S-. JZ/oS'. 
 
 Srom f 0e £i6rati? of 
 
 (profeeBor ^amuef (ttliffer 
 
 in (gtemorj? of 
 
 3ubge ^amuef (gltffer QBrecfeinribge 
 
 ^teeenteb 6|? 
 
 ^amuef (ttliffer QKrecfeinribge feong 
 
 fo t^e feifitari? of 
 
 (prtncefon C^eofogtcdf ^emtnarj 
 
 
V \ 
 
 X-<^ ■'^ \V <\ V , 
 
 A: 
 
 I 
 
 ,^,1 . t \vii 
 

 
 ■] 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM 
 
 THE 
 
 TRULY PRIMITIVE 
 
 AND 
 
 APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHURCH OF CHRIST. 
 
 By SAMUEL MILLER, D.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN THK 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 PRE«BYTERIAN TRACT AND SUNDAY SCHOOL SOCIETY 
 WM. S. MARTIEN, PRINTER 
 
 1836. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THIS Manual has been prepared at the particular request of the Tract Society of 
 the Synod of Philadelphia. A polemical spirit in the Church of God is by no means 
 commendable. And even when different denominations of professing Christians are 
 compelled, either in public teaching, or in social intercourse, to recur to the points 
 in regard to which they differ, it ought ever to be done with as much mildness and 
 inoffensiveness as can be reconciled with fidelity. It is doing no more than justice 
 to Presbyterians to say, that they have ever been remarkable for their freedom from 
 a proselyting spirit. Assuredly, there is no denomination of Christians in the Uni- 
 ted States, from whose pulpits so little is heard of the nature of vaunting tl)eir own 
 claims, or impugning tlie peculiarities of others, as in those of the Presbyterian 
 Church. Seldom is a sentence uttered in their public assemblies adapted to invade 
 the tenets of any evangelical Christian ; almost never, indeed, unless in defending 
 themselves against the attacks of other denominations. 
 
 In the meanwhile, several other numerous and respectable denominations habitu- 
 ally act on a different policy. Their preaching, their ecclesiastical journals, and 
 their popular Tracts, are characteristically and strongly sectarian. Of tliis no 
 complaint is made. We live in a free country, where all denominations, in the eye 
 of tJie civil government, stand upon a level. May it ever continue to be so! 15ut 
 there L> a point, beyoml which silence in respect to our peculiarities, may be cen- 
 surable. We are bound to defend ourselves against unscriptural attacks, not merely 
 for our own sakes, but for the sake of others. It is incumbent on us to show to those 
 within our pale, or who maybe inclined to unite with us, that we "have not followed 
 cunningly devised fables." 
 
 This, and this only, is the design of the following Manual. It is not intended to 
 invade the precincts, or assail the members of other religious communities; but 
 solely for the instruction of Presbyterians ; and to satisfy them that the system by 
 which they are distinguished, is, throughout, truly primitive and apostolic. Inqui- 
 ries are frequently made by young people and others of our denomination, why we 
 difl^er, as to a variety of particulars, from some other churches. Is it wrong ; can it 
 be deemed inconsistent with the most scrupulous Christian charity, and even deli- 
 cacy, to provide a manual adapted to answer these inquiries? Surely, this is a 
 debt which we owe to our children. And as Presbyterian ministers are seldom 
 heard to preach on the peculiarities by which our beloved and truly scriptural 
 Church is distinguished, there seems to be the more propriety in putting into the 
 hands of our youthful and less instructed members, a summary of the arguments by 
 which they may be enabled to meet the attacks, and repel the insinuations, of those 
 unwearied worshippers of sect, who cease not to insist that they alone are entitled 
 to the character of true Churches. 
 
 Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1835, by Dr. A. W. 
 Mitchell, in the office of the Clerk of the District Court, of the Eastern District of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 The Church of God, in the days of the Apostles, as is 
 well known, was not divided into different denominations. 
 Even then, indeed, there were parties in the Church. The 
 restless and selfish spirit of depraved human nature yoon 
 began, in different places to display its unhallowed influence, 
 either in the form of judaizing claims, philosophical specula- 
 tions, or turbulent opposition to regular ecclesiastical autho- 
 rity. In the Church of Corinth, though planted and nur- 
 tured by " the chiefest of the Apostles," there Avere factious 
 and troublesome members, who contended among themselves, 
 and said, one to another, "I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos, 
 and I of Cephas, and I of Christ." Still the Church was 
 one. The names, " Presbyterian," "Episcopalian," " Con- 
 gregationalist," &;c. &c., were unknown. All professing 
 Christians, " though many, were considered as one body in 
 Christ, and every one members one of another." The only 
 popular distinction then recognised, as far as the professed 
 followers of Christ were concerned, was between the Church 
 and the heretics. 
 
 Not long after the Apostolic age, when heresies had become 
 numerous, when each of them claimed to belong to the Church, 
 and when convenience demanded the adoption of some term 
 which might distinguish between the true or orthodox Church, 
 and the various sects of errorists — the title of Catholic (or ge- 
 neral, as the term Catholic signifies,) was applied to the 
 former ; while the latter were distinguished by various names, 
 derived either from the nature of their distinguishing opinions, 
 
6 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 or from the original authors or promoters of those opinions. 
 It is well known, indeed, that the blinded and superstitious 
 followers of the Bishop of Rome claim the title of Catholic, 
 as exclusively appUcable to themselves. In their own estima- 
 tion, they are the Church, the only true Church, the Catholic, 
 or universal Church ; and all the other classes of nominal 
 Christians, throughout the world, are heretics, out of the way 
 of salvation. This claim, however, in the estimation of all 
 enlightened Christians, is as presumptuous as it is vain. That 
 department of nominal Christendom, instead of being the only 
 true Church, is considered by many as too far gone in cor- 
 ruption to be comprehended under the Christian name at all ; 
 and instead of there being no salvation out of her communion, 
 the danger of eternal perdition is rather to those who are 
 found within her pale. It is not doubted, indeed, that there 
 are many pious individuals within that pale ; but it is believed 
 that they are placed in circumstances deplorably unfavourable 
 to their growth in grace ; and that the multitudes around them, 
 in the same communion, are immersed in darkness, supersti- 
 tion, and dreadful error, which place them in the utmost 
 jeopardy of eternal perdition. This is that " Antichrist," 
 that " Man of sin," and " Son of Perdition," who exalteth 
 himself above all that is called God, and who is yet to be " de- 
 stroyed with the breath of Jehovah's mouth, and with the 
 brightness of his coming." 
 
 No particular denomination of Christians is now entitled to 
 be called, by way of eminence, the Catholic, or universal 
 Church. There are Churches, indeed, which bear a nearer 
 resemblance to the Apostolical model than others ; and which 
 deserve to be favourably distinguished in the list of Christian 
 communities. But the visible Catholic Church is made up of all 
 those throughout the world, who profess the true religion, to- 
 gether with their children. The Presbyterian, the Congre- 
 gationalist, the Methodist, the Baptist, the Episcopalian, the 
 Independent, who hold the fundamentals of our holy religion, 
 in whatever part of the globe they may reside, are all mem- 
 bers of the same visible community ; and, if they be sincere 
 believers, will all finally be made partakers of its eternal 
 blessings. They cannot, indeed, all worship together in 
 the same solemn assembly, even if they were disposed to 
 do so. A physical impossibility forbids it; and, in many 
 cases, prejudice and folly widely separate those who ought to 
 be entirely united. Still, in spite of all the sects and names 
 by which professmg Christians are divided, there is a visible 
 Church Catholic. There is a precious sense in which the 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 7 
 
 whole visible Church on earth is one. All who " hold the 
 Head," of course belong to the body of Christ. Those who 
 are united by a sound profession to the same divine Saviour ; 
 who embrace the same precious faith ; who are sanctified by 
 tlie same spirit ; who eat the same spiritual meat ; who drink 
 the same spiritual drink ; who repose and rejoice in the same 
 promises ; and who are travelling to the same eternal rest — 
 are surely one body : — one in a sense more richly significant 
 and valuable than can be ascribed to millions who sustain and 
 boast a mere nominal relation. 
 
 But while we thus maintain the doctrine of the unity of 
 the visible Church Catholic ; and while we rejoice in the 
 assured belief, that sectarian names, as they were unknown 
 in the Apostolic age, so they will be unknown among the 
 members of the Redeemer's glorified body ; still, in this mili- 
 tant state, there is a separation, not merely nominal, but real 
 and deplorable ; a separation which interferes most deeply 
 with the communion of saints, and which lamentably mars 
 those precious opportunities of proximity and intercourse, 
 which too often, alas ! become incentives to contention and 
 strife, rather than to Christian love. 
 
 . V Amidst this diversity of sects and names, it becomes, to 
 every intelligent and conscientious Christian, a most interesting 
 question — Which of the various denominations which bear the 
 name of Christian Churches, maybe considered as approaching 
 nearest to the New Testament model ? We freely acknowledge, 
 indeed, as Churches of Christ, all who hold the fundamentals 
 of our holy rehgion, and consider it as our duty to love and 
 honour them as such ; carefully avoiding all treatment of them 
 that tends to the increase of strife and division, and that is con- 
 trary to " godly edifying." Still, it cannot be doubted, by any 
 rational man, that ^ome one of these denominations is nearer 
 to the Apostolic model, as a Church of Christ, than any of the 
 rest. Which of the whole number this is, is a most serious 
 question in the view of every one who wishes to know the 
 will of Christ, and who desires to be found walking in that 
 way which was trod by inspired Apostles, and in which they 
 left the Church harmoniously walking, when they ceased 
 from their labours. 
 
 It is the sincere belief of the writer of these pages, that 
 the Presbyterian Church, as it now exists in these United 
 States, entirely unconnected with the civil government, and 
 taking the word of God as its " only infallible rule of faith 
 and practice," is more truly primitive and apostolical in its 
 whole constitution, of doctrine, worship, and order, than any 
 1* 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 Other Church, now on earth. An humble attempt to evince 
 the truth of tliis position, Avill occupy the following pages. 
 
 For the fulfilment of the purpose in view, I shall endeavour, 
 very briefly, to consider the History of Presbyterianism ; its 
 doctrine^ its order, or form of government ; '\\s worship; and 
 its comparative advantages. In each of these respects, unless 
 I am deceived, it will be easy to show that it approaches 
 nearer than any other Christian denomination, to the Apos- 
 tolical model. 
 
 To prepare the way more fully for the ensuing discussion, 
 it may be proper to state, that there are four distinct forms of 
 Church order, each of which claims a scriptural warrant ; the 
 Papal, or spiritual monarchy— ^the Episcopal, or spiritual pre- 
 lacy — Independency, or spiritual democracy — and Presbyte- 
 rianism, or spiritual republicanism. The first maintaining 
 the necessity of one supreme, universal, infallible Head of the 
 whole Christian body throughout the world, as the authorised 
 vicar of Christ. The second, contending for an order of cleri- 
 cal prelates, above the rank of ordinary ministers of the Gos- 
 pel, who are alone, in their view, empowered to ordain, and 
 without whose presiding agency, there can be no regular 
 Church. The third, holding that all ecclesiastical power re- 
 sides in the mass of the Church members, and that all acts of 
 ecclesiastical authority are to be performed immediately by 
 them. While in the fourth and last place, Presbyterians be- 
 lieve, that Christ has made all ministers who are authorised 
 to dispense the word and sacraments, perfectly equal in official 
 rank and power : that in every Church the immediate exer- 
 cise of ecclesiastical power is deposited, not with the whole 
 mass of the people, but with a body of their representatives, 
 styled Elders ; and that the whole visible Church Catholic, so 
 far as their denomination is concerned, is not only one in name, 
 but so united by a series of assemblies of these representa- 
 tives, acting in the name, and by the authority of the whole, 
 as to bind the whole body together as one Church, walking 
 by the same principles of faith and order, and voluntarily, yet 
 authoritatively governed by the same system of rule and regu- 
 lation. 
 
 Presbyterianism, then, is a term which primarily refers to 
 the form of Church government. That is a Presbyterian 
 Church, in which the Presbytery is the radical and leading 
 judicatory ; in which Teaching and Ruling Presbyters or El- 
 ders, have committed to them the watch and care of the whole 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 9 
 
 flock ; in which all ministers of the word and sacraments are 
 equal ; in which Ruling Elders, as the representatives of the 
 people, form a part of all ecclesiastical assemblies, and par- 
 take, in all authoritative acts, equally with the Teaching El- 
 ders ; and in which, by a series of judicatories, rising one 
 above another, each individual church is under the watch and 
 care of its appropriate judicatory, and the whole body, by a 
 system of review and control, is bound together as one homo- 
 geneous community. Wherever this system is found in ope- 
 ration in the Church of God, there is Fresbyterianism. 
 Though there may be much diversity in the names of the seve- 
 ral judicatories ; and though, in the minuter details of arrange- 
 ment, some variety may exist, still it is essentially the same. 
 Thus the Reformed Churches in France, Holland, Germany, 
 Switzerland, Scotland, and Geneva, are all Presbyterian, not- 
 withstanding some minor varieties in the names and regula- 
 tions of their judicatories. Wherever ministerial parity ; 
 the government of the church by Elders, instead of the mass 
 of the communicants ; and the authoritative union of churches 
 under courts of review and control, are found, there we have 
 that ecclesiastical system which it is the object of the follow- 
 ing pages to explain and recommend. 
 
 But although the term Presbyterian has a primary reference 
 to the form of Church government ; yet Presbyterian Churches 
 were originally agreed, and have been commonly, in all ages 
 agreed, in a variety of other matters, which we believe are all 
 >varranted by the Holy Scriptures. It is to the whole system, 
 then, of doctrine, government, and mode of worship, which 
 now distinguishes the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States, that the attention of the readers of these pages is re- 
 quested ; and which, it shall be my aim to show, is set forth 
 in the Word of God, " the only infallible rule of faith and 
 practice." 
 
 CHAPTER H. 
 
 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 The essential principles of Presbyterian Church order were 
 of very early origin. Those principles are the authoritative 
 binding of the whole Church together as one body ; and con- 
 ducting this government, not by the entire ecclesiastical popu 
 
10 HISTORY OF 
 
 lation, but by representatives, elected by, and acting on behall 
 of the whole. That this mode of administering the affairs of 
 the visible Church was adopted long before the coming of 
 Christ, is certain, and can be doubted by none who intelligent- 
 ly and impartially read the Old Testament Scriptures. Even 
 before the institution of the ceremonial economy, while the 
 covenanted people of God were yet in bondage in Egypt, we 
 find that they had their Elders, that is, their men of gravity, 
 experience and wisdom, who were obeyed as heads of tribes, 
 and rulers among the people, Exodus iii. 16. The powers 
 committed to them, and exercised by them, are not particularly 
 specified ; but we may take for granted, with confidence, that 
 their office was to inspect and govern the people, and to ad- 
 just all disputes both of a civil and ecclesiastical nature. Be- 
 fore the publication of the law from Mount Sinai, and anterior 
 to the establishment of the ceremonial economy, Moses chose 
 wise and able men out of the tribes of Israel, made them rulers 
 over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties, and over tens. Ex- 
 odus xviii. These rulers are elsewhere, in almost every part 
 of the Old Testament, styled Elders. To them, as we are ex- 
 pressly informed, all the ordinary cases of government and dis- 
 cipline were committed. The same mode of dispensing jus- 
 tice and order among the people, seems to have been employed 
 after the institution of the Aaronic priesthood; during the 
 time of the Judges, and of the Kings ; during the Babylonish 
 captivity ; and after the return of the captives from Babylon. 
 At whatever time the Synagogue system was adopted, it is 
 evident that the plan of conducting government by means of 
 a body of Elders, was universal, through all the land of Judea, 
 up to the time of the Saviour's advent. The synagogues were 
 the parish churches of the Jews. There the ordinary worship 
 and instruction of the Sabbath were conducted ; and the ex- 
 communication of an individual from the body of the profess- 
 ing people of God, was expressed by " putting him out of the 
 synagogue." In these synagogues the essential principles of 
 Presbyterianism were universally established. The similari- 
 ty, as to every important point, was exact. In short, during 
 the whole tract of time embraced in the history of the Mosaic 
 economy, we have complete evidence that the ecclesiastical 
 government, as well as the civil, was conducted, under God, the 
 Supreme Ruler, by boards of Elders, acting as the authorized 
 representatives of the people. To this mode of government, as 
 is notorious, every city, and every synagogue was accustomed. 
 In no instance, in either Church or State, is a case recollected 
 in which the population was called together to setde a dispute, 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM. 1 1 
 
 or to dispense justice between persons at variance. The re- 
 presentative system was universally in use. The work of 
 administering justice was always done by a body of rulers or 
 officers, commonly styled, amidst all the changes of dispensa- 
 tion, " Elders of the people." 
 
 Nor was this all. As each particular synagogue was go- 
 verned by a bench of Elders, of which the Bishop or " Angel 
 of the Church," was the presiding officer ; so also, as the whole 
 Jewish body was one ; — one Catholic Church, — there were 
 always appeals admitted, in cases of alleged incorrectness of 
 judgment, to the " great synagogue" at Jerusalem, where an 
 opportunity was given for redressing what was done amiss. 
 Nothing like the independency of particular synagogues was 
 admitted or thought of. A system which bound the whole 
 community together as one visible professing body, was uni- 
 formly in operation. 
 
 The first converts to Christianity being all native Jews, who 
 had been always accustomed to the exercise of government 
 by benches of " Elders," in the manner just specified ; and 
 this representative plan being so equitable, so wise, and so 
 convenient in itself; no wonder that the same plan was adopt- 
 ed by the apostles in organizing the primitive Church. Ac- 
 cordingly, as in the account which the inspired writers give 
 of the Jewish constitution, we read continually of the " Rulers 
 of the synagogue," and of the " Elders of the people," as a 
 body distinguished from the priests ; so, when they proceed 
 to give us an account of the organization and proceedings of 
 the New Testament Church, we find the same language used 
 in cases almost innumerable. We read of " Elders being or- 
 dained in every church ;" of an important question being re- 
 ferred to a synod, made up of " Apostles and Elders ;" of " El- 
 ders who ruled well, but did not labour in the word and doc- 
 trine ;" of the " Elders of the Church being called together" 
 to consider ecclesiastical questions ; of the " Elders of the 
 Church being called for to visit and pray over the sick," &c. 
 
 The question, whether the exact mode of conducting the 
 government and discipline of the Church, which we find de- 
 lineated in the New Testament, is obligatory on Christians 
 now, is one concerning which there is no small diversity of 
 opinion. That an entire conformity to that model, in every 
 minute particular, is essential to the existence of the Church, 
 will be maintained by few ; and certainly by no Presbyterians. 
 None can doubt, however, that it is most expedient and safe 
 to keep as near as may be to that plan of Church order, which 
 inspired men approved and left in use, when they ceased from 
 
12 HISTORY OF 
 
 their labours. As to what that plan was, it would really seem 
 almost impossible that intelligent and impartial readers of the 
 New Testament should entertain different opinions. The 
 moment we open the inspired history of the apostolic age, we 
 find a style of speaking concerning the officers of the Church, 
 and a statement of facts, which evince, beyond all controversy, 
 that the model of the synagogue was that which was then 
 adopted, and which was left in universal use when inspired 
 men surrendered the Church to their successors. We find 
 preaching the Gospel, " feeding the sheep and the lambs" of 
 Christ, and administering the Christian sacraments, the high- 
 est offices entrusted to the Ministers of Christ. We find a 
 plurality of " Elders," by divine direction, ordained in every 
 church. In no instance, in the whole New Testament, do we 
 find an organized congregation under the watch and care of a 
 single officer. Further, we find " Bishop" and " Elder," 
 titles given, interchangeably, to the same persons ; plainly 
 showing that the term " Bishop," in the apostolic age, was 
 the title which designated the pastor or " overseer," of a sin- 
 gle flock or church. We find in the New Testament history, 
 no trace of prelacy. All priority or pre-eminence among the 
 ministers of Christ is expressly rebuked and forbidden. 
 There is evidently but one commission given to the author- 
 ized ministers of the word and sacraments. When the Saviour 
 left the world he commissioned no higher officer in his 
 Church, speaks of no higher than he who was empowered to 
 go forth and " teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The 
 ordaining power is manifestly represented as possessed and 
 exercised by ordinary pastors, and as performed by the " lay- 
 ing on of the hands of the Presbytery." There is not a soli- 
 tary instance to be found in all the New Testament, of an or- 
 dination being performed by a single individual, whether an 
 ordinary, or extraordinary minister. In all the cases which 
 we find recorded, or hinted at, a plurality of ordainers offi- 
 ciated. When Paul and Barnabas were designated to a spe- 
 cial mission, it was by a plurality of " Prophets and Teachers 
 of the Church in Antioch," Acts xiii. When they went forth 
 to preach and organise churches, we are informed that they 
 together, " ordained Elders in every church." Timothy was 
 ordained by the " laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." 
 1 Tim. iv. 14. And even when the Deacons were set apart 
 to their office, it is plain, from the narrative, Acts vi. 1 — 6 
 that a plurahty laid hands upon them with prayer and fasting. 
 It is plain too, that the whole visible Church, in the apostolic 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM. 13 
 
 'ge, whether m Jerusalem or in Antioch, in PliiUppi or in 
 Ephesus, was regarded as one body, all governed by the same 
 laws, subject to the same authority, and regulated by the same 
 judicial decisions. Thus, when a question arose which in- 
 terested and affected the whole Christian community, it was 
 decided by a synod of the "Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem," 
 and the " decrees" of that synod Avere sent down to " all the 
 churches," to be registered and obeyed. Here was evident- 
 ly an assembly of Ministers and Elders, acting as the repre- 
 sentatives of the whole Church, and pronouncing judicial de- 
 cisions, which were intended to bind the Avhole body. If this 
 be not Presbyterianism, then there is nothing of the kind in 
 Scotland or in the United States. 
 
 When we pass from the New Testament to the earliest 
 records of uninspired antiquity, the same form of church or- 
 der is every where apparent. The plan of ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment disclosed by the Epistles of Ignatius, as actually 
 existing in his day, is manifestly Presbyterian. He repre- 
 sents every particular church of which he speaks, as furnished 
 with a Bishop or Pastor, a bench of Elders and Deacons ; he 
 continuahy employs language which implies that these offi- 
 cers were present in every worshipping assembly ; and he 
 most evidendy gives us to understand, that these Elders, with 
 the Pastor or Bishop at their head, conducted the govern- 
 ment and discipline of each church. Clemens Romanus, 
 contemporary with Ignatius, speaks in language of similar 
 import. He represents Bishops and Presbyters, — the Epis- 
 copate and the Presbyterate, as the same ; and expressly 
 states that the Presbyters were " set over the church" by the 
 choice of the Church ; and that to rise up m rebellion against 
 them, was considered as highly criminal. The testimony of 
 (renajus, who lived in the second century, is no less decisive 
 in favour of our system. He continually applies the title of 
 Bishop and Presbyter to the same men ; speaks of " the suc- 
 cession of the Episcopate," through the Presbyters and 
 through the Bishops, as the very same ; nay, represents the 
 apostolical succession, the Episcopal succession, and the 
 Presbyterial succession, as all identical. In short, he could 
 scarcely have kept a more scrupulous and exact balance, than 
 he does between the dignities, powers, and duties connected 
 with each title, and ascribed interchangeably to all. I might go 
 on to quote Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and other 
 early fathers, as speaking a language of equivalent import. 
 But there is no need of going into further detail. The truth 
 is, for the first two hundred years after Christ, it is certain 
 
14 HISTOPY OF 
 
 that neither Prelacy nor Independency was known in the 
 Church of Christ. There is not a single record within that 
 period, which either asserts or impUes it ; but every thing of 
 a contrary aspect. Every flock of professing Christians had 
 its Pastor or Bishop, with its bench of Elders, by whom the 
 government and discipline were conducted ; and its body of 
 Deacons, by whom the funds collected for the relief of the 
 poor, were received and disbursed. 
 
 In the third century after Christ the aspect of things began 
 to change. Some seasons, in this century, of exemption from 
 persecution and of comparative outward prosperity, Avere 
 marked by very sensible departure from the simplicity and 
 purity of the preceding times. Heresies and schisms began 
 to distract the congregations of God's professing people. The 
 Ministry and Eldership of the Church declined both in zeal 
 and faithfulness. The clergy became ambitious and volup- 
 tuous, and, as a natural consequence, full of intrigue and con- 
 tention. The pictures given of their cupidity, mutual en- 
 croachments, and degrading strife, by Cyprian, by Origen, 
 and by Eusebius, as in full operation in the third century, are 
 truly of the most revolting character. Some have said, indeed, 
 that the Church, in the Cyprianic age presented, on the whole, 
 one of the most satisfactory models of ecclesiastical perfec- 
 tion. Those who can entertain this opinion must judge of 
 what is desirable in a Church, by a very different criterion 
 from that which the Bible furnishes. Let them impartially 
 read the statements given by the writers just mentioned, and 
 they will speedily alter their opinion. Among such a clergy, 
 an undue aspiring after preferment, titles and places might be 
 expected, as a matter of course. Indeed, in such circum- 
 stances, it would have required a constant succession of mira- 
 cles to prevent prelacy from arising. Nor was this all. As 
 the Church declined from her primitive simplicity and purity, 
 some of her more serious ministers thought themselves war- 
 ranted in resorting to other forms of attraction for drawing the 
 populace into the Church. For attracting the Jews they be- 
 gan to adopt some of the titles, ceremonies, and vestments 
 of the temple service. They began to call the Christian 
 ministry the " priesthood;" and, as a natural consequence, to 
 speak of " priests" and '' high priests," and " altars," and 
 '' sacrifices," &c. &c. ; for all which, in reference to the 
 Christian economy, there is not the smallest warrant in the 
 New Testament. Other ecclesiastical leaders, for the pur- 
 pose of conciliating and attracting the Pagans, introduced a 
 variety of rites from the ceremonial of the heathen, intended 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM. 15 
 
 to make the Christian ritual more splendid, dazzUng, and 
 alluring to those who had been the votaries of dumb idols, and 
 whose chief objection to the religion of (.'hrist was, that its 
 worship was too simple and unadorned. The consequence 
 w^as, that, toward the close of the third century. Prelacy was 
 gradually and insidiously introduced. All orders of ecclesias- 
 tical men partook of the spirit of ambitious encroachment. 
 The Deacons, whom the Apostles had appointed to be guar- 
 dians of the poor, and of the temporalities of the Church, be- 
 came too proud to discharge the appropriate duties of their 
 oflice, employed " sub-deacons" to perform their official work, 
 and, after a while, claimed, and had conceded to them, the 
 power of preaching and baptizing. The Presbyters or Elders 
 partook of the same spirit, and although the greater part of 
 them had been chosen and set apart for ruling only, yet as the 
 discipline of the Church became relaxed and unpopular, and 
 finally in a great measure abandoned, they all aspired to be 
 public teachers, and turned away from their original work, to 
 what they deemed a more honourable employment. The 
 Bishops, who had been originally overseers or pastors of sin- 
 gle flocks, claimed authority over the congregations in their 
 neighbourhood, which had branched out from their original 
 charges ; so that, by little and litde, they became prelates ; — 
 a new office covertly brought in under an old name. Nor 
 did the principle of ambitious encroachment stop here. Me- 
 tropolitans and Patriarchs began to " lord it" over Bishops. 
 And to crown the gradations of rank, the Bishop of Rome, 
 seduced by the imperial splendour which surrounded him, and 
 countenanced by imperial power and munificence, came to be 
 acknowledged as the supreme head, under Christ, of the 
 whole Church upon earth, and the infallible interpreter of the 
 Saviour's will. 
 
 This statement is confirmed by early Christian writers of 
 the highest character, and who were nearly contemporary 
 with the criminal innovation of which they speak. Thus 
 Ambrose, who wrote about the year 376 after Christ, in his 
 commentary on Ephesians iv. 2, has the following passage: 
 *' After churches were planted in all places, and officers or- 
 dained, matters were settled otherwise than they were in the 
 beginning. And hence it is that the Apostles' writings do not, 
 in all things, agree with the present constitution of the Church ; 
 because they were written under the first rise of the Church ; 
 for he calls Timothy, who was created a Presbyter by him, a 
 Bishop, for so, at first, the Presbyters were called." This 
 passage is so plain, that it requires no comment. Still more 
 2 
 
6 HISTORY OF 
 
 unequivocal and decisive is the language of Jerome, " Among 
 ihe ancients," says he, *' Presbyters and Bishops were the 
 same. But by little nnd little, that all the seeds of dissension 
 might be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one. 
 As, therefore, the Presbyters know, that by the custom ot 
 the Church, they are subject to him who is their president, so 
 let Bishops know, that they are above Presbyters more by the 
 custom of the Church, than by the true dispensation of Jesus 
 Christ !" And in order to establish his position, that, in the 
 apostolic age. Bishop and Presbyter were the same, he quotes 
 precisely those passages of Scripture which Presbyterians 
 have been accustomed, for three hundred years, to adduce in 
 attestation of the same fact. The testimony of Augustine, 
 Bishop of Hippo, is to the same amount. In writing to his 
 contemporary Jerome, who was a Presbyter, he expresses him- 
 self in the following language : " I entreat you to correct me 
 faithfully when you see I need it ; for, although, according to 
 the names of honour which the custom of the Church has 
 7101V brought into use, the office of Bishop is greater than that 
 of Presbyter, nevertheless, in many respects, Augustine is in- 
 ferior to Jerome." Oper. Tom. II. Epist. 19. ad Hieron. It 
 is worthy of notice, that Bishop Jewel, in his " Defence of his 
 Apology for the Church of England," produces this passage 
 from Augustine, for the express purpose of showing the origi- 
 nal identity of Bishop and Presbyter, and translates it thus : 
 " The office of Bishop is above the office of priest, not by au- 
 thority of Scripture, but after the names of honour which die 
 custom of the Church hath now obtained." Defence, 122, 123. 
 And, finally, to the same effect is the testimony of Chrysos- 
 tom, who wrote toward the close of the fourth century. In his 
 eleventh Homily on the Epistles to Timothy, he speaks thus : 
 " Having spoken of Bishops, and described them, Paul passes 
 on to the Deacons. But why is this ? Because, between 
 Bishop and Presbyter there is not much difference ; for these 
 also, in like manner, have committed to them both the in- 
 struction and the government of the Church ; and what things 
 he has said concerning Bishops, the same, also, he intended 
 for Presbyters ; for they have gained the ascendency only in 
 respect to ordination ; and of this they seem to have defi*aud- 
 ed the Presbyters." This passage of the eloquent father 
 needs no comment. If there be meaning in words, Chry- 
 sostom distinctly conveys the idea, not only that ordination 
 was the only point in respect to M'hich Bishops, in his day, 
 had gained precedence over Presbyters, but that they had 
 gained even this by fraudulent means. This is the undoubted 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM. l7 
 
 import of the word which he employs, and which we translate 
 del'raud. The same word is employed in 1 Thessalonians iv, 
 0. " That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any 
 matter," &c. And again, 2 Cor. vii. 2. " We have wronged 
 no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no 
 man." And be it remembered, no individual in the fourth 
 century was more competent, in every respect, than Chrysos- 
 tom to say whether the pre-eminence which had been gained 
 by Bishops in his day, rested on a divine warrant, or had been 
 fraudulently obtained. 
 
 Thus it is evident — the ancients themselves being our wit- 
 nesses — that, in the apostolic age. Bishop and Presbyter were 
 the same ; that, the Bishops were parish ministers ; that, in 
 every parish, a body of Elders, with their Pastor at their 
 head, conducted the government and discipline; that, of 
 course, Presbyterian parity in the Gospel ministry universally 
 prevailed ; that the rite of ordination was equally the prero- 
 gative of all who were empowered to preach the Gospel, and 
 administer the sacraments ; that it was habitually performed 
 " by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery;" that mat- 
 ters continued in this situation for more than a hundred years 
 after the close of the apostolic age ; that then clerical pride, 
 ambition, and cupidity began, more sensibly than in preceding 
 times, to disclose their native effects ; and that the pastors of 
 the more opulent towns claimed special pre-eminence and 
 powers, as peculiarly the successors of the Apostles, which, 
 by little and iitde, were admitted, and at length, permanently 
 established. Thus were parochial Bishops, or the pastors of 
 single congregations, gradually transformed into diocesan, or 
 prelatical Bishops, and, under an old and famUiar title, a new 
 office artfully introduced ; until, in the fourth century, when 
 Christianity became the established religion of the empire, 
 Avhen the clergy were pampered by imperial bounty, de- 
 fended by imperial authority, and their honours arranged ac- 
 cording to the gradations of rank v/hich were obtained in the 
 state ; all traces of primitive simplicity and purity were lost 
 in the plans and splendour of worldly policy. Bishops be- 
 came "lords over God's heritage," rather than " examples to 
 their flocks." 
 
 We are not to suppose, however, that this departure from 
 the apostolic model of church order was universal. There 
 were " witnesses of the truth," who, in humble retirement, 
 bore a faithful testimony to the original system of discipline 
 as well as doctrine. The simple-hearted Paulicians, in the 
 seventh century, testified against the encroachments of pre- 
 
18 HISTORY OF 
 
 lacy. They were succeeded, not long afterwards, by the 
 Waldenses and Albigenses, who still more distinctly and 
 zealously protested against all encroachments on Presbyterian 
 simplicity. This is freely acknowledged by many of the 
 advocates of prelacy, as well as others. j3Sneas Sylvius, 
 afterwards Pope Fius the II., declares — " They, (the Wal- 
 denses,) deny the hierarchy; maintaining that there is no 
 difference among the priests, by reason of dignity or office." 
 Medina, a learned prelatist in the council of Trent, asserted 
 that the doctrine of ministerial parity had been condemned 
 in Jierius, and in the Waldenses, as well as in others speci- 
 fied by him. Bellarmine acknowledges that the Waldenses 
 denied the divine right of prelacy. The Rev. Dr. Rainolds, 
 an eminently learned Episcopal divine, professor of Divinity 
 in the university of Oxford, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 
 in writing on this subject to Sir Francis Knollys, declares — 
 "All those who have, for 500 years past, endeavoured the 
 reformation of the Church, have taught, that all pastors, 
 whether they be called Bishops or Priests, are invested with 
 equal authority and power ; — as first, the Waldenses ; next 
 Marcilius Petavinus ; then Wickliffe d.ni\ his disciples ; after- 
 wards Huss and the Hussites ; and last of all, Luther, Cal- 
 vin, Bidlinger, Musculus, <fcc." Their own historians, 
 John Paul Perrin, and Sir Samuel Morland, make state- 
 ments, and exhibit documents which fully confirm this repre- 
 sentation. For although in some of the records of the Wal- 
 denses certain Seniors are mentioned who performed par- 
 ticular duties for the sake of order ; yet we are explicitly 
 informed that they claimed no superiority by divine right. 
 Accordingly Peter Hcylin, a bigoted Episcopalian, speaking 
 of the Bohemian Brethren, a branch of the same people, and 
 who are known to have received ministers from them — says, 
 that " they had fallen upon a way of ordaining ministers 
 among themselves, without having recourse unto the bishop, 
 or any such superior ofhcer as a superintendent." — History 
 of Presbyterianism, pp. 409, 410. The Rev. John Scott, 
 the pious Episcopal continuator of Milner^s Ecclesiastical 
 History, in giving a particular statement of the tenets and 
 practices of the Waldenses, addressed by George Mauzel, 
 one of their most devoted ministers, to (Ecolampaditts, the 
 celebrated Reformer, in 1530, represents that minister as 
 stating, in the most unequivocal manner, that the different or- 
 ders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, did not exist in their 
 ministry. Vol. I. 139. The Rev. .9dam Blair, one of the 
 latest and most profound writers on the history of the Wal 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM. 19 
 
 denses, asserts and shows, with the utmost confidence, that 
 their ecclesiastical government was not Episcopal. History 
 of the Waldenses^ in two volumes octavo, 1833. " Like 
 Presbyterians and Independents," says this writer, " they 
 denied the establishment of the different orders of ministers 
 then received in the Western Church, such as Bishops, Arch- 
 bishops," &c. I. 176. Again he says — " No form of eccle- 
 siastical government in Great Britain, seems exactly the same 
 widi the ancient Waldenses." Viewing them as having a 
 constant moderator, Episcopalians think him like a Bishop. 
 But in regard to Episcopal consecration, Mr. Adand^ an 
 Episcopalian, informs us, that " this ornament of our church 
 establishment, as justly cherished by us, is unquestionably 
 no longer preserved among the Faudois.'' Viewing them as 
 having a Synod, and having a Consistory^ or session, in each 
 congregation, they are Presbyterians ; yet with this differ- 
 ence, that, in our country, Synods and Presbyteries have a 
 new moderator every year, and the lay-elders are sent by the 
 session in each congregation ; while the Waldensian congre- 
 gations meet and appoint the elder The visits of the mode- 
 rator to the different congregations, as appointed by the court, 
 have nothing in them inconsistent with Presbytery. Mr. Gil- 
 ly, (also an Episcopalian) admits that the present Vaudois 
 are nearer to Presbyterians, than to any other form of church 
 government, only not so rigid." Vol. I. 540, 541. But the 
 undoubted fact, which places this whole subject beyond all 
 question, is, that after the commencement of tlie Reformation 
 in Geneva, the Waldenses not only held communion with 
 that Church, which we all know was strictly Presbyterian, 
 but also received ministers from her, and of course recognised 
 the validity of her ordinations in the strongest practical man- 
 ner. This they could never have done, had they been in the 
 habit of regarding the subject in the same light with modern 
 prelatists. 
 
 But the Waldenses were not merely Presbyterian as to the 
 point of ministerial parity. According to their own most au- 
 thentic writers, as well as the acknowledgment of their bit- 
 terest enemies — they resembled our beloved Church in almost 
 every thing. They rejected all human inventions in the wor- 
 ship of God, — such as the sign of the cross in baptism ; fast 
 and festival days ; the confirmation of children and youth ; 
 the consecration of edifices for public worship, &;c. We are 
 also told that all their churches were bound together by Sy- 
 nods, which assembled once a year ; that these Synods were 
 composed of Ministers and Ruling Elders, as in the Presby- 
 2* 
 
20^ HISTORY OF 
 
 terian Church ; that their business was to examine and ordain 
 candidates for the ministry, and authoritatively to order every 
 thing respecting their whole body. We may say, then, with 
 strict regard to historical verity, that, in the darkest and most 
 corrupt periods of the Church, Presbyterianism was kept alive 
 v.^ the purest, and indeed, in the only pure churches now 
 known to have then existed. 
 
 When the Reformation from Popery occurred, it is at once 
 wonderful and edifying to observe, with what almost entire 
 unanimity the leaders in that glorious enterprise, concurred in 
 proclaiming and sustaining Presbyterian principles. Luther, 
 Melancthon and Bucer, in Germany; Farel, Viret and Calvin, 
 in France and Geneva ; Zuingle and (Ecolampadius, in Swit- 
 zerland : Peter Martyr, in Italy; A. Lasco, in Hungary ; Junius 
 and others, in Holland ; Knox, in Scotland ; and a decided 
 majority of the most enlightened and pious friends of the Re- 
 formation, even in England, — all, without concert, concurred 
 in maintaining, that in the apostolical age there was no pre- 
 lacy. Bishop and Presbyter being the same ; that the govern- 
 ment of the Church by Ruling as well as Teaching Elders, 
 was plainly warranted in Scripture ; and that individual con- 
 gregations were not to be considered as independent commu- 
 nities, but as so many members of the body to which they 
 belonged, and to be governed by representative assemblies, for 
 t?ie benefit of the whole. It is true, these different leaders of 
 the Reformed Churches did not, all of them, actually establish 
 Presbyterian order in their respective ecclesiastical bodies ; 
 but while all the Refonned Churches in France, Germany, 
 Holland, Hungary, Geneva, and Scotland, were thorough 
 Presbyterians, not only in principle, but also in practice — even 
 the Lutherans universally acknowledged that ministerial parity 
 was the order of the apostolic Church, and also* that in the 
 primitive times Ruling Elders conducted the government and 
 discipline in all the Churches. Still many of them holding, 
 as they did, that the Church was not bound to adhere, in every 
 respect, to the apostolic model of government and disciplme, 
 but was at liberty to modify it according to exigencies, and 
 as they might deem, for edification ; they adopted foims of 
 regulation and discipline, differing from each other, and differ- 
 ing, as they did not hesitate to confess, from the plan actually 
 in use in the days of apostolic simplicity. The Church of 
 England was the only one in nil Protestant Christendom^ 
 which, at the Reformation, adopted the system of Prelacy. 
 This was occasioned by the f\ict, that in that coimtiy the 
 Bishops, th€ court-clergy, and the monarchs, took the lead in 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM. iW 
 
 reforming the Church ; and, as might have been expected, 
 chose to retain the system of ecclesiastical pre-eminence which 
 had been so long established. It is notorious, however, that 
 this was done originally, without any claim of divine right ; 
 with a spirit of affectionate intercourse and communion with 
 all the non-episcopal Churches on the continent of Europe, 
 and after all, contrary to the judgment of large numbers of 
 the most eminently pious and learned friends of the Reforma- 
 tion in that kingdom. 
 
 It is very common for the more uninformed opponents of 
 Presbyterianism to assert, that this form of ecclesiastical order 
 was invented by Calvin, and first set in operation in the 
 Church of Geneva. The ignorance of those who can make 
 this allegation is indeed surprising ! Passing by all that has 
 been said of the palpable existence of Presbyterian order in 
 the apostolic age ; of its plain delineation in the Epistles of 
 Ignatius, and in the writings of other fathers succeeding the 
 pastor of Antioch ; and waiving all remark on its acknow- 
 ledged establishment, as we have seen, among the pious 
 Waldenses ; it was undoubtedly in use in Switzerland and in 
 Geneva long before Calvin had appeared as a reformer, or 
 had set his foot in either of those countries. The Rev. Mr. 
 Scott, the Episcopal continuator of Milner's Ecclesiastical 
 History, before quoted, explicitly states, that as early as 1528, 
 when Calvin was but nineteen years of age, and was wholly 
 unknown in the ecclesiastical world, "the Presbyterian form 
 of church government was introduced into Switzerland," and 
 that the doctrine of ministerial parity had been uniformly 
 taught by Zuingle, before the time of Calvin. In Geneva, 
 likewise, before Calvin ever saw that city, his countrymen, 
 Farel and Viret, had gone thither and commenced the Re- 
 formation upon Presbyterian principles. There, when he 
 consented to cast in his lot with them, he found a " Presby- 
 tery" established ; and all that he had to do was to complete 
 the system by adding the bench of Ruling Elders for conduct- 
 ing the discipline of the Church ; and even this he did not 
 invent, but confessedly borrowed from that branch of the 
 Waldenses called the Bohemian Brethren ; although he evi- 
 dently considered, and represented it as distinctly warranted 
 by Scripture. 
 
 Presbyterianism, as it has long existed in Scotland, Hol- 
 land, France, Geneva, and Germany, is, in substance, the 
 same system, differing only in these several countries, in mi- 
 nor details, and chiefly in the names and arrangements of 
 their several ecclesiastical assemblies. As those who com 
 
33 HISTORY OF 
 
 menced the Presbyterian Church m America, about the begin- 
 ning of the eighteenth century, were chiefly emigrants fronri 
 North Britain and Ireland, so the Church of Scotland was 
 more than any other, their model. Our whole arrangement 
 of judicatories, and our whole ecclesiastical nomenclature, 
 are with few exceptions borrowed from Scotland. What our 
 ecclesiastical Mother and we call the " Church Session," 
 most of the Presbyterians on the continent of Europe call the 
 " Consistory ;" and what we call the " Presbytery," they 
 call the " Classis." But in general principles, we are all en- 
 tirely agreed. 
 
 Although it is well known that Presbyterianism, in some 
 parts of the old world, has been, and continues to be connected 
 with the State ; as in Scotland, Holland, Geneva, and some 
 parts of Germany ; yet this is by no means a necessary, or 
 even a natural connection. It is deeply to be lamented that 
 such a connection was ever formed in any case ; having proved, 
 it may be safely affirmed, in all cases essentially injurious. 
 This form of ecclesiastical order existed in the days of the 
 Apostles, not only without any alUance with the civil govern- 
 ment, but in the midst of its most unrelenting persecution : 
 and this continued to be the case for more than a hundred 
 years after the last Apostle had gone to his reward. The same 
 may be said of this form of ecclesiastical order, as it existed 
 among the pious Waldenses. It was the object, in no case, 
 of state-patronage, but of unceasing persecution. It is much 
 to be regretted, that any portion of the Church of Christ, un- 
 der any form of organization, has ever sought to be united 
 with the state, or consented to receive support from the civil 
 power. Such a union has never failed to be followed by dis- 
 astrous consequences to the best interests of religion. It is 
 undoubtedly better — far better for the spiritual welfare of the 
 Church that she should be persecuted, rather than supported 
 by the civil government. 
 
 Happily, the Presbyterian Church in the United States, has 
 never formed or sought any kind of connection with the state. 
 Nay, she has gone further. When, after the establishment of 
 our national independence, it became proper to revise and mo- 
 dify our ecclesiastical formularies, our fathers threw out of them 
 every thing relating to the interposition of the civil magistrate 
 in the aflairs of the Church, and introduced, in place of what 
 was thus excluded, a solemn declaration against any particular 
 class or denomination of Christians receiving any species of 
 religious establishment, or preference from the civil govern- 
 ment. So that our public standards contain an* open, solemn, 
 
PRESBYTERIANISM. 23 
 
 and p(}rmanent Protest against any claim or attempt on the 
 part of our own, or any other Church, obtaining the least 
 patronage or pre-eminence from governmental favour. Nor is 
 there any point concerning which a more firm and deep-rooted 
 sentiment prevails, than on this point, throughout the Presby- 
 terian Church. It is universally regarded as a settled princi- 
 ple, that scarcely any greater calamity could happen to our 
 body, than that it should be, in any way, directly or indirect- 
 ly, connected with the state. 
 
 It would be doing gross injustice to Presbyterianism not to 
 state, before closing this historical sketch, that it has been 
 found, in all ages, friendly to " the rights of man ;" conducive 
 to the advancement, rather than the destruction of civil and 
 religious liberty. In making this statement, it is not meant to 
 be maintained, that no Presbyterian has ever been chargeable 
 with the spirit or practice of persecution ; but simply to say, 
 that the general characteristic of the Presbyterian Church, as 
 a denomination, is, that it has ever shown itself friendly to the 
 diffusion of knowledge, to the rights of conscience, and to the 
 enjoyments of rational liberty. It has often, very often, been 
 a persecuted, but never a persecuting Church. The fcAv ex- 
 amples of a contrary aspect which have appeared, were, in al- 
 most all cases, traceable, either to individual mistake and in- 
 firmity, or to a momentary impulse of retaliation on bloody 
 persecutors, when unexpectedly placed in the power of those 
 who had been recently the victims of the most cruel oppres- 
 sion. The death of Servetus (even allowing all the agency 
 in his death on the part of Calvin, which the enemies of that 
 illustrious man have been fond of ascribing to him, but M^hich 
 every well informed and impartial person knows cannot be 
 allowed) had no real connection with Presbyterianism. The 
 cases of undue severity exercised towards others, by Presby- 
 terians in Great Britain, in the course of the seventeenth cen- 
 tury were almost all referable to the maxim, that " oppression 
 makes even wise men mad;" and seldom rose much above 
 the point of self-defence.* And as to the fierce and unrelent- 
 
 * It is truly wonderful that intelligent and conscientious men, while 
 they make such a hideous outcry concerning^ the affair of Servetus, and 
 study to place in so odious a light the severities indulged towards some 
 of the Episcopal clergy, by the Independents, in England, during the 
 period of the Commonwealth, should entirely forget the instances of 
 persecution, a hundredfold more frequent and more severe, practised by 
 Prelacy. Archbishop Cranmer was immediately active in dragging at 
 least four persons to the flames, of whom two were women. Let the 
 flames which consumed the body of the amiable and pious Ann Askew, 
 kindled through the misguided zeal of that prelate, confound those who 
 would represent Calvin as the prince of persecutors. More than this. 
 
24 HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 
 
 ing oppression recently experienced by evangelical men in 
 Geneva, it is notoriously the spirit and the work of Unitarian- 
 ism ; the same spirit which, in the sixteenth century, prompted 
 the leading Socinians, when Francis David, one of their own 
 number, who believed with them the mere humanity of Christ, 
 and therefore thought that divine worship ought not to be paid 
 him, — to throw him into prison, where he died. 
 
 Especially may it be said that, in our own country, during 
 the one hundred and thirty years in which it has existed in 
 an organized form, Presbyterianism has uniformly proved her- 
 self the friend of civil and religious liberty ; and though often 
 herself persecuted, has never been, in a single instance, charge- 
 able with invading the rights of others. Nay, to the present 
 hour she is, on every side, bitterly reviled and calumniated, 
 as " narrow," " sectarian," " ambitious," " aspiring at a civil 
 establishment," &;c., when it is notorious, that there is not a sin- 
 gle denomination in our country so exempt from narrow secta- 
 rianism ; so free from a proselyting spirit ; so ready to unite with 
 all evangelical denominations in enterprises of benevolence ; 
 and which has been so signalized by the most solemn pro- 
 tests, public and private, against every species of connexion 
 between the Church and the civil government. When, with 
 these unquestionable facts before our eyes, we hear the ca- 
 lumnies before referred to proclaimed on every side, can the 
 most unbounded charity imagine that they are really believed, 
 or that the motive which actuates their propagators can be a 
 regard to truth ? 
 
 in the reign of Edward VI., he is also confessed by the historians of his 
 own church, to have " procured the death" of Joanna Bocher and George 
 Paris, labouring, and with success, to overcome the scruples of the young 
 king, in signing the warrant for burning them. Again : during the 
 reign of James I., about twenty-five persons were hanged, drawn, and 
 quartered for their religion, in England. (See BrooWs History of Re- 
 ligious Liberty, Vol. II. p. 403.) During the same reign, (A. D. IGlii,) 
 Bartholomew Legate, and Edward Wightman, were burnt to death for 
 the same cause ; the former under the immediate administration and 
 authority of Dr. King, Bishop of London, and the latter under the di- 
 rection of Neile, Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, who are acknow- 
 ledged to have had an immediate agency in bringing them to the stake. 
 One would think, that in more than half a century after the affair of 
 Servetns, the prelates of England might have become a little more en- 
 lightened with regard to the rights of conscience. But the miserable 
 oppressions and cruelty exercised by prelacy, and especially by Arch- 
 bishop Laud and his coadjutors; and the still more cruel ejections, 
 imprisonments, and massacres, both in North and South Britain, which 
 marked the reigns of Charles II. and James II., are enough to sicken 
 the heart, and ought for ever to impose silence on prelacy, with regard 
 to peraecution. 
 
DOCTRINE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 26 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church has been distinguished, in all 
 ages, for laying great stress on the maintenance of pure doc- 
 trine. Such was eminently the case in primitive times, 
 when it was enjoined upon them to " contend earnestly for the 
 faith once delivered to the saints." And such was no less re- 
 markably their characteristic when, under the name of Wal- 
 denses, for five or six hundred years before the Reformation, 
 they maintained a noble testimony in favour of the truth, in 
 the midst of the deplorable darkness and corruption of the Pa- 
 pacy. At the period of the Reformation, the same zeal for 
 the true doctrines oftlie Gospel of Christ, led the faithful ser- 
 vants of God, in different parts of the Church, to form an* 
 pubhsh their " Confessions of Faith," which remain to th 
 present day as monuments of their fidelity to their Master's will 
 The people of whom we speak, evidently regarded the pure 
 doctrines of the Gospel as lying at the foundation of Christian 
 character and hope ; and while they attached no small import- 
 ance to the government and discipline of the Church, they 
 regarded, as of far more vital importance, those gi'eat, funda- 
 mental principles of our common salvation, which enter es- 
 sentially into the character and life of Christian experience. 
 
 The system of doctrine of which the Presbyterian Church 
 has solemnly declared her acceptance and belief, is comprised 
 in the "Westminster Confession of Faith," and the "Larger 
 and Shorter Catechisms." These we believe contain a sum- 
 mary of the doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures ; and, on 
 this account alone, we profess to receive them, and require a 
 solemn assent to the " Confession of Faith" on the part of all 
 who are admitted to the pastoral office, or that of spiritual 
 ruhng in our body. This system of doctrine has received the 
 distinctive tide of Calvinism. Not because Calvin invented it ; 
 but because, among all the modern advocates of it, he was, 
 undoubtedly, the most profound and able ; and because it has 
 suited the policy of some to endeavour to convey the idea that 
 the system in question was unknown until Calvin began to 
 propagate and defend it. 
 
 In the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, 
 there are many doctrines in which we entirely agree with our 
 brethren of other denominations. In regard to all that is em- 
 braced in that formula concerning the being and perfections of 
 
i6 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 God ; the Trinity of persons in the Godhead ; the divinity, 
 incarnation, and atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, &c., we 
 may be said to hold, substantially in common with all sects 
 who deserve the Christian name. But with respect to the true 
 state of human nature before God ; the doctrine of sovereign 
 unconditional election to eternal life ; the doctrine that Christ 
 died in a special sense for his elect people ; the doctrine of 
 justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone ; of 
 sanctification by the special and invincible power of the Holy 
 Spirit, and of the perseverance of the saints in holiness, — we 
 diflfer very materially from many who bear the Christian 
 name. In short, with regard to what are commonly called 
 the " five points," discussed and decided in the Synod of 
 Dort^ our Confession is opposed to Arminianism, and coin- 
 cides with the Calvmistic system maintained by that body. 
 
 It may be safely said that no theological system was ever 
 more gi'ossly misrepresented, or more foully and unjustly vili- 
 fied than this. It has been by multitudes defamed, as an 
 abominable system, revolting to every dictate of reason ; dis- 
 honourable to God ; unfriendly to Christian comfort ; adapted 
 to beget discouragement and despair on the one hand, or pre- 
 sumption and licentiousness on the other. The gross misre- 
 presentations with which it has been assailed ; the disinge- 
 nuous attempts to fasten upon it consequences which its ad- 
 vocates disavow and abhor ; and the unsparing calumny which 
 is continually heaped upon it, and its friends, have scarcely 
 ever been equalled m any other case in the entire annals of 
 theological controversy. Those who have been accustomed 
 to listen to this blind and unhallowed abuse, are respectfully 
 requested to weigh with serious impartiality the following 
 considerations : 
 
 1. It is but justice to ascertain luhat the real system is 
 which Presbyterians believe. The opponents of this system 
 are wont to give the most unjust and shocking pictures of it. 
 Whether this is done from ignorance or dishonesty, it would 
 be painful, as well as vain, at present, to inquire. They al- 
 lege, that it represents God as really the author of sin, and 
 man as laid under a physical necessity of sinning, and then as 
 damned for it, do what he can. They insist that our doctrine 
 of depravity, and the mode of inheriting it, if true, destroys 
 moral agency, reduces our race to the condition of mere ma- 
 chines, and, of course, makes all punishment of sin unjust and 
 absurd. In short, they contend that the view which we give 
 of the plan of salvation, makes it a system of heathenish fate, 
 or of refined Antinomianism, equally destructive of holiness 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 27 
 
 and of comfort ; and that, under the guise of free grace, we 
 build up a fabric of favouritism on the one hand, and of fixed 
 necessity on tlie other, at once making God a tyrant, and man 
 a passive subject of his arbitrary will. Buc is it true that 
 Presbyteriaus embrace any such system as this? Nothing 
 can be further from the truth. It is a shameful caricature, 
 which has no correspondence with any thing but the pervert- 
 ed pictures of prejudice and bigotry. We abhor such senti- 
 ments just as much as our uncandid accusers. 
 
 The truth is, it would be difficult to find a writer or speaker 
 who has distinguished himself by opposing Calvinism, who 
 has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared to 
 understand it. They are for ever fighting against a caricature. 
 Some of the most grave and venerable writers in our country, 
 who have appeared in the Arminian ranks, are, undoubtedly, 
 in this predicament. Whether this has arisen from the want 
 of knowledge, or the want of candour, the effect is the same, 
 and the conduct is worthy of severe censure. The writer of 
 these pages is fully persuaded that Arminian principles, when 
 traced out to their natural and unavoidable consequences, lead 
 to an invasion of the essential attributes of God, and, of course, 
 to blank and cheerless atheism. Yet in making a statement 
 of the Arminian system, as actually held by its advocates, he 
 should consider himself as inexcusable, if he departed a hair's 
 breadth from the delineation made by its friends. The sys- 
 tem itself is one thing ; the consequences which may be drawn 
 from it, another. 
 
 Without pretending to go over all the points of Calvinism 
 in detail, let it suffice to say, that the system which Presbyte- 
 rians profess to receive, is of the following character and 
 amount : — That the Gospel finds all men by nature dead in 
 trespasses and sins, destitute alike of the image and favour of 
 God, and incapable of regaining either, in virtue of any 
 strength or resources within themselves ; that the plan of man's 
 recovery from this state of rebellion, depravity, and ruin, is, 
 from beginning to end, a system of mere unmerited grace ; 
 that it was the wonderful, unprompted grace, or undeserved 
 love of God, which, in the eternal counsels of peace, contem- 
 plating man as fallen, devised a stupendous plan of redemp- 
 tion from the guilt and power of sin ; that in these eternal 
 counsels and purposes he regarded the whole human race as 
 equally fallen, and as equally undeserving on account of their 
 sins ; that, however, in his sovereign mercy, he resolved to 
 save a portion of them ; that he was prompted to this choice, 
 not by any foresight of faith and obedience on the part of the 
 
28 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 elect, because their faith and obedience are his own sovereign 
 gift; but by the mere good pleasure of his will, that they 
 might be to the praise of the glory of his grace ; that God was 
 under no obligation to provide deliverance for any of our race ; 
 that he might justly have left us all to perish in our iniquity, 
 as he did the fallen angels, toward whom he was, surely, 
 guilty of no injustice ; that he was pleased, however, in the 
 exercise of amazing mercy, to provide a plan of pardon, and 
 of restoration to life and blessedness ; that he gave his only 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not per- 
 ish, but obtain everlasting life. We believe further, that not 
 only the providing of this Saviour, but the disposition, in each 
 individual, to accept of him, is all of grace, that is, the free, 
 unmerited gift of God. We have no doubt that all mankind, 
 left to themselves, would reject this great salvation, and that 
 it is discriminating and all-conquering grace which inclines 
 any to receive it. We are persuaded, further, that, as salva- 
 tion is all of grace, and, as it is evident from Scripture and 
 from daily observation, that all men are not behevers, and, of 
 course, that all are not saved, so it was not God's original in- 
 tention to save all ; for it is granted that he does not actually 
 save all ; and that which he now does, if he be such a God as 
 the Bible represents him, he always intended to do. We be- 
 lieve that known unto God are all his works and ways from 
 the beginning ; and that all the dispensations of his grace, as 
 well as of his providence, and among the rest, the effectual 
 calling and salvation of every believer, entered into his plan 
 from all eternity; "yet so, (as our Confession of Faith de- 
 clares,) as that thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor 
 is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty 
 or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather esta- 
 blished." In short, the sum of our belief in reference to this 
 great economy, may be expressed in one sentence — " All that 
 is evil in man is of himself, and to him belongs the blame of 
 it ; and all that is good in him is of God, and to him belongs 
 the praise of it." We are aware that this system of belief 
 may be perverted, misrepresented, and made perfectly odious, 
 by drawing consequences from it which we utterly reject and 
 abhor. For such perversions and unjust inferences, the ad- 
 vocates of no creed are responsible. Let any one carefully 
 and dispassionately read over the Confession of Faith of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and he will soon perceive that the pro- 
 fessed representations of it which are daily proclaimed from 
 the pulpit and the press are wretched slanders, for which no 
 apology can be found but in the ignorance of their authors. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 29 
 
 2. Consider the ample support of this system which is 
 found hi the Word of God. The first question which every 
 sincere and devout inquirer after truth will ask, is, " what 
 saith the Scripture?" Our own reasonings and cavils, when 
 thrown into the scale against revelation, are nothing. " Let 
 God be true and every man a liar." Now it is confidently 
 believed, that when we reverently open the book of God, and 
 impartially examine what it teaches concerning the important 
 points which distinguish our doctrine from other forms of be- 
 lief, we shall find the divine authority clearly and strongly in 
 favour of that creed which Presbyterians profess to receive. 
 
 Those who doubt this, are requested seriously, and with 
 prayer, to ponder the following Scriptures : 
 
 By one man sin entered into the world. By the offence 
 of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation. By 
 one man's disobedience many were made sinners, Romans v. 
 18, 19. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of 
 God, being justified freely by his grace, through the redemp- 
 tion that is in Christ Jesus. Therefore, we conclude that a 
 man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Do 
 we then make void the law through faith ? God forbid ; yea, 
 we establish the law, Romans iii. 24 — 30. By grace are ye 
 saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift 
 of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. For if it 
 be of works, it is no more of grace, otherwise, grace is no 
 more grace, Ephes. ii. 5. Rom. xi. 6. Known unto God are 
 all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts xv. 18. 
 As many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Acts xiii. 
 48. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, 
 through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprin- 
 kling of the blood of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter i. 2. According as 
 he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, 
 that we should be holy and without blame before him in love ; 
 having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus 
 Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to 
 the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us 
 accepted in the beloved, Ephes. i. 4 — 7. Whom he did fore- 
 know, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image 
 of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many breth- 
 ren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called ; 
 and whom he called, them he also justified ; and whom he jus- 
 tified, them he also glorified. What shall we say, then, to 
 these things ? If God be for us, who can be against us ? 
 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect ? It is 
 God that justifieth ; who is be that condemneth ? It is Christ 
 
30 DOCTRINE or THE 
 
 that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is even at the 
 right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who 
 shall separate us from the love of Christ ? Shall tribulation or 
 distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or 
 sword ? Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors 
 through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither 
 death nor hfe, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor 
 things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor 
 any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love 
 of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. viii. 29 — 39. 
 Be thou partaker of the afflictions of the Gospel, according to 
 the power of God; who hath saved us, and called us with an 
 holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his 
 own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus be- 
 fore the world began, 2 Timothy i. 8, 9. Being confident of 
 this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you, 
 will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ, Philippians i. 6. 
 My sheep hear my voice, and 1 know them, and they follow 
 me, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never 
 perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand, John x. 
 27, 28. The mountains shall depart, and the hills be re- 
 moved ; but my kindness shall not depart from thee ; neither 
 shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord, 
 that hath mercy on thee, Isa. liv. 10. Who maketh thee to 
 differ from another ? And what hast thou that thou hast not 
 received ? Now, if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory 
 as if thou hadst not received it ? 1 Cor. iv. 7. Holy Father, 
 keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, 
 that they may be one, as we are. I pray not that thou shouldst 
 take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them 
 from the evil, John xvii. 11, 15. Father, I will that they also, 
 whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they 
 may behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst 
 me before the foundation of the world, John xvii. 24. Even 
 so, then at this present time, also, there is a remnant according 
 to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more 
 of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of 
 works, then it is no more of grace, otherwise work is no more 
 work. What then ? Israel hath not obtained that which he 
 seeketh for: but the eleedon hath obtained it, and the rest were 
 bUuded. Rom. xi. 5 — 7. Thy people shall be wiUing in the 
 day of thy power, Psalm ex. 3. Then will I sprinkle clean 
 water upon you and ye shall be clean ; from all your filthiness 
 and fr 9in all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart will I 
 give you, and a right spirit will I put within you ; and I will 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 31 
 
 take away the hard and stony heart out of your flesh, and will 
 give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within 
 you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep 
 my judgments and do them. Ezekiel xxxvi. 26-— 28. 
 
 The reader of these pages is earnestly requested to ponder 
 seriously the foregoing Scriptures ; to examine them in their 
 'jonnection ; to interpret them with the same candour and sim- 
 plicity with which he is wont to interpret other writings, and 
 then to say whether they do not manifestly support those pe- 
 culiar doctrines for which Presbyterians are so much re- 
 proached and vilified ? The question is, not whether the inge- 
 nuity of biblical criticism may not torture these passages into 
 a different meaning ; but whether the plain, natural, and ob- 
 vious meaning be not that which will sustain the system in 
 support of which we are wont to quote them ? If it will, the 
 controversy is at an end ; for whatever is plainly contained 
 in Scripture, we are bound to receive. 
 
 3. It is worthy of notice that the system of doctrine main- 
 tained by the Presbyterian Church, is the same in substance 
 with that which was maintained by the Witnesses for the 
 truths andby the great body of the Reformers^ and which has 
 generally been styled, *' the doctrines of the Reformation.^'' 
 
 There is probably no class of professing Christians more 
 remote than Presbyterians, from a disposition to appeal to 
 human authority as a test of truth. Our ecclesiastical formu- 
 laries, as well as our history, proclaim that we consider the 
 Scriptures as the infallible rule of faith and practice ; and 
 that we are distinguished from Prelatists and others, by con- 
 tending for this principle, in reference to every department of 
 the Christian system. Yet it is, undoubtedly, an interesting 
 fact, well worthy of being noticed, and adapted to confirm 
 our confidence in the system which we have embraced, that 
 all the great and good men who took the lead in bearing tes- 
 timony against error, and in reforming the Church from the 
 corruptions of the Papacy, however diverse in their views on 
 other points, — agreed, with scarcely an exception, in adopt- 
 ing and maintaining that system of doctrine which is popu- 
 larly denominated Calvinism, and which many of its bigoted 
 opponents are so ignorant as to imagine that Calvin invented. 
 The Waldenses, those far-famed witnesses of the truth, 
 whom all Protestants profess to venerate, but whom few, 
 alas ! appear to understand and follow; not only adopted in sub- 
 stance, the whole Presbyterian government and discipline, as 
 we have seen in a former page ; but also, all the leading 
 features of our system of doctrine. The following extract 
 3* 
 
32 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 from one of their confessions is conclusive. The eleventh 
 article is in these words: •* God saves from that corruption 
 and condemnation, into which all have fallen, those whom 
 he has chosen from the foundation of the world, not for any 
 dhpoaifion, faith, or holiness which he foresaw in them, 
 but of his mere mercy in Jesus Christ his ^0)i ; passing by 
 all the rest, according to the irreprehensible reason of his 
 free will and justice.^^ And in one of their ancient Cate- 
 chisms, they tell us, that the real Church of Christ consists 
 of the elect of God, from the beginning to the end of the 
 world, by the grace of God, through the merit of Christ, 
 gathered together by the Holy Spirit, and foreordained to 
 eternal life.'''' (See Gilly's " Narrative of Researches 
 among the Waldenses,*' Appendix. See, also, Sir Samuel 
 Morland, p. 40, 48, &c. Milner, iii. p. 440, 441.) The 
 same general system was undoubtedly adopted by John 
 Wickliffe, the " morning star of the Reformation;" by John 
 Huss and Jerome of Prague, his companion in faith, and in 
 martyrdom. " The distinguishing tenet of Wickliffe in re- 
 ligion," says Milner, "was, undoubtedly, the election of 
 grace." And the same writer gives an account of Huss and 
 Jerome, which precludes all doubt that, in their general sys- 
 tem, they followed Wickliffe, who was a disciple of Augus- 
 tine. 
 
 When we come down to the time of the Reformation, the 
 same general fact continues to be unquestionable. It is noto- 
 rious that Luther, long before Calvm was known as a Re- 
 former, or even as a theological writer, publicly maintamed 
 the doctrines of the divine decrees, and human impotence, as 
 thoroughly as Calvin ever did. The proof of this is so com- 
 plete, that no one well informed in the history of those times 
 will dare to deny it. Melancthon, the friend, coadjutor, and 
 survivor of Luther, also held in substance the very same sys- 
 tem. Those who read the statements, and the extracts from 
 his writings, which appear in the pages of the Rev. Mr. 
 Scott, the Episcopal continuator of Milner's Ecclesiastical 
 History, can no longer doubt of this. Melancthon assured 
 Calvin that he concurred with him in his creed; and Calvin, 
 in his Pref\ice to Melancthon's book of " Common Places," 
 recommends the work as one, in the doctrines of which he 
 concurred. Zuingle, the apostolic reformer of Switzerland, 
 it is well known, adopted the same system. After all that 
 has been alleged to the contrary, nothing is more certain than 
 that he maintained the doctrines of the depravity and moral 
 impotence of human nature, the sovereign election of grace, 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 3 
 
 and the perseverance of the saints in holiness, as decisively, 
 and zealously as any of his contemporaries. Yet Zuingle 
 died before Calvin was ever heard of as a friend to the Re- 
 formation ; and before he had published a sentence in refer- 
 ence to it. Of course, the Swiss reformer was indebted for 
 no part of his creed, to the ministry or the writings of the il- 
 lustrious pastor of Geneva. The same may be said of Bucer, 
 of Peter Martyr, of BuUinger, of Bugenhagius, of Junius, 
 and, in general, of all the leaders of the Reformation on the 
 continent of Europe. 
 
 When we pass over to Great Britain precisely the same 
 fact appears. Hamilton, Wishart, Archbishop Cranmer, 
 Bishops Ridley, Hooper, and Latimer, Archbishops Grindal 
 and Whitgift, John Knox, and, in short, all the Reformers of 
 any name, both in North and South Britain, were doctrinal 
 Calvinists. This fact, indeed, has been denied ; but not by 
 any candid, well informed man. The proof of it is com- 
 plete. Let any one read the Thirty-nine Articles of the 
 Church of England, especially the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and 
 seventeenth, — let him particularly, ponder well the last men- 
 tioned article, which treats directly of the doctrine of Pre- 
 destination, and ask, whether it is possible fairly to give it 
 any other than a Calvinistic interpretation. I am not, in- 
 deed, ignorant that prejudice and bigotry have sometimes 
 contended that this seventeenth article is decidedly Anti-cal- 
 vinistic in its import; and as proof of this, the qualifying 
 clause toward the end of it is cited as sufficient evidence. 
 Now, it so happens that that qualifying clause is nearly 
 copied from Calvins's Institutes ; and the latter part of it is a 
 literal translation of that Reformer's caution against the abuse 
 of this doctrine ! Again : let him who entertains a doubt on 
 this subject, read the celebrated Catechism of Dr. Nowell, 
 which was reviewed, corrected, formally approved, and or- 
 dered to be published, as containing a summary of true doc- 
 trine, by the same Convocation which formed and adopted 
 the Thirty-nine Articles, and which is acknowledged by th<e 
 bitterest enemies of Calvin to be decisively Calvinistic. Let 
 him read the Lambeth Articles, drawn up and signed by Arch- 
 bishop Whitgift, and also subscribed by the Archbishop of 
 York, and at least three other leading prelates, and by them 
 transmitted to the University of Cambridge, as containing 
 doctrines " corresponding with those professed in the Church 
 of England." Let him recollect, that for more than half a 
 century after the Reformation was established in England, 
 Calvin's Body of Divinity, commonly styled his " Institutes 
 
34 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 of the Christian Religion," was publicly received and studied 
 as a standard of orthodoxy in both the Universities ; and that 
 by a Convocation held at Oxford, the work was recommended 
 to the general study of the nation. 
 
 Now, is it not remarkable that all the great and good men 
 who took the lead in the Reformation, men of different lan- 
 guages, habits, and prejudices; ma«ny of them absolute stran- 
 gers to each other, not merely m Geneva, but in Great Britain, 
 in France, in Germany, in Holland, in Switzerland — nay, 
 wherever the darkness of the Papacy was dissipated, and her 
 corruptions abandoned — all — all, with scarcely an exception, 
 should become advocates in substance, of that system, which 
 we denominate Calvinism ; that appealing to the Bible, as the 
 common repository and standard of Gospel truth, they should 
 with almost entire unanimity, without concert, and however 
 divided as to other points, be so harmoniously united in the 
 great doctrines of sovereign grace, that they have ever since 
 been styled emphatically, ' the doctrines of t fie Reformation?^ 
 How shall we account for it, that brethren who claim to be 
 well informed, should represent this system as originating 
 with Calvin, and peculiar to him and his followers, when, to 
 say nothing of its Scriptural authority, every one knows it 
 was, in substance, espoused by Augustine, a thousand years 
 before Calvin was born ; by all the witnesses of the truth, 
 during the *' dark ages," and by all those venerable men, 
 whose piety, wisdom, and devotedness, have been the theme 
 of gratitude and praise, for three hundred years ? Above all, 
 how shall we account for it, that brethren, who find no lan- 
 guage too strong by which to express their profound veneration 
 for the spirit, the opinions, and the services of Cranmer, Parker, 
 Whitgift, and other distinguished prelates, who, under God, 
 conducted and completed the Reformation in England ; while 
 they are never tired of vilifying the character, and denouncing 
 the creed of the venerable Calvin, whose name those very 
 lauded men never mentioned but with epithets of the highest 
 honour ; whose writings they made their text books for stu- 
 dents of theology, and whose person and ministry they re- 
 garded as among the most glorious lights of Christendom ? 
 
 4. As the system of doctrine taught in our Confession is 
 most in accordance with Scripture, and was common to all 
 the Reformers, so it has, to say the least, quite as few diffi- 
 cidties attending it as any other system. 
 
 It is not pretended that the Calvinistic system is free from 
 all difficulties. When finite creatures are called to scan either 
 the works, or tlie revealed will of an Infinite Being, they 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 35 
 
 must be truly demented, if they expect to find nothing which 
 they cannot comprehend. Accordingly, when we undertake to 
 solve some of the difliculties which that system of Christian 
 doctrine, usually styled Calvinism, presents, it cannot be denied 
 that " such knowledge is too wonderful for us ; it is high, we 
 cannot attain unto it." How to reconcile what the Scriptures 
 plainly reveal, on the one hand, concerning the entire depen- 
 dence of man, and on the other, concerning his activity and 
 responsibility; how to explain the perfect foreknowledge and 
 predestination of God, in consistency with the perfect free- 
 dom and moral agency of his intelligent creatures, is a prob- 
 lem, which no thinking man expects fully to solve. But the 
 question is, are there fewer ditficulties attending any other 
 system ? Especially, are there fewer difficulties attending the 
 Arminian or Pelagian systems, which are commonly the resort 
 of those who reject Calvinism ? There are not : nay, instead 
 of being less, they are greater, far greater, both in number and 
 magnitude. The writer of these pages rests in the Calvinistic 
 system with a confidence daily increasing, not only because the 
 more he examines it, the more clearly it appears to him to be 
 taught in the Holy Scriptures ; but also, because the more 
 frequently and impartially he compares the amount of the dif- 
 ficulties on both sides, the more heavily by far they seem to 
 him to press against the Arminian and Pelagian schemes. 
 
 It is easy, and in the estimation of the superficial and un- 
 reflecting, it is conclusive, to object, that Calvinism has a 
 tendency to cut the nerves of all spiritual exertion ; that if we 
 are elected, we shall be saved, do what we will; and if not 
 elected, we shall be lost, do what we can. But is it not per- 
 fecdy evident that this objection lies with quite as much force 
 against the Arminian or Pelagian hypothesis ? Arminians and 
 Pelagians grant that all men will not be actually saved ; that the 
 salvation or perdition of each individual is distinctly foreknown 
 by God ; and that the event will certainly happen as he foresees 
 that it will. May not a caviller then say, with quite as much 
 appearance of justice in this case, as in the other ; " the re- 
 sult as to my salvation is known and certain. If I am to be 
 saved, no anxiety about it is necessary; and if I am to perish, 
 all anxiety about it would be useless ?" But would Arminians 
 consider this objection as vahd against their creed? Probably 
 not. Yet it is just as valid against thiirn as against ours. 
 The truth is, Arminians and Pelagians, by resorting to their 
 respective schemes, do not really get rid of one particle of the 
 difficulty which they allege against the Calvinistic system ; 
 they only place it one step further back, but must meet it in 
 
36 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 unimpaired strength after all. If there be a God, who is en- 
 dowed with perfect foreknowledge, and who is, and always 
 has been, acting upon a plan^ of which he knew the end from 
 the beginning; — and there is such a being, or there is no 
 God, — then all the difficulty which lies against the doctrine 
 of sovereign, unconditional predetermination, lies equally and 
 n all its unmitigated force, against the doctrine of foreknow- 
 ledge, and certain futurition; and all the shocking conse- 
 quences with which they charge our system of belief, are 
 quite as legitimately chargeable on their own. 
 
 No other proof of this is needed than the subterfuges to 
 which Arminians and Pelagians have resorted in order to 
 avoid the difficulties which they have felt pressing on their 
 schemes. Some have denied the possibility of God's fore- 
 knowing future contingencies, alleging that such foreknow- 
 ledge cannot be conceived or admitted, any more than his 
 power of doing impossibilities, or doing what involves a con- 
 tradiction. Others have denied the plenary foreknowledge ot 
 God, alleging that there are many things which he does not 
 choose to know; the latter making the divine ignorance of 
 many future things voluntary, while the former consider it as 
 necessary. Pelagians, to get rid of the same difficulties, take 
 refuge in the principle that the Most High is deficient in 
 power as well as in knowledge ; that he would be glad to 
 have less natural and moral evil in his kingdom than exists ; 
 would be glad to have many more saved than will be ; but is 
 not able to fulfil his wishes, and is constantly restrained and 
 thwarted by his own inability. 
 
 Those who wish to see a specimen of the difficulties to 
 which good men feel themselves reduced in the course ot 
 their opposition to Calvinism, may see a remarkable one in 
 the Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Epistle to 
 the Romans. There they will find an amiable and pious man 
 driven to the necessity of borrowing from the Socinian camp, 
 a denial of the essential omniscience of God, because he saw 
 that this attribute, if admitted, would unavoidably land him 
 in the peculiarities of Calvinistic theology ! A more painful 
 example of prejudice, and of subserviency to the dictates of a 
 favourite system, can scarcely be produced in the annals of 
 Christian piety ! 
 
 Are not these consequences even more shocking than the 
 worst which its adversaries charge on the Calvinistic system? 
 Do not the allegations, that God is not omnipotent ; that he is 
 not omniscient ; that he is»not acting upon an eternal plan ; 
 that his purposes, instead of being eternal, are all formed in 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 37 
 
 time ; and instead of being immutable, are all liable every day 
 to be altered, and are, in fact, altered, by the changing will of 
 his creatures ; that there is no certainty of his predictions and 
 promises ever being fulfilled, because he can neither foresee 
 nor control future contingencies ; that it is his express design 
 to save all men alike, while yet it is certain that all will not 
 be saved ; that he purposes as much, and does as much for 
 those who perish, as fo>' those who are saved ; but is, after all, 
 baffled and disappointed in his hopes concerning them ; that 
 he is certain of nothing, because he has determined on nothing, 
 and is not able to do all his pleasure ; — I say, do not these 
 allegations shock every serious mind ? Are they not equally 
 contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to all the hopes of the 
 pious ? Yet they have all been either actually avowed by the 
 apponents of Calvinism, or they follow unavoidably from the 
 principles which they assume. The truth is, the moment we 
 abandon the ground that Jehovah is acting upon an infinitely 
 wise and eternal plan ; that he is ordering all things according 
 to the counsel of his own will ; and that his people are not 
 their own saviours, but indebted to his sovereign grace for 
 every real good which they possess or hope for ; the moment 
 we abandon this ground, we abandon all that is solid and 
 tenable, and if we would follow up unavoidable consequences, 
 must plunge into the gulf of Atheism. 
 
 The same train of remark may be applied to the difiiculties 
 which attend the doctrine of original sin. The humiliating 
 fact, that all men are by nature sinners ; that their nature is 
 corrupt ; that is, that there is such a tendency to sin in all the 
 children of men, that no mere man of all the human family 
 ever failed of falling into it; — is not only taught in Scripture, 
 but is notorious to universal observation. Now the question 
 is, how shall we account for this fact? Presbyterians, speak- 
 ing the language of Calvinism, of their Confession of Faith, 
 and, above all, as they think, of the Bible, say that Adam was 
 constituted the covenant head of his posterity, that they were 
 to stand or fall with him ; that when he fell, all his posterity in 
 that first transgression, sinned in him, and fell with him ; in 
 other words, that the guilt of this sin, in virtue of a sovereign 
 and righteous constitution, was imputed to his posterity— that 
 is, it was set to their account ; they incurred the same forfeit 
 as if they had themselves committed it. And hence, as Adam, 
 by that transgression, became mortal, lost the moral image ot 
 God, and incurred the penalty of a corrupt nature — so all his 
 posterity, in consequence of their covenant relation to him, 
 came into the world mort?l depraved, and guilty, and Uable 
 
38 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 to the same penalty, in all its extent, which fell upon him. 
 This, Presbyterians profess to believe, is the meaning of those 
 Scriptures which declare, "in Adam all die," 1 Cor. xv. 22. 
 " By one man's disobedience many were made sinners." 
 " By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to con- 
 demnation," Romans v. 18, 19. They do not suppose, in- 
 deed, that there is here any transfer of moral character, or any 
 transfusion of Adam's act into his posterity; but that, in con- 
 sequence of the covenant relation in which he and they stood, 
 th«y are treated as if they had themselves committed the sin 
 by which our race fell. This, and this only, is the imputation 
 of the sin of our first parents for which Presbyterians contend. 
 
 Pelagians, revolting at this view of the subject, hope to re- 
 move all difficulty by saying that man's nature is not corrupt; 
 that all men come into the world in the same state of entire 
 innocence that Adam was when first created ; and that to sup- 
 pose men to be born with a corrupt nature, would be dishon- 
 ourable to God, and inconsistent with moral agency. They 
 acknowledge, however, that all men are in fact, sinners ; and 
 that all begin to sin as soon as they become capable of moral 
 action. But is any difficulty which is supposed to attend the 
 Calvinistic doctrine really removed, or even diminished, by 
 this hypothesis ? Is it more honourable to God, or less re- 
 volting to our sense of justice, to represent the whole human 
 family, without the adoption of any covenant arrangement, or 
 representative principle, as brought into being, and placed by 
 their Creator in circumstances in which not one of their num- 
 ber ever fails of falling into sin ? 
 
 Arminians, or semi-Pelagians, also rejecting the Calvinistic 
 doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, but 
 at the same time, perceiving that the Pelagian hypothesis is 
 utterly unscriptural, take another method of removing the dif- 
 ficulty. They tell us that Adam was not constituted the co- 
 venant head of his posterity, and that the guilt of his first sin 
 was not imputed to them ; but yet that, in virtue of their con- 
 nection with him, and descent from him, they come into the 
 world mortal, and infected w^ith a sinful nature ; but that it is 
 on account of their own sin, and not that of Adam, that they 
 are guilty, and exposed to any penalty. Is it not plain, how- 
 ever, that this hypothesis, instead of removing the difficulty 
 vhich its advocates suppose to lije against the Calvinistic doc- 
 a*ine of original sin, rather increases it ? On what principle is 
 ^t, according to them, that mortality, and a depraved nature 
 descend from Adam to his posterity ? Not, it seems, in virtue 
 of any covenant relation between them ; not on the principle 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 39 
 
 of representative headship ; but of an arbitrary constitution, 
 ordering it so by a mere act of authority. And while they re- 
 ject the docti'ine of imputation, they are constrained to confess 
 that in consequence, somehow, of Adam's sin, all his posterity 
 come into the world with a depraved nature, which, if not re- 
 moved, must lead to everlasting destruction. And is this no 
 evil, no penalty ? But if being born in this condition be a 
 penalty, and a heavy penalty too, why was this penalty in- 
 flicted upon them ? It cannot be said that it was on account 
 of their depravity ; for this would be to make their depravity 
 the procuring cause of itself. No imputation of our first 
 father's sin! and yet acknowledge that in consequence of that 
 sin, some of the most awful inllictions are sent upon us that 
 can affect moral and immortal beings ! No imputation ! 
 Whence, then, the fact, that all the posterity of Adam are 
 born depraved, and liable to death ? How came this calamity 
 upon them? Su^'ely, while the term is rejected, we have 
 here the essence of all the imputation for which we contend! 
 Alas ! we never fail to augment difficulties, and introduce 
 additional perj lexity, whenever we deviate from the simple 
 statements of God's word ! 
 
 5. The very same objections were made in Jipostolic times 
 to the doctrines of grace, as taught by the inspired Paul. In 
 the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the doctrine of 
 sovereign, distinguishing grace, is discussed professedly and 
 at length. The Apostle boldly announces the language ot 
 God to be, " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, 
 and I will have compassion on whom I wdll have compassion. 
 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, 
 but of God that showeth mercy." He then asks, " Is there 
 unrighteousness with God ? God forbid." Still the Apostle 
 is aware that a blind caviller may continue to object. He 
 therefore adds — " Thou wilt say, then, unto me, why doth 
 he yet find fault ? for who hath resisted his will ?" The very 
 language and scope of this objection show that the Apostle 
 meant that his doctrine should be understood in a Calvinistic 
 sense, for upon any other ground, the objection would be 
 irrelevant. How does he reply to it ? Does he retract or 
 disavow that view of the subject on which the cavil is evidently 
 founded ? Not at all. He attempts no mitigation or softening 
 His reply is — " Nay, but man, who art thou that repliest 
 against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 
 it, why hast thou made me thus ? Hath not ihe potter power 
 over the clay, of the isame lump to make one vessel unto 
 honour, and another unio dishonour :- What if God, willing 
 4 
 
40 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured 
 with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to de- 
 struction : and that he might make known the riches of his 
 glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared 
 unto glory?" Here the Apostle has anticipated the whole 
 force of the Arminian objection. It cannot be pushed further 
 than he has carried it in a single sentence. No addition has 
 ever been made to its force by the most ingenious gainsayer. 
 Yet the Apostle answers it, not by an attempt to explain, to 
 bring down to human comprehension, or to show that liis 
 statements had been misconstrued. Nothing like it. He 
 resolves the whole into the supremacy, the sovereignty and the 
 incomprehensibleness of God and his counsels, and calls upon 
 all to yield to this great and all governing principle ; closing 
 as he does in another place, when on the same subject, with 
 that memorable exclamation — " O the depth of the riches both 
 of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are 
 his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" 
 
 6. It is a strong argument in favour of that creed which 
 the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church exhibits, 
 that every serious, devout professor of religion, however de- 
 cided as an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian he may be, in preach- 
 ing, or in conversation, never fails to be a Calvinist in prayer. 
 So far as my observation has gone, the most zealous advocates 
 of Arminianism almost always lay aside their favourite opin- 
 ions, when they pour out their hearts in prayer, under a feel- 
 ing sense of their dependence and their unworthiness. How 
 many examples have we of this in thousands of pulpits, and 
 in thousands of published volumes, in which the preaching is 
 decidedly semi-Pelagian, while the prayers are quite as deci- 
 dedly Calvinistic ! The reason of this inconsistency is per- 
 fectly evident. In preaching and conversation, errorists argue 
 to maintain a point ; in prayer, they supplicate grace. In the 
 former, they are actuated by the spirit of controvertists ; in 
 the latter, they feel their entire dependence as creatures, and 
 their lost and perishing conditions as sinners. " A prayer," 
 says one, " upon Arminian principles, and into which the pe- 
 culiarities of that system were introduced, we have never seen, 
 and never have heard. It would be a theological curiosity suffi- 
 ciently daring in its structure ; but we venture to say, no man 
 of Christian humility and devotion will be found to carry it 
 into the presence of his God." There, — there the sinner ever 
 acknowledges his weakness and depravity ; disclaims all 
 merit ; confesses his multiplied sins ; adores the sovereign un- 
 merited mercy of God ; ascribes to his grace every good de- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 4t 
 
 Kire and hope ; gloriiies his universal government over all his 
 creatures and all their actions ; and ascribes the plan, the 
 execution, and the consummation of that deliverance tor which 
 he hopes, to the sovereign undeserved grace of God abound- 
 ing through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Noav 
 here is the very essence of Calvinism. Not, indeed, of those 
 monstrous absurdities and impieties in which its adversaries 
 are ever fond of dressing it up ; but of that sober and scriptural 
 system which is found in our formularies, and for which all 
 whom we acknowledge as Calvinists, have ever contended. 
 
 7. Finally, it is worthy of serious inquiry, whether the 
 moral influence of the Calvinistic system has not been found 
 in all ages, more pure and happy, than that of any other. 
 For this appeal no apology is necessary. That system 
 vvliich is ever found connected "with larger measures of the 
 spirit of prayer, and of humble, habitual, deep devotion ; that 
 system which is ever productive of more holy living, and more 
 active Christian benevolence than any other, we may confi- 
 dently say, without presumption, is most agreeable to Scrip- 
 ture, and, of course, most worthy of being embraced. This 
 allegation, it is presumed, wall not be denied. For, although 
 the opponents of this system, at one time, charge it with hav- 
 ing a tendency to promote licentiousness ; yet much more 
 frequently and unanimously they charge it with being austere, 
 over sti'ict in its abstinence from worldly pleasures, and stand- 
 ing unnecessarily aloof from the various forms of public 
 amusement. Is it not notorious that the followers of Augiis- 
 tine, of the Paulicians, of Claudius of Turin, of the Wal- 
 denses, and of fflckliffe, Huss, and Jerome, in the dark ages, 
 were far more pure in their morals, devout in their habits, and 
 separated from a corrupt and idolatrous world, than any ot 
 their contemporaries ? Will it not be granted by every intel- 
 ligent reader that, during the first half century after the Refor- 
 mation was established in England, when no one doubts that 
 nineteen twentieths of the Protestant clergy in that kingdom, 
 were avowed Calvinists, the state both of piety and of morals 
 was unspeakably better, than during the latter half of the 
 seventeenth century, when Arminianism had, among the 
 majority, taken its place ? What was the character of the 
 two thousand " ejected ministers," in the reign of Charles II. 
 who were almost to a man Calvinists ? Were they not, char- 
 acteristically, as a body, the most pious, pure, diligent, and 
 exemplary servants of Christ, that England ever saw ? Is it 
 not universally admitted, that the state of piety and of morals 
 
42 DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 has ever been far more pure in Scotland, than in England, and 
 pre-eminently, in those districts and congregations in Scotland, 
 in which Calvinism has maintained a steady reign? And can 
 any part of the world be named, in which, for nearly a hun- 
 dred years after its settlement, purer morals reigned than in 
 New England, in which, as every one knows, during the 
 greater part of that period, a Calvinistic creed almost univer- 
 sally prevailed ? 
 
 The following remarks by a distinguished divine of the 
 Church of England, who professes not to be a Calvinist, are 
 as just as they are striking. 
 
 " Does not this opinion (of the immoral tendency of Cal- 
 vinism,) in a great measure originate from a mistaken concep- 
 tion of what Calvinism is ? Those who would impute all 
 these practical evils to the operation of Calvinism, appear to 
 suppose that the belief of the Calvinist, by which he admits 
 the doctrine of personal election, necessarily includes also an 
 assumption of his own election. The Calvinist, properly so 
 called^ is no enthusiast. He believes, indeed, in the eternal 
 purposes of God, as to the salvation of the elect ; but as to 
 the hopes of his own salvation, and of his individual interest 
 in those purposes, he professes to obtain it by the evidences 
 which he possesses of his being himself in a renewed and 
 justified state. He knows from the word of God that the 
 saints are ' chosen to salvation through sanctification of the 
 Spirit,' no less than ' the belief of the truth,' that they are 
 ' predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ,' and 
 * created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath 
 before ordained that they should walk in them.' And hence 
 he feels that it is only so long as he experiences the sanctify- 
 ing influences of the Spirit in his own heart, so long as he 
 himself in some degree reflects the image of ('hrist, and walks 
 imperfectly indeed, but yet sincerely, in good works, that he 
 can have any scriptural grounds for concluding that he is one 
 of God's elect, and will have his portion with the saints. 
 This is true Calvinism. And where is the tendency of this 
 doctrine to make its followers slothful or confident, negli- 
 gent of the means of grace, or inattentive to moral and rela- 
 tive duties ? While the practical evils which Calvinism is 
 charged with producing, are so prominently and studiously 
 exhibited to view by many of its opponents ; let us not omit, 
 on the other hand, to do justice to this calumniated system, 
 nor forget the abundant good which it is not only capable of 
 accomplishing, but which it actually does accomplish. I 
 have no doubt, but that some of the sublimesi feelings of 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 43 
 
 pure and spiritual delight which are ever experienced on 
 earth, are those of which the Calvinist partakes, when in his 
 secret retirement with his God, " the Spirit bearing witness 
 with his spirit," and shining on his own gracious operation 
 on the heart, he meditates on the wonderful and unspeakable 
 privileges to which, through Christ, he sees himself entitled ; 
 and resolving all the blessings which have been already re- 
 ceived, or are prepared for him hereafter, into the eternal pur- 
 pose, and electing love of God, his Father, and absorbed in a 
 holy contemplation of the divine counsels and perfections, he 
 lies prostrate before the throne of grace, in deep humiliation, 
 and with overwhelming joy. I do not say that others have 
 not their peculiar feelings of spiritual delight ; but these are 
 his. And does he rise from such communion with his God, 
 without enlarged desires and resolutions of more seriously 
 devoting himself to the divine favour, of more decidedly 
 overcoming the flesh and the world, and of more faithfully 
 doing the will, and advancing the glory of his Lord and 
 Saviour ? Facts and experience reply to this inquiry. 
 Among no denomination or description of professing Chris- 
 tians, is there to be found a larger portion of humble, pious, 
 and devoted servants of God, persons of a truly Christian 
 spirit, zealous of good works, and exemplary in every duty 
 and relation of life, than among those who hold the Cal- 
 vinistic tenets. I am sure that your observation and your 
 candour will fully justify this statement. And, therefore, so 
 far as this system is to be judged of by its actual effects, I 
 think that, on a candid reconsideration of the subject, you 
 will be induced to abandon your objection, and to admit that 
 it was founded on an erroneous and partial view of the sub- 
 ject."* 
 
 In the same general strain, Bishop Burnet, who was 
 avowedly, a moderate Arminian, expresses the following 
 opinion as to the practical advantages of Calvinism. " A 
 Calvinist is taught by his opinions to think meanly of him- 
 self, and to ascribe the honour of all to God; which lays in 
 liim a deep foundation for humility : he is also much inclined 
 to secret prayer, and to a fixed dependence on God." 
 
 A very able and learned foreign lawyer, the author of the 
 article Predestination, in the Encyclopsedia Britanica, though 
 he is evidently no friend to Calvinism, makes the foUowinsf 
 declaration: " there is one remark which v/e feel ourselves 
 
 * " Letters addressed to a Serious and Humble Inquirer, &c." by 
 the Rev. Edward Cooper^ Rector of Hamstall Ridvvare. 
 
 4* 
 
44 GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 bound in justice to make, although it appears to us somewhat 
 shigular. It is this : that, from the earUest ages down to our 
 own days, if we consider the character of the ancient Stoics, 
 the Jewish Essenes, the modern Calvinists and Jansenists, 
 when compared with that of tlieir antagonists, the Epicureans, 
 the Sadducees, the Arniinians, and the Jesuists, we shall find 
 that they have excelled in no small degree, in the practice of 
 the most rigid and respectable virtues ; and have been the 
 highest honour of their own ages, and the best models for 
 imitation to every age succeeding. At the same time, it must 
 be confessed, that their virtues have in general been rendered 
 unamiable by a tinge of gloomy and severe austerity." 
 
 After all, however, that can be said in favour of that doc- 
 trinal system which it is our happiness and honour, as a 
 Church, to receive ; however demonstrative its scriptural sup- 
 port, and however manifest its deduction from the character 
 of an infinitely great, wise, and good Governor of the uni- 
 verse ; it will never cease, while human nature remains as 
 it is, to be hated, reviled, caricatured, ridiculed, and rejected 
 by a large majority of the professedly religious world. It is 
 too humbling to human pride ; it calls for too much self- 
 denial, self-renunciation, and submission of the mind and the 
 heart to heavenly teaching ; demands too much spirituality 
 and withdrawment from worldly pleasures and amusements, 
 not to be opposed by the mass of mankind, and even by 
 the mass of professing Christians, who have little taste for 
 the Spirit of the Gospel. These very doctrines were thus 
 treated in the days of the inspired Apostles, who first taught 
 them in their fulness ; and, even in our own communion, 
 those of our members who are most tinctured with the 
 worldly spirit, are ever found most apt to quarrel with the 
 peculiarities of our creed. The most deeply humble, en- 
 lightened and spiritual Christians are, in all ages and churches, 
 ever found to be those to whom the doctrines of free and 
 sovereign grace, for substance, as collected in our Standards 
 from the Scriptures of truth, are most precious, and in whose 
 view they are most glorious. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 The Church, being a social body, called out of the world, 
 
 and constituted by the authority of Jesus Christ, indispen- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 45 
 
 sably needs a form of government. No Society can exist in 
 pm-ity and peace without order. And no order can be main- 
 tained without authority, laws, and a set of officers to apply 
 the laws, and admmister the form of order which may have 
 been adopted. Our Master in heaTen has commanded " his 
 body, the Church," to preserve within her borders purity of 
 doctrine, and holiness of conversation ; and for this purpose 
 to " warn the unruly;" to admonish the careless ; reclaim the 
 wandering ; and to cut off those who are obstinately corrupt, 
 either in faith or practice. All this she was commanded to 
 do, and actually did perform, while all the civil governments 
 of the world were leagued against her, and the lires of mar- 
 tyrdom were kindled on every side. Christ's kingdom is not 
 of this world. It has nothing to do with earthly governments, 
 and ought to be maintained in entire disconnexion and inde- 
 pendence of them all. 
 
 Now, it is obviously impossible for the Church to fulfil 
 these obligations, without such an ecclesiastical constitution, 
 such a system of laws, and such a body of officers, as will 
 enable her to apply to her members that authority which her 
 Master has vested in her, " for edification and not for destruc- 
 tion." Hence, the necessity of organizing the Church under 
 some distinct and definite form. It is not asserted, or believed 
 by us, that any one form of government is essential to the ex- 
 istence of the Church ; but, simply, that if purity and peace 
 be maintained, there must be some form adopted ; and that that 
 form which is derived from the word of God is, undoubtedly, 
 the best, and binding on all. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church claims to derive her form of 
 government from the Holy Scriptures. She is persuaded 
 that the New Testament most distinctly presents, as existing 
 in the Apostolic Church, all the three features which consti- 
 tute the peculiarities of her ecclesiastical polity, viz : the 
 parity of her ministers ; the government of the Church by 
 Ruling Elders ; and the attainment of unity and cooperation 
 by courts of review and control. She aims to avoid the un- 
 authorised pretensions of Prelacy on the one hand, and the 
 lax, inadequate scheme of Independency on the other ; and 
 to adopt that system of ministerial equality, and efficient re- 
 presentation in the government of the Church, which at once 
 guards, as far as possible, against the encroachments of clerical 
 ambition ; secures the rights of the people, and provides lor 
 the exercise of pure and wholesome discipline in the most 
 edifying manner. 
 
 I. In the first place, wc reject the claim of Prelacy. 
 
46 GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 Our Episcopal brethren contend that in the Christian Church 
 there are three orders of clergy, — Bishops, Presbyters, and 
 Deacons ; that the first only have power to ordain, and the 
 last to preach, and administer the sacrament of baptism alone. 
 We maintain, that all ministers of the Gospel who are em- 
 powered to administer the word and sacraments, are officially 
 equal, and authorized to perform the highest acts of ecclesias- 
 tical power. We believe, in a word, that there is but one 
 order of Gospel ministers authorized in the New Testament ; 
 that the title of Bishop was constantly applied in the apostolic 
 age, and for a considerable time afterwards, to the ordinary 
 pastors of particular churches ; and that setting up a superior 
 under this title, as exclusively possessed of the power of 
 ordaining, is a departure from the primitive model ; a usurpa- 
 tion for which there is not the smallest warrant in the word 
 of God. 
 
 Our Episcopal brethren, indeed, freely acknowledge, that 
 the title of " Bishop" is never employed in the New Testa- 
 ment, in a single instance, to designate that class of officers 
 to which they now exclusively apply it. They, with one 
 voice, grant, that all that we read in the apostolical writings 
 concerning Bishops, is to be regarded as pertaining to Pres- 
 byters, or the ordinary pastors of churches ; in other words, 
 to what they call the " second grade" of ministers. They 
 allege, however, that the Apostles occupied a place of eccle- 
 siastical pre-eminence in the primitive Church ; that they 
 alone, while they lived, were endowed Avith the power of or- 
 dination ; that, as they deceased, their pre-eminence was 
 transmitted to certain successors ; that to these successors of 
 the Apostles, the title of Bishop, which had before, while the 
 Apostles lived, been given to Presbyters, began to be appro- 
 priated ; and that ever since the apostolic age, this title has 
 been confined to Prelates ;* to those who succeeded to the 
 apostolic pre-eminence, and who, like the Apostles, exclusive- 
 ly possess the power of ordination. 
 
 But, to no part of this claim does the New Testament af- 
 ford the least countenance. It is manifest, that ordination was 
 not confined to the Apostles, officially, and technically so 
 called ; for nothing can be plainer, than that Barnabas, Timo- 
 thy, and Titus, who were not Apostles in the appropriated 
 sense, were invested with the ordaining power, and actually 
 and abundantly exercised it. It is equally manifest, that 
 when the Apostles ceased from the Church, they left no suc- 
 
 * See Bishop Oaderdonk's " Episcopacy teeted by Scripture." p. 12. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 47 
 
 cessors, in that peculiar and pre-eminent ofRce, which they 
 filled during their lives. " The apostolical office," says Dr. 
 Barrow, an eminent Episcopal divine, — " The apostolical of- 
 fice, as such, was personal and temporary; and, therefore, 
 according to its nature and design, not successive, nor commu- 
 nicable to others, in perpetual descendence from them. It 
 was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in a 
 special manner, designed for special purposes, discharged by 
 special aids, endowed with special privileges, as was needful 
 for the propagation of Christianity, and founding of churches. 
 To that office, it was requisite that the person should have 
 an immediate designation and commission from God ; thai 
 he should be endowed with miraculous gifts and graces; 
 that he should be able, according to his discretion, to impart 
 spiritual gifts ; and that he should govern in an absolute 
 manner, as being guided by infallible assistance, to which he 
 might appeal. Now such an office, consisting of so many 
 extraordinary privileges, and miraculous powers, which were 
 requisite for the foundation of the Church, was not designed 
 to continue by derivation, for it contained in it divers things, 
 which apparently were not communicated, and which no 
 man, without gross imposture and hypocrisy, could challenge 
 to himself.* 
 
 Such is the judgment of this learned and able Prelatist, 
 concerning the foundation of the whole argument before us. 
 There is not the semblance of support, then, to be found in 
 Scripture for the alleged transmission of the pre-eminent and 
 peculiar powers of the Apostles to a set of ecclesiastical suc- 
 cessors. As men endowed with the gifts of miracles and 
 inspiration, who were, prior to the completion of the New 
 Testament canon, constituted the infallible guides of the 
 Church : they had no successors ; nor can the remotest hint 
 be found in Scripture, that they had, or were ever intended 
 to have, any such successors. But as ministers of Christ, 
 empowered to go forth preaching the Gospel and administer- 
 ing Christian sacraments, they had successors, and these suc- 
 cessors were, manifestly, all those who were empowered to 
 preach the Gospel, and administer the sacramental seals of 
 discipleship : for, in the final commission which the Saviour 
 gave to the Apostles, and which must be considered as em- 
 bracing their final and highest functions, they are sent forth 
 to disciple all nations, and to baptize them " in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" and it 
 
 * Pope's Supremacy, p. 79 , 
 
48 GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 was in immediate connexion with the command to discharge 
 these ordinary duties, that the promise which is considered 
 as pointing to the ministerial succession, was given : — " Lo, 
 I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." If 
 the friends of Prelacy could produce even the semblance of 
 testimony from Scripture, that the ordaining power is some- 
 thing more sacred and elevated than that of dispensing the 
 Gospel, and administering sacraments ; if they could produce 
 the least hint from the New Testament, that the powers pos- 
 sessed by the Apostles were afterwards divided, and that one 
 class of ministers succeeded them in certain pre-eminent 
 powers, not mentioned in their final commission, while 
 another class succeeded them only in respect to lower and 
 more ordinary functions ; their cause would rest on some 
 plausible ground ; but there is not a syllable in Scripture 
 which gives the most distant intimation of either of these al- 
 leged facts. It is not so much as pretended, that a passage 
 is to be found, which gives a hint of this kind. Accordingly, 
 when we ask the advocates of Episcopacy whence they de- 
 rive their favourite doctrine, that diocesan Bishops succeed 
 the Apostles in the appropriate powers and pre-eminence of 
 their apostolical character, they refer us to no passages of 
 Scripture, asserting or even hinting it ; but to some equivocal 
 suggestions and allusions of several Fathers, who wrote within 
 the first four or five hundred years after Christ. The writer 
 most frequently quoted by our Episcopal brethren for this 
 purpose, is Theodoret, who flourished about the middle of 
 the fifth century, and who speaks thus : " The same persons 
 were anciently called Bishops and Presbyters ; and those 
 whom we now call Bishops, were then called Aposdes. But 
 in process of time, the title of Aposde was appropriated to 
 those who were called Apostles in the strict sense, and the 
 rest, who had formerly the name of Apostles, were styled 
 Bishops. In this sense Epaphroditus is called the Aposde of 
 the Philippians ; Titus was the Aposde of the Cretians, and 
 Timothy of Asia." On this testimony, several remarks may 
 be made: 1. It is not the testimony of Scripture, but the 
 dream of a writer four centuries after the apostolic age, in 
 whose time the Church had become very corrupt, and in 
 whose works much supersdtion and error are found. 
 
 2. No one doubts that in Theodoret's time. Prelacy had 
 obtained a complete estabhshment, and that he alleges princi- 
 ples and facts in relation to the priesthood in his day, which 
 none but Papists are prepared to sanction. 
 
 3. It is very certain that the Fathers who flourished nearest 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 49 
 
 to the apostolic age, generally represent Presbyters, and not 
 Prelates, as the successors of the Apostles. Ignatius, in par- 
 ticular, who was contemporary with the last of the Apostles, 
 expresses himself again and again in the following language : 
 " The Presbyters succeed in the place of the bench of the 
 Apostles ;" and again, " in like manner, let all reverence the 
 Presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and college of the Apos- 
 tles ;" and again, " Be subject to your Presbyters, as to the 
 Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope." And once more, " Fol- 
 low the Presbyters as the Apostles." Which shall we believe, 
 Ignatius or Theodoret ? Beyond all doubt, neither is to be 
 trusted in relation to a matter which receives no countenance 
 from Scripture. It is notorious, too, that Irenaeus,. a Christian 
 father, who flourished toward the latter part of the second 
 century, repeatedly speaks of Presbyters as being the succes- 
 sors of the Apostles. In other places he speaks of the same 
 persons as Bishops, and under that title also represents them 
 as the successors of the Apostles. And this he does, not once 
 only, but several times, as if his object were to show that, 
 according to the representation of the New Testament, Bishop 
 and Presbyter were the same. 
 
 4. Augustine, a writer earlier than Theodoret, more learned, 
 and of higher authority, expressly declares, that the apostolical 
 ofiice was above that of any Bishop. De Bapiis. contra Bo- 
 ncitis. ii. 1. 
 
 5. And after all, to what does Theodore t's statement 
 amount ? Why, only that in the fifth century, such claims 
 and such language as he presents, were common. Who 
 doubts this ? But does he say that the New Testament au- 
 thorizes any such statement ? He does not. Nor, if he had, 
 could we possibly believe him with the Bible in our hands. 
 The truth is, no such fact as this argument supposes, is stated 
 or hinted at in Scripture. It every where represents the 
 Apostles as extraordinary officers, who, in their peculiar qua- 
 lifications and authority, had no successors ; but who, in re- 
 spect to that office which is perpetual, are succeeded by all 
 regularly authorized ministers of the Gospel. And to give 
 any other view of the subject, is an imposition on popular 
 credulity. Accordingly, this whole argument for the supe- 
 riority of Bishops, drawn from the plea, that they are the pe- 
 culiar and exclusive successors of the Apostles in their offi- 
 cial pre-eminence, has been wholly abandoned by a numbei 
 of the most distinguished divines of the Church of England, 
 as invahd and untenable. 
 
 The next argument commonly urged by our Episcopal 
 
50 GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 brethren in support of Prelacy is, that Timothy was evidently, 
 in fact, Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete ; and that this 
 furnishes, of course, a plain example of an order of ministers 
 superior to common pastors. This alleged fact is a corner 
 stone of the Episcopal fabric, and unless it can be supported, 
 the whole edifice must fall to the ground. 
 
 But for this alleged Prelacy of Timothy and Titus, there 
 is not only no positive proof, but there is not even a shadow 
 of it, in the whole New Testament. There is no evidence 
 whatever, that either of them ever had a fixed pastoral charge 
 at Ephesus or Crete. There is no evidence that either of 
 them ever performed the work of ordination alone. One of 
 them, while at Ephesus, was expressly directed to " do the 
 work of an evangelist," and there is not the slightest intima- 
 tion that either acted in any higher character. There is no 
 hint that they performed any act, to which any regular minis- 
 ter of the Gospel is not fuUy competent. In short, the whole 
 Episcopal argument drawn from the charge to Timothy and 
 Titus, is destitute of the semblance of proof from Scripture. 
 AU the premises on which it is founded, are taken for granted 
 without evidence. All that appears to have been done by 
 these evangelists, is done every day by evangelists authorized 
 and sent forth by the Presbyterian Church ; and no reason can 
 be assigned for ascribing to the missionaries to Ephesus and 
 Crete any higher character, than that the Episcopal cause de- 
 mands it. In truth, when thrown into the form of a regular 
 syllogism, its amount is neither more nor less than the fol- 
 lowing : " None but diocesan Bishops can ordain ministers, 
 and * set in order' churches ; but Timothy and Titus, dis- 
 charged these offices; therefore, Timothy and Titus were 
 diocesan Bishops." But is not the very thing to be proved, 
 viz: that diocesan Bishops alone can ordain, &c., here taken 
 for granted? Can there be a more gross begging of the 
 whole question than this argument exemplifies ? 
 
 It is hardly necessary to inform any intelligent reader ot 
 the Bible, that the postscripts, at the close of the second 
 epistle to Timothy, and of the epistle to Titus, and which 
 speaks of the former as " the first Bishop of Ephesus," and 
 the latter as " the first Bishop of Crete," are of no authority. 
 1: is acknowledged by all learned men, that they make no 
 part of the sacred text. They were, no doubt, interpolated 
 by officious transcribers, more tlian four hundred years after 
 the date of the epistles. They are not found at all in the most 
 authentic copies of the original. They are not the same in 
 the copies in which they are found. They were excluded 
 
PRESBYTERIAN caURCH. 61 
 
 from all the earliest English translations. And for a lor| 
 lime after their introduction, they were printed in a diffe*- ;it 
 type from the received text, to indicate ihat diey formcu no 
 part of the authentic Scriptures. But when our present trans- 
 lation of the Bible, in the reign of James I., was executed, as 
 the translators were all Episcopalians, they, very improperly, 
 suffered these postscripts to occupy die place in which we 
 now find them, without any mark to distinguish them from 
 the authorized text. 
 
 Such is the amount of the argument drawn from the alleged 
 Episcopal character of TimoUiy and Titus. It finds no coun- 
 tenance whatever in the New Testament. Every fact which 
 is stated in the inspired history concerning those pious evan- 
 gelists, is not only perfecUy reconcileable with the Presbyte- 
 rian doctrine, but agrees far better with it than with the Epis- 
 copal hypothesis. Accordingly, the eminent Episcopal di- 
 vine, Dr. Whitby, with all his zeal for Prelacy, speaks in his 
 commentary in the following language : " The great contro- 
 versy concerning this, and the epistles to Timothy is, whether 
 Timothy and Titus were indeed made Bishops, the one of 
 Ephesus, and the proconsular Asia ; the other of Crete. 
 Now, of this matter, I confess / can Jind nothing in any 
 writer of the first three centwics^ nor any intimation that 
 they bore that name.'*'' And afterwards he adds, concernmg 
 the whole argument ; " I confess that these two instances, 
 absolutely taken, aflbrd us no convincing arguments in favour 
 of a setded diocesan Episcopacy, because there is nothing 
 which proves they did, or were to exercise these acts of go- 
 vernment rather as Bishops than evangelists." It is true, 
 this learned writer, while he acknowledges that no evidence 
 in favour of the Episcopal character of these missionaries, is 
 to be found within the first three centuries, expresses an 
 opinion, that there is testimony enough to establish it in 
 writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. This, however, is 
 not Scriptural testimony ; and what is not found in the Bible, 
 is surely not binding on the Church. Besides ; this testi- 
 mony of the fourth and fifth centuries, when impartially 
 examined, and compared with other contemporaneous testi- 
 mony, will be found perfecdy worthless, and, of course, 
 unavailing lo the cause in support of which it is adduced, 
 because it is not consistent either with itself, or with the New 
 Testament. 
 
 Another argument from Scripture, commonly urged by our 
 Episcopal brethren, is derived from the " Angels" addressed 
 in the Episdes to the Sevep Churches of the Lesser Asia. 
 5 
 
52 GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 *' In each of those Churches," say the advocates of Prelacy, 
 " an individual is addressed under the title of ' Angel,' which 
 is a very strong' argument against ministerial parity, and in 
 favour of Episcopacy." But this argument is just as powerless 
 as any of the preceding, or rather, it is destitute even of their 
 degree of plausibility. The term "Angel" signifies messenger. 
 As an ecclesiastical title, it is derived from the Old Testament. 
 In every Jewish Synagogue, or worshipping congregation, 
 there was an "Angel of the Church," whose duty it was to 
 preside and take the lead in public worship. This title Avas 
 evidently transferred from the Synagogue to the Christian 
 Church. And if we suppose each of these "Angels" to be 
 the ordinary pastor of a single church or congregation, it will 
 perfectly accord with every representation concerning them 
 found in the epistles in question. But he who looks carefully 
 into the addresses to the several churches contained in these 
 epistles, will find much reason to doubt whether individual 
 ministers are at all designated by the title of " Angel." Some 
 have supposed that collective bodies of pastors were intended. 
 Of this opinion a number of the most eminent Episcopal 
 writers have been the advocates. There is absolutely not a 
 shadow of proof that prelates or any thing like them, are re- 
 ferred to. Some of the most learned and zealous advocates 
 of prelacy have acknowledged this ; and the v/hole argument 
 really amounts to nothing more than a mere gratuitous as- 
 sumption of the point to be proved. 
 
 One more argument may be briefly adverted to, which our 
 Episcopal brethren sometimes urge in support of their cause. 
 They say that the Apostle James was evidendy the Bishop 
 of Jerusalem. This they attempt to prove by tehing us that 
 he spoke last, and gave a very pointed sentence, or opinion, in 
 the Synod of Jerusalem ; that Peter, after his release from 
 prison, said to certain persons, go show these things unto 
 James and to the brethren ; and that when Paul visited Jeru- 
 salem, it is said concerning him — and the day followmg, Paul 
 went in with us unto James, and all the Elders were present. 
 On these, and other occasions, the advocates of Episcopal 
 claims tell us, James was spoken of as a distinguished man, 
 and treated with marked respect ; and from this circumstance 
 it is mferred that he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. 
 
 This argument, when stripped of all its decorations, stands 
 thus : " James was the last speaker, and gave a decisive opi- 
 nion in an ecclesiastical assembly; therefore, he was superior 
 to all others present, and, of course, the Bishop of Jerusalem! 
 Peter requested an account of his release from prison to be 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 53 
 
 sent to James ; therefore, James was the Bishop of Jerusalem ! 
 Paul and his company went to the house of James in Jerusa- 
 lem, and there found the Elders convened ; therefore, James 
 was the ecclesiastical governor of that city !" This is absolutely 
 the whole of the scriptural argument drawn from the character 
 of James ! Surely, a more singular instance of the gratuitous 
 assumption of what ought to be proved, was never exhibited ! 
 
 So utterly groundless, then, do we find the claim of our 
 Episcopal brethren, when brought to the test of Scripture. 
 Their claim, it will be observed, is positive and explicit. It 
 is, that the New Testament holds forth, as existing in the 
 Apostolic Church, and intended to be perpetual, an order of 
 men superior to ministers of the word and sacraments ; that 
 this order is alone empowered to ordain ; and, of course, that 
 without ordination by this order of men, there can be no minis- 
 try, no Church, no valid ordinances, no " covenanted mercy," 
 to any of the children of men. In short, they would persuade 
 us, not only that the New Testament bears them out in main- 
 taining the actual existence of such an order in the apostolic 
 Church ; but also that it warrants them in contending for it as 
 perpetually and indispensably necessary. The burden of 
 proof lies on them. They have not proved and cannot prove 
 either. That the power of ordaining was not confined to the 
 Apostles while they lived, is manifest to all who read the Bible 
 without prejudice. That the extraordinary powers of the 
 Apostles were to be transmitted to successors, can no more be 
 proved from the word of God, than that inspiration and miracles 
 are still continued, and transmitted from man to man in the 
 Church. That Timothy and Titus were prelates, because they 
 were appointed to " ordain Elders," and " set in order the 
 things that were wanting" in Ephesus and Crete, when it is 
 utterly uncertain whether either of them performed a single 
 ordination alone — is no more proved, or even probable, than 
 that modern Presbyterian missionaries to frontier settlements 
 are prelates, because they are commissioned to perform simi- 
 lar work. And so of all the other alleged sources of proof 
 from Scripture. They are just as destitute of force, and just 
 as delusive as the Popish doctrine, that the primacy of St. 
 Peter, and the transmission of that primacy to the Bishops ot 
 Rome, may be proved from the word of God. 
 
 Some of the most learned advocates of Episcopacy, how- 
 ever, while they have freely confessed that their faA^ourite sys- 
 tem could not be established from Scripture, have confidently 
 asserted, that it is abundantly and unquestionably supported by 
 
54 GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 the testimony of the Fathers. Into this field it is not judgeil 
 proper here to enter, for the following reasons : 
 
 1. The Bible contains the religion of Protestants. It is 
 the only infallible, and the sufficient rule of faith and practice. 
 Even if Prelacy were found unequivocally represented as ex- 
 isting, by the Fathers, in fifty years after the last Apostle, yet 
 if it be not found in the Bible, as it assuredly is not, such tes- 
 timony would by no means establish its apostolic appoint- 
 ment. It would only prove that the Church was very early 
 corrupted. We know, indeed, that no such testimony exists ; 
 but if it did, as long as we have the Bible, we ought to reject it. 
 
 2. We know that human inventions, and various forms of 
 corruption did in fact very early obtain currency in the Chris- 
 tian Church ; and that several practices, quite as likely to be 
 opposed as the encroachments of Prelacy, were introduced 
 and established within the first three liundred years. 
 
 3. This is a kind of testimony very difficult to be brought 
 within a narrow compass. For, while some detached pas- 
 sages from the early Fathers have the appearance at first 
 view of favouring Prelacy; yet, when carefully examined, 
 and compared with other passages from the same Fathers, 
 and others of equal credibility— their testimony will be found 
 utterly unfavourable to Prelatical claims. He who reads what 
 the learned Jerome, in the fourth century, declares concern- 
 ing Prelacy, as having no foundation in Divine appointment, 
 and as gi'adually brought in by human ambition, will begin to 
 see that the testimony of the Fathers on this subject is very 
 different from what sanguine and ardent Prelatists are accus- 
 tomed to represent it. So the testimony of Jerome was under- 
 stood by bishop Jewel, by bishop Morton, by archbishop 
 Whitgift, by bishop Bilson, by bishop Stillmgfleet, and by a 
 number of other divines as learned and able, as ever adorned 
 the Church of England. And with respect to the testimony 
 of Ignatius, early in the second century, who is commonly re- 
 garded and resorted to as the sheet-anchor of the Episcopal 
 claim ; we could scarcely wish for a more distinct and graphic 
 description of Presbyterianism than liis Epistles represent as 
 existing in all the churches which he addressed. Ignatius 
 speaks expressly of a Bishop, Elders, and Deacons existing 
 in every worshipping assembly which he addressed. Is this 
 the language of Prelacy? So far from it, nothing can be 
 plainer than that this language can be reconciled with the 
 Presbyterian system alone. Presbyterians are the only de- 
 nomination who have, in every worshipping assembly, a 
 Bishop, Presbyters, or Elders, and Deacons. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 55 
 
 But it cannot be too often repeated, or too constantly kept 
 in view, that whatever the Fatho:^ may say on this subject, is 
 not to decide respecting it. If Episcopacy, when brought to 
 the test of Scripture, cannot stand, we may very wilUngly leave 
 its support from other sources to those who may feel inclined 
 to " receive for doctrines the commandments of men." This 
 principle formed one of the great dividing lines between our 
 L.thers, the Puritans of England, and the Prelates and others 
 by whom the Reformed Church was organized in that land. 
 The Puritans contended that the Bible was the only infallible 
 rule of faith and practice ; that it ouglit to be regarded as the 
 standard of church government and discipline as well as of 
 doctrine ; and that the Church, as it stood in the days of the 
 Apostles, is the proper model for our imitation. But tlie 
 bishops and the court clergy openly maintained tliat tlie 
 Scriptures were not to be considered as the only standard of 
 church government and discipline ; that the Fathers and the 
 early Councils were to be united with them as the rule ; that 
 the Saviour and his Apostles left the whole matter of church 
 order to be accommodated to the discretion of the civil magis- 
 trate, and to the form of polity in the state ; and that the form 
 of church government adopted in the third and fourth centu- 
 ries, and especially in the civil establishment under Constan- 
 tine, was really to be preferred to that which existed in the 
 days of the Apostle?., which they considered as peculiarly fitted 
 to the infant state of the Church, while depressed by persecu- 
 tion. And upon this plan it is notorious that the men, who 
 '.ook the lead in reforming and organizing the Church of Eng- 
 .and avowedly proceeded. 
 
 But we can not only prove a negative ; that is, we can not 
 only establish that there is no evidence in favour of diocesan 
 Episcopacy to be found in Scripture ; but we can go further, 
 and show that the testimony in favour of ministerial parity 
 found in the New Testament, is clear and strong. Nothing 
 is plainer than that our blessed Lord severely rebuked, and 
 explicitly condemned all contests among his ministering ser- 
 vants about rank and pre-eminence. It is acknowledged, by 
 the great mass of learned and pious men, of all Protestant de- 
 nominations, that it is plain, from the apostolical writings, that 
 the ecclesiastical order of the Synagogue was transferred by 
 inspired men to the Christian Church. It is evident, on the 
 slightest inspection of the New Testament history, that the 
 names and functions of the church officers appointed by the 
 Aposdes, were derived, not from the Temple, but from the 
 Synagogue. It is explicitly granted by our Episcopal breth- 
 5* 
 
56 GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 ren themselves, that in the New Testament the titles, Bishop 
 and Presbyter were used interchangeably to designate the same 
 office, and that the names were then common. Nothing is 
 plainer than that the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, are 
 spoken of as its Bishops, Acts xx., and, of course, that there 
 were a plurality of Bishops in the same Church, which is 
 wholly inconsistent with the doctrine of Prelacy. It is mani- 
 fest, that Timothy received his designation to the sacred of- 
 fice " by tlie layiiig on of the hands of the JWesbytery.''^ 
 We find that such men as Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, 
 and Manaen, none of whom, it is evident were Prelates, — 
 were commanded to lay their hands on Paul, and one of their 
 own number, and "separate them" to a special ministr^s on 
 Avhich they were about to depart ; " and when they had fasted 
 and prayed, they laid their hands on them and sent them 
 away." But it is contrary to all order, human and divine, foi 
 an official inferior, authoritatively to bless, and by imposition 
 of hands, to send forth an official superior. And, finally, ii 
 is evident, that the mere silence of Scripture, as to the claim 
 of our Episcopal brethren, affords positive and < conclusive 
 proof that it cannot be well founded. The advocates of Pre- 
 lacy, especially the more zealous and determined of their 
 number, make their claim a fundamental one. According to 
 them, as before said, there can be no covenanted Church, no 
 valid ministry or sacraments, without ordination to the sacred 
 office by Prelates. Now, can it be believed, that a matter so 
 important, nay, vital, should not be laid down in Scripture in 
 explicit terms, and with incontrovertible evidence ? Surely, 
 if the claim were well founded, whatever else was left in 
 doubt,the prerogative of the Bishop might be expected to be 
 set forth with reiterated and unquestionable evidence. But 
 our Episcopal brethren themselves acknowledge, that this is 
 not the case. Their scriptural testimony is, in no one in- 
 stance, direct and explicit, but all indirect, and remotely in- 
 ferential. They do not pretend to quote a single passage 
 of Scripture which declares, in so many words, or any thing 
 like it, in favour of their claim ; but their whole reliance, in 
 regard to scriptural testimony, is placed on facts, and deduc- 
 tions from those facts, which many of the most learn-ed of 
 their own denomination pronounce utterly unavailing for 
 their purpose. Now, can any rational man believe, that 
 our blessed Lord and his Apostles could possibly have re- 
 garded the doctrine of Prelacy in the same light, and laid 
 equal stress upon it with our Episcopal brethren, and yet 
 have left the whole subject, to say the kast, in so inex- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 57 
 
 plicit and dubious a posture ? He, who can believe this, 
 is prepared to believe any thing that his prejudices may 
 dictate. 
 
 In conformity with the foregoing statements, it is well 
 known that, at the era of the Reformation, the leaders of the 
 Church of England stood alone in reforming their Church 
 upon Prelatical principles. Luther, Melancthon, Zuingle, 
 Bucer, and Peter Martyr, as well as Calvin and Knox, as 
 stated in a preceding chapter — all — all — scattered throughout 
 every part of Europe, without concert, interpreted the New 
 Testament as plainly teaching the doctrine of ministerial pari- 
 ty, and regarded every kind of imparity in the Gospel mmis- 
 try as the result of human contrivance, and hot of Divine ap- 
 pointment. In short, in every part of Protestant Christen- 
 dom, out of England — however the leaders of the Reformation 
 differed, and differed sometimes with ardour on other subjects, 
 here they, with scarcely a single exception, were all agreed, 
 that, in the Apostles' days. Bishop and Presbyter were the 
 same, in fact as well as in name ; and that, even when it was 
 thought proper to allow to any ministers a degree of pre-emi 
 nence, it was to be defended on the ground of human prudence 
 alone. How shall we account for this fact, but by supposing 
 that the plain and obvious construction of the word of God on 
 this subject, is favourable to Presbyterian parity, and un- 
 friendly to Prelatical claims ? 
 
 But while our Episcopal brethren depart from the primitive 
 and apostolic model in regard to Bishops, so they equally de- 
 part from that model in respect to the Deacon's office. They 
 contend that Deacons are one of the orders of clergy, and are 
 authorized, by Divine appointment, to preach and baptize. 
 Let any one impartially read the first six verses of the sixth 
 chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and then say whether there 
 is the smallest warrant for this opinion. The Apostles say to 
 the people, " It is not meet that we should leave the word of 
 God, and serve tables. Wherefore, look ye out among you seven 
 men of honest report, whom we may appoint over this busi- 
 ness ; but Ave will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the 
 ministry of the word." Can it be supposed, in direct opposition 
 to this whole statement, that these very Deacons were appoint- 
 ed, after all, not to take care of the poor, but to labour in " the 
 ministry of the word ?" This were an inconsistency, nay, an 
 absurdity so glaring, that the only wonder is, how any one can 
 possibly adopt it after reading the inspired statement. The 
 circumstance of Philip, sometime after liis appointment as 
 Deacon, being (bund preaching and baptizing in Samaria and 
 
6S GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 Other places, does not afford the smallest presumptive evidence 
 against this conclusion. Are not cases frequently occurring in 
 the Presbyterian Church, in which young men, after serving 
 a year or two as Ruling Elders or Deacons, are set apart as 
 ministers of the Gospel? Soon after Philip's appointment to 
 the deaconship in Jerusalem, the members of the Church in 
 that city were chiefly " scattered abroad by persecution." He 
 was, of course, driven from his residence. Now, the proba- 
 bility is, that about this time, — seeing he was " a man full of 
 the Holy Ghost and of wisdom," and, therefore, eminently 
 qualified to be useful in preaching the Gospel, he received a 
 new ordination as an Evangelist, and in this character went 
 forth to preach and baptize. He is expressly called an 
 " Evangelist," by the same inspired writer who gives us the 
 account just recited of his appointment as Deacon. Acts xxi. 
 8. Until it can be proved, then, that he preached and bap- 
 tized as a Deacon, and not as an Evangelist, the supposition is 
 utterly improbable, and wholly unworthy of credit. 
 
 The truth is, the primitive and apostolical office of Deacon 
 v/as to take care of the poor and " serve tables." By little 
 and little, several centuries after the apostolic age, the occu- 
 pants of this office usurped the functions of a higher one ; 
 which usurpation was afterwards confirmed by ecclesiastical 
 custom. So a number of the most respectable of the early 
 Fathers clearly understood the matter. Thus Origen, in his 
 commentary on the 21st chapter of Matthew, speaking of the 
 corruption which prevailed among the Deacons in his day, re- 
 presents them — not as neglecting to preach or baptize — but as 
 " neglecting the poor, and converting to their own use the 
 Church's charitable funds." Again, the same Father tells us, 
 Tract 10, in Matt. " The Deacons preside over the money- 
 tables of the church." And again, " The Deacons were ap- 
 pointed to preside over the tables of the church, as we are 
 taught in the Acts of the Apostles." Ambrose, in the fourth 
 century, in his commentary on Ephesians, expressly declares, 
 that, in his day, " the Deacons ordinarily were not authorized 
 to preach." Chrysostom, in the same century, in his com- 
 mentary on Acts vi. Homil. 14, tells us, that in his time " there 
 were no such Deacons in the Church as the Apostles ordain- 
 ed," and, in the same connection, gives it as his opinion, that 
 it ought to liave been then as it was in the Aposdes' days. 
 Jerome, in his famous letter to Evagrius, expressly calls the 
 Deacon, " a minister of tables and widows." The " Aposto- 
 lical Constitutions," commonly referred to the fourth or fifth 
 century, contain (book H. chapter 27,) the following passage • 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 59 
 
 *' Let the Deacon give nothing to any poor man without the 
 Bishop's knowledge and consent." And in the sixth general 
 council of Constantinople, Can. 16, it is declared, that " the 
 Scriptural Deacons were no other than overseers of the poor, 
 and that such was the opinion of the ancient Fathers." 
 
 But parity among her ministers is not the only feature 
 which distinguishes the government of the Presbyterian 
 Church. Her mode of conducting discipline in each church 
 by a bench of Elders, acting as the representatives of the 
 members at large ; and by courts of review and control, ad- 
 mitting of appeals, where parties feel aggrieved, and binding 
 all the particular churches together as one body, walking by 
 the same rules of truth and order, and subject to the same uni- 
 form constitutional authority, are among her peculiar advan- 
 tages. In regard to both these points, Presbyterians differ 
 from Independents and Congregationalists, as well as from 
 Episcopalians, and, indeed, from most other denominations 
 of Christians. To these, our attention will next be directed. 
 
 Independents and Congregationalists commit the whole go- 
 vernment and discipline of their churches immediately to the 
 body of the communicants. In some of their churches all the 
 communicants, male and female, have an equal vote ; in 
 others, the males only take a part in discipline. In the esti- 
 mation of Presbyterians this mode of conducting ecclesiastical 
 discipline is liable to most serious objections. They consider 
 it as wholly unsupported by Scripture ; as " setting those to 
 judge, in many cases, who are least esteemed in the church ;" 
 as extremely unfavourable to the calm and wise administra- 
 tion of justice ; nay, as, of all the forms of ecclesiastical 
 discipline, most exposed to the sway of ignorance, prejudice, 
 passion, and artful intrigue : that, under the guise of liberty, 
 it often leads to the most grievous tyranny; and is adapted to 
 exert an injurious influence on the characters both of the pas- 
 tor and the people. 
 
 In the Presbyterian Church, the government and discipline 
 in each congregation is committed to a bench of Elders, con- 
 sisting of eight or ten of the most pious, enlightened, wise, 
 prudent, and grave members of the church. They constitute, 
 with the pastor at their head, a judicial body, who maintam 
 an official inspection over the members of the church, and 
 deliberately sit in judgment on all those delicate, and yet mo- 
 mentous cases which are connected with receiving, admon- 
 ishing, rebuking, suspending, excommunicating, and dismiss- 
 ing the members of the flock committed to their care. Our 
 
60 • GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 reasons for conducting in this manner the government and 
 discipUne of the Church, are the following: 
 
 1. It is certain, that in the system of the Jewish Syna- 
 gogue, according to the model of which the Christian Church 
 Avas undoubtedly organized, the whole government and disci- 
 pline was conducted by a bench of Elders, and not by the 
 body of the people. 
 
 2. It is manifest that government and discipline were so 
 conducted in the Apostolic Church. We read that, in every 
 church under the direction of the Aposdes, a plurality ot 
 Elders were ordained ; and we find a class of Elders distinctly 
 spoken of, who "ruled well," but did not "labour in the 
 word and doctrine," 1 Tim. v. 17. 
 
 3. We find this class of Elders, as bearing rule in each 
 Church, very distincdy and frequently alluded to in several 
 of the earliest Christian Fathers, and by none more clearly 
 than by Ignatius, the pious pastor of Antioch.* 
 
 4. The pious witnesses of the truth, who kept alive the 
 true doctrine and order of the Church during the dark ages, 
 more especially the Waldenses and the Bohemian brethren, 
 uniformly governed their churches by means of Ruling, as 
 well as Teaching Elders, as we have before seen. 
 
 5. All the leading Reformers on the continent of Europe, 
 with scarcely an exception, though separated from each other 
 by different names, and strong prejudices, agreed, without 
 concert, in teaching the Divine authority of Ruling Elders, 
 and in proof of it, referred to the same Scriptures which we 
 are accustomed to cite for establishing the same thing. The 
 Reformers in England stood alone, in excluding this class ot 
 officers from their Church ; and even some of their number, 
 among the rest, Archbishop Whitgift, as we have seen, ac- 
 knowledged that there were such officers in the primitive 
 Church ; but that, in the then existing circumstances, it was 
 not necessary or expedient to retain them. 
 
 6. Such officers are indispensably necessary to the mainte- 
 nance of sound and edifying discipline. Without them, dis- 
 cipline will either be wholly neglected, or carried on with 
 
 * This is explicitly acknowledged by a number of learned Episcopa- 
 lians. Among' the rest, Archbishop Whitgift expresses himself thus: — 
 " I know that in the primitive Church, they had in every church certain 
 seniors, to whom the government of the congregation was committed; 
 but that was before there was any Christian prince or magistrate that 
 openly professed the Gospel, and before there was any Church by pub- 
 lic authority established." Defence against Cartwright^ p. 638. 651. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 61 
 
 popular noise and confusion ; or conducted by the pastor 
 himself — thus often placing him in circumstances adapted to 
 make him either a tyrant, partial to favourites, or a political 
 temporizer. This has appeared so manifest to many Inde- 
 pendent and Congregational churches, that they have appoint- 
 ed each a committee, consisting of six or eight of their most 
 pious, enlightened, and grave members, on whom was de- 
 volved the whole business of preparing, arranging, and man- 
 aging every case of discipline, so that the body of the com- 
 municants might have nothing more to do than to give their 
 public sanction, by a vote, to what had been virtually done 
 already by tliis judicious committee. Could there be a more 
 emphatic acknowledgment of the importance and necessity of 
 this class of officers? 
 
 Finally: Independents and Congregationalists consider 
 each particular church as entirely independent of every other 
 church. They suppose that the authority exercised by the 
 communicants of each church, is supreme and final ; and that 
 no courts of review and control, formed by the representatives 
 of a number of co-ordinate churches, and invested with judi- 
 cial power over the whole, ought to be admitted. Hence, 
 when any member of an Independent, or of a strictly Con- 
 gi-egational Church, is considered by himself, or by his friends, 
 as unjustly cast out, or as in any way injuriously treated, he 
 has no remedy. The system of Independency furnishes no 
 tribunal to which he can appeal. He must sit down, while 
 he lives, under the oppressive sentence, unless the body, ori- 
 ginally pronouncing it, should choose to remove it. The 
 same essential defect in this system also appears in a variety 
 of other cases. If a controversy arise between a pastor and 
 his flock, acting on strict Congregational principles ; or if a 
 contest occur between two Independent or Congregational 
 churches in the vicinity of each other, their ecclesiastical 
 constitution furnishes no means of relief. The controversy 
 may be subjected to the decision of a civil court, or to the 
 judgment of selected arbitrators, just as may be done when 
 controversies occur among secular men. But their system of 
 Church order affords no remedy. Recourse must be had for 
 relief to those worldly instrumentalities, which are equally 
 painful to the pious heart, and dishonourable to the cause of 
 Christ. 
 
 But, for all these difficulties, Presbyterianism, in her essen- 
 tial constitution furnishes appropriate, prompt, and for the 
 most part, adequate relief. Her system of government and 
 discipline contains, within its own bosom, the means of ad- 
 
62 GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 justment and of peace. Every species of controversy is com 
 mitted for settlement, to a grave and enlightened judicial body, 
 made up of the representatives of all the churches in a given 
 district ; a body, not the creature of a day, which, when its 
 work is done, ceases to exist ; but organized, permanent, and 
 responsible; whose decisions are not merely advisory, but 
 authoritative ; and from whose sentences, if they be consider- 
 e is erroneous, an appeal may be taken to a higher tribunal, 
 euioracing a larger portion of the Church, and far removed 
 from the excitement of the original contest. 
 
 We find the principle on which these courts of review and 
 control are founded, strikingly exemplified in the New Tes- 
 tament history, and our practice abundantly warranted by 
 New Testament facts. When a question arose at Antioch, 
 respecting the obligation of Jewish observances, the church 
 in that place did not attempt, as a body of Independents 
 would, of course, have done, to decide the matter for them- 
 selves, leaving the other churches to do as they pleased. 
 But they felt that, as it was a question which concerned the 
 whole Christian body, so a general and authoritative decision 
 of the question, binding on the whole body, ought to be made. 
 They, therefore, empowered special delegates to carry up the 
 question to " the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem," to be by 
 them conclusively settled. There, accordingly, it was debated 
 and decided upon in full Synod ; and that decision, in the 
 form of " decrees," (So-y^ara) that is, authoritative adjudica- 
 tions, — sent down to all the churches to be registered and 
 obeyed. Can any one conceive of a more perfect example 
 of a Presbyterian Synod, convened as a judicial body, and 
 pronouncing a decision, not as a mere advisory council, but 
 as a judicatory of Christ, invested with judicial power to de- 
 clare tiie path of duty in a given case ; not for a single con- 
 gregation merely, but for the whole visible Church? 
 
 There is no doubt, indeed, that this system of authoritative 
 decision, not for one congregation only, but for a number of 
 churches belonging to the same visible body, may be weakly 
 or wickedly managed. Like every thing in the hands of 
 man, and even like the Gospel itself, it may be unskilfully 
 administered, and sometimes even perverted into means of 
 oppression and mischief. So may the most perfect system 
 in the world, civil or ecclesiastical. So may Independency 
 and Congregationalism. For, as an eminent Independent, 
 (the Rev. Robert Hall,) remarked, in speaking on this very 
 subject, " While power is dangerous in the hands of a few, 
 wisdom is seldom with the multitude." The fault, however, 
 is not in the system, but in the administration. Here is a form 
 
PRESBYTERIAN KHURCH. 63 
 
 of ecclesiastical polity, complete in all its parts ; fitted to ob- 
 viate every difficulty; not indeed armed with civil power ; not 
 permitted to enforce its decisions by civil penalties, (in which 
 every friend of genuine Christianity must rejoice) ; a polity 
 to which folly, caprice, or rebellion may refuse to bow ; but, 
 so far as happy adjustment, and moral power can go, better 
 adapted to promote the union, and the harmonious counsel 
 and cooperation of all the churches which are willing to avail 
 themselves of its advantages, assuredly, than any other that 
 Christendom presents. 
 
 Such is a cursory view of the argument in favour of Pres- 
 byterian church government, and of the peculiar advantages 
 attending that form of ecclesiastical order. It is better adapt 
 ed than any other to repress clerical ambition ; to prevent 
 clerical encroachments and tyranny; to guard against the 
 reign of popular effervescence and violence ; to secure the 
 calm, enlightened, and edifying exercise of discipline; to 
 maintain the religious rights of the people against all sinister 
 influence ; and to afford relief in all cases in which a single 
 church, or an inferior judicatory, may have passed an impro- 
 per sentence, from either mistake, prejiidice, or passion. It 
 establishes, in all our ecclesiastical borders, that strict, repub- 
 lican, representative system of government, which has been 
 "ever found to lie at the foundation of all practical freedom, 
 both political and religious ;" and which, under God, affords 
 the best pledge of justice and stability in the administration. 
 It affords that inspection over the lives and conversation of 
 church members, which is ever indispensably needed, and 
 which is at once vigilant, parental, and judicious ; and when 
 faithfully carried into execution, is better fitted than any other 
 to bring the whole Church to act together, and to unite all 
 hearts and hands in Christian beneficence. And, finally, it 
 is better fitted than any other to maintain a wise, impartial, 
 and faithful inspection over the lives and ministrations of the 
 body of the clergy. How much better is a venerable Pres- 
 bytery adapted to discharge this duty to edification, than a 
 single Bishop, who, to say nothing of other faults, may in- 
 dulge in the grossest favouriteism or tyranny, without the 
 possibility of adequate control ! This form of church go- 
 vernment cannot, indeed, of itself, infuse life and activity intc 
 an ecclesiastical body; but where vitality, and zeal, and re- 
 sources exist, there is, undoubtedly, no form of ecclesiastical 
 organization so well adapted to bind together a body consist- 
 ing of many parts ; to unite counsels ; to invigorate efforts ; 
 and to cause a large and extended mass of professing Chris- 
 (ijms to walk by the same rules; to mind ihe same things ; to 
 
64 GOVERNMENT OF THE 
 
 speak the same language ; and to feel that they are in fact, as 
 well as in name, one body in Christ, and every " one mem- 
 bers one of another." 
 
 Our Methodist brethren refuse to admit any representation 
 from the laymen of their churches, into their Conferences, to 
 which the exercise of ecclesiastical authority is committed : 
 and by this refusal, as well as on account of some other things 
 of a similar nature, they have occasioned a serious schism in 
 their body. Our Episcopal brethren, yielding to what ap- 
 peared to them the necessity and importance of introducing a 
 lay representation into their ecclesiastical assemblies, have 
 " lay deputies" in the lower house of all their " Conventions." 
 For this feature, however, in their organization in this coun- 
 try, they do not pretend to offer any divine warrant. It is 
 well known that there is no such feature in the Church from 
 which they derive their origin ; and it is without the shadow 
 of support from any other principle in their system than that 
 which grows out of the supposed right of the Church to insti- 
 tute, at her pleasure, both rites and offices which the Master 
 never sanctioned. On the contrary, for every part of her sys- 
 tem, the Presbyterian Church claims a scriptural warrant. 
 She maintains, that no Church is at liberty to appoint officers, 
 or to exercise authority which cannot be found in Scripture. 
 She vests Ruling Elders with the function of overseeing and 
 governing in the Church — not because they are convenient 
 and useful, or even necessary; but because she finds ample 
 evidence of their institution in the Apostolic Church. She 
 commits to appropriate judicial assemblies the authoritative 
 regulation of all her affairs, under the laws of Christ; not 
 merely because she sees many human advantages resulting 
 from this system ; but also, and chiefly because she finds in 
 the Scriptural principles of the essential unity of the visible 
 Church, and in the decisive example of the Synod of Jerusa- 
 lem, the fullest inspired warrant for this plan of ecclesiastical 
 polity. Let Presbyterians rejoice, that even those denomina- 
 tions which reject, in theory, her scriptural representative 
 system, are compelled, after all, to resort to it in fact, and 
 cannot without it preserve either unity or order. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE WORSHIP OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 A fundamental principle of the Presbyterian Church, in 
 forming her " Directory for the Worship of God," is, that 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 65 
 
 here, as in every thing else, Holy Scripture is the only safe 
 guide. One of the earliest practical errors which gained ground 
 in the Christian community, was the adoption oi the principle 
 that the ministers of religion might lawfully add, at their 
 pleasure, to the rites and ceremonies of the Church. In con- 
 sequence of the admission of this error, Augustine complained, 
 as early as the beginning of the fifth century, that for one ap- 
 pointment of God's, ten of man's had crept into the Church, 
 and formed a burden greater, in some respects, than was the 
 ceremonial economy of the Jews. The fact is, for the sake ol 
 drawing both Jews and Pagans into the Church, many rites 
 and ceremonies were adopted from both, that they might feel 
 more at home in the Christian assemblies. This evil in- 
 creased, until, before the Reformation, it had reached that re- 
 volting amount of superstition which now distinguishes the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 It was in reference to this point, that our Fathers, both in 
 Scotland and England, had many conflicts, when their respec- 
 tive Churches, in those countries were organized and settled 
 in the sixteenth century. On the one hand, the Prelates, and 
 other court clergy were in favour of a splendid ritual, and 
 were disposed to retain a large number of the ceremonies 
 which had been so long in use in the Church of Rome. On 
 the other, the Puritans in England, and the corresponding 
 body in Scotland, contended that the Scriptures being the only 
 infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought 
 to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not 
 warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, 
 or by good and sufficient inference. In Scotland the advocates 
 of primitive simplicity prevailed, and established in their na- 
 tional Church the same mode of worship which we believe 
 existed in the apostolic age, and which now obtains in the 
 Presbyterian Church in that country, and in the United States. 
 In England, our Fathers, the Puritans, were not so happy as 
 to succeed in establishmg the same scriptural system. Under 
 the influence of the monarch and the court clergy, they were 
 outvoted. Still it is undoubtedly certain that a large portion 
 of the most pious and devoted of the clergy of the Church of 
 England, during the reign of queen Elizabeth, and some of 
 her most worthy dignitaries, when the character of that Church, 
 under its reformed regimen, was finally fixed, did importu- 
 nately plead for laying aside in public worship, every thing 
 to which Presbyterians, at the present day, object, as having 
 no warrant in Scripture. And although they failed of securing 
 their object in the national Church, yet the descendants of 
 
66 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 the Puritans, both in that country and our own, have oeen 
 permitted to realize their wishes as to most of the particulars 
 on which they then insisted. On some of the principal of 
 these particulars it is proposed now to dwell, and to assign, 
 with regard to each, our reasons for adhering to them in our 
 system of worship. 
 
 But before we proceed to this detail, it may be useful to 
 offer a general remark or two, which will serve to show why 
 we object to all human inventions and additions in the wor- 
 ship of God. 
 
 1. Christ is the only King and Head of the Church. His 
 word is the law of his house. Of course the Church ought 
 not to consider herself as possessing any power which that 
 word does not warrant. If, therefore, she cannot find in 
 Scripture, authority, either direct, or fairly implied, to the 
 amount contended for, she does not possess that authority. 
 
 2. We think that such inventions and additions are ex- 
 pressly forbidden in Scripture. The significant question 
 asked by God of his ancient people, when speaking on this 
 very subject, Isaiah i. 12, " Who hath required this at your 
 hands ?" seems to be decisive. " Teachmg for doctrines the 
 commandments of men," is spoken of. Matt. xv. 9. by our 
 blessed Saviour as highly offensive to him. It would seem 
 tacitly to imply, that we are wiser than God, and understand 
 the interests of the Church better than her Head and Lord. 
 
 3. If we once open this door, how or when shall it be closed ^ 
 The Church, we are told, has power to decree rites and cere- 
 monies ; that is, a majority of the ruling powers of the Church 
 have power at any time, as caprice, or a love of show, or su- 
 perstition, or any other motive may prompt, to add rite after 
 rite, and ceremony after ceremony, at pleasure, to the worship 
 of God. Now if this power be really inherent in the Church, 
 what limit shall we put to its exercise ? If she have power to 
 add ten or twenty new ordinances to her ritual, has she not 
 equal power to add a hundred, or five hundred, if a majority 
 of her ministers should feel inclined to do so ? And was it 
 not precisely in this way, and upon this very principle, that 
 the enormous mass of superstition which characterizes the 
 Papacy, gradually accumulated? Surely, a power which 
 carries with it no hmit but human caprice, and which has 
 been so manifestly and shockingly abused in past ages, ought 
 by no means to be claimed or exercised in the Church of God. 
 But to be more particular. 
 
 Section I. — Presbyterians reject prescribed Liturgies. 
 
 We do not, indeed, consider the use of forms of prayer as 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 67 
 
 in all cases unlawful. We do not doubt that they have been 
 often useful, and that to many this mode of conducting public 
 devotions is highly edifying. If any minister of our Church 
 should think proper to compose a form of prayer, or a variety 
 of forms, for his own use, or to borrow those which have been 
 prepared by others, he ought to be considered as at perfect 
 liberty so to do. But we object to being confintd to forms ot 
 prayer. We contend that it is of great importance to the edi- 
 fication of the Church, that every minister be left at liberty to 
 conduct the devotions of the sanctuary as his circumstances, 
 and the dispensations of Providence, may demand. Our rea- 
 sons for adopting this judgment, and a corresponding practice, 
 are the following : 
 
 1. We think it perfectly evident that no forms of prayer — 
 no prescribed Liturgies were used in the apostolic age of the 
 Church. We read of none ; nor do we find the smallest hint 
 that any thing of the kind was then employed in either public 
 or social worship. Will the most zealous advocates of Litur- 
 gies point out even a probable example of the use of one in 
 the New Testament? Can any one believe that Paul used a 
 prescribed form of prayer when he took leave of the Elders 
 of Ephesus, after giving them a solemn charge ? Acts xx. 37. 
 Can it be imagined that he used a Liturgy when, in bidding 
 farewell to a circle of friends in the city of Tyre, who had 
 treated him with kindness, he kneeled down on the sea shore 
 and prayed with them ? Or can we suppose that he and Silas 
 read from a book, when, at midnight, in the prison at Philip- 
 pi, they prayed and sang praises unto God ? Again ; when 
 Paul exhorted Timothy to see that " kings and all in authori- 
 ty" were remembered in public prayer, is it not evident that 
 the Church had no Liturgy ? If slie had been furnished with 
 one, and confined to it, such direction would have been un- 
 necessary, or rather absurd ; for they would have had their 
 prayers all prepared to their hand. In short, when we find 
 prayer spoken of in the New Testament on a great variety ol 
 f)ccasions, and in a great variety of language, is it not passing 
 strange, if Liturgies were then used, that no turn of expres- 
 sion, giving the remotest hint of it, should be employed ? 
 JSurely, if forms of prayer had been regarded ^n the days of 
 the xVpostles, as not only obligatory, but so higlily important 
 as some Protestants now profess to regard tliem ; Avho can 
 believe that the inspired writers would have passed over 
 them in entire silence ? The very least that we can infer 
 from this circumstance is, that the use of them is not binding 
 on the Church. The primitive Christians liad indeed, pre- 
 6 * 
 
68 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 composed Psalms and Hyrans, which they united in singing, 
 and probably, a uniform method, derived from the example 
 and letters of the first ministers, of administering the sacra- 
 ments, and blessing the people ; but so have Presbyterians, 
 and various other ecclesiastical bodies, who yet are not consi- 
 dered as using a Liturgy. These, of course, have no appli- 
 cation to the present inquiry. 
 
 2. The Lord's Prayer, given at the request of the disciples, 
 forms no objection to this conclusion. It was, evidently, not 
 intended to be used as an exact, and far less as an exclusive 
 form. It is not given in the same words by any two of the 
 Evangelists. As it was given before the New Testament 
 Church was set up, so it is strictly adapted to the old rather 
 than the new economy. It contains no clause, asking for 
 blessings in the name of Christ, which the Saviour himself 
 afterwards solemnly enjoined as indispensable. After the 
 resurrection and ascension of Christ, when the New Testa- 
 ment Church was set up, we read nothing more in the in- 
 spired history concerning the use of this form. And it is not 
 until several centuries after the apostolic age, that we find this 
 prayer statedly introduced into public worsliip. Accordingly, 
 it IS remarkable, that Augustine, in the fourth century, ex- 
 presses the decisive opinion, " that Christ intended this prayer 
 as a model rather than a form ; that lie did not mean to teach 
 his disciples what words they should use in prayer, but what 
 things they should pray for." 
 
 3. No such thing as a prescribed form of prayer appears 
 to have been known in the Christian Church, for several hun- 
 dred years after Christ. The contrary is, indeed, often as- 
 serted by the friends of Liturgies, but wholly without evidence ; 
 nay, against the most conclusive evidence. The most respecta- 
 ble early writers who undertake to give an account of the 
 worship of the early Christians, make use of language which 
 is utterly irreconcileable with the practice of reading prayers. 
 They tell us, that the minister, or person who led in prayer, 
 " poured out prayers according to his ability;" that he prayed, 
 " closing his bodily eyes, and lifting up the eyes of his mind, 
 and streti hing forth his hands toward heaven." Surely, in 
 this postuni, it was impossible to " read prayers." Socrates 
 and Sozomen, respectable ecclesiastical historians, who wrote 
 in the fifth century, both concur in declaring, that, in their 
 day, " no two persons were found to use the same words in 
 public worship." And Augustine, who was nearly their 
 contemporary, declares, in relation to this subject,—" There 
 is freedom to use different words, Drovided the same things 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 69 
 
 are mentioned in prayer." Basil, in the fourth century, 
 giving directions about prayer, remarks, that there were two 
 parts of this service ; first, thanksgiving and praise, with 
 self-abasement ; and, secondly, petition. He advises to be- 
 gin with the former, and, in doing it, to make choice of the 
 language of Scripture. After giving an example of his mean- 
 ing, he adds, " When thou hast praised him out of the Scrip- 
 tures, as thou art able, (a strange clause, truly, if all had been 
 prepared before hand, and read out of a book,) then proceeo 
 to petition."— C/arA"5on on Liturgies^ p. 120. Would not 
 all this be manifestly absurd, if public prayer had been by a 
 prescribed Liturgy in Basil's days? The truth is, it is evi- 
 dent that extemporary or free prayer was generally used in 
 the primitive Church, and continued to be used until ortho- 
 doxy and piety declined, and the grace as well as the gift of 
 prayer greatly diminished. Then ministers began to seek the 
 best aid that they could procure. The Church, hoAvever, at 
 large, even then, provided no Liturgies ; but each pastor, who 
 felt unable to pray extemporaneously, procured prayers com- 
 posed by other individuals, which he used in public. Accord- 
 ingly, Augustine tells us, that some ministers in his day, (a 
 period in w^hich we have complete evidence that many of the 
 sacred order were so uneducated as to be unable to write their 
 own names) " lighted upon prayers which were composed 
 not only by ignorant babblers, but also by heretics ; and 
 through the simplicity of their ignorance, having no proper 
 discernment, they made use of them, supposing them to be 
 good." Surely, this could never have happened, if the Church 
 had been accustomed at that time to the use of prescribed 
 Liturgies. \\\ short, the very first document in the form of a 
 prayer-book, of which we read, is a Libellus Officialis, men- 
 tioned in the proceedings of the council of Toledo, in the year 
 633 after Christ; and that was, evidently, rather a "Directo- 
 ry for the worship of God," than a complete Liturgy. There 
 is, indeed, evidence that, before this time, ministers, deficient 
 in talents and piety, either wrote prayers for themselves, or 
 procured them from others, as before stated ; but the first hint 
 to be found of an ecclesiastical body interposing to regulate 
 the business of public prayer, appears about the middle of the 
 fifth century. 
 
 With respect to the boasted Liturgies of St. Mark, St. 
 James, &c., of which we often hear, all enlightened Protes- 
 tants, it is believed, agree that they are manifestly forgeries ; 
 and as to the Liturgies attributed to Chrysostom, Basil, and 
 several others cf the early Christian Fathers, bishop While, 
 
70 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 an English prelate, who lived in the seventeenth century, de- 
 livers the following opinion: — "The Liturgies," says he, 
 " fathered upon St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, have a known 
 mother, (to wit, the Church of Rome ;) but there is (besides 
 many other just exceptions) so great a dissimilitude between 
 the supposed fathers of the children, that they rather argue 
 the dishonest dealings of their mother, than serve as lawful 
 witnesses of that which the adversary intended to prove by 
 them." — Tracts against Fisher, the Jesuit, p. 377. 
 
 4. If the Apostles, or any apostolic men, had prepared 
 and given to the Church any thing like a Liturgy, we should, 
 doubtless, have had it preserved, and transmitted with care to 
 posterity. The Church, in this case, would have had one uni- 
 form book of prayers, which would have been in use, and held 
 precious, throughout the whole Christian community. But 
 nothing of this kind has ever been pretended to exist. For let it 
 be remembered, that the prayers, in the Romish and English 
 Liturgies, ascribed to some of the early Fathers of the Church, 
 and even to apostolical men, supposing them to be gtnuine, 
 which, by good judges, as we have just seen, is more than 
 doubted, — were not Liturgies, but short prayers, or " col- 
 lects," just such as thousands of Presbyterian ministers, who 
 never thought of using a Liturgy, have composed, in their 
 moments of devout retirement, and left among their private 
 papers. Who doubts that devotional composition is made by 
 multitudes who reject the use of prescribed forms of prayer 
 in public worship ? Accordingly, when Liturgies were gra- 
 dually introduced into general use, in the sixth and subsequent 
 centuries, on account of the decline of piety and learning 
 among the clergy, there was no uniformity even among the 
 churches of the same state or kingdom. Every Bishop, in 
 his own diocese, appointed what prayers he pleased, and even 
 indulged his taste for variety. Accordingly, it is a notorious 
 fact, which confirms this statement, that when the Reforma- 
 tion commenced in England, the established Romish Church 
 in that country had no single uniform Liturgy for the whole 
 kingdom ; but there seems to have been a different one for the 
 diocese of every Bishop. And when, in the second year of 
 king Edward's reign, the principal ecclesiastical dignitaries 
 of the kingdom were directed to digest and report one uniform 
 plan for the public service of the wliole Church, they collated 
 and compared the five Romish missals of the several dioceses 
 of Sarum, York, Hereford, Bangor, and Lincoln, and out of 
 these formed a Liturgy for the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 of England. So that the Prayer-books v/hich had becr^ used 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 71 
 
 in five Popish bishoprics, constituted the basis of the first 
 Liturgy of king Edward, arid consequently of the book of 
 Common Prayer, as now used in Great Britain and the United 
 States. This Liturgy, at first, contained a number of things 
 so grossly Popish, that, when it was read by Calvin and 
 others, on the continent of Europe, to whom copies were sent 
 for obtaining their opinion, their severe criticisms led to ano 
 ther review, and a considerable purgation. Still a number oi 
 articles were left, acknowledged on all hands to have been 
 adopted from the missals of the Church of Rome, which, as 
 stated in various parts of this chapter, exceedingly grieved the 
 more pious and evangelical part of the Church ; but which 
 the queen, and the ecclesiastics more immediately around her 
 person, refused to exclude. Their antiquity was plead as an 
 argument in their favour. 
 
 5. Confining ministers to forms of prayer in public wor- 
 ship, tends to restrain and discourage the spirit of prayer 
 We cannot help thinking, that the constant repetition of tht 
 same words, from year to year, tends to produce, at least with 
 very many persons, dullness, and a loss of interest. We are 
 sure it is so with not a few. Bishop Wilkins, though a friend 
 to the use of forms of prayer, when needed, argues strongly 
 against binding ourselves entirely to such "leading strings," 
 as he emphatically calls them, and expresses the opinion, that 
 giving vent to the desires and affections of the heart in extem- 
 porary prayer, is highly favourable to growth in grace. — Gift 
 of Prayer, chap. IL p. 10, IL Accordingly, it is remarka- 
 ble that, when those who were once distinguished for praying 
 extemporaneously with fluency and unction, lay aside this 
 habit, and confine themselves to stinted forms for many years, 
 they are apt to manifest a striking decline in the spirit of de- 
 votion, and are no longer able to engage in free prayer with- 
 out much hesitation and embarrassment. 
 
 6. No form of prayer, however ample or diversified, can 
 be accommodated to all the circumstances, exigencies, and 
 wants of either individual Christians, or of the Church in 
 general. Now, when cases occur which are not provided for 
 in the prescribed forms, what is to be done ? Either extem- 
 porary prayer must be ventured upon, or the cases in question 
 cannot be carried before the throne of grace, in words, at all. 
 Is this alternative desirable ? Cases of this kind have occurred, 
 approaching the ludicrous, in which ministers have declined 
 engaging in social prayer in situations of the deepest interest, 
 because they could find nothing in their Prayer-book adapted 
 to the occasion ! Nay, so common and so interesting a ser- 
 
72 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 vice as tne monthly concert in prayer, on the first Monday 
 evening of every month, can never be attended upon by an 
 Episcopal pastor, in an appropriate and seasonable manner, 
 without indulging in extemporary prayer. This has been, 
 more than once, confessed and lamented by ministers of that 
 denomination. 
 
 7. It is no small argument against confining ministers and 
 people to a prescribed form, that whenever religion is in a 
 lively state in the heart of a minister accustomed to use a 
 Liturgy, and especially when it is powerfully revived among 
 the members of his church, his form of prayer will seldom 
 fail to be deemed an undesirable restraint ; and this feeling 
 will commonly either vent itself in fervent extemporary prayer, 
 or result in languor and decline under restriction to his form. 
 The more rigorous and exclusive the confinement to a pre- 
 scribed form, the more cold and lifeless will the prevailing 
 formality generally be found. The excellent Mr. Baxter ex- 
 presses the same idea with more unqualified strength : — " A 
 constant form," says he, "is a certain way to bring the soul 
 to a cold, insensible, formal worship." — Five Disputations, 
 ^c. p. 385. 
 
 8. Once more : prescribed Liturgies, which remain in use 
 from age to age, have a tendency to fix, to perpetuate, and 
 even to coerce the adoption and propagation of error. It is 
 not forgotten, that the advocates of Liturgies urge, as an argu- 
 ment in their favour, a consideration directly the converse of 
 this, viz., that they tend, by their scriptural and pious charac- 
 ter, to extend and perpetuate the reign of truth in a Church. 
 Where their character is really thus thoroughly scriptural, 
 they may, no doubt, exert, in this respect, a favourable influ- 
 ence ; but where they teach or insinuate error, the mischief 
 can scarcely fail to be deep, deplorable, and transmitted from 
 generation to generation. Of this, painful examples might 
 be given, if it were consistent with the brevity of this sketch, 
 to enter on such a field. 
 
 On the whole, after carefully comparing the advantages and 
 disadvantages of free and prescribed prayer, the argument, 
 whether drawn from Scripture, from ecclesiastical history, or 
 from daily experience, is clearly in favour of free or extem- 
 porary prayer. Its generally edifying character may, indeed, 
 sometimes be marred by weak and ignorant men ; but we 
 have no hesitation in saying that the balance is manifestly in 
 its favour. For, after all, the difificulty which s«?metimes oc- 
 curs in rendering extemporary prayer impressive and edifying, 
 is by no means obviated, in all cases, by the use of a Prayer- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 73 
 
 book. Who has not witnessed the recitation of devotional 
 forms conducted in such a manner as to disgust every hearer 
 of taste, and to banish all seriousness from the mind ? As 
 long as ministers of the Gospel are pious men ; " workmen 
 that need not be ashamed ;" qualified " rightly to divide the 
 word of truth," and " mighty in the Scriptures," they will 
 find no difficulty in conducting free prayer to the honour of 
 religion, and to the edification of the Church. When they 
 cease to possess this character— they must have forms, they 
 ought to have forms of devotion provided for them. It was 
 precisely in- such a state of things that the use of Liturgies 
 gradually crept into the Christian Church in the fifth and sixth 
 centuries. But it is manifestly the fault of ministers, if ex- 
 temporary prayer be not made, what it may, and ought ever 
 to be, — among the most tender, touching, and deeply impres- 
 sive of all the services of the public sanctuary. 
 
 Section II. — Presbyterians do not observe Holy-days 
 
 We believe, and teach, in our public formularies, that 
 " there is no day, under the Gospel dispensation, commanded 
 to be kept holy, except the Lord's day, which is the Chris- 
 tian Sabbath." 
 
 We believe, indeed, and declare, in the same formula, that 
 it is both scriptural and rational, to observe special days of 
 Fasting and Thanksgiving, as the extraordinary dispensations 
 of Divine Providence may direct. But we are persuaded, 
 that even the keeping of these days, when they are made 
 stated observances, recurring, of course, at particular times, 
 whatever the aspect of Providence may be, is calculated to 
 promote formality and superstition, rather than the edification 
 of the body of Christ. 
 
 Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, are the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 1. We are persuaded that there is no scriptural warrant for 
 such observances, either from precept or example. There is 
 no hint in the New Testament that such days were either 
 observed or recommended by the Apostles, or by any of the 
 churches in their time. The mention of Easter, in Acts xii. 
 4. has no application to this subject. Herod was a Jew, not 
 a Christian ; and, of course, had no desire to honour a Chris- 
 tian solemnity. The real meaning of the passage is, — as the 
 slightest inspection of the original will satisfy every intelligent 
 reader ; " intending after the passover to bring him forth to 
 the people." 
 
 2. We believe that the Scriptures not only do not warrant 
 
74 WORSHIP OB THE 
 
 the observance of such days, but that they positively discoun 
 tenance it. Let any one impartially weigh Colossians ii. 16 
 and also, Galatians iv. 9, 10, 11 ; and then say whether these 
 passages do not evidently indicate, that the inspired Apostle 
 disapproved of the observance of such days. 
 
 3. The observance of Fasts and Festivals, by divine direc- 
 tion, under the Old Testament economy, makes nothing in 
 favour of such observances under the New Testament dis- 
 pensation. That economy was no longer binding, or even 
 lawfid, after the New Testament Church was set up. It were 
 just as reasonable to plead for the present use of the Passover, 
 the incense, and the burnt offerings of the Old economy, 
 which were confessedly done away by the coming of Christ, 
 as to argue in favour of human inventions, bearing some re- 
 semblance to them, as binding in the Christian Church. 
 
 4. The history of the introduction of stated Fasts and Fes- 
 tivals by the early Christians, speaks much against both their 
 obligation, and their edifying character. Their origin was 
 ignoble. They were chiefly brought in, by carnal policy, for 
 the purpose of drawing into the Church Jews and Gentiles, 
 who had both been accustomed to festivals and holy-days. 
 And from the moment of their introduction, they became the 
 signal for strife, or the monuments of worldly expedient, and 
 degrading superstition. 
 
 As there were no holy-days, excepting the Lord's day, 
 observed in the Christian Church while the Apostles lived ; 
 and no hint given, that they thought any other expedient or 
 desirable ; so we find no hint of any such observance having 
 been adopted until towards the close of the second century. 
 Then, the celebration of Easter gave rise to a controversy ; 
 the Asiatic Christians pleading for its observance at the same 
 time which was prescribed for the Jewish Passover, and con- 
 tending that they were supported in this by apostolic tradi- 
 tion; while the Western Church contended for its stated cele- 
 bration on a certain Sunday, and urged, with equal confidence, 
 apostolic tradition in favour of their scheme. Concerning this 
 fierce and unhallowed controversy, Socrates, tiie ecclesiastical 
 liistorian, who wrote soon after tlie time of Eusebius, and be- 
 gins his history where the latter closes his narrative ; speak- 
 ing on the controversy concerning Easter, expresses himself 
 thus: " Neither the ancients, nor the fathers of later times, I 
 mean such as favoured the Jewish custom, liad sufficient cause 
 to contend so eagerly about the feast of Easter ; for they con- 
 sidered not within themselves, that when the Jewish religion 
 V. as changed into Christianity, the literal observance of the 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 75 
 
 Mosaic law, and the types of things to come, wholly ceased. 
 And this carries with it its own evidence. For no one of 
 Christ's laws permits Christians to observe the rites of the 
 Jews. Nay, the Apostle hath in plain words forbidden it, 
 where he abrogates circumcision, and exhorts us not to con 
 tend about feasts and holy-days. For, writing to the Gala- 
 tians, he admonishes them not to observe days, and months, 
 and times, and years. And unto the Colossians, he is as 
 plain as may be, declaring, that the observance of such things 
 was but a shadow. Neitlier the Apostles nor the Evangelists 
 have enjoined on Christians the observance of Easter; but 
 have left the remembrance of it to the free choice and discre- 
 tion of those who have been benefited by such days. Men 
 keep holy-days, because thereon they enjoy rest from toil and 
 labour. Therefore, it comes to pass, that in every place they 
 do celebrate, of their own accord, the remembrance of the 
 Lord's passion. But neither our Saviour nor his Apostles 
 have any where commanded us to observe it." Socrates, Lib. 
 5, cap. 21. 
 
 Here, then, is an eminent Christian writer Avho flourished 
 early in the fifth century, who had made the history of the 
 Church his particular study; who explicitly declares, that 
 neither Christ nor his Apostles gave any command, or even 
 countenance to the observance of festival days ; that it was 
 brought into the Church by custom ; and that in diflferent 
 parts of the Church there was diversity of practice in regard 
 to this matter. With respect to Easter, in particular, this 
 diversity was striking. We no sooner hear of its observance 
 at all, than we begin to hear of contest, and interruption of 
 Christian fellowship on account of it ; some quoting the au- 
 thority of some of the Apostles for keeping this festival on 
 one day ; and others, with equal confidence, quoting the au- 
 thority of other Aposdes for the selection of a different day : 
 thereby clearly demonstrating, that there was error some- 
 where, and rendering it highly probable that all parties were 
 wrong, and that no such observances at all, were binding on 
 Christians. 
 
 The festival of Easter, no doubt, was introduced in the 
 second century, in place of the Passover, and in accommo- 
 dation to the same Jewish prejudice which had said, even 
 during the apostolic age, " Except ye be circumcised, after 
 the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Hence, it was 
 generally called pascha, and pasch^ in conformity with the 
 name of the Jewish festival, whose place it took. It seems 
 to have received the title of Easter in Great Britain, fronj the 
 
 7 
 
76 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 circumstance, that, when Christianity was introduced into 
 that country, a great Pagan festival, celebrated at the same 
 season of the year, in honour of the Pagan goddess Eostre, 
 yielded its place to the Christian festival, which received, 
 substantially, the name of the Pagan deity. The title of 
 Easter, it is believed, is seldom used but by Britons and their 
 descendants. 
 
 Few festivals are celebrated in the Romish Church, and in 
 some Protestant Churches, with more interest and zeal than 
 Christmas. Yet when Origen, about the middle of the third 
 century, professes to give a list of the fasts and festivals which 
 were observed in his day, he makes no mention of Christmas. 
 From this fact, Sir Peter King, in his "Inquiry into the Con- 
 stitution and worship, Sic. of the Primitive Church," &c., in- 
 fers, that no such festival was then observed ; and adds, " It 
 seems improbable that they should celebrate Christ's nativity, 
 when they disagi'eed about the month and the day when 
 Christ was born." Every month in the year has been as- 
 signed by different portions and writers of the Christian Church 
 as the time of our Lord's nativity ; and the final location of 
 this, as well as other holy-days, in the ecclesiastical calendar, 
 was adjusted rather upon astronomical and mathematical 
 principles, than on any solid calculations of history. 
 
 5. But the motives and manner of introducing Christmas 
 into the Christian Church, speak more strongly against it. Its 
 real origin was this. Like many other observances, it was 
 borrowed from the heathen. The well known Pagan festival 
 among the Romans, distinguished by the tide of Saturnalia, 
 because instituted in honour of their fabled deity, Saturn, was 
 celebrated by them with the greatest splendour, extravagance, 
 and debauchery. It was, during its continuance, a season of 
 freedom and equality ; the master ceased to rule, and the slave 
 to obey ; the former waiting at his own table upon the latter, 
 and submitting to the suspension of all order, and the reign of 
 universal frolic. The ceremonial of this festival was opened 
 on the 19th of December, by lighting a profusion of waxen 
 candles in the temple of Saturn ; and by suspending in their 
 temple, and in all their habitations, boughs of laurel, and va- 
 rious kinds of evergreen. The Christian Church, seeing the 
 unhappy moral influence of this festival ; perceiving her own 
 members too often partaking in its licentiousness ; and desi- 
 rous, if possible, of effecting its abolition, appointed a festival, 
 in honour cf her Master's birth, nearly about the same time, 
 for the purpose of superseding it. In doing this, the policy 
 was to retain as many of these habits which had prevailed in 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 77 
 
 the Saturnalia as could in any way be reconciled with the pu- 
 rity of Christianity. They made their new festival, therefore, 
 a season of relaxation and mirth, of cheerful visiting, and mu- 
 tual presents. They lighted candles in their places of wor- 
 ship, and adorned them with a profusion of evergreen boughs. 
 Thus did the Romish Church borrow from the Pagans some 
 of her most prominent observances ; and thus have some ob- 
 servances of this origin been adopted and continued by Pro- 
 testants. 
 
 6. It being evident, then, that stated fasts and festivals have 
 no divine warrant, and that their use under the New Testa- 
 ment economy is a mere human invention ; we may ask those 
 who are friendly to their observance, what limits ought to be 
 set to their adoption and use in the Christian Church ? If it 
 be lawful to introduce live such days for stated observance, 
 why not ten, twenty, or five score ? A small number were, at 
 an early period, brought into use by serious men, who thought 
 they were thereby rendering God service, and extending the 
 reign of religion. But one after another was added, as super- 
 stition increased, until the calendar became burdened with be- 
 tween two and three hundred fasts and festivals, or saint's days, 
 in each year ; thus materially interfering with the claims of 
 secular industry, and loading the worship of God with a mass 
 of superstitious observances, equally unfriendly to the tempo- 
 ral and the eternal interests of men. Let the principle once 
 be admitted, that stated days of religious observance, which 
 God has no where commanded, may properly be introduced 
 into the Christian ritual, and, by parity of reasoning, every 
 one who, from good motives, can effect the introduction of a 
 new religious festival, is at liberty to do so. Upon this prin- 
 ciple was built up the enormous mass of superstition which 
 now distinguishes and corrupts the Romish Church. 
 
 7. The observance of uncommanded holy-days is ever found 
 to interfere with the due sanctification of the Lord's day. 
 Adding to the appointments of God is superstition. And su- 
 perstition has ever been found unfriendly to genuine obedience. 
 Its votaries, like the Jews of old, have ever been found more 
 tenacious of their own inventions, of traditionary dreams, than 
 of God's revealed code of duty. Accordingly, there is, per- 
 haps, no fact more universal and unquestionable, than that the 
 zealous observers of stated fasts and festivals are characteris- 
 tically lax in the observance of that one day which God has 
 eminendy set apart for himself, and on the sanctification of 
 which all the vital interests of practical religion are suspended. 
 So it was among the IsraeUtes of old. As early as the fifth 
 
79 
 
 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 century, Augustine complains that the superstitious observance 
 of uncommanded rites, betrayed many in his time, into a spirit 
 of irreverence and neglect towards those which were divinely 
 appointed. So it is, notoriously, among the Romanists at the 
 present day. And so, without any breach of charity, it may 
 be said to be in every religious community in which zeal for 
 the observance of uncommanded holy-days prevails. It is 
 true, many in those communities tell us, that the observance 
 of holy-days, devoted to particular persons and events in the 
 history of the Church, has a manifest and strong tendency to 
 increase the spirit of piety. But if this be so, we might ex- 
 pect to find much more scriptural piety in the Romish Church 
 than in any other, since holy-days are ten times more numer- 
 ous in that denomination than in the system of any Protestant 
 Church. But is it so ? Let those who have eyes to see, and 
 ears to hear, decide. 
 
 If the foregoing allegations be in any measure well founded ; 
 if there be no warrant in God's word for any obserA^ances of 
 this kind ; if, on the contrary, the Scriptures positively dis- 
 courage them ; if the history of their introduction and increase 
 mark an unhallowed origin; if, when we once open the door 
 to such human inventions, no one can say how or when it may 
 be closed ; and if the observance of days, not appointed of God, 
 has ever been found to exert an unfriendly influence on the 
 sanctiticationof that holy-day which God has appointed, surely 
 we need no further proof that it is wise to discard them from 
 our ecclesiastical system. 
 
 Section III. — We reject God-fathers and God-mothers in 
 Baptism. 
 
 It is well known that the Presbyterian Church differs from 
 Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, in regard to sponsors in 
 baptism. We differ in two respects. First, in not requiring 
 or encouraging the appearance of any other sponsors, in the 
 baptism of children, than the parents, when they are hving, 
 and qualified to present themselves in this character ; and, 
 secondly, in not requiring, or even admitting any sponsors at 
 all m cases of adult baptism. And we adopt this principle 
 and practice for the following reasons : 
 
 1. There is not a shadow of evidence in the New Testa- 
 ment, that any other sponsors than parents were ever admit- 
 ted to answer for their children in baptism in the apostolic 
 Church; nor is any text of Scripture attempted to be adduced 
 in its support, by the warmest friends of this practice. When 
 the jailor at Philippi was baptized, " he and all his straight- 
 
PRESBYTERLMJ CHURCH. 79 
 
 way;" and when Lydia and "her household" were baptized, 
 we read of no sponsors but the heads of these famiUes, whose 
 faith entitled them to present their households to receive the 
 appropriate seal of faith. 
 
 2. We find no trace of any other sponsors than parents 
 during the first 500 years afler Christ. When some persons, 
 in the time of Augustine, who flourished toward the close of 
 the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth century, contended 
 that it was not lawful, in any case, for any, excepting their 
 natural parents to oiler children in baptism, that learned and 
 pious Father opposed them, and gave it as his opinion, that, 
 in extraordinary cases, as, for example, when the parents were 
 dead ; when they were not professing Christians; when they 
 cruelly forsook and exposed their ofispring ; and when Chris- 
 tian masters had young slaves committed to their charge ; in 
 these cases, (and the pious Fadier mentions no others,) he 
 maintains that any professing Christians, who should be will- 
 ing to undertake the charge, might, with propriety, take such 
 children, offer them in baptism, and become responsible for 
 their Christian education. In this principle and practice, all 
 intelligent and consistent Presbyterians are agreed. The 
 learned Bingham, an Episcopal divine of great industry and 
 erudition, seems to have taken unwearied pains, in his "Ec- 
 clesiastical Antiquities," to collect every scrap of testimony 
 within his reach, in favour of the early origin of sponsors. 
 But he utterly fails of producing even plausible evidence to 
 this amount; and at length candidly acknowledges, that in 
 the early ages, parents were, in all ordinary cases, the pre- 
 senters and sureties of their own chddren ; and that children 
 were presented by others only in extraordinary cases, such as 
 those already stated, when their parents could not present 
 them. It was not until the council of Mentz, in the ninth 
 century, that the Church of Rome forbade the appearance of 
 parents as sponsors for their own children, and required this 
 service to be surrendered to other hands. 
 
 3. The subsequent history of this practice marks the pro- 
 gi'ess of superstition. Mention is made by Cyril, in the fifth 
 century, and by Fulgentius, in the sixth, of sponsors in some 
 peculiar cases of adult baptism. When adults, about to be 
 baptized, v/ere dumb, or under the power of delirium, through 
 disease, and, of course, unable to speak lor themselves, or to 
 make the usual profession ; in such cases, it was customary 
 for some friend, or friends, to answer for them, and to bear 
 testimony to their good character, and to the fact of their hav- 
 ing sufficient knowledge, and having before expressed a desire 
 
 7^ 
 
80 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 to be baptized. For this, there was, undoubtedly, at least 
 some colour of reason ; and the same thing might, perhaps, 
 be done without impropriety, in some conceivable circum- 
 stances now. From this, however, there was a transition 
 soon made to the use of sponsors in all cases of adult baptism. 
 This latter, however, was upon a different principle from the 
 former. When adults had the use of speech and reason, and 
 were able to answer for themselves, the sponsors provided for 
 such never answered or professed for them. This was inva- 
 riably done by the adult himself. Their only business, as it 
 would appear, was to be a kind of curators or guardians of the 
 spiritual life of the persons baptized. This ofhce was gene- 
 rally fulfilled, in each church, by the Deacons, when adult 
 males were baptized; and by the Deaconesses, when females 
 came forward to receive this ordinance. Hence, in the Ro- 
 man Catholic, and some Protestant sects, the practice was ul- 
 timately established of providing god-fathers and god-mothers 
 in all cases of adult baptism. 
 
 4. Among the pious Waldenses and Albigenses, in the 
 middle ages, no other sponsors than parents were in common 
 use. But where the parents were dead, or absent, or unable, 
 on any account, to act, other professors of religion who were 
 benevolent enough to undertake the charge, were allowed to 
 appear in their place, and answer and act in their stead. 
 
 5. If, then, the use of god-fathers and god-mothers, as dis- 
 tinct from parents, in baptism, has no countenance in the word 
 of God ; if it was unknown in the Church during the first 500 
 years after Christ; and if it was superstitious in its origin, and 
 connected with other superstitions in its progress ; we have, 
 undoubtedly, sufficient reason for rejecting the practice. 
 When the system is to set aside parents in this solemn trans- 
 action ; to require others to take their places, and make en- 
 gagements which they alone, for the most part, are qualified 
 to make; and when, in pursuance of this system, thousands 
 are daily making engagements which they never think of ful- 
 filling, and, in most cases, notoriously have it not in their 
 power to fulfil, and, indeed, appear to feel no special obliga- 
 tion to fulfd, we are constrained to regard it as a human in- 
 vention, altogether unwarranted, and adapted, on a variety of 
 accounts, to generate evil rather than good. 
 
 According to one of the canons of the Church of England, 
 " Parents are not to be urged to be present when their chil- 
 dren are baptized, nor to be permitted to stand as sponsors for 
 their own children." That is, the parents, to whom God and 
 nature have committed the education of children ; in whose 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. ti 
 
 families they are to grew up ; under whose eye and imme- 
 diate care their principles, manners, and character are to be 
 formed, shall not be allowed to take even a part in their dedi- 
 cation to God, nor encouraged even to be present at the solemn 
 transaction ! In the Protestant Episcopal Church in this coun- 
 try, " parents shall be admitted as sponsors, if it be desired." 
 But in both countries, it is required that there be sponsors for 
 all adults, as well as for infants. 
 
 Section IV. — The Sign of the Cross in Baptism. 
 
 This is one of the additions to the baptismal rite which 
 Protestant Episcopahans have adopted from the Romanists, 
 and which Presbyterians have always rejected. A large body 
 of the most pious and learned divines of the established 
 Church of England, in an early part of the reign of Queen 
 Elizabeth, when the Reformation of that Church was about 
 to be conclusively settled, earnestly petitioned that the sign ot 
 the cross in baptism, as well as stated fasts and festivals, god- 
 fathers and god-mothers in baptism, kneeling at the Lord's 
 Supper, bowing at the name of Jesus, &;c., might be abolished. 
 When their petitions to this amount were read, and their ar- 
 guments heard, in the lower house of Convocation, the vote 
 was taken, and passed by a majority of those present; forty- 
 three voting in favour of granting the prayer of the petition- 
 ers,— in other words, in favour of abolishing the rites com- 
 plained of, and thirty-five against it. But when the proxies 
 were called for and counted, the scale was turned ; those in 
 favour of the abolition being fifty-eight, and those against it 
 fifty-nine. So that, by a solemn vote of the Convocation, the 
 several rites regarded and complained of, as Popish supersti- 
 tions, and the sign of the cross among the rest, were retained 
 in the Church only by a majority of one. 
 
 In the objections at that time urged against tlie sign of the 
 cross in baptism, by those learned and venerable Episcopal 
 divines, Presbyterians have ever concurred. These objections 
 are the following : 
 
 1. Not the smallest countenance is to be found in Scrip- 
 ture for any such addition to the baptismal rite. Nothing of 
 this kind is pretended to be produced by its most zealous ad- 
 vocates. All acknowledge it to be a human invention. 
 
 2. In the records of the earliest writers by whom it is men- 
 tioned, it appears associated with so much superstition as can- 
 not fail to discredit it in the view of all intelligent Christians. 
 From the very same sources from which we gather the in 
 formation that, in the second and third centuri&s, the sign of 
 
82 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 the cross was added to the rite of baptism, we also learn that 
 there were added to the same ordinance a number of other 
 human inventions — such as " exorcising" the candidate for 
 baptism, to drive away evil spirits; putting into his mouth a 
 mixture of milk and honey, as a symbol of his childhood in 
 a new life ; anointing with spittle and with oil , and the lay- 
 ing on of hands for the purpose of imparting the Holy Spirit. 
 These are all deemed, by Protestants, unwarranted additions 
 to Christ's simple appointment ; and in what respect does the 
 sign of the cross stand upon better ground ? 
 
 3. Tertullian, one of the earhest writers in whom we find 
 any mention made of the sign of the cross as a religious rite, 
 represents it as used in his day with a degree of superstition 
 scarcely credible in such an early age, and which ought to 
 operate as a permanent M'arning to all succeeding ages. 
 "Every step," says he, "that we take, when we come in, 
 and when we go out ; when we put on our clothes or our 
 shoes ; when we bathe, eat, light up candles, go to bed, or sit 
 down, — we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross. 
 If for these, and other acts of discipline of the same kind, 
 you demand a text of Scripture, you will find none ; but tra- 
 dition will be alleged as the prescriber of them."— /)e Corona. 
 cap. iii. The sign of the cross was thought, by those deluded 
 votaries of superstition, a sure preservative against all sorts ot 
 malignity, poisons, or fascination, and effectual to drive away 
 evil spirits. The principal fathers of the fourth century affirm 
 that it was the constant and undoubted means of working many 
 miracles. " This sign," says Chrysostom, "both in the days 
 of our forefathers and our own, has thrown open gates that 
 were shut; destroyed the effect of poisonous drugs; disarmed 
 the force of hemlock; and cured the bites of venomous 
 beasts." — Tom. vii. p. 552. A. 
 
 4. When we consider the miserable superstition with which 
 the use of the sign of the cross is constantly marked by Ro- 
 man Catholics; that they regard it as essential to the validity 
 of the ordinance of baptism ; that they adore it ; that they 
 apply It in every step and act of religious life ; that many of 
 them consider no oath as binding which is taken on the Bible 
 without the figure of the cross upon it; and that they rely 
 upon it as a kind of talisman, connected with every blessing ; 
 — surely, when we see this degrading system of superstition 
 connected with this sign, — acknowledged on all hands to be 
 a mere human invention, — it is no wonder that enlightened 
 and conscientious Christians should feel constrained to lay it 
 aside. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 83 
 
 Section V. — Tf^e reject the Bite of Confirmation. 
 
 In the Apostolic Church, there was no such rite as that 
 which, under this name, has been long established in the 
 Romish communion as a sacrament, and adopted in some 
 Protestant Churches as a solemnity, in their view, if not com- 
 manded, yet as both expressive and edifying. In giving the 
 views of Presbyterians on this subject, it is not at all intended 
 to condemn those who think proper to employ the rite in 
 question ; but only to state with brevity some of the reasons 
 why the venerated fathers of our Church thought proper to 
 exclude it from our truly primitive and apostolical ritual ; and 
 why their sons, to the present hour, have persisted in the 
 same course. 
 
 1. We find no warrant for this rite in the word of God. 
 Indeed, its most intelligent and zealous advocates do not pre- 
 tend to adduce any testimony from Scripture in its behalf. 
 
 2. Quite as little support for it is to be found in the purest 
 and best ages of uninspired antiquity. Toward the close of 
 the second century, indeed, and the beginning of the third, 
 among several human additions to the rite of baptism which 
 had crept into the Church — such as exorcising the infant, to 
 drive away evil spirits — putting a mixture of milk and honey 
 into his mouth — anointing him with spittle and with oil, in the 
 form of a cross ; it became customary to lay on hands, for the 
 purpose of imparting the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This lay- 
 ing on of hands, however, was always done immediately after 
 the application of water, and always by the same minister 
 who performed the baptism. Of course, every one who was 
 authorized to baptize, was also authorized to lay on hands 
 upon the baptized individual. As this was a mere human in- 
 vention, so it took the course which human inventions are apt 
 to take. It was modified as the pride and the selfishness of 
 ecclesiastics prompted. When Prelacy arose, it became cus- 
 tomary to reserve this solemn imposition of hands to Prelates, 
 as a part of their official prerogative. As soon as convenient 
 after baptism, the infant was presented to the bishop, to re- 
 ceive from him the imposition of hands, for conveying the 
 gift of the Spirit. Jerome, in the fourth century, bears wit- 
 ness, however, that this was done rather for the sake of hon- 
 ouring their office, than in obedience to any Divine warrant. 
 But, in process of time, another modification of the rite was 
 introduced. The imposition of the bishop's hands did not 
 take place immediately after baptism, nor even in the infancy 
 of the baptized individual, but was postponed for a number of 
 
84 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 years, according to circumstances, and sometimes even till 
 adult age. Then the young person, or tidult, was presented 
 with great formality to the bishop for his peculiar benediction. 
 Among many proofs that this was not the original nature of 
 the rite, is the notorious fact, that throughout the whole Greek 
 Church, at the present time, the laying on of hands is admi- 
 nistered, for the most part, in close connection with baptism, 
 and is dispensed by any priest who is empowered to baptize, 
 as was done in the third and fourth centuries, before the 
 Greek Church was separated from the Latin. In like man- 
 ner, in the Lutheran and other German Churches, where a 
 sort of confirmation is retained ; although they have ecclesias- 
 tical superintendents or seniors, the act of laying on hands is 
 not reserved to them, but is performed by each pastor for the 
 children of his parochial charge. 
 
 3. The rite of confirmation is not only altogether destitute 
 of Divine warrant, but it is also superfluous. As it was plain- 
 ly, at first, a human invention, founded on the superstitious 
 belief that, by the laying on of hands, the special gifts of the 
 Holy Spirit were to be continued in the Church ; so it is un- 
 necessary. It answers no practical purpose which is not pro- 
 vided for quite as well, to say the least, in the Presbyterian 
 Church, which rejects it. It is said to be desirable that there 
 should be some transaction or solemnity by which young peo- 
 ple, who have been baptized in their infancy, may be called 
 to recognize their religious obligations, and as it were, to take 
 upon themselves the profession and the vows made on their 
 behalf in baptism. Granted. There can be no doubt that 
 such a solemnity is both reasonable in itself, and edifying in 
 its tendency. But have we not just such a solemnity in the 
 Lord's Supper; an ordinance divinely instituted ; an ordinance 
 on which all are qualified to attend, and ought to attend, who 
 are qualified to take on themselves, in any scriptural or ra- 
 tional sense, their baptismal obligations ; an ordinance, in fact, 
 specifically intended, among other things, to answer this very 
 purpose, viz. the purpose of making a personal acknowledg- 
 ment and profession of the truth, the service, and the hopes of 
 Christ; — have we not in the Sacramental Suppei just such a 
 solemnity as we need for the purpose in question simple, ra- 
 tional, scriptural, and to which all our children may come just 
 so soon as they are prepared, in any suitable manner, to con- 
 fess Christ before men ? We do not need confirmation, then, 
 for the purpose for which it is proposed. We liave some- 
 thing better, because appointed of God; quite as expressive; 
 more solemn; and free from certain objectionable features 
 which are next to be mentioned. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 85 
 
 4. Finally ; we reject the rite of confirmation in our Church, 
 because, in addition to all the reasons whicli have been men- 
 tioned, we consider the formulary prescribed lor its adminis- 
 tration in the Church of England, and substantially adopted 
 in the Episcopal Churcli in this country, as liable to the most 
 serious objections. We do not think it a duty to administer, 
 in any form, a rite which the Saviour never appointed ; but 
 our repugnance is greatly increased by the language in which 
 the rite in question is dispensed by those who employ it. In 
 the "Order of Confirmation," as prescribed and used in the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, the follow- 
 ing language occurs. Before the act of laying on hands, the 
 officiating bishop, in his prayer, repeats the following sen- 
 tence : "Almighty and ever living God, who hast vouchsafed 
 to regenerate these thy servants, by water, and tlie Holy 
 Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all tlieir sins," 
 &;c. &c. And again, in another prayer after the imposition 
 of hands, he speaks to the Searcher of hearts thus: "We 
 make our humble supplications unto thee for these thy ser- 
 vants, upon whom, after the example of thy holy Apostles, we 
 have now laid our hands ; to certify them by this sign of thy 
 favour and gracious goodness toward them," &c. And also, 
 in the act of laying on hands, assmning that all who are kneel- 
 ing before him already have the holy sanctifying Spirit of 
 Christ, he prays that they " may all daily increase in this 
 Holy Spirit more and more." 
 
 Such is the language addressed to large circles of young 
 people of both sexes, many of whom there is every reason to 
 fear are very far from having been " born of tlie Spirit," in the 
 scriptural sense of that phrase; nay, some of whom manifest 
 so litde seriousness, that any pastor of enlightened piety 
 would be pained to see them at a communion table ; yet the 
 bishop pronounces them all, and he appeals to heaven for the 
 truth of his sentence — he pronounces them all regenerate, not 
 only by water, but also by the Holy Ghost; certifies to them, 
 in the name of God, that they are objects of the divine 
 " favour ;" and declares that, being already in a state of grace, 
 and reconciliation with God, they are called to " grow in 
 grace," and to "increase in the Holy Spirit more and more." 
 
 An enlightened Presbyterian minister would consider him- 
 self, if he were to use such language, to such a circle, as en- 
 couraging radical misapprehensions of the nature of true reli- 
 gion ; as perverting the doctrine of regeneration by the Holy 
 Spirit ; and as speaking a language adapted fatally to deceive 
 the souls of those whom he addressed. Surely, with such 
 
86 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 views, we should be highly criminal were we to adopt such a 
 rite, and dispense it after such an example. 
 
 Section VI. — JVe reject Kneeling at the LorcVs Supper. 
 
 This is another part of the Romish rituals, which a large 
 body of the most pious and learned divines of the Church of 
 England, at the period of the Reformation, were earnestly de- 
 sirous of having laid aside ; but they were overruled by the 
 Queen, and the court clergy, who chose to retain it ; and it 
 has ever since found a place in the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church. It is well kno^^'n, that Presbyterians differ, in this 
 respect, from their Episcopal neighbours. They prefer what 
 has been commonly called " the table posture," for such rea- 
 sons as the following: 
 
 1. It is granted, on all hands, that the posture in which the 
 Lord's Supper was first administered by the Saviour himself, 
 was that in which it was customary to receive ordinary meals. 
 It is not known that any one denies or doubts this. The 
 Evangelists are too explicit in their statement of this fact to 
 admit of doubt. The Evangelist Matthew declares; " Now 
 when the evening was come, he 5ft/ down with the twelve. 
 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, 
 and brake it, and gave it to his disciples," &c. But if the 
 Saviour himself chose this posture, as most agi'eeable to his 
 will, may we not conclude, that it is, on tlie whole, the wisest 
 and best? 
 
 2. It is very certain that kneeling at the Lord's table was 
 unknown in the Christian Church for a number of centuries 
 after the apostolic age. Indeed, in the second, third, and fol- 
 lowing centuries, it was accounted unlawfid even to kneel on 
 the Lord's day ; this posture being reserved for days of fast- 
 ing and humiliation. This is asserted by Tertullian ; and the 
 Council of Nice passed a solemn decree to the same amount, 
 because on that day is celebrated the joyful remembrance of 
 our Lord's resurrection. This posture, both of public prayer 
 on the Lord's day, and of receiving the communion, was in- 
 variably standing. The proof of this is so complete as to pre- 
 clude the possibility of doubt. The most ardent friends of 
 kneeling do not pretend, so far as is now recollected, to find 
 any example of this posture, in the whole history of the 
 Church, prior to the thirteenth century. That is, not until 
 the Papacy had reached the summit of its system of corrup- 
 tion. And, accordingly, in the Greek Church, which sepa- 
 rated from the Latin, before the doctrine of Transubstantiation 
 arose, kneeling at the communion is unknown. In short, 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 87 
 
 kneeling at tlin Lord's table was not introduced until Tran- 
 substantiation arose; and with Transubstantialion it ought, 
 by Protestants, to have been laid aside. When men began 
 to believe that tlie sacramental elements were really trans- 
 muted into the body and blood of the Redeemer, there was 
 some colour of apology for kneehng and adoring them. But 
 when this error was abandoned, that which had grown out of 
 it ought to have been abandoned also. 
 
 The essential nature of the Eucharist renders the attend- 
 ance upon it in a kneeling posture incongruous, and, of course, 
 unsuitable. This ordinance is a feast, a feast of love, joy, 
 and thanksgiving. The very name, Eucharist, implies as 
 much. It is intended to be a sign of love, confidence, and 
 afi'ectionate fellowship, between each communicant and the 
 master of the feast, and between all the members of his body. 
 It is also intended to be an emblem, and a means of that spi- 
 ritual nourishment which is found in feeding by faith, and, in 
 a spiritual sense, on the body and blood of the Redeemer, set 
 forth in this ordinance as crucified for us. Now, it has been 
 often asked — " In what nation is it thought suitable to kneel 
 at banquets ?" Where do men eat and drink upon their knees ? 
 True, indeed, humility and penitence become us in every ap- 
 proach to God ; and certainly in no case more peculiarly than 
 when we celebrate the Avonders of grace and love manifested 
 in the Saviour's dying for us. Yet it is equally true, that, as 
 the ordinance is, characteristically, a feast of confidence, fel- 
 lowship, joy, and thanksgiving, so the exercises and the pos- 
 ture most becoming the attendance on it, are those which in- 
 dicate gladness, gratitude, and affectionate intercourse. He 
 must be strangely prejudiced in favour of a superstitious pre- 
 cedent, who can persuade himself that kneeling is the most 
 suitable expression of those exercises. 
 
 4. Finally ; the abuse and the misapprehension of the prac 
 lice of kneeling at the Lord's Supper, are considerations of no 
 small weight in the minds of those Avho reject this practice 
 As it originated in gross error, so it is adapted to nourish er 
 ror and superstition ; and however understood by intelligent 
 Christians, it has been misapprehended, and Avill be, as long 
 as it shall be used, misapprehended by many ignorant minds 
 Accordingly, as before stated, when the English Liturgy was 
 revised, and about to be ultimately settled, in the reign of 
 Queen Elizabeth, some of the most pious and learned divines 
 of that Church entreated that kneeling at the Eucharist might 
 either be abolished altogether, or, at least, left optional or in- 
 different. When the divines, appointed to report on the sub- 
 
 8 
 
88 WORSHIi- OF THE 
 
 ject, brought in a report which left it indifferent, the Queen 
 drew her pen over the Hnes which represented it, and made 
 the practice binding. And all that the friends of abolishing 
 the practice could obtain, was a rubric, or marginal advertise- 
 ment, declaring that by communing in this posture, no wor- 
 ship of the elements was intended. This obstinate adherence 
 to tlie practice in question, greatly grieved the foreign Pro- 
 testants, and tlie learned Beza wrote to Archbishop Grindal 
 on the subject, in a style of respectful, but tirm remonstrance. 
 "If," says Beza, "you have rejected the doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation, and the practice of adoring the best, Mhy do 
 you s^Tiibolize with Popery, and seem to hold both by kneel- 
 ing at the Sacrament ? Kneeling had never been thought of 
 had it not been for Transubstantiation." The archbishop re- 
 plied, " That though the Sacrament was to be received kneel- 
 ing, yet the rubric accompanied the service-book, and informed 
 the people that no adoration of the elements was intended." 
 "O! I understand you," said Beza; "there was a certain 
 great lord who repaired his house, and havinji finished it, left 
 before his gate a great stone, for which he had no occasion. 
 This stone caused many people in the dark to stumble and fall. 
 Complaint was made to his lordship, and many an humble 
 petition was presented, praying for the removal of the stone ; 
 but he remained long obstinate. At length he condescended 
 to order a lanthorn to be hun^ over it. ' ]My lord,' said one, 
 ' if you would be pleased to rid yourself of further solicitation, 
 and to quiet all parties, order the stone and the candle to be 
 both removed.' " 
 
 Section VII. — TFe do not Administtr the Lord's Supper in 
 Private. 
 
 Few ordinances have been more misapprehended and per- 
 verted than the Lord's Supper. Before the close of the third 
 centurv', superstitious views of its efficacy, and its necessity 
 to salvation, began to be adopted, and led to a corresponding 
 practice. Entirely mistaking the meaning of John vi. 53, 
 many Christians of that day supposed that no one could die 
 safely without having participated of this ordinance. Accord- 
 ingly, it was not only administered to all adult persons, who 
 professed to be the disciples of Christ ; but also to infants, 
 soon after their baptism. Nay, to such an extravagant height 
 was this phrensy of superstition carried, that when any one 
 had died suddenly, without having partaken of this sacrament, 
 the consecrated elements were, in many instances, thrust into 
 the mouth of the lifeless corpse, in hope that it might yet not 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 89 
 
 be too late to impart a saving: benefit to the deceased. This 
 dehision soon produced, or rather strongly implied the Popish 
 doctrine, that this sacrament, as well as baptism, carried with 
 it an inherent elhcacv, (an opus operatum. as they expressed 
 it,) which insured a saving operation in all cases in which it 
 was regularly administered. From this, the transition was 
 easy to the notion, that the consecrated elements, M-hen exhi- 
 bited, cured diseases, and accomplislied many other wonder- 
 ful miracles. Hence, these elements, before the commence- 
 ment of the third century, after beinff dispensed in the public 
 assembly, were sent, generally by deacons, to tliose who, on 
 any account, were absent. Not long afterwards, the sick, the 
 dyinsr, and those who were confined, on any account, to their 
 dwelling, had a portion of the elements despatched to them, 
 either by ecclesiastics, or, if more convenient, by the hands 
 of laymen, and even children. Some, on receiving- the ele- 
 ments in church, contrived to carry away with them a portion, 
 and Ave re in the habit of taking a small part of this portion 
 every day, for thirty or forty days together. Nay, some car- 
 ried a portion of the sacrament (as they expressed it,) with 
 them on long journics and voyages : had recourse to it as a 
 defence in cases of danger ; and inserted some portion of it in 
 plaisters for healing wounds and ulcers. All this under the 
 impression that these sacramental elements had an inherent 
 energy of the most potent and beneficial kind. No wonder, 
 that wherever these sentiments prevailed, private communion, 
 if such an expression may be allowed, was universal. The 
 sacrament, in a great measure, lost its character as a social 
 ordinance ; and the symbols of the Redeemer's broken bodv 
 and shed blood were considered as invested with a sort of 
 magical influence, wherever they appeared; to be earned 
 about the person as an amulet, for defence ; and resorted to as 
 a medicine of sovereign power. 
 
 It is true, some of these views and habits were checked by 
 the rise of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. AVhen the ele- 
 ments were believed, by the consecrating prayer, to have 
 been transmuted into the real body and blood of Christ, it was 
 thought indecent to carr}- them home, to deposit them in a 
 chest or cupboard, and to swallow a small portion every day. 
 Still the most humiUating superstitions, as to die consecrated 
 elements, continued to prevail. 
 
 When die Reformation took place in the land of our fathers, 
 many of these views and habits, and especially the more gross 
 of them, were happily corrected. Still it is to be lamented, 
 that the Reformation in the Church of England, in respect to 
 
90 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 this ordinance, as well as some others, was not more thorough; 
 and that after all the remonstrances and importunity of the 
 most venerable and pious divines of that Church, a number ol 
 things were left in use, which it were to be wished had been 
 laid aside. Of these the habit of private communion is one. 
 
 The Eucharist is administered, by the clergy of that Church, 
 every day, to the sick and the dying, with scarcely any scru- 
 ple, whenever it is requested. To the worldly, the careless, 
 and even the most profligate, it is freely carried, when they 
 come to die, if they desire it; indeed, some have supposed 
 that any minister who should publicly refuse to administer 
 this ordinance to a sick person, when requested, would be 
 liable, in that country, to a civil prosecution. Suffice it to 
 say, that such a refusal is very seldom given. Even crimi- 
 nals of the most profligate character, just before their execu- 
 tion, always have this sacrament administered to them, if they 
 are willing to receive it, and that when no appearance what- 
 ever of genuine penitence is manifested.* 
 
 Presbyterian ministers, in all ordinary cases, decline ad- 
 ministering the Lord's Supper to the sick and the dying, and 
 generally in private houses, for reasons which appear to them 
 conclusive. They are such as these : 
 
 1 . They consider this ordinance as social and ecclesiastical 
 in its very nature. It is a communion, in which the idea of a 
 "solitary mass," as admitted among Papists, would seem to 
 be an absurdity. 
 
 2. We find no warrant for private communion in the New- 
 Testament. It is true, we read of Christians, in the apos- 
 tolic age, "breaking bread from house to house ;" but that is, 
 evidently, a mode of expressing their ordinary worshipping 
 assemblies. They had no ecclesiastical buildings. They 
 worshipped altogether in private houses, in " upper cham- 
 bers," &.C. There, of course, they administered the commu- 
 nion to as many as could come together. And, as they could 
 not occupy the same apartment statedly, or, at any rate, long 
 together, on account of the vigilance of their persecutors, they 
 went " from house to house" to worship, as circumstances 
 invited ; or in a number of houses at the same time, where 
 Christians were too numerous for a single dwelling. We 
 read of no instance of the sacramental symbols being carried 
 to an individual on a sick bed. On the contrary, when the 
 inspired Apostle gives directions that the sick be visited and 
 
 * See the cases of the hardened Despard and Bellingham, mentioned 
 in the Christian Observer, vol. xiii. p. 6. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 91 
 
 prayed with by the " Elders of the Churcli," James v. 14, 
 he says not a word of administering to them the communion. 
 
 3. If persons, on tlieir dying beds, earnesdy desire this or- 
 dinance to be administered to them, as a viaticum, or prepa- 
 ration for death, and as a kind of pledge of the divine favour 
 and acceptance, we believe that, on this very account, it ought 
 to be refused them. To comply with their wishes, at least 
 in many cases, is to encourage them to rely on the power of 
 an external sign, rather than on the merit of the Saviour him- 
 self. Such views being, manifestly, unscriptural, false, and 
 adapted to deceive and destroy the soul, ought by no means to 
 be countenanced. But what can tend more directly to favour, 
 and even nurture these views, than to hasten with the sacra- 
 mental memorials to the bed-side of every dying person who 
 desires them ? Ought the evident propensity of careless and 
 ungodly men to fly to this ordinance as the last refuge of a 
 guilty conscience, to be deliberately promoted by the minis- 
 ters of religion ? 
 
 4. If this practice be once begun, where is it to end ? All 
 men are serious when they come to die. Even the most pro- 
 fane and licentious, in that crisis, are commonly in no small 
 degree anxious and alarmed, and disposed to lay hold of every 
 thing that seems favourable to the smallest hope. Yet every 
 wise man, who has lived long, and observed much, is deeply 
 suspicious of the sincerity of death-bed penitents. What is a 
 conscientious minister to do in such cases ? How is he to 
 draw the line between those who are, and those who are not, 
 in his judgment, fit subjects for this ordinance ? Is it not un- 
 seasonable, as well as distressing to have any thing like ar- 
 guing or disputing with the sick and the dying on such a 
 subject? On the one hand, if we faithfully refuse to adminis- 
 ter the ordinance where the dying man gives no evidence of 
 either knowledge or faitli' — shall we not agitate the patient, 
 distress his friends, and give against him a kind of public 
 sentence, so far as our judgment goes, of his reprobation ? 
 And, on the other hand, if we strain conscience, and, in com- 
 pliance with earnest wishes, administer the ordinance to those 
 who give no evidence whatever of fitness for it — shall we not 
 run tlie risk of deceiving and destroying souls, by lulling them 
 asleep in sin, and encouraging reliance on an external sign of 
 grace ? Will not by-standers be likely to be fatally injured ^ 
 And shall we not, by every such act, incur great guilt in the 
 sight of God ? 
 
 5. By declining, in all ordinary cases, to administer this 
 ordinance on sick beds, either to saints or sinners, we avoid 
 8* 
 
92 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 these embarrassments so deep and trying to a conscientious 
 man. We avoid multiplied evils, both to the dying them- 
 selves, and their surviving friends. And we shall take a 
 course better adapted than any other to impress upon the minds 
 of men that great and vital truth, that the atoning sacrifice and 
 perfect righteousness of the Redeemer, imputed to us, and re- 
 ceived by faith alone, are the only scriptural foundation of 
 hope toward God : — that, without this faith, ordinances are 
 jnavailing; and with it, though we may be deprived, by the 
 providence of God, of an opportunity of attending on outward 
 ordinances in their prescribed order of administration, all is 
 safe, for time and eternity. The more solemnly and unceas- 
 ingly these sentiments are inculcated, the more we shall be 
 likely to benetit the souls of men ; and the more frequently 
 we countenance any practice which seems to encourage a re- 
 liance on any external rite as a refuge in the hour of deatli, 
 we contribute to the prevalence of a system most unscriptural, 
 deceptive, and fatal in its tendency. 
 
 It was remarked, that Presbyterians take this ground, and 
 act upon these principles in all ordinary cases. It has some- 
 times happened, however, that a devout and exemplary com- 
 municant of our Church, after long enjoying the privileges ot 
 the sanctuary, has been confined for several, perhaps for many 
 years, to a bed of sickness, and been, of course, wholly una- 
 ble to enjoy a communion season in the ordinary form. In 
 such cases, Presbyterian mmisters have sometimes taken the 
 Elders of the Church with them, and also invited half a dozen 
 other friends of the sick person — thus making, in reality, a 
 "church," meeting by its representatives — and administered 
 the communion in the sick chamber. To this no solid objec- 
 tion is perceived. But the moment we open the door — un- 
 less in very extraordinary cases indeed — to the practice of 
 carrying this sacrament to those who have wholly neglected 
 it during their lives, but importunately call for it as a passport 
 to heaven, in the hour of nature's extremity; we countenance 
 superstition ; we deceive souls ; and we pave the way for 
 abuses and temptations, of which no one can calculate the 
 consequences, or see the end. 
 
 Section VIII. — JFe reject bowing at the name of Jesus. 
 
 Those who have frequently witnessed the worship of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, have no doubt observed, that 
 when the name Jesus occurs, in repeating the Apostle's 
 Creed, there is a sensible obeisance, or bowing of the knee, 
 which occurs in pronouncing no other name in the public ser- 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 93 
 
 vice. This obeisance is, in many cases, confined to the 
 pronunciation of the name as it occurs in the Creed. The 
 same name may be pronounced in the other parts of the Litur- 
 gy, or in the sermon, without being accompanied with any 
 such act of reverence. Presbyterians have never adopted this 
 practice, for the following reasons : 
 
 1. We find no semblance of a warrant for it in Scripture. 
 Some Episcopal apologists, indeed, for this practice, of the 
 inferior and less intelligent class, have cited in its defence 
 Philippians ii. 10; but this plea has been abandoned, it is be- 
 lieved, by all truly learned and judicious friends of that deno- 
 mination. Dr. Nichols, one of the most able and zealous 
 advocates of the ritual of the Church of England, expressly 
 says — " We are not so dull as to think that these words can 
 be rigorously applied to this purpose." 
 
 2. It seems unaccountable that the obeisance in question 
 should be so pointedly made at this name of the Saviour, and 
 not at all when his other titles are pronounced. When his 
 tides of God, Redeemer, Saviour, Christ, Immanuel, and even 
 Jehovah, are pronounced, no such testimonial of reverence is 
 manifested. Can any good reason, either in the Bible or out 
 of it, be assigned for this difference? We feel as if, with our 
 views of the subject, it would be superstition in us to adopt 
 or countenance such a practice. 
 
 3. Is not the habit of such observances, without warrant, 
 and, as would seem, without reason, plainly adapted to beget 
 a spirit of superstition, and to occupy our minds with the 
 commandments of men, rather than with the ordinances of 
 Heaven? It will, perhaps, be said in reply, that we surely 
 cannot pronounce the name of Jesus, our adorable Saviour, 
 with too much reverence ; why, then, find fault with an act 
 of obeisance at his glorious name ? True ; every possible 
 degree of reverence is his due. But why not manifest the 
 same at the pronunciation of all his adorable and official names ? 
 Suppose any one were to single out a particular verse of Holy 
 Scripture, and whenever he read that verse were to bow his 
 head, or bend his knees, in token of reverence ; but wholly 
 to omit this act of obeisance in reading all other parts of 
 Scripture, even tliose of exactly the same import as the verse 
 thus distinguished ? Should we not consider his conduct as 
 an example of strange caprice, or of still more strange super- 
 stition ? Such, however, precisely, is the case before us. 
 And if this mode of reading the Scriptures were enjoined by 
 ecclesiastical authority, Ave should, doubtless, consider it as 
 still more stranire. Even this, liowever, is done in the case 
 
94 WORSHIP OF THE 
 
 now under consideration. For the eigliteenth canon of the 
 Church of England contains the following injunction :— 
 *' When in the time of divine service the Lord Jesus shall be 
 mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all per- 
 sons present, as it hath been accustomed." 
 
 This practice of bowing at the name of Jesus, was never 
 heard of in the Christian Church, so far as is now recollected, 
 until ihejifteenth century. Some trace it to the Papal reign 
 of Gregory X., in the thirteenth century. It may possibly 
 have existed then; but the earliest authoritative injunction of 
 it that is remembered, is that of the council of Basil, in 1435. 
 The deplorable state of the Church at that time, both in re- 
 spect to superstition and profligacy, will not furnish, it is pre- 
 sumed, a very strong recommendation of a rite which then- 
 took its rise. A more worthy origin of it is unknown. 
 
 As to the practice of praying toward the east, and that of 
 wearing in the reading desk, or during the prayers, a white 
 surplice, they are too inconsiderable to be made the subjects 
 of particular discussion. Nevertlieless, as this manual is in- 
 tended to give a comprehensive view of the points in which 
 we differ from surrounding denominations, it may not be 
 amiss to say, in passing, that both the practices last mentioned 
 were borrowed from the Pagans. And although plausible 
 reasons soon began to be urged in their favour ; reasons which 
 were made to wear a Christian aspect, yet their heathen ori- 
 gin is unquestionable. True, there is no sin in them. They 
 are litde things ; too little to be formally animadverted upon. 
 Yet they are among the things which we think it our duty to 
 reject. And when asked, as we sometimes are, why we do 
 not adopt them ? we have only to say, tliat our desire is to 
 keep as closely as we can to " the simplicity that is in Christ ;" 
 that to indulge superstition in trivial things, is as really cen- 
 surable, in principle, as in things of more importance ; and 
 that " the beginning of evil is like the letting out of water." 
 And especially when we recollect, that three centuries have 
 not elapsed, since some of these very things were made terms 
 of communion in the land of our fathers ; and some of the 
 most pious and venerable men tliat ever lived in that land, 
 were fined, imprisoned, and ejected from office, because, ac- 
 cording to the popular language of that day, they " scrupled 
 the habits," or the prescribed dress, we shall see the evil of 
 tampering with uncommanded riles. 
 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 95 
 
 Section IX. — JFe reject the reading of Apocryphal Books 
 in public worship. 
 
 The Church of Rome considers a number of the books of 
 (he Apocrypha as canonical ; that is, as belonging to the in- 
 spired canon, and as of equal authority with any of the bcoKs 
 of the Old or New Testament ; and accordingly orders them 
 to be read in her public assemblies, just as the inspired Scrip- 
 tures. Protestants, with one voice, deny thai the Apocry- 
 phal books make any part of the sacred canon, or form any 
 part of the infallible rule of faith and practice. 
 
 In the Church of England, however, large portions of the 
 Apocryphal books are read in her public assemblies, and ap- 
 pealed to as if they were canonical books. It is true, the 
 Church, in her sixth article, declares that these books are not 
 appealed to as any part of the rule of faith ; and they are 
 not read on Sundays. But on holy-days they are read con- 
 tinually. 
 
 The Episcopal Church in this country has adopted the 
 same practice, under the same restrictions. 
 
 Presbyterians object to this practice, and refuse to adopt it 
 for the following reasons. 
 
 1. Because they are persuaded that nothing ought to be 
 read under the name of Holy Scripture, but that which is re- 
 garded as the inspired word of God. To do this, is to depart 
 from an important Protestant principle, and open the door for 
 endless abuse. 
 
 2. Because those Apocryphal books, out of which the les- 
 sons referred to are taken, evidently contain some false doc- 
 trines, some misstatements, and not a few things adapted to 
 promote ridicule rather than edification. 
 
 3. Notwithstanding, in the 6th Article of the Church of 
 England, it is expressly stated, that these Apocryphal books 
 are not read as any part of the rule of faith, still in her 
 Homilies they are spoken of in language of a very different 
 aspect. Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch, and his 
 writing is called the word of the Lord to the Jews. The 
 Book of Tobit is expressly ascribed to the Holy Ghost, in 
 the most unequivocal terms, as follows : " The same lesson 
 doth the Holy Ghost also teach in sundry places of the Scrip- 
 tures, saying ; mercifulness and almsgiving purgeth from all 
 sins, and delivereth from death, and suffereth not the soul to 
 come into darkness," &c. (See Homily against Disobedience 
 and Wilful Rebellion, part i. p. 475 ; and Homily on Alms- 
 deeds, part ii. p. 328.) Surely, if " the Holy Ghost teach- 
 
96 WORSHIP or THE 
 
 eth" what is written in this book, it is an inspired book, and 
 ought to be considered as a part of " the rule of faith." It is 
 worthy of notice here, tliat the Article and Homilies here 
 quoted, make a part of the formularies of the Episcopal 
 Church in the United States, as well as in that of England. 
 
 4, The practice of reading these lessons in public worship, 
 from writings acknowledged not to be canonical, and from 
 writings which contain much exceptionable matter, was early 
 protested against by many of the most learned and pious dig- 
 nitaries, and other divines of the Church of England, and has 
 been, at different times, ever since, matter of regret and com- 
 plaint among the most valuable members of that body; but in 
 spite of these remonstrances and petitions, it has been main- 
 tained to the present day. This fact shows, in a strong light, 
 the mischief of commencing an erroneous practice : and how 
 difficult it is to get rid of any thing of this kind, M'hen it is 
 able to plead established custom in its support. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Such are the considerations which satisfy Presbyterians 
 that their Doctrine, their Ecclesiastical Order, and their Wor- 
 ship, are truly primitive and scriptural. We condemn not 
 our neighbours. To their own Master they stand or fall. 
 Our only object, in what has been said, is to " render a rea- 
 son" for our own belief and practice. The names of other 
 denominations would not have been so much as mentioned, 
 or alluded to, in the foregoing statements, had it been possi- 
 ble, without doing so, to exhibit our own peculiarities, and to 
 show wherein and why we differ from some of our sister 
 churches. But firmly believing that all the leading features 
 of the Presbyterian system are more in accordance with the 
 word of God, and with the usage of the purest and best ages 
 of the Christian Church, than any other, we feel bound to 
 maintain them ; to teach them to our children, and to bear 
 testimony in their favour before the world. We deny to none, 
 who hold fast the essentials of our holy religion, the name ol 
 Christian Churches. It is enough for us to know that we 
 adhere to "the simplicity that is in Christ;" that we walk 
 in the footsteps of the primitive Christians. We forbid none 
 who profess to cast out devils, " because they follow not with 
 
rUESBYTERlAN CHURCH. 97 
 
 US." Let them do all the good they can in their own way. 
 We claim the same privilege ; and only beg to be permitted, 
 with the Bible in our hands, to ascertain "what saith the 
 Scripture;" and how Apostles and martyrs glorified God. 
 We " call no man master; one is our Master, even Christ." 
 And, therefore, throughout the foregoing pages, our primary 
 appeal has been to his fVord, the great statute book of his 
 kingdom. However plausible in theory, or attractive in prac- 
 tice, any rite or ceremony may appear, we dare not adopt it, 
 unless we find some warrant for it in the only infallible guide 
 of the Church. If, then, Presbyterianism, in all its essential 
 features, is plainly found in the word of God ; if it maintains, 
 throughout, the great representative principle which pervades 
 the kingdom of God ; if it guards more perfecdy than any 
 other system, against clerical assumption and tyranny, on the 
 one hand, and against popular excitement and violence on the 
 other ; if it provides, in itself, for complete concert in action, 
 without the necessity of resorting to extra voluntary associa- 
 tions ; if it furnishes the best means for maintaining pure and 
 energetic discipline, and bringing the whole Church m doubt- 
 ful and diflicult cases, to give a calm and equitable judgment; 
 and if it presents the most effectual means of purging out 
 error, and correcting abuses ; then, surely, we have no small 
 evidence that it is from the God of truth and order, and ought 
 to be maintained in all the Churches. 
 
 Let it never be forgotten, however, that, as Presbyterianism, 
 in all its leading features, was, undoubtedly, the jmrnitive 
 and apostolic model of the Church; so, in order to the main- 
 tenance and execution of this system to the best advantage, 
 there must be a large portion of the primitive and apostolic 
 spirit reigning in the Church. No sooner did Christians 
 lose the spirit of the first and purest age, than they began to 
 depart from the simplicity of Christ's institutions. Having less 
 spirituality to present, they thought to compensate for this de- 
 fect by outward show and ceremonial. Uncommanded rites 
 and forms were multiplied, for the purpose of attracting both 
 .Tews and Pagans into the Church. Purity of doctrine gave 
 way to the speculations of philosophy. Purity of discipline 
 became unpopular, and yielded to the laxity of luxurious and 
 fashionable life. Prelacy, as we have seen in a former chap- 
 ter, gradually crept into the Church ; and with it many in- 
 ventions of men to allure and beguile those who had lost all 
 relish for primitive shnplicity. 
 
 Now, just so far as we retain the simple devoted spirit of 
 the apostolic age, we shall love, retain, and honour Presbyte- 
 
1)8 woiiSHip Slc. 
 
 riamsm. Those who possess most of this spirit, will be most 
 friendly to this system. But just in proportion as that spirit 
 declines, Presbyterian doctrines will be thought too rigid; 
 Presbyterian worship will appear too simple and naked ; and 
 Presbyterian discipline will be regarded as too unaccommo- 
 dating and austere. Let Presbyterians, then, learn a lesson 
 of wisdom from this consideration. Let them remember thai 
 their system will never appear so well, or Avork so well, as in 
 the midst of simple, primitive, and devoted piety. This is its 
 genial soil. As long as such a soil is furnished, it will grow. 
 When such a soil is not furnished, it will still live, and do 
 better than any other system, on the whole ; but its highest 
 glory will have departed, and something else will begin to be 
 thought desirable by the votaries of worldly indulgence, and 
 worldly splendour. The friends of our beloved Church 
 ought to know, and lay to heart, that their happiness and 
 their strength consist in cordial and diligent adherence to that 
 vital principle, the language of which is, " None of us liveth 
 to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we 
 live, we live unto the Lord, or whether we die, we die unto 
 the Lord ; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the 
 Lord's." 
 
INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 SCRIPTURAL AND REASONABLE 
 
 BAPTISM 
 
 BV 
 
 SPRINKLING OR AFFUSION, 
 
 THE MOST SUITABLE AND EDIFYING MODE 
 
 By SAMUEL MILLER, D.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN THE 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN TRACT AND SUNDAY SCHOOL SOCIETY. 
 
 WM. S. MARTIEN, PRINTER. 
 
 18 37. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The substance of the following discourses was delivered, in two sermons, m the 
 church in Freehold, Monmouth county, New Jersey, on the 29th of September, 
 1834. A desire for their publication having been expressed by some who heard 
 them, I have thought proper to revise and enlarge the whole, and present it in 
 the present form. Tht? subject is one which has given rise to much warm discus- 
 sion, and it would seem, at first view, to be a worK of supererogation, if not of 
 still more unfavourable character, to trouble the Christian community with an- 
 other treatise upon it. But our Antiposdobaptist brethren appear to be resolved 
 that it shall never cease to be agitated ; and as, indeed, the constant stirring oi 
 this controversy seems to furnish no small share of the very aliment on which they 
 depend for subsistence as a denomination, they cannot be expected to let it rrst. 
 The great importance of the subject, in my estimation ; and the hope that this 
 little volume may reach and benefit some, who are in danger of being drawn into 
 the toils of error, and have no opportunity of perusing larger works, liave induced 
 me to undergo the labour of preparing it for the press. 
 
 My object is not to write for the learned, but to present the subject in that 
 brief, plain, popular manner which is adapted to the case of those who read but 
 little. I have, therefore, designedly avoided t)ie introduction of much matter 
 which propf'tly belongs to the subject, and which is to be found in larger trea- 
 tises; and have especially refrained from entering further into the field of philo- 
 logical discussion, than was absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of my 
 plan. 
 
 If I know my own heart, my purpose is, not to wound the feelings of a human 
 being; not to stir up strife; but to provide a little manual, better adapted than 
 any of this class that I have seen, for the use of those Presbyterians who are con- 
 tinually assaulted, and sometimes perplexed, by their Baptist neighbours. May the 
 Divine benediction rest upon the humble offering ! S. M. 
 
 Princeton, July, 1834. 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1835, by Dr. A. W. Mitchell, 
 in the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District ol 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 DISCOURSE I. 
 
 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us say- 
 ing, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, coine into 
 mine house and abide there. — Acts xvi. 15. 
 
 As MAN has a body as well as a soul, it has pleased infi- 
 nite wisdom to appoint something in religion adapted to both 
 parts of our nature. Something to strike the senses, as well 
 as to impress the conscience and the heart ; or rather, some- 
 thing which might through the medium of the senses, reach 
 and benefit the spiritual part of our constitution. For, as 
 our bodies in this world of sin and death, often become sour- 
 ces of moral mischief and pain, so, by the grace of God, they 
 are made inlets to the most refined moral pleasures, and 
 means of advancement in the divine life. 
 
 But while the outward senses are to be consulted in reli- 
 gion, they are not to be invested with unlimited dominion. 
 Accordingly the external rites and ceremonies of Christi- 
 anity are few and simple, but exceedingly appropriate and 
 significant. We have but two sacraments, the one emble- 
 matical of that spiritual cleansing, and the other of that spiri- 
 tual nourishment, which we need both for enjoyment and 
 for duty. To one of these sacramental ordinances there is a 
 pointed reference in the original commission given by their 
 Master to the apostles : "Go ye into all the world, and 
 preach the Gospel to every creature, — baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the 
 end of the world." (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) And, accord- 
 ingly, wherever the Gospel was received, we find holy 
 baptism reverently administered as a sign and seal of mem- 
 bership in the family of Christ. Thus on the occasion to 
 which our text refers, "a certain woman," we are told, 
 " named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, 
 heard Paul and Silas preach in the city of Philippi ; and the 
 Lord opened her heart, so that she attended unto the things 
 which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, 
 and her household, she besought us, saying. If ye have 
 
 1* 17 
 
6 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into mine house 
 and abide there." 
 
 I propose, my friends, from these words, to address you 
 on the subject of Christian Baptism, You are sensible 
 that this is a subject on which much controversy has exist- 
 ed, in modern times, among professing Christians. It shall 
 be my endeavour, by the grace of God, with all candour and 
 impartiality, to inquire what the Scriptures teach concerning 
 this ordinance, and what appears to have been the practice in 
 regard to it in the purest and best ages of the Christian 
 church, as well as in later times. May I be enabled to 
 speak, and you to hear as becomes those who expect in a 
 little while, to stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 
 
 There are two questions concerning baptism to which I 
 request your special attention at this time, viz : Who are the 
 •proper subjects of this ordinance ? And in what manner 
 ought it to be administered ? To the first of these questions 
 our attention will be directed in the present, and the en- 
 suing discourse. 
 
 I. Who are to be considered as the proper subjects of 
 Christian Baptism? 
 
 That baptism ought to be adminstered to all adult persons, 
 who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and who 
 have not been baptized in their infancy, is not doubted by 
 any. In this all who consider baptism as an ordinance at 
 present obligatory are agreed. But it is well known that 
 there is a large and respectable body of professing Christians 
 among us who believe, and confidently assert, that baptism 
 ought to be confined to adults ; who insist, that when pro- 
 fessing Christians bring their infant offspring, and dedicate 
 them to God, and receive for them the washing of sacra- 
 mental water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost, they entirely pervert and misapply an 
 important Christian ordinance. We highly respect the sin- 
 cerity and piety of many who entertain these opinions ; but 
 we are perfectly persuaded that they are in error, nay in 
 great and mischievous error ; in error which cannot fail of 
 exerting a most unhappy influence on the best interests of the 
 Church of God. We have no doubt that the visible church 
 is made up, not only of those who personally profess the true 
 religion, but also of their children ; and that we are bound not 
 only to confess Christ before men for ourselves, but also to 
 bring our infant seed in the arms of faith and love, and pre- 
 sent them before the Lord, in that ordinance which is at once 
 a seal of God's covenant with his people, and an emblem of 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 those spiritual blessings wliich, as sinners, we and our chil- 
 dren equally and indispensably need. 
 
 Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, with entire con- 
 fidence are the following : 
 
 1. Because in all Jehovah'' s covenants luith his profes- 
 sing people, from the earliest ages, and in all states of so- 
 ciety, their infant seed have been included. That this was 
 the "case with regard to the first covenant made with Adam 
 in paradise, is granted by all ; certainly by all with whom 
 we have any controversy concerning infant baptism. And 
 indeed the consequences of the violation of that covenant to 
 all his posterity, furnish a standing and a mournful testimony 
 that it embraced them all. The covenant made with Noah, 
 after the deluge, was, as to this point, of the same character. 
 Its language was, " Behold, I establish my covenant with 
 thee and with thy seed.'^ The covenant with Abraham was 
 equally comprehensive. " Behold," says Jehovah, " my 
 covenant is with thee. Behold, I establish my covenant 
 with thee, and with thy seed, after thee." The Covenants 
 of Sinai and of Moab, it is evident, also comprehended the 
 children of the immediate actors in the passing scenes, and 
 attached to them, as well as to their fathers, an interest in the 
 blessings or the curses, the promises or the threatenings 
 wliich those covenants respectively included. Accordingly 
 when Moses was about to take leave of the people, he ad- 
 dressed them as " standing before the Lord their God, with 
 their little ones, and their wives, to enter into covenant with 
 the Lord their God." (Deut. xxix. 10—12.) And when 
 we come to the New Testament economy, still we find the 
 same interesting feature not only retained, but more stri- 
 kingly and strongly displayed. Still the promise, it is de- 
 clared, is " to us and our children, even as many as the Lord 
 our God shall call." 
 
 Now, has this been a feature in all Jehovah's covenants 
 with his people in every age ? And shall we admit the idea 
 of its fiiiling in that New Testament or Christian covenant, 
 ^vhich, though the same in substance with those which pre- 
 ceded it, excels them all in the extent of its privileges, and 
 in the glory of its promises ? It cannot be. The thought 
 is inadmissible. But farther, 
 
 2. The close and endearing connection between parents 
 and children affords a strong argument in favour of the 
 church-membership of the infant seed of believers. The 
 voice of nature is lifted up, and pleads most powerfully in 
 behalf of our cause. The thought of severing parents from 
 
8 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 their offspring, in regard to the most interesting relations in 
 which it has pleased God in his adorable providence to 
 place them, is equally repugnant to Christian feeling, and 
 to natural law. Can it be, my friends, that when the stem 
 is in the church, the branch is out of it? Can it be that 
 when the parent is within the visible kingdom of the Re- 
 deemer, his oflspring, bone of his bone, and flesh of his 
 flesh, have no connection with it ? It is not so in any other 
 society that the great moral Governor of the world ever 
 formed. It is not so in civil society. Children are born 
 citizens of the State in which their parents resided at the 
 time of their birth. In virtue of their birth they are plenary 
 citizens, bound by all the duties, and entitled to all the pri- 
 vileges of that relation, whenever they become capable of ex- 
 ercising them. From these duties they cannot be liberated. 
 Of these privileges they cannot be deprived, but by the 
 commission of crime. But why should this great principle 
 be set aside in the church of God ? Surely it is not less 
 obvious or less powerful in grace than in nature. The ana- 
 logies which pervade all the works and dispensations of God 
 are too uniform and striking to be disregarded in an inquiry 
 like the present. But we hasten to facts and considerations 
 still more explicitly laid dow^n in Holy Scripture. 
 
 3. The actual and acknowledged chvrch-membership of 
 infants under the Old Testament economy is a decisive 
 index of the divine will in regard to this matter. 
 
 Whatever else may be doubtful, it is certain that infants 
 were, in fact, members of the church under the former dis- 
 pensation ; and as such, Avere the regular subjects of a cove- 
 nant seal. When God called Abraham, and established his 
 covenant with him, he not only embraced his infant seed, in 
 the most express terms, in that covenant, but he also appoint- 
 ed an ordinance by which this relation of his children to the 
 visible church was publicly ratified and sealed, and that 
 when they were only eight days old. If Jewish adults 
 were members of the church of God, under that economy, 
 then, assuredly, their infant seed were equally members, for 
 they were brought into the same covenant relation, and had 
 the same covenant seal impressed upon their flesh as their 
 adult parents. This covenant, moreover, had a respect to 
 spiritual as well as temporal blessings. Circumcision is ex- 
 pressly declared, by the inspired apostle, to have been "a 
 seal of the righteousness of faith." (Rom. iv. 11.) So far 
 was it from being a mere pledge of the possession of Canaan, 
 and the enjoyment of temporal prosperity there, that it rati 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 fied and sealed a covenant in which " all the families of the 
 earth were to be blessed." And yet this covenant seal was 
 solemnly appointed by God to be administered, and was 
 actually administered, for nearly two thousand years, to in- 
 fants of the tenderest age, in token of their relation to God's 
 covenanted Aimily, and of then- right to the privileges of that 
 covenant. Here then, is a fact, — a fact incapable of being 
 disguised or denied, — nay, a fact acknowledged by all — on 
 which the advocates of infant baptism may stand as upon an 
 immoveable rock. For if infinite wisdom once saw that it 
 was right and fit that infants should be made the subjects of 
 *' a seal of the righteousness of faith," before they were capa- 
 ble of exercising faith, surely a transaction the same in sub- 
 stance may be right and fit now. Baptism, which is, in like 
 manner, a seal of the righteousness of faith, may, without 
 impropriety, be applied equally early. What once, un- 
 doubtedly, existed in the church, and that by divine ap- 
 pointment, may exist still, without any impeachment of 
 either the wisdom or benevolence of Him who appointed it. 
 But, 
 
 4. As the infant seed of the people of God are acknow- 
 ledged on all hands to have been members of the church, 
 equally with their parents under tho Old Testament dispen- 
 sation, so it is eqiiallif certain that ike church of God is the 
 same in substance now that it was then ; and, of course, it 
 is just as reasonable and proper, on principle, that the infant 
 offspring of professed believers should be members of the 
 church now, as it was that they should be members of the 
 ancient church. I am aware that our Baptist brethren 
 warmly object to this statement, and assert that the church 
 of God under the Old Testament economy and the New, is 
 not the same, but so essentially different, that the same prin- 
 ciples can by no means apply to each. They contend that 
 the Old Testament dispensation was a kind of political eco- 
 nomy, rather national than spiritual in its character ; and, of 
 course, that when the Jews ceased to be a people, the cove- 
 nant under which they had been placed, was altogether laid 
 aside, and a covenant of an entirely new character introduced. 
 But nothing can be more evident than that this view of the 
 subject is entirely erroneous. The perpetuity of the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, and, of consequence the identity of the 
 church under both dispensations, is so plainly taught in 
 Scripture, and follows so unavoidably from the radical scrip- 
 tural principles concerning the church of God, that it is 
 indeed wonderful how anv believer in the Bible can call iii. 
 
 17* 
 
10 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 question the fact. Every thing essential to ecclesiastical 
 identity is evidently found here. The same Divine Head ; 
 the same precious covenant ; the same great spiritual design ; 
 the same atoning blood ; the same sanctifying Spirit, in 
 which we rejoice, as the life and the glory of the New Tes- 
 tament church, we knov/, from the testimony of Scripture, 
 were also the Ufe and the glory of the church before the 
 coming of the Messiah. It is not more certain that a man, 
 arrived at mature age, is the same individual that he was 
 when an infant on his mother's lap, than it is that the 
 church, in the plenitude of her light and privileges, after the 
 coming of Christ, is the same church which, many centuries 
 before, though with a much smaller amount of light and pri- 
 vilege, yet, as we are expressly told in the New Testament, 
 (Acts vii. 38,) enjoyed the presence and guidance of her 
 Divine Head " in the wilderness." The truth is, the inspired 
 aposde, in writing to the (jalatians, (iv. 1 — 6,) formally com- 
 pares the covenanted people of God, under the Old Testa- 
 ment economy, to an heir under age. " Now I say, that 
 the heir, as long as lie is a child, differeth nothing from a 
 servant, though he be lord of all ; but is under tutors and 
 governors, until the time appointed of the father. Even so 
 we, when we were children, were in bondage under the 
 elements of the world. But when the fulness of the time 
 was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made 
 under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that 
 we might receive the adoption of sons." 
 
 Hence, the inspired apostle, in writing to the Hebrews, 
 (iv. 2,) referring to the children of Israel, says — " Unto us 
 was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them." Again in 
 WTiting unto the Corinthians, (x. 1 — 4,) he declares, " They 
 did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same 
 spiritual drink ; for they drank it of that spiritual rock which 
 followed them, and that rock was Christ." " Abraham," 
 we are told, (John viii. 56,) "rejoiced to see Christ's day; 
 he saw it, and was glad." And, of the patriarchs generally, 
 we are assured that they saw Gospel promises afar off, and 
 embraced them. The church under the old economy, then, 
 was not only a church — a true cliurch — a divinely consti- 
 tuted church — but it was a Gospel cluurh, a church of Christ 
 — a church built upon the " same foundation as that of the 
 apostles." 
 
 But what places the identity of the church, under both dis- 
 pensations, in the clearest and strongest light, is that memo- 
 rable and decisive passage, in the 11th chapter of the Epistle 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 11 
 
 to the Romans, in which the church of God is held forth to 
 us under the emblem of an oUve tree. Under the same 
 figure had the Lord designated the church by the pen of Je- 
 remiah the prophet, in the 11th chapter of his prophecy. 
 The prophet speaking of God's covenanted people under 
 that economy, says — " The Lord called thy name a green 
 olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit." But concerning this 
 olive tree, on account of the sin of the people in forsaking 
 the Lord, the prophet declares: "With the noise of a great 
 tumult he hath kindled a fire upon it, and the branches of it 
 are broken." Let me request you to compare with this, the 
 language of the aposde in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to 
 the Romans : " For if the casting away of them be the recon- 
 ciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but 
 life from the dead ? For if the first fruit be holy, the lump 
 is also holy ; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 
 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a 
 wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them 
 partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree ; boast not 
 against the branches ; but if thou boast, thou bearest not the 
 root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say, then, the branches 
 were broken off", that I might be grafted in. Well, because 
 of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. 
 Be not high-minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natu- 
 ral branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold, 
 therefore, the goodness and severity of God ! on them which 
 fell severity ; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in 
 his goodness. Otherwise thou also shalt be broken off. 
 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be 
 grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if 
 thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, 
 and wert grafted, contrary to nature, into a good olive tree, 
 how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, 
 be grafted into their own olive tree?" 
 
 That the apostle is here speaking of the Old Testament 
 church, under the figure of a good olive tree, cannot be 
 doubted, and is, indeed, acknowledged by all; by our Bap- 
 tist brethren as well as others. Now the inspired apostle 
 says concerning this olive tree, that the natural branches, 
 that is the Jews, were broken off because of unbelief. But 
 what was the consequence of this excision? Was the tree 
 destroyed? By no means. The apostle teaches directly 
 the contrary. It is evident, from his language, that the root 
 and trunk, in all their "fatness," remained; and Gentiles, 
 branches of an olive tree "wild by nature," were "grafted 
 
12 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 into the good olive tree;" — the •same tree from which the 
 natural branches had been broken ofT. Can any thing be 
 more pointedly descriptive of identity than mis ? But this 
 is not all. The apostle apprizes us that the Jews are to be 
 brought back from their rebellion and wanderings and to be 
 incorporated with the Christian church. And how is this 
 restoration described? It is called "grafting them in again 
 into their own olive tree.^^ In other words, the "tree" into 
 which the Gentile Christians at the coming of Christ were 
 *' grafted," was the "old olive tree," of which the ancient 
 covenant people of God w^ere the " natural branches ;" and, 
 of course, when the Jews shall be brought in, with the ful- 
 ness of the Gentiles, into the Christian church, the apostle 
 expressly tells us they shall be ^^ grafted again into their 
 own olive tree.'^ Surely, if the church of God before the 
 coming of Christ, and the church of God after the advent, 
 were altogether distinct and separate bodies, and not the 
 same in their essential characters, it would be an abuse of 
 terms to represent the Jews, when converted to Christianity, 
 as grafted again into their ovjn olive tree. 
 
 5. Having seen that the infant seed of the professing peo- 
 ple of God were members of the church under the Old Tes- 
 tament economy; and having seen also that the church 
 under that dispensation and the present is the same; we are 
 evidently prepared to take another step, and to infer, that if 
 infants were once members^ and if the church remains the 
 same, they undoubtedly are still members, unless some posi- 
 tive divine enactment excluding them, can be found. As it 
 was a positive divine enactment which brought them in, and 
 gave them a place in the church, so it is evident that a divine 
 enactment as direct and positive, repealing il:*}ir old privilege, 
 and excluding them from the covenanted fanjly, must be 
 found, or they are still in the church. But can such an act 
 of repeal and exclusion, I ask, be produced ? It cannot. It 
 never has been, and it never can be. The introduction of 
 infants into the church by divine appointment, is undoubted. 
 The identity of the church, under both dispensations, is 
 undoubted. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, in 
 which not merely the lineal descendants of Abraham, but 
 "«// the nations of the earth were to be blessed,'*'' is un- 
 doubted. And we find no hint in the New Testament of 
 the high privileges granted to the infant seed of believers 
 being withdrawn. Only concede that it has not been for- 
 mally withdrawn, and it remains of course. The advocates 
 of infant baptism are not bound to produce from the New 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 13 
 
 Testament an express warrant for the membership of the 
 children of believers. The warrant was given most ex- 
 pressly and formally, two thousand years before the New 
 Testament was written ; and having never been revoked, 
 remains firmly and indisputably in force. 
 
 It is deeply to be lamented that our Baptist brethren can- 
 not be prevailed upon to recognise the length and breadth, 
 and bearing of this great ecclesiastical fact. Here were lit- 
 tle children eight days old, acknowledged as members of a 
 covenanted society — a society consecrated to God for spi- 
 ritual as well as temporal benefits — and stamped with a cove- 
 nant seal, by which they were formally bound, as the seed 
 of believers, to be entirely and forever the Lord's. Can in- 
 fant membership be ridiculed, as it often is, without lifting 
 the puny arm against Him who was with " his church in 
 the wilderness, and whose ways are all wise and right- 
 
 eous 
 
 ?" 
 
 6. Our next step is to show that baptism has come in the 
 room of circumcision, and therefore, that the former is 
 rightfully and properly applied to the same subjects as the 
 latter. When we say this, we mean, not merely that cir- 
 cumcision is laid aside in the church of Christ, and that 
 baptism has been brought in, but that baptism occupies the 
 same place, as the appointed initiatory ordinance in the 
 church, and that, as a moral emblem, it means the same 
 thing. The meaning and design of circumcision was 
 chiefly spiritual. It was a seal of a covenant which had not 
 solely, or even mainly, a respect to the possession of Ca- 
 naan, and to the temporal promises which were connected 
 with a residence in that land; but which chiefly regarded 
 higher and more important blessings, even those which are 
 conveyed through the Messiah, in whom "all the families 
 of the earth" are to be blessed. So it is with baptism. 
 WhUe it marks an external relation, and seals outward 
 privileges, it is, as circumcision was, a " seal of the right- 
 eousness of faith," and has a primary reference to the bene- 
 fits of the Messiah's mission and reign. Circumcision was a 
 token of visible membership in the famfly of God, and of 
 covenant obligation to him. So is baptism. Circumcision 
 was the ordinance which marked, or publicly ratified, en- 
 trance into that visible family. So does baptism. Cir- 
 cumcision was an emblem of moral cleansing and purity. 
 'So is baptism. It refers to the remission of sins by the 
 blood of Christ, and regeneration by his Spirit ; and teaches 
 us that we are by nature guilty and depraved, and stand in 
 
 2 
 
14 OFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 need of the pardoning and sanctifying grace of God by a 
 crucified Redeemer. Surely, then, there is the best founda- 
 tion for asserting that baptism has come in the place of cir- 
 cumcision. The latter, as all grant, has been discontinued ; 
 and now baptism occupies the same place, means the same 
 thing, seals the same covenant, and is a pledge of the same 
 spiritual blessings. AVho can doubt, then, that there is the 
 utmost propriety, upon principle, in applying it to the same 
 infant subjects? 
 
 Yet, though baptism manifesdy comes in the place of cir- 
 cumcision, there are points in regard to which the former 
 differs materially from the latter. And it differs precisely as 
 to those points in regard to which the New Testament econ- 
 omy differs from the Old, in being more enlarged, and less 
 ceremonial. Baptism is not ceremonially restricted to the 
 eighth day, but may be administered at any time and place. 
 It is not confined to one sex ; but, like the glorious dispensa- 
 tion of which it is a seal, it marks an enlarged privilege, and 
 is administered in a way which reminds us that " there is nei- 
 ther Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor 
 female, in the Christian economy ; but that we are all one in 
 Christ Jesus." 
 
 7. Again ; it is a strong argument in favour of infant bap- 
 tism, that we find the principle of family baptism again and 
 again adopted in the apostolic age. We are told, by men 
 learned in Jewish antiquities, that, under the Old Testament 
 economy, it was customary, when proselytes to Judaism 
 were gained from the surrounding nations, that all the chil- 
 dren of a family were invariably admitted to membership in 
 the church with their parents ; and on the faith of their 
 parents; that all the males, children and adults, Avere circum- 
 cised, and the whole family, male and female, baptized, and 
 incorporated with the community of God's covenanted peo- 
 ple.* Accordingly, when we examine the New Testament 
 
 * I consider the Jewish baptism of proselytes as a historical fact 
 well established. I am aware that some Pedobaptists, whose judgment 
 and learning I greatly respect, have expressed doubts in relerence to 
 this matter. But when I find the Jews asiung John the Baptist, " Why 
 baptizest thou, then, if thou be not the Christ?" &,c., I can only ac- 
 count for their language by supposing that they had been accustomed 
 to that rite, and expected the Messiah, when he came, to practice it. 
 We have the best evidence that they baptized tlicir proselytes as early 
 as the second century ; and it is altogetlier incredible that they should 
 copy it from the Christians. And a great niaj(jrity of tlie most com- 
 ])eiont judges in tliis case, both Jewish and Chrisiian, from Sclden and 
 liighlfooi down lo Dr. Adam Clarke, have considered the testimony to 
 the fact as abundant and conclusive. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 15 
 
 history, we find that under the ministry of tlie apostles, who 
 were all native Jews, and had, of course, been long accus- 
 tomed to this practice, the same principle of receiving and 
 baptizing families on the faith of the parents, was most evi- 
 dently adopted and acted upon in a very striking manner. 
 When " the heart of Lydia was opened, so that she attended 
 to the things which were spoken by Paul," we are told that 
 " she was baptized and her household." When the jailor at 
 Philippi believed, " he was baptized, he and all liis, straight- 
 way." Thus also we read of " the household of Stephanas" 
 being baptized. Now, though we are not certain that there 
 were young children in any of these families, it is highly 
 probable there were. At any rate, the great principle of 
 family baptism, of receiving all the younger members of 
 households on the faith of their domestic head, seems to be 
 plainly and decisively established. This furnishes ground on 
 which the advocate of infant baptism may stand with unwa- 
 vering confidence. 
 
 And here let me ask, was it ever known that a case of 
 family baptism occurred under the direction of a Baptist min- 
 ister ? Was it ever known to be recorded, or to have hap- 
 pened, that when, under the influence of Baptist ministra- 
 tions, the parents of large families were hopefully converted, 
 they were baptized, they and all their's straightway? There 
 is no risk in asserting that such a case was never heard of. 
 And why ? Evidently, because our Baptist brethren do not 
 act in this matter upon the principles laid down in the New 
 Testament, and which regulated the primitive Christians. 
 
 8. Another consideration possesses much weight here. 
 We cannot imagine that the privileges and the sign of infant 
 membership, to which all the first Christians had been so 
 long accustomed, could have been abruptly withdrawn, ivith- 
 out ivounding the hearts of parents, and producing in them 
 feelings of revolt and complaint against the new economy. 
 Yet we find no hint of this recorded in the history of the 
 apostolic age. Upon our principles, this entire silence pre- 
 sents no difficulty. The old principle and practice of infant 
 membership, so long consecrated by time, and so dear to all 
 the feeUngs of parental affection, went on as before. The 
 identity of the church under the new dispensation with that 
 of the old, being well understood, the early Christians need- 
 ed no new warrant for the inclusion of their infant seed in 
 the covenanted family. As the privilege had not been re- 
 voked, it, of course, continued. A. new and formal enact- 
 ment in favour of the privilege would have been altogether 
 
16 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 superfluous, not to say out of place ; especially as it was well 
 understood, from the whole aspect of the new economy, that, 
 instead of withdrawing or narrowing- the privileges, its whole 
 character was that it rather multiplied and extended them. 
 
 But our Baptist brethren are under the necessity of sup- 
 posing, that such of the first Christians as had been Jews, 
 and who had ever been in the habit of considering their be- 
 loved offspring as included, with themselves, in the privileges 
 and promises of God's covenant, were given to understand, 
 when the New Testament church was set up, that these 
 covenant privileges and promises were no longer to be enjoy- 
 ed by their children ; that they were, henceforth, to be no 
 more connected with the church than the children of the sur- 
 rounding heathen ; and this under an economy distinguished, 
 in every other respect, by greater light, and more enlarged 
 privilege : — I say, our Baptist brethren are under the neces- 
 sity of supposing that the first Christians were met on the 
 organization of the New Testament church, with an an- 
 nouncement of this kind, and that they acquiesced in it with- 
 out a feeling of surprise, or a word of murmur ! Nay, that 
 this whole retrograde change passed with so litde feeling of 
 interest, that it was never so much as mentioned or hinted at 
 in any of the epistles to the churches. But can this suppo- 
 sition be for a moment admitted ? It is impossible. We may 
 conclude, then, that the acknowledged silence of the New 
 Testament as to any retraction of the old privileges, or any 
 complaint of its recall, is so far from warranting a conclusion 
 unfavourable to the church membersliip of infants, that it 
 furnishes a weighty argument of an import directly the re- 
 verse. 
 
 9. Although the New Testament does not contain any 
 specific texts, which, in so many words, declare that the in- 
 fant seed of believers are members of the church in virtue of 
 their birth ; yet it abounds in passages which cannot reason- 
 ably be explained but in harmony with this doctrine. The 
 following are a specimen of the passages to which I refer. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah, though not a New Testament writer, 
 speaks much, and in the most interesting manner, of the New 
 Testament times. Speaking of the " latter day glory," of 
 that day when " the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, 
 and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and when there 
 shall be nothing to hurt or destroy in all God's holy moun- 
 tain;" speaking of that day, the inspired prophet declares, 
 " Behold, I create new heavens, and a new earth, and the 
 former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. F 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 17 
 
 as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine 
 elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall 
 not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are 
 the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with 
 Umn:' Isaiah Ixv. 17, 22, 23. 
 
 The language of our Lord concerning little children can be 
 reconciled with no other doctrine than that which I am now 
 endeavouring to establish, " Then were there brought unto 
 him little children, that he should put his hands on them and 
 pray; and his disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, 
 *' Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, 
 for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands 
 upon them, and departed thence." Matt. xix. 13 — 15. On 
 examining the language used by the several Evangelists in 
 regard to this occurrence, it is evident that the children here 
 spoken of were young children, infants, such as the Saviour 
 could " take in his arms." The language which our Lord 
 himself employs concerning them is remarkable. *' Of such 
 is the kingdom of heaven." That is, theirs is the kingdom 
 of heaven, or, to them belongs the kingdom of heaven. It is 
 precisely the same form of expression, in the original, which 
 our Lord uses in the commencement of his sermon on the 
 mount, when he says, " Blessed are the poor in spirit, for 
 theirs is the kingdom of heaven ;" " Blessed are they that are 
 persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom 
 of heaven." This form of expression, of course, precludes 
 the construction which some have been disposed to put on 
 the passage, in order to evade its force, viz. that it implies, 
 that the kingdom of heaven is made up of such as resemble 
 little children in spirit. We might just as well say, that the 
 kingdom of heaven does not belong to those who are " poor 
 in spirit," but only to those who resemble them ; or, that it 
 does not belong to those who are " persecuted for righteous- 
 ness sake," but only to those who manifest a similar temper. 
 Our Lord's language undoubtedly meant that the kingdom of 
 heaven was really theirs of whom he spake ; that it belonged 
 to them ; that they are the heirs of it, just as the "poor in 
 spirit," and the " persecuted for righteousness sake," are 
 themselves connected in spirit and in promise with that king- 
 dom. 
 
 But what are we to understand by the phrase *' the king- 
 dom of heaven," as employed in this place ? Most mani- 
 festly, we are to understand by it, the visible Church, or the 
 visible kingdom of Christ, as distinguished both from the 
 world, and the old economy. Let any one impartially ex- 
 
 3 18 
 
18 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 amine the Evangelists throughout, and he will find this to be 
 the general import of the phrase in question. If this be the 
 meaning, then our Saviour asserts, in the most direct and 
 ])ointed terms, the reality and the Divine warrant of infant 
 church membership. But even if the kingdom of glory be 
 intended, still our argument is not weakened, but rather for- 
 tified. For if the kingdom of glory belong to the infant seed 
 of believers, much more have they a title to the privileges of 
 the church on earth. 
 
 Another passage of Scripture strongly speaks the same 
 language. I refer to the declaration which we find in the 
 sermon of the apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost. — 
 When a large number of the hearers, on that solemn day, 
 were " pricked in their hearts, and said unto Peter, and to the 
 rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall we do?" 
 The reply of the inspired minister of Christ was, " 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." The apostle is here evidently 
 speaking of the promise of God to his covenant people ; 
 that promise in which he engages to be their God, and to 
 constitute them his covenanted family. Now this promise, 
 he declared to those whom he addressed, extended to their 
 children as well as to themselves, and, of course, gave those 
 children a covenant right to the privileges of the family. But 
 if they have a covenant title to a place in this family, we 
 need no formal argument to show that they are entitled to the 
 outward token and seal of that family. 
 
 I shall adduce only one more passage of Scripture, at pre- 
 sent, in support of the doctrine for which I contend. I refer 
 to that remarkable, and, as it appears to me, conclusive dec- 
 laration of the aposde Paul, concerning children, which is 
 found in the seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians, in reply to a query addressed to him by the mem- 
 bers of that church respecting the Christian law of marriage : 
 " The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife ; and the 
 unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your 
 children unclean, but now are they holy." The great ques- 
 tion in relation to this passage is, in what sense does a believ- 
 ing parent " sanctify" an unbelieving one, so that their chil- 
 dren are " holy ?" It certainly cannot mean, that every pious 
 husband or wife that is allied to an unbelieving partner, is 
 always instrumental in conferring on that partner true spiritual 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. i\s 
 
 purity, or, in other words, regeneration and sanctification of 
 heart ; nor that every child born of parents of whom one is 
 a beUever, is, of course the subject of gospel hoUness, or of 
 internal sanctification. No one who intelligently reads the 
 Bible, or who has eyes to see what daily passes around him, 
 can possibly put such a construction on the passage. Neither 
 can it be understood to mean, as some have strangely imagin- 
 ed, that where one of the parents is a believer, the children 
 are legitimate ; that is, the offspring of parents, one of whom 
 is pious, are no longer bastards, but are to be considered as 
 begotten in lawful wedlock! The word *'holy" is no where 
 applied in Scripture to legitimacy of birth. The advocates 
 of this construction may be challenged to produce a single 
 example of such an application of the term. And as to the 
 suggestion of piety in one party being necessary to render a 
 marriage covenant valid, nothing can be more absurd. Were 
 the marriages of the heathen in the days of Paul all illicit 
 connexions ? Are the matrimonial contracts which take place 
 every day, among us, where neither of the parties are pious, 
 all illegitimate and invalid ? Surely it is not easy to conceive 
 of a subterfuge more completely preposterous, or more adapt- 
 ed to discredit a cause which finds it necessary to resort to 
 such aid. 
 
 The terms " holy" and unclean," as is well known to all 
 attentive readers of Scripture, have not only a Spiritual, but 
 also an ecclesiastical sense in the word of God. While in 
 some cases, they express that which is internally and spiritu- 
 ally conformed to the divine image ; in others, they quite as 
 plainly designate something set apart to a holy or sacred use ; 
 that is, separated from a common or profane, to a holy pur- 
 pose. Thus, under the Old Testament economy, the pecu- 
 liar people of God, are said to be a " holy people," and to 
 be " severed from all other people, that they might be the 
 Lord's ;" not because they were all, or even a majority of 
 them, really consecrated in heart to God ; but because they 
 were all his professing people, — his covenanted people ; they 
 all belonged to that external body which he had called out of 
 the world, and established as the depository of his truth, and 
 the conservator of his glory. In these two senses, the terms 
 *' holy" and " unclean" are used in both Testaments, times 
 almost innumerable. And what their meaning is, in any par- 
 ticular case, must be gathered from the scope of the passage. 
 In the case before us, the latter of these two senses is evi- 
 dently required by the whole spirit of the apostle's reasoning. 
 
 It appears that among the Corinthians, to whom the apos- 
 
INFANT BAPTISxM. 
 
 tie wrote, there were many cases of professing Chnstians 
 being united by the marriage tie with pagans ; the former, 
 perhaps, being converted after marriage ; or being so unwise, 
 as, after conversion, deliberately to form this unequal and 
 unhappy connexion. What was to be deemed of such mar- 
 riages, seems to have been the grave question submitted to 
 this inspired teacher. He pronounces, under the direction of 
 the Holy Spirit, that, in all such cases, when the unbeliever 
 is willing to live with the believer, they ought to continue to 
 live together, that their connexion is so sanctified by the cha- 
 racter of the believing companion, that their children are 
 " holy," that is, in covenant with God ; members of that 
 church with which the believing parent is, in virtue of his 
 profession, united : in one word, that the infidel party is so 
 far, and in such a sense, consecrated by the believing party, 
 that their cliildren shall be reckoned to belong to the sacred 
 family with which the latter is connected, and shall be regard- 
 ed and treated as members of the Church of God.* 
 
 " 'J'he passage thus explained," says an able writer, " es- 
 tablishes the church membership of infants in another form. 
 For it assumes the principle, that when both parents are re- 
 puted believers, their children belong to the Church of God 
 as a matter of course. Tlie whole difficulty proposed by the 
 Corinthians to Paul, grows out of tliis principle. Had he 
 taught, or they understood, that no children, be their parents 
 believers or unbelievers, are to be accounted members of the 
 church, the difficulty could not have existed. For if the 
 faith of both parents could not confer upon the child the pri- 
 vilege of membership, the faith of only one of them certainly 
 could not. The point was decided. It would have been 
 mere impertinence to teaze the apostle with queries which 
 carried their own answers along with them. But on the sup- 
 position that when both parents were members, their children 
 were also members ; the diflTiculty is very natural and serious. 
 " I see," would a Corinthian convert exclaim, *' I see the 
 children of my Christian neighbours, owned as members of 
 the Church of God ; and I see the children of others, who 
 are unbelievers rejected with themselves. I believe in Christ 
 myself; but my husband, my wife, beheves not. What is to 
 become of my children ? Are they to be admitted with my- 
 self ? Or are they to be cast off with my partner ?" 
 
 * It is worthy of notice that tliis interpretation of the passage is 
 Dfloptcd, and decisively maintained by Aui^fuslinc, one of the most 
 pious and learned divines of the fourth century. Dc Sermonc Domini 
 in Montr, ch. 27. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 21 
 
 " JLet not your heart be troubled," replies the apostle, 
 •' God reckons them to the believing, not to the unbeheving 
 parent. It is enough that they are yours. The infidelity of 
 your partner shall never frustrate their interest in the covenant 
 of your God. They are holy because you are so." 
 
 " This decision put the subject at rest. And it lets us 
 know that one of the reasons, if not the chief reason of the 
 doubt, whether a married person should continue, after con- 
 version, in the conjugal society of an infidel partner, arose 
 from a fear lest such continuance should exclude the children 
 from the church of God. Otherwise, it is hard to compre- 
 hend why the apostle should dissuade them from separating 
 by such an argument as he has employed in the text. And 
 it is utterly inconceivable how such a doubt could have enter- 
 ed their minds, had not the membership of infants, born of 
 believing parents, been undisputed, and esteemed a high priv- 
 ilege, so high a privilege, that the apprehension of losing it, 
 made conscientious parents at a stand whether they ought 
 not rather to.break the ties of wedlock, by withdrawing from 
 an unbelieving husband or wife. Thus the origin of this 
 difficulty, on the one hand, and the solution of it, on the 
 other, concur in establishing our doctrine, that by the ap- 
 pointment of God himself, the infants of believing parents 
 are born members of his church."* 
 
 10. Finally ; the history of the Christian Church from 
 the apostolic age, furnishes an argument of irresistible force 
 in favour of the divine authority of infant baptism. 
 
 I can assure you, my friends, with the utmost candour and 
 confidence, after much careful inquiry on the subject, that, 
 for more than fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ, 
 there was not a single society of professing Christians on 
 earth, who opposed infant baptism on any thing like the 
 grounds which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren. It 
 is an undoubted fact, that the people known in ecclesiastical 
 history under the name of the Anabaptists, who arose in Ger- 
 many, in the year 1522, were the very first body of people, 
 in the whole Christian world, who rejected the baptism of 
 infants, on the principles now adopted by the Antipcedobap- 
 tist body. This, I am aware, will be regarded as an unten- 
 able position by some of the ardent friends of the Baptist 
 cause ; but nothing can be more certain than that it is even 
 
 * Essays on the Church of God, by Dr. .1. M. Mason. Christian's 
 Magazine, ii. 49, 50. 
 
 3* 18* 
 
22 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 SO. Of this a short induction of particulars will afford con 
 elusive evidence. 
 
 Tertullian, about two hundred years after the birth of 
 Christ, is the first man of whom we read in ecclesiastical 
 history, as speaking a word against infant baptism ; and he, 
 while he recognises the existence and prevalence of the prac- 
 tice, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if 
 they are not likely to survive the period of infancy ; yet ad- 
 vises that, where there is a prospect of their living, baptism 
 be delayed until a late period in life. But what was the 
 reason of this advice ? The moment we look at the reason, 
 we see that it avails nothing to the cause in support of which 
 it is sometimes produced. Tertullian adopted the supersti- 
 tious idea, that baptism was accompanied with the remission 
 of all past sins ; and that sins committed after baptism were 
 peculiarly dangerous. He, therefore, advised, that not merely 
 infants, but young men and young women ; and even young 
 widows and widowers should postpone their baptism until 
 the period of youthful appetite and passion should have pass- 
 ed. In short, he advised that, in all cases in which death 
 was not likely to intervene, baptism be postponed, until the 
 subjects of it should have arrived at a period of life, when 
 they would be no longer in danger of being led astray by 
 youthful lusts. And thus, for more than a century after the 
 age of Tertullian, we find some of the most conspicuous con- 
 verts to the Christian faith, postponing baptism till the close 
 of life, Constantine the Great, we are told, though a pro- 
 fessing Christian for man)^ years before, was not baptized till 
 after the commencement of his last illness. The same fact is 
 recorded of a number of other distinguished converts to Chris- 
 tianity, about and after that time. But, surely, advice and 
 facts of this kind make nothing in favour of the system of 
 our Baptist brethren. Indeed, taken altogether, their histori- 
 cal bearing is strongly in favour of our system. 
 
 The next persons that we hear of as calling in question 
 the propriety of infant baptism, were the small body of peo- 
 ple in France, about twelve hundred years after Christ, who 
 followed a certain Peter de Bruis, and formed an inconsider- 
 able section of the people known in ecclesiastical history 
 under the general name of the JTaldenses. This body main- 
 tained that infants ought not to be baptized, because they were 
 incapable of salvation. They taught that none could be 
 saved but those who wrought out their salvation by a long 
 course of self-denial and labour. And as infants were inca- 
 pable of thus *' working out their own salvation," they held 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 23 
 
 that making them the subjects of a sacramental seal, was an 
 absurdity. But surely our Baptist brethren cannot be willing 
 to consider these people as their predecessors, or to adopt 
 their creed. 
 
 We hear no more of any society or organized body of 
 %itipcedobaptlsts, until the sixteenth century, when they 
 -irose, as before stated, in Germany, and for the first time 
 broached the doctrine of our modern Baptist brethren. As 
 far as I have been able to discover, they were absolutely un- 
 known in the whole Christian world, before that time. 
 
 But we have something more than mere negative testimony 
 on this subject. It is not only certain, that we hear of no 
 society of Antipoedobaptists resembling our present Baptist 
 brethren, for more than fifteen hundred years after Christ ; 
 but we have positive and direct proof that, during the whole 
 of that time, infant baptism was the general and unopposed 
 practice of the Christian Church. 
 
 To say nothing of earlier intimations, wholly irreconcile- 
 able with any other practice than that of infant baptism, 
 Origen, a Greek father of the third century, and decidedly 
 the most learned man of his day, speaks in the most unequiv- 
 ocal terms of the baptism of infants, as the general practice 
 of the church in his time, and as having been received from 
 the Apostles. His testimony is as follows — " According to 
 the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants ; 
 when if there were nothing in infants which needed forgive- 
 ness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be su- 
 perfluous." (Homil. VIII. in Levit. ch. 12.) Again ; "' In- 
 fants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins ? 
 Or, when have they sinned ? Or, can there be any reason 
 for the laver in their case, unless it be according to the sense 
 which we have mentioned above, viz : that no one is free 
 from pollution, though he has lived but one day upon earth ? 
 And because by baptism native pollution is taken away, there- 
 fore infants are baptized." (Homil. in Luc. 14.) Again : 
 *' For this cause it was that the church received an order from 
 the Apostles to give baptism even to infants."* 
 
 The testimony of Cyprian, a Latin Father of the third 
 century, contemporary with Origen, is no less decisive. It 
 is as follows: 
 
 In the year 253 after Christ, there was a Council of sixty- 
 six bishops or pastors held at Carthage, in wliich Cyprian 
 presided. To this Council, Fidus, a country pastor, pre- 
 
 * Comment, in Epist. ad Romanes. Lib. 5. 
 
24 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 sented the following question, which he wished them, by 
 their united wisdom, to solve — viz. Whether it was neces- 
 sary, in the administration of baptism, as of circumcision, tc 
 wait until the eighth day ; or whether a child might be bap- 
 tized at an earlier period after its birth ? The question, it 
 will be observed, was not whether infants ought to be bapti- 
 zed ? That was taken for granted. But simply, whether it 
 was necessary to wait until the eighth day after their birth ? 
 The Council came unanimously to the following decision, 
 and transmitted it in a letter to the inquirer. 
 
 " Cyprian and the rest of the Bishops who were present 
 in the Council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus, our brother, 
 greeting : 
 
 " As to the case of Infants, — whereas you judge that they 
 must not be baptized within two or three days after they are 
 born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, that 
 no one should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day 
 after he is born ; we were all in the Council of a very dif- 
 ferent opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, 
 no one was of your mind; but we all rather judged that the 
 mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no human being 
 that is born. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion 
 in the Council ; that we ought not to hinder any person from 
 baptism, and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to 
 us all. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more es- 
 pecially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those 
 newly born." (Cyprian, Epist. 66.) 
 
 Surely no testimony can be more unexceptionable and de- 
 cisive than this. Lord Chancellor King, in his account of 
 the primitive church, after quoting what is given above, and 
 much more, subjoins the following remark — " Here, then is 
 a synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as formal as 
 can possibly be expected ; which being the judgment of a 
 synod, is more authentic and cogent than that of a private 
 father ; it being supposable that a private father might Avrite 
 his own particular judgment and opinion only ; but the de- 
 termination of a synod (and he might have added, the unani- 
 mous determination of a synod of sixty-six members) de- 
 notes the common practice and usage of the whole church."* 
 
 The Famous Chrysostom, a Greek father, who flourished 
 towards the close of the fourth century, having had occasion 
 to speak of circumcision, and of the inconvenience and pain 
 which attended its dispensation, proceeds to say — " But our 
 
 * Inquiry into the Constitution, &c. Part II. Chap. 8. 
 
INl'ANT BAPTISM. 25 
 
 circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure with- 
 out pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us 
 with the grace of the Spirit ; and it has no determinate time, 
 as that had ; but one that is in the very beginning of his age, 
 or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in liis old age, 
 ma]' receive this circumcision made without hands ; in which 
 there is no trouble to be undergone but to throw off the load 
 of sins, and to receive pardon for all past offences." (Ho- 
 mil. 40. in Genesin.) 
 
 Passing by the testimony of several other conspicuous 
 writers of the third and fourth centuries, in support of the 
 fact, that infant baptism was generally practised when they 
 wrote, I shall detain you with only one testimony more in re- 
 lation to the history of this ordinance. It is that of Augus- 
 tine, one of the most pious, learned and venerable fathers of 
 the Christian Church, who lived a little more than thre** 
 hundred years after the Apostles, — taken in connexion with 
 that of Pelagius, the learned heretic, who lived at the samr 
 time. Augustine had been pleading against Pelagius, in fa 
 vour of the doctrine of original sin. In the course of thi? 
 plea, he asks — " Why are infants baptized for the remission 
 of sins, if they have no sin?" At the same time intimating 
 to Pelagius, that if he would be consistent with himself, his 
 denial of original sin must draw after it the denial of infant 
 baptism. The reply of Pelagius is striking and unequivocal. 
 *' Baptism," says he, " ought to be administered to infants, 
 with the same sacramental words which are used in the case 
 of adult persons."—" Men slander me as if I denied the sac- 
 rament of baptism to infants." — " I never heard of any, not 
 even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to in- 
 fants; for who can be so impious as to hinder infants from 
 being baptized, and born again in Christ, and so make them 
 miss of the kingdom of God ?" Again : Augustine remarks, 
 in reference to the Pelagians — " Since they grant that infants 
 must be bapiized, as not being able to resist the authority of 
 the whole church, ivhich was doubtless delivered by our Lord 
 and his Apostles; they must consequently grant that they 
 stand in need of the benefit of the Mediator; that being 
 oflfered by the sacrament, and by the charity of the faithful, 
 and so being incorporated into Christ's body, they may be 
 reconciled to God," &;c. Again, speaking of certain heretics 
 at Carthage, who, though they acknowledged infant baptism, 
 took wrong views of its meaning, Augustine remarks — "They, 
 minding the Scriptures, and the authority of the ivholc 
 church, and the form of the sacrament itself, see well that 
 
26 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 baptism in infants is for the remission of sins." Further, m 
 his work against the Donaiists, the same writer speaking of 
 baptized infants obtaining salvation without the personal ex- 
 ercise of faith, he says—" which the whole body of the 
 church holds, as delivered to them in the case of little infants 
 baptized ; who certainly cannot believe with the heart unto 
 righteousness, or confess with the mouth unto salvation, nay, 
 by their crying and noise while the sacrament is administer- 
 ing, they disturb the holy mysteries : and yet no Christian 
 man will say that they are baptized to no purpose." Again, 
 he says — " The custom of our mother the church in bapti- 
 zing infants must not be disregarded, nor be accounted need- 
 less, nor believed to be any thing else than an ordinance de- 
 livered to us from the Apo sties J*^ In short, those who will 
 be at the trouble to consult the large extracts from the writings 
 of Augustine, among other Christian fathers, in the learned 
 fValVs history of Infant Baptism, will find that venerable 
 father declaring again and again that he never met with any 
 Christian, either of the general church, or of any of the sects, 
 nor with any writer, who owned the authority of Scripture, 
 who taught any other doctrine than that infants were to be 
 baptized for the remission of sin. Here, then, were two 
 men, undoubtedly among the most learned then in the world 
 — Augustine and Pelagius ; the former as familiar probably 
 with the writings of all the distinguished fathers who had 
 gone before him, as any man of his time ; the latter also a 
 man of great learning and talents, who had travelled over the 
 greater part of the Christian world ; who both declare, about 
 three hundred years after the apostolic age, that they never 
 saw or heard of any one who called himself a Christian, not 
 even the most impious heretic, no nor any writer who claim- 
 ed to believe in the Scriptures, who denied the baptism of 
 infants. (See Wall's History, Part I. ch. 15 — 19.) Can the 
 most incredulous reader, who is not fast bound in the fetters 
 of invincible prejudice, hesitate to admit, first, that these men 
 verily believed that infant baptism had been the universal prac- 
 tice of the church from the days of the Aposdes ; and, 
 secondly, that, situated and informed as they were, it was im- 
 possible that they should be mistaken. 
 
 The same Augustine, in his Epistle to Boniface, while he 
 expresses an opinion that the parents are the proper persons 
 to offer up their children to God in baptism, if they be good 
 faithful Christians ; yet thinks proper to mention that others 
 may, with propriety, in special cases, perform the same kind 
 office of Christian charity. " You see," says he, " that a 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 27 
 
 great many are offered, not by their parents, but by any other 
 persons, as infant slaves are sometimes offered by their mas- 
 ters. And sometimes when the parents are dead, the infants 
 are baptized, being offered by any that can afford to show 
 this compassion on them. And sometimes infants whom 
 their parents have cruelly exposed, may be taken up and 
 offered in baptism by those who have no children of their 
 own, nor design to have any." Again, in his book against 
 the Donatists, speaking direcdy of infant baptism, he says — 
 *' If any one ask for divine authority in this matter, although 
 that which the ivhole church practises, which was not insti- 
 tuted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably 
 believed to be no other than a thing delivered by the authority 
 of the Apostles ; yet we may besides take a true estimate, 
 how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the 
 circumcision which God's ancient people received. For 
 Abraham was justified before he received circumcision, as 
 Cornelius was endued with the Holy Spirit before he was 
 baptized. And yet the apostle says of Abraham, that he re- 
 ceived the sign of circumcision, ' a seal of the righteousness 
 of faith,' by wliich he had in heart believed, and it had been 
 ' counted to him for righteousness.' Why then was he 
 commanded to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth 
 day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, that it 
 might be counted to them for righteousness ; but for this 
 reason, because the sacrament is, in itself of great impor- 
 tance ? Therefore, as in Abraham, 'the righteousness of 
 faith' went before, and circumcision, ' the seal of the right- 
 eousness of faith came after ;' so in Cornelius, the spiritual 
 sanctification by the gift of the Holy Spirit w^ent before, and 
 the sacrament of regeneration, by the laver of baptism, came 
 after. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day, 
 the seal of the righteousness of faith went before, and (as he 
 was a follower of his father's faith) the righteousness itself, 
 the seal whereof had gone before in his infancy, came after ; 
 so in infants baptized, the sacrament of regeneration goes 
 before, and (if they put in practice the Christian religion) con- 
 version of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in 
 their body, comes after. By all which it appears, that the 
 sacrament of baptism is one thing, and conversion of the 
 heart another." 
 
 So much for the testimony of the Fathers. To me, I 
 acknowledge, this testimony carries with it irresistible con- 
 viction. It is, no doubt, conceivable, considered in itself, that 
 in three centuries from the days of the aposUes, a very mate- 
 
28 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 rial change might have taken place in regard to the subjects 
 of baptism. But that a change so serious and radical as that 
 of which our Baptist brethren speak, should have been intro- 
 duced without the knowledge of such men as have been just 
 quoted, is not conceivable. That the church should have 
 passed from the practice of none but adult baptism, to that 
 of the constant and universal baptism of infants, while such 
 a change was utterly unknown, and never heard of, by the 
 most active, pious, and learned men that lived during that 
 period, cannot, I must believe, be imagined by any impartial 
 mind. Now when Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, de- 
 clare, not only that the baptism of infants was the universal 
 and unopposed practice of the church in their respective 
 times and places of residence ; and when men of so much 
 acquaintance with all preceding writers, and so much 
 knowledge of all Christendom, as Augustine and Pelagius, 
 declared that they never heard of any one who claimed to 
 be a Christian^ either orthodox or heretic, who did not 
 maintain and practice infant baptism; I say, to suppose, 
 in the face of such testimony, that the practice of infant bap- 
 tism crept in, as an unwarranted innovation, between their 
 time and that of the apostles, without the smallest notice of 
 the change having ever reached their ears is, I must be al- 
 lowed to say, of all incredible suppositions, one of the most 
 incredible. He who can believe this, must, it appears to 
 me, be prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical evidence 
 at the shrine of blind and deaf prejudice. 
 
 It is here also worthy of particular notice, tliat those 
 pious and far famed witnesses for the truth, commonly 
 known by the name of the IValdenscs, did undoubtedly hold 
 the doctrine of infant baptism, and practise accordingly. In 
 their Confessions of Faith and other writings, drawn up be- 
 tween the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and in which they 
 represent their creeds and usages as handed down, from father 
 to son, for several hundred years before the Reformation, they 
 speak on the subject before us so frequently and explicitly, 
 as to preclude all doubt in regard to the fact alleged. The 
 following specimen of their language will satisfy every rea- 
 sonable inquirer. 
 
 " Baptism," say they, is administered in a full congrega- 
 tion of the faithful, to the end that he that is received into 
 the church may be reputed and held of all as a Christian 
 brother, and tbat all the congregation may pray for him that 
 he may be a Christian in heart, as he is outwardly esteemed 
 to be a Christian. Jlnd for this cause it is that we present 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 29 
 
 our children in baptism^ which ought to be done by those to 
 whom the children are most nearly related, such as their 
 parents, or those to whom God has given this charity." 
 
 Again; referring to the superstitious additions to baptism 
 which the Papists had introduced, they say, in one of their 
 ecclesiastical documents, — "The things which are not ne- 
 cessary in baptism are, the exorcisms, the breathings, the 
 sign of the cross upon the head or forehead of the infant, the 
 salt put into the mouth, the spittle into the ears and nostrils, 
 the unction of the breast, &;c. From ihese things many 
 take an occasion of error and superstition, rather than of 
 edifying and salvation." 
 
 Understanding that their Popish neighbours charged them 
 with denying the baptism of infants, they acquit themselves 
 of this imputation as follows : 
 
 " Neither is the time nor place appointed for those who 
 are to be baptized. But charity and the edification of the 
 church and congregation ought to be the rule in this matter. 
 
 "Yet, notwithstanding, we bring our children to be bap- 
 tized; which they ought to do to whom they are most near- 
 ly related ; such as their parents, or those whom God hath 
 inspired with such a charity." 
 
 " True it is," adds the historian, " that being, for some 
 hundreds of years, constrained to suffer their children to be 
 baptized by the Romish priests, they deferred the perfor- 
 mance of it as long as possible, because they detested the 
 human inventions annexed to the institution of that holy sa- 
 crament, which they looked upon as so many pollutions of 
 it. And by reason of their pastors, whom they called Bar- 
 bes, being often abroad travelling in the service of the 
 church, they could not have baptism administered to their 
 children by them. They, therefore, sometimes kept them 
 long without it. On account of which delay, the priests 
 have charged them with that reproach. To which charge 
 not only their adversaries have given credit, but also many 
 of those who have approved of their lives and faith in alt 
 other respects.^^* 
 
 * See John Paul Perrin's account of the Doctrine and Order of the 
 Waldenses and Albigcnces ; Sir Samuel Morland's do. ; and also Le- 
 ger's Histoire Generale des Eglises Vaudoises. Mr. William Jones, 
 a Baptist, in a work entitled, a History of the Waldenses, in two vol- 
 umes octavo, professes to give a full account of the Faith and Order 
 of these pious witnesses of the truth ; but, so far as I have observed, 
 carefully leaves out of all their public formularies and oiher docu- 
 ments, every thing which would disclose their Pffidobaptisl principles 
 and practise ! On this artifice comment is unnecessary. 
 
 4 19 
 
30 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 It being so plainly a fact, established by their own un- 
 equivocal and repealed testimony, that the great body of the 
 vValdenses were Poedobaptists, on what ground is it that our 
 Baptist brethren assert, and tliat some have been found to 
 credit the assertion, that those venerable witnesses of the 
 truth rejected the baptism of infants? The answer is easy 
 and ample. A small section of the people bearing the gene- 
 ral name of Waldenses, followers of Peter de Bruis, who 
 were mentioned in a preceding page, while they agreed 
 with the mass of their denomination in most other matters, 
 dilfered from them in regard to the subject of infant baptism. 
 They held, as before stated, that infants were not capable of 
 salvation ; that Christian salvation is of such a nature that 
 none can partake of it but those who undergo a course of 
 rigorous self-denial and labour in its pursuit. Those who 
 die in infancy not being capable of this, the Petrobrussians 
 held that they were not capable of salvation ; and, this being 
 the case, that they ought not to be baptized. This, how- 
 ever, is not the doctrine of our Baptist brethren ; and, of 
 course, furnishes no support to their creed or practice. But 
 the decisive answer is, that the Petrobrussians were a very 
 small fraction of the great Waldensian body; probably not 
 more than a thirtieth or fortieth part of the whole. The 
 great mass of the denomination, however, as such, declare, in 
 their Confessions of Faith, and in various public documents, 
 that they held, and that their fathers before them, for many 
 generations, always held, to infant baptism. The Petro- 
 brussians, in this respect, forsook the doctrine and practice 
 of their fathers, and departed from the proper and established 
 Waldensian creed. If there be truth in the plainest records 
 of ecclesiastical history, this is an undoubted fact. In short 
 the real state of this case may be illustrated by the following 
 representation. Suppose it were alleged that the Baptists in 
 the United States are in the habit of keeping the seventh day 
 of the week as their Sabbath? Would the statement be 
 true ? By no means. There is, indeed, a small section of 
 the Antipoedobaptist body in the United States, usually sty- 
 led " Seventh day Baptists" — probably not a thirtieth part of 
 the whole body — who observe Saturday in each week as 
 their Sabbath. But, notwithstanding this, the proper repre- 
 sentation, no doubt is, — (the only representation that a faith- 
 ful historian of facts M'ould pronounce correct) — that the 
 Baptists in this country, as a general body, observe " the 
 Lord's day" as their Sabbath. You may rest assured, my 
 friends, that this statement most exactly illustrates the real 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 31 
 
 fact with regard to the Waldcnses as Poedobaptists. Twenty- 
 nine parts, at least, out of tliirty, of the whole of that body 
 of witnesses for the truth, were undoubtedly Poedobaptists. 
 The remaining thirtieth part departed from the faith of theii 
 fathers in regard to baptism, but departed on principles alto- 
 gether unlike those of our modern Baptist brethren. 
 
 I have only one fact more to state in referenee to the 
 pious Waldenses, and that is, that soon after the opening of 
 the Reformation by Luther, they souglit intercourse with 
 the Reformed churches of Geneva and France ; held commu- 
 nion with them ; received ministers from them ; and appear- 
 ed eager to testify their respect and affection for them as 
 *' brethren in the Lord." Now it is well known that the 
 churches of Geneva and France, at this time, were in the 
 habitual use of infant baptism. This single fact is sufficient 
 to prove that the Waldenses were Poedobaptists. If they 
 had adopted the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, and laid 
 the same stress on it with them, it is manifest that such 
 intercourse would have been wholly out of the question. 
 
 If these historical statements be correct, and that they are 
 so, is just as well attested as any facts whatever in the annals 
 of the church, the amount of the whole is conclusive, is de- 
 monstrative, that, for fifteen hundred years after Christ, the 
 practice of infant baptism was universal ; that to this general 
 fact there was absolutely no exception, in the whole Chris- 
 tian church, which, on principle, or even analogy, can coun- 
 tenance in the least degree, modern Anti-poedobaptism ; that 
 from the time of the Apostles to the time of Luther, the gene- 
 ral, unopposed, established practice of the church was to re- 
 gard the infant seed of believers as members of the church, 
 and, as such, to baptize them. 
 
 But this is not all. If the doctrine of our Baptist brethren 
 be correct ; that is, if infant baptism be a corruption and a 
 nullity ; then it follows, from the foregoing historical state- 
 ments, most inevitably, that the ordinance of baptism was lost 
 for fifteen hundred years : yes, entirely lost, from the apos- 
 tolic age till the sixteenth century. For there was manifestly, 
 " no society, during that long period, of fifteen centuries, but 
 what was in the habit of baptizing infants." God had no 
 church, then, in the ivorld for so long a period I Can this 
 be admitted ? Surely not by any one who believes in the 
 perpetuity and indestructibility of the houseliold of faith. 
 
 Nay, if the principle of our Baptist brethren be correct, 
 the ordinance of baptism is irrecoverably lost altogether ; 
 that is, irrecoverably without a miracle. Because if, during 
 
d» INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the long tract of time that his been mentioned, there was no 
 true baptism in the church ; and if none but baptized persons 
 were capable of administering true baptism to others? the 
 consequence is plain ; there is no true baptism now in the 
 world ! But can this be believed ? Can we imagine that the 
 great Head of the Church would permit one of his own pre- 
 cious ordinances to be banished entirely from the church for 
 many centuries, much less to be totally lost ? Surely the 
 thought is abhorrent to every Christian feehng. 
 
 Such is an epitome of the direct evidence in favour of in 
 fant baptism. To me, I acknowledge, it appears nothing 
 short of demonstration. The invariable character of all Je- 
 hovah's dealings and covenants with the children of men ; 
 his express appointment, acted upon for two thousand years 
 by the ancient church ; the total silence of the New Testa- 
 ment as to any retraction or repeal of this privilege ; the evi- 
 dent and repeated examples of family baptism in the apostolic 
 age ; the indubitable testimony of the practice of the whole 
 church on the Pcedobaptist plan, from the time of the apos- 
 tles to the sixteenth century, including the most respectable 
 witnesses for the truth in the dark ages ; all conspire to es- 
 tabhsh on the firmest foundation, the membership, and the 
 consequent right to baptism of the infant seed of believers. 
 If here be no divine warrant, we may despair of finding it 
 for any institution in the Church of God. 
 
 DISCOURSE II. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us say- 
 ing — ifye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into mine 
 house, and abide there." — Act? x\'\.\5. 
 
 Having adduced, in the preceding discourse, the direci 
 evidence in support of Infant Baptism, let us now attend to 
 some of the most common and popular objections, brought 
 by our Baptist brethren, against the doctrine which we have 
 attempted to establish. And, 
 
 1. The first is, that we have no direct ivarrant in the Nem 
 Testament, in so many ivords, for Infant Baptism. " We 
 are no where," say our opponents, '• in the history of the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 33 
 
 apostolic age, told, in express terms, either that infants ought 
 to be baptized, or that they were, in fact, baptized. Now is 
 it possible to account for this omission on the supposition that 
 such baptism was generally practised ?" This objection has 
 been urged a thousand times, with great confidence, and with 
 no inconsiderable effect, on the minds of soms serious persons 
 of small knowledge, and of superficial thought. But when 
 thoroughly examined, it will, I am persuaded, appear desti- 
 tute of all solid foundation. 
 
 For, in the first place, even if it were as our Baptist breth 
 ren suppose ; that is, even if no express warrant, in so many 
 words, were found in the New Testament, authorizing and 
 directing infant baptism, could this reasonably be considered, 
 upon Poedobaptist principles, unaccountable, or even wonder- 
 ful ? The Poedobaptist principle, let it be borne in mind, is, 
 that the church under the New Testament economy is the 
 same with the church under the Old Testament dispensation ; 
 that the former was the minority or childhood, the latter the 
 maturity of the visible kingdom of the Messiah ; that one of 
 the most striking features in the New Testament character of 
 this kingdom is, a great increase of light, and enlargement of 
 privilege ; that the infant seed of believers had been born in 
 covenant with God, and their covenanted character marked 
 and ratified by a covenant seal, for two thousand years before 
 Christ appeared ; and that, if this privilege had been inten- 
 ded simply to be continued, no new enactment was necessary 
 to ascertain this intention, but merely allowing it to proceed 
 without interposing any change. This is the ground we take. 
 Now, taking this ground ; assuming as facts what have been 
 just stated as such, can any thing be more perfectly natural 
 than the whole aspect of the New Testament in relation to 
 this subject? Very little, explicit or formal, is said in refer- 
 ence to the covenant standing of children, on the opening of 
 the new economy, simply because no material alteration as to 
 this point, was intended. All the first Christians having been 
 bred under the Jewish economy, and having been always ac- 
 customed to the enjoyment of its privileges, would, of course, 
 expect those privileges to be continued, especially, if nothing 
 were said about their repeal or abridgement. To announce 
 to these Jewish believers, that the covenant standing, and 
 covenant advantages of their beloved children, were not to be 
 withdrawn or curtailed, if no other alteration in reference to 
 this matter, than an increase of privile^'c were intended, would 
 have been just as unnecessary as to inform them that the true 
 God was still to be worshipped, and the atoning sacrifice of 
 
 4* 1 9* 
 
34 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the Messiah still regarded as the only ground of hope. In 
 short, assuming Poedobaptist principles, we might expect the 
 New Testament to exhibit precisely the aspect which it does 
 exhibit. Not to say, in so many words, that the privilege in 
 question was to be continued ; but all along to speak as if 
 this were to be taken for granted, without an explicit enact- 
 ment ; to assure the first Christians that *' the promise was 
 still to them and their children ;" and not to them only, but 
 also to " as many as the Lord their God should call" into his 
 visible church ; to tell them that, in regard to this matter, the 
 administration of his New Testament kingdom was to be 
 such as to abolish all distinction of sex in Christian privilege ; 
 that, in Christ, there was to be no longer a difference made 
 between " male and female ;" and, in conformity with this 
 intimation, and as practical comment upon it, to introduce 
 ivhole families with the converted parents into the church, 
 by the appropriate New Testament rite, as had been invaria- 
 bly practised under the Old Testament economy. 
 
 But now turn, for a moment, to the opposite supposition ; 
 to that of our Baptist brethren. They are obliged, by their 
 system, to take for granted, that, after the children of the 
 professing people of God had been, for nearly two thousand 
 years, in the enjoyment of an important covenant privilege; 
 a privilege precious in itself, and peculiarly dear to the pa- 
 rental heart ; it was suddenly, and without explanation, set 
 aside : that on the opening of the New Testament dispensa- 
 tion, a dispensation of larger promises, and of increased 
 liberality, this privilege was abruptly and totally withdrawn ; 
 that children were ejected from their former covenant rela- 
 tion; that they were no longer the subjects of a covenant 
 seal, or of covenant promises ; and that all this took place 
 without one hint of any reason for it being given ; without 
 one syllable being said, in all the numerous epistles to the 
 churches, by any one of justification or apology, for so im- 
 portant a change! Nay, that, instead of such notice and 
 explanation, a mode of expression, under the new economy, 
 should be throughout used, corresponding with the former 
 practice, and adapted still to convey the idea that both pa- 
 rents and children stood in their old relation, notwithstanding 
 the painful change ! Is this credible ! Can it be believed 
 by any one who is not predetermined to regard it as true ? 
 
 But if the New Testament economy does not include the 
 church membership of the infant seed of believers, such a 
 change, undoubtedly, did take place, on the coming in of 
 the new economy. The Jewish disciples of Christ saw 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 35 
 
 their children at once cut off from the covenant of promise, 
 and denied its appropriate seal, to which they had always 
 been accustomed, and in which the tenderest parental feel- 
 ings were so strongly implicated. Yet we hear of no com- 
 plaint on their part. We find not a word which seems in- 
 tended to explain such a change, or to allay the feelings of 
 those parents who could not fail, if such had been the fact, 
 both to feel and to remonstrate. 
 
 I must say, my friends, that, to my mind, this considera- 
 tion, if there were no other, is conclusive. Instead of our 
 Baptist brethren having a right to call upon us to find a di- 
 rect warrant in the New Testament, in favour of infant 
 membership, we have a right to call upon them to produce 
 a direct warrant for the great and sudden change which they 
 allege took place. If it be, as they say, that tlie New Tes- 
 tament is silent on the subject, this very silence is quite 
 sufficient to destroy their cause, and to establish ours. It 
 affords proof positive that no such change as that which is 
 alleged ever occurred. That a change so important and in- 
 teresting should have been introduced, without one word of 
 explanation or apology on the part of the inspired aposdes, 
 and without one hint or struggle on the part of those who 
 had enjoyed the former privilege; in short, that the old 
 economy, in relation to this matter, should have been entire- 
 ly broken up, and yet the whole subject passed over by the 
 inspired writers in entire silence, is surely one of the most 
 incredible things that can well be imagined ! He who can 
 believe it, must have a mind "fully set in him" to embrace 
 the system which requires it. 
 
 So much on the supposition assumed by our Baptist breth- 
 ren, that there is no direct warrant in the New Testament 
 for infant membership, and of course, none for infant bap- 
 tism. Admitting that the New Testament is silent on the 
 subject, their cause is ruined. No good reason, I had al- 
 most said, no possible reason, can be assigned for such 
 silence, in the circumstances in which the Christian church 
 was placed, but the fact that things, as to this point, were to 
 go on as before. That the old privilege, so dear to the pa- 
 rent's heart, was to receive no other change than a new seal, 
 less burdensome; apphcable equally to both sexes; in a 
 word, recognising, extending, and perpetuating all the privi- 
 leges which they had enjoyed before. 
 
 But It cam\ot be admitted that the New Testament con 
 tains no direct warrant for infant membership. The testi- 
 mony adduced in the preceding discourse is surely worthy, 
 
36 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 to say the least, of the most serious regard. When the Mas- 
 ter himself declares concerning infants, "Of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven;" when an inspired aposde proclaims — 
 "The promise is to us and our children;" and when we 
 plainly see, under the apostolical administration of the 
 church, whole families received, in repeated instances, into 
 the church, on the professed faith of the individuals who 
 were constituted their respective heads, just as we know oc- 
 curred under the old economy, when the membership of in- 
 fants was undisputed : when we read such things as these in 
 the New Testament, we surely cannot complain of the want 
 of testimony which ought to satisfy every reasonable inqui- 
 rer. 
 
 2. A second objection often urged by our Baptist breth- 
 ren, is drawn from what they insist is the general law of 
 "positive institutions. " In cases of moral duty, say they, 
 we are at liberty to argue from inference, from analogy, from 
 implication ; but in regard to positive institutions, our war- 
 rant must be direct and positive. Now, as we nowhere find 
 in the New Testament any positive direction for baptizing 
 infants, the general law, which must govern in all cases of 
 positive institution, plainly forbids it. Here no inferential 
 reasoning can be admitted." 
 
 This argument, I am persuaded, will not be regarded as 
 forcible by any who examine it with attention and impartiality. 
 The whole principle is unsound. The fact is, inferential rea- 
 soning may be, and is in many cases, quite as strong as any 
 other. Besides, if it be contended, that in every thing rela- 
 ting to positive institutes, we must have direct and positive 
 precepts, the assumed principle will prove too much. 
 
 Upon this principle, females ought never to partake of the 
 Lord's Supper ; for we have no positive precept, and no ex- 
 plicit example in the New Testament to warrant them in 
 doing so, and yet our Baptist brethren, forgetting their own 
 principle, unite with all Christians who consider the sacra- 
 mental supper as still obligatory on the church, in admitting 
 females to its participation. This practice is, no doubt, per- 
 fectly right. It rests on the most solid inferential reasoning, 
 which may be just as strong as any other, and which, in this 
 case, cannot be gainsayed or resisted. But every time our 
 Baptist brethren yield to this reasoning, and act accordingly, 
 they desert their assumed principle. 
 
 3. A third objection frequently urged is, that if infant bap- 
 tism had prevailed in the primitive church, we might huve 
 expected to find in the New Testament history some ex 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 37 
 
 amples of the children of professing Christians being bapti- 
 zed in their infancy. Our Baptist brethren remind us that 
 the New Testament history embraces a period of more than 
 sixty years after the organization of the church, under the 
 new economy. "Now," say they, " during this long period, 
 if the principle and practice of infant baptism had been the 
 law of the church, we must, in all probability, have found 
 many instances recorded of the baptism of the children of 
 persons already in the communion of the church. Whereas, 
 in all that is distinctly recorded, or occasionally hinted at, 
 concerning the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, 
 Ephesus, Rome, Galatia, Colosse, &c., we find no mention 
 made of such baptisms. We, therefore, conclude that none 
 such occurred." 
 
 This objection, when examined, will be found, it is believ- 
 ed, to have quite as little weight as the preceding. The prin- 
 cipal object of the New Testament history is to give an ac- 
 count of the progress of the Gospel. Hence it was much 
 more to the purpose of the sacred writers to inform us re- 
 specting the conversions to Christianity, from Judaism and 
 Paganism, than to dwell in detail on what occurred in the 
 bosom of the church itself. Only enough is said on the lat- 
 ter subject to trace the disturbances which occurred in the 
 churches to their proper source, and to render intelligible and 
 impressive the various precepts in relation to these matters 
 which are recorded for the instruction of the people of God 
 in all ages. Hence all the cases of baptism which are re- 
 corded, are cases in which it was administered to converts 
 from Judaism or Paganism, to Christianity. To the best 
 of my recollection, we have no example of a single baptism 
 of any other kind. Now this, upon Poedobaptist principles, 
 is precisely what might have been expected. In giving a 
 history of such churches, who would think of singling out 
 cases of infant baptism ? This is a matter so much of course, 
 and of every day's occurence, that it is in no respect a re- 
 markable event, and, of course, could not be expected to be 
 recorded as such. No wonder, then, that we find no instance 
 of this kind specified in the annals of the apostolical church. 
 
 But this is not all. There is connected with this fact, a 
 still more serious difficulty, which cannot fail of bearing with 
 most unfriendly weight on the Baptist cause. Though it is 
 not wonderful, for the reason just mentioned, that we read of 
 no cases of infant baptism, among the Cliristian families of 
 the apostolical age ; yet, upon Baptist principles, it is much 
 more difficult to be accounted for, that we find no example of 
 
38 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 persons born of Christian parents being baptized in adult 
 agt. Upon those principles, the children of professing 
 Christians bear no relation to the church. They are as com- 
 pleiely " without" as the children of Pagans and Mohamme- 
 dans, until by faith and repentance they are brought within 
 the bond of the covenant. Their being converted and bap- 
 tized, then, w^e might expect to be just as carefully noticed, 
 and just as minutely detailed, as the conversion and baptism 
 of the most complete " aliens from the commonwealth of 
 Israel." Yet the fact is, that during the whole three score 
 years after the ascension of Christ, \vhich the New Testa- 
 ment history embraces, we have no hint of the baptism of 
 any infant born of Christian parents. In my judgment this 
 fact bears very strongly in favour of the Pcedobaptist cause. 
 
 4. It is objected, that Je5i/6' Clirist himse/f was not bap- 
 tized until he icas thirty years of age ; and, therefore, it is 
 inferred, that his disciples ought not to be baptized until they 
 reach adult age. To this objection I reply. 
 
 (1.) Christ was baptized by John. Now, it is certain, that 
 John's Baptism was not Christian baptism ; for it is evident 
 from the Acts of the Apostles, (chap. xix. 1 — 5.) that those 
 who were baptized by John, were baptized over again, " in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus." Besides, it is evident, from the 
 whole passage, that the baptism of Christ by John was an 
 essentially different thing from baptism as now practised in 
 the Christian church. The ministry of John the Baptist was 
 a dispensation, if w^e may say so, intermediate between the 
 Old and the New Testament economies. And, as our bles- 
 sed Lord thought proper to " fulfil all righteousness," he sub- 
 mitted to the baptismal rite which marked that dispensation. 
 Besides, under the Old Testament economy, when the High 
 Priest first entered on his holy office, he was solemnly wash- 
 ed with water. And that officer, w^e know, was wont to 
 come to the discharge of his functions at " about thirty years 
 of age," the very age at which our Saviour was baptized, and 
 entered on his public ministry. In like manner, when the 
 " great High Priest of our profession," Christ Jesus, entered 
 on his public ministry, he thought proper to comply with the 
 same ceremony ; that he might accomplish the prophecy, 
 and fulfil all the typical representations concerning the Savi- 
 our, which had been left on record in the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. The baptism of Christ, then, has no reference 
 to this controversy, and cannot be made to speak either for or 
 against our practice in regard to this ordinance. But 
 
 (2.) If this argument have any force, it proves more than 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 39 
 
 our Baptist brethren are willing to allow, viz : that no per- 
 son ought to be baptized under thirty years of age. So that 
 even a real Christian, however clear his evidences of faith and 
 repentance, though he be twenty, twenty-five, or even twenty- 
 nine years of age, must in no case think of being baptized 
 until he has reached the full age of thirty. A consequence 
 so replete with absurdity, that the simple statement of it 
 is enough to insure its refutation. 
 
 5. A fifth objection continuaUy made by our Baptist breth- 
 ren is, that infants are not capable of those spiritual acts or 
 exercises ivhich the New Testament requires in order to a 
 proper reception of the ordinance of Baptism. Thus the 
 language of the New Testament, on various occasions is — 
 " Repent, and be baptized. Believe, and be baptized. If 
 thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized. 
 They that gladly received the word were baptized. Many of 
 the Corinthians, having believed, were baptized." In short, 
 say our Baptist brethren, as baptism is acknowledged on all 
 hands to be a "seal of the righteousness of faith;" and as 
 infants are altogether incapable of exercising faith : it is, of 
 course, not proper to baptize them. 
 
 In answer to this objection, my first remark is, that all 
 those exhortations to faith and repentance, as prerequisites to 
 baptism, which we find in the New Testament, are addressed 
 to adult persons. And when ive are called to instruct adult 
 persons, who have never been baptized, we always address 
 them precisely in the same way m which the apostles did. 
 We exhort them to repent and believe, and we say, just as 
 Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou 
 mayest be baptized." But this does not touch the question 
 respecting the infant seed of believers. It only shows that 
 when adults are baptized, such a qualification is to be urged, 
 and such a profession required. And in this, all Poedobap- 
 tists unanimously agree. 
 
 But still, our Baptist brethren, unsatisfied with this an- 
 swer, insist, that, as infants are not capable of exercising 
 faith ; as they are not capable of acting either intelligently or 
 voluntarily in the case at all, they cannot be considered as 
 the proper recipients of an ordinance which is represented 
 as a "seal of the righteousness of faith." This objection is 
 urged with unceasing confidence, and not seldom accompa- 
 nied with a sneer or even ridicule, at the idea of applying a 
 covenant seal to those who are incapable of either under- 
 standing, or giving their consent, to the transaction. It is 
 really, my friends, enough to make one shudder to think 
 
40 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 how often, and how unceremoniously lang-uage of this kind 
 is employed by those who acknowledge that infants of 
 eight days old, were once, and that by express Divine ap- 
 pointment, made the subjects of circumcision. Now cir- 
 cumcision is expressly said by the apostle to be a " seal of 
 the righteousness of faith," as well as baptism. But were 
 children of eight days old then capable of exercising faith, 
 when they were circumcised, more than they are now when 
 they are baptized? Surely the objection before us is as 
 valid in the one case as in the other. And, whether our 
 Baptist brethren perceive it or not, all the charges of " ab- 
 surdity" and " impiety" which they are so ready to heap on 
 infant baptism, are just as applicable to infant circumcision 
 as to infant baptism. Are they, then, willing to say, that 
 the application of a " seal of the righteousness of faith" to 
 unconscious infants, of eight days old, who, of course, could 
 not exercise faith, was, under the old economy, preposte- 
 rous and absurd? Are they prepared thus to "charge God 
 foolishly ?" Yet they must do it, if they would be coi^sis- 
 tent. They cannot escape from the shocking alternative. 
 Every harsh and contemptuous epithet which they apply to 
 infant baptism, must, if they would adhere to the principles 
 which they lay down, be applied to infant circumcision. But 
 that which unavoidably leads to such a consequence cannot 
 be warranted by the word of God. 
 
 After all, the whole weight of the objection, in this case, 
 is founded on an entire forge tfulness of the main principle of 
 the Poedobaptist systenjr; It is forgotten that in every case 
 of infant baptism, faith is required, and, if the parents be 
 sincere, is actually exercised. But it is required of the pa- 
 rents, not of the children. So that, if the parent really pre- 
 sent his child in faith, the spirit of the ordinance is entirely 
 met and answered. It was this principle which gave mea- 
 ning and legitimacy to the administration of the correspon- 
 ding rite under the old dispensation. It was because the pa- 
 rents were visibly within the bond of the covenant, that their 
 children were entitled to the same blessed privilege. The 
 same principle precisely applies under the New Testament 
 economy. Nor does it impair the force of this considera- 
 tion to allege, that parents, it is feared, too often present 
 their children, in this solemn ordinance, without genuine 
 faith. It is, indeed, probable that this is often lamentably 
 the fact. But so it was, we cannot doubt, with respect to 
 the corresponding ordinance, under the old dispensation. 
 Yet the circumcision was neither invalidated, nor rendered 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 4l 
 
 unmeaning, by this want of sincerity on the part of the pa- 
 rent. It was sufficient for the visible administration that 
 faith was visibly professed. When our Baptist brethren ad- 
 minister the ordinance of baptism to one who professes to 
 repent and believe, but who is not sincere in this profession, 
 they do not consider his want of faith as divesting the ordi- 
 nance of either its warrant or its meaning. The administra- 
 tion may be regular and scriptural, while the recipient is 
 criminal, and receives no spiritual benefit. It is, in every 
 case, the profession of faith which gives the right, in the eye 
 of the church, to the external ordinance. The want of sin- 
 cerity in this profession, while it deeply inculpates the hypo- 
 critical individual, affects not either the nature or the warrant 
 of the administration. 
 
 6. Again ; it is objected, that baptism can do infants no 
 good. " Where," say our Baptist brethren, " is the benefit 
 of it ? What good can a little ' sprinkling with water' do a 
 helpless, unconscious babe ?" To this objection I might 
 reply, by asking in my turn — What good did circumcision do 
 a Jewish child, helpless and unconscious, at eight days old ? 
 To ask the question is almost impious, because it implies an 
 impeachment of infinite wisdom.* God appointed that ordi- 
 nance to be administered to infants. And accordingly, when 
 the apostle asked, in the spirit of some modern cavillers, 
 " What profit is there of circumcision ?" He replies, much, 
 every way. In like manner, when it is asked, " What pro- 
 fit is there in baptizing our infant children ?" I answer, 
 Much, every way. Baptism is a sign of many important 
 truths, and a seal of many important covenant blessings. Is 
 there no advantage in attending on an ordinance which holds 
 up to our view, in the most impressive symbolical language, 
 several of those fundamental doctrines of the Gospel which 
 are of the deepest interest to us and our offspring ; such as 
 our fallen, guilty, and polluted state by nature, and the 
 method appointed by infinite wisdom and love for our reco- 
 very, by the atoning blood, and cleansing Spirit of the Sa- 
 viour ? Is there no advantage in solemnly dedicating our 
 children to God by an appropriate rite, of his own appoint- 
 ment ? Is there no advantage in formally binding ourselves, 
 by covenant engagements, to bring up our offspring " in the 
 
 * A grave and respectable Baptist minister, in the course of an argu- 
 ment on this subject, candidly acknowledged that the administration 
 of circumcision to an infant eight days old, would have appeared to 
 him a useless, and even a silly rite ! An honest, and certainly a very 
 natural confession. 
 
 20 5 
 
42 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord ?" Is there no advantage 
 in publicly ratifying the connection of our children, as well 
 as ourselves, with the visible church, and as it were binding 
 them to an alliance with the God of their fathers ? Is there 
 nothing, either comforting or useful in solemnly recognising 
 as our own that covenant promise, " I will establish my 
 covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be 
 a God to thee and thy seed after thee?"" Is it a step of no 
 value to our children themselves, to be brought, by a divinely 
 appointed ordinance, into the bosom, and to the notice, the 
 maternal attentions, and the prayers of the church, " the mo- 
 ther of us all ?" And is it of no advantage to the parents, in 
 educating their children, to be able to remind them, from 
 iime to time, that they have been symbolically sanctified, or 
 set apart, by the seal of Jehovah's covenant, and to plead 
 with them by the solemn vows which they have made on their 
 behalf? Verily, my dear friends, those who refuse or ne- 
 glect the baptism of their children, not only sin against 
 Christ by disobeying his solemn command ; but they also 
 deprive both themselves and their children of great benefits. 
 They may imagine that, as it is a disputed point, it may be 
 a matter of indifference, whether their children receive this 
 ordinance in their infancy, or grow up unbaptized. But is 
 not this attempting to be wiser than God ? I do not profess 
 to know all the advantages attendant or consequent on the 
 administration of this significant and divinely appointed rite ; 
 but one thing I know, and that is, that Christ has appointed 
 it as a sign of precious truths, and a seal of rich blessings, to 
 his covenant people, and their infant offspring ; and I have 
 no doubt that, in a multitude of cases, the baptized children, 
 presented by professing parents who had no true faith, but 
 who, by this act, brought their children within the care, the 
 watch, and the privileges of the church, have been instrumen- 
 tal in conferring upon their offspring rich benefits, while 
 they themselves went down to everlasting burnings. If I 
 mistake not I have seen many cases, in which as far as the 
 eye of man could go, the truth of this remark has been sig- 
 nally exemplified. 
 
 Let it not be said, that such a solemn dedication of a child 
 to God, is usurping the rights of the child to judge and act 
 for himself, when he comes to years of discretion ; and that 
 it is inconsistent with the privilege of every rational being to 
 free inquiry, and free agency. This objection is founded on 
 an infidel spirit. It is equally opposed to the religious edu- 
 cation of children; and, if followed out, would militate 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 43 
 
 against all those restraints, and that instruction which the 
 word of God enjoins on parents. Nay, if the principle of 
 this objection be correct, it is wrong to pre-occupy the minds 
 of our children with an abhorrence of lying, theft, drunken- 
 ness, malice, and murder ; lest, forsooth, we should fill them 
 with such prejudices as would be unfriendly to free inquiry. 
 
 The truth is, one great purpose for which the church was 
 instituted, is to watch over and train up children in the know- 
 ledge and fear of God, and thus, to " prepare a seed to serve 
 him, who should be accounted to the Lord for a generation." 
 And I will venture to say, that that system of religion which 
 does not embrace children in its ecclesiastical provisions, and 
 in its covenant engagements, is most materially defective. 
 
 Infants may not receive any apparent benefit from baptism, 
 at the moment in which the ordinance is administered; 
 although a gracious God may, even then, accompany the out- 
 ward emblem with the blessing which it represents, even " the 
 washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy 
 Spirit." This, indeed, may not be, and most commonly, so 
 far as we can judge, is not the case. But still the benefits of 
 this ordinance, when faithfully applied by ministers, and faith- 
 fully received by parents, are abundant — nay, great and im- 
 portant every way. When children are baptized, they are 
 thereby recognised as belonging to the visible church of God. 
 They are, as it were, solemnly entered as scholars or disci- 
 ples in the school of Christ. They are brought into a 
 situation, in which they not only may be trained up for God, 
 but in which their parents are hound so to train them up ; 
 and the church is bound to see that they be so trained, as that 
 the Lord's claim to them shall ever be recognised and main- 
 tained. In a word, by baptism, when the administrators and 
 recipients are both faithful to their respective trusts, children 
 are brought into a situation in which all the means of grace ; 
 all the privileges pertaining to Christ's covenanted family ; in 
 a word, all that is comprehended under the broad and pre- 
 cious import of the term Christian education, is secured to 
 them in the most ample manner. Let parents think of this, 
 when they come to present their children in this holy ordi- 
 nance. And let children lay all this to heart, when they 
 come to years in which they are capable of remembering and 
 realizing their solemn responsibility. 
 
 7. A seventh objection which our Baptist brethren fre- 
 quently urge is, that, upon our plan, the result of baptism 
 seldom corresponds vnth its professed meaning. JFe say it 
 is a symbol of regeneration ; but experience proves that a 
 
44 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 great majority of those infants who arebaptized, never par' 
 take of the grace of regeneration. The practice of Poedo- 
 baptists, they tell us, is adapted to corrupt the church to the 
 most extreme degree, by filling it with unconverted persons. 
 To this objection we reply : 
 
 That baptism is not more generally connected or followed 
 with that spiritual benefit of which it is a striking emblem, 
 is indeed to be lamented. But still this acknowledged fact 
 does not, it is believed, either destroy the significance of the 
 ordinance, or prove it to be useless. If it hold up to view, 
 to all who behold it, every time that it is administered, the 
 nature and necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit ; if 
 it enjoin, and, to a very desirable extent, secure, to the chil- 
 dren of the church enlightened and faithful instruction, in the 
 great doctrines of the Gospel, and this doctrine of spiritual 
 cleansing in particular ; and if it is, in a multitude of cases, 
 actually connected with precious privileges, and saving bene- 
 fits ; we have, surely, no right to conclude that it is of small 
 advantage, because it is not in all cases followed by the bles- 
 sing which it symbolically represents. How many read the 
 Bible without profit ! How many attend upon the external 
 service of prayer, without sincerity, and without a saving 
 blessing ! But are the reading of the Scriptures, and the duty 
 of prayer less obligatory, or of more dubious value on that 
 account? In truth, the same objection might be made to 
 circumcision. That, as well as baptism, was a symbol of re- 
 generation, and of spiritual cleansing: but how many recei- 
 ved the outward symbol without the spiritual benefit? The 
 fact is, the same objection may be brought against every in- 
 stitution of God. They are all richly significant, and abound 
 in spiritual meaning, and in spiritual instruction ; but their 
 influence is moral, and may be defeated by unbelief. They 
 cannot exert a physical power, or convert and save by their 
 inherent energy. Hence they are often attended by many 
 individuals without benefit ; but still their administration is 
 by no means, in respect to the church of God, in vain in the 
 Lord. It is daily exerting an influence of which no human 
 arithmetic can form an accurate estimate. Thousands, no 
 doubt, even of baptized adults receive the ordinance without 
 faith, and of course, without saving profit. But thousands 
 more receive it in faith, and in connexion with those precious 
 benefits of which it is a symbol. This is the case with all 
 ordinances ; but because they are not always connected with 
 saving benefits, we are neither to disparage, nor cease to re- 
 commend them 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 45 
 
 But if baptism be a symbol of regeneration ; if it hold 
 forth to all who receive it, eitlier for themselves or their off- 
 spring, the importance and necessity of this great work of 
 God's grace ; if it bind them to teach tlieir children, as soon 
 as tliey become capable of receiving instruction, this vital 
 truth, as well as all the other fundamental truths of our holy 
 religion ; if, in consequence of their baptism, children are re- 
 cognised as bearing a most important relation to the church of 
 God, as bound by her rules, and responsible to her tribunal : 
 and if all these principles be faithfully carried out into prac- 
 tice : can our children be placed in circumstances more favour- 
 able to their moral beneht ? If not regenerated at the time of 
 baptism, (which the nature of the ordinance does not neces- 
 sarily imply) are they not, in virtue of their connexion with 
 the church, thus ratitied and sealed, placed in the best of all 
 schools for learning, practically, as well as doctrinally, the 
 things of God ? Are they not, by these means, even when 
 they fail of becoming pious, restrained and regulated, and 
 made better members of society ? And are not multitudes of 
 them, after all, brought back from their temporary wanderings, 
 and by the reviving influence of their baptismal seal, and 
 their early training, made wise unto salvation ? Let none 
 say, then, that infant baptism seldom realizes its symbolical 
 meaning. It is, I apprehend, made to do this far more fre- 
 quently than is commonly imagined. And if those who 
 offer them up to God in this ordinance, were more faithful, 
 this favourable result would occur with a frequency more than 
 tenfold. 
 
 8. A further objection often urged by the opponents of in- 
 fant baptism is, that we have the same historical evidence for 
 infant comiminion that vje have for infant baptism ; and 
 that the evidence of the former in the early history of the 
 church, altogether invalidates the historical testimony which 
 we find in favour of the latter. 
 
 In reply to this objection, it is freely granted, that the 
 practice of administering the eucharist to children, and some- 
 times even to very young children, infants, has been in use in 
 various parts of the Christian church, from an early period, 
 and is, in some parts of the nominally Christian world, still 
 maintained. About the middle of the third century, we hear 
 of it in some of the African churches. A misconception of 
 the Saviour's words — " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
 man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you ;" led many 
 to believe that a participation of the Lord's supper was es- 
 sential to salvation. They were, therefore, led to give a small 
 20* 5* 
 
46 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 portion of the sacramental bread dipped in wine to children, 
 and dying persons, who were not able to receive it in the 
 usual form ; and, in some cases, we find that this morsel of 
 bread moistened with the consecrated ^Tine was even forced 
 down the throats of infants, who were reluctant or unable to 
 swallow it. Nay, to so revolting a length was this supersti- 
 tion carried in a few churches, that the consecrated bread and 
 wine united in the same manner as in the case of infants, 
 were thrust into the mouths of the dead, who had departed 
 without receiving them during life ! 
 
 But it is doing great injustice to the cause of infant baptism 
 to represent it as resting on no better ground than the practice 
 of infant communion. The following points of difference 
 are manifest, and appear to me perfectly conclusive. 
 
 ( 1 .) Infant communion derives not the smallest countenance 
 from the word of God ; whereas, with regard to infant bap- 
 tism, we find in Scripture its most solid and decisive support. 
 It would rest on a firm foundation if every testimony out of 
 the Bible were destroyed. 
 
 (2.) The historical testimony in favour of infant commu- 
 nion, is greatly inferior to that which we possess in favour ot 
 infant baptism. We have no hint of the former having been 
 in use in any church until the time of Cyprian, about the 
 middle of the third century ; whereas testimony more or less 
 clear in favour of the latter has come down to us from the 
 apostolic age. 
 
 (3.) Once more: Infant communion by no means stands on 
 a level with infant baptism as to its universcd or even general 
 reception. We find two eminent men in the fourth century, 
 among the most learned then on earth, and who had enjoyed 
 the best opportunity of becoming acquainted with the whole 
 church, declaring that the baptism of infants was a practice 
 which had come down from the apostles, and was universally 
 practised in the church ; nay, that they had never heard of 
 any professing Christians in the world, either orthodox or 
 lieretical, who did not baptize their children. But we have 
 no testimony approaching this, in proof of the early and uni- 
 versal adoption of infant communion. It was manifesdy an 
 innovation, founded on principles which, though, to a melan- 
 choly degree prevalent, were never universally received. 
 And as miserable superstition brought it into the church, so a 
 still more miserable superstition destroyed it. When transub- 
 stantiation arose, the sacred elements, (now transmuted, as 
 was supposed, into the real body and blood of the Saviour) 
 began to be considered as too awful in their character to be 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 47 
 
 imparted to children. But in the Greek church, who sepa- 
 rated from the Latin before the transubstantiation was estab- 
 lished, the practice of infant communion still superstitiously 
 continues. 
 
 9. Again: li is ohieciGdih3.t Pceclobaptists are not consis- 
 tent loith themselves, in that they do not treat their children 
 as if they were members of the church. " Poedobaptists," 
 say our Baptist bretln-en, " maintain that the children of pro- 
 fessing Christians are, in virtue of their birth, members of 
 the church — plenary members — externally in covenant with 
 God, and as such made the subjects of a sacramental seal. 
 Yet we seldom or never see a Poedobaptist church treating 
 her baptized children as church members, that is, instruct- 
 ing, watching over, and disciplining them, as in the case of 
 adult members. Does not this manifest that their system is 
 inconsistent with itself, impracticable, and therefore unsound?" 
 This objection is a most serious and weighty one, and ought 
 to engage the conscientious attention of every Poedobaptist 
 who wishes to maintain his profession with consistency and 
 to edification. 
 
 It cannot be denied, then, that the great mass of the Poedo- 
 baptist churches, do act inconsistendy in regard to this matter. 
 They do not carry out, and apply their own system by a 
 corresponding practice. That baptized children should be 
 treated by the churcli and her officers just as other children 
 are treated : that they should receive the seal of a covenant 
 relation to God and his people, and then be left to negligence 
 and sin, without official inspection, and without discipline, 
 precisely as those are left who bear no relation to the church, 
 is, it must be confessed, altogether inconsistent with the na- 
 ture and design of the ordinance, and in a high degree un- 
 friendly to the best interests of the Church of God. This 
 distressing fact, however, as has been often observed, mili- 
 tates, not against the doctrine itself, of infant membership, but 
 against the inconsistency of those who profess to adopt and 
 to act upon it. 
 
 If one great end of instituting a church, as was before ob- 
 served, is the training up of a godly seed in the way of 
 truth, holiness, and salvation ; and if one great purpose of 
 sacramental seals is to " separate between the precious and 
 the vile," and to set a disdnguishing mark upon the Lord's 
 people ; then, undoubtedly, those who bear this mark, whether 
 infant or adult, ought to be treated with appropriate inspec- 
 tion and care, and their relation to the Church of God never, 
 for a moment, lost sight of or neglected. In regard to adults, 
 
48 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 this duty is generally recognised by all evangelical churches. 
 Why it has fallen into so much neglect, in regard to our in- 
 fant and juvenile members, may be more easily explained 
 than justified. And yet it is manifest, that attention to the 
 duty in question in reference to the youthful members of the 
 church, is not only important, but, in some respects, pre- 
 eminently so ; and peculiarly adapted to promote the ediiica- 
 tion and enlargement of the Christian family. 
 
 If it be asked, what more can be done for the moral culture 
 and welfare of baptized children, than is done ? I answer, 
 much, that would be of inestimable value to them, and to the 
 Christian community. The task, indeed, of training them 
 up for God, is an arduous one, but it is practicable, and 
 the faithful discharge of it involves the richest reward. The 
 following plan may be said naturally to grow out of the doc- 
 trine of infant membership ; and no one can doubt that, if 
 carried into faithful execution, it would form a new and glo- 
 rious era in the history of the Church of God. 
 
 Let all baptized children, from the hour of their receiving 
 the seal of God's covenant, be recorded and recognised as in- 
 fant disciples. Let the officers of the church, as well as 
 their parents according to the flesh, ever regard them with a 
 watchful and affectionate eye. Let Christian instruction, 
 Christian restraint, and Christian warning, entreaty and prayer 
 ever attend them, from the mother's lap to the infant school, 
 and from the infant school to the seminary, whatever it may 
 be, for more mature instruction. Let them be early taught to 
 reverence and read the word of God, and to treasure up 
 select portions of it in their memories. Let appropriate cate- 
 chisms, and other sound compends of Christian truth, be put 
 into their hands, and by incessant repetition and inculcation 
 be impressed upon their minds. Let a school or schools, ac- 
 cording to its extent, be established in each church, placed 
 under the immediate instruction of exemplary, orthodox, and 
 pious teachers, carefully superintended by the pastor, and 
 visited as often as practicable by all the officers of the church. 
 Let these beloved youth be often reminded of the relation 
 which they bear to the Christian family ; and the just claim 
 of Christ to their affections and service, be often presented 
 with distinctness, solemnity, and affection. Let every kind 
 of error and immorality be faithfully reproved, and as far as 
 possible suppressed in them. Let the pastor convene the 
 baptized children as often as practicable, and address them 
 with instruction and exhortation in the name of that God to 
 whom they have been dedicated, and every endeavour made 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 49 
 
 to impress their consciences and their hearts with Gospel 
 truth. When they come to years of discretion, let them be 
 alfectionately rerauided of their duty to ratify, by their own 
 act, the vows made by their parents in baptism, and be urged, 
 again and again, to give, first their hearts, and then the hum- 
 ble acknowledgment of an outward profession, to the Saviour. 
 Let this plan be pursued faithfully, constantly, patiently, and 
 with parental tenderness. If instruction and exhortation be 
 disregarded, and a course of error, immorality, or negligence 
 be indulged in, let warning, admonition, suspension, or ex- 
 communication ensue, according to the character of the indi- 
 vidual, and the exigencies of the case. " What !" some will 
 be disposed to say, " suspend or excommunicate a young 
 person, who has never yet taken his seat at a sacramental 
 table, nor even asked for that privilege ?" Certainly. Why 
 not ? If the children of professing Christians are born mem- 
 bers of the church, and are baptized as a sign and seal of 
 this membership, nothing can be plainer than that they ought 
 to be treated in every respect as church members, and, of 
 course, if they act in an unchristian manner, a bar ought to 
 be set up in the way of their enjoying Christian privileges. 
 If this be not admitted, we must give up the very first princi- 
 ples of ecclesiastical order and duty. Nor is there, obviously 
 any thing more incongruous in suspending or excluding from 
 church privileges a young man, or young woman, who has 
 been baptized in infancy, and trained up in the bosom of the 
 church, but has now no regard for religion, than there is in 
 suspending or excommunicating one who has been, for many 
 years, an attendant on the Lord's table, but has now forsaken 
 the house of God, and has no longer any desire to approach 
 a Christian ordinance. No one would consider it as either 
 incongruous or unreasonable to declare such a person unwor- 
 thy of Christian fellowship, and excluded from it, though he 
 had no disposition to enjoy it. The very same principle 
 applies in the case now under consideration. 
 
 It has been supposed, indeed, by some Poedobaptists, that 
 although every baptized child is a regular church member, he 
 is a member only of the general visible church, and not in 
 the ordinary sense, of any particular church ; and, therefore, 
 that he is not amenable to ecclesiastical discipline until he 
 formally connects himself with some particular church. 
 This doctrine appears to me subversive of every principle of 
 ecclesiastical order. Every baptized child is, undoubtedly, 
 to be considered as a member of the church in which he re- 
 ceived baptism, until he dies, is excommunicated, or regularly 
 
50 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 dismissed to another church. And if the time shall ever come 
 when all our churches shall act upon this plan ; when infant 
 members shall be watched over with unceasing and affection- 
 ate moral care ; when a baptized young person, of either sex, 
 being not yet what is called a communicant, shall be made the 
 subject of mild and faithful Christian discipline, if he fall 
 into heresy or immorality ; when he shall be regularly dis- 
 missed, by letter, from the watch and care of one church to 
 another; and when all his spiritual interests shall be guarded, 
 by the church, as well as by his parents, with sacred and 
 affectionate diligence ; when this efficient and faithful system 
 shall be acted upon, infant baptism will be universally ac- 
 knowledged as a blessing, and the church will shine with new 
 and spiritual glory. 
 
 The truth is, if infant baptism were properly improved ; if 
 the profession which it includes, and the obligations which it 
 imposes, were suitably appreciated and followed up, it would 
 have few opponents. I can no more doubt, if this were done, 
 that it would be blessed to the saving conversion of thousands 
 of our young people, than I can doubt the faithfulness of a 
 covenant God. Yes, infant baptism is of God, but the 
 fault lies in the conduct of its advocates. The inconsistency 
 of its friends has done more to discredit it, than all the argu- 
 ments of its opposers, a hundred fold. Let us hope that 
 these friends will, one day, arouse from their deplorable 
 lethargy, and show that they are contending for an ordinance 
 as precious as it is scriptural. 
 
 10. Another objection, often urged with confidence, against 
 infant membership and baptism is, that, if they be well foun- 
 ded, then it follows, of course, that every baptized young 
 person, or even child, vjho feels disposed to do so, has a 
 right to come to the Lord^s table, ivithout inquiry or per- 
 inission of any one. Upon this principle, say our Baptist 
 brethren, as a Targe portion of those who are baptized in in- 
 fancy arc manifestly not pious, and many of them become 
 openly profligate ; if their caprice or their wickedness should 
 prompt them to go forward, the church would be disgraced 
 by crowds of the most unworthy communicants. 
 
 This objection is founded on an entire mistake. And a 
 recurrence, for one moment, to the principles of civil society, 
 will at once expose it. Every child is a citizen of the coun- 
 try in which he was born : a plenary citizen : there is no 
 such thing as half-way citizenship in this case. He is a free 
 born citizen in the fullest extent of the term. Yet, until he 
 reach a certain age, and possess certain qualifications, he is 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 5i 
 
 not eligible to the most important offices which his country- 
 lias to confer. And after he has been elected, he cannot lake 
 his seat for the discharge of these othcal functions, until he 
 has taken certain prescribed oaths. It is evident that the 
 State has a right, and finds it essential to her well being, by 
 her constitution and her laws, ti\us to limit the rights of the 
 citizen. Sail no one supposes that he is the less a citizen, 
 or thinks of representing him as only a half-way citizen prior 
 to his compliance with these forms. In like manner every 
 baptized child is a member — a plenary member of the church 
 in which he received the sacramental seal. There his mem- 
 bership is recognised and recorded, and there alone can he 
 regularly receive a certificate of this fact, and a dismission 
 to put himself under the watch and care of any other church. 
 Still the church to which this ecclesiastical minor belongs, in 
 the exercise of that "authority which Christ has given, for 
 edification and not for destruction," will not sulfer him, if 
 she does her duty, to come to the Lord's table, until he has 
 reached an age when he has "knowledge to discern the 
 Lord's body," and until he shall manifest that exemplary 
 deportment and hopeful piety which become one who claims 
 the privileges of Christian communion. If he manifest an 
 opposite character, it is her duty, as a part of her stated dis- 
 cipline, to prevent his enjoying these privileges just as it is 
 her duty, in the case of one who has been a communicant 
 for years, when he departs from the order and purity of a 
 Christian profession, to debar him from the continued enjoy- 
 ment of his former good standing. In short, the language of 
 the aposde Paul, though originally intended for a different 
 purpose, is strictly applicable to the subject before us : " The 
 heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from the ser- 
 vant, though he be lord of all ; but is under tutors and gover- 
 nors, until the time appointed of the Father." In a word, 
 in the Church, as well as in the State, there is an order in 
 which privileges are to be enjoyed. As it is not every citi- 
 zen who is eligible to office ; and as not even the qualified 
 have a right to intrude into office uncalled; so youthful 
 church members, like all others, are under the watch and 
 care of the church, and the time and manner in which they 
 shall recognise their baptismal engagements, and come to the 
 enjoyment of plenary privileges, Christ has left his church to 
 decide, on her responsibility to himself. No one, of any age, 
 has a right to come to her communion without the consent of 
 the church. When one, after coming to that communion 
 has been debarred from it for a time, by regular ecclesiastical 
 
52 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 authority, he has no right to come again until the interdict is 
 taken off. Of course, by parity of reasoning, one who has 
 never yet come at all, cannot come without asking and ob- 
 taining the permission of those who are set to govern in the 
 church. 
 
 This view of the subject is at once illustrated and confir- 
 med by the uniform practise of the Old Testament church. 
 The children of Jewish parents, though regular church mem- 
 bers in virtue of their birth, and recognised as such in virtue 
 of their circumcision, were still not allowed to come to the 
 Passover until they were of a certain age, and not even ihen, 
 unless they were ceremonially clean. This is so well attes- 
 ted by sacred antiquarians, both Jewish and Christian, that 
 it cannot be reasonably called in question. Calvin remarks, 
 that " the Passover, which has now been succeeded by the 
 sacred Supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions pro- 
 miscuously ; but was rightly eaten only by those who were 
 of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification." 
 The same distinct statement is also made by the Rev. Dr. 
 Gill, an eminent commentator of the Baptist denomination. 
 "According to the maxims of the Jews," says he, "persons 
 were not obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to the 
 penaltes of it in case of non-performance, until they were, a 
 female, at the age of twelve years and one day, and a male 
 at the age of thirteen years and one day. But then they 
 used to train up their children, and inure them to religious 
 exercises before. They were not properly under the law 
 until they were arrived at the age above mentioned; nor 
 were they reckoned adult church members until then ; nor 
 then neither unless worthy persons ; for so it is said, " He that 
 is worthy, at thirteen years of age, is called a son of the 
 congregation of Israel." (Commentary on Luke ii. 42.) 
 
 The objection, then, before us is of no force. Or rather, 
 the fact which it alleges and deprecates has no existence. It 
 makes no part of the Poedobaptist system. Nay, our system 
 has advantages in respect to this matter, great and radical ad- 
 vantages, which belong to no other. While it regards bap- 
 tized children as members of the church, and solemnly binds 
 the church, as well as the parents, to see that they be faith- 
 fully trained up " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," 
 it recognises the church as possessing, and as bound to exer- 
 cise the power of guarding the communion table from all the 
 profane approaches, even of her own children, and so regu- 
 lating their Chri 'tian culture, and their personal recognition 
 of Christian duty , as shall best serve the great purpose of 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 53 
 
 building up the church as *' an habitation of God through the 
 Spirit.'' 
 
 11. The last objection which I propose to consider is this: 
 "If baptism," say our opponents, " takes the place of cir- 
 cumcision, and if the church is the same in substance now 
 as when circumcision was the initiating seal, then why is not 
 baptism as universal in the New Testament church, as cir- 
 cumcision ivas under the old economy? Why is not every 
 child, under the light of the Gospel, baptized, as every 
 Israelitish child was circumcised." I answer, this undoubt- 
 edly, ought to be the case. That is, all parents, where the 
 Gospel comes, ought to be true believers ; ought to be mem- 
 bers of the Church of Christ themselves ; and ought to dedi- 
 cate their children to God in holy baptism. The command 
 of God calls for it ; and if parents were what they ought to 
 be, they would be all prepared for a proper application of 
 this sacramental seal. Under the Mosaic dispensation, a sin- 
 gle nation of the great human family, was called out of an 
 idolatrous world to be the depository of the word and the 
 ordinances of the true God. Then all who belonged to that 
 nation were bound to be holy ; and unless they were at least 
 ceremonially clean, the divine direction was, that they should 
 be " cut off from their people." The obligation was univer- 
 sal, and the penalty, in case of delinquency, was universal. 
 Multitudes of parents, no doubt, under that economy, pre- 
 sented their children to God in the sacrament of circumcision, 
 who had no true faith ; but they professed to believe ; they 
 attended to all the requisitions of ceremonial cleanness, and 
 that .rendered the circumcision authorized and regular. So 
 in the New Testament church. This is a body, like the 
 other, called out from the rest of mankind, but not confined 
 to a particular nation. It consists of all those, of every na- 
 tion, who profess the true religion. Within this spiritual 
 community baptism ought to be as universal as circumcision 
 was in the old " commonwealth of Israel." Those parents 
 who profess faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and those 
 only, ought to present their children in baptism. There is, 
 indeed, reason to fear that many visible adult members are 
 not sincere. Still, as they are externally regular, their chil- 
 dren are entitled to baptism. And were the whole infant 
 population of our land in these circumstances, they might, 
 and ought to be baptized. 
 
 I have thus endeavoured to dispose of the various objec- 
 tions which our Baptist brethren are wont to urge against the 
 cause of infant baptism. I have conscientiously aimed to 
 21 6 
 
54 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 present them in all their force ; and am constrained to believe 
 that neither Scripture, reason, nor ecclesiastical history afford 
 them tlie least conntenance. The longer I reflect on the 
 subject, the deeper is my conviction, that the membership 
 and the baptism of infants rest on grounds which no fair ar- 
 gument can shake or weaken. 
 
 From the principles implied or established in the forego- 
 ing pages, we may deduce the following practical conclu- 
 sions : 
 
 1. We are warranted in returning with renewed confi- 
 dence to the conclusion stated in advance, in the early part 
 of our first discourse, viz : that the error of our Baptist breth- 
 ren in rejecting the church membership and the baptism of 
 infants, is a most serious and mischievous error. It is not 
 a mere mistake about a speculative point ; but is an error 
 which so directly contravenes the spirit of the whole Bible, 
 and of all Jehovah's covenants with his people, in every age, 
 that it must be considered as invading some of the most vital 
 interests of the body of Christ, and as adapted to exert a most 
 baneful influence on his spiritual kingdom. On this subject, 
 my friends, my expressions are strong, because my convic- 
 tions are strong, and my desire to guard every hearer against 
 mischievous error increasingly strong. I am, indeed, by no 
 means disposed to deny either the piety or the honest con- 
 victions of our respected Baptist brethren in adopting an op- 
 posite opinion from ours, But I am, nevertheless, deeply 
 convinced that their system is not only entirely unscriptural, 
 but also that its native tendency is to place children, who are 
 the hope of the church, in a situation less friendly to the 
 welfare of Zion, and less favourable, by far, to their own 
 salvation, than that in which they are placed by our system ; 
 and that its ultimate influence on the rising generation, on 
 family religion, and on the growth of the church, must be 
 deeply injurious. 
 
 2. Again ; it is evident, from what has been said, that the 
 baptism of our children means much, and involves much 
 solemn tender obligation. We do not, indeed, ascribe to 
 this sacrament that kind of inherent virtue of which some 
 who bear the Christian name have spoken and inferred so 
 much. We do not believe that baptism is regeneration. 
 (See Additional Notes.) We consider this as a doctrine 
 having no foundation in the word of God, and as eminently 
 fitted to deceive and destroy the soul. We do not suppose 
 that the ordinance, whenever legitimately administered, is 
 necessarily accompanied with any physical or moral influ- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 55 
 
 ence, operating either on the soul or the body of him who 
 receives it. Yet, on the other hand, we do not consider it 
 as a mere unmeaning ceremony. We cannot regard it as the 
 mere giving a name to the child to whom it is dispensed. 
 Multitudes appear to regard it as amounting to little, if any 
 more than one or both of these. And, therefore, they con- 
 sider the season of its celebration as a kind of ecclesiastical 
 festival or pageant. They would not, on any account, have 
 the baptism of their children neglected ; and yet they solicit 
 and receive it for their offspring, with scarcely one serious 
 or appropriate thought ; without any enlightened or adequate 
 impression of what it means, or what obligation it imposes 
 on them or their children. A baptism, like a marriage, is re- 
 garded by multitudes as an appropriate season for congratula- 
 tion and feasting, and very little more, in connection with it, 
 seems to occur to their minds. This is deeply to be deplo- 
 red. The minds of the mass of mankind seem to be ever 
 prone to vibrate from superstition to impiety, and from im- 
 piety back to superstition. Those simple, spiritual views 
 of truth, and of Christian ordinances which the Bible every 
 where holds forth, and which alone tend to real benefit, too 
 seldom enlighten and govern the mass of those who bear the 
 Christian name. Now, the truth is, little as it is recollected 
 and laid to heart, few things can be more expressive, more 
 solemn, or more interesting, more touching in its appeals, 
 more deeply comprehensive in its import, or more weighty 
 in the obligations which it involves, than the baptism of an 
 infant. I repeat it — and oh, that the sentence could be made 
 to thrill through every parent's heart in Christendom — the 
 baptism of a child is one of the solemn transactions pertain- 
 ing; to our holy religion. A human being, just opening its 
 eyes on the world ; presented to that God who made it, de- 
 voted to that Saviour without an interest in whose atoning 
 blood, it had better never have been born ; and consecrated 
 to that Holy Spirit, who alone can sanctify and prepare it 
 for heaven; is indeed a spectacle adapted to affect every 
 pious heart. In death, our race is run ; worldly hope and 
 expectation are alike extinct; and the destiny of the immor- 
 tal spirit is forever fixed. But the child presented for bap- 
 tism, if it reach the ordinary limit of human life, has before 
 it many a trial, and will need all the pardoning mercy, 
 all the sanctifying grace, and all the precious consolations 
 which the blessed Gospel of Christ has to bestow. And 
 even if it die in infancy, it still needs the pardoning mercy 
 and sanctifying grace whicli are set forth in this ordinance. 
 
56 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 On either supposition, the transaction is important. A 
 course is commenced which will be a blessing or a curse be- 
 yond the power of the human mind to estimate. And the 
 eternal happiness or the misery of the young immortal will 
 depend, under God, upon the training it shall receive from 
 the hands of those who offer it. 
 
 Let those, then, who bring their children to the sacred font 
 to be baptized, ponder well what this ordinance means, and 
 what its reception involves, both in regard to parents and 
 children. Let them remember that in taking this step, we 
 make a solemn profession of belief, that our cliildren, as well 
 as ourselves, are born in sin, and stand in indispensable need 
 of pardoning mercy and sanctifying grace. We formally de- 
 dicate them to God, that they may be " washed and justified, 
 and sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the 
 Spirit of our God. And we take upon ourselves solemn 
 vows to train them up in the knowledge and fear of God ; to 
 instruct them, from the earliest dawn of reason, in the prin- 
 ciples and duties of our holy religion ; to consider and treat 
 them as ingrafted members of the family of Christ, and to 
 do all in our power, by precept and example, by authority 
 and by prayer, to lead them in the ways of tmth, of holiness, 
 and of salvation. Is this an ordinance to be engaged in as a 
 mere ceremony, or with convivial levity ? Surely if there be 
 a transaction, among all the duties incumbent on us as Chris- 
 tians — if there be a transaction which ought to be engaged in 
 with reverence, and godly fear: with penitence, faith, and 
 love ; with bowels of Christian compassion yearning over 
 our beloved offspring ; with humble and importunate aspi- 
 rations to the God of all grace for his blessing on them and 
 ourselves ; and with solemn resolutions, in the strength of his 
 grace, that we will be faithful to our vows, — this is that 
 transaction I how full of meaning ! And yet how little 
 thought of by the most of those who engage in it with exter- 
 nal decorum ! 
 
 3. The foregoing discussion will show by whom children 
 ought to be presented in holy baptism. The answer given 
 by the old Waldenses to this question is, undoubtedly, the 
 wisest and best. They say, as before quoted, " Children 
 ought to be presented in baptism by those to whom they are 
 most nearly related such as their parents, or those whom 
 God hath inspired with such a charity." If parents be 
 living and be of a suitable character ; that is, if they have 
 been baptized themselves, and sustain a regular standing as 
 professing Christians, they, and they alone, ought to present 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 57 
 
 their children in this ordinance. And all introduction of 
 godfathers and godmothers, as sponsors, either instead of the 
 parents, or besides the parents, is regarded by the great ma- 
 jority of Poedobaptist churches as superstitious, unwarranted, 
 and of course, mischievous in its tendency. Whatever tends 
 to beget erroneous ideas of the nature and design of a Gos- 
 pel ordinance ; to shift off the responsibility attending it from 
 the proper to improper hands ; aud to the assumption of so- 
 lemn engagements by those who can never really fulfil them, 
 and have no intention of doing it, cannot fail of exerting an 
 influence unfriendly to the best interests of the Church of 
 God. 
 
 But if the parents be dead ; or, though living, of irreligious 
 character; and if the grand parents, or any other near rela- 
 tions, of suitable qualifications, be willing to undertake the 
 office of training up children " in the nurture and admonition 
 of the Lord," it is proper for them to present such children 
 in baptism. Or if deserted, or orphan children be cast in the 
 families of strangers, who are no way related to them accor- 
 ding to the flesh, but who are willing to stand in the place 
 of parents, and train them up for God ; even these strangers, 
 in short, any and every person of suitable character, who 
 may be willing to assume the charitable ofhce of giving them 
 a Christian education, may and ought to present such chil- 
 dren for Christian baptism. Not only the offspring of Abra- 
 ham's body, but " all that were born in his house, and all 
 that were bought with his money," were commanded to be 
 circumcised. Surely no Christian who has a child, white 
 or black, placed in his family, and likely to be a permanent 
 member of it, can doubt that it is his duty to give it a faithful 
 Christian education. And as one great object of infant bap- 
 tism is to secure this point, he will not hesitate to offer it up 
 to God in that ordinance which he has appointed, provided 
 no valid objection in regard to the wishes of the parents of 
 such a child interpose to prevent it. 
 
 4. This subject shows how responsible, and how solemn 
 is the situation of those young persons ivho have been in 
 their infancy dedicated to God in holy baptism.' This is a 
 point concerning which both old and young are too often for- 
 getful. It is generally con^'eded, and extensively felt, that 
 parents, by dedicating their children to God in this ordi- 
 nance, are brought under very weighty obligations, which 
 cannot be forgotten by them, without incurring great guilt. 
 But young people seldom lay to heart as they ought, that 
 their early reception of the seal of God's covenant, in conse- 
 21* 6* 
 
5S INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 quence of the act of their parents, places them in circum- 
 stances of the most solemn and responsible kind. They are 
 too apt to imagine that they are not members of the church, 
 until by some act of profession of their own, they are brought 
 into this relation, and assume its bonds ; that their making 
 this profession, or not making it, is a matter of mere choice, 
 left to their own decision ; that by omitting it, they violate 
 no tie — contract no guilt ; that by refraining, they leave them- 
 selves more at liberty ; and that the only danger consists in 
 making an insincere profession. This is a view of the sub- 
 ject, which, however common, is totally, and most crimi- 
 nally erroneous. The children of professing Christians are 
 already in the church. They were born members. Their 
 baptism did not make them members. It was a public ratifi- 
 cation and recognition of their membership. They were 
 baptized because they were members. They received the 
 seal of the covenant because they w^ere already in covenant 
 by virtue of their birth. This blessed privilege is their 
 " birth-right." Of course, the only question they can ask 
 themselves is, not — shall we enter the church, and profess to 
 be connected with Christ's family ? But — shall we continue 
 in it, or act the part of ungrateful deserters ? " Shall we be 
 thankful for this privilege, and gratefully recognise and con- 
 firm it by our own act ; or shall we renounce our baptism ; 
 disown and deny the Saviour in whose name we have been 
 enrolled as members of his family ; and become open apos- 
 tates from that family ?" This is the real question to be de- 
 cided ; and truly a solemn question it is ! Baptized young 
 people I think of this. You have been in the bosom of the 
 church ever since you drew your first breath. The seal of 
 God's covenant has been placed upon you. You cannot, if 
 you would, escape from the responsibility of this relation. 
 You may forget it ; you may hate to think of it ; you may 
 despise it ; but still the obligation lies upon you ; you cannot 
 throw it off. Your situation is solemn beyond expression. 
 On the one hand, to go forward, and to recognise your obli- 
 gation by a personal profession, without any love to the Sa- 
 viour, is to insult him by a heardess ofTering ; and on the 
 other, to renounce your allegiance by refusing to acknow- 
 ledge him, by turning your b^oKs on his ordinances, and 
 by indulging in that course of life by which his religion is 
 dishonoured, is certainly, whether you realise it or not, to 
 " deny him before men," and to incur the fearful guilt of 
 apostacy ; of " drawing back unto perdition." 
 
 " According to this representation," 1 shall be told, " the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 59 
 
 condition of many of our youth is very deplorable. It is 
 their duty, you say, to profess the name of Christ, and to 
 seal their profession at a sacramental table. This they can- 
 not do ; for they are conscious that they do not possess those 
 principles and dispositions wliich are requisite to render 
 such a profession honest. What course shall they steer ? 
 If they do not profess Christ, they live in rebellion against 
 God : if they do, they mock him with a lie. Which side 
 of the al*ernative shall they embrace? Continue among the 
 profane, and be consistently wicked ? Or withdraw from 
 them in appearance and play the hypocrite ?" 
 
 The case is, indeed, very deplorable. Destruction is on 
 either hand. For " the unbelieving shall have their part in 
 the lake of fire ; (Rev. xxi. 6.) and the hope of the hypo- 
 crite shall perish :" (Job. viii. 13.) God forbid that we 
 should encourage either a false profession, or a refusal to 
 make one. The duty is to embrace neither side of the alter- 
 native. Not to continue with the profane, and not to act 
 the hypocrite ; but to receive the Lord Jesus Christ in truth, 
 and to walk in him. " I cannot do it," replies one: and 
 one, it may be, not without moments of serious and tender 
 emotions upon this very point : " I cannot do it." My soul 
 bleeds for thee, thou unhappy! But it must be done, or 
 thou art lost forever. Yet what is the amount of that expres- 
 sion — in the mouth of some a flaunting excuse, and of others, 
 a bitter complaint — I cannot? Is the inability to believe in 
 Christ different from an inability to perform any other duty ? 
 Is there any harder necessity of calling the God of truth a 
 liar, in not believing the record which lie hath given of his 
 Son, than of committing any other sin ? The inability cre- 
 ated, the necessity imposed, by the enmity of the carnal 
 mind against God? (Rom. viii. 7.) It is the inability of 
 wickedness, and of nothing else. Instead of being an apol- 
 ogy, it is itself the essential crime, and can never become 
 its own vindication. 
 
 But it is even so. The evil does lie too deep for the 
 reach of human remedies. Yet a "Remedy there is, and an 
 effectual one. It is here — " I will sprinkle clean water 
 upon you, and you shall be clean; from all your filthiness 
 and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart 
 also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; 
 and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh ; and 
 I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit 
 within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes ; and ye 
 shall keep my judgments and do them. (Ezek. xxxvi. 
 
60 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 25 — 27.) Try this experiment. Go with thy " fihhiness,' 
 and thine " idols ;" go with thy " stony heart," and thy per- 
 verse spirit, which are thy real inability, to God upon the 
 throne of grace ; spread out before him his " exceeding great 
 and precious promises ; importune him as the hearer of 
 prayer, in the name of Jesus, for the accomplishment of them 
 to thyself. Wait for his mercy, it is worth waiting for, and 
 remember his word — Therefore will the Lord wait, that he 
 may be gracious unto you ; and therefore will he be exalted, 
 that he may have mercy upon you : for the Lord is a God 
 of judgment ; blessed are all they that wait for him.* 
 
 5. Finally, from the foregoing principles and considera- 
 tions, it is evident, that the great body of Pcedobaptist 
 churches have much to reform in regard to their treatment 
 of baptized children, and are bound to address themselves 
 to that reform with all speed and fidelity. It has been al- 
 ready observed, that one great end for which the church of 
 God was instituted, was to train up, from age to age, a seed 
 to serve God, and to be faithful witnesses m behalf of the 
 truth and order of his family, in the midst of an unbelieving 
 world. If this be so, then, surely the church, in her eccle- 
 siastical capacity, is bound carefully to watch over the edu- 
 cation, and especially, the religious education of her youth- 
 ful members ; nor is there any risk in asserting, that just in 
 proportion as she has been faithful to this part of her trust, 
 she has flourished in orthodoxy, piety, and peace ; and that 
 when she has neglected it, her children have grown up in 
 ignorance, and too often in profligacy, and wandered from 
 her fold into every form of error. If the church wishes her 
 baptized youth to be a comfort and a strength to their moral 
 mother ; if she wishes them to adhere with intelligence, and 
 with dutiful afliection to her distinctive testimony ; and to be 
 a generation to the praise of Zion's King, when their fathers 
 shall have gone to their final account ; then let her, by all 
 means, watch over the training of her young people with pe- 
 culiar diligence and fidelity ; and consider a very large part 
 of her duty, as a church, as consisting in constant and faith- 
 ful attention to the moral and religious culture of the rising 
 generation. 
 
 What is the reason that so many of the baptized youth, in 
 almost all our Pcedobaptist churches, grow up in ignorance 
 
 * The two preceding paragraphs are from the powerful and eloquent 
 pen of the late Rev. J. M. Mason, D. D. See Christian's Magazine, 
 Vol. II. p. 414—416. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 61 
 
 and disregard of the religion of their parents ? Why are so 
 many of them, when they come to judge and act for them- 
 selves, found embracing systems of gross error, if not total 
 infidelity, and wandering, in too many instances, into the 
 paths of degrading profligacy ? It is not enough to say, that 
 our children are by nature depraved, and prone to the ways 
 of error and folly. This is, doubtless, true ; but it is not the 
 whole truth. It cannot be questioned, that much of the rea- 
 son lies at the door of the church herself, as well as of the 
 parents of such youth. The church has too often forgotten 
 that baptism is as really a seal to the church, as it is to the 
 parents and the children who receive it. And, therefore, 
 while in many instances, a superstitious regard has been paid 
 to the mere rite of Baptism, a most deplorable neglect of the 
 duties arising from it has been indulged, even by some of our 
 most evangelical churches. Parents while most vigilantly 
 attentive to the literary, scientific, and ornamental education 
 of their children, have slighted, to a most humiliating degree, 
 their moral and religious training. They have sent them to 
 schools conducted by immoral, heretical, or infidel teachers, 
 who, of course, paid no regard to that part of their education 
 which is unspeakably the most important of all ; or who ra- 
 ther might be expected to exert in this respect, a most pestif- 
 erous influence. And, after this cruel treatment of their 
 offspring, have appeared to be utterly surprised when they 
 turned out profligates ! What other result could have been 
 expected ? 
 
 While it is granted that the primary movements in the 
 great work of Christian education, are to be expected from 
 the parents ; indeed, if the work be not begun in the mother's 
 lap, a most important period has been suffered to pass unim- 
 proved ; — yet the church has a duty to perform in this mat- 
 ter which is seldom realized. It is hers, by her pastor and 
 eldership, to stimulate and guide parents in this arduous and 
 momentous labour ; to see that proper schools for her bapti- 
 zed youth are formed or selected ; to put the Bible and sui- 
 table Catechisms, and other compends of religious truth into 
 their hands ; to convene them at stated intervals for instruc- 
 tion, exhortation, and prayer ; to remind them from time to 
 time, with parental tenderness, of their duty to confess Christ, 
 and recognize their relation to his church, by their own per- 
 sonal act ; and, if they fall into gross error, or open immo- 
 rality, or continue to neglect religion, to exercise toward 
 them, with parental affection, and yet with firmness, that 
 discipline which Christ has appointed expressly for the ben- 
 
G2 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 efit of all the members, and especially of the youthful mem- 
 bers of his covenanted family. If this plan were faithfully 
 pursued with our baptized youth, I am constrained to concur 
 with the pious Mr. Baxter in believing that in nineteen cases 
 out of twenty, our children, consecrated to God in their in- 
 fancy would grow up dutiful, sober, orderly, and serious, and 
 before they reached mature age, recognise their membership 
 by a personal act, with sincerity and to edification. Happy 
 era ! When shall the church of God be blessed with such 
 fidelity, and with such results ? 
 
 DISCOURSE III. 
 
 THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. 
 
 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized ? — 
 Acts X. 47. 
 
 Having endeavoured, in the preceding discourses, to show 
 that the baptism of infants is a scriptural and reasonable ser- 
 vice, I now proceed to inquire into the mode in which this 
 ordinance ought to be administered. 
 
 And here, it is well known, that there is a very serious di- 
 versity of opinion. On the one hand, our Baptist brethren 
 believe that there is no true baptism unless the whole body 
 be plunged under water. While on the other hand, we, and 
 a very great majority of the Christian world, maintain that 
 the mode of baptism by sprinkling or affusion is a method 
 just as valid and lawful as any other. It will be my object, 
 in the present discourse, to support the latter opinion ; or 
 rather to maintain, from Scripture, and from the best usage 
 of the Christian church, that baptism by sprinkling or affu- 
 sion not only rests on as good authority as immersion ; but 
 that it is a method decisively more scriptural, suitable, and 
 edifying. 
 
 From the very nature of this subject it will require some 
 little extent of discussion to place it in a proper light, and 
 some closeness of attention to apprehend and follow the ar- 
 guments which may be employed. Let me then request 
 from you a candid and patient hearing. If I know my own 
 heart, it is my purpose to exhibit the subject in the light of 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 63 
 
 truth ; and to advance nothing but that which appears to rest 
 on the authority of Him who instituted tiie ordinance under 
 consideration, and who is alone competent to declare his will 
 concerning it. And, 
 
 1. Let us attend to the real meaning of the original 
 word ivhich is employed in the New Testament to eocpreiss 
 this sacramental rite. 
 
 The Greek word BartT'i^w, which we translate baptize^ 
 from the circumstance of its having been so constantly and so 
 long the subject of earnest discussion, and from its near re- 
 semblance to the English word which we employ to render 
 it, (or we might rather say, its identity with that word) has 
 become so familiar with the public mind, that it may almost 
 be regarded as a naturalized term of our language. 
 
 Now, we contend, that this word does not necessarily, nor 
 even commonly, signify to immerse ; but also implies to 
 wash, to sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or dye with 
 any liquid ; and, therefore, accords very well with the mode 
 of baptism by sprinkling or affusion. 
 
 I am aware, indeed, that our Baptist brethren, as before 
 intimated, believe, and confidently assert, that the only legit- 
 imate and authorised meaning of this word, is to immerse ; 
 and that it is never employed, in a single case, in any part 
 of the Bible, to express the application of water in any other 
 manner. I can venture, my friends, to assure you, with the 
 utmost confidence, that this representation is wholly incor- 
 rect. I can assure you, that the word which we render bap- 
 tize, does legitimately signify the application of water in any 
 way, as well as by immersion. Nay, I can assure you, if 
 the most mature and competent Greek scholars that ever lived 
 may be allowed to decide in this case, that many examples 
 of the use of this word occur in Scripture, in which it not 
 only may, but manifesdy must signify sprinkling, perfusion 
 or washing in any way. Without entering into the minute 
 details of Greek criticism in reference to this term, which 
 would be neither suitable to our purpose, nor consistent with 
 our limits ; it will suffice to refer to a few of those passages 
 of Scripture which will at once illustrate and confirm the po- 
 sition which I have laid down. 
 
 Thus, when the Evangelists tell us that the Scribes and 
 Pharisees invariably " washed (in the original, baptized) 
 their hands before dinner;" when we are told that, when 
 they come in from the market, " except they wash, (in the 
 original, 'except they baptize,') they eat not;" when we 
 read of the Pharisees being so scrupulous about the "wash- 
 
64 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 ing (in the original, the 'baptising') of cups, and pots, and 
 brazen vessels, and tables?" when our Saviour speaks of 
 his disciples being " baptized with the Holy Ghost," in man- 
 ifest allusion to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the 
 day of Pentecost; when John the Baptist predicted, that 
 they should be " baptized with the Holy Ghost, and with 
 fire," in reference to the Holy Ghost sitting upon each of 
 them as with "cloven tongues of fire" on the same day: 
 when we find the apostle representing the children of Israel 
 as all baptized by a cloud passing over without touching 
 them ; and also as baptized in the Red Sea, when we know 
 that none of them were immersed in passing through, or, at 
 most, only sprinkled by the spray of the watery walls on 
 each side ; for we are expressly told that they went through 
 " dry shod:'' when Judas, in celebrating the Paschal supper 
 with his Master, in dipping a morsel of bread on a bunch of 
 herbs in the " sop" in the dish, is said, by Christ himself, 
 to "baptize his hand in the dish," (as it is in the original, 
 Matt. xxvi. 23.) which no one can imagine implies the im- 
 mersion of his whole hand in the gravy of which they were 
 all partaking; I say, when the word "baptize" is used in 
 these and similar senses, it surely cannot mean in any of 
 these cases to immerse or plunge. If a man is said by the 
 inspired Evangehst to be baptized, when his hands only are 
 washed : and if " tables" (or couches, on which they recli- 
 ned at meals, as appears from the original) are spoken of as 
 "baptized," when the cleansing of water was applied to 
 them in any manner, and when the complete immersion of 
 them in water is out of the question ; surely nothing can be 
 plainer than that the Holy Spirit who indited the Scriptures, 
 does not restrict the meaning of this word to the idea of 
 plunging, or total immersion. 
 
 Again : the New Testament meaning of this term appears 
 from the manner in which it is applied to the ablutions of the 
 ceremonial economy. The apostle in writing to the He- 
 brews, and speaking of the Jewish ritual, says, " It stood 
 only in meats and drinks and divers washings," (in the ori- 
 ginal ' divers baptisms.') Now we know that by far the 
 greater part of these " divers washings" were accomplished 
 by sprinkling and aff'usion, and not by immersion. The 
 blood of the Paschal Lamb was directed to be " sprinkled" 
 on the door-posts of the Israelites, as a token of Jehovah's 
 favour, and of protection from death. When they entered 
 into covenant with God at Sinai, their solemn vows were 
 directed to be sealed by a similar sign. After Moses 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 65 
 
 had spoken every precept to all the people accordirij^ to the 
 law, and they had given their consent, and promised to obey : 
 he took the blood of the sacrifice, and water, and " sprinkled" 
 both the book and the people, (Heb. ix. 19.) On the great 
 day of the atonement, when the High Priest went into the 
 most Holy place, he " sprinkled" the blood of the sacrifice 
 on the Mercy Seat, as a token of propitiation and cleansing. 
 When any individual was to be cleansed, and delivered from 
 legal guilt, the blood of the sacrifice was to be "sprinkled" 
 upon him seven times. In like manner at other times, the 
 consecrated oil was to be "sprinkled" upon him who applied 
 for deliverance from pollution. 
 
 Thus the people were to be ceremonially delivered from 
 their uncleanness.* When Aaron and his sons were set apart 
 to their olBce, they were sprinkled with blood, as a sign of 
 purification. When tents or dweUing houses were to be 
 cleansed from pollution, it was done among other things, by 
 sprinkling them with water. When the vessels, used in do- 
 mestic economy, were to be ceremonially cleansed, the object 
 was effected in the same manner, by sprinkling them with 
 water. (See Numbers, xix. 17 — 22.) In a few cases, and 
 but a few, the mode of cleansing by plunging in water is pre- 
 scribed. Now these are the "divers baptisms" of which the 
 apostle speaks. It is worthy of notice that they are divers, 
 (Sta^opot-s'). If they had been of one kind — immersion only 
 — this term could not with propriety have been used. But 
 they were of difTerent kinds — some sprinkling, others pour- 
 ing, some scouring and rinsing, (see Leviticus vi. 28,) and 
 some plunging : but all pronounced by the inspired apostle to 
 be baptism. 
 
 But happily, the inspired apostle does not leave us in doubt 
 what those "divers baptisms" were, of which he speaks. 
 He singles out and presents sprinkhng as his chosen and 
 only specimen. " For" says he, in the 1.3th, 19th, and 21st 
 verses of the same chapter, explaining what he means by 
 * divers baptisms,' " if the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the 
 ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the 
 purifying of the flesh ; how much more shah the blood of 
 Christ, &c. For when Moses had spoken every precept to 
 all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of 
 calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hys- 
 
 * See Exodus, xxix. 40; Leviticus, i. 3, 4,5, 8, 9, 14, and 15 chap- 
 ters; Numbers, 19th chapter, and Deuteronomy, 12th and 15th chap- 
 ters. 
 
 22 
 
G6 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 sop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people. More- 
 over, he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle, 
 and all the vessels of the ministry." If the Apostle under- 
 stood his own meaning, then, it is manifest that in speaking 
 of " divers baptisms," he had a principal reference to the ap- 
 plication of blood and of water by sprinkling. 
 
 In short, it is perfectly manifest, to every one competent 
 to judge in the case, that the Greek words which we trans- 
 late baptize and baptism, do undoubtedly signify, in a num- 
 ber of cases in both the Old and New Testaments, the wash- 
 ing with water, or the application of water in any way. To 
 immerse, is, undoubtedly, one of the senses which may be 
 applied to the words. But it is so far from being the univer- 
 sal, the necessary meaning, as our Baptist brethren assert, 
 that it is not even the common meaning. And I am well 
 persuaded that the venerable Dr. Owen, certainly one of the 
 greatest and best men of the day in which he lived, is borne 
 out by truth when he pronounces, " That no one instance 
 can be given in Scripture, in which the word which we ren- 
 der baptize, does necessarily signify either to dip or plunge." 
 In every case the word admits of a different sense ; and it is 
 really imposing on public credulity to insist that it always 
 does, and necessarily must signify immersion.* 
 
 In like manner, if we examine the senses manifestly at- 
 tached to Bart 1' to and BartT't^w, by the best Greek classical 
 writers, as shown by the ablest lexicographers and critics, 
 the same result will be established ; in other words, it will 
 appear that these words are used, and often used, to express 
 the ideas of cleansing, pouring, washing, wetting, and ting- 
 ing, or dying, as well as immersion : and, of course, that 
 no certain evidence in favour of the doctrine of our Baptist 
 brethren, can be derived from this source. Indeed, a late 
 eminent anti-poedobaptist writer while he strenuously main- 
 tams that Bartt t^w, always signifies to immerse, acknow- 
 ledges that he has " all the lexicographers and commentators 
 against him in that opinion." (Carson on Baptism, p. 79.) 
 How far the confidence which, in the face of this acknow- 
 ledgment, he expresses, that they are all wrong, and that his 
 interpretation alone is right, is either modest or well-founded, 
 must be left to the impartial reader. 
 
 * See this point set in a clear and strong light by the Rev. Dr. 
 Woods, in his " Lectures on Infant Baptism ;" by the Rev. Professor 
 Stvart, in the " Biblical Repository," No. 10 ; by the Rev. Professor 
 Pond, of Maine, in his " Treatise on Christian Baptism," in the ' Bib- 
 lical Repertory,' Vol. III. p. 475, &c. &c. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 67 
 
 It is evident, then, that our Baptist brethren can gain no- 
 thing by an appeal to the original word employed in the 
 New Testament to express this ordinance. It decides no- 
 thing. All impartial judges — by which I mean all the most 
 profound and mature Greek scholars, who are neither theolo- 
 gians nor sectarians — agree in pronouncing, that the term in 
 question imports the application of water by sprinkling, pour- 
 ing, tinging, wetting, or in any other way, as well as by 
 plunging the whole body under it. 
 
 2. There is nothing in the thing signified by baptism 
 which renders immersion more necessary or proper than 
 any other mode of applying water in this ordinance. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren suppose and insist that there is some- 
 thing m the emblematical meaning of baptism, which renders 
 dipping or plunging the only proper mode of administering 
 the ordinance. And hence nothing is more common, among 
 the brethren of that denomination, than to pour ridicule on all 
 other modes of baptizing, as entirely deficient in meaning and 
 expressiveness. I am persuaded, my friends, that the slightest 
 examination of the subject will convince every impartial 
 inquirer that there is no solid ground for this representation. 
 
 It is granted, on all hands, that the thing principally signi- 
 fied by baptism, is the renovation and sanctification of the 
 heart, by the cleansing influences of the Holy Spirit. This 
 was, undoubtedly, the blessing of which circumcision was an 
 emblem. It signified, as the inspired Apostle tells us, " the 
 putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." (Colossians, ii. 
 11.) " He is not a Jew," says the same apostle, " who is 
 one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward 
 in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and 
 circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the 
 letter." (Romans, ii. 28, 29.) In like manner, baptism 
 signifies the renovation of the heart by the special operation 
 of the Spirit of God. It is intended ever to keep us in mind, 
 by a very significant and striking emblem, that we are all by 
 nature polluted and guilty, and that we stand in need of the 
 pardoning and purifying grace of God by a crucified Re- 
 deemer. 
 
 Now, when the inspired writers speak of imparting the 
 influences of the Holy Spirit to the children of men, by what 
 kind of figure is that blessing commonly expressed ? I 
 answer — as every one who is familiar with the Bible will 
 concur in answering — much more frequently by sprinkling 
 and pouring oat, than by any other form of expression. Thus 
 the prophet Isaiah speaks again and again of the Spirit being 
 
68 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 poured out upon the people from on high. (Isaiah, xxxii. 
 15; xUv. 3.) Take a single specimen — "I will pour water 
 upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground ; I 
 will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon 
 thine offspring." The prophets, Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah, 
 repeatedly employ the same language ; (Ezekiel, xxxix. 29. 
 Joel, ii. 28, 29. Zechariah, xii. 10.) and this form of 
 expression is also found more than once in the New Testa- 
 ment. (Acts, ii. 17, 18; x. 45.) Indeed it seems to be the 
 favourite language of the Spirit of God when speaking on this 
 subject. In other places the term sprinkling is employed to 
 express the same idea. Accordingly, Jehovah says, by the 
 prophet Ezekiel, " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
 ye shall be clean: from all your tilthiness, and from all your 
 idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, 
 and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away 
 the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart 
 of flesh." (Ezekiel, xxxvi. 25, 2G.) And in like manner, 
 the prophet Isaiah, when speaking of the coming of the 
 Messiah, and the benefits accruing to the church in New 
 Testament times, fortels — " So shall he sprinkle many 
 nations." (Ezek. lii. 15.) Again, this divine sanctifying 
 influence in its application to men, is represented by the 
 Psalmist, and by the prophet Hosea, under the similitude of 
 rain, which we know descends in drops, sprinkling the earth, 
 and its verdant furniture. (Psalm, Ixxii. 6. Hosea, vi. 3.) 
 " He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass ; as 
 showers that water the earth." 
 
 But to come still nearer to the point in hand. We have 
 not only seen that whenever the inspired writers wish to 
 express the idea of the Holy Spirit being imparted to men, 
 either to sanctify their hearts, or to furnish them with mi- 
 raculous powers, the figure of "pouring out" is, in almost 
 all cases, adopted, and that of immersion never; but, further, 
 when they use the specific term which expresses the ordinance 
 before us; when they speak of the "baptism of the Spirit," 
 how do they explain it? Hear the explanation by the Master 
 himself. The Saviour, after his resurrection, told his disciples, 
 that " John truly baptized with water, but they should be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost" not many days from that 
 time, (Acts i. 4, 5,) and directing them to remain in Jerusalem 
 until this promise should be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. 
 And how did the Holy Spirit baptize the people then ? By 
 immersion ? Not at all ; but by being " poured out." Ac- 
 cordingly, the apostle Peter, in giving an account to his 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 69 
 
 brethren of what occurred in the house of Cornelius, declares : 
 *' And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as 
 on us at the beginning, (that is at the beginning of the New 
 Testament economy, on the day of Pentecost). Then remem- 
 bered I the words of the Lord, how he said, John, indeed 
 baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost." (Acts xi. 15, 16.) The baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, then, consisted in the pouring out, or ej^usion of the 
 Ho/i/ Ghost. This was the baptism predicted by the prophets. 
 This was the baptism which our Lord himself promised. 
 And this was the baptism realized on the day of Pentecost. 
 I ask, again, was this immersion? Yet it was baptism. And 
 here, we may add is an indubitable example of the word 
 baptism being used in a sense which cannot possibly imply 
 immersion. 
 
 Surely it is not without design or meaning, that we find 
 language of this kind so generally, I might almost say, so 
 uniformly used. Can a single instance be produced from the 
 word of God in which the cleansing influences of the Holy 
 Spirit are symbohzed by dipping or plunging into water, or 
 into oil or blood? Or can a single example be found in 
 which believers are represented as being dipped or plunged 
 into the Holy Ghost ? No such example is recollected. 
 Whenever the inspired writers speak of the Holy Spirit 
 being imparted to the children of men, either in his sanctify- 
 ing power, or his miraculous gifts, they never represent the 
 benefit under the figure of immersion; but always, unless my 
 memory deceives me, by the figures of " sprinkling," " pour- 
 ing out," " falling," or " resting upon" from on high. Now, 
 if baptism, so far as it has a symbolical meaning, is intended 
 to represent tlie cleansing of the Holy Spirit, as all agree ; it 
 is evident that no mode of applying the baptismal water can 
 be more strikingly adapted to convey its symbolical meaning, 
 or more strongly expressive of the great benefit which the 
 ordinance is intended to hold forth and seal, than sprinkling 
 or pouring. Nay, is it not manifest that this mode of admin- 
 istering the ordinance, is far more in accordance with Bible 
 language, and Bible allusion, than any other? Surely, then, 
 baptism by sprinkling or affusion, would have been treated 
 with less scorn by our Baptist brethren, if they had recol- 
 lected that these are, invariably, the favourite figures of the 
 inspired writers when they speak of the richest covenant 
 blessings which the Spirit of God imparts to his beloved 
 people. Surely all attempts to turn this mode of applying 
 the sacramental water in baptism into ridicule, is really 
 22* 7'^ 
 
70 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 nothing less than shameless ridicule of the statements and the 
 language of God's own word? 
 
 3. The circumstances attending the several cases of bap- 
 tism recorded in the New Testament, render it highly prob- 
 able^ not to say morally certain, that the immersion of the 
 whole body coidd not have been the mode of baptism then 
 commonly adopted. 
 
 The baptism of the three thousand converts made by the 
 instrumentality of Peter's preaching, on the day of Pentecost, 
 is the first remarkable instance of Christian baptism which 
 occurs in the New Testament history. Christ had promised, 
 before he left his disciples, that he would send to them his 
 Holy Spirit, and the favourite expression by which he was 
 accustomed to designate this gift, was that he would pour out 
 the Holy Spirit upon them. Accordingly, in ten days after 
 his ascension to heaven, he was pleased, in a most extraor- 
 dinary manner, to fulfil his promise. The Spirit was poured 
 out with a power unknown before. And, what is remarkable, 
 the apostle Peter assures the assembled multitude, that what 
 they then witnessed was a fulfilment of the prediction by the 
 prophet Joel, that the Holy Spirit should be imparted in a 
 manner prefigured by the term pouring out, or affusion. 
 Three thousand were converted under the overwhelming im- 
 pression of divine truth, dispensed in a single sermon ; and 
 were all baptized, and " added to the church" in a single 
 day. From the short account given of this wonderful trans- 
 action, we gather, that the multitude on whom this impression 
 was made, was convened in some part of the temple. They 
 seem to have come together about the third hour of the day, 
 that is, nine o'clock in the morning, according to the Jewish 
 mode of computing time. At least, when Peter rose to com- 
 mence his sermon, that was the hour. Besides the discourse 
 of which we have a sketch in the chapter containing the 
 account, we are told he exhorted and testified with many 
 other words. All these services, together with receiving the 
 confession of three thousand converts, must unavoidably have 
 consumed several hours ; leaving only four or five hours, at 
 the utmost, for baptizing the whole number. But they were 
 all baptized that same day. We read nothing, however, of 
 the apostles taking the converts away from " Solomon's 
 Porch," or wherever else they were assembled, to any river 
 or stream for the sake of baptizing tliem. Indeed, at that 
 season of the year, there was no river or brook in the imme- 
 diate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which would admit of 
 immersing a human being. Besides, is it likely that this 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 71 
 
 great multitude, most of whom were probably strangers in 
 Jerusalem, could have been furnished with such a change of 
 raiment as health and decorum required ; or that they could 
 have been baptized without clothing altogether ; or remained 
 on the ground, through the public exercises, in their wet 
 clothes? Surely all these suppositions are so utterly impro- 
 bable that they may be confidently rejected. But, above all, 
 was it physically possible, supposing all the apostles to have 
 ofliciated in the administration of this ordinance, for twelve 
 men to have immersed three tliousand persons in four or five 
 hours ; which we have seen must have been the case, if, as 
 is evident, the preaching, the examination of candidates, and 
 the baptizing of the whole number took place after nine 
 o'clock in the forenoon ? Those who have witnessed a series 
 of baptisms by immersion know how arduous and exhausting 
 is the bodily effort which it requires. To immerse a single 
 person, with due decorum and solemnity, will undoubtedly 
 require from five to six minutes. Of course, to immerse one 
 hundred, would consume, at this rate, between nine and ten 
 hours. Now, even if so much time could possibly be assigned 
 to this part of the work, on the same day, which is plainly 
 inadmissible, can we suppose that the twelve aposdes stood, 
 for nine or ten hours, themselves, in the water, constantly 
 engaged in a series of efforts among the most severe and 
 exhausting to human strength that can well be undertaken ?* 
 To imagine this, would be among the most improbable, not 
 to say extravagant imaginations that could be formed on such 
 a subject. Yet even this supposition, unreasonable as it is, 
 falls far short of providing for even one half of the requisite 
 number. The man, therefore, who can believe that the three 
 thousand on the day of Pentecost were baptized by immer- 
 sion, must have great faith, and a wonderful facility in accom- 
 modating his belief to his wishes. 
 
 With regard to the baptism of John, many of the same 
 remarks are entirely apphcable. Our Baptist brethren uni- 
 versally take for granted that John's baptism was performed 
 
 * " A gentleman of veracity told the writer, that he was once pre- 
 sent when forty-seven were dipped in one day, in the usual way. The 
 first operator began, and went through the ceremony, until he had 
 dipped twenty-Jive persons ; when he was so fatigued, that he was 
 compelled to give it up to the other, who with great apparent difficulty 
 dipped the other twenty -two. Both appeared completely exhausted, and 
 went off the ground into a house hard by, to change their clothes and 
 refresh themselves." Scripture Directory for Baptism by a Lay- 
 man, 14 
 
72 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 by immersion ; and on the ground of that assumption, they 
 speak with great confidence of their mode of baptism as the 
 only lawful mode. Now, even if it were certain that the 
 forerunner of Christ had always baptized by immersion, still 
 it would be little to the purpose, since it is plain that John's 
 baptism was not Christian baptism. Had this been the case, 
 then, it is evident, that a large part of the population of 
 *' Jerusalem and Judea, and of the region round about Jordan," 
 would have been professing Christians. But was it so? 
 Every reader of the New Testament history knows it was 
 not; that, on the contrary, it is apparent from the whole 
 narrative, that a great majority of those whom John baptized, 
 continued to stand aloof from the Saviour. But what decides 
 this point, beyond the possibility of appeal or cavil, is the 
 statement in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, where we are told that some who had received John's 
 baptism, were afterwards baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus. Some opponents of this conclusion have suggested 
 that in the narrative given of this transaction, (Acts xix. 1 — 6,) 
 we are to consider the 5th verse, not as the language of the 
 inspired historian, but as a continuc«tion of Paul's discourse, 
 as recorded in the 4th verse. Professor Stuart, in his remarks 
 on the " Mode of Baptism," in the " Biblical Repository," 
 (No. X. 386,) has shown conclusively that this gloss is 
 wholly inadmissible; and even leads to the most evident 
 absurdity. But there is no evidence, and I will venture to 
 say, no probabihty, that John ever baptized by immersion. 
 The evangelist informs us that he baptized great multitudes. 
 It appears, as before suggested, that " all Jerusalem, and all 
 Judea, and the region round about Jordan," flocked to his 
 ministry, and " were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing 
 their sins." Some have supposed that he baptized two mil- 
 lions of people. But suppose the number to be one-twentieth 
 part of this computation. The smallest estimate that we can 
 consider as answering the description of the inspired historians 
 is, that he baptized one hundred thousand individuals. And 
 this, in about one year and a half. That is, he must have 
 immersed nearly two hundred, upon an average, every day, 
 during the whole of the period in question. Now, I ask, is it 
 possible for human strength, day after day, for more than five 
 hundred days together, to undergo such labour ? It cannot 
 be imagined. The thing is not merely improbable ; it is 
 impossible. To accomplish so much, it would have been 
 necessary that the zealous Baptist should spend the whole of 
 every day standing in the water, for a year and a half, and 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 73 
 
 even this would have failed altogether of being sufficient, 
 say again, with confidence, it is impossible. 
 
 But that John baptized by immersion is utterly incredible 
 on another account. Can we imagine that so great a multi- 
 tude could have been provided on the spot with convenient 
 changes of raiment to admit of their being plunged consistently 
 with their health? Or can we suppose that the greater part 
 of their number, would remain for hours on the ground in 
 their wet clothes ? And if not, would decency have permitted 
 multitudes of both sexes to appear, and to undergo the 
 administration of the ordinance in that mode, in a state of 
 entire nakedness ? Surely we need not wait for an answer. 
 Neither supposition is admissible. 
 
 Nor is this reasoning at all invalidated by the statement of 
 one of the evangelists, that John " baptized at Enon, near 
 Salim, because there was much water there ;" or, as it is in 
 the original, " because there were many vjciters there." For, 
 independently of immersion altogether, plentiful streams of 
 water were absolutely necessary for the constant refreshment 
 and sustenance of the many thousands who were encamped 
 from day to day, to witness the preaching and the baptism of 
 this extraordinary man ; together with the beasts employed 
 for their transportation. Only figure to yourselves a large 
 encampment of men, women, and children, consisting almost 
 continually of many thousand souls, continuing together for a 
 number of days in succession; constantly coming and going; 
 and all this in a warm climate, where springs and wells of 
 water were comparatively rare and precious ; only figure to 
 yourselves such an assemblage, and such a scene, and you 
 will be at no loss to perceive why it was judged important to 
 convene them near the banks of abundant streams of water. 
 Had not this been done, they must, in a few hours, have 
 either quitted the ground, or suffered real distress. 
 
 It is evident, then, that often and confidently as the baptism 
 of John has been cited as conchisive, in favour of immersion, 
 it cannot be considered as aflfording the least solid ground foi 
 such a conclusion. There is not the smallest probability that 
 he ever baptized an individual in this manner. As a poor 
 man, who lived in the wilderness ; whose raiment was of the 
 meanest kind ; and whose food was such alone as die desert 
 afforded ; it is not to be supposed that he possessed appropriate 
 vessels for administering baptism to multitudes by pouring or 
 sprinkling. He, therefore, seems to have made use of the 
 neighbouring stream of water for this purpose, descending its 
 banks, and setting his feet on its margin, so as to admit of his 
 
74 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 using a handful, to answer the symbolical purpose intended 
 by the application of water in baptism. 
 
 The circumstances attending the baptism of our blessed 
 Saviour by John, have been oflen adduced by our Baptist 
 brethren as strongly favouring the practice of immersion : 
 but when they are examined, they will be found to afford no 
 real aid to that cause. In our common translation, indeed, 
 the Evangelist Matthew tells us, (ch. iii. 16,) That Jesus, 
 when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water, 
 ifec; and the Evangelist Mark tells us, (ch. i. 9, 10,) That 
 Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan ; and straightway, 
 coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, &c. 
 This is considered by many superficial readers as decisive in 
 establishing the fact that immersion must have been used on 
 that occasion ; but the moment we look into the original, it 
 becomes evident that the language of both the Evangelists 
 imports only that Jesus, after he was baptized, went up from 
 the water, that is, ascended the banks from the river. No- 
 thing more is, unquestionably, imported by the terms used ; 
 and this leaves the mode of administering the ordinance 
 altogether undecided. Laying aside his sandals, he might 
 only have stepped a few inches into the river, or he might 
 have gone merely to the water's edge, without stepping into 
 it at all.* 
 
 The baptism of Paul, by Ananias, is another of the scrip 
 tural examples of the administration of the ordinance in 
 question, which yet affords not the smallest hint or presump- 
 tion in favour of immersion ; but rather the contrary. 
 
 We are told that Paul, the infuriated persecutor, while 
 " breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disci- 
 ples of the Lord," was met on his way to Damascus, and by 
 the mighty power of the Saviour whom he persecuted, was 
 stricken down, and fell prostrate and blind to the ground. In 
 this feeble state he was lifted up, and " led by the hand, and 
 carried into Damascus ; and he was there three days without 
 sight, and did neither eat nor drink." In these circumstances, 
 Ananias, a servant of God, is directed to go to him, and teach 
 him what to do. " And Ananias," we are told, " went his 
 way, and entered into the house ; and putting his hands on 
 him, said. Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared 
 unto thee in the \vay, as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou 
 
 * " See a very luminous and satisfactory view of the record of this 
 baptism, by Professor Stuart, of Andover, in the Biblical Repository, 
 No. X. p. 319, 320 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 75 
 
 mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost 
 And now, why tarriest thou ? Arise, and be baptized, and 
 wash away thy sins, calling on the name of tlie Lord ? And 
 iminediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales ; 
 and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 
 And when he had received meat he was strengthened." 
 (Acts, ix. and xxii. compared.) 
 
 The attentive reader will no doubt, take notice that in this 
 narrative there is not a single turn of expression which looks 
 like baptizing by immersion. There is no hint that Paul 
 changed his raiment ; or that he and Ananias went out of the 
 house to a neighbouring pond or stream. On the contrary, 
 every part of the statement wears a different aspect. Paul, 
 when Ananias went to him, was evidently extremely feeble. 
 He was sitting or lying in the house, perfecdy blind, and 
 having taken no sustenance for three days. Can it be ima- 
 gined that a wise and humane man, in these circumstances, 
 would have had him carried forth, and plunged into cold 
 water, which, in his exhausted state, would have been equally 
 distressing and dangerous ? It cannot be for a moment sup- 
 posed. Nothing like it is hinted. Ananias simply directs 
 him to " stand up and be baptized." " And immediately 
 there fell from his eyes as it had been scales ; and he received 
 sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." It was after 
 the baptism, as we learn, that he received sustenance and was 
 " strengthened." It would really seem as if no impartial 
 reader could receive any other impression from this account, 
 than that Paul stood up, in the apartment, in which Ananias 
 found him, and there received baptism by pouring or sprink- 
 ling on him a small quantity of that water which is applied 
 in this ordinance as a symbol of spiritual cleansing. 
 
 Again, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, when duly 
 considered, will be found equally remote from affording the 
 smallest countenance to that conclusion in favour of immer- 
 sion, which has been so often and so confidently drawn 
 from it. 
 
 The eunuch was travelling on the public highway, when 
 Philip met him. They had been reading and commenting 
 on a prophecy of the Messiah, in which mention is made 
 of his sprinkling many nations. When they came to a 
 rivulet of water, the eunuch said, ' See, here is water, what 
 doth hinder me to be baptized V Philip had, no doubt, been 
 explaining to him the nature, design, and obligation of this 
 ordinance, or he would not have been likely to ask such a 
 question. The servant of God consented to baptize him; 
 
76 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 and, as they were travelling, and probably destitute of any 
 convenient vessel for dipping up a portion of water from the 
 stream, they both went down to the water, probably no fur- 
 ther than to its margin ; far enough to take up a small portion 
 of it to sprinkle or pour on the eunuch. The narrative, in 
 the original, ascertains nothing more than that they both 
 went to and from the water. In our translation, indeed, it is 
 said, they both went down into the water, and came up out 
 of the water. But, when we look into the original text, we 
 find the strict meaning of the terms employed, to be, that 
 Philip and the eunuch went down the banks to the water, 
 and coming from the water, reascended the banks again, to 
 the place where the chariot in which they rode had been left. 
 The same form of expression is used as in the case of Peter 
 and the tribute money, (Matt. xvii. 27.) " Go thou to the 
 sea, and cast an hook," &c. Here we cannot suppose that 
 our Lord meant to command Peter to plunge into the sea, but 
 only to go to the water's edge, and cast in a hook. The 
 same form of expression is also employed in many other 
 passages of the New Testament, where immersion is wholly 
 out of the question : As in John, ii. 12, where it is said, 
 Jesus went down to Capernaum; Acts vii. 15, Jacob M^ent 
 down into Egypt; Acts xviii. 22, He went down to Antioch, 
 &c. Surely, no one will dream of immersion in any of these 
 cases. There is nothing, then, in any of the language here 
 used, which necessarily, or even probably, implies immersion. 
 At any rate, the terms employed apply equally to both. 
 There is the same evidence that Philip was plunged, as that 
 the eunuch was. It is said they both went to the water. 
 Nor can we consider it as at all likely that, in the circum- 
 stances in which they were placed as travellers, they were 
 either of them immersed. It is plain, therefore, that all the 
 confidence which our Baptist brethren have so often expressed, 
 that the case of the Ethiopian eunuch is a certain example of 
 immersion, must be regarded as presenting no solid evidence 
 in their favour, and as really amounting to a gross imposition 
 on popular credulity. 
 
 The next remarkable instance of baptism recorded in the 
 New Testament, is that of Cornelius and his household. 
 Cornelius, a " devout man, who feared God," was directed, 
 in a vision, to send for Peter, the apostle, who should impart 
 to him the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ. Peter, on 
 his arrival, having ascertained, wherfore Cornelius had sent 
 for him, unfolded to him, and to all who were convened in 
 his house, the way of salvation. " While he was yet 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 77 
 
 speaking, the Holy Ghost fell upon all ot them which heard 
 the word, then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, 
 that these should not be baptized, who have received the 
 Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be 
 baptized in the name of the Lord." 
 
 In this passage, there is nothing that has the remotest ap- 
 pearance of immersion. No hint is given of the candidates 
 for baptism being led out of the house, to a river or pool, 
 for the purpose of being dipped. The language of Peter has 
 an entirely different aspect. " Can any man forbid water^ 
 that these should not be baptized?" That is *' Can any man 
 forbid water being brought in a convenient vessel, to be ap- 
 plied by pouring or sprinkling?" He had just spoken of 
 the Holy Ghost being poured out upon them ; and what 
 could be more natural than that he should apply water, the 
 emblem of spiritual cleansing, in conformity with the same 
 striking figure ? " They were not dipped into the Holy 
 Ghost ; but the Holy Ghost was poured out upon them. 
 They were not applied to the Holy Ghost ; but the Holy 
 Ghost was applied to them. He " fell upon them ;" and the 
 introduction of water, to be applied in a corresponding man- 
 ner, was immediately authorized. 
 
 The baptism of the jailer and his household, at Philippi, 
 still more decisively leads to the same conclusion. If we 
 examine the circumstances which attended this baptism, 
 they will be found to preclude, not only the probability, but 
 I may say with confidence, the possibility of its having been 
 performed by immersion. Paul and Silas were closely con- 
 fined in prison when this solemn service was performed. 
 While they were engaged in " praying and singing praises 
 to God," a great earthquake shook the prison to its founda- 
 tion, and the bonds of the prisoners were immediately un- 
 loosed. The jailer, awaking from his sleep, called for a 
 light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down be- 
 fore Paul and Silas, and said, " Sirs, what must I do to be 
 saved ? And they said Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake 
 unto him the word, and to all that were in his house. And 
 he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
 stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." 
 This whole transaction, you will observe, occurred a htde 
 after midnight, and in a prison, that is, in the outer prison, 
 for the jailor seems to have brought them out of the dungeon, 
 or " inner prison," into some other apartment of the edifice. 
 For it was not until next morning, some hours after the bap- 
 23 8 
 
78 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 tism, that the magistrates gave the keeper permission to let 
 them out of the prison. He and his family were evidently- 
 baptized " the same hour of the night," that is, between 
 midnight (when we are expressly told the earthquake occur- 
 red,) and day ; and while yet in the place of confinement. 
 Now, I ask, how can we imagine it possible that the jailer 
 and his family should be baptized by immersion, in the cir- 
 cumstances in which they were placed ? We cannot sup- 
 pose that there was a river, or a pool of water, or a baptis- 
 tery within the walls of the prison, adapted to meet an occa- 
 sion as unexpected as any thing could be, which had never 
 occurred there before, and was never likely to occur, in like 
 circumstances again. He who caa believe this, must be 
 ready to adopt any supposition, however extravagant, for the 
 sake of an hypothesis. As little can we imagine that Paul 
 and Silas would be dishonest enough to steal out of the prison 
 by night, and accompany the jailer and his family to the 
 river which runs near the city of Philippi, for the purpose of 
 plunging them ; especially as we know, on the one hand how 
 backward they were, the next morning to quit the prison, 
 unless brought out by the magistrates who had illegally im- 
 prisoned them : and on the other hand how much terrified 
 the jailer was at the thought of the prisoners escaping from 
 confinement, and of his being responsible even with his own 
 life, for their safe keeping. 
 
 In like manner, we might go over all the other cases of 
 baptism recorded in the New Testament, and show that, in 
 no one case have we any evidence that the ordinance was 
 administered by immersion. Now, as the disciples of Christ 
 baptized such great multitudes — even more, at one period 
 than John ; can we imagine, if the constant, or even the 
 common mode of baptising had been by plunging the whole 
 body under water, and especially, if they had laid great 
 stress on adherence to this mode ; can we imagine, 1 say, 
 that amidst so many cases of baptism, some term of expres- 
 sion, some incidental circumstance would not have occurred, 
 from which the fact of immersion might have been clearly 
 manifested, or irresistibly inferred ? One thing is certain. 
 The inspired writers of the New Testament could not pos- 
 sibly have regarded immersion in baptism in the same light 
 in which it is regarded by our Baptist brethren. The latter, 
 consider their mode of applying water, as essential to the 
 ordinance. They dwell upon it with unceasing fondness, 
 introduce it into every discussion ; and loose no opportunity 
 of recommending and urging it as that, without which an 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 79 
 
 alleged baptism is a nullity ; nay, an offence to the Head of 
 the Church. While the former, though speaking, directly or 
 indirectly on the subject, in almost every page of the New 
 Testament, and under a great variety of aspects, have not 
 stated a single fact, or employed a single term, which evin- 
 ces that they either preferred or practised immersion in any 
 case. They have stated, indeed, some facts which can 
 scarcely, by possibihty, be reconciled with immersion ; but 
 in no instance have they made a representation which is not 
 entirely reconcileable with the practice of perfusion or sprink- 
 ling. On the supposition that the doctrine of our Baptist 
 brethren is true, this is a most unaccountable fact ? What ! 
 not one evangelist or apostle, though taught by the Spirit of 
 God what to say — kind enough, or wise enough, to put 
 this matter beyond a doubt ? The unavoidable inference is. 
 that the inspired writers did not deem the mode of applying 
 water in baptism, an essential matter ; and did not think it 
 necessary to state it precisely ; and, of course, that they dif- 
 fered entirely from our Baptist brethren. 
 
 4. Even if it could be proved (which we know it cannot 
 be,) that the mode of baptism adopted in the time of Christ 
 and his aposdes, was that of immersion ; yet if that method 
 of administering the ordinance were not significant of some 
 truth, which the other modes cannot represent, we are plain- 
 ly at liberty to regard it as a non-essential circumstance, from 
 which we may depart when expediency requires it, as we 
 are all wont to do in other cases, even with respect to posi- 
 tive institutions. For example, the Lord's Supper was, no 
 doubt, originally instituted with unleavened bread ; and this 
 was, probably, at first the common custom. But as being 
 leavened or unleavened had nothing to do with the design 
 and scope of the ordinance ; as bread of either kind is equal- 
 ly emblematical of that spiritual nourishment which it is in- 
 tended to represent; most professing Christians, and our 
 Baptist brethren among the rest, feel authorised to celebrate 
 the Lord's Supper with leavened bread without the smallest 
 scruple. 
 
 Again ; the manner of sitting at the Lord's Supper, was, 
 in conformity with the then prevailing posture at feasts, to 
 recline on the elbow on a couch. There can be no doubt 
 that this was the uniform posture at th econvivial table, at 
 that time ; and in the narratives of the evangelists, we have 
 abundant evidence that the same posture was adopted by 
 our blessed Lord in the institution of the sacramental Sup- 
 per. But as it was only a circumstance connected with the 
 
80 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 habits of those days, we do not feel bound; and our Baptist 
 brethren among others, do not feel bound, in administering 
 this ordinance, to conform to the original mode. We con- 
 sider the sacrament as completely and validly dispensed, if 
 bread and wine be reverently received, in commemoration 
 of the Saviour's death, with any posture of the body. Nay, 
 the example of our Saviour himself, plainly shows that, 
 under a change of circumstances non-essential modes, orig- 
 inally used, may be dispensed with. The prescribed ritual 
 of the Passover required that the lamb should be eaten with 
 shoes on the feet, and with staves in the hand ; but this cus- 
 tom was not followed by Him or his disciples, and perhaps, 
 never was observed after the entrance into Canaan. But 
 was the Passover rendered either less perfect, or less useful, 
 for all practical purposes, by this omission? Surely we need 
 not wait for an answer. 
 
 Now, unless it can be proved, that plunging the body into 
 water, and lifting it out again, was designed to be emblemati- 
 cal of something which cannot be otherwise expressed, we 
 have full liberty given us by the example of our Lord him- 
 self, to consider this mode as an unimportant circumstance. 
 If the cleansing element of water be applied, in any reveren- 
 tial mode, to the human body, the whole symbolical ex- 
 pression of the ordinance is attained, provided convenience 
 and decorum be duly consulted. If the cleansing or purify- 
 ing quality of the element used, be the idea intended to be 
 set forth in the emblem ; and if the greater part, as we have 
 seen, of the typical purifications prescribed under the cere- 
 monial economy were effected by sprinkling; it is plain that 
 the emblem is complete, however the cleansing element may 
 be applied. 
 
 DISCOURSE IV. 
 
 THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. 
 
 Can any man forbid water, that fiiese should not be baptized 7 
 Acts, X. 47. 
 
 5. The difficulties attending the administraHon of bap' 
 tis7n by immersiun, in many cases, ought to satisfy us that 
 this mode of administering the ordinance cannot be the only 
 valid mode, and is not the most proper and edifying mode. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 81 
 
 It is perfectly evident, to every reflecting mind, that the 
 obstacles which may be conceived, and which very fre- 
 quently, in fact, occur, to render baptism by immersion diffi- 
 cult, if not impracticable, are very many, and very serious. 
 It will be sufficient to hint at a few of the more familiar and 
 obvious. It is well ki'own that some very large districts of 
 country, in various, parts of our globe, are so parched and 
 dry, and streams of water so rare, or rather, in many cases, 
 so unknown, for many miles together, that the means of 
 immersing a human body, in any natural stream or pool of 
 water, cannot possibly be obtained but with great trouble 
 and expense ; a trouble and expense impracticable to a large 
 portion of every community inhabiting those countries. 
 There are other parts of our globe, near the polar regions, 
 where, during the major portion of every year, the constant 
 reign of severe frost, seals up every natural stream and foun- 
 tain, and renders the immersion of a human body not merely 
 difficult, but impracticable, without great labour and cost. 
 Nor is this all ; even in the temperate and well watered lati- 
 tudes, there are seasons of the year, often of four or five 
 months continuance, when baptism by immersion is generally 
 dangerous, and, in many cases, highly so, to the health, and 
 even the lives of both those who administer, and those who 
 receive the ordinance.* And, finally, at all seasons, persons 
 
 * The Rev, Dr. Austin, in his answer to iMr. Merill, speaks thus — 
 " In besieged cities, where there are thousands, and hundreds of thou- 
 sands of people ; in sandy deserts like those of Africa, Arabia, and 
 Palestine; in the northern regions, where the streams, if there be any, 
 are shut up with impenetrable ice: and in severe and extensive 
 droughts, like that which took place in the time of Ahab; sufficiency 
 of water for animal subsistence is scarcely to be procured, Now, 
 suppose God should, according to his prediction?, pour out plentiful 
 effusions of his spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of these regions 
 or cities, should be born in a day. Upon the Baptist hypothesis, there 
 is an absolute impossibility that they should be baptized, while there 
 is this scarcity of wt;ter ; and this may last as long as they live." p. 41. 
 
 So also, Mr, Walker, in his " Doctrine of Baptisms," (chapter 10) 
 speaks of a Jew, who, while travelling with Christians, in the time of 
 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, about sixty or seventy years after the 
 apostles, was converted, fell sick, and desired baptism. Not having 
 water, they sprinkled him thrice with sand, in the name of the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He recovered, and his case was repor- 
 ted to the Bishop, (or pastor, there being no prelates then) who decided 
 that the man was hapiized, (si modo aqua denuo perfunderatur) if he 
 only had water poured on him again. This record shows, not merely 
 that the " difficulties" referred to, are far from being ideal; but also 
 that when the defect of the baptism by sand was attempted to be sup- 
 plied it was not by any sort of immersion, but only by tlie pouring on 
 of water 
 
 23* 8* 
 
83 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 labouring under disease, can never be baptized in this mode, 
 with safety, at all : and, of course, must be deprived entirely 
 of the privilege of receiving this seal of the Christian cove 
 nant, so reasonable in itself, and so gratifying to the pious 
 mind. It is also certain, that Baptist ministers w^ho are aged 
 and infirm, can never safely officiate in baptizing in any 
 case ; and when they are men remarkably frail and feeble in 
 body, they can never undertake, without manifest danger, to 
 baptize individuals of large stature, or more than common 
 corpulency. To all which may be added, that the public 
 baptism of females with all the delicacy and care which can 
 possibly be employed, is certainly, as thousands attest, a 
 practice little in keeping with those religious feelings and 
 impressions with which it is desirable that every Christian 
 solemnity should be attended. 
 
 Now, contrast all these difficulties, which, surely, form a 
 mass of no small magnitude with the entire absence of every 
 difficulty of baptizing by sprinkhng or affusion. According 
 to our plan, which, we have no doubt, is by far the most 
 scriptural and edifying, baptism may be performed with 
 equal ease and convenience in all countries ; at all seasons 
 of the year ; in all situations of health or sickness ; with 
 equal safety by all ministers, whether young or old, athletic 
 or feeble ; and in all circumstances that can well be concei- 
 ved. How admirably does this accord with the Gospel 
 economy, which is not intended to be confined to any one 
 people, or to any particular climate ; but is equally adapted, 
 in all its principles, and in all its rites to every " kindred, 
 and people, and nation, and tongue !" 
 
 Accordingly, it is a notorious fact, that, in consideration 
 of the difficulties which have been mentioned as attending 
 immersion, a large body of Baptists, in Holland, I mean 
 the Mennonites, who were once warm and uncompromising 
 contenders for this mode of administering baptism, at length 
 gave it up, and, while they still baptize none but adults, 
 have been, for more than a hundred years, in the practice of 
 pouring water on the head of the candidate, through the 
 hand of the administrator. They found that when candi- 
 dates for baptism were lying on sick beds ; or confined in 
 prison ; or in a state of peculiarly delicate health ; or in va- 
 rious other unusual situations, which may be easily ima- 
 gined ; there was so much difficulty, not to say, in some 
 cases, a total impossibility in baptizing by plunging ; that 
 they deliberately, as a denomination, after the death of their 
 first leader, agreed to lay aside, as I said, the practice of im- 
 mersion, and substituted the plan of affusion. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 83 
 
 There is one difficulty more, in reference to tlie mode of 
 baptism by immersion, of which it is not easy to speak, on 
 an occasion like the present, vvitliout appearing to intend 
 ridicule of an ordinance so solemn and important. Fidelity 
 to the subject, however, demands that 1 speak of it; and 1 
 trust no one will suspect me of a design to make any other 
 than a perfecdy grave and fair use of the matter to which I 
 refer. The circumstance to which I allude is, that in the 
 third, fourth, and immediately following centuries — in the 
 days of Cyprian, Cyril, Athanasius, and Ciirysostom — when, 
 as all agree, the mode of baptizing by immersion was the 
 most prevalent method ; there is no historical fact more per- 
 fectly established, than that, whenever baptism was thus ad- 
 ministered, the candidate, whether infant or adult, male or 
 female, was entirely divested of all clothing: not merely of 
 outer garments, but, I repeat, of all clothing. No exception 
 was allowed in any case, even when the most timid and del- 
 icate female importunately desired it. This fact is estab- 
 lished, not only by the most direct and unequivocal state- 
 ments, and that by a number of writers, but also by the nar- 
 ration of a number of curious particulars connected with this 
 practice.* Among the rest we are told of scenes of indeco- 
 rum exhibited in the baptisteries of those days, which con- 
 vinced the friends of religion that the practice ought to be 
 discontinued, and it was finally laid aside. Perhaps it will 
 be asked, whether this fact in the history of Christian bap- 
 tism is adverted to for the purpose of reflecting odium, in a 
 sinister and indirect manner, on the practice of immersion? 
 I answer, by no means ; but simply for the purpose of show- 
 ing that in tracing the history of baptism by immersion, we 
 have the very same evidence in favour of immersing divested 
 of all clothing, that we have for immersing at all : that, so 
 far as the history of the church, subsequent to the apostolic 
 age, informs us, these two practices must stand or fall toge- 
 ther ;t and that an appendage to baptism so revolting, so im- 
 
 * The zealous Baptist Robert Robinson, bears, on this subject, the 
 following testimony : " 'I'he primitive Christians baptized naked. 
 Nothing is easier than to give proof of this by quotations from the au- 
 thentic writings of the men who administered baptism, and who cer- 
 tainly knew \n what way they themselves performed it. There is no 
 ancient historical fact better authenticated than this. The evidence 
 does not go on the evidence of the single word, naked ; for then a 
 reader might suspect allegory ; but on facts reported, and many reasons 
 assigned for the practice." History of Baptism, p. 85. He then 
 quotes several examples dated in the fourth century. 
 
 + The learned Wall speaks on the subject thus : " The ancient 
 Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized 
 
84 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 moral, and so entirely inadmissible, plainly shows that those 
 who practised it must have been chargeable with a supersti- 
 tious and extravagant adoption of a mere form, which, from 
 its character, we are compelled to believe was a human in- 
 vention, and took its rise in the rudeness of growing supersti- 
 tion, perhaps from a source still more impure and criminal. 
 
 Besides, if the principle for which our Baptist brethren 
 contend, be correct ; if the immersion of the whole body be 
 essential to Christian Baptism, and if the thing signified be 
 the cleansing and purifying of the individual by an ablution 
 which must of necessity extend to the whole person ; it 
 would really seem that performing this ceremony, divested 
 of all clothing, is essential to its emblematic meaning. Who 
 ever thought of covering the hands with gloves when they 
 were about to be washed ; or expected really to cleanse them 
 through such a covering ? No wonder, then, when the 
 principle began to find a place in the church, that the sub- 
 mersion of every part of the body in water, that the literal 
 bathing of the whole person was essential both to the expres- 
 siveness and the validity of the emblematical transaction ; no 
 wonder, I say, that the obvious consequence should soon be 
 admitted, that the whole body ought to be uncovered, as 
 never fails to be the case, with any member of the body 
 which may wish to be successfully cleansed by bathing. 
 And we have no hesitation in saying, that, if we fully adop- 
 ted the general principle of our Baptist brethren in relation 
 to this matter, we should no more think of subjecting the 
 body to that process which must, in order to its validity, be 
 strictly emblematical of a complete spiritual bathing, while 
 covered with clothes, than we should thmk, in common life, 
 of washing the hands or the feet, while carefully covered 
 with the articles of dress with which they are commonly 
 clothed. Whereas, if the principle of Poedobaptists on this 
 subject be adopted, then the solemn application of water to 
 that part of the body which is an epitome of the whole per- 
 son, and which is always, as a matter of course, uncovered, 
 is amply sufficient to answer every purpose both of emblem 
 and of benefit. 
 
 naked; whether they were men, women, or children. The proofs ot 
 this, I shall omit, because it is a clear case. The English Antipoedo- 
 baptists need not have made so great an outcry against Mr. Baxter for 
 his saying that they baptized naked; for if they had, it would have 
 been no more than the primitive Christians did. They thought it bet- 
 ter represented the putting off the old man, and also the nakedness of 
 Christ on the cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, they judged 
 it should be the washing of the body, not of the clothes," Wall, Chap- 
 ter XV. Part II 
 
INFANT BAPTISM 85 
 
 Besides, let me appeal to our Baptist brethren, by asking, 
 if they verily believe that the primitive and apostolic mode of 
 administering baptism was by immersion, and that this im- 
 mersion was performed in a state of entire nakedness ; how 
 can they dare, upon their principles, to depart, as to one 
 iota from that mode ? Let them not say, that they carefully 
 retain the substance, the essential characters of the plan of 
 immersion. Very true. This is our plea ; and it accords 
 very well with what we consider as the correct system ; but 
 in the mouth of a Baptist it is altogether inadmissible. The 
 institute in question is a " positive" one ; and, according to 
 him, we must not depart one jot or tittle from the original 
 plan. 
 
 These considerations, strike me as affording decisive 
 evidence, that a mode of baptism attended with so many 
 real and formidable difficulties, cannot be of divine appoint- 
 ment; at any rate that it cannot be univeisally binding on 
 the church of God ; and that laying so much stress upon 
 the completeness of the submersion, is servility and supersti- 
 tion. We may say of this ordinance, as our Lord said of 
 the Sabbath. Baptism ivas made for man, and not man 
 for baptism. Where a particular mode of complying with 
 a religious observance would be, in many cases, " a yoke of 
 bondage," and one, too, for which no divine warrant could 
 be pleaded, it would surely argue the very slavery of super- 
 stition, to enforce that mode of the observance as essential to 
 a regular standing in the visible family of Christ. 
 
 6. As a further objection to the doctrine of our Baptist 
 brethren in relation to the mode of baptism, let us examine 
 some of the figurative language of Scripture which refers 
 to this ordinance ; and especially certain passages on which 
 they are accustomed to place their greatest reliance for the 
 support of their cause. 
 
 Perhaps no passages in Scripture have been more fre- 
 quently and confidently pressed into the service of baptism 
 by immersion than those that are found in Romans vi. 3, 4, 
 and Colossians ii. 12. In the former we find the following : 
 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Je- 
 sus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we 
 are buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as 
 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Fa- 
 ther, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Cor- 
 responding with this in Colossians ii. 12, the following pas- 
 sage occurs : " 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." 
 
86 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Now, our Baptist brethren, believing and insisting that 
 baptism and immersion ought to be considered, in all cases, 
 as synonymous terms, take for granted that the expression, 
 " Buried with him in baptism," is intended to refer to the 
 resemblance between the interment of a dead body, and its 
 subsequent resurrection from beneath the surface of the earth ; 
 and the immersion of a baptized person entirely under the 
 water, and raising him up again from beneath the surface of 
 the fluid. In a word, our Baptist brethren assure us, that 
 the design of the apostle in these passages is to say, that 
 " the baptized person's communion with Christ in his 
 death and burial, is represented by his being laid under the 
 water ; and his communion with him in his resurrection, by 
 his being raised out of it." In this general interpretation of 
 the figure many Poedobaptists have agreed ; and have thus 
 not a little confirmed the confidence of anti-pcedobaptists in 
 their cause. I am persuaded, however, that a candid exami- 
 nation of the real import of the figurative language before us, 
 will show that this confidence is entirely unfounded. 
 
 The Apostle, in the preceding part of the epistle to the 
 Romans, had shown that Christians are justified by faith in 
 the righteousness of Christ. He proceeds in the sixth 
 chapter to obviate the objection, that this doctrine tends to 
 licentiousness. " What shall we say, then ? Shall we con- 
 tinue in sin that grace may abound ? God forbid !" He 
 rejects with abhorrence the odious thought. " How shall we 
 that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" He then ad- 
 verts to the significance of baptism, which being the ordi- 
 nance which seals our introduction into the family of Christ 
 may be considered as exhibiting both the first principles of 
 Gospel truth, and the first elements of christian character. 
 " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into 
 Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ?" He then in- 
 fers, that since baptism has so immediate a reference to the 
 death of Christ, it must, by consequence, be connected also 
 with his resurrection ; and that, as in the former view, it 
 teaches the regenerated the abandoning of the old life of sin ; 
 so, in the latter, it equally teaches them the pursuit and prog- 
 ress of the new life of righteousness. " Therefore we are 
 buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ 
 was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
 so we also should walk in newness of life." 
 
 The obvious design of the apostle is to illustrate the cha- 
 racter and obligations of believers, from the circumstance, 
 that they are, in a certain respect, conformed to Christ's 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 8T 
 
 death; that as he died for sin, so they are dead, or are under 
 obligations to be dead, to sin ; that is they are holy, or are, 
 by their profession, obliged to be holy. " So many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his 
 death." And this is explained by what follows. " In that 
 Christ died, he died unto sin (or on account of sin) once ; 
 but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon 
 ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, (or in respect 
 to sin,) but alive unto God through Jesus Christ." This is 
 what was signified by baptism. And so believers were bap- 
 tized into Christ's death: not that baptism was a symbol of 
 death, or the state of the dead ; for water, or washing in wa- 
 ter, never was a symbol of this. But water, used in cere- 
 monial, whether by washing or sprinkling, and afterwards in 
 Christian baptism, always signified the fact, or the acknow- 
 ledged necessHy of purification. Now being dead or in a 
 state of death to sin, is the same thing as to be spiritually 
 purified, or made holij. And this is the very thing that bap- 
 tism, coming in the place of ablutions under the former 
 economy, is exacdy adapted to signify. Or, to say all in a 
 word, water used in baptism is a sign of that moral purifica- 
 tion of believers, which the Apostle means to express by 
 their being crucified, dead, and conformed to Christ's death. 
 Their being dead in conformity with Christ, is the expres- 
 sion which contains the metaphor. And baptism, as an ap- 
 pointed token or symbol, denotes what is signified by the 
 metaphor, not the metaphor itself.* The sura of the apos- 
 tle's illustration, then, so for as the point before us is con- 
 cerned, is simply this — That in baptism, as a rite emblemati- 
 cal of moral purifirafion, Christians profess to be baptized 
 into the death of Christ, as well as, into (or into the hope 
 o^) kis resurrection; that they are dead nnd buried in re- 
 spect to sin, that is, in a moral and spiritual sense; so that 
 every Christian can say, with Paul — "I am crucified with 
 Christ; I have been made conformable to his death; being 
 dead indeed to sin, and alive to God by Jesus Christ." 
 
 But besides all this, which is sufficient of itself to show 
 how litde reliance is to be placed on the gloss of this passage 
 adopted by our Baptist brethren — the burial of Christ was 
 
 * See Dr. Woods' Lectures on Infant Baptism, p. 188, 189. See 
 this interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and the corre^'iiondinjL;;' passag^e in 
 Colossians ii. 12, weil illustrated in the Essay on Baptism, by Greville 
 Ewinfr, D. D. of Glasgow, and also in a Dissertation on Infant Bap. 
 tism, by Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. of Glasgow ; and still more recently 
 by Professor Slitart, in the Biblical Repository, p. 327. 332. 
 
88 INFANT B4PTISM. 
 
 by no means such as the friends of this exposition commonly 
 suppose. The body of our Saviour was never buried in the 
 manner in which we are accustomed to inter human corpses, 
 that is by letting it down into the bosom of the earth, and 
 covering it with earth. It was placed in a tomb hewn out 
 of a rock; not a tomb sunk in the earth, but hollowed out of 
 a rock, above ground, and containing separate cells for the 
 reception of bodies, " as the manner of the Jews was to 
 bury." Even supposing, then, that it were yielded to our 
 Baptist brethren that the design of the Apostle is to teach the 
 mode of baptism, by comparing it to the burial of Christ, it 
 would by no means serve their purpose. There was not in 
 fact any such subterranean immersion, if the expression may 
 be allowed, as they imagine. The body of the Saviour 
 was evidently laid in a stone cell, above ground, in which no 
 earth came in contact with it, and in which, when the stone 
 Avhich closed up the door was taken away, the body was 
 distinctly visible. In short, the burial of Christ no more re- 
 sembled the modern interment of a dead body among us, 
 than the depositing such a body, for a time, in an apartment 
 in the basement story of a dwelling house, the floor of which 
 was either not sunk below the surface of the earth at all, or if 
 any, not more than a few inches ; admitting of free ingress 
 and egress as a common inhabited room. The figure in 
 question, then, does not serve the turn of our Baptist breth- 
 ren ; thus affording another proof, that nothing more Avas 
 intended by its use, than to set forth that by being baptized 
 into the death of Christ, we profess to be dead and buried 
 in respect to sin, without any reference whatever to the 
 mode in which either the burial or the baptism might be 
 performed. 
 
 Accordingly in the verse immediately preceding that be- 
 fore commented on, in the second Episde to the ColossianSy 
 the following passage occurs, evidently intended to teach the 
 same lesson : " In whom also ye are circumcised with the 
 circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." And 
 in the verse immediately following that in which the burial 
 of Christ is alluded to, the figure of circumcision as an em- 
 blem of spiritual cleansing, is still pursued : " And you 
 being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your 
 flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven 
 you all trespasses." Here it is plain, the same general idea 
 is meant to be conveyed, as in the reference to baptism, 
 which has come in the room of circumcision. In both the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 80 
 
 putting away sin ; the " putting ofT the sins of the flesh," is 
 emhlematically represented and sealed : as a man dead an(i 
 buried is cut ofT from all temporal connections and indulgen- 
 ces ; so the baptized man is really, or at least by profession, 
 dead to sin, and in this way made conformable to the death 
 of Christ in its great design and efficiency, which are to pu- 
 rify to himself a peculiar people, dead to the world, dead to 
 carnal ambition, and secluded from every unhallowed practice. 
 
 Another signal example of the figurative language of Scrip- 
 ture applied to baptism, occurs in 1 Corinthiaris, x. 1, 2. 
 " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be igno- 
 rant, 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." Now, when we turn to the 
 narrative given by Moses, in the fourteenth chapter of Ex- 
 odus, we find that the Red Sea, through which the Israelites 
 passed, was divided before them ; that the waters stood up 
 like a wall on each side ; and that they passed through on 
 DRY GROUND. We are also informed, that the cloud by 
 which their line of march was divinely directed, did not even 
 fall upon them in the form of a shower, much less submerge 
 them ; but that it alternately went behind them and before 
 them ; now hanging in their rear, for the purpose of conceal- 
 ing them from their enemies ; and then preceding them in 
 their course, presenting a face of splendour to them, and a 
 face of darkness to their pursuers. In all this, there was 
 evidently nothing like immersion. The utmost that could 
 have happened, in consistency with the inspired narrative, 
 was their being sprinkled by the spray of the sea, or by 
 drops from the miraculous cloud, when it passed over their 
 heads. 
 
 The last passage of the class under consideration to which 
 I shall advert, is that found in the first Epistle of Peter, iii. 
 20, 21 : " The long-sutfering of God waited in the days of 
 Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is 
 eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure where- 
 unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away 
 of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
 toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The prin- 
 ciple implied in this passage is plain ; and it affords not the 
 smallest countenance to the doctrine of our Baptist brethren. 
 Evey one sees, that in the case of Noah and his family, and 
 of all the animals preserved with them in the ark, there was 
 no immorsion in the waters of the flood. Nay, this was the 
 very evil from which the ark preserved them. Of course, 
 24 9 
 
90 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 whatever else the passage may prove, it is impossible that 
 it should be legitimately considered as favouring baptism by 
 plunging the whole body under water. 
 
 7. Further ; that immersion is not necessary in baptism ; 
 and that to insist upon it, as indispensable, is superstition, 
 appears from the indisputable fact, that both the significance 
 and the effect of baptism are to be considered as depending^ 
 not on the physical influence of water, or upon the quantity 
 of it employed, but on its symbolical meaning, and on the 
 blessing of God upon its application as a symbol. There 
 has always been a tendency in human nature to lay more 
 stress than the Bible warrants upon outward forms : and to 
 imagine that external rites have a virtue inherent in them- 
 selves, by which their recipients are of course savingly bene- 
 fitted. It is generally granted by enlightened Protestants to 
 be one of the mischievous errors of Popery, that baptism, 
 and the other appointed rites of our religion, when admin- 
 istered by authorized hands, have an inherent efficacy ; a 
 sort of self-operating power on those to whom they are ad- 
 ministered. This we consider as a superstitious and dange- 
 rous error. We believe that no external ordinance has any 
 power in itself; but that its power to benefit those who re- 
 ceive it depends altogether upon the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit of God, making it effectual ; and that this influence 
 may accompany or follow the ordinance, whatever may be 
 the outward form of its administration. If, indeed, we had 
 reason to believe that the benefit of baptism was caused by 
 the physical influence of water on any or every part of the 
 body, and depended upon that influence : if the least intimation 
 of this kind were given us, either by the word of God, or the 
 nature of the case ; it would be wise to insist on a rigorous 
 adherence to that form. But as the benefit of the ordinance 
 has no connection, so far as we know, with the operation oi 
 water on the animal frame ; but is the result, solely, of a di- 
 vine blessing on a prescribed and striking emblem ; and as 
 the word of God has no where informed us of the precise 
 mode in which that emblem shall be applied — -we infer that 
 the divine blessing may attend upon any mode of applying 
 it. The language of our blessed Saviour on a memorable 
 occasion is full of instruction on this subject. In order to 
 give his disciples a striking lesson both of humility and pu- 
 rity, he condescended, on a certain evening when they were 
 assembled under solemn circumstances, to wash their feet. 
 Simon Peter, when his Master came to him, like too many 
 at the present day, misunderstanding the nature and signifi- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 91 
 
 cance of the symbolical action, at first strongly objected, and 
 said, " Thou shalt never wash my feet." Jesus answered, 
 *' If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in me." To which 
 Peter, in the fulness of his fervent zeal, replied, "Lord, not my 
 feet only, but also my hands and my head." Jesus, however, 
 meaning to convey the idea that the whole action was symboli- 
 cal, and that the application of water to any part of the body 
 was abundantly sufficient, rejoins to Peter. "He that is wash- 
 ed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit ; 
 as much as to say, "It is not the physical ablution, but the 
 symbolical meaning, to which I now wish to call your atten- 
 tion; and for this purpose the application of wnter to the feet 
 only, carries with it all the fulness of meaning, and all the 
 richness of benefit, that could have resulted from the most 
 plentiful application of it to the whole frame." 
 
 8. Another, and in my view, conclusive reason for believ- 
 ing that our Baptist brethren are in error, in insisfing that no 
 baptism unless by immersion is valid, is that the. native ten- 
 dency of lids doctrine is to superstition and abuse. The 
 tendency here alleged has been often observed and lamented 
 by serious people, as likely to be connected with a false hope 
 and to destroy the souls of multitudes. Facts in support of 
 this remark have fallen under my own painful observation. 
 I have known many Baptists who appeared to feel as if there 
 was some inherent efficacy in being " buried under the waier," 
 and that those who submitted to that self-denying rite, were, of 
 course, real Christians. They have evidently appeared to 
 think that that was the great step in religion ; and that, hav- 
 ing taken it, all was secure. Now, I contend, that this is the 
 natural tendency of the Baptist doctrine; that their laying 
 so much stress upon " going under the water," and holding 
 it up, with unceasing zeal, to the popular view, as the great 
 distinguishing, and indispensable badge of discipleship, is 
 unavoidably, adapted to betray " unwary souls" into a delu 
 sive confidence. There is no disposition in depraved human 
 nature more deeply inwrought, or more incessantly operative, 
 than the disposition to rely upon something done by us for 
 securing the divine favour. It is this disposition which has 
 led to all that enormous mass of superstitious observances 
 which distinguishes the Papal system, and which we have 
 every reason to believe is built upon by millions, as the foun- 
 dation of hope, instead of Christ. Whenever, therefore, any 
 external rite becomes the grand distinction of a sect, and the 
 object of something approaching to sectarian idolatry, we 
 may be sure there exists not only the danger, but the actual 
 
92 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 commencement, to some extent, of that superstitious reliance, 
 which he who has not learned to fear, " knows nothing of 
 the human heart yet as he ought to know." 
 
 That this suggestion has something more than mere fancy 
 on which to rest, is evident from facts of recent and most 
 mournful occurrence. A large and daily increasing sect has 
 arisen, within a few years, in the bosom of the Baptist de- 
 nomination which maintains the delusive and destructive doc- 
 trine, that baptism is regeneration ; that no man can be re- 
 generated who is not immersed ; and that all, without excep- 
 tion, who have a historical faith, and are immersed, are of 
 course, in a state of salvation. This pernicious heresy, so 
 contrary to the plainest principles and facts of the word of 
 God, and so manifestly adapted to destroy the souls of all 
 ^vho believe it, has been propagated to a melancholy extent, 
 by a plausible, reckless, and impious demagogue, and is sup- 
 posed to embrace one half of the Baptist body in the western 
 country, besides many in the east. In short, the Baptist 
 churches, in large districts of country, are so rent in pieces, 
 and deluded by the miserable impostor referred to, that their 
 prospects, for many years to come, are not only gloomy, but 
 without a special interposition of the King of Zion in their 
 favour, altogether desperate. 
 
 Now I maintain that this wretched delusion is by no means 
 an unnatural result of the doctrine and practice of our Bap- 
 tist brethren, in regard to the baptismal rite. Multitudes of 
 them, I know, reject and abhor the heresy in question as 
 much as any of us. But have they duly considered, that it 
 seems naturally to have grown out of their own theory and 
 practice in regard to baptism; their attaching such a dispro- 
 portioned importance to the mode of administering that ordi- 
 nance; often, very often, directing the attention of the people 
 more to the river than the cross ; excluding all from Chris- 
 tian communion, however pious, who have not been immer- 
 sed ; and making representations which, whether so intended 
 or not, naturally lead the weak and the uninformed to con 
 sider immersion as a kind of talisman, always connected with 
 a saving blessing? This, I sincerely believe, is the native 
 tendency of the doctrine of our Baptist brethren, although 
 they, I am equally confident, neither perceive nor admit this 
 to be the case, if pious Christians who have not been im- 
 mersed cannot be admitted to communion in the church below, 
 there would seem to be still more reason for excluding them 
 from the purer church above. And so far as this principle 
 is received and cherished, though far from being alike mis- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 93 
 
 chievous in all cases, it can scarcely fail of predisposing many 
 minds in favour of that awful delusion, by which we have 
 reason to believe that not a few, under its higher workings 
 have been blinded, betrayed, and lost. 
 
 9. Finally ; that immersion cannot be considered, to say 
 the least, as essential to a valid baptism, is plain from the 
 history of this ordinance. 
 
 It is not denied that, for the first few centuries after Christ, 
 the most common mode of administering baptism, was by 
 immersion. But it is maintained that affusion and sprinkling 
 were also practised, and when used, were considered as per- 
 fectly vahd and sufficient. Of diis the proof is so complete 
 and indubitable, that no one really acquainted with the early 
 history of the church, will think, for a moment, of calling it 
 in question. The learned fVall, whose *' History of Infant 
 Baptism" is generally considered, by competent judges, as 
 one of the most profound and faithful works extant, on the 
 subject before us ; after showing conclusively that Pcedo- 
 baptists ought not to refuse the admission, that baptism by 
 dipping was the most prevalent mode, even in the western 
 church, for a number of centuries after Christ ; goes on to 
 remark that, on the other hand, the Antipcedobaptists will be 
 quite as unfair in their turn, if tliey do not grant, that in 
 cases of sickness, weakliness, haste, want of a sufficient 
 quantity of water, or any such extraordinary occasion, bap- 
 tism by the affusion of water on the face, was, by the an- 
 cients, counted sufficient baptism. Of the testimony which 
 he offers in support of this statement, a specimen will be pre- 
 sented.* 
 
 Eusebius states, (Book 6, chapter 43,) on the authority of 
 preceding writers, that Novatian being sick, and near death, 
 as was supposed, was baptized on his bed by affusion. He, 
 however, recovered, and was afterwards ordained to the 
 work of the ministry. And although some questioned, 
 whether a man who had been brought to make a profession 
 of religion only on a sick bed, and wlien he considered him- 
 self as about to die, ought to be made a minister; yet this 
 doubt arose, we are assured, not from any apprehension that 
 the baptism itself was incomplete ; but on the principle, that 
 he who came to the faith not voluntarily, but from necessity, 
 ought not to be made a priest, unless his subsequent diligence 
 and faith should be distinguished and highly commendable. 
 
 Of the character of Cyprian, who flourished in the former 
 
 * Wall, Part II. chapter ix. p. 352, &c. 
 
 24* 9* 
 
94 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 part of the third century, enough has been said in a preced- 
 ing discourse. A certain Magnus, a country minister, con- 
 sulted him on the question, whether those who had been in- 
 troduced into the Christian Church, by baptism on their sick 
 beds, and, of course, by affusion or sprinkUng, ought to be 
 baptized again, if they recovered? Cyprian's answer to 
 this question is as follows : 
 
 " You inquire, my dear son, what I think of such as at- 
 tain grace in time of sickness and infirmity : whether they 
 are to be accounted lawful Christians, because they have not 
 been ivashed all over with the water of salvation, but have 
 only had some of it poured on iliem. In which matter I 
 would use so much modesty and humility, as not to pre- 
 scribe so positively, but that every one should enjoy the 
 freedom of his own thought, and do as he thinks best. I do, 
 however, according to the best of my mean capacity, judge 
 thus : That the divine favours can in no wise be mutilated or 
 weakened, so that any thing less than the whole of them is 
 conveyed, where the benefit of them is received with a full 
 and complete faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver. 
 For, in the sacrament of salvation, the contagion of sin is not 
 washed off in the same manner as the filth of the body is in 
 a carnal and secidar bath. It is entirely in a different way 
 that the heart of a believer — it is after another fashion that 
 the mind of man is by faith cleansed. In the sacraments of 
 salvation, through the indulgence of God, when necessity 
 compels, the shortest way of transacting divine matters, con- 
 veys the whole benefit to those who believe. Nor let any 
 be moved by the fact, that the sick, when they are baptized, 
 are only perfused or sprinkled, since the Scripture says, 
 by the prophet Ezekiel, (chapter xxxvi. 25, 36,) " I will 
 sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye sliall be clean ; from 
 all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you ; a 
 new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put 
 within you." It is also said in the book of numbers, (chap, 
 xix.) " And the man which shall be unclean until the even- 
 ing, shall be purified on the third day, and on the seventh 
 day, and he shall be clean. But if he shall not be purified 
 on the third day, and on the seventh day, he shall not be 
 clean, and that soul shall be cut off from Israel, because the 
 water of aspersion liath not been sprinkled upon him." And 
 again, tlie Lord spake unto Moses, in the book of Numbers, 
 (chap, viii.) " Take the Levites from among the children of 
 Israel, and cleanse them ; and thus shalt thou do unto them 
 to cleanse them ; sprinkle water of purifying upon them." 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 00 
 
 And again, " the water of aspersion is purification." From 
 which it appears that sprinkhng is sufficient instead of im- 
 mersion; and wliensoever it is done, if there be a sound 
 faith, on the part both of the giver and receiver, it is perfect 
 and complete." 
 
 From these passages, as well as from a number of others, 
 which might be quoted, found in the works of Cyprian, it is 
 evident, that, in a litde more than one hundred and fifty 
 years from the death of the last apostle, cases of baptism by 
 perfusion or sprinkling had notoriously, and in repeated in- 
 stances, occurred ; that such examples were found among 
 the heretics, as well as in the orthodox church ; that a man 
 so learned and pious as the venerable Cyprian, was de- 
 cisively of the opinion that they were to be justified; and, 
 finally, that he considered this as a point concerning which 
 Christians were at liberty to entertain their own opinion, and 
 to do as they judged best. Plainly implying that he did not 
 consider it at all as an essential matter. 
 
 Origen was contemporary with Cyprian. He wrote in 
 the Greek language. It was his vernacular tongue ; and he 
 was, probably, the most learned man of the century in which 
 he lived. This venerable Christian father, commenting on 1 
 Kings, xviii. 33, in which we read of Elijah's ordering water 
 to be poured on the burnt sacrifice, tells us that he baptized 
 the wood on the altar. Was not Origen a good judge of the 
 meaning of a Greek word? Can we imagine that he would 
 have used the word baptize in this sense, if he had regarded 
 immersion as its exclusive meaning? 
 
 When Laurentius, a Roman deacon, about the middle of 
 the third century, was brought to the stake to suffer martyr- 
 dom, a soldier who had been employed to be one of his exe- 
 cutioners, professed to be converted, and requested baptism 
 from the hands of him whom he had been engaged to assist 
 in burning. For this purpose a pitcher of water was 
 brought, and the soldier baptized at the place of execution.* 
 In circumstances so solemn as these, surely no conscientious 
 man would have sported with a divine ordinance, or sub- 
 jected it to any essential mutilation. It was, doubtless, 
 deemed a sufficient mode of administering baptism. 
 
 Gennadius, a distinguished ecclesiastic of Marseilles, in 
 the fifth century, speaks of baptism as administered in the 
 French church indifferently, by either immersion or affusion, 
 or sprinkling. For having said, " We believe the way of 
 
 * Walfridius Strabo, Dc Rebus Ecclesiast. as quoted by Wall 
 
96 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 salvation to be open only to baptized persons;" he adds, 
 "except only in the case of martyrdom, in which all the 
 sacraments of baptism are completed." Then, to show how 
 martyrdom has all in it that baptism has, he says, " The per- 
 son to be baptized, owns his faith before the priest ; and 
 when the interrogatories are put to him, makes his answer. 
 The same does a martyr before the heathen judge. He also 
 owns his faith; and when the question is put to him, makes 
 answer. The one, after his confession is either wetted with 
 the water, or else plunged into it; and the other, is either 
 wetted with his own blood, or plunged into the fire." This 
 language plainly evinces that in the time of Gennadius, both 
 modes of baptism were in use and deemed equally valid. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventura, are well known as 
 two learned ecclesiastics of the twelfth century. In their 
 time it is evident that both plunging and affusion ^vere used 
 in the churches of Italy, in the administration of baptism. 
 Aquinas, in writing on the subject, expresses himself thus : 
 •' Baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by 
 aflusion of water, or by sprinkling with it. But it is the 
 safer way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most 
 common custom." On the other hand, his contemporary, 
 Bonaventura, observes, " The way of affusion in baptism 
 was probably used by the apostles, and was, in his time, 
 used in the churches of France, and some others ;" but re- 
 marks, *' The method of dipping into the water is the more 
 common, and therefore the fitter and safer." 
 
 The Synod of Anglers, A. D. 1275, speaks of dipping 
 and pouring as indifferently used ; and blames some igno- 
 rant priests, because they dipped or poured on ivater, but 
 once; and at the same time declaring that the general custom 
 of the church was to dip, or to pour on water three times. 
 The Synod of Langres, A. D. 1404, speaks of pouring or 
 perfusion only. " Let the priest make three pourings or 
 sprinklings of water on the infanVs head," &:c. The 
 Council of Cologne, in 1536, evidently intimate that both 
 modes were constantly practised. Their language is, " The 
 child is thrice either dipped or wetted with water." Fifteen 
 years afterwards, in the Agenda of the Church of Mentz, 
 published by Sebastian, there is found the following direc 
 tion: "Then let the priest take the child on his left arm, 
 and holding him over the font, let him, with his right hand, 
 three several times, take water out of the font, and pour it on 
 the child's head, so that the water may wet its head and 
 shoulders." Then they give a note to this purpose ; that 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 97 
 
 immersion, once or thrice, or pouring of water may be used, 
 and have been used, in the church ; that this variety does not 
 aiier the nature of baptism ! and that a man would do ill to 
 break the custom of the church for eitiier of them. But they 
 add, that it is better, if the church will allow, to use pouring 
 on of water. " For suppose," say they, " the priest be old 
 and feeble, or have the palsy in his hands ; or the weather 
 be very cold ; or the child be very infirm ; or too big to be 
 dipped in the font ; then it is much titter to use affusion of 
 the water." Then they bring the instance of the apostles 
 baptizing three thousand at a time ; and the instance of 
 Lanrentius, the Roman deacon, before spoken of — and add, 
 *' That, therefore, there may not be one way for the sick, 
 and another for the healthy ; one for children, and another 
 for bigger persons ; it is better that the administrator of this 
 sacrament do observe the safest way, which is, to pour wa- 
 ter thrice; unless the custom be to the contrary." {JVull^ 
 Fart II. chapter ix. p. 360, 361.) 
 
 One more historical record, which though apparently in- 
 considerable in itself, is, in my view, decisive, shall close 
 the present list of testimonies. It is one referred to in a for- 
 mer discourse, when speaking of Infant baptism. I mean 
 the undoubted fact, that the Waldenses, those far-Aimed and 
 devoted witnesses of the truth, who maintained, during the 
 darkness and desolation of the Papacy, " the testimony of 
 Jesus," very soon after the Reformation opened, approached 
 with the most cordial friendliness, the Reformed churches of 
 Geneva and France; recognised them as sisters in the Lord; 
 received ministers from them ; and maintained with them 
 the most affectionate communion. Now it is certain that, 
 at that time, in the churches of both Geneva and France, 
 the baptism of infants, and the administration of the ordi 
 nance by sprinkling, were in constant use. On such an 
 incontestable fact, the argument is this : The Waldenses 
 either baptized by sprinkling or by immersion. If by 
 sprinkling, an important testimony is gained in favour of 
 that mode, from ecclesiastical history. If by immersion, 
 they plainly laid no such stress upon the mode as our Bap- 
 tist brethren now do ; since they were willing to commune 
 with, and to receive ministers from, churches which were in 
 the habit of using sprinkling only. In my view, as I said, 
 this argument is decisive. We knou) that the Waldenses 
 habitually baptized infants; but in what mode they admin- 
 istered the ordinance is not quite so certain. But one thing 
 is unquestionable ; and that is, that those pious witnesses 
 
98 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 for Christ, even if they did immerse, did not consider the 
 mode as essential, but were ready to hold the most unreser- 
 ved communion with those who practised aspersion. 
 
 These testimonies, and many more to the same purpose, 
 which might be presented if it were necessary, must, it ap- 
 pears to me, satisfy every impartial mind, that, from the 
 days of the apostles down to the Reformation, affusion, and 
 sprinkling in baptism, as well as immersion, have been in 
 constant use ; that some of the gravest and most soberminded 
 writers, have firmly defended the two former, as well as the 
 latter; that the strong arguments in favour of affusion or 
 sprinkling, as the preferable mode, have been, in all ages, 
 distinctly appreciated ; and that it has ever been considered 
 as a part of Christian liberty to use either mode, as may be 
 conscientiously preferred. 
 
 Suffer me now to close this discussion by presenting two 
 or three practical inferences from the view which has been 
 given of this latter part of the subject. And, 
 
 1. If our statement of evidence as to the mode of baptism 
 be correct, then the conduct of our Baptist brethren, in not 
 only denying to the infant seed of believers all right to mem- 
 bership in the church, but also making immersion indispen- 
 sable to a valid baptism, are chargeable with taking ground 
 which is plainly unscriptural, and with dividing the body of 
 Christ, for a mere uncommanded circumstance ; a circum- 
 stance in regard to which all reasoning, and all history are, 
 on the v/hole against them. We do not deny that the bap- 
 tisms of these brethren are valid ; but we do deny that they 
 rest upon any more solid ground tlian ours ; and we are per- 
 suaded that, without the least authority, they lay on the re- 
 cipients of baptism " a yoke of bondage," which has no 
 warrant tTom the word of God ; and which the whole genius 
 of the Gospel forbids. Surely, if the inspired writers had re- 
 garded immersion in the same light with our Baptist brethren, 
 we should have had some explicit statements on this subject 
 in the instructions given to the churches in the infancy of 
 their New Testament course. And, surely, the attempt to 
 lay burdens which the Spirit of God has no where authori- 
 zed, is to incur the guilt imputed to those who " add to" the 
 things which are contained in the book of life. On this 
 subject I feel that it is no longer our duty to content our- 
 selves with standing on the defensive. Our opponents in this 
 controversy, I verily believe, are chargeable with " teaching 
 for doctrines the commandments of men;" and, of course, I 
 consider them as equally sinning against the Head of the 
 Church, and against " the generation of the righteous." 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 99 
 
 2. These things being so, we may see how the conduct 
 of some of our Baptist brethren, in particular slates of the 
 church, ought to be regarded by the friends of Zioii. The 
 conduct to which I refer is, their having so often intruded 
 into churches in which some rehgious attention has existed, 
 and in which scarcely a family of their own denomination 
 was to be found; and when the minds of many individuals 
 were anxious respecting their eternal interests, immediately 
 broaching the controversy respecting infant baptism, and 
 immersion, and distressing the consciences of serious inqui- 
 rers — not with the great and momentous question, " what 
 they shall do to be saved ?" but — before their minds are at 
 all settled as to their personal hope in Christ, or their fitness 
 for any sacramental seal; perplexing them with the contro- 
 versy about an external rite, which they themselves grant 
 is not essential to salvation. I have personally known such 
 proceedings to occur with a frequency as wonderful as it 
 was revolting ; and with an obtrusive zeal worthy of a better 
 cause. Young and timid consciences have been distressed, 
 if not with the direct assertion, at least by the artful insin- 
 uation, that their particular mode of baptism was all in all ; 
 that there could be no safe Christianity without it. The 
 river, the river, really seemed, by some, to be placed in the 
 room of the Saviour! 
 
 There is something in all this so deeply offensive to every 
 enhghtened and judicious Christian: which involves so 
 much meanness ; and which manifests so much more con- 
 cern for the enlargement of a sect, than the salvation of 
 souls, that it is dithcult to speak of it in terms of as strong 
 reprobation as it deserves, without infringing on the limits 
 of Christian decorum and respectfulness. It is conduct of 
 which no candid and generous mind, actuated by the Spirit 
 of Christ, will ever be guilty. And, I am happy to add, it 
 is conduct in which many belonging to the denomination to 
 which I allude, have souls too enlarged and elevated to allow 
 themselves to indulge. 
 
 3. Once more ; let us all be careful, my Christian friends, 
 as a practical deduction from what has been said, to forbear 
 *' returning evil for evil," on this, or any other point of ec- 
 clesiastical controversy. However other denominations may 
 treat us, let us never be chargeable with treating them in an 
 unchristian manner. We are conscientiously compelled to 
 differ from our Baptist brethren. We believe them to be in 
 error ; in important and highly mischievous error. But 
 what then? They are still brethren in Christ. Let us, 
 
100 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 therefore, love them, and, however they may treat ws, treat 
 them with fraternal respectfulness, and seek their welfare. 
 Let us never indulge a spirit of unhallowed proselytism. 
 Let us never employ any other weapons against them than 
 those of candid argument, and fervent prayer. Listead of 
 " doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof come 
 envy, railings, evil surmisings, and corrupt disputings ;" let 
 us follow after patience, forbearance and charity ; ever re- 
 membering that all who really belong to Christ, however 
 they may differ in externals, are "one body in Him, and 
 members one of another." May we all be deeply imbued 
 with the spirit which ought to flow from this precious truth ; 
 and may all that we do be done with charity ! Amen ! 
 
( 101) 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 (Note A.) 
 
 GIVING A NAME IN BAPTISM. 
 
 In administering the rite of circumcision, it was custo- 
 mary to give a name to the child. This is evident from the 
 circumstances attending the circumcision of John the Baptist, 
 as related in the gospel according to Luke, i. 59 — 64 ; and 
 also those attending the circumcision of our blessed Saviour, 
 as found recorded in the next chapter of the same gospel. 
 The same practice probably existed, from the earliest period 
 of the New Testament church, in the administration of bap- 
 tism. It makes, however, no necessary, or even important 
 part of the rite. A baptism administered without a name, 
 would, of course, be just as valid as if one were announced; 
 and there is nothing in the essential nature of the case, 
 which would forbid a name given to a child in baptism being 
 reconsidered and altered afterwards. Yet, inasmuch as a 
 child, when baptized, is announced to the church as a new 
 member, subject to its maternal watch and care, it ought, in 
 common, for obvious reasons, to be introduced and known 
 under some name, so that each child may be distinguished, 
 and may receive its appropriate treatment. To introduce a 
 nameless member into any society, would be both unreason- 
 able and inconvenient. Moreover, it is of great conse- 
 quence, both to civil and religious society, that the birth and 
 baptism of every child be recorded in regular church books. 
 The formation of this record requires, it is evident, the use 
 of a name ; and after the name is adopted and recorded in 
 this public register, it is plain that frequent alterations of 
 the name, and tampering in a corresponding manner, with 
 the public register would lead to endless confusion and mis- 
 chief. Thus we are conducted, by a very obvious train of 
 reasoning, to the conclusion that the name announced in 
 baptism ought, in general, to be carefully retained, without 
 subtraction or addition. Sometimes, indeed, the civil law 
 requires such registers to be made and preserved, in regard 
 to every birth and baptism. Where this is the case, there 
 is, evidently, an additional reason for adhering strictly to 
 the name announced in baptism, recorded in the appropriate 
 •25 10 
 
102 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 register, and thus brought under official notice, and recorded 
 as the property of the state. See a number of curious ques- 
 tions proposed and resolved, concerning the names imposed 
 in bapiisrn, in the Pali icce Ecclesiasficse of the learned Gis- 
 bertus Voetius. Tom. I. p. 714 — 724. 
 
 (Note B.) 
 baptismal regeneration. 
 
 This unscriptural and pernicious doctrine is not confined 
 to the Roman Catholics, in whose system it may without 
 impropriety be said to be mdigenous ; but is also frequendy 
 found in the pulpits and manuals of some Protestants, in 
 the midst of whose general principles, it ought to be regard- 
 ed as a poisonous exotic. 
 
 I. The doctrine referred to, as held by some Protestants, 
 in its most objectionable form, appears to be this : — that the 
 spiritual change which the Scriptures designate by the term 
 regeneration, is always attendant upon, and effected by, the 
 rite of baptism, when duly administered; that, on the one 
 hand, every person, infant or adult, who has been baptized 
 by an authorized minister, is a regenerated person ; and that, 
 on the other, every person who has not been baptized, 
 however deep or mature his penitence and faith, is still un- 
 regenerate. In short, the position is, that the inward grace 
 of regeneration always accompanies the outward sign of 
 baptism ; that they are inseparable ; that the one cannot exist 
 without the other ; that he who has been thus regenerated, 
 if he die without falling from grace, is certainly saved ; that 
 baptism is essential to salvation ; and that to call by the 
 name of regeneration any moral change, from the love of 
 sin to the love of holiness, which takes place either before 
 or after baptism, is unscriptural and absurd. This, as I 
 understand them, is the doctrine maintained by Bishop 
 Tomline, Bishop Marsh, Bishop Mant, and a number of 
 other writers, of equal conspicuity, in the church of En- 
 gland, and by not a few divines of the Protestant Episcopal 
 church in our own country. 
 
 This doctrine, I apprehend, is contrary to Scripture ; con- 
 trary to experience ; contrary to the declared opinion of the 
 most wise, pious, and venerated divines even of the Episco- 
 pal denomination ; and adapted to generate the most danger- 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 108 
 
 ous errors with regard to Christian character, and the Gospel 
 plan of salvation. 
 
 1. It is contrary to Scripture. Without regeneration, the 
 Scriptures declare, it is impossible to enter into the kingdom 
 of heaven. But the penitent malefactor on the cross un- 
 doubtedly entered into the kingdom of heaven, if we are to 
 credit our Lord's express declaration. Yet this penitent, 
 believing malefactor was never baptized, therefore he was 
 regenerated without baptism ; and of course, regeneration 
 and baptism are not inseparably connected. Again, Simon 
 Magus received the outward and visible ordinance of bap- 
 tism, with unquestionable regularity, by an authorized ad- 
 ministrator ; yet who will venture to say, that he received 
 the " inward and invisible grace" signified and represented 
 in that ordinance ? He was evidently from the beginning a 
 hypocrite, and remained, after baptism, as before " in the 
 gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." Therefore 
 the outward and sensible sign, and the inward and invisible 
 grace are not in ail cases, or necessarily, connected. Again; 
 it is evident that the apostle Paul, Lydia, the Ethiopian 
 eunuch, the Philippian jailor, &c. '* believed with the heart," 
 and were, consequently, brought into a state of acceptance 
 with God before they were baptized, But we are told (John 
 i. 12, 13,) that as many as believe have been '* born of God," 
 and made the "sons of God," Of course, regeneration may 
 take place, in the case of adults, ought to take place, and in 
 these cases, did take place, before baptism ; and, conse- 
 quendy, is not the same thing with baptism, or inseparably 
 connected with that rite. Once more ; we are assured in 
 Scripture, that " he who is born of God, or regenerated, doth 
 not commit sin, (that is, deliberately or habitually,) for his 
 seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born 
 of God;" and farther, that "every one that loveth is 'born 
 of God' and knoweth God ;" and that " whosoever believ- 
 eth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." But can it be 
 said that this character belongs to all who are baptized ? Or, 
 that none who are unbaptized manifest that they possess it? 
 Surely no one in his senses will venture to make the asser- 
 tion. Therefore a man may be " born of God" before he is 
 baptized, and, consequendy, the administration of the out- 
 ward ordinance, and that work of the Holy Spirit, called in 
 the word of God regeneration, are not always connected. 
 
 2. The doctrine before us is as contrary to experience as 
 it is to Scripture. " It is asserted," says an eminent divine 
 of the church of England, now living — " It is asserted, that 
 
104 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 the spiritual change of heart called regeneration invariably 
 takes place in the precise article of baptism. If this assertion 
 be well founded, the spiritual change in question will in- 
 variably take place in every adult at the identical moment 
 when he is baptized ; that is to say, at the very instant when 
 the hand of the priest brings his body in contact with the 
 baptismal water ; at that precise instant, his understanding 
 begins to be illuminated, his will to be reformed, and his af- 
 fections to be puritied. Hitherto he has walked in darkness ; 
 but now, to use the scriptural phrase, he has passed from dark- 
 ness to light. Hitherto he has been wrapped in a death-like 
 sleep of trespasses and sins ; but now he awakes, and rises 
 from the dead, Christ himself giving him life. Hitherto he 
 has been a chaos of vice, and ignorance, and spiritual con- 
 fusion ; the natural man receiving not the things of the Spirit 
 of God, for they are foolishness unto him : but now he is 
 created after God in righteousness and true holiness; being 
 in Christ he is a ' new creature ;' having become spiritual, 
 the things of the Spirit of God are no longer foolishness to 
 him ; he knows them because they are spiritually discerned. 
 Such are the emphatic terms in which regeneradon is de- 
 scribed by the inspired writers. What we have to do, there- 
 fore, I apprehend, is forthwith to inquire, whether every 
 baptized adult, without a single exception, is invariably 
 found to declare, that, in the precise article of baptism, his 
 soul experienced a change analogous to that which is so un- 
 equivocally set forth in the above mendoned texts of Scrip- 
 ture."* We need not dwell long on the inquiry. The fact 
 is notoriously not so. Nor does it diminish the difficulty, in 
 admitting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, to say, as 
 the Arminian advocates of this doctrine invariably do say, 
 that those who are once resfenerated may fill from grace, and 
 manifest a most unhallowed temper This is not the ques- 
 tion. The question is, does experience evince, that every 
 subject of baptism, who has reached an age capable of mani- 
 festing the Christian character, does, at the moment ofreceiv- 
 ins; the baptismal rvafer, show that he is the subject of that 
 regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, by which '* old 
 things are passed away, and all things become new in the 
 Lord ?" No one who has a particle of intelligence or can- 
 dour can imagine that any such fact exists ; but if it do not, 
 then the doctrine under consideration falls of course. 
 
 3. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is contrary to 
 
 Faber's Sermons, Vol. I. p. 145, 146. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 105 
 
 the declared opinion of the most pious, judicious, and vene- 
 rable Protestant divines, including those ol the very highest 
 authority in the church of England. Nothing can be more 
 certain than that the mass of the English reformers distinctly 
 taught that baptism is a sign only of regeneration, and that 
 the thing signified might or might not accompany the ad- 
 ministration of the outward ordinance, according as it was 
 received worthily or otherwise. In support of this assertion, 
 the most explicit quotations might be presented from the 
 writings of those distinguished martyrs and prelates, Cran- 
 mer, Latimer, Ridley, and Hooper ; and after them from the 
 writings of the eminent bishops, Jewell, Davenanl, Hall, 
 Usher, Reynolds, Leighton, Hopkins, Tillotson, Beveridge, 
 Burnet, Seeker, and a host of other divines of the English 
 church, of whose elevated character it would be little less 
 than an insult to any intelligent reader to attempt to offer 
 testimony. All these men declare in the most solemn man- 
 ner, against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, in the 
 sense which we are now considering. Indeed, I cannot call 
 to mind a single writer of that church, from the time of 
 Archbishop Cranmer to the present hour, who had the least 
 claim to the character of an evangelical man, who did not re- 
 pudiate the doctrine which I am now opposing ; and not a 
 few of them denounce it as Popish, and adapted to subvert 
 the whole system of vital and spiritual religion. 
 
 4. The last argument which I shall urge against the doc- 
 trine of baptismal regeneration, is, that it is adapted to ge- 
 nerate the most fatal errors with regard to the Gospel plan 
 of salvation. 
 
 So far as this doctrine is believed, its native tendency is, 
 to beget a superstitious and unwarranted reliance on an exter- 
 nal ordinance ; to lower our estimate of that inward spiritual 
 sanctification which constitutes the essence of the Christian 
 character; in fact, to supersede the necessity of that spiritual 
 change of heart, of which the Scriptures speak so much, and 
 for which the most holy and eminent servants of Christ 
 have, in all ages, contended. The truth is, the doctrine now 
 under consideration is the very same in substance, with the 
 doctrine of the opus operatum of the Papists, which all 
 evangelical Protestants have been opposing for more than 
 three hundred years, as a mischievous delusion. Accor- 
 dingly, the Popish character and fatal tendency of this error 
 have been unreservedly acknowledged by many bishops, and 
 other pious divines of the church of England, as well as by 
 many of the same denomination in this country. 
 25* 10* 
 
106 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Further ; if regeneration, which is the commencement ol 
 hohness in the soul, is always communicated in baptism, 
 then it follows, as, indeed, those who entertain this doctrine 
 distinctly avow, — that baptism invariably places its subject in 
 a state of salvation ; so that every baptized person who dies 
 immediately after the administration of this sacrament, is in- 
 fallibly sure of entering the kingdom of heaven. If this doc- 
 trine were fully believed, would not every thinking, anxious 
 parent refrain from having his child baptized in infancy, and 
 reserve the ordinance for an hour of extremity, such as the 
 approach of death, that it might serve as an unfailing pass- 
 port to glory ? Would it not be wise in every adult who 
 may be brought to a knowledge of the Saviour, from Pagan- 
 ism, or from the world, to put off his baptism to the last hour 
 of his life, that he might be sure of departmg in safety ? This 
 is well known to have been one of the actual corruptions ot 
 the fourth century, growing out of the very error which I am 
 now opposing. "It was the custom of many," says Dr. 
 Mosheim, " in that century, to put off their baptism till the 
 last hour ; that thus immediately at\er receiving by this 
 rite the remission of their sins, they might ascend pure and 
 spotless to the mansions of life and immortality." This is 
 no far-fetched or strange conceit. It is the native fruit of the 
 doctrine before us. Nay, if we suppose this pernicious 
 theory to take full possession of the mind, w^ould it not be 
 natural that a tender parent should anxiously desire his child 
 to die immediately after baptism ; or even, in a desperate 
 case, to compass its death, as infaUibly for its eternal benefit? 
 And, on the same principle, might we not pray for the death 
 of every adult, immediately after he had received baptism, 
 believing that then " to die would certainly be gain ?" In 
 fine, I see not, if the doctrine be true, that a regenerating and 
 saving efficacy attends every regular baptism — I see not how 
 we can avoid the conclusion, that every Pagan, whether child 
 or adult, that can be seized by force, and however thought- 
 less, reluctant or profane, made to submit to the rite of bap- 
 tism, is thereby infallibly made " a child of God, and an in- 
 heritor of the kingdom of heaven ?" 
 
 These consequences, which appear to me demonstrably to 
 How from the theory in question, afford sufficient evidence 
 that it is an unscriptural and pernicious error, even if no 
 other means of refutation could be found. 
 
 It is not forgotten that language which seems, at first view, 
 to countenance the doctrine which I am opposing, is found 
 in some of the carlj Fathers, Some of them employ terms 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 107 
 
 which would imply, if interpreted literally, that baptism and 
 regeneration were the same thing. But the reason of this is 
 obvious. The Jews were accustomed to call tlie converts to 
 their rehgion from the Gentiles little children, and their in- 
 troduction into the Jewish church, a new birth, because they 
 were brought, as it were, into a new moral icorld. Accord 
 ingly, circumcision is repeatedly called in Scripture "//i« 
 covenant,'''' because it was the sis:;n of the covenant. After 
 wards, when baptism, as a Christian ordinance, became 
 identitied with the reception of the Gospel, the early writers 
 and preachers began to call this ordinance regeneration, and 
 sometimes illumination, because every adidt who was bap- 
 tized, professed to be born of God, illuminated by the Holy 
 Spirit. By a common figure of speech, they called the aign 
 by the name of the thin.g signified. In the truly primitive 
 times this language was harmless, and well understood ; bu> 
 as superstition increased, it gradually led to mischievoue 
 error, and became the parent of complicated and deplorable 
 delusions. 
 
 II. But there is another view of the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration, which is sometimes taken, and which, though 
 less pernicious than that which has been examined, is still, I 
 apprehend, fitted to mislead, and, of course, to do essential 
 mischief. It is this : That baptism is that rite which marks 
 and ratifies the introduction of its subject into the visible 
 kingdom of Christ; that in this ordinance the baptized person 
 is brought into a new state or relation to Christ, and his 
 sacred family ; and that this new state or relation is desig- 
 nated in the Scripture by the term regeneration, being in- 
 tended to express an ecclesiastical birth, that is, being 
 "born" into the visible kingdom of the Redeemer. Those 
 who entertain this opinion do not deny, that there is a great 
 moral change, wrought by the Spirit of God, which must 
 pass upon every one, before he can be in a state of salvation. 
 This they call conversion, renovation, &c. ; but they tell us 
 that the term '^regeneration'''' ought not to be applied to 
 this spiritual change ; that it ought to be confined to that 
 change of state and of relation to the visible kingdom oj 
 Christ which is constituted by baptism ; so that a person, 
 according to them, may be regenerated, that is, regularly in- 
 troduced into the visible church, without being really born of 
 the Spirit. This theory, though by no means so fatal in its 
 tendency as the preceding, still appears to me liable to the 
 following serious objections. 
 
 1. It makes an unauthorised use of an important theologi- 
 
108 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 cal term. It is vain to say, that, after giving fair notice of 
 the sense in which we use a term, no misapprehension or 
 harm can result from the constant use of it in that sense. 
 The plea is insufficient. If the sense in question be an un- 
 usual and especially an unscriptural one, no one can estimate 
 the mischief which may result from the use of it in that 
 sense. Names are so closely connected with things, that it 
 is of the utmost importance to preserve the nomenclature of 
 theology from perversion and abuse. If the sense of the 
 word " regeneration" which is embraced in this theory, 
 were now by common consent admitted, it would give an 
 entirely new aspect to all those passages of Scripture in 
 which either regeneration or baptism is mentioned, making 
 some of them unmeaning, and others ridiculous ; and render 
 unintelligible, and in a great measure useless, if not delusive, 
 nine-tenths of the best works on the subject of practical reli- 
 gion that have ever been written. 
 
 2. But there is a more serious objection. If men be told 
 that every one who is baptized, is thereby regenerated — 
 *'born of God" — "born of the Spirit," — made a "new 
 creature in Christ," — will not the mass of mankind, in spite 
 of every precaution and explanation that can be employed, 
 be likely to mistake on a fundamental point ; to imagine that 
 the disease of our nature is trivial, and that a trivial remedy 
 for it will answer ; to lay more stress than they ought upon 
 an external rite ; and to make a much lower estimate than 
 they ought of the nature and necessity of that holiness with- 
 out which no man shall see the Lord ? 
 
 After all, however, although the doctrine of baptismal re- 
 generation, in the first and most objectionable sense, is 
 known to be rejected by all the truly evangelical divines of 
 the church of England, and by the same class in the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal church in this country ; yet it cannot be de- 
 nied that something, to say the least, very like this doctrine 
 is embodied in the baptismal service of that denomination on 
 both sides of the Atlantic. The following specimens of its 
 language will at once illustrate and confirm my meaning: 
 " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is re- 
 generate, and grafted into the body of Chrisfs church, let 
 us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and 
 with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this child 
 may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." 
 And again: "We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful 
 Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant by 
 thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adop- 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 109 
 
 lion, and to incorporate him into thy holy church," &;c. 
 The same language is also repeated in the baptismal service 
 for " those of riper years." They are represented as being 
 " regenerated ;" as being " born again," and " made heirs of 
 salvation ;" and as having " put on Christ." Tliis language 
 is differently interpreted, by the Episcopal ministers who 
 employ it, according to the opinion which they adopt with 
 regard to baptism. Those who coincide in opinion with 
 Bishop Mant, and others of similar sentiments, make no 
 scruple of avowing, that these expressions literally import, 
 what they fully believe, that every one who is duly baptized, 
 IS, in a'nd by that rite, born of the Spirit, and brought into a 
 state of grace and salvation. A second class of interpreters, 
 however, consider this language of the Liturgy as merely 
 importing that the person baptized is brought into a new 
 state, or a new relation to the visible church. While a third 
 class, although they acknowledge that the language before 
 us, literally interpreted, does certainly express more than a 
 mere visible relation, even the participation of truly spiritual 
 and saving blessings ; yet say, that they can conscientiously 
 employ it, because a Liturgy intended for general use, ought 
 to be, and must be, constructed upon the principle, that those 
 who come to receive its offices are all to be considered as 
 sincere, and as having a right, in the sight of God, to the 
 ordinance for which they apply ! And thus it happens, that 
 those who reject as Popish and delusive, the doctrine of 
 baptismal regeneration, as taught by Mant, and those who 
 concur with him, feel no difficulty in publicly and solemnly 
 repeating this language, every time they administer the ordi- 
 nance of baptism. 
 
 It is not for one of another communion to interpose be- 
 tween the consciences of Episcopal ministers, and the im- 
 port of their public formularies. In fidelity to my own 
 principles, however, and as a warning to those of my own 
 church who may be assailed by the proselyting effi^rts of 
 some of this denomination, I may be permitted to say, that 
 if I believed with Bishop Mant, and his associates in senti- 
 ment, the language of the baptismal service would be entirely 
 to my taste; but if not, I could not, on any account, con- 
 scientiously employ it. It would not satisfy me to be told, 
 that the language of one of the Thirty-nine Articles, and 
 some of the language found in the Book of Homilies, bears 
 a different aspect. This is, no doubt, true. Still this does 
 not remove or alter the language of the baptismal service. 
 There it stands, a distress and a snare to thousands of good 
 
1 10 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 men, who acknowledge that they could wish it otherwise, 
 but dare not modify it in the smallest jot or tittle.* Had I 
 no other objection to ministering in the church of England, 
 or in the corresponding denomination in this country — this 
 part of the Liturgy would alone be an insurmountable one. 
 I could not consent continually to employ language, which, 
 however explained or counteracted, is so directly adapted to 
 deceive in a most vital point of practical religion. I could 
 not allow myself to sanction by adoption and use, language 
 which, however explained and counteracted in my own min- 
 istry, I knew to be presented and urged by many around me 
 in its literal import, and declared to be the only true doctrine 
 of the church. 
 
 As to the plea, that a Liturgy must necessarily be con- 
 structed upon the principle that all who come to its offices 
 must be presumed to be sincere, and be solemnly assured, in 
 the name of God, that they are so, nothing can be more de- 
 lusive. Cannot scriptural truth be as plainly stated, and as 
 wisely guarded in a liturgical composition as in any other ? 
 Oar Methodist brethren have a prescribed form for baptism ; 
 and so far as I recollect its language, they have succeeded, 
 without apparent difficulty, in making it at once instructive, 
 solemn, appropriate, and unexceptionable. And I have heard 
 Presbyterian ministers a thousand times tell their hearers, 
 with as much distinctness in administering sacraments, as in 
 ordinary preaching, that " the sacraments become effectual to 
 salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth 
 administer them ; but only by the blessing of Christ, and 
 the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.''* 
 
 But it may be asked, what kind or degree of efficacy do 
 Presbyterians consider as connected with baptism ? Do they 
 suppose that there is any beneficial influence, physical or 
 moral, in all cases, connected with the due administration of 
 this sacrament ? I answer, none at all. They suppose that 
 the washing with water in this ordinance is an emblem and a 
 sign of precious benefits ; that it holds forth certain great 
 truths, which are the glory of the Christian covenant, and 
 the joy of the Christians's heart; that it is a seal affixed by 
 God to his covenant with his people, whereby he certifies 
 
 * An evangelical and deeply conscientious minister of the Episcopal 
 church, who, after strugg-ling for some time with the most distressing' 
 scruples, as to this very feature in the baptismal service, ventured to 
 alter a few words, was forthwith given to understand, that such liber- 
 ties would not be tolerated, and was soon constrained to withdraw from 
 the Episcopal communion. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. Ill 
 
 his purposes of grace, and j)ledges his blessing to all who re- 
 ceive it with a living faith; nay, that it is the seal of valuable 
 outward privileges, even to those who are not then, or at 
 any oiher time, " born of the Spirit;" that, as a solemn rite 
 appointed by Christ, it is adapted to make a solemn impres- 
 sion on the serious mind ; but that when it is administered to 
 the persons, or the offspring of those who are entirely desti- 
 tute of faith, there is no pledge or certainty that it will be 
 accompanied with any h/essing. They receive the water, 
 but not the Spirit. They are engrafted into the visible 
 church, but not into the spiritual body of Christ, and are, 
 after baptism, just as they were before, like Simon the 
 Sorcerer, "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of 
 iniquity." 
 
 (Note C.) 
 sponsors in baptism. 
 
 It is well known that the Presbyterian church differs from 
 the Episcopal in regard to the subject announced at the head 
 of this note. We differ in two respects. First, in not re- 
 quiring or encouraging the appearance of any other sponsors, 
 in the baptism of children, than the parents, when they are 
 living and qualified to present themselves in this character : 
 and secondly, in not requiring, or even admitting, any god- 
 fathers or godmothers at all in cases of adult baptism. My 
 object in the remarks which I am about to make on this sub- 
 ject, is, not to impugn either the principles or practice of our 
 Episcopal brethren ; but simply to state, for the instruction 
 of the members of our own church, why we cannot think or 
 act with them in relation to this matter. 
 
 It is curious to observe the several steps by which the use 
 of sponsors, as now established in the Romish and some 
 Protestant churches, reached its present form. Within the 
 first five or six hundred years after Christ, there is no evi- 
 dence that children were ever presented for baptism by any 
 other persons than their parents, provided those parents 
 were living, and were professing Christians. When some 
 persons in the time of Augustine, who flourished toward the 
 close of the fourth, and beginning of \\\e fifth century, con- 
 tended that it was not lawful, in any case, for any excepting 
 their natural parents to offer children in baptism ; that learned 
 
112 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 and pious father opposed them, and gave it as his opinion, 
 that in extraordinary cases, as, for example, when the 
 parents were dead; when they were not professing Chris- 
 tians ; when they cruelly forsook and exposed their off- 
 spring ; and when masters had young slaves committed to 
 their charge, in these cases, (and the pious Father mentions 
 no others,) he maintains that any professing Christians, who 
 should be willing to undertake the benevolent charge, might 
 with propriety, take these children, offer them in baptism, 
 and become responsible for their Christian education. This, 
 every one will perceive, is in strict conformity with the 
 principles maintained in the foregoing essay, and with the 
 doctrine and habits of the Presbyterian church. 
 
 The learned Bingham, an Episcopal divine of great learn- 
 ing, seems to have taken unwearied pains, in his " Ecclesi- 
 astical Antiquities," to collect every scrap of testimony with- 
 in his reach, in favour of the early origin of sponsors. But 
 he utterly fails of producing even plausible evidence to that 
 amount ; and at length candidly acknowledges that in the 
 early ages, parents were, in all ordinary cases, the presentors 
 and sureties for their own children ; and that children were 
 presented by others only in extraordinary cases, such as 
 those already alluded to. It is true, indeed, that some 
 writers, more sanguine than discriminating, have quoted 
 Dionysius, Tertullian, and Cyril of Alexandria, as affording 
 countenance to the use of sponsors in early times. Not one 
 of those writers, however, has written a sentence which 
 favours the use of any other sponsors than parents, when 
 they were in life, and of a proper character to offer their 
 children for the sacramental sealin question. Even Diony- 
 sius, whose language has, at first view, some appearance of 
 favouring such sponsors ; yet, when carefully examined, 
 will be found to speak only of sponsors who undertook to 
 train up in the Christian religion some of the children of Pa- 
 gans, who were delivered, for this purpose, into the hands of 
 these benevolent sureties, by their unbelieving parents. But 
 this, surely, is not inconsistent with what has been said. 
 And, after all, the writings of this very Dionysius are given 
 up by the learned Wall, and by the still more learned and 
 illustrious Archbishop Usher, as a " gross and impudent 
 forgery," unworthy of the least credit. 
 
 It was not until the council of Mentz, in the ninth century, 
 that the church of Rome forbade the appearance of parents 
 as sponsors for their own children, and required that this 
 service be surrendered to other hands. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 113 
 
 Mention is made, by Cyril, in the fflh century, and by 
 Fulgentius in the sixth, of sponsors in some peculiar cases 
 of adult baptism. When aduhs, about to be baptized, were 
 dumb, or under the power of delirium, through disease, and 
 of course unable to speak for themselves, or to make the 
 usual profession ; in such cases it was customary for some 
 friend or friends to answer for them, and to bear testimony to 
 their good character, and to the fact of their having before 
 expressed a desire to be baptized. For this, there was, un- 
 doubtedly, some reason; and the same thing might, with 
 propriety, in conceivable circumstances be done now. From 
 this, however, there was a transition soon made to the use of 
 sponsors in cdl cases of adult baptism. This latter, how- 
 ever, was upon a different principle from the former. When 
 adults had the gifts of speech and reason, and were able to 
 answer for themselves, the sponsors provided for such, never 
 answered or professed for them. This w^as invariably done 
 by the adult himself. Their only business, as it would ap- 
 pear, was to be a kind of curators or guardians of the spiritu- 
 al life of the persons baptized. This office was generally 
 fulfilled, in each church, by the deacons when adult males 
 were baptized ; and by the deaconesses when females came 
 forward to receive this ordinance. 
 
 Among the pious Waldenses and Albigenses, in the middle 
 ages, no other sponsors than parents seem to have been in 
 common use. In one of their catechisms, as preserved by 
 Perrin, and Morland, they ask, " By whom ought children 
 to be presented in baptism?" Answer, " By their parents, 
 or by any others who may be inspired with this charity ;" 
 which is evidendy intended to mean, as other documents re- 
 specting them show, that where the parents were dead, or 
 absent, or could not act, other pious professors of religion 
 might take their places. 
 
 According to one of the canons of the church of England, 
 " parents are not to be urged to be present when their chil- 
 dren are baptized, nor to be permitted to stand as sponsors 
 for their own children." In the Protestant Episcopal church 
 in this country, parents " shall be admitted as sponsors if it 
 be desired." But in both countries it is required that there be 
 godfathers and godmothers for all adults, as well as for infants 
 
 The baptismal service of the Methodist church in the United 
 States, for infants, does not recognise the use of any sponsors 
 at all, excepting the parents, or whatever other "friends" 
 may present them. 
 
 It is plain then, that the early history of the church, as 
 26 11 
 
114 ADDITIONA.L NOTES. 
 
 well as the word of God, abundantly sustains the doctrine 
 and practice of the Presbyterian church in this matter. We 
 maintain, that as the right of the children of believers to bap- 
 tism, flows from the membership and faith of their parents 
 according to the flesh ; so those parents, if living, are the 
 only proper persons to present them for the reception of this 
 covenant seal. If, however, their proper parents, on any 
 account, cannot do this, they may, upon our principles, with 
 propriety, be presented by any professed believers, who, 
 quoad hoc, adopt them as their children, and are wiUing to 
 engage, as parents, to " bring them up in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord." 
 
 If, indeed, nothing else were contended for in this case, 
 than that, when believing parents have pious and peculiar 
 friends who are willing to unite with them in engagements to 
 educate their children in the true religion, such friends might 
 be permitted to stand with them ; there might not be so much 
 to condemn. Even then the solemn question might be asked ; 
 *' Who hath required this at your hands ?" But when the 
 system is, to set aside parents ; to require that others take 
 their places, and make engagements which they alone, for 
 the most part, are qualified to make; and when, in pursu- 
 ance of this system, thousands are daily making engagements 
 which they never think of fulfilling, and in most cases, no- 
 toriously have it not in their power to fulfil, and, indeed, feel 
 no special obligation to fulfil ; we are constrained to regard 
 it as a human invention, having no warrant whatever, either, 
 from the word of God or primitive usage ; and as adapted, 
 on a variety of accounts, to generate evil, much evil, rather 
 than good. 
 
 (Note D.) 
 
 confirmation. 
 
 In the apostolic church, there was no such rite as that 
 which under this name has been long established in the 
 Romish communion as a sacrament, and adopted in some 
 Protestant churches as a solemnity, in their view, if not com- 
 manded, yet as both expressive and edifying. It is not in- 
 tended in this note to record a sentence condemnatory of 
 those who think proper to employ the rite in question : but 
 only to state with brevity some of the reasons why the 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 115 
 
 fathers of the Presbyterian Church, thought proper to ex- 
 clude it from their ritual; and why their sons, to the present 
 hour, have persisted in the same course. 
 
 1. We find no foundation for this rite in the word of God. 
 Indeed our Episcopal brethren, and other Protestants who 
 employ it, do not pretend to find any direct warrant for it in 
 Scripture. All they have to allege, which bears the least re- 
 semblance to any such practice, is the statement recorded in 
 Acts viii. 14 — 17 : " Now when the apostles, which were at 
 Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, 
 they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were 
 come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the 
 Holy Ghost. (For as yet he had fallen upon none of them ; 
 only they were baptized iti the name of the Lord Jesus). 
 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the 
 Holy Ghost." That there is here a reference to the exlraor- 
 dinarij or 'miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, and these 
 conferred by extraordinary officers, is so perfectly apparent, 
 that it is no wonder tlie advocates of Confirmation do not 
 press it as proof of their point. The only wonder is, that 
 they ever mention it as alfording the most remote counte- 
 nance to their practice. The dihgent reader of Scripture 
 will find four kinds, or occasions of laying on hands re- 
 counted in the New Testament. The first, by Christ him- 
 self, to express an authoritative benediction, Matt. xix. Mark 
 X. 16 ; the second, in the healing of diseases, Mark xvi. 18, 
 Acts xxviii, 8 ; the third, in conferring the extraordinary gifts 
 of the Spirit, Acts viii. 17, xix. 6; and the fourth, in setting 
 apart persons to sacred office. Acts vi. 6. xiii. 3. 1 Tim. iv. 
 14. The venerable Dr. Owen, in his commentary on Heb. 
 vi. 2, expresses the opinion, that the laying on of hands 
 there spoken of, is to be considered as belonging to the third 
 class of cases, and, of course, as referring to the extraordi- 
 nary gifts of the Holy Spirit. Others have supposed that it 
 rather belongs to the fourth example above enumerated, and 
 therefore applies to the ordination of ministers. But there is 
 not a syllable or hint in the whole New Testament which 
 looks like such a laying on of hands as that for which the 
 advocates of Confirmation contend. 
 
 2. Quite as little support for Confirmation can be found in 
 the purest and best periods of uninspired antiquity. Towards 
 the close of the second century, several uncommanded and 
 superstitious additions had been made to the ordinance of 
 baptism. Among these were anointing with oil, in avowed 
 imitation of the Jewish manner of consecration ; administer 
 
116 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 in^ to the baptized individual a mixture of milk and honey 
 as the symbol of his childhood in a new life, and as a pledge 
 of that heavenly Canaan, with all its advantages and happi- 
 ness, to which the hopes of the baptized were directed ; the 
 laying on of the hands of the minister officiating in baptism, 
 for imparling the Holy Spirit ; to all which may be added, 
 that immediately after the close of this century, we find the 
 practice of exordium introduced as a preliminary to baptism, 
 and as a means of expelling all evil spirits from the candidate 
 for this ordinance. These superstitious additions wore made 
 to succeed each other in the following order ; exorcism, con- 
 fession ; renunciation ; baptism ; chrismation, or anointing 
 with oil, which was done in the form of a cross; and finally, 
 the laying on of hands, or confirmation, which immediately 
 followed the anointing with oil, and the administration of the 
 simple element above mentioned. " As soon as we are bap- 
 tized," says TeriulUaa, " we are aiiointed with the blessed 
 unction." And he adds, " This unction is according to the 
 Jewish dispensation, wherein the high priest was anointed 
 with oil out of a horn." The laying on of hands, or con- 
 firmation, immediately followed the unction. " As soon as 
 we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertullian, " We 
 are anointed, and then hands are imposed." This was con- 
 sidered as essential to the completion of the ordinance. 
 " We do not receive the Holy Ghost," says the same father, 
 "in baptism, but being purified by the water, we are pre- 
 pared for the Holy Ghost, and by the laying on of hands, the 
 soul is illuminated by the Spirit." The exorcism, then, 
 the anointing v/ith oil, the sign of the cross, the imposition 
 of hands for conveying the Holy Spirit, and the administra- 
 tion of milk and honey to the candidate, were all human ad- 
 ditions to baptism, which came in about the same time, and 
 ought, in our opinion, to be regarded very much in the same 
 light with a great variety of other additions to the institutions 
 of Christ, which, though well meant, and not destitute of 
 expressiveness, are yet wholly unauthorized by the King and 
 Head of the Church. 
 
 3. When the practice of the laying on of hands, as an 
 ordinary part of the baptismal service, was added, by human 
 invention, to that ordinance, it always immediately followed 
 the application of water, and the anointing with oil. " As 
 soon as we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertullian 
 " we are anointed, and then hands are laid on." And it is 
 further acknowledged by all, that every one who was com- 
 petent to baptize, was equally competent to lay on hands. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 117 
 
 The two things always went together; or rather formed 
 parts of the baptismal ordinance, which was not thought to 
 be consummated without the imposition of hands by him who 
 had applied the water and tlie unction. And this continued 
 to be tlie case, throughout the greater part of the church, for 
 the first three hundred years. Then the term bishop signi- 
 fied the pastor or overseer of a flock or congregation. Every 
 pastor was a bishop, as had been the case in apostolic times. 
 And then, in ordinary cases, none but the bishop or pastor 
 of each church, administered baptism. Of course, he only 
 laid on hands. But afterwards, in the progress of corruption, 
 when Prelacy was gradually brought in, it became custom- 
 ary, for the sake of doing greater honour to the prelates, 
 to reserve this imposition of hands to them, as a part of 
 their otTicial prerogative. Jerome (Dialog. Adv. Lucifer,) 
 expressly declares, that the committing this benediction 
 wholly to the bishops, was done " rather in honour of the 
 priesthood, than from necessity imposed by any law." 
 Even now, throughout the Greek Church, this rite is admin- 
 istered, for the most part, in close connection with baptism, 
 and is dispensed by any priest who is empowered to baptize. 
 In like manner, in the Lutheran and other German churches, 
 in which confirmation is retained, it is administered by every 
 pastor. Still even when confined to prelates, this imposi- 
 tion of hands was not, in ordinary cases, long separated from 
 the baptism : for the children were commonly carried to 
 the bishop to have his hands laid upon them as soon as con- 
 venient. After a while, however, it became customary to 
 separate the two things much more widely. Confirmation, 
 or the laying on of the bishop's hands, l3egan to be post- 
 poned for a number of years, according to circumstances ; 
 until, at length, it was often left till the arrival of adult age, 
 and even, in some cases, till the decline of life. All these 
 progressive steps evidenUy marked a mere human invention, 
 for which there is no divine appointment or warrant what- 
 ever. 
 
 4. The rite of confirmation is superfluous. As it was 
 plainly a human invention, so it is unnecessary, and answers 
 no purpose which is not quite as well, to say the least, pro- 
 vided for in the Presbyterian Church, which rejects it. It 
 is said to be desirable that there should be some transaction 
 or solemnity by which young people who have been bap- 
 tized in their infancy, may be called to recognise their reli- 
 gious obligations, and, as it were, to take upon themselves 
 the profession and the vows made on their behalf in bap- 
 2G^ 11* 
 
118 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 tism ? Granted. There can be no doubt that such a solem- 
 nity is both reasonable in itself, and edifying in its tendency. 
 But have we not just such a solemnity in ihe Lord's Sup- 
 per; an ordinance divinely instituted; an ordinance on 
 which all are qualijied to attend, and ought to attend, who 
 are qualified to take on themselves, in any scriptural or ra- 
 tional sense, their baptismal obligations; an ordinance, in 
 fact, specifically intended, among other things, to answer 
 this very purpose, viz. the purpose of making a personal 
 acknowledgment and profession of the truth, the service, and 
 the hopes of Christ: — have we not, I say, in the Sacramen- 
 tal Supper just such a solemnity as we need for the end in 
 question — simple, rational, scriptural, and to which all our 
 children may come, just as soon as they are prepared in any 
 form to confess Christ before men? We do not need confir- 
 mation, then, for the purpose for which it is professed to be 
 desired. We have something better, because appointed of 
 God ; quite as expressive ; more solemn ; and free from cer- 
 tain objectionable features which are now to be mentioned. 
 5. Finally; we reject the rite of confirmation in our 
 Church, because in addition to all the reasons which have 
 been mentioned, we consider the formula prescribed for its 
 administration in the Church of England, and substantially 
 adopted by the Episcopal Church in this country, as liable 
 to the most serious objections. We do not think it a duty 
 in any form, to practise a rite which the Saviour never ap- 
 pointed ; but our repugnance is greatly increased by the 
 language with which the rite in question is administered by 
 those who employ it. In the " Order of Confirmation," as 
 prescribed and used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 the United States, the following language occurs. Before 
 the act of laying on hands, the officiating bishop, in his 
 prayer repeats the following language ; "• Almighty and ever 
 living God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy 
 servants, by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given 
 unto them forgiveness of all their sins," &c. &c. And again, 
 in another prayer, after the act of confirmation is completed, 
 he speaks to the Searcher of hearts thus — " We make our 
 humble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon 
 whom, after the example of thy holy apostles, we have now 
 laid our hands ; to certify them by this sign of thy favour 
 and gracious goodness towards them," &c. And also, in 
 the act of laying on hands, assuming that all who are kneel- 
 ing before him already have tlie holy sanctifying spirit of 
 Christ, he prays that they " may all daily increase in lliia 
 Holy Spirit more and more." 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 119 
 
 Such is the language addressed to large circles of young 
 people of both sexes, many of wliom there is every reason 
 to fear, are very far from having been " born of the Spirit," 
 in the Bible sense of that phrase; nay, some of whom mani- 
 fest so little seriousness, that any pastor of enliglitened piety 
 would be pained lo see them at a communion table ; yet the 
 bishop pronounces them all — and he appeals to heaven for 
 the truth of his sentence — he pronounces them all regene- 
 rate, not only by ivatcr, but also by the Holy Ghost ; cer- 
 tifies to them, in the name of God, that they are objects of 
 the divine '■'-Javour f and declares that, being already in a 
 state of grace and favour with God, they are called to " grow 
 in grace ;" to *' increase in the Holy Spirit more and more." 
 
 There are many who have long regarded, and who now 
 regard this language not only with regret, but with shudder- 
 ing, as adapted to cherish false hopes, nay, to deceive and 
 destroy souls by wholesale. I must again say, that if there 
 were no other obstacle to my consenting to minister in the 
 Protestant Episcopal church, this alone would be an insur- 
 mountable one. For it must come home to the conscience 
 and the feelings, not of the bishop only, but of every pastor 
 in that church who has, from time to time, a circle of belo- 
 ved youth to present for confirmation. It is vain to say, that 
 the church presumes that all who come are sincere, and of 
 course born of the Spirit, and in a state of favour with God. 
 This is the very point of our objection. She so presumes, 
 and undertakes to " certify'' them of it. Presbyterian min- 
 isters do not, dare not, use such language. They do not 
 and dare not, undertake to " certify" to any number of the 
 most mature and exemplary communicants that ever gathered 
 round a sacramental table, that they are all in a state of grace 
 and salvation, and that they have nothing to do but to " follow 
 on," and " increase in the Holy Spirit." Nor is it a suffi- 
 cient answer, I repeat, to say, that a liturgy, being a fixed 
 composition, cannot be so constructed as to discriminate 
 between different characters. This is denied. Every en- 
 lightened and faithful minister of whatever denomination, 
 who is at liberty to employ such language as he approves, 
 knows how to express himself, both in prayer and preach- 
 ing, in discriminating and expressive terms ; and how to 
 avoid modes of expression adapted to deceive and betray un- 
 wary souls. It is surely not impracticable to address tlie 
 largest and most promiscuous assembly in a manner which 
 though not adapted to the precise case of every individual 
 shall be at least free from error, free from every thing of a 
 
120 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 deceptive and ensnaring character. Our Methodist breth 
 ren, it was before remarked, have a prescribed hturgical 
 form for baptism ; which they have rendered sufficiently 
 discriminating, and at the same time unexceplionably safe. 
 And, what is not unworthy of notice in this place, though 
 the Uturgy of the Protestant Episcopal church is evidently 
 the modei which, to a certain extent, they have kept before 
 them in constructing their own, they have wisely discarded 
 altogether the ceremony of confirmation from their ritual. 
 
 The advocates of confirmation, as a separate ecclesiastical 
 rite, seldom fail of quoting Calvin as expressing an opinion 
 decisively in favour of it. This is doing great injustice to 
 that illustrious man. Calvin directly and warmly opposes 
 the idea of confirmation being considered as a distinct ordi- 
 nance, claiming divine authority in the Church of God. 
 This he reprobates ; and especially the practice of confining 
 the administration of it to prelates ; but adds, " that he has 
 no objection to parents bringing their children to their minis- 
 ter, at the close of childhood, or the commencement of ado- 
 lescence, to be examined according to the catechism in com- 
 mon use, and then, for the sake of greater dignity and reve- 
 rence, closing the ceremony by the imposition of hands. 
 *' Such imposition of hands, therefore, says he, as is simply 
 connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it 
 were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by su- 
 perstition." (Institutiones, Lib. iv. cap. xix. § 4). But 
 what serves to throw light on Calvin's real sentiments on 
 this whole subject is that, in commenting on Acts viii. 17, he 
 reproaches the Papists for pressing that passage into the sup- 
 port of their sacrament of confirmation ; and not only asserts, 
 but proves, that the laying on of hands there spoken of, re- 
 lates, not at all to the ordinary and sanctifying, but to the 
 miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, which have long since 
 ceased in the church ; and, of course, that the passage in 
 question ought never to be quoted in favour of confirmation, 
 or of any other permanent rite in the Christian Church 
 
 (Note E.) 
 
 vote of the westminster assembly respecting baptism. 
 
 It has been sometimes ignorantly, and most erroneously 
 asserted that the Wesminster Assembly of divines, in put- 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 121 
 
 ting to vote, whether baptism should be performed by sprink- 
 ling or immersion, carried it in favour of sprinklimr, by a 
 majority of one only. This is wholly incorrect. TJie facts 
 were these. When the committee who had been charged 
 with preparing a " Directory for the worship of God," 
 brought in their report, they had spoken of the mode of bap- 
 tism thus : " It is lawful and sufficient to sprinkle the child" 
 To this Dr. Lightfoot, among others, objected; not because 
 he doubled of the entire sufficiency of sprinkling; for he de- 
 cidedly preferred sprinkling to immersion ; but because he 
 thought there was an impropriety in pronouncing that mode 
 lawful only, when no one present had any doubts of its be- 
 ing so, and when almost all preferred it. Others seemed to 
 think, that by saying nothing about dipping, that mode was 
 meant to be excluded, as not a lawful mode. This they did 
 not wish to pronounce. When, therefore, the clause, as 
 originally reported, was put to vote, there were twenty-five 
 votes in favour of it, and twenty-four against it. After this 
 vote, a motion was made and carried, that it be recommitted. 
 The next day, when the committee reported, and when some 
 of the members still seemed unwilling to exclude all mention 
 of dipping, Dr. Lightfoot remarked, that to say that pouring 
 or sprinkling was lawful, would be " all one as saying, that 
 it was lawful to use bread and wine in the Lord's Supper." 
 He, therefore, moved that the clause in the " Directory" re- 
 specting the mode of baptism, be expressed thus : 
 
 " Then the minister is to demand the name of the child, 
 which being told him, he is to say (calling the child by his 
 name) — 
 
 " / baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 "As he pronounceth these words, he is to baptize the 
 child with water, which, for the manner of doing it, is not 
 only lawful, but sujicient, and inost expedient to be, by 
 vouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child, 
 without adding any other ceremony." This was carried. 
 See Lightfoofs Life, prefixed to the first volume of his 
 Works, (folio edition,) p. 4; compared with NeaWs His- 
 tory of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 106, 107, compared with the 
 Appendix, No. IL (quarto edition,) where the " Directory," 
 as finally passed, is given at full length. 
 
 We do not learn, precisely, either from Lightfoot's biogra- 
 pher, (who was no other than the indefatigable Strype,) or 
 from Neal, by what vote the clause, as moved by Lightfoot 
 was finally adopted ; but Neal expressly tells us, that " the 
 Directory passed the Assembly with great unanimity." 
 
122 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 From this statement, it is evident, that the question which 
 was carried in the Assembly, by a majority of one, was, not 
 whether affusion or sprinkUng was a lawful mode of bap- 
 tism ; but whether all mention of dipping, as one of the law- 
 fid modes should be omitted. This, in an early stage of the 
 discussion, was carried, by a majority of one in the affirma- 
 tive. But it would seem that the clause, as finally adopted, 
 which certainly was far more decisive in favour of sprinkling 
 or affusion, was passed " with great unanimity.''^ At any 
 rate, nothing can be more evident, than that the clause as it 
 originally stood, being carried by one vote only, and after- 
 wards, when recommitted, and so altered as to be much 
 stronger in favour of sprinkling, and then adopted without 
 difficulty, the common statement of this matter by our Bap- 
 tist brethren is an entire misrepresentation. 
 
 THE END,