The reader is requested to turn to the thirty-first 
 chapter of Jeremiah, from the thirty-first to the thirty- 
 fourth verse, and to the eighth chapter of Hebrews, 
 from the tenth to the thirteenth verse, for a full des- 
 cription of the new covenant, or the covenant of grace. 
 All interested in this covenant are said to " have the 
 laws of God written upon their heart, by God himself ;" 
 to " know the Lord from the least of them unto the 
 greatest;" and " to have their sins forgiven, and their 
 iniquities remembered no more." Now, clearly, the 
 infants of believers are not included in this covenant. 
 Can they be said to know the Lord, and to have the 
 law of God written upon their hearts ? Do they not 
 need instruction when they grow up, as much as other 
 children ? How absurd to apply passages like these to 
 infants ! They can only be fulfilled in Abraham's spi- 
 ritual seed. 
 
 XI. Dr. Wardlaw endeavours to prove the identity of 
 the Abrahamic covenant with the covenant of grace, 
 from these words of the Apostle : — 
 
 " And the scripture, foreseeing that God would jus- 
 tify the heathen through faith, preached before the gos- 
 pel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed." (b) Now, it is quite clear, that the Abra- 
 hamic covenant preached and adumbrated the gospel ; 
 but does it hence follow, that it was the gospel ? Jf so, 
 then, the greater part of the ceremonies and sacrifices of 
 
 («) Dr. Carson on Baptism, p. 220. (b) iii. Gal. 8. 
 
I.J BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 95 
 
 the law, were the gospel ; for they preached salvation 
 by faith in the atonement. To call the Abrahamic 
 covenant the gospel, is absurd. Did the Abrahamic 
 covenant contain nothing but gospel truth ? Do all its 
 promises apply to every believer ? Has God any where 
 promised to be the God of the seed of believers, as he 
 promised to be the God of the seed of Abraham ? Many 
 things which are essential elements of the Abrahamic 
 covenant, are not promised in the gospel to all 
 believers. 
 
 " Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto 
 him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they 
 who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 
 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify 
 the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel 
 unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed. So then they who are of faith are blessed with 
 faithful Abraham." (a) This passage tells against, and 
 not for Paedo-baptism. It establishes the important 
 point to which we have more than once alluded, that 
 believers alone are the spiritual seed of Abraham ; and 
 that the spiritual application of the promises of the 
 Abrahamic covenant, can only be made to believers. 
 
 The Abrahamic covenant was of a peculiar character. 
 It is not made with all believers, though as a conse- 
 quence of its existence, believers are blessed with faith- 
 ful Abraham." 
 
 " If a man is a believer, God will be his God, accord- 
 ing to the covenant of Abraham, for he is by faith one 
 of the seed of Abraham ; but that he shall have a spi- 
 ritual or a carnal seed is not promised by that covenant. 
 The covenant secured this to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 
 only ; for to these it was individually given. It is as 
 
 (a) vii. Gal. 6 to 9. 
 
96 OFJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE CHAT. 
 
 absurd for a believer to claim the promises to Abraham, 
 as to claim the crown of Great Britain. This is a point 
 as clear as the light of heaven, and it overturns all the 
 elaborate deductions that have been drawn from the 
 Abrahamic covenant." (a) 
 
 XII. We shall in conclusion explain how circumci- 
 sion was to Abraham "a seal of righteousness." Dr. 
 Dwight endeavours, but very unsuccessfully, to shew, 
 that this passage proves, that the Abrahamic covenant, 
 was the covenant of grace, which God has always made 
 with those who believe, in all periods of the world's 
 history. If, however, we read the whole verse we shall 
 readily discover the meaning of the apostle. " We say 
 that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 
 How was it then reckoned ? when he was in circumci- 
 sion or in uncircumcision 1 Not in circumcision, but 
 in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circum- 
 cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he 
 had yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the 
 father of all them that believe, though they be not cir- 
 cumcised that righteousness might be imputed unto them 
 also." iv. Rom. 9, 10, 11. We may here notice, 
 first ; this whole passage is applied not to the Jews 
 generally, but to Abraham 'particularly. It is not said, 
 that circumcision was the seal of righteousness to all 
 the Jews, but to Abraham individually. Secondly ; it is 
 spoken of as being received by a person of mature years, 
 and of great piety, since it was " a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised." 
 Thirdly ; it is not alluded to, as though sealing any 
 future blessings which Abraham was looking for, but 
 as sealing a blessing which he had possessed long before, 
 even " the righteousness which he had through faith." 
 
 (a) Dr. Carson on Baptism p. 221. 
 
I.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 97 
 
 The apostle carefully abstains from saying that circum- 
 cision sealed the possession of any future spiritual 
 blessing, either to Abraham or his offspring : — he simply 
 states, that circumcision sealed that which a strong and 
 lively faith had previously realised, long before his cir- 
 cumcision. Fourthly ; the apostle expressly adds, that 
 he received this seal or testimony to the acceptance of 
 his faith, " that he might be the father of all them that 
 believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteous- 
 ness might.be imputed to them also." A participation 
 in Abraham's blessedness is restricted to those who 
 believe, whether circumcised or not. To apply what is 
 here said to infants, is therefore downright folly. The 
 words can only be applied to Abraham, as it cannot be 
 said of any other person, that, he is constituted ft the 
 father of all them who believe,, though they be not 
 circumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed to 
 them also ; and the father of circumcision to them who 
 are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in 
 the steps of that faith of our father Abraham." To 
 say that circumcision or baptism, can be to an infant a 
 seal of the righteousness which he had by faith, yet 
 being unbaptized or uncircumcised, is worse than folly ; 
 and yet this is the only passage in the whole bible, in which 
 circumcision is called a seal. All the arguments, there- 
 fore, drawn from this passage, and from others relating 
 to circumcision, in favour of infant sprinkling, are des- 
 titute of any force. A little calm reflection will con- 
 vince any impartial mind, that circumcision never was 
 the seal of the covenant of grace. Circumcision was a 
 peculiar seal to Abraham, of the acceptance of his faith, 
 and of his being constituted the temporal Head of all 
 his posterity, and the spiritual Head of all true believers. 
 But in every other case, circumcision sealed no spiritual 
 blessing to the individual who was circumcised : it sim- 
 
98 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE, ETC. [cHAP. I. 
 
 ply sealed, that, God would be a God to all Abraham's 
 posterity, after the flesh ; and a God in a much better 
 sense, to his spiritual seed, believers. It had no per- 
 sonal application as a seal of the righteousness of faith, 
 to the individual who was circumcised. The ordinance 
 was inapplicable to females, who nevertheless were 
 admitted to all the privileges of the Abrahamic covenant. 
 It was on the other hand, administered" to slaves, who 
 had no interest in the privileges enjoyed by the Jewish 
 people. 
 
 No argument therefore, can be drawn from circum- 
 cision in favour of infant baptism. This strong-hold of 
 Faedo-haptism is demolished ; and our opponents must 
 seek for some other defence of their practice. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE CONDUCT OF CHRIST TO THE LITTLE CHILDREN 
 BROUGHT UNTO HIM. 
 
 The conduct of our Lord to the little children brought 
 unto him is often urged as an argument in favour of infant 
 baptism. " And they brought young children unto 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 God. Verily I say unto 
 you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as 
 a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took 
 them in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed 
 them." From this circumstance, some endeavour 
 to prove the correctness of infant baptism, but we can 
 shew the reader, in a few minutes, that this passage is 
 directly opposed to such a practice. For, first; — we are 
 told in another part of the Testament, that Jesus did 
 not baptize. " Jesus himself baptized not, but his 
 disciples." {a) If Jesus therefore baptized not, it is 
 
 (a) John iv. 2. 
 
100 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE [cHAP 
 
 evident he could not have baptized these children. 
 Secondly, consider, that the disciples, who baptized 
 for Christ, were the very persons who rebuked the people 
 that brought these children to Christ. But, it is very 
 evident, that had the disciples been in the habit of bap- 
 tizing children, or had they received any command from 
 Christ for such an act, they never would have dared to 
 rebuke these people for bringing infants to Christ. 
 Thirdly, had it been the mind and will of Christ that 
 children should be baptized, he certainly would have 
 stated it at this time. For, consider all the circum- 
 stances of the case. Here were a number of persons, 
 exceedingly anxious for the good of their offspring ; in 
 the height of their parental solicitude they bring them 
 to Jesus, that he may touch them, and pray over them. 
 Picture the group ! see the anxious parents, crowding 
 round our Saviour, holding forth their offspring to his 
 notice, and commending them to his care ! mark the 
 dignified benevolence with which our Lord gazes on 
 the scene ! And now surely if baptism will be of any 
 service to these infants, if it will confer any benefit 
 upon them, if it will secure them any privilege, our 
 Lord will command their baptism ! But he says not a 
 word upon the subject, but simply takes them in his 
 arms and blesses them. If Christ ever intended infant 
 baptism to exist, he certainly would have taken this favour- 
 able opportunity for stating it ; but not a word is said 
 upon the subject; from which we fairly infer, that 
 it never was the will of Christ that infants should be 
 baptized. Thus bishop Taylor says, " From the action 
 of Christ's blessing infants, to infer they are to be bap- 
 tized, proves nothing so much, as that there is a want of 
 better arguments ; for the conclusion would with more 
 probability, be derived thus : Christ blessed infants, 
 
II.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 101 
 
 and so dismissed them, but baptized them not ; there- 
 fore infants are not to be baptized." (a) 
 
 Other eminent Paedo-baptists have made similar 
 admissions. Mr. Poole's Continuators, on this very- 
 scripture remark : — " We must take heed we do 
 not found infant baptism upon the example of Christ in 
 this text ; for it is certain that he did not baptize these 
 children. Mark only saith, He took them into his 
 arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them." (b) 
 
 Dr. Doddridge says, " I acknowledge these words of 
 themselves will not prove infant baptism to be an insti- 
 tution of Christ." (c) 
 
 When our Redeemer says, " of such is the kingdom 
 of God," he evidently means that the kingdom of God 
 consists of persons possessed of the meekness and 
 teachableness of little children. He does not mean the 
 kingdom of God is of little children. Had he intended 
 to convey that idea, he would have said, " of them," 
 and not " of such." The phrase "of such" implies 
 likeness not identity. The whole transaction is 
 illustrated by another of a similar character ; Jesus 
 called a little child, and set him in the midst of them, 
 and said " Verily I say unto you except ye be con- 
 verted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven." (d) 
 
 (a) Liberty of Prophecy, p. 230 (fc) In loco, (c) In loco. 
 (d) xviii. Matt. 2, 3. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE HOLINESS OF THE CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS. 
 
 Another argument in favour of infant baptism, is by 
 some drawn from the holiness of the children of believers, 
 which is referred to by Paul, in those words, "Else were 
 your children unclean; but noiv they are holy.'''' This 
 passage is strongly insisted upon by Drs. Doddridge 
 and D wight, as a proof of the title which the children 
 of believers have to baptism. But if the reader will 
 turn to the connexion, he will readily perceive the 
 meaning of the holy apostle : — " And the woman which 
 hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased 
 to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbe- 
 lieving husband is sanctified by (or to) the wife, and the 
 unbelieving wife is sanctified by (or to) the husband ; 
 else were your children unclean ; but now they are 
 holy." On this passage we observe, First; — the minds 
 of some of the Corinthians whose partners were uncon- 
 verted, were much disturbed with these two questions : 
 Is it lawful for us who are christians to live with our 
 unconverted partners ? and are the children who have 
 been born to us since our conversion, legitimate, or the 
 offspring of an unlawful connexion ? Such marriages 
 
CHAP. III.] OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE, ETC. 103 
 
 were not lawful to the Jews, and they were commanded 
 on more than one occasion, to put away their strange 
 wives and children. (») The apostle meets these questions, 
 "by shewing that there is nothing unlawful in the con- 
 tinuance of the connexion, in such cases, and that there- 
 fore the children are not the fruit of uncleanness. He 
 does not say that the unbelieving husband, or the un- 
 conscious children, are made the partakers of a work 
 of spiritual sanctification in the heart; but that 
 they are made ceremonially holy ; the husband 
 sanctified to the wife, or the wife to the husband, so 
 that no legal defilement attaches either to them or their 
 offspring. But all this has nothing to do with baptism. 
 Had the apostle added, " and the faith of one parent 
 shall be sufficient to give the child a title to baptism," 
 then might this passage have been deemed conclusive ; 
 and most certainly if it were the custom to baptize the 
 children of believing parents, the important question 
 would have been here discussed and answered, "is the 
 faith of one, parent a sufficient warrant for the baptism of 
 an infant.'" But this question is not even alluded to; 
 from which we are to infer, that children were not bap- 
 tized at all in the days of Paul. Secondly, consider too, 
 that if we are to gather from this passage, that children 
 are to be baptized, on the ground of the faith of the 
 parent, then we must conclude that the unbelieving part- 
 ner is to be baptized on the same ground. For the 
 apostle affirms the same thing of the unbelieving hus- 
 band as he does' of the children. He as much states 
 that the unbelieving husband is made holy by the believ- 
 ing wife, as, that the children are ; and therefore, if the 
 holiness here referred to, gives the child a title to baptism, 
 it must confer the same right on the unbelieving husband. 
 
 (a) See i. Ezra 3—44. and xiii. Nehe. 23, 24. 
 
104 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE, ETC. [CHAP. III. 
 
 The passage might better be translated thus, " The un- 
 believing husband is made holy to the wife, and the un- 
 believing wife is made holy to the husband : otherwise 
 your children are unclean, but indeed they are holy." 
 The term aplied to the children is agios holy, and that 
 applied to the unbelieving husband, is the verb derived 
 from the same root, agiazo, to make holy. The same 
 holiness is possessed by both parties ; so that if the 
 holiness of the children entitle them to baptism, that of 
 the unbelieving spouse entitles him to the same privi- 
 lege. But we boldly affirm, that, the proper inference 
 to be drawn from this passage is, that such a ceremony 
 as infant baptism was unknown to the apostles. It is 
 quite clear that scruples respecting the legitimacy and 
 ceremonial purity of these children, if they had received 
 christian baptism, could never have entered the minds of 
 their parents. 
 
 Could the parent doubt, that, his child was ceremo- 
 nially holy, if it had been baptized ? How can we ac- 
 count for such scruples on the supposition, that, the 
 children had received the solemn ordinance of baptism 
 in the name of the sacred Trinity. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 peter's sermon on the day of pentecost. 
 
 An argument in favour of the baptism of infants , is fre- 
 quently adduced from this passage in Peter's sermon on 
 the day of Pentecost, " The promise is to you and to your 
 children." Dr. Dwight and others have seized upon 
 these words, but have, very unfortunately, from some 
 accident or other, omitted all notice of the connexion. 
 11 Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized, 
 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your 
 children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as 
 the Lord our God shall call." Acts ii. 38, 39. Now 
 here, reader, notice ; First, what the promise itself is. 
 This we must gather from the connexion ; and we find 
 that it is such as cannot be applied to infants, 
 for it is the gift of the Holy Ghost. " Ye shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you 
 and to your children, &c. The gift of the Holy Ghost 
 is the promise. But how can this be applied to chil- 
 dren in a state of infancy? how can they receive the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost ? Secondly, notice the connect- 
 
106 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE, ETC. [cHAP. IV. 
 
 ing clause, " even to as many as the Lord our God shall 
 call." Not to all your children whom you may choose to 
 sprinkle in their infancy, but to as many as the Lord your 
 God shall call." To them and to them only. To those 
 who are of an age capable .of receiving the promised 
 blessing, and of being called by God, and who have 
 been actually called. By this connecting clause the 
 question is at once settled, and it is plain that infants 
 are not referred to. Thirdly, consider that the Greek 
 word tekna, here rendered children, simply means off- 
 spring without any reference to age. It indicates 
 merely the relation between father and son. It answers 
 to our word, children, when we employ it in such sen- 
 tences as the following 'we are all the children of 
 Adam.' It is applied to both sexes, and to all ages. 
 It is used in cases where it cannot refer to any but 
 adults. As in the following, ' in this are manifest the 
 children of God, (ta tekna tou theou) and the children of 
 the devil, (ta tekna tou diabolou') 1 John iii. 10. "If 
 ye were Ahraham's children, (tekna) ye would do the 
 works of Abraham." John viii. 39. In this same sense 
 it is used in the passage which we are now discussing. 
 The nature of the promise alluded to, the denning 
 clause connected with the words, and the general use 
 and sense of the term, must convince any impartial 
 mind that unconscious babes cannot be alluded to, but 
 persons who were of such an age as to render them 
 capable of receiving the promise. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF HOUSEHOLDS. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw, and Mr. Ewing, both dwell at great 
 length upon the baptism of the households, mentioned 
 in scripture, as a clear proof that infants were baptized 
 by the apostles. 
 
 But before this argument can serve the Paedo-baptist 
 cause, it must be in evidence, that there were children 
 in these households ; and that they were baptized. — • 
 Mere probability will not suffice to establish a controverted 
 affirmative. It does not devolve upon us to prove, that 
 there were not infants in these households, and that 
 if there were, they were not included among the bap- 
 tized. It' lies upon our opponents to prove their affir- 
 mative, that there were infants, in these households ; 
 and that they were included among the baptized. This 
 however »they cannot do ; so that the argument from 
 the households is not worth a straw to them. 
 
 The baptism of households does not'necessarily imply 
 the baptism of infants, for there are many households 
 in which there are no infants. And even if there were 
 infants in the households mentioned in scripture as 
 baptized, it does not necessarily follow, that they were 
 
108 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE [cHAP. 
 
 included among the baptized. The commission was to 
 baptize "disciples ," or "believers" and as infants can- 
 not possibly be regarded as "disciples" or "believers," 
 they could not be baptized by virtue of the commission. 
 The known limitations of the commission would exclude 
 them. A baptized household, therefore, in scripture 
 means, a household all the adults of which had been 
 first discipled and then baptized, according to the com- 
 mission. 
 
 The terms house, household, and family, &c, are 
 frequently used in a limited sense. If on calling at the 
 house of a friend, we were told, that "the family were 
 gone to chapel," should we understand, that infants 
 were included? The infant might be at the time at 
 home, yet we do not think that our Paedo-baptist 
 friends would reprove any one for saying under such 
 circumstances "the whole family are gone to chapel !" 
 
 It is in the same sense that the apostle uses the word 
 in the following passage:— "A bishop then must be;" 
 "one that ruleth well his own house, having his children 
 in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not 
 how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the 
 Church of God." Clearly infants are not included in 
 this place under the term house, for they are incapable of 
 such government as is here described. The house to be 
 ruled must be a house capable of being ruled. So a 
 baptized house must be a house capable of being baptized. 
 
 Another instance of a similar use of the term is found in 
 the first book of Samuel. " The man Elkanah, and all 
 his house went up to offer unto the Lord the yearly 
 sacrifice, and his vow." Yet we are afterwards told, 
 that Hannah and the infant samuel abode at home. 
 A similar passage is found in the book of Joshua, "As 
 for me and my house we will serve the Lord." But 
 infants, clearly, are incapable of serving the Lord. 
 
V.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 109 
 
 So when we read, that, a " household" was baptized 
 by the apostles, we are evidently to understand the 
 word household in the limited sense which the com- 
 mission puts upon it. The commission, and the unva- 
 rying practice of the apostles on other occasions, must 
 explain the latitude of the meaning of the term, in such 
 a connexion. As the commission enjoins the baptism 
 of none but "disciples," or "believers;" — and as the 
 apostles on all other occasions scrupulously adhered to 
 this direction, we are bound to believe that infants were 
 not included among the individuals of the household 
 who were baptized. 
 
 We shall now briefly notice the accounts of the bap- 
 tism of the households by the apostles. 
 
 There are only three cases of household baptism re- 
 corded in the New Testament ; although, no doubt, 
 many of the heads of other houses were baptized. But, 
 though thousands who were at the head of families 
 were baptized, yet we only have it on record that three 
 families were baptized. These are particularly alluded 
 to. Now, from this fact, we infer, that there was some- 
 thing in the character of these households which dis- 
 tinguished them from others, and which will explain 
 the reason of their baptism. This peculiarity we shall 
 find to be nothing more nor less than this, that they all 
 believed. To begin with the house of the jailer : — "And 
 they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all 
 that were in his house. And when he had brought them 
 into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, 
 believing in God, with all his house." (a) Let the 
 reader observe, First ; all the baptized members of this 
 household had the word of the Lord spoken unto them ; 
 clearly, then, there could have been none among them 
 
 (a) xvi. Acts, 32, 33, 34. 
 
110 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE [cHAP. 
 
 but persons who were capable of having the word 
 preached unto them. Secondly; all the baptized "re- 
 joiced believing in God-" they must therefore have 
 all been able to believe and rejoice in God. But 
 how can unconscious infants be capable of any of 
 these things? and as they were incompetent to hear 
 the word, to believe, and rejoice in God, they were 
 evidently not included in the baptism here described; 
 since all who were baptized, without exception, heard 
 the word, believed, and rejoiced. Thirdly ; But should 
 it be urged, that, we are not to suppose that literally 
 every individual in the household believed, &c, but 
 that the greater part did ; we answer, that if this limi- 
 tation is to be admitted as to the belief, &c, of the 
 household, then must it also be admitted in the baptism 
 of the household, since it is equally said, that "all 
 believed, rejoiced, &c," as, that "all were baptized." 
 The two terms are the same, and therefore if the one is 
 to be understood in a restricted sense, so must the other ; 
 but, if one is understood literally to mean all, then 
 must the other mean the same thing. Which ever way 
 we understand the words, they clearly recognize the 
 connexion between faith and baptism. We know not 
 whether there were infants in this household or not, and 
 upon that point our opponents are as ignorant as our- 
 selves ; but we do contend, that if there were, they were 
 not baptized; for all the baptized members of the house- 
 hold had the word of the Lord preached unto them, and 
 rejoiced, believing in God. But infants are incapable 
 of all these things, and therefore, were evidently not 
 among the baptized. 
 
 If Dr. Wardlaw understands the phrase " all his 
 house" as refering only to the adults when it is said, 
 that " all his house," "rejoiced, believing in God;" — he 
 give* up his argument ; and must understand the phrase 
 
V.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. Ill 
 
 in the same limitation when it is applied to the baptism 
 of the house. 
 
 "By the very same argument that our opponents 
 shew that there might have been unbelieving infants in 
 believing houses, we can shew, that there might have 
 been unbaptized infants in baptized houses." (a) 
 
 Another baptized household was that of Stephanas. 
 " And I baptized also the household of Stephanas." (b) 
 The baptism of this household is not recorded in the 
 Acts. We have no information that it contained any 
 children ; or that they were included among the bap- 
 tized ; but there is, on the other hand, clear proof that 
 the baptized individuals of the household were believers. 
 " Ye know," says the apostle, "the house of Stephanas, 
 that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have 
 addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." It 
 appears then, that this baptized household were " the 
 first fruits of Achaia," that is, "they were the first who 
 trusted in Christ," and that they addicted themselves 
 to the ministry of the saints. But how could infants 
 addict themselves to the ministry of the saints ? and if 
 that were impossible, have we not plain evidence that 
 there were no infants in this baptized household ? The 
 terms are both equally extensive in their application ; 
 the one is as general as the other. If, therefore, we 
 believe that every person in the household was baptized, 
 we must believe that every person in the household 
 addicted himself to the ministry of the saints ; but if 
 we understand the expression as limited, in the one case, 
 we are bound to understand it in the other, in the same 
 way. If all the house did not addict themselves to the 
 ministry of the saints, then all the house were not bap- 
 tized ; if some in the house were incapable of the for- 
 
 (a) Carson, p. 185. (b) 1 Corin. i. 16. 
 
112 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE, [dIAP» 
 
 mer, they were equally incapable of the latter. If we 
 interpret the one passage, as merely meaning that a 
 great number in the household, were addicted to the 
 ministry of the saints, then we must apply the same 
 interpretation to the other, and say, that it simply 
 means that a considerable number in the household, 
 repented, believed the gospel, and were baptized. 
 But, if our opponents insist upon it, that every inmate 
 of the house of Stephanas was baptized, we have the 
 same right to maintain that every inmate addicted him- 
 self to the ministry of the saints, or, in other words, was 
 a pious character. This however we will not do. 
 There may have been children in this house for aught 
 that we know to the contrary. All we contend for is, 
 that, every baptized individual, trusted in Christ, and 
 addicted himself to the ministry of the saints. Infants 
 are as much excluded from the baptism, as from the 
 faith in Christ, and the ministry of the saints. They 
 are not more incapable of the latter than of the former ! 
 The last household baptism mentioned in the word of 
 God, is that of Lydia. This is recorded in the Acts, (a) 
 " And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, 
 of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard 
 us ; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended 
 unto those things which were spoken of Paul. And 
 when she was baptized, and her household, she besought 
 us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the 
 Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she 
 constrained us." But, can our opponents prove, that 
 there were infants in this household, and that they were 
 baptized ? One moment's reflection will convince 
 the reader, that all the probabilities of this case, are 
 decidedly in our favour. For, first ; — how can it be 
 
 (o) xvi. Acts, 14, \5, 
 
V.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 113 
 
 proved that Lydia ever was married ? The probabilities 
 are, that she was not a married woman. If she had a 
 husband, it is not very likely, that she would have said, 
 " come into my house," more especially when you re- 
 member, that the condition of women in those countries 
 was any thing but such as would have warranted Lydia 
 to use such an expression. Or secondly ; — Supposing 
 Lydia to have been married, and to have been at the 
 time of her conversion a widow, how can it be proved that 
 she had children ? or thirdly ; — admitting for the sake 
 of argument, that she had been a mother, how can it be 
 ascertained that her children were infants ? And if she 
 had infant children, how can it be demonstrated, that 
 they were baptized 1 Will the commission baptize them ? 
 Will apostolical precedent in other cases baptize them ? 
 A household is said to be ruled, yet infants are not 
 ruled ; — a household is said to serve the Lord, yet in- 
 fants cannot serve the Lord. The term household, 
 therefore, will not necessarily baptize Lydia's children. 
 What relief then does this case of household baptism 
 yield the Paedo-baptist cause ? 
 
 Will mere probability sustain and establish a contro- 
 verted affirmative ? Will the Paedo-baptists venture to 
 ground the baptism of infants upon the mere probability, 
 that Lydia had children ; and that they were baptized ? 
 No amount of proof which we offer will convince 
 them that baptism is immersion ; on that point the 
 most overwhelming and convincing evidence is not 
 deemed enough ; but when they are vindicating their 
 own practice, the merest probability is sufficient for 
 their purpose ! 
 
 All the probabilities, however, are against them in 
 the present instance. 
 
 Lydia was of the city of Thyatira, and had most pro- 
 bably come to Philippi for the purpose of trade, she 
 
114 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIVE [cHAP. 
 
 being "a seller of purple." The distance from the one 
 place to the other was about three hundred miles ; now, 
 is it at all probable, supposing her to have had a young 
 family, that she would have brought them this long and 
 tedious journey with her ? Or, supposing her to have 
 been settled in Philippi, was she ever married ? had 
 she ever had any children ? and were they yet in their 
 infancy ? Her household, no doubt, were her servants, 
 who assisted her in her occupation, and who, like herself, 
 believed. In the fortieth verse of the sixteenth chap- 
 ter of the Acts, we are told, "Paul and Silas entered 
 into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the 
 brethren, they comforted them, and departed." It 
 seems, then, that there were many other believers in the 
 house of Lydia, besides herself, who are styled brethren, 
 and who received comfort from Paul and Silas ; and 
 though it is not said in so many words, that none but 
 these brethren were baptized, yet, as the other two 
 baptized households, consisted entirely of believers, and 
 as faith was always required 'before baptism, there can 
 be no doubt that this baptized household, was like 
 the others, a believing household exclusively. It shews 
 very clearly the weakness of the cause of our brethren, 
 that they should be so hard driven for arguments, as to 
 be obliged to resort to the probabilities of a case, where 
 all the probabilities are against them ! 
 
 We are informed in another place, that " Crispus, 
 the chief ruler of the Synagogue in Corinth, believed on 
 the Lord with all his house;" (a) but we are not in- 
 formed of their baptism. How then do we know, that 
 he and his household were baptized ? clearly, from no- 
 thing but .the commission, and the universal practice as 
 recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. So though we 
 
 («) xviii Acts 8. 
 
V.] BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS CONSIDERED. 115 
 
 are not told, that Lydia ; s household believed before 
 baptism, yet from the same sources, we are certain such 
 was the case. 
 
 There are two other houses of which it is said, that 
 they were all pious people. " Cornelius, the centurion, 
 was a devout man, and one that feared God with all his 
 house." (a) It is said of a certain nobleman, of Caper- 
 naum, that " himself believed, and his whole house. "(6) 
 But does it therefore follow, that, in these households 
 there were none but adults ? That may have been the 
 case, or it may not. The meaning of the historians evi- 
 dently is, that, all who were capable of believing, did 
 believe ; and so, when we read, that a household was 
 baptized, we are to understand, that, every individual in 
 the house capable of being baptized* was baptized. • 
 
 (a) x. Acts, i, 2. (b) iv. John, 53 
 
PART IV. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION, AS THE ONLY 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE THREE THOUSAND ON THE DAY 
 OF PENTECOST. 
 
 Our Paedo -baptist Isthren are in the habit of assert- 
 ing, that, the three thousand converts could not have 
 been immersed on the day of Pentecost, and therefore, 
 must have been sprinkled. 
 
 It is a sufficient reply to this objection ; that if the 
 three thousand were baptized, they must have been 
 immersed ; for baptism is immersion and nothing else. 
 Me are to gather the nature of the act, not from uncertain 
 probabilities, but from the unvarying meaning of the word, 
 by which the act is expressed. Now, we have proved, 
 that the term baptizo, has but one meaning ; this mean- 
 ing therefore it must have in the case before us. No 
 supposed difficulties can alter its signification. If the 
 
[CHAP. I.] OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION, ETC. 117 
 
 three thousand were not immersed on the day of Pen- 
 tecost, the historian has given us a false statement of 
 the transaction, for he tells us, that, they were immersed. 
 The attempt to prove, that they could not have been im- 
 mersed, is virtually an attempt to convict the blessed 
 Spirit of being the author of falsehood. 
 
 We are however prepared to shew, that, there is 
 nothing improbable in the supposition, that the three 
 thousand were immersed. 
 
 Dr. Morrison in his Catechetical Commentary on the 
 Acts of the Apostles, (a) in reply to the question, " Is 
 it all probable, that the multitude of new converts were 
 baptized by immersion?" answers, " All that can be 
 said is, that considering the scarcity of water in Jeru- 
 salem, and the limited number of administrators, it is 
 highly improbable." The review of this work in the 
 March number of the Baptist Magazine, for 1839, con- 
 tains so judicious an answer to these statements, that 
 we cannot do better than give it verbatim. " The 
 scarcity of water in Jerusalem! What! the chosen city of 
 that land which Moses eulogised as " a land of brooks of 
 water, of fountains and depths, that spring out of valleys 
 and hills," was it so miserably supplied with water, as 
 to be destitute of a few natural or artificial baths ? In 
 a climate, in which frequent bathing is a luxury, almost 
 a necessary of life ; among a people, whose ritual pre- 
 scribed on occasions which must have been continually 
 happening, that they should bathe themselves in water, 
 and remain unclean till evening ; in a metropolis, which 
 had been beautified and rendered commodious for its 
 inhabitants by successive powerful and wealthy kings : 
 in the city, in which Soloman had "made pools of 
 water," and Uzziah had "digged many wells," or, as 
 
 (a) Page 92. 
 
118 OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION [CHAP. 
 
 the margin has it, "cut out many cisterns," could 
 there have been such an appalling scarcity of water ? 
 We should have thought that the whole number of 
 believers might have been immersed with ease in that 
 pool which had five porches, or in 
 
 " Siloa's brook, that flow'd 
 
 Fast by the oracles of God." 
 
 This, however, is only half of that which " can be said," 
 conjoined with it, is the "limited number of adminis- 
 trators." But, including Matthias, there were twelve 
 apostles, to say nothing of others, who might with pro- 
 priety engage in this work. This would give an aver- 
 age number of two hundred and fifty converts for each 
 apostle. What would oar brethren in the West Indies 
 say, if told that two hundred and fifty were too many 
 for one person to baptize in an evening ? They have 
 experience in the baptism of hundreds, and they will 
 tell us, that the time required for the deliberate immer- 
 sion of two hundred and fifty, with the recital of the 
 customary words over each, is about one hour and 
 twenty minutes. Less than forty minutes, it was 
 remarked, on one occasion, were occupied by Mr. 
 Philippo, in baptizing one hundred and twenty-nine 
 persons in Spanish Town. "All that can be said" then, 
 respecting the improbability of the immersion of the 
 three thousand, amounts to just nothing. After listen- 
 ing to it, we are still left to judge of the nature of the 
 action, from the meaning of the word used to describe 
 it." To this judicious reply, we may add, that when 
 Peter began his sermon, it was, as he himself states, 
 only the third hour of the day, that is, nine in the morn- 
 ing. Now, allowing an hour for the delivery of Peter's 
 sermon, (although, from what is written, it could scarcely 
 have taken that length of time,) another hour, or two, 
 or even three, for receiving the confession of the can- 
 
I.] AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM. 119 
 
 didates, which in those days, was simply an avowal of 
 their belief in the name of Chris t ; the time of the day 
 would have been one o'clock when the baptizing com- 
 menced. Thus, each apostle would have the afternoon 
 and evening in which to baptize two hundred and fifty 
 people. I only wish that I had two hundred and fifty 
 genuine converts to baptize this very afternoon ; 
 I would then, without difficulty demonstrate, that, the 
 three thousand might have been baptized by the apostles 
 in two hours with the utmost leisure, and decorum. I 
 engage to baptize two hundred and fifty persons, "de- 
 cently, and in order," in an hour and a half with ease ; 
 though my frame is not remarkable for its muscular 
 strength. Besides, we have scriptural evidence, that the 
 disciples baptized on other occasions, as well as the 
 apostles ; why then should we be obliged to suppose 
 that none but the apostles baptized on this occasion ? 
 Philip, who was not an apostle, nor even an elder 
 or pastor, but a deacon, went down to Samaria, preached 
 Christ unto them, and baptized nearly the whole city ; 
 ( Acts, 8 c.) and other disciples who were scattered 
 abroad by persecution, went every where preaching the 
 gospel, and without doubt, when their ministry, like 
 that of Philip, was blessed of God, they baptized those 
 who believed. All the difficulties, therefore, in the way 
 of the immersion of the three thousand are visionary. 
 We are still left to gather the nature of the act, from 
 the acceptation of the term by which it is described. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE ISRAELITES IN THE RED SEA. 
 
 Our opponents imagine, that they find something to 
 their purpose in the baptism of the Israelites in the 
 cloud and in the Red Sea. They contrive very dex- 
 terously to make the cloud and the spray of the sea, 
 sprinkle the Israelites, and then call this their baptism ! 
 
 Now we are not informed, that they were sprinkled 
 with the spray of the sea. It is a mere assumption to 
 say they were. Such a circumstance would have been 
 an annoyance to them. Moreover, " the wind which 
 blew the water from them, could not blow the spray on 
 them." (a) And even if they were sprinkled with the 
 spray, that could not be called their baptism. For 
 baptism is immersion, not sprinkling. 
 
 The words of the apostles are as follows : — "More- 
 over brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, 
 how that all our fathers, were under the cloud, and all 
 passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto 
 Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." (6) The apostle 
 draws a parallel, between the baptism of the Israelites 
 
 (a) Carson, p. 413. (6) 1 Covin, x. 1, 2. 
 
II.] AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM. 121 
 
 and that of christians : there must therefore be some 
 analogy between them. The Israelites by venturing 
 into the Red Sea at the command of Moses, declared 
 their faith in him as their temporal deliverer, and in- 
 spired teacher. Hence they are said to have been bap- 
 tized, "into (eis) Moses." So the christian in his 
 baptism declares his allegiance to the Redeemer, into 
 whose name he is baptized. " As many of you as were 
 baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." 
 
 The emerging of the Israelites from their temporary 
 burial, in the cloud and the sea, symbolized the doc- 
 trine of the resurrection ; so does the emersion of the 
 believer from the liquid grave of baptism. 
 
 The Israelites were really immersed; — the bed of the 
 sea was beneath them, its massive liquid walls were 
 on either side of them, and the cloud covered them. 
 Dr. Wardlaw, ridicules the idea of a "dry baptism," 
 and asks, would our (baptist) brethren, consider a man 
 duly baptized, by his being placed between two cis- 
 terns of water, with a third over his head ? By no 
 means we reply. But does Dr. Wardlaw forget, that, 
 there are many kinds of immersion. Every immersion 
 is not a wet immersion. Its dryness or wetness depends 
 upon the nature of the substance, into which the immer- 
 sion takes place. The word baptizo simply denotes 
 immersion, without describing the element into which 
 the act is performed. We know that christian baptism 
 is an immersion in vjater, because the element is speci- 
 fied in the Holy Scriptures. But the word baptizo 
 in itself does not express the element used in performing 
 the action of the verb. It is applied to immersion 
 whether dry or wet. 
 
 The temporary burial of the Israelites in the sea 
 and in the cloud, and their subsequent re-ascension, 
 
 M 
 
122 OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION [CHAP. 
 
 beautifully resemble the immersion of the believer in 
 the liquid grave of baptism, and his resurrection there- 
 from. This passage therefore may be turned upon our 
 opponents. The battery with which they hoped to 
 demolish the exclusive claims of immersion, is in our 
 possession, and we now turn its fire upon them. We 
 appeal to the candid reader ; may not the condition of 
 the Israelites when "in the sea and under the 
 cloud," be very appropriately styled an immersion 1 
 Which does their baptism most resemble, an immersion, 
 a pouring, or a sprinkling? 
 
 Dr. Witsius, though a Psedobaptist, takes the same 
 view of this passage as we have here given. 
 
 In his chapter on the "extraordinary sacraments in 
 the Wilderness," he says : — " The other difficulty is 
 something more considerable ; namely how the Israel- 
 ites could be baptized in the cloud and in the sea, 
 since they were not dipped in the water of the sea, 
 nor wetted by the cloud. But we are to know, First ; 
 that the apostle uses the term baptism, here, in a figura- 
 tive sense. For, because the Corinthians gloried of 
 baptism, the apostle applies the name of baptism to 
 those things, of which the Israelites might glory, as 
 much as the Corinthians could of baptism, and which 
 were to them instead of baptism. Secondly ; there is 
 also some sort of agreement in the external sign ; a 
 cloud differs very little from water, and the sea is water 
 already ; the cloud hung over their heads, so also water 
 hangs over baptized persons. Compare this with what 
 we shall advance presently from Gregory of Nyssa, 
 concerning: the cloud. The sea surrounded them on all 
 sides; so does water also those that are baptized. 
 Thirdly ; this sign signifies the same that baptism does ; 
 and so baptism is the anti-type of it, as on a like sub- 
 
II.] AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM. 123 
 
 ject Peter said." (a) The learned Paedo -baptist, Dr. 
 Witsius, being judge ; the baptism of the Israelites in 
 the cloud and in the sea, was a real immersion ! 
 
 (a) On Covenants, Vol. Hi. p. 1022. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 Perhaps the most specious argument of our Paedo- 
 baptist brethren, is, that which they derive from the 
 baptism of the Spirit. They assert, that, the baptism 
 of the Spirit is called " a pouring out," and "a shed- 
 ding forth of the Spirit," (a) and that consequently 
 the baptism of water must be a pouring of water upon 
 the person ; and not an immersion of the whole body 
 in water. Now we deny, that, the pouring out of the 
 Spirit is the same thing with baptism in the Spirit. 
 The former is preliminary to the latter, just as the 
 jiouring of water into a bath, is preparatory to the 
 plunging of the body therein. The Spirit was poured 
 out, that, the apostles might be immersed therein. 
 The pouring out of the Spirit, and baptism in his in- 
 fluences, are two distinct things : the one being antece- 
 dent to the other. 
 
 The communication of the Spirit, and the application 
 of the blood of Christ to the conscience, are both repre- 
 
 (a) Actsii. 17, 33. 
 
[CHAP. III.] OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION, ETC. 125 
 
 sented by the various figures of sprinkling upon, 
 pouring upon, and immersion into. 
 
 But it is clear, that, all such phrases are figurative, 
 and that each has its distinct meaning. When the 
 communication of the Spirit is compared to the sprink- 
 ling of clean water upon the heart ; the allusion evi- 
 dently is to the purification of our natures by his grace. 
 He is said to be poured upon us ; because we usually 
 think of him as dwelling on high, and because his influ- 
 ence upon the heart resembles in its effects the pouring 
 of water upon the body. The apostles are said to have 
 been immersed in the Spirit, because they were as com- 
 pletely under his controul and influence, as the baptized 
 person is under the power of the element into which he is 
 immersed. The likeness is in the effects, and not in the 
 mode of the communication of the Spirit. When we 
 say a person is immersed in sleep, or care, what do we 
 mean by the figure ? Do we intend to express the 
 mode in which sleep or care comes upon the individual? 
 Our meaning is, that, he is as completely under the 
 influence of sleep or care, as the person immersed in 
 water, is under the power of that element. So when 
 we meet with the phrase " immersed in the Spirit," we 
 are clearly to understand it as describing a state in 
 which the whole person is under the powerful and 
 irresistible controul of the Spirit. The Spirit cannot 
 be literally poured out, any more than we can be literally 
 immersed in his influences. Can the divine being be 
 really poured out, or shed forth ? 
 
 Our opponents err, in arguing from that which is 
 figurative, to that which is plain and literal ; they 
 offend against common sense, in making the figura- 
 tive use of a word settle its general meaning. Our 
 proper course is, first, to ascertain the literal menaing 
 of a term, and make this the key of our interpretation 
 
126 OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION [cHAP. 
 
 of its figurative use. That the expressions under 
 consideration are figurative, cannot for a moment be 
 doubted, for the Holy Spirit could no more be literally 
 poured out or sprinkled upon the apostles, than they 
 could literally be immersed in the Spirit. Whichever 
 way we interpret the words, it is evident that they 
 must not be understood literally. The question is 
 then simply this ; What mode does the baptism 
 of the Spirit best agree with ; sprinkling, pouring, or 
 immersion ? As to sprinkling, that has no advocates, 
 for none that we have yet read or heard of, have attempt- 
 ed to defend it from these passages. Our choice con- 
 sequently lies between pouring or immersion. The 
 account of the apostles baptism in the Spirit, is as 
 follows : " Suddenly there came from heaven a sound, 
 as of a mighty rushing wind, and it filled all the house 
 where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them 
 cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of 
 them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, 
 and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit 
 gave them utterance." Let the reader observe, that, 
 " the sound of the rushing wind filled all the house," 
 and "the apostles were all filled with the Holy Ghost." 
 There was therefore a literal baptism, or immersion, in 
 the symbols of the Spirit's presence. The apostles 
 were surrounded with the wind and fire. When a per- 
 son enters a dark cavern, or room, he is said to be 
 immersed or plunged in darkness. The darkness sur- 
 rounds him on every side. In the same way the apos- 
 tles were immersed in the wind and fire. 
 
 But there was also a figurative baptism in the Spirit 
 himself, consisting in the entire subjection of the apos- 
 tles to his celestial influences. The apostles were not 
 masters of their own thoughts and words. " They 
 spake as the Spirit gave them utterance." They may 
 
III.] AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM. 127 
 
 be said with the utmost propriety to have been im- 
 mersed in the Spirit. A body baptized in any element 
 is subject to its controul and imbued with its virtues ; and 
 this is precisely the sense in which the apostles were bap- 
 tized in the Spirit. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 REMAINING OBJECTIONS. 
 
 I. Some Paedo-baptists think, that, the words of the 
 apostle Peter " Can any man forbid water that thes,e 
 should not be baptized," (a) suggest the application 
 of the water to the person, and not of the person to the 
 water. But a little reflection will convince the reader 
 that the objection is invalid. The word water is here 
 put for the whole ceremony. An individual might say 
 in the same sense, " Can any man forbid bread and 
 wine," meaning, can any one forbid admission to the 
 Lord's supper. So when the apostle says, " Can any 
 man forbid water," he means, can any man forbid the 
 administration of the rite of immersion in water. 
 
 Suppose reader, you were to forbid a man your 
 house, how do you think he would understand you? 
 Could he conclude, that, you were forbidding him the 
 application of your house to his person ! would he not 
 understand you as forbidding the entrance of his person 
 
 (a) Acts x. 47. 
 
[CHAP. IV.] OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION, ETC. 129 
 
 into your house ? If a man forbids you his grounds, he 
 interdicts your being found in them. 
 
 This is the sense in which the apostle uses the phrase 
 in this place. The meaning of baptism is immersion, 
 and immersion only. Forbidding water for baptism, is 
 in effect, therefore, forbidding immersion in water ! 
 
 II. Others again, think, they see sprinkling, as 
 among "the divers washings," (baptisms) referred to 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (a) This however is a 
 gratuitous assumption. The word here does not mean 
 any thing else but immersion. It has but one meaning, 
 and that meaning it must have here. The apostle evi- 
 dently refers to the various bathings of the body in 
 water for the purpose of purification, which were en- 
 joined by the law. That there were divers such im- 
 mersions, the reader will easily perceive, by turning to 
 the following passages : — Numb. xix. 7, 8. Levi. xxii. 6. 
 Levi. xvi. 4, 24, 26, 28. Levi. xv. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 
 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27. Levi. xiv. 9. In each of 
 these places the Jewish ritual enjoins, ''bathing of the 
 body in water;" and the manner in which this was 
 done was by immersion. 
 
 Some have argued, that, because in the thirteenth 
 and fourteenth verses of the same chapter, the apostle 
 refers to a purification by sprinkling, therefore purifica- 
 tion by sprinkling must be included among the divers 
 baptisms referred to in the tenth verse. They might 
 just as well say, that purification by sprinkling is 
 among the "meats and drinks," mentioned in the 
 tenth verse ! What logic is this, because a rite by 
 sprinkling is alluded to in the thirteenth and fourteenth 
 verses, therefore the divers baptisms of the tenth verse 
 
 (rt) ix. Heb. 10, " divers washings," in the original it is baptismois, 
 baptisms. 
 
130 OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION [cHAP. 
 
 must be the same thing ! Let a person of but ordinary 
 capacity read the chapter with an unprejudiced mind, 
 and we are confident he will readily see, that, in the 
 thirteenth and fourteenth verses, the apostle is not 
 treating of the same rites as are specified in the tenth 
 verse. 
 
 In the tenth verse, he refers to the bathings of the 
 flesh in water enjoined by the law on divers occasions ; 
 and in the thirteenth and fourteenth verses, he is 
 treating of the sprinkling of the blood, and the ashes of 
 the red heifer. The sprinkling ceremonies are not 
 called baptisms. They are rantisms not baptisms. 
 The baptisms refer exclusively to the bathings practised 
 under the law. 
 
 III. Others again argue against immersion, from 
 Luke ii. 38. " And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- 
 velled that he (Christ) had not first washed (baptized) 
 before dinner." The original word translated " washed," 
 is ebaptisthe. Some persons think it incredible, that the 
 Pharisee should wonder at Christ for not immersing 
 himself before dinner. For our part we see no diffi- 
 culty in the matter. Every house in Jerusalem, of any 
 size, was furnished with a bath. An immersion of 
 the body in water before dinner, would, in Judea, be a 
 luxury rather than an annoyance ; and before dinner is one 
 of the most usual times for bathing. 
 
 The Pharisee knew that Christ was regarded by his 
 followers as a very holy man, and it was natural that 
 he should look for an extraordinary exhibition of sanc- 
 tity in his conduct. Christ was constantly surrounded 
 by multitudes, and liable to be touched by unclean 
 persons. Now the Pharisees whenever they returned 
 from mixing with the multitude in the market, invari- 
 ably immersed themselves in water. And the super- 
 stitious Pharisee would very naturally wonder that a 
 
IV.] AS THE OS'LY MODE OF BAPTISM. 131 
 
 man of such reputed sanctity as Jesus, should omit 
 using the bath on a like occasion. 
 
 IV. Great stress, is laid by our opponents on the 
 fourth verse of the seventh of Mark. " And when 
 they come from the market, except they wash (baptize) 
 they eat not." " And many other things there be 
 which they have received to hold, as the washing 
 (baptizing) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of 
 beds, (klinai.) But there is no difficulty in this pas- 
 sage. The word baptizo still retains its one meaning. 
 No supposed improbabilities are sufficient to change 
 the signification of a term, unless they amount to an 
 actual and proven impossibility. But what impossi- 
 bility is there in the way of the Pharisees bathing the 
 whole body in water after returning from a crowded 
 market, in which they might have unwittingly con- 
 tracted defilement? If a clean person touched an 
 unclean person he became himself unclean. And in a 
 market a Jew might thus easily defile himself. What 
 more likely then, than, that the Pharisees should inva- 
 riably immerse the body in water after returning from 
 the market. 
 
 The historian is treating in the fourth verse of a dif- 
 ferent mode of purification from that specined in the 
 second and third verses. The Pharisees never eat bread 
 on the most ordinary occasions without first washing 
 the hands and arms up to the elbow ; but when they re- 
 turned from market they immersed the whole body. 
 The word used in the third verse to describe the wash- 
 ing of the hands, is nipto ; that used in the fourth verse 
 to describe the bathing of the whole body is baptizo. 
 
 But how could the Pharisees immerse their beds or 
 couches ? ask our opponents. And here they think 
 they have us fast ! We answer that as the word of 
 God tells us they did immerse their beds, we unhesi- 
 
132 OBJECTIONS TO IMMERSION [CHAP, 
 
 tatingly believe its testimony. The word baptizo can 
 have no other signification here, but that which it 
 always has. It will not do to attribute to it a meaning, 
 which it never has elsewhere, in order to obviate the diffi- 
 culties which are supposed to lie in the way of the immer- 
 sion of couches. We had rather confess a difficulty, 
 than misinterpret the meaning of the words which the 
 Spirit of God employs. 
 
 But there is no difficulty in the way of the immersion 
 of these beds or couches. The word klinai is as fre- 
 quently applied to beds as to couches, and the former 
 were so light as to be able to be carried. Hence our 
 Redeemer said to the sick man, " Take up thy bed and 
 walk." Now a bed which could be taken up and car- 
 ried about with ease, could be washed by immersion 
 without difficulty. 
 
 And, even the couches on which the Pharisees reclined 
 at dinner, might have been so constructed, as to be taken 
 to pieces, for the very purpose of immersion. Besides, 
 we are not told, whether, this was an occasional or fre- 
 quent ceremony. It may have been observed only 
 weekly, or monthly, or yearly. And surely the super- 
 stitious Pharisees would not think it a hardship to 
 immerse their couches thus occasionally. 
 
 But we are quite satisfied with the simple facts, that 
 the Holy Spirit has told us, that these couches were im- 
 mersed ; and that the thing is not impossible. Can the 
 Paedo-baptists prove, that, these couches could not 
 possibly have been immersed? They cannot ; conse- 
 quently the argument from this place does their cause 
 no service. We simply shew, that, the thing is pos- 
 sible, and that is all, that, in fairness of argument, we 
 can be called upon to shew ! 
 
 V. Some Pa?do-baptists affirm, that, the Philippian 
 jailer could not have been immersed, because he was 
 
IV.] AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM. 133 
 
 baptized during the night, and in his own house, (a) 
 As to the improbability of his immersion in the night, 
 we treat it as ridiculous. The climate of Philippi was 
 not so cold as to render such a service particularly 
 disagreeable ; and even if it had been so, the zeal of 
 the primitive christians would have borne it. 
 
 The Jailer was not baptized in his own house. It is 
 evident, that, he went out to be baptized : for after 
 his baptism, " he (again) brought Paul and Silas into 
 his house" (b) which manifestly implies, that, they had 
 been out of the house for the purpose of baptizing the 
 Jailer and his believing family. The river Strymon 
 was at hand, and perhaps they were immersed in it. 
 But it matters not to us, where they were immersed ; 
 whether in the house, or out of doors ; whether in a 
 bath or in a river. The Spirit of God tells us, "they 
 were immersed," that is all we are concerned with. 
 The thing is neither impossible nor improbable. The 
 supposed difficulties exist only in the imaginations of 
 the Paedo-baptists. 
 
 (a) See 33, and 34, vs. (6) xvi. Acts, 32. 33, 34. 
 
PART V. 
 
 INFANT SPRINKLING CONSIDERED. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 REASONS FOR REJECTING INFANT SPRINKLING. 
 
 We reject sprinkling as a substitute for immersion, 
 
 I. Because baptism is immersion and nothing else. 
 Sprinkling therefore cannot be baptism. Those who 
 are sprinkled are not baptized. 
 
 II. Because no case of baptism by sprinkling can be 
 found in the scriptures. Christ was immersed, the 
 
 apostles, and all the primitive christians were immersed. 
 To substitute sprinkling for baptism, would be to fly in 
 the face of every example recorded in the word of God. 
 
 III. Because Christ commanded " believers of all 
 nations" to be immersed. The commission gives one 
 law respecting all believers. We must not change the 
 mode of baptism, therefore, because the climate in which 
 we live is colder than that of Judea. 
 
CHAP. I.] INFANT SPRINKLING CONSIDERED. 135 
 
 IV. Because we have no right to alter the least of 
 Christ's commandments, (#) Christ is sole lawgiver in 
 Zion ; and He alone has power to change his own insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 V. Because the substitution of sprinkling for immersion 
 destroys the significancy of the rite. The mode of bap- 
 tism is symbolical. To change its mode, therefore, is to 
 strip it of its symbolical meaning ; and to render it 
 ineffectual for the purposes of its institution. Sprink- 
 ling cannot represent a burial and resurrection with 
 Christ, as immersion does. 
 
 VI. Because the doctrine that we have the power to 
 alter the institutions of Christ is downright Popery. 
 Such a dogma will give a sanction to all the foolery and 
 superstition of the man of sin. It deprives the Bible 
 of its majesty, and subjects the ordinances and word of 
 God to be revised and amended by human wisdom. 
 
 VII. Because nothing that Christ has enjoined, can be 
 unimportant. Shall we charge our Lord with com- 
 manding useless and trifling ceremonies ? May we 
 obey or neglect his commandments as we please ? 
 
 We reject the baptism of infants, 
 
 I. Because we meet with no case of infant baptism in 
 the New Testament. Some of the most eminent Psedo- 
 baptists have frankly admitted this fact. Scripture 
 precedent cannot be produced for this ceremony. 
 
 II. Because we find no inspired precept enjoining 
 upon parents the baptism of their children. The duties 
 of christian parents are clearly pointed out at great 
 length in the apostolic epistles ; but we no where find, 
 that they are exhorted to baptize their children ! Yet 
 surely this duty, if it really existed, would have been 
 urged upon them ! 
 
 'a) Matt. v. 19. 
 
136 INFANT SPRINKLING [CHAP. 
 
 III. Because there is clear proof that infant baptism 
 was unknown in the days of the apostles. If it had been 
 practised as a substitute for infant circumcision, the 
 latter would have been abandoned as a matter of course, 
 and there could have been no disputes as to its continu- 
 ance or abrogation. The disputes about circumcision, 
 which convulsed the church in the Apostle's days prove, 
 that, there was then no corresponding ordinance for 
 infants, in the christian church, (a) 
 
 IV. Because infants are incapable of the terms of 
 baptism. The only baptism of the New Testament, 
 requires repentance and faith as its terms. No other 
 baptism is spoken of in the scriptures. But infants 
 can neither repent nor believe, and therefore cannot be 
 fit subjects for baptism. 
 
 V. Because infant baptism sets aside true christian 
 baptism. It is not merely an error, but it is an error 
 substituted for truth. It not only baptizes those whom 
 the apostles never baptized, but it supersedes the bap- 
 tism of believers, upon a profession of faith. It is not 
 something additional to, but in the stead of, true chris- 
 tian baptism. It is a human substitute for a divine 
 ordinance. As much as in it lies, it would forestall and 
 render unnecessary the baptism of believers, by bap- 
 tizing them in infancy. 
 
 VI. Because God abominates all will-worship. It 
 may be said to those who baptize their children, " who 
 hath required this at your hands ?" Infant baptism 
 being a human invention, is an act of will-worship. 
 Now God cannot regard any act of worship with accept- 
 ance, which, not only he hath not commanded, but 
 which supersedes something which he hath commanded. 
 
 Seepages 90, 91, 
 
I.J CONSIDERED. 137 
 
 VII. Because infant baptism has no authority but 
 tradition. It cannot be found in the scriptures. Its 
 only support is the traditions of the Fathers. But if 
 we receive tradition as an authority, we must practice 
 infant communion at the supper ; we must use oil, 
 honey, and milk, at baptism ; we must consecrate the 
 baptismal water ; and exorcise the devil from the infant 
 before baptizing him ! all these ceremonies are sanc- 
 tioned by tradition. 
 
 VIII. Because infant baptism is a useless and un- 
 meaning ceremony. Those who practice it cannot point 
 out any good purpose which it answers. But Christ 
 has commanded no useless ceremonies. Infant baptism, 
 therefore, cannot be "from heaven." 
 
 IX. Because infants are not under the moral and spi- 
 ritual administration of the Gospel. They are incapable 
 of intelligent service. They cannot worship God in 
 spirit and in truth. They do not worship God at all. 
 They are therefore unfit to receive any of the ordinances 
 of a spiritual dispensation. 
 
 X. Because infant baptism is fraught with perilous 
 consequences to the souls of men. It is calculated to 
 mislead and deceive men in the matter of their salvation. 
 Human nature is ever prone to rest upon mere forms 
 of religion ; and especially upon ritual and ceremonial 
 observances. Infant baptism is a ceremony peculiarly 
 adapted to impose itself upon the ignorant as a ground 
 of eternal safety. It is regarded by the Church of 
 England, as constituting all who receive it, "children 
 of God," "members of Christ," and "inheritors of the 
 kingdom of God." It is by others supposed to intro- 
 duce the child into the covenant of grace. From its 
 very nature it cannot fail to be regarde I as posse 
 some mysterious virtue, t 
 
 parties are not agreed, 
 
138 INFANT SPRINKLING CONSIDERED. [cHAP. I.] 
 
 The baptism of believers is not liable to a similar 
 abuse, because it requires, that, the candidate shall be in 
 a state of salvation antecedently to his baptism. It can- 
 not be said, therefore, that, we regard baptism as a 
 saving ordinance. 
 
 But a ceremony of the nature of baptism practised 
 upon an unconscious child who has neither repentance 
 nor faith, cannot fail to make a most pernicious impres- 
 sion upon the minds of the people. It will be regarded 
 by the masses as conferring some mysterious and saving 
 benefit. In vain will evangelical preachers protest, 
 that, infant baptism has no such virtue. The formalist 
 will rest upon his baptism in infancy, spite of all their 
 remonstrances. If infant baptism be christian baptism, 
 it must baptize the infant either because he is already a 
 christian, or with the intention of making him one. 
 
 II. Because infant baptism is a pillar of Popery, and 
 of every corrupt Protestant establishment. Infant bap- 
 tism is the right arm of the man of sin. Its introduc- 
 tion paved the way for the completion of the apostacy 
 of the church in after ages. It laid a foundation for the 
 erection of future national establishments of religion. 
 The national baptism of infants, and their enrolment 
 among the members of the church, made the erection of 
 national establishments of Christianity an easy matter. 
 National infant baptism is a suitable platform on which 
 to rear national establishments. Sweep away the foun- 
 dation, and before long the hoary and ponderous super- 
 structure will crumble into ruins ! 
 
CHAPTER IL 
 
 CONCLUDING ADDRESS TO THE READER. 
 
 And now, reader, our task is done. We have com- 
 pleted the design we contemplated, and have given you 
 a bird's eye view of the whole question. May we ask 
 what impression our statements have made upon your 
 mind ? 
 
 I. Are you convinced of the propriety of believer's 
 baptism by immersion ? Do you perceive it to be an 
 ordinance of Jesus Christ ? Then, if you are a humble 
 believer, if you are a broken hearted penitent living at 
 the foot of the cross, "arise and be baptized." Trifle 
 not with your convictions. Remember the solemn 
 declaration, "he who knew his Lord's will and did it 
 not, shall be beaten with many stripes." The stripes 
 of conscience when accusing us of neglected ordinances 
 and violated duties, are heavy indeed. And if you 
 would avoid such an infliction ; and if you desire " the 
 answer of a good conscience," delay not to observe this 
 solemn ordinance of your Redeemer. " In keeping his 
 commands there is great reward." 
 
 II. Are you unconvinced ? Has this book made no 
 impression upon your mind ? — You have been immersed 
 
140 INFANT SPRINKLING [cHAP. 
 
 in scripture, what then hinders your immersion in water ? 
 Wherein is the proof defective ? Where have you dis- 
 covered a flaw ? 
 
 Tell us honestly whether you sat down to the perusal 
 of our arguments with an unprejudiced mind ? Did you 
 not begin to read this book with a determination not to 
 be convinced ? If such has been the state of your 
 mind we are not surprised that you profess to be uncon- 
 vinced. What can convince a man who is determined 
 to resist evidence, though it should reach to demonstra- 
 tion ? We have no hope of reaching your conscience 
 while this state of mind continues, But we solemnly 
 warn you of the sin and peril which you incur by your 
 obstinacy and bigotry. Does your conduct become a 
 disciple of Jesus ? Is this the way to treat an enquiry 
 into the nature of one of your heavenly Master's ordi- 
 nances? Shame, shame, upon such an anti-christian 
 state of heart ! I remember on one occasion handing 
 to a Paedo-baptist brother, with whom I was on terms 
 of the greatest intimacy, a book on the subject of bap- 
 tism. He peremptorily refused to read it. I said, " if 
 you will not read it, you shall hear it," and com- 
 menced reading a very important and conclusive passage 
 aloud. The Paedo-baptist began to whistle and sing 
 alternately, in order to drown my voice, and as soon as 
 he could reach the door made his exit. He told me 
 he would never read another book on baptism. And 
 yet this individual is an honourable member of an 
 Independent Church in London ! I should as soon 
 hope to shake the pillars of creation, as expect to move 
 the prejudices of such a man ! 
 
 III. But are you, believing reader, irresolute and 
 fearful of taking so decided a step, as being baptized 
 in the name of Jesus i What is the cause of your 
 indecision ? 
 
II.] CONSIDERED. 141 
 
 Do you fear offending near relations? Remember 
 Christ hath said, "He that loveth father or mother 
 more than me is not worthy of me ; and he that loveth 
 son or daughter mOre than me is not worthy of me. "(a) 
 
 Do you dread the reproach and shame which you will 
 incur by such a step? We would remind you, that, 
 "whosoever doth not bear his cross, and go after 
 Christ, cannot be his disciple," (b) and that, " whoso- 
 ever shall be ashamed of Christ and his words, in this 
 adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the 
 Son of Man be ashamed when he shall come in the 
 glory of his Father with the holy angels." (c) 
 
 Rather, dear reader say, 
 
 "Ashamed of Jesus, that dear friend, 
 On whom my hopes of heaven depend, 
 No, when I blush, be this my shame, 
 That I no more revere his name. 
 
 His institutions would I prize, 
 Take up my cross, the shame despise, 
 Dare to defend his noble cause, 
 And yield obedience to his laws !" 
 
 Or do you tremble, lest after making a profession of 
 religion you should bring a disgrace upon the cause of 
 Christ by falling into sin ? It is right that you should 
 feel your own weakness, in order that you may be 
 driven to Christ for help. But beware lest your fear of 
 falling should lead you to distrust the divine promises, 
 and neglect a known duty. Has not God said, " Thy 
 shoes shall be iron and brass, and as thy day so shall 
 thy strength be ?" And will he not be as good as his 
 word ? 
 
 If your jealousy over your own heart should make 
 you humble, prayerful, and watchful, its effects will be 
 
 (a) Matt. x. 37. (b) Luke xiv. 27. (c) Markviii.38 
 
142 INFANT SPRINKLING [CHAP. 
 
 salutary: — but if while suspecting yourself you doubt 
 God ; if while trembling at the deceitfulness of your 
 own heart, you question the sincerity and faithfulness 
 of Jehovah, you are guilty of an enormous sin. 
 
 An esteemed brother in the ministry, who some years 
 since went to his rest, related to me the following facts. 
 
 His father had been a pious man for many years 
 before his death, but never made a profession of reli- 
 gion. He attended the worship of God, — frequently 
 led the devotions of the people at the prayer meetings, — 
 was most actively engaged in promoting the Redeemer's 
 cause, — and maintained throughout a most unblemished 
 reputation. 
 
 He had however such a fear of falling into sin, and 
 so distrusted the divine promises, that, when he was 
 seized with the illness which carried him off, he was 
 still unbaptized. When laid upon his death bed an 
 indescribably dreadful horror took possession of his 
 mind : — his guilt in having so long neglected joining 
 himself to the Lord's people, filled him with unutterable 
 agony : — he was literally without hope : — nothing that 
 was said ministered to his relief; the most precious 
 promises and invitations of the Gospel failed to comfort 
 him. He said, ■ I could not trust God to hold me up ! 
 I did not believe his promises to those who profess his 
 name ! I doubted his veracity and faithfulness ! I 
 gave him the lie ! And now I am given up to horror 
 and despair ! I have no hope ! God hath left me, and 
 that for ever!" 
 
 In this state of distress he continued for about three 
 weeks, every attempt to dispel the darkness of his mind 
 having failed. At length, however, a day or two before 
 he died, the Lord again visited him with the light of 
 his countenance, and his end was peace. But in his 
 last moments he said, "Let the agony which I have 
 
II.] CONSIDERED. 143 
 
 endured be a warning to those who are keeping back 
 from professing Christ through a distrust of God's pro- 
 mises to hold them up !" 
 
 IV. Or are you reader, one of those inconsistent 
 baptists who have joined themselves to churches where 
 believer's baptism by immersion, is superseded by the 
 sprinkling of infants ? Then you are guilty of sanc- 
 tioning this violation of the Redeemer's laws. By 
 voluntarily uniting yourselves with those, who, practise 
 infant sprinkling, and call it christian baptism, you 
 pronounce it christian baptism, as much as if I were to 
 receive the mass in a Roman Catholic Chapel, I should 
 declare my belief in the real presence ! By throwing 
 all your energies into Paedo-baptist churches, you are 
 clearly doing your best, to crush and annihilate believ- 
 er's baptism by immersion, and to uphold its substitute 
 infant sprinkling. 
 
 It will not do to protest against such a charge. We 
 say, your conduct has this tendency, however sincerely 
 you may deprecate such a result. You may verbally 
 agree with believer's baptism by immersion, but you 
 are practically sanctioning infant sprinkling. 
 
 We beseech you, with all fraternal affection, to con- 
 sider the anomaly of your position ; and to ask yourself 
 how you can lend your countenance to a ceremony 
 which is of human invention; — which supplants an 
 ordinance of Jesus Christ; — and which is fraught with 
 such peril to the souls of men. 
 
 THE END. 
 
CHATHAM : 
 
 PRINTED EY A. T. FORDIIAM, HIGH STREET. 
 

wmmm